I think this pretty much sums it up

At the risk of having a blimped-in mob descending upon my little outpost on the fringes of the internets, I think this piece pretty much nails the driving force behind the Ron Paul candidacy:

"These are life-and-death real issues," Rammelkamp tells me. He says he is worried about an economic depression, which could begin next year if the dollar continues to fall and the federal government does not deal with the national debt. He says he is worried about government increasingly violating the rights of citizens, especially if there is another terrorist attack. "The government is building FEMA camps," he says. "They want to put chips in our arms." Though he still lives with his parents, he says he has given $2,300 to the Paul campaign, using a credit card that charges no interest for a year. "It's an investment," he explains. "All I got to do is make back a few thousand dollars a year from now."

Life-and-death real issues like chip implants! And it's nice to know that the Paul campaign is being financed with what remains of the collapsing credit bubble. Methinks that Mr. Rammelkamp might be spending a few more years in the parents' basement while he pays off that $2,300 "investment."

"I never voted before in my life," says Trevor Lyman, 37, a former music promoter who now does independent online fundraising for Paul. "I always thought that the system was working. The war showed me that it wasn't."

I don't know what worries me more about this particular voter - that he thought every thing was hunky-dory until the war, or that he thinks that if every thing is going along okay with the system - a system predicated on at least nominal citizen involvement - he doesn't even have to show up to vote. I usually ascribe non-participation to a cynical "it's-all-fucked-up-but-what-am-I-gonna-do?" outlook, but rarely out-and-out happy-go-lucky cluelessness. But such is the Ron Paul phenomenon.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for legalizing herb and ending the war. But, even under the best of circumstances, I think libertarians are a bunch of flakes grounding their political philosophy on a hopelessly naïve and utopian view of the world, even if I agree with some of their particular stands. Ron Paul supporters, however, have taken this half-baked view to a whole new level.

All right. What's the over-under on when the first commenter defending Paul shows up?