DAR
Portraying Ron Paul as any kind of normative republican, without telling the rest of the story, is a bit misleading considering the republican party did everything they could to keep him from getting elected. At best, like most libertarians, he is tolerated. From his wiki
blurb:
***
"In 1996, Paul was again elected to the House as a Republican. Mainstream Republican Party figures backed the incumbent, Greg Laughlin, a conservative Democrat representative who had switched parties in the wake of the Republican takeover of Congress. Laughlin attempted to portray Paul's views as extreme and eccentric, but Paul won the primary and went on to win the general election.
Leaders of the Texas Republican Party made similar efforts to defeat him in 1998, but he again won the primary and the election. The Republican congressional leadership then agreed to a compromise: Paul votes with the Republicans on procedural matters and remains nominally Republican in exchange for the committee assignments normally due according to his seniority."
***
I subscribed to his newsletter for a long time but dropped it when the muddled libertarian nonsense became too annoying. An attempt by him to capture the white house, or even make a showing, has about as much chance of success as... well, I can't think of any original analogies with possible outcomes that low.