Rep. Ron Paul’s surge in Iowa has triggered a theoretical question for his rivals this week: given his foreign policy views, would they be willing to support him over President Obama if he were the nominee? Newt Gingrich said “no,” Mitt Romney said “yes.” But it is also a kind of an intriguing gut check question for conservatives on how they balance foreign and domestic policy. Having thought about it over the last few days and debated it on Twitter for a bit last night, I’ve determined that I’d very begrudgingly back Obama in such a matchup.

Now, if we were just to look at what the candidates stand for on paper, I’d be much more inclined to support Paul over Obama. I’m not only much closer to Paul on domestic issues than to Obama, I’m probably closer to him than any other GOP candidate. And this goes beyond fiscal policy. Having somewhat of a libertarian streak, Paul’s opposition to the drug war is actually a point in his favor as far as I’m concerned. But if we move out of the realm of a person’s stances and into the reality of what a candidate can realistically accomplish as president, the calculus starts to change. The reason is that presidents have a lot more latitude on foreign policy than on domestic policy.