A Stitch in Haste

First things first:


Now for the substantive hasty stitches:

--Paul is responsible for the content of his newsletters, especially considering that all but a handful lack bylines. Whether he wrote them or not, whether he read them or not, whether he disowns them today or not. None of it matters. His name, his newsletters, his imprimatur, his responsibility. All else is sophistry.

--In the same vein: How can Ron Paul be trusted to lead the federal government, even for the purpose of dismantling it, if he can't even control a newsletter? If Editor-in-Chief Paul can't keep his (purported) ghost writers (and that is the correct term, complete with the negative connotation associated therewith) in line, then how would Commander-in-Chief Paul keep the military in line, or Goldbug-in-Chief Paul keep the Federal Reserve in line, or Vetoer-in-Chief Paul keep his own cabinet in line? (Not to mention those who would not even be accountable to President Paul — people such as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, John Roberts, etc.). Stated differently: What difference does it make what your agenda is if you're a proven incompetent at implementing it?

--As for the "it was a long time ago" canard: Indeed it was. Which invites another question: What exactly has "Dr. No" really achieved as a (not quite) "libertarian politician"? In twenty years in Congress, has Paul ever won over a single colleague to his cause? Does he ever try, for example, to discuss his views on banking (let alone homosexuality) with Barney Frank over lunch? Does he initiate calm, quiet dialogues about farm subsidies with Collin Peterson or Dave Obey? Does he even know who Jeff Flake is? Or does he just sign in, vote "no" on some spending bills, sponsor some anti-gay bigotry measures, secure some "libertarian earmarks" for his (favored) constituents, and call it a day — all the while patting himself on the back for his "commitment to principles"?

--Similarly, if Ron Paul is "creating a movement," then why did it take the Iraq War for him to become a plausible single-digit fringe protest vote (which was and is all he represents, and which is more than he represented four years ago)? Of course, in reality Ron Paul did not "create a movement" — he merely tapped into one, and exploited it to feed his own appetite for political celebrity.

--The worst nightmare of those of us who never drank the Ron Paul Kool-Aid is coming to pass. Those political mainstreamers who do not share in this movement-that-Paul-did-not-create, the liberals and conservatives who prior to this presidential campaign had barely heard of an "isolationist / neoconfederate / 95% of all blacks are criminals / bring back the closet / Lincoln started the Civil War / the WHO invented AIDS / conspiracies everywhere" fervor now have — thanks to Ron Paul — a name for it: libertarianism. So, on top of having to laboriously explain ab initio that I am a "small-l libertarian," I apparently will forevermore have to pre-emptively declare that I am a "small-l, Non-Paul libertarian." Splendid. Ron Paul has, quite simply, wrecked libertarianism for at least a generation. And, unlike Barry Goldwater, his legacy will never be rehabilitated.

--The (formerly?) pro-Paul libertarians, especially the Reason crowd (i.e., the folks who just slapped his face on the cover on their magazine), should stop the silly headless-chicken damage control spin (worst examples here and here) and just admit they were giddily, and stupidly, wrong about him from the outset. It's time, not just to separate the wheat from the chaff, but to acknowledge that Paul is pure chaff, and always was.