1. Ron Paul is inconsistent. Though he calls himself a man of principle and is apparently admired as such by his ardent fans, his principles seem somewhat elastic. He rails against the Bush administration for its supposed assault on civil liberties, yet when he was asked at one of the debates whether Scooter Libby deserved a pardon, he said no. "He doesn't deserve one because he was instrumental in leading the Congress and the people to support a war that we didn't need to be in." Notice that he didn't say it was because Libby was guilty of committing a crime. No, because Libby argued for a policy with which Paul disagreed, he deserved to serve time in prison. Ron Paul, the libertarian, who presumably values liberty above all, is willing to deprive someone else of his because of a policy disagreement?
Essentially Paul thinks Libby belongs in jail because he supported the Iraq war. The Constitution had no more to do with it than guilt.
Isn’t it interesting that libertoonianism in the form of paleowhateverism has degenerated to the point where its (and Al Qaeda’s) leading spokesthing (Dr. Demento) would have Scooter Libby jailed for disagreeing with the Paulistinian delusions on Islamofascism (as Paulie’s beloved peace partners and trade partners) and the Middle East and supporting a war that Demento opposes?