Ron Paul Won't Reject Any Donations

David Weigel | November 6, 2007

A few hours ago Ron Paul's campaign met reporters at the National Press Club to confirm that, yes, their candidate had shattered the record for one day of primary fundraising. Campaign manager Lew Moore and Jonathan Bydlak marshalled FEC data to prove that they'd beaten Mitt Romney's January take (he got $2.5m on one day and $4m of pledges, which keeps getting reported as a $6.5m haul) and Hillary Clinton's numbers at the end of June (she raised $2.6 million at a Ron Burkle fundraiser).

"I think it says something that the Clinton campaign challenged these numbers," Moore said. "They don't want to run against us."

I asked Bydlak about attention the campaign is getting from creepy white supremacists, and whether if they discovered donations from specious people they'd give them back. "If people hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss," he said. What if the campaign keeps getting scrutiny as its coffers grow? "The scrutiny is a perfect sign of how this campaign is growing."

Meanwhile, David Frum's take on Paul's 11/5 fundraising is really stupendously wrong. Here's his first argument.

[I]t is worth recalling that in the much lower-intensity race of 2000, Ralph Nader raised over $8 million for his presidential bid. It would be interesting to know how many of today's Paul donors were Nader donors then... the United States is a very big and rich country, and that its political fringes are likewise big and rich.

The "Paulites=Naderites" bit is too silly to address, but comparing $8m over one year with $4.3m in one day—that's not apples and oranges, it's apples and nuclear submarines. And if you start from January 2007, Paul has raised $15.5m. He's probably going to triple Nader's haul by the end of the campaign. And Nader was an internationally famous consumer activist with 40 years in the spotlight. When this campaign started Paul was an obscure congressman who'd occasionally light up the House floor at 11 p.m.

Howard Dean in 2004 attracted 318,000 individual donors who donated 454,000 times for a total of almost $40 million... True, Dean did not do it in one day. But almost all that money arrived in a single quarter.

No, he didn't. He raised $2.6m in the first quarter (of 2003), $7.6m in the second quarter, $14.8m in the third quarter, and $16m in the fourth quarter.

My conclusion from this is that Ron Paul is actually underperforming his potential. I'd guess that he would do much better if he dropped the gold standard stuff, and ran a pure anti-war campaign, spicily seasoned with 9/11 paranoia.

And Dr. Paul, when did you stop beating your wife? Frum's missing out on one of the campaign's big surprises: people actually respond to the "gold standard stuff." I have a few theories why, but I'm still shocked when I see hundreds of college students whooping when a presidential candidate pledges to kill the Fed.

Of course I am saddened to discover that many thousands of Americans have rallied to a candidate campaigning on a Michael Moore view of the world.

Yes, just like Michael Moore. Coming next Fall: Michael Moore's Recess. America's favorite guerilla filmmaker makes the case for abolishing the Department of Education!

Yes, yes, Frum is talking about foreign policy. Let's get back to his Nader comparison. When Nader ran an ego-and-umbrage-driven campaign in 2000 you had some people calling his supporters crazy, but more Democrats took them seriously. Gore and his surrogates campaigned in the swing states to rebut Nader's argument that Clinton was a right-winger or that the big parties nominated clones of one another.

There's next to no institutional respect for Paul. Frum thinks (I do not) that Paul will break from the party and run an independent campaign, and he's mocking him and his supporters as deranged flat-earthers. Punters at the Fox-moderated GOP debates heckle the candidate. RedState.com bans his supporters. Are Republicans flying so high that they can just amputate a wing of their party? Obviously not. So why are they doing it?

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Edward|11.6.07 @ 8:49PM|#

Hillary is shaking in her boots (read licking her chops), or she would be if the goofy Dr. Paul had the slightest chance of winning the nomination (he doesn't.) You guys really take the cake.

Duckman|11.6.07 @ 8:50PM|#

They're doing it because they are RUNNING SCARED!

National Review wants the GOP to be 100% neo-con. Anything that changes that is unacceptable and must be destroyed.

National Review, Fox Noise, and talk radio can all rot in hell, because the Ron Paul train is running on nuclear power.

|11.6.07 @ 8:55PM|#

"and they give to us, that's their loss."

Beautiful.

"They are running SCARED"
I doubt that, but you can be sure they are running dumb, which could be even better news for Ron.

Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:04PM|#

David, I'm surprised you had the gumption to actually question Ron Paul about those questionable donations from Nazi groups. Says, that you and the folks at Reason, are at least uncomfortable with being part of the same coalition as David Duke, Alex Jones, David Macko, and Nazi Stormtrooper Front.

I guess that's some progress.

|11.6.07 @ 9:05PM|#

The funny thing about the white supremacists giving money to Ron Paul is that Paul's philosophical and Economic ideology is based in part on Carl Menger who is the Jewish founder of the Austrian school of economics. Ron Paul lists him as one of his heroes for gosh sakes. Also Ron Paul is not a bigot like the rest of the republicans running. He has stated repeatedly that the government should not control who people associate with or fall in love with. Also do they realize that Ron Paul might have an Eskimo or native American Vice President?

|11.6.07 @ 9:07PM|#

Are Republicans flying so high that they can just amputate a wing of their party? Obviously not. So why are they doing it?

If that wing becomes dominant, the current nomenklatura has to find honest work. The worst thing that can happen, from their perspective, is not a lost election, but Ron Paul's supporters coalescing into a coherent political movement that significantly reduces the power of governemnt and hence the opportunities for graft/influence peddling.

They would much rather be in an opposition party of a powerful governemnt than in doing honest work in a free economy. So they try to prevent the movement from growing by sowing divisions within it and scaring potential members off with a smear campaign.

Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:09PM|#

David, being a good Delaware boy you might enjoy this little story.

In 1984, a nice older gentleman showed up to the Libertarian Party of Delaware State Convention. Of course, we're talking the LPD here, so there were only about 6 other people at the gathering.

Given that they had ballot status, they took a list of those who wanted to put their name down for statewide offices.

Everyone looked to the older gentleman and asked, "would you like for us to put you down for the Governor's line?"

He agreed.

A few weeks later, Libertarians in the Philadelphia, South Jersey, and Delaware were shocked to see Television commericials of the "Libertarian Party of Delaware candidate for Governor" standing in front of a Nazi flag.

Yup, the LPD had inadvertently nominated a bonafide Nazi as their candidate for Governor.

It took years after that for the LPD to recover. They basically disbanded the Party in the State for the next two years.

I won't be surprised if the next thing we see, are some YouTube videos of guys in front of Nazi Swastika flags urging others to "Vote for Ron Paul."

How long do you think it will take for the libertarian movement to recover from that?

Eric Dondero|11.6.07 @ 9:13PM|#

John,

A lot of people would argue with your point that "Ron Paul is not a bigot."

There is much evidence, and certainly many instances in Ron Paul's past to indicate otherwise.

But the liberal media loves the fact that Ron Paul is bashing Bush and the War in Iraq, so they're giving him a pass.

Terribly ironic, cause when Ron was running as a Bush Republican back in 1996 for Congress, the liberal Houston and the ultra-liberal Houston media savaged him, and much of it was on the bigot stuff.

|11.6.07 @ 9:14PM|#

98 Rock in Baltimore was interviewing an offensive lineman this morning (Jason Brown, I think). They asked him what he'd been doing. He said that he'd just finished a book about the Federal Reserve and expressed outrage that our money wasn't backed by gold or anything anymore. He all but said "I'm voting for Ron Paul". The interviewer really wasn't expecting anything that substantive.

|11.6.07 @ 9:15PM|#

Even before I read Weigel's rebuttal, I could see the weaknesses in Frum's arguments. Here's my question: what prompts someone like Frum to write an article where a schmuck like myself can see through it? It's not as if it's a difference of opinion; some of his analogies are clearly flawed and some of his factual statements are obviously wrong. What's the point in publishing something like that?

|11.6.07 @ 9:17PM|#

Eric Dondero,

Great anecdotes about people not named "Ron Paul". Really awesome stuff about the pitfalls of poorly attended party conventions and poorly resourced state parties. Now, if you run across anything relevant to say,...Ron Paul, that'd be great. Thanks.

|11.6.07 @ 9:19PM|#

"Yup, the LPD had inadvertently nominated a bonafide Nazi as their candidate for Governor."

Something similar happened in California a few years back as well, only he won. And the Republican party hasn't recovered either.

|11.6.07 @ 9:20PM|#

Regardless of what you think about white supremacists and other kooks, the Constitution protects their rights as much as it does anybody else's. And THAT is why they flock to the Champion of the Constitution.

|11.6.07 @ 9:21PM|#

AC,

You should really try to catch Randi Rhodes's Air America radio show. Contentless jabs, it seems, can build quite an audience, even if a second grader can pick apart the arguments after three seconds of scrutiny. Emotional arguments need not be logical to stroke the righteousness of the faithful.

Liberty rocks! (See, it works here, too.)

The Wine Commonsewer|11.6.07 @ 9:25PM|#

Edward, I thought you fargin' quit.

I'm sure DW is aware of it but there was a concerted, grassroots effort to kick fund raising ass and November 5th was the target day. Something about Guy Fawkes. I thought Fawkes was Dumbledore's Phoenix.

Anyway, say WTF you will, it looks like the plan was wildly successful.

iih|11.6.07 @ 9:27PM|#

I won't be surprised if the next thing we see, are some YouTube videos of guys in front of Nazi Swastika flags urging others to "Vote for Ron Paul."

What if they decided to put "Vote for Rudy/McRomney" instead. That would hurt Rudy for sure.

(Got this? This might be a bit over your head. Let me know and I can explain.)

|11.6.07 @ 9:29PM|#

"Terribly ironic, cause when Ron was running as a Bush Republican back in 1996 for Congress"...

Paul has never run for any office as a "Bush" Republican.

Bill G.|11.6.07 @ 9:30PM|#

Do you guys seriously think that a bunch of Nazi's coughed up 4 million dollars for Ron yesterday?

I think it's time to replace your tinfoil hats. Obviously the one's you're wearing have worn out.

|11.6.07 @ 9:34PM|#

Oh snap, Eric Dondero violates Goodwin's Law in seven posts. Do you smell what the Eric Dondero is cooking?

Clay|11.6.07 @ 9:34PM|#

Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate with a prayer of beating Hillary.

rho|11.6.07 @ 9:36PM|#

Frum's missing out on one of the campaign's big surprises: people actually respond to the "gold standard stuff." I have a few theories why, but I'm still shocked when I see hundreds of college students whooping when a presidential candidate pledges to kill the Fed.

Another, simpler, option: people hear what Dr. Paul has to say about sound money, and they say, "you know, that makes good sense." Inflation is easy to recognize when the 99¢ menu at Wendy's gets lamer than it was two years ago.

Re: DONDEROOOOOOOOOO:
Says, that you and the folks at Reason, are at least uncomfortable with being part of the same coalition as David Duke, Alex Jones, David Macko, and Nazi Stormtrooper Front.

All these fake DONDEROOOOOOOOes and Edwards are hilarious.

|11.6.07 @ 9:38PM|#

If I believed that I was working for a neo-Nazi in 1996 I would have quit.

What do you call somebody who thinks he's working for a Nazi for seven years (before getting fired)?

The Wine Commonsewer|11.6.07 @ 9:44PM|#

Eric Deee! Last I heard, your mail was bein' forwarded to the Tijuana Jail. I see you've bribed your way out, figured out how to make the cell phone work in Mexico, and are Dialin' In From South of the Border to tell us what a PF Ron Paul is.

Got Dam It Man, you've got to get back to your hot little honey and enjoy the Seashores of Old Mexico.

Give it a rest, we're not buying.

|11.6.07 @ 9:47PM|#

"Even before I read Weigel's rebuttal, I could see the weaknesses in Frum's arguments. Here's my question: what prompts someone like Frum to write an article where a schmuck like myself can see through it? It's not as if it's a difference of opinion; some of his analogies are clearly flawed and some of his factual statements are obviously wrong. What's the point in publishing something like that?"

A Nation of Sheep
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1595550976/reasonmagazineA/

iih|11.6.07 @ 9:47PM|#

Regarding the whole nazi thing. This is all rediculous.

Read this: An Open Letter to the Jewish Community in Behalf of Ron Paul by Walter Bloch.

And see this.

ed|11.6.07 @ 9:51PM|#

Still waiting for that official endorsement.

Jay D|11.6.07 @ 9:54PM|#

John:

Also do they realize that Ron Paul might have an Eskimo or native American Vice President?

Do you have anyone in mind?

|11.6.07 @ 9:54PM|#

Any stories for a "virginia boy" Dondero? I mean, we can't all be flunkie gophers for a politician.

But hey, your position on gun control puts you to the right of our Democrat governor! How does it feel to be to the left of freaking Tim Kaine and Mark Warner? Comfy? Warm?

rho|11.6.07 @ 9:57PM|#

Hey, I heard Eric Dondero was running for Dr. Paul's seat!

|11.6.07 @ 9:58PM|#

Hey, I heard Eric Dondero was running for Dr. Paul's seat!

Not anymore. Hes pussied out. I guess his storekeeper's pencil wasn't big enough.

|11.6.07 @ 9:59PM|#

John:
Also do they realize that Ron Paul might have an Eskimo or native American Vice President?

Jay D:
Do you have anyone in mind?

Russell Means? They battled it out for the LP nomination back in 1988; maybe they're old buddies now.

rho|11.6.07 @ 10:00PM|#

Not anymore. Hes pussied out. I guess his storekeeper's pencil wasn't big enough.

Surely not, 'cause DR. PAUL IS SO CRAZEEEEY.

|11.6.07 @ 10:13PM|#

I won't be surprised if the next thing we see, are some YouTube videos of guys in front of Nazi Swastika flags urging others to "Vote for Ron Paul."

How long do you think it will take for the libertarian movement to recover from that?

Wait, I thought Rudy Giuliani was the real libertarian in the race (as recognized by Newsweek, USA Today, and Hawkish Bedwetters Monthly)? So as long as he doesn't publicly consort with fascists, we should be OK.

Fluffy|11.6.07 @ 10:15PM|#

Here's the funniest thing: Dondero is so stupid that he's playing the guilt by association game...with a guy he was associated with for twenty years!

Ever hear of transitivity, dopey?

"You can tell that Ron Paul is a bad man, because of these people that are associated with him!" Yeah, like Eric Fucking Dondero. The one thing that I know of that really makes Paul look bad is the fact that he employed you, Eric. Everything else is OK with me - even the immigration positions I don't like. But the fact that he signed his name to a paycheck for a douche like you for that long has to give a person pause.

I am not disturbed in the least if Nazis donate funds to Paul. I wish that every Nazi and Communist in the country would donate to him. Every dollar they give to Paul is one less dollar they have to use to promote their own views. Paul would try to do good with those funds; can the same be said for money that stays in the pockets of Nazis? Obviously not.

|11.6.07 @ 10:26PM|#

He talked about some guy who knew Ron Paul for some years but endorsed Romney. Hey, Dondero, how does it feel that your candidates own children endorsed Barack Obama?

Francois Tremblay|11.6.07 @ 10:34PM|#

I love how the idiots who pour their venom on Ron Paul constantly posture about being all cynical and hardened, as if that was a merit of theirs.

Talk about being disconnected from reality.

Paul|11.6.07 @ 10:42PM|#

and ran a pure anti-war campaign, spicily seasoned with 9/11 paranoia.

Translation:

Ron Paul would cease being a threat to our cozy mainstream canidates if he'd run as the crackpot image of Ron Paul we've created in our heads.

Eric \"Benedict Arnold\" Donde|11.6.07 @ 10:45PM|#

What are you guys talking about? I was with the patriots at Bunker Hill, Long Island, and Valley Forge. I've been with the Continental Army longer than any of you assholes. When you guys were on your farms, I was out with the colonial militia. I know more officers in the continental army than any of you, and been there longer too! So of course I know that King Goerge III is the real defender of our liberties. Unlike you extremists!

K.|11.6.07 @ 10:55PM|#

"Are Republicans flying so high that they can just amputate a wing of their party? Obviously not. So why are they doing it?"

Because if they really had to look at Paul and libertarian ideas, it might threaten their sacred cows and dogmas.

|11.6.07 @ 11:01PM|#

NPR noted that Paul raised more one day money on the internet than any other candidate has (4 million I think). That's amazing. They said he plans to spend it all on NH. Interesting strategy...NH is better to non-establishment candidates.

|11.6.07 @ 11:04PM|#

Look, I'm really happy that Dr. Paul is doing so well in the fundraising, but the guy really needs to consider replacing this Bydlak kid. No press savvy at all.

iih|11.6.07 @ 11:18PM|#

Last weekend, I made a stop off of I-93 in a small central NH town (can't remember the name). First thing that greeted me was a huge Mitt sign. I was disappointed, only to find that there were a few motorists on highway with Ron Paul stickers. That lifted my spirits. The other good thing is that there weren't many cars with any political stickers in support of any candidates. So, based on this observation alone, I think that NHites are still deliberating. RP is pretty much in the game.

|11.6.07 @ 11:33PM|#

I have one complaint.

I'm sure most everybody here knows there is also going to be a big group contribution day on November 11th, Veteran's Day. I think it will be a decent amount of money, but probably not as much as was donated on the 5th. Now I wish we'd skipped the 5th completely and had the 11th be the huge day. The PR would've been soooo much better.

Association with Veteran's Day, where we show support for our troops, (by wanting to get them out of the mess in Iraq, hint hint) is clearly better, in the mind of the average American, I would guess, than association with Guy Fawkes Day, a relatively obscure holiday which isn't even celebrated in America, which is being negatively twisted and spun by some media outlets as much as possible. Oh well, it was still cool.

Nigel Watt|11.6.07 @ 11:43PM|#

"Look, I'm really happy that Dr. Paul is doing so well in the fundraising, but the guy really needs to consider replacing this Bydlak kid. No press savvy at all."

He can afford to go to charm school now while still kicking ass on fundraising, which he's doing.

Jacob|11.6.07 @ 11:55PM|#

This is the best day in my libertarian life since I first finished "Atlas Shrugged" and decided to form a new political party called the "Freedom Party" (max historical membership = 1). Go Ron!

|11.7.07 @ 12:01AM|#

~~First they ignore you~~ check
~~Then they laugh at you~~ check
~~Then they fight you~~ check
Then you win Coming Soon

|11.7.07 @ 12:11AM|#

"Terribly ironic, cause when Ron was running as a Bush Republican back in 1996 for Congress"...

Paul has never run for any office as a "Bush" Republican.

Yeah. HE RAN AGAINST BUSH SR. IN 1988!!!! Doh!

Edward|11.7.07 @ 12:16AM|#

"The other good thing is that there weren't many cars with any political stickers in support of any candidates."

Wow! Sometimes the utter dimwittedness of Ron Paul enthusiasts bursts forth to show its face without the makeup on. Amazing.

|11.7.07 @ 12:24AM|#

Joe Majsterski

For what it's worth I think Nov 5 might have been a big day, in a metaphorical sense, for a big segment of RP's supporters (a huge money bomb - a metaphorical overthrow of the established interests, if you will). Maybe those of us with more traditional views will give on the eleventh. The Ron Paul tent seems to be quite large.

But how about that Ron Paul fundraisers. How about a big push on the eleventh for old "greatest generation" squares and baby boomers, (particularly VietNam vets - see how they stack up with Iraqi war vets who seem to be all on board for RP).

The Wine Commonsewer|11.7.07 @ 12:38AM|#

Warren, the Hit Babe emailed me that very thought just today.

Timothy|11.7.07 @ 12:47AM|#

Are Republicans flying so high that they can just amputate a wing of their party? Obviously not. So why are they doing it?

David: Because they are fucking stupid.

WTC: I'm quitting for Edward right after I cancel Mona's subscription.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

That is all.

DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

|11.7.07 @ 12:53AM|#

warren-

First they ignore you - check
Then they laugh at you - check
Then they fight you - check

Then you do another 'bong-hit' - and think about how good it could have been...

|11.7.07 @ 12:56AM|#

Went over to Stormfront and checked it out. On the surface, it appears to be a pro-Nazi site, but when you dig a little deeper, most of them don't really seem to be national socialists, and you can understand why they are flocking to Paul. The most common political ideology seems to be something bordering on anarcho-capitalism, with lots of racism thrown in on the side. Not everyone is like that- there do appear to be a good number of true national socialists, but most posters seem to be in the Randy Weaver mold, not Adolf Hitler. If there is one unifying theme it's hatred of our government's support of Israel, and our membership in various international organizations (which, in their view are controlled by Jewish interests). Paul's noninterventionism is music to their ears. Even their monetary views are pretty mainstream Austrian. They just pepper in plenty of references to greedy Jewish Bankers in league with a global Jewish Cabal when they denounce the Fed. Paul doesn't ascribe to any of their racist rhetoric, but otherwise he's politically compatible with a lot of what they are most worried about. It's no surprise that they are supporting him. We might as well put a positive spin on this. Paul is the only candidate who can bring Barry Manilow and Neo-Nazis together under the same political tent. Freedom truly is a unifying message.

Brian Ewart|11.7.07 @ 1:05AM|#

I registered Republican. I didn't carry a label before this campaign started, but the primary is too important for me to miss this time. If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, the Republicans will have sent a message to America that there is no place for a libertarian (or hell, even just a fiscal conservative) in their party.

If Ron Paul isn't nominated, I will no longer be a Republican, and I am not the only one.

As a libertarian, I am DISGUSTED by the neoconservative movement, and I don't want to be a part of that at all.

Brian Ewart|11.7.07 @ 1:09AM|#

Smappy: I'd be happy to take a leave of absence from law school to assist Dr. Paul's campaign's dealings with the press... If only he'd call :(

|11.7.07 @ 1:25AM|#

Who cares if Ron Paul has a chance of winning or not? That shouldn't invalidate his run or the desire of his supporters to see libertarian ideas reflected at the national level of the GOP.

|11.7.07 @ 1:32AM|#

A lot of white supremacists voted for Barry Goldwater, now considered the patron saint of just about everybody.

It means nothing, except that they are fucking ignorant.

Franklin Harris|11.7.07 @ 1:49AM|#

RE: "gold standard stuff"

Talking about sound money becomes a political winner when the U.S. dollar is worth less than the Canadian dollar.

teh|11.7.07 @ 1:52AM|#

Who is the biggest nazi candidate?

"ron paul nazis": 186,000 Google results
"hillary clinton nazis": 193,000 Google results

Science has spoken, people.

rothschild\'s fiat|11.7.07 @ 2:01AM|#

credit to wiegel for reporting the monetary message resonates

credit to ronpaul campaign for giving the finger to the douches whinging about nazis

credit to douchero for leaking conversations proving ronpaul is a man of great insight

crw|11.7.07 @ 2:07AM|#

Feh. Neocons and the jingoes they use to further their schemes of grand social engineering in the Middle East are ruining the GOP (well, turning it into a parody at any rate). I'd take comfort from the widespread out-of-Iraq sentiment in the rest of America, but with that poll showing 52% of the country wants to bomb the fuck out of Iran, I'm afraid we haven't learned much. And I'm afraid the good Doctor has no place in the modern GOP.

At least his message is gaining traction with younger people. Whether they take it to heart, or toss it aside like so many other political fads remains to be seen.

|11.7.07 @ 2:13AM|#

Don't forget this November 11th!

http://thisnovember11th.com/

Also, Paul is the beneficiary of great timing. If it weren't for gold and the Canadian dollar at record highs while the mortgage bubble collapses, then he would be getting laughed off the stage when he talks about monetary policy.

|11.7.07 @ 2:57AM|#

Ron Paul is a rehash of the sort of John Birch Society isolationist know-nothing primitivism that the National Review did such a great job of expelling from the conservative mainstream back in the fifties. Mainstream libertarians and conservatives should do everything they can to distance themselves from Paul and others of that ilk.

Paul's pro-Saddam and anti-American statements prove once again: the loony left and the wacko right have a lot in common.

MikeMangum|11.7.07 @ 3:30AM|#

Brian Ewert - "If Ron Paul doesn't win the nomination, the Republicans will have sent a message to America that there is no place for a libertarian (or hell, even just a fiscal conservative) in their party."

I'm sorry, but this is just stupid. That's like the media saying that the Dems taking over the house and senate in '06 was a clear mandate on Iraq. It clear that more Dems won legislative seats than repubs, but that's about it. There are many reasons to vote for one candidate over another, and not all of them have to do with scope of government concerns, or any other single issue.

If Ron Paul didn't have an utterly naive and moronic foreign policy, he would probably have considerably larger support within the republican party. Possibly even enough to be a real contendor for the nomination...and I believe in a very limited federal government, a flat tax, the gold standard, and generally as little government involvment in our lives as possible. Those parts of RP's message resonate with me plenty, but he still won't get my vote because of his foreign policy positions. I'd rather vote for Hillary (and then chop off and burn the arm that did so) than vote for someone who displays such naivete on foreign policy, and I *loathe* Hillary.

|11.7.07 @ 3:30AM|#

Bulbman,

I am a mainstream libertarian leaning Republican. That's why I support Dr Paul. He's true to our constitution, individual liberty, and he's quite clever..

Paul's pro-Saddam and anti-American statements...

To oppose actions of the governmewnt is obviously not the same as being "anti-American".

|11.7.07 @ 3:42AM|#

MikeMangum,

If our government had followed Ron Paul's foreign policy advocacies pre 9/11, we likely would not have been attacked. The wisdom of Ron Paul's foreign policy positions go back to the founders of our republic. They have been an important part of conservative politics since then. Bush was carrying on the tradition when in his debate with Algore, he advocated a "more modest foreign policy". Gore would have no part of it.

|11.7.07 @ 3:48AM|#

It's no surprise that David Frum's attacks on Ron Paul are so lacking in coherency. Frum's overriding allegiance is to the disastrous neocon foreign policy agenda.

MikeMangum|11.7.07 @ 4:01AM|#

Rick Barton - "If our government had followed Ron Paul's foreign policy advocacies pre 9/11, we likely would not have been attacked. The wisdom of Ron Paul's foreign policy positions go back to the founders of our republic."

The belief that if we just leave everyone alone and crawl into our turtle shell we will be safe is not consistent with our nation's history. The very first war this nation was involved in after the founding was brought upon us even though we had very little in the way of foreign entanglements at all. Strangely enough, the Barbary Pirates bear a strong resemblance to our current enemy, and attacked us in spite of the fact that we essentially had absolutely nothing to do with them (voluntarily, that is).

I think it would be difficult to make the case that Ron Paul is more of a anti-federalist than Thomas Jefferson was.

|11.7.07 @ 4:28AM|#

Note that Edward, the author of the first comment on this thread-yet another of his anti-Paul whines complete with name calling, threatened on the URKOBOLD website to crash that site!...

"And fuck you, Urkobolds. Keep fucking with me and I'll crash your pathetic little website."

This is so funny! One gets the distinct impression, after reading what Edward writes, that he doesn't have the brains to crash a party let alone a website!

|11.7.07 @ 4:29AM|#

Strangely enough, the Barbary Pirates bear a strong resemblance to our current enemy, and attacked us in spite of the fact that we essentially had absolutely nothing to do with them (voluntarily, that is).

The United States issued Letters of Marque to deal with the pirates. That is a constitutional tool the let privateers go out and eliminate pirates without being charged with piracy themselves. It was a pretty effective solution.

Ron Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001, shortly after the attacks on the WTC. It would've done the same thing with bin Laden.

From the Ron Paul 2008 blog:

Article I, Section 8, Clauses 10 and 11 of the U.S. Constitution grant Congress the power to offer a bounty and appoint stealth warriors, private companies and individuals, to capture or kill an enemy such as Osama bin Laden and his fellow terrorists, as well as seize their property.

Letters of marque and reprisal would:

1. Improve chances to capture Osama bin Laden and others more quickly.
2. Decrease the risk of American military being wounded or killed.
3. Decrease the risk of a larger war developing.
4. Decrease the number of innocent civilians killed.
5. Reduce the cost of U.S. military operations.

|11.7.07 @ 4:48AM|#

MikeMangum:

The belief that if we just leave everyone alone and crawl into our turtle shell we will be safe is not consistent with our nation's history

Ron Paul's embrace of expansionist, prosperity creating, free-enterprise capitalism can hardly be characterized as a "crawl into our turtle shell" But more germane to the question of his advocacy of a non-interventionist foreign policy is the history of the situation at hand:

Our government's support of the Israeli government's brutal occupation of Palestinian land was the main reason for the 9/11 attacks.
Note that the findings of the 9/11 commission reveal:

"Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the man who conceived and directed the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, was motivated by his strong disagreement with American support for Israel, said the final report of the Sept. 11 commission."

http://www.kentucky.com/mld/heraldleader/news/nation/9222612.htm

|11.7.07 @ 6:27AM|#

|11.7.07 @ 6:41AM|#

Ron Paul is a rehash of the sort of John Birch Society isolationist know-nothing primitivism that the National Review did such a great job of expelling from the conservative mainstream back in the fifties. Mainstream libertarians and conservatives should do everything they can to distance themselves from Paul and others of that ilk.

Mr. Frum, I presume?

Anyone who hasn't read "Reshuffling the deck chairs on the National Review cruise" by Johann Hari should do so. It's hilarious.

|11.7.07 @ 6:52AM|#

Ron Paul is a rehash of the sort of John Birch Society isolationist know-nothing primitivism that the National Review did such a great job of expelling from the conservative mainstream back in the fifties.

Yeah, and look where that got us. The GOP went from being conservative in the true sense to being an unholy combination of FDR and Elmer Gantry. And in light of the David Frum comment, thanks for reminding us all of National Review's role in the Making of Empire.

|11.7.07 @ 6:56AM|#

My biggest problem with Ron Paul and supporters is lack of depth in responding to questions. I am Libertarian but see little reason to vote for Paul. He and his followers speak in bumper sticker talk and get angry when pressed for details about his ideas. I would love to see a Libetarian candidate that I could support but so far paul isn't the one.

Are you serious? You're implying that all the other major candidates are just full of depth in their responses, and do other than "speak in bumper sticker talk." Clearly, that isn't the case. So, press for details, my friend, press away! Or perhaps go read the Ron Paul blog that just I quoted with a very specific proposal a mere four messages back.

Alternately, you could try reading any of his many articles, posted on his campaign site as well.

Or, go buy his new book, A Foreign Policy of Freedom: Peace, Commerce, and Honest Friendship. Need any more details?

Are Republicans flying so high that they can just amputate a wing of their party? Obviously not. So why are they doing it?

Sheer bloody arrogance. These folks are the Washington equivalent of the Enron "smartest guys in the room." The GOP had so much success from 1980-2004 that it's "mainstream" boosters can't even see how their party has morphed over that time into something that is now ugly and unelectable.

Don't read too much deeper intent into Frum's comments--they are the mark of folks who are about to lose big and don't even know it yet.

|11.7.07 @ 6:57AM|#

Rick, the libertarian says: Ron Paul "and his followers speak in bumper sticker talk and get angry when pressed for details about his ideas."

Perhaps they speak that way because they have not been given time to respond fully by the main stream media. For details on what Ron Paul believes check out his web site AND the 12 books he has written and the countless essays he has written over the last 30 years. If you can find a candidate as open and clear and thorough about his views and positions and actual VOTES on the issues, then I would like to hear about them. Ron Paul is the real deal AND he is as libertarian as a constitutional Republican can be.

How about looking into it and giving him a chance? He may not be 100% libertarian but he is the best candidate running. And that beats voting for the lesser of two evils any day in my book.

Please think about it.

Mad Max|11.7.07 @ 7:57AM|#

A good enough opportunity to post this link:

http://l4l.org/library/bepro-rp.html

Being Pro-Life is Necessary to Defend Liberty

by Congressman Ron Paul, 1981

A libertarian's support for abortion is not merely a minor misapplication of principle, as if one held an incorrect belief about the Austrian theory of the business cycle. The issue of abortion is fundamental, and therefore an incorrect view of the issue strikes at the very foundations of all beliefs.

Libertarians believe, along with the Founding Fathers, that every individual has inalienable rights, among which are the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Neither the State, nor any other person, can violate those rights without committing an injustice. But, just as important as the power claimed by the State to decide what rights we have, is the power to decide which of us has rights.

Today, we are seeing a piecemeal destruction of individual freedom. And in abortion, the statists have found a most effective method of obliterating freedom: obliterating the individual. Abortion on demand is the ultimate State tyranny; the State simply declares that certain classes of human beings are not persons, and therefore not entitled to the protection of the law. The State protects the "right" of some people to kill others, just as the courts protected the "property rights" of slave masters in their slaves. . . .

I encourage all pro-life libertarians to become involved in debating the issues and educating the public; whether or not freedom is defended across the board, or is allowed to be further eroded without *consistent* defenders, may depend on them.

Fluffy|11.7.07 @ 7:57AM|#

I have to assume that Edward is not from New England.

I am the kind of loser that spends weekends during primary season driving around New Hampshire trying to catch at least one event for every Presidential candidate.

The fact that there are few, if any, visible signs of support for any Republican candidate other than Mitt and Paul is not exactly a scientific poll, but as an anecdote it's got a lot of power, based on past cycles.

The simple fact of the matter is that if Hillary shows her face anywhere in the state, you can't park anywhere within a mile of the location, and you stand a good chance of getting turned away from the venue, no matter the size. But Giuliani was in Peterborough NH, trying to hold an event in a teeny little Town Hall with about 75 seats in it, and he couldn't fill it. I was at events in 2004 where Kucinich drew more people than Giuliani is drawing.

There is no enthusiasm for the Republican candidates in NH, and that creates an opening for Paul.

Gene Trosper|11.7.07 @ 8:03AM|#

Why is the GOP establishment so opposed to a Ron Paul candidacy? because they have grown fat and comfortable at the public trough and the last thing they want to do is give it up.

Guy Montag|11.7.07 @ 8:43AM|#

"If people who hold views that the candidate doesn't agree with, and they give to us, that's their loss," he said.

Perfect answer.

Parsimony\'s Throat|11.7.07 @ 8:53AM|#

I'm a humble footsoldier in the Ron Paul r3VOLution. In the last two weeks, my crew has dropped 1400 fliers on doorsteps in our caucus precinct. We have also ordered 2000 "B" slimjims from RonPaul2008.com's store. Those'll go on windshields. In the two weeks leading up to the primary vote, we'll be knocking on doors to exhort the voters to go to the GOP caucus, and ask them to back Ron Paul's bid for the GOP nomination. All of this is decentralized...unless you count buying the slimjims, there's been zero contact with the campaign.

I'm so confident Dr Paul will do well in my precinct that I'm already kinda feeling sorry for the old guard GOPers come caucus night. It could be a fairly awkward scene when the unwashed masses show up, en masse, and "steal" their party.

I'm wondering if they'll even know who Scoop Jackson was.

|11.7.07 @ 8:53AM|#

Mega-props to the Elmer Gantry reference a few posts ago. Highly underrated book that should be voluntarily required reading for all evangelical-types of all religions.

Fluffy|11.7.07 @ 8:59AM|#

Yeah, Apey, I think that Burt Lancaster's portrayal of Gantry is one of the roles that gave him "national treasure" status.

|11.7.07 @ 9:07AM|#

Why is the GOP establishment so opposed to a Ron Paul candidacy? because they have grown fat and comfortable at the public trough and the last thing they want to do is give it up.

Yep. And the trough does not just feed actual government employees, but also various political consultants, lobbyists and pundits...such as National Review writers.

From a purely political perspective, it's obvious to this former GOP stalwart that the party needs to go back into the wilderness for awhile. It has gotten rather stale and listless, especially in the ideology and policy department.

Don Mynack|11.7.07 @ 9:17AM|#

"National Review wants the GOP to be 100% neo-con. Anything that changes that is unacceptable and must be destroyed."

Actually, if you bother to read "The Corner" blog, they are giving Paul a pretty fair shake, and have more than a few contributors who I would not describe as "neo-con".

I think you have National Review confused with The Weekly Standard.

|11.7.07 @ 9:23AM|#

Joe Majsterski | November 6, 2007, 9:59pm | #
Jay D:
Do you have anyone in mind?

Russell Means? They battled it out for the LP nomination back in 1988; maybe they're old buddies now.

I hope that was sarcastic.

rho|11.7.07 @ 9:25AM|#

Complaining about Ron Paul talking in bumper stickers is weird. Most people complain that his positions and points are too complex to distill into soundbites and therefore he comes off as a rambler.

iih|11.7.07 @ 9:32AM|#

Someone upthread wondered about providing thorough, but brief, defense of Dr. Paul on some of the issues. The best I have come across so far ir Bob Murphy's response to some left commenters at Pandagon. Here it is. Scroll down to comments 69 and 70. I think this is THE Bob Murphy.

Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 9:45AM|#

In case you all haven't heard yet, Pat Robertson just endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President.

Libertarians for Giuliani:

www.mainstreamlibertarian.com

Tom W|11.7.07 @ 9:46AM|#

As I've said before, RP legions need to take over their local and state GOPs and do the boring party work the stuffed shirts and flower-hatted ladies have been doing. Why take the go-nowhere third-party approach when you have a party apparatus already in place? This way the Paulistas could elect dozens of Ron Paul-style candidates to Congress.

> I'm so confident Dr Paul will do well in my precinct that I'm already kinda feeling sorry for the old guard GOPers come caucus night. It could be a fairly awkward scene when the unwashed masses show up, en masse, and "steal" their party.

Mad Max|11.7.07 @ 9:57AM|#

iih,

In that same link, I noticed several denunciations of Dr. Paul by Amanda Marcotte. Isn't this the same individual who said that the Duke Lacrosse players were guilty, and shouldn't be allowed to get away with it based on some technicality like they didn't do it? She used to be the blog person for the Edwards campaign.

Dr. Paul should be happy to have such enemies.

|11.7.07 @ 9:58AM|#

In case you all haven't heard yet, Pat Robertson just endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President.

If Rudy wasn't delighting libertarians before, I'm sure this will change their minds.

|11.7.07 @ 10:07AM|#

Ron Paul is a rehash of the sort of John Birch Society isolationist know-nothing primitivism that the National Review did such a great job of expelling from the conservative mainstream back in the fifties. Mainstream libertarians and conservatives should do everything they can to distance themselves from Paul and others of that ilk.

Compared to the current National Review crowd of Bushites and neocons, mere Birchers appear positively sane.

Jonathan Blanks|11.7.07 @ 10:17AM|#

Frum had actually written this before he changed it to the '9/11 paranoia' bit:

Update: Howard Dean in 2004 attracted 318,000 individual donors who donated 454,000 times for a total of almost $40 million. That's approximately ten times Paul's haul in every dimension. True, Dean did not do it in one day. But almost all that money arrived in a single quarter. My conclusion from this is that Ron Paul is actually underperforming his potential. He could probably raise a lot more - and gain many, many more votes - if he dropped the gold standard and New World Order stuff, and ran as a straightforward anti-war leftist. (emphasis mine)

Frum is a jackass who thinks that if you're not a socialist war hawk, you're a flaming lefty.

|11.7.07 @ 10:17AM|#

In case you all haven't heard yet, Pat Robertson just endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President.

WooHoo! The coveted Pat Robertson endorsement! Mitt and the rest have just announced they are dropping out because nobody can possibly ascend to the presidency without the Robertson blessing!

|11.7.07 @ 10:27AM|#

WooHoo! The coveted Pat Robertson endorsement! Mitt and the rest have just announced they are dropping out because nobody can possibly ascend to the presidency without the Robertson blessing!

They might as well. Robertson will undoubtedly squint really hard while interceding personally with God on Rudy's behalf, papist though he is.

Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 10:29AM|#

Fluffy|11.7.07 @ 10:31AM|#

It's funny that Dondero would trumpet the Robertson endorsement.

After all, Robertson infamously stated that the 9/11 attacks were punishment from God for America's tolerance of gays, feminists, abortionists, and advocates of a secular society.

But if, as Dondero somewhat shallowly believes, Giuliani was some sort of hero on 9/11, that means that Giuliani was fighting the will of God, as revealed by Pat Robertson.

Maybe Pat has endorsed Rudy because he figures that putting the Podhoretz family [who look more like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre family every day] into positions of power will help expedite bringing down more of God's punishment on the evil gays and evil humanists. But no doubt Dondero will explain to us that Robertson is in "the libertarian quadrant" and therefore not subject to criticism.

bromo98|11.7.07 @ 10:45AM|#

Seems to me that the minute the RP campaign starts handing back donations to those it feels are 'unsavoury', the door opens to the special interest and lobbyists who are being decried here and in the RP campaign. This is what campaigning is supposed to be about. Get your platform out there and let those that agree or like you, support you. Promising to curtail donations from certain groups goes against that. As does making promises to certain groups to include them or their views in your platform. Seems to me that Dr. Ron has done well on both fronts.
The comment about it "being their loss" is fuckin perfect - and it's honesty like that that is making me root for this guy - even though I don't agree with all his views.

Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 10:46AM|#

Sorry, completely wrong there Fluffy.

I'm trumpeting the Robertson endosement from a strictly pragmatic, political perspective.

Can't stand the guy. Never have. Back when I was working for Ron Paul, Ron had shitloads of "Robertson-heads" on his campaign. Ron himself is a great admirer of Robertson, and considered him to be a close friend.

I bashed heads with these Robertson Paul (like Paul's longtime campaign manager Marc Elam) supporters practically every day.

I only think the Robertson endorsement of Giuliani is a good idea, cause it will shut up all those silly-ass Libertarian critics of Giuliani's like Tom Knapp, who've been saying all along that Rudy can't win the nomination cause the Religious Right will never support him.

Knapp and other Libertarian Giuliani critics are eating major crow this morning.

horsewithnonick|11.7.07 @ 10:47AM|#

|11.7.07 @ 11:00AM|#

Yeah, but the ironic thing is that Pat Robertson is an old friend of Ron Paul's.

Ron used to tell me how him and Pat actually shared a room together for a weekend conservative conference back in the 1970s.

Astonishing - it's almost as though Ron Paul is able to establish friendly relations with people with whom he has profound political differences.

Too bad that's such a useless trait for a President to have...

According to Eric, 2 of Ron Paul's friends are jumping ship. Monday it was proven that Ron Paul received the endorsement of 40,000 people. That's like filling a stadium -- at $100 per seat! And they don't even get to hear Springsteen for 4 hours!

I think Ron's new circle of friends are preferable to a few old codgers fighting to maintain their own relevance.

I only think the Robertson endorsement of Giuliani is a good idea, cause it will shut up all those silly-ass Libertarian critics of Giuliani's like Tom Knapp, who've been saying all along that Rudy can't win the nomination cause the Religious Right will never support him.

Knapp and other Libertarian Giuliani critics are eating major crow this morning.

That's right. Libertarian critics of Rudy will presumably now go from "Rudy can't win" to "God help us if Rudy wins," if they weren't already at that stage.

Trumpeting the Robertson endorsement as a way to shut up libertarian critics is one of the more unusual things I've ever read on H&R. There must be Godwin potential in there somewhere.

iih|11.7.07 @ 11:04AM|#

Mad Max:

I have not heard of her before, but during the money bomb Cesar referred to it, and J sub D and I (and crimthink, I think) tried posting responses. Only mine went through, while J sub D's and crimethink's did not. Later I found Murphy posting the response he provided, and thought that that was an excellent, reasonable (should be so even in a leftist's eyes) and convincing.

So what do you think of Murphy's responses? Pretty, good, huh?

It is funny how Paul is being attacked by both the right AND the left. Shall we declare him to be in the American Center, then?

|11.7.07 @ 11:17AM|#

I'd still like Dondero to tell us how he feels about Giulianis own children endorsing Barack Obama!

Fluffy|11.7.07 @ 11:19AM|#

Actually, I don't think that Giuliani can't win because the religious right won't support him.

I think he can't win because he's running for the opportunity to continue the entire policy slate of one the most unpopular figures in American political history.

I also think he can't win because the last time he was facing Hillary, he ran away like a scared little girl and got his doctor to write him an absence note.

iih|11.7.07 @ 11:28AM|#

Guiliani can't win because he is a Yankees fan.

|11.7.07 @ 11:38AM|#

this article is stupid

|11.7.07 @ 11:41AM|#

From Politico:

Lyman plans another Paul "money bomb" on the weekend of Dec. 15 and 16 - Bill of Rights Day and the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

MainStreamMan|11.7.07 @ 11:48AM|#

Complaining about Ron Paul talking in bumper stickers is weird. Most people complain that his positions and points are too complex to distill into soundbites and therefore he comes off as a rambler.

Early on, Ron Paul's positions rambled not because they were "too complex to distill into soundbites," but because his world view shares so little with the rest of the political discourse.

He has, subsequently, stopped talking about the details of his positions, and has found some bumper sticker phrases that work, to a degree, in the current political discourse.

He will again sound like he is rambling when he goes back to discussing his actual positions.

Positions like:

I oppose a woman's right to abortion, but don't think the federal government should be the one to restrict that right. The states should be the ones to restrict that right and I would use the position of president to help the states in that endeavor.

Are not complex.

Edward|11.7.07 @ 12:23PM|#

The good news is that the Birchers, Neo-Nazis, and assorted lunatic fringies have wasted their money. Ron Paul is a joke.

Minion of URKOBOLD|11.7.07 @ 12:29PM|#

AND EDWARD IS DREAMY.

Vermont Gun Owner|11.7.07 @ 1:10PM|#

Guiliani can't win because he is a Yankees fan.

Really? He is? I could have sworn he was a Sox fan...

iih|11.7.07 @ 1:21PM|#

Really? He is? I could have sworn he was a Sox fan...

That is a joke, right? He actually announced that he's supporting Boston in the World Series, whereas a lot of Red Sox Nation saw that as a rude political maneuver by a Yankee to earn the support of Red Sox Nation in the election. He takes Red Sox Nation for stupid or something? You're in VT, you should know.

Eric Dondero|11.7.07 @ 1:34PM|#

For the guy who said Ron Paul has nothing in common with Pat Robertson, you're obviously completely ignorant on who Ron Paul is.

Paul and Robertson, share a fanatic adherence to the return to a gold standard. Paul was on Robertson's network numerous times talking about it, and the influence of the Fed.

I seem to remember, them even co-writing a few papers together on the subject in the 1980s.

Minion of TWADDLENOCKERY|11.7.07 @ 1:43PM|#

DDDDUUUUNNNNDDDDEEEERRRRRRRRRR(head)OOOOOOOOO

|11.7.07 @ 1:57PM|#

Eric Dondero,

The difference is that Ron Paul actually understands the ramifications of a return to the gold standard.

I seem to remember, them even co-writing a few papers together on the subject in the 1980s.

I'm thinking that your memory here is faulty. Bet you can't produce any evidence.

iih|11.7.07 @ 2:00PM|#

Mr. Dondero,

Don't you have anything else useful to do other than keep bugging us here? You don't seem to make too many conversions anyhow. Rudy's money (if he, in fact pays you) is going to a waste.

|11.7.07 @ 2:12PM|#

Hey Edward,

Are you gonna threaten to crash the Reason site next? (See my post at November 7, 4:28am on Edward's threat to crash the Urkabold website)

Edward's pronouncements are so ridiculous, they serves as an attack on opponents of RP and libertarianism.

|11.7.07 @ 2:57PM|#

"I also think he can't win because the last time he was facing Hillary, he ran away like a scared little girl and got his doctor to write him an absence note."

I believe he was ahead in the polls when he dropped out.

|11.7.07 @ 2:58PM|#

They might as well. Robertson will undoubtedly squint really hard while interceding personally with God on Rudy's behalf, papist though he is.

I'm pretty sure he's considered a lapsed papist. IIRC, divorce and remarriage is still disallowed by Roman Catholic Canon. Are there any practicing genuflecters out there up to date on this?

|11.7.07 @ 3:05PM|#

It is funny how Paul is being attacked by both the right AND the left. Shall we declare him to be in the American Center, then?

The left/right desciption is one dimensional. Ron Paul doesn't place on the line. It's a three (four?) dimensional world that libertarians operate in. That's why the discussions are so lively and entertaining.

|11.7.07 @ 3:35PM|#

"Mainstream libertarians and conservatives should do everything they can to distance themselves from Paul and others of that ilk."

And continue to support a failed foreign interventionist policy that is bringing the Republican Party down.

Vermont Gun Owner|11.7.07 @ 5:23PM|#

iih:
That is a joke, right?

Yes, it was.

J sub D :
I'm pretty sure he's considered a lapsed papist. IIRC, divorce and remarriage is still disallowed by Roman Catholic Canon. Are there any practicing genuflecters out there up to date on this?

They are no-good. Also, abortion is not high up on the list of acceptable things to do. Rudy's going to hell.

Mark Bahner|11.7.07 @ 5:47PM|#

Let's get something straight. There is no libertarian "movement" in the U.S. A simple check of the Libertarian Party's election results for the last three decades would show that.

Ron Paul has almost single-handedly created any "libertarian movement" observable in the last few years. I'll bet that if one searched newspaper or TV news/political-talk-show mentions of the word "libertarian" in the last few years, a substantial fraction of them would be simply as a result of Ron Paul's candidacy.

So some yokels putting out a video on YouTube aren't going to set back the "libertarian movement."

|11.7.07 @ 6:25PM|#

Frum quote:

"Of course I am saddened to discover that many thousands of Americans have rallied to a candidate campaigning on a Michael Moore view of the world."

Imagine how saddened I am that all the "serious" candidates have a David Frum view of the world.

|11.7.07 @ 6:28PM|#

So some yokels putting out a video on YouTube aren't going to set back the "libertarian movement."

Nor will some random asshole getting his friends together in order to make such a video (in between obsessively posting online about how awful Ron Paul is, of course).

|11.7.07 @ 6:37PM|#

It's not obvious to them that it's a wing and not some misformed feather on their butt.

"Small" government, federalism, the Constitution, peace, etc. - they figure only a few loonies actually care about that sort of thing. They think most of the people who've glommed onto Ron Paul have no idea whatsoever what he's about. This is why they try to paint him as terrorist-lover or a Truther, depending on what they ate for breakfast that morning.

|11.7.07 @ 7:45PM|#

"It's amazing how much money Paul is raising... unfortunately, ultimately it will do absolutely no good. Nationwide, he's still polling behind everybody else. Even if by some miracle he were to get the Republican nomination, he couldn't win the election. Face it: the liberals and mainstream Republicans are offering what everyone wants. The American
people want to be taken care of by the government. They don't want to have to shoulder any responsibility, pay for their own health care, suffer any misfortune, no matter how well-deserved, or be exposed to any risk, no matter how miniscule or trivial. At the same time, they wish to impose their own morality upon everyone else. Americans are becoming ever more servile, authoritarian, and intolerant. Can there be any desire for liberty
left in this country when even smokers respond in surveys by saying that they approve of smoking bans because it might help them give up the habit? Not merely the Founding Fathers, but even our own fathers, who fought World
War II, must despise the current generation of servile, cringing, cowardly weaklings. Our generation is the worst and the source of all the evils that have arisen since the sixties, but we have so corrupted the following
generations that I do not believe there is any hope for this nation. I believe those now in high school and college are even more authoritarian and intolerant than their parents. If so, what can we expect but the total destruction of liberty? The great difficulty is that liberty is now
perceived to be synonymous with democracy, when in fact democracy is merely a tool for securing liberty (and a very imperfect one at that). In a true democracy one has merely exchanged a single tyrant for a multitude of them. Indeed, even the most despotic ruler must sometimes be restrained by public
opinion, but when public opinion rules, there are no restraints upon its savage tyranny. This is precisely the reason the Founding Fathers created a republic--which unscrupulous demagogues have been seeking to subvert almost
since its founding; and in which endeavor they have been increasingly successful. Even so late as the fifties, when I was in school, we were told that "the majority rules, but with respect for the rights of the minority."
The second part of that statement is now entirely ignored. Any measure, even the most despotic, can now be justified with the pretence that it is the will of the majority (whether it in fact be so or not) and the rights of the minority trampled upon at will. This is not freedom, but mere popular tyranny. What is Ron Paul but a voice crying in the wilderness? we can only say with Cicero, "O tempora! o mores!""

|11.8.07 @ 11:49AM|#

Considering the Democrat's history of enforcing Jim Crow, and the fact that they will overlook Sen. Byrd's past as a member of the Klan, I wonder why it is only the GOP that is being held to this scrutiny...I am a Paul supporter, and I refuse to be tagged with any nut who tosses a few bucks to any white canidate for not being black.

|11.8.07 @ 5:20PM|#

Looks like Eric Dondero didn't produce any evidence...

|11.9.07 @ 3:48PM|#

He found something, but his inability to take the evidence from Neverland to the real world interfered with his posting it. So he's gone back to Fantastica where black is white, good is evil, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, Dondero and Giuliani are libertarian, and Paul doesn't exist anymore to disturb his fantasies.

|11.10.07 @ 3:40AM|#

Eric is such a fan of Rudy Giuliani that he gave the full $2300.00 that is allowed by law.

Nope, wait. It was $1000.00

Not even that, it was a paltry $250.00

Hmmmm, Eric has so much confidence in Mr. Giuliani he hasn't give him a dime.

Eric, how is your campaign going in your run against Ron Paul for his CD14 position? Oh, that's right, you dropped out.

|11.12.07 @ 2:23PM|#

After reading numerous books by Ron Paul and reading hundreds of speeches and articles at www.RonPaulLibrary.org. I am certain about this one thing. Ron Paul abhors everything to do with socialism, fascism and the inherent evil embodied in Nazism or any tyrannical government.

Many Jewish people understand the threat that the Nazi regime posed to a freedom loving people and witnessed the devastating effects of Hitler's socialism. Few today understand that Nazi is the abbreviation of National Socialism. Today we as American's are once again confronted with two ideologies: Liberty and National Socialism. Socialism is represented here in America by nationalized health care, a centrally controlled economy, high taxation and a redistribution of wealth mentality. Fascist Socialism is represented by intense government intrusion into our businesses, personal lives and the growing national police state.

Some of the first things that Hitler did when gaining power was to convince people of the terrorist threat coming from the communist. In fact, the Nazi's burned down the German capital, blamed it on the Communist and used this event to rally the Germans to suspend the constitution and give Hitler unbridled power. The Socialist controlled parliament then passed laws to allow Hitler the ability to suspend the constitution and allowed German troops to be used against the German Jews. Here in America we have recently passed a very similar law called the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. Ron Paul fought against this Act.

Additionally, the Germans passed laws to allow the Nazi's to read the Jews mail and to search their homes and businesses. This law is very similar to the USA Patriot Act. Ron Paul fought the passage of this Act.

The Germans then passed laws allowing Hitler to declare Jews, and other citizens to be declared enemy combatants. They were then rounded up, denied the Right of Habeas Corpus, tortured and sentenced to death. This was without witnesses, based upon secret testimony and without counsel. This is now allowed to occur with US Citizens under our Military Commissions Act. Ron Paul fought the passage of this Act.

The Germans required all Jews to have an identification. This is now required in America starting in May 2008, with the National ID Card required under the Real ID Act. Ron Paul fought the passage of the Real ID Act.

Hitler then created a secret loyal military police force called SS. Recently we have witnessed the creation of the new force, not accountable to congress called Blackwater. Prior to Hitler the German Republic was called the "Republic" then in an effort to promote German nationalism he changed all references to the nation to "The Fatherland." Now in an effort to promote American nationalism we have "The Homeland." Please read Naomi Wolf's new book tilted Letter to a Young American Patriot.

Jewish people, please do not be mislead. We must fight for liberty and freedom and against the fascist and socialistic elements working their way into our great nation. Ron Paul campaign is based upon a philosophy of liberty and freedom. Ron Paul, liberty and freedom abhor socialism, fascism and all that the Nazi party represented. Keep in mind, the German's were at parties, the opera, sporting events, enjoying prosperity and the great society while all of these laws were being changed. Those who were identifying what was happening in Germany, warning the Jews and the German people were labeled as kooks by the National Socialist. Don't believe everything you hear. Read and investigate for yourself. Stand up for liberty. Vote Ron Paul.

|11.13.07 @ 11:42PM|#

Guess who shares Ron Paul's position of gold rather than paper currency? That's right, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, the Maestro himself, Alan Greenspan:

"In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard."

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm

|11.14.07 @ 4:58PM|#

You pussies! I am the only real libertarian. I have done more for libertarian causes than anyone, ever.

My positions are the purest. I am for legalized prostitution and wife beating. The NAP? For pussies. If you can't buy votes with sex, then you aren't libertarian. And if you can't bomb brown people to make yourself richer, you can't be a libertarian.

Screw all of you (for 5 bucks and a contract to vote for the REAL Libertarian, Rudy Giuliani)!

Barry Liberty|11.19.07 @ 1:14PM|#

I'm glad we have Ron Paul running to oppose the Jewish takeover of America.

We shouldn't be ashamed that Ron Paul stands up to the Jews we should announce thats why we support him

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements