You're welcome: On not endorsing Ron Paul
Ron Paul finished second in the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday, and in his speech he thanked this newspaper for not endorsing him. Endorse a candidate who said 'the CIA controls everything,' blamed American policy for the 9/11 attacks, asserted that the U.S. Civil War was 'fought primarily over tariffs,' and said it's fine if terrorist-arming Iran gets a nuclear weapon? No need to thank us for that, Dr. Paul. Not endorsing political quacks is our business.
On television the next day, Paul claimed that he got so many votes because he is the real conservative in the race. Like so much of what Paul says, that is, dare we say it, pious baloney.
Exit polls done on primary day show that Paul won 46 percent of voters between the ages of 18 and 24. He won 25 percent of people who said they think of themselves primarily as Democrats (Huntsman got 40 percent) and the biggest percentage among independents (31 percent). Paul got 26 percent of the people who described themselves as 'moderate' or 'liberal,' while Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum got 3 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Paul got by far the largest percentage of people (38) who said they'd never voted in a Republican presidential primary before.
Paul's base of support reminds us of President Obama's. Both have many young, inexperienced, idealistic supporters who fail to see through the vague, simplistic platitudes. The candidates are similar, too. They portray themselves as paragons of virtue and purity, when in reality both are recklessly naive.
Newt Gingrich was on to something when he indicated that he would have trouble voting for Paul over President Obama. Both Obama and Paul are incompetent, but unlike Paul, Obama has the sense to kill terrorists when necessary and is only the subject, not a swallower, of kooky conspiracy theories.