The Republicans are down to four candidates, none of whom has achieved launch velocity. Each has flaws or at least warts that turn off substantial segments of the party. Romney lacks authenticity, doesn't connect on an emotional level and has a history of flip-flops. Gingrich is the other extreme, all emotion, love him or hate him. Santorum is George Bush in a sweater vest, a big government, pro illegal immigration, neo-con moralist. Then there is Ron Paul. The perfect conservative in both public and private life. A guy nearly everyone in the party admires on some level. The big but however is his foreign policy, which strikes many as naive. Obviously, the neo-cons, the Israel firsters and the military-industrial complex view him as anathema. He threatens their world view. Worse yet, what if he was proved correct? Then who is going to buy those weapon systems? Paul however has allowed himself to be demonized by these groups and marginalized. In practice, there would be little difference in his foreign policy and that of any other candidate, except maybe Santorum. Paul should have been emphasizing that and trying to minimize differences. Instead, he sharpened them and exaggerated them. Why? Was it some kind of misguided ego trip or just the continuation of a life of putting principle above expediency? I'm reasonably sure it is the latter, but like Tin Cup, sometimes that gets in the way of achieving a larger, more important goal.