Another reader asks:
If all the GOP candidates are bigots, why pick one? I don’t think anyone is “picking Ron Paul as the core bigot” and arguing that we are, is lazy debating. The question is would I support someone who published those newsletters under his name? And the answer is no. I wouldn’t. And I won’t. Because I don’t have to.
I explained my philosophy on endorsements in my endorsement:
I try to make a decision – because it’s easy to pontificate, debate, counter and riff off the various eddies in the campaign, but in the end, it comes to a choice for all voters in the booth. Why should a blogger avoid that responsibility?
I could have spared myself a lot of trouble by not endorsing anyone. But I think that’s a cop-out. And notice what taking a stand does: it helps clarify matters by creating a fixed point around which debate can take place. And I hope we’ve been punctilious in airing every serious criticism and point as well as my own stance. But there’s another disconnect I see in the countless emails. An endorsement is not an eternal document of pure values; it’s a personal, prudential, and contingent assessment of various imperfect choices. I have to say that your pushback has been sobering and helpful and important. But it hasn’t changed my mind.
The Dish 