Ron Paul -- The Perfect Imperfect Candidate

I've been getting quite annoyed recently with the general tenor of RP discussion by a lot of blogs & zines who ought to be jumping for joy at the fact that Dr. Paul is running for president. It goes like this, usually

"Ron Paul's great -- just what this country needs -- but ..."

And then we get a discussion of some flaw in RP's views, or some election pitfall that could trip him up. We often get an authoritative-sounding discussion of why, alas, he cannot win the nomination or the office. What we do not get, sadly, is cojones. By that I mean an endorsement: "Americans should support Ron Paul". Why not?

Because the writer has discovered action X by Ron Paul isn't fully synchronized with the true libertarian understanding of line 213 of the Constitution, or something. Egad!

Might be true. And we could conceivably argue about it for several days. Meanwhile:

Ed Crane asked Giuliani whether he "believed the president should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review... The mayor said that he would want to use this authority infrequently."

To summarize, Giuli said "yes, the president has that authority, but trust me I'm a nice guy and won't do it much." In other words, Crane said "should we have habeas corpus?" and Giuli said 'No.' While you argue about the interpretation of line 213, the frontrunners have all more or less burned their copies of the Constitution to the ground.

If Ron Paul "can't win" against these guys, that should make you angry. On a scale of 1 to 10 Ron Paul is about an 8 and no other candidate is above 5. Why keep covering the fact that he isn't a 10? (End rant)