The limits to disclaiming, or, they might be suckers but they write the cheques

Via Delong

"Personally, I believe that the balance of probabilities is that Ron Paul genuinely does think that the homosexuals, the Jews, and the Blacks are coming to kill us all (or at least the rest of us), but that their stranglehold over the media is so great that he can no longer say so outright--even in private. That's the only interpretation that I can square with Paul's refusal to drop Rockwell and company over the side for betraying him. If he never read the newsletters and the solicitation letters, then they did betray him--and he owes the no loyalty. If he's a cynical con man, dropping Rockwell and company over the side is the obvious winning strategy: you should never give a sucker an even break. Stonewalling is something that only a believer in what is said in the newsletters and the solicitation letters would do."

I can think of another reason to stonewall other than being unwilling to disclaim sincerely held beliefs: a cynical recognition that a big chunk of your appeal--to the donors and motivated activists who are the middle orbit of a candidate's constituency--comes from the fact that you are seen as representing these beliefs. They are willing to tolerate a certain amount of disclaiming, recognizing that the paths of victory require obfuscation before a broader audience. But go to far in this, and they begin to believe they have been conned, let down by another huckster, who, when it truly matters, is willing to pander rather than speak truth.

A better way to put this is I don't think dropping Rockwell is an obvious winning strategy, at least not for this candidate, at this time.

A true cynic would dump these suckers overboard. But a self-aware cynic would realize that (1) he needs the suckers to carry him through at least Iowa and New Hampshire, and (2) he's not going to win the nomination, so he'd better not trade away all his credibility with this constituency. After all, they're the ones who have bought the books and written the cheques, and however thin a gravy that might be relative to the nomination, it is certainly better than the broth of being a representative from a non-competitive district without a national constituency, however small, delusional, or duped.