Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?

Libertarian movement veterans, and a Paul campaign staffer, say it was "paleolibertarian" strategist Lew Rockwell

Julian Sanchez & David Weigel | January 16, 2008

(Page 2 of 2)

Anyone with doubts about the composition of the "parasitic Underclass" could look to the regular "PC Watch" feature of the Report, in which Rockwell compiled tale after tale of thuggish black men terrifying petite white and Asian women. (Think Birth of a Nation crossed with News of the Weird.) The list of PC outrages in the February 1993 issue, for example, cited a Washington Post column on films that feature "plenty of interracial sex, and nobody noticing," a news article about black members of the Southern Methodist University marching band "engaged in mass shoplifting while in Japan," and a sob story about a Korean shop-owner who shot a black shoplifter and assailant in the head: The travesty is that Mrs. Du got five years probation, and must cancel a trip to Korea.

The populist outreach program centered on tax reduction, abolition of welfare, elimination of "the entire 'civil rights' structure, which tramples on the property rights of every American," and a police crackdown on "street criminals." "Cops must be unleashed," Rothbard wrote, "and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error." While they're at it, they should "clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?" To seal the deal with social conservatives, Rothbard urged a federalist compromise in their direction on "pornography, prostitution, or abortion." And because grassroots organizing is "plodding and boring," this new paleo coalition would need to be kick-started by "high-level, preferably presidential, political campaigns."

The presidential campaign Rothbard and Rockwell supported in 1988 was Ron Paul's run on the Libertarian Party ticket. In 1992, they were again ready to back Paul, until Pat Buchanan convinced the obstetrician to withdraw and back his conservative challenge to then-president Bush. "We have a dream," Rockwell wrote in that same January 1992 edition of RRR, "and perhaps someday it will come to pass. (Hell, if 'Dr.' King can have a dream, why can't we?) Our dream is that, one day, we Buchananites can present Mr. and Mrs. America, and all the liberal and conservative and centrist elites, with a dramatic choice....We can say: 'Look, gang: you have a choice, it's either Pat Buchanan or David Duke.'"

Carol Moore, a left-libertarian activist who opposed Rothbard, Rockwell, and Paul at the late 1980s Libertarian conventions that led to the paleo split, theorizes that the defeat made them bitter. "They had a tendency to be anti-PC," Moore told reason, "and it was really stepped up after they lost. They were really angry and not that funny."

They are less angry these days. Visitors to LewRockwell.com or Mises.org since 2001 are less likely to feel the need for a shower. One can almost detect what sounds like mellowing in Rockwell's reflections on the high and heady paleo days, unburdened by ominous warnings of the looming race war. Nowadays the fiery rhetoric is directed at the "pimply-faced" Kirchick, "Benito" Giuliani, and the "so-called 'libertarians'" at reason and Cato.

But perhaps the best refutation of the old approach is not the absence of race-baiting rhetoric from its progenitors, but the success of the 2008 Ron Paul phenomenon. The man who was once the Great Paleolibertarian Hope has built a broad base of enthusiastic supporters without resorting to venomous rhetoric or coded racism. He has stuck stubbornly to the issues of sound money, "humble foreign policy," and shrinking the state. He wraps up his speeches with a three-part paean to individualism: "I don't want to run your life," "I don't want to run the economy," and "I don't want to run the world." He talks about the disproportionate effect of the drug war on African-Americans, and appeared at a September 2007 Republican debate on black issues that was boycotted by the then-frontrunners. All this and more have brought him $30 million-plus from more than 100,000 donors; thousands of campaign volunteers; and the largest rallies he's ever spoken to, including a crowd of almost 5,000 in Philadelphia.

Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate's name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.

Julian Sanchez is a contributing editor and David Weigel is an associate editor of reason.

Comments

theThia|1.16.08 @ 9:01AM|#

thanks for nothing, guys

|1.16.08 @ 9:05AM|#

Good work, fellas.

|1.16.08 @ 9:06AM|#

That's to Weigel and Sanchez, fyi.

|1.16.08 @ 9:10AM|#

Lew Rockwell, just as I figured.

|1.16.08 @ 9:11AM|#

"He has characterized discussion of the newsletters as "hysterical smears aimed at political enemies" at The New Republic.

If I were to point a finger and suggest that somebody was being hysterical over this (not that I would use that politically insensitive word to defend myself against charges of insensitivity), I wouldn't point at the people who are walking away from the Paul campaign shaking their heads.

...but I might point at some of his shrill supporters who can't seem to restrain themselves from throwing sticks and stones.

|1.16.08 @ 9:13AM|#

"At the time, Paul defended the statements that appeared under his name, claiming that they expressed his "philosophical differences" with Democrats and had been "taken out of context." He finally disavowed them in a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, explaining that his campaign staff had convinced him at the time that it would be too "confusing" to attribute them to a ghostwriter."

Nice job, Mr. Paul!

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

|1.16.08 @ 9:14AM|#

Suicide is our only option.

|1.16.08 @ 9:21AM|#

And to think that the Rothbard/Rockwell candidate for LP Chair came within one vote at the 1989 convention of being elected.

libertreee|1.16.08 @ 9:23AM|#

Hey Reason--give this a fucking rest! The world doesn't give a good goddamn about this, and the pro war Cosmotarians like Tom Palmer at Stato are the jerks in all this, and you are enabling them!

Stop already with the newsletter nonsense. Ron Paul beat Guiliani and Thomson in Michigan. Get over the damn newletters!

DavidS|1.16.08 @ 9:28AM|#

Here's a passage that seems to me to capture what Rockwell/Rothbard were up to:

The fact that millions of our people yearn at heart for a radical change in our present conditions is proved by the profound discontent which exists among them. This feeling is manifested in a thousand ways. Some express it in a form of discouragement and despair. Others show it in resentment and anger and indignation. Among some the profound discontent calls forth an attitude of indifference, while it urges others to violent manifestations of wrath…

To these latter people our young movement had to appeal first of all. It was not meant to be an organization for contented and satisfied people, but was meant to gather in all those who were suffering from profound anxiety and could find no peace, those who were unhappy and discontented. It was not meant to float on the surface of the nation but rather to push its roots deep among the masses.

ed|1.16.08 @ 9:30AM|#

the pro war Cosmotarians

I was wondering when someone would utter the "C" word. I'm tired of it already. Time to nip it in the bud. I have the shears. Who will hold it down for me?

robc|1.16.08 @ 9:31AM|#

"State-enforced segregation," Rockwell wrote, "was wrong, but so is State-enforced integration. State-enforced segregation was not wrong because separateness is wrong, however. Wishing to associate with members of one's own race, nationality, religion, class, sex, or even political party is a natural and normal human impulse."

Okay, I dont see what the quote above has to do with the article. Is there something wrong with what Rockwell wrote there? Maybe Im just some paleolib and I didnt no it, but for you cosmos out there - what is wrong with that statement?

robc|1.16.08 @ 9:32AM|#

"know" not "no". Really, I have a decent education. Honest.

|1.16.08 @ 9:32AM|#

The honorable Senator from West Virginia, Democrat Robert Byrd, admitted to being a member of KKK. Calls it an albatross around his neck. It is. Dr. Ron Paul, republican, has never admitted to belonging to any racist organization, nor does he, an honest man, claim to have written the remarks, dug up on him in the name of smearing...and who would want to do that?

The racist bastards who perpetuate a RACIST war on the ME, the RACIST war on Drugs, the RACIST wellfare sytem, the RACIST prison sytem, the RACIST education system, the RACIST connection to the UN NWO where nations of minorities are dictated through force by puppets like Saddam, who lost his republic in the name of democracy and freedom, while those who cheered for this assassination of sovreinity by the UN, have nothing better to do than create racists where they isn't any.

How pathetic.

robc|1.16.08 @ 9:33AM|#

ed,

I was wondering when someone would utter the "C" word. I'm tired of it already. Time to nip it in the bud. I have the shears. Who will hold it down for me?

Even though I used it seconds after you, I agree. I will stop using it once I never see the world paleolibertarian again. Deal?

OMG|1.16.08 @ 9:36AM|#

Proof of RP's racism...ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE!
http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/

bob|1.16.08 @ 9:36AM|#

The article is well written, thoroughly researched, and meaningless.

"Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided...

If Reason is disappointed in the campaign's response, fine. But Reason's writers have no right to tell Ron Paul supporters what they do or do not deserve. (Who do you think you are, Bill Fucking O Reilly?

Remember the Internet? Ya know, the backbone of The Revolution's Paul's very effective communications network? This horse was been beaten to death there back in October, and there has not been measurable impact. I'm puzzled about why Reason continues to beat the dead horse.

|1.16.08 @ 9:37AM|#

Is there something missing from this paragraph from AP:

The former Massachusetts governor defeated John McCain, the Arizona senator who was hoping that independents and Democrats would join Republicans to help him repeat his 2000 triumph here. Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, trailed in third, and former Tennessee Sen. Fred Thompson is making a last stand in South Carolina.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080116/D8U6UN580.html

Paul did not get mentioned in this article until the 24th paragraph, after folks he beat and democrats too. Man I'm buying more ammo.

robc|1.16.08 @ 9:37AM|#

bob,

I agree. Especially since Reason itself killed the horse back last May.

|1.16.08 @ 9:38AM|#

While our soldiers remain stationed in 130 countries worldwide and are being shot at daily in Iraq and Afghanistan, while the President continues the sabre-rattling against Iran and Syria, while the economy tanks and gold rises, while REAL-ID is being foisted upon us, while people are held for years w/o charge, while the largest database of our personal interests, etc., is collected, while the definition of "torture" becomes fuzzier by the day...

On balance, it makes perfect sense that the only folks speaking out about all of this, and offering actual solutions, should be called to account for their views on the LA riots.

You are shaming the very term "Libertarian," and I have no doubt Rothbard is rolling over in his grave.

For the sake of liberty, "can't we all just get along?"

ed|1.16.08 @ 9:38AM|#

I never use either label, robc. This is my crusade. Join me.

|1.16.08 @ 9:38AM|#

I will also learn how to close tags.

robc|1.16.08 @ 9:40AM|#

ed,

Okay, I think they are both stupid terms. Although cosmotarian is kinda funny.

robc|1.16.08 @ 9:41AM|#

ed,

Oh, I have to use the C word one last time, but I wont do it here. I have some friends who probably havent heard the term yet, I need to use it in conversation just to get a reaction. But, that will be my last usage of it.

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 9:42AM|#

Still waiting for RonPaulBots to explain why he defended the newsletters in 1996.

robc|1.16.08 @ 9:45AM|#

Shane Brady,

Because he realized it wouldnt make a damn bit of difference to some people if he said he didnt write them.

It appears he was right.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.16.08 @ 9:46AM|#

Whew! I thought I was going to have to go a day with a newsletter entry.

You guys are *this* close to ending my three year subscription and my daily reading of the blog.

Fucking knock off the newsletter shit. No one cares.

|1.16.08 @ 9:46AM|#

To Rockwell, the LP was a "party of the stoned," a halfway house for libertines that had to be "de-loused."

Except now instead of comparing you to lice, they use the term "cosmotarian."

You want some free advice? The Rothbard/Rockwell redneck strategy never got libertarianism as much as 1% of the vote. Ron Paul is beating nationally-hyped candidated with enormous war chests by attracting suburban and urban independents and liberals, many of whom are perfectly comfortable with black people.

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 9:48AM|#

robc,

So was he lying then or now?

Ali|1.16.08 @ 9:49AM|#

Thanks David Weigel and Julian Sanchez for the informative article. Eye opening.

Being a minority myself (religious and racial), and meeting with Paul on two different occasions, and his his family (namely his son Rand Paul and wife Carol Paul), I personally do not believe that this family, especially Paul, is racist. You know it when you speak to a racist. Paul, I do not think, is one.

With that said, what disappointed me is Paul's insistence on not unveiling the truth, full and complete. As Weigel and Sanchez note, by not providing a definitive explanation beyond "this is old news" is bound to crush this movement. Who would have imaging that a libertarian candidate would raise $30M? Who would have imagined that after only 3 races, a libertarian candidate would garner the votes of nearly 100 thousand voters?

I think Paul is weighing between sacrificing a few friends and an entire movement. I am sure that he will make the right decision. I hope so.

ed|1.16.08 @ 9:51AM|#

I need to use it [the "C" word] in conversation just to get a reaction

I predict their reaction will be, "What, the magazine?"
But if they comprehend, back...away...slowly.

|1.16.08 @ 9:51AM|#

Shane Brady - "So was he lying then or now?"

Please respond to my post, above.

You sound like a collectivist to me.

|1.16.08 @ 9:53AM|#

I'm sure that those who have now wounded Ron Paul, the only remotely libertarian candidate on the national scene, must be very proud of themselves. Maybe the pathetic bastards can have a big congratulatory circle jerk while they watch freedom die around them.

|1.16.08 @ 9:54AM|#

I hereby propose that all posts of the nature...
1. I still support Ron Paul because he's the best thing that's come along or will come along in a long time.
2. I'm disappointed that he wasn't more honest about this earlier.
3. If he can't manage what goes out under his name than he's incompetent and shouldn't be running the country.
...should be banned from this and all further threads regarding the newsletters. Seriously. You've already said this. Try a different angle.

Greg N.|1.16.08 @ 9:54AM|#

Here are the last two sentences of the piece I sent to Dave W. early last year (not on the newsletters, but on Paul's affiliation with Rockwell and his slimy brethren):

"Paul should stop publishing at LewRockwell.com, ask that his columns be removed from the site, and issue a statement repudiating any LRC authors who publish racism, anti-Semitism, intolerance, bigotry, and anti-Americanism. His failure to do so may cause irreparable harm not only to his campaign, but to the libertarian movement he has spent his life supporting."

I feel vindicated, if as yet unpublished.

|1.16.08 @ 9:55AM|#

The Robert Byrd example is exactly right.

He engaged in a cynical, disreputable practice of associating himself with vile racists in an effort to reach out to them and gain a base of support.

He then admitted his mistake, took responsibility (rather than shifting it, this is the important part), apologized, and worked to make amends. This has allowed him to put his grievous error behind him, and re-enter the civilized world.

Everybody loves a good prodigal son story.

|1.16.08 @ 9:55AM|#

You guys are *this* close to ending my three year subscription and my daily reading of the blog.


That's a drink, right?

mmX|1.16.08 @ 9:55AM|#

So we're to believe that Ron Paul had absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of the material written in a newsletter that was bringing him in nearly $1 million in income, whose employees included not only Rockwell, but his wife and daughter?

|1.16.08 @ 9:56AM|#

I'm sure that those who have now wounded Ron Paul, the only remotely libertarian candidate on the national scene, must be very proud of themselves. Maybe the pathetic bastards can have a big congratulatory circle jerk while they watch freedom die around them.

I don't imagine Rockwell and Rothbard approve of that kind of self-abuse.

|1.16.08 @ 9:56AM|#

Ok People. We are on a highway to hell in a porsch going faster than the speed limit and all we do is argue in the damn car. Can you compare this crap to the sins of our current government and the banking cartel? Are we gonna give a crap about these letters when we are paying ten bucks for a gallon of milk? Wake up and get out of the car.

|1.16.08 @ 9:57AM|#

Kill the witch! Kill the witch!

Seriously, why does Reason magazine feel this need to find someone to burn at the stake? All that mattered was whether RP is a racist, and he's not.

-jcr

robc|1.16.08 @ 9:58AM|#

But if they comprehend, back...away...slowly.

Trust me, with my friends, that is always the prime option. But, I will be using it in a context that will be gotten. I expect confused looks, but with realization. The person who I primarily want to hear it has adopted the wonkette "Paultard" as a description for himself.

|1.16.08 @ 9:59AM|#

Greg N. "...LRC authors who publish racism, anti-Semitism, intolerance, bigotry, and anti-Americanism. "

What are you talking about??

These accusations are madness! I challenge you to post a link to any single article at www.lewrockwell.com that fits the above description.

Are the posters here all RedState.com rejects? This sure a hell IS NOT the Reason magazine I remember, and that's going back years.

Oh My!|1.16.08 @ 10:00AM|#

"Cato Institute President Ed Crane told reason he recalls a conversation from some time in the late 1980s in which Paul claimed that his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for The Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto until it folded in 2001."

So much to explain!

Ali|1.16.08 @ 10:00AM|#

Reinmoose- But I haven't said it before ;-) My turn, my turn.

adrian|1.16.08 @ 10:02AM|#

and the cosmotarian cannibalization continues!

Vincent Gigante|1.16.08 @ 10:04AM|#

"Lamenting that mainstream intellectuals and opinion leaders were too invested in the status quo to be brought around to a libertarian view, Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks,""

-------------------------------------

lol, "Outreach to Rednecks"... Its pretty sad that they have to pander to rednecks with racist drivel to get money, although frankly I am not that bothered by this I really doubt Rockwell or Rothbard where racist and this explanation makes sense...

|1.16.08 @ 10:05AM|#

Ali -
Ok then. You can each say it once. BUT THAT'S IT! :)

|1.16.08 @ 10:05AM|#

"So we're to believe that Ron Paul had absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of the material written in a newsletter that was bringing him in nearly $1 million in income, whose employees included not only Rockwell, but his wife and daughter?"

>Yes.

|1.16.08 @ 10:05AM|#

"The Robert Byrd example is exactly right."

But the issue is, did Robert Byrd ever hold racist views and did Ron Paul ever hold racist views? I believe yes in the first case and no in the second case. Why should Ron Paul apologise for racist views he never held?

ed|1.16.08 @ 10:06AM|#

"Paultard"? Whew!
Whatever happened to individualist? Is that term hopelessly old-fashioned?
You never see it here, oddly. I blame the blogs. Labels are just too damn hard to resist.

|1.16.08 @ 10:07AM|#

Reason is right to "beat this dead horse." Reason readers will never drift towards, say, Huckabee because of this, and when the dust settles, Reason can't be accused of having Ron Paul blinders on. It's a no lose situation to beat this dead horse.

adrian|1.16.08 @ 10:07AM|#

rein: here's a different take for you.

The real libertarians (Reason libs) are racists. They see Paul gaining support from regular people and even minorities (Arabs!) and feel that these people are being turned on to libertarianism and that it will kill the (racial) purity of their party/ideals. So they slander Dr. Paul to try and convince the folks that he's a racist and they should go back to where they came (D or R). This keeps their party pure without having to actually admit that they are indeed the racist ones!

How's that sound?

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 10:08AM|#

Dagny,

Ron Paul uses the word collectivist so you have to use the same word? For the record, I am a libertarian. when I lived in Kansas I was officially registered as one (Missouri doesn't do that). I'm not a big government guy.

So now that's out of the way, just answer the question:

Was Ron Paul lying in 1996 when he defended the newsletters or in 2008 when he claimed he never even read them?

This has nothing to do with "collectivism".

|1.16.08 @ 10:10AM|#

You know, I could swear I remember Rothbard being part of the founding of Cato way back in the early to middle seventies. Wasn't he one of the original board of directors or something?

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 10:11AM|#

In addition, while I don't place a religious test on candidates, Ron Paul's rejection of the theory of evolution, shows him to be an ignoramus, whose critical thinking skills must be so deficient, I wouldn't let him run the Ron Paul Fan club, much less the country.

Thomas Paine\'s Goiter|1.16.08 @ 10:14AM|#

The real libertarians (Reason libs) are racists. They see Paul gaining support from regular people and even minorities (Arabs!) and feel that these people are being turned on to libertarianism and that it will kill the (racial) purity of their party/ideals. So they slander Dr. Paul to try and convince the folks that he's a racist and they should go back to where they came (D or R). This keeps their party pure without having to actually admit that they are indeed the racist ones!


I agree with this. Matt Welch is racist scum.

|1.16.08 @ 10:15AM|#

Whatever happened to individualist? Is that term hopelessly old-fashioned?

It's probably too "paleo", ed.

adrian|1.16.08 @ 10:18AM|#

shane: i'm pretty sure he just doesn't believe that the big bang and natural selection got us to where we are. I don't think he believes the earth is 6000 years old. (will try to find a link on that)

Thomas Jefferson|1.16.08 @ 10:19AM|#

If reason cant get behind and fully support the closest thing we Libertarians have had to a legitimate presidential candidate, then who needs them.

Cancel my subscription!

|1.16.08 @ 10:20AM|#

I reviewed all the links in this article - none of them support the authors' premise.

There's not a single thing under Rockwell's byline to support their argument. We are led to believe that Paul went from nonracist to racist and back to nonracist in his writings in 6 years. Come on!

This is all innuendo, and is a thinly veiled and unsupported attempt to SMEAR Ron Paul. Shame on you.

|1.16.08 @ 10:21AM|#

Cactus Jack,

Why should Ron Paul apologise for racist views he never held?

He shouldn't. He should apologize for pandering to racists as part of the "outreach to the rednecks" strategy the article describes.

BTW, watching people defend the content of the letters then shout "No, YOU'RE the racist" is teh funny."

|1.16.08 @ 10:21AM|#

Shane,
Your claim to have been "officially registered as a libertarian" rings hollow when you imply that the only one putting forth the term "collectivist" is Ron Paul. Have you actually read anything? (Rand, Rothbard, Hayek, Von Mises, Hazlitt, Rose Wilder Lane, Albert J. Nock...)

Also, the fact that I'm seeing the term "Paultard" in this forum convinces me there are many here who know nothing about the principles of liberty, haven't read anything, and get all their info from Limbaugh and Hannity.

Will the last one to leave this forum, who actually believes in (and comprehends) limited government and individual liberty, please turn out the lights and leave the cling-ons to chase their tails in the dark.

Thank You.

|1.16.08 @ 10:22AM|#

If reason cant get behind and fully support the closest thing we Libertarians have had to a legitimate presidential candidate, then who needs them.

Fuck principle, we want power!

|1.16.08 @ 10:23AM|#

tReason and the Stato warmonging "cosmotarians" try and throw Rockwell under the bus.

Get the pitchforks and torches ready, there be witches to burn!!!11!

Jacob|1.16.08 @ 10:23AM|#

Witch hunts are fun for the whole family! Don't worry Reason, you're sufficiently distancing yourself from the Paul campaign enough so that none of the controversy will wear off on you. Lets hope you don't irreparably injure a more important pillar of the libertarian movement in the process.

VM|1.16.08 @ 10:25AM|#

"...and gold rises"

oh, great. a goldbug.

To Hell with Lew Rockwell|1.16.08 @ 10:25AM|#

Some of the remarks above seem to be missing the main issue. It's time to cut off, shame, expel, throw out, and generally kick Lew Rockwell in the balls. Libertarians should refuse to be in the same room with that hate filled racist dirtbag. If he walks in, everyone else should walk out. That man has done a lot of harm to the cause that attracted so many people to Ron Paul's campaign.

Lew Rockwell, GET OUT......slink away in shame.

|1.16.08 @ 10:30AM|#

"He should apologize for pandering to racists as part of the "outreach to the rednecks" strategy the article describes."

I'm not so sure he was even doing that. I think he is just too loyal to his friend Lew Rockwell. Ali said it right when he said that Ron Paul needs to choose between loyalty to his friends and loyalty to the movement.

Tom Walls|1.16.08 @ 10:30AM|#

Although I am fiercely interested in the newsletter authorship fiasco, and know some of the personalities involved, there is a rEVOLution going on...

In the exit polls yesterday, Ron was a smash hit with the 18-29 year old voters. they were typically political independents, generally not religious, had at least some college and moderate incomes.

He received little to no support among the evangelicals or greedy geezers. "Ron who? Eh? Whadja say? Where's my metamucil? Free perscription drugs! Bob Dole! Eh!"

That is where the campaign should focus its efforts. There's no alternative.

Yesterday, an email from a guy at work (fairly young guy, IT worker) contained a pro-Ron Paul message and link in his work email signature - I had no idea he was a supporter. I went to lunch with him and was amazed at the degree to which he understood Paul's message.

JL|1.16.08 @ 10:30AM|#

Thanks for killing my buzz. Romney '08!

Hess Sauerland|1.16.08 @ 10:31AM|#

And in the after birth
On the quiet earth
Let the stains remind you
You thought you made a man
You better think again
Before my role defines you

http://youtube.com/watch?v=J0RCkAazE8A

|1.16.08 @ 10:31AM|#

You know what's really, really good for building a political movement's visibility and credibility with the general public?

Racism. Boy I'll tell you, if you are really trying to expand your appeal among mainstream Americans, there's nothing like having your most prominent spokesman linked to race-inciting literature.

Tom Walls|1.16.08 @ 10:31AM|#

I meant it should focus on young, independent, intelligent voters, not seasoned citizens or evangelicals.

|1.16.08 @ 10:35AM|#

Cactus Jack,

I'm not so sure he was even doing that. I think he is just too loyal to his friend Lew Rockwell.

I suppose there's a small chance his family members never mentioned anything that appeared in the newsletters over dinner, but that's pretty unlikely. "I didn't do it, but I'm sorry those people I have nothing to do with did" isn't going to cut it. "I did it, it was a mistake, I understand why it was wrong to do what I did, and I'm sorry."

DavidS|1.16.08 @ 10:35AM|#

I liked the suggestion on Lew's blog that Paul should try and brand Obama the "pro-slavery candidate" - more smart politics...

|1.16.08 @ 10:35AM|#

This article quotes only people who have expressed intense dislike for Rockwell in the past, hardly a fair mix. One of those quoted recently called Lew "the most obnoxious person in North America."

It is interesting that this comes out the day that Rockwell announced he is going in for eye surgery, he won't be able to read and respond to it for many days.

crw|1.16.08 @ 10:38AM|#

Jesus. I seriously wonder about the reading comprehension of some of you folks. This article does not say Ron Paul is a racist. It says he was complicit in a strategy to pander to racists to build a financial and political base. Y'know, kind of like the way Chamber of Commerce Republicans pander to evangelicals to get votes. And look how well that's working out for them this year.

If Ron Paul would just come out and say "yes, I bought into Rockwell/Rothbard and pandered to racists. In hindsight it wasn't the brilliant political strategy we thought it was. It was the wrong road to take. Mea culpa." this issue would be completely defused. Since he wont, I can only assume he's comfortable with those kinds of tactics. I'm not. And worse, I think they are horrible politics. That kind of pandering to fringe elements is a great way to keep libertarianism in the 6% spoiler box.

|1.16.08 @ 10:38AM|#

How Mr. Rockwell responded to James Kirchick's questions about his role in the newsletters:

"Rockwell is listed as a 'contributing editor' of The Ron Paul Investment Letter, but when I interviewed him last week for the story, he denied ghostwriting material in Paul's newsletters. He said that he was 'involved in the promotion' of the newsletters, as well as, 'writing the subscription letters' (maybe he wrote this ditty [PDF]?) and 'writing mailing lists.' Rockwell told me that there were 'seven or eight freelancers involved at various stages' of the newsletter's history.

When I asked him who was in charge of the editing and publishing of the newsletters, Rockwell got cryptic. 'The person who was in charge is now long gone ... He left in unfortunate circumstances.'"

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/10/who-wrote-ron-paul-s-newsletters.aspx

Who is Rockwell gesturing towards?

Murray Rothbard? Someone else?

Where\'s the Racism Come From?|1.16.08 @ 10:38AM|#

Lew "Racist" Rockwell. Come out, muster whatever decency you can, and admit what you did. And then get thee behind us!

|1.16.08 @ 10:38AM|#

"In addition, while I don't place a religious test on candidates, Ron Paul's rejection of the theory of evolution, shows him to be an ignoramus, whose critical thinking skills must be so deficient, I wouldn't let him run the Ron Paul Fan club, much less the country."

I don't think Ron Paul is an ignoramus. I think sometimes, people's religious views overrule and keep them from using critical thinking on some issues.

DavidS|1.16.08 @ 10:40AM|#

It is interesting that this comes out the day that Rockwell announced he is going in for eye surgery, he won't be able to read and respond to it for many days.

I am sure we will be able to wait until Rockwell's return to work on Friday for his comments.

|1.16.08 @ 10:44AM|#

The article doesn't really expose anything new. long standing libertarian activists already knew most of this and if they didn't, Google and other sources (such as idle chit chat at libertarian gatherings) would reveal it.

All in all, this just amounts to beating a dead horse.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

|1.16.08 @ 10:46AM|#

I wish Paul would have nothing to do with Rockwell, Thomas "Confederate" DiLorenzo, or any of those other dirtbags.

|1.16.08 @ 10:46AM|#

Shane, where did you go? ... and we were having such a good conversation :(

BTW: Just visited your website Shane, and you've obviously hated Ron Paul for a long time. (went back as far as June 'o7, couldn't handle any more of your hatred, sorry buddy)

Question though: why do so many gays have tunnel vision when it comes to individual freedom? You know, like yours and yours alone?

The country is in serious trouble. Time to step outside of yourself and do something constructive, because if this ship goes down, we're all going down together.

Tom Biggs|1.16.08 @ 10:47AM|#

Here we have the libertarian candidate with the best shot at actually attaining office, and Reason joins the braying pack of neocons trying to smear him. What the heck is wrong with you people?

Now I remember why I dropped my subscription to the dead tree edition of Reason magazine. After 9/11, a significant percentage of the editors came down on the side of "endless war for endless peace". I was disgusted.

When you really *need* a libertarian magazine, you can count on "Reason" to be on the anti-libertarian side, hurling brickbats.

Tom Walls|1.16.08 @ 10:48AM|#

Your average voter is not interested in libertarian back channel gossip. Of course, if some snowballs into a smear campaign, that's another story.

The problem is, you can never deal with this to everyone's satisfaction, like some of the swizzleteats and jackanapes here.

|1.16.08 @ 10:49AM|#

I don't dislike Paul so much as I dislike the fact he can't say "no" to some of the shady characters he hangs around. Like Presidents Grant and Harding, hes a decent and nice man, a little too nice and decent, thus he is easily manipulated by others.

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 10:50AM|#

Dagney:

http://www.shanebrady.com/UserFiles/Image/spb/Screenshot.png

Craig S. List|1.16.08 @ 10:50AM|#

AIDS sufferers "enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

That anti-gay rag Rolling Stone finally got around to covering that story 10 or 15 years later.... :

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/5939950/bug_chasers

|1.16.08 @ 10:52AM|#

He has posted free electronic copies of "Human Action" and hundreds of other academic works on the libertarian philosophy and free-market economics. These works have been read and downloaded by millions of freedom loving folks all over teh world.

I do not know anyone who has read Frederic Bastiat, Ludwig Von Mises and Murray ROthbard that isn't a devoted libertarian in their own way. I mean to the core, the type of person who will actually harm their own social standing rather that stand by silently while collectivist spout the crap that passes for "cosmopolitan" in todays world.

The racist charges are absurd...the people who call rockwell a racist are as silly as the folks who call ron paul a "anti-semite" for not wanting to give foreign aid to Israel, Eygpt and Saudi Arabia.

you guys have rally discredited yourselves

|1.16.08 @ 10:53AM|#

I wonder how it can be "beating a dead horse" when every post about on the subject generates 100+ comments.

|1.16.08 @ 10:53AM|#

Sorry to Ken whoever for being one of those nasty Shrill Shills... (Although I am not paid by Ron Paul so technically I can't be a shill)

RANT Begin :

And the point is ?

Well I guess Reason must like the Democrats or other Republicans. Say so in you're articles and say we don't support Ron Paul because taking everything together he does not believe in Abortion or he is a pathological lair or he is a man without any integrity and character.

Say we at Reason believe that Paul is a bigoted and vile closet racist.

Say we intend to destroy this man's campaign because we can and we do not believe him. We cannot support him and we believe that the Democrats and Other republicans are better than Ron Paul.

State it, but don't continue to write your blithe articles without recognizing that this is what your articles are trying to achieve along with a wide readership. Ron Paul certainly provides traffic while he is a presidential candidate.

Those of us who look towards the future realize that upon his shoulder rest Hope, Peace, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

When we look at the others we see Despair, War , internment and security (traded for out freedom).

We see the coming tyrants along with the current tyrants. The Ruling class the Clintons and Bushes being ordained.

Is it the destruction of free markets and destruction of Liberty that you want or liberty and free market that you want ?

It is obvious which side your magazine has chosen even if you can't see.

Just maybe you need to remove the log from your eyes before so vociferously removing someone else's eyes because of the speck in it.

RANT End.

|1.16.08 @ 10:53AM|#

Let's see: Ron paul's campiagn has survived CNN, The New Republic, MSNBC and numerous other national media outlets thus far. Does anyone honestly believe that Reason's latest volley is going to make any difference?

Ah...I pine of the Bob Poole days.

|1.16.08 @ 10:54AM|#

of=for.

*ugh*

ed|1.16.08 @ 10:54AM|#

jackanapes

That's a fine word and not used nearly enough, though I fully expect to see "Jackanapestarian" emerge here at any moment. That's a label I can get behind.

"Jackanapestarian" Copyright (C) 2008 ed
All Rights Reserved
Void where prohibited

jon|1.16.08 @ 10:55AM|#

Of course none of the anti-Lew Rockwell sentiment is related to the following:

Alexa website traffic ranking:

Lewrockwell.com 10,493
Reason 25,456
Cato 73,930

Ha, Cato would kill for those numbers...

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 10:55AM|#

Dagny,

Homosexuals don't have tunnel vision just because they want to be able to marry, have families, serve in the military, etc.

And yes, I've disliked Ron Paul for a long time for his non-libertarian views. I think he does damage when he isn't a true blue believer in freedom. He's more like a Christian populist. I really don't like what Ron Paul wants for the country. State sanctioned Christian prayer in schools, state sanctioned discrimination, back alley abortions, creationism in school It's scary.

Gabe, Get a Grip|1.16.08 @ 10:56AM|#

Gabe...it's not antisemitic to want to cut off foreign aid. It is racist to call black people "zoo animals."

Do you understand that or not?

Colin|1.16.08 @ 10:57AM|#

You'd have to think Rothbard had become senile. Didn't he realize he'd be one of the first to go in this new order?

|1.16.08 @ 10:59AM|#

Cutting foreign aid to Israel is anti-semitic.

If, however, someone said that Jews are "terrorists" or "manipulative bankers" that would be antisemitic.

|1.16.08 @ 11:02AM|#

Wow. You made your point well. You are truly committed to a cause. That is some impressive investigative work you have done and time well spent! Its helpful to point out your relevance by putting this in the proper context. We are currently watching the growth of a dangerous welfare/warfare state before our very eyes. Civil liberties are being eroded, the executive branch is going insane, the dollar is falling, we are $9Trillion in debt, and the people vying to be our President are all for continuing this ruinous course. All, that is, except one. Ron Paul is the most popular libertarian candidate our country has seen in 40 years. He has clearly stated all his positions through his voluminous writings and speeches. He wholeheartedly rejects racism, bigotry and collectivism. And rather than point out to the exceptional merits of Ron Paul and his candidacy, Reason invests all this time and money nitpicking about something his ghostwriter did 20 years ago?

|1.16.08 @ 11:03AM|#

Why doesn't someone use that computer program that can compare the word choice, sentence structure etc. between writings of known authors and unknown authors and can determine with very high probability using a scientific method if Lew Rockwell wrote them. Then he would have to come out and say he did it and we would be done with this once and for all

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 11:06AM|#

Tim,

Can you not see how someone would find Ron Paul's explanations insufficient? Just saying you're against racism doesn't automagically wash away the newsletter issue. He hasn't fully explained what happened.

|1.16.08 @ 11:06AM|#

Good article. It confirms what I figured was the motive behind LewRockwell.com.

There are some Southern conservatives who would be receptive to libertarianism. But, they have a lifetime of baggage that they drag behind them.

If that baggage is pure racism, then they are lost causes and not worth a moment's thought. But if it is a bit of prejudice -- justified or not -- then there's hope. I think that's what Rothbard and Rockwell recognized.

It is a segment of the population that is completely ignored by the kinds of libertarians at Reason and CATO (the kind I consider myself to be).

The idea is to get a conservative who might have a little bit of religious or prejudice baggage to consider the ideas of libertarianism, and perhaps over time you might have a convert.

Personally, I tend to take more of a Randian tact: if you don't like it, then screw you and the whim worshipping mule you rode in on. :) But you have to admit, that's just not the way the world works. ARI, for example, preaches to the choir. I suspect that they solidify resistance more so than they change minds.

Still not sure if the Rothbard/Rockwell approach is sound. Go too far and you end up getting mud on the name of libertarianism. Do nothing and you have no chance of winning over people who might have been receptive to your ideas. Who else can say that he was able to get a redneck (in the kindest sense of the word) to read Mises, Hayek, or Rothbard?

There's a reason that so many libertarians are secular technology geeks. We were already outside of mainstream thinking and open to new ideas before we discovered libertarianism. Getting bashed in the head by the writings of Rand was actually exciting for us. To others, it is not a pleasant experience and results in an immediate closing of the mind.

As the Advocates for Self Government has pointed out, you have to begin by meeting people where they are.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 11:11AM|#

Shane, being registered is one thing, but who in the libertarian movement has most influenced your thinking?

Just read your last post re: "scary," and at least now we're getting somewhere! Cutting past the BS to the real issues.

What's really scary Shane, is what's happening today. Rep. Paul wants to get the government OUT OF YOUR WAY. Repeal drug war laws (approves medical marijuana, patient choice in medical care. etc.), get rid of the Dept of Education, repeal the PATRIOT Act, stop REAL ID, get rid of the income tax, etc...

Being Libertarian, in essence, means being pro-limited government. That means that we, as individuals don't have to agree with each other on everything, we don't have to march in lock-step with every PC mandate from on high (what happens for instance, when gov't is so large, maintains databases and then decides one or the other outside the mainstream are "undesirables?")

Believing in liberty I will fight for your right to be heard, whether what you say offends me or not.

Rep. Paul is not interested in forcing religion on us - he is a Christian but you might note that he's the only one NOT pimping Jesus in this race.

Rolling back gov't to a much more limited role, returning power to the States - these ideas are Consitutional and assure that we will have more liberty - not less. Please, you sound passionate and intelligent - go and read for yourslf, decide based on his words not heresy and innuendo.

btw: The question about gay tunnel vision is not to say that you are or are not gay - I could care less.

RR|1.16.08 @ 11:13AM|#

jon | January 16, 2008, 10:55am | #

Alexa? Um...read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexa_Internet

It's easy to game Alexa and the Rockwell Groupies figured it out long ago.

But back to the issue at hand, jon. So you think that some guys at Reason and CATO got Lew Rockwell to write racist rants and put them out under Ron Paul's name so that they could then wait until a writer at The New Republic found them, and then do a war dance? Really, does that make sense? Or maybe...maybe everyone is really ashamed that they ever had anything to do with Rockwell, Mises Institute, and even Dr. Paul -- who should have known better than to hang with such creeps.

|1.16.08 @ 11:15AM|#

"Now I remember why I dropped my subscription to the dead tree edition of Reason magazine. After 9/11, a significant percentage of the editors came down on the side of "endless war for endless peace". I was disgusted."

I dropped my subscription because of Reason's support for Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I see it hasn't changed.

Are you the Tom Biggs that works at J.D. Fields?

|1.16.08 @ 11:16AM|#

Nice try again. I support Dr. Know.

|1.16.08 @ 11:18AM|#

I've been reading lewrockwell.com for years and I've never seen a single racist word on that site. We're all on the same side, so give it a rest.

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 11:19AM|#

Dagny,

I don't consider ignoring the 14th Amendment, which Ron Paul does a lot of the time, as pro liberty. Ron Paul wants the states governments firmly intertwined with Christian churches. That has been a big part of his career. I don't want *any* government intruding in my life, federal or state.

jon|1.16.08 @ 11:21AM|#

RR writes : "So you think that some guys at Reason and CATO got Lew Rockwell to write racist rants and put them out under Ron Paul's name so that they could then wait until a writer at The New Republic found them, and then do a war dance? Really, does that make sense?"

where the hell does it say anything like that in my original post?

please point it out.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 11:21AM|#

There are an awful lot of people who suddenly wany LRC to shut up and go away... Makes you wonder. These type of attacks are generally only aimed at the ones who stand up for the truth.

Before you join the bandwagon, don't you think you ought to find some "evidence" that the authors posting at www.lewrockwell.com are ACTUALY "bigoted racists?" Seems to me that they are the only ones who haven't sold out to the idea that government knows best, and they are doing so in an environment that is quickly becoming less and less tolerant of independent thought.

Hmm.. that alone gets them my vote! Go Lew!

Rich DeYoung|1.16.08 @ 11:23AM|#

"[This article] scares the living shit out of me, honestly, knowing how Ron Paul has literally indoctrinated tens (they would claim hundreds) of thousands of people on many of the Paleo political points that Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard have been trying to popularize for years: gold standard, abolish the IRS/Fed, populist conspiracy theories involving "global elites and bankers", etc...the Paul grassroots can bleat these arguments on command. Rockwell looks poised to inherit a mighty and generous support base, after the Revolution has dissolved. And dissolving it is, due in no small part to a series of racist newsletters that some "Beltway" Libertarians will swear up and down were written by Rockwell himself, and not Paul.

If the Libertarian Party doesn't feel like tussling with Rockwell for ANOTHER 20 years, perhaps they should start more actively recruiting from the Paul grass roots. Unfortunately, for a political party that has difficulties getting someone to run for dogcatcher of Potlatch, Idaho, that means doing a whole lot of things that the they aren't very good at: sobering up (just kidding), getting organized, talking to the hoi polloi, smiling, and, most difficult of all, feigning enthusiasm for Ron Paul. They are so screwed."

RR|1.16.08 @ 11:23AM|#

No racism? Well, read this for starters
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/026647.php

Is attacking Rosa Parks repeatedly a noble thing to do after she died? What kind of people write such ugly things about such a beautiful woman?

There's plenty of racism over there. That's not to say that all of the writers are racists, but the Cuckoo for Confederates crowd that runs the place is racist.

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 11:23AM|#

Dagny,

How is introducing legislation that would give states carte blanche to have school prayer, gay marriage bans, abortion bans (all goalsof Ron Paul) without judicial review, pro liberty?

The kinds of laws that Ron Paul wanted to remove from jurisdiction of the Supreme Court mostly *restrict* liberty. People discriminated by state governments would then have no judicial recourse. Is that pro liberty?

|1.16.08 @ 11:23AM|#

Jeffrey Tucker was named as a possible co-conspirator in this mess. Please read this article if you think he could be a racist:

http://www.mises.org/story/2817

|1.16.08 @ 11:24AM|#

Lavender mafia

Robert|1.16.08 @ 11:25AM|#

Sheesh, what did people want, Reason bloggers to shut up on the subject? They're giving the readers what they want, and they want articles about Ron Paul. And it's not as if they're exposing anything too awful about Ron Paul, just that he like every successful entrepreneur and politician has experimented and taken advice to see how he could best attract money & att'n. It's not like he could take any of his support for granted.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 11:25AM|#

Shane -

The biggest threat to your privacy is the government. We must drastically limit the ability of government to collect and store data regarding citizens' personal matters.

We must stop the move toward a national ID card system. All states are preparing to issue new driver's licenses embedded with "standard identifier" data - a national ID. A national ID with new tracking technologies means we're heading into an Orwellian world of no privacy. I voted against the Real ID Act in March of 2005.

To date, the privacy focus has been on identity theft. It was Congress that created this danger by mandating use of the standard identifier (currently your SSN) in the private sector. For example, banks use SSNs as customer account identifiers because the government requires it.

We must also protect medical privacy. Right now, you're vulnerable. Under so-called "medical privacy protection" rules, insurance companies and other entities have access to your personal medical information.

Financial privacy? Right now depositing $10,000 or more in cash in your local bank account will generate a federally-mandated report to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network at the United States Department of the Treasury.

And then there's the so-called Patriot Act. As originally proposed, it:
Expanded the federal government's ability to use wiretaps without judicial oversight;
Allowed nationwide search warrants non-specific to any given location, nor subject to any local judicial oversight;
Made it far easier for the government to monitor private internet usage;
Authorized "sneak and peek" warrants enabling federal authorities to search a person's home, office, or personal property without that person's knowledge; and
Required libraries and bookstores to turn over records of books read by their patrons.

I have fought this fight for many years. I sponsored a bill to overturn the Patriot Act and have won some victories, but today the threat to your liberty and privacy is very real. We need leadership at the top that will prevent Washington from centralizing power and private data about our lives.

The above was written by Rep. Paul.

As to his wanting a greater involvement of the churches in government, read what he ACTUALLY says:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/?tag=Civil%20Liberties

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 11:28AM|#

Specific to the 14th Amend:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/008430.html

T|1.16.08 @ 11:28AM|#

Strangely, there was an entire book written about a bunch of very similar issues that only libertarians bought or read. What was that called again? Paging Brian Doherty...

Seriously, while it is mildly disturbing, it's an intra-libertarian slap fight that the rest of the world doesn't give a shit about. Say Lew Rockwell to the average American or even the politically aware R/D and the answer is "Who?" The only people that care about this are libertarians, and we're back to the ideological purity/big-L little-l/i'm more libertarian than you bullshit that has crippled libertarianism my entire life. In the grand scheme of things (i.e. RP's continued electoral viability) this is a fart in a whirlwind. It won't make anybody who was going to vote for him vote for someone else, and it just provides an excuse for people who weren't gonna vote him to not vote for him. Business as usual.

I hereby declare anybody arguing about this a Jackanapestarian*, myself included.

*Copyright (C) 2008 ed
All Rights Reserved
Void where prohibited
Thanks, ed!

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 11:29AM|#

Dagny,

This was also written by Ron Paul:

"In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, H.R. 1094. I am also the prime sponsor of H.R. 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."

Look! A *federal* law that codifies his religious belief that life begins at conception. In his own words.

Fluffy|1.16.08 @ 11:30AM|#

How is introducing legislation that would give states carte blanche to have school prayer, gay marriage bans, abortion bans (all goalsof Ron Paul) without judicial review, pro liberty?

Well, we'll ignore the abortion issue, since even though I'm pro-choice I acknowledge that the definitions of "life" and "murder" can only be connected to liberty if you're willing to employ the Randian "the uterus is real estate" metaphor, which some people just aren't willing to do.

On the marriage issue, I think Paul has made it pretty clear that turning marriage over to the states and removing it from the purview of the full faith and credit clause is his strategy for destroying state involvement in marriage entirely, by making it such a mess that it's unworkable.

And with regard to the school prayer issue, I'm a militant atheist and I regularly demean and belittle Christians on this board, but even I have to agree that there is no basis for restricting the private religious speech of citizens on public property. If that makes public schools into shitty places, that's really just too bad.

Mr. X|1.16.08 @ 11:30AM|#

Thank you for doing the research and providing a coherent narrative behind the newsletter story. It certainly beats the shit our of Jamie Kirchick's smug blog posts and sensationalist race baiting.

Dr. Paul is making a mistake by not addressing this directly. Your article does some of the campaign's work for them by placing a lot of facts out into the open. The story is ventilated, there is no more oxygen for it.

|1.16.08 @ 11:33AM|#

I wish people would stop wasting their time beating the dead horse that this is a dead horse and start pointing out EVER MORE FORCEFULLY to people skeptical of electoral politics that they simply must vote for SOMEBODY (I mean, it would be irresponsible for a libertarian not to vote, not to invest his hopes and dreams in politics, right?) and so they'd better get out of the way of raising massive sums of money for a feckless presidential candidate who will never break 4th place but who will give his massive donor lists to an organization run by his friend, the noted author of racist screeds. Reason, STAND DOWN lest you damage the fundraising prospects of Lincoln revisionists!

T|1.16.08 @ 11:36AM|#

I regularly demean and belittle Christians on this board

Just Christians, Fluffy? Admit it, you belittle and demean more people than just them.

Bravo|1.16.08 @ 11:40AM|#

Well said Felcher!! Let's all send our bank account numbers and PIN information to Lyndon LaRockwell's fundraisers! Shame on you, Reason, for trying to find out who wrote the allegedly 'racist' newsletters (it's just their opinion that blacks are zoo animals....can't we all just move on and get along?)!

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 11:43AM|#

Shane,
"How is introducing legislation that would give states carte blanche to have school prayer, gay marriage bans, abortion bans (all goalsof Ron Paul) without judicial review, pro liberty?

The kinds of laws that Ron Paul wanted to remove from jurisdiction of the Supreme Court mostly *restrict* liberty. People discriminated by state governments would then have no judicial recourse. Is that pro liberty?"

The US Constitution was designed to allow people to "vote with their feet." When all power is concentrated in a central government, then whatever that power dictates becomes law for all people under it. That central power may decide things that offend you, as it is doing today, but with the States stripped of their voices, there is no longer any way to avoid it.

Take for example, extreme of course, but for the contrast: let's say a Huckabee gains control of the reins of the Federal Government. Here's a guy who's aleady suggesting what you seem to fear - an amendment to empower the religion HE agrees with to control more of our actions... Now let's say that he decides that gays are undesirable and that homosexuality should be outlawed. Let's further suppose that there are enough people in the Congress to support this and it becomes law. It won't matter what State such a person lived in, he/she would be considered a "criminal." You get the picture...

Rep. Paul wants to tie the government down by the chains of the Constitutional, just as the Founders tried to do.

You don't have to agree with him on everything, that's the beauty of it! As a President constrained by the Constitution, he could not enforce his ideas on us. This isn't hollow talk either - look at his record. The man consisently upholds these principles.

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 11:46AM|#

The founders also believed that African-Americans and women didn't deserve to vote or be treated like human beings. That's why we had amendments (like the 14th) to change the constitution.

Ron Paul consistently ignores the fourteen amendment when he talks about states rights with regards to conservative christian issues.

|1.16.08 @ 11:46AM|#

Great piece. Would have been even better if someone had contacted Paul's former CoS (1981-1985) John Robbins who wrote the following open letter to Lew Rockwell:

http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/open-letter-to-lew-rockwell/

Jerry|1.16.08 @ 11:48AM|#

Congratulations to the Reason staff on finding the Texas on-line business registry.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 11:48AM|#

Shane - you make my case for me! :)

"Look! A *federal* law that codifies his religious belief that life begins at conception. In his own words."
------

Look Shane! A Federal law that returns the power to the States!!

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that.

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 11:49AM|#

Which law would that be? My religion or lack thereof doesn't state that life begins at conception.

|1.16.08 @ 11:49AM|#

Seems like there is nothing but hearsay in this article. It don't see how it helps your case to report on "open secrets", rumors of conversations with Paul over 10 years ago, and disaffected former staffers.

Julian Sanchez|1.16.08 @ 11:51AM|#

Sean-
We did speak to Robbins. He had suspicions and had heard rumors, but didn't really know about the newsletter production.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 11:51AM|#

Shane states:
"Ron Paul consistently ignores the fourteen amendment when he talks about states rights with regards to conservative christian issues."

Find anything that Rep. Paul has written that supports your argument, otherwise there's no "there" there. Give me something real to answer to.

Scott Wickham|1.16.08 @ 11:52AM|#

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech.

I appreciate this very detailed report.

But for the Ron Paul supporters you must understand that freedom Ron Paul wants for us will allow the racists to be racist without state intervention until they break the law.

If you want government thought control and destruction of property rights to "protect" blacks like me then you have no right to complain when they trample on your property rights to protect a tree on your property, or
a un paying renter living in your apartment.

freedom is not a part time job.

Public Enemy sampled "Freedom is a road seldom traveled by the multitude"

Freedom isn't pretty, freedom isn't P.C.

But freedom is moral correct in the long run.

Slavery and racism and ignorance can't survive in the free market without government supporting it.

Julian Sanchez|1.16.08 @ 11:52AM|#

darjen-
Then you need to reread it.

Shane Brady|1.16.08 @ 11:55AM|#

Dagny,

It's in is articles about religion and his belief that the separation of church and state is a mystical doctrine. He makes references to the first amendment only applying to the federal government not local governments. Which seems to me to leave out the equal protection clause and the fourteenth amendment.

I have to go, I'm sure I'll get sucked in on another post though.

Jackanapestarian|1.16.08 @ 11:56AM|#

I hereby declare anybody arguing about this a Jackanapestarian

Huzzah! Join me, disenfranchised jackanapestarians of the world! No label too stupid! No argument too arcane! No hair too fine to split! On to South Carolina!

dhex|1.16.08 @ 11:57AM|#

so is there a market for FUCK YOU LEW shirts?

with a picture of abraham lincoln giving the finger?

Mr. X|1.16.08 @ 11:59AM|#

so is there a market for FUCK YOU LEW shirts?

with a picture of abraham lincoln giving the finger?

This is Libertopia, baby! Markets in everything.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 12:01PM|#

Shane: "Which law would that be? My religion or lack thereof doesn't state that life begins at conception."

Okay Shane, let's go back to my example or an overarching Federal gov't taking upon itself decisions that rightly belong (Constitutionally) at the State level.

Imagine for a moment that there are others who disagree with you - you're a "card-carrying libertarian" so this shouldn't be too difficult to grasp... Now let's say, hypothetically, that the idea of abortion offends them, yet because this is Federal law they too must suuport abortion via tax dollars.

Now, what if the issue was returned to the States? In State A abortion is legal. In State B abortion is illegal. Where do you want to live Shane? Now we all have choices. The same argument applies to marriage, or anything else.

Please read Rothbard's "For a New LIberty" to see how all of these things work in a free society.

The problem with strong, centralized government is that choices are hindered, and when choices are hindered, freedoms are diluted. Those in power decide what is and is not acceptable and the people be damned.

If you believe in liberty, you must desire greater choice, not less.

Rosa|1.16.08 @ 12:02PM|#

How about a SHAME ON YOU, LEW shirt with Rosa Parks wagging her finger? (She was a lady.)

Or a GIT YER BIG, FAT, LAZY ASS OUT, LEW shirt (courtesy of Tom DiLorenzo, http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/009154.html)

|1.16.08 @ 12:04PM|#

Thanks Julian.

Colin|1.16.08 @ 12:04PM|#

If you're gonna make that shirt, don't forget the comma after "You."

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Shane, had you pegged at the start as one of the clueless "talking heads" here, I was wrong. We may disagree on issues, but I now believe that you are a thinker and will look further into the bigger picture.

Enjoyed it. Later.

Marek|1.16.08 @ 12:07PM|#

I don't see how Ron Paul gets off the hook on this even if Lew Rockwell or someone else fesses up to having written the racist newletters. It just isn't credible that he knew nothing of it. Whether he wrote it or allowed it to be written in his name makes little difference. If he allowed it to be written in his name not out of conviction, but only to raise money from racists, is he somehow less culpable? Frankly, if the revelation of the newsletters doesn't diminish his support, I think it's very worrisome.

dhex|1.16.08 @ 12:09PM|#

no the comma gets in the way of sloganeering.

hence the all caps.

FUCK
YOU
LEW

works better than

FUCK
YOU,
LEW

ok working on variations of the lincoln tie in.

-- perhaps "the south will be crushed again" with a giant robo lincoln smashing the plantation system.

-- "lincoln rolls 50 deep" with a cloned crew of lincolns looking to curtail states rights.

-- or just a good old bust with a DEATH TO THE NONBELIVERS across it for that extra dada kick.

man this niche market t-shirt thing is harder

dhex|1.16.08 @ 12:11PM|#

failing that i can always rip off the obey stuff with "ROCKWELL HAS A POSSE (of racists)" and all of his stats would have KKK filled in.

that's pretty close to slander, ain't it? you need to dance on that border without crossing into LEW ROCKWELL SUED ME AND ALL I GOT WAS THIS T-SHIRT AND HATE MAIL FROM PEOPLE SUCKING ROTHBARD'S DEAD COCK AS WELL AS SOME INCOHERENT RACIST PIECES OF SHIT FROM EAST FUCKNUTS, TEXAS shirt territory.

dhex|1.16.08 @ 12:17PM|#

on a more serious note:
btw, i don't see this as a purity issue so much as "people who raise money from racists are untrustworthy" thing.

Brian|1.16.08 @ 12:22PM|#

Are you guys just mad about "One can almost detect what sounds like mellowing in Rockwell's reflections on the high and heady paleo days, unburdened by ominous warnings of the looming race war. Nowadays the fiery rhetoric is directed at the "pimply-faced" Kirchick, "Benito" Guiliani, and the "so-called 'libertarians'" at reason and Cato" or what? He isn't running on his newsletter and I don't really give a shit what he used to be.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 12:24PM|#

to: dhex, Marek, Colin, Rosa, et al (that means the others like you that are posting here)

Back up your screed against those few who are still fighting for YOUR right to be morons. As much as your stupidity offends others, "liberty for all" is the motto at Rockwell's site. Who will you rail agianst when the lights go out?

Lincoln?! Are you kidding me!? Bet you got straight A's in your government school, huh? Wake up.

|1.16.08 @ 12:25PM|#

Julian -
Aside from the newsletters (and tax records), these appear to be your main sources:

1. 6 anonymous libertarian activists
2. an anonymous source close to the Paul presidential campaign
3. former American Libertarian editor Mike Holmes (secondary source at best)
4. Wendy McElroy - quoting an "open secret"
5. Timothy Wirkman Virkkala, formerly the managing editor of the libertarian magazine Liberty (another secondary source at best)
6. Eric Dondero, Paul's estranged former volunteer and personal aide (I'm sure he's not biased at all)
7. Cato Institute President Ed Crane, who recalled a conversation with Paul in the 80s.
8. Carol Moore, who said "they tended to be anti-PC"

Am I missing anything? I appreciate the work you put in here, but how can this really be that convincing to an outsider like myself? And if Lew really did write them, does even that prove that RP is racist?

Tron|1.16.08 @ 12:26PM|#

Funny to see so many "libertarians" support the Great Centralizer Abe. Some of you need to re-read the Declaration of Independence: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it"

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 12:29PM|#

Tron,

Excellent! ;)

|1.16.08 @ 12:29PM|#

Zen koan for the day:

What is the sound of one hand clapping dead horse being beaten?

Nobody outside the lib inner circles really cares about this. Our local papers not only have given this zero coverage -- not a single word -- but they barely even mention Ron Paul's name under any context -- because he's not a contender.

Enough with the self-flagellation. The other candidates for president want to impose hideous things upon us, and Ron Paul doesn't. That's what matters.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 12:31PM|#

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/161/what-does-freedom-really-mean/

HP|1.16.08 @ 12:33PM|#

Well... goodbye.
I was attracted by the word "reason", but reading the comments forces me to conclude that this ain't the place.
Evidently we are all guilty by association. Since you are sure to know somebody... there goes the neighborhood.
One of the things I learned from listening to Paul was his ability to talk about issues instead of defaming character. I think that is the path to reason.

|1.16.08 @ 12:35PM|#

The reason I like Reason is that they follow the story. For a person like me who doesn't know squat about libertarian inside baseball, this was fairly interesting. It seems Paul was willing to cash in on selling bile to the lunatic fringe, even if someone else was brewing the odious stuff. It strikes me that Paul was using Rockwell & Co. for the cash flow while Rockwell was using Paul's name to build his strange little paleolib movement. Now, what I don't understand is why Paul is taking a bullet for these guys.

Steve Verdon|1.16.08 @ 12:35PM|#

If Reason is disappointed in the campaign's response, fine. But Reason's writers have no right to tell Ron Paul supporters what they do or do not deserve. (Who do you think you are, Bill Fucking O Reilly?

Actually Bob I want more of an explanation than has already been given. So don't presume you speak for the group either.

dhex|1.16.08 @ 12:35PM|#

holy shit you guys really are humorless assholes, huh?

LINCOLN ROLLS 50 DEEP MOTHERFUCKERS.

50 DEEP.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 12:38PM|#

dhex,

Where's the "humor" is slandering decent men?

Your believing that to be funny says a whole lot about how serious you should be taken. (not to mention the language, that'll get you lots of respect too)

dhex|1.16.08 @ 12:39PM|#

Where's the "humor" is slandering decent men?

so it's only slander when they're not "fleet-footed"?

i believe it to be incredibly funny, actually. i'm still laughing. i'm laughing so hard i'm finding it a bit difficult to keep my layers straight in illustrator.

i am having a hard time figuring out where to put the FUCK YOU LEW with all the lincoln mandalas taking up my precious print space.\

|1.16.08 @ 12:39PM|#

Can you really believe that Ron Paul would "confide" in Ed Crane in the late 1980s?

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 12:43PM|#

dhex,

Wow. That's deep.

REASON: How high you have held the mantle of libertarian thought! You've become a popular spot for the pro-big government, anti-sound money, crowd.

Impressive.

|1.16.08 @ 12:47PM|#

By the way, one of the good points Reason has raised is that Ron Paul gained a surprising amount of support. There are Americans who are not part of the survivalist, gold standard, tax protestor, Constitutionalist, white supremecy or Christian theocracy lunatic fringes who just think government has become too damn big and too damn expensive. And the key to building this base is NOT feigning admiration for Ron Paul. It's in talking about ideas, smiling, shaking hands, doing grassroots political network building and selling the messages of freedom and tolerance without ever whispering the word "libertarian." If this is about Ron Paul, than what you have is the Reform Party.

dhex|1.16.08 @ 12:50PM|#

i can only be as deep as the material allows. so far "the blacks are animals on welfare" and whatnot gives me only so much room to breakdance.

|1.16.08 @ 12:50PM|#

Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 11:46am | #


States have their own constitutions dealing with freedom of religion issues. Try looking them up

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 12:52PM|#

dhex,

You should never place quotations marks around anything that is not a direct quote.

Sarcozy|1.16.08 @ 12:57PM|#

You know what's really, really good for building a political movement's visibility and credibility with the general public?

Racism. Boy I'll tell you, if you are really trying to expand your appeal among mainstream Americans, there's nothing like having your most prominent spokesman linked to race-inciting literature.

Why has no one has thanked joe for this fine capsule history of progressivism, with its witty concluding allusion to the Obama campaign?

|1.16.08 @ 12:58PM|#

Jose -- since when did using a derivative of "liberty" become a pejorative or a negative? I'm not ashamed of being a libertarian -- I'm certainly not ashamed of being unabashedly for freedom from an out-of-control central government that ignores the constitution.

Julian Sanchez|1.16.08 @ 12:59PM|#

darjen-
RP is probably not a racist, that's not the point. The campaign source is frankly all the confirmation I think would be necessary anywhere else. But we figured there were going to be people who just *knew* it was a lie, or we'd made it up, or who knows. So we have several other people who have it from Rothbard, who was Rockwell's closest collaborator at the time, and himself involved with the newsletter at least cursorily. McElroy's knowledge is direct, not via rumor; she does not overtly name the person, but a mole with a stigmatism could read between the lines at her site. If we had wanted to quote everyone who "just knew" about Rockwell's authorship because that was the rumor, you'd still be reading the damn thing. Dondero is obviously biased, we acknowledge his bias, but in this case what he told us checked out--he was naming exactly the same writers others had, and his descriptions of the roles played by others checked out as well. And then we have the tax documents putting Rockwell second to Paul on the company they formed to publish the letters.

So, seriously, what would be good enough? I'd love to be able to give you a full admission from the authors themselves, but for whatever reason, they didn't want to talk to us, even for long enough to say "I didn't write any of this". Failing that, there's point at which you've just gotta conclude that the account being true is significantly more likely than everyone involved being delusional or a liar.

dhex|1.16.08 @ 12:59PM|#

i was paraphrasing, dear.

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

wow, that's a lot better. whew.

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

whew.

hey we all gotta hustle, right? sometimes that hustle means reaching out to paranoid RAHOWA eschatologists.

|1.16.08 @ 1:01PM|#

This goes back to the founding of CATO. Feud with the Rothbard Faction. Various other things too. Beltway types, the go along to get along types. Mark Skousen being removed as President of FEE a few years back for honoring Rudy Julie Annie. Reason Foundation is big on Benito too I do believe. Former editor Virginia Postrel supported the Iraq war. Even Nick got on board with the war I do believe??

Now Ron Paul comes along and is by far the most successful pro freedom candidate since Barry Goldwater and Beltway libertarians are the ones trying to bring him down.

Lavender Mafia Israel Firsters.

chaos|1.16.08 @ 1:02PM|#

You guys are hilarious. If you could get a nickel for every logical fallacy displayed by the nutjob Ron Paulbots here you could buy yourself an island in the Caribbean.

|1.16.08 @ 1:02PM|#

I doubt the beltway libertarians at Reason or Cato would ever support a libertarian. They would always find a reason to torpedo the candidate so they could go back to meaningless ideological discussions and flirting with the DC power elite.

rip|1.16.08 @ 1:06PM|#

Would I prefer that Harry Browne, Barry Goldwater, or Thomas Jefferson would emerge from the grave and run for the GOP nomination this year? Yes.

Until then, Ron Paul 2008 it is.

Consider the (lack of) alternatives. Reality bites sometimes. Deal with it.

dhex|1.16.08 @ 1:08PM|#

Lavender Mafia Israel Firsters.

this is awesome!

wow.

and to wonder why you guys don't have wider appeal.

oh i know why

ITS THE GAYS AND THE JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
(AND THE SCARY BLACKS TOO)

(ps i changed my voting registration to vote for paul in the ny primary. i most likely will do so anyway. but that doesn't mean his response to this has been absolutely clownshoes.)

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 1:14PM|#

dhex,

Kudos on proper use of quotation marks - you really catch on quick!

By today's standard of hysterical political-correctness, these comments sound "racist," however, PC didn't start to get real teeth until Clinton took over the reins, and oh boy, we all know how much better things got after that!

You can continue to have a hissy-fit over how "backward" we ALL were before the re-education camps got serious about this kind of, hmm... not "hate speech," that's too strong, what should we call it... "speaking your mind?" "mean, hurtful talk?"

Today we are far too sanctimonious to actually say what we think, right? No wait - what was it YOU were saying about Lew Rockwell? Not very nice, but then I suppose you could make the case that you were just saying what you thought?

If racism really bothered you, which by the way I doubt, then you would help overturn the drug laws that disproportionately harm blacks, or maybe you would back ideas that would give ALL people more choice in education so that some are not stuck in the factories of thought "management," ie: PC=good, independent thought=bad.

Ron Paul supports these ideas.
Doesn't sound very racist to me.

|1.16.08 @ 1:15PM|#

dhex | January 16, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Yep

|1.16.08 @ 1:15PM|#

Oh the Paradox of Individual Liberty...!

Apparent from the schism between Ron Paul supporters,

and other libertarian-minded "groups" (the Randians,

Reason et al), is that movement of the American

political status toward "libertarian" policies

(individual rights as supreme) is almost impossible.

Here's why:

If each individual is truly free, it extends equally to

extreme positions extrapolated from that tenet,

whether those positions are based on racial

generalizations, deep-set conspiracy beliefs, etc.

Libertarians (as defenders of individual liberty) live

with this paradox of holding central agreement, but

strong disagreements at the extrapolated "what ifs"

application of personal freedom.

Too bad we just cannot recognize the HEAVILY WEIGHTED

VALUE OF THE CORE PRINCIPLES OF INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY ON

WHICH WE AGREE...

Instead, to be "politically correct" or "mainstream",

requires a "censorship" of the above extrapolation in

thought - i.e., if I'm free, am I free to think or

speak of something controversial, or unappealing to

some, or tasteless to others, etc? Again, at the

distant point of this extrapolation of individual

freedom, there will never be very large agreement.

Currently, the "urbane" Libertarians (here) are also

incapable of resolving this paradox.

Since Libertarians love to "exist" at the extrapolated

extreme (dare I say "in the abstract" most of the

time?),any one Libertarian is only capable of endorsing

their one and only individual position in politics, and

most of them would only consider voting for themselves!



The majority of Libertarians are incabable of endorsing

any candidate where there exists the slightest

disagreement with their individual set of ideals or

policies at the extrapolated positions, even if there

is complete agreement on the "central" basis of

individual rights (which, in my opinion, should account

for a 95% weighting when it comes time to vote from

among a finite set of candidates).

In the meantime, the collectivists and tribal-minded

populus will continue to erode the right of the

individual as the core underpinning of American

political philosophy, with each and every election.

Tragic.

As for Ron Paul, his personal actions speak so much

louder than these "Newsletters". His consistency on

constitutional beliefs and individual rights, severly

trumps any political candidate out there.

Given a finite number of candidates with the

possibility to move America away from it's own demise,

and the "weighting" we should (in my opinion) give to

our "central core belief", it's the reason I'll still

give my vote to Ron Paul long long before I would

consider giving it to the remainder of the "tasteful

and appealing" statists who would stamp on my civil

liberties and the fruits of my free action (my

property).

I hope that Libertarians one and all, will come to

recognize the heirarchical and weighted value of our

core belief in individual liberty, quit this squabling

over what individual liberty might mean in the extreme

(i.e., the right to think extreme) and act on on our

core principal at the ballot box.

Go Ron Paul.

|1.16.08 @ 1:21PM|#

It is true. The Reason Foundation does like Benito Julie Annie. Ol Rudy wants to kill all the Arabs. His chief foreign policy advisor is mad man Norman Podhoretz. The guy who goes to bed every night praying we bomb Iran.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 1:25PM|#

George,

BRAVO!!!

Tin-foil hats or fedoras, pro-life or pro-choice, believer or non-believer, advocate for free speech or supporter of political-correctness, we all meet at the place that says: get government off of my back!

Stay focused, this might be the last chance we get for several generations - pull together and get behind the one, flawed and imperfect human being, who is actually supporting the individual's right to the fruits of his labor, his privacy, and his liberty! www.ronpaul2008.com

CTL|1.16.08 @ 1:27PM|#

It's becoming blatantly obvious that the writers here at Reason are either

1) Just as myopic and narrow-minded as most other journalists.

or

2) Really have it out for Ron Paul.

Either way, I'm disappointed because I just subscribed to this magazine hoping to read something both intelligent and enlightening. It seems I've wasted my money.

dhex|1.16.08 @ 1:31PM|#

Today we are far too sanctimonious to actually say what we think, right? No wait - what was it YOU were saying about Lew Rockwell? Not very nice, but then I suppose you could make the case that you were just saying what you thought?

If racism really bothered you, which by the way I doubt, then you would help overturn the drug laws that disproportionately harm blacks, or maybe you would back ideas that would give ALL people more choice in education so that some are not stuck in the factories of thought "management," ie: PC=good, independent thought=bad.

a) actually, they sound like typical collectivist racist nonsense, like you might hear from mid 90s kultur war white guys. again, i know it's part of the package deal from that era and all, but treating it like it was some kind of youthful indiscretion is bullshit. it was about making money from the rubes and the paranoids.

b) i give money to the drug policy alliance every year. why? because they somehow manage to raise money to fight the war on some drugs without resorting to pandering with racists.

c) had the answer been "listen, i fucked up bad. this shit went out under my name, and that was massively fucked up." this would not really have been an issue. instead the response was, during his local elections, "wink wink nudge nudge stop playing the race card." and then all of a sudden it's "oh no that's horrible and i had nothing to do with it nor can i remember who did plus we've been over this a million times so no comment." who cashed the checks?

d) i don't think ron paul is personally a racist. fleet-footed lew rockwell might not be either, though i think i would enjoy a youtube video of him in east new york late at night. but pandering to racists? and then pretending it didn't happen and wasn't a major fundraising vehicle? fuck that nonsense.

e) if you're really scared of black people that much, all i can say is LINCOLN ROLLS 50 DEEP!

|1.16.08 @ 1:32PM|#

"It is true. The Reason Foundation does like Benito Julie Annie. Ol Rudy wants to kill all the Arabs. "
Not surprising. You learn very quickly in DC to plant your lips firmly on the buttocks of power. Reason is no different.

|1.16.08 @ 1:32PM|#

I suspect Ron Paul has three realistic options. For someone who wants to protect both a nascent popular movement and his own political future, the choice would not be easy as the trade-offs are harsh. This calculation, and not racism, is probably behind his lack of a response.

1) He can stonewall and parse on these allegations, stay in the GOP race, lose the progressive side of his coalition, betray the Ron Paul Revolution and leave the libertarian movement back where it started while a few dead-enders worship him like LaRouche; he keeps his House seat.

2) He can confront the allegations directly, making visible changes in his campaign and clarify why he doesn't agree with neo-Confederate thinking; but to do so effectively, he has to be clear and dramatic in ways that undermine his old coalition (photo op embracing "tax martyr" Wesley Snipes, anyone?); it's going to hurt, and he probably loses his House seat.

3) He can publicly make soundings about dropping out of the race and "pout it out;" he might get favorable publicity and save his candidacy and his House seat. One variation of the play, now that he's got money behind him, would involve dropping out of the GOP race early and running as an independent. Unclear how any of this would turn out.

I can't feel too sorry for him, however. These newsletters were an obvious wedge from the beginning, and one he could have headed off with greater candor.

|1.16.08 @ 1:34PM|#

This is worse than I thought. The Reason Foundation actually honored Benito

reason sux|1.16.08 @ 1:34PM|#

The real libertarians (Reason libs) are racists. They see Paul gaining support from regular people and even minorities (Arabs!) and feel that these people are being turned on to libertarianism and that it will kill the (racial) purity of their party/ideals. So they slander Dr. Paul to try and convince the folks that he's a racist and they should go back to where they came (D or R). This keeps their party pure without having to actually admit that they are indeed the racist ones!

sadly, this is beginning to look like the most logical explanation.

Dagny|1.16.08 @ 1:39PM|#

William R,

"This is worse than I thought. The Reason Foundation actually honored Benito"


That's my cue - outta here! Anyone else?

last one out, turn out the lights.

Peace, Liberty, Prosperity
www.ronpaul2008.com

max|1.16.08 @ 1:41PM|#

"That's my cue - outta here! Anyone else?"

Hold the door!

dhex|1.16.08 @ 1:41PM|#

later!

|1.16.08 @ 1:43PM|#

Ah yes, our rabid support for Giuliani explains it. Everything else we've ever written about Giuliani was just an elaborate, very-long term strategy of misdirection. I was hoping nobody would crack our dastardly scheme.

lemur|1.16.08 @ 1:44PM|#

I think it's a fair article. Thanks, guys.

|1.16.08 @ 1:52PM|#

Oh, yeah, and it was Reason on the grassy knoll!

Normally, I just find libertarians annoying. The Paulistas who are storming H&R, however, are nuts. I don't refer to myself as a libertarian because while I support many libertarian views, I don't want people to immediately dismiss me as an arrogant asshat or a pedantic prick. I'd rather they get to know me first.

Michael J. Totten|1.16.08 @ 2:01PM|#

Thank you for publishing this.

|1.16.08 @ 2:13PM|#

As an overseas observer/participant/follower of all the discussion around this subject, one observe a clear double standard, once again. A few observations: Rockwell's denunciation of "state enforced" segregration or integration is a perfectly libertarian principle, e.g. a libertarian principle is against government interference to the way an individual should run his/her live. There is a certain limit to freedom also. An individual's freedom is exercise in a specific context and "limit": area(city, country), way of thinking, race, ethnicity, religion etc. e.g. the issue of identity and values The libertarian tradition int he thought of Rothbard, Paul etc. is also not a radical individualism, but int he context of socialogical and religious values. "Libertarian conservatism" what Dr. Paul and others represent seeks to integrate a social and religious conservatism with the liberty of enabling the freedom of choice for others. One example is also that the issue of abortion is seen within the wider context, right to life, based on values and belief (radical "left-libertarians" would favor a radical individualism, like it is the woman's right to choose, often not religious value). With regard to the creation/evolution issue, it is often very simplistic formulated, and often the false question. Dr. Paul believes in creation, in the sense that as a Christian belief that God has created the world. Having said this, an evolution in nature and thought are also preached )e.g. scientific research: we can detect evolution within specie's etc.). A Radical Darvinian, a-religious evolution-theory necesseraly must also pre-suppose a "big-bang" when all the evolution "started". IMHO Dr. Paul is no ignoramus at all. he is an intelligent Christian. With regard to the whole letetr issue: It is clear that during the time when Dr. Paul worked on the letters himself, no racial element cropped up. He was most probably extremely busy with his political and medical work (e.g. being a doctor is a full time work, and he cared for many patients, soem of them for free, and under them many minorities in the US (e.g. African-Americans, Hispanics etc.) and it was during this time that a ghostwriter wrote the passages. Lee Rockwell could theoretically have written a few passages, that is really not racist (like the forced segregration or integration issue, where they also want to stress private property value, without negating civil liberties, an issue that Dr. Paul is currently strongly advocating, in contrast to the other Republican candidates. The controversial ('racial" passages could probably have been written by someone else, like the persont hat left in unfortunate circumstances etc. while Rockwel was the editor. Dr. Paul probably gave Rockwell the responsibility to oversee the newsletter, and he - Lew - was probably very busy and did not read through everything in detail (e.g. he could also have read through all, but in a tired or emotional moment have missed a few slurs). Whatever happpened, it is simply irresonsible and unscientific to assume RRS was a racist movement in any way. It could also be that they were so busy and could not erase the unfortunate passages when it was printed (remember, still written with "old technology", no computer). Anybosy has his/her weakness and Dr. Paul - being a wise person, has the wisdom to not reject certain figures in order to introduce them to the philosophy and to change them by setting an example, very much like people see him now also as a moral example that stands out. In religious sense: everybody is a sinner, and those that want to point point out - albeit with also nothing better to do to research old records meticulously (without considering not all written reconrd could be found) - certain sins (like racist comments) with a few, must be on the lookout that they miss to see their own sins (like reason's tacip approval of "pre-emptive stike" and the resultant terrible wars, death and destruction of innocent people, racisst (like McCain's - who the editors of reason now seem to endorse comments towards Asians (which he has spoken) as well as offensive comments towards Mulism's religion (burka comment during last week's debate). The worst that Dr. Paul could be found guilty of, is the entrusting of reposnsibility to tohers, that he himself has not read through all the newsletters (but then again with ane xtremely difficult progam, it would be difficult: should he rather have spent the time reading through the newsletters, than helping less fortunate patients (often fro free)? There is no doubt in my mind that Dr. Paul has not a racist bone in him. He also also very honest and abhores "political correctness" e.g. to totally reject a person that uses racist lanaguage. he would would set the good example for such a person, and involve such a person for his own good and that of the libetarian cause. If "reason" want to be really cosmologist, e.g. look at the inetrest of other nations and peoples, then it should REJECT a policy of political inferference (and worse still war, where it is not self-defense, "unjust war vs. a "just war"). If Dr. Pauls' mistake - for which he has apologised and explained years ago, is seen as an issue that would bar him from office as president, then simply no-one woudl qualify at all. WHich person has not made a mistake. He himself has never used any racist language, as Kirchik and Dondero have both stated and written. One woudl rather think that McCain's and Hillary CLinton's public racist rants, Obama's connection with an exclusive blakc church, of which a leader makes racist comments and connected to L. farrakhan and his wife, who made some racials comemnts . Huckabee, Giuliani etc. have several issues, missteps that should - compared to Dr. Paul's sin, totally bar from from even running as president. Indeed, a cunning observer who studies all aspects in detail, can see through this smear campaign (Kirchik is a clear opportunistic and jumping to consclusions, generalise, "or call it "sex" up the comments, just like "Iraq's WMD was a story that was also "sexed up"!). Reason magazine has the historic chance to consider these issues, and reflect and endorse Dr. Paul. If they blow it, (looking for "sensation" and from a false journalistic morality), and endorse another - shady character, and in effect vote for a whole range of racist legislation for black people (drug issue) as well as health issue (medical mariana) and condone racist comments by the candidate they endorse, and - worse - accept violence as a way and means to bring about politicla change and acting in self-interest, then they support in effect more the opposite of what any liberty (Paleo or cospologist, e.g. "rightwing or leftwing libertarianism) stand for. This would also mean they accept a morally buncrupt pax Americana, out of selfish (oil) interest and should be resonsible for the economic consequences of military built up. If they really want to be "international", they should also be informed that American militrary presence in Korea for instance, also involves the killing of inncent Korean schoolchildren (as I have experienced), and act on an (implied and institutional) white supremacism, in that for Middle East countries a political suystem is being enforced. (A democracy cannot never be built on undemocratic means, the the use of force). It would also lead to an isolation from now only Middle Eastern countries, but also allies such as Germany and France. (One could also note that the whole newsletter research and discussion about who wrote what etc. and searching for motives and jumping to conclusions, show some signs of a clear "conspiracy theory" about the whole newsleter issue. So ironic, thought that soem of RP's supportes are conspiracy theorists, they have clearly met their match!). All clear? Dr. Paul's philosophy will bring so much peace and understanding in the US and outside the US internationally. I have never seen such an intelligent, kind, smart, humble, honest and determined (in short qualified) US president candidate in decades. He would indeed be like the Thomas Jefferson of the current century, as Judge Andrew P. Napolitano has described.

Carol Moore|1.16.08 @ 2:21PM|#

Since I've been quoted here just want to make it clear -- as I'm doing in my carolmoorereport.blogspot.com posts - that I do think the abusive statements about blacks and gays should be apologized for by those who wrote and approved of them, including Ron Paul. The Byrd analogy is good. The material against the state of Israel I've seen was not written in a bigoted way, but the fact Paul did not (and still does not) criticize Israel the same way publicly suggests it was included at least as much for pandering purposes as to protest undue Israeli influence and the abuse of Palestinians. I'd like to hear Paul's honest and not pandering (to both sides) view on that issue. And in the 1987-1992 period there was an ugly, high testosterone, macho struggle for power in the Libertarian Party and movement, including proving who could bring more people into the movement, that was a partial cause of the bigoted pandering. Power - and the seeking of power - corrupt. We're after liberty. Paul, Rockwell, et al confuse the issue by letting their stupid errors of the past discredit them and those who associate with them today.

|1.16.08 @ 2:27PM|#

Carol, the LP is no different than the local church or most other human organizations. Despite the high-minded ideals, it always comes down to human emotions, human egos and human failings like intolerance. We imagine grand philosophies, but we cannot imagine ourselves into better people.

|1.16.08 @ 2:35PM|#

Have you published verbatim quotes of the so-called racist statements from Ron Paul's newletters?
Why don't you let your readers decide whether or not they are racist.

|1.16.08 @ 2:40PM|#

Thanks. I think its useful to know what I am sweeping under the rug when I defend Ron Paul (that means I am still supporting him).
But I would still like to quantify it-- Is the whole catalog of comments already on display on TNR?
Because if thats the whole catalog of 'hate' Kirchik found, to hell with Kirchik.
Thats at most 5 issues in 30 years and is totally explainable by the statements Ron Paul made already.

|1.16.08 @ 2:42PM|#

Ah, nothing like a good libertarian food fight.

None of this newsletter crapola will resonate even three months from now, apart from a few of the movement lifers who've been duking it out for decades.

What I worry about is that the Ron Paul phenomenon might be tied solely to the Iraq War. In other words, when the war fades from public view, will all of these newly minted young libertarians will go back to supporting the nanny state establishment? That, I believe, is what we should be arguing about--the degree to which the buzz around RP represents a true libertarian surge.

|1.16.08 @ 2:43PM|#

I never realized the guerrila marketing value of calling people racist.
I think we should start a blog about how racist Kirchik is.

Libertas|1.16.08 @ 2:43PM|#

And people wonder why Libertarianism doesn't get anywhere... it certainly can't be because of the petty sniping that Reason is performing here. Apparently, Reason would rather see the whole Libertarian ideal go down in flames, than allow any other clique but their own to spread it.

So, for all of you at Reason/Cato: FUCK YOU.

|1.16.08 @ 2:44PM|#

This story is no longer about Ron Paul; it's about the Libertarian movement. How could this happen? How could it be about the Libertarian movement? Here's how.

This whole fiasco proves beyond a doubt that Ayn Rand's judgment on the Libertarians was correct.

Peter Schwartz, an Objectivist scholar, nailed them in his essay Libertarianism: The Perversion of Liberty. Schwartz's essay quotes two libertarians, which sums up the problem very nicely.

Consider this from Murray Rothbard:

"... Libertarianism is a coalition of adherents from all manner of philosophic (or nonphilosophic) positions, including emotivism, hedonism, Kantian a priorism, and many others. My own position grounds Libertarianism on a natural rights theory embedded in a wider system of Aristotelian-Lockean natural law and a realist ontology and metaphysics. But although those of us taking that position believe that only it provides a satisfactory groundwork as a basis for individual liberty, this is an argument within the libertarian camp about the proper basis and grounding of Libertarianism rather than about the doctrine itself."

And this from another libertarian:

"[Libertarianism] allows for an amazing diversity.... We've seen priests, monogamists, family men as the fellow-Libertarians of the gays, the sado-masochists, the leather-freaks, and those into what they call "rational bestiality".... Only Libertarians could gather together the homosexual motorcycle gang, the acid-dropper fascinated by the price of silver, and the Puerto Rican nationalist immersed in the Austrian school of economics."

The problem with Libertarianism is that it includes all this plus racist paleocons. Without a proper moral philosophy (e.g., Objectivism) as the basis of your political philosophy, this is what you get.

|1.16.08 @ 2:55PM|#

Man, if this is true, Lew could have nipped all this in the bud by taking full responsibility.

I've been reading lewrockwell.com for years, it's disappointing if these are indeed his attitudes.

|1.16.08 @ 2:55PM|#

Without a proper moral philosophy (e.g., Objectivism) as the basis of your political philosophy, this is what you get.

If you really want to go there; I'm an Objectivist and I know where the holes are, man. It's not a complete philosophy, and is supposed to be a personal one, not political.

Bubba Friend|1.16.08 @ 2:57PM|#

Bubba, you should read the newsletters yourself.

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

Then ask whether they're racist. (Note: anyone who can read English will answer "yes.")

Duckman|1.16.08 @ 2:58PM|#

I think quite a few Paul supporters are quick to attack anyone who questions anything about Ron Paul.

Personally, I think this was a great article by Reason. I like Paul, and I have gone as far as to canvass for Paul through my local meetup group, but I'm no kool-aid drinker. The fact is there is something rotten about these newsletters and we (his supporters and the general public) are not being told the whole truth. Shouldn't that bother you?

Personally, I think this research confirms something I was beginning to suspect last week: Ron Paul has a shrewd strategy of pandering to two groups that don't get the time of day in mainstream politics: racists and conspiracy theorists (esp. 9/11 truthers).

In both cases, Ron Paul has been careful to position himself sort of straddling the fence. There are tantalizing clues he may be a friend of both, but not enough concrete to say whether he really is.

Personally, I think Ron Paul knows that groups like these, who are way outside the mainstream, are more likely to dig deep in their pockets and donate their time to support someone who they think finally sees the light on the issue they care the most about, since to them it's "Ron Paul or nobody."

Is he merely pandering to these groups? I think so. I don't think Ron Paul is a racist, and I also don't think Ron is a truther. But I do think Ron Paul doesn't mind if YOU as a supporter think he is. That's the shrewdness here.

|1.16.08 @ 3:06PM|#

Isn't it a good thing that reason is pointing out Ron's flaws and how to address them better?

How else do you get to be good without constructive criticism, anyway?

|1.16.08 @ 3:08PM|#

You think the newsletters were bad? The fundraising letters were just insane from that period.

LOL!! I seem to remember getting one of those letters in the early '90s, when I first got involved with the libertarian movement. As I recollect, it came from some southwestern state, Arizona or New Mexico.

Having been a recent convert from the left (yeah, yeah, cosmo-libertarian - live and learn), I naturally went into a state of politically correct mortification wondering how anyone could target me with such a thing. I had no idea how I got on any such mailing list. I indignantly threw the thing into the garbage.

Now that I understand the mechanization behind it, it actually seems pretty funny. The Rothbard-Rockwell scheme sounds like something out of Mel Brooks - "Springtime for Hitler" or something.

I kind of appreciate the idea behind it, but sending out those kind of fundraising letters to PC suburban yuppies was kind of peeing on the wrong tree, if you ask me....

ronpaulwartsandall|1.16.08 @ 3:22PM|#

hell, the CURRENT Ron Paul fundraising letters are pretty "insane" too...!

http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/files/ronpaul.pdf

The world's elites are busy forming a North American Union. If they are successful, as they were in forming the European Union, the good 'ol USA will only be a memory. We can't let that happen.

The UN also wants to confiscate our firearms and impose a global tax. The UN elites want to control the world's oceans with the Law of the Sea Treaty.

And yet, I donate anyway...!

VM|1.16.08 @ 3:24PM|#

"Apparently, Reason would rather see the whole Libertarian ideal go down in flames"

Paul isn't a libertarian. He's perfectly fine with big, intrusive state government.

|1.16.08 @ 3:27PM|#

If McCain and Thompsons' racism was not so readily cheered by the audience in the last debate then all of this ultra-sensitivity may have some merit. But these newsletters in this context are no longer so egregious. There is no difference between insensitive remarks towards African Americans and the same towards Arabs.

Paul was negligent. Fine, get over it. He is not running for messiah. He is running for president.

The Austin NAACP President knows he's not a racist and so do you.

This hand wringing is reminiscent of the timidity of the Democrats who abandoned or failed to support the Dean campaign. If they would have made a strong statement against the war, win lose or draw in the election--the Democrats could have changed things for the better 4 years ago. How many American and Iraqi's would be alive today but for that scream?

Your falling all over yourselves to distance yourself from the undesirables in your libertarian minority group that you are betraying your movement and looking ridiculous.

Grow up. We don't care about your highbrow libertarian v. paleo fight. You can continue your circular self flagellation all you want.

The rest of us are bored with it and have moved on to spread the cause of freedom.

|1.16.08 @ 3:29PM|#

Hilarious.

How many blacks are on the board of Reason? None?

I'm not surprised that a bunch of Neocosmotarians would exclude blacks from their editorial board and then call other people racists. Your Neocon cousins do the same thing when it comes to the War on Terror. A pox on both your houses.

You've learned well from Rand & Co. Practice treachery and then accuse others of being treacherous. Congratulations.

Davy C Rockett|1.16.08 @ 3:32PM|#

I would expect Reason Magazine to buy into smears about Ron Paul using this supposed racist newsletter.

Here is a person who worked for Paul, and they claim he is not a racist. If you even take the time to listen to what Paul espouses and believes you will know the whole Ron Paul racist stuff is a attack by his opponents.
http://screamfreedom.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html

Now McCain is the one who has openly used racial slurs yet no one is going after him.

Reason Mag,what happen to reason here. Go after the real racist.

|1.16.08 @ 3:34PM|#

The problem with Libertarianism is that it includes all this plus racist paleocons. Without a proper moral philosophy (e.g., Objectivism) as the basis of your political philosophy, this is what you get.

I probably lean toward Rand's stuff as much as anyone on these boards, but I would consider the above to be a feature of libertarianism rather than a flaw. The more accomodating a political philosophy or system the better its chance of success. Objectivists are not the only ones being asked to live under it, and there will always be people holding beliefs other than Objectivism.

Salvius|1.16.08 @ 3:35PM|#

So Ron Paul isn't perfect, and has flaws like any other human being. But an article acknowledging those flaws, and attempting to put some of them in context, is part of a "smear campaign"? Instead of holding our breath for a perfect candidate who will never arrive, we should pull together behind the candidate we do have by pretending he's perfect?

I didn't even read this article as particularly critical of Paul: If anything, it's more critical of Rockwell and Rothbard than of Paul. From the article, it sounds like the consensus is that the nasty stuff was probably written by Lew Rockwell, as part of a deliberate strategy of pandering to racists and survivalists concocted by himself and Murray Rothbard, in order to build a voting/fundraising base. If true, I have to admit, I'm disappointed in them. It strikes me as a cynical, power-mongering thing to do, not at all the product of the sort of principled idealism we libertarians tend to proudly proclaim.

And the reaction of some of the Ron Paul fans here isn't much better. Their response to Reason digging up and/or consolidating some of this information, putting the original New Republic piece in more complete context, seems to range from "Why are you trying to destroy libertarianism?" to "La-la-la-la-la, I'm not listening!" The "don't rock the boat" argument that Reason should be ignoring this story because Ron Paul is the closest thing to a viable candidate libertarians have ever had was, I think, best characterized by Joe, as "Fuck principle, we want power!"

Absolutely none of which invalidates the message. I'll still read Rothbard's books. I'll still occasionally click through and read one of Rockwell's posts. And I'd still vote for Paul if he somehow got the nomination (if, say, all of the other candidates were eaten by snakes), and probably also if he went third-party. But I think it actually is important that everyone interested in liberty should grok that Paul didn't get all the grass-roots attention he's gotten by cynically pandering to the worst fringe elements of conservatism*, but rather by the strength of the message, and that the cynical pandering probably did more to harm than to help him. That's important to know, just from a strategic planning point of view: Strategy A is apparently more effective than Strategy B. If we're ever going to make any progress, we need to know what works. This article helps us do that.


*Well, except maybe the anti-immigration crowd.

|1.16.08 @ 3:37PM|#

I find it bitterly dissapointing that some of these people that I have read and respected for so long such as Murray Rothbard would be even remotely involved in race baiting. It is like reading Thomas Jefferson but realizing he owned slaves.

There have been various fissures in the libertarian movement but I can't beleive that the Mises people, Ron Paul and Rothbard would think this was in any way a good idea. Even if they themselves were just panderers rather than overt racists the chicken come home to roost.

No matter, many will still support Paul including me but perhaps with a little more eyes open. I agree that Ron Paul should put this thing to bed immediately by coming clean. Better yet Lew Rockwell should stand up and take responsibility for this in the interest of the current Ron Paul campaign as well as the future of the libertarian movement.

|1.16.08 @ 3:42PM|#

"The rest of us are bored with it and have moved on to spread the cause of freedom."

You kids have fun building your fort but don't forget that supper's at six.

|1.16.08 @ 3:45PM|#

Julian Sanchez | January 16, 2008, 1:43pm | #

Why would a so called libertarian organization honor a war mongering NeoCon hack like Benito??

Davy C Rockett|1.16.08 @ 3:45PM|#

Where are these supposed newsletters, I've heard about them but yet to have seen one.

Urkobold™|1.16.08 @ 3:47PM|#

HAS THE URKOBOLD MISSED THE OPPORTUNITY TO BASK IN THE WARMTH OF THE INTELLIGENCE OF THE GREAT INDEPENDENT THINKER KNOWN AS "Dagny"?

YAAARRRRGGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!

I WILL SIT HOME ALONE CUTTING AND PASTING BITS OF PAULTARD IDIOCY WITH ROCKWELL LUNACY AS A PALE SUBSTITUTE.

Tim Starr|1.16.08 @ 3:49PM|#

As a libertarian hawk who supported the Iraq war from the start, the one defense of the bigoted newsletters that Ron Paul both paid for and profited from that bothers me the most is: "But at least he's anti-war!"

To paraphrase an old button from the Vietnam anti-war movement, you don't have to be a white supremacist to be against the Iraq War, but it helps. Many common criticisms of the Iraq War follow a white supremacist template. E.g.:

1) The war's allegedly for Israel's benefit, not America.
2) Once again, Union troops are occupying foreign territory which they're trying to hold against insurgents coming from the old ruling elite, just like during Reconstruction.
3) The Iraqis were allegedly better off before Saddam's overthrow, just as American blacks were allegedly better off before the abolition of slavery.

|1.16.08 @ 3:54PM|#

With "Friends" Like Reason, who needs enemies?

First of all, I will NEVER buy your magizine. Second, You fail to discuss whether or not --taken in full context-- the words and ideas expressed are "racists".

Reason "broke" this story months ago, enabling Paul's enemies to bring it up just before the South Carolina primary vote... The REAL story is NOTHING in there is racists, at all. Nothing, apply a little "reason" and some clear definitions and read it all in context to the subject, which was "criminals". No, the Newsletter was not PC, nor should it be, nor should "libertarian" Reason be...shame on you Reason, shame on you writers. SHAME on you.

Gene Callahan|1.16.08 @ 3:59PM|#

L. Ron Hubbard was too a nuclear physicist! And he hung out with Aleister Crowley just to spy on him for US intelligence. All that nonsense is just lies put out by psychiatrists to smear him!

Whoa, sorry, I thought I had re-joined the Church of Scientology for a minute there.

Gene Callahan|1.16.08 @ 4:02PM|#

"To paraphrase an old button from the Vietnam anti-war movement, you don't have to be a white supremacist to be against the Iraq War, but it helps."

Tim, there are a whole lot of really stupid comments in this thread, but you got the dumbest!

"Anyones not wanna kill a million Iraqs must hates em!"

|1.16.08 @ 4:02PM|#

"Carol Moore, a left-libertarian activist..."

What is a "left-libertarian"? Is it a libertarian that supports the use of government force for leftist causes or is it a libertarian that shares personal opinions with the left? I'm pro-choice and pro-immigration but if someone calls me a left-libertarian, I assume they have no clue what "libertarian" means.

"Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life."

Even if this didn't display a delusional view of how libertarian philosophy is currently perceived (as I've already mentioned here), it contradicts libertarian philosophy. Racism is nothing more than a specific form of stupidity and, unless institutionalized, libertarian philosophy has nothing to say on the subject of stupidity (other than "it's your right to be stupid" as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others).

I don't remember people being worried about the reputation of libertarian philosophy when Neal Boortz was allowed to speak at the LP convention or "libertarian" publications were publishing pro-Iraq-invasion editorials and calling their authors "libertarian".

Can one of the government loving trolls (most who seem to be Edward posting under another name) do a count of the number of blog posts and articles Reason has written on this subject since the TNR article was published. For real, I love Family Guy but I wouldn't enjoy watching the same episode 20 times in a row.

Gene Callahan|1.16.08 @ 4:04PM|#

"It strikes me as a cynical, power-mongering thing to do..."

Hey, you just described Rothbard's career!

Curly G|1.16.08 @ 4:05PM|#

Hitler was a Vegan
Hitler liked animals

Bob Barker is a Vegan
Bob Barker is an animal rights activist

C'mon down, your the next contestant on the Reichsmarks Right!

|1.16.08 @ 4:06PM|#

The Rondroids are amazingly brain dead. They buy into the exact line that Rockwell feeds them without realizing that Rockwell is covering his own ass. Rockwell did this to Paul when he wrote those newsletters. Paul did it to himself when he published them. To blame those who exposed this cesspool for the shit that is floating around it is absurd. The people who caused this are the people who wrote that crap and the people who published that. Everything else the Rockwellians are throwing up is merely diversion.

Gene Callahan|1.16.08 @ 4:07PM|#

"What is a "left-libertarian"?"

http://all-left.net/

Jesse Walker|1.16.08 @ 4:08PM|#

Why would a so called libertarian organization honor a war mongering NeoCon hack like Benito??

Reason magazine wrote about Giuliani here and here, neither time in particularly glowing terms. As far as I'm aware, not a single staffer here supports his candidacy.

The Reason Foundation, which publishes this magazine and website, also published a privatization report which included an article by Giuliani about privatization in New York. As far as I'm aware, that was the extent of the "honor."

Julian Sanchez|1.16.08 @ 4:13PM|#

William-
By "honored" it looks like you mean that they included him in a short book of profiles of city and state level executives who had effectively streamlined bureaucracies or reduced waste or whatever at the local level. I have no idea how good a case study he is, but it doesn't exactly seem like an endorsement of his candidacy or everything he stands for. Anyway, I'm not especially interested in defending the Foundation, which doesn't really have anything to do with the day-to-day operation of the magazine. They certainly don't tell us what to report. If they did, it would be tough to explain why the mag's treatment of Giuliani over the last couple years has been generally pretty unflattering, I think. My co-author, Dave Weigel, wrote a cover story on why libertarians shouldn't support him, fer chrissakes.

|1.16.08 @ 4:15PM|#

Yes, allowing his name to be used on newsletters spewing political incorrectness bordering on racism and homophobia was a lapse on the part of Ron Paul.

However I consider the defense of American imperialism (read: The Global War on Terror) an infinitely greater lapse.

That's why I read Lewrockwell.com and Antiwar.com regularly but hardly ever bother to look at either Cato or Reason. In fact, I wouldn't have this time if not for the present story.

|1.16.08 @ 4:15PM|#

"As a libertarian hawk"

Otherwise known as a parrot with a manicure.

"The Iraqis were allegedly better off before Saddam's overthrow"

So the Iraqis are better off now, even after the US used phosphorus weapons on Iraqi women and children? After hundreds of thousands of dead, raped innocents?

Where do you Neocons get your LSD?

Christopher Witmer|1.16.08 @ 4:19PM|#

Who gives a flying fig? The President of the NAACP in Austin, TX has given Ron Paul the Good Racekeeping Seal of Approval:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

You people attacking Ron Paul over this total red herring issue need to get a life.

libvoter|1.16.08 @ 4:25PM|#

So are the Reason authors/editors going to do any actual 2008 GOP/Dem Primary candidate endorsements/recommendations pretty soon? Tsunami Tuesday is approaching fast...

I've seen plenty here to dissuade me from voting for Rudy, Huck, Fred, Mitt, Obama, Hillary, etc. (and now I suppose we can add Ron Paul to the list.)

Who do you suggest that we cosmo-paleo-etc.-libs support in the primaries?

Or do we just not vote and see what kind of lost cause candidate the LP comes up with?

highnumber|1.16.08 @ 4:30PM|#

After hundreds of thousands of dead, raped innocents?

Wait a minute! Could you explain what you just said here?

(I'm anti war, but I'm not pro lies and hyperbole.)

|1.16.08 @ 4:36PM|#

Luckily for Ron Paul the President of the NAACP has come out and said he is no racist and has known Paul for decades.

oldhickory|1.16.08 @ 4:37PM|#

I really do enjoy people who have tried to dig up dirt on Dr. Paul and have utterly failed. In 70+ years of life, and over 30 years in the public-eye, you found a couple articles in a newsletter which he didn't even write. No one has ever even heard him speak that way. Yet the people who wrote this senseless piece (of...) ignore all the incredible dirt that can be easily found on the other candidates -- legitimate dirt.

Who will "fix" the problems with this country? Giuliani? McCain? Huckabee? Not one of them understands economic policy like Dr. Paul and none of them have pinpointed the ills of this country's economic situation like Dr. Paul. This is a simple fact. Dr. Paul has been predicting this "recession" and the US dollar-decline for years. Greenspan did his best to hide and delay the effects, but as Dr. Paul has repeatedly pointed out, they are inevitable. All the other candidates are virtually inseparable on the key issues...

McCain is okay with being in Iraq for 100 years, maybe the authors of this _hit piece can start coughing up a little extra for the cause, since you obviously support illegal wars.

Fred Thompson? Another frontman for radical, extremist policy-makers. No thanks ... D.C. has enough professional pretenders.

If religion is the opiate of the masses, then Huckabee is the drug dealer candidate. If this country wants a theocracy that will eventually devolve this country to third-world status, then Tax-Hike Mike is for you.

The only true source of creative energy comes from freedom. Individual liberty, sound money and free markets are the only cure for what's on the horizon. Why trust anyone other than the person who has endorsed these principles his entire adult life? Oh yeah, because someone else wrote some articles which contained some discriminatory language in Ron Paul's newsletter -- statements that he has NEVER endorsed... And because of this, many Americans will suffer, lose their job, lose their savings, lose their home, and even lose their life overseas defending policies which make no more sense in the big picture than this article by David and Julia .

|1.16.08 @ 4:40PM|#

"Could you explain what you just said here?"

"Civilian toll in Iraq may top 1M"

http://tinyurl.com/2p6j8n

Look at some video for the use of phosphorous weapons on civilians in Iraq (can you say war crime?):

http://videos.informationclearinghouse.info/fallujah_ING.wmv

Take the rose colored glasses off. America is now in the ranks of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia for mass murder by military.

|1.16.08 @ 4:47PM|#

F***K REASON... I was going to renew my subscriptions... no ways... REASON go join the war mongers... the neo-cons... the bureaucrats... the special interest scum... shame on you.. the most honest man ever to run for the White House... one that oozes integrity... Ron Paul is a true American hero!

|1.16.08 @ 4:49PM|#

I find it bitterly dissapointing that some of these people that I have read and respected for so long such as Murray Rothbard would be even remotely involved in race baiting. It is like reading Thomas Jefferson but realizing he owned slaves.

That's a good comparison!

Except, with Jefferson, you can at least mitigate the conflict to yourself by saying, "welllll, it was a long time ago...."

Rockwell's got no such excuse.

To paraphrase an old button from the Vietnam anti-war movement, you don't have to be a white supremacist to be against the Iraq War, but it helps.

What a bunch of asinine, mendacious tripe.

The pro-war are the ones who think they know whether an Iraqi kids' life was "worth it" or not, who are SOOOO sure of the rightness of their cause that they write off every dead Iraqi woman and child as "unfortunate, but necessary"

I can see no difference between this hubristic attitude and that of fundamentalists like bin Laden.

Every terrorist on the planet thinks he's doing "the right thing", have some humility. People are dying for these precious, stupid neocon plans.

|1.16.08 @ 4:56PM|#

Even if this didn't display a delusional view of how libertarian philosophy is currently perceived (as I've already mentioned here), it contradicts libertarian philosophy. Racism is nothing more than a specific form of stupidity and, unless institutionalized, libertarian philosophy has nothing to say on the subject of stupidity (other than "it's your right to be stupid" as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others).

Franklin nails it here. Libertarianism is about how a person should interact with other people -- not about how they think. If you interact voluntarily with other people without the use of force, you can be libertarian -- even if you're the most racist muthaf'ker on the planet.

If I hadn't chucked my Reason magazines years ago, I'd go back and look up the article where an African American author advocates the ability to hire and fire for any reason -- even (**GASP**!!) racist beliefs!!! Postrel was probably the editor back then -- racist bitch! /sarc

Lew Rockwell|1.16.08 @ 4:58PM|#

I most certainly did NOT write those articles. Queers.

highnumber|1.16.08 @ 5:18PM|#

JD,

I'm wearing the clear lenses of reason (no pun intended). First, I see no reference to hundreds of thousands raped in that article you provided a link to. Second, you're moving into hyperbole again when you make statements like "America is now in the ranks of Nazi Germany and Communist Russia for mass murder by military." I can't and I won't defend the military killing anyone if it's not self defense. Please understand that I'm not trying to. I think, however, that equating the US gov't with the Nazis and Soviets is counterproductive. It's shrill and it's an obvious exaggeration. It's no better than trying to incite a race war to promote libertarianism.

Kevin|1.16.08 @ 5:20PM|#

Reason will look at how many readers and subscriptions they lost after embarking on a mission to divide the Ron Paul movement and realize how ignorant they were.

Steve Horwitz|1.16.08 @ 5:28PM|#

Does Kevin's remark at 520 referring to the total number of lost subscriptions require that we all drink a 6 pack or a case?

|1.16.08 @ 5:31PM|#

Well done. I guess cutting off your nose to spite your face sounded like a good idea? I have been a subscriber to Reason and I am canceling it today.

The harm you have done to all libertarians - which used to include you - is irreparable. Clearly you are using this three decades old material as an attempt to smear Ron Paul and I guess take shots at a man you can't hold a candle to - Lew Rockwell.

Meanwhile, the general public associates Reason and Cato with Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell and several people I talked to today said that all libertarians, like the people at Reason are racists.

Good job guys.

Now we are guaranteed a President who will completely destroy the nation, crash the dollar, send my children to war in a draft (or more likely force me to move my family out of this country), lead us into socialized medicine end the free reign of the Internet, force us all to carry our papers with us at all times, more Gitmos will be built and people like YOU, the folks at Reason will be led away in handcuffs for thought crimes.

Did you ever stop to think past your petty age old vengeance what you would be doing to the country and even yourselves with this kind of smear job? No, I bet not. You just wanted to throw sand at the kid in the sandbox.

This is a sad day in America, when petty vindictive children are so stupid that they set off a nuclear weapon in their next door neighbor's home just because they didn't like the tree he planted there.

Your actions have done more to hurt all libertarians than anything Fox news or CNN has ever done.

I am ashamed of you.

|1.16.08 @ 5:32PM|#

"I see no reference to hundreds of thousands raped in that article you provided a link to."

If you wish to think that this war is being prosecuted without rape and murder, I won't try to change your lens color. So much has been hidden from Americans by the mainstream media that it's rather difficult to break through the brainwashing.

Have you already forgotten Abu Ghraib? The entire country is now one large Abu Ghraib, especially now that Americans have basically empowered sociopaths in the various militias not to mention the basic sociopaths that are called 'contractors'.

"I think, however, that equating the US gov't with the Nazis and Soviets is counterproductive."

That's your opinion and you're welcome to it. I was actually holding back as the rape of a country is expected by Nazis and Communists. To engage in the rape and murder of a country in the name of America is a crime that we will all pay for with a price worse than Germans and Russians paid for their sins.

|1.16.08 @ 5:33PM|#

Some part fair but also suspect. You extensively mention the New Republic which I consider a step below the National Enquirier. Anything that comes from that rag is to me trash. If Mr. Rockwell did write these articles he should admit it appolgize and put it behind him like so many others have. Both minority and majority pundits have plenty of examples of unfortunate writings and comments. I do not believe that Ron Paul is any kind of racist or biggot and I will support him to the end.

|1.16.08 @ 5:42PM|#

"This is a sad day in America, when petty vindictive children are so stupid...blahblahblah...set off a nuclear weapon...blahblahblah...smear job...blahblahblah...destroy the nation...blahblahblah... "

This is a sad day in the blogosphere, when uninformed halfwits like Sandra can grossly misrepresent others' views, completely ignore opposing arguments in favor of bile spewing, attribute fiendish motives to everyone they disagree with in a comically paranoid fashion, and make apocalyptic predictions about the next president (who obviously would not have been RP even before this kerfuffle).

No, wait a sec, this is like every other day in the blogosphere. Cool.

Matt|1.16.08 @ 5:50PM|#

What a waste of time reading this article. Thank god I didn't. The only good thing, I get to
promote Ron Paul's website while posting this
response...Hopefully the search engines will pick it up before reason takes it down.

I'm canceling my subscription to Reason today. Oh wait, I never subscribed in the first place.

Happy Jack|1.16.08 @ 5:54PM|#

If this is about Ron Paul, than what you have is the Reform Party.

If the exit polls are to be believed, that might be an astute observation. You could throw in a couple of other independent candidates, too.

highnumber|1.16.08 @ 5:54PM|#

OMZ!

Matt wins the thread!

Let's all sit back and think of how perfect his posted comment is. It has a zen beauty.

Salvius|1.16.08 @ 5:57PM|#

Can anyone point me to the part of the article where it says, "Here's why you shouldn't vote for Ron Paul"? Or portrays Ron Paul as a racist? Or even attacks Paul in any way? 'Cause I must have skipped over that paragraph.

|1.16.08 @ 5:58PM|#

I knew those libertarians were all a bunch of scum. I have been arguing this point for years but my father always gave me crap for it. Thank You Reason.

All libertarians ought to rot in hell. They are slime who don't care enough about the poor to have welfare and now I know why - they are all a bunch of screwed up racists.

Go Clinton! Clinton 08. See, I told them all we need Hillary care! Without it the poor and starving will never get care. Lousy Libertarians, selfish to the core and those newsletters prove it.

Hillary is the only one who will save us all.
I am new too your blog or magazine or whatever this is. Thank you! This should put all those disgusting paultards in their place. I am printing this and handing it out to as many people that I can find. This will help alot.

Gooooooooooo Hillary!!!!!!!!!! Gooooooooo Reason.

|1.16.08 @ 6:00PM|#

If Mr. Rockwell did write these articles he should admit it appolgize and put it behind him like so many others have.

Yeah, but if you read the article, and understand the genesis of how those letters came to be...

If he admits to writing the letters, he's going to have to explain they were written in support of political strategy that sounds like a Marx Bros. movie.

If he keeps his mouth shut, people may suspect he's a racist. But if he opens it, they'll know for sure he's batshit insane.

|1.16.08 @ 6:08PM|#

Jah, der objektivists iss right! Ve must haff der pure moral philosophy!

Sje|1.16.08 @ 6:16PM|#

"Although I am fiercely interested in the newsletter authorship fiasco, and know some of the personalities involved, there is a rEVOLution going on..."

That, people-that is the scariest thing I have heard about this so far. There is a revolution on! Those who are not with us are against us! Suspend criticism and reason already, you enemies of the revolution!

Scary. Very scary.

Come on. I don't like to be this condescending, but I can't help it. Don't you know anything about history?

It does not matter, at all, whether your revolution happens to be sorta-kinda right. If you do not base yourself firmly on the principles of the open society, of free and open discussion among peaceful equals, your revolution will degenerate. The only revolutions that have ever succeeded are the careful ones, the almost reluctant ones, the Dutch Rebellion, the American Revolution, those sorts of things.

|1.16.08 @ 6:17PM|#

I don't know if Ron Paul has an agenda, but there certainly some enemy forces pushing the libertarian agenda... whatever that is.


The problem for all Ron Paul supporters has been dealing with the libertarians all this time.

André Kenji|1.16.08 @ 6:26PM|#

My biggest problem is that it wouldn´t be so difficult to respond to that. There are alegations in the TNR article(Like the Secession thing and the Tom Clancy´s remark on gays) that are simply childish and pointing out to these things could put the focus out of more problematic material. They could also point out that these things clearly resembles what several Republicans thinks about blacks.

They knew that this material existed and that they could have prepared PR stunts in advance against that, like photo ops in Civil Liberties Historical sites or with gays and blacks. They did nothing. The fact that the Paul´s campaign has no articulation to respond to these things is troublesome, and it makes Dukakis campaign in 1988 looking good. When Mona Charen wrote a column criticizing Ron Paul, it was Radley Balko(Hardly a LRC fan) that responded it and now Paul fans are creating a money bomb on MLK birthday to respond to this smear campaign. Paul´s campaign can´t depend on other people to do it´s job.

They are supposed to represent libertarianism on the mainstream. They should be doing better against a newcomer reporter.

|1.16.08 @ 6:42PM|#

I glad this racism is out in the open, now we can identify the real racist and their enablers.

Every Republican candidate is pushing the A-rab racist button every time they get a chance. "Them A-rabs and their brownskin middle-eastern brethen are out to get you and your family." I have had it with the MSM media pushing politically correct racism. In fact Reason and other "alternative Media" are enablers as much as anyone of the racism towards arabs and muslims. Checkout "Republican" web sites such as Little Green Footballs, Hot Air, etc and there is nothing but blantant racism against muslims and arabs and these guys are big supporters of other GOP candidates. Pot calling the kettle black and all Reason the DC libertarians do is eat their own.

Brandybuck|1.16.08 @ 6:45PM|#

People saw we need to stop using the word "cosmotarian". Fine, I'll start using a different phrase instead, one more accurate: single issue libertarians.

Single-issue-libertarians are those who demand rigid adherence to a specific position. They wield the swords make of litmus paper. But they are willing to call any libertarian who do pass their single issue tests.

To some, Ron Paul is not a true libertarian solely due to the abortion issue. To others you can't be Christian and be a libertarian, or advocate anything less than completely unrestricted immigration. It's not just social issues. Dondero keeps beating people over the head that mainstream libertarians must be pro-interventionists. A few will even assert that advocating sound money is enough to kick you off the reservation.

John Galt the Bigot|1.16.08 @ 6:46PM|#

"The problem with Libertarianism is that it includes all this plus racist paleocons. Without a proper moral philosophy (e.g., Objectivism) as the basis of your political philosophy, this is what you get."

Ayn Rand said "we" should steal "our" oil from under "the savages" in the Middle East. This is not just viciously racist, it is an endorsement of aggression. Jeez. Every time I've gone to hear Objectivists speak, they sound far more ethnically and culturally supremacist than anything you get from the paleos.

Tim Starr|1.16.08 @ 6:51PM|#

Anyone who believes the US has actually killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is delusional, probably falling for the sort of dishonest statistical "studies" done by antiwar partisans, bought & paid for by George Soros, & published in once-respected journals like "The Lancet" that have been captured by the hate-America Left.

They probably also suffer from the ideological blinders that make them incapable of distinguishing between _trying_ to kill civilians and trying not to.

This also follows the white-supremacist template: Holocaust Deniers both deny that the Nazis tried to kill all the Jews, and claim that the Allies tried to kill all the Germans, citing "studies" like David Irving's fraud about Dresden.

It's no surprise that the Paulestinians would do this, since so many of them were recruited by Rothbard/Rockwell as part of a strategy to fund-raise from Willis Carto's mailing lists. Nor is it any surprise that Rothbard would be part & parcel of this, since one of his favorite historians, Harry Elmer Barnes, was also a Holocaust Denier.

SIV|1.16.08 @ 6:56PM|#

People saw we need to stop using the word "cosmotarian". Fine, I'll start using a different phrase instead, one more accurate: single issue libertarians.

"single issue libertarians" ?

I'll defect to the cosmotarians if they come out in favor of a Federal policy of withholding highway funds to any State that doesn't legalize cockfighting.

|1.16.08 @ 7:02PM|#

"Anyone who believes the US has actually killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians is delusional"

Anyone that thinks they can be a libertarian and still support the War on Terror is probably a sociopath.

M. Simon|1.16.08 @ 7:03PM|#

Hey. I like LGF.

I also have posting privleges at Muslims Against Sharia.

Go figure.

M. Simon|1.16.08 @ 7:04PM|#

Any one who thinks Saddam Hussein was a libertarian deserves Ron Paul.

M. Simon|1.16.08 @ 7:05PM|#

I'll defect to the cosmotarians if they come out in favor of a Federal policy of withholding highway funds to any State that doesn't legalize cockfighting.

That is so gay.

ChooseFreedom|1.16.08 @ 7:06PM|#

Why is this relevant to this presidential campaign?

I'm still waiting to see anyone that wishes to claim that Ron Paul is a racist to point to proof in his campaign rhetoric, speeches, etc., but so far there is complete silence to that request.

This article, and the controversy it is designed to advance, is clearly meant to provide distraction from the actual issues that Ron Paul is bringing into the national political dialog, such as: reducing government spending, ending the IRS, & ending our world empire that is bleeding this country dry.

It would be one thing if they could find something in his Presidential campaign or his 20 years of service in congress that matched the rhetoric found in the newsletters, but so far all I see is a smear campaign designed and orchestrated with the help of so-called libertarians, in order to derail the only campaign offering libertarian solutions.

I think someone should do some research on who funds Reason, and also investigate every association of the principles and writers of Reason magazine, in order to have a clearer picture of what their agenda is, because having read the magazine for 20 years, I see a pattern of undermining the best libertarian candidates in favor of big government Republicans. Back in the late 1990's and 2000, I didn't recall Reason magazine ever writing anything that wasn't hostile about Harry Browne, but they did favorably promote Steve Forbes (who just happened to put multiple Reason personnel on his ForbesASAP payroll during that period).

The bottom line questions for me is:
Why should any rhetoric in those newsletters override Ron Paul's 20 years of honorable service in Congress, during in which time he has never promoted a racist agenda through his votes, speeches on the house floor or his congressional statements?

And why should that rhetoric from more than a decade ago now override his presidential campaign, which has been explicitly non-racist in rhetoric and action?

It is a shame that Reason magazine is so infested with intellectual faux-libertarians working on behalf of the worst elements of the status quo. But Reason has become actively hostile to libertarianism put into action within the political system and this article is but one example of their real agenda, which is anything but "Free minds and Free Markets".

M. Simon|1.16.08 @ 7:10PM|#

Would that be the End the Drug War and its oppression of blacks Hillary?

Argo|1.16.08 @ 7:12PM|#

ChooseFreedom and Lonewacko should get together and have a delusional paranoid wankfest about what Reason's _real_ agenda is.

|1.16.08 @ 7:33PM|#

I used to dig the Reason mags out from the back of the rack at Borders. I'll be turning them sideways in the back row.

newslettergate|1.16.08 @ 7:33PM|#

congrats, this article is now linked to by CBS News. Well done. (sigh)

"Ron Paul's Racist Swill"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/16/politics/animal/main3721817.shtml

James Madison|1.16.08 @ 7:37PM|#

Reason has laid out an elaborate wacked-out conspiracy theory,... do they provide the tinfoil hats?

|1.16.08 @ 7:45PM|#

As I said earlier, the Israeli Firsters and Lavender Mafia are behind this

Blast from the past Nick Gillespie Says: "Mass Murder Is Debatable"

Mayberry|1.16.08 @ 7:56PM|#

This 'article' reminds me of the effort over the years to smear Ayn Rand - with the real goal of using her name to increase sales.

There is a reason Reason has lost circulation over the years - as it dwindles toward meaninglessness it becomes vapid and not worth bothering with.

If there happen to be any minds left there, I ask you - why this, now? How can you remain without selling your soul? Time to close Reason for good.

Eric Dondero|1.16.08 @ 8:07PM|#

The problem here is that so many of you are assuming that Ron Paul never actually wrote anything in the Newsletters.

The truth is he himself wrote a good portion of the writings that appeared in all those Newsletters. By what I witnessed, I'd say 30 to 40% was directly from him.

Why doesn't he want to throw his friend Lew Rockwell under the bus? Because he and Lew know that Ron himself was responsible for a lot of the writings.

Ron Paul would be essentially lying if he came out and had a big press release saying that "Lew Rockwell was responsible for all the writings in the Newsletters, and I wish to completely dissassociate myself from him and those writings."

And he knows that a great many people who know him and Lew would step forward to call him out on this.

|1.16.08 @ 8:08PM|#

There's content in this article worthy of review. Many people, such of myself, have joined RP only in the last 6-18 weeks and are unfamiliar with the controversy in the context of what went on during the last 20-25 years. This information allows us to judge for ourselves whether or not this information should dissuade us from continuing with Dr. Paul's campaign. I think it's probable he could give more details about the newsletters. I don't see how any explanations about being disenchanted with politics after his '88 defeat and allowing friends to co-opt his name for a % of the profits could possibly help the current situation. He obviously allowed Rockwell/Rothbard to make whatever efforts they wanted to try and improve on the

|1.16.08 @ 8:08PM|#

He obviously allowed Rockwell/Rothbard to make whatever efforts they wanted to try and improve on the

|1.16.08 @ 8:10PM|#

on the

highnumber|1.16.08 @ 8:10PM|#

William R: "Don't be concerned about 'libertarians' cozying up to racists! Only a Jew or a gay would worry about that!"

Christopher Espinal|1.16.08 @ 8:11PM|#

A superb piece with superb research. I really appreciate it!!!

|1.16.08 @ 8:12PM|#

All this considered I for one am deciding to stick with Dr. Paul. Not only do I believe he is the best candidate for POTUS, I believe he personally is the only one able to hold together the vast coalition of supporters he has assembled. This movement has begun to assemble because of RP's ability to represent, on many issues, how a wide variety of the American public feels. If he disappears too quickly the divergent people gathered in his name with soon thereafter fall apart, we need more time together to grow.
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT!!!

|1.16.08 @ 8:22PM|#

"Any one who thinks Saddam Hussein was a libertarian deserves Ron Paul."

Only a cosmotard could come up with this configuration of words.

Eric Dondero|1.16.08 @ 8:29PM|#

I wish to correct a complete and utter lie in this article. Sanchez and Weigel confronted Mark Elam about his alleged role with the Newsletters. Elam responded that he was simply "given the final product" for production.

This is simply not true. Elam was given some final product for insertion in the Newsletter by Lew Rockwell, and even Ron. But often times Elam and his crew at their sprawling print shop on Fuqua in South Houston would edit the articles extensively. Elam had a couple trusted girls in the front office that he relied on to do this. But mostly it was Jean McIver, a longtime close associate of Ron.

There were many instances in fact, when Ron would dictate to Elam and McIver over the phone last minute insertions. They would be in front of the 4 or 5 computers in the front office typing Ron's dictates into the word processor. They'd read it back to Ron. And Ron would okay it.

So for Elam to imply that he was just a low on the totem pole, simple Print Shop guy is completely false. If there was one single person who was deserving of the title of "Newsletter Editor" it would be Mark Elam, with Jean McIver a close second.

Keep in mind, Elam and McIver were close to Ron in South Houston. So, if there were any last minute emergencies, as there often were, Ron would simply have me drive him up to the Fuqua office to iron them out with McIver and Elam right there.

|1.16.08 @ 8:34PM|#

What was Reason's and Cato's stance before W went barreling into Iraq on trumped up charges?
At least Lew Rockwell.com and Antiwar.com knew the BIG LIES the neocons were spreading. I trust those guys much more than Cato and Reason who barely rank above the MSM in enlightenment.

Ben Masel|1.16.08 @ 8:47PM|#

@John the vast coalition of supporters he has assembled

Election returns suggest something short of vast. Running against Herb Kohl in the Dem Primary in 2006 I had just shy of the votes RP pulled in Michigan, a State with nearly double the population, spending a mere 662 bucks, with no staff. Thought I'd done pretty well, considering, but never claimed "vast" support.

Eric Dondero|1.16.08 @ 8:51PM|#

Eric Garris asks:

"Can you really believe that Ron Paul would "confide" in Ed Crane in the late 1980s?"

I served as Ron Paul's Personal Travel Aide in 1987/88. I specifically recall two long phone conversations Ron had with Ed Crane, President of the Cato Institute, trying to convince Crane to support the campaign.

Additionally, Ron had a private meeting with Crane and a couple other Cato-ites in Northern Virginia at a private home, during the campaign. I cannot confirm this, but I believe Roger MacBride, 1976 Libertarian Party Presidential candidate was also at that meeting. (This was one time when Ron went alone, and I did not accompany him.)

Lastly, I do recall that Ron met with Crane in his offices at Cato on at least one occasion.

Incidentally, the conduit for all these meetings and communications was Ed Clark, 1980 LP Presidential candidate.

Also, for the record, Ron received a $500 check from the Cato backers, the Kochs for his 1996 Congressional Campaign. And he spoke with Ed Crane on at least two occasions by phone during that effort. Both times Crane was generally supportive, but non-commital.

Garris, who has never worked for Ron Paul, and was actively opposed to him in the 1988 campaign, publishing Newsletters like "Ron Paul and the John Birch Connection," and ranting at Ron Paul supporters at the 1988 LP Convention in Seattle, is essentially talking out of his ass on the subject of Paul and Ed Crane.

You ain\'t squeaky clean.|1.16.08 @ 8:57PM|#

"Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists"

Exactly . And all this was a common secret amongst libertarian circles . So how good does Reason magazine look in light of this and the above quote when you consider comments by former Reason editor Virginia Postrel

"I do fault my friends at Reason, who are much cooler than I'll ever be and who, scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn't do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked my old boss Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul's newsletters back in the early '90s. Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul's populist appeals. (Note that by "cosmopolitan" I do not mean "Jewish." I mean cosmopolitan.) I suspect they did but decided it was more useful to spin things their way than to take Paul's record and ideas seriously."

"The disclosures are not news to me, nor is the Paul campaign's dismissive reaction a surprise. When you give your political heart to a guy who spends so much time worrying about international bankers, you're not going to get a tolerant cosmopolitan."

Eric Dondero|1.16.08 @ 9:01PM|#

Eric Garris | January 16, 2008, 10:35am | #

This article quotes only people who have expressed intense dislike for Rockwell in the past, hardly a fair mix. One of those quoted recently called Lew "the most obnoxious person in North America."

It is interesting that this comes out the day that Rockwell announced he is going in for eye surgery, he won't be able to read and respond to it for many days.


Eric Dondero's response:

It's interesting Garris says that the people quoted in the article only have an "intense dislike for Ron Paul."

Let's keep in mind that Eric Garris, along with his longtime friend and business partner Justin Raimondo are the two very people who showed up at the 1988 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominating Convention in Seattle, with stacks and stacks of Newsletters, titled, "Ron Paul and the John Birch Connection."

Back then Garris and Raimondo were the most vehement critics of Paul on the planet.

If anyone here attended that famous convention, they might remember the scene right before the Nominating speeches in the expansive Hotel 2nd floor area, when Garris and Raimondo, screamed at the top of their lungs at Ron and his wife Carol, accusing them of being "Pro-Lifer, Religious Right, Homophobe fanatics."

Garris & Raimondo went on to criticize Paul for years after that in the LROC Newsletters.

And now Garris is accusing others of having "an intense dislike for Ron Paul."

Mr. Garris, it was YOU SIR, who screamed at Ron and Carol at the top of your lungs in front of over 100 aghast witnesses at that Convention in Seattle. It was not Ed Crane.

Eric Dondero|1.16.08 @ 9:07PM|#

You all should know that we almost lost the 1996 Congressional Campaign over these goddamned Newsletters.

We crushed Republican incumbent Greg Laughlin in the primary. But the general election against Democrat Lefty Morris was another story. Ron barely eeked out a victory 51 to 48.5%.

I'd say 90% of the reason for the closeness of the race, was Lefty's exposure of the Newsletters, and the constant hammering we took over them in the Houston and Austin media.

And this in staunchly conservative South Texas.

Don't think that these Newsletters don't matter to the general American public. We made the same mistake in the summer of 1996, thinking, it was "no big deal," and besides, who would ever believe a Democrat named "Lefty" any way?

Well, that ole' Lefty guy put the fear of God into Ron Paul, and it was all over these Newsletters.

|1.16.08 @ 9:12PM|#

Personally I think there is plenty of racism and bigotry to go around. Even for Hillary Clinton:

Could Hillary be a racist and a bigot after all? Or is she just misunderstood?:

She angrily denies racist and bigoted statements as far back as 2001…..

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0007/16/sun.07.html

But then, her campaign attacks African American candidate Barack Obama?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLVZbB2f5m8&feature=related

IOWA: Points Must Be Deducted (using race to "scare" white voters and stereotype blacks)
http://blackstarnews.com/?c=135&a=4035

Is this smear tactic in 2007 against an African-American similar with previous "alleged" behavior?

Racism against African-Americans

Hillary Clinton is the only major Democratic presidential candidate who did not support the
Sentencing Commission's unanimous vote this week to apply recent sentencing reductions for crack-cocaine offenses retroactively
http://www.alternet.org/story/70467/

"Mahatma Ghandi, he ran a gas station in St. Louis for a couple of years"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDHbHcOV1N4&feature=related..

Her famous "plantation" remark in 2006:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/01/17/clinton.plantation/index.html
AP story version found here -
http://www.iccaustin.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=310


Comments about Clinton by Randall Robinson, "An Unbroken Agony", C-SPAN2 on Book TV
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4FVlKY8Ispg

Honoring an ex-klansman
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/15/185205.shtml?et=y

Bigotry against Jews

Hillary accused of 'Jew' insult to aide
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=CTJH0U2TFY1GNQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2000/07/16/whill16.xml

"Getting Used to Hillary"
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/julia/gorin112700.asp

Bodyguard Details Hillary's Jew Bashing into the 1990s
http://archive.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2000/7/15/120418

Time for Slur-Monger Hillary to Withdraw from Senate Race
http://archive.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2000/7/16/101106

Anti-Semitic Double Standard
http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/16/190817

Hillary Caught in Fib with Slur Denial
http://archive.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2000/7/17/121022

Hillary Slurred Jews 10 to 20 Times, Used 'N' word Too: Bodyguard
http://archive.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2000/7/17/170832

'Jew Bastard' Immunity Deal Could Doom Hillary
http://archive.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2000/7/17/214131

Jews Divided on Hillary Slur, UPI
http://archive.newsmax.com/articles/?a=2000/7/17/214214

Press Tried to Cover Up Hill's 'Jew Bastard' Slur
http://archive.newsmax.com/scripts/showinside.pl?a=2000/7/18/192110


For Better or Worse
http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/08/06/reviews/000806.06eakint.html

|1.16.08 @ 9:20PM|#

@Brandybuck

A few will even assert that advocating sound money is enough to kick you off the reservation.

Oh, come on! What reservation are they going to kick you off of? Cosmo-libertarianism is taste of the 101st Keyboardist Division. All they do is write blogs!

I guarantee you, I don't see any cosmo-libs at LP or FSP meetings. Any actual libertarian group that I ever participated in, that involved real people doing real things, was a lot more preoccupied with gun rights than gay rights.

If you get any shit from a cosmo-lib, give him wedgie, a kick in the ass, and send him on his way. The worst he can do to you is revoke your posting privileges....

kingsizepileofhooey|1.16.08 @ 9:24PM|#

Undisputed_Truth-Ball_Of_Confusion.mp3

|1.16.08 @ 9:39PM|#

"What was Reason's and Cato's stance before W went barreling into Iraq on trumped up charges?"

Knowing those guys, it was a wide stance.

Neoectoplasmatic Schizoliberta|1.16.08 @ 9:55PM|#

Bush: US should have bombed Auschwitz

JERUSALEM - President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial Friday and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman said.

Bush emerged from a tour of the Yad Vashem memorial calling it a "sobering reminder" that evil must be resisted, and praising victims for not losing their faith.

Wearing a yarmulke, Bush placed a red-white-and-blue wreath on a stone slab that covers ashes of Holocaust victims taken from six extermination camps. He also lit a torch memorializing the victims.

Bush was visibly moved as he toured the site, said Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev.

At one point, Bush viewed aerial photos of the Auschwitz camp taken during the war by U.S. forces and called Rice over to discuss why the American government had decided against bombing the site, Shalev said

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080111/ap_on_re_mi_ea/bush_israel_holocaust_4

|1.16.08 @ 10:28PM|#

I am concerned about the deepening schism forming in the libertarian community.

I discovered benefits of liberty through LewRockwell.com and Mises.org and read both sites daily. Although occasionally politically incorrect, I have never detected any racism on either sites.

I don't know who wrote the letters and I don't care. Lew Rockwell has done much for libertarianism and is an asset to our movement.

I'll continue reading LRC, Mises.org, reason and Cato because all are working towards a freer society. What isn't helping is this internal feud.

|1.16.08 @ 10:32PM|#

I registered republican to vote for Ron in the primary here in Maryland. As soon as that is done I will return to my Libertarian party. I am not nor will I ever be again a republican I think that republicans are pretty much a**holes. If Ron Paul is the candidate I will vote for him, if not I will vote for whatever libertarian is on the ballot. As to the newsletters, so friggin what? Nothing in them reached anywhere near the level of hate and rage that the hypersensitive race baiters, gays and Jews are complaining about. Anyone who thinks that those people who pummeled Reginald Denny on that LA street where anything else but animals are welcome to vote for someone else. Anyone who thinks the gay lifestyle is not a fatal lifestyle is whistling past the graveyard. Anyone who thinks many Jewish Americans do not harbor dual allegiances between Israel and their mother country has no concept of religious zealotry. You bigots seeking to charge folks with thought crimes should really be ashamed of yourselves and when you are done look long and hard at the political landscape. If you can find anyone closer to the political positions you hold dear than Ron Paul, vote for that person and quit riding Ron's case.

|1.16.08 @ 10:37PM|#

It is unbelievable that Reason (no irony there) continues to call in the napalm on their own position. Ron Paul is simply the best, most pricipled, closest small l libertarian to come along.

You are puzzled that the tent got a little big when he was seeking support. Think how hard that would have been to put a coalition together. Too bad you can't put everyone in a room and test them for purity before you associate or take money.

I'm not happy with Dr Paul's respose either but I am confident that he is not rascist and if his policies were implimented it would be the best for all individuals of any race. Apparently that isn't good enough for Reason. Not sure what is.

For the magazine to keep this attack up is beyond me. I question my 15 year subscription and Reason foundation support. It is you who have fallen off the tracks, not Dr Paul.

|1.16.08 @ 10:48PM|#

Robbie:

I'll continue reading LRC, Mises.org, reason and Cato because all are working towards a freer society.

Good. And also, cuz truth is where you find it-Even when it's in a journal whose principal (not "principle") has also gone wrong on occasion-even way wrong.

Anthony|1.17.08 @ 12:05AM|#

I want to point out something that is a feature of the LewRockwell.com Big Lie technique. The Cato Institute's scholars stood strongly against the Iraq war (one exception, Brink Lindsey, wrote one article in favor and has since said it was a big mistake), strongly against the civil liberties abuses of this government, and strongly in favor of getting out of Iraq. They are now criss crossing the country and going on media to oppose war with Iran. Saying over and over that they are pro-war doesn't make it true. I wouldn't support them otherwise. They have done a lot more than just run a screechy website; their scholars testify, debate on the media, present briefs on behalf of civil liberties before the U.S. Supreme Court (http://www.cato.org/pubs/legalbriefs/lbriefs.html); and make reasoned cases in major studies of the follies of war. So, enough with the Big Lies.

|1.17.08 @ 12:46AM|#

Sorry if I'm joining the discussion a bit late, but I just have to say this.

What's funny, is if you take all of the pontificating and postulating out of this article and just look at the actual quotes and facts, there really isn't much of a case for racism. Ok, so they say I should be able to (dis)associate myself with/from who ever I should please. How is this racist? They're railing against the "you can only hate white people" mentality in America... that doesn't make anyone racist except in contrived ultra-apologetic "everyone should play fair, and by fair I mean bussing kids to far away schools based on race" logic.

Bleh, there's really no way to explain this without risking someone pointing their finger and yelling "racist" just because you didn't drink the mandatory "equality" and "diversity" kool-aid. Nevermind...

Mike Laursen|1.17.08 @ 1:52AM|#

I guarantee you, I don't see any cosmo-libs at LP or FSP meetings. Any actual libertarian group that I ever participated in, that involved real people doing real things, was a lot more preoccupied with gun rights than gay rights.

The LP has different regional flavors. I'm guessing you hail from Texas or somewhere in the South.

|1.17.08 @ 4:03AM|#

The LP has different regional flavors. I'm guessing you hail from Texas or somewhere in the South.

Uh, no. Chicago.

|1.17.08 @ 4:55AM|#

Doesn't fit the Chicago LPers I run into, granted that's been staffing tables at the Hemp Fest.

Mike Laursen|1.17.08 @ 5:53AM|#

Uh, no. Chicago.

Agh! I shouldn't ask a question like that without knowing what you're going to answer first.

|1.17.08 @ 6:34AM|#

I have never followed a election this close before. I also have never heard so many talk show hosts on radio and tv take swipes at Dr. Paul. It is as if only there opinion matters and that is what everyone else should go by. I am shure that Dr. Paul like any other candidate running has regrets about some past occurances. But, if he is so unqualified to be president, why does the media such as FOX NEWS prevent him from speaking. Would he not prove himself a fool if they let him talk and let the people who hear him make a valued judgement. If he does not win I hope the winner would have the BALLS to adopt some of Ron Pauls beliefs on how our government should be run.

highnumber|1.17.08 @ 8:42AM|#

Nothing in them reached anywhere near the level of hate and rage that the hypersensitive race baiters, gays and Jews are complaining about.

Anyone who thinks the gay lifestyle is not a fatal lifestyle is whistling past the graveyard.

Is Tom Mathers typical of what I'm missing by not attending LP meetings? I knew there were nuts going to those, but are they hateful nuts?

You bigots seeking to charge folks with thought crimes should really be ashamed of yourselves...

What the hell is he talking about?!

|1.17.08 @ 8:53AM|#

MURRAY ROTHBARD!!!!

In the end, this story is not about Ron Paul. It's about the Libertarian movement, and, more particularly, it's about the intellectual guru of many Libertarians--MURRAY ROTHBARD.

In the '60s and early '70s Rothbard attempted to forge an alliance with New Left communists. In the '80s he attempted to forge an alliance with paleo New Secessionists.

What does this tell us about Libertarianism and MURRAY ROTHBARD?

Ayn Rand was exactly right in her judgment of both ROTHBARD and the Libertarian movement.

|1.17.08 @ 9:00AM|#

Let me put a finer point on this: This story is no longer about Ron Paul, it's not even about Lew Rockwell, it's about MURRAY ROTHBARD and the nature of libertarianism.

|1.17.08 @ 9:39AM|#

Peter,
Rothbard is still one of the greatest libertarians, despite his personal shortcomings. His books are indespensible in shaping the movement, and I couldn't care less what Rand had to say about him.

|1.17.08 @ 11:29AM|#

dargen,

For reasons that are now all-too-obvious, I think you should care what Ayn Rand (and other Objectivists such as Peter Schwartz) said about Rothbard and the Libertarians. Rand and Schwartz identified the Achilles Heel of Libertarianism, which is now being made public in a very ugly way.

|1.17.08 @ 11:43AM|#

hmmm, MSM, democratic, republican and now liberitarian parties all blacklisting Dr. Paul. So who's got your vote: Obama, Clinton, Rudy, McCain, Romney? All CFR members!! Get it together, people!
Dr. Paul is against NAU, the federal reserve, and will bring our troops home. I believe him. As my son (who goes to Yale) says, "They are not trying to smear him but rather smother him." This is a tragedy in the makings....WAKE UP

Tommy Tutone|1.17.08 @ 12:22PM|#

Peter, if I were you, I'd be a lot more worried about people like Leonard Peikoff. You know, people who advocate and defend confiscation of wealth and initiation of force and claim it was Rand's philosophy.

|1.17.08 @ 12:52PM|#

Ok, so we finally have a relatively serious candidate running who actually believes in and supports individual liberty and who, by any account of any people who have known him - blacks and whites alike - is not by any stretch racist and who has in your estimation not exibited perfect judgement in one instance by choosing not to throw a friend to the wolves for some misguided comments and unattractive personal views published many years ago and your strategy is to ruin any chance he may have had to turn back the tide of statism and authoritarianism that is overwhelming and will eventually destroy this country? Wow, if we're waiting for the flawless candidate by everyone's yardstick to support who has a remote chance to bring liberty back to this country - well, I guess might as well all give up all this silly talk of freedom and liberty and hope for America. Libertarianism will finally destroy itself by eating it's own. Congratulations for doing your part to destroy what slim hope we might have ever had that we will ever know liberty again. I hope you are proud.

|1.17.08 @ 1:01PM|#

Tommy Tutone:

Are you suggesting that it's not both appropriate and right for the U.S. government to protect and recover American property when it is stolen by a foreign government?

|1.17.08 @ 1:08PM|#

What the hell is he talking about?!

That libertarianism is about tolerating others' behavior; it's not about accepting that behavior. That's what a lot of the cosmotarians miss. Whether you're black, white, straight, gay, racist, bigoted, or pacific, -- or whether you hate any or all of the above -- you can still be a libertarian if you deal with other people without the use of force; that is true even if you hate such people.

|1.17.08 @ 1:11PM|#

not that anyone will read this but, just a thought

i still want ron paul to win, so....

when paul claimed he had "no idea", was he referring to the "newsletters" in general, or was he just defending himself because he did not know which letters were being talked about.

i think with something so controversial he did the right thing not to incriminate himself in such a fashion.

i mean, no one specified, such n such article on such n such date. and people should know darn well that they are talking about specific entries, not the "newletters" as a whole.

anywho, reason is doing exactly what they want paul to do.
so justify it if you want, but if paul loses because of something like this i am going to be pissed.

|1.17.08 @ 1:15PM|#

just to continue ranting a bit, that's the thing to do to solve this stupid problem isn't it?

whatever, this whole thing sucks.

it's not reasons fault obviously.

being anti-pc has its downsides.
not knowing one is going to be running as president is another downside.

i mean, if people knew they were going to run as president, would they say half the stuff they say anyway?

i know that shouldn't be an excuse, and we should ideally all strive to tbe the best we can be, so.....

whatever,. this whole thing makes my brain hurt.,

i am not racist and i still want Paul to win. sorry guys.

but i am not going to defend myself for something i didn't do. but i may defend someone else. in this case its ron paul.

ok. i am defending myself. because i feel like i am part of the ron paul campaign!

penny langford freeman|1.17.08 @ 1:27PM|#

Hey Reason,

Guess what. The jig is up!

Get ready for a lawsuit.

You named me in your article as someone connected with this newsletter and I wasn't even on staff until 1998 and you never called me for an interview. So, you lied twice.

So, honey pots. Bless your little hearts. Be watching your mailbox.

Penny Langford-Freeman

|1.17.08 @ 1:28PM|#

I feel compelled to add, I don't know if Lew Rockwell wrote those offending newsletters or not and you can kid yourself about it, but the fact is, right or wrong, what was written in them reflected the feelings of 75% of Americans at the time. All this hand wringing and fretting about things that MOST people have felt and thought at times (and not just white people)but one person had the bad manners and poor judgement to put into print strikes me as tremendous hypocrisy. It's like Valdemort - he who's name must not be spoken.

Sure, the comments were wrong and stupid, but the sentiments behind them were shared by many and not just white people and the fact is we are all wrong and stupid at times. Most of us get over it. The big crime, really, for the author of the newsletter was not feeling those sentiments at the time (and yeah, I had a twinge of feeling that way when I saw those guys throwing bricks into Reginald Denny's head, but I also recognized that feeling for the stupidity it was. Incidentally, I was completely on the other side when I saw Rodney King being beaten by the police.) but daring to voice them. A really big mistake, but I find it less offensive than the hypocrisy with which Reason and Cato are permeated. Would someone please think of the children!!!

|1.17.08 @ 1:31PM|#

Penny, you go girl!!!!

Argo|1.17.08 @ 2:31PM|#

"Guess what. The jig is up! Get ready for a lawsuit."

Wow; someone woke up on the delusional side of the bed this morning, didn't they, lil' Penny?

Revolt of the Masses 2: Mass-M|1.17.08 @ 3:06PM|#

I'd take anything Rand had to say on Rothbard with a couple hundred grains of salt. The collective invited Rothbard to join them but he got weirded out by all of their strange beliefs and was kicked out. Read his play, "Mozart was a red", all about Rand and her followers.

penny langford freeman|1.17.08 @ 3:11PM|#

I did't wake up delusional, Honey. I woke up litigational.

Vote Ron Paul 2008! For the Constitution!

NOTE: To Reason staff, Don't ever, ever put your reputation on the line by quoting or taking information from Eric Dongerburgerstien, or whatever the heck his name is. It may translate into liable and slander lawsuits.

Argo|1.17.08 @ 3:24PM|#

Don't sell yourself short, lil' Penny - you most certainly are delusional if you think you have anything remotely resembling a legitimate lawsuit based on this story.

And speaking of reputations, I gather you don't value yours too highly. It's rapidly circling the drain as you make these comical threats. They do put you in fine company though; both Dondero and one of our resident trolls have provided amusement for many with their own childish legal threats. So at the very least you're providing quality comic relief, and I thank you for that.

|1.17.08 @ 3:33PM|#

Besides Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell, the officers of Ron Paul & Associates included Paul's wife Carol, Paul's daughter Lori Pyeatt, Paul staffer Penny Langford-Freeman, and longtime campaign manager Mark Elam (who has managed every Paul congressional campaign since 1996 and is currently the Texas coordinator for the presidential run), according to tax records from 1993 and 2001. Langford-Freeman did not respond to interview requests as of press time.

IANAL, but I'll bet there are not grounds for a lawsuit in that paragraph containing the only two mentions of Ms Langford-Freeman.
Are there any lawyers reading this who care to weigh in with an opinion?

penny langford freeman|1.17.08 @ 3:41PM|#

Oh Argo Honey, from your demeaning tone, I thought you were Dondero.

So, this isn't your first threat of lies and slander? I thought not.

Maybe you will grow up to be like the National Inquirer after all.

Argo|1.17.08 @ 4:28PM|#

For the sake of everyone reading, you should stick with the legal threat posts, lil' Penny. That particular delusion is far more unintentionally amusing than this other delusion you seem to have that you're clever.

Davy C Rockett|1.17.08 @ 4:58PM|#

I think the pro-death libertarian minority sect of the party, has their panties in a wad, cause Paul support life from conception.
Libertarians are never going anywhere with a pro-death platform.
There pissed Ron Paul is taking away from the party, just like a typical power hunger party to choose party over principles.
No wonder people call the party Losertarians.

Penny Langford Freeman|1.17.08 @ 5:02PM|#

Ah Argo,

I many not be clever, but that does not diminish the fact that this article is full of slanderous lies.

|1.17.08 @ 5:16PM|#

Revolt of the Masses 2: Mass-Men in Paradise

Yeah, I'm sure Rothbard (that future ally of communists and southern secessionists) was weirded out by Ayn Rand's uncompromising moral views in defense of a free society.

Rothbard, it turns out, was a little bit nutty, and a little bit slutty (intellectually speaking, of course).

highnumber|1.17.08 @ 5:41PM|#

Ms. Langford-Freeman,

Would you care to enumerate the lies contained within this article?

Thank you!

Would love to know|1.17.08 @ 6:31PM|#

Hi, Penny!

Would you let us know what the slanderous lies are? Are you saying that those statements did not appear in the Ron Paul newsletters? Did the New Republic guy make them up? Or are you saying that you agree with the statements and don't object? Or that Weigel and Sanchez made up what they wrote? Or are you just SURE that Lew Rockwell was nowhere near those newsletters when he was vice president of Ron Paul and Associates? Or that he didn't ever -- really!! -- have any connections to racists?

Come on, Penny.

Julian Sanchez|1.17.08 @ 6:34PM|#

(1) All the article says about Ms. Langford-Freeman is that she is listed as an officer of Ron Paul & Associates on tax records. She does not appear to be disputing this. What she does say is that she was not there during the period when the offensive items appeared. But nothing in the piece alleges she played any role in writing or editing such items.

(2) We left a message with the Texas congressional office seeking comment, which we were told would be passed on to Ms. Langford-Freeman. Perhaps that request did not get passed on, but it was made.


If there are actual inaccuracies in the piece, of course, we welcome correction.

Hi, Lew!|1.17.08 @ 9:37PM|#

I wonder if anyone is reading these to Lew Rockwell, who I hope recovers from his surgery. If someone is reading these to Lew, then please read this to him: SCREW YOU. LEAVE OUR MOVEMENT. SHAME ON YOU, YOU HAVE BROUGHT SHAME ON US.

LEW ROCKWELL......GO JOIN YOUR FRIENDS IN THE KKK.

|1.17.08 @ 10:28PM|#

I for one am glad reason is still digging into this. The truth must out. Shutting your eyes, putting your hands over your ears and chanting "la-la-la" just because some libertarian idols have been found at fault is not going to advance liberty. Rothbard's politics and politicking always irritated me; first one direction, then another. Alliances with the far left, then the far right, from Leninist cadres to populist urges, the man was all over the place. As an economist he made far more sense. I'm disappointed to learn he wrote racist items at the end, but I ceased paying attention to his LP and paleo swing before I knew about this side of him. I do remember he ended a speach a few years ago with the words, "The South will rise again," which shocked the hell out of me.

twv|1.17.08 @ 11:25PM|#

I am not surprised at all the criticism of Reason for sticking with this story, but I am disappointed.

Reason is a magazine. Its central concern is freedom. Ron Paul is a big story, one covered more by Reason than any other magazine. Appropriately. And then a rather nasty issue regarding Paul emerges. What was Reason supposed to do, just let others make sense of it?

Reason is NOT a shill for a political candidate. And should not be.

The obsessive bifurcation of the libertarian movement into Reason-and-Cato versus Mises.org-and-Rockwell strikes me as also disappointing. Each organization has its job to do, and each has its own successes and failures. None are immune to criticism, but I have yet seen a reason to write any one group out of "polite" (ha!) libertarian society.

The Paleo Turn, though, demands repudiation, and after that's done we can all just go our somewhat separate ways, and just agree to disagree on some things -- that is, we can all just "get along," as Rodney King nicely put it, after his unfortunate altercation.

It is obvious that hatred and bigotry were successful strategies for Ron Paul for a while. Now they prove to be the very opposite. It's time to "repent" and move on. The only trouble with this strategy is that none of the offenders appear interested in repentance.

And yet I bet they would be more than willing to bring up the "Judeo-Christian ethic" if prompted. Like most people who wear religion on their sleaves, they prove quite stubbornly anti-religious when shoved and pushed to reveal their basic character.

Human, all-too-human. Political, all-too-political.

LiberysLegacy|1.18.08 @ 6:16AM|#

"Dondero or Rittberg"?

I don't care. But I remember you as a man of integrity back on CompuServe.

Same guy?

Bruce|1.18.08 @ 7:33AM|#

Give it up, it's really old news. It's too bad thats the only things you can find to smear him with, let it go, just let it go, it will be ok, just let it go.

The Ron Paul Revolution Is a C|1.18.08 @ 9:33AM|#

Unfortunately, the Ron Supporters are being duped big time. The ungratefulness many supporters sensed in emails asking for more money is indicative of the real heart of this campaign. Money-hungry bastards who really don't give a damn about any of us.

Our country is in trouble especially since people are so easily lead. The facts are on the table. They cold-heartedly maligned people to reach a political end. That is not the Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell that is currently portrayed. They're supposed to be so moral and honest yet Paul blatantly lied to his supporters denying all foreknowledge. He cannot be trusted.

Their entire campaign really is to get people to banish the Fed and have a gold-backed currency. Gold that will remain in the hands of the richest among us. We need a real Libertarian candidate who will not pander to groups to get a vote.

|1.18.08 @ 10:24AM|#

It seems to me that this issue is more about past frustrations amongst the libertarian elite than anything pertinent to the average voter. Nobody believes that Ron Paul is a racist. Nor does dragging this issue out from the closet do anything for the promotion of libertarian values in this country. The majority of folks just don't care, for the simple fact nobody believes the man is a racist. The president of the Austin NAACP doesn't think the man is a racist. End of point. You guys need to get over it and move on. It probably was Lew Rockwell, and I bet Paul ripped him a new one over the crap he wrote and that was that. I respect that Paul is not going to turn around throw him under the bus just to make Cato, Reason, and the New Republic happy. The issue has already been wadded through over and over and over. Let it die and get over it. The fact that he didn't pay attention to what was being written doesn't concern me one bit about his judgment. I'm concerned about our next president actually paying attention to the issues that matter and his adherence to the constitution, not whether or not some writer used inflammatory speech to generate money 10 years ago. These writers are just upset cause Paul didn't hand Lew Rockwell over to them for the sacrifice. That's what this is all about anyways. Let the infighting go. We have bigger fish to fry such as ending a war, and protecting the country from bankruptcy, or have you forgotten.

|1.18.08 @ 11:48AM|#

Why is Cindy Sheehan dating the author of the racist, homophobic Ron Paul newsletters, Lew Rockwell?

|1.18.08 @ 12:17PM|#

Justin Raimondo has a point by point
rebuttal of this Unreason hit piece in
today's Taki's Top Drawer column, which
you can also access from his column today
in Antiwar.com. He shows the full context
of all the statements and they are very
defensible in context, including all the
"racist" and "homophobic" statements. This
Dondero inspired hit piece is the product
of a sore loser. His two minutes on camera.
The only interesting he has had at all is the
revelation of the aberrant Garris/Raimondo
behavior at 88 LP Convention. But from the
past of both, it's not too surprising. Garris
is a nut, for decades he's been telling people
that I advocated (!) the "holocaust" when in
truth I've been a severe skeptic of same.
The Ron Paul campaign has taken on juvenile
dimensions at LRC but compared to Hospers'
endorsing Bush or ARI's literal advocacy of
genocide against the Muslim world, it is nothing. Reason hasn't improved at all since
the junior Poole/Bore Machan days.

|1.18.08 @ 2:24PM|#

We need a real Libertarian candidate who will not pander to groups to get a vote.

How many decades are we going to wait for that mystical "Libertarian candidate" who can outperform that fantastic, record-setting, nation-wide vote total of 1% in 1980?

But by all means, keep masturbating while dreaming about that perfect Libertarian candidate.

Tim Starr|1.18.08 @ 2:28PM|#

Michael Hardesty is a longtime Holocaust Denier:

http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2004/11/chomskys_outlet.html

As for his claim that all of the comments in Paul's newsletters were "very defensible in context," does that include the claims that AIDS was created by US biowarfare research, and is transmissible via saliva? The AIDS-biowarfare theory was KGB disinformation, and it was well known in medical circles by the 1990s that AIDS wasn't transmissible by saliva. Ron Paul's a medical doctor, he should've known better.

|1.18.08 @ 2:35PM|#

Reason hasn't improved at all since
the junior Poole/Bore Machan days.

I think it's far worse than "hasn't improved." I don't think I know anyone from the "old days" who still subscribes to "Reason." "Reason" lost its way a long time ago.

|1.18.08 @ 2:44PM|#

Reinforcement of the Smear Campaign from the hearts and minds of supposed allies. Thanks very much.

Tear down the coalition why don't you?

|1.18.08 @ 5:21PM|#

Good dissection of the disengenuity (is that even a word?) of this particular pair of second-hand knee-jerk dogpilers.

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/

And the anatomy of the smear is a nice counterpoint to this as well. For those who don't think this is a smear, it sure is walking like a duck, so I'll call it one over the loud quacking.

http://formerbeltwaywonk.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/the-orange-line-anatomy-of-a-smear-campaign/

Raimondo FTW! Sorry if that was too mainstream for your sensibilities.

highnumber|1.18.08 @ 5:54PM|#

Orange line?

I had no idea the Reason writers were SouthSiders. Near Midway, no less. I have family over by there.

Go Sox!

|1.18.08 @ 6:08PM|#

Tim Starr is an ass, I'm a
holocaust revisionist, not
a "denier" and slimey neocon
Ollie Kamm refused to publish
my rebuttal to his smear column.
Of course, I can't blame him because
it showed him for the fool he is.

Davy C Rockett|1.18.08 @ 6:52PM|#

Yeah I had to remove Reason links from my blog after this smear job.

May this be the death of Reason Mag., for such an attack on Liberty!

|1.18.08 @ 8:14PM|#

Oh, shit, my neighbor just gave my sister a few hundred dollars for her grad school film production, but I heard him screaming about "those hispanics" again.

Oh shit.

Where do I hand myself in? Where do I protect myself, from myself?

Argo|1.18.08 @ 8:15PM|#

I was going to remove Davy C Rockett's link from my blog, then I remembered - no one gives a rat's ass about Davy C Rockett and his delusional ravings about attacks on liberty.

|1.18.08 @ 8:18PM|#

"It seems to me that this issue is more about past frustrations amongst the libertarian elite than anything pertinent to the average voter. Nobody believes that Ron Paul is a racist. Nor does dragging this issue out from the closet do anything for the promotion of libertarian values in this country. The majority of folks just don't care, for the simple fact nobody believes the man is a racist. The president of the Austin NAACP doesn't think the man is a racist. End of point. You guys need to get over it and move on. It probably was Lew Rockwell, and I bet Paul ripped him a new one over the crap he wrote and that was that. I respect that Paul is not going to turn around throw him under the bus just to make Cato, Reason, and the New Republic happy. The issue has already been wadded through over and over and over. Let it die and get over it. The fact that he didn't pay attention to what was being written doesn't concern me one bit about his judgment. I'm concerned about our next president actually paying attention to the issues that matter and his adherence to the constitution, not whether or not some writer used inflammatory speech to generate money 10 years ago. These writers are just upset cause Paul didn't hand Lew Rockwell over to them for the sacrifice. That's what this is all about anyways. Let the infighting go. We have bigger fish to fry such as ending a war, and protecting the country from bankruptcy, or have you forgotten."

This.

Thank you.

I read newsletters|1.18.08 @ 8:46PM|#

Wow, more garbage exploiting the fact that nobody actually reads the entire newsletters. Cosmotards.

Lady of Liberty|1.19.08 @ 2:10PM|#

Wow, lots of detail here. I don't admit to wanting to read all of it.

So much infighting. I wish everyone would just get along and do the right thing. It appears Ron Paul is loyal to his friends. If it is true Lew did this, he should admit it.

Until Lew harms some black person, or posts crap like this on his blog, I do not really care what his views are, as long as he keeps that crap to himself. He does a lot of good work for liberty right now.

I already read about this in The Free Liberal, this is old news, guys.

Liar\'s lie|1.19.08 @ 10:48PM|#

." "Cops must be unleashed," Rothbard wrote, "and allowed to administer instant punishment, subject of course to liability when they are in error." While they're at it, they should "clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares?"

You lying little fucktard. Utter worthless little piece of shit. Isn't it strange that you never bothered to a link or a reference to back back your lies?

PhysicistDave|1.20.08 @ 6:39AM|#

As someone who has actually written for LewRockwell.com ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/miller-da1.html ), I certainly appreciate all of the emphasis in this thread on Lew and LRC, but I thought it might by nice for one of us "Rockwellians" to explain why he is not a a "Catoite" or "Reasonite."

Speaking only for myself of course, I find both Cato and Reason to be overly provincial, far too conservative, and simply a rather backward-looking bunch of fellows.

Both Reason and Cato are still enmeshed in twentieth-century thinking, caught up in the hierarchical fantasies that turned Washington, D.C. into one of the most hated cities on earth.

I myself live out here in sunny California, am married into a family of Chinese immigrants, and am looking forward to the Pacific century now unfolding - my kids and I are learning Chinese. A friend of mine who is a Vietnamese immigrant just mentioned to me a couple days ago that she first heard of Ron Paul when her son, a senior at University of California at Davis, started touting him. Ron Paul seems attuned to the new global culture in a way that Reason, Cato, etc. just are not.

I have a Ph.D. in physics (from Stanford) and am co-patentholder on several patents in the fields of computers and satellite communications. I find the Reason/Cato view of technological innovation and progress to be, to steal a phrase from Ilana Mercer (http://blog.ilanamercer.com/Index.php?p=619 ), "showy & shallow."

I'm not a religious believer, and, frankly, I'm a little bored by all the religious dissensions that seem to plague the old twentieth-century wing of the libertarian movement.

Cato and Reason are just so passé: they are part of the long-ago past of libertarianism.

From my vantage point here in California, the paleo-libertariansim of LewRockwell.com, Ron Paul, etc. is obviously the future.

I know that to you folks who think the Atlantic counts as an "ocean," this is rather hard to take.

But the future belongs to us.

Dave M. in Sacramento

A Print Subscriber|1.20.08 @ 7:41AM|#

Thank you for writing the article.

While Mises writes some good and very good stuff on Libertarian economics their NeoCon-ish social agenda that seeps in through the small cracks is tired and dated. Social AND economic freedom are needed for a society to prosper, something IMO Mises needs to ponder. Thankfully this is something Reason doesn't shy away from this. =)

Thanks again for writing another well written article.

Much Ado About Nothing|1.20.08 @ 10:46PM|#

I don't see anything wrong with the article. Surely Reason shouldn't ignore potentially negative aspects of Paul's past, just because he is a libertarian. The only possible compaint might be that we have all ready gone through this issue enough, and the article is then just boring or a wasted read. Claims that Reason is attempting to smear Paul and damage his campaign are ridiculous.

Also, way too much is being made of the comments made in those newsletters anyway, and I can't help but think that people are confusing "racist" comments with those that are simply "insensitive" or "non-PC". A racist is one who believes a person's abilities and behavior are determined by their race, and that some races are superior to others. I don't think jokes about the riots in L.A. slowing down because black folks (the majority of rioters, and also vastly over represented welfare recipients) had to stop and go get their welfare checks, quite qualifies the writer as a racist. The word "racist" is thrown around so cavalierly these days that it seems to have lost its meaning and impact.

People that believe blacks, or any other race are INHERENTLY INFERIOR to their own = racists.
People that comment or joke about real situations and statistical actualities or the behavior in general of groups like blacks, latinos, females, gays, jews, arabs, muslims, handicapped people, short people, or fat people = insensitive/folks that just like getting a rise out of other people

Note, I had to explicitly list the groups of people targeted for offensive language, because as we all know, a person that makes jokes/comments about whites, males, Christians, rednecks, or rural folks, already has a free pass on his speech from the PC gods.

|1.20.08 @ 11:23PM|#

Dave, ok, Cato and Reason have made compromises with libertarianism for the sake of gaining respect from DC wonks and politicans....The Rockwell group hasn't made the same compromises in different ways? Please tell us how the opinions of the late Samuel Francis, Pat Buchanan, John Pilger, Alexander Cockburn, Paul Gottfried, Jared Taylor(who did post on there years ago and now his stuff is missing??) are in anyway consisent with Ludwig Von Mises? I am sure Von Mises would love to know today if he was alive that the CEO of the Institute that bears his name publishes columns of unconstruted socialists on Lewrockwell.com

|1.22.08 @ 12:06AM|#

I posted this reply to Julian Sanchez's reply to his critics from the Lounge; but since he chose to not print it, I thought I should try here instead:

1) My chief objection to your story was that, while it confirmed what Eric Dondero had already said about the newsletters back on Jan. 10 -
"50 to 60% was written by Lew. But when I say Lew I also mean his staff of Interns"
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/10/ron-paul-to-address-race-issues-on-cnn/
- you omitted all mention of those interns, giving the unfounded impression that Rockwell was the author of all the quoted stories. Whereas there's still no reason to even think that there was only one author, and that what Paul told CNN (that different people wrote different items, and no one remembers who wrote each item) is incorrect. That singling out of Rockwell made it look like an attempted "takedown".

2) That impression is reinforced by the accounts of bad blood between Cato and Mises that were being reported on before the TNR hitpiece. Like that of the 'DC-based libertarian' who told /The Nation/ last month that 'he thinks Rockwell is "one of the most loathsome people ever to set foot on this continent."' http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/hayes

3) That impression is reinforced in turn by the way your colleague, Mr. Wiegel, has been playing footsie with that other DC-based libertarian, Jamie Kirchick. Kirchick's original article has all the marks of a smear: some of the quotes were shocking, but quite a bit (like the newsletter's "kind words for David Duke) was completely scurrilous. Yet your magazine hasn't called him out on any of that, but simply quoted him as an authority on the subject. And now Kirchik is quoting Reason to make the further scurrilous claim that "At several points in the 1990s's Paul admitted to writing" the articles in question - again without anyone calling him on it.
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/15/the-reckoning-over-ron-paul.aspx

|1.22.08 @ 7:38PM|#

Beltway libertarins! Cant live with 'em, cant.... well you know the rest. Bye Bye Reason Mag.

|1.22.08 @ 8:51PM|#

Reason needs to grow up, find the true meaning of life, and maybe Weigel and Sanchez can help Balko squeeze his pre-pubic zits.

1)Neo-conservatism/Weekly Standard
2)Neo-liberalism/New Republic
3)Neo-libertarianism/Reason

|1.22.08 @ 10:12PM|#

After reading the unusually venomous anti-Ron Paul comments on this board, one can only assume this place has been infiltrated by the neoclowns at Free Republic.

Whade Tufts|1.23.08 @ 2:17AM|#

How shall I put it:
"Google Ron Paul"; "Legalize Abiding Happiness"; "Equal Rights for The Next Generation"; "Be Healed"; or "Get Up Off Your Mat"?
Your choice.
He's rowing as fast as he can from Titanic; Grab an oar!
~Peace, Mountjoy in Red Canada.

Lew\'s Liberal Brother|1.25.08 @ 11:32AM|#

On the newsletters; yes they are a stain on Paul's campaign. Even if he did not write them himself he should not have been so negligent about what got put into a newsletter with his name on it. But if that's the worst thing about his past, that and the intellectual slight of hand about him taking earmarks, then I'll still suppor the guy. Even if Paul is in his private life a racist and a homophobe I'll still support the guy; there can be a difference between an individual's personal opinions and his political positions. The libertarian movement is doomed until you stop playing by the rule that tolerance means personal acceptance. There are things I personally dislike, but that does not mean that I want the government to stop people from engaging in those activities. Liberty does not require that one love one's fellow man, merely that you respect his rights.

Mises 'neo-confederacy' et al: Localism and the reduction of government seems the best way to achieve, or at least try to achieve, libertarian goals. Hopefully if the federal government is reduced then that will force people to look more at the shenanigns of their own state government. I love how folks like Kirchik and some left libertarians think that attacking Lincoln with documented evidence, questioning the legality of a Civil War to force Union when several states had opt out clauses that were never rejected during the Constitutional Convention, raising the issue of tariffs as a motive for Lincoln's actions, and for pointing out that secessionist movements and threats (Massachusetts in 1846, New England during the War of 1812, Vermont to a lesser degree today, Hawai'i to a lesser extent today, etc) have not always been motivated by angry white men who want to keep their slaves is merely the provenance of closet racists and those who want to return to the bad old days.

Rothbard and Rockwell might be racists, but that does not mean that their political ideas are not valid. I understand the cultural differences between the two camps, but going on the defensive based upon a non-libertarian premise that you must love your brother to recognize his rights is disappointing to say the least.

theCardinal|1.26.08 @ 2:07AM|#

Great article. It is a shame that Paul fans and those in the Rockwell/Rothbard axis attack rather than admit a mistake. I subscribed to the RRR and it was, at times, a scary read. I was opposed to intervening in the Balkans but their full-throated support of Serb actions was disconcerting to say the least.

I like Paul even voted for him in '88 but there is no excuse for racism. As for the paleo-lib support for Buchanan that made no sense. Again, I voted for him in the primary out of protest but in '92 I was confronted by Buchanan Brigade fanatics who questioned my nationality and loyalty because I did not support their man.

Tim Starr|1.27.08 @ 5:05PM|#

The question of whether "states' rights" would make for more libertarianism should be rather easy to answer, as the South enjoyed virtually complete freedom from Federal intervention in its "internal affairs" from 1875 until about 1955. Was the South a libertopia during that time? To listen to the Rockwellians tell it, the answer is yes. In fact, the South was a one-party police state, complete with clandestine death squads (from the Klan) who murdered anyone who got too "uppity." It was also highly anti-free-market, dominated by protectionists, nativists, and those who lived in fear of banks and other national/international businesses.

As for a couple of the other personalities which have commented here:

Hardesty most certainly is a Holocaust Denier, which he denies along with an accusation that the one who exposed him as such (Oliver Kamm) is a "neocon." This is obviously the code-useage of "neocon" for "Jew," as Kamm isn't _any_ kind of conservative, but a supporter of the British Labour Party.

And if "Beamn7" is Roderick Beaman, the last time I saw him he was defending the anti-Semitic Radio Priest Father Coughlin, who called the New Deal the "Jew Deal," called FDR "Franlin Delano Rosenfeld," got caught plagiarizing from Nazi propaganda minister Josef Goebbels, and was eventually run off the air by the Vatican and Joe Kennedy, Sr., for being too much of a demagogue. (Coughlin was also a childhood hero of the late Paleo leader Sam Francis, who has been repeatedly eulogized by the Rockwellians.)

Lew for Fuehrer!|1.29.08 @ 8:34AM|#

Lew Rockwell is one sick character. Holocaust deniers, racists, Neo-Confederates, segregationists. The leadership at LewRockWell.com and the Mises Institute aren't libertarians. They're wackos. Count me out!