5 Myths About Ron Paul: Nick Gillespie in the Wash Post
I've got a piece up at the Washington Post debunking "5 Myths About Ron Paul." The myths include he's not a top-tier candidate, he's a doctrinaire libertarian, his call to "end the Fed" is crazy, he's anti-military, and the kids only like him because he wants to legalize the drugs.
From the intro:
?Ron Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican presidential candidates. The 12-term Texas congressman ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket back in 1988 and was widely seen as a sideshow in 2008, despite finishing third in the GOP field behind John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Why, despite a small but devoted set of supporters, does this 76-year-old obstetrician turned politician routinely get no respect from the media and GOP operatives? Let's take a look at what "Dr. No" — a nickname grounded in his medical career and his penchant for voting against any bill increasing the size of government — really stands for.
Here's the good doctor's son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) sticking a fork in Newt Gingrich and sticking up for his father:
While one candidate in the race, my father, Rep. Ron Paul, was publicly warning about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the crisis they were helping to create, Gingrich was earning millions to not only endorse but also promote the status quo….
Gingrich is not from the tea party. He is not even a conservative.
He is part of the Washington establishment I was sent to fight. He has been wrong on many of the major issues of the day, and he has taken money from those who helped cause the housing crisis and create millions of foreclosures.
What establishment politicians like Gingrich don't understand is that the Republican Party wins when it stands up for what it believes in, as many of my new colleagues did in 2010.
We also win when we effectively run against big government. We cannot do that if we nominate a candidate who has both embraced it and been enriched by it.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Who?
That's kind of a meta-joke, given your handle.
Who? The only candidate who will end the wars:
http://in-other-news.com/2011/.....-candidate
That is the main reason the establishment hates him.
I wish this was true good sir, but the history of elections proves otherwise. Voters love being promised free shit and people who vow to "do something".
He didn't say that voters love when Team RED runs against big government. He said that they win.
And he's right.
Key word there: "effectively."
I'll see your 5 myths and raise you 6 unpleasant epilogues.
Epic Erin Brokavitch(sp? who fucking cares) takedown.
"Paul's 2009 "End the Fed" manifesto pretty much gives away the plot in the title. But the book sold well and drew respectful notices not just from folk singer Arlo Guthrie and actor Vince Vaughn, but also from the likes of media magnate and former GOP presidential candidate Steve Forbes."
Ya but did he get any celebrity sponsorship?
OT:
Found this on the internet:
Blade Runner sucked a ton of shit. People are starting to realize it now. It NEEDS to be remade, because it was actually one of the worst movies ever made.
Some people really should not be on the internet.
You are stupid for getting upset about stupid things people say on the Internet.
Team Tebow is the best quarterback of all time.
Maybe not, but I want him next to me on the barricades when the Canadians invade.
Re: rather,
So you still whore with librarians?
Dang man, the Pauls are getting feisty.
Good for them.
Yes, yes, Ron Paul inserts earmarks into bills then votes against them. That's crazy. I'm a TRUE libertarian. I take one for the team in a hollow meaningless symbolic act. I REFUSE to take a mortgage interest tax reduction because I'm philosphically opposed to that kind of subsidy.
You wouldn't happen to have a kilt would you?
I'm never against taking back money the government has forcibly separated from me.
So, if the tax rate was 100%, and there was a deduction/subsidy for food, you would starve.
Right?
While I do agree with your premise, you did pretty much set up a straw man there, as nobody with 2 brain cells to rub together would never suggest a 100% effective tax rate.
Sorry, but lack of 2 brain cells isn't enough to dismiss these actors from rhetorical or theoretical consideration.
But there are lots of people without two brain cells to rub together.
How about a 99% tax rate?
:drool:
Exactly! It's bullshit in just the way that criticizing Rand for taking medicare is bullshit.
No contradiction at all between arguing against a policy and simultaneously benefiting from it!
In fact, it probably lends your principles credibility if you are willing to vote against something your set to benefit from.
Fuck you Gillespie! You seem to want to keep libertarians OUT of office, so you can keep playing the victim of the big bad statists!
Reasons two main-backers hate Paul so I think he's contractually obliged not to like him too much.
Aight, so I keep hearing about this rift between the Kochs and Ron Paul. Can someone point me to some literature about this? Maybe 2 biased pieces one from each side?
Where did this come from? That was almost a paean to Paul.
Re: False libertarian,
But the Demorats and Republirats that vote for them are a-Ok, right?
If only deductions were optional... oh wait, you're a sock puppet so it doesn't matter.
Paul is not going to be treated as a top tier candidate by the media based on appeals to reason or notions of fair treatment. He's pretty much gonna have to muscle into that status by force, so to speak, by his supporters overwhelming the media outlets. Like, even more than they did in 2008. That seems to be happening at the moment, actually....
There's an almost-total lack of lulz in the comments over there. How disappointing.
I was thinking, "No, warty there's always lulz to be had in the comment section!", but alas, the conversation is rational and sadly lulz-free.
Lots of Paul supporters in Iowa.
Sorta like this place lately.
Nice piece. Paul is unfairly maligned. However wacky he may be on some issues, is he wackier than anyone else in this campaign? Really?
And beyond that, he seems to have something every other candidate in this election lacks: integrity. He tends to stay on his positions without being weaselly about them when they get difficult, and he seems generally honest and forthright.
Frankly, I'm saddened that we accept dishonesty and power-seeking to the extent that we do. Romney, Gingrich, Perry, and, most of all, Obama, have no place even being considered for high office. Yet here we are.
I seem to remember him flipping on abortion at some point, but I could be mistaken. Or it could've been a media hit piece written up that worked on me in a moment of weakness.
He never flip-flopped on abortion, but he has flip-flopped on the border issue. I distinctly remember him saying back in 2007 that he was in favor of a fence, which he is now against.
Total consistency on every issue is too much to expect. I even suspect he's changed his mind on issues for purely political reasons. He's just done it far less than his competition.
To be fair to all of them, it's not a sin to change ones mind. It is to deny that you did or to do it just to pander for votes.
I thought flip flops were more fundamental changes in position than one's opinion of the usefulness of a fence.
He opposes open borders and always has.
Re: DrTom,
Instead of relying on your great memory, which must be prodigious albeit something only your mom appreciates, could you provide proof of what you say? Like a linkey-link, perhaps?
He flip-flopped on Abortion in his 20s. Not exactly crazy if you consider he was pulling tiny humans out of women at the time.
Write about your dreams, Gillespie
Yeah, I was gonna comment about how that alt-text makes him a sick puppie.
I have dreams like that every night now, well into adulthood.
Re: rather,
Yes, Nick. Like rather, who dreams of nights of whoring with librarians.
Nothing about his racism, however. I guess that's because it's not a myth.
I say he is no racist. Up to you to prove he is.
What government policy or law which is predicated upon race does he support?
Racism is first and foremost a law or policy of state predicated upon race.
Preferring women who have blue or green eyes with narrow hips and lips that do not engulf the gulf of mexico to women who have brown eyes and hips the size of honduras is not racist.
Support for affirmative action, quotas and set asides is RACIST.
A presidential candidate who refuses to disclose whether he benefitted from affirmative action is one racist fuck.
Calling Obama the brown bolzhevik is not racist. Just as calling Dave Draper the blond bomber is not racist.
Believing that non-state actors can do no wrong is no more reasonable than believing that the state can do no wrong.
Yesterday you were claiming that slavery is impossible without state assistance (and were shown to be wrong since slavery predates the state) and now you claim that racism arises from the state alone?
I'll say this much for his theory, Tulpa... AA, quotas and so forth, *do* arise from the state, alone.
Or something like that. I'm kinda up-late fuzzy at the moment, so I hope it made sense.
Wow Tulpa, you sure showed that straw man who was boss!
Re: Tulpa,
Totally true. Now, please point to whoever has argued that people are perfect beings. Go on, do tell.
No? Then your argument makes no sense, it's a tautology.
By his definition, it is impossible for a private person to be racist.
This by itself doesn't justify my statement, but this is part of a pattern with l****mike.
Re: What about your lack of brains?
Maybe because there's nothing to report, nitwit.
I guess that's because you lack intelligence. If there's no evidence of something, then it would be a myth, not a non-myth.
He's a poor newsletter sponsor, not a racist.
Poor old Ron -- He'll fiercely defend their right to buy votes, but he gets no Billionaire Love.
http://www.billionairechronicl.....llionaires
Man, I guess those billionaires sure are dumb, not donating to the one guy who'll go to the mat to advance their agenda. Or maybe they know something you don't about political economy.
Or maybe it's because they know they can't count on him to carve out an extra big piece of the tax-payer pie.
...intelligent rich person would want their taxes raised?
The kind of person savvy enough to successfully lobby for some special exemption or tax break while their competition gets shafted. This is what most firms in an oligopoly do.
Billionaires know they can cozy up to the GOP politician-Du-joir for special treatment. They're not so sure about that with Paul. I'm not trying to imply all billionaires have engaged in this type of behavior to get where they are... but to some extent, I bet most of them benefit extensively from the status quo.
Billionaires get their own Chronicle!!!
First a boys club and now this!
WTF?!?!
"As someone who has written and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Ron Paul, I've got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning. As former reason intern Dan Koffler documents here, there is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping.
I don't think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn't matter--the newsletters carried his name after all--and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage."-- Nick Gillespie
Keep posting this, Max... it just proves how desperate you are.
Desperate? There's no getting around it. Why should we settle for a hateful bigot? How is that progress?
Prove the bigotry, as well.
Do I count as half a hateful bigot?
Fuckin' piker. You gotta hate Whitey with ALL your might.
Besides, you're not pure, Barack. You're tainted with Whiteyness. Someone oughta just shoot your ass dead.
Re: Imbecile,
How do you explain Obama, then? He's still there...
I think Obama is a terrible president, but I'm unaware of his bigotry. Please provide examples.
I can provide concrete examples of Ron Paul's ignorant prejudices.
Or...
You can just dismiss me due to my imperfect grammar. It doesn't matter, as many, many others will be asking Dr. Paul about the newsletters very soon. No one will be asking Obama about his non-existent racism.
so, deep down, you really truly believe ron paul is a racist
slap on a question mark with that
The newsletters show that he was an incompetent newsletter sponsor. Nothing else.
There is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping
If there is no shortage the why are you referring to it rather posting it here?
so gillespie thinks ron paul poorly managed those newsletters. what's the ground breaking skeleton closet here?
this was also before facebook and twitter and the internet, where people actually see backlashes against poorly managed writers under your name so publicly.
back then, you were supposed to experience first hand to learn care. this was paul's turn at that. again, what's ground breaking?
Is that shot about earmarks supposed to lend legitimacy to the rest of the piece?
Where are the rest of the candidates "allies" publicly scrutinizing them?
What are you thinking? :-/
"Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these 'Ron Paul' newsletters for over a decade? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon. The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago.
So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments."--Matt Welch
He addressed the issue during his 2008 run for the presidency.
I'm not saying that his explanation was (or wasn't) adequate; go back to Nexis, or Google.
*sigh*
Here, Max...
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racist
...have your mom read that to you.
He's never been the great libertarian hope. These newsletters are not a minor blemish.
These quotes from Nick and Matt only indicate that they consciences and some measure of integrity. Ron Paul is deeply flawed.
Prove HE wrote them.
Hey, Nick and Matt... tell us about they consciences.
Wow, a typo! How embarrassing.
Good arguing, though. Well done.
Ignoring your insistence upon rebutting by attacking my grammar, I'll answer your command.
There's no need to prove that he wrote them. His name is on them. Nearly anyone else of whom I can think whose name can be found upon the cover of a piece of racist literature is a racist.
I'm sure I made some new grammatical gaffe above, so please continue to ignore the simple truth that Ron Paul is terrible.
yawn.
Yawn all you like. Unless Dr. Paul can explain in a satisfying and plausible way how he allowed racist literature brandishing his name to reach the public, he'll neve come within a hundred miles of the presidency.
In my desire to see Ron Paul defeated I win however much you disregard what I'm saying, or make fun of my grammar or typos.
Ron Paul is either not on top of his shit, allowing such hateful writings to go out under his name, or he's a racist. That's it. In either instance, he's unfit for the presidency.
Whatever, Max.
Re: Imbecile,
Or a major one, for that matter.
Your sentence indicates you have a problem with the English language. To trust you on your word would be to waste my time.
I was aware of my typos after hastily hitting submit. I have to live with them. So, fair enough. Asshole.
Being disowned by one of the most awful and infuriating posters on here is no great source of shame. Please continue to disregard me. You're a piece of shit anyway.
I think it's forgivable.
It's a reasonable concern, no doubt. It should trouble anyone who hears about it, especially fellow libertarians; it reflects poorly on all of us, and they're genuinely hateful comments. It's hard to think of a context that could justify them. The Paul crowd claims that it wasn't written by him, and I have no idea if that's true, but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that he did write those things. However, looking at everything he's said before and since, it's clearly alien from his current views.
It's a single blemish on an otherwise spotless record. It's worrying and it's problematic, but it shouldn't be a deal-breaker for libertarians.
The Republican party, like the Democratic party, is a lost cause. Time for a change.
"If Paul didn't write those articles, who did? If he didn't know what had appeared in his newsletter, when did he find out and how did he deal with it? If the candidate is vague on these points, it will only fuel suspicions that he held those beliefs after all (or that he was willing to stay silent despite his disagreements because the newsletters brought in some cash)."--Jesse Walker
Do you have a point? What if he is racist? Should that stop us from electing him to implement decidedly non-racist public policy??
Would you really trust a racist to implement decidedly non-racist public policy? Have you ever considered buying vacation property in Florida?
He's pro-life and for states deciding on the legality of abortion for themselves.
What's the difference?
He doesn't believe in legislating morality. That's why he said he would have voted against Jim Crow laws.
I trust any libertarian racist not to implement racist policy before I trust any anti-war liberal not to go to war or any anti-tax republican not to raise taxes, for example.
Personal beliefs and policy are entirely separate realms.
Do you mean he said he would have voted against REPEALING Jim Crow laws? If so, you are mistaken. Paul (along with Goldwater) were only against the provisions in the CRA prohibiting PRIVATE discrimination, not repealing Jim Crow laws.
Prove the racism, Max.
FIFY, he read a blog about some newsletter for ron pual with mean stuff in it about jews or something. We can't count on his ability to tell credible sources from non-credible ones, can we?
I know, I'm just sick and fucking tired of that prick showing up here after blessed months NOT showing up here, just to spew his Team Blue rah-rah bullshit.
Christ-fags!
Externalities!
Random horseshit!
LOL!!
ARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARFARF
As many times as we've seen retarded pieces of shit like Max doing mental olympics to support his insane claims, you shouldn't let this bug you. It's a troll and this is what it does.
Cast your vote for someone, any one of the other candidates: For example, Peace-Prize Barry, who is killing brown and black Asian and African children. Good track record for race relations, eh?
Blame my racist white half for killing those Asian and African kids.
Re: Max,
No, I couldn't, which is why I did not vote for Obama.
Obama and Bush II* weren't racists, but they were terrible presidents.
I'm not convinced racism is single-issue vote-worthy. I guess it depends on what you think the president's job responsibilities are.
Also bear in mind, virtually all politicians are liars. You could elect a non-racist to find out later that he was actually racist.
* Kanye had it wrong; Bush didn't care about poor people, not black people.
I'd say Kanye is more racist than Bush was.
Perhaps. But mostly just an untalented idiot.
So Nick has an article up praising Ron Paul. How many minutes until the someone starts bitching that Reason isn't giving Dr. Paul any coverage?
It's nothing but pledge-week pandering for the KOCHTOPUS.
...if it helps Paul and hurts the $oros/Clinton/Obama War Machine and the Repub War Candidates, I'm for it. You don't have to pledge a dime.
Team Obama is not scared at all of Newt, Romney makes them a little nervous but Paul scares them to death.
thanks
Ron Paul is merely a Utopian. Getting rid of the 5 government agencies are politically impossible. Oh, on a next note, Fannie and Freddie did not cause the credit crisis. Plus, we need the federal reserve.
Libertarians are just like communists. They have ideologies that can never happen in reality.
"just like"
Fuck off.
Are you ready to enlist in the Obama/Clinton/Bush/Newt Marine Corps to fight to keep the political elite in power? Some utopian, that peace oriented Ron Paul.
Don't tell histories many successful revolutions that, bro.
Re: knowledge,
Saying that they're "politically impossible" is hardly evidence of Paul's supposed utopianism.
No, they did not cause it - they contributed to it.
What's with this "we" business, Kemosabe?
You are an idiot. You just proved it.
I hope that picture is just a parody of "Naked Obama on a Unicorn". That's what it is, right?
Ron Paul/Tim Tebow 2012
So in that scenario Paul would be the Denver Broncos underrated defense keeping the game close and doing most of the work while Tebow would be Tebow, not getting it done until the last possible moment.
And by that I mean the night before the election he gives a speech like the one he gave at Florida while God plays this music from the heavens.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEUXKiOm0Ps
When three knees essentially win you the game, and you don't win the game, somebody has screwed up royally.
Tebow was not going to get the Broncos in field goal range from his own 15 with 15 seconds on the clock and no time outs. An early christmas gift for the Broncos.
Liberty Helga has man hands...
Since Rothbard passed there are only 2 libertarians left in the world. Ron Paul is the other one. Maybe he's not a doctrinaire cosmosexual, but he's all libertarian, baby.
Re: Imbecile,
But you have no equal, sir. You're uniquely a turd.
You are just mad because the leader of the last 2 true libertarians is a white conservative family man who does not spend time in D.C. area bars snorting cocaine off the genitals of homosexual prostitutes at the cosmotarian parties. We stand with the true libertarian patriots, guns loaded, waiting for the savages.
Life is so lonely .I am a rich and single man at present .I need a woman who can love me back . I also uploaded my hot photos on w W w.successfulmingle.C//o//m under the name of james1098, CERTIFIED INCOME)..It's the largest and best club for seeking CEOs, pro athletes, doctors, lawyers, investors, entrepreneurs, beauty queens, fitness models, and Hollywood celebrities.Please Check it out!I'm serious.
good
==== http://www.sipostyle.com ====
Online Store,Get Name Brand Fashion From 12USD Now!
Lv,Gucci,Prada,Coach,Chanel sunglasses is $9.88
DG,JUICY,Lv,Gucci,Coach Hand-bag price is $30
Polo,Locaste,Levis,EdHardy,Bape,Christan Audigier AF,COOGI Tshirt price is $12
Kid t-shirt $9
Jeans price is $29.68
==== http://www.sipostyle.com ====
Good article Nick. Some Paul supporters might get angry at the second myth, but Ron Paul isn't above criticism. I'm just glad the Reason & Cato crowd is putting that "imperfect messenger" stuff aside and joining the effort. There is no perfect messenger for libertarianism. But Ron Paul, more than anyone else, for making libertarian ideas mainstream, and we can all appreciate that.
look i don't care whether gillespie is being 'fair and balanced', it doesn't seem like some people understand that this is essentially a war with allies on one side, foes on the other.
we are in the middle of a political campaign. whatever that is said must be said to the campaign's advantage.. you don't seem to get that this is something that has to be won.
is it really such a coincidence that LP has failed to produce anything to speak of over the years. i hesitate to get under the GJ banner under such callous attitude. i have better things to do than half-assing political efforts. so do ron paul's other countless grassroots.
actually listening to the full interview right now. i was perhaps ticked off by recent news of libertarian party candidate bob barr endorsing newt gingrich for president, mounting that up with the past incident with katherine mangu's backstabbing. 10 mins into the interview of nick with NPR and nick seems to be doing a decent job.
my comment about casualness of some libertarians still stands there. in doubt, just scroll up and read the comments.