New at Reason
Jacob Sullum tells Ron Paul what he can do to explain his past, explain the newsletters, and help his movement forge ahead.
Comments to "New at Reason":
Don't tell me how to do it! You tell him [Lew Rockwell] how to do it and he'll tell me.
robc | January 16, 2008, 1:10pm | #
I clicked on this story expecting something new and interesting. Im stupid.Gene Trosper | January 16, 2008, 1:12pm | #
Jesus friggin Christ.This constant harping is getting old REAL FAST. Reason's writers are starting to resemble a nagging wife that no one wants to listen to because she sounds like a broken record.
New Subscriber | January 16, 2008, 1:18pm | #
Wow, another article about this. Reason, do you really think that these newsletters are going to somehow dissuade people from becoming libertarians? I heard about this magazine through Ron Paul and recently subscribed. I'm starting to wonder if I wasted my money...ohmygod, you people are liars!!! i friggin' learned about the newsletters months ago from "hit and run" when there was a link to that stupid "suicide girls" site with a "ron paul sucks" blog that talked in detail about the newsletters. this isn't a new story. it's just a bigger story now.
VM | January 16, 2008, 1:25pm | #
New Subscriber:now you have to threaten to cancel your subscription and start drinking.
(see Drinking Game, H&R Rules)
tj - you're right. RP sucks and isn't a libertarian.
Fluffy | January 16, 2008, 1:25pm | #
I have generally found Reason's coverage of this issue to be pertinent and sound, and have participated in the discussion of each article in turn.But even I have to say that this entry seems a bit pro forma. It reads like Jacob carefully getting on record along with everyone else saying the appropriate things about denouncing the newsletters and urging Paul to turn a page on his paleolibertarian associations.
We get it. Everyone at Reason is against racism. Fine. So stipulated.
Can we give it a rest now?
Luke Pski | January 16, 2008, 1:27pm | #
I'm honestly starting to suspect you guys are on the pay-roll. Surely you guys understand the context in which the "offensive" writings were produced, yet you've clearly hopped on the defamation wagon.What is in it for you? What exactly needs to be "dealt with", that hasn't already, for the past 3 weeks, on this very blog?
Brandybuck | January 16, 2008, 1:28pm | #
Cosmotarian: Irrational ideology that postulates the existance of a perfect libertarian avatar; imperfect libertarians must be sacrificed to make way for this perfect being; this will then usher in the Third Age of Cosmopolitan Man.Golda | January 16, 2008, 1:29pm | #
One of the newsletters calls Israel an "aggressive national socialist state." Calling Israel a Nazi state isn't anti-Semitic?jon | January 16, 2008, 1:30pm | #
Shouldn't your headline be "New" at "Reason" ?picaro | January 16, 2008, 1:31pm | #
Fuckin' cosmotarians make the baby jesus cry.Golda | January 16, 2008, 1:37pm | #
FluffyAha, so if Israel is a Nazi state, Germany wasn't so bad. Those Jews think of themselves as the victims of Nazism, but actually they're Nazis themselves. Give me a break.
Cesar | January 16, 2008, 1:37pm | #
"Zoo animals" sounds racist to me.What pisses me off more than anything is the fact they played on class hatred. Thats what Socialists do, people. Rockwell and Co. merely do it form the opposite end of the Socialists.
Inciting class hatred is barbaric and pretty low.
Geotpf | January 16, 2008, 1:40pm | #
Yes, the newsletter did have kind words for David Duke:http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf
If you are going to support Paul, don't lie to do so. Jacob Sullum's statement in the linked article that "the newsletters did not offer 'kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.'" is completely false; the November 1990 issue above did exactly that.
And I think the worst document was this fundraising letter, especially the third to last paragraph on page six:
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf
That paragraph in particular (amoung other things) says that there is a "federal-homosexual cover up of AIDS" that "my training as a physician helps me see through this one". So it is clearly written by Paul, or somebody pretending to be Paul with his permission (the letter has "Congressman Ron Paul" as the heading, Paul's signature, and the phone number to order the "Ron Paul Investment Letter" and the "Ron Paul Political Report" was 1-800-RON-PAUL, which apparently was also used at some point by his political campaign).
Here's the complete list of documents with questionable texts:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129
Rhywun | January 16, 2008, 1:43pm | #
Wow. Only one person is allowed to post an article on any given topic?do you really think that these newsletters are going to somehow dissuade people from becoming libertarians?
I wouldn't doubt it. I've been hanging around here for about five years and these kinds of thoughts (from the newsletters) are often lurking beneath the surface among the fringes of the "movement". It doesn't hurt to loudly and frequently disassociate the movement from such collectivist rantings--especially for the benefit of any newbies that might be lurking.
PS. I'm not in the movement, merely sympathetic to many of its ideas.
PAULTARDS OF THE WORLD UNITE | January 16, 2008, 1:45pm | #
"A rather pathetic attemt to revive an issue that has been more than fully dealt with"not in the greater world. Sure in Paultopia it is old news, etc. But most people don't know who RP is, and if this is their introduction, it's not helping.
duh. a smart person could see that, too.
(and the term "Paultard" is stoopid)
Just remember, a fancy talkin' black man couldn't erect the modern welfare state. It took a white Texan to get it done.
Jake Boone | January 16, 2008, 1:45pm | #
Golda,As far as I can tell, antisemitism is not a required plank in a (generic) national socialist platform. You could, for example, have a national socialist movement or government that chose Koreans as an "enemy group," or blondes, or vegans, or even -- believe it or not -- Palestinians.
robc | January 16, 2008, 1:46pm | #
Wow. Only one person is allowed to post an article on any given topic?If would be nice if after the first the others actually added something new.
robc | January 16, 2008, 1:47pm | #
and the term "Paultard" is stoopidOf course it is. It was invented (afaik) at wonkette. That tells you just how stupid it is.
1440 minutes | January 16, 2008, 1:48pm | #
For God's sake. Rather than covering the fact that Ron Paul finished in fourth place in Michigan, trouncing Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson *again* in the face of a media blackout, you continue to publish this garbage. So now Ron Paul has to do battle not with only the liberals and the neocons, but also with the beltway Libertarians.We will remember your actions in this campaign, and we will never support Reason or CATO again if you continue down this path. You realize, of course, that President of the Austin NAACP understands why the establishment is smearing Ron Paul with these newsletter. This NAACP executive does not consider him a racist.
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844
Golda | January 16, 2008, 1:49pm | #
Jack BooneOne way to defang nazism is to make any discriminatory practice Nazi. Israeli oppression of the Palestians--terrible, indeed--doeasn't quite equal the Nazi policy of exterminating the Jews.
Its not that hes a racist. Its the fact that he associates with and is manipulated by people with racist views.
Jacob | January 16, 2008, 1:50pm | #
Dear Reason,We get it. You have sufficiently distanced yourself from the good doctor to avoid any fallout. I believe all your columnists, secretaries, and janitors have now done so. Twice. Now, if you wouldn’t mind, some of us are trying to spread small-government ideals in the real world.
Brian24 | January 16, 2008, 1:51pm | #
For the record, in spite of all that has been written here on this subject, I think this was a good article, Jacob, and right on the money.No, I don't think RP is a racist, and I believe him when he says he has never believed in the things these newsletters talk about. If you want libertarianism to remain a fringe enterprise, then that is enough.
Personally, I want libertarian ideas to spread, so that maybe someday we can stop complaining about the state of things on this website and accomplish some of our goals. That involves convincing more people of the correctness of our ideas. There are plenty of people out there who are frustrated by our government's behavior who could potentially be convinced. If you don't think a lot of those people would be turned off by what they hear about these newsletters, you're nuts.
Stefan, to your point, I agree. The other candidates are worse. But people reading this site generally know that already. The most important decision facing the libertarian movement right now is How To Deal With This, in order to make sure it's not the one thing 95% of America remembers about libertarianism when this race is over.
I could just kick Lew Rockwell's @$$ right now for trying to get into bed with these authoritarian jerks who were never interested in libertarianism anyway, except insofar as it gave them a philosophical excuse to build prisons and beat on minorities.
dodsworth | January 16, 2008, 1:53pm | #
Rather than dwell more on the terrible newsletters, the Paul campaign needs to turn this negative into a positive. It should fire Jesse Benton and junk the current ad campaign. The new ads should emphasize the war, civil liberties, and the racism of the war on drugs.| January 16, 2008, 1:53pm | #
Inciting class hatred is barbaric and pretty low.Yes. The cosmos' anti-paleo surge, which evidently none of them is allowed not to make a display of joining, is indeed barbaric and low, for that very reason.
Being opposed to both factions, and having no obligation to appear non-racist to anyone, it's all so fucking tedious.
We get it. For social and career reasons, you need Democrats to like you.
Stop punching yourself.
Cesar | January 16, 2008, 1:54pm | #
Yes. The cosmos' anti-paleo surge, which evidently none of them is allowed not to make a display of joining, is indeed barbaric and low, for that very reason.Anyone who starts making cracks about "moonshine swillin' hicks" is just as bad in my book as people who talk about "welfare zoo animals".
Oh, and that goes for people who bitch about "inside the beltway cocktail-party goers".
Geotpf | January 16, 2008, 1:56pm | #
1440 minutes | January 16, 2008, 1:48pm | #Well, Paul has "laid bare the coming race war in our big cities". Good to know.
(The source is in the same paragraph of the advertising letter I quoted above. IT HAD HIS SIGNATURE ON IT, WAS WRITTEN IN THE FIRST PERSON, AND MENTIONED HIS TRAINING AS A PHYSICIAN!!!)
Paul either is a racist, or pandered to racists to make money selling retarded newsletters to them. I think it's the latter, but that alone is, in my mind, an automatic disqualification to becoming President of the United States.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 16, 2008, 2:01pm | #
Matt Welch is a vile racist.Jerry | January 16, 2008, 2:02pm | #
What's up with these people saying that Paul is not a racist, yet showing a preoccupation with these newsletters of years bygone?Fluffy | January 16, 2008, 2:02pm | #
Golda -Israel is a nationalist state that includes in its constitution a statement that it will always be a Jewish state.
It is also a socialistic state.
That makes it a nationalist and socialist state. You personally may want to abbreviate that to "Nazi", but the Nazis weren't the only example of such a state.
Geotpf -
Your reading comprehension leaves a bit to be desired. That doesn't sound like praise of David Duke to me. It sounds like recognition that he performed above expectations in his election campaign, and musing on the topic of how other outsider campaigns could learn from what he had done. If that is "praise" of David Duke, then every last media mention of Duke during that period constitutes "praise" of him.
Lysander Spooner is a good author to read if you're trying to understand libertarian ideas from the perspective of an earlier time.
Cesar | January 16, 2008, 2:04pm | #
Fluffy--You're definition of "Nazi" would include a whole list of states, then. China for starters. Perhaps Japan and Iceland, too.
Fluffy | January 16, 2008, 2:04pm | #
By the way, Geotpf:"If you're going to take issue with Jacob's reporting, don't lie to do so." You fucking liar.
What's that? You don't think the fact that you have a different opinion about that section of text than I do makes you a liar? Well tough shit, liar, if that's how you're going to treat Sullum that's how I'm going to treat you. Go fuck yourself.
Cesar | January 16, 2008, 2:05pm | #
Lysander Spooner is a good author to read if you're trying to understand libertarian ideas from the perspective of an earlier time.Ha, form what I understand he was pro-aboltion, but anti-war. I imagine that didn't win him many friends. He had balls to take that position, if anything.
Jake Boone | January 16, 2008, 2:05pm | #
Golda,Israeli oppression of the Palestians--terrible, indeed--doeasn't quite equal the Nazi policy of exterminating the Jews.I'm not at all trying to draw strict equivalence here. However, if a given government has a large number of positions in common with national socialism, then that government can be fairly described as "national socialist," even if missing the "kill all Jews" component that the German strain had.
In fact, I'm not even making an argument about whether or not Israel even has a national socialist government. I'm only saying that Fluffy is right; you can call a government -- even Israel's -- a "national socialist" one without being antisemitic.
Fluffy | January 16, 2008, 2:05pm | #
Why yes, Cesar, it would.That is why characterizing Israel in that way would not be anti-Semetic.
I don't believe Paul is a racist. I also don't believe that he is some type of "libertarian messiah" he is a republican with libertarian leanings. He would be in my opinion a much better choice for those who believe in freedom then any of the other candidates.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 16, 2008, 2:09pm | #
We're going to have to suspend the drinking game rules because, despite my experience as a semi-professional drinker in the military, I just can't keep up. As for all the Paulista's leaving Reason, I suggest a market-based solution. Those of us who enjoy H&R can donate to a STFU fund. The annoying Paulistas who want their subscription money back can be reimbursed from the fund in exchange for an agreement never to find someplace else to defend Ron Paul (*cough* Rockwell *cough*) and attack the staff of Reason for being a bunch of inside-the-beltway, ass kissing, bad smelling shills. Where do I send my check?Jon | January 16, 2008, 2:12pm | #
Jesus I'm a "cosmo" and even I am sick of this crap. Everything about the circular firing squad mentality around here has been hilariously pointed out. It goes to show when someone comes on stage to turn around the 70+ years of libertarian ideals getting f'd in the a by every politician imaginable, libertarians just don't give a shit anymore. Purity and outsiderness are just important to the movement to fucking win. Authoritarians like Rudy & Hillary are playing for keeps, what are you gonna do? Keep playing like the prophet in the desert? Do you enjoy losing every election?Oh I forgot Libertarianism for you assholes is your "look at me I'm old as fuck but still think I'm a rebel" leather jackets, a smarmy hipper-than-thou fuck politics attitude, Lawrence v. Texas, and publishing the n-th "drug raid gone bad" piece while libertarians continue to get reamed in actual policy circles. Good job.
And the worst party is I like the magazine and its articles a lot...but I don't know this is just gross. Maybe I'll let the subscription expire.
Jesse Walker | January 16, 2008, 2:13pm | #
Rather than covering the fact that Ron Paul finished in fourth place in Michigan, trouncing Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson *again* in the face of a media blackout, you continue to publish this garbage. So now Ron Paul has to do battle not with only the liberals and the neocons, but also with the beltway Libertarians.I can count at least three things wrong with this statement:
1. Reason did cover Paul's fourth-place finish.
2. Jacob lives in Dallas. That isn't anywhere near the Beltway.
3. Ron Paul doesn't have to "do battle" with Jacob, since this was basically a pro-Paul article.
As for why this is going up now: Jacob has a weekly syndicated column. It appears on Wednesdays. Today is Wednesday. Wednesday, ZOOOP.
Jesse Walker | January 16, 2008, 2:13pm | #
So it is clearly written by Paul, or somebody pretending to be Paul with his permissionI don't think any direct mail solicitation letter in the history of man has ever been written by the person signing it.
Geotpf | January 16, 2008, 2:18pm | #
Fluffy | January 16, 2008, 2:02pm | #Here's part of the article:
"Duke's platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing...To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense."
Sounds like praise to me.
Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 16, 2008, 2:18pm | #
And the worst party is I like the magazine and its articles a lot...but I don't know this is just gross. Maybe I'll let the subscription expire.
Exactly, the quality of topics and discussion in the magazine over the last 4-6 months has been outstanding. But this shit is too much.
----------
Matt Welch is a vile racist.
Episiarch | January 16, 2008, 2:20pm | #
I don't think any direct mail solicitation letter in the history of man has ever been written by the person signing it.Careful, Jesse, sort-of-defending Paul like that could get you shitcanned from Reason. Or not. Probably not. Back to the bloodsport!
Other Matt | January 16, 2008, 2:20pm | #
Taken together, however, these passages clearly cater to the prejudices of angry white guys who hate gay people and fear blacks.Well, thank goodness. I was worried it was angry white guys who hate black people and fear gays. Now that I understand it, that makes all the difference. Really.
It's striking to me that there are so many people who don't want to talk about these newsletters anymore yet hang out on comment threads about every posting on the topic.
Bingo | January 16, 2008, 2:21pm | #
The comments in these threads are always worth a laughJose Ortega y Gasset | January 16, 2008, 2:22pm | #
Reason is not the reason libertarians get reamed in policy circles. Believe or not, Reason is actually considered to be a thoughful and well written rag by some of the people who actually DO shape public policy. Of course, these are not the crazy-as-shit-house-rats people who thought Ron Paul was going to win the presidency and who are frothing about anti-Paul conspiracies. Libertarianism... the most finely-crafted, well built ship of fools in politics sailing smartly in circles.Brian24 | January 16, 2008, 2:24pm | #
By the way, has anybody actually defined "cosmotarian" in detail yet? Because if it means "person who holds generally libertarian views but would rather not be associated with racists and conspiracy theorists," I may start the Cosmotarian Party.But maybe there are some more negative connotations I haven't picked up on. Anyone?
Charlie | January 16, 2008, 2:26pm | #
"Reason is actually considered to be a thoughful and well written rag by some of the people who actually DO shape public policy."Is being well thought of by those who shape public policy a good thing?
Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 16, 2008, 2:28pm | #
As opposed to being thought of as a raging bunch of fucktards?Pro Libertate | January 16, 2008, 2:28pm | #
I just spoke with my dad about Ron Paul and the newsletters. I told him that I knew about it, thought that Paul mishandled the situation then and today, but that, in the final analysis, I didn't think that Paul was himself a racist (or even necessarily toying with racists for cash or votes, though that dichotomy has been posited here and elsewhere).I've never thought that Paul was the perfect libertarian candidate, but he's a hell of a lot closer than anyone else running today. I still plan to vote for him. What this all says to me, given that most people don't believe that Paul is a racist, is that fear of being tarred with that label is so great that people will publicly turn on him regardless of what they personally believe about the man. I understand the position that Reason has taken, and I don't think they've repudiated Paul so much as begged him to handle the situation differently--but some of the other commentary on him is distressing. We're facing the real possibility that we're going to go further down the road to European-style socialism. That's in the near term, not fifty years from now, and sitting around and wringing our hands isn't going to stop that. If not Paul, then when need to start thinking who it should be. After all, there are others who are more "reasonable"--like Flake and Sanford, and undoubtedly others we've never heard of.
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 2:30pm | #
I think in addition to the obvious problems with the newsletters, Ron Paul had sounded angry, not at the people who wrote the newsletters in his name, but at the people who made it a story. There is a distinct lack of contrition from the Paul campaign. It's also disappointing that they don't even care enough to find out who wrote the newsletters (if indeed Paul was not the author).Geotpf | January 16, 2008, 2:31pm | #
"Jesse Walker | January 16, 2008, 2:13pm | #So it is clearly written by Paul, or somebody pretending to be Paul with his permission
I don't think any direct mail solicitation letter in the history of man has ever been written by the person signing it."
Probably most aren't. However, affixing your signature means you approve of the message. Presidents have speech writers too, but the speeches are considered to have been said by them, even if they didn't come up with the words themselves. This advertising letter was the printed version of a speech that was writen by somebody else.
Now, if it was a single issue of the newsletter, I could buy the whole "I didn't read it before it was published" bit, plus a newsletter could be inferred to be written by multiple people without specific bylines.
But that letter is different. It is on letterhead stationary that says Congressman Ron Paul. It is specifically written like Paul is writing it (it mentions his training as a physcian in the first person). And it has his signature.
So, either he is a complete and total idiot who allowed morons to write racist, conspiracy-filled, anti-gay nonsense in his name without reading it first (in which case he is automatically disqualified to become president on sheer competence grounds) or he directly wrote and/or approved of such nonsense (in which case he is automatically disqualified to become president on character grounds). It's a lose/lose for Paul.
RR | January 16, 2008, 2:31pm | #
Thanks, Jacob. Well said. Lew Rockwell and his crew should own up to what they did and then crawl back into their sewer. I think that Paul is a decent man with really bad judgement in friends.Charlie | January 16, 2008, 2:32pm | #
"As opposed to being thought of as a raging bunch of fucktards?"No, as opposed to being seen as a genuine threat to the interests of those who shape public policy.
GILMORE | January 16, 2008, 2:32pm | #
No more Ron Paul. Please. Please. No more. No more Ron Paul. Less Ron Paul. Something else. No more Ron Paul. It's done. Stop. It doesnt matter. No more Ron Paul. Help. Stop. Tired. Sick. Ron Paul 24/7 excuse channel. Stop it please. No more Ron Paul. Please. World is at war. Something important happens every day. Ron Paul is not that interesting or important. Please. Please. No more Ron Paul. I beg you. Please. No more Ron Paul.Please.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 16, 2008, 2:33pm | #
Paleolibertarian - One part bourbon, one part backwater, 13 drops of Tabasco served with a bowl of mixed nuts.Cosmotarian - One part pure grain alcohol, one part Evian, 13 drops of bitters served with a hash brownie.
Episiarch | January 16, 2008, 2:33pm | #
By the way, has anybody actually defined "cosmotarian" in detail yet?I did, here.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 16, 2008, 2:34pm | #
"No, as opposed to being seen as a genuine threat to the interests of those who shape public policy."Oh, you mean terrorists.
Shane Brady | January 16, 2008, 2:36pm | #
I have to agree with Geotpf. That solicitation letter from Congressman Ron Paul is very disturbing. The talk of "new money" that never happened, references to a race war that never happened, references to the homosexual lobby..pretty nutty stuff.greenish | January 16, 2008, 2:38pm | #
I am outraged, outraged, that Reason is running a pair of print articles on the newsletter thing.Jesse Walker | January 16, 2008, 2:39pm | #
It is on letterhead stationary that says Congressman Ron Paul. It is specifically written like Paul is writing it (it mentions his training as a physcian in the first person). And it has his signature.All that is typical of direct mail appeals. I agree that Paul was negligent at best when he allowed it to go out. But the chances that he wrote it himself are close to nil.
GILMORE | January 16, 2008, 2:42pm | #
Who is this "Ron Paw"?From what I gather he's an Amway representative of some kind.
Pro Libertate | January 16, 2008, 2:43pm | #
Episiarch,I was a Maxim libertarian until I got married. Now I'm a Mrs. Libertate libertarian. Almost the same thing, but with the same cover girl each month.
Lamar,
I think the anti-Paulites should call him Darth Paul and be done with it.
GILMORE | January 16, 2008, 2:45pm | #
Brian24 | January 16, 2008, 2:20pm | #It's striking to me that there are so many people who don't want to talk about these newsletters anymore
For the record, i dont care about the newsletters at all, particularly. Or rather, I think they put a nail in his coffin and it's not worth even weeping over it.
I'm just sick of the Ron Paul thread-frenzy overall... I post out of desperate need to try and change the fucking subject, hopefully.
R C Dean | January 16, 2008, 2:46pm | #
But maybe there are some more negative connotations I haven't picked up on. Anyone?People who are basically left-liberal with respect to desired outcomes, but prefer that the role of the state in achieving those outcomes be well-disguised.
Franklin Harris | January 16, 2008, 2:46pm | #
Paleolibertarian - One part bourbon, one part backwater, 13 drops of Tabasco served with a bowl of mixed nuts.OK, maybe I am a paleo, because by that definition there's no contest.
Cosmotarian - One part pure grain alcohol, one part Evian, 13 drops of bitters served with a hash brownie.
Charlie | January 16, 2008, 2:46pm | #
"No, as opposed to being seen as a genuine threat to the interests of those who shape public policy.""Oh, you mean terrorists."
No, I mean advancing beliefs that would render the whole notion of "public policy" non-existant.
But thanks for the Guiliani-speak.
GILMORE | January 16, 2008, 2:47pm | #
is there such as thing as a "contemptarian?"i.e. someone who drifts into libertarianism through sheer disgust with the Coke/Pepsi politics in America?
Episiarch | January 16, 2008, 2:50pm | #
Cosmotarian - One partFixed it for you.
Geotpf | January 16, 2008, 2:53pm | #
Jesse-I'm not saying Paul wrote it (although he might). I'm saying he APPROVED of it to be sent out in his name as if he wrote it, which is just as bad.Lots of politicians send out similar letters (well, usually they are asking for campaign contributions instead for people to subscribe to some newsletter, but they are similar in intent and format). If Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney or whoever sent out such a letter (with their signature on it) circa 1990 talking about IRS agents with AK-47s, "New Money" with "chemical alarms", "the coming race war" (despite "threats or no threats"), the "federal-homosexual cover-up of AIDS", and "Skull & Bones: the demonic fraterity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry" (don't taze me bro?), you bet we would have heard about it. A lot.
jimmydageek | January 16, 2008, 2:53pm | #
i.e. someone who drifts into libertarianism through sheer disgust with the Coke/Pepsi politics in America?I think that might be a "colotarian" (colon + libertarian) = tired of all the shit - must get out of there
Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 16, 2008, 2:54pm | #
"No, I mean advancing beliefs that would render the whole notion of "public policy" non-existant."Ah, so you mean science fiction writers!
dead arab | January 16, 2008, 2:55pm | #
he owes his supporters more than accepting "moral responsibility" for inadequately overseeing the newsletters to which he lent his name.How many of Dr. Paul's critics have taken even "moral responsibility" for associating with and giving a platform to the pro-genocide racists who have enabled the current slaughter in the Middle East?
Surely many such folks are good people, but their fundraising strategy neccessitates pandering to such genocidal fanatics. That's where the grants are.
If "taking moral responsibility" is an empty gesture, what more do they need to do after they do take moral responsibility?
Do they deserve more forgiveness than they have offered Dr. Paul and friends?
Jerry | January 16, 2008, 2:55pm | #
Cosmotarianism is apparently the religion that reveres the physical self and happiness. It was founded by body builder Bernarr Macfadden, who co-incidentally also invented the first penis enlarger pump (the Wimpus). You can't make this stuff up.I agree with the others: this self-flagellation has got to stop. I think you all have a good record of to prove you aren't racist, and the only people that are going to take you to task for this stuff now are going to do it anyway for disingenuous political reasons.
Geotpf | January 16, 2008, 2:57pm | #
Alternatively, Paul was so slidshod in his affairs he had no idea such a letter was sent out in his name-which is also very, very bad, but logically I think is unlikely.Bingo | January 16, 2008, 2:58pm | #
*cough*Bingo | January 10, 2008, 10:59pm | #
cosmotarians are the coke-snorting limpwristers of the libertarian movement that are afraid of adversity and controversy. Spend most of their time attached to their macbooks typing up policy papers in their hip urban flat and riding their scooter to the local Whole Foods store. Would rather moan about the state of liberty in America than actively work to improve it.
J sub D | January 16, 2008, 2:59pm | #
Is being well thought of by those who shape public policy a good thing?If you desire to affect public policy.
Sheesh.
Pro Libertate | January 16, 2008, 3:01pm | #
GILMORE,I've always thought that the contemptarians were our most fertile recruiting ground. It's the basis of at least some of my libertarianism.
What's really sickening is how universal the bibertarian message has become--we will be your nanny, damn it!
pete dues | January 16, 2008, 3:01pm | #
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29460.html -- Reason's 1994 article on the AIDS cover-up.Fluffy | January 16, 2008, 3:02pm | #
"Duke's platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing...To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense."Sounds like praise to me.
So pointing out that Duke obviously appealed to some voters [who voted for him, after all] constitutes "praise"?
Again, if that's the case, then every media outlet that mentioned Duke's name and printed election results "praised" him.
Hey wait, here's some more Duke "praise" for you to ruminate on, all courtesy of me:
1. Rumor has it that Duke puts his pants on one leg at a time, instead of trying to jump into them from across the room! This strikes many people as good sense.
2. David Duke puts gasoline into his automobile, and not molasses. This strikes many people as good sense.
3. David Duke this morning reportedly failed to jam a stick of dynamite up his ass and light it. Observers said this seemed like good sense.
Eek! "Praise" for David Duke!
FUCKING CHRIST WE KNOW YOU WANT ROCKWELL'S HEAD ON A STICK!!!! FUCKING CHRIST SHUT UP ALREADY
Charlie | January 16, 2008, 3:17pm | #
If you merely desire to "affect" public policy then you probably will be indulged by those who shape public policy.If you seek to draw the private sphere of life so wide, that those currently feeding at the trough of "public policy" instead see their interests as directly threatened - their jobs, government agencies and department budgets - then you won't be well thought of.
But in associating this with terrorism, you do at least remind me of the recent comment made by a Montana judge, who likened tax-resisters to domestic terrorists.
I wouldn't throw my friends to the wolves. I wouldn't throw perfect strangers to the wolves. I would do as Paul did and condemn the message, take responsibility for fuckin' up, and move on. Paul did the right thing. It may not be the best thing for him politically, but it was the right thing. The right thing is never the best political move.
military libertarian | January 16, 2008, 3:19pm | #
It's interesting that, save for one day of coverage on drudge and cnn, that the only place I find this rehashed information about the newsletters is here. WTF?Reason, I love you ... you've been a bright light shining in the dark world, bringing cogent news and opinions to this frequently deployed sailor for these past several years ... but now, I must question what is at work here. Is this all just piling on? Why the moral indignation at something that happened years ago?
It is obvious that Paul is not a racist. These near daily tirades are beginning to resemble an inquisition of the sort that happens to outspoken, to-the-right-of-communist professors on college campuses.
grumpy realist | January 16, 2008, 3:20pm | #
The reason for making a fuss about this is when one like it or not, Ron Paul is now THE face of the libertarian movement.So if your candidate looks to be a) dreadfully slipshod at keeping taps on what his underlings are doing, b) surrounded by a hell of a lot of kooks spouting racial identity and other conspiracy theories, and c) someone who can't get his story straight as to whether he wrote those newsletters or not, and d) doesn't seem to think there's a problem with any of this, then the flag marked "TILT" in your brain starts flashing.
I mean, you really want someone this disconnected from reality as POTUS? How do we know that someone like Rockwell wouldn't end up in the Cabinet (especially since Paul seems to jes' love his ol' friends, no matter how whacko they be). And if we got another "Bin Laden determined to strike in US" memo, would Paul even read it? We've seen the fallout from THAT lack of curiousity already.....
Ron Paul's got a lot of interesting ideas (some batshit) and I honestly don't think he's racist. But he allows himself to be used by some pretty nasty individuals and he comes off as someone who is totally clueless of what it actually means to be President of the United States of America.
Jackanapestarian | January 16, 2008, 3:22pm | #
Join me, brothers. Jackanapestarianism is the only true ism.VM | January 16, 2008, 3:27pm | #
"take [MORAL (mitigated)] responsibility for fuckin' up".military libertarian | January 16, 2008, 3:31pm | #
All of this hoopla about Paul is no more controversial in our time than Grover Cleveland's siring of an "illegitimate" child in the 1880's. The slogan back then was "Ma, Ma! Where's my Pa? Gone to the White House, ha-ha-ha!" I may have missed something, but Cleveland, despite his moral infraction, ended up governing with a restraint that can only be described as libertarian.some dude | January 16, 2008, 3:32pm | #
http://www.reason.com/news/show/29460.html -- Reason's 1994 article on the AIDS cover-up.Interesting. Has Reason done any follow-ups? If not they should.
Fluffy | January 16, 2008, 3:46pm | #
Yeah, Dhex, I've read the section. Many times.It's a short piece that expresses hope that someone not tainted by Duke's racist past might seek office in the future, running on the non-racist platform Duke embraced that year.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 16, 2008, 3:51pm | #
I give Charlie about ten minutes before he manages to post, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."By the way, I don't think tax protestors are terrorists; I think they are idiots. Anyone who shows up in court with an armload of citations trying to convince the income tax is unconstitutional is nutjob. Tax protestors do not change public policy. They just annoy the judicial system and they provide a healthy living to people willing to peddle this nonsense.
Given the shitty job libertarians have done over the past century, I'm surprised Americans have any liberties left at all.
Charlie | January 16, 2008, 3:58pm | #
Jose Ortega y Gasset, I was talking about eroding the whole notion of there being "public policy". It was you who responded with a comment alluding to terrorism.Supposedly the education of my child is a "public policy" issue, whereas I think it is entirely a private matter. Similarly, those who advocate vouchers will be indulged by the public policy makers, whereas those advocating full privatization won't be well thought of, but rather regarded as a threat. Raising the word terrorism in such a respect, as you did, is entirely ridiculous.
Being well thought of by those who shape public policy sets the alarm bells ringing for me.
GILMORE | January 16, 2008, 3:59pm | #
Pro Libertate | January 16, 2008, 3:01pm | #GILMORE,
I've always thought that the contemptarians were our most fertile recruiting ground
Most likely true.
Them, and science fiction fans. And weasel owners. And transvestites. And guys in Idaho who want to mount an M2 .50cal. on their truck.
Oh, and racists. har!
Richard | January 16, 2008, 4:08pm | #
"take [MORAL (mitigated)] responsibility for fuckin' up".But how? What is going to "make this better"? All a man in this position can do is take responsibility.
Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 16, 2008, 4:36pm | #
It was a joke... but I am not surprised by your lack of a sense of humor.Silly people, Charlie, threaten no one. The people who shape public policy are not threated by the lunatic fringe. They are not threated by people who cannot win elections. They are not threatened by ideas and/or people with no base of public support.
The people at Reason are often respected by other serious people as thoughtful, well-informed and intelligent... even when those people think libertarian ideas are big steaming pile of crap. You may wear the scorn of serious intelligent people as a badge of honor. Others do not.
Oh My | January 16, 2008, 4:49pm | #
Paul's newsletters didn't just contain bigotry. They also contained paranoia--specifically, the brand of anti-government paranoia that festered among right-wing militia groups during the 1980s and '90s. Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified. In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "Keep the group size down," "Keep quiet and you're harder to find," "Leave no clues," "Avoid the phone as much as possible," and "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." "Angry White Men"fluffy: you and i have a vastly different reading of that passage, then.
Charlie | January 16, 2008, 5:06pm | #
Being respected by serious intelligent people was not what I objected to. It was your notion that Reason is thought well of by those who "shape public policy", and that this is something to aspire to. These terms - serious intelligent people and public policy makers - are not synonymous.Tom Walls | January 16, 2008, 5:11pm | #
Well if you were at reason in Amsterdam, you could have added absinthe to the cosmotarian mix. And whatever mushrooms the guy with the brass balls was handing out.--
Paleolibertarian - One part bourbon, one part backwater, 13 drops of Tabasco served with a bowl of mixed nuts.
Cosmotarian - One part pure grain alcohol, one part Evian, 13 drops of bitters served with a hash brownie.
MY RON PAUL I | January 16, 2008, 5:28pm | #
1. This reminds me of a time when a Conservative Party activist asked to use my mother's name (a registered Democrat) in a politcal brochure about an upcoming Democratic primary. The brochure accused George Mc Govern, candidate Tom Manton, etc. of all being communists. My mother was happy that it was under her new married name and that she had moved to Florida. But those things can happen.2. Still, libertarians believe in personal RESPONSIBILITY. Dr. Paul allowed his name to be used over a long period of time and has not gotten to the bottom of it. Imagine if President Paul allowed Benito Guiliani to be in charge of the nuclear arsenal while he
took a vacation! So it is certainly an acute embarrassment.
3. Like Jacob S., I don't think the newsletter rants are explicitly racist as much as they are more like the musings of an Archie Bunker after several beers. Some stuff on the Rockwell site (like writings from Paul Craig Roberts) do bash Israel a lot - but not that much is over the top. I read it and agree with much of it.
4. I also tend to be on the Rockwell side on the issue of the War in Iraq. I agree with his strong feelings about "Bombing Iraq is fine if I can smoke dope" variety of Libertarianism. But, this is, in fact, part of the problem. While libertarians are 5% - 25% of the population, the ideological variations within libertarianism is far, far greater than the differences among Democrats and Republicans who generally hue to their respective, poll-tested, "party lines". When one is out of power, the ideology and personal disputes over Utopian Paradise serves to create severe feuds (nothing like pork-barrel projects and federal grants to soothe over differences like the Big Boys have).
5. However, is even the "newsletter" stuff much worse than "double the Guantanamos" Romney, National ID Guiliani, Commodity Futures Clinton, Karl Marx Edwards... - must a Libertarian candidate be held to some Sainthood that no one even remotely expects in a corrupt "mainstream" hack?? Ron Paul is still my man. Can't even spell my name with his!
Revolt of the masses 2: Mass Man in Paradise | January 16, 2008, 5:28pm | #
I'm still waiting for Ayn Rand to apologize for her homophobic comments. If she doesn't then libertarianism is doomed!!!!!MY RON PAUL I | January 16, 2008, 5:29pm | #
Meant - can't spell my name WITHOUT his!Myron Pauli, impure libertarian!
Al Federber | January 16, 2008, 5:30pm | #
Ron Paul at some point associated with someone who wrote quasi-racist-sounding material? That does it! I'm voting for Giuliani now!Al Federber | January 16, 2008, 5:32pm | #
Or maybe Huckabuck.Fluffy | January 16, 2008, 5:46pm | #
Indeed, the newsletters seemed to hint that armed revolution against the federal government would be justified.Hmmm...Let's make a small table listing the time periods during which armed revolution against the federal government would, in fact, have been justified, and on whose behalf:
1787-1865 - Slaves
1787-1919 - Women
1877 through various dates - southern blacks
1918-1921 - Eugene Debs
1941-1945 - Japanese Americans
That covers an awful lot of time. Given that record, I can forgive people in the 90's for being a little confused.
You see, this is what I hate about the reaction to this newsletter debacle. While the newsletters included obvious racism, they have become the occasion for a whole posse of a-holes to try to use them to offer any number of false arguments. So we have people writing that the only way for libertarians to live down the newsletters is to embrace the liberal activist agenda on race, or to denounce any criticism of Israel as anti-Semitic, or to embrace "positive liberty" theory, or to affirm that Lincoln was the Best Preznit Ever, or to swear that anyone who ever had a beef with the Federal government is a paranoid monster, etc. It's all nonsense. The newsletters are guilty of very specific faults, and touching base on those specific faults is all that is required.
Urkobold™ | January 16, 2008, 6:04pm | #
FLUFFY, YOU FOOL, WE WOULD'VE KICKED THE WOMEN'S ASSES IF THEY HAD REVOLTED.THIS STATEMENT WON'T HARM THE URKOBOLD'S CHANCES AT PUBLIC OFFICE, WILL IT? OH, DEAR.
Paul | January 16, 2008, 6:13pm | #
and dark warnings of coming "race riots."And these newsletters were written in the 70's and 80's? Would these be the same "Rodney King" race riots that liberals claimed they predicted when we were watching them on TV?
VM | January 16, 2008, 6:18pm | #
oh, Dickie, Dickie. Taking full responsibility. Or taking responsibility. but moral responsibility? Mr. Grice will explain.to make it better he could explain:
how the WoD, which is mainly fought at the state level, won't go away (h/t: KE).
Why he claims to get the gov't out of marriate (e.g., not a homophobe), he's sponsored DOMA.
why he was a no show for the wire tapping vote
why he sponsored a bill that specifically said that there should be no supreme court oversight.
how he's for the constitution, cept for those amendments he doesn't like (the ones that don't count, like the 14th)
pesky, non libertarian stuff like that.
he's an old tyle states rights conservative who happens to be correct on the war and on US interventionism.
Minion of URKOBOLD | January 16, 2008, 6:18pm | #
BOUNCY BOUNCY.Coarse | January 16, 2008, 7:08pm | #
"...how he's for the constitution, cept for those amendments he doesn't like (the ones that don't count, like the 14th)"So, for me to be "for the constitution", did I have to support the 18th Amendment or the 21st? Or neither? Or both?
Geotpf | January 16, 2008, 7:08pm | #
Paul | January 16, 2008, 6:13pm | #and dark warnings of coming "race riots."
And these newsletters were written in the 70's and 80's? Would these be the same "Rodney King" race riots that liberals claimed they predicted when we were watching them on TV?
The race riot quotes, and most of the truly objectionable and/or crazy ones in general, took place between Paul getting his ass kicked in the 1988 Presidential election (getting less than half a percentage point of the vote) and him getting re-elected in Congress in 1996. Paul appeared to think he was out of elected politics at that point, and the best way for him to make money was to follow Lew Rockwell's plan to stir up shit amoungs "rednecks" by ranting against gays, blacks, and the government (and then getting said rednecks to pony up $$$ for his silly newsletters and crap).
VM | January 16, 2008, 7:10pm | #
hay - coarse - just like your name, it's his absolutist message.nice try, tho.
Coarse | January 16, 2008, 7:27pm | #
VM, I was asking you a question. I think my "try" was quite successful. How about you "try" to answer it.You're aware Paul is a republican, correct?
Eric Dondero | January 16, 2008, 7:33pm | #
Reason has covered the Ron Paul Newsletter scandal well - fair and balanced. Probably the best coverage so far. Though, the Economist did an excellent piece a few days ago, as well. CNN did a decent job, as well.Kirchik's first TNR article was rather tame. It only scratched the surface. His second was a little more in-depth.
Bottom line though, all these media outlets, including Reason are only scratching the surface. Slowly but surely, there are more details coming out. But left untouched have been Ron Paul's attendance at some rather fringe meetings. Also, left completely untouched has been some of the questions on Paul's past financial enterprises. Nobody has mentioned the 1988 Presidential campaign for instance, and the Nadia Hayes affair.
I'd say we're probably still at the beginning of this whole event, and more details will be emerging in the coming days and weeks.
VM | January 16, 2008, 7:34pm | #
what does him being a republican have to do with anything?There is a problem with the electronic scoring system, due to some difficulties with the French judge, so whether your "try" was successful is still waiting. But the cameras are there.
Eric Dondero | January 16, 2008, 7:37pm | #
One thing that should be noted, is that Ron Paul himself wrote a healthy chunk of the Newsletters. From what I observed 30 to 40%. He'd scribble his notes on a pad, and hand them to his daughter or one of his assistants in the Houston office, and they'd edit them, give them back to him for final clearance, and then the printing presses at M&M would roll through the night.Even Reason is skirting around the issue of Ron Paul authoring some of the writings himself.
Not saying Paul was responsible for the racist writings. I don't think anyone will ever be able to really pin that down.
But it's not like he only edited the Newsletters. He was a very active writer of them himself. And this can be confirmed with numerous individuals who have worked or volunteered, mostly in the Houston area, for years.
Eric Dondero | January 16, 2008, 7:40pm | #
Grumpy realist, Ron Paul is NOT the face of the libertarian movement. He's the face of the RADICAL ANARCHIST WING OF THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.The face of the overall libertarian movement is more Sarah Palin, Butch Otter, Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, Leon Drolet and John Campbell.
grumpy realist | January 16, 2008, 7:47pm | #
Sorry, Eric. If Ron Paul runs around saying stuff and calls himself a "libertarian", he's the face of the libertarian movement to everyone out there. All the rest is insider baseball and no standard voter will worry about the distinctions.(You've got quite a lot of "self-proclaimed libertarians" out there--Jonah Goldberg being one of them. Can someone from the REAL libertarian intellectual tradition please contact him and explain to him a) what libertarianism is and b) how to do research?)
Max | January 16, 2008, 7:56pm | #
"Racist libertarian" is an oxymoron.You know what turns me off of libertarianism...
collectivist BS though like Reason Magazine.
Paul | January 16, 2008, 8:04pm | #
Grumpy realist, Ron Paul is NOT the face of the libertarian movement. He's the face of the RADICAL ANARCHIST WING OF THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.That is practically self-evidently false. We wouldn't be discussing his sketchy libertarian record if that were the case.
In addition, there's nothing about RADICAL ANARCHIST LIBERTARIANISM which is inherently racist. Even if Ron Paul does turn out to be crypto-racist, it probably has more to do with him as an individual than it does with any of his philosophical underpinnings.
It's been pointed out hundreds of times-- that because a committed libertarian might rally against some egalitaritarian measure designed to say, create equal outcomes amongst the races, and as such, some other fringe racist group "joins them" in the cause, while unfortunate, still doesn't make RADICAL ANARCHIST LIBERTARIANISM inherently racist. It merely provides people opposed to libertarianism convenient talking points.
The Wine Commonsewer | January 16, 2008, 8:30pm | #
Eric, much as I like Tom McClintock, he is only a libertarian on economic issues. He is quite socially conservative.The Wine Commonsewer | January 16, 2008, 8:33pm | #
That paragraph in particular (amoung other things) says that there is a "federal-homosexual cover up of AIDS" that "my training as a physician helps me see through this one".There ain't no there, there. That IS the entire remark.
SIV | January 16, 2008, 8:41pm | #
Ron Paul is NOT the face of the libertarian movement. He's the face of the RADICAL ANARCHIST WING OF THE LIBERTARIAN MOVEMENT.If that's so I should send him more money!
The Wine Commonsewer | January 16, 2008, 8:46pm | #
Eric, do you mean John Campbell of the OC?He's not exactly a libertarian neither. The consistently reviled Dana Rhorabacher still is more libertarian than Campbell.
And what about my old buddy and former anarcho-capitalist Ed Royce (R-Fullerton), certainly a libertarian leaner and good friend of Reason?
The Wine Commonsewer | January 16, 2008, 8:51pm | #
French Judge | January 16, 2008, 8:41pm | #shipping extra
9.975/10.000
Un essai excellent
The Wine Commonsewer | January 16, 2008, 9:02pm | #
Shouldn't have to say this but I suppose I better.I'm pretty skeptical of conspiracy theories and allegations. I don't buy Area 51, the implosion of the twin towers, that the Knights Templar hold the secret to Mary Magdalene's husband Jesus, or that the only reason the radical Islamics hate us is because we are too close to Mecca with our troops.
That means, I don't buy off on the RP conspiracy theories discussed in the newsletters either. One of several areas I disagree with RP about.
Ayn Rand was right, after all--you movement libertarian guys are just a pack of chuckleheads!
The Wine Commonsewer | January 16, 2008, 9:13pm | #
Yes, John, but although we all owe a debt of gratitude to Ms Rand, sometimes it just doesn't work when the pot calls the kettle the blacks.rittberg watch | January 16, 2008, 9:40pm | #
A few weeks ago you said it was "80% Rockwell". make up your mind.Ron Paul himself wrote a healthy chunk of the Newsletters. From what I observed 30 to 40%.
watt eva | January 16, 2008, 9:42pm | #
I don't buy Area 51What is it you don't buy? It's in Nevada. It takes up a big chunk of land. Do you believe in Nevada? If you have information disproving the existence of Nevada, pls contact the Paul campaign, as they seem to be spending money there.
, the implosion of the twin towers,
Well that good, since they kinda exploded and disintegrated more than imploded. Check out the videos.
or that the only reason the radical Islamics hate us is because we are too close to Mecca with our troops.
Is this even a "conspiracy theory"? WTF does that mean?
Chris | January 16, 2008, 9:48pm | #
The face of the overall libertarian movement is more Sarah Palin, Butch Otter, Jeff Flake, Tom McClintock, Leon Drolet and John Campbell.Who?Excuse my while I go not care.
prolefeed | January 16, 2008, 10:03pm | #
now you have to threaten to cancel your subscription and start drinking.Or, if you've already got a head start on the drinking, (slurs words) threaten to cancel your drinking and start a subscription
prolefeed | January 16, 2008, 10:13pm | #
Oh, and that goes for people who bitch about "inside the beltway cocktail-party goers".Cesar -- even if the person under discussion actually lives inside the Beltway and goes to cocktail parties there and tries to pick up chicks by showing how keewl and cosmo and quite possibly metro he is?
Just askin'.
Eric Dondero | January 16, 2008, 10:15pm | #
A lot of you all mistakenly classify some libertarians conservatives.Dana Rohrabacher, John Campbell, Jeff Flake, Drolet, Sarah Palin, Butch Otter, et.al. have little if anything in common with the likes of Conservatives like Pat Buchanan, Gary Bauer, Bill Bennett, Bob Dole, ect...
They are libertarian Republicans. They are Conservatives only in the economic realm, with some occasional Social con leanings. But still fundamentally anti-Nanny State and very much anti-Big Government.
Rohrabacher for instance is big on opposing the Draft, and is in favor of Marijuana legalization.
Palin is chummy with the Libertarian Party of Alaska.
Butch Otter was featured as a "libertarian" in 2006 by Reason Magazine.
grumpy realist | January 16, 2008, 10:24pm | #
But, as said, this isn't going to go anywhere because I doubt Ron Paul will ever come in the top three in any of the states. (Amusing to watch him clobber Giuliani on this last round, hee!)Can the Sainted Paul at least get the Paulbots to not be so fuckin' nutty? After the meltdown over at Matt's, I really wonder whether any of them are older than 21.
Children's crusade, here we come....
prolefeed | January 16, 2008, 10:27pm | #
IRONY ALERT!I'm assuming Reason gets paid ad revenue based on hits or views or whatever. Thus, if they get 200 comments on an article, and over half of those comments are people saying "STFU about this stuff already! We're tired of it. Aaaaah! STOP STOP STOP", then guess what? It was a successful article, and they'll run more of it.
When the Ron Paul newsletter threads get 5 comments, they'll get an effing clue and STFU. Not until then.
Bad!
Jim Walsh | January 16, 2008, 11:09pm | #
It's no secret that Paul and many of the Paulites are, ah, "out there" (and I am not a Paul supporter); I also believe the Lew Rockwell and his paleocon followers are an embarassment (sorry, Lew... "Darwism" is not the lunatic-fringe position).But that being said, I also have to say that Kirkchick is a smug asshole who reaches waaaaay too far in associating anti-welfare stateism with racism. As smear tactics go, it's no more fair than the old conservative practice of associating "pro-civil rights" with "Communist."
I guess what I'm trying to say is: a pox on all their houses. And damn everything but the circus...
Mea culpa...that should read: Sorry, Lew... "Darwinism" is not the lunatic-fringe position...
Jake Boone | January 16, 2008, 11:25pm | #
They are libertarian Republicans. They are Conservatives only in the economic realm, with some occasional Social con leanings. But still fundamentally anti-Nanny State and very much anti-Big Government.I have to agree with you again, Eric. We need to look at the bigger picture when trying to win allies; if a person mostly agrees with the libertarian viewpoint, they're probably libertarian enough to work with (and to claim as our own), even if they disagree with the "pure" philosophy on a few points.
Lamestream Libertarian | January 17, 2008, 12:09am | #
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 1:22am | #
Watt Eva, you haven't heard that the twin towers were imploded ala the Dunes Hotel in Las Vegas?OMIGOD!
They pancaked ever so neatly. Had to be a demolition expert who did the job. For GWB. So he could blame the ragheads. So we could go to war. Dude!
The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 1:27am | #
Rohrabacher for instance....Had a great penthouse apartment in Belmont Shore where the, ah, parties, were, ah, awesome.
I remember thinking that if Debbie's mom knew I brought here..........
Her folks didn't like me anyway. Too old, and not the right social class.
The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 1:35am | #
Or, if you've already got a head start on the drinking, (slurs words) threaten to cancel your drinking and start a subscriptionBeen slurring since halfway through Idol.
The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 1:47am | #
I really wonder whether any of them are older than 21.[RAISES HIS HAND]
smartass sob | January 17, 2008, 2:35am | #
@ The WinecommonsewerI'm pretty skeptical of conspiracy theories and allegations. ....
That means, I don't buy off on the RP conspiracy theories discussed in the newsletters either. One of several areas I disagree with RP about.
I would have to agree with you there, but when people talk about conspiracies I always like to remind myself of the following: If there is a crowded theater and someone yells "fire", most of the occupants will do the same thing - get up and stampede for the exit. Did they conspire to all do the same thing? No, but the results are the same, aren't they?
stewie | January 17, 2008, 4:12am | #
Yeah - let's write ANOTHER article about this damn scandal.YOU'RE KEEPING IT IN THE NEWS, REASON MAGAZINE!
Not that you didn't already know that, but let me ask you one thing: Do you want a libertarian president, or not?
I'm guessing the latter.
Libertas | January 17, 2008, 5:12am | #
You have to love the way tReason is now going after Paul. The "libertarians" at tReason have shown their true colors. Anything to service your neocon masters, eh?Sueno-Latino | January 17, 2008, 5:22am | #
Reason's 'eek-a-mouse!' blogs on this topic prove my earlier suspicions that you guys really don't give a fig about this whole newsletter-stuff. It's just an excuse to go hunting for paleos with peasant and pitchforks. How cosmopolitan, to preach diversity and tolerance in every area, except, ofcourse, your own.In retrospect, it's pretty clear to me that Reason-editors knew about the newsletter-stuff and jumped on the RP rEVOLution boat anyway. Why? It suited your rational self-interests: selling a ma-ga-zine. Rand couldn't have been more proud.
But when TNR tore down the RP-is-a-saint mantra, Reason just couldn't wait to join in on the bashing. Don't get me wrong, you guys write a fine magazine, and many of your writers are clearly skilled, funny and smart. But, for God-frickin-sake, man up, guys! You either support a movement, or you don't. It's the message, not the man, we're supporting.
Why not