Some early reax to my Ron Paul piece.

From the northwest:

Mr Derbyshire—-You say [Dr. Ron] hasn't a chance to become the next POTUS because he is not compliant with the current megalopolis-sized political system the US has built for itself.  Well, frankly, Sir, you are a defeatist.  ...  If you like what the man says, then endorse him for God's sake! Don't just throw in the towel before the first round starts. There's going to be enough MSM doing that already, why join in?

Your article is basically just a smart guy's way of describing how a 20-year-old slacker feels about politics. He likes the underdog, but he *knows* he isn't going to win, so why vote?  This is a cop out. No, it's worse because you actually do more damage to the Ron Paul campaign than good. You are a distinguished writer. People listen to you. You wield influence, however it may occur, to an audience that bases their votes partially on what you report.

I have to respect another man's right to believe how he wants to believe, but I don't respect a man who believes one thing and writes contrary to it.

I love that stuff about "distinguished writer" and "wield influence."  I just wonder why, if it's true, I'm driving a 1993 car. And "20-year-old"!  Lor' bless you, Sir!  (Though he has nailed me with "slacker.")

However, the main premise here—that you should support the candidate you most agree with, regardless of your estimate of his chances of victory, and that to do otherwise is contemptible trimming—is surely wrong.

If candidate A has positions I agree with 97 percent, but, in my cool estimation of the U.S. electorate & current political environment, only a 0.1 percent chance of winning; while candidate B has positions I agree with 67 percent, but a 40 percent chance of winning; should I support A or B?

Seems to me I could honorably, with a clear conscience, take either choice.  Among the determinative factors:  (a) My own temperament, most especially my attraction to what Kingsley Amis called "the truth-at-any-price business," and (b) How much I hate and/or fear the opposition, so that I am more or less willing to put defeating them—even with an unsatisfactory candidate—ahead of all other
considerations.

And then this, from a very large state in the southwest:

Derb—-I remembered something you wrote June 5, the date of the CNN GOP debate:  'Rudy looked great. Romney a tad too well oiled—but good on health care. McCain not my friend. The occasional 4 o'clock in the morning temptations I had to support Ron Paul have evaporated. Tom Tancredo better than previously. Huckabee, Brownback I'm still having trouble telling apart. Hunter said some good things, but I can't remember what they were. Gilmore, Thompson, zzzzz.  Go Rudy.'  Have those 4 o'clock in the morning temptations condensed again? What happened during these last two months?

Well, I am *not* supporting Dr. Ron, as my article today makes clear.  So I guess nothing happened.  The temptations still have a little tug to them, though—I think I make that clear, too.  But Ron didn't shine in that particular debate, and I'm still a Rudy man.