Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Ron Paul, Off His Game?
A libertarian blogger over at "No Treason" thinks that when Ron Paul is delivered golden p.r. opps like getting to question national monetary and economic policy punching bag/Treasury Sec'y Timothy Geithner, he's blowing it:
Another rambling, indirect, wasteful performance today by Ron Paul. He gets 5 minutes to question Geithner, and should have asked him about his comments to the CFR regarding the dollar, or any of the hundred other pressing issues of the day, but instead he has another ad lib ramble about innocent until proven guilty, which Geithner easily evades without saying anything meaningful.
.....We can all get all of the Ron Paul opinion time we want on the ‘net. He has published books, he has his Texas Straight talk, he gives speeches on the house floor, he’s on TV a couple times a week.
But when he gets a few minutes to challenge those in power, he turns into an ideologue and a wallflower and it's immensely frustrating....Because Ron chooses not to properly prepare and goes off on esoteric tangents...the clever bureaucrats play dumb and can avoid answering him. Ron is not speaking to a friendly audience where he can deliver the same lines and stories over and over, but he’s there as an investigator and an interrogator.
Matt Welch blogged on this Ron Paul performance earlier this week, with link to the clip.
Ebeneezer Scrooge|3.27.09 @ 8:46PM|#
"Off his game"? This sounds like par for the course. It's just
what Ron Paul does.
We've said the libertarian message doesn't sell, but it's got to be
at least half the messengers. Are libertarians ever going
to get a competent leader?
bitterclinger|3.27.09 @ 8:54PM|#
Don't worry. Michelle Bachmann more than made up for Ron. Now that's a video you should post -- her asking Tiny Tim where in the Constitution it says the Trasury Sec. can regulate private industry.
Kolohe|3.27.09 @ 9:07PM|#
Bachmann asked stupid questions. What the Geithner is doing may
be bad policy, but it's well within what the three branches and the
majority of the American public hold as the within the scope of the
Commerce Clause.
And she's on Fox now promoting her bill that treaties can't abolish
the dollar. A treaty can't do anything until passed by 2/3 of the
senate anyway, so this is a useless bill.
|3.27.09 @ 9:18PM|#
Are libertarians ever going to get a competent
leader?
If you had a herd of cats, what are the odds they'd decide to start
following one in particular?
So I guess I'm saying no. Our leader is the cold fist of reality.
Not something you can put on the cover of a brochure, but it'll win
in the end.
tarran|3.27.09 @ 9:30PM|#
To understand how badly Ron Paul is blowing his chances,
contrast him to Daniel Hannan a minister at the European Parliament
(of all things) hammering British Prime Minister Brown:
You, sir, are the devalued Prime Minister of a devalued
government.
Brock|3.27.09 @ 9:35PM|#
Too bad Paul already addressed this issue with Peter Schiff and Andrew Napolitano on Wednesday. I guess the blogger didn't want to get Paul's opinion on the 'net.
|3.27.09 @ 10:05PM|#
Ron Paul, Off His Game?
Are you going to start again with that?
Oh, sorry . . . This is Reason after all...
|3.27.09 @ 10:12PM|#
Ron Paul already explained that he establishes the philosophical and economics groundwork for the questions because the shysters tend to otherwise bullshit everyone.
Dog bites man|3.27.09 @ 10:30PM|#
Because Ron chooses not to properly prepare and goes off on
esoteric tangents
Um, that's what libertarians do. Turning esoteric ideals into
workable policy prescriptions that facilitate a sustainable society
isn't exactly their strong point. What other kind of idiots would
demand gay marriage and free market capitalism while demanding just
as loudly opening the borders to a demographic that's sure to vote
against them?
Franklin Harris|3.27.09 @ 10:39PM|#
Ron Paul already explained that he establishes the philosophical and economics groundwork for the questions because the shysters tend to otherwise bullshit everyone.
But compare Paul's confrontation with Geithner to Paul's dressing
down of Rudy Giuliani in that early GOP presidential debate. Paul
was direct, on message, and practical. The pundits tried to spin it
as a win for Rudy, but it ended up being Paul's breakout moment.
That was Ron Paul on his game. Compared to that, Paul vs. Geithner
was definitely Paul off his game.
But for rhetorical skill, nobody is coming close to beating hero of
the moment Daniel Hannan. That guy's got game.
SIV|3.27.09 @ 10:44PM|#
and the majority of the American public hold as the within
the scope of the Commerce Clause.
Ah, the absurdity......
A majority of the american public doesn't know anything about the
commerce clause.
Orange Line Special|3.27.09 @ 11:13PM|#
Let me see if I understand this. Reason is supporting the only
libruhtarian-friendly candidate with a chance at anything who was
smeared by Reason asking real questions?
Is this the singularity?
|3.27.09 @ 11:22PM|#
Here is the transcript from:
http://www.ronpaul.com/2009-03-27/guilty-until-proven-innocent/
"Ron Paul: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman in his opening
statement talked about the problem being excessive leverage and I
certainly agree with that and others refer to that as pure emitting
of debt, and then we ran into trouble and we come with the idea
that regulations will solve this without asking the question,
"Where did all this leveraging come from and how much of it was
related to easy money from the Federal Reserve and artificially low
interest rates."
So I'm very skeptical of regulations per se because I don't think
that solves the problem, and of course, everybody knows I'm a
proponent of the free market and this is certainly not free markets
that had got us into trouble and this certainly won't solve
it.
But, you know, in other areas we never automatically resort to
regulations. When it comes to the press, if we had regulations on
the press, we would call it prior restraint and we would be
outraged.
If we wanted to regulate personal behavior, we would be outraged
and call this legislating morality. But when it comes to economics,
it seems like we have been conditioned to say, "Oh, that is okay
because that's good economic policy."
I accept it on the first two, but not in the third and therefore I
challenge the whole system and it hasn't been that way forever.
It's really been that way since the 1930s, about 75 years, that we
in the Congress have deferred to the Executive Branch to write
regulations, which are essentially laws. And yet the Constitution
is very clear, all legislative power shall be vested in the
Congress.
So we write laws and we transfer this power, so essentially we've
done this for years. We have reneged on our responsibility. We have
not met our prerogatives and therefore we participate in
this.
But in your position, you've been trained throughout your life to
be a regulator and that is something I know you can't deal with,
but there is one area that I think you might be able to shed some
light on and work toward the rule of law.
Because, you know, traditionally, under common law, and our system
has always assumed that we're innocent until proven guilty, and yet
when it comes to regulations, first we allow the Executive Branch
to legislate as well as the court, but in the administrative
courts, we're assumed to be guilty until proven innocent.
You're in charge of the IRS. The IRS does this. So this is some
place where if there were a reasonable respect for the rule of law,
then we can change that tone and assume that the taxpayer or the
person that is on the receiving end of these regulations say, "Hey,
at least, now is the burden of proof is on the government to prove
that somebody broke these regulations", and yet look at what we're
doing endlessly, and yet I see that as the real culprit in all this
because we're assuming the citizen is guilty.
Could you comment on that and tell me what might be able to do in
changing the direction.
Tim Geithner: That was a very thoughtful set of questions. I would
just want to correct one thing. I've never been a regulator, for
better or worse. And I think you're right to say that we have to be
very skeptical that regulations can solve all of these
problems.
We have postured our system, which are overwhelmed by regulations.
Overwhelmed by regulations. It wasn't the absence of regulations
that was the problem, it was despite the presence of regulations,
and you have huge risk built up.
But in banks, because banks by definition, take on leverage,
transform short-term liability into long-term assets for the good
of the system as a whole, they are vulnerable to runs. Because
they're vulnerable to runs, governments around the world have been
put in place insurance protections to protect the inside
risks.
Because of the existence of those protections, you have to impose
standards on them on leverage to protect against the moral hazard
created by the insurance. That is a good economic case for
regulation -
Ron Paul: Excuse me. Excuse me. But I only have a couple of seconds
left. But see if you can address the subject of giving more respect
to that individual who is accused of a crime, can't we assume that
the government has the burden of proof?
Tim Geithner: You're talking in a criminal context?
Ron Paul: Well, any way. I mean any time a regulator comes in and
says that you're guilty of something, why doesn't the government
have to prove he's guilty, why can't we assume -
Tim Geithner: Guilty of a criminal violation or of anything?
Ron Paul: Civil or criminal. Why not? I mean that's a principal
that has been around for more than a thousand years, at least 800
years.
Tim Geithner: I'm neither a regulator nor a lawyer, unfortunately.
So I'm not sure I can give you adequate answers to that, but I'd be
happy to think about it a little bit and get back to you with a
view on -
Ron Paul: Well, I don't think it's complicated to think about the
principle of innocent until proven guilty. How about the IRS? Can't
you advise the IRS and say, "don't assume anything until you prove
these guys did something wrong before we prosecute them and say
that they owe $500,000." I mean -
Tim Geithner: Well, Mr. Chairman, again, if this is about the IRS,
I'd be happy to come talk to you about that and try to -
Barney Frank: The gentleman's time has expired. The gentleman from
Pennsylvania, the chairman of the sub-committee."
I think that the question about the presumption of innocence until
proven quilty is an important issue with regards to the collection
of income tax. I regret that the length of Ron Paul's preamble did
not give Geithner adequate time to respond to the question. I hope
that Geithner is asked this question again.
Kolohe|3.27.09 @ 11:24PM|#
A majority of the american public doesn't know anything
about the commerce clause.
Yes, but if you were to have them killed, *you* would be the one
going to jail.
That's democracy for you.
jj|3.27.09 @ 11:26PM|#
Just when we had gotten rid of Weigel, he morphed into
Doherty.
What IS with reason: always finding an excuse to bash the
paleocons?
Seriously, don't we have enough real enemies to go after?
But perhaps Weigel got a sex change and became Mangu Ward, the new
Bachmann hater?
Poohbah|3.27.09 @ 11:29PM|#
Yeah, let's criticize Ron Paul for his lack of of eloquence!
He's almost as bad as Obama without a teleprompter or Bush with
one.
You guys make me sick!
Armchair Quarterback|3.27.09 @ 11:37PM|#
*snap* Ron Paul should have asked the treasury secretary if he
plans to move his personal investments to the new global
currency!
Geithner would be so embarrassed he would run out of the room
crying.
|3.27.09 @ 11:54PM|#
Was Ron Paul off his game? Absolutely, but it's worth
remembering that if "the game" for libertarians is getting into
congress, then nobody else has even played the game in
decades.
Ron Paul might look bad compared to some imaginary perfect
libertarian congressman that we make up in our own minds, perhaps,
but when he's measured against the other people shrewd enough to
actually win an election, he's Cincinattus.
Nick|3.28.09 @ 12:11AM|#
Can we have Daniel Hannan? That was an absolute evisceration. Maybe we can swing a trade, say Nancy Pelosi and a 3rd round draft pick? Nah, the British wouldn't be that stupid.
jj|3.28.09 @ 12:18AM|#
Matt, you make a good point. Unfortunately reason is more
interested in slash-and-burn turf wars than realism.
I though Doherty was above this silliness. Sad, really.
cuernimus|3.28.09 @ 12:54AM|#
@yoikes
It seems Ron Paul asked Geithner a question that he didn't know the
administration's position on, so now he's going to run it through
the president and his advisers and then maybe get an answer out
there. And, honestly, the abuses and special privileges that the
IRS is allowed is definitely one of the most egregious misuses of
government power that exists, yet would be the most easily
rectified. So good for Ramblin' Ronnie for hitting on a topic that
might make a difference, as opposed to asking Geithner a question
he's spent weeks preparing a dodge answer for.
I though Doherty was above this silliness. Sad, really.
Jesus Christos, you people are called Paultards for a reason. Where
the hell did Brian Doherty pass any judgment on Ron Paul in this
article? He posts a criticism (not a mockery) that another blogger
wrote to generate discussion on Hit&Run (and thus site
traffic), nothing more. Criticism is an important part of being a
libertarian, as it shows independent thought. Please keep in mind
that one of the main reasons that Ron Paul was not taken seriously
during the Republican primaries was a result of the craziness of
his fans, and realize that you might be
one of these people.
|3.28.09 @ 1:09AM|#
To emphasize Matt's point:
Ron Paul is actually in the room asking questions.
Can he be rhetorically beaten by the modern sophists? Sure. Keep in
mind that all of us have had the experience of listening to crowds
of Americans cheer as our leaders promise to borrow our way out of
debt. We watched them win arguments with our neighbors by grossly
abusing the argument that you can grow the economy by priming the
pump with stimulus money. We watch our neighbors recoil in fear
from the "nutty" uncle with the weird ideas about less government
and more freedom.
So do we know the bitter taste of losing the debates? Of course we
do - how could we not given that we only represent ten percent of
the electorate?
Ron Paul is at least in the room. They can mock him. They can
equivocate and lie. They can marginalize him. But as long as the
Texans keep sending him to Washington they cannot keep him out of
the room. And ever once in a while he'll knock one out of the
park.
Believe it or not, it was Paul's eloquence and logic during the
presidential debates that first brought him to my attention. So
he's not quite as bad as all you give out.
CatoTheElder|3.28.09 @ 1:23AM|#
Sure, Ron Paul isn't as eloquent as Daniel Hannan. Who in the
American Congress is?
But he has managed to get himself elected to the House running as a
bona fide libertarian.
If you think you can do better, then try running for the office in
your own district. You might find that it's not as easy as it
looks.
jj|3.28.09 @ 1:25AM|#
cuernimus, if Paul's doing such a bad job, which libertarian is
doing any better?
Reason with hardly an exception bashes Paul.
cuernimonger|3.28.09 @ 1:28AM|#
cuernimus, I think that the criticisms leveled against Doherty's article are reasonable. The fact that you stoop to name-calling makes me wonder about your own bias?
Paulbotbot|3.28.09 @ 1:30AM|#
The racist newsletters accusation are old and tired. Now we just
sit around on the interwebs on a Friday night name-calling the only
successful libertarian in recent memory.
"Paultards? Paulbots?"
What do they call silly, lonely old men who have nothing better to
do with their weekends. Grow a life!
|3.28.09 @ 1:35AM|#
If you think you can do better, then try running for the
office in your own district. You might find that it's not as easy
as it looks.
Give me $30 million and I'll run a better presidential campaign,
that's for damn sure.
As for the district, pleaaassee. When he was first elected he was
the local obstetrician who everybody knew because he delivered most
of the babies in the district. Now he's riding the tide of
incumbency.
Not that I don't agree with the guy on most issues, but let's face
facts. NO ONE except the converted will notice his remarks in the
committee, and not a single one of his votes has ever influenced
whether a bill was passed or what the content of the bills that
passed was (except for his many earmark requests, that is). Nice
guy, terrible politician.
Love ya Ron but step \'er up|3.28.09 @ 1:38AM|#
I totally agree. He's blowing his chance to debate them. What's with the incoherent rambling? He's totally blowing his five minutes. He needs to ask the question early. I got a lot of money riding on this!
jj|3.28.09 @ 1:42AM|#
crimethink, it's hard to take you seriously.
Paul has turned thousands of people on to the writings of Rothbard,
Mises, Hayek. He's blurred the left-right dichotomy in people's
minds, and introduced a liberty paradigm to millions.
He's shown that a small-l libertarian can be elected to national
office, with postitions such as drug legalization, gay marriage,
and others.
But why did I bother to answer you? You know these things, and
still you don't see. I don't think you want Paul portrayed in a
positive light, or you would have acknowledged Paul's worth, albeit
begrudgingly.
Tom|3.28.09 @ 1:46AM|#
Paul was successful in that he got a million republicans to vote
for him and and has spread libertarian ideas into places it would
have never gone.
On the subject of Paul not being taken seriously, I'll relate a
story. When I first heard of libertarianism,(10th grade) I thought
to myself, "They're pot smoking abortionists who don't want to help
the poor." Life experiences tell me that few people grow out of
that mindset. It is inherently difficult to grasp for most.
I can understand Paul's desire to establish his nuanced position
before questioning, but I think it ignores something critical about
politics. The majority tend to read the emotion of an exchange more
than the content. If he was more brief and forceful, I believe he
could make the bankers squirm, ramble, and inspire skepticism among
people even if macroeconomic terms are a bit over their head.
|3.28.09 @ 1:51AM|#
Sorry, jj, I'm going to have to concur with cuernimus on the Paultard thing. A seat in the House is not national office, I have no idea what it means to "blur the left-right dichotomy in people's minds", and Paul voted for DOMA so it's not like he supports gay marriage. You're right, though -- I don't want Paul portrayed in a positive light, especially when he fucks up. But by all means keep on tardin'.
jj|3.28.09 @ 2:07AM|#
Crimethink, am I right in concluding that you see no positive
value whatsoever in Paul's political and public profile?
Darn, and we're the 'tards?!
Craig|3.28.09 @ 2:48AM|#
Ron Paul has missed a few golden opportunities here and there,
but I love every minute of it anyway. It's great seeing the
worthless bureaucrats squirm and groan, and his fellow committee
members (especially Barney Frank) looking like they want to
apologize to their "honored guests" for the only guy in the room
making sense, the only one who predicted everything that's now
happening.
And Ron Paul is 150% better than he was two years ago, thanks to
the presidential campaign and a lot more practice in TV interviews.
If I'm half as lucid at that age, I'll count myself lucky.
Craig|3.28.09 @ 2:51AM|#
He's shown that a small-l libertarian can be elected to
national office
Not just get elected, but get re-elected time after time, by large
margins, sometimes with no opposition at all. The American people
are far more libertarian than the media admits, and they respond to
integrity even when they don't agree on every political issue.
cuernimus|3.28.09 @ 3:04AM|#
cuernimus, if Paul's doing such a bad job, which libertarian is doing any better?
Ron Paul is my representative in Congress. I voted for him and will
continue to vote for him because I agree with basically everything
he says. I do, however, disagree with how he presents his
viewpoints and believe he could reach more people if he changed
that. Please also note that I said I liked that he brought up the
IRS instead of giving a question that would have been easily
side-stepped. His "borrow money from China to blow up bridges in
Iraq and then rebuild them" quote was simple and very resonating.
Tom's 3rd paragraph at 1:46 nails it.
cuernimus, I think that the criticisms leveled against Doherty's article are reasonable. The fact that you stoop to name-calling makes me wonder about your own bias?
You are Paultarded not because you like the good Dr., but
because you fail to see that it's not even Doherty's article but
something written by someone else and then posted to generate
discussion/site traffic/ad-profits. And then to top it off, it's
not even about how zany or stupid his ideas are, but about
how:
I appreciate everything Ron Paul has exposed me to, and his personal sacrifices to further liberty, but it's not hard to see how a guy can be punchless in the Congress for so long, when he just can't ask a few direct questions, and insists upon going on and on about abstract moral and ethical issues that don't even relate to the hearings.
Trying to stifle discourse on how Ron Paul could best get his message across is not something you should be proud of because you're hurting whatever cause you think you are working for.
|3.28.09 @ 4:50AM|#
As for the district, pleaaassee. When he was first elected
he was the local obstetrician who everybody knew because he
delivered most of the babies in the district. Now he's riding the
tide of incumbency.
Ron Paul may be the only libertarian to have that
advantage, but he is not the only libertarian ever to have a name
recognition advantage. . If libertarians really are 10% of the
electorate, then there should be a lot of other OB?GYN's or other
high-credibility individuals in there if that's all that's
needed.
The fact is, Paul doesn't creep his district out the way most other
libertarians do, and that's because he's unique, credible, and also
smart.
|3.28.09 @ 7:01AM|#
For a conservative Paul does alright. As a libertarian he's
pathetic. Where is Paul best? As noted, in his books, speeches,
articles, etc. Where is he worst? When he has to ad lib, ask his
own questions or answer any probing questions himself. In other
words he's fine when he has ghost writers and horrible when he has
to do the work himself. It is well known that Paul uses ghost
writers all the time -- that was his excuse for the racist
newsletters that were issued under his byline.
Paul is a front man for a lot of ghost writers who do some good
things. When Paul is on his own he fumbles repeatedly.
|3.28.09 @ 8:30AM|#
Marc says: "If you had a herd of cats, what are the odds they'd
decide to start following one in particular?"
Yeah, whatever. Look this is pretty simple- neither party is going
to cater to libertarians, but libertarians should probably vote a
straight Republican ticket. When they fail to do so they get...
Obama...
Don't misunderstand me- Bush sucked. But on every level i can think
of Obama is worse.
I hate to say it but I agree with Eric Dondero on this one.
Libertarians ought to be voting straight ticket Republican, even
though the Republicans _suck ass_. I'm afraid that they suck ass a
bit less than the Dems, these days.
Anyway, tell me Obama is better than Bush and.. well I am going to
track you down and kick you in the taint. I knew it was going to
come to this, eventually, but that's mainly because I kick people
in the taint for the hell of it.
Atanarjuat|3.28.09 @ 9:05AM|#
Obama is better than Bush...on stem cells. (covers taint)
It will be a cold day in hell before I vote straight ticket
Republican. If I'm going to piss my vote away it will at least be
on LP candidates.
Beaker|3.28.09 @ 9:11AM|#
I hate to say it but I agree with Eric Dondero on this one.
Libertarians ought to be voting straight ticket Republican, even
though the Republicans _suck ass_. I'm afraid that they suck ass a
bit less than the Dems, these days.
BullSHIT on that. Two wars, Tarp, the drug wars, the (insert your
favorite bullshit social agenda here), etc, etc.
Libertarians need to STOP voting for either of the two mainstream
parties. We are getting SCREWED by both of them.
Cabeza De Vaca|3.28.09 @ 9:48AM|#
"Yeah, whatever. Look this is pretty simple- neither party is
going to cater to libertarians, but libertarians should probably
vote a straight Republican ticket. When they fail to do so they
get"
Except for a politician like Ron Paul. I really don't understand
how any true libertarian could vote republican or democrat. It's
like getting raped by two different people. Then asking the first
rapist to rape you again, because he was more gentle.
|3.28.09 @ 10:07AM|#
How exactly is Obama better than Bush on stem cells? As a libertarian, I think Bush's position is superior precisely because it withholds taxpayer funding, even if he does so for reasons other than small government ideology.
|3.28.09 @ 10:53AM|#
Not that I really want to get involved in this, but... If you
can get elected once, the advantages of incumbency make it
virtually impossible (barring indictment) for a challenger to
successfully defeat you. Claiming some sort of special powers on
the part of Doctor Paul merely because he gets sent back to
Washington on a recurring basis doesn't really impress me.
As for the rambling; he had plenty of time to prepare a concise
question, and read it off a sheet of paper. Why didn't he?
|3.28.09 @ 11:09AM|#
Ron Paul did fine in that segment. Given the amount of time he
had, he wanted to question Timmy on the only thing he had the
authority to change, which is how the IRS views its role in
prosecution. He attempted to state examples of why the IRS should
presume innocence, then asked if the head of the IRS would switch
the culture at the IRS from presuming guilt to presuming innocence.
The concept is pretty important.
He wasn't off his game, he was just attempting to use his silly 5
minutes wisely.
|3.28.09 @ 11:09AM|#
The point about the IRS is an excellent one, as is the larger
conceptual issue of Congress abdicating their powers to the
Executive branch, by passing what amount to
fill-in-the-blanks-later laws.
If I could send my "perfect" candidate to Congress, it would be
somebody who was willing to really hammer those fuckers on
procedural issues.
Miggs|3.28.09 @ 11:14AM|#
Since this seems to be the weekend thread,
OT-
Is
the NRA finally starting to acknowledge the 800 lb. gorilla in the
room?
jj|3.28.09 @ 11:17AM|#
Funny how the paleolibs are accused of being the purists. Let's
see: Paul is 72 year old man, the only libertarian congressman.
He's not perfect but says some nice things about our immensely
unpopular cause. His Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for
Liberty are consistently educating Americans young and old on the
difference between conservatism and true freedom. You would think
that would count for something around here -- perhaps a qualified
round of applause. But no, the Paul articles are almost entirely
and consistently negative in nature. Paul's accomplishing a hell of
a lot that isn't even being commented on here: I have to assume
because it would have to be portrayed in a positive light.
I'm not an unqualified, unquestioning follower of Paul. I disagree
with his views on the states, immigration, etc. But I
wholeheartedly applaud him as the best thing that has happened to
this movement in at least the last decade. If that makes me a
'Tard, the so be it.
If you cling still to the lack of bias here at reason, ask yourself
why the incredibly positive elements coming out of the Paul
movement go unreported.
It's clear to me also that many here simply want Paul portrayed in
a negative light. As my conversation with crimethink made clear,
he's more crime and less think.
|3.28.09 @ 11:20AM|#
The power of incumbency to positively affect a federal level
politician's re-election is based on the ability to direct money
and power back to their area. How does incumbency help a politician
who opposes sending money and power to his district and even
publicly opposes disaster relief in his area after a
hurricane?
Ron Paul could have asked better questions in this instance but so
what? He will be in front of Geithner with the opportunity to
question him many times over the next few years.
It's time to realize that this country is done for. There are too
many generations now of government educated, security seeking
automatons for freedom to have a chance. It's time for those who
value freedom to move on to another project and let this one burn
itself out. It was a good run, but it's coming to an end.
Mr. Chartreuse|3.28.09 @ 11:25AM|#
Another weekend open thread link.
Kentucky Fried Chicken fixes potholes:
Potholes fixed for all
robc|3.28.09 @ 11:42AM|#
P Brooks,
Paul has won 3 times without the power of incumbency. Its not like
he just did it once back in the 70s and has been riding to
reelection for 30+ years.
Right Wing Realist|3.28.09 @ 12:09PM|#
Flame bait. Maybe the next post can be on Ayn Rand.
Ron was perfectly on his game when he was in his 50s and 60s.
Dude's old.
|3.28.09 @ 12:18PM|#
robc,
Two of those elections were within the time period 1976-1978 (and
he also lost an election during that span). The 1996 election was
after the district boundaries had been redrawn to force the Dem
incumbent to switch parties or lose. The other elections he won
with the power of incumbency (and please don't perpetuate the lie
that Paul hasn't directed money back to his district -- it's about
the only effect he's had on legislation during his political
career).
Not exactly the stuff that legends are made of.
|3.28.09 @ 12:23PM|#
Ron was perfectly on his game when he was in his 50s and
60s. Dude's old.
Have you seen that Morton Downey Show he was on in '88? The guy was
scatterbrained back then, too.
Brandon|3.28.09 @ 12:30PM|#
Paul is what he is. It would be great if he got up in front of
Geithner and delivered a searing, devastating condemnation in the
style of John Galt. But that's not what he does. He's not perfect
and the cult followers that troll the internet looking for threads
where he's criticized need to lay off. At the same time, he has
done tremendous good for the libertarian movement and should be
given the benefit of the doubt.
BTW, he was not off his game when he said this on the House floor
in February:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fTVn2tMI3E&feature=related
|3.28.09 @ 12:35PM|#
His Campaign for Liberty and Young Americans for Liberty are
consistently educating Americans young and old on the difference
between conservatism and true freedom.
The only whisper I've heard out of the CFL is the letters they send
me asking for money. I don't know whether they're educating the
young and old, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're providing
steady jobs for young and old members of the Paul family.
If you cling still to the lack of bias here at reason, ask
yourself why the incredibly positive elements coming out of the
Paul movement go unreported.
As you've discovered, you are free to post whatever you want here.
Perhaps you can make up for Reason's neglect by sharing these
significant, verifiable achievements for liberty with us. That is,
if they exist. (and no, "educating Americans about liberty" doesn't
count, sorry)
But I wholeheartedly applaud him as the best thing that has
happened to this movement in at least the last decade. If that
makes me a 'Tard, the so be it.
It must have been an awfully terrible decade then. Bob Barr's vote
for the Patriot Act -- which ensured that the worst parts of the
act would expire in 2006 -- did more for the cause of liberty than
Ron Paul's vote against did. This is the problem with you Paul
dead-enders: you don't seem to get that politics is not about pure
voting records and lofty rhetoric, it's about getting shit done.
And by that yardstick Paul is a disaster (unless you work at one of
the Galveston hospitals he keeps shoveling pork into, that is).
Elemenope|3.28.09 @ 12:39PM|#
So I guess I'm saying no. Our leader is the cold fist of
reality. Not something you can put on the cover of a brochure, but
it'll win in the end.
When in the entire history of human existence has the cold fist of
reality ever prevailed?
Elemenope|3.28.09 @ 12:41PM|#
p.s. Kudos on the Marxist-style historical teleology.
"Don't worry. Human history is progressing to the ultimate point
where we will be proved right. It is inevitable!"
Some Pole, ca 1942|3.28.09 @ 12:43PM|#
When in the entire history of human existence has the cold
fist of reality ever prevailed?
Wait 'til hou've had it up your ass for a while.
Wallflower Tender|3.28.09 @ 12:44PM|#
Hey, Reason! Remember that trillion dollar war fought over the course of 6 years by that CRIMINAL George W Bush? What do you think of Obama's budget? His healthcare plans? Going to scream and shout about it like you guys did the Iraq war? Or are you just going to pretend that Bush is out and everything's hunky dory? Don't talk to me about wallflowers. Reason is chock full of them. As for Ron Paul, here's the punch line: no one cared about him even before you lost faith in him. Wankers.
|3.28.09 @ 12:50PM|#
I like Ron Paul. I still have a fading Ron Paul for President bumper sticker on my car which isn't coming off. But, this rambling 5 minutes wasn't his A-game. Paul should try harder next time to prepare concise, pointed, memorable questions beforehand. He does have staff, right? You'd think someone there could take Paul's rough draft questions and spend a few hours finetuning them into a tough series of questions that soundbites well, yeah?
Elemenope|3.28.09 @ 1:09PM|#
When in the entire history of human existence has the cold
fist of reality ever prevailed?
Wait 'til hou've had it up your ass for a while.
Way to bring the irrelevant ad hitlerum
. He's
talking about how libertarianism is on the side of the cold fist of
reality. If that were the case, um, it's been 15,000 years, reality
should have won by now, "yay libertarian paradise!". Poland in 1942
has nothing to do with that conversation.
mike farmer|3.28.09 @ 1:14PM|#
Actually every representative present who promised to protect
the public's interest is off their game -- or should I say in the
middle of their game?
It's the game of partisanship and power-seeking that underlies the
pathetic spectacle we're watching. Even if we had a Hannan, the
system-players would go into overtime trying to destroy and silence
him. No one man or woman or handful of men and women can beat this
system -- it'll take a majority of the nation to beat it.
|3.28.09 @ 1:14PM|#
prolefeed,
He's either a stubborn old man or he surrounds himself with
incompetents (or family members, more likely). Every interview he
gave and debate he took part in during the presidential "campaign"
gave off the reek of him being utterly unprepared for even the most
predictable questions. So either the people around him don't help
him prepare, out of stupidity or laziness, or he refuses their
help.
MNG|3.28.09 @ 1:14PM|#
Hey, folks don't bring their A game every time they play. Paul
should be cut some slack dudes...
"The only whisper I've heard out of the CFL is the letters they
send me asking for money."
But certainly you get itckets on the 50 yard line don't you when
you send it to them?
Wallflower
You know what I like about guys like you, that not only do you seem
to ever read the site you are criticizing, but you would have to
assume that everyone else here fails to read it! Reason has had
plenty of critical things to say about Obama since he took over.
Take a look.
|3.28.09 @ 1:19PM|#
But certainly you get itckets on the 50 yard line don't you
when you send it to them?
Har dee har. No, they sent me an extra 17-watter for my gooseneck
lamp...
jj|3.28.09 @ 2:12PM|#
crimethink,
"Perhaps you can make up for Reason's neglect by sharing these
significant, verifiable achievements for liberty with us. That is,
if they exist. (and no, "educating Americans about liberty" doesn't
count, sorry)
Then reason also is purposeless. It is solely an informational and
educational organisation.
boohoo|3.28.09 @ 2:16PM|#
I'm a product of reason's axis of Evil: randroidism,
rockwellism, and paulism. (Horror of horrors!)
Yes, it turned me into a libertarian, but, it seems, you hate THAT
kind of libertarian more than you hate the fascist rightists and
socialist leftists.
Since crimethink is so critical of that unsuccessful senile,
selfish old man who can do no good but educate (and that counts for
nothing), I wonder which libertarian he holds up as an example of
success?
Mad Max|3.28.09 @ 2:50PM|#
Even if Dr. Paul is a shy wallflower, at least he got invited to
the dance. This is more than many of his critics can claim.
The question to Geithner could have been phrased like this:
"Bernie Madoff got the presumption of innocence, until he lost that
presumption by pleading guilty.
"Now, Mr. Secretary, when are you going to allow regular Americans
the same presumption of innocence when they deal with the IRS - the
same presumption that our legal system gave to Bernie
Madoff?"
Is that sound-bitey enough?
Kolohe|3.28.09 @ 2:54PM|#
fwiw, i just got off the phone with the CFL. Paul & Tate are
on their game in that format - but of course it's a prepared
script. (And Tate needs to make his pitch much shorter)
When in the entire history of human existence has the cold fist
of reality ever prevailed?
I would argue that the cold fist of reality has *always* prevailed.
But that the people who think that fist is connected to their arm
are seldom correct.
dpsc|3.28.09 @ 2:58PM|#
"Obama is better than Bush...on stem cells. (covers
taint)"
I'll give you that one, though you're right to cover your taint
over it... the reason it deserves a kick in the stink is that it's
really a pretty trivial issue, on a practical level, and Obama is
an equivocator in terms of the principle involved, which is the
important bit.
As for the two wars- well, at least one of them was inevitable,
like it or not- a world power like the US can't really let a bunch
of people living in a cave halfway between West AssGhanistan and
East Pussystan launch attacks on its biggest buildings with
impunity.. I mean that just makes war an open-mic event, and no
superstar of warfare like the US wants to see it turn into amateur
hour... anyway I'm not sure Obama has gotten the dove-libertarian
message yet- he's escalating the Afghan war as we speak.
Anyway, I didn't come here to praise W- Id rather bury him. But,
and I never thought I'd say this, I kind of miss him now. Yeah,
TARP was bad... But this budget Obama is pushing.. I mean, how can
anyone think this makes sense, at all? If Tarp was bad (and it
was), this is worse. I don't want to give Obama all the credit for
ruining our public finances- it's been a collaborative effort
extending over most of my lifetime. But he really is a virtuoso of
financial ruin... where others fiddled, he burns.
I was happy to see the Republicans punished.. for about 5 minutes.
Now I kind of widh we could have elections every three months, just
so we could throw the bums out a bit more often.
dpsc|3.28.09 @ 3:07PM|#
Oh, and about Paul.. the reason I didn't even mention him is
that he is not a significant figure in our national politics.
I have to admit that what I do is rather different from what I say-
the last vote I cast in a national election was a vote for Bill
Clinton in '92. I imagine that in a decade or so I will have
recovered from that enough to vote for a Presidential candidate
again...
|3.28.09 @ 3:30PM|#
Obama is better than Bush...on stem cells. (covers taint)
Bush denied Federal funding, Obama reinstated it. Last I checked,
taxpayer funding of research was not a libertarian position.
nyu law libertarian|3.28.09 @ 3:31PM|#
I was pretty disappointed when I saw Paul's questioning. I don't
mind him setting up the framework for his questioning ... but
everyone already knows what his philosophical beliefs are and it
would be better if he kept the preamble short and the q&a
long.
Why not put hard direct questions to the panel that they can't
avoid? I thought Paul came off looking a little rattled after
asking about the whole 'innocent until proven guilty' thing. I
wasn't even really following what his question was.
It would be nice if the internets could submit questions they want
answered and present them to Paul. He needs to ask real questions
instead of continually challenging Bernanke to historiography
debates.
dpsc:|3.28.09 @ 3:45PM|#
"Bush denied Federal funding, Obama reinstated it. Last I
checked, taxpayer funding of research was not a libertarian
position."
"You are correct, sir..." and actually I've been known to take that
position on gay marriage just for the hell of it, but...
If we're going to fund science out of the public coffers anyway...
I think the correct Libertarian doctrine is to fund stem cell
research to the same degree that we fund other research. Unless you
think blastocysts are people or something...
Channels Charlton Heston: "Blastocysts is people!" Nope, not
working for me.. but then I never saw the problem with Soylent
Green either. I mean, it really takes a lot of work (in the sense
of increasing entropy) to put a protein molecule together- why
waste, innit?
MNG|3.28.09 @ 3:48PM|#
"Bush denied Federal funding, Obama reinstated it. Last I
checked, taxpayer funding of research was not a libertarian
position."
You hear this around here all the time, but I want to know this:
did Obama just make it OK for federal funding allocated to
scientific research to now be used on stem cell research, or did he
make it so additional federal funding is to be used on stem cell
research?
You can argue the federal government should not fund ANY scientific
research, that's certainly a pure libertarian position, but if the
government is going to spend x amount of dollars on scientific
research then I can't see any necessarily libertarian reason to
want to make sure this one type of research does not get any of it,
unless like Max and Crimethink et al., you think the lil'
microscopic, limbless, brainless buggers are the moral equivalents
of persons, which then we should spend federal dollars on search
and rescue operations on the horrible number of these lil' persons
who do not make it to become "post-born humans" due to entirely
natural causes...
|3.28.09 @ 3:52PM|#
nyu law libertarian-
That the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer when contesting an
IRS determination, is, itself, an outrage, utterly incompatible
with first principles, the rule of law amd a free society. How many
politicians do you know who give this issue any attention?
Mad Max|3.28.09 @ 3:52PM|#
'unless like Max and Crimethink et al., you think the lil'
microscopic, limbless, brainless buggers are the moral equivalents
of persons'
MNG,
I don't think politicians should set a precedent for denying rights
to human beings on the grounds that they are 'brainless.' It's not
in politicians' self-interest.
'spend federal dollars on search and rescue operations'
Based on the search-and-rescue clause of the federal
Constitution?
dpsc|3.28.09 @ 3:53PM|#
Shorter MNG:
Q: "How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?"
A: "That's not funny."
|3.28.09 @ 4:03PM|#
MNG-
IMO, more liberals should be pissed off that the taxpayer has the
burden of proof vis-a-vis the IRS. Particularly, process liberals
who congratulate themselves for being so committed to the
objectives and principles of due process. Allocating the burden to
the taxpayer in tax contests is a fundamental contradiction to due
process.
However, too many liberals have whored themselves out, both
financially and intellectually, to the state and its bankers.
MNG|3.28.09 @ 4:09PM|#
Max
"I don't think politicians should set a precedent for denying
rights to human beings on the grounds that they are 'brainless.'
It's not in politicians' self-interest."
That's a good one.
"Based on the search-and-rescue clause of the federal
Constitution?"
Another good one. But on a more serious note, do you think the feds
can properly spend money on things like disaster relief and
preparedness?
dpsc
?
I made the joke and I get accused of not having a sense of
humor?
MNG|3.28.09 @ 4:12PM|#
libertymike
I just read that, and to be totally honest, I did not know that
taxpayers, when dealing with the IRS, have to prove themselves
innocent of violations. That's seriously messed up.
In what sense is that true? That a citizen has the burden of proof
in a case where he can be convicted of violating the tax code? If
that is true, that's seriously messed up.
dpsc:|3.28.09 @ 4:20PM|#
MNG: Look son (I hope you don't mind me calling you "son"- it's a southern thing, and also a condescending thing) when you find yourself seriously defending your sense of homor, it might be time to walk it off.
Mad Max|3.28.09 @ 4:53PM|#
'Do you think the feds can properly spend money on things like
disaster relief and preparedness?'
To federal government has the power to declare war, to raise and
support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to make rules for
the government and regulation of land and naval forces, providing
for calling forth the militia to enforce the laws of the United
States, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions, to
provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and
fulfilling the federal government's duty to protect the states
against "domestic violence" (not the Ike Turner kind, it means
insurrections and that sort of thing) at the request of the state
concerned.
I think that you can put "preparedness" under that umbrella. And
you can put some aspects of "disaster relief" under that umbrella -
specifically, the domestic violence accompanying a disaster. Of
course, that presupposes that there actually *is* domestic
violence, and that the state specifically asks for help.
In some cases, if the disaster is bad enough, it might spark an
insurrection against federal authority, or some kind of resistance
to federal law-enforcement, in which there might be room for some
sort of disaster relief.
But no, this would not justify sending in the *federales* to govern
a disaster-stricken area, or spend unlimited money there.
Mad Max|3.28.09 @ 5:04PM|#
(note on "domestic violence" - this covers things like rebellions against state authority - as opposed to rebellions against federal authority, already covered elsewhere in the federal constitutiton. Domestic violence would probably also cover looting in the wake of a natural disaster, etc.)
MNG|3.28.09 @ 5:10PM|#
Max
Do you think state governments properly should act to minimize harm
to their citizens from natural disasters? Or how about search and
rescue of missing persons? Or how about the stuff firemen do?
dpsc
I wasn't defending my sense of humor as much as I was pointing out
how stupid your post was. But due to your admitted disability (the
southern thing) I understand if that went over your head.
Loupeznik|3.28.09 @ 5:33PM|#
Let me join the chorus when I say, yeah, Ron Paul has never been the most eloquent speaker. Our failure is that he is our only standard bearer. Ron Paul has done more for our movement that any ten of us even if he is not our idea of perfection. We are as bad as the democrats when we say that something should be done (just not by me). We all live in glass houses.
Mad Max|3.28.09 @ 5:38PM|#
'Do you think state governments properly should act to minimize
harm to their citizens from natural disasters?'
Yes
'Or how about search and rescue of missing persons?'
Yes
'Or how about the stuff firemen do?'
When have I suggested otherwise?
State and federal governments are different. The federal government
is a government of enumerated powers, the remaining powers are
reserved to the states and the people by the 10th Amendment. The
powers you have listed are legitimate government functions.
Mad Max|3.28.09 @ 5:39PM|#
Also, dead babies are not "missing persons," to return to the original topic of your discussion.
Suki|3.28.09 @ 7:01PM|#
Okay, I will ask the new person stupid questions.
What is the big deal about a Texas Congressman who blew the
Republican nomination?
Doesn't he have a bunch of nutty people following him
around/supporting his campaigns all of the time? Did he ever tell
the 9/11 conspiracy nuts that it was not a conspiracy?
I am truly asking, because I have no idea why a bunch of nuts like
that would still follow a candidate after being told they are
nuts.
[sarcasm]
Anybody watch that fake Space Shuttle landing today? Pretty funny
that the studio was full of fog and smoke, then it all cleared up
at the end, right?
I saw on NASA TV at least five Space Shuttles land in about an
hour. Is the government launching an attack on America?
[/sarcasm]
If any candidate were being worshiped by people who believed that
nonsense I would hope they could at least say something. Even
McCain spoke up when people said crazy stuff to him.
Oh, and your friendly reminder, it is turn on all the lights and
appliances time on the east coast in 90 min. :)
Suki|3.28.09 @ 7:05PM|#
Mad Max,
To federal government has the power to declare war, to raise
and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, to make rules
for the government and regulation of land and naval forces,
providing for calling forth the militia to enforce the laws of the
United States, suppressing insurrections, and repelling invasions,
to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and
fulfilling the federal government's duty to protect the states
against "domestic violence" (not the Ike Turner kind, it means
insurrections and that sort of thing) at the request of the state
concerned.
I think you left out roads.
nonPaulogist|3.28.09 @ 7:32PM|#
It is curious that the posts on RP seem to garner a few more
comments than is otherwise the case. I guess Reason is trying to
grab some of that traffic from the more popular
lewrockwell.com.
Reason destroyed its own credibility as an organization that
advocates freedom when they turned on Dr. Paul. It still fills me
with rage whenever I think about it. Dr. Paul was our last, best
hope to turn things around. Now all we can do is hunker down and
wait for the slow decline and inevitable collapse. Reason didn't
cause him to lose, but they revealed themselves to be establishment
suck-ups with no clear commitment to liberty.
Ron Paul is no Cicero, but he's done a hell of a lot more for
liberty than Matt or Nick have ever done. Maybe future historians
will describe Paul as a gadfly, but they won't mention Matt Welch
at all.
Mad Max|3.28.09 @ 7:36PM|#
'Even McCain spoke up when people said crazy stuff to
him.'
He didn't want the competition. Why should the craziness of his
supporters distract attention from (say) his idea of purifying
politics by letting the government restrict free speech?
Mad Max|3.28.09 @ 7:38PM|#
Did McCain disassociate himself from Michelle Malkin, a supporter of FDR's evacuation and internment of the Japanese-Americans?
Suki|3.28.09 @ 7:48PM|#
Max,
I did not even imply that he should publish every single name of
every 9/11 nut in a Washington Post ad and say "I reject you". Nor
did I imply that he should respond to every single columnist.
McCain did say straight to some woman accusing Obama of (being
Muslim?) that she was wrong.
Apparently, from your answer you do not know of him doing that.
Suki|3.28.09 @ 7:50PM|#
Apparently, from your answer you do not know of
him Dr. Paul doing anything like that.
mike farmer|3.28.09 @ 8:15PM|#
"Reason destroyed its own credibility as an organization that
advocates freedom when they turned on Dr. Paul. It still fills me
with rage whenever I think about it. Dr. Paul was our last, best
hope to turn things around. Now all we can do is hunker down and
wait for the slow decline and inevitable collapse. Reason didn't
cause him to lose, but they revealed themselves to be establishment
suck-ups with no clear commitment to liberty."
Reason seems to be caught in that world between barefoot
irreverence towards the liberal status quo and an embarrassment of
association which manifests itself in polite disagreement with
power at the margins while not offending the center of power and
risking being cast out in the heap of dismissed and discarded
libertarian loonies.
Mad Max|3.28.09 @ 8:55PM|#
'McCain did say straight to some woman accusing Obama of (being
Muslim?) that she was wrong.'
You seem to have missed my point. McCain actually said crazy things
himself, which I believe is even worse than failing to issue
indignant denunciations of his crazy supporters.
Nor did McCain denounce *all* his crazy supporters. He rebuked the
supporter who made silly claims about Obama, who was after a
fellow-Senator of McCain's and a member of the same club.
But I would love to see the link showing that McCain denounced
Michelle Malkin (by name or in a reference clearly understood as
being about her) for her advocacy of Japanese-American
internment.
Or, for that matter, why not provide me a link showing that McCain
denounced Malkin's
demonstrable lie about Dr. Paul's connections with the
Truthers.
<b>Extra! Extra!</b>|3.28.09 @ 9:01PM|#
nonPaulogist|3.28.09 @ 9:19PM|#
Reason seems to be caught in that world between barefoot
irreverence towards the liberal status quo and an embarrassment of
association which manifests itself in polite disagreement with
power at the margins while not offending the center of power and
risking being cast out in the heap of dismissed and discarded
libertarian loonies.
It is not possible to effect significant change without offending
the center of power. Even when successfully implemented, the sort
of incremental reforms that Reason advocates are dwarfed by the
incremental changes in the other direction. Unfortunately,
libertarian reforms are seldom successfully implemented. Reason's
apparent strategy is a recipe for certain failure.
cuernimus|3.28.09 @ 9:28PM|#
Ron Paul most likely did not throw all the crazies off his bus
because he wanted to expose as many people as possible to his
message (also he's a classy dude). Racists, truthers, and
neckbeards of all shapes and sizes attached themselves to him to
get exposure for whatever stupidity they were supporting, and
people began confusing Paul with the cultists stalking him. When
the newsletters hit the news, they perfectly fit the guy's
supporters but not the man himself. Everyone who comes here to bash
reason for writing mostly objective articles on Ron Paul but
doesn't express homicidal rage towards Lew Rockwell or whoever it
was who wrote those newsletters and then didn't confess to it is a
douche of the largest volume.
What is the big deal about a Texas Congressman who blew the Republican nomination?
As one of the few small government conservatives remaining, he is one of the few people in Congress who has anything to say that libertarians would like to hear more of. The things he said about the Federal Reserve screwing shit up also came true, so he gets a lot of national air-time.
|3.28.09 @ 10:13PM|#
His esoteric comments are what make him famous. If he asked
generic questions he would get vapid generic responses. If he asks
specific questions he gets vapid generic responses.
Ron Paul's best bet is to use these precious seconds to educate the
public, after all, the historical truths behind the crises have
been thrown so far down the memory hole they have become
esoteric.
Mad Max|3.28.09 @ 10:18PM|#
'homicidal rage towards Lew Rockwell or whoever it was'
I prefer not to feel homicidal rage against anyone. But I'm not
going to attach sole blame to Rockwell (or whoever), but also to
Dr. Paul for letting Rockwell (or whoever) write articles under his
name.
|3.28.09 @ 11:03PM|#
Since crimethink is so critical of that unsuccessful senile,
selfish old man who can do no good but educate (and that counts for
nothing), I wonder which libertarian he holds up as an example of
success?
I don't hold any libertarians up as an example of success.
Libertarianism isn't terribly successful at this point in history,
you may have noticed. As for "educating Americans", it's usually a
eupehmism for holding rallies attended only by the
already-converted, posting YouTube videos that are watched almost
exclusively by his current supporters, and sending out mass
mailings, 99.999% of which are immediately thrown in the trash, and
I'd be very surprised if CFL is doing anything different.
|3.28.09 @ 11:13PM|#
Mad Max,
I think the point is, that the rage the Paulbots direct against
Reason for publishing the newsletter story should be directed
towards whoever actually wrote that filth (most people associated
with Paul back in the day have implicated Rockwell). You'll also
note that the Paultards now claim the newsletters are old news, but
back when they first came out they claimed that they were being
taken out of context (an assertion Dr. Paul himself disagreed
with).
BakedPenguin|3.28.09 @ 11:19PM|#
God, the shrieking here whenever something about Paul is posted
is idiotic. Somehow "Paul is off his A-game" is evidence of pure,
unadulterated hatred. Meanwhile, the constant posts about the
hypocrisy and double dealing of the Obama administration are
nothing, because they are still secretly in the bag for
Obama.
I continue to be amazed at the pro-Paul paleocons. If some liberal
claimed that the reason some ghetto youth robbed and killed five
people was his poor upbringing and surroundings, they would
(rightly) call bullshit.
When it comes to the newsletters though, Paul - whose name was on
the fucking things - didn't write them, or even read them, and he
probably wasn't there at the time. Also it's "smearing" him to even
imply that bears any responsibility in the matter. Also, the
newsletter - which read like some KKK tracts I've seen - aren't
even that racist anyway. They're just "un-PC". Yeah! Personal
responsibility, baby!
The idea that he would have won the Republican primary had reason
not printed the story is laughable. Yes, there was a strong
grassroots movement. Yes, the idea of freedom caught fire with a
lot of people. But it was never going to be enough.
Paul, even without the newsletters is not the kind of politician
who is going to light that fire. His managerial skills are lacking,
and he is incapable of hiring effective ones. The campaign (other
than the fundraising) was a complete disaster - it's hard to
imagine how it could have been run worse. They would have had to
hit every note perfect considering that they were also fighting the
pro-war neocon douchebags in charge of the RNC.
sonic reducer|3.28.09 @ 11:25PM|#
VEEP'S DAUGHTER IS A DUMB SKANKY COKE WHORE
Damn, Ashley Biden? I'd buy her an eight-ball to snort off my cock
anytime. And Ashley, if you're reading this, I promise not to sell
the video of it -- at least until your dad leaves office.
Anyway, skanky's probably too much to hope for, but dumb, yes, if
she did this. I mean not that I haven't snorted a few lines at a
party myself and not that I think there is anything wrong with it,
but I'm not the veep's daughter either. She can't be so stupid that
she doesn't know how many people would love to cash that in. I
mean, come one, did she miss the whole Phelps saga? So on that
alone, I'm going to assume this is all bullshit because I just
can't believe she's that fucking stupid.
|3.28.09 @ 11:26PM|#
Those with historical interests may wish to check out this
thread, where Justin Raimondo himself arrives to battle it out
with Matt Welch over whether the newsletters were taken out of
context.
Special bonus -- a scholarly linguist discovers that I, your humble
servant crimethink, was responsible for the first known use of the
word "cosmotarian".
sonic reducer|3.28.09 @ 11:30PM|#
And is her middle name really "Blazer" as papa Joe's wiki page says?? WTF? Joey's crazier than I thought.
BakedPenguin|3.29.09 @ 12:05AM|#
If that really is video of Biden's daughter, that's great. It's going to be wonderful to watch Mr. Drug Warrior try to squirm away from that.
|3.29.09 @ 12:11AM|#
jj,
"You would think that would count for something around here --
perhaps a qualified round of applause. But no, the Paul articles
are almost entirely and consistently negative in nature. Paul's
accomplishing a hell of a lot that isn't even being commented on
here: I have to assume because it would have to be portrayed in a
positive light."
This is precisely why I give Radley Balko no quarter for his epic
crusade to highlight as many bad things about cops as he can.
But on topic, Daniel Hannan is wicked smart. I despaired as I
watched him dress down the PM because I know nobody that brave
& bold is in the White House or Congress.
But really on topic, Ron Paul is cool. Things seem a little less
horrible in government with Paul in da house.
|3.29.09 @ 12:36AM|#
Andrew Lynch,
Just like it's not fair that when Peyton Manning throws two
interceptions and only has one TD pass, sportswriters criticize
him, while if Dan Orlovsky does the same thing they don't.
You guys have built Ron Paul up to be this libertarian superhero,
so it stands to reason that chinks in his armor need to be pointed
out. Likewise with our culture's tendency to treat cops as some
sort of higher class than "civilians", they need some air let out
of their tires when they don't measure up to the myth too.
I Need Lunch|3.29.09 @ 1:02AM|#
No Mr Reducer, Ashley's cocaine tastes are well documented in gossipy blind items and internet rumor. The Skanky ho' is actually employed by the State in order to take people's chilluns away fo'smokin' rock. I hope the VEEP,out of political expediency, forces her to go to court and into a harsh proletarian rehab like Noelle Bush had to go through for forging a Xanax 'scrip and they hang a junkie cokeslut jacket on her for life.
nonPaulogist|3.29.09 @ 1:45AM|#
Aside from the way the newsletters were quoted out of context or the way the narrative echoed the spin from Kirchick at TNR is the issue that outside the Beltway and possibly other coastal areas it was not a newsworthy story. That Reason decided to run with it at a time that would cause maximum political damage indicates that at best Nick and Matt are out of touch with the issues most libertarians care about. At worse it could indicate priorities other than free minds and free markets.
nonPaulogist|3.29.09 @ 1:52AM|#
You guys have built Ron Paul up to be this libertarian
superhero, so it stands to reason that chinks in his armor need to
be pointed out.
Paul's armor has more chinks than Taiwan, but that doesn't excuse
Welch and Gillespie from running an non newsworthy and inaccurate
story. Reason bills itself as a publication supporting free minds
and free markets, so it stands to reason that it needs to be
pointed out when they failure to provide that support.
|3.29.09 @ 3:21AM|#
I love Ron Paul and he has done a tremendous job promoting the freedom agenda. But I have to agree that he never is able to make these people squirm. RP understands tons more than most all members of Congress regarding economics, but sadly, he is no match for Ben Bernanke and probably not Geithner. Bernanke can talk circles around RP. RP needs to get scripted by some PhD economists I think.
Suki|3.29.09 @ 3:49AM|#
cuernimus.
Thank you for explaining without tossing a fit.
MM, you might need to see someone about that.
Mad Max|3.29.09 @ 7:47AM|#
Suki,
I think that the question about any politician is how he stacks up
against other politicians, especially his opponents. Of course,
another possibility is to compare politicians' behavior to a pure
heavenly standard and express rage and disappointment when they
fall short of that standard. Such an attitude toward politicians is
objectively anti-liberty, because it involves a search for a
secular messiah, a 'man on horseback' who can ride into Washington
and purge all the impurities from our system. Expectations like
taht tend to lead to tyranny.
I repeat that, when it comes to punchy sound-bites and competent
campaigning, Dr. Paul is *worse* than many other politicians - but
better than his leading critics.
When it comes to crazy statements by himself and his supporters,
Dr. Paul is better than McCain.
You may notice that Dr. Paul repeatedly focused on bin Laden's
responsibility for 9/11, pointing it out repeatedly. McCain made a
couple of statements that Obama was not a Muslim. So even by the
crude measure of 'how many times did they repudiate the foolishness
of their supporters,' Paul comes out ahead.
During the campaign, Dr. Paul repeatedly denounced racism and
racial discrimination. McCain ignored certain highly offensive
statements (including a highly offensive book) by his supporter
Malkin.
Dr. Paul's repudiation of his newsletters was, I should say, at
least as sincere as McCain's repudiation of his actions in the
Keating 5 scandal from the same decade.
Mad Max|3.29.09 @ 7:50AM|#
- and at least as sincere as Obama's repudiation of the Reverend "God Damn America."
Taktix®|3.29.09 @ 8:27AM|#
At worse it could indicate priorities other than free minds
and free markets.
Yes, keepinging secret the story of Ron Paul's racist newsletters
would be very free mind and free market.
You guys just don't know when to fold, huh? Fucking idiot...
BakedPenguin|3.29.09 @ 8:43AM|#
Aside from the way the newsletters were quoted out of context...
Please, please, please put the "fleet footed" quote in "context"
for us. Was the newsletter merely explaining the extra bone blacks
have in their legs that makes them run faster?
If I didn't know better, I'd think Paul's mindless defenders (and I
mean the ones for whom he has done and can do - no wrong)existed
merely to make the story larger than it otherwise
would have been. Had they just said "yes, this was a terrible lapse
of judgment on his part" and had the person who actually wrote that
shit (Rockwell?) sucked it up, and come forward, this could have
been over much quicker.
Instead, every time Paul's name appears in reason, it's all part of
a vast conspiracy to bring this good, good man down. Jesus, no
wonder he never moved to get rid of the 9/11 conspiracists and
other truther nuts out of his organization. They must feel right at
home.
MNG|3.29.09 @ 9:44AM|#
"Reason destroyed its own credibility as an organization that
advocates freedom when they turned on Dr. Paul"
See, I never really thought that Reason "turned on" Ron Paul. From
my non-libertarian vantage-point it seemed like they hugely
supported him, and then when bad stuff came out from other sources
reluctantly reported what other people were saying, and then as it
looked worse and worse they reluctantly concluded that Paul came
off looking bad. Hey, I've defended Paul a lot here on H&R and
he did kind of come off looking a little bad. To ask Reason to take
another tack would be them to engage in what would come off like
silly apologia and hero worship that would discredit libertarianism
as a whole (since Reason is one of the more well known sources of
that philosophy to the world).
Max
I understand your idea about enumerated powers and the feds and the
states, I just was not sure whether you had some opposition to any
level of government engaging in disaster preraredness and releif or
rescue operations in general. There are such people...
Extra
I doubt many here would be schocked to know that I consider the
recent relevations that Bristol Palin and her baby daddy have
shockingly decided to split and so give us one of those unwed
teenage mothers the conservatives are always bitching about ruining
this country.
MNG|3.29.09 @ 9:47AM|#
Ron Paul is not the most articulate man in the world often, and
his newsletter thing was very, very ugly, and I don't like how his
deviations from some libertarian positions just happen to be cozy
with that ugliness (anti-immigration stance), but overall I give
him a good grade.
Paul seems to me to be a man who tries mightily to live up to and
enact a coherent set of principles and philosophy, something more
than I can say about a great deal of politicians.
|3.29.09 @ 9:50AM|#
MNG,
The difference is that Sarah Palin doesn't favor throwing unwed
mothers in jail for years and wrecking their lives with a felony
conviction, unlike His Viceness.
|3.29.09 @ 9:53AM|#
Aside from the way the newsletters were quoted out of
context...
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and
despicable.
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and
despicable.
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and
despicable.
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and
despicable.Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy
and despicable.
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and
despicable.
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and
despicable.
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and
despicable.
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and
despicable.
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and
despicable.
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and
despicable.
Cheesy Crackers, and you wonder why people call you tards?!
|3.29.09 @ 9:58AM|#
You guys go on and on about how Ron Paul is smart and courageous and integritous, but then you refuse to believe what he himself says about the newsletters! You're not supporting a man, you're supporting a myth.
|3.29.09 @ 10:16AM|#
MNG-
On the burden of proof matter, it applies in almost all civil
situations. I am sorry if my posts implied that it applies in
criminal matters.
I tend to agree with your 9:44 am assessment of Reason's treatment
of Ron Paul. Reason can not, as an organization, afford to impose a
coverage blackout on RP's foibles, warts and, gasp,
contradictions-if it wants the "Free Minds" part of the equation to
be taken seriously.
MNG|3.29.09 @ 10:27AM|#
LM
So in civil actions the IRS brings the defendant has the burden of
proving themselves inncocent?
Hey, that's still messed up if you ask me. A person can be ruined
through civil suit about as fast as through a criminal one...
BTW libertymike, did you catch this? Don't be holding your breath
for Moynihan to include this in his list of international
infringements on liberty anytime soon...
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1072040.html
|3.29.09 @ 10:42AM|#
Geez MNG, you're like a dog with a Palestinian bone. Moynihan does not take his assignments from you. But please enlighten us on how Venezuela is paradise compared to Gaza or the West Bank.
MNG|3.29.09 @ 11:14AM|#
Sage
I'm not looking to threadjack, just sharing something with LM. If
you want to compare life in Venezula to life in the Occupied
Territories I suggest you look up the yearly country reports from
an agency like Human Rights Watch, an agency which Moynihan uses
btw(well, uses for the former but not the latter of course).
dhex|3.29.09 @ 11:15AM|#
"The difference is that Sarah Palin doesn't favor throwing unwed
mothers in jail for years and wrecking their lives with a felony
conviction, unlike His Viceness."
palin probably does about something or other, but yeah...biden,
that fucking weasel piece of shit, has helped ruin thousands of
lives. i hope the fucker has to resign.
hmm|3.29.09 @ 12:25PM|#
Why is there the need to bash every person "on your side" when
they do something that you don't whole agree with or they fail to
act on something you feel should acted upon.
The fundamental idealism within the LP is not only one of its
strong points, it seems to be one of its largest failures, at least
on an individual level. It's like they want to be like the other
two parties and consistently eat their own if they disagree with
them on even the most minuscule idea. Voicing an opinion is one
thing, constantly bitching and moaning every time you don't wholly
agree with a compatriot is entirely different and counter
productive or even destructive.
/rant off
Paul did fine, he got his point across in the time allowed, and he
is still by far a superior statesman than any of the 535 people
occupying Congress.
BakedPenguin|3.29.09 @ 12:44PM|#
Incidentally, I changed my registration to vote for Paul in the
primaries. Why? Because his views were far closer to mine than any
other candidate out there. This despite my reading all of the
newsletter articles here at reason.
Ron Paul himself said the newsletter content was filthy and despicable.
That was one reason why I felt comfortable in doing so.
Taktix®|3.29.09 @ 12:49PM|#
If you want coverage of Ron Paul, minus his faults, you can go
to Ron Paul's website or the other numerous web-shrine sites to
him.
As a news organization, Reason has to report the news, even if it's
news you don't like...
Cabeza De Vaca|3.29.09 @ 1:21PM|#
"Special bonus -- a scholarly linguist discovers that I, your
humble servant crimethink, was responsible for the first known use
of the word "cosmotarian"."
Damn you Crimethink.
*Shakes fist in air*
Cabeza De Vaca|3.29.09 @ 1:39PM|#
I like Ron Paul enough that I registered Republican & voted for him twice. Once during the Iowa straw poll & during the caucus. Having said that Dr. Paul got off easy with the racist newsletters. That would have been enough to ruin most politicians careers. I think the reason people didn't hold it against him, is he appears to be a very honest man that stands by his princples. For Reason not to cover the story would've been deceitful on their part. I don't think any of the writers at Reason were out to destroy Ron Paul.
Taktix®|3.29.09 @ 1:57PM|#
I don't think any of the writers at Reason were out to
destroy Ron Paul.
No one does except starry-eyed Paul fans, looking for someone to
blame because America, sadly, doesn't want a guy telling you you're
responsible for your own life.
Blame whatever you want, but enough Americas are happy with their
Government Cheese, and no amount of publicity for libertarians will
change that.
Now when those getting their freebees really start to feel the
sting of oppresion, pro-liberty ideas will gain more traction.
Sometimes good politics includes good timing...
|3.29.09 @ 2:56PM|#
Ron Paul always strikes me as too blatant.
You know when he's interviewed it's stuff like
what do you think of the UN?
he's like we should pull out, it shouldn't exist
It's a reasonable point but if you really wanna get any headroom in
US politics as a Libertarian
you have to basically talk like a Republican on the economy and
talk like a Democrat on social issues
The big critique of libertarianism is that its some weird fantasy
philosophy
its a good guide or moral philosophy that help you make choices but
you can't go blurting out your plans for a utopia
It should be fucking easy
you say I wanna cut corporation tax
you get the right on board
you say I wanna fund that by legalizing soft drugs and reducing
military adventures abroad
you'll probably get the left on board
It seems really simple but any libertarian politician can't help
themselves but get into a deep Utopian philosophical rant on live
TV.
Libertarianism is fucked until people drop the utopian shit (in
public) and focus on achievable objectives
|3.29.09 @ 4:03PM|#
Speaking of Bots, it's interesting that Reason didn't notice
this story over the weekend...
Chinese
spy botnet infiltrates computers in 103 countries
VM|3.29.09 @ 5:02PM|#
goldgoldgoldgoldgold.
dickheaddickeaddickead.
nostudyofeconNostudyofecon.
dickheaddickheaddickhead
yup. typical RP thread. he's a fucking constitutional party d00d.
not a libertarian. change your fucking internal label. and jam
"dickhead2" up your ass, he'll stick his head up yours, and you all
can be a wonderful pretzel together.
robc|3.29.09 @ 5:25PM|#
lmnop,
He's talking about how libertarianism is on the side of the
cold fist of reality. If that were the case, um, it's been 15,000
years, reality should have won by now,
You are a short term thinker. Reality will win in the end, but
quite possibly, not until then.
Entropy is a ruthless bitch and it will win out.
Elemenope|3.29.09 @ 5:38PM|#
robc --
I believe in the cold fist of reality as entropy. "The arc of the
universe is long, but it bends towards heat death." That is as
close to ultimate ends as I am willing to wander.
But I do not believe in economic teleology. The orientation and
arrangements of goods and resources among social creatures is not
of the same sort of principle as physical laws. It's funny;
consistently I hear people make fun of Marxists precisely for this
point, but man do Libertarians sometimes outdo them with it. Some
things do *not* actualize over a long enough time line or through a
numerous enough number of permutations. Over a long enough time
line, you will still not have sex with Sarah Michelle Gellar.
If there were a natural and inevitable tendency of economic systems
to conform to the Austrian expectations, it would have happened
already. Not in theory, but in the really-real world. On the
contrary the fact that such system have not naturally evolved leads
me to believe that the libertarian ideal is not written in the
stars, but is really only a (generally laudable) created human
goal.
|3.29.09 @ 7:38PM|#
I'm no fan of Rick Wagoner, but WTF?:
GM CEO
Wagoner to step down at White House request
Nice to know this administration has given up even the pretense of
not running an auto company.
|3.29.09 @ 7:41PM|#
Some things do *not* actualize over a long enough time line
or through a numerous enough number of permutations. Over a long
enough time line, you will still not have sex with Sarah Michelle
Gellar.
But given a long enough time, exact copies of both me and SMG would
appear an unlimited number of times in the universe. So I don't
think your assertion holds.
|3.29.09 @ 7:48PM|#
Yeah there's even a universe where libertarianism has prevailed. If you ever have a chance to visit, that burning cinder in space next to Mars is what used to be Earth.
Elemenope|3.29.09 @ 8:02PM|#
But given a long enough time, exact copies of both me and
SMG would appear an unlimited number of times in the universe. So I
don't think your assertion holds.
That is not necessary at all. There is a famous thought experiment
by Georg Simmel, thus:
"Even if there were exceedingly few things in a finite space in an
infinite time, they would not have to repeat in the same
configurations. Suppose there were three wheels of equal size,
rotating on the same axis, one point marked on the circumference of
each wheel, and these three points lined up in one straight line.
If the second wheel rotated twice as fast as the first, and if the
speed of the third wheel was 1/π of the speed of the first, the
initial line-up would never recur."
speaking of dickheads|3.29.09 @ 8:23PM|#
goldgoldgoldgoldgold.
dickheaddickeaddickead.
nostudyofeconNostudyofecon.
dickheaddickheaddickhead
From wikipedia: The Libertarian Party was formed in Colorado
Springs in the home of David Nolan on December 11, 1971, after
several months of debate among members of the Committee to Form a
Libertarian Party, founded July 17.[1] The formation was
prompted in part by price controls and the end of the Gold Standard
implemented by President Richard Nixon
I don't see any mention of gay marriage. Maybe you ought to change
your internal label?
cuernimus|3.29.09 @ 8:30PM|#
Also LMNOP, his theory assumes that one of those SMG's clones would eventually lower her standards by that much. And people think creationists stretch rationality to its limits. *rimshot*
robc|3.29.09 @ 8:36PM|#
The orientation and arrangements of goods and resources
among social creatures
Depending on whether the universe is expanding for ever or
expanding then contracting, the orientatation and arrangement of
goods may be a given.
Also, I think the heat death of the universe has a bit to say about
the o&a of goods too.
Social creatures matter not at all. They will be long gone by
then.
robc|3.29.09 @ 8:37PM|#
one of those SMG's clones would eventually lower her
standards by that much
Freddie Prinze Jr
'nough said.
|3.29.09 @ 9:52PM|#
"Libertarianism is fucked until people drop the utopian shit (in
public) and focus on achievable objectives"
The problem is that politics seems to me to be more about
minimizing the negatives than it is accentuating the positives.
It's an exaggeration to say Barack Obama said nothing during the
campaign, but he sure didn't say much. It's sort of brilliant
really. He basically tried not to disagree with anything anybody
said, and stuck to vague sorts of statements that could be seen as
different things to different people.
The above scenario you mention could just as easily lead to huge
portions of the electorate disliking you. You've given most of the
electorate something substantial to hate. It sounds crass and
cynical, but I'm thinking the best recipe for libertarian success
at the ballot box is to keep your mouth shut most of the time and
lie when you're forced to say something. Let one the two 35
percents think you're dyed in the wool one of them, and then once
elected, ignore them.
That sounds just terrible, but I don't know how else to view the
situation. Force the libertarian veggies down their throat when
they're not looking and maybe they'll be surprised and like the
stuff.
That's kind of evil. I'm a lot nicer in person. :)
|3.29.09 @ 11:10PM|#
If the second wheel rotated twice as fast as the first, and
if the speed of the third wheel was 1/π of the speed of the first,
the initial line-up would never recur."
Clever, but because of old Werner H.'s principle, none of the
velocities can be pinpointed with that degree of accuracy (this
isn't a measurement problem -- indeed the wheels don't even have an
exact velocity, however infinitesimal the uncertainty may be for
such a large system). There will always be a rational number within
the margin of uncertainty in the velocity ratio and this will cause
configurations indistinguishable from each other to recur.
|3.29.09 @ 11:16PM|#
Not to mention that SMG and me hooking up doesn't have to happen
in such a precise way.
We could do it in a box,
We could do it next to a fox.
We could do it on a mouse,
We could do it in a house.
We could do it here or there --
we could do it anywhere!
We could do it after eating green eggs and ham...
We could do it, crimethink I am.
(But I wouldn't do it cause I'm a good Christian etc.)
Medic|3.30.09 @ 9:56AM|#
yYah thats right, because its all 'Ron paul' up there.
Hey Mike, how about you take on the feds?
Reason sucks|3.31.09 @ 4:13AM|#
Who the hell are you, or anybody from the pro-Fed Kochtopus, to
question Ron Paul on such matters? You never give a shit
ordinarily, but if it's to tear down Ron Paul, you're all about
it.
I wish your followers would wake the fuck up to your duplicity, but
sadly they're as asleep as the Obamanoids.
|4.2.09 @ 12:11PM|#
At the end of each of your criticisms and smears against Ron
Paul, you should list the "Reason" why you never miss a chance to
take a jab at him in an attempt to discredit him.
I'll bet it's something really personal and retarded like "Ron Paul
didn't return my email once."
Give it a break. Ron Paul and Campaign For Liberty is only becoming
more and more popular and your attempts to taint him are
transparent and laughable.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245