I've read some criticism of Dr. Paul here after visiting this forum for the first time in a while just now. Firstly, I need to address an unjustly harsh and, IMO, flatly incorrect statement from W Lane Startin in the comments section of "WTF Paul? Part Two."

Paul has always been quick to abandon libertarian ideals on social issues to appease the Christian Right. He has a lot more in common with Huckabee than he doesn't. Always has.

Ron Paul has never been anything other than a statist Reagan Republican with a slightly different spin. I don't know what's more shameful, the fact he calls himself a libertarian, or the fact that so many people believe him.

Interesting you link an Idaho Statesman article. The Idaho GOP has been foisting this exact brand of ideological chutzpah on the general public for years.

Paul has maybe presented his positions in language to appease the Christian Right, but he's never really actually abandoned libertarian positions on those issues. He's put up with attacks by the Christian right on many libertarian positions of his (especially drugs) by Christian right GOP opponents in his district, and he's always come out on top. He's been for domestic partnership contract rights for gays (as he stated openly in the video interview with John Stossel, and during the GOP primary I might add), legalizing drugs (which is an expressly anti-Huckabee position), protection of civil liberties, has been very anti-war and anti-interventionism, and holds other libertarian positions that resemble nothing which Mike Huckabee promotes. The only issue where he has pretty much always disagreed with the Libertarian Party platform is abortion, and the only other issue where he's disagreed with perhaps a majority of libertarians is on the issue of Constitutional interpretation of federalism, as he's more inclined to argue that 10th Amendment takes precedence over 14th Amendment in some cases. He moved in the wrong direction on immigration, for sure, but he also expressly moved in the right direction on other issues, like the Death Penalty.

To make a statement like "he has more in commmon with Mike Huckabee than he doesn't" is a huge exaggeration of reality. I would argue that he probably only holds about 20% in common with Mike Huckabee, given that Huckabee is central planner on economic issues.

As for the endorsement of Young, it's disappointing, but understandable. Ron Paul is a politician, and he knows that if substantive steps are going to be made on reversing the growth of the authoritarian state, he's going to have to work with some candidates who maybe aren't all that perfectly aligned with him on the issues. For instance, he's endorsed Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland, who is a pro-Iraq War candidate but has been in line with him on issues of national sovereignty. Young has co-sponsored Ron Paul's Constitutional Amendment to eliminate the Income Tax, which gives Ron access to him to persuade him that he won't have with many other members of the Republican Congressional delegation. Further, if Young wins re-election, then he's going to owe Ron Paul politically. This is a powerful ace in the hole to have. It's easy for us to criticize politicians like Ron Paul for making moves like this when they have been so principled in their stances and actions, but like I said: Ron Paul is a politician, and a smart one at that, and he knows that the game needs to be played if his agenda is going to move forward.

Remember, for the Bartletts and Youngs out there, he's also endorsing the real deals like B.J. Lawson, who is a solid minarchist libertarian 100% aligned with him on the issues and the only Ron Paul-endorsed Congressional candidate who will be speaking at the Rally for the Republic and will also be emceeing a large part of the event. If that's not a signal of what Ron Paul is committed to, I don't know what is.

Furthermore, the Club for Growth isn't exactly the free market group it pretends to be. They're promoting the privatization of Social Security (which is NOT free market economics, but rather corporatist central planning run amuck; the real libertarian position on Social Security is its abolition), and they're promoting managed trade agreements (masquerading as free trade) and draconian tort reform that undermines the enforcement of contracts and private property and Coasian bargaining to resolve disputes. If anything, the Club for Growth is a corporatist organization masquerading as a free market organization.