Larison believes so:
The conventional wisdom is that Paul hurt himself politically by resisting the clamor for war against Iran, but I’m not so sure. Alone among the candidates on stage last night, Paul made the case for restraint and deterrence, and there is a much larger constituency for this inside the GOP than there once was. Huntsman might have benefited himself by presenting a more qualified position akin to the one Haass outlines in his essay on “Restoration Doctrine,” but he threw away any chance he had to sound reasonable on Iran long ago. That leaves Paul as the only one talking sense on avoiding another unnecessary war. Besides, his position on Iran isn’t as unpopular among Republicans as hawkish pundits would have you believe.
Last month, Rasmussen asked if the U.S. should take military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons “if diplomatic efforts failed,” and just 51% of Republicans said yes. 22% said no, and 27% were unsure. Paul has a chance to reach at least part of that 27%, and it is far from obvious that Paul alienated them last night.
The Dish 