Is Ron Paul Getting the Coverage He Deserves?

Reason staffers Mike Riggs and Katherine Mangu-Ward were on the television yesterday to discuss the media's response to what might be called "The Riddle of Ron Paul": Why do major newspapers, broadcast shows, and cable news outlets seem hell-bent on ignoring a 12-term GOP congressman who came in a tight second in the Iowa Straw Poll? Indeed, the results of that hokey quadrennial exercise in corn-dog politics was used to talk up Michelle Bachmann's legitimacy. Yet, none of that seemed to rub off on Rep. Paul (R-Texas), who seems to be getting the Voldemort treatment from just about everyone with the exception of Jon Stewart.

First up is Associate Editor Mike Riggs, talking on the Thom Hartmann show on RT.

 

While pooh-poohing Hartmann's conspiracist take on the matter - the left-wing host suggests that media outlets tightly controlled by interlocking boards of directors have put the kibosh on covering Paul - Riggs agrees that Paul is not getting the respect and credibility he deserves. Paul, says Riggs, has been a consistent opponent of promiscuously interventionist foreign policy since the early days of Afghanistan.

The country, says Riggs, is done with war, including the new one that President Obama plunged into in Libya without so much as a congressional by-your-leave. And Paul is the only candidate apart from former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson (an enormously under-covered candidate, in my opinion) who was also unambiguously against the budget-busting excesses of the GOP Congress and Bush White House back in the day.

That very consistency, says Riggs, runs afoul of "GOP kingmakers" who give the mainstream media its cues and talking points: "Mostly, I think it's a lazy mainstream media saying, if the consultant or the guest I have on my show three times a week says Ron Paul isn't worth paying attention to, then I'm not going to devote any coverage to him." The GOP establishment - who tried to kneecap Paul's return to Congress in 1996 by throwing support behind a different primary candidate - rightly worries that Paul will split votes and show up the disturbing lack of consistency in folks such as Mitt Romney, who is fast becoming the India Rubber Man of electoral politics.

As Matt Welch and I note in our new book, The Declaration of Independents: How Libertarian Politics Can Fix What's Wrong with America, only 38 percent of folks who voted for Ron Paul in 2008 GOP primaries went on to vote for John McCain in the general election. Indeed, between 1992 and 2008, only 46 percent of self-identified libertarians voted for the GOP presidential candidate. Between 1972 and 1988, that percentage clocked in at 69 percent. Ron Paul articulates many of the differences between libertarian principles and how the supposedly small-government, pro-capitalist Republican Party has chosen to govern. Of course candidates such as Ron Paul and Gary Johnson discomfit the GOP establishment. They not only show how actual, electable Republicans could choose to talk and govern, they show how compromised most GOP candidates are when it comes to truly believing in small government.

Senior Editor Katherine Mangu-Ward appeared on Fox Business' The Willis Report. 

Mangu-Ward provocatively states, "I think Ron Paul is getting a tremendous amount of coverage for someone who is never going to be president." Additionally, she says that everyone, including Paul and his campaigners, know that. She continues that Paul " is bringing some great, overlooked issues into the debate" and wonders more why Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) is taken seriously rather than Paul marginalized. As one might imagine, such plain-speaking has brought down upon Mangu-Ward and Reason a Texas-cyclone-sized storm of email questioning our libertarian bona fides, moral certitude, and, strangely, personal hygeine habits. We've fielded more than a couple demands that Mangu-Ward be fired for her remarks, which seems to be a strange request of an organization that trades in "Free Minds and Free Markets." Reason staffers disagree on a wide range of topics, including the current issues of whether and why Ron Paul is getting the coverage he deserves and just how likely he is to win the GOP presidential nod, much less win the general election in 2012. These are conversations worth having, but they are not the stuff of vendetta.

Intrade, the site that makes crowd-sourced predictions about political events, supports Mangu-Ward's pessimism when it comes to Paul's electability. Right now, Intrade figures that Texas Gov. Rick Perry has a 37 percent chance of being the GOP nominee, followed by former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 30 percent. Just a few days after Iowa, Bachmann gets a meager 5.3 percent shot at being the nominee, and Paul shows up at 3.2 percent. Over at RealClearPolitics, Paul is pulling a bit less than 9 percent in aggregated polls, behind Romney, Perry, Palin, and Bachmann.

That can't be heartening to Paul supporters, for sure, but fretting over electoral probabilities misses, in my opinion, the far more important point raised both by Ron Paul's candidacy and the studied non-response to it: Paul is saying things that are wildly resonant with the American public and that are equally wildly out of step with establishment pols and media types. This is a guy who managed to storm the New York Times best-seller list with books about the founding of the country and ending the Federal Reserve, after all. Virtually alone among members of Congress, much less members of his party, he opposed the warfare state from his first days in office. He was against TARP and the bailouts, against Bush and Obama stimulus spending, has brought new scrutiny to the nation's central bank.

Which helps explain why Paul is, for too many partisans and press people alike, to tough to tangle with. To engage the issues that he raises would require too much recalibration for most Republicans, and a total brain transplant for most Democrats and members of the press (who aren't ideological as much as they are fundamentally unserious).

That's a damn shame, but it's one the is surely on the decline. Ron Paul may not be getting the coverage he deserves, but he is getting more of it than he did the last time around and, as the issues he pushes become ever-more central to what voters care about, his views and ideas will be right at the center of the moment, regardless of whether he wins, shows, or places in New Hampshire and beyond.

That is the real story and it's one that won't be going away despite the best efforts of establishment types who wish otherwise.

For further reading: Reason.com's voluminous Ron Paul topic page.

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.

  • Seer||

    You did a disservice to his ideals by stating he can't win, because the media is obsessed with that horse race crap. In their minds, as well as their viewer's, electability and credibility are one in the same.

  • Tman||

    Who is "you"?

    I think Katherine was right that he doesn't stand a chance of winning the election, unfortunately. She made an accurate point that Paul has many ideas that libertarians are fully supportive of, but when rubber meets the road his plans aren't exactly transparent. Saying we should "abolish the Fed" isn't exactly a plan, although I think it's an idea that deserves attention. Saying we should "end all wars" sounds great but what's your plan to do so?

    Paul is a a serious candidate that deserves serious attention, but I disagree with the premise that he isn't getting "enough" attention. Attempts to paint this as a conspiracy by either the media, the GOP establishment or all of the above are trying too hard.

    Use Occams razor with this one. Paul is getting the attention he deserves because he has put forth ideas without plans to analyze.

  • robc||

    Saying we should "abolish the Fed" isn't exactly a plan

    Bullshit.

    It worked for Andy Jackson. He abolished the 2nd Bank (The Fed is just the 3rd). He replaced it with nothing. He just got rid of it.

    THAT IS THE FUCKING ENTIRITY OF THE PLAN.

  • Tman||

    So rob, once the Fed is abolished, who do you want to monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable?

    The government?

  • robc||

    The same way I know that the food I buy is Kosher (okay, I dont care about this, but, you know, if I was jewish).

  • robc||

    Note, btw, that Kosher certification is much more respected than Organic certification.

    Guess which one is handled by the government?

  • Tman||

    I think your idea is interesting in theory, as I do Paul's, but there won't be capital investments in new businesses if the investors can't trade in safe currencies.

  • robc||

    Our current currency isnt safe.

    Competing currencies will create SOME safe currencies (and some unsafe ones, such is life).

  • robc||

    Jews dont buy food because the Kosher certs are competitive and the government backs none of them, right?

  • Tman||

    You're comparing our entire financial system to Kosher foods?

    Seriously?

  • A Higher Authority||

    Ahem.

  • Fluffy||

    Banks weren't monitored in the 19th century, and they sometimes failed.

    Banks were monitored in the 20th and 21st centuries, but yet they still fail.

    So what have you achieved?

  • Tman||

    So they failed whether we had a Fed or not, this much is true.

    My main point about Paul's idea that we "abolish the Fed" is that investment capital will go where there are more stable reserves. China won't be buying Treasuries if they have to depend on individual private banks to guarantee them.

    If everyone cashed out their capital investments in the US financial system we would not be in better shape than we are now.

  • robc||

    Investment capital existed before the Fed.

    Want stable reserves, switch to a stable currency. Problem solved. (and I mean YOU, other people might choose differently)

  • robc||

    No, I am comparing certifying Kosher foods to certifying bank assets.

    Exact same fucking process. Auditor tests materials and looks at processes to make sure they are sound. Suggests changes if cert is to be issued.

    Exact same thing.

    To an orthodox jew, the food might be MORE important than the bank.

  • Tman||

    Auditor tests materials and looks at processes to make sure they are sound. Suggests changes if cert is to be issued.

    Isn't that what our Fed does now?

  • robc||

    Nope.

    And to the bit that they do do it, they arent doing it as a private org.

    The point being, we dont need the fed. We can replace them.

  • Tman||

    And to the bit that they do do it, they arent doing it as a private org.

    The Fed is a private org. I thought that's why Paul wants to abolish it, because they weren't held to the same accountability as the rest of the government?

  • robc||

    Semi-private.

    They are government entangled.

    They can exist with all the government entanglements removed for all I (and Im sure Paul) care.

  • Tman||

    See, now THAT is a plan.

    Privatize the Fed further, remove the government influence, let them sink or swim without the full faith and credit of the American people.

    Burning them to the ground is not a "plan".

  • SIV||

    The Fed is not a private entity. They have their own federal government law enforcement/protection/security force.

    Ending the Fed is a splendid plan.

  • ||

    You over simplify, as most people do. The Federal Reserve Board is a government agency. The 12 Federal Reserve Banks are each privately owned. By the member banks in their respective regions. The Board sets policy, but that policy is actually implemented at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, whose primary owners are J.P. Morgan Chase, CITI, and Goldman Sachs, assuming the original stockholders have maintained their original positions. I have a copy of that charter which was sent to me by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York about 11 years ago, in case you feel the need to challenge that point.

  • robc||

    Eliminate their government charter. That "ends" them. If they reform as just another bank, that is okay.

    You just dont get it. "Removing the government influence" means removing 100% of the stuff they do.

  • ||

    I am not jewish, but I do rely on "parve" labeling because my son has a badass dairy allergy and the "parve" jews don't mix meat and dairy and so I do count on them for their reliably dairy free bread and other products.

    To me the "parve" reliability is more important than the fed bank or organic guarantees.

  • ||

    I think sometimes the main point gets missed or the root of the problem.

    We all know the dollar is the global reserve currency. However, because it is no longer backed by any commodity (except perhaps ourselves), it's entirely based on faith. Well, the dollar has lost significant value WORLDWIDE over the past 30 years with our out of control spending.

    Now, China is backing their Yuon, with silver, and is pushing for it to replace the dollar as the new global reserve currency.

    What should we think the result is going to be? The value of our dollar is an illusionary concept that is dieing before our eyes.

    Bernanke even acknowledged the FEDs bad policy caused the Great Depression to be much, much worse. It's basically happening, once again.. but on a much larger scale. The whole world.

    They are dumping money worldwide. $16trillion in total, more than our National Debt.

    If we don't heed Ron Paul's warning.. we will learn the hard way and who knows what the outcome will be if we don't fix it.

    One thing is for certain, either way.. we will all know Ron Paul was right.

  • ||

    Of course not. It's obvious that our financial system isn't Kosher.

    -jcr

  • Original O2||

    libtoids have no answer for financial collusion & malfeasence since they'd also abolish the SEC, DoJ, & the US attorneys offices. >ohh, i know - shareholder lawsuits which come to trial 20 yrs later, if ever.

  • WayTooSerious||

    The Federal Reserve lends money (that it creates "out of thin air") to the treasury at interest.
    When the treasury pays The Fed back, what does The Fed do with the interest?

  • Jersey Patriot||

    When the treasury pays The Fed back, what does The Fed do with the interest?

    It refunds the interest to the Treasury.

  • ||

    Correction: It refunds THE BALANCE of the interest to the Treasury, after it has paid itself luxuriously for the privilege of "serving" us.

  • ||

    The Fed also does not pay interest on the free loan it got for that year...would you like to continually borrow billions of dollars from taxpayers interest free to be returned each year?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: OO,

    libtoids have no answer for financial collusion & malfeasence


    You mean the nonexistent, totally madeup crimes you say exist because some economics illiterate boob placed them into law?

    Idiots will never seize to amaze on their choice of idiotic things to say.

  • ||

    "who do you want to monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets"

    Nobody.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tman,

    So rob, once the Fed is abolished, who do you want to monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable?


    Ahhhh, how quaint: A Pragmatic Fallacy.

    God forbid we would let actual FUCKING CUSTOMERS monitor their banks. Nah!

  • ||

    So rob, once the Fed is abolished, who do you want to monitor commercial banks to ensure that they maintain sufficient assets, like cash, so as to remain solvent and stable?

    The states already have bank regulatory agencies.

  • Tman||

    The states already have bank regulatory agencies.

    Hey look! Another Plan! Give the states more authority over the Federal government or the Feds to regulate banks.

    Has Paul suggested this?

  • robc||

    Yes. He is a fucking federalist. He would allow the states to do all kinds of things that the federales arent allowed to do.

    He doesnt have to suggest it, its default in all his positions.

  • The End is Far||

    Much of the responsibility has to be placed upon the Consumer and the Bank. A Bank that places a high regard for showing it's solvency and stability is more likely to get deposits.

    And we have to get away from this Central Planning, Central Banking, Too Big to Succeed mentality. Local Banks with Local Oversight will be much safer than Too Big to Succeed Bank/Insurance/Investment firms that use Derivatives to coerce bad bets into Wins for the B/I/I Firms no matter how much of their customer's money they Lose.

    In any event, the Austrian Economic School of Thought has some pretty good ideas regarding banking and money, but I prefer Adam Smith for Economics (Management of Assets).

  • Bill Woolsey||

    The Fed doesn't make sure that banks have sufficient assets.

    The Fed creates money out of thin air. It creates it at a rate aimed at manipulating supply and demand in the interbank loan market so that the interest rate banks charge one another for overnight loans is where the Fed wants it. Currently, the Fed seems to say it will keep it between zero and 1/4 percent until 2013. The Fed seems to try to choose a level of that interest rate so that the core CPI will rise 2% from wherever it is now. The core CPI is the consumer price index without food and energy.

    No Fed, and no one is trying to keep the interest rate on loans between banks at some level that they think will keep prices of most things (but not food and energy) rising 2% each year from whever it is now.

    Having a long thread about who would decide that banks have enough assets if the Fed is abolished is... kind of beside the point.

    FDIC imposes capital requirements on insured banks, and this does kind of, sort of, have to do with banks having enough assets.

  • ||

    "The Fed creates money out of thin air...The Fed seems to try to choose a level of that interest rate so that the core CPI will rise 2%".

    And they do this, because inflation is the key to the whole ponzi/pseudo-check kiting scheme. All you have to do to get your "tribute" from the economy is to stay ahead of the curve on new money. The mafia are pikers compared to these guys.

  • Will||

    The account holders will determine the strongest banks by being a customer of those who prove to be and those who aren't responsible will then go out of business. It's a concept called the free market. You might have come across it before.

  • Pip||

    So what are Michele Bachman's plans?

    Romney's?

    Perry's?

  • robc||

    Obamas?

  • sevo||

    "Obamas?"
    I heard he was going to tell us in September.

  • ||

    WINNING

  • Tman||

    I'm not here to defend their plans, although all three you've mentioned have been vocal about passing a BBA and revoking Obamacare.

  • Matt||

    "I'm not here to defend their plans, although all three you've mentioned have been vocal about passing a BBA and revoking Obamacare."

    ...and Paul hasn't?

  • Tman||

    I don't remember him supporting the BBA. If I recall correctly he said the BBA was "just an election year ploy".

  • ||

    As written, IIRC. He has been an advocate for a real BBA for qite some time, again IIRC.

  • cynical||

    That sounds more like he's calling the BBA supporters in Congress full of shit, it doesn't sound like a comment on the BBA itself.

  • ||

    Tman,
    I'd first like to commend you on the civility of your discussion.
    The BBA is to be, as I understand, 'tied' to the GDP numbers. What is to make us think that those numbers will be legitimate?

    Next, you talk below about plans. This seems to portray a belief in the whole concept of central planning. Someone MUST have a plan for all things.

    Mr. Paul's campaign slogan was(is?) Peace freedom and prosperity. His ideas provide the freedom many of us crave. We'll make our own plans.

    I understand that freedom is scary to many. I'm not afraid.

  • robc||

    Exactly. 300,000,000 plans is better than 1 plan.

    In other words, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WAY.

  • Hirai||

    I believe Ron Paul has said that people should be allowed to use competing currencies should be allowed as the Fed is phased out.

  • insurgent||

    Yea, he hasn't put forth any ideas regarding any of the things he talks about.
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/searc.....B001I9TTX6

  • Tman||

    I didn't say he didn't put forth any ideas. He's put forth some GREAT ideas.

    But ideas aren't going to beat Obama.

  • robc||

    You said he had no plans, those are plans.

    QED bitch.

  • Tman||

    No, those are IDEAS. They are not PLANS.

    QED Bitch? Go back to high school.

  • robc||

    They are plans.

    I handled that above. Ending the fed is a plan. Those books are full of plans (some more than others). He is been making speeches with plans for decades.

    You are wrong. Admit it and deal with it.

  • Tman||

    Rob,

    I like Pauls ideas. I agree that getting the government out of healthcare is the best idea to lower the costs.

    But he isn't going to get elected when Obama says in a debate that Paul wants to end medicare and Paul will essentially agree with him.

  • robc||

    That is different than saying he doesnt have any plans. He has plans.

    You dont think they make him electable. Okay.

    You dont think they are a good idea, maybe. Okay.

    But that isnt the same as not having a plan.

    If nothing else, GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WAY, is a plan.

  • Tman||

    GET THE FUCK OUT OF MY WAY, is a plan.

    No it isn't.

    You can't say "I my plan is to essentially abolish the government" and call it a reasonable solution to our current issues. I might agree that ultimately we would be better off without any government in our lives, but to say that this is a feasible plan under the current circumstances is just ridiculous.

  • robc||

    No it isn't.

    Yes it is.

    And that btw, was my interpretation of John Galt's plan, not necessarily Pauls. Just for clarification.

    But it is still a plan. Maybe not a good one (actually, it is a good one).

  • robc||

    Im getting the feeling that you are one of those anti-chaos fanatics arent you?

    Scalia, for example, has said that suddenely declaring a whole bunch of stuff unconstitutional would be bad, even if it would be correct, because of the chaos. He is wrong. If it is unconstitutional, declare it unconstitutional and deal with the consequences.

    /Hail Eris

  • Tman||

    Im getting the feeling that you are one of those anti-chaos fanatics arent you?

    Nope. I happen to believe that the government should be here to do what it was told to do as written in the constitution. We probably both agree we are far far away from what was originally intended.

    If it is unconstitutional, declare it unconstitutional and deal with the consequences.

    So do you think the Fed is unconstitutional?

  • ||

    Why, yes it is. The responsibility to provide a stable currency, and pay the debts of the U.S. were given to Congress.

    Nowhere does it say that they can delegate that role to a private entity with "chartered" monopoly powers.

  • ||

    so you're saying we should take governing tips from the Illuminatus Trilogy?

  • robc||

    Yes. And Dune. And Homer Simpson.

    And always, he fought the temptation to choose a clear, safe course, warning "That path leads ever down into stagnation."

    or

    I want it all: the terrifying lows, the dizzying highs, the creamy middles.

  • Herpa Derp||

    Beer is the mindkiller. I will taste my beer I will let it pass through me.

  • ||

    "But he isn't going to get elected when Obama says in a debate that Paul wants to end medicare and Paul will essentially agree with him."

    Actually, this isn't true at all. RP has repeatedly said that those dependent on the government would not just be thrown out on the streets. His PLAN is to allow those that would like to opt-out of the SS and Medicare system to do so and he would pay for those that are dependent on it through the additional funds that would be available after bringing home troops from all over the world. That sounds like a mighty fine plan to me and sounds like something even Obama supporters (the non-war loving kind, at least) could support.

  • ||

    "But ideas aren't going to beat Obama."

    Think about like this. 4 years ago, Ron Paul was initially left out of this debate.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0

    Not only did he win the debate, he changed the GOP agenda; having seen the talking points change the last few years, Paul's ideas almost seem like subversion. Opposition to the Fed, foreign wars, big gov programs and benefits became mainstream.

    Romney will not beat Obama, I'm guessing. Paul probably could win.

  • Apogee||

    Not only did he win the debate, he changed the GOP agenda

    This^.

    As soon as Perry got into the race, he felt it necessary to rag on the behavior of the FED.

    Bachman is all over the Tea Party message, even though she's way behind RPaul.

    The GOP wants candidates, like Obama, who talk the talk without doing any actual walking.

  • Seer||

    The point isn't actually whether she's right. De facto, only one of the Republican candidates is "electable" in the sense that one will be up against Obama in 2012. The point is that the term "unelectable" in the media is code for "crazy" and I would think that given that Reason supposedly supports tearing down the paradigm where talking about monetary issues, meaningful cuts to government, ending wars abroad and on drug users is considered crazy that she would have been more careful in what she said.

  • ||

    only one of the Republican candidates is "electable"

    Exactly, in a field of 9 republicans plus Obama, only one will be elected president in 2012. So, you can give none of them coverage and you will have a 90% success rate in not wasting coverage on the losers.

    The press should be reporting what happened, not what they think will happen. The person who doesn't get mentioned is less likely to be elected, which is supposed to justify not covering them in the first place.

  • The End is Far||

    I think Paul is justified in being a bit miffed about being overlooked. As for his supporters, we're not so much 'his' supporters as 'we' share a common understanding of the universe around us. We're Results Based people for the most part. We get our own work done and offer to help our friends get theirs done.

    The Plan for "Abolishing the Fed" is not something that the President can do alone so it is not worth laying out details though Paul has stated that the Fed would have to be phased out. You can't just replace Trillions of worthless Currency (Dollars) with Money overnight. More than once it has been offered that introducing competing Monies for the Dollar is a great way to phase it out.

    I guess we Results Based People take it for granted that all too often the transition plan is secondary to the Mission. If the Goal is clear, then we take it for granted that the transition must include a rational phased approach that keeps the People most affected in mind. We must mitigate the pains of transition the best we can, and do it as quickly as possible. (As Possible cannot be lengthy, more than 2 years)

    Paul stated it best in a interview with Lew Rockwell about a month ago. When asked if he was running against Obama or the Republican Field he replied that he was running against John Maynard Keynes (which is everyone else save Johnson possibly). Obama and the NeoCons running for the R Nomination are all Keynesians (aka Central Planners). Paul is the only Austrian or Micro Economist.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tman,

    I think Katherine was right that he doesn't stand a chance of winning the election[...]


    Especially since Kathy has the gift of foresight.

    Right?

  • Bill||

    It does not matter if she is right or not. I personally hope that Bachman and Santorum have no chance of being elected and with Santorum, that is probably true.

    If you watch the Jon Stewart bit, he is right on. They refuse to even mention his name but will mention candidates who got 1/10 of the votes he got.

    Katherine did a serious disservice to him and to the libertarian cause by not taking a harder stance. Booooo! I don't know if she is worried about her progressive street-cred or what, but if they don't mention him or only mention his name and then say his followers are fanatical, it allows people to not even think about any new ideas. If he talks about cutting spending and then also getting out of the war and not putting people in jail for pot and is not a rabid anti-immigration person and gets cheers, then maybe this frees up another republican or democrat to also voice these views. Does not matter if he can or can't get elected. No one can see the future. They are REPORTERS. It is their job to report and maybe start a meaningful discussion. Not just parrot talking points from who they are told the front-runners should be.

    Shame on you Katherine!

  • ||

    Katherine wasn't operating as a reporter at the time. She was asked her opinion. And she has a point, she just didn't to a very good job of articulating it.

    I love Ron Paul. But, I'm going to be a realist and predict that he can't get the nomination, because he won't do the "GOD/GUNZ/GAYZ" pandering that would capture it for him.

    An awful lot of people like his positions on economic liberty. But, when he gets to his positions on non-economic liberty, most of the So-Cons and Neo-Cons cock their heads like the RCA dog.

    The GOP establishment are terrified of him, because they know there's no way they can give him the steering wheel, and if they don't he might go third party.

    And that will probably mean 4 more years of Fuckstick.

  • ||

    The odds are against Paul winning the GOP nomination, but may be a little better that he could beat Obama if he did win it. But, you miss what KMW and so many others miss; THESE ARE HIGHLY VOLATILE AND UNPREDICTABLE TIMES. "Reason"able pundits should stow their crystal balls and attempt to be good reporters in this climate. They would serve us better by asking more questions during these confusing times and by making less absolute statements than RP will "never" be president. ANYTHING can happen and intelligent people realize this.

    KMW's statement that "Paul knows it, and his campaign staff know it" is pure trash talk and she deserves the disrespectful response she's now enjoying.

  • ||

    You mean like Reagan's chances of winning the presidency? So we're going to allow premature memes to guide us into the future and just let our collective wills be chosen for us by tose pretentious enought to guess at our future?

    Here's what all of you pragmatist "realists" completely miss while you settle on comfortable narratives. They're comfortable because they don't require an effort to seek out factual information on your own. It relies on hearsay and gossip and groupthink. A bit of effort would reveal a more hopeful, yes, sober truth:

    Polls within the last few weeks:

    USA Today/Gallup:

    http://www.usatoday.com/news/p.....csp=34news

    Zogby #1 against Obama vs. active GOP:

    http://www.ibopezogby.com/news.....andidates/

    If only this pertinent information had been reported by the media and made more available to the public, maybe everyone’s impression of Paul’s viability wouldn’t be so dismissive.

    My original post had like 8 polls all showing Paul showing at about the same: 3rd nationally vs. GOP field according to Rasmussen and CNN, and statistically even with Obama in the general.

    Invest in the truth, do a little research. Or follow the crowd "free mind". Realism = post-modernism these days = bullshit.

  • ||

    She clearly couldn't see the blow back coming. Totally missed that one. And really, that would have been an easy one to see given her position, who she works for and what she's commenting on. This whole "free markets, free minds" excuse Gillespie uses is bs. I mean, yeah I believe in freedom of speech and will tolerate the most extreme communist to spread his propaganda as he will, but I don't expect a self-proclaimed libertarian website to be so dismissive of one of libertarianism's greatest advocate in recent years. Who else has done so much for libertarianism's than Ron Paul lately? To miss that, to not understand that is either ignorant or arrogant. Free markets and free minds are great and all, but we have a real problem of group-think going on with the MSM and though it's consistent to play along with their narratives, it surely doesn't help promote truly independent thought. I like Gillespie usually but Reason fucked up on this one. Big time.

  • ||

    Our current POTUS has never come up with a clear and/or concise plan for anything, either while in office or on the campaign trail. Yet he never had problems garnering media attention and annointment right out of the gate. Most of us are very realistic about his chances of winning but this whole "top tier" label is a total media construct based on nothing tangible and a whole host of shifting benchmarks that change from candidate to candidate.

  • Matt||

    Who else has any credible plans?

    And isn't libertarianism actually kind of skeptical of an overly planned government? I would think that a politician who draws from a solid foundation of philosophical principles but is willing to improvise is far superior to one who has a supposedly "pragmatic" "five-year-plan" that is etched in stone.

    Mao had detailed "plans" for Cultural Revolutions and Great Leaps Forward. Guess how those turned out.

  • ||

    Are you friggin kidding me? To deliberately skip over his name after the straw poll while naming what's her name and all the rest of the pack and proclaiming people who Ron beat handily as the "front runners"is anything remotely like fair or reasonable coverage. Anybody who does not see that there is a coordinated effort to marginalize Ron Paul in spite of whatever success he has in these polls is either blind or dishonest and it displays a total contempt for the American people themselves.

    If you do not see that the mainstream is deliberately campaigning against Ron Paul with the intention of persuading voters that Ron is not a serious candidate,then you are a fool. And what baffles me is people who claim to want liberty are comfortable treating Ron Paul like a joke. The SINGLE candidate actually advocating liberty and peace and sane fiscal policy is still treated in here like a whacky uncle - it's, frankly, sickening and speaks volumes to any actual claimed devotion to liberty. If you don't see the corruption and dishonesty plaguing the MSM, then you are a fool

  • ||

    "Paul is getting the attention he deserves because he has put forth ideas without plans to analyze."

    Ah, so by that reasoning, nobody else should be getting attention either. Name one other candidate who is giving specific plans to fix things in this country, plans that can be anazyzed to be specific. All I hear from the rest of the field are empty slogans like "make america great once more" and "drill baby drill"

    Your statement is an example of blatant hypocracy.............at best

  • Swifty||

    Oops!
    I posted an unfinished comment.

    The point I was trying to make is that Ron Paul has even said that he would not end the FED by simply closing it down, for instance, he would work toward transparency with a full GAO audit, end legal tender laws and allow competing currencies.

    But my simple comment can not possibly do justice to his comprehensive study of the subject.

    Most of his recommendations have been put forward in the books he has written, a majority of this material is available to read for free online.

    He will not end the FED, it will end on its own, the question is, would you rather have it end when its actions cause the currency to collapse or would you prefer to open up competition and avoid the heartache?

    Reading:
    End the FED (search and purchase online)
    Sorry only two links allowed

    Gold, Peace, and Prosperity(free online)
    http://mises.org/resources/315.....Prosperity

    The Case for Gold (1982)(free online)
    http://mises.org/resources/603/Case-for-Gold-The

    This would be a good start toward understanding the plan he recommends.

  • Swifty||

    Saying we should "abolish the Fed" isn't exactly a plan

    Ron Paul has written extensively on this subject over his years in office, he has also submitted bills

  • Sam Grove||

    I think Katherine was right that he doesn't stand a chance of winning the election, unfortunately. She made an accurate point that Paul has many ideas that libertarians are fully supportive of, but when rubber meets the road his plans aren't exactly transparent. Saying we should "abolish the Fed" isn't exactly a plan, although I think it's an idea that deserves attention. Saying we should "end all wars" sounds great but what's your plan to do so?

    So what would the other candidates do, exactly, if elected (other than avoid rocking the boat)?

  • ||

    Both you and that lady from Reason are dead wrong. Ron Paul has articulated very specific plans. He will immediately start disassembling the global empire erected in the last 60 years by both democrats and republicans. It's simply a matter of sitting down with the commanders and developing a work out strategy for all the forces that aren't vital to the new mission, which means vital to defending the U.S. from attack. He can do this without getting permission from congress.

    As far as ending the FED, he has made it clear many times that it would not be his plan to shutter the doors day one, which he couldn't accomplish without congressional authority anyway. What he could and would do is throw the weight of the presidency behind a new effort in congress to require GOA audits of the FED. He would also present legislation to congress to legalize competing currencies and exempt gold and silver from sales and capital gains taxes. You talk like businesses would grind to a halt because of doubts about a variety of currencies being available in transactions, but that is a spoiled American talking. In other countries it has been a fact of daily life for centuries that one must always factor in currency variables when conducting business, U.S. companies would simply learn to deal with that the same way the rest of the world does. It is also worth noting that the 99 year charter on the FED is up for renewal in 2012, that should make for some interesting dialogue in congress under a Ron Paul presidency.

    Finally, he has also made it clear that he would not support any government function not expressly authorized by the constitution. This would lead him to convening panels and study groups to analyze the role and functions of the many executive branch departments and finding ways to pare them down within his authority and mandate. I would expect to see a much smaller budget and emphasis on everything from education to the drug war.

    Tell me again why do you and what's her name think he has no "plan"?

  • ||

    Cult members get their tits in a wringer over editor's comments!

  • Mike H||

    Paul's supporters are a bit cultish and fanatical. They remind me of that old saying "Dear Jesus, please protect me from your followers".

  • Binky||

    Just curious, Mike. How many do you know personally?

  • Bill||

    They are fanatical about being against war and putting people in jail. That's horrible!

  • ||

    I guess someone needs to dredge up the Goldwater quote.

    "Extremism in the cause of liberty is no vice and moderation in the defense of freedom no virtue"

  • The Warning||

    Not by half!

    The media is far to invested in the status quo to risk Ron Paul being elected.

  • Banjos||

    Here comes the cluster fuck.

  • BakedPenguin||

    You could always listen to this instead. (Warning: there's a fiddle, dobro and harp solo, though.)

  • robc||

    I dont think there were any solos in that.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Depends on how you define "solo" I guess. They all had extended passages where their instruments were featured over the backing band, like a guitar "solo" in a rock band.

  • robc||

    Every time I use the term "guitar solo" while other instruments are playing, I figure Im using it wrong.

    I do it too, but a solo is just that: solo, IMO.

  • Banjos||

    Oh BP, stopped trying to make my panties wet. I'm at work for fucks sake! Ah fuck it, let's make it a hootenanny!

  • BakedPenguin||

    Too bad all I know are the standards. Still, this version of Orange Blossom Special is from about the last place I would have suspected.

  • Banjos||

    Adam Hurt is quite amazing.

  • ||

    Oh, you betcha. Get in your comments before it goes hog wild.

  • Max||

    Hes a fucking bircher, fuckturds.

  • ||

    I would like a chance to peer into the crystal ball that Mangu-Ward is obviously using to declare that Ron Paul will never win, as if it is a cold hard fact. Maybe her crystal ball can also tell me who will win the World Series this year. Go Tribe!

  • Sean W. Malone||

    This.

    This whole mentality of the media - who are effectively now all my peers - of deciding for the American public who "is" and who "isn't" electable has got to go. It's just hubris, and most of the time, it's entirely unfounded.

    Just because Ron Paul is old, and some in the media think he sounds funny or doesn't fit the stupid mold of what "presidential" looks like doesn't for a second mean that the rest of America will agree.

    I think if there was any lesson from Nick & Matt's new book, it's that people are SICK of the status quo, and media gatekeepers are a part of that.

  • ||

    Agreed.

    Also, we can't forget Stalin's awesome aphorism: Its not who votes, but who counts the votes.

    It has always been a problem with democratic regimes. Voting is rigged. It is a crooked game.

  • ||

    By the way the Astros are not going to win the World Series this year. See the difference.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The first rule of Statist Club is... don't talk about anything but Statist Club.

  • badmedia||

    You forgot:

    "While waving the flag and talking about how American it is and how un-American everything against it is."

  • ||

    There is a danger of all of this becoming the prototypical self-fulfilling prophecy. How much of Ron Paul's electability issues are really about Ron Paul and how much are really about people having pre-determined that he's unelectable?

  • kinnath||

    The decision of the media outlets to shun Ron Paul absolutely has a dramatic impact on his ability to reach potential voters. No one can afford to get his or her message out solely through paid commercials.

    You can see the effect in Ross Perot's two runs.

    At least Ron Paul hasn't been excluded from the debates yet.

  • MSM||

    "At least Ron Paul hasn't been excluded from the debates yet."

    Oh, just you wait...

  • ||

    I will tell you this: the 2008 Ron Paul was more calm, more statesmanlike and more articulate than the 2012 Ron Paul. He seems so much more agitated now, and thats a shame because when he is calm he comes across as a great philosopher. Electability is about how well you can convince your own rivals to vote for you once they realize that they can't win, and that isnt something you get by acting like you are agitated.

  • ||

    Like, "I paid for that microphone"?

    How about George HW Bush's debate performances against Dukakis? Perhaps agitated is not the best word to describe Bush in those encounters with the vile Dukakis, but he was certainly petulant and preppy twitish (as he has been his whole life as far as I can tell).

    Of course, you could tell me that you agree with me on Bush and then say that Dukakis was not only agitated, but miserable and that even agitated will beat miserable.

  • ||

    Sorry, can't honestly comment on that because I only remember as far back as Ross Perot, who was effective at explaining himself, albeit with the help of charts. I only offer this piece of unsolicited feedback to RP and his supporters because it was his 2008 articulation of his principles that led me to buy his books and read more. That man made you think, and created converts.

  • Bill||

    Yes, but the media like sound bites and few are capable of listening to a long, detailed answer.

    And we are in 3 wars and have a misery index somewhere between 16 and 30% I'm glad to see he is being louder, it may get him more attention and IF he is not electable, at least he will get some coverage.

  • ||

    @Bill,

    "And we are in 3 wars"
    I hate to be the one to tell you this, but, depending on how you classify 'war', I count 6. The US government is killing people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and Libya.

    Maybe read Nick Turse's article about special forces operating in 120 different countries.

    As far as RP being more agitated, I noticed that as well. But then I'm more agitated, too. So I kinda like it.

  • ||

    Bingo, Voros.

    The media can make some unelectable by ignoring them.

    "We ignore them because they are unelectable because we ignore them . . . ."

  • squishua||

    In the dictionary under "Recursion" it says "see recursion"

  • Justin||

    Recently I watched with some fascination as three male Paul fanatics argued with three female libertarians about which was more important--their right to choose or America's "reliance on fictional money."

    The myopia of so many non-paleos who unflinchingly support Paul because he happens to have the biggest fanbase is a little unnerving.

  • BakedPenguin||

    He would defer the abortion issue to the states. Given his beliefs, that's about as close as he could get to endorsing RvW.

    I don't agree with him on a few issues. However, while very good != perfect, very good > suck.

  • ||

    "Right to choose" what? That's tons of non-controversial stuff and a few controversial things all mixed together.

  • ||

    Basically I am calling you out on your use of a euphemism in an ambiguous context, in case that wasn't clear.

    Ie one ambiguity: one group argued with another group; one group's position should be before the other group's position and should not be reversed.

    Choice is good and there are more than one groups of things to choose amongst.

  • Au H20||

    Three female libertarians? I think the only time that ever happens is at the party convention.

    No offense to all the fine women who post here on Reason, but I have only met one libertarian/Ron Paul supporting woman in real life.

  • Binky||

    You need to meet more university women.

  • ||

    And my wife.

  • Au H20||

    What university did you go to, Binky? I just graduated college. Granted it was a small, liberal arts college, but I wouldn't peg a single chick I meant there as a likely Ron Paul supporter.

  • badmedia||

    Maybe because people realize Ron Paul simply wants to follow the constitution, and push it down to the states as a criminal matter, rather than having a federal law that was put there out of step by the courts, rather than congress?

    I personally consider the mindset that all issues are completely black and white and that the way things are done aren't important as unnerving.

    This article reminds me of why I will never put any effort behind the libertarian party for the rest of my life. There is really no such thing as a libertarian, only democrats and republicans who are too ashamed to admit what they are. Just as fake as the republicans and democrats. IE: Most aren't principled, they only care about how things are for them personally.

    Thanks for reminding me why I left the party.

  • ||

    There is really no such thing as a libertarian, only democrats and republicans who are too ashamed to admit what they are.

    Bill Maher, is that you?

  • badmedia||

    Just calling it like I see it. I always considered myself as libertarian, based on my views for economic and social freedom.

    But the more I got to know the "libertarian party", the more you guys turned me off.

    How can someone call themselves a libertarian and then at the same time support the central bank and all that? How can one have economic freedom and free markets with such an entity? And yet, libertarian after libertarian argues for it.

    And then I see people who agree with someone 99% of the time, but then this 1 little 1% thing makes them not vote at all, or say that person isn't worth it? Please, it's like a brat throwing a fit.

    And of course, the ever so popular different types of libertarians and the group type casting of people as such. I mean geez, could it get any more clueless? And of course, what it really amounts to is left vs right, by people who think they are to good to be with their herd.

    Ron Paul has done more in the past 4 years than the libertarian party has ever done - even when they had Ron Paul. In terms of educating people, building support and so on. And here we have someone saying he's getting too much attention?

    And it's not Ron Paul. It's everything with libertarians. That's why they can't get anything accomplished.

    I'll go run in a hamster wheel before I support the libertarian "party".

  • robc||

    How can someone call themselves a libertarian and then at the same time support the central bank and all that? How can one have economic freedom and free markets with such an entity? And yet, libertarian after libertarian argues for it.

    WTF? This whole thread (with 1 notable exception, and Im assuming he isnt libertarian) is against it.

  • badmedia||

    "WTF? This whole thread (with 1 notable exception, and Im assuming he isnt libertarian) is against it."

    Oh it's not just here. I've had many debates over the years, and discussions with libertarians in similiar manner with topics.

    It is more about how people aren't based on principles. Where as I just don't see how someone could be a libertarian if they aren't based on principles.

    I still consider myself "libertarian" because those are the principles I stand for. But I am done with the "party" and won't support it. They pulled this same stuff in 2008.

    And I can see we actually agree in terms of how can someone have such a position and still consider themselves a libertarian.

  • Uncle Joe||

    Hardly anybody takes the Libertarian Party seriously, and "libertarians" who support the central banks are usually derided as frauds, as indeed they are.

  • ||

    But the more I got to know the "libertarian party", the more you guys turned me off.

    Er, who are these "you guys" you're addressing? I see all of two references in this thread to the Libertarian Party: one a brief historical tidbit, the other a quick note calling the Libertarian Party "weird."

  • badmedia||

    I'm not basing my opinion off the comments of a single article. That would be pretty dumb of me.

    It's been a constant flow of it since before 2008. The article merely reminded me of why my opinion had become as such.

  • ||

    Yeah, the old "it's a cult" tack. In fact, it is not about Ron Paul. It is about the vision of actual liberty which articulates and which no other candidate does. People are devoted to Ron Paul's candidacy because of the ideas he expresses and for no other reason. People love to pull the old "cult" routine out of their asses which simply illustrated how clueless many are.

  • squishua||

    If you want "cult," just look at reason-oids drooling over Johnson while spouting the same talking-points. They assert that Ron Paul is "unelectable" then stump for Johnson (who only needs to improve his poll numbers by something north of 1,000% to be on par with Paul's numbers), then ignore things like Johnson's support for the statist RealID and make the absurd claim that he's more "presidential" cuz... wait for it... he was a state governor (giving him the same qualifications as the Bush mafia)!

    I guess reason is libertarian-ish, but quite corrupted.

  • Apogee||

    I guess reason is libertarian-ish, but quite corrupted.

    You're right! After this comment, I'm never coming back! I'm off to...

    Uhm.

    Ok. Well, maybe Reason isn't perfect. And maybe, just maybe, that's ok, as long as the pendulum swings away from the unsustainable coaster ride we're all on now.

    I, along with many, can find faults with any candidate.

    Paul, and by extension, Johnson, are both pushing the discussion in the libertarian direction, regardless of actually gaining office. Which candidate has asked an audience the question of whether they would do heroin if it was legal?

    Fairly simple question, but very effective.

    Oh, and the election isn't this November, it's next November. That's a long time, according to Howard Dean.

  • squishua||

    "Ok. Well, maybe Reason isn't perfect. And maybe, just maybe, that's ok"

    Stuart Smalley/Al Franken wold agree. ;-)... Didn't say I was disappearing in a huff - only that reason, while a good site overall, seems to have some overriding principles above liberty/libertarianism.

  • PersonalJustice||

    The problem with the post-straw poll coverage was not the presented opinion that Ron Paul couldn't win the nomination. Instead it was that apparently this opinion is sufficiently widespread that the media didn't bother reporting on him at all and were consciously framing the race as between Bachmann, Perry, and Romney.

    There's a reason Jon Stewart bothered to run a story about the Ron Paul blackout. Stewart remains as left-wing as usual, but his primary shtick is criticism of the cable news network. Generally speaking he goes after the low-hanging fruit. And the media so blatantly ignored him Stewart couldn't help but do a story about it.

  • Hirai||

    At least Ron Paul gets to be on television a few times a week. Mary Ruwart was almost never mentioned on Reason or Lewrockwell when she ran for the Libertarian nomination in 2008. I haven't heard anything about Lee Wrights or the other Libertarian party candidates this year either.

  • Zeb||

    That's because they're weirdos. The Libertarian party is weird.

  • ||

    If they are weird, what would you call the brown bolzhevik who has never made or produced anything in his life?

    Or Peter King? Who in their right mind would not be weired out after taking one look at him?

    Or Dick Morris? He would dry up Madonna.

  • ||

    Nice job, Riggsy. It's not every day you hear "principled non-voter" on the teevee. Even if it (like most things) went over the head of the genius at RT.

  • WWJGD||

    "Mangu-Ward provocatively states, "I think Ron Paul is getting a tremendous amount of coverage for someone who is never going to be president."

    I'm not going to lie...I'm really getting tired of this shit. With a name like Reason, I'd expect some sort of optimism, between all the externalities and private roads nonsense. Someone bring Postrel back.

  • robc||

    Off to the liquor store... (no really I am, its just a coincidence that this post happened).

  • T||

    Just don't use government roads to get there, robc.

  • robc||

    Sierra Nevada Torpedo 12 pk: $13.99

  • ||

    Reminds me of a nice poem.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBHicyqMML4

  • game||

    With a name like Reason

    Binge.

  • WWJGD||

    I forgot the entire drinking rulebook, but I crammed as many in there as I could.

    But seriously...a little optimism.

  • ||

    something something lion towing something...

    Seriously though, KMW, you just gave them the excuse to continue when, I believe, *we* should be doing all we can to spread the fucking word.

  • Zeb||

    It does seem to me as if many in the media are going out of their way not to talk about Ron Paul. Which would not be too surprising or troubling if they didn't pay far more attention to all of the other nobodies in the republican field who are also definitely not going to be elected president. I agree that Paul has a snowball's chance in hell of being elected president (and I intend to vote for him in the primary anyway), but what is puzzling is that the media seems to consider Bachman, Pawlenty, Cain, etc. more serious and legitimate candidates than Paul.

  • Apogee||

    what is puzzling

    Not that puzzling. What's puzzling is that Stewart (who has a major audience) called it out. I hope he stays on it like the weiner thing.

  • ||

    The GOP establishment - who tried to kneecap Paul's return to Congress in 1996 by throwing support behind a different primary candidate

    Paul wasn't the incumbent and hadn't run for Congress in 14 years. It's not unusual for such people not to get party support; to describe this as "kneecapping" is ridiculous.

    There was also the complication that the Dem incumbent in that district had promised to switch parties after the 1996 general election.

  • robc||

    They also failed to support him when he ran for Senate back in the early 80s, supporting some Democratic party jumper instead.

  • Matthews, Ratigan and Maddow||

    What's a Ron Paul?

  • Vartelo||

    Very lame of KMW to say Paul doesn't have a chance. But, we already knew she was a too-cool-for-school hater.

  • asdf||

    Is that code for ugly cunt no one knows about?

  • ||

    basically.

  • ||

    Can't the Intrade stuff get kind of circular? For instance, perhaps Paul's lack of media coverage figures into bettors' assessment of his prospects, which thus keeps his Intrade numbers down, which thus makes media organs say, "This shows he has no chance, so we don't need to cover him," which thus makes Intrade bettors downgrade his prospects, etc. etc.

  • ||

    Yes....definitely circular.

    I am not betting on Ron Paul because I know the media is owned and controlled by the military bankster industrial complex. I first noticed this about 12 years ago when looking into the Commission for Presidential Debates. It became more clear during Ron Paul's campaign in 2008. The understanding of the mechanisms of control has taken the last 4 years of research.

    Daily Bell is the shit.
    When you read things in the media...look at the bios of the people who write it. Look at the advisors and their background. Look at the track records of the people being "promoted" in the media. Why the fuck is Sarah Palin, Romney, Bachman and Perry crammed down our throats?!

    Don't ignore Bildergberg, don't ignore the Council On Foreign Relations and don't pay attention to people who want you to ignore them. Read their papers.

    Watch how the MSM tries to force debates into pre-defined battles between anti-semites vs bomb-the muslims...left vs right....christians vs secularists...pro-life vs pro-choice...potheads vs jackboots...public sector vs private sector...lower class vs upper class...black vs white...always ignoring central banksters military industrial complex versus the human race.

  • Fluffy||

    You know what?

    The whole POINT is that the media shouldn't get to declare who they think will win and extend coverage accordingly.

    Objectively speaking, candidates really should be covered to the extent they have support. Anything else inserts the reporter into the process in a subjective and corrupting way.

    Ordinarily I don't accept narratives about "objective journalism", but this is one of the cases where it applies.

    To say otherwise is to say that as Obama's chances of re-election decline, the media should cover him less. The media should just step referring to the President in the news as it becomes more and more obvious he won't be re-elected. Right, Mangu-Ward?

    Or in 1984 after about September 15, Walter Mondale should never have been mentioned again.

    Is that what you're saying?

  • PersonalJustice||

    I agree. There's nothing wrong with holding the opinion that Ron Paul is not going to be president. The problem with what KMW said is that she used it to defend the media's non-coverage of Ron Paul even though the pervasiveness of that opinion so clearly affected the objective coverage of the straw poll.

  • Fluffy||

    Right.

    Reporting the news of the Straw Poll would involve using sentences like:

    "Michelle Bachmann came in first. Ron Paul came in second, 152 votes behind the leader. Tim Pawlenty came in third, and later announced his withdrawal from the race."

    It's not reporting the news to write:

    "Michelle Bachmann came in first omigod she's the bestest ever and is a front-runner now! Yadda yadda yadda, Tim Pawlenty came in third, so let's talk about Pawlenty for a while now and analyze his situation even though he no longer has one!"

  • Joe M||

    Indeed. I found this piece to be particularly irritating, specifically this line:

    The exclusion of Ron Paul from discussions of Republican front-runners is not a sign of the mainstream media's blindness, but rather of their competence in serving, finally, as an adequate filtering mechanism.

    The pure condescending arrogance of that statement blows my mind.

  • BrewerPhil||

    Yes, it was absolutely infuriating and a downright delusion. Utterly egregious.

  • Apogee||

    That guy is scared shitless, and retarded on top of it.

    He spends the first part of the column referring to Bachman's kooky ideas and how that should make her non-mainstream (but surprisingly is ok with her coverage).

    He then moves on to talk about the 'opportunity cost' of discussing Paul over Romney - who didn't even attend the event

    Why the fuck are these people so scared of Paul?

  • Au H20||

    Here's my point: Either the strong poll is meaningful, or it isn't. But it should be consistent across candidates. Last night, Hannity had on Rick Santorum, and he began the segment with, "After his surprising showing at the Ames Straw Poll..."

    You mean the fourth place showing, asshole?

  • Warty||

    It's been half an hour and the crazy bomb hasn't blown up yet. Come on, goddammit. Some of us have shit to do.

  • Seer||

    Murray Rothbard, Kochtopus, Cato, Lew Rockwell, Bilderburgs...

    Good enough?

  • Joe M||

    I think he meant the Paul supporters. This blog post does have "Ron Paul" in the title, so it should be showing up on all the searches.

  • Max||

    Maybe the paul fanatics are having a Bircher-funded negro hanging.

  • ||

    I'm here. I couldn't make it to the 'negro hanging', which is just a damn shame as it was going to be a double header.

    I just forgot what crazy stuff I was supposed to spout.

    My bad.

  • ||

    I'm doing a live blog.

  • ||

    If you mention it, Warty, they will come.

  • ||

    The Jew Rothschild (K)octopus is manipulating the mainstream media into slighting Ron Paul because his ideaplans endanger their hegemonic grasp on financial dominance over the world.

    Doth it please thee master?

  • ||

    Also, bachmann is fucking frightening.
    And I just *know* some of the leftists at the BBQ this weekend will assume I'm a supporter, because I'm a libertarian, she's Tea Party and in their minds libertarian=tea party=separatist militias. ugh.

    I think I will buy a clear glass monocle. I know, I know, I should already have one...

  • Warty||

    Open-carry. You'll be left blissfully alone and free to gorge on burgers.

  • ||

    Good point! And I am bringing ribs... so, more for me, I guess.

  • ||

    No, just wear a Reform Party t-shirt. They'll be so confused they won't even know what to do.

  • Joe M||

    One? You should have half a dozen, at least! One for home, one for office, one in the car, one for your summer home (you DO have a summer home, don't you?), plus an emergency monocle in your wallet, a backup in your suit vest, etc.

  • ||

    Handy for starting fires in the wilderness.

  • Think||

    what kind of top hat do you own?

  • ||

    The little metal one that comes with Monopoly.

  • Restoras||

    I have a similar problem except I'll be spending a week with my uber-knee-jerk leftist BiL and his wife. Should be interesting.

  • Au H20||

    Ugh, I have the same thing with my sister. Nice girl, but we had a conversation recently and I asked her if there were any Republicans she liked. Her answer?

    Bloomberg.

  • PicassoIII||

    *projectile vomit*

  • The Other Kevin||

    Good to see that Ron Paul stories have now filled in the gap left by lack of 4Loco stories.

  • Tony||

    RP has been shafted. The FOX News excuse is pathetic: he can't win because he's too far out there. But all their candidates are too far out there and probably can't win either. His apparent crime is being against unlimited warmongering.

  • ||

    That's why it's even more irritating that Mangu-Ward did this on a Fox channel, of all places.

    It's all fine and well to talk about Reason staffers having lots of different viewpoints. Great. Fantastic. Yay, diversity. But for a representative of the leading libertarian magazine to appear on the most egregious ignore-Ron-Paul network and say, "Yeah, it's no biggie if you guys ignore this libertarian" ... that just seems a disservice to the movement.

    I'm not even some diehard Paul devotee. I just think it's irresponsible of the magazine. "Drink," etc., if you must...

  • Tony||

    Well I'm a realist so I really don't think RP can win, and at least I hope the other GOPers can't. But it's just rich to put a blackout on RP for being fringe... he is the guy who gave all the GOPers their fringe rhetoric. They can run around saying all manner of ridiculous bullshit, but RP is against unlimited war, and suddenly they've found the limit of their tolerance for crazy?

    I say if you're going to cover something like the Ames straw poll as a meaningful political event, then ignore the 2nd place finisher completely in favor of those who did less well, you're being a douchebag.

  • badmedia||

    drink?

    Seriously, that kind of social ridicule works here?

    LOL.

    I should not be surprised.

  • ||

    Before I respond, please explain what you thought I meant with the usage of "Drink" there.

  • badmedia||

    Drinking game right? Someone says something, so you have to drink. There by ridiculing said people for saying the keyword.

    Basically, you're playing peewee's playhouse, but you're average highschool socialite thinks it's cool because it involves alcohol.

  • ||

    Dude. It's a goofy joke. And anyway, I was "ridiculing" myself.

  • badmedia||

    I understand that you were doing it to yourself.

    But I find it a popular way of dismissing people in social mediums. I was more making reference to the simply fact of it being said at all than anything.

    For example, I play a game and it has a few things that people always complain about(myself included). Whenever someone mentions said thing, all the "fanboi's" of the game who think such is not an issue just ridicule people by saying "drink" as a way of dismissing them.

    I find it childish and annoying and isn't something I'd really expect to see in something that is politically motivated. A game, ok kids. Here, not so much.

  • ||

    hmmmm. I think you may be vastly overestimating the maturity level of the discussion here at reason. I don't see the "drink!" thing as a ridicule or a dismissal, but more of an acknowledgement of someone's ignorant preconceptions.

    It's more of a knowing glance to the fellow patrons at the bar than a shunning.

    Also, alcohol.

  • Fluffy||

    You appear to be unaware of the absolutely indisputable truism that sometimes people need and deserve ridicule.

    The amount of snark on the internet is directly proportional to the number of internet users who deserve mockery and scorn.

    It is very common for people who have never visited this site before but who are drawn in by a Google News link on one of their pet topics to show up in the comments and say words to the effect of, "...for a magazine named Reason you seem to be pretty irrational..."

    Other posters tend to respond to that by calling, "Drink!"

    Is it immature? It may or may not be. But I know one thing: showing up at a site and patting yourself on the back for being clever enough to think of an immediately obvious turn of phrase, and being self-absorbed enough to think that you're the first one to write it, deserves mockery. "Drink!" gives the interloper what they deserve serviceably enough.

    Don't want mockery? Then don't be a schmuck.

  • Perry Mason||

    I'm pretty sure this is the same smug jackass that inadvertently launched the "best pie" thread several months ago. Sure sounds/looks like him.

  • ||

    You've just been Fluffer-nuttered. Pick up a towel, clean that shit off your face, and don't ASSUME anything for at least a few threads.

  • ||

    Is it immature? It may or may not be.

    Oh, it is!

  • ||

    Maybe it is job security for KMW?

  • Matt||

    "That's why it's even more irritating that Mangu-Ward did this on a Fox channel, of all places.

    It's all fine and well to talk about Reason staffers having lots of different viewpoints. Great. Fantastic. Yay, diversity. But for a representative of the leading libertarian magazine to appear on the most egregious ignore-Ron-Paul network and say, "Yeah, it's no biggie if you guys ignore this libertarian" ... that just seems a disservice to the movement.

    I'm not even some diehard Paul devotee. I just think it's irresponsible of the magazine. "Drink," etc., if you must..."

    well put.

  • Derivative||

    The libertarian disdain for incrementalism allow the Dialectic to be depolyed against you. You fools lose the long game... but you can quote Mises in the process, so that's cool

  • ||

    Give me one - just one - example of how this society is moving "incrementally" toward liberty? There is a ton "incrementalism" and every single bit of it is in the opposite direction. All libertarians would welcome ANY movement toward liberty. The fact that they also advocate principled positions does not alter that.

  • Ivan Bulatov||

    What is with the "Ron Paul" cannot win?

    His name is on the ballot, therefore he can win.

    In the latest CNN poll. Ron Paul is third nationwide. But if you drill down, you will discover he is 1st among male republicans and he is nearly tied with Romney for people under 50.

    To me that seems like an indication that we are at a turning point.


    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2.....12poll.pdf


    Total Men Women White Non-White

    Teas Congressman Ron Paul 12% 17% 5% 9% N/A
    Texas Governor Rick Perry 15% 13% 16% 15% N/A
    Frm MA Gov Mitt Romney 17% 12% 22% 18% N/A
    Frm NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani 12% 12% 11% 13% N/A

  • Au H20||

    Honestly, Hazel, Dagny, et. al. help me out here. Why do women generally seem to, when poll, favor some form of statism or another (for example, 52% of women voted for Obama, and as this poll shows, many would prefer Mitt Romney to any other candidates)?

  • ||

    Ugh. My first thought when I saw that is that Romney is the tallest/best looking of the bunch? (*barfs*)

    Not to get all gender essentializin' but I have wondered if it boils down to a desire for half-baked ideas of security and continuity and teh childrenz and not a lot of critical thinking about any of the above. Men are of course guilty of this too, but I wonder if there isn't a sort of 'protect the nest' instinct happening among the less self-aware of my gender.

  • nicole||

    One thing folks say about the ladies is that they have a greater aversion than men to being an outsider in all sorts of social situations. I would guess this is a reason women are less likely to be libertarians overall. It's a point often cited in atheist-type circles; women are more likely to want to fit in and therefore continue going to church/not "free-thinking" about religious issues/whatever, whereas men don't care so much about being different/an outsider, so are more comfortable coming out as nonbelievers.

    I buy it, for the most part. I'm certainly an outsider a ton of the time, but I have a fairly accommodating/ameliorative/nonconfrontational attitude regardless in a way that I think guys often don't. So with the Ron Paul support, I think we would probably find that women are just less likely to support "fringe" candidates overall.

    I can't decide whether this option is more or less depressing than Dagny's.

  • Banjos||

    I really have no fucking idea. I don't understand most women, I was raised by men. I have noticed that most women have a pack mentality, maybe it has something to do with that.

  • ||

    Nanny is a female term, after all. You just name-dropped a few exceptions.

  • Cruz||

    Ward isn't even hot.. so she should work on being more charming. As for if Ron Paul will win.. you can't say who will now. You can say in Iowa each of the candidates had this showing and blah blah blah. This was a detour from the reality, which was Ron Paul's name was purposely omitted from the coverage.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    I wish Ron Paul were president. He never will be.
    That said, I agree that given his level of support, he should be getting much more media coverage.

  • Hugh Akston||

    That was the first time I ever laughed at a Daily Show clip.

  • kinnath||

    News: What people were in the straw poll and what vote totals did they get.

    Analysis: Who voted for whom and why.

    Editorial: Who we want to see win.

    Sportscasting: Who will win the race.

    There is absolutely no rational justification for covering a media event like the straw poll and then not actually reporting the outcome of the event.

    The media have become sportcasters with side bets resting out the outcome.

  • Some dude||

    Ron Paul wouldn't actively end the Fed. He would allow competing currencies and allow whoever wants to transact business in Federal Reserve Notes for as long as they want.

  • Pip||

    Sex appeal: Women kiss science goodbye

    U. BUFFALO (US) — When a woman’s goal is to be romantically desirable, she distances herself from academic majors and activities related to science, technology, engineering, and math.

    The findings come from a series of studies, funded in part by the National Science Foundation, that were undertaken to determine why women, who have made tremendous progress in education and the workplace over the past few decades, continue to be underrepresented at the highest levels of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM).

    Lead author Lora Park, associate professor of psychology at the University at Buffalo, and her co-authors found converging support for the idea that when romantic goals are activated, either by environmental cues or personal choice, women—but not men—show less interest in STEM and more interest in feminine fields, such as the arts, languages and English. The research is described in the article to be published in the September issue of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

    “When the goal to be romantically desirable is activated, even by subtle situational cues, women report less interest in math and science,” says Park. “One reason why this might be is that pursuing intelligence goals in masculine fields, such as STEM, conflicts with pursuing romantic goals associated with traditional romantic scripts and gender norms.”

    Women, in particular, are socialized from a young age to be romantically desirable, and that traditional romantic scripts in Western cultures are highly gendered, prescribing how men and women ought to think, feel and behave in romantic settings, Park notes

    http://www.futurity.org/societ.....e-goodbye/

  • Au H20||

    Dude, Bill Nye taught me that science rules. Therefore, scientific chicks rule. Transitive property, bitch.

  • ||

    The real story is media. There is a trust issue. People see the manipulation.

  • Old Mexican||

    Additionally, she {Katherine Mangu-Ward] says that everyone, including Paul and his campaigners, know that.


    She can also read minds!!!!

    Give us another one!

  • ||

    Mangu-Ward provocatively states, "I think Ron Paul is getting a tremendous amount of coverage for someone who is never going to be president." Additionally, she says that everyone, including Paul and his campaigners, know that. She continues that Paul " is bringing some great, overlooked issues into the debate" and wonders more why Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) is taken seriously rather than Paul marginalized.

    This seems to me to be more self-evident than provocative. Especially the Bachmann part.

  • Old Mexican||

    As one might imagine, such plain-speaking has brought down upon Mangu-Ward and Reason a Texas-cyclone-sized storm of email questioning our libertarian bona fides, moral certitude, and, strangely, personal hygeine habits.


    Maybe if you stopped being such pompous assholes, Nick. Here's Kathy saying that Ron Paul *knows* (KNOWS!!!) he cannot win.

    Unless she can show that she is capable of reading minds, such pedantic and preposterous statements will provoke the reaction you seem to sob about.

  • Joe M||

    Gotta say, it's pretty damn obnoxious to throw the best (not perfect, but the best we've had in decades), most well-known representative of libertarianism under the bus like that.

  • ||

    I really don't get the butt-hurtness. KMW was not being prescriptive, not saying that Paul should not win. She was being pessimistic. Also she was on a show where being authoritative and controversial gets attention.

    I give Paul a 1/20 chance of winning. Given the hyperbolic nature of a show like that, that's as good as no chance at all.

    Maybe it's because I don't know any other libertarians in real life, but I don't see Paul getting the presidency in 2012, even though I think it's one of the best possible outcomes. Maybe I'm short-changing my countrymen.

  • ||

    "a Texas-cyclone-sized storm of email questioning our libertarian bona fides"

    Don't worry, I question Ron Paul's libertarian bona fides all the time, especially when he gets to the immigration subject. Alright, I'd vote for him grudgingly, but due to my wife's awful experience with the legal immigration system reaffirming my hatred of government, I'm surprised he wouldn't be the first to advance major reform.

  • Brian Schaefer||

    It's nice to know where the editorial staff of Reason stands in supporting the only libertarian candidate that does have a chance at winning. Using Intrade as a basis for the claim that Ron Paul won't win the primary is a pathetic cop-out. I have been reading Reason magazine for over five years because it was different from what the mainstream media had to offer, now that I see that it isn't, I'm sure you will be happy to know that I won't be renewing my subscription.

  • ||

    How is cynicism/pessimism a lack of support?

  • squishua||

    Compare what reason says about Johnson with what reason says about Paul. It's friggin blatantly OBVIOUS snubbing.

  • Tony||

    RP needs to get out of the evil warmongering GOP and mount a 3rd party run. Go RP go!

  • ||

    For once, I don't disagree with Tony, and think a dual ticket with Paul-Johnson would be the best route for both of them. Reform Party?

  • ||

    well you know Tony's only saying that because it would sabotage the Republicans.

    Not that it's not a good idea, but it's not something I would actually admit to agreeing with Tony about.

  • Uncle Joe||

    The MSM ignores third party candidates even more than they ignore RP now. Not to mention the fact that they wouldn't be in any debates.

  • ||

    Based on Doctor Paul's last Presidential campaign, I don't see any reason to pretend he expects (or intends) to be elected.

    What happened to the proceeds of all those moneybombs?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: P Brooks,

    Based on Doctor Paul's last Presidential campaign, I don't see any reason to pretend he expects (or intends) to be elected.


    The same could be said about Romney. Are you suggesting that they are traveling around the country and making speeches and staying in hotels and shaking hands just for the heck of it? And I'm being serious here, PB: Are you really making that argument?

  • ||

    He is merely exchanging long protein strings. If you can think of a simpler way, he'd like to hear it.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    We've fielded more than a couple demands that Mangu-Ward be fired for her remarks...

    Burn the witch! I expect all staff to pass the purity tests to which all libertarians are required to rigidly and uniformly adhere. Unless they can chalk it up to postpartum hormonal chick stuff.

  • badmedia||

    Anyone in journalism who thinks the media should pick and choose the candidates for the people and the amount of attention they deserve as a result of that deserves to be fired no matter what publication or station they belong too.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Meh. Media make those decisions all the time. I seldom agree with them, as I don't in this case agree with Ward, but on the other hand I don't want to waste time wading through Lyndon LaRouche bullshite in the coverage of the candidates.

    KMW is free to express her opinion on his electability. Reason is free to terminate or retain her employment because of it. You and I are free complain one way or t'other.

    But if Radley Balko lobby for drunk drivers to be able to legally run us all down on the roads and in our homes, I think we can tolerate Ward declaring her belief that RoPaul will never be prez.

  • badmedia||

    It's not an opinion, it's bias.

    An opinion is that she doesn't agree with his foreign policy, his social policies and what not.

    To dismiss the PERSON only goes to show the person is biased.

    To me, she looked like someone who is bitter than Ron Paul is taking attention away from the libertarian party, even though he is pushing the views and putting them out there - which she even says.

    It was nothing less than a personal attack and only a personal attack.

    PS: Making appeals to your inability to inform yourself, or to bother learning about the candidates does nothing for your argument or credibility, only towards ignorance.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I might share your outrage if I shared your interpretation. To me, it appeared she wasn't dismissing him, just stating she didn't believe he would be elected president and therefore, to her, he was getting more than his share of coverage. I didn't catch that she was stating he should get no coverage.

    Show me a libertarian who expects fellow libertarians to fall in lockstep on a candidate and I'll show you a partisan.

  • Uncle Joe||

    Can you explain why *you* think there would be any point for KMW to say this?

    I honestly wonder what the point is of spewing pessimistic bile about the only libertarian guy who at least stands a chance, unless it is because she hopes what she says will actually happen.

    If she thinks he has no shot in the world, then why the fuck is she even still libertarian? If she's so convinced RP can't win, then which non-existing knight in shining armor does she think will bring about any useful change? So why is she even still boring us with her opinion about libertarianism in the first place?

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I assume it was her objective opinion, although I will entertain someone else's assertion this is her "too cool for school" attitude coming out. Let's face it, libertarianism is lousy with contrarians.

  • Apogee||

    Let's face it, libertarianism is lousy with contrarians.

    No it's not.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Can you explain why *you* think there would be any point for KMW to say this?

    I didn't quite answer your question. She seemed to be saying it in answer to the question posed about whether Paul was getting enough coverage. A discussion of the viability of a candidate would have to factor into that. Viability is opinion. Her sin here is really the same as any other talking head: stating opinion as fact.

  • ||

    Well, there's "burn the witch" and there's expecting a libertarian writer to support the only libertarian candidate instead of joining in the marginalization and, essentially, supporting pro-war, anti-libertarian candidates. But that's just me.

  • ||

    Is she post-partum? I hadn't heard.

  • ||

    I'm sure you will be happy to know that I won't be renewing my subscription.

    Woo hoo!

    *Heads for beer fridge, grabs cold bottle of Bass Ale*

  • ||

    And I'm being serious here, PB: Are you really making that argument?

    Why is the Snake-Oil-Salesman-in-Chief marauding through the flatlands in a bus, leaving chaos and disruption in his wake?

    Politicians (and Doctor Paul is no exception) crave the love and validation of strangers.

  • badmedia||

    He craves the love so much that he refuses to compromise or just tell people what they want to hear.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: P Brooks,

    Politicians (and Doctor Paul is no exception) crave the love and validation of strangers.


    Oh really? So winning a nomination or an election is more of a bonus than a goal for them?

    Don't try to win a discussion by getting more and more into the absurd, PB. There's no good reason to believe that Paul or Romney or even Huntsman are not running to win but just to make a point.

  • Matt||

    Can the ancaps/paleo-libs and the Beltway libertarians PLEASE BURY THE FUCKING HATCHET? Jesus, Christ.

    Libertarian ideas are becoming more mainstream than they've been since the LP party started. Yet KMW makes the ridiculous statement about RP "knowing" he can't win and being "terrible" on explaining his plan (compared to WHAT? Jesus, are Romney or Perry or Bachmann saying ANYTHING even a sliver more substantive?). And like I argued above, does a president really have to have a huge, overarching plan? Really, do we need another goddamn Wilson or FDR in the white house?

    Look, I like Gary Johnson too and he may in fact have a bit less baggage and for all I know be a better prez. I might even like him better than RP, though his support for the regressive FairTax is annoying. But sadly with his exclusion from the last 2 debates he is now on the outside looking in...I was hoping Pawlenty's exit would give him a chance to step in but now Perry's in the race and even freakin' Ryan might want in, and you just KNOW Newt, Santorum and Cain are going to stick it out if only just to cock-block RP and Gary J. in the debates and "national conversation."

    I get just as annoyed when L. Rockwell bashes Gary Johnson on his blog. It's freaking stupid crap like this that's going to lead to a dictatorship in this country...all the people who believe in freedom are obsessed with fighting each other. Hell I even get annoyed at libertarians who are excessively hard on liberals who do believe in civil liberties but might favor a few social programs now and then. Let's look AROUND -- there's 5 military wars, a huge drug war, SWAT teams being deployed left and right, free speech crackdowns, and all sorts of other authoritarian madness.

    We need all the help we can get!

  • ||

    If you want to ask *why* Doctor Paul hasn't a prayer of being elected, go ahead. It's a question which cries desperately out to be asked.

    I blame the Degreed Educators' Cabal first and foremost.

  • David||

    I don't think there's any sort of organized conspiracy. I think it's simply that the mainstream politicos and people with editorial control at TV networks don't like Paul.

  • badmedia||

  • badmedia||

    It's not just about Ron Paul. If it was just "Ron Paul" up there saying the things the establishment wanted, there wouldn't be a problem.

    It's what he says and the positions he represents.

    Democrats sell themselves based on social freedom and the "evil government" the republicans want. Republicans do it on economic freedom, while pointing out the "evil government" the democrats want.

    Anything that disrupts that balance upsets the "mirror" and people will start to see - hey, we can choose social freedom and economic freedom? And that is the last thing the establishment wants.

    All the while, congress and politicians care less than 15% approval ratings because all the people actually gets is more government. GWB didn't undo anything Clinton did, he expanded on the programs. Obama kept all the stuff GWB added. And they go back and forth working towards the complete authoritarian/statist government.

    Anyone who threatens to upset that mirror is treated like this.

    Ron Paul just has enough support that the bias becomes obvious.

  • Au H20||

    Hell, if Ron Paul were up there as an anti-immigrant crusader, he would be getting media attention.

  • WayTooSerious||

    This following is sarcasm.

    Ron Paul is so unelectable that even if 100% of the voters in the United States voted for Ron Paul, he still would not win. Everyone agrees with this.

    In 2008, everyone knew that everyone except Obama knew that they were all unelectable.

  • ||

    Honestly, I am really disgusted with the media. Your job is not telling us who's "winning" because there's no way to know that right now. Your job is to tell us who's running, and a poor job of it you are all doing - so many fatuous excuses about why you are justified in your biased coverage. I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter, I'm just an American who never bought into the "lame stream media" criticisms - until now.

  • Au H20||

    I will say that it is very interesting how the Ron Paul thing is getting a number of people, like yourself, to say, "I don't support the guy but this shit is ridiculous."

    I think that people are increasingly rejecting the notion of the media as the "gatekeeper" and even more deeply idea that the "experts" should get to tell us how to vote, what to eat, etc. etc.

  • Cosmo Tarian||

    I'm back baby!

  • ||

    Come on, you only ever pretended to leave. I might add, why is Ron Paul the ONLY candidate who "can't win". Somehow, imbeciles who Ron Paul trounced CAN win, but the man who beat the CAN'T. Strange fucking logic.

  • ||

    The issue that concerns me more is not Paul's coverage (or lack thereof), but Gary Johnson's. Paul's 2008 run managed to provide him with (grudging) name reconginition in 2012. But the ideals he holds dear (many of which were actually put into practice in Johnson's two terms as governor) get no respect at all. Once Paul retires in 15 months, any mentions of libertarianism (other than as a boogeyman) will once again be relegated to C-SPAN 8.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    El Ocho!

  • badmedia||

    So, you think we should give up the mentions this year in exchange for a mild hope to get them in 15 months from now, after the election?

    It's the principles and ideas that matter, not who. Ron Paul has done more to advance the principles than the libertarian party has ever been able too.

    That's what matters most.

  • ||

    Rand Paul will still be in the Senate.

    Maybe Gary Johnson will drop his Presidential bid and run for the Senate in 2012.

  • ||

    Radley Balko lobby for drunk drivers to be able to legally run us all down on the roads and in our homes

    DRINK!

  • Almanian||

    AND DRIVE!

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I actually originally wrote that as "highways" but changed it as bait to lure the drunkards into revealing themselves.

    I think I also originally wrote that with the word "can" in there to make the sentence coherent.

  • Almanian||

    tl;dr

    Sorry if this is repeating something posted above, although I think it's worth repeating:

    "'Deserve's' got NOTHING to do with it...."

    Be careful using that word "Deserve" please.

  • ||

    There's no good reason to believe that Paul or Romney or even Huntsman are not running to win but just to make a point.

    The original topic of discussion was Ron Paul; don't muddy the water with those other yahoos.

    Believe it or not, it is my respect for the doctor which leads me to believe him smart enough to not actually want the job, but rather to influence the debate. And yes, I think he gets a kick out of hearing all those crazy kids yelling his name.

  • georgeh@gmai.com||

    I have canceled my subscription. Thank your editor for this PR mess.

  • Q||

    I gave Reason a view some time ago but reasoned out that it wasn't up to my intellectual standards. I instead choose to read lewrockwell.com , a far better source of information. But I happen to be here as this page has come up while searching for news on Ron Paul.

    Before criticizing Ron Paul on his economics as some did here, have you read "Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market" by Murray Rothbard? But don't worry, if Ron Paul does not get elected, in a couple of years the whole world will be reading it anyways.

    In the mean time, I have everything invested in commodities.

  • Kendall||

    Look, the only thing that makes a person "electable" is their amount of voters. Ron Paul has the most amount of supporters who will not waiver. Every single one of them will not go back to another candidate.

    On the other hand, most of the supporters for the other candidates keep switching. They can't tell the difference between the candidates because they all look and sound the same.

    One more thing. Ron Paul WILL win the nomination if we can convince democrats and independents to register Republican to vote in the primary. If there is ANYONE that they would like to see win against Obama it would be Ron Paul because he shares many of the views.

    Just watch Reason. In about 9 months you'll be eating your words.

  • ||

    A libertarian magazine dissing a libertarian when the movement needs ALL THE HELP WE CAN GET! And people are still on here saying its good, but they miss the point. The media SELECTS candidates by promoting them day in and day out.

    Reason probably has most of their subscriptions from Paul supporters, so to shoot themselves in the foot seems ridiculous

  • Jason||

    I'm not gonna hold what she said against her, but I did not care for snooty way she said it, and to say he doesn't have a plan, I mean has she ever read any of his books. Hey would have of thought in 1776 we would defeat the British, crazier things have happened.

  • asdf||

    To say he doesn't have a plan and not at least acknowledge that NO ONE ELSE HAS A PLAN seems disingenuous.

  • ||

    ....but you won't like it: neither the press nor the public at large trusts libertarians or takes them seriously, and all those "independents" we've been hearing about at this site are no more than temporarily disaffected Democrats and Republicans who will continue to vote the party line come election time, and who are perfectly content with party politics and the status quo, just so long as their party-politicians tinker around the edges a little and promise to "fix" what is "broken." The coming libertarian "revolution" is a dream, a fantasy. And libertarians (at least the ones at this site) have only themselves to blame for making libertarianism appear so repugnant to outsiders looking in.

  • Almanian||

    Wow - cool story, bro

  • Justin Raimondo||

    Let's see: Reason collaborates with the neocons over at The New Republic to smear Ron with charges of "racism" -- and then they send out Mangu-whatever, a former Weekly Standard staffer, to declare that he can't win. And they're shocked -- shocked! -- that libertarians are calling them on it. Is there anyone more clueless than Nick Gillespie, wannabe talking head star and champion narcissist?

  • Almanian||

    Cool story, bro.

    Wow! TWO cool stories in a row! Thanks brah...

  • ||

    Justin,

    You also notice how these media types are now saying Ron Paul is 'incoherent'? It's a variation on the 'Ron Paul, the cranky, crazy old uncle' meme. Besides being totally untrue, it's quite a hoot. The guy has been the most consistent politician in the US for, what, 40 years?

    The Republican field is filled with creationists like Bachmanns and Perry or people like Romney who change their positions constantly (not that there's anything wrong with changing a position, but consistency is more coherent).

  • Doug||

    The guy has been the most consistent politician in the US for, what, 40 years?

    IMO this is root of the issue. Politicians that stand solidly on their principles are unlikely to be bought. The thought of that scares the hell out of everyone.

  • WayTooSerious||

    I'm tired of people using "everyone knows that [opinion] is right" to support their opinions.

    Saying that "everyone knows something" does not support that something.

    That "rationale" passively alienates people in advance:
    If you agree with "this opinion" you will be alienating yourself, so conform to "this other opinion".

  • ||

    You do know you could have just said "Argumentum Ad Populum" and had another piece of pie, right?

  • Jason||

    that young guest lost all credibility when she kept saying, "he knows that, the press knows that..." Sounds like a propaganda. I think it odd how people who supposed got a degree but lack the ability to think and comprehend. Ron speechs is a plan.. If people say it is not, they are just lying. If Ron's speechs is not a plan... then what about Bachmann or Perry's. I have a degree but I don't need it to reason when the media is bsing.

  • Cliché Bandit||

    Some points:
    1. Saying any candidate is "unelectable" in a supposedly democratic process is asinine.
    2. This does NOT mean I hate Katherine.
    3. Paul fanatics are that way because they "just" discovered liberty, give them a break.
    4. I was fighting for liberty in the trenches of politics long before the fucking Ron Paul movement/ Tea Party (as were some others) so back the fuck off.
    5. I support ANYONE willing to move this country in a more libertarian direction. It baffles me that the Paul fanatics can't see that their shots a Flake, Johnson, hell even Kucinich (each for their own strong points) is prodcutive. Also, the LP (hold the heckling) CREATED RON PAUL!!! He cut his teeth with those early philosophers and ran his first presidential campaign as a Libertarian SO STOP FUCKING BASHING THE LP!!!! (do they have serious fundamental probklems? YES but so does everyone/thing else in certain aspects of life).

    A little teamwork (antithetical to some I understand) would go a long way. The thousands of other candidates that don't get coverage should be, on at least that point, joining forces.

    Final Point - New Media and the like will change this coverage problem...I am just not sure how.

    MORE RED MEAT

  • jason||

    It just darn on me that the media is like saying the world is flat.. the world is flat, you know it, and the media knows it.. Ron Paul is using reason, logic, and history in his responses to explain we can change the bad direction this country is going.. Just like the media was more concerned about laughing at Ross Perot's ears and charts than listening... when Ross Perot warned there will be a succing sound of jobs leaving USA. And a decade later. Look at where we are. How is that succingsound going so far? Is it enough yet? Yeah, I support Ross when others (yrs older than me) laughed and did not want to listen. If Paul's agrument did not hold merit, they would have such a strong number of supporter. Even I tried to dispute some of his agrument but it rather hard unless I restore to name-calling and labelling to discredit Ron. He is the candidate with the most issues I agree with and judging from his voting record, he is man of his word in politics.

  • ||

    Thing is, I don't think Ron Paul is pragmatic enough for politics. Hell, there are many points on which I think he's being way too idealistic.

    Yet I like the guy, he makes me remember why I used to admire the US.

  • robc||

    So unpragmatic that he has been elected to congress in 4 different decades.

    What...the...Fuck.

  • GSL||

    I was also very put off by KMW's statements. First of all, her prediction is a bit early: Paul does have a large base of very committed support, and I think writing him off at this early date is foolish. We'll see what happens in the primaries. Moreover, while I like a good bit of the content Reason produces, I was absolutely floored to see one of its writers suggesting that Michele Bachmann's campaign needs more attention. On what planet is Bachmann a libertarian?

    I accept that libertarians are varied enough and opinionated enough that not all of them are on board with 100% of Paul's platform. And I don't think he's perfect. But no one can dispute that he'd be the most libertarian president anyone living can remember. For that reason alone, KMW shouldn't have been so hasty to toss him under the bus.

  • Justin Raimondo||

    So why doesn't the Mangu come here and defend herself? Or is she too good for that? I can just hear her at one of those Washington cocktail parties:

    The Mangu: Boy, I sure pissed off those libertarians the other day on Fox! [Insert smirk here]

    Bill Kristol: Good girl, Kathy! I'll be sure to get you free tickets to the Norman Podhoretz Aware Dinner -- you've earned them!

    The Mangu: Gee, thanks Bill. You taught me all I know!

    What's really disgusting is that the non-libertarian lady, I'd never heard of her, is the one defending Ron against the Mangu! This shouild tell us all we need to know about not only the Mangu but Reason magazine as a supposedly "libertarian" institution. It isn't anymore: it's a Beltway institution. That's how Weigle wriggled his way in there.

  • johnl||

    Justin, Katherine is playing "feel felt found" judo. So she gives a little to the sentiments of the horse rase watchers, and gets them to see that Paul brings substance to the GOP debate, even that there are ant-war voters participating in the GOP primary. One step back, two steps forward.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Fugedaboudit, johnl. Raimondo is still just sore that The Jacket chose Gillespie instead of him.

  • Matt||

    Seriously dude, what is your obsession with DC cocktail parties? Every time you chime in with your critiques of Cato or Reason it's with some nonsense about cocktail parties...

  • Uncle Joe||

    Just a case of beltway libertarians distancing themselves from RP constantly so as to continue being accepted by their establishment friends.

  • Robert||

    Whoever the Republicans nominate will be electable to the same degree. Obama is such a polarizing figure by now (even if he wasn't in 2008) that the election will be a referendum on him. The Republican nominee might as well not campaign; that lever on the voting machine will simply be read as "not Obama". So electability is not a factor.

    The reason Dr. Paul has been shut out of TV (but not the media in gen'l) I'm becoming increasingly convinced is because of the need of TV shows to put on pretty faces -- pretty in motion -- to hold audiences. They don't give a fuck what his views are, they just know that certain types hold audiences better than others, and Dr. Paul doesn't appear to be one of those types. (From the remarks of one recent Hit & Run commenter, Gary Johnson is even worse.) Ron Paul is a Nixon, not a Kennedy; he shines on radio but not TV.

  • Tony||

    Antipathy and support for Obama both have floors, but I think all that means is that traditional wisdom will prevail: the fickle opinions in the middle are what will matter. Nominate a kook and people will stick with the devil they know.

  • Wow||

    This is hilarious. No sane person here seriously believes that Paul will ever be President. And why would any libertarian want him to be? Wouldn't his election make Paul a "statist"? Aren't all politicians evil, corrupt, power-hungry "statists"? Wouldn't his election force libertarians to have their cake and eat it too (an impossibility)?

    So...are all libertarians--by virtue of their support for Paul, a politician--statists? Discuss.

  • ||

    Yes!

  • SIV||

    If Reason fires KMW there won't be any libertarians on the editorial staff at all. Well maybe Sullum.

  • ||

    You said she was "Plain speaking" and really bragged her up. Why don't you now claim to be "Fair and balanced." That is the most spin I have heard. We are not eating the dog food. Think about who you are marketing your info too.

  • bart||

    Everyone knows Reason will never be viewed as a legitimate magazine, so you can't blame me for ignoring even its most consistent, "reasoned" content.

    Reason should actually just be grateful I am commenting on their little blog now. its more than they deserve.

    ...Katherine showed in a matter of 60 seconds that Reason is run by the same quality of people that run every news/magazine in this country.

    The same people who mistakenly believe it is their job to think for us rather than give us the credible and relevant facts and let us do the thinking.

  • Mustakrakish||

    Kathrine,

    I am disappoint.

  • ||

    The problem with saying "he's getting enough coverage, considering he's not going to win" is that the reason he isn't going to win is the lack of coverage.

  • disgusted||

    I hope the Reason staff is happy when Ron Paul starts getting shut out of debates before the new year. Maybe they'll get that job for Time, New Republic, or National Review that they've all been pining for.

    There's nothing wrong with ambition, but the mainstream media is hardly worthy of aspiration. So if that's everyone's goal here at Reason, you're a pretty pathetic lot.

  • squarooticus||

    Lo and behold, almost exactly two years:

    http://reason.com/blog/2009/08.....nt_1349701

    I stand by my original assessment.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Or-- Once a Paultard, always a Paultard.

  • ||

    If a significant number of Ron Paul supporters aren't crazy and cultish, why are they now celebrating his new ad entitled "The One" - a title of which someone like Charles Manson might approve.

    It's a bit scary to we small-government types who find folks ranging from David Koresh to Jim Jones a bit creepy.

    A lot of us like a lot of what Paul says, but so long as he says crazy things, doesn't provide a reasonable plan for what he'd do as President, and he is surrounded by his cult of Ronbots -- Mangu-Ward is correct and he will NEVER be elected.

  • Not Impressed||

    Lost me at "he says crazy things".

    You sound like a typical team red/blue douche nozzle that probably voted for Obama. Seriously... I can base my litmus test on whether or not someone is mentally and politically inept, or just a straight-up ignorant asshole, when a few talking points or keywords are used. Congrats, you used two of them and finished yourself with some guttural vomit of mental surrender (ie. ad hominem).

    Sane? Doubt it. Libertarian? Haha! Bullshit...

  • Tony||

    If libertarians want to survive in intellectual relevance they will dump the conservative firebreathers who've latched onto them. Do you really have to believe Obama is Satan to be a libertarian?

    But good luck getting rid of them! It may be a while that libertarians are stuck agreeing in economic policy with people who believe that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

  • Not Impressed||

    I technically agree with you, Tony.

    It's really not surprising to see yet another political philosophy contorted into irrelevance. Now-a-days, no matter Left or Right, people believe they are choosing or, more specifically, think they really have a choice to pick, the right person for the job, when in actuality they are still supporting the same Teleprompter-in-Chief for the government/corporate marriage that is soft fascism at its best. Presidential candidates might as well wear their corporate sponsors' decals on their jackets.

    Obviously a non-establishment candidate has little chance, barring a history making mass of people who openly reject purchasing/using these corporate products, and vote, to win the nomination, but to be someone who would basically shoot themselves in the foot and then add insult to injury by just flat-out bullshitting people is disgusting and quite frankly is the real so-called "crazy".

    This article, and that dumb bitch, is the cluster-of-all-fucks for Libertarianism. Only Seppuku will suffice to regain what little honor these closet statists have. Self-immolation would come in close 2nd, so chop-chop, yellow journalists. Minister Goebbels awaits your arrival in hell.

  • ||

    Who cares what some rigged poll says, it is the same as the media constantly blabbering we have a new top tier, "Rick Perry, Bachman, and Romney" where do you ever see public support for them,,,,,NO WHERE,no one cares a bout them,,,the media is brainwashing the people ITS NOT WORKING ANYMORE,,BUT ON THE TV....BY ANCHORS.....CASE CLOSED..WE ARE COMING !

  • johnl||

    Not to raise hopes. But there is no Democratic primary this year, and many of the early GOP primaries are open or semi-open. If some anti-war Democrats vote for Paul, he could be the delegate leader after South Carolina. And then who knows.

  • SIV||

    anti-war Democrats

    I lol'd

  • johnl||

    There are anti-war voters in each party. Lots actually. They just don't have a lot of electoral representation. If 10% of Democrats decided that a billion dollars and one USA soldier a day, forever, is too much to spend to make Afghanistan into a socialist utopia, they could decide the GOP primary. Crazy, but not impossible.

  • Citizen Paultard||

    Cancel My Subscription!!!
    Ah, memories...

  • Dr. Know||

    You're projecting, young man.

  • ||

    Every time I want to like Reason, they kick me in the nuts... I am ending this abusive relationship/flirtation I have with Reason because I only have so much mind and body to be crapped on by the state, let alone Reason Magazine...

  • Bill Woolsey||

    The Bank of the United States issued currency redeemable in gold and/or silver. There were state charted banks that were also issuing currency. When the Bank of the United States was closed, gold coin and private currency issued by private banks charted by various states continued. Those private currencies (like the currency issued by the Bank of the United States) was redeemable in gold or silver coin.

    Today, we have no gold or silver currency or paper money issued by private banks.

    This makes the task of abolishing the Fed more challenging.

  • ||

    Bill, why confuse the fanatics with facts? "The One" has all the answers, so you must be a pawn of the State.

  • Cosmotarian||

    I'm with you. Actually accomplishing anything is sooo passe. Instead I am going to fight for liberty with unclever snarkiness and skinny jeans.

  • Lord Obama||

    "The One" has all the answers

    But I do have all the answers.

  • RHN||

    As someone who thinks Mangu-Ward's commentary was pants-on-head retarded, but that her hygiene seems just fine, it saddens me that she was the subject of a Texas-cyclone of hate for just being wrong. And I don't buy for a minute that anyone expects you to fire her given how long you kept Weigel around. I'll try to be constructive:

    I wasn't offended by Mangu-Ward's estimation of Ron Paul's chances, but rather her shallow analysis and flippant use of platitudes in dismissing his candidacy. Unlike the other analyst's surprisingly thoughtful commentary, Mangu-Ward defaulted to argument shutdown words like "unelectable", as if auditioning for a debate moderator spot. She might have thrown in "Quixotic" and "dark horse" for good measure.

    Worse is her contention that Paul peddles ideas without real "plans". Nonsense. He writes more substantive legislation than all other candidates combined -- even while on the campaign trail, and Mangu-Ward has no grounds for asserting otherwise. Paul has, for example, enumerated his ideas for health reform in specific policies with clear paths for implementation. The editor of a major libertarian magazine should know this, or at least be conscientious enough to visit the man's website before misspeaking on the TV. Perhaps Mangu-Ward isn't a Serious Analyst.

    Further, as previous commentators have mentioned, what great "plans" have the ever-"electable" Mitt Romney and Rick Perry proposed that don't begin and end with 'Obama bad'? And since when have our enlightened electorate decided the presidency based upon a candidate's policy implementation plans? Could Mangu-Ward be talking about the same "Hope" and "Change" mongers from 2008?

    The simple truth is that someone is electable if they get more votes than the other guy. Dismissing Ron Paul with argumentative shut-down tactics and unsupported assertions is unfair, and worse, unreasonable.

    Also, Nick, you mention Ron Paul's 9% national polling average as justification for Mangu-Ward's hand-waving (seems like, anyway), but omit the recent Texas poll that had the "unelectable" Paul at 22% over the "electable" Perry at 17%. Or the New Hampshire poll which had Paul at 14% over "front-runner" Bachmann's 10% and within reach of Perry's 18%.

    And finally, you guys should really know better than to keep fueling the Koch-vs-Paul fire.

  • Jason||

    Honestly, this article reeks of damage control and reads a bit disingenuously. It was a bad idea for a libertarian organization to put that woman on the news and say its no big deal that the world's only libertarian presidential candidate is getting a virtual media blackout that even members of the media are saying is bullshit. I'm calling foul on reason for making an extremely bad call and I don't care if you don't like Ron Paul, this movement is too small and fragile to not support the only libertarian anyone has ever heard of. John Stewart is a better libertarian right now. Christ.

  • Apogee||

    John Stewart is a better libertarian right now.

    Ouch. That will leave a mark.

    Unfortunately, like Paul or not, there's no argument to be made that KMW's opinion was viable.

    I agree that her comments were sloppy and lightweight, and that she has absolutely no idea whether Paul is 'electable' or not - especially given that the downside to this parade of 'opportunistic' crises is that the electorate is in a far different mood than they were in '08.

    That other 'electable' candidates are attempting to co-opt Paul's platform is proof positive that the internal campaign polling shows an interest in what he has to say.

    Dismissing it out of hand is irresponsible.

  • Trig||

    Thanks for putting it nicely for me.

  • BallsMcFatballs||

    What the fuck was that shit, Mangu-Ward? Right now, I'm jacking off to the thought of punching you in the face so hard that your skull collapses around my fist like damp Papier-mâché wrapped around a balloon filled with mechanically separated chicken.

  • Cooter Exams - $5.00||

    Somebody get The Jacket some coffee.

  • RHN||

    KMW, you got a little something on your Wiki:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Mangu-Ward

    But you probably saw that coming, right?

  • ||

    If you had spent your libertarian time on T-Paw, Huntsman etc who are lower lower tier we could have accepted this pathetic damage control defence, but this was deliberate assasination attempt. ReasonTV reveals itself again. You forget you are not political PR or GOP pundits prediction business. Nick Gillespe, you begin to look like a washed up pawn star and so does Catherine. This the correct response to lower tier celebs pretend journalism

  • ||

    Reason is a good investment for the central banksters...spend 3 years positioning the magazine as libertarian then spend one year every election cycle bashing the leading opponent of central bankster warmongerers.

  • ||

    Ron Paul has laid out his plan to abolish the fed many times.. He would execute executive order 11110 originally signed off by John F Kennedy and create a competing currency backed by silver to rival federal reserve notes in hopes of eventually doing away with the fed.

    He has stated his plans are radical and would take time to unwind the damage that has been done, since this executive order still stands but has never been exercised it would be a relatively easy place to start since no legislation would need to be passed.

    In regards to banking and capital requirements since he believes in Austrian Economics so banks would be required to carry enough capital to cover all outstanding loans rather than fractional reserve banking requirements. Therefore loans would be given out based on amount of savings and savings rates would be based on the market.

  • Bill Woolsey||

    Drucifer:

    You don't know what capital means or what fractional reserve banking means.

    As far as I know, Paul has not come up for requiring that all bank deposits be 100% backed by reserves. That is the system you wrongly believe is part of "Austrian economics."

    Capital is the bank's net worth. Capital has to do with how much of a bank's loans are funded by the bank's owners rather than depositors.

    Reserves are like "cash" and the reserve ratio is how much of the money deposited at a bank (how much the bank borrows) is invested in cash rather than in loans and bonds.

  • Bill Woolsey||

    I think Mangu-ward is right that Paul is getting a surprising amount of attention given his chances to win. But she gives the impression that it is a bad thing. Perhaps she thinks it is good that the media focuses on candidates most likely to win. A careful look at the positions of candidates that have shown substantial support would be a good thing. Reporting about the most likely winner's plans to win and the like is pretty worthless.

  • Hank||

    I don't know. Everyone's so sure that KMW's remarks were dismissive and pessimistic, but watching the video, it seemed to me like she was being sarcastic in the face of the media and/or general public who actually don't believe Paul has a chance. "I think Ron Paul is getting a tremendous amount of coverage for someone who is never going to be president." Maybe she should have made a big show of rolling her eyes after that statement?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Being a Paultard means never having to WTFV.

  • ||

    This is a guy who managed to storm the New York Times best-seller list with books about the founding of the country and ending the Federal Reserve, after all.

    Shame on you, Gillespie. The Revolution: A Manifesto IS NOT about the founding of the country.

    Don't comment on something if you haven't even read the dust cover.

  • ||

    Mangy-ward, where are your from anyway, shows no intellectual honesty. Why don't you go back to your DOE-subsidized college rag?

  • ||

    RP surely does not have a chance, but where Katherine should shut up is in saying RP doesn't have a plan (unlike the amazing Gary Johnson who is so much better at articulating libertarian ideas, blah x3)... RP has run for president 3 times now... He is very specific on what he'd do as president. You're an idiot, Katherine. You are.

  • ||

    This 'unelectable' crap is circular reasoning at its most refined. It's like Matt Lauer always asking his interviewees, "Will this be an issue?" knowing full well that he's the person who makes it one just by asking. Ron Paul can't get elected if he can't get coverage but he can't get coverage if he's considered unelectable. For Christ's sake, he's a multi-term congressman with unshakeable and unchanging philosophies on governance. If the media's looking for a story, wouldn't this outlier's story scream at them? Paul sees through the media's smoke screen on this. He threatens their media-corporate-government franchise with straight, bulletproof talk about how power is derived and wielded over the citizenry and will use the platform of the presidency to bring his fellow citizens up to speed - and the media, corporations, and government know it. And now we see through it, too.

  • Trey||

    From Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution:

    "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

    Ron Paul meets all these requirements, so Mangu-Ward has no business saying he'll never be POTUS. That isn't journalism, and is an attack on Paul. Why would she attack the only reasonable and honest candidate in the race? I don't know if she needs to be fired, but she should at least pull her head out of her ass.

  • She's a hack||

    I don't have a problem with her saying what she said. She's entitiled to her opinion, I just have a beef with her calling herself a "libertarian". Then again, I have the same beef with Reason/Cato. You guys are the worst, you are the proverbial wolf in Libertarian sheep clothing. That's what makes her comments so disgusting...you guys co-opt the word Libertarian and then make the unknowing balance of the public think that Ron's not even taken seriously among his "own kind".

    Bleh.

  • Billions of Koch||

    Ron Paul is now in third place at 14% in New Hampshire, only four points behind Rick Perry. He has seen a 40% increase in support in just two months. He is at 16% in iowa, also in third place. In a most entertaining fashion, he is beating Ricky Perry in the state of Texas by five points!

    What is really funny is how in multiple national polls in the last few months, Ron Paul actually does either the best or second best among all GOP candidates -- I am sure everyone saw the Drudge Shock headline when the last one took place. Interesting how that fact isn't in this article or in mainstream media coverage because they would sort of defeat the whole "he can't win" meme that has been started. The rest of the GOP except Romney typically do far, far worse head to head against Obama.

    http://www.thestatecolumn.com/.....z1VJOkExy2

    http://nhjournal.com/2011/08/1.....mann-doesn’t-bounce/#.TkwGCgbw3iM.twitter

    I think the largest issue here is that the media types, GOP types, Foxnews, Koch backed "libertarians" who support war and the federal reserve like Reason, etc do not want to cover Paul for fear of his ideas really catching on, as they already clearly are in spite of media censorship and outrageous attacks.

    Too bad. The internet is a gamechanger that rightly terrifies the establishment -- and Ron Paul's following grows by the day. The Koch brothers and all their money can't even stop the power of Paul's message of liberty. It must really bother them that after all these years and all these millions, the austrian version of libertarianism is what has become mainstream, and not their own pro war and pro federal reserve version.

  • ||

    If you don't want more wars then you must be an anti-semite. Wait til we unleash this talking point slaves.

  • ||

    You know maybe, JUST MAYBE we've had enough of politicians who tells "what they are going to do" and then either don't have the balls, the intellectual capacity, the courage or the real inclination to do it. I don't find much value in a politician telling me specifically right down to the last detail "what they are going to do" when they have no idea what kind of support they will have and what a proposal will look like once it goes through the meat grinder of congress. If Bachmann claiming that she will make gas go down to $2 is the kind of promises they are looking for, we are screwed. Give me sensible ideological consistency any day.

  • ||

    Reason ignoring, smearing, and bashing Ron Paul is just causing them to lose more credibility amongst libertarians. And of course driving them away from the Kochtopus towards the Mises institute.

  • Fygar||

    I'd say Bachmann also has no chance of being elected, and yet the media can't get enough of her. So her thesis is a little misguided.

    KMW is just slappin' the beehive. All these mad Paulistians are upset. But they keep pumping Reason page views. KMW gets paid to generate traffic for Reason. Watch Wonkette to promptly follow suit. For fans of "free markets", a lotta you sorta are blind to seeing it in action.

  • Fygar||

    Scratch that first thought. Ha!

  • ||

    My father and I have had subscriptions to Reason magazine for over 15 years.

    I'm cancelling this rag for your treatment of Ron Paul. I'm also not recommending it to anyone who wants to get familiar with libertarian ideas because basically it puts forth beltway libertarianism and apologies for the state.

    It's a disgrace.

  • wobbles||

    Agreed, brody. Shame on you, Reason, and shame on you Nick for defending Katherine. If Ron Paul is actually talking about issues and points you presumably agree with, why on earth would you want to help the establishment marginalize him?

    And claiming both "he and his supporters" know he won't win? What nonsense. I'd expect that kind of propaganda and thought-controlling speech out of Donald Trump, but not a supposedly "libertarian" magazine and its editors.

  • ||

    Exactly!!! How dare they say we know he won't win ... I dare these two to get in a room full of Ron Paul supporters and spew this nonsense....

  • ||

    I hope everyone reading this will stop donating to anything run by Reason or the Koch Foundation. Send your money to Ron Paul or the Mises Institute or some throw it down a rathole. Better than giving it to phone "libertarians" like Reason.

  • ||

    So let me get this right.

    Instead of apologizing for being so careless about Ron Paul and his electability, you write this - adding insult to injury?

    You cite polls that aren't favoring Ron Paul but what about the numerous others that show him winning by a landslide? What about the results of the Iowa Straw Poll?

    You people are disgusting!

  • ||

    Nick, you have done a masterful job of highlighting the positive items that Katherine stated to distract readers from her two killer jabs - stating that Paul is "fringe" and further stating that he has no plan about what to DO if elected President.

    You comment on the flood of email you received questioning your libertarian bona fides and moral certitude, and then you felt it necessary to belittle all the emailers by adding "and, strangely, personal hygeine habits". Why do you lower yourself to smearing the majority of emailers, who, like myself, had some reasoned questions or critiques?

    You bolster Katherine's assertion (which I don't dispute) that Paul won't be elected, by exposing your readers to a paragraph about a couple of entirely meaningless polls. A waste of time to read. Unless your goal was to continue to distract from the substance of her attack. Well done.

    Like she did in her appearance on the Willis Report, you chime in with lots of laudatory comments about Paul, and you include the obligatory link to Paul resources on reason.com, apparently to show us that you're really NOT trying to sandbag him. The distraction is complete ...

    But you FAIL to address what to me was the most egregious comment that Katherine made - after signalling to viewers that Paul is a man of "fringe" ideas (a clear signal to most to "pay no more attention to this man") - she then lowers the boom and states the he has no plan about what to do if elected. Why did you choose NOT to address this in your comments above?

    I wrote to Katherine directly about her appearance and she did me the courtesy of responding to my email. However, like you, she chose to NOT address the issue I raise in the previous paragraph.

    I wonder why?

    In her reply to me she also included links to various Ron Paul articles and resources on reason.com - I guess you folks are desperate to show how you've helped his visibility over the years, and the inclusion of the Paul links to responses to this issue is now obligatory. Like the similar "talking points" with which we've all become so familiar (and sick of) from the MSM and Dems and Repubs.

    If you want to retain the allegiance of freedom loving readers, you need to rethink your approach.

    Sending us to links to old articles supportive of Ron Paul while stabbing him in the back today, and then refusing to discuss the substance of the attack, will only alienate your readers.

    Katherine's comments about "fringe" are absolutely without substance and add nothing of value to the conversation. Her comments about "no plan if elected President" are much more substantial but arguably false. You all should know better.

  • ||

    Nick says that anyone who supports states rights is a racist. Anyone who parrots that crap has no more brains than a mockingbird....or

    Keyword: "Project Mockingbird"

  • Fygar||

    ex-Cato guy, Will Wilkinson wrote a solid article about the media ignoring Ron Paul:

    http://www.economist.com/blogs.....e-bachmann

  • ||

    One flaw in Mangu-Ward's argument against Paul is that we currently have a president who ran on vision rather than a solid policy plan. Politicians always sell a vision before policy because the details of policy are political and will turn some supporters off.
    I would know, I've spent a fair amount of time in discussions with a tea party senator.

    I need a better reason to dismiss Paul than lack of a detailed policy prescription, though that's something Reason should take up with Paul and his campaign. He's the libertarian with the biggest support, so give me a better reason why he can't win.

  • ben||

    Mangu-Ward came off like a Neo-con glibly dismissing Paul out of hand.

    Subscription canceled!

  • ben||

    Oh and what do you know, before this hatchet job on Paul she worked for the Weekly Standard.

    William Kristol would be so proud; he should send you flowers for smearing Ron Paul like this.

    Sad to see Reason staff as Neo-cons posing as Libertarians. But that's what it has come to.

  • ||

    I am DONE!~ Katherine Mangu-Ward MUST GO!@~ She only played up to the main stream media in order to get calls backs!~ I USED to have this magazine in my office. I USED to read this Magazine online looking for real center line libertarian news!~ NO LONGER!~ I might as well be watching FOX NEWS to get my information. I am saddened beyond words.

    Katherine Mangu-Ward obviously has no idea what sparked the ideas of the Libertarian Movement. She should apologize to Ron Paul and go find a job at Fox News!~

  • Tyler Crow||

    I'm canceling my subscription. Reason's just another neo-con newspaper. Don't bash our candidate.

  • Sam Grove||

    I ran for congress a long time back in Maryland. We had to bug the Washington Post to get some acknowledgement.

    They sent a reporter to interview me, and he asked the deadly question: "Do you real think you can win?"

    If I had said I could win, the article would have portrayed me as a delusional kook.

    Acknowledging that it wasn't likely that I would win would have given them an out from covering me seriously.

    As it was, the article was placed in the fluff section of the paper.

  • ||

    Am I following Nick and Katherine's defense of their bashing Paul correctly?

    They truly do believe Paul isn't worth anyone's attention and Paul is who they write about all the time at Reason.

    Just so I am clear on this.

  • Dont be unreasonable||

    Basically the Fonz and Snuffleupagus have never gotten over the fact that Ron Paul has done more for liberty than the entire staff of Reason magazine (I'm sorry - reason.com - now with extra youtube compatibility!) can ever hope to do.

    While Fonzie and Snuffie make their TV (or .tv) appearances to talk about how wicked pissah school vouchers would be, Ron Paul actually has moved the debate on monetary policy to where "top tier" candidates are ripping off his ideas, even if they don't understand them. Something F&S can never do, no matter how much hobnobbing with beltway denizens they do.

    Who was talking about the Fed 10 years ago? Nobody. Who is now? Lots of people. What did RP have to do with that?* Everything. What did F&S have to do with that? Abso-fucking-lutely nothing.

    * ok so he had a little help from a global financial meltdown, but still...

  • Sock Puppet||

    You may be on to something there, fella!

    http://tinyurl.com/ManguWard1

    http://tinyurl.com/ManguWard2

  • ||

    First off, her statement is ridiculous and I'm surprised that you are defending her here. Ok, so you support free minds and divergent views? If that is so, you'd have no problem calling her out on how stupid her statement was unless you agree with her.

    Mangu-Ward reflects negatively to your organization. If she supported endless wars or more government spending, would she be accepted at Reason?

    Here is why what she said was stupid.

    1. The media give a whole lot more coverage for people who "never going to be president." So even if her one premise were right, the whole argument is wrong. Will McCain ever be president? Or most of the people up there who got or are getting a lot more coverage?

    2. To profess that Dr Paul has no chance of winning is stating something no one can know. He may not win but he certainly has a chance. I'd say that chances are, that if elections were today, he probably wouldn't win, but a lot can happen between now and the election. The other candidates could mess up. The economy could slip further into a depression. The wars could cause a terrible tragedy. So to say that there is no way he can win, just isn't accurate. As we've seen with the Tea Party there are lots of things that can jolt a large part of the American Public awake.

    If you've ever been in or seen a long race. One that lasts days, there is one thing you should never forget: Don't count anyone out until it's over. Too many things can happen when long spans of time are involved.

    Nick, I'm shocked that you've decided to defend Mangu-Ward here. If you really do have many divergent thoughts there at reason, why not let someone there who disagrees with her respond to her statements instead of just defending her when she says something stupid? Or is what Mangu-Ward said, the general stance of Reason Magazine?

  • Ford||

    Nick, Magu-Ward was clearly off her rocker wrong here and I think tremendously less of you for failing to address that. I understand that your employer has important funding issues to deal with. But please don't try to play both sides. "Free minds and free markets" is WAY more about professing what is RIGHT than about professing what is not too wrong and also fully supported by our sponsors. Please, please, please, don't help make "free minds and free markets" the joke it is rapidly becomming.

  • Steve V||

    I've been a long time subscriber to Reason, and will be cancelling my subscription over KMW's comments. Pessimism is not in the spirit of any cause I am interested in.

    I will spend my time reading more Rothbard... less magazines from hacks like KMW that should be working for Salon.com.

  • Michael||

    Me too. Rothbard is a real libertarian.

  • JTWilliams||

    I had been seriously interested in subscribing to Reason, but now I will go with the American Conservative instead. Mangru-Ward is a disgrace to libertarians. Move over to Mother-Jones, KMW!

    If a publication that is ostensibly libertarian in nature can't even help lend credibility when called up by the corporate media to the campaign of the MOST CONSTITUTIONAL CONGRESSMAN EVER, what good are you. Might as well board up, losers

  • jt||

    are some of you having an identity crisis? you're obviously a liberal.. to simply say you "disagree" on libertarian ideas is a joke.. the only thing that separates you from a liberal is having a mouthpiece in presidency that actually would reduce troop levels. other than that, there's no difference whatsoever. you can only forever move in one direction--more decentralized government or more central controls. tee-man or whatever his name is among with i assume many others here don't even understand monetary policies. a central bank is a part of the idea of centralized control on money supply.. it is enormous power granted to the government that guarantees ties with the banking industry.. some of you guys really are fucking nuts.. you wear free speech on your sleeves when everybody has moved ahead and already used that free speech to serve the cause of freedom, when you're still unlearned and spewing bullshit and claiming some kind of fashion because you constantly say the wrong things but "oh look, i'm still here, praise free speech!" i regret all the new blood ron paul brought since 08 haven't begun with another label to start with.. you old libertarians are absolutely fucking jokes

  • jt||

    there needs to be a separate label for people who are both a libertarian and a free market/austrian economist not in favor of a central bank. social libertarians with ZILCH understanding of monetary policies are glass half full and are no better than republicans who whine about spending but not realize half of it is leaking out through the foreign policy backdoor which they belove.. Tman supports central banking which inherently gives agencies enormous tools to interfere in the economy.. the creative ways to grow government under this system is just astronomical.. to claim support for decentralized government while supporting such an authoritarian system that dictates money supply is just pathetically misguided, if not hypocritical. yet how many of the older libertarians actually understand monetary issues, read many books on it like ron paul did on distinguished austrian economists such as Friedrich Hayek? how often have social libertarians focused on monetary reform and what we should do about the fed, except "putting better people in place and hope for more 'responsible policies'"? what about the fractional reserve banking and the amount of risk it involves? you people who claim to be libertarians barely scratch the surface of how we should reform this country.. you may sound intelligent in front of rednecks and liberal hipsters, but among us who actually take an interest in economics and other more complicated monetary issues, you are absolutely fucking jokes. you got nothing on ron paul.

  • ||

    That was refreshing.

  • Adam Kokesh||

    You should see Gary Johnson's latest interview! Now we know why the mainstream media is afraid of him!!! http://youtu.be/XXyZ_TuAA7s

  • KC James||

    While you folks at reason are entitled to your own opinions, so am I. After hearing your stance on Ron Paul, say good-bye to a subscriber. Instead the money I was getting ready to send you will now go to Ron Paul.

  • Brett 4Liberty||

    Contributing to the media blackout with your denial of its existence makes you one more defunct publications with which I will sever all ties and viewership.
    Here's to idiots who parrot the mainstream medias marginalization of Dr. Paul.
    Buh-Bye Reason bone-heads.

  • neat||

    after reading all these comments I am totally wasted

  • ||

    "Reason" has sold out. Sorry, Gary Johnson is not more coherent than Ron Paul. Ron Paul polled 50% in the Harris poll, tied with Obama. Yes, Ron Paul can win.

  • Rob ||

    Reason magazine/TV is a statist neocon organization.
    Fuck you guys.
    How dare you call yourselves libertarians?

  • ||

    the label's already been tarnished.. from their past lack of political success.. the 3% libertarian myth where if you throw a libertarian into a national race, he will always end up with 3%, and their pothead image.. those of us who were newcomers should have started a movement under a different brand altogether instead of carrying their water. i say just leave the label with them.

  • jt||

    just to add.. ya if you haven't noticed, there IS a bit of a red team blue team thing going on even with the new 'libertarians'.. we didn't get interested in politics without some catalyst like our country on the brink of disaster.. people are getting sick of your principle of un-prioritized individualism where all you do is armchair and bicker back and forth.. keep speaking your "truth" and exercising your 'free speech' on tv.. yes we are playing a team game as far as i am concerned to try to get something actually done here.. however you may dislike any concerted effort to accomplish anything at all. keep armchairing.. keep bashing your own team.. fucking losers

  • Michael Ellis||

    I find it interesting that Nick is defending the right of "Reason Staffers" to have their own opinions about politics. If you call your Senior Editor just another staffer then I guess no one at Reason is particularly important. You know I used to Love Reason magazine but ever since it turned its back on the core principals of libertarian philosophy it just annoys me more than anything else.
    Let me make this clear for all the poor staffers at Reason. I promise I wont use any big words.
    Ron Paul is RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT OF THE USA in the 2012 ELECTION. If HE can't win then what hope does ANY OTHER libertarian have of winning? Lets put it this way. If Dr. Paul doesn't win then I fear the end of the republic is only years away. The real shame of it is that I tend to agree with those who say he can't win. The system is so horribly corrupt (any anyone connected to the mainstream media in any way knows this to be true!) that if you don't fall into the narrow category of anointed ELECTABLE then you have no chance of winning. Even if the majority of Republicans voted for him, he wouldn't be picked as the Republican nominee. It would kill the GOP. It would destroy an old boy network that has persisted for years. And even if Paul did get the nomination or more likely ended up running as an independent, our electoral college system would insure that he didn't get enough votes to win. I believe it was Lenin who said, It doesn't matter who the people vote for. What matters is, who counts the votes.

  • Carl||

    I've noticed lately reason likes "libertarians" like Jeff Flake and not so much guys like Ron Paul

  • ||

    If Reason can't support the only real libertarian in the race, fuck them.

  • Michael||

    I also am done with Reason now. For real libertarian writings, check out the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

    If you prefer this watered-down, statist libertarianism, keep reading Reason.

  • Nicolas||

    In Reason's defense, many people mistake it for a libertarian publication, which it is only superficially. In Mangu-Ward's defense, she's a neocon, not a libertarian. For many years Reason has populated its staff with more neocons than libertarians. Get beyond Sullum and Doherty and you won't find much to warm the hearts of libertarians.

    Like Cato, the Reason Foundation functions largely as an efficiency advisor to the state. (To paraphrase Ed Crane, they are paid to take politicians seriously.) Extoll those glorious freeways, but don't worry about the people who lost their land to eminent domain.

    Think of Reason as a libertarian-tinged neocon publication.

  • Joe||

    Why would you defend Reason for having a majority of neoncons on their staff? Reason is supposedly a Libertarian supporting magazine, which would lead you to believe the staff of editors would be mostly Libertarian minded individuals, if not the entire staff. They have sold out, compromised their principles, and let their readers down. Unfortunately, a large number of subscribers are probably neocons as well, which explains the neocon majority of editors. And Cato is no better. I wrote them off several months ago. I do believe that both Reason and Cato write a lot of good articles, however I am not going to hand my money over to companies that bash Ron Paul, the only principled politician sticking up for liberty in the race, unless you count Gary Johnson as in the race.

  • Joe||

    I was disgusted when I heard Katharine Mangu-Ward criticizing Ron Paul last week on Fox News. This is not the first time someone from Reason has disparaged Paul. Well, the rest of you people who think you are Libertarians can enjoy your subscription, but just realize that this magazine is anything but Libertarian. It appears Reason and its staff have sold out to the beltway like the rest of the MSM. I don't know how you people can live life compromising your principles but it does seem to be the norm among the news media these days. I just cancelled my Reason subscription a few minutes ago and will never return. Good luck with your hypocritical magazine Reason.

  • anon||

    subscsription over.

    maybe one of gary johnson's loyal followers will fill the hole I left.

    but I very much doubt it.

  • David Kretzmann||

    Rasmussen 2012 Poll – Ron Paul 38%; Barack Obama 39%: http://davidkretzmann.com/2011.....-obama-39/

  • ||

    I am sad to conclude this but it is time that I let my Reason subscription lapse. I do not know exactly when Reason lost its way but it is clearly doing more harm to the Libertarian movement than good. From what I can tell Dr. Paul seems to be the only candidate who is consistently advocating libertarian principles. His starting point on any issue is the permissible use of force, which is something that Reason writers seem to have trouble with.

  • Rob The Republican Candidates||

    He has never got the love he deserves. He comes in second in a straw poll by a few votes and all they talk about is the winner and whoever came in last. Not fair.

  • ||

    I support Ron Paul for President 2012!
    ★ Join the Revolution! ★
    Restore America now!
    The Champion of the Constitution
    The Defender of Freedom
    The Taxpayer's Best Friend
    Spread the word!!
    RON PAUL FOR MAN OF THE YEAR
    PLEASE COPY AND PASTE THIS EVERYWHERE ON YOUTUBE, TWITTER, FACEBOOK, MYSPACE.
    FIGHT AGAINST THE MEDIA BLACKOUT! NEXT MONEYBOMB FOR RON PAUL ON OCT 19TH!
    WE ARE THE PEOPLE AND THE PEOPLE WILL BE HEARD!!!!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement