Ron 3:16

Paleoconservative and Libertarian reaction to the (short-term) defeat of Amit Singh has been wide-ranging. Former Ron Paul 2008 blogger Daniel McCarthy:

I had a feeling of deja vu: the outcome reminded me all too much of the Ron Paul campaign, where youthful energy and principle, and strong fundraising (Singh didn't raise millions, but he did outraise Ellmore handily) did not translate into winning vote totals. Weigel notes the youthfulness of the victory party crowd — the candidate himself, at 33, may have been the oldest person in the room. I noticed the same thing at a Singh fundraiser two weeks ago. There's a silver lining in that: although young people don't vote in very large numbers, youthful activists who cut their teeth on campaigns like Paul's and Singh's will be around for a long time to come and will only become more skilled and effective. And the GOP right now needs new blood.

Richard Spencer:

I don't know what the Ellmore victory party was like, but I seriously doubt youth and talk of limiting government and getting out of Iraq were on display. Ron Paul Republicanism might be a bit quixotic at the moment, but it's the only aspect of the GOP that doesn't reek of terminal decline.

Lew Rockwell (via Minnesota Chris):

I do not join those mourning the loss of Amit Singh in Northern Virginia… this minor-league merchant of death, who brags of being a contractor for the NSA and the Pentagon, and of helping write the software for Total Information Awareness!

This is true: He was a developer for TIPS. And because of this, he was endorsed by that loathsome anti-Ron Paul crusader named… Ron Paul.

Why does Ron Paul hate freedom? More from LR:

Let's face it, folks. There is only one Ron Paul. Indeed, he is unique in the entire history of American politics.

Sigh. If the legacy of the rEVOLution is a cult of personality around Ron Paul, then it was a failure; Paul himself, ever self-deprecating about his oratorical skills, is fond of saying "I'm not the greatest messenger, but this is the greatest message." I've always interpreted that to mean that he's not the greatest messenger, but he thinks he has the greatest message. Paul's campaign catapulted guys like Singh and B.J. Lawson into politics, and readied the field for Libertarian convert Bob Barr. Why Paul supporters would ignore that and grumble about writing his name in at the November ballot box is a mystery to me.

Comments

[Chris Potter]

Hopefully the rLOVEution isn't coterminous with LRC, or anything associated with Lew Rockwell. It's interesting to see the guy who probably wrote the Ron Paul Survival Report criticizing what someone else has written...

[Brandon]

Why do I hate Lew Rockwell so much?

[Nash]

"If the legacy of the rEVOLution is a cult of personality around Ron Paul, then it was a failure;"

I've lamented this over on the RP forums and apparently Lew is now on the cult of personality bandwagon as well. Nobody is good enough except Ron Paul. Bob Barr isn't good enough and certainly Reason and the cosmotarians aren't good enough.

Everything that Ron Paul has built up in the recent run will die with him if he doesn't embrace the other aspects of the liberty movement. His followers are unfortunately looking to him and nobody else.

[joe]

Take heart, libertoidz!

If you go back to 2004-2006, you will find the threads full of sniggering comments about those crazy, deluded Kossacks who hadn't ever supported a winning candidate in an election.

Well, if you go back to mid-2006, anyway. You stop seeing such comments after about August or so. I wonder why.

[Chris Potter]

Nash,

The one hopeful sign is that Dr Paul himself, unlike Nader or Perot, doesn't want this to become a cult of personality thing. Some people will try to make it into that anyway, but I think his adamant refusal to run in the general shows that he expects the rLOVEution to find new messengers.

[Chris Potter]

Seriously, that Lew Rockwell piece gets even better:

It is possible for an eloquent and principled intellectual to be a brilliant campaigner, to reject the lure of Power, and to work untouched in corrupt DC for peace and freedom -- to be another Ron Paul, that is.

[highly questionable claim emphasis mine]

[Bingo]

Lew Rockwell is Lonewacko with an actual audience.

[jj]

Lew Rockwell is Lonewacko with an actual audience.

Bingo is intellectually too lazy (or stupid) to do any more than name-calling. An attack against another I can respect, even agree with. A puerile tongue-sticking I can't.

[Doug Mataconis]

Brandon,

Why do I hate Lew Rockwell so much?

Because it's so very easy to hate a self-aggrandizing blowhard ?

[buloop]

Weigel always finds the negative slant on a Ron Paul story. His acumen and inventiveness amazes me.

Instead of commending Ron Paul on being anything like a cult leader--I've never seen a campaign run in such a laissez-faire fashion--Weigel leaves the reader believing that Ron Paul supporters are now monotheistic worshipers of Paul.

Bonus points for working in a dig at LRC and religion. Never ceases to amaze me.

[LevStrauss]

There are Ron Paul Republicans and Ron Paul Parasites.

Does anyone else remember the sound of crickets at LRC while Ron was getting crucified over the newsletters? Then days later after everyone got sick of seeing Ron left out in the cold and insiders said it was Lew who wrote many of those pieces the coward came out with nothing but a Oreilly "smear merchant" defense.

Yet, after a close election he was rather "fleet footed" in pissing on a libertarian minded conservative fighting for sane foreign policy, who happens to be a great person too. Guess you can't pander to racists when you are running Indian Americans, huh Lew?

Yes there is only one true Ron Paul Republican and when you put his name on your writing you better man up.

[Whoa, Nelly!]

reason sucks. die die die

[Brian24]

Instead of commending Ron Paul on being anything like a cult leader--I've never seen a campaign run in such a laissez-faire fashion--Weigel leaves the reader believing that Ron Paul supporters are now monotheistic worshipers of Paul.

Wow.

First of all, the entire post except for the end was a POSITIVE story about how the future lies with the RP Republicans.

Second, I believe this:

Paul himself, ever self-deprecating about his oratorical skills, is fond of saying "I'm not the greatest messenger, but this is the greatest message."

...is commending RP for being anything but a cult leader.

Furthermore, I'm not sure how you would come away from reading that thinking that "Ron Paul followers" are now Paul worshippers. I came away thinking that Lew Rockwell is an ass. That's about it.

[Anthony Gregory]

Weigel misses the point. As I wrote to him,

It is not that it is a cult of personality. And the Ron Paul Revolution is surely a huge deal. But it is just that it is very difficult for a _politician_ to be anywhere nearly as good as Ron. He really is unique in American history. No Congressman was ever as libertarian. This is because he has been in the movement for decades, and is steeped in the classical liberal tradition. He has read probably thousands of books on central banking, war, economics and philosophy. He sees politics as an educational vehicle.

There is otherwise, especially in the foreseeable future, much hope in electoral politics, and certainly not in the GOP. But these young activists will make a difference in the future -- just, most likely, not in campaigning for major national candidates.

[I fucking]

hate reason

[Anthony Gregory]

Whoops! I meant, "There is otherwise, especially in the foreseeable future, not much hope in electoral politics. . . "

[The Democratic Republican]

Wow, Lew Rockwell writing something stupid and self-serving. What a shocker. Ron Paul is unique in the history of American politics? So...RP wasn't adhering to the philosophy and actions of the Founders, as he claims? Or unique because Lew Rockwell will never have a hand puppet like him?

Lew Rockwell=racist piece of shit

[Jonathan Goff]

Well, even though I registered as a member of "that party that allowed me to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries", and I'm probably more paleolibertarian than most around here, I'm fully intending to vote for Barr in the general election. He has most if not all of Ron's good points, but even better on a few, and less of his baggage. And he'll actually be on the ballot. No candidate is perfect, but I'm not about to pass up the chance to actually vote for someone on the ballot worth voting for just to write in another candidate who also has plenty of his own flaws. Who knows when the next time will come up where there's actually someone on the ballot worth voting for?

~Jon

[The Democratic Republican]

Anthony Gregory:

Your post doesn't make any sense. How can Ron Paul be steeped in a "tradition" and be completely unique? "Tradition" means that other people have done it before. There's nothing you said about Ron Paul that is, in fact, unique.

Not that I don't respect him, but he's not the greatest thing since sliced bread. He's not a messiah. And he hangs out way too much with Lew Rockwell and other racist pieces of shit.

[Shane Brady]

Ron Paul is not unique. There are plenty of old white men in this country, who are hostile to women, gays, and other minorities just like Ron Paul.

He is not a good speaker, he tends to try to obfuscate his answers when someone asks him a touch question, and I would question his ethics of using campaign money to travel around to sell his book.

[LevStrauss]

"There is otherwise, especially in the foreseeable future, not much hope in electoral politics. . . "

Things are beginning to change. There has been a lot of hollering at the conventions and it isn't just Paul supporters. The Republican Party cannot stay the way it is much longer and survive. Something has to give and the trends are in our favor with regards to the Republican Party. The Party itself is approaching nihilism, the point at which it becomes totally unbelievable. It is just that these new infrastructures take time and EFFORT. If you want to take back the Republican Party you have to do the things that Republicans do, go to the meetings, events, local and state conventions and actually do something about it instead of pissing and moaning. It is really not that hard, these power structures are only so because people are generally apathetic. People are out there doing things right now, we just need more people to join us. Go to the websites of your local parties, they list their events and they are open to all.

[svf]

damn, these delusional "write in Ron Paul" whackjobs are infuriating... almost another breed of 9/11 Truther types...

amazing how many THOUSANDS of people signging that ridiculous online letter to the GOP are proclaiming their intention to write in Ron Paul rather than vote for Barr...

Dr. No... what have you wrought...?????

[Write in Paul]

Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul
Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul

[svf]

Write in Paul, Write in Paul, Write in Paul

Write in my ass... it has the same effect and it's a lot more fun.

[joe]

So, does anyone have any explanation for why Barack Obama would lose Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey, but win Connecticut?

Ned Lamont and Daily Kos, that's why. The formation of a local political structure consisting of indepdent, self-motivated people who built a bottom-up structure on behalf of a candidate who ran different kind of campaign and was on board with that structure.

There were exactly two presidential candidates who ran campaigns like that this year. Once you create communities like that, they remain.

The effects of Ron Paul's run have barely begun to be felt.

[Chris Potter]

But it is just that it is very difficult for a _politician_ to be anywhere nearly as good as Ron.

Ron Paul is a great and courageous guy, and I agree with him on a lot of stuff, but he's a terrible politician. Seriously, what difference has he made during his House career? What bills has he gotten passed or thwarted to enlarge or protect our liberties?

Sure, he's been the sole NO vote on a lot of awful bills that passed nonetheless, and he's given wonderful speeches to an audience consisting of three members and the C-SPAN engineers. But that doesn't make one a good politician.

[Apaulogist]

"Ron Paul is a great and courageous guy, and I agree with him on a lot of stuff, but he's a terrible politician. Seriously, what difference has he made during his House career? "

Almost no difference at all, but more than CATO and Reason combined.

[KyleG]

I'm writing in Ron Paul. He's the only candidate I support so there's no reason for me to vote for anyone else. Although, I do think a write-in campaign is kinda ridiculous.

[Adamness]

I just wonder if Ron Paul would want people writing in Ron Paul. He's been kind of ambiguous about what he'd like his supporters to do, whether that is write him in, vote for Barr, Baldwin, Obama or McCain. Not that we should blindly follow Paul, but he put himself in a leadership position and now is a time to lead, not leave his supporters fractured.

Then again, I'm voting for Barr no matter what Paul says, but those who got wrapped up in the cult of personality side of things could use some direction.

[John C Jackson]

Ron Paul is not unique as a conservative Republican elected to Congress from Texas. He has been a "libertarian" for a long time, but he has also campaigned as a "true conservative." Even his anti-war position, he plays it as a "traditional conservative" position.

[David Weigel]

Anthony said:

No Congressman was ever as libertarian. This is because he has been in the movement for decades, and is steeped in the classical liberal tradition. He has read probably thousands of books on central banking, war, economics and philosophy. He sees politics as an educational vehicle.

That is true, but LR praised him as a means of trashing a guy who was inspired by Paul and aspires (however unlikely) to be the second congressman from the movement. That's what I have a problem with, the idea that Paul is sui generis and should be venerated. I don't want his followers wasting any time venerating him. They should be out in the streets and at the polls. And I think Paul would agree.

[John C Jackson]

Uh, the site posted my comment without my asking it to. I wasn't done.

Anyway, yeah Ron Paul IS the "most libertarian" in congress and I suppose the highest elected libertarian ever. However he got there by being a conservative. He is NOT a great campaigner in higher profile runs. In 1988 he did about average for a Libertarian candidate and in 2008 he did about as well as could be expected. There is nothing exceptional about his political career as a libertarian.

[Chris Potter]

Almost no difference at all, but more than CATO and Reason combined.

That's debatable, to say the least. I can't think of one thing he's done in Congress that's made a difference (except maybe getting all those earmarks for his district). In any case, no one is covering CATO and Reason in the kind of incense that the LRCers are doing with Dr Paul.

[Apaulogist]

" In any case, no one is covering CATO and Reason in the kind of incense that the LRCers are doing with Dr Paul."

I'll tell you what he's done. He's tols and is telling the truth.

STATO/tReason doesn't need incence with all that money from Koch and the other corporate masters. Ron Paul is talking to the people, not worming his way into position of Vizier to the emporer, or corporatist PR hack.

[Apaulogist]

excuse my typos. I'm drunk.

[VJ]

The whole Lew Rockwell cult is really amazing. A racist loudmouth who claims to be a libertarian!

[GS]

Oh yes, Amit Singh...the guy who thinks FISA courts are a "distraction".

http://blacknell.net/dynamic/2008/04/02/interview-with-candidate-amit-singh-8th-cd-part-iii/

[Randolph Carter]

Jesus, really - I like LRC. I read the blog. They have a lot of stories that Reason doesn't cover.

That doesn't mean that the man himself, who has done a lot of good and interesting work, hasn't made any bad choices (ahem you know what I'm talking about) and shouldn't take responsibility for them.

Ron Paul is a great guy, an independent thinker (he's not anyone's "hand puppet"), and an absolutely horrible politician. But that's ok - even though he's awful at politicking, he keeps his seat in the House year after year, an keeps up the role of loud naysayer.

Also, joe, you're totally right - people get caught up in one election but politics is all about change over time. The grassroots that began with Dean's campaign bore fruit in 2006 and will continue to this year.

The grassroots that began with Ron Paul are, hopefully, just beginning to make a difference.

[NJ]

Joe made some great posts. The Paul republicans should learn from the Kos crowd. This has to be viewed as a long term project

[JMR]

This is yet more proof RP should have thrown Lew Rockwell under the bus in the Wolf Blitzer interview when he claimed, implausibly, he "didn't recall" the author of the racist newsletters. It was either Lew or someone under his editorial command.

The latest dimwitted personality-cult comment only confirms it. Folks, Ron Paul is OLD LIKE McCAIN. If this is a movement rather than a cult, when he dies it won't make much of a difference in what we do or who we elect.
JMR

[R C Dean]

Joe made some great posts. The Paul republicans should learn from the Kos crowd. This has to be viewed as a long term project.

I'm on board with that, although I would qualify that the RP movement this year at this point only has the potential to drag the Republicans as far toward liberty as the Kossacks have dragged the Dems to the left.

[robc]

Many states, including mine, dont allow write ins for president. So, idiots suggesting write in Paul, are, in many case, preaching to the anti-choir. Or something.

[Randy Ravenel]

Here's another take on this.

http://bannedindc.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/joylessdivision/

"And here is another thing we know for sure: if you want to build a political movement, and you preach a message of inclusiveness, and you expect people to overlook problems in your standard-bearer's past, then the least you can do is not bury someone who came very close to winning a primary while billing himself as One Of Your Guys. Given that this likely is the last election in which people committed to preserving what's left of our civil liberties will be able to make any useful headway, it would behoove libertarians and conservatives to find some issue-oriented common ground, rather than rehashing the pointless and toxic internecine beefs of years gone by."

[Roger Maltz]

Amit Singh is a shitty orator as well. Is this any surprise?

[johnny boy]

Amit is definitely not a good speaker as you can see by his YouTube videos. You can tell he is always nervous in front of crowds probably because he's an engineer and not a lawyer but I have met him one-on-one and he is pretty thoughtful and listens well.