New at Reason
David Weigel, reflecting on the weekend (and week) of Ron Paul smearmongering, asks whether his presidential campaign will be bad for libertarians.
Comments to "New at Reason":
TF | May 25, 2007, 10:25am | #
his offensive (and now repudiated) quotes about raceHow have they been repudiated? I'm not being combative, I would actually love for them to have been repudiated. But the last I heard the quotes actually were in his newsletter. Please tell me I'm wrong, it would make my day.
TF | May 25, 2007, 10:25am | #
again, with corrected italicshis offensive (and now repudiated) quotes about race
How have they been repudiated? I'm not being combative, I would actually love for them to have been repudiated. But the last I heard the quotes actually were in his newsletter. Please tell me I'm wrong, it would make my day.
David Weigel | May 25, 2007, 10:30am | #
He has said that he didn't write the quotes in question and that he doesn't really agree with them.Duckman | May 25, 2007, 10:35am | #
What I want to know is... who has more skeletons in their closet, Ron Paul or Rudy Guiliani?Fluffy | May 25, 2007, 10:37am | #
Well, it pretty much all boils down to whether Paul is telling the truth when he says he didn't write all the articles in that newsletter.If he gets smeared with it, he has to stand up and say who wrote them.
That might not work, of course. Actually, it probably won't. But if Weigel is saying that Paul shouldn't run because the truth isn't good enough, or people won't believe the truth, then he's just as much a part of the problem with American politics today as Hillary or Rudy.
OTOH, if Paul actually wrote what's in the newsletter, he should not be running for President. He should have stayed in his house seat and been happy that this stuff had died and wasn't in his face every day.
Dave W. | May 25, 2007, 10:38am | #
Getting mugged sucks. Not only do you feel victimized, but it is difficult to talk about the experience publicly.I have been chased by muggers 4 times, escaping successfully each time.
I have been mugged once without a pursuit because I was cornered.
Neu Mejican | May 25, 2007, 10:39am | #
Dave W.: how do you respond to this piece of your writing that someone has found and called racist?Ron Paul: That doesn't sound like something I would write, and I don't agree with it.
Dave W.:Thanks for clearing that up.
Gimme a break.
How is this different than any other politician trying to step away from their own words when the come back to bite them?
As long as libertarian thought and the opinions of the polloi are as far apart as they are now, any libertarian who gains any publicity will be viewed as a kook. That's not a function of the ideas themselves, but of the fact that they are very much outside the mainstream.
Neu Mejican | May 25, 2007, 10:41am | #
And to avoid confusion...the Dave W. in my post is David WeigelFluffy | May 25, 2007, 10:42am | #
Actually, Neu, it's more like if you had a political website at YourName.org and your webmaster decided to post the Unabomber Manifesto on it, because he assumes you'd agree with it.If Paul's telling the truth, that is.
Hmmm, I was hoping you meant the quotes weren’t in his newsletter. Since they were in his newsletter, he is in trouble.......If Romney or Biden had something like that in a little newsletter with their name on the top, people would beat them over the head with it mercilessly until they backed out of the race. The same will happen to Ron, and perhaps rightly so.
Neu Mejican | May 25, 2007, 10:48am | #
Fluffy,If Ron Paul can't run a tight enough ship to avoid such an event, does he have the management skills to be president.
If you are putting your name on something that someone else wrote it is fair to attribute the statements to you. A "my lackey wrote that" excuse doesn't fly with me.
No offense David Weigel, but stop being such a wuss. I say bring on the focus and attention of the big guns. If that's what it takes to get Paul's messages out there and to put a thorn into the sides of people like Romney and Giuliani then that's great. Its not like when people find out about his eccentric views they won't vote for him; he wasn't going to win anything anyway.
Warren | May 25, 2007, 10:55am | #
If the establishment is forced to expend significant time and treasure dragging Ron Paul through the mud, that might be the best of all possible worlds. Like you said David, embittered libertarians put the most modest achievement in the win column.Deep down in places I don't talk about at parties (as if I were ever invited to parties) I hold out hope that the establishment may yet be forced to assimilate more libertarian policy.
TF | May 25, 2007, 11:00am | #
Libertarianism can take any hit other than looking like a bunch of racists. It is already too easy to pigeon-hole us as uncaring, capitalist pigs. I can handle that. I can't handle being pigeon-holed as an uncaring capistalist racist pig.Sorry Ron, I cutting you off....even if you are telling the truth now, you fucked up too bad for me to attach my name to you.
Brian White | May 25, 2007, 11:02am | #
uh...newsflash, guys - Ron Paul is not going to win anything.Get over the that feeling of heady excitement you had 30 years ago when McBride won 1% of the vote and accept that having ANYBODY get airtime to discuss anti-imperial notions in a presidential campaign is a good thing.
As for any dumb thing he's written, realize that he's going to be slammed and slandered in any event. That's the price ya pay for being "out of the mainstream".
tarran | May 25, 2007, 11:03am | #
Eric Dondero claims that it was actually penned by Lew Rockwell. Ron Paul does hold himself responsible in that the newsletter went out under his name. But, having read his writings, it is clear to me he didn't pen it. The essay's structural organization and style are very different from Ron Paul's other writing. (BTW I don;t think the style matches Lew Rockwell's writing style either)To be honest, I question Ron Paul's judgement of character based on some of the people whom he has kept in his inner circle. It is possible that he takes what he can get out of a poor crop of candidates, or that he is too kindly. It is also possible that he indeed is prejudiced against black people.
If he is prejudiced, it does not concern me too much in that he does not believe in using government to impose his preferences, and from his voting record. Thus, I cannot see him pursuing racist policies like segregating the military or expanding affirmative action.
By the way, if being a poor judge of character is a disqualification for office, then I have a name for any readers who are Giuliani supporters: Bernie Kerrick, a man who effectively sabotaged the nascent Iraqi national police through his incompetence.
Fluffy | May 25, 2007, 11:04am | #
I have a quick question, for those who know the timetable better than me:When the quotes in question appeared in Paul's newsletter, was Paul in or out of government at the time?
tarran | May 25, 2007, 11:05am | #
Sammit, I should proofread! I meant to say:"If he is prejudiced, it does not concern me too much. From his voting record, I see that he does not believe in using government to impose his preferences. Thus, I cannot see him pursuing racist policies like segregating the military or expanding affirmative action."
deron | May 25, 2007, 11:09am | #
TF...My perspective is that if Biden or Romney shook things up enough we'd be reading about their skeletons. These things aren't being discussed right now because they're being ignored.
People believing what they want is an interesting phenomena in campaigns. Bush was teflon regarding his service record and drug use (rumor is enough in these things). McCain was harmed by rumors of having a short temper. Why does Dean get pulled down for yalping? Is it that awful or were people just not sold?
Simon9 | May 25, 2007, 11:09am | #
Libertarianism is going to be a hard enough sell (although once-upon-a-time it wouldn't be) in the US. Ron Paul isn't slick and sexy enough to reach the great unwashed masses who won't give a sh*t about voting for change if it means 10 minutes away from American Idol, no matter how important and timely his message is.The MSM is going to do EVERYTHING it can to first ignore and then, if necessary, torpedo Paul. If his newsletter -- with his name on it -- has racist stuff in it, then stick a fork in Paul; he's cooked thoroughly.
Damn.
LarryA | May 25, 2007, 11:13am | #
What I want to know is... who has more skeletons in their closet, Ron Paul or Rudy Guiliani?Rudy has a much bigger closet.
Fluffy | May 25, 2007, 11:15am | #
Dean got pulled down for yalping because he had been up and then lost - and then looked mildly ridiculous.The junior high school instinct to jump on the bandwagon to beat the loser when he's down, to joke about the person other people are joking about, is too strong for most people to resist.
P Brooks | May 25, 2007, 11:18am | #
"The collapse of these wages (construction alone is a damning example) shows these immigrants are not needed, they are just being used to lower wages for the working class."I dragged that little shard of a comment over from the Novak/ immigration thread, because it shows (me) the fundamental antipathy of people to libertarian ideas. People, for the most part, don't like uncertainty, or risk, or competition. If Ron Paul represents any or all of those things, or if he can successfully be "tarred" with them, he will be rejected by droves of voters who want somebody to assure them that the world will never change and they will be kept safe from any discomfort or harm.
DA | May 25, 2007, 11:21am | #
Any chance Bill Maher will bring up the newsletter tonight? Maher loves jumping on anything that smells like controversy, and Paul would have the opportunity to clear the air and state his case on a larger forum before this could become uglier. One can only hope, I guess.Still, I agree with some of the posters who are dismayed about the newsletter. Paul may be very well telling the truth, as I believe him to be, but he's too loose with the circle of associates he keeps and I'd prefer he'd use a little more volume in 'setting the record straight.'
As someone else stated, libertarianism being thought of along with outside-the-mainstream capitalism is fine. But I hardly think anyone wants to see a well-oiled smear campaign that basically plants 'Paul = racism = libertarianism' into the public mindsets.
Daze | May 25, 2007, 11:22am | #
That column appeared in the Ron Paul Political Report in 1992. It became an issue in his 1996 campaign, and he didn't deny writing it. The quote in which he denies authorship (but takes "moral responsibility" for letting it be published under his name) comes from a 2001 interview.If someone wrote something I found objectionable under my name, I wouldn't wait nine years to disavow it.
Tom Walls | May 25, 2007, 11:22am | #
No one is making hay anymore out of the anti-Christian stuff two paid John Edwards staffers wrote. I certainly don't blame blow-dry boy for it. insert Criswell voice here I predict that this non-controversy will blow over in the near future.Ron has an appeal that seems to be transcending ideological libertarians and old timey hard money advocates. For God's sakes, they were talking about him on The View.
Ron's opponents are neocons, ueberhawks, and libertarian or liberal Republicans who despise social conservatives of any stripe.
Given that libertarians are barely (if at all) on the political radar merely bringing the term up and some of the general positions of libertarians is likely going to be a plus.
stephen the goldberger | May 25, 2007, 11:26am | #
If paul's ideas truly have power then they will survive any media expose that you claim exposure will bring. It's called dancing with the big boys libertarians, and it's a dance well worth trying. If you want to make a difference as a politician you just have to be able to survive the mud slinging.robc | May 25, 2007, 11:28am | #
Daze,Years ago, I said if I ever ran for office, I wouldnt deny anything my opponents said about me. The more idiotic stuff they throw the less bad it makes the real skeletons look. And everyone has something they have said/done they would prefer not be public (I assume).
That 1987 high school senior english paper I wrote entitled "The Necessity of Terrorism" might not play well (As an aside, I didnt believe the arguments I made in that paper, I just thought it was fun to take the other side and see what I could do).
Maybe Paul adopted my strategy in 96. He just ignored the issue and let it go away. It didnt hurt him. Denying it might have made a bigger story out of it.
Cutkomp | May 25, 2007, 11:31am | #
I, for one, am glad that the attacks on Dr. Paul have already started coming from the establishment. Let them feel the fear. They've been shoving fear down our throats for years. What goes around comes around.You'll notice that a large portion of the tactics they have used so far against Ron are chock full of intellectual dishonesty. The establishment talks to the public like the public is a bunch of retards. Ron Paul talks to the public like the public is smart, like he believes that the people are capable of thinking for themselves.
Joel Lemieux | May 25, 2007, 11:41am | #
I Agree... Meanwhile Consider The Following:Our Only Choice!!! Leadership 2008
Can Ron Paul Win? On The Issues
A Resounding YES!
Knowing this let us then look at the most important benefit… that Ron Paul brings to the Presidency
"Leadership"
Leadership is Action Through *Example Not Position...
(It is not a position of power nor being in the right place at the right time, neither define leadership.
It is defined by setting the example through taking action on such Leadership Traits as Truthfulness! Honesty! Fidelity! )
Ron Paul Has Acted Admirably On All These Leadership Traits:
“Truthfulness” first and foremost… Then: Principle, Integrity, Honesty,* Fidelity (to their oaths), Honor, Virtue, Compassion, Courage, Vision, Wisdom and Faith.
DARE TO COMPARE
Can anyone bring forth any other candidate (GOP or DEM, etc.) that can lay claim to all of these characteristics?
I believe we are all hard pressed to do so... “Strike That”. I KNOW we ARE hard pressed!
http://leadership2008.bravehost.com
Get the word out "SHARE" with your friends...
creech | May 25, 2007, 11:49am | #
There are forty years of libertarian writing, some of which had kooky ideas that, perhaps, the author has grown out of by now. If libertarianism is to be successful, it will have to deal with attacks that use such kooky material. If you ever uttered the n word when a teenager, some buddy is going to remember it and tell the media when you run for office.Anyone who knows Ron Paul knows he isn't a racist. Anyone who knows libertarian principles know libertarians aren't racist.
Let the smears begin. Welcome them as proof that libertarian ideas suddenly matter.
pdog | May 25, 2007, 11:58am | #
Yes, bring it on.Gloria | May 25, 2007, 12:12pm | #
If the worst stuff they can throw at Ron Paul are comments from a newsletter from 1992, that's pretty darn good.Keep in mind that the leading black minister in NYC said "Giuliani hates black people" and took back his support of the mayor. Keep in mind that Amadou Diallo was shot 90 times under Giuliani's watch.
Words and actions are two very different things. Ron Paul didn't even say the words, but Giuliani has had actions that speak of racism within him.
If you read anything Ron Paul has written, it's quite obvious that he would never say things like were in those newsletters. He has an elegant way of writing, and he never personalizes things. He has called racism a "collectivist mindset" that denigrates the individual. He is all about individualism and liberty.
Daze | May 25, 2007, 12:13pm | #
"No one is making hay anymore out of the anti-Christian stuff two paid John Edwards staffers wrote. I certainly don't blame blow-dry boy for it."Those comments were not presented as written by John Edwards. If the John Edwards Political Report published a column ostensibly written by John Edwards calling American Christians "thugs", "animals", "barbarians" and "terrorists", and Edwards denied authorship a decade later, the analogy might be relevant.
i liken Ron Paul's "racist" and Israeli lobby comments to Jim Webb's views on affirmative action and women in fighting roles in the military: these ideas appeal to conservatives. these views will not become the liabilities you folks think they will become.
Colin | May 25, 2007, 12:22pm | #
Ron Paul is 72 years old. He has been in congress for something like 17 years. In one newsletter that is like 8 pages long and was possibly written by another person there is some quasi-racist material. In NOTHING else he has ever written that I know of is there anything similar.Get over it and stop being wussies. If you want libertarian views to be heard then you better throw some weight behind Paul. People are not as dumb as you think they are and the message is more relevant than ever before. Ron Paul has a great chance to win.
Warren | May 25, 2007, 12:34pm | #
Here Here!Ron Paul in 08 is a best libertarian candidacy since Goldwater. Hooray for Ron Paul! He's already gotten farther than I figured he would. The more attention he gets the better! It's all good!
Eric the .5b | May 25, 2007, 12:48pm | #
Some people have criticized Paul on the grounds that he's too absolutist, and the perfect can be the enemy of the good.On the other hand, you can apply that standard to his candidacy. He isn't the (quite unavailable) perfect libertarian commenter we might want in the running right now...but he gets the important ideas out there, and he's certainly better than a straight Red echo chamber.
jimmydageek | May 25, 2007, 12:52pm | #
I propose a toast!! To Ron Paul!!Derrick | May 25, 2007, 12:53pm | #
If we sit around waiting for a perfect libertarian candidate, we're going to go nowhere. I have been following the LP candidates, and am not impressed with any of them so far. None of them are even as polished as Ron Paul. (I'm not saying that Ron Paul is polished.)Overall, I think it will be a win for the libertarian "brand" if Paul's candidacy continues gathering steam. It is already bringing a whole lot of young, independent/unregistered/socially-liberal people into the movement. God knows we need that.
As for his opponents digging up everything he ever said to paint him as a kook... Whatever, that's politics. He can definitely be eccentric, but are his ideas really that kooky compared to those of Giuliani or McCain? IMHO they are more or less sound. If the MSM wants to throw them out there, it will just give more exposure to them. With enough repetition they will become more accepted.
Finally, as for the racism charges, I believe enough evidence exists to prevent them from going anywhere. Anywhere they've been raised thus far, they've been quickly countered.
I repeat my assertion made a few weeks ago that Ron Paul's candidacy is ironically going to be an example of serious problems in libertarian thought. Here at Reason and among other libertarian think tanks the effects of wealthy contributors and political advertisers is often minimized. The people are not the dupes of tv ads and rallies it is said, they can see through all that and make the right choice. Yet here we have an articulate, coherent libertarian who is going to be buried under an avalanche of campaign funds. If that's not irony, I don't know what is...
Dave W. | May 25, 2007, 12:57pm | #
Here at Reason and among other libertarian think tanks the effects of wealthy contributors and political advertisers is often minimized.I think I know what you mean, but there are 2 very different ways to take this sentence.
Harry | May 25, 2007, 1:14pm | #
"As long as libertarian thought and the opinions of the polloi are as far apart as they are now, any libertarian who gains any publicity will be viewed as a kook. That's not a function of the ideas themselves, but of the fact that they are very much outside the mainstream."Bingo. The vast majority of people like government programs and giveaways; they enjoy getting stuff that seems to be "free."
It has always been so. It will always be so.
And most people really don't want to be "free." They want someone telling them what to believe, what is right and what is wrong, and what they should do.
Libertarianism big problem is that it's trying to get people to think and act contrary to human nature. That's why it will be the political equivalent of Scientology----always viewed as some weird cult by outsiders.
Sorry to burst your bubble, but those are the facts.
Simon9 | May 25, 2007, 1:25pm | #
Well, actually those aren't facts. They are opinions. Come on. We're Libertarians. We know the difference.That said, I agree with your opinion. And that's our big problem. And that's a fact......D'OH!
Its not like there are libertarians getting mainstream exposure that Paul could damage. At least we're getting some of our ideas on national television now. And if reason contributors are the yard stick then maybe I'm not a libertarian anyway. I mean if a libertarian is someone like reason contributor Michelle "throw 'em in internment camps" Malkin then I'll find a new political label.
Simon9 | May 25, 2007, 1:34pm | #
What I fear is the intensity of the attacks on Paul, and by extension libertarian philosophy, by the media and the political establishment if and when Paul becomes viewed as a serious threat. But I guess it's inevitable.I always assumed that when that day comes, the MSM and their cohorts will generate BS to attack us with. But a racist comment by a presidential candidate is actual meat (even if it's old and may have been written by some unnamed underling). They will suck that one dry with a fervor. It will be front page on Time, Newsweek, etc. And it will deflect attention from the important messages. I would be amazed if it were otherwise.
peppermint patti | May 25, 2007, 1:37pm | #
Since when did the Constitution become eccentric? I'm yet to find a single Ron Paul argument without historic or legal foundation. Somebody point out a position or issue he has clearly supported and written about that is kooky or eccentric. Austrian economics is kooky? Washington and Jefferson and Adams are kooky? Because human nature has changed? What brought that about, electricity? The automobile? Powered flight? What about television? Now that's kooky! Now Michelle Malkin trumps the Constitution?Bradford C. | May 25, 2007, 1:44pm | #
Someone can correct me on this, but didn't the publisher that oversaw the newsletter back up Paul's statement that it was written by somebody else?peppermint patti | May 25, 2007, 1:58pm | #
Yes, the publisher did. What are these people whining about?Godwhacker | May 25, 2007, 2:12pm | #
Truth is a powerful ally. Paul has it in spades.peppermint patti | May 25, 2007, 2:15pm | #
Suck that one dry (actual meat) with a fervor? Nice. Can I participate in your fear?Iconoclast421 | May 25, 2007, 2:17pm | #
Yes if Ron Paul starts showing up in major polls, they will throw everything but the kitchen sink at him. But so what? What has Ron Paul said that compares to Giuliani? Giuliani who markets himself as some kind of 9/11 security expert yet doesn't even understand the concept of blowback. The bottom line is that the msm could destroy all the founding fathers if any of them were alive and campaigning today. Ron Paul could be the one that forces the media to use up all its ammo...Too Much Formatting | May 25, 2007, 2:18pm | #
Listen up y'all, to what I say, 'coz this type of shit happens every dayLook, the game is NOT to get Ron Paul into the White House. Everybody, everybody know that ain't happening.
What we are trying to do is to vanquish the neo-conservatives and regular interventionists out of the Republican Party.
The point is NOT to create a Ron Paul cult-of-personality.
The point is to renew a commitment to humble foreign policy and then to reclaim the liberties, resources, and prestige which we have lost for the past 50 years.
Rattlesnake Jake | May 25, 2007, 2:25pm | #
"Gimme a break.How is this different than any other politician trying to step away from their own words when the come back to bite them?"
I believe him. It doesn't sound like him, but it does sound like Lewellan Rockwell who from what I read in another tread, has been a major ghost writer for Ron Paul. Ron Paul can be held somewhat responsible, however, because he allowed that to come out in his newsletter.
I agree with TooMuchFormating. Paul ain't perfect, but he is a damn site better than all the others and his message is strong and universal. He can change the direction of the discourse and change the world. I am not betting he can win, but I am not giving up on the dream. If he does not win, these ideas will win sooner or later.
Rattlesnake Jake | May 25, 2007, 2:30pm | #
"What we are trying to do is to vanquish the neo-conservatives and regular interventionists out of the Republican Party."I'm afraid that the only thing that might bring that about is if the Democrats win the presidency and maintain control of Congress in 2008. Maybe the Republicans will finally learn the lesson they should have learned in 2006.
Gerg | May 25, 2007, 2:30pm | #
Oh for heaven's sake. Do we have to wait until the actual primary before we stop having to listen to all this fetishism over Ron Paul?Why on earth is Michelle Malkin a Reason contributor? That's ridiculous!
peppermint patti | May 25, 2007, 2:33pm | #
Before typing a prediction offered with certainty based on "realism"... take a deep breath.Isaac Bartram | May 25, 2007, 2:34pm | #
Do we have to wait until the actual primary before we stop having to listen to all this fetishism over Ron Paul?Why, is there someone else you'd like to listen to fetishism over.
McCain? Hillary? Rudy?
Rattlesnake Jake | May 25, 2007, 2:37pm | #
"Now Michelle Malkin trumps the Constitution?"Michelle Malkin should be ashamed of herself as a journalist for the smearjob she did on Ron Paul.
Well as a lefty who is switching to the republican party just to vote for Dr Paul, i would say who cares if he is a racist. His constitutional frame of reference would prevent him from enacting any racist policies. Wake up people! Paul anti-imperialist, anti drug war, pro civil liberty message far outweighs any personal views he holds or race, sexuality, womens choice etc...I just pray that more liberals can see through their party lens and realize that liberty is too important quibble about.
Isaac Bartram | May 25, 2007, 2:39pm | #
Why on earth is Michelle Malkin a Reason contributor?Before some time in 2000 Malkin seemed to be something of a proto-libertarian. Then she published her "praise of concentration camps for Japanese-Americans" epic. Then 9/11 sealed her fate as a proto-fascist.
So, no, it was not that ridiculous for her to be a Reason contributor in 1999.
Oh and congratulations for spelling "ridiculous" correctly. I was beginning to think the spelling had officially changed. :)
Rattlesnake Jake | May 25, 2007, 2:40pm | #
"Why on earth is Michelle Malkin a Reason contributor? That's ridiculous!"I stopped subscribing to Reason when they supported Desert Shield. It appears that they are still flirting with neoconservatism.
Rattlesnake Jake | May 25, 2007, 2:43pm | #
"Then she published her "praise of concentration camps for Japanese-Americans" epic."I've also read her defending Abu Grahib and Guantonimo.
Tom Walls | May 25, 2007, 2:49pm | #
Daze, you have a good point about the difference between the two controversies. But if the same thing had been published under the "John Edwards Hair Tips for Men Newsletter" by a former ghostwriter, it would still blow over.The incident says nothing about Ron except he should've been more careful about what was published under his name. Sometimes you should put your foot down and be more exclusive in regards the people you deal with - it's one of life's lessons. But not doing so is hardly a blemish of any substance on Ron Paul's character or personal views.
You can say it took him a decade to deny authorship - maybe he actually did before and it didn't make it to print; or maybe it just didn't come up. Maybe there wasn't a favorable channel or situation to repudiate this stuff at the time. Or maybe he should have issued some sort of press release at the time disowning it. I don't know, but having followed him for almost 20 years, I am willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. I just don't understand those who get their underwear in a knot over this.
I once wrote an article in which the editor changed my copy (coincidentally, it was something involving Ron Paul). The editor's changes went to press before I had any input on it, and it ended up hurting and confusing a lot of people. I never really got a chance to explain my side of the story to the people it affected. Why didn't I issue a repudiation of my alleged words? I just wasn't assertive enough at the time, and someone talked me out of it... so I just let it drop and shrugged at it or ignored it later. Those things happen.
Those comments were not presented as written by John Edwards. If the John Edwards Political Report published a column ostensibly written by John Edwards calling American Christians "thugs", "animals", "barbarians" and "terrorists", and Edwards denied authorship a decade later, the analogy might be relevant.
peppermint patti | May 25, 2007, 2:51pm | #
They have to go after him personally, because they can't refute the ideas. Each smear is a compliment. Sooner or later, as professionals, authors of hit pieces will suffer their own private lessons on blowback.Skip | May 25, 2007, 2:57pm | #
Jesus. So much hand wringing and perspiration. It's not a wonder the libertarian message is still somewhere between home plate and first base. The libertarians I know and respect are, if not comfortable, willing to be in the trenches, actually putting thought into action. Men like Howie Rich, Scott Rasmussen and Paul Jacob. Of course they probably don’t claim the libertarian pedigrees most of you do. Neither are they afflicted by the warm and fuzzy obsession of hyper analysis. How does the old saying go, "Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way"?Ron Paul is that kind of man: Narrow minded, passionate and approaches being politically pure. Politics is a contact sport. So far he demonstrates he can take the hits. All he needs is for those who agree with most of what he stands for to quit fretting and get behind the plow.
I have seen the positive results of citizen driven activism. The status quo is lazy and unimaginative. That includes the MSM. Most of the slugs who hold office and the hacks who support them despise anyone who threatens their gig. I am excited about playing some small role in adding to their discomfort.
Why are statistics considered racist?
Malkin had a bit of the 'truth' bug in her in 2002 when she questioned what happened to flight 93.
She also WRONGLY said he appeared with, when it was simply that these young boys show up at EVERY candidate's parties -- including OBAMAs.
Furthermore, she used that video, where I appeared, without my permission. That was MY party. I was standing right next to Ron when he was talking to Justin from the student group. Justin had never heard of him before. He arrived, seemed like a polite and reaosnable person so I let him in.
Malkin has been put on notice.
Yes they met Ron at this party for the FIRST TIME! He did not meet with them or appear with them and she had to correct that.
Malkin had a bit of the 'truth' bug in her in 2002 when she questioned what happened to flight 93.
She also WRONGLY said he appeared with, when it was simply that these young boys show up at EVERY candidate's parties -- including OBAMAs.
Furthermore, she used that video, where I appeared, without my permission. That was MY party. I was standing right next to Ron when he was talking to Justin from the student group. Justin had never heard of him before. He arrived, seemed like a polite and reaosnable person so I let him in.
Malkin has been put on notice.
Yes they met Ron at this party for the FIRST TIME! He did not meet with them or appear with them and she had to correct that.
ChrisO | May 25, 2007, 3:15pm | #
Ron Paul is getting a lot more attention than I thought he would. Even the negative attention has a benefit--there's at least a chance that folks out there will learn more about him, just by having heard of him.In the end, I'm sure he's politically just another Gene McCarthy, and we'll get stuck with Rudy vs. Hillary next year. So stop bitching and enjoy the moment while it lasts.
We already knew the mainstream media was controlled, that's why Ron Paul has been saying from the beginning that we have the internet on our side, the last frontier of freedom. Let's prove that good candidates can win, support Ron Paul.
Bill | May 25, 2007, 3:38pm | #
When I look at someone who's going into office I look at their voting record. That can usually give you a pretty good indication of how they'll vote when they are in the job you put them in (do we want an ambassador or someone who will vote as close to our principles?).Ron Paul, or someone who worked for him was politically incorrect 15 years ago. How do his votes compare to the issue that was so politically incorrect? Do his votes come the closest to your principles?
I go into the voting booth hoping that when I pull that lever, that represents me putting someone in charge of 100s of votes over the next 4 years that I would agree with.
Rattlersnake Jake | May 25, 2007, 4:10pm | #
What time and what network is Bill Maher on tonight?LandR | May 25, 2007, 4:17pm | #
Perhaps I misunderstood the article, but it seems to me that this is the very reason libertarian ideals aren't prominent among politicians. We all sit around like teenage girls, waiting for someone to ask us out on a date. When that person finally comes along, he doesn't match exactly the man of our dreams. Thus we hesitate while we analyze his relatively small flaws to death... missing our opportunity to get ourselves out on the national scene. Instead of looking for God to push our platform, let’s just understand that humans are... well, humans. Instead of burying our heads in the sand when our candidate's glimmer is tainted by his own words, let's confront those things which make us cringe and, so long as he didn’t mean them, do our best to let it be known that, in the heat of a moment or at an emotional time, we sometimes say things incongruous with our philosophy. Then when in office, if he does not adhere to those philosophical precepts, let's call it out and make sure that everyone understands why he is not who he claimed to be and that is does not any way discredit our ideas. In doing this perhaps our ideas will be implemented and our label that we give ourselves won't have to change again. If not, then I propose our next name be libralites and our ideas libralitian.A little pointless speculation... Could Ron Paul run as a Libertarian Party presidential candidate if/when he loses the GOP primaries... ? Would this even be possible, logistically speaking...? Would he and/or the LP even be interested...? Surely I'm not the only one who has been wondering...
Rattlesnake Jake | May 25, 2007, 4:32pm | #
"For God's sakes, they were talking about him on The View."What was Rosie's take on him and what was Elizabeth's take on him?
Pregnant lesbian sex | May 25, 2007, 4:33pm | #
Christ, all Ron Paul needs now is for Rosie to pledge support for him and he's doomed! Doomed I tells ya!Jackson | May 25, 2007, 4:59pm | #
Christ, all Ron Paul needs now is for Rosie to pledge support for him and he's doomed! Doomed I tells ya!You know, she did support the ideas he brought up in the second debate, to the surprisingly loud applause of the audience attending The View. So there's some exposure to the "housewife" contingent.
Of course, the "opposing view" was the pro-war Hasselbeck who pretty much kept saying (literally) "They hate us for our freedoms!" and "Terrorists!" repeatedly and the other two remaining hosts came to Rosie's side rather quickly.
It was quite a sight (and it's on YouTube). Also, this happened the day after -- or maybe even the same, I forget -- that Pat Buchanan stood up for Paul, among others from both sides.
Really quite bizarre, this whole "unity across parties" thing.
Warren | May 25, 2007, 4:59pm | #
And another thing...It's not hard to imagine scenarios where a full scale attack on Paul backfires.
Paul is our man, he may not be perfect but he's as close as you will ever live to see
GO RON PAUL
RSDavis | May 25, 2007, 5:01pm | #
Is Lew Rockwell a racist? That would be disappointing. I really like the Mises Institute.- R
Dmitri | May 25, 2007, 5:19pm | #
PLS,It's ok, once Paul is on Oprah he's got the election in the bag.
Neu Mejican | May 25, 2007, 5:38pm | #
"Given that libertarians are barely (if at all) on the political radar merely bringing the term up and some of the general positions of libertarians is likely going to be a plus."I think libertarians underestimate their influence on the political landscape which far outstrips their representation among voters. Libertarian ideas have enough in common with the mythology taught about America's founding ideals to resonate with a lot of people.
Even many libertarians buy into the idea that they are politically indistinguisable from Jefferson.
In general terms most people agree with libertarianism. It is the specific proposals that fall flat (see the FDA thread from yesterday, fur intance). Paul suffers from the same problem. His anti-war stance is going to resonate. Gold standard, not so much. Civil war = bad, not so much. War on Christmas = likely to resonate, not libertarian.
libertreee | May 25, 2007, 5:42pm | #
These comments seem to be from the "black on black" crime era when Clinton was in the White House.Even Jesse Jackson once said he feels uncomfortable in black neighborhoods when followed by a black male around this time.
The different age aspect is the most disturbing, but there was, I believe, a few high profile cases of murders committed by very young blacks that helped fuel this debate.
It is unfortunate that most prominent black libertarians are pro war (Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, etc.) So a press conference with them might not work if this issue becomes as large as Weigel thinks it might.
But, in fact, Ron's immigration stance will probably hurt him with Hispanics as well. And I know he represents a border area, but I just
do not understand some of his immigration hysteria.
stopdrugwar | May 25, 2007, 5:51pm | #
Paul can solve these issues very easily should he, by some miracle, get the GOP nomination; the solution...ask Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell to be his VP.Robert | May 25, 2007, 5:56pm | #
"But a racist comment by a presidential candidate is actual meat.... They will suck that one dry with a fervor. It will be front page on Time, Newsweek, etc. And it will deflect attention from the important messages."So what's the problem? Isn't condemnation of racism itself an important message? If to attack Ron Paul they have to strike blows against racism, that's heads I win, tails you lose.
Stevo Darkly | May 25, 2007, 6:03pm | #
>>"Why on earth is Michelle Malkin a Reason contributor? That's ridiculous!"Uh, people ... for those who care, MichelleMalkin contributed one piece to Reason, in March 1999.
>>"I stopped subscribing to Reason when they supported Desert Shield. It appears that they are still flirting with neoconservatism."
Yeah, "still" -- eight years ago!
And actually, Malkin's article was about property-owners' rights being violated by one aspect of the Drug War -- a law that allows confiscating the buildings and real property of innocent property-owners if it is suspected that other people used that property for drug-related activity.
I'm not a fan of Malkin, but geez.
Okay. Now, please continue getting all upset about Ron Paul being smeared by untruths, half-truths and people who don't know what they're talking about ...
Gene Berkman | May 25, 2007, 6:40pm | #
Ron Paul's campaign is the biggest libertarian campaign I have been involved in, after 40 years of libertarian activism.A friend and I are trying to find out who wrote the newsletter at issue, so that we can diffuse the issue.
I think Ron Paul is running in the Republican primaries just because there is no other antiwar candidate for conservatives and libertarians. I doubt that he wants to undertake a national campaign on the Libertarian ticket, because of the physical demands on someone his age. So if you like what he is doing now is the time to back his campaign.
"Libertarians for Ron Paul" has a website @ www.majority.com
outsider | May 25, 2007, 6:45pm | #
Paul’s problems haven’t been due to simply being a libertarian. Many prominent libertarians have gained massive publicity for our ideas without being so labelled. As for the article in question, assumed to be written by Lew Rockwell, remember Paul first hired Rockwell and then went into the newsletter with him. It isn’t as if Rockwell’s views were unknown to him and he still choose to work with him and continues his friendly relationship to this day. So while he may not have written the articles he was responsible for the person who did and stays on good terms with the author. I suggest he let it run because he didn’t disagree with it. Of course under scrutiny during a campaign he would disagree with it.As for being seen as a kook maybe its because of affiliations with kooks like the John Birch Society. Paul spouts all the tinfoil hat material about the “new world order” plot and the so-called “NAFTA highway” and the international bankers in the fed. He helps them see him as a kook by his own views. And when you add Rockwell’s racist remarks to Paul’s snuggling up to the militia groups that dislike Mexicans and the anti-black League of the South then it looks even worse for him. If those views didn’t represent Paul’s position he should have gotten rid of Rockwell the moment they were published. He didn’t do so. Why?
As for the Edward’s staff criticizing Christianity the real difference is that they didn’t put it out under Edward’s name as a business venture with him. They said it on their own web sites. The remarks by Rockwell were in Paul’s publication under Paul’s label.
ChrisM | May 25, 2007, 10:39pm | #
Outsider...so there is no NAFTA highway? OK so who's the kook? http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2006/07/17/story8.htmlI mean seriously man open up a paper occassionaly. Is your real name Sean hannity.
Jennifer Schulz | May 26, 2007, 12:15am | #
I am so sick and tired of reading all the crap on Paul in Reason. There have been perhaps a few nice articles on Paul, but most of it is petty bitchiness that reminds me of the mainstream elite. Come on guys, whose side are you on? Either you are libertarian or you're not.I am VERY proud of Ron Paul, and that we have a candidate who isn't afraid to stick his neck out there. I find Paul very articulate and persuasive. Ok, he doesn't look like Edwards, but Boo Hoo. Paul is the best thing we've had on the campaign trail in quite a while.
Jerry | May 26, 2007, 3:43am | #
I disagree with your thesis David Wiegel. If Republicans will go after Ron Paul because of his newsletters or whatever not, it will hurt the Republican Party in itself. The GOP won't let this happen, not in an internal election. The real battles are fought after the primaries, but I doubt Ron Paul will make it that far. But I like him to stay on far enough to tell people that the mainstream Republican position nowadays is not limited government and a humble foreign policy. If he gets this message across, I think he will have done a hell of a job.Why is everyone worrying? After all markets are voluntary exchanges where free people make rational choices based on maximizing their utility. The people will obviously see that libertarianism is the most rational choice that maximizes liberty and choose Ron Paul, the most consistent and coherent libertarian in the race. Despite the advertising and media coverage he will not get, consumers are savvy folks whose free choices are not coereced or determined by these factors and Paul, being the most rational choice (because libertarianism is the most rational ideology), will be the selection of a majority of voters. Right?
Pig Mannix | May 26, 2007, 11:37am | #
@Jennifer SchulzThere have been perhaps a few nice articles on Paul, but most of it is petty bitchiness that reminds me of the mainstream elite. Come on guys, whose side are you on? Either you are libertarian or you're not.
Bingo. I could call myself an astronaut, too. That doesn't necessarily mean I am one.
Can anyone comment on Ron's Christmas 2003 letter? I fell out of the Paul 2008 camp earlier this week when I read that he believes that the US was founded and intended to remain a Christian nation, and that the separation between church and state is a fallacy. He sums up the piece by stating that "secularists" are destroying the country by attacking Christmas. This pegs him as a theocrat, something that Libertarians certain couldn't stand for, right? Our position is supposed to be that, regardless of our personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof), the government must have absolutely no position on religion to avoid implied endorsement.
SVF | May 26, 2007, 3:26pm | #
More pointless speculation... here's a crazy-ass idea that'll probably never happen...After the primaries, the GOP and Dems have the usual pro-war suspects at the top on their tickets. Ron Paul and running mate Dennis Kucinich run as Independents under an LP/Green/Reform/anti-war "Peace and Freedom" umbrella-type populist party... hm... the mind boggles...
Mitch Imbertson | May 26, 2007, 5:29pm | #
I'm sure his racist comments don't help anything, but seriously, how is this going to kill the rest of his message? Every recent presidential candidate has had at least this much dirt that was dug up on them.He just needs to take a lesson from Bush and completely ignore all criticisms until everyone forgets about them....
Brinck Slattery | May 26, 2007, 7:20pm | #
Hey everyone, I just got involved in the Ron Paul's campaign in an official capacity for Fairfield County, CT. If you are from the area (or not) and would like to offer your time and/or money, contact me at the e-mail address on my name also visit hier for the Fairfield County meetup group. This guy's the real deal for libertarians, so let's support him!PS sorry but I'm going to post this on a bunch of threads - it's really important that people take their support from the internets to their REAL LIVES and do something for liberty!
jh | May 26, 2007, 11:55pm | #
"Ken | May 26, 2007, 9:26am | #Why is everyone worrying? After all markets are voluntary exchanges where free people make rational choices based on maximizing their utility. The people will obviously see that libertarianism is the most rational choice that maximizes liberty and choose Ron Paul, the most consistent and coherent libertarian in the race. Despite the advertising and media coverage he will not get, consumers are savvy folks whose free choices are not coereced or determined by these factors and Paul, being the most rational choice (because libertarianism is the most rational ideology), will be the selection of a majority of voters. Right?"
Nice troll, Ken. Good economists know damn well that participants in a marketplace engage in lots of irrational behavior, and have rather imperfect knowledge. The simplifying assumption of rationality allows theories to be tested to see if they make any sense at all, without claiming to actually predict all that well what real people do, but rather to predict a tendency to behave one way or another. These assumptions break down bigtime in the political marketplace, since if 51% of the people who bother to show up at the polls make irrational choices, they get to decide for EVERYONE ELSE. And concentrated interests like unions show up disproportionately at the polls. And the average voter more or less gets the notion that their vote is thoroughly unlikely to decide any given election, and so it doesn't pay them to put much effort into researching the candidates. So most elections are decided by voters who are "rationally ignorant" and thus don't understand their interests all that well, and don't really know which candidate will screw them over more.
Read all about it at Daviddfriedman.com (the website of Milton Friedman's son).
Sorry about spoiling a perfectly good thread by injecting actual facts into an argument. My bad.
Ron Paul has been attacked by neocon's, "mainstream republicans", and mainstream medias, all revolving around that he's different, he's out-of-line with his party..etc...Why hasn't anyone question the facts he presented and the reasoning behind his claims? The answer is because nobody can. They can only speculate about his low poll rating, calling names, or making groundless assertions like Giuliani.
Kaligula | May 27, 2007, 4:11am | #
Anyone who advocates ending the drug war, the last bastion of institutionalized racism in America--imprisoning african americans 6 times the rate that blacks were imprisoned under South African Apartheid--is a friend to minorities.I'd love to see Rudy start talking about his record on race relations in New York.
Ken | May 27, 2007, 3:26pm | #
JHSo in this instance, elections, markets don't work. The consumers don't know what's good for them and they can be duped by the campaigns and concentrated interests. In short, free, uncoerced voters make stupid, harmful (to themselves and others) decisions. In what others do consumers make stupid, harmful decisions?
Rob | May 28, 2007, 9:26am | #
"If we sit around waiting for a perfect libertarian candidate, we're going to go nowhere. I have been following the LP candidates, and am not impressed with any of them so far. None of them are even as polished as Ron Paul. (I'm not saying that Ron Paul is polished.)"Too bad Harry Browne couldnn't make it to see this apparent airing of "Libertarian" ideas... Harry was an elequent spokesman for the Libertarian cause. Even Sean Hannity couldn't help but to openly admire one the the freest men who've ever lived. RIP Harry Browne...and thank you for my education in Libertarianism.
Bob | May 28, 2007, 12:59pm | #
Ron Paul? The only place he is getting ANY attention is the blogosphere. A big name Washington Post reorter at a political event I recently attended said "Ron Paul? He couldn't beat Mike Gravel"I agree. Paul is a gadfly.
Colin Wilkinson | May 28, 2007, 10:29pm | #
Hey, this is all good. Libertarianism like all outsiders is first treated as a joke, later as a pain in the ass, then as a pain in the neck. Then you become equal competition. First we sounded kooky, than we "cost " them elections, now we are rushing the stage. Expect the heat we have earned it. Hooray for FreedomColin
Eva Kosinski | May 29, 2007, 10:49am | #
I'm frustrated with the hero status that Paul has been (in my opinion, undeservedly) given. Yes, he's touted a lot of Libertarian principles, but I don't see those principles showing up when the votes come, after the cameras have been turned off.Two questions:
* Do you really think the Republicans would give him this much rope if they weren't planning to hang him (and by association, all of the ideals he so prominently mentions) publicly and with great fanfare?
* Is anyone actually looking at his voting record, especially regarding the Patriot act?
Those of us who have spent time in street faire booths know how many people out there are sick of the major parties (both of them, even the independents), and are searching for a new answer. How much credibility can we have when lots of Libertarians are turning their backs on legitimate Libertarian (registered even!) candidates to go out and stump for a Republican?
If he cares, he can run as a Lib. He's done it before and he didn't win, but folks were nowhere near this pissed off before. For someone who talks a lot along the lines of the "Party of Principle," I'd expect him to put his candidacy where his (advertised) politics are. I think he's trying to play both ends against the middle -- get the Reps to fund his campaign, which they're happy to do to take some support from the Libs, play up his "principles" for all he's worth and hope nobody looks at the voting record, and assume he can handle the pressure from the Reps to abandon his principles should he become the actual candidate from their party. Playing both ends against the middle usually gets you screwed.
Although you seem to consider Mike Badnarik an airhead, you might be wary of supporting Paul, or at least think twice if you knew that Mike was going around saying he'd "take a bullet" for Ron Paul.
If you don't like folks you consider airheads, you might want to consider George Phillies, who, in addition to being bright enough to actually translate the bs that passes for science these days, is capable of putting together a credible campaign (www.phillies2008.com) and is willing to put out issue statements that tell the American people what the Libertarian Party stands for.
Paul is a loose end, and from the Reps point of view, a loose cannon. Assuming he has a real chance is, in one sense, very Libertarian (hopeful in the pursuit of lost causes), but it's time we took some real steps to stand together to field a Libertarian who's willing to sign on the dotted line for OUR party.
As a Reason subscriber, I'm surprised to see how little consideration Libertarian candidates are given. I expected a more balanced view.
Steve | May 29, 2007, 1:05pm | #
Ron Paul’s own words on racism, circa 2002, are perhaps his own best rebuttal, according to sources close to the campaign:“The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity. In a free market, businesses that discriminate lose customers, goodwill, and valuable employees – while rational businesses flourish by choosing the most qualified employees and selling to all willing buyers. More importantly, in a free society every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Rather than looking to government to correct what is essentially a sin of the heart, we should understand that reducing racism requires a shift from group thinking to an emphasis on individualism.”
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
Sources close to the campaign point out that Paul's message is one of liberty and individual achievement divorced from government giveaways and self-worth-sapping programs. These sources add that for Paul to espouse racism - the idea that one's physical characteristics are more important than his or her abilities and promise - he would have to run counter to the conservative libertarian philosophy that he espoused during a previous campaign for president as libertarian candidate.
Ron Paul's message, articles and dozens of major speeches on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives clearly portray his beliefs and perspectives. None of them are racist. None of them contain racist imagery. They deal with taxation, the federal reserve and focus on attempts to constrain the power and abuses of the federal government.
ILAH DUNLAP LITTLE | May 31, 2007, 12:10am | #
Some keep making Paul out as a kook because of his crusade against the Fed. But, is it not true what he says about them?Isn't the Fed's behavior why Friedman advocated an alternative method of expanding the money supply? Why was Friedman not considered a kook for that?
Gil Heredia | June 3, 2007, 5:10pm | #
What is wrong witha Pyrrhic victory???