I’ll be doing that here. Check in early and often, and look for the headlines that begin with “SPIN ROOM,” because those are mine.

Off the beaten path, and onto the realm where a small percentage of the electorate chooses to put their hopes, there’s relatively big news.

Ron Paul, darling of the libertarian wing of Republicans and gadfly of the GOP’s primary debates, spoke recently to endorse, well, anybody but McBama. “Vote out the bums” was essentially the refrain, as uber-conservative Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin, perennial do-gooder Ralph Nader and Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney stood by.

Would the millions who rallied to Paul, who made him the most prolific fundraiser of the GOP primaries, vote for any of these people? To be sure, none of them are libertarian in the sense that Paul is… Baldwin supports and end to most taxation, but he also seems to endorse a kind of theocracy. Nader is Nader, of course, while McKinney would surely push for far stricter environmental regulations than either Obama or McCain.

I was enamored with Ron Paul, really. I think his philosophies, generally, are valid and his arguments during the GOP debates much more reasoned and genuine than any of his opponents. (In case you missed it, quick hits are here and here.) But something told me, deep down, that this guy wasn’t serious.

Well, it’s affirmed: Paul has now endorsed Baldwin — a former pastor and talk-show host with his only degrees from Liberty University and absolutely no governing experience — over big “L” Libertarian candidate Bob Barr, an ex-GOP Congressman who helped launch the Clinton impeachment proceedings and the vast war on drugs, both of which he seems to have turned from in recent days.

The reason? It looks like it’s because Barr skipped the Thirds’ party.

What does this mean for you and me? Probably little… I find more to agree with, on principle, with the Libertarian Party than with any other, but their candidates always leave something to be desired. Barr, who you may have seen if you watch “The Colbert Report” regularly, is not an exciting candidate and obviously has no chance at getting elected. (Note, however, that he may prove a Nader-type spoiler for McCain’s efforts in a number of “leave us alone” type Western states who bristle at McCain’s embrace of government as solution.) To me, it’s more a reflection of Paul himself.

I know many people who to this day think that Paul was the best choice; the recent financial turmoil helps the argument, I think, since he’s a “no debt” guy and that’s quite obviously one of the major issues at play here. But his endorsement of Baldwin affirms my earlier suspicion: When it comes down to it, he is simply not a serious person. But don’t take my word for it: Watch Baldwin in this clip… don’t feel compelled to watch the whole thing, though it’s worth it; the first 15 seconds will do.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtCW2yN3eT4[/youtube]

That Paul would want a conspiracy-theorist pastor and talk-show host (James Dobson in 2012?) to be elected leader of the United States is a joke and a bad one, and I hope his stalwart supporters can look objectively at what it means: Ron Paul, despite his outsider appeal and compelling alternative political vision, is not fit to be president of the United States. Not if this is the best he can do for his backers after a multimillion-dollar campaign that raised the level of debate in this country.

Ron Paul may be the vessel in which a more classical conservatism — now on the verge of utter death — was carried to millions. But it’s up to those same voters to find a new champion, because Dr. No has just unmasked himself as a fraud.