A spirited attack:

Ron Paul is not going to win. Ron Paul is the ultimate refutation of the notion that money is what determines races. Like fellow Texan Ross Perot, Paul appeals to people who are fed up with the political process, including a lot of libertarians. But many of his positions are deeply unpopular, and he can't triangulate because his precise appeal to his supporters is the image of standing rock-steady in the face of politics-as-usual. Nor has he, as far as I can tell, injected his own politics into the race by forcing other candidates to kowtow to him. Since he can't win, and isn't forcing other candidates to react, why not use the platform he has to push a single issue? Not the Iraq war, upon which no one seems open to much persuasion, but something where he might conceivably actually change America a little? Wasting it on actually trying to get elected seems extravagant.

More gripes here and here:

Ron Paul has some beliefs that I like, such as his opposition to eminent domain abuse. But he also has a number of beliefs that are, not to put too fine a point on it, utterly insane. The gold standard is one; the belief that NAFTA is a trojan horse for the North American Union is another. Much of his persona, sincere or not, seems to boil down to "Foreigners are scary, and people who like foreigners are plotting to take away all your stuff."

I'm wth Matt:

If you're as dyspeptic about both political parties as Megan claims to be it seems to me that a protest vote for Ron Paul on a Libertarian Party line would be the best thing to do.

My own endorsement of Paul is more about protesting what has happened to this country and to the GOP than about whom Paul would make defense secretary.  I have a feeling that I'm not the only one.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.