Collateral damage

A couple of follow-on thoughts from last night’s piece about Ron Paul:
I’d say the timing of the TNR article was about as gentle and unobtrusive as it could possibly have been, in spite of some moaning and whining (some of which sounds suspiciously like conspiracy theory). Nor have I yet seen the MSM with this huge story… but when it catches up (and I’m guessing they’re actually doing their homework before carrying it to “the masses”), the blowback will be enormous.
I suppose it’s possible that the national media will ignore the story, but it hardly seems likely (the ruckus was deafening in the blogosphere) — which to me means that folks who want to retain their respectability need to be cutting their ties to Ron Paul now. Immediately. Loudly. Clearly.
Or they will be forever dragging a weight behind them.
It’s one thing to have rumors floating around an insignificant congressman. Nobody really cared very much, including those of us who live in his district. But it’s another thing entirely to stand behind that same rumor-haunted individual in a national campaign, and a lot of reputations are now damaged by association.
The questions now being asked by (former) Ron Paul supporters should have been answered long before this point, and the failure to fully vet rests at least partially on people who should have known better.
There is much about libertarian thought to admire. The underpinning principles give rise to interesting, and often excellent, debates and valid inspection of American policy. The idiotic War on Drugs, for instance, or questions about our invasive foreign policies. I hope the baby isn’t tossed out with the bathwater, but it’s difficult to see how it can be avoided.