[cross-posted at Austro-Athenian Empire]
So Barr disses Paul, and Paul responds by endorsing Baldwin. (Conical hat tip to Jesse Walker.)
On the one hand, this is more evidence of the strategically suicidal nature of the Barr campaign. (Which of course is fine by me: It falls, it decays; who would preserve it? But I I even want to push it!) Surely Ron Pauls support, or at least non-opposition, would have been an asset to Barr (hes aware that Ron Paul has a bit of a following, yes?), and he could easily have avoided pissing off Paul and the Paulistas the way he did.
But on the other hand, Pauls support for someone who says stuff like this doesnt exactly do much to allay my concerns about Paul.
comments powered by Disqus
David T. Beito - 9/23/2008
I have great admiration for Ron Paul but this was a mistake.....though in fairness to him there were no good choices (at least for a voter) He should have stayed above the fray. I wouldn't vote for Baldwin in a million years. I might still vote for Barr or, more likely, sit it out this time.
- The Memorial Where Slavery Is Real
- Thomas Piketty accuses Germany of forgetting history as it lectures Greece
- Greek ‘No’ May Have Its Roots in Heroic Myths and Real Resistance
- 150 years later, schools are still a battlefield for interpreting Civil War
- Where are America's memorials to pain of slavery, black resistance?
- Historian: "I don’t want my students to simply choose sides in a polemic between heritage and hate"
- Harvard’s Nancy Cott says the conservatives in the gay marriage case have a stilted idea of the history of marriage
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- How Does It Feel To Have One’s Work as a Historian Cited by the Supreme Court? Cool. Very Cool. Thank You Very Much.