Ron Paul: too consistent to support!

Although the election process is already doing it for us, we have to do something which we hate doing: admitting we jumped the gun on an important question and acted rashly. David Gideon had endorsed Ron Paul for president in 2008. He is now rescinding that support. Congressman Paul is too much the typical libertarian, and that alone makes him unelectable. Not that that in and of itself makes him unworthy of a vote. Many principled men and women who cannot win a political race can still merit support. Mr. Paul’s trouble runs deeper than his basic creed. The Congressman simply allows himself to appear a buffoon in areas and with issues he could easily sidestep with the least bit of foresight. This calls his entire set of principles into question, when one of those ideals happens to be that everything, literally everything which crops up, must be addressed. It makes him - imagine, DG saying this! - extremist. We’ll spot him his opposition to the war in Iraq. Even though we don’t agree, it is not a litmus test issue with us. Pulling our troops from virtually everywhere on the globe, though, is irresponsible to our allies and contrary to our interests. This position represents the libertarian ideal that the Constitution is a document which gives decidedly narrow powers to the national government. It is an absurd take on the question, and is little more than playing ostrich. The world - here’s another unexpected gem from David - is indeed too interconnected anymore to allow isolationism in our foreign policy. Yet even these are but tasteless entrees. Why would we call Ron Paul a buffoon? For starters, we have that Lincoln provoked the Civil war garbage which we spoke of in another missive. Why would he address that question at all? He’s running for president in 2008, not 1864 when it might have mattered (emphasis on might, as it still would have been an insolent and untenable position). Did he bring it up himself? If so, he was stupid. Was he asked? Then he should have said it had no bearing on his campaign. That would not indicate a lack of principle (as libertarians might assert; they ignore that he could still believe what he wanted about Lincoln) and it would show good judgment by focusing on the issues relevant today. To get your constitutional skirt all wrinkled over the causes of the Civil War during the current presidential race isn’t much more than petulant. It’s probably worse. Then there’s throwing snowballs at Sean Hannity. All right, that wasn’t you, that was your supporters. Yet your response was only that you could not control them. And so you can’t: but you can appeal to them for civility. You might even take the high ground and apologize for their overexuberance. Yet you merely threw your hands up. Sorry, Mr. Paul, that’s just lame. It isn’t principled, it’s rude. Perhaps the worst thing, though, is accepting a contribution from a known racist. There is no acceptable explaining that away. By taking his money you are saying, whether you like it or not, that you find his position reasonable. Granted that you cannot check the background of every contributor (shades of snowball fights!) but you knew this one. Truly principled men cannot morally even seem to support the unprincipled and ignorant. In accepting his contribution, we must question your values and, again, judgment. It’s another instance of that foolish consistency we’ve called you on before: that insidious libertarian malady which offends right reason. Libertarians, so much as we want to like them, will never be elected en masse so long as they insist on promoting constitutional and philosophic absurdities. They do not deserve election so long as they even hint at supporting immorality, particularly stupid immorality. And without good judgment they have no useful principles. In this light we ask you, the reader: DO NOT support Ron Paul in 2008. David Gideon apologizes for leading you astray.