For my background, I was actually pro-Rand (or, rather, not rabidly anti-Rand) before, but when he came up with that proposed *Federal Law* all I could do was say WTF? to myself, and refrain from posting any comments...
Just one question, "Why now???" -- I can see that he was trying to do what some of us has been accusing him of doing for quite some time, namely, playing political games. But that was a game playing which would jeopardize the core of the reasons why *we* (do not mean to make it collective, read it as "some of us", please!) would have supported Rand.
You see, when I got to talk to a somewhat sane, but not yet educated person on the Left, and they would bring up abortion stance against Ron (in the last two cycles) it actually gave me a good feeling to point it that as much as Ron *personally* is against abortion, he would never try to take the right to decide the interpretation of right & wrong away from the states and, ultimately, the person!
His son did just that... :(
Yes, I can be convinced that life begins at conception, by a theological argument, and that it is wrong to take it away; and you would not even have to convince this Taoist Agnostic that abortion is bad, and more people around would mean more interesting world for everyone, and more chances that the next Einstein or Paul emerge :) -- but still... Why? And why now?
Did he backtrack because of "the libertarians"? Should I, as a libertarian (anarchist in my worldview, and Ron Paul republican in my political views) still respect him?
Sorry, Rand... I want to be behind you, but you have to tell me what you are really up to, just like your Dad did, and make me decide, OK?