Grover Norquist: "Ron Paul is the most consequential guy running for president"

Interesting comments from the low-tax activist and longtime Republican player in this Washington Post article on the surging fortunes of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas):

"Ron Paul is the most consequential guy running for president," said Grover Norquist, an anti-tax activist and Republican organizer. "All the other guys are basically saying the same things, and one gets to be the nominee. But Ron Paul has changed the nature of the modern Republican Party and brought into it discussions not only of non-interventionist overseas policy but monetary policy."

Norquist addressed Paul's alternative 2008 convention and calls it "one of the McCain era's tactical errors" not to embrace the congressman and his supporter base that year — in effect discounting a potentially energized group of campaign volunteers. He said Paul, unlike his rivals, was drawing new people to the GOP, just as Pat Robertson helped lure millions of evangelical voters into the party with his 1988 presidential bid and the tea party movement attracted more activists in 2010.

"I hope to be there to watch [Paul] speak from the main stage in prime time" at the 2012 GOP convention, Norquist said.

Whole thing here. Reason on Ron Paul here. Watch Nick Gillespie's 2008 Reason.tv interview with Grover Norquist below:

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.

  • Tim||

    Ron Paul has loosed more bowels than Cholera.

  • Ken E.||

  • Vake||

    Grover Norquist is fundamentally a good guy. Much more principled than the other DC GOP sellouts.

  • Juice||

    Why does he always look like he's pissed off?

  • Fluffy||

    Now they'll have to drum Grover out.

    I think we'll reach a point where so many have been exiled that the diaspora will outnumber the holdouts.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Norquist was drummed out a long time ago due to having the audacity to marry a Palestinian. He, himself, is also often accused of being a crypto-Muslim.

  • ||

    The couldn't have drummed him out too far, all the candidates and most of the republican congress has signed onto his pledge not to raise taxes.

    Hasn't the media dubbed Grover Norquist one of the most powerful men in the country because of that?

  • Hugh Akston||

    Has anyone seen his birth certificate?

  • jacob||

    Agree with HM's comment. Also, he had the 'audacity' to let GOProud speak at CPAC. Thus he's a "RINO." So sayeth those at Free Repbulic.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    I want to hear your explanation of the newsletters.

    1. How did Paul not know what they said and put a stop to it?

    2. If he didn't know, who wrote them and what were the circumstances that allowed people to publish such stuff wrongly in his name?

    3. Once Paul did know about it, what efforts did he take to separate himself from the people who did write that stuff?

    4. Is it really the case that Paul's only answer to this is "I didn't write it and don't agree with it" even though his name is on the damned newsletters and he made apparently a pretty good amount of money publishing them?

    5. Lastly, if that is his answer, how is that not just telling anyone offended by the newsletters to go fuck themselves?

  • NEWSLETTER||

    Yeah, Fluffy, what about THE NEWSLETTERS??? You'd better answer him. Because we all know it's OK for candidates to endorse policies that kill folks and steal stuff. But if you write something John doesn't like in a NEWSLETTER there will be Hell to pay.

  • ||

    You don't help your cause by refusing to answer reasonable questions. Those newsletters are pretty vile. Their mere existence doesn't mean you shouldn't vote for Paul. But Paul or his supporters do owe explanation for them. My guess is that if there is one to be had, Fluffy will be the person to give it.

  • juris imprudent||

    No John you aren't doing it right, it isn't "reasonable questions" - it is "tough questions". That's what you are supposed to demand answers to.

  • ||

    If the guy expects anyone but the hardcore Paultards to vote for him, I think he owes some kind of an explanation for the newsletters.

    Also it is hard to tell what is true or and what is not. I reading in some places that Paul made good money from those newsletters. Is that true? I don't know. If it is, it makes me seriously doubt he didn't know and endorse what was in them.

  • waffles||

    John, you are what's wrong with politics. What makes these old newletters so important that they should be talked about above real substantive issues?

    Ron is choosing not to play in the much with the people taking potshots at him. Did you see how Cain imploded in his distraction boondoggle? Paul is right to simply say "I didn't write them and I disavow them". Why would he want to give his attackers more meat to chew instead of letting them make themselves look childish?

  • ||

    Because a bunch of vile racist shit was published in his name. I am sorry but "I am a good guy" isn't good enough. Why doesn't he just explain what happened and who wrote them?

  • robc||

    Bunch?

    Like maybe two sentences?

  • SIV||

    The newsletters don't seem to be much of an issue...again. Maybe the GOP electorate is RACIST!

  • ||

    John, what answers would you require to to get over this issue?

  • ||

    That he didn't know or endorsed what was in those newsletters and disassociated himself from the people who published such vile crap in his name as soon as he found out what they had done.

  • ||

    Well, I think he's already stated that he didn't know what was in the newsletters and doesn't endorse the content. As for dissociating himself, well, he first found out in 1996. I think he's basically said he doesn't know who wrote the articles in question. So I guess he would need to find out now before dissociating from whoever it was.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    It Rothbard wrote them as some have speculated, he was already dead at the time the newsletters became an issue.

  • ||

    How does he not know who wrote them? That is just Paul telling everyone he is smart and they are stupid.

    It is not the newsletters that bother me so much. It is the fact that Paul seems to think he can piss down everyone's leg and tell them it is raining.

    I think he has to know who wrote them. How could he not?

  • robc||

    Because he wasnt reading them, he sold his name to raise money to some people he trusted.

    Not a bright move, but that answers your question.

  • ||

    John, the letters amount to a pimple on the penis of a protozoa. Period.

    You, like the Rev. "I cite the Claremont Institute to prove Dilorenzo is intellectually dishonest" Blue Moon, just don't get it:

    Tens of millions of people are unemployed. Tens of millions of people are underemployed. Millions have lost their homes and millions more are hanging on by their fingernails.

    The country is bankrupt and fast becoming a third world banana republic.

    Who the fuck cares about a couple of lines in ONE essay written almost 20 years ago?

  • tarran||

    I'm not fluffy, but being a close reader of stuff coming out of the Lew Rockwell political wing, here is what I suspect happened:

    1) Ron Paul didn't know because he was practicing medicine and his former aide from his days in Congress (Lew Rockwell) was running the thing with minimal interaction other than a check getting sent to Ron every month.

    2) Lew Rockwell, had a bunch of heavy hitters from the Mises institute writing them, this group, I speculate included Rothbard, Tucker, Lew hmself and probably a couple of other guys.

    The group was probably dominated by Murray Rothbard, who had a long history in trying to create or hijack political movements to create coalitions that moved things in a more libertarian direction (see here).

    The bulk of the newsletters were written at a time when Rothbard was trying to create a fusionist movement of libertarianism and right wing populism, including supporting Pat Buchanan's presidential bid.

    Ron Paul probably went along with it because his deviations from plumb-line libertarianism tend to be right-wing populist ones. I think he gave minimal oversight to people whom he considered good friends and mentors.

    3) At some point he stopped publishing the newsletters. This happened about the time Rothbard died, incidentally. He hasn't broken with Lew Rockwell and has shown 0 interest in kicking ass and taking names over this.

    This is, incidentally, why I fear a Ron Paul presidency. It is the rare man who can fire or discipline his friends when they do something destructive or dumb without sacrificing the friendship. Ron Paul is, frankly, too nice and deferential for the people working for him, be it Eric Dondero or Lew Rockwell.

    To give you a sense of how little control he seems to exert, in 2008 at the same time he was decrying people using illegal immigration as an excuse to pander to voters,

    I predict that should Ron Paul get into office, the second and third years of his first term would be marked by revelations of breathtakingly audacious acts of corruption.

    4) Yes.

    5) It's not - he's asking people to trust him and not his associates. It's not a fuck you so much as a belief that since he doesn't actually hold these views, he shouldn't be punished for being the figure-head of a group that published them.

    I honestly think he knows that the buck has to stop with him and that he has to police people working for him.

  • tarran||

    Fucking html tags!

    The last paragraph of my answer to question 3 should have read:

    To give you a sense of how little control he seems to exert, in 2008 at the same time he was decrying people using illegal immigration as an excuse to pander to voters, his campaign was doing that very thing!

  • tarran||

    "I honestly think he doesn't know that the buck has to stop with him and that he has to police people working for him."

    Dammit. I'm done. I can't seem to write today.

  • ||

    At some point, why has he not dissociated himself from these people? If he doesn't have the courage of conviction to do that, why am I to believe he has the courage of conviction to do anything else?

  • tarran||

    I think he lacks the skill to fire or discipline friends without losing the friendship.

    I think he values some friendships so much that he chooses to not discipline them in order to avoid losing the friend.

    I think that Rothbard and his circle penned these things in a cynical attempt to pander to racists. Paul probably knows that this is not what they actually believe. So he chalks it up to a bad call that can be put behind them.

    One problem we libertarians have is that during the time in the wilderness, there were no consequences for writing dumb or crazy shit. What were they going to do, call us crazy and not allow our articles to appear in mainstream publications anymore?

    It's the same phenomenon you cite about prisons needing a death penalty to keep inmates under control.

    The freedom is great, you can write crazy articles supporting private ownership of nuclear weapons, or about slavery contracts. But that freedom can lead people to do some very dumb things too. Things that are crossing a Rubicon when it comes to a chance later to get mainstream acceptance.

  • ||

    There is a lot of truth to that. And that is why you get new people who were not tainted by the wilderness. Rothbard and his followers have to go.

  • ||

    Rothbard is dead John

  • T||

    You mean you don't support private ownership of nukes, tarran? That's it, you're out of the club.

  • ||

    If all that is true, he fell into a group of crazy racist fucks in the late 1980s and allowed them to publish a bunch of crazy racist shit in his name, which oh by the way he got paid for.

    That is what it is. But the fact that he has never publicly disassociated himself from Rothbard and his followers, how am I to believe him when he says he doesn't believe those things?

  • Max||

    Stay skeptical.

  • Fyodor Kuzmich||

    To be honest, there wasn't that much racist stuff in those newsletters.

    Whether that matters or not, you make it sound like every single issue was the KKK manifesto. Really there was, what, like 5 lines people tout, of which maybe 2 were actually racist when taken in context?

  • ||

    That is a good question. They are as I understand it

    "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

    "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

    After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

    One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."

    Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."

    That is not good. And at least according to The Nation, Paul made over a million dollars on these newsletters. How can he have made that much money but had no idea what went into them?

  • Fyodor Kuzmich||

    That's kind of the point though. Although these newsletters seemed to cater to the rightwing paranoid front, if there were only a few lines of racist messages over hundreds of newsletters, then Paul probably really didn't know they were there.

    It's a smaller scale, but it would be like expecting Hugh Hefner to know every line published in every Playboy magazine.

  • ||

    I am thinking if Playboy published those things, Hugh would have to answer for them.

  • Fyodor Kuzmich||

    Yeah, but I'd be satisfied with his explanation if "I did not know that this was being published in Playboy and I do not believe in those sentiments myself, and I apologize for letting it be published."

    Which is pretty much what RP has said.

  • Fluffy||

    Working up from the bottom:

    We can ignore the Barbara Jordan quote. That doesn't even remotely come close to being racist. It's just a garden-variety insult against a liberal. You write worse things about liberals on this board just about every day.

    With regard to the MLK quote, the guy was an epic philanderer. We're supposed to never mention that, because of his status as a saint, but it's just true. If we can talk about Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin as philanderers, we can talk about MLK as a philanderer, too.

    The LA riot statement sounds worse than it actually is, because our ears are no longer accustomed to the use of the word "black". I'm a little offended by this statement anyway, though. It's more crude and crass than anything else, though.

    That leaves us with the top two, which I think are fairly offensive. But I imagine if you went line-by-line through every issue of National Review and the Weekly Standard since 1950, you'd find a couple of lines I could convince you were offensive, too.

    In any event, the newsletter story (2012 edition) peaked yesterday and now it's gone again. So I honestly don't have to care.

    I tend to think that this sort of language got into the newsletters because Rothbard thought he could tame the David Dukes of the country and make them useful, sort of like how the mad scientist in Day of the Dead thought he could tame Bub. Murray seemed to come up with a half-baked scheme every few years. I also think, from those writings of his that I've seen, that Rothbard was one of those guys (and many of us have friends like this, I'm sure) who will say truly outrageous and offensive things when they're angry or in a rant, even if they don't really think those things in general.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Rothbard was actually racist though, at least by PC standards.

  • Harry Reid Negro Talk||

    Re: Sidd Finch,

    Rothbard was actually racist though, at least by PC standards.


    Y'were sayin', Alice?

  • Sidd Finch||

    Re: Old Mexican

    What does Harry Reid have to do with Rothbard being a racist?

  • ||

    Of those quotes, I think only #1 and #3 can be referred to as overtly racist. #4 and #5 are simply criticizing public figures (just as it is not racist to oppose Obama).

    This one:
    "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."

    Walter Williams has written similar things: http://www.thefreemanonline.or.....profiling/

    Jesse Jackson said several years ago,
    “There is nothing more painful for me at this stage in my life, than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery—and then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved.”

  • Fluffy||

    And by the way, I can think of something said by BOTH Newt AND Mitt that is way, way more offensive than any of these quotes:

    "I support Cap and Trade".

    The Ron Paul Newsletters may hurt some people's feelings, but Cap and Trade would actually have a negative material impact on people's wallets, enterprises, and liberty. So fuck people's feelings.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    Those quotes were taking out of context. What the author was saying is that the protection that blacks were receiving from the PC crowd was exacerbating race relations rather than help them.

    Read the newsletter in the original Klingon here:

    http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793

    After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."


    It's the SAME newsletter you quoted first, John. And the author was describing something that actually happened.

    One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."


    This may be defaming but that does not make it racist. Criticizing a man is not being racist, John. Racism is by definition a form of collectivism.

    Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."


    Right. I can say the same thing about Sheila Jackson Lee, and I would be too kind.

    You haven't presented ANYTHING that could be construed as racist, John. The Reason gang simply participated in the character assassination skit along with the snot-faced punk Kirchick because the Reason gang hates Paul's guts.

  • tarran||

    Look at the stuff he says. I've listened to a whole bunch of his talks, even when his hair is down with other people at Mises Institute events.

    The guy isn't a racist.

    He does, however, seem to hire them on occasion, and is a rotten executive.

    I like the guy. I like the effect he has had on the issues in this election cycle. I would happily buy him a beer and thank him for his efforts.

    But don't want him to be president.

  • ||

    I agree Tarran it reflects on his judgment not necessarily his racial views. I can't look into his heart. And I have to give him or anyone the benefit of the doubt. But Jesus, why is he associating himself with these people?

  • ||

    Ok, so as a principled libertarian, I expect you won't be voting for any other of the awful racist (when it comes to dirty brown people) candidates either. I think I can accept that rationale.

  • tarran||

    Write in "None of the Above" FTW, baby!

  • ||

    Isn't it at least arguable though that it is this sort of "principled outsiderism" that results in libertarians being associated with other fringe elements of society (either directly or at least in the minds of the public). Isn't that essentially what happened after the LP presidential run in 1988?

    I DJed at a college radio station for a while in the 90s and the place was just littered with stuff written all over it's walls, but the one that stuck out for me was "conformity is worth it!" People conform to societal norms because doing so has benefits and not doing so brings risks.

    There's a price to be paid for idealism, and Ron Paul's fringe associations are that price. Is it worth it?

  • ||

    What "fringe" associations?

    Would you consider Rev. Wright to be a fringe association of Obama's?

    Would you consider Bill Ayers to be a fringe association of Obama's?

    Would you consider Rev. Wright's church to be a fringe association of Obama's?

    How about Romeny's association with the Mormon Church?

    How about Newt's association with AIPAC?

    How about Romney's association with AIPAC?

    How about Santorum's association with AIPAC?

    far better to be associated with Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard.

  • ||

    Would you consider Rev. Wright to be a fringe association of Obama's?

    yes

    Would you consider Bill Ayers to be a fringe association of Obama's?

    yes

    Would you consider Rev. Wright's church to be a fringe association of Obama's?

    yes and no. Obama belonged to Wright's church because it was politically expedient to do so within the confines of local elections. From day one Obama has fought "oreo" charges and Wright was one way to combat this

    How about Romeny's association with the Mormon Church?

    no, not any more anyway

    How about Newt's association with AIPAC?

    no. Understand that I don't mean 'fringe' as in "things I don't like," but rather as things, rightly or wrongly, that lie outside the political mainstream. So that Rev. Wright's church was locally 'non-fringe' but nationally 'fringe.'

    My argument is that when you hold and espouse those beliefs, any traction you might get tends to attract others whose outsider beliefs have been similarly marginalized. The end result tends to be a coalition of people and beliefs that contain people and ideas you strongly endorse and people and ideas you strongly condemn. Civil rights activists, Austrian economists, conspiracy theorists, racists and colloidal silver buffs all seem to be one great big undifferentiated mass of opposition to the governing two-party status quo.

    Democracy is ugly that way. The only way to gain any political power for your ideas is to attract popular support, and within the outsider framework, that requires the biggest of 'big tents.'

    Now to be fair, it actually does work as Paul's poll numbers suggest. It's a little silly for libertarians to criticize Ron Paul for marginalizing libertarianism when he's almost certainly the most successful libertarian politician of the last 100 years. But things like the newsletters are the price paid for that, just as Obama paid a price for Rev. Wright (Wright probably hurt him but not enough to throw the election).

  • poetry||

    ....and there's your answers.

  • ||

    Hello
    In refrence to the newsletters. They were by Mr. James B. Powell.Out of 240 published only 2 issues delt with the offensive statements.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PysCTVVNnZU and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SwKixWPz4Q
    Peace
    Stephen Schweter

  • ||

    Indeed. The GOP has one response to anyone who doesn't tow the lion: excommunication.

  • ||

    He certainly does publish the most interesting newsletters of any of the candidates.

  • ||

    Ron Paul should have holiday gift tags like Mittens. They will really sway the electorate.

    http://www.mittromney.com/blog.....-gift-tags

  • ||

    Just what everyone wants on Christmas morning, a political argument.

  • ||

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/.....r-ron-paul

    read this. spread it around.

    are you mad? get real. go Ron in 2012.

  • Steve S||

    The thing is, if Ron Paul gets the nomination, he brings all of his passionate followers along with them. If he doesn't get it, those followers will vote for a third party, or will write in Paul's name, or will stay at home for the general election. The GOP establishment is shooting itself not to embrace Paul and his "army."

    See http://www.thepetitionsite.com.....o-the-GOP/

  • ||

    I wouldn't frame it as a "mistake" -- it's like saying the Catholic church is blundering by not embracing atheists. Paul's values are anathema to career politicians of any party.

    They'll "embrace" any group to the extent they think they can co-opt it and turn it to their purposes. The Republicans largely accomplished that with the Tea Party -- whose most organized elements were "social conservatives" who previously welcome in the Republican party anyway. The Democrats haven't made much of an effort with the "Occupiers", because their most organized elements are the radical "career protester" crowd -- they alienate much of the rest of the public, and the Democratic party leadership has long considered them not worth expending much effort on.

    So it's not at all surprising that the political and media classes have not been taking Ron Paul seriously, because that's been their best shot at making him go away. Only when he clearly can't be defeated or ignored any longer will they pretend to embrace him -- all the while hoping to subvert his movement from within.

  • Max||

    The thing is, anybody who thinks that racist cock sucker is going to get the nomination is fuller of shit than a portable toilet at a construction site.

  • Ron||

    Stay classy Max.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Max,

    The thing is, anybody who thinks that racist


    "Racist"?

  • Harry Reid Negro Talk||

    Re: Max,

    The thing is, anybody who thinks that racist cock sucker is going to get the nomination is fuller of shit than a portable toilet at a construction site.


    Whadya talking about, Violet?

  • Neocon||

    Grover is still married to a terrorist, right? STOCKHOLM SYNDROME

  • Jackson Baer||

  • jacob||

    I don't think the newsletters are going to torpedo RP's presidential aspirations any more than the Reverend Wright/Bill Ayers associations ruined Obama's presidential campaign.

  • ||

    Well, if there wasn't an astounding double standard at work, I would agree.

    But there is.

  • ||

    This is what I have to say about the newsletters:

    Why should I care about those moldy old newsletters, when Doctor Paul is the only candidate who actively opposes the single most racist policy currently pursued (with a vengeance) by the government of the United States?

    Anybody who DOESN'T speak out against the War on Drugs is a racist. So fuck you.

  • Colin||

    Circa 1932:

    Why should I care about Mein Kampf? Hitler's the only guy who can save the economy.

  • Godwin||

    Now we're getting somewhere... Ron Paul = Hitler. I like it.

  • SIV||

    It's very post-partisan too.

  • ||

    If your position is "I don't care if he associated with crazy racist fucks and made a ton of money letting said crazy racist fucks publish crazy racist newsletters in his name", fine. But be honest about it. And also be honest enough to admit you would never ignore such a thing in any other politician.

    "Desperate Choice for Desperate Times" is not irrational or dishonest.

  • ||

    So, we're back to the newsletters being crazy racist publications? I thought up above we agreed that it was ridiculous to generalize from a few sentences.

  • Max||

    It was a lot more than a few sentences, and you know it, you apologist fuck.

  • kinnath||

    I don't care if he associated with crazy racist fucks and made a ton of money letting said crazy racist fucks publish crazy racist newsletters in his name

    Congress and the white house are busy turning the US into a totalitarian police state. I really don't give a flying fuck about what was written by a third-party under Ron Paul's banner 20 years ago. I'm pretty much focused on the world my kids and grandkids have to live in going forward from now.

    The old newsletters are only important if you think someone, anyone will do, but someone must be punished before they can be retired as a campaign issue.

  • T||

    The questiuon iosn't whether we'll ignore it, it's whether the American public will. If people like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd can stay in the Senate until they scrape their festering corpses out with a shovel, I hardly think racism is the bugbear it's made out to be.

  • Robert||

    I know a lot of racists, and they're not bad people at all. And although that last sentence is clever, it's also true. And I think most people could say the same. An accusation of racism works in public, but not in private. Everybody's afraid of people they don't know well thinking of them as racists, but since it's all mutual nobody really cares. It's just noise.

  • Fluffy||

    John, William F. Buckley published overt defenses of segregation.

    That means that every last writer at National Review who spent so much as one day at the magazine before Buckley died is "associated with crazy racist fucks" and is "making money" for it.

    The same thing can be said for any conservative figure who belonged to any association of which Buckley was a member.

    Do you really want to play this game?

  • tarran||

    Damn, fluffy, you brought a 2X4 to a chopstick fight. ;)

  • ||

    William Buckley shouldn't have been President either. Yeah will play this game. You didn't answer single one of my questions. I am left no choice but to believe Paul believes those things and is unfit to be President. Just because he is right about some things doesn't excuse this.

  • Fluffy||

    Not only Buckley, but everybody who ever associated with him, or belonged to the same organization he did.

    Since many of your questions above revolve around demanding to know why Paul hasn't named, shamed, denounced, and ostracized whoever wrote a couple of borderline offensive things.

  • robc||

    Like the GOP?

    Everyone who has ever been a member of the GOP, or the Democratic Party (due to Byrd) is ineligible to be president.

    Im actually okay with this.

  • Fluffy||

    This would mean, for example, that if I go through a Buckley biography and find that he, say, was a member of the Federalist Society, everybody who has ever worked with or spoken before the Federalist Society would be proven thereby to be unfit to be President.

  • ||

    John, you are full of shit.

    It is far more racist to be an actual affirmative action beneficiary or supporter of the same than it is to write the subject lines which you claim are racist.

    I don't see any calls for policy or legislation BASED ON RACE in the "offending sentences".

    You are engaging in race baiting.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    I don't give a crap about Obama's crazy preacher. Didn't then and don't now. So I would ignore it in another politician.

  • ||

    Hello
    Did we not have Portable audio cassett recorders and the midia had the High end
    open reel to reel Portables.How come a racist soundbite hasn't surfaced.I bet if there were such it would be worth more then my Meet The Beatles Vynal album.
    Peace
    Stephen Schweter

  • Colin||

    Ron Paul is the most consequential guy running for president

    He's also the most racist.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Colin,

    He's also the most racist.


    Liar.

  • ¢||

    He's also the most racist.

    Third most—at most. We don't know what most of them really think about that sort of thing, but Obama and Romney are both race-church Jesus-loons.

    Church! Serious business!

    And they're the only remotely plausible winners.

    U S A

    5. Lastly, if that is his answer, how is that not just telling anyone offended by the newsletters to go fuck themselves?

    If that's what message he's sending (I don't think it is), what's the problem? Everyone who claims to be offended by anything really needs to go fuck themselves.

    Because no one has ever actually been offended by anything. Claiming offense, especially on others' behalf, is a pure power play. Nothing real is claimed but rank, the position to demand submission for revision—submission of a person.

    And the only honorable response to that kinda shit is "Go fuck yourself."

  • ||

    What portion of the content of those newsletters was specifically racist? What was the remainder of content about?

    What policies does Ron Paul advocate, in the here and now? (Aside from the standard boilerplate "Let's kill the poor!" that is?) What would the real world effect of a Ron Paul Presidency be on people of color?

  • ||

    Newt Gangrenich's vast and all-encompassing social engineering programs, which he advocates in the here and now, are more racially oppressive in their effect than Ron Paul's newsletters.

  • ||

    Don't forget that Gingrich thinks gays need to vote democrat because they're too yucky for the repubs.

  • ||

    And, just for you, John-

    Concern troll is concerned

  • ||

    If your position is "I don't care if he associated with crazy racist fucks and made a ton of money letting said crazy racist fucks publish crazy racist newsletters in his name", fine.

    Why do I assume you're using the SPLC definition of "crazy racist fucks"?

    I must be imagining things.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Ya, you* wanna excommunicate Rothbard? Too bad. I double dog excommunicate you first. Go find some freepers and hang out with them.

    *Rhetorical you, not actually you, P Brooks.

  • Old Mexican||

    "Reason on Ron Paul here"

  • Juice||

    Damn. I was hoping that someone had actually registered that url.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    Those quotes were taking out of context. What the author was saying is that the protection that blacks were receiving from the PC crowd was exacerbating race relations rather than help them.

    Read the newsletter in the original Klingon here:

    http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793

    After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."


    It's the SAME newsletter you quoted first, John. And the author was describing something that actually happened.

    One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys."


    This may be defaming but that does not make it racist. Criticizing a man is not being racist, John. Racism is by definition a form of collectivism.

    Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."


    Right. I can say the same thing about Sheila Jackson Lee, and I would be too kind.

    You haven't presented ANYTHING that could be construed as racist, John. The Reason gang simply participated in the character assassination skit along with the snot-faced punk Kirchick because the Reason gang hates Paul's guts.

  • Jeffrey||

    It almost sounds like John is trying to talk himself into supporting another republican candidate.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Jeffrey,

    And for the wrong reason.

  • Fluffy||

    And it's all so unnecessary.

    Everybody knows how much he wants someone who will kill Muslims.

    If he just said, "Sorry, guys, I know Newt's not great, but at least he'll kill some Muslims, so I gotta support him" all of us here would say, "Come on, man, we've just been WAITING for you to say that - so go ahead! Don't feel bad! We know how much it's been killing you, and we don't want you to suffer."

    So he doesn't have to go through all this pantomime.

  • ||

    His posts on this thread are just irrational, unsupported by either facts or reason.

    He has an axe to grind with Rothbard, in particular. This obviously clouds his thinking and it shows.

    Besides, as OM has noted, the sentences in question are not racist as they do not espouse the adoption of any law based upon race.

  • Fluffy||

    To cater to John's literal-mindedness this evening:

    1. How did Paul not know what they said and put a stop to it?

    2. If he didn't know, who wrote them and what were the circumstances that allowed people to publish such stuff wrongly in his name?

    3. Once Paul did know about it, what efforts did he take to separate himself from the people who did write that stuff?

    4. Is it really the case that Paul's only answer to this is "I didn't write it and don't agree with it" even though his name is on the damned newsletters and he made apparently a pretty good amount of money publishing them?

    5. Lastly, if that is his answer, how is that not just telling anyone offended by the newsletters to go fuck themselves?

    1. Since as we covered above, we're really down to TWO sentences, over the course of a period of more than a decade - hey, maybe he just missed them. Since when we're left with TWO sentences, the overwhelming majority of the newsletter issues would have had the same old goldbug apocalypse boilerplate.

    2. Personally, I think Rothbard wrote them. And the "circumstances" would be that if a guy you've known for fifteen years and who wrote the Libertarian Party platform comes to you and says, "Help me market a libertarian magazine," the odds are you say, "Sure, bud!"

    3. Probably none. If I "disassociated" myself from everyone who said anything as offensive as either of these two quotes on the day of the LA riots, I'd have no white friends over 25.

    And if YOU disassociated yourself politically from anyone with any connection whatsoever to William F. Buckley, you'd have no candidate to support, ever, and no one to read.

    4. If those two related statements are true, he gets to say them. They sound true to me.

    5. It would be saying "Go fuck yourselves" if he said, "Yeah, I think all that shit. Too bad. Fuck you." Disavowing the content is explicitly not telling people to go fuck themselves.

  • ||

    That which John has written on this thread can only be described as irrational, race-baiting.

    Racism is a government law or policy BASED ON RACE. It is COLLECTIBVISM. It is not that which is set forth in the "offending sentences".

    John's emotional outburst is telling. Even if one is "offended" by 2 sentences, that does not mean one can then logically condemn Rothbard and Rockwell as racists given the millions of words that appeared in the newsletters.

    JOhn's tirade is just not commensurate with the facts. John's posts on this thread are not the epitome of equanimity.

    Besides, we all know that John has an axe to grind with Rothbard and Rockwell.

    Rothbard and Rockwell never supported the trillion dollar military, nor did they support empire and flag worship and genuflecting to the military.

    That, and that alone, is more than you can say for any other piece of shit that John might prefer.

  • robc||

    The orginal incif file (pre threading) had John filtered by default as one of the examples. The others were all reasonable and I left them in, John I removed.

    Sometimes I wonder if I made the right choice.

  • Deanna Hensley||

    Grover Norquist is a very dangerous individual. He is causing dissension among both parties. I am a registered republican but I guarantee you that I will vote against each and every tea party member.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

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

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement