Ron Paul

Ron Paul News: Barry Manilow's Endorsement, FrumForum's Ire, and an $875,000 Constitution Day Money Bomb

|

Caption contest! (Rules: Can't involve the word "money.")

In addition to winning the California straw poll (as mentioned in the Morning Links), Dr. No has been making other headlines of late. A sampling:

* Wins Barry Manilow/Vince Vaughn primary; Andrew Breitbart applauds.

* Is defended against Paul Krugman by the Washington Post's Erik Wemple and Foreign Policy Journal's Jeremy R. Hammond.

* FrumForum attacks: "Ron Paul's fans" part of dangerous "Neo-Confederate Revolution."

* Making good money off of farmland and rental income in Texas.

* Would presumably be the star of a Seth Lipsky-proposed GOP presidential debate on the Constitution.

* Speaking of Constitution, raised $875,000 in a Constitution Day money bomb.

NEXT: A Step-By-Step Guide for Explaining Away Your Party's Crony Capitalism

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. Caption suggestion (alt text suggestion) “Stay gold, Pauly boy, stay gold.”

  2. RP: “Would you have been in anything I might have seen?”

    VV: “Jennifer Aniston?”

    1. +1

      I read how Vaughn invited Paul to a screening of Couple’s Retreat. I guess he didn’t realize that the most risque film Paul ever saw was The Sound of Music.

  3. basically what I get from that FrumForum link is that the South lost the Civil War because they weren’t statist enough and that by making our current system less statist, it’s like letting them win all over again.

    1. And of course the US lived under the yoke of the evil Lockner decision after the Civil War. So I am not quite following how a return to Lockner (something more radical than anything Paul is proposing) would amount to the South winning.

      1. Statists fear losing power more than anything else. Making shit up is fine with them and obviously works when you consider how many assholes regurgitate the same talking points. Since they’re dealing with hypotheticals, there isn’t any way to refute them because with their hypothetical comes their rules. It’s exactly like the bullshit anarchy/libertopia=somalia meme.

        1. Jeffrey Lord started this “Neo-Confederate” nonsense a few months ago, with an equally absurd article, and made the rounds on talk radio. Tom Woods spanked his ass in return.

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YpP80_J5N8

          1. It is mind numbingly ignorant. First, the Confederates were not pro states rights they were pro slavery. They thought nothing of shitting all over states rights when it came to protecting slavery.

            Second, even at its largest under Lincoln, the Federal Government never had anything approaching the power that it has today. Our federal government would be inconceivable to anyone living in the 19th century. The idea that a modest retrenchment back towards states’ rights is some kind of a return to the confederacy is too ignorant to be worthy of a response.

            1. One word: Slavery. That’s all they have to conjur. I think there needs to be a Godwin-like rule for this.

        2. Since they’re dealing with hypotheticals, there isn’t any way to refute them because with their hypothetical comes their rules. It’s exactly like the bullshit anarchy/libertopia=somalia meme.

          Excuse me for siding with the statists here, but the ones putting rules on hypotheticals in that case are the anarchists. It’s not the statists who say “Somalia doesn’t count because it had a bad government 20 years ago”.

          1. In Somalia there are too many governments. From the break-away Somaliland in the north to the competing islamists and Officially Recognized Transitional Council (puppets of the Global Community with twice the corruption!), not to mention the gangs, tribes, and warlords who want a piece of the pie. Don’t be MNG and equate anarchy with the mess that is Somalia.

            1. In Somalia there are too many governments. From the break-away Somaliland in the north to the competing islamists and Officially Recognized Transitional Council (puppets of the Global Community with twice the corruption!), not to mention the gangs, tribes, and warlords who want a piece of the pie. Don’t be MNG and equate anarchy with the mess that is Somalia.

              I understand Tulpa’s assertion, since I too have questioned whether an “anarchical” state is simply a vacuum to be filled by the next statists. Not claiming that this is the case of Somalia, just the hypothetical of anarchy.

              What is ridiculous is the insinuation that a Ron Paul presidency would produce a pre-Civil War society. Pure absurdity.

    2. so industrialization = statism?

      1. “so industrialization = statism?”

        No, but 02 = stupid shit.

        1. “the South lost the Civil War because they weren’t statist enough…”
          _
          nipplemancer wrote that to which i replied fool

          1. Re: Double Asshole,

            nipplemancer wrote that to which i replied fool

            And nipplemancer was commenting on what Frum seemed to imply, which means you missed the point again, FOOL.

            1. no, moar precisely, nipple commented on what nipple THOUGHT frum implied. my post exposed the diff

    3. If you want to know what a Neo-Confederate political model looks like in a modern country, try to find a good public school for your kids in Mexico.

      And if you want to know what a statist paradise looks like, try to find a good public school for your kids in Baltimore.

      1. True dat.

      2. It’s so true.

      3. Mexico, last refuge of slavery.

        Wait? what

  4. But wait, if we’re maor statist, we can totally kick their asses. makes perfect sense.

  5. If David Frum hates you, you simply can’t be bad.

    1. True dat. I am not even a Paul fan and Frum hating him makes me kind of like the guy.

      1. Really? I’ve gotten the impression that you support him at leastnto some extent in the past

        1. I like him. I don’t agree with him on foreign policy. But I could live with him as President. I am just not a full fledged Paulite.

  6. The Constitution Day money bomb, extended to the end of the weekend, raked in over a million.

    1. AKA 20% of what Paul’s 24-hour moneybombs were raising in 2007.

      1. Yes, but he’s had five money bombs already, compared to two in 2007, and those didn’t start until November.

        Next money bomb is on 10/19, at Black THIS out dot com.

  7. As Manilow goes, so goes the 70’s pop loving public?

    1. HARI KARI FOR BARRY

      1. I just picked up Vol 1 of the Bloom County Library this weekend.

        1. I’ve got the first four.
          Ack! Thbbft!

    2. He’s rewriting one of his old tunes for Ron Paul: “I Right the Wrongs.”

      1. Isn’t that the Kim Jong-il version?

  8. “How would you like to be Hollywood Czar?”

  9. The FrumForum article is ridiculous (as is the website). I have a hard time seeing Hamilton as someone who supported “a strong central government to invest in infrastructure and regulation”. Sounds like something Barack Obama would support, not Hamilton.

    And what was wrong with New York funding the Erie Canal instead of the federal government? Can somebody explain that to me please?

    1. If it isn’t the fed pointing the gun at you, it’s the states. The optimal solution would have been for private investors to build the canal instead of taking from the people to benefit politically connected businesses.

      1. Sometimes I wonder if an Erie canal would have ever been a viable private party project. The company or consortium that took it on would have had to have a really long term outlook and really good with negotiations with locals (assuming they couldn’t eminent domain their way through).

        And was it really necessary for America to have a shortcut to the great lakes. Sure it was great for the great lake states, but how much industry decided to go there as opposed to…say North Carolina?

        1. It doesn’t look like it made tons of cash, but here in NJ there is the famous Morris Canal which was built privately. The business went under a few times, but it got the job done.

    2. I have a hard time seeing Hamilton as someone who supported “a strong central government to invest in infrastructure and regulation”

      Sorry, but, to a certain extent, that is true. Hamilton was a “national greatness” kind of guy.

      1. According to John Adams, Hamilton wanted to invade Spanish controlled Florida & create an empire. Adams perhaps wrongly thought that Hamilton wanted to be the American dictator. Adams was extremely worried about Hamilton being in control of newly reformed army when America was under threat of invasion by France in late 1790’s.

        1. Some reason writer once referred to Hamilton as “America’s founding statist”. I think that is pretty accurate.

  10. “I’ll give you sex for … other stuff that I can’t mention.”

  11. Caption: “Baby, we’re gonna be up five-hundy by midnight! Do you dig that, we’re goin’ to Vegas!”

  12. caption:

    “I found that if you have a goal, you might not reach it. But if you don’t have one, then you are never disappointed.”

  13. Caption: Jennifer Aniston eh? There’s someone whose baby I wouldn’t mind delivering, if you know what I mean.

  14. Is defended against Paul Krugman by the Washington Post’s Erik Wemple and Foreign Policy Journal’s Jeremy R. Hammond.

    The Krugman piece was full of falsehoods and a big case of “missing the point” when alluding to Hayek.

    Also, I have news for Krugman and the other slavists: I would rather be FREE TO DIE, than a slave to live.

    1. I gotta say though, Wemple’s rebuttal was really a disservice to RP (the “it’s just a few guys in the crowd shouting ‘yeah’ and krugman’s blowing it out of proportion)

      On the contrary, Hammond’s was very good perhaps the most thorough refutation of Krugman’s arguments, and who correctly points out that part of the problem contributing to misunderstanding and mis-characterization was Wolf Blitzer himself (not just Krugman)

      1. Re: np,

        I gotta say though, Wemple’s rebuttal was really a disservice to RP

        Well, maybe it’s just a hair-splitting exercise on your part. Wemple didn’t go all the way to mention that Paul replied with a “No!” just before the hecklers yelled “Yes!”

        The other argument from Krugman that was an obvious lie is the part where he says that Paul “evaded” the question, when he certainly did NOT. Seems like nothing short of total capitulation to the power of the State to dole out free healthcare services counts as “evading the question” for Krugman.

  15. * Making good money off of farmland and rental income in Texas.

    Good! He should be emulated.

    1. Not bad considering Texas is in a drought.

      1. Re: Atanarjuat,

        Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, took in at least $100,001 in 2010 from farmland and rental property in Lake Jackson, Texas, the report found.

        Lake Jackson is a pretty good spot to own rental and farm property. Paul is doing pretty well with that.

    2. It’s the sort of thing that will resonate with Tony-type lefties. Only Hollywood liberals can make good money without being lumped into the top hat/monocle crowd.

  16. Paul is starting to make more waves than I thought he would.
    I still am sure he can’t win, but the odds are now certainly greater than zero.
    Can you imagine the fear/horror of Krugman et al when they ponder that fact?
    Heh heh.

    1. Ron Paul is polling 13% in the latest Gallup poll, compared to 5% for Bachmann.

  17. But where’s the “Ron Paul killed his campaign manager!” link?

    You can’t leave that one out.

  18. You’ve delivered how many babies?
    Man! That’s a lot of pussy!

  19. Manilow looks good for a guy his age; does he have the same HGH doctor as Stallone?

    1. exercise, proper nutrition, healthy lifestyle, & a good DNA load.

      1. “DNA load” as in what he was born with or what he swallows?

  20. “I’ve always been self-conscious about standing with my hands in my pockets like this, because I thought it made me look like a potbellied slob.”

    “Good point.”

  21. I think of Paul as a Confederate because he doesn’t believe the Bill of Rights applies to the states. And thats why he doesn’t like Lincoln and the 14th Amendment. He wants states to be able to legislate morality. But this economic angle is interesting too.

    1. Re: Shame-less,

      I think of Paul as a Confederate because he doesn’t believe the Bill of Rights applies to the states.

      Whence do you get this?

      And thats why he doesn’t like Lincoln and the 14th Amendment.

      They’re two totally different and unrelated things, twit. Lincoln certainly was not fond of the Bill of Rights, or Habeas Corpus. Paul has given his criticisms of the 14th as it gave more power to the Federal government, but that in itself does not mean he’s a “confederate.”

  22. Actually, these reports that Barry Manilow is throwing his support behind Ron Paul is misleading. Here is a snippet of the entire statement Barry Manilow made on Capitol Hill, and below is the link:

    “He also had kind words for the president. “I love him,” Manilow said, adding that “nobody could to anything better” in his position. Though he plans to vote for Obama again, there is another 2012 presidential contender who has impressed Manilow. “I do like Ron Paul, I do,” said the singer, who has contributed to the Texas congressman in the past. “I think he says really great things.”

    Obviously, the press has run with the Paul statement while omitting what Barry Manilow said about his support for Obama. The story doesn’t end there though because Barry Manilow was on Capitol Hill regarding public funding for research for Atrial Fibrillation, which he has had for 15 years. This makes Manilow’s statement about Ron Paul ironic because he is a politician who does not support public funding for research. This is something Manilow was obviously unaware of at the time, but my bet is he will be soon.

    http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..02edac249c

  23. public funding for research

    Oh, Barry!
    You came and you took without givin’!

  24. Can David Frum be legitimately listened by anyone when the 3rd thing that comes up by googling him is “David Frum is an idiot”? Not to mention his Frum Forum “recommendations” are from Joan Walsh, Jonathan Chait and mosty bourgeois leftist-statists.

    1. “Can David Frum be legitimately listened by anyone when the 3rd thing that comes up by googling him is “David Frum is an idiot”?”

      Actually, that’s just your personal Google filter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s). “Waterloo” is the third thing that comes up when I google him. BTW, why is everyone talking as though he wrote the piece when the author is Chris Ladd, as it says at the top of the article?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.