Ron Paul Morning Roundup
Some Ron Paul tidbits to start off your week (amended to eliminate some repetition from past Hit and Running):
*A great complilation of ABC News clips of late showing that Ron Paul's Iowa ground game is primo and leading:
*Who understoood ahead of time what was going on with Fannie and Freddie and the housing bubble better: Newt Gingrich or Ron Paul?
*For those who only want the good parts of the weekend debate, The Debate Tape of Only Ron Paul:
*Dan Balz in the Washington Post, after the usual face-saving blah de blah about of course he can't actually win the nomination and ridiculous editorializing that speaking important truths that no other candidate will about drug legalization is "embarassing," says some interesting things:
on fiscal and economic issues, the tea-party-infused Republican Party has moved in his direction. His advisers say his views on debt, deficits and the destruction of the dollar are shared by the overwhelming percentage of people who call themselves Republicans. The other candidates have joined him this time around in his attacks on the Federal Reserve and its chairman, Ben Bernanke.
The Texas congressman is making himself a force to be reckoned with, particularly in this state. Ask Iowa Republicans which campaigns are well organized for the Jan. 3 caucuses, and there is widespread agreement that Paul may have the best operation going….
In the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll of Iowa Republicans, Paul was at 18 percent among the likeliest caucus attendees, tied with Romney and trailing Gingrich, who was at 33 percent. But his supporters appear to be more committed than either Romney's or Gingrich's. He may have a lower ceiling in terms of his potential support, but committed followers count for a lot when it comes to getting people out on a cold winter night.
Gingrich is leading among tea party supporters, but Paul is roughly tied with Romney for second among them. Among voters 39 and younger, he is the leader. He leads on the question of which candidate is the most honest….In a campaign of surprises, count Ron Paul as one of them.
Only a big surprise if you are part of a media and political world dedicated to ignoring and discounting Ron Paul prejudicially for years, but since that's a pretty big world, I'll give Balz that one.
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
Now a new question arises. When will they stop asking the same question for the millionth time about 3rd party, and when will they ask the same question of others?
None of the others have left the GOP to run third party before, so it’s a legit question, if a tad dead-horse-beating.
I dont remember anyone asking it of Phil Gramm in the runup to the 1996 primaries.
And he wasnt in the lead pack, so was in a better position to run 3rd party.
Someone was already running 3rd party in 1996.
And 4th party. I voted for him.
Someone is already running 3rd party in 2012.
Here’s a good question (seriously)to ask the Republican candidates: If Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination, would you consider a third party run?
Excellent.
Don’t worry, Giuliani is warming up in the bullpen for Team NeoCon if Ron Paul wins the Republican nomination.
That’d be interesting. Giuliani has already shown his independence of party, so he doesn’t have much to lose in terms of displaing disloyalty to the GOP. He wouldn’t be especially attractive to those parts of the neocon coalition who are traditionalists as well, but it remains to be seen how important they are. Even with Obama’s hx in office, there may well be room there in terms of perception to squeeze between him and Ron Paul in terms of attractiveness to those voters who are primarily motivated by having a bellicose USA, or at least a USA not tied to Ron Paul’s view of Islamic extremists vis-a-vis the alliance against them, which he pretty much transposed from Murray Rothbard’s view on the Cold War, i.e. blame the USA first.
And unfortunately I think he’d have a chance of beating both Obama and Paul.
Ron Paul would clinch the primary instantaneously if he were to give a press conference and reverse his stance on US Imperialism and committing himself to not only continuing the war in Afghanistan, but returning troops to Iraq and starting a ground war in Iran.
Conservatives would squirt hot juice all over themselves.
Alas, it won’t happen. Stupid integrity and principles.
No, it would hurt him. He would immediately lose his entire base, who support him because of his principles.
I thought polls showed most Americans favored getting out of Afghanistan?
Ron Paul’s problem is what it has always been: He can’t coherently verbalize his views.
Huh. Ive never had a problem understanding him. He verbalizes it just fine.
That’s because you’ve been marinating in libertarian philosophy for decades.
I was introduced to it by the Ron Paul 1988 campaign.
So, pre-marination, I understood him just fine.
Actually, I would argue that all Americans have been marinating in libertarian philosophy for 235+ years.
Well, since about FDR, I would say that most Americans have been urinating on libertarian philosophy.
Don’t you know libertarianism was invented by Ayn Rand and the Koch brothers?
A majority of American is not the same thing as a majority of GOP primary voters Bam.
He can’t coherently verbalize his views in 30 second soundbites.
ftfy.
It’s dawning on them that a third party Ron Paul means an Obama re-elect. We will see Paul treated with nothing but growing respect from here on in.
I wouldn’t count on that Tim, republicans aren’t that bright. They are just as likely to treat him with scorn for daring to even think about betraying the GOP.
“Them” as in Democrats.
I understood right away what you meant, Tim.
Yeah, I’m curious to see how this plays out. To see if the Media suddenly showers praise on Paul in an attempt to derail the GOP “front runner”.
Which, at this point, anything which derails Romney is a good thing.
The GOP, unlike everything in an Obama economy, isn’t too big to fail. If Paul shows well and ends up gutting the GOP until 2016, it wouldn’t be a bad thing.
Actually, I think they’re continually bringing up his “possible” third-party run in order to taint him as a traitor. Despite the fact that he’s in the leading pack of candidates, has denied any interest in jumping ship, and has been a Republican congressman for quite some time.
Of course, any one of them could do this, not just Paul. Ask John Anderson.
Ask John Huntsman.
Is he planning an independent run?
He isn’t ruling it out. Prominent RINO Christine Todd Whitman is making noise about drafting him too.
http://www.google.com/webhp?hl…..80&bih=608
Huntsman just ruled an independent or third party run: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/h…..d.html.csp
Paul is more Republican then the rest of them
What do you mean by that? It’s just the name of a political party. Are you saying his ideas are closer to those of the avg. Republican than are those of their prominent presidential candidates?
Wait wait wait. Gingrich is leading among Tea Party supporters? What the fuck is going on in the world? I guess “Tea Party” is now just another term for Republicans who want to sound different.
Everybody remembers Gingrich as the guy who stood up to Clinton and lost. They don’t remember the details as to why.
Put on rose colored glasses and even the flies look pretty.
Yup. Them Tea Partiers haz principles.
What do you expect? They formed only after Bush left office. Subjective outrage. If a Republican wins the election, they will quietly disband. Sort of like liberals who are no longer outraged by War Cubed and the Patriot Act.
2007 was after Bush left office?
Oh no no no no…that was the Ron Paul Tea Party (TM) and has nothing to with the modern Tea Party, who are the real super duper patriots, decrying big government (under a Dem administration) and loss of liberty (under a Dem administration). Oh, and the modern Tea Party did not spring from the loins of the 2007 Tea Party. Nope. Not at all. The GOP didn’t co-opt that idea.
Really though, I do consider the 2007 Tea Party to be comprised mainly of Ron Paul supporters, who are not your average conservative. The modern Tea Party are conservatives who are angry at the Democrats for doing many of the things Bush did. I see little difference between them and liberals who protested the war(s) and other Bush hijinx but who are largely silent now.
Selective memory, or just ignorant of the facts? You decide.
In PaulR’s defense, a lot of people joined only after Bush left office.
There is nothing to join.
There isnt REALLY any Tea Party organization, its a concept.
They formed only after Bush left office. Subjective outrage. If a Republican wins the election, they will quietly disband. Sort of like liberals who are no longer outraged by War Cubed and the Patriot Act.
Very well said. Do liberals even remember the PATRIOT act?
Why isn’t Michael Moore doing his little street theater reading sections of the PATRIOT act out loud? Because now it’s Obama’s PATRIOT act.
Liberals are antiwar if it’s a Republican in office.
See if Republicans do it, it’s evil war mongering. If democrats do it, it’s humanitarian intervention
We will see if polls and actual votes are the same.
Wait wait wait. Gingrich is leading among Tea Party supporters?
My initial mild enthusiasm for the TPers has largely evaporated.
Maybe, maybe, as the true depth of the fiscal crisis becomes completely undeniable, they will realize they can’t have their precious military stationed all over the freakin’ planet and will move toward a “Bring the boys home” (err, and cut the budget) position.
But until then, they are stuck on “Don’t cut Medicare, SocSec, or the military, but balance the budget anyway! Woot!” and are thus part of the problem.
Keep in mind it’s “self identified” Tea Partiers.
Exactly. If you define TPers as, for example (in the most restrictive sense), people who donated to the Ron Paul Tea Party moneybomb, then you would get a different outcome.
The real answer is somewhere in between those two extremes.
I’m surprised he hasn’t gotten more heat from the TP over endorsing the opponent of TP favorite Doug Hoffman, in an election where the candidate Gingrich endorsed eventually endorsed the Democrat who won the seat.
Would seem like the sort of thing that might stick one’s memory. Stuck in mine and I’m no TPer.
“…and when will they ask the same question of others?”
Welcome to the Fox News Republican Debate.
Commentator: First for Congressman Ron Paul; is your candidacy a joke? Are you seriously running? Also, why do you hate America?
Ron Paul: Eh, well, I…
Commentator: Thank you. The next question is for Joe Smith, who announced his candidacy an hour ago in the parking lot of the local Piggly Wiggly.
First of all, I would like to warmly welcome you to tonight’s debate Mr. Smith. We are heartened to see citizens such are yourself dispel the myth of the election process as some sort of a political monopoly run by the media. So, first question: What is it about America you love so much, and second, how did Reagan influence your life? You have the next hour to answer the question. I love you, Joe.
That was awesome.
I predict that if Paul wins Iowa an attempt will be made on his life. There are a lot of powerful people benefiting from the status quo, and politics is an ugly business.
No, the NYT will simply run the newsletters. Game over.
I forgot about that. Everyone has their hole card, I guess.
But if there was a way to go BACK in time to stop those newsletters from being written…we could save America….Marty! Fuel up the Delorean! We’re going to visit Lew Rockwell!
I don’t think they’re any silver bullet, anyway. If Paul were a racist, wouldn’t there be other signs? Or is merely being a libertarian prima facie evidence of his racism?
yes
You’re vastly overestimating the sophistication of our electoral system. If someone comes up with a newsletter with your name on it that calls MLK a gay pedophile and warns readers that black muggers are exceptionally fleet-footed, you’re a racist.
The idea that Jimmy the Greek was a racist because he said blacks were more athletic doesn’t stand up to the slightest analysis. Neither does the idea that Trent Lott favored segregation because he made a throwaway compliment speaking at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party. It doesn’t matter.
This brings up one of my big disappointments: the cover-up of who authored the newsletters. Had they been transparent in 2008, the Paul campaign would be in a better place, and I wouldn’t have the doubts about executive ability that will prevent me from pulling a lever for the man.
As I wrote at the time:
The big question is, who wrote these letters?
No, who gives a fuck? The big question is, did RP write them.
While it is clear to me that Ron Paul did not write these newsletters, someone close to him did. The writing style is completely different from that of Ron Paul. Moreover, it is clear to me that the author views himself to be in the midst of an apocalyptic culture war. Based on Ron Paul’s easygoing reaction to support from with strippers and marijuana growers, it is clear to me that Ron Paul does not share this view.
Huh, already answered.
It matters because while RP may not have written them, he’s protecting someone who did. And that is somewhat distrubing.
Not as disturbing as the stuff in the other candidates’ rap sheets, but disturbing nonetheless.
Who ghostwrote the newsletters has the same relevancy to the presidency as Newt’s affairs: none at all.
It was Lew. Worse kept secret ever.
Yeah and it does sort of speak well of Paul to not throw Lew under the bus. I mean he is a friend and loyal supporter.
I’m sure Lew wishes he hadn’t done it either, but in a crass and stupid ploy to try and siphon off some support from the far-right he “went there.” He’s more or less admitted as such.
The newsletters are a problem, but at this point everyone running has a tremendous amount of baggage. I think it’s survivable.
http://teapartiers.blogspot.co…..-paul.html
What if Rand Paul wrote them?
So which other candidate’s executive ability inspires you to pull the lever for them?
None, tulpy.
As usual, I will probably write in “None of the Above” on my ballot.
Let’s see. Bathroom cleaner A has been shown to cause cancer, B is known to produce birth defects, and C leaves a nasty smell behind for 30 minutes after using it.
I don’t like any of these options, so I’ll just ask the guy stocking shelves to pick one for me. Then when something bad happens, I can say “don’t blame me! I didn’t choose the bathroom cleaner!”
No, the mafia asks everyone in the neighborhood which capo they want extracting protection money from them.
I say “none”.
Can I stop the mafia? Nope.
But that does not mean I have to legitimize them.
The mafia gives those in the neighborhood from whom they extract protection money a multiple choice list of gangsters from which they can choose who will be the mafia’s new leader.
Thus government is born.
No, the mafia asks everyone in the neighborhood which capo they want extracting protection money from them.
The dynamics of that analogy are so utterly different from voting that it’s essentially useless here. I know you ancaps like to equivalence government and mafia* but
1. The mafia never takes votes like this in practice;
2. If they did, there’s no reason to believe that the outcome would be respected by the losers;
3. If it were, you’d be subject to retaliation if you didn’t vote for the winner.
But if we ignore all these significant differences, then hell yeah I’d select the least bad capo. You massively overestimate your own importance if you think the people in power depend on you for “legitimacy”.
* which is odd because the mafia would continue to exist in an anarcho-capitalist society… so if mafia=govt then it’s not really anarchy at all, is it?
Re: Tulpa,
Why do you think nobody has made more of this story besides Pajamas Media and Reason in 2008?
I’ll tell you why: Because there’s no story. Out of thousands of essays, you find a couple with SOME sentences that can be regarded as offensive. That’s it. There’s NO story there.
Right now the right-wing establishment is DEADLY AFFRAID of Ron Paul. It would be SO EASY to “leak” this story yet again to discredit him, yet they haven’t – why do you think that is? Because they’re stupid?
The answer is that the only people STUPID ENOUGH to write about this issue back in 2008 were those in Reason. It was clearly a non story, a bona fide smear campaign, and they fell for it like suckers.
Why do you think nobody has made more of this story besides Pajamas Media and Reason in 2008?
Because Ron Paul was a fringe figure who posed absolutely no threat to the established order.
Absolutely right. If you are a non-liberal politician, all it takes is the mere hint of racism. Especially if you are an old white guy running against America’s first black President.
It’s a no brainer. People who think that this will not completely derail Ron Paul (if he won the primary…the left has no need of the newsletters till then) haven’t been keeping up with that whole aborted chimera of politics and media. Unless Ron Paul can prove that he just didn’t write them, but also did not approve their publication, that is.
Of course, the letters will probably never see the light of NPR/NYT because the GOP will never allow Ron Paul to win the primary due to his other scandal- his anti-Imperialism scandal.
More and more I think it was Murray Rothbard.
I saw an AP profile of Paul that mentioned the newsletters prominently, but in the context of a bump in the road in his political past. I was actually pleasantly surprised.
If it was Rothbard, I see no problem at all with Paul keeping quiet. The dead cant defend themselves.
I assume you’ll stop picking on Oliver Wendell Holmes, FDR, and Wilson then.
Yes. But not their ideas.
The content of the newsletters can be countered (and should be) and Paul’s entire career has done that.
For example, when I call Hamilton “America’s Founding Statist” I am critiqueing his ideas, not him as a person.
It’s not only about the ideas!
The question is how did these ideas get published under Ron Paul’s name?
Absent a definitive answer, we must all guess, and the likely guess – that he hired someone whom he didn’t supervise who was writing stuff he didn’t agree with – is not to Paul’s credit.
It’s quite likely that Paul’s inner circle contains people who are unbalanced or corruptible. If he lacks the fortitude/ability to fire such people he has no business being president. Period.
Paul is corruptible. Assuming otherwise is insanity. THERE ARE NO RIGHT PEOPLE TO PUT IN CHARGE EVEN IF THEY ARE OUR PEOPLE.
Hopefully he is slightly less so than the typical fuckers.
If he lacks the fortitude/ability to fire such people he has no business being president. Period.
Is Romney’s inner circle “Morman pure” or something?
Dude, I live in MA. From personal experience I can tell you that anyone who votes for Romney is voting to continue having the government loot the middle class for the benefit of the politically connected.
Re: Tarran,
Wouldn’t be the first time some person misrepresented his views to an employer or a client in order to get something in return. It will certainly not be the last time, T.
What I find interesting is that you single out Paul and put him to task for something that many people have experienced, which is to be bamboozled by someone. Your keeness is over the top, melodramatic and obnoxious – I wonder what motivates you.
Re: Tarran,
And of course you have ALL of Rothbard’s output to arrive at that conclusion. Am I right?
No, but being a Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist, I have read much of his work, and there are numerous parallels in the writing style.
It could be, as Wendy McElroy implies and Eric Dondero accuses, Lew Rockwell who penned them, but Lew’s prose isn’t purple enough for me to accept the accusation.
Re: Tarran,
Oh, you’ve got to be joking! So now you can deconstruct Rothbard?
Please, spare me. I’ve read many of his essays and found nothing that would suggest to me that he wrote the FOUR SENTENCES – count them: 4 – for which all this hoopla was generated.
Oh, something else, T: Being against prohibiting discrimination is NOT ipso facto being racist. Just an FYI.
I guess you didin’t notice that Rothbard salted an article on the birth of the Welfare State in the U.S. with salacious allegations that many of the leading women in the movement were having lesbian affairs.
And we have Rather’s favorite essay, the purple prose that permeates Rothbard’s essay on Right Wing Populism.
Given Rothbard’s various attempts to forge alliances that would create a pro-liberty revolution within the U.S., his love of trenchant, and even hyperbolic prose, and his consistent inclusion of cultural issues when discussing politics, I think it very likely that he was the author.
Certainly, I don’t think Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul are keeping mum to protect a nobody.
If you read a lot of Rothbard’s 80s and early 90s grouchy paleo-con stuff (you can find examples in “Making Economic Sense”) the newsletters do read a bit like that. It’s not definitive but of the “likely suspects” the style most closely resembles Rothbard’s.
Someone’s got to go under the bus. I vote for Lew.
Newsletters are so 1996. yawm.
Go out on the street and do a random poll asking whether people have heard of the Ron Paul newsletters. If you get 5% who’ve heard of them I’d be floored.
If you get 5% who’ve heard of Ron Paul I’d be floored.
LOL. “You mean that black cross dresser?”
Sadly I bet more people have heard of Ru Paul than Ron Paul.
Paul/Paul 2012!
Ron Paul is too fleet footed to be caught by the same controversy twice.
His line should be, “Voters eventually forgave Ted Kennedy for killing that girl at Chappaquiddick, so I hope they will forgive me for my ghost-written newsletters of 25 years ago.”
That’d be attacked as pandering to Team Blue.
And if Ted Kennedy had ever won the nomination for the presidency, that would make sense.
Murder only applies to presidency, not the Senate?
Ted Kennedy:Senate :: Ron Paul:House
He was a state track champion in high school, in the 220-yard dash.
sage|12.12.11 @ 9:29AM
I predict…
Two words: Maya calendar.
The Mayan-language experts have just re-deciphered the last glyphs on the calendar. They say “Supplies are limited, so order your calendar for the next baktun today!”
More than likely at this time they’re placing a lot of moles inside the Paul campaign to say something stupid and racist when the time comes.
They will uncover his campaign contributions from the Communazi Neo-marxifascist Party
Yeah, I saw that bit about how advocating drug legalization is “embarrassing”.
The funny thing to me is that although large numbers of Americans favor some kind of abortion restrictions, holding an extreme pro-life position – no abortions even to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest – is actually pretty dramatically a minority position that polls under 25%. But multiple candidates can hold that minority position and have it not be “embarrassing”.
So exactly how deep in the minority does your position have to be before you should be embarrassed, if the issue isn’t the property and contract rights of people who want to use drugs?
Well, it is embarrassing to the establishment, in the way being told your fly is open midway through a presentation to your stockholders is embarrassing.
Who thinks abortion should be prohibited even to save the life of the mother?
None of the candidates. Far less than 5% of the voters I’d wager.
Bachmann might.
And Santorum without a doubt.
It’s “embarrassing” mostly because it’s thought to be frivolous, associated with hedonism, and hence not worthy of “concerned citizens”.
50 years ago, when marijuana was much less well known and popular, legalizing narcotics was a much more “respectable” position, because the idea was that “addiction” was the problem, and the advocate of legaliz’n would automatically have been understood as advocating some kind of medical maintenance of “addicts”, because practically nobody else would want to use narcotics other than for pain rx.
Now the unfortunate fact is that people associate drugs with Cheech y Chong, and so don’t think of it as a serious issue. They might not be strongly against legaliz’n, but they think it unseemly for civic leaders to devote any effort to the matter.
Ron Paul has some baggage that the mainstream media consistently ignore:
“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
“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
It’s the year 2011: trumped up, badly-supported accusations of racism are now mostly treated as a joke and tend to boomerang on whomever’s making the accusation.
Badly supported? There is a truckload of newsletters under Ron Paul name that are filled with racist diatribes. How could charges of racism be any better supported, you dimwitted fuck?
See, we’re already laughing at you.
In November Max wrote:
Ergo, Max is a racist.
Re: Max,
You’re a liar, Max. Not even a competent one at that.
He’s also a “libertarian” which is hidden language meaning “Greed Worshipping KochBrothers Buttbuddy psycho”
Max is a douche but you’re fooling yourself if you discount the potential damage from those newsletters.
But Paul didn’t write them.
Doesn’t matter. He gave permission to use his name, collected the royalties, and (best case scenario) didn’t check up on what they were writing.
Re: Tulpa,
It does matter, Tulpa. If someone had published an offensive, racist piece in Isaac Asimov’s magazine, would that make Asimov a racist?
You’ve been trying just too hard to shoehorn an invalid argument. Why is that?
Many people give permission to use their name. The Tebow Perfume Collection would not make Tebow an expert on smells.
Give it up, T. Just give it up – you are really looking foolish.
I’m with Tulpa (ouch) on this one.
If Asimov’s mag ran a racist story, you’d better believe that Asimov would have something to answer for.
And in any case, logic has nothing to do with elections.
Good. Now if you could just understand that opposition to RLCs is also racist.
Re: Tulpa,
Red light cameras — inside joke, OM.
Re: Citizen Nothing,
Really? And to whom, C? His loyal readers?
Which explains why Harry reid, who made a bona fide racist remark HIMSELF, on TV, is still majority leader of the Senate. Now tell me that a few utterences made 20 years ago by someone NOT Paul would matter?
Like I told Tulpa above, the media could have a field day with this as the right-wing establishment is deadly affraid of Paul, yet they haven’t. There’s a good reason for it, one being that they are not as stupid as the Reason gang.
In an alternate universe (of course), Asimov’s Science Fiction runs racist stories, then Isaac Asimov decides to run for president.
(And Asimov threatens to upset the status quo favored by both parties if elected.)
So the alternative-universe media isn’t going to make hay with the “racist” angle?
Actually, OM, perhaps it’s you who are living in an alternative universe.
Re: Citizen Nothing,
This is irrelevant, C. The argument you and Tulpa are making is that Paul is totally resposible for the content of the newsletters by SOLE VIRTUE of lending his name to them.
This argument should stand by its merit REGARDLESS of the fact that Paul is running for president. Either a thing IS, or it is NOT. Either Paul is responsible for the content, making him also an alleged racist, or he is NOT.
Apparently you don’t understand my position, OM. I agree with you about the merits of your argument. But the media won’t give a rat’s ass about the merits of your argument. And the voting public won’t have the patience, and perhaps the intelligence, to appreciate the logic of your argument.
Re: Citizen Nothing,
You’ve been missing my exchange with Tulpa. If the MSM really felt it had something good with which to smear and destroy Paul, they would’ve run with it already, especially NOW that Paul is within the top three in the polls – he is scaring the shit out of the GOP Establishment. So why haven’t they?
Maybe because they already know that there’s nothing there. A few comments, made by someone in an old newsletter of limited circulation that simply bore Paul’s name? It’s ridiculous. It is why the New Republic tasked their least able and youngest “journalist” to write the article, maybe to let him have something to do. Maybe his daddy gave him the job – who the fuck knows?
Besides, I don’t buy this “people will know, Paul is gone” shit as argument to keep revisiting this. I don’t buy it. People who have repeated this ad nauseam simply do not like Paul. Let’s be honest about it, and move on.
I hope you’re right, OM. But I wouldn’t bet on it.
For the same reason McCain didn’t turn into an Murderous Nazi until he won the primary. The MSM is only concerned about those candidates who pose a real threat. Right now Ron Paul is not a threat- he’s also the black sheep of the GOP and amuses the MSM. But just wait and watch.
Re: Arf,
http://takimag.com/article/why…..z1gKzHmYRm
So, you shouldn’t mention that it’s impossible to travel faster than the speed of light unless you’ve read Einstein’s paper on special relativity and reviewed all the experimental data related to that particular hypothesis.
If Kirchik’s claims are wrong, you’re free to point out how they are wrong. If you think the quotes are merely out of context, point to the context that makes them not racist. Until you do that, you’re just saying “neener neener not listening”.
Re: Tulpa,
I already pointed out to an article that does exactly that, T. With link and all. What the hell is wrong with you?
No, you pointed to an article that says cosmotarians are bad/cosmotarians didn’t read the newsletters for themselves. It don’t address Kirchik’s claims at all.
It boggles my mind that anyone who claims to be a Tea Partier could support Newt Gingrich. He’s the *least* amenable to the TP ideals of all the candidates still standing.
I’ll grant that Romney is pretty far afield too, but at least he’s done something in the private sector.
Yeah, and John McCain got the most votes from anti-war republicans (in New Hampshire I think) last time around. Sorry to say it, but most voters are woefully uninformed.
Gingrich is leading among tea party supporters
What further evidence does one need that there is no such thing as a tea PARTY with a coherent, consistent low-tax small-government philosophy?
Gingrich leading among Tea Partiers is almost as bad as Obama leading among OWSers.
Why do the mainstream media give Ron Paul a pass on those horrible newsletters? I suppose they would come up if he were a serious candidate. Being marginal has its advantages, especially if you have a lot of disgusting shit to hide.
Dude, are you still crying in your beer about John Edwards?
Let it go man!
Life is too short to stew like that. Go meet a girl, take a cooking class or learn how to mimic a robot by solving complex differential equations.
those horrible newsletters
Oh, day not so bad.
Max? Meet a girl? Other than his mom?
Re: Max,
Have you read them all?
No? I thought so.
Plus he is an Ayn Randian Friedman worshipping psycho
Before we tar and feather the Tea Party folks for supporting Gingrich, remember that this is the Washington Post making this statement. I wouldn’t assume it’s actually true.
I take it all back. Paul is electable!
Am I forgiven, Paultards?*
*Oops
I predict that if Paul wins Iowa an attempt will be made on his life.
I predict Newt will blow his brains out on live teevee, rather than gracefully concede to Paul, but I could be wrong.
I also suspect he will be assassinated should he ever win. The amount of money tied up in war and welfare machines is so great, that people would be willing to start WW3 to preserve it.
Gary Johnson as VP.
On a related note, I was scared post-game, when I realized we were one idiot dodging security from a Boehner presidency on saturday.
If they get RP why can’t they do GJ immediately afterward?
I was scared post-game, when I realized we were one idiot dodging security from a Boehner presidency on saturday.
A Boehner presidency would be 10x better than what we have now. Not that I support non-electoral methods of regime change, but I wouldn’t be unhappy about such a thing if it happened.
To be honest, at the time I was thinking it would have been a Pelosi presidency, but I was drinking.
Boehner 10x better? I doubt that. Marginally better? Maybe.
I am disabled with a back injury and bedridden most of the time but make no mistake about it, I will wheel myself the 7.6mi. to the nearest voting booth if need be 4 Ron Paul.
Need a lift?
Thanks, Mr. Speaker!
Absentee ballot. Check it out.
Yes, but then that’s hardly heroic, is it?
I am disabled with a back injury and I’m going to hand the post-man a letter that contains a ballot for Ron Paul just doesn’t sound as cool.
Indeed, but I was assuming this is an honest person who simply wants to find a way to vote for RP, rather than an attention whore.
The great thing is, we just don’t know! Anything goes!
1. Assume good faith until proven otherwise
2. Weight everyone’s argument/opinion on the merits, not unprovable claims about their personal life
Agree with the first half of #2.
Regarding #1, faith is for suckers.
Also, with Tulpa, rule #1 is observed more frequently in the breach than the observance. 😉
The big question is, who wrote these letters?
Unlike “Where are Obama’s birth certificate, transcripts, and medical records?”
Now if Cain had only waited until his wife had terminal cancer to cheat on her he would have been forgiven.
Only if he had served her divorce papers while she was recovering in the hospital.
John Edwards was forgiven?
Largely, yes.
Then again, everyone knew Edwards was a douchebag to start with.
I find the concept of recovering from terminal cancer interesting too.
Having terminal cancer and being diagnosed with terminal cancer are not always co-incident.
I know. My whole comment thread there was sarcasm (based on the fact that the Newt-divorcing-his-terminal-wife-while-she-was-in-the-hospital story is bullshit and that she is alive and well)
Walter Block still annoyed when libertarians don’t support the Paul campaign.
http://lewrockwell.com/block/block188.html
Jesus.
So you can’t oppose Republican Ron Paul and still be a libertarian.
They should just rename lewrockwell.com Paultards Gone Wild! and be done with it.
Actually, Ron Paul 2012 is straying pretty far from the Libertarian Party. In 2008, Ron Paul said in a debate that he would end the income tax “immediately”. Now he’s saying he’ll just cut spending by a trillion his first year, cut a few taxes, and balance the budget by his third year in office.
The funny thing is, in 2008 we could have eliminated the income tax, and kept the deficit about where it is now, if spending had been held constant.
Rockwell and Paul are the only true libertarians left on earth, and one of them wrote those delightful libertarian newsletters.
Tea Party is based on: abolish IRS and replace with nothing, no Bank Bailouts, end Undeclared War, no Socialized medicine, wind down welfare, and return to Limited Constitution. in other words: NOT Newt. WTF with his “Tea Party” support? Anyone supporting Newt is by definition NOT Tea Party.
The problem is a large contingent of teapartiers don’t agree with Paul’s foreign policy. That’s why they are supporting Newt.
Re: Colin,
^^ THIS ^^
Unfortunately, the fact is that most tea partiers are nationalistic chauvinists who find a sense of mystical personal fulfillment in knowing that America can kill brown people with impunity.
RE: OM
…which echoes what I’ve been saying all along. There is no practical difference between the Tea Party and the rest of Team Red.
You mean…it is possible to hold certain libertarian ideas and not be fire-breathing, doctrinaire Libertarian?!
Just to be clear, the above was not written by frequent commenter John, who is suspiciously quiet this morning.
… as is MNG.
Hmmmm.
How bad are you going to feel if MNG died last week and you’re carrying on like this.
Am I upsetting you tulpy? Is your mellow getting harshed? YOur Wa upended?
Do you need a few minutes on another thread to reequilibriate?
If you think I’m so desperate that I’ll respond to anything you respond to me with, you’re wrong.
This would make a nice regular feature until after the elections.
If we had a French system, Paul would almost certainly be nominated for prime minister, just as the first Bush would’ve creamed Clinton if had been running for a French-style presidency.
Alas . . .
Not to get off topic but… Diane Sawyer sounds like she drank a little too much cough medicine.
Ron Paul’s best debate of the year, with a lot of Iowa voters watching…
Next moneybomb this Friday, 12/16. Donate at RonPaul2012.com
Everything about Ginch screams central planning and “ideas from on high.”. The tea party are dumber than OWS. I could understand TP’ers gathering behind Santorum or Bach, but the man who praised the political economy of Ireland in 2008?…the dude who flips more than he flops?…the flaccid slob who takes 1.6 mil. from the very vehicle of collapse (freddie mac) and tells OWS to take a shower and get jobs?
Ginch will go wherever the polls tell him to go. Notice how often he invokes the name Reagan-that’s about as daring as decrying hitler or terrorism.
I wish he’d invoke Reagan’s response to the bombing of the Marines in Lebanon – get the hell out, the area’s a tarpit that can only trap the U.S.
These comments are absolutely brilliant and entertaining. Great to see all the sides from you all.
My take is that Paul supports Israel, is not racist, will do better for the country than any other candidate up for election right now, would soar far past Obama if you all would quit bickering about him, and please, for the love of God
someone shoot me in the head if the majority of America really thinks Greengrinch is worth Four Christmases.
This whole 3rd party question is so rediculous at this point. They never EVER ask if he would join the republican ticket as vice president or commit to being appointed Fed Chairman.
No. Simply ignore for the most part and try to get Ron Paul to sign his own toe-tag before we’ve even had a primary. And, above all, don’t speak about the thousands of supporters who’s votes and voices are snuffed out, and ignore reporting on the tea party leaders in Iowa who have endorsed dr. Paul.
When you live beside the tracks you hardly notice the trains.Go ahead,bring on the newsletters.The race card is so played-out that people won’t bat an eye and will see it for what it is,an act of desperation.
Oh yeah thats what I am talking about dude. Wow.
http://www.WebPrivacy.tk
i cant believe that george stephenopalus still has a job he is such a D-bag.
I have to imagine the campaign staff and Paul have a detailed plan for the newsletter thing. I think if they stick to one story and run with it, they could survive that shitstorm.
Some of the offensive sentences look better with context, as well. Like the one about “terrorists being identified by skin color” – it’s actually describing OTHER people’s “unfortunate views.” And I don’t think the race card will play that well in a GOP primary
I thought “identifying terrorists by skin colour” was part of the standard GOP platform.
Well, how about identifying terrorists by their political affiliations?