Why I Don't Think the Ron Paul Newsletters Are Very Important

Many voices whose accomplishments I otherwise respect think that the fact Ron Paul had associates who, for a brief period over a decade in the past, wrote some mean-spirited, nasty, and dumb stuff rooted in race and sexual orientation under his name is the most important thing to discuss about Ron Paul, and that the public condemnation and humiliation of those supposedly responsible is the most important public policy issue surrounding Paul's campaign now.

Part of this seems to be based on a so-far completely imagined belief that this particular repetition of the newsletter story cycle is somehow destroying Ron Paul's campaign and that such name-naming or "grappling with the past" is necessary to save that campaign. While this may become true (and the consistent harping on and reminding people of it can't help), there's no evidence for it yet; Paul's still gaining in polls. Note this Fox story headlined "Newsletters, Statements Cause Campaign Problems for Ron Paul" where the only voices they can find who actually thinks it's an important issue belong to Paul's opponent Newt Gingrich and GOP apparatchik Karl Rove and National Review editor Rich Lowry (whose own publication's history has worse to answer to in terms of racial insensitivity combined with actual expressed support for legal actions against the rights of African-Americans, which leads Paul fans to believe that none of this has to do with actual objections to anyone with connections to past awful race-based comments, but with scuttling what is good about the Ron Paul campaign).

As I wrote in 2008 during an earlier iteration of the newsletter story cycle, somewhat obliquely, I think this stuff is far from the most important thing to consider or talk about when it comes to this amazing moment where a very libertarian politician seems on the cusp of actually winning the first caucus in a Republican presidential contest. Libertarians, as a rule, especially if you've been in this game for decades before Paul, are used to the fact that peculiar political beliefs attract peculiar people, that there is a sociological overlap between the radical politics of libertarianism and certain other radical beliefs that don't have anything intellectually or necessarily to do with libertarianism, and that isn't the problem or the fault of libertarian ideas, nor is fighting those unpleasant ideas that some people in the libertarian orbit hold the primary responsibility of libertarians. Standing up for political liberty is. 

And, more importantly, I believe it's less important to beat up on and condemn a certain set of powerless and marginalized people who think and believe some nasty things everyone agrees are wrong than it is to beat up on and condemn the set of incredibly powerful people who actually act to commit crimes and rights-violation and damage to life across the globe who everyone thinks are perfectly right to do so. And Ron Paul is the only candidate with any public traction and fans who condemns and would fight to stop such crimes, from the drug war to non-defensive overseas wars to armed assaults on people because they sell raw milk to rampant violations of American's civil liberties and privacy to an organization in charge of our money supply that uses that power to scuttle the entire world economy and bailout its buddies.

By any standard of political or moral judgment that I can respect, that is what is important about Ron Paul and the story of Ron Paul now. And from my five years of experience reporting on the Ron Paul movement that's arisen since 2007, both for Reason and for my forthcoming book, I can assure any old libertarian worried about old libertarian movement business that it is the good things about Ron Paul that have won him the support and love he has won, and that this old business is irrelevant to them, and thus irrelevant to the actual important political and cultural story about Ron Paul now.

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.

  • RoboCain||

    Busted! Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape! OMG! OMG!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY

  • The Angry RPh||

    That's pretty funny. Look at the comments. Some people don't get the sarcasm even after watching the video.

  • RoboCain||

    Proof of Ron Paul's Racism!
    ROCK SOLID EVIDENCE!

    http://www.5k.com/

  • Max||

  • RoboCain||

    You should write for Comedy Central.

  • Juice||

    In the April 1989 one it says:

    "That's also the explanation of all the attention paid to Louisiana legislator David Duke. He holds some positions that free-market people agree with (taxes, quotas, foreign aid, etc.) but he is also an adherent of the violent philosophy of the KKK. So he was a perfect target for liberals. That's why we have to do an end-run around the controlled media and get our message on to TV ourselves."

    So I guess the next NYT headline is going to be Ron Paul Disavows David Duke and KKK in Newsletters talking about how the media is trying to lump libertarians in with David Duke and they didn't want that.

  • ||

    Ya, after reading those. The LA Riot comments were recanted events and opinions based off what happened during that event. Not racist.

    Talk about homosexuals not throwing their views in people's faces is kind of agreeable. Gay pride events are one thing, destroying property with their "pride" is illegal. And the use of the word "gays" was acceptable back then.

    "Anti-semetic comments" weren't. There were many reports even from the CIA that placed Israel as a possible accomplice to those bombings.

    People need to take their heads out of their rears and learn to comprehend what they are reading instead of freaking out when race, sexual preference, or gender is brought up in an article.

  • Juice||

    5k.com needs a proofreader for all the grammar and spelling mistakes.

  • Jeremy||

    Brian says it well above. National Review has ITS OWN sins to atone for.

    “The central question that emerges–and it is not a parliamentary question or a question that is answered by merely consulting a catalog of the rights of American citizens, born Equal–is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the median cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. The question, as far as the White community is concerned, is whether the claims of civilization supersede those of universal suffrage. The British believe they do, and acted accordingly, in Kenya, where the choice was dramatically one between civilization and barbarism, and elsewhere; the South, where the conflict is by no means dramatic, as in Kenya, nevertheless perceives important qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes’, and intends to assert its own.” – National Review, August 24, 1957

    “National Review believes that the South's premises are correct. It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority. Sometimes it becomes impossible to assert the will of a minority, in which case it must give way, and the society will regress; sometimes the numerical minority cannot prevail except by violence: then it must determine whether the prevalence of its will is worth the terrible price of violence.” – National Review, August 24, 1957

    “In the Deep South the Negroes are retarded. Any effort to ignore the fact is sentimentalism or demagoguery. In the Deep South the essential relationship is organic, and the attempt to hand over to the Negro the raw political power with which to alter it is hardly a solution." - National Review, March 1960

    “Dr. King’s flouting of the law does not justify the flouting by others of the law, but it is a terrifying thought that, most likely, the cretin who leveled his rifle at the head of Martin Luther King may have absorbed the talk, so freely available, about the supremacy of individual conscience, such talk as Martin Luther King, God rest his troubled and compassionate soul, had so widely and indiscriminately indulged in.” – William F. Buckley, The Jeweler’s Eye, 1969

    “It is a curious and unintended commentary on white South Africa that its sins are thought worth denouncing, but those of black Africans are not. The easiest deduction is that when Amin kills a few thousand of his citizens, or when one tribe sets out to eliminate another, it isn't worth the attention of the Security Council, but when the South African government acts to enforce its own (dismaying) laws, it's international indignation" - William F. Buckley, National Review, July 23, 1976

    "The United States, with a population only one ninth black, is still recovering from the turbulence of the Sixties. South Africa, overwhelmingly black even if Asians and "coloreds" are counted as whites, will need something like a miracle to come through its near future peacefully. But Botha has earned the benefit of a doubt from responsible critics." - National Review, November 9, 1979

    "MLK Day would be far preferable on the first Monday in September, for undeniably one of Mr. King's central achievements was to open the door to the marketplace for jobs. Somehow, though, it rankles that we should be asked to take the day off to remember a man whose career was built on leisure. (The GNP, after all, is not produced by people marching in the streets). Perhaps MLK Day should be celebrated only by the gainfully employed, and all those on welfare should be required to collect their checks as usual." - National Review, October 28, 1983

    "But the people who govern in South Africa simply are not monsters, and it is a mistake to address them as though they were. Demonstrations for racial equality, and protests against a failure to observe it, are different from the kind of thing Bishop Tutu is talking about, which is the overthrow of the South African government. By coincidence, CBS's 60 Minutes last month showed a segment, presided over by Morley Safer, illustrating the liberalization of the apartheid laws under Prime Minister Botha. A combination of encouragement and firmness isn't readily communicated by blocking access to South African consulates." - William F. Buckley, National Review, February 8, 1985

    "We need to understand that white South Africans see their society as one that would not survive one man, one vote. And Mr. Botha, one concludes if one opens one's eyes to democratic practice on the continent, is entirely correct in opposing what years ago, as the evolution of African democracy proceeded, was cynically— and realistically—described as one man, one vote, once. One man, one vote is a fanatical abstraction of self-government that not even the United States tolerates institutionally." - William F. Buckley, National Review, September 20, 1985

    “The rush to stipulate correct standards of conduct for those who do not have AIDS toward those who do have AIDS raises questions not only of the rights of the victims, but of the rights of the non-sufferers. Los Angeles recently swept into law a noble edict making it a legal offense to discriminate in any way against an AIDS sufferer, which is all very well, but somehow reminds us, does it not, of those high and mighty tribunes who pass laws forbidding discrimination in the public schools on Monday, and on Tuesday, withdraw their children to send them to a private school." - William F. Buckley, National Review, October 18, 1985

    "Where Mandela belongs, in his current frame of mind, is precisely where he is: in jail." - William F. Buckley, National Review, September 20, 1985

    “When a few weeks ago President Botha flamboyantly offered to free Mandela in return for the Soviet Union's freeing Sakharov, Botha was widely, and properly, derided—on the grounds that by equating the two, he was in effect conceding that Mandela was a political prisoner, rather than a terrorist paying out a life sentence.” – William F. Buckley, National Review, March 28, 1986

    "None of this counts for much with many of South Africa's enemies. Since their goal is revolutionary change, they have no use for reform. "Apartheid cannot be reformed," declared a spokesman for the United Democratic Front. "It must be eradicated." "The Pretoria regime," said four South African Catholic bishops in a joint statement with the African National Congress, "cannot be an agent for change." Bishop Tutu has "no hope." The shanty set over here will take its cue accordingly. Revolution, in the South African context, means continuing and escalating violence, followed at the end by, at most, one election—one man, one vote, one time: a consequence some of the revolutionaries (most notably the Communist-allied ANC) recognize, and desire." - National Review, May 23, 1986

    "The historian David Garrow, in two recent—and sympathetic—studies of Dr. King, gives copious documentation showing that King, a married man and an ordained minister, was a compulsive philanderer, and compulsive may be too weak a word. Professor Garrow also shows that King was closely and continuously associated with several men who were almost certainly Communists and, though warned about this by the Kennedy brothers, persisted." - National Review, February 13, 1987

    "When people celebrate George Washington or Columbus or the legendary St. Patrick, they are celebrating both achievement and themselves. And since we have been moving toward a sort of pluralistic "balanced ticket" in national Days, it may be good, on balance, to have a Martin Luther King Day. Some of his accomplishments were valuable. A black hero does belong in the calendar, reflecting the citizenship of blacks...[but] One now feels that Martin Luther King Day represents affirmative action in the creation of national memorials. But let's hang in there, and contribute to the disposal of the historical Dr. King down the memory hole." - National Review, February 13, 1987

    "The African National Congress has had a high old time of it since the release of Mr. Mandela. He is an inspiring figure, and he has suffered a great deal. But he has also been reluctant to take such steps as might have accelerated a constitutional compromise. What the ANC desires is of course one man, one vote, rather than the weighted franchise that makes so much sense." - William F. Buckley, National Review, July 22, 1991

    “A final possibility is that just as we like to think Gorbachev has truly renounced the evil doctrines he was so recently associated with, so has David Duke. Gorbachev tells us in his book that although he is no longer a Communist, he is still a socialist. That is a very important step in the right direction, even if it doesn't take him as far as we would like to see him go. David Duke says he is no longer a Ku Kluxer, but he does believe that white people also have rights, and that statism is a curse, and that Judaeo-Christian values should be taught in the schools. I would not vote for David Duke if I were a resident of Louisiana. But then I probably wouldn't have voted for Hugo Black for the Supreme Court when it was revealed that he had been a member of the Ku Klux Klan. I would however force myself to wonder whether I was being vindictive, and how far I would get with my static prejudices if I lived and worked in Russia." - William F. Buckley, National Review, December 2, 1991

  • ||

    I want to be segregated from people who use the word "obtrude".

  • Basil Seal||

    So what's your point? You are hardly on the good side of an argument pointing to National Review's sins given that Paul's are a more recent vintage. If you think Paul deserves some slack on the matter, one would expect a more broad-minded take on ancient Buckley columns. On the other hand, if Buckley is bad then Paul is just an old racist kook and I wonder why you bother.

  • Basil Seal||

    So what's your point? You are hardly on the good side of an argument pointing to National Review's sins given that Paul's are a more recent vintage. If you think Paul deserves some slack on the matter, one would expect a more broad-minded take on ancient Buckley columns. On the other hand, if Buckley is bad then Paul is just an old racist kook and I wonder why you bother.

  • Fascist-Slayer||

    I'm still wondering if anyone has ever published the allegedly "racist" newsletters. The only snippets I've seen had some comment about the criminality and fleet footedness of American black youth. Are these facts really in dispute? Blacks have higher criminality (is it racist to reveal the facts about the criminality index of various races?), and they are better/faster runners (empirical evidence borne out by observation and examination) than most other races (Asian, Caucasian, etc)

  • ||

    There is a link in the comments above. There is nothing to flip out about.

  • flacid tuna||

    About time someone from Reason came to Paul's defense. Nonetheless, please cancel my subscription.

  • butthurt paultard||

    I think it's time somebody comes to the defense of Paul's racism.

  • Ice Nine||

    I think it's time someone came to the conclusion that the newsletter comments were not particularly racist.

  • Max||

    I think you're a slimy cock sucker who can't read.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    What was printed that wasn't true?

  • Robert||

    That's the trouble. These days you can say perfectly true things that are about races, and get in trouble for it. It's like all the time people were telling lies about races has to be made up for by time where people don't say anything at all, because anything said on the subject must be a lie.

  • sweeping statements||

    There's a kernel of truth in any stereotype. Like libertarians are either just a bunch of upper class assholes or they're the black helicopter crowd. What, are you saying there aren't some libertarians who fit into one of those categories?

  • Fascist-Slayer||

    I'd like to see some of these racist newsletters so we can all judge this suspicious content by the light of day. Cmon lets see it.

  • ||

    one of the latest comment threads at the top has a link

  • ||

    Spoken like a RACIST PIECE OF SHIT.

  • Ice Nine||

    I admit, your rebuttal is convincing - and the yelling was the arrow through my heart.

  • ||

    You're quite illiterate if you consider those newsletters racist. Why don't you realize Ron Paul has been helping the minorities in his practice by delivering kids of the less-fortunate for free, and that includes African-Americans children. If you think his newsletters racist, you would hate to see law enforcement training manuals.

  • ||

    The MORONS on here have been doing just that!!!

  • ||

    Your subscription is meaningless. If Reason cared about subscribers, they would be courting Ron Paul supporters.

    I agree with the rest. An honest article from Brian in his typically evenhanded manner.

    I think he's being too generous to Paul's supposed critics though. They don't believe these newsletters are an important policy issue. They are attacking other people in the movement and couldn't give a damn about Paul's policies or the potential for any success for libertarianism via this campaign.

    Again, Reason doesn't care about subscribers. Reason is funded by the very people Ron Paul and his ideas diminish in the political sphere.

  • ||

    Your subscription is meaningless. If Reason cared about subscribers, they would be courting Ron Paul supporters.

    Ooh, somebody's new here.

  • k2000k||

    If reason cared for subsribers they would send my fucking magazines. I paid for a yearly subscription and too date have only recieved one publication. Needless to say, as long as they offer this stuff for free online I won't be renewing.

  • Apatheist||

    Has your kochtopus tentacle porn made you turgid yet?

  • Vake||

    About time that readers recognize different people work at Reason, with different opinions on issues.

  • tarran||

    It's the process by which they were produced that matters.

    It matters because it gives a template to how a President Ron Paul would govern. It matters because it shows how he selects people to work for him. It matters because it shows how he oversees and disciplines them.

    Let's face facts; if Ron Paul becomes president, he's going to be turning to Lew Rockwell and Jeffrey Tucker to help him put together a list of political appointees. We are going to see the same thought processes and approaches to selecting and vetting people as occurred before they were famous.

    Is he going to appoint people like Albert Fall? Gary North? Eric Dondero?

    There are a large number of great thinkers out of the LvMI - replacing Bernanke with Jesus Huerta de Soto, for example, would be a godsend to the U.S. economy. The appointment of cronys who are mentally or morally unfit to the task could be a disaster, and watching Lew Rockwell promote homeopathy and vaccine-alarmism hasn't filled me with confidence about his judgement.

  • Fluffy||

    I kind of draw the opposite conclusion:

    Paul has somehow managed to construct a nationally competitive campaign using amateurs, family members, dilettantes, and ostracized outsiders.

    That makes him basically Lee Marvin in The Dirty Dozen.

  • BakedPenguin||

    (Announcer voice) "With a ragtag squad of misfits, one man sought the highest political office in the land..."

  • flacid tuna||

    I'd buy a ticket to see that movie.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    It's already been made...sort of.

    Head of State

  • ||

    I was afraid you were gonna say Hail To The Chimp.

  • Hank||

    Or, from an anarchists' dream perspective, he is Rachel Phelps in Major League.

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    I just hope there's no Ron Paul cardboard cutout whose clothing gets peeled off one piece at a time.

  • ||

    But Ron Paul would be the Jake Taylor character. And he would be saying: this!

  • MlR||

    That's hilarious.

  • RoboCain||

    I don't see how it gives a template how President Ron Paul would govern. Even if it did, ignoring around a half-dozen politically incorrect statements, given their intended purpose, the newsletters were a huge success.

  • ||

    Is he going to appoint people like Albert Fall? Gary North? Eric Dondero?

    Or Justin Raimondo to Secretary of Defense??

    Personally, as long as Andrew Napolitano makes it onto the Supreme Court, I'll probably be OK with whomever else he appoints.

  • chris||

    I'm hoping for a Dennis Kucinich

  • chris||

    chief of staff. Weird which button on this keyboard causes auto submissions?

  • ||

    I'm hoping for a Dennis Kucinich

    For what, SCOTUS or SecDef?

  • chris||

    Chief of Staff. Essentially Kucinich running the White House and having gate keeper responsibilities. I would love that.

  • chris||

    In case you're wondering why. The individuals who comprise the DC elite treat DC like a schlub, a nerd they can kick around. The anti-Rahm Emmanuel. Chief of Staff is likely the most powerful position-y position in DC. It would be strong sauce.

  • Ted S.||

    Eugene Volokh for Supreme Court.

  • ||

    Lew Rockwell rocks.

  • ||

    "It matters because it gives a template to how a President Ron Paul would govern."

    That's ridiculous. One's managerial style, if it were even applicable to this case, of 15-20 years ago is not the same as it would be now. Managerial (and leadership) skills grow, diminish, and in general change over time. It isn't static.

    In simple terms, this isn't the 90s any more.

    For the rebuttal of the whole thing, read this: http://www.scribd.com/doc/7628.....rsFaq-Tunk

    The rest of your argument (including the non-sequitir nonsense about vaccines and homeopathy, to which you're incorrect on both) is easily ignored as meaningless.

  • tarran||

    Tannim, that whole FAQ is a giant non-sequitur to the point I am making.

    Moreover, your handwaving in no way rebuts the points I am making.

    Lew Rockwell was Ron Paul's chief of staff and remains a close confidante of his. He is a center of a vast newtwork of libertarian intellectuals and has been working the political angles for decades.

    The homeopathy and promotion of the de-MD'ed Wakefield's quackery is appropriate because it is a great example of Lew judging people based on their opposition to the state rather than the totality of their idiocy.

  • so...||

    The only way you can get to RP is to tie him to someone else then pretend that someone else's views are Paul's.

    So, you've got nothing and are desperate, got it.

  • tarran||

    LOL! Paultards are so cute when they flail!

  • so...||

    You've still got nothing and resort to insults.

    Why does anyone pretend to care what you think when your argument is destroyed in front of you and "paulyarda

  • dennis||

    I like a lot of what is on LRC, but I agree with this. Being opposed to big institutions is not in and of itself being pro-liberty. When David Kramer gets on the blog and starts his ridiculous "OMG the Rockefellers and Rothschilds are going to get us!!!1!!one!!11!!" nonsense one can only roll his eyes. DiLorenzo could have done a great thing by putting out a calm evenhanded attack on Lincoln and Civil War hagiography, instead he writes over the top screeds that are nearly as bad as the puff pieces he assails. What is perhaps most frustrating about Lew Rockwell is that some of the best and most principled stuff in the libertarian universe comes from LRC and the LMVI, but it is tarnished by being lumped in with anti-evolution nonsense and anti-vaccine kookery. If some statist goon wanted to discredit great libertarian ideas he could hardly do a better job than LRC does at its worst. One article has Will Grigg writing about police brutality and doing it even better than Radley Balko, then the next article is some twaddle about vaccines or evolution or Jesse Ventura or other things that make a great piece by Grigg look nutty by association.

  • pigsfromagun||

    Okay, now I'm totally bored with the rest of the argument. I just want to know why you chose the feminine form of the word "confidant".

  • ||

    Ron Paul will never be chief POOPER SCOOPER much less President.

  • ||

    Vaccines can actually be very harmful. Look into gardicil (sp?) sometime.

    Anyway, as long as he puts Gary Johnson as VP its all good.

  • Jake||

    Exactly!

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Brian evidently didn't get the memo from the Kochs. Don't you know Reason is in the bag for Romney.

  • flacid tuna||

    No, this is the exception that proves the rule.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    I never got the phrase 'exception that proves the rule'. I assume in this context it's sarcastic?

  • Omni omni vee oh are||

    exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    That was educational. Latin + Google usually equals a winner.

  • ||

    No, this is the exception that proves the rule.

    Can't you just admit that you were wrong and move on? Jesus Christ, even I can do that.

  • Yes, my son...||

    ...even you can do that.

    ~HayZeus

  • SIV||

    Doherty's a racist too!

  • flacid tuna||

    Guilt by association. It's a bitch.

  • ||

    Yeah, right. Ask his wife that question and see how wrong you are.

  • Fluffy||

    BTW:

    Reason is apparently showing how well it understands free market principles by getting rid of the H&R feature that reliably gets the most hits.

    Where are my AM Morning Links?

  • Suggestor 2000™||

    Why not just randomly insert your own links whenever you feel like it, like everyone else here does?

  • ||

    I'll start. Seattle PD turn dashcams off and on in a deliberate and "uneven" manner. Police chief says officers need more training (in how to use the "always on" setting).

    Man, Seattle PD is spiraling the drain. But never fear, dunphy will soon be here to defend them and cry for their due process.*

    *Unfortunately, they have rigged due process in union negotiations to not include real independent citizen review or possible criminal charges in nearly all cases.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    That "Always On" setting must be fucking hard if officers need more training to not do anything at all.

  • ||

    i "cry" for everybody's due process, sloopy, to include criminal and civil defendants.

    *if* SPD is actually as bad as the DOJ claims., and as i said, i SUSPECT (iow i think it more likely than not) that they are, then i think they need to take responsibility for that.

    unlike you, i don't filter what i assume to be true, and assume to be fanciful based on the metanarrative or my personal like/dislike for the target.

  • Hank||

    Why do you hate baby Jesus?

  • Cannibal||

    Holy infant, so tender and mild. Yum.

  • Sevo||

    Well done!

  • ||

    What you did there, Sevo. I see it.

  • Take Eat, This is My Body||

  • Cannibal||

    Yup. Pass the salt.

  • Mohel||

    I'll just take this little bit, here.

  • Private Idaho||

    I for one have no problem calling violent thugs "animals," regardless of their race. In fact, the alleged slur is an insult to animals, who haven't the faculty of volition or the capacity to grasp concepts of morality and justice. Are all blacks (or whites or Asians for that matter) "animals"? No, just the ones who prey on other humans.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    +1 for Idaho.

  • Eitan||

    Actually all people are animals. I have leftist friends who say they won't vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution. I can just forward them this quote!

  • Let's start acting like animal||

    ...crackers.

  • Eitan||

    Actually all people are animals. I have leftist friends who say they won't vote for someone who doesn't believe in evolution. I can just forward them this quote!

  • Robert||

    You don't have to believe in biologic evolution to believe humans are animals. Taxonomy isn't all about evolutionary theory, although they did give a boost to each other.

  • Beltway Cocktail Party Circuit||

    That does it! You're blackballed!

  • flacid tuna||

    Guilt by association. It's a bitch.

  • ||

    I still think that if Obama was able to live down Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, then this newsletter flap should be a non-issue as well.

  • flacid tuna||

    And it would be (if some libertarian orgs who shall remain nameless let sleeping dogs lie).

  • RoboCain||

    *storms out of chatroom*

  • Serious Libertarians||

    *storms out of chatroom*

    This is not a chatroom!
    This...is...a...serious...forum!

    [farts, exits]

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    I thought no one reads Reason, so if no one is reading these posts, how are they the ones pushing the story?

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Like everything libertarian, Reason is irrelevant until it can be blamed for something.

  • Joe M||

    And, more importantly, I believe it's less important to beat up on and condemn a certain set of powerless and marginalized people who think and believe some nasty things everyone agrees are wrong than it is to beat up on and condemn the set of incredibly powerful people who actually act to commit crimes and rights-violation and damage to life across the globe who everyone thinks are perfectly right to do so.

    Well that's kind of the rub, isn't it? People want to focus on condemning the things that everyone agrees are wrong because there's no risk in it. It's difficult and scary to oppose the real injustices because they're so damn popular.

  • RoboCain||

    So you are saying it's political grandstanding? I think that might be part of it. I also think that the very subject of racism is a taboo, and therefore leads to irrational expression.

  • ||

    Hmm, I'm not sure that they actually are important.

    www.privacy-surf.tk

  • Sarcazmic||

    Lysander Spooner is still hot.

  • ||

    I he had a leather jacket, he could run Reason.

  • Name Nomad||

    Wondering why the top of my head is bare? It's because my hat is off to you, good sir.

  • ||

    Finally, someone posts something for the ladies.

  • Shane Brady||

    The important issue, if for some reason racist hateful newsletters aren't bad enough, is that when confronted with the story Ron Paul has been less than honest, telling different stories throughout the year.

    If he can't he honest about something that "doesn't matter" to some people, imagine what he'll do when it is "important".

  • RoboCain||

    I don't see where he's been dishonest or contradicted himself. Although I can't say that about either Gingrich or Romney, who seem to have taken both sides of nearly every issue.

  • Colin||

    Then, you're just a blind sheep.

    He defended those newsletters for years. There's plenty printed and video evidence of this. But if you chose not to look . . .

  • RoboCain||

    ROTFL

    Son, I remember when trolling still meant something.

  • chris||

    Colin is an utter disappointment to every human being who encounters him. I feel for his parents with every sentence he writes.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Culito,

    There's plenty printed and video evidence of this.


    Here we present evidence, not allude to it.

  • ||

    What "different stories". Once you remove the editing from those stories, they're the same every time. He just isn't planning to throw people under the bus to get elected.

  • Old Mexican||

    re: Shane Brady,

    is that when confronted with the story Ron Paul has been less than honest, telling different stories throughout the year.


    Wait...what? It's the same explanation he has been given since 2002! The exact same. What you've been hearing is the different iterations given by the clueless talking heads at Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC and CNN.

  • ||

    Mama always said that EVIL PEOPLE, "Tell lies when the truth would suffice".

  • robc||

    Anyone who supports the war on drugs is a bigot.

    THAT is the way the current pols operate. Will Paul's indirect connections to racists show up in his administration? I cant say.

    I can say what happens when you put the current group of bigots in office.

  • Robert||

    No, most people who support any of various wars on any of various drugs are not bigots. However, most supporters of such wars aren't strongly committed to them and are just going along with something they've reason to believe isn't controversial.

  • ||

    Anyone who supports RON PAUL is a BIGOT.

  • Ricardo Perez||

    Brian Doherty is one of the few voices of reason at Reason.

  •  ||

    Clever "drink!" retort in 3...2...

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    "Drink!"

  • Hey, you||

    So, I guess this article made up for Shikha Dalmia's article.
    Isn't the first step towards being a Ron Paul supporter is to not believe the MSM bs?

  • RoboCain||

    Man Dies After Eating Cocaine From His Brother’s Butt

    http://widk.com/2011/12/20/man.....hers-butt/

  • Steve||

    I bet that link was real popular over at the Paleolibertarian forumStormfront.

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Ha ha, I never thought of Stormfront as paleolib. Just as e-Aryan.

  • tarran||

    Actually, they are a mixture of 19th century progressives and racist conservatives.

    They're also not very bright.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    They're also not very bright.

    Hmmmm..... if Alexa is to be believed, Stormfront appeals to a demographic approximately as educated as Reason's audience.

    Also of note, 70.2% of Reason's hits are from within the United States, as opposed to only 38.1% of Stormfront's.

    Apparently white nationalism is a more cosmopolitan philosophy than cosmotarianism. ;)

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Educational level aside, it's obvious Stormfront's readership isn't very bright. Although only 38.1% of their readership being from the US may partially explain their peculiar problems with the English language.

  • tarran||

    Poor slappy, posting stats that have nothing to do with the point being made.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Slappy! It's good to see our resident racist troll! How ya doin'!!

    By the way, only an idiot conflates education level with intelligence.

  • Ryback's Cook||

    See, if Paul could have just responded to the newsletter controversy by saying, "Hey, at least I haven't died from eating cocaine out of my brother's butt."

  • Ice Nine||

    If that guy had just eaten Bolivian sheep assholes instead, he'd be alive today..

  • ||

    Last salad he'll ever toss.

  • ||

    Man Dies After Eating Cocaine From His Brother’s Butt

    Here in the Santorum household, we call that a "sugar shack." Of course, it really doesn't take place in the household; I have to cruise the streets in drag for that sort of action, since the lil lady takes a dim view of that sort of thing.

  • ||

    So that's how you met Fred Phelps and Michelle Bachmann?

  • ||

    No, that was through our Tuesday night meetups. Fred brings the gerbils, Michelle brings the ice tongs.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    You're getting off topic, we're supposed to be discussing the unfair treatment of presidential candidates who made politically incorrectct comments.

  • ¢||

    Some people's personal investment in "libertarianism" is in its status as an unclearly signifying word under whose sign—so long as it signifies unclearly—they can Reasonably quibble at the margins of...let's say "hegemonic ideology," because that's fun to say...without always being peremptorily cast out as heretical/Satanic/RACIST!/whatever.

    To maintain such a desperate and rickety position halfway off the ledge of acceptable discourse, they have to make all kinda tedious ritual displays of ostracizing certain already "powerless and marginalized people"—lest that anxiously clutched sign come to clearly signify those people.

    If "libertarianism" = the presumed audience for the dread newsletters, then the Reasonable have to find a new sign. That's a lot of unpleasant work, and they'd have to sever themselves from a long and deep wake of sunk cognitive/psychological/social costs.

    But you're cool, Doherty.

  • HermanLame||

    WHAT THE FUCK DOES THIS MEAN?

  • Maxxx||

    It means it's intrinsically paternalistic.

  • ||

    I'm glad to see it isn't firm policy for Reason writers to carry the establishment's water in shutting down the Paul campaign.

  • Old Mexican||

    And Ron Paul is the only candidate with any public traction and fans who condemns and would fight to stop such crimes, from the drug war to non-defensive overseas wars to attacking people with guns because they sell raw milk to rampant violations of American's civil liberties and privacy to an organization in charge of our money supply that uses that power to scuttle the entire world economy and bailout its buddies.


    May the gods spread their blessing upon you, Brian.

  • Showers of blessings||

    Mercy drops round us are falling

  • ||

    Mercy drops round us are falling

    The net result of an angelic circle-jerk?

  • RoboCain||

    "Reports that Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul stormed out of a CNN interview earlier this week seem to be dramatically over-exaggerated."

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new.....-done.html

  • ||

    I think the alleged racism is ridiculous.

    Now the fact that Ron Paul is an idiot on economics IS important. He and his goldbug Glenn Beck/Peter Schiff pals have been crying "hyperinflation" since Jan 2009 and they were wrong then, wrong now, and wrong for at least ten more years.

    Of course - they have fans here - but you guys were wrong too.

  • flacid tuna||

    What about plain jane regular inflation?

  • ||

    If I took the top of the asset bubble in early 2008 I can show significant deflation despite the Fed's monetary intervention. To have an economic team fixated on inflation in a severe contraction would be the height of stupidity. Milton Friedman backs me up on this - its not complicated. The Ron Paul/Glenn Beck camp are exactly the type simpletons we don't need.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,

    If I took the top of the asset bubble in early 2008 I can show significant deflation despite the Fed's monetary intervention.


    Show it.

    To have an economic team fixated on inflation in a severe contraction would be the height of stupidity.


    The height of stupidity would be to prop up assets by printing money.

  • ||

    Yeah I suppose you do know more about economics than Peter Schiff. I suppose that's why he is in the 1% and you are posting on forums on a workday.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: PaultheBoot,

    I suppose that's why he is in the 1% and you are posting on forums on a workday.


    It's actually a given-day at many places of work as the 25th landed on a Sunday... Just sayin'.

  • k2000k||

    Yes a man who built a multi million dollar company from scratch must be teh stpoodiz.

  • Colin||

    You have it exactly backwards.

  • Mr. Chartreuse ||

    C'mon, shrike, it's not like you were consistently wrong on gold crashing for years around here either. You may finally get it right this year, with gold at 1600.

    I think on the hyperinflation issue, while we haven't been pushing wheelbarrows around, I don't think that inflation isn't as hunky-dory as Helicopter Ben thinks it is. But I will admit to being wrong on the imminent part, it is close to New Year's after all :)

  • ||

    Yes, my two gold shorts were both short-lived. I underestimated the fear factor involved with a safe haven PM.

    Europe/US has a lot of contraction left in it until debt/equity ratios get back to sanity. Gold will correct too. I remember Soros called off his tech stock shorts in 1999 saying that he was still right but could not time the bubble. Then the NAZ hit 5000 March of 2000.

    Gold is in a bubble just like the NAZ was.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: shrike,

    Gold will correct too.


    It will, once humanity returns to a commodity based economy after the barter economy, post-dollar collapse.

  • Hot Shit||

    Gahh!!!! Insufferable. Trite, but never right.
    Shrike hanging here is like having our own personal Donald Trump.

  • ||

    WOW! You obviously are completely ignorant of the history of fiat currency.

    Beck and Paul have telling people to buy gold for a LONG time. If you bought gold or silver in 2000 you'd have a ~500% return.

  • ||

    Oh bullshit. The 19th century was filled with longer depressions and recessions pre-Fed. Since the gold standard was abolished in 1971 we have had shorter contractions. The Credit Crash of 2008 was a short duration recession in terms of GDP.

    Gold has had its day in the sun - and will again in 30-40 years. Sell now and take profit.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Shrike,
    The 19th century was filled with longer depressions and recessions pre-Fed.
    This is a lie, shrike.

    ince the gold standard was abolished in 1971 we have had shorter contractions.


    You must think you're talking to idiots. The Great Stagflation of 1972-1981 was not a contraction?

    Imbecile.

  • ||

    Here, fool. Proof. And there was no recession while Carter was president at all.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L.....ted_States

  • ||

    WOW! You obviously are completely ignorant of the history of fiat currency.

    Beck and Paul have telling people to buy gold for a LONG time. If you bought gold or silver in 2000 you'd have a ~500% return.

  • ||

    SO then by 2021 we'll have hyperinflation, thus proving him right? Thanks for validating!

    That's only gonna happen if the Fed maintains its desperate Keynesian ploys.

    Had they let things be in 2007, we'd be out of this already.

    The only institution too big to fail is the American individual.

  • RoboCain||

    Ron Paul Had Phone Sex With Your Mom

    http://jezebel.com/5869291/mor.....-the-bills

  • John E Shuey||

    I could see one such newsletter getting out w/o RP's knowledge. But beyond any reasonable doubt he had to see or hear of what was in that first offensive one, and then the question becomes why did he not intervene? I certainly would not let any such nonsense be circulated with my name attached to it, and I know of no libertarian nor anyone else of good will who would either. Until RP address this simple concept, he should be dead in the water to libertarians.

  • RoboCain||

    That's retarded.

  • Colin||

    Retarded is what retarded says.

  • RoboCain||

    So you're twice as retarded? Fail more next time.

  • Colin||

    +1

  • Fluffy||

    What puts it beyond any reasonable doubt?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John E Shuey,

    But beyond any reasonable doubt he had to see or hear of what was in that first offensive one[...]


    You're assuming someone in his readership found one of the articles offensive enough to write him back.

    Until RP address this simple concept, he should be dead in the water to libertarians.


    You're assuming this issue invalidates 30 years of living, talking and walking the libertarian road.

    Your assumptions are quite off the mark.

  • johnl||

    Good point. I wonder if there is any overlap at all between the newsletter readership and reason. And if not, why not.

  • ||

    Actually, I understand that only three or four issues contained the objectionable material. There were four newsletters, published over a span of 20 years. That's thousands of issues. The hit pieces are hyping the exceptions.

  • ||

  • jester||

    I am generally 'annoyed' by just about every single letter I get from 'Campaign 4 Liberty' as well as Ron Paul campaign ads. I don't need dumbed-down shit as do not most of the folk who post here.

    I guess the rest of the world needs tabloid language. I kinda laughed to myself when in Paul's interview, he was questioned about the conspiracy-theory laden newsletters that he's disavowed, simply because: all political newsletters are fucking HYPERBOLE.

    I belong to a union (by force) and my union produces some of the gayest-shit hyperbole anywhere in some ignorant newsletter that I doubt anyone reads except someone like me who does because he is interested in nonsensical explanation, building strawmen, haruspex, etc.

  • ericg||

    The cosmotarian angst over the newsletters reflects a deeper discomfort that Beltway policy wonk free marketeers have with Paul's paleolib style becoming the most popular strain of libertarianism. I don't think it's a Koch conspiracy; it's just that they feel the word "libertarian" is becoming associated with Paul's beliefs rather than those of Friedman or Hayek or Ed Crane, and this bums out people who push soft libertarianism like vouchers and the flat tax instead of hardcore stuff like ending the Fed and funding the government solely through user fees.

  • RoboCain||

    Paul isn't a "doctrinaire libertarian", or at least not based on his announced plans. And I think all of this alleged infighting is silly. No matter how you look at it, whether you think Paul is too libertarian, not enough libertarian, or not your preferred type of libertarian, he is still more libertarian than anyone else who has a chance of winning a primary.

  • ||

    Agreed. And not marginally more libertarian, but a great deal so. Those of us that vote need to jump on the bandwagon, because this man, warts and all, is a giant leap away from the abyss that the two parties are throwing us into.

    I still think he needs to credit the writer with their own work, but only because I believe the MSM will not relent until he does so.

  • RoboCain||

    Here is someone arguing that perhaps can't say who wrote them:

    http://www.dailypaul.com/19418.....s-kirchick

    Regardless, if Paul did not write them, and there is no evidence he did, then does it really matter who did? That guy isn't running for President.

  • ||

    Yeah, that was pointed out to me several times last night. And maybe he has no idea who wrote them. But if he does, I still think full disclosure is the right thing to do. It not only takes the MSM's, GOP's and DNC's ammunition away, but it also allows him to counter from an offensive position as opposed to constantly being on defense.

    Again, just my opinion, which is certainly in the minority here.

  • ||

    Come on sloop, you know they aren't going to let this bone go. The entire liberal side of our country thinks it's racist to say that racist dumb fucks should be allowed to be racist dumb fucks. Naming names isn't going to change that.

    At the end of the day naming names would be a shameless political ploy that one would expect from mittens or titties or obama.

  • Colin||

    Why I Don't Think the Ron Paul Newsletters Are Very Important

    Because I'm not part of any minority Ron Paul despises.

    First, they came for . . .

  • ||

    First, they came for . . .

    If only they would have come for the trolls first.

  • Serious Libertarians||

    First they came for the trolls by responding to them. Then we complained about them responding to the trolls by responding to the trolls. Then we complained about how the trolls used to be better in the good old days, and told the trolls as much. And then the trolls informed us that we got the trolls we deserved. Then we responded with a rectal joke and complained about the trolls by responding to the trolls.

  • chris||

    Hell, that pretty much describes a full day here on this board.

  • Serious Libertarians||

    That was my plan.

  • HermanLame||

    His point is valid though. If you're a white male (predominant gender/race of libertarians) you're not going to have the same innate outrage over this. It's happening to other people, not you. Same reason why, whites can defend Jefferson other founders as being 'good on liberty' even though they held slaves. I invite you to try and say that to a black man with a straight face.

  • k2000k||

    Yet whites had no problem supporting a president who had a long standing association with a man who uttered some truly vile things about white people. This whole thing is dead in the water.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Colin,

    Because I'm not part of any minority Ron Paul despises.


    You mean you're not a goddamned elitist thief? Good for you!

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Libertarians, as a rule, especially if you've been in this game for decades before Paul, are used to the fact that peculiar political beliefs attract peculiar people, that there is a sociological overlap between the radical politics of libertarianism and certain other radical beliefs that don't have anything intellectually or necessarily to do with libertarianism, and that isn't the problem or the fault of libertarian ideas, nor is fighting those unpleasant ideas that some people in the libertarian orbit hold the primary responsibility of libertarians.

    Except, that it appears to be the case that the newsletters were an intentional attempt to cultivate support from these rather unsavory circles.

  • silver haze||

    And let's hope that those newsletters are all he did to court those unsavory types. There could be more stuff out there.

  • ||

    well, you know what they say about fools and their money...

    See also Stormfront donations. The racists are the fools. They were parted from their money. That makes them double-fools.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Taking money is an implied tit-for-tat. You don't want anyone thinking you're in Stormfront's pocket.

  • ||

    "See also Stormfront donations. The racists are the fools."

    Not to mention a little baffling. Ron Paul has learned lots from Murray N. Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises, both Jewish intellectuals. Not just in economics, either.

    In fact, if I recall correctly, the outreach to the characters that were the target audience of the RP Survival Letter, namely paleoconervatives, was the brainchild of none other than Murray N. Rothbard. Rothbard himself tried that outreaching with Lew Rockwell in the Rothbard-Rockwell report.

    Had the Stormfront crackas applied their own standards, they would have pegged Ron Paul as a so-called "slave of the Jews."

    And yet, here they are almost in the tank for him. How's that for inconsistency?

  • ||

    You think the newsletters don't matter?

    Just remember those words, when running against Obama.. You can rest assured, it'll matter to those race-card players. Ron Paul and his acolytes have given them all the ammunition they need.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: franksalterego,

    You can rest assured, it'll matter to those race-card players.


    I'm sorry but, were you here in this very PLANET when the left's overuse of that word rendered meaningless?

  • RoboCain||

    I agree, after calling the Tea Party racist, no one cares what neoliberals call racist.

  • ||

    I agree, after calling the Tea Party racist, no one cares what neoliberals call racist.

    You mean nobody except for: The NYT, WaPo, the LAT, the AJC, CNN, MSNBC, Newsweek, Time, USAToday and the millions upon millions of morons that take their words as the gospel truth.

  • RoboCain||

    They'll report on it because taboo sells. But I honestly think the average voter dismisses it as the silly name-calling it is.

  • ||

    You mean the "average voter" that changes his opinion on a weekly basis depending on who the media is touting as the "flavor of the month?" Man, look at the news reports on GOP candidates through the fall and look at the polls from the same time period. They're a mirror image.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: sloopyinca,

    You mean the "average voter" that changes his opinion on a weekly basis depending on who the media is touting as the "flavor of the month?"


    You could detect those by how fast they rose and how fast the Establishment sacrificed them to the gods of expediency.

    Paul has none of the support of the Establishment and thus is not a sacrificial pawn like Bachmann, Cain or Perry. This is why they hate Paul with all they can muster - they can't control him. They hope this newsletter thing puts a chink on his armor or insisting that his foreign policy will turn all of us into Muslim slaves, but that is yet to be seen (the chink on his armor I mean, not becoming Janissaries.)

  • ||

    I sure hope you're right, OM. The problem is, there are still a lot more of them than there are of us.

  • jester||

    I nearly always agree with you. I'm not signing up as a groupie, but anyhows, that statement is insight.

  • k2000k||

    The "average voter" gave Obama a pass for association with unsavory types, I don't think Paul will be any different.

  • Almanian||

    Well, yeah...but nobody after that...

  • Ice Nine||

    no one cares what neoliberals call racist.

    Whistling past the graveyard. You damn well better care what they call it over and over and over and over and over again during the campaign.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ice Nine,

    You damn well better care what they call it over and over and over and over and over again during the campaign.


    It will lose any meaning after the 3rd try, Ice. It's not like they're finding hidden paramours or love children - nothing that sexy. Here, is the same boring story over and over; people tend to desensitize themselves very quickly.

    Brian is right - in the end, it will not matter. Even if Paul does not get the nomination, 10 to 1 the newsletters will not be the reason. Most likely, it will be that people simply don't want yet to have a smaller government.

  • tarran||

    Brian is right - in the end, it will not matter. Even if Paul does not get the nomination, 10 to 1 the newsletters will not be the reason. Most likely, it will be that people simply don't want yet to have a smaller government.


    ^^^^^THIS!!!!!!!

  • chris||

    Exactly. This dust up will get the blame from those with an obscurant axe to grind, but the real culprit will be America's addiction to government subsidy.

  • RoboCain||

    It's the broken record who cried wolf. No one cares. According to them, every Republican is racist, sexist, and homophobic.

  • Ted Kennedy||

    The voters don't care unless you're caught with a dead girl or a live boy. A live boy anyway.

  • Barney Frank||

    *ahem*

  • BoscoH||

    What actually matters is that some of the clowns who did this are actively engaged in the public debate in libertarian circles today, with very reputable thinkers linking to them regularly.

    It's as if 20 years down the road, Jerry Sandusky were allowed to coach youth sports and Dateline ran periodic stories about how he learned to control his demons and redeem himself.

    Participation in those newsletters ought to have disqualified a few of the loudmouths on the libertarian scene from participating. They are a blight, and they ought to have the decency to know it and self-select out.

  • Fluffy||

    Let's examine that for a moment.

    Let's say that the newsletters were written by a group of people, who would come and go as the situation required.

    So each "offensive" statement was written by a different person.

    Who has to go? Do they all have to go?

    Because (for example) Martin Luther King actually was a philandering and sexually predatory Communist. So do we kick out the person who wrote that line?

    Barbara Jordan actually was a moron. Do we kick out the person who wrote that line?

    I just want to know who's a blight and who's not.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Let's say that the newsletters were written by a group of people, who would come and go as the situation required.

    Or, lets just pretend we live in the real world, where Lew Rockwell wrote most of the garbage.

  • RoboCain||

    And he's not running for President, so who cares?

  • BoscoH||

    Bingo. And the real world can't be one where one Lee Rockwell wrote most of this crap, and another completely unrelated Lee Rockwell gets linked to and credited regularly by hoards of libertarian thinkers who ought to be able to recognize the similarity of the names.

    No seriously... Jump into any lib blog where there is a posting giving Lee Rockwell credit and question why they give sanction to this clown, and you'll probably be met with a loud "huh?".

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: BoscoH,

    Just so everybody knows where you're coming from, B... What's your beef with Lew Rockwell?

  • BoscoH||

    (Sorry, "Lew".)

    My beef is really simple. This crap turns up again and again. The guy never takes responsibility for it when all fingers point to him. It continually damages the credibility of all libertarians. It's basically 1/2 the equation of how the NYT claims that libertarians fall into two groups: (1) rich people who don't want to pay taxes, and (2) cranks who hate blacks and Jews.

    When an outsider looks at how influential Rockwell seems to be in mainstream libertarian thought these days, it's hard to not conclude that libertarians generally do fall into group (2), given what is openly and widely known about Rockwell's involvement with the newsletters. Think of it as similar to when David Duke was showing up in Republican circles and nobody told him to GTFO.

    Association with him, even by linking and engaging in discussion of innocuous issues, draws attention and taints those who do. As "insiders", we may all rationalize what he wrote -- bad attempt at "fusion", 20 years ago, etc. -- but outsiders look for any reason to marginalize thought that's not considered mainstream. And they find a gold mine in Lew Rockwell's writings. That's my beef. He has to know this. He's not being helpful.

  • jester||

    You can never finger a libertarian. Libertarians have no credibility,only because statists say they have no credibility. Meanwhile, the people who have no credibility are lauded with ridiculous prizes. Square that, Bosco. Really, square that. If you're worried about bigotry, remember, our nation's president is a truly mixed-race that instead of 'healing' the nation of racial hatred, played the 'As POTUS, I will adopt the racist doctrine of one drop of Negro blood' and so for me he goes down as a huge charlatan and winner of the first 'Unintentional Uncle Tom Award'.

  • flacid tuna||

    What's wrong with people linking to things they agree with and not linking to those they don't? You'd think everyone was a sponge rather than discerning individuals.

  • BoscoH||

    The problem is not in our little, insulated libertarian world. It's in how people outside or just entering perceive it. It's basically a personal brand problem, with Rockwell's personal brand being south of poisonous. He is not even pro-active in trying to clean up the toxic spill from these newsletters. So, you know, maybe you do some groundbreaking work in the cause of liberty, and you drop a hat tip to Lew Rockwell, and then suddenly, people outside who know a little of the inside baseball (read: "the entire mainstream press and hacks from both parties") think you are a kook who hates blacks and Jews, and so you and your groundbreaking work is "suspect", probably somehow in the service of hating blacks and Jews, and not worth discussing or pursuing on a wider scale.

    Call me paranoid, but I'd almost say there is an unspoken game going on within our libertarian circles. Many stay away from Rockwell precisely because they don't want their personal brands damaged. And he tries to infect it any way he can, often by riding the backs of those unaware of the game.

  • flacid tuna||

    And yet Rockwell can take credit for a lot of the anti-fed people who are new libertarians. Where do you think people read all that stuff? Not here.

  • chris||

    I see. So this a proxy for taking a shot at your imagined enemies. The presidential candidacy is a distant third in importance in purging Lew Rockwell from whatever you imagine he can be purged from?

  • BoscoH||

    If you're embracing this guy, with full knowledge that just about everyone has at this point, you're either completely socially retarded or the kind of faux-libertarian that just hates blacks and Jews.

    I'm generally a big fan of the "ignore it and maybe it will go away" tactic of dealing with trolls. Lew Rockwell doesn't ever go away. Every time this subject gets rehashed, it just gets worse, because it appears that libertarians, as a movement, are more accepting of his garbage. Calling it out gives us all an opportunity to reflect and learn, and perhaps will tell those outside that his writings aren't us.

  • ||

    Bosco, what has Lew Rockwell done in the last 5 years to exacerbate this issue?

    I'm ok with Lew, I understand he has warts as do we all. What I do not understand is the need of emotionally challenged people to find someone to hate and blame.

    I really don't.

    Btw, Lew is a much bigger hit with minorities than Reason and the goody-two-shoes libertarian academic crowd.

    There is a reason for that. Racism isn't fundamentally unlibertarian, and libertarianism is super appealing to minorities.

  • BoscoH||

    How about not owning what he did, then just S'ing the FU and going away instead of continuing to poison everyone in the movement naive or oblivious enough to give him the time of day?

    But you know, I think the problem is more fundamental than Lew Rockwell being a troll. There are many people who identify as libertarians who actually buy into his ugly rhetoric.

    Racism isn't fundamentally unlibertarian.

    Please don't bring that crap here. And I don't want to hear about Jewish bankers either. You really disgust me. I'd like to think you disgust Lew Rockwell too, but you're part of a crowd that's easy to rile up.

  • Tacos mmm...||

    Racism isn't fundamentally unlibertarian

    It depends on what you mean by "racism." If you mean an individualized distate or distrust of others based on superficial attributes, then you are correct. Libertarianism is not about rectifying your personal vices; you may be as ignorant and self-destructive as you choose to be.

    If, however, you mean racism in the political sense - a position that cynical demagogues like George Wallace embrace to increase their political power, then yes, libertarianism has something to say about that.

  • chris||

    So that would be a yes, then. All I needed to know without indulging your tumor inducing guilt trip.

  • BoscoH||

    It's no guilt trip. If you're eating what Rockwell has fed and continues to feed, you disgust me. If you're contributing to his ongoing legitimacy by lending credibility to anything he says, from the innocuous to the profane, I hope I can show you what you're contributing to and convince you to not lend your sanction to it.

    The backstory is deeper than the words in Ron Paul's newsletters. It's a question about what libertarians are about. We aren't getting an opportunity to correct a gross misportrayal, and it's mostly of our own doing in continuing to harbor and tolerate the clowns who created this mess.

  • chris||

    tl;dr -- as I explained no time for your guilt trips, alter boy.

  • ||

    Here's the real question:

    Why can't Reason stop beating a dead horse with these newsletters?

    One post after another, after another!

    For the first time in a modern history to elect a libertarian president and we seen the folks at reason shooting themselves in the foot.

    Go figure!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Amit,

    For the first time in a modern history to elect a libertarian president and we seen the folks at reason shooting themselves in the foot.


    One word: A-B-O-R-T-I-O-N.

  • RoboCain||

    If Paul were pro-choice he would never win running as a Republican. It's really a wedge issue though, as it isn't up to the President anyway.

    Let's say he replaces enough justices to overturn RvW. Which would be extremely unlikely. Then it just goes back to the states, and abortion is still legal.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: RoboCain,

    If Paul were pro-choice he would never win running as a Republican.


    Granted, but Amit was asking why the vitriol against Paul from some of the Reason writers. I posit that the reason is his stance on abortion. That much was revealed in a Stossel show of a few months ago; Nick and Matt let people know what was the problem with Paul and that was his stance on abortion "rights."

    So there you have it. Gary is pro-choice, Paul is not. The intrauterine scrapers have it.

  • Max||

    Ron Paul won't win because of the oversized suits, fake eyebrows and racist baggage, idiot.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Maxipad,

    Ron Paul won't win because of the oversized suits, fake eyebrows and racist baggage, idiot.


    Hey pet yorkie! You promised to do your crapping outside!

    Now I will have to get a rolled up newspaper. Darn.

    WHAM!

    "Yipe! Yipe! Yipe!

    Go git outside! Go!

  • J. William Fulbright||

    My protege Clinton did okay revering me...

  • RoboCain||

    I understand. But I don't think abortion should be illegal either. Yet I still support Paul. It seems more than a bit childish to demand that a candidate must agree with every opinion one might have. I don't agree with everything Gary Johnson says either, but I still supported him.

  • chris||

    To be honest, Nick and Matt continue to show support for Paul, and I don't see them focused on that issue at all. There is a tiny minority at Reason who tend to think that this is a big deal. They tend to be younger, were not politically aware during the Rodney King era, associated with nefarious organizations like the National Review, and all too clued in to the mainstream center right in general.

    That Shikha piece on Madonna's brother last summer would have been red meat to that audience, but only earned Dalmia ridicule here. It is true the senior staff have tended to hire juniors coming from that element over more solid libertarians in the previous two election cycles.

  • ||

    Matt supports Ron Paul? That's news to me. Last I read, he was struggling to reconcile some supposedly racist comments in 20 year old newsletters with being legitimately anti-war and pro-liberty.

    The Reason crowd doesn't have an issue with abortion. They have an issue with anyone stopping mass killing.

  • chris||

    Sounds pretty supportive to me:

    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.

  • k2000k||

    I understand. But I don't think abortion should be illegal either. Yet I still support Paul. It seems more than a bit childish to demand that a candidate must agree with every opinion one might have. I don't agree with everything Gary Johnson says either, but I still supported him.

    They should know better though since we went through something like this with President Obama. And even then it wasn't news letters but video, an a more powerful medium, and people still didn't give two shits.

    Unless you pull an Al Sharpton by saying an utterance on tv that can 100% clearly be identified to you, not possibly identified to you, not linked because a supporter said it, but 100% on tv you say those things then it will not matter.

  • k2000k||

    im always fucking up the quotes dammit

  • ||

    Because Welch and the rest of Team Suck have their panties in a wad over being left out of the party.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/7628.....rsFaq-Tunk

  • ||

    Wel lthat certianly makes a lot of sesne dude.

    www.privacy-surf.tk

  • johnl||

    Great article Brian. But too cautious. Instead of "Why I Think X", say "X".

  • Old Mexican||

    Oh, I just hope Max keeps his umpteen promise not to post here again...

    (3... 2... 1... )

  • The Art-P.O.G.||

    Ha ha, wow...one minute later.

  • ||

    I attended the LP convention in Chicago in 1992. The one where Carl Oglesby, Robert Anton Wilson and Timothy Leary showed up.
    Also, it was the one where the LP could have nominated Dick Boddie a black candidate for President, but instead picked Andre Marrou, an obscure white Alaskan, whose campaign went nowhere. They did nominate a Jewish woman for VP, Nancy Lord.
    What I also remember is that the convention had a package to attend a SEcond City revue, which was an non PC revue of racial issues, and which featured comedy attacks on MLK, including his extra marital prowess. I still have audio tapes of the skits somewhere. They show that in 1992, MLK was sometimes attacked for being less than his courtiers would like him remembered as.

  • Robert||

    Come to think of it, I was at that convention too. (You forgot to mention Bob Shea as in attendance, but that was a cinch since he still lived in Chicagoland.)

    I didn't go to the 2nd City revue, but instead attended an alternate entertainment event held in a smaller club, also done in conjunction with the convention. The entertainer was a black comedian, in both senses of "black".

    One of the ways that Dick Boddie (who is also a black comedian, but not the performer mentioned above) really turned off the delegates was in answering the question of how he expected to get att'n. Without saying a word, he just slowly turned his head left & right, meaning, "I'm a black guy running for president, that's how you'll get att'n." So the delegates were deliberately turning down an offer to make a splash via race appeal.

  • Max||

    How about Ron Paul's ongoing association with the paranoid conspiracy wackos in the JBS, Doherty? Cover that in your book?

  • Jeremy||

    Who gives a fuck what the JBS says. As far as I'm concerned they're entitled to their conspiracies, they generally aren't harming anyone, and if nothing else they provide a bit of entertainment in an otherwise dreary and dismal profession: politics.

    What's with this Buckleyite obsession with "purging" all these different groups of undesirables? It's one thing to draw the line with racist Klan types because they actually want to harm other people.

    But purging someone simply because we deem their beliefs about the New World Order a little kooky? What's the need or reason? If it's making ourselves more "acceptable" company to the mainstream media, well I got news for ya: they already think we're "kooks" for plenty of other reasons. Simply opposing the desire to initiate nuclear warfare with Iran is enough for them to deem us such.

    So I'll state it again: who gives a fuck what the JBS says.

  • Max||

    I bet you won't find any of this in Doherty's little hagiography:

    http://2012.talkingpointsmemo......etters.php

  • DK||

    All of this handwringing about Paul coming forward with some sort of mea culpa is confusing. Here's a suggestion to those journalists - start asking some relevant questions beyond which Paul has already answered countless times.

    How about, "Do you recall when you first became aware of the newsletter articles that have been deemed offensive?" [The reporter would cite the example(s).] Paul might answer in several possible ways. E.g.:

    1)
    Paul: "A staffer mentioned those articles back in 199x."
    Reporter: "Did you do anything?"
    Paul: "Yes, I fired those people involved."
    [More follow up questions, which would include if Paul knew specifically which people wrote the articles.]

    2)
    Paul: "A staffer mentioned those articles back in 199x."
    Reporter: "Did you do anything?"
    Paul: "No, the articles, when taken in context, support my views." [Paul explains further.]

    3)
    Paul: "I found out during an election campaign in 200x."
    Reporter: "Did you do anything?"
    Paul: "No, at that point the newsletters were no longer being published."
    [More follow up questions.]

    .

    I also don't buy the argument about Paul being caught in a lie with inconsistent stories. If someone were to ask me during some random conversation if I had read Shakespeare, I would say yes. I certainly wouldn't feel the need to be pedantic and cite every work of Shakespeare that I've read, knowing full well that I hadn't read all of Shakespeare's works or even knew all of his works. It is rather ridiculous to then argue, "But 15 years ago you said you read Shakespeare, but you now deny that you ever read 'The Tempest' and 'King Lear'".

  • Max||

    It would be a little different if you were Shakespeare, you fucking halfwit.

  • ||

    RP did sort of already through Wrongway Rothbard and Right-On Rockwell under the bus in the NYT article today:

    "Mr. Paul described Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Rothbard as political provocateurs. “They enjoyed antagonizing people, to tell you the truth, and trying to split people,” he said. “I thought, we’re so small, why shouldn’t we be talking to everybody and bringing people together?”"

  • ||

    So we should be done with this issue.

  • Max||

    Paultards should all drink poisoned Kool-Aid. End of story.

  • RyanXXX||

    Interesting. I think Paul just has a pathological hesitation to "condemn" anyone personally, especially in public

    He will condemn actions and ideas, but not personalities

  • Ron Paul Political Report||

    Brian you could not be more right. When I wrote those newsletters in the nineties I had no idea I would be this popular now. Back then you had to get a couple of Neo Nazis and Christian Identity types to put those two gold coins in the envelope so you can deliver their newsletter to an unmarked mailbox nowhere near any type of residential structure.

    Besides I supported making MLK day a national holiday, I think that philandering pedophiles should have a day for reflection and if they want to hate whitey, from what is normally a prison cell or public housing, so be it. And how fast they can run after they steal a white lady's purse...

  • RyanXXX||

    C-

  • Ron Paul Political Report||

    Yes I agree. I am not much of a fan of Lew Rockwell's writing either.

  • ||

    HOLIDAY QUIZ
    Who Said: "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."
    A. The Wizard of Oz
    B. Ron Paul's Ghost Writers
    C. Brian Doherty

  • Max||

    C

  • ||

    While this may become true (and the consistent harping on and reminding people of it can't help), there's no evidence for it yet; Paul's still gaining in polls.

    Mr. Doherty, the poll you cited there is of GOP voters.

    The damage done by the newsletters is with swing voters--people who refuse to identify with the Republicans becasue they're disgusted by culture issue warts and moles, which those newsletters display in spades.

    Even if Ron Paul somehow made it through the primaries and won the nomination, there's no way he's gonna get the swing vote in the general election with that newsletter albatross around his neck.

    Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman have been all but laughed out of the campaign for a hell of a lot less than what's in those newsletters.

  • RyanXXX||

    Saying this as if it's indisputable facts only makes it more likely.

    It also doesn't make sense, given how a good chunk of Paul's supporters are former lefties or independents. His appeal is cross-partisan

  • ||

    It is a fact.

    There's a market for ideas. A lot of different people may make up the market for Ron Paul's ideas, but if he's associated with racism, holocaust denial and homophobia, then the market for Ron Paul in the general election is limited to people who don't find that kind of creepiness off-putting.

    That's a fact.

    If you think the swing voters who broke for Barack Obama last time are gonna turn around and vote for Ron Paul in the general election--despite what's in those newsletters?

    Then you're the one who should cite a fact. ...hopefully something better than a poll of likely Republican voters.

  • RyanXXX||

    They voted for Obama despite worse personal connections from his past

  • k2000k||

    ^^^^
    This. I will say it over and over. A connection to some unsavory individuals ins't enough. Possibly knowing about things written or said in your name isn't enough. You have to be caught on camera saying those things for it too have any real effect.

  • ||

    If you think the swing voters who broke for Barack Obama last time are gonna turn around and vote for Ron Paul in the general election--despite what's in those newsletters?


    Right, Ken.

    It is not as if Obama ever attended a church known for racist sermons from its pastor or anything. Those voters would not have voted for him.

  • Breaking News||

  • Colin||

    +10000000000

  • Colin||

    Why I Don't Think the Ron Paul Newsletters Are Very Important

    Because if Ron Paul tanks, so will my book sales.

  • ||

    Does the term ad hominem mean anything to you?

    Doherty's right or wrong regardless of the subject of his next book.

  • Max||

    That's right, and he's wrong.

  • ||

    The most important part of the newsletter story (which Doherty forgets to mention) is that Paul was either lying or talking out of his ass when he defended them in 1996, and continues to cover up for his racism-peddling buds now in 2008 and 2011. Lying and covering up is not the behavior I think we'd want from a president Paul.

    Now, the other candidates have even worse characteristics, so I think he's still the best, but this charade of telling people to shut up about the newsletters because there's nothing bad there is kind of silly, no?

  • Jeremy||

    It's funny how hindsight is always 20/20. What makes you automatically assume there was something malicious or nefarious at play in 1996?

    Aside from the fact that people such as yourself are reading far more into the 1996 comments than is actually there (it's literally a couple quick off-the-cuff lines to a newspaper), it's simply absurd to conclude that everything since then is a calculated conspiracy of "lies" and "coverup."

    Do the 1996 statements perfectly sync up with everything since then? No, but there simply isn't much meat to the 1996 statements to begin with so expecting stringent consistency is already setting yourself up for disappointment. Most normal, sane, people don't begin every interview by stating "wait a minute, before I comment on that I need to go back and look at what I said off the cuff in a single-line newspaper quote a decade ago and make sure it's in perfect, 100% agreement before I talk to you."

  • ||

    You're a LIAR. Ron Paul is a RACIST and so probably are YOU, since his racism just frankly, doesn't bother you!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Prove the racism, Counselor Troi.

  • LEFTIST||

    *purple baby face*

    I DON't HAVE TO PROVE ANYTHING YOU FACIST. YOUR JUST AN IGNORANT BUMPKIN AND YOU HATE BLACK PEOPLE! YOU WANT THE POOR TO BE MADE INTO MEAT PIES AND YOU HATE TEH GAYZ!

  • celebs4truth||

    Help this pro-Ron Paul Denver Conspiracy Examiner news article go viral! Send it out all over the internet and social media outlets! "Support the troops by supporting Ron Paul!" http://www.examiner.com/conspi.....g-ron-paul

  • protefeed||

    nor is fighting those unpleasant ideas that some people in the libertarian orbit hold the primary responsibility of libertarians

    Ron -- here are some commas -- please use them freely so people can understand sentences like the one above. If you run out, I can send you some more ...

    ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

    How that sentence would appear with more commas: "nor is fighting those unpleasant ideas, that some people in the libertarian orbit hold, the primary responsibility of libertarians"

  • protefeed||

    Whoops, that was directed at "Brian Doherty, not some mythical "Ron" -- just got done watching Ron Swanson in an episode of "Parks and Recreation", in my defense.

  • Jose||

    Most people are not paying attention to the Republican primaries yet, and don't know much about Ron Paul.

    Winning the Iowa caucuses will put him very much in the public's eye. The MSM is going to capitalize on this with a strip-tease of "revelations" about the newsletters. Think ACORN tapes.

    These will be timed so as to give RP no time to reply, and to come to come a shuddering climax just in time for the New Hampshire primaries. I expect the Frontline expose is already in post-production.

    New Hampshire's much more socially liberal electorate will react by handing Ron Paul a distant fourth place finish behind John Huntsman.

    The Paul campaign will be on a Cain/Perry/Bachmann trajectory at that point.

  • chris||

    New Hampshire is an oddity. There are a lot of retired war gizzards up there. Recall McCain giving his speech at the RNC and the cameras would go to a bunch of old shriners yucking it up at everyone of McCain's lame ass militaristic jokes? Those old fucks were the new Hampshire delegation.

  • flacid tuna||

    Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. Get it?

  • chris||

    Oh yeah. Knowing the lyrics to that one is required if you want to make it in American politics.

  • ||

    The newsletters have been mentioned (along with the Stormfront donations) on the major network news broadcasts every night for the past few days. The cat's already out of the bag.

    As much as I feared it in the past, maybe it's not going to be a big deal. I'm still worried though.

  • Deepelemblues||

    Most Paultards aren't smart enough to realize that National Review owned up to writings like that a long time ago. Just goes to show how thoughtless and ignorant Paultards are. Paul has never owned up to the newsletters. He's used the same argument Bush used with WMD: I trusted the people working for me and they failed that trust. Paultards don't accept it from Bush, why should they from Paul?

    Reason is really going downhill with these stupidly ludicrous defenses of Ron Paul.

    "associates who, for a brief period over a decade in the past, wrote some mean-spirited, nasty, and dumb stuff rooted in race and sexual orientation "

    See? Stupid. Lew Rockwell has never stopped. It wasn't a brief period, it was for a decade.

    "By any standard of political or moral judgment that I can respect, "

    This is the perfect example of why no one but Paultards respects Paultards. No one cares about your stupid, aggressive bullshit about how Ron Paul is the One Troo Candidate for Troo Liberty and everyone else is a cryptofascist, the heavy implication of Doherty's piece. And the heavy implication of any Paultard faced with dissent, they just can't help thinking that baseless accusations of bad motives are a proper defense of anything negative about Ron Paul.

    It's sad to see Reason doubling down on Paultard stupidity. What an awful piece.

  • ||

    Well said,sir. Well SAID!!!

  • BoscoH||

    I think you're wrong about what Reason is doing here. The clear intention is not to defend Ron Paul, but to air a discussion about what is properly libertarian and what is not.

    The unfortunate problem of these writings is that they were done by someone who remains influential in the greater libertarian movement. That someone won't own them, and for all intents and purposes, just seems to have sharpened his rhetoric by sprinkling in some deniability without renouncing the tired, disgusting premises.

    The unfortunate consequence is that Ron Paul's increasing popularity is most people's first real look at libertarianism. What many are seeing now, because nobody is taking responsibility and few aren't tainted by Rothbard and Rockwell, is not the libertarianism of free minds and free markets, but a political excuse to hate blacks and Jews.

  • Deepelemblues||

    "nor is fighting those unpleasant ideas, that some people in the libertarian orbit hold, the primary responsibility of libertarians"

    This is the problem with stupid libertarians, they think stupid shit like this actually works in the real world.

    They're still angry Buckley drummed the John Birch Society out of the respectable right-wing pantheon.

    Smart libertarians know that you can't allow crazies into your tent and act like it's no big deal.

    Get the memo, Brian, people are judged by the company they keep, and whining that it isn't your responsibility to know who and what you're hanging out with is the excuse of a pretentious 14 year old, which accurately describes most Paultards, including Doherty.

  • tarran||

    Calling Doherty a paultard shows you to be an idiot.

    The intrinsic quality of Paultardism is an unreasoning, emotional, and pervasive need to adulate Ron Paul.

    Doherty's post is a considered, reasoned article laying out why he has concluded that the Newsletters aren't a big deal. You may disagree with his reasoning - but that doesn't make him a Paultard.

  • tarran||

    Calling Doherty a paultard shows you to be an idiot.

    The intrinsic quality of Paultardism is an unreasoning, emotional, and pervasive need to adulate Ron Paul.

    Doherty's post is a considered, reasoned article laying out why he has concluded that the Newsletters aren't a big deal. You may disagree with his reasoning - but that doesn't make him a Paultard.

  • ||

    NO, IT MAKES HIM A FRIGGIN' IDJIT!!!!

  • tarran||

    Oh look, a posipaultard!

    They don't usually last very long - they usually collide with a paultard and are annihilated in a burst of gamma rays within milliseconds.

  • chris||

    Until last week, I wasn't even planning to vote in either the primary nor the general election. After this vileness where the right is giving Sharpton a run for his money, I'm going all out. Joining up after the holiday with the local Paul outfit to see what I can do to contribute. Hell, the JBS is starting to look good to me. If the Nats are that rabid about an organization, then the JBS monocle just might be the right fit for me.

    Fuck Limbaugh,
    Fuck Hannity,
    Fuck Lowry,
    Fuck the American Spectator,
    and fuck all their fucking clones.
    There is an empire to be defeated and they are on the wrong side.

  • chris||

    That's really cute there. You Nats have picked the wrong week to start an internecine war.

    Really, what's this shit about 'owning up' when hatred of Muslims is still oozing off the pages of National Review? They even have a blogger devoted to the Islamaphobia beat.

    Fuck you, you are not getting your way this time.

  • Paul B.||

    Paul's comments on race don't matter because he's already disqualified on foreign policy. And Reason shows itself to be out of touch and irrelevant.

  • ||

    Ron Paul gives libertarianism a bad name. Ron Paul is unelectable, not only because he is racist and anti-semite, but he is just too old to become President.

    Libertarians make themselves irrelevant with the Ron Paul cult, at a time when libertarianism should have taken over the GOP.

    Libertarianism/classic liberalism is the philosophy of the Founding Fathers. It should be the mainstream of American politics, not a fringe movement obsessed with a few figures like Ron Paul and Ayn Rand.

    Please consider Rick Perry's 10th Amendment conservatism as a viable path to a more libertarian politics in the US.

    FYI, I am a Dutch (classic) liberal in New York. Liberalism in the Netherlands like everywhere in the world still means individual liberty, capitalism and limited government.

    But American libertarians are just too weird, even for me, with their 9-11 truthers and other conspiracy nuts.

  • tarran||

    Do tell how an follower and popularizer of Ludwig von Mises (a jew the Nazis specifically wanted liquidated) is an anti-semite.

    Do tell how a guy who earned the support of the NAACP in his district and charitably treated the poorest of the poor for no pay is a racist.

    Do tell how an enthusiastic supporter of the U.S. National Security apparatchiks is going to bring about limited government.

    I find it fascinating that you choose your politicians based on how icky some of their supporters are - the ones you know about, anyway.

  • America||

    Put on your wooden shoes, run home and stick your finger in your mom. I hear she's leaking.

  • flacid tuna||

    Um yeh, Rick Perry. You lost me there.

  • Aaron||

    This is horribly naive analysis by Brian. He's right, the newsletters are small potatoes. Compared to his relationship with conspiracy provocateurs, especially Alex Jones. Paul didn't just play footsie with Jones, he's had a long affair with the guy. He's been on that show probably more than Obama was in Wright's Church and the stuff Alex Jones says makes Jeremiah Wright look mild in comparison.

    Plus there is little daylight between the Truther and Illumanati nuts who worship Alex Jones and base level Ron Paul supporters.

    Play Ron Paul going on the show over and over and play a few clips or hundreds of clips of Alex Jones and it's game, set, match. Doesn't matter if Paul has specifically signed off on Alex Jones' wacky world, he's used Jones to build up his base and collect money off these unhinged conspiracy nuts. He owns them and they love him.

    You guys buried the lead.

  • ||

    no don't listen to Alex Jones...he is a anti-semite...don't listen to his show. He doesn't do any interviews with interesting people, just ignore him.

  • ||

    The reason that you don't find it important is because YOU ARE A RACIST just like Ron Paul! There are a lot of conservo-racists PRETENDING to just be for "states rights" or " pulling oneself up by your bootstraps" or whatever other craftily worded phrase can be used to HIDE the way one really feels about people of color! The fact that you even BELIEVE that Ron Paul DIDN'T know what was in the newsletters WHILE HE WAS LISTED AS THE G-DANGED EDITOR, shows that you are just SCUM, trying to EXCUSE the inexcusable. Not much of a surprise actually.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Mind-reader, eh?

  • ||

    Spare me your episode of White Guilt you fucking cunt weasel.

  • ||

    This post is right on the money. Anyone who is participating in this Republican dog and pony show and is even a little bit libertarian-ish, but at the same time would reject RP because of some rude and crude ghost written articles from 20 years ago, has a seriously messed up sense of priorities. Who would they support instead? Aside from Johnson all the rest represent the same old power-mongering bullshit.

  • Max, dog of Grinch||

    This is like the worst chat room ever.

  • ||

    The National Review dislikes Paul DESPITE agreeing with his core libertarian agendas. Their problem with him is largely foreign policy. At the end of the day, they can make the distinction between the newsletter and his larger ideology. But for his more liberal foes the newsletter is confirmation that Ron Paul is a government hating nutjob who wants to unleash unchecked corporatism upon the poor and the minority.

    I'm afraid Ron Paul fans are behaving not unlike Obama and Sarah Palin fans. Concerns raised over his newsletter is valid. It was a fatal mistake to accept donations from racists. No politician would accept voluntary contributions from Al Qaeda and rationalize it on his intentions to use it to fund anti terrorist campaigns. And it doesn't help that he apparently posed in pictures with known bigots.

    Paul doesn't have to explain himself to the largely center right or "tea party" crowd. They know he's not racist. If he's the nominee many right wingers will gulp down hard and vote for him only to remove Obama from office. Nah, he'll have to reassure the undecided independent types and even the disillusioned lefties tempted his more liberal side.

  • flacid tuna||

    They still have their panties in a bunch over the Iraq War. Ron Paul thought it was a mistake to go in, still thinks it was a mistake today. But who doesn't right? Oh, National Review... right.

  • ||

    All these MSM arguments come down to "We found some icky people who claim to support some of the same things Ron Paul does, so Ron Paul must be icky."

    They're just throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something will stick. The real stories - the massive deficits, the huge debt, the unfunded liabilities, the legitimization of mass murder, the largest incarceration rate in the world, the destruction of the value of the dollar - are being marginalized. This is Distraction Politics at its finest.

  • Gojira||

    Wait a minute, I thought Reason was part of a Koch-inspired effort to destroy Ron Paul? Man, they must be really bad at conspiracies if they let a story like this slip through!

  • chris||

    National Review refuges. You can tell by the patterns on the ground from knuckle scrapes.

  • pblumel||

    I am amazed that Ron is so squeaky clean that the only thing opponents can find on him is this goofy newsletter thing. Can you imagine what they could do to YOU in such a situation?

  • chris||

    That's why I'm not in politics, pblumel.

  • NeoconsTasteLikeChickenhawk||

    This is how I know that he is not actually racist.

    If someone looked at my past they would be able to fill a book of racially charged stuff I have written and said. And I am far from being a grand lizard or whatever.
    After a career a long as his the most they can find are a couple of sentences written by other people?

    And he delivered babies to perhaps thousands of minorities, wants to pardon non violent drug offenders, etc??..

    That shit is downright Christ like

  • chris||

    I can just imagine having my past over examined.
    Gloria Borgia asks

    -- you once printed this lyric on a blog,
    'Whitey, Whitey,
    I've been thinking,
    What will keep your race from extinction?
    If you vote the GOP way . .'
    Yeah, yeah, that's enough.
    -- What's your explanation?
    I participated in a liveblog with Charles Manson the previous evening.
    -- Charles Manson, the notorious killer?
    Yes. Open to the public. Anyone could do it.
    -- You're blaming this on Charles Manson?
    He has a way of getting in your head!
    -- You were under the influence of Charles Manson when you rate that racist post?
    I know that sounds bad.

  • tarran||

  • NeoconsTasteLikeChickenhawk||

    Back when I was in the Marines I used to work with a guy who had an interesting tactic whenever any conflict of ideas arose.
    You could be talking to him about the weather outside and if there was some disagreement about the temperature he would suddenly reel back and LOUDLY shout "RACIST!" and point at you with a disgusted look on his face.

    This done in front of other people (strangers not listening to he original conversation) was unbelievably humorous and effective. So long as he wasn't pointing at you that is.

    Everyone that heard this proclamation would turn and look in horror. This whole newsletter thing reminds me of that guy.

    I think the next time I run into an anti-Paul person, after the very first words out of their mouth, I am going to pull the same stunt.

    Hopefully it will be around lots of strangers.

  • The Derider||

    All he has to say is "Hey dude, you're the Paultard here"

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Who you gonna vote for? Obama? One of those other fucking Republicans?

  • NeoconsTasteLikeChickenhawk||

    Too late. "RACIST!" is basically Checkmate.
    The more you try and say after that the more guilty you look.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Sadly, yes... it's like the microsecond after a Team Bluetard says "it's for the children". Anything beyond that, is pointless.

  • BakedPenguin||

    If anyone didn't see it, my take on the worthless griefers.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    You, once again, add absolutely no substance, Derider.

  • The Derider||

    Post fail. Also, No U.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I already copped to misplacing it, you stupid bastard.

  • The Derider||

    Watching libertarians become shocked, SHOCKED, at the realities of the US political process is so cute.

    Like how watching a two-year-old chase a cat, get scratched, fall on his ass, and start to cry is cute.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Shit... misplaced the message, but it's good for the cause nonetheless.

  • The Derider||

    You've made 3 substance-free replies in 6 minutes, you stupid bastard.

    Also, 6:59 is before 7:04, YOU STUPID BASTARD.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I already copped to copping to misplacing the post, you fucking prick.

  • The Derider||

    I cannot see posts that occur 5 minutes in the future you fucking moron.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Fuck off.

  • Maxxx||

    Pussy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yes, politics is nasty... but it need not be.

    And whichever Team you shill for, Derider, should - along with the other Team - get back to behaving like honorable, rational people, and stop flinging shit at each other.

    Either that, or go all-out and kill each other, Klingon-advancement style. Because this pussy middle ground of digging up pointless dirt, is just playground activity writ larger.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Why I Don't Think the Ron Paul Newsletters Are Very Important

    Because Ron Paul being a racist once in his life has nothing to do with him running for president. I'm sure Ron is no different than GWB when it comes to black people.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Prove he was ever a racist, Alice.

  • Ron Paul||

    Yea

    and they call me a strawman

  • Robert Byrd||

    Hell, actually being racist got *me* elected! SEVERAL times!

  • DIck Nixxon||

    I'm not a crook

  • Bill Clinton||

    I don't not have sexual relations with that woman

  • Ron Reagan||

    I don't recall

  • Ron Paul||

    I have no idea who wrote that stuff. I don't remember.

  • ||

    there's a saying we use at work... all too often "perception is reality"

    it is clear to me that the newsletters should not be an important issue

    it is also clear that the perception is (except primarily amongst those who are already sold on RP) that they are important.

    for RP to win, he has to have more than just core libertarian support.

  • ||

    I'd just add that, becasue of those newsletters, Ron Paul can't even unite his libertarian support.

    Ron Paul can't even unite the staff of a libertarian magazine because of those newsletters! You're right, dunphy. If he can't unite libertarians becasue of those newsletters, how the hell's he gonna win the general election?

    The disturbing thing is--Ron Paul's supporters? Really do need that pointed out to them. For reals!

  • Bradley||

    You're forgetting that libertarians are a fractious bunch of individualists. Nobody is ever going to "unite" them, and it's silly to hold Paul to an impossible standard.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Which is bastardier:

    (in no particular order)

    Max
    The Arbiter
    Tony
    The Derider
    shrike
    Jason Godesky

    ?

  • The Derider||

    Wow that post has a shitload of substance!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Actually, it did. You're just too busy being a dick, to see it.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Forgot to add 'There is no "we"' to the list...

    Then again, who knows how many multiple names some of the above may have?

  • ?||

    How would you have liked to have been the FBI agent in charge of Murray Rothbard's case file trying to figure our where the guy fits on the subversive spectrum?

    From Rothbard:

    The peak of my political activity on the New Left came during the 1968 campaign. In the spring of 1968, my old enthusiasm for third party politics was rekindled, albeit in a different direction. The Peace and Freedom Party (PFP) which had become (and still is) established in California, decided to go national, and opened up shop in New York. I found that the preliminary platform and the only requirement for membership contained only two planks: the first was immediate U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, and the second was some plank so vague about being nice to everyone that almost anyone, left, right, center could have endorsed it. Great: here was a coalition party dedicated only to immediate withdrawal from Vietnam and requiring no commitment whatever to statism! As a result, our entire libertarian group in New York poured happily into the new party.

    The PFP was structured around clubs, most of them regional – such as the powerful West Side (of Manhattan) club, the hippie Greenwich Village Club, etc. One was occupational – a Faculty Club. Since there were very few actual faculty members in this very youthful party, the PFP generously widened the definition of "faculty" to include graduate students. Lo and behold! On that basis, of approximately 24 members in the Faculty Club, almost exactly one-half were our people: libertarians, including myself, Leonard Liggio, Joe Peden, Walter Block and his wife, Sherryl, and Larry Moss. The legislative arm of the PFP was to be the Delegate Assembly, consisting of delegates from the various clubs. The Faculty Club was entitled to two delegates, and so we naturally divvied it up: one going to the socialists, and one to us, who turned out to be me.

    At the first meeting of the Delegate Assembly, then, here I was, only in the Party for about a week, but suddenly vaulted to top rank in the power elite. Then, early in the meeting, some people got up and advocated abolishing the Delegate Assembly as somehow "undemocratic." Jeez! I was just about to get a taste of juicy political power, when some SOBs were trying to take it away from me! As I listened further, I realized that something even more sinister and of broader concern was taking place. Apparently, the New York party was being run by a self-perpetuating oligarchical executive committee, who, in the name of "democracy," were trying to eliminate all intermediate social institutions, and to operate upon the party mass unimpeded, all in the name of "democracy." To me it smacked of rotten Jacobinism, and I got up and delivered an impassioned speech to that effect. After the session ended, a few people came up to me and said that some like-minded thinkers, who constituted the West Side Club, were having a gathering to discuss these matters. So began our nefarious alliance with the Progressive Labor faction within Peace and Freedom.

    It later turned out that the PFP and its executive committee were being run, both in California and in New York, by the Leninist-Trotskyite Draperites, International Socialists run by Berkeley librarian Hal Draper. The Draperites were the original Schachtmanites, Trotskyites who had rebelled against Trotsky as Third Camp opponents of both the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The New York party was being run by the Draperites, including as their allies a motley collection of assorted socialists, pacifists, counter-cultural druggies, and Left Libertarians.

    The opposition within PFP was indeed being run by the Maoist Progressive Labor Party (PL), who the Draperites feared were plotting a takeover. Actually, it soon became clear that PL had no such intention, but were only keeping their hand in, and were using the West Side Club to recruit candidate-members into PL. Both PL and the Draperites were keeping the structure loose while waiting for an expected flood of Gene McCarthy followers after Humphrey’s expected Democratic nomination victory – a flood that, of course, never materialized. Hence the loose ideological requirement, and the fact that the platform was up for grabs. The alliance between PL and us libertarians was highly useful to both sides, in addition to cooperating in fending off Draperite dictatorship in the name of democracy. What PL got out of it was a cover for their recruiting, since no one could of course call us vehement antisocialists tools of Progressive Labor. Whatwe got out of it was PL’s firm support for an ideological platform – adopted by our joint caucus – that was probably the most libertarian of any party since the days of Cleveland Democracy. The PL people were pleasantly "straight" and nondruggie, although quite robotic, resembling left-wing Randians.

  • chris||

    Hal Draper

    Isn't that name mentioned in Phillip Dick's writing? A Rothbard-Dick connection would be the tits!

    So began our nefarious alliance with the Progressive Labor faction within Peace and Freedom.

    Oh, what roads we travel.

  • Joe Lieberman||

    This is why we need a presidential kill switch for the internet. You people get in the way.

  • FCC||

    Hey! We'd like nothing better!

  • Barry the Jaunty Kim Jong 2||

    Give Me time, My underlings.

  • ||

    "Why I Don't Think the Ron Paul Newsletters Are Very Important"

    If the newsletters were important (or in anyway relevant) the Onion-News-Network would be discussing them.

  • Shake||

    Brian, your loyalty to Paul is blinding you to reality. The "old" newsletters were written in the 90's, not the fucking 50's.

    You also don't mention the conspiracy theories - which are are a central part of the Glorious Ron Paul Revolution, whether you admit it or not. Paul swims in the water with paranoid freaks and he personally believes many of their pet conspiracy theories himself (even more than most people thought if Eric Dondero's recent statement is to believed). It's very obvious that extreme paranoia is a major influence on Paul's worldview and his foreign policy positions.

  • America||

    if Eric Dondero's recent statement is to believed

    uh...

    It's 12:46 AM do you know where you are?

  • Fred||

    I love how Doherty finds a way to work a book plug into EVERYTHING he writes. This probably even applies to his grocery list.

  • ||

    Its not enough for good men to be good, they also have to be tough.....the old testament was right, an eye for an eye

  • ||

    How many National Review writers "heart" Mitt Romney? Yet, I have not seen an article on NR questioning his association with an organization that practiced racial discrimination (i.e. the Mormon Church). From 1849 to 1978, the Church of LDS had a policy against ordaining black men. We're supposed to ignore that but dismiss Paul for words he never wrote. I'd rather talk about a real issue like our debt and that so far only Paul is proposing serious & responsible cuts in spending.

  • ||

    It's disheartening to see you folks, who set yourselves up as the Honest Brokers as opposed to those eeevil REpublicans and Democrats, go into the tank so hard for a conspiracy-theory-spouting racist.

    You're making the same mistake that the Democrats did with Obama: they wanted a black guy so bad they didn't care if he was competent, and you want a libertarian so bad you don't care if he's sane.

    How'd that work out for the Democrats?

  • GOD||

    THANK YOU BRIAN HODERTY. If I had ever subscribed to Reason I would've canceled my subscription the minute Ms. Madeline Welsch, under the guise of the "reasonable, urbane, 'libertarian'", rehashed her shameless deceptive quoting and context- (ie integrity-) dropping in every medium possible.
    There are only 2 ways Reason's Ron Paul coverage could make sense: 1) It is the product of top-down, centrally-mandated Reason/Cato-LvMI hostility. Ms. Welsh's Koch sugar daddy won't pay his bitch unless she talks dirty 'bout a dead old man and all his friends (ie Rothbard, Paul). So it could be that the rich guy who pays the bills is making some hacks do his dirty work extending grudges against dead men, or 2) that "libertarian" Reason is really only as Libertarian as all the other Libertarians (Cato excluded) say they are; that is, not very much at all. This is why someone like Ms. Welsh, the US-Balkan freedom bombing lover, works there, and why the writers supported Gary Johnson - a quasi-libertarian Gitmo supporter - and Bob Barr - a PATRIOT Act and war criminal lover - over Ron Paul, the best thing to happen to Libertarianism literally ever. So neither of these scenarios look good for the credibility of the Reason writers, although I suspect some don't Really Know why its part of their job description to hate Paul, but they sure do know they hate him, and if they have to re-hash 30 year old stories to justify it, well, that's OK, too.
    So we're left with Mr. Hoderty here, possibly Sullum and maybe Riggs who might actually be Libertarians in a meaningful sense, with credibility. But if the Koch party line and your coworkers don't shift your way on this, you guys might want to start sending out resumes soon.

  • GOD||

    THANK YOU BRIAN HODERTY. If I had ever subscribed to Reason I would've canceled my subscription the minute Ms. Madeline Welsch, under the guise of the "reasonable, urbane, 'libertarian'", rehashed her shameless deceptive quoting and context- (ie integrity-) dropping in every medium possible.
    There are only 2 ways Reason's Ron Paul coverage could make sense: 1) It is the product of top-down, centrally-mandated Reason/Cato-LvMI hostility. Ms. Welsh's Koch sugar daddy won't pay his bitch unless she talks dirty 'bout a dead old man and all his friends (ie Rothbard, Paul). So it could be that the rich guy who pays the bills is making some hacks do his dirty work extending grudges against dead men, or 2) that "libertarian" Reason is really only as Libertarian as all the other Libertarians (Cato excluded) say they are; that is, not very much at all. This is why someone like Ms. Welsh, the US-Balkan freedom bombing lover, works there, and why the writers supported Gary Johnson - a quasi-libertarian Gitmo supporter - and Bob Barr - a PATRIOT Act and war criminal lover - over Ron Paul, the best thing to happen to Libertarianism literally ever. So neither of these scenarios look good for the credibility of the Reason writers, although I suspect some don't Really Know why its part of their job description to hate Paul, but they sure do know they hate him, and if they have to re-hash 30 year old stories to justify it, well, that's OK, too.
    So we're left with Mr. Hoderty here, possibly Sullum and maybe Riggs who might actually be Libertarians in a meaningful sense, with credibility. But if the Koch party line and your coworkers don't shift your way on this, you guys might want to start sending out resumes soon.

  • ||

    Maybe this racial stuff is the best criticism the media can come up with?

  • Treg Loyden||

    Reason is guilty as sin for what they did in bringing up these issues. But Reason and Beltway libertarians are guilty for something even worse: accepting Political Correctness & Multi-Cultural sensitivities as valid, as something as a given, as correct, as a part of libertarianism. As a long time reader of the Ron Paul newsletters all those years, I can tell you this, YOU were NO help at all in the battle that ensued between THE NEW REPUBLIC TNR a neoliberal mag and THE Ron Paul Newsletters. TNR shouted "Racists" and RP newsletters shouted back "Socialists". The RP newsletters where NEVER about political correctness let alone being PC. They called a spade a spade each and every time, hence I love it. Reason Mag on the other hand swallowed the PC Multi-cultural sensitivity thing hook line and sinker. And to prove their PCness, they "outed" the RP newsletters as "racists" among other thinks. The truly despicable thing is this. "Reason" refereed to be reasonable and discuss what is and what is not racist. Just because the RP newsletters refused to jump up and down and be "for" the black agenda, "for" the gay agenda, and "for" the jewish agenda, reason PCness along with the TNR takes that as evidence of racism. Such “for” agendas are really about legally gaining special rights, whereas libertarianism argues there is but one right, individual rights. Yet Reason trotted out select sentences and lay them out as evidence without any reasonable discussion. Guilty pronounced Reason. Well not so fast. Take this juicy quote in 1992: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be." Reason failed to ask back then, failed ask NOW, and fails to ask period, "is that racist?" The answer is it is not racist, not if we define our terms to mean the disparagement of an ethnic group's characteristics and calling for legal discrimination because of such negative characteristic. That is what Hitler did, 'Jews were cockroaches because of this and this character trait and so should be exterminated and not allowed to mix into the "pure" Aryan bloodline.' The KKK makes the same racist claims, 'these traits are negative and so we need to legally separate from them'. Now that is a strong definition of racism, but we must use it because a much wider definition, a PC definition, results in worries over who is "offended". Moreover, such worries of "causing offense" become a social free speech constraint. Indeed the 1st amendment is clearly under attack from the PC police. Hate Crime laws and as well as companies who had to go back and rewrite whole policy manuals for fear of "causing offense" and thus being open to the charges of racism, antisemitic , sexist, anti-gay, etc. Now let’s go back to that assumed "racist" quote that then neoliberal rag TNR and REASON trotted out. "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be." Now, is running fast something negative to black teenagers character? No. Is it saying its genetic? No, not enough is said either way, genetic vs cultural. Is it offensive to black robbers? I must scratch my head on that one and say they would not be offended, but proud of the fact how fast they are. So who is offended? Most of all, did that statement or others call legal discrimination based upon these (positive?) characteristics? No, that statement did not do that, thus its not "racists". If it was racist to say "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be." then it would be equally racist to say "If you have ever been chased by a middle-aged white cop, you know that after 50 yards you are home free". Neither statement is "racists', that is, if you do not accept the PC "multi-Culturally" sensitive definition of those terms. Again, libertarian Reason may accept those terms, but the RP newsletter and its brand of libertarianism did not. Sadly, the beltway libertarians have not rejected PC MC definitions and joined in the battle with the rest of us in the libertarian R3VOLution who have. Indeed, we like calling a Spade a Spade, moreover, we do not have to even "like" the spades, just support their legal freedom to be and do and hold. It is this freedom, this definition that allows all of us to laugh with black comics, '90's show "In Living Color" and a whole host of things in life. It’s a freedom that allows breathing, whereas the liberal straight jacket of PC MC definitions give us a knot on our collective tongues for fear of "offending" someone. That is what Reason Mag is guilty of, joining in wit the liberals and TNR's attacks on libertarianism through the PC MC angle. Their first victim may be Ron Paul, but not if the libertarian R3VOLution can help it.

  • Richard||

    I would like someone who gets freaked out by the newsletters to fill in the following blanks for me.

    I'd like to support Ron Paul, but since he is a racist, he will implement racist policy of [xxxxx] instead of the more non-racist policy of [xxxxx].

    The best I can come up with is:

    I'd like to support Ron Paul, but since he is a racist, he will implement racist policy of [forcing black pot smokers onto the streets, where they may not have health insurance] instead of the more non-racist policy of [keeping black pot-smokers safely locked in prison where they are fed, clothed, and provided medical care].

    A strong runner-up is

    I'd like to support Ron Paul, but since he is a racist, he will implement the racist policy of [allowing brown Muslims to move freely and possibly abandon Islam altogether, thereby sacrificing eternal life] instead of the more non-racist policy of [killing brown Muslims immediately so as to ensure their rapid ascent into heaven].

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