Trump Is a Laughing Matter

But the bankruptcy of the Republican Party is not.

No wonder the media are fascinated by Donald Trump’s chances of becoming the Republican presidential candidate in 2012. 

After all, when the Conservative Political Action Committee this year polled members on their choices for a 2012 candidate, the winner, by a seven-percentage-point margin, was Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas). This is in sharp contrast to last year’s poll, in which the winner by nine points was Ron Paul.

When a Rasmussen poll sized up potential general election candidates against President Barack Obama, the most competitive Republican hopeful turned out to be Ron Paul. 

When NPR ran a March Madness contest of Republican politicians—a competition that drew 963,719 participants—the winner was Ron Paul

On the other hand, when participants at the Tea Party Patriots February convention in Phoenix, Arizona held their own poll of presidential prospects, the winner turned out to be…Ron Paul. 

This is not to say Paul will get anywhere near the Republican presidential nomination in 2012. Barring a pod-people takeover of the GOP, the mild-mannered representative from the Republican wing of the Republican Party will never get the institutional support to win primaries, should he even campaign. 

While the allure of Trump may escape you, you can at least understand why news organizations looking to draw traffic would be interested in him. His fact-free fixation on President Obama’s birth certificate, and his failure to locate his own, gives reporters the best of both worlds: a chance to revisit the interlocking weirdnesses of the birther story while mocking its premises. The Donald’s lengthy history of business failures and personal disgraces provides easy context, and his humorlessness makes him a rewarding person to mock. His ornery comments on policy—demands to seize Libya’s oil, for example, and red-faced machismo toward China—fit a ready stereotype of the right-wing ignoramus. And in a real gift for a slow news period, you can find nearly word-for-word precursors for Trump’s anti-China tirades in comments he made about Japan nearly three decades ago. Nothing in Trump’s caterwauling approaches serious engagement with the various crises facing the United States. 

The Republican Party’s disinterest in Paul is not so easy to explain. Even this far into the great credit unwind, Paul is considered such an odd duck within his own party that it was only with great reluctance—and after Paul’s own craven support helped Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Alabama) to become chairman of the Committee on Financial Services—that the GOP allowed him to take over the Subcommittee on Monetary Policy and Technology (admittedly a perfect spot for the unapologetic goldbug). 

The Republicans’ inability to deal with the Ron Paul phenomenon—a show that, like the recession and The Fantasticks, keeps playing long after the original audience was hoping it would close—indicates a party in menopause. Even against the seemingly lightweight competition of the Obama brain trust, the Republicans have no stomach for budget cutting. As Reason's Peter Suderman has been reporting, last week’s apparently $38.5 billion in savings quickly dwindled to $14 billion and then down to a sub-billion figure. The president can give a rambling, orotund speech extolling a two-month-old budget proposal, and he still catches the Republicans flatfooted. They have no more interest in deficit reduction than he does. 

The strange thing is that this is not a slow news period, and it’s almost tempting to make the priggish complaint that we need to get serious about the issues. Sarah Palin left public life under very odd circumstances and is now best known for a daughter who dressed up like a monkey on Dancing With the Stars. Ron Paul is a sitting U.S. congressman whose son was recently elected to the Senate. Yet to go by the news mentions, Palin is the more serious Republican candidate. That’s what the media will do when you give them no reason to take you seriously. 

Again, this is not to say Paul has a chance of getting elected president in 2012. But the Republicans can’t find any place for Paul’s supposedly radical message for the same reason they can’t manage to make even ten-figure spending cuts. They’ll have nobody but themselves to blame when their 2012 rosters turn out to be laughingstocks, and not even the good kind of laughingstocks. 

Tim Cavanaugh is a senior editor at Reason magazine.

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

  • Tim||

    "Hook was not his true name. To reveal who he really was would even at this date set the country in a blaze; but as those who read between the lines must already have guessed, he had been at a famous public school; and its traditions still clung to him like garments, with which indeed they are largely concerned. Thus it was offensive to him even now to board a ship in the same dress in which he grappled [attacked] her, and he still adhered in his walk to the school's distinguished slouch. But above all he retained the passion for good form.

    Good form! However much he may have degenerated, he still knew that this is all that really matters.

    From far within him he heard a creaking as of rusty portals, and through them came a stern tap-tap-tap, like hammering in the night when one cannot sleep. "Have you been good form to-day?" was their eternal question. "

    -JM Barrie in Peter Pan

  • Charles||

    Maybe that is the plan? Who would really want to be president in 2012 anyway? We always make it seem like there is a real choice here when there really is not. I am a pure republican and I say let Obama have the presidency. He will then go down as Herbert Hoover the 2nd. He wont fix what needs fixing. The real change will happen in 2016 when crisis is upon us. Let's hope by then we get a strong republican candidate who is serious about addressing our issues. If not, then we will be staring down the barrel of fascism or something much worse as this country goes the way of other historic world empires.

  • Drew||

    Seems someone would need one of these - http://www.runetalisman.com
    Preferably the one for truth and honesty...

  • Robert||

    Those are characteristics Thor is known for, so I would think a bindrune for truth & honesty would at least include a thurisaz. Symbolically raido, for finding the right path, would go with those traits. It would be very easy to fashion a bindrune of a thurisaz and a raido, just by adding an extra line to a thurisaz, or, looked at the other way, by extending the vertical of a raido. See http://vrilology.org/FUTHARK.htm

  • rather||

    Hell Trump doesn't need a birth certificate: He's the classic ignorant American

  • ||

    Well, you're one who would know from experience, rectal, just like you know what it is to be a retard. It's good that you can understand the mongoloids. They need someone who can.

  • rather||

    epi, why don't you give the world more of your Olive Garden gourmand advice. LOL

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    He's the classic ignorant American


    Is that like the classic American cheeseburger?

  • T||

    No, one can find a cheeseburger in Paradise.

  • Almanian||

    Nothing to eat BUT cheeseburgers in paradise!

  • ||

    Well, there's certainly no hamburgers in Paradise.

  • Trump||

    You say he's the classic American cheeseburger. Let me tell you, I'm a really smart guy. I kind of believe he is - but where's the birth certificate?

  • Trump||

    - i mean beef certificate...

  • Jesse Ventura||

    Donald Trump is just a government agent. Read my book and you'll see the documents that prove it!

  • prolefeed||

    Well, not in the Jewish one, anyhow.

  • ||

    2 1/2 hours for someone to get it. Thanks for coming through, prolefeed.

  • ||

    I got it right away.

  • ||

    I do not see your name on a building or airplane.. loser.

  • Old Mexican||

    His fact-free fixation on President Obama's birth certificate, and his failure to locate his own, gives reporters the best of both worlds: a chance to revisit the interlocking weirdnesses of the birther story while mocking its premises.


    Remember that the guy has been able to get out of seemingly insurmountable predicaments and scandals by sheer weight of peronality, or by the skin of his hair... or the power of his pouts.

    Not that I support his efforts, especially when his graps of basic economics is so tenuous, but I would not dismiss him so easily, especially after Americans have had a taste of the Greatest Literary Genius Of All Time.

  • Old Mexican||

    Sorry - "grasp," not "graps." My dislexia is really bad today... must be Friday.

  • Sam Grove||

    It's not dyslexia, it's typlexia.

  • ||

    Spot on. The key to working the media -- even when they don't like your ideology -- is to give them something relatively harmless to write/talk about that will get them readers/viewers. It's really no different from getting wild boars to stay in the pen you built for them.

  • rather||

    Trump didn't write his book either

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    Trump didn't write his book either


    And this is relevant and enough to give a shit about because.....

  • rather ||

    because none of these personalities write their own books.

    The especially after Americans have had a taste of the Greatest Literary Genius Of All Time. is silly; they are all on equal footing.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: rather,

    The especially after Americans have had a taste of the Greatest Literary Genius Of All Time. is silly; they are all on equal footing.


    You must be trying your darnest to look like a fool, rather. The Greatest Literary Genius Of All Time is the one making the claim he wrote those books himself. Has Trump made such outlandish claims?

    There's more than enough evidence for a prima facie case of literary fraud perpetrated by Our Esteemed Literary Genius. Who the hell cares about what Trump writes or had someone write for him? He's not the president.

  • rather||

    Hmm, John Kennedy didn't author Profiles in Courage and my point is none of them write their own shit. The Greatest Literary Genius JFK didn't merit his Pulitzer Prize in history either.

  • sunny black||

    rather....the whole point is that part of Captain Awesome's cache to the Manhattana's legendary Upper West Side of academics and pinotheads was the Urkel was Our Esteemed Literary Genius (who wrote his own sheit).

    It's still not registering with you, is it?

  • rather||

    And my point is that none of these guys who claim they were authors were authors and most of them were not technically college graduates either. They paid to have their exams written too (till ID check became too difficult to forge) but certainly most had their actual work was done by proxy.

    It is naive to suggest that it wasn't a game and all the participants and spectators including the Upper West Side of academics and pinotheads are not in the know

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No. Obama was different. He was special. The fact that he wrote his own autobiography - and it was so good! - was a very large part of his mystique.

  • ||

    can I have some of your medication, please, please, please.

  • ||

    And he had a casino that went bankrupt! Is anyone actually arguing for this guy?

  • rather ||

    Hey are you supposed to be at the movie tavern?

  • jester||

    What is peronality? Does that refer to likeness to juan or eva?

  • ||

    "Peronality" -- you mean, he'll be like Eva Peron if elected?

  • Ray Pew||

    The GOP can't stand Paul, because he questioned their most cherised virtue: militarism.

    Conservatives tend to be pragmatists, not a coherent ideology. Family, faith and tradition is not an ideology, it's nostalgia.

    Paul was correct in saying that the difference is philosophical. Without having foundational principles of rights and limitations of government, you end up with "the State can do what the State is able to do".

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ray Pew,

    The GOP can't stand Paul, because he questioned their most cherised virtue: militarism.


    Very true. Last Monday, listening to the Joe Pags Show while driving my son to school, one of the callers mentioned that the only candidate of merit would be Ron Paul; almost as if on cue, Pags brought out the "I" word: Isolationism.

    His contention? That Ron Paul was out of touch because this is a big and good country and the world needed us to protect the world from tyranny and that times were different and blah, blah, blah. I almost wanted to drive my vehicle to 950 AM and ram it against the building in protest...

  • Ray Pew||

    Very true. Last Monday, listening to the Joe Pags Show while driving my son to school, one of the callers mentioned that the only candidate of merit would be Ron Paul; almost as if on cue, Pags brought out the "I" word: Isolationism.

    His contention? That Ron Paul was out of touch because this is a big and good country and the world needed us to protect the world from tyranny and that times were different and blah, blah, blah. I almost wanted to drive my vehicle to 950 AM and ram it against the building in protest...

    I can't think of a "right wing/conservative" radio personality that doesn't argue from the blind assumption that the US is good because we have big guns and use them to "police" the world. Liberty ranks below military and economic supremacy. I've heard several radio pundits lament that if we decrease our military operations and spending this equates to an end of the world scenario.

    While they talk about the debt crisis (blaming it all on the Democrats, of course), one pundit told a caller that we couldn't afford NOT to spend on the military and the WOT. Another pundit made the statement that we should spend twice as much on the military and another claimed that the only area of government he trusted was the DOD.

    Cults wish they could brainwash people this effectively.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ray Pew,

    I can't think of a "right wing/conservative" radio personality that doesn't argue from the blind assumption that the US is good because we have big guns and use them to "police" the world.


    I can only think of one libertarian talk radio host: Mark Carbonaro, whose radio show is broadcast in the Monterey Bay Area of CA. Unfortunately, he's probably one of a very few cadre of Libertarian talk radio hosts, the rest being warmongers like Mike Gallagher or Joe Pags.

  • ||

    I was listening to the Jaz McKay show in Bakersfield the other day. He was going off on the protesters in Wisconsin and how he supported the Koch brothers. Then he came on in the next segment lauding Joe Arpaio as a "great American patriot."

    I just had to call in and ask him how he could support the Koch brothers, who abhor everything Joe Arpaio does to limit civil liberties, and he told me I was the problem because I'm too much of a libertarian.

    It's almost like you have to check everything off the list to get in the club. Reminds me of progressives. (Name one progressive who has not bought into climate change 100% and I'll send you my last bottle of 2005 Clos Pepe Estate Pinot Noir)

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Sloopyinca,

    It's almost like you have to check everything off the list to get in the club. Reminds me of progressives.


    Reminds me of those cutout dolls, except Progressives and neo-Cons only come with one set of clothes.

  • mr simple||

    I have a friend who's an ex social worker, only votes Dem and mocks Repubs, thinks we should all be able to get free health care, etc, but tells me he doesn't think the evidence is there for catastrophic AGW. Do I win?

  • ||

    I was hoping for a talking head or something. But, yeah. I guess I'll give you my last bottle of (arguably) the best Pinot around.

    Fuck!

  • sasob||

    You might also try Charlie Jones Overnight. He on live from midnight to 4am five nights a week on the Texas State Network. I pick him up on KRLD News Radio 1080 AM. He also has some interesting podcasts you can listen to anytime. I'd classify him as conservative with a strong libertarianish bent. He reads Reason.

  • Mensan||

    You should check out Jason Lewis. He's syndicated on like 50 stations nationally, but his show is also on XM. And, of course, there's always Free Talk Live.

  • Rich||

    Try Ron Smith. He lost (some old and gained new) listeners because of his stance on Iraq. He makes astute observations about the imperial state.

  • ||

    "I can't think of a "right wing/conservative" radio personality that doesn't argue from the blind assumption that the US is good because we have big guns and use them to "police" the world. "

    Mike Church

  • db||

    Cults wish they could brainwash people this effectively.

    This is absolutely the case.

  • Robert||

    I can't think of a "right wing/conservative" radio personality that doesn't argue from the blind assumption that the US is good because we have big guns and use them to "police" the world.


    That's interesting because that's the reverse of what intuition says: That because the US is good, it should use the big guns to police the world. The way you have "right wing/conservative" radio personalities -- and I'm not saying you're wrong to think that's how they are -- it seems that whichever force has the big guns should use them.

  • ChrisO||

    Prior to George W. Bush, the last major military action undertaken by a Republican president was the Spanish-American War.

    In fact, the current GOP fixation on militarism is a relatively recent phenomenon. And it's certainly not a "conservative" thing as I define that term. Dubya was essentially just LBJ with better hair.

  • ||

    Republicans were isolationists for a good amount of time.

    You forgot Grenada, and I think it's only fair to note that Nixon did continue the Vietnam War.

  • ChrisO||

    Grenada was not a major war, and Nixon managed to end the war, though not as soon as he should have.

    Ultimately, both major parties have their isolationist and militarist wings. As shown by our current Samantha Powers war in Libya...soon to become another quagmire.

  • ||

    Nixon did not end the war. He signed a phony "peace treaty" that the North Vietnamese ignored from day one.

    The war ended on Ford's watch with the last Americans fleeing Saigon from the roof of the American Embassy.

    Ford, at least, had the guts to recognize a lost cause and get the fuck out.

  • ChrisO||

    Oops, I admit that I forgot the first Iraq war under Bush pere. I think my point still holds, however. The traditional American conservative position was to be skeptical of foreign entanglements. The desire to "spread American democracy" started with 19th Century statists.

  • ||

    Ah, the hair-splitting just like in the racism thread. Sorry, buddy: TEAM RED and TEAM BLUE are basically no different on most issues, including this one. Spin all you want, but it doesn't change that fact.

  • ChrisO||

    Your assertion doesn't make it true. Look at the history of American foreign policy. The two parties have disagreed vehemently over the years on many of the basic tenets of our foreign policy.

    I will, however, agree that the two parties are not that far apart at present on that issue. Different shades of nation-building insanity. They're both way off course, as far as I'm concerned.

    But to say that Robert Taft and Harry Truman were "basically no different" would be ignorance. Maybe what I'm really trying to say is that the GOP lost whatever foreign-policy goodness it had when it went away from Taft and Eisenhower and towards the neo-con view of things, which is really just the post-war Democratic view of things.

  • Tony||

    Ya one wants universal healthcare and the other wants to give granny's nursing home stipend to exxon mobil.... No difference whatsoever. Does it hurt being this shallow?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    You mean one wants to steal from one half of the population to give to the other all while making it seem as if keep their own money is actually a form of welfare.

    Got it.

    You're such a fucking tool.

  • Tony||

    Yes, Republicans want to steal from the poor and elderly and give it to the rich and politically connected corporations. You must be catching on.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Uh, keeping your own money is not stealing.

    If you had even one shred of intellectual honesty you would at least admit that not taxing money to give to others is NOT somehow welfare for those NOT being taxed.

    But I won't be holding my breath.

  • Tony||

    keeping your own money is not stealing.

    But being merely glib is is stealing from the potential of actual thought.

    "Welfare for the rich," admittedly, is merely glib.

    What's not is the fact that money in the hands of nursing home residents as distributed by government is not, in fact, the possession of anyone else, however much it may be claimed.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    So it's "in the hands of the government" before it's stolen in the form of a tax in order to give to granny?

    The proposal is not to walk in to the nursing home and jack granny, and you know it, you just want to pretend that all money is the government's to do with what it will so you can fit the facts to your argument.

  • Paulnut Allergy||

    Tony: "Why do you steal from poor people and the elderly?"

    Evil Republican: "Because that's where the money is!"

    "Wait, what? ...Aw, shit."

  • ||

    General Electric FTW

  • greentard||

    But GE shouldn't pay taxes because they dey aren't TEH COOAAAAALLLLL!!!

    fossilfuelbigoilBPdirtycoalcorporationrepublicans and stuff.

  • Bucky||

    Stuff=earth has a fever?

  • ||

    And Bush I's Panama, Gulf War I, and Somalia; Ike's escalation in Vietnam, Nixon's bombing of Cambodia.

    As far as I know, Gerry Ford didn't do anything.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    As far as I know, Gerry Ford didn't do anything.


    Neither did Harding, Coolidge and Hoover. The warmongers were always the proto-fascists (later GOPers) and the fully fledged fascists (the Democrats and their GOPer brethren.)

  • ||

    As far as I know, Gerry Ford didn't do anything.

    Mayaguez incident.

    But I still liked Gerry Ford.

  • sasob||

    Ike's escalation in Vietnam,

    Eisenhower? I know US presence in Vietnam began during his administration, but wasn't it Kennedy who planned to escalate US operations and Johnson who actually carried them out?

  • tarran||

    The Eisenhower admin also planned the Bay of Pigs.

    I should point out that the CIA was dominated by anti-communists from Ivy League schools, who tended to support the Democrats (although a significant number were Rockefeller Republicans like George Bush I)

  • ||

    Reagan was a busy military boy. He bombed Libya, authorized a fucking mess in Lebanon (200 Marines dead, Druse goat-herders being lit up by a fucking battleship of all things), and the aforementioned Grenada.

    But wait! There's more! Don't forget 'flagging Kuwaiti tankers' which eventually led to the sinking of the Iranian Navy over their mine-laying anxieties. It was the last major contest between naval combatants (and obviously taking on USN didn't work for the Iraninas...lol) on record. Even blew up a jetliner full of Iranian civilians due to radar error; kind of a 'bonus' I guess the neo-con Reagan-droolers would say.

    Oh yeah, that's in between selling the Iranians Hawk SAM batteries and F-14 parts under-the-table to fund covert narco-CIA-guerilla wars in Central America.

    Outside of the Nutocracy, I bet even now the smart Iranians are still scratching their heads over us and our manic schemes over the past thirty years.

    Think about it from poor Iranian's perspective: This unstoppable military monster taking down every country on my international border, floats fucking Death Stars off my coast, and still has spare time to be consumed with the likes of Charlie Sheen.

    Personally, if I were free-thinking Iranian, I would be completely scared shitless of the United States.

    And thats with the peacenik Republicans running the show. Har.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Yet the US is quite popular with "free-thinking Iranians." They just don't want us to invade and occupy their country.

  • Mensan||

    Truman (D) - WWII, China, Korea, Taiwan, Italy (Trieste), Greece, Palestine, Germany (Berlin Air Lift).
    Eisenhower (R) - China, Vietnam, Egypt, Lebanon, Cuba.
    Kennedy (D) - Vietnam, Thailand, Cuba, Laos.
    Johnson (D) - Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Congo, Dominican Republic, Israel
    Nixon (R) - Vietnam, Cambodia, Yom Kippur War.
    Ford (R) - Vietnam, Cambodia, Lebanon, Korea
    Carter (D) - Congo, Iran.
    Reagan (R) - EL Salvador, Libya, Sinai, Lebanon, Egypt, Grenada, Honduras, Persian Gulf, Bolivia, Panama.
    Bush (R) - Libya, Panama, Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, Philippines, Liberia, Persian Gulf War, Iraq (Kurdistan), Congo, Sierra Leone, Bosnia, Somalia.
    Clinton (D) - Iraq, Bosnia, Somalia, Macedonia, Haiti, Liberia, Central Africa, Albania, Congo, Sierra Leone, Cambodia, Senegal, Kenya, Tanzania, Afghanistan, Sudan, East Timor, Kosovo.
    Bush, G.W. (R) - Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo, Yemen, Philippines, Liberia, Georgia, Djibouti, Haiti, Kenya, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Pakistan, Lebanon, Somalia.
    Obama (D) - Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Georgia, Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Yemen.

    By my count, since the last “real” war, the score is:
    Democrats: 46
    Republicans: 50

  • mr simple||

    Don't even try bringing facts into this argument. It ruins the narrative.

  • Robert||

    The GOP can't stand Paul, because he questioned their most cherised virtue: militarism.


    Close, but not quite. They didn't mind it when he questioned the militarism of administrations of the opposite party. What they couldn't stand is disloyalty to the top. It's like if a GOP POTUS one day up and sent an invasion force into, oh, I don't know...Ireland...Republicans with leadership aspirations would think, "Holy shit! This guy's a nut case!!" But publicly they would contrive any excuse they could to be in favor of that action.

    Democrats aspiring to leadership, not as much. Some, yeah, but not to the same degree as Republicans have been over at least the past 40 yrs. GOP politicians look more to pleasing those above them, Democrats those below them. Therefore of those parties, the Republicans are more susceptible to long periods of policy stagnation interrupted by wrenching changes, while the Democrats exhibit more gradual changes in party line.

    Conservatives tend to be pragmatists, not a coherent ideology. Family, faith and tradition is not an ideology, it's nostalgia.


    If you say so. I guess you're thinking of ideology as having end goals, while true conservatism is just resistance to change.

  • hjkljjklfds||

    "Family, faith and tradition is not an ideology, it's nostalgia."

    Well said.

  • ¢||

    While the allure of Trump may escape you,

    He's nominally Republican and says mean things about Democrats, unapologetically. The rest of the GOP field (Palin's not running) doesn't. Trump's support, such as it is, is just a "Finally!" from Republican voters, who rightly think their guys are all giant pussies who are afraid to say anything that might offend the Pres and his press.

    Trump would go off-radar immediately if any other GOP contender nutted up and talked some shit—preferably better shit than Trump's, because Trump's shit is all retarded. But it is shit, and that's what Republican voters want, because they're personally barraged with shit, constantly, from all directions, every single day, and no one's got their back.
    Unfortunately, all Republicans except the Pauls and Palin are, in fact, giant pussies, so that won't happen.

    Four more years, yo.

  • zoltan||

    Palin is a militarist so I'd definitely call her one of the GOP pussies (literally and figuratively).

  • ||

    Trump is a just a wealthier, more charismatic version of Carl Paladino.

  • Realist||

    Trump contributed more to Democrats than Republicans.

  • ||

    It's been said many times, but only the GOP could take on a loser like Obama and put up an even bigger loser against him. They really are that stupid. The only reason they ever win is that luckily for them, the Democrats are morons of the highest caliber.

    We're so lucky to have these two TEAMS of corrupt imbeciles in charge. So lucky.

  • ||

    What is it about humanity that we allow our dumbest, most immoral, and least capable people to be in charge of things?

    And people wonder why we haven't been invited to join the Orion Confederation yet.

  • ||

    Well, it's our system in particular that is so dumb. Your average despot could be perfectly competent; they're just the person running everything. But in our system, you have to deal with a lot of shit to gain public office. So the only people who do it are people who want power and can't get it in a way that doesn't require all the shit. I mean, would you rather be Bill Gates or Chuck Schumer? Chuckles went for the politician job because he's incapable of getting rich and powerful through more honest, non-slimy means.

    Is it any surprise, then, that not only do the most venal go into politics, but also the least capable of doing anything else?

  • ChrisO||

    You obviously don't follow European or Japanese politics. Plenty of dumb and dumber in those places, too.

    I think Pro Libertate's question is a very good one.

    As an initial matter, I think the desire for control ("God complex") is what drives politicians. The resulting financial gains from being in power simply cement the desire to stay there.

    The scary thing is, *there is no fix for this*. Government is inherently a racket, in every nation and every culture. The only solution is to have as little of it as possible. Which the USA has obviously failed miserably at. Once the scam is in place, it doesn't go away without some dramatic societal event (crash or war).

  • ||

    Where did I not include Europe and Japan? I never said "the US system".

    Our system is the same as Europe and Japan. It's (at the end of the day) all essentially representative democracy.

  • ChrisO||

    I misread your use of the word "our." Sorry.

    The republican form of government is probably the "least worst" variety. And hopefully as little of it as possible. I don't think we're in disagreement.

  • MWG||

    The republic faded the moment citizens began voting directly for the president and senators.

  • ||

    What's the alternative though? I sometimes look at democracy's mob rule as a way to get to ensure the average stupidity becomes the norm, as opposed to being exposed to potentially more or less damaging extremism. In other words, how many philosopher kings does it take to outweigh the damage one Stalin can do?

  • ||

    The moral alternative is anarchism. I don't have any alternative without loads of problems for you.

  • ||

    The best fix is a government without lots and lots of power.

    I'd rather live in a system with a relatively powerless dictator than a totalitarian representative democracy.

    And that's something that gets lost in the mix. Like take all these nebulous Middle East regimes emerging. All the buzz-words are there: Constitutions, elections, democracy, blah-blah and so on.

    But a Bill of Rights? Nope. Talk of what the government cannot do? Nope. Talk of rights not granted by the government to the people but that fundamental mechanism of perception that sees that the other way around? Nope.

  • prolefeed||

    I'd rather live in a system with a relatively powerless dictator

    "Dictator" doesn't mean what you think it does. What part of "I can do anything I want, kill anyone I want, for any reason, unless assassinated" do you think is compatible with "relatively powerless"?

  • nekoxgirl||

    I think theZeitgeist meant a guy who you don't get to vote in or out of office, but doesn't have very much power. A constitutional dictatorship?

  • ||

    Basically, the best dictator would be a Terry Schiavo impersonator.

  • ||

    the best dictator
    or President
    or Congressman
    or Senator
    or Governor
    or Mayor
    etc...

  • ||

    That is a cruel, evil thing to say.

    I laughed.

  • Realist||

    "Basically, the best dictator would be a Terry Schiavo impersonator."
    Our last few Presidents have fit that description.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That dictator would just grab more and more power for himself, and eventually turn the country into a true dictatorship.

    It happens all the time now.

  • Robert||

    No, dictator means and has always meant, "I have total control of this thing." If it's a pop gun, who cares?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    That was my thought, too, Sean. Democracy allows slimeballs and idiots to gain power, but they also end up crowding out and reining in the truly dangerous individuals.

  • ||

    "but they also end up crowding out and reining in the truly dangerous individuals."

    Not forever. Once all faith in the political system is lost, and we're close now, the truly dangerous will emerge. We're all set up right now for a cult of personality. All we need is for the other economic shoe to drop.

  • jasno||

    ^THIS^

    I've been saying for years that we've created this mess by making politics so unrewarding. If you were smart and capable, would you rather go into business and make millions, or get stuck in a political quagmire, get paid shit, and have your life ripped apart by a scandal-hungry media?

    The choice is obvious. It's much easier to go into business, accumulate wealth, and then use that wealth to accomplish what you want by manipulating the fucktard that went into politics.

    Government jobs, from the bottom to the top, are for retards who can't cut it in the real world.

  • dennis||

    It's not that it's unrewarding, it's that good people tend not to want power, and the good people who do gain office are quickly corrupted.

  • jasno||

    Really? Who's worth more - Bill Clinton or Andy Grove? George Bush(either one) or the CEO of GE?

    Yes, it's not totally unrewarding, but if someone has the ability to attain a high office, they probably have the social skills to attain a position of dominance as a figurehead in the business world.

  • ||

    I've been saying for years that we've created this mess by making politics so unrewarding.

    Politics is vastly rewarding. I've never heard of a politician who got poorer in office, and most of them seem to get mysteriously wealthy while pulling down a modest income.

  • Emperior wears no clothes||

    "I've never heard of a politician who got poorer in office."

    I believe Carter did.

  • prolefeed||

    The rewards for politicians are not mainly money, but feeding their megalomania and craving for adulation and attention.

  • Paul||

    If Schumer entered politics to get rich, he would have cashed out twenty years ago. I'm not saying that Schumer hasn't received undue privilege due to the (Sen, D-NY) after his name, but why do you assume he would have less power with a (SR Vice Pres, Bank of America) instead?

    And don't kid yourself, any major Wall Street bank would pay him millions just to gossip and grease some wheels in DC.

  • alan||

    What is it about humanity that we allow our dumbest, most immoral, and least capable people to be in charge of things?

    Most of us have better things to do. The real mystery to me is why there is exist any social prestige to political occupations to the extent that a Timmy C. differentiates Trump as being a higher order ass clown than Obama.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Pro Libertate,

    What is it about humanity that we allow our dumbest, most immoral, and least capable people to be in charge of things?


    In an auction of stolen goods, only the most unscrupulous of us prevail.

  • Adonisus||

    I believe Lord Acton said something about how Great Men were often always Bad Men.....

  • Realist||

    "What is it about humanity that we allow our dumbest, most immoral, and least capable people to be in charge of things?"
    They are elected by shit for brains with an AVERAGE IQ of 100!

  • Robert||

    It's April of the year before a president election. The way things have been the past 35 years, it's now actually fairly late for a discernible field to emerge. It seems Obama's skin color has suppressed challenges from the "left" either in his own party or from independents or a far "left" party. So what's the Republicans' excuse? By this time in 1979 they already had aspirants talking in forums. But now we see things like straw polls trying to divine who might run, and the media speculating on such ridiculous shots as Trump.

  • ||

    Trump is forming a black hole over the other GOP lightweights who all fear him - so he may well retard the formation a full GOP field. And when his past comes back to haunt him (via financial disclosures or his idea of a 14.25% wealth tax on all worth over $10 million) he will leave the GOP open to a vacuum for a crazy person (Michelle Bachmann is my guess).

  • ChrisO||

    GOP primaries don't work like that. It's very much an insiders' game, which is why you get mediocrities like McCain and Dole, or dynastic dullards like Dubya.

    Mark my words, it will happen again. Romney or Barbour will most likely get the nod. Any insurgent candidate will have to "wait his turn", just as Reagan did.

    Cavanaugh's point about Ron Paul is well-taken. It's important to remember, however, that he is diametrically opposed to establishment Republicans on probably 70% of what he believes.

  • ||

    But the GOP has all these "winner take all" primaries.

    IIRC, that is why McCain and Bush locked their noms up so early. Yes, the mediocrities and dullards do win and Romney is the solid favorite today.

    Can Romney win by the 20th state primary? I don't know.

  • ChrisO||

    That's pretty much what I meant by it being an insiders' game. Insurgents don't have much of a chance, the way the system is set up.

    If Trump were to be serious about this he might actually have a shot at getting around that, but the average GOP primary voter can be a tricky thing that way--I think they intentionally vote for the mediocre.

    Remember how Giuliani was supposed to be the 800 lb. gorilla in '08 with all his name recognition and post-9/11 tough guy posturing? Trump probably ends up in exactly the same place. He might get people riled up, but they'll have second thoughts in the voting booth.

  • Robert||

    it's not that voters had 2nd thoughts about Giuliani, it's just that the newspeople were clueless.

  • ||

    I think it has something to do with an inherent desire to want to be taken care of, we all have it to some degree, and without constant reinforcement of the best parts of individualism and the concepts of liberty it becomes all too easy to fall into that trap. Honestly, if I knew that I could get everything providing for me and not have to do a lick of work for it I would probably take it, the only thing stopping me is that I know the ultimate price I would pay, the loss of my dignity and freedom, just isn't worth it. Unfortunately those same unscrupulous individuals have crafted a system that tries to instill the need for the technocrats to take care of all the worlds ills.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Romney would have won the nomination had it not been for Huckabee pulling some of his votes, allowing McCain to win the nomination. If the Republican field stays as it is, all split up, it's possible nobody will get the nomination by the time of the convention.

  • cynical||

    Romney or Barbour will most likely get the nod.

    So, the creepy hairdroid that signed mini-Obamacare into law, or Pappy O'Daniel?

  • ||

    The Soggy Bottom Boys will put Barbour over the top.

  • Realist||

    This country will continue to elect idiots. The electorate has an AVERAGE IQ of 100. Nothing good will come.

  • Eugenick||

    It's lower than 100, given that the average African American is 85 and the average Latin American is 90, and it will continue to drop thanks to the libertarian-liberal "open borders" policy.

    In order to have a libertarian President like Ron Paul, you have to abolish full democracy and prevent the low IQ people from voting. Which is something I fully support. People of low IQ are just too stupid to see the advantages of libertarianism (except for the foolish immigration self-defeating strategy, of course)

  • ||

    speaking of IQ's lower than 100....

  • Realist||

    Of course everybody that you disagree with has a low IQ.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    It's not like high IQ's are necessarily notorious for good political judgement either. If sometime around 1932 an amendment were passed requiring a Ph.D to vote, chances are pretty good Soviet America would be in the same boat Russia is today.

    Keep in mind Einstein's political views were basically communist.

  • Realist||

    "Keep in mind Einstein's political views were basically communist."
    Not true...citation....he was against war. That is one example. I do not claim that IQ is a perfect indicator of voting intelligently...it's just better than letting fucking idiots vote. Think OBAMA!

  • Realist||

    "If sometime around 1932 an amendment were passed requiring a Ph.D to vote,..."
    The title Ph.D does not automatically relate to high IQ. A Ph.D in anything except science is pretty much meaningless.

  • The Truth||

    Trump is nothing but a stalking horse for Mitt Romney. His purpose is to say progressively crazier things so all the candidates going for the hard-right vote--Huckabee, Palin, Gringrich, etc.--have to go even further right and act even crazier.

    Meanwhile, Trump drops out before Iowa and Romney gets what remains of the non-crazy in the GOP.

  • ||

    Will Mitt usher in fascis...I mean, authoritarian state capitalism? Is he your dreamboat?

  • The Truth||

    No, hopefully, we'll get that from Gen. Petraeus to do that in 2016 after Obama gets re-elected, real unemployment remains at 20 (maybe by then, 30%) and the hyperinflation kicks in.

    Then, the people will finally turn to someone like Petraeus to reform our broken system.

  • ||

    Do you masturbate to histories of Sulla?

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    You have to admit, conditions are getting to be pretty damn ripe for a Caesar to step in. Petraeus isn't enough of a populist to pull off that trick, though.

  • ||

    Yeah, just what we need - a military guy known for cracking down on "insurgents" and martial law.

    What will that accomplish? I missed that part.

  • cynical||

    What will that accomplish?

    Fascism. I'm sorry, "state capitalism". The Truth practices his goose step every day in the mirror.

  • RyanXXX||

    HA! Episiarch and Shrike agree on something

  • Realist||

    " I missed that part."
    Yeah me too.

  • ola||

    we'll all be banned from burning korans

  • alan||

    If Petraeuss has political ambitions beyond the DoD, my first instinct is to pray those immaculately manicured hands of his have known the texture of foreskin not his own to stop those ambitions cold in there tracks (wonder about the sexual undertones of that statement all you want, the first draft self censored a more violent than sexual outcome per Matt's previously stated dislike for our expression of that sort of thing), but then, there are dozens of former president with worse records than Eisenhower, Washington, or even Grant. Seems to me Petraeus is a modern, debonair type thoroughly invested in the system as it stands, so that first instinct is probably the correct one.

  • Warty||

    Did you just perform the impossible and make Episiarch and shrike agree on something? It's slightly less impressive because you're such a fucking retard, but still.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Troof, if you really long for el macho military leadership to rise up and By God Get Things Done, there are plenty of South American, African, and Asian countries that we can refer you to.

  • Kolohe||

    To be fair, as a descriptive, vice normative scenario, it's somewhat plausible.

  • OO||

    mitch daniels is interesting. id listen to him anyway. he might attract reagan dems

  • Old Mexican||

    my keyboard lacks keys.

  • nekoxgirl||

    That made me laugh :)

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Hey, it's not easy when you're posting from your Nintendo DS.

  • ||

    Yeah, here's betting that neither Romney nor Trump make it anywhere. Romney couldn't make it last time, it a light field, and Trump is a known moron.

  • ||

    Romney would have cleaned up if it weren't for Dems crossing over to vote for McCain in New Hampshire.

    Open primaries are teh suck.

  • ola||

    I can't wait for Trump to ask Romney in a debate to tell us about Joseph Smith and the Seer Stone.

  • zoltan||

    Primaries in general suck. Want a way to immediately improve the political system? Outlaw publicly-funded primaries and don't force political parties to use the primary process (currently federal law).

  • ||

    You sure about federal law? What about states that have caucuses and parties that have no elections at all for nominations like the LP and Greens?

  • prolefeed||

    I don't think Romney can win in this election cycle. We're about 20-40 years away (aka 1 to 2 doublings of the Mormon population) before an LDS president becomes doable.

  • ||

    So you keep saying, and so I keep doubting. IIRC Massachusetts is not exactly a hotbet of Mormonism.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Bullsh*t. Democrats that actually vote in primaries were too tied up in the Clinton/Obama showdown to waste their vote on "McSame."

  • J||

    I think the media focuses on Trump, because he has very little chance of beating Obama in 2012. Paul on the other hand, does have a shot, so best to ignore him.

  • The Truth||

    Paul is a senile goldbug relic of the 19th Century.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: The Truth,

    Paul is a senile goldbug relic of the 19th Century.


    You blow Max?

  • Realist||

    You mean...You blow the Max!

  • ||

    Ron Paul has some timebombs of his own to worry about. Only reason the MSM hasn't exposed them is that he's never been a threat to anyone. The racist newsletters and his stance on drug legalization -- along with possible campaign money malfeasance -- would all be arrows in the October surprise quiver of Obama/Clinton.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    The racist newsletters and his stance on drug legalization -- along with possible campaign money malfeasance -- would all be arrows in the October surprise quiver of Obama/Clinton.


    Racist newsletters?

    Campaign money malfeasance?

    Are you channeling Max, all of a sudden?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    He's right, though.

    The MSM will go apeshit on Paul as soon as it looks like he has a real shot, and he's not been innoculated yet by them becoming widely known before. In fact, that's probably the reason why. Better to save that stuff up for when it's really needed.

  • Realist||

    "The MSM will go apeshit on Paul as soon as it looks like he has a real shot,...."
    Don't worry, that won't happen.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure those arrows were shot during the run-up to the last GOP primary.

  • ||

    For readers of Reason and New Republic, perhaps...but they never made it into the MSM. If a tree falls in the forrest...

  • Sudden||

    Racist newsletters...

    I'm sure the Republican POTUS candidate is really banking on the black vote too. Especially against Obama.

  • ||

    Might be banking on white people who don't want to vote for a racist, or someone who sold his name to racists.

  • nekoxgirl||

    Which wouldn't be Republicans due to the fact that they are already racist by default (since they don't vote for Democrats).

  • MSM||

    By Jove I think she's got it!

  • Ron Paul||

    GOLD! GOOOOOOOOOOLD! THERE'S THE ANSWER I TELLS YA, GOOOOLD!

    HEHEHEEEEE-YEEHAAAH GOOOOOLD!

  • ||

    Gold made perfect sense in 1904 when Ron Paul's time machine crashed.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: shriek,

    Gold made perfect sense in 1904 when Ron Paul's time machine crashed.


    Yes, that it, shriek. Hope springs eternal.

    And Bernanke knows what he's doing. Keep it up, it's just money...

  • The Truth||

    No, clearly, self-educated gold cranks know more than top world economists.

  • Cytotoxic||

    You've made an argument from authority using economist who failed to foresee the housing crash as your authority. I accept your concession of the debate and apology for being a twat.

  • The Truth||

    You are kind generous and righteous. I will cease being an annoying ignorant fucktwat and humbly submit to education from those of superior intellect, such as everybody else on H&R.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: The Truth,

    No, clearly, self-educated gold cranks know more than top world economists.


    Top world economists who did not see the housing market crash coming... those "top" economists.

  • The Truth||

    You didn't see this coming before the fact and neither did Ron GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD Paul.

    He probably predicted some kind of general collapse, as gold bugs are awlays doing, but he didn't know when it would come or what it would be in.

    Same with you and all the other goldbug lunatics.

    So blow me, Scrooge McDuck.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: The Truth,

    You didn't see this coming before the fact and neither did Ron GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLD Paul.


    Seems like Truthy here likes to be torpedoed right in the ass:

    http://www.ronpaul.com/2008-09.....july-2002/

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

    "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
    "Slap!"
    "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
    "Slap!"
    "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
    "Slap!"
    "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
    "Slap!"

  • The Truth||

    The bubble didn't even start until about 2004. And we've had all those laws on the books he was talking about since at least the 50s.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: The Truth,

    The bubble didn't even start until about 2004.


    Your comment is clear evidence you have a very tenuous grasp of the subject you're talking about. The bubble started back in 2000, when the equity bubble simply shifted from stocks to real estate. There as no real crash.

    And we've had all those laws on the books he was talking about since at least the 50s.


    Ron Paul was talking about the push towards home ownership that started in the 90s through Freddie and Fannie (the guarranteed mortgages) and was clearly starting to overheat the market.

    Again, you have been torpedoed - right in the ass.

    "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
    "Slap!"
    "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
    "Slap!"
    "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
    "Slap!"
    "Thank you, sir! May I have another?"
    "Slap!"

  • Tony||

    So you're admitting that Ron Paul doesn't know what he's talking about.

    I love the "we predicted the crash" line. Arent you guys always saying the apocalypse is nigh.

  • Emperior wears no clothes||

    Truthy,
    If you only want the opinions of credentialed experts, what are you doing here in the first place?

  • Tncm||

    Tony,

    When you have people like Robert P. Murphy and Peter Schiff who explained exactly how the recession would play out by using Austrian business cycle theory, it's no longer Nostradamus-style posturing. The whole reason that the Austrian School and libertarianism is started to get attention from academia and the laymen again is precisely because of how accurately many of its adherents have explained our economy's booms and busts.

    But I wouldn't expect you to understand complex things like capital theory or applying marginal analysis to money, seeing as you get all of your information on economics from Wikipedia and Paul Krugman.

  • Tony||

    The whole reason Austrains and libertarians are getting attention (and it's not only just) is because they are placed in distorted demand by corporate subsidy. Theirs is at best an alternate history.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Oh, come on, Tony. Just say what you really want to say: Koch brothers! Koch brothers! Koch brothers!

  • ||

    I pity you if you actually believe this.

  • Jim||

    TOP...men.

  • prolefeed||

    No, clearly, self-educated gold cranks know more than top world economists.

    If you're really arguing that Teh BenBernank knows more about monetary policy than Ron Paul, then you're almost as big an idiot as ... oh .. BenBernank.

  • Tony||

    I'm no Bernanke cheerleader but that is some funny shit.

  • Tncm||

    I'm no Bernanke cheerleader but that is some funny shit.

    Almost as funny as the fact that Helicopter Ben things that credit expansion is a sustainable monetary policy.

    I await your inevitable reply of using the archaic and long refuted Philip's curve to show how there's a supposed link between inflation and permanent job growth.

  • sasob||

    I wonder if there might be a link between inflation and permanent government job growth?

  • cynical||

    Well, it's certainly possible that they know what they're doing, but just means their intentions are malign.

  • ||

    And Xerox has never made sense ever no matter when in time its been tried.

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    You do know that Ron Paul isn't calling for a return to the gold standard, right? He simply wants to repeal legal tender laws to allow for a free market in money. What's so nutty about letting people sign enforceable contracts using the currency they prefer, whether it be Federal Reserve notes, some private bank-issued medium, or, yes, a precious metal?

  • ||

    I prefer giant stone wheels from the South Pacific myself.

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Fair enough. If you can convince someone with whom you wish to transact business to accept them as payment, why shouldn't you be able to do so?

    It's patently ridiculous, of course, and no one would ever agree to such (unless they were a stone carver, I suppose), but why in principle if two people voluntarily agreed to such shouldn't it be enforceable? Or does being twee count as a rebuttal nowadays?

  • ||

    Oh, I was just being facetious with my stone-wheel money. I completely agree with freedom of money.

  • ||

    You gotta admit, they're hard to counterfeit or print in billions.

  • ||

    Good luck closing that deal mon osite

  • Max||

    C'mon, Tim, you're not that fucking stupid. You know that if the GOP went with that fanatical old racist fuck Ron Paul, it would be the laughing stock of the century. Even all those flying pigs wouldn't distract anybody from the idiocy of the choice. You doctrinaire ideologues are a fucking scream.

  • ||

    Look, it's Friday and Edward just got off his job strangling chickens and came straight to H&R! You're a strict 9-to-5 guy, I guess, Edward?

  • Hobie Hanson||

    Look who has no argument but commented anyway.

  • ||

    Oh, the irony...it's so fucking delicious.

  • Hobie Hanson||

    Still no argument? Please, you're wasting everyone's time.

  • ||

    Oh, Tony...I mean DanT...the irony continues to be so. Fucking. Delicious.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Hobie Hanson,

    Look who has no argument but commented anyway.


    Wait, you think Max had an argument? What the hell have you been smoking?

  • Warty||

    Smith attempted to read the vessel’s damage assessment on the screen in front of him, but after a few minutes he sighed and realized that it was pretty much a waste of time. His ship, the SS Nonix, was probably doing well to be in operational condition at all considering the massive bombardment it had endured just a few minutes ago at the hands of the Mildrenian pirates.

  • Max||

    9 to 5--Isn't that your IQ?

  • ||

    Wow. That was so weak, I don't know whether to pity you or feel guilty that I'm insulting a special needs student.

    Wait, I feel neither of those things. You're just a grade A dipshit.

  • Max too||

    C'mon, Tim, you're not that fucking stupid.


    Not as much as me, of course! C'mon, Tim!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Max,

    You know that if the GOP went with that fanatical old racist fuck Ron Paul, it would be the laughing stock of the century.


    Fanatical old racist?

  • ||

    I pity you.

  • Max||

    Hey, Tim, do think if Ron Paul started to make headway as a candidate, anybody would bring up those racist newsletters? Turn in your pundit badge, you fucking moron.

  • Old Mexican||

    Racist newsletters?

  • ||

    Right, the quote about Martin Luther King being a gay pedophile was just taken out of context. The one about fleet-footed black muggers too.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    Right, the quote about Martin Luther King being a gay pedophile was just taken out of context. The one about fleet-footed black muggers too.


    Ah, and that was written by Ron Paul, am I to believe?

    http://www.ronpaulforums.com/s.....e-revealed!

  • Old Mexican||

    http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.c.....ul-is.html

    Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse. His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his name.
  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."

    -Ron Paul

  • MLK||

    Nice cover statement for a fucking racist asshole. Do really think he didn't know what was in those newsletters? But he's anutjob who has no political future beyond his inbred constituency anyway, so who cares?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Max,

    Nice cover statement for a fucking racist asshole.


    Interesting you would not accept what he wrote HIMSELF but give much more weight to something someone else wrote, many years ago. That's as far as your honesty will go.

  • alan||

    Nice cover statement for a fucking racist asshole. Do really think he didn't know what was in those newsletters? But he's anutjob who has no political future beyond his inbred constituency anyway, so who cares?

    Wanna big old heap topping of who gives a fuck with that?

    Speaking of who gives a fuck, how's that head wound doing?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Do really think he didn't know what was in those newsletters?

    Yes, I really think he didn't know what was in those newsletters.

    But he's anutjob who has no political future beyond his inbred constituency anyway, so who cares?

    He's polling pretty well for a nutjob with no political future. Also, 'inbred constituency'? Racism does take many forms, doesn't it?

  • Scott||

    I thought H&R commenters always based their statements in facts.

    *innocence lost*

  • Scott||

    That was in response to the "inbred constituency" comment, btw.

  • Max Redux||

    GO SUCK RON PAULS KOCH

  • ||

    Its Ron Pual, not Paul.

  • Almanian||

    The Republicans have nothing and may fuck up and lose to the weak and stupid Dems! This is so surprising!!

    /back to not giving a fuck

  • ||

    Trump gets loads of coverage even though he is no where near the levers of power. Rand Paul is a Senator and most people outside of Kenntucky who are not the Tea Party have never heard of him. Gee I wonder why that is? Trump gets loads of coverage and taken seriously because he is a clown and is thus someone the media wants representing the GOP. Both Pauls in contrast are not clowns and represent a serious challenge to the status quo. The media thus ignores them and pretends they don't exist. This is not a coincidence. If the media treated the Pauls the way they treat Trump, Obama and the entire beltway establishment on both sides would be in huge trouble. And no one wants that to happen. Better to treat a buffoon like Trump as a serious person so no one pays attention to the people who are serious. And then of course bitch about the quality of the political class.

  • ||

    Maybe the Pauls need to stop being such pathetic interviews.

  • ||

    If you want government by sound-bite, stick with Obama (or go with Trump if you think the letter after the name means anything.)

    Unfortunately, the media have been gatekeepers for far too long. The one interesting thing about Ron Paul's 2008 campaign is how genuinely grass roots it was with the internet fundraising. (I know Barry O got a lot of bucks from the interet fundraising as well, but he originally came to prominence through the more traditional media route.)

  • ||

    There's no reason you can't have substance AND gimmickry at the same time. The gimmickry is actually a lot easier to pick up than substance, so it's a shame the Pauls seem not to care enough to develop it.

  • RyanXXX||

    Are you a concern troll or what?

  • ||

    Tulpa - is the lack of "gimmickry" the only problem you have with the Paul's?

  • Robert||

    Trump gets loads of coverage and taken seriously because he is a clown and is thus someone the media wants representing the GOP.


    No, he gets coverage because he's a master self promoter. Famous for being famous. He has a name that means "triumph", a wig that's more famous than most people's whole heads, he's in a media capital, he's in a line of business that literally puts his name on the map all over the place, and yeah, he's a clown. It wouldn't matter if he were perceived as in the GOP or a Democrat, he'd get the same att'n.

  • ||

    What is the government's job? To redistribute wealth? Everybody gets a trophy. We are not equals... We have equal rights. Some of us are more talented and have the ability to excel... get the hell out of our way. Bloodsuckers.

  • ||

    Gary Johnson. Ron Paul's sane policies without the racist baggage in his background.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I also think he has a serious foreign policy view, which is a big improvement. I heard his speaking skills also suck though.

  • cyto||

    NEED MOAR WARRRRR.

  • Cytotoxic||

    No we need less. That's why America must end state sponsors of terrorism.

  • ||

    Does Israel go first?

  • Bucky||

    It would only be fair to let them go first, they are in the neighborhood...

  • RyanXXX||

    Tulpa, you hath redeemed yourself with this comment

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Fritz,

    Gary Johnson. Ron Paul's sane policies without the racist baggage in his background.


    "Racist baggage"? Are you channeling Max?

  • ||

    No, I'm not. And I supported Dr. Paul in both 1988 and 2008. But he has had an unfortunate set of choices in his associates over the years. If he got close to the nomination that shit would blow sky-high.

  • ||

    This is true. Due to the current rules of the game, a Team Red player must never have the slightest whiff of racism in his background while it is perfectly acceptable for a Team Blue player to associate with Ayers and Rev Wright.

    It sucks, but that is the way it is.

  • Hugh Akston||

    Politics is like Calvinball, but nobody ever wins.

  • ||

    That's why I could never get to 17th base.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    But he has had an unfortunate set of choices in his associates over the years.


    Really? Like whom?

    And, who doesn't? Or are you looking for a perfect being?

  • ||

    That wasn't me. The unfortunate associates are the people who wrote those newsletters, assuming it wasn't Ron Paul himself (which I agree is unlikely).

    I don't know how much water this holds, but Eric Dondero, who was on Paul's staff at the time (before going apeshit after 9/11), said it was Lew Rockwell who wrote the newsletters...which would explain Paul's reluctance to divulge who he sold his name to.

  • ||

    An unfortunate set of associates didn't stop Obama from winning the nomination. I don't think it would be the game changer many think it would be. If Obama was barely slown down by Reverend Wright, who was recording uttering some pretty heinous anti-white remarks, then I doubt that something someone else wrote years ago would affect him. Sadly, the chance of Paul getting close to the nomination, outside of an unexpected escalation in our financial crisis, is slim.

  • alan||

    Americans tend to be hung up on racism, guess due to our history (ya think), but that still doesn't explain what I've witnessed through years of first hand observation, EVERYBODY is more racist than Americans.

    Fleet footed African Americans, big fucking hairy ass deal.

    If you are going to point to a problem with Paul point to something more substantial like his executive skills being non existent, but this racism obsession, it's child's play nonsense.

  • Jim||

    I have been personally assured by the DNC via a mass email that Ron Paul and his son, Rand, have sacrificed black christian children to some god called "Aqua Buddha"...and that they will do so again.

    Allowing either of them to have their finger on "teh button" is tantamount to reinstituting slavery. Ever read Guns of the South? That's what it will be like. Ron Paul has a time machine, and he will use it to deliver AK-47s to the Army of Northern Virginia.

  • alan||

    That must be why I was fronted 3k to produce a bulk quantity of a Smore's Schnapps knock off. Good Lord, man, I got to go tell the SPLC!

  • Jim||

    lol - just the thought of the SPLCs collective head explosion if RP becomes the candidate is worth voting for him by itself.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: alan,

    If you are going to point to a problem with Paul point to something more substantial like his executive skills being non existent, but this racism obsession, it's child's play nonsense.


    It's even worse, it reeks of character assassination. From some cheap, old newsletter, written by several people under pseudonyms, dishonest people "conclude" that Paul harbors a deep-seated hatred for blacks or something, only because the newsletter bore his name. I could create a blog under his name and write all sorts of stupid things; that does not mean HE wrote them or believed in them.

  • ||

    Even if he did believe them at one time, so what? I didn't notice Team Blue trying to blow off Harry Byrd because of his one-time klan membership or the letter he wrote saying he would not serve with a black man in WWII.

    People change.

  • .||

    Harry Byrd?

  • alan||

    When I read through those I was a bit underwhelmed. There may have been two that crossed the line, the rest were funny. I say worse shit about my mixed up heritage, I razzed my girlfriend worse when I discovered her Puerto Rican roots (she goes by her name from a previous marriage, not her maiden name -- didn't know until months in to the deal). I just can't throw stones at a lesser offender than myself.

    I asked one person I have developed an on line friendship who was accused of being behind the newsletters if he did it. He said it was a nonsense claim because he had not been involved in the newsletters in over a decade from the issues in question. However, what he has told me over the years in confidence persuaded me that Paul is just not an executive though pleasant enough person for a politician.

    One of Leon Penetta's underlings once told a friend of mine who works in DC that Leon's boss at the time, Bill C. was a dick to the tenth power to work for, but an effective executive essentially because he has no conscience. Makes since to me. We just need one of those kind of guys of our own.

  • ||

    One of Leon Penetta's underlings once told a friend of mine who works in DC that Leon's boss at the time, Bill C. was a dick to the tenth power to work for, but an effective executive essentially because he has no conscience.

    I would wager the most effective executive politico/bureaucrat in the not-so-distant future is going to be a computer. The ideology wars will be over who gets to upload what into Uncle Watson.

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    Ron Paul isn't a racist, for Pete's sake.

    "Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."

    -Ron Paul

  • MLK||

    Ever read what Ayn Rand had to say about the savage Arabs?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Max,

    Ever read what Ayn Rand had to say about the savage Arabs?


    Wait, are there any other kind?

  • Kurt Westergaard||

  • ||

    No, he merely coddled racists who funnel him money. Much better!

  • alan||

    Here's the thing. Why do you care?

    If the American public shrugged at this the first time around, and did the same with the Rev. Wright matter, what's the sticking point for you?

  • alan||

    BTW, I'm inclined to believe that Paul's laissez-faire management of the home office was of such disarray that he really just doesn't know who wrote what when at any given time. That concerns me as a candidate qualification, but the usual drizzle shit about race does not.

  • SIV||

    Gary Johnson is pro-baby killing. He ought to challenge Obama for the Democrat nomination. The socially liberal "silent majority" on the left will insure a sweep.

  • MNG||

    pro-baby killing? That's a great one.

    If only one could hunt fetuses SIV would be pro-choice.

  • ||

    I'll take Trump. At least the press conference's would be worth watching, and he'll certainly spend less of our money than the last two.

  • ||

    Thank you, no.

    Trump's inability to turn a profit on a casino makes me doubt his ability to run anything.

    He is a deal-maker, not a businessman.

  • Cytotoxic||

    He also used Eminent Domain to get what he wants and is a sinophobic protectionist. Yeah, no thanks.

  • ||

    Trump's inability to turn a profit on a casino makes me doubt his ability to run anything.

    He is a deal-maker, not a businessman.

    Hmmm, let me see here...

    1. Sweet talker who can get papers signed.
    2. Idiot who can't make money on a Casino in Atlantic City (for Christ's sake).

    Sadly, you just described serious politician bona-fides there.

  • jacob||

    Are you like the River Phoenix character from the movie - guy

  • Sudden||

    The Donald’s lengthy history of business failures and personal disgraces provides easy context, and his humorlessness makes him a rewarding person to mock. His ornery comments on policy—demands to seize Libya’s oil, for example, and red-faced machismo toward China—fit a ready stereotype of the right-wing ignoramus. And in a real gift for a slow news period, you can find nearly word-for-word precursors for Trump’s anti-China tirades in comments he made about Japan nearly three decades ago. Nothing in Trump’s caterwauling approaches serious engagement with the various crises facing the United States.

    So what you're saying is that Trump couldn't be any worse than Obama?

  • ||

    FWIW, Trump said we should seize Iraq's oil, not Libya's.

    He's only being reasonable: it would save us the cost of invading somewhere new.

  • ||

    FWIW, Trump said we should seize Iraq's oil, not Libya's.

    I bet he was pointing at Libya on the map when he said 'Iraq.'

  • ||

    With Trump's level of international understanding, I would give good odds that he was pointing at Mexico.

  • Paul||

    The president can give a rambling, orotund speech

    Tim, I haven't heard the word "orotund" used when describing presidential speeches since Clinton.

  • Paul||

    Yet to go by the news mentions, Palin is the more serious Republican candidate. That’s what the media will do when you give them no reason to take you seriously.

    While I don't think the media is a uniformly liberal as it used to be, I believe the undercurrent still exists.

    If you think the opposition is a joke, then you're going to seek out the joke candidates as your example.

    The media has decided the GOP is inherently nuts-- ie, "conservatism" (I cringe when I say that) is a pathology.

    The fact of the matter is, every party (including capital-Libertarians) have plenty of joke candidates to go around.

    But the fact that the media seems to pay extra-super lovey-attention to the joke GOP candidates is informative.

    I mean, Sarah Palin? Really? She holds no public office. She's a truly transient figure in American politics. She's the Paris Hilton of the GOP. She's "famous for being famous". And yet the amount of attention she gets still baffles me.

  • alan||

    Pretty much the rule of thumb for late night that for every Obama joke told there are two Clinton jokes, three Bush jokes and four Palin jokes. The deference that The Right Thinking People show the current utter buffoon in the Oval Office makes this nation a joke.

  • Mommy||

    Sounds like baby needs her bahabah... okay fine breast this time.

  • cynical||

    "The fact of the matter is, every party (including capital-Libertarians) have plenty of joke candidates to go around."

    What, LP joke candidates? Well, I guess there might be one or two.

  • ||

    Trump is a tsunami of retardation. For fucks sake, he couldn't even make money at a casino.

    Jesus christ dude, get a new hair-cut. When you have a comb-over with 30 hairs, it looks stupid. It is OK to cut your hair. David Guilmor was still cool after he cut all his cute locks off.

    I'm with Lewis Black, I hope Trump gets the nomination. It will be very entertaining to say the least.

  • alan||

    David Guilmor was still cool after he cut all his cute locks off.

    Too soon, man. Too soon.

  • jacob||

    What's scary is that there are PLENTY of conservatives that really think Trump is a better candidate than Ron Paul. Don't believe me? Check out Free Repugnant.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....3619/posts

    http://www.freerepublic.com/fo.....2087/posts

  • ||

    Tim Cavanaugh, That stung like the truth. God have mercy on us - because we need it.

  • Donald Trump||

    You could do worse than me.
    My boy Eric, with his Habsburg jaw, for example.

    Vote Trump.

  • ||

    I disagree that it is a foregone conclusion that Ron Paul cannot win in 2012, although my crystal ball is just as cracked as is Reason Magazine's.

    We are entering VERY INTERESTING times! We are approaching the end of the US Dollar as a reserve international currency, and perhaps as an end to the old "greenback" as money even in the USA itself. The only candidate who has anything to say about this development IS Ron Paul!

    The (overdue insolvency of the Social Security System and Medicare--coming just on the cusp of massive babyboomer retirement) along with the coming bankruptcy of many--even most State, County and Municipal governments, along with their major banks, contractors, and boondogglers, is also a fact that will make itself felt around 2012. We have Obamacare, a trillion $$$ bureaucratic mess that nobody wants, nobody can use, nobody can afford, and yet nobody--except for Ron Paul--can yet get rid of!

    As for their vile and corrupt foreign policy of perpetual war for perpetual peace, never was it truer that here, above all, the US government is the problem, not the solution! Clearly both the "Stupid Party" and the "Dumbercrats" share equal responsibility for the dreadful consequences of just such a foreign policy, where we see not one, not two, but at least THREE ongoing, enormously expensive, terrorist recruiting, and hopeless undeclared WARS at the same time!

    Paging Ron Paul!!

    Ron Paul, should he run, will certainly have a campaign this time that will exceed the remarkably successful '08 campaign by many orders of magnitude! There will, like last time, be the attempts at distraction, plugging Newt Gingrich here, the "donald" there, Michelle Bachmann, Tim Pawlenty, or some other nonentity somewhere else, but fewer and fewer of the rest of us will pay any attention, with so many more serious problems to worry about: (Gas at $40.00/gallon for starters, mass-transit and sanitation strikes and shutdowns over entire cities, food rationing, "temporary" layoffs of 45, 55, 65%+ of "essential" State, municipal and county employees, e.g. Police, firemen, and prison officials, for starters...

    I don't think that anything the Trumpster--or even the big B-O, from the Oval Office, for that matter--would have to say would be of the slightest interest at that point, to Mr. and Mrs. voter and taxpayer, do you...?

    The renowned French novelist and man of letters Victor Hugo was supposed to have said "mightier than all the armies of the world is an idea whose time has come". It is appalling to observe or reflect that it may have to be under conditions of such awful suffering of so many people, but liberty, peace, and private property, the ideas championed by Ron Paul and his supporters, may have in the next few years, by far the greatest chance for fulfillment and realization in the USA, and even around the world, that they ever had!!

    PEACE AND FREEDOM!!
    David K. Meller

  • nekoxgirl||

    I don't think it really matters if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination. Obviously, he'd be a better President than anyone else running, but Paul's main contribution is spreading libertarian ideas into mainsteam American consciousness.

  • Ken||

    And yet if people like you stop trying to convince the country Ron Paul is not electable he may just have a chance. Maybe his ideas of peace and free trade and sound money might actually appeal to intelligent people that want to actually help this country return to it's former glory. And just maybe the federal reserve will stop playing with the economy for the benefit of itself and stop putting the burden on everyday Americans.

  • ||

    Clap louder! Tinkerbell's dying!

  • CE||

    The only way Ron Paul will win is if voters stop trying to predict who will win and vote for someone they want to support, someone who will bring down the whole stinking mess.

  • ||

    The real joke is the GOP Mafia. Problem is, very few real Conservatives are laughing.

    Trump is getting high poll numbers precisely because he is showing some discernibly evident gonads.

    If political miscreance and barking & chasing parked cars were music, the GOP power elite would be a 25 mile-long marching band.

  • RyanXXX||

    Between Max/Tony/Shrike's retardations and Tulpa's "I admit that he probably didn't write or believe that stuff but HE LET PEOPLE WRITE IT" concern trolling, Ron Paul threads on H&R are getting hard to read

  • ||

    I actually like Ron Paul, aside from the fact that he treats political campaigns as full employment opportunities for his extended family, and then fails to spend most of the money he raises so that he can start irrelevant cult-of-personality organizations like the Campaign for Liberty.

    But if he comes within a parsec of the nomination, those newsletters are going to be brought up, and the story behind them (which still isn't clear due to Paul's refusal to name names) is going to be distorted in the worst possible way by the media.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    They will also bombard him with gotcha questions, the same way they did with Rand (because unlike his father, he's perceived as a true threat). Only it will be worse, far worse.

  • Max||

    Don'r worry, guys. The boring old fuck has about as much chance of actually getting the nomination as his idiot son Rand has of shtumping Barny Frank. It sin't going to happen.

  • ||

    I pity you.

  • Max's Head Voice ||

    Sin't too!

  • A Serious Man||

    Seriously? Why the hell would anyone NOT pick Ron Paul over Palin and Trump? I mean he speaks in complete sentences (ie better than Palin) and actually understands economics and the Constitution (ie better than Trump).

    What the else do you want in a conservative candidate? It's not like he's easy to hate since he has solid principles and, unlike the sack of shit elected in 08, experience.

  • CE||

    Unfortunately, a lot of Republican primary voters want a warmonger and someone who will actively interfere in people's private lives. Fortunately, voter turnout in the primaries is very low so it's easy to win them, if pro-liberty voters will just register and show up.

  • Max||

    Ron Paul has a lot of expierience raising money from neo-Nazis.

  • ||

    I pity you.

  • AAAAANDRE||

    Geeze... When did all "journalists" become Fortune Tellers? They keep up with the Ron Paul can't win spiel. How can they say that, when he hasn't been given a fair shake? Self fulfilling prophecy? I think not.

  • ||

    I'd just like to say: fuck Trump, and the rug that rode in on him.

    -jcr

  • Mr Whipple©®™||

    I still run into contractors that went out of business because Trump didn't pay them back in the 80s. He's a fucking crook, and a general, all-round, piece of fucking shit. If he does decide to run, it will only be because he likes to hear himself talk.

  • Scruffy Nerd Herder||

    that would put him in the company of about half of the developers in the NE. I never trust a developer from NJ, never

  • Mr Whipple®©™||

    It's not so much the developers, it's the lawyers and politicians. If you don't have a good lawyer(s), like Trump, you may as well tattoo "fuck me" on your forehead. There are plenty of honest developers in Jersey. People with your attitude, is why there is so much bullshit licensing in the state.

  • ||

    fuck Trump, and the rug that rode in on him.

    Win.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I agree. Trump is a total douchbag.

  • Mr Whipple©®™||

    Donald Trump/Larry King alt-text

    Would you like to touch my monkey?

  • Skip||

    After dealing with McCain's senility, the Republicans need to nominate someone under 65 this time. And don't pull the Reagan card. If he had 24 hour news stations and Youtube magnifying his every old person gaffe, he would have looked bad too.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    No way. The more people saw of Reagan, the more they liked him. His greatest talent was talking over the heads of the media and directly to the voters. McCain has a certain charisma but nothing in that league.

  • ||

    This Trump thing is akin to Jesse Ventura in 1998 and Perot in '92 and '96: Someone with the intellectual depth of a fence post gets bored and runs for public office.

    And like those two, Trump doesn't really want the job. He's more of a dog chasing a car that doesn't really want to catch it.

    Even though Ventura "caught the car", he was more surprised than anyone else that he actually did. After just one term of tough-guy drivel and blather, he didn't even run for a second term.

  • ||

    I refuse to ever read another article on Reason.com until the editors learn the difference between "uninterested" and "disinterested."

  • Fatty Bolger||

    Drink?

    I need to bone up on the rules again.

  • ||

    It's early, but it's Saturday, so go ahead.

    As the week goes on the rules open themselves up for interpretation.

  • Scruffy Nerd Herder||

    It's been said before on this blog. Based on qualifications of experience, Trump is the ideal candidate to preside over our national decline into bankruptcy.

  • ||

    I think we need to rid Government of ALL politicians and replace them with business men!

    www.web-anonymity.at.tc

  • ||

    Both Pauls are doing well. The Tea Party needs to be more supportive. We have too many governments that cost excessive overhead.

  • ||

    I think we need to rid Government of ALL politicians and replace them with business men killer robots!

  • ||

    he treats political campaigns as full employment opportunities for his extended family, and then fails to spend most of the money he raises

    I agree with Tulpa.

    *applies cold wet rag to forehead, lies on fainting couch*

  • ||

    I've been told that Drammamin helps.

  • ||

    You're neglecting the bigger picture. Ron Paul is not the personality type that can gain widespread popularity. Popularity is all about personality, not issues. It's the not the fault of the Republican Party. It's not the fault of the media. It's just human nature. We like big personalities.

  • Max||

    Big personalities that either write or let racist drivel go out under their names. Ron Paul is a fucking fanatical old cock sucker who likes the limelight. Why don't you send him some money, dimwit?

  • A Serious Man||

    *Kochsucker. No Retarded Leftist Troll Badge for you my friend.

  • ||

    I pity you.

  • Libertarian2||

    Every time I see an article about Trump being a presidential candidate in 2012 I think of the movie, "Idiocracy." The future is here!

  • nekoxgirl||

    Trump's got the electrolites plants crave!

  • ||

    Ron Paul has a better chance this time than any time before. The fact that the media is fixated on Trump is only evidence that the media is mentally retarded.

    Maybe Paul does not win, who knows, but one thing is certain, the Tea Party has a strong Libertarian streak to it and while there are some die hard social conservatives in the Tea Party, the issues this time around will almost certainly be fiscal. Also, many of the supporters of the Iraq and Afgan wars are getting a bit tired of them. There is a growing impatience with these wars and the Arab uprisings are only making the uncertainty of our involvement even more striking. War and social issues are not the issue for this upcoming POTUS election. Economics is the center of the political universe and more and more are drawn to free market ideals than at any time I can remember... And I remember the 80s.

    Ron Paul can speak with purity on economic freedom more than any other potential candidate and that gives him an unbelievable edge this go around.

    Donald Trump is just porn for left leaning media outlets and the retarded birther MINORITY of the Republican base.

  • Tony||

    the media is mentally retarded.

    So how will it achieve the superior judgment necessary to give RP his due?

    the issues this time around will almost certainly be fiscal

    They need not be. They will be if the Republican Party USA gets its way. They created a near-depression then snipe from the sidelines at debt--the thing needed to fix their near-depression.

    Not that RP is responsible for his party. He just supplies the aw-shucks philosophical veneer they need to attempt to prolong their looting and destruction.

  • Tncm||

    So how will it achieve the superior judgment necessary to give RP his due?

    Give him as much screen time and interview him as fairly as all the other candidates?

    They need not be. They will be if the Republican Party USA gets its way.

    My God, man. If the biggest deficit since WW2 and the largest public debt in the history of any civilization isn't an important issue, than what is? Oh, right, I forgot that I was talking to a progressive. Subsidies for abortion, marriage licenses for homosexuals, and foreign aid for African dictatorships. How silly of me.

    They created a near-depression

    I'm pretty sure credit expansion perpetrated by the Federal Reserve caused the Great Recession, exacerbated by FannieMae and FreddieMac insuring home mortgages. For the record, the Federal Reserve was created by Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, and the fetish for universal home ownership in America started in the 1990s under Bill Clinton, also a Democrat.

    then snipe from the sidelines at debt

    Government debt is pretty bad, believe it or not. It sacrifices future consumption for present consumption, crowds out private enterprise, and causes capital consumption.

    the thing needed to fix their near-depression.

    Actually, to fix the recession we need liquidation and a total retooling of the structure of production. This process can be hurried along by government, however, with tax cuts, reducing regulation, lowering tariffs, lowering spending, taking on less debt, so on.

    Not that RP is responsible for his party.

    Probably the only correct statement in your entire post.

    He just supplies the aw-shucks philosophical veneer they need to attempt to prolong their looting and destruction.

    Platitudes are a wonderful thing.

  • Alejandra||

    Want to buy you a super good quality and low price baby it? What are you waiting, action!
    Spring in March to come over immediately to seize the warm summer sun to give you the last charm the most crazy
    All the store outside the single star nike shoesjordan, prada, ... hundreds of new styles are all ex-factory price also will come out in the end! ~ Any goods are still cute plush pillow Oh ~ ~ ~ ~JerseyShop price: $20

  • AlmightyJB||

    I've voted republican president for 30 years. No way I'll pull a lever for Trump. Is the GOP just trying to commit suicide? I like Paul but he lacks that certain charisma that people seem to need in order to vote for someone for potus. I'm not quite sure whether I should be depressed or elated that neither party can come up with better candidates. Are we at the beginning of the end of the two-party (one-party) system?

  • ||

    The Republicans aren't interested in promoting Ron Paul because he won't win. They're warming up to his son because he's essentially an electable version of daddy. Charismatic, handsome (don't laugh), and more of a center right libertarian IMO. Ron Paul is up for repealing the civil rights act (if I'm not mistaken) and he does have a penchant for some counterproductive rhetorics. His son, not so much.

    Ron Paul does have some things in common with Christine O'donnell. He may win a pluraity of votes from committed limited government crowd, but he'll lose big in the general election. His challengers will craft all kinds of narratives about him as an anti government kook, and the media will eat it up.

    If you want to actually win, you need to tailor your message in a way that connects with the general population. Doctrinaire / purist libertarians have little chance of winning elections, and it's reduced to zero if they can't piggyback on one of the major parties. It is what is.

  • WhiskeyJim||

    I have just one deep question about the Chump, I mean Trump (we won't bring up the time when he was a full throated supporter of Pelosi).

    Is that a comb over, or is he just without any hair sense?

    It bugs me either way and I can't get past it.

    The Chump is the perfect example of two indelible facts:
    1) That Republicans are actually enamored by him shows their self-destructive tendencies.
    2) The Progressive media knows a Republican loser when they see one, and are more than happy to chat him up. Can anyone say, "McCain II?"

  • reasonable||

    Tim wonders:
    The Republican Party’s disinterest in Paul is not so easy to explain.

    ... maybe the "Ron Paul is a racist" smear campaign led by REASON magazine has somehing to do with it? Durrrrr

  • ||

    I agree with everything you say, except for the odd use of the word "menopause." Do you mean that the Republican party can no longer reproduce? Or that they're having hot flashes? Considering the preponderance of men in this party, perhaps "mid-life" would be a better word?

  • ||

    I never laugh at multi-millionaires.

  • Gregory Smith||

    Trump is not a laughing matter, he is a good man that's trying to put you know who in his place.

    I am so sick of the liberal media's love affair with you know who. Where was all that love when Bush was president? God, every time I see his ugly face on RollingStone, Vanity Fair, Time, Newsweek, I feel like vomiting.

    Now Trump may be an opportunist, granted. And it may also be truth that in the past he refereed to GWB as the worst president in history, granted. But as long as Trump continues to attack you know who, he will be doing this country a public service.

    By the way, "you know who" isn't Voldemort. I'd rather have him as President if you ask me. At least Voldemort isn't a communist.

  • ||

    Experienced gamblers place their bets on lucky players. Trump is a guy that has thrown the dice and turned a few million into billions. He is most qualified to be at the dice tables for America, lets support a winning gambler.

  • Boss Tweed||

    As owner of the New Jersey Generals he put the USFL out of business by pushing a lawsuit against the NFL. The USFL won the expensive lawsuit, was awarded $3 in damages, and folded.

    As far a being a successful gambler, he led 3 casino businesses into bankrupty, one as recently as 2009.

    Well, maybe he is just what the US needs for a leader.

  • ||

    They lied, again, and no one was surprised. I'd be in a state of shock if they managed to do anything right.

    http://www.intellectualtakeout.....-party-lbj

  • B||

    The Republican Party is bankrupt? That may or may not be the case, but it sure as fuck isn't because a nut-case like Ron Paul isn't the nominee. Having Paul as a serious nominee makes the party more of a laughingstock, not less.

  • B||

    "The Republican Party’s disinterest in Paul is not so easy to explain."

    Uh, actually, yes it is. I'm a Republican and I sure as hell wouldn't vote for someone whose completely-lacking-in-nuance foreign policy views can be summed up in one word: isolationism. He is a hell of a lot more isolationist than his son, who I reluctantly voted for even though I feel he is a wee bit too isolationist for my taste. Ron Paul is so isolationist he makes Pat Buchanan seem moderate on the issue.

    As for the rest of your ridiculous bullshit, it seems most of your article is an attack on the media and its focus on Trump rather than any serious attempt to understand why Paul doesn't have a chance to become the Republican nominee. And next time you write an article about Paul, you should consider that telephone polls and straw polls don't necessarily equal votes, as Paul's abysmal primary performances prove. The fact of the matter is the guy is flat-out unelectable.

  • B||

    The left wing equivalent of the above blog post would be Markos "I hate Jews" Moulitsas complaining that the Democratic Party is completely bankrupt because Dennis Kucinich doesn't have a chance at winning the nomination.

  • ||

    Trump is certainly a clown and the GOP a circus. He fits right in.

  • ||

    Trump's run at the GOP nomination has the support of two influential groups: Donald himself and the liberal media. Just as when Senator McCain 'suddenly' jumped ahead of the pack of GOP potential nominees once the liberal media led by the NY Times started touting him, so has Trump. That, to me, is the best reason to vote against him. But, likely as not, GOP idiots everywhere will jump on the bandwagon and the professional politicos around the nation will adjust their calculations. After all, for the pros, it only require kissing a different pair of buttocks.

  • hole||

    Thanks ForSharing

  • قبلة الوداع||

    ThaNk U

  • goallen||

    ty rights, etc. seem like a more accurate measure of freedom than democracy.

  • kangzhu||

    This plan has no merit

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement