Add the Budget Tables of the US Government, which are posted on the Government Printing Office webpage, to the entitlement to defense, 2 to 1 margin, and it is apparent that the focus on defense is indeed a legitimate concern, but the not the existential threat that rapine entitlement programs are.

(http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy11/sheets/hist03z2.xls)

Given that defense has become, in essence, an entitlement for the masses and the American aristocracy alike, the 2 to 1 margin argument becomes more persuasive.

Therefore, the issue is thus: Either you believe in compulsory giving or you do not. I am indifferent to any compulsory giving argument presented since the onset of the Progressive Era.

On topic:

The most we can hope for from Rep. Paul is the occasional inconvenience he has proven over the years to statists. I am not certain that a presidential bid would do anything other than distract from issuing subpoenas from the Subcommittee on Domestic Monetary Policy.

Paul-Mercer: That was funny. However, the general public would find both too esoteric and both are too principled to navigate the requisite dancing bear routine that is required of all candidates. As I stated earlier, the Media has no intention of permitting a principled candidate or a transcendent candidate to hold the megaphone. (The Media understands its mistake with that war-mongering Reagan.)

If you believe that the Internet will provide more access, consider how both parties are already shoring up their defenses to track those sorts.

It’s actually kind of clever how it will begin, too. It will begin with complimentary statements associating Rep. Paul and Rep. Bachmann with the Tea Party (Tea Party favorite, darling of the Tea Party, etc.) before eventually transitioning to an association with more vitriol and slanderous statements about the Tea Party. In other words, neither has a snowballs chance of navigating the GOP and the Media.

Still, my vote would go to a Paul-Bachmann ticket because of Paul, and in spite of Bachmann.

It will take a 1964 Goldwater style “principled defeat” for a major party to lead the path to a limited governmental constitutional state and I don’t see it happening.

The previous statement within the comments section is simply not based in reality. According to Heritage, amongst others, entitlement spending exceeded defense speeding in 1976. What’s more, entitlements exceed defense by a 2 to 1 margin. (Heritage 2010 Budget Chart Book: Defense Spending Has Declined While Entitlement Spending Has Increased.)

Closing 700 of the 737 United States military installations worldwide and eliminating 2 million of the 2.5 million personnel within the defense industry is a fine thought, but to achieve any sort of reduction of the federal budget, elimination of most entitlements must be considered, first. (The special forces sorts tend to carry far more of their fair share anyway. So by eliminating the positions of the malingering masses, we could expect an overall amelioration.)

If the door is not closed on entitlements soon (read: the Baby Boomers) it probably would be impossible to do so at all.

With respect to the ticket, the Media will suddenly discover a fondness for Gov. Palin and/or Rep. Gingrich about this time next year; thereby, assembling another lame duck Republican ticket. Although I like the fairy tale about Rep. Paul incarcerating bankers, the Media has no intention of allowing a transcendent candidate to hold the megaphone again. (A mistake that was made once by the Media with a nitwit from Hollywood.)