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.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Ebeneezer Scrooge||

    "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||

    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.

  • max hats||

    Michelle Bachmann is the new Great Libertarian Hope? Really?

  • Kolohe||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • Brandon||

    Everything sounds better said in a British accent.

  • Brock||

    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.

  • ||

    Ron Paul, Off His Game?

    Are you going to start again with that?


    Oh, sorry . . . This is Reason after all...

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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?

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    *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.

  • ||

    Now what? No fuck'n ziti?

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    @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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    cuernimus, if Paul's doing such a bad job, which libertarian is doing any better?

    Reason with hardly an exception bashes Paul.

  • Paulbot v2.0.b||

    reason simultaneously sucks and blows

  • cuernimonger||

    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||

    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!

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Seriously, by what measure is Paul successful?

  • Love ya Ron but step \'er up||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    "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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

  • jj||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    Another weekend open thread link.

    Kentucky Fried Chicken fixes potholes:

    Potholes fixed for all

  • robc||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    "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||

    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...

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    Mad Max-

    Well said. In Dr. Paul's defense, its tough to be pithy all the time.

  • dpsc:||

    "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||

    "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...

  • ||

    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||

    '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||

    Shorter MNG:

    Q: "How many liberals does it take to change a light bulb?"

    A: "That's not funny."

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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:||

    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||

    '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.

  • mike farmer||

    Defending my sense of homor -- you spelled his name wrong -- DOH!

  • Mad Max||

    (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||

    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||

    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||

    '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||

    Also, dead babies are not "missing persons," to return to the original topic of your discussion.

  • Suki||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    '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||

    Did McCain disassociate himself from Michelle Malkin, a supporter of FDR's evacuation and internment of the Japanese-Americans?

  • Suki||

    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||

    Apparently, from your answer you do not know of him Dr. Paul doing anything like that.

  • mike farmer||

    "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||

    '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>||

    VEEP'S DAUGHTER IS A DUMB SKANKY COKE WHORE

    A friend of the daughter of Vice President Joseph Biden is attempting to hawk a videotape that he claims shows Ashley Biden snorting cocaine at a house party this month in Delaware.

    An anonymous male "friend" of Biden took the video, said Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer representing the seller. Dunlap and another man claiming to be a lawyer showed The Post about 90 seconds of 43-minute tape, saying it was legally obtained and that Biden was aware she was being filmed. The Post refused to pay for the video.

    The video shows a 20-something woman with light skin and long brown hair taking a red straw from her mouth and bending over a desk, inserting the straw into her nostril and snorting from lines of white powder.

    She then stands up and begins talking with other people in the room. A young man looks on from behind her, facing the camera. The lawyers said he was Biden's boyfriend of some years.

    The camera follows the woman from a few feet away, focusing on her as she moves around the room. It appears not to be concealed. At one point she shouts, "Shut the f--- up!"

    The woman appears to resemble the 27-year-old Biden, a social worker who was a visible presence during her father's campaign for the White House.

    The dialogue is difficult to discern, but the woman makes repeated references to the drugs, said the lawyers, who said they viewed the tape about 15 times.

    "At one point she pretty much complains that the line isn't big enough," said the second lawyer, who declined to identify himself. "And she talks about her dad."

    Vice President Biden has been an outspoken crusader against drugs, coining the term "Drug Czar" while campaigning for a more forceful "war on drugs" in 1982.

    The lawyers declined to name the person who shot the video, but said he knew Ashley Biden well and had attended other parties with her at which there were illegal drugs. The lawyers said the shooter used a camera with a hard-drive that he later destroyed, drilling into the device and tossing it into a lake.

    The woman in the video acknowledges the camera in a way that makes it clear she knows she's being taped, the lawyers said, waving at it during a part of the video not shown to The Post.

    No one else in the video is seen using the drugs. The portion of the tape shown to The Post ends shortly after the woman's alleged ingestion.

    The shooter claims that he previously tape-recorded Biden at a party in August but was unsuccessful in his attempts to sell that video, they said.

    A US media company offered $250,000 for the footage and access to the person who shot the tape, according to the lawyers. Another company, based overseas, offered $225,000, they said. The video shooter was hoping to get $2 million for the footage, then lowered his expectation to $400,000, they said.

    The unnamed lawyer hinted that his client had additional information that could embarrass the vice president's daughter.

    "The higher the price, the more he'll reveal," said the lawyer.

    The lawyers said the video shooter was afraid of being identified and prosecuted for his role in the alleged drug use. "He's got a criminal defense attorney," said Dunlap.

    The other lawyer said Biden didn't have secret service protection at the time of the party because she complained about agents blocking her driveway.

    "She complained to her dad about it and he got rid of them," he said.

  • nonPaulogist||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    '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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    And is her middle name really "Blazer" as papa Joe's wiki page says?? WTF? Joey's crazier than I thought.

  • BakedPenguin||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    cuernimus.

    Thank you for explaining without tossing a fit.

    MM, you might need to see someone about that.

  • Mad Max||

    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||

    - and at least as sincere as Obama's repudiation of the Reverend "God Damn America."

  • Taktix®||

    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||

    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||

    "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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?!

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    "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.

  • Suki||

    cimethink,

    thank you for the newsletter info.

  • hmm||

    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.

  • hmm||

    proof read prior to submitting, sorry for crappy grammar and missing words.

  • BakedPenguin||

    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®||

    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||

    "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||

    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®||

    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...

  • ||

    Ron Paul needs to be frog prepped. Immediately.

  • ||

    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

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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."

  • Jesse Owens||

    "Fleet-footed."

    Meh.

  • speaking of dickheads||

    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||

    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||

    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||

    one of those SMG's clones would eventually lower her standards by that much

    Freddie Prinze Jr

    'nough said.

  • ||

    "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. :)

  • ||

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.)

  • Damn you||

    prolefeed!

  • Medic||

    yYah thats right, because its all 'Ron paul' up there.

    Hey Mike, how about you take on the feds?

  • TofuSushi||

    prolefeed,

    Suddenly you are one of those anti-drug warriors?

  • Reason sucks||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement