Political Song for Michael Jackson to Sing*

|

Matt Welch reported on Ron Paul's backing by anti-illegal immigration groups, and Michael Moynihan reported on how this could help him surge in Nevada (where polls close pretty soon). Meanwhile, in the last of the big four states where Paul expects to do well, I get this news from the campaign:

Today, South Carolina Minuteman Civil Defense Corp. announced today their appreciation of Republican presidential candidate and Texas Congressman Ron Paul's policy on illegal immigration.

In a letter to Paul received today from South Carolina Minuteman Project Coordinator Ed Graham, Graham wrote, "The South Carolina Minuteman is pleased to know your stand on illegal immigration. We support you in this effort. You have demonstrated a real knowledge of the illegal alien problem and have taken action that was within your power to accomplish so great a task in your district.

Ron Paul's state coordinator Brian Gentry said, "Ron Paul is pleased with the South Carolina Minuteman's letter of support, the only such letter Graham is issuing just before the South Carolina primary."

In other press release news, Dennis Kucinich is crying to the FCC about CNN not inviting him to the next debate. I'd play the world's smallest violin, but that's actually what Kucinich uses for recitals.

Credit to Ron Paul, here. He's complained about debate exclusions and gotten allies to un-endorse the trouble debates, but he's never thrown a legal tantrum.

*This is a Minutemen reference. I'm sorry.

NEXT: The Friday Political Thread: Survival Report Edition

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. but he’s never thrown a legal tantrum.,/i>

    He never had a legal contract, either.

  2. I’d play the world’s smallest violin, but that’s actually what Kucinich uses for recitals.

    …and the thread is won before it even started.

  3. But to be fair to Kucinich, he showed a lot of character bringing that ring all the way to Mount Doom.

  4. joe,

    The FCC enforces contracts now (especially with cable networks)? I don’t buy that Kucinich had a contract with MSNBC regarding the NV debate either. A promise isn’t a contract, especially if nothing is exchanged.

    Anyway, I wonder what the odds of Kucinich surviving his primary election in Ohio are.

  5. I used to think Kucinich was a harmless little munchkin, but it turns out he’s quite the vicious prick.

  6. “I must look like a dork!”

  7. A promise isn’t a contract, especially if nothing is exchanged.

    A promise may create a contract if a party relied on the promise to his detriment. I’m not saying that’s the case here, because I don’t know all the facts, but it’s certainly possible.

  8. Hmmm….so Paul’s attractive to the politically disaffected and that somehow makes him share or endorse all their beliefs?

    My wife and kids are Mexican. I live on the border. Nobody said Paul was the ideal candidate, but from a libertarian perspective he is by far the best available. For Reason to imply otherwise is not logical or credible. You are losing your audience here.

  9. In a vague philosophical sense, this case demonstrates why media consolidation is bad.

    Welcome to the one dollar one vote society. Looks like they got our joey bee.

  10. No, crimethink, the courts enforce contracts. Like the one Kucinich filed his case in.

    A promise isn’t a contract, especially if nothing is exchanged. That depends on the facts of the specific case in question, which are adjucated, again, in a court.

    And Kucinich, like Paul, will just keep chugging along until the convention, while making even less of a difference in the eventual outcome.

  11. On the FCC thing, crimethink, his argument had nothing to do with the contract, but with the FCC’s mandate about serving the public interest.

    Two different filings, two different arguments.

  12. The Nevada GOP responds to Paul campaign complaints that they’ve been shorting rural counties of ballots, sending out incorrect caucus locations in their election notices, and relaxing ID restrictions to make it easy for Utah residents to fraudulently vote in the caucuses:

    “We would hope that the Paul campaign would go act like adults and not try to set up straw men to make up for their lack of organizing,” said Steve Wark, a caucus spokesman.

  13. A promise isn’t a contract, especially if nothing is exchanged.

    This is exactly right. Read the complaint – it’s garbage. The “contract” consists of a formal invitation and and e-mail invitation. And the complaint cites Kucinich’s support in an online post-debate poll as evidence for his actual support, without revealing that it was an online poll (“he received the most support in a poll of 42,487 voters”).

  14. joe,

    CNN doesn’t use the public airwaves, and thus doesn’t have to serve the public interest (even if one accepts the bullshit reasoning that they would if they did use the public airwaves).

  15. A promise may create a contract if a party relied on the promise to his detriment.

    Not unless the promiser received something in exchange for the promised action. Like someone said on another thread, there is no contract without consideration.

  16. Huh?

    I get that a lot. Anyways that el velez (sp?) sed all that needs be sed about these issues in t’other thd.

  17. Oh, yeah, and I think it fairly inferable that Kucinich’s consideration was to forbear from filing a lawsuit based on not being invited.

  18. I love the Minutemen. The band and the defenders of our country.

    So dig this big crux.

    No reason to believe that D. Boon was an anarchist. He loved America.

    Illegal immigration is destructive. Without borders we have no country.

    If you truly believe that everyone in the whole world that wants to come here should be able to without restriction then your position is defensible, otherwise your logic is flawed.

    Immigration is crucial to the vitality of our country but so is the rule of law.

  19. Dave W,

    Wouldn’t that constitute extortion?

  20. Detrimental reliance, also known as promissory estoppel, may be a substitute for consideration.

    It requires the following elements:

    1. The promisor (CNN) should reasonably expect its promise to induce action or forbearance;

    2. Of a definite and substanial character; and

    3. The action or forbereance is in fact induced.

    I have no f***ing idea if these elements have been satisfied.

    But you can certainly create a contract without exchange/consideration.

  21. Well, I think you mean blackmail, but, either way, no.

  22. x,y, thanks. That could apply if Kucinich had to cancel fundraising apperances or some such because of his intention to attend the debate…but that’s doubtful.

  23. Wouldn’t allowing people who live in the desert and don’t carry ID cards HELP Ron Paul in the election?

    crimethink,

    I agree about the public airwaves/FCC complaint being weak stuff. I’m agnostic on his breach of contract filing. Is a written invitation, sent and accepted, a contract in this case? That’s a good question, the decision should turn on the facts of this particular case, and not one’s opinion about this particular candidate OR one’s opinion about the unrelated issue of the ownership of the airwaves.

    Ian,

    Unjust, inhumane and unenforcible laws undermine the rule of law. That’s why we ditched prohibition.

  24. …and the thread is won before it even started.

    Employees of the Reason Foundation, Reason Magazine, and reasononline, and their families, are ineligible to receive threadwinner recognition.

  25. Wouldn’t allowing people who live in the desert and don’t carry ID cards HELP Ron Paul in the election?

    Not if they’re friggin Mormons. They’re even more fluttery for Romney the evangelicals are about the Huckster.

  26. That’s a good question, the decision should turn on the facts of this particular case, and not one’s opinion about this particular candidate OR one’s opinion about the unrelated issue of the ownership of the airwaves.

    For me it turns on the First Amendment and public accommodation principles. Positive right to a meaningful commons and all that stuf. You used to understand, but your luv 4 the Hildebeast is filling your brain with little red hearts where thinking should be happening.

  27. x,y, thanks. That could apply if Kucinich had to cancel fundraising apperances or some such because of his intention to attend the debate…but that’s doubtful.

    No problem. I’m glad that law school debt is paying itself off.

    According to Wiki, the Second Restatement of Contracts eliminated the “substantial” requirement. You’re right on that cancelling a fundraising appearance could satisfy the elements. There are hundreds of other possibilities too. Like you, though, I doubt this was the case.

    I think the doctrine is garbage, but it could apply.

  28. Not if they’re friggin Mormons.

    Ahhhhhhh. Good point, I didn’t think of that.

  29. Dave W, I ruled out voting for Hillary six months ago, because of her statements about executive power. Easy there, big guy. Not everything’s part of the corn syrup plot.

    I can agree that there is a public accommodation argument here, but for the public, not for some politician getting 1% of the vote.

  30. If anyone’s interested:

    Undecided -> Richardson -> Dodd -> Richardson -> Obama

  31. MSNBC is projecting Romney the winner in NV, with Paul running second.

  32. “In a letter to Paul received today from South Carolina Minuteman Project Coordinator Ed Graham, Graham wrote, “The South Carolina Minuteman is pleased to know your stand on illegal immigration. We support you in this effort. You have demonstrated a real knowledge of the illegal alien problem and have taken action that was within your power to accomplish so great a task in your district.”

    Where are the Ron Paul supporters to protest yet another “smear” against the good Doctor?

    …What do you mean it isn’t a smear?

    Oh, well even if the endorsement really did happen, why does Reason have to dredge up yet more ugliness about Ron Paul?

    …What do you mean being endorsed by the South Carolina Minuteman Project isn’t a bad thing?!

  33. Being endorsed by a group with undesirable views isn’t nearly as bad as endorsing a group with undesirable views. The newsletter mess is (and should be) much worse for Dr Paul than these endorsements.

  34. I can agree that there is a public accommodation argument here, but for the public, not for some politician getting 1% of the vote.

    The CBS/NYT (I guess they consolidated) poll says 4%. And what does the Iowa caucus have to do with the public?

  35. And besides, I think us fanbois have a pretty good idea which D. D. would support here.

  36. Fine, 4%. That’s still not even second tier. If there was a third tier, it wouldn’t even be third tier.

    We’re not talking about booting Hillary, or Edwards.

  37. I’m having a hard time separating the strategic appeal to such groups from his anti-immigration stand from these groups apparent embrace of Ron Paul.

    I see an action, a position and a reaction, but I’m being told it’s just an illusion.

    Funny thing is that immigration is about the only issue on which Ron Paul and I totally disagree–I just don’t want to be associated with people like the South Carolina Minuteman Project or Stormfront or whatever Neo-Confederate group, and it seems like every time I turn around, I find another one of these groups endorsing Ron Paul.

    And then I see his supporters show up, and I’m not talking about you crimethink, but these Rockwellians or paleos or whatever we’re calling ’em show up, and they strike me as the types who might think that an endorsement by a Minuteman group was a good thing. I’m not so sure it’s that the newsletters are worse than the endorsements…

    It all seems like it’s connected.

  38. Oh, I see, Ken. It’s all about YOU.

    I mean, I know libertarians are supposed to be selfish and all, but…

  39. I’m not sure what you mean by that, but, yeah, I’m talking about what I see, the way I see it.

    I’m talking about what I’m willing to tell the people I talk to. I talked to a lot of people about Ron Paul before all this came out…

    If I don’t worry about my rep, no one else will.

  40. *furiously taking notes about the white power/real estate developer axis*

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.