Randy Barnett take note. Over at National Review Online, Todd Seavey underscores the practical electoral advantages of nominating Ron Paul as a conservative/libertarian"fusion" candidate:

Continuing conservative support for the Iraq war is certainly an issue (note that Paul voted for the Afghan war, so he’s not a complete pacifist), but surely it’s not the be-all and end-all of conservatism. As popular support for the war fades, and if we do not meet with the successes forecast by the architects of the “surge,” might not even the most pro-war conservatives be willing to budge a bit on that possibly doomed and politically damning issue? Hawks may be reluctant to shift, but for many conservatives it may well be worth it to have a president with true conservative values.

Bill Woolsey - 8/2/2007

Getting on the primary ballot is determined state by state.

He has already paid the filing fee and filed out the paper work in South Carolina.

Generally, getting on a primary ballot isn't all that difficult.

Libertarians often have difficulties getting on the general election ballot as a third party or else as an independent.

The problem for Ron Paul is that Republicans generally vote in Republican primaries, and the majority of them are still pro-war. On the positive side, war-skepticism is growing among Republicans. But it remains a minority.

David T. Beito - 8/1/2007

Thanks. Hopefully, Barnett will address the practical argument made for the antiwar position. Instead, he seems to make only the practical argument for a "neutral" position, which is much weaker IMHO.

Sudha Shenoy - 8/1/2007

What are the nuts & bolts of getting Ron Paul onto the primary ballots? In how many states does he need to get on? How much specific assistance does his campaign team need? Are they publicising this?

Mark Brady - 8/1/2007

Todd Seavey elaborates his argument here and readers add their comments at the end.

Aeon J. Skoble - 8/1/2007

Yes, excellent piece. This line is key: "Paul’s greatest obstacle is the Republican primary process. Since he wants to do virtually everything conservatives have long dreamed of with the office of the presidency, what’s stalling his chances is a herd-like desire to vote for the candidate who already seems likely to win the primaries. Democrats won’t keep him from the White House; it would be tragic, then, if Republicans stopped him themselves."
Tragic indeed. Seavy is right. We should all be drumming up support for Paul amongst our GOP (and LP) friends and colleagues. Worry about your Dem friends later. For now, let's get Paul the GOP nomination.