Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
New at Reason
David Weigel, reflecting on the weekend (and week) of Ron Paul smearmongering, asks whether his presidential campaign will be bad for libertarians.
|5.25.07 @ 10:25AM|#
his offensive (and now repudiated) quotes about
race
How have they been repudiated? I'm not being combative, I would
actually love for them to have been repudiated. But the last I
heard the quotes actually were in his newsletter. Please tell me
I'm wrong, it would make my day.
|5.25.07 @ 10:25AM|#
again, with corrected italics
his offensive (and now repudiated) quotes about race
How have they been repudiated? I'm not being combative, I would
actually love for them to have been repudiated. But the last I
heard the quotes actually were in his newsletter. Please tell me
I'm wrong, it would make my day.
|5.25.07 @ 10:30AM|#
He has said that he didn't write the quotes in question and that he doesn't really agree with them.
Duckman|5.25.07 @ 10:35AM|#
What I want to know is... who has more skeletons in their closet, Ron Paul or Rudy Guiliani?
Fluffy|5.25.07 @ 10:37AM|#
Well, it pretty much all boils down to whether Paul is telling
the truth when he says he didn't write all the articles in that
newsletter.
If he gets smeared with it, he has to stand up and say who wrote
them.
That might not work, of course. Actually, it probably won't. But if
Weigel is saying that Paul shouldn't run because the truth isn't
good enough, or people won't believe the truth, then he's just as
much a part of the problem with American politics today as Hillary
or Rudy.
OTOH, if Paul actually wrote what's in the newsletter, he should
not be running for President. He should have stayed in his house
seat and been happy that this stuff had died and wasn't in his face
every day.
Dave W.|5.25.07 @ 10:38AM|#
Getting mugged sucks. Not only do you feel victimized, but it is
difficult to talk about the experience publicly.
I have been chased by muggers 4 times, escaping successfully each
time.
I have been mugged once without a pursuit because I was
cornered.
|5.25.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Dave W.: how do you respond to this piece of your writing that
someone has found and called racist?
Ron Paul: That doesn't sound like something I would write, and I
don't agree with it.
Dave W.:Thanks for clearing that up.
Gimme a break.
How is this different than any other politician trying to step away
from their own words when the come back to bite them?
|5.25.07 @ 10:39AM|#
As long as libertarian thought and the opinions of the polloi are as far apart as they are now, any libertarian who gains any publicity will be viewed as a kook. That's not a function of the ideas themselves, but of the fact that they are very much outside the mainstream.
Fluffy|5.25.07 @ 10:42AM|#
Actually, Neu, it's more like if you had a political website at
YourName.org and your webmaster decided to post the Unabomber
Manifesto on it, because he assumes you'd agree with it.
If Paul's telling the truth, that is.
|5.25.07 @ 10:45AM|#
Hmmm, I was hoping you meant the quotes weren't in his newsletter. Since they were in his newsletter, he is in trouble.......If Romney or Biden had something like that in a little newsletter with their name on the top, people would beat them over the head with it mercilessly until they backed out of the race. The same will happen to Ron, and perhaps rightly so.
|5.25.07 @ 10:48AM|#
Fluffy,
If Ron Paul can't run a tight enough ship to avoid such an event,
does he have the management skills to be president.
If you are putting your name on something that someone else wrote
it is fair to attribute the statements to you. A "my lackey wrote
that" excuse doesn't fly with me.
|5.25.07 @ 10:53AM|#
No offense David Weigel, but stop being such a wuss. I say bring on the focus and attention of the big guns. If that's what it takes to get Paul's messages out there and to put a thorn into the sides of people like Romney and Giuliani then that's great. Its not like when people find out about his eccentric views they won't vote for him; he wasn't going to win anything anyway.
|5.25.07 @ 10:55AM|#
If the establishment is forced to expend significant time and
treasure dragging Ron Paul through the mud, that might be the best
of all possible worlds. Like you said David, embittered
libertarians put the most modest achievement in the win
column.
Deep down in places I don't talk about at parties (as if I were
ever invited to parties) I hold out hope that the establishment may
yet be forced to assimilate more libertarian policy.
|5.25.07 @ 11:00AM|#
Libertarianism can take any hit other than looking like
a bunch of racists. It is already too easy to pigeon-hole us as
uncaring, capitalist pigs. I can handle that. I can't handle being
pigeon-holed as an uncaring capistalist racist pig.
Sorry Ron, I cutting you off....even if you are telling the truth
now, you fucked up too bad for me to attach my name to you.
|5.25.07 @ 11:02AM|#
uh...newsflash, guys - Ron Paul is not going to win
anything.
Get over the that feeling of heady excitement you had 30 years ago
when McBride won 1% of the vote and accept that having ANYBODY get
airtime to discuss anti-imperial notions in a presidential campaign
is a good thing.
As for any dumb thing he's written, realize that he's going to be
slammed and slandered in any event. That's the price ya pay for
being "out of the mainstream".
|5.25.07 @ 11:03AM|#
Eric Dondero claims that it was actually penned by Lew Rockwell.
Ron Paul does hold himself responsible in that the newsletter went
out under his name. But, having read his writings, it is clear to
me he didn't pen it. The essay's structural organization and style
are very different from Ron Paul's other writing. (BTW I don;t
think the style matches Lew Rockwell's writing style either)
To be honest, I question Ron Paul's judgement of character based on
some of the people whom he has kept in his inner circle. It is
possible that he takes what he can get out of a poor crop of
candidates, or that he is too kindly. It is also possible that he
indeed is prejudiced against black people.
If he is prejudiced, it does not concern me too much in that he
does not believe in using government to impose his preferences, and
from his voting record. Thus, I cannot see him pursuing racist
policies like segregating the military or expanding affirmative
action.
By the way, if being a poor judge of character is a
disqualification for office, then I have a name for any readers who
are Giuliani supporters: Bernie Kerrick, a man who effectively
sabotaged the nascent Iraqi national police through his
incompetence.
Fluffy|5.25.07 @ 11:04AM|#
I have a quick question, for those who know the timetable better
than me:
When the quotes in question appeared in Paul's newsletter, was Paul
in or out of government at the time?
|5.25.07 @ 11:05AM|#
Sammit, I should proofread! I meant to say:
"If he is prejudiced, it does not concern me too much. From his
voting record, I see that he does not believe in using government
to impose his preferences. Thus, I cannot see him pursuing racist
policies like segregating the military or expanding affirmative
action."
deron|5.25.07 @ 11:09AM|#
TF...
My perspective is that if Biden or Romney shook things up enough
we'd be reading about their skeletons. These things aren't being
discussed right now because they're being ignored.
People believing what they want is an interesting phenomena in
campaigns. Bush was teflon regarding his service record and drug
use (rumor is enough in these things). McCain was harmed by rumors
of having a short temper. Why does Dean get pulled down for
yalping? Is it that awful or were people just not sold?
Simon9|5.25.07 @ 11:09AM|#
Libertarianism is going to be a hard enough sell (although
once-upon-a-time it wouldn't be) in the US. Ron Paul isn't slick
and sexy enough to reach the great unwashed masses who won't give a
sh*t about voting for change if it means 10 minutes away from
American Idol, no matter how important and timely his message
is.
The MSM is going to do EVERYTHING it can to first ignore and then,
if necessary, torpedo Paul. If his newsletter -- with his name on
it -- has racist stuff in it, then stick a fork in Paul; he's
cooked thoroughly.
Damn.
LarryA|5.25.07 @ 11:13AM|#
What I want to know is... who has more skeletons in their
closet, Ron Paul or Rudy Guiliani?
Rudy has a much bigger closet.
Fluffy|5.25.07 @ 11:15AM|#
Dean got pulled down for yalping because he had been up and then
lost - and then looked mildly ridiculous.
The junior high school instinct to jump on the bandwagon to beat
the loser when he's down, to joke about the person other people are
joking about, is too strong for most people to resist.
|5.25.07 @ 11:18AM|#
"The collapse of these wages (construction alone is a damning
example) shows these immigrants are not needed, they are just being
used to lower wages for the working class."
I dragged that little shard of a comment over from the Novak/
immigration thread, because it shows (me) the fundamental antipathy
of people to libertarian ideas. People, for the most part, don't
like uncertainty, or risk, or competition. If Ron Paul represents
any or all of those things, or if he can successfully be "tarred"
with them, he will be rejected by droves of voters who want
somebody to assure them that the world will never change and they
will be kept safe from any discomfort or harm.
DA|5.25.07 @ 11:21AM|#
Any chance Bill Maher will bring up the newsletter tonight?
Maher loves jumping on anything that smells like controversy, and
Paul would have the opportunity to clear the air and state his case
on a larger forum before this could become uglier. One can only
hope, I guess.
Still, I agree with some of the posters who are dismayed about the
newsletter. Paul may be very well telling the truth, as I believe
him to be, but he's too loose with the circle of associates he
keeps and I'd prefer he'd use a little more volume in 'setting the
record straight.'
As someone else stated, libertarianism being thought of along with
outside-the-mainstream capitalism is fine. But I hardly think
anyone wants to see a well-oiled smear campaign that basically
plants 'Paul = racism = libertarianism' into the public
mindsets.
|5.25.07 @ 11:22AM|#
That column appeared in the Ron Paul Political Report in 1992.
It became an issue in his 1996 campaign, and he didn't deny writing
it. The quote in which he denies authorship (but takes "moral
responsibility" for letting it be published under his name) comes
from a 2001 interview.
If someone wrote something I found objectionable under my name, I
wouldn't wait nine years to disavow it.
Tom Walls|5.25.07 @ 11:22AM|#
No one is making hay anymore out of the anti-Christian stuff two
paid John Edwards staffers wrote. I certainly don't blame blow-dry
boy for it. insert
Criswell voice here I predict that this non-controversy will
blow over in the near future.
Ron has an appeal that seems to be transcending ideological
libertarians and old timey hard money advocates. For God's sakes,
they were talking about him on The View.
Ron's opponents are neocons, ueberhawks, and libertarian or liberal
Republicans who despise social conservatives of any stripe.
Grotius|5.25.07 @ 11:24AM|#
Given that libertarians are barely (if at all) on the political radar merely bringing the term up and some of the general positions of libertarians is likely going to be a plus.
stephen the goldberger|5.25.07 @ 11:26AM|#
If paul's ideas truly have power then they will survive any media expose that you claim exposure will bring. It's called dancing with the big boys libertarians, and it's a dance well worth trying. If you want to make a difference as a politician you just have to be able to survive the mud slinging.
robc|5.25.07 @ 11:28AM|#
Daze,
Years ago, I said if I ever ran for office, I wouldnt deny anything
my opponents said about me. The more idiotic stuff they throw the
less bad it makes the real skeletons look. And everyone has
something they have said/done they would prefer not be public (I
assume).
That 1987 high school senior english paper I wrote entitled "The
Necessity of Terrorism" might not play well (As an aside, I didnt
believe the arguments I made in that paper, I just thought it was
fun to take the other side and see what I could do).
Maybe Paul adopted my strategy in 96. He just ignored the issue and
let it go away. It didnt hurt him. Denying it might have made a
bigger story out of it.
Cutkomp|5.25.07 @ 11:31AM|#
I, for one, am glad that the attacks on Dr. Paul have already
started coming from the establishment. Let them feel the fear.
They've been shoving fear down our throats for years. What goes
around comes around.
You'll notice that a large portion of the tactics they have used so
far against Ron are chock full of intellectual dishonesty. The
establishment talks to the public like the public is a bunch of
retards. Ron Paul talks to the public like the public is smart,
like he believes that the people are capable of thinking for
themselves.
Joel Lemieux|5.25.07 @ 11:41AM|#
I Agree... Meanwhile Consider The Following:
Our Only Choice!!! Leadership 2008
Can Ron Paul Win? On The Issues
A Resounding YES!
Knowing this let us then look at the most important benefit… that
Ron Paul brings to the Presidency
"Leadership"
Leadership is Action Through *Example Not Position...
(It is not a position of power nor being in the right place at the
right time, neither define leadership.
It is defined by setting the example through taking action on such
Leadership Traits as Truthfulness! Honesty! Fidelity! )
Ron Paul Has Acted Admirably On All These Leadership Traits:
"Truthfulness" first and foremost… Then: Principle, Integrity,
Honesty,* Fidelity (to their oaths), Honor, Virtue, Compassion,
Courage, Vision, Wisdom and Faith.
DARE TO COMPARE
Can anyone bring forth any other candidate (GOP or DEM, etc.) that
can lay claim to all of these characteristics?
I believe we are all hard pressed to do so... "Strike That". I KNOW
we ARE hard pressed!
http://leadership2008.bravehost.com
Get the word out "SHARE" with your friends...
|5.25.07 @ 11:49AM|#
There are forty years of libertarian writing, some of which had
kooky ideas that, perhaps, the author has grown out of by now. If
libertarianism is to be successful, it will have to deal with
attacks that use such kooky material. If you ever uttered the n
word when a teenager, some buddy is going to remember it and tell
the media when you run for office.
Anyone who knows Ron Paul knows he isn't a racist. Anyone who knows
libertarian principles know libertarians aren't racist.
Let the smears begin. Welcome them as proof that libertarian ideas
suddenly matter.
|5.25.07 @ 12:12PM|#
If the worst stuff they can throw at Ron Paul are comments from
a newsletter from 1992, that's pretty darn good.
Keep in mind that the leading black minister in NYC said "Giuliani
hates black people" and took back his support of the mayor. Keep in
mind that Amadou Diallo was shot 90 times under Giuliani's
watch.
Words and actions are two very different things. Ron Paul didn't
even say the words, but Giuliani has had actions that speak of
racism within him.
If you read anything Ron Paul has written, it's quite obvious that
he would never say things like were in those newsletters. He has an
elegant way of writing, and he never personalizes things. He has
called racism a "collectivist mindset" that denigrates the
individual. He is all about individualism and liberty.
|5.25.07 @ 12:13PM|#
"No one is making hay anymore out of the anti-Christian stuff
two paid John Edwards staffers wrote. I certainly don't blame
blow-dry boy for it."
Those comments were not presented as written by John Edwards. If
the John Edwards Political Report published a column
ostensibly written by John Edwards calling American Christians
"thugs", "animals", "barbarians" and "terrorists", and Edwards
denied authorship a decade later, the analogy might be
relevant.
|5.25.07 @ 12:16PM|#
i liken Ron Paul's "racist" and Israeli lobby comments to Jim Webb's views on affirmative action and women in fighting roles in the military: these ideas appeal to conservatives. these views will not become the liabilities you folks think they will become.
|5.25.07 @ 12:22PM|#
Ron Paul is 72 years old. He has been in congress for something
like 17 years. In one newsletter that is like 8 pages long and was
possibly written by another person there is some quasi-racist
material. In NOTHING else he has ever written that I know of is
there anything similar.
Get over it and stop being wussies. If you want libertarian views
to be heard then you better throw some weight behind Paul. People
are not as dumb as you think they are and the message is more
relevant than ever before. Ron Paul has a great chance to win.
|5.25.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Here Here!
Ron Paul in 08 is a best libertarian candidacy since Goldwater.
Hooray for Ron Paul! He's already gotten farther than I figured he
would. The more attention he gets the better! It's all good!
|5.25.07 @ 12:48PM|#
Some people have criticized Paul on the grounds that he's too
absolutist, and the perfect can be the enemy of the good.
On the other hand, you can apply that standard to his candidacy. He
isn't the (quite unavailable) perfect libertarian commenter we
might want in the running right now...but he gets the important
ideas out there, and he's certainly better than a straight Red echo
chamber.
Derrick|5.25.07 @ 12:53PM|#
If we sit around waiting for a perfect libertarian candidate,
we're going to go nowhere. I have been following the LP candidates,
and am not impressed with any of them so far. None of them are even
as polished as Ron Paul. (I'm not saying that Ron Paul is
polished.)
Overall, I think it will be a win for the libertarian "brand" if
Paul's candidacy continues gathering steam. It is already bringing
a whole lot of young, independent/unregistered/socially-liberal
people into the movement. God knows we need that.
As for his opponents digging up everything he ever said to paint
him as a kook... Whatever, that's politics. He can definitely be
eccentric, but are his ideas really that kooky compared to those of
Giuliani or McCain? IMHO they are more or less sound. If the MSM
wants to throw them out there, it will just give more exposure to
them. With enough repetition they will become more accepted.
Finally, as for the racism charges, I believe enough evidence
exists to prevent them from going anywhere. Anywhere they've been
raised thus far, they've been quickly countered.
|5.25.07 @ 12:54PM|#
I repeat my assertion made a few weeks ago that Ron Paul's candidacy is ironically going to be an example of serious problems in libertarian thought. Here at Reason and among other libertarian think tanks the effects of wealthy contributors and political advertisers is often minimized. The people are not the dupes of tv ads and rallies it is said, they can see through all that and make the right choice. Yet here we have an articulate, coherent libertarian who is going to be buried under an avalanche of campaign funds. If that's not irony, I don't know what is...
Dave W.|5.25.07 @ 12:57PM|#
Here at Reason and among other libertarian think tanks the
effects of wealthy contributors and political advertisers is often
minimized.
I think I know what you mean, but there are 2 very different ways
to take this sentence.
Harry|5.25.07 @ 1:14PM|#
"As long as libertarian thought and the opinions of the polloi
are as far apart as they are now, any libertarian who gains any
publicity will be viewed as a kook. That's not a function of the
ideas themselves, but of the fact that they are very much outside
the mainstream."
Bingo. The vast majority of people like government programs and
giveaways; they enjoy getting stuff that seems to be "free."
It has always been so. It will always be so.
And most people really don't want to be "free." They want someone
telling them what to believe, what is right and what is wrong, and
what they should do.
Libertarianism big problem is that it's trying to get people to
think and act contrary to human nature. That's why it will be the
political equivalent of Scientology----always viewed as some weird
cult by outsiders.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but those are the facts.
Simon9|5.25.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Well, actually those aren't facts. They are opinions. Come on.
We're Libertarians. We know the difference.
That said, I agree with your opinion. And that's our big problem.
And that's a fact......D'OH!
|5.25.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Its not like there are libertarians getting mainstream exposure that Paul could damage. At least we're getting some of our ideas on national television now. And if reason contributors are the yard stick then maybe I'm not a libertarian anyway. I mean if a libertarian is someone like reason contributor Michelle "throw 'em in internment camps" Malkin then I'll find a new political label.
Simon9|5.25.07 @ 1:34PM|#
What I fear is the intensity of the attacks on Paul, and by
extension libertarian philosophy, by the media and the political
establishment if and when Paul becomes viewed as a serious threat.
But I guess it's inevitable.
I always assumed that when that day comes, the MSM and their
cohorts will generate BS to attack us with. But a racist comment by
a presidential candidate is actual meat (even if it's old and may
have been written by some unnamed underling). They will suck that
one dry with a fervor. It will be front page on Time, Newsweek,
etc. And it will deflect attention from the important messages. I
would be amazed if it were otherwise.
|5.25.07 @ 1:37PM|#
Since when did the Constitution become eccentric? I'm yet to find a single Ron Paul argument without historic or legal foundation. Somebody point out a position or issue he has clearly supported and written about that is kooky or eccentric. Austrian economics is kooky? Washington and Jefferson and Adams are kooky? Because human nature has changed? What brought that about, electricity? The automobile? Powered flight? What about television? Now that's kooky! Now Michelle Malkin trumps the Constitution?
Bradford C.|5.25.07 @ 1:44PM|#
Someone can correct me on this, but didn't the publisher that oversaw the newsletter back up Paul's statement that it was written by somebody else?
|5.25.07 @ 2:15PM|#
Suck that one dry (actual meat) with a fervor? Nice. Can I participate in your fear?
Iconoclast421|5.25.07 @ 2:17PM|#
Yes if Ron Paul starts showing up in major polls, they will throw everything but the kitchen sink at him. But so what? What has Ron Paul said that compares to Giuliani? Giuliani who markets himself as some kind of 9/11 security expert yet doesn't even understand the concept of blowback. The bottom line is that the msm could destroy all the founding fathers if any of them were alive and campaigning today. Ron Paul could be the one that forces the media to use up all its ammo...
|5.25.07 @ 2:18PM|#
Listen up y'all, to what I say, 'coz this type of shit happens
every day
Look, the game is NOT to get Ron Paul into the White
House. Everybody, everybody know that ain't
happening.
What we are trying to do is to vanquish the
neo-conservatives and regular interventionists out of the
Republican Party.
The point is NOT to create a Ron Paul cult-of-personality.
The point is to renew a commitment to humble foreign
policy and then to reclaim the liberties, resources, and
prestige which we have lost for the past 50 years.
|5.25.07 @ 2:25PM|#
"Gimme a break.
How is this different than any other politician trying to step away
from their own words when the come back to bite them?"
I believe him. It doesn't sound like him, but it does sound like
Lewellan Rockwell who from what I read in another tread, has been a
major ghost writer for Ron Paul. Ron Paul can be held somewhat
responsible, however, because he allowed that to come out in his
newsletter.
llepard|5.25.07 @ 2:29PM|#
I agree with TooMuchFormating. Paul ain't perfect, but he is a damn site better than all the others and his message is strong and universal. He can change the direction of the discourse and change the world. I am not betting he can win, but I am not giving up on the dream. If he does not win, these ideas will win sooner or later.
|5.25.07 @ 2:30PM|#
"What we are trying to do is to vanquish the neo-conservatives
and regular interventionists out of the Republican Party."
I'm afraid that the only thing that might bring that about is if
the Democrats win the presidency and maintain control of Congress
in 2008. Maybe the Republicans will finally learn the lesson they
should have learned in 2006.
Gerg|5.25.07 @ 2:30PM|#
Oh for heaven's sake. Do we have to wait until the actual primary before we stop having to listen to all this fetishism over Ron Paul?
|5.25.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Before typing a prediction offered with certainty based on "realism"... take a deep breath.
|5.25.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Do we have to wait until the actual primary before we stop
having to listen to all this fetishism over Ron Paul?
Why, is there someone else you'd like to listen to fetishism
over.
McCain? Hillary? Rudy?
|5.25.07 @ 2:37PM|#
"Now Michelle Malkin trumps the Constitution?"
Michelle Malkin should be ashamed of herself as a journalist for
the smearjob she did on Ron Paul.
|5.25.07 @ 2:38PM|#
Well as a lefty who is switching to the republican party just to vote for Dr Paul, i would say who cares if he is a racist. His constitutional frame of reference would prevent him from enacting any racist policies. Wake up people! Paul anti-imperialist, anti drug war, pro civil liberty message far outweighs any personal views he holds or race, sexuality, womens choice etc...I just pray that more liberals can see through their party lens and realize that liberty is too important quibble about.
|5.25.07 @ 2:39PM|#
Why on earth is Michelle Malkin a Reason
contributor?
Before some time in 2000 Malkin seemed to be something of a
proto-libertarian. Then she published her "praise of concentration
camps for Japanese-Americans" epic. Then 9/11 sealed her fate as a
proto-fascist.
So, no, it was not that ridiculous for her to be a Reason
contributor in 1999.
Oh and congratulations for spelling "ridiculous" correctly. I was
beginning to think the spelling had officially changed. :)
|5.25.07 @ 2:40PM|#
"Why on earth is Michelle Malkin a Reason contributor? That's
ridiculous!"
I stopped subscribing to Reason when they supported Desert Shield.
It appears that they are still flirting with neoconservatism.
|5.25.07 @ 2:43PM|#
"Then she published her "praise of concentration camps for
Japanese-Americans" epic."
I've also read her defending Abu Grahib and Guantonimo.
Tom Walls|5.25.07 @ 2:49PM|#
Daze, you have a good point about the difference between the two
controversies. But if the same thing had been published under the
"John Edwards Hair Tips for Men Newsletter" by a former
ghostwriter, it would still blow over.
The incident says nothing about Ron except he should've been more
careful about what was published under his name. Sometimes you
should put your foot down and be more exclusive in regards the
people you deal with - it's one of life's lessons. But not doing so
is hardly a blemish of any substance on Ron Paul's character or
personal views.
You can say it took him a decade to deny authorship - maybe he
actually did before and it didn't make it to print; or maybe it
just didn't come up. Maybe there wasn't a favorable channel or
situation to repudiate this stuff at the time. Or maybe he
should have issued some sort of press release at the time
disowning it. I don't know, but having followed him for almost 20
years, I am willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. I just
don't understand those who get their underwear in a knot over
this.
I once wrote an article in which the editor changed my copy
(coincidentally, it was something involving Ron Paul). The editor's
changes went to press before I had any input on it, and it ended up
hurting and confusing a lot of people. I never really got a chance
to explain my side of the story to the people it affected. Why
didn't I issue a repudiation of my alleged words? I just wasn't
assertive enough at the time, and someone talked me out of it... so
I just let it drop and shrugged at it or ignored it later. Those
things happen.
Those comments were not presented as written by John Edwards.
If the John Edwards Political Report published a column ostensibly
written by John Edwards calling American Christians "thugs",
"animals", "barbarians" and "terrorists", and Edwards denied
authorship a decade later, the analogy might be relevant.
|5.25.07 @ 2:51PM|#
They have to go after him personally, because they can't refute the ideas. Each smear is a compliment. Sooner or later, as professionals, authors of hit pieces will suffer their own private lessons on blowback.
|5.25.07 @ 2:57PM|#
Jesus. So much hand wringing and perspiration. It's not a wonder
the libertarian message is still somewhere between home plate and
first base. The libertarians I know and respect are, if not
comfortable, willing to be in the trenches, actually putting
thought into action. Men like Howie Rich, Scott Rasmussen and Paul
Jacob. Of course they probably don't claim the libertarian
pedigrees most of you do. Neither are they afflicted by the warm
and fuzzy obsession of hyper analysis. How does the old saying go,
"Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way"?
Ron Paul is that kind of man: Narrow minded, passionate and
approaches being politically pure. Politics is a contact sport. So
far he demonstrates he can take the hits. All he needs is for those
who agree with most of what he stands for to quit fretting and get
behind the plow.
I have seen the positive results of citizen driven activism. The
status quo is lazy and unimaginative. That includes the MSM. Most
of the slugs who hold office and the hacks who support them despise
anyone who threatens their gig. I am excited about playing some
small role in adding to their discomfort.
|5.25.07 @ 3:11PM|#
Why are statistics considered racist?
Malkin had a bit of the 'truth' bug in her in 2002 when she
questioned what happened to flight 93.
She also WRONGLY said he appeared with, when it was simply that
these young boys show up at EVERY candidate's parties -- including
OBAMAs.
Furthermore, she used that video, where I appeared, without my
permission. That was MY party. I was standing right next to Ron
when he was talking to Justin from the student group. Justin had
never heard of him before. He arrived, seemed like a polite and
reaosnable person so I let him in.
Malkin has been put on notice.
Yes they met Ron at this party for the FIRST TIME! He did not meet
with them or appear with them and she had to correct that.
|5.25.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Ron Paul is getting a lot more attention than I thought he
would. Even the negative attention has a benefit--there's at least
a chance that folks out there will learn more about him, just by
having heard of him.
In the end, I'm sure he's politically just another Gene McCarthy,
and we'll get stuck with Rudy vs. Hillary next year. So stop
bitching and enjoy the moment while it lasts.
|5.25.07 @ 3:24PM|#
We already knew the mainstream media was controlled, that's why Ron Paul has been saying from the beginning that we have the internet on our side, the last frontier of freedom. Let's prove that good candidates can win, support Ron Paul.
Bill|5.25.07 @ 3:38PM|#
When I look at someone who's going into office I look at their
voting record. That can usually give you a pretty good indication
of how they'll vote when they are in the job you put them in (do we
want an ambassador or someone who will vote as close to our
principles?).
Ron Paul, or someone who worked for him was politically incorrect
15 years ago. How do his votes compare to the issue that was so
politically incorrect? Do his votes come the closest to your
principles?
I go into the voting booth hoping that when I pull that lever, that
represents me putting someone in charge of 100s of votes over the
next 4 years that I would agree with.
LandR|5.25.07 @ 4:17PM|#
Perhaps I misunderstood the article, but it seems to me that this is the very reason libertarian ideals aren't prominent among politicians. We all sit around like teenage girls, waiting for someone to ask us out on a date. When that person finally comes along, he doesn't match exactly the man of our dreams. Thus we hesitate while we analyze his relatively small flaws to death... missing our opportunity to get ourselves out on the national scene. Instead of looking for God to push our platform, let's just understand that humans are... well, humans. Instead of burying our heads in the sand when our candidate's glimmer is tainted by his own words, let's confront those things which make us cringe and, so long as he didn't mean them, do our best to let it be known that, in the heat of a moment or at an emotional time, we sometimes say things incongruous with our philosophy. Then when in office, if he does not adhere to those philosophical precepts, let's call it out and make sure that everyone understands why he is not who he claimed to be and that is does not any way discredit our ideas. In doing this perhaps our ideas will be implemented and our label that we give ourselves won't have to change again. If not, then I propose our next name be libralites and our ideas libralitian.
SVF|5.25.07 @ 4:22PM|#
A little pointless speculation... Could Ron Paul run as a Libertarian Party presidential candidate if/when he loses the GOP primaries... ? Would this even be possible, logistically speaking...? Would he and/or the LP even be interested...? Surely I'm not the only one who has been wondering...
|5.25.07 @ 4:32PM|#
"For God's sakes, they were talking about him on The
View."
What was Rosie's take on him and what was Elizabeth's take on
him?
|5.25.07 @ 4:33PM|#
Christ, all Ron Paul needs now is for Rosie to pledge support for him and he\'s doomed! Doomed I tells ya!
|5.25.07 @ 4:59PM|#
Christ, all Ron Paul needs now is for Rosie to pledge
support for him and he's doomed! Doomed I tells ya!
You know, she did support the ideas he brought up in the
second debate, to the surprisingly loud applause of the audience
attending The View. So there's some exposure to the
"housewife" contingent.
Of course, the "opposing view" was the pro-war Hasselbeck who
pretty much kept saying (literally) "They hate us for our
freedoms!" and "Terrorists!" repeatedly and the other two remaining
hosts came to Rosie's side rather quickly.
It was quite a sight (and it's on YouTube). Also, this happened the
day after -- or maybe even the same, I forget -- that Pat Buchanan
stood up for Paul, among others from both sides.
Really quite bizarre, this whole "unity across parties" thing.
|5.25.07 @ 4:59PM|#
And another thing...
It's not hard to imagine scenarios where a full scale attack on
Paul backfires.
Paul is our man, he may not be perfect but he's as close as you
will ever live to see
GO RON PAUL
RSDavis|5.25.07 @ 5:01PM|#
Is Lew Rockwell a racist? That would be disappointing. I really
like the Mises Institute.
- R
|5.25.07 @ 5:38PM|#
"Given that libertarians are barely (if at all) on the political
radar merely bringing the term up and some of the general positions
of libertarians is likely going to be a plus."
I think libertarians underestimate their influence on the political
landscape which far outstrips their representation among voters.
Libertarian ideas have enough in common with the mythology taught
about America's founding ideals to resonate with a lot of
people.
Even many libertarians buy into the idea that they are politically
indistinguisable from Jefferson.
In general terms most people agree with libertarianism. It is the
specific proposals that fall flat (see the FDA thread from
yesterday, fur intance). Paul suffers from the same problem. His
anti-war stance is going to resonate. Gold standard, not so much.
Civil war = bad, not so much. War on Christmas = likely to
resonate, not libertarian.
libertreee|5.25.07 @ 5:42PM|#
These comments seem to be from the "black on black" crime era
when Clinton was in the White House.
Even Jesse Jackson once said he feels uncomfortable in black
neighborhoods when followed by a black male around this time.
The different age aspect is the most disturbing, but there was, I
believe, a few high profile cases of murders committed by very
young blacks that helped fuel this debate.
It is unfortunate that most prominent black libertarians are pro
war (Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, etc.) So a press conference
with them might not work if this issue becomes as large as Weigel
thinks it might.
But, in fact, Ron's immigration stance will probably hurt him with
Hispanics as well. And I know he represents a border area, but I
just
do not understand some of his immigration hysteria.
|5.25.07 @ 5:51PM|#
Paul can solve these issues very easily should he, by some miracle, get the GOP nomination; the solution...ask Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell to be his VP.
Robert|5.25.07 @ 5:56PM|#
"But a racist comment by a presidential candidate is actual
meat.... They will suck that one dry with a fervor. It will be
front page on Time, Newsweek, etc. And it will deflect attention
from the important messages."
So what's the problem? Isn't condemnation of racism itself
an important message? If to attack Ron Paul they have to
strike blows against racism, that's heads I win, tails you
lose.
|5.25.07 @ 6:03PM|#
>>"Why on earth is Michelle Malkin a Reason contributor?
That's ridiculous!"
Uh, people ... for those who care, MichelleMalkin contributed
one piece to Reason, in March 1999.
>>"I stopped subscribing to Reason when they supported Desert
Shield. It appears that they are still flirting with
neoconservatism."
Yeah, "still" -- eight years ago!
And actually, Malkin's article was about property-owners' rights
being violated by one aspect of the Drug War -- a law that allows
confiscating the buildings and real property of innocent
property-owners if it is suspected that other people used that
property for drug-related activity.
I'm not a fan of Malkin, but geez.
Okay. Now, please continue getting all upset about Ron Paul being
smeared by untruths, half-truths and people who don't know what
they're talking about ...
Gene Berkman|5.25.07 @ 6:40PM|#
Ron Paul's campaign is the biggest libertarian campaign I have
been involved in, after 40 years of libertarian activism.
A friend and I are trying to find out who wrote the newsletter at
issue, so that we can diffuse the issue.
I think Ron Paul is running in the Republican primaries just
because there is no other antiwar candidate for conservatives and
libertarians. I doubt that he wants to undertake a national
campaign on the Libertarian ticket, because of the physical demands
on someone his age. So if you like what he is doing now is the time
to back his campaign.
"Libertarians for Ron Paul" has a website @ www.majority.com
|5.25.07 @ 6:45PM|#
Paul's problems haven't been due to simply being a libertarian.
Many prominent libertarians have gained massive publicity for our
ideas without being so labelled. As for the article in question,
assumed to be written by Lew Rockwell, remember Paul first hired
Rockwell and then went into the newsletter with him. It isn't as if
Rockwell's views were unknown to him and he still choose to work
with him and continues his friendly relationship to this day. So
while he may not have written the articles he was responsible for
the person who did and stays on good terms with the author. I
suggest he let it run because he didn't disagree with it. Of course
under scrutiny during a campaign he would disagree with it.
As for being seen as a kook maybe its because of affiliations with
kooks like the John Birch Society. Paul spouts all the tinfoil hat
material about the "new world order" plot and the so-called "NAFTA
highway" and the international bankers in the fed. He helps them
see him as a kook by his own views. And when you add Rockwell's
racist remarks to Paul's snuggling up to the militia groups that
dislike Mexicans and the anti-black League of the South then it
looks even worse for him. If those views didn't represent Paul's
position he should have gotten rid of Rockwell the moment they were
published. He didn't do so. Why?
As for the Edward's staff criticizing Christianity the real
difference is that they didn't put it out under Edward's name as a
business venture with him. They said it on their own web sites. The
remarks by Rockwell were in Paul's publication under Paul's
label.
|5.25.07 @ 10:39PM|#
Outsider...so there is no NAFTA highway? OK so who's the kook?
http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2006/07/17/story8.html
I mean seriously man open up a paper occassionaly. Is your real
name Sean hannity.
Jennifer Schulz|5.26.07 @ 12:15AM|#
I am so sick and tired of reading all the crap on Paul in
Reason. There have been perhaps a few nice articles on Paul, but
most of it is petty bitchiness that reminds me of the mainstream
elite. Come on guys, whose side are you on? Either you are
libertarian or you're not.
I am VERY proud of Ron Paul, and that we have a candidate who isn't
afraid to stick his neck out there. I find Paul very articulate and
persuasive. Ok, he doesn't look like Edwards, but Boo Hoo. Paul is
the best thing we've had on the campaign trail in quite a
while.
Jerry|5.26.07 @ 3:43AM|#
I disagree with your thesis David Wiegel. If Republicans will go after Ron Paul because of his newsletters or whatever not, it will hurt the Republican Party in itself. The GOP won't let this happen, not in an internal election. The real battles are fought after the primaries, but I doubt Ron Paul will make it that far. But I like him to stay on far enough to tell people that the mainstream Republican position nowadays is not limited government and a humble foreign policy. If he gets this message across, I think he will have done a hell of a job.
|5.26.07 @ 9:26AM|#
Why is everyone worrying? After all markets are voluntary exchanges where free people make rational choices based on maximizing their utility. The people will obviously see that libertarianism is the most rational choice that maximizes liberty and choose Ron Paul, the most consistent and coherent libertarian in the race. Despite the advertising and media coverage he will not get, consumers are savvy folks whose free choices are not coereced or determined by these factors and Paul, being the most rational choice (because libertarianism is the most rational ideology), will be the selection of a majority of voters. Right?
|5.26.07 @ 11:37AM|#
@Jennifer Schulz
There have been perhaps a few nice articles on Paul, but most
of it is petty bitchiness that reminds me of the mainstream elite.
Come on guys, whose side are you on? Either you are libertarian or
you're not.
Bingo. I could call myself an astronaut, too. That doesn't
necessarily mean I am one.
|5.26.07 @ 2:51PM|#
Can anyone comment on Ron's Christmas 2003 letter? I fell out of the Paul 2008 camp earlier this week when I read that he believes that the US was founded and intended to remain a Christian nation, and that the separation between church and state is a fallacy. He sums up the piece by stating that "secularists" are destroying the country by attacking Christmas. This pegs him as a theocrat, something that Libertarians certain couldn't stand for, right? Our position is supposed to be that, regardless of our personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof), the government must have absolutely no position on religion to avoid implied endorsement.
SVF|5.26.07 @ 3:26PM|#
More pointless speculation... here's a crazy-ass idea that'll
probably never happen...
After the primaries, the GOP and Dems have the usual pro-war
suspects at the top on their tickets. Ron Paul and running mate
Dennis Kucinich run as Independents under an
LP/Green/Reform/anti-war "Peace and Freedom" umbrella-type populist
party... hm... the mind boggles...
|5.26.07 @ 5:29PM|#
I'm sure his racist comments don't help anything, but seriously,
how is this going to kill the rest of his message? Every recent
presidential candidate has had at least this much dirt that was dug
up on them.
He just needs to take a lesson from Bush and completely ignore all
criticisms until everyone forgets about them....
|5.26.07 @ 7:20PM|#
Hey everyone, I just got involved in the Ron Paul's campaign in
an official capacity for Fairfield County, CT. If you are from the
area (or not) and would like to offer your time and/or money,
contact me at the e-mail address on my name also visit hier for the Fairfield County
meetup group. This guy's the real deal for libertarians, so let's
support him!
PS sorry but I'm going to post this on a bunch of threads - it's
really important that people take their support from the internets
to their REAL LIVES and do something for liberty!
|5.26.07 @ 11:55PM|#
"Ken | May 26, 2007, 9:26am | #
Why is everyone worrying? After all markets are voluntary exchanges
where free people make rational choices based on maximizing their
utility. The people will obviously see that libertarianism is the
most rational choice that maximizes liberty and choose Ron Paul,
the most consistent and coherent libertarian in the race. Despite
the advertising and media coverage he will not get, consumers are
savvy folks whose free choices are not coereced or determined by
these factors and Paul, being the most rational choice (because
libertarianism is the most rational ideology), will be the
selection of a majority of voters. Right?"
Nice troll, Ken. Good economists know damn well that participants
in a marketplace engage in lots of irrational behavior, and have
rather imperfect knowledge. The simplifying assumption of
rationality allows theories to be tested to see if they make any
sense at all, without claiming to actually predict all that well
what real people do, but rather to predict a tendency to behave one
way or another. These assumptions break down bigtime in the
political marketplace, since if 51% of the people who bother to
show up at the polls make irrational choices, they get to decide
for EVERYONE ELSE. And concentrated interests like unions show up
disproportionately at the polls. And the average voter more or less
gets the notion that their vote is thoroughly unlikely to decide
any given election, and so it doesn't pay them to put much effort
into researching the candidates. So most elections are decided by
voters who are "rationally ignorant" and thus don't understand
their interests all that well, and don't really know which
candidate will screw them over more.
Read all about it at Daviddfriedman.com (the website of Milton
Friedman's son).
Sorry about spoiling a perfectly good thread by injecting actual
facts into an argument. My bad.
|5.27.07 @ 12:14AM|#
Ron Paul has been attacked by neocon's, "mainstream republicans", and mainstream medias, all revolving around that he's different, he's out-of-line with his party..etc...Why hasn't anyone question the facts he presented and the reasoning behind his claims? The answer is because nobody can. They can only speculate about his low poll rating, calling names, or making groundless assertions like Giuliani.
Kaligula|5.27.07 @ 4:11AM|#
Anyone who advocates ending the drug war, the last bastion of
institutionalized racism in America--imprisoning african americans
6 times the rate that blacks were imprisoned under South African
Apartheid--is a friend to minorities.
I'd love to see Rudy start talking about his record on race
relations in New York.
|5.27.07 @ 3:26PM|#
JH
So in this instance, elections, markets don't work. The consumers
don't know what's good for them and they can be duped by the
campaigns and concentrated interests. In short, free, uncoerced
voters make stupid, harmful (to themselves and others) decisions.
In what others do consumers make stupid, harmful decisions?
|5.28.07 @ 9:26AM|#
"If we sit around waiting for a perfect libertarian candidate,
we're going to go nowhere. I have been following the LP candidates,
and am not impressed with any of them so far. None of them are even
as polished as Ron Paul. (I'm not saying that Ron Paul is
polished.)"
Too bad Harry Browne couldnn't make it to see this apparent airing
of "Libertarian" ideas... Harry was an elequent spokesman for the
Libertarian cause. Even Sean Hannity couldn't help but to openly
admire one the the freest men who've ever lived. RIP Harry
Browne...and thank you for my education in Libertarianism.
|5.28.07 @ 12:59PM|#
Ron Paul? The only place he is getting ANY attention is the
blogosphere. A big name Washington Post reorter at a political
event I recently attended said "Ron Paul? He couldn't beat Mike
Gravel"
I agree. Paul is a gadfly.
|5.28.07 @ 10:29PM|#
Hey, this is all good. Libertarianism like all outsiders is
first treated as a joke, later as a pain in the ass, then as a pain
in the neck. Then you become equal competition. First we sounded
kooky, than we "cost " them elections, now we are rushing the
stage. Expect the heat we have earned it. Hooray for Freedom
Colin
Eva Kosinski|5.29.07 @ 10:49AM|#
I'm frustrated with the hero status that Paul has been (in my
opinion, undeservedly) given. Yes, he's touted a lot of Libertarian
principles, but I don't see those principles showing up when the
votes come, after the cameras have been turned off.
Two questions:
* Do you really think the Republicans would give him this much rope
if they weren't planning to hang him (and by association, all of
the ideals he so prominently mentions) publicly and with great
fanfare?
* Is anyone actually looking at his voting record, especially
regarding the Patriot act?
Those of us who have spent time in street faire booths know how
many people out there are sick of the major parties (both of them,
even the independents), and are searching for a new answer. How
much credibility can we have when lots of Libertarians are turning
their backs on legitimate Libertarian (registered even!) candidates
to go out and stump for a Republican?
If he cares, he can run as a Lib. He's done it before and he didn't
win, but folks were nowhere near this pissed off before. For
someone who talks a lot along the lines of the "Party of
Principle," I'd expect him to put his candidacy where his
(advertised) politics are. I think he's trying to play both ends
against the middle -- get the Reps to fund his campaign, which
they're happy to do to take some support from the Libs, play up his
"principles" for all he's worth and hope nobody looks at the voting
record, and assume he can handle the pressure from the Reps to
abandon his principles should he become the actual candidate from
their party. Playing both ends against the middle usually gets you
screwed.
Although you seem to consider Mike Badnarik an airhead, you might
be wary of supporting Paul, or at least think twice if you knew
that Mike was going around saying he'd "take a bullet" for Ron
Paul.
If you don't like folks you consider airheads, you might want to
consider George Phillies, who, in addition to being bright enough
to actually translate the bs that passes for science these days, is
capable of putting together a credible campaign
(www.phillies2008.com) and is willing to put out issue statements
that tell the American people what the Libertarian Party stands
for.
Paul is a loose end, and from the Reps point of view, a loose
cannon. Assuming he has a real chance is, in one sense, very
Libertarian (hopeful in the pursuit of lost causes), but it's time
we took some real steps to stand together to field a Libertarian
who's willing to sign on the dotted line for OUR party.
As a Reason subscriber, I'm surprised to see how little
consideration Libertarian candidates are given. I expected a more
balanced view.
|5.29.07 @ 1:05PM|#
Ron Paul's own words on racism, circa 2002, are perhaps his own
best rebuttal, according to sources close to the campaign:
"The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a
limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of
individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means
free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and
competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market,
businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable
employees - while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most
qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More
importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of
himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim
mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and
personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking
to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we
should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group
thinking to an emphasis on individualism."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
Sources close to the campaign point out that Paul's message is one
of liberty and individual achievement divorced from government
giveaways and self-worth-sapping programs. These sources add that
for Paul to espouse racism - the idea that one's physical
characteristics are more important than his or her abilities and
promise - he would have to run counter to the conservative
libertarian philosophy that he espoused during a previous campaign
for president as libertarian candidate.
Ron Paul's message, articles and dozens of major speeches on the
floor of the U.S. House of Representatives clearly portray his
beliefs and perspectives. None of them are racist. None of them
contain racist imagery. They deal with taxation, the federal
reserve and focus on attempts to constrain the power and abuses of
the federal government.
|5.31.07 @ 12:10AM|#
Some keep making Paul out as a kook because of his crusade
against the Fed. But, is it not true what he says about them?
Isn't the Fed's behavior why Friedman advocated an alternative
method of expanding the money supply? Why was Friedman not
considered a kook for that?
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245