The Ron Paul Blimp Floats On!


Ron Paul was never going to drop his campaign before the primary in Pennsylvania, the state where he grew up. Sure enough, the Paul '08 team is out with a schedule: he'll be hitting the state twice this week and twice next week for "freedom rallies." Some time in between those events we might see something a lot more impactful: the potential launch of Bob Barr '08. He'll be speaking at the Heartland Libertarian Conference and rumors of an announcement are going around.

Both men think the Ron Paul rEVOLution is still kicking, and worth continuing. They're offering two different methods for doing so. Paul's method is to continue a John Ashbrook/Pete McCloskey kind of challenge in the GOP and get the party and the media to notice. Right now, it's not working. No one much cares that McCain is getting fewer votes in these final primaries than Bush got in 2000 after wrapping up his nomination. It's simply not clear what a Paul vote means. Is it an anti-McCain vote? An anti-war vote? An anti-immigration vote? Paul's lost the chance to define what, exactly, you signal by supporting him.

If Barr runs, he's going to have a clearer message. It's laid out here: a vote for Barr is anti-pre-emptive war, pro-privacy, against the drift of the GOP and of politics writ large. The bet is that the GOP will only take heed if it loses an election because a candidate running on those issues helps elect a Democrat. What's the evidence that this could work? Yes, George Wallace's 1968 campaign spurred the GOP to take the Southern position on civil and states' rights, and Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign against "corporate Democrats" looks awfully influential in this election where even Bill Clinton's wife is promising card check for unions and a "time out" on trade deals. But those changes had a lot to do with 1)their political popularity and 2)the work of activists inside the parties.

I have no idea how big a Barr/LP vote could be… the only inkling is this poll by Rasmussen taken at the height of the Ron Paul campaign, which had 8 percent of voters going for Paul in a 4-way race with the Democratic and Republican nominees and Ralph Nader. I do know that a defection by about 2-3 percent of McCain voters in Nevada, New Mexico and Iowa, if every other state voted the way it did in 2004, would throw the election into the House of Representatives, where the Democrat would obviously win.

NEXT: Openly Armed = Frequently Hassled

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “where even Hillary Clinton’s wife”

    Hillary Clinton’s wife? Wait, those paranoid GOP theories are true?!



    “Is Welch a libertarian? Certainly not-by his own admission:

    “‘I’m a liberal. I take liberalism to mean a belief in policy geared toward easing poverty, extending rights to every walking human who hasn’t utterly forfeited them, getting the government out of the morality business, regulating markets judiciously, ensuring the pervasive yet hopefully efficient delivery of non-market goods such as education, health care and national defense, and otherwise having the sense to let the private sector handle private concerns.'”

    More words of “libertarian” wisdom from the new editor of Reason:

    “”I don’t claim to be an expert on anything, but I can talk pretty confidently about Central Europe from 1990-98, and especially the expansion of NATO and U.S. involvement in the Balkans (both of which I wrote and edited about extensively). And in those cases where my limited knowledge has brushed up against the party line of the Chomskyite Left’s foreign policy views, I have been appalled. For example, I’ve received more than a dozen e-mails from people quoting Chomsky while citing Kosovo as yet another example of empire-extending, militaryindustrialcomplex bloodlust on the part of a hypocritical U.S. This is so wrong, words are hard to come by.”

  3. Bob, Lumpy:

    Vote with your feet.

  4. Oh, come on. We’re not taking Justin Raimondo seriously now, are we? I thought his work had been discredited enough…

  5. It appears that Reason may continue to go downhill away from a libertarian perspective and into a more interventionist foreign policy point of view.

    Regarding Barr’s possible run on the Libertarian ticket, I hope he takes enough votes away from McCain to make him lose (that’s hopefully assuming Hillary won’t be the Democratic nominee).

  6. Ron’s supporters in Penna. aren’t sure what he is doing either with a few weak college appearances. He put the kibosh on a weeklong appearance schedule around the state,
    including several major fundraisers, to help boost the more than 60 delegates his supporters put on the primary ballot. Sort of like being left at the altar for another woman.

  7. right on, Calistoga Bob. Yet more words of wisdom from Matt “Prognosis: Cloudy” Welch, this time on the Kosovo war:

    “I’ve received more than a dozen e-mails from people quoting Chomsky while citing Kosovo as yet another example of empire-extending, militaryindustrialcomplex bloodlust on the part of a hypocritical U.S. This is so wrong, words are hard to come by. … Such explanations (especially Chomsky’s) deny even the existence of Wilsonian diplomacy, or Vaclav Havel’s forceful arguments & access to Clinton’s ear, or of the sea change in U.S. policy that came about when a child of the Munich sellout (Madeleine Albright) took the reigns [sic] of the State Department. It also seems, to my ears, almost oblivious to how the horrifying Balkan slaughter of 1991-94 damaged the collective psyches of diplomats and citizens of West Europe and America. For starters, that period exposed just how not-ready-for-prime-time the idea of collective European defense was, which was yet another argument for expanding NATO.”

    Ah yes, the “libertarian” argument for extending NATO. Kind of like the “libetarian” argument for nationalizing “non-market good” like healthcare, education, and, oh yes, food.

  8. What is strange is how a couple media outlets are desperately trying to hype Bob Barr up. Guess what, no one gives a damn about Bob Barr. And if you thought the Paul campaign was anemic, watch how much (little) of an impact the Barr one will make.

    Oh and by the way: make sure you highlight any 911 Truthers,racists, and generally unwanted people at Barr’s events, so that you can then write him off and feel really good about yourself. As though you just cleverly slayed a masquerading demon. This goes out to the media in general. I know you won’t let the people down, geniuses that you are.

  9. “watch how much (little) of an impact the Barr one will make.”

    He might make more of an impact than you realize. With McCain being the nominee, conservatives will see him as a better alternative. He could cause McCain to lose in some close states by taking away votes that would have gone to McCain. He would take virtually no votes from Obama.

  10. ANM,

    I do take Justin Raimondo seriously. His work has never been discredited, AFAIK.

    If you would care to produce (or even link to) such an article, I will only be too happy to read it.

    Please take note of the multiple links to supporting material in Justin’s article

    It would be much appreciated (and refreshing) if you were to provide similar support for your assertions.

  11. Right now, it’s not working.

    So the big news here is….

    Forget it. You’d blog what Ron Paul had for breakfast, lacking any other story.


  13. Matt Welch on 09/17/2001 08:12 PM
    “The biggest question facing Americans and other decent people is how the civilized world and its strongest country should respond to this mass murder. I, for one, advocate a Global War to abolish terrorism.”

    just don’t ask the Bin Ladens any questions…we need this war to go on a long time right Matt?

  14. lastly, DRINK x 3!

    “Reason sucks so bad i need to hand around it and…”

  15. Justin Raimondo has a slightly better track record for talking about the issues that were important in Septmeber of 2001. Matt Welch spent his time shouting down those who spoke of US foreign policy mistakes. While Raimondo kept a healthy skepticism for the motives of politicians, Matt Welch was proclaiming his love of Wilsonian foreign policy and slandering people in a facist pro-war rage.

  16. He said it over and over again, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for anti-war Republicans and a vote for delegates to change the GOP. They already changed the Alaskan GOP plank.

  17. Ron Pauls chance never materialised, because the two major parties have implimented plenty of restrictions on anybody moving in on their act.

  18. What’s with these social democrats claiming to be libertarians? Libertarians took up this name when socialists started calling themselves liberals, now their using libertarian, what other term will we use now?

    If you read what this guy wrote, it seems like he’s rejoicing on the possibility of a Democrat win in November.

  19. “If you read what this guy wrote, it seems like he’s rejoicing on the possibility of a Democrat win in November.”

    I’m rejoicing over the possibility that we won’t have a 3rd term for the Bush Republicans.

  20. the Ron Paul rEVOLution is still kicking, and worth continuing

    If RP’s idiotic supporters put away the blimp and actually did something that worked, they could actually resuscitate (to a certain extent) RP’s campaign.

    An extremely effective technique would be to go to RP’s opponents’ appearances and ask the questions the MSM won’t ask.

    For instance, consider this. If you don’t spot the lies, do some research. Then, the next time he says something like that, videotape his response when you point out that he’s lying and upload it to Youtube.

    Apparently something as simple as that is too difficult for Ron Paul’s childlike supporters.

  21. Reason sucks

  22. Why don’t you do that, OrangeLine? Oh wait, you’re just a lil’ bitch.

  23. Maybe social democratic ideals are in the cards for libertarianism in the future, e.g. you guys did just gain Mike Gravel. LOL@that!

  24. Since the tag line “Free Minds and Free Markets” seems no longer to apply, what will the David Weigel revision be for Reason?

    “Free Minds and Judiciously Regulated Markets”


    “Free Minds and Free Markets except for the Education and Health Care Markets, where Dave and government really know best.”

  25. Bob Barr is speaking at this year’s Atlas Society Summer Seminar. I’m not sure if this was suggested to him, or if he decided to do it on his own, but it certainly represents a concerted effort to branch out to a marginal but prolific group of mainly disillusioned young voters, for what that’s worth. I know there are some very strong feelings here regarding the Objectivists (Uh-oh!).

  26. reason sucks

  27. Ahh.

    “reason sucks” for giving undue attention to a sideline candidate.

    I complain they should give it up now that he’s got no chance of affecting anything; you all complain that they should still be licking his ass and acting like True Believers no matter how irrelevant he’s become to national presidental politics.

    meanwhile, pretty much every other political journal that is actually in *print* (as opposed to fanatical echo-chamber blogs) has completely forgotten about the guy.

    But *reason* sucks for still hanging on to him as a topic of daily conversation.

    There’s that famous quip that Fanatics always hate Apostates more than Heretics.

    meaning = you hate on reason because you expect them to adhere only to your immature I AM A PURE LIBERTARIAN orthodoxy.

    Instead, they only give you 20%, and you hate them worse than you do the millions of other writers who Never, Ever gave a shit about Ron Paul.

    You guys look like such a gang of silly douchebags. And FWIW, thats exactly why many libertarian-leaning voters would never be caught dead hanging out with you angry, self-involved purists. You’re just too fucking tied up with your fudamentalist crusade to have any perspective on reality. Gold Standard? RIght. Whoo hoo. That’ll happen overnight. Sure.

    The upside of course, is that soon Paul’ll be back in TX doing his nice job of being a congressional rabble-rouser, and you guys will have nothing left to bitch about around here and go back to wherever you came from.

    Nice knowing you

  28. p.s.

    Lonewacko is a douche, and his Anti-Paulism is as gay as the Angry Paulista Brigades. He speaks only for himself, and nobody here ever gives him the time of day.

    Plus, he has to keep changing his handle in some pathetic attempt to seem as though he’s got a friend out there who agrees with him.

  29. Reason sucks.

    They owe their entire existence to unknown sideline candidates.

  30. Angela Thornton | April 2, 2008, 7:27pm | #

    Reason sucks.

    They owe their entire existence to unknown sideline candidates.

    That right?

    Then why dont you fuck off and stop giving them all of these wonderful hits that help prop up their tiny ad revenue?

    You are aware they’ve been publishing since 1971, right?

    i.e. – Who Needs You?

  31. Correction = 1968, not 1971

  32. Honestly, I like Weigel, Dougherty and Sanchez. But, Gillespe and Welch are a bunch of phonies. A forty something nerd wearing a leather jacket comes off more like Henry Winkler than the Fonz.

  33. I don’t know why the Retard Parade started, but the Paulistas, Truthers and Blowjob Buddies of Raimondo can get the hell out of here. And feel free to self-perform an enema with a pinecone.

  34. What’s a “Truther”?

  35. Ayn Rand was a whore. I said it. I’ll say it again. Ayn Rand was a whore. And her writing SUCKED. I really don’t dig Raimondo, but shit a leopard doesn’t his spots. I’m like Missouri. Welch needs to show me something.

    Randian go BLOW.

  36. reason sucks ass

  37. Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul! Ron Paul!

  38. Ron Paul a sideline candidate? You stupid idiocrat, GILMORE.

    Learn something.

  39. So who e-mailed the anti-Welch talking points to the Raimondo drones? Apparently they sent more detailed talking points to the relatively coherent drones and a single page with “Reason sucks” written on it on crayon to the more “special” drones.

    C’mon drones, try to have your own independent thoughts! It hurts a little at first, but it’s fun once you get the hang of it!

  40. reason sucks.

  41. you nailed it, GILMORE.

  42. Gilmore nails young boys. Asian ones.

  43. I know we should not be concerned about moderating the Reason blogs but it really is not productive to say the same thing again and again in a profane way.

    I do believe that this is another failing of Matt Welch to not clean this up.

    By the way I too think Matt Welch has a lot of explaining to do as do the owners of Reason for hiring him.

  44. reason sucks

  45. Bambi | April 2, 2008, 9:42pm | #

    Oh, yes. The Mass Media has us in their pocket.

    Mass Media like…. *reason*. We’re all just in the pocket of Corpoashunz and teh Govumint

    Score one for the YouTube generation that thinks we’re all sheeple if we think they happen to be a bunch of boobs.

    Alternative interpretation:

    You are in fact, a bunch of boobs.

    But at least you can throw shit around like monkeys at the zoo. Helluva convincing rhetorical style that. (e.g. “idiocrat” = clever!) Should win you lots of converts to the LOVErelution or whatever. That, and the youtube scare-movies. Good luck exposing the vast conspiracy that keeps you relegated to the fringes of political viability.

  46. Yolanda | April 2, 2008, 11:06pm | #

    Yes yes, we know. Your logic is unassailable. Say it one more time and it will be even *more true*

    Well, to you and your comrades at least. You can have 5 more minutes of hate before bed, kids.

    You would all have made wonderful brownshirts. Ironic, that. You’d get a lot of joy from Eric Hoffer’s “True Believer”. Its a common thing for fanatics to quickly come to resemble precisely the people that they most despise.

    Of course you’d love to line the ‘moderates’ up against the wall first.

  47. Gilmore,
    Your ego will always keep you unhappy.

    Read Eckhart Tolle.

  48. You know with all the hate speech occurring in these unmoderated blogs and comment sections, one could conclude that Reason approves of the hate speech and that it is homophobic, just like it accuses Ron Paul of being AND for just about the same reason!

  49. I have been a Reason subscriber for nearly 20 years. I voted for John Hospers and Toni Nathan 36 years ago. And every Libertarian Presidential candidate since then.
    I am really not sure what Matt Welch’s problem is but someone hired him and someone can fire him. He clearly does not understand libertarian economics or foreign policy. Additionally, he has a personal animosity towards Ron Paul that is borderline psychotic. I really would like to know if they have ever met and if so, just what was said that turned Welch against him. Hating Ron Paul and saying he is not a REAL libertarian and that he is a racist homophobe is just silly.
    I do not get it. Why put such a person in charge of Reason?
    By the way my subscription runs out in May 2008 and I have been looking for ways to cut back my expenses and simplify my life, as well as lowering my stress level. Reason USED to be a way for me to relax my guard and just enjoy the new ideas coming in without being blindsided and upset by statist pabulum. No more. All it does is RAISE my anger level. I do not need the aggravation. If Welch explains himself or leaves, then I will continue my subscription.

  50. Hate speech?


    Next thing, you’ll suggest that *we* all lighten up and the irony meter will explode.

    This is actually *genuinely* funny =

    Walt | April 2, 2008, 11:14pm | #

    Read Eckhart Tolle.


    Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose

    In A New Earth Eckhart Tolle shows how transcending our ego-based state of consciousness is not only essential to personal happiness, but also the key to ending conflict and suffering throughout the world.

    at least Walt has a sense of humor.

    Since we’re making reading suggestions, here’s the aforementioned guide to the behavioral psychology of ‘movement’ fanatics

    Maybe these guys are saying the absolute opposite thing though. He points out people with 0 self-esteem are the footsoldiers for ideological movements.

    people with enough “ego” (to use walt’s word) tend not to join a club to know the difference between up and down.

  51. DenisL | April 3, 2008, 12:08am | #

    on your way out the door, have a….DRINK!

  52. “…just like it accuses Ron Paul of being…”

    Did I miss something where Welch accused RP of hate speech? Or where _anyone_ at Reason accused RP of hate speech? From what I’ve read, those who accuse him of anything accuse him of very poor judgment or of tacitly allowing others to publish “racially insensitive” things under his name to drum up support.

    “Additionally, he has a personal animosity towards Ron Paul that is borderline psychotic.”

    OK, now that’s just stupid. You seem to have a hatred of Matt Welch that borders on delusional. Actually, you’re way over the border of delusional. You’re an illegal immigrant in DelusionLand. Somebody alert LoneWacko.

  53. Oh, and like GILMORE says, DRINK! (My choice this evening is bourbon; your mileage may vary.)

    No one cares if you explain yourself, DenisL. Your leaving will be enough for us.

  54. This thread is a hoot!

    GILMORE you kick ass!

    I have not given Raimondo much credit for clear thinking since reading his stuff on this incident.

    And I stopped taking him seriously at all when this execrable piece and others by him on that event were published.

    I had no frackin clue he had disciples; that’s hilarious.

  55. Oprah Winfrey’s new book club selection was announced today. The new pick is Eckhart Tolle’s A New Earth: Awakening to Your Life’s Purpose.

    For the first time ever, you can join Oprah and best-selling author Eckhart Tolle as they teach “A New Earth” in Oprah’s worldwide classroom live Monday nights on Find out what you need for the first class Monday night, March 3, at 9/8c. Reserve your seat now for this free Web event only on

  56. It’s not too late, Gilmore.

  57. Walt =

    Thanks for the concern.

    Maybe Oprah will consider Montaigne’s Essais next time and i’ll be able to share the love.

    I’m not much for self help books. But what do I know. Poverty of soul, as he said, is impossible to cure.

    It should be said that nobody ever made a nickel making that point.

  58. My vote for Ron Paul was a vote for what Ron Paul stands for: individual liberty.

  59. DenisL – what’s the matter? Sad that you’re some third-rate biochem prof at a low-tier school? I would be too, ‘specially with that beard.

    Go away!

  60. David Weigel = Matt Welch Jr.
    From Dave’s youtube page it is clear Rudy is/was his favorite. Wonder if he is even more militaristic than McCain?

    The Ron Paul Revolution is not connected to one person only and has gone into a next phase. It will never stop till victory is achieved. The battle for the GOP nomination is far from over. It looks like McCain may fall in his own sword (McCain-Feingold)…

  61. It’s simply clear that David Weigel does not have a clue what a Ron Paul vote means and this tells one something about his journalistic abilities, or rather lack of it. Reason used to be a good libertarian magazine, but alas not anymore with substandard articles like this. Some education: A vote for Ron Paul means a vote of the only true conservative-libertarian candidate in the GOP race, while McCain represents vote for a RINO to a large extent.Also among non-RP supporters within the GOP, there is a strong feeling that McCain does not represent the core principles of the party.

  62. Holy shit. Reason sucks!

  63. Hahahahahahahaha, this thread is hilarious. I wonder how long it will take the new editor of Reason to alienate 90 percent of his subscribers?

  64. Kolohe,
    so you didn’t like to read criticism of the US after the US Navy killed a bunch of Japanese kids in a fishing boat and then refused to answer any questions about what happened?

    Are you the type that calls someone a “isolationists” if they don’t want to tax american workers in order to have a certain number of Japanese kids killed by the US Navy every year and then pay for the appropriate coverup?

  65. Whoa. I used to think reason was cool, but the chorus of “reason sucks” in here has almost convinced me otherwise. I think if somebody were to throw in a “you know, for a magazine called reason…” I would probably be convinced. Convinced, and also totally wasted from all the times I’ve had to drink during this thread.

  66. If the witless responses of its readers are anything to go by, then it is safe to assume Reason does suck.

  67. Reason still has readers?

  68. It’s simply clear that David Weigel does not have a clue what a Ron Paul vote means

    Didn’t Weigel affirm that he voted for Paul in the primary?

    LEAVE REASON ALONE!!! /Chris Crocker

  69. Descartes | April 3, 2008, 10:10am | #

    If the witless responses of its readers are anything to go by…

    Irony meter redline

    Justin Raimondo | April 3, 2008, 8:58am | #


    …”And soon, SOON my legions of minions will attack for the final blow!! Nothing can stop our onslaught on inanity! The fools have no idea what new plans we have in store!! We only need to add “TOTALLY SUCKS” to our secret, unstoppable “Sucks” attack!! Perhaps even CAPITALIZED!!! HA HA HAHAHAHAHA And the WORLD WILL BE MINE!! MINE, ALL MINE!!!”


    Justin i’m sure they’d be glad to send you their annual subscription growth numbers. Grow up already.

  70. Gilmore- it’s so obvious you have a small penis.

  71. Totally sucks. Fake Libertarians.

  72. jericho | April 3, 2008, 12:06pm | #


    Yes! Yes! “TOTALLY!!” Phase 2 has begun! Attack my children!! Attack!

  73. People may not know what our vote for Paul signals but Paul supporters know what it means. If you want to know what it signals simply listen to Paul’s speeches they are generally the same and clear. THE CONSTITUTION IS THE SOLUTION.

  74. Reason sucks donkey balls

  75. Reason can’t hold Ron Paul’s jockstrap.

  76. Bear in mind, all generalizations are wrong.

  77. Larry, why would anyone want to hold an old man’s jockstrap?

    Seriously though. Thats gross.

    Also, when a “news magazine” (as opposed to gang of internet fanbois) is covering the most significant presidential election in the last 30 years or so, there’s only so much space they can devote to Mr 4th Place. I think you’re asking too much for people to really care that much about an also-ran.

    Some people (20%-30%) who are regular readers here are die hard Paulites. Most are halfway interested (50%) and some think paul is a waste of breath (20%). The coverage reflects that partly.

    You want it one way. But see, it’s the other way.



  79. Everyone knows Ron Paul is great. It’s Reason that sucks.

  80. Quote:

    GILMORE | April 3, 2008, 4:27pm | #

    ?when a “news magazine” (as opposed to gang of internet fanbois) is covering the most significant presidential election in the last 30 years or so, there’s only so much space they can devote to Mr 4th Place. I think you’re asking too much for people to really care that much about an also-ran.

    I can appreciate a desire for the editorial staff of a general news magazine to focus space on all 4 candidates for the “most significant presidential election in the last 30 years or so”. I would agree that all the candidates should merit at least some coverage. Would you characterize Reason as a general (my term) news magazine?

    The following was taken from
    “Reason provides a refreshing alternative to right-wing and left-wing opinion magazines by making a principled case for liberty and individual choice in all areas of human activity.”

    Would that description suggest heightened coverage on candidates who are most likely to win versus coverage of an “also-ran” whose policies are too libertarian for mainstream consideration?

  81. Gabe Harris-

    “…then refused to answer any questions about what happened?”

    This is a factually incorrect statement, both then and now.

    “…pay for the appropriate coverup?”

    This is utter unadulterated B.S. both then and now; plus, when it was said then, a great example of the embryonic troofer movement.

    So I stand by my statements that I don’t give you guys credit for clear thinking nor take seriously anything you write.

  82. Akston | April 3, 2008, 5:07pm | #

    Would you characterize Reason as a general (my term) news

    No. I’d characterize it as a ‘news & culture journal’ with a specific slant that is openly libertarianish, though not “Big L” (not the rapper) style.

    The quote you have from the “About” section is actually specific in saying what it’s *not* – and also doesn’t even actually say “libertarian” at all. Free Minds, Free Markets. Simple guidelines without being dogmatic or orthodox. I think that gives them a wider footprint than an exclusively party-line type publication a la, say, The Nation or Mother Jones. Or say, CounterPunch. These are all liberal examples, but they are more openly partisan than Reason tends to be in regards to it’s libertarian influences.

    Would that description suggest heightened coverage on candidates who are most likely to win versus coverage of an “also-ran” whose policies are too libertarian for mainstream consideration?

    Not at all. I personally argued all through 2007 that Paul garnished 5X the coverage of other candidates, and that it was totally excessive.

    That was the joke I made in my earlier posts in this thread. I always felt got *too much* coverage in proportion to other issues (not candidates, but actual news as opposed to political gossip) – People are here now griping that Reason was somehow Traitor to the Cause for dropping the unquestioning RP love post-newsletter issue.

    There were a rush of editorial posts in Jan (I think) offering various mea culpas from writers about their changed feelings about RP following the newsletter expose. I kept telling people “get the fuck over it already.”

    The RP dorks trolling this thread in fact DO have a point, but it was an old one – that Reason flipped on RP pretty darn quick given the nonstop lovefest they’d been offering over 2007.

    Its not a point they really made in their sophisticated analysis of the magazine’s “suckitude”. They could have. But they dont use that many words.

    My vote for funniest post in this thread was this one =

    Descartes | April 3, 2008, 10:10am | #

    If the witless responses of its readers are anything to go by, then it is safe to assume Reason does suck.

    Because he’s admitting (probably without thinking about it) that all the “critics” here (himself included) are people who’ve never actually read the magazine

    they’re all pissed off about Welch’s Big-L cred and initial support for Iraq war, without any further information about the actual magazine.

    The RP coverage here was so intense, if they’d actually red the mag or the blog, they’d realize how fucking loony they are

  83. Man are you stupid. How does one = all?

  84. you had a chance to back a real human, and you all blew it. sweet dreams.

  85. I’ll admit that I read Reason more recreationally than avidly, but if I recall correctly, I wouldn’t characterize Reason’s reporting of Ron Paul as overly extensive through most of 2007. I recall a tone of mostly cool “wait and see” skepticism (though I admit this was a step up from the derision shown by nearly every other news source). Following the record day’s contributions of $4 million on November 5th, Gillespie and Welch’s article on the 25th ( – interestingly not in Reason, but in the Washington Post – was where I first remember seeing mildly favorable coverage of Paul’s campaign by Reason staff. Perhaps there were other articles before that, but I can’t recall any.

    After that, and on through the $6 million day on December 16th, there may indeed have been an increase in Paul coverage at Reason. There was precious little coverage anywhere else that didn’t include the terms “long shot”, “dark horse”, “kook”, or “fringe”.

    After the New Republic’s “Angry White Man” story – released on January 8, the same day as the New Hampshire primary, purely by coincidence – the retractions of support and endorsements for Paul did come in from various sources. Perhaps the coverage at Reason and other outlets fell off starting then. Again, I wouldn’t claim to be an avid Reason subscriber.

    Sources like show Ron Paul’s lack of coverage over all. He didn’t even make it into their top graph of coverage for the period, only in the detail below with 0.4% as the main newsmaker in campaign stories of the time.

    I’ll agree that Reason did give adequate coverage of Paul in comparison to the other media outlets. In my own superficial analysis using searches like and then refining a bit, I got the following totals of stories with each candidate in the title:

    McCain 65
    Clinton 62
    Paul 52
    Obama 35
    Huckabee 25
    Romney 21
    Giuliani 21
    Edwards 18

    And the hits get smaller from there.

    This seems an acceptably balanced distribution to me, given Reason’s focus on “Free Minds, Free Markets” and the fact that none of the other candidates remaining in the race support Free Markets, and none would ever assert that they oppose Free Minds (whether they do or not).

    I won’t come out in support of “reason sucks” posts in general. Brevity can be evidence of puerility more easily than pith. But I do sympathize with the lingering frustration and anger of Ron Paul supporters. I’m one of them myself. I just think there are more constructive ways to channel that anger than to “rail against Reason” (so to speak).

  86. I’m not sure why you say that the House would so obviously vote for a Democrat for president. The House would vote by state delegation. I have 21 Republican delegations, 2 even split (and effectively forfeiting their vote), and 27 Democratic majority state delegations.

    However, several states have nearly evenly split delegations that could change before January 2009. In addition, the vacancy in Mississippi will almost certainly be filled by a Republican moving it’s delegation from Democratic majority to evenly split.

    Assuming that Arizona, Kansas and Mississippi’s delegations that are evenly split actually vote for McCain (likely justified by the probably general election vote), we would have 24 state delegation votes for McCain out of 50.

    Any vacancies or non-party votes in Republican voting states or districts would put some Democratic majority state delegations in play.

    In short, at this point we can’t say with much confidence that the Democrat would not “obviously win.”

  87. They say whatever they want to, because they suck. Since 1798 or something…

  88. I would take a bullet for Ron Paul. I won’t even vote for any other fool politician.

    I might not be able to take a bullet for RP, but you can bet your ass I will do every thing I can to write him in come November!

    FTW if they are this stupid!

  89. Torqued | April 4, 2008, 12:20am | #

    I would take a bullet for Ron Paul.

    Shoot yourself in the face and fee happy for your contribution to the cause

  90. “It’s simply not clear what a Paul vote means. Is it an anti-McCain vote? An anti-war vote? An anti-immigration vote? Paul’s lost the chance to define what, exactly, you signal by supporting him.”

    See for what a vote for Paul means. Pundits, simpletons, and some voters may want to boil it down to a single issue, but it’s more than a single issue for many of us.

    For me, it’s about “Free Minds and Free Markets”. It’s about Life, Liberty and Property. It’s about adherence to the constitution. It’s about fiscal responsibility and a stable currency. It’s about a non-interventionist foreign policy. It’s about national sovereignty. It’s about a strong defense. It’s about free trade. It’s about privacy and liberty.

    Coincidentally, it’s anti-McCain (Obama, Clinton), anti-“war” (Iraq occupation), and anti-*illegal*-immigration.

    It’s also anti- entitlement growth. It’s anti- $3 trillion dollar federal budgets on top of a $9 trillion dollar debt and $1 trillion dollar-a-year occupation. It’s anti- nationalized healthcare. It’s anti- fiat currency controlled by private cartels without congressional oversight.

    Looking at the platforms of the other three candidates, it’s pretty simple to differentiate what a vote for Paul means. The others only disagree on how many decades to stay in Iraq and how to spend the money this nation doesn’t have.

    Paul is the only one who even seems to notice the financial brick wall we’re crashing into, what’s caused it, and that we won’t be able to spend our way out of bankruptcy.

  91. Davis | April 3, 2008, 6:54pm | #

    Man are you stupid. How does one = all?

    Because you all said exactly the same thing?

    Call me names, but stupid is as stupid does. And you all did *exactly the same thing*

    Forgive me for lumping people in the same bucket, but you did the job yourselves

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.