I don't think you should be surprised.  He taps into a deep longing people have for change.  Ron Paul is really a true conservative (or neoliberal depending upon where in the world you are) among a see of apostates.  He doesn't have nuanced responses.  He isn't an opportunist like Romney.  He isn't a phony like Ghouliani.  He is not a single issue candidate like immigrant-hating Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter.  He isn't uninterested in the job like Thompson.  

He is not like Cuccinelli, whose near sole focus is on legislating Roman Catholic morality.  

I know a lot of people want to call him crazy or dismiss him.  But he is not crazy.  I find it quite admirable that he returns money to the Treasury every year.  Just to demonstrate some of his appeal, I quote from what he said at the YouTube debate:

And besides, what we can do is we can have a stronger national defense by changing our foreign policy. Our foreign policy is costing us a trillion dollars, and we can spend most of that or a lot of that money home if we would bring our troops home.

He doesn't even understand the difference between non- intervention and isolationism. I'm not an isolationism, (shakes head) em, isolationist. I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.

The best commitment we can make to the Iraqi people is to give them their country back. That's the most important thing that we can do.

(Applause)

Already, part of their country has been taken back. In the south, they claim the surge has worked, but the surge really hasn't worked. There's less violence, but al-Sadr has essentially won in the south.

The British are leaving. The brigade of Al Sadr now is in charge, so they are getting their country back. They're in charge up north -- the Shia -- the people in the north are in charge, as well, and there's no violence up there or nearly as much.

So, let the people have their country back again. Just think of the cleaning up of the mess after we left Vietnam. Vietnam now is a friend of ours -- we trade with them, the president comes here.

What we achieved in peace was unachievable in 20 years of the French and the Americans being in Vietnam.

So it's time for us to take care of America first.

(Applause)

Shortly after the Vietnam War ended, Colonel Tu and Colonel Summers met, and they were talking about this. And our -- and the American colonel said, "You know, we never lost one battle." And Colonel Tu, the Vietnamese says, "Yes, but that's irrelevant."

And it is irrelevant. But we have to realize why they want to come here. Wolfowitz even admitted that one of the major reasons that the Al Qaida was organized and energized was because of our military base in Saudi Arabia.

He says, "Oh, now, we can take the base away." He understood why they came here. They come here because we're occupying their country, just as we would object if they occupied our country.

The infrastructure problem in this country is very, very serious. We as Americans are taxed to blow up the bridges overseas. We're taxed to go over and rebuild the bridges overseas while our bridges are falling down in this country.

This country is going bankrupt, and we can't afford this. We need to take care of ourselves. We do not need to sacrifice one thing more. We just need to take care of ourselves and get the government out of our lives and off our back and out of our wallets.

Do you disagree with any of that?  Is any of that irrational or crazy?  Does any of it sound like anything that would ever be uttered from Senator Cuccinelli's mouth?

You like him. And you're wondering why someone finds it odd someone like that would win a Virginia GOP straw poll?

Also, long, drawn-out responses like that are why people on the left and the right both detest him. It has a lot to do with his supporters and their spam-like internet presence.

Here's a taste of your own medicine, a long drawn-out, blockquoted response of my own.

A white supremecist's rationale for supporting Ron Paul, in his own words:

Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of "Hate Crime" Laws.

Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Amnesty and "open border" movements.

Ron Paul wants to end birth-right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants.

Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of welfare programs that among other things, would redistribute the income of hard-working White families into the hands of lazy non-Whites.

Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Globalism and all attempts to create a North American Union.

Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of military support and foreign aid to countries like Israel.

Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto any legislation to that effect.

And, no, I'm not linking to Stormfront. So don't ask.

You should really be ashamed of yourself.  I am really tired of the thought police on here who dictate how I must think in order to be a member of the Democratic Party.  I am offended by the suggestion that I am not a Democrat.  What honestly gives you the right to question my loyalty?  

I do like Ron.  I don't agree with him on everything, but that doesn't prevent me from admiring him.  And if you read my post, I am not wondering why someone finds it odd that he would win the Republican straw poll.  I was providing some explanation for his appeal.  I am sorry if that did not come across clearly.  And the many block quotes were just to break up his responses, not because I am Paulista.  I certainly didn't mean to violate some cherished code for comments.

And I think you can tell by rereading you own post that you are not providing a reasoned argument against Ron Paul.  Instead you are proposing a logical fallacy.  Simplified, that is: some of his supporters are bad people ergo his beliefs are wrong.  You see that does not follow, right?

Your argument is that Ron Paul disagrees with Cuccinelli, therefore he's OK because I don't like Cuccinelli either. That logic is.....what's the word? Oh yeah, fallable.

My argument was not that Ron is not Ken; therefore, Ron is great.  I don't see how you read that into anything I said.  The only statements I made on Ken where to discount a comparison between the two men.

And at this point I realize that Lowell might have been referring to the elephant statue that Ken talks to rather than making a comparison to Ron Paul.

And the reason I was surprised about the Ron Paul results is that he's polling much lower than that nationwide and in most states.   Why on earth you got so defensive is beyond me.

I was just responding to your query as to why he might attract support.  It wasn't my intention to sound defensive.  Maybe in the future I should end all my sentences in smiley faces to denote that my tone is affable?  If you are referring to subsequent replies, then yes I was defensive because the first response was to question my party loyalty.

On your surprise, the man has raked in $10 million in contributions.  That has to translate to support somewhere.  

Iowa (Des Moines Register): 7%
New Hampshire (ARG): 2%
South Carolina (ARG): 3%

So, no, apparently millions of dollars do NOT translate to support somewhere.  At least not support out of the single digits.

If he has raised that much money, he must have passionate supporters.  It doesn't take much to participate in the Straw Poll; so, a passionate group of people can hold a lot of sway.  It was $35 to participate in just the Straw Poll and any Virginia resident could participate by just writing a check to the RPV.

On top of that, a Straw Poll is not statistically significant.  The event naturally attracts boosters for individual candidates resulting in a sample that may not be reflective of the general Republican voting base.  And party events are not big draws in comparison to the population of primary voters.  

Are known for being fanatical.  Here's a video clip of one, just highlighted by the Wonkette blog:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

When I watch this, I hear the violin music from Psycho.

Everything else is either libertarian or conservative tripe.  I happen to care about more than Iraq.  And Iraq is the only thing Ron Paul's remotely right about.

I don't disagree.  We are talking about a Republican primary though.  And if anyone embodies a movement conservative better than anyone else, that would be Ron.  Does he not channel that ghost of Barry Goldwater?

I don't agree with his assertions on government regulation or economic policy.  Though, in principle, I agree we need to do something about the weak dollar.  But the William Jennings Bryan approach is not the way.  On economics, he is a disciple of Milton Friedman's ideal world where a free unfettered market solves every problem.  And idealism has its place in fairy tales.  We know there are bad actors in the system and without regulation they would act bad.

And one last thing, besides the foreign policy stuff, Ron also voted against the PATRIOT Act and its re-authorization.  That wasn't a bad idea.  

about Ron Paul is here.

I know that Ron Paul didn't issue them himself, but it still makes you look nutty when your supporters decide to mint their own coins with your face. Especially bad when the supporters mint their own coins with the goal of undermining the U.S. dollar.

I wonder how many of these:

I need to get one of these:

Read more in the Post's article, "In Ron we trust"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

See the Ron Buck page from the independent minters
http://www.libertydollar.org/l...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/ar...

Could Cuccinelli turn out like Phill Kline, the ex-AG of Kansas?  Kline, an anti-abortion crusader, was recently defeated by those crazy liberals in KS.  But Kline was appointed by the GOP as a county DA to replace the man who defeated him, so he's still doing strange stuff.  

The incumbent, Republican Phill Kline, was hailed as a hero by abortion foes for subpoenaing patient medical records in an attempt to build a criminal case against abortion clinics. He was soundly defeated by Democrat Paul J. Morrison, who vowed to back off the clinic prosecutions.

http://www.latimes.com/news/na...

He is so polarizing that when he was nominated by his own party to replace the man who went on to become Attorney General...

***[A]fter precinct leaders backed Kline *** 316 to 291, Republicans showed just how divided they are.

"The moment Phill Kline got the nomination, half the room got up and walked out," said Scott Schwab, the county GOP chairman. "It wasn't so much yelling or cussing. They threw up their arms and said, 'What do we do now?' "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

Even Kline's supporters are edgy:

Schwab, the Johnson County GOP chairman, strongly backed Kline for attorney general and thinks he will be a good prosecutor -- as long as his government work "is not about Phill Kline's ego, but about justice."

Sound like Cooch?

See here for more.