Ron Paul's suit fails to contain his crazy

In a twitchy, irritated interview yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on the Situation Room, Ron Paul's suit had a difficult time containing his crazy.

Responding to racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel newsletters, published in his name, Paul admitted that he was not human. "Libertarians are incapable of being a racist because racism is a collectivist idea," proclaimed Paul in a stuttering, hyper-active style that has become all his own.

I am not writing to implicate Paul as a racist, I don’t know him, he may be a racist and he may not. What caught my eye is the response to the accusations, one that can only be classified as Paul-esque.

Paul goes on to explain that racism is a collective idea and as a Libertarian he sees everyone as an important individual, thus he is above any racist thoughts. This seems to imply that Libertarians, including himself, are not human. Are those who he refers to as Libertarians immune to the feelings the rest of us sometimes have? Now, I am sure that many Libertarians (like non-Libertarians) are pure of racist thought, but for Paul to make a blanket statement proclaiming their incompatibility with any racist notion is, well, crazy.

If the Texan were to get the nomination, Stephen Colbert would seem to be a perfect fit for VP. Colbert is fond of saying that he does not see color, he knows he is white, but only because people tell him. That sentiment would seem to meld nicely with Paul's belief that, "I am the most anti-racist because I don't see people in collective groups." A Paul/Colbert ticket could have the makings of one of the most open minded in our nation’s history (Read, sarcasm).

But in Paul's defense, he does cite Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks as two of his heroes, as if dropping the name of two civil rights icons sufficiently answers question regarding passages that describe car jacking as, "the hip-hop thing to do on the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

While the content of Paul' statements are crazy in their own right, the way he articulated them was, lets just say, less than presidential. Paul has carved out a niche as the candidate who does not have to appear stoic, poised or presidential. His grassroots supporters respond well to his non-presidential approach that Paul has adopted in interviews and debates. But generally, this disjointed style has come across as maverick and populist, rather than crazy and crazy--as it did in the Blitzer interview.

Paul's campaign has been given lots of press because of his die hard supporters and his ability to organize fund raising days in which his supporters flood his campaign with contributions via the internet. In November, Paul received $4.3 million in one day and in December he surpassed that mark collecting $6 million. All told Paul raised $19 million in the fourth quarter, only Mitt Romney first quarter totals are better.

But despite being awash in funds, Paul has been unable to make his campaign legitimate. He finished fifth in all three early contests (Iowa, New Hampshire and Wyoming) and is polling sixth in Michigan and South Carolina, in both cases trailing the sleepy Fred Thompson.

Paul's over zealous, pro-constitution message has never truly caught on with anyone beside his die hard 'Paulies'. The surfacing of these racist newsletters and Paul's crazed rebuttal to them, seem to be the final nails in the Paul '08 coffin.

Take a gander.