Good for him! Sullivan concentrates on the bigotry in the letters rather than their broader paranoid vision and their con-man approach to fleecing the marks, but he concedes that Paul’s failure to deal with the fact of the letters alone is disqualifying.

Sullivan endorses the relatively sane conservative in the race, Jon Huntsman. I can’t think of a contested issue where I agree with Huntsman, but he’s recognizably a conservative rather than candidate of the Raving Monster Loony Party. That doesn’t make Huntsman a “moderate”; his positions are in some ways more extreme than those of his rivals. But he’s not a post-modernist who feels free just making sh*t up, nor someone whose politics are defined by the people he hates rather than the ideas he holds. That’s not saying much, but it’s more than you can accurately say for his rivals.

[Cross-posted at The Reality-Based Community]

Mark Kleiman

Mark Kleiman is a professor of public policy at the New York University Marron Institute.