So Long, Dr. Paul. You were our only hope.

Many of our readers may already be aware of the fact that Ron Paul has basically given up from his campaign, in order to spend more time with his family district. You may be wondering why we didn't cover this sooner, but that's only because we're still trying to take it in. Honestly, there was a lot of material on Ron Paul that we never got around to publishing, which just isn't as fun anymore. Once again, I wish that we had done this blog a little sooner, when the internet could have used it most.

In his letter, Ron Paul writes that:

"Millions of Americans — and friends in many other countries — have dedicated themselves to the principles of liberty: to free enterprise, limited government, sound money, no income tax, and peace. We will not falter so long as there is one restriction on our persons, our property, our civil liberties. How much I owe you."

A great philosopher once asked, "If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them down? We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason." Ron Paul's letter shows his typical rejection of positive liberty in favor of negative liberty. It also shows his tendency to cry wolf, and exaggerate, which is why no one listens to them.

Ron Paul also states that:

I also have another priority ... If I were to lose the primary for my congressional seat, all our opponents would react with glee, and pretend it was a rejection of our ideas."

He's right of course, I would probably would have a good laugh about it. The real question is why Ron Paul is even worried. We live in a country where the incumbent has a 90% re-election rate. Hell, we live in a country where Mark Foley came within 2% of being re-elected, and that was after he already dropped out of the race for seducing under-aged male interns. Is Ron Paul conceding that his recent presidential campaign might have made him less popular in his own district, rather than more popular? Because that would still give me something to laugh about. Should readers of this site encourage Republicans in Ron Paul's district to vote for Chris Peden instead? No idea. Peden seems to be pretty crazy in his own right, and he may or may not be competent enough to actually get things done. On the other hand, he might help make the district more vulnerable for a Democratic seat, but that seems unlikely.

Despite the fact that the campaign has already raised more money than they know what to do with, they're still soliciting for more:

"Ron Paul is not going to surrender, and John McCain will not take the Republican nomination without the fight of his life. Your donations and work as Precinct Leaders are needed now more than ever."

Ron Paul still has six million dollars of leftover cash from his previous fund raising efforts. What exactly has he been waiting for? Although it would be illegal for Ron Paul to transfer that money to his congressional run until he officially cancels his campaign, that wouldn't exactly stop him from being able to run general "Ron Paul is great" congressional presidential ads in his home district, with a a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink, say no more, say no more."

Ron Paul insists that he has no intention of running as a third party candidate, which just goes to show that he's no better than the politicians who he criticizes. Ron Paul talks a lot about revolution and the message, but he's still a republican at the core, and won't do anything to harm the party. That, or he doesn't want a repeat of his 1988 campaign, when the other libertarian candidates gave him a lot of flack for his votes against MLK Day. But I guess it's harder to fall back on the "MLK was an adulterous, gay pedophile" excuse after you already attempted to turn the holiday into your personal piggy bank.