The New Yorker's long-on-innuendo, short-on-facts piece on Matt Drudge includes this tidbit:
Drudge calls himself an anti-government libertarian. Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul’s positions are "true to my heart … But I look at him and say, ‘The guy can’t lead.’ ”"
Well, ok, by conventional measures Ron Paul does not seem "presidential." But by the same sort of conventional measures, Matt Drudge doesn't seem like a journalist. Yet Drudge has consistently beaten the establishment media at its own game, albeit by playing with new rules. Ron Paul is doing something similar in his fight with the political establishment. So if Drudge does hold positions like Paul's true to his heart -- and I believe he does -- why shouldn't he support the candidate who leads in a new and better way, Ron Paul?
