Stephen L. Taylor has a thorough round-up of the Paul newsletters, if you’re interested (and, judging from the comments in last night’s open thread, many of you still are). His conclusion:
Really, the bottom line is this: absent an especially comprehensive and satisfactory explanation, the newsletters utterly disqualify Paul from the nomination, let alone the White House. Having spent a substantial amount of time researching, reading, writing, and arguing concerning this matter, I can reach no other conclusion.
Here’s the current status of notable Paul endorsers:
* Sully pretty much withdrew his support on the 24th.
The currently accepted position by these three seems to be that many of Paul’s ideas are OK, but he’s not qualified to be President. Now that Paul is a mainstream candidate, a new wave of press coverage is examining his next weakness: his wacko positions on the gold standard, and his views that we’re on the edge of apocalypse. I wonder how the still Paul-curious crew of commentators feels about that stuff.