Peter Grier of the Christian Science Monitor asks are some of Paul's supporters going rouge? This question is prompted by the continuing campaigning of some of Paul's followers in NV, even after Paul stated he has stopped campaigning. And, much more significantly, Paul's followers pushed through a resolution rebuking RNC chief Reince Priebus, "calling on him to resign his post due to his decision to merge some RNC fundraising with that of presumptive presidential nominee Mitt Romney."
In defense of the disgruntled, the national convention hasn't happened yet, even if Romney is the heir apparent. It may be hypocritical, but ceremony is important, it confers legitimacy. Romney is not yet the current GOP leader, he is still a pretender, even if he is the last pretender left standing.
Peter Grier, however, states that such a resolution is not decorous, Romney being the "virtually certain nominee." But if we give up on election rituals and process, even when the outcome is certain, then let's just drop the pretense of the whole democratic process in all its purple-fingered glory. If "certainty" becomes the legitimizing principle, then let's turn off the lights and the mikes, and put the dividers back into place, and end the rout and shut the youngsters up. Hit a few of them in the back of the head if need be.
Paul's followers are not going to be shut up or decorous. Expect more of the same if Paul tries to steer a course more palatable to the GOP Mainstream. Such a divergence may destroy Paul's movement in its infancy if followers become disillusioned. One suspects this is what party officials and status quo types want to happen. The status quo always wins with an apathetic, demoralized population.
If the movement survives, however, it will not be as loyal to the GOP as Paul has been. It will probably become a 3rd party or could easily cause a civil war within the GOP, resulting in a 3rd party, even if it claims the GOP title. The Ron Paul movement could weaken the GOP as neoconservative, elderly, corporatist or Evangelical donors are no longer as generous to a more libertarian, more non-interventionist, less warlike party.
Such things have happened before- as NorthernWhigs became Republicans in the 1850s, or as Mainstream Democrats and Dixiecrats parted ways in the 1960s.