Yes, I have been a harsh critic of Paul's inconsistencies when it comes to social conservatism but how does any libertarian excuse Obama going on Fox News and proclaiming the "surge" to be a success beyond anyone's wildest dreams. There is no excuse for that. None. Absolutely none.

Frankly, it's hard for me after watching Paul's impassioned ant-war speech and anti-drug war speech, and the extent of the radical libertarianism expressed at his Rally for the Republic, for me to get that worked up about about him being on the Montana ballot. The fact is, Joe Biden going on Meet the Press and saying life begins at conception according to the Catholic Church set back pro-abortion rights much more than Paul being on the ballot in Montana ever could.

No one claims Obama or Biden are libertarians. Surely, no one portrays them as the great shining light of libertarianism as Ron Paul is portrayed.

If Paul had any sense of principle whatsoever, why would he give a speech like that and then less than a week later accept a nomination from an organization diametrically opposed to the ideals in that speech? It just shows where his true feelings lie.

Ron Paul is fundamentally an ultra-conservative with a few libertarian tendencies. If that was the way he presented himself, it wouldn't be that big a deal. He's certainly not a libertarian at heart, and for anyone (especially him) to claim otherwise is a fraud and a sham. He really does give the term "libertarian" a bad name. Frankly the sooner he goes away, the better off we as classical liberals all are.

When I think of classical liberals (Paine, Locke), the three things stand out about them are:

• Inalienable rights (such as your own body)
• Property rights
• Democratic government 

How different is that from libertarianism, as you understand it? Sure, modern libertarians don't make a fetish out of democratic government in the same way that some of the classical liberals did, but the vast majority of libertarians say that democratic government is better than alternative governmental structures.

Firstly, Dr. Paul agreeing to allow these parties to put his name on the ballot is absolutely NO evidence that he supports their. This is a huge logical leap. One could infer from this move- and believably- that he just doesn't want to dictate to people what to do. One could also say this is the same reason why he's not endorsing a candidate outright in this election.

Secondly, how in the world is the claim that Dr. Paul is a libertarian a "fraud?" He has stated time and again that the only two issues with which he disagrees with the Libertarian Party platform are Immigration and Abortion. His voting record does everything to confirm this. Maybe you think that disagreeing with the Libertarian Party platform on a whopping total of two issues is enough to disqualify someone as a libertarian, but I don't. The idea that he is an "ultra social conservative" is nonsense, at least from the perspective of the policies he would look to institute. His on-the-record support for the legalization drugs and prostitution, for same-sex civil unions, and for the legality of gambling all dispel that notion outright, and he voiced support for all of these DURING THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, AT A TIME WHEN VOICING THESE OPINIONS IS QUITE POLITICALLY DISADVANTAGEOUS.

As for Dr. Paul's record on civil liberties and Bill of Rights issues (i.e. Patriot Act, Real ID, etc.), his voting record speaks for itself. He campaigned fiercely on these issues, and he thought enough of them to include them on the list of four issues in his pledge for candidates to sign in order to get his blessing.

And when has he ever "encouraged the Religious Right's agenda at the state level" other than on the issue of abortion? He stated point blank in an interview with Jon Stossel that he believes same-sex civil unions should be allowed and that drugs and prostitution should be legal. When Dr. Paul has implied he would "regulate" things like drugs or prostitution at the state level, he has put it in the context of setting a threshold age for accessing them, i.e. age at which someone can purchase alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, etc.. I have to confess to not being all that terribly offended by this.

Is he wrong on immigration? Yes. Does he take federalism and "states rights" too far from the perspective of federal government policy rather than adopting more stances grounded in the 14th Amendment? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean he's not legitimately a libertarian, because in my view at least, he certainly is. And this view is shared by the scores of Libertarian Party activists, officials, and past candidates who supported his campaign.

By continuing this effort, you are alienating libertarians like myself who supported Ron Paul's campaign vigorously and who view him as a hero. I would like to work with people like you to produce the society we both want to see, but on a personal level, you make it really difficult.

Paul's rhetoric is very consistent in arguing the federal government should remain silent on civil liberties, advocating instead such things should be decided at the state level. But in practice he's not always true to that. In 2003 he voted yes on the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act but three years later wrote, "the federal government has no authority whatsoever to involve itself in the abortion issue."

He's said repeatedly that he supports leaving the marriage issue up to the states, yet is on record as supporting the Defense of Marriage Act. He's also co-sponsored legislation prohibiting lawsuits pertaining to its constitutionality.

In 2007 he said Don't Ask Don't Tell is a "decent policy," but when pressed later he said he wouldn't discharge openly homosexual military personnel provided their behavior wasn't disruptive.

On issues where he is more consistent, his M.O. seems to be to hide behind the 10th Amendment at the federal level and then look the other way when states start infringing on people's private lives. I contend that just because a state can pass bad legislation and still remain constitutional doesn't mean it should.

For a strict constitutionalist, he's not been shy about proposing constitutional amendments, including three that would significantly alter or repeal existing amendments, one allowing for school prayer, and one for giving states the power to prohibit the destruction of the flag. That's no less than five proposed amendments since he returned to Congress 11 years ago. The Constitution has only been amended 27 times in 200+ years. There's a good reason why. I think you'd be very hard-pressed to find anyone in either party who's proposed more in the same time period.

In short, what I see is a pretty consistent tendency on his part to try to have things both ways. That doesn't sit well with me at all. This is a guy who in 2007 requested $400 million in earmarks, voted against them, and got them passed anyway.

I find several other stances of his quite troubling. He's opposed the Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, advocated the repeal of the 17th Amendment allowing for direct election of U.S. Senators, opposed the repeal of the Electoral College (which would allow for direct election of the President), voted to build a fence on the Mexican border, and has written the "notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers."

He's also incorrectly stated the Declaration of Independence and Constitution are "both replete with references to God." As one who takes the Constitution so seriously, he should know there are exactly zero references to God in it. There are three in the Declaration of Independence, "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Supreme Judge" respectively. Paul should also be well aware the Declaration of Independence is a document written by an ardent Deist that has profound historical significance, but also no legal standing.

Ron Paul isn't all bad. He indeed has good positions on Iraq, the Patriot Act, REAL ID and other things, but so do quite a few others; he's certainly not unique in that regard. He's not the last best hope for liberty. Not even close.

A lot of people see right through him. If he was more consistent about less intrusive government regulation across the board he would have done a lot better than he did. Indeed, what support he did get came in no small part from ultra-conservative factions, not people who are in my view libertarians. That was definitely the case here in Idaho. Whether he likes it or not, in this state at least he's joined to the hip with the far right. I don't know about you, but that's not what I'm about at all.