Ron Paul Un-endorses White Supremacist

Matt Welch | May 8, 2008

Bill Johnson, who is running for Superior Court judge in Los Angeles (with the help of campaign manager Holly Clearman, who is a California coordinator for Paul's presidential campaign), was the author of the 1980s Pace Amendment to the Constitution, which read in part:

No person shall be a citizen of the United States unless he is a non-Hispanic white of the European race, in whom there is no ascertainable trace of Negro blood, nor more than one-eighth Mongolian, Asian, Asia Minor, Middle Eastern, Semitic, Near Eastern, American Indian, Malay or other non-European or non-white blood, provided that Hispanic whites, defined as anyone with an Hispanic ancestor, may be citizens if, in addition to meeting the aforesaid ascertainable trace and percentage tests, they are in appearance indistinguishable from Americans whose ancestral home is in the British Isles or Northwestern Europe. Only citizens shall have the right and privilege to reside permanently in the United States.

"Thought-tormented Ron Paul fan" Tim Cavanaugh extracts a statement from Paul chief of staff Tom Lizardo:

Over the past several weeks, I have also been involved in assisting Dr Paul with the consideration of candidates who are seeking his endorsement for their campaigns.  We have gone through the process of setting up a method by which candidates are to be considered for such endorsements.  During that period, we have also received and reviewed requests from dozens of candidates.

Although Bill Johnson's name ended up on the endorsement list, he did not go through this process.  In light of this fact, and in light of the revelations regarding his past statements and associations, Dr Paul has retracted the endorsement and hopes that, in the future, the process that has been put into place will mitigate the likelihood of similar errors.

Cavanaugh spars with angry Paul supporters here; Paul supporters argue amongst themselves here; other coverage of Johnson by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise and the L.A. Times' Opinion L.A. blog.

Dave Weigel has been all over the ongoing Ron Paul Republicans story, including a forthcoming column in the July issue.

Comments

|5.8.08 @ 2:01PM|#

For a magazine called Reason, Eric Dondero, cosmoterian, drink.

Also, ever since Postrel.

Elemenope|5.8.08 @ 2:02PM|#

Whoops.

|5.8.08 @ 2:03PM|#

LIZARDO!

Episiarch|5.8.08 @ 2:05PM|#

WEIGEL BETRAYED RON PAUL WITH HIS GAY LOVER KIRCHICK blargh COSMO unnnhhh ORANGE LINE ack thhpptt LEW ROCKWELL IS A GREAT MAN aiiighhhhh

Neil|5.8.08 @ 2:08PM|#

Wow someone actually wrote that in 1980!?

Bingo|5.8.08 @ 2:16PM|#

Racism isn't compatible with libertarianism FOR THIS REASON you goddamn Paultards. Racists are simply hitching a ride on the minimal-government bandwagon as an ends to their means, they obviously have no problem with using the government to enforce their viewpoints.

That amendment is the most ridiculous shit I've ever read.

Fred Church Ortiz|5.8.08 @ 2:17PM|#

So the question becomes... why was he put on the list without going through the process? By virtue of being a meetup guy?

|5.8.08 @ 2:18PM|#

This is the salient part:

Although Bill Johnson's name ended up on the endorsement list, he did not go through this process. In light of this fact, and in light of the revelations regarding his past statements and associations, Dr Paul has retracted the endorsement.

Bingo|5.8.08 @ 2:20PM|#

Rick: Unfortunately if you read some of the discussion pages some of the idiots are defending Bill Johnson.

|5.8.08 @ 2:20PM|#

Racism isn't compatible with libertarianism FOR THIS REASON you goddamn Paultards. Racists are simply hitching a ride on the minimal-government bandwagon as an ends to their means, they obviously have no problem with using the government to enforce their viewpoints.

For racists to be able to shape society to their image, they need Big Government, not small.

By the way, there is a BIG difference between being racist (which in itself, it is not a bad thing), and imposing racists laws and regulations upon a free people (like Jim Crow, Marriage laws and anti-discrimination laws, the last which generate animosity between groups)

|5.8.08 @ 2:21PM|#

Pre-emptive "go fuck yourself, edward."

So, go fuck yourself, edward.

jj|5.8.08 @ 2:23PM|#

Racism isn't compatible with libertarianism FOR THIS REASON you goddamn Paultards. Racists are simply hitching a ride on the minimal-government bandwagon as an ends to their means, they obviously have no problem with using the government to enforce their viewpoints.

And yet it's okay for reason to spew venom, and for reason commenters to call for the annihilation of religious people, even people who follow the Zero Aggression Principle? I get it, I get it, you can hate on someone who chooses to pray a prayer, even when he does you no harm.

I see the pot calling the kettle black.

|5.8.08 @ 2:23PM|#

Most white supremacists are national socialists, not the rustic individualists the media make them out to be.
In other words, they're the worst sort of collectivists, and for that and many other reasons, their "philosophy" is antithetical to libertarianism. Down the line.

|5.8.08 @ 2:25PM|#

Most white supremacists are national socialists, not the rustic individualists the media make them out to be.

Dunno what channels you get, but it seems to me the media is pretty relentlessly negative on white supremacists.

joe|5.8.08 @ 2:26PM|#

Actual, honest-to-God white supremacists seem to think that the existence of the modern state is a net loss for racism, and a net gain for racial equality. They seem to see small-government conservatism, and not the big-government conservatism of, say, the neocons, as providing more fertile ground for 1) finding like-minded people and 2) producing a social order to their liking.

Why do you think that might be?

Bingo|5.8.08 @ 2:27PM|#

Nice straw man, jj. Libertarians don't like people that use coercion to enforce an authoritarian viewpoint. Doesn't matter the color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual preference, or shoe size of the individual.

Bingo|5.8.08 @ 2:29PM|#

Joe: White supremacists aren't small-government or even anti-government. They are just anti-government-in-its-current-form and, as indicated by that stupid fucking amendment, have absolutely zero problems passing retarded authoritarian laws as long as they are the ones in charge.

bluebeard|5.8.08 @ 2:29PM|#

Actual, honest-to-God white supremacists seem to think that the existence of the modern state is a net loss for racism, and a net gain for racial equality. They seem to see small-government conservatism, and not the big-government conservatism of, say, the neocons, as providing more fertile ground for 1) finding like-minded people and 2) producing a social order to their liking.

Last I knew: 1. "finding like-minded people and 2) producing a social order to their liking." is not a criminal offense. Why shouldn't they live out in their little white hick colony, if they like? It's when they rob steal, or rape others that it becomes a problem. I'm guessing you're not a libertarian, Joe?

it\'s that time again|5.8.08 @ 2:29PM|#

reason sucks

Bingo|5.8.08 @ 2:30PM|#

I am so pissed after reading that amendment, argh. Okay low-blood sugar ranting off.

joe|5.8.08 @ 2:30PM|#

Most white supremacists are national socialists, not the rustic individualists the media make them out to be.

That must be why Don Black donated to Mike Huckabee, and why Bill Johnson sought out McCain's endorsement. Because it's the corporatist right and welfare-state conservatism that they relate to. All that stuff about them viewing government as the enemy is just the media making stuff up.

Oh, wait...

jj|5.8.08 @ 2:31PM|#

Nice straw man, jj. Libertarians don't like people that use coercion to enforce an authoritarian viewpoint. Doesn't matter the color, sex, national origin, religion, sexual preference, or shoe size of the individual.

So reason's not libertarian? I'm guessing you're just feigning ignorance of their promotion of bigoted anti-religious, pro-war writers?

Call it a straw man if you like. I smell a double standard. And, as a jew I claim street cred not to be a racist either :)

Bingo|5.8.08 @ 2:34PM|#

Gee, jj, try addressing my point. Islam is very authoritarian. I'm anti-war and I certainly don't think we should spend a trillion dollar bombing the bastards. But they love to oppress people so fuck them.

Neil|5.8.08 @ 2:34PM|#

Joe remember it was Republicans who abolished slavery, and the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act while your party voted against it.

The only thing you have offered blacks since then is affirmative action and welfare checks. The new generation will realize for all your pandering they don't get anything from your party.

joe|5.8.08 @ 2:34PM|#

You can keep saying that, Bingo. You can keep playing "No True Scottsman" if you'd like.

But by their actions ye shall know them.

They hate the left. They don't even like mainstream conservatism. They seem to disagree with you, and find the anti-government/militia/2nd Amendment/anti-civil rights laws conservatives as their natural allies.

And now, I'll eagerly await the responses from people making the "All men are John" fallacy, and rebutting a nonexistant argument that I just said small-government conservatives consider white supremacists to be their allies.

|5.8.08 @ 2:34PM|#

jj,

You are rather light on details in your accusations, but accepting for the sake of argument that they are true...

...do you not see the difference between writing an article and proposing a Constitutional Amendment?

joe|5.8.08 @ 2:35PM|#

I'm guessing you're not much a reader, bluebeard.

Why don't you try that again.

Neil|5.8.08 @ 2:38PM|#

The Democrats are the real Party of Racism and their history shows it.

short, fat bastard|5.8.08 @ 2:38PM|#

And, as a jew I claim street cred not to be a racist either . . .

You haven't seen discrimination until you've walked a mile, or maybe a quarter-mile with a few rest stops, in my size 7EEEE loafers.

|5.8.08 @ 2:39PM|#

Sky Lopez could stay in the USA, so what's the problem.

Colin|5.8.08 @ 2:40PM|#

Boy, I wasn't even planning on voting on the judge part of the ballot next month. Now, at least, there's one person I'll be voting against.

I hope Reason is going to write about the two competing eminent domain propositions that are on the same ballot.

joe|5.8.08 @ 2:41PM|#

And Reverend Wrong chimes in with:

Neil | May 8, 2008, 2:34pm | #

Joe remember it was Republicans who abolished slavery, Yes, back when they were the liberal party and the Democrats were the social conservatives

and the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act Nope. The Civil Rights Act was a bipartisan measure, that had support from some Democrats (like Kennedy and Johnson) and opposition from others (like Thurmond, where'd he end up again?), and also support from some Republicans (the Rockefeller wing that was driven out of the party) and opposition from others (like Goldwater)

while your party voted against it. The Democratic Party of the pre-civil rights - a period that ended a decade before my birth - is not my party.

The new generation will realize for all your pandering they don't get anything from your party. Sure they will, Neil. They just need enlightened white Republicans like you to show them the error of their ways, since, apparently, they lack the capacity to figure out their interests and values by themselves.

|5.8.08 @ 2:41PM|#

Does anyone know how Michael Young is doing? Seems like things are tense in Beirut right now...

jj|5.8.08 @ 2:41PM|#

Mike P, I do. And as a libertarian I believe that reason has the "right" to thumb their nose at whomever they darned well please.

I'm simply trying to hold reason to the same standard to which they hold Ron Paul and LRC. No one's accusing LRC of ACTING on its bigotry, just of writing bigoted articles. The same should apply to to reason who supports candidates who call for the demise of all religious people. How is that any less offensive?

My point is simply, that if we can distinguish between those thuggish black people and their peaceful black neighbors, perhaps we can extend the same favor to religious people. G-d knows the libertarian coalition is not much bigger than a pup tent, but let's not rip ourselves more openings.

bluebeard|5.8.08 @ 2:42PM|#

And, as a jew I claim street cred not to be a racist either . . .

>>>>>>You haven't seen discrimination until you've walked a mile, or maybe a quarter-mile with a few rest stops, in my size 7EEEE loafers.

I was keeeeeeding.

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 2:43PM|#

Actual, honest-to-God white supremacists seem to think that the existence of the modern state is a net loss for racism, and a net gain for racial equality. They seem to see small-government conservatism, and not the big-government conservatism of, say, the neocons, as providing more fertile ground for 1) finding like-minded people and 2) producing a social order to their liking.

Why do you think that might be?

It's an accident of history.

Both movements view themselves as restorationists.

Small-government advocates want to return to a past where government was smaller.

White supremacists want to return to a past where minorities had no rights.

Libertarians tend to pretend to themselves that the US was more libertarian from 1870 to 1932 than it actually was, and frame their arguments as a return to a golden past that we have fallen away from. By modern libertarian standards the US was a pretty shitty place during that time frame in a great many respects, but libertarians still employ touchstones and symbols from that period in their "marketing".

Unfortunately those touchstones and symbols are subject to varying interpretations, and the white supremacists have their own interpretations of the Constitution ["the organic Constitution"], the history of the common law, etc. that are incompatible with libertarianism but not with the symbols libertarians sometimes employ.

And then there's the simple fact that white supremacists often have direct experience with federal law enforcement abuses that inform their opinion on issues of federal power in ways that aren't directly related to their underlying ideology. If I was a Communist who was spied on by the FBI, had my mail read, my organizations infiltrated, my friends harassed, etc., I might endorse libertarian views on the power of the federal state as well - but that wouldn't mean that there was some sort of special affinity between Communists and libertarians.

|5.8.08 @ 2:44PM|#

The same should apply to to reason who supports candidates who call for the demise of all religious people.

Okay, now I'm going to have to ask for details.

Neil|5.8.08 @ 2:44PM|#

Robert "KKK" Byrd is still in your party Joe.

PC|5.8.08 @ 2:45PM|#

"G-d knows the libertarian coalition is not much bigger than a pup tent."

I always pictured it as a cannabalistic Hooverville composed of unread Reason magazines, due to all the cancelled subscriptions.

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 2:46PM|#

The same should apply to to reason who supports candidates who call for the demise of all religious people. How is that any less offensive?

Can you name for me a candidate who calls for the deaths of all religious people?

joe|5.8.08 @ 2:47PM|#

Bingo,

Every single party and faction that has a political platform beyond "keep the status quo" - which is to say, every single party and faction - is opposed to "government in its current form."

Yet white supremacists only seem to find one faction of the non-white-supremacist body politic to be potentially friendly.

You really don't need to repeat the explanations about libertarian ideology being incompatible with racism on the level of ideas. I understand, and I even agree. If you recall, I lauded Ron Paul's performance on CNN after the newsletters story broke, in which made exactly that point, on these threads.

And yet, the fact of the (mainly one-way) affinity remains. I agree with you, this affinity doesn't stem from a common set of ideals about the good society, or the good government.

So..what gives? Is it just the newsletters? The opposition to the Civil Rights Act? The respect for gun ownership among those with an unalterably violent ideology?

Guy Montag|5.8.08 @ 2:47PM|#

MikeP,

Yea, I did not know any of the faith-hating commentators here on H&R were running for office.

I second the call for details!

short, fat bastard|5.8.08 @ 2:48PM|#

I was keeeeeeding.

You think you're the only one?

♪|5.8.08 @ 2:49PM|#

I'm glad the "Ron Paul Un-endorses White Supremacist" headline came out before the "Ron Paul Endorses White Supremacist" headline. I think it shows somebody waited for confirmation, "do you really endorce him, or is this a mistake?" instead of pouncing.

Either that or the RP campaign was just really, really fast.

joe|5.8.08 @ 2:50PM|#

Damn good answer, Fluffy. Damn good.

Props on acknowledging and contending with an ugly reality, instead of just wishing it away.

Guy Montag|5.8.08 @ 2:50PM|#

Either that or the RP campaign was just really, really fast.

Faster than Warren Wallace, I hear.

joe|5.8.08 @ 2:51PM|#

Neil | May 8, 2008, 2:44pm | #

Robert "KKK" Byrd is still in your party Joe.

And NOT in the KKK, having renounced the racial views that led peole like Thurmond and Helms to switch to the Southern Strategy GOP.

|5.8.08 @ 2:51PM|#

By the way, there is a BIG difference between being racist (which in itself, it is not a bad thing)

Wait, what? are you kidding or trolling?

Racism is bad. End Statement!

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 2:51PM|#

I think it's important to point out that this Johnson guy has changed his name a couple of times, which to me says he has made a deliberate effort to obscure his past.

So if Paul's people say they didn't mean to endorse him, the fact that this guy may be hiding from his time as a guy named "Pace" is in their favor.

They got bamboozled.

|5.8.08 @ 2:52PM|#

I've been in Bill Johnson's house. We had our regular Pasadena and Los Angeles Ron Paul meetups in there. There were often over 100 people in there, of all races. He was kind to all of us, and spoke about the importance of tolerance and diversity in the Ron Paul movement. I spoke with my asian friend who was in the Pasadena meetup group. He also expressed shock about these accusations towards Bill Johnson, stating that Bill was very nice and respectful towards him, and even gave him the security password to his house!

I have no idea if Bill really said or did those things, but people change. The Bill Johnson I knew was nothing like the Bill Johnson depicted here. And unlike all you people just anxious to grab onto anything that will help forever destroy the Ron Paul movement, I knew the guy in person. Bryd, one of the most liberal senators, was a former Klansmen.

The more I see stupid shit like this, the more clear it is that these Ron Paul attacks are attacks on the PEOPLE in the movement. Over the past year, I have been to dozens and dozens of Ron Paul events, from marches to rallies to sign wavings. I can absolutely say that the people who showed up to the events were very diverse. There were people there of all ages, races, and backgrounds. Yes, there were blacks there, yes there were asians, yes there were a number of hispanics. They were some of the nicest and most helpful people I have known. If I needed flyers or slim jims, I needed onto to post a message in the meetup and within and hour or 2 I would have a dozen people emailing me telling me I could come over and pick them up. During our rallies and marches, people would share food if I didn't have any, and we would always help each other out. How else does a network of over 100,000 national meetup members for if not for such un-predjeduce hospitality. If you are implying that RON PAUL SUPPORTERS are predjeduce and bigoted, I TAKE GREAT OFFENSE TO THAT. Say what you want about Ron Paul, but please do not diss the movement.

I believe these attacks are attacks against the energetic and enthusiastic movement of ANTI-WAR Libertarian movement. Reason is obsessively anti-drug war, but waffles on intervention vs. non-intervention. You hate the fact that RP can logically and consistently oppose nearly all intervention from a conservative and libertarian standpoint. It was successfuly because the anti-war sentiment is high in America right now, and it's fusion with the anti-government libertarian message created the massive movement. A pro-war Ron Paul would not have had nearly the same impact.

Like it or not, the Ron Paul movement was the biggest and more energetic and amazing libertarian movement they has ever existed in our lifetimes. I marched with literally hundreds of people across santa monica and down the peer for a mock tea party, and holding Ron Paul signs. There was about a thousand people at the USC rally last September. These huge rallies occured all over the country, as we know. It his 20,000 in the rally at the Univeristy of Michigan. It is clear that this bashing of Ron Paul would not be so frequent if it wasn't for the massive amount of DIVERSE support that he had during his campaign.

joe|5.8.08 @ 2:53PM|#

jj is talking about Hirsan Ali, the anti-Muslim Somali-Dutch candidate for the Dutch Parliament. Reason had an interview with her.

I though the interviewers' response made it pretty clear that he considered her violent and extreme proposals to be nuts, but then, I'm not trying to damn Reason.

|5.8.08 @ 2:55PM|#

English, Scottish, Manx, Irish, French, Saxon, Austrian and Liechtensteiner. I'm a mongrel, but I guess I get to stay. So, who else gets to stay and who else has to go?

Could not resist...|5.8.08 @ 2:56PM|#

"Either that or the RP campaign was just really, really fast."

♪ | May 8, 2008, 2:49pm | #

Weigel hit the snooze button this morning so Welch didn't get to work on time.

|5.8.08 @ 2:57PM|#

Hey joe, when you've interviewed more than 100 of them, and attended their rallies, and written more than 50 newspaper articles about them, then you can lecture me on what you think white supremacists are.
Until then, you're just a fucking clueless idiot. As usual.

PC|5.8.08 @ 2:58PM|#

"jj is talking about Hirsan Ali, the anti-Muslim Somali-Dutch candidate for the Dutch Parliament. Reason had an interview with her."

So that's her background. I thought she was made in a test tube in the AEI.

|5.8.08 @ 3:00PM|#

Now this is personal. Also villifing Holly, who was my friend. She was not racist, and we are not racist. This is personal. I'll get you, reason!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rimfax|5.8.08 @ 3:02PM|#

This is another example of the fair-weather-federalism of paleos: "Leave the issues to the states that I think will go my way at the state level, but enforce at the federal level the things that are less likely to go my way." They have predictably abandoned the ship of federalism whenever the Republicans have the White House and either the House or the Senate.

short, fat bastard|5.8.08 @ 3:03PM|#

Jamie, please note that this "joe" is not the same "joe" that has an email with "boyle" in it.

To the current "joe", you should recognize that this handle has been used by someone else who has been posting here for years. You should do something to make yourself unique.

Episiarch|5.8.08 @ 3:05PM|#

This is personal. I'll get you, reason!!!!!!!!!!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Episiarch|5.8.08 @ 3:06PM|#

joe, is the non-hyperlinked "joe" you, or someone else?

|5.8.08 @ 3:07PM|#

White supremacists view the CURRENT government as Zionist-occupied, working not just against the interests of white people, but to eradicate them. They also believe that our cultural institutions -- media, entertainment -- are all controlled by Jews.
They'd gladly replace this government with their own, removing or eradicating all "mud" people in a police state with socialized industry.
Sound familiar, joe?
Oh, that's right: One of them gave money to Huckabee.
You imp.

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 3:08PM|#

Karsten:

I attended Ron Paul events as well and the people were very nice.

But the simple fact of the matter is that this Johnson guy acknowledged to the LA Times that he used to be named Pace and did in fact author the Pace Amendment.

Maybe he changed, and if he did it's nice that he changed. But certain fuckups disqualify you from holding a judgeship even if you show up and say that you've changed. And certain fuckups mean you don't deserve an endorsement for a judicial election even if you show up and say that you've changed.

This would be on that list of fuckups.

|5.8.08 @ 3:08PM|#

I'll wager that this is well-known joe, and he forgot to set his email.

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 3:09PM|#

A fake joe?!?!?

I thought I was talking to the real joe.

I feel violated!

Could not resist...|5.8.08 @ 3:09PM|#

"Either that or the RP campaign was just really, really fast."

Well if you ever had an endorsement retracted by the RP campaign you do know how fleet footed they can be.

short, fat bastard|5.8.08 @ 3:12PM|#

I'll wager that this is well-known joe, and he forgot to set his email.

I'm guessing that this is a new "joe" that doesn't realize the size of the shoes he is stepping into.

Rimfax|5.8.08 @ 3:15PM|#

Karsten,

Per, Fluffy, above, the only one being accused of racism is Bill Johnson. If he's not a racist anymore, but he used to be and wrote this drivel, he essentially lied to you and Holly Clearman.

If you are as close to him as you say, you should be able to find out the truth. When you do, please share it here, or email "[e-mail]" so they can post it fresh.

Episiarch|5.8.08 @ 3:15PM|#

I'll wager that this is well-known joe, and he forgot to set his email.

I agree--the conversational style is joe's--but I just want to make sure.

short, fat bastard|5.8.08 @ 3:16PM|#

You can tell, because hyper-joe(boyle) always fucks up the italics ;-)

Rimfax|5.8.08 @ 3:19PM|#

Sounds like the real "joe" to me, and choosing against capitalization is still a minority choice, it appears. I frequently have to reenter my URL in the comment thingy. I can easily see joe just bagging it for this thread.

joe|5.8.08 @ 3:20PM|#

Until then, you're just a fucking clueless idiot. As usual.

Whereas you, Jamie, are ever the man of letters, whose demonstrated knowledge is matched only by the flawless logic with which you construct you arguments.

So, basically, you got nothing. As usual.

|5.8.08 @ 3:21PM|#

No, it's me.

The only think Jamie has to notice is that he still can't answer the question.

|5.8.08 @ 3:23PM|#

Rick: Unfortunately if you read some of the discussion pages some of the idiots are defending Bill Johnson.

I did read the links, Bingo. My point was to marginalize Johnson and his supporters-as in "Who cares whet they think?"

|5.8.08 @ 3:25PM|#

Sound familiar, joe?

No, not really. It's tough to come up with another movement that supports both a Jewish conspiracy-based genocidal platform AND socialized industry. Stalin's "anti-cosmopolitian" plan, perhaps?

I know you meant to refer to the Nazis, but as usual, you don't know what you're talking about - in this case, not understaind their fuhrer-principe-based, corporatist, pro-industrialist economic program.

|5.8.08 @ 3:25PM|#

Racism is the most primitive form of collectivism. Thanks, Ayn.

|5.8.08 @ 3:25PM|#

I'll get you, reason!!!!!!!!!!!!

And your little dog, too!

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 3:25PM|#

Could not resist wins the thread.

Other Matt|5.8.08 @ 3:28PM|#

I agree--the conversational style is joe's--but I just want to make sure.

If not, someone's doing a very good job of imitaing his typical bullshit lack of coherent logic type racist comments. So, I'd vote for, sound's like the same "piss off you moron" joe to me.

|5.8.08 @ 3:32PM|#

No person shall be a citizen of the United States [if] more than one-eighth American Indian...

Like Archie Bunker said, if them Native Indians don't like it here, let 'em go back where they came from...

|5.8.08 @ 3:33PM|#

Still, Fluffy, I'm not sure the historical accident account you give is comprehensive. Every other strand of conservatism harkens back to ye old golden era as well. Not to mention, the racist/small-government alliance against the Civil Rights Act and that "communist" Martin Luther King was all about preservation, not restoration.

Let me offer a couple of other possibilities.

Libertarianism is a fringe, as opposed to neoconservatism and other elements of the modern conservative movement, so there is a possibility that libertarians would bother to give them the time of day.

And here's the one that's really going to go down rough: the modern liberal project actually does help minorities, actually does promote greater equality, actually does advance solidarity among diverse groups, and actually does alleviate the material conditions that lead people to, ahem, "cling to antipathy towards people who aren't like them."

short, fat bastard|5.8.08 @ 3:34PM|#

No, it's me.

If you're going to use a sock puppet, you should change the handle as well as dropping the email link ;-)

|5.8.08 @ 3:36PM|#

I love it.

On a thread about a fellow who sponsored a Constitutional Amendment specifically for the purpose of promoting white supremacy, Other Matt (who really, really just hates racism) is bestirred only to denounce the abhorrent racism in...er...my observation that this white supremacist sought to make common cause with libertarians.

I am blessed in my enemies. It's how I know I'm on the right track.

Ken|5.8.08 @ 3:36PM|#

Johnson's supporters seem to be divided between saying (1) it's all a lie (denial), (2) people are too quick to make charges of racism on no evidence (evasion; the evidence is indisputable that Johnson was a racist by any reasonable definition of that word in the 1980s), or (3) he's not racist now.

The third argument is the only one worth any serious thought at this point. And I don't buy it. He's not running for dogcatcher; he's running for Superior Court judge. He's going to be charged with administering justice neutrally without reference to ethnicity. Yet he's openly advocated changes to the law that would strip non-whites of rights and citizenship. The appearance problem is manifest. I know I'd never allow a client to appear before him -- I'd use California's one-shot-per-case no-questions-asked disqualify-the-judge measure (CCP 170.6) to get rid of him and be transferred to another judge. I suspect everyone else would as well.

Is there redemption? Maybe spiritually. But I don't buy that someone who took that position can be redeemed until he's fit for a judicial position. And he certainly can't come close to being redeemed without addressing his past and repudiating it -- instead of running for various offices in different states under different names, which is what he's done.

I'd ask his supporters who say he's not a racist now this question -- has he addressed what he wrote in the past? If not, why not?

I wrote about this election (and why there's a real danger he'll be elected) on my blog, linked in my name.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 3:38PM|#

Good luck getting that toothpaste back in the tube.

The Paulians have a lot of energy. If the GOP were smarter, they'd be trying to find ways to harness that rather than suppress it.

Colin Clout|5.8.08 @ 3:40PM|#

Neil,

Strom "Dixiecrat" Thurmond switched to the Republican Party in 1964.

The Democratic Republican|5.8.08 @ 3:41PM|#

Karsten Nicholson: MANY of the people in the Ron Paul movement DESERVE to be attacked. Every person whose political beliefs are tied to racism and conspiracy theories needs to be attacked -- especially since many of those people (looking at the Rockwell crowd) have been responsible for tarnishing the movement and making the rest of us, who support Paul for legitimate reasons, look like assholes.

So the next time some Rockwellite can't understand why people attack the poor, collectivist Ronulans (who are now fighting for such a ridiculous goals at the RNC), consider that you should blame the people who have done and said racist things and not those who are trying to clear the racist skeletons out of the libertarian movement.

The Democratic Republican|5.8.08 @ 3:42PM|#

Did I mention my conspiracy theory that Rockwell probably had something to do with this guy "accidentally" being on the endorsement list.

Or maybe it was the hosting people...donating lots of money....

Probably both

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 3:43PM|#

Not to mention, the racist/small-government alliance against the Civil Rights Act and that "communist" Martin Luther King was all about preservation, not restoration.

Well, I think this is the result of a different historical accident, which is related to the first one:

The issue on which the federal government and the state governments fought their battle for supremacy was civil rights.

So you have some varieties of libertarians who have tactical reasons for wanting a weak federal government and more robust states - and you also have racists who were agitated about the issue that was itself in dispute between the feds and the states.

I think that if the big battle between the feds and the states had been, say, gay marriage instead, you might have seen different alliances form. And libertarianism would be "that gay ideology" instead of "that ideology for secret racists".

Neil|5.8.08 @ 3:43PM|#

Well joe you do support a racist for President who got the nomination on the basis of racist identity politicking.

Other Matt|5.8.08 @ 3:44PM|#

Other Matt (who really, really just hates racism) is bestirred only to denounce the abhorrent racism in...er...my observation that this white supremacist sought to make common cause with libertarians.

No, joe, I pretty much concur with AR's original statement. I just abhor your version equally, the other version is sufficiently addressed already. However, since you can't read without inferring something, note that I was simply pointing out that in my opinion, you were your same fuckwitted self, that's all.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 3:44PM|#

And here's the one that's really going to go down rough: the modern liberal project actually does help minorities, actually does promote greater equality, actually does advance solidarity among diverse groups, and actually does alleviate the material conditions that lead people to, ahem, "cling to antipathy towards people who aren't like them

We'll fight racism with more racism! Asians, you get 20 points off your SATs, because you tend to come from a culture that studies harder than others. Blacks, you get +20. Now we're really judging people by the content of their character!

But let's not stop there! Let's also establish all sorts of exclusionary identity politics groups: the Black American Bar Association, the Congressional Black Caucus, the National Hispanic Leadership Council. We're getting closer to a colorblind society every day!

Colin Clout|5.8.08 @ 3:45PM|#

Rick Barton,

I always figured that racism came long after the other "collectivist" attributes of human society.

Neil|5.8.08 @ 3:47PM|#

Dave you silly typical white bitter person every good liberal knows only whites can be racist.

|5.8.08 @ 3:48PM|#

Fluffy,

I agree with what you wrote at 3:43, but don't you see how that confirms by theory that white supremcists find common cause with small-government conservatives becasue the liberal project really does advance racial equality?

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 3:49PM|#

You know, what's sad is that, left to their devices, most people growing up in America today are like the kids in that South Park episode who are so non-racist they don't understand why a flag depicting a lynching has any racial significance.

But the racial grievance-mongers like Jesse Jackson have to make a living. Oh well, maybe we'll outgrow them someday.

|5.8.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Neil | May 8, 2008, 3:43pm | #

Well joe you do support a racist for President who got the nomination on the basis of racist identity politicking.

Actually, Neil, I've been supporting Obama over Clinton, and far from getting the nomination, she has lost the race.

Colin Clout|5.8.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Neil,

FWIW, The Southern Strategy.

Neil|5.8.08 @ 3:50PM|#

Did Clinton get 90% of the white vote Joe?

fyodor|5.8.08 @ 3:53PM|#

Actual, honest-to-God white supremacists seem to think that the existence of the modern state is a net loss for racism, and a net gain for racial equality. They seem to see small-government conservatism, and not the big-government conservatism of, say, the neocons, as providing more fertile ground for 1) finding like-minded people and 2) producing a social order to their liking.

Why do you think that might be?

Three likely rasons I can think of.

One: they think small government policies at the federal level would keep the federal government from interfering with active racist policies enacted on the state or local level.

Two: they think that small government policies keep the government out of interfering with noncoercive racist activities, such as a restaurant refusing to serve blacks.

Three: they're stupid.

All three have some truth to them. I recognize that there are trade-offs to principled libertarianism and that freedom inherently means that not everyone will exercise their freedom the way I would like them to, but as long as they're doing it noncoercively, that's their right.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 3:54PM|#

theory that white supremcists find common cause with small-government conservatives becasue the liberal project really does advance racial equality?

Then why do the Hispanic supremacist and black supremacist groups tend to be leftist?

It's not about equality, its about power. The white racists have their side, the others have theirs.

Nick_M|5.8.08 @ 3:54PM|#

It's nice to see that Reason has found a way to top its guilt-by-association smear of Ron Paul:

Guilt by second-hand association!

That's what I call ingenuity!

|5.8.08 @ 3:55PM|#

Gotta feel good to know that Neil's on your side, eh TallDave?

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 3:49pm | #

You know, what's sad is that, left to their devices, most people growing up in America today are like the kids in that South Park episode who are so non-racist they don't understand why a flag depicting a lynching has any racial significance.

I'm sure you find that quite sad. It helps to explain your passionate flogging of the Reverend Wright story.

Gotta keep those fires burning, or the American public won't vote the way you want them.

I always hear about white supremacists supporting a revolution, and also that liberal racial justice policies cause an increase in racial antagonism.

We saw the Communists adopt a "worse is better" philosophy, opposing liberal policies which alleviated the radicalizing suffering of poor and working-class people. They realized that such policies would reduce the bitterness and anger they relied on.

If affirmative action and multiculturalism were causing the racial hostility that some people posit, wouldn't we expect to see white supremacists arguing in favor of them? Or at least, not denouncing and working against them?

And yet we don't. Interesting, that.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 3:57PM|#

It helps to explain your passionate flogging of the Reverend Wright story.

Yes, it's good to see racism and those who flog racism exposed.

If affirmative action and multiculturalism were causing the racial hostility that some people posit, wouldn't we expect to see white supremacists arguing in favor of them?

Duh, only if they could get the system rigged in their own favor.

|5.8.08 @ 3:58PM|#

Neil | May 8, 2008, 3:50pm | #

Did Clinton get 90% of the white vote Joe?

No, for all the flogging of racial-charged issues, she just didn't manage to move that many Democrats with it. Maybe a few in the South and lower mid-west, but when a political faction is deep in the minority, they do tend to take on some of the characteristics of the majority.

|5.8.08 @ 3:58PM|#

joe,
white supremacists aren't as intelligent as Communists.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 3:59PM|#

only if they could get the system rigged in their own favor.

In fact, that's exactly what the Jim Crow laws and poll taxes were: affirmative action for white people.

fyodor|5.8.08 @ 4:00PM|#

I agree with what you wrote at 3:43, but don't you see how that confirms by theory that white supremcists find common cause with small-government conservatives becasue the liberal project really does advance racial equality?

But joe, that's like the argument that being against the invasion of Iraq was being objectively pro-Saddam Hussein. I imagine there are Democratic candidates who enjoy the support of people for whom they would not return the favor as well. Your guilt by association campaign here is unbecoming.

DW|5.8.08 @ 4:01PM|#

"But certain fuckups disqualify you from holding a judgeship even if you show up and say that you've changed. And certain fuckups mean you don't deserve an endorsement for a judicial election even if you show up and say that you've changed."

So how does this then compare to Obama's recent, 20-year long mistake with Rev. Wright? I'm not defending Johnson, but let's put this in perspective here.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 4:02PM|#

So how does this then compare to Obama's recent, 20-year long mistake with Rev. Wright?

Obama gives prettier speeches?

|5.8.08 @ 4:06PM|#

Then why do the Hispanic supremacist and black supremacist groups tend to be leftist?

It's not about equality, its about power. The white racists have their side, the others have theirs.

True enough, for the most part, but not quite accurate. The distinction between "equality" and "power" is illusory, when speaking of a subordinate group; working towards equality and increasing their power is, to a certain extent, the same thing.

As opposed to a dominant group, for whom all efforts to increase their power are efforts to oppose and reduce equality.

The upshot being, there are legitimate, pro-equality reasons to make common cause with those working to increase the power of the underdogs, while there are never legitimately pro-equality reasons to make common cause with white supremacits. (Except maybe in Zimbabwe, I suppose).

It's a fine parallel on paper, but it runs into problems in the real world.

|5.8.08 @ 4:07PM|#

Speaking of the Rev. Wright, am I the only one around here who thought a lot of the stuff he was saying (apart from the AIDS nonsense) had a lot of validity?
Granted, I didn't pay that much attention, DW, so he may well have proposed something equivalent to "no u.s. citizen shall have a drop of negro blood" but I didn't hear it.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 4:07PM|#

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

What a tragedy he's not still around saying this.

Did you know that many musical tryouts are held behind a screen, so that the judges aren't influenced by the person's gender or ethnicity? If only we could do that for politics and job interviews.

|5.8.08 @ 4:07PM|#

I didn't actually notice anyone at Reason declaring Paul guilty of anything related to racism, Nick M. Could you quote it for us?

|5.8.08 @ 4:09PM|#

Duh, only if they could get the system rigged in their own favor.

That whooshing sensation on your scalp when you read about the "worse is better" strategy?

Don't worry about it. It's nothing.

joe,
white supremacists aren't as intelligent as Communists.

Good point, CN.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 4:10PM|#

The distinction between "equality" and "power" is illusory, when speaking of a subordinate group; working towards equality and increasing their power is, to a certain extent, the same thing.

Sophistry and nonsense. Racism is racism, whether it helps a minority or a majority.

Equality is colorblindedness.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 4:11PM|#

the "worse is better" strategy?

Nonsense. By this argument, Republicans should be for higher taxes.

That whooshing you hear is you missing the obvious.

DW|5.8.08 @ 4:11PM|#

"Speaking of the Rev. Wright, am I the only one around here who thought a lot of the stuff he was saying (apart from the AIDS nonsense) had a lot of validity?"

Well, except for Wright's constant ranting against the "U.S. of KKK A," "rich white men," "white arrogance" and the "racist United States of America" ...

|5.8.08 @ 4:12PM|#

fyodor,

But joe, that's like the argument that being against the invasion of Iraq was being objectively pro-Saddam Hussein.

Actually, no. It's like the argument that Saddam Hussein was against the invasion of Iraq.

It's the bad guys noticing something desireable in a movement that has nothing to do with them, not the movement itself supporting the bad guys.

Your guilt by association campaign here is unbecoming. I'm making my own arguments, thank you.

|5.8.08 @ 4:13PM|#

So how does this then compare to Obama's recent, 20-year long mistake with Rev. Wright?

Obama has never advocated for any of Wright's offensive beliefs, whereas Johnson actually put together a political movement to make the United States Constitution adopt white supremacy as official doctrine.

|5.8.08 @ 4:19PM|#

TallDave writes, What a tragedy he's not still around saying this.

How true. What a tragedy he's also not still around to express his thoughts on affirmative action:

In Atlanta, Philadelphia, Chicago and other cities, King staffers gathered data on the hiring patterns of corporations doing business in black communities, and called on companies to rectify disparities. "At present, SCLC has Operation Breadbasket functioning in some 12 cities, and the results have been remarkable," King wrote (quoted in Testament of Hope, James Washington, ed.), boasting of "800 new and upgraded jobs [and] several covenants with major industries."

King was well aware of the arguments used against affirmative action policies. As far back as 1964, he was writing in Why We Can't Wait: "Whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic."

King supported affirmative action";type programs because he never confused the dream with American reality. As he put it, "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" to compete on a just and equal basis (quoted in Let the Trumpet Sound, by Stephen Oates).

In a 1965 Playboy interview, King compared affirmative action";style policies to the GI Bill: "Within common law we have ample precedents for special compensatory programs.... And you will remember that America adopted a policy of special treatment for her millions of veterans after the war."

If you think Martin Luther King's vision precluded affirmative action, you don't understand his vision, and should stop speaking for him.

Martin Luther King is not your teddy bear, TallDave.

Mike Laursen|5.8.08 @ 4:20PM|#

OK, putting aside that Johnson is a racist asshole for a minute, suppose something like the Pace Amendment were to become the law of the land. How exactly would they determine whether someone has "Negro blood" or more than one-eighth of some other impure blood.

You get sickle-cell anemia and the doctor has to report you to the State Department?

By blood does he mean DNA? How would you measure one-eighth of someone's DNA. By dividing the number of foreign genes they have by their total number of genes? What if you have foreign mitochondria -- does that figure in the equation?

Oh, maybe you're neighbor could just accuse you of being impure, and a Superior Court judge could make the determination.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 4:22PM|#

Shrug. So he was right in the speech and wrong in other statements.

As I said, what a shame he's not still around advocating for people to be judged by their character rather than the color of their skin.

|5.8.08 @ 4:25PM|#

don't you see how that confirms by theory that white supremcists find common cause with small-government conservatives becasue the liberal project really does advance racial equality?

joe, if I may fix this for you...

White supremacists find common cause with small-government conservatives because the liberal project claims that it really does advance racial equality.

Much of politics, and pretty much all of identity politics, is about perception, not actuality.

Now add on top of that the observations by fyodor...

they're stupid.

and Citizen Nothing...

white supremacists aren't as intelligent as Communists.

and you can see that the behavior of white supremacists provides scant evidence for whether the liberal project advances racial equality.

|5.8.08 @ 4:25PM|#

Equality is colorblindedness.

Martin Luther King, of course, was too intelligent and knowledgeable to fall for such foolishness.

Colorblindness: a bank examiner goes into a bank, and pores through its mortgage records. 90% of the white applicants have their mortgages approves, and 90% of the black applicants have theirs denied, despite having comparable credit profiles.

After a week of research, the wonderfully-colorblind bank examinier reports back that the institution has an arbitrary and incomprehensible method of approving mortgage applications, and there seems to be no logic behind their approvals and denials.

And he goes home, congratulating himself on his colorblindness, and the town's black residents remain unable to move out of the bad neighborhood, never build any equity to pay for their kids' college, and remain in a manifestly unequal situation.

But as he drives home, he congratulates himself for not taking race into account. Because that would racism, just like Jim Crowe.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#

I mean, it's not like we can't help disadvantaged groups without beign racist about it. Just base "affirmative action" on economic status rather than race.

Under the current system, a penniless North Korean immigrant family fleeing political persecution is penalized while Oprah Winfrey's kids get a leg up. How does that make any sense?

Sulla|5.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#

Well, except for Wright's constant ranting against the "U.S. of KKK A," "rich white men," "white arrogance" and the "racist United States of America" ...

I mentioned this once before on an unrelated issue. There is more racism in the U.S. than the "typical" white person believes there is. There is less racism in the U.S. than the "typical" black person believes there is. I say that as a biracial person who can pass for either black or white depending on my clothes/hairstyle/accent.

Just because Rev. Wright overstated things doesn't mean his statements were completely without merit.

|5.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Shrug. So he was right in the speech and wrong in other statements.

As I said, what a shame he's not still around advocating for people to be judged by their character rather than the color of their skin.

Well, some of us actually do agree with his vision. Which was not, as a matter of fact, primarily about feelings.

MattXIV|5.8.08 @ 4:27PM|#

joe,

That must be why Don Black donated to Mike Huckabee

Actually, big government conservativism was sufficient to get Mike Huckabee invited to speak at the Council of Conservative Citizens annual conference twice. He initially agreed to attend both times and only backed out the second time after drawing media heat for it (he didn't go in person the first time because of duties as lt. gov, but he send a video speech anyway).

White supremacists do tend to have it in for neocons, but that seems to because they consider them a part of a Jewish conspiracy; in my experience people who are conciously racist are likely to be conspiratorially-minded as well (often as rationalizaton for why the course of society hasn't gone their way). As in the Huckabee case above, they don't seem to have much of a problem with big government as long as they think it's one of the good ol' boys at the helm, but they don't trust the establishment, so like troofers, they gravitate towards anti-government politics.

|5.8.08 @ 4:27PM|#

Colin Clout :

I always figured that racism came long after the other "collectivist" attributes of human society.

Interesting. There's the chronologicaly primitive, but there is also "primitive" as in base or without a mindful foundation. Perhaps what Ramd meant to say is that racism has its foundation in the primordial,"Same as me = good-Different from me = bad" impulse.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 4:28PM|#

Colorblindness: a bank examiner goes into a bank, and pores through its mortgage records. 90% of the white applicants have their mortgages approves, and 90% of the black applicants have theirs denied, despite having comparable credit profiles.

That makes no sense. If they have similar credit profiles, then obviously they aren't being judged on a colorblind basis.

|5.8.08 @ 4:28PM|#

Mike P,

White supremacists find common cause with small-government conservatives because the liberal project claims that it really does advance racial equality.

So what you're saying is that white supremacists tend to be credulous about the claims liberals make.

I don't find that to be a terribly compelling argument.

Brandybuck|5.8.08 @ 4:29PM|#

Not everyone who says "Ron Paul! Ron Paul!" follow his libertarian principles. It's very sad that far too few Ron Paul supporters realize this. Many of them are eager to throw their entire support behind anyone who utters the magic name. We Ron Paul supporters are a naive bunch, and too easily led astray by racists and truthers promoting their own agenda.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 4:29PM|#

Well, some of us actually do agree with his vision.

And some of actually oppose racism, rather than wanting the "right kind" of racism.

Neu Mejican|5.8.08 @ 4:29PM|#

By the way, there is a BIG difference between being racist (which in itself, it is not a bad thing), and imposing racists laws and regulations upon a free people (like Jim Crow, Marriage laws and anti-discrimination laws, the last which generate animosity between groups)

...Racism is bad. End Statement!

I second Ayn Randian's comment above.

Move to put it up to a floor vote

|5.8.08 @ 4:31PM|#

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:26pm | #

I mean, it's not like we can't help disadvantaged groups without beign racist about it. Just base "affirmative action" on economic status rather than race.

Actually, things are moving in that direction.

It's hardly a controversial statement that the link between race and economic status is weaker than it used to be. A great deal of the liberal project to promote racial equality has worked, and our society is vastly different than it used to be.

|5.8.08 @ 4:32PM|#

TallDave | May 8, 2008, 4:11pm | #

the "worse is better" strategy?

Nonsense. By this argument, Republicans should be for higher taxes.

Ever hear of Starve the Beast? Larger deficits = higher taxes.

TallDave|5.8.08 @ 4:33PM|#

Actually, things are moving in that direction.

ZOMG I think joe and I agreed on something!

I'm taking the rest of the day off to celebrate.

Just to make the point again: it's not like we can't help disadvantaged groups without beign racist about it. Just base "affirmative action" on economic status rather than race -- and guess what, that will disproportionately help ethnic groups who are disadvantaged.

And again, under the current system, a penniless North Korean immigrant family fleeing political persecution is penalized while Oprah Winfrey's kids get a leg up. That just does not make any sense.

|5.8.08 @ 4:34PM|#

And yet it's okay for reason to spew venom, and for reason commenters to call for the annihilation of religious people,

As one of the resident atheists here I don'r recall anybody calling for the annihilation of religios people. I'm confident such a proposition would get a gang beatdown by other commenters here.

IOW, linky-link?

|5.8.08 @ 4:35PM|#

If they have similar credit profiles, then obviously they aren't being judged on a colorblind basis.

Quite right. They are not. They are being SUBJECT TO RACISM.

And when the bank examiner ignores this reality and does his job in a color-blind manner, he allows that to continue.

Which is why Martin Luther King (sooooooo glad you brought him up) abjured such a foolish stance on behalf of the government. That terrible racist.

|5.8.08 @ 4:36PM|#

You heard it here first, folks.

Martin Luther King's philosophy = racism.

|5.8.08 @ 4:36PM|#

If they have similar credit profiles, then obviously they aren't being judged on a colorblind basis.

Hear, hear. joe, you should know better.

|5.8.08 @ 4:37PM|#

So what you're saying is that white supremacists tend to be credulous about the claims liberals make.

No. I am saying that white supremacist leaders are appealing to a base of (nearly universally stupid) white supremacist followers and that liberal claims of using the government to promote racial equality are red meat for the white supremacist cause.

|5.8.08 @ 4:37PM|#

Just guilt-by-association smearing of Ron Paul. Of course, people ignore the fact that many countries explicitly want to maintain their cultural and ethnic heritage; that doesn't mean that the State should be dealing with immigration -- I say leave it to private property owners to deal with trespassers. Part of the problem is all these idiotic "anti-discrimination" laws, which truly prevent freedom of association and disassociation. There wouldn't be these kinds of calls for State policies if people could form private communities with whatever criteria they wanted.

Really, this is just hyper-PC humbug.

|5.8.08 @ 4:37PM|#

Martin Luther King's philosophy = racism.

Well, joe, if part of it involves preferring (by law) one group over another, then yes, part of MLK's governmental philosophy was racist, or at least racialist.

|5.8.08 @ 4:39PM|#

TallDave,

If you are genuinely interested in how affirmative action-type policies can evolve, google "Cambridge Massachusetts School Assignment."

Basically, they consider economic status first, and if that doesn't produce racial integration as well, it can be used as a secondary factor.

(Oh, and btw, if using race that way is racism, then using economic status that way is class discrimination. Why are you a classist, TallDave?)

|5.8.08 @ 4:40PM|#

Ayn Randian,

The word you're looking for is "race-conscious."

|5.8.08 @ 4:41PM|#

The distinction between "equality" and "power" is illusory, when speaking of a subordinate group; working towards equality and increasing their power is, to a certain extent, the same thing.

Not necessarily. The "power" disadvantage that the subordinate group labors under can be reduced/eliminated by reducing the power held by the dominant group. For example, eliminating Jim Crow laws.

Giving a subordinate group access to the same levers and tools of power that oppressed them just sets the stage for the same injustices to be imposed on someone else.

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 4:42PM|#

Colorblindness: a bank examiner goes into a bank, and pores through its mortgage records. 90% of the white applicants have their mortgages approves, and 90% of the black applicants have theirs denied, despite having comparable credit profiles.

This actually doesn't exist, and frankly probably never existed, despite the BS claims of groups like ACORN.

I have never come across any compelling data showing disparate impact on minority borrowers in lending that was not explained by:

1. The preference of government-created entities for mortgages backed by single-family homes in developments outside of core urban areas

2. The official state racism of the early FHA and VA loan programs

3. Minority borrower economic insularity [an unfortunate tendency of minority borrowers to attempt to keep their business dealings "inside the community", which often restricts their access to the wider credit market]

As the recent subprime crisis should have shown everyone, banks want to make loans. Banking crises recurrently happen because banks make TOO MANY loans. We have never had a problem in this country with getting lenders to make loans; we have often had a problem getting them to stop making loans.

|5.8.08 @ 4:44PM|#

The word you're looking for is "race-conscious."

What? Doesn't that just mean "I'm aware of your race"?

How does one implement "race conscious" decisions, anyway? By color of skin? Isn't it presumptuous to assume that the Jamaican needs as much "preference" as the black American?

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 4:45PM|#

David Heinrich,

The proposed amendment as written would have stripped the citizenship of millions of black and hispanic Americans who are already here.

Immigration is a related issue, but the scope of the amendment goes well beyond that.

There is no excuse for it, and he wasn't provoked by anti-discrimination laws. He was provoked by the fact that he is a racist douchebag.

Tacos mmm...|5.8.08 @ 4:46PM|#

And again, under the current system, a penniless North Korean immigrant family fleeing political persecution is penalized while Oprah Winfrey's kids get a leg up. That just does not make any sense.

A leg up in what? The main area in which affirmative action programs seem to operate these days is in acceptance to, and funding for, higher education. Take a look at the controversial University of Michigan point system here:

http://www.umich.edu/~mrev/archives/1999/summer/chart.htm

If you're economically disadvantaged, you get the same number of points as a racial minority (or, for that matter, a scholarshipped athlete). If you're poor and white from the upper peninsula, you get 26 points.

fyodor|5.8.08 @ 4:49PM|#

It's the bad guys noticing something desireable in a movement that has nothing to do with them, not the movement itself supporting the bad guys.

I was answering your question regarding why do white-supremicists like libertarians, not the reverse!

Yes, Saddam Hussein would have been against the invasion of Iraq and thus would have likely supported an anti-war candidate, except he was probably smart enough to know that such support would have been counter-productive, which white-supremicists are not bright enough to see regarding their own support of candidates.

But regarding the reverse, there's lots of libertarians and I can't account for all of their opinions on matters apart from libertarianism, nor am I obligated to since those opinions say nothing about the validity of libertarianism or small government policies.

Rimfax|5.8.08 @ 4:50PM|#

joe and TallDave,

It's about tribalism, local dominance, and fair-weather federalism. White supremacists support small-government federalism, because they live in politically white-dominated local entities. They think that it is pragmatic for them. Black and Hispanic supremacists support national progressivism, because they don't dominate the local area and they largely economically fit within the progressive constituency. Again, it is pragmatic.

|5.8.08 @ 4:50PM|#

joe,

I'm only 50% thru the thread, but I've got to ask.

Communists and socialists gravitate to the democratic party. Wht do you think that is? Do they feel that the Dems are somehow sympathetic to their antipathy towards private property?

|5.8.08 @ 5:23PM|#

Haven't had time to read the thread, and barely skimmed the original post.

However, I'm thrilled to see that RP denouncing this sort of racist idiocy and distancing himself from people who have trafficked in racism in the past.

Granted, it's coming several months too late, but better late than never.

MattXIV|5.8.08 @ 5:41PM|#

True enough, for the most part, but not quite accurate. The distinction between "equality" and "power" is illusory, when speaking of a subordinate group; working towards equality and increasing their power is, to a certain extent, the same thing.

As opposed to a dominant group, for whom all efforts to increase their power are efforts to oppose and reduce equality

There are two major problems with this analysis.

First, "power" is not an in intrinsic property of individuals (let alone groups) but a property of a combination of individual and context. Three people being equal in all regards except one has a billion dollars more assets relative to the others, one is a senator, and one has a large rock will have entirely different power relations with regard to different context.

Second, there is no way of comparing the relative size of power gaps across contexts. Using the billioniare and rock-wielder above, the billionaire may exercise more power to acquire a good he wants in a store and the rock-wielder may have more power in the wilderness, but it cannot be said whether the billionaire in the store exercises more power than the rock wielder in the wilderness.

When the traits of members of a group or the contexts of import vary within and across groups, assessing the relative power of groups is subjective because observer preference must be inserted to compare differences that are not objectively commesurable. The statement is not meaningless, but it also cannot be proved or falsified except in reference to an observer with definited characteristics.

|5.8.08 @ 5:48PM|#

Three people being equal in all regards except one has a billion dollars more assets relative to the others, one is a senator, and one has a large rock will have entirely different power relations with regard to different context.

Good old rock. Nothing beats rock.

|5.8.08 @ 5:55PM|#

Whatever the history, the Dems are the party that most pushes for mandatory racial discrimination now. It's not based on antipathy toward folks who are white but still, individuals are discriminated against cuz of their race. I wish that the GOP was more unified and resolved to abolish affirmative action/quota systems.

Edward|5.8.08 @ 6:00PM|#

"I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city [Washignton DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." --Ron Paul

|5.8.08 @ 6:01PM|#

Colorblindness: a bank examiner goes into a bank, and pores through its mortgage records. 90% of the white applicants have their mortgages approves, and 90% of the black applicants have theirs denied, despite having comparable credit profiles.

That certainly indicates that the bank isn't colorblind, so I'm not sure how this example of the bank not being colorblind is supposed to show that colorblindness is bad.

After a week of research, the wonderfully-colorblind bank examiner reports back that the institution has an arbitrary and incomprehensible method of approving mortgage applications, and there seems to be no logic behind their approvals and denials.

Oh, so this is supposed to be about a colorbind bank examiner.

Really, then, this example isn't an example of a colorblind society at all, because the bank isn't colorblind. Its an example of a legal regime that doesn't require colorblindness by private organizations.

Even if you grant that a colorblind society can only be achieved by requiring organizations to be colorblind, that's mandating equality of opportunity, which is not the same thing at all as mandating equality of result. Mandating equality of result cannot be done in a colorblind fashion.

Edward|5.8.08 @ 6:04PM|#

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." --Ron Paul

Colin|5.8.08 @ 6:05PM|#

You got to wonder what Ron Paul -- circa newsletter -- thought about the Pace Amendment.

Edward|5.8.08 @ 6:12PM|#

In 2004, Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote against commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

|5.8.08 @ 6:18PM|#

joe,

I'm not really sure what your point is here -- you claim not to be saying libertarians want to make common cause with racists, yet you insinuate there's some hidden connection between them. Trust me, joe, you don't want to play this game with us, given the number of disgusting people and groups who've found common cause with the Democrats over the years. After weeks of defending Obama from attacks based on the company he keeps, it's pretty silly for you to make similar attacks on libertarians.

Anyway, it seems to me that white supremacists support libertarian ideas for the same reason so many other powerless groups do: they don't like the fact that govt power is used to advance the agenda of their enemies. True, if they had their way, they'd want to be the ones oppressing other races with govt power, but in the meantime they consider a nation without discrimination laws and affirmative action to be an acceptable compromise.

Tacos mmm...|5.8.08 @ 6:23PM|#

In 2004, Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote against commemorating the fortieth anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

I have to admit that I'd vote against commemorating pretty much anything if I were in congress. I would see even discussing such things as a waste of my time.

MattXIV|5.8.08 @ 6:24PM|#

Tacos mmm...,

I'm not sure how much you can generalize from it since the U of M's point system is lengendarily bizzaire. Where you live counts 25% more than the SATs and as much as 0.8 of GPA and being socioeconomically disadvantaged doesn't count for anything if you're also a underrepresented minority. I think they designed it to resist legal challenge by making sure there was as little logic to who gets in as possible.

|5.8.08 @ 6:27PM|#

Edward,

Please put up a citation for your Paul quote.

|5.8.08 @ 6:29PM|#

The quote at 6:00 pm

Edward|5.8.08 @ 6:30PM|#

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

Edward|5.8.08 @ 6:33PM|#

Quotes are all from Ron Paul's newsletters

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

Edward|5.8.08 @ 6:36PM|#

"...you claim not to be saying libertarians want to make common cause with racists, yet you insinuate there's some hidden connection between them."

Hidden?

|5.8.08 @ 6:47PM|#

Edward, go rent a step ladder and lick a gophers testicles..

|5.8.08 @ 6:50PM|#

Edward,

Fuck off.

|5.8.08 @ 7:23PM|#

Fluffy,

I just picked mortgage applications out the air, to make a point.

Rimfax, that's a good answer, too. It's a complicated question.

J sub D,

Communists and socialists gravitate to the democratic party. Wht do you think that is? Do they feel that the Dems are somehow sympathetic to their antipathy towards private property?

Because they think the Democrats would do less to oppress their members and squash their movements than the Repubicans, because while the Democrats just disagree with them, the Republicans are passionately devoted to their destruction. This is the mirror image of the small-government-conservative/white supremacist connection, I'd say. The small government conservatives are one of the few noticeable groups that don't want to beat the snot out of the white supremacists, and might even be willing to ally with them on specific matters. In both cases, we're not talking about ideological affinities.

|5.8.08 @ 7:24PM|#

RC Dean,

You talk about removing the levers of power, and that's well and good.

But when you roll a cart down a hill along the same path for centuries, it wears ruts in to the ground. Even if you stop steering it down that path, it's going to remain in the ruts unless you act affirmatively to get it out.

|5.8.08 @ 7:26PM|#

fyodor,

I was answering your question regarding why do white-supremicists like libertarians, not the reverse!

Right. And I was saying that the libertarians are more like the anti-war people - people waging a decent and principled campaign - and the white supremacists are more like Saddam Hussein.

Brandybuck|5.8.08 @ 7:26PM|#

He has repeatedly said that he did not write those. I believe him because no congressman writes his own fundraising letters.

|5.8.08 @ 7:27PM|#

MattXIV,

but it cannot be said whether the billionaire in the store exercises more power than the rock wielder in the wilderness.

Oh, really?

The billionaire can always get himself a rock.

|5.8.08 @ 7:32PM|#

RC Dean again,

Really, then, this example isn't an example of a colorblind society at all, because the bank isn't colorblind. Correct, it's an example of a government practicing colorblind policy in a society with ongoing racial injustice.

Its an example of a legal regime that doesn't require colorblindness by private organizations. More than that, it's an example of a legal regime that requires colorblindness of itself, and doesn't require it of private organizations.

Mandating equality of result cannot be done in a colorblind fashion. Mandating equality of opportunity can't be done in a colorblind fashion, if it is racial unjust practices in society that create the inequality of opportunity.

You don't solve a problem other people are causing just by pretending not to be aware of it.

|5.8.08 @ 7:34PM|#

Chris Potter,

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm asking the question "why" about an easily-observed fact. I don't really care that that makes you uncomfortable, but I'm not doing it to slur libertarians, either, as my previous explanations make clear to any fair-minded reader.

But regardless, my motives don't matter to the question of what's true.

highnumber|5.8.08 @ 7:39PM|#

By the way, there is a BIG difference between being racist (which in itself, it is not a bad thing)...

WTF?!

No vote needed.
Shithead, go home.

|5.8.08 @ 7:49PM|#

I'm sure some people already said this, but: Wow! Bill Johnson is an asshole!

|5.8.08 @ 8:01PM|#

Edward:

Quotes are all from Ron Paul's newsletters

Edward you have no shame. Dr Paul was not the author of those quotes and you know that's been established.

|5.8.08 @ 8:21PM|#

Nick M says: " It's nice to see that Reason has found a way to top its guilt-by-association smear of Ron Paul"

The problem with this silly remark is that Ron wasn't guilty by association. The newsletters were published in his name, out of his office, by his staff. He was the publisher not some innocent bystander. His guilt by association is about as strong as that of Hugh Hefner's guilt by association with Playboy. If you are the frigging publisher, and you put the publication out with your name all over it, and publish it from your own office with your own family members on the payroll you can't pretend that you had nothing to do with it. It isn't guilt by association by any means.

|5.8.08 @ 8:24PM|#

joe,

Well, I agree with the second half of your 7:23 post, where you answer your own question. So I'm doubly confused as to why you're pursuing this line of questioning.

And you have to admit, when someone asks "Why is it that X is supported by Y?", with Y some universally despised person or group, the questioner is trying to associate X with Y. Remember how pissed you get when someone asks why members of domestic terror groups and race-baiting pastors support Obama? You rightly conclude that such questions are not merely disinterested searches for truth, but rather are intended to accuse without accusing.

|5.8.08 @ 8:30PM|#

The newsletters were published in his name, out of his office, by his staff. He was the publisher not some innocent bystander.

There's no evidence that Dr Paul was actually publishing the newsletters. His explanation that he just gave someone else permission to use his name (itself a tremendous misjudgement on his part) is plausible, while Hefner claiming that about Playboy would not be.

Keep in mind, the newsletters were a bunch of mimeographed pieces of paper stapled together and mailed out to a few subscribers. It's not like this was a slick nationally distributed magazine, so it's plausible that the evil articles slipped under everyone's (including Dr Paul's) radar until many years after the fact.

Sean Scallon|5.8.08 @ 8:43PM|#

Welch must be a glutton for punishment. He's asking for another whipping from Raimondo for another "Let's-smear-Ron-Paul_with-another-wacky-supporter-even-if-Paul=-hardly-knows-who-he-is."

What will Reason think of next to get Ron Paul. Amazing!

Edward|5.8.08 @ 9:07PM|#

Rick Barton

If any Democratic politician--say, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama--had had racist newsletters coming out under their names for a decade, newsletters that provided money for their careers, you wouldn't accept their protestations of innocent ignorance, and you know it. It's you who have no shame.

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 9:14PM|#

Sean Scallon -

Except in this case, Paul endorsed the guy in a run for a public office.

I think the guy only got an endorsement because they had no idea he was secretly Pace, but still. It's not like it's some random supporter.

If Raimondo wants Reason to not report an un-endorsement that Paul's own people announce to the press, he's a jerk.

Fluffy|5.8.08 @ 9:17PM|#

More than that, it's an example of a legal regime that requires colorblindness of itself, and doesn't require it of private organizations.

You don't solve a problem other people are causing just by pretending not to be aware of it.

Private organizations not being colorblind isn't a problem. So it doesn't need solving.

Big Al|5.8.08 @ 10:56PM|#

Thanks to Lew Rockwell and his racist band (well documented) for recruiting such scum. This isn't a case of "just hyper-PC humbug". It's real knock down racism. Yet when Lew Rockwell brings the scum in and someone notices the smell, his minions say it's all just run amock PC-ism. When will people wake up and see what Rockwell and his cronies have done to discredit the idea of freedom?

|5.8.08 @ 11:33PM|#

Chris Potter,
It is well established that the people actually involved in putting together the RP newsletters included his long-time business partners, staff members ( some involved with his current campaign), and family members.

He may not have been involved in the day to day operation or editing the things, but it was a business where he was an officer and almost everyone involved was closely associated with him before and after the endeavor.

IIRC, the guy who printed the things ( cant recall his name, I think "Mark" something..Maybe DONdeeeeeerrrro will chime in) has worked on every RP campaign for the last 30 years.

It wasn't like Ron Paul just licensed his name out to some random publishing outfit. The people who wanted to make money off his name were they same people who he has employed or otherwise compensated his entire career.

FWIW, I consider myself a Ron Paul supporter, even as a "cosmotarian." But supporters who attempt to deny reality are just ridiculous.

It is what it is.

|5.8.08 @ 11:34PM|#

Edward:

If any Democratic politician--say, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama--had had racist newsletters coming out under their names for a decade, newsletters that provided money for their careers, you wouldn't accept their protestations of innocent ignorance, and you know it.

I would if the evidence indicated that they didn't author the newsletters as it does with Ron Paul. And BTW Obama and Hillary both favor and vote for the racial discrimination that is affirmative action.

|5.8.08 @ 11:35PM|#

And the "stapled" papers supposedly had enough circulation to bring in around a million bucks a year through several thousand subscribers according to previous discussion of this matter.

Edward|5.9.08 @ 12:00AM|#

"But supporters who attempt to deny reality are just ridiculous."

They also often end up as malicious authoritarian fucks. Hero worship clouds moral vision. To their credit, major Reason contributors reacted to Ron Paul's racist newletters with appropriate horror. They were too much for honest libertarians like David Harsanyi. But Ron Paul's sheepish, fawning followers have outdone each other making up excuses.

shminky|5.9.08 @ 5:23AM|#

Mandating equality of opportunity can't be done in a colorblind fashion, if it is racial unjust practices in society that create the inequality of opportunity.

Do people still believe this nonsense? "Society" is denying opportunities to black people? Gimme a break.

By that logic, the fact that Jewish and Asian Americans tend to be academically and economically successful must be due some massive societal favoritism towards them.

Minion of URKOBOLD|5.9.08 @ 7:39AM|#

OH HAY HAI, ADWEIRDOOOOO!

Nick_M|5.9.08 @ 8:24AM|#

joe | May 8, 2008, 4:07pm | #

I didn't actually notice anyone at Reason declaring Paul guilty of anything related to racism, Nick M. Could you quote it for us?

"Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists"

So he's not a racist, but he's racist-ish, you know, by-association.

Woody|5.9.08 @ 8:25AM|#

What is that old saying about the relationship of smoke and fire?

Real libertarians should pay attention to the attempts by the extreme anti-libertarians of the racist right to infiltrate their movement. This is a classic ploy used by far right and the far left to take over other movements and bend them to their goals. The racists are "against the gubmint" telling them how to live, so some fools welcome them as comrades, as if the racists really just want to "live and let live." But as this Bill Johnson made clear, they want to strip others of their rights. Anyone who brings that up is denounced by followers of the high priest Lew Rockwell as promoting "guilt by association" and "political correctness." It's all a smoke screen for their real agenda, which is infiltration of right-wing extremist racists under cover of "libertarianism." Don't be fooled.

|5.9.08 @ 10:26AM|#

Anyone who is consistently against the truly isolationist policies of attacking and occupying hundreds of countries around the world(in turn creating millions of American haters) is denounced by the high priest of Koch and Exxon funded propaganda as being a redneck, racist, conspiracy theorist or anti-semite.

Anyone who is against the "free-trade" agreements on the grounds that they are poor substitues for true free trade(i.e.ripping up tariff schedules and eliminated sacred sugar quotas and tariffs etc) is falsely branded a "protectionsist".

If you oppose NAFT and WTO because they reduce soveriegnty and result in beuracratic fabian socialist telling us we need to INCREASE taxes to help "harmonize" our tax codes or if you are against bludgeoning every other country(Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Venezuala) with trade sanctions then you will be smeared with false accusations.

Any true environmentalist who understands that
CO2 is not a deathly poison destroying our climate is labled a "denier".

Anyone who brings this up is denounced by the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg and CFR deniers as being a conspiracy theorist. Don't be fooled. There is a reson that the Washington Post and NYT and WSJ came out with obvious hit pieces on Ron Paul and ignored his following as much as possible. There are substantial powers aligned to keep a non-interventionist-low governemnt debt policy out of favor. If you think Michael Young works for Reason just because he thinks about "both sides of an issue" then your an idiot.

Here is some real news: Tri-Lateral Commision meets and discusses Ron Paul.

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

Matt Welch|5.9.08 @ 11:23AM|#

It's amazing to me (though not surprising) that passing along news of Paul *withdrawing* his support for a white supremacist would be seen by some as an attempt to "smear" Paul as a "racist."

Edward|5.9.08 @ 11:29AM|#

But the real question is why white supremicists like Ron Paul so much and gravitate toward him. Might have something to do with those newsletters. He's trying to shake off the old associates the newsletters brought in.

|5.9.08 @ 11:30AM|#

Gosh, Reason magazine is boring. Same, mostly, for the Spit and Run blog. Look at the normal yawner post with its 12 or 15 comments. But, wow, attack Ron Paul, and comments zoom into the hundreds keeping their dreck alive for days. This insures that Welch-Wiegel will keep it up. It's their only way to keep failure at bay.
Your anti-Ron Paul funder, David Koch, must be so impressed with your results.

Nick_M|5.9.08 @ 12:04PM|#

Matt Welch | May 9, 2008, 11:23am | #

It's amazing to me (though not surprising) that passing along news of Paul *withdrawing* his support for a white supremacist would be seen by some as an attempt to "smear" Paul as a "racist."

Come on, if Bill Johnson and Ron Paul had never met, would it be newsworthy to run a story proclaiming, "Racist Bill Johnson Continues Non-Relationship With Ron Paul!"

Clearly the sexy part of this story is that Ron Paul used to "support a racist".

P.S. I really do enjoy reading Reason. I just also enjoy bitching about any mistreatment of Ron Paul.

Edward|5.9.08 @ 12:17PM|#

Clearly the sexy part of this story is that Ron Paul used to "support a racist".

Let's face it, he used to cultivate them.

|5.9.08 @ 12:47PM|#

Matt:
The amazing thing to us is that a libertarian leader has a book at #1 on the NYT bestseller lsit and Reason writers actually seem to be upset about it. Doesn't that seem wierd to you?

The article in itself wasn't too bad...just the fact that 90% of Ron Paul articles on Reason are centered around him being a supporter/cultivator/supportee of racist, neonazis etc.

have you heard this interview?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCUGXBCwZWA

Do you think Jim Tucker makes things up?
If so tell us why. He seems to have a good track record of getting interesting info out of Bilderberg meetings and the Tri Lateral comission. Perhaps you could do some reporting on secret meetings between world leaders, it might take time away from trying to find racist among the 1 million people who voted for Ron Paul so far this year, but it would be more interesting.

|5.9.08 @ 1:15PM|#

Matt Welch,
You personally called for a "Global War on Terror" in the weeks after 9/11, you voted for Ralph Nader. That doesn't mean you are now horrible, everyone can change their mind. It does show you are against the established corruption, it also shows you must ahev been pretty socialist at some time. Everyone makes mistakes. However, it does call in to question your libertarian instincts. That might explain why you are so puzzled at how some libertarians view your coverage.

Why diss the guys who got it right? and why fund someone like Micahel Young who has been so so wrong? Would you hire Bill Kristol if he was willing to work cheap as well?

Some of the libertarians you guys seem to dislike so much have been dead right the past 8 years in assuming that lots of lies, propaganda and power grabbing has been going on. They predicted quagmire, inhumane "collateral damage" and a increase international hostility towards america that would essentially result in isolating this country and possibly disrupting the increasing tendency towards open trade.


Even if Ron Paul was a total racist in the 1980's and early 90's(which honestly doesn't seem to be the case given his consistent voting record in favor of the individual over the state), he has certainly been a devoted anti-racist the last 15 years(which is more than you can say for any of the pro-drug war, pro police state, pro SS payroll tax crowd in the mainstream)

Matt Welch|5.9.08 @ 5:45PM|#

The amazing thing to us is that a libertarian leader has a book at #1 on the NYT bestseller lsit and Reason writers actually seem to be upset about it. Doesn't that seem wierd to you?

It would, if a single word of it was true. I think it's awesome Ron Paul has the #1 book in the country.

Matt Welch|5.9.08 @ 5:47PM|#

the fact that 90% of Ron Paul articles on Reason are centered around him being a supporter/cultivator/supportee of racist, neonazis etc.

That "fact" is unadulterated bullshit, as any work with the search function on this site would reveal. (You might start with our February cover story, or maybe the June contribution from a cat named Ron Paul, or maybe the time he was named one of our "35 heroes of freedom.")

Matt Welch|5.9.08 @ 5:49PM|#

it also shows you must ahev been pretty socialist at some time.

No, it doesn't. Keep on trying, though!

|5.9.08 @ 6:42PM|#

Clearly the sexy part of this story is that Ron Paul used to "support a racist".

It's also a true part of the story. That's the adjective you should be worried about. Maybe you should talk to Ron Paul's moronic campaign "professionals" about why they don't vet potential endorsements more thoroughly, before you shoot the messenger.

Edward|5.9.08 @ 7:02PM|#

So has Ron Paul, the former race baiter, been fully rehabilitated by Reason or not?

Matt Welch|5.9.08 @ 7:18PM|#

So has Ron Paul, the former race baiter, been fully rehabilitated by Reason or not?

To the apparent confusion of many, reason is not, and has not been, in the business of rehabilitation, purging, or even endorsing.

Edward|5.9.08 @ 8:34PM|#

How about getting wildly enthusiastic about and then cooling off considerably?

|5.10.08 @ 12:06AM|#

Edward is motivated to employ sensational distortion of the truth cuz he doesn't like most of Dr Paul's advocacies and he lacks the ability to marshal good counter arguments.

Edward|5.10.08 @ 8:20AM|#

I don't like vicious racism or pandering to vicious racists. Crackpot positions of the gold standard don't bother me much, and the Birchite shit is creepy but harmless. You're too much of an apologist to care about the truth.

|5.11.08 @ 12:08AM|#

Ya mean the "racism" that led to an endorsement from the local NAACP head who's known Ron Paul for years?

I don't think you understand the arguments for a gold standard, or conspiracy analysis.

Hey Edward, I appreciate your opposition to the Iraq war. At least you're right on that. Truth is indeed wherever you find it.

Edward|5.11.08 @ 12:25AM|#

One NAACP member who thinks Ron Paul is a nice guy doesn't cancel out years of racist drivel published under Paul's name, whether written by him or by close associates. Who said anything about conpsiracy analysis? Oh, you mean Birchite shit. The Birchers are discredited cranks. Association with them doesn't enhance Paul's credibility, except perhaps with you.

Edward|5.11.08 @ 12:48AM|#

"But my firm belief that Dwight Eisenhower is a dedicated, conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy is based on an accumulation of detailed evidence so extensive and so palpable that it seems to me to put this conviction beyond any reasonable doubt." --Robert Welch, President, John Birch Society

"The beneficial, educational impact of the John Birch Society over the past four decades would be hard to overestimate. It is certainly far more than most people realize. Anyone who has been in the trenches over the years battling on any of the major issues - whether it's pro-life, gun rights, property rights, taxes, government spending, regulation, national security, privacy, national sovereignty, the United Nations, foreign aid - knows that members of the John Birch Society are always in there doing the heavy lifting. And most importantly, they approach all of these issues from a strong moral and constitutional perspective. Lots of people pay lip service to the Constitution, but Birchers study it, understand it, apply it, and are serious about protecting it and holding public officials accountable to it." --Ron Paul

|5.11.08 @ 3:20AM|#

He's not just "One NAACP member who thinks Ron Paul is a nice guy". He's the local NAACP leader who's known Paul for years and says that the allegations of racism on the part of Dr Paul are absurd. Now who should we believe in the matter, Edward? You or him?

Many (but not all) of the political conspiracies that the Birchers have posited, the evidence indicates are accurate.

What? You don't wanna shake hands over out mutual opposition to the war? You shouldn't always just wanna be talking about how much you hate us and that you're gonna crash the site and other threats. All that animosity all the time isn't good for you. It'll shorten your life. Now c'mon Edward, give us a kiss then.

Edward|5.11.08 @ 10:52AM|#

From the Birch Society magazine The New American:

Movie Review
Allow Intelligence!
By James Perloff
Ben Stein's Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed makes an intelligent case for pursuing the scientific evidence wherever it may lead - including even intelligent design.

You, Rick Barton, and the loony Brichers wouldn't know evidence from a pile of bat shit.

|5.11.08 @ 10:23PM|#

Edward,

Nay-saying name calling is no evidence at all. But you don't ever seem to catch on.

It's right that pursuing the scientific evidence wherever it may lead - including even intelligent design, is the right thing to do. BTW, I think that the the the evidence leads overwhelmingly in the opposite direction.