Why not a Strict Constructionist for President?

The candidate labelled by Peggy Noonan as "obscure but intellectually serious" Ron Paul has hit a chord with the political junkies who pay attention to debates conducted 18 months before an election. His message, based on initial readings of an informal poll by MSNBC after the Republican debate last Thursday by supporters of the Congressman (including this blog) and others, show that a campaign run on adherence to the Constitution might have resonance for members of the party that had lost majority control in Congress in 2006. From the Ron Paul for President blog:

Paul realized a massive decrease in net negatives (a favored indicator early in the Primaries). This places Paul's negative rating the lowest among ALL CANDIDATES by far and his positive just ahead of 2nd place candidate Romney.

McCain and Giuliani both got hammered good on their positive rating 11% and 13% with Giuliani registering 5% more negatives than before the debates.

Romney seems to have helped himself improving both his positive and negative rating but these numbers indicate a coming out party for Ron Paul.

The Drudge Report had the Reagan Derby Poll that showed Congressman Paul came in 3rd place behind Romney and Giuliani after the debate. The gap between Giuliani and Paul in this vote was 2 percent (out of 102,805 votes)!

His message, and his voting record in Congress, appeal to the strict originalist that the conservative base looks for in Supreme Court nominees. Which begs this question: Why shouldn't our expectation of all branches of government be fidelity to the Constitution, especially from the Republican Party? Why isn't there more campaigning for strict constructionist Presidents and Congressman?

Take a look at some of the reaction from other conservative blogs on Ron Paul at the debate:

Ron Paul: Someone needs to be a friend to this man and tell him to go home
now.
Heading Right

Ron Paul also showed that he should depart the race as quickly as possible.
He gave one-note answers about federalism and the original intent of the
founders for every question asked of him.
Captains Quarters

Ron Paul… sigh, yes, thank you for telling us how a libertarian idealist
would do it.
National Review Online

Based on those reactions, mainstream conservative blogs weren't too impressed by the Congressman from Texas. To which I would say, "If its good enough for the Supreme Court, it should be good enough for the President!" (I give permission for the Paul campaign to use that as a blurb)