Ron Paul's Chief of Staff, on Lew Rockwell

I just had a conversation with Tom Lizardo, Ron Paul's longtime congressional chief of staff, who wanted to say this on the record:

Last week, a statement was prepared by Ron Paul's press secretary Jesse Benton, and approved by Ron Paul, acknowledging Lew Rockwell as having a role in the newsletters. The statement was squashed by campaign chairman Kent Snyder.

I've called the Paul campaign to see what, exactly, the statement said.

UPDATE, 7:53: Jesse Benton responds:

I respect Tom Lizardo, but he does not work for the campaign and has no authority to comment on campaign business.

Yesterday Julian Sanchez and I published our own findings on Rockwell.

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

  • ||

    Well, that's curious.

  • John Bigboote||

    Did you say . . . Lizardo?

  • Gossip Girl||

    I need the information! This is going to be one hell of a witch hut, boys! YEEEEHAAAW! Round up the posse, we got an anarchist to hog tie!

  • lolroffles||

    Thomas DiLizardo is a well known neo-Confederate.

  • Utter||

    This tidbit was so urgent that you couldn't just wait until they called back?

  • joe||

    Didja ask Tom Lizardo why Dondero got canned?

  • Gossip Girl||

    Detailssssss! +joe

  • ||

    I'm not gay!

  • Kolohe||

    Hey Joe Allen:

    HERE IS YOUR M*****F****** THREAD!

  • ||

    The Lavender mafia along with the Israel firsters are trying to destroy Ron Paul. I suppose if Ron Paul talked about gay marriage, walked in a gay pride parade, or said Israel is our most important ally this might not be happening.

    I'll break it down in simple terms.

    I've been on the gun show circuit for over 20yrs. At gun shows you meet all sorts of people. Hunters, self defense people, gun collectors(sellers) Birchers, 2nd amendment enthusiast and ROCK SOLID libertarians. This Saturday and Sunday I will be at a show. There will be a few Fred Thompson sticker, a few more for the Huckster, but the vast majority of stickers sold will be Ron Paul 2008. And yes, at these gun shows lots of stickers like "We Don't Care How YOu Did it Up North, You're in Dixie Now" With a Confederate flag will be sold. Most of the dealers are white as are most of the people that attend. You won't talk to anyone concerned about gay marriage. But you can have endless conversations about Hilly, Obama, immigration, gun grabbers, taxes, property righs etc etc. Lifestyle libertarianism isn't on the agenda.

    Back in the 60s Murray Rothbard tried to make alliances with antiwar folks on the left. Students for a Democratic Society, SDS. But they were commies for the most part. Karl Hess actually joined the SDS

    Anyway I suspect Rothbard in the late 80s wanted to try and put together a new coaltion of anti government folks. Sorta like the gun show crowd. White, lower middle-middle class, folks who see state enforced affirmative action as a threat. The people at gun shows are very patriotic, but they see the government as a threat to their way of life. Now this strategy might not appeal to Tom Palmer David Boaz or Virginia Postrel, but I for one would rather hang with the gun show crowd than a bunch of Beltway libertine libertarians, or cosmopolitans. The folks that actually think Gay marriage is the second civil rights movement.

  • Elemenope||

    Tempest in a teacup...

  • ||

    could we please have more posts on these newsletters? Thanks. I appreciate it.

  • ||

    Kolohe, I'm ready for him.

    Page
    Down

    Page
    Down

    Page
    Down

    Page
    Down

    Page
    Down

    Page
    Down

    Commence reading again.

  • Erich Dondero Britteberg||

    See, see you pussy-boys! I told you that Rockwell was behind everything! I was right all along, I've been talking about that racist ever since the newsletter story broke and nobody listened to my post ex facto cautions! You fucks all owe me an apology. I won't hold it against you if you convert back to "angel" libertarianism like me. Okay now it's time to support the only true libertarian in the race, liberal authoritarian lawyer and hero-Mayor "Fighting" Rudy Giuliani!

  • ||

    I suppose if Ron Paul talked about gay marriage, walked in a gay pride parade, or said Israel is our most important ally this might not be happening.

    Just so happens he's been questioned on just that very question more than a few times. You might want to look it up; I'm pretty damned sure it came up in Stossel's ABC interview with him.

  • ||

    Or, rather, he's been questioned on that very topic more than a few times...

    For what it's worth, I thought he gave more than appropriate answers.

  • Matt Welch||

    The Lavender mafia along with the Israel firsters are trying to destroy Ron Paul.

    Which group does Paul's chief of staff belong to?

  • Elemenope||

    Dan wins...whatever. It's not even a thread anymore.
    ---
    A guy just had a conversation with a guy, who wanted to say this on the record:

    Last week, a statement was prepared by a guy, and approved by his boss, acknowledging a guy as having a role in the thing. The statement was squashed by some other guy.

    A guy called the boss to see what, exactly, the statement said.

    UPDATE: A guy responds:

    I respect that guy, but he does not work for the thing and has no authority to comment on the thing's business.
    -----
    That's what I got out of this edifying blog post. Keep it up!

  • Limp Wristed Cocktail Swiller||

    Yay! More dirt! Too delicious!

  • Nutter||

    Did you say . . . Lizardo?

    I hope David Ickes looks into this.

  • Geotpf||

    William R | January 17, 2008, 7:59pm | #

    That's nice.

    However, none of that matters.

    Look at this:

    http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

    Note that it has Ron Paul's signature on it, and is told in the first person as if he wrote it (and talks about his training as a doctor, again, in the first person).

    Now, skip to page six, third paragraph from the bottom.

    There's no way anybody who wrote (or authorized others to write in his name in a public document) that paragraph can ever be considered a legitimate, viable candidate for president. Period. End of story. I can't believe there's even any discussion on this point.

    Of course, in reality, it didn't matter, because Paul was never going to be the nominee, let alone win the election. But if he really was leading in the primaries, that one paragraph (and the entire document, and the various newsletters) would have been enough to sink him.

  • ||

    I just love that you're bringing this out the day that the accused party goes in for surgery.

    Stay Classy, Reason!

  • Bingo||

    Thats what she said!

  • Happy Jack||

    The Lavender mafia along with the Israel firsters

    Is this in relation to the infamous Purple Gang? I know they were predominately Jewish, but the Licavoli brothers were also members.

  • Pabst-itarian||

    You know who's behind these smears that Ron Paul associates with racists?

    Jews and homosexuals, that's who! And I have it good authority that many of the Jews are, in fact, homosexuals, and that many of the homosexuals are secretly Jews.

    Down in Dixie, where there are white people who are neither Jews nor homosexuals, we love Ron Paul! And let me tell you something else, city boy: we've got guns. Lots of guns.

    So, to sum up, we white people of South, with our guns, will defend Ron Paul from the spurious accusations of the Jews and homosexuals that he is a racist. Unlike you suspiciously cosmopolitan, urban lifestyle libertarians.

    Did I mention that I'm white?

    Whitely Yours,

    Whitey McNotgay, Christian

  • Matt Welch||

    I just love that you're bringing this out the day that the accused party goes in for surgery.

    If you are referring to Lew Rockwell, he was given two different opportunities to comment on the Weigel/Sanchez story (also, our phone number is listed). Our publishing schedule is not determined by other people's (or our own) medical problems.

  • ||

    Missed the Stossel interview

    Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny

  • Bingo||

    hahaha William R is hilarious

  • Condoleeza Rice||

    Look at this:

  • ||

    It occurs to me that if 1% of the effort being expended to stop people from talking about the newsletters was spent on stopping those newsletters from going out under Ron Paul's name in the first place, none of this would have happened.

  • ||

    Very Zen, Madame Secretary.

  • Condoleeza Rice||

  • ||

    If you are referring to Lew Rockwell, he was given two different opportunities to comment on the Weigel/Sanchez story (also, our phone number is listed). Our publishing schedule is not determined by other people's (or our own) medical problems.



    Your hard-charging journalistic instincts are remarkable. Keep fighting the good fight.

  • Bingo||

    Yes but can you do it with an open bold tag?

  • ||

    You're teasing us, you minx!

  • ||

  • the federal-homosexual cover-u||

    My God! On page six, paragraph 3 "Ron Paul" calls Senator John Kerry a leftist!

    Now we know who was behind the swiftboat attack lies

  • Master Shitfit||

    What is the sound of me not caring?

  • Bingo||

  • Bilo||

    Quality reporting as usual.

    Reason: Free Minds, Free Markets...and we'll keep talking about the Ron Paul newsletters cuz it gets a lot of hits!!!

  • the federal-homosexual cover-u||

  • Duckman||

    Very interesting to see support from Derbyshire. He's been tilting towards Ron Paul for a while now.

    If Ron Paul approved it, it should have been published. I think it could have solved the current situation.

  • Matt Welch||

    Best quote from the Derbyshire piece William R linked to:

    They might, though, justify those of us who believe that, in getting rid of old benighted laws and practices practices, we threw out the baby with the bathwater; and that, as George MacDonald Fraser correctly said, the name of the baby was Liberty.

    Follow the link and you'll get an anti-Martin Luther King screed. Thus, according to La Derb, by celebrating Martin Luther King, we have sacrificed our liberty. What a bizarre fucking notion.

    Further in the linked piece:

    Violence certainly accompanied the civil rights revolution, which included an invasion of the South by civil rights activists and the federal military. But the isolated violence inflicted on activists pales in comparison to the black savagery, directed against whites and other blacks, which has characterized American urban life since the late sixties.

    I dunno, that hasn't characterized my urban life these past 10 years....

  • ||

    Well, one thing's for certain. Matt Welch is turning out to be a much more confrontational editor-in-chief than Gillespie ever was! It's a good thing, in a way, but I suspect he's going to die of exhaustion in the next few months if this keeps up...

  • Duckman||

    The tentacles of racism are still deep.

  • Eric Dondero||

    I read that fundraising letter. Did anyone else catch where Ron Paul essentially called William Bennett a "Hitlerite"? Bill Bennett may be a Conservative. He may be a Drug Warrior. But Hitlerite?

  • Pabst-itarian||

    Our publishing schedule is not determined by other people's (or our own) medical problems.

    Aha! I knew it! You can try to cover it up...

    I dunno, that hasn't characterized my urban life these past 10 years....

    WE know what characterizes urban life, Mr. Cosmopolitan! That's why we've got guns!

  • ||

    I couldn't get the link to work. What's it say?

  • Eric Dondero||

    Joe, are you asking me about what that fundraising letter said?

  • ||

    Is Reason becoming the PerezHilton.Com of libertarianism?

  • ||

    Nevermind, there it goes.

    Man, the Lavender Mafia, the Israel Firsters, and the Skull and Bones! I'd be happy to take one of your flyers, but only because I can smell the ink from your 1962-vintage mimeograph machine.

  • Mr. Octopus||

    Did someone say tentacles?

  • Eric Dondero||

    Guys, anyone who knows Tom Lizardo, knows how difficult it is to rattle his cage. I think I've seen Tom really pissed off a grand total of two times in the 25 years I've known him. He doesn't get angry very easily. He's quite stoic, reserved, and sometimes even bland.

    For him to make that quote indicates that there's serious disgreement, and maybe even chaos in the Ron Paul camp.

    This story doesn't let up. It keeps building and building.

  • ||

    Burn the witch!

    Reason is starting to appear more PC than campus faculty.

  • T||

    I'm confused. Does referencing someone else calling a third party a "Hitlerite" invoke Godwin or not?

  • Eric Dondero||

    What's up with this Benton guy? FYI, he's a Newbie to the Ron Paul camp. Certainly wasn't around during my stint with Paul - 1987-2004. Never even heard of the guy before this year.

    Anyway, from Weigel's post, first Benton sides with blaming Rockwell. But the latest, he's changed his mind and blasts Lizardo?

    Anyone have any theories on this?

  • chombo||

    T | January 17, 2008, 8:57pm | #

    I don't think you can declare Godwin's Law retroactively on an earlier argument.

  • ||

    I agree with D O N D E R O about the insight this gives into the official Paul campaign structure, who've been unimpressive pretty much from the start IMHO. Luckily, the strength of his campaign has never been in that official campaign hierarchy itself, but in the independent grassroots efforts. Unfortunately, it also looks like we've given $30M to be allocated by what appears to be a highly dysfunctional organization.

  • Lisa Frequency||

    I don't know racism is for fearful people. I think Ron Paul seems like a very courageous man speaking his mind like he does in public and in the media.

    If he is not afraid to say the things he says plus stands behind his ideas I can't see the racism in any of his actions or speeches.

  • Julian Sanchez||

    Eric-
    Presumably, one can be on one side of an internal campaign debate, but not necessarily want the details of that internal conflict discussed in the press by staffers unauthorized to make public statements about such matters. I don't think it suggests that he's "changed his mind".

  • ||

    My local meetup group has been quietly directing people to donate to a pro-Paul PAC in Albany, for instance, rather than the official campaign, due to the idiotic commercials and other foolish things they've produced.

  • chombo||

    By the way, I think this pretty much solidifies the dislike that many of the grassroots have had of Kent Snyder and the campaign organization since the horrible commercial campaign began.

  • adrian||

    ron paul has placed higher in the primaries since newslettergate broke.

    I think America is racist!

    Keep this going reason, super tuesday will be ours!

    jokers

  • ||

    Sheesh, if a bunch of self-proclaimed Paulites can't even get their act together for a political campaign, (and Ron Paul himself seems to be singularly hands-off in doing anything to get this show on the road in one piece) how in the heck do we expect them to run a country?

    And if you think that the collapse of governmental power will result in a libertarian utopia, I suggest you take a look at what happened to Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Guess who took over from the state? The Russian mafia.

  • chombo||

    grumpy realist, the Russian mafia already WAS the state.

  • ||

    When Stormfront and VDARE jump on a train I'm riding, I get the fuck off.

  • ||

    I don't know Jesse Benton of course, but he definitely mishandled the situation when Kirchick called him about the newsletters prior to publishing his article. Again, I'm not impressed by him.

    And you can bet Lizardo knew the official campaign wouldn't want him going on record about this (which is probably why he said it). It's good to see that at least one of Dr Paul's associates has his best interest at heart.

  • ||

    Cesar,

    You allow those groups to decide which train you ride in?

  • who knew||

    Why the witch hunt about racism? And yet reason is a-ok promoting neocon anti-religion bigots such as Christopher Hitchens?

    As you so rightly point out, most blacks aren't stereotypical losers. And many religious people are not theocon fascists. Why is one form of bigotism worse than another?

  • ||

    You allow those groups to decide which train you ride in?



    Yes, because their presence generally indicates something rotten. Sorry, but its the truth.

  • Julian Sanchez||

    Yes, this is exactly like a witch hunt. If witches were real. And if we replaced "burning at the stake" with "writing articles."

  • DerEwigeJude||

    Cesar: but you wouldn't get off a train containing socialists or other fascists bigots?

  • Bingo||

    Ron Paul weighs more than a duck!

  • ||

    Here's a good summary of the problems the grassroots are having with the official campaign.

  • ||

    Cesar: but you wouldn't get off a train containing socialists or other fascists bigots?



    If you're referring to Christopher Hitchens, no, I wouldn't be on the same train as he. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is that I'm an atheist. But unlike him, I don't hate religious people or even religion. Religion just doesn't appeal to me.

  • Happy Jack||

    due to the idiotic commercials

    They may not make sense from a libertarian view, but they fit in nicely with a populism message.

  • ||

    You know, it's kind of funny to watch certain people on the receiving end of the same guff they used to hand out about Paul not getting rid of the Don Black donation.

  • Geotpf||

    Ugh. I guess I have to type out the paragraph in question.

    "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica. And the Soviet-style "smartcard" the Justice Department has in mind for you."

    I mean, we have racism, homophobia, and at least four different conspiracies-in one single paragraph. That has to be a record of some kind. There's eight pages of this crap in that letter, not to mention all the stuff in the actual newsletters themselves. This document has a letterhead that reads "Congressman Ron Paul" and has his signature on it. Plus, the "my training as a physician" bit in the quoted paragraph also reinforces the idea that Paul PERSONALLY wrote the letter, or at least allowed somebody to do so with the intent of everybody thinking he did.

    This is slightly different than the newsletters themselves, where inferring that some of the articles were written by ghostwriters is not unreasonable (although the sheer volume of offensive material makes it highly unlikely that Paul didn't know about and approve of their publication). This letter intentionally is designed for the appearance that Paul wrote that nonsense I quoted.

    http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

    In any case, I repeat my statement. Nobody who has that text attached to their signature (whether or not he wrote it or merely authorized it) can ever become President or even be considered a serious candidate by the public at large. Not going to happen.

  • ||

    Cesar,

    Whatever you say, but if that's the case I'm not sure whose train you're going to be riding on. I suppose you can just avoid everyone's train, but that seems kind of a defeatist stance, doesn't it.

  • Bingo||

    crimethink:

    oh no, not #2!

    2. The word is spreading that Arlington staff has been told to have no communication with certain of us with "conspiracy views." That condescending attitude towards a HUGE part of your support base (and I am not limiting this to 911 stuff) is AWFUL, and is only going to hurt the campaign in the long haul. We have had enough with pandering to the "conspiracy-nuts-in-the-grassroots- don't-deserve-our-attention" attitude.

    lol

  • ||

    Whatever you say, but if that's the case I'm not sure whose train you're going to be riding on. I suppose you can just avoid everyone's train, but that seems kind of a defeatist stance, doesn't it.



    I won't be on the same train as racists, conspiracy theorists, war supporters, or socialists/communists. Anyone else I don't mind being with for a common cause. But when anyone of the above category are present, it indicates something has gone wrong.

  • ||

    Happy Jack,

    True, but whether populist or libertarian, they obviously didn't make sense from a "getting votes" point of view, which is supposed to be the guiding light of a political campaign. Then again, I'm not a professional campaign staffer in all this, so I might be wrong.

  • chombo||

    How can the conspiracy theorists not realize that their presence at any rally is political Kryptonite?

  • ||

    Bingo,

    As one would expect, many of the meetup group members have some whacky theories. But those same people, in my experience, know when to shut up about those things and talk about Ron Paul. If the official campaign is trying to push those people away -- not merely tell them to make sure they push RP instead of their pet theories -- they're really hurting the campaign.

  • dodsworth||

    Geotpf:

    Oh Really? McCain called Vietnamese gooks and his still seriously considered for the presidency while Hillary used the N word in front of state troopers and skated.

  • ||

    Are all of the random people showing up here and posting about a "witch hut" really just Lew Rockwell fans? Seems to me that the press release would have helped Ron Paul but hurt Lew Rockwell... except Lew Rockwell probably doesn't have a lot of supporters who would be too upset about the content of the newsletters.

  • RightWing Anarchist||

    how in the heck do we expect them to run a country?

    not a bug but a feature

  • chombo||

    "I won't be on the same train as racists, conspiracy theorists, war supporters, or socialists/communists. Anyone else I don't mind being with for a common cause. But when anyone of the above category are present, it indicates something has gone wrong."

    Cesar, that's 90% of America. You're going to need people the above categories in order to have a meaningful national campaign. If a libertarian candidate is able to persuade those people to vote for him even if they disagree with him, something is going very, very right.

  • Kolohe||

    Cesar-
    You're going to be doing a lot a walking.

    Just sayin'

  • ||

    chumbo,

    If they don't talk about their conspiracy theories or bring 9/11 Truth signs with them, I don't see why they'd be a problem. The vast majority of them know better than to do these things.

  • Nazi Spambot||

    McCain called Vietnamese gooks
    Austin NAACP supports Ron Paul

  • chombo||

    crimethink,

    Maybe I should have said "visible presence". The problem is that if even one conspiracy theorist can't keep their mouth shut, they turn off a lot of potential voters.

  • Time Traveller||

    I won't be on the same train as racists, conspiracy theorists, war supporters, or socialists/communists.
    If you find yourself in 1940s Germany avoid being on the same train as Jews,the retarded, trade unionists,Jehovah's Witnesses,homos wearing yellow stars etc

  • Eric Dondero||

    You all think it was any different in the 1988 Ron Paul for President Campaign? Hell no! It was sheer and utter chaos, particularly the last two months.

    Kent Snyder was heavily involved with that effort, as well, along with his sidekick David Mertz alias David James.

    That Campaign ended in a huge financial scandal. The Campaign Manager (and Ron Paul's Newsletter Managing Editor) Nadia Hayes ended up going to jail for 6 months and had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or restitution, for embezzlement.

    They blamed it all on Nadia. But I and others strongly suspected a very general loosey goosey approach to accounting and campaign finance was more the culprit.

    $3.5 million was raised in that effort. Like today, everyone back then was expecting nationwide television commercials, radio buys, and big media. The only thing that ever emerged was a late full page NY Times ad, that was truly awful.

    INot trying to sound cliche' but I'm starting to feel deja vu all over again:

    Tons of money raised but the Money not being spent as was promised, No national television ad buys, general chaotic atmosphere at the very highest levels of the campaign, infighting, factions within the campaign blaming each other...

  • Joe Allen||

    Hey, you're right. here we go.

    Why Reason Magazine turned on Ron Paul:

    How does the Ron Paul candidacy threaten the journalists, think tankers, and academics who live and work along the Orange Line in Washington, D.C.? The answer is straightforward analysis of economic incentives, with some common cultural patterns thrown in.
    Familiarize yourself with the main economic plank of Paul's platform: eliminating the income tax with no replacement. If it succeeded, most of the friends, fellow partiers, sources, and sex partners of the Orange Line journalists and think tankers would be out of work. Even partial success (for example influencing other candidates into advocating deeper tax cuts to win Paul supporters, or motivating more Congressional candidates to run on an anti-tax and anti-war platform and thus creating a libertarian base in Congress) would harm economic interests in their social circles. Furthermore, there would be far fewer spoils for the lobbyists to lobby over, and fewer important articles for the journalists to write about D.C. politics, so they'd suffer personally as well as socially.
    There are also "economic preferences" in politics not reflected in money - desires for power, desires to "change the world", etc. (These two motivations are easily interchangeable near the Orange Line). D.C. attracts people from all over the country with strong preferences along these lines. These, too, would be hurt by a growing success of anti-tax libertarianism. To the extent Ron Paul succeeded, they would be less able to shut down the madrassas and save Muslim women from the dastardly Muslim male. They'd have less control over oil. They couldn't provide all Americans with health insurance. And (keeping in mind this is only one of many motivations) they couldn't provide as much protection for Israel. Generally speaking, practically everybody who came D.C. did so to get the federal government to solve various problems they are passionate about. They feel very strongly about these: much more strongly on average than people who do not live near the Orange Line. Success by Ron Paul or his acolytes would start stripping away from them the power they believe they need to solve these problems.
    Remember, Paul ranks right up there with McCain, Huckabee and Romney for the 18-29 year old vote. Paul has come very close to winning a plurality of that vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Michigan, ranking far ahead of Thompson and Giuliani for the young vote in all three. Paul ranks ahead of _all_ the other Republican candidates in Internet searches and search results. Contrary to myth this represents not "spam" but just the high concentration of Paul supporters on the Internet, comparable to the high concentration of Democrats in the mainstream media (MSM). Both the Internet and MSM are unrepresentative slices of American political opinion.
    But the Internet is growing at the expense of the MSM and Paul represents a large chunk of the future of Republican politics. The MSM, including its political bureaus along the Orange Line, finds the Internet threatening. Orange Line bureaucrats think of "radical" libertarians (i.e. those who would eliminate the income tax with no replacement) as maniacs out to destroy their jobs. Ron Paul brings these two fears together.
    Moving beyond economic incentives and to human cultural patterns, the Orange Line crowd are a tribe, a monoculture defending itself from an alien tribe that is hostile to them, namely libertarians who don't like how the federal tribe makes it's living (via skimming off their paychecks). It's tribal warfare.
    All in all, it would be extremely surprising if the Orange Line did _not_ try to attack Paul. The only surprising thing for me has been to observe how much Orange Line "libertarians" are culturally aligned with the Orange Line rather than with anti-government libertarians.
    This analysis has been a straightforward matter of economic incentives with some common human cultural patterns thrown into the mix. This economic analysis gets obscured because, on the one hand, those not privy to the workings of D.C. can only describe it metaphorically in terms of conspiracy theories. The Orange Liners laugh them off the stage. But the economic analyses in their rough form sound a bit like the conspiracy theories, so they too are shouted down by the bullhorns of the Oranger Liners and those who parrot their authoritative opinions. They are laughed off as "conspiracy theory" before the analysis can even start to begin. Most of the MSM when it comes to political issues, and even much of the "alternative media" like Reason Magazine and the Orange Line bloggers, are part of the Orange Line culture. Using these Orange Line bullhorns to make fun of or smear independent thought and independent sources of political power is one of the main levers of federal power.



    Here is an anatomy of the spread of the smear campaign against Ron Paul just prior to and on the crucial "king-making" New Hampshire primary day, January 8th (all times are EDT; the polls closed at 8 pm EDT):
    January 7th, 7:33 pm - Matt Welch (Reason Magazine) discusses the plan to smear Ron Paul on New Hampshire primary day. In a later edit, Welch strikes out the actual TNR/Reason plan (to post the piece at midnight, the exact time the New Hampshire polls opened, and not post the actual newsletters until the afternoon of the primary) and substitutes "tommorrow afternoon". But he failed to strike out Reason's part in the plan: "More to come from here after the gong strikes midnight."
    January 8th, 12:01 AM - Jamie Kirchick's anti-Paul hit piece, many weeks in preparation at the request of his boss Marty Peretz at The New Republic, and featuring featuring many out-of-context quotes from Paul's old newsletter (which have long been public knowledge and which Paul long ago denied writing) and descriptions of Paul and his associates as "bigoted", "racist", "homophobic", and "anti-Semitic", etc. is posted at The New Republic.

    featuring featuring many out-of-context quotes from Paul's old newsletter (which have long been public knowledge and which Paul long ago denied writing) and descriptions of Paul and his associates as "bigoted", "racist", "homophobic", and "anti-Semitic", etc. is posted at The New Republic.
    11:03 AM - Daniel Koffler (Pajamas Media, formerly at Reason)
    "A damning New Republic expose on Ron Paul shows the "libertarian" Republican candidate to be a racist, a homophobe and an anti-Semite. Will his diehard supporters continue to defend a man who called Martin Luther King a gay pedophile? Daniel Koffler, a former Paul sympathizer, has a compendium of the Texas congressman's creepiest hits, pulled straight from his decades-old newsletter."
    3:30 pm - Andrew Sullivan (The Atlantic, formerly editor of The New Republic) - "They are a repellent series of tracts, full of truly appalling bigotry."
    3:46 pm - David Wiegel (Reason) Wiegel praises Kirchick's piece as "explosive" and after a brief converstation with a harried Paul, grossly mischaracterizes Ron Paul's position as "Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned."
    3:48 pm - Nick Gillespie (Reason) "I've got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning. As former reason intern Dan Koffler documents here, there is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping."
    4:43 pm - David Bernstein (Volokh Conspiracy/George Mason University) "..it's disturbing in and of itself that the kind of people who write such things would want to associate themselves with Paul's name, and the kind of people who enjoy reading such things would subscribe to these newsletters because they admire Paul." Here's David's web page at GMU.
    (before 5 pm) - Arnold Kling (Econglog/George Mason University) - Repeats the worst quotes out of context and without explanation.
    5:17 pm - Dale Carpenter (Volokh Conspiracy/University of Minnesota) - "A damning indictment of Ron Paul."
    Oddly enough, all these people with the exception of the tardiest, Dale Carpenter, live or work near the Orange Line subway (Metro) west of the capitol building in Washington, D.C. On the Orange Line, with occasional short side trips on some other lines, you can get to The New Republic, The Atlantic Monthly, Reason Magazine, George Mason University, The Federal Triangle, Cato Institute, Foggy Bottom, Dupont Circle (Red Line), and a number of other homes and work sites of beltway media, politicians, bureaucrats, and "libertarians." I don't know how many of these people actually ride the D.C. Metro, but for fun and convenience let's call this group of smear artists the "Orange Line Mafia". This group of media pundits and bloggers has developed a large following among actual libertarians because they are an integral part of D.C. social circles and darlings of the mainstream media, who often "link" to the blogs of these "libertarians" from their various media formats. Libertarians who watch or read MSM thus often first discover "libertarianism" on the net in the writings of The Atlantic, Reason, Cato, Volokh Conspiracy, and other Orange Line Mafia outlets, and think that they are representative of people who actually value liberty.

    If a person cared about liberty, why would they be eager to mindlessly repeat smears about the most popular libertarian candidate in decades on the very day of the most crucial "king-making" primary in the United States? Yet that is exactly what a number of popular "libertarian" bloggers did that day. The Ron Paul Newsletters are voluminous and even a small fraction of them could not possibly be read in the very few hours that passed between the posting of the actual newsletters (the afternoon of the 8th) and the smear campaigners' posts (also the afternoon of the 8th). All of these "hit and run" blog posts, except Kirchick's original, must then be based on Kirchik's piece rather than on actual reading and analysis of the newsletters. Clearly the purpose of these posts was not to initiate a thoughtful discussion of the newsletters, it was to spin libertarian voters on the most crucial election day short of the November general elections.

    Beltway libertarians use Congressman's old newsletters as excuse for dumping on him. Some perspective.

    by Phil Manger
    (Libertarian)
    I guess we should have expected it.
    The Beltway libertarians, those polished public intellectuals at Cato and Reason, have been falling all over themselves the past few days in an effort to distance themselves from Ron Paul following the "outing" of his old newsletters last week by The New Republic. Not that they were ever that close to begin with. The Cato gang never liked Dr. Paul, and the folks at Reason only warmed up to him after his campaign began to catch fire on the internet. Now, their blogs are full of I-told-you-sos, denunciations, and warnings of dire consequences for libertarianism.
    Typical of these was David Boaz, Cato's executive vice-president, who told the world that "...over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know." Even Radley Balko, a Reason editor and former Cato policy analyst whose research on police misconduct made him one of the few shining lights among the Beltway libertarians in recent years, has joined the lynch mob. You can find links to dozens of other similar comments here.
    Interestingly, all of them say they don't believe Dr. Paul is really a racist, and most of them say they believe him when he says he didn't write the articles in question. In fact, their real target seems to be something they call paleolibertarianism, a branch of libertarianism that has its center of gravity at the Ludwig von Mises Institute. And the man they really seem to loathe is the institute's president, Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. Ron Paul is merely collateral damage.
    I should point out at this point that I really have no firsthand knowledge of any of the details of the mutual animosity that exists between the Beltway libertarians and the paleos. I only know that it exists and that it runs deep. I was a libertarian activist from the mid-'60s until the early '80s. I then decided to get a life and, except for an occasional blog post or attendance at a meeting, I was pretty much out of it for the next quarter century. It was my son who urged me to support Ron Paul in his run for President. (I didn't deliberately raise him to be a libertarian. Do you suppose it's genetic?) I did a lot of Googling of Ron Paul's name, and...well, here I am.
    So, what about those newsletters? According to The New Republic article, the newsletters reveal "decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays". Actually, that's a gross overstatement. It's more like a careless phrase or choice of words here and there - sometimes very careless, and sometimes even mean.
    What the newsletters remind me of is the "gold bug" marketing in the early '70s. The "gold bugs" - those who believed that the dollar was destined to continue to lose value - were a mixed bag: conspiracists, libertarians, John Birchers, survivalists (of both the Left and the Right), racialists, and some who just wanted to turn a quick profit. Following the dollar's devaluation in 1971 a number of businesses and newsletters appeared on the market to capitalize on the uncertainty of the times. They sold their wares, whether precious metals or newsletter subscriptions, by instilling fear and serving up red meat to the gold bugs. I remember attending one precious metals "seminar" in 1974. A black couple was sitting near me. When the speaker got to the part about riots in the cities and a breakdown of civil authority, I could see that the couple were extremely uncomfortable. They left before the end of the presentation.
    For whatever reason, Ron Paul has a very bankable name in that market. The International Harry Schultz Letter, the granddaddy of all the gold bug newsletters, prominently features a plug from Dr. Paul on its webpage. So it would make sense that a newsletter bearing Paul's name, aimed at gold bugs or their like, would be profitable.
    So, did Ron Paul write that awful stuff posted on TNR's website? I'm a former writer and editor and also a former college professor who got to be pretty good at sniffing out plagiarism in student papers, and I have to say I very much doubt it. It isn't at all like Ron Paul's style of writing (you can go to the Mises Institute website, where there is an extensive archive of Dr. Paul's writings, if you don't believe me), and there's nothing in his voting record over 10 terms in Congress to suggest those are his views. I don't find it at all implausible that someone would use his name to sell subscriptions to a newsletter written and edited by others.
    But I agree with Alex Wallenwein and Bill Westmiller that we need to know who did write that objectionable material so that we can move on. Otherwise, this stuff will come up again and again.
    However, I am not so naive as to think that this will mollify the Beltway libertarians. In their writings on this controversy, I've detected a barely suppressed undercurrent of glee, as if they're trying to keep from shouting "Aha! Gotcha now!" They say they are concerned about what all this is doing to the reputation of libertarianism - although, it seems to me they're more concerned about what it's doing to their own standing in Georgetown - but I think they doth protest too much.
    If the Beltway libertarians are really concerned about the reputation of libertarianism, let them take a look at what they're saying about Ron Paul over on the Left. Although they like his antiwar, pro-freedom message, a lot of the bloggers over there don't care for the fact that he's a libertarian. You see, they equate libertarianism with the Cato Institute. And to them, Cato is just another D. C. think tank laboring in the service of the corporate elites.
    Topic: Political Correctness
    Playing the racism card

    It all depends on whose ox is being gored.

    by Phil Manger
    (Libertarian)
    Try, for just a minute, to imagine the following scenario. The New Republic, or some other stronghold of neocondom, has just discovered the website of the church Ron Paul has been attending for the last 20 years. At the very top of the site's home page is the following statement:
    We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian...Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are a European people, and remain "true to our native land", the mother continent, the cradle of civilization...We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.
    It doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess what would follow. The story would be on all the evening newscasts, the neocon and Beltway libertarian talking heads would be all over the cable news channels expressing their disgust, and even the paleolibertarians would jump ship. No explanation he could offer would be acceptable. Ron Paul's campaign would be dead.
    But if you just change "White" to "Black" and "European" to "African" you'll have the exact words that appear at the top of the home page of the website of the Trinity United Church of Christ, the Chicago church that Barack Obama has been attending faithfully for the past 20 years. Yet, so far the media - with the exception of a few conservative columnists - have given Obama a pass on his connection with this church.
    The terms "racism" and "racist" are thrown around so much these days that they have effectively lost all meaning. Well, not all meaning. In fact it's very simple if you just remember that racism is what lies at the root of one's opponents' thoughts and actions, while one's own thoughts and actions arise from only the purest of motives.
    The charge of "racism" is most often made by the Left against the Right. However, increasingly - and distressingly - conservatives are hurling the "racist" epithet at their opponents on the Left. There are so many examples of this, it is not necessary to provide links to them. Just Google "Alberto Gonzales" and "racist" to find some examples. Or go look up what some neocons have said about Ron Paul.
    When Wolf Blitzer was questioning him about his old newsletters on CNN last week, Dr. Paul said "Libertarians are incapable of being racists, because racism is a collectivist idea". I don't know that I agree with the first part of that statement, but Dr. Paul should be forgiven because he was being ambushed with a question and had only a few minutes to answer it. (A much better exposition of his views on racism can be found on his campaign website.)
    I think a libertarian can be a racist because I think anybody can be a racist. I don't mean a hooded, cross-burning, night-riding racist; just someone for whom race is a factor, however minor, in his or her personal decision calculus. Most people naturally prefer the company of people who are like themselves in most ways. They might not require the exclusive company of others like themselves, but they also don't want to associate exclusively with people who are very different.
    Thomas Schelling, a Nobel laureate in economics, once proposed a game. Get a roll of pennies, a roll of dimes and a large sheet of paper divided into one-inch squares. Distribute the coins one per square on the sheet of paper, leaving about a third of the spaces empty. Adopt a rule: assume each coin wants at least some proportion - say, a third - of its neighbors to be of the same kind. Now find a coin for which the rule is not satisfied - i.e. less than a third of its neighbors are of the same kind - and move it to a square where it is. Repeat this step until all coins are on squares that satisfy the rule. When you get to this point, you'll find that the pennies have tended to cluster with other pennies, while the dimes are clustered with other dimes.
    Under the rule adopted, these coins are very open minded - each is willing to live where up to two-thirds of its neighbors are of another "race". Nevertheless, the end result of this "invisible hand" process is that most end up living where all of their neighbors are the same.
    The point of the game is to demonstrate how a pattern of racial segregation can result from the individual decisions of people whom hardly anyone would accuse of being racist. Which is one of the reasons the charge of "racism" is one that is almost impossible to defend against.
    A person accused of being a racist can usually clear his or her name with the accuser only by agreeing with the accuser. Last week on The Huffington Post Earl Ofari Hutchinson demanded that Ron Paul issue "a clear and direct public statement...that says I fully support all civil rights laws, will work hard against racial and gender profiling, and will push government economic support initiatives to boost minorities and the poor" as the price for being absolved of the charge of racism.
    In other words, the only way the libertarian Dr. Paul can prove he's not a racist is to abandon libertarianism and adopt Hutchinson's statist policy prescriptions. That's like telling a Christian televangelist whose assistant had swindled viewers that repentance and restitution are not enough - he has to renounce Christianity if he wants to be forgiven.
    The significant point about libertarians and racism is not that a libertarian can't be a racist; it's that, in a true libertarian society, racism is irrelevant. A libertarian government would not have the authority to enact legislation that favors one racial or ethnic group at the expense of another because it would not have the authority to enact legislation that favors anybody at the expense of another.
    Nor would the government have the authority to enact legislation to correct the results of "invisible hand" processes like Schelling's game. In fact, the mere attempt to do so would be not only racist, but futile as well.
    An example of the futility and racism inherent in using the police power of the state to correct racial discrimination - intended or otherwise - resulting from individual decisions are laws prohibiting racial discrimination in employment. Since the hiring decision is multidimensional, a racist manager could claim any number of reasons for rejecting an applicant of the "wrong" race. Hence the need for affirmative action if the law is to achieve its desired effect. But, since affirmative action requires basing the hiring decision on race, it is itself racist (and most probably in violation of the law it is meant to enforce).
    One of the silliest things a politician or pundit can say is that she/he opposes affirmative action, but supports laws prohibiting racial discrimination in employment. You can't have one without the other. If you don't believe it, consider this: age discrimination is against the law, too, yet it's rampant in the workforce. Just ask any computer programmer over 40. The difference is, there's no affirmative action based on age. Ron Paul is probably the only Presidential candidate in either party who understands this.
    There are, of course, people whose attitudes about race go far beyond just feeling more comfortable around people who are like themselves. But is that necessarily something to get alarmed about? As long as they're not harming or threatening anyone else, why should we care? If they choose to act out their hatred by harming people of another race, then the government can act. Otherwise the government is trying to read minds.
    Racism and racist are words that, through overuse, have lost their sting. They are what you say when you have nothing else to say. Probably the best thing for all of us would be to banish them from the language. Certainly, they add nothing constructive to political discourse.

  • Joe Allen||

    As for conspiracies:

    As a former nuclear submariner, I know a little something about secrets. The "silent service" is the foundation of our country's nuclear deterrence, yet almost all of the classified material I was required to learn is now public knowlegde. Truth gets out. Jeff Goldblum said in the movie JURRASIC PARK "Life finds a way." I don't know about that as I am not a biologist, but information certainly "finds a way." This is why I doubt conspiracy theories from the JFK assasination, Moon landing, Elvis's death and 911.

    There is a principle in science called "Occam's Razor" (check it out on Wikipedia) that basically says the simplest answer is most likely to be correct. It is entirely reasonable to assume that Osama Bin Ladin, as a religious Sunni Arab, objected to US military bases in his homeland of Saudi Arabia near the holy cities of Mecca and Medina. It is also entirely reasonable to think that his followers are unhappy that the U.S. Government funds and props up an oppressive monarchy: the House of Saud. Although terrorism against cilvillians is never morally justifiable, it is perfectly understandable in this situation. If the conditions were reversed and the U.S. was occupied by a foreign power that propped up an undemocratic, unrepresentative government, I would join other American patriots in a guerilla war against the occupiers. I suspect you would too.

    There is circular reasoning involved in many conspiracy theories. Lack of evidence is considered evidence of a cover-up. Nobody had a stronger motive to commit the 9/11 crimes than Al Quaida. Of course the big government people want to use any excuse to grow government, but most of them are just stupid, not evil. As a veteran and former National Park employee, I consider good-intentioned stupidity to be the dominant characteristic of federal agencies and employees. To suggest 911 was an inside job is to suggest that somebody somewhere was competent enough to pull off one of the greatest covert actions of all time, but was not competent enough to consider the enorous blowback risks if discovered, is not logical. Even If somebody paid Osama to do the deed he was predisposed to do anyway, there would always be a tremendous risk that he would blow the whistle when it got too hot for him, or that the money trail would be discovered, or that he would take the money and spend it some other way.

    It is possible that Osama was an unknowing and unwilling dupe of the illuminati/trilateral/CFR/builderburger/rothchild/rockefeller/x-files smoking man black hellicopter cabal, but Occam's Razor suggest that it is less probable than the obvious possibility that he is just pissed off that the U.S. spreads its "goodness" by force. He is a killer and I hope he dies or is brought to justice, but it is the tactics of Osama Bin Ladin and not his motives that make him evil. As for the Freemason/zionist/smoke-filled-room/international banker/star chamber folks, they wouldn't have to cause terrorism to exploit it, and if they are as powerful as suggested, then they would be smart enough to understand that sooner or later someone like a Timothy McVeigh or Unibomber or Guy Falks would do their work for them without pay, prompting or direction.

    Governments have always exploited terrorism to expand-from the Romans to the Republicans. Yes, they benefit from terrorism, but that doesn't mean they cause it other than providing the motives for the terrorists to act. Its far easier and just as effective to spin rather than to conspire. The vast majority of evil in the world is evil of omission, not comission. Apathy and it's offspring Ignorance is the biggest enemy of freedom in the world.

    Conspracies whether true or not provide an excuse for losers to be losers. "The Man" is keeping them down. An example are the race-baiters like Jessie Jackson or Al Sharpton. They think the plight of blacks is caused by racism and not the much more logical explanation of rampant illigitmacy and family breakdown. This is why the public so disdains the theorists. If one truly believes in free will, then one also believes that success comes in spite of conditions, not because of them. Dr. Paul believes in free will. That is why he will untilmately triumph in his quest for freedom, regardless of the outcome of this election.

  • Happy Jack||

    crimethink - if you go after strictly libertarian votes, I suspect you would have to place a decimal before the number. Perot/Buchanan voters would boost those numbers significantly.
    The only problem with this strategy is that The Huckster is waging a populist campaign at the same time. He could be sucking up a lot of those votes. If you look at the exit polls, McCain got the anti-war vote, while Paul received "economic concern" voters. I'd say Paul's campaign knew who they were directing their message at.

  • Bingo||

    thanks for breaking the wheel on my mouse joe allen

  • Joe Allen||

    " The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."-Ayn Rand


    Ol' tailgunner Joe ain't got nothin' on these guys. Joe McCarthy saw communists everywhere. At the height of the red scare, the mere suspicion that you might have read Das Kapital in college or went to a Woody Guthrie concert was enough to end a career. Lives were ruined. Presumption of innocence evaporated. The reign of terror didn't end until after Aurthur Miller's brilliant play THE CRUCIBLE exposed McCarthyism for what it became: a witchhunt.

    Racists are the new witches. Yes, they exist, but their beliefs are as laughable as wiccan paganism and even less influential. Irrational fear of witchcraft, communism, racism, or radical Islam is often far more dangerous than the original threat. Overreaction leads to seeking solutions without regard to the cost of those solutions. A good strategist would calculate the relative threat of hostile ideologies to take appropriate action. An evil activist will exploit a prevailing fear for political gain, fully knowing the fear has little or no merit.

    Dr. Paul is appearantly a witchdoctor, according to the pro-establishment tools that keep slandering smearing, and libeling him. This man, who's closest friend was a Jew, Murray N. Rothbard (one of the founders of the libertarian movement) is supposed to be an anti-semite. His intellectual hero was Ludwig Von Mises, a Jewish economist. One racist appearantly sent him a campaign contribution, which is enough to overshadow his massive minority support. Ilana Mercer, a self-described "Zionist Jew" blogger from Worldnetdaily.com has officially endorsed him. African-American Matt Sistrunck is the group organizer of the El Paso Ron Paul meetup group (the one I am a member of) . According to the witch hunters, these people and myself are just pawns in the evil doctor's diabolical plan to revive the Third Reich or something.

    Yeah, that's it. That's the ticket. Dr. Ron Paul's thirty year war against racism and all other forms of collectivism is an elaborate ruse to fool us into voting for him in this election so he can then reverse his ten term voting record and revive National Socialsm from the graveyard of stupid ideologies. He delivers hundreds of black and mexican babies (sometimes for free), but this is just to throw us off the scent. Sure, sure. I must be playing MiniMe to this new Doctor Evil. How stupid of me.

    The truth is that Dr. Paul's opponents and their operatives can't find anything really damning to say about his golden-rule foreign policy or defense of the Bill of Rights, so they mounted this desperate ad hominum attack on him and hope that you are too dumb to see through it. Don't let them get away with it! Dr. Paul has courageously stood against the PATRIOT ACT, domestic spying, warrantless searches, internet regulation, censorship, drug prohibition and every other form of government abuse of power for thirty years. He opposes the nanny state because he doesn't want anyone to run your life but you. The statists correctly see him as a threat to their coercive power over the citzenry. That is why they hate him and that is why you should love him. I do. My friend the witchdoctor.

    Joe Allen

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Hey Joe Allen:

    HERE IS YOUR M*****F****** THREAD!


    Amen. Brotha.

  • Kolohe||

    homos wearing yellow stars

    Seriously I thought it was pink triangles, and that is why some current movement symbols are kinda ironic

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Proof That RP Is A Racist

    That's right, I posted this link before. But today, it's New To Reason!

  • ||

    It's pretty clear that, for people who deny there is anything amiss in those newsletters, it would indeed be the best thing to banish the word racism.

  • M||

    RightWing anarchist beat me to it at 9:40pm

    how in the heck do we expect them to run a country?



    We don't. That's the platform.

  • Roger||

    Anyone else I don't mind being with for a common cause. But when anyone of the above category are present, it indicates something has gone wrong.

    Suit yourself and pull pud. I'll be in the next state over taking advantage of this political climate to talk to voters in front of the caucuses, specifically opposition to the "inflation tax", and many other platform points I find Ron Paul to be libertarian on. There will always "undesirables" in any practical political movement. Like many others, I believe that Ron Paul could have benefitted greatly from excommunicating some of them. For me this primary isn't so much about trying to pimp Ron Paul into taking the nomination; that has been an unrealistic goal to me from the get-go based on the contemporary perception of many libertarian ideas becoming radical in the eye of the public. The percentages Ron Paul has garnered so far have exceeded my wildest dreams. For me it's about having this opportunity to talk to folks in an appropriate political context, outside of polling places.

  • Joe Allen||

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/latulippe/latulippe82.html

    Just so you beltway cosmotards know, I think I'm probably more Chicago school than Austrian, but I am saving the last copy of Reason I ever buy for when I run out of toilet paper.

  • Pink Triangle||

  • ||

    You don't really expect me to read all that, do you?

  • ||

    You might want to avoid going to Fort Troff, unless you need a "dick plug", that is.

  • Bingo||

  • Matt Welch||

    McCain called Vietnamese gooks and his still seriously considered for the presidency

    There is a difference between very very sporadically using derogatory language to describe the people who imprisoned and tortured you for five and a half years, and making your money for years on newsletters consciously aimed at anti-black "outreach to rednecks." Can you see what that difference might be?

  • Joe Allen||

    Nick Gillespie: the Mike Niphong of the beltway.

  • Roger||

    Joe Allen: I am sympethetic toward the "paleos", but also enjoy reading what this "beltway cosmo mouthpiece" has to say and its readers have to contribute. Cut the shit, you fucking maniac, please. I beg of you, go fuck a vagina or a mouth or whatever pleases you, there must be something to do where your time is better served. I would be shocked if you have ever been out on the streets helping the campaign, you just sit here at your computer pulling your dick and circlejerking on some insular message board.

  • Geotpf||

    "dodsworth | January 17, 2008, 9:39pm | #
    Geotpf:

    Oh Really? McCain called Vietnamese gooks and his still seriously considered for the presidency while Hillary used the N word in front of state troopers and skated."

    Got a link to audio, video, or a printout of a document signed by them with that text? In any case, there's a difference between a single passing comment and an intentional publication of tons of crazy shit over a period of decades.

    Just saying "nigger" or "gook" once is a lot different that trying to sell people newsletters by ranting about things like the "federal-homosexual cover-up of AIDS" (what does that even mean?), and then ranting about such random insanity inside the newsletters themselves.

  • Joe Allen||

    Matt Welch

    2008 recipient of the Joseph Goebels Award for Journalistic excellence

  • Bingo||

    Godwin's Law invoked, drink!

  • Joe Allen||

    "Roger | January 17, 2008, 10:05pm | #

    Joe Allen: I am sympethetic toward the "paleos", but also enjoy reading what this "beltway cosmo mouthpiece" has to say and its readers have to contribute. Cut the shit, you fucking maniac, please. I beg of you, go fuck a vagina or a mouth or whatever pleases you, there must be something to do where your time is better served. I would be shocked if you have ever been out on the streets helping the campaign, you just sit here at your computer pulling your dick and circlejerking on some insular message board."

    Well, I'm glad I'm not the only one contributing to civil discourse.

  • Fluffy||

    Geotpf -

    You had me worried for a minute there. The newsletters are much, much worse than the solicitation. That paragraph from the solicitation letter is merely hysterical, and the newsletter content was much more offensive.

    And if hysteria disqualifies you from being a credible candidate, all I can say is: Have you heard the Edwards stump speech lately? It is absolutely as hysterical as that solicitation letter paragraph. But "progressive" hysteria, for whatever reason, is respectable and redneck hysteria isn't.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure Matt Welch won't be losing any sleep over the fact that a guy who defends the content of the newsletters on the grounds that racial segregation is good and natural called him a Nazi.

  • ||

    Godwin's Law invoked, drink!

    He also alluded to not buying the magazine anymore.

  • ||

    Joe Allen's 9:49 post had 4,060 words in it. That's not counting the gigantic post immediately after it. I'm not for censorship, but a word count limit would definitely be in order, I think.

  • Joe Allen||

    Radley Balko

    The Tariq Aziz of the twentyfirst century!

  • chombo||

    First they came for the racists...

  • Argo||

    Joe Allen

    Not even worth the trouble coming up with an insulting title

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    When Stormfront and VDARE jump on a train I'm riding, I get the fuck off.

    LOL.

    I feel like that when people start talking about how Californicate's guber Schwarzzengroper is a libertarian.

  • coke-snorting limpwrister||

    "federal-homosexual cover-up of AIDS" (what does that even mean?),

    We don't know either but it is PROOF!PROOF ! that Ron Paul is a HOMOPHOBE

  • charlie||

    Yes, Matt Welch, it's okay to use term "gooks" to describe Asians so long as a small subset of that rather large group -- Asians -- tortured you (after your plane crashed trying to drop bombs on them and their lightbulb factories, also known as a "war crime").

    Meanwhile, Ron Paul, who no one has ever accused of saying a single racist thing in more than 30 years in the public spotlight (well, as much of a spotlight as an obscure libertarian from Texas can get), but if a newsletter publishes things in his name derogatory toward blacks -- things no one accuses him of actually having written or approved of -- that, my friends, is beyond the fucking pale and disqualifies him for the presidency.

  • Joe Allen||

    I didn't call anyone a Nazi.

    I said he had the same journalistic standards of a Nazi propagandist.

    Nitpicking? maybe.

    How about if I said he stands in the proud tradition of Stephen Glass?

    (that way I get in the TNR dig too!)

  • ||

    Actually, charlie (heh), he used the term to describe precisely that "small subset of that rather large group." Which is still not very nice.

  • Nazi Spambot||

    McCain says gook Austin NAACP supports Paul

  • Fluffy||

    Just saying "nigger" or "gook" once is a lot different that trying to sell people newsletters by ranting about things like the "federal-homosexual cover-up of AIDS" (what does that even mean?)

    Since I don't know what that means, let's consider one of the other hysterical aspects of the paragraph in question: the Bohemian Grove stuff.

    It's a bit ridiculous, but are you seriously saying it's worse than calling someone a nigger?

    Let's try an experiment. Walk up to a group of black people and say, "You know what? I believe in the Bohemian Grove conspiracy." Then walk up to another group of Asian people and say, "What are you gooks doing here?" See which is considered worse.

    Worrying about Skull and Bones is merely silly and a bit sad. It's not like it's offensive or immoral in the way the "fleet of foot" story in the newsletter was.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    but I am saving the last copy of Reason I ever buy for when I run out of toilet paper.

    I think that comes under section (b)2a of the CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION drinking rule.

    DRINK!

  • Roger||

    Are all of the random people showing up here and posting about a "witch hut" really just Lew Rockwell fans? Seems to me that the press release would have helped Ron Paul but hurt Lew Rockwell... except Lew Rockwell probably doesn't have a lot of supporters who would be too upset about the content of the newsletters.

    I am a casual observer that reads a lot of both the "paleo" and "cosmo" side of things, it's all information to sort out. This is smelling too much like a witch hunt. Yes, we all agree that if Rockwell is indeed responsible for the newsletter content (this is all juicy rumour at this point), then he would be a shitbag to leave his "old friend" high and dry like this. But none of you, some of the Reason gossip queens, and maniacs like Joe Allen don't know the truth and won't know it until it comes out of the mouth of the fabled ghostwriter or Paul himself..

  • ||

    joe,

    There's probably multiple triggers for every single rule of the Drinking Game in those posts somewhere, but I don't feel like wading through 20,000 words of diatribe looking for them. I'll just chug a bottle to be safe.

  • SIV||

    Actually, charlie (heh)
    joe threadwin nomination

  • liberty - think!||

    I've laid bare the coming race war

    Is this a Southern Poverty Law Center pitch?

    The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS

    Reason finally got around to covering this story in 1994

    The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful.

    President Nixon called it the "faggiest goddam thing I've ever seen." Paul seems more softspoken on the matter, though unlike Nixon, has never attended himself...

    Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry

    Is this inaccurate? Is "demonic" too strong? Maybe it's a warm & fuzzy frat, and the author is mistaken? If you're a member and can tell us more, please do so.

    Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.

    Now, that nice young man, the unifier Obama is a big pal of AIPAC -- I'm sure he would object to this coarse language! Heavens! Scandalous.

    And the Soviet-style "smartcard" the Justice Department has in mind for you.

    Did you catch Chertoff's REAL ID press conference last week?

  • ||

    You can't be too careful with these things, crimethink. Good man.

  • chombo||

    Joe, this isn't Reason magazine going after Ron Paul because they want to smear him. This is them sadly picking through the ashes of a failed libertarian campaign, trying to find out who knocked over the lantern.

  • Fluffy||

    Roger -

    The problem is that Snyder probably thinks, "Whew, we survived that newsletter thing!" and thinks that if he hides under a pile of coats in the corner it will go away. Since they didn't throw Rockwell under the bus the first or second day, doing so now "churns the story back to the top" again and that's not what they want to do.

    Dumb. Definitely dumb. But I bet that's what Kent is thinking.

  • ||

    Ron Paul : Lew Rockwell :: George W Bush : Alberto Gonzalez ?

  • charlie||

    Joe-

    Mccain said, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

    He later tried to explain that he was "only" speaking of the guards who tortured him.

    You do see how the subtlety of the statement "I hated the gooks" could be lost on, I don't know, more than one billion Asians?

  • Kolohe||

    Lew Rockwell, the Mrs O'Leary's Cow of the 2008 Presidential Campaign?

  • ||

    I see the jackapenestrians aren't letting up here either.

    Good reporting, Dave. I met Benton a bunch of times on the campaign trail. He's a good kid.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Joe Allen, you are alienating people who might take your point of view seriously when you start with teh shite. So, don't be tossing your cookies all over the Man In Black, Mr Welch, or Balko.

  • ||

    Dave Weigel : the Jeffrey Dahmer of campaign reporters!

  • ||

    Julian Sanchez: The Millard Fillmore of the Eastern Seabord!

  • ||

    Cesar, that's 90% of America.



    90% of the American people are conspiracy theorists, commies, and racists? Really? I didn't think those were hard categories to stay out of.

  • Joe Allen||

    What are we drinking, BTW, cosmopolitans?

  • Julian Sanchez||

    "juicy rumour"? For god's sake, what additional proof is required here? Old super-8 footage of Rockwell drafting the newsletters in his own blood, confirmed by DNA test? We really have to suspend judgment until someone at LvMI deigns to acknowledge and respond to the Himalayan pile of evidence? Seriously, this has ceased to be an open question.

  • ||

    If we learn anything from Dondero, Lizardo, et. al., it's that the Ron Paul coterie included a lot of opportunists. Kent Snyder gets points for standing up to them. May the purge begin!

    http://libertariansurge.blogspot.com/2008/01/newslettergate-did-dondero-do-it.html

  • ||

    What are we drinking, BTW, cosmopolitans?



    You'll be thrilled to know I'm drinking Yuengling. If thats too high class for you, sorry. I'm not going to drink Natural Ice to prove I'm outside the beltway.

  • Roger||

    Fluffy: Dumb. Definitely dumb. But I bet that's what Kent is thinking.

    I agree, agree, agree. There are so many better people for that job, but nobody with large enough nuts has stepped up to the plate and offered up a compelling enough sales pitch to knock the good Doctor's socks off to issue an immediate organisational regime change in the campaign. I am not the aforementioned salesman with a 9" cock, so I will keep working with this incredible opportunity that we are blessed with.

  • ||

    Kerry Howley: the Lot's Wife of cosmotarian spokesmodels.

  • ||

    Cesar,

    You also said war supporters. It may not be as much as 90%, but you're not going to find a movement free of all such people.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Charlie, the problem is this scandal goes much, much deeper than Ron Paul's simple quasi-racist statements. So far, the media, including the libertarian media, have only scratched the surface. We're only at the very beginning of this story.

    Donklelephant Blog, a very popular Centrist non-partisan site, delved a bit deeper into the story early this morning. They're questioning the financial aspects of Paul's past efforts.

    If you focus just on the quasi-racist comments in the Newsletters and Lew Rockwell, you are missing a big, big chunk of the overall story.

  • Bingo||

    Two-buck Chuck from Trader-Muthafuckin-Joe's bitches. Yeah I eat organic and got guns, you better watch yourself around my cosmo ass!

  • ||

    Hey, stop using my email address!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Mccain said, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

    Well, at least he didn't refer to them as slopes or zipperheads.

  • chombo||

    Cesar,

    You also said "socialists" and "war supporters". Those are huge, huge groups.

  • ||

    You also said war supporters. It may not be as much as 90%, but you're not going to find a movement free of all such people.



    I don't really mean all war supporters. I mean the really hard core warmongering/WWIV believers like Norman Podhoretz. Those people scare me as much as the Stormfront kiddies.

  • Justin Slotman||

    Why is anybody still posting? This thread was won on the second comment.

    "Big-boot-tay! TAY! TAY!" BLAM!

  • ||

    What are we drinking, BTW, cosmopolitans?

    Cosmopolitans are for wimps and communists. I drink rubbing alcohol strained through old toast. AND I LIKE IT!

  • ||

    charlie,

    Let me get this straight - you are willing to turn yourself inside out like a circus freak to argue that the content of those vile, violent, racist propaganda rags was perfectly innocent, but when it's not your guy in the crosshairs, your Al Freaking Sharpton.

    Screw McCain for saying that. Screw Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, and every other right-wing lunatic p.o.s. who had anything to do with putting out that filth harder, longer, thicker, and with less lube. One's a human failure. The other is purposeful campaign of hate for purpose of gaining political power, and I know what's worse.

    I suppose it's an interesting question who is worse: Rockwell, who appears to actually believe it, or Paul, who just went along cynically, but regardless of what's in Paul's heart, I can read what's in his newsletters just fine.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Wow! That one takes the cake. I can understand many advocating me being purged from the Ron Paul camp, but Tom Lizardo?

    You're seriously in danger of striking a backlash if you go after Lizardo. He's about as loyal a Ron Paul guy as there is in this Hemisphere or even the Universe, save Norm Singleton.

    You start questioning Lizardo's credibility and you are in essense questioning Ron Paul himself.

  • Julian Sanchez||

    Hmm... an ambitious campaign to transform a country's fundamental institutions suffers a devastating setback... but instead of acknowledging the problem, blame is focused on the defeatist media for reporting on it, since they must want the enemy to win. Why does this sound familiar?

  • ||

    Ron Bailey: The Doctor Mengele of the Fourth Estate!

  • Roger||

    Jules: "juicy rumour"? For god's sake, what additional proof is required here?

    I need for the nature of Rockwell's involvement with the newsletters to be spelled out for me explicitly. Are you withholding information from your curious readers? Call me cautious.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Brandon, I been throwing suspicion at Eric D right along. Motive and evidence. [shrugs]

    Then again I may be half kidding.

  • ||

    "I've been on the gun show circuit for over 20yrs. At gun shows you meet all sorts of people. Hunters, self defense people, gun collectors(sellers) Birchers, 2nd amendment enthusiast and ROCK SOLID libertarians. This Saturday and Sunday I will be at a show. There will be a few Fred Thompson sticker, a few more for the Huckster, but the vast majority of stickers sold will be Ron Paul 2008. And yes, at these gun shows lots of stickers like "We Don't Care How YOu Did it Up North, You're in Dixie Now" With a Confederate flag will be sold. Most of the dealers are white as are most of the people that attend. You won't talk to anyone concerned about gay marriage. But you can have endless conversations about Hilly, Obama, immigration, gun grabbers, taxes, property righs etc etc. Lifestyle libertarianism isn't on the agenda."

    It's nice to see there's still a place with a lot of diversity of opinion left out there.

  • Jacob||

    Uh oh, now Lew is going to burn a cross on your lawn*.

    *Recycled joke but I used it at the end of another thread.

  • ||

    Wait, I've been to gun shows. Guess you can't call me a "Cosmotarian" anymore.

  • Joe Allen||

    I don't speak for Rockwell, Paul or the official campaign. My thoughts are my own.

    Having said that, I believe I am not alone in my belief that tReason has betrayed libertarianism.

    Racism and Statism are both collectivist ideologies, but by definition libertarians see
    statism as the bigger threat.

    So yes, I loath beltway scumbags who pose as libertarians when they are really establishment fucks with libertarian leanings,
    cowards with too fragile of sensibilities to work for real change. They are too timid to make the political comprimises nessesary to do anything more than cement their rebel status at beltway cocktail parties.

    pussies.

  • ||

    "The Lavender mafia along with the Israel firsters are trying to destroy Ron Paul.'

    In a wrestling match between the Lavender Mafia and the Gold Bugs, I wonder who would win?

  • ||

    Joe Allen is the mirror universe Edward.

  • ||

    cowards with too fragile of sensibilities to work for real change.

    You know, by telling neo-Nazis and race-war Armageddonists that they're right.

    You know, working for real change.

  • ||

    That's true, because Edward is succinct.

  • ||

    Suicide is our only option.

  • ||

    Cesar,

    Funny you should mention that. Now that the forums have turned somewhat against Dr Paul, it seems like Edward has disappeared...he's probably trolling some Obama forum now.

  • ||

    Too late. You people pulled the trigger when you mailed out those letters.

    You're just noticing your temple hurts now.

  • ||

    Crimethink-

    For the good of the Republic, I hope hes trolling Clinton or Huckabee forums.

  • Kolohe||

    My thoughts are my own.

    Or cut 'n pasted from others.

  • Bingo||

    "You people"

    How insensitive!

  • chombo||

    Joe, pandering to racists and conspiracy theorists are not "political compromises". There aren't enough of them that reaching out to them is worth it. Moving from .5% to .75% doesn't mean a damn thing. Ron Paul has had the success he has in this campaign because of normal people, especially young people like me, attracted to the libertarian message. That's how you broaden the libertarian movement into a politically relevant group, not by grabbing whatever weirdos you can off the street.

    Some "cosmopolitan" libertarians committed the sin of actively supporting the Iraq War and the Bush administration. Some "paleolibertarians" committed the sin of pandering to racists. Both sides need to recognize their mistake, and then we need to move on.

  • Julian Sanchez||

    "too timid to make the political comprimises"

    OH... Now I get it. The way to not "betray libertarianism" is to do whatever it takes to get white supremacists on your side. I've been such a fool.

  • fort troff||

    putting out that filth harder, longer, thicker, and with less lube

    more lube joe

  • barry liberty||

    We should be proud of everything Ron Paul wrote in his newsletters. it's all true

  • Kolohe||

    my inner conspiracist says that Edward was Welch and Gillespie the whole time.

  • ||

    So if "cosmotarian" refers to libertarians who are disgusted by the newsletters, what are the people who defend them?

    I nominate "libertaryan."

  • ||

    I am so not clicking that link.

  • ||

    For those people bitching about how certain people at Reason and CATO supported the Iraq War in 2003, please remember that 95% of the country was going through a juvenile retard stage from 9/11 until mid-2004.

    95% of the country was not going through a racist stage in the early 90s. Thats why you can forgive people for being racists in say, 1940. But 1992?

  • Bingo||

    damn, i knew we kept joe around for a reason!

  • Joe Allen||

    Seen the stock market lately? How do you think that's going to affect voters?

    I like my chances better than yours.

    Keep rearranging deck chairs, boys and girls.

    I'm building a lifeboat.

  • dodsworth||

    Well said. Unfortunately, neither side has learned the mistake though to Rockwell's credit he largely abandoned this strategy in 2001. It would be good for him and the movement, however, if he admitted his past mistakes as it would be for the cosmos if they did the same on the war issue. Too many egos are involved on both sides, however, for this to happen.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    That's how you broaden the libertarian movement into a politically relevant group, not by grabbing whatever weirdos you can off the street.

    Chombo, Joe isn't interested in broadening the libertarian movement. He's just arguing in his spare time.

  • numb3rz||

    There aren't enough of them that reaching out to them is worth it.

    16% think federal government officials were involved in 9/11.

    Has an LP presidential nominee ever scored even 1.6%

  • Fluffy||

    Once again, when reading Dondero's posts, one has to keep in mind that he has admitted at this site that he believes that Saddam Hussein was behind the Oklahoma City bombing.

    [HA! Fooled ya! You thought I'd pull out Dondero's advocacy of genocide, but I thought I'd mix it up for a change.]

    So Dondero is here to educate all of us about all the "crazy conspiracies" Paul believes in - and also to let us know about how Saddam Hussein's masterminding of the Oklahoma City bombing has been covered up!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I am so not clicking that link.

    Be happy you didn't.

  • Kolohe||

    Too late. You people pulled the trigger when you mailed out those letters.

    You're just noticing your temple hurts now.




    The United States Postal Service: The Carcano rifle of RonPaul2008.

  • ||

    Hmm, what's worse: supporting the cause of George Bush in 2003, or supporting the cause of Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1993?

    I don't like either of them, but that is not a difficult question. At least the deluded Iraq War supporters had the excuse of not knowing what they were getting into.

  • ||

    Well, one thing we definitely have to understand is that the state of libertarianism was quite different in the late 80s/early 90s from where it is now. Before the Internet expoded, the philosophy was very much marginalized. "Gun nut", white supremacist, survivalist, and other fringe groups were probably much larger than the population of libertarians, of either the cosmo- or paleo- variety.

  • ||

    joe, are you referring to me as part of "you people?" And if you are, why? Do you recall me having a giant hard-on for Ron Paul around here?

  • charlie||

    Joe: Let me get this straight - you are willing to turn yourself inside out like a circus freak to argue that the content of those vile, violent, racist propaganda rags was perfectly innocent, but when it's not your guy in the crosshairs, your Al Freaking Sharpton.

    C'mon, say it ain't so Joe (heh). You know I've done nothing of the sort. From what I've seen of the newsletters they were a mix of some rather benign conspiracy-mongering and some much, much less benign bigotry and ignorance. There, can I now point out how the race records of the other candidates -- the ones no one in the media dare call "racist" -- are just as bad, if not worse?

    John McCain can only rely on the tired "war hero" excuse for so long. Using the term "gooks" when campaigning for president in the year 2000 is unacceptable and, yes, he should have been forced to apologize for it. And in a more just world, he would also have to apologize for the anti-muslim bigotry he displayed in the last debate (along with Thompson, Huckabee, and oh, the rest of the GOP for good measure).

    This isn't about excusing Ron Paul or trying to defend the content of the newsletters as "innocent." Calling blacks animals is as unacceptable as calling Asians gooks -- or it should be.

    I just think it's a sad commentary on our society when we (rightly) condemn in the harshest terms bigotry towards blacks, but come up with a million excuses as to why it's not a big deal to use a highly offensive term for asians. And I think it shows how racist this country still is that it's perfectly acceptable -- an unworthy of noting -- when major party candidates conflate merely talking and trading with Arab countries as "trading burkas with al Qaeda" (as McCain did).

  • ||

    "OH... Now I get it. The way to not "betray libertarianism" is to do whatever it takes to get white supremacists on your side. I've been such a fool."

    Not that I've ever been there other than to confirm the rumor, but if you go to stormfront.org and scroll to the bottom, guess who's ad they're running under the heading "What Ron Paul Must Do To Win?"

    How embarrassing!

  • Bingo||

    hhahahah the forttroff link is priceless

  • ||

    Chombo, Joe isn't interested in broadening the libertarian movement

    It appears that his goal for the movement is similar to his goal for the country as a whole: keeping it pure, with just his kind of people.

  • ||


    Not that I've ever been there other than to confirm the rumor, but if you go to stormfront.org and scroll to the bottom, guess who's ad they're running under the heading "What Ron Paul Must Do To Win?"

    How embarrassing!



    Yuck. I've only been to Stormfront before to troll. Very difficult to troll Stormfront, though. Everyone there is so ridiculous already, its hard to gauge success.

  • Fluffy||

    95% of the country was not going through a racist stage in the early 90s.

    Cesar, the 90's were the 60's for the radical right. Waco and Ruby Ridge sequed into the militia movement which segued into Y2K. Armageddonism, conspiracy, anti-government zealotry, the whole shebang was all over the place. For us regular people, the 90's were about the internet, grunge music and the stock market boom - but for the fringe, the 90's were about imminent revolution and/or The Coming Dark Age and/or black helicopters.

    We're supposed to overlook the crazy shit people on the left said during the 60's [because "they were young" or "that's how a radical group like MECHA would express itself" or "nobody ever really believed that" or "there was a war on" or whatever], but for some reason people who said crazy shit after the King riots or Waco don't get the same pass.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Personally, I am delighted with the term Cosmotarian. It makes me LOL every time I see it.

    I don't recall who coined it but it came out of Virginia Postrel's remark:

    When you give your political heart to a guy who spends so much time worrying about international bankers, you're not going to get a tolerant cosmopolitan

  • ||

    There, can I now point out how the race records of the other candidates -- the ones no one in the media dare call "racist" -- are just as bad, if not worse?

    Not if you were hoping to avoid people laughing in your face.

    By all means, condemn John McCain all you like. I agree with every word.

    But don't use it as an excuse to yell "Hey, look over there!" when these newsletters come up.

  • ||

    The Rondroids are truly cultic. They flood the site with irrational comments, wacko conspiracy theories and insults but ignore the substance. If you want to see why Ron Paul is dangerous to libertarianism just look at the lunatics he has out there defending him.

  • Fluffy||

    Hmm, what's worse: supporting the cause of George Bush in 2003, or supporting the cause of Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1993?

    I don't like your math here, Joe. Neither of them is very good, but one of them killed a half million people and the other didn't, and one of them took a trillion dollars out of the pockets of the taxpayers and the other didn't.

    I could walk outside right now and scream "I love Nathan Bedford Forrest!" over and over for the rest of the night, and other than a couple of my neighbors being inconvenienced it wouldn't mean a god damn thing relative to Hillary's war vote. You might not like that, but them's the facts.

  • ||

    Fluffy-

    Thats true enough, and if the Lew Rockwell Krewe would just say "We were a bit crazy then, but we don't believe that shit anymore, and Stormfront should leave us alone" I'd be more sympathetic.

  • ||

    It's nothing new for a campaign to tear itself apart. And as for being dysfunctional, with the exception of the Clinton machine and a few others, most campaigns are dysfunctional and poorly organized. Hell, many a business is dysfunctional and poorly organized. If anyone has worked on a campaign (even winning campaigns) you'll know this to be true. A lot happens in just a few days let alone months.

    Anyway, if I'm going to armchair campaign, I'd say Paul needs to come clean, point fingers, and rally the base. Clean house if necessary and right the ship in the next few days, otherwise it's over. With the money he has he can outlast Thompson at the very least. And as for the ads, just hammer at what the republican, conservative base cares about: constitution, America is great, founding fathers, and all of that. Ron Paul is crazy? Why? Because he wants to take us back to the Constitution? Wow. So republicans don't care about the constitution? It's a game, and Paul needs to buck up and play for keeps.

    The economy is going to hell, the crown jewels of the nation are being sold off to foreign lands, and many Americans are about to go upside down on their houses. It's a great time for "new" ideas to have an impact.

  • ||

    "The economy is going to hell, the crown jewels of the nation are being sold off to foreign lands, and many Americans are about to go upside down on their houses. It's a great time for "new" ideas to have an impact.

    Why cite "problems" from the '70s?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Ken Schulz, that's a hell of a lot more than just embarrassing. Gave me the fargin' willies. Jesus Chrysler.

  • ||

    Oh yeah, and where's Osama? Talk about hunting him down a bit to show you'll defend the country. Talk more about Letters of Marque. That stuff is great.

  • ||

    That's it. Too many idiots here. I'm going to go find a fucking Obama forum.

  • ||

    What "Crown jewles" are being sold to foreign lands exactly? Did I miss something?

  • ||

    Fluffy, if the founder of the Klan didn't manage to kill half a million people, it wasn't through lack of trying.

    And if Forrest's cause had succeeded, he would have had every bit as much power as Hillary Clinton - he almost certainly would have risen to high political office as the founder of the Klan - and the dream of making Mexico and the American west slave land would almost certainly have been his life's work.

  • charlie||

    Lets try a little thought experiment, shall we?

    Here is what John McCain said in 2000 and still hasn't apologized for: "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

    Now, lets replace the term "gooks" with another offensive term, this time one used to describe African Americans.

    "I hated the niggers. I will hate them as long as I live."

    If John McCain had made the second statement, instead of the first, does anyone seriously believe he would be a candidate in 2008? Now tell me -- without resorting to "he's a war hero!" -- why the two statements should be viewed as fundamentally different.

  • shecky||

    Before the Internet expoded, the philosophy was very much marginalized. "Gun nut", white supremacist, survivalist, and other fringe groups were probably much larger than the population of libertarians, of either the cosmo- or paleo- variety.

    Paul's poor judgment over this issue doesn't help libertarianism expand beyond that "gun nut", white supremacist, survivalist" crowd. His name was used to deliberately exclude anyone else.

    The Paul episode may indeed have set the clock back for libertarians twenty years.

  • ||

    To Forrest's credit, he later said he regreted ever founding the Klan.

  • ||

    Ken Schulz, that's a hell of a lot more than just embarrassing. Gave me the fargin' willies. Jesus Chrysler.

    Sanchez was kidding too!

    When the white supremacists jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon, that's when I jump the fuck off.

    ...right or wrong, I jump the fuck off.

  • ||

    Have at it:

    http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=SUNA,SUNA:2006-27,SUNA:en&q=foreign+purchasers+of+US+companies

  • chombo||

    Disgruntled, enjoy the world of personality politics. See you after the recession.

  • Eric Dondero||

    There's a news story now up on The New Republic by Kirchik released just minutes ago. Same angle. Quotes Lizardo.

    I think we are in the midst of the biggest political story in the entire history of the modern libertarian movement.

    This now officially eclipses Ed Clark for President in 1980, Toni Nathan winning the Electoral vote on the Libertarian ticket in 1972 and Howard Stern, Libertarian for New York Governor in 1992.

    Biggest Libertarian story of all-time.

  • shecky||

    Personally, I am delighted with the term Cosmotarian. It makes me LOL every time I see it.

    I don't see why we adopt this so-called put down and make it our own. It kind of reminds me of the Democrats getting all huffy over being called the "Democrat Party".

  • ||

    Charlie, in your thought experiment, did John McCain spent five years being tortured by black people?

    I don't like that sort of talk either, and wouldn't vote for him, but I can cut the guy a little slack.

  • Roger||

    "juicy rumour"? For god's sake, what additional proof is required here?

    My goodness, you're right. We're to lose all that.

  • Fluffy||

    Fluffy, if the founder of the Klan didn't manage to kill half a million people, it wasn't through lack of trying.

    And if Forrest's cause had succeeded, he would have had every bit as much power as Hillary Clinton


    This is true, and this would make supporting Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1866 comparable to supporting George Bush in 2003.

    Supporting Forrest in 1993, on the other hand [which is what you said] was stupid, loathsome, and immoral, but contributed nothing to the history of Klan activity back when they were, you know, an actual problem. Voting to enable Bush in 2003 created actual harm; flying a Confederate flag in 1993 created no actual harm.

  • William Wallace||

    I once worked for a Cato fellow who derided "Reason? They're mere treason." Now I know what he meant.

  • Roger||

    Sorry folks, my Ctrl key is sticking, making keystroke copies less certain and so I posted a half dupe and mostly nonsensical comment above.

  • ||

    I did not know that, Cesar.

    But it's not too surprising, when you think about it.

    When you shake that particular devil's hand, you don't know where it's going to lead. Which brings us back the newsletters.

  • brain teaser||

    What if McCain had been tortured by black people for five years during the L.A. riots and he then got a side gig writing the Ron Paul Survival Report?

    Would Ron Paul still be a racist, for tolerating John McCain's racism?

  • ||

    "Biggest Libertarian story of all-time."

    How big can a teacup get?

  • ||

    charlie,

    Didn't James T Kirk say something like that about the Klingons in "The Undiscovered Country"? I knew there was a reason I always preferred Picard.

  • ||

    Chombo-The last comment was sarcastic. Personality politics is exactly what we're seeing here. That and team boosterism.
    I'm sick and fucking tired of seeing Reason getting slagged for doing their goddamn jobs and reporting on matters of consequence to libertarians.

  • Joe Allen||

    Wow. Judging by all the comments, I'm not the only one wasting my time here.

    Just look at all the thoughtful posts that appeared while I was taking a dump.

    So, reasonoids, whats YOUR solution to making the world a better place?

  • ||

    It took you half an hour to take a dump? You definitely need more fiber in your diet, man.

  • Roger.||

    whats YOUR solution to making the world a better place?

    Me? Why I am partial to spamming long weblog crossposts. How about you??

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    This is true, and this would make supporting Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1866 comparable to supporting George Bush in 2003.

    I disagree. I think it would be like supporting George Bush in 2007. Like I said, in 2003, people had the excuse of not knowing what they were signing on for. Hey, man, would wouldn't want to see the people of Iraq living in a free, democratic nation? I can cut them some slack.

    And also, when I talk about Forrest's cause, I was using it a broader sense. Lord knows the people getting their monthly amalgam of confederate sympathy and racial bile in the early 90s didn't think that cause was just history.

  • ||

    "Didn't James T Kirk say something like that about the Klingons in "The Undiscovered Country"? I knew there was a reason I always preferred Picard."

    I've got two words for you--mandatory miniskirts.

    Take it back.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Shecky, Cosmotarian: it's just funny. And in the space of a week a whole Cosmotarian identity has been created here at H&R. It's amusing and at times, quite sharp. Instead of withering under Virginia's harsh gaze, some folks around here have had some fun with her remark, which was surely intended as fully derisive.

  • chombo||

    Disgruntled, okay, I agree with you.

  • ||

    "So, reasonoids, whats YOUR solution to making the world a better place?"

    Lattes.

  • ||

    Looking beyond the humor element...can the people criticizing Reason for criticizing Paul understand why it would be a bad thing for libertarians if these newsletters became the biggest libertarian story of all time?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    This is true, and this would make supporting Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1866 comparable to supporting George Bush in 2003.

    Not exactly.

  • Fluffy||

    Actually, after writing my last post, I got to thinking about what this whole episode reminds me of: the pathetic old racist newsletter guys in Vonnegut's Mother Night. And I guess that's what Geotpf has been getting at this whole time: once you make yourself look like that, you're no longer a serious person.

    Maybe they should play White Christmas as the music for the next Paul TV ad.

  • etc||

    The question is, do the people at Reason understand this?

    Looking beyond the humor element...can the people criticizing Reason for criticizing Paul understand why it would be a bad thing for libertarians if these newsletters became the biggest libertarian story of all time?

  • ||

    Joe-I think the folks your addressing believe that if Reason would just stop investigating all this uncomfortable stuff, it would go away.

  • ||

    'you're' that is.

  • Joe Allen||

    That's what I thought. Not a single defense of the tReason from a libertarian point of view. Just liberal/beltway cynicism.

    It's easy to point fingers and criticize, but it's a lot harder to come up with solutions, ain't it?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Looking beyond the humor element...can the people criticizing Reason for criticizing Paul understand why it would be a bad thing for libertarians if these newsletters became the biggest libertarian story of all time?

    Asked and answered.

    Reason has to throw RP under the bus and right now. The mere whiff of an accusation of racism is the death knell in modern politics.

  • chombo||

    I think supporting George Bush in 2003 is more like supporting General Tojo in 1937.

  • Fluffy||

    Is Joe Allen a parody troll? They sometimes go over my head, so I have to check.

    I thought Dondero was a parody troll for a long time, for example. He got pissed off and kept posting his cell phone number when I said so.

  • ||

    My God, what have I done?

    OK, I'm in: supporting John Kerry in 2004 was like supporting the SDs in 1932.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Disclaimer: I doubt that this will be any bigger than say the Lyndon LaRouche/LP connection.

  • chombo||

    Joe, it's easy to point fingers and criticize when someone makes a huge and flagrant mistake. The newsletters were a huge and flagrant mistake. Look back at Reason over the past few months: Nobody wanted Ron Paul to be the libertarian messiah more than Reason magazine.

  • ||

    TWC-Reason doesn't have to do anything except try to find the truth about a story that matters to its readers, and offer their own analysis, which readers are free to accept, dismiss, or challenge. But the idea that they should just forget a story that Paul's camp finds embarrassing is just repugnant. It's the sort of shit one expects from red and blue team jingoists or creationists faced with the horror of science.

  • Joe Allen||

    >>Ken Shultz | January 17, 2008, 11:19pm | #

    "So, reasonoids, whats YOUR solution to making the world a better place?"

    Lattes.

    Ok, Ken. I have to agree with you there, but after coffee, we got a lot of work to do.

  • ||

    Like I said, in 2003, people had the excuse of not knowing what they were signing on for. Hey, man, would wouldn't want to see the people of Iraq living in a free, democratic nation? I can cut them some slack.

    Whoa there, joe. You're saying that Hilary trusting W. with the authority to wage a war resulting in thousands of American deaths, tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, and close to a trillion dollars of wasted money was not as bad as Dr Paul trusting Rockwell (or whoever it was) with a mimeographed newsletter that might contain some racial slurs?

  • ||

    "Joe-I think the folks your addressing believe that if Reason would just stop investigating all this uncomfortable stuff, it would go away."

    I don't think any of this is going to matter to most people. I don't think it'll effect how well he does in this election, but it might effect donations. There was a chance that he might do well in successive elections, and I suspect that's probably not going to happen now.

    Some of this reaction I think is based on the old labor theory of value--that things are worth how much time and effort you've put into them. ...and I think some of these people have put a lot of time and effort into the Ron Paul campaign. That's a toughie but so was making buggy whips.

  • Roger.||

    Looking beyond the humor element...can the people criticizing Reason for criticizing Paul understand why it would be a bad thing for libertarians if these newsletters became the biggest libertarian story of all time?

    Joe, I don't agree with Senhor Dondero's assessment and the story's noteriety in absolute terms. There are decades and decades of more noteworthy histories than this muck rake scandal.

  • ||

    Is Joe Allen a parody troll? They sometimes go over my head, so I have to check.



    If he is, he's accidentally making some good points underneath all that bluster.

  • GILMORE||

    die, topic, DIE!!!!

    there are libertarians here who never got a hard on for paul for reasons that should be obvious = he would be a 4th placer at best in most primaries.

    he got a message out. Great. then he was ass out. Now he's damaged goods. Give it up. This hand wringing is so silly im really losing some of my love for this rag.

  • Jacob||

    If Lew ends up not being the culprit, you guys are going to look like a bunch of assholes.

  • ||

    Looking beyond the humor element...can the people criticizing Reason for criticizing Paul understand why it would be a bad thing for libertarians if these newsletters became the biggest libertarian story of all time?

    Of course it would be terrible, but right now, I think "Republican Congressman votes against the war" is still a bigger headline than "Congressman's surrogate said mildly offensive things 10 years ago".

  • ||

    No, crimethink, not Hillary, not people who actually had power, because that brings the element of personal responsibility for the events that followed into play.

    I'd say that people who wrote letters to the editor and harangued their friends in favor of the war in 2003 were as bad as putting out those newsletters in 1993.

    And lose the mealy-mouth. "Might contain some racial slurs?" C'mon. Don't do that.

  • ||

    "Ok, Ken. I have to agree with you there, but after coffee, we got a lot of work to do."

    Some day somebody will call me or TWC a "latte-swilling cosmotarian", and we'll laugh and laugh...

  • ||

    Joe Allen,

    One solution that is completely within Dr Paul's personal power is to explain who was writing this stuff, or at least who was editing the Survival Report. At the present time, the person keeping this story going is not Nick Gillespie, or Matt Welch, or Julian Sanchez, or even Jamie Kirchick himself...it is Ron Paul.

  • chombo||

    I'm of the opinion that the newsletters kill Ron Paul but have no effect on libertarian ideas in the long run. Ron Paul is going to fail, the newsletters will follow him to his political grave, and the mass of followers he created will move on to support better libertarian candidates.

  • ||

    You too, matt. "Mildly offensive?" C'mon.

  • GILMORE||

    Joe Allen | January 17, 2008, 11:14pm | #
    Wow. Judging by all the comments, I'm not the only one wasting my time here.

    So, reasonoids, whats YOUR solution to making the world a better place?


    purging the idiots.

  • ||

    joe,

    I meant to say, that when Paul authorized the newsletters, at that point it was a "might be". Obviously, we now know that it turned out to be a "was".

  • Bingo||

    TWC: I like the term cosmotarian! It's not a putdown, or at least it wasn't intended to be. There's nothing wrong with being a cosmopolitan libertarian, it's a good thing.. I definitely consider myself one. It mostly reminds me of that article about Nick Gillespie and the reason happy hour ("libertarian as Bacchus"-something, I forget.. oh here it is!).

    Libertarianism shouldn't be confined to grumpy white guys in hunting camo whining about "the Jews," its a positive political philosophy of freedom, damnit.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Disgruntled, the truth has been out for a while. It's now past discovery. Some, like Virginia Postrel, argue that the entire Reason staff should have known better from the get-go. That's both unfair and unpleasant.

    But I'm merely pointing out that if Reason is tainted with the specter of supporting a racist (perceived or real) by plastering his face on the magazine cover they will lose a whole pile of credibility in the political swamp where they try to make a difference. If Reason is tainted nothing they say will ever carry a dime's worth of weight with anyone.

    I'm not saying anyone at Reason is insincere, but I am also saying that as an organization, Reason cannot afford to take sides with RP on this matter. That is the reality of modern politics. Context is nothing. Perception is everything.

  • Roger||

    That's what I thought. Not a single defense of the tReason from a libertarian point of view. Just liberal/beltway cynicism.

    My sympathies for what you have to say evaporate when this oafish and stifling compulsion to spam large "blog" crossposts manifests and makes the H&R section unreadable. Don't you understand that I cannot afford a wheel mouse???

  • chombo||

    Caveat: I'm willing to forgive Ron Paul if he says who wrote the newsletters, makes an unequivocal apology for putting them out, and offers a full explanation of why and how the newsletters came into being. I don't think that will happen until after the campaign is over.

  • GILMORE||

    joe | January 17, 2008, 11:31pm | #

    I'd say that people who wrote letters to the editor and harangued their friends in favor of the war in 2003 were as bad as putting out those newsletters in 1993.


    uh.

    joe, sometimes im with you, and sometimes i'm like... dude. Stop when you've made some sense, and back away slowly. These kinds of 'moral equivilencies' are stock-in-trade of silly liberalish thinkers who mash anything that is 'wrong' into 'bad'aka'evil.

    there were those who were on the fence about iraq and thought the 'no blood for oil' nonsense was the worst possible anti-argument. Are you pasting people who failed to be idological anti-warists as equivilent to unashamed racists? Come the fuck on. You're providing some kind of shitty foil to the idiot magnet this topic (RON PAUL WEEPOLOGY) has become.

  • ||

    You too, matt. "Mildly offensive?" C'mon.

    Some of that content is simply no good, but it isn't Mein Kampf or anything.

    The newsletters, at their worst, are racist in an Ann Coulter, Al Sharpton, MadTV way. That's bad enough, but I think it's crucial to distinguish it from KKK rhetoric.

    Am I the only one who sees shades here?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Oh Bingo, that was the funniest thing ever. Mrs TWC sent me there a day or two ago, but I LOL this time around just as hard.

    The thing is, like with Cosmotarian, some things are just funny. Like that kid doing the GWB parody on UTube.

  • ||

    Well, I wouldn't say Reason was ever taking sides with RP. The comments section of H&R has always been way more pro-Paul than the blog posts themselves.

    I mean, the guy covering the Paul campaign is a Democrat.

  • GILMORE||

    last thought =

    stop with the 'paleo'/'cosmotarian' thing.

    please. We can all agree on some basic ideas. Creating loose categories that people somehow have to fall in is just too gayzorz.

  • language||

    Which libertarian author is a bigger racist, H.L. Mencken or Ron Paul?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Am I the only one who sees shades here?

    Nope. And I'm still voting for RP. After he loses, I'll vote for Kubby or the whoever the LP puts up. I'm certainly not even considering anyone else. In the end, we're all screwed, but I'll mace the bastards before they stick it in.

  • ||

    GILMORE,

    That's a very tolerant, cosmopolitan attitude.

    You...COSMOTARIAN!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I'm not saying they took sides, just that they cannot.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I dunno, Mencken loved what the Jews did for sandwiches when they created the Deli.

  • chombo||

    Gilmore, "gayzorz"?

    By the way, if a person isn't ideologically opposed to war, they are a militarist. In 2003, most of the people in the country (including myself) were militarists, but lets not make excuses for it, and lets not deny that Ron Paul was right and admirable in resisting the post-9/11 political climate.

  • SIV||

    stop with the 'paleo'/'cosmotarian' thing.

    The cosmotarians started this shit. I don't give a rats ass about Rockwell. I don't care who supports Ron Paul.What I don't like is a bunch of self important " libertarian-lite" assholes trying to play marxist style games by defining libertarianism as a collective and trying to tell people the "correct" way to think.I do appreciate them outing themselves.

    Besides, it is kinda fun

  • Fluffy||

    Gilmore -

    You know why it's a false equivalence?

    Because you probably can't produce a single guy who's in a wheelchair or has half his face covered in burn scars or who lost pieces of his brain and can't feed himself now because of the Ron Paul Report.

  • Iron Man||

    They [Beltway libertarians] are too timid to make the political comprimises [sic] nessesary [sic] to do anything more than cement their rebel status at beltway cocktail parties.



    That's odd. And here I thought the rap against the Beltway libertarians has always been that they're too eager to make compromises (with the D.C. establishment).

  • Franklin Harris||

    Damn. Forgot to change my name back in the above post.

  • I Get It!||

    It's the "lavendar mafia" queer Jew-boys who are WRONGLY attacking Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell for bigotry. Yeah! That's the ticket!

    Now, seriously......isn't it time for us all to take a deep breath, exhale slowly, think about where we are, look each other in the eyes, and then throw Lew Rockwell overboard?

  • GILMORE||

    Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 11:55pm | #
    Gilmore -

    You know why it's a false equivalence?

    Because you probably can't produce a single guy who's in a wheelchair or has half his face covered in burn scars or who lost pieces of his brain and can't feed himself now because of the Ron Paul Report.


    Fair point.

    Which is where i was headed. I was not an on-the-fencer myself, so much as unconvinced it was going to be either a debacle or anything useful. I wanted to glass northwest pakistan, personally. Iraq has been a horrible mistake and i think people who still think it's worth spending money on are smoking the wrong stuff. My point is the lumpen association of anyone not 'antiwar activist' as equivilent to 'hateful racist' is poor game to play.

    me tired. me flying on planes since 6AM. Me sleep now.

    before i go... please lets all have a nice 'ron paul-free day' for once. Please.

  • It would make a great YouTube ||

    Maybe I'd be less upset if I got to see Lew Rockwell commit sepuku -- you know, with the tatami mat and the Z-shaped cut across the abdomen. I can just imagine the haiku he'd read out first:

    I have promoted
    Racist views most sickening
    I am ashamed
    -- Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr

  • GILMORE||

    chombo | January 17, 2008, 11:50pm | #
    Gilmore, "gayzorz"?


    translation = "silly waste of time"?

    aka "gay to the max"

  • embittered||

    Bring the politics, and anything else. Never censored.

    http://lamented.createmyboard.com/catharticlament-forum-f1/who-is-ron-paul-t6.htm

  • deadjim||

    dr paul is pro-life and anti-sepuku

  • GILMORE||

    yes, i know. i should be asleep by now.

  • ||

    The cosmotarians started this shit.

    I don't know about that; maybe I'm just not in the loop as much as others, but the first place I saw reference to "cosmopolitan" v. "paleo" libertarians was when H&R linked to an article in The Nation a few months ago talking about libertarians, where David Boaz of CATO was railing against the "paleos", basically saying they were horrible, conspiracy-mongering racists, and Justin Raimondo was attacking the "cosmos", saying they're OK with whatever the Repubs do as long as it doesn't raise their taxes or restrict abortion. There's blame on both sides.

  • ||

    Wine Commonsewer,

    I'm just curious what evidence makes you believe this newsletter thing will ever become a big deal? How will Reason lose credibility for supporting a "racist" if Reason is the only publication that is even covering the story? The Newsletters haven't hurt Paul in the slightest. Go to the major Pro-Paul forums and they aren't even being discussed anymore. The Newsletter issue was a 24 hour media cycle story that nearly every single supporter viewed as nothing more than one of endless number of unfair smears. The Snub at the "Faux" Debate in NH, the unfair question from Carl Cameron, the mysterious zero vote Paul counties in NH, the State GOP's incorrect guide to the caucuses in Nevada, and of course the endless constructive and less than constructive criticism of the Official Paul campaign- these are the issues the Paulites are obsessed with right now. Not Newsletters. Face it, the Newsletters were a bust. The MSM yawned. Paul's supporters took it as a smear and sign that the "neocons" were nervous. And the only people who took up the cause were Reason, a few anti-Paul "libertarian" bloggers, and the left wing blogs that have hated Paul from Day One. Following Paul to his grave? The Newsletters didn't even follow him out of last week.

  • UberKorrektor||

    This piece? http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/hayes

    Me thinks Crimethink has confused the story more than a little.

    It is Raimondo, the self-hating homosexual, who says "As long as they can abort their babies and sodomize each other and take as many drugs as they want to, they are happy." (Who refers to sex as "sodomy," besides gay-bashers?) And it is Brink Lindsey (not David Boaz) who says of Ron Paul, "He doesn't strike me as the kind of person that's tapping into those elements of American public opinion that might lead towards a sustainable move in the libertarian direction."

    Facts.....matter.

  • ||

    Sorry if I don't have photographic recall, Uber. The point is, both sides are fueling this fire and have been for some time. (And Lindsey's comment is more carefully-worded, but just as insulting to Dr Paul and his supporters as Raimondo's is to Beltway types)

    I was probably confusing the CATO official with this person: One DC-based libertarian--who asked not to be named because he "would like to avoid getting endless 2 am calls from nuts yelling at me for not agreeing with the gold standard"--told me he thinks Rockwell is "one of the most loathsome people ever to set foot on this continent."

  • ||

    FatDrunkAndStupid,

    I have several liberal Democrat friends who, 2 weeks ago, were seriously considering switching party affiliation to vote for Dr Paul in the primaries. Now, I'm getting mocked by them for supporting someone who they think is a racist.

    Hey, I can live with a little mockery -- God knows I give plenty of material for such -- but the important thing here is that there is no way in Hades that they're going to vote for him now. So, please don't tell me that this hasn't hurt his campaign at all...and if it's really not such a big deal, why are you guys so anxious for Reason to drop the subject?

  • Mike Laursen||

    I'm pretty sure Matt Welch won't be losing any sleep over the fact that a guy who defends the content of the newsletters on the grounds that racial segregation is good and natural called him a Nazi.

    No, but Matt Welch might lose sleep reading what the guy who defends the content of the newsletters on the grounds that racial segregation is good and natural wrote, trying to get to the part where the guy called him a Nazi.

  • ||

    Mike Laursen,

    I had to read it a few times, but I got it. Well played...

  • Mike Laursen||

    Yes, Matt Welch, it's okay to use term "gooks" to describe Asians so long as...

    You are, of course, aware that Matt just wrote a book about McCain in which he covers in detail the many things that are not OK about him.

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/118937.html

  • ||

    crimethink,

    I'm anxious for Reason to drop this story because I usually enjoy reading Hit and Run very much and the constant posts on this utterly boring and played out story are affecting the overall quality of theblog. As far as Paul losing the support of your two "Liberal Democrat" friends, if they are truly liberal democrats I doubt their affection for the man who wants to abolish the IRS and rid the government of every social program in existence was really anything more than skin deep anyway. And for all you know those two potential defectors were canceled out by 4 racist in South Carolina who are now giving Paul a second look. Paul's vote total in NH was almost exactly what the campaign projected it to be. The percentage was lower than they expected because of higher than expected turnout, but the voters they thought would vote for them did. Paul's performance in Michigan was slightly better than what most objective folks thought he would do 2 weeks prior to the vote. So we only have samples, but neither one seems to support a "Paul hurt by Newsletters" theory.

  • Sanjay||

    It's strange to see the real RP fanatics defending their man by pointing out that others are bad, too. The fact is that RP wrote, or at least signed, really nasty stuff. The fact that Hillary or Rudy or whoever did bad things is interesting, but doesn't exculpate RP, does it? RP may be the best man, but he isn't perfect. Not by a long shot.

    The fact that Lizardo has added his voice to the chorus pointing at Lew Rockwell matters.

    Rockwell. Rockwell. Rockwell.

  • thoreau||

    When the white supremacists jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon, that's when I jump the fuck off.

    ...right or wrong, I jump the fuck off.



    Amen, Ken.

  • Blue Blaze Irregular Durango||

    Any relation to Dr. Emilio Lizardo? Has Buckaroo Banzai been notified?

  • GILMORE||

    FatDrunkAndStupid | January 18, 2008, 1:20am | #
    crimethink,

    I'm anxious for Reason to drop this story because I usually enjoy reading Hit and Run very much and the constant posts on this utterly boring and played out story are affecting the overall quality of theblog.


    I now endorse FatDrunkAndStupid for president.

    [yes, still horribly awake and watching James Blakes 'Connections' series in background while perusing H&R threads and looking for 1818 suit in 40R flat charcoal. Good suit that.]

  • ||

    several /= 2, and I doubt we're going to pick up any racists in SC, since Dr Paul has denounced the comments in the newsletters...which, while it's enough to scare away any white supremacists who weren't already in his corner, isn't nearly enough to hold on to massively anti-war (and anti-drug-war) Dems who aren't happy with the choices in their own party, or live in a state like mine where the Dem primary won't even be close due to there being a favorite son.

  • ||

    And I would hardly call the current situation "played out", considering we still have Dr Paul holding back on an explanation of who was responsible for these newsletters, and why he claimed responsibility in '96 but disavowed it in '01. I mean, the current position of the campaign is that he doesn't know, which is simply ludicrous.

    I'm still supporting Dr Paul, because his positions are much better than the other candidates', but I'm about 10% as enthusiastic as I was a couple of weeks ago. One thing I liked about Dr Paul was that he played it straight and didn't insult my intelligence with meaningless buzzwords and talking points. I hate to say it, but I and many other former and current Paul supporters feel like he's not playing it straight with us about this.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Fat, Inebriated, & Not Stupid:

    I'm really tired and I just can't give you a decent answer except to say that I pretty much agree with what you said.

    I think mainstream first tier libertarians either never supported RP in the first place or that they have now abandoned ship, post haste. I understand why. I don't agree. But, it has always been about the second tier. The people you are talking about and the people whose email lists I've been unceremoniously subscribed to. As RP says, it ain't him, it's the message. If it was just us, it'd be every LP election since Hospers.

    I hope you're right. I hope the newsletters don't turn into our modern day LaRouche albatross. But I worry anyway.

    Good Night. Sleep Tight.

  • ||

    I hate to agree with Eric Dondero about anything at all, but Lizardo is a great guy and a warrior for liberty. Anyone even suggesting that he is somehow "compromised" or trying to sabotage Ron Paul need to pull their heads out of their asses.

  • ||

    Pabst-itarian is code for "jew"

  • ||

    Why didn\'t Reason report that Lizardo is the FORMER chief of staff for Ron Paul? He departed his position last week and rumor has it that he is threatening to sue for severance pay.

    I don\'t want to judge whether he is being truthful, but the above facts give it a different twist.

  • ||

    before i go... please lets all have a nice 'ron paul-free day' for once. Please.

    The More You Ignore Me....

  • ||

    I have several liberal Democrat friends who, 2 weeks ago, were seriously considering switching party affiliation to vote for Dr Paul in the primaries. Now, I'm getting mocked by them for supporting someone who they think is a racist.

    They would have gotten around to calling him a racist anyway for not wanting hate speech legislation or because he chews gum....seriously liberal democrats call everyone a racist who is not a liberal democrat every day of the week.

    I don't take these people seriously....now the writers and editors of Reason, well except for Weigle who we all know is a democrat, I take a little more seriously.

  • ||

    Why didn't Reason report that Lizardo is the FORMER chief of staff for Ron Paul? He departed his position last week and rumor has it that he is threatening to sue for severance pay.

    I don't want to judge whether he is being truthful, but the above facts give it a different twist.


    The twist is that he was so torn up over this issue that he gave up his position with a man he has immense respect for and loyalty to over this issue.

  • ||

    They would have gotten around to calling him a racist anyway for not wanting hate speech legislation or because he chews gum....seriously liberal democrats call everyone a racist who is not a liberal democrat every day of the week.

    And that distinguishes them from cosmotarians - uh, how?

  • GILMORE||

    OK, sorry, james burke.

    I'm actually asleep now

  • ||

    When the white supremacists jump on the Ron Paul bandwagon, that's when I jump the fuck off.

    ...right or wrong, I jump the fuck off.



    Wow! Maybe we could get the white supremacists to jump on the Hillary bandwagon...or one of the other Republican's bandwagon and induce other supporters to leave.

  • stewie||

    REASON AND CATO ARE THE ONLY TWO PLACES WASTING PIXELS ON THIS STORY ANY MORE.

  • M||

    Would someone here kindly rebut this amplification of Fluffy's 11:55pm post?

  • ||

    As James Bond said: "That's détente, comrade; *You* don't have it, *I* don't have it."

  • Libertas||

    This is getting ridiculous. I use to like Reason and Cato, but this Paul-hating is starting to look just stupid. You guys really have a hard-on for Rockwell, don't you?

    Oh well, I guess it is time to stop reading Reason and Cato. I really did think you guys were better than this.

    Goodbye.

  • Brett||

    I despise Reason a little bit more everyday.

    Take a look at Mises.org and the topics and ideas being discussed there. Stimulating, challenging, upbeat.

    Reason has turned into a bitch-fest.

  • ||

    I'm sure most white supremacists are proud to be Americans. So, I guess Cesar, Ken Schultz, and thoreau will be emigrating soon.

    If you disagree with Ron Paul's positions, or you think he won't be true to his positions, or you simply don't like him personally, I can completely understand not supporting him.

    I don't get this "I can't support the same person those people support!" nonsense. That's what's kept libertarians in the 0.5% ghetto for 30+ years. Ever heard the expression "politics makes strange bedfellows"?

  • ||

    Take a look at Mises.org and the topics and ideas being discussed there. Stimulating, challenging, upbeat.

    Denial is a wonderful thing, isn't it?

  • ||

    @Brett & Libertas

    Yeah, I'm gonna join you to mises.org; at least, they're thinking and promoting ideas.

    If this is *the* libertarian movement the "good people" should be in, than it's easy: count me out. What a despicable character assassination this is and, worse, it doesn't stop. Real classy.

    PS Just checked Ilana Mercer's blog today. Reason-writers should read it, I urge them to read it.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Gimmee a break. All you people out there bad-mouthing Reason Magazine for this story, don't even know the half of it.

    Reason has treated this story with kid gloves. They've done a good job at covering it, but they've been super, super careful, some would say way too careful. I know for a fact there's a lot that they purposely let out of the stories, for fear that they were not "fully vetted."

    And you all have the audacity to bash Reason?

    Other Blogs like Donklelephant, Sultan Kinesh and Libertarian Republican have covered the story much more in-depth.

    Donklelephant, yesterday morning, even delved into the financial side of all this, which NO OTHER Blog or Website anywheres has even touched on. That's where the real meat of this story lies.

    Reason has done a good job, but they've been slightly behind the curve on all the breaking news.

    Incredibly ironic that you all would choose to bash Reason and the Editorial Staff, who've been super careful and retrospective on the whole matter, instead of the very Blogs who have been breaking the story for days now.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Jesse, can you confirm that Lizardo has resigned?

    Please call me on my cell 832-896-9505. URGENT!!!

  • ||

  • Hi, LewRockwell.com Readers!||

    Read on....There's a lot more to find. For one thing, Lew NEVER links to the newsletters he wrote. Want to find out what he wrote?

    Start here: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

    Here are the scanned copies of just a few of Lew Rockwell's most purple prose: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

    Then follow the trail!

  • ||

    Hey Dondero

    You know why, I don't trust Reason in their condemnation, because of all the stuff. (I kind of believe you, though, being a consistent critic and all.)

    This is why I don't trust the editors.

    http://reason.com/news/show/120387.html

    That was in May. Now 7 months later, they're all shocked like hell? Come on, they knew upfront, jumped on the bandwagon and couldn't care less.

    Btw, you were working for RP when all this happened right? That's why you have the insider's knowledge. So, isn't it a bit disingenuous to bash him on this one, from your perspective? Note, that I'm not out to criticise you, like most of the rest of the respondents on this blog

  • Eric Dondero||

    Can't talk right now on internet. I'm on a political assignment. Please call me on my cell 832-896-9505.

    Quickly, if Lizardo has indeed resigned, this thing is HUGE! As a Ron Paul insider for 12 years, I can tell you that this cuts right to the core of Paul's inner circle.

    Means the money-bags faction has won out over the Congressional staff.

    Watch for Beltway media to now pick up on this story... The Hill, Washington Post, ect... From the Lizardo resigns angle.

    Gotta go...

  • Eric Dondero||

    One last thing...

    Watch for the Houston media now to jump all over this. Houston Chronicle, KRPC, ect...

    Means Ron Paul's House seat will be in serious jeopardy.

    Thank God Chris Peden filed against Paul in the GOP Primary!! With a scandal as big as this, it's a relief that we have a good Republican to take this seat.

  • bob||

    Overall, Reason's treatment of Ron Paul reminds me of very smug liberal tooling around town in a brand new hybrid.

  • ||

    Can't talk right now on internet. I'm on a political assignment.

    Rudy's current mistress needed a babysitter?

  • ||

  • bob||

    Eric, The only local broadcaster I've heard mention the "scandal" is KSEV. (For non-Houstonians, KSEV is a 5 watt AM powerhouse that pumps neocon propaganda and is owned by a republican state senator.)

    Come to think of it, some of the Reason Righters might enjoy the programing there!

  • ||

    It's barely 9:00am, and I've already read far more than a day's worth of allegedly pro-Paul diatribes. At least Ilana Mercer notes that Reason had been supportive of the Ron Paul Revolution, though she attributes this to Reason just trying to be hip and groovy.

    Then on the Ron Paul Forums, there's a discussion about how people should beware of anti-Paul interlopers planting "seeds of doubt" about Dr Paul by talking about the newsletter scandals and general campaign incompetence. I fear the Ron Paul Revolution is headed in the direction of the Church of Scientology....

  • ||

    "Overall, Reason's treatment of Ron Paul reminds me of very smug liberal tooling around town in a brand new hybrid."

    Again! You forgot the lattes!

    What do I have to lead you guys around by the nose?!

    "smug liberals tooling around town in brand new hybrids and [swilling lattes]" ...Was that so hard?!

    ...and then you continue: "who won't support a candidate that let his name be used to pander to racists and bigots, and who won't support those who've used libertarianism to pander to racists and bigots."

    "They have to be stopped!"

    Now PLEASE people, try to stay with the program! I don't want to have to keep pounding the table here! Jeeze! ...Show me a freelancer and I'll show you someone who's bound to slide off the reservation.

  • ||

    Raimondo take out a knife and carves the Reason pussies up

  • ||

    I suggest reading the 36 stratagems.

  • ||

    "(For non-Houstonians, KSEV is a 5 watt AM powerhouse that pumps neocon propaganda and is owned by a republican state senator.)"

    That would be the theocrat Dan Patrick.

  • ||

    "Wow! Maybe we could get the white supremacists to jump on the Hillary bandwagon...or one of the other Republican's bandwagon and induce other supporters to leave."

    That's an intriguing idea.

    I suppose the first step is to get the candidates to let some luminary write a newsletter full of bigotry and racist invective, etc., you know, maybe put something ridiculous in there about MLK... Then, when the white supremacists jump on board, it's gotcha!

    I guess the hard part is a) getting one of the candidates to let someone write something like that in his or her name, and b) getting some luminary to write all that crap.

    I mean, why would anybody want to do either one of those things?!

  • ||

    "Thank God Chris Peden filed against Paul in the GOP Primary!! With a scandal as big as this, it's a relief that we have a good Republican to take this seat."

    Chris Peden must be a warmonger if Dondero thinks he's a good Republican.

  • The Democratic Republican||

    People can be pissed off about this story if they want, but it's been a good thing for me. I have severed any and all ties I ever had with any "paleos." This experience has showed me how their very worldview is incapable of connecting the principle of liberty with an acceptance and toleration of other people -- or of separating liberty from idiotic conspiracy theories.

  • ||

    "That would be the theocrat Dan Patrick."

    You mean the guy from SportsCenter?!

    A theocrat with a dry sense of humor and a deadpan delivery... I bet that'd sell like lone star t-shirts down in Texas!

  • ||

    Ken Schultz,

    Uh, didn't Stormfront support and donate to Ron Paul long before this newsletter story came out?

  • ||

    And during the 2000 recount fiasco in Florida, Stormfront founder Don Black took to the streets to support the local idiot George Bush.

    Then during the Values Voters conference, Don Black bought a ticket and had his picture taken with Ron Paul. Ron Paul has no idea who Don Black is.

  • ||

    "Uh, didn't Stormfront support and donate to Ron Paul long before this newsletter story came out?"

    I don't know--they very well may have. I imagine Paul's anti-immigration ad was probably a big hit with them, and that's what they have embedded under "What Ron Paul must do to win".

    The newsletters have definitely changed my perspective. Before the newsletters story broke, I remember hearing that some neo-Nazi had given Ron Paul 500 bucks or something, and I didn't think anything of it. Who knows why kooks do what they do? I might not have cared if stormfront had jumped on board with Ron Paul for some reason either, but I probably wouldn't have known if they had.

    Now that the newsletter story has broken, all that stuff that didn't matter so much before becomes a deal breaker.

  • ||

    "You mean the guy from SportsCenter?!"

    "A theocrat with a dry sense of humor and a deadpan delivery... I bet that'd sell like lone star t-shirts down in Texas!"

    They're two different people, but I've seen the theocrat Dan Patrick on television and he is a deadpan.

  • ||

    Simple lesson here, let me explain

    Ron Paul wants to get rid of the Federal Reserve because he thinks it destroys the value of the dollar.

    Nazi cranks don't like the Federal Reserve because they think it's a Jewish conspiracy.

    Thus when they hear Ron Paul blast the Federal Reserve they like what they hear.

  • ||

    I had Shredded Wheat for breakfast this morning. It's great to hold me over, since I don't eat again for another five hours.

    Further updates later today.

  • ||

    Meanwhile, we are less free every day.

  • ||

    GILMORE,

    On the one hand, I respect the motives of some 2003 war supporters more than the motives of the writers of that racist garbage.

    On the other hand, the war supporters were calling for a WAR, complete with aerial bombing and all the other goodies that come with a war, while the racist dumbasses were calling for - well, not a whole heckuva lot, actually.

    So it's more or less a wash.

  • Grand Chalupa||

    You morons got the most successful libertarian candidate in the last twenty years and have turned on him because of some mean things he said about a fucking 1960s black Marxist.

    Hispanics and blacks are the most anti-liberty groups in the country by a wide margin and worry more about somebody possibly saying something mean about these groups rather than the daily infringments upon our freedom. Never mind that nothing Ron Paul has advocated would treat people as non-individuals.

    Educated Americans, whether they be conservative, liberal or libertarian, have been trained to see black people like Muslims see the Phrophet Mohamed. Any insult to the holy group's honor makes you throw all other considerations out the window.

    You all are hopeless.

  • ||

    Chalupa,

    I'm looking for a ghost writer for the Crimethink Survival Report. Interested?

  • ||

    "(For non-Houstonians, KSEV is a 5 watt AM powerhouse that pumps neocon propaganda and is owned by a republican state senator.)"

    That would be the theocrat Dan Patrick.



    Yeah, strident loudmouth Dan Patrick.

  • ||

    What I'm wondering, Chalupa, is who are THE REAL RACISTS.

    It's always helpful, when someone is found to have compared minorities to animals, to be told who THE REAL RACISTS are.

    You can usually count on someone to pop up whenever there's an appalling expression of white supremacy, and put things in perspective by telling us who THE REAL RACISTS are, and I think you're our guy.

  • Grand Chalupa||

    By the way, morons, while Paul has the support of libertarian white separtists Barack Obama belongs to a Marxist black separtist church.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-obamas-church-matters.html

    Let's hear the outrage, the calling for him to distance himself from this group. One commentator here put it "When white supermacists jump on, I jump off". I don't think you would talk like that about Obama's campaign. You, and the rest of the "cosmos" here are not anti-racism, but simply anti-white. And didn't your hear, Mitt Romney is a MOR-MON!

  • Just Passing By||

    oh hay hai, gaiz.

    what's goin' on?

  • ||

    I can't believe that no one has made the connection that Lizardo is obviously a Lectroid relative of Lord John Whorfin!
    Needless to say, the Lectroids racist and have a strong attraction to fascistcistic ideology.

    When is someone going to alert Buckeroo Banzai?

  • Grand Chalupa||

    What I'm wondering, Chalupa, is who are THE REAL RACISTS.

    It's always helpful, when someone is found to have compared minorities to animals, to be told who THE REAL RACISTS are.

    You can usually count on someone to pop up whenever there's an appalling expression of white supremacy, and put things in perspective by telling us who THE REAL RACISTS are, and I think you're our guy.


    You need to define the term. Is it someone who believes in the race/iq link? A person who believes that a multi-racial, integrated society can't exist without Stalinist methods? Or someone who wants to exterminate or enslave other people?

    "Racist" is like "fascist". Its simply come to mean somebody who beats a liberal in an argument.

  • ||

    By the way, morons, while Paul has the support of libertarian white separtists Barack Obama belongs to a Marxist black separtist church.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-obamas-church-matters.html

    Let's hear the outrage, the calling for him to distance himself from this group. One commentator here put it "When white supermacists jump on, I jump off". I don't think you would talk like that about Obama's campaign. You, and the rest of the "cosmos" here are not anti-racism, but simply anti-white.


    Did I call it, or what?

  • Grumpy Moose||

    ou, and the rest of the "cosmos" here are [...] simply anti-white.
    yah - I'm not anti white.

    I'm anti puce.

    and don't get me started on mauve.

    GODDAMNED PERIWINKLE. GET OFF MY LAWN.

  • ||

    Moose, the Lavender Mafia is so going to be on your tail!

  • T||

    Damn. I went to bed last night and figured this train wreck would be over by now. Silly me. Let me see if I can summarize:

    Everybody thinks Rockwell is a racist prick who wrote the newsletters in question.
    Some of you aren't voting for Ron Paul.
    Some of you are still voting for Ron Paul and feel icky about it.
    Some of you don't care and are still voting RP.
    One of you cross posts four thousand word posts that no one else reads.
    Somebody may have resigned from Paul's staff.

    Aside from some of the tangents and side discussions about is racism worse than some other ism, did I miss anything?

  • VM||

    ooh!

    Just as long as Taupe comes along. :)

  • ||

    T,

    We also settled who the inventor of the word "cosmotarian" was. *ahem* Credit where credit is due.

  • T||

    I knew I had to be missing something vital.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    smug liberals tooling around town in brand new hybrids and [swilling lattes]" ...Was that so hard?!

    See? That was LOL funny.....

  • Mike Laursen||

    This is getting ridiculous. I use to like Reason and Cato, but this Paul-hating is starting to look just stupid.

    I get the sense that this blog, not the print magazine, is reason to a lot of the folks who are complaining about excess coverage of the newsletters. The blog is, of course, more chatty and gossipy, and less edited than the magazine. I'll bet a lot of those who threaten to cancel their subscription don't have a subscription.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    William R, I am surprised that Raimondo comes down against Reason. He's wrong about the corporate contributors though. Too bad, but it takes away from the message. Gotta do your homework if you're going to say stuff like that.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Now that the newsletter story has broken, all that stuff that didn't matter so much before becomes a deal breaker.

    Not a deal breaker for me, but it sure changes things in a big way.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I'll bet a lot of those who threaten to cancel their subscription don't have a subscription.

    Is that close enough? Do we get to drink?

    Crime, did you coin cosmotarian?

  • Mike Laursen||

    We also settled who the inventor of the word "cosmotarian" was. *ahem* Credit where credit is due.

    Are you sure about that? I see the description of certain libertarians as "cosmopolitan" attributed here to Virginia Postrel, but it seems to go back to an article in The Nation:

    http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071224/hayes

    And it's ambiguous in that article whether Christopher Hayes or Justin Raimondo came up with the "cosmopolitan" label or somebody else before them.

    It was probably somebody commenting on this blog who first shortened "cosmopolitan libertarian" to "cosmotarian".

  • R C Dean||

    The attorney in me has to note that this:

    I respect Tom Lizardo, but he does not work for the campaign and has no authority to comment on campaign business.

    is not a denial of this:

    Last week, a statement was prepared by Ron Paul's press secretary Jesse Benton, and approved by Ron Paul, acknowledging Lew Rockwell as having a role in the newsletters. The statement was squashed by campaign chairman Kent Snyder.

    I think anyone would be justified in concluding on the basis of the "non-denial denial" that the claims by Mr. Lizardo are accurate.

  • ||

    Well Danger Mouse, I had a subscription but I canceled years ago. :>)

  • Vile Maxim||

    Navel gazing cosmotarians have a recurring dream. One where a presidential candidate comes along, makes delightfully pure libertarian noises, and wins a paradigm shifting landslide. After which everyone'll not only be free, but happy and content with the quality of their freedom.

    Incremental libertarian progress is not allowed, it's gotta play out like a libertarian rapture, anything short is devil's work heresy. Just ask the movement's (check cashing) high priests of ideological purity. They'll tell ya... if they're not busy pimping heavy handed aggressive invasion and belligerent occupation. Done right, of course, in the name of Liberty.

  • ||

    The Wine Commonsewer | January 18, 2008, 12:05pm | #

    come on Danger Mouse. Just who in the hell funds the foundation. Any list of contributors floating around???

  • Monkey of Fear||

    Ron Paul has boo-boo'd, but it seems as if Welchero (the Welch-Dondero amalgam) has fallen into a cycle-mix of self-righteousness and nitpicky grandstanding. It also seems that Welchero will be content with nothing less than excommunication of the Paulites, or even a civil war within the libertarian community.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Danger Mouse?

    Danger Mouse.

    .... Now, that's a name I haven't heard in a long time... A long time.....

  • The Wine Commonsewer||


    a civil war within the libertarian community.


    civil wars, excommunications, rock throwing....we're like the Mob, gotta go to the mattresses every four or five years.

  • Minion of URKOBOLD||

    "Navel gazing cosmotarians have a recurring dream"

    YES!!!!!!!

    It's imagining a little further south from the navel. And the wonderful delight of one's own chompers clamping down in that magical spot.

    JOIN US IN SELF TAINTOPLASTY!!!!!!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    William R, I think if you look hard enough, you could find out who gives what to Reason, after all, it is a tax exempt foundation and is required to file all sorts of disclosures and paperwork with the feds to maintain the tax exempt status.

    As far as a definitive list, I think that's proprietary to the organization but, it is my understanding, from doing a little homework, that the overwhelming majority of donations that support the fine work at Reason come from individuals and foundations. Not that much from corporations, although certainly there are corporate donations as well.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Well Danger Mouse, I had a subscription but I canceled years ago. :>)

    The H&R drinking rules are fairly clear, I think even a canceled subscription in the past means:

    Drink!

  • VM||

    TWC: forgot to congratulate on the Obi Wan post!

  • ||

    I love it. To prove Paul´s innocence someone suggests reading the lying Raimondo. He has more skeletons in his closet than Paul. As for smearing Justin knows how to do it -- he does it all the time. Anyone who takes that clown as a source is really stupid.

  • VM||

    http://www.guidestar.org

    hier, you can find reports on many nonprofits.

    Jeez.

  • Dedalus||

    Almost 400 comments? Lots of page views for Reason every time they beat the dead horse. "Ron Paul" in the headline guarantees lots of juicy page views.

    At least Kirchick did it for ideology. Reason assassinates the best thing libertarians have ever had going for them for simple web page views (read: ad revenue). Disgusting.

    If there are any thinking people left here, here is the best point by point refutation of this whole silly episode.

    Weigel, how does it feel to be a whore? You had so much promise.

  • ||

    You have to register to look at their stuff. no thanks. Any other options.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    VM, thanks.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Bob, Michael Berry did a 15 minute segment on it Wednesday on KPRC 950 Houston.

    The Houston media cannot remain silent any longer on this. The Chronicle has been giving Paul a pass cause they love his Iraq War views. With all this coming out now, and all the local angles, I can't see how they could possibly remain silent any longer.

  • ||

    Is that close enough? Do we get to drink?

    You can't be too careful about these things. When in doubt...

  • ||

    "Ron Paul has boo-boo'd, but it seems as if Welchero..."

    It starts with the Lavender Mafia and gun shows and ends with turning Welch and Dondero into, what, like a Brangelina or a TomKat?!

    You Paul supporters--you guys are a riot!

    Please don' change.

  • Vile Maxim||

    wmb | January 18, 2008, 12:52pm | #
    I love it. To prove Paul´s innocence someone suggests reading the lying Raimondo. He has more skeletons in his closet than Paul. As for smearing Justin knows how to do it -- he does it all the time. Anyone who takes that clown as a source is really stupid.


    There it is again. An insistence on ideological purity that is nigh on fascist in its intensity. From my vantage, it reads like a defensive reaction, designed to isolate a source of cognitive dissonance.

    "LA! LA! LA!, I can't hear you!"

  • ||

    Did Reason ever have as many subscribers as those who have threatened or promised to cancel?

    By the way, I have begun to think L'Affair Paul is a good thing if it gets these Kool-Aid swilling idiots to find another place to post. They have also made me appreciate Joe... which is something I'm still getting my brain around.

  • Let Your Fingers Do The Walkin||

    Any list of contributors floating around???

    Call the office in LA and ask. Maybe they'll tell you how much in corporate donations they get.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Did Reason ever have as many subscribers as those who have threatened or promised to cancel?

    Drink!

    No wonder it's ten thirty and I'm hammered. Cut it out!

  • Luke||

    My uncle told me Danger Mouse was dead.

  • ||

    Navel gazing cosmotarians have a recurring dream. One where a presidential candidate comes along, makes delightfully pure libertarian noises, and wins a paradigm shifting landslide.

    I doubt that it has as much to do with purity as it does with brand identification. What the Cosmo's are peddling as libertarianism is at odds with other constructions of it (including Paul's).

    It wouldn't do to have the common understanding of what constitutes the product to differ from what the Cosmos want to sell under the brand name, would it?

  • ||

    5% of the country was not going through a racist stage in the early 90s. Thats why you can forgive people for being racists in say, 1940. But 1992?- Caesar



    Not so, Casaer. Decades of anti welfare sentiment spilled over in the early nineties, fueled by talk radio, and resulting in the Republican takeover in 1996. There was lots of talk about black crime. Even Jesse Jackson admitted he was afraid to walk alone in black neighborhoods at night. Black preteens had committed grisly murders. Crack was still a news item.

    Black libertarians like Walter Williams talked this way as well. Williams even sided with the police aganst Rodney King

  • Tim Starr||

    So, the Paulestinian who keeps blaming Paul's bigotry scandal on the Lavender Mafia cited Roundthebendo for supposedly taking Reason to task? What, exactly, does he think Roundthebendo's sexual orientation is? Has he ever even met Roundthebendo? It was obvious to me from when I first met him at Laissez-Faire Books in San Francisco in the early 1990s, back when he was still pushing LROC, that he wasn't hetero.

    Nor is he the only one in Spew Rantwell's crowd who's non-hetero, either. So you Paultards need to quit the gay-baiting quick, lest it come back to bite some of those in your own camp.

  • Lew\'s Clues||

    If Rockwell's involved, no one should be shocked that there is racism in it. Dr. Palmer has exposed Rockwell and his circles many times at his "Fever Swamp" column on his blog at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php. So don't say you weren't warned.

    If you want to see how racist Rockwell has been, read the evidence in "The Fever Swamp".

  • R C Dean||

    The H&R drinking rules are fairly clear, I think even a canceled subscription in the past means:

    Drink!


    How about letting your subscription lapse out of apathy?

  • ||

    Bottom line, Reason Foundation is more o less a hipper version of the NeoCon nerve center the American Enterprise Institute.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    How about letting your subscription lapse out of apathy?

    Nope. Only way that counts is if you can spin the apathy into some kind of punishment for a real or imagined transgression committed by one or more staffers here at Treason.com.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Hipper, definitely hipper. See Bingo's Wapo link upthread

  • Vile Maxim||

    For denizens of a fringe political camp, many of us have been awfully damned cavalier about throwing new recruits overboard for failing to properly toe the line from the get go. No time for newbs. Don't debate and educate, throw 'em out for bad manners and impure thoughts.

    Such pitching the baby w/ the bathwater elitism is fast destroying any hope the libertarian meme-set has at social scalability.

  • waspy||

    I remember a list of contributors being included in the magazine before. Some investment banks, large corporations and lots of foundations with names like Farnsworth Brantforth III.

  • ||

    "How about letting your subscription lapse out of apathy?"

    When in doubt, drink. It's a pretty good motto.

    As for a presidential candidate, I'm Waiting for Thoreau. Seriously, I just want someone who can talk about libertarian ideas without wearing a tinfoil hat. I don't want to hear about shit like abolishing the federal reserve or reestablishing the gold standard. I want a smiling, accomplished, polished individual who can explain the advantages of free markets in language intelligible to eight-year-olds. I want a real politician who can deflect a question, who can spin a debate, who can make it through 20 minutes without referring to von Mises, Rand, force, contracts or the other shit that makes Joe Average glaze over. I want somone who hasn't been sleeping with the lunatic fringe, or if they have, they are smart enough to cover their tracks.

  • ||

    Right here baby. I'd better e-mail that link to Merriam-Webster poste haste so I get credit.

  • ||

    "Such pitching the baby w/ the bathwater elitism is fast destroying any hope the libertarian meme-set has at social scalability."

    Funny, but I never felt entirely welcome until I found what I think you guys are calling "cosmotarians".

  • ||

    What's the record length for a thread by the way?

  • poster boy||

    The blog is, of course, more chatty and gossipy, and less edited than the magazine.

    Thst's and unfaiur charavterization.

  • Vile Maxim||

    Funny, but I never felt entirely welcome until I found what I think you guys are calling "cosmotarians".

    That reads kinda like Phoenix, Arizona provincialism.

    You know, guys who moved there relatively recently, and are now comfortable enough to piss and moan about the "god damned snowbirds" screwing up traffic and real estate prices.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Crime, Maybe you should throw it on Urban dictionary or whatever that thing is called.

  • Observer||

    UPDATE, 7:53: Jesse Benton responds:
    I respect Tom Lizardo, but he does not work for the campaign and has no authority to comment on campaign business.

    That sounds like, "He's right and Lew Rockwell wrote all that awful stuff, but I can't say that."

  • ||

    I think what Ken was saying was, "Yes, I'm with the libertarian dinner group. Oh, wow, you have a table for sane people. I'll take a seat there, please."

  • ||

    I think there have been threads with over 1000 comments in the past, usually posted the Friday before a long weekend. So, we've got a long way to go.

    TWC,

    I'd have to know what the dang word means before I put it in UD, though... ;-)

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Yes, I'm with the libertarian dinner group. Oh, wow, you have a table for sane people. I'll take a seat there, please.

    Having been to a few libertarian supper club meetings in my day that makes me LOL.

  • waspy||

    "You have to register to look at their stuff. no thanks. Any other options."

    William R, check here for some indication:

    http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Reason_Foundation

  • ||

    Thanks so much for fueling a smear campaign. Perfect timing too.

    In Disgust and Sorrow
    M.

    P.S. Your journalistic integrity threatens to make Reason magazine look no better than RedState and Pajamas Media by comparison.

  • ||

    For denizens of a fringe political camp, many of us have been awfully damned cavalier about throwing new recruits overboard for failing to properly toe the line from the get go. No time for newbs. Don't debate and educate, throw 'em out for bad manners and impure thoughts.

    Yeah, the people who agree with Rockwell's racist blather really do seem unnecessarily hostile towards those who have a problem with calling black people "animals" and "terrorists."

  • waspy||

    Jose Ortega y Gasset, funny you should be talking about dining with the sane people. Posted earlier today on lewrockwell.com:


    "Join Walter Block, Robert Higgs, and me--and, if the campaign schedule allows it, Ron Paul--for a timely luncheon seminar on Great Economic Myths in Houston, Texas, on Saturday, January 26th. The Fed and its pals in the state-plutocracy have brought on a recession and maybe worse. It's time to figure out what to do."

  • ||

    "I see the description of certain libertarians as "cosmopolitan" attributed here to Virginia Postrel"

    I have a name for Virginia Postrel: neocontarian.

  • crw||

    P.S. Your journalistic integrity threatens to make Reason magazine look no better than RedState and Pajamas Media by comparison.



    Right, because Reason has been deleting critical comments and banning anyone who dares defend Ron Paul.

    Sorry, no. What you're seeing here is freedom of speech in action, bub. If you can't see the difference between heavy handed attempts to silence differing viewpoints and a raucous debate with journalists *gasp* doing research on a topic important to libertarians and expressing opinions, then I'm sorry.

  • Monkey of Fear||

    Welchero . . . if the shoe fits! I hope your smug sense of self-satisfaction belies a greater effort to better libertarianism, though I doubt that will occur. This is a tawdry affair, one that is full of dubious rationalizations that fly in the face of reason itself. I would have never imagined it could be said of our own, but certain maxims hold true : revolutions eat their children.

  • GILMORE||

    On the upside, maybe all the GO RON PAUL dittoheads will go away, and take the DIE RON PAUL-DONDEROOOOOOOO idiots with them.

    Then it will feel normal again.

  • ||

    Can I make things up and have Reason blog about it? Let me know, I have lots of doosies...

  • GILMORE||

    Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 18, 2008, 1:52pm | #
    "How about letting your subscription lapse out of apathy?"

    As for a presidential candidate, I'm Waiting for Thoreau. Seriously, I just want someone who can talk about libertarian ideas without wearing a tinfoil hat. I don't want to hear about shit like abolishing the federal reserve or reestablishing the gold standard. I want a smiling, accomplished, polished individual who can explain the advantages of free markets in language intelligible to eight-year-olds.

    I want somone who hasn't been sleeping with the lunatic fringe, or if they have, they are smart enough to cover their tracks.


    AMEN YOU MOTHERFUCKING TACO SHELL KING!!!

    I will need to reference this post for future complaints of mine.

    like, "see = Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 18, 2008, 1:52pm | # : thats what we need"

  • Vile Maxim||

    Yeah, the people who agree with Rockwell's racist blather really do seem unnecessarily hostile towards those who have a problem with calling black people "animals" and "terrorists."

    That's only who you wish you were up against here.

    In reality, we're way short around here on people who agree with the racist bullshit, so the target selection has had to be relaxed to include Paul defenders of any stripe. Essentially, the message is: "If this issue isn't a game breaker for you, then it's a well know fact that you are a racist (or at least a racist sympathizer). Now, go away!"

  • ||

    GILMORE | January 18, 2008, 2:59pm | #
    Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 18, 2008, 1:52pm | #
    "How about letting your subscription lapse out of apathy?"

    As for a presidential candidate, I'm Waiting for Thoreau. Seriously, I just want someone who can talk about libertarian ideas without wearing a tinfoil hat. I don't want to hear about shit like abolishing the federal reserve or reestablishing the gold standard. I want a smiling, accomplished, polished individual who can explain the advantages of free markets in language intelligible to eight-year-olds.

    I want somone who hasn't been sleeping with the lunatic fringe, or if they have, they are smart enough to cover their tracks.

    AMEN YOU MOTHERFUCKING TACO SHELL KING!!!

    I will need to reference this post for future complaints of mine.

    like, "see = Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 18, 2008, 1:52pm | # : thats what we need"


    Wait 12 years and look for this guy:
    Jim Forsythe.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    If this issue isn't a game breaker for you, then it's a well know fact that you are a racist (or at least a racist sympathizer

    kind boils that way don't it? Except, that maybe not all of us have been shown the door. A few of the mouthier plebes, certainly.

  • ||

    Maxim,

    I haven't seen any of the Reason writers themselves say that. The closest they came was when Kerry Howley approvingly linked to Will Wilkinson saying that anyone who still supports Ron Paul is either a racist or doesn't care about liberty...but that was pretty indirect.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Crime, I took it to mean the comments here not the staff. Although, the staff has a fairly united front ranging from figuratively slapping RP upside the head to burning a Nolan chart on his front lawn.

  • ||

    Wait 12 years and look for this guy:
    Jim Forsythe.


    Doesn't he play utility infielder for the Royals?

  • Jesus Christ||

    What the hell was the point of this thread? Hey Wiegel, how bout have a talk with Ron Paul's maid and getting back to us?

  • ||

    When did Reason and the libertarian movement get so obsessed with group-think? I always assumed that was a standard of the more communist/left-wing individuals, while libertarians would usually dismiss their arguments of racism and minority/majority issues on principle, as it is never really makes any sense when thought about logically...I was attracted to libertarianism because of it's philosophical views on individual freedoms and rights as opposed to group freedoms and rights. If the direction of libertarianism is going to fall into the false arguments of race and group-think, what is the point?

  • ||

    For a congressional staffer to have spoken to a reporter regarding this matter (about any subject matter actually) without his boss' explicate permission would constitute a firing offense. (This is Capitol Hill in Washington, DC after all.) Thus we can conclude that one of the following is likely true: a.) Lizardo didn't speak to a reporter regarding the subject matter (the story was instead manufactured whole cloth); b.) Lizardo did speak to a reporter, but it was off-the-record, in which case the reporter either outed Lizardo, the story, or both (and thus the credibility of both the reporter and the story should be questioned); c.) Lizardo did speak to a reporter, and it was on-the-record, but that leads to two additional possibilities: 1.) Lizardo is looking for a new career; or 2.) It was intentionally leaked by the Paul campaign. These both seem improbable, especially the latter, as the information could have been leaked without involving a staffer by name. In any but the last scenario, Lizardo is biting the hand that feeds him, and is thus suspect for disloyalty, which is the kiss of death in Washington. As for the reporter who spilled the beans on Lizardo, it would seem doubtful any other Hill staffer will ever speak to him again, which might be a problem for someone intent on a career in journalism.

  • Ali||

    I met Jim Forsythe and spoke with him on two different occasions. Good man. Start googling him. "Google Jim Forsythe". "Who is Jim Forsythe?". But we'd better watch his newsletters starting like now.

  • Ali||

    Jim Forsythe is a doctor, too. The engineering kind, though.

  • ||

    LHR? It seems equally probably, if not more so, that a certain MNR contributed to the language of those newsletters. He is just about the only individual for whom both Paul and Rockwell would throw themselves on their swords.

  • ||

    "When did Reason and the libertarian movement get so obsessed with group-think?"

    After a bunch of corporatists captured a good chuck of the libertarian movement's intellectual firepower and moved them to Washington, where they could be influenced by properly thinking liberal Easterners, rather than rough-hewn individualist Westerners. Now, instead of publishing articles on commodity-backed monetary reform, they host the chairman of the Federal Research for special functions to discuss the finer points of how to keep the current system from crashing.

  • ||

    I have yet to read anybody's comments on Paul's association with Gary North, a "christian 'libertarian'", of "Remnant Review" fame:

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/30789.html

    wherein it states, "he (North) even served for a brief time on the House staff of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the Libertarian Party presidential nominee in 1988, when Paul was a member of Congress in the '70s."

    Gary North publishes the Remnant Review newsletter, and has stated that one day Jesus will return and everyone except people whom he approves will burn in hell (known as the "Rapture"). He also told his followers to sell everything they own, buy gold, and bury it before Y2K (remember that?) Some did, others dug their gold up, and they lost everything. I wonder if Paul followed his advice, and is still following his advice? Gary North advice for monetary policy? Not very logical, nor Libertarian.

    Oh, yes, let's not forget Paul's quoting Judge Brandeis, who was Jewish. Perhaps he was part of the evil Israeli "lobby"; funny how he quotes Jews when he likes what they say, and demonizes them otherwise.

    Finally, real Libertarians don't have a problem with gays. Why does Paul?

    I smell a fundie in libertarian clothing.

    When oh when will a real Libertarian candidate come along? *sigh*

    T'Surakmaat

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    When oh when will a real Libertarian candidate come along

    Been one every four years since Hospers. They all do about as well.

  • ||

    "How about letting your subscription lapse out of apathy?"

    Smoke!

  • crw||

    What amazes me is the "zomfg Reason is in cahoots with TNR in a conspiracy to kill Our Lord and Savior Ron Paul's campaign at the behest of their neocon fascist warmonger backers!!1" buzz evinces a remarkable lack of faith in...drumroll please...spontaneous order and emergent behavior. One might even begin to think this is an inherent cognitive bias which hinders the spread of positivist libertarian ideas (as opposed to antigovernment libertarianism).


    Nah.

  • ||

    Holy Crap! The economic recession is worse than I thought. How else to explain 455 posts about nothing.

    Go take back those jobs from the illegals aliens. At the very least, remember that it is Friday and you've got unemployment checks to cash.

  • And Don\'t Forget||

    Remember to thank Lew Rockwell for bring the term libertarian into disrepute by covering it with racist shit.

    Thanks, Lew!!! And while you're at it, go and fuck yourself.

  • Eric Dondero||

    If you're looking for a "Fundie" connection to Ron Paul it's Marc Elam, not Gary North. North had very little to do with Ron Paul's or enterprises when I was there working for Paul in the 1980s and 90s, and early 2000s. But Elam controlled just about everything.

    Elam is tied in with a number of Houston area Christian Right activists like the famous Bruce Hotze who led the 1980s efforts to rid Houston of porn shops.

  • Eric Dondero||

    From Jose' Ortega:

    As for a presidential candidate, I'm Waiting for Thoreau. Seriously, I just want someone who can talk about libertarian ideas without wearing a tinfoil hat. I don't want to hear about shit like abolishing the federal reserve or reestablishing the gold standard. I want a smiling, accomplished, polished individual who can explain the advantages of free markets in language intelligible to eight-year-olds.


    From Eric:

    Jose' your candidate already exists - Wayne Allyn Root. Let's hope the Libertarian Party is smart enough to nominate him.

  • ||

    YEs please look into ERIC DONDERO..... I am really thinking it was he.. he was fired... for this..


    it coincides with the whole story... and that guy works for Guiliani now too


    interesting isn't it??

  • ||

    waspy | January 18, 2008, 2:27pm | #


    Thanks waspy. As I suspected, huge corporate donors.

    This stinks to high heaven. Right before the first in the nation primary, a so called libertarian magazine joins in smearing the best pro freedom candidate in the past 50 years.

  • Eric Dondero||

    I don't work for Giuliani, nor was I "fired." Get your fact straight, and stop talking out of your ass.

    Just because I support Giuliani does not mean I work for him. And I'm a supporter of Romney and Thompson too. I guess that's just a "cover" for my work for Giuliani, 'eh?

    And I resigned from Ron Paul's staff in 2003 with a cushy Congressional pension and a $10,000 bonus, after working for Paul for 12 years. That's hardly being "fired." Oh, and did I mention that I've used Ron as an employment reference since 2003?

  • ||

    "Ron Paul Is Not A Bigot: Refuting the New Republic Charges."

    Basically argues that Ron is a good guy, clearly didn't write the racist stuff, and deserves your support regardless of the particulars. Doesn't "refute" all the New Republic charges, but makes the case for cutting him some slack.

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_w__080116_ron_paul_is_not_a_bi.htm

  • ||

    I've never understood it.

    Every freedom movement in the last 100 years has spent more time fighting among themselves than fighting for freedom.
    The China Spring movement in China.
    The Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia.
    I just don't understand how such people can be so petty.

    10% in Iowa, The newsletter story breaks, 8% in New Hampshire, 6 % in Michigan.
    You took the wind out of the RP's sails.

    It appears to me that Lew Rockwell wrote the newsletters and was not man enough to admit it.
    If he would have, quickly, it might have saved the campaign.

    Congrats to all involved; Reason, CATO, Lew Rockwell, et al.
    You not only have cost Ron Paul a chance at the nomination, you have cost America its' last best chance at freedom.

  • ||

    Reason, CATO, etc. did not cost Ron Paul a nomination. Lew Rockwell did by writing that trash that Ron Paul put his name on. The New Republic found it and blew the story. Reason and CATO (the latter being distant but not hostile from early on) made it clear that "that's not our libertarianism." (It's not libertarianism, period.)

    If anybody screwed this candidacy, it was Lew first, and Ron second for not coming clean. Rockwell should be cast out. Disavowed. Made to walk the plank.

    I'm disgusted with the whole thing. I'll cast one vote in a primary (I re-registered for the purpose) and then I'll probably have to sit out the general election. Romney v. Obama. Or something worse. Great. Thanks, Lew.

  • ||

    huge corporate donors...

    William R, why don't you phone up the Reason contact listed on that website? See how long it's been since Passantino worked at Reason.

    Hard to put much stock in a tattle tale website that can't even get the most basic information right. Like who to call and who the Members of the Board of Directors are.

  • ||

    Yes indeed, if Reason and the others hadn't covered the newsletters everything would have been hunky-dory and Ron Paul would have won an increasing percentage of the US population until he was hitting 150% of the votes.

    I think....NOT.

    There's a reason why the Republicans are doing their damnest to keep Ron Paul off the stage. It's because he gives off the whiff of "crazy uncle babbling about black helicopters and how the CIA is sending him secret messages on his teeth."

    And when Ron Paul continues to go on radio shows hosted by Art Bell, one has to wonder about his political acumen, not to mention his sanity.

  • ||

    Grump:

    Just cuz yer not paranoid doesn't mean they ain't out to get you. Got Dam It!

  • ||

    We don't like Ron Paul because he doesn't walk like a duck and he noticed we aren't wearing clothes.

  • ||

    It's time to throw Lew Rockwell under the bus! The vicious bastard has slimed libertarianism with his racism for too long.

    Everyone knows he wrote the newsletters -- the style is the same, the hatred is the same, he was the "publisher" of the 12 page monthly newsletters that Ron Paul was too busy to read, and too many people have come forth and said he was, evidently even Ron Paul himself, according to his own chief of staff.

    If you had any positive feelings toward the Ron Paul R[EVOL]ution, you should turn your back on Lew Rockwell. Rockwell has shamed us all.

  • Eric Dondero||

    True, Lew wrote a very good portion of those Newsletters (along with his Interns like Jeff Tucker and Mark Thornton).

    But Ron Paul himself wrote a good portion of them, as well. From what I personally witnessed I'd say 30 to 40% of those Newsletters were penned by Ron.

    The reason Ron is not "throwing his friend Lew under the bus" is cause he knows that he's largely responsible for the writings as well. And to blame Lew for them entirely would be a complete lie. Not too mention, he'd risk a huge backlash from Lew. And moreover, it's quite possible Lew is holding some stuff over his head, along the lines of "You out me, I'll spill the beans on everything." Having known both these guys for over 15 years, I really suspect the latter is the case.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Actually, the New Republic did not "find" the story on Ron Paul. Blogs such as Citizens Against Hate, Sultan Kinish, New Media Journal, and Libertarian Republican have been reporting on these stories for months.

    The mainstream media, including Reason and the New Republic are rather latecommers to this story.

    And they've only scratched the surface.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Actualy Lundy, Ron Paul got only 9.7% in Iowa, not "10%" as the Paul fanatics have been reporting all over the internet. He has yet to break into double digits.

  • Eric Dondero||

    Lundy, Ron Paul cost himself a chance at breaking through. The Newsletters are largely his. You can't pin this all on Lew. Yes, Lew and his staffers there at Auburn played a large role, but it was just as much Ron, and his staffers in the Houston area like Jean McIver and Mark Elam, and to some extent Ron's own daughter (though I really hesitate to bring her into this, cause she's a super nice person) who were involved.

  • M||

    @ William R -

    the best pro freedom candidate in the past 50 years



    For historical purposes, whom would you name from before 1958?

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    the New Republic did not "find" the story on Ron Paul

    True enough, but TNR had the goods. At the time that Slimeball Kos was blogging about RP's racially charged newsletters the only thing I could personally find was unsubstantiated out-of-context quotes. Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I spent a long time and couldn't fine any hard evidence. TNR, OTOH, had the cold hard evidence. That's why TNR gets credit for finding/breaking the story.

    Personally, I think it is interesting that the day of the NH primary innuendo changed into fact.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Just to be clear, Daily Kos is a slimeball irrespective of his desire to torpedo RP over the newsletters.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    You can't pin this all on Lew.

    And to do so makes one look a bit silly. The newsletters had RP's name on them. If Rockwell had a byline, there'd be some wiggle room, but that wasn't the case.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    And, yes, I'm still voting for RP in the Ca primary.

  • Joe Allen||

    This visceral hatred for Lew Rockwell, et. al from the great Dondero and company is baffling to me. I'm sure Lew ain't too crazy about what he sees as libertarian-flavored establishmentarianism either, but in the words of the great Rodney King: "Can't we all just get along?"

    we're like 8 percent of the population and both the leftists and the bushies are using this divide-and conquer-strategy to fracture our coalition. And we're letting them.

    Reason needs to fess up to putting the wrong spin on the newsletter story and stop this crap about Thompson being the most libertarian candidate. That's just not honest and every thinking person, libertarian or not, knows it.

  • Bubba||

    Joe Allen, Did you know what Lew "Go Police State" Rockwell wrote about Rodney King?

    Here it is:

    IT'S SAFE STREETS VERSUS URBAN TERROR; IN THE '50S, RAMPANT
    CRIME DIDN'T EXIST BECAUSE OFFENDERS FEARED WHAT THE
    POLICE WOULD DO.

    March 10, 1991
    Los Angeles Times, Sunday edition

    By LLEWELLYN H. ROCKWELL
    If you offer a small boy one candy bar now or 10 tomorrow, he'll grab the one. That's because children have what economists call a "high time preference." They want it, and they want it now. The future is a haze. The punishing of children must take this into account. One good whack on the bottom can have an effect. A threat about no TV all next year will not.

    As we grow older, this changes. We care more, and think more, about the future. In fact, this is the very process of maturation. We plan, save, invest and put off today's gratification until tomorrow.
    But street criminals, as economist Murray N. Rothbard points out, have the time preference of depraved infants. The prospect of a jail sentence 12 months from now has virtually no effect.

    As recently as the 1950s -- when street crime was not rampant in America -- the police always operated on this principle: No matter the vagaries of the court system, a mugger or rapist knew he faced a trouncing -- proportionate to the offense and the offender -- in the back of the paddy wagon, and maybe even a repeat performance at the station house. As a result, criminals were terrified of the cops, and our streets were safe. Today's criminals know that they probably won't be convicted, and that if the are, they face a short sentence -- someday. The result is city terrorism, though we are seldom shown videos of old people being mugged, women being raped, gangs shooting drivers at random or store clerks having their throats slit.

    What we do see, over and over again, is the tape of some Los Angeles-area cops giving the what-for to an ex-con. It is not a pleasant sight, of course; neither is cancer surgery.

    Did they hit him too many times? Sure, but that's not the issue: It's safe streets versus urban terror, and why we have moved from one to the other. Liberals talk about banning guns. As a libertarian, I can't agree. I am, however, beginning to wonder about video cameras.

    Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, an economics think tank in Auburn, Ala.
    -------

    Shoulda seen "RacistNewsletterGate" coming.

  • T||

    we're like 8 percent of the population and both the leftists and the bushies are using this divide-and conquer-strategy to fracture our coalition. And we're letting them.

    Letting them? Hell, we're aiding and abetting. But that's par for the course. If libertarians, in general, weren't such a fractious and argumentative bunch, they probably wouldn't be libertarians. Coupled with the fact, as one smartass put it, there are slightly more versions of libertarianism then there are libertarians and one begins to realize why electoral success continues to elude us.

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement