And wait, there's more: because of Paul's hardline isolationist and anti-government philosophies, he is doing very well in winning the support of white supremacists and other, shall we say, race-obsessed individuals -- a glowing accomplishment, considering the Republican presidential race has horked up such notable far-right luminaries as Tancredo, Brownback and Hunter, usually favorites of the Minuteman crowd themselves.

Support from unsavory individuals is, of course, not necessarily germane to a candidacy. But the reasons for that support, if the reasons are firmly grounded in policy admiration, do tend to bring new hues into the discussions of those policies. For example, here's some of the glowing commentary on David Duke's website (no link will be given: google it if you want it):

Paul has built a loyal following of people attracted to the politician’s libertarian stance on constitutional rights and opposition to the war in Iraq. [...] During Paul’s rally, he proposed getting rid of the Internal Revenue Service, Selective Service, income tax and the Federal Reserve, and withdrawing from the United Nations. [...] The two biggest issues facing America at this time are the Iraq War and the illegal alien problem. Ron Paul has called for an end to “birth-right citizenship” also known as “anchor babies.” Ron Paul has also called for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Of all the candidates, Paul is the only one who is “two for two” on these key issues.

It is a laundry list of the "serious" policy discussions of the craziest far-far right militia movements. Abolishing the Federal Reserve? Abandoning the U.N.? Eliminating the income tax? Anchor babies?

For a bit more depth, let's go to a commenter on the "white nationalist" website Stormfront (again, no link):

[Ron Paul] is the least toxic candidate by leaps and bounds. On issues particularly important to White Nationalists or the Pro-White in general, of all of the mainstream candidates: -- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of "Hate Crime" Laws. -- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Amnesty and "open border" movements. -- Ron Paul wants to end birth-right citizenship for the children of illegal immigrants. -- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of welfare programs that among other things, would redistribute the income of White families into the hands of lazy non-Whites. -- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of Globalism and all attempts to create a North American Union. -- Ron Paul is the strongest opponent of military support and foreign aid to countries like Israel. -- Ron Paul is the least likely to support government crackdowns on Pro-White organizations, and the most likely to veto such measures.

That's why, as a "libertarian", has the support of so many people decent folks wouldn't be caught dead with. Because he is, in the wink-wink nod-nod rhetoric of the far-far right, that kind of libertarian. The isolationist, tribal, to hell with the rest of you kind of libertarian. The kind that is diametrically opposed to equality, to progress, to social responsibility, to national responsibility, and to the very notion of the shared common good.

And this is the figure that can garner support from many otherwise supposedly moderate libertarians? For what reason? Is Ron Paul simply the Sanjaya of the Republican campaign season, or are people so invested in a single Republican politician that recognizes the Iraq War as boondoggle that they are resigned to tolerate the advocacy of anything -- the proposed destruction of social progress in all other areas -- in order to reward the politician for that single stance?

Paul is a colorful figure, fine. But it is high time for the national discourse to overtake him. When batshit crazy people have passed up an entire basket of admirably batshit crazy politicians in order to lend their batshit crazy support to him, I think what you can take from that is that Ron Paul is the chosen King of the Batshit Crazy. Objecting to the Iraq War does not him worthy of celebration, it merely makes him consistent.

By discussing him as anything more than a vaguely malevolent crank, respectful Democrats and moderates accomplish nothing but moving the Republican-side Overton window so that even Tancredo, Hunter and the rest of anti-immigrant, anti-government, anti-social denizens of the Republican far right almost seem saner by the comparison. And that favor isn't something any Democrat, progressive, moderate or even bona fide true social libertarian should invest themselves in.