I was going to write something about this post over at Jewcy's new politics blog (splendidly named The Cabal) but when I saw that the author describes himself as a "libertarian socialist*" it seemed rather pointless to continue. How much headway can you make with someone as confused as that?
Suffice it to say that "Ron Paul's Jewish problem" amounts to some of his supporters having highly unpleasant views and his campaign's suspicion that there's no real need to return money given by racist supporters. In a saner world that would be quite sensible: it's their loss of cash after all and accepting money from someone is no sort of endorsement of their views on any given issue. Indeed, given his track record in Congress I suspect there are few members less likely to have their opinions or votes influenced by campaign contributions.
But this is of a piece with the emerging anti-Paul theme. "I'm not saying that Ron Paul's a racist/anarchist/threat to America but, you know, some of his supporters are and therefore, by jiminy, it looks like Ron Paul actually is a racist/anarchist/threat to America. Can't lie with dogs and not wake up with fleas/no smoke without fire don't you know?
For another example of this nonsense, see this unflattering piece from Dean Barnett at the Weekly Standard in which we learn that Ron Paul is that rara avis - an anarchist who "has no taste for anarchy." It follows then that Paul's anarchism is so dangerous even though he's not an anarchist that he must be opposed because some of his supporters own a couple of black flags that, next thing you know, will be flying from the Capitol Dome. Or something. But then, Mr Barnett seems to think Guy Fawkes was an anarchist, so how can you - and what's the point of trying to - reason with that sort of ignorance?
*A friend suggests: "Presumably he believes in a limited government; the state has no valid function except to confiscate your property and give it to other people, and only that."