Ron Paul: His Adman Profiled, By Rush Reviled; Sullivan Wants to Hail Him, and Eric Holder? Paul Wants to Jail Him

Ron Paul: People talk about him. Here's some recent highlights:

*The Washington Post gives establishment cred to the Paul campaign by profiling his professional adman, the mind behind those anti-Gingrich ads (that this Paul fan fails to love). Some highlights:

Back in July, Republican ad man Jon Downs met with fellow veterans of George W. Bush’s 2000 campaign at a local IHOP for their quarterly professional catch-up.

“He said, ‘Unbeknownst to you guys, I’ve been working and I’ve signed with Ron Paul,’ ” Scott Douglas, a Republican political operative and Downs’s first boss in politics, recalled. “And my mouth dropped.” Douglas said others in the breakfast crew “twitched and laughed” and “rolled their eyes.”

Not anymore. Paul has inched in from the margins to position himself for an unexpectedly strong showing in the Iowa caucuses. His radical economic views are getting a fresh hearing in awful economic times, and his highly organized and well-funded ground game has attracted support beyond his base of young, committed Paul zealots.

But as much as Paul likes to claim that the mainstream has come to him, he has also pursued it. Exhibit A : Downs, a media mercenary who is about as far as it gets from a traditional Paul revolutionary.

“I wouldn’t consider myself a member of his army,” said Downs, a self-described mainstream Republican, as he reclined on a recent evening in his downtown D.C. studio.

But Downs is engineering the campaign’s broadsides......

“Driving eyeballs to our stuff maybe takes a little more work or creativity than if you are Barack Obama or Mitt Romney,” explained the 34-year-old Downs, characteristically rumpled-looking in jeans, a blue sweater and Mephisto shoes. Voters appear to be watching. An American Research Group poll released on Monday showed Gingrich’s lead down five points to 22 percent among Iowa caucus-goers, while Paul and Mitt Romney both climbed to 17 percent.....

Working for Paul is “a great opportunity for me,” Downs acknowledged before pivoting to talk about his admiration of Paul.

It’s also a ticket into the top echelon of sniping media consultants.

“The ads are better than Ron himself — more presidential, substantive and slick,” said Fred Davis, a veteran Republican media consultant who is known for his unorthodox ads — remember “Demon Sheep”? — and who is working for Jon Huntsman.

The ads are, of course, far worse than Ron Paul himself (and despite what Downs says, I think the evidence of Paul action on YouTube both amateur and pro shows that Paul material requires less work or creativity to draw eyes than stuff involving the more boring candidates), who actually has a consistent record of understanding the nature of the fiscal and governing crises we face and how to hack out of them, which the ads don't really demonstrate rigorously, for all their pro color and "serious" attacks on Gingrich while not really explaining, Why Paul?.

This consistent understanding has not won Paul love from Rush Limbaugh, who calls his foreign policy "disastrous" and "just nutty." Does this mean Paul does not fall under the Limbaugh penumbra of protection from all the unconservative nonsense that, say, a Gingrich believes but which Rush professes to not want to attack him on for reasons of preserving the GOP nominee's ability to best best Obama? (What Rush said in the context of attacks on Gingrich last week: "We look at this list of Republican nominees and we take any of them over Obama. So while you and I may have problems with each candidate, some of them more so than others, we still take every one of them. Whoever wins this we're gonna support them." Limbaugh explicitly said this did not mean he was defending Gingrich from the content of the attacks; merely that he thought it was a bad idea for GOPers in good standing to be tearing down any potential candidate.) In possibly related news, Limbaugh seems to have shed nearly a third of his listeners in the past half year.

*Andrew Sullivan openly endorses Ron Paul, over early choice Jon Huntsman:

For a long time, I thought Huntsman would be my ideal candidate. And indeed, his tax reform proposals - modeled on Bowles-Simpson - are dead-on....

On foreign policy, Huntsman also favors a more realist correction to neocon excess, and would build on Obama's remarkable successes, without invoking some of Obama's more worrying bleeding heart tendencies. His longstanding ties to America's most important global partner, China, make him uniquely qualified to take that relationship to a new level. Unlike Romney, he is not for starting a trade war....

So why not Huntsman? The sad truth is: he simply hasn't connected with the voters, generates little enthusiasm, and has run a mediocre campaign. He started timidly, and failed from the get-go to make a clear distinction between him and Romney....

What's most interesting about the language of his Paul endorsement is that it's a guy who absolutely does not agree with Paul on everything and is bothered by aspects of his past being able to treat him like a normal political choice, someone who after deliberation seems on balance best, an act of comparative political intelligence that I've found many Americans can't seem to do with Paul.

I've noticed many people find Paul's very solid ideological consistency proof in some sense that if they disagree with him on anything at all they can't get anywhere near him (a problem that other politicians, more clearly a random grabbag of stances largely based in sociology and the type of people they want to appeal to, don't face--most Americans' political views are similarly a random grabbag of stances). Back to why Sullivan likes Paul:

Which brings me to Ron Paul. Let me immediately say I do not support many of his nuttier policy proposals. I am not a doctrinaire libertarian. Paul's campaign for greater oversight of the Fed is great, but abolition of it is utopian and dangerous. A veto of anything but an immediately balanced budget would tip the US and the world into a serious downturn (a process to get there in one or two terms makes much more sense). Cutting taxes as he wants to is also fiscally irresponsible without spending cuts first. He adds deductions to the tax code rather than abolish them. His energy policy would intensify our reliance on carbon, not decrease it. He has no policy for the uninsured. There are times when he is rightly described as a crank. He has had associations in the past that are creepy when not downright ugly....

[But]I see in Paul none of the resentment that burns in Gingrich or the fakeness that defines Romney or the fascistic strains in Perry's buffoonery. He has yet to show the Obama-derangement of his peers, even though he differs with him. He has now gone through two primary elections without compromising an inch of his character or his philosophy. This kind of rigidity has its flaws, but, in the context of the Newt Romney blur, it is refreshing. He would never take $1.8 million from Freddie Mac. He would never disown Reagan, as Romney once did. He would never speak of lynching Bernanke, as Perry threatened. When he answers a question, you can see that he is genuinely listening to it and responding - rather than searching, Bachmann-like, for the one-liner to rouse the base. He is, in other words, a decent fellow, and that's an adjective I don't use lightly. We need more decency among Republicans.

And on some core issues, he is right. He is right that spending - especially on entitlements and defense - is way out of control. Unlike his peers, he had the balls to say so when Bush and Cheney were wrecking the country's finances, and rendering us close to helpless when the Great Recession came bearing down. 

*Paul himself thinks that the Fast and Furious mission to bring U.S. guns to Mexican criminals marks DOJ chief Eric Holder as deserving immediate firing and criminal charges.

*Bonus Pauliana: why even an anarchist can feel morally justified in voting for Ron Paul.

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.

  • Max||

    "As someone and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Ron Paul, I've got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning. As former reason intern Dan Koffler documents here, there is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping.
    I don't think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn't matter--the newsletters carried his name after all--and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage."--Nick Gillespie

  • ||

    Hey Edward, when you saw this post, did you immediately masturbate three times, or four?

  • ||

    He's the Jezabel guy who can't get it up.

  • The Hamilton||

    Andrew Who? Meh.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: pet yorkie,

    I don't think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn't matter[...]


    I wonder if you would apply such standard against Obama who spent 20+ years in a congregation listening to a bona fide racist whose utterances are on record.

    You are a hypocrite, pet yorkie, but find comfort in the fact that you're no worse than Citizen Nothing or Beloved Rev. Blue Moon. Perhaps you're better in one respect than them, because I know that you're a run of the mill Socialist punk and these things are to be expected from you.

  • we all hate you dunphy||

    personally, I think Gillespie is kind if a tool

    pointing this out doesn't really matter much to me

  • Cotrarian||

    And Obama began his political aspirations at the home of one William Ayers. -Leader of the terrorist weather underground. The progressive equivalent to the KKK.

  • Mike M.||

    Eric Holder? Paul Wants to Jail Him

    Yeah, but that's because Paul is a racist. (*ducks for cover*)

  • rhetro||

    Paul a racist? Sounds like something a racist would say.

  • ||

    That's racist talk!

  • Max||

    "If Paul didn't write those articles, who did? If he didn't know what had appeared in his newsletter, when did he find out and how did he deal with it? If the candidate is vague on these points, it will only fuel suspicions that he held those beliefs after all (or that he was willing to stay silent despite his disagreements because the newsletters brought in some cash)."--Jesse Walker

  • Max||

    reason: Do you have any response to The New Republic's article about your newsletters?

    Ron Paul: All it is--it's old stuff. It's all been rehashed. It's all political stuff.

    reason: Why don't you release all the old letters?

    Paul: I don't even have copies of them, because it's ancient history.

    reason: Do you stand by what appears in the letters? Did you write these...?

    Paul: No. I've discussed all of that in the past. It's just old news.

    reason: Did the New Republic talk to you before they ran it?

    Paul: No, I never talked to them.

    reason: What do you think of Martin Luther King?

    Paul: Martin Luther King is one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that's a libertarian principle. Rosa Parks is the same way. Gandhi, I admire. Because they're willing to take on the government, they were willing to take on bad laws. So I believe in civil disobedience if you understand the consequences. Martin Luther King was a great person because he did that and he changed America for the better because of that.

    reason: You didn't write the derogatory things about him in the letter?

    Paul: No.

    Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned.

  • ||

    We can disqualify Paul on the condition that Obama's going to an openly racist church for 20 years and calling the pastor of said openly racist church a father figure disqualifies him as well.

  • tarran||

    But John, that's different.

    Politicians don't go to church to hear the message but to be seen.

  • ||

    Good god, who cares?

    Is Ron Paul against the drug war?
    Is Ron Paul against runaway spending by govt?
    Is Ron Paul against plundering the middle class further with higher taxes?
    Is Ron Paul against foreign military adventures?
    Is Ron Paul against the government-banks complex that cost us trillions of dollars?
    Is Ron Paul against subsidies for political insiders?

    You're focusing on some sentences is some old newsletters? really? Are you that stupid?

  • Bastiat||

    Not stupid. Just astronomically ignorant.

  • we all hate you dunphy||

    "Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters "

    nothing you quoted suggests this

    so, your position is a lie?

  • Bastiat||

    This guy spams this in every thread. Ignore him

  • not Red, not Blue||

    Sullivan destroys any semblance of non-partisanship with one word in a single sentence:

    We need more decency among Republicans.

    Why use "Republicans" instead of "politicians"?

  • The Hamilton||

    Andrew who? Meh.

  • ||

    Is there any doubt that Andrew Sullivan's "endorsement" will bring along exactly....[calculating] carry the one, drop down... zero votes?

  • Max||

    "Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon."--Matt Welch

  • ||

    Has Obama ever repudiated attending a black supremacist church for 20 years? If not, who cares about Paul's newsletters?

  • Fluffy||

    Sullivan is wrong about Paul's budget policy.

    Paul is most definitely not campaigning on a pledge to veto a non-balanced budget.

    He's also not campaigning on a pledge to veto any budget containing programs he's on the record as regarding as unconstitutional.

    Paul's budget plan as put forth in Nevada two months ago is a compromise budget (for him) that makes dramatic cuts but doesn't take as extreme a position as Paul has historically taken in the House.

  • ||

    Paul is running for President not king. He will have to compromise and work with Congress. And if he is ever elected will end up signing bills he would never have voted for as a House member. That is just how politics works. And it is why Presidents always disappoint their supporters.

  • ||

    The beauty of Paul's extremist small government positions should be evident almost immediately. He's not out to ramrod his positions down Congresses throat. He is radically supportive of the division of government and the role of the executive. He's so nuttily principled, I can't see him writing a signing statement on a bill exempting himself. Paul himself acts a brake against executive overreach. He could abolish the Secretary positons, but would do that by rolling the existing bureaucracies up into other secretary positions. Its so patently obvious that Paul would be nothing but an incremental president, its crazy to see people talk of him otherwise...except that we've become so used to seeing presidents wield enormous power. President Coolidge could never win today because he'd be horrified at what the presidency had become. No longer a statesmen position, but a reality star uber-general policy decider.

    IT IS FUCKING AWFUL

  • ||

    He would have to be an incremental President. Most of what he wants would never get through Congress. And yeah, he can veto things. But he can't veto and shut the government down forever. Eventually he would have to cave and give Congress some of what they wanted.

  • robc||

    Eventually he would have to cave and give Congress some of what they wanted.

    Nah, eventually congress would reach a compromise that satisfies 2/3rds of each house.

    Sort of the same point but slightly different.

    But, back to the top of this subthread, Sullivan is wrong, I think Paul's proposal takes two years to balance, the first year only cuts $1T which isnt enough.

  • ||

    If that happens he will be irrelevant and what good would it have done to elect him?

  • ||

    would it happen without him showing where the electorate stands. Who would believe the American people serious about balancing the budget if they chose Gingrich?

  • Sam Grove||

    Electing Ron Paul as president would put congress on notice as to what voters really want.

    A vote for Ron Paul is not so much a vote against Obama (which would be the case with the other candidates) but a vote against an expanding federal government.

    See: http://reason.com/blog/2011/12.....ll-time-hi

  • Bastiat||

    Thank you. People voting for Ron Paul are expressing their utter disgust with the bloated political establishment

  • ||

    Exactly. That is why many like me feel that anyone but Paul is practically the same, and everyone loses.

    As for the man himself, all his predictions coming true cast him as a visionary and is unquestionable. It is all on video. Economy, War, expanded government where lobbyists become more powerful than citizens and we become less free. Bet after 2012 NDAA passes there will soon be bids for private overseas prisons to carry that extra weight for the gov.

  • ||

    Freedom is popular, liberty brings people together, collectivism devides *remember the individual is stronger then the state*

  • Raston Bot||

    Oh, and fuck you, Roger Ailes.

    Sullivan must really hate that Roger Ailes fella to conclude his endorsement that way.

  • ||

    Sullivan is clinically insane. For all we know he thinks Ailes is an agent for the trilateral commission and the guy who secretly delivered Trig.

    The guy is a complete nut and a joke. No one should ever pay any attention to anything he says.

  • Andrew Sullivan's Conscience||

    build on Obama's remarkable successes

    No, but seriously, though: how the fuck do I sleep at night, really...?

  • Jerry Sandusky||

    Take two eight-year-old boys, and call me in the morning.

  • Michael Jackson||

    Are you, like, a doctor? 'Cause mine is no longer practicing.

  • Bastiat||

    Ailes is also CFR and a member of the Majestic 12

  • ||

    To hell with Ron Paul's alleged racism - very few care.

    If libertarians just begin to understand what a rancid piece of shit Rush Limbaugh is the country will become a slightly better place.

  • ||

    Wow We didn't think you were still alive Shrike.

  • A fan||

    We should be so lucky...

  • Restoras||

    Must have been in exile?

  • ||

    Some kind of institution.

  • we all hate you dunphy||

    "Wow We didn't think you were hoped you weren't still alive Shrike.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: shrike,

    If libertarians just begin to understand what a rancid piece of shit Rush Limbaugh is the country will become a slightly better place.


    I understand that the guy is no libertarian. He's a conservative socialist, as described accurately by Hans Herman Hoppe.

  • ||

    That's not only a little harsh, it's patently false. On fiscal issues (TARP, stimulus, auto bailouts, public-sector unions, you name it), Limbaugh's take is indistinguishable from Paul's (or yours). Limbaugh even complimented Paul on his proposal for $1T cut the first year. Given Paul's stance on abortion, and illegal immigration, Limbaugh's militarism and opposition to gay marriage (not sure of Rush's stance on that) are the only reasons that I can see as to why he hates Paul.

    Rush never talks about the WOD and I suspect (given his past) that it's not something that motivates him either way. (Yes, shrike I know he's apparently said hypocritical things in the past regarding drugs, but I haven't heard him say anything in the past 5-6 years).

  • Jordan||

    Pulease. Your problem is that we just don't care about Rush. He's a dumbass on the radio. Who gives a fuck?

  • Sam Grove||

    Um, how many libertarians actually listen to Rush Limbaugh.

  • Colin||

    Paul did disown Reagan.

    And if Sullivan is an American citizen, you can be sure he'll vote for Obama. He'd sooner vote for Palin than Paul.

  • tarran||

    I should point out Paul disowned Reagan for betraying his campaign promises.

    Romney disowned Reagan because it was convenient to repudiate Reagan's message to get my fellow rubes here in MA to vote for him.

  • BigT||

    "On foreign policy, Huntsman also favors a more realist correction to neocon excess, and would build on Obama's remarkable successes, without invoking some of Obama's more worrying bleeding heart tendencies."

    Sullivan is a lunatic.

  • ||

    He is totally insane. I honestly it is exploitive for magazines to hire him. If the Atlantic would have fired him the day he went on his first birther rant, he might have been able to get the help he so clearly needs. As it was they and the Beast or wherever he is working now just enabled him.

  • paulaholic||

    Reagan was a BIG spender and expanded the civil liberties shredding drug war

    Paul gets some good libertarian street cred for disowning Big Spending Reagan.

  • Old Mexican||

    He has now gone through two primary elections without compromising an inch of his character or his philosophy. This kind of rigidity has its flaws,


    I don't understand why would having unwavering convictions would ipso facto be considered a "flaw," especially when it comes to the philosophy of liberty and advocacy for personal freedom. Wouldn't compromising these be considered a flaw as well, one of character?

    Why is it that when it comes to convictions, stalwartness is seen as virtue except when applied to a politician? It unwavering conviction is a flaw, it should be something to be remedied regardless of the career path of the person; thus it would become pertinent to ask the person who says with conviction that the Earth travels around the sun to compromise his views just to ease his life or to profit. Would that be reasonable?

  • ||

    I don't understand why would having unwavering convictions would ipso facto be considered a "flaw,"

    Its an electoral flaw, not to be confused with an actual flaw.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Lost_In_Translation,

    [It's] an electoral flaw, not to be confused with an actual flaw.


    That doesn't make sense. Just look at the 2004 election: George Bush did not win over Kerry because he changed his stance; it was quite the contrary: KERRY lost the election because he was seen as a person who changed his convictions as expediency dictated.

  • ||

    The electorate expects some moderation and flip flopping. However, when you look like a rudderless mind like Kerry, no one really feels inclined to follow you.

  • ||

    This is exactly Romney's problem.

    I would say "unwavering convictions" is only a flaw because it precludes pandering (let's face it, politicians pander because it works on the majority of the population).

  • ||

    Because he is running for President of the entire country. One of the biggest reasons why the current President is such a failure is that he is totally unable to work with or understand people who disagree with him.

    If you want to be an effective President, you have to compromise. The people in Congress were elected too. And the people who disagree with you are citizens too and deserve to have their views represented as well.

    If you want to remain true to your convictions and ideologically pure, don't try to be President.

  • Marcus Tullius Cicero||

    Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

  • ||

    In the real world it doesn't work that way. Or when it does, it ends in a lot of people being murdered in the name of the Revolution.

  • robc||

    In that case, it isnt being done in the defense of liberty.

    Do you really think a $1T cut in spending would lead to mass murders?

  • ||

    Every person who was ever murdered by the French Revolution was murdered in the name of "Liberty". And no cutting spending is not murder. But telling a large percentage of the country to fuck off, you no longer have any say in your government is a really bad idea even if you are trying to do the right thing. And once you start thinking extremism for the right cause is justified, you are a very short step away from killing people.

  • robc||

    I didnt say "in the name of". I mean reality. The French Revolutionaries may have named liberty, but that wasnt what they were defending.

  • robc||

    Paul wouldnt be telling them to fuck off. He is very clear up front about his plan. He would be telling congress to fuck off. And they wouldnt be representing the people at that point.

  • robc||

    And once you start thinking extremism for the right cause is justified, you are a very short step away from killing people.

    Bullshit.

    I guess you dont support jury nullification either, because that is an example of extremism in the defense of liberty.

    Murdering someone isnt. Because there is no liberty being defended.

  • ||

    Jury nullification sounds great until the other side starts doing it. And then when we no longer have a viable jury system or rule of law then where will you be?

  • robc||

    Other side?

    I dont think you know what jury nullification is.

    Jury Nullification is the judging of laws as well as evidence.

    The only thing a nullifier can do it refuse to convict someone because the law is wrong.

    What is the fucking other side of that?

  • ||

    Fine and when white people decide they won't convict someone of murdering a black person or Mexicans decide they won't convict another Mexican of crimes, what will you do then? They think the law is wrong, how can you say they are wrong?

  • robc||

    Juries do whatever the fuck they want all the time.

    You got a problem with it, take it up with John Jay.

    I understand that doing things the right way sometimes has crappy results. We deal with it.

  • ||

    Because the law doesn't say it's only illegal for a Mexican to commit murder. Don't be a mendacious twat like MNG, John.

  • robc||

    There are no laws that say "no murdering black people", the law is "no murdering".

    If they judge the latter and find it wrong, that is jury nullification, and while I prefer laws against murder, Im okay with it being nullified (maybe the punishment is too harsh). If they make an exception for whitey, that isnt jury nullification.

    Words means things. Everything a rogue jury does isnt jury nullification. It is literally only the judging of a law and finding the law invalid.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    And once you start thinking extremism for the right cause is justified, you are a very short step away from killing people.

    Well, yeah, but politics always ends up with a lot of people getting killed. Even in the American Revolution. It's not like people getting killed in political squabbles is any kind of surprise, or out of the ordinary.

  • robc||

    In the real world it DOES work that way. I just wished we could get to that world.

  • ||

    No it doesn't. In the real world once people start talking about extremism in the pursuit of "X" being justified, they very shortly thereafter start killing the unbelievers.

  • robc||

    That isnt the real world.

  • ||

    Yes it is. I have pretty much the entire history of the last 400 years that says it is. When has anyone ever thought the ends justified the means that it didn't end up in murder?

  • robc||

    WTF? That is exactly the opposite of what I said.

    When has anyone ever thought the ends justified the means that it didn't end up in murder?

    That is exactly what I oppose. Extremism is about supporting moral means regardless of the ends.

    You are so fucked up you got it exactly backwards.

  • ||

    If you only support moral means and work through the system, you are not an extremist. And further, if you are unwilling to compromise, you either have to get everyone to agree with you, not going to happen, be ignored, or try to enforce your will on everyone. It is when you try the third way that people end up dying.

    So which is it going to be?

  • robc||

    An EXTREMIST in the defense of liberty, cannot COMPROMISE his morality, because the act of COMPROMISING, by definition, makes him a moderate.

    Thus, someone who works only by moral means in the defense of liberty is an extremist.

  • Sam Grove||

    Anyone who consistently sticks to their moral principles is extreme only because there are so many people who don't consistently abide by moral principles.

    Government has given us two standards by which to judge human behavior. One set for those acting as agents of the state, and another set for ordinary citizens.

  • robc||

    If you only support moral means and work through the system, you are not an extremist

    That is a fucking textbook extremist.

    The moderates of the 20th century are the exact opposite of that.

  • paulaholic||

    "Moderation" VIA two party dictatorship has given us Permanent War and massive unsustainable debt.

    Fuck moderation. We need an extreme fiscal conservative in office NOW

  • robc||

    if you are unwilling to compromise, you either have to get everyone to agree with you

    No, just 50% of congress.

  • T||

    If you only support moral means and work through the system

    At this point, John, these two conflict. You can't do both anymore.

  • Sam Grove||

    I've been told that in the case of government violating the rights of individuals.

  • paulaholic||

    Compromise and betray his entire constituency?

    Well I'd guess he'd be a lot like Obama then.

    Reagan "compromised" on spending and look where that got him. Run away government

  • Bruce Majors||

    Dick Morris, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity all escalated their attacks on Ron Paul today.

    At 5 pm today the American Spectator's house Paul trasher, Jeffrey Lord, will be on Hannity to discuss the Ron Paul newsletters.

  • ||

    Don't they understand that by pushing the newsletter smear they are just reinforcing the leftist smear that all conservatives are racist? Craven dumb fucks.

  • chris||

    You are dead on right, John. The newsletters reflected a genuine disgust a lot of people on the right felt after the LA Riots with the underclass, the welfare system that created their squander, and the Bush administration's appeasement. You are going to find similar sentiments in the National Review and American Spectator if you dig back to those issues. For Hannity and Limbaugh to behave like gotcha leftist now is bizarre given their own experiences with the MSM.

  • chris||

    I'm digging for digital versions of those old mags just to prove my point. So far no luck, but this leftist attack on the Spectator and NRA for their reaction to the riots is, uhm, interesting:

    http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Bogus3.htm

    The National Rifle Association (N.R.A.) wasted no time capitalizing on this sentiment. It ran national advertisements that painted a picture of law-abiding citizens, made vulnerable by gun control laws, cowering helplessly before armed mobs. [3] The mainstream media [Page 1366] condemned this appeal to fear, [4] but some believed that the Los Angeles riots did indeed demonstrate that people should arm themselves. The American Spectator, a high-brow conservative magazine, even ran an article recommending the type of gun its readers should select.

    Of course, to them, gun rights advocates using the riots to prove their point is racist.

  • chris||

    This part got cut off:

    The N.R.A. exploited racial fears. Its ads--which included color photographs of black rioters--were published in a select group of magazines that have particularly rural, white readerships such as Field & Stream, Progressive Farmer, and Western Outdoors. [6] But it was not hunters or farmers who were left unprotected by the police during the L.A. riots; it was the largely non-white residents of South Central Los Angeles.

  • ||

    Man, fuck Jeffrey Lord. I see him over at the Spectator attacking Paul on a regular basis, and it makes me wanna puke.

  • paulaholic||

    Lord is a died in wool Neocon

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Bruce Majors,

    At 5 pm today the American Spectator's house Paul trasher, Jeffrey Lord, will be on Hannity to discuss the Ron Paul newsletters.


    This will be a great mistake, because it will be seen as a clear smear campaign against Paul by the Neo-cons. If they intend to have independents flock over to Newt or Romney, the above will certainly sabotage that effort.

    Remember, it took four (four!!!!) allegations of sexual harrasment and the news of a 13 year affair to finally topple Cain. Do you really think what someone wrote [not Paul] 20-plus years ago in a little known newsletter will be taken seriously? By whom, exactly: the left that already hates him? The neo-cons, who are totally discredited?

    They are as naive and stupid as Citizen Nothing and the Beloved Rev. Blue Moon.

  • Fluffy||

    Their bigger problem is that they scheduled this for the same day that MSNBC decided to Klan Out on Romney.

    Sometimes the calendar is your friend.

  • Old Mexican||

    I went over to the Daily Paul forum to see if there was anything about Hannity and the smear-fest. Mostly the same old accusations that Paul is really a liberal, that he called Hannity a 'Statist' (as if that was untrue), that he's an isolationist, that he's an anti-semite, blah blah blah. Then Jeff Lord brings out the newslettes thing, but cautions the public by stating that he has not read them. He also mentioned Lew Rockwell. Hannity wonders why this story has not received more coverage... Looks like the idiot did not see the CNN Ron Paul interview done by Wolf Blitzen back in 2007.

    Sheesh. It's embarrasing. I have the urge to wash my hands just by reading about it.

  • DK||

    This is great news. I was hoping that the "big" neocons would start attacking Paul on the newsletters, because, honestly, I don't think it will damage him in the primaries. If Obama was the first to bring it up, it might have had an effect.

    The neocons are effectively making the general election much easier for Paul by getting the issue out there and vetted by the MSM.

  • Bruce Majors||

    You hit him over the head and put him in the trunk and I'll fuck him.

    I hope he doesn't like it.

  • Bruce Majors||

    We call that "snowballing," Mr. Hannity.

  • Ken E.||

  • ||

    In the end Ron Paul does not need this man. HACE YOU SEEN YOUTUBE, THERE ARE THOUSANDS OF ADS CREATED BY NORMAL EVERY DAY PEOPLE THAT ARE ALMOST AS GOOD AS THESE ARE, , BESIDEDES THIS GUY RON HAS THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE MAKING VIDEOS FOR HIM FOR FREE, ,

  • ||

    Very, very tough piece to read. Sentences don't make sense, bad syntax, run on sentences, etc. "The ads are far worse than Paul himself,...who has a consistent..."

  • robc||

    shorter response to John in this thread:

    FUCK UTILITARIANISM.

  • ||

    Where am I advocating utilitarianism? I am advocating the adherence to the rule of law and to the idea that a just and democratic government should give everyone a say and not just shove one side's extremist vision down everyone's throat. That is not utilitarianism.

  • robc||

    You supported compromising your morality in order to reach your ends (or at least part way to them). The essence of utilitarianism is ends justifying the means.

    You are the one doing that.

  • ||

    When I first looked at Ron Paul as a candidate I was very concerned with both his domestic policies, and his foreign policies. It took me awhile to understand them! People where saying, "but if Paul wins he will legalize prostitution and drugs". But that is not the case at all! What he is saying is let the states handle it. If a state wants to legalize drugs they can, if not a person can lobby the state to change the law! And if a person does not like that law and is unable to change it, they have the option to move to another state. Foreign policy is another issue. Stop all foreign aid is the right choice, it makes no sense if we are broke ourselves to borrow money to give to another country! Once I realized what he was talking about, I was thinking to my self, why didn't I listen to him before now? Now I can see why he excites people!
    Any person that says this about our country. is just plain Un-American!

    “The American challenge in leading the world is compounded by our Constitution… either we are going to have to rethink our Constitution, or we are going to have to rethink our process of making decisions.” Newt Gingrich 1995 speech Center for Strategic and International Affairs

    Ron Paul 2012! NO SUBSTITUTIONS!!!!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Don WV,

    You shouldn't try so hard, as your statements lack coherence. One cannot know if you're simply an enthusiast or an ironic troll.

  • ||

    This is funny. Fox News trying to influence Iowa voters?

  • ||

    Andrew Sullivan's arguments are completely incoherent and anyone finding any logical consistency in them has only started reading him today.

    His chief complaint - expressed just last week on CNN - is that today's conservatives are too "radical" for his tastes by wishing to, in his view, overturn much of the entitlement programs of the federal government. This, he argues, is not conservative in any sense of the term (well, his sense). A true conservative (him, of course) believes in reform of these welfare state programs and not elimination.

    And yet he endorses the most radical (for good or bad) of the Republican candidates, a man (again for good or bad) who wishes to go further in dismantling the federal state than any other candidate. Over the candidate , Huntsman, who more closely resembles his plan to reform these programs.

    One more: Sullivan excoriated the Bush Administration for what he called the power grab the President. America, under Bush, he said was a "thinly veiled military dictatorship."

    Question then for Sullivan: Has the executive powers under Barack Obama lessened, increased or stayed the same?

    Answer: Silence.

    He's worse than awful, he's just silly.

    Oh yeah, who exactly were those people who were rushing us into war again, Mr. Sullivan? Those "other" people?

  • hazeeran||

    When I did an amount of reading on the newsletter topic the conclusion for me pointed towards Lew Rockwell. Does anyone know?

  • ||

    Chris Wallace: If Ron Paul Wins In Iowa, It Will Discredit The Iowa Caucuses

    We have been predicting this, and now it's come to pass. The desperate attempts to marginalize Paul will never end.

  • chris||

    The right half of the centrist establishment is embarrassed by the fact they can't keep up their obligation to the left half to keep outsiders on the right out of the public debate. Hence, their original hatred for the Tea Party.

  • ChrisO||

    I think Wallace (like the rest of the media) greatly overestimates the current appetite for Establishment Republicanism from both the general public and the GOP rank and file.

  • paulaholic||

    Not surprising. Wallace's hire ups take barking orders from Republican leadership figures. They utterly despise Paul.

    He should put them to shame because he's more genuinely conservative then they will ever be

  • Skip||

    If Paul kept doing some more aggressive stuff like going after Holder, Obama butt kissers like Sullivan would stop calling him the best one.

  • ¢||

    When I did an amount of reading on the newsletter topic the conclusion for me pointed towards Lew Rockwell. Does anyone know?

    No. So just think about it.

    Does the stuff read at all like Rockwell wrote it? Nope. And all we have is the stuff. So there's no reason to think it's him, though lots of people seem to "know" it is.

    People who concede that it's evidently not Lew because it doesn't sound like him tend to say "OK then it's Murray Rothbard." And it kinda reads like some stuff he'd write if he were trying to suck up to the kind of stereotypical shits he'd imagine Paul's fans to be. And Rothbard was a clumsy and indiscriminate suck-up (outreach!) who didn't reject "right-wing" suck-uppery, so...plausible.

    Except that there's no reason to believe he wrote the actual stuff—except that someone said "OK then it's Murray Rothbard," and Rothbard's a name.

    (Does the timeline even fit? I haven't checked, because...)

    It's probably some long-lost nobody none of us has ever heard of. The whole newsletter story is tiny and boring, digestible in seconds, and not the kind of thing actual libertarian-type Paul fans give a shit about anyhow. So, hook them with a name. Like how the Black Dahlia killer is always Orson Welles or Man Ray or The Secret Abortionist To The Stars (Whose Granddaughter Has A Movie Out Now), never Encino Stabbin' Guy #3935, y'know?

    OMG I NO THAT GY

  • Shake||

    It sounds a hell of a lot like Rockwell, and it fits with the Rockwell-Rothbard strategy of "outreach to rednecks" detailed in another set of bigoted newsletters they published in their own names. Have any of you paleos even read the damn Reason article, or is it that you're just blinded by cult-like admiration of your messianic figures? The evidence of racism and craziness in the Lew Rockwell wing of libertarianism has been posted and re-posted dozens of times. But keep ignoring the facts and personally attacking anyone who brings it up - it totally helps your case and makes Ron Paul look rational to prospective voters.

  • ||

    RON PAUL 2012

    Clear. Consistent. Honest. Responsible.

    http://www.whatthehellbook.com/the-book/

  • guy in the back row||

    Ron Paul is filling me with a horrible, horrible optimism, AGAIN.

  • ||

    I've come around to the point that if he has any chance at a nomination by the time the election comes to Texas, I'll register Republican and vote for Paul, but I'll tell you why it wasn't a decision reached lightly, or at least I think I know.

    It's the internet. It's not Paul himself, who I've seen on stage a hundred times now without ever thinking he's whacky or unfit for office. The only things I couldn't get past were the commitments to the gold standard (which doesn't make any sense to me because it would take about all the gold in the entire world to back the U.S. money supply at this point, so a peg would require a disastrous revaluation of the dollar - and I don't want to pay African slaveholders in the DRC to expand our money supply either) and, more than anything, the general sense that the Fed is the root of all evil in the world and conspiring with an international Jewish banking cabal to intentionally bring the developed world down to the qualify of life standard of the developing world in order to bring about the new world order.

    And, to be fair, I don't even know if Paul actually believes that, or just wants an audit for the far more innocuous reason that the Fed gives out trillions of dollars and not always for any obvious socially beneficial reason. It's his followers on the internet that are so far out there it's turned me off to him in the past. It's the crazy John Birch/Glenn Beck types that talk about Denver International Airport and the end of western civilization and then close with "Ron Paul 2012!" It's the fact that complete whackjobs were the only people supporting him for a long time, an association that is hard to kick.

    But now that he's finally gotten mainstream coverage, I can see that he doesn't seem to be crazy at all and just thinks the federal government doesn't need to duplicate and oversee efforts that states can conduct on their own, doesn't think defense should be a subsidy to manufacturing and an excuse to plunder South Asia, and we might want tighter oversight of a government-chartered entity with the power to hand out trillions to pretty much whoever it wants to at this point.

    I can certainly get behind that.

  • Bruce Maors||

    Ron Paul doesn't seem to turn away any volunteers or donors from is campaign, and until recently perhaps he cold not afford to. So all kinds of people attach themselves whom one might not like.

    I went to, and even sponsored, his Liberty Political Action Conference in Reno. Over half the people and virtually all the speakers were reasonable people: Rand Paul, Vince Vaughn, Reason magazine had a booth, Senaor Mike Lee, academic economists. There were people from church and third party groups from Woming, Idaho, Montana etc who I normally wouldn't be comfortable with, being a big 'mo, though they were very friendly and kept trying to give me pamphlets and talk to me. I met Chuck Baldwin who seemed much more agreeable in person than I expected.

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