The moderator asks Paul about the yearning of Republican voters for another candidate to "jump in"... first Perry, then Christie, etc., and whether it reflects their lack of satisfaction with the current candidates.
Paul's response?: When people yearn for another candidate it's because all the candidates except for me aren't "asking the right questions" and represent the status quo.
But somehow it apparently doesn't say the same thing about the one Republican everyone knew would run in 2012 since 2008: Ron Paul! It doesn't seem to dawn on him that if people are yearning for someone better than the current slate of Republican candidates, and he's in the current slate of Republican candidates, it seems like they don't think he's up to snuff either!
In his response, Paul also clearly has no idea what Keynesian economics is, but that's not particularly surprising or important. What I found more funny was when he called the other Republican candidates the "status quo". This is the guy that's been in politics longer than ANY OTHER REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE. And yet somehow he still manages to convince otherwise intelligent people that he's not just another politician.
Speaking of Ron Paul, Bob Murphy alludes to Paul as the candidate who consistently supports the Constitution. I had to laugh at that, but I suppose if you read the Constitution how Paul does he's been a consistent supporter. In the same post, Bob considers how Sean Hannity would approach a Romney nomination, writing: "I can’t wait to hear Sean Hannity explain why RomneyCare in Massachusetts is a bold experiment in federalism, whereas ObamaCare in the USA is crazy socialism." It's true that it would be entertaining to see Hannity make that case, but it's actually a very solid argument and one of the many reasons why I like Romney (not that I'd call ObamaCare "socialism", but I've held from the beginning that a more federalist approach that is not reliant on a national mandate would be preferable). Romney is the only Republican right now that I could see myself voting for over Obama. The big problem with Romney is that he'd take the wrong approach to the recession, but since Obama is for the most part taking the wrong approach to the recession that doesn't seem like quite the obstacle to supporting Romney that it could have been. On a number of other issues Romney is better than Obama (although the reverse is also true).
Regardless, one of the biggest reasons I can't support Paul is that he's so bad on the Constitution. Consistently supporting what you wish the Constitution said is not consistently supporting the Constitution in my mind.