For reasons beyond my understanding, I regularly find your publication in my spam folder. While I do not recall subscribing, it is usually not a bother as I do not even open it, let alone read it, however this time a headline caught my attention. It read: “Ron Paul to Support Barack Obama”. Naturally, I was inclined to read on.
Not surprisingly, your article made no mention of Dr. Paul supporting President Obama, rather it was another criticism of the Congressman’s position of not supporting a candidate who does not fully stand with the Constitution. Why this position is riling up so many “(R)”s is beyond me. For nearly three decades Ron Paul has been consistent when it comes to taxes, spending, monetary policy and the Constitution. That he would not endorse a candidate of the same values should come as no surprise to you. He is after all, a man of integrity. In fact, the last major Presidential candidate he has endorsed was Ronald Reagan.
You claim that by not endorsing whichever candidate ekes out a victory in the GOP primary, that Ron Paul would be supporting Barack Obama by default. What does it mean to support Barack Obama anyway? The President has supported bailouts, increased spending, healthcare mandates, expanding the wars, extending the “PATRIOT” Act, the TSA, increased environment regulation and an overall disregard for the Constitution and the vision of our founders. Interestingly enough, if you review the resume of any other candidate running (except Gary Johnson), you would find that they do not offer much of an alternative, except of course for the letter at the end of their name. Each candidate for the GOP nomination has supported some combination of these policies.
Even still, many on the right believe that the devil from our party is better than the devil from the other. Supporters of Dr. Paul beg differ. In these times, when the policies of both democrat and republican politicians have left us teetering on the brink of collapse, we cannot afford to tinker around the edges.
It is insulting to those of us who throw our support behind Congressman Paul’s message to be told that if we were to be “released”, as you put it in your article, that we could support another GOP candidate. What you fail to understand is that with or without Ron Paul’s endorsement, many of us would not support one of the other candidates anyway. It is not the man who we support; it is the Constitution and the ideas of individual liberty and property rights. It just so happens that Ron Paul has a record of supporting those ideas as well, while others have compromised on them. If he were to suddenly jump ship on that message, we would jump ship on him.
It is you and others like you in the Republican Party who are supporting Barack Obama. You do so by endorsing his policies when hidden behind an elephant rather than a jackass. It is you who will act as a “spoiler” in this election because you will support a candidate who only narrowly supports the Constitution. When that document becomes a memory, when the power of the president is near absolute, when we are bankrupt and our dollar is worthless, when our military is stretched so thin that we can barely defend the homeland, it will NOT be those who have supported Ron Paul who will be to blame; it will be those, like you, who voted to give the American people a “choice” of taking the scenic route rather than the expressway on the road to serfdom.
Best regards,
Thomas Nash
Paulitiblog 
Leave a comment