Is Ron Paul the anti-Romney?

If someone were visiting from outer space and got wind of the Republican primary and caucus results, he might be a tad bewildered by the coverage. “This is clearly a two-man race now,” he'd say, waving a tentacle significantly. “There's only one candidate capable of a respectable showing on two separate occasions when everyone else but Mitt Romney struggled. Both times, he drew strong, passionate support, and landed in the top tier — a feat no one beside the front-runner could pull off. It's a two-man race now.”

We earthlings would try to explain. “Ah,” we’d say, “but — gee, look, uh, this — you’re talking about Ron Paul.”

“Why is the Mainstream Media not giving the man his due?” the alien would say, sounding a bit more like a Paul supporter every second. “Especially when polls indicate that if he ran as a third-party candidate, he'd pull in about 20 percent of the vote and change the game entirely.”

On Wednesday Paul’s campaign suggested that if you discovered that you were running for the Republican nomination and were neither Ron Paul nor Mitt Romney, the only polite thing to do would be to drop out. Paul is, they point out, the last best non-Romney hope, the only candidate whose results in both New Hampshire and Iowa were nothing to sneeze at, unless you sneeze at pretty decent polling results.

Read the rest here.

Personally I think he is more the anti-status quo candidate, and that is what we desperately need right now. Both of the two main parties represent just more of the same with very slight variations (mostly over exactly which aspects of our lives they think they should use the government to dictate). And just for the record, I am not into the whole cult of personality thing. There are areas where I have some respectful disagreements with Dr. Paul. Which is to say that no, I don't have any tattoos of his visage anywhere on my body. But I do think he is by far the best man running and he is right on almost all of the really important issues.