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
The Ron Paul Blimp Floats On!
Ron Paul was never going to drop his campaign before the primary in Pennsylvania, the state where he grew up. Sure enough, the Paul '08 team is out with a schedule: he'll be hitting the state twice this week and twice next week for "freedom rallies." Some time in between those events we might see something a lot more impactful: the potential launch of Bob Barr '08. He'll be speaking at the Heartland Libertarian Conference and rumors of an announcement are going around.
Both men think the Ron Paul rEVOLution is still kicking, and worth continuing. They're offering two different methods for doing so. Paul's method is to continue a John Ashbrook/Pete McCloskey kind of challenge in the GOP and get the party and the media to notice. Right now, it's not working. No one much cares that McCain is getting fewer votes in these final primaries than Bush got in 2000 after wrapping up his nomination. It's simply not clear what a Paul vote means. Is it an anti-McCain vote? An anti-war vote? An anti-immigration vote? Paul's lost the chance to define what, exactly, you signal by supporting him.
If Barr runs, he's going to have a clearer message. It's laid out here: a vote for Barr is anti-pre-emptive war, pro-privacy, against the drift of the GOP and of politics writ large. The bet is that the GOP will only take heed if it loses an election because a candidate running on those issues helps elect a Democrat. What's the evidence that this could work? Yes, George Wallace's 1968 campaign spurred the GOP to take the Southern position on civil and states' rights, and Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign against "corporate Democrats" looks awfully influential in this election where even Bill Clinton's wife is promising card check for unions and a "time out" on trade deals. But those changes had a lot to do with 1)their political popularity and 2)the work of activists inside the parties.
I have no idea how big a Barr/LP vote could be... the only inkling is this poll by Rasmussen taken at the height of the Ron Paul campaign, which had 8 percent of voters going for Paul in a 4-way race with the Democratic and Republican nominees and Ralph Nader. I do know that a defection by about 2-3 percent of McCain voters in Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa, if every other state voted the way it did in 2004, would throw the election into the House of Representatives, where the Democrat would obviously win.
Anonymouse|4.2.08 @ 3:23PM|#
"where even Hillary Clinton's wife"
Hillary Clinton's wife? Wait, those paranoid GOP theories are
true?!
|4.2.08 @ 3:31PM|#
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/who_is_matt_welch/
Excerpt:
"Is Welch a libertarian? Certainly not-by his own admission:
"'I'm a liberal. I take liberalism to mean a belief in policy
geared toward easing poverty, extending rights to every walking
human who hasn't utterly forfeited them, getting the government out
of the morality business, regulating markets judiciously, ensuring
the pervasive yet hopefully efficient delivery of non-market goods
such as education, health care and national defense, and otherwise
having the sense to let the private sector handle private
concerns.'"
More words of "libertarian" wisdom from the new editor of
Reason:
""I don't claim to be an expert on anything, but I can talk pretty
confidently about Central Europe from 1990-98, and especially the
expansion of NATO and U.S. involvement in the Balkans (both of
which I wrote and edited about extensively). And in those cases
where my limited knowledge has brushed up against the party line of
the Chomskyite Left's foreign policy views, I have been appalled.
For example, I've received more than a dozen e-mails from people
quoting Chomsky while citing Kosovo as yet another example of
empire-extending, militaryindustrialcomplex bloodlust on the part
of a hypocritical U.S. This is so wrong, words are hard to come
by."
ANM|4.2.08 @ 3:38PM|#
Oh, come on. We're not taking Justin Raimondo seriously now, are we? I thought his work had been discredited enough...
|4.2.08 @ 3:40PM|#
It appears that Reason may continue to go downhill away from a
libertarian perspective and into a more interventionist foreign
policy point of view.
Regarding Barr's possible run on the Libertarian ticket, I hope he
takes enough votes away from McCain to make him lose (that's
hopefully assuming Hillary won't be the Democratic nominee).
|4.2.08 @ 3:40PM|#
Ron's supporters in Penna. aren't sure what he is doing either
with a few weak college appearances. He put the kibosh on a
weeklong appearance schedule around the state,
including several major fundraisers, to help boost the more than 60
delegates his supporters put on the primary ballot. Sort of like
being left at the altar for another woman.
|4.2.08 @ 3:43PM|#
right on, Calistoga Bob. Yet more words of wisdom from Matt
"Prognosis: Cloudy" Welch, this time on the Kosovo war:
"I've received more than a dozen e-mails from people quoting
Chomsky while citing Kosovo as yet another example of
empire-extending, militaryindustrialcomplex bloodlust on the part
of a hypocritical U.S. This is so wrong, words are hard to come by.
... Such explanations (especially Chomsky's) deny even the
existence of Wilsonian diplomacy, or Vaclav Havel's forceful
arguments & access to Clinton's ear, or of the sea change in
U.S. policy that came about when a child of the Munich sellout
(Madeleine Albright) took the reigns [sic] of the State Department.
It also seems, to my ears, almost oblivious to how the horrifying
Balkan slaughter of 1991-94 damaged the collective psyches of
diplomats and citizens of West Europe and America. For starters,
that period exposed just how not-ready-for-prime-time the idea of
collective European defense was, which was yet another argument for
expanding NATO."
Ah yes, the "libertarian" argument for extending NATO. Kind of like
the "libetarian" argument for nationalizing "non-market good" like
healthcare, education, and, oh yes, food.
|4.2.08 @ 3:46PM|#
What is strange is how a couple media outlets are desperately
trying to hype Bob Barr up. Guess what, no one gives a damn about
Bob Barr. And if you thought the Paul campaign was anemic, watch
how much (little) of an impact the Barr one will make.
Oh and by the way: make sure you highlight any 911
Truthers,racists, and generally unwanted people at Barr's events,
so that you can then write him off and feel really good about
yourself. As though you just cleverly slayed a masquerading demon.
This goes out to the media in general. I know you won't let the
people down, geniuses that you are.
|4.2.08 @ 3:57PM|#
"watch how much (little) of an impact the Barr one will
make."
He might make more of an impact than you realize. With McCain being
the nominee, conservatives will see him as a better alternative. He
could cause McCain to lose in some close states by taking away
votes that would have gone to McCain. He would take virtually no
votes from Obama.
|4.2.08 @ 4:05PM|#
ANM,
I do take Justin Raimondo seriously. His work has never been
discredited, AFAIK.
If you would care to produce (or even link to) such an article, I
will only be too happy to read it.
Please take note of the multiple links to supporting material in
Justin's article
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/who_is_matt_welch/
It would be much appreciated (and refreshing) if you were to
provide similar support for your assertions.
GILMORE|4.2.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Right now, it's not working.
So the big news here is....
Forget it. You'd blog what Ron Paul had for breakfast, lacking any
other story.
|4.2.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Matt Welch on 09/17/2001 08:12 PM
"The biggest question facing Americans and other decent people is
how the civilized world and its strongest country should respond to
this mass murder. I, for one, advocate a Global War to abolish
terrorism."
just don't ask the Bin Ladens any questions...we need this war to
go on a long time right Matt?
|4.2.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Justin Raimondo has a slightly better track record for talking about the issues that were important in Septmeber of 2001. Matt Welch spent his time shouting down those who spoke of US foreign policy mistakes. While Raimondo kept a healthy skepticism for the motives of politicians, Matt Welch was proclaiming his love of Wilsonian foreign policy and slandering people in a facist pro-war rage.
|4.2.08 @ 4:14PM|#
He said it over and over again, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for anti-war Republicans and a vote for delegates to change the GOP. They already changed the Alaskan GOP plank.
|4.2.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Ron Pauls chance never materialised, because the two major parties have implimented plenty of restrictions on anybody moving in on their act.
|4.2.08 @ 4:18PM|#
What's with these social democrats claiming to be libertarians?
Libertarians took up this name when socialists started calling
themselves liberals, now their using libertarian, what other term
will we use now?
If you read what this guy wrote, it seems like he's rejoicing on
the possibility of a Democrat win in November.
|4.2.08 @ 4:25PM|#
"If you read what this guy wrote, it seems like he's rejoicing
on the possibility of a Democrat win in November."
I'm rejoicing over the possibility that we won't have a 3rd term
for the Bush Republicans.
Orange Line Special|4.2.08 @ 4:30PM|#
the Ron Paul rEVOLution is still kicking, and worth
continuing
If RP's idiotic supporters put away the blimp and actually did
something that worked, they could actually resuscitate (to a
certain extent) RP's campaign.
An extremely effective technique would be to go to RP's opponents'
appearances and ask the questions the MSM won't ask.
For instance, consider
this. If you don't spot the lies, do some research. Then, the
next time he says something like that, videotape his response when
you point out that he's lying and upload it to Youtube.
Apparently something as simple as that is too difficult for Ron
Paul's childlike supporters.
|4.2.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Maybe social democratic ideals are in the cards for libertarianism in the future, e.g. you guys did just gain Mike Gravel. LOL@that!
Akston|4.2.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Since the tag line "Free Minds and Free Markets" seems no longer
to apply, what will the David Weigel revision be for Reason?
"Free Minds and Judiciously Regulated Markets"
or
"Free Minds and Free Markets except for the Education and Health
Care Markets, where Dave and government really know best."
Peter|4.2.08 @ 5:12PM|#
Bob Barr is speaking at this year's Atlas Society Summer Seminar. I'm not sure if this was suggested to him, or if he decided to do it on his own, but it certainly represents a concerted effort to branch out to a marginal but prolific group of mainly disillusioned young voters, for what that's worth. I know there are some very strong feelings here regarding the Objectivists (Uh-oh!).
GILMORE|4.2.08 @ 6:46PM|#
Ahh.
"reason sucks" for giving undue attention to a sideline
candidate.
I complain they should give it up now that he's got no chance of
affecting anything; you all complain that they should still be
licking his ass and acting like True Believers no matter how
irrelevant he's become to national presidental politics.
meanwhile, pretty much every other political journal that is
actually in *print* (as opposed to fanatical echo-chamber blogs)
has completely forgotten about the guy.
But *reason* sucks for still hanging on to him as a topic of daily
conversation.
There's that famous quip that Fanatics always hate Apostates more
than Heretics.
meaning = you hate on reason because you expect them to adhere only
to your immature I AM A PURE LIBERTARIAN orthodoxy.
Instead, they only give you 20%, and you hate them worse than you
do the millions of other writers who Never, Ever gave a shit about
Ron Paul.
You guys look like such a gang of silly douchebags. And FWIW, thats
exactly why many libertarian-leaning voters would never be caught
dead hanging out with you angry, self-involved purists. You're just
too fucking tied up with your fudamentalist crusade to have any
perspective on reality. Gold Standard? RIght. Whoo hoo. That'll
happen overnight. Sure.
The upside of course, is that soon Paul'll be back in TX doing his
nice job of being a congressional rabble-rouser, and you guys will
have nothing left to bitch about around here and go back to
wherever you came from.
Nice knowing you
GILMORE|4.2.08 @ 6:49PM|#
p.s.
Lonewacko is a douche, and his Anti-Paulism is as gay as the Angry
Paulista Brigades. He speaks only for himself, and nobody here ever
gives him the time of day.
Plus, he has to keep changing his handle in some pathetic attempt
to seem as though he's got a friend out there who agrees with
him.
GILMORE|4.2.08 @ 7:41PM|#
Angela Thornton | April 2, 2008, 7:27pm | #
Reason sucks.
They owe their entire existence to unknown sideline
candidates.
That right?
Then why dont you fuck off and stop giving them all of these
wonderful hits that help prop up their tiny ad revenue?
You are aware they've been publishing since 1971, right?
i.e. - Who Needs You?
The Shit|4.2.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Honestly, I like Weigel, Dougherty and Sanchez. But, Gillespe and Welch are a bunch of phonies. A forty something nerd wearing a leather jacket comes off more like Henry Winkler than the Fonz.
|4.2.08 @ 8:14PM|#
I don't know why the Retard Parade started, but the Paulistas, Truthers and Blowjob Buddies of Raimondo can get the hell out of here. And feel free to self-perform an enema with a pinecone.
The Shit|4.2.08 @ 9:17PM|#
Ayn Rand was a whore. I said it. I'll say it again. Ayn Rand was
a whore. And her writing SUCKED. I really don't dig Raimondo, but
shit a leopard doesn't his spots. I'm like Missouri. Welch needs to
show me something.
Randian go BLOW.
Bambi|4.2.08 @ 9:42PM|#
Ron Paul a sideline candidate? You stupid idiocrat,
GILMORE.
Learn something.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KVTfcAyYGg
|4.2.08 @ 10:30PM|#
So who e-mailed the anti-Welch talking points to the Raimondo
drones? Apparently they sent more detailed talking points to the
relatively coherent drones and a single page with "Reason sucks"
written on it on crayon to the more "special" drones.
C'mon drones, try to have your own independent thoughts! It hurts a
little at first, but it's fun once you get the hang of it!
|4.2.08 @ 11:03PM|#
I know we should not be concerned about moderating the Reason
blogs but it really is not productive to say the same thing again
and again in a profane way.
I do believe that this is another failing of Matt Welch to not
clean this up.
By the way I too think Matt Welch has a lot of explaining to do as
do the owners of Reason for hiring him.
GILMORE|4.2.08 @ 11:06PM|#
Bambi | April 2, 2008, 9:42pm | #
Oh, yes. The Mass Media has us in their pocket.
Mass Media like.... *reason*. We're all just in the pocket of
Corpoashunz and teh Govumint
Score one for the YouTube generation that thinks we're all sheeple
if we think they happen to be a bunch of boobs.
Alternative interpretation:
You are in fact, a bunch of boobs.
But at least you can throw shit around like monkeys at the zoo.
Helluva convincing rhetorical style that. (e.g. "idiocrat" =
clever!) Should win you lots of converts to the LOVErelution or
whatever. That, and the youtube scare-movies. Good luck exposing
the vast conspiracy that keeps you relegated to the fringes of
political viability.
GILMORE|4.2.08 @ 11:10PM|#
Yolanda | April 2, 2008, 11:06pm | #
Yes yes, we know. Your logic is unassailable. Say it one more time
and it will be even *more true*
Well, to you and your comrades at least. You can have 5 more
minutes of hate before bed, kids.
You would all have made wonderful brownshirts. Ironic, that. You'd
get a lot of joy from Eric Hoffer's "True Believer". Its a common
thing for fanatics to quickly come to resemble precisely the people
that they most despise.
Of course you'd love to line the 'moderates' up against the wall
first.
|4.3.08 @ 12:06AM|#
You know with all the hate speech occurring in these unmoderated blogs and comment sections, one could conclude that Reason approves of the hate speech and that it is homophobic, just like it accuses Ron Paul of being AND for just about the same reason!
|4.3.08 @ 12:08AM|#
I have been a Reason subscriber for nearly 20 years. I voted for
John Hospers and Toni Nathan 36 years ago. And every Libertarian
Presidential candidate since then.
I am really not sure what Matt Welch's problem is but someone hired
him and someone can fire him. He clearly does not understand
libertarian economics or foreign policy. Additionally, he has a
personal animosity towards Ron Paul that is borderline psychotic. I
really would like to know if they have ever met and if so, just
what was said that turned Welch against him. Hating Ron Paul and
saying he is not a REAL libertarian and that he is a racist
homophobe is just silly.
I do not get it. Why put such a person in charge of Reason?
By the way my subscription runs out in May 2008 and I have been
looking for ways to cut back my expenses and simplify my life, as
well as lowering my stress level. Reason USED to be a way for me to
relax my guard and just enjoy the new ideas coming in without being
blindsided and upset by statist pabulum. No more. All it does is
RAISE my anger level. I do not need the aggravation. If Welch
explains himself or leaves, then I will continue my
subscription.
GILMORE|4.3.08 @ 12:18AM|#
Hate speech?
Ego?
Next thing, you'll suggest that *we* all lighten up and the irony
meter will explode.
This is actually *genuinely* funny =
Walt | April 2, 2008, 11:14pm | #
Gilmore,...
Read Eckhart Tolle.
e.g.
A NEW EARTH
Awakening to Your Life's Purpose
In A New Earth Eckhart Tolle shows how transcending our ego-based
state of consciousness is not only essential to personal happiness,
but also the key to ending conflict and suffering throughout the
world.
at least Walt has a sense of humor.
Since we're making reading suggestions, here's the aforementioned
guide to the behavioral psychology of 'movement' fanatics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hoffer#On_the_nature_and_origins_of_mass_movements
Maybe these guys are saying the absolute opposite thing though. He
points out people with 0 self-esteem are the footsoldiers for
ideological movements.
people with enough "ego" (to use walt's word) tend not to join a
club to know the difference between up and down.
GILMORE|4.3.08 @ 12:20AM|#
DenisL | April 3, 2008, 12:08am | #
on your way out the door, have a....DRINK!
|4.3.08 @ 12:21AM|#
"...just like it accuses Ron Paul of being..."
Did I miss something where Welch accused RP of hate speech? Or
where _anyone_ at Reason accused RP of hate speech? From what I've
read, those who accuse him of anything accuse him of very poor
judgment or of tacitly allowing others to publish "racially
insensitive" things under his name to drum up support.
"Additionally, he has a personal animosity towards Ron Paul that is
borderline psychotic."
OK, now that's just stupid. You seem to have a hatred of Matt Welch
that borders on delusional. Actually, you're way over the border of
delusional. You're an illegal immigrant in DelusionLand. Somebody
alert LoneWacko.
|4.3.08 @ 12:23AM|#
Oh, and like GILMORE says, DRINK! (My choice this evening is
bourbon; your mileage may vary.)
No one cares if you explain yourself, DenisL. Your leaving will be
enough for us.
Kolohe|4.3.08 @ 12:48AM|#
This thread is a hoot!
GILMORE you kick ass!
I have not given Raimondo much credit for clear thinking since
reading his stuff on this
incident.
And I stopped taking him seriously at all when this execrable
piece and others by him on that event were published.
I had no frackin clue he had disciples; that's hilarious.
Walt|4.3.08 @ 1:05AM|#
Oprah Winfrey's new book club selection was announced today. The
new pick is Eckhart Tolle's A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life's
Purpose.
For the first time ever, you can join Oprah and best-selling author
Eckhart Tolle as they teach "A New Earth" in Oprah's worldwide
classroom live Monday nights on Oprah.com. Find out what you need
for the first class Monday night, March 3, at 9/8c. Reserve your
seat now for this free Web event only on Oprah.com.
GILMORE|4.3.08 @ 1:28AM|#
Walt =
Thanks for the concern.
Maybe Oprah will consider Montaigne's Essais next time and
i'll be able to share the love.
I'm not much for self help books. But what do I know. Poverty of
soul, as he said, is impossible to cure.
It should be said that nobody ever made a nickel making that
point.
KyleG|4.3.08 @ 2:01AM|#
My vote for Ron Paul was a vote for what Ron Paul stands for: individual liberty.
|4.3.08 @ 2:09AM|#
DenisL - what's the matter? Sad that you're some third-rate
biochem prof at a low-tier school? I would be too, 'specially with
that beard.
Go away!
|4.3.08 @ 6:31AM|#
David Weigel = Matt Welch Jr.
From Dave's youtube page it is clear Rudy is/was his favorite.
Wonder if he is even more militaristic than McCain?
The Ron Paul Revolution is not connected to one person only and has
gone into a next phase. It will never stop till victory is
achieved. The battle for the GOP nomination is far from over. It
looks like McCain may fall in his own sword
(McCain-Feingold)...
|4.3.08 @ 6:38AM|#
It's simply clear that David Weigel does not have a clue what a Ron Paul vote means and this tells one something about his journalistic abilities, or rather lack of it. Reason used to be a good libertarian magazine, but alas not anymore with substandard articles like this. Some education: A vote for Ron Paul means a vote of the only true conservative-libertarian candidate in the GOP race, while McCain represents vote for a RINO to a large extent.Also among non-RP supporters within the GOP, there is a strong feeling that McCain does not represent the core principles of the party.
|4.3.08 @ 8:58AM|#
Hahahahahahahaha, this thread is hilarious. I wonder how long it will take the new editor of Reason to alienate 90 percent of his subscribers?
|4.3.08 @ 9:44AM|#
Kolohe,
so you didn't like to read criticism of the US after the US Navy
killed a bunch of Japanese kids in a fishing boat and then refused
to answer any questions about what happened?
Are you the type that calls someone a "isolationists" if they don't
want to tax american workers in order to have a certain number of
Japanese kids killed by the US Navy every year and then pay for the
appropriate coverup?
|4.3.08 @ 10:03AM|#
Whoa. I used to think reason was cool, but the chorus of "reason sucks" in here has almost convinced me otherwise. I think if somebody were to throw in a "you know, for a magazine called reason..." I would probably be convinced. Convinced, and also totally wasted from all the times I've had to drink during this thread.
Descartes|4.3.08 @ 10:10AM|#
If the witless responses of its readers are anything to go by, then it is safe to assume Reason does suck.
GG|4.3.08 @ 10:47AM|#
It's simply clear that David Weigel does not have a clue
what a Ron Paul vote means
Didn't Weigel affirm that he voted for Paul in the primary?
LEAVE REASON ALONE!!! /Chris Crocker
GILMORE|4.3.08 @ 11:19AM|#
Descartes | April 3, 2008, 10:10am | #
If the witless responses of its readers are anything to go
by...
Irony meter redline
Justin Raimondo | April 3, 2008, 8:58am | #
Hahahahahahahaha,
..."And soon, SOON my legions of minions will attack for the final
blow!! Nothing can stop our onslaught on inanity! The fools have no
idea what new plans we have in store!! We only need to add "TOTALLY
SUCKS" to our secret, unstoppable "Sucks" attack!! Perhaps even
CAPITALIZED!!! HA HA HAHAHAHAHA And the WORLD WILL BE MINE!! MINE,
ALL MINE!!!"
....
Justin i'm sure they'd be glad to send you their annual
subscription growth numbers. Grow up already.
|4.3.08 @ 12:36PM|#
jericho | April 3, 2008, 12:06pm | #
Hahhahahahahahaha
Yes! Yes! "TOTALLY!!" Phase 2 has begun! Attack my
children!! Attack!
|4.3.08 @ 12:37PM|#
People may not know what our vote for Paul signals but Paul supporters know what it means. If you want to know what it signals simply listen to Paul's speeches they are generally the same and clear. THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SOLUTION.
GILMORE|4.3.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Larry, why would anyone want to hold an old man's
jockstrap?
Seriously though. Thats gross.
Also, when a "news magazine" (as opposed to gang of internet
fanbois) is covering the most significant presidential election in
the last 30 years or so, there's only so much space they can devote
to Mr 4th Place. I think you're asking too much for people to
really care that much about an also-ran.
Some people (20%-30%) who are regular readers here are die hard
Paulites. Most are halfway interested (50%) and some think paul is
a waste of breath (20%). The coverage reflects that partly.
You want it one way. But see, it's the other way.
REAL LIBERTARIANS....|4.3.08 @ 4:28PM|#
....ARE CHILDISH ANGRY COCKBITES!!
RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON
PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL!
RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL! RON PAUL!
Akston|4.3.08 @ 5:07PM|#
---
Quote:
GILMORE | April 3, 2008, 4:27pm | #
…when a "news magazine" (as opposed to gang of internet fanbois) is
covering the most significant presidential election in the last 30
years or so, there's only so much space they can devote to Mr 4th
Place. I think you're asking too much for people to really care
that much about an also-ran.
---
I can appreciate a desire for the editorial staff of a general news
magazine to focus space on all 4 candidates for the "most
significant presidential election in the last 30 years or so". I
would agree that all the candidates should merit at least some
coverage. Would you characterize Reason as a general (my term) news
magazine?
The following was taken from http://www.reason.com/about/
"Reason provides a refreshing alternative to right-wing and
left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty
and individual choice in all areas of human activity."
Would that description suggest heightened coverage on candidates
who are most likely to win versus coverage of an "also-ran" whose
policies are too libertarian for mainstream consideration?
Kolohe|4.3.08 @ 5:36PM|#
Gabe Harris-
"...then refused to answer any questions about what
happened?"
This is a factually incorrect statement, both then and now.
"...pay for the appropriate coverup?"
This is utter unadulterated B.S. both then and now; plus, when it
was said then, a great example of the embryonic troofer
movement.
So I stand by my statements that I don't give you guys credit for
clear thinking nor take seriously anything you write.
GILMORE|4.3.08 @ 6:33PM|#
Akston | April 3, 2008, 5:07pm | #
Would you characterize Reason as a general (my term) news
magazine?
No. I'd characterize it as a 'news & culture journal' with a
specific slant that is openly libertarianish, though not "Big L"
(not the rapper) style.
The quote you have from the "About" section is actually specific in
saying what it's *not* - and also doesn't even actually say
"libertarian" at all. Free Minds, Free Markets. Simple guidelines
without being dogmatic or orthodox. I think that gives them a wider
footprint than an exclusively party-line type publication a la,
say, The Nation or Mother Jones. Or say, CounterPunch. These are
all liberal examples, but they are more openly partisan than Reason
tends to be in regards to it's libertarian influences.
Would that description suggest heightened coverage on
candidates who are most likely to win versus coverage of an
"also-ran" whose policies are too libertarian for mainstream
consideration?
Not at all. I personally argued all through 2007 that Paul
garnished 5X the coverage of other candidates, and that it was
totally excessive.
That was the joke I made in my earlier posts in this thread. I
always felt got *too much* coverage in proportion to other issues
(not candidates, but actual news as opposed to political gossip) -
People are here now griping that Reason was somehow Traitor to the
Cause for dropping the unquestioning RP love post-newsletter
issue.
There were a rush of editorial posts in Jan (I think) offering
various mea culpas from writers about their changed
feelings about RP following the newsletter expose. I kept telling
people "get the fuck over it already."
The RP dorks trolling this thread in fact DO have a point, but it
was an old one - that Reason flipped on RP pretty darn quick given
the nonstop lovefest they'd been offering over 2007.
Its not a point they really made in their sophisticated analysis of
the magazine's "suckitude". They could have. But they dont use that
many words.
My vote for funniest post in this thread was this one =
Descartes | April 3, 2008, 10:10am | #
If the witless responses of its readers are anything to go by, then
it is safe to assume Reason does suck.
Because he's admitting (probably without thinking about it) that
all the "critics" here (himself included) are people who've
never actually read the magazine
they're all pissed off about Welch's Big-L cred and initial support
for Iraq war, without any further information about the actual
magazine.
The RP coverage here was so intense, if they'd actually red the mag
or the blog, they'd realize how fucking loony they are
Akston|4.3.08 @ 10:38PM|#
I'll admit that I read Reason more recreationally than avidly,
but if I recall correctly, I wouldn't characterize Reason's
reporting of Ron Paul as overly extensive through most of 2007. I
recall a tone of mostly cool "wait and see" skepticism (though I
admit this was a step up from the derision shown by nearly every
other news source). Following the record day's contributions of $4
million on November 5th, Gillespie and Welch's article on the 25th
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/23/AR2007112301299.html)
- interestingly not in Reason, but in the Washington Post - was
where I first remember seeing mildly favorable coverage of Paul's
campaign by Reason staff. Perhaps there were other articles before
that, but I can't recall any.
After that, and on through the $6 million day on December 16th,
there may indeed have been an increase in Paul coverage at Reason.
There was precious little coverage anywhere else that didn't
include the terms "long shot", "dark horse", "kook", or
"fringe".
After the New Republic's "Angry White Man" story - released on
January 8, the same day as the New Hampshire primary, purely by
coincidence - the retractions of support and endorsements for Paul
did come in from various sources. Perhaps the coverage at Reason
and other outlets fell off starting then. Again, I wouldn't claim
to be an avid Reason subscriber.
Sources like http://www.journalism.org/node/9436 show Ron Paul's
lack of coverage over all. He didn't even make it into their top
graph of coverage for the period, only in the detail below with
0.4% as the main newsmaker in campaign stories of the time.
I'll agree that Reason did give adequate coverage of Paul in
comparison to the other media outlets. In my own superficial
analysis using searches like
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&as_qdr=all&q=allintitle%3A++paul+site%3Awww.reason.com
and then refining a bit, I got the following totals of stories with
each candidate in the title:
McCain 65
Clinton 62
Paul 52
Obama 35
Huckabee 25
Romney 21
Giuliani 21
Edwards 18
And the hits get smaller from there.
This seems an acceptably balanced distribution to me, given
Reason's focus on "Free Minds, Free Markets" and the fact that none
of the other candidates remaining in the race support Free Markets,
and none would ever assert that they oppose Free Minds (whether
they do or not).
I won't come out in support of "reason sucks" posts in general.
Brevity can be evidence of puerility more easily than pith. But I
do sympathize with the lingering frustration and anger of Ron Paul
supporters. I'm one of them myself. I just think there are more
constructive ways to channel that anger than to "rail against
Reason" (so to speak).
Bradley in DC|4.3.08 @ 11:40PM|#
I'm not sure why you say that the House would so obviously vote
for a Democrat for president. The House would vote by state
delegation. I have 21 Republican delegations, 2 even split (and
effectively forfeiting their vote), and 27 Democratic majority
state delegations.
However, several states have nearly evenly split delegations that
could change before January 2009. In addition, the vacancy in
Mississippi will almost certainly be filled by a Republican moving
it's delegation from Democratic majority to evenly split.
Assuming that Arizona, Kansas and Mississippi's delegations that
are evenly split actually vote for McCain (likely justified by the
probably general election vote), we would have 24 state delegation
votes for McCain out of 50.
Any vacancies or non-party votes in Republican voting states or
districts would put some Democratic majority state delegations in
play.
In short, at this point we can't say with much confidence that the
Democrat would not "obviously win."
|4.4.08 @ 12:20AM|#
I would take a bullet for Ron Paul. I won't even vote for any
other fool politician.
I might not be able to take a bullet for RP, but you can bet your
ass I will do every thing I can to write him in come
November!
FTW if they are this stupid!
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 2:59AM|#
Torqued | April 4, 2008, 12:20am | #
I would take a bullet for Ron Paul.
Shoot yourself in the face and fee happy for your contribution to
the cause
Akston|4.4.08 @ 5:01AM|#
"It's simply not clear what a Paul vote means. Is it an
anti-McCain vote? An anti-war vote? An anti-immigration vote?
Paul's lost the chance to define what, exactly, you signal by
supporting him."
---
See http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/ for what a vote for Paul
means. Pundits, simpletons, and some voters may want to boil it
down to a single issue, but it's more than a single issue for many
of us.
For me, it's about "Free Minds and Free Markets". It's about Life,
Liberty and Property. It's about adherence to the constitution.
It's about fiscal responsibility and a stable currency. It's about
a non-interventionist foreign policy. It's about national
sovereignty. It's about a strong defense. It's about free trade.
It's about privacy and liberty.
Coincidentally, it's anti-McCain (Obama, Clinton), anti-"war" (Iraq
occupation), and anti-*illegal*-immigration.
It's also anti- entitlement growth. It's anti- $3 trillion dollar
federal budgets on top of a $9 trillion dollar debt and $1 trillion
dollar-a-year occupation. It's anti- nationalized healthcare. It's
anti- fiat currency controlled by private cartels without
congressional oversight.
Looking at the platforms of the other three candidates, it's pretty
simple to differentiate what a vote for Paul means. The others only
disagree on how many decades to stay in Iraq and how to spend the
money this nation doesn't have.
Paul is the only one who even seems to notice the financial brick
wall we're crashing into, what's caused it, and that we won't be
able to spend our way out of bankruptcy.
GILMORE|4.4.08 @ 10:56AM|#
Davis | April 3, 2008, 6:54pm | #
Man are you stupid. How does one = all?
Because you all said exactly the same thing?
Call me names, but stupid is as stupid does. And you all did
*exactly the same thing*
Forgive me for lumping people in the same bucket, but you did the
job yourselves
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