The Candidate Who Wasn't There

Followup on David's post below on Ron Paul's Internet following: mainstream media outlets and commentators are, predictably, not impressed, or not aware, or not awake, or otherwise lacking in some needed quality to manage to mention Ron Paul, as this Thomas E. Woods Jr. article on how Rep. Paul has been treated in the media post-debate details.

Comments

[Papist Avenger]

Thomas E. Woods, Jr... books include How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization (get a free chapter here), The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy (first-place winner in the 2006 Templeton Enterprise Awards),

Sounds like he'd be a popular guy here!

[RegularRon]

Brian, I'm so happy you pointed out Tom's article. He's one of my favorite writers.And he does some damage to the MSN and everyone inbetween on the black-out of Rep. Paul.

By the way, Both of thoughs books you mentioned Papist Avenger are rather amazing reads. Just remember, the Catholic church has been long defending Western Civilization long before anyone knew what it was.

[Warren]

Well according to a certain Reason staffer, "Woods is a bad ally for libertarians, though his message may appeal to those who can't distinguish the flaws of America from those of outright despotisms."

http://www.reason.com/news/show/36170.html

[a]

That Reason staffer Warren mentions is Cathy Young, so the criticism is safe to ignore.

[Catron]

I hate to be the one to break this to you folks, but Ron Paul isn't the savior you take him for. He's a LINO.

[Dan T.]

Well, the mainstream media consists of for-profit organizations, so they obviously don't believe that the market wants to hear anything about Ron Paul.

[Warren]

a,
Safe to ignore? Are you sure. I mean on the one hand Cathy can be pretty wishy-washy. A tendency to ignore lesser, yet none the less, substantial evidence on one side, while giving undue weight to flimsy evidence on the other, in order to achieve the appearance of objective balance. However, we must also recognize the laudable merit which results from this vain pursuit. Cathy's work often provides nuanced perspective in an inoffensive manner. Thus she may provoke her readers into questioning their assumptions, where more assertive authors are merely preaching to the choir.

On the third hand, I'm still annoyed at having to tip-toe around her undisclosed sexuality.

[sage]

He was referred to on the Daily Show as "Mr. Pickles." Sigh...

[damaged justice]

"On the third hand, I'm still annoyed at having to tip-toe around her undisclosed sexuality."

Young makes no attempt to hide her Xena fanfic. It's the next best thing to a rainbow bumper sticker.

[madpad]

On NPR yesterday morning, at least one caller more or less declared him the undisputed winner of the debate. My heart soared.

I can't answer for Catron's criticisms but this from wikipedia:

Paul advocates the limited role of government, low taxes, free markets, and a return to monetary policies based on commodity-backed currency...He has never voted to raise taxes or congressional pay. He has always voted against the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and the Iraq War.

He was also the LP Pres candidate in 1988.

Sounds at least pretty small "l" libertarian to me.

Got anything to back your assertion up there, Catron?

[madpad]

Of course his stance on immigration is not in line with mine and his support of the Border Fence is way counter to lot's of libertarian folks out there, but anyone who wants to abolish the IRS can't be all bad.

[tarran]

Ron Paul is a minarchist, so he advocates some violence to be visited on innocent victims. In his case, he believes that the federal government should be permitted to limit immigration below free-market levels, and he wants to force mothers to carry foeti to term. I've also heard that he has once made some pretty racist comments against black people, but cannot confirm it (and it may well be a scurrilous rumor).

Of course, any minarchist, by advocating state action in some area is, by definition, bein unlibertarian, so it is quite easy for an opponent to point to anyone who isn't a free-market anarchist and accuse them of being unlibertarian on the areas where they are pro-state.

Ron Paul basically uses the constitution as a cover for his views; by insisting that the federal government's powers should be limited to only those authorized in the constitution he has to justify little.

Mind you, I think Ron Paul would be a vast improvement over every president we've had to suffer under sincew Grover Cleveland. However, he's far from perfect.

[matt]

quote...
Well according to a certain Reason staffer, "Woods is a bad ally for libertarians, though his message may appeal to those who can't distinguish the flaws of America from those of outright despotisms."
...endquote

If Thomas Woods really thinks that slavery wasn't immoral, then he's a fool, but I don't want to be deprived of good insights just because they come by way of a fool. He has some good things to say, and I'm not his priest or someone who's voting for him, so I'll just take advantage of the good research he does without freaking out about the rest.

[pdog]

i'll take a minarchist over a statist any day...

[Warren]

When was the last "vast improvement" elected to office at the federal level?

[Pro Libertate]

When Ron Paul was elected to Congress?

[Tbone]

Warren,

Your breakdown of Ms. Young was spot on - on the one hand, two hand, three hand, LOL. I prefer to think of it as a love/hate relationship with Ms. Young's work.

[Warren]

Pro Lib,
Exactly. Any others?

Tbone
Sure, but what can explain the hair?

[Pro Libertate]

Thomas Jefferson?

[Mad Max]

"Mind you, I think Ron Paul would be a vast improvement over every president we've had to suffer under sincew Grover Cleveland. However, he's far from perfect."

Which President was perfect? Even George Washington had flaws (like slaveowning), and Grover Cleveland (I have heard reported) was a Democrat. If you can't find perfection in these two, where can you find it?

[James Anderson Merritt]

How odd, to use the word "perfect" in discussion of a presidential candidate. Of course Dr. Paul isn't "perfect." He's human.

I don't look to him to be any kind of "savior." I think that looking to Presidents to be "saviors" is in fact a lot of what is wrong with our government today. If all Dr. Paul did as President were to shut down these crazy wars (wars on terror, Iraq, and drugs), set us on a path of non-interventionist foreign policy, rigorously defend the Constitution, fight to actually reduce federal spending and the size of the federal government (not just reduce their rate of growth), and move us back toward sound, honest money, that would certainly be enough for two terms, leaving the country far better off than when he took office.

In short, the only thing I would expect from Dr. Paul would be more of what he has already pursued in Congress, albeit translated into the context of the Oval Office and the powers of the executive. He could disappoint me in the way that longtime "conservative" Earl Warren disappointed and confounded his supporters when he transformed into an archetypical activist liberal once appointed to the Supreme Court. But as long as President Paul stuck to the path he established as Congressman Paul, that would be more than good enough for this Libertarian, perhaps the best outcome I could realistically expect in my lifetime. Then again, if Dr. Paul were able to do so much without causing the sky to fall or anarchy to sweep the nation, perhaps the public might be encouraged to elect a REAL Libertarian as president, later in the 21st century. 😉

[not telling]

Young makes no attempt to hide her Xena fanfic. It's the next best thing to a rainbow bumper sticker.

In consideration of my long running masturbation fantasy I refuse to believe this despite any evidence given.

[Simon9]

Well said, JAM.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"On NPR yesterday morning, at least one caller more or less declared him the undisputed winner of the debate. My heart soared."

At the anti-Hillary site, hillaryproject.com, Ron Paul is way out in first place with 36% of respondents saying they believe he would be the one who could most easily defeat Hillary.

[Rattlesnake Jake]

"Which President was perfect? Even George Washington had flaws (like slaveowning), and Grover Cleveland (I have heard reported) was a Democrat. If you can't find perfection in these two, where can you find it?"

The Democrat Party of the 19th century was the best major party in this country's history.

[tarran]

I think people are misunderstanding my criticism of Ron Paul;

First, I think in the universe where Ron Paul were elected president as opposed to the ones where anybody else who is running won, we would all be better off.

It's just silly to argue that there are no negatives to the man.

I should state that what gives me pause about Dr Paul is that he had Eric Dondero Rittberg on his staff for many years. That makes me seriously question his judgment.

[joshua corning]

The Democrat Party of the 19th century was the best major party in this country's history.

so long as we ignore a little thing called slavery...yeah they were fucking great.

[Mad Max]

"He could disappoint me in the way that longtime 'conservative' Earl Warren disappointed and confounded his supporters when he transformed into an archetypical activist liberal once appointed to the Supreme Court."

I believe Warren was *always* a liberal, and made little attempt to hide it. It's true that, as a prosecutor, he took something of a hard line on crime, which is nowadays considered a conservative position, and kind of was at the time, too, just not so much.

But as Governor of California, he was into big government. Not only that, but at one point he managed to get nominated by both the Democratic and Republican parties because they both liked his style of liberalism. If you think the choices between the major-party candidates are pathetic *today,* imagine if the two major-party candidates were actually the same person! The debates would be even more farcical then they are already.

[Mad Max]

"Governor Warren has given the Republican position. Now, for the Democratic rebuttal, let's call on Governor Warren."

The only thing more one-sided than that would ne Hillary v. Giuliani.

[Mad Max]

would *be*

[John Rhoads]

Jefferson and Madison's Republican party was clearly the best major political party in US history.

'Nuff said.

[Au standard]

wow the lew rockwell circle of loonies coming to Paul's defense ..what a shock...Cathy Young is right about Woods to the hundredth power...if you keep scrathing at Paul guys like Woods come up..then the League of the South..etc.....that would be so great for the libertarian movement!!!...the last thing libertarians want is the media sniffing around this guy........and I am an anti- abortion rights libertarian and thinks immigration is a debatable libertaian issue.... so my view is not based on the usual "if you are not a pro abortion libertarian wearing black turle necks then you do not exist in the universe" argument ...

[DannyK]

Ron Paul will look a lot better in a year or so, when the actual Republican nominee has gone down in flames. This may not help his career any, but it should pull Republican politics in his direction.

[Tom Woods]

This is not the time to get into the Cathy Young fiasco again, other than perhaps to mention that my libertarian credentials are obviously much stronger than hers.

I do take exception to the idea that I don't consider slavery immoral. So I'm a libertarian, but I make an exception for...slavery? If that sounds implausible, it's probably untrue. And in fact in the media section at Mises.org you can find a lecture by me in which I defend Lysander Spooner's book The Unconstitutionality of Slavery. Neo-Confederate, eh?

Incidentally, I'm also not a nut. The credentials you can find at my website, along with the endorsements of my Columbia University Press book by all the major historical journals, are not exactly the most contemptible in the world. I've been published all over the libertarian world and invited to address all manner of libertarian and LP functions, and have all kinds of libertarian endorsements. I think it's only fair to mention that.

[matt]

Fairness?

Here?

It's far easier to just play guilt by association games against people who are a little different.

I don't care who anyone is, I merely care what they do. Facts are facts, research is research. Dr. Woods is good at what he does, and if you could dispute that you would. You can't, so you just snipe and jump to conclusions.

[Robert]

"If you think the choices between the major-party candidates are pathetic *today,* imagine if the two major-party candidates were actually the same person!"

Like Ed Koch once for mayor of NYC. It's also common for judge & att'y candidates here to be co-nominated by major parties.