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
Moneybomb, Part III
The Ron Paul grassroots have set today aside for the Free at Last moneybomb. It started
at midnight at $1,365,398.11. Nine and a half hours later, the
grassroots have donated about $400,000.
At this rate the campaign's going to fall far short of the haul
from the last two moneybombs (although still rake in more than a
Friday moneybomb by John Edwards fans, which raised around $1
million.) The Ron Paul forums seem chipper
enough:
The headline "100,000 Ron Paul Supporters donate on Martin Luther King Jr Day" is more impressive then saying $x dollars raised. Don't discourage small donations.
If the trend continues, I think it can be pinned on three things.
1. The Newsletters. This won't be the key reason, but it'll be a reason. Anecdotally, from personal contacts and contacts across the web, I know some casual Paul fans have given up supporting the campaign since this scandal. Many will still vote for him, but they're uncomfortable posting signs or giving him cash.
2. The Election Results. We hadn't had any primary by the day of the last moneybomb, and it was still possible for Paul fans to envision surprise 1st and 2nd place primary victories made possible by the cash infusions and the divided field. Nevada raised their spirits, (I ran into some Paul sign-posters yesterday who were giddy about it) but not as high as they were before New Hampshire.
3. The Campaign/Ads. Paul backers have become skeptical that their money will be used effectively. They've seen, and trashed, most of the TV ads run so far, and I've heard that up to $1.8 million was used on those controversial New Hampshire ads. They've bristled at the campaign's response to controversies and the difficulty it has had interjecting into the news cycle.
Taktix®|1.21.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Many will still vote for him, but they're uncomfortable
posting signs or giving him cash.
This looks like a nice spot, mind if I put my tent here?
|1.21.08 @ 10:18AM|#
What "scandal", David?
Do you mean the scandalous notion that, when the newsletter
statements are examined IN CONTEXT, it becomes apparent that you
and your fellow witch-hunters either ignored the context, or didn't
even bother to read the newsletters in their entirety before
breaking into Ron Paul-smearing song?
|1.21.08 @ 10:19AM|#
Amen to #3. I've been donating to the Albany Ron Paul PAC due to the official campaign's idiocy. It still gets spent on pro-Paul ads running here in NYS, which the Paul campaign is apparently conceding to Rudy.
|1.21.08 @ 10:21AM|#
Gee,
Ron Paul is apparently smearing himself too, because he said he
completely disagrees with what was written in the newsletters and
finds it abhorrent.
|1.21.08 @ 10:22AM|#
No one is going to listen to your beltway establishment crap anymore Weigel. There is no scandal. Only an engineered scandal you helped to manufacture. You're a shameless hack. Nothing more, nothing less. I suggest you and Julian Sanchez focus on the burning issue of gay marriage.
|1.21.08 @ 10:25AM|#
I have been donating with the mindset that Paul is using the
primaries to jump start a Independent race for the general election
where he will really make a difference. The GOP is a joke..
Candidates are picked by the parties by how much party arse they
kiss. Paul is not a kiss arse so is it any surprise they hate
him?
Bkusz
LBTS, Fla.
|1.21.08 @ 10:31AM|#
Oh yeah, and these money bombs are old news. The November 5 one made a huge splash, the Dec 16 one got some notice, but you're not going to get any coverage of them from now on. You can only go to that well so many times, guys.
|1.21.08 @ 10:32AM|#
To win Florida?
It's a tough balancing act for candidates like Paul, who aren't
running with the expection, even an outside one, of winning, and
who are running for the purpose of getting a message out and
influencing debate.
If they talk about some impending victory, they look deluded, and
set up their supporters for disappointment.
But if they don't, they risk not generating any enthusiasm.
Tough gig.
Chuck|1.21.08 @ 10:32AM|#
For what it's worth, I have seen very few campaign signs so far here in my part of Florida, and most of the ones I have seen have been Ron Paul signs (and quite a few RP bumper stickers). If Giuliani really is going to make a run here in FL he hasn't started it yet, as far as I can tell.
|1.21.08 @ 10:33AM|#
Ron Paul is apparently smearing himself too, because he said
he completely disagrees with what was written in the newsletters
and finds it abhorrent.
Ron Paul, cosmotarian. I hear he's even ridden on the Orange
Line.
Taktix®|1.21.08 @ 10:34AM|#
No one is going to listen to your beltway establishment crap
anymore Weigel. There is no scandal.
Yeah, you guys are right. There was no scandal, it was just Weigel
beaming TV reports to your cable boxes to discourage you. The rest
of the world has no idea the newsletters exist.
All those news stories, the New Republic article, the TV spots both
breaking the story and refuting it, they were all personalized
messages sent to the telescreens of Ron Paul supporters.
Kool-Aid drinkers,
Please clean the stupid out of your eyes and realize that there's
more at stake here than Ron Paul. If you really believe what he
stands for, more specifically the movement that most of you just
joined over the last few months, you'd understand that blindly
supporting someone is dangerous, and constructive criticism is far
move valuable than pretending nothing is wrong.
Oh, and I predict he'll still break at least $2.5 million when the
day's out...
|1.21.08 @ 10:35AM|#
speaking of putting it into context...Justin Raimondo has an
excellent article written on the matter. I think he unfairly
attacks Reason, but everything else is spot on. It's a good piece
of journalism.
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/
|1.21.08 @ 10:38AM|#
They don't think it's a scandal, crimethink, because they don't
think the columns are scandalous.
Why do you think the people who keep showing up to slam Reason
can't stop bringing up "teh gay" as they do so, and are the same
people filling this weekend's Martin Luther King threads with
attacks on the man?
|1.21.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Chuck,
unfortunately that doesn't mean anything other than the fact that
ron paul supporters are passionate. droves of ignorant proles will
come out of the woodwork to vote for the statists.
|1.21.08 @ 10:39AM|#
yes indeed,Money bombs do not get the Media's attention
anymore.
Mitt Romney raised 5 million dollars in 1 day
and the media barely covered it.
But we still need to support Ron Paul especially that he came
second in Nevada and more people are running for congress praising
his name!!!
Chuck|1.21.08 @ 10:39AM|#
Taktix--
I agree that some constructive criticism is necessary. OTOH, I have
seen too much of "OMG, I just can't support Ron Paul anymore after
this" for my taste (I do not blame any particular individual). I am
disturbed by the newsletters, but I am much more disturbed by the
stuff that Radley Balko posts here day after day, and so far I only
see one candidate who will do something about it.
Jon|1.21.08 @ 10:40AM|#
Re: #3 (the campaign/ads)
The latter sucks, and the former therefore sucks as well. There is
no campaign without ads. There is only a guy saying interesting
things, who has no hope of winning anything. Throwing money at the
former, therefore, is like burning money for fun.
Is it so hard to make professional looking tv spots? Not like money
is an object....
Tom Walls|1.21.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Chuck, you must not be from Florida. The correct abbreviation is
Fla., not FL.
FL is the trilateralist/USPS abbreviation.
Don't get me started on ZIP+4.
Chuck|1.21.08 @ 10:41AM|#
JL--
you're probably right. I just think it's odd that we keep hearing
about how Giuliani's big push will be here in Florida, and yet one
week before the primary we have seen nothing. Maybe he's focusing
on the east coast since that's where most of the displaced New
Yorkers end up.
anon|1.21.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Reason: If you are going to journalism, you should at least include the fact that the Free at Last campaign had a different stated goal. It originally advertised as an effort to get the most donors, not donations. In fact, it called on people to donate only 10 dollars. Now, many are donating more, but it's worth mentioning that the expectations were never to compete with the earlier money bombs in fund raising totals.
|1.21.08 @ 10:44AM|#
At this point, I'm beginning to think that a few less signs is a
good thing. They are beginning to get a bit obnoxious.
On tv ads, I have seen some volunteer created tv spots on YouTube
that were fantastic. The tv ads I have seen have been abysmal.
|1.21.08 @ 10:44AM|#
chuck,
romney's minions swooped in on michigan the night before the
primary and plastered the state with signs. they are sneaky like
that.
|1.21.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Hey look, the tReason beltway sellouts are writing about how
they teamed up with other beltwar, neoliberal warmongers to help
throw the Ron Paul rEVOLution, and the paleocons whom they hate,
under the bus.
FUCK YOU TREASON MAGAZINE. GO TO HELL.
You have a new legacy now tReason. The rEVOLution will remember how
you fucked them over.
Again, FUCK YOU TREASON MAGAZINE. You are nothing
but a bunch of fucking sellout cokehead beltway cocktail party
hipsters. Go run elbows with neocon/neolib warmongers you
sellouts.
I hope that Libertarianism is dead and you sunshine patriots and
fair-weather warriors at tReason helped kill it.
Chuck|1.21.08 @ 10:45AM|#
Tom-
Mea culpa. For penance, I will now hit myself over the
head 100 times with my copy of the Constitution engraved in stone.
In my defense, I can only point out that FL takes two keystrokes,
while Fla. takes 4. When you are a two-finger typist like I am, it
matters. :-)
anon|1.21.08 @ 10:45AM|#
So there was a big change only in the last few days of the
advertising for the event. Up until now, it was a $10 event.
Still, it's going to raise probably 1 to 1.5 million today. I'm
sure Reason wishes it could do so poorly in fundraising.
|1.21.08 @ 10:46AM|#
The biggest money bomb ever will be the tax rebate bomb. Ron Paul funded by the very same government that wishes to exclude him. Priceless!
|1.21.08 @ 10:47AM|#
Just do not complain later when the business as usual gets elected and your phony paper notes are worthless, your costs for oil are out of site, and your standing in a soup line somewhere waiting for government handouts... just like 1929. Does anybody think things have changed? You can contemplate the Ron Paul speeches while counting your new Ameros. Without people understanding what is going on in our government, the banksters always win. Go Ron Go 2008
|1.21.08 @ 10:48AM|#
from personal contacts and contacts across the web, I know
some casual Paul fans have given up supporting the campaign since
this scandal.
While the reason staff are gnashing their teeth and rending their
clothes over the antique newsletter scandal, Glenn
Greenwald is posting about Harry Reid ramming unlimited government
surveillance and telecom immunity through the Senate.
Guess which of those two issues I'm more concerned about.
|1.21.08 @ 10:49AM|#
For me, I think the main issue is that it is obvious no matter
what we are paul does the media will ignore it. He got 2nd in
nevada the other day and foxnews dosnt even mention him in the
results, but they do publish 10 year old newsletters he didnt even
write.
It is just obvious we the people dont get to decide who the
president is, the corperate media does, so this isnt a democracy.
The media tells us who we will elect, we dont get to choose. It is
a corperate dictatorship. I will still donate today as my little
way of telling the establishment to f--- off.
|1.21.08 @ 10:51AM|#
Remember, you can't spell rEVOLution without "FUCK YOU, we'll
rember who were were when the revolution comes."
Feel the EVOL.
Taktix®|1.21.08 @ 10:52AM|#
Maybe he's focusing on the east coast since that's where
most of the displaced New Yorkers end up.
Being on the East Coast (Fort Lauderdale), yes, he has been
basically living here in the Miami-Fort Lauderdale area for the
last few weeks.
I am starting to see some Rudy stuff, but not a whole lot. But
there's a ton of Paul stuff around, probably at a ratio of
*40:1.
And despite Rudy's "push" he's still trailing Huckabee. Remember,
there old people and then there's Florida-old people.
Rudy could lose voters just because he didn't promise to make a
Florida a 55-and over state or some crap. And the odds of these old
people getting to the polls safely are about *1:290.
It sure will be nice when the "wave of retirees" subsides.
*These numbers courtesy of the Taktix® Hyperbole Institute, 2008,
all rights reserved...
|1.21.08 @ 10:52AM|#
I'm sure Reason wishes it could do so poorly in
fundraising.
tReason wants the revolution to fail because it didn't originate
from the minds of the sellout cocaine snorting beltway wonk
cosmotarians.
Go wonk out about seat belt laws or something you fucking losers,
the revolution will still end up doing the job you sellouts haven't
been able to get close to getting done in over 20 years. When the
Ron Paul 2.0 comes it will be squeaky fucking clean and won't be
some sellout cosmotarian seat belt wonk. It will also remember who
its friends are, i.e. not the Orange Line sellouts
at tReason and STATO.
The revolution isn't over.
|1.21.08 @ 10:52AM|#
At this point anyone who contributes to Ron Paul has got to be
aware that their names will be on his contributor's list. And with
the aura of bigotry around Paul via Lew Rockwell, people may have
second thoughts about being on FEC records.
Look at Reason H&R Blog. We have people here who do not even
post under their own names. They use silly names, or
initials.
Given that, who would want their names on a donor list of a highly
controversial Presidential candidate with quasi-racist ties?
|1.21.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Given that, who would want their names on a donor list of a
highly controversial Presidential candidate with quasi-racist
ties?
Obviously not a fair weather warrior such as yourself. I don't give
a shit about the FEC, but as an "anti-establishment" type, you sure
seem to care about what the state thinks of you. OH NOES!!! SOMEONE
MIGHT SEE I DONATED TO RON PAUL!!
Anyone who is "scared" of having their name on Ron Paul's donor
list is a pussy.
|1.21.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Yeah Kevin, he got second in Nevada alright, with 3 TIMES LESS
THE VOTES THAN MITT ROMNEY.
And he was TIED! for second in Nevada with McCain.
This, despite the fact that Paul put everything on a win in NV. He
campaigned there, made major radio buys. McCain didn't even visit
the State not even once. And still he managed to tie Paul.
If Ron Paul can't win in Nevada, a State full of
conspiratorialists, tax protestors, gambling enthusiasts and the
gold bug/hard money crowd, just where can he win?
Taktix®|1.21.08 @ 10:57AM|#
Do I smell a cauldron of tar boiling in here?
Sorry 'bout that, I did the Indian buffet yesterday...
|1.21.08 @ 10:58AM|#
1. The Newsletters.
2. The Election Results.
3. The Campaign/Ads.
Check, check, and check.
I'm still driving the Paul Mobile and I'll vote for him. But he's
out $1,300 I had set aside. Because...
Partly because of his non-response to the newsletters. But
also...
His poor showing in New Hampshire and South Carolina have shown
that all his campaigning has failed to win over any of the
independent or undecided vote. The ineffectiveness of the campaign
can be laid in large part at the feet of...
WTF? campaign ads. Paul's performance in the debates was good from
the start and getting better. But the MSM sidelined Paul from the
beginning and continued to do so culminating in excluding him in
NH. His big war chest put up by us loyal supporters should have
been his equalizer. So why run as McCain lite? Paul's entire raison
d'etre is that the GOP has lost its way. So why try so hard to look
just like them?
Chuck|1.21.08 @ 10:59AM|#
Hey Taktix,
If your band ever gets over to the Ft. Myers/Naples area, I'll come
see you play. I bookmarked the web site.
PS--the wave of retirees ain't gonna subside for a long time yet.
With real estate prices coming down, it will probably get
worse.
|1.21.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Do I smell a cauldron of tar boiling in here?
Nobody at beltway hipsters at tReason can smell anything with their
noses filled with coke and Marty Peretz's pubic hairs.
PC|1.21.08 @ 11:01AM|#
Given that, who would want their names on a donor list of a
highly controversial Presidential candidate with quasi-racist
ties?
-------------------
Dondero,
What about their resume?
|1.21.08 @ 11:02AM|#
I'll put my name on that list. Ron Paul is not a racist, there
is no scandal and only those who are devisive would perpetrate such
garbage...especially those who are really afraid he's going to
win...
I'm liking it...put my name at the top of the list.
|1.21.08 @ 11:02AM|#
I am going to donate later today. $100 just like last time. I do not make a whole lot of money, I work plenty though. I am totally remodeling my house(myself)and paying rent 'til it's done. So i have budgeted myself to spare this money so Dr. Paul can do with it as he pleases. I trust him. That's why I will vote for him. He is honest, he does not beat around the bush and most importantly he is the best candidate to fix this situation we are in. People just do not understand money and the principles associated with it and the economy. The other candidates know this, why do you think they don't ask you to research or recommend monetary policy literature? They would prefer you took their word for it. Look, i'm no financial expert, but i'm learning alot. Ron Paul is an economic expert, the only expert running for president. All other issues revolve around the economy, that is why the economy is so important. The war and our current economic crisis go hand in hand, alot of people try to separate the two for the purpose of prolonging the very profitable offensive. I know, i'm probably preaching to the choir...just letting you guy know I will be here no matter what.
Tom Walls|1.21.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Hey, Chuck, it's alright. Restrain yourself from self-flagellation; just remember those two extra keystrokes in Fla. are powerful blows for the cause of liberty.
|1.21.08 @ 11:10AM|#
Well, I'll throw some bucks his way. I think I can toss him a
couple hundred more skins before I hit the limit.
I've never believed he was going to win the nomination anyway, but
I'm all for keeping him in the public eye as long as possible. Just
as an irritant, if nothing else....
iowan|1.21.08 @ 11:10AM|#
At this point anyone who contributes to Ron Paul has got to
be aware that their names will be on his contributor's list. And
with the aura of bigotry around Paul via Lew Rockwell, people may
have second thoughts about being on FEC records.
I have contributed and am not ashamed of it. I am still planning to
attend the county convention to vote for Ron Paul.
Look at Reason H&R Blog. We have people here who do not
even post under their own names. They use silly names, or
initials.
There is more than one reason for posting online under an alias.
Privacy is one, but not the only one.
|1.21.08 @ 11:11AM|#
eric,
the fact that a "second tier" canidate placed first "tier" in a
major state is newsworthy. if rudy guliani was to place that well
it would have been huge news. surely you see that the media is
ignooring him on purpose. wether you agree with him or not is
irrelevant, the issue is that the media is not "reporting" whats
going on in the election, but that they are interfearing with the
electoral process.
that is treason.
Chuck|1.21.08 @ 11:12AM|#
whack...ugh!...27...
whack...ow!...28...
whack...unf!...29...
Whew! Thanks, Tom! I was getting a headache.
|1.21.08 @ 11:13AM|#
Frank, we're just at the very beginning stages of this growing
Ron Paul scandal. They haven't even touched on Paul's books yet,
also ghostwritten by Rockwell. Much the same sort of
writings.
Also, there are the financial questions from past campaigns.
You are aware that a woman went to jail for 6 months from the 1988
Presidential campaign for embezzlement, right? There were a lot of
unanswered questions left over from that whole incident. Back then
donors wanted an accounting of where all the $3.5 million they
raised went too. They never got it.
My bet, the media will turn to that incident next, and also to the
1992 Presidential Exploratory Comm. where they raised nearly
$100,000. Again, no post-campaign accounting done.
The Newsletter deal is just the tip of the iceberg.
NP|1.21.08 @ 11:14AM|#
JL,
Raimondo's piece does raise a few good points, but it's far from
the last word on the Paul newsletters. If you're interested check
out my dissection of the piece here. See his reply
here
and my re-reply here.
pugnint|1.21.08 @ 11:15AM|#
"Nine and a half hours later, the grassroots have donated
about $400,000."
"At this rate the campaign's going to fall far
short...."
Yeah, it shows a definite lack of enthusiasm, that Ron Paul
supporters didn't set their alarm clocks to wake up in the dead of
the night to make their donations.
What a bunch of lazy degenerates.
I at least expected to see 5 million donated at 12:01 AM, EST
|1.21.08 @ 11:16AM|#
Hey dumbdero, you know, it's possible to not be a neo-con, or
neo-lib, or cokehead, or "lifestyle libertarian", or "beltway
establishment type" and still be concerned about what was going on
with the newsletters.
I consider myself bordering on anarcho-capitalist; I don't want the
government meddling in anything I decide to do with my life, or
anyone else's.
With that said, and even stipulating that Ron Paul is the best
candidate that an anarchist could hope for, it's still possible to
be concerned about what was written in those newsletters. Ok, fine,
he didn't write them, he repudiates them, everything he says and
has said for years speaks to his character. But to say "There's
nothing to see here, just move along" is just dumb. And there's no
denying that it has affected some people's choice. It's not just
Reason who's been saying stuff about the newsletters or talking
about racism in the same sentence as the doctor. We know that
Paul's fans are very net savvy and do lots of research all over the
net, so have found this info in many places other than Reason. I
know I sure did.
Would I vote for anyone but Paul? Nope. Will I vote for Paul?
Dunno. Will the newsletters be the deciding factor if I don't vote
for him. Not likely. Will they figure into the overall
vote-decision-calculus. Yup. And not because of Reason or Kirchick.
This was out there for anyone to find. It was found. Now it has to
be dealt with.
|1.21.08 @ 11:17AM|#
Another Amen on number 3.
I've given Paul a modest $50 so far (significantly more than my
lifetime political donation total before last year of $0.)
At no point did I really think that Paul could win, but the beauty
of keeping the campaign going is that it should keep libertarian
ideas in discussion for a little longer. This is why it's so
dissappointing to see the campaign use the money for shitty adds
that tell people all the issues where Paul is just like other
Republicans.
Now that it should be pretty clear to the campaign that Paul's not
actually going to win, hopefully they will start targeting those of
us who are unhappy with the direction this country is going in,
instead of targeting the R base, which was never going to pick Paul
in vote for Paul in the first place.
Tom Walls|1.21.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Hey Eric, which books do you think would present a problem? I
don't recall anything with the tone of some of the paleo-themed
newsletters.
If anything, the typos were scandalous. Hell, even the
title of Freedom Under Seige (SIC) had a typo in it.
svf|1.21.08 @ 11:20AM|#
Well, I donated again today in spite of it all.
#1... eh. #2... eh. But #3...
Yes, the "official" ads have sucked.
The strategy was clearly to fish for votes from the pro-life,
pro-troops, pro-God GOP base. I guess it was worth a try. It hasn't
worked.
The exit polls so far confirm that RP voters are Independents, not
lifelong Repubs. They are not motivated by religion. They are
anti-war. They are concerned about the economy. And they are
anti-establishment period.
I really hope the campaign uses most of what's left of their money
to create and run some new ads (or even just ONE new ad) that speak
to the things that have made Ron Paul the "maverick, upstart,
renegade" phenom he is. (especially if he does end up making an
Independent bid -- 0.01% chance per RP.)
Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think very many people hopped on the
rEVOLution bandwagon because Ron Paul is a grandfatherly baby
doctor from Texas.
Don't water it down. Raise some hell!
[ $55K from breaking $2M for the quarter as of 11:15 EST... ]
Greg Sarnowski|1.21.08 @ 11:20AM|#
Reason has lost me as a subscriber for life, and I'm only 22. You people are pathetic establishment sellouts.
|1.21.08 @ 11:21AM|#
Face it, Reason. You don't hate gay people and drug users enough
to be Real Libertarians.
Philosophical question: does it count as blog whoring if NP keeps
linking from one comment thread to another on the same blog? What
is the sound of one-blog-whoring?
Tom Walls|1.21.08 @ 11:22AM|#
Blumel and I are on the donors' list. You know, it's funny, there's also a Kyle Dondero of Georgia.
|1.21.08 @ 11:23AM|#
Greg Sarnowski
Reason has lost me as a subscriber for life, and I'm only 22. You
people are pathetic establishment sellouts.
Drink!
(I think calling for a drink has also risen to the level of calling
for a drink)
|1.21.08 @ 11:25AM|#
maybe its the whole MLK plagiarism thing. i dont really feel the need to celebrate king when he plagiarized at least a third of his doctoral dissertation and a shitload of his speeches. it does seem a little bit weird associating ron paul with a southern baptist minister, anyways. then again, there's vietnam.
|1.21.08 @ 11:26AM|#
With all the shots Reason has taken from the Paul supporters, I
must say that I believe the mag has approached the newletter issue
with admirable restraint.
It would have been irresponsible to ignore the controversy. And I
believe the reporting has been fair (the blogging was obviously
rushed in the hours following the TNR story breaking, but that's an
inherent flaw in blogs).
Further, I can't help but wonder if the shots from the peanut
gallery aren't, at least in some tiny way, professionally
motivated. After all, a gig at CATO or Reason has more prestige
(and probably pays a lot better, even at Reason!) than one at, say,
antiwar.com. And I'm sure CATO and Reason have changed a lot more
minds than the fringe Web sites.
I also think the Paul boosters fail to understand that Reason
(IMHO) aims to be a rational supporter of, but not a cheerleader
for, libertarianism. Self-criticism is a part of the mission.
So keep up the good work, Reasonoids.
As for me, I thought about looking for a spot at the Taktix
campground, but maybe I'll just go back to my compound and pull up
the gate again.
P.S. Had the Paul campaign been well-managed and had Paul pulled
reasonable numbers in New Hampshire, the newsletter dust-up would
be but a distant memory - again, just MHO.
|1.21.08 @ 11:27AM|#
Ya know, I used to like this magazine. One thing about this campaign season, it sure has shown where the stench of rotting flesh is coming from. I owe Ron Paul my thanks for that if nothing else.
|1.21.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Never heard that before. Amazing. It's gone unmentioned until
now.
Is the media just starting to read his books. They might finally
learn something. They'll have to dig deep...because Ron Paul is NOT
a racist.
Actually, it's good that these types of articles are written. MSM
doesn't want to report the impact he is having on the elections,
his results and the critical thinking that has been spurred by Ron
Paul. Just the distortions they make up. Then people want to know
more about Ron Paul. Most like him once they do their own
studying.
I think this is actually helping us immensely. Keep stirring the
pot.
Frank Castaldini
|1.21.08 @ 11:35AM|#
Lemme walk through this:
We should ignore Ron Paul's contributions to racist hatemongering
because of what he would like to accomplish in the political
realm.
But we should ignore Martin Luther King's accomoplishments in the
political realm because of his persona life.
And the only people who were ever truly supportive of Ron Paul's
message are those who passionately disagree with Ron Paul's
statements about Martin Luther King, and the racism in those
newsletters in toto. Only the people who denounce, er, what Ron
Paul has to say on those subjects ever had a principled commitment
to Ron Paul.
I'd say the fact that this blow-up took place around the time of
the MKL holiday has proven very enlightening.
|1.21.08 @ 11:37AM|#
John McCain: "The issue of economics is not something I've
understood as well as I should. I've got Greenspan's book."
Well, you've had how long to bone up on the subject? This shit is
why I'm supporting Ron Paul. I donated this morning, even though,
with proper handling from a professional campaign
coordinator, he could easily be polling much higher.
anon|1.21.08 @ 11:38AM|#
And for the record, I actually agree with the premise of this
blog post on an anecdotal level. I'm not donating today for these
exact three reasons. (Although I never expected a great showing
from Dr. Paul in the vote counts; I just wish the campaign was
better managed and that's why I still think #2 has merit.) I just
think it has little explanatory power about what the meaning of
today's fundraising effort is if it doesn't match the previous 4
and 6 mill efforts.
We spend a ton of time dealing with statistical distributions when
we talk about polls, etc., but we think somehow these fundraising
efforts are immune from just some natural, benign variance. I call
bullshit.
Second, as I mentioned above, the event was for the longest time
advertised as a day for the most donors, not donations. It wasn't
until (quite recently) that Dr. Paul made public mention of the
event that the goal was changed to not focus on just $10 donations
from a lot of people.
So while I agree with the three points having given some Paul
supporters (the less fanatical ones) pause, I just think it's far
from conclusive that it means much of anything for today's
fundraising. If the numbers exceed my expectations and get near 2.5
million (I'd expect more like 1-1.5 million), I'm hard pressed to
really see this as an "issue". Probably more reasonable explanation
is the natural variance these things have and the fact that the
grass roots aren't big money donors. $100 bucks is not so easy for
a lot of people. They can't give every time the call comes, even if
they want to.
Brett|1.21.08 @ 11:38AM|#
So far today about $600,000 has been donated.
At this point on Dec 16th over 2 million had been donated and on
Nov 5th 1.5 million.
So maybe 2 million is a realistic estimate for today's total.
|1.21.08 @ 11:39AM|#
It's as simple as this: He has no chance of winning and that reality is settling in (and I'm a RP supporter).
|1.21.08 @ 11:40AM|#
NOD to Pugnint...I love it..I am not supporting(donating)RP because of the bandwagon effect, or that he may or may not make TV ads employing slick marketing and Hollywood techniques, that may or may not sway the masses. I support RP because of the Message...... The power of RP is what hes stands for ....The Message...win loose or draw I still support RP. He is brave, and I love the fact that in the debates hes the only one not pandering to the camera making statements that probably originated south of the Belt line.
The Ron Paul Survival Report|1.21.08 @ 11:42AM|#
At a recent World AIDS Conference in Japan, researchers admitted what I have long told you: there is no prospect of a cure or vaccine for AIDS...
Researchers also admitted that they had been lying about the incidence of heterosexual AIDS to increase funding for homosexual programs.
Those who don't commit sodomy, who don't get a blood transfusion, and who don't swap needles, are virtually assured of not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a malicious gay...
Despite all government propaganda about hugging and kissing AIDS patients, the virus can enter through a mere break in the skin.
VM|1.21.08 @ 11:45AM|#
@joe | January 21, 2008, 11:35am
and somehow to connect the two, it involves repeated
vomiting.
and dontcha love the "you're a neokon" accusations. as soon as that
gets thrown to the reason crowd, you know what you're up
against...
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 11:46AM|#
Steve, a gig at AntiWar.com not as well paying as Cato or
Reason?
Don't be so sure. Many believe that Raimondo's AntiWar.com is a
fully-owned subsidiary of George Soros. And as we all know Soros
pays quite well.
Chuck|1.21.08 @ 11:48AM|#
Those who don't commit sodomy, who don't get a blood
transfusion, and who don't swap needles, are virtually assured of
not getting AIDS unless they are deliberately infected by a
malicious gay...
Despite all government propaganda about hugging and kissing AIDS
patients, the virus can enter through a mere break in the
skin.
Don't these two paragraphs sort of contradict each other?
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 11:49AM|#
Tom, you need to re-read Freedom under "Seige". There's some
very Rockwellian quotes in there, particularly on Gays.
I remember back in 1988 the book made some Libertarians cringe. And
that was Pre-PC late 1980s. Today, in 2008, reading Freedom Under
"Seige" is quite an eye opener. Not quite racist or homophobic, but
definitely NOT a sensitive tome, particularly towards gays and
minorities.
|1.21.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Some libertarian efforts to refute the New Republic
charges:
Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul
by Justin Raimondo. (Highly critical of Reason and Cato as well as
TNR.)
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/
Ron Paul is Not A Bigot: Refuting the New Republic Charges
by James W. Harris
(Defends Paul, makes the case for supporting him.)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_w__080116_ron_paul_is_not_a_bi.htm
Libertarians Set to Wreck Themselves over Ron Paul
(Criticizes some libertarian organization, defends and urges
support for Paul.)
by James Herbert
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_greg_alb_080116_libertarians_set_to_.htm
DavidS|1.21.08 @ 11:54AM|#
You can read a PDF of Freedom Under Siege here - can't see anything especially 'eye opening'...
iowan|1.21.08 @ 11:59AM|#
We should ignore Ron Paul's contributions to racist
hatemongering because of what he would like to accomplish in the
political realm.
No.
But we should ignore Martin Luther King's accomoplishments in
the political realm because of his persona life.
No.
And the only people who were ever truly supportive of Ron
Paul's message are those who passionately disagree with Ron Paul's
statements about Martin Luther King, and the racism in those
newsletters in toto. Only the people who denounce, er, what Ron
Paul has to say on those subjects ever had a principled commitment
to Ron Paul.
No.
I'd say the fact that this blow-up took place around the time
of the MKL holiday has proven very enlightening.
I posted a message before the newsletter flap started that said it
was higly risky to use MLK's birthday as the target date for a
money bomb.
My opinion, which is on negligible value, Ron Paul rented out is
his name to some good friends. Ron was an absentee landlord, and
his friends trashed his name when he wasn't paying attention. Ron
has publicly stated the newsletters did not reflect his views and
that he is morally responsible for letting his friends use his name
in this fashion. Ron has steadfastly refused to chastise his
friends by name in public (there is a certain type of integrity
involved in not letting the blame get shifted to his friends and
then standing out of the way).
I supported Ron Paul and will continue to support Ron Paul, because
this is the first time in nearly 30 years that a candidate with
some level of national support has so clearly espoused the theory
of government that I adamantly support.
I have also been deeply dissapointed in the advertising that has
been produced to date which I think directly resulted in his poort
showing at the polls.
On the whole, trying to reconcile Ron's past with a vote for him
today is easier that trying to justify any previous vote for an LP
candidate over the last 7 presidential cycles.
|1.21.08 @ 12:02PM|#
Dondero: "Look at Reason H&R Blog. We have people here who
do not even post under their own names. They use silly names, or
initials."
That's rich, Rittberg.
|1.21.08 @ 12:03PM|#
NP,
the fact of the matter is, much of it was taken out of context and
criticized from a PC perspective. This leave a handful of quotes
that I find in poor taste, and it's clear to anyone who knows Ron
Paul's writing style, that he did not write it. what else could he
possibly say to make it any better? to call this a scandal is
grossly exaggerated.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 12:04PM|#
Tom, just thumbing through Ron Paul's Freedom Under "Seige" from
1988, I found this little quote:
"Ever year new groups organize to demand their rights. White people
who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are
quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic,
Black and Jewish caucuses can exist in the US Congress, but not a
white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for
individual rights."
Whew! Perhaps in 1988 making such a statement was still acceptable.
But in 2008, it sounds awfully insensitive, almost like something
you'd see on David Duke's website.
Certainly, one can garner that that was ghostwriten by Lew
Rockwell. That's his style, and matches his political views
splendidly.
Johncjackson3rd- VP Cosmotaria|1.21.08 @ 12:04PM|#
I never thought it would come to the point where Eric Dondero makes more sense than 90% of Ron paul "supporters."
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 12:05PM|#
Gee, my full name is Eric Dondero Rittberg. A bit cumbersome for me to use the whole thing. But if you want, I'll post under that from now on. Would that make you happy?
DavidS|1.21.08 @ 12:08PM|#
I posted a message before the newsletter flap started that
said it was higly risky to use MLK's birthday as the target date
for a money bomb.
Risky, yes. But you have to admire the chutzpah.
Paul published first person screeds in which he agrees with J Edgar
Hoover that MLK was 'the most dangerous man in history'.
Now, accepting Paul's claim that he didn't write or even read these
screeds, it takes some gall to use MLK's name to raise money to
further his [Paul's] political career.
|1.21.08 @ 12:09PM|#
The biggest money bomb ever will be the tax rebate
bomb.
Don't forget the "economic stimulus check" money bomb!
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Tom, if you think the above quote from Ron Paul's 1988 book is
bad, you should see some of the stuff on Gays and the AIDS crisis.
Remember back in 1988 we were at the height of the Crisis. And Ron
Paul (Lew Rockwell) used all the hate mongering rhetoric on Gays
fashionable at that time in the book.
Amazing that the media, and Reason have focused so much on the
Newsletters and ignored Paul's book. There's 8 books written by
Paul. Most are economics, gold standard stuff. But the ones that
focus on broader issues such as social matters have some statements
in there that are quite alarming.
|1.21.08 @ 12:10PM|#
Eric,
By the way...which of the other candidates are you favoring at this
time. If you voted today, who would you vote for. Don't know if
you've made it public but I think it would be useful.
Mine is public. Ron Paul. In fact, if he is not on the ballot in
November, I'll be writing him in.
Thanks
Frank Castaldini
iowan|1.21.08 @ 12:11PM|#
"Ever year new groups organize to demand their rights. White
people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups
are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic,
Black and Jewish caucuses can exist in the US Congress, but not a
white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for
individual rights."
tactless perhaps, but essentially true
DavidS|1.21.08 @ 12:16PM|#
the fact of the matter is, much of it was taken out of
context and criticized from a PC perspective.
That's simply a barefaced lie.
if you think the above quote from Ron Paul's 1988 book is bad,
you should see some of the stuff on Gays and the AIDS crisis.
Remember back in 1988 we were at the height of the Crisis. And Ron
Paul (Lew Rockwell) used all the hate mongering rhetoric on Gays
fashionable at that time in the book.
While there is some truly repellent stuff on AIDS in the
newsletters (much of it backed up by "Trust me, I am a doctor
statements"), I can't anything even remotely similar in Paul's 1988
book.
There is a paragraph opposing federally funded research and care,
but it hardly qualifies as 'hate mongering'.
The individual suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim --
frequently a victim of his own lifestyle -- but this same
individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing
them to pay for his care.
Roger.|1.21.08 @ 12:17PM|#
Eric Dondero writes: Gee, my full name is Eric Dondero
Rittberg.
Why not your first name and surname if you are so keen on not
misrepresenting yourself? You're not one of those
self-hating folks with semitic blood, are you?
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 12:19PM|#
Frank, I will be voting for Rudy Giuliani in the Texas Primary. If he does not make it to Texas, I'll be voting for Mitt Romney.
DavidS|1.21.08 @ 12:19PM|#
he didn't choose that day. his supporters did.
If you read his website, there's a message from Paul begging for
money "on a day dedicated to the memory of Martin Luther King, the
great champion of non-violence at home, peace abroad, and civil
disobedience against tyrannical government."
Perhaps someone else wrote that for him, though.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Another blurb from Ron Paul's Freedom Under "Seige" 1988:
The individual suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim --
frequently a victim of his own
lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens
by forcing
them to pay for his care.
We Know Which Persons to Thank|1.21.08 @ 12:20PM|#
Lew Rockwell for writing racist trash
Ron Paul for not exercising judgement and disapproving it...and for
not throwing Rockwell off the bus
So, Lew, thanks for nothing. You screwed us.
The New Republic didn't invent what Lew wrote and Ron signed. They
found it and it got on CNN and the whole damn world saw it. Some of
our friends who had been friendly to Ron's campaign distanced
themselves - and it's hard to blame them- and we are seeing a fall
off in support.
Thanks, Rockwell. Now go screw yourself.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 12:21PM|#
Skimmed the comments, saw some really funny stuff, on both
sides.
But, IMO the big reason RP's Money Bomb has lost steam is that a
lot of supporters are in Tap City. They got no more money.
Or the budget says no 'cuz the credit card statements from
Christmas are beginning to arrive.
Me? I could give him a little more but since he didn't flash my
name on the Recent Donor screen last time I plan to pout
for a while.
I also was intrigued with Crimethink's method of getting around the
alleged inexperience of the campaign by contributing to a PAC
instead. That isn't a bad approach.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Frank, if John McCain is the Nominee on the Republican side, I'll be voting Libertarian in the Fall, assuming that they nominate Wayne Root. If they nominate Losertarians like Kubby or Phillies, I'll hold my nose and vote McCain.
crw|1.21.08 @ 12:22PM|#
Y'know, a lot of the arguments I see coming out of the Paulbots
reminds me a lot of arguments I see on tech forums. It's pure
fanboy/girlism at its best. Especially the arguments that anyone
posting criticism of your favored must be on the take of the
opposition. Sad. It makes me think David Brooks (gag) was right
this weekend when he stated most people make their political
decisions emotionally, then rationalize later.
The whole reason I enjoy Reason (heh) is precisely because they're
willing to take a step back and apply some critical thought. And
they welcome a variety of broadly libertarian-ish opinions, instead
of hewing strictly to 90/90 Nolan Chart dogma.
Ken Hagler|1.21.08 @ 12:26PM|#
Joe wrote:
"Face it, Reason. You don't hate gay people and drug users enough
to be Real Libertarians."
I know he meant that as a joke, but four years ago I had an email
exchange with one of the Rockwell.com folks in which he actually
did say that Reason doesn't hate gay people enough to be Real
Libertarians. (Specifically, that Reason doesn't "favor upholding
the moral prohibition on homosexuality.")
|1.21.08 @ 12:27PM|#
I would argue that the civil war for which the Ron Paul crack-up
has been the catalyst was a historical inevitability from the
beginning of the libertarian movement. We're paying the price for
our "coalitions" - and I don't just mean membership in the
conservative coalition of Ronald Reagan, I mean for the fact that
libertarianism itself is a coalition of disparate groups with
radically different cultural views - e.g. the two more "mainstream"
divisions already trotted out here, but also a variety of others:
gold bugs, anarchists, techno-utopians, Objectivists, community
secessionists, anti-state socialists, anti-state dominionists,
movement anti-communists, conspiracy nuts. There are two ways of
looking at this - at any given time we can all be devoted to the
rollback of the state at the expense of sentiment, or we can be
devoted to our disparate cultural values and inimical to one
another. We're currently in the latter mode.
That said, I still think comparison Reason to The New
Republic is unfair. Yeah, Reason skipped as fast as
they could to distance themselves from Ron Paul's newsletters, and
I don't totally blame some of y'all who think that was a craven
move and are mad about it. However, let's keep in mind that
whatever the cultural distance between one another, The New
Republic represents the other side of a gulf that is both
cultural and political. There may be no other popular
journal in America that has been more consistently inimical to
libertarians and Libertarians both. Even National Review,
the intellectual leaders of a movement that has in the past written
us off as as "useful idiots" (i.e. Stalin's notion) keeps John
Derbyshire around and writing. The New Republic, on the
other hand, is a leftist magazine that emits a loathsome odor of
social populism and has in the past enthusiastically embraced such
ideas as "the Daddy State" and launched ideological assaults on
whatever strains of anti-statism remained in the left. I contend
that if you are a libertarian of any shade whatsoever, The New
Republic are the Enemy and should be treated as such.
DavidS|1.21.08 @ 12:27PM|#
That's simply a barefaced lie.
have you read Raimondo's article?
Yes. But, more to the point, I've read the newsletters and letters
that have been posted online.
"I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me.
Threats or not 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)..." etc etc
anon|1.21.08 @ 12:27PM|#
"It makes me think David Brooks (gag) was right this weekend
when he stated most people make their political decisions
emotionally, then rationalize later."
Most honest people know that sentimentalism is unfortunately the
lens of today. No one's convinced me yet that it doesn't explain a
heck of a lot of the primary season so far.
|1.21.08 @ 12:28PM|#
but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by
forcing
them to pay for his care.
One could also say that about anyone with lung cancer.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 12:29PM|#
The individual suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim --
frequently a victim of his own
lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens
by forcing
them to pay for his care.
Yes that's a harsh statement, clearly the author never took a Dale
Carnegie class.
But my question is this:
Do libertarians support the idea of tax paid medical care?
Do libertarians believe that individuals have a right to make their
own lifestyle choices and do we expect individuals to accept the
consequences of their choices regardless of the how the choices
work out?
Roger|1.21.08 @ 12:31PM|#
Rittberg: A couple comments on your piss-poor written
rhetoric.
1) Your initial persuasive propaganda points that provide a
moderately PC-offensive viewpoint are a good starting point. Time
after time you then submit that this is "just the tip of the
iceberg".
2) Your efforts to be persuasive then fall very flat and begin to
work against you when the additional quotes that are hyped as being
"worse" than the first several quotes you provide, and they are
really not significantly farther under the ocean like you imply or
suggest with your iceberg comment.
Keep working at it, little buddy, maybe you might hone your skills
enough to become a town treasurer at the apex of your political
career.
|1.21.08 @ 12:32PM|#
Lew Rockwell has proven to be a malignant influence.
1) He and the paleo crowd convinced Pat Buchanan who in 1988 when
he wrote his "Right From the Beginning" was a pretty straight
forward mainstream conservative. But lew, Murray had him hang out
with Samuel Francis and the John Randolph "beer hall"
conservatives(no joke they called themselves that) and Pat tried
and ran in 1992 on hate, fear and that America First crap.
2)Ron Paul- If Rockwell was a real friend of Ron"s he would admit
it and let this issue die and instead he let's this newsletter
stuff hang around his neck so that many people who would otherwise
probably vote for Ron Paul are now afraid to be do it.
3)Posting on his website outright socialists like Aleander
Cockburn, John Pilger and Noam Chomsky. I wonder what Von Mises
would think about the CEO of an Institute bearing his name
associating indirectly his name with socialists? If have a feeling
in Von Mises and Rockwell make it to heaven, I can see Von Mises
telling St. Peter at the gates, "Just give me 5 minutes with
him.....and a rubber hose"
DavidS|1.21.08 @ 12:33PM|#
Yes that's a harsh statement
It's not really that harsh - and it's as bad as Eric
Dondero can find in 180 pages or so.
I don't think he expected the PDF to be online and hoped to be able
to get away by pretending there was something really extreme in
there.
It makes me despair. On the one hand, you have idiots pretending
that the newsletters are just a bit of clean knockabout, when they
read like a libertarian Mein Kampf.
And on the other, you have Dondero trying to gin up a scandal where
it doesn't exist.
NP|1.21.08 @ 12:36PM|#
JL,
Yes, some of the offensive materials were taken out of context, but
his defense of the other quotes doesn't fly at all. And they aren't
just a handful; I'd say more than half of the quotes he defends are
indeed offensive, and not just in poor taste. I really suggest that
you read my exchanges with Raimondo before accusing DavidS of not
having read his piece.
I don't believe Paul wrote the materials myself, but that matters
little. What matters is that he has yet to take "moral
responsibility" by disassociating himself from the authors of the
racist bile that he had knowingly or unknowingly authorized to be
published under his name. Until then this incident will remain a
scandal to many observers and previous supporters.
DavidS|1.21.08 @ 12:39PM|#
Lew Rockwell has proven to be a malignant
influence.
The worst thing about the Siege book is the sickeningly sycophantic
foreword by Rockwell.
Ron Paul has helped build the majority for freedom. In his
campaigns, in the Congress, with the F.R.E.E. Foundation and the
Mises Institute, calmly and without fanfare, he's worked for us and
for our children...
We have not seen Ron Paul's like in Washington since the days of
the Founding Fathers.
How much of the Paul-myth is Rockwell's creation? Is the saintly
doctor really his own man?
|1.21.08 @ 12:41PM|#
what does my asking DavidS if he's read the article (because he called me a liar) have to do with reading your exchange with Raimando? I did read it, and I found very little to be noteworthy.
DavidS|1.21.08 @ 12:42PM|#
JL
Calling you a liar was stupid - sorry. But it's very very hard to
read the newsletters themselves and claim this has all been made
up.
crw|1.21.08 @ 12:45PM|#
I think the whole list is symptomatic of deeper problems with
the official RP campaign. The real problem is his staff is really
only experienced in running small dollar House campaigns. What the
campaign is doing probably works well to get RP elected in Lake
Jackson, but it just doesn't work for a national presidential
campaign.
I mean, the Newsletters would be a non-issue down there. It really
is old news in Lake Jackson thanks to '96. Not so nationally, where
most people never knew those newsletters even existed until TNR
broke the story and the rest of the media started picking up.
Ditto the ads. They'd work in a smaller dollar campaign in a
district where most people just want to be reassured that yes, Ron
Paul is still a Republican even if he has some different views. Not
so nationally. There are 4 establishment Republicans already
(Giulliani,McCain,Romney,Thompson) to represent various parts of
the mainstream 'conservative' consensus.
Paul needs to highlight his differences and go after the GOP voters
who think the party has lost its way. Focus especially on his
opposition to anything not explicitly authorized by the
constitution and his position on federalism. Remind the good people
why free markets are the truly conservative value. And he shouldn't
be afraid to go negative by hitting all the others for their
statist positions.
|1.21.08 @ 12:46PM|#
If you want to be fair about racism amongst the
candidates:
Obama made quite a few anti-white comments in his
autobiography.
McCain and Giulliani both have anti-muslim and anti-arab TV adds,
painting an entire race as "Terrorists" when it's only a few who
actually are.
Huckabee supporting the confederate flag in S.C. shows his true
color of preference.
Romney flip-flops so much it's hard to distinguish if he has any
moral values at all.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 12:47PM|#
Is the saintly doctor really his own man?
Well, he does have a track record in CONgress of voting NO on
everything.
|1.21.08 @ 12:53PM|#
DavidS,
apology accepted. I'm not saying there wasn't some distasteful
material in those letters. I was just shocked at how the TNR
article smeared Ron Paul, and had me very disillusioned with the
whole situation. after reading Raimondo's article, a lot of the
smears were put into perspective.
|1.21.08 @ 12:55PM|#
Jeffrey,
All of that is nothing compared to those newsletters and you know
it.
Likewise, Ron Paul still refuses to give back money he knowingly is
comming from dubious white nationalists.
I agree Ron Paul is not a racist but he has shown that he is as
much an opportunist as the rest because he and his campign know
that those types of people will give and give and give $$$ because
they are true beleivers in something versus the typical
voter.
Not giving back the neo-nazis money doesn mean Ron is a neo-nazis
just Machiavellian
|1.21.08 @ 12:57PM|#
Wine,
What about the outrageous pork projects Paul voted to keep include
$231,000 for the San Francisco Planning and Urban Research
Association's Urban Center; $129,000 for the "perfect Christmas
tree project;" $300,000 for the On Location Entertainment Industry
Craft Technician Training Project in California; $150,000 for the
South Carolina Aquarium; and $500,000 for the National Mule and
Packers Museum in California.[30] This year, Ron Paul requested
more than sixty earmarks "worth tens of millions of dollars for
causes as diverse as rebuilding a Texas theater, funding a local
trolley, and helping his state's shrimp industry.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php
|1.21.08 @ 12:58PM|#
Likewise, Ron Paul still refuses to give back money he knowingly is
comming from dubious white nationalists.
why is it that people would rather that money be in the hands of
white supremacists, rather than Dr. Paul? should he do a background
check on each of his donors?
NP|1.21.08 @ 12:59PM|#
JL,
If that's your conclusion, fine. But I gotta say, calling the
offensive quotes "poor taste" sounds like to me a rather gross
understatement. And while Kirchick might have been negligent with
some of the quotes I do think Raimondo failed to give his piece
less consideration and examination than was due. That was one of my
main beefs with Raimondo's article.
DavidS|1.21.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Take Raimondo on Duke:
What would the "Smearbund" do without David Duke? No smear
campaign is complete without dragging him into it... if you take
the politically incorrect position, according to the neocons, then
you're marching shoulder-to shoulder with the former Klansman and
professional nut-job.
And sure enough, the Kirchick piece takes the Paul newsletter to
task for supposedly having "kind words" for Duke. Yet, if you go
and read what the newsletter says about Duke, it is clear the
author was merely saying Duke's success is due to his opposition to
affirmative action and the welfare state.
Here's what 'Ron Paul' wrote in his newsletter:
The Duke's Victory... Duke lost the election, but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment...
Duke's platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, and no busing...
To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won...
David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are there waiting in the wings without such a taint.
To me, that clearly counts as 'kind words'...
|1.21.08 @ 1:01PM|#
* In 1993, when the worst of the newsletters were being
published, Ron Paul very publicly endorsed the Virginia General
Assembly campaign of Rick Sincere, an openly gay Libertarian. Says
Sincere: "Ron Paul issued a letter on my behalf, soliciting funds
from libertarians and votes from constituents. ... Dr. Paul (then a
former congressman) was aware I was running as an openly-gay
candidate and he raised no questions, concerns, or objections. I
hardly think a homophobic bigot would have sent out a fundraising
letter over his own signature, endorsing (as the Washington Times
stylebook would have it) an 'avowed homosexual' for public
office."
http://www.opednews.com/articles/4/opedne_james_w__080116_ron_paul_is_not_a_bi.htm
|1.21.08 @ 1:05PM|#
In other news, since midnight last night the campaign had raised
$767,653.20, according to ronpaulgraphs.com. At this rate, we're
looking at $1.5M--$2M, if things pick up later tonight. Still
impressive, but disappointing compared to previous money
bombs.
Reading any thread even remotely related to Ron these days is like
listening to several broken records (possibly playing either
"Dixie" or "Anarchy in the UK") at once. I don't have anything
useful to add at this point. Can we agree to disagree about Ron
Paul and move on? Please?
NP|1.21.08 @ 1:07PM|#
DavidS,
I don't mean to take an opposite position all of a sudden, but do
note that the newsletter passage only speaks favorably of "tax
cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, and no busing"; it doesn't
necessarily endorse Duke per se. That's why Kirchick's use of the
phrase "kind words" was misleading.
|1.21.08 @ 1:08PM|#
Quote by Eric Dondero:
Frank, I will be voting for Rudy Giuliani in the Texas Primary. If
he does not make it to Texas, I'll be voting for Mitt Romney.
I don't know much about your knowledge of the internal workings of
Ron Paul's campaign, you certainly have strong opinions about the
man. However, this post alone is enough for me to question whether
your political beliefs may be affecting your judgment. I would
sooner vote almost any of the other candidates than Rudy. People
here take you seriously?
|1.21.08 @ 1:09PM|#
DavidS,
every sentence of that paragraph on Duke was a fact...or based on
facts. The last sentence sums up the feelings of the author.
clearly the author is hoping there are more candidates like Duke
that don't have the racist past that he did.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 1:14PM|#
So Jeffrey, do you think McCain, Giuliani, Romney, et.al. if
they discovered they'd gotten a $500 contribution from Don Black
would keep it, and tell the media to 'F' off over it?
In this Ron Paul scandal you can't take just one thing. It's the
whole package: The Newsletters, the Books, the Don Black
contribution, the praise for Paul on the David Duke website, his
attendance at NeoConfederate events, ect...
You take one thing, like the quotes from his books, and they don't
seem completely bad. But you add that to the other stuff, and you
get the whole picture.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 1:18PM|#
David, I worked for Ron Paul for 12 years. Last 6 years I served
as his Senior Aide in the District.
Rudy Giuliani has more prominent libertarians supporting him than
all other GOP Presidential candidates combined. His campaign
Chairman is none other than Steve Fobes, a guy who came down to
Ron's District and campaigned a whole day for him in his 1996
effort.
Giuliani's also got two Cato guys as advisors, Bill Simon and Sally
Pipes of the Pacific Research Inst.
Martin Anderson of Hoover is also a Giuliani Economics
Advisor.
In fact, Giuliani's campaign advisors read like a who's who of
libertarian economists.
To say that Giuliani is not influenced by libertarian thought shows
your complete and utter ignorance of the man.
In fact, the NY Times said this of Giuliani in 1999:
"He's not even a real Republican, he's more of an extremist welfare
slashing, tax-cutting Ayn Randian."
R C Dean|1.21.08 @ 1:20PM|#
Who but a racist would refer to MLK as "the great champion of non-violence at home, peace abroad, and civil disobedience against tyrannical government"?
svf|1.21.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Eric,
The fact that he told the media to more-or-less "F off over it"
rather than play pander-politics is one of the reasons why I (and
lots of others, I suspect) continue to support "Ron Paul Warts And
All."
As for Rudy "Freedom Is Authority" Giuliani... good luck with
that.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 1:21PM|#
Ottawa, yes, let's move on from Ron Paul. He's finished,
yesterday's news. He got a measly 3.6% in SC. He was supposed to
have won Nevada, and got clobbered by Romney - 53% to 13%. They
also said he was going to win Wyoming. He didn't get a single
delegate there. And New Hampshire was supposed to be "Ron Paul
country." He didn't even bust double digits.
Time for all libertarians to move towards a libertarian-leaning
GOPer who actually has a shot of winning: Romney or Giuliani.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 1:23PM|#
RC didn't Ron Paul also refer to MLK as a "Gay Pedophile" in
those Newsletters?
Svf, Ron Paul not only has warts he's got boils as big as the Grand
Canyon.
Roger|1.21.08 @ 1:23PM|#
Eric Rittberg says: I'll be voting Libertarian in the Fall,
assuming that they nominate Wayne Root.
The same Wayne Allyn Root who has been a member of the LP for a
whopping 1.5 years of his adult life. The spoiled little prick
trying to jumpstart his political career by, in his debate and
stump speeches, laying claim to his father's accomplishments as the
creator of the New York Conservative Party. In said debates, he
talks about "my dad" did this and "my dad" did that and hence he is
qualified by virtue of a whopping 1.5 years in the LP, a figurehead
for Las Vegas gambling, and "my dad" selling points to be
president. Just another fucking spoiled brat, reminiscent of a more
youthful and slightly less arrogant Donald Trump. Philles, even
though he is a sneering and socially boorish prick, at least has
real credentials within the LP that he deserves credit for.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 1:24PM|#
I think you meant to say Rudy "I cut taxes 23 times as Mayor of NY" Giuliani.
|1.21.08 @ 1:25PM|#
Dondero,
you've convinced me to support Giuliani. forget his atrocious
record; he's got "prominent libertarians" supporting him.
pathetic.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 1:26PM|#
And Phillies has never been elected dog catcher, has no
political resume, and even less celebrity.
Go ahead, nominate Phillies. You all will be the laughing stock of
American politics just like you were when you chose Unemployed
loser Badnarik over Gary Nolan and Aaron Russo in 2004.
If the LP nominates obscure candidates, they deserve continued
obscurity.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 1:27PM|#
Yeah, let's forget Giuliani's atrocious record of welfare
slashing and 23 tax cuts.
But then again, if you're a fascist pretending to be a libertarian,
tax cuts aren't such a good thing, are they?
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 1:29PM|#
Ah yeah, the world turned upside down.
Now tax cuts = fascist.
Pro-Choice = fascist.
Tolerance of Sexual lifestyles = fascist.
And Ron Paul?
Blame Gays for AIDS, chummy up to White Supremacists, and call
Martin Luther King a "Gay Pedophile", well, that's just
"libertarianism" ya know.
|1.21.08 @ 1:30PM|#
Mr Rittberg says:
"In this Ron Paul scandal you can't take just one thing. It's the
whole package: The Newsletters, the Books, the Don Black
contribution, the praise for Paul on the David Duke website, his
attendance at NeoConfederate events, ect... "
This is, of course, the tactic used by conspiracy theorists - to
take a set of inconsequential facts, and to insinuate a linkage
(where none exists) and use the supposition of a linkage to imply
wrongdoing, where none existed. They did this to John Kerry in 2004
regarding his military service, and somehow made him look as bad as
the draftdoger prez and VP.
I suppose this is all irrelevant, as the West's economy collapses
as a result of the cost of Iraq war and the irresponsibility of the
fed, and Al Sadr comes back into Iraq politics with a vengence. I
wonder how Walter Meade feels about his argument for U.S. Hegemony
now ?
|1.21.08 @ 1:31PM|#
Look, Dondero.
Fiscal conservatism is great but it alone does not a libertarian
make. Giuliani has declared again and again his uncritical love of
state power, and his record in New York shows a streak of
meddlesome nanny-statism that doesn't square with
"libertarian-leaning" at all.
And Romney has been a stealth liberal in his own state for ages. He
has behaved as though taxes are the only benchmark for fiscal
conservatism, whilst mandating citizen expenditures and levying
fines wherever possible.
Romney is a pro-business wonk, not free-marketeer. Giuliani is a
cozy authoritarian with a vanity cabinet of conservative thinkers.
Neither are remotely like libertarians.
|1.21.08 @ 1:32PM|#
It should say IF Hugo chavez cuts taxes would that make him a
libertarian?
Using your "logic" I guess so.
|1.21.08 @ 1:33PM|#
E.D., your arguments are almost as lame as your website. did you take an html class at your local community center?
|1.21.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Back to the issues.
Smaller government, eliminate the IRS, reduce taxes, no foreign
entanglement, out of Iraq, control our borders, not Iraq's. Sound
fiscal policy, sound monetary policy. Which candidate best supports
these positions?
We know that Ron Paul is the only candidate who truly stands behind
his words. The others, quite frankly, have their fingers in the
political air to see which way the wind is blowing. Can you really
believe any of the other candidates.
Stay with the issues, I say. Not character assasination, which
would acually benefit Ron Paul in the end anyway.
Frank Castaldini
Roger|1.21.08 @ 1:35PM|#
Ah yeah, the world turned upside down.
Now gun banning = libertarian.
Perpetuating the war on nonviolent drug users = libertarian.
Perpetuating the war on prostitution and pornography =
libertarian.
Prosecuting and praising the doctrine of preemptive war overseas =
libertarian.
Praising domestic spying, wiretapping, foriegn abductions and
torture = libertarian.
You've got it all figured out, Rittberg. Care to address the fact
that Aaron Russo was more or less best friends with Alex Jones and
other people (like Ron Paul) who you accuse of propagating "devil
libertarian" viewpoints?
|1.21.08 @ 1:36PM|#
Hey Pinochet cut taxes! I guess hes a libertarian too.
You can be a fiscal conservative and still be an authoritarian
fascist, Dondi.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 1:38PM|#
It's not really that harsh
It's harsh in the sense that it appears to single out gays for
special exclusion from tax paid health care. I understand the
context of the AIDS decade and the huge push for the government to
do *something* about AIDS.
However, a better approach would have been a principled refutation
of the idea of government as health care provider together with
some helpful alternatives and maybe a swipe at drug company welfare
would have prevented the issue from biting him in the ass
today.
Of course he'd still be painted as one of those "let the poor
starve in the streets" libertarian types but it would be easy for
him to get past the anti-gay charges. Same Same for the bigot
charges.
Also would have stopped Megan McArdle from accusing all us old time
white guys of being closet racists as opposed to the new
libertarians, you know, all the cool kids here at Reason.
Jerry|1.21.08 @ 1:42PM|#
The individual suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim --
frequently a victim of his own
lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens
by forcing
them to pay for his care.
Maybe Dondero should visit one of these gift parties.
|1.21.08 @ 1:43PM|#
The racist types against "welfare" always conveniantly forget the biggest welfare in the federal budget (by far) is welfare for old people, followed by welfare for military contractors.
Tom Walls|1.21.08 @ 1:47PM|#
Eric, those may not be the most PC things to write, but they
don't seem to be too shocking. When I first read "Seige" I didn't
find it too controversial, and didn't find the social conservatism
too intense. I see they corrected the typo in the title since the
first printing.
When the paleos tried to be specifically as un-PC as possible was
when they caused the most friction among libertarians; we know,
because we were in the middle of it.
People can change, though - the paleolibs and paleocons aren't as
friendly as they used to be. And correct me if I'm wrong - Lew no
longer calls himself a paleo.
The 'paleo turn' seems all the more strange and out-of-place now
because the socially ultraconservative attitude has little to no
appeal to the RP Revolution crowd. D'oh!
|1.21.08 @ 1:47PM|#
As someone who reads Reason, LewRockwell.com, and even The
Libertarian Enterprise, and finds something of value in each of
them, I ask, in the spirit of the day, can't we all just get
along?
Or how about copying a page from Ronald Reagan, and vowing to never
speak ill of another libertarian?
When we're on the fringes of the political debate, we won't gain
any ground by fighting amongst ourselves. Ron Paul has shown that
we're on the 4-14% fringe, instead of the 0-2% fringe. Let's take
it from there, and remember who our enemies are -- not each other,
but those who would continue to grow the government and destroy our
freedoms.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 1:50PM|#
What about the outrageous pork projects Paul....
Andrew, I never said RP was without sin. I said he
votes NO on everything. That is a real positive in my book.
Nobody likes pork or earmarks. I'm not forgiving him for that. I'm
looking at the alternatives and shaking my head.
I also think he, like many Reasonoids, is out of his mind when he
tells us that it's our fault the Arabs hate us. Not that we should
be following an interventionist foreign policy.
I disagree with him on immigration as well (although I give him
points for arguing that you can't have open immigration with a
welfare state).
We're screwed anyway but I refuse to give a political mugger my
voting permission to pick my pocket.
|1.21.08 @ 1:52PM|#
Ottawa, yes, let's move on from Ron Paul. Time for all
libertarians to move towards a libertarian-leaning GOPer who
actually has a shot of winning: Romney or Giuliani.
Mr. Dondero, I didn't want to name names, because you're not the
only one making a fool of yourself, on either side, but clearly
subtlety is especially lost on you.
I'm not imprevious to persuasion. But if I, as a libertarian, were
going to decide I should take another look at Guiliani or Romney,
and give up on Ron Paul, it wouldn't necessarily be at the behest
of a disgruntled former employeee of Dr. Paul who seems to have
nothing better to do with his time than win useless arguments
against Dr. Paul's remaining supporters on libertarian message
boards. You're not impressing anybody but yourself.
I'm willing to move on. I wonder if anyone else is around here.
svf|1.21.08 @ 1:52PM|#
in case you missed it among all the white noise around
here...
Reason fave
former N.M. Gov Gary Johnson officially
endorsed Ron Paul for President today.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 1:53PM|#
vowing to never speak ill of another libertarian?
libertarians are like the Mob, gotta go to the mattresses every
four or five years.
I know, I said that a couple of days ago. Different crowd today
though.
Adam|1.21.08 @ 1:54PM|#
Just what Andrew said at 12:32pm
Lew Rockwell is no friend of Dr. Paul and no friend of freedom. He
should admit what he has done. His racism has infected our movement
and tainted us all. It's hard now in plenty of circles (not only
readers of Reason) to proudly hold up Dr. Paul's banner. I've had
lots of blowback from family and friends and have not found it easy
to continue my support for Dr. Paul. Some would have supported Dr.
Paul and now won't. I knew that there were people like Rockwell and
Storm front following the campaign, but I thought that they were
just kooks who would support anyone on the outside. I did not know
how central Rockwell was.
Mr. Rockwell....are you reading this? I hope you know what we think
of you. You're a sick person who hates blacks, gays, immigrants,
and minorities. And not welcome.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 1:55PM|#
in case you missed it among all the white noise around
here...
And John Stewart (the musician) died yesterday. Hoping Jesse will
do a little something.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 1:55PM|#
Does anyone know how to get a copy, maybe pdf, of Ron Paul's
book from the 1970s: "Abortion & Liberty"? I seem to recall
some wild, bombastic statements from Paul in that book, stuff like
Doctor who perform abortion should go to jail, and women who get
abortions are as good as committing murder.
Why haven't we seen this book come to light, now that he's a
Presidential candidate?
|1.21.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Giuliani's also got two Cato guys as advisors, Bill Simon
and Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Inst.
Is that an endorsement or an indictment?
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 1:58PM|#
Adam, the problem is, Ron Paul himself wrote a good amount of
those Newsletters. It's not as simple as you think. He can't "throw
Lew under the bus." Because he knows he himself is responsible for
much of the writings.
And he also faces the likelyhood of Lew turning on him, and saying
"Okay, you out me, and I'll tell the truth on the whole
matter."
Lew's got him by the balls to a large extent. If Ron Paul outs Lew
Rockwell, than all Lew has to do is turn around and say, "Okay,
I'll admit I wrote such and such passage, but you Ron wrote this
passage and that passage."
|1.21.08 @ 2:00PM|#
Today I increased by 50% my donation to Ron Paul for President
in 2008.
As to the smear job attempted by contributors to this
magazine/website, you have lost all credibility long long ago when
you conceded the fundamental issues to the statist establishment
and have made yourselves a comfortable niche by occasionally
raising mild objections to peripheral questions. For that you have
garnished yourselves with the unreserved approval of the neocons
who now refer to you as urbane.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 2:05PM|#
Clumsy, meant to say.....
We're screwed anyway but I refuse to give a political mugger my
permission (by voting for him) to pick my pocket, which is why I'm
still voting for RP.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 2:06PM|#
Cesar, no, actually you cannot be a "Fascist" and still cut
taxes. That's an oxymoron. It's completely polar opposite. It's
like saying one is a Pro-Gun Control libertarian.
And Giuliani is also Pro-Choice and Tolerant on Sexual
Matters.
Fiscally Conservative/Socially Tolerant means libertarian, the
complete opposite of Fascism.
On the other hand, Pro-Pork for the District, Dissing Black
Americans, Calling MLK a "Gay Pedophile," accepting Donations from
Don Black, having Nazi Skinheads as local County Campaign Chairman,
Blaming Gays for AIDS, and calling for the jailing of "Abortion
Doctors" usually translates to Fascism.
|1.21.08 @ 2:07PM|#
It's like saying one is a Pro-Gun Control libertarian.
Um Giuliani is pro-gun control, Dondi. Wow you really set yourself
up there, almost too easy.
I'm sorry, Dondero, Pinochet was a fascist and he cut taxes. Are
you saying hes not a fascist? What was he then?
Ozzy|1.21.08 @ 2:14PM|#
I think most of us are just tapped out.
I've already given $700 as well as volunteered some time.
I think we might be regrouping a bit.
Ron Paul will continue getting his message out and growing the
campaign.
Then we will run as an independent.
Then you will see some serious money bombs.
I'll give another $700 when that day comes.
iowan|1.21.08 @ 2:25PM|#
So Eric, what is your real motivation for coming here to
disparage Ron Paul. In general, it is bad manners to butt into a
conversation and say "wow, the stories I could tell you . . . "
then refuse to actually tell any of them. This is true in
person-to-person conversations as well as public forums.
If you want to explain in greater detail why I should care about
Rudy, then go for it. But in regards to Ron, either put up the gory
details or shut up.
Grand Chalupa|1.21.08 @ 2:32PM|#
Wait, you guys like Ron Paul again?
The lack of success in fundraising is due to Ron Paul consistently
losing. There was once a hope that he could at least scare the
establishment. That hope is now gone. Its not due to what Wiegel
wants it to be, the curse of being a racist, or not showing enough
zeal in fighting racism.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 2:44PM|#
Iowan, sorry, I don't respond to people who use fake names on line, or silly nicknames. Use your real name, or don't bother.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 2:46PM|#
Well, um, yeah. If you mean Giuliani is not in favor of allowing criminals to have guns, or the mentally retarded, I guess you could say he's in favor of gun control.
|1.21.08 @ 2:47PM|#
Well, um, yeah. If you mean Giuliani is not in favor of allowing criminals to have guns, or the mentally retarded, I guess you could say he's in favor of gun control.
Nice try, but unless you're a police officer, you're not permitted
to own a personal firearm in the city of New York.
iowan|1.21.08 @ 2:48PM|#
. . . or don't bother.
I've managed to not bother through many months of seeing your
bullshit.
Thanks for validating that approach.
anon|1.21.08 @ 2:50PM|#
"Iowan, sorry, I don't respond to people who use fake names on
line, or silly nicknames. Use your real name, or don't
bother."
Goodness, one would think Eric knows that's a siren call for fake
Eric Dondero's to start posting mock messages on this thread using
variations of his name. Eric, you have participated in an
electronic forum (IRC/CompuServe/message boards/blogs) before in
your life, right? Glad to see that its all about the messenger and
not the message, because what's really important is the darn little
name someone chose to use in posting responses on a blog. Not
exactly a soaring defense, Eric.
|1.21.08 @ 2:56PM|#
Don't worry Iowan, Donderooo is just testy that he repeatedly gets called on his thoroughly questionable claims.
iowan|1.21.08 @ 3:00PM|#
Don't worry Iowan, . . .
I'm won't. For some bizarre reason, I was feeling charitable today
and thought I would give Mr. Dondero an opportunity to prove that
he is a valuable member of this online community. That feeling has
now passed.
|1.21.08 @ 3:15PM|#
"I also think he, like many Reasonoids, is out of his mind when
he tells us that it's our fault the Arabs hate us."
According to a recent poll of Arabs, I would say Ron Paul is right
on why they hate us. When asked what it was they didn't like about
us, they said it was our meddling foreign policy. Contrary to what
idiots like Giuliani, Bush and assorted neocon nuts say, what they
liked most about us was our freedom and wealth creating economic
system.
|1.21.08 @ 3:19PM|#
The #4 reason the MLK Money Bomb will not perform as well as the
other two is because some of Ron Paul's supporters have boycotted
it.
You know, the same folks those "ancient" newsletters
targeted....
http://www.davidduke.com/general/3342_3342.html
Brett|1.21.08 @ 3:24PM|#
"The lack of success in fundraising is due to Ron Paul
consistently losing."
I don't think it can really be characterized as failure, isn't it
all relative?
He's on course to raise about 2 million today. Sure this is less
than Dec 16 and Nov 5, but it's still a very good amount to raise
in one day.
|1.21.08 @ 3:35PM|#
Hey Tom Walls,
That is true that Lew no longer calls himself a paleo but he still
runs in that circle. A week doesn't go by where he doesn't have
stuff by Pat Buchanan or Paul Gottfried or Paul Craig Roberts or
some natvists that quotes from Vdare.com
If I hang around New England Patriot fans all the time eventually,
somebody is going to ask, "Are you Patriots fan?"
Same with politics. Lew still breaks bread, intellecutally with
these guys. If you do a search on Mises.org, the late Samuel
Francis' name comes up quite a bit. Of course, how Francis'
national socialistic views are in line with Ludwig Von Mises has
got to be one of the great intellectual tap dances ever seen.
|1.21.08 @ 3:46PM|#
Lew Rockwell is no friend of Dr. Paul and no friend of
freedom. He should admit what he has done. His racism has infected
our movement and tainted us all.
It would do a world of good if you could be so kind as to show
anything that would back up this allegation. I personally have not
read a single statement from Mr. Rockwell that may indicate he is a
racist. Being a racist is the same as being a collectivist,
something that is anathema to a libertarian.
I've had lots of blowback from family and friends and have not
found it easy to continue my support for Dr. Paul. Some would have
supported Dr. Paul and now won't. I knew that there were people
like Rockwell and Storm front following the campaign, but I thought
that they were just kooks who would support anyone on the outside.
I did not know how central Rockwell was.
Maybe you should only blame yourself for not being more attentive
to the facts. You could have read the columns in those newsletters
in their entire context, rather than reading the cherry-picking
that has been so heavily publicized by Paul's detractors.
Mr. Rockwell....are you reading this? I hope you know what we
think of you. You're a sick person who hates blacks, gays,
immigrants, and minorities. And not welcome.
Again, I put you to task to present evidence for what you
allege.
|1.21.08 @ 3:47PM|#
That is true that Lew no longer calls himself a paleo but he
still runs in that circle. A week doesn't go by where he doesn't
have stuff by Pat Buchanan or Paul Gottfried or Paul Craig Roberts
or some natvists that quotes from Vdare.com
Oh, my God!!! The man should be horsewhipped! He also links to
Slate, Salon and Counterpunch -- maybe he still runs in those
leftist circles?
Please, grow up.
|1.21.08 @ 3:51PM|#
Dondero,
Does anyone know how to get a copy, maybe pdf, of Ron Paul's
book from the 1970s: "Abortion & Liberty"? I seem to recall
some wild, bombastic statements from Paul in that book, stuff like
Doctor who perform abortion should go to jail, and women who get
abortions are as good as committing murder.
Why haven't we seen this book come to light, now that he's a
Presidential candidate?
Because it is vox populi, you dummy. EVERYBODY knows Ron Paul is
pro-life. Which is inconsequential, considering that, as president,
he cannot forbid women from having abortions. Maybe you have not
catch on to the fact that he is a Constitutionalist?
|1.21.08 @ 3:57PM|#
I think I was the first one to use the "absentee landlord"
comparison on these threads, and I don't think that's tenable
anymore.
Three of the people on the payroll of the newsletter were Ron
Paul's family members. Lew Rockwell isn't some guy who came up to
Paul at a convention and asked to use his name.
Paul was clerarly in on the "outreach to rednecks" strategy. Does
that mean he personally is a racist, homophobic,
violence-fantasizing bigot? No, it means he's a cynical,
irresonsible politiciann willing to sell his soul to the devil, or
someone whose own old-fashioned, genteel prejudices led to to
tolerate the much more vile, Klan-style racism of people like
Rockwell, or both.
FWIW, I believe what he said about Martin Luther King and Rosa
Parks on CNN, and I believe him when he says that his ideology is
incompatible with racism, but none of that goes to the two points
above.
kinnath|1.21.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Willie Horton
joe, do you think George Bush was a closet racist, or merely an
opportunist who used the race card to trump his opponent?
In your opinion which would be worse.
|1.21.08 @ 4:14PM|#
It's not terribly useful to try to sort everyone into "racist"
and "not racist." George H.W. Bush was born, and completed his
education, prior to the civil rights revolution, and he did so
within a social order that simply took the inferiority and rightful
subordination of black people as a given. At the same time, he saw
the tremendous changes that occured during his lifetime, and came
to have productive and important business relationships with black
people. He also saw one of his children marry a Latino, and dandled
mixed-race grandchildren on his knee. Let's keep in mind that we're
talking about a journey, not a destination.
Short answer: I think Poppy allowed Lee Atwater to put that racist
ad out more Machiavellian reasons, and I don't think it tells us
much of anything about his personal opinioins and attitudes.
kinnath|1.21.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Short answer: I think Poppy allowed Lee Atwater to put that
racist ad out more Machiavellian reasons, and I don't think it
tells us much of anything about his personal opinioins and
attitudes.
Do you see any parallels with Dr. Paul?
|1.21.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Quite a few, kinnath.
In the case of Dr. Paul, he acceded to a much greater volume of
much worse literature over a much greater period of time.
|1.21.08 @ 4:20PM|#
ok Francisco,
Please tell us have the views of Alexander Cockburn, John Pilger,
Noam Chomsky(all socialists) are compatibble with the philosophy of
Ludwig Von Mises?
For all their talk about Cato "selling out", nobody sells out more
to make their points then the Mises crowd and it has always been
like that. One day Rothbard is chewing the fat with the New Left
and the next day he is a Pat Buchanite
|1.21.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Three of the people on the payroll of the newsletter were
Ron Paul's family members. Lew Rockwell isn't some guy who came up
to Paul at a convention and asked to use his name.
Which makes the comments.... what? His words? It is a newsletter,
an outlet for different ideas. Having read the total content of
those "controversial" columns again, I found no evidence that these
words were outright racist or bigoted in themselves. It seems more
like the words written by many conservatives at the same period,
concerned about the times people were living then. What makes them
controversial is the fact that they are being brought to these
times, totally cherry-picked and out of context as part of a smear
campaign.
Does this mean that Ron Paul agreed with these words? I cannot say
because I cannot read minds. What is perfectly clear is that the
newsletters were an outlet for conservative and libertarian ideas,
the same way LRC is.
kinnath|1.21.08 @ 4:22PM|#
In the case of Dr. Paul, he acceded to a much greater volume
of much worse literature over a much greater period of
time.
Yup, Ron has me baffled. His sincerity on CNN was clear, and the
local NAACP leader in his district said Ron wasn't a racist. So the
big question is why did he let so much crap go out under his
name.
Colin|1.21.08 @ 4:22PM|#
It's interesting that they raised more money in honor of Guy Fawkes than they will in honor of MLK.
kinnath|1.21.08 @ 4:24PM|#
It's interesting that they raised more money in honor of Guy
Fawkes than they will in honor of MLK.
Not a useful comparison.
kinnath|1.21.08 @ 4:29PM|#
The lack of success in fundraising
Approaching $30M total to date.
Not bad for a total failure.
beetlejuice|1.21.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Dondero wets his pants over "Islamofascism", yet throws his
support behind someone who holds a fascist's definition of
freedom.
I'd post my real name, but my name is so common, you would still
have no idea who I am.
The Wine Commonsewer|1.21.08 @ 4:32PM|#
Cactus,
meddling foreign policy
Agreed that is a reason the Arab world doesn't like us. Agreed we
should mind our own business. I'm all for bringing every last troop
home from every last base worldwide. However, if you think that
will stop radical Islam from hating the Great Satan, well, I hope
your right, but I doubt very much that it will. The upside is that
they may end up so busy with their own little dust ups and civil
wars and factional infighting that there won't be any time to hate
Uncle Sam. [shrugs]
|1.21.08 @ 4:53PM|#
kinnath,
Yup, Ron has me baffled. His sincerity on CNN was clear, and
the local NAACP leader in his district said Ron wasn't a racist. So
the big question is why did he let so much crap go out under his
name.
Because he's a politician, and thought it would increase his
resources and influence. Why do professional politicians do
anything?
Francisco, his family's involvement and his obvious knowledge of
what was in those newsletters tell us two things: 1) he mislead us
when he claimed to know nothing about them, and 2) he authorized
those columns to go out under his name.
And if, as you say, you read the newsletters, you would have
noticed that they were written in the first person, without a
byline, under the heading "The Ron Paul" Something "Report," so
your excuse that the newsletter just provided a forum for
wideranging ideas not authorized by the publisher is
untenable.
Having read the total content of those "controversial" columns
again, I found no evidence that these words were outright racist or
bigoted in themselves. That's nice. If the Al Sharpton
Equality Report had written similar things about white and Jewish
people, "in context," you would have chewed your lower lip off by
now.
|1.21.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Iowan, sorry, I don't respond to people who use fake names on line, or silly nicknames. Use your real name, or don't bother.
As someone who uses his real name on the internet, I hereby invite
any and all participants on this thread (except, of course, for
Eric Dondero) to use my name instead of your own (on this thread
only), so that he can feel better about responding.
Have at it, folks!
(I, clearly, have no presidential aspirations.)
kinnath|1.21.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Because he's a politician, and thought it would increase his
resources and influence. Why do professional politicians do
anything?
Yes, but he doesn't strike me as being a dumb politician. The
newsletters probably helped him regain his house seat, but it
should have been obvious to everyone involved that they would be
damaging to a national campaign.
|1.21.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Jake, great idea!!!
I'd like to debate Dondero on the MLB AL designated hitter rule.
Dondero, please respond, do you believe the DH rule hurts AL teams
in interleague play?
|1.21.08 @ 5:08PM|#
While we're talking about looking at the statements in
"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, 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 candidate having 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.
Hey, Jimmy in the back office said something that
might-or-might-not be racist about black people. Again. You mention
poverty, he gives you a statistic about black people being on
welfare. You mention a story you read about a crime, he mentions
the difference in crime rates between white and black people. You
mentin music, he tells you he can't stand rap music, on goes off on
a rant about rappers with big, gold jewelry. You mention that your
kid is going to college, he tells you how terrible it is that white
people are being persecuted by affirmative action. You mention your
car, he tells you about the young black men who customize their
cars and then talks about welfare again.
Every single one of his statements can be shown to be perfectly
innocent. Regardless, you think Jimmy's daughter is real eager to
bring home a black boyfriend?
|1.21.08 @ 5:09PM|#
kinnath, in the early-to-mid 1990s, who would have dreamed there would BE a meaningful libertarian presidential campaign?
crw|1.21.08 @ 5:09PM|#
I'm pretty sure joe has the "why" pretty much nailed - it was a
conscious strategy to reach out to the hard right and milk them for
money and political support. At the time that meant reaching out to
racists and bigots of various stripes. I'm pretty sure now that Ron
did more than just lend his name - you don't take in nearly a
million bucks without knowing where it's coming from. The fact
Reason isn't digging into the financial aspect (so far) shows they
really are treating this with kid gloves.
Now, I'm sure it seemed like a good idea at the time. Back during
the late 80s/early 90s I don't think even the most optimistic
movement Libertarian could have dreamed in 2008 there would be a
Ron Paul Revolution drawing hundreds of thousands from across the
political, socioeconomic and racial spectrum. Back then,
Libertarian pretty much meant hard right, with a dash of anti-WOD
tossed in for flavor. Of course in retrospect we can see its a
stupidly limiting strategy. You don't want to be linked with fringe
loonies if your goal is to convince the masses of the merit of your
ideas.
|1.21.08 @ 5:10PM|#
Peter,
But you're supposed to use my name, not make up an OBVIOUSLY fake
new name!!
|1.21.08 @ 5:11PM|#
It's cool to give and then see your name come up on the Ron Paul
site.
When I gave this time, I thought of my children (they both give to
Ron Paul too) and how much better a freer and more prosperous
America will be for them.
I also thouht of Thpmas Jefferson and James Madison-See guys, we're
being vigilant.
Hw much did each of he last two moneybombs raise?
|1.21.08 @ 5:13PM|#
It's really just fusionism taken to its logical
conclusion.
Taking things to their logical conclusion is usually a really bad
idea.
Xmas|1.21.08 @ 5:13PM|#
Dondero,
Why are you dissing Professor Phillies? No one even brought up his
name in this thread, 'cept for you.
|1.21.08 @ 5:15PM|#
So, DONDEROOOOOO!!!, what's with the new "I only respond to Real Names on the Internet" stance? You've been online before, so I don't think the fact that a given person might use a nom de tube is really all that surprising to you... do you have any coherent rationale for that beyond "I don't want to respond to criticism?"
|1.21.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Dondero,
What is it that makes you hate John McCain so much? Is it that he's
rogue or understands torture? Or is campaign finance laws the bane
of your existence?
|1.21.08 @ 5:19PM|#
BTW, also feel free to put "jakeboone@gmail.N0-sp-AM.com" in the
Email box when you're spoofing me, or the real Jake Boone,
depending on which one I am. It adds to the verisimilitude.
(That's a zero, not a letter "o" in "N0-sp-AM", BTW.)
|1.21.08 @ 5:20PM|#
I have an idea. Each of us should try to call talk radio and
tell folks about the moneybomb. Point out that Ron Paul doesn't
advocate government handing out tax money, so he doesn't get
contributions from businesses that want to be bribed like the other
candidates.
I'm gonna call a talk station here in Denver.
|1.21.08 @ 5:23PM|#
I'm gonna call a talk station here in Denver.
i'm going to sit here on my ass here in...wait, where am I?
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 5:34PM|#
Jake, I don't hate John McCain. I respect him greatly for his
Military service.
It's his image I don't like. He's too goddamned old. That's not
what we need for the GOP. We need young, vibrant, preferably
Hispanic, Black or Ethnic, and/or female.
McCain is friggin' 72 years old! Time for him to exit the stage and
let younger GOPers take the helm.
|1.21.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Eric Dondero quote:
David, I worked for Ron Paul for 12 years. Last 6 years I served as
his Senior Aide in the District.
Rudy Giuliani has more prominent libertarians supporting him than
all other GOP Presidential candidates combined. His campaign
Chairman is none other than Steve Fobes, a guy who came down to
Ron's District and campaigned a whole day for him in his 1996
effort.
Giuliani's also got two Cato guys as advisors, Bill Simon and Sally
Pipes of the Pacific Research Inst.
Martin Anderson of Hoover is also a Giuliani Economics
Advisor.
In fact, Giuliani's campaign advisors read like a who's who of
libertarian economists.
To say that Giuliani is not influenced by libertarian thought shows
your complete and utter ignorance of the man.
In fact, the NY Times said this of Giuliani in 1999:
"He's not even a real Republican, he's more of an extremist welfare
slashing, tax-cutting Ayn Randian."
This was Eric's reply to my question as to whether he is taken
seriously around here. Judging by the ass whooping by the other
posters, it seems the answer is no.
Thank god. I was beginning to think that after the discussion the
other day about the Mormons in Nevada that a reasoned perspective
on libertarian thought was forever gone at Reason. Honestly, who
were the bigots going on about how the Mormons voting as a block
was cult-like and akin to the followers of Jim Jones? Doesn't
anyone know a Mormon or have any insight into Mormon culture on
this board? Perhaps the reverence for individual rights does not
extend that far...
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Why did Ron Paul let so much of that "racist crap" go out under
his name?
Duuuuhhhh. Cause he himself wrote a large portion of it. It wasn't
all Rockwell. It was a team effort.
|1.21.08 @ 5:39PM|#
Dondero,
Not to nitpick, but Reagan was pretty damn old and I don't think we
pick our leaders by image, we pick them by what they will do for
us. McCain may be old, but he's hardly looking to keel over and
while he's got a bit of a flip floppiness, he's more resolute and
trustworthy than "I'm everything for everyone Romney". Plus, he's
got a libertarian streak when it comes to immigration and he's a
burr in the side of the evangelicals, plus he's playing Iraq like a
winner, not hemhawing about the problems. I think he's more
electable than Romney for these reasons.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Everybody knows that Ron Paul is Pro-Life? Really? I wonder how
many of his 18 to 24 year old supporters really know that.
And Paul wasn't just Pro-Life in the 1970s. He was a Pro-Life
extremist. You should read some of the stuff he wrote on the
subject back then. Quite an eye-opener.
|1.21.08 @ 5:40PM|#
We just hit the 2,600,000 mark so that means $1,235,000 so far. Come on guys-give give give!!! And tell your friends and family! Tell everyone! Call talk radio!
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 5:43PM|#
Speak for yourself Jake. I damn sure vote for Presidents based
on their image. And hate to break it to you, most Americans do, as
well.
Two words for ya Jake:
Bill Clinton.
My Chinese wife doesn't know a damn thing about American politics.
Last couple weeks she's been forced to watch the coverage and the
debates with me. Right away she picked Mitt Romney as "her guy."
This was based completely on his looks. She can't even understand
how anyone would not support Romney. As she puts it, he's clearly
the best looking one in the race.
Jake, that's the problem with the libertarian movement, and
specifically the Libertarian Party. They have no clue. It's all
issues this and issues that.
Sorry to break the news to you all, but most people care far more
about image.
That's why Wayne Root would be the best pick for the LP for
2008.
eff off|1.21.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Sir Rudy has a child molester on staff. The one media outlet
that inquired it, Sir Rudy told them to fuck off.
Now that Reason has financial records for "Ron Paul &
Associates," I know we'll be seeing financial records for "Giuliani
Partners" and "Bracewell & Giuliani"... looking forward to
it...
Libertarian Girl|1.21.08 @ 5:44PM|#
Pretty much everyone supporting Ron Paul knows he's pro-life--
many people might support him just because of that. How many
Democrats know that Harry Reid, Senate Majority Leader, is
pro-life?
The previous moneybombs were also before the post-Christmas "How do
I pay for all this?" letdown that affects every American business
and every American consumer. This is also the THIRD moneybomb and
some people may just be tapped out.
|1.21.08 @ 5:45PM|#
And Paul wasn't just Pro-Life in the 1970s. He was a
Pro-Life extremist. You should read some of the stuff he wrote on
the subject back then. Quite an eye-opener.
I was born with my eyes open. Or rather, I will be.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 5:45PM|#
And Jake, Reagan was not quite as old as McCain is going to be
when he takes the office of the Presidency. He was 70, I believe
when he was sworn in. McCain will be 72.
Plus, McCain looks a lot older than Reagan did. His hair is white
as snow. And he's got an ugly pink tint to his skin.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Okay, then if everyone knows he's Pro-Life then why are you all
supporting him?
I thought libertarian meant Pro-Choice. At least that's what I was
told when I was recruited into the Libertarian Party from NARAL
back in 1985 in Jax, FL. Nick Dunbar said, "We Libertarians are
basically Pro-Choice Conservatives who hate Jerry Falwell." I said,
SIGN ME UP.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 5:48PM|#
Jake, I'd say 80 to 90% of my concern with McCain. Rest on taxes
and McCain/Feingold. But mostly image.
His stances are okay. He scores well on libertarian indexes.
I'll change my view entirely if he pickes Sarah Palin or JC Watts
as his running mate.
|1.21.08 @ 5:49PM|#
Read this very supportive statement from Nelson Linder, the
Austin TX NAACP President. He's known Dr Paul for over 2o
years:
http://canyouspeakthis.wordpress.com/2008/01/13/naacp-president-ron-paul-is-not-a-racist/
|1.21.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Eric,
Ok, take away the image, do you think Romney holds more libertarian
positions than McCain?
|1.21.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Eric Dondero quote:
"Okay, then if everyone knows he's Pro-Life then why are you all
supporting him?"
Are you not aware of the very real philosophical debate in the
Libertarian party regarding this issue? It has been covered many
times over the years in this very magazine. I would link to the LP
platform, but that would be childish.
VikingMoose|1.21.08 @ 6:04PM|#
And, Eric, those for whom abortion is not a deal breaker or are
any degree of sympathetic to RP's views won't be bothered by that
stance. Those for whom it is important, will have to weigh what
they think the outcomes of RP's stance will be against what they
think the other outcomes could be.
We've seen that tons of times, "I'm not a goldbug, but..." or stuff
along those lines.
It's the same thing you're doing - you have latched onto RG's
positions (aggressive against the middle east), and since that
trumps his authoritarian tendencies for you, you support RG.
It's all pretty worthless, cuz ZOD will win.
|1.21.08 @ 6:12PM|#
It's all pretty worthless, cuz ZOD will win.
Any word from the Cthulhu campaign?
|1.21.08 @ 6:19PM|#
Rick Barton, come on.
You aren't even making an effort to read, think about, and reply to
what people are saying.
You aren't taking part in any kind of conversation. You're just
dropping talking points on us.
We're not your audience.
Rick! It's us!
VM|1.21.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Any word from the Cthulhu campaign?
We're expecting it shortly. Apparently, it takes quite a while to
coordinate kneeling with all of those tentacles.
Brandybuck|1.21.08 @ 6:25PM|#
Eric Dondero does not know what libertarianism is. His posts
show that. Oh it's true that he is able to do a lot of name
dropping, but when it comes down to what makes a libertarian a
libertarian, he is clueless. He has said (proudly) in the past that
he cares about the politics not the philosophy. To him it is all
football team advocacy. As long as you call yourself a libertarian,
that is good enough for him.
But politics is not football, and the philosophy is significant.
There is more to being a libertarian than being somewhat fiscally
conservative and somewhat socially liberal. If that were the
criteria, then Bill Clinton would be a libertarian! You don't have
to sign the LP's pledge of anarchism to be a libertarian, but you
do have to be in favor of small government, and both economic and
civil liberties.
|1.21.08 @ 6:25PM|#
I'm disappointed, but not shocked that the newsletter scandal
has caused some to fall away. I understand why.
Why doesn't Dr. Paul just make the announcement that Lew Rockwell
wrote them, as his staff chief Tom Lizardo reported, and be done
with it?
Brett|1.21.08 @ 6:29PM|#
Ron Paul to get "Jane Roe's" endorsement tomorrow?
Click on my name for the link.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 6:34PM|#
Samantha, Ron Paul can't do that, because Paul himself wrote about 30 to 40% of the Newsletters. It he "outs" Rockwell, Rockwell is libel to turn around and out him. Call it blackmail if you must. I like to think more along the lines, that Lew has Ron by the balls.
Wild About Hairy|1.21.08 @ 6:35PM|#
I recall the day that I heard Ron Paul was going to run for
president. It was exciting. I also recall being excited about Harry
Browne's goal of getting one million votes in the 2000 election.
After reading Harry's book, "How I Found Freedom in an Unfree
World", I was surprised that Harry would run for a political
office. It is my opinion that he was more right when he talked
about living free in spite of powerful opposition. The exciting
thing about these candidates was they had and have the opportunity
to educate the public about superior ideas regarding political
economy. Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that I have found these
candidates disappoint when they try to win votes instead of sell
ideas. I'm not sure that education in liberty will lead to liberty,
but it can't hurt. The problem with libertarian political candidate
is that it is an oxymoron. Money sent to candidates gets spent to
win votes and votes don't matter. If any libertarian is compelled
to jump into the political abyss, don't try to get elected. Use the
donations to sell the ideas. Then, armed with good ideas the public
will take the megalomaniac politicians to task. They will only work
toward more liberty and less government if that is what the
majority wants. One other thing... Loud protesting activists aren't
take seriously. Well reasoned mature discourse is more likely to
affect the people that need to be sold on the freedom message. I'm
happy that young people are behind Ron Paul's message. With
maturity they can bring true hope to their future.
http://www.harrybrowne.org/TopicalIndex.htm
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 6:36PM|#
David, there wasn't any sort of philosophical debate about
abortion when I first joined the Party in 1985. Everyone was
Pro-Choice. The LP even had bumper stickers "Libertarians: We're
Pro-Choice on Everything."
Shame our formerly socially tolerant movement has been taken over
by a bunch of sexual privacy regulators.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 7:00PM|#
We just uploaded an article to Libertarian Republican Blog by Andrew Murphey: "Ron Paul's big Money Bomb a Dud" www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com
|1.21.08 @ 7:05PM|#
joe,
Sorry. The moneybomb has me all fired up and I'm trying to get on
talk radio about it.. You may be assured though that I'm reading
and thinking about what's being said. I did put in the Austin TX
NAACP President quote to rebut the "Paul is a racist" BS from Eric
Dondero.
I'll calm down and start debating properly again, joe. Thanks.
|1.21.08 @ 7:05PM|#
Since when is raising over $1.5 M in one day a "dud"?
You're pathetic, Dondero. You just admitted above that you
basically support candidates based upon image. What idiocy. Why you
think anyone takes you seriously is beyond me.
Janus|1.21.08 @ 7:06PM|#
"1. The Newsletters. This won't be the key reason, but it'll be
a reason."
Bahahaha.
Even the MSM didn't run with your manufactured scandal. They
stopped trying to tar Paul with those ridiculous charges long ago
and have turned to ignoring him again. Didn't you get the memo?
|1.21.08 @ 7:13PM|#
Eric Dondero Quote:
David, there wasn't any sort of philosophical debate about abortion
when I first joined the Party in 1985. Everyone was Pro-Choice. The
LP even had bumper stickers "Libertarians: We're Pro-Choice on
Everything."
Shame our formerly socially tolerant movement has been taken over
by a bunch of sexual privacy regulators."
I love that bumper sticker, I had one. Are you claiming that you
have been immersed in libertarian thought for 27 years and yet
remained ignorant of the long-standing debate on this issue among
Libertarians? The debate has been raging since at least 1976, when
Libertarians for Life was founded (Google it).
Further, didn't you find it odd that Ron Paul could secure the
Libertarian party nomination in 1988 holding the "extreme" pro-life
beliefs that you claim he held? I must have missed the debate
during the nomination process... Harry Browne was also personally
pro-life, but would not use govt. force to enforce it.
In all seriousness, you are either a lying troll or hopelessly
stupid.
I am pro-choice and open borders libertarian, but I fully support
Ron Paul.
n0rd1x|1.21.08 @ 7:17PM|#
Well, all this newsletter crap means nothing when the economy collapses on everyone. Tomorrow should be an interesting day and I have placed my shorts.
|1.21.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Dondero:
Look at Reason H&R Blog. We have people here who do not
even post under their own names. They use silly names, or
initials.
Wikipedia:
[The Federalist Papers] appeared under the pseudonym "Publius,"
in honor of Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola.
The Hit & Run blog commenters: no better than the authors of
The Federalist Papers.
|1.21.08 @ 7:29PM|#
More inaccurate stuff from Eric. From the link he provided to
try to substantiate that the moneybomb is a dud:
As of 8:00 pm est, it's only $1.26
Trouble is that it's not 8:00 pm est yet and the total is already
$1.4 M
|1.21.08 @ 7:33PM|#
Eric, caught redhanded posting articles with wrong information. Oh the irony. An apology and correction are in order on your blog, Eric.
|1.21.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Dondero is generally correct that there wasn't any sort of
philosophical debate about abortion in the LP in 1985. There wasn't
even back in the 70s when I first became involved. Doris Goodwin's
"Libertarians for Life" was an obscure group limited to putting
classifieds in Inquiry and Reason. Her group had
little traction in the party as a whole. Although David Gebhardt
apparently has a different recollection, it certainly was not an
issue in the Florida LP until the 88 campaign.
There was even less debate about expanding America's empire and
preemptively invading other countries. Everyone was for closing our
European and Asian bases and withdrawing from the treaties which
trapped us into paying a major portion of the costs of defending
countries which were certainly wealthy enough to bear the costs
themselves.
Ron Paul met the litmus test on non-interventionism and free
markets so well that he was given a pass on the abortion issue
since he 1) said it was not a federal issue and 2)agreed to
soft-pedal his position. More people were probably put off by his
nativism on immigration but he got a pass there too by qualifying
with some boilerplate about the welfare state.
But since then we've decided to make a "bigger tent". Well I guess
if the tent's big enough for war-mongering imperialists and Drug
war fascists like Guillanni it can't hurt to let in a few
pro-lifers as well.
|1.21.08 @ 7:39PM|#
Eric Dondero:
Look at Reason H&R Blog. We have people here who do not
even post under their own names.
But you, like me, do post under your own name, Eric. And if you
ever try to run for office, be assured that the plethora of insipid
stuff that you've said here will be used against you.
|1.21.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Peace, Rick. You bring a lot to the table, is all.
I like you better as you than as the RickBot.
Brett|1.21.08 @ 8:04PM|#
Sarah Palin is always mentioned by Eric as an ideal "libertarian-leaning Republican", but she has a very strong pro-life position. She's got a nice image though, so I suppose that's all that counts...
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 8:16PM|#
No Brett, she does not have a "very strong Pro-Life position." She has a rather moderate Pro-Life position. Nothing like Ron Paul who wants to jail doctors who perform abortions.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 8:17PM|#
Well, well, well. Now we have so-called "libertarians" threatening other libertarians, ala Rick Barton. Very um libertarian of you there Rick. Whatever happened to "no initiation of force"?
VikingMoose|1.21.08 @ 8:17PM|#
please note: Rick is a gentleman whose opinion he is always
willing to discuss.
And for many of you reflex types, engage joe - you'll find the
same. See how they interact? it's really cool.
so there. I enjoy both of them hier at H&R. Better than
most.
*looks at three posters with URKOBOLDian intensity*
[grins and hopes even they enjoy the fun]
thanks guys!
respectfully,
David
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 8:20PM|#
Isaac is incredibly wrong on LP history. The LP was much more
Pro-Defense in the 1970s and '80s. There was little if any talk of
foreign policy in the LP back then, particularly within the Florida
LP of which I was a member.
Guess Isaac forgot all about the Libertarian Defense Caucus that
was active back then working to preserve a strong defense/strong
against Communism plank within the LP.
But alas, the LP was taken over by a bunch of leftwing Anarchists
with the Harry Browne invasion in the 1990s, and the LP purged the
Pro-Defense forces.
But they're back. Ryan Christiano has re-formed the LDC. Look for
the patsy pacifist wing of the LP to be put on the defensive, pun
intended.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 8:26PM|#
Oh geez, I'm so, so sorry. I was 20 minutes early. Wasn't quite
8:00 pm yet. Gee, will you guys ever forgive me? That was such a
huge blunder. I should be whipped with a chain for making such a
huge mistake. I won't be able to sleept tonight.
My gosh, I just cannot believe that on my blog I had the audacity
to say it was 8:00 pm est. when it was actually 20 minutes
til.
My sincerest and humblest apologies to all. I'm surely never ever
going to let that happen again, cause it was such a huge mistake, a
mistake of historic proportions. I'm so embarrassed.
Again, I apoligize. Can you all ever forgive me?
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 8:29PM|#
Jake, I'm sorry. I cannot possibly answer your question. I
cannot separate image from issues. Image is an extremely important
qualification for me.
Most of you all here are not real Republicans, so to you all, it
doesn't matter. I am a Republican, and I want to win elections. I
especially want lower level Republicans to win offices like for
Congress.
Ain't gonna happen with some old geezer heading up our
ticket.
72 damn years old. Step aside John McCain. You're too goddamned
old.
BTW, Chuck Norris said the exact same thing today. Covered by CNN
and Fox. Check out the YouTube video at HotAir.com
|1.21.08 @ 8:34PM|#
It's not just that you got the wrong time, Dondero, it's that you also got the wrong money total.
Brandybuck|1.21.08 @ 8:45PM|#
David, there wasn't any sort of philosophical debate about abortion when I first joined the Party in 1985. Everyone was Pro-Choice. The LP even had bumper stickers "Libertarians: We're Pro-Choice on Everything."
That's funny, because there was when I joined the Party in 1986. I
guess a lot can happen in one year. Most Libertarians (big-L) were
pro-choice on abortion, but there was a significant number that
were pro-life that a strict pro-choice plank didn't make it into
the platform. At the 1988 LP convention, the first I attended, in
San Diego, there was a Libertarian's for Life booth. It was not
being shunned either.
It all comes down to whether or not the fetus is a human being. If
it is, the libertarian philosophy asserts that you may not commit
aggression against it. But regardless, Ron Paul's position on
abortion is that it is not a Federal issue. Nearly all libertarians
agree on this point. It is not up to the Federal Government to
prohibit, mandate or fund medical procedures.
|1.21.08 @ 8:45PM|#
Dondero,
Repeat after me "I am a neoconservative, not a libertarian, a
neoconservative"
If you think for one second someone could read everything you've
posted here and think you have one iota of libertarianism in you at
all, you're fucking nuts.
Brett|1.21.08 @ 8:46PM|#
I guess we could argue for ever on what constitutes a hard-line position on abortion, but I don't think Sarah Palin can be considered a "libertarian leaning Republican" given that she's pro-life, anti-gay marriage, against legalizing marijuana and opposed to gambling legalization. This term "libertarian leaning Republican" is meaningless at the best of times, but particularly so in this instance.
|1.21.08 @ 9:01PM|#
My Chinese wife doesn't know a damn thing about American
politics.
I've always been under the impression that mail-order brides were
Filipino.
|1.21.08 @ 9:08PM|#
Happy Jack,
The good ones. I think the level of quality goes
Filipina
Russian
Kenyan
Chinese
Serbian
Mongolian
economist|1.21.08 @ 9:10PM|#
I have theory:
Dondero is actually a leftwing activist trying to scare
libertarians away from the Republican party by being a gigantic
douche. Seriously, Eric, please go away and Huckablog.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 9:10PM|#
I'm anti-Gay marriage. Lots of libertarians are, as well. I
think it's none of the State's damn business. They should get out
of the business of marriage altogether.
And you are obviously terribly uniformed about Ms. Palin. She was
endorsed by the Libertarian Party of Alaska the last 3 days of the
campaign in 2006. She even hugged LPA Chairman Jason Dowell, very
publicly, and thanked him at the Victory celebration.
beetlejuice|1.21.08 @ 9:13PM|#
Anti government-involvement-in-marriage, then. Which means gays could still marry privately.
|1.21.08 @ 9:17PM|#
I had a right-wing, gun nut room mate when I lived in Maryland.
He once told me "People like me - and there are people like me all
across 'Murica - are gonna rise up against the niggers, and the
queers, and the Jews, and the people like YOU!" Longhairs, I
guess.
Anyway, years before, he got himself an Asian mail-order bride, and
she dumped him.
Looooo-serrrrrrrrrrr!
|1.21.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Dondero would allow gays to form unions, but then list them on terrorist lists and have them killed silently by government agents to protect us from teh Islamohomo threat.
good little nazi|1.21.08 @ 9:20PM|#
Lost_In_Translation | January 21, 2008, 8:45pm | #
Dondero,
Repeat after me "I am a neoconservative, not a libertarian, a neoconservative"
If you think for one second someone could read everything you've posted here and think you have one iota of libertarianism in you at all, you're fucking nuts.
Yep, he's fucking nuts. He's the Dunderweinerhole. Sig heil!
Libertarian Girl|1.21.08 @ 9:23PM|#
"And Jake, Reagan was not quite as old as McCain is going to be
when he takes the office of the Presidency. He was 70, I believe
when he was sworn in. McCain will be 72."
McCain will not be elected. If he is the nominee, Barack or Hillary
(or maybe Bloomberg!) will be our next president. However, Ron Paul
can challenge these candidates in ways that McCain can't-- and I
bet you anything he's healthier than Reagan ever was. He rides his
bike for 10 miles a day and says his vice is exercising too much.
He seems to be very healthy.
Harry Browne was a fine man, Dondero, and he thumped you royally on
the radio, if I remember correctly. The person who introduced me to
libertarianism became interested by Harry Browne, as were many
people.
Just because someone told you something when you "signed up" for
the LP 20 years ago doesn't mean that that can never change. If you
think the fetus is a person, you have a duty under libertarianism
to protect it just as you would protect any person's rights.
Roger Peck|1.21.08 @ 9:39PM|#
Cesar, no, actually you cannot be a "Fascist" and still cut
taxes.
You are thick-skulled, boy. Sometimes I just want to reach through
my computer to choke you it's so frustrating at times. Look, I
suggest you pick up some literature that Mussolini wrote before and
during his fascist movement and get an idea of what the hell the
doctrine means. It's maddening sometimes, but the way you behave
isn't all that different from bleating college leftists who have
never picked up a Mussolini book. Skidmark.
|1.21.08 @ 9:40PM|#
I'm anti-Gay marriage. Lots of libertarians are, as well. I
think it's none of the State's damn business. They should get out
of the business of marriage altogether.
I'm anti-black planning board members. Lots of libertarians are, as
well. I don't think it's any of the city's damn business. They
should get out of the land-use planning business altogether.
Anybody buying that?
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 9:49PM|#
Libertarian Girl, you obviously don't know Ron Paul at all. If
you did know him, you'd know the man is practically handicapped.
He's got knees that are like jello. I had to carry him out of the
car many times on our road trips so that he could make his
appearances. Of course, we did our best to hide it.
Ask anyone who knows Ron Paul. They'll tell you that he's got
serious problems with his knees.
Eric Dondero|1.21.08 @ 9:53PM|#
It's going on 10:00 pm on the East Coast, and the Ron Paul Money
Bomb still seems like a Dud. $1.6 million. They'll probably end up
with $1.75. That's about 2/3rds of what they had hoped for.
Yup, those Newsletters have had an effect. People are abandoning
the Ron Paul ship faster than you can say Titanic.
|1.21.08 @ 9:53PM|#
oh this is rich..You Paul guys giving Eric the business about gay marriage...Ron Paul is against it as well as are all paleolibertarians...Read Hoppe's rants obout anarcho-capitalism..In the paleo Rothbard world, communities would kick out "undesirables" included homosexuals and communists.
beetlejuice|1.21.08 @ 9:55PM|#
I recall a certain president who accomplished a lot despite having had polio. Not that I agree with many of his accomplishments.
beetlejuice|1.21.08 @ 10:02PM|#
Andrew,
Not true.
See this:
http://www.queerty.com/ron-paul-on-gay-marriage-20071210/
My apologies, I don't know the HTML tags yet.
Roger Peck|1.21.08 @ 10:09PM|#
Eric: numerous sources of mine deeply involved in Texas politics say that you didn't create the Republican Liberty Caucus, that instead you ripped off somebody else's idea. They say you are a complete hack and total backwater hillbilly. Also you have no perspective on any kind of political philosophy, so shame on you for that.
|1.21.08 @ 10:15PM|#
Roger, Eric never said he "started" it. The RLC was a break away from the Raimondo group that wanted to take libertarianism in a different direction
good little nazi|1.21.08 @ 10:48PM|#
Yup, those Newsletters have had an effect. People are
abandoning the Ron Paul ship faster than you can say
Titanic.
That's mighty wishfull thinking on your part there, Ereek
Donderweinerhole. Think if you say it long enough and often enough
that it will come true? Not hardly!
|1.21.08 @ 10:50PM|#
Thanks, VikingMoose. With your refined sense of fair play, you should sit on the Supreme Court. Hey, Maybe President Paul will appoint you!.
|1.21.08 @ 11:24PM|#
Eric Dondero:
Well, well, well. Now we have so-called "libertarians"
threatening other libertarians, ala Rick Barton. Very um
libertarian of you there Rick. Whatever happened to "no initiation
of force"?
I didn't threaten you with force! And I wouldn't. Where did you get
that? I'm just promising you that if you ever try to run for office
against a more libertarian candidate, all the stupid stuff that
you've said here will be used against you. And that includes your
new "image over issues" stunner.
|1.21.08 @ 11:37PM|#
Seems from what I can see.....there seems more of an obsession with Eric on here then the issue of the individual blog. Maybe Eric has some changes in his views since his LP days(which he has admitted, 9/11 changed him). yet I know for a fact that some on here used to be anti-Paul activists in 1988 like Raimondo and Garris and now they are the biggest cheerleaders for Paul. Let's talk about their "change of heart"....Seems to me two can play this silly he said, they said game.
|1.21.08 @ 11:57PM|#
The internal evidence of the three MLK articles supports Ron Paul's claim that he didn't write them. For one thing, the style is wrong. For another, all three make an erroneous claim about Ron Paul himself (that he voted against MLK day). For a third, their frequency - three short pieces in three consecutive months, followed by nothing over the next 17 years - suggests that whoever wrote them was let go or at least ordered to stop.
|1.22.08 @ 12:08AM|#
A little over $1.85M in 24 hr! Nice Moneybomb! This is what Eric calls a "dud"! Of course when you're more concerned with image than issues as he is...
|1.22.08 @ 12:20AM|#
George, it is a no win scenario for Paul in this regard. If he didn't write them(which may be true), he should have paid attention to what others were putting out under his name. If Lew would just come clean and admit his involvement, this issue could die down a little. With friends like Lew and Jeff Tucker, Ron Paul doesn't need enemies
Julian Sanchez|1.22.08 @ 12:40AM|#
Actually, he did vote against it. He voted "for it" on a vote to decide whether it should occur on one of several possible dates. He voted against it on the final vote as to whether there should be a federal holiday, once the date was chosen.
|1.22.08 @ 12:51AM|#
Hey did anyone hear? Ron Paul is connected to some news letters
with questionable content. Who knew? We better let the Reason staff
know so they can start to look into it….
WTF?? How long are you going to keep giving us the same shit
sandwich? We got it. Yup the content was bad. Yup hard to believe
Dr Paul didn't know who wrote them, Yup I think he is handling this
all wrong but what alternative is there even in the same universe
of belief? Entering and continuing this war is about 1,000,000
degrees worse than the newsletter content. If you have not noticed
all the other candidates were either for the war or want to
continue and even escalate it. Why don't we concentrate on some
real issues and wait for the memoirs to see who was responsible for
the newsletters?
I think this has just been an excuse for some fair weather fans to
jump ship and go back to their defeatist positions secure that they
won't have to work for real change. They can just sit back and
complain how bad things are.
For those of you waiting for a better libertarian minded candidate
to come along with a higher chance of success, two thoughts:
First, there aren't any.
Second if there were they would be smarter than to expose
themselves to the puritanical view cleansing of the holier than
thou professional Libertarians.
Christ may come back before we see this opportunity again. Oh wait,
you don't believe in that either. We'll then it ain't ever
happening.
|1.22.08 @ 12:57AM|#
UH OH!
At this point anyone who contributes to Ron Paul has got to be
aware that their names will be on his contributor's list. And with
the aura of bigotry around Paul via Lew Rockwell, people may have
second thoughts about being on FEC records.
Look at Reason H&R Blog. We have people here who do not even
post under their own names. They use silly names, or
initials.
Given that, who would want their names on a donor list of a highly
controversial Presidential candidate with quasi-racist
ties?
No one would which is why they don't have to worry about having
their name proudly displayed at the FEC as having donated to RP
since he's never uttered the word damn let alone anything racist as
far as I know.
Then again, Eric suffers from the worst kind of food allergy, it's
called sour grapes. His candidate isn't doing so hot, notice?
The only DUD here is Eric DUD-dero and Rudy Julie Annie the
crossdressing fake libertarian.
|1.22.08 @ 2:48AM|#
Hey Julian Sanchez,
I quite miss your philosophy and philosophically oriented threads.
They were very interesting-Lotsa fun!
BTW everyone, click on Julian's name to access his sight where
you'll find a Robert Nozick page!
|1.22.08 @ 2:53AM|#
Yeah Doctors who do abortions SHOULD be jailed..they are killing
PEOPLE after all....but then again, Eric wants to bomb
mecca...sooooooo
"Giuliani went to court to safeguard the policy, suing over a 1996
attempt by Congress to undo the city's protections.
At the time, Giuliani said the policy "protects undocumented
immigrants in New York City from being reported to the INS while
they are using city services that are critical for their health and
safety, and for the health and safety of the entire city."
He lost, but Mayor Mike Bloomberg later issued a new, broader
version of the policy that is still in effect."
http://www.newsmax.com/politics/giuliani_immigration_fact_check/2007/11/29/53262.html
|1.22.08 @ 5:30AM|#
Ahhhh.
The implosion and exposure of the propaganda posing as media. After
10 years of being all to aware of it a good portion of the country
is waking up to it too. How wonderful.
|1.22.08 @ 5:53AM|#
Anyone who doubts that the Rondroids are paranoid lunatics need
only read the posts here to see it is true. It is obvious that Paul
is lying about the newsletters. He knows that his buddy Rockwell
was behind the disgusting material. And whether he "approves" of
it, or is just lying now, doesn't matter since he published it
under his name out of his office with a staff that comprised his
own wife and daughter involved.
But the true believers in the cult of Ron know that none of this
matters because the author of those hate pieces, Lew Rockwell,
tells them that its a conspiracy by "beltway libertarians." And
Justin Raimondo, aka the Italian Stallion from his days selling his
services, tells them its a plot. Never mind that Raimondo is one of
the most dishonest scumbags to infest the libertarian movement.
|1.22.08 @ 6:49AM|#
> And whether he "approves" of it, or is just
> lying now, doesn't matter since he published
> it under his name out of his office with a
> staff that comprised his own wife and daughter
> involved.
Can you show this is true?
I would think if it's true the "media" would be all over it, but
considering that they are both brutally incompetent and horribly
corrupt, who knows?
These newsletters came out in the mid 1990s when he was running for
congress, nobody managed to show what you're claiming to be fact
then. The NNACP has defended Paul, they'd like to know where you're
getting your facts from.
Also, very interestingly, the newsletters were mentioned in
Wikipedia since at least September, and Reason Magazine and NOBODY
ELSE in the entire media apparently read that entry.
I don't know if the media takes me for a fool, or the media is a
whole lot stupider than I can possibly imagine.
|1.22.08 @ 6:59AM|#
Now Dondero is claiming Paul is practically handicapped? This is getting hilarious.
|1.22.08 @ 7:07AM|#
While I think it is obvious that Ron Paul was aware of the
"outreach to rednecks" strategy. And, further, that attacking the
underclass was part of the strategy. That doesn't mean that he was
aware that racist invective was going out under his name.
The strategy was to build a libertarian movement using "NASCAR
Dads." The author(s) of the strategy thought resentment of the
underclass would be helpful. While this may be racist in some
broader sense, it doesn't require racist invective.
Further, rather than seeing this as all about Ron Paul's political
career, consider Paul as agreeing to do his part for the movement.
The purpose of the strategy wasn't to get Paul back into Congress
or elected President. The purpose was to build a libertarian
movement.
Remember, Paul was slated to run for President in 1992. Maybe they
hoped to actually win then. But I doubt it. Of course, the people
behind this backed Buchanan instead.
Think about those things.
|1.22.08 @ 7:20AM|#
Andrew,
Roger, Eric never said he "started" it. The RLC was a break away from the Raimondo group that wanted to take libertarianism in a different direction
I beg to differ.
Roger|1.22.08 @ 7:44AM|#
Andrew the Donderobot. Your partisanship for anything anti-Paul is pathetic.
Eric Dondero|1.22.08 @ 7:45AM|#
Andrew is correct. I have never claimed I created the
"Libertarian Republican movement." That was Justin Raimondo, Eric
Garris and Colin Hunter in 1985, with Libertarian Republican
Organizing Committee (LROC). I was Florida LROC Chairman in
1989/90. We split off from National LROC due to our differences
over foreign policy. LROC opposed the War in Kuwait. We were in
favor of it.
I convinced a couple other LROC chapters to join with me: Arkansas
and New Jersey. Also, contacted some other LROCers in Georgia and
Virginia and we launched the Republican Liberty Caucus.
From it's inception the group was intended to be a Pro-Defese
libertarian organization. I'm sad to say that today it's been
infiltrated by too many Paulist non-interventionist who have
watered down our original Pro-Defense platform. Hopefully we can
win the RLC back to Pro-Defense.
Obviously, the Anti-Defensers who have infiltrated the group find
it uncomfortable that I am listed as Founder.
But this can be easily verified by numerous sources:
Phil Blumel
Brian Doherty
Tom Walls
Cliff Thies
Danny McDaneil
All of whom were there at the founding in 1990.
Eric Dondero|1.22.08 @ 7:48AM|#
Andrew is correct.
At the 1988 LP National Convention in Seattle, Raimondo and Garris
screamed at the top of their lungs at Ron Paul and his wife Carol
in the entrance way to the Hotel ballroom, calling him a "Pro-Life
Extremist Gay Hater." There were over 200 witnesses to it. They
also passed out a Newsletter "Ron Paul and the John Birch
Connection."
Now Raimondo and Garris are two of Paul's most passionate
supporters.
Eric Dondero|1.22.08 @ 7:49AM|#
Jake, you are playing with words there.
I founded the Republican Liberty Caucus.
I did NOT found the Libertarian Republican movement. That was
Raimondo, Garris and Hunter in 1985 with LROC. And you can quote me
on that.
Actually, Joe Gentili and Jerome Tuccille founded the Libertarian
Republican movement in the 1970s with the Libertarian Republican
Alliance.
toddb|1.22.08 @ 8:41AM|#
So I'm confused...was that the Judean Peoples Front, the Peoples
Front of Judea, or the Popular Front of Judea...
Damn splitters...
|1.22.08 @ 9:07AM|#
Actually Roger, if you would pay attention, I have defended Paul on this site. I do not think he is a racist and think Lew and company have done him a huge dis-service by not comming clean right at the start and could killed the newsletter scandel after the first day....Your tunnell vision for not being able to comprehend comments that are not all "amen" for Ron Paul is truly remarkable
Eric Dondero|1.22.08 @ 9:45AM|#
You all want to see an example of excellent Republican outreach
to African Americans? Mitt Romney video at yesterday's MLK parade
now up at www.libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com
Now try imagining Ron Paul doing the same and a similar event.
|1.22.08 @ 10:12AM|#
And early chairman of the RLC (and the first I was aware of) was
Roger McBride. McBride was the LP Presidential candidate in 1976.
He ran on a "platform" of 1) free market economy, 2) civil
liberties 3) noninterventionist foreign policy.
Rittberg/Dondero either has a poor memory, has been clueless for
years, or quibbles with the truth to promote his current
agenda.
|1.22.08 @ 10:49AM|#
Bill Woolsey,
Which of those potential explanations seems the easiest to
believe?
|1.22.08 @ 10:59AM|#
The notion that the libertarian movement in 1988 to 1996 was
extreme right wing is ridiculous. It was small (as always.) With
the end of the cold war, Rothbard thought that the "old right"
could be recreated. The neoconservatives were looking around for
excuses to maintain interventionism. (Starting with a refusal to
believe that the Soviet Union had lost the cold war.) Rothbard
tried to make an alliance with the existing opponents of the
neo-conservatives--the paleoconservatives. The idea was to expand
the small libertarian movement of the time into something much,
much bigger.
Some of Rothbard's long time libertarian allies followed him in
this "paleo-turn." Those that refused this change, usually because
they couldn't stomach an alliance with social conservatives, were
subject to nasty invective. That was always Rothbard's way.
(Cato had been rejected in the early eighties for moderation.
Reason was never in Rothbard's camp.)
What Ron Paul today says about racism (that it is collectivism,)
was the dominant approach in the libertarian movement of the late
sixties until... well today. I have been active in the libertarian
movement for 30 years, located in the south. Very few racist
crazies have had any interest in becoming involved in the
libertarian movement.
It wasn't until just recently that I learned that part of "paleo"
turn was an effort to appeal to NASCAR dads. The redneck strategy.
And that it became reaching out to racists too.
When I described the recent Reason article about this to my wife,
saying that Rothbard apparently had this crazy strategy of reaching
out to rednecks, she said, "like he would know a redneck." Is it
really true that Rockwell was born in Boston?
My wife is southern through and through, and a libertarian since
the Clark campaign in 1980. To me, the "newsletter" story is about
yankee intellectuals writing what they thought would appeal to
"NASCAR dads."
In my opinion, belief in negative stereotypes of black poeple are
common among southern whites. Though southern whites are very
likely to also know black people they like and respect. There are a
few crazies who are all focused on "the blacks." Most of us sort of
roll our eyes about them and maybe talk about their odd fixation
behind their backs. You know, we are southerners.
And Rothbard and friends put words in Paul's mouth that they
thought would appeal to "rednecks." Yeah.. a few.. crazies..
|1.22.08 @ 12:51PM|#
Thanks, Bill Woolsey, that pretty much sums up my recollection
of events.
Eric says I'm wrong wrong on LP history. I wonder why noone else
contradicts me.
Even when you considers people he namedrops he's hardpressed to
find anyone who will confirm his revisionist version of
history.
|1.22.08 @ 12:59PM|#
Is it really true that Rockwell was born in Boston?
According to Wikipedia, for what that's worth, yes, he
was.
To me, the "newsletter" story is about yankee intellectuals writing what they thought would appeal to "NASCAR dads."
You know, that never occurred to me, but I think your onto
something.
I find that interesting, because I could never stand King of
the Hill because I could never get over the idea that Hank
Hill was some Hollywood liberal's notion of what a regular working
guy who sells propane for a living is like.
|1.22.08 @ 4:50PM|#
Dondero:
Another blurb from Ron Paul's Freedom Under "Seige" 1988:
The individual suffering from AIDS certainly a is victim -- frequently a victim of his own
lifestyle -- but this same individual victimizes innocent citizens by forcing
them to pay for his care.
Wow, you don't even understand libertarianism; that explains a
lot.
If this is the level of stuff you have, bring it on!
Libertarian Girl|1.22.08 @ 11:39PM|#
"You all want to see an example of excellent Republican outreach
to African Americans? Mitt Romney video at yesterday's MLK
parade...
Now try imagining Ron Paul doing the same and a similar
event."
You're right Eric, I highly doubt Ron Paul would show up at an MLK
parade and yell out "Who let the dogs out?" like Romney did. Unlike
Romney, he knows how to talk to black people-- just like you would
anyone else.
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