Jonathan Chait, pace Andrew Sullivan, assesses Ron Paul's standing:
Paul’s supporters seem to believe that the media ignoring him is the only thing keeping him from challenging for the Party nomination. More likely, it’s the only thing that’s allowed his candidacy to progress to this point. If more people actually understood the full scope of Paul’s fringe-right views, a huge portion of his support would peel off.
I would like to think that Chait's point is self-evident; that if the "huge portion" is indeed peelable, it hasn't peeled off only because of an inadequate education. There are others among Paul's supporters, however, who are well aware of those "fringe-right views" but have dismissed them as forgivable relics of Paul's now-rehabilitated past: What, that sweet, lovably fumbling old guy who has so enthralled us in so many debates with his visionary simplicity? Can't you other folks see how genuine he is, how his character is so splendidly solid -- now?
No, we can't, really. Or, rather, perhaps we shouldn't.
When Ron Paul published repeated editions of that selfsame filthy bile -- the above-referenced "fringe-right views" -- he wasn't some confused, half-educated, soul-searching kid in pursuit of a comforting worldview. He was an adult, an advocate, a high "professional" man of medical science and electoral politics, and yet a ragtag pusher of the some of the lowest cultural hate and division. It is simply inconceivable that, by the late 20th century, anything remotely close to a healthily developed mind could have harbored such Neanderthalic public opinions.
Paul's did.
For reasons insufficiently explained, some of Paul's supporters argue that Newt Gingrich's past should haunt him, and Mitt Romney's past should haunt him, and so forth. But Paul? He's owed not his past, but a pass. Oh well, without hypocrisy in politics ...