Jim DeMint told Laura Ingraham today that he'd like to see a "Republican party that embraces a lot of the libertarian ideas." Hmmm. Even Maggie Gallagher now asks:
Ron Paul called for other conservatives to drop out to consolidate his position as the anti-Romney candidate. He’s taking one in five evangelical Christians’ votes in New Hampshire, according to the exit polls — his share, in other words. The latest Reuters national poll shows Romney at 30 percent, Gingrich at 20 percent, Paul at 16 percent, and Santorum at 13 percent. When do we start taking Ron Paul seriously?
Daniel Foster argues at NRO that Paul is best positioned to be the "Anti-Romney":
Paul has shown a level of rationality and maturity that contradicts the caricatures. By contrast, Newt Gingrich, the would-be anti-Romney who flew higher and fell further than all the others, is looking ever more like an embittered fringe candidate running on pure spite, caring but little about the damage he may be doing to the party or the chances of defeating Barack Obama. So which is the serious Anti-Romney, and which is the nut?
James Poulos floats a Romney-Paul ticket. Michael Medved wants to see the candidate give a "big speech" for credibility purposes:
If he truly counts as a savvy, mainstream conservative, why wouldn’t he want to apologize without equivocation for racist newsletters, distance himself from extremists and bigots, make it clear that he’s not bitterly anti-Israel, and unashamedly embrace the Republican Party—which, for all its faults, remains the only possible vehicle to move the nation in a more conservative direction?
He has publicly said his actions remain a flaw in his record and character. And he is not bitterly anti-Israel. He just wants the US to have a normal healthy relationship with the country, rather than the dysfunctional fusion that threatens both. And he's against all foreign aid, not just to Israel (although Israel's prosperity and massive military superiority in the region makes aid, to my mind, absurd).
The Dish 