A lot of Ron Paul supporters didn’t like my harping on the racist views polluting newsletters bearing his name. I wrote last week and still believe that the views expressed alone disqualify him for the presidency.

But others, particularly conservatives, have stepped forward to highlight other disqualifying positions taken by the Texas congressman. And no one presents the brief against Paul better than my colleague Michael Gerson.

No other recent candidate hailing from the party of Lincoln has accused Abraham Lincoln of causing a “senseless” war and ruling with an “iron fist.” Or regarded Ronald Reagan’s presidency a “dramatic failure.” Or proposed the legalization of prostitution and heroin use. Or called America the most “aggressive, extended and expansionist” empire in world history. Or promised to abolish the CIA, depart NATO and withdraw military protection from South Korea. Or blamed terrorism on American militarism, since “they’re terrorists because we’re occupiers.” Or accused the American government of a Sept. 11 “coverup” and called for an investigation headed by Dennis Kucinich. Or described the killing of Osama bin Laden as “absolutely not necessary.” Or affirmed that he would not have sent American troops to Europe to end the Holocaust. Or excused Iranian nuclear ambitions as “natural,” while dismissing evidence of those ambitions as “war propaganda.” Or published a newsletter stating that the 1993 World Trade Center attack might have been “a setup by the Israeli Mossad,” and defending former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke and criticizing the “evil of forced integration.”

Marc Thiessen goes into more detail on Paul’s problem with the killing of bin Laden. If Iowa Republicans are true to their contention that Paul would be an “unacceptable” nominee (41 percent), they won’t crown him caucus king tonight. And if they’re smart, they’ll ensure he’s not in the top three.