The Political Inquirer

In any case, the Paul pile-on is starting to get ridiculous. You can blame Paul and the ghostwriters for some of this, for keeping what was in the newsletters so quiet, but simply because so many of them are now out I’m seeing “damning” quotes that pad the lists without making Paul look out of line.

That’s your friend and mine, David Weigel, defending some of the Paul quotes from the now famous Ron Paul Report.   Taking a look at the blogs and newspapers, it seems like the pile-on is spreading.  Apparently those put off by enthusiastic Paulites are now relishing in his defeat.  Their mothers must be proud.

But of course, this is an excuse to dismiss Paul (a flawed man, perhaps) based on ad hominem attacks and not concerns of issues.  He may be wrong about everything he espouses, or he may be right.  But association with white-supremacists (probably because lone libertarians often flirt with such fringe elements…they need ideological support) has nothing to do with how we should be involved in the Middle East.

In fact, I think the existence of the newsletter proves what we already knew about Paul. Paul is a bad politician. He’s not skilled at dismissing or avoiding harmful associations, he can’t run a full blown, organized campaign, and now he seems a little naïve. Does that mean his ideas are wrong? That Americas fiddling with the world has a way of pissing people off? That the welfare state has gone too far? I don’t think so. It shows how Paul has never been presidential, despite being consistently right.