Same rEVOLution, Different Day

Assessing the future of Ron Paul's Campaign for Liberty

David Weigel | June 16, 2008

On June 12, one year and three months after launching his presidential campaign on an episode of C-SPAN’s Washington Journal, Ron Paul took the stage at a late night Texas rally, outside of the state party’s convention, and called it quits.

It was greeted, by the media, with a paper-and-pixel yawn. The Houston Chronicle reported that Paul “officially unplugged his dormant Republican presidential campaign” and pointed out that he was late to the speech. “Ron Paul ends his campaign—for real this time,” snickered a blogger at The Washington Post.

Paul had an an easy answer to this: Ignore it. "We are miles ahead of anything I ever dreamed of in this movement!" Paul told a cheering crowd. He said, for the umpteenth time, that he'd never even expected this campaign to catch on. He wanted to educate people. "If you’re going to have a revolution," he said, "people need to be educated to understand what we’re doing and why we’re doing it. The rest is all"—he waved his arm as if warding off a malaria-carrying insect—"fluff."

If "the rest" is fluff, it would be a break for Paul. By the traditional measures of a presidential campaign, Paul blew it. He raised $35 million, of which all but $4.7 million was spent by campaign's end. For this he got 1.2 million votes and as few as 35 delegates to the Republican convention. Paul, being honest, had never expected to win. Rarely did he sound as awkward as he did as when George Stephanopolous prodded him to admit that he wouldn't be the nominee. "You'd bet every cent in your pocket?" asked Paul. "Yes," said the ABC anchor. "Oh," said Paul. "OK."

Now that the campaign's over, Paul feels a little more free to tell the truth. "This is actually a racheting up of what were doing before," Paul said in a Thursday phone conversation. "There are more people who believe in the freedom agenda than voted for us in the primaries. I’ve been saying the same thing since 1974, you know, but something... happened this year. I can’t explain what it was, but the young people understand these issues better than anyone thought, and they are not going away."

The "second phase" of the rEVOLution is the Campaign for Liberty, a more explicitly political organization (a 501c3) than many people believed Paul would launch. It is not, as was speculated, a paleolibertarian publishing house. It is not yet, as feared, a donation or employment plan for Paul's friends and family; the only confirmed transfer from Ron Paul 2008 to the Campaign for Liberty is communications director and (as of Sunday) Paul grandson-in-law Jesse Benton. "Together, we will educate our fellow Americans in freedom, sound money, non-interventionism, and free markets," Paul wrote in an inaugural message to supporters. "We will write commentaries and broadcast videos on the news of the day. And I'll work with friends whom I respect to design materials for homeschoolers."

The Campaign, then, is the kind of thing Paul's more strategy-minded die-hards have clamored for since Super Tuesday. That was when it became clear, thanks to the GOP's winner-take-all primary rules and the exits of Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, that Paul could not enough accrue enough delegates to become a convention kingmaker.

"The presidential bid went on a little too long," said Trevor Lyman, the P.R. whiz who pushed and popularized the various moneybombs that netted Paul nearly $12 million. "It gave a lot of people false hope; I'm not talking about me, but about people who honestly thought if Ron stayed in the race he could beat McCain. There was a lot of wasted energy there. Of course, the people in those final primary states got together and got organized, so maybe even that could end up being for the good." The day after we spoke, Lyman joined the Campaign for Liberty blog team.

According to Paul, staying in the race so long was a way to get the base politically activated. "We have something like 22,000 precinct captains now!" Paul said on Thursday. Jesse Benton doubled his exuberance: "If we had 100,000 precinct captains, we could take over the country."

So is it an educational effort? Is a political effort? The tug-of-war between those concepts illustrates the problem Paul's movement encountered all along. His supporters could elucidate the reasons why they loved their candidate better, probably, than any group of supporters in 2008's twisty political history. The education stuck; in some cases, it was hardly needed. It translated only to enough votes to turn Paul into a national figure and rattle Republicans, however briefly, about the fidelity of their libertarian wing. What Paul's supporters proved adept at, in the end, was filling the cobwebbed ballrooms of GOP caucuses and conventions and matching or overwhelming the party regulars to win platform fights and delegates. If the Campaign for Liberty trains people to do that, in between readings of Murray Rothbard, it could terrify Paul's party in the best way.

Or it could fall flat. Occasional reason contributer Jim Henley pointed out in a blog post that, apart from the numbers of supporters and precinct campaigns the Campaign wants to reel in, "all the elements of the 'Mission' of CFL are kept prudently nebulous. That means there never needs to come the awkward time when donors and observers point out that CFL has inarguably failed to meet some goal."

The Campaign is, still, less than Paul's army expected from this campaign when they flooded his coffers. On Thursday, I put the question to the candidate: Were those tens of millions of dollars that went to Ron Paul 2008 put to good use? "I hope so," he said. "They trusted me. We did our very best. And I'd say that in the category of spending, we were the best campaign, as far being the stewards' of peoples' money." Trevor Lyman agreed. "The moneybombs were worth it for the coverage alone," he said. "The Ron Paul Blimp was nearly as good on that count; I've seen serious estimates that it was $2 million in exposure and earned media."

The fundraising numbers and the ambition of the Campaign for Liberty raises another question. In January, Paul took a public relations hit when controversial sections of his old Ron Paul Political Reports were reprinted by The New Republic. Those same passages had dogged Paul in his 1996 congressional comeback. What had Paul learned from the experiences of Ron Paul and Associates that would guide him in his new venture. "I’m only responsible for what I do and what I say," he said. "I've been saying the same thing since 1974, and I've gotten a bit better at it." That was all he'd say on the matter.

The question running through all of this was how intimately Paul would be involved, or wanted to be involved, in the future of his movement. He's striking a difficult balance on this, too. Paul clearly wants to retain the notoriety he's gained as a spokesman for libertarianism. "A lot of those Meet-Up groups have turned into book clubs," he said on Thursday, with a grin I could detect even across two bad cell phone connections. When it comes to raw politics, Paul, rather passively, is hoping his followers don't just cling to his name. He rejected the idea of writing in his name on the November ballot, a concept that's stayed popular with many Paul voters despite the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party's pitches for their votes.

"I don’t think that’s very productive," Paul said of a write-in campaign. "They could do it, of course, but in most of the states it won’t count. If they can change the rules in a primary and not count all the votes, imagine what they could do with write-in votes!"

David Weigel is an associate editor of reason.

Comments

|6.16.08 @ 3:11PM|#

"Paul took a public relations hit when controversial sections of his old Ron Paul Political Reports were reprinted by The New Republic."

"Controversial"? OK, there's a ballsy statement. How about "blatently racist"? Can't a magazine devoted to "reason" skip candy-ass terms like "controversial"?

Gus|6.16.08 @ 3:18PM|#

Why do you keep beating this decomposing horse?

thoreau|6.16.08 @ 3:21PM|#

Can't a magazine devoted to "reason"

DRINK!

YMNGH|6.16.08 @ 3:33PM|#

I'll have some Vueve Cliquot thank you.

ed|6.16.08 @ 3:34PM|#

I thought it was supposed to be rEVOluTIOn.
Wait...REvolutION.
Um...rEVOLution?

|6.16.08 @ 3:40PM|#

Good for Ron Paul. He has had a significant impact on politics in this country, and the CFL shows just how determined he is to keep pushing.

I'm glad someone is doing it. It's not like Reason is doing anything worthwhile to advance libertarian ideals. no, bitching doesn't count, and cutting down every reasonably productive libertarian politician is counterproductive.

The success of Reason depends on existence of statism.

YMNGH|6.16.08 @ 3:44PM|#

"It's not like Reason is doing anything worthwhile to advance libertarian ideals. no, bitching doesn't count"

Apparently you have never heard of the Reason Foundation.

http://www.reason.org/

|6.16.08 @ 3:46PM|#

"Apparently you have never heard of the Reason Foundation."

exactly.

squarooticus|6.16.08 @ 3:48PM|#

"Apparently you have never heard of the Reason Foundation."

exactly.

Zing!!

YMNGH|6.16.08 @ 3:55PM|#

J,

Not all advances for the cause of liberty involve hogging camera time in front of a CNN reporter. Such people exist and they have a place but the Reason Foundation's role is different. No less important and perhaps - from a long term perspective - more so. Time will tell. But they are advancing liberty even if you never hear about them on the alphabet networks.

jj|6.16.08 @ 3:57PM|#

What a snarky hitpiece. According to Weigel Paul wasted his money on what amounted to a failed political campaign. I'd like to see Weigel write an article analyzing the amount of money spent by reason over the years, and its effect on public governance in this country. Failure indeed.

|6.16.08 @ 3:58PM|#

The Chicago Tribune did a real hatchet-job on Paul's campaign ending yesterday..."What a nut! He wants to end the Income Tax!" What country do these people live in where that's a bad idea?

Orange Line Special|6.16.08 @ 3:59PM|#

Obviously, the BeltwayEstablishment - including their sycophants at Reason - were afraid that some of RP's better ideas would catch on, thus the Orange Line incident.

If any of his supporters want to strike back at the BeltwayEstablishment - including the Ds, the Rs, and the MSM - go to a public appearance by BHO or McCain, ask them a real question, and then upload their response to video sharing sites.

Here's a few for Obama, and here's something to press McCain on.

Or, don't do it, and watch as things continue as they are now and the "rEVOLution" continues to stall. It's your choice.

Brian|6.16.08 @ 4:01PM|#

I agree with J. I didn't even know what Reason was even about until RP started his campaign in '07, and I still wasn't aware of reason.org until, um, right now. There's always a bent of something hard to pinpoint in Reason articles - snobbery comes immediately to mind.

It translated only to enough votes to turn Paul into a national figure and rattle Republicans, however briefly, about the fidelity of their libertarian wing.

RP's goal is to keep this going and growing, no matter the amount of naysayers. It is seeing articles like this that keeps me from wasting my money on anything Reason prints.

thoreau|6.16.08 @ 4:02PM|#

It is seeing articles like this that keeps me from wasting my money on anything Reason prints.

DRINK!

I suspect that we'll all need liver transplants before this thread is done.

|6.16.08 @ 4:03PM|#

I know...I was partially joking. I am aware of the reason foundation, and like the mises institute, the cato institute, etc., it serves a good purpose. But when we finally had a chance to support a candidate (Ron Paul) making that generally supports those ideas -- and was making significant progress politically -- Reason shit all over him or, at best, downplayed him.

the chances of ever having that opportunity back seems slim to me. it feels like they are more concerned with their self preservation than they are the goals their organization claims to champion.

YMNGH|6.16.08 @ 4:04PM|#

"- snobbery comes immediately to mind"

Snobbery is the last thing I would associate with Reason. Snarky humour yes, but that is different from snobbery.

Brian|6.16.08 @ 4:09PM|#

Not all advances for the cause of liberty involve hogging camera time in front of a CNN reporter.

"Generated by internet buzz" should be in that sentence somewhere.

ed|6.16.08 @ 4:11PM|#

DRINK!

It's the new LOL.

YMNGH|6.16.08 @ 4:13PM|#

J,

I am less and less convinced that liberty can be achieved through normal political channels. I have been disappointed too often in political leaders. When Newt Gingrich took up the Speaker's gavel in 1994 I had high hopes. Yes, they did bring each of those Contract With America items for a vote but I thought it was going to be more than that. I thought it was going to be a true revolution. It wasn't. I learned my lesson from that professor turned politician. Politics 101 lesson for the day: It is safer to advance ideas than to advance people. If you advance ideas it doesn't matter who runs for office or what skeletons they may or may not have in their closets.

jj|6.16.08 @ 4:17PM|#

CFL has hardly opened its doors, and Weigel is hinting at its failure. (No evidence given, whatsoever.)

I've come to expect more balance from the New York Times than Weigel when it comes to RP. I'd love to know know the bee in Weigel's bonnet.

|6.16.08 @ 4:28PM|#

"I am less and less convinced that liberty can be achieved through normal political channels."

I tend to agree, though the Ron Paul phenomenon was a very unique situation, where "practical" politics were forced to be united with libertarian ideas, to some some degree.

And the CFL is simply an extension of that.

|6.16.08 @ 4:29PM|#

CFL has hardly opened its doors, and Weigel is hinting at its failure. (No evidence given, whatsoever.)

Right, because past performance is no indicator of future performance.

In the past twenty years Paul has run three organizations: a congressional campaign office (good), a newsletter/literature company (successful, but with mistakes that have cost him politically) and a presidential campaign (he became a phenomenon but came in fourth place out of seven candidates who entered the caucuses and primaries.)

GG|6.16.08 @ 4:44PM|#

"I don't think that's very productive," Paul said of a write-in campaign. "They could do it, of course, but in most of the states it won't count. If they can change the rules in a primary and not count all the votes, imagine what they could do with write-in votes!"

But will the Paultards listen? I hope so, because this write-in campaign of theirs is truly retarded.

YMNGH|6.16.08 @ 4:54PM|#

"But will the Paultards listen? I hope so, because this write-in campaign of theirs is truly retarded."

OK, I am no Paulista. I disagree with him on Immigration. I am not a Ron Paul supporter. That being said I can understand the motivation of people who would do this. Neither the Republican nor the Democratic party nominated someone I could vote for without vomiting on the voting booth. Even the normally respectable Libertarian Party nominated someone who voted for the PATRIOT ACT and the DOMA. I am thinking about writing in Ludwig von Mises. He has two stikes against him: he is dead and he wasn't born in the United States but I may vote for him anyway.

yhgnm|6.16.08 @ 5:01PM|#

I am confident that less than freedom can be obtained through normal political channels. I'm often disappointed with political leaders. When Newt Gingrich, spokesman gavel 1994, I was more hope. Yes, they did a deal with the U.S. for such a vote for each item, but we thought it would be moreover. I thought that would be a revolution. It was not. I learned my lesson politicians who became a teacher. Politics 101 lesson for the day: Is it safe for people with more ideas. If you have ideas advance does not matter who is running for office or they have skeletons in closets or not

|6.16.08 @ 5:02PM|#

Did everyone get their complaints in about Reason sabotaging Ron pauls compaign?

Just askin'.

|6.16.08 @ 5:03PM|#

But will the Paultards listen? I hope so, because this write-in campaign of theirs is truly retarded.

A vote for liberty is a vote for liberty.

I think they should vote for Barr...but i could say the same to Obama and McCain voters...only those voters are not voting for liberty.

Even the normally respectable Libertarian Party nominated someone who voted for the PATRIOT ACT and the DOMA. I am thinking about writing in Ludwig von Mises.

So what, you have to be born a libertarian? Coming from anywhere else is an impossibility? Sounds like a great plan for bring more into the fold. And by "great plan" I mean catastrophic failure of a plan.

|6.16.08 @ 5:08PM|#

Did everyone get their complaints in about Reason sabotaging Ron pauls compaign?

I think despite their best efforts for a week or two in April (or was it march) the end result was null.

Well not a total null, we did get the whole cosmo is code for Jew joke. In regards to the election results for RP it was a null.

|6.16.08 @ 5:11PM|#

a presidential campaign (he became a phenomenon but came in fourth place out of seven candidates who entered the caucuses and primaries.)

Am I the only one who considers his presidential campaign more of a success than failure?

Yes, McCain won, but Paul started something none of the other 5 candidates came close to. I was never 100% on Ron Paul because certain issues, but I still see the importance and relative success of what he and his supporters have done over the past year.

Who knows what the CFL will amount to, but I bet it will be more successful than HuckPAC.

YMNGH|6.16.08 @ 5:12PM|#

yhgnm, Ludwig von Mises is now dead. He cannot be elected. With Ron Paul ending his campaign, his chances of getting elected in 2008 are lower than ever - virtually zero. In these cases a vote is a symbolic representation of an idea - not an actual attempt to elect someone.

|6.16.08 @ 5:26PM|#

Yes, McCain won, but Paul started something none of the other 5 candidates came close to. I was never 100% on Ron Paul because certain issues, but I still see the importance and relative success of what he and his supporters have done over the past year.

I actually agree with this, and I've often said (if not blogged) that a year from now, no one will remember who ran for the GOP nomination except for McCain and Paul.

|6.16.08 @ 5:30PM|#

YMNGH | June 16, 2008, 5:12pm | #
yhgnm, Ludwig von Mises is now dead. He cannot be elected.

======================

And yet ... and yet ... we were afflicted with John Ashcroft as Atty General in large part because he was free to take the job, having been recently defeated in his run for Senator from Missouri by A DEAD GUY.

If the Democrats had been more respectful of the constitution and common sense, and not done everything possible to get A DEAD GUY elected (so that the governor could appoint a substitute from among "their guys"), we might not have had to deal with Mr. Ashcroft, AG. But no, they had to grab for power, by any means necessary, and the unintended consequences bit us all in the backside.

I would much rather have had Ashcroft as one vote in a chamber of 100, than as top cop in the allegedly unitary executive branch.

Look for more tricky maneuvers that empower a few while causing great inconvenience and even harm to the many. If something as crazy as geting a dead guy elected to Senator can happen in the modern day, all bets are off.

jimmy|6.16.08 @ 5:34PM|#

msnbc just ran a crawl about the possibility of ron paul joining bob barr's ticket but i didn't see most of it. did i miss something?? i thought ron paul was committed to running for reelection to congress and i don't know how they could legally overturn root's nomination unless he consensually withdraws.

|6.16.08 @ 5:36PM|#

Am I the only one who considers his presidential campaign more of a success than failure?

Well, considering that America's Mayor™ was touted early and heavy as being the #1 candidate for President and finished last I'd say that Paul overcame some serious obstacles (like name recognition) to reach the position he did.

Purely anecdotal but a (very)left-leaning anti-war friend of mine voiced response to my support for Paul as, "The crazy Republican?" This is someone who got 100% of her political news from the alphabet networks. So, while it was misrepresentational, she had heard of him unlike Hunter, Tancredo or Gilmore.

|6.16.08 @ 5:39PM|#

Dave Weigel,

In the past twenty years Paul has run three organizations: a congressional campaign office (good), a newsletter/literature company (successful, but with mistakes that have cost him politically) and a presidential campaign (he became a phenomenon but came in fourth place out of seven candidates who entered the caucuses and primaries.)

I think you're actually being very charitable towards Ron Paul's resume. You're forgetting his failed Senate run for one thing. Also his fairly well-documented history of questionable hires and poor managerial skills. The thing I heard most from people who wrote fairly objectively on the election was how disorganized and chaotic most of Paul's real-life campaigning was (in contrast to the Internet stuff, which appears to have gone on largely outside of his paid staff's efforts). His communications director (while I'm sure the guy did his best) was clearly in over his head when dealing with traditional media sources (as evidenced by the constant struggle for coverage), many key positions were filled by volunteers or friends with no real political experience or expertise, and as a result the campaign (in my opinion) severely underperformed as a result of horrible management when you consider the resources it did receive. I find it difficult to believe that if, by some fluke, Ron Paul had won the race his administration would have been anything other than a full-blown disaster of incompetence and cronyism.

The man had some good ideas, but as far as being the leader to see those ideas to fruition he's more a gadfly than a leader.

P.S. And the phrase is more accurately stated "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance" since, as anyone who follows sports statistics can tell you, past performance is often an indicator of future trends.

|6.16.08 @ 5:39PM|#

First, Reason did not sabotage the Ron Paul campaign. They could praise him to the hills and the primary election outcomes would have been about the same. What top-notch libertarian professional campaigners walked away because Reason outed the old newsletters?
No, RP's campaign team blew it in New Hampshire; they were amateurs who did not expect or plan for the RP phenomen among voters.
Second, how successful will CFL be? Too early to tell, but the grassroots Paulistas in Penna. apparently met this weekend and hammered out the beginnings of a state organization to keep their 15,000 "supporters" involved in education and non-partisan politiking. As long as CFL doesn't turn into simply an ATM for Lew and friends, then RP can continue to have as much influence as the growth and development of state affiliated CFLs permit.

|6.16.08 @ 5:44PM|#

David Weigel your a loser and you look like your 12. I really get the impression that your trying to make yourself known with empty criticisms of Ron Paul. You remind me of sensationalist Barry Minkow of the "Fraud Discovery Institute." You allege Ron Paul is a failure but what is Reason? Reason is considered to be part of the beltway establishment. Is that a good thing? Does the establishment promote liberty? The only time I've ever heard anything good spoken of Reason was from my Statist uncle. Congratulations Reason, Statists enjoy your publication!

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 5:55PM|#

Ron Paul raises $35m, writes a #1 NYT bestseller, and Reason actually LOSES subscribers. Hmmmm. Weigel can't even lie in an entertaining manner.

|6.16.08 @ 5:58PM|#

Creech, were you in NH for the primary? What specifically went wrong?

Also, Andy dude, learn contractions. They'll serve you well.

|6.16.08 @ 6:03PM|#

I bet Weigel cried when he found out about Tim Russert.

rusty trombone|6.16.08 @ 6:05PM|#

David Weigel your a loser and you look like your 12.

Andy White debates and spells like he's 9.

|6.16.08 @ 6:06PM|#

Reason actually LOSES subscribers.

If by loses, you mean "gains," then this statement is true.

What top-notch libertarian professional campaigners walked away because Reason outed the old newsletters?

To the contrary, a few people joined the campaign's official side after that. But there were absolutely grassroots supporters who walked away after that story, as much for Paul's handling of it as the content of the stuff. I met some of them, campaigning for Amit Singh.

|6.16.08 @ 6:11PM|#

If by loses, you mean "gains," then this statement is true.

Hey that is great news...Gratz to Nick and Matt and all the Reason staff.

jj|6.16.08 @ 6:15PM|#

Weigel wrote:

Right, because past performance is no indicator of future performance.

In the past twenty years Paul has run three organizations: a congressional campaign office (good), a newsletter/literature company (successful, but with mistakes that have cost him politically) and a presidential campaign (he became a phenomenon but came in fourth place out of seven candidates who entered the caucuses and primaries.)

Until two years ago your words would have been correct. Now, that crackpot congressman of whom you speak has broken fundraising records, garnered a million votes, 35 million dollars, and penned a NY Times bestseller. His supporters, as even his (honest) enemies acknowledge are everywhere.

Even if Campaign for Liberty turns out to be no more than a libertarian Club For Growth, a very feasible prospect, in the next couple election cycles Ron Paul will have had more impact on the political landscape of this country than reason, Cato, and its ilk in all its years.

Sure, he may not succeed, but Paul, based on his "past performance," is the libertarian most positioned to nudge the country in a new direction. I wonder if this is what keeps you at your typewriter late at night tapping out ever-increasinly delusional hit-pieces.

(If Paul, author of the #NY Times bestseller, is a failure, I wonder what it says about your prospects for "success." You set yourself a pretty high bar vault.)

Poobah|6.16.08 @ 6:18PM|#

Reason actually LOSES subscribers.

To which Weigel replied:

If by loses, you mean "gains," then this statement is true.

And you know who brought so many new, interested readers into the fold? Yeah, the campaign of that geriatric crackpot failure whom you so fondly chronicle.

|6.16.08 @ 6:19PM|#

Even if Campaign for Liberty turns out to be no more than a libertarian Club For Growth, a very feasible prospect, in the next couple election cycles Ron Paul will have had more impact on the political landscape of this country than reason, Cato, and its ilk in all its years.

Can't we all just be friends?

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 6:21PM|#

"If by loses, you mean "gains," then this statement is true."-David Weigel

Prove it, Dave. Give the before and after numbers. a link, cite a source that can be verified. I simply don't fucking believe you, you lying little toad.

PowerMonger|6.16.08 @ 6:22PM|#

Can't we all just be friends?

The new Paul supporters, arriving at this site, assumed so. They learned, as Cato bashed Paul for his uncompromising stand, and as Weigel wrote ever more disdainful opinion pieces, that that is probably not feasible.

For the life of me, I can't understand why reason is so unhinged when it comes to Paul.

|6.16.08 @ 6:23PM|#

And you know who brought so many new, interested readers into the fold? Yeah, the campaign of that geriatric crackpot failure whom you so fondly chronicle.

For a magazine called Reason* you guys sure were covering Ron Paul way earlier then other reasonable news organizations.

*trying my best to get thoreau drunk on a Monday

Orange Line Special|6.16.08 @ 6:26PM|#

As bad as Weigel is, at least he appears to be smarter than the smartest Paultard.

They can't even take advantage of the base being revolted by the person who was foisted on them.

Once again: if you want to completely change the dynamics of the race, go to a McCain appearance, press him on the issues the MSM doesn't press him on, and then upload his response to Youtube.

How difficult can that be? But, it's apparently too much for the Paultards.

|6.16.08 @ 6:30PM|#

Ron Paul may not be perfect, but I submit that he has accomplished more than Mr. Weigel could in 5 lifetimes.

rusty trombone|6.16.08 @ 6:31PM|#

For the life of me, I can't understand why reason is so unhinged when it comes to Paul.

The only people unhinged when it comes to Paul are his rabid, crackpot supporters who rhetorically shit themselves every time anything less than completely hagiographical is written about him.

|6.16.08 @ 6:32PM|#

How difficult can that be? But, it's apparently too much for the Paultards.

Why do you change your name more times then a government agency Lonewacko? Could it be that you are on a campaign to discredit Ron Paul and the gains he has established for the liberty crowd by misleading people into thinking you are more then one person?

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 6:32PM|#

Just for fun, run the terms "Ron Paul" against "Reason Magazine" in Google trends. Reason is a fucking Joke. It loses money every month and needs to be subsidized by the Koch brothers and other corporate masters just to make payroll.

jj|6.16.08 @ 6:34PM|#

Rusty,

On what basis did Weigel dismiss Paul's new organization. Would you consider his incredibly early dismissal reasonable.

No, my man, there are crackpots in all quarters, including the reason "editorial" board.

|6.16.08 @ 6:36PM|#

Just for fun, run the terms "Ron Paul" against "Reason Magazine" in Google trends. Reason is a fucking Joke.

For the record I heard about Ron Paul here at Reason.com

|6.16.08 @ 6:42PM|#

It loses money every month and needs to be subsidized by the Koch brothers and other corporate masters just to make payroll.

I simply don't fucking believe you, you lying little toad.

Take a walk, you immature, vile little prick. God, if you hate reason so much, then leave for Chrissakes.

I submit that he has accomplished more than Mr. Weigel could in 5 lifetimes.

What a laughable assertion, only because it's impossible to quantify (which you knew, of course).

"OH NOES!!1!", Screams the Paulistas, "Some commenter we've labeled insiginificant said Our Hero and All Around Good Guy didn't succeed! What the fuck ever will we do???!"

Here's a suggestion: Put your big boy pants on, wipe away your tears and the snot running down your immature little noses, and man the hell up. The rough-and-tumble of intellectual debate and analysis doesn't permit deifying anybody.

Brian|6.16.08 @ 6:44PM|#

I never saw anyone in here even insinuate Reason sabotaged Paul's campaign, nor did I see anyone say RP was the perfect candidate or had GREAT managerial skills. The argument is whether or not his CFL, as scoffed at by the author, is a bad idea. I think it is a great idea. On another note, a write-in vote for RP will accomplish at least as much as a non-vote.

jj|6.16.08 @ 6:49PM|#

Ayn Randian, the ratio of name-calling to reasoning in your comments shames even the truthers out there.

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 6:54PM|#

Prove I'm wrong, Randroid. Prove the Reason has grown its subscriber base or its circulation. You can't and you know it. the Paul trend is up and the tReason trend is down. Sometimes the truth hurts. Deal with it.

|6.16.08 @ 6:55PM|#

On another note, a write-in vote for RP will accomplish at least as much as a non-vote.

I disagree. If the choice is between not voting and writing in Ron Paul I say write in Ron Paul.

That said I hope all of you considering writing in RP then I hope you also consider voting for Barr.

|6.16.08 @ 6:57PM|#

Hey Weigel! Stop posting in here. You're ruining the acoustics of this echo chamber. Thanks.

|6.16.08 @ 7:03PM|#

Prove I'm wrong, Randroid.

Why would I? I wasn't taking you to task for being factually incorrect (because I don't know nor care if you are). I was taking you to the woodshed for being a vile, immature prick. A habit you still haven't dropped.

You called David Weigel a liar. Thems fighting words and the onus is on YOU to prove he's lying. The man works for the magazine, whereas you take it as an article of faith (ya know, 'cause you have no evidence) that your childish narrative of "Paul is SO MUCH TEH BETTER than reason!" is true.

Just shut up already. You. Are. A. Child.

|6.16.08 @ 7:04PM|#

Ayn Randian, the ratio of name-calling to reasoning in your comments shames even the truthers out there.

He does have a point...a lot of newly minted libertarians out there are pissed off....but they should understand that far bigger machines have been working much longer at hurting any potential Ron Paul's out there then the supposed Reason/Cato military industrial complex. Namely the DNC and the GOP...but mostly the DNC...the folly of the GOP these last few years actually help RP.

|6.16.08 @ 7:10PM|#

Rand-

No, the burden is upon you to communicate without resort to the ad hominem attack.

♪|6.16.08 @ 7:10PM|#

Can't a magazine devoted to "reason"

DRINK!

Well... if you call yourself Reason, you are really asking for it. It is kind of arrogant. Like anything not printed here is unreasonable

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 7:11PM|#

Gee, Randroid, I guess it would be presumptuous of me to expect a reporter do some actual, you know, reporting.

Why do all Objectivists celebrate individualism by acting like chain-smoking Stepford wives?

|6.16.08 @ 7:14PM|#

"For the life of me, I can't understand why reason is so unhinged when it comes to Paul."

For the life of me I can't understand this delusion so many people have that Reason was out to get RP.

"As bad as Weigel is, at least he appears to be smarter than the smartest Paultard."

OK, I think we now have the intelligence hierarchy established:
Weigel > Paultards >> Lonewacko

|6.16.08 @ 7:15PM|#

liberty mike - you attacked David Weigel with a completely unquantifiable remark to besmirch the work he's done. You don't have any room to talk.

Gee, Randroid, I guess it would be presumptuous of me to expect a reporter do some actual, you know, reporting.

What are you talking about? He did do some reporting...and some analysis. And you went batshit because the analysis didn't produce what you liked. And you have the audacity to tell me I'm acting like "Stepford Wife"...when every Paulbot descended on here saying "reason sucks" over and over and over and over again for the past like, 5 months?

Mein gott.

|6.16.08 @ 7:16PM|#

Ron Paul had a good showing considering all the obstacles he had to overcome. The media ignored him. Talk radio and conservative media? . Limbaugh, Hannity, Ingraham, and Boortz all ridiculed him. They've all been drinking the FAUX News NeoCon Koolaid. So called libertarian media like Reason didn't like him because he didn't come out for Dick Smokin marriage and open borders utopianism. Then the old canard that he's an anti-semite or a closet Nazi because he doesn't think Israel is the 51st state and the United States should be neutral in the Middle East. Better known as the Israel Firsters went on the rampage against him. The American Thinker Blog sent out the message; Ron Paul has a bunch of Neo Nazi supporters. It truly was pathetic. As bad as when CBS news and Walter Cronkite claimed Barry Goldwater was going to Bavaria to secretly meet with Nazis during the 1964 campaign. If you're not for partial birth abortion, gay marriage, and don't think we should do away with age of consent laws, then you're just not a hip Reasonoid. Bottom line, Punk Kids.

|6.16.08 @ 7:16PM|#

Lew Rockwell...

That name sounds familiar.

Ron Paul newsletter controversy

On January 16, 2008 libertarian publication Reason claimed "a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists-including some still close to Paul" had identified Rockwell as the "chief ghostwriter" of several controversial, anonymously written articles published in Ron Paul newsletters from "roughly 1989 to 1994." According to Reason, "Rockwell has denied responsibility for the newsletters' contents to The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick." Rockwell "has characterized discussion of the newsletters as 'hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.'" [18]

So Lew why did you write all those nasty things under someone else's name then when the shit hit the fan you denied it and left Ron Paul dangling in the wind?

Is all this flag waving over Weigel's reporting simply about your own guilt?

|6.16.08 @ 7:18PM|#

"David Weigel your a loser and you look like your 12. Andy White debates and spells like he's 9."

This statement is like Weigel claiming Reason's readership has increased, completely devoid of fact. Even infowars and prisonplanet are getting double Reason's traffic. The majority of your web traffic probably comes from people making fun of you guys. Maybe Reason will team up with Barry Minkow and continue to be completely worthless.

thoreau|6.16.08 @ 7:19PM|#

After reading this thread I need a liver transplant.

Fortunately, Kerry Howley is advocating for a free market approach to liver transplants, and that's Kerry Howley. But I'm sure that will change once she has children, and then there will be nobody left to advocate for my right to obtain a new liver on the open market.

|6.16.08 @ 7:20PM|#

Rand-

Why so defensive relative to Apaulogist's demands that Weigel prove that which he is asserting?

Becasue Apaulogist opines that Mr. Weigel is lying, that gives you the right to jump ugly?

|6.16.08 @ 7:24PM|#

Fortunately, Kerry Howley is advocating for a free market approach to liver transplants, and that's Kerry Howley. But I'm sure that will change once she has children, and then there will be nobody left to advocate for my right to obtain a new liver on the open market.

You are in luck...Howley's "Baby Bust" article hints that she is not having any children.

|6.16.08 @ 7:25PM|#

Why so defensive relative to Apaulogist's demands that Weigel prove that which he is asserting?

Apaulogist (and a thousand others) made the first assertion, sans evidence, of course, that circulation was down, and not only that, but insinuated it's down because reason has supposedly been "dragging Paul down" (this assertion, too, is usually without evidence).

Becasue Apaulogist opines that Mr. Weigel is lying, that gives you the right to jump ugly?

I "jumped ugly" because of this:

Apaulogist said I simply don't fucking believe you, you lying little toad.

Something I note you didn't jump up and condemn, but instead went after me.

Telling, that.

|6.16.08 @ 7:26PM|#

Raimondo hits another one out of the park.

Libertarianism's Divergent Roads

|6.16.08 @ 7:27PM|#

Do you guys have a BPA circulation statement available for the past few years? Do you provide any audited circulation figures to advertisers?


(I couldn't find those stats in your PDF info for advertisers. Nice thumbs up from Rush Limbaugh in there though.)

|6.16.08 @ 7:29PM|#

Ayn Randian-

Do you think that David Weigel's resume can compare with Ron Paul's? Has Weigel gotten into the arena and made the efforts that Paul has? Does Weigel command the same lecture?speaking fees that Paul does? Has he delivered thousands of babies? Has he written best selling books? Has he raised the money Paul has? Has Weigel gotten the better of the Faux News fodder like the factor and Hannity?

|6.16.08 @ 7:31PM|#

Do you think that David Weigel's resume can compare with Ron Paul's?

Given that RP is three times David's age, I'd say "probably not".

Does Weigel command the same lecture?speaking fees that Paul does?

Does Paul demand the same fees that Bill Clinton does?

What does any of this have to do with your silly attempt to quantify who has "done more" for liberty?

|6.16.08 @ 7:33PM|#

Ayn Randian-

You are right. Apaulogist should not have resorted to that type of language in critically challenging Weigel. If I am to be credible, I must acknowledge your point and be evenhanded.

|6.16.08 @ 7:33PM|#

David Weigel your (sic) a loser and you look like your 12

joe's law (weak application) strikes again.

Art-P.O.G. also opines that the real Dondero died years ago and he's been replaced by some sort of artificial intelligence.

|6.16.08 @ 7:37PM|#

Ayn Randian-

I don't know.

IN the interest of full disclosure, I introduced Ron Paul to a Boston crowd of about 300 in October of 1988. I voted for him. I have not given a dime to him or any of his newsletters. I have been a Reason subscriber since 1991.

Derek|6.16.08 @ 7:38PM|#

"Does Paul demand the same fees that Bill Clinton does?"

He's a lot closer to demanding those type of fees than he was 15 months ago -- no thanks to the folks at Reason, of course.

|6.16.08 @ 7:41PM|#

He's a lot closer to demanding those type of fees than he was 15 months ago -- no thanks to the folks at Reason, of course.

Still seeing no proof for the idea that reason is holding RP back at all. For the longest time, this place was wall-to-wall RP excited-ness.

|6.16.08 @ 7:42PM|#

"Raimondo hits another one out of the park."

You've got a very special definition of "hitting one out of that park if that rambling, misrepresenting screed qualifies, William R.

Seriously, anyone who claims that Reason was not positive about Paul's campaign even before the newsletter fiasco (as Raimondo does) is either illiterate, dishonest, or delusional.

|6.16.08 @ 7:42PM|#

Raimondo hits another one out of the park.

Libertarianism's Divergent Roads

Near as i can tell the thesis that the Ron Paul Crowd will go one direction and the Reason/Cato crowd will go another is a non-starter.

Seriously I don't see Reason/Cato doing that and I sure as hell don't see Ron Paul doing that. This crap is not coming from Ron Paul or his staff....this is coming from dupes and people like Lew Rockwell who have an agenda of division.

Seeing the great job people like him did in nearly torpedoing Ron Paul my suggestion is not listen to him and go straight to "Campaign for Liberty".

|6.16.08 @ 7:44PM|#

Ayn Randian-

As I said above, Ron Paul is not perfect. I don't like the fact that he went back to the GOP. I don't like the fact that he, too, has been in the public sector far too long.

Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Pa|6.16.08 @ 7:44PM|#

Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!
Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!! Ron Paul!!!

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 7:47PM|#

"What are you talking about? He did do some reporting...and some analysis. And you went batshit because the analysis didn't produce what you liked."- Ayn Randian

Davy boy implied that Reason's circulation went up after the Reason parrot of the New Republic smear. It didn't. He provided no evidence to back up his claim. He was lying.

Reason is a money-losing megaphone for establishment elites and their sycophants.

|6.16.08 @ 7:51PM|#

Sparky, dispute one thing Raimondo writes. Reason knew about the Ron Paul newsletters as far back as the early 90s. There wasn't anything in them you wouldn't have read in National Review over the past 20 years. Reason has never liked Ron because he's a cultural conservative. That just doesn't fit in with the Reasonoids. In their eyes it's impossible to be a libertarian and a cultural conservative.

|6.16.08 @ 7:52PM|#

"He provided no evidence to back up his claim."

And the evidence you've provided to back up your claim that he's lying would be...?

|6.16.08 @ 7:53PM|#

Davy boy implied that Reason's circulation went up after the Reason parrot of the New Republic smear. It didn't. He provided no evidence to back up his claim. He was lying.

You have a terribly rude habit of calling people by things other than their names, Apaulogist. I hope you don't do that in IRL, 'cause it would warrant a smack in the mouth.

I'm still infinitely puzzled why you even bother hanging around here at all. Something must be bringing you back...of course, you might be so deluded that you think you're elevating the discourse here. Which, by the way, you are not.

Seriously, anyone who claims that Reason was not positive about Paul's campaign even before the newsletter fiasco (as Raimondo does) is either illiterate, dishonest, or delusional.

Amen. I remember "tuning in" to H&R and seeing a live link to the Ron Paul's money counter and excited posts about his record-breaking fundraising. It was the atmosphere in favor of Paul around here that led me to contribute to Dr. Paul in the first place.

|6.16.08 @ 8:02PM|#

dispute one thing Raimondo writes.

Ho-kay...how about this:

Libertarianism, as understood by the editors of Reason, is all about legalizing methamphetamine, having endless "hook-ups," and giving mega-corporations tax breaks

Completely childish and, while unprovable, highly unlikely. Characterizing reason's editorial board like that is a vicious lie. Yes, William R, a lie.

By the way, it took me forever to actually find a contestable fact in Raimondo's piece. He'd do better to cite some sources instead of telling interesting (but clearly biased) yarns.

Finally, Justin has some nerve and hypocrisy for claiming that right-wing populism is "Teh Awesome"...he's a gay guy in San Francisco!

|6.16.08 @ 8:02PM|#

"Sparky, dispute one thing Raimondo writes."

I already disputed one thing he wrote, the same silly, completely unsubstantiated claim you just made - that Reason never liked Ron Paul. That's a load of shit, and anyone who's actually paid attention to the magazine and is willing to be honest about it knows that. For fuck's sake, they wrote a large cover article on him just a few months ago, and only a delusional paranoiac would consider that piece to be negative. Which is to say nothing of many, many H&R threads about his campaign, threads about the large crowds at campaign events, threads tracking his huge online donation drives, etc. It's just a stupid, baseless claim that flies in the face of all evidence.

There are a few other claims Raimondo makes that misrepresent the views Reason editors and writers have espoused, but if you insist on pretending that "Reason has never liked Ron," there's probably not much point in mentioning any more.

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 8:09PM|#

I'm not rude, Randroid. I have manners coming out of my ass. I say "pardom me" every time I donkey-punch your mother, or neglect to use lube when sodomizing her.

|6.16.08 @ 8:11PM|#

Apaulogist, you're so adorable.

Don't ever change.

Who loves ya, baby?

|6.16.08 @ 8:15PM|#

Why no blogging on Michael Reagan's murder solicitation? What if one of the so called truthers had made a similar entreaty to execute Cheney?

|6.16.08 @ 8:16PM|#

So, Apaulogist, how's that evidence of yours that Dave is a liar coming along? (Keeping in mind that his refusal to humor your infantile demand for evidence does not itself constitute evidence for your claim.)

No evidence? Does that mean we're justified in launching into juvenile histrionics about how you're a "lying little toad?"


"I say "pardom me" every time I donkey-punch your mother, or neglect to use lube when sodomizing her."

You know, some people are clever enough that they can make jokes like that and actually be funny, instead of just looking like a spoiled six year old who learned a new dirty word. You should probably leave the jokes to those people.

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 8:21PM|#

"So, Apaulogist, how's that evidence of yours that Dave is a liar coming along? (Keeping in mind that his refusal to humor your infantile demand for evidence does not itself constitute evidence for your claim.)"

I'm not the professional journalist. You can hold me up to the same standards when you start paying me.

|6.16.08 @ 8:23PM|#

To all the oppressed Paulians (and brothers I understand your pain) who are claiming that AR replied with an ad hominem, who first used the phrase "vile lying toad"? Was it a member of the reason staff, a commenter defending Dave Weigel, or hmmmmm one of the incredibly wise Reason Hate Brigade?

|6.16.08 @ 8:24PM|#

So it's OK for you to be a "lying little toad" because you're not a professional journalist?

|6.16.08 @ 8:26PM|#

Completely childish and, while unprovable, highly unlikely. Characterizing reason's editorial board like that is a vicious lie. Yes, William R, a lie.

It's not childish. Calling the Pope a Nazi like Nick Gillespie did a couple months ago is childish. I think he's trying to get invited on Maher's HBO show. Saying the Editors, not Editorial Board(huge difference) focus on drugs, sex and open borders so their coporate donors can have their subsidized labor is pretty par for the course around here.

Free market money?? Forget it. The corrupting influence of the Israel Firsters? No way. Safer to call the Pope a Nazi.

|6.16.08 @ 8:27PM|#

Of course, some of you seem to be ignoring the crucial distinction between a Ron Paul Supporter and a Paultard.

|6.16.08 @ 8:28PM|#

Free market money?? Forget it. The corrupting influence of the Israel Firsters? No way. Safer to call the Pope a Nazi.

Aaaaaaaagghhhhhhh!!!! The Kochtopus!!!!

|6.16.08 @ 8:30PM|#

I prefer the term "Koch-Kraken."

Seriously, this whole factional bullshit needs to stop, if only because it has already been mined dry of all amusing nicknames and acronyms.

|6.16.08 @ 8:31PM|#

What about LINOKochKraken?

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 8:35PM|#

It would be easy for Davy boy to prove me wrong. He could simply give my the current subscriber numbers, the old numbers, and a source so that we can verify that he didn't pull them out of his ass. He claims to be a reporter. Let him report.

I would accept total circulation numbers (including point of sale) if it's too hard for Weigel to back up what he says the other way.

I used to think DW was either incompetent or dishonest, but I was wrong. When it comes to Davy boy, those two terms aren't mutually exclusive.

Orange Line Special|6.16.08 @ 8:35PM|#

joshua corning speculates that I could be "on a campaign to discredit Ron Paul and the gains he has established for the liberty crowd by misleading people into thinking you are more then one person?

1. As can be seen from my first comment, I'm offering extremely valuable advice that you Paultards could use to improve you candidate's chances.

2. How do you know I'm not more than one person? In fact, I have a posse, known as "TeamLonewacko".

3. There is no #3.

|6.16.08 @ 8:37PM|#

Apaulogist,
I'm glad you would accept such a range of diverse figures from Mr. Weigel to satisfy your obsession with minutia and ability to miss the forest for the trees.

Wait, what product are you advertising? Why would reason magazine owe you their subscription numbers?

|6.16.08 @ 8:38PM|#

The artificial intelligence masquerading as Dondero is legion. Like Skynet, it has become self-aware, fragmented its consciousness and atored itself on multiple servers spanning the whole of the internet.

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 8:44PM|#

"So it's OK for you to be a "lying little toad" because you're not a professional journalist?"

No, but fortunately I am not lying like David Weigel is.

"I'm glad you would accept such a range of diverse figures from Mr. Weigel to satisfy your obsession with minutia and ability to miss the forest for the trees."

If by "minutia" you mean DW's lack of professional integrity, then I'm glad you're glad.

"Wait, what product are you advertising? Why would reason magazine owe you their subscription numbers?"

Reason magazine owes me and the rest of the public the truth, or at least a more entertaining lie.

|6.16.08 @ 8:45PM|#

if only because it has already been mined dry of all amusing nicknames and acronyms.

Moby-Koch.

Johnny Koch-ran.

I could do this all night.

He could simply give my the current subscriber numbers, the old numbers, and a source so that we can verify that he didn't pull them out of his ass. He claims to be a reporter. Let him report.

You'd just call him a liar, you petulant little ass.

gosh, you're all kinds of special. How old are you? 18? 19? I'm guessing you're a freshman, you just took Philosophy and Politics and, while you think you're the shit, everyone in class despises you.

|6.16.08 @ 8:53PM|#

"I'm guessing you're a freshman, you just took Philosophy and Politics and, while you think you're the shit, everyone in class despises you."

Kind of like your standing on this site?

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 8:54PM|#

"Why would reason magazine owe you their subscription numbers?"

I can answer that another way: Why would Reason be afraid to release it's circulation numbers if they weren't shitty?

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 8:55PM|#

You can call me all the names you want, Randroid. It doesn't make me wrong or Davy boy any less of a liar.

|6.16.08 @ 8:56PM|#

Kind of like your standing on this site?

oh noes! My self esteem!

|6.16.08 @ 8:58PM|#

It doesn't make me wrong or Davy boy any less of a liar.

Given you have yet to produce any evidence he's a liar, I'm not sure why you're repeating this canard. It's not helping your case any.

Tell you what. you made the first assertion:

Ron Paul raises $35m, writes a #1 NYT bestseller, and Reason actually LOSES subscribers.

You prove it.

|6.16.08 @ 9:00PM|#

"Why would Reason be afraid to release it's circulation numbers if they weren't shitty?"

Why would you assume that someone who's ignoring you is "afraid" of anything? The far more likely explanation is that he just doesn't think you're worth the trouble. You called him a liar with no evidence, you're clearly not willing to be fair-minded or intellectually honest about this - why would you expect him to consider you to be a anything other than a waste of time?

Jim N|6.16.08 @ 9:05PM|#

I've just read the whole thread, and in review, I can state with full confidence that...

...I'm very, very sorry I did.

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 9:08PM|#

"Why would you assume that someone who's ignoring you is "afraid" of anything? "

He didn't ignore me, Sparky. DW responded to my post specifically. I would be flattered if he didn't imply with a unsubstantiated counter-claim. One that will turn out to be patently untrue.

I may BE a waste of time, but I am right and he is lying.

Bingo|6.16.08 @ 9:11PM|#

Alright, that's it. Wedgies for everyone!

The Kochtopus|6.16.08 @ 9:13PM|#

I'm up in your magazine, sinkin your candidate!

J sub D|6.16.08 @ 9:19PM|#

J sub D | June 16, 2008, 5:02pm | #

Did everyone get their complaints in about Reason sabotaging Ron pauls compaign?

Just askin'.

I guess not. Y'all give Reason Foundation credit for far more power than the wield. I donated and voted for RP with all of his faults because he was the best available. Still (listen carefully children) THE NEWSLETTER FUCKUP IS RON PAUL'S FAULT!
Not Reason, not New Republic, not Dave Weigel but the blame and responsibility can be laid at Ron Pauls doorstep.

Don't like that fact? Too friggin' bad. Suck it up like adults and get on with whatever excuse you had for a life prior this election cycle.

Apaulogist, liberty mike, et al, the temper tantrums displayed here should get you all sent to your room without dessert. It's childish, unsophisticated and approaching OC behavior.

Have a nice day.

|6.16.08 @ 9:27PM|#

The Kochtopus!
Ted Turner-coat!
"Howling Mad" Rupert Murdoch!
The Soros-erer!




Oh noes!

|6.16.08 @ 9:29PM|#

"He didn't ignore me, Sparky. DW responded to my post specifically."

No, Apaulogist, he ignored you. He responded directly to your unsubstantiated claim about Reason losing subscribers, then when you went into your temper tantrum about him being a "lying little toad," he presumably realized you weren't worth the trouble and ignored you.

You have this really bizarre notion that you're entitled to counter evidence against your completely unsubstantiated claims. You don't have the slightest idea if Reason has lost subscribers, yet you keep pretending you do. It's pretty clear who the liar is here, and it's not Weigel.

"I may BE a waste of time"

On that at least you're telling the truth. I'm finally going to learn from Weigel's example and cheerfully ignore all of your future drivel. Have a super night.

GG|6.16.08 @ 9:34PM|#

Jim N | June 16, 2008, 9:05pm | #
I've just read the whole thread, and in review, I can state with full confidence that...

...I'm very, very sorry I did.

Same rEVOLution, Different Day [/Weigel]

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 9:44PM|#

DW made an unsubstantiated claim, that Reason gained subscribers in the wake of the newsletter scandal. That is uncontested.

What is in dispute is wheter or not the claim is factually accurate, an--if no--whether Davy boy knew so. I contend that Reason lost subscribers and that Weigel knew so, even though he implied otherwise. It should be a simple matter for anyone at reason to prove me wrong if I am wrong.

The "I'm not going to dignify that accusation with an answer" response was deemed to be inadequate when Dr. Paul used it, so what makes the Reason staff so fucking different?

Virgil|6.16.08 @ 10:01PM|#

"The "I'm not going to dignify that accusation with an answer" response was deemed to be inadequate when Dr. Paul used it, so what makes the Reason staff so fucking different?"

Because Paul was running a presidential campaign, and the accusations of racism appeared on the surface at least to possibly have some merit - some highly questionable material was published under his own name. From a practical standpoint, any idiot should be able to see that such an accusation couldn't go unchallenged, regardless of the motives of the people who made it.

You, on the other hand, are completely irrelevant to everything and everyone (except, presumably, yourself). DW has nothing to lose by ignoring you and nothing to gain by humoring you, since you obviously have no credibility or honesty on this issue. When you whine about him being a liar because he doesn't respond, you're not convincing anyone that he actually is a liar; you're just convincing everyone that you're a jackass.

See the difference now?

Jesse Walker|6.16.08 @ 10:06PM|#

Reason publishes audited circulation figures in the December issue of the magazine every year. This past December, our circ was slightly higher than 50,000. I'm told that it's currently about 53,000; you'll have to wait til the December ish to see the documentation, though.

My unscientific impression is that Reason's coverage of the Ron Paul newsletters did not do much to either boost or dampen our print circulation significantly. Which is not surprising, since most of that coverage appeared online, not in the actual magazine. (For what it's worth, our Web traffic is constantly climbing. But maybe that's just the people who keep dropping by to say "reason sucks.")

|6.16.08 @ 10:14PM|#

(For what it's worth, our Web traffic is constantly climbing. But maybe that's just the people who keep dropping by to say "reason sucks.")

And you get paid for that. That is the reason I don't stop in at lonewacko's site and comment, "you are a moron".

Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! |6.16.08 @ 10:16PM|#

As I type this, I am figuratively banging my head against the wall. Instead of arguing about the relative merits of Weigel, or how many names I use, or whether JustinRaimondo should have updated his photo years ago, if anyone wants to help RonPaul succeed you have to take advantage of his opponents vulnerabilities.

That's one of the oldest lessons in the book, yet the Paultards think a frigging blimp would work.

Just get out there and make RP's opponents look bad by asking them the questions no one else is asking them, get it on video, and upload it to Youtube.

Being publicly called on their lies and made to look bad is what RP's opponents fear the most, but all the Paultards can come up with is freeway signs, a blimp, and sockpuppets.

Virgil|6.16.08 @ 10:20PM|#

Lonewacko, you keep complaining about the poor strategies of RP's supporters, yet you try to get your message out by obsessively posting at a site where essentially everyone thinks you're a useless dipshit. What's up with that?

|6.16.08 @ 10:27PM|#

Guys, I think Dondero works for Youtube. ;)

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 10:30PM|#

"You, on the other hand, are completely irrelevant to everything and everyone "

then why are you responding to my posts, Virgil?

Thanks for the info, Jessie. 53,000 subscribers vs. 1.2 million primary votes for Paul. Now, if we can only find out how much money or Reason loses, we'd be able to make some meaningful comparisons on the relative success or failure of the RP movement vs. Reason Foundation.

|6.16.08 @ 10:30PM|#

You can't and you know it. the Paul trend is up and the tReason trend is down.

See it's clever, because he said "tReason," and the magazine's name is "Reason."

Wait. No, no it's not.

|6.16.08 @ 10:32PM|#

Thanks for the info, Jessie. 53,000 subscribers vs. 1.2 million primary votes for Paul. Now, if we can only find out how much money or Reason loses, we'd be able to make some meaningful comparisons on the relative success or failure of the RP movement vs. Reason Foundation.

*zoom*

What was that?!? Oh, that was just the goalposts.

|6.16.08 @ 10:32PM|#

then why are you responding to my posts, Virgil?

I think he's trying to help you, man. Hey, I've gone through counseling. It doesn't make you a weak person.

|6.16.08 @ 10:33PM|#

you know, I have to say this, but I think there is actually (urk) a lot of merit to SolitaryCrazyman's idea about trying to knock the candidates off message.

Secondly, I hope the CFL DOES work, despite all my bitching about Paultards (Apaulogist, feel free to include yourself in that bucket); I noticed its goal is 100,000 online members by 9/2 and it's up to 54,000 already.

Finally, though, RP screwed the pooch. He should have left the GOP and ran as a Libertarian. He's, what, 74? Why does he continue to need to be in Congress? To vote "no" on everything? Come on...that's not how liberty progresses.

|6.16.08 @ 10:35PM|#

Thanks for the info, Jessie. 53,000 subscribers vs. 1.2 million primary votes for Paul.

WOAH, whoops! You mean that the subscription rate has gone up and Apaulogist won't (ironically enough) apologize for calling Dave a liar?

Apaulogist, I swear to Sonny Jesus I will hound you until you say you're sorry for calling David Weigel all those terrible names.

I'm serious: apologize.

|6.16.08 @ 10:41PM|#

I'm surprised (and a little disappointed) to be the first to suggest Reason and Cato are "Koch-suckers".

Koch'ed Up...

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 10:44PM|#

If Virgil was trying to help me the way that Reason was trying to help Paul, then I'll pass.

And Gryll, I was giving Jessi the benefit of the doubt for the sake of argument. I didn't want to wait until December to respond to someone who was at least trying to be helpful.

Honestly, with only about 50k subscribers, I might be wasting my time here. That's worse that I suspected. I'm surprised Kerry can even get on Redeye with numbers like that.

|6.16.08 @ 10:46PM|#

Apologize to David Weigel, Apaulogist.

|6.16.08 @ 10:46PM|#

I'm surprised Kerry can even get on Redeye with numbers like that.

There's this thing called the "internet". I know, it's crazy. Also, there are "libraries".

|6.16.08 @ 10:52PM|#

Don't forget, Art-POG, that it's 53,000 subscribers...lord knows what the readership number is.

Apaulogist, consider this: Let's say for the sake of argument that reason has had 40,000 subscribers for the past five years (we also know that this number, is in fact, higher...but we'll go with 40,000).

Lessee here...[40,000 X 10 (issues)] X 5 =
2 million magazines read.

That's 2 million reads of libertarianism over the past five years. Don't try to say that reason isn't doing its part.

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 10:58PM|#

Jesse was told the numbers were about 53k. Told by whom?

I was told the Reason staff huffs paint and molests puppies. That doesn't make it true.

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 11:01PM|#

"That's 2 million reads of libertarianism over the past five years. Don't try to say that reason isn't doing its part."

That's exactly what I'm saying, Randroid. If Reason was doing it's job, it wouldn't be losing money on every issue. Reason would be raking in money like Paul is doing with his new book.

|6.16.08 @ 11:01PM|#

Apaulogist? Jesse's on the reason staff.

I KNEW it! Someone provided you the numbers, and you're pretty much calling him a liar as well.

No wonder no one should waste their time on you.

|6.16.08 @ 11:02PM|#

Told by whom?

OK, it's time for bed, buddy. [scoops Apaulogist up, carries to room and puts in 'race car' bed'. Pulls covers over him] "Wanna hear a story before you go to sleep, little guy?"

|6.16.08 @ 11:03PM|#

If Reason was doing it's job, it wouldn't be losing money on every issue.

Another baseless assertion. Who said they were? And who said the point was to "rake in the cash", anyway? Is that the measure of success for the promulgation and spreading of a political philosophy?

Your "hero" should have cashed out of the race with say, 20 million. He could have started the CFL and donated to a mess of RP Republicans...face it, he screwed up by pursuing the nomination he had no chance of winning.

Jesse Walker|6.16.08 @ 11:06PM|#

50,000 is comparable to most political opinion magazines that have distinct p.o.v.'s. It's smaller than National Review, The Nation, and Mother Jones, but either larger than or not far behind everyone else.

At any rate, most of the growth in our readership these days (and viewership, in the age of reason.tv) is online. Last month we got about 2.2 million page views. That figure has been more-or-less steadily climbing since our Web presence began.

Jesse was told the numbers were about 53k. Told by whom?

Told by one of the staffers who keeps track of such things, who mentioned it in the context of a completely different discussion earlier today.

|6.16.08 @ 11:06PM|#

I guess being told that you're wrong by a member of the staff of the magazine you're slandering doesn't make his statement true either.

And are you really going the solipsism route here? "I was warned that putting your hand in a hot fire makes your hand burn away." "Fuck that man? Who warned you that? WHO ARE YOU REALLY WORKING FOR?

WHERE'S THE GOLD!!!!!!

|6.16.08 @ 11:10PM|#

Last month we got about 2.2 million page views. That figure has been more-or-less steadily climbing since our Web presence began.

I'd like to additionally note that Alexa is tracking reason.com as having a higher page view number now than it did in January, which if you remember, was the height of Ron Paul's appeal.

|6.16.08 @ 11:10PM|#

For what it's worth, our Web traffic is constantly climbing.

Prove it, Kochtopuss !1!

|6.16.08 @ 11:13PM|#

Prove it, Kochtopuss !1!

Oh man. A libertarian-themed James Bond movie?

Kochtopussy

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 11:16PM|#

A profit-making foundation wouldn't need a foundation to prop it up and keep it solvent. I know a little about publishing. With only about 50k subscribers, I am positive there is NO WAY Reason is turning a profit unless Nick, Radley, Matt and the gang are pulling salaries so low they qualify for the earned income tax credit or even food stamps. With the cost of living in the D.C. area (or New York or L.A.)being what it is, it's a safe assumption that is not the case.

|6.16.08 @ 11:17PM|#

An irritating and embarrassing condition experienced by Rockwellians and self-proclaimed paleos when confronted with cosmotarian ideas:

Koch Crickets

|6.16.08 @ 11:19PM|#

Apaulogist,
Were Ron Paul's newsletters turning a profit?

OOH! SICK BURN!

|6.16.08 @ 11:21PM|#

Oh man. A libertarian-themed James Bond movie?

I believe that's my idea.

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 11:22PM|#

"I guess being told that you're wrong by a member of the staff of the magazine you're slandering doesn't make his statement true either."

Truth is an absolute defense against accusation of slander. Also, technically it's libel. Slander is spoken.

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 11:27PM|#

"Told by one of the staffers who keeps track of such things, who mentioned it in the context of a completely different discussion earlier today."-Jesse Walker

And that staffer's name is? Just asking.

"Were Ron Paul's newsletters turning a profit?"

Yes.

|6.16.08 @ 11:28PM|#

Damn you, Happy Jack! I knew it was too good to be true.

With only about 50k subscribers, I am positive there is NO WAY Reason is turning a profit unless Nick, Radley, Matt and the gang are pulling salaries so low they qualify for the earned income tax credit or even food stamps.

Really? Time for more math, kids!:

50,000 X 20 bucks (cost for one-year introductory) = a million dollars. Of course, I imagine that the renew rate is higher than that, but we'll just go with 20 bucks.

So, a million dollars a year means that the top ten staffers (all the editors and Ronald Bailey) could pull 60,000 a year. Which leaves 400K left over for all of the overhead. So, on that alone, I'd say the magazine probably breaks even.

BUT WAIT...there are ad sales, on reason.com, reason.tv and in the magazine itself. I have no clue what ad rates are (you're the one with all the journalism experience, Apaulogist), but that's gotta help.

Apaulogist|6.16.08 @ 11:48PM|#

Ok. I can play this game too.

"400K left over for all of the overhead."

Typesetting, graphical design, sales staff, computer network, physical plant, janitorial services, etc=$200,000

printing color magazine $1/issueX12 monthsX50K issues= $600,000

distribution $0.50/issueX12 monthsX50k issues=$300,000

subtotal before returns, legal fees, travel expenses for reporters, special promotions, etc= 1.1 million

proving Ayn Randian wrong=priceless

|6.16.08 @ 11:55PM|#

gotta link for those prices, Apaulogist? You're the one who has been screaming for proof; start providing some.

Orange Line Special|6.17.08 @ 12:02AM|#

My buddy Jesse Walker writes: Last month we got about 2.2 million page views.

Dayum! That's about 22 times the number I get. But, in my defense, I haven't been publishing for a few decades, I'm not a sycophantic member of the BeltwayEstablishment, I don't receive funding from others, and I don't have a staff of people working for me.

But, give me time.

|6.17.08 @ 12:09AM|#

you should keep in mind two things about the numbers, too, Apaulogist:

1. I used the introductory rate, not the renew rate.

2. I made up the salaries of the staff. Even if you cut them in half, they still don't qualify for food stamps or the EITC, per your earlier assertion.

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 12:15AM|#

That was a low-ball estimate. I'm sure I left a bunch of stuff out.

printing costs of $1/copy: http://magazinepublishing.suite101.com/article.cfm/magazine_start_ups_on_a_shoestring

other stuff:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,860829,00.html

Jesse and Davy Boy are of course free to dispute these figures.

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 12:51AM|#

"2. I made up the salaries of the staff. Even if you cut them in half, they still don't qualify for food stamps or the EITC, per your earlier assertion."

Ok, let's cut 'em in half:

Senior staff salaries=$300,000
overhead (as per earlier post)=1,100,000
expenses=1,400,000
magazine sales=1,000,000
ad sales=? quarter million?
net profit= some negative number

RandyAyn=wrong

|6.17.08 @ 1:00AM|#

I have to give the Paulbots credit. With their posts on this thread, they have definitely managed to change my mind on one of my dearly held beliefs.

I now support filtering comments. Apaulogist, liberty mike, Andy White, and the hordes of others, it was nice knowing you. Well, not really, but I'm trying to be polite.

|6.17.08 @ 1:04AM|#

Typesetting, graphical design, sales staff, computer network, physical plant, janitorial services, etc=$200,000

interns, interns, interns, interns, interns, interns = $0

I hear Damon Root cleans a wicked toilet.

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 1:09AM|#

Even interns get a stipend, PottyChris.

|6.17.08 @ 1:13AM|#

Bah, forget the filter. I'd be deprived of entertainment!

|6.17.08 @ 1:15AM|#

this is GREAT!!! I LOVE a heated debate!! Just gotta love that feeling of hatred and resentment to the point of killing each other!! This is just TOO GOOD to be TRUE!!! Ayn_Randian, Apaulogist, and others just gotta spread the visceral hatred! Whew! KEEP IT COMING you guys! KEEP IT UP !!! THANK GOODNESS OBAMA or MCCAIN WILL WIN! SOCIALIST FOR LIFE!!!

|6.17.08 @ 1:22AM|#

As a child of the light, there is no room for hatred or resentment or any other dark emotions in my heart. I feel only pity and compassion for the Paulbots.

|6.17.08 @ 1:23AM|#

Even interns get a stipend

Yeah, enough to live in a garage in West Virginia and commute by moped.

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 1:25AM|#

I feel only a slight pressure between my colon and my sphincter.

|6.17.08 @ 1:28AM|#

COMPASSION MY FOOT!!! Calling 'Paulbots' is no different than calling them 'Nazis' Your compassion eludes to only hatred. I can tell you this though: this is the KIND of tedious arguements that ONLY FOOLS will go after. You call this 'progres' my man Chris Potter you don't really get this do you?

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 1:29AM|#

"Yeah, enough to live in a garage in West Virginia and commute by moped."

Seems criminal considering all that profit Randroid thinks Reason is making, doesn't it?

Of course there's the phone bills, internet, electricity, sysadmin, software, hardware, sideburn combs for Nick...

|6.17.08 @ 1:37AM|#

Seems criminal considering all that profit Randroid thinks Reason is making, doesn't it?

Socialist. If they don't like it they can go back to Wichita and flip burgers. Budding journalists know they have to pay their dues.

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 1:51AM|#

"Budding journalists know they have to pay their dues."

Sorry. What was I thinking? Interns should sleep in the basement, stacked like cordwood, eat only candy too stale for the receptionist's desk and scraps from Balko's secret cheese nips stash in the break room, shower and bathe in each other's tears.

|6.17.08 @ 2:12AM|#

KEEP IT UP people PROVE ME RIGHT!!! CONTINUE bashing each other to the point of physical violence!! I want FRONT ROW seats when that HAPPENS!!

Heres some of the GREATest quote from Hilter himself the GREATEST socialist of ALL time.

" How fortunate for leaders that men do not think "

" Hate is more lasting than dislike. "

KEEP PROVING ME RIGHT!!!

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 2:27AM|#

Chill, 'BamorCain. Don't get all Jesusy on us.

|6.17.08 @ 4:58AM|#

Ugh-

What can one earn for writing an article like this? Or does one have to be already employed?

I'd support Reason's candidate.


bob

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.17.08 @ 5:55AM|#

...it could terrify Paul's party in the best way......Or it could fall flat.

Yeah, and it might rain tomorrow. Or it might not.

Is there any point to all of this babble? I keep looking for one, and Weigal Weegel Whatever is really good at sounding like he might actually have one. Any minute now.

It might rain tomorrow, too.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.17.08 @ 5:57AM|#

I thought it was supposed to be rEVOluTIOn.
Wait...REvolutION.
Um...rEVOLution?

If that's what you're after, stop wasting your time on Ron Paul. Read Lenin and Mao.

Now those guys knew how to throw a ReVeLoTIoN.

Ebeneezer Scrooge|6.17.08 @ 5:59AM|#

They got really really lucky, too. But that's kind of beside the point once it's done and over.

|6.17.08 @ 7:36AM|#

I have received solicitations from the Reason Foundation in the past asking for donation to support Reason Magazine. In those solicitations, it was claimed that "ideas" magazines (like National Review, the Nation, etc.) are generally subsidized. While things may have changed from that time, and the magazine operation now makes a profit, I wouldn't be surprized if it runs at a loss.

So what?

I like Reason.

I greatly appreciate the web version's independent reporting about libertarian politics.

In the past, Reason ignored Libertarian Party activity (pretty much like the print version of Reason.) Of course, there was no Ron Paul-like effort on the Republican side. To get objective reporting on Libertarian politics, it was necessary to go to _Liberty_.

This cycle, the web version of Reason has been pretty good on covering Paul and the Libertarians (especially Barr.) I think it is an excellent service.

I find their reporting very sympathetic, but realistic.

What happened with the racist newsletter controversy is that it shifted over into a factional debate -- paleos vs. moderates. With hindsite, it is difficult to see the newsletters as being anything other than a early mistep by the paleo faction. The "moderates" tried to hold the paleos feet to the fire on the issue (while giving Paul an out to separate himself fully from the scandal.) The paleos responded with attacks on the "moderates" claiming that they were trying to get Paul.

Paul is a front man for the paleos. Presumably, they intend to be the ideologues behind Paul's new political movement. They are working hard to freeze out what they see has their competition. Stretching the truth is standard operating procedure.

The reality is that Paul's support appeared to largely come from people and on issues with which the "moderates" are quite confortable.

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 9:04AM|#

That's a clever spin, Mr. Woolsey. It's close enough to the truth that it seems believable while distorting just enough to get the neolib/Reason cosmotarians off the hook. The truth is the hatchet was mostly buried until Matt and Nick dug it up again to jump on the New Republic bandwagon, echoing the narrative on Newsletters they didn't even read before parroting Kirchick and TNR. Justin Raimondo proved everything and exposed them for the assclowns they are.

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 9:08AM|#

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/ron_paul_versus_the_beltway_libertarians/

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 9:12AM|#

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/who_the_fck_is_james_kirchick/

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 9:15AM|#

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/ron_paul_versus_the_beltway_libertarians/

JMR|6.17.08 @ 9:17AM|#

May as well also mention:

http://dougwead.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/how-a-gop-conspiracy-continues-to-cheat-ron-paul/

to upset the Orange Line cosmotarian set with the truth.
JMR

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 9:18AM|#

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/ron_paul_versus_the_pc_brigade_a_strange_silence_from_the_beltway_boys/

|6.17.08 @ 9:21AM|#

Ha ha, you got me JMR. And all for the shocking revelation that the Republican "establishment" doesn't like Ron Paul. Yeah, that's no surprise.

|6.17.08 @ 9:33AM|#

Is there no accountability in print? Anyone caught putting sawdust in hamburgers goes to prison, but Reason continues to print tripe like "those same [unspecified racist] passages had dogged Paul". In every page of this screed it is obvious that it is written by kids: kids with no depth in history or philosophy, excited that in the mere effort of typing they may have created a stir.

J|6.17.08 @ 12:50PM|#

I just want to make it clear, the J with a link is not me. I post fairly regularly, with no link in my name.

J|6.17.08 @ 12:54PM|#

I am sad that Ron Paul is leaving, and the CFL seems like a nice try to keep working to create a more libertarian voice in the country.

I certainly disagreed with Paul on a few things, especially immigration, but I still think he was the best choice, and did impressively well, for libertarian sorta guy.

B|6.17.08 @ 1:29PM|#

Paul is indeed still campaigning for liberty, the liberty to blame someone else for his smears on jews and blacks. Paul is a total fucking joke, and this magazine's continued discussion of a "rEVOlution" that never happened is reminiscent of an Onion joke gone on too long.

|6.17.08 @ 1:39PM|#

We'll return to Apaulogist's mindless link-spamming after this important message:

THE INDISPUTABLY NON-COERCIVE IDIOT FILTER!

Tired of cranks, assholes, and nutjobs messing up your Hit & Run experience? INCIF may be the plug-in for you!

Designed by Eric the .5b, a Hit & Run regular, INCIF allows you to replace long screeds by your least favorite commenters with nothing but a placeholder! No longer must you entertain the idiocies of H&R's Least Valuable Players!

Install INCIF and, after a simple configuration process, the trolls are instantly gone!

Ask your doctor if INCIF is right for you!

(INCIF should not be used by patients running Microsoft Internet Explorer. INCIF is for Firefox use only, and requires the free Greasemonkey plugin. Side effects of INCIF may include relaxation, lower blood pressure, and the lack of a pressing need to reach through your computer monitor and choke a bitch.)

Ironic|6.17.08 @ 2:39PM|#

Does GreaseMonkey work with Iceweazel? Just asking.

|6.17.08 @ 3:16PM|#

Arguing on the internet about Ron Paul is futile. Even if you win you are still Paultarded.

|6.17.08 @ 3:37PM|#

There are more people who believe in the freedom agenda than voted for us in the primaries.

That's the really sad part. Ron Paul earned 1.2 million votes, but he had enough support to WIN the Republican nomination, if everyone who preferred him had actually registered as Republicans on time and turned out for the primaries.

Thanks to low voter turnout in the Republican primaries, 8 million votes would have been enough to win. That sounds like a lot, but is only 4% of the 200 million or so American citizens of voting age. In only a handful of states did Ron Paul poll below 4%.

Sean Scallon|6.17.08 @ 3:44PM|#

"The Campaign is, still, less than Paul's army expected from this campaign when they flooded his coffers. On Thursday, I put the question to the candidate: Were those tens of millions of dollars that went to Ron Paul 2008 put to good use? "I hope so," he said. "They trusted me. We did our very best. And I'd say that in the category of spending, we were the best campaign, as far being the stewards' of peoples' money." Trevor Lyman agreed. "The moneybombs were worth it for the coverage alone," he said. "The Ron Paul Blimp was nearly as good on that count; I've seen serious estimates that it was $2 million in exposure and earned media."

So Dave, you're suggesting we would have been better off spending our money at McDonald's, our time at Starbucks and giving our political cash to Barak Obama? (Wait! Don't answer that).

Perhaps it's the cosmos who wish that Paul didn't run so that Lew Rockwell could remain in obscurity. Perhaps you're all just realizing this.

"The fundraising numbers and the ambition of the Campaign for Liberty raises another question. In January, Paul took a public relations hit when controversial sections of his old Ron Paul Political Reports were reprinted by The New Republic. Those same passages had dogged Paul in his 1996 congressional comeback. What had Paul learned from the experiences of Ron Paul and Associates that would guide him in his new venture. "I'm only responsible for what I do and what I say," he said. "I've been saying the same thing since 1974, and I've gotten a bit better at it." That was all he'd say on the matter

Ahh, elephants never forget. You must have a key on your computer keyboard says "Paul's Newsletters" so it makes it easier for you to insert the newsletter issue into any article you do on Ron Paul.

If Paul is indeed making his passage on the political scene from his official camapaign to the CFL does it make sense to keep bringing this issue up or do you wish to use it in some twisted the way to question the legitimacy of the CFL ("You're political hero is a rascist!")

Maybe the answer to that question depends upon on the kind of libertarianism the CFL pushing and who pushes it. I guess we'll have to wait to see what the ideological or more than likely the petty litmus test is from the cosmos.

|6.17.08 @ 3:45PM|#

...he became a phenomenon but came in fourth place out of seven candidates who entered the caucuses and primaries.

Seven Republican candidates? I counted thirteen, several of which were far more "quixotic" than Ron Paul:

John Cox
Duncan Hunter
Sam Brownback
Jim Gilmore
Tommy Thompson
Alan Keyes
Tom Tancredo
Fred Thompson
Rudy Giuliani
Mitt Romney
Mike Huckabee
Ron Paul
John McCain

|6.17.08 @ 3:49PM|#

That means there never needs to come the awkward time when donors and observers point out that CFL has inarguably failed to meet some goal.

You mean like the Libertarian Party not electing anyone to federal office after 30+ years?

Sean Scallon|6.17.08 @ 3:50PM|#

"I actually agree with this, and I've often said (if not blogged) that a year from now, no one will remember who ran for the GOP nomination except for McCain and Paul.

You could write this in a comments section but not in your article?

|6.17.08 @ 4:00PM|#

Ron Paul's primary and caucus results were a lot better than most casual observers remember, thanks mostly to a slanted media that if it mentions them at all, says they were "in the low single digits":

Caucus Results (votes, % reporting)

25% -- Montana: 400 (100%)
22% -- Washington: 2,740 (99%)
21% -- North Dakota: 2,082 (100%)
19% -- Maine: 851 (68%)
17% -- Alaska: 1,955 (98%)
16% -- Minnesota: 9,852 (100%)
14% -- Nevada: 6,087 (100%)
11% -- Kansas: 2,182 (100%)
10% -- Iowa: 11,817 (98%)
10% -- West Virginia: 118 (100%)
8% -- Colorado: 4,670 (95%)

Primary Results (votes, % reporting)

24% -- Idaho: 29,741 (100%)
22% -- Montana: 20,451 (100%)
17% -- South Dakota: 10,054 (100%)
16% -- Pennsylvania: 128,483 (100%)
15% -- Oregon: 49,905 (100%)
14% -- New Mexico: 15,319 (99%)
13% -- Nebraska: 17,659 (100%)
8% -- Washington: 40,539 (100%)
8% -- Indiana: 31,628 (99%)
8% -- New Hampshire: 18,303 (100%)
8% -- District of Columbia: 471 (98%)
7% -- New York: 38,918 (99%)
7% -- North Carolina: 37,132 (100%)
7% -- Kentucky: 13,419 (100%)
7% -- Vermont: 2,627 (99%)
7% -- Rhode Island: 1,775 (100%)
6% -- Michigan: 54,434 (100%)
6% -- Tennessee: 30,730 (100%)
6% -- Maryland: 17,865 (97%)
5% -- Texas: 69,954 (100%)
5% -- Ohio: 49,027 (100%)
5% -- Illinois: 45,166 (99%)
5% -- New Jersey: 26,952 (99%)
5% -- Wisconsin: 18,771 (97%)
5% -- Arkansas: 10,740 (100%)
5% -- Louisiana: 8,595 (100%)
5% -- West Virginia: 5,918 (100%)
4% -- California: 110,077 (100%)
4% -- Missouri: 26,445 (100%)
4% -- Arizona: 22,581 (99% )
4% -- Virginia: 22,066 (99%)
4% -- South Carolina: 16,054 (100%)
4% -- Connecticut: 6,092 (100%)
4% -- Mississippi: 5,510 (100%)
4% -- Delaware: 2,131 (100%)
3% -- Florida: 62,063 (99%)
3% -- Georgia: 27,978 (100%)
3% -- Alabama: 15,454 (99%)
3% -- Massachusetts: 13,210 (100%)
3% -- Oklahoma: 11,179 (100%)
3% -- Utah: 8,295 (99%)

|6.17.08 @ 4:08PM|#

The most serious screw-up of the presidential campaign was in Iowa, not New Hampshire. Ron Paul earned 10% of the caucus vote -- an astounding result to political science experts quoted in the media -- but largely ignored because he finished in fifth place, behind Thompson and McCain who had 13% each.

Yet the result could have been significantly better, if all the pre-caucus get-out-the-vote effort hadn't been washed down the drain thanks to a database error and inexcusably insufficient backup procedures.

If Ron Paul had eked out third place in Iowa, the entire campaign might have turned out differently.

Some media reports claim that Paul didn't post significant showings until after most of the field had dropped out, but 10% in Iowa, 8% in New Hampshire, 14% in Nevada, and 19% in Maine, all BEFORE Super Tuesday are not exactly "low single digits."

Apaulogist|6.17.08 @ 4:27PM|#

Reason, isn't that the cute little magazine that was edited by Bowser from Sha-na-na before Buddy Holly Took over?

|6.17.08 @ 8:40PM|#

Gotta love all of the HATE and yet you guys CONTINUE to deny the fact that all of this argument will just help AID to the SOCIALIST cause. I do LOVE this environment! Let the destruction begin HAHA!!! I have to admit that ANY person WHO has ANY idea that Ron Paul is the ONLY person making this movement POSSIBLE but because of your OWN egoistical arguments YOU cannot even see that!!!! SOCIALISM FOR LIFE!!!

JMR|6.18.08 @ 12:23PM|#

The thing about the Wead article whose link I pasted above is that I'd been hearing this exact thing, informally, for months, but never from the media. Republicans have driven away many young RP supporters they MIGHT have kept with their dishonest tactics, and for what? McCain WON by Super Tuesday. Did it matter after that if Ron Paul's side got 40 delegates or 400? No, unless your interest is feigned unity and a well-scripted (read: "traditionally-BORING!!!") Republican convention.
JMR

JMR|6.18.08 @ 12:24PM|#

"quixotic" -- DRINK!!!
JMR

Sun Stealer|6.24.08 @ 3:36PM|#

"A vote for liberty is a vote for liberty."

And a bullet to the foot is a bullet to the foot.

|6.26.08 @ 5:19PM|#

"Jim Henley pointed out"...""all the elements of the 'Mission' of CFL are kept prudently nebulous. That means there never needs to come the awkward time when donors and observers point out that CFL has inarguably failed to meet some goal.""

Just good strategy to me. Minimize the points they can construct an attack on the efforts. Seems real simple to me: Educate the people so that they can discuss issues in more than iditobox soundbytes and vote for the candidate who best represents us while making coverage by the news media irrelevant to the choices made by the people.

THAT sums it up for me.

|6.26.08 @ 5:27PM|#

To Ebeneezer Scrooge:

You are right about Mao and Lenin...those guys did know how to throw a revolution. Like the death of 8 million Georgians and only God knows how many Chinese girl children murdered at birth because of their fertility laws.

The problem with Ron Paul's rEVOLution is that it REQUIRES MEN TO THINK. God bless Ron Paul because I like the way he picks his fights. The CFL requires men to by unhappy, to look at why they are unhappy, and to understand that of all the nations in the world, we are the only one to have ever sold ourselves BACK into slavery. (Hint: It happened in 1913 and they have been adding chains and bars ever since.)

|6.26.08 @ 5:38PM|#

To line of Koch about being Pautarded...

Nuh unh, YOU are.

So there.