Libertarian/objectivist Reason Magazine has a new article on the value and brazenness of Ron Paul's candidacy: Who's Afraid of Ron Paul?:

"These are arguments that should be on the Republican table, not pushed beyond the pale by moral posturing about an alleged insult to the victims of September 11. And surely as we contemplate the debacle in Iraq, Paul's criticisms of reckless foreign entanglements and nation-building commitments have a strong resonance."

And MI GOP chief, Saul Anuzis, has backed off his earlier stance against including Paul in future Republican debates:

"After consulting with my fellow RNC members, I believe there isn't anything to be gained by advancing a petition aimed solely at removing Congressman Paul from the debates," Anuzis wrote in his daily blog Saturday. "The primary is and will continue to work itself out."

Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton said Anuzis was right to reverse course, adding that banning Paul is "very unpopular among the people." (from CBS news)

But most conservative pundits for some reason view Paul's disagreement with current administration foreign policy as evidence of something far more insidious than plain old Goldwater conservatism. Hugh Hewitt, talk radio poobah, had a grand time trying to associate Paul with various liberal and crackpot fringists, neglecting to substantively interact with any actual policy discussions. It's easier to make noise than it is to say something that matters.