Libertarian Omerta Maybe the most common beef I'm hearing from sane-seeming people is that we shouldn't be talking about this stuff. It reflects badly on libertarianism, and Paul is still great all things considered especially compared with the wretched alternatives.
All other considerations aside, this is just premised on a repulsive conception of how libertarian journalists ought to operate—essentially as though "libertarian" nullifies "journalist" any time we're faced with a choice between reporting facts and cheerleading for our tribe. It's an argument with terrible pedigree, and reminds me more than a bit of an old essay in which Noam Chomsky argues scholars shouldn't write about the Killing Fields in Cambodia, because fighting capitalism was more important than, you know, facts.
But this goes beyond the "libertarian" vs. "journalist" thing. Non-journalist libertarians should be discussing it too, and cheerleading for our tribe while we're at it. Too many people subscribe to the view(s) that conservatives are bigots and that libertarians are just conservatives that want to smoke pot and/or fuck liberal chicks. That the most prominent libertarian candidate in the country today can be tied to bigotry only reinforces that view.
The only possible good that could have come from Ron Paul's candidacy is that it might raise awareness of libertarianism -- he may influence people to embrace a more libertarian view. That those views will now be associated with bigotry in the minds of some people makes it important that libertarians are out in front pushing this story and making sure that people hear that there are liberal conceptions of libertarianism out there.