Ron Paul Quietly Converting GOP Believers

So Paul has gotten support. Sometimes, his supporters don't always agree. A recent New York Times Magazine piece excerpted the following from a supporter's letter to Paul headquarters:

We're in a difficult position of working on a campaign that draws supporters from laterally opposing points of view, and we have the added bonus of attracting every wacko fringe group in the country. And in a Ron Paul Meetup many people will consider each other "wackos" for their beliefs whether that is simply because they're liberal, conspiracy theorists, neo-Nazis, evangelical Christian, etc. ... We absolutely must focus on Ron's message only and put aside all other agendas, which anyone can save for the next "Star Trek" convention or whatever.

The New York Times piece, nevertheless, demonstrates that Paul's support is genuine.

Then, the National Review Online jumped into the Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) debate last week. It seems that NRO feels conflicted about supporting Paul for president, as do many conservatives.

First, John Derbyshire wrote glowingly about all of the conservative credentials of Paul. Derbyshire's final conclusion, however, was that he could not embrace his own dreams and ideals:

Ain't gonna happen. It was, after all, a conservative who said that politics is the art of the possible. Ron Paul is not possible. His candidacy belongs to the realm of dreams, not practical politics. But, oh, what sweet dreams!

Then Todd Seavey came to Paul's defense a day later. He sees Paul as the perfect fusion candidate to bring together the fiscal and social conservatives:

Presto! The much-lamented divide between social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, which has seemed to be widening lately, is eliminated. As has oft been said, Republicans tend to fare best when they pursue the program (pioneered by National Review and praised last year by Ryan Sager in his book Elephant in the Room) called "fusionism," yoking together social conservatism and the libertarian desire to shrink government.

Paul's positions are also genuine. He has a very consistent voting record, so much so that it occasionally puts him in hot water in his own district. But his ability to stay on message will get him support from an important corner of the Republican Party -- the evangelicals.

The evangelicals in the GOP have experienced fatigue over the last few years. They have heard quite a few promises from Washington but have had precious few real victories to celebrate. How long can they put up with the pandering from the top tier candidates like Giuliani (pro-choice), Mitt Romney (a flip-flopper), and Fred Thompson (a lobbyist).

Paul has always been pro-life. He was also an original supporter of Ronald Reagan in 1976 against Gerald Ford. But you won't hear him discussing his views on religion in public. He's a firm believer in the Constitution and the separation between church and state.

So what is stopping conservatives from coming out and supporting Ron Paul in public? I return to Derbyshire's piece:

If Washington, D.C. were the drowsy southern town that Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge rode into, Ron Paul would have a chance. Washington's not like that nowadays, though. It is a vast megalopolis, every nook and cranny stuffed with lobbyists, lawyers, and a hundred thousand species of tax-eater.