The fight over Ron Paul

Andrew Sullivan's endorsement of Ron Paul, despite his anti-choice views, has created a bit of a backlash. Glenn Greenwald takes a bit of issue with this:

It's hard to see why a pro-choice politician who affirms the basic premises of America's imperialism and who has no real intention to roll back the massive abuses of the Constitution is any more acceptable in decent company than a pro-life politician who repudiates America's war-making and who does intend to do what is possible to restore America's basic constitutional framework. How do those issues get weighed exactly?

And Dana responds here that his broader record on individual rights is actually much worse than his reputation might have you believe.

This all strikes me as an odd debate, and one in which the participants are talking past each other. For a second, let's plop all voters into two categories: single- and multi-issue. If you're a single issue voter and your issue is ending the war right away, then, yes, Ron Paul will do, but so too will Chris Dodd and Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson. There's no clear choice.

On the other hand if you're a single issue voter and your issue is the upholding of ACLU/NARAL-style civil protections, then Ron Paul is definitely not your guy. You're gonna have to go with a Democrat. In other words, single-issue voters have no compelling reason to vote for Ron Paul, unless they're... I dunno... really really zealous about the gold standard or they really hate the Department of Education.

Things, of course, become more complicated if, like me, your vote is based upon a range of issues--and I think Glenn would argue that people should, in fact, weigh many issues when they decide who to vote for. But it's a particular species of just such a voter--the conservative who flirts with libertarian ideas but who also hates the war--that has settled upon Ron Paul. That's why Andrew likes him, but why most Republicans don't and why liberals--who may occasionally tip their hat at his willingness to speak out against his monolithic party--will not support him beyond that.

So, yes, let's get Paul's record right (Andrew?) but let's not work ourselves into a panic about the possibility that a coalition of uninformed civil libertarians will vote Paul into the White House. It just won't happen that way.