Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
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.
Gossip Girl|1.17.08 @ 7:51PM|#
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!
Utter|1.17.08 @ 7:51PM|#
This tidbit was so urgent that you couldn't just wait until they called back?
|1.17.08 @ 7:59PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 8:01PM|#
Kolohe, I'm ready for him.
Page
Down
Page
Down
Page
Down
Page
Down
Page
Down
Page
Down
Commence reading again.
Erich Dondero Britteberg|1.17.08 @ 8:03PM|#
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!
|1.17.08 @ 8:06PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 8:08PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 8:08PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 8:10PM|#
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!
Geotpf|1.17.08 @ 8:11PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 8:12PM|#
I just love that you're bringing this out the day that the
accused party goes in for surgery.
Stay Classy, Reason!
Happy Jack|1.17.08 @ 8:12PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 8:16PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 8:17PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 8:23PM|#
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.
Condoleeza Rice|1.17.08 @ 8:26PM|#
|1.17.08 @ 8:26PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 8:28PM|#
Flashman, Ron
Paul, James Kirchick-And Liberty
Marty Peretz
vs. Ron Paul. Kids (And "Mentor") vs. Grown-Ups
the federal-homosexual cover-u|1.17.08 @ 8:29PM|#
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
Bilo|1.17.08 @ 8:33PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 8:34PM|#
What is the the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS ?
Duckman|1.17.08 @ 8:35PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 8:42PM|#
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....
|1.17.08 @ 8:45PM|#
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...
Eric Dondero|1.17.08 @ 8:49PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 8:50PM|#
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!
|1.17.08 @ 8:54PM|#
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.
Eric Dondero|1.17.08 @ 8:55PM|#
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.
T|1.17.08 @ 8:57PM|#
I'm confused. Does referencing someone else calling a third party a "Hitlerite" invoke Godwin or not?
Eric Dondero|1.17.08 @ 8:59PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:01PM|#
T | January 17, 2008, 8:57pm | #
I don't think you can declare Godwin's Law retroactively on an
earlier argument.
|1.17.08 @ 9:04PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:04PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:06PM|#
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".
|1.17.08 @ 9:08PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:11PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:12PM|#
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
|1.17.08 @ 9:12PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 9:17PM|#
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.
who knew|1.17.08 @ 9:21PM|#
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?
|1.17.08 @ 9:21PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:24PM|#
Yes, this is exactly like a witch hunt. If witches were real. And if we replaced "burning at the stake" with "writing articles."
DerEwigeJude|1.17.08 @ 9:25PM|#
Cesar: but you wouldn't get off a train containing socialists or other fascists bigots?
|1.17.08 @ 9:28PM|#
Here's a good summary of the problems the grassroots are having with the official campaign.
|1.17.08 @ 9:28PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:28PM|#
due to the idiotic commercials
They may not make sense from a libertarian view, but they fit in
nicely with a populism message.
|1.17.08 @ 9:28PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:29PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 9:30PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:30PM|#
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
|1.17.08 @ 9:33PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 9:33PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:36PM|#
How can the conspiracy theorists not realize that their presence at any rally is political Kryptonite?
|1.17.08 @ 9:38PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 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.
|1.17.08 @ 9:40PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:40PM|#
how in the heck do we expect them to run a
country?
not a bug but a feature
chombo|1.17.08 @ 9:40PM|#
"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.
|1.17.08 @ 9:41PM|#
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.
chombo|1.17.08 @ 9:47PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:47PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:49PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:49PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:51PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:51PM|#
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.
Joe Allen|1.17.08 @ 9:52PM|#
" 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|1.17.08 @ 9:53PM|#
Hey Joe Allen:
HERE IS YOUR M*****F****** THREAD!
Amen. Brotha.
Kolohe|1.17.08 @ 9:54PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:56PM|#
Proof That RP Is
A Racist
That's right, I posted this link before. But today, it's New To
Reason!
|1.17.08 @ 9:56PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:56PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 9:59PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:00PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:03PM|#
You might want to avoid going to Fort Troff, unless you need a "dick plug", that is.
Matt Welch|1.17.08 @ 10:05PM|#
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?
Roger|1.17.08 @ 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.
Geotpf|1.17.08 @ 10:07PM|#
"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|1.17.08 @ 10:09PM|#
Matt Welch
2008 recipient of the Joseph Goebels Award for Journalistic
excellence
Joe Allen|1.17.08 @ 10:11PM|#
"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|1.17.08 @ 10:11PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:11PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:12PM|#
Godwin's Law invoked, drink!
He also alluded to not buying the magazine anymore.
|1.17.08 @ 10:13PM|#
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.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.17.08 @ 10:13PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:13PM|#
"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|1.17.08 @ 10:13PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:15PM|#
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!)
|1.17.08 @ 10:16PM|#
Actually, charlie (heh), he used the term to describe precisely that "small subset of that rather large group." Which is still not very nice.
Fluffy|1.17.08 @ 10:16PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:17PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:17PM|#
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..
|1.17.08 @ 10:17PM|#
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.
liberty - think!|1.17.08 @ 10:18PM|#
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?
chombo|1.17.08 @ 10:19PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:19PM|#
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.
charlie|1.17.08 @ 10:22PM|#
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?
|1.17.08 @ 10:24PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:24PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:27PM|#
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.
Julian Sanchez|1.17.08 @ 10:28PM|#
"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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:28PM|#
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
|1.17.08 @ 10:28PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:29PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:29PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:29PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:30PM|#
Two-buck Chuck from Trader-Muthafuckin-Joe's bitches. Yeah I eat organic and got guns, you better watch yourself around my cosmo ass!
The Wine Commonsewer|1.17.08 @ 10:30PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:30PM|#
Cesar,
You also said "socialists" and "war supporters". Those are huge,
huge groups.
|1.17.08 @ 10:31PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:31PM|#
Why is anybody still posting? This thread was won on the second
comment.
"Big-boot-tay! TAY! TAY!" BLAM!
|1.17.08 @ 10:32PM|#
What are we drinking, BTW, cosmopolitans?
Cosmopolitans are for wimps and communists. I drink rubbing alcohol
strained through old toast. AND I LIKE IT!
|1.17.08 @ 10:32PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:32PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:33PM|#
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?
Roger|1.17.08 @ 10:34PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:34PM|#
Brandon, I been throwing suspicion at Eric D right along. Motive
and evidence. [shrugs]
Then again I may be half kidding.
|1.17.08 @ 10:34PM|#
"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|1.17.08 @ 10:35PM|#
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.
Joe Allen|1.17.08 @ 10:36PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:36PM|#
"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?
|1.17.08 @ 10:38PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:41PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:41PM|#
Too late. You people pulled the trigger when you mailed out
those letters.
You're just noticing your temple hurts now.
|1.17.08 @ 10:43PM|#
Crimethink-
For the good of the Republic, I hope hes trolling Clinton or
Huckabee forums.
chombo|1.17.08 @ 10:43PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:44PM|#
"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|1.17.08 @ 10:45PM|#
putting out that filth harder, longer, thicker, and with
less lube
more lube joe
barry liberty|1.17.08 @ 10:46PM|#
We should be proud of everything Ron Paul wrote in his newsletters. it's all true
Kolohe|1.17.08 @ 10:46PM|#
my inner conspiracist says that Edward was Welch and Gillespie the whole time.
|1.17.08 @ 10:46PM|#
So if "cosmotarian" refers to libertarians who are disgusted by
the newsletters, what are the people who defend them?
I nominate "libertaryan."
|1.17.08 @ 10:48PM|#
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?
Joe Allen|1.17.08 @ 10:48PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:48PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:48PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:48PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:50PM|#
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!
Kolohe|1.17.08 @ 10:51PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:51PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:51PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:53PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:54PM|#
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).
|1.17.08 @ 10:54PM|#
"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!
|1.17.08 @ 10:55PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 10:55PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:56PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 10:58PM|#
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
|1.17.08 @ 10:59PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:00PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:00PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:00PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:00PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:03PM|#
"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|1.17.08 @ 11:03PM|#
Ken Schulz, that's a hell of a lot more than just embarrassing. Gave me the fargin' willies. Jesus Chrysler.
|1.17.08 @ 11:03PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:03PM|#
What "Crown jewles" are being sold to foreign lands exactly? Did I miss something?
|1.17.08 @ 11:04PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:04PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:04PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:06PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:07PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:07PM|#
Disgruntled, enjoy the world of personality politics. See you after the recession.
Eric Dondero|1.17.08 @ 11:07PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:07PM|#
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".
|1.17.08 @ 11:08PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:09PM|#
"juicy rumour"? For god's sake, what additional proof is
required here?
My goodness, you're right. We're to lose all that.
Fluffy|1.17.08 @ 11:11PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:11PM|#
I once worked for a Cato fellow who derided "Reason? They're mere treason." Now I know what he meant.
Roger|1.17.08 @ 11:11PM|#
Sorry folks, my Ctrl key is sticking, making keystroke copies less certain and so I posted a half dupe and mostly nonsensical comment above.
|1.17.08 @ 11:11PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:11PM|#
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?
|1.17.08 @ 11:13PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:13PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:14PM|#
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?
|1.17.08 @ 11:16PM|#
It took you half an hour to take a dump? You definitely need more fiber in your diet, man.
Roger.|1.17.08 @ 11:17PM|#
whats YOUR solution to making the world a better
place?
Me? Why I am partial to spamming long weblog crossposts. How about
you??
|1.17.08 @ 11:17PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:17PM|#
"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|1.17.08 @ 11:18PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:19PM|#
"So, reasonoids, whats YOUR solution to making the world a
better place?"
Lattes.
|1.17.08 @ 11:20PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:20PM|#
This is true, and this would make supporting Nathan Bedford
Forrest in 1866 comparable to supporting George Bush in
2003.
Not exactly.
Fluffy|1.17.08 @ 11:20PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:22PM|#
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?
|1.17.08 @ 11:23PM|#
Joe-I think the folks your addressing believe that if Reason would just stop investigating all this uncomfortable stuff, it would go away.
Joe Allen|1.17.08 @ 11:23PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:24PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:24PM|#
I think supporting George Bush in 2003 is more like supporting General Tojo in 1937.
Fluffy|1.17.08 @ 11:26PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:26PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:26PM|#
Disclaimer: I doubt that this will be any bigger than say the Lyndon LaRouche/LP connection.
chombo|1.17.08 @ 11:27PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:27PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:27PM|#
>>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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:27PM|#
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?
|1.17.08 @ 11:28PM|#
"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.|1.17.08 @ 11:28PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:28PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:30PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:31PM|#
If Lew ends up not being the culprit, you guys are going to look like a bunch of assholes.
|1.17.08 @ 11:31PM|#
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".
|1.17.08 @ 11:31PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:31PM|#
"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...
|1.17.08 @ 11:32PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:33PM|#
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.
GILMORE|1.17.08 @ 11:34PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:35PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:36PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:37PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:38PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:38PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:38PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:40PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:41PM|#
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.
|1.17.08 @ 11:41PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:42PM|#
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.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.17.08 @ 11:44PM|#
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.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.17.08 @ 11:46PM|#
I dunno, Mencken loved what the Jews did for sandwiches when they created the Deli.
chombo|1.17.08 @ 11:50PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 11:54PM|#
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|1.17.08 @ 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.
Iron Man|1.18.08 @ 12:00AM|#
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).
I Get It!|1.18.08 @ 12:04AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:19AM|#
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 |1.18.08 @ 12:20AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:20AM|#
chombo | January 17, 2008, 11:50pm | #
Gilmore, "gayzorz"?
translation = "silly waste of time"?
aka "gay to the max"
embittered|1.18.08 @ 12:23AM|#
Bring the politics, and anything else. Never censored.
http://lamented.createmyboard.com/catharticlament-forum-f1/who-is-ron-paul-t6.htm
|1.18.08 @ 12:35AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 12:42AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:47AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 12:53AM|#
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."
|1.18.08 @ 12:58AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:06AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:17AM|#
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
|1.18.08 @ 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. 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|1.18.08 @ 1:25AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:26AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:30AM|#
Any relation to Dr. Emilio Lizardo? Has Buckaroo Banzai been notified?
GILMORE|1.18.08 @ 1:30AM|#
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.]
|1.18.08 @ 1:32AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 1:41AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:51AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 1:59AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 2:04AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 2:14AM|#
before i go... please lets all have a nice 'ron paul-free
day' for once. Please.
The More You
Ignore Me....
|1.18.08 @ 2:28AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 2:28AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 2:30AM|#
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?
|1.18.08 @ 3:57AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 5:08AM|#
REASON AND CATO ARE THE ONLY TWO PLACES WASTING PIXELS ON THIS STORY ANY MORE.
|1.18.08 @ 5:21AM|#
As James Bond said: "That's détente, comrade; *You* don't have it, *I* don't have it."
Libertas|1.18.08 @ 5:27AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 6:42AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 7:14AM|#
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"?
|1.18.08 @ 7:15AM|#
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?
|1.18.08 @ 7:18AM|#
@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|1.18.08 @ 7:40AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 8:12AM|#
Jesse, can you confirm that Lizardo has resigned?
Please call me on my cell 832-896-9505. URGENT!!!
Hi, LewRockwell.com Readers!|1.18.08 @ 8:29AM|#
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!
|1.18.08 @ 8:30AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 8:43AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 8:45AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 8:51AM|#
Overall, Reason's treatment of Ron Paul reminds me of very smug liberal tooling around town in a brand new hybrid.
|1.18.08 @ 8:53AM|#
Can't talk right now on internet. I'm on a political
assignment.
Rudy's current mistress needed a babysitter?
bob|1.18.08 @ 8:56AM|#
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!
|1.18.08 @ 9:04AM|#
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....
|1.18.08 @ 9:07AM|#
"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.
|1.18.08 @ 9:22AM|#
"(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.
|1.18.08 @ 9:26AM|#
"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?!
|1.18.08 @ 9:26AM|#
"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|1.18.08 @ 9:28AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 9:30AM|#
"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!
|1.18.08 @ 9:36AM|#
Ken Schultz,
Uh, didn't Stormfront support and donate to Ron Paul long before
this newsletter story came out?
|1.18.08 @ 9:42AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 9:50AM|#
"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.
|1.18.08 @ 9:53AM|#
"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.
|1.18.08 @ 10:02AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 10:04AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 10:21AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 10:27AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 10:32AM|#
Chalupa,
I'm looking for a ghost writer for the Crimethink Survival Report.
Interested?
|1.18.08 @ 10:35AM|#
"(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.
|1.18.08 @ 10:36AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 10:36AM|#
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!
|1.18.08 @ 10:39AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 10:41AM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 10:41AM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 10:59AM|#
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.
T|1.18.08 @ 11:03AM|#
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?
|1.18.08 @ 11:10AM|#
T,
We also settled who the inventor of the word "cosmotarian" was.
*ahem* Credit where credit is due.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.18.08 @ 11:50AM|#
smug liberals tooling around town in brand new hybrids and
[swilling lattes]" ...Was that so hard?!
See? That was LOL funny.....
Mike Laursen|1.18.08 @ 12:01PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:05PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:05PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:07PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:08PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:21PM|#
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.
Vile Maxim|1.18.08 @ 12:26PM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 12:27PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:36PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:42PM|#
Danger Mouse?
Danger Mouse.
.... Now, that's a name I haven't heard in a long time... A long
time.....
The Wine Commonsewer|1.18.08 @ 12:43PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:47PM|#
"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|1.18.08 @ 12:48PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 12:50PM|#
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!
|1.18.08 @ 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.
VM|1.18.08 @ 12:53PM|#
http://www.guidestar.org
hier,
you can find reports on many nonprofits.
Jeez.
Dedalus|1.18.08 @ 12:56PM|#
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.
Eric Dondero|1.18.08 @ 1:04PM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 1:09PM|#
Is that close enough? Do we get to drink?
You can't be too careful about these things. When in doubt...
|1.18.08 @ 1:09PM|#
"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|1.18.08 @ 1:17PM|#
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!"
|1.18.08 @ 1:18PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:23PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:25PM|#
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!
|1.18.08 @ 1:36PM|#
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?
|1.18.08 @ 1:37PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:37PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:37PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:39PM|#
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?
|1.18.08 @ 1:42PM|#
Bottom line, Reason Foundation is more o less a hipper version of the NeoCon nerve center the American Enterprise Institute.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.18.08 @ 1:44PM|#
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.
Vile Maxim|1.18.08 @ 1:49PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 1:51PM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 1:52PM|#
"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.
|1.18.08 @ 1:53PM|#
Right here baby. I'd better e-mail that link to Merriam-Webster poste haste so I get credit.
|1.18.08 @ 1:59PM|#
"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".
poster boy|1.18.08 @ 2:09PM|#
The blog is, of course, more chatty and gossipy, and less
edited than the magazine.
Thst's and unfaiur charavterization.
Vile Maxim|1.18.08 @ 2:11PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 2:12PM|#
Crime, Maybe you should throw it on Urban dictionary or whatever that thing is called.
Observer|1.18.08 @ 2:17PM|#
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."
|1.18.08 @ 2:19PM|#
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."
|1.18.08 @ 2:21PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 2:27PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 2:27PM|#
"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
|1.18.08 @ 2:29PM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 2:36PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 2:37PM|#
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."
|1.18.08 @ 2:40PM|#
"I see the description of certain libertarians as "cosmopolitan"
attributed here to Virginia Postrel"
I have a name for Virginia Postrel: neocontarian.
crw|1.18.08 @ 2:41PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 2:50PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 2:54PM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Can I make things up and have Reason blog about it? Let me know, I have lots of doosies...
GILMORE|1.18.08 @ 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"
Vile Maxim|1.18.08 @ 3:16PM|#
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!"
|1.18.08 @ 3:29PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 3:30PM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 3:32PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 3:33PM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 3:34PM|#
Wait 12 years and look for this guy:
Jim Forsythe.
Doesn't he play utility infielder for the Royals?
Jesus Christ|1.18.08 @ 3:50PM|#
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?
|1.18.08 @ 3:53PM|#
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?
|1.18.08 @ 4:17PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 4:22PM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 4:25PM|#
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.
|1.18.08 @ 4:35PM|#
"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.
|1.18.08 @ 5:22PM|#
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|1.18.08 @ 5:33PM|#
When oh when will a real Libertarian candidate come
along
Been one every four years since Hospers. They all do about as
well.
crw|1.18.08 @ 6:06PM|#
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.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245