Don’t let the absence of tact, polish, logic, and stability fool you: Ron Paul slithers like a true pol

Please don’t take this as a reflection on my personal  life, but perhaps  because I’ve lived in Nevada, Korea, and Washington, D.C.,  I  have only  mild moral objections to voluntary exchanges of sex for money between adults.  I’d think that this would be a rare point on which I’d agree with Ron Paul.  But when asked if he was  “shocked” to learn that  the Moonlight Bunny Ranch had contributed to his campaign, Paul missed  the chance  to  defend social libertarianism by saying, “Of course not.  I don’t believe it’s government’s role to regulate personal morality.”  Instead,  Paul slithered through a muck of:  Hey, how should I know who’s sending me checks?   (Because the reporter just told you so.  Now answer the damn question.)  

I can live with honest differences of opinion with anyone who means me no harm, but I question the judgment of people who assume that Ron Paul is more sincere than other politicians  because  Paul dares to be wacky.  And is it just me, or when Paul is giving his answer, does he  really seem to be defending his decision to keep the spigots open on  that white supremacist money he’s taking?  I wonder if Paul thinks those people “believe in freedom,” too. 

Paulbots love to rail at the media for ignoring their candidate.  Maybe they should be thankful the media really haven’t called Paul on this  and let him  share a stage with  candidates with the discretion to refuse neo-Nazi money.  I don’t want to overstate this.  Ron Paul takes David Duke’s money, but he isn’t David Duke.  But if Ron Paul were (a) as smooth and polished as David Duke, or (b)  stealing oxygen at  Democratic debates instead of Republican ones, I don’t think as many pundits would  do him the  unjustified charity of giving him national air time and dismissing him.