Paul on CNN

Radley Balko | January 11, 2008

Paul's appearance with Wolf Blitzer didn't do it for me.

I haven't been in the libertarian movement long (I'm 32, and I really only became a full-fledged movement libertarian at 25, when I started working for Cato). But reading the long-time activist's descriptions of those newsletters and how they were written, edited, and distributed, when Paul says he had no idea who wrote them, and that he rarely read them—well, I simply don't believe him. Nor do I think that would be a viable excuse even if it were true.

I thought his appearance was overly defensive, lacked any sort of contrition, and found it wholly unconvincing.

Take Paul's discussion of the drug war's impact on minorities. Yes, it was spot-on. But I've been watching this campaign fairly closely, and I believe that's the most time to date that Paul has spent talking about the drug war. I've actually been surprised at how little he has discussed it. His position on the drug war is one of the main reasons why I was encouraged by his candidacy. This campaign could have represented the first time ever (that I know of) that a GOP candidate challenged his rivals to defend the failure and moral corruption of drug prohibition in a nationally-televised debate. It hasn't happened. That his longest discussion of the drug war to date had to come only after he was confronted about the newsletters, and in the context of defending himself from accusations of racism, is unfortunate. And perhaps telling.

Here's the other thing: Paul talks in the Blitzer interview about how the drug war has disproportionately sent black people to prison. He's right. Black people use drugs in proportions only slightly higher than their share of the general population. But the proportion of blacks in prison for drugs crimes is substantially higher. They are far more likely to get arrested for drug crimes, far more likely to be convicted, and even when facing similar charges, tend to receive longer sentences than whites.

A big reason why is the latent sentiment at every level of the criminal justice system—from cops to prosecutors to jurors—that black people are inherently more prone to criminality than white people. It's sort of the opposite of "group rights." It's "group wrongs"—or punishing black people on a individual basis for perceived transgressions by black people as a group. It's also a form of collectivist thinking—the antithesis of libertarianism.

I have no idea if Paul is a racist. I suspect that he isn't, at least today. But he's certainly had no problem benefiting from the support of people who are. It's more than a little disingenuous for him to now defend himself by invoking what the criminal justice system has done to the black community when for fifteen years a newsletter bearing his name, and the profits from which went into his bank account, celebrated and encouraged the black-people-are-savage-criminals lie in particularly vile and perverse ways.

The newsletter defended the Rodney King beating, for God's sake, on the bullshit argument that King was part of a criminal class of people. The implication is that some people deserve substandard treatment under the rule of law because of the color of their skin. There's nothing remotely libertarian about that.

Whether he was active or passive in the newsletters doesn't matter. Paul perpetuated that way of thinking for more than a decade in a newsletter he published. He did it during the 1980s and 1990s, the very period over which the drug laws exacerbated the white-black disparity in America's prisons. He can't now use the "blacks are treated poorly by our criminal justice system" defense to distance himself from those very newsletters.

Perhaps it's too much for us to expect Paul to turn over the names of the paleo types who wrote those screeds (if it's true that he had no hand in writing him himself—which I'm having a harder and harder time believing), to apologize that they ever went out under his name, and to disavow and repudiate the beliefs of the paleolibertarian supporters who have propped him up for most of his career, some of whom he still calls friends.

But if he can't, it's also too much to ask libertarians who find those views abhorrent to continue to support him.

I have defended Paul on this site and on my own site. I'm sad to say I'm becoming more and more embarassed at having done so.

Comments

|1.11.08 @ 2:32PM|#

Sheesh...the horse is dead already.

Shane Brady|1.11.08 @ 2:32PM|#

Spot on Radley.

Sam Grove|1.11.08 @ 2:35PM|#

He addressed the WOD issue at a black, or African-American, sponsored forum. I recall seeing youtube video of same.

It hasn't come up in the debates. The RP campaign should do ads on it.

|1.11.08 @ 2:36PM|#

Radley,

Does this indicate that you'll be switching to the LP for your candidate?

I think for alot of us, the choice is still between Paul, Giuliani, Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Obama or Clinton. Although I don't like it anymore, Paul is still better than them.

some dude|1.11.08 @ 2:36PM|#

Ron Paul talked about the drug war at the Baltimore debate.

Bingo|1.11.08 @ 2:36PM|#

This one is 150 posts easily unless Weigel gets a RP post in right after

|1.11.08 @ 2:37PM|#

"Perhaps it's too much for us to expect Paul to turn over the names"

Damn right it is. Why in the hell are you demanding a witch to burn?

-jcr

|1.11.08 @ 2:37PM|#

The horse is dead already.

Ron Paul called the horse a nigger. Let the horse have his day.
Good column, Radley.

|1.11.08 @ 2:38PM|#

So what is the real story? Is the Ron Paul Newsletter a news letter of hate, like the Dallas News says: "...piles of newsletters sent out by the Texas congressman in the 1980s and 1990s that were filled with racist, anti-Semitic, gay-hating rhetoric, a crackpot chrestomathy of extreme right-wing conspiracy raving."

Or is it a handful of articles in published between 1988 and 1992?

|1.11.08 @ 2:39PM|#

"Damn right it is. Why in the hell are you demanding a witch to burn? "

Some of us don't need names, but we do need Paul not to spin the truth.

|1.11.08 @ 2:39PM|#

Look, he's not a full on libertarian. He's a republican. Is this the worst thing a republican has done (Larry Craig, Mark Foley)? It was a lapse in character for sure. Paul is now persona non grata with the Reason folks. WE GET IT.

javier|1.11.08 @ 2:40PM|#

While i definitely don't agree with the paleo types, at least they are active. I mean, have the cosmotarians ever fielded a candidate this high in the process?? I wish the tolerant cosmotarians were as active and gave a shit as much as the paleo types. But as we have learned worried abouthey are just t whether or not the will be embarrassed at their next cocktail party inside the beltway.

ed|1.11.08 @ 2:41PM|#

Are there any supporters left?
Warren's been kinda quiet lately.
This one might just have taken him over the edge.

Grand Chalupa|1.11.08 @ 2:41PM|#

Radley,

As someone who finds the entire way we talk about race in our culture bizzare and quite sickening, I want to ask you a few questions. Do you buy the argument that a program "disproportionately affects minorities" is a good reason for or against something? Am I wrong in thinking we just assume white inferiority? Shouldn't we pass a law based on its overall fairness, regardless of what particular people is hurt or helped? And does it seem right to you that every group is aloud to push for its own interests, except whites?

I'm particularly disappointed when I hear conservatives and libertarians talking in that language.

ian|1.11.08 @ 2:41PM|#

I too am disappointed by this...I'm still planning on voting for him in my primary, but it will be more of a protest vote, rather than something that reflects my true beliefs.

Radley Balko|1.11.08 @ 2:42PM|#

I don't give two shits about cocktail parties inside the Beltway.

I do care about my having defended a guy who helped perpetuate the very problems I write about on a regular basis.

Episiarch|1.11.08 @ 2:42PM|#

Well, this is certainly turning into a really spectacular circular firing squad. Yes, let's have another endless round of slicing and dicing the newsletter issue. We go down in flames arguing about Ron Paul, yet convincing ourselves we are pure, while the libertarian momentum built up by Ron Paul disintegrates.

Ron Paul isn't the issue, he is merely a flawed messenger. Focusing on shooting the messenger is stupid.

Guy Montag|1.11.08 @ 2:43PM|#

Radley,

I was thinking pretty much the same thing as you after reading that earlier piece on H&R today.

Although I was never a supporter of Dr. Paul for president, this news is quite a disappointment.

See you at the Big Hunt tonight! Don't forget to bring fiat money for cigar lighting.

Mike|1.11.08 @ 2:43PM|#

Mr. Balko,

As someone else pointed out, Ron Paul did discuss the WOD on a nationally televised debate. So your claim that he doesn't discuss the matter unless he's being called a racist is a bit disingenuous.

|1.11.08 @ 2:43PM|#

But as we have learned worried abouthey are just t whether or not the will be embarrassed at their next cocktail party inside the beltway.

Please shut the hell up.

I consider myself a cosmo (def: tolerant of homosexuals, comfortable in other cultures and probably a tinge hedonist) and I don't go to cocktail parties.

Quit being a little twerp.

Look for the "cosmo" candidate in 15 years.

It might be me.

Fluffy|1.11.08 @ 2:43PM|#

Although there's no "stump speech" per se and Paul seems to pretty much wing it at appearances, at at least four appearances that I either attended or saw on Justin.tv Paul talked about the drug war.

The media won't talk about his anti-drug-war stance, but that doesn't mean he hasn't talked about it, Radley.

I've been thinking more today about why Paul won't throw anyone under the bus, and I'm starting to consider the possibility that the language of the newsletters was deliberate. Not deliberate in the sense that Paul is a racist who wanted to whip up black sentiment, but deliberate in the sense that the language was a marketing ploy. The target market for newsletters talking about the collapse of the international financial system is made up of middle-aged rural white guys who like to daydream that they are the star of Damnation Alley or Wolf and Iron. Appealing to those folks requires a certain amount of "the Dark Ages are coming, the economy will collapse, Y2K will get us all, and the cities will empty out barbarian hordes upon the land" type rhetoric. Maybe the reason Paul won't out these folks is because he is afraid they will just say, "He told us to appeal to Timothy McVeigh types so we could get their dough, so that's what we did."

Guy Montag|1.11.08 @ 2:44PM|#

I don't give two shits about cocktail parties inside the Beltway.

Does that mean you are not attending the gathering tonight?

R C Dean|1.11.08 @ 2:45PM|#

"Damn right it is. Why in the hell are you demanding a witch to burn? "

The claim that someone else wrote that stuff is an essential element of his defense. Its not credibility-enhancing to say "Someone else did it, I know who they are, and I'm not going to tell you."

Maybe he has a good reason for not disclosing. If so, he hasn't bothered to share it with us.

I can't think of a good reason not to tell us. These were newsletters written for wide distribution; they were not exactly confidential documents. I don't know why the identity of the author(s) should be kept confidential.

I might ask you, in turn "This is repellent stuff. Why the hell shouldn't we demand personal accountability for it?"

|1.11.08 @ 2:46PM|#

I think the blood of our soldiers is more important than the newsletters. You can have their blood on your hands if you want, but I am still voting for Ron Paul.

|1.11.08 @ 2:46PM|#

I do care about my having defended a guy who helped perpetuate the very problems I write about on a regular basis.

BINGO!

Statistics are meaningless when it comes to crime, because each individual has a trial.

Paleos like to point out the high crime rate among blacks but they never say why they point it out. I know why they do it; it's to race-bait.

Cosmos point this out too, but we attribute it to the very statistics the paleos have been pimping.

Isn't it convenient that the paleos won't trust the Fed to handle money but they'll jump up to quote the FBI when it suits them? And the only time they do it is to point out the higher crime rates among minorities. Because they're a bunch of yokeltarian hick racists.

Good-bye, folks. The adult libertarians don't want you around anymore.

Gavin|1.11.08 @ 2:47PM|#

Boo, Radley.

Radley Balko|1.11.08 @ 2:47PM|#

Do you buy the argument that a program "disproportionately affects minorities" is a good reason for or against something?

Well, I happen to believe in the rule of law, which requires equality before the law. So if a policy results in one group of people being treated differently than another (the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, for example), then yes, I think that's an excellent reason to oppose it.

And does it seem right to you that every group is aloud to push for its own interests, except whites?

I have no problem with white people objecting to laws that are unfair to white people. I think it's perfectly legitimate for white people to object to affirmative action at state universities, for example. Not only that, I agree with them.

Rimfax|1.11.08 @ 2:47PM|#

"...lacked any sort of contrition,..."

Yes, and lacked any sense that contrition was warranted.

Sam Grove|1.11.08 @ 2:48PM|#

Cosmolib = pragmatic
paleoconlib = moralistic

Waddayathink?

Guy Montag|1.11.08 @ 2:49PM|#

There has GOT to be a good conspiracy fable in all this stuff someplace. Where are the 9/11 truth guys? Can't they come up with smething? Like the letters were planted by time traveling CIA agents and Dr. Paul was brainwashed in Tailand while in the Air Force?

Note: I am on the side of Mr. Balko on this, but I do love the rantings of the conspiracy nuts :)

The Democratic Republican|1.11.08 @ 2:49PM|#

There is always going to be a huge divide between those who think the newsletters are a big deal and those who don't. I am in Balko's camp on this one, and I don't live anywhere near the Beltway.

The number of times Paul has actually talked about the WoD is irrelevant to Balko's main point.

And while we're on the subject, I've seen all those paleos in action that people keep talking about, and I've come to the conclusion that it's generally an embarassment to have them associated with any type of movement, libertarian or otherwise, that wants to respect cultures and tolerate differences.

Bingo|1.11.08 @ 2:49PM|#

I'm cosmotarian for sure, and the newsletter thing has definitely tarnished RP's image to me.

BUT

Like Ayn Randian I'm excited about whoever that future cosmo candidate is. And I'm definitely voting for Paul because that vote is a smack in the face to the statist assholes I see at all the debates. The message is great, the messenger is flawed, some people got egg on their face about it, but its important that the message FINALLY got delivered.

Sam Grove|1.11.08 @ 2:49PM|#

One woman I talked to recently wouldn't consider voting for RP because he was 'too libertarian'.

Smear works both ways.

|1.11.08 @ 2:50PM|#

Sorry for the repost, but...

At a minimum, Dr. Paul was very foolish for allowing others to write bad things in his name. Everyone seems to agree with that. So, let's condemn him, rightly, for his mistake.

Now, let's take a look at the log in our own eye.

"We the people of the United States…" Here are some of the things that we allow to be done in OUR name that go far beyond expressing impolite thoughts.

Starving the children of Iraq
Bombing the people of Iraq
Supporting the dictator of Pakistan
Raiding medical clinics in California and stealing sick people's medicine
Counterfeiting
Taxation
Torture

We vote, we accept the outcomes of elections, we pay our taxes without protest; we add our affirmation that this is a legitimate government. I hear all the time about the difference between the government of the united States and the people of the united States, but look whose name is at the top of the founding document.

Jonathan Blanks|1.11.08 @ 2:50PM|#

Focusing on shooting the messenger is stupid.

True. But when you focus on the man, and not the message, as the Paul backers have done, then the man becomes the target, obscuring the message.

I don't think Paul should resign over this, but he should drop the bid. The more people continue to support him in the face of all this, the worse off his supporters (aka libertarians) look -- which will be interpreted as libertarians backing a racist.* As marginalized as we are now, that would be worse.

*I don't assert that Paul is a racist. What I do assert is that politics is based perception and that is how a continued campaign will be taken. It is not whether that perception is right or wrong - that's just the way it is.

greg|1.11.08 @ 2:51PM|#

Really, I though this was a libertarian web site. Because from the sound of it lately it looks like a commie style party purge to me. He apologized for allowing this under his name while he was busy running his medical practice and he won't name names. Fine. Good for him. I would think less of him if he stooped to the witch hunt level. Also - Rockwell has indicated to the original author at TNR that he knows who wrote it and that they are not part of their organization any more. He also will not name names or apparently engage in this.

I have read both reason and lewrockwell for years. I have never seen a racist article here, on lew rockwell's cite, or on the mises blog/site. While this site is geared towards liberatiran current events and politics of interest to libertarians, mises and lew rockwell are more directed to libertarian history and the philisophical underpinnings of the movement which was born out of the collapse of the old right.

Seriously is it a little to much to ask for some solidarity with the most consitent anti-big government candiate in recent memory. The REASON that the democrats and the republicans run the show (and increase the size of the government while they are at it) is because when they are hit with old smears on election day they rally around the candidate and fire back, not collapse into a circle knife fight among themselves.

I am far more ashamed of the purge style retoric here than of any of Paul's actions thus far.

|1.11.08 @ 2:51PM|#

sam,

did you get her to explain what she meant by "too libertarian"?

|1.11.08 @ 2:51PM|#

Why does no one bring up the blatant anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred expressed by the other Republican candidates? The newsletters never recommended bombing campaigns on the inner cities or killing tens of thousands of innocent people. How blind some people are to the popular prejudices of their times.

|1.11.08 @ 2:51PM|#

I think shooting the messenger is perfectly appropriate when he isn't carrying your message. Ron Paul has brough public shame to ideas that were just beginning to catch on--he deserves his descent into ignonimity.

|1.11.08 @ 2:52PM|#

I've actually been surprised at how little he has discussed it.

I am amazed you would be surprised... Because either you have not been following his campaign and his speeches, or you are downright lying.

Nor do I think that would be a viable excuse even if it were true.

I suspect that in this case no amount of apologizing would be enough for you; even Ron's self-immolation would not cut it. The man already took moral responsibility for this, but he is not the writer's father or babysitter nor does he have a responsibility to name such a person. So why keep this nonsense?

Whether he was active or passive in the newsletters doesn't matter.

This is the most spurious of all statements I've read. So damned if he did, damned if he did not?

Me, personally, I do not know if he ever read some of those newsletters or not. I do not think he cared, being overly interested in other matters. If some a$$hole published a newsletter under my name so a strictly limited subscription base, I would not have the time to review every single word and phrase to make sure not one offensive comment is printed. People get paid to do that full time, and Paul was already doing something else.

The question is this: What more do you want? Nobody remembers those newsletter, the few copies around came from an archive. Few people actually read them. Who cares?

Edward|1.11.08 @ 2:53PM|#

My respect for libertarians, or at least for Balko, has just skyrocketed.

The Democratic Republican|1.11.08 @ 2:54PM|#

El Profesor -- Read Lysander Spooner: There is no such thing as "the people." And our failure to lose our lives to an unjust regime is no statement of consent to that regime. All we can do is our best to change the system and withdraw our consent from injustice.

That's why, I've decided, protest votes are wrong. Tactical votes are wrong. Vote your conscience, or don't consent to the system as it is construed.

|1.11.08 @ 2:54PM|#

I would rather back a racist than a warmonger.

|1.11.08 @ 2:54PM|#

Really, I though this was a libertarian web site.

Borderline, but I think that's worthy of a DRINK!

crw|1.11.08 @ 2:54PM|#

Cosmolibertarian candidate?

Drew Carey for President!!

|1.11.08 @ 2:56PM|#

I would rather back a racist than a warmonger.

You could always choose back neither.

|1.11.08 @ 2:56PM|#

At this point, i'd vote to elect a stiff drink to the presidency, perhaps a nice Bourbon.

|1.11.08 @ 2:56PM|#

My respect for libertarians, or at least for Balko, has just skyrocketed.

Oh, we were just WAITING for that, Edtard.
Hey everyone! Did y'all get that?
Put on your caps! I'll get the feathers!

|1.11.08 @ 2:57PM|#

"Maybe he has a good reason for not disclosing. If so, he hasn't bothered to share it with us. "

A good reason like, not knowing who it was?

The articles were published quite a few years back, without bylines. What matters is that RP has made it clear that the words were not his, and that he does not agree with them. He has disavowed and denounced them.

Now, if that's not good enough for you, somehow RP and the rest of the tens of thousands of supporters who have contributed to this campaign will have to just struggle along without your approval.

-jcr

|1.11.08 @ 2:58PM|#

I think the blood of our soldiers is more important than the newsletters. You can have their blood on your hands if you want, but I am still voting for Ron Paul.

Whatever.

I've actually had a Soldier's blood on my hands. You can kiss my ass.

|1.11.08 @ 2:58PM|#

RC,
I don't see why Ron owes it to you to tell you who wrote the Newsletters. He says he doesn't know- a credible claim because if wans't overseeing it directly he'd have no idea who wrote what, and he clearly has no desire to go grilling old friends to find out. Balko's a reporter. If its so damn important to him to know the names why doesn't he find out himself? It's not part of Ron's character to throw people under the bus for his own gain. It may be the beltway thing to do, and the cosmos might be perplexed as to why he doesn't just name names, but out in the heartland I can assure you Ron's principled stand here is winning him points. Ron's said all he needs to say. He didn't write them, nor does he believe in the sentiment. Anyone with half a brain can look at Ron's 30 year record and easily determine that he's telling the truth. Once you accept that truth, its time to move on. Ron isn't going rat out movement libertarians who may have used some poor judgement 20 years ago just to save his own skin. That's not who he is.

|1.11.08 @ 2:58PM|#

When Reason writers and Cato researchers were busy making excuses how to get libertarians behind an invasion of Iraq, Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell were building the case against it.

So Reason. Pot, kettle, black.

Dave W.|1.11.08 @ 2:59PM|#

Would what the police did in the Rodney King case really raise any eyebrows if it were done today in the post-9-11 world?

I mean, I don't like the police did in the Rodney King case. Didn't at the time. Still don't. But hasn't that kind of police behavior become uncontroversial since Guiliani decided not to pull the police away from the tower after he learned that it was coming down?

Guy Montag|1.11.08 @ 2:59PM|#

I knew I was forgetting to do a few things before leaving "the ground floor of the Military Industrial Complex" today. If I am going to go out and influence major media figures at the Resonoid coctail party tonight I have better get to work!

Here are some of the things that we allow to be done in OUR name that go far beyond expressing impolite thoughts.

Starving the children of Iraq
Bombing the people of Iraq
Supporting the dictator of Pakistan
Raiding medical clinics in California and stealing sick people's medicine(not my department)
Counterfeiting>(not my department)
Taxation>(not my department)
Torture

My day is not done!

drawnasunder|1.11.08 @ 2:59PM|#

My backup candidate: Turd Sandwich!

Rimfax|1.11.08 @ 2:59PM|#

Ron Paul isn't the issue, he is merely a flawed messenger. Focusing on shooting the messenger is stupid.

Not calling out our own for illibertarian shit is stupid. We're not Democrats or Republicans. We've actually got some clear principles. Pretending that speech by our candidate that contradicts those principles is merely a political flaw hurts us far more than any other political movement.

He is still the lesser evil and I would still argue that he was a libertarian, but I think that his interpretation of the principles stinks at times.

Keep up the good work, Balko.

|1.11.08 @ 3:00PM|#

"commie style party purge"

Yeah, that's about right. Looks like some people are bound and determined to fight anyone who might actually succeed in slowing down the growth of government.

-jcr

javier|1.11.08 @ 3:00PM|#

Cosmolib = pragmatic
paleoconlib = moralistic

I am not a paleocon, but pragmatic is just giving up your principles a little slower.

|1.11.08 @ 3:01PM|#

Why does no one bring up the blatant anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred expressed by the other Republican candidates?

I bring it up all the damn time, and so does reason.

Nice try, but FAIL.

Friend of Cato|1.11.08 @ 3:01PM|#

Kent -

get your facts straight. Cato was against the Iraq war before day 1.

Grand Chalupa|1.11.08 @ 3:01PM|#

I have no problem with white people objecting to laws that are unfair to white people. I think it's perfectly legitimate for white people to object to affirmative action at state universities, for example. Not only that, I agree with them.

Would you take it one step further, and say that the NAACP and La Raza are the moral equivalent of white interest groups?

What's disturbing to me is not just what we say, but the tone and how hard we condemn. White interest groups, from a policy position, are much closer to libertarians than minority interest groups in opposing AA, a big federal government and the welfare state, then black groups. Libertarians seem to have no love for either, but why is the hatred directed towards white racialists so much more venemous?

Roger|1.11.08 @ 3:01PM|#

Ron Paul has brough public shame to ideas that were just beginning to catch on

Ha ha ha, you must be delusional.

|1.11.08 @ 3:01PM|#

I think Ron Paul is acting like a fool. He should have confronted this directly a long time ago. If he didn't write it, who did? What exactly was his relationship with the newsletter ghostwritten in his name? I believe that he didn't write it and that he has never expressed anything like those statements, but, saying "libertarians can't be racists" is a dodge and a lie. Of course they can be, "libertarian" is just a name you call yourself. He might as well have said "Christians can't hate."

I still support almost everything Paul has campaigned on this year and will vote for him, but it's starting to look like Ron Paul the man has run his course. He's acting like a guy who's in way over his head and he and his campaign staff have been running a $200,000 campaign instead of the $20 million campaign that all of us in the rEVOLution want. He's right that any politician supporting the War On Drugs is supporting a racist policy more directly than he ever has, and he's right that this is a politically-motivated attack. He's fucking crazy if he thinks that's all he needs to say to whisk this issue away.

Episiarch|1.11.08 @ 3:02PM|#

Well, so much for trying to head off the circular firing squad. By all means, please occupy yourselves with endless argument about the merits of Ron Paul and His Dastardly Newsletters. You seem much happier doing that than moving libertarian ideas forward.

|1.11.08 @ 3:02PM|#

This is getting reeeeeallly old. This whole thing sounds like only so much backpedaling. Oh, if only we could go out into cyberspace and delete all the nice things we said about Dr. Paul. Or if only we had one of those flashy things like on Men In Black and we could just erase everyone's memory of Paul being the guy for the job with the push of a button. Maybe in a few years he'll be like breakdancing was. "Oh yeah, he was huge, but those people doing it look like dorks now."

Edward|1.11.08 @ 3:03PM|#

I don't respect you at all, Jamie. Go fuck yourself, you slimy little turd.

|1.11.08 @ 3:04PM|#

I don't see why Ron owes it to you to tell you who wrote the Newsletters.

Then I don't see why I owe him my support.

Look, Ron's kind of on a precipice here: throw the racists out or throw a lot of us out.

He can choose.

|1.11.08 @ 3:04PM|#

Ayn Randian, so this issue is enough for your not to vote for the candidate who will bring us home from Iraq?

|1.11.08 @ 3:04PM|#

I think the blood of our soldiers is more important than the newsletters. You can have their blood on your hands if you want, but I am still voting for Ron Paul.

You will be amazed at how some are willing to accept the most obscure of the lesser and unimportant of minutiae to discredit a person, even if that person's ACTIONS and words and moral standing are not being really argued.

"But the fact is that someone wrote offensive words under his name not so long ago, just around the corner [15 years ago]. The man should be horsewhipped!!"

Indeed, and the fact that RP does not believe in those words, nor has he ever uttered a SINGLE phrase like that will NOT be enough for the likes of Balko and other detractors. To me, I respect a person's personal character, the individual. A forgotten newsletter edited by someone a long ago, cannot detract from a person if I am to be reasonable. Irrationality, of course, still has its pundits.

Guy Montag|1.11.08 @ 3:04PM|#

sage,

Or if only we had one of those flashy things like on Men In Black and we could just erase everyone's memory of Paul being the guy for the job with the push of a button.

The licensing requirements for those things are pretty steep. Do you really want the government to know you have one?

RNC|1.11.08 @ 3:05PM|#

"Perhaps it's too much for us to expect Paul to turn over the names of the paleo types who wrote those screeds (if it's true that he had no hand in writing him himself-which I'm having a harder and harder time believing), to apologize that they ever went out under his name, and to disavow and repudiate the beliefs of the paleolibertarian supporters who have propped him up for most of his career, some of whom he still calls friends.

But if he can't, it's also too much to ask libertarians who find those views abhorrent to continue to support him."

And what is there about this graf isn't collectivist?

ian|1.11.08 @ 3:05PM|#

gorak,

i don't think he would bring us back from iraq...he would try...but don't kid yourself

|1.11.08 @ 3:06PM|#

The commander in chief has such unilateral authority. He could arrest military officials who resisted.

|1.11.08 @ 3:06PM|#

I don't give two shits about cocktail parties inside the Beltway.

Then who's the audience for this?

Libertarians require no such displays.

With few exceptions, they believe all these things already, presume it of their fellows, and don't care if someone else disagrees, so long as that belief hasn't the force of law.

The exceptions are the paleos you're dissociating yourself from. You're not talking to them, either.

To whom is your "Don't worry; I'm one of you" addressed? Not us.

|1.11.08 @ 3:06PM|#

Libertarians seem to have no love for either, but why is the hatred directed towards white racialists so much more venemous?

uhh, because most of us are white, is a good start.

Also, because white racism is a significant part of our history and most of us realize how ugly it was and don't want to go back down that road.

Also, white racism is more dangerous precisely because there are more white people in the country.

greg|1.11.08 @ 3:09PM|#

"He's acting like a guy who's in way over his head and he and his campaign staff have been running a $200,000 campaign instead of the $20 million campaign that all of us in the rEVOLution want."

He is running in opposition to government corn subsidies (Iowa), A McCain love nest (NH) and in warfare/god land (SC). These are only three states. If he shoots the wad in the weak states it would be useless. The fact that he got over 5% in the first two primaries is remarkable relative to past history.

PS. For why not to spend all your 20 million out of the gate, ask the Gouls's staff today how they feel about that strategy.

Martin|1.11.08 @ 3:09PM|#

I wonder if Balko ever complains about some of the warmongering racist trash against Muslims that gets peddled by his employers at fox.

Jonathan Blanks|1.11.08 @ 3:12PM|#

Also, white racism is more dangerous precisely because there are more white people in the country.

More to the point, white people control the majority of power and wealth in this country.

|1.11.08 @ 3:12PM|#

I hope so, greg. You're right that the jury is still out.

Tom Walls|1.11.08 @ 3:12PM|#

I sympathize with Ron and defend him. I know what it's like to have words printed that aren't yours yet still bear your name. And I know what it's like to just walk away from it, hoping it'll just go away instead of having to make a painful or embarrassing retraction or to name names. In my case, I just left the country for a while :)

The most negative Ron Paul newsletter stuff in question went on over a period of 4 months or so, from what I can tell, which is not that long. Seriously, this stuff has been brought up before and Ron has weathered it. And I thought having referred to Bush Sr. as a bum would hurt him!

Actually, there is no real proof Rockwell actually wrote that, since there were several people involved who came and went. It would be reassuring to clarify who wrote those quotes, though.

Many of us libertarian activists at the time (LP, RLC, some institute people and otherwise) thought the paleo turn to being cranky, intolerant and socially ultraconservative was not a good thing, and we said so (Dondero can verify this). This extended to seemingly anti-libertarian positions on immigration and trade. I speculated that that was a hard-right fundraising ploy.

Guy Montag|1.11.08 @ 3:13PM|#

More to the point, white people control the majority of power and wealth in this country.

And they are keeping me down, MAAAAAAANNN!

Grand Chalupa|1.11.08 @ 3:13PM|#

Also, white racism is more dangerous precisely because there are more white people in the country.

Maybe for now, but what happens when the day comes (and it is coming, check the census) that whites are just another minority, in a country where every other group feels no shame in voting only for their own interest and overwhelmingly supports big government?

In 50 years we'll have a country with big income disparities between a hated minority and a black and brown majority, that has no problem with "redistribution" and "affirmative action" as solving all their problems. Do you think at that point the race hustlers are going away?

Roger|1.11.08 @ 3:14PM|#

One day, in the near future, a movement will arise that combines the politically-expedient traits of the paleos and the cosmos, that the cosmos will have nothing to do with it once they find out the figurehead for that movement once said "wetback" when a Mexican driving a pickup cut him off on the highway.

Bingo|1.11.08 @ 3:15PM|#

When Grand Chalupa is running for president in 15 years that comment is going to come back to bite him!

Hello|1.11.08 @ 3:15PM|#

"Or is it a handful of articles in published between 1988 and 1992?"

Neither. It was four editions published within a five-month period that actually had the really bad stuff.

|1.11.08 @ 3:16PM|#

More to the point, white people control the majority of power and wealth in this country.

Where the hell, then, is my share of this booty?

|1.11.08 @ 3:18PM|#

In all this ongoing newsletter argle-bargle, Balko has put his fingers spot on the most relevant areas.

I think it might just be possible that every word Radley Balko has ever written is the very finest journalism regarding whatever he was writing about.

|1.11.08 @ 3:18PM|#

Friend of Cato - If they were, they did a good job of hiding it. They certainly DID support invading Afghanistan which had no more to back it than did Iraq.

Ayn_Randian -

Me - Why does no one bring up the blatant anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hatred expressed by the other Republican candidates?

You - I bring it up all the damn time, and so does reason.

Nice try, but FAIL.

So, Ron Paul's newsletter racial insensitivity is as big an issue as ongoing anti-Arab/Muslim hatred expressed by the other candidates? Ron Paul isn't campaigning to drop bombs on blacks in the cities, the other candidates ARE campaigning to drop bombs on Muslims in their homelands. What aggression has Ron Paul committed?

greg|1.11.08 @ 3:20PM|#

Don't get me wrong, I don't think he'll win, but I support him and if he wins enough votes around the country, particually in states that oppose the war, it will make the anti-government story stick longer amongst regular people.

He is in favor of closing social security. I am 32 and I don't know anyone my age who actually thinks they will get a penny from it. They even more displeased at the prospect of paying for babyboomers (other than their own family) for the next 20-30 years of their working life.

A Paul showing, not winning, just good showing, may force the Republicans to start moving away from "fixing" the ponzi scheme, but rather moving away from it to recapture the youth vote so that can mount a credible campaign to beat hillary in 2012, unlike the 1996 showing with old man Dole.

Radley Balko|1.11.08 @ 3:20PM|#

I wonder if Balko ever complains about some of the warmongering racist trash against Muslims that gets peddled by his employers at fox.

Fox isn't my employer, Reason is. I get a small fee for each bi-weekly column I write for Fox. It's about enough to get you drunk. No more.

But the answer to your question about whether I'm willing to criticize Fox News is "yes."



http://www.theagitator.com/2006/11/15/cnn-shamelessly-exploits-oj-murders/
http://www.theagitator.com/2007/05/19/retract-michelle/
http://www.theagitator.com/2006/11/15/cnn-bribes-terrorists/

Bingo|1.11.08 @ 3:20PM|#

No one hates libertarians as much as libertarians do.

B.P.|1.11.08 @ 3:21PM|#

"If some a$$hole published a newsletter under my name so a strictly limited subscription base, I would not have the time to review every single word and phrase to make sure not one offensive comment is printed."

I would. It's only credibility that's at state.

dhex|1.11.08 @ 3:22PM|#

Maybe for now, but what happens when the day comes (and it is coming, check the census) that whites are just another minority, in a country where every other group feels no shame in voting only for their own interest and overwhelmingly supports big government?

do you really think whites don't vote for their own interests?

the other part of the issue may be that "white" is a meaningless term when speaking about groups. racial apocalypse aside.

the same thing you're saying was brought up time and again about the irish, about italians, about catholics, about anyone vaguely "slavic" and how they were going to take over the country, the government and put all the decent white folks to the sword. it was bullshit then and it is bullshit now.

Dodsworth|1.11.08 @ 3:22PM|#

Radley's joining the parade right now. It is all so easy, isn't it.

He's dumping Paul over the side and to make himself feel better is claiming that Paul never talks about the drug war when he hammered the issue in the Baltmore debate and elsewhere. I am sickened by Paul's mistakes but refuse to join the pile on though I might relieve a lot of stress if I did!

Paul is a principled and good man, at least compared with the alternatives. No.....he didn't get all teary-eyd, a la Hillary or Bill but he apologized with no ifs, ands and buts. I won't be sleeping well tonight. Sticking wiht Paul these day has made it almost impossible but I wonder if Radley will be sleeping any better for making things up about Paul and the drug war to rationalize his actions.

Jonathan Blanks|1.11.08 @ 3:23PM|#

Guy:

I made the clarification to preclude Grand Chalupa's entirely predictable and equally ignorant comment.

Again, I talk of perceptions -- which is really all that matters in politics, no?

Grand Chalupa|1.11.08 @ 3:23PM|#

When Grand Chalupa is running for president in 15 years that comment is going to come back to bite him!

I'll make amends by making a pilgrimage to Rosa Park's tomb and pointing out that of all my policy positions there must be one or two that help black people more than white people. The MSM will eat it up. Maybe at that point I'll call the whites "kulaks" for good measure.

|1.11.08 @ 3:23PM|#

Ron Paul isn't campaigning to drop bombs on blacks in the cities, the other candidates ARE campaigning to drop bombs on Muslims in their homelands.

I'm sorry...did the LP drop out of existence and I missed it?

Bingo|1.11.08 @ 3:24PM|#

I'm sorry...did the LP drop out of existence and I missed it?

Basically yes.

GILMORE|1.11.08 @ 3:24PM|#

What the fuck.

It's REASON Hairshirt week.

Rimfax|1.11.08 @ 3:25PM|#

White interest groups, from a policy position, are much closer to libertarians than minority interest groups in opposing AA, a big federal government and the welfare state, then black groups. Libertarians seem to have no love for either, but why is the hatred directed towards white racialists so much more venemous?

1. White interest groups are muuuuuch farther from libertarian policy positions on THE MOST CRITICAL things, like equal treatment under the law, freedom of association, and the freedom to pursue happiness.
2. White interest groups don't take issue with the welfare state, the size of the government, or with unions. They only object to Jews and brown people garnering any benefits from welfare, government jobs, or labor benefits.
3. White interest groups exist to reenact laws that gave whites a higher legal status than non-whites.
4. Other race groups exist as advocacy organizations to call attention to instances where discretion is used against people of their race. The only thing that they do that is particularly un-libertarian is to advocate laws that attempt to reverse the economic disparities created by earlier pro-white racist laws.
5. White race groups are attempting to reassert white legal dominance. If it's not part of their overt agenda, it's a thinly veiled hidden one.
6. Other race groups are attempting to highlight the remnants of white legal dominance and end them. The fact that they advocate for affirmative action and play politics with racial incidents doesn't change the fact that achieving racial dominance is not a part of their real or hidden agenda.

AntiCosmo|1.11.08 @ 3:26PM|#

Radley, you ceded the moral high ground long ago, so why don't you go back to documenting "botched" (as if any were un-botched)drug raids?

http://www.instapundit.com/archives/020262.php

Anyone see a Reason cosmotarian cited approvingly in that post?

Torture? G'head.

So what should we do if the captured Sheik Jeremy doesn't talk? And let's face it, he ain't gonna' talk.

Should we torture him?

I think so. He's not an American citizen. He wasn't born here, or captured here. He's "an enemy combatant," if ever there was a time to use the phrase.

I guess Radley won't be our next libertarian candidate.

|1.11.08 @ 3:26PM|#

"The newsletter defended the Rodney King beating, for God's sake, on the bullshit argument that King was part of a criminal class of people. The implication is that some people deserve substandard treatment under the rule of law because of the color of their skin. There's nothing remotely libertarian about that."

Where does it try to make the argument that Rodney King was beaten because he was "part of a criminal class of people". Just shows how things are twisted to make a point. I'm not a huge fan of the article, but this is just bullshit.

anon|1.11.08 @ 3:26PM|#

To sum up this thread: we'd all love a nice little neat package where we have the perfect candidate with the perfect message who never misteps.

Too bad life is messy. We've only got two choices in that case: face reality or deny reality.

The reality all along with the Ron Paul campaign is that something about the combination of the times, the message and this man provoked a response out of the public that these ideas have rarely seen in national politics. By no means a huge response, but certainly something more than normal. Dr. Paul could probably keep up his 8% type numbers in most primaries in the country. I can't think of another candidate who espoused these views in recent times that had any hope of that.

See the ugly hard truth is that we can continue to support Dr. Paul out of some personality cult blindness. Go to a place like Daily Paul and you will see plenty of that. Or we can withdraw from the scene, with the rationalization that we are defending principles and the integrity of the libertarian movement, but really just retreating to the safety of our comfortable ideology over reality. Or we can stand in front of this damn mess Dr. Paul put us in, look at it all, discern and reach a judgment of what to do next.

That last one is what I'm trying to do. I saw the CNN interview and thought it was horrible. All the same, I still plan to vote for him. I haven't seen enough yet to convince me that (a) he's a liar and he really did write all that stuff or believes those things or (b) that if he were to win the presidency, that this reflects all that badly on how he would handle the presidency.
But I don't expect to do much more active campaigning for him.

|1.11.08 @ 3:26PM|#

Look, I feel pretty strongly about this issue. I know that everybody else who has been turning up for these 300 comment threads feels pretty strongly about it too - well, except Edward, who just has an insatiable craving for attention from the internet. So understand that I'm not saying this isn't an important debate to be having but -

- brace yourselves -

This is not an important debate to be having. Not really.

The argument, as far as I can tell, is between people who won't vote for a guy who won't win because of his racist affiliations, and people who want to vote for a guy who won't win because of his racist affiliations. We all know he won't win. Even without this racist stuff coming up, there's no way he was going to get more than 13% of the primary votes in any state. Is that defeatist? Maybe. It's also realistic.

So, what was really exciting about the Paul candidacy was the hope that with the insane funding he was getting, he'd be able to crack the public consciousness, get out the good word about libertarianism, you know? Evangelize. Persuade. Cajole. We live in a country where people hate Congress, hate the president, mostly don't vote, don't trust the two parties, increasingly take a dim view of politicians' ideas for moving forward. Part of the appeal of Ron Paul's candidacy was the idea that he was going to get out there and claim some of those disenfranchised, bring 'em into the fold. These newcomers wouldn't have been cosmo, they wouldn't have been paleo. A lot of them would've just been plain old political independents, the sort of fickle people who are with you when your candidate looks like a secular saint and back to not voting the moment he loses their fascination.

That's why this racism shit is a big deal. It's also why it isn't that big a deal.

Yeah, if The New Republic went on a Wynand-esque campaign against Ron Paul - which you know they're itching to, the neoliberal bastards - a lot of people would scratch their heads, go "oh well" and wander back to their respective indifferences.

It isn't like this would tar the libertarian movement, though, because these people don't even know there is a libertarian movement, or if they do, they think people like Pat Buchanan or Markos Moulitasas Zuniga have something to do with it. The wider fate of libertarianism isn't really at stake here.

Yes, Cato never really got behind a big proponent of smaller government - that's a bit weird, but whatever. And yes, Reason are covering their asses. You know, I don't blame them. I'm not so coldly pragmatic that I am willing to vote for a person who smells of racism, and if I were a writer for a major publication who'd spent most of the year backing one, that burden-of-conscience would be even harder to carry. What can I say? Racism is a big deal to me. It may not have much to do with libertarianism, but to me it's a personal, moral issue.

However, if y'all want to go vote for Ron Paul anyway, by all means vote your conscience. That's all I'm gonna do, so it's all I'd expect of y'all.

|1.11.08 @ 3:27PM|#

And don't forget, whites like cheese sandwiches so much it's weird.

drawnasunder|1.11.08 @ 3:27PM|#

On the bright side, Hillary has apparently stepped in it....

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0108/7845.html

Grand Chalupa|1.11.08 @ 3:27PM|#

I made the clarification to preclude Grand Chalupa's entirely predictable and equally ignorant comment.

You forgot "racist". Who the hell are you anyway?

DavidS|1.11.08 @ 3:30PM|#

If some a$$hole published a newsletter under my name so a strictly limited subscription base, I would not have the time to review every single word and phrase to make sure not one offensive comment is printed.

For those of you who think it was all over in a few months, what about this letter in Paul's name which manages to accuse Hilary Clinton of being a dyke, Bill of being a Russian spy, and Clinton's mother of being a gambling murderer?

And the stuff wasn't occasionally nutty - it was nutty through and through. And the people who appear to have been involved with writing it are still on board with Paul and still seem pretty nutty to me (AIDS is a myth. MMR causes autism. Global warming is a scam. etc etc)

|1.11.08 @ 3:30PM|#

Er,

and people who want to vote for a guy who won't win because of his racist affiliations

should read,

people who want to vote for a guy who won't win in spite of his racist affiliations

ed|1.11.08 @ 3:31PM|#

Can't we all just blame Nick Gillespie and move on?

Ashley|1.11.08 @ 3:32PM|#

Radley, I really like you but you're missing the point. Is he, or is he not, the most likely candidate to fight, at least a little with vetoes and such, state sponsored racism? Are all the others more likely to increase it?

You know the answers. Don't be embarrassed b/c your candidate might not think exactly like you do. Be proud you have the clarity to select a man who will at least try to pursue some righteous goals.

Radley Balko|1.11.08 @ 3:32PM|#

Re: This comment.

I've since changed my position on torture, retracted that post, and explained why.

http://www.theagitator.com/2007/03/19/torture-not-so-much/

JL|1.11.08 @ 3:33PM|#

"But I've been watching this campaign fairly closely, and I believe that's the most time to date that Paul has spent talking about the drug war"

really? have you been to his rallies? I've heard it quite often.

AntiCosmo|1.11.08 @ 3:34PM|#

Cato was against the Iraq war before day 1.

Give me a break.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-lindsey112102.asp

Brink Lindsey is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute

crw|1.11.08 @ 3:34PM|#

Oh for fuck's sake...

You know, one of the main attractive features of libertarianism to me is precisely that we don't typically engage in collective worship of our leaders. We are completely unafraid to bag on those who claim to speak for us and call them on their bullshit.

And frankly, Paul's tepid response to the newsletters is bullshit. Hell, the fact he didn't address this head-on months ago is bullshit. At the very least, he should have planned for the day the newsletters would be brought up and had a solid response ready. The fact he hasn't speaks volumes.

We're all going to support or not support Paul for our own personal reasons. For many of us, his tepid response is reason enough to think twice. For others, it isn't. That's fine. Publicly discussing our thoughts is fine. But chastising people for not worshiping the flawed man, or for publicly wondering how this will affect public perception of our ideals? That's a little stupid.

|1.11.08 @ 3:35PM|#

Why should he "hand over" the writers?
Worst case scenario here: Paul's had a change of heart over the years.
Wouldn't the right thing to do be to realize he's not racist (at least now), forgive him, and move on?

|1.11.08 @ 3:36PM|#

Radley, I really like you but you're missing the point. Is he, or is he not, the most likely candidate to fight, at least a little with vetoes and such, state sponsored racism?

Given that Ron Paul seems to think that the rate of crime among blacks is an inherent failing of said race, what do you think his position would be on racial profiling when it came to things that would be crimes even in Paultopia?

Episiarch|1.11.08 @ 3:37PM|#

I've since changed my position on torture, retracted that post, and explained why.

So you can make mistakes, but Paul can't? Maybe you could extend the same courtesy to Paul--and that's assuming he even knew about the newsletter. You actually changed your views; if Paul is not lying, he didn't even do that, he just didn't oversee a newsletter properly.

Perfect enemy of good blargh blah.

dodsworth|1.11.08 @ 3:37PM|#

Yes, Radley but you have made up things (such as the false claim that Paul didn't address the drug war in several forums) to ease your consience about helping to destroy the only candidate who is actually against torture.

McCain, who refuses to actually do anything about his stated opposition to torture when he was on the Senate floor, doesn't count. Has helping to destroy a principled, good, but flawed man relieved your stress yet?

|1.11.08 @ 3:37PM|#

Is there some way we can extricate this Ron Paul fellow from the Ron Paul Revolution?

True story, right before this thing broke I was watching The Mclaughlin Group and heard Buchanan refer to Paul as "His guy" or something similar. I immediately felt a sense of dread.

|1.11.08 @ 3:39PM|#

I'm a developer and we have a term in extreme programming where code needs to not 'smell'...

This whole thing 'smells'...

Let's use a little logic.

Dr. Paul is old. He has been in politics since the 1970's?

So, he has well over 30 years of public exposure and NOT ONE PERSON says he has ever said anything like this...

Can we all put on our thinking caps for a second and realize that sooner or later, what is in your heart WILL COME OUT... In 30+ years of public exposure nothing like what is in the newsletters has EVER come out of Dr. Paul's mouth...

He deserves the benefit of ANY doubt you sheople have.

|1.11.08 @ 3:39PM|#

AntiCosmo:

One fellow at Cato =/= Cato Institute.

Also, why don't you quit being a dick and apologize to Mr. Balko for trying to impugn his character?

|1.11.08 @ 3:40PM|#

Now tht the Reason folks made it clear that they don't like Paul, it's time to start attacking his position on the issues. So let's hear it.

|1.11.08 @ 3:41PM|#

You actually changed your views; if Paul is not lying, he didn't even do that, he just didn't oversee a newsletter properly.

Yeah, but he is lying. He defended the comments in 1996 and then turned around and said he never thought any of that in 2008.

|1.11.08 @ 3:41PM|#

Not calling out our own for illibertarian shit is stupid. We're not Democrats or Republicans. We've actually got some clear principles. Pretending that speech by our candidate that contradicts those principles is merely a political flaw hurts us far more than any other political movement.

QFT. "It was 15 years ago" is nonsense. I don't forgive Senator Byrd for KKK membership in th '50s. I'm not calling RP a racist. I am calling him irresponsible. I'm saying he has more loyalty to his friends than to the movement. When Watergate first hit the fan, my father opined that if Nixon had just said, these people worked for me, I deplore their actions, publicly identified and fired them, it would all have blown over. He didn't. Ron Paul didn't.

IOW, he should have thrown the authors under the bus, got in the drivers seat, and shifted from first to reverse and back a few times. He knows who is responsible.

andy|1.11.08 @ 3:42PM|#

wait... balko, you do realize that ron paul is a libertarian running for the republican nomination, right? are you seriously confused as to why ron paul hasn't brought his views regarding the war on drugs to the forefront of the discussion? you might not like the pandering involved there, but i don't like plain ignorance toward the target audience much either.

when you have 30 seconds to say why you're against the war on drugs, you're better off just not bringing it up.

and contrition? he's mad... he's mad that people are continuing to attack via guilt by association and you can't be a libertarian - or any other affiliation - and not associate with unsavory individuals.

what i've always said about ron paul - and libertarianism (no, i'm not calling them synonymous) - is that the message unites all types of crazy. the freedom message protects racists *and* protects decent, sensible, common sense-having people... now you're saying that he has to dissolve that unity in order to preserve your narrow perception of libertarianism.

we all have an idea of what we'd like libertarianism to be and in your case, you'd prefer it to be free of racism - it's fun to have dreams! but the fact of the matter is libertarians just happen to be a lightning rod for lunatics and people who tend to vote and hold beliefs five- and six-sigma away from the mean of the rest the world. in a sick way, i see that as a beautiful thing - libertarianism somehow unites haters and those they hate under the same flag. if racists had any concept of irony, they would see that and laugh themselves right into 21st century thought.

Windypundit|1.11.08 @ 3:42PM|#

Is he, or is he not, the most likely candidate to fight, at least a little with vetoes and such, state sponsored racism? Are all the others more likely to increase it?

Yes, absolutely. If we don't back Ron Paul despite his flaws, he will never become president, and the drug war will continue, and the Iraq war will continue, and thousands of innocents will be injured, killed, or imprisoned.

But if we all stand behind Ron Paul 100%, he will still never become president, and the drug war will still continue, and the Iraq war will still continue, and thousands of innocents will still be injured, killed, or imprisoned.

Paul's value to the libertarian movement was not that he was going to win, it was that he was going to get a lot more people thinking along libertarian lines. But if Paul's just had his "macaca" moment, then he's likely to be a liability who will make us look bad.

Paul isn't an awful guy as politicians go, but he's just become a much less valuable spokesperson for the libertarian cause.

Friend of Cato|1.11.08 @ 3:44PM|#

anti-cosmo:

point taken on Lindsey. But the Foreign Policy department was against it all along:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3369

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6659

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2988

|1.11.08 @ 3:45PM|#

And he should have done it in 1996.

Rimfax|1.11.08 @ 3:45PM|#

...heard Buchanan refer to Paul as "His guy"....

Abandon ship!!!!

|1.11.08 @ 3:46PM|#

I am an anarchist and to me a statist, even a minarchist, is much worse than a racist.

A racist is a person associate and discriminate based on race. Every individual discriminates in life when dealing with other humans in society and some do this based on race.

This may upset some other people, it is probably even to the disadvantage of the racist but it is just discrimination. There is no agression against anybody.

A statist, even a minarchist, on the other hand, actively supports agression against property by the hand of the state. He/she is morally supporting a criminal organization that takes property away by force and usually restrict many liberties based on property rights.

Now, this is a political campaign that even atracts the support of welfare statist liberals and some so called libertarians are getting upset over atracting truthers, neo nazis and racism stuff.

This is politics. If you can stand a statist how can you get upset over racism allegations.

The alternatives in this race, all of them represent the initiation of force by the state against individuals.

And the only person that has a chance to even slightly stop this is getting this heat.

People making a big deal out this and hope for the demise of Ron Paul are either confused badly or arent sincere libertarians.

|1.11.08 @ 3:46PM|#

I gotta say, as a guy without a dog in this fight, this a fascinating conversation to eavesdrop on.

"He's a racist!"
"No, he's not!"
"Who cares?"
"What's wrong with being a racist?"

|1.11.08 @ 3:48PM|#

I haven't been around these parts as much lately, but this issue has drawn me back. Balko's post is excellent (best of the bunch, today). Ron's resistance to coming completely clean on this issue and throwing people under the bus is simply inexcusable. And if that includes himself, because he did in fact write the inflammatory portions that are under the microscope, then come clean and drop out and fade away quietly.

AFAICT, the only reason he's not throwing anyone under the bus is that he knows they'll turn around and do the same thing to him. There's no other reasonable explanation.

And that makes me a sad panda.

dewey\'s decimal|1.11.08 @ 3:48PM|#

more than a decade in a newsletter he published. He did it during the 1980s and 1990s, the very period over which the drug laws exacerbated the white-black disparity

Please cite the allegedly "racist" quotes with dates, or retract.

Thanks.

|1.11.08 @ 3:48PM|#

Really, my last comment on this.

If you really want to criticize Ron Paul, do it on is xenophobic and ethnocentric immigration policy. That is something in his platform.

|1.11.08 @ 3:48PM|#

Ah, RB joins the chorus libertarians right now echoing Peter Griffin about loving "too much."

|1.11.08 @ 3:49PM|#

Paul's value to the libertarian movement was not that he was going to win, it was that he was going to get a lot more people thinking along libertarian lines. But if Paul's just had his "macaca" moment, then he's likely to be a liability who will make us look bad.

Bingo.

|1.11.08 @ 3:49PM|#

Let me add the names of some of the statist, which I think are worse than racists, but I respect anyways.

Mises, Rand, Hayek, Bastiat, Jefferson.

|1.11.08 @ 3:50PM|#

One fellow at Cato =/= Cato Institute.

Bullshit. I was a supporter of Cato and recipient of their policy pamphlets at the time. While it may be true that the Cato Institute as an institution wasn't supporting the war, that's a bit like saying the Ku Klux Klan as an institution doesn't hate blacks. The fact is, there was substantial support for the war by individuals affiliated with Cato. It is, in fact, the reason I and a number of other people of my acquaintance are no longer donors to and supporters of Cato.

|1.11.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Now tht the Reason folks made it clear that they don't like Paul, it's time to start attacking his position on the issues. So let's hear it.

You got it.

In last night's debate, Paul seemed to insinuate that "we" (the Troops) belong on the American border, implying we should be there to stop peaceful Mexican workers from crossing the border. That's a clear violation of Posse Comitatus and I would expect a Constitutionalist to understand that.

Immigration - Paul is what Tom Knapp called a "Stockholm libertarian", that is, he's willing to let the right to freedom of movement be held hostage to the welfare state. This is like saying that people should only live until 70 because after that they cease to be useful and drain Social Security. A little less dramatically, this would be like saying that people shouldn't be able to eat as they please if there were a government-implemented single-payer healthcare system.

That's just a start. I've never bought the argument, either, that federalism means that a state can do whatever the hell it wants, whenever it wants. Also, Ron Paul seems to be disdainful of the Fourteenth Amendment and its implications vis. the applicability of the Bill of Rights to all individuals, but that seems to go part-and-parcel with the neo-Confederate crowd with which he hangs.

Guy Montag|1.11.08 @ 3:51PM|#

Jonathan Blanks,

Glad someone took my comment more seriously than I did :)

|1.11.08 @ 3:51PM|#

we all have an idea of what we'd like libertarianism to be and in your case, you'd prefer it to be free of racism - it's fun to have dreams! but the fact of the matter is libertarians just happen to be a lightning rod for lunatics and people who tend to vote and hold beliefs five- and six-sigma away from the mean of the rest the world.

That's what I argued in response to the donations from neo-Nazis issue. I would be happy to continue arguing that if this were still just about donations. Unfortunately, it is increasingly a question of the candidate's character. You may attack that premise if you will simultaneously claim that the character of a presidential candidate is of absolutely no importance to you. If that is the case, then - fair enough. It's important to me, though, for moral and practical reasons.

|1.11.08 @ 3:51PM|#

MP:

You can't keep that kind of hate/anger bottled up inside you for 30 years! Use your brain!

You fools really think Oprah reads EVERYTHING in her magazine?

vince foster|1.11.08 @ 3:51PM|#

Are the Clintons a "race" now?

What exactly was inaccurate in the newsletter you linked? There were plenty of cites.

For those of you who think it was all over in a few months, what about this letter in Paul's name which manages to accuse Hilary Clinton of being a dyke, Bill of being a Russian spy, and Clinton's mother of being a gambling murderer?

Friend of Cato|1.11.08 @ 3:52PM|#

more anti-war writings from Cato pre-Iraq invasion:

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3016

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=4160

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3567

|1.11.08 @ 3:52PM|#

Windy,

George Allen actually used the word macaca himself, and he was a well known asshat. This isn't Paul's macaca momement. It's some people that used to write a newsletter with Paul 20 years ago's macaca moment. If that's enough for you to bail on a good man, that's your right. But to me this whole smear has just strengthened my resolve to fight for the good doctor.

Bingo|1.11.08 @ 3:53PM|#

kerem: do you know what a minarchist is? because this "A statist, even a minarchist, on the other hand, actively supports agression against property by the hand of the state." does not jive with the definition.

Nash|1.11.08 @ 3:55PM|#

RP doesn't discuss the WOD frequently because it's yet another radical position that his opponents in the Republican party will filet him with.

RP is conservative with a libertarian slant not the other way around. Regardless he's still mostly libertarian on most issues and has still run the most successful campaign espousing a mostly libertarian platform since the 60's, or ever, depending on how big you view the tent.

We can accept and appreciate RP despite his flaws and those of some of his supporters, and build on what he's done and work to get a more socially libertarian and mainstream candidates elected without causing yet another schism in the movement.

Either way it's worth pointing out that RP is probably not getting more than 10% at the voting booth not because of his alleged rejection of cosmotarian ideals but rather because he's a total radical and radicals simply don't get elected. Harry Browne was everyone's dream candidate (whom the "conservative" Lew Rockwell loved by the way) and he made little headway with the voters. Let's not forget that.

Apparently we only get one semi-legitimate candidate running for president every 34 years so we probably should work with what we have instead of splitting hairs over abortion, immigration, federalism and anti great society shock rhetoric from the 90's. I hope those of you rejecting Paul are working to get someone lined up for 2012 because it would nice to be able to vote in a primary again.

|1.11.08 @ 3:56PM|#

kerem timbuk -

we're not have the AC/Minarchist debate again. A bunch of us decided two things:

A) There's no point in arguing it because neither point is relevant in today's political world (unlike racism, which is a very visibile issue and

B) There's no significant difference between ACism and Minarchism anyway, at least in practice.

And for your own edification, calling Rand a statist is stupid as hell on your part.

|1.11.08 @ 3:58PM|#

do you know what a minarchist is? because this "A statist, even a minarchist, on the other hand, actively supports agression against property by the hand of the state." does not jive with the definition.

Bingo, in the strictest of definitions, a minarchist is a De facto supporter of State aggression by allowing even a semblance of a State - since the State can only act in a coercive, non-voluntary way. It may be a slight exaggeration, but technically kerem is correct.

Guy Montag|1.11.08 @ 3:58PM|#

AR,

In last night's debate, Paul seemed to insinuate that "we" (the Troops) belong on the American border, implying we should be there to stop peaceful Mexican workers from crossing the border. That's a clear violation of Posse Comitatus and I would expect a Constitutionalist to understand that.

Actually, you are referring to the Posse Comitatus act of 1878. In title 18 iirc?

It is just a law that can be changed by other law. It also has an explicit exception for Congressional or the Constitutional mandates.

Matt|1.11.08 @ 3:58PM|#

>>>So you can make mistakes, but Paul can't?

But, Episarch, Paul has been given a couple chances and has, uncharacteristically, lapsed into political-ese on the subject. Radley, by contrast, has been clear and forthright. Though it does seem like Radley fudged about Paul's drug war comments.

|1.11.08 @ 3:59PM|#

Bingo, a minarchist is a statist that thinks the state only has the right and duty of protecting property rights, by taxing (invading property rights).

I was a minarchist. I thought the state as a necessary evil, that had to exist but only should have taken care of justice and defense.

Ayn Rand was a minarchist, Mises was a minarchist. Ron Paul is obviously a minarchist.

Martin|1.11.08 @ 3:59PM|#

CATO apparently lost a lot of donor money for opposing the first Gulf War. Although it is true that they came out against the current war, I suspect they kept the volume down a bit to make sure the donors didn't walk out again.

One of the best CATO associated people on foreign policy is Leon Hadar, but his best stuff is usually on antiwar.com or in the American Conservative (and those organs are probably both too Paleo for the sensitivities of the cosmo crowd). Ivan Eland is really sound too, but he left CATO a while ago too. His book 'The Empire Has No Clothes' and his antiwar.com articles are good.

|1.11.08 @ 3:59PM|#

Ayn_Randian:

As to use of military to protect borders being against the "Posse Comitatus Act"?

AYFKM?

What about the Mexican military jeeps that have SHOT at our border patrol agents? And have actually crossed into US territory?

Would it be ok if we used the military to stop incursions like this?

Come on dude... Paul simply said that a good number of our border patrol agents are reservists/guardsmen that are on duty in Iraq instead of on the border...

rta|1.11.08 @ 3:59PM|#

under the bus... There's no other reasonable explanation.
-MP

... unless it's that he's a charitable Chrisitan (gasp!) person not looking to fuck someone over for something Dr Paul has already forgiven him for.

As Dr Paul said on CNN, "the editor is responsible." It's up to the editor to come clean himself. As others have suggested, *you* should throw the author under the bus and find out who he is if that's what got your panties in a wad.

(I think it was probably Gary North, and would be fine throwing him under...)

|1.11.08 @ 4:00PM|#

Regardless he's still mostly libertarian on most issues and has still run the most successful campaign espousing a mostly libertarian platform since the 60's, or ever

I guess that depends on your definition of success, huh?

We'll see how he does in February...I'm pulling for him for the lulz, but that's about it. I'm more entertained by what he's doing than actually supporting him. I might kick him some money for pushing the Rs buttons; that's worth 100 dollars right there.

KoWT|1.11.08 @ 4:00PM|#

Here's how I see this soap opera scene:

When the locally revered Virginia Postrel suggested that Reason's treatment of the Paul2008 phenomenon strayed too far from the Libertarian Shining Path, several Reason writers started falling all over themselves to demonstrate that they've amended their views and still possess the detached ideological purity necessary to remain a (paycheck earning) member of the DC chapter of the Church of Pure Cosmotarianism.

Good luck with that crap...

dhex|1.11.08 @ 4:01PM|#

"... unless it's that he's a charitable Chrisitan (gasp!) person not looking to fuck someone over for something Dr Paul has already forgiven him for."

that's great and all but he owes the people who supported him with money, with time and with effort a better explanation than "that's water under the bridge."

total fucking clownshoes operation.

Bingo|1.11.08 @ 4:02PM|#

Hrm, I must have to read up on my minarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism again. Oh well thanks for clarifying guys, I see the point you were making.

|1.11.08 @ 4:03PM|#

Ayn Randian,

I have the deepest respect for Rand, but she couldnt followed her reasoning enough to be an anarchist and she was to stubborn.

But she was a statist and the words she used against anarchists are not really better than the words she used against the socialists.

But the point being, eventhough racists can be ignorant fools, people who support systematic organized crime, aka the state, is worse.

But I am not the one being purist and nitpicking here. I will welcome even the liberals to this political movement.

|1.11.08 @ 4:03PM|#

It's some people that used to write a newsletter with Paul 20 years ago's macaca moment.

No, it became his when the sum extent of him "taking moral responsibility" was him saying that he took moral responsibility. If he would've done something, anything, more substantive than that, he could've avoided most of this fiasco.

|1.11.08 @ 4:04PM|#

Bingo, in the strictest of definitions, a minarchist is a De facto supporter of State aggression by allowing even a semblance of a State

Goddamnit. I'm getting dragged into this again.

As if property rights are going to magically enforce themselves.

Guy Montag|1.11.08 @ 4:04PM|#

Not sure if this is accurate, but I seem to remember that the Posse Comitatus act was passed to prevent federal troops from performing State law enforcement functions.

Federal border security should be a federal responsibility, not State or local.

|1.11.08 @ 4:05PM|#

I like Rand and all and agree with her quote regarding racism for the most part but her take on the plight of indigenous pre-industrial people and cultures is...well, let's just say that it what was written in those newsletters seem pretty damn weak in comparison.

|1.11.08 @ 4:06PM|#

This just in: Voting causes people to select best of imperfect options!

Nobody cares about my opinion, but this is the internet, so you're getting it anyway.

Radley's off base by implying that Paul wrote these. I've seen WAY too much chatter from high-level (current and former) Paulites to believe that these were from the Doctor's hand.

But, I've been supremely disappointed to see that he hasn't named names and hasn't addressed this more directly. It suggests that he'd be a little too loyal to his inner circle to be the president that I at one point hoped he might be (if he stood a chance.)

That said, whenever you vote (as compared to abstaining), you necessarily pick the least imperfect person for each position because no one is perfect. And after seeing what my other options are, I'm still voting for Paul without hesitation. The other strategic choices are that bad.

Can you vote for a non-strategic, 0% candidate (say, yourself) and have a clear conscience? Probably in that you think you've chosen the best person, but again, you're not perfect either. Voting is, by its nature, a measure of how far from perfection you are willing to wander in order to achieve a strategic end. Think any of those 2000 Naderites wish they were a bit more forgiving of Gorebot's faults?

Can you not vote? Yes, but that's not a solution either, no matter what anyone around here says. You can fill the city council of Chicago with people who all got 1 vote each (from themselves) but guess what: They still run the city (and the budget and the police force) no matter how they got there.

So, while I am deeply disappointed in Dr. Paul's handling of this situation, I see no other legitimate alternative than to vote for him.

Bingo|1.11.08 @ 4:06PM|#

One of my favorite aspects of the libertarian movement is the fact that we can get into huge debates about political philosophy but still agree on 90% of policy.

|1.11.08 @ 4:06PM|#

kerem, you are so full of nonsense. You're telling me you have "deep respect" for someone who, in your words, "supports systematic organized crime"?

How can you even use the word "crime" without alluding to the law, and therefore government, in the first place?

|1.11.08 @ 4:08PM|#

Guy -

Point out to me, please, where

A) Mexicans crossing the border is a matter of "security" and
B) Crossing the border of the United States is unconstitutional

Please.

Dodsworth|1.11.08 @ 4:08PM|#

I understand dumping Paul. I've thought of it myself.....but if I do I hope I honestly admit I'm doing it for the following reasons: 1. he's doing more harm than good for libertarianism. 2. I can't take the heat anymore with being associated with him.

I hope that I will not do the following: make up things about Paul's stand on the drug war to ease my conscience, or complain that he didn't have some sort of crying fit on t.v. and personally blame someone else for his screw-up. Paul is a good man and has a far better record of fighting for a frree society than any of us.

|1.11.08 @ 4:09PM|#

well, let's just say that it what was written in those newsletters seem pretty damn weak in comparison

No argument. I'm willing to say that and have actually said that very thing here in these fora.

I'm willing to take out the trash. Is Paul?

|1.11.08 @ 4:10PM|#

She advanced liberty and that is enough for me. Seh had personal shortcomings, and political shortcomings. So what?

Mises, which I respect more than Rand, was a statist too. He couldnt concieve of a free society either. But he advanced economics, and liberty.

A crime or a law doesn't need a state to exist. Laws are natural based on the nature of man.

|1.11.08 @ 4:11PM|#

Here's how I see this soap opera scene:

Riiiiight...that sounds objective.

I bet that your little narrative there conveniently conforms to all of your beliefs and biases.

Political Officer|1.11.08 @ 4:12PM|#

Can we purge the anarchists? Human nature being what it is, a world without a state leads to the powerful (physically strong, economically advantaged, intelligent, etc.) limiting the freedom of the less powerful, causing there to be less liberty than there would be with limited government.

Oh, but of course, we'll convince everyone to be good little anarchists and not hurt each other. Why, let's convice everyone to be good little communists, or even better, breed homo sovieticus and have a kumbayah land where everyone loves and shares, giving according to their abilities and taking according to their needs.

|1.11.08 @ 4:12PM|#

Also if you really think this racism stuff finished Paul, you are kidding yourself.

This stuff may disappoint many people, hurt some peoples feelings.

But the stuf that finished Paul is his insistance on ending the empire and the fed.

That is not just hurting feelings.

charlie|1.11.08 @ 4:13PM|#

Let me get this straight:

John McCain can all asians "gooks", but that's okay because he's a war hero. He can argue against trading with Arab countries "because they only want to trade burkas" and that's perfectly acceptable.

Fred Thompson can talk about sending Iranian military members to the virgins in heaven they supposedly seek -- confusing the Shiite religion with the Wahhabist sect that makes up Al Qaeda, but again, that's okay because he's merely being bigoted toward muslims.

Rudy Giuliani can run ads warning us of the threat of swarthy foreigners, and can employ people who openly talk about Rudy being the best candidate to "take on the muslims" (and say that there's "no such thing" as a good muslim).

Mike Huckabee can give the fucking Sunday sermon at John Hagee's church -- the same guy whose support of Israel is premised on the fact that when the apocalypse comes, all the Jews there will be either killed or converted to Christianity -- and that's perfectly okay.

But if a few admittedly horrible, bigoted statements end up in a few 20 year old newsletters that bear Ron Paul's name -- despite the fact that he credibly denies having written them and having shared the sentiments expressed in them -- why, that's beyond the pale for the likes of Virginia Postrel.

I too am disappointed in the content of the newsletters, but I think it's revealing that in the age of YouTube, no one has ever produced a clip of Ron Paul saying anything remotely racist. In fact, I've never heard someone even claim that Ron Paul is a racist -- not even Jamie Kirchick would go so far as to say that Ron Paul has ever said anything racist.

I also find it revealing that, again, Virgina Postrel and many of the Reason writers condemning Paul could no find the time to condemn any of the litany of anti-muslim bigotry that passes for discourse in the modern GOP.

It's very telling, if you ask me.

|1.11.08 @ 4:13PM|#

A crime or a law doesn't need a state to exist. Laws are natural based on the nature of man.

Isn't it weird how 7,000 years of natural man keeps cropping up with ways to enforce that law?

It's almost like government is...natural or something. Weird, huh?

|1.11.08 @ 4:13PM|#

Radley is just trying to protect his career. How would it look on his resume if he was seen defending the awful Ron Paul. He has to cut his ties now before it's too late.

|1.11.08 @ 4:16PM|#

charlie - we're taking what was supposed to be one of our own and giving him the same treatment we've given every other candidate up there.

Basically, we expected better. It's kind of like the animus and hate from a divorce: we loved Paul and he betrayed us.

I expect all that from those people you listed. I didn't expect this from Paul.

Again, more egregious than all of it is the weak and easily-countered lie that he never ever thought this way, which he said in 2008, but defended these same comments in 1996.

We have higher standards. Sorry charlie.

penxv|1.11.08 @ 4:16PM|#

It isn't about the guy... it's about his policy.

I think that he saved talking about the drug war because he knew that this attack was coming.

Telling people that he would pardon the federal nonviolent drug offenders is big news. And something that will resonate amongst the underclass. And its an argument he can go to any time he is accused of being a racist. Which he will be.

I wasn't aware of the newsletters until recently, but it doesn't really change anything.

He has been preaching freedom, not white superiority.

|1.11.08 @ 4:16PM|#

"A crime or a law doesn't need a state to exist. Laws are natural based on the nature of man.

Isn't it weird how 7,000 years of natural man keeps cropping up with ways to enforce that law?

It's almost like government is...natural or something. Weird, huh?"

So if it is old it must be allright? No use for reasoning?

So you are neither a libertarian nor an Objectivist.

You are a conservative.

|1.11.08 @ 4:18PM|#

Alls I gotta say is that if I here the phrase cosmo or paleo one more time...look people I collect knives...

|1.11.08 @ 4:18PM|#

Ahhhh, who am I kidding, non-initiation of force.

Roach|1.11.08 @ 4:19PM|#

I see the Trilateral Commission and Freemasons have sunk their tentacles into you too Radley.

Channeling Ron Paul, as the Dad said in Red Dawn, "AVENGE ME!!!"

SIV|1.11.08 @ 4:19PM|#

Bingo | January 11, 2008, 2:36pm | #
This one is 150 posts easily unless Weigel gets a RP post in right after

150 yet?

You REASON guys through denouncing and disavowing yet? O r can we expect this through the GOP convention.

Lost any DC party invitations yet?

|1.11.08 @ 4:19PM|#

What a bunch of PC suck-ups. The entire 'race' discussion was initiated to seize control of the debate and I see a boatful of scared horsies falling for it.

Dr. Paul has my financial support and my vote. The ninnies who are afraid that their friends might think they're racist for backing Ron Paul can go run off and vote for a nice PC-vetted candidate so that they can hold their heads up at whatever martini-n-weiner party might shun them for not doing so.

charlie|1.11.08 @ 4:22PM|#

Ayn Randian --

I don't disagree. Paul is one of our own (or close enough) so he deserves to be scrutinized. But point me to any post from Virginia Postrel or any of the Reason writers condemning the anti-muslim nastiness that took place in last night's debate.

Look, I hate to focus on Postrel, who I'm sure is a nice lady, but she supported a war that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead innocents. It has destroyed Iraqi society. Yet she finds the time to write about the exciting world of fonts, but nothing about the complete disintegration of the Middle East. And she can find no time to condemn her fellow hawks when they make bigoted jokes about muslims.

But Ron Paul -- oh, she can find the time (and I'm sure it has nothing to do with his outspoken opposition to a war she was so gung-ho about.... absolutely nothing).

|1.11.08 @ 4:23PM|#

kerem - you're out of your league, here, little man.

I never said that just because something was old that makes it good, did I?

I'm just curious that, if you looked at beavers build dams for 7,000 years why you would one day look at a beaver dam and go "that's not natural at all!"

Roach|1.11.08 @ 4:23PM|#

Radley says to the question: Do you buy the argument that a program "disproportionately affects minorities" is a good reason for or against something?

Radley: Well, I happen to believe in the rule of law, which requires equality before the law. So if a policy results in one group of people being treated differently than another (the crack/powder cocaine sentencing disparity, for example), then yes, I think that's an excellent reason to oppose it.

Me: The group, "crack smokers," is treated different. And blacks are treated different because more of their number smokes crack. If more of them rape, murder, rob, and steal (which they do according to the NCVS and UCR statistics that are easily available), then are those laws bad and should they be undone because of the same idiotic disparate impact reasoning?

The question answers itself and shows the moral poverty of Radley's reasoning. Equality and liberty don't jibe Radley, read some more and get off the ipod.

Windypundit|1.11.08 @ 4:23PM|#

George Allen actually used the word macaca himself, and he was a well known asshat. This isn't Paul's macaca momement. It's some people that used to write a newsletter with Paul 20 years ago's macaca moment.

Maybe. I have trouble believing he doesn't know who wrote this stuff. If you were him, and you found out someone had written this stuff in your name, wouldn't you want to know who did it?

If that's enough for you to bail on a good man, that's your right. But to me this whole smear has just strengthened my resolve to fight for the good doctor.

When Paul kept that neo-Nazi money, I didn't have a problem, because I believed his argument about why he kept it, and I could make the same argument myself.

But when it comes to the contents of the newsletters, I certainly can't defend them, and I can't defend Paul's explanation of the situation because I don't believe it myself. Thus, Paul has put me in the position of having to distance myself from him. I think a lot of other people have found themselves in the same position.

|1.11.08 @ 4:24PM|#

Ahhhh, who am I kidding, non-initiation of force.

Another very ill-defined principle. Very ill-defined.

|1.11.08 @ 4:26PM|#

Roach - uhhh, no.

The reason for murder laws is obvious.

The reason for the crack/cocaine disparity is racism.

Start over, tiny stuff.

|1.11.08 @ 4:26PM|#

"I'm just curious that, if you looked at beavers build dams for 7,000 years why you would one day look at a beaver dam and go "that's not natural at all!""

Beavers and humans arent the same. We humans are rational beings and use our reason in order to stay alive. I dont know much about beavers.

I am not going to get into a lengthy debate about anarchism here.

You obviously think calling names and discrimination based on race is worse than theft and murder.

I don't.

Simple as that.

Brandybuck|1.11.08 @ 4:27PM|#

Cosmolib = pragmatic
paleoconlib = moralistic

You need both pragmatism and morality. But the labels are wrong. Paleolibertarians are moralistic, but they are also very pragmatic. They're they only one's who have managed to get a congressional seat. Being pragmatic doesn't mean to compromise your principles.

I don't consider cosmotarians to be pragmatic, because I haven't seen any pragmatic results. I see lots of policy papers, but no elections won. But I do see a lot of compromising. Their philosophy is essentially "libertarian-lite". And they do tend to be principled, just a slightly different set of principles.

p.s. Of coure, there are more than just these two camps, and no one is calling every libertarian working for a DC institute a cosmo.

|1.11.08 @ 4:29PM|#

charlie - first of all, sorry for coming at you hard. Me blood's up.

Anywho, I believe that plenty of links have been provided in and throughout this post that show that other cosmo-libs recognize Republican anti-Muslim bias.

I mean, you can go after Postrel for hypocrisy; no skin off of my nose, but whatever her motivation was in attacking Paul is well, meaningless. You should address the argument against Paul, that is, that he's yokel-y, or at least, hangs around yokels who flirt with racism and sometimes go way over that line.

Founded by David Rockefeller, the elite and secretive
Trilateral Commission works for big government at home, and world
government abroad. Carter, Bush, and Clinton belong. - RP Newsletter, 1993

I mean, the Trilateral Commission...seriously? Argh!

Gutpolljutcham|1.11.08 @ 4:31PM|#

First ... all of you are niggers.
Second ... the commie purge that is taking place here would make Uncle Joe Stalin nod approvingly.
Third ... does it really fucking matter what RP did 20 years ago? This is fucking 2008! So he allowed some paleos to express fringe views ... bad move, to be certain. What matters is what he stands for now ... but it's too late. Thanks alot Reason!! Thanks alot Radley!! You are helping to destroy the one shot we will ever have at broadcasting our ideas to millions of Americans... all so that you can go home and feel better about yourself for having joined the morally righteous firing squad. Fuck off!

Ayn|1.11.08 @ 4:31PM|#

Ayn:

Racism? Heh, wait a minute. Charles Rangel and the black caucus endorsed the tougher crack laws back in the 1980s after the Len Bias death. They only complained later.

|1.11.08 @ 4:32PM|#

Simple as that.

Smart move. You're way overmatched.

We humans are rational beings and use our reason in order to stay alive. I dont know much about beavers.

Well, yes, primarily so. But if you think that humans are just rational robots you'd be wrong. We have instinct and emotion to go with it.

SIV|1.11.08 @ 4:34PM|#

As long as we libertarians are a bunch of racists
I'll ask:

Aren't African-Americans (the Blacks if you prefer) arrested disproportionately for drug crimes because they are much more likely to posses and sell drugs on the street rather than inside private property? When you engage in criminal activity in an area that has more crime you are likely to be observed a lot more by both police and other criminals who will dime you out to get themselves off the hook.

Police arrest more Blacks for drug offenses largely because they are easier pickin's.

|1.11.08 @ 4:35PM|#

Charles Rangel and the black caucus endorsed the tougher crack laws

I mean, it isn't just white racists who view black people as children, is it? Politicians have this annoying habit of nannying everybody.

I've said all along that AA and the like is really an insult to minorities, not a boost.

|1.11.08 @ 4:36PM|#

Oh emotion, ha. You are going to make me cry.

First I kindly suggest you change your alias.

Second, do you know how many Iraqies have been murdered since 2003?

The only guy that can stop the spread of this senseless murder is getting heat for some racists remarks that went under his name that hurt peoples feelings.

I dont know if I am overmatched or undermatched but I am getting sick to my stomach.

This whole stuff maybe game to you guys but it is life or death for many.

|1.11.08 @ 4:37PM|#

SIV - where's the evidence that black drug dealers do more business out in the street?

Apparently you've never met a redneck meth dealer.

Nor have you ever understood the connotation to the term "crack house".

|1.11.08 @ 4:37PM|#

What's with all the CYA Radley? You endorsed a set of views and principles that you're well known for. Many of us endorse the same things.

If the newsletters went out without his oversight, then it was obviously negligence on Paul's part. What reason do we have to believe that he actually wrote those things? For a man who has demonstrated such consistency of principle in congress, I think it rather odd to spend 20 years writing hateful articles then turn around and refer to Martin Luther King as a personal hero. Doesn't this seem a little contradictory?

GPS|1.11.08 @ 4:39PM|#

Long time lurker, infrequent poster here...

I agree with a lot of what's been said around here. While it's difficult to say without knowing the man personally, I'm confortable in believing that Paul is not a racist (now that isn't to say he may not bristle if his daughter - if he has one - married a black man, but who knows). His use of the term "the blacks" is a little dated and not very PC nowadays, but I'm guessing the percentage of white males aged 70+ who are up on modern PC lingo is probably on the small side.

That said, his handling of the newsletters, especially then and somewhat now, is a downer. It shows a lack of organization oversight (it's a pubicly-distributed and politically-charged newsletter with your name across the top... how could you not be more in tuned with who's got their hands in it?) and brings into question the type of crowd he'll allow into his inner circle and write under his sponsorship, even if he doesn't agree with their ideology, per se.

While he still needs to shake some of the old school social conservatism, IMO, he's done a lot to bring the ideals of small government, the evils of the WoD and the virtues of "play nice" with other nations to listening ears.

My hope is that this will help energize others (perhaps within the GOP?) with similar viewpoints in subsequent elections, where we'll always have a "Ron Paul" on the national stage, though privately hopefully with more of a youthful Obama-like charisma.

Moreover, I don't think there needs to be the polar extremes of Love Paul or Hate Paul. I like Paul and support him (though not as fervently as others do) in getting his message out there, while recognizing some aspects that will never completely click with me.

SIV|1.11.08 @ 4:40PM|#

I've only seen some of the excerpts from the newsletters and my first reactions were that the stuff didn't seem as bad as I was led to believe
from the way earlier,example-free reports.

Is there a lot of stuff that is worse than talk radio? What I read was closer to old Neal Boortz stuff rather than as bad as current Michael Savage.

|1.11.08 @ 4:40PM|#

First I kindly suggest you change your alias.

Yeah, I get that a lot. Get in line, man.

The only guy that can stop the spread of this senseless murder is getting heat

What is he, Superman? I say again, the Libertarian party exists still, right?

Oh emotion, ha. You are going to make me cry.

Are you denying it exists or something? I know people see emotionless Rand characters like Roark and Galt and think that's how we're supposed to live, but it isn't.

Roach|1.11.08 @ 4:41PM|#

Read the history: black urban activists in the 80s, sick of the "crack epidemic" in their neighborhoods, fought for tougher sentences. If I may quote Reason Magazine, http://www.reason.com/news/show/36648.html, "Still, it's worth remembering that black politicians and community leaders were among the loudest voices demanding tough action to suppress the crack trade in the 1980s. The response included a bizarre system of federal penalties that treats one gram of crack the same as 100 grams of cocaine powder, even though these are different forms of the same drug. This disparate treatment of smokable and snortable cocaine (which many states, not including Texas, imitated) imposes harsh sentences on low-level crack dealers, who are overwhelmingly black."

I'll concede this difference leads to more blacks in prison. I also think it's unfair and unwise; low level dealers and users I believe can and should be rehabilitated and treated respectively.

But that doesn't make this dumb law racist, any more than the SAT Test or the NBA Draft are "institutionally racist" for the disparate impacts each imposes on black and whites respectively.

When blacks do something less often but go to jail more often, undoubtedly the situation in the Jim Crow South, that's a disparate impact to be concerned about. But since the NCVS (a survey of victims) and the UCR (a study of convictions) reveal no significant disparities between the races in violent and property crimes, I see no reason to think there's much of a big difference in drug crimes either. Can anyone think of why there's no significant arrest/sentencing/conviction and offending in the one case but not the other?

By this I mean that if 3/10 whites and 4/10 blacks use crack, and each racial cohort makes up 50% each of a given city's population, and if the cops arrest 30 whites and 40 blacks for smoking crack, this would not be an example of invidious racism. An unwise law perhaps, but not a racist one.

Why?

Because I can substitute any other crime up there for the same numbers--a real crime everyone agrees on like robbery--and no one would think that's a racist outcome. This is indeed the case for robbery and every other violent crime. You can't just pick and choose how you apply a supposed standard like disparate impact and be persuasive, and that's what Radley does above.

R C Dean|1.11.08 @ 4:43PM|#

Look, I hate to focus on Postrel, who I'm sure is a nice lady, but she supported a war that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of dead innocents.

Err, no. The Lancet study has been discredited. Or hadn't you heard?

It has destroyed Iraqi society.

We have learned there was practically nothing left of Iraqi society after Saddam's generation in power. That's why the last several years have been so gruelling - we thought there was something to build on, and there really wasn't, so it has to be created from scratch. What the war destroyed was the totalitarian state that animated the rotting corpse of Iraqi society.

|1.11.08 @ 4:43PM|#

blah blah Roach.

you still haven't answered how it is in anyway relevant to point these things out.

blacks may or may not commit certain crimes at higher rates. So the fuck what?

SERIOUSLY...SO WHAT?

.|1.11.08 @ 4:46PM|#

ben-

What reason do we have to believe that he wrote them?
1) They were in his news letter
2) A while back, he, himself, claimed he did write them.

Why turn around to praise MLK? Because it will get him more votes than not doing so?

This is a legitimate concern. There's no reason to believe he is inherently better than other politicians. Its entirely possible that, if elected, his actual policy will be different than campaign rhetoric.

At the bare minimum, it shows that he may end up being incapable of controlling something he is in charge of. If he can't control the people he delegated power to, to run a new letter, how is he going to run the executive branch?

SIV|1.11.08 @ 4:47PM|#

SIV - where's the evidence that black drug dealers do more business out in the street?

What planet do you live on?

Apparently you've never met a redneck meth dealer.

Probably a lot more than you.

Nor have you ever understood the connotation to the term "crack house".

Readily identifiable by the spillover criminal activity in the street and the constant snitching by its habitués.

andy|1.11.08 @ 4:47PM|#

oh my GOD. do you seriously not see a problem with referring to blacks as african-american? like THE FACT THAT NOT ALL OF THEM ARE AFRICAN. they aren't technically "black" either, but they do tend to have darker skin... but "colored" as a descriptive word is out of the question.

if you insist on saying african-americans and in thinking that somehow it's more palatable as a term, i'm going to assume you're only referring to a group of people with dark skin whose lineage traces to africa... not to jamaica, or the dominican republic, or anywhere in south america, or the middle east, or the caribbean, australia, papua new guinea...

severin|1.11.08 @ 4:48PM|#

Do these letters and the controversy surrounding them remind anyone else of the Trent Lott/Strom Thurman controvesy where Lott was accused of being a racist because he had priased Strom Thurman. The media latched on to it and made Thurman's racist words appear to be from Lott.

|1.11.08 @ 4:49PM|#

R C Dean said: "We have learned there was practically nothing left of Iraqi society after Saddam's generation in power."

Who did you learn that from? Some thinktank Neocon with a butt to cover?

Try hearing the words of Iraqis, not Neocons:

http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2008/01/straight-talk.html

"You are the dictators, you are the tyrants, you are the terrorists...
You are the ones who ruined this country, who pillaged it, who raped and killed its people and destroyed its history...

You are the ones who divided it into sects and ethnicities, collaborating with the most fascistic elements inside of it, like the chauvinists, Zionists, Kurds and the sectarian, backward Shiites.


You have given us a Shi'ite Iranian theocracy, and if the Iraqi national Resistance finally does away with these Persian turbaned scum from Qum, Nejaf and Kerbala, we will be left with an another theocracy "Sunni" flavored.

I thought you were against Fundamentalism, are you not? How come your fucking occupation encouraged both kinds?

Don't tell me, I know already.

You are the ones who created Al-Qaeda and you are the ones who fed this other fungus called political Shi'ism in its most deviant form called Khomeinism.

You are indeed the real Terrorists. You are indeed the blood vampires. You are the Al-Qaedas of this world.

You say, we were oppressed and repressed under a "totalitarian regime". Ha!

And what are you doing you motherfuckers. Are you not oppressing and repressing us?

Did you know that anyone, and I mean anyone who dares criticize your favorite puppet Al-Maliki (from the Iranian Al-Dawa party) and the other Kurdish pimp called Talabani, the so-called President of Iraq - I shit on such presidency by the way - disappears in dungeons?

Did you know that people are abducted from their homes on bogus charges and are imprisoned and tortured if they dare speak out against the filthy rapists/thugs/corrupt militias you have installed in power. The militias bearing the name of the king driller who ethnically cleansed the whole of Baghdad and goes by the name of Muqtada al-Sadr?"

adrian|1.11.08 @ 4:51PM|#

charlie: leave the pure libertarians alone. They expect perfection and nothing less, and as long as they have maintained their pure principles they can die satisfied though well aware that they have achieved NOTHING.

|1.11.08 @ 4:52PM|#

I'll mail y'all some of these if it would make you feel better.

Now can we move on? The past few days are starting to look more like a CYA-fest than journalism.

JD,
Holy fuck.

|1.11.08 @ 4:52PM|#

JD - I'm heartened. Arabia has found its Noam Chomsky!

|1.11.08 @ 4:55PM|#

They expect perfection and nothing less, and as long as they have maintained their pure principles they can die satisfied though well aware that they have achieved NOTHING.

Riiiight.

We're just pragmatic enough to kick the racists out, is all.

Anchors Aweigh!

sv|1.11.08 @ 4:55PM|#

even while doubt has been cast upon the lancet study's high 600,000 figure, other recent work suggests that it's in the 6 figures, which to me doesn't seem at all unreasonable. and i think that doesn't include the actual iraqi soldiers killed in the invasion (i dont know, but wasn't that probably five figures?)

Roach|1.11.08 @ 4:57PM|#

Ayn I was responding to the facile argument that the crack-powder disparity is racist. If blacks smoek more crack and deal more crack, then their greater rate of arrest and imprisonment for violating the crack laws is not racist. It's just what happens when a group offends more. I was trying to make that crystal clear, but I see you had trouble connecting the dots (even with the Radley quote above). Anyway, good luck in life. It sounds like you'll need it with those critical thinking skills honed from monitoring the Trilateral Commission no doubt.

Roach|1.11.08 @ 4:58PM|#

Why's anyone surprised that libertarians are constantly outing one another, excommunicating one another, and acting like ineffective purists? There's much evidence that a large democratic system will always trend towards two parties because, for a variety of coalition-building reasons, but the libertarians don't want to deal with the compromises of either one and instead want to play in their sandbox. Of course they're impractical and ineffective purists!!

|1.11.08 @ 5:00PM|#

"Arabia has found its Noam Chomsky!"

Noam would never dare to bitch about the crimes of Zionists.

|1.11.08 @ 5:02PM|#

Anyway, good luck in life. It sounds like you'll need it with those critical thinking skills honed from monitoring the Trilateral Commission no doubt.

Huh? Dude, you're a stone-cold retard.

You still haven't answered why it's relevant in modern discourse to point out that certain races may or may not commit certain crimes at certain times.

Martin|1.11.08 @ 5:02PM|#

'We're just pragmatic enough to kick the racists out, is all.'

But not the warmongers. They are far too cosmopolitan!

|1.11.08 @ 5:04PM|#

If we were purists, we wouldn't be throwing the racists out in the first place. You're continuing to not make sense, which is about par for the course for you.

Noam would never dare to bitch about the crimes of Zionists.

Wow, here we go again.

|1.11.08 @ 5:07PM|#

Believe what you like, Martin.

Intentions count for something.

|1.11.08 @ 5:07PM|#

If you can show me where Noam has ever taken the Zionist project to task for its crimes with the same vigor with which he's pursued the crimes of other corporate/government entities, I'd like to see it.

|1.11.08 @ 5:08PM|#

"But not the warmongers. They are far too cosmopolitan!"

Awesome. You're my favorite person of the past 60 seconds.

Roach|1.11.08 @ 5:12PM|#

Ayn, you ask, "You still haven't answered why it's relevant in modern discourse to point out that certain races may or may not commit certain crimes at certain times."

I point these things out for several reasons.

One, disparities in imprisonment and arrest and sentencing are sometimes used as evidence of vast amounts of underground, invidious racism. I think this is charge is corrosive to social solidarity between whites and blacks, is not true, and these disparities are instead explained by greater rates of minority criminality.

Second, I am concerned about crime in general. If one group--whether men, poor people, or blacks--is committing a lot more crime than otherwise similar groups, it calls for study to see why it's happening and how it can be stopped for the good of society as a whole, and for the good of that group ultimately.

Finally, I am concerned about this because this disparity and explosion of violent crime has been a phenomenon of certain aspects of black society that are now more and more prominent in white society, particularly illegitimacy. If there is some connection of these things--and I believe there is--it's worthwhile for whties to reocgnize antisocial elements among black Americans are to some extent caused by social conditions that can be prevented through a variety of means.

PS Here, as I said after you asked this question earlier, I began to discuss this to show that Radley was not speaking rigorously or sensibly about the crack-power disparity, insofar as he would not worry about similar disparities with crimes almost all of us are agreed upon.

|1.11.08 @ 5:13PM|#

If you can show me where Noam has ever taken the Zionist project to task for its crimes with the same vigor with which he's pursued the crimes of other corporate/government entities, I'd like to see it.

Why does it matter?

And how is Zionism a crime? What law did it break? I mean, some guys occupied some land; kind of like Europeans did with America.

You wanna hash that all out again? You need a lesson in learning how to deal, dude.

But not the warmongers. They are far too cosmopolitan!

A lot of pro-war libertarians have come around. Can't say the same for Paul's merry band of race-baiting SoCons.

|1.11.08 @ 5:15PM|#

can be prevented through a variety of means.

Like what?

|1.11.08 @ 5:17PM|#

Ayn, you're diverting. All I asked was to be shown where Noam critiqued Zionism with the same fervor that he critiques Americanism and other corporate/state ventures.

Like it or not, Zionism is a corporate/state venture. Noam seems to shield it.

andy|1.11.08 @ 5:17PM|#

ayn_randian:

when you make so many posts on a thread and fling so much shit, you start looking more like you're trying to be king of the hill, when really, the goal of this thread is to, you know... capture the flag. that flag being the topic... and perhaps even its fruitful debate.

let me point out that you and your preening attitude are still uncrowned... unless we're talking about who is king of the shitpile of tangential conversation and flame-baiting. (i write this acknowledging that i just flung poo.)

|1.11.08 @ 5:20PM|#

All I asked was to be shown where Noam critiqued Zionism with the same fervor that he critiques Americanism and other corporate/state ventures.

And I asked you why it mattered. You didn't answer.

andy - wow: speck, meet beam. Beam; speck.

Roach|1.11.08 @ 5:22PM|#

Means would include things like: not subsidizing illegitimacy through welfare, social ostracism of the kind these purists above are now exercising against Ron Paul, some shaming of black leaders that use incindiary rhetoric about a prison-industrial-complex (as if blacks don't commit a lot more crime), public schools, moral leadership by black celebrities, some greater sympathy for police in the use of racial profiling in order to control a much more dangerous group, deregulation of various businesses in urban areas, etc. etc.

In other words, we need something like the kind of race realism that prevailed among educated, white, northern Americans before WWII coupled with some sensible reform of our money-sucking city governments.

|1.11.08 @ 5:23PM|#

Police arrest more Blacks for drug offenses largely because they are easier pickin's.

SIV - where's the evidence that black drug dealers do more business out in the street?

I have to jump in here. Having extensive experience with both the suburban and inner city drug trade, SIV is mostly correct on this. I've got no study to back me up, but as I walk down the streets of Motown, I am often (> once a week) offered crack cocaine (rocks) or heroin (blow)to purchase. When I lived in the overwhelmingly white suburbs of Dearborn and Plymouth this NEVER occured. Busting inner city/downtown open air drug dealers is picking low lying fruit. I'd be a fool to contend that is the only reason for the disparity in arrests and convictions, but it is a major one.

|1.11.08 @ 5:24PM|#

"And I asked you why it mattered."

Because corporate/state ventures are fascism. Fascism and its defenders have no place in any debate about individual liberty except to be rejected.

So now that I answered, please show me where Noam critiques Zionism with the same fervor that he critiques Americanism and other corporate/state ventures.

|1.11.08 @ 5:25PM|#

some greater sympathy for police in the use of racial profiling in order to control a much more dangerous group

Yep. I sensed this coming.

Equality before the law means individual equality before the law. Period.

Good-bye.

|1.11.08 @ 5:27PM|#

please show me where Noam critiques Zionism with the same fervor that he critiques Americanism and other corporate/state ventures.

Why would I? I don't care. I made a glib remark because the rhetoric from the Arabic post sounded like the crazy crap that comes from Noam's mouth.

You're the one all hung up on a throwaway comment.

FWIW, you still haven't answered why it matters that Noam criticizes some things but not others. Maybe he's got priorities. Maybe he never found the time. Who the fuck cares?

|1.11.08 @ 5:32PM|#

"the rhetoric from the Arabic post"

They're words from a person who's watched her country get raped and her citizens murdered by the Americans, Brits, Kurds, Israelis and other foreign invaders.

Why do you discount the rape and murder of Arabs? Are you a racist?

|1.11.08 @ 5:34PM|#

"Maybe he's got priorities. Maybe he never found the time."

LOL! Are you actually defending Noam Chomsky?

Roach|1.11.08 @ 5:35PM|#

Ayn, I see you prefer the "You still haven't answered my question style."

How do you explain black crime, black failure, and black social problems in the US?

Do you, in explaining these things, reject genetic and other less popular explanations?

Why shouldn't we think about life (and important practical things like who we important into this country) through racial lenses since racial differences predict so many other differences: wealth, crime, education, IQ, etc.?

|1.11.08 @ 5:36PM|#

"Reason are covering their asses"

They're going far beyond CYA. They're witch hunting, and flogging this horse even more than the pinkos are. Hell, even the TNR article's author admitted that he doesn't think RP is a racist.

-jcr

|1.11.08 @ 5:36PM|#

Why do you discount the rape and murder of Arabs? Are you a racist?

They're words from one person. I don't see how discounting one person's rhetoric = discounting rape and murder.

Did you hurt yourself doing those mental gymnastics?

|1.11.08 @ 5:36PM|#

"How do you explain black crime, black failure, and black social problems in the US?"

People that look at life through the race lens are missing about 98% of reality.

|1.11.08 @ 5:43PM|#

Why shouldn't we think about life...through racial lenses since racial differences predict so many other differences: wealth, crime, education, IQ, etc.?

Because I'm not a collectivist. I don't ascribe individual failings to the color of a person's skin. Especially since one successful black person undoes your whole racist theory.

I explain the higher rates of crime among blacks as a symptom of racism and groupthink.

No, I don't believe in preferential treatment to fix these problems. You do; you think whites should get less scrutiny from the police in individual crimes because of group statistics. And that was Radley Balko's point in the beginning of the post: it's this groupthink that you ascribe to that's the genesis for all these problems in the first place.

LOL! Are you actually defending Noam Chomsky?

No, I don't care about him one way or the other. You're the one with the "Zionist" hobbyhorse, not me.

Roach|1.11.08 @ 5:43PM|#

JD, you really showed me. I should go watch Trading Places or something to atone for my ignorance.

|1.11.08 @ 5:45PM|#

"They're words from one person."

One person who's speaking the truth:

"Did you know that the whole of Baghdad is sealed behind walls like ghettoes and that digital prints, iris scans, and badges are required to move from one neighborhood to another?"

You're a perfect example of the neolibs that screams "racist!" unless a group that you don't like is getting creamed.

|1.11.08 @ 5:45PM|#

Do you, in explaining these things, reject genetic and other less popular explanations?

Why shouldn't we think about life (and important practical things like who we important into this country) through racial lenses since racial differences predict so many other differences: wealth, crime, education, IQ, etc.?

Roach, My mother taught me to never argue with fools or drunks. Since I don't think you're drunk, I'm just putting you into the fool category.

Is that OK?

Roach|1.11.08 @ 5:47PM|#

Ayn, many of the truths about life involving mankind are statistical and probalistic in nature, at least the useful ones. It's not like some huge coincidence Kenyans keep winning Marathons or that all those strongmen competition guys are from the Great White North. One successful black person does not prove or disprove anything, unless someone thought something stupid like No Black People are Ever Successful.

But, guess what, if you're playing poker, Deuce Seven might make a full house, but it's still better to ship it in with Aces. It's called probability, trends, likelihoods, disproportions, etc. All of the useful sociological truths tend to be statistical in nature.

Chew on that one for a while. It might make you smarter.

|1.11.08 @ 5:47PM|#

RB wrote, in the original posting, "This campaign could have represented the first time ever (that I know of) that a GOP candidate challenged his rivals to defend the failure and moral corruption of drug prohibition in a nationally-televised debate. It hasn't happened. That his longest discussion of the drug war to date had to come only after he was confronted about the newsletters, and in the context of defending himself from accusations of racism, is unfortunate. And perhaps telling."

I actually remember RP mentioning the WOD in one or two debates that I watched in past months. So it's not as if he has been hiding this part of his platform. He just doesn't often get a chance to bring it out, front and center.

Of course, now that he has given the WOD speech before Wolf Blitzer's CNN cameras, he'll want to work the talking points into pretty much everything, perhaps almost as much as Rudy utters "9-11" with nearly every breath. (Watch the latter speak for five minutes or so. It's uncanny!) So I expect his future debate appearances to include a good dose of the WOD "prescription." Let's see what happens.

I also agree that he should hit this point hard in advertising. He has already started to advertise on the radio here in CA, so perhaps I'll soon hear such a spot as I am driving around...

|1.11.08 @ 5:47PM|#

"I'm not a collectivist."

Your remark about "the rhetoric from the Arabic post" says otherwise.

Roach|1.11.08 @ 5:48PM|#

One more thing, I'm all for locking up and finding white crooks. Since the victimization and offending arrest data converge, this shows that police are providing the proper, proportional amount of attention to both white and black offenders. Read it again. Slowly. It all makes sense, if you've finished HS math.

|1.11.08 @ 5:49PM|#

"You're the one with the "Zionist" hobbyhorse, not me."

As you asked "And how is Zionism a crime?", your hobby horse is obviously in the race.

|1.11.08 @ 5:50PM|#

Your remark about "the rhetoric from the Arabic post" says otherwise.

How so?

Roach - whatever, man. Hey, tell you what, go ahead and talk about how criminality is genetic and that means that cops have to be tougher on black people. That'll get you far.

The law is supposed to be colorblind.

|1.11.08 @ 5:52PM|#

JD - I just wanted to know what law Zionism broke, that's all.

Also, I'd like to know how far back we're going to take this issue.

|1.11.08 @ 5:54PM|#

unless someone thought something stupid like No Black People are Ever Successful.

You're the one who thinks that black people are born criminals.

Roach|1.11.08 @ 5:56PM|#

Ayn, you're falling back on third grade chestnuts about the law being colorblind. I'd say this means you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Law may be colorblind, but law enforcement does not have to be in triaging their resources. You do not mind, do you, if there are more cops in black neighborhoods? You do not mind, do you, if cops looking for a "male, black 24 5'9" don't stop little old white ladies, do you?

Well, you'll say, one's in general and one's specific. Oh really, what are street gangs. can we discrimiante against them? What about criminal syndicates, or men in general. You do know men commit 10X more crime than women don't you. This, incidentally is about as much more crime that blacks do compared to whties. So men are to women as blacks are to whites seems fair as far as law enforcement attitudes and approaches go. Any distinctions you'd care to make that don't involve slogans from third grade?

|1.11.08 @ 5:56PM|#

"I just wanted to know what law Zionism broke, that's all."

"Zionism" doesn't break laws. Zionists do.

|1.11.08 @ 5:57PM|#

A big reason why is the latent sentiment at every level of the criminal justice system-from cops to prosecutors to jurors-that black people are inherently more prone to criminality than white people.

What cop hating bullshit, Balko. There is little evidence of pervasive racial bias in the criminal justice system, much less evidence that it stems from any of the doubtful "sentiments" you assert exist.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/cops/

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0047-2352(96)00015-3

|1.11.08 @ 6:02PM|#

his, incidentally is about as much more crime that blacks do compared to whties.

Really? 10X more crime? I'd like to see that backed up.

And I'm talking all crime, not just the crimes of your choosing.

You do not mind, do you, if there are more cops in black neighborhoods?

Yes, I do.

You do not mind, do you, if cops looking for a "male, black 24 5'9" don't stop little old white ladies, do you?

No, I do not.

can we discrimiante against them?

I don't know what that means. What sort of discrimination are you advocating?

You need to stop watching the panic-driven MSM.

"Zionism" doesn't break laws. Zionists do.

What laws do they break, JD?

Fluffy|1.11.08 @ 6:03PM|#

not subsidizing illegitimacy through welfare,

Hey, fine. Good idea.

social ostracism of the kind these purists above are now exercising against Ron Paul,

But if I'm not subsidizing it, why should I give a shit? There's no need to socially ostracize if I don't have to pay the bills. I don't socially ostracize Bill Bennett because he's a degenerate gambler, because it ain't my money he's losing.

some shaming of black leaders that use incindiary rhetoric about a prison-industrial-complex

There is a prison-industrial complex and incendiary rhetoric about it is appropriate.

as if blacks don't commit a lot more crime,

This doesn't really matter to the morality of a prison-industrial complex. Let's take a crack at drug legalization for 20 years and then get back to me with new crime statistics.

public schools,

Better public schools? Different public schools? Get rid of the public schools? I don't know what you mean here.

moral leadership by black celebrities,

Again, once I'm not paying, I don't care who provides moral leadership.

BTW, the notion that black celebrities bear some sort of responsibility for other African-Americans, and must "lead" them, is itself a racist and collectivist notion. Lots of white people are fuckups. You know how much moral leadership I, a white person, need to provide them? Zip. So why does a black celebrity get different rules than me?

some greater sympathy for police in the use of racial profiling in order to control a much more dangerous group,

If we got rid of the drug war, the entire issue of racial profiling would change.

If an APB goes out that two black males in a white car just shot three people, it's perfectly OK for the police to stop all white cars carrying two or more black males. So I don't need to be more "sympathetic" to the police in the case of their response to actual crimes. The reason racial profiling is an issue is because police deliberately stop cars driven by blacks because they assume they can trump up some reason to search the car for drug contraband and score an easy arrest to add to their quota. Get rid of the drug war, and the "Driving While Black" problem will disappear 95% overnight.

deregulation of various businesses in urban areas,

It's always nice to throw in a little Jack Kemp to provide a fig leaf for anti-black feelings. Nice work.

|1.11.08 @ 6:05PM|#

Fluffy FTW!

VM|1.11.08 @ 6:06PM|#

since racial differences predict so many other differences: wealth, crime, education, IQ, etc.?

it does? it's, like the biggest predictor? oooh. I know where you got your datum. You watched "Trading Places", didn't you, you old scamp.

Now run along and finish your pre-algebra homework or mom's gonna be mad at you again.

in fact, take your medicine. Ray ben just crawled out of your colon again.

anonymous coward|1.11.08 @ 6:07PM|#

You all should stop believing fairy tales about races' supposed equality.

The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 70. The average IQ of Asians is 105. The average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 115.

Likely due to mixing with other races, the average IQ of African Americans is 85. In places in the Caribbean where less such mixing has occured, the average IQ is still 70.

Decades of affirmative action and attempts to reduce the Black educational and achievement lag have not been able to reduce the chasm. This is even though Asians, who were also disadvantaged when they first came to the US, are prospering without any government help whatsoever.

All evidence points to that there is an essential difference in the various races' intellectual capacities, and it is genetic.

I am in favor of equal treatment for members of all races. I am in favor of no discrimination on the basis of color alone. There are black people who are intelligent and capable, and there are white people who are inept.

But it should be possible to recognize publicly that there are differences between races without having to endure the intellectual equivalent of stoning for that.

Ron Paul is denouncing racism because he doesn't want his candidacy to be over just as soon as if he failed to do that. But he doesn't publicly humiliate the authors of those words, or denounce the white supremacists who support him, because deep down he feels that their sentiments are justified.

In private, I think Ron Paul is probably a racist: not a man who thinks that blacks should be oppressed, but one who knows that not everyone is genetically equal.

If he is, he's right to be. You should be, too. The alternative is being ignorant.

Grand Chalupa|1.11.08 @ 6:10PM|#

I've argued the race/IQ thing before, here's the abridged form of a work on the subject, written in a way that's easy enough for even the simplest among you to follow along...

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0965683621/reasonmagazineA/

|1.11.08 @ 6:20PM|#

This piece
critical of Lynn's work has this money quote:

"We can view it as a tragic failure of American society that so few black and low-socioeconomic status children are lucky enough to be reared in environments that nurture the skills needed to obtain high IQ scores"

Specifically, that racist policies facilitate a poor environment for learning and achieving, and said racism is especially devastating in the hands of a cruel and stupid lizard like government.

|1.11.08 @ 6:20PM|#

Please, please, please is it too much to ask that people actually read each piece before jumping to the conclusion that it's all racist tripe. It's not.

Before you hang Dr. Paul, shouldn't you look at each piece yourself instead of taking TNR's word for it?

Here are the first two:

Let's look at the "kind words for David Duke" .pdf that TNR is promulgating.

--------Begin Quote----
The Duke's Victory
David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race in Louisiana, 60% of the white vote and 9% of the black vote!. This totaled 100,000 more votes than the current governor when he won.

Duke lost the election, but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment. If the official Republican hadn't been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off.

Duke's platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. "Tonight, we concede the election", he said. "But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans."

To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. and if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.

Liberals like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post say he got so many votes because Louisianians were rascists and ignorant. Baloney.

David Broder, also of the Post and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject , had it right: "No one wants to talk about [race] publicly, but if you ask any campaign consulltant of pollster privately, you can confirm the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle-class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative action programs."

Liberals are notoriously blind to the sociological effects of their own programs. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are there waiting in the wings without such a taint.

------End Quote--------

Can someone please point to any support for David Duke's racism? The part where the author (whoever he is) said it seemed like common sense was attributed to the voters of Louisianna, not the author himself and was refering to the platform of tax cuts, and spending reductions.

Here's the "He called Dr. King a plagarist and a gay pedophile"

It's a report of the FBI file's allegations of misconduct and the MSM's charges of plagarism.

You can argue that unsubstantiated charges like this should not have been printed, and I (and it seems even Ron Paul) will agree with you but it's not racism on the author's part, even if it is libelous.

-----Begin Quote--------
"Dr." King
So now even the establishment press admits that Martin Luther King plagiarized his PhD dissertation, his academic articles, his speeches, and his sermons.

He was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.

King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that King had made a pass at him many years before.

And we are supposed to honor this "Christian minister" and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on a par with George Washington?

Congratulations to Arizona! Who could doubt that the result would be exactly the same if the other 49 states could also vote on a holiday for this affirmtive-action saint?

---------End Quote-------

Dr. King is not being shown in a poor light for his race, or ethnicity, but for the content of his character. This poor light is not reflected upon the civil rights movement, nor upon the idea that everyone is equal, but upon the effort to make MLK day a national holiday.

I have not been throuugh the rest, but I bet the majority of them will similarly turn out to be completely overblown.

Not only is the horse dead, it stinks to high heaven!

|1.11.08 @ 6:25PM|#

Dissapointed but still voting Ron Paul. He still is the best thing in politics for a long time. The newsletters are terrible but his Constitutional views override the scandal. Jefferson owned slaves and he is teh libertarian hero. I wonder if the LP would still invite him now?

|1.11.08 @ 6:25PM|#

Kevin, no one said it all was, just that a lot of it is. And a little racism is still too much.

Grand Chalupa,

IIRC, you're Middle Eastern. Enjoy your sodomization at the airport...it's a creature of your own design.

|1.11.08 @ 6:26PM|#

Abhorrent though slavery was, it was sadly relatively "reasonable" at the time to own slaves.

It is no longer reasonable to be racist in American society. Some people need to get the fuck over that fact.

|1.11.08 @ 6:30PM|#

anonymous:

The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 70. The average IQ of Asians is 105. The average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 115.

None of these are races.

|1.11.08 @ 6:34PM|#

Before I head to bed, do me one better, anonymous: define the word "race" in the context we're using it.

That is, what does it mean to say that "White is this person's race?"

AP|1.11.08 @ 6:43PM|#

Who wouldn't thought Lew would cause so many problems for RP's presidential bid.

Grand Chalupa|1.11.08 @ 6:49PM|#

Before I head to bed, do me one better, anonymous: define the word "race" in the context we're using it.

That is, what does it mean to say that "White is this person's race?"

You know, medical researchers, proponents of affirmative action, kids beating each other up in high schools, the NAACP, the KKK, the state of Israel, black and Mexican gangs, ethnic studies professors, etc have no problem defining race. Its quite a coincidence that people who give IQ tests manage to always get the lowest scores from those that they somehow identify as black and the highest scores from those they identify as Asian. The only people unable to define race are those trying to attack the idea that it has a link with intelligence.

And yes, it exists in degrees, but so does hair color. We don't go and say that doesn't exist.

GILMORE|1.11.08 @ 6:50PM|#

anonymous coward | January 11, 2008, 6:07pm | #

Sweet! Now I'm smarter than Kalahari bushmen! In your face "click-pop-whistle-!!-tak-tak-pppppt!" My progeny will figure out their TV remote while you're stilll gutting antelopes with a rock! Ha! Dummy!

Plus, us smart fucking whiteys are building a wall to keep all y'all dumb brownskins from dumbing up our shit. Nice try, no-shoes!

AntiCosmo|1.11.08 @ 6:58PM|#

Radley Balko | January 11, 2008, 3:32pm | #
Re: This comment.

I've since changed my position on torture, retracted that post, and explained why.

http://www.theagitator.com/2007/03/19/torture-not-so-much/

That's far too weak, but at least you were only in the torture camp publicly for 4 years or so. Do you still defend Charles Johnson's racist website, Little Green Footballs? I'll just quote a bit, since your defense of him for his collection of filthy racism in his comment threads is so much more tolerant than I would have expected given the post heading this thread:

Lay Off LGF

Sorry, but I'm not buying into the LGF bashing. I read the site about once a week. I think Johnson's wrong on a lot of things, and too bloodthirsty for my liking, but I've found nothing he's said to be outside the bounds of civil debate.

I think much of the stink about LGF stems from the fact that Johnson draws attention to some uncomfortable corners of Islam that relativist multiculturalists would rather pretend don't exist. Well, there *are* lots of radical Islamists out there who'd like nothing better than to kill lots of Americans. Kudos to Johnson for drawing attention to them.

Yes, his comments section can get pretty offensive. But I'm not sure why you hold Johnson accountable for that. He's chosen not to be an active censor of discussion that break out in his comments area. As far as I know, he's never deleted particularly rabid anti-Israel comments from the left, either. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

It never ceases to amuse me that leftists -- who fancy themselves to occupy the "open-minded" end of the political spectrum -- are the first to squelch the flow of information when they're uncomfortable with the information that's flowing.

As for Johnson's sarcastic references to "the religion of peace," well, I happen to agree with him. Given the vitriol we've seen coming from madrassas and the mouths of mullahs the world over, it's pretty apparent to me that while you can make all the noise you want about jihadists bastardizing the faith, whatever form of Islam it is that's now predominant most certainly does not put peace high on its list of priorities.

Where I differ from Johnson and the warbloggers is that I don't happen to think that a "clash of civilizations" is the solution. That, and in principle, I don't want my government killing in my name unless I'm comfortably certain that it's absolutely necessary to protect my safety and liberty.

If that makes me a bigot, I guess I'll have to cop to the charge. Censor me, too.

Hope you weren't planning to run for public office ever, since we'll have to hold you to the Ron Paul Standard.

Oh, and it is possible to be racist/collectivist toward Muslims even though it's currently fashionable. In a few years, it might even sound as horrifying to cosmopolitans as it does to the rest of us now.

|1.11.08 @ 7:04PM|#

While i definitely don't agree with the paleo types, at least they are active. I mean, have the cosmotarians ever fielded a candidate this high in the process?? I wish the tolerant cosmotarians were as active and gave a shit as much as the paleo types. But as we have learned worried abouthey are just t whether or not the will be embarrassed at their next cocktail party inside the beltway.

Careful...the term "cosmotarian" is 3 seconds away from being deemed code for "jew"

Anyway I love this city mouse vs country mouse stuff...it is completely useless and a waste of time but the word play and fights it gets rolling are a laugh riot.

|1.11.08 @ 7:08PM|#

If Stanford-Binet IQ test measured something other that the ability to do well on the Stanford-Binet IQ test it might be relevant to a discussion about the "intelligence" differences between "races".

It doesn't so it isn't. I score well on them, and it doesn't mean much. Toss in economic factors, cultural differences, and test bias and you wind up with something similar to the ancient Greeks attempting to measure the distance to the sun using geometry and the tools available to them. The results are worthless. Every time somebody throws that nonsense out there, I am forced to doubt their reasoning skills.

GILMORE|1.11.08 @ 7:14PM|#

J sub D | January 11, 2008, 7:08pm | #
... The results are worthless. Every time somebody throws that nonsense out there, I am forced to doubt their reasoning skills.

Beh. Thats because you've got like Eskimo blood or some shit in your family dude. Sorry you dont "get it"!

And also, like, Greeks arent as 'white' as us, so go figure they can't measure the sun..they're like, taupe or something. Which is close to tan. Like Off-White.

adrian|1.11.08 @ 7:18PM|#

anticosmo: love you long time!

|1.11.08 @ 7:19PM|#

If Stanford-Binet IQ test measured something other that the ability to do well on the Stanford-Binet IQ test it might be relevant to a discussion about the "intelligence" differences between "races".

Why does this crap keep poping up in libertarian circles?

Ok lets assume for a minute white are on average dumber then blacks...how does that change or effect libertarian ideals that individuals have rights?

It changes nothing in a libertarian society individuals will gain far more benefits regardless of their IQ or race from any collectivist plan.

Now lets assume white and blacks are equally intelligent on average.

Again it changes nothing.

So what that fuck?

update|1.11.08 @ 7:34PM|#

FUCK YOU, REASON MAGAZINE!!

|1.11.08 @ 8:18PM|#

FUCK YOU, REASON MAGAZINE!!

Nah...Ron Paul did not bring me to libertarianism....i think the libertarian party's web site (with that cool little "are you a libertarian" game) and my general disposition did...then i ran into Reason magazine and i hung around and liked what i read, then they started talking about Ron Paul so i watched Ron Paul and i liked what he had to say and then all this shit about racism and paleowhat and a whole bunch of stuff i have never heard about or really care about started dumping onto this site and the mass media.

My remark to Reason is not fuck you...but instead I say "FIX IT".

I think Balko is trying to do that.

|1.11.08 @ 8:24PM|#

Can we purge the anarchists? Human nature being what it is, a world without a state leads to the powerful (physically strong, economically advantaged, intelligent, etc.) limiting the freedom of the less powerful[...]

That is what guns are for: they are the ultimate equalizer. You do not need a state to put a check on the physically strong. Besides, who puts the check on the ultimate bully, the state itself?

|1.11.08 @ 8:43PM|#

Excellent post, Radley. Kudos on taking an honest second look based on the evidence and your new understanding of the man, and his evasions.

It's becoming of you.

|1.11.08 @ 8:45PM|#

I'll add one thing... I have libertarian tendencies, although not so much as many here, more than most in either my country's Conservative Party or your Republican Party.

By denouncing the liar and quite possibly bigot Ron Paul, you did more to bring me to your way of thinking than anything else you could have done. It's now possible to take a look at some of his ideas without being so disgusted I turn my head away at the sight of the man. I know longer take Ron Paul seriously enough to bother doing so.

Political Officer|1.11.08 @ 9:01PM|#

That is what guns are for: they are the ultimate equalizer. You do not need a state to put a check on the physically strong.

Then those with the most guns or the greater ruthlessness limit the freedom of the others. What then? Maybe you join with others to oppose the ruthless gun-owners? Form a group of likeminded freedomlovers? Congratulations, you've got the beginnings of your own little state.

Besides, who puts the check on the ultimate bully, the state itself?

My personal preference would be to promote the idea that a government is a tool to prevent inhibiting the freedom of others. You also separate powers to try to keep elements from the state competitive with each other, and rely on a variety of institutions (such as the press, corporations, labor unions, social organizations, etc.) aligned in such a way that no one group (not even "the State") accumulates too much power.

update II|1.11.08 @ 9:11PM|#

way to go, Chris.. do you "know longer take Ron Paul seriously," or what?!
again, REASON MAGAZINE: stop and think about what you are doing --- this only makes you look like pathetic establishment fools. who knows who you've been talking to to publish this crap, but Jesus Christ, apply your own standards to the situation: ie, Dondero said your top guys were talking with him for an hour a few days back, so 'fess up and have the decency to practice what you preach. WE THE READERS DEMAND TRANSPARENCY

GILMORE|1.11.08 @ 9:23PM|#

dude, "update"?

I suggest taking up coin collecting, or something more productive than this.

update|1.11.08 @ 9:37PM|#

GILMORE, dude, i totally have a sweet coin collection. what are you trying to say? i was talking 'bout Ron Paul and the Reason hate-fest; you?

GILMORE|1.11.08 @ 9:54PM|#

me? Just casually noticing all of this is, quoting Lawrence of Arabia, "sideshow to a sideshow"...

many readers of this mag never gave a wet fart about ron paul because, ideals aside, he wasnt going to get elected by any stretch of the imagination.

see balko's epiphany from the other day. quote:

GILMORE|1.11.08 @ 9:55PM|#

[bad form = reposting cause half didnt come through]

me? Just casually noticing all of this is, quoting Lawrence of Arabia, "sideshow to a sideshow"...

many readers of this mag never gave a wet fart about ron paul because, ideals aside, he wasnt going to get elected by any stretch of the imagination.

see balko's epiphany from the other day. quote:

WTF|1.11.08 @ 9:56PM|#

sorry about tje double-stupid reposts but for some reason i cant get the hole whack to post correctly...

the squirrels!! they're back!!

|1.11.08 @ 10:15PM|#

Gawd, another awful thread squabbling about race.

OK, here goes: Everyone's ancestors, if traced far back enough, all originate in Africa. Everyone, short of albinos, is some shade of beige. And, my personal experiences show that every race subcategory you can dream up consists of both great, likeable people, OK people, and asshats, in roughly the same proportions.

And, living in Hawaii, where IIRC the majority of the populace are of mixed ancestry, I'm still stunned that people on the Mainland are so fired up about skin melanin levels or eyeshape or whatnot instead of, you know, what kind of person an individual is.

Simon|1.11.08 @ 10:29PM|#

I have a question for those who now discard Paul as a candidate. It's a big theoretical but if you had the power to choose the next President from amongst the candidates, who would it be who's so much better than Paul?

John|1.11.08 @ 11:32PM|#

that's great and all but he owes the people who supported him with money, with time and with effort a better explanation than "that's water under the bridge."

Speaking as a $2.3k donor and small-time campaign activist/canvasser who disagrees with about 15% of the overall platform, I will not allow you to speak for me in such a belligerent manner. Neither RP nor his campaign staffers nor Lew Rockwell nor Gary North owe me or you a fucking thing. Anybody that volunteered funds and working hours entered into a VOLUNTEER action, not a contractual agreement based on your implicit desires. Go screw.

Sam Grove|1.12.08 @ 12:11AM|#

I'm not aware of any of those libertarians who supported the invasion of Iraq and have since recanted, renouncing the strategy of preemptive war.

I think they now take the position that they were wrong to support it because the neocons screwed it up.

Have any of them corrected their moral error in supporting state sponsored preemptive war.

I really don't want to have to explain my libertarian association with them.

I guess they are safe though, there aren't enough of us who think that's outrageous to make them feel embarrassed for their moral error.

|1.12.08 @ 12:32AM|#

Besides, who puts the check on the ultimate bully, the state itself?

Who prevents the biggest bully from becoming a State?

|1.12.08 @ 2:25AM|#

To clarify so there is absolutely no doubt, a commentator above quoting me said:

way to go, Chris.. do you "know [sic] longer take Ron Paul seriously," or what?!

I no longer take Ron Paul seriously as a political threat... I had long considered him a dangerous crank and probably anti-semite and white supremacist (or at least present day beneficiary of the financial and 'moral' support of white supremacists).

I am glad this man is being discredited before our eyes. As someone who supports many libertarian ideas, I'd like to see a libertarian movement lead by more decent people.

How 'bout it, Radley? What you doing in 15 years?

Booker Griffin|1.12.08 @ 11:11AM|#

Paul is an OBGYN isn't he?

If I was staring at a parade of vaginas all day, and cutting the vines off crotchfruit in the delivery room, I might not have much time to read the comic book I founded but no longer edited, that was barely earning enough to cover the interest on my car payments.

Booker Griffin|1.12.08 @ 12:11PM|#

"Many people tell medical students not to worry about the number of hours they work during residency because once you get out and you're board certified, you won't be working nearly as much. As seen from the data below, for many specialties, that is a myth. While most practicing physicians are not working anywhere near the 80+ hours per week required by certain residency programs, many specialties are well into 60 hours per week and some even approach 70 hours per week on average.

Bottom line: You need to enjoy what you do because you'll probably be working significantly more hours than non-physician employees during both residency and your entire career. Choose a specialty you find interesting and enjoyable; not one that you believe will allow you to spend half your day at the golf course."

Also, according to the following link, OBGYNs are tied for first, in most hours worked (and perhaps Dr Paul worked more then average?):

http://www.medfriends.org/specialty_hours_worked.htm

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

If I turned my business "Booker Griffin Broadcasting" over to the care of some associates, because I had to return to the family farm to harvest a crop, and they hired somebody who started ranting on the air that homeless people should be exterminated, and I didn't hear it, then yes, I would ultimately be responsible since I owned the company.

I would fire the DJ immediately (and then pass out guns to the homeless as an apology).
-----------

|1.12.08 @ 12:14PM|#

"Who prevents the biggest bully from becoming a State?"

Shaft?

Booker Griffin|1.12.08 @ 12:17PM|#

"His campaign Web site declares: "Dr. Paul never votes for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution."

There is no hedging in that promise. Indeed, Paul has earned his nickname because he has a long history of standing against the tide on even very popular measures because he disagreed on principle. But "never" is a tough standard to meet, and 17 years in Congress covers an awful lot of votes. An examination of Paul's record shows that although he usually adheres to his principle, he has sometimes voted for programs that aren't "expressly authorized" in the Constitution.

For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday on the third Monday in January."

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2007/sep/17/dr-no-sometimes-votes-yes/

--------------
That was before the infamous newsletters, that there was a pronounced variance in how he usually votes. He set aside his principles, and decided we needed a National Holiday to honor black animals who are gay pedophiles?

Ron Paul, tell us the truth, do you really admire bestial child molesters?

Booker Griffin|1.12.08 @ 1:47PM|#

Analysis-In the midst of an emerging controversy that would have crumbled a lesser candidate, Ron Paul just defended himself against allegations of racism that left Wolf Blitzer of CNN's situation room stuttering

...

Paul then eloquently addressed the issue of racism and demonstrated that the collectivist concept of racism was entirely contrary to the Libertarian ideal of individual liberty. Paul also said that his ideology did not see people in groups but instead viewed everyone as an important individual.

Paul also said that the attacks and allegations against him were because his campaign is growing and gaining traction among black voters. Paul leads all Republicans among blacks.

Paul then said that he is the only candidate running that would pardon all blacks and whites convicted of non violent drug crimes and that the racism is in the judicial system. He said that he honored Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr. for their acts of non violent Civil Disobedience which he said was a Libertarian concept.

Paul also pointed out that his grassroots supporters have planned a mass donation day scheduled on Martin Luther King Jr's holiday to honor Dr. King and Dr Paul.

Paul's supporters consider him the first Civil Rights leader of the 21st Century for his tireless defense of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Paul voted against the Patriot Act and has made the defense of Civil Liberties a cornerstone of his political career.

http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=224327

|1.12.08 @ 1:48PM|#

No one believes in race and knows how to define it when we're talking about IQ or the cesspool of urban black culture.

Everyone suddenly believes in IQ and is willing to look at race when we're trying to get people off the death penalty or bitch about the crack-power disparity.

I wish Paul would push the race stuff more. It happens to be true and more Republicans are racialist than rae a pot-smoking editors in DC.

Sje|1.12.08 @ 2:34PM|#

As for the allegations of "commie style party purge," let me say that I feel that most of the prominent libertarians who have been involved in it really dislike commie style party purges. They like to avoid them if they can.

The older ones have seen some purges in the early days of the American libertarian movement and they know that they are nasty affairs and that it is much better to politely disagree than to pompously purge. This is why no commie style party purge has happened so far, even though many of the present purgers were well aware of Paul's old friends and their sympathies, and could have predicted this type of mud might well be dug up sooner or later even if they weren't aware of the particular smoking gun that would be used to do it.

But like it or not, Kirchik has forced the issue. Paul is taking a big hit and the purgers don't want to see the whole movement that they painstakingly constructed be pulled asunder along with it. And I do not blame them.

For those who are getting a little lost in the flurry of writing I really recommend David Boaz's piece at Cato@Liberty. He writes that "[David and his co-workers] had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping..." and that is why the Catoites had been so reluctant to cheer on the Paul campaign, but had not found it necessary so far to throw a big ole public hissy-fit about it either.

And that reaction, as well as the current change in direction, which has been shared by many, is I think no more than prudent. Commie style party purges are ugly and should not be wantonly engaged in. But you cannot endlessly continue to remain silent about a major public figure who you are in the minds of the public closely associated with if that major public figure does something really really stoopid.

Sam Grove|1.12.08 @ 4:15PM|#

Unfortunately, the MSM has been .. hell, what's the point?

How long will it take to wear this out?

Guy Montag|1.12.08 @ 7:03PM|#

Ayn_Randian,

Guy -

Point out to me, please, where

A) Mexicans crossing the border is a matter of "security" and
B) Crossing the border of the United States is unconstitutional

Please.

Anybody, and that includes Mexicans, crossing an international border is perfectly within the venue of either side of the border having an interest. Mexico has decided that they have no interest in why/if their citizens leave their country, no problem, that is their deal.

Our country has perfectly legal laws respecting legal immigration. I may not agree on the methods of who gets in, but they were perfectly legally enacted.

Crossing the border illegally is unconstitutional in the sense that the Congress does indeed have the power to regulate this activity and they have.

Guy Montag|1.12.08 @ 7:08PM|#

Look folks,

I was never a Dr. Paul presidential bid supporter, but I still believe in being fair.

Dr. Paul appears to have been caught up with some not-so-pc (and beyond) people and never really cared about it, and still doesn't.

Support that if you wish, blow it off if you don't. I have an issue with the "beyond" part.

Zucker Land|1.12.08 @ 8:46PM|#

"Barack Obama responded to "Partnership For A Drug Free America" presidential candidate questions by saying he would increase the drug war and give federal power over drug courts. Obama will make the drug war even worse in America!"

"Ron Paul has many videos where he promises to PARDON ALL THE POT PEOPLE, and FREE ALL JAILED NON-VIOLENT federal drug law offenders. Ron Paul will restore VOTING RIGHTS to all previously convicted federal drug-law offenders. Ron Paul will free hundreds of thousands of African-Americans. No African-Americans will be freed by Obama, as few medical marijuana patients are African-American -- and virtually none of the blacks in jail (over 600,000 blacks in jails in the USA for drugs) would be released under Obama's Prohibition. Those same people would be freed, pardoned and have their voting rights restored by President Ron Paul."

http://hic1.kazserv.com/~khabs/Leadbelly/MidnightSpecial.mp3

Lew Rockwell, Come Out and Try|1.13.08 @ 11:25AM|#

Dear Lew,

You have now had three opportunities -1996, 2001, and 2008 - to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.

This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron's newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.

Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.

If you were Dr. Paul's friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron's message.

You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it's time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.

John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985
http://godshammer.wordpress.com/2008/01/12/open-letter-to-lew-rockwell/

|1.13.08 @ 7:21PM|#

Austin NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

http://tinyurl.com/28g7p9

Conspire|1.14.08 @ 12:18PM|#

Rick

You have to ask cui bono--who benefits? Clearly Ron Paul and his racist backers benefit from the NAACP President's statement. How did they elicit it from him? Did they threaten him? His family perhaps?

|1.14.08 @ 4:38PM|#

Austin NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist

How much do you want to be you won't see that story above the fold at Hit & Run?

|1.14.08 @ 8:29PM|#

A few months is a "lapse". Decades start to resemble a trend.

chaos|1.14.08 @ 9:37PM|#

Even the relatively sanest of you folks are still off the deep end. None of you apparently know jack about politics. Telling someone "vote for Candidate X or you're a socialist warmonger" doesn't get votes, and this is why Ron Paul has failed to catch on, not because of these newsletters or his anachronistic policies. It's because his supporters are brain-dead when it comes to civility.

Ron Paul Supporter|1.14.08 @ 9:45PM|#

You're the uncivil one, you uncivil fuck, so just shove your complaints about Ron Paul supporters your socialist ass! Fucking statist pig! We don't fucking want your stupid vote!

pile|1.14.08 @ 9:52PM|#

There's a good podcast with more details on Ron Paul's libertarian leanings and whether it would ever work in American society... visit: http://podcasts.bsalert.com/

|1.14.08 @ 11:14PM|#

Trying to decide if i've been reading a comic book, a script for the Archie Bunker show or writings slipped under the door at the local mental facility for the criminally insane. Keep it up folks, this is the funnest bunch of comments on the web and I don't mean laughing funny.

R. Hartman|1.15.08 @ 3:45AM|#

charlie - January 11, 2008, 4:13pm

Exactly, my man! Spot on!
This is old stuff, has come up and been dismissed before, but not to the greater public. The MSM had tried to ignore, silence and even stifle RP, because his message is consistent and inconvenient to statists.

Despite all efforts, he manages record fundraisers, and attracts unwelcome attention. So they do what they do best: start a smear campaign. Does the timing mean anything to anyone here? And the fact that the MSM suddenly DO report on the smears?

Nobody so far has bothered to take the newsletters in context of statistical evidence. Some of the 'unpleasant facts' might even be true. I don't have facts on the Rodney king case; I was appalled by it back then. But I only know about it what the MSM wrote.

If today I write or say that Muslims are intolerant and that Islam is not a religion but a totalitarian political doctrine, wanting to suppress the people of the world, the MSM will report me as a racist, fascist and hate mongerer. And where's the truth in that? The Dutch faction of the Islamitic Party, Hizb ut-Tahrir, has stated, in writing: "We do not agree with freedom of speech, for we denounce democracy" and "What you need is a heavy bomb-attack".

But RP never even bothered to go down that lane, to assert the amount of truth ar lie in those newsletters. Why not? Because it's irrelevant. They're old and on the surface they're damaging. They may really be damaging on closer scrutiny, but they also might not.

In any case, RP has stated he does not agree with their content, he was not aware of them at the time they were issued and he has taken moral responsibility for the oversight of not verifying what was written in his name.

He was a medical doctor back then, with the libertarian movement as a side activity. It was small, and at the time, nobody could have envisaged that one day those old newsletters would be used in the running up to Presidential elections. It just would not have seemed important enough. A simple mistake, that turns out to be a little dumb.

The fact that Radley Balko takes up on this and claims he's now irrevocably disappointed in RP shows he is not a libertarian, but instead a small minded jerk who probably feels he never ever made a mistake in his entire life, so his holiness can look down on anybody else who has, serving the statists while he's at it. Or is the term 'libertarian' being hijacked again by statists, big government supporters, like the term 'liberal' before it?

While I have issues with some of RP's positions, I would definitely vote for him if I could (I'm not an American citizen). He is by far the best candidate for anyone who would like to see the size of state reduced, taxes reduced, government spending reduced, national debt reduced, individual freedom and responsibility restored and basically turn America into the direction of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights again.

Stop the government from interfering with everybody's private life, restore the individual responsibility that goes with individual freedom, end the political correctness that has its roots in the Frankfort School. Vote for Ron Paul. It's not going to shake the earth. There a big task ahead, and 4 years is not a very long time to even start to accomplish it.

|1.16.08 @ 1:15AM|#

i have been out of internet access for weeks and have only just discovered all this. Perhaps the fact that you have seen this develop slowly has distorted your views. I am flabbergasted that any of you can be defending the man. Absolutely shocked, speaking as a jewish libertarian. Over my holiday I was re-reading a Civil War book and these opinions are pure 1861. And btw I'm a specialist doctor too but if someone published this s**t under my name while I was at work I'd be squealing like a stuck pig.

|1.18.08 @ 10:21PM|#

As long as the Crane crowd is going to insist on using this kerfuffle as an opportunity to attack the Paleos, the truth of this matter cannot be known. This is an internecine battle between two childish sects who refuse to get along. The rest of us would be wise to refuse to partake.