Weigel on Ron Paul endorsing Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin for president:

I would eagerly read an essay on this topic: "The best thing Ron Paul could have done for his 1.2 million voters was wait until September to make an endorsement, endorse four third party candidates, then change his mind and endorse Chuck Baldwin."

John Schwenkler, a Barr supporter assesses the damage:

Chuck Baldwin, as Dave Weigel has been doing yeoman’s work in making clear, may be right on a number of important issues but is nevertheless a weirdly theocratic candidate with very little apparent sense of the distinctions between divine and positive law.

Bob Barr, meanwhile, for all his defects as a politician and a campaigner, is still the closest thing there is in this race to someone who represents the sort of trans-partisan coalition that is so dreadfully needed in the wake of the last seven years: a federalist and civil libertarian who is in favor of fiscal responsibility and sharply limited government at home and strongly opposed to irresponsible intervention abroad. Chuck Baldwin may well be all of that, too, but the thick layer of “Christian nation” icing that he and his party tend like to spread across the top is a bit too much, even for a committedly non-secularist Christian like me.

Poulos has more reax. It's deeply depressing and dumb. Ron Paul's message turned out to be far superior to Ron Paul's candidacy.

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