Paul's Apology

Say it ain't so, Dr. No.

Ron Paul is not just a rare politician. The Texas Republican's combination of principle and plainspokenness, which has helped his presidential campaign break fund-raising records while attracting a strikingly diverse and enthusiastic crowd of supporters, makes him unique in recent U.S. history.

Since 1997, as during his terms in the 1970s and '80s, Paul has been the only member of Congress who has consistently taken seriously his oath to "support and defend the Constitution," earning the sobriquet Dr. No by voting against unconstitutional bills his colleagues were eager to support. More than any politician I can recall, Paul seems to say what he believes and believe what he says. That's why it's so disappointing to see his defensive, evasive responses to questions about racially inflammatory articles in newsletters that were published under his name in the '80s and '90s.

Not everything you may have heard about the newsletters is true. Contrary to what James Kirchick claims in The New Republic, the newsletters did not offer "kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke." And although various media outlets have described parts of the newsletters as "anti-Semitic," there's little evidence to back up that description in the passages Kirchick cites.

But the truth is bad enough. In addition to anti-gay comments that pine for the days of the closet, the newsletters include gratuitous swipes at Martin Luther King, discussions of crime that emphasize the perpetrators' skin color, and dark warnings of coming "race riots." None of it is explicitly racist, and some of it could be written off as deliberately provocative political commentary. Taken together, however, these passages clearly cater to the prejudices of angry white guys who hate gay people and fear blacks.

When Paul's opponent in his 1996 congressional campaign pointed to some of this ugly stuff, Paul accused him of taking the quotes "out of context." It was not until a 2001 interview with the Texas Monthly that Paul said his campaign advisers had discouraged him from telling the complete, "confusing" truth about the newsletters: that the most outrageous material had been written by someone else.

That is Paul's defense today, and I'm inclined to believe him. The race-baiting newsletter passages do not sound like anything else Paul has said or written in his public life. People who were familiar with the newsletters' production confirm that they were largely ghostwritten and that Paul often did not review them prior to publication.

Yet the fact remains that Paul earned money and built his fund-raising list with newsletters that seemed to be aimed at bigots. Given his association with "paleolibertarians" such as Lew Rockwell who sought to construct an anti-statist coalition partly by appealing to racial resentments, he owes his supporters more than accepting "moral responsibility" for inadequately overseeing the newsletters to which he lent his name.

In a CNN interview, Paul alternated between acknowledging the legitimacy of this issue and dismissing it as old news dredged up "for political reasons." I'm sure most of his supporters were not familiar with the content of his newsletters. I've been working at the country's leading libertarian magazine on and off since 1989, and it was news to me.

If I thought Ron Paul might be president in 2009, I'd have to admit that his newsletter negligence raises questions about his judgment and about the people he'd choose to advise him. But since the value of the Paul campaign lies in promoting the libertarian ideals of limited government, individual freedom, and tolerance, the real problem is that the newsletters contradict this message.

On CNN Paul emphasized that racist libertarian is an oxymoron, since libertarians judge people as individuals. He should follow through on that point by identifying the author(s) of the race-baiting material and repudiating not just the sentiments it represents but the poisonous, self-defeating strategy of building an anti-collectivist movement on group hatred.

© Copyright 2008 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Give it a rest already.

  • Ron Paul||

    Don't tell me how to do it! You tell him [Lew Rockwell] how to do it and he'll tell me.

  • robc||

    I clicked on this story expecting something new and interesting. Im stupid.

  • ||

    Jesus friggin Christ.

    This constant harping is getting old REAL FAST. Reason's writers are starting to resemble a nagging wife that no one wants to listen to because she sounds like a broken record.

  • ||

    Et tu, Jacob?

  • New Subscriber||

    Wow, another article about this. Reason, do you really think that these newsletters are going to somehow dissuade people from becoming libertarians? I heard about this magazine through Ron Paul and recently subscribed. I'm starting to wonder if I wasted my money...

  • ||

    ohmygod, you people are liars!!! i friggin' learned about the newsletters months ago from "hit and run" when there was a link to that stupid "suicide girls" site with a "ron paul sucks" blog that talked in detail about the newsletters. this isn't a new story. it's just a bigger story now.

  • ||

    so don't act like "this is news to me" cause it isn't.

  • VM||

    New Subscriber:

    now you have to threaten to cancel your subscription and start drinking.

    (see Drinking Game, H&R Rules)

    tj - you're right. RP sucks and isn't a libertarian.

  • Fluffy||

    I have generally found Reason's coverage of this issue to be pertinent and sound, and have participated in the discussion of each article in turn.

    But even I have to say that this entry seems a bit pro forma. It reads like Jacob carefully getting on record along with everyone else saying the appropriate things about denouncing the newsletters and urging Paul to turn a page on his paleolibertarian associations.

    We get it. Everyone at Reason is against racism. Fine. So stipulated.

    Can we give it a rest now?

  • ||

    I'm honestly starting to suspect you guys are on the pay-roll. Surely you guys understand the context in which the "offensive" writings were produced, yet you've clearly hopped on the defamation wagon.
    What is in it for you? What exactly needs to be "dealt with", that hasn't already, for the past 3 weeks, on this very blog?

  • Brandybuck||

    Cosmotarian: Irrational ideology that postulates the existance of a perfect libertarian avatar; imperfect libertarians must be sacrificed to make way for this perfect being; this will then usher in the Third Age of Cosmopolitan Man.

  • Golda||

    One of the newsletters calls Israel an "aggressive national socialist state." Calling Israel a Nazi state isn't anti-Semitic?

  • jon||

    Shouldn't your headline be "New" at "Reason" ?

  • picaro||

    Fuckin' cosmotarians make the baby jesus cry.

  • Fluffy||

    Calling Israel a Nazi state isn't anti-Semitic?

    Actually, no.

  • some dude||

    "None of it is explicitly racist..."

    That's new, isn't it?

  • Golda||

    Fluffy

    Aha, so if Israel is a Nazi state, Germany wasn't so bad. Those Jews think of themselves as the victims of Nazism, but actually they're Nazis themselves. Give me a break.

  • ||

    "Zoo animals" sounds racist to me.

    What pisses me off more than anything is the fact they played on class hatred. Thats what Socialists do, people. Rockwell and Co. merely do it form the opposite end of the Socialists.

    Inciting class hatred is barbaric and pretty low.

  • ||

    A rather pathetic attemt to revive an issue that has been more than fully dealt with, in the end rather succesfully with those that have a clear political agend (Kirchik, Dondero etc. - wonder why Dondero is not critisized for using another surname, wonder how much he has written).
    Dr. Paul's answer was very clearly, no confusion: he said he cannot relaly remember the name. SO how should he name the ghostwriter if he does not remember. It is also assumed that Lew Rockwell write it, how can one be sure about that, judged fromt he article (it could be that a person that left in unhappy circumstances wrote it and Lee Rockwell as the editor responsible and he did not read through all precisely).

    The worst Dr. Paul could be accused of is not having read through all the newsletters, as he was so busy with the practise as a medical doctor, caring for also lees priviledged minorities like Afro-Americans and Hispanisc, sometime for free! What is the most important, to read through readletters diligently and edit (a time consuming process), or to care for fellow human beings?

    If you really want to approach this whole issue from a moral high ground (of someone never making a mistake! ahuman?), then most of not all of the other prime candidates should immediately be disqualified fromt he presidential race (H. Clinton's anti-semitic remarks, McCain's racist remarks towards Asians AND Muslim women
    Giuliani's appointments and associations, Huchabee;s misuse of police power - dog incident etc. etc.).

    Any smart, rational person will see through this obvious smear campaign, that will end unsuccesfully.

  • Geotpf||

    Yes, the newsletter did have kind words for David Duke:

    http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf

    If you are going to support Paul, don't lie to do so. Jacob Sullum's statement in the linked article that "the newsletters did not offer 'kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.'" is completely false; the November 1990 issue above did exactly that.

    And I think the worst document was this fundraising letter, especially the third to last paragraph on page six:

    http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

    That paragraph in particular (amoung other things) says that there is a "federal-homosexual cover up of AIDS" that "my training as a physician helps me see through this one". So it is clearly written by Paul, or somebody pretending to be Paul with his permission (the letter has "Congressman Ron Paul" as the heading, Paul's signature, and the phone number to order the "Ron Paul Investment Letter" and the "Ron Paul Political Report" was 1-800-RON-PAUL, which apparently was also used at some point by his political campaign).

    Here's the complete list of documents with questionable texts:

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

  • Rhywun||

    Wow. Only one person is allowed to post an article on any given topic?

    do you really think that these newsletters are going to somehow dissuade people from becoming libertarians?

    I wouldn't doubt it. I've been hanging around here for about five years and these kinds of thoughts (from the newsletters) are often lurking beneath the surface among the fringes of the "movement". It doesn't hurt to loudly and frequently disassociate the movement from such collectivist rantings--especially for the benefit of any newbies that might be lurking.

    PS. I'm not in the movement, merely sympathetic to many of its ideas.

  • ||

    "Cosmotarians" are not worth anything they presume to say, as they support implied racism (e.g. prescribing to Middle Eastern and other countries how to live their lives and defend etc.) as well as moral buncraptcy in defending pre-emphtive war, with the death, destruction and dishonesty that goes with it. Very ironic is that it actually leads to isolatedness as well.

  • PAULTARDS OF THE WORLD UNITE||

    "A rather pathetic attemt to revive an issue that has been more than fully dealt with"

    not in the greater world. Sure in Paultopia it is old news, etc. But most people don't know who RP is, and if this is their introduction, it's not helping.

    duh. a smart person could see that, too.
    (and the term "Paultard" is stoopid)

  • ||

    Just remember, a fancy talkin' black man couldn't erect the modern welfare state. It took a white Texan to get it done.

  • ||

    Golda,

    As far as I can tell, antisemitism is not a required plank in a (generic) national socialist platform. You could, for example, have a national socialist movement or government that chose Koreans as an "enemy group," or blondes, or vegans, or even -- believe it or not -- Palestinians.

  • robc||

    Wow. Only one person is allowed to post an article on any given topic?

    If would be nice if after the first the others actually added something new.

  • robc||

    and the term "Paultard" is stoopid

    Of course it is. It was invented (afaik) at wonkette. That tells you just how stupid it is.

  • Bingo||

    Stefan:

    I think you are confused.

  • ||

    For God's sake. Rather than covering the fact that Ron Paul finished in fourth place in Michigan, trouncing Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson *again* in the face of a media blackout, you continue to publish this garbage. So now Ron Paul has to do battle not with only the liberals and the neocons, but also with the beltway Libertarians.

    We will remember your actions in this campaign, and we will never support Reason or CATO again if you continue down this path. You realize, of course, that President of the Austin NAACP understands why the establishment is smearing Ron Paul with these newsletter. This NAACP executive does not consider him a racist.
    http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844

  • Golda||

    Jack Boone

    One way to defang nazism is to make any discriminatory practice Nazi. Israeli oppression of the Palestians--terrible, indeed--doeasn't quite equal the Nazi policy of exterminating the Jews.

  • ||

    Its not that hes a racist. Its the fact that he associates with and is manipulated by people with racist views.

  • Jacob||

    Dear Reason,

    We get it. You have sufficiently distanced yourself from the good doctor to avoid any fallout. I believe all your columnists, secretaries, and janitors have now done so. Twice. Now, if you wouldn't mind, some of us are trying to spread small-government ideals in the real world.

  • ||

    For the record, in spite of all that has been written here on this subject, I think this was a good article, Jacob, and right on the money.

    No, I don't think RP is a racist, and I believe him when he says he has never believed in the things these newsletters talk about. If you want libertarianism to remain a fringe enterprise, then that is enough.

    Personally, I want libertarian ideas to spread, so that maybe someday we can stop complaining about the state of things on this website and accomplish some of our goals. That involves convincing more people of the correctness of our ideas. There are plenty of people out there who are frustrated by our government's behavior who could potentially be convinced. If you don't think a lot of those people would be turned off by what they hear about these newsletters, you're nuts.

    Stefan, to your point, I agree. The other candidates are worse. But people reading this site generally know that already. The most important decision facing the libertarian movement right now is How To Deal With This, in order to make sure it's not the one thing 95% of America remembers about libertarianism when this race is over.

    I could just kick Lew Rockwell's @$$ right now for trying to get into bed with these authoritarian jerks who were never interested in libertarianism anyway, except insofar as it gave them a philosophical excuse to build prisons and beat on minorities.

  • dodsworth||

    Rather than dwell more on the terrible newsletters, the Paul campaign needs to turn this negative into a positive. It should fire Jesse Benton and junk the current ad campaign. The new ads should emphasize the war, civil liberties, and the racism of the war on drugs.

  • ||

    Inciting class hatred is barbaric and pretty low.

    Yes. The cosmos' anti-paleo surge, which evidently none of them is allowed not to make a display of joining, is indeed barbaric and low, for that very reason.

    Being opposed to both factions, and having no obligation to appear non-racist to anyone, it's all so fucking tedious.

    We get it. For social and career reasons, you need Democrats to like you.

    Stop punching yourself.

  • ||

    Yes. The cosmos' anti-paleo surge, which evidently none of them is allowed not to make a display of joining, is indeed barbaric and low, for that very reason.



    Anyone who starts making cracks about "moonshine swillin' hicks" is just as bad in my book as people who talk about "welfare zoo animals".

  • ||

    Oh, and that goes for people who bitch about "inside the beltway cocktail-party goers".

  • Geotpf||

    1440 minutes | January 16, 2008, 1:48pm | #

    Well, Paul has "laid bare the coming race war in our big cities". Good to know.

    (The source is in the same paragraph of the advertising letter I quoted above. IT HAD HIS SIGNATURE ON IT, WAS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PERSON, AND MENTIONED HIS TRAINING AS A PHYSICIAN!!!)

    Paul either is a racist, or pandered to racists to make money selling retarded newsletters to them. I think it's the latter, but that alone is, in my mind, an automatic disqualification to becoming President of the United States.

  • ||

    Dodsworth,

    I totally agree.

  • Thomas Paine\'s Goiter||

    Matt Welch is a vile racist.

  • Jerry||

    What's up with these people saying that Paul is not a racist, yet showing a preoccupation with these newsletters of years bygone?

  • Fluffy||

    Golda -

    Israel is a nationalist state that includes in its constitution a statement that it will always be a Jewish state.

    It is also a socialistic state.

    That makes it a nationalist and socialist state. You personally may want to abbreviate that to "Nazi", but the Nazis weren't the only example of such a state.

    Geotpf -

    Your reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired. That doesn't sound like praise of David Duke to me. It sounds like recognition that he performed above expectations in his election campaign, and musing on the topic of how other outsider campaigns could learn from what he had done. If that is "praise" of David Duke, then every last media mention of Duke during that period constitutes "praise" of him.

  • ||

    Lysander Spooner is a good author to read if you're trying to understand libertarian ideas from the perspective of an earlier time.

  • ||

    Fluffy--

    You're definition of "Nazi" would include a whole list of states, then. China for starters. Perhaps Japan and Iceland, too.

  • Fluffy||

    By the way, Geotpf:

    "If you're going to take issue with Jacob's reporting, don't lie to do so." You fucking liar.

    What's that? You don't think the fact that you have a different opinion about that section of text than I do makes you a liar? Well tough shit, liar, if that's how you're going to treat Sullum that's how I'm going to treat you. Go fuck yourself.

  • ||

    Lysander Spooner is a good author to read if you're trying to understand libertarian ideas from the perspective of an earlier time.



    Ha, form what I understand he was pro-aboltion, but anti-war. I imagine that didn't win him many friends. He had balls to take that position, if anything.

  • ||

    Golda,

    Israeli oppression of the Palestians--terrible, indeed--doeasn't quite equal the Nazi policy of exterminating the Jews.



    I'm not at all trying to draw strict equivalence here. However, if a given government has a large number of positions in common with national socialism, then that government can be fairly described as "national socialist," even if missing the "kill all Jews" component that the German strain had.

    In fact, I'm not even making an argument about whether or not Israel even has a national socialist government. I'm only saying that Fluffy is right; you can call a government -- even Israel's -- a "national socialist" one without being antisemitic.

  • Fluffy||

    Why yes, Cesar, it would.

    That is why characterizing Israel in that way would not be anti-Semetic.

  • ||

    I don't believe Paul is a racist. I also don't believe that he is some type of "libertarian messiah" he is a republican with libertarian leanings. He would be in my opinion a much better choice for those who believe in freedom then any of the other candidates.

  • ||

    We're going to have to suspend the drinking game rules because, despite my experience as a semi-professional drinker in the military, I just can't keep up. As for all the Paulista's leaving Reason, I suggest a market-based solution. Those of us who enjoy H&R can donate to a STFU fund. The annoying Paulistas who want their subscription money back can be reimbursed from the fund in exchange for an agreement never to find someplace else to defend Ron Paul (*cough* Rockwell *cough*) and attack the staff of Reason for being a bunch of inside-the-beltway, ass kissing, bad smelling shills. Where do I send my check?

  • Jon||

    Jesus I'm a "cosmo" and even I am sick of this crap. Everything about the circular firing squad mentality around here has been hilariously pointed out. It goes to show when someone comes on stage to turn around the 70+ years of libertarian ideals getting f'd in the a by every politician imaginable, libertarians just don't give a shit anymore. Purity and outsiderness are just important to the movement to fucking win. Authoritarians like Rudy & Hillary are playing for keeps, what are you gonna do? Keep playing like the prophet in the desert? Do you enjoy losing every election?

    Oh I forgot Libertarianism for you assholes is your "look at me I'm old as fuck but still think I'm a rebel" leather jackets, a smarmy hipper-than-thou fuck politics attitude, Lawrence v. Texas, and publishing the n-th "drug raid gone bad" piece while libertarians continue to get reamed in actual policy circles. Good job.

    And the worst party is I like the magazine and its articles a lot...but I don't know this is just gross. Maybe I'll let the subscription expire.

  • Jesse Walker||

    Rather than covering the fact that Ron Paul finished in fourth place in Michigan, trouncing Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson *again* in the face of a media blackout, you continue to publish this garbage. So now Ron Paul has to do battle not with only the liberals and the neocons, but also with the beltway Libertarians.

    I can count at least three things wrong with this statement:

    1. Reason did cover Paul's fourth-place finish.

    2. Jacob lives in Dallas. That isn't anywhere near the Beltway.

    3. Ron Paul doesn't have to "do battle" with Jacob, since this was basically a pro-Paul article.

    As for why this is going up now: Jacob has a weekly syndicated column. It appears on Wednesdays. Today is Wednesday. Wednesday, ZOOOP.

  • Jesse Walker||

    So it is clearly written by Paul, or somebody pretending to be Paul with his permission

    I don't think any direct mail solicitation letter in the history of man has ever been written by the person signing it.

  • Geotpf||

    Fluffy | January 16, 2008, 2:02pm | #

    Here's part of the article:

    "Duke's platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing...To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense."

    Sounds like praise to me.

  • Thomas Paine\'s Goiter||


    And the worst party is I like the magazine and its articles a lot...but I don't know this is just gross. Maybe I'll let the subscription expire.


    Exactly, the quality of topics and discussion in the magazine over the last 4-6 months has been outstanding. But this shit is too much.
    ----------

    Matt Welch is a vile racist.

  • Episiarch||

    I don't think any direct mail solicitation letter in the history of man has ever been written by the person signing it.

    Careful, Jesse, sort-of-defending Paul like that could get you shitcanned from Reason. Or not. Probably not. Back to the bloodsport!

  • Other Matt||

    Taken together, however, these passages clearly cater to the prejudices of angry white guys who hate gay people and fear blacks.

    Well, thank goodness. I was worried it was angry white guys who hate black people and fear gays. Now that I understand it, that makes all the difference. Really.

  • ||

    It's striking to me that there are so many people who don't want to talk about these newsletters anymore yet hang out on comment threads about every posting on the topic.

  • Frank Dux||

    I win the bloodsport kumite.

  • Bingo||

    The comments in these threads are always worth a laugh

  • ||

    Reason is not the reason libertarians get reamed in policy circles. Believe or not, Reason is actually considered to be a thoughful and well written rag by some of the people who actually DO shape public policy. Of course, these are not the crazy-as-shit-house-rats people who thought Ron Paul was going to win the presidency and who are frothing about anti-Paul conspiracies. Libertarianism... the most finely-crafted, well built ship of fools in politics sailing smartly in circles.

  • ||

    By the way, has anybody actually defined "cosmotarian" in detail yet? Because if it means "person who holds generally libertarian views but would rather not be associated with racists and conspiracy theorists," I may start the Cosmotarian Party.

    But maybe there are some more negative connotations I haven't picked up on. Anyone?

  • Charlie||

    "Reason is actually considered to be a thoughful and well written rag by some of the people who actually DO shape public policy."

    Is being well thought of by those who shape public policy a good thing?

  • ||

    As opposed to being thought of as a raging bunch of fucktards?

  • ||

    I just spoke with my dad about Ron Paul and the newsletters. I told him that I knew about it, thought that Paul mishandled the situation then and today, but that, in the final analysis, I didn't think that Paul was himself a racist (or even necessarily toying with racists for cash or votes, though that dichotomy has been posited here and elsewhere).

    I've never thought that Paul was the perfect libertarian candidate, but he's a hell of a lot closer than anyone else running today. I still plan to vote for him. What this all says to me, given that most people don't believe that Paul is a racist, is that fear of being tarred with that label is so great that people will publicly turn on him regardless of what they personally believe about the man. I understand the position that Reason has taken, and I don't think they've repudiated Paul so much as begged him to handle the situation differently--but some of the other commentary on him is distressing. We're facing the real possibility that we're going to go further down the road to European-style socialism. That's in the near term, not fifty years from now, and sitting around and wringing our hands isn't going to stop that. If not Paul, then when need to start thinking who it should be. After all, there are others who are more "reasonable"--like Flake and Sanford, and undoubtedly others we've never heard of.

  • Shane Brady||

    I think in addition to the obvious problems with the newsletters, Ron Paul had sounded angry, not at the people who wrote the newsletters in his name, but at the people who made it a story. There is a distinct lack of contrition from the Paul campaign. It's also disappointing that they don't even care enough to find out who wrote the newsletters (if indeed Paul was not the author).

  • Geotpf||

    "Jesse Walker | January 16, 2008, 2:13pm | #

    So it is clearly written by Paul, or somebody pretending to be Paul with his permission

    I don't think any direct mail solicitation letter in the history of man has ever been written by the person signing it."

    Probably most aren't. However, affixing your signature means you approve of the message. Presidents have speech writers too, but the speeches are considered to have been said by them, even if they didn't come up with the words themselves. This advertising letter was the printed version of a speech that was writen by somebody else.

    Now, if it was a single issue of the newsletter, I could buy the whole "I didn't read it before it was published" bit, plus a newsletter could be inferred to be written by multiple people without specific bylines.

    But that letter is different. It is on letterhead stationary that says Congressman Ron Paul. It is specifically written like Paul is writing it (it mentions his training as a physcian in the first person). And it has his signature.

    So, either he is a complete and total idiot who allowed morons to write racist, conspiracy-filled, anti-gay nonsense in his name without reading it first (in which case he is automatically disqualified to become president on sheer competence grounds) or he directly wrote and/or approved of such nonsense (in which case he is automatically disqualified to become president on character grounds). It's a lose/lose for Paul.

  • RR||

    Thanks, Jacob. Well said. Lew Rockwell and his crew should own up to what they did and then crawl back into their sewer. I think that Paul is a decent man with really bad judgement in friends.

  • Charlie||

    "As opposed to being thought of as a raging bunch of fucktards?"

    No, as opposed to being seen as a genuine threat to the interests of those who shape public policy.

  • GILMORE||

    No more Ron Paul. Please. Please. No more. No more Ron Paul. Less Ron Paul. Something else. No more Ron Paul. It's done. Stop. It doesnt matter. No more Ron Paul. Help. Stop. Tired. Sick. Ron Paul 24/7 excuse channel. Stop it please. No more Ron Paul. Please. World is at war. Something important happens every day. Ron Paul is not that interesting or important. Please. Please. No more Ron Paul. I beg you. Please. No more Ron Paul.

    Please.

  • ||

    Paleolibertarian - One part bourbon, one part backwater, 13 drops of Tabasco served with a bowl of mixed nuts.

    Cosmotarian - One part pure grain alcohol, one part Evian, 13 drops of bitters served with a hash brownie.

  • Episiarch||

    By the way, has anybody actually defined "cosmotarian" in detail yet?

    I did, here.

  • ||

    "No, as opposed to being seen as a genuine threat to the interests of those who shape public policy."

    Oh, you mean terrorists.

  • Shane Brady||

    I have to agree with Geotpf. That solicitation letter from Congressman Ron Paul is very disturbing. The talk of "new money" that never happened, references to a race war that never happened, references to the homosexual lobby..pretty nutty stuff.

  • greenish||

    I am outraged, outraged, that Reason is running a pair of print articles on the newsletter thing.

  • Jesse Walker||

    It is on letterhead stationary that says Congressman Ron Paul. It is specifically written like Paul is writing it (it mentions his training as a physcian in the first person). And it has his signature.

    All that is typical of direct mail appeals. I agree that Paul was negligent at best when he allowed it to go out. But the chances that he wrote it himself are close to nil.

  • Ali||

    Lysander Spooner was a paleo? Darn!

  • ||

    Long time listener, first time caller. Who is this "Ron Paw"?

  • GILMORE||

    Who is this "Ron Paw"?

    From what I gather he's an Amway representative of some kind.

  • ||

    Episiarch,

    I was a Maxim libertarian until I got married. Now I'm a Mrs. Libertate libertarian. Almost the same thing, but with the same cover girl each month.

    Lamar,

    I think the anti-Paulites should call him Darth Paul and be done with it.

  • GILMORE||

    Brian24 | January 16, 2008, 2:20pm | #

    It's striking to me that there are so many people who don't want to talk about these newsletters anymore


    For the record, i dont care about the newsletters at all, particularly. Or rather, I think they put a nail in his coffin and it's not worth even weeping over it.

    I'm just sick of the Ron Paul thread-frenzy overall... I post out of desperate need to try and change the fucking subject, hopefully.

  • R C Dean||

    But maybe there are some more negative connotations I haven't picked up on. Anyone?

    People who are basically left-liberal with respect to desired outcomes, but prefer that the role of the state in achieving those outcomes be well-disguised.

  • Franklin Harris||

    Paleolibertarian - One part bourbon, one part backwater, 13 drops of Tabasco served with a bowl of mixed nuts.

    Cosmotarian - One part pure grain alcohol, one part Evian, 13 drops of bitters served with a hash brownie.



    OK, maybe I am a paleo, because by that definition there's no contest.

  • Charlie||

    "No, as opposed to being seen as a genuine threat to the interests of those who shape public policy."

    "Oh, you mean terrorists."

    No, I mean advancing beliefs that would render the whole notion of "public policy" non-existant.

    But thanks for the Guiliani-speak.

  • GILMORE||

    is there such as thing as a "contemptarian?"

    i.e. someone who drifts into libertarianism through sheer disgust with the Coke/Pepsi politics in America?

  • Episiarch||

    Cosmotarian - One part pure grain alcohol Grey Goose, one part Evian, 13 drops of bitters served with a hash brownie.

    Fixed it for you.

  • Geotpf||

    Jesse-I'm not saying Paul wrote it (although he might). I'm saying he APPROVED of it to be sent out in his name as if he wrote it, which is just as bad.

    Lots of politicians send out similar letters (well, usually they are asking for campaign contributions instead for people to subscribe to some newsletter, but they are similar in intent and format). If Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney or whoever sent out such a letter (with their signature on it) circa 1990 talking about IRS agents with AK-47s, "New Money" with "chemical alarms", "the coming race war" (despite "threats or no threats"), the "federal-homosexual cover-up of AIDS", and "Skull & Bones: the demonic fraterity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry" (don't taze me bro?), you bet we would have heard about it. A lot.

  • jimmydageek||

    i.e. someone who drifts into libertarianism through sheer disgust with the Coke/Pepsi politics in America?



    I think that might be a "colotarian" (colon + libertarian) = tired of all the shit - must get out of there

  • ||

    "No, I mean advancing beliefs that would render the whole notion of "public policy" non-existant."

    Ah, so you mean science fiction writers!

  • dead arab||

    he owes his supporters more than accepting "moral responsibility" for inadequately overseeing the newsletters to which he lent his name.

    How many of Dr. Paul's critics have taken even "moral responsibility" for associating with and giving a platform to the pro-genocide racists who have enabled the current slaughter in the Middle East?

    Surely many such folks are good people, but their fundraising strategy neccessitates pandering to such genocidal fanatics. That's where the grants are.

    If "taking moral responsibility" is an empty gesture, what more do they need to do after they do take moral responsibility?

    Do they deserve more forgiveness than they have offered Dr. Paul and friends?

  • Jerry||

    Cosmotarianism is apparently the religion that reveres the physical self and happiness. It was founded by body builder Bernarr Macfadden, who co-incidentally also invented the first penis enlarger pump (the Wimpus). You can't make this stuff up.

  • ||

    I agree with the others: this self-flagellation has got to stop. I think you all have a good record of to prove you aren't racist, and the only people that are going to take you to task for this stuff now are going to do it anyway for disingenuous political reasons.

  • Geotpf||

    Alternatively, Paul was so slidshod in his affairs he had no idea such a letter was sent out in his name-which is also very, very bad, but logically I think is unlikely.

  • Bingo||

    *cough*

    Bingo | January 10, 2008, 10:59pm | #
    cosmotarians are the coke-snorting limpwristers of the libertarian movement that are afraid of adversity and controversy. Spend most of their time attached to their macbooks typing up policy papers in their hip urban flat and riding their scooter to the local Whole Foods store. Would rather moan about the state of liberty in America than actively work to improve it.

  • ||

    Is being well thought of by those who shape public policy a good thing?

    If you desire to affect public policy.

    Sheesh.

  • ||

    GILMORE,

    I've always thought that the contemptarians were our most fertile recruiting ground. It's the basis of at least some of my libertarianism.

    What's really sickening is how universal the bibertarian message has become--we will be your nanny, damn it!

  • pete dues||

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/29460.html -- Reason's 1994 article on the AIDS cover-up.

  • Fluffy||

    "Duke's platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing...To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense."

    Sounds like praise to me.


    So pointing out that Duke obviously appealed to some voters [who voted for him, after all] constitutes "praise"?

    Again, if that's the case, then every media outlet that mentioned Duke's name and printed election results "praised" him.

    Hey wait, here's some more Duke "praise" for you to ruminate on, all courtesy of me:

    1. Rumor has it that Duke puts his pants on one leg at a time, instead of trying to jump into them from across the room! This strikes many people as good sense.

    2. David Duke puts gasoline into his automobile, and not molasses. This strikes many people as good sense.

    3. David Duke this morning reportedly failed to jam a stick of dynamite up his ass and light it. Observers said this seemed like good sense.

    Eek! "Praise" for David Duke!

  • dhex||

    fluffy, go read the whole section.

  • ||

    FUCKING CHRIST WE KNOW YOU WANT ROCKWELL'S HEAD ON A STICK!!!! FUCKING CHRIST SHUT UP ALREADY

  • Charlie||

    If you merely desire to "affect" public policy then you probably will be indulged by those who shape public policy.

    If you seek to draw the private sphere of life so wide, that those currently feeding at the trough of "public policy" instead see their interests as directly threatened - their jobs, government agencies and department budgets - then you won't be well thought of.

    But in associating this with terrorism, you do at least remind me of the recent comment made by a Montana judge, who likened tax-resisters to domestic terrorists.

  • ||

    I wouldn't throw my friends to the wolves. I wouldn't throw perfect strangers to the wolves. I would do as Paul did and condemn the message, take responsibility for fuckin' up, and move on. Paul did the right thing. It may not be the best thing for him politically, but it was the right thing. The right thing is never the best political move.

  • ||

    It's interesting that, save for one day of coverage on drudge and cnn, that the only place I find this rehashed information about the newsletters is here. WTF?
    Reason, I love you ... you've been a bright light shining in the dark world, bringing cogent news and opinions to this frequently deployed sailor for these past several years ... but now, I must question what is at work here. Is this all just piling on? Why the moral indignation at something that happened years ago?
    It is obvious that Paul is not a racist. These near daily tirades are beginning to resemble an inquisition of the sort that happens to outspoken, to-the-right-of-communist professors on college campuses.

  • ||

    The reason for making a fuss about this is when one like it or not, Ron Paul is now THE face of the libertarian movement.

    So if your candidate looks to be a) dreadfully slipshod at keeping taps on what his underlings are doing, b) surrounded by a hell of a lot of kooks spouting racial identity and other conspiracy theories, and c) someone who can't get his story straight as to whether he wrote those newsletters or not, and d) doesn't seem to think there's a problem with any of this, then the flag marked "TILT" in your brain starts flashing.

    I mean, you really want someone this disconnected from reality as POTUS? How do we know that someone like Rockwell wouldn't end up in the Cabinet (especially since Paul seems to jes' love his ol' friends, no matter how whacko they be). And if we got another "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" memo, would Paul even read it? We've seen the fallout from THAT lack of curiousity already.....

    Ron Paul's got a lot of interesting ideas (some batshit) and I honestly don't think he's racist. But he allows himself to be used by some pretty nasty individuals and he comes off as someone who is totally clueless of what it actually means to be President of the United States of America.

  • Jackanapestarian||

    Join me, brothers. Jackanapestarianism is the only true ism.

  • VM||

    "take [MORAL (mitigated)] responsibility for fuckin' up".

  • ||

    All of this hoopla about Paul is no more controversial in our time than Grover Cleveland's siring of an "illegitimate" child in the 1880's. The slogan back then was "Ma, Ma! Where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha-ha-ha!" I may have missed something, but Cleveland, despite his moral infraction, ended up governing with a restraint that can only be described as libertarian.

  • some dude||

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/29460.html -- Reason's 1994 article on the AIDS cover-up.

    Interesting. Has Reason done any follow-ups? If not they should.

  • Fluffy||

    Yeah, Dhex, I've read the section. Many times.

    It's a short piece that expresses hope that someone not tainted by Duke's racist past might seek office in the future, running on the non-racist platform Duke embraced that year.

  • ||

    I give Charlie about ten minutes before he manages to post, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    By the way, I don't think tax protestors are terrorists; I think they are idiots. Anyone who shows up in court with an armload of citations trying to convince the income tax is unconstitutional is nutjob. Tax protestors do not change public policy. They just annoy the judicial system and they provide a healthy living to people willing to peddle this nonsense.

    Given the shitty job libertarians have done over the past century, I'm surprised Americans have any liberties left at all.

  • Charlie||

    Jose Ortega y Gasset, I was talking about eroding the whole notion of there being "public policy". It was you who responded with a comment alluding to terrorism.

    Supposedly the education of my child is a "public policy" issue, whereas I think it is entirely a private matter. Similarly, those who advocate vouchers will be indulged by the public policy makers, whereas those advocating full privatization won't be well thought of, but rather regarded as a threat. Raising the word terrorism in such a respect, as you did, is entirely ridiculous.

    Being well thought of by those who shape public policy sets the alarm bells ringing for me.

  • GILMORE||

    Pro Libertate | January 16, 2008, 3:01pm | #
    GILMORE,

    I've always thought that the contemptarians were our most fertile recruiting ground


    Most likely true.

    Them, and science fiction fans. And weasel owners. And transvestites. And guys in Idaho who want to mount an M2 .50cal. on their truck.

    Oh, and racists. har!

  • Richard||

    "take [MORAL (mitigated)] responsibility for fuckin' up".

    But how? What is going to "make this better"? All a man in this position can do is take responsibility.

  • ||

    It was a joke... but I am not surprised by your lack of a sense of humor.

    Silly people, Charlie, threaten no one. The people who shape public policy are not threated by the lunatic fringe. They are not threated by people who cannot win elections. They are not threatened by ideas and/or people with no base of public support.

    The people at Reason are often respected by other serious people as thoughtful, well-informed and intelligent... even when those people think libertarian ideas are big steaming pile of crap. You may wear the scorn of serious intelligent people as a badge of honor. Others do not.

  • Oh My||

    Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "Keep the group size down," "Keep quiet and you're harder to find," "Leave no clues," "Avoid the phone as much as possible," and "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." "Angry White Men"

  • dhex||

    fluffy: you and i have a vastly different reading of that passage, then.

  • Charlie||

    Being respected by serious intelligent people was not what I objected to. It was your notion that Reason is thought well of by those who "shape public policy", and that this is something to aspire to. These terms - serious intelligent people and public policy makers - are not synonymous.

  • Tom Walls||

    Well if you were at reason in Amsterdam, you could have added absinthe to the cosmotarian mix. And whatever mushrooms the guy with the brass balls was handing out.


    --
    Paleolibertarian - One part bourbon, one part backwater, 13 drops of Tabasco served with a bowl of mixed nuts.

    Cosmotarian - One part pure grain alcohol, one part Evian, 13 drops of bitters served with a hash brownie.

  • ||

    1. This reminds me of a time when a Conservative Party activist asked to use my mother's name (a registered Democrat) in a politcal brochure about an upcoming Democratic primary. The brochure accused George Mc Govern, candidate Tom Manton, etc. of all being communists. My mother was happy that it was under her new married name and that she had moved to Florida. But those things can happen.

    2. Still, libertarians believe in personal RESPONSIBILITY. Dr. Paul allowed his name to be used over a long period of time and has not gotten to the bottom of it. Imagine if President Paul allowed Benito Guiliani to be in charge of the nuclear arsenal while he
    took a vacation! So it is certainly an acute embarrassment.

    3. Like Jacob S., I don't think the newsletter rants are explicitly racist as much as they are more like the musings of an Archie Bunker after several beers. Some stuff on the Rockwell site (like writings from Paul Craig Roberts) do bash Israel a lot - but not that much is over the top. I read it and agree with much of it.

    4. I also tend to be on the Rockwell side on the issue of the War in Iraq. I agree with his strong feelings about "Bombing Iraq is fine if I can smoke dope" variety of Libertarianism. But, this is, in fact, part of the problem. While libertarians are 5% - 25% of the population, the ideological variations within libertarianism is far, far greater than the differences among Democrats and Republicans who generally hue to their respective, poll-tested, "party lines". When one is out of power, the ideology and personal disputes over Utopian Paradise serves to create severe feuds (nothing like pork-barrel projects and federal grants to soothe over differences like the Big Boys have).

    5. However, is even the "newsletter" stuff much worse than "double the Guantanamos" Romney, National ID Guiliani, Commodity Futures Clinton, Karl Marx Edwards... - must a Libertarian candidate be held to some Sainthood that no one even remotely expects in a corrupt "mainstream" hack?? Ron Paul is still my man. Can't even spell my name with his!

  • Revolt of the masses 2: Mass M||

    I'm still waiting for Ayn Rand to apologize for her homophobic comments. If she doesn't then libertarianism is doomed!!!!!

  • ||

    Meant - can't spell my name WITHOUT his!
    Myron Pauli, impure libertarian!

  • ||

    Ron Paul at some point associated with someone who wrote quasi-racist-sounding material? That does it! I'm voting for Giuliani now!

  • ||

    Or maybe Huckabuck.

  • Fluffy||

    Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified.

    Hmmm...Let's make a small table listing the time periods during which armed revolution against the federal government would, in fact, have been justified, and on whose behalf:

    1787-1865 - Slaves
    1787-1919 - Women
    1877 through various dates - southern blacks
    1918-1921 - Eugene Debs
    1941-1945 - Japanese Americans

    That covers an awful lot of time. Given that record, I can forgive people in the 90's for being a little confused.

    You see, this is what I hate about the reaction to this newsletter debacle. While the newsletters included obvious racism, they have become the occasion for a whole posse of a-holes to try to use them to offer any number of false arguments. So we have people writing that the only way for libertarians to live down the newsletters is to embrace the liberal activist agenda on race, or to denounce any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, or to embrace "positive liberty" theory, or to affirm that Lincoln was the Best Preznit Ever, or to swear that anyone who ever had a beef with the Federal government is a paranoid monster, etc. It's all nonsense. The newsletters are guilty of very specific faults, and touching base on those specific faults is all that is required.

  • Urkobold™||

    FLUFFY, YOU FOOL, WE WOULD'VE KICKED THE WOMEN'S ASSES IF THEY HAD REVOLTED.

    THIS STATEMENT WON'T HARM THE URKOBOLD'S CHANCES AT PUBLIC OFFICE, WILL IT? OH, DEAR.

  • Paul||

    and dark warnings of coming "race riots."

    And these newsletters were written in the 70's and 80's? Would these be the same "Rodney King" race riots that liberals claimed they predicted when we were watching them on TV?

  • VM||

    oh, Dickie, Dickie. Taking full responsibility. Or taking responsibility. but moral responsibility? Mr. Grice will explain.

    to make it better he could explain:
    how the WoD, which is mainly fought at the state level, won't go away (h/t: KE).
    Why he claims to get the gov't out of marriate (e.g., not a homophobe), he's sponsored DOMA.
    why he was a no show for the wire tapping vote
    why he sponsored a bill that specifically said that there should be no supreme court oversight.
    how he's for the constitution, cept for those amendments he doesn't like (the ones that don't count, like the 14th)

    pesky, non libertarian stuff like that.

    he's an old tyle states rights conservative who happens to be correct on the war and on US interventionism.

  • Minion of URKOBOLD||

    BOUNCY BOUNCY.

  • Coarse||

    "...how he's for the constitution, cept for those amendments he doesn't like (the ones that don't count, like the 14th)"

    So, for me to be "for the constitution", did I have to support the 18th Amendment or the 21st? Or neither? Or both?

  • Geotpf||

    Paul | January 16, 2008, 6:13pm | #

    and dark warnings of coming "race riots."

    And these newsletters were written in the 70's and 80's? Would these be the same "Rodney King" race riots that liberals claimed they predicted when we were watching them on TV?

    The race riot quotes, and most of the truly objectionable and/or crazy ones in general, took place between Paul getting his ass kicked in the 1988 Presidential election (getting less than half a percentage point of the vote) and him getting re-elected in Congress in 1996. Paul appeared to think he was out of elected politics at that point, and the best way for him to make money was to follow Lew Rockwell's plan to stir up shit amoungs "rednecks" by ranting against gays, blacks, and the government (and then getting said rednecks to pony up $$$ for his silly newsletters and crap).

  • VM||

    hay - coarse - just like your name, it's his absolutist message.

    nice try, tho.

  • Coarse||

    VM, I was asking you a question. I think my "try" was quite successful. How about you "try" to answer it.

    You're aware Paul is a republican, correct?

  • Eric Dondero||

    Reason has covered the Ron Paul Newsletter scandal well - fair and balanced. Probably the best coverage so far. Though, the Economist did an excellent piece a few days ago, as well. CNN did a decent job, as well.

    Kirchik's first TNR article was rather tame. It only scratched the surface. His second was a little more in-depth.

    Bottom line though, all these media outlets, including Reason are only scratching the surface. Slowly but surely, there are more details coming out. But left untouched have been Ron Paul's attendance at some rather fringe meetings. Also, left completely untouched has been some of the questions on Paul's past financial enterprises. Nobody has mentioned the 1988 Presidential campaign for instance, and the Nadia Hayes affair.

    I'd say we're probably still at the beginning of this whole event, and more details will be emerging in the coming days and weeks.

  • VM||

    what does him being a republican have to do with anything?

    There is a problem with the electronic scoring system, due to some difficulties with the French judge, so whether your "try" was successful is still waiting. But the cameras are there.

  • Eric Dondero||

    One thing that should be noted, is that Ron Paul himself wrote a healthy chunk of the Newsletters. From what I observed 30 to 40%. He'd scribble his notes on a pad, and hand them to his daughter or one of his assistants in the Houston office, and they'd edit them, give them back to him for final clearance, and then the printing presses at M&M would roll through the night.

    Even Reason is skirting around the issue of Ron Paul authoring some of the writings himself.

    Not saying Paul was responsible for the racist writings. I don't think anyone will ever be able to really pin that down.

    But it's not like he only edited the Newsletters. He was a very active writer of them himself. And this can be confirmed with numerous individuals who have worked or volunteered, mostly in the Houston area, for years.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Grumpy realist, Ron Paul is NOT the face of the libertarian movement. He's the face of the RADICAL ANARCHIST WING OF THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.

    The face of the overall libertarian movement is more Sarah Palin, Butch Otter, Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, Leon Drolet and John Campbell.

  • ||

    Sorry, Eric. If Ron Paul runs around saying stuff and calls himself a "libertarian", he's the face of the libertarian movement to everyone out there. All the rest is insider baseball and no standard voter will worry about the distinctions.

    (You've got quite a lot of "self-proclaimed libertarians" out there--Jonah Goldberg being one of them. Can someone from the REAL libertarian intellectual tradition please contact him and explain to him a) what libertarianism is and b) how to do research?)

  • Max||

    "Racist libertarian" is an oxymoron.

    You know what turns me off of libertarianism...

    collectivist BS though like Reason Magazine.

  • Paul||

    Grumpy realist, Ron Paul is NOT the face of the libertarian movement. He's the face of the RADICAL ANARCHIST WING OF THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.

    That is practically self-evidently false. We wouldn't be discussing his sketchy libertarian record if that were the case.

    In addition, there's nothing about RADICAL ANARCHIST LIBERTARIANISM which is inherently racist. Even if Ron Paul does turn out to be crypto-racist, it probably has more to do with him as an individual than it does with any of his philosophical underpinnings.

    It's been pointed out hundreds of times-- that because a committed libertarian might rally against some egalitaritarian measure designed to say, create equal outcomes amongst the races, and as such, some other fringe racist group "joins them" in the cause, while unfortunate, still doesn't make RADICAL ANARCHIST LIBERTARIANISM inherently racist. It merely provides people opposed to libertarianism convenient talking points.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Eric, much as I like Tom McClintock, he is only a libertarian on economic issues. He is quite socially conservative.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    That paragraph in particular (amoung other things) says that there is a "federal-homosexual cover up of AIDS" that "my training as a physician helps me see through this one".

    There ain't no there, there. That IS the entire remark.

  • SIV||

    Ron Paul is NOT the face of the libertarian movement. He's the face of the RADICAL ANARCHIST WING OF THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.

    If that's so I should send him more money!

  • French Judge||

    9.975/10.000

    Un essai excellent

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Eric, do you mean John Campbell of the OC?

    He's not exactly a libertarian neither. The consistently reviled Dana Rhorabacher still is more libertarian than Campbell.

    And what about my old buddy and former anarcho-capitalist Ed Royce (R-Fullerton), certainly a libertarian leaner and good friend of Reason?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    French Judge | January 16, 2008, 8:41pm | #

    9.975/10.000

    Un essai excellent



    shipping extra

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Shouldn't have to say this but I suppose I better.

    I'm pretty skeptical of conspiracy theories and allegations. I don't buy Area 51, the implosion of the twin towers, that the Knights Templar hold the secret to Mary Magdalene's husband Jesus, or that the only reason the radical Islamics hate us is because we are too close to Mecca with our troops.

    That means, I don't buy off on the RP conspiracy theories discussed in the newsletters either. One of several areas I disagree with RP about.

  • ||

    Ayn Rand was right, after all--you movement libertarian guys are just a pack of chuckleheads!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Yes, John, but although we all owe a debt of gratitude to Ms Rand, sometimes it just doesn't work when the pot calls the kettle the blacks.

  • rittberg watch||

    A few weeks ago you said it was "80% Rockwell". make up your mind.

    Ron Paul himself wrote a healthy chunk of the Newsletters. From what I observed 30 to 40%.

  • watt eva||

    I don't buy Area 51

    What is it you don't buy? It's in Nevada. It takes up a big chunk of land. Do you believe in Nevada? If you have information disproving the existence of Nevada, pls contact the Paul campaign, as they seem to be spending money there.

    , the implosion of the twin towers,

    Well that good, since they kinda exploded and disintegrated more than imploded. Check out the videos.

    or that the only reason the radical Islamics hate us is because we are too close to Mecca with our troops.

    Is this even a "conspiracy theory"? WTF does that mean?

  • ||

    The face of the overall libertarian movement is more Sarah Palin, Butch Otter, Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, Leon Drolet and John Campbell.Who?

    Excuse my while I go not care.

  • ||

    now you have to threaten to cancel your subscription and start drinking.

    Or, if you've already got a head start on the drinking, (slurs words) threaten to cancel your drinking and start a subscription

  • ||

    Oh, and that goes for people who bitch about "inside the beltway cocktail-party goers".

    Cesar -- even if the person under discussion actually lives inside the Beltway and goes to cocktail parties there and tries to pick up chicks by showing how keewl and cosmo and quite possibly metro he is?

    Just askin'.

  • Eric Dondero||

    A lot of you all mistakenly classify some libertarians conservatives.

    Dana Rohrabacher, John Campbell, Jeff Flake, Drolet, Sarah Palin, Butch Otter, et.al. have little if anything in common with the likes of Conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, Bob Dole, ect...

    They are libertarian Republicans. They are Conservatives only in the economic realm, with some occasional Social con leanings. But still fundamentally anti-Nanny State and very much anti-Big Government.

    Rohrabacher for instance is big on opposing the Draft, and is in favor of Marijuana legalization.

    Palin is chummy with the Libertarian Party of Alaska.

    Butch Otter was featured as a "libertarian" in 2006 by Reason Magazine.

  • ||

    But, as said, this isn't going to go anywhere because I doubt Ron Paul will ever come in the top three in any of the states. (Amusing to watch him clobber Giuliani on this last round, hee!)

    Can the Sainted Paul at least get the Paulbots to not be so fuckin' nutty? After the meltdown over at Matt's, I really wonder whether any of them are older than 21.

    Children's crusade, here we come....

  • ||

    IRONY ALERT!

    I'm assuming Reason gets paid ad revenue based on hits or views or whatever. Thus, if they get 200 comments on an article, and over half of those comments are people saying "STFU about this stuff already! We're tired of it. Aaaaah! STOP STOP STOP", then guess what? It was a successful article, and they'll run more of it.

    When the Ron Paul newsletter threads get 5 comments, they'll get an effing clue and STFU. Not until then.

    Bad!

  • ||

    It's no secret that Paul and many of the Paulites are, ah, "out there" (and I am not a Paul supporter); I also believe the Lew Rockwell and his paleocon followers are an embarassment (sorry, Lew... "Darwism" is not the lunatic-fringe position).

    But that being said, I also have to say that Kirkchick is a smug asshole who reaches waaaaay too far in associating anti-welfare stateism with racism. As smear tactics go, it's no more fair than the old conservative practice of associating "pro-civil rights" with "Communist."

    I guess what I'm trying to say is: a pox on all their houses. And damn everything but the circus...

  • ||

    Mea culpa...that should read: Sorry, Lew... "Darwinism" is not the lunatic-fringe position...

  • ||

    They are libertarian Republicans. They are Conservatives only in the economic realm, with some occasional Social con leanings. But still fundamentally anti-Nanny State and very much anti-Big Government.



    I have to agree with you again, Eric. We need to look at the bigger picture when trying to win allies; if a person mostly agrees with the libertarian viewpoint, they're probably libertarian enough to work with (and to claim as our own), even if they disagree with the "pure" philosophy on a few points.

  • ||

    DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Watt Eva, you haven't heard that the twin towers were imploded ala the Dunes Hotel in Las Vegas?

    OMIGOD!

    They pancaked ever so neatly. Had to be a demolition expert who did the job. For GWB. So he could blame the ragheads. So we could go to war. Dude!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Rohrabacher for instance....

    Had a great penthouse apartment in Belmont Shore where the, ah, parties, were, ah, awesome.

    I remember thinking that if Debbie's mom knew I brought here..........

    Her folks didn't like me anyway. Too old, and not the right social class.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Or, if you've already got a head start on the drinking, (slurs words) threaten to cancel your drinking and start a subscription

    Been slurring since halfway through Idol.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I really wonder whether any of them are older than 21.

    [RAISES HIS HAND]

  • ||

    @ The Winecommonsewer

    I'm pretty skeptical of conspiracy theories and allegations. ....
    That means, I don't buy off on the RP conspiracy theories discussed in the newsletters either. One of several areas I disagree with RP about.


    I would have to agree with you there, but when people talk about conspiracies I always like to remind myself of the following: If there is a crowded theater and someone yells "fire", most of the occupants will do the same thing - get up and stampede for the exit. Did they conspire to all do the same thing? No, but the results are the same, aren't they?

  • stewie||

    Yeah - let's write ANOTHER article about this damn scandal.

    YOU'RE KEEPING IT IN THE NEWS, REASON MAGAZINE!

    Not that you didn't already know that, but let me ask you one thing: Do you want a libertarian president, or not?

    I'm guessing the latter.

  • Libertas||

    You have to love the way tReason is now going after Paul. The "libertarians" at tReason have shown their true colors. Anything to service your neocon masters, eh?

  • ||

    Reason's 'eek-a-mouse!' blogs on this topic prove my earlier suspicions that you guys really don't give a fig about this whole newsletter-stuff. It's just an excuse to go hunting for paleos with peasant and pitchforks. How cosmopolitan, to preach diversity and tolerance in every area, except, ofcourse, your own.

    In retrospect, it's pretty clear to me that Reason-editors knew about the newsletter-stuff and jumped on the RP rEVOLution boat anyway. Why? It suited your rational self-interests: selling a ma-ga-zine. Rand couldn't have been more proud.

    But when TNR tore down the RP-is-a-saint mantra, Reason just couldn't wait to join in on the bashing. Don't get me wrong, you guys write a fine magazine, and many of your writers are clearly skilled, funny and smart. But, for God-frickin-sake, man up, guys! You either support a movement, or you don't. It's the message, not the man, we're supporting.

    Why not say: hey, these newsletters are stupid prejudiced BS and RP should damn well know better. RP was wrong for either supporting, writing or not knowing all of this.

    Yet, let's not forget the bigger picture here: advancing libertarianism. But no. Instead, you keep ganging up on the one man who gave libertarianism any credibility and any spotlight in a very long time. Nice.

  • ||

    So, Reason is bound and determined to keep flogging this, even when they have nothing new to say about it?

    I'm forced to conclude that Reason is indeed part of the problem. I probably should have figured that out back when their writers started cozying up with that smug little twat who calls herself the "wonkette".

    -jcr

  • ||

    "Ron Paul is NOT the face of the libertarian movement."

    Actually, he is, and the opinion of a war-mongering jackass with martrdom fantasies like you doesn't change that.

    BTW, you still haven't told us what he canned you for. Is it even more embarrassing than your behavior on this forum?

    -jcr

  • ||

    "Why not say: hey, these newsletters are stupid prejudiced BS and RP should damn well know better. RP was wrong for either supporting, writing or not knowing all of this.

    Yet, let's not forget the bigger picture here: advancing libertarianism."

    AFAIK libertarianism doesn't include classifying the population by race or sexual behaviour and then accusing various of these subgroups of spreading disease or "Race war". In fact it could be said that much of this is kind of opposed to the tenets of individual liberty.

    It's like my rabbi publishing a newsletter discussing the delights of crispy bacon and then saying that someone else actually wrote it above his signature. Then the congregation all say "It will hurt the Jews if we criticise the rabbi!". Actually this whole situation at Reason reads like my local Jewish newspaper, which is 85% devoted to intracommunity schisms and 15% to varying degrees of paranoia. It's not a good look.

  • ||

    @Mike

    Exactly. I don't have any disagreement with you. RP isn't going to be president, nobody really ever he thought so. Yet, he did a great job, he gave hope to many. And as a libertarian I am grateful for that.

    If that pisses of some cultish anarchist ultra-orthodox hardliners holier-than-thou types (who apparantly judge people only by their worst personality traits and past mistakes), I say: to hell with them.

    Let's get over this stupid stuff, hurtfull as it maybe, seek new common ground and advance our movement. Some are paleos, some are cosmopolitans, some are Randroids, some are moderates --- they're all fine with me. As long as we end the war, enlarge freedom and reduce government.

  • bob||

    I never thought I'd see the day when Reason.com started smelling like Michelle Malkin's Hot Farts. But apparently they like doing so.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Was Eric Dondero "canned" by Ron Paul?

    Well, um, geez. That's something that can easily be confirmed.

    By simply picking up the phone and calling Ron Paul's Congressional office in DC at 202-225-2831.

    As to speak to Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo, who has made hiring and firing decisions for Paul since the very first day he became a Congressman in 1997.

    Once again, that's 202-225-2831. Tom will no doubt, set anyone straight on my employment status, and my resignation.

    If he doesn't answer at first, leave a voice mail. Tom is very good at returning calls.

    Once again that number is 202-225-2831.

  • Brian Carnell||

    Jacob Sullum writes:

    "None of it is explicitly racist, and some of it could be written off as deliberately provocative political commentary."

    This was pathetic, Jacob. It's amazing how libertarians are twisting themselves into contortions like this to try to minimize what is in the newsletters.

    Jim Walsh seems typical of the sentiment:

    "But that being said, I also have to say that Kirkchick is a smug asshole who reaches waaaaay too far in associating anti-welfare stateism with racism. As smear tactics go, it's no more fair than the old conservative practice of associating "pro-civil rights" with "Communist.""

    Kirchick didn't write these odious newsletters...Ron Paul did. And the comments in the various Reason stories on this seem to back up Kirchick's thesis 100% since the reaction to these newsletters by libertarian supporters of the candidate is "why are you being so mean to Ron Paul."

  • ||

    Dondero writes: One thing that should be noted, is that Ron Paul himself wrote a healthy chunk of the Newsletters. From what I observed 30 to 40% . . . Not saying Paul was responsible for the racist writings. I don't think anyone will ever be able to really pin that down.


    Which is all the more reason those who wrote the stuff (LR) needs to come forward and Paul needs to disassociated himself with him (LR)

  • Eric Donderoooooooo!||

    Eric Dondero, you shit-stain of a man. I'm sure your war-loving-ass will find a nice home here at Reason. Ya'll make such a nice couple. Keep on sucking that Bush cock!

  • ||

    The comments by Dondero and "Gasset" are insane. Much of what Rockwell wrote is true.
    Blacks commit crimes and acts of sociopathology
    well out of proportion to their numbers.
    But this is still irrelevant to Paul's run.
    The people who need to apologize are those at
    CATO like Palmer, ARI, ROR, Solo Passion and all the neocon trash in the neorandroid ranks
    for promoting Israel First and advocating the
    murder of billions in the Muslim world.
    The New Republic is a racist, ultraZionist rag
    which is in the process of going out of business. They are after Paul because he has been properly critical of Israel in the past.
    Unfortunately Rockwell has printed many idiotic pro-Israeli State "letters" to Paul
    from Block, et al, that make the most absurd
    argument for even more of a blank check to
    Israel. Paul has succumbed to this and made an
    ass of himself at the last debate claiming
    more US aid to Arabs than Israel and the Washington Post debunked it the next day.
    Compared to the pro-christian cult and anti-abortion crap that Lew regularly prints the
    "racist" stuff is nothing at all. Reason has
    always been a deadly boring rag and not an
    arbiter of what constitutes libertarianism.

  • ||

    The Lavender mafia along with the Israel firsters are trying to destroy Ron Paul. I suppose if Ron Paul talked about gay marriage, walked in a gay pride parade, or said Israel is our most important ally this might not be happening.

    I'll break it down in simple terms.

    I've been on the gun show circuit for over 20yrs. At gun shows you meet all sorts of people. Hunters, self defense people, gun collectors(sellers) Birchers, 2nd amendment enthusiast and ROCK SOLID libertarians. This Saturday and Sunday I will be at a show. There will be a few Fred Thompson sticker, a few more for the Huckster, but the vast majority of stickers sold will be Ron Paul 2008. And yes, at these gun shows lots of stickers like "We Don't Care How YOu Did it Up North, You're in Dixie Now" With a Confederate flag will be sold. Most of the dealers are white as are most of the people that attend. You won't talk to anyone concerned about gay marriage. But you can have endless conversations about Hilly, Obama, immigration, gun grabbers, taxes, property righs etc etc. Lifestyle libertarianism isn't on the agenda.

    Back in the 60s Murray Rothbard tried to make alliances with antiwar folks on the left. Students for a Democratic Society, SDS. But they were commies for the most part. Karl Hess actually joined the SDS

    Anyway I suspect Rothbard in the late 80s wanted to try and put together a new coaltion of anti government folks. Sorta like the gun show crowd. White, lower middle-middle class, folks who see state enforced affirmative action as a threat. The people at gun shows are very patriotic, but they see the government as a threat to their way of life. Now this strategy might not appeal to Tom Palmer David Boaz or Virginia Postrel, but I for one would rather hang with the gun show crowd than a bunch of Beltway libertine libertarians, or cosmopolitans. The folks that actually think Gay marriage is the second civil rights movement.

  • ||

    I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

  • ||

    What is the "reason" you refuse to give this thinly veiled smear tactic a rest?

    And if Reason is *really* against racism, you would be truly offended (and writing about) by what Barack Obama wrote in his own autobiography book "Dreams of My Father"(which was NOT ghostwritten 20 years ago, may I add):

    Barack Obama: "That hate hadn't gone away," he wrote, blaming "white people - some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."

    Obama vowed to "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own" and said "certain whites could be excluded from the general category of our distrust."

    And during college:
    "To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

    In addition, I'm sure you're well aware that Obama belongs to a Black-Only church, Trinity United Church of Christ, where whites, Mexicans, Asians, etc. are not welcome.

    Who is the real racist here? Ron Paul -- a man who has embraced the teachings and ideals of Martin Luther King for decades and admired Rosa Parks (even going so far as meeting her) or Obama -- a deeply conflicted man who is ashamed of the white side of his family and belongs to a race dividing church?

    Let's see some *real* and *reasonable* journalism for a change. Equal treatment means equal smear tactics for all.... and at least you'll have some actual quotes.

  • ||

    Mr. Sullum,

    This is getting really old and tired. Can you please move on to something else? If you write about Ron Paul again. Can you give him some kind words?

    Even the whole "he voted against given Rosa Parks a medal." Guess what, he voted against giving one to Ronald and Nancy Reagan too. Read it here: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/681/awarding-gold-medal-to-former-president-and-mrs-ronald-reagan-in-recognition-of-service-to-nation/

    When someone write horrible, racist, anti-semite, anti-gay comments like that, it shouldn't be so hard to find people who can say "I heard him say this and that." Or a video, or an audio. SOMETHING.

    He was on the Morton Downey Jr. Show 20 years ago, around the time these letters were being written. If there was EVER a show where one would "slip" and show there true colors, it was that show. He was totally "fired up" but never did he say anything that showed suggested that he was a bigot of any kind. Check it out: http://youtube.com/watch?v=IHB2I83_N_k&feature=related

    I'm a Latina, my husband is African American. Our family and friends will continue to support and vote for Ron Paul. We smell the FEAR coming from the "establishment."

    No one's going to pull our emotional buttons with the racist crap.

  • Paul||

    The people at gun shows are very patriotic, but they see the government as a threat to their way of life.

    Just an observation... it's funny how affluent liberals are often not patriotic, but see the government as the only thing sustaining their way of life.

  • ||

    Eric Dondero.

    I've heard that name before.

    You're described by those who know you as "slimeball."

    Something about you changing you last name and beating your wife. Your wife who is Asian.

    Something like that I'm going to have to dig that up.

  • ||

    Here it is. But I originally found it in another website, which belongs to someone who lives in Texas area and knows the situation.

    Has Eric Dondero Rittberg stopped beating his wives?


    http://www.lastfreevoice.com/2007/06/01/has-eric-dondero-rittberg-stopped-beating-his-wife/

  • ||

    Found it! This is the original website.

    http://carolmoorereport.blogspot.com/2007/05/rosie-odonnell-loves-ron-paul-eric.html

    One person comments:
    "Bravo! I also looked into this little weasel under his given name Dondero and in combination with is now jewish name Rittberg, people in texas would have to be out of their minds to elect him to anything or trust his word as truth on any subject! I hope ron paul supporters will start defending him about this little creep. He is behind the whole current smear campaign against Ron Paul, calling him racist and linking him to neo nazi groups...too bad news sources wouldnt pick up on Eric Dondero Rittbergs past before they go by his word."

  • James Madison||

    Ron Paul is not a racist. He wants to end the racist war on drugs. His supporters are throwing a fundraiser for him in celebration of Martin Luther King's birthday.

    Please spare us of your self-rightous crap and do something productive.

  • ||

    Lest you want to attack me for these words because you are too stupid to understand who wrote them Mr. Sullum, the paragraph:

    I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-that I am nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.

    This was written by Abraham Lincoln during his fourth debate with Senator Douglas.


    So if you really want to write a hit piece, I have just given you a good head start for the next one.


    Many times an article illuminates, sometimes it is what is said others, it is who said it. In this case, the fact that Reason magazine has chosen this time in the campaign to bring out these decades old, multiply times rehashed, taken out of context, supported by hearsay articles, simply shows the character and motivation behind Reason magazine.

    You have done yourselves a great disservice with this junk and let the rest of us see the light.

    As my younger ones says:

    You stink!

  • ||

    This is all really quite appalling.
    And Reason's stance on this is quite bewildering. Have this new young crop of editors forgotten what being a libertarian means?
    Why smear a good man?
    I think I now know why the New Republic is down 40% in circulation since 2000. They also likened Ross Perot to Hitler. Just amazing.
    I am also frankly now worried about Reason, one of my favorite magazines for more than 25 years.
    Go here for the definitive explanation/rebuttal by Justin Raimondo:
    Remove asterisks to go that site
    ht**tp**:/**/w**ww**.**takimag**.**com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/

    Ron Paul in my opinion is an anti-racist, "pro-individual rights", libertarian hero.

    Shame on Reason for suggesting otherwise.

  • Nike Dunk Low||

    is good

  • shangxintaipyang||

    good

  • mbt shoes clearance||

    nice

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement