[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.
- Ronald Suny says historians have shied away from exploring the roots of the Armenian genocide for fear of taking attention away from the victims
- Columbia University professors Eric Foner, Alan Brinkley, and Alice Kessler-Harris to retire
- A powerhouse appropriations subcommittee is now headed by a historian: Republican Rep. Tom Cole (OK)
- Slavic scholars divided over a scholarship sponsored (and withdrawn) by Stephen F. Cohen
- Claire Strom to Step Down as Editor of Agricultural History