Ron Paul's Foul Old Newsletters Back in the News

With the libertarian Republican's competitive showing in early-state polls has come the inevitable rediscovery of the fact that Ron Paul published and earned money from "Ron Paul"-titled newsletters in the late '80s and early '90s that contained racist remarks, both vile and juvenile, such as calling black people "animals," and saying "we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." As The New York Times put it today,

Emerging as a real Republican contender in Iowa, Representative Ron Paul of Texas is receiving new focus for decades-old unbylined columns in his political newsletters that included racist, anti-gay and anti-Israel passages that he has since disavowed.

Here's a fresh response from the candidate:

Asked by CBS News and National Journal if the newsletters are fair game on Tuesday, Paul responded, "I don't know whether fair is the right word."

"I mean, it's politics," he continued. "Nobody talked about it for 20 years until they found out that the message of liberty was making progress. And everybody knows I didn't write them, and it's not my sentiment, so it's sort of politics as usual."

Strictly speaking "nobody talked about it for 20 years" isn't true–it was an issue in his 1996 congressional campaign, an issue in 2001, and an issue in 2008. As is referenced later in the article by Paul campaign chairman Jesse Benton:

Asked if the issue was fair game, Benton responded, "He has answered questions about these newsletters for 20 years, but it is reasonable that he answer them again now."

"We are confident that Americans will look to his vast, consistent and principled record, his life [as] a doctor, faithful husband and family man, and accept his answer," he added.

If I can get the embed code to work, you can watch this contentious interview from today on CNN (or just follow this link), in which Paul says (among other things) "they have to dig these things up that they really can't pin on me, because they've been disavowed," and then, when pressed on the fact that he could just straight up ask the "six or eight people" who worked on the newsletters at the time to reveal who wrote the damned things, he said, after a silence, "Well, possibly, I could, but uh...."

Aside from the new responses from Paul and his campaign, I've seen no reporting so far that advances the story from where it stood 47 months ago. Speaking of which, please scroll down toward the bottom of this post for a semi-complete list of Reason reporting and commentary on the issue from during the 2008 campaign.

Some more recent commentary from the commentariat, starting with the witnesses for the prosecution:

* "Angry White Man" author James Kirchick, in The Weekly Standard:

It is Paul's lucrative and decades-long promotion of bigotry and conspiracy theories, for which he has yet to account fully, and his continuing espousal of extremist views, that should make him unwelcome at any respectable forum, not only those hosted by Jewish organizations. [...]

In the four years since my article appeared, Paul has gone right on appearing regularly on the radio program of Alex Jones, the most popular conspiracy theorist in America (unless that distinction belongs to Paul himself).

* Ta-Nehisi Coates, in The Atlantic:

Had I spent a decade stewarding an eponymous publication steeped in homophobia and anti-Semitism, I would not expect my friends and colleagues to accept an "I didn't write it" excuse. And I have no (present) designs on the launch codes. It is a peculiar thing when the basic standards of honesty and decency are lowered in direct proportion to the power one seeks to wield.

* Philip Klein, in The D.C. Examiner:

[I]f you're a public figure, it's your responsibility to monitor what is being published under your name. And if your best defense is massive disorganization within a business you ran that had just a few employees, it's a pretty severe indictment of your management abilities as you seek the presidency. And this is where we get to the double standard part.

Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have both attacked each other for what was written in their respective books. If either of those books had included a number of overtly racist statements, their candidacies would be over before they started. If they used the Ron Paul defense – that they didn't write the words themselves, they didn't know what was in the books and don't even know who wrote them, it would only make matters worse. They could kiss their political careers goodbye.

More along those lines from Michael Brendan Dougherty, Jennifer Rubin, Michael Walsh, Jonathan Chait, and Alana Goodman.

For the defense?

E.D. Kain, The League of Ordinary Gentlemen:

This is silly. I care more about actions than whatever Ron Paul's newsletter once published ages ago. Has Paul espoused any of those views himself? Not that I can tell. Do his preferred policies lead as much killing as the preferred policies of Obama or Romney or any of the other candidates currently swarming about? No, they don't. Do you think the children we blow to shreds with our aerial drones care if Ron Paul's associates published a racist newsletter in the 90′s or do you think they care more about being blown to shreds?

Paul obviously should not have allowed things like that to be published under his name and I completely and utterly condemn that newsletter and those behind it. It's just not as big a deal to me as the aforementioned wars and assassinations under this president.

Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Beast:

I think the papers (and comments almost two decades ago) should definitely be considered, in context, when judging his candidacy, and not because the neocons are determined to smear anyone challenging their catastrophic record. But compared with Rick Perry's open bigotry in his ads, or Bachmann's desire to "cure" gays, or the rhetoric around "illegals" in this campaign, these ugly newsletters are very, very old news. To infer from them that Paul is a big racist is a huge subjective leap I leave to others more clairvoyant than myself.

But ask yourself: you've now heard this guy countless times; he's been in three presidential campaigns; he's not exactly known for self-editing. And nothing like this has ever crossed his lips in public. You have to make a call on character. Compared with the rest on offer, compared with the money-grubbing lobbyist, Gingrich, or the say-anything Romney, or that hate-anyone Bachmann, I've made my call.

Other defenses from Paul Mulshine and Jake Morphonios. To scramble a delightful number of these narratives, here's Ron Paul on Jay Leno saying Michele Bachmann "hates Muslims" and Rick Santorum "hates gays":

And now a list of Reason's essential newsletter coverage and commentary during the last election cycle:

* In May 2007, seven months before James Kirchick's report in The New Republic, New York Sun writer Ryan Sager accused Paul of "anti-Semitism" ("it's not even a close call"), for his newsletter assertion that "the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government." Then-Reasoner David Weigel got Paul to respond. Part of that response:

I'd have to have you show to me that I wrote it because that doesn't sound like my language, and in campaigns, some things get into newspapers that aren't actually correct. But I wouldn't back away from saying that AIPAC is very influential in our political process. That's a little bit different than saying the Israeli government, but I think that the Israeli position is very influential [....] There were some things in a newsletter that wasn't actually written by me, so sometimes that gets a bit of distortion.

* After the Kirchick story, Weigel got another response from Paul, in which the candidate repudiated the content of the newsletters, said he didn't write them (and didn't have them anymore), and referred to Martin Luther King (who had been criticized in one of his newsletters for commiting "crimes" against "underage girls and boys") as "one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that's a libertarian principle."

* I wrote a blog post soon thereafter fact-checking Paul's contention that "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade" by looking at the paper trail, including his mixed responses to the charges back in 1996 and a more direct mea culpa in 2001.

* Weigel and Julian Sanchez then wrote a long piece for the website interviewing current and former Paul associates about who they thought wrote the newsletters, and placing the episode in its historical context of a "Paleo-Libertarian" fusion project back at the dawn of the '90s.

* Other Reason commentary at the time from (in order) Nick Gillespie, Jesse Walker, Radley Balko, Brian Doherty, David Weigel, Balko again, Kerry Howley, Weigel again, Jacob Sullum, and Doherty again. Plus there were some other links-roundups back during those two weeks.

* Closing out that season's coverage was this Peter Bagge strip, plus a column of mine (my first Editor's Note), entitled "Ron Paul's Mistake." A section from that:

So why discuss the issue at all? Especially if, like me, you find Paul's candidacy a refreshing injection of limited-government principle into the flabby carcass of a national GOP that has grown careless with power at home and abroad?

There are, I think, a few good reasons. In a narrow campaign sense, if indeed Paul had no idea about the origins and content of "Ron Paul"-branded newsletters [...] that certainly speaks badly of the would-be commander in chief's managerial competence. The fact that he actually defended the newsletters in 1996 suggests either that he once believed in their content more than he currently lets on or that he was willing to look in the camera and pretend to endorse ideas he didn't actually believe. [...]

By now, the "free minds and free markets" strain in American politics and culture should be secure enough in its own place to withstand and even welcome uncomfortable discussions about its less-than-stellar moments.

And it's clear that, for a short while at least, some of libertarianism's leading lights let their focus on minority group behavior lead them down decidedly illiberal paths. [...]

Happily enough, these ancient-sounding race debates play no role in the Ron Paul rEVOLution of 2008. Paul was incorrect to say, as he did on CNN, that "libertarians are incapable of being a racist," but he was right to note that "racism is a collectivist idea." And like other forms of collectivism, it's an idea that has less and less resonance among a younger generation that's growing more and more culturally libertarian. It turns out that spreading a "freedom message" directly is more effective than trying to camouflage it in collective resentment.

All of which I stand by now, only with four more years of evidence that the movement Paul has helped inspire, to say nothing of the broader libertarian/limited government/classical liberal tendency in America, is not animated by this bizarro-world Archie Bunker crap, nor is Paul himself (in my observation). I'd also say that his campaign has had four years to come up with a better answer than "I don't know who wrote those things," and it hasn't. Front-runners get–and richly deserve–scrutiny, including by adversaries.

I don't begrudge anyone's reasons for voting against anyone, especially if you think he's the type of guy to consciously lunge for power by whipping up race hatred against the descendants of former American slaves. I don't think Ron Paul is that type of guy. I don't (and Reason doesn't) do endorsements, and I would have been happy to see a better GOP primary season from Gary Johnson, whose pragmatic, less hyperbolic, and less socially conservative case for libertarianism I have more natural affinity with.

But I'm rooting for Paul to do well in Iowa and New Hampshire and beyond, because his candidacy offers the only sharp course corrective to the pressing national issues of runaway government spending, bailout economics, entitlement time-bombs, foreign policy overreach, civil liberties intrusions, and the Drug War. These are not small issues, for me or for the country, and 99 percent of politicians are terrible on them. Yet that platform (along with fighting the Federal Reserve) is what Ron Paul is actually running on, in stark contrast to the frightening anti-libertarian candidacy of Newt Gingrich, the I-will-cut-everything-but-spending campaign of Mitt Romney, and the incessant foreign policy chest-thumping and quien-es-mas-deporty promises that pass for discourse in the modern GOP.

There is a small but growing number of politicians out there who share Paul's values without this godawful racist baggage, and I sincerely look forward to more of them getting into the ring. But until then–God help me–for one of the first times in memory, I'm eagerly awaiting the next few weeks of American presidential politics. And that is because of, not in spite of, 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.

  • ||

    Do you think the children we blow to shreds with our aerial drones care if Ron Paul's associates published a racist newsletter in the 90′s or do you think they care more about being blown to shreds?

    You know, buried in this huge post, that line really got to me. All this nonsense, posturing, attacking, and meanwhile we're killing children halfway across the planet.

  • Pop Culture Trivialist||

    The American sheeple have much more pressing concerns this time of year than faceless foreigners vaporized by drones, or Ron Paul's newsletters; namely the Top Ten Cat Videos of the Year on YouTube or the travails of vapid celebs like Katherine Heigl.

  • American Sheeple||

    In our defense, Katherine Heigl has an amazing rack.

  • RoboCain||

    But she hates balls:

    http://ihateballs.com/

  • ||

    How dare you bring up facts that disqualify my Messiah for office!? I'll just make bogus charges about dead children! Look, a three-headed monkey!

  • ||

    Sorry. Accusations of racism are much more an important consideration than stopping children from being blown up. Or soldiers from getting flash-fried in HMMVs in some arid shithole.

  • ||

    That's my feelings. I hope to God that Ron Paul didn't approve those terrible things in those newsletters. But in the end, it's what he'll do as President that really matters to people of all races around the world.

  • Paul||

    All this nonsense, posturing, attacking, and meanwhile we're killing children halfway across the planet.

    It's for the children.

  • ziggy||

    but it always is!

  • ||

    War is never fair or humane. Think if t he children killed by poiticians such as Paul in the name of Racial purity

  • ||

    Paul has never called for racial purity dipshit.

  • ||

    Neither have "we" been killing children halfway across the planet.

  • Cytotoxic||

    If that drivel 'got to you', then you are easy to emotionally manipulate.

  • Joe M||

    Why don't you go fuck yourself.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I had never seen it that way Joe M. What a moving well-considered argument.

  • Dave Anthony||

    If the fact that our drones are killing innocents on the other side of the world *doesn't* get to you, then you're a sociopathic ass hole.

  • ||

    This is why I think libertarians have little to no hope affiliating with the right wing. At least Leftists have basic empathy for the oppressed and the innocent, yet are deluded by hallucinations of "good government" and "fairness".

    Right wingers lack basic empathy and cognitive dissonance (being rhetorically anti-government while calling for an infinite theocratic police-military State), and call for government crackdowns on people that don't look, talk, fuck or think like them, indicating deep sociopathic tendencies. And thus you can't debate rationally with them because their positions are based on willful ignorance and hatred.

  • Richard Stands||

    All right wingers are like that. Every one. They're worse than those simplistically-generalizing racists.

  • More Credible Dave Anthony||

    If the lie that our drones are killing innocents on the other side of the world *doesn't* get to you, you're not brainwashed enough to be a Paultard.

  • voxpo||

    Yeah, those kids had it coming.

  • Shake||

    Innocents always die in war, but not all civilians are innocent (children obviously are). I feel bad for the innocent civilians, but not those who ideologically and materially support the enemy. The responsibility for innocent deaths lies with the belligerent parties (ie: al Qaeda, Islamic fundamentalist regimes) unless the U.S. is engaged in wanton mass murder without purpose. Contrary to popular mythology, the U.S. military takes extraordinary steps to minimize collateral damage from drone strikes (see here).

  • Fascist-Slayer||

    That's just fascist bullshit along the lines of "I was just following orders" (to gas a Jew), or "War is hell"(for the losers).

    The point is we have no business being involved in military conflicts in other countries. There is no justification for it.

    There is also no terror threat that the US Federal Government did not create or inspire by its actions or policies. And these Al Qaeda operatives? The US Federal Government let them into our country. LET THEM IN!

  • Suki||

    You know, when I read that line I thought it was Andrew Sullivan's "Would you rather live in Texas or in Gaza" moment.

  • Bruce Maors||

    The only reason this is being brought up now is because the conservative establishment and the Republican hierarchy fear his polls and volunteers. They have all committed crimes, from fleecing taxpayers to bombing children to sitting back while the Democrats conducts the modern day slave trade where poor black and brown kids are sold to educrat cartels for campaign donations this year, not 20 years ago.

  • Shorter Bruce Maors||

    [False accusations against accusers in response to completely true accusations against traitor racist kook Messiah.]

    Hey, look, a three-headed monkey!

  • ||

    After thinking it was Murray Rothbard or Lew Rockwell- I figured it out. It was Rand Paul who wrote it. That explains why he can't come out and say who it was. Ok, maybe that is a load of crap- but an interesting (if not easy to prove wrong) theory.

  • Warty||

    for one of the first times in memory, I'm eagerly awaiting the next few weeks of American presidential politics. And that is because of, not in spite of, Ron Paul.

    Four years ago, The Wine Commonsewer really liked a joke I made about how Ron Paul needs to stop infecting me with his horrible, horrible optimism. The old fucker's still doing it, god damn him.

  • Windypundit||

    Bleating about Reason's betrayal of Ron Paul by bringing this up again in 5...4...3...

  • Buddy Bizarre||

    Release the Kraken!

  • ||

    This time around it is different.

    Good for Reason getting this out. I don't think it will stop Paul, the only thing that can stop Paul is if there is something we don't know about, or he does something crazy between now and Iowa

    OR

    people just don't turn out for him and it was all astroturf.

    The more people talk about the newsletters, the less value they have as an attack on him.

    It does help that Reason has put aside aesthetic issues for libertarian theory this cycle. There might be hope for the Kochtopus yet...

  • Bruce Majors||

    And kalamari is delicious.

  • robc||

    No one had a problem with them bringing it up four years ago. It was that they ran, as shown above, ~437 stories on it, when about 2 would have sufficed. Especially since it was a 12 year old story 4 years ago.

  • AlmightyJB||

    The fucking neocons (Weekly Stadard/National Review) are the ones dredging this up again. Reasons' just reporting on the reporting. These guys play the jew card more than Jesse plays the black card.

  • ziggy||

    if anything these newsletters will get him votes in iowa, sc and florida!

  • chris||

    Similarly, neocons and Sharptons with their persecution complex feed off of being hated so much they will not stop annoying you until you hate them.

  • Bruce Majors||

    And it's mainly the non-Jews among them, like Jeffrey Lord and Sean Hannity, screaming wolf. Maybe the actual Jews know to save that for the real thing.

  • Beano||

    I didn't know redheads could be black

  • Shorter AlmightyJB||

    Facts about The Messiah's racism, paranoia, and treason are so f*****g inconvenient.

  • Jerry||

    I think the people who wrote the stuff weren't exactly behind it too, wasn't this all part of the paleolibertarian strategy to win right-wing populists over to the libertarian cause?

  • ||

    Ah, I just linked to an article about that below.

  • Pon Raul||

    Well, that was a fun run...

    But, as many have been saying, there's no way to get around this one.

  • robc||

    This was all over the place last week...his numbers have since gone up. You are an idiot.

  • Juice||

    He might win the nomination. Probably not. But if he does, he would have a tough time winning the general. The newsletter assure that he won't.

  • apaulled||

    reason sucks

  • ||

    treason bucks

  • Slowburnaz||

    Grease and trucks

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Teasin' nyuks!

  • Brian D||

    Fleas on ducks!

  • .||

    Sleazy fucks!

  • ziggy||

    fucking sluts

  • ||

    Shemales suck

  • ||

    I thought this was an interesting, if kinda wacky, take on the whole thing: Here's The Real Story Behind Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters

    As crazy as it sounds, Ron Paul's newsletter writers may not have been sincerely racist at all. They actually thought appearing to be racist was a good political strategy in the 1990s.
  • Jerry||

    They actually thought appearing to be racist was a good political strategy in the 1990s.

    No wonder, just read up on how Lee Atwater won elections for the GOP back then.

  • Jerry||

  • Gray Ghost||

    On racism in early 90s politics, see Pete Wilson. Race-baiting has paid for awhile in politics. Still does, for the right race.

    I think it was a way for Paul to make some money appealing to the kind of people dreaming of compounds in Idaho or Montana with buried ammo cans of Hong Kong gold bars scattered about. I don't think he's racist, though as an 80 year old, it'd be surprising if he was extremely racially progressive (thinking of the things my grandparents used to say.) Really, I look at it as the politician equivalent of an actress doing soft-core porn when starting out. It'd be different if Paul had a history of racist actions, of course.

    As was stated much better by Citizen Nothing a few days ago, it's stupid that the campaign hasn't come up with a better strategy to handle this news. Oh well. It's a long election and the media will find something else to chew on before long.

  • Juice||

    Does that mean the Ron Paul isn't authentic? That he doesn't always stand on principle? "Hey, I've just been saying the same things for 30 years, except for that time I thought I could get some support from the David Duke, KKK, neo-nazi types by spouting racist BS in my newsletters."

    Yeah, that's not gonna be a good excuse.

  • AlmightyJB||

    That Business Insider article was an interesting take.

  • Greybird||

    You really just couldn't wait to get the chance to trash him mercilesssly again over this, could you? Four years is a long time to suppress the urge to wreak revenge on someone.

    Why don't you cut to the chase and tell Lew Rockwell that he should come clean about writing these things, and taking advantage of Ron Paul being an absentee minority owner of the enterprise? Because that would disrupt your precious networking?

  • ||

    Why doesn't Ron Paul tell him to do that?

    Unlike Reason, he actually knows who wrote the newsletters.

  • Apatheist||

    Revenge for what? What revenge? This post supports his candidacy. If LR did write them then he should come clean. I don't know why the fuck RP doesn't just say who wrote them but just like Welch I'm enthusiastically supporting him.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Apatheist,

    If LR did write them then he should come clean.


    "Aaaaaand.... if he didn't.... well I still expect him to fall on his sword for RP!"

    By the way, I've read almost everything LR has written and the language and un-PC style still sounds more Ann Coulter-ish than Rockwellian.

  • Apatheist||

    I don't know who wrote them, because he won't say. I only mentioned LR because the OP did.

  • What?!||

    As has been said... Revenge for what?

    Reporting these things accurately is fucking responsible and shows integrity.

    This is being reported. As was fucking inevitable, this story is being covered in the mainstream media again. Reason would appear no better than Fox News if they were to ignore this, or not to take the opportunity to comment on it all extensively.

    It's not as simple as "he didn't write them, let's move on." There are more questions to answer, and more concerns to address.

    And, as has been said, even after all is said and done, this post rather blatantly supports his candidacy ultimately. But I, who will vote for Paul in a heartbeat given the chance, would like a better and clearer understanding of the newsletters myself. They are appalling.

    It's highly unusual to have such vile content go out under a politician's name without his knowledge or prior approval. I'd like to know how such a thing could happen.

  • ||

    In fairness, he was out of politics when this stuff was being printed. He didn't return to the House until 1996. So the ranting about "he was a public figure" is a bit overblown.

  • Paul||

    Greybird, this is just good journalism. If Reason buried stories about Ron Paul while throwing him softballs and talking about what a great American he was, Reason would be no better than NPR or The Nation.

    And reporting this stuff doesn't mean we don't like Ron Paul. If your Candidate can't handle tough stories and questions, he probably shouldn't be President.

  • Ni!||

    Hear, hear! I can't stand the insecure, tribalistic, shout-down contests between camps - the constant spin and propaganda - especially during election cycles. I'm heartened to see professional and citizen journalists asking probing and tough questions. And I say this as an ardent Ron Paul supporter.

  • apaulled||

    Ta-Nehisi Coates, in The Atlantic:

    It is a peculiar thing when the basic standards of honesty and decency are lowered in direct proportion to the power one seeks to wield.

    Doesn't the Atlantic support Obama?

  • SIV||

    Doesn't the Atlantic support Obama?

    Megan McCardle does. I'm not 100% sure about all the others. I'd say "yes" is a safe guess.

  • SIV||

    Speaking of Megan...

    I didn't come to my squishy libertarianism until rather late in life, and so I missed the round of internships, political meet-and-greets, and low-level think-tank jobs that cement people into it.

    Nonetheless, I am now on its fringes. And sufficiently steeped in it to know, as all younger libertarians in the wonkosphere kind of know, that it has some ugly moments in its history. Specifically, a lot of its funding used to come from crazy old white people hoping to turn back the clock to the days before minorities and women got all uppity. Ron Paul is a good example

  • chris||

    Damn. If you want to see true ugliness of the murderous variety, Meg, you should check into the history of your progressive and mainstream pals. Shit, it isn't even history. It is happening now.

    Blowing up brown people to 'civilize' them >evil than rhetoric about fleet footed minority muggers and the overwhelming criminality of DC (technically true given they are mostly in the government, but probably not what the writer meant.)

  • Sevo||

    There's nothing in RP's voting records or other actions that indicates he has any sympathy for those views.
    And I'm not sure a better denial would really have any effect; those who are featuring the newsletters in all likelihood care less about the issue than the chance it gives them to attack RP.
    But it sure would be nice to have a statement stronger than 'I didn't write them'.

  • Apatheist||

    I mean Jesus, I was disappointed with the response four years ago I would think SOMEBODY in his campaign would have come up with something by now. Just tell us who it was man! We all know he's not racist so I hope it doesn't matter but I'm still disappointed.

  • ||

    It seems likely to me that regardless of what his campaign people want to do, he's unwilling to expose one of his "friends", even if it means derailing his campaign in the process.

    That, I don't like.

  • Apatheist||

    It's why I haven't donated this time around. He's got my vote but I'm not going to fund a campaign if he's going to throw it away by not exposing someone. I optimistically think it won't matter this time. If he doesn't win it won't be because of the newsletter.

  • GoOftheGrid||

    If he did expose the writer there is no guarantee that it would help his campaign. There is something to be said for not burning bridges, it speaks towards a presidential maturity and diplomacy. Please don't let that get in the way of funding a campaign which is the greatest campaign for liberty in the last 50 years.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But this bridge is burning him!

  • ||

    just like in soviet russia.

  • chris||

    You have a hell of a lot to answer for, cytotoxic, you psycho empire loving fuckhead.

  • chris||

    In comparison to you, the writer of the newsletters hands are clean.

  • Paul||

    Is Ron Paul the only person on the planet that knows who wrote the newsletters? There's this thing called Journalism that can sometimes get to the facts even if one person isn't talking.

  • ||

    The Paul insiders have all fingered Rockwell; that has been reported. But this was a small operation so it's probably not easy to get leads.

  • AlmightyJB||

    "this thing called Journalism that can sometimes get to the facts"

    You of course meant OBSCURE the facts when it suits their purposes.

  • ||

    You'd think he could blame somebody who was long dead, like Rothbard's crazy older brother or someone.

  • johnl||

    Or Rothbard.

  • ||

    Instead of just walking out of the last CNN interview, where he was hounded by a reporter who kept pressing the same question, he should have been willing to have a staring contest with her, with the simple stated retort, "Yes I believe it is a valid question, one that I have answered many times before as well as right now. It is valid for the first 8 times you have asked me and that I have answered. Are there any other questions you have for me?"

  • cynical||

    It's certainly a shame that Paul has associated himself with bigots. Of course, you could argue that simply running for the Republican nomination constitutes association with bigots, given that he shares a stage with Perry, Bachmann, Santorum and the like.

  • cynical||

    I do like the way Sullivan put it. It actually made me a little more convinced about Paul, oddly enough.

  • Brett L||

    It may be a sign of trouble when Andrew Sullivan has the sanest take on your campaign.

  • Richard Stands||

    Is it more accurate to say that he associates with bigots, or that he tolerates bigots associating themselves with him?

    Most of the libertarians I know tolerate a wider range of quirkiness and fringe sentiment than those who want control over others.

    Is tolerating the support of a bigot the same thing as bigotry?

  • daveInAustin||

    Ron and Rand Paul need to hit the "war on drugs is racist" them a little harder. Is it a fair exchange that the federal government will punish Denny's for refusing you food while at the same time imprisoning perhaps as much as 4% of the male population for victimless crimes and creating huge housing projects where it's impossible for a man with a legitimate job to live? Libertarians have no reason to be bashful about their proposed policies.
    It's really sad that these newsletters were written. This is another reason too bad Gary Johnson didn't get more traction.
    Hopefully if folks can forgive Rev. Wright, they can forgive these newsletters.

  • Juice||

    Agreed.

  • ||

    Agreed. If Ron Paul were racist, he'd be for the WOD and for abortion (which is disproportionally performed on minorities).

  • Bradley||

    False analogy

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    ... abortion (which is disproportionally performed on minorities).

    Citation please. My gut (and my eyes) tells me that minorities keep their babies. White girls get abortions so they can maintain their social mobility, career trajectory, and other trappings of white privilege. I'll have to google it.

  • ||

    You guys can pretend all you want, but Ron Paul can't escape the stupidity of his past. And whether or not he is a racist doesn't matter. He protected the person that wrote this shit. That disqualifies him in my book.

    Sorry, but there are no second chances when your opponent is black. I'm more of a Huntsman fan, but it looks like Romney is gonna get my vote. He's got the best chance of winning and is a proven businessman who can get people together to find solutions rather than demolish government when people need it most.

  • Apatheist||

    He's got the best chance of winning and is a proven businessman who can get people together to find solutions rather than demolish government when people need it most.

    The only viable solution is cut government. Romney isn't electable. Just you wait and see.

  • ||

    Oh, government needs to be cut, and Romney said he will cut it...but reasonably. Flooding the private sector with tens of thousands of government employees without a plan for their well-being is just downright stupid. These people have families. Are you just gonna say, "thanks for your hard work, but the new guy said to take a hike"? You can't do that. It's not their fault.

    And also, Romney will keep Iran from nuking Israel and starting WW3. All Paul would do is sit on the sidelines and say, "gee whiz. I hope they don't come after us next. But if they do, we'll get em."

    No thanks. I'd rather not see people starving in a world terrorized by muslim nutjobs.

  • ||

    Ugh.....Thats what the corporations did when the economy started crashing...What about their families? You cant just make a one sided argument. It makes you look like a complete fool. I advise you to go out and get an education. A real one. Not a community college education.

  • ||

    Then offer up a solution that doesn't destroy our fragile economy. Dumping tens of thousands of people on the private sector would be disastrous. I think you libertarians have either not thought that through or you just want to see the economy implode for the laughs.

    That doesn't lend itself to being taken seriously.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Go home David Frum. You still don't understand economics...or much anything else.

  • ||

    Wow, you really deconstructed my argument. I guess I learned my lesson.

  • Juice||

    Ron Paul has said many times, any reforms he tries to make would be very gradual.

  • ||

    Gradually cutting the size of government by 40% in one year? Pull the other one.

  • Chupacabra||

    CUTTING GOVERNMENT?????

    OH NOEZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!

  • Juice||

    Cutting spending by 40% does not mean laying off 40% of the government workforce.

  • ||

    When you talk about wholesale department closures, it sure does.

  • Juice||

    The president can't just close cabinet level departments.

  • Suki||

    No, but he can take some boards and nails and hammer them cabinets shut.

  • Dave Anthony||

    Where were you when they gradually increased it 40% in one year?

    I can't believe that anyone is naive enough to believe Mitt Romney would do anything significantly different than Barrack Obama. That guy is bought and sold already.

  • Apatheist||

    Romney won't cut a dime and I don't support his warmongering either.

  • ||

    You keep saying this but offer up no support. What war has Romney waged?

  • Juice||

    Romney has repeatedly said that all war decisions would be deferred to generals and (yikes) lawyers. Generals have definitely waged a few wars recently.

  • ||

    He said "war decisions," not the decision to go to war. I think he said this because, I don't know, generals are more capable of waging war than civilian leaders. And yes, we have a few bad military leaders, but overall, they are the best in the world at what they do, and do not want to just waste American lives for their jollies.

  • ||

    You mean like Iraq? Are soldiers broiling in flaming HMMVs considered a waste?

  • ||

    People die in wars. It sucks, but it happens.

  • Juice||

    Romney said that he would go to war with Iran if crippling economic sanctions didn't stop their (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program. Actually, he said that first he would favor "taking out their scientists." How he would do that is a mystery.

  • ||

    He would probably do it the same way Obama is doing it, the one thing he has executed well since taking office.

  • Juice||

    Obama started a war with Iran and is assassinating Iranian scientists? This is news to me.

  • ||

    All of those "accidents" at their nuke facilities are a coincidence?

    Wow, talk about naive.

  • ||

    This is pretty lowbrow humor. Someone tell a Yakov Smirnoff joke to raise the level a bit.


    Kee-rist...

  • Gray Ghost||

    Exactly, Timon. This place's commentariat attacks the typical troll like a marlin after a squid.

    Jesus, ignore the troll. It's not that fucking hard.

  • Richard Stands||

    Maybe some of the scientists also have nice hair.

  • ||

    trolololololol

  • Ron||

    George W. Bush sat on the sidelines in 2006 when North Korea went nuclear. America somehow survived. A preemptive attack on Iran WILL start World War 3.

  • ||

    If you don't think GWB got China to keep the Norks in check then you are pretty naive. Besides, last time I checked, 50% of the world's oil didn't come from an area within NorKo's missile range. Iran is totally different.

  • Ron||

    GWB "got Chine to keep the Norks in check"? Was that before or after they lobbed test missles towards Hawaii?

  • ||

    If China wanted them armed to the point they could hurt us, they would be thusly armed. If China doesn't want them armed to that degree they will not be. Period.

    Kim Jong Il may have been a nut, but he was still smart enough to do what the Chinese told him to do and to not piss them off.

  • Ron||

    Yet the fact remains that North Korea joined the nuclear club, and we did nothing -- even as 28,000 U.S. troops *are* in range of those weapons. If you're afraid of starting World War 3, then why are you supporting candidates who want to continue a belligerent foreign policy that will do nothing but enrage Iran to the point where they have no other choice but to acquire nuclear weapons?

  • ||

    NorKo is the remora to China's shark. Why would we mess with it at the risk of enraging it's host. And in this case, it's host happens to be our biggest trading partner.

  • ||

    "50% of the world's oil didn't come from an area within NorKo's missile range. Iran is totally different."

    Thank you for your admission of what our foreign policy is all about.

  • ||

    Um, chaos in that area would grind the world to a pretty quick halt. Our foreign policy is all about preserving a little bit of sanity and security in the part of the world that's been run by lunatics ever since they stopped farming sand and found out they were floating on a sea of oil.

    Those people are like TE Lawrence said, "a little people. A silly people. Greedy, barbarous and cruel."

    Without us there, it's gonna eat itself and the rest of the world will suffer greatly.

  • Dave Anthony||

    Ah so your argument boils down into "fuckin' towel heads, we gotta keep killin' em to protect our awwll."

  • ||

    Holy Jesus...might I suggest a little less Larry of Arabia and more Wilfred Thesiger, who managed to be a bit less of a fancy imperialist "adventurer" and more of a human being trying to understand and assimilate to a culture not his own.

  • robc||

    If the cuts are less than 1T the first year, it isnt being cut reasonably. Honestly, Im not sure Paul's proposal is big enough to be considered reasonable.

  • ||

    Again, I agree there need to be cuts, and so does Romney. But cuts of that magnitude have consequences in the real world. Maybe in theory they would work, but you would literally destroy the world's economy if you did that.

  • Juice||

    I'll tell you this right now. No regular reader of this blog is ever going to vote for Romney.

  • ||

    I've seen some reasonable people on here that would dispute that. John and Tulpa come right to mind.

  • SIV||

    i lol'd

    A+++++++

  • ||

    This HAS to be a troll.

  • ||

    Somebody just can't stand to think there would be a conservative challenging their devotion to an ideology that cannot win this time around.

  • Chupacabra||

    Glad to see that the quality of trolls is improving around here.

    Bravo, Slapdick!

  • Coeus||

    Glad to see that the quality of trolls is improving around here.

    Bravo, Slapdick!


    I'm guessing Jim. The tulpa and john thing gave away a regular, and the writing style's similar.

  • tarran||

    I wonder if it's MNG doing his parody of a right winger.

    Remember when John said he wasn't interested in voting for Romney? They had quite a cat-fight over it.

  • Richard Stands||

    "...but cuts of that magnitude have consequences in the real world."

    Sorta like the 1.1 trillion they're overspending this year alone?

  • ||

    Promises to sort of kinda cut spending? Check. Maintain the Ginormous Federal Teat? Check.
    Saving the World for Freedom through National Offense? Check.

    Yup, Romney's your man, a true conservative.

  • ||

    He is going to shrink government. And once the economy improves, he can make deeper cuts.

    And defending the cause of liberty around the world isn't a bad thing. The hundreds of thousands of soldiers in our military who signed up to do just that know it is worth it.

  • ||

    Liberty?? Are you serious? You were doing so well, admitting that oil dictated our foreign policy and now this little gem.

    And the hundreds of thousands of soldiers sign up for various reasons, none of them being to die in a some shithole so that regional stability is maintained to ensure equal stability in the wonderful world of Oil.

    And it's offensive when people like you through out that little liberty card when the US is so very selective in who we decide to "liberate."

  • Brian D||

    And yet more of them donate to Ron Paul's campaign than any other. But what the fuck do they know, right?

  • ||

    I keep hearing this, but have yet to see it proven.

  • Ancapistan||

  • Ancapistan||

    proof

  • ||

    Sounds like you need to read some Bastiat my friend http://bastiat.org/en/twisatwi.....ing_troops

    (do let us know when your pet economic theories have caught up to the 20th century at least)

  • ||

    Have Bastait's theories ever been tried outside of a classroom? Then they aren't valid in the real world.

  • ||

    dear troll, no, I'd say that you are the one operating on mere guesswork; Bastiat is more of a Socratic logician of the old school. But by all means let me know precisely what "real world" controlled experiments you have done to incontrovertibly prove your economic hypotheses. I'll wait.

  • Dave Anthony||

    This is adorable. This comment is the equivalent of saying that gravity doesn't exist because we can't see it.

  • ||

    Oh, whatever. If you want to prove gravity, drop a rock from a window. You know, something real.

    If you want to prove an economic theory works, then it has to have been tried somewhere.

    P.S.: The difference in Bastait's economic theories and gravity go beyond the fact that one is proven and one is a mere classroom exercise.

  • ||

    Tony, is that you playing a right wing neo-con statist?

  • ||

    Go back to Red State or whatever shitty republican neo-con website you are from douchebag.

  • ||

    And Romney will continue to blow shit up, too! And look at his hair! He's just so...so Presidential.

    Again, an ~accused~ racist who will stop these lunatic wars has my vote over an assumed non-racist who has broadened our exploding solider/dead civilian foreign policy.

  • ||

    What war has Romney ever broadened? And yes, he will keep Iran from destroying Israel and starting WW3. That's the price we pay for being the beacon of freedom to the world. Sometimes we have to protect people from would-be psychopaths like the ones running Iran.

  • ||

    The Swiss are a beacon of freedom. We're a dull glow of backsliding totalitarianism, or was Obama just signing the Happy happy joy joy bill?

  • ||

    When the Swiss have the leading economy, technology and lifestyle in the world, give me a call.

  • ||

    When the Swiss have an insolvent financial system, 10 year wars they can't win and aren't on the verge of social collapse, we will give you a call.

    Ring, ring...

  • Juice||

    Uh, the Swiss do have a killer economy and lifestyle. They're no slouch in the technology department either.

  • ||

    They're also a tiny land-locked country, not the largest economy in the world.

  • Juice||

    The larger an economy becomes, the more the government of that country has to kill? I guess I'm not getting your argument.

  • ||

    The larger an economy becomes, the more the government of that country has to kill? I guess I'm not getting your argument.

    See his name. America (and by extension, his) is the largest and therefore most supreme dick.

  • ||

    No, but the greater level of responsibility that nation has to the rest of the world. To ensure the safety of the weak. To defend the nations whose neighbors would destroy them just because of their religion.

    Are we to be a beacon of freedom and liberty, or just a big, rich isolated nation that doesn't defend decency from aggression, be it muslim or otherwise.

  • ||

    Soon we'll be in the poorhouse because we'll never balance the budget with our military, so we won't have to worry about the defending the weak. We'll be as prepared as Greece to defend the world.

  • ||

    To ensure the safety of the weak? Like Rwandans? North Koreans? The Chinese? Saudi women? Egyptians?

    Beacon of freedom? Liberty? To defend which nations? To me it looks like we are mainly concerned with defending repressed peoples whose repressors 1) are connected in some way to Oil Production and 2) aren't our allies.

    To quote Buzz Lightyear, "Was I ever this deluded?"

  • ||

    Whatever. I'll leave you guys to your echo chamber. You don't want to have a debate. You just want to look into mirrors.

  • ||

    Come on, be honest. You weren't trying to debate. You were trying to annoy us all to tears with your silly tripe. Cause if you were trying to debate, you did a piss poor job of kicking it off.

  • Ancapistan||

    I don't remember reading that in the Constitution.

  • ||

    I see we're in a dick comparing contest now.

    Only the biggest can be the best, eh.

  • ||

    A country isn't a world leader until its soldiers are dying overseas in Freedom Missions. Take that, stupid Switzerland!

  • ||

    A country doesn't stand for liberty until they put their money where their mouth is.

  • ||

    Slappy, why don't you go put your dick where you want our money. I'm sure Iran will welcome your defense of freedom with their open bullets.

  • Chupacabra||

    A country doesn't stand for liberty until they put their [BOMBZ] where [TEH MUSLIMZ] are.

  • ||

    I said no such thing. But it's no coincidence that 95% of the oppression in the world happens in the name of Islam.

  • ||

    Oh, now we're fighting with percentages. That's a war no one can win, but need I point out Hindo atrocities in Kandahar, Chinese oppression in Tibet, Northern Irish ongoing fighting, the columbian drug wars, The Russian slaughter of muslims in Chechnia, the oppressive regimes in Myanamar and North Korea, the Hutu slaughter of Tutsis in Rwanda, the ETA in Spain, the Serbian christians killing Kosovo muslims, the persecution of black and white by Zimbabwe government. The list goes on, but those are just off the top of my head.

    So 95% eh?

  • ||

    Yeah, like saving Rwandans, and freeing the North Koreans.

  • Dave Anthony||

    What is a leading economy? They have GDP per capita about 30% higher than ours. So the average swiss person is richer than the average American by quite a large margin.

  • Apatheist||

    I'm going to stop in and debunk that Swiss GDP thing, they may actually make a slightly higher GDP per capita (I've never heard 30% higher) but the cost of living is ridiculously higher. I'll take a slightly lower income level in Texas any day.

    Otherwise continue on with bashing dickhead (even though you are probably getting trolled).

  • ||

    I was referring to Obama, Captain Combat.

  • ||

    Then I'm sorry. I thought you were talking about Romney.

  • ||

    You would be a huntsman fan...most of his fans are CHRISTIAN EXTREMISTS and the uneducated. Which, through your writings has proven your irrational thinking and horrid writing.

  • ||

    How am I a Christian extremist? What in the world makes you say that?

    Uninformed, bigoted statements like that make you look silly.

  • ||

    Maybe cause you kept harping on those evil moooslims and how Iran nuking Israel = WW3?

  • ||

    there was a troll around here in 2008 who was an ex employee of Ron Paul, maybe even campaign manager, who turned tailcoat on him. His (the trolls) highpoint was he got quoted on Tim Russert when it was Russerts turn to take down Paul.

    He was also a shill for Romney, just like slapdick.

    hmmm

    Eric somethin or other? Anyone remember what im talking about?

    anyone know

  • Yup||

    Sorry, but there are no second chances when your opponent is black.

    This.

    The libertarians should start pushing for a Gary Johnson LP run, because this one ain't gonna happen.

    This was very, very obviously.

  • Yup||

    ... doomed from the start.

  • ||

    Finally a voice of reason in a chorus of ignorant idol-worship. And a Johnson LP run would not hurt the Republicans too much. Romney should still be able to beat Obama.

  • ||

    Romney will lose like Kerry did. Hell they are both massholes.

  • ||

    Not likely. Obama has run the economy into the ground and he and the DNC sleaze machine will have no dirt on Romney to use in the general. On Gingrich, they have his post-Congressional shenanigans and on Paul he's got his isolationist views AND these racist newsletters.

  • ||

    And Bush was running a failing war in 2004, yet somehow won more votes. How little you understand of
    politics. Obama and Romney will be indistinguishable by the end of the race and only Obama fans will show up to vote. Kerry couldn't offer anything other than getting out of Iraq and even though it was a horribly unpopular war, people were scared to change leaders. Its the same, just replace war with economy.

    Hell, I wouldn't even be optimistic of Paul, except that he flanks Obama on two sides and can point out Obamas failures to both liberals and republicans.

    Once Romney's nominated, mark my word, the air will go out of this election and it will have the lowest turnout to date.

  • Juice||

    Kerry couldn't offer anything other than getting out of Iraq

    And he didn't even offer that!

  • ||

    Oh, and if only Paul were racist against muslims. That would have helped his credentials.

  • ||

    A failed war in 2004? Were you reading the same newspapers I was reading then? We were keeping the bad guys away and/or making them dead. And we had a booming economy.

    I'm not a fan of Bush. In fact, he should have never gone into Iraq. But calling the war "losing" in 2004 is pretty far off-base.

  • ||

    In 2004, the insurgency was in full swing, the bodies of Americans were piling up and the administration looked completely lost as well as duped when no WMD's appeared.

    So no, I wasn't reading The National Review.

  • ||

    Also, let's not forget lovely Abu Ghraib, a shining example of our behavior.

  • ||

    I'm so sick of this "no WMD's" meme. They were there. They were found. They used them in the killing of tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of their own citizens.

    And the bodies of our enemies were piling up a lot faster than ours were. We didn't start losing in Iraq until our media saw an opportunity to get their chosen guys back in charge by distorting how the war was being waged and the progress we were making.

  • ||

    You may be sick of the no WMD meme, but that doesn't mean its wrong. They concluded that the weapons they thought were being developed never were and Hussein basically pulled the wool over the eyes of an administration hair trigger happy enough to call his bluff. Bad for him, but it was still a complete and utter fuck-up.

    And Oh ho ho. We killed many more, so obviously we were winning the numbers game. Maybe we should have nuked it, then we could have really been ahead.

    I can play this game all night Slappy McDick.

  • ||

    Had we used a couple of tactical nukes, the war would have ended and the rest of that region would know we're not to be trifled with.

  • ||

    Had we used a couple of tactical nukes, the war would have ended and the rest of that region would know we're not to be trifled with.

    Ladies and gentlemen, do I need continue with this discussion? I think my opponent has conceded the point.

  • ||

    So you would have also preferred a land invasion of Japan? Jesus, sometimes using nukes saves lives in the grand scheme. And I'm not talking about taking out cities. More like a few selected military targets.

  • ||

    We had a land invasion of Iraq, but based on your concession below, I'll take the above comment as merely frustrated lashing out.

  • Gray Ghost||

    This shithead is comparing the IJA, circa July 1945, with the Iraqi Army in 2003 and y'all are taking it at face value?

    Well played, whoever the fuck you are.

  • Dave Anthony||

    So you're a racist who doesn't give two shits about killing poor brown people. Got it. Please go away now.

  • Fluffy||

    But calling the war "losing" in 2004 is pretty far off-base.

    The war was a loss if the benefits gained didn't justify the costs incurred.

    We gained nothing in Iraq that was worth even a fraction of the costs we incurred.

    The entire reason to destroy the neocon wing of the party is their refusal to acknowledge that.

    As long as they insist that the costs and benefits of the Iraq enterprise were balanced JUST FINE, it shows they can't be trusted. They might spend a trillion dollars and kill 15000 of our men to get a kitten out of a tree, or to clean up the litter in Central Park. They might do ANYTHING, because if they think the costs of the Iraq war were justified they obviously don't care about costs at all.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    Regardless of the ultimate neo-con revisionism, in '04 there was a huge anti-Iraq meme ongoing and Kerry couldn't capitalize on it, just like I think Romney will fail to capitalize on the poor economy meme (which I think is true, but only in retrospect will we see if we were right or not).

    That was the point I was making and one Slappy can't wrap his dick around.

  • ||

    I will concede you that point. It's just that the war was successful in 2004. It didn't get out of control until we overstayed our usefulness a bit further down the road.

    And I don't think we should have gone there at all. I thought I made that clear. My nukes comment was how we could have won the war, not what I wanted to happen.

  • ||

    Thank you for your concession. My entire point is surrounding the perception at the time, which from a general standpoint, was extremely negative and Kerry still lost, despite being on the "right" side of the argument. If Romney stays the course of incrementalism, despite being on the "right" side of the economy, I think he'll lose. Maybe not badly, but lose nonetheless. Frankly, I look at Romney and I just don't see the improvement over Obama, except maybe the repeal of Obamacare (which Romney can't even prove will happen anytime soon). I expect he'll continue to approve ever increasing budgets and probably try and salvage his presidency with red meat to the neo-cons/so-cons, arch enemies of libertarians. Thus, a Romney presidency would gain libs nothing while costing them ever more sympathy from independents if they voted for Romney.

    The only way I think Romney wins is if he picks a libertarian leaning republican for a vice president.

  • Metazoan||

    People dying for absolutely no reason = losing.

  • ||

    Funny that the families of almost every soldier that got killed wouldn't say their deaths were for no reason.

    And I know that sounds like the eggs/omelets statement, but in war there are deaths, even in the righteous wars.

  • ||

    Can you focus on any one argument at a time or do you feel you can only win the tangent discussion? Your attempts at dodging the issue are pathetic.

  • Juice||

    Sorry, no national sales tax for me, thanks.

  • ||

    So you prefer to keep the IRS?

  • Juice||

    Instead of a national sales tax? Yes.

  • ||

    Yeah, because a fair tax on everybody on what they consume is just silly.

    Jesus, every Libertarian I know is always going on about the poor paying no or little tax and that they have no skin in the game. This is your chance to get that changed and you scoff at it in favor of the terrible system we have in place now?

  • Juice||

    You won't hear me say that or see me type that.

    "Every Libertarian You Know" must not be that libertarian if they're complaining about people not paying taxes. "Skin in the game" is a phrase Obama uses, not libertarians.

    The system we have now is real turrble. A national sales tax would be 10 times worse.

  • ||

    Libertarians don't bellyache about the poor getting a free ride? Yeah, I know you guys want taxes lowered, but I always thought you still want them to be paid equitably.

  • Fluffy||

    Since the Libertarian Party platform calls for the abolition of the income tax, it's pretty ridiculous to claim that libertarians want the income taxes of the poor raised.

    The real motivation behind passing a national sales tax is to provide the federal government with a new income stream. It's not to make taxes more equitable.

  • ||

    Well I want the income tax to be replaced with a national sales tax so everybody pays taxes on what they consume, not on what they earn or produce.

  • Ancapistan||

    If that is the case then an amendment would be needed to repeal the 16th amendment. Of course that would never pass and thus a sales tax would only add more revenue into the government coffers.

  • ||

    Why is it impossible? Hell, tie it to a balanced budget amendment and it sails through.

  • ||

    You obviously don't understand how our political system works. Pleas tell the class which 2/3rds of the states + the house + the senate are going to pass a balanced budget amendment, much less repeal the 16th and replace it with a national sales tax.

  • Uncle Joe||

    I'm sorry.

    I only push libertarians who know how to say the word "principles" without their nose growing.

  • GoOftheGrid||

    Why are you posting at a libertarian web site if you are supporting the statist option? Wouldn't you be more at home at FoxNews.com?

  • ||

    So all you guys want is an echo chamber?

  • ||

    How about intelligent commentary?

  • ||

    And the only intelligent commentary is commentary that fits in with your ideology, right? Or do you mean incessantly bombarding threads with music and stories making fun of feminists? Or pictures of celebrities?

  • ||

    Que?

  • Gojira||

    Actually I'd like you to explain how nuking Israel would ipso facto mean WWIII.

  • ||

    Because I don't think Israel will stand idly by and be destroyed. They will retaliate. Then Pakistan will jump in, causing India to do likewise. It's all dominoes after that. It'll just take one shot by an Iranian warship to get us or somebody else in.

    That doesn't even take into account the war will spread to northern Africa and into Europe in pretty short order.

  • Gojira||

    The Pakis and Iranians aren't best buddies. Why would they jump in if Israel retaliates against Iran?

  • ||

    Jesus, Jim..There'd be fallout drift into Pakistan. And there would also be a heightened stance of the Pakistani military. That will mean heightened tensions on the Indo-Pak border area. And we've all seen what happens when tensions rise there.

  • Fluffy||

    OK, now I think this is a spoof.

    Nobody is this stupid.

    This is like saying that if Chad fights Libya, the Chinese might suddenly freak out and invade Russia due to "heightened tensions".

    Which would of course immediately make zombie Pancho Villa rise from the grave and invade Texas.

    Nice cockeyed scenario you got there, dumbass.

  • ||

    Well, the last time I checked, Chad and Libya aren't nuclear powers. Nuking someone makes the situation totally different. Not to mention that nuking a country for religious reasons is a different deal as well.

    And that whole region is full of loons that want to erase Israel from the map. Thinking an Israeli retaliation wouldn't broaden the scope of the war is pretty naive.

  • Brian D||

    But if we had dropped a couple of tactical nukes on Iraq a few years ago, all would be well.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I find it hard to believe someone using the name "Slapstick", would have a problem making fun of feminists.

    I smell a rat troll.

  • Gojira||

    And they knew to call me Jim.

    My money is on Epi.

  • Coeus||

    And they knew to call me Jim.

    My money is on Epi.

    If it is, he appears to be using your writing style. Double devious, or is this a red-herring post?

  • ||

    I have no problem making fun of feminists. I was just noting the hypocrisy in saying my commentary wasn't "intelligent" when a lot of the stuff on here is not even related to politics.

  • ||

    Then you sir are a fucking idiot.

  • Ru Paul||

    So where are all these racist newsletters? If they exist, surely Dr. Paul's detractors want to exhibit them. I actually subscribed to the Ron Paul Report for a number of years. It mainly offered financial advice (buy gold and silver) for those of us who didn't trust fiat money. I remember ONE issue (the one pictured, about racial tensions) that had racist comments, and I remember it well because I was shocked by it. It was unlike anything I'd ever read by Ron Paul, so I didn't think he wrote it, even back then.

  • Old Mexican||

    There is a small but growing number of politicians out there who share Paul's values without this godawful racist baggage[...]


    Don't be an idiot, Matt. Most of the stuff written on those four newsletters is mostly run-of-the-mill conservative stuff that can be considered non-PC, but racist? That's stretching it.

    Here's an open letter from a black American to every MSM so-called "journalist":

    http://www.dailypaul.com/19492.....-the-media

    A BLACK MANS TAKE ON THE RON PAUL LETTERS
    an open letter to his various critics in the media

    Unlike many Ron Paul supporters I don't duck from the allegations that Ron Paul is a racist based on his newsletters. I've examined them myself and find them repugnant. Given the writing style, I believe someone else wrote them. They don't match his prose and the contents are generally uncharacteristic of anything I find in his numerous books. I think that they show poor judgment on his part and he's apologized for their contents. I also feel that he knows the authors and out of allegiance, friendship or not wanting to ignite scandal he's decided to say very little about it.

    Let's assume that Ron Paul's news letters were handwritten by him and that his denials are 100% false. Let's assume that if this is not the case that he read every newsletter sent in his name and is aware of exactly who the author is. What exactly is the concern? Will Ron Paul's inauguration consist of him personally handing out white hoods and crosses marinated in kerosene? Will he use military force to round up everyone from Oprah to "that black guy" you saw earlier today to send them to slave camps. Will a man who believes in a limited executive branch single-handedly call for re-instituting Jim Crow laws? If he did, would anybody listen?

    Ron Paul's appeal doesn't come from the viewpoint expressed in those letters. His mandate, if elected would come from being the exact opposite of the ignorance and pettiness illustrated in those letters. Ron Paul's fans would be dumbstruck if the man they support condoned ANY of those ideas. Can we agree that a Ron Paul presidency consumed with eliminating $1 trillion of Federal spending, issuing a commodity backed competing currency and fully investigating the Federal Reserve would have its hands full? Pursuing his platform of limited government against a hostile bipartisan congress will be hard enough, why would he use his 4 year stint to bring back Jim Crow? Does anyone realistically think he would try to reshape America into some postcard of the antebellum south with black people working in cotton fields and white masters in palatial mansions? Really?

    You see, the first flaw in the argument that Ron Paul is racist is that it doesn't matter. Society has shifted. Despite their unsavory nature the letters are actually irrelevant. Even if they are his personal views the popular culture has evolved. One man in the white house can't uproot the past 100 years of race relations progress . Despite anything Ron Paul could say or do in office he couldn't use his mandate to change who we are. I have more faith in the American people. How quickly we forget that a majority of white people in America chose an unknown largely untested black man over a seasoned, white war hero in 2008. Four years is not enough time to fundamentally change who we are as a society. Americas political structure wouldn't permit Ron to create a "Racist States of America". Not within a 4 year term, even if he were 100% in favor of it.

    The second flaw in the Ron Paul critique is that his voting record doesn't support what is being implied. After 30 years in public office shouldn't we see a pattern in his voting record that is blatantly racist? Unfortunately for his detractors, we don't. Some votes were not in favor of issues sympathetic to poor blacks. Some votes were not in favor of issues sympathetic to rich whites. In the balance his voting record (which is how he actually MUST be judged) shows an uncanny bravery and consistency. Agree with him or not I can see a constitutional thread through every single vote he's cast. There doesn't appear to be a specific race bias but more a guiding principle of not permitting favors or handicaps based on belonging to a group. His voting records says that people should be free to make their own choices and governments cant legislate who you speak with, love or hate. If I disagree with him at least I know the foundation of my counter argument. The constitution. In an era where lobbyists determine congressional votes by bribery isn't it refreshing and a bit inspiring that no such bias exists with this man? Rather than demonize the man for newsletters why don't you in the media find a consistent strain in his record in public office against blacks, Jews, hispanics or any other ethnic group specifically.

    In addition to this I looked for a speech or presentation that contained racist rhetoric. Where is his Sally Kern style "..blacks are lazy" moment? Where is the moment where like Joe Biden, he says that "..."You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent."? Where is his outrageously racist quote similar to those we can find from Senator Byrd, Governor Wallace or even Hilary Clinton's now famous "Ghandi" quote? I can't even find a public Truman-esque "God does hate the Chinese and Japs" meltdown. With the way he's described I'd at least expect to hear something akin to the famous "...(God) created the white man. I know not who created the blacks" quote from Theodore Bilbo but I haven't found it. If Ron Paul is as racist as some in the media implies, I would think there would be a few Freudian slips from Mr. Paul. Yet there don't seem to be any that I can find.

    --------------

    There were many on the left who protested against accusations that Obama hated America due to his "spiritual mentor's" incendiary words. I think Barack's tolerance and support for Reverend Wright somewhat parallels Ron Paul's current situation. The views we support and our words do come back to haunt us. But should the possibility of his words alone disqualify Ron Paul? If we're going to judge Ron Paul in the history books as a racist, unfit to lead America in its darkest hour then is it fair for us to examine the words of others in the same light?

    Ghandi is the icon of civil disobedience. He was the face that inspired millions of Indians seeking independence from the British. But if he were judged by his views on race as the press is doing with Dr Paul he would be excluded from the pages of history as a be-speckled, calm loving pacifist. Ghandi was a outspoken racist when he lived in South Africa. He had a newsletter called Indian Opinion where he regularly presented his anti black rhetoric such as ...

    "...Why, of all places in Johannesburg, the Indian location should be chosen for dumping down all kaffirs (niggers) of the town, passes my comprehension. ...About this mixing of the Kaffirs with the Indians I must confess I feel most strongly. I think it is very unfair to the Indian population, and it is an undue tax on even the proverbial patience of my countrymen."

    Beyond his anti-black rhetoric Ghandi was also rumored to have a slightly deviant perspective with regards to sex. So let me get this straight. If I'm Ghandi I can basically call people niggers (kaffirs), sleep with young girls and still end up being admired by Martin Luther King, become an icon to every peace activist in the world and even get a spot on the Apple "THINK DIFFERENT" commercial. Sounds good to me. If we judge Ron Paul by his newsletters is it safe to say we should judge Ghandi by his as well? Or does the Ron Paul Rule not apply?

    We're taught that Winston Churchill was England's brave leader who kept the allied forces inspired with his words and deeds during WW2. Even though many Americans limited perspective of the British is gleaned from watching royal weddings, there are a good many that have learned that Churchill was a man to be admired. If we apply the Ron Paul rule to him however then he too must be disqualified from history as a racist deserving of scorn and not the leader we've been taught about. Churchill once said.

    "...I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place"

    Is it safe to say that Winston Churchill and Hitler agreed that there were superior and inferior races? It appears that what they disagreed on is who should lord over them.

    Abraham Lincoln is portrayed as the central hero in the emancipation of black slaves. A hero worthy of his own monument and face on the five dollar bill. However if we use the Ron Paul Rule we should also be told that he felt blacks were a lesser species and unfit for equality with whites? Wasn't Abraham Lincoln the one that said

    "... Your race suffer very greatly, many of them by living amongst us, while ours suffer from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated."

    Do you in the media ask us to denounce or disregard the words of these men? No and for good reason. They were imperfect men who espoused perfect ideas. As racist as Churchill was I'm happy that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the allies against Hitler. For as racist as Abraham Lincoln was and despite his reluctance to end slavery, he did influence the ending of that institution. Despite his attitudes towards blacks I will always have great respect for Mahatma Ghandi's sacrifice and heroism.

    Like these icons of our freedom and peace, Ron Paul's words deserve scrutiny. How one views the world will affect how they govern. Ultimately though, it is his voting record and public statements that are the criteria by which he should be judged. If we vilify Ron Paul we must by definition do the same with Ghandi, Lincoln and dozens of others who are imperfect individuals.

    Regardless of the views in those newsletters Ron Paul deserves the same respect afforded to Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden and Barack Obama. He's denounced the controversial contents. Let's move on. The words attributed to Ron Paul are no worse than the blatant racism of our accepted icons of virtue. For Ron Paul supporters, civil liberties, ending militarism and fighting against crony capitalism of the Federal Reserve takes precedence over these newsletters for good reason. If we're collectively shackled by debt or perhaps indefinitely detained for speaking our minds in what used to be the freest nation on earth the content of those newsletters won't really matter. In the final analysis, Ron Paul is an imperfect man with a nearly perfect, and very simple message.

    Freedom is popular.


    Indeed, it is.

  • ||

    TL/DR: I'm an Uncle Tom.

  • ||

    Freedom is tl;dr

  • ||

    Which is why we'll never know what's in freedom until we pass it. Duh.

  • Sevo||

    From the essay:
    "Unlike many Ron Paul supporters I don't duck from the allegations that Ron Paul is a racist based on his newsletters."

    I wish RP wouldn't duck identifying who wrote them.
    What ever 'friend' he might be protecting isn't a friend and RP's loyalty to a 'friend' raises questions about what he'd do if elected.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sevo,

    and RP's loyalty to a 'friend' raises questions about what he'd do if elected.


    I see - you would prefer a snitch.

    Got it.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I see-you'd prefer labels.

  • Sevo||

    'you would prefer an honest response.'
    FIFY

  • Old Mexican||

    No, you didn't. You want a snitch, A rat. A politician in the WH. Not a libertarian.

    Thank you for clearing that one out for me.

  • Joe M||

    Hey, libertarians support taking personal responsibility. If Paul didn't personally write those, he shouldn't have to take the fall for them

  • Shake||

    I see - you would prefer a snitch.

    I see - you would prefer that Ron Paul not throw your boy Rockwell under the bus. It is immoral for a politician to associate with and pander to lunatics (which Ron Paul continues to do with 9/11 Truthers, Birchers, etc.). The "no snitch" attitude is a recipe for corruption and a libertarian should be able to see that.

  • Old Mexican||

    * Ta-Nehisi Coates, in The Atlantic:

    Had I spent a decade stewarding an eponymous publication steeped in homophobia and anti-Semitism,


    Oh, now someone added homophobia and anti-Semitism to the mix.

  • .||

    Oh, now someone added homophobia and anti-Semitism to the mix.

    No, not "now" - it was alleged four years ago also. It's just that liberals don't consider those to be as egregious an offense as RACISM. If anything, the accusations of homophobia and anti-Semitism concerning the newsletters have more merit than the charges of racism.

  • Old Mexican||

    when pressed on the fact that he could just straight up ask the "six or eight people" who worked on the newsletters at the time to reveal who wrote the damned things, he said, after a silence, "Well, possibly, I could, but uh...."


    Typical beltwarian reaction: "Why doesn't he rat on his friends to save himself? I would certainly rat on Nick - fuck him!"

    With any luck, we could soon have a president who is just a bit more principled and loyal than Matt Welch. That would be quite a change, indeed.

  • Apatheist||

    If they were his friends he wouldn't need to rat them out, they would have done so themselves.

  • ||

    This. The friendship is clearly not mutual if they let him twist in the wind like this.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Apartheist,

    If they were his friends he wouldn't need to rat them out, they would have done so themselves.


    What.The.Fuck.For.?.

  • Apatheist||

    What kind of friend let's someone else take the blame for something they did?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Apatheist,

    What kind of friend let's someone else take the blame for something they did?


    A nasty one, Apatheist. Scum of the Earth.

    What kind of friend rats on you?

    We're not talking about friend A vs friend B. We're talking about a person, Paul, who's PRINCIPLED ENOUGH not to rat on a friend, regardless of what the otehr friend does - capice?

  • ||

    In that case they're not friends. Friendship is a two-way street or it doesn't exist.

    And aren't you claiming that there's nothing bad in the newsletters, anyway? If that's so then identifying the source isn't ratting them out at all.

  • Sevo||

    ^ yes.
    Both sides of the equation.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    In that case they're not friends. Friendship is a two-way street or it doesn't exist.


    That's not our problem, it's Paul's. Whether his friends are total assholes or not, the fact that he still shows some loyalty to them should be commended, not condemned. If you feel differently, then I am the luckiest person in the universe for I am not your friend.

    And aren't you claiming that there's nothing bad in the newsletters, anyway?


    Indeed. Which is why I am not the one asking Paul to abandon his principles.

    If that's so then identifying the source isn't ratting them out at all.


    Of course it is, if the lions are on the other side.

  • BC||

    Indefatigable loyalty to a nominal "friend" who leaves you to be the fall guy for his disgusting bigotry is not in any sense commendable or principled.

    What it is, is fucking stupid.

  • ||

    Whether his friends are total assholes or not, the fact that he still shows some loyalty to them should be commended, not condemned. If you feel differently, then I am the luckiest person in the universe for I am not your friend.

    The only way it would matter is if you're an asshole who will sit idly by while I get blamed for your shit, which makes me even more lucky not to be your "friend".

  • rofl||

    If someone in Ron Paul's cabinet was found taking bribes and killing prostitute, it would be unprincipled for Paul to rat them out! We need politicians willing to protect their buddies! It always works!

  • ||

    To be fair, that is a little bit different cause actual crimes were committed. Just sayin.

  • ||

    Among others, friends who have since died.

    (This might also explain the reluctance to place the blame on said friend.)

  • Sevo||

    "(This might also explain the reluctance to place the blame on said friend.)"

    Nope.
    He's spent years apologizing for the news letters. He can easily apologize for 'defaming' a deceased 'friend'.

  • Sevo||

    "Typical beltwarian reaction: "Why doesn't he rat on his friends to save himself? I would certainly rat on Nick - fuck him!"

    Could be, but if he's elected, does he owe allegiance to supposed friends over effective governance?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sevo,

    Could be, but if he's elected, does he owe allegiance to supposed friends over effective governance?


    Your question makes no sense, sevo. Those two things are not mutually exclusive.

  • ||

    When your friends are scoundrels they are.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tulpa,

    When your friends are scoundrels they are.


    And Paul is not. He contrasts well by comparison.

    Instead, Obama used the assorted leftist scoundrels as stepping stones and quickly forgot them when expediency dictated. How are thing with a guy like THAT on the job, huh?

  • rofl||

    And Kwame Kilpatrick in detroit brokered a bunch of back-room deals and "exclusive" contracts for his friends - look how that turned out for them!

  • rofl||

    And Kwame Kilpatrick in detroit brokered a bunch of back-room deals and "exclusive" contracts for his friends - look how that turned out for them!

  • Sevo||

    "Those two things are not mutually exclusive."
    --------
    'Mr President, does this press release threatening war with X represent your actual policy?'
    'Well, uh, I didn't write that press release.'

    OM, if you are in charge of an organization with the power of the federal government, you cannot afford to hide the mistakes of 'friends' and hope nothing will happen.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sevo,

    'Mr President, does this press release threatening war with X represent your actual policy?'
    'Well, uh, I didn't write that press release.'


    You seem to be so keen on showing your pigheadedness, Sev. First of all, Paul writes all of his speeches. Do you think he would not at least read a press release before releasing it? That would be his FULL TIME JOB.

    Instead, he was practicing MEDICINE, FULL TIME, when the newsletters were being published.

    OM, if you are in charge of an organization with the power of the federal government, you cannot afford to hide the mistakes of 'friends' and hope nothing will happen.


    Normally, people who make mistakes resign or are made to resign - all them time. Your suspicions are misplaced, sev. Give it up.

  • ||

    Never mind what Ron Paul says; this is why we libertarians need to make sure we're not associated with racism.

    We're quick to make fun of other people who wrongly paint us as racists--if only we were quicker to condemn the real racists we sometimes see among us.

    We'll only be successful to the extent that we're able to buck the perception that libertarians are essentially racist, and the very best way to buck that perception?

    Is to be openly hostile to racism.

  • ||

    Is every decision in your life based on what will make people like you? Because all your policy decisions seem to be based on that.

    We went to war in Libya to make the Arab Street like the US.

    We damn Ron Paul to make people like libertarians.

    We don't say cunt to avoid people not liking libertarians.

  • Sevo||

    Tulpa|12.20.11 @ 7:25PM|#
    "Is every decision in your life based on what will make people like you? Because all your policy decisions seem to be based on that."

    False equivalence.
    No, my decisions are based (mostly, I hope) on principle.
    Principle has been violated in this case.

  • ||

    Sevo = Shultz?

  • Sevo||

    Nope, and I stand by the statement.
    I'll also listen to disagreements.

  • ||

    I think it's worse than that.

    This may be as close as we'll ever get to having a libertarian in the White House, and whatever chance we might have had with that shot is probably blown--because of some stupid racist shit some idiot wrote in the name of libertarianism...

    And Tulpa thinks we shouldn't care if the general public perceives us as racists? Should we not care about what people think of the Drug War and freedom of speech too? Is Tulpa aware of why Reason and Hit & Run exist? What it is that Gillespie, Welch and company do for a living?

    I point out that the best way to combat the perception that we're racists is to actually, like really, in reality, for reals, be hostile to racism--and Tulpa thinks I'm just talking about perception?

    I'm not advocating tricking people into thinking we're not racists. I'm advocating really truly not being racists--and being hostile to racism.

    You'd think Tulpa would see a difference there--but no. Not even past first base.

    I don't think Tulpa's a racist--but why would you criticize someone for encouraging their fellow libertarians to be hostile to racism?

    I think it's just to be contrary. There's no good reason to argue against hostility towards racism.

    Oh, and God forbid the Arab Street think we don't really want to support vicious dictators in North Africa. Is that what I'm supposed to say? God forbid we actually help--for reals, in reality--the Muslim world topple their own dictator for themselves and make Al Qaeda's tactics look ineffective by comparison--because that might make the Muslim world think we care about what they think?

    And we can't have that!?

  • ||

    Does the Muslim world think better of us because of Libya? I've seen no evidence of that. What we do know is that there are many innocent Libyans who are decomposing underground now because of our choice to intervene.

    The much-ballyhooed cost-benefit analyses you're constantly referring to are taking place in your head, not in the real world.

    As far as the current situation goes, yes, we should be hostile to racism. But going to the extent of rooting out and damning every racist we uncover? Meh, I don't have the energy. If expressions of racism become impossible to ignore (as in this case) then yes, someone has to be held accountable. But that's true of any false belief, not just racism.

  • ||

    Your life decisions, based on your posts, seem to revolve around blowing people up who might not like you.

  • ||

    Um, WHAT? You talking to me or Shultz?

    If you're talking to me, you've got to be living in the bizarro world. I'm the one who's against blowing people up to help our popularity.

  • ||

    My mistake, too many neo-con articles read lately.

  • ||

    If you think RP is racist you are severely mistaken.....You all praise Lincoln and Ghandi who were DEVOUT racists...Meanwhile RP has said nothing that makes hima racist. He's stood up against police brutality in low income areas and much more...Before you post such a ridiculous article I think you should do some research.

  • Apatheist||

    More failed reading comprehension from a Paultard. How does the saying go? Love the Paul, hate the Paultard.

  • ||

    I don't think Ron Paul is a racist.

    I do think he has pandered to racists in the past.

    I'm not sure I buy that he didn't know what was being written in his name, and even if he didn't? He should have.

    This isn't the only time I've seen him pander to some group or another. Pandering is what all politicians do--it's how they get elected. But I've seen him pandering in the past, and I've seen him pander to other (non-racist) groups in recent years, too.

    So, no, I don't think Ron Paul is a racist, but I do think he panders. Pandering is something he does a lot of, and I suspect that he was pandering to racists in those newsletters for donations way back when.

  • Paul||

    in which Paul says (among other things) "they have to dig these things up that they really can't pin on me, because they've been disavowed," and then, when pressed on the fact that he could just straight up ask the "six or eight people" who worked on the newsletters at the time to reveal who wrote the damned things, he said, after a silence, "Well, possibly, I could, but uh...."

    I'm in a place where I can't watch the video, but I'm confused about this language in the post.

    Who said he could just ask the six or eight people that wrote the newsletter? Paul or the interviewer? And who said "uh, well I could", Paul or the interviewer?

  • Matt Welch||

    Sorry, bad writing -- interviewer asked why not ask those people, and Paul said "uh."

  • rsi||

    "Mike|12.20.11 @ 7:27PM|#

    If your name is on the outside, be damn well sure you know what is on the inside."

  • DK||

    It was actually a very good question made by the interviewer since Paul brought up the "six or eight people" himself. The problem the interviewer had was that he didn't allow Paul to finish his "Rick Perry twist in the wind answer". He cut him off far too soon.

  • Mike||

    If your name is on the outside, be damn well sure you know what is on the inside.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Mike,

    If your name is on the outside, be damn well sure you know what is on the inside.


    Yes, because it's not like saying actual racist things yourself. Nope, that won't count. It's having someone else's prose that damns you for life - according to the Beltwarians.

  • Mike||

    If you are going to have someone write for you or in your name, be sure you approve of what they are writing. It would have save Ron Paul a lot of problems.

  • Examples||

    What other examples of this sort of thing occurring can you name? I've never heard of an individual consenting to put their name on literature which wound up containing racist (not "un pc," but unambiguously bigoted) content.

    And if it did occur, I would think that most reasonable men would do all in their power to disown the content immediately. Was there a retraction printed in the following newsletter?

    He was pandering to the worst in humanity, or he actually is a bigot. Either way, it's pretty obvious he's not the guy.

  • ||

    Saying that "95% of blacks in DC are criminals" back in the early 90's, while stupid and grossly inflated, wasn't necessarily untrue.

    And if he's not the guy cause he's allegedly bigoted then who the fuck is? I mean, I'm by no means a Paultard, but come on. Obama went to a racist, America hating church for 20 years. Lincoln thought we should send all the blacks back to Africa. Band Aid recorded the most racist, paternalistic, condescending song ever written and it gets played all the time every year at Christmas. We don't vilify any of them, but Paul has his name on a few newsletters with unsavory statements and he's immediately unelectable trash?

  • Sevo||

    "If your name is on the outside, be damn well sure you know what is on the inside."

    And if something does slip by, you ought to make a pretty clear statement about how that came to happen.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sevo,

    And if something does slip by, you ought to make a pretty clear statement about how that came to happen.


    Asked and answered. Don't try so hard to practice pigheadedness.

  • Sevo||

    OM, you missed the part about "pretty clear statement".
    'Well, some other people wrote that' might get by you (and me), but we've both got a pretty strong confirmation bias here.
    Max ain't a representative voter, but Max's one trick needs a definitive response since some portion of the voters will buy it.

  • ||

    Mike, I think that goes without saying.

    But the charge by Matt Welch is racism and racist baggage, not negligence.

    Does anyone believe Paul wouldn't love to take these back if he could?

    I appreciate all the commentary, but I doubt many of the people commenting, or in the media, or folks like Welch will have 1/1000th the effect on the world or libertarianism that Paul has had.

    And he's caught a lot of shit for that, to have people judge him because they couldn't resist a comment form anytime they see one.

    That's not to say Paul is above reproach, but honestly, who has done any better? Does anyone factor in the man's career when they attack him for stuff that most people just don't give a shit about.

    Oh sure, the beltway crowd cares. They exist in a bubble of superficiality and compromise. To them, appearance is everything.

    Even Welch barely chokes out that he can stomach this racist baggage because kids are dying. Funny, because to me, some non-pc stuff written in newsletters 2 decades ago is meaningless compared to the wholesale mass murder of brown people by the American state. It's a clear moral distinction for me.

    But wait, morals aren't aesthetic, and might not be PC...

    I suspect, to the average american, these newsletters aren't even a 1/10 on the Herman Cain adultery scale. If anything, it might endear him even further with the white-wing.

    People like politicians with controversy. That's why no one gives a crap about Gary Johnson. Bland presentation, passionless delivery, watered down ideas, shifting principles.

    Just the sort Matt Welch and I presume, Reasonoids like Mangu-Ward, can get behind.

  • Maxxx||

    I suspect, to the average american, these newsletters aren't even a 1/10 on the Herman Cain adultery scale. If anything, it might endear him even further with the white-wing.

    That's utter bullshit and it is exactly the mentality that led Paul down that rabbit hole in the first place.

  • ||

    Really want to read the article, but can't get past the headline without thinking "Buggrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!"

  • ||

    I think everything Ron Paul has said and done speaks more than some member of his team 20 years ago when not a politician.

  • Old Mexican||

    Other Reason commentary at the time from (in order) Nick Gillespie, Jesse Walker, Radley Balko, Brian Doherty, David Weigel, Balko again, Kerry Howley, Weigel again, Jacob Sullum, and Doherty again. Plus there were some other links-roundups back during those two weeks.


    And the defense from a libertarian against the Beltwarian pogrom:

    http://takimag.com/article/why.....z1h7rR0mcx

  • ||

    "we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males people in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

    It IS DC after all. politicians aside, the residents are assuredly in violation of some law, justified or not.

  • ||

    And Reason is part of the beltway...

  • .||

    Would it have been better if the figure used was 10 percent? At what point does it become racist - or is it racist just because it's a derogatory comment about black males?

  • .||

    Some black males.

  • ||

    It took you TWO MINUTES to correct yourself. RAAAAACCCCCISSSSTTTTT!!!1!!!1!!

  • ||

    As a Paul supporter I felt that this article was fair. You will probably get some nasty comments for even bringing it up though. Paul is not a racist, anybody who knows him knows this.

  • ababababa||

    If you read these quotes in their original contexts, it will completely alter your views about this whole issue. The quickest way is to read Justin Raimondo's "Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul". When I hear "taken out of context" as a defense, I usually call bullshit immediately, but I was actually shocked at what Reason did here. And all because their sugar daddy got in a catfight with Rothbard a quarter century ago. For shame.
    (Raimondo URL below)

    http://takimag.com/article/why.....z1gsGerboi

  • ||

    That's your idea of putting everything in context? Calling critics of the newsletters names, brushing off racist stereotypes like "fleet-footed" as a compliment when you think about it? Next.

  • Shake||

    Taki and Raimondo themselves have written the same kind of racist, paranoid, anti-American shit that's in those newsletters. All they can do is call people names.

  • ||

    "we can safely assume that 95 percent of black males in [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

    Well in all fairness 99.9% of white people living in Washington DC are entirely criminal.

  • Some dude||

    Why doesn't some journalist do some investigative reporting to find out who wrote the newsletters?

    It could be a good scoop.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Paul should have said "libertarians are far less likely to be racist", which is true. He also could have said "libertarianism is incompatible with racism", which is also true.

  • ||

    We could fill phone book sized volumes with things that Ron Paul should have said.

  • ||

    Look, Paul's answers to the newsletters have not been good, so strategically this is a failure, but look at his compiled record of all he's said and done and can anyone really think he's a racist. Its patently obvious he's not and none of his policies have reflected on that.

    Then compare that to openly racist Michele Bachmann and her fear of muslims or Perry and his camp name. Listen, if those are serious people that can have their issues wiped away because of their positions, Paul deserves equal.

    This is all libertarian handwringing at this point. If you made your peace with it in 2008, then it doesn't mean anything. If you can't bring yourself around, well, it was nice having you on the team, but good luck finding a suitable candidate.

    The republican party often chides libertarian purity and how they should just get on the damn boat and stop the liberals, well Paul's the chance to get on the damn boat. If you can't handle a few yucky comments made to Texas idiots (of whom I know way too many), have fun in the forest. I'm sure we'll all meet again if the campaign collapses.

    That's all that needs to be said.

  • Fluffy||

    Looks like it's another four years of not sending Reason any money, not subscribing, and spending all of my time trying to drive your readers away by posing offensive and hostile comments for me.

  • Commenter||

    "offensive and hostile comments for me."

    FUCK YOU!!!

  • ||

    spoof, I'm assuming.

  • SIV||

    In case you didn't know Will Wilkinson is the biggest douchebag in the whole world:

    One obvious difficulty with this line of reasoning is that Ron Paul will never be elected President of the United States, and has about as much chance of ending the drug war as I do. He is little more than a symbol for a set of ideas—ideas his complicity with racism has tainted in many people’s minds, whose prospects he may have damaged. I want to end the war on drugs, therefore I’d rather people not associate that idea with Ron Paul.

  • ||

    Nah, Will has alot of competition.

    He's a tool to be sure, but douchebag of the year usually goes to someone more neo-conish.

  • SIV||

    Is there now any doubt about why Stormfront and KKK folks are supporting the Paul campaign?

    Steven Horwitz wants to be the #2 douchebag but I haven't reread Timothy Sandefur lately so it might be a contest.

  • ||

    25% of Iowa is KKK. Damn, didn't realize their popularity had grown so much.

    How big's the Illinios Nazi's. We're definitely going to need them on board...

  • Gojira||

    Wasn't the famous Skokie Nazi/Klan march in Illinois?

    I'm willing to bet you've got plenty of them.

    God knows they were thick on the ground where I'm originally from, in far southern Illinois.

  • ||

    A point could be had for Paul if he forces them off the bridge Blues Brothers style. Now where can we find a '76 Dodge Monaco?

  • Coeus||

    Campaign commercial for Paul/Johnson '12:

    Both are sitting in the front seat, Paul turns to Johnson and says...

    PAUL: I'ts a hundred and three miles to Washington. We've got half a pack of cigarettes*, the only alternative to massive federal government overreach, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses.

    JOHNSON: Hit it.

    *cigarettes should bring in the Cain vote

  • .||

    Is there now any doubt about why Stormfront and KKK folks are supporting the Paul campaign?

    Didn't some of those guys support Obama in the last election?

  • ||

    What I love is this idea that his newsletters have somehow tainted us as the dreaded "R" word. Um, we are against subsidies, big government spending, and entitlement programs (I know those are all really the same thing). We get labeled as racists every time we open our mouths about cutting medicaid or welfare.

    That's not to say that the stuff published wasn't incredibly stupid to put out into the world. But come on.

  • nj||

    Everything this issue comes up, it just shows how much of a coward Lew Rockwell truly is. How can he let a supposed mentor/friend burn for his words?

  • nj||

    *everytime

  • Mr. Pedantic Pants||

    "Every time". There is no word, "everytime."

  • Fluffy||

    I tend to think it was probably Rothbard. The prose is enraged but strangely ornate, in a Rothbardian voice.

    And if it was Rothbard, they'll let the whole country burn down before they admit it. They probably think that would damn libertarianism for all time, because they (falsely, in my view) identify Rothbard and libertarianism as one and the same.

  • nj||

    No doubt, Rothbard was involved. This is classic Rothbard, but if Rockwell silence is deafening and his betrayal of a friend is beyond cowardly.

    At some point, if Paul ever wants to have a chance at winning this thing, he needs to name names. He needs to understand how much harm Rockwell is causing to the ideas he has promoted for much of his life. Too much is at state here.

  • nj||

    *stake

  • ||

    The problem is that Lew Rockwell (the site) is the heart of Ron Paul's movement. And the Mises Institute. Outing Rockwell and/or Rothbard will create problems very close to home.

    It should be done, of course, because FUCK THOSE GUYS. Rothbard irreparably damaged the LP, and he has likely done the same to Ron Paul.

  • ||

    Look Rockwell and Rothbard are and were both racist nuts. Libertarianism will never be taken seriously by most people until those two are purged.

  • Uncle Joe||

    Like they should give a shit what the likes of you think about it.

    True libertarians have principles, and aren't interested in being accepted by others like a bunch of politically correct pussies afraid of losing non-libertarian friends to sip martini's with, like some others apparently are.

    There are people who will never accept libertarianism, for what it stands for. FUCK THEM.
    Others know and accept what it really stands for, and they don't give half a shit about the newsletter canard the way the likes of Reason does. They've got principles consistency to worry about, instead of sucking up.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Like we should give a shit what you think.

    Real libertarians have principles, and they go against racism. We're not interested in sipping Cognac with racist neo-confederate paleo-assholes.

    Rockwell and Rothbard are a cancer of the libertarian movement. They and more importantly their thinking must be amputated.

  • ||

    Ayn Rand wasn't exactly a perfect model of humanity either, dude.

  • ||

    Along with all the slave owning Founding Fathers, I suppose.

    You don't have to be a saint to have good ideas. (not that I'm a Rothbard devotee by any stretch)

  • Fluffy||

    Rothbard is also dead, and can't defend himself. I don't see Paul giving up someone who can't speak in their own defense any longer.

  • nj||

    Fluffy,

    Rockwell is still alive

  • Fluffy||

    What I'm saying is that Rockwell probably didn't do it and Rothbard probably did.

    Read Rothbard's essays and then look at the prose here. "Pissed off" plus "baroque".

    I bet you could prove it using one of those computer programs they use to identify the different authors of the Pentateuch. The stylistic markers are pretty close to the surface here.

    I've read a lot of Rockwell's blog and it just doesn't sound like him. The anger does, but the prose doesn't.

  • nj||

    Well, Rockwell may have not written many of those pieces, but he clearly embraced the strategy. Just dig up the Rodney King article from him.

  • Jerry||

    Try to match it up with what Rothbard wrote on David Duke back then: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html

  • nj||

    Yeah, I remember that one. Eck

  • ||

    That's crap though. He rips on Woodrow Wilson and criticizes Ronald Reagan frequently, so why is Rothbard immune?

  • nj||

    Tulpa,

    Because Rockwell worships Rothbard. It's a fucking cult. They should do the world a favor and just rename the Misses Institute to the Murray Rothbard institute.

  • Gojira||

    "The Murray Rothbard Institute of Hebraic and Talmudic Studies"

  • Spanky||

    "Rothbard is also dead, and can't defend himself. I don't see Paul giving up someone who can't speak in their own defense any longer."

    Exactly. A loyal, old-school guy like Paul would gladly sacrifice to protect a dead friend and mentor. Rothbard's authorship of the offensive quotes would make sense out of Paul's and Rockwell's otherwise baffling responses to the controversy.

  • Fluffy||

    Who would be surprised that Wilkinson is a douchebag?

    If you add up everybody who used to write for Reason who is a huge douchebag, you could field a pretty decent baseball team of douchebags.

  • ||

    Libertarians couldn't field a baseball team. No one would be allowed to coach.

  • SIV||

  • He's Right||

    I'm vastly more conservative than Wilkinson, but the guy's right. 100% right.

    Ron Paul is not the savior, nor is he ultimately electable. Particularly not when 76 years of age and running against a black president.

  • SIV||

    What does "black" have to do with it Mister racist?

  • .||

    What does "black" have to do with it? That's obvious even to me. If he were to run against a white president, do you suppose allegations of racism would be nearly as much of an issue? I don't.

  • Audrey the Liberal||

    What's wrong with being a (sane)feminist?

  • Fyodor Kuzmich||

    Ron Paul is not racist. But even if he was, he would be better than every other Republican Candidate, and better than Obama.

  • Sevo||

    OM, you seem to be so keen on showing your pigheadedness:

    "Normally, people who make mistakes resign or are made to resign - all them time."

    Unless they are protected by someone with power and a certain confusion about the differences between competence and friendship.
    I'm tired of government run by 'friends'; I'd like to see government run as least as well as any government can by judgments made on the basis of competence.
    I don't want to see incompetents rewarded (yes, protection is rewarding them) on the basis of cronyism.
    I'm (pretty) sure RP would do so, but he really should make it clear to those who have questions.

  • Fluffy||

    BTW, this story ended about four hours ago. CNN covered it, MSNBC covered it, CBS covered it, and then they dropped it.

    The story only continues tomorrow if dumbass cat's-paws like Welch keep it going because they want to squeeze in one more word about what Paul should do.

    Just shut up about it.

    You know who Gingrich is talking about today? Romney.

    Gingrich and Romney still want to fight each other. Just LET THEM DO THAT, and stop trying to get the last word in on this newsletter shit.

  • ||

    Last I knew, Reason was not an arm of the Paul campaign. You know who can end this story, or at least put a serious damper on it? Ron Paul, and/or whoever wrote the newsletters. If they can't bring themselves to do it then you shouldn't expect an independent journalism organization to censor themselves.

  • ||

    Tulpa, its been said, its been done. Can't we move on?

    Really, I think this is so much more of a libertarian circle jerk than anything else. Libertarian (small l's) are making up more and more of the population so that eventually people will realize painting with this side swath of newsletters is just dumb.

    There's pretty much no reason to continue with this story. Nothing new ever will come from it.

    And we understand you won't support Paul and we're not going to convince you otherwise.

  • ||

    I support him to some extent, it's just that he has no chance. Too many skeletons like this.

    If I could wave a wand and make one of the candidates the next president, it would be him. No question. But it don't work that way.

  • ||

    Does it forward the discussion to talk about his chances this late in the game. We can't wish for a team full of Yankees when its the 7th inning and we're fielding the Cleveland Indians.

    No offense to Indians fans. Fuck the yankees.

  • Gojira||

    If Paul released a newsletter praising CFLs to the high heavens and castigating bums who eat in parks, Tulpa would totally be on board.

  • Fluffy||

    I think he'd also have to come out against food trucks and in favor of cops being able to use the disorderly conduct statute to arrest anyone who says "Ni".

  • Joe M||

    Put in something about not being perpendicular to traffic and you've got a winner.

  • ||

    I'd be on board with THOSE newsletters. Well, actually my issue is with the feeders rather than the bums, but close enough.

    It wouldn't make me excuse the racist crap.

  • Gojira||

    Hmm. What if it was phrased like this (forgive my language):

    "A bunch of shiftless niggers were feeding bums in the park today, and handing out anti-CFL literature."

  • ||

    That would raise a red flag.

  • ||

    That would raise a red flag.

    OWS is somewhere around?

  • ||

    They must be the bums!

  • ||

    Tulpa, its been said, its been done. Can't we move on?

    Are you going to move on from Romney's MassCare programs?

    Are you going to move on from Fast and Furious?

    Are you going to move on from Gingrich's Fannie & Freddy advocacy?

  • ||

    Umm, Tulpa,

    Of those things, MassCare is a legitimate question of what Romney wanted to put forward as legislation and Fast and Furious was a program that killed people and nobody is coming forward to take responsibility.

    I'll concede Gingrich's Fannie and Freddie advocacy if it had been a one time thing, but given his continued odiousness in policy and rhetoric, I don't think I'm about to get on board with a Gingrich presidency.

    Ugly newsletters that hinted at no policy and just made digs that ugly texans found charming somehow don't raise to same level of concern as budget killing policies and people killing policies.

  • ||

    Paul wasn't a politician at the time, so policy prescriptions wouldn't have been expected.

    I'd say that arming your family in expectation of the coming race war is a pretty strong equivalent of a policy position, though.

  • A Texan||

    Ugly newsletters that hinted at no policy and just made digs that ugly texans found charming

    You got alot of brass to be accusing anyone else of bigotry or racism, whoever you are. (Sound like Joe Boyle from Lowell.)

  • Apatheist||

    Um the newsletters were sent largely to Texans who if they liked that racist shit were pretty ugly. That doesn't mean that he was accusing me (also a Texan) or you a racist.

  • Sevo||

    Lost_In_Translation|12.20.11 @ 8:38PM|#
    "Tulpa, its been said, its been done. Can't we move on?"

    Yes, "we" (reasonoids?) can, but "we" don't get people elected.

  • ||

    Nope, we don't, but we can agree that either we're on board or we're not and end this ridiculous fence sitting/hand wringing.

    I forgive Paul. There.

  • Fluffy||

    Unless Welch is concern trolling (which is always a distinct possibility) the subtext of this article appears to be a desire to see this issue put to rest.

    If he really wants it put to rest (and if he's not "secretly" just delighted to put a "Foul Ron Paul" story into the stream here) all he has to do is shut up.

  • ||

    Reason hasn't shut up about any other candidate's problems. Why should they do so for Paul?

  • ||

    What are Paul's policies? Is there concern that he'll be rounding up the blacks for finger printing? Or is this simply an episode of horrible PC judgement that really has no reflection on what a Paul presidency would mean. I'm pretty much entirely inclined to believe he latter.

  • ||

    Then unless you think President Romney will push for a national health care program with individual mandate, you need to shut up about MassCare.

    Either "errors in judgement" are fair game for criticizing every candidate or none.

  • ||

    Perry has spent most of the election bringing up Masscare. I think its just a terrible failed program. Right now Romney has way more negatives than that.

    Still better than Gingrich AND Tebow!

  • sasob||

    Then unless you think President Romney will push for a national health care program with individual mandate, you need to shut up about MassCare.

    He wouldn't have to push for it - we already have one. And I have little doubt that if he thought it expedient to do so, he would support it - regardless of election promises.

  • Sevo||

    Fluffy|12.20.11 @ 8:42PM|#
    "If he really wants it put to rest (and if he's not "secretly" just delighted to put a "Foul Ron Paul" story into the stream here) all he has to do is shut up."

    Do you really think that sweeping the issue under the carpet on H&R is going to have any effect on Average Jane voter?

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure this post is sufficient to finish any discussion unless new information comes to light.

    I don't fault Matt for his summary, but I do hope Reason moves on. There's little to be discussed anymore that is relevant to a Paul nomination. Let the MSM concern troll against Paul.

  • Fluffy||

    No, what I'm saying is that the mainstream press gave this stuff three minutes today and then shrugged. There's even less coverage than there was in 2008.

    And the other candidates don't want to talk about it right now, probably because both Romney and Gingrich are more worried about each other than they are about Paul.

    That means that the 2012 edition of the Ron Paul Newsletters scandal can only keep going if the blogosphere decides to keep it going.

    Welch can contribute to keeping it going, if he wants, or he can NOT contribute to keeping it going.

    His choice.

  • ||

    Agreed.

    I'm not done arguing with Slappy McDick above though.

  • Fluffy||

    But I guess it's fair that you want to stir the pot, Tulpa, since if your boy Romney is the nominee I will spend a substantial portion of my day shitting all over him with anything I can come up with.

    24/7 between the convention and the election.

  • ||

    Oh no, not that!

    It doesn't matter to either campaign what you or I or anyone else here write in the comments section. Sorry.

  • Fluffy||

    I didn't say it did.

    I bet you won't like it, though.

  • ||

    You haven't exactly been holding back so far, so I'll probably manage.

  • Sevo||

    Old Mexican|12.20.11 @ 8:02PM|#
    "No, you didn't. You want a snitch, A rat."

    Definitions missing.

  • guy in the back row||

    But until then–God help me–for one of the first times in memory, I'm eagerly awaiting the next few weeks of American presidential politics. And that is because of, not in spite of, Ron Paul.

    Agree 100%

  • nj||

    The amusing thing is seeing establishment conservatives/republicans go crazy over this. It just exposes them as hacks.

    This is the party of the southern strategy. Not a day goes by where some major republican/conservative commentator doesn't say something off the wall offensive. Do magazines like the National Review really want people to dig up their archives from 20 years ago?

  • ||

    You forgot to post the defining article on the racist newsletter smear.

    http://takimag.com/article/why.....z1h81XUo3D

    If the link is removed, Google:
    Takimag Ron Paul smear

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    At the risk of sounding like a ----ing Johnny One-Note, how can these 1980s newsletter be career-killing when Obama did the same thing? In 1996 (when Paul was first answering accusations about the newsletters), Obama's campaign staff returned a filled-out questionnaire for a state legislative position. The position said Obama wanted to ban handguns. Obama's excuse - he didn't write it and it didn't express his views.

    http://bit.ly/w3hSaT

    The questionnaire was filed on his behalf and was intended to express his views to the electorate. And we're expected to believe that he misspoke and unintentionally conveyed views that weren't his own?

    And he can't use Paul's excuse - he can't say the questionnaire is inconsistent with his entire record. This is an administration which ran guns to Mexico under circumstances indicating that they were planning to blame "gun violence" for their own wrongdoing. This is a guy who thinks that gun-rights people are bitter clingers.

    Would you rather have someone like Paul who insults black people but recognizes their right to keep their guns, or someone like Obama who speaks glibly about racial healing while supporting the traditional white-supremacist policy of disarming law-abiding black people and stripping elderly blacks in high-crime areas of their means of self-defense?

    And as long as we're going there, what were Paul's rivals doing in the 1980s. Newt Gingrich was accusing the Speaker of the House of ethics violations while giving a young woman a seat on his staff. Romney was buying up companies and helping them shed excess workers. Obama, eschewing the politics of false choices, was using cocaine *and* marijuana.

  • ||

    Romney was buying up companies and helping them shed excess workers.

    Streamlining a business, what a scandal!

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    I'm thinking of the political liabilities. For instance, I don't think less of Obama for smoking reefer, for example, but it's something a lot of voters don't particularly like, much less the snortable stuff.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    And Romney would like to do to businesses what Obama is doing to MJ users - despite their personal experience in these respective fields of activity.

  • Sevo||

    Eduard van Haalen|12.20.11 @ 8:31PM|#
    "At the risk of sounding like a ----ing Johnny One-Note, how can these 1980s newsletter be career-killing when Obama did the same thing?"

    Because Obama is *always* going to get a pass on issues that 'outsiders' are going to get hit with.
    RP represents the possibility of a real change in DC politics; millions, not to say billions of dollars are riding on it. BELIEVE me; those who stand to lose are going to use *every* eye-gouging, nut-kicking, rib-busting tactic they can to keep the status quo.
    Which is *exactly* the reason RP needs to do better than 'someone else wrote it'.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    He could say "I'm very sorry, I should have supervised the content of my own newsletters." It was a bad thing, no point blaming someone else.

    What surprises me, though, is that this is the worst they could find in his political closet. I hope go God there's nothing else there - but surely it would have been found by now! It's not as if anyone is covering up for him - either in the MSM or in the libertarian and right-wind media.

  • Sevo||

    Yes, he could and can say something like that, but I'm still not happy with someone who sees 'friendship' such that he's willing to protect/reward such incompetence.
    It's fine in a bar-buddy, but we're talking about a president.

  • ||

    Sevo, protecting a friend expressing retarded ass views is totally different than protecting a friend who did something illegal.

  • Spanky||

    One of the Weigel articles conjectured that Lew Rockwell probably wrote some or all of the offensive passages in RP's newsletters. I have not closely compared the newsletters with Rockwell's acknowledged writings, but what I've seen of his interviews and articles on LRC makes me a bit skeptical that he was the culprit.

    I've often wondered if Murray Rothbard wrote some of the racially charged crap in the newsletters. Yes, a crazy theory (and inconsistent with the repeated calls by some libertarian insiders for the culprit to confess), but hear me out...Rothbard was one of America's great 20th century libertarian scholars and activists. Paul and Rockwell have (justifiably) huge admiration for the guy. Both would probably go to great lengths to protect Rothbard's legacy. If Rothbard wrote some of the offensive passages in the newsletters, Paul's and Rockwell's stonewalling about the identity of the author starts to make more sense.

    Anyway, I am just wildly speculating here; I have no idea what really happened. I have great respect for Paul, Rockwell, and Rothbard as advocates for liberty, and it pains me to see them all dragged into the mud by some spectacularly stupid and callous misjudgments made decades ago.

  • nj||

    Of course, Rothbard wrote some of that racially charged crap. Paleolibertarianism was his baby ( and Rockwell's). They dragged themselves in the mud.

  • SIV||

    "Paleolibertarianism" is polling at 15% nationally and leading in the Iowa GOP contest. "Cosmotarian consequentialism" is hoping for tenure in some 3rd tier Econ department or getting fired from Cato for being the world's Greatest Douchebag.

  • ||

    Smear campaigns such as these presented as fact really show that reason has very little credibility in the field of serious journalism, and I'm not even a Ron Paul supporter.

  • ||

    I would hardly call this journalism on behalf of Reason. The OP is rife with opinion.

    Reason produces decent content when they interview someone interesting, but most of the writers at Reason, like Welch and Mangu-Ward are noteworthy only because they have the position, not some particular ideological merit or engaged audience.

  • SIV||

  • Fluffy||

    That article is from 4 years ago, but you know why that Sandefur guy is a brain-dead cunt?

    Because he lacks the fucking basic self-awareness to realize that he's damning Paul because he may have written a handful of scurrilous lines in these newsletters...while the masthead of his blog, and the piece itself, lovingly quotes a man who OWNED BLACK PEOPLE AS SLAVES AND WHO ROUTINELY RAPED THOSE SLAVES HE FOUND ATTRACTIVE.

    So, to recap:

    Owning and raping blacks = Sandefur worships you.

    Maybe you once wrote that black teenagers run faster than elderly white people = Sandefur hates you and can never ally with you politically, ever.

  • SIV||

    It's 4 years old because that's when the story broke.

  • Colin||

    Paul's response is total bullshit.

    For years he puts out this racist newsletter and never once reads it? Not once? None of his family or friends ever read it? Rand never read it?

    Please.

    The truth is he published them when he thought he was out of politics for good, when he thought he was free to tell like it was.

    He even defended the newsletters back in '96 until they became a political liability.

    He's a liar, and a racist.

  • ||

    It's quite possible that he was not involved in the publishing at all, but just rented out his name to his "friend". But we need to hear this from him, not me, because frankly I don't know.

  • Sevo||

    "He's a liar, and a racist."

    Until RP does some real housecleaning, we're going to get this from the ignorati.

  • Fluffy||

    Fuck you Colin, you little retard.

    Have you read every newsletter?

    They came out for several years.

    Based on the total amount of content published in the various newsletters and the amount identified in these pieces as offensive, it would be really easy for Paul to have read the newsletters regularly and not seen these pieces.

    Or do you think the guys who write checks to Welch are aware of it every time I (rightfully) call you a cunt?

  • ||

    If those passages are so obscure and hard to find, how did Paul's enemies find them?

  • ||

    He may be a liar, but nothing says not racist like ending the drug war...

  • Hobie Hanson||

    Drugs are destroying the African American community. To abandon them to that fate by ending one of the few policies aimed at helping minorities is the epidemy of racism.

  • Nebula Awards||

    Stop submitting your "work".

  • Sevo||

    The hell with the work; it's the conclusions that suck.

  • .||

    "epidemy of racism"

    Spelling isn't too wonderful either.

  • ||

    Hey Hobie, you epidermis is showing!!

  • ||

    No, the Drug WAR is destroying the African American community. But I know you are a long time retard so that concept might be hard to grasp.

  • nj||

    Sandefur really is a horrible human being. This is the same dude that attacked Kevin Carson.

    As far as sins goes, his continue support of the Iraq war and war on terrorism ranks pretty high.

  • nnnnnnnosaer||

    Why did you put the word "animals" (and nothing else) in quotation marks when claiming that Paul called black people "animals"? If plain-spoken old Dr. Paul did anything approaching "calling black people 'animals'", why not quote more than 1 consecutive word of this incriminating document? Why wouldn't you write the exact "vile" and "juvenile" words Paul used?

    "In the context of a discussion about Paul's alleged antipathy to blacks, he writes that a “June 1991 entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, ‘Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.’ ‘This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,’ the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter’s author—presumably Paul—wrote, ‘I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.’”

    As James Fulford points out, however:

    “People seem to think that he was calling blacks ‘animals.’ This was actually the Mount Pleasant riots, the largest in DC since the 1968 Martin Luther King riots, and it was immigrant Hispanics rioting against the African-American city government, so that’s not what’s going on here, it’s just a normal headline like ‘Inmates Take Over Asylum.’”

    But what matters the color of the rioters’ skin? Are we not allowed to say what is, or must fear reduce our language to strings of euphemism? Is every word to be examined and measured in terms of its political correctness quotient?"
    (above quoted from Justin Raimondo article)

    It almost looks like you intentionally gave an inadequate, 1-word quote to prevent Paul's actual words from muddying up the true objective here: making Paul look racist. It almost looks like willful misrepresentation, or lying.

  • ||

    Who was the other side in the race war going to be, in your interpretation of that document?

    Whoever it was, was referred to as "animals".

  • SIV||

    That reminds me, I need to go buy some beer and a Mega-Millions ticket. Just one ticket though, I'm not an innumerate animal.

  • Max||

    What a fine Soviet aparatchik Matt Welch would have made.

  • Max the Puppy||

    ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!

  • Sevo||

    Folks, for you enjoyment, allow me to introduce our talented pony!
    Folks, put your hands together for MAX!:

    Max|12.20.11 @ 9:11PM|#
    What a fine Soviet aparatchik Matt Welch would have made.

    Oh, shit. Where's the trainer!? He promised me that Max had learned something other than shitting on stage!

  • Mr. Mark||

    Make presidential pay $250 million per year.

    That's $1 billion for a 4-year term, $2 billion for consecutive terms.

    Attract better talent.

  • LuLu Rockwell||

    Why would he need to disavow his great libertarian newsletters? Even if he didn't write them, his "6-8" staff members were/are all great libertarians who continue to be great libertarians to this day. It's a shame that cosmosexuals continue to smear the # 2 living libertarian in the world and his associates, some of whom are almost entirely responsible for the existence of modern libertarian views.

  • ||

    video proof Ron Paul is a racist ..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMQmInReYlI&feature=g-all-u&context=G230984eFAAAAAAAAAAA

  • ||

    If Obama's name was on a few Kill Whitey newsletters, would this board be as forgiving? If so, fine. If not, how is this nothing but team ball you guys are always bemoaning?

  • SIV||

    Obama went to a fucking "Kill Whitey!" church for 20 years. Nobody brings that up anymore excepting maybe Sean Hannity.

  • U R Wright||

    God damn Sean Hannity!

  • ||

    I almost thought that you were the real John.

  • Brian D||


    ABC News Distorts Ron Paul Event in N.H.

    Well, it's just a blogger on the ABC News website, but the blog is apparently an egregious misrepresentation of what actually took place. The comments of that blog seem to support that, and the blog post itself sees to have been edited since it was initially posted.

  • Brian D||

  • SIV||

    God Bless the JBS

  • LuLu Rockwell||

    Yes

  • ||

    I have a few questions for the Paul defenders. Suppose Paul didn't know about what went into these newsletters.

    1. When did he first find out their contents?

    2. When he did find out, did he disassociate himself from the people who wrote them?

    If he didn't, then isn't that at least a partial endorsement of their contents? This stuff is pretty bad. Suppose all of us started the Reason Commenter newsletter. And we wrote all of this great libertarians stuff. Then one day I showed up and started writing stuff about how the darkies were ruining America and were subhumans. Wouldn't you guys kick me out of the group? I would hope so.

  • ||

    We haven't kicked Libertymike out yet.

  • ||

    That is because we aren't publishing a newsletter. If what Paul's defenders on here are saying is true, that Paul didn't know the contents of the newsletters, then when he found out about it, it should have been a big deal. If I found out that someone was publishing this stuff in my name, I would kick their ass and they would never work for me again. Is that what happened?

    I am asking because I don't know.

  • ||

    No one does and Paul doesn't care to talk about it.

    Given all the shit the other candidates spout publicly, I'll just thank my stars that we even got a flawed candidate like Paul.

  • ||

    Sorry but "they are just as bad" isn't an excuse. I have never paid a lot of attention to this. And I always figured Paul had a good defense. But from reading this thread, it appears he doesn't.

  • ||

    Paul's defense is his actions over his words. I wish he'd fucking apologize and be done with it, but he doesn't. However, his actions over 3 decades of service show him to be pro-everyone, regardless of race. If they at all spoke otherwise, he wouldn't have made it out the gate of any election.

  • SIV||

    I remember the newsletter story breaking 4 years ago. It sounded horrible. Then the few offending passages turned out to be no worse than talk radio. Ron Paul isn't running for the chair of the UC Berkley humanities department.

    A simple "I didn't write that, I don't believe that, it was unfortunate and wrong that was published in a periodical with my name on it" should be (and is) enough of an explanation.

  • ||

    To be fair SIV, a little "I apologize to everyone that such trash ever got published" would be nice.

    But really the only people that probably care about it are us. Everyone else just sees Paul as another sleazy politician they choose between.

  • SIV||

    What struck me 4 years ago is how much faculty and think tank "libertarians" hate liberty and it's unwashed, unschooled proponents. I'm willing to work with those assholes to get somewhere but they don't want to have anything to do with it. See Wilkinson's total disdain for "Constitutional fetishism" for example.

    They wouldn't really want to cut the size, spending and power of government if it has a "disparate impact".

  • ||

    IF he didn't write it, then how did his name get on it? that is the answer I want.

  • SIV||

    "IF"?

    Seriously?

  • ||

    His newsletter was always a contributor fed publication, he rarely wrote anything in it. He was supposed to be the editor, but we are supposed to believe he didn't check what went out. I can believe that, but its still a stupid, stupid mistake.

    I am pretty much 100% positive he didn't write it based on the fact he didn't write much of anything in it at any time.

    He shouldn't have put his name on the newsletter though.

  • ||

    I should clarify to say it was ghostwritten, not contributor fed. Basically, colleagues apparently trying to help keep his name out there kept up the publication while he was out of office.

  • Travis Barker||

    Eat shit and die, LiT. Get out of here with your rethuglican bullshit.

  • Travis Barker||

    Everyone knows this site and all the people who post on it are just water-carriers for the rethuglican establishment. At most your all a bunch of "useful idiots".

    Ron Paul is the absolute worst of the entire field. He says he wants to give people freedom but he really only cares about fredom to starve to death. None of the other rethuglicans are talking about cutting out welfare entirely because they know ppl will starve!

    There can be an honest debate about reforming entitlements but if you want to stop it alltogether your either actively malicious and want people to die, or so stupiid you think the "free market" will magiclly produce food on the table of low-income families.

  • SIV||

    F-

  • JoJo Zeke||

    He says he wants to give people freedom but he really only cares about fredom to starve to death.

    Tony's sock is concerned.

  • ||

    1. Don't know, probably never will

    2. Don't know, probably never will

    I imagine he was probably ticked at those that wrote it, but Paul is one loyal sonofabitch. I don't like it and if you presented me with squeaky clean lib-repub candidate #2 and we could take a mulligan on this primary, I'd jump on it in a heartbeat. Given you don't have one and we can't, I'm stick with Paul and hope he atleast rochambeauxed the offending staffer.

  • ||

    I am sorry. But this is pretty nasty stuff. I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on it being published without him knowing about it. But I have a real problem if he never did anything about it or won't come out and say who wrote it. If he is protecting some racist bastard, fuck him. He might as well be racist himself. He needs to come clean and explain how this happened and what he did about it. Otherwise I have no choice but to conclude that is actually how he thinks.

  • ||

    Ok John, well I don't really have anything that can change your mind. If his policies which would help the minority community (by reducing the scope of the drug war and ending wars that get our minority filled military killed and promoting policies against crony capitalism that impacts minority business oweners) aren't enough, then its all over.

    The head of the NAACP didn't think Paul was a racist, but I guess these newsletters say otherwise. *Shrug*

  • ||

    I don't know that he is a racist. But Jesus how can you just shrug this off? This is a real problem. This crap was published in the 1990s. How can anyone in politics have allowed it to be published in their name and then not have any explanation or apparently have done anything about it? That is fucked up.

  • ||

    John, I shrug it off because there isn't anything else to do about it and I can't see it as a make or break. Nobody likes this shit, but if I've got to pick a horse in this race, I'll take the one that has 99% of the policies I agree with and 1% of some old, mean spirited newsletters he may or may not have cynically approved to get votes.

  • ||

    I could blow them off if he were honest. Hell, I could blow them off if he said "yeah, I thought that at the time but I was wrong". My problem is his handling of it. The total lack of any explanation. That pisses me off. What else is he not going to explain? If Paul is going to effectively go tell me to fuck myself when I ask about this, why does he deserve my vote?

  • ||

    He doesn't deserve your vote. None of hem do. They're politicians, which means their soul is in probate somewhere.

    But for some reason, we have to elect one of them to lead us (or you can write in fluffy (aka twuntwaffle)).

    Its a nasty business politics and brings out the worst in people. Fuck Paul for not being honest with me, but I'll give him my support.

  • ||

    To me this is kind of like Romney and Romneycare. If Romeny came out and said tommorow "yeah we fucked up. Romeny care was a stupid plan", I could probably vote for the guy. But the fact that he won't do that even though everyone's lying eyes say that it is a disaster, tells me Romney is a crap weasel who won't admit fault and can't be trusted.

    Here Paul has these embarrassing newsletters and he won't admit any fault or take any responsibility or offer any explanation. That says bad things about him.

  • ||

    So Paul is no worse than Romney. He's no angel (something I wish the Paultards would stop claiming).

    John, its your prerogative to stay home on primary/election day and drink yourself into a stupor. As Americans, we've earned that right. But if you can swallow the bitter pill of those newsletters and vote for Paul, I'm pretty sure he won't disappoint (atleast from a congressional head exploding standpoint).

  • ||

    LiT, your take on this is pretty funny given the hell I've taken on this board for supporting Romney as a fallback candidate. "The lesser of two evils is still evil," the principled libertarians scolded. Again, and again, and again.

    And now we're down to "Paul is no worse than Romney".

  • ||

    Because Romney enacted actual fucking legislation. Paul has his name on some stupid newsletters that say some pretty stupid shit. The two are not even close to equivalent.

  • ||

    They were published in the 80's and early 90's. I'm not sure if you remember, but that time period wasn't exactly a shining beacon of race relations. Apparently the comments weren't a big deal in 1996 when he was elected to Congress. And he has explained it and apologized for it on at least one occasion. Just cause it's not to YOUR satisfaction mean exactly dick.

  • Johnny Cosmos||

    1. When did he first find out their contents?

    - When he deposited the checks?

    2. When he did find out, did he disassociate himself from the people who wrote them?

    -No. The staff are either close Paul relatives or work for LRC, LvMI, and similar "libertarian" places. They hang out, go to the Tonight Show together, and so on.

    He's not going to name names anyway, but especially not when the author/authors are his good buddies who will probably work for him when he is President.

    I've also seen speculation they were written by that one dead guy who some libertarians worship. You know, the one who praised Black Panthers in the 60s and then wanted to appeal to racist rednecks in the 80s/90s. But I think it's that other guy that some libertarians worship- the one who's still living, and/or dudes that work for him.

  • Johnny Cosmos||

    Re: # 1.
    Plus, Ron Paul's campaign manager ( I think he has managed every Congressional campaign or in some way worked for or been contracted by Paul his entire political career), Mark Elam, owns the publishing company that printed the newsletters. That was revealed and I believe he admited as much in one of those articles from back in 2007=2008.

    So, Ron Paul heads up the company. His family members and Lew Rockwell ( former staff member, long-time friend and associate) are excecutives/employees. I think Jeff Tucker and some other guys from that group worked on them, also. Someone said Blumert was the "money guy" whatever that means. And Paul's longtime campaign manager printed the newsletters. But Paul had no idea what content was going out under his own name in the first person with references to his personal life?

    AND, back in 1996 he said his campaign people told him he had to take responsibility for the words? Maybe because "his campaign people" wrote the words and made a lot of money off the Ron Paul name and continue to do so currently?

    I don't know if he is careless or just easily taken advantage of

    OR he was aware of a strategy to raise funds based on political pandering to racists by using language he wouldn't normally use to appeal to nuts. Which seems likely considering he supposedly worked for Pat Buchanan and his other buddies, supposed free market libertarians or anarcho-capitalists or whatever they call themselves these days, and gay libertarians ( back in 1987-1988 one of the guys who bashed reason/cosmos over the newsletters opposed Paul for the LP nomination and called him an opportunistic pro-war homophobe) for Buchanan? Did they think they were jumping on a winner or just trying to make some money? I don't know.

    Then you have Paul's open associations with various complete nutjobs like prominent Christian Reconstructionists.

    I don't know if Paul is a libertarian who associates with nuts or a nut who associates with libertarians.

    But I support him for President.

  • The Thinking Man's NASCAR||

    To answer your questions, to the best of my knowledge:

    1. I think he found out about them in 1996 when they were used to attack him in a political campaign

    2. Well, it seems likely he did disassociate himself from whoever wrote them, since he dissolved Ron Paul and Associates.

    Fair enough?

  • Mike||

    I thought these essays had been pretty definitively pinned on a Democrat operative from his district who weaseled his way onto the Ron Paul newsletter staff while RP was taking a break from politics. Am I the only one who has heard of that?

  • ||

    Mike,

    Yes, you are the only person that's heard that. Paul stonewalls questioners on the issue.

  • Apatheist||

    I haven't and I find it hard to believe that a Dem operative wouldn't have been thrown under a bus for it years ago.

  • Apatheist||

    I haven't and I find it hard to believe that a Dem operative wouldn't have been thrown under a bus for it years ago.

  • ||

    Paul obviously should not have allowed things like that to be published under his name and I completely and utterly condemn that newsletter and those behind it.

    Ah wouldn't those behind it include Paul? His name is on the newsletter.

  • ||

    At this point, with no information forthcoming, you either have to take Paul at his word, or condemn him and find another candidate. Its pretty much like that.

    I'll take him at his word and let it go. We've all said, done stupid shit. Paul apparently slacked on his editing and let this go out under his name. Bad Paul.

    Can't accept that explanation. Well I guess your flirtation with Paul is over.

  • ||

    How can you take him at his word when he offers no explanation of how these things were published or how his name got on such shit?

    I have a newsletter with his name on it that says a bunch of nasty shit. That is not the end of the world. There are lots of mitigating things that could be true. Maybe he didn't know it was published in his name. Maybe he thought that stuff at one time but has since repented. I don't know.

    But I think he wants to be President he owes the country a full explanation. Not being forth coming is just telling everyone to fuck off. And you can't do that.

  • ||

    I take his word because I have no alternative. I don't have a phone line to Paul or a candidate to switch allegiance to. Its pretty much the only option on the table and its not bad enough that I just give up on electing a libertarian at all this year.

  • ||

    What if they found a dead body in his back yard. Would you take his word on that too? Why does anyone have to just take his word on it? No other politician gets such deference and nor should they.

  • ||

    John,

    A dead body, really? Old, mean spirited newsletters are equivalent to a possible murder? Do words hurt that much.

    I've probably called fluffy worse terms on this blog that those newsletters called blacks. Maybe that will come back to haunt me in the future, but I'd hope people would look past it and at I really stand for.

  • ||

    It will be a badge of honor. And I don't mean to imply it is murder. It is not. But the principle is the same. We have this damaging piece of his past. And he refuses to offer any explanation.

  • ||

    Granted, calling fluffy a twuntwaffle might get me elected dictator for life, but only because he knows its done with love.

    Anyway, I'm just as frustrated as you John, but Paul's chosen his tact on this issue and while it pisses me off, it pisses me off less than the actions and words of the other candidates.

    We don't get to pick our perfect candidate John, so we're left with whoever decides to show up.

  • ||

    Team Paul rah rah?

  • Johnny Cosmos||

    What about NOT taking his word and being pretty disgusted by it all, but still considering him the only major party candidate at least somewhat worthy of support?

  • Lewis H.||

    And they tell me this isn't a Republican blog.

  • ||

    Oh come on. If Gingrich had done this, they would be all over him. what are they supposed to do? Ignore it?

  • ||

    Gingrich called Palestinians non-people. Give it a few decades and I'm sure that will come back to bite him. Probably won't change the minds of Gingrich fans however.

  • ||

    I am not voting for Gingrich either. Now about Ron Paul.

  • ||

    My point was Gingrich fans like Gingrich's policies (or atleast what they thought were his policies). If they think his comments reflect on his policies, they may change their minds. If they think his comments were off the cuff bouts of frustration that don't effect what he would do as president, then they ignore them.

  • ||

    Then Reason should report on what Gingrich said and report on what Paul said.

    If what Gingrich said is truly worse than what Paul said, then that's a net gain for Paul. No self-censorship needed.

  • Sevo||

    Lewis H.|12.20.11 @ 9:48PM|#
    "And they tell me this isn't a Republican blog."

    Lewis H's mom swears Lewis H has a brain.

  • Lewis H.||

    arguing over which Republican to vote for sounds like something Republicans would do.

  • Sevo||

    Lewis H.|12.20.11 @ 10:04PM|#
    "arguing over which Republican to vote for sounds like something Republicans would do."

    Yes, Republicans would do that.
    Slept through the classes on logic, did you?
    You seem to pop up with stupid comments often enough to suggest so.

  • Lewis H.||

    if it walks like a Republican, and talks like a Republican, well, it's a Republican.

  • Sevo||

    Lewis H.|12.20.11 @ 10:16PM|#
    "if it walks like a Republican, and talks like a Republican, well, it's a Republican.

    So you DID sleep though logic.
    Your Mom is lying to you; you have no brains.

  • ||

    Let me break this down for you. Ron Paul is a libertarian. Gary Johnson is also a libertarian. Gary Johnson is probably going to seek the nomination on the Libertarian ticket. Ron Paul is seeking the nomination on the Republican ticket because the fucking idiots in this country don't vote for a third party. If it was just a free for all with no parties they would both run independently.

    There are some people on here that comment and are more red than white (coincidentally I nominate this as the libertarian color cause it is the absence of pigment. or we could go with black since it is the absence of light particles. I will let the commentariat decide). There are also some people that comment on here that are more blue. This in no way means that the site leans one way or the other. At the end of the day the vast majority of us are for smaller government, no matter which way we post.

  • Max||

    Aside from being a racist birchite piece of shit, Ron Paul looks like Grandpa in Texas Chainsaw Massacre. What on earth is old fuck's great appeal to his zombie followers?

  • Sevo||

    Sevo|12.20.11 @ 9:51PM|#
    Folks, for your enjoyment, allow me to introduce our talented pony!
    Folks, put your hands together for MAX!:

    Max|12.20.11 @ 9:59PM|#
    Aside from being a racist birchite piece of shit...

    Oh, shit. Where's the trainer!? He promised me that Max had learned something other than shitting on stage!

  • ||

    What was that you said about vermin shit?

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, you're right. Max is definitely trying for a place in the pantheon.
    OTOH, ignorant as Max is, he only poops on RP threads, not every one.

  • ||

    There's a tendency for some people to embrace anybody in an argument who takes their side. That's how RP manages to have so many defenders of this ridiculous stuff, because they're just happy to have a candidate that shares their political philosophy. The problem is, Paul isn't going to advance the Libertarian philosophy but instead keep it on the fringe because normal people aren't willing to buy his bs excuses for articles like the ones mentioned in a newsletter that carried his name.

    Anybody that thinks otherwise is simply deluded. And if you're happy living with that illusion then good luck but you're not working towards real political transformation. You're just entertaining a fantasy.

  • ||

    I will ask the same question I asked above. If Obama's name was on a bunch of kill whitey newsletters would anyone on here buy these excuses?

  • Max||

    It may be that many posting here are themselves racist birchite pieces of shit.

  • Sevo||

    Trainer! Get your ass out here and take this piece of crap back to the barn!

  • .||

    What do you have against the John Birch Society, Max? What are you - a fucking commie?

  • ||

    I m getting so tired of people who blame the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on President Obama. He did NOT start those wars, Bush did. The only war that began while Obama has been in office is the brief war with Libya.

    Moving on... Ron Paul once invited a neo-Confederate, a member of "League of the South" to testify in regards to the Federal Reserve. The whole article in here, worth reading if you want the truth about him: http://www.splcenter.org/blog/.....-congress/

  • Sevo||

    Alexandra N.|12.20.11 @ 10:06PM|#
    I m getting so tired of people who blame the Iraq and Afghanistan wars on President Obama. He did NOT start those wars, Bush did..."

    So, of course, Nixon is perfectly innocent of any activities in Viet Nam, right?
    Did you sleep through the same logic classes as Lewis?

  • Max||

    What? No reply to the attack on your racist hero, you simpering little cock sucker?

  • Sevo||

    No, dipshit, your pony crap isn't worth anything other what you got.
    You're a loser who can't come up with anything other than you've been parroting since I've first seen you.
    Polly want a cracker?

  • Max||

    Fuck you, you sucker of Ron Paul's racist cock.

  • Sevo||

    Max|12.20.11 @ 10:40PM|#
    "Fuck you, you sucker of Ron Paul's racist cock."

    Gee, Max, that's the most intelligent post you've made!
    Congratulations on proving your ignorance; I couldn't have done it better.

  • ||

    He continued the war in Iraq until Bush's timeline said he could leave. And obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan. He owns it.

  • Apatheist||

    Yes, the Southern Poverty Law Center..... hmmm nope I'm not going to give the webpage of a bunch of bigoted race baiting jackasses a single view.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and from the, well, maybe, sorta (not) neutral SPLC link:
    "In addition to his position at Loyola, DiLorenzo is a senior faculty member of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, a hard-right libertarian foundation"
    My goodness!
    Fail.

  • Lewis H.||

    Well, Mises sure ain't no bastion of progressive values.

  • chris||

    Number one progressive value, people are a means to our ends.

  • Sevo||

    Lewis H.|12.20.11 @ 10:21PM|#
    "Well, Mises sure ain't no bastion of progressive values."

    Yes.
    It's actually a bastion of trying to improve the lot of mankind, as opposed to "progressive" lies and murderous proclivities.
    You are an ignoramus, aren't you?

  • Max||

    Fuck you, Sevo. Fuck you up the ass, sideways, with a cactus. I hate you, and I will always hate you. I will not be reasonable, I will not have a logical debate with you, because you are so fucking stupidly fascist, it would be impossible.

    I will only ever respond to you with hate and venom from now on. Everytime you post and I see it, I will come ruin your thread and shit on your parade. Enjoy it, kochsucker bircher piece of shit scumbag.

  • Sevo||

    Max|12.20.11 @ 11:04PM|#
    "Fuck you, Sevo. Fuck you up the ass, sideways, with a cactus. I hate you, and I will always hate you."

    That isn't surprising. Ignoramuses called on bullshit tend to be irrational.
    ------------
    "I will not be reasonable, I will not have a logical debate with you,"

    Pretty much a given.
    ------------
    "I will only ever respond to you with hate and venom from now on. Everytime you post and I see it, I will come ruin your thread and shit on your parade."

    And that would be a change from? You're really Rather, aren't you?
    ---------
    "Enjoy it, kochsucker bircher piece of shit scumbag."

    Stuff it up your ass, internet tuff gai.
    You deserve what you've gotten from me and ten times worse, asshole.

  • ||

    AFAIK, none of the newsletters advocates killing blacks, or any other minorities for that matter. False equivalence much?

    Now if Obama had his name on some newsletters that talked about how white wall street fat cats were in collusion with the government and you can't really trust white people because they will always try to screw you over, I'd say:

    Welcome to Hollywood, here's your seat at the writer's table.

  • ||

    What, you think he's just lying about his platform and policies? WTF.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Tulpa's right you can't just bury this shit. It has NOT been 'dealt with'. It's still threatening to stink up the RO campaign and it makes him unelectable. In addition to the 'nuclear Iran? Me, worry?' stance.

  • ||

    Cyto,

    Maybe so, but Paul didn't ask the Reason commentariat our electioneering advice. So really, we'll see. Supporters of Paul would do best to just highlight his good points and not try and spin the newsletters. That's for Benton, Tate and Paul to figure out.

  • Cytotoxic||

    But they're not figuring it out! And HnR don't need anyone to ask for its advice we just give it. Again, Reason is not an arm of the RP election campaign.

  • ||

    Given that MSNBC appears to be the arm of the Obama campaign, I'd forgive Reason a little bias.

    And cyto, we libertarians exist in a world outside of general public thought. If Paul's strategy of ignoring it somehow works, maybe the general public is just cynical enough that Reasoners, passionate about all things government related, cannot fathom.

    Elections are ugly things. You just hope to get through them and get the right person on board. I still think that is Paul.

  • ||

    You could have fooled me. I came on here and tried to have an intelligent discourse. All I got was smart-ass commentary and revised history. Not that I'm all that surprised.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    You could have fooled me. I came on here and tried to have an intelligent discourse.

    No you didn't.

  • ||

    Where was this intelligent discourse? All I saw was a bunch of blathering and then some felating of Mitties.

  • Skip||

    Paul probably doesn't want people to know he hired Lew Rockwell to do anything for him.

  • Max||

    Oh, yeah. He msut think its better to have people suspect that he really did write that racist shit. Paul knows that no matter what happens, his brain-dead followers will stick by him. Nazis are like that.

  • Sevo||

    Now here we have the truly ignorant margin of the voter pool:

    Max|12.20.11 @ 10:43PM|#
    "Oh, yeah. He msut think its better to have people suspect that he really did write that racist shit"

    There is no reason to appeal to this sort of stupidity; if RP is to be successful, he's gotta address the issue such that those of greater then single-digit IQs can grasp the message.

  • Max||

    U mad bro?

    I would be to, with that gigantic cock wedged up my ass.

  • Max's Mom||

    Max, you unlock the basement door right this minute! And what is that awful stench? Have you been gorging on Epsom salt again?

  • Max||

    I repeat:

    Fuck you, Sevo. Fuck you up the ass, sideways, with a cactus. I hate you, and I will always hate you. I will not be reasonable, I will not have a logical debate with you, because you are so fucking stupidly fascist, it would be impossible.

    I will only ever respond to you with hate and venom from now on. Everytime you post and I see it, I will come ruin your thread and shit on your parade. Enjoy it, kochsucker bircher piece of shit scumbag.

  • Sevo||

    See above, dipshit.

  • "Max"||

    HAHA Sevo spoofed again! You couldn't tell the difference between real John and "John" last night, and you couldn't tell the difference between real Max and "Max" just now! You're such a freaking moron!

    God, what is it like to be so dumb? I mean, is it painful? Do you even feel pain like us normal humans, or do you have some kind of retard-magic strength that allows you to shrug it off?

  • Sevo||

    So you are Rather.
    How..............
    infantile.

  • Sevo||

    Did you see this, asshole:
    "You're really Rather, aren't you?"
    Are you proud of yourself? Is spoofing people on the internet the height of your accomplishments?
    You are one sick puppy and if I were a 'caring' person, I'd hope you'd get help.
    I don't.

  • Sevo||

    Max|12.20.11 @ 11:07PM|#
    "I would be to, with that gigantic cock wedged up my ass."

    I'm sure you are, dipshit.
    Not my problem.

  • ||

    Even if he is a racist, and willing to admit, who cares? He's the only one who intends ot end the UTTERLY racist drug war, so who's the real racist?

    Actions speak louder than words. Everyone knows this. Focusing on the newsletters is misdirection. An attempt to undermine him by people who oppose him for reasons OTHER than what's in the newsletters.

  • Apatheist||

    It may be misdirection but it's not some brand new political strategy and it's not like RP's campaign wasn't expecting this (I sure as shit hope not). He needs a better answer to the misdirection strategy.

  • ||

    He's also the only one who inteds to repeal economic regulations which lock African Americans into poverty.

  • ||

    Whatever Ron Paul 2012

  • ||

    Please don't let that get in the way of funding a campaign which is the greatest campaign for liberty in the last 50 years.

    Which Paul is going to piss away to protect the reputation of someone who doesn't deserve it.

    Sorry, if I'm donating, I'm donating to a presidential campaign, not the Campaign for Liberty (aka full employment guarantee for Paul family). They tricked me last time and got my $500 in summer of 07, before it was clear they had no intention of running a real campaign. Now they can starve until they show they're serious about running a presidential campaign.

    His refusal to take any and all honest measures to defend his candidacy against these accusations indicates he's still not serious about this campaign. So I won't be either. Money don't grow on trees in the Tulpa household.

  • ||

    You could give until it hurts. And Paul could come out and name names. It still won't change the fact that the DNC machine will hammer him to death on these letters. I hope you are smart enough to hang onto your money until this Paul craziness ends. Then you can donate to the Republican nominee, who I think will be Romney, and pray Paul doesn't ruin our chances by running third party.

  • Apatheist||

    Whether he runs 3rd party or not I and many other will not only not donate to Romney but we won't vote for him either. He will lose because he is a slimy piece of shit who offers the same big government crap as Obama.

  • ||

    You obviously haven't heard him speak and haven't read a word on his platform. He's going to overturn Obamacare, cut government spending (intelligently and methodically, unlike Paul), reduce entitlement payments and return us to fiscal sanity.

    For God's sake, the man ran a multibillion-dollar business. He knows how to get things done without taking a wrecking-ball to the economy.

  • horsewithnonick||

    Also, everyone gets a pony.

    God, have you not been paying attention? One of the main reasons Paul is gaining supporters - and the reason the GOP higher-ups are shitting themselves - is because Paul is the only one who means what he says about cutting spending and changing course, as evidenced by his - and Newt Romney's - congressional and personal history.

  • Apatheist||

    Yep that comment was directed to me. I have student loans to pay off and a wedding to save up for. Last go around I donated money when I had even less relatively to give. I said then, and told the campaign that I wasn't donating till I got a satisfactory answer on this. I would have donated to day if they had given one. It's not because I think he is a racist or even that he should be held responsible for what he didn't write but I'm not going to contribute to a campaign that isn't going to answer tough questions.

    The absolute disaster that occurred in January last time woke me up and gave me a healthy skepticism of all politicians and political campaigns including RP. The logical next question when I say "he didn't write them" is "well then who did?" I have no answer to that and I honestly say that I have followed him closely and absolutely don't believe he isn't racist. I'll keep saying that but I'm not donating until there is more transparency on this issue.

  • Lewis H.||

    Which Republican are you Republicans hoping wins for the Republicans?

  • Sevo||

    Lewis H.|12.20.11 @ 11:55PM|#
    "Which Republican are you Republicans hoping wins for the Republicans?"

    Lewis, hint:
    It's pretty much a given that "progressives" are the dregs of mankind, dedicated to worsening the lives of humans world-wide. Regardless of party.
    Oh, and if you don't like Walmart, why don't shop there.

  • Lewis H.||

    So what you are saying is that Republicans are your salvation.

  • Sevo||

    Lewis H.|12.21.11 @ 12:10AM|#
    "So what you are saying is that Republicans are your salvation."

    No, I'm saying you're an ignoramus. Is that clear?

  • Lewis H.||

    You are epicac for the mind.
    As a Republican, which Republican are you supporting?

  • ||

    And you douches who gave, and continue to give me hell over favoring Romney as the best of a bad field better not argue the same thing about Paul now. All those accusations about "sucking Mittens cock" are gonna come right back at you.

  • Apatheist||

    You get hell because Romney is a big government asshole who doesn't deserve a vote on his own merits.

  • Sevo||

    Apatheist,
    That's Rather, not Tulpa.
    That asshole finds its greatest satisfaction in the 'ability' to fool folks on the net. Some fantasy about 'smart', but not worth any thought.

  • Apatheist||

    I don't know, I have personally told Tulpa to go suck some Romney cock before. I didn't hide behind a handle though. So if it is rather, fuck her.

  • ||

    Actually, that was the real Tulpa (so far as I know). This one is not.

    Once again, Sevo shows how stupid he is.

  • tarran||

    Keep pooping in your drinking water, Rather. That will show everyone how clever you are....

    And who knows, Epi might suddenly realize how you are just the girl for him.;)

  • ||

    And 12:29 is a spoof. You're still guilty of spoofing even if you admit you're spoofing and change the email address.

  • ||

    No, that was the real me.

  • ||

    OK. You've linked to everything except the newsletters. Where are they? Can we judge for ourselves? I really like RP, and I have trouble believing he's a racist. Many honest comments about any race, but particularly about minorities, are simply construed as racist because a white man said them. I'd like to see the newsletters myself.

  • tarran||

    The newsletters themselves exist as undigitized harcopies in two libraries in the midwest.

    So linking to them is nigh impossible.

  • ||

    This Article contains absolutely no new information whatsoever. None.

    Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. This post has absolutely nothing to do with journalistic responsibility and everything to do with kowtowing to political correctness in the hopes of attracting mainstream support at RP's expense.

  • tarran||

    No, it's a summary providing a comprehensive historical overview of the story and people's current reactions to it.

    Do you bitch that encyclopedia articles in your field of expertise written for the layman contain no "new" information?

    As far as your allegation that Reason is shilling for mainstream candidates, it is as laughable as the notion that Ron Paul wants to surrender to the Islamic Caliphate.

  • GOP voter||

    Wait...Ron Paul is NOT going to immediately surrender all US wealth and territory to Iran? That's not what I heard on Hannity!

  • ||

    "No, it's a summary providing a comprehensive historical overview of the story and people's current reactions to it."

    Whats the point? Why should they continue to beat a dead horse just because everyone else in the media is doing that when it's obvious that the rest of the media is only doing it to detract from Pauls rising support. It's like I said, they're trying to assuage the concerns of uninformed political moderates.

    "As far as your allegation that Reason is shilling for mainstream candidates, it is as laughable as the notion that Ron Paul wants to surrender to the Islamic Caliphate."

    I never said they were shilling for mainstream candidates, or candidates at all for that matter. I said they were pandering to fence sitting voters and I stand by that assertion.

  • tarran||

    OK, I must be reading you incorrectly because what you said does not make sense:

    You start out claiming that Reason is hashing over old news to assuage the concerns of uninformed people.

    Assuage their concerns towards who, Ron Paul? Libertarians in general?

    Are you saying that they are trying to throw Ron Paul to the wolves in an attempt to show moderates that they are house broken, despite Reason having serially pushed the meme about the dangers of the "paranoid center"?

  • ||

    "Are you saying that they are trying to throw Ron Paul to the wolves in an attempt to show moderates that they are house broken,"

    Yes.

  • SIV||

    Some of you dumbfucks are arguing with a "noob" using the handle Slapdick McGee.

    "Hey look there's a dead fish swimming in the boat wake! Mmmmmm I'm hungry!"

  • FIFY SIV||

    Some of you dumbfucks are arguing with a "noob" using the handle Slapdick McGee. don't realize how fucking stupid I am, and take things I say seriously. How you can understand any of them with this cock in my mouth is anyone's guess.

  • ||

    WE ARE ALL TULPA

  • ||

    Occupy Tulpa?

  • ||

    spoof ^

  • ||

    I may be a "noob" on this website. (Actually, I try to hang around any site for a while until I figure out how things work. Then I comment.) That doesn't mean I'm one politically. I study history like most of you. The difference is, I come away with a realistic rather than idealistic world outlook.

    I'd love for you guys to have your own perfect libertopia. Until then, you're just gonna have to try to gradually shift things to the right fiscally and socially. And you're gonna have to play ball with the Republicans to get anything done. The Democrats hate you and won't ever let you into their group.

  • Lewis H||

    So they are Republicans!

  • tarran||

    Dude, the Republicans have always been mercantilisists, followers of the defunct economic system that Adam Smith wrote the Wealth of Nations to demolish.

    The Republicans hate freedom just as much as the Democrats. In fact, back when the Democrats were liberal, defending free markets and private property rights, the Republicans were bankrupting the country with expensive boondogles to line the pockets of the politically connected.

    When the Republicans tell freedom lovers "come back, baby, I won't hit you ever again", it's yet another lie in a long string of lies.

  • Lewis H||

    So why are y'all discussing which Republican to vote for then?

  • tarran||

    I'm not....

    Since this election the Democrats are running a raging authoritarian ignoramus who is allowing his friends to use the U.S. Treasury like their own personal piggy-bank, people who are opposed to these things naturally are going to discuss which Republican they are voting for, just as I remember certain people were discussing which Democrats were worth voting for when Bush II was running for office for the second time. Moreover, you'll note a hell of a lot of libertarians pulled the lever for Obama in a desperate attempt to prevent McCain from getting anywhere near the launch-codes in the foot-ball.

  • Lewis H||

    The lesser of 2 evils is still evil.

  • ||

    And if Ron Paul, a libertarian, doesn't get the nomination, most people that comment here will either write in or vote Gary Johnson. A lot will probably not vote at all.

    So again for your ignorant ass: THIS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN WEBSITE.

  • Slapdick McGee is Dumb||

    GW Bush: one step closer to Libertopia!

  • ||

    GWB was an idiot of the highest order. His "compassionate conservatism" started us on the road to Obamacare, endless entitlements and many other problems. I'm talking about more like Reagan conservatism. The kind where the world respects us and believes what we say.

  • Slapvag McGee is Even Dumber||

    You're the one talking about "moving" the GOP to the right.

    Well guess which one of those two came chronologically after the other?

    Hence the "moving" doesn't fucking work.

  • Slapvag McGee is Even Dumber||

    Or I should say, there's movement alright...in the wrong direction. When people turn down Goldwater, only to elect Nixon a few years later...that's fucked up.

  • ||

    The same Nixon that eventually ended LBJ's folly of a war and opened the door to China? And his great "crimes" were peanuts compared to to the current administration's. Hell, the man fell on his sword for things he didn't even do.

  • Slapvag McGee is Even Dumber||

    Yeah, using the FBI as his own personal good squad, closing the gold window forever, and instituting wage and price controls is fucking awesome.

  • ||

    Citation needed on he FBI thing. And the gold window was closed long before he got into the WH. If I recall correctly, FDR through LBJ made sure of that. On the wage and price controls, he had an exceptionally leftist partisan Congress. His veto wouldn't have even stood up. He was able to get the best deal possible.

    The man had many flaws, but some historical accuracy would be appreciated.

  • Dumbass McGee||

    Sorry, but you're dead fucking wrong about the gold window. The process was started long before, but it's called the Nixon shock for a reason.

    The net is full of stories about his using the FBI to intimidate witnesses, keep tabs on people he didn't like (such as John Lennon, off the top of my head), etc. Do a quick google search; the information is everywhere and it would do a disservice to try and post a single link about it. You just have to try and filter out all the Watergate bullshit when you search.

  • ||

    The net is also full of stories about UFO's and Jamie Lee Curtis being a hermaphrodite. That doesn't make any of the three claims true, though.

  • Dumbass McGee||

    Point taken; I should have said the internet is full of news reports and archives documenting such things.

    And if you come back and say there are news reports and archives about aliens also, then we might as well just end the discussion, because you asked for citations, which will have to come from the internet. Which means you will have to accept the fact that some of what is on the internet is true.

  • ||

    If you can provide links to reputable news sites, then I will take your word for it. But by no means did he use the FBI in a way that every president from FDR on used them. If he had, the press would have ripped him to shreds during and after Watergate.

  • Slapvag McGee is Even Dumber||

    Not to mention the fact that his crimes being "peanuts" compared to Barry's is a meaningless argument.

    Barry's "crimes" aren't as great as Wilson's or FDR's, so we should be cool with him, right?

  • ||

    I refuse to have a discussion with somebody that resorts to spoof names intended to irritate or ridicule. It's both sad and pathetic and shows you cannot argue in good faith.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I refuse to have a discussion with somebody that resorts to spoof names intended to irritate or ridicule. It's both sad and pathetic and shows you cannot argue in good faith.

    Look, little man, you argued with the spoof name for pages. It is bad faith to fling up the "SPOOFER" card when you are backed into a rhetorical corner.

  • ||

    I just finally noticed it. And I'm not painting Nixon as some kind of saint. The man was a paranoid leader, that's for sure. But at least he had the integrity to take the fall for what happened in his name and on his watch.

    Hey, that sounds like some advice Ron Paul could take in regard to these newsletters.

    Hmm, it would appear that Richard Nixon had more integrity than the good Dr. paul.

  • ||

    Paul already said that he should have paid more attention to what was sent out and apologized for the things said.

    Hmm, that sounds an awful lot like taking the fall for his bad mistake.

    Fucking retard.

  • tarran||

    I'm talking about more like Reagan conservatism. The kind where the world respects us and believes what we say.

    Oh God, the historical ignorance, it burns.

    Reagan was a lying sack of shit. Do you know why the Teamsters endorsed Reagan? It wasn't because he believed in limited government.

    When push came to shove, he chose to expand government in order to get the military spending he wanted to confront the tottering Soviet empire. The limited government patter was to lull the rubes while he and Tip O'Neil worked out their back-room deals.

  • ||

    That "tottering" Soviet empire was running pretty strong in 1981. Without that buildup in military spending, the Cold War would still be going strong. Reagan saw this. Why can't you?

    (And thanks for posting under your regular screen name. At least somebody hasn't resorted to namecalling idiocy.)

  • You're an idiot||

    The Soviet economy was so turgid it would have collapsed on it's own by now unless they opened up like China. I was there in the 90s, right after the fall, I saw it. The Cold War would in no way "still be going strong".

  • ||

    You can say that now, but in 1981 not soul in the world thought that. Just ask the West Germans that had all of those tanks pointing at them. They'd dig Reagan up and kiss his behind if they could.

    And for that matter, so would the East Germans that would still likely be behind a wall if not for our military buildup forcing the Russians' into deciding between guns and grain for their people.

  • tarran||

    That "tottering" Soviet empire was running pretty strong in 1981.

    BWA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

    They were fucking broke!. They Soviet Union was a poster-child for Mises' arguments about the socialist calculation problem.

    Sure they could design and build jet fighters, but they couldn't manufacture the parts they needed to keep their factories working. The populace was increasingly frustrated and inclining towards rebellion.

    Their attempt to build more nuclear missiles or subs were a small part of their problems.

  • ||

    Again, I will point you to the millions of western Europeans that were crapping their pants at the thought of Russian power until Reagan broke them.

  • Logical Fallacy McGee||

    Begging the question that "Reagan broke them".

    Also, the eurofags crapping their pants doesn't have shit to do with whether the threat they were shitting themselves over was real, or a bunch of wildly overblown estimates of enemy capability.

  • I'm leaving, McGee||

    Well I need to go pound some shots before last call, so I won't be replying with my scathing wit and vast array of "facts" anymore.

    I just didn't want anyone to think that I was scared off by the superior logic of McGee, and disappeared allowing him to "win" the argument.

  • ||

    Haha. You go running when I ask you to post links supporting your Nixon narrative. Typical Libertarian.

  • ||

    What you call "begging the question," I would call a legitimate viewpoint. I think Reagan broke them and you don't. Guess what? Neither of us can prove our point.

    The difference is, I'm willing to disagree without resorting to ad hominem attacks and general name-calling. IOW, I am a grownup arguing with children.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    What you call "begging the question," I would call a legitimate viewpoint. I think Reagan broke them and you don't. Guess what? Neither of us can prove our point.

    Who cares if he did? What's done is done. However, you are trying to apply USSR-world logic to the modern-day, and that is irritating and wrongheaded. There is no "enemy" you can spend into submission out there, and the United States is acting more like the Soviet Union in foreign policy, especially wrt the Middle East, than you would like to admit. Meddling, invasions, overthrowing elected governments, overt and covert operations...when is enough enough for the Warmonger Party?

  • ||

    So you go from calling me wrong to saying I'm begging the question to saying it doesn't matter that I'm right. Absolutely incredible.

    And I'm saying we need to get back to a Reagan brand of conservatism. If I recall, Reagan didn't go off invading every country he could. Yes, we helped stop communism when people asked for our help, but he was a far cry from GWB and Obama.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    So you go from calling me wrong to saying I'm begging the question to saying it doesn't matter that I'm right.

    I am not the same person as the other you were arguing with.

    And I'm saying we need to get back to a Reagan brand of conservatism.

    I have no interest in conservatism. Conservatism nowadays consists of Big Spending, Big Social Control / Theocratic Impulses, and Big Military. Reagan brought theocrats and war hawks into the Republican Party. He never decreased the debt. Why on earth would I want Reagan "conservatism"? Why do you?

  • ||

    All the things you're talking about are post-Reagan. As a matter of fact, the bulk of it can be traced to 1994 and the Gingrich-led Contract For America or whatever it was called.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    All the things you're talking about are post-Reagan. As a matter of fact, the bulk of it can be traced to 1994 and the Gingrich-led Contract For America or whatever it was called.

    That is malarkey and you know it. Go look at political articles in NR or TAS or Human Events to see how much chatter there was about Reagan drawing the "Reagan Democrats" (read: Southern social conservatives) and cozying up to evangelicals.

    You do know why the Goldwater tete-a-tete with Falwell happened during the Reagan Administration, right? Primarily because Falwell had a seat the Big Boy's table thanks to Reagan (and Buckley, that douche).

  • ||

    Reagan didn't court those people. They just liked that he was a strong leader that stood for freedom and they came along for the ride. Within 6 years of Reagan leaving office, the party had become so devoid of character, the hardcore evangelicals and neo-cons had completely taken over the party and it was game over for them.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Reagan didn't court those people. They just liked that he was a strong leader that stood for freedom and they came along for the ride. Within 6 years of Reagan leaving office, the party had become so devoid of character, the hardcore evangelicals and neo-cons had completely taken over the party and it was game over for them.

    You just hush your pretty little head. I know that it pains you to admit that your beloved party just is not the beautiful, Reagan-led Power Broker you fell in love with when you were a young'un, but it isn't. I have no interest in the Republican Party because it has no interest in me.

  • ||

    I'll just agree to disagree with you on the transformation of the Republican Party.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I am going to speak for the whole board when I say that we have seen Republican Salesman come peddling their snake-oil here Every. Four. Years. And Every Four Years it is the same refrain - "this election is the MOST IMPORTANT EVAR! Forget your principles and defeat Gore/Kerry/Obama - just this once!"

    We've heard the spiel before, so unless you have something new to add, peddle that snake oil elsewhere.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    'm talking about more like Reagan conservatism.

    I am having a hard time understanding how two of the three-legs of the Reagan Coalition are in anyway relevant to modern-day. Most young people and moderates have little to no use for social conservatives. Libertarians and war-weary public have little use for the "war, war, war" "MOAR TROOPZ" branch of the old coalition.

    What the hell good is the Republican party for if not fiscal conservatism - which they only pay lip service to anyway?

  • ||

    Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid Sevo is stupid

  • flacid tuna||

    Please unsubscribe me from your magazine.

    These quotes from the newsletters were cherry picked out of a 10 year period from a dainty flower working for the Weakling Standard. Excuse me if I don't take his adjectives at face value.

    Take the National Review during the same time period and you wound find much more salacious stuff. Or don't you know Joe Sobran and Sam Francis?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    DRINK! Yay, an unsubscription!

    You know, you should take note that Matt Welch is defending Ron Paul here while asking pointed questions. You need to get the shine of Paul's Halo out of your eyes and see that he is a man with flaws, flaws that need to be addressed, whom most of us respect nonetheless.

  • Paultard||

    FUCK YOU APOLOGIZE FOR IMPLYING THE MESSIAH IS NOT PERFECT!!!

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    "Love the Paul, hate the Paultard"

  • Apatheist||

    Did that post make you turgid yet?

    More reading comprehension fail. Love the Paul, hate the paultards.

    I doubt many of the paultards posting on here actually read to the bottom of the post.

  • ||

    Did you subscribe under the name "flacid tuna"?

    If not, your attempt at unsubscription will be unsuccessful. If so, you're my hero.

  • ||

    Type in Obama racist in the YouTube search.

  • Dave||

    Yes, Obama has said negative things about white people before and that is not offensive. Only Ron Paul's accurate description of black rioters and criminals in L.A. Honest, virtuous black people don't exactly think highly of these people either. I don't think we're doing anyone any favors by excusing atrocious behavior from people just because they're black.

  • ||

    Type in Obama racist in the YouTube search

  • Tony||

    But compared with Rick Perry's open bigotry in his ads, or Bachmann's desire to "cure" gays, or the rhetoric around "illegals" in this campaign, these ugly newsletters are very, very old news.

    Hey, good point.

    It's required of a Republican presidential candidate to favor legal discrimination against gays (and to blow dog whistles to racist whites). Paul deserves a gold star for having his bigotry in the past.

  • JTWilliams||

    Reason seems troublingly dedicated to promoting the issue of these newsletters. The writings are nothing like his own, and the internet is full of thousands of hours of the man speaking in public, having private interactions, in a formal settin, informal setting, etc.. If Sean Hannity wants to bring those old newsletters up- it's to be expected (how about a Hal Turner write-up, Reason). But rehashing old news again in the midst of a shaky libertarian groundswell is why I subscribe to TAC

  • ||

    I keep seeing people blaming Reason.

    But it isn't Reason's fault that these newsletters were written.

    It isn't Reason's fault that the world finds these newsletters so distasteful.

    If these newsletters make it practically impossible for Ron Paul to win the swing vote in a general election, that isn't Reason's fault either.

    It isn't Reason's fault that the New York Times, the Weekly Standard, The Atlantic and a bevy of other news outlets are talking about these newsletters either.

    Reason isn't to blame for responding to all the talk in the media.

    If Ron Paul is suffering the consequences today of a mistake he made all those years ago, there's only one person to blame for that--and it isn't Matt Welch.

  • Ron||

    You know, the most libertarian candidate in living memory is at the forefront of a revolution in the US, and the so-called libertarian magazine "Reason" has hardly covered it. I've checked every few days to see what Reason would have to say, and it's been very little. But whenever the issue of the 20 year old newsletter comes up, Reason is right fucking there with their crack team. Awesome work guys.

    So glad I cancelled my paper subscription years ago.

  • Dave||

    You know, I'm sick of all this P.C. crap. There might be some offensive things in the newsletters, but as far as saying that the people who participated in the L.A. Riots acted like animals and that the Zionist Jewish lobby controls American foreign policy in the Middle East - those two points are right on.

  • ||

    You'd do a lot better going with the strategy Ron Paul himself is using.

    And everybody knows I didn't write them, and it's not my sentiment, so it's sort of politics as usual.

    ----Ron Paul

    'cause, not even Ron Paul is trying to defend what was written.

    "The Zionist Jewish lobby controls American foreign policy in the Middle East - those two points are right on."

    And as far as the swing voters you're trying to appeal to are concerned?

    Their reaction to that is...just because Archie Bunker thinks his antisemitism is really true, that doesn't mean it isn't antisemitism.

    There's a reason McDonalds and Wal*Mart try to be PC in their advertising. It's because they want people to like them. Don't you want people to like libertarianism and Ron Paul?

    If we ever want to achieve a truly free society, we're gonna have to get more support for libertarian ideas than we have right now. And we'll never get enough support to make our society truly free so long as we're associated with hostility to all the things I think you're talking about when you talk about "PC".

    If Ron Paul shot himself in the foot 20 years ago, then there's a lesson to learn from that mistake. And the lesson isn't to shoot ourselves in the foot all over again today through counterproductive hostility to being PC.

  • ||

    There is a dude that clearly knows what time it is. Wow.

    www.Complete-Anon.tk

  • ||

    Liberals didn't seem to mind Sen. Robert Byrd's KKK past. At least Ron Paul hasn't burned any crosses.

  • AlmightyJB||

    You know that it's a double standard. Dems get a pass because they have Jesse and Al in their back pocket. That's what they get paid to do.

  • Ron Paul||

    I would be running as a Democrat, but they've already got their own Messiah in office. They don't need me.

  • Scruffy the Janitor||

    I for one thought it was a very poignant and well written article. Kudos Matt. As for the insane amount of Reason hating, I am quickly losing interest in Ron Paul because the way his supporters act. Mind you I attended my county Republican convention to attempt to become a delegate for Ron Paul back in 2008. So far the way this has been handled and especially the way the "Paultards" are acting is starting to make my interest in attened another convention wane.

  • ||

    This is extremely sad. It is one thing to "report on the reporting," as another reader claimed above. But this goes way beyond that. And while this soft hit piece does point out, in a vague sense, the problems with the GOP in general, and a couple of the candidates in particular, the remainder of it sounds a lot like an attack, and the spirit of this piece seems to agree with those calling Paul a racist, etc. One would think an organization allegedly devoted to "free minds and free markets" would, if not championing Dr. Paul outright, at least devote considerable time and space to outing the brazen anti-liberty attitudes of the remainder of the Republican field who cheer endless war, loudly support the continuation of American empire, and remain completely silent on both the damage done to America's global image, the wholesale slaughter of innocents in the Republic's name, and the brink of bankruptcy such attitudes have brought us to.

    How long before we see MSM smear-jobs with statements like "even the leading libertarian magazine 'reason' has taken Paul to task for his "godawful, racist baggage?"

    Reason has both the staff and the readership to affect real change by devoting an entire issue (the next one!) to an unapologetic slamming of ALL the other Republican candidates (each with its own section) using nothing but easily-verified truth. Sadly, it is apparently easier to join the fight against Ron Paul, the only candidate who lends any sort of support to reason's alleged mission. After all, there is precious little happening in the world on that front, and the fight for freedom is all but won. So why discuss any of the nation's other goings-on when literary freedom fighters can simply eat their own in the quest so sound fair and objective?

    With friends like these, huh?

  • ||

    Amen..and where do some of these Commenters come from? Good Grief!

  • ||

    Nice Terry Pratchett reference in the post title, Matt. Assuming that the "Foul Ole Ron" reference was intentional, I am.

  • Famous Lies||

    "I did not have sex with that woman."
    --Bill Clinton

    "I did not write those newsletters."
    --Ron Paul

  • ||

    I don't know for sure, but I believe the general consensus points at the most likely author as being Lew Rockwell.

    http://reason.com/archives/200.....newsletter

    Regardless, whoever wrote the statements in question should come forward and take the blame. I don't know why that person would do it now--but not in 2008. To my knowledge, no one has come forward and taken the responsibility yet, but I don't believe it was Ron Paul.

    But whoever wrote those statements could do the movement an awful lot of good by coming forward right about now.

  • Ron Paul Newsletter||

    January 15, 1992
    Volume VI, Number 1

    "In late September, friends from all over the country urged me to run for the Republican nomination..." [Emphasis added]

    "[Signed] Ron Paul"

    Letting an out-and-out America-hating whackjob like Loo Crock Shill write your newsletters is bad enough, but writing the very same kind of crap yourself and then trying (somewhat successfully) to pass it off as his is even worse.

  • ||

    Once again, I think he should have verified everything that went out on his newsletter--since it had his name in the title of the newsletter. If someone were putting out a newsletter with my name on it? It wouldn't make it out the door until I read it and approved it first.

    I don't believe Ron Paul ever pointed the finger at Lew Rockwell. And I believe Lew Rockwell has denied responsibility...

    But if you look at the Reason link I posted above from 2008, they make a pretty compelling case. There are a lot of people who should know pointing their fingers all in the same direction.

    I've never given any money to Paul--in part because of those newsletters (and in part becasue he's a politician, and I don't think politicians are the solution to our problems--not even libertarian politicians).

    ...but I don't think Ron Paul wrote those newsletters. There's plenty not to like about this from Ron Paul's perspective. I think he must have known what was being written, or, at the very least, that they were pandering to some pretty nasty people at the time. If Ron Paul knew they were pandering to racists--that's bad enough. If he just should have known? That's pretty bad, too.

    No reason to pretend he actually wrote the stuff if he didn't. If we're gonna hold him accountable for something, let's limit it to what he actually did--and what he should have known.

  • ||

    I didn't follow the links because I don't want to be distracted by the facts.

    Look, a three-headed monkey!

  • ||

    There's no new information there.

    That's basically a roto signature.

    They're using the same signature over and over in print. Every newsletter is going to be like that. That was the whole idea of a newsletter back then. Ron Paul is writing you a letter! Cool!

    I get letters from insurance companies wanting to sell me policies all the time too--signed by the CEO! Boy, they must really want my business to have the CEO sign that letter just for me!

    Actually, it's done with computers.

    Again, this is the whole idea. His newsletter was ghostwritten. If you look at link I gave you above...

    Rockwell was publicly named as Paul's ghostwriter as far back as a 1988 issue of the now-defunct movement monthly American Libertarian.

    ...

    Timothy Wirkman Virkkala...told reason that the names behind the Political Report were widely known in his magazine's offices as well, because Liberty's late editor-in-chief, Bill Bradford, had discussed the newsletters with the principals, and then with his staff. "I understood that Burton S. Blumert was the moneybags that got all this started, that he was the publisher," Virkkala said. "Lew Rockwell, editor and chief writer"

    http://reason.com/archives/200.....newsletter

    Bold added by yours truly.

    Just because it was called the Ron Paul Newsletter and was signed digitally with his signature doesn't mean he wrote it. If you dug into Oprah Winfrey's magazine, chances are that if there's a short into at the front of the magazine with her picture on it--and signed by her digital signature?

    She didn't write it! Somebody ghostwrote it for her. There's nothing unbelievable about someone ghostwriting a newsletter for Ron Paul.

  • ||

    The Koch brothers are on the board of the Reason Foundation, having donated a tremendous amount to your publication. As they backed quasi Libertarian/Neocon hybrid Herman Cain you shills were set to the task of ridiculing Ron Paul. Because RP's real Libertarian views clash with the Koch brothers hybrid libertarian/neocon views, you are producing hit pieces like this one. You don't disclose it of course. Seriously, what a sad mess Reason has become. You used to be so dependable. It's like you have Bill Kristol editing everything. You've become a magazine for Neocon hipsters. Why not just admit you despise RPs foreign policy aims and that you want the bailouts to keep coming (the difference you'd have gotten with Cain)

    Ron Paul's sentiments run toward rights being granted to the individual and not the group. This isn't how racists think. But nice try with your pathetic smear job.

  • ||

    Shorter ben:

    KOCHTOPUS!!!eleventy!

  • ||

    Seriously ben, you'd get a lot more mileage if you actually pointed to something you thought was factually incorrect...

    Just slamming the messenger makes Paul look worse.

    If the Koch brothers had never made a donation, would Ron Paul's newsletters have been written differently? Would people find what was written there less repugnant?

    You can defend Ron Paul better than that.

  • ||

    Ken, please, this was written by a political hack with an agenda, not an innocent messenger. Ron Paul's reputation for honesty and the courage to speak beliefs that are unpopular is legendary. But despite saying the things that risk getting booed, on this one thing, you presume he is a liar.

    Reason Magazine got subverted and is no more libertarian now than the Weekly Standard. Reason will back a pro-Iran war candidate and you can sit back and feel tough watching your nephews come back in body bags made in China riddled with bullets made in China.

  • FIFY||

    Ken, please, this was written by a political hack with an agenda, not an innocent messenger. Ron Paul's reputation for dishonesty and the chutzpah to speak racist beliefs that are unpopular is legendary which is not the same thing, of course, as commendable. But despite because he's saying the things that risk getting booed, on this one thing, you correctly presume he is a liar.

    Reason Magazine got subverted and is no more libertarian now than the Weekly Standard Lew Rockwell. Reason will back is backing a pro-Iran (and Hamas) war candidate and you can sit back and feel tough watching your nephews come back in body bags made in China riddled with bullets made in China country get nuked by Iran.

  • ||

    Same propaganda WMD hysteria/lies that kicked off the Iraq war. And by the way, you're not wrong about RP, you're lying. Nice try Bill Kristol.

  • ||

    Stop distracting me with the facts, damn it! Look, a three-headed monkey!

  • ||

    blah blah blah propaganda blah blah blah hysteria blah blah blah Bill Kristol!

  • Reminder||

    P.S. to the Paul supporters.

    Saying NU-UH, doesn’t make the facts above go away.
    Shouting, “LIAR!” – doesn’t make the facts above go away.
    Giving a link to a Ron Paul denial doesn’t make the facts go away.

    Shouting neocon, shill, warmonger, hit piece, or any other word in your vocabulary, doesn’t make the above facts go away.

    Saying this is old news, doesn’t make the above truth go away. If a candidate for president built wealth for two decades off of being racist, voters deserve to know.

    Saying this was debunked years ago, doesn’t make the truth above go away. The above facts debunk any supposed debunking from Ron Paul.

    Sitting there and spouting off any other rhetoric while you ignore the evidence, does not make the evidence go away.

    Calling this a joke or an act of desperation does not make the above facts go away.

    Spewing a quote about how racism is about collectivism doesn’t make the above facts untrue.

    Calling the evidence bogus doesn’t make the newsletters go away. Plus if you say these are all bogus, then you’re calling Ron Paul’s denial bogus too! How could he blame a ghost writer for writing something that never happened?

    Saying the first person language and the presence of Ron Paul’s name doesn’t prove a thing, shows you’re clearly biased. Ron Paul defended his newsletters in 1996. Showing that he was involved and did know about them. Combine that with his actual name and first person language in them, pretty much shows he did write them. Making the presence of his name and first person references inconsequential, is laughable at the least.

    Paul supporters may ask, “How is this any different than someone going off and publishing a newsletter in your name?” It is very different. First, Ron Paul started a company called Ron Paul and Associates. The newsletters were printed under the umbrella of that organization. Ron Paul profited from the newsletters. Ron Paul defended the newsletters. Ron Paul’s name, signature and first person references are found in the newsletters he defended. This is much different than some random person somewhere just starting a newsletter in someone’s name without their consent or permission.

    Sitting there asking for evidence, when the evidence is right there and is all over the place, makes you look very insincere in your demands for evidence. Oh and that doesn’t make the above evidence go away either.

    Saying Ron Paul forcefully denied the racist newsletters, followed by a link to a Youtube video, does not negate the facts above. Politicians lie all the time. Look at the evidence, not his words. Yes Ron Paul can lie. He’s not the messiah. He’s not perfect. He’s not pure. The evidence shows he is clearly lying. I don’t care how forcefully he denies it. Nixon forcefully said he wasn’t a crook. Clinton forcefully said he didn’t have sexual relations with that woman. Politicians lie.

    Referencing African Americans supporting Paul, does not negate the facts above. Ron Paul said in his newsletter that 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions. Those backing him would be viewed as the 5%. Well what about the other 95%?

    You can’t negate the above evidence, facts and truth by demanding we find a video or tape of Ron Paul using such language. We see how Ron communicates when he thinks no one else is looking. First of all, it’s laughable for a Paul supporter to act like they take evidence in to consideration. Paul supporters are putting on a guise when they demand video or audio proof. The guise is that they actually care about evidence in the first place. The evidence provided in the newsletters is enough. To ignore this evidence, shows us you would ignore any video or audio evidence if it were presented. Once again, any demand for evidence from a Paul supporter is merely a guise. They don’t care about proof in the first place.

    Stating, “That’s all you have?” – does not negate the facts above. Honestly, that’s the standard Paulbot reply to any evidence against Ron Paul. I could have a video of Ron Paul gang raping infants, and the standard Paulbot reply would be, “That’s all you have?” In Paulbot land facts don’t matter and the only facts they have are the delusions they conjure up from spammed online poll wins and rants off the Alex Jones show.

  • ||

    If anything Ron Paul has a reputation for telling the uncomfortable truth. He'd rather get booed than lie. I believe him when he says he didn't write these and that he didn't review them and I believe him when he says he disavows what were in the letters too. It's pretty transparent that the people harping on this are smearing him because they despise his policy.

  • ||

    I'm with ben on some of that.

    I don't think he wrote the offending newsletters. I believe him when he says he disavows what was in the letters.

    I don't know whether he reviewed the newsletters before they went out, but I think he should have. That's my problem with all of this...

    Even if he didn't know what was going on in his name, he should have. And I can't pretend that's any better than it is. I find it hard to believe that Ron Paul didn't have any inkling what was being written in his name.

    Didn't he read his own newsletters after they went out? Even if he didn't, how could he not have known what was being written in his name. Even if he didn't know--shouldn't he have known?

    I've let executive assistants write letters for me, but I've never let them send one out without my reading it first.

  • ben||

    Wasn't he back to practicing medicine during this time? I don't know he could have had a lot of irons in the fire.

  • ||

    WTF GLORIA BORGER !!!!!
    BOTH YOU AND CNN OWE RON PAUL AN APOLOGY NOW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    AND WHY ARE WE NOT TALKING ABOUT NACCP AS WRITTEN IN THE THE REAL ARICLE BELOW ?????
    CNN's Gloria Borger: Tea Party 'Hijacked' GOP, Preventing Obama From Becoming 'Transformational President'
    By Noel Sheppard | July 17, 2011 | 16:51

    Gloria Borger said this weekend the Tea Party has "hijacked" the GOP and in so doing prevented Barack Obama from becoming a "transformational president."
    In her view espoused on the syndicated "Chris Matthews Show," without the Tea Party, "The John Boehners of the world [would have] cut a deal with the President of the United States" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/people/.....z1hJFNegeO

    Unfounded. But here is the truth on Paul " AND WE QUOTE"

    "NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist
    Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment
    Paul Joseph Watson
    Prison Planet
    Sunday, January 13, 2008
    Austin NAACP President Nel