The Friday Political Thread: Survival Report Edition

David Weigel | January 18, 2008

Most of my poli-blogging this point will come on primary nights, and there'll be a primary thread tomorrow for the Nevada/South Carolina battles. Until then, a short political roundup...

Quote of the Week

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to introduce you to my future Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security, Chuck Norris and Ric Flair!" - Mike Huckabee, January 17 in South Carolina. Huckabee Attorney General-designate Wayne Dumond could not be reached for comment.

The Week in Brief

- Mitt Romney won the Michigan primary, clobbering John McCain by nine points. Hillary Clinton won the faux (no delegates awards) Democratic primary, but lost 45 percent of the vote to Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and "uncommitted." Less than 30 percent of black voters went for Clinton.

- The Democrats debated in Las Vegas, promising to paper over a debate on blackness and civil rights and promising to ignore John Edwards.

- Ben Bernanke smiled on the idea of a fiscal stimulus package. In related news, your portfolio is now worthless.

Other Issues

- Glenn Johnson, Hero. Beating up on Mitt Romney is like critiquing an Uwe Boll movie ("I found several faults with the editing!"), but reporters seemed to throw up their hands and finally give up on him this week. Ana Marie Cox reported that the press corps collaborated on tough questions to ask Romney after his lickety-split move toward economic populism. AP Reporter Glenn Johnson asked the toughest question, challenging Romney on his claim that his was a lobbyist-free campaign. But Johnson got collared afterwards by Romney press people, Romney supporters, and multiple blogs. On this I'm with Dan Savage:

Romney lied, Johnson called him on it. He didn’t run off and find a Democrat or a rival for the GOP nomination to “dispute Romney’s claim.” He reacted the way any reporter—any person—ought to react when they’re being lied to. And you gotta love the Romney campaign douchebag/senior staffer that reprimands Johnson for “being argumentative with the candidate.” God fucking forbid. And I love the Romney supporter who felt the Johnson was “rude”—as opposed to, you know, the candidate that just lied to her face.

Now, why can't they do this with St. John McCain of Straightalk?

- Obama and Black Votes. CNN just sent out its latest poll which shows a decent Clinton lead nationally—42 to 33 points over Obama. But the network points out a trend in the internals. In October, Clinton led among black voters by 57 to 33 points. Now Obama's flipped the margin and leads 59-31 among blacks, just as the campaign is about to shift to South Carolina and other states where you can't really win without running up the score among black voters. Bradley, Tsongas, Hart, Udall—all those Democratic losers fell when they hit the union/black vote buzzsaw in the big primary states. Obama could be the first insurgent Democrat to beat the machine by breaking it.

But how's he winning the black vote? Obama had predicted for months that as black voters got to know him he'd win them over, just as it happened in his 2004 Senate race. It looks like that was happening in South Carolina. It also looks like the Clinton campaign is building the narrative that stoked-up racial animus—backlash to the campaign surrogates' multiple references to Obama and cocaine, backlash to Bill Clinton calling Obama's storyline on the war a "fairy tale"—has made South Carolina unwinnable. And at the same time they're hitting Obama's comments about Ronald Reagan's political success to make it sound like he considers Reagan a good president and the GOP the "party of ideas." I was struck by the harshness of Rep. Corrine Brown on today's conference call on this issue. I think an attempt to paint the winningest black presidential candidate in history as a Reagan fetishest will fail, but not before planting doubts in the black community and weakening Obama with white voters.

Below the Fold

- Jim Antle reviews David Frum's new tome on conservatism, Comeback. Frum responds; Antle swings back.

- Ray McGovern is bearish on the chances of a new Gulf of Tonkin.

- Jonathan V. Last witnesses Barack Obama finding his inner badass.

More of that to come, after the first truly political Politics 'n' Prog:

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

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

|1.18.08 @ 6:13PM|#

No, no, you just didn't read Romney's statement correctly.

I* do* not****** have** lobbyists* running*** my* campaign*.

See how that works?

You've gotta understand, I've been seeing Mitt Romney on my teevee for years, so I've learned how to translate.

|1.18.08 @ 6:15PM|#

Heidi Fleiss (sp?) as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs?

Elemenope|1.18.08 @ 6:18PM|#

Dwight|1.18.08 @ 6:27PM|#

I'm no Romney fan, but this seems a little nit-picky. Romney didn't say the campaign was "lobbyist-free" (what campaign is?), but merely that no lobbyists were "running" the campaign. It's the kind of vague, meaningless fluff of which campaigns are made, but not really worthy of an argument.

CFroh|1.18.08 @ 6:31PM|#

What, no mention of Justin Ramaindo's crushing critique of the Beltway-led "piling on" of Ron Paul? No worries, here it is:

http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_s\
mear_ron_paul/

Reading Ramaindo's comprehensive, well-researched piece, one is struck at how helpful context can be. The insensitivity of some of the remarks remains, but context can always put things in perspective.

With liberties being taken away daily (check out www.CommonInterest.info), it's time for libertarians and the Paul Coalition to get behind the MKL Money Bomb Monday, on behalf of the civil disobedience that may be outlawed with passage of the Homegrown Terrorism Act.

By the way, for Prog Rock, let's have a YouTube of Falco's Der Kommissar, my favorite song in the early 80s! (Or is that not Prog enough?)

|1.18.08 @ 6:32PM|#

how's he winning the black vote?

He's not winning it. Hillary's jettisoned it.

Superwoman can do math.

SIV|1.18.08 @ 6:33PM|#

I'd vote for Ric Flair for President before any of the candidates other than Fred or Ron.

I am shocked he is supporting the Huckster.

The Nature Boy is more of a libertine than a libertarian.

I assume Arn Anderson would be his Veep.

Mammy\'s li\'l baby love short|1.18.08 @ 6:38PM|#

In related news, your portfolio is now worthless.

All depends on how you bet.......

|1.18.08 @ 6:42PM|#

I think an attempt to paint the winningest black presidential candidate in history as a Reagan fetishist will fail, but not before planting doubts in the black community and weakening Obama with white voters.

I don't think it's going to plant any doubts among black voters. I don't think attacks on him from "the white media" are going to be very credible. Bloggers? People associated with the let's-see-how-close-I-can-come-to-calling-him-a-crackhead Clinton campaign?

Obama will flick that away like a piece of lint.

lunchstealer|1.18.08 @ 6:43PM|#

Oh come now. If Huckabee can't find a place in his cabinet for a good solid American* like Rowdy Roddy Piper, he has no business in the presidency.

And really, by that point, Genesis wasn't prog anymore.

TallDave|1.18.08 @ 6:44PM|#

He reacted the way any reporter-any person-ought to react when they're being lied to.

Come on. I'm not a Romney fan, but since when do reporters get all upset about the oh-so-very-critical difference between unpaid adviser and campaign official? Has Johnson never heard political spin before? Yes, it's a nuanced, even debatable point, but it's not the sort thing that normally sends anyone into a righteous quest for THE TRUTH.

I mean, this isn't Gary Condit up there saying he has no idea who this missing girl Chandra Levy is.

The guy seems to have quite a different set of standards for the woman who claimed to be named after Edmund Hillary.

http://ianschwartz.com/2008/01/17/video-biased-ap-reporter-harasses-romney-connection-with-lobbyist/

This is clearly driven by his politics. He's acting unprofessionally, which makes him perfect to be the next NBC anchorman. I look forward to reading the 1971 memos that prove Romney's candidacy is really a devious plot to force us all to become Mormons.

lunchstealer|1.18.08 @ 6:45PM|#

*well, he played an American on TV.

|1.18.08 @ 6:47PM|#

SIV, I don't know if you support Ron Paul, but I just heard his people are trying to get a Paul tatoo on Roy Jones Jr.'s arm for his next bout. Jones Jr. is notorious here in LA for sponsering cockfights.

|1.18.08 @ 6:48PM|#

O, not E

|1.18.08 @ 6:55PM|#

TallDave, I don't think it's necessarily motivated by his politics. If you've never been a reporter, you might not understand the frustration in going to work every day and having someone lie to your face about the most blatant and obvious stuff. There's only so much you can take.

|1.18.08 @ 6:56PM|#

I don't think it's going to plant any doubts among black voters. I don't think attacks on him from "the white media" are going to be very credible. Bloggers? People associated with the let's-see-how-close-I-can-come-to-calling-him-a-crackhead Clinton campaign?

More importantly, black voters overwelming vote Democrat. It isn't like black voters are going to be so disgusted with Obama that they decide to vote for Romney. Whatever Democrat wins the primary will win just about all the black vote.

The people Obama needs to worry about alienating are the swing voters, the "Reagan Democrats" and "Clinton Republicans".

|1.18.08 @ 6:58PM|#

"And really, by that point, Genesis wasn't prog anymore."

I read this and thought the video was going to be "Illegal Alien." Genesis was barely prog by that point, let alone Invisible Touch (although Home By The Sea/Second Home By The Sea kicks ass).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7q1H3VKdp0

Rex,

I think the concern is that they'll vote for Hillary, or not vote, in the primary.

|1.18.08 @ 6:59PM|#

The link to the "Uwe Boll movie" review was LOL, spew-soda-on-your-monitor funny. Check it out.

Dedalus|1.18.08 @ 7:03PM|#

"Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to introduce you to my future Secretary of Defense and Secretary of Homeland Security, Chuck Norris and Ric Flair!" - Mike Huckabee,

"Also, I would like to thank Reason and David Weigel for destroying Ron Paul and making a Huckabee presidency possible. Now let's all bow our head to jeeeeeezus!"

-President Huckabee

Click \'n\' Learn|1.18.08 @ 7:16PM|#

For those who missed it above, here's Justin Raimondo's take on Reason folding before Reason's bedmate. Will he come after Reason's staffers next, picking them off, one by one?

David Weigel, are you now or have you ever been a statist?

As for the Romney question, that's the best the AP can do? Not only do they continually lie and mislead, they continually sit there and transcribe as candidates lie and mislead. And, I don't recall Weigel asking any candidates anything approaching a real question.

As for the last "debate", here's my take; see the link at the end for my comments on the previous "debates".

And, this week's prog antidote is indeed a bit disjointed, but the look at the end is more than worth it.

Rowz|1.18.08 @ 7:18PM|#

I don't think "Land of Confusion" is appropriately considered prog. Without Steve Hackett, it's not really Genesis.

SIV|1.18.08 @ 7:23PM|#

SIV, I don't know if you support Ron Paul

I haven't heard him comment specifically but I assume Paul opposes Federal animal fighting laws.

$100 so far and my vote as soon as the absentee ballot arrives.

I'd vote for Ric Flair for President before any of the candidates other than Fred or Ron.

Argo|1.18.08 @ 7:28PM|#

"For those who missed it above, here's Justin Raimondo's take..."

Given the invasion of frothing halfwits on most threads (whether they relate to RP or not), most of whom has posted that link, I don't think anyone who's conscious has missed it.

Steve Horwitz|1.18.08 @ 7:33PM|#

Just cuz it's Genesis, don't make it prog. UGH.

|1.18.08 @ 7:34PM|#

Um, those poor white folks all *voted* for Reagan 28 years ago

Twice. And they are glad that they did. Only the far left hates Reagan. Edwards probably has those votes.

|1.18.08 @ 7:35PM|#

Survival Report Edition....

LMAO.

Steve Horwitz|1.18.08 @ 7:36PM|#

Well Rowz, parts of "And Then There Were Three" and "Duke" were proggy and "Abacab" is a great album, but not prog. Everything after that? Save the "Home by the Sea" pair and puke on the rest - Phil's back up band.

What a waste, as Tony Banks is a freakin' genius.

|1.18.08 @ 7:37PM|#

LoneWacko, give it up. You're not Edward R. Murrow. You're not even Inside Edition.

|1.18.08 @ 7:39PM|#

Bill O'Reilly in mirrored sunglasses.

|1.18.08 @ 7:45PM|#

Cesar, Lonewacko posted something? Was in incisive commentary or the usual offal that I used to wade through?

Rakune|1.18.08 @ 7:47PM|#

"...your portfolio is now worthless. I guess you mean worth less, however, The Mogambo Portfolio (TPM) is on a pleasantly upward trajectory.

|1.18.08 @ 7:48PM|#

stoked-up racial animus

It's always about Don, isn't it.

I'm personally expecting a large infusion of cash from a deposed African leader any day now.

|1.18.08 @ 7:51PM|#

Its his latest attempt to be some kind of hard-hitting, investigative journalist. He failed as usual.

|1.18.08 @ 7:57PM|#

"I assume Arn Anderson would be his Veep."

And Tully Blanchard as Sec. or Commerce. He'd have to put his shares of Tully Blanchard Enterprises into a blind trust though...

SIV|1.18.08 @ 8:02PM|#

Occasionally I'll start to read a Lonewacko comment but I drop it immediately when he self-links. I have vague recollections of seeing a few somewhat humorous, insightful, and/or interesting comments but it was definitely on another blog and not here (and not about immigration).

|1.18.08 @ 8:03PM|#

"He's acting unprofessionally"
Oh, bullshit. Romney's full of shit and the press got some balls and took it to him. Should they do it more? Yes. But of course with tools like you around to jump on every reporter who does some serious reporting and hurts some dildo candidates feelings rest assured it won't happen much...

Have you ever seen British reporters make their pols squirm? That should be the norm here. But of course right wingers would never be satisfied unless reporters constantly slammed those they hated and constantly tossed softballs to the candidates they loved. Objectivity is no concern of theirs (in their minds the leaning left you see on NPR or NBC is equivalent to the out-right, often coordinated propaganda of Fox or the Washington Times....

"I would like to thank Reason and David Weigel for destroying Ron Paul and making a Huckabee presidency possible."

Yeah, it's Reason and Wiegel's fault that Paul either 1. was a negligent old fool who let people write nutty stuff for YEARS in his name or 2. wrote the nutty stuff himself.

Of course Huck was doing well BEFORE Reason "turned" on Paul, but hey, what's reality between partisans?

Les|1.18.08 @ 8:04PM|#

Only the far left hates Reagan.

Oh, I don't know about that. I'm far from a leftist and I think Reagan's amping up the drug war, his spend, spend, spend approach to the military, and his avid support of terrorists in Central America are well worth hating. I mean, once you support terrorists, what's to love?

Click \'n\' Learn|1.18.08 @ 8:04PM|#

Compare this and this to questions that Weigel has asked people like Huck.

Click \'n\' Learn|1.18.08 @ 8:06PM|#

SIV: could you find those for me? I need to add to my highlights reel.

paulistinian|1.18.08 @ 8:06PM|#

RON PAUL!

|1.18.08 @ 8:08PM|#

Hey, Cesar, don't malign the journalistic integrity of Inside Edition, they won TWO PEABODY'S!

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/565.html

|1.18.08 @ 8:11PM|#

"Twice. And they are glad that they did. Only the far left hates Reagan. Edwards probably has those votes."

Gotta disagree. My dad voted Reagan. It was the last time he voted Republican...

Reagan certainly had an impact on political rhetoric. The Great Society or anything like it can't even be talked about by any viable candidate these days...But he just did not have as much effect as I once thought he would. Think of FDR's influence: there are still cracker racists who vote Democrat because of FDR!

SIV|1.18.08 @ 8:11PM|#

SIV: could you find those for me? I need to add to my highlights reel.

No

I think one was on a NYTs "blog" and another on some left-feminist blog.

Bingo|1.18.08 @ 8:19PM|#

Saw this on boingboing, Raquel Welch space dance. Nice.

Brian|1.18.08 @ 8:32PM|#

There's no Youtubery for "Blood on the Rooftops", I guess.

Joe Allen|1.18.08 @ 8:50PM|#

High Priests of Pomposity-

startin' to feel the tipping point against you yet? Don't worry. It's commin'.

Argo|1.18.08 @ 9:07PM|#

Joe Allen

startin' to feel your head? Don't worry. It's just crammed really, really far up your ass.

Lefty|1.18.08 @ 9:10PM|#

I agree Genesis without Steve Hackett and Peter Gabriel are a lame pop band; not a progressive one. In any respect, keep them coming. Meanwhile, I'm wondering when Politics and Prog is going to show a little leg and some balls to feature this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TY3Olb0baa4
Keith Emerson is GOD!

chombo|1.18.08 @ 9:22PM|#

Arch-Deacons of Destruction-

are you feeling the wrath of Joe Allen's comment links yet? Don't worry. He'll post them in the next topic.

|1.18.08 @ 9:41PM|#

Hmm, largest circulation libertarian publication in the world.

Newsletters whose namesake has disavowed them.

Largest circulation libertarian publication in the world...

Newsletters whose namesake has disavowed them...

Are you scared yet, Matt? I'll be you can't even keep your limp wrist from trembling as you sit in your smoking jacket and shoot up "the pot."

Observer773|1.18.08 @ 9:48PM|#

Hey Welch, did you give Doherty a chance to clean out his office? Or did you have security toss him out like Bill Murray did to Bobcat Goldthwait in "Scrooged"? Or was Raimondo full of shit?

Argo|1.18.08 @ 9:59PM|#

Regardless of the answer to the first two questions, I think we know the answer to the third.

Bingo|1.18.08 @ 10:15PM|#

The notions that I ever had any association with Suck magazine, or that Brian Doherty's job at reason is in any way threatened, are both lies.
Posted by Matt Welch on Jan 18, 2008.

well that answers the first, second, and third

Joe Allen|1.18.08 @ 10:22PM|#

So Matt-

How does it feel to know that you are now a shill for the establishment you thought you were fighting?

Just curious.

Observer773|1.18.08 @ 10:22PM|#

Hmm, I thought the "Scrooged" allusion would indicate that I was joking, but I guess not. So. I was joking. I know Raimondo was full of shit.

Joe Allen|1.18.08 @ 10:24PM|#

If I was going to sell MY soul, I think I would hold out for more than 45K/year and a guest spot on NPR, but that's just me.

|1.18.08 @ 10:27PM|#

"Only the far left hates Reagan"

Bullshit.

The bloodbath that he created in just one Central American country on its own would have been enough to make him a total douchebag in my book. But I have to admit, it was a pretty impressive body count, especially considering how unnecessary it was.

|1.18.08 @ 10:28PM|#

What did you get for your brain?

|1.18.08 @ 10:30PM|#

Alright, who is responsible for this?

It's a private registration.

Bingo|1.18.08 @ 10:31PM|#

Joe Allen go drink a beer and read a book or something man. Step away from the computer and interact with someone or something real.

Argo|1.18.08 @ 10:31PM|#

"What did you get for your brain?"

Very little, because he couldn't wash that ass smell off.

Dedalus|1.18.08 @ 10:32PM|#

How does it feel to know that you are now a shill for the establishment you thought you were fighting?

Matt's been a little bitch from Budapest days, where he happily engaged himself sucking "reformed" commie dick 24/7 for a pathetic paycheck. And the chance to lord it over the long-suffering non-cosmotarian locals who lacked the social graces of those who were sent abroad by the ancien regime to get "manners."

A commie dick-sucker for a paycheck in Budapest now claims to define the libertarian movement in the US.

Look into him. You will see the portrait of the "great libertarian" as a young man. But it reads like Finnegan's Wake as read by William Shatner on mescaline.

Joe Allen|1.18.08 @ 10:33PM|#

See the stock market again today?

The outlook is turning distinctly ursine, wouldn't you agree?

Dedalus|1.18.08 @ 10:34PM|#

Forgot to close tag after "regime"

So sue me.

|1.18.08 @ 10:37PM|#

Yeah, that's what made your comment look stupid: the tags.

The part where even the people who overthrew communism aren't good enough for you to respect had nothing to do with it.

Argo|1.18.08 @ 10:37PM|#

"But it reads like Finnegan's Wake as read by William Shatner on mescaline."

You seem like a dipshit, but that's pretty funny. Steal it from someone?

Joe Allen|1.18.08 @ 10:37PM|#

Look into him. You will see the portrait of the "great libertarian" as a young man. But it reads like Finnegan's Wake as read by William Shatner on mescaline.

BOOyah! I can't beat that!

Dedalus|1.18.08 @ 10:38PM|#

You seem like a dipshit, but that's pretty funny. Steal it from someone?

Yeah, your mama as she came up for air.

Argo|1.18.08 @ 10:41PM|#

OK, that's more your speed. And order is restored to the dipshit universe.

Dedalus|1.18.08 @ 10:41PM|#

BOOyah! I can't beat that!

Wait till Matt and his crew usher in Mike "Mr. Jeebus" Huckabee as president and every time you try to jack off you have homeland security on your ass.

Cosmotarian aint so fun when you are in a FEMA trailer getting the Old Testament pounded in yer ass by piped-in Rev. Hagee on a regular basis.

|1.18.08 @ 10:44PM|#

Ron Paul would have been president, if it weren't for you meddling kids.

Get the hell off my lawn!

|1.18.08 @ 10:45PM|#

This is a funny thread.

Like a Hagar comic strip, that is.

Joe Allen|1.18.08 @ 10:55PM|#

I'm going to enjoy watching Reason descend into irrelevance and then be reborn as as a
Boy's Life for trotskyites...oh wait. That already happened.

Happy Jack|1.18.08 @ 10:58PM|#

For those who missed it above, here's Justin Raimondo's take

All this intrigue in the libertarian movement has given me an idea for a spy movie. I think I'll call it...Kochtopussy.

Joe Allen|1.18.08 @ 10:59PM|#

Wow! a half million in the Bucket for the campaign today, and I haven't even chucked in my MLK money yet!

Dedalus|1.18.08 @ 10:59PM|#

be reborn as as a Boy's Life for trotskyites

Totally unfair. Trotsky had comintern and international revolution breathing stifly down his pants. More riveting than what cialis warns you about. Reason only has web-views to report to the ad broker firm. "Ron Paul" in the title is money, and they do want a holiday in the sun. A cheap holiday in someone else's misery.

Joe Allen|1.18.08 @ 11:13PM|#

My mistake. I'll take an honest commie over a fake libertarian any day.

Dedalus|1.18.08 @ 11:20PM|#

I'll take an honest commie over a fake libertarian any day.

Exactly why I give Kirchick more credit than Reason (oh I am so rude to my hosts, excuse me). Kirchick had an ideological axe to grind: he had to build up the "great man of steel" Giuliani.

For poor old Reason it was only about click-click-click and ad revenue. How un-cosmotarian and vulgarly proletarian. Virginia somewhere sighs tearfully...

|1.18.08 @ 11:27PM|#

Drink!

Joe Allen|1.18.08 @ 11:34PM|#

And what a great building-up he did! Why, Giuliani is admired and adored now by simply DOZENS of people.

Vile Maxim|1.18.08 @ 11:46PM|#

I figured the tune to be FGTH's Two Tribes

Vile Maxim|1.18.08 @ 11:55PM|#

"Cosmotarians are my peoples"

http://cosmotarian.com/

good humor

I love you guys

|1.19.08 @ 6:46AM|#

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

Everyone knows he wrote the newsletters -- the style is the same, the hatred is the same, he was the "publisher" of the 12 page monthly newsletters that Ron Paul was too busy to read, and too many people have come forth and said he was, evidently even Ron Paul himself
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124485.html, according to his own chief of staff.

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

x,y|1.19.08 @ 10:12AM|#

Hopefully, someone will post a response to the Raimondo piece. FWIW, I think Justin's blog entry is top-shelf.

|1.19.08 @ 10:24AM|#

Any tennis fans in the house?

|1.19.08 @ 10:49AM|#

I was asking myself, "What sort of a person would believe in a Reason-New Repubican anti-Ron Paul conspiracy?" and then it hit me: the same sort of person who would believe in a Government-Homosexual AIDS Coverup Conspiracy.

Fluffy|1.19.08 @ 11:00AM|#

OK, here's what I want to see at the South Carolina primary:

Huckabee nudges out McCain by a few votes. McCain concedes, and CNN switches over to Huckabee coming out to speak to his supporters at some South Carolina hotel. Suddenly, as Huck is speaking...

...

...

...

...

THE CLOVERFIELD MONSTER ATTACKS!!!!! BWARRRRRRRRR! Chomp, chomp, chomp. CNN camera falls down to the ground sideways, just as Clovey picks up Huck and chomps him to bits.

|1.19.08 @ 11:09AM|#

Yeah, your mama as she came up for air.

Dedalus, Thanks for taking time from the Algonquin Round Table to share your scathing wit and incisive wisdom with us. Don't let the door hit your ...

Joe Allen|1.19.08 @ 11:30AM|#

The real conspiracy nuts are the one's who think a Jewish lady (Ilana Mercer) and a gay guy (Justin Raimondo) are in cahoots with the neoNazis to hijack libertarianism.

That's a pretty big stretch.

|1.19.08 @ 11:40AM|#

Uh, yeah, except for the fact that they are on record acknowledging the "ourtreach to the rednecks" strategy behind the newsletters.

|1.19.08 @ 11:42AM|#

No, not "hijack." Why would anyone want to hijack libertarianism? What could possibly be gained by that.

They wanted to boost libertarianism, to gain money and support for the cause, by appealing to neo-Nazis and other racist crazies.

The the devil shakes your hand while you're shaking his seems not to have occured to anyone.

|1.19.08 @ 11:48AM|#

Very funny. The "cosmotarian.com" domain wasn't registered yesterday when I was researching the first known use of the word.

|1.19.08 @ 11:52AM|#

joe,

From your perspective, what would you say it is about libertarianism that could appeal to neo-Nazis and other racists? Just an honest question.

It seems to me that racism is antithetical to libertarianism; anyone who understands its philosophical underpinnings (not that I'm an an expert) couldn't attempt to sell it to such people without adding something to it. Am I wrong about that?

Also, it seems that a reasonable person would understand that reaching out to such people with the goal of broadening libertarianism's appeal would have to understand that doing so would be counter-productive, because racists and neo-Nazis aren't exactly the most beloved people in American politics. An endorsement by them, even on things that having nothing to do with their racist views, is a kiss of death for a candidate.

|1.19.08 @ 11:59AM|#

Also, does anyone else want Rafa to meet and beat Federer in the Australian Open?

Barring that, I'd like to see Roddick or Blake vs. Rafa for the championship. Federer is a legendary talent, but I'm tired of watching the Roger Show at every Grand Slam. Rafa needs to beat him on a court that's not red clay.

Dave Weigel|1.19.08 @ 12:05PM|#

Re: Raimondo, there are too many botched "facts" in the piece to interest me in a rebuttal. He wrote that Matt Welch worked for Suck.com as evidence for his fiendish cosmotarianism. Then he deleted that point without noting that he did so... because it's not true. He still refers to Julian Sanchez as "of the Cato institute" when he hasn't worked there since 2003.

You simply can't trust a piece with simple errors that could have been easily checked, either via google or via - sacre bleu! - asking to the people being attacked.

|1.19.08 @ 12:09PM|#

Jim Bob,

I think there is very little about libertarianism that could appeal to neo-Nazis and racists, except perhaps its criticisms of federal law enforcement, enjoyment of firearams, and a vague alignment of anti-left sentiment. Even there, we're talking about coincidental alignments, not real ideological similarities, so that's pretty thin gruel.

Which is why the newsletters had to delve into racism, homophobia, and apocalyptic paranoia, which really have nothing to do with libertarianism qua libertarianism.

As you say, there is a great deal about the fundamental underpinnings of the philosophy that contradicts ideas about racism, antisemitism, and homophobia. I will note, just as an aside, that this ideological opposition does not preclude racist ideas or sentiments on the individual level. For one this, people can compartmentalize. For another, I'll point out that the "Man was made in the image of God" doctrine within Christianity and the "Racism is a diversion the ruling class uses to divide the proletariat" doctrines of Christianity and Communism certainly do not rule out the existence of Christian and Communist racists.

As for "reasonable people," I agree, reasonable people could not think that it was a good idea to sully their political movement with such associations.

|1.19.08 @ 12:14PM|#

"What sort of a person would believe in a Reason-New Repubican anti-Ron Paul conspiracy?"

The same sort of a person who would steal my idea for Kochtopussy. See here.
Bastards!

|1.19.08 @ 12:21PM|#

joe,

Good points, and food for thought. This especially:

I will note, just as an aside, that this ideological opposition does not preclude racist ideas or sentiments on the individual level.

I would like to see that sort of thing more openly (or more loudly) shunned by libertarians, although I realize that libertarians generally do not like to condemn people simply for having ideas (acting on such repugnant ideas is another matter); the "purge" of racists from the ranks of libertarianism is probably a silly idea on its face, even if an organized, open declaration that racists and neo-Nazis are not welcome in libertarian circles might go a ways toward a more favorable view of libertarianism.

x,y|1.19.08 @ 12:25PM|#

Re: Raimondo, there are too many botched "facts" in the piece to interest me in a rebuttal.

That's never stopped Reason from responding to the innumerable (factless) claims made by politicians and commentators. I'd provide cites, but wouldn't even know where to start.

x,y|1.19.08 @ 12:31PM|#

Re: Raimondo

Allow me to expand. Just because he botched a few facts doesn't mean his blog post isn't worth responding to. In fact, it seems to me (though I haven't independtly verified any of his claims) that the botched facts have little to do with the substance of his rebuttal. The essence of his post is that a lot of libertarians -- especially those at Reason and Cato -- jumped the gun on their newsletter analysis and didn't spend enough time putting the newsletter quotes in context.

I'd like to see Reason (and Cato) deal with this claim.

|1.19.08 @ 12:50PM|#

Me too.

Ditto.

|1.19.08 @ 12:51PM|#

I must agree.

Oh yeah. Big time.

|1.19.08 @ 12:52PM|#

Yeah, totally, but to jump to a conspiracy theory is a bit out there.

Dave Weigel|1.19.08 @ 1:03PM|#

The essence of his post is that a lot of libertarians -- especially those at Reason and Cato -- jumped the gun on their newsletter analysis and didn't spend enough time putting the newsletter quotes in context.

So did Ron Paul jump the gun in preparing a statement distancing himself from the newsletters? Is Ron Paul part of the Orange Line Mafia conspiracy to destroy Ron Paul?

|1.19.08 @ 1:24PM|#

Weigel,

Did you and your media elite friends get together and come up with that question? Or are you trying to outdo Glenn Johnson? ;-)

That's a very good and piercing question. Unfortunately, Raimondo & Co. have their heads covered in six-inch-thick Kevlar.

|1.19.08 @ 1:32PM|#

Will someone please explain the orange thing? I wasn't aware of a libertarian/Battle of the Boyne connection.

LEWVENDER|1.19.08 @ 1:53PM|#

Remember, it's the "Orange line LAVENDER Mafia."

Some of those Orange-Line-Lavender-Mafia-Bad-People who are critical of America's Last White Hope are...queers. Some are "in the media" (i.e., Jews). You get the picture. NOT LIKE US!

We are not bigots. We are normal white Americans who don't condemn racism. We know that those newsletters are an attempt to discredit us. Only Jews, immigrants, and queers would even talk about such things.

|1.19.08 @ 2:01PM|#

Will someone please explain the orange thing? I wasn't aware of a libertarian/Battle of the Boyne connection.

Joe, I'm not sure but I'd bet it's some oh-so-witty reference to the DC Metro's Orange Line (they're color-coded; I believe the Orange Line runs north-south from Ravenna, VA to the outskirts of Silver Springs). I haven't lived in DC for a while, so I could be not recalling correctly.

Anywho, saying that libertarian journalists love the state because it keeps them employed is like saying doctors like disease for the same reason.

And where do doctors belong but at the Ground-Zero for the disease that is big government?

Kolohe|1.19.08 @ 2:05PM|#

Orange line: East West, from Vienna, VA to New Carrolton. Follows I-66 then wilson blvd, then goes through the center of DC to RFK stadium, then east to Prince William county.

(grew up 3/4 mile from Ballston Metro)

|1.19.08 @ 2:10PM|#

Damn it all!

Ravenna? What I was thinking? I knew it was Vienna...I'm a DC retard (but still a big 'Skins fan).

And I got the direction wrong?

"I am morally responsible for the information Ayn_Randian put out a moment ago..."

There, that should make the paleos happy.

|1.19.08 @ 2:37PM|#

Well, in reading Raimondo's piece, he makes a rather convincing case that pretty much the entire smear piece in TNR is based on quotes taken out of context so as to mean the opposite of what the TNR piece made them out to be.

So, Dave Weigel, I'd be interested in someone from Reason printing all of the offending quotes IN FULL CONTEXT -- IN THEIR ENTIREITY and going through them one by one and explaining which, if any, of them are unlibertarian / racist.

And if few or none are in fact unlibertarian, a mea culpa would be appreciated by a whole lot of people at Reason. If some or all of the quotes are in fact racist, then fine, too. We'd have experienced some actual, you know, JOURNALISM.

So did Ron Paul jump the gun in preparing a statement distancing himself from the newsletters? Is Ron Paul part of the Orange Line Mafia conspiracy to destroy Ron Paul?

Ummm, gee, if I was running a political campaign, and a smear piece timed for maximum political damage appeared taking quotes somebody else wrote completely out of context, and attributed them to me, and called me a racist, and the largest libertarian rag in the world piled on and didn't try to print the quotes in context and examine if they were in fact racist, I'd be a little wary of the issue, too.

NP|1.19.08 @ 2:41PM|#

Jim Bob,

If you haven't already noticed, Roddick is already out, though he played an excellent match.

And man, what a match between Federer and Tipsarević this morning. I actually tuned in around the end of the third set, and I really thought Federer might head for the early exit this time. I'll definitely be paying more attention to Tipsarević from now on; I don't care if you're a Hitler, anyone who can push Federer to such a limit deserves my respect.

As for Federer vs. Nadal, it's a tough call. We'll have to see how much Djokovic has improved since the U.S. Open.

P.S. For those of you who missed it, the Federer-Tipsarević match is currently replying on ESPN.

NP|1.19.08 @ 2:51PM|#

For those of you who missed my dissection of Raimondo's piece, here it is. He actually bothered to reply, and here's my repartee to his repartee.

x,y|1.19.08 @ 3:01PM|#

So you're not going to answer the question?

I asked if Reason was going to respond to Raimondo's post. You said it had factual errors and thus wasn't worth responding to. I acknowledged the existence of those errors but countered that they have little to nothing to do with the essence and substance of his post. Your response is 100 percent off-topic.

The question remains: Will anyone at Reason respond (substantively) to Raimondo's post?

|1.19.08 @ 3:26PM|#

Will anyone at Reason respond (substantively) to Raimondo's post?

You are, of course, presuming there is actually substance to Raimondo's writings.

Which is a significant error on your part.

NP|1.19.08 @ 3:30PM|#

Dave (that's you, Weigel),

Petulant and paranoic as it was, Raimondo's piece does show pretty convincingly that many of the controversial quotes from the Paul newsletters are not as odious in full context as they seem in Kirchick's article. And he also raises the good point that you guys (that's you, Reason staffers) didn't give the materials enough scrutiny before firing away in your blog posts for every Netizen to see. If you haven't already I suggest that you check out my reply to Raimondo's piece (see my previous post) for what both he and Reason did right and wrong. And though the main strike against Ron Paul still remains (that he has yet to take "moral responsibility" for what was published under his name), I do think Reason should correct its misrepresentations of the (misrepresented) newsletter quotes if only to snuff out further cause for Raimondo's venom.

x,y,

I really don't mean to blow my horn too much, but do check out my reply to Raimondo's piece (links in my previous post) because he's not entirely accurate in his analysis, either.

x,y|1.19.08 @ 6:08PM|#

Thanks NP, I'll check it out. I'd still like to see Reason and Cato respond, though.

You are, of course, presuming there is actually substance to Raimondo's writings.

Which is a significant error on your part.

Did you even read Raimondo's post? It's full of substance. I'm not saying it's 100 percent accurate, but claiming that it lacks substance is ridiculous.*

*I realize you didn't refer to the specific post we're talking about. I hope you're being snarky.

|1.19.08 @ 6:23PM|#

If you haven't already noticed, Roddick is already out, though he played an excellent match.

Oh, that blows. I haven't had as much time to watch as I've wanted.

And although I forgot to mention it (doh!), I like Novak Djokovic's playing very much. I thought he'd do better against Federer at the US Open, since he had faced and defeated Roger before that championship match.

I want Rafa to win the championship, but I won't be disappointed if it's another Djokovic/Federer match, either. Inspiring to watch any of them play.

|1.19.08 @ 11:26PM|#

While we're talking about "context," let's remember that we're talking about a substantial number of statements here. That's part of the context in which we should consider the passages from the newsletters, too.

If I make one statement about black people that's a little offensive, maybe I get the benefit of doubt. Maybe I can unpack it and explain that it's not as odious in full context as it might appear at first blush.

But when you have a big pile of such quotes, it doesn't really matter that you can take each one of them in isolation and, by looking at it in just the right way, show that it's not so bad, really. The fact that you have to keep doing that over and over and over demonstrates 1) that you're got a problem, and 2) that you are aware enough of the racist content to make sure you write it in a manner that you can defend it.

Think of a poll that shows a 2% lead with a 3% margin of error. Now think of 50 polls that show the same candidate with a 2% lead, each of which has a 3% margin of error. Your confidence that you can draw a meanigful conclusion goes up considerably.

|1.19.08 @ 11:36PM|#

Hey, Jimmy in the back office said something that might-or-might-not be racist about black people. Again.

That dude does that every day. He's never come right out and called them n*ggers, though.

You know what you can conclude about Jimmy?

NP|1.20.08 @ 12:02AM|#

joe,

But when you have a big pile of such quotes, it doesn't really matter that you can take each one of them in isolation and, by looking at it in just the right way, show that it's not so bad, really. The fact that you have to keep doing that over and over and over demonstrates 1) that you're got a problem, and 2) that you are aware enough of the racist content to make sure you write it in a manner that you can defend it.

I actually make pretty much the same argument in my replies to Raimondo. (Follow the links in my earlier post if you're interested.) I only wanted to acknowledge that whatever its flaws (and there are a lot) his piece does raise a few good points regarding some of the quotes and Reason's rush to judgment.

NP|1.20.08 @ 12:18AM|#

Let me be more clear as to what Reason should do. They should admit the points I make above (that they did misrepresent some of the quotes and that they did not give them enough scrutiny before commenting on 'em), but at the same time they should stress that the newsletters did contain enough racist materials which Paul should have noticed and confronted, and that the crux of Reason's articles and posts (that Paul still has yet to take "moral responsibility") still stands.

NP|1.20.08 @ 12:35AM|#

Jim Bob,

Yeah, I thought Djokovic would do better against Federer myself, but let's not forget that the guy's only 20 yrs old. He's very much like Federer, an all-court player with no serious weaknesses, and it'll be interesting to see if he can take on Federer after he reaches his full maturity.

As for Rafa, he and Federer are actually pretty much neck and neck on hard courts (2-2, I think), so a win is certainly possible. Haven't seen much Rafa in this open, though, so I can't comment on what his chances are. We'll see what happens.

|1.20.08 @ 3:42AM|#

Plastic is code for "Mormon"

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements