Ron Paul

Chris Wallace: If Ron Paul Wins the Iowa Caucus "It Won't Count"


Fox News' Chris Wallace is one of the moderators of the long prayed-for final GOP debate before the January 3 Iowa Caucus. And on December 14, Wallace had some interesting things to say on the Neil Cavuto show re everyone's favorite scrappy libertarian doctor:

According to Raw, with video at the link:

"The Ron Paul people are not going to like my saying this," Wallace began. "But to a certain degree, it will discredit the Iowa caucuses because, rightly or wrongly, I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he's not going to end up as the nominee."

"So therefore, Iowa won't count," he added. "It would certainly be a knock to Gingrich because, you know, right now he was the frontrunner — or a week ago he was the big frontrunner in this state so it would be missed opportunity for him."

This could be mere horse race talk, or depressing realism, and it's quite true that certain Republicans, especially of the David Frum variety as Matt Welch noted below, are horrified by the prospect of the good doctor as president.

But check out this clip from way back in 2007 where debate moderator Wallace suggests that Paul's desire to bring the troops home from Iraq means he advocates "taking our marching orders from Al-Qaeda." 


Paul is in fine form and refuses to let his opinions be spun, declaring to strong applause "we should take our marching orders from the constitution." (There's some booing later, though, when he describes the Iraq War as illegal.) It's not that Wallace disagrees with Paul's foreign policy, it's that his grandstanding is rather Giuliani-esque. 

Yes, the myth of journalistic objectivity and all that. But let's just see how Wallace does tonight (9 p.m. on Fox News. You want to say no, but you're going to give in and watch.)

To be fair, Wallace seems to do at better interviewing Paul in person, as he did last month. 

Or maybe it's just that Paul's hard-won, but seemingly abrupt (if you weren't previously interested in libertarian ideas) legitimacy this election cycle is just irresistible. Even if Iowa, where Paul is breathing down Newt Gingrich's neck, "won't count," the congressman has won by bringing more mainstream attention to libertarianism than even a young optimistic person like me ever thought possible. Which is why I am going to grit my teeth one more time and watch the damn debate tonight.

Check out all of Reason's Ron Paul reporting here. 

NEXT: Paul Ryan's Medicare Compromise

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Can someone explain to me why the RP Newsletters with the racist stuff in them doesn’t matter?

    I’m simply not informed enough about the details of that whole episode, but if it’s true that he has never disowned the statements made or done enough to distance himself from the issue I cringe at the thought of what the media will do with them if he gets the nod.

    So what’s the deal, are the newsletters much ado about nothing?

    1. So what’s the deal, are the newsletters much ado about nothing?

      Short answer: yes.
      Long answer: yes, but not politically, as the very fact that you’re asking the question proves. Get in front of this, RP. Get in front of it now.

      1. If he doesn’t get in front of it the Dem media machine will do it for him and they will shape the narrative in a way that will sink his campaign before it even gets out of port.

        1. I take my concern even further: between the RP Newsletters and Rand’s impolitic explanation of his opposition to the CRA, I get worried that when the media does break the story to the mainstream, the meme on the Left will be “all libertarians are racists”.

          In this regard, it might be better if he does well but loses marginally and thus doesn’t attract further attention, lest the controversy harm the libertarian cause in the long term.

          F-U Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell.

          1. Unfortunately for this approach, this is no way a libertarian who answers press questions honestly can ever do anything but voice opposition to the Civil Rights Act.

            That means that no day will ever come when finally “the story will be behind us”. It is reborn anew every day.

            Basically we would need somebody to anticipate the future so well that they do something like volunteer with poor people in Africa for ten years before launching upon a libertarian career. That helps with the “all libertarians are racists” and the “all libertarians hate the poor” memes in one fell swoop.

            The problem is identifying the libertarian kwisatz haderach 20 or 25 years in advance and getting him to get with the program.

            1. Hello! Ron Paul Muad’Dib.

            2. Not true. You can say that the CRA was partially a vital reinforcement of the equal protections clause, and partially (like affirmative action) an imperfect solution to a problem caused or exacerbated by government policies.

              It’s a lovely but unrealistic goal to attempt to overcome racism’s grip on human consciousness – and we’ve come a a long way, but unfortunately racist words and associations are likely to exist in any society that protects freedoms of speech and association. This is especially true coming out of government enforced racism.

              So if pressed, just argue that although government interference in private property rights is unlibertarian, the government ban on private racial/sexual discrimination would be amongst the lowest priorities, down there with eliminating all welfare for mental and physical vegetables and allowing private ownership of nukes. If we ever get that far down the road, enough people would understand libertarian philosophy anyway so it would be possible. This is where it’s good to be an incrementalist and prioritize instead of being a Rothbardian radical.

            3. I don’t agree, Fluffy. Not every libertarian or person with libertarian leanings is so pure that they will not support the Civil Rights Act. You can argue about “real” libertarians and “pure” libertarians, but the fact remains…put five libertarians in a room together and you end up with ten factions. Plenty of people who would be categorized as libertarian might give a full throated endorsement for numerous reasons (equal protection, etc). It’s why organizing as a political force is and will be difficult for any large numbers of individualists and nonconformists. I suggest RP get onboard…but knowing RP, he probably won’t.

              1. You can claim that there’s factionalism in the libertarian movement all you want, but anyone who thinks that the failure to buy something (labor) or the failure to sell something (housing or public accomodations) in the absence of a contractual obligation to do so should be actionable just isn’t a libertarian.

                A purchase requires the purchaser’s consent. A sale requires the seller’s consent. These are baselines.

                Telling me libertarians can disagree about this is like telling me libertarians can disagree about having a state church.

                Proprietist is of course correct that you could be incrementalist. You could say, “Well, the very last libertarian reform I would undertake would be to undo the employment and public accomodations sections of the Civil Rights Act.” Or you could damn the CRA with faint praise: “Some parts of it were great and some parts of it frankly weren’t.”

                The problem with what Proprietist is saying is that the latter is what Rand Paul did. He said he liked some parts but not others. The reason he doesn’t remember it that way is because the media put a headline on that reading “Rand Paul Hates Civil Rights Act”. The same thing would happen if you took the former approach of incrementalism. You’d get a determined interviewer (again, like Rand Paul did with Maddow) who will simply demand that you answer, “In your ideal world, could a business refuse to serve or hire a black person?”

                There’s no way to hide it. The people on the other side aren’t stupid, and they WANT to engage or trap libertarians or libertarian fellow travelers on this issue.

                The WORST thing you can do is apologize for the property rights principle. If you look or sound like you have a guilty conscience, the other side wins. It’s a much better strategy to brazen it out.

                Hell, Gingrich was able to brazen out support for child labor last week. You can brazen out anything if your balls are big enough.

                1. This will be troublesome. I support the right of people to hate me based on whatever. I support the right of businesses to reject profit in favor of stupidity (and hopefully fail as a result). I’ll just piss on them any way I can, if I can muster up the energy to care. However, libertarians are outliers on this.

                2. “In your ideal world, could a business refuse to serve or hire a black person?”

                  Two ways to respond that are politically correct and still principled:

                  1.) “In an ideal world government never would have permitted slavery or enforced racism and discrimination in the first place. It would not have imposed a racist war on drugs. Historical government actions have increased minority poverty, which unfortunately has led to broader social stereotypes and engrained racial resentment. So in an ideal world, racial discrimination wouldn’t be a significant issue, especially because rational people in a market realizes the mutual benefits of voluntary economic exchange. Racism is irrational and contrary to self-interest. Unfortunately, we don’t live in an ideal world, and imperfect government correctives to bad government policies of the past might have been the easiest way to wean us off of an era of government imposed racism.”

                  — Note I didn’t say the CRA was right, just that it was more effective than pretending government-imposed racism can magically shift to widespread acceptance and market rationality would have been.

                  2.) Beat them at their own game: “Should feminist rape support groups for women be forced by law to accept men into their meetings, no matter how uncomfortable their presence might make them? Should members of minority activist groups be liable if they prefer members of that minority in their leadership? Should a court uphold a suit against a business for stopping men from entering women’s restrooms? Those are all forms of discrimination too, discrimination that many even on the Left see as valid. Where is the rational line between rational freedom of association and illegal discrimination? It’s admittedly a hard line to draw, so I’m not an ideologue overly upset by that aspect of the Civil Rights Act.”

                  1. How dare you compare feminist rape support groups with the Klu Klux Klan.

            4. I disagree regarding the Civil Rights act. I think that it can be argued from a libertarian perspective that fully sunset armed CRA rights a great wrong. Sure striking down all of the racist laws is the best thing to do, but in this case, government did harm & I don’t think it’s entirely out of bounds for government to attempt briefly to right those wrongs.

          2. Dude, the meme on the Left is ALREADY “all libertarians are racist.” And it always will be, especially as the occasional libertarian notion gains a little exposure and support among the peasantry.

            1. To some degree, but this story will both amplify and reinforce it. The race card can’t be overused if they have legitimate proof of racism to back it up.

              Libertarians need to reach out to the Left to try to pierce through their misguided and self-defeating economic policies, not reinforce the stereotypes of libertarian vileness.

              1. This thing is little more than a pimple on the penis of a protozoa.

                Heck, should libertarians worry about the “racist”, i.e., the afro-american vote? It is already well established that black folk vote skin color whereas white folk are far less likely to cast a vote predicated upon race.

                Furthermore, given the fact that millions of people have lost or are in the process of losing their homes as well as their jobs and that things are getting worse by the day economocially, upon what basis does one asseverate that what was written in an obscure magazine seventeen years ago matters more?

                People are fed up with race baiting and a black president who is the very embodiement of affirmative action incompetence.

                1. And yet an openly racist Republican candidate will give them enough of an “ick” factor to push them right back into his arms.

                  1. BTW, I’m not saying Paul is racist. I’ve never heard a racist word come out of his mouth. Merely that that is how the media will structure the narrative.

                2. Oh, good. Libertymike is here to tell us his thoughts on race. Perfect. Tell us more, Libertymike.
                  Something I been meaning to ask you, Lmike — you every do any ghostwriting back in the old days, say, some political newsletters or like that?

                  1. CN, why the snark?

                    To answer your question, I have ghost written letters for friends / family members and a handful of clients and custommers.

                    As for my thoughts on race….your boy Abe certainly was not too fond of afro-americans or indians, was he?

                3. Aaaaaand, fuck you. I can honestly state that I’ve never voted for any black person, and I’m not self-hating, either. I might have let your ignorant bullshit go if you had said “some” or even “most” black people, but you have to be dishonest instead, huh?
                  See, this is one of the reasons why we end with so many factions.

                  1. What ignorant bullshit?

                    If you are black and have never voted for a black person, why should you have to add that you are not self-hating?

                    Such an assertion tells me that you have allowed some nasty group think propaganda to establish a beachhead in your thinking and outlook on life.

                    It is a FACT that white folks are far less likely than blacks to vote upon the basis of skin color.

                    PROOF? How about the percentage of blacks who voted for the brown bolzhevik? 98% or so.

                    1. That they liked Obama is reason to question their integrity? I disagree with the hope projection BTW, but neither you nor I have any proof that they voted as they did due to race.
                      And the reason I mentioned the “self-hating” thing is to head of the (mostly white) liberals who like to use those terms to describe any black person who is not either progressive or a reflexive Democrat.

                    2. Res ispa loquitor.

                      Sure, you and I were not inside the minds of all the black people who voted for Obama.

                      However, it is entirely reasonable for one to infer that if 98% of black people voted for Obama, a good deal of the motivation was racial pride.

                      Its not as if there are not thousands of black people on record asserting that race indeed was why they cast their vote for Obama.

                      Its not as if black people have not told white people that they cast their ballot for Obamam upon the basis of race. I know because black people, including some of my in-laws, have told me so.

                      Yes, I understand that personal anecdotes should not be what rules the day in formulating one’s opinion / position on a topic.

                      Listen, I have never liked it when folks of Irish / Scottish / English background have said things to me like “oh, what a handsome irishman, look at those ruddy cheeks” or “your face is the map of county claire” etc.

                      I want to be identified as me, an individual, as Libertymnike, an anarchist who abhors groupthink.

          3. “You’re a racist” got played out after it kept being used in response to criticisms of Obama.

          4. “Racist” in politics now means “someone who democrats/liberals/progressives don’t like and therefore call a racist”.

          5. Rand’s impolitic explanation

            You misspelled “correct”.

            1. Note, I didn’t say it was incorrect.

              1. The truth is never impolitic. At least in the field of politics.

            2. Racist crap pisses me off to no end, and I won’t vote for one. However, I won’t ever ever ever vote progressive either. If the choice is between a racist who is mostly good on liberty or a progressive, I’ll just stay home.

              1. A racist is one who supports law or policy based upon race. Like Obama.

                One is not a racist if he prefers to chase women who have blue or green eyes with narrow hips over women who have brown or black eyes with wide hips.

          6. Murray Rothbard? What do you have against Rothbard?

          7. Yes, i’m sure aside from the likes of Ron Paul and everyone associated with Lew Rockwell, the libertarian cause is looking mighty fine, with all those unprincipled, utilitarian jackasses.

            Like the Libertarian Party for instance, which had nominated Bob Barr, a warmongering neocon before AND after his short stint (he has now endorsed Gingrich).

            Or of course the face that the Koch brothers have their almost universally despised fingers in the beltway version of libertarianism. They sure moved the cause of libertarianism forward. The only time their name ever comes up is never to congratulate them on a job well done. Even libertarians at best defend them weakly, but never actually praise them.

            Gimme a break, the last thing the libertarian cause needs, is cowards who are afraid of being tarred by all kinds of politically incorrect thing by the opposition. You think that would ever stop, or be factual?
            You think libertarianism will ever be accepted by those with an ideological and otherwise vested interest in the government?

            You sound like a coward afraid to lose the respect of liberal friends.
            With libertarian friends like you who needs enemies.

            Rothbard in particular has more principles and courage in one finger than most other libertarian combined.
            If people like you are scaredy-cats of judgment by lying, ad-hominem spewing statist pricks, forget about your “cause”.

      2. I’m thinking news conference:
        “I called you here to talk about an issue from my past that I hoped had been put to rest. Perhaps it has not, and that is my fault.
        “I made a mistake (15?) years ago by allowing some objectionable newsletters to be printed in my name without vetting them first. I have addressed this issue several times. I say again, I made an executive mistake, but I have learned from that mistake, and am a much better manager and leader today because of it.
        The vile content reflected in a few lines out of thousands of pages of the Ron Paul Letter do not now, nor have they ever reflected my views. I have not been able to verify just who wrote those lines (this is probably a lie, but fuck it, this is politics), but I assume that someone holding those views would have learned they should not be associated with me or my campaign. My views on equal treatment before the law are well known, as is my belief that the poor among us, including poor minorities, will be much better served by the free market than by the crony capitalism that now reigns. And young black men, especially, will be better served by a system that does not single them out as targets in a failed War on Drugs, incarcerating them at a rate greatly higher than that of whites.
        “Now go in peace. Shalom. May the force be with you. Cheers.”

        1. I have addressed this issue several times.

          So what you are saying is, he has already gotten in front of it. WTF? He has already done what you want him to do.

        2. That’s not a good idea, as it just makes it a bigger issue than it is. He’s dealt with this before, and he’s not an unknown.

          1. Agreed. People are forgetting the Ron Paul letters were on the news not too long ago. They tried to make a big deal out of it and failed.

            1. They failed because Paul was never a serious contender. Thus nobody was paying attention.

            2. SNL wasnt doing skits with rp in a white hood like they most certainly will if hes a condender

      3. Get in front of it now

        Pretty much what I think. I hope his advisers have been asking him this question for a while so he can respond well.

        1. His entire campaign is vastly more polished than last time. I find it inconceivable that they haven’t prepared for this.

          That being said…it’s still a tremendous weak point.

          1. I’d like to see whoever wrote them thrown under the bus.

            1. Why? What good does it do?

              Seriously, what the fucking good does it do? Especially if its Rothbard, who is dead.

              1. Hell, if Rothbard could talk to us from the grave, he’d volunteer to be the racist boogey man (even if he wasn’t the author) if it’d get Ron Paul elected.

              2. I’m a self described Rothbartdian and I am kind of troubled by by the cult of personality that has grown around the man.

                I think he was a brilliant guy, natch, but he did have feet of clay.

                1. I hate Rothbard with a burning passion. He basically destroyed the Libertarian Party’s roadmap to electoral success by pushing out the Ed Clark wing in the name of ideological purity, and then he still went and joined the Republican Party less than a decade later. Then he likely destroyed Ron Paul’s chances to be president, and in the long-term harmed the greater movement if it turns out he was the person that wrote the newsletters.

                  I’m not sure there’s been a single person more destructive to liberty than that man. Because the libertarian movement was driven to obscurity by a radical, racist anarchist the major parties have had free reign ever since and the movement has been trapped between the shell of the LP and the marginally successful infiltration of the GOP.

                  1. I’m not sure there’s been a single person more destructive to liberty than that man

                    I strenuously disagree. Yes, he has negatives, but he built an educational movement that is a very powerful force.

                    Without Rothbard, there would be no Cato, no von Mises Institute. The library the von Mises institute has put together has done more for liberty than every libertarian politician that ever ran for office.

                    And, given the stultifyingly political environment he grew up in, where it seemed that the guttering candle of libertarianism was about to be extinguished, one can forgive him some of his desperation.

                    1. “Without Rothbard, there would be no Cato, no von Mises Institute. The library the von Mises institute has put together has done more for liberty than every libertarian politician that ever ran for office.”

                      I don’t deny that Rothbard’s activism and theory was powerful and advanced libertarian education.

                      I’m talking about the actual political outcome of his impolitic, no-compromise approach to politics. As a political party, the LP should have been an electoral vehicle – not an educational institute. Rothbard’s powerful and vocal coalition won the battle for power over the pragmatist and incrementalist wing and set them adrift towards the GOP. Thus the LP became inherently consigned to the

                    2. What’s going on? Squirrels keep eating my message! (Ah.. I was starting the rest of this with a less than sign.)

                      (cont’d) under 1% who believe anarchocapitalism is the only valid political philosophy instead of the 15-20% who classify as libertarian.

                      1980 was our most successful election. Even with the internet’s wide outreach capabilities, we haven’t been able to replicate their success. The Rothbardian coup and purging of moderates is the primary reason why.

                  2. Ahhh. Now i see.

                    Forget about libertarian principles, and screw the non-aggression axiom.

                    You actually like political power, and think it will get you anywhere when your principles are for sale.

                    No wonder you hate the likes of Rothbard. At least with that story about Clark i know how seriously to take your lamentation about anything that isn’t trying to befriend the establishment.

              3. Especially if its Rothbard. As you said he is fucking dead, what does he care? (I’m betting it wasn’t him though)

                I don’t think it is compromising any principles to let the person responsible for writing the words defend themselves. It also is the politically correct thing to do. There are things I don’t want RP to compromise many things to get elected but why let someone else’s words tarnish him? This isn’t someone high up making someone take the fall for the good of the guy on top. This person is responsible for their own actions.

                1. Why? What good does it do?

                  Seriously, what the fucking good does it do? Especially if its Rothbard, who is dead.

                  It would reassure me that Ron Paul didn’t know about it or approve it. It would reassure others here of the same. It would draw the sting and help assure other, less RP-loving types he’s not a crypto-racist.

                  And hey, if you don’t think reassuring me is worthwhile, then I guess you don’t have interest in the man actually getting the even wishier-washier independent votes. Whatevs.

                2. I thought the money was on Rockwell?

                  1. Rockwell is more or less a Rothbard acolyte, so I’m wondering if there’s much of a difference. For clarity’s sake though, I’d rather Ron Paul name names.

                    1. Watch it be someone from Reason. Ye gods, that would be awful.

                    2. Now that would make me believe at least one conspiracy theory.

                    3. I think Lew ghost wrote many of the articles. However, Lew doesn’t write in the apocalyptic style of the offending passages.

                      Rothbard, on the other hand, did like being the outrageous firebrand.

                      It could well be someone else. Hell, it could be Gary North whom I find to be a frustrating mix of good analysis and backward theocratic impulses. It could be someone we never heard about.

                      We know this story will hit the MSM eventually. I guess we’ll see what happens.

                    4. Ya, my money is on Rockwell. He doesn’t write like that anymore, but I thought I remember some Rodney King, o-woe-is-we-for-being-white kind of demagogin’ that seemed similar in tone from the mid 90’s.

                    5. I bet it was Newcular Titties.

                    6. I’ll bet $10,000 it was not.

          2. no, it is not.


          1. Sure he did. So much so that he romped to election.

            1. “Romped to election”

              Did he win something on Romper Room that I’m unaware of?

            2. Jesus. Believe what you want. I choose reality.

              1. Which part of my statement isnt true?

                His opponent brings up the newsletters, accuses him of racism. Paul deals with it, then destroys his opponent in the election.

                Which part of that isnt fucking reality?

                1. I dont remember if it was 1996 or 1998 when they were brought up (possibly both), but he won the first 51-48 after beating the incumbent in the primary and the second 55-45.

                  He beat the same person in 2000 as in 1998, that time 60-40, so any effect from the newsletters had clearly passed.

                  1. That was Texas, where having your name on a racist nesletter is a plus.

              2. I don’t want to go all argumentum ad verecundiam on your asses, but I’ve covered campaigns in my day. And I’m telling you he’s still got some ‘splainin’ to do, if he’s serious about this race.

                1. Please explain. Waht hasnt he said that needs to be said?

                  Other than naming the author(s), I dont see what is left.

                  1. Oh Lord, please save your libertarian lambs, who would dare dabble in big-time politics, from their own lovable — in fact, admirable — naivety.

                    1. rob, the fact is, it doesn’t matter if he “dealt with it” previously, as it can be dredged up again. And you know it will. Can he weather it? I don’t know. Maybe, maybe not.

                    2. Yup. It’s a stick that people will use to beat him with. If he doesn’t say something about it before it becomes an issue, people will say that he was either trying to hide something or hoping it woudl go away or something like that. It’s lame, but that is how it will go. People that don’t pay a lot of attention to republican electoral politics won’t know what he has already said about the newsletters, and for a lot of people it will be news.

                    3. Dude, seriously, answer the question or explain why it’s naive, but don’t just roll your eyes. That’s not cool. Especially if you really want libertarians to understand why you think this is a big issue.

                    4. (Rolls eyes.)
                      Seriously. If all of the explanations floating around this thread aren’t enough for you, than what else can I do but roll my eyes?
                      Hey — I hope you’re right. Newsletters? Old issue. Nothing to see here, media folk. Move along.

                    5. In fact, if Paul stays mum, I bet no one ever brings up the newsletters again. And if they do, why then I’m certain that the wise, wise American electorate will see right through the nasty-wasty tricks of the lame-stream media.

                    6. It’s naive because this subject was on Sean Hannity, Rush, and is now in New York Magazine. this shit is only getting started.

                      Anybody who said “Oh *yawn* this old thing? Who cares that major media outlets are talking about it? It can’t be relevant – RP already disclaimed it in *insert random newspaper or blog post*” is fucking naive.

                    7. There is nothing he can say that will stop that from happening.

                      As CN pointed out above, he has already said it.

                      Is he supposed to respond yet again every single time it is brought up, or can the media asking the question do some fucking research?

                    8. The answers to your questions are, in order, “yes” and “no”.
                      But the longer answer to your first question is, “no, if he would craft and deliver an acceptable response that would be very difficult for the media to pretend he never gave”.

                    9. What was wrong with his response from 4 years ago or 1998? Why was it “not acceptable”?

                      And bullshit on responding every single time (if that was the first question that you responded yes to). You respond once and move on. Between google and youtube the answer exists.

                    10. What was wrong with his response from 4 years ago or 1998? Why was it “not acceptable”?

                      Neither politics nor life are fair. Ron Paul is more relevant now to the national media than ever before. The one dark mar on his record needs to be addressed. Grow up and deal. This is how the world is, robc, not how you wish it were.

                    11. The world is how I make it.

                      I suggest RP wear a t-shirt with a url linking to the CNN interview from 4 years ago at all times. Would that make you happy?

                    12. You gonna answer my question?

                      What was wrong with his response from 4 years ago or 1998? Why was it “not acceptable”?

                      The one dark mar on his record needs to be addressed.

                      It was.

                      Grow up and deal.

                      Im the grown up here. Adults dont bring stuff up over and over again. Children do that. The media and politics are made up of a bunch of whiny little toddlers.

                    13. The media and politics are made up of a bunch of whiny little toddlers.

                      Well, bully for you, tiny stuff! Just phone all the national media outlets that focus on politics and all major talk shows on the radio and tell them. That should get them to drop it.

                      Whether I agree with you is totally irrelevant. It is your (and others’) unwillingness to deal with the world the way the world is that is getting totally under my skin. A lot of people here made hay of the fact that Robert Byrd was in the Klan in the 40s and 50s, even though he specifically apologized for that and repudiated his membership. Were you harping on them to “stop being toddlers” then? And what is the statute of limitations on bringing something up when someone like Ron Paul finally hits the national spotlight?

                      Part of the problem is that you are thoroughly familiar with Ron Paul. Most national outlets are not, so this newsletter thing is suddenly relevant to them because Ron Paul is suddenly relevant to them. We committed seppuku here because RP is a quasi-libertarian hero, but this is a small community. RP is now playing with the big boys. Sorry you can’t handle that.

                    14. CNN ran a fucking interview with him over this issue 4 years ago. The major national outlets are familiar with this, because all the major national outlets ran stories on it 4 years ago.

                      If they want to bring it up again, fine, but they can just reprint his answers.

                      RP is now playing with the big boys. Sorry you can’t handle that.

                      I cant handle it, can you? The way to play with them is to play by YOUR rules, not theirs. Fuck their rules. Do the right thing.

                      You seem to want to roll over and let the media steamroll the Paul campaign. Fuck that shit.

                    15. “I can handle it…”

                    16. It is your (and others’) unwillingness to deal with the world the way the world is that is getting totally under my skin.

                      I want to change the world, not deal with it.

                    17. For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. — 2 Corinthians 10:3

                    18. Like it or not, we are the typical voter in America. We (lurkers and commenters on Reason H&R) spend most of our days online, free to research stories and blog posts from four years ago.

                      My plumber, an avid republican, does not have that luxury, and when he goes home at night, I don’t think he’s trolling around the intertubez, digging up four year old blog posts about a presidential candidate he’s already heard described as crazy and racist.

                      He’s just going to assume the guy is a crazy racist, and cast a ballot for Newt Flopney.

                      That is the vast majority of voters, espcially primary voters here in Iowa. 80% of them are fucking old, and are probably confused by the Google.

                      RP needs to run an ad, give a major conference and explain everything so they hear it, not us.

                    19. He gave a major news network an 8.5 minute interview on the subject.

                      Seems pretty much like what you want him to do.

      5. Ron Paul got in front of it 4 years ago. He said he didn’t write the objectionable statements and doesn’t agree with them, but took full responsibility because they went out under his name. Nothing in his public record or any of his presidential or congressional campaigns or voluminous weekly statements or congressional speeches would indicate that he agrees with them. End of story.

        1. End of story.
          Lord hear my prayer.

    2. It only doesn’t matter if you’re a blind acolyte willing to suspend all reason.

    3. They were much ado about nothing in the 90s when they were first brought up. He didnt write the statements, he doesnt agree with them, he has repudiated the statements. He has acknowledged lack of oversight.

      What else is there?

      1. You can’t simultaneously claim they are old news and scream bloody murder every time someone publishes them.

        1. Why not?

          Im not surprised they are brought up, but I felt my complaint about reason 4 years ago was legit.

          They brought them up…fine. But run your story and his reponse and…done. Instead, every single writer for reason ran his own story or two on it. Which I thought was overkill and whoever the editor was then should have stepped in.

          1. Why not?

            Because it must mean something to you to keep responding. If it was truly “old news” you would dismissively wave your hand and STOP ARGUING.

            1. I still argue about the 1952 football national championship. And I wasnt even born yet.

              Michigan St my ass.

          2. Have you ever thought maybe there’s a whole lot of libertarians that don’t want the movement branded as racist due to the stupid actions of one politician or his staff? Sorry, but we have to defend ourselves if Ron Paul is unwilling to explain it sufficiently.

            1. Now that I can buy. It’s not fair, but when has politicking ever been fair. Certainly Paul was remiss in his oversight of the newsletters. BTW has anyone here been getting his recent email letters? The rhetoric is over the top in some cases. I like the vuy himzelf but he needs to get some better communication staff.

            2. …is concerned

      2. In the 90’s he was running for congress in Texas. If he gets close to the nomination, this will be a national story and his opponents will not let it go. It will hurt him. You are absolutely right, but it will still hurt him and I think that he can mitigate some of that damage by saying something more now before his opponents really start to beat him with this.

    4. Dr. Paul has already address the newsletters in the last election cycle. Here is a link to an interview on CNN:

    5. They matter, in that even in the best case they reveal a stunning lack of judgement on the part of Dr Paul. However, every one of the possible candidates has lapses in judgement, or worse, in their background.

      Unfortunately, the racism skunk juice makes him unelectable.

      1. Unfortunately, the racism skunk juice makes him unelectable.

        1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008, 2010.

        For an unelectable dude, he sure wins a fuck ton of elections.

        1. In that case, I guess Maxine Waters could be elected president.

          1. Maxine Waters

            Talk about racist…

      2. Personally, I find routine violation of the oath to obey the Constitution and locking people in butt rape cages for owning the wrong kind of plant much worse the trusting the wrong editor 18 years ago. Thats just me though. I realize that to some people, failure to worship at altar of ultra-PC is the worst sin imaginable.

        1. Maybe you can go on national television and tell all the voters they are stupid, then. That oughta be a winning strategy.

          And not for nothing, because I really do want to see Ron Paul do well, but no one else has a problem with the other thousands of lines of text that spewed on about the Trilateral Commission, the NWO, Bohemian Grove, and the NAU? And, ohbytheway, that is current paranoia speaking, per here.

          1. My biggest problem with him is when he lends credence to various conspiracy theories. I don’t think he’s a racist, but he occasionally goes further down paranoia street than I think is warranted.

            On the other hand, the government is fucked up enough that some paranoia is justified.

          2. Yeah, the crazy has been strong in Paul’s recent supporter communications.

      3. No it doesn’t. Obama was able to get elected despite a longs standing association with a certain pastor who was video tapped saying some pretty vile stuff about white people.

        1. Because he is a young black man who can credibly say that he had some radical roots and now does not.

          Ron “Trilateral Commission” Paul is not going to have that same luxury.

          Again, this is a description of reality, not the way things people wish they were.

          1. The economy is a bitch. If Obama stays the course, and people rally around Ron Paul’s fiscal message, the other minor things people like to blow out of proportion won’t matter much.

    6. Re: Tman,

      Can someone explain to me why the RP Newsletters with the racist stuff in them [don’t] matter?

      Because he didn’t write any of that stuff, it was only a few sentences out of thousands over the run of the newsletters. The sentences are indeed offensive but, considering what was being said on talk radio at that time adn written in conservative mags and rags, they were not particularly notable. Remember, this was a time before blogs and e-mail; the newsletters were available by subscription only, mostly purchased by libertarians and uber-conservatives (at that time.)

      […]but if it’s true that he has never disowned the statements made

      He did. You can research by going deep, deep, DEEP into… Wikipedia. Yeah, that deep.

      or done enough to distance himself from the issue

      Like what? Go back in time? You must be jesting.

      I cringe at the thought of what the media will do with them if he gets the nod.

      The media had the opportunity and decided a long time ago that it was a non-issue, like the Aqua-Buddha thing.

      So what’s the deal, are the newsletters much ado about nothing?

      Since it was Sean Hannity who brought up the issue yesterday in his radio show, the answer is: NOW THEY ARE, totally much ado about nothing.

      1. Since it was Sean Hannity who brought up the issue yesterday in his radio show, the answer is: NOW THEY ARE, totally much ado about nothing.

        The guy with the number 2 or 3 radio show in the country brings them up…but they’re old news. You guys are delusional.

        1. Re: The now not beloved Re. Blue Moon,

          The guy with the number 2 or 3 radio show in the country brings them up…but they’re old news.

          And that means, what? That he will be believed?

          How’s being delusional, Kate?

          1. Sorry – who is, not how is.

            1. Welcome to the big time: News Bulletin: Ron Paul Is a Huge Racist

              I think it’s safe to say Paul is viewed as a serious contender, at this point.

              1. Whoops. I guess everyone who said this was “old news” will be issuing apologies to CN, me, and others.

                1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

                  Whoops. I guess everyone who said this was “old news” will be issuing apologies to CN, me, and others.

                  Keep dreaming, my friend – it is one lefty blog that simply rehashed the same NR Kirchik article from 4 years ago, and the comments are already coming about the blogger being full of it.

              2. Re: Joe M,

                Welcome to the big time: News Bulletin: Ron Paul Is a Huge Racist

                What the “journalist” did was simply to rehash Kirchik’s article from the New Republic. Not only that, he even says that Paul edited and wrote those newsletters, which is not true – it’s an open lie.

                That’s it?

                1. Look, I’m a huge Paul supporter, but this story is being dredged up and clearly is not dead. Hannity pounded it last night, there’s this, and I am developing a terrible fear that Chris Wallace is going to drop it like a bomb in the debate tonight. I hope that’s irrational.

                  The good news in all of this is that we have moved to stage three of Gandhi’s purported old saying:

                  First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win.

                  1. I know this conversation was yesterday afternoon but you don’t say what problem Ron Paul has that the Conservatives will jump on. You speak in generalities and seem to know what each other is talking about but I can’t figure it out. I would have liked to know because I’m very interested in this race for the Republican Nominee for President. You probably won’t reply to this but in the future could you remember that some ov us would have liked to know what you 2 guys are talking about.

              3. Would be really nice if Reason wiped its nose and made an effort to correct some of theses skewed distortions it helped spawned.

          2. What the fuck? That is not my point. By definition, if the person with the #2 radio show in the country brings up an issue, it is, by definition, not “old news” or “much ado about nothing”. These people make the news.

            But like I said yesterday, keep being an ostrich. That should serve you well.

            1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

              By definition, if the person with the #2 radio show in the country brings up an issue, it is, by definition, not “old news” or “much ado about nothing”. These people make the news.

              Actually, Savage is #2 and he already supports Paul, at least in principle. Nice try.

              1. I said “#2 or #3” upthread. If you want to nitpick instead of deal with reality, hey, ostrich out.

            2. He makes the news? No, he decides what he believes is news and will also help move forward his position or agenda. It is obvious his agenda is to eliminate Ron Paul as a candidate.

              1. He makes the news? No, he decides what he believes is news and will also help move forward his position or agenda. It is obvious his agenda is to eliminate Ron Paul as a candidate.

                Wow, do you think? And yes, he decides what he believes is news and broadcasts it to millions of people each and every day. That’s called “making news”.

                1. The newsletters have been explained to death.

                  If you think that it’s an issue that deserves the weight it seems to be gaining then you should also demand that Obama explain his association with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers again. Hell, why shouldn’t someone bring up his birth certificate again?

                  Should everyone’s dirty laundry be aired out during each election? Even if it has been explained before?

                  1. Didn’t some woman claim she had an affair with Newt in the 1970s? Gee, I wonder why that came up now rather than five years ago. Oh, yeah, Newt wasn’t in the news every day five years ago.

    7. If the “newsletters” mattered, they would have already been brought up by now to destroy him during this campaign.

    8. The newsletters debunked here.…..z1geFdzdZN

      If the link is removed then google
      “talkimag ron paul newsletter”
      click on the first link.

      Pretty much explain it all.

    9. One thing is true:

      The “folks” calling out RP, who has never mistreated or killed a black person, are generally supporters of our current Black President who has no qualms about slaughtering innocent black African children in his quest to dominate Africa.

    10. He did answer that he had nothing to do with them last night…this is old hat form four years ago. If this is all the media has on him to distract us from his success they are grasping at straws.…..3p9s1cSzko

    11. It wasnt even Ron Paul it was someone else who wrote the article. Needless to say the reason why they don;t talk about it is because it has no true validity and they know it. They will dig up anything to try and discredit him. That’s why we need to get people like Chris Wallace off of public television. Sign the petition to have him removed for good!…..-fox-news#

  2. Bless you, Lucy. You make me feel less cranky and curmudgeonly every time you post.
    But get off my lawn.

    1. No, you get off my lawn!

      1. It’s people in the street all the way down…

      2. Both of you get the fuck off of my law…wait, I don’t have a lawn. Never mind.

  3. Which is why I am going to grit my teeth one more time and watch the damn debate tonight.

    You’re watching it so we don’t have to, Lucy.

    As a Reason Contributor ™, I move that Lucy be given a raise, or, at a minimum, hazard pay. Do I hear a second?

      1. Under RC’z Rules of Order, motion passes.


        1. I just got a two-dollar bill in the mail from a school that wants me to fill out a survey on being a political blogger.

          Was that the raise?

          1. If your pay at reason is as low as I think it is…yes.

          2. Also, obligatory am not a contributor or an intern comment.

            1. What language is that, Lucy? Engrish?

              1. You better back off, Epi. Welch? OK. Nick? fine. But not Lucy, my friend.

                1. Lucy can take care of herself, you misogynist asshole.

                  1. Mysoginist? That’s rich coming from the guy that said he fucks men because women are too stupid to wake up next to.

                    1. Oh yeah? I only slept with you because you said you liked my personality, asshole!

                    2. Haha. That wasn’t me. It was my twin, floopy.


                    3. So I didn’t give you herpes? DAMN IT

                    4. Nope. But on the bright side (for you), I wasn’t able to give you gonorrhea or chlamydia.

                    5. Oh yeah? I only slept with you because you said you liked my personality, asshole and what was the third thing again?

                1. Yinzer would be unintelligible, so…probably.

            2. Jeez, sloop, what bro want you throw under the bus to get at a ho?

            1. FTA: Commenting on the incident, Baltimore County police spokesman Bill Toohey told the Sun: “It’s a sign that we’re all a little nervous in the post-9/11 world.”/i>

              Yeah, almost 4 years later, dumbass!

    1. I’d like to see Ron Paul interviewed by someone other than Captain Loaded Questions. At least the second time, he tries to tone down his bias.

      1. When is reason gonna get a Paul interview? I mean, holy shit, it’s just the biggest (?) libertarian publication out there. God forbid he’d get a sweet-ass profile and puff piece in the run up to the primaries.

        1. THIS.
          Mainstream voters want candidates advertised, polished, and with a guaranteed 60,000 mile bumper-to-bumper warranty. It’s bad enough that a solid 75% of the viewers don’t pick up on the stupidity of the moderators. I think a pro-paul interview would help to push his poll numbers over the top.

  4. ARG has Paul now breaking through the 20% threshold in New Hampshire.

    1. Linky? That’s good news, but I wanna see the poll.

      1. Go to real clear politics and look at their aggregates. Or even better, go here. It’s a list of all the GOP statewide polls so far this election cycle.

        1. But Suffolk has him under 10%? I hope that’s an outlier. Thanks for the link, btw.

          1. Polls are for retards.

            1. Epi, why the fuck haven’t you signed up for the bowl pick-em? I thought you were my friend.

              [runs off sobbing]

              1. Because the only thing I find less interesting than college football is college basketball?

                1. Because the only thing I find less interesting than college football is college basketball?

                  Yeah? Well, all the cool kids are doing it.

            2. That’s what 47 percent of retards believe, anyway.

              1. Yeah — it works here, too.

          2. Based on all the other recent ones, it looks like it. Public Policy Polling is doing new polls in IA and NH over the weekend to be released Monday, and they’re pretty good.

            1. For an unabashed liberal organization, PPP does a great job with their polling compared to other groups **cough**gallup**cough**rasmussen**cough.

              1. Another cool thing is they take suggestions for poll questions on their website.

    2. Another poll today though has him behind Huntsman.

  5. Or maybe it’s just that Paul’s hard-won, but seemingly abrupt…legitimately this election cycle is just irresistible.

    First the Jacket and now you Lucy? Do you guys need a proofreader over there? I could be convinced to do it for a modest salary.

    1. Ugh, noted and fixing now. Danke.

    2. You’re doing it for free now. Why would they give you a salary?

  6. “So therefore, Iowa won’t count,”

    The true face of the Republican Party. Remember, it’s Mittens’ turn.

    1. They might as well nominate the candidates privately in a smoke-filled room for all the bias the establishment gives their favorites.

      1. Isn’t that how they do it now?

        1. The rooms comply with DC non-smoking laws; they forgot to exempt themselves.

        2. Does anyone have sideburns as BA as Dominic Chinaese in BE?

        3. The GOP Star Chamber starring Alec Baldwin, coming soon to a theater near you!

      2. They might as well nominate the candidates privately in a smoke-filled room for all the bias the establishment gives their favorites.

        What? Like the Chicago Democrat Party?

    2. McCain finished fourth in Iowa last time, behind Romney, Huckabee, and Thompson, so in a sense it doesn’t count if you can’t continue the momentum beyond that.

  7. Tonight the moderators are set to take down Paul. Nevermind how many minutes they let him speak — expect a question about the newsletters, framed in a “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type question.

    1. Chris Wallace: So congressman Paul, are you still a racist? Why do you hate African-Americans?

      1. “And do you, Congressman Paul, want the Terrorists to take over America and rape our wimmen, or do you just want our troops to be defeated overseas?”

        1. “Congressman Paul, why are you trying to get our children addicted to heroin?”

          1. “Most Respectable Speaker Gingrich, why is Ron Paul too busy being racist to fight terrorism?”

            “Mr. Romney, same question.”

    2. “Mr. Paul, do you still hold disgustingly racist views, and why should we believe your self-serving denials?”

      1. “Mr. Paul, do you still hold disgustingly racist views, and why should we believe your self-serving denials?”

        RP: It would help if you just said what were you talking about.
        CW: About the newsletters that were printed under your name 20 years ago that had racist content.
        RP: Well, Chris, if you actually did your job and just perused on Wikipedia, you would’ve found out
        that I had nothing to do with what was said in that newsletter and its offensive comments. It was one essay by one ghostwriter. I do not share those views at all as I do not believe in racism, as racism is a form of collectivism.
        CW: Uh, thank you Congressman… [did he say I don’t do my job?]
        Megyn: [yes, he said that.]

        1. CW: Yes, yes, Mr. Paul, I understand you’ve tried to obfuscate your racism in the past, but I also asked you why we should believe your self-serving denials.

        2. CW: Yes, yes, Mr. Paul, I understand you’ve tried to obfuscate your racism in the past, but I also asked you why we should believe your self-serving denials.

        3. Then, Mr. Paul, why do we have this photo of you with your pants on fire?

    3. So that news conference should be this afternoon. DO IT, R.P!

      1. And, fuck it — I won’t even charge my usual consulting fee for this advice!

    4. Please God let Paul’s staffers prep him for such questions and not have him just go up there and ramble. They have never been very good at getting him ready for these things.

      1. I think he’s handled these questions really fucking well.. I’d like to see an answer half as eloquent coming from those clowns.

    5. Dr Paul, do your genitals still look like albino raisins, or was that just from swimming?

  8. I think most of the Republican establishment thinks he’s not going to end up as the nominee.

    That’s the same establishment that correctly predicted Giuliani would be the nominee last time, right? It ain’t over until the votes are cast, folks.

  9. Here’s the funny thing:

    Ron Paul is pretty popular among young black people, I’m pretty sure the newsletters won’t cause them to change their support since “race” is basically a non-issue these days.

    However, the newsletters may cause guilt-ridden white people to change their vote.

    1. Actually, many blacks would agree with much of the offending RP newsletter content.

      1. Yeah, since when is “fleet footed” an insult?

        1. It’s different when you’re talking about muggers vs. wide receivers.

          1. I was actually referring to things like how all the angst about cab drivers refusing to pick up young black men or go into black neighborhoods to pick up fares dissolved when it turned out that the diproportionate number of middleaged black men who are cabbies favored the policy by a huge majority.

            Or when Jesse Jackson admitted that he got nervous when he saw a group of young black men in certain neighborhoods.

            The fact is that by the mid eighties older blacks were totally fed up with the level of criminality among young black men.

            1. Besides which, violent crime is way down these days, even in black communities (barring minor up-blib due to recession).

    2. since “race” is basically a non-issue these days.


      That would explain the ginormous jump in black turnout in the 2008 presidential election.

      1. And their Team Blue voting pattern compared to every other ethnic or socioeconomic group.

    3. since “race” is basically a non-issue these days.
      Lord hear my prayer.

      1. Go forth, my son, for have you not read ‘Love the Paul, Hate the Paultard”? Yea, verily…

        1. “Lord, save Ron Paul from the Paultards. Amen.”

          1. Not gonna happen.

  10. A new ARG poll has Paul beating Gingrich in NH with 21%..

    1. Now even pirates are conducting polls?

  11. This is because the results of the caucus don’t actually mean anything. The delegates selected in the caucus aren’t lawfully bound to do anything particular.

    1. Yes, as I have stated many times here. The caucuses truly are a “straw poll”.

  12. This is fucking brilliant:

    Correlation or causation?…..1-gfx.html

    1. Given that my middle daughter is named Ava and was born in 2007, I can attest that it is true. And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

    2. outstanding

  13. As I’ve said before, even if Paul miraculously ran the gamut on IA, NH, SC and FL, it won’t do for him what it would do for a mainstream republican (i.e. dry up all the funding for most of the other candidates as all the donors start betting on the “winning horse”). Paul’s winning will have the exact opposite affect. All the big donors would double down on “anyone but Ron Paul”. Gingrich, Romney, Perry would suddenly see their coffers grow exponentially.

    I like Ron Paul, and will vote for (and promote) him in NM’s primary, but the Republican establishment is so entrenched and powerful, it’s literally going to take a revolution to get him or someone like him into the presidency.

    1. If he does well enough it may actually cause a rift in the GOP with the national-security folks on one side and the small-gov’t folks on the other. Which would be awesome, imo

      1. Agreed. I still want to see him do as well as possible. That has value in and of itself.

        1. The Neo-cons will scratch, claw and bite to keep the welfare-warfare state in full swing and if they can’t beat RP in the primaries, they’ll torpedo him in the backrooms of the Republican Convention.

      2. And I’m sure those five will be sorely missed.

    2. If he wins Florida? Hard to ignore that.

      1. True, but the alternative is to believe that the establishment is going to throw up it’s hands and say, “Oh well, we tried…notify Northrop Grumman, Bechtel, and Lockheed Martin that we’ll be canceling some orders.”

        1. Would that really happen, though? Congress writes the budget, although the president is more involved in the process than he used to be. As long as there are enough Congressmen who want some of that juicy defense spending pork for their home districts to override a veto, what could Paul do about it?

          1. “Congress writes the budget, although the president is more involved in the process than he used to be.”


            1. Can’t tell if serious. But if you are, see here and here.

          2. People forget about this. Despite the increase in the executive branches power over the years the president isn’t a king. If Ron Paul were elected he would do a lot to disentangle us from the worst of our foreign forays. But if you think we are going to lose every single overseas base then you are sorely mistaken. It is entirely possible that Ron Paul could get us out of Europe. It isn’t very likely Ron Paul could get us out of Korea.

            1. statist, power-hungry, self-serving congress> constitutionalist President.

              If Paul cedes the current political powers that the office holds in the name of his principles, any attempts to reign in the State will be for naught.

              1. Tebow = Ron Paul
                This is shaping up to be an awesonme yet weird year for libertarian Bronco’s fans….January will tell all.

                1. With a Tebow endorsement, he’d win by unanimous acclaim. No election needed.

            2. If he really took the U.S.-out-of-everything path, I think they’d try to impeach him.

          3. Question is, if Dr. No got his veto pen red hot, would they have the balls to override him on pork? The only reason they have gotten away with it for so long is that they all give each other cover.

      2. I think it’s safe to say that Ron Paul won’t win Florida. And I expect him to do very well nationally.

        1. Why not? He has as much chance here as anywhere else.

    3. Nevertheless, I proclaim: Go Ron Paul!

    4. Hey, that’s NWO, trilateral commission talk, nutjob!

      1. Aw, somebody’s vagina is in pain.

  14. Which is why I am going to grit my teeth one more time…

    [insert sex joke]

    1. Obligatory…

      1. That’s a pretty fucked-up picture.

        I showed it to my boss, who had no idea what that creature was. Turns out, she’s never seen any of the Star Wars films.

        I turned in my two-weeks notice.

        1. Why?

          If she was born after 1990, she didn’t have a chance to see the unaltered original trilogy.

          It’s possible its because she is a lady of wealth and taste.

          1. If she were born after 1990 she’d be less than 20 years old, hardly enough time to become a lady of anything or a boss. I can understand why Gojira quit.

            1. There are 20 year olds walking the earth today who were born after the attempted Soviet coup against Gorbachev. I remember running down to Walgreens to get the extra edition of the Trib they printed that night, because I’d never seen a real “extra” before. #nostalgia

          2. The original movies were on TV quite a few times, and the movies were also out on VHS before the 1997 special edition.

    2. Jimbo has never had sex, so he needs others to “insert” this for him.

    3. Which is why I am going to grit my teeth one more time…

      …and look at the ceiling while thinking of shopping and the kids.

      There ya go.

  15. Fox News will jump the shark tonight, wait for it!!

  16. Funny how things dont count if Paul is the winner. Its going to be a long campaign

    1. Calvinball writ large.

      1. +1

        For Calvin and Hobbes reference

  17. The early primaries are important bellwethers in selecting a nominee, because their highly informed and tuned in voters get to meet the candidates one-on-one in coffee shops and town halls, sizing up the candidates in person rather than solely relying on expensive media campaigns. Unless someone wins who we thought wasn’t going to win.

  18. Can somebody at reason please find a way to block these Alan Grayson ads that incessantly pop up? Hell, I’ll move to Fla and vote for the guy if it means never having to see the fucker’s face on here again.

    1. Adblock plus. Join the 202nd decade.

    2. Please vote against him. We are trying to get out of the running for craziest congressional delegation for a state. Sheila Jackson-Lee can’t keep Texas in front forever.

      1. Sure she can, that’s a lot of crazy.

      2. Can you explain why Debbie Wasserman-Schultz always looks like she just stepped out of a car wash?

  19. They really don’t want him to win. And by they, I mean every stinkin’ pundit.

  20. I know that this will make me sound like a tinfoil hat type, but I suspect Wallace is right, in a way. If Paul looks as if he’ll seriously challenge The Chosen One for the nomination, I think something bad will happen to him.

    Yeah, I really do think they’d sink that low.

    1. Not too long ago, saying that thousands of customers of a major futures broker would lose money out of segregated accounts would get you ranked as worse than a “tinfoil hat type”.

  21. I take this as a sign that all those establishment Team Red jerks are shakin’ in their dealies.

    1. I don’t know about the rest of you guys, but that’s the aspect of this thing that I’m really enjoying.

  22. Nice article from Salon catching the obvious: How Ron Paul could give the GOP a heart attack

    1. Say what you want about Salon, but…

      actually, say what you want about Salon.

  23. I’m so sick of every pundit saying that his growing presence in Iowa and the early states doesn’t matter. Like they really don’t want Ron Paul to get the nomination so they just rule him out, despite the evident and growing support. Lets prove the media and fat cats in Washington wrong! Ron Paul 2012!

    1. If a Paul victory makes the Iowa caucus illegitimate, I hope he can do the same thing with the presidency of the United States.

  24. This whole process of trying to marginalize Ron Paul is so mechanical that I am starting to believe that maybe…they want him to win? Fox has to know what is going to happen if they say things like that…not so much that they want him to win, but they want to capitalize on the ratings?

    What is going on hear? Maybe they want Obama to win? Because if their glided layer plan works, then you will see Ron Paul the elected nominee, a establishment appointed nominee, and possibly another detracting candidate that refuses to drop out. Splitting the GOP field 3 ways.

  25. No problem then – just let Ron Paul win Iowa then. No skin off your teeth as it “won’t count” anyway…

  26. We are ethical and unbiased.
    We are fair and impartial.
    We speak with authority.
    Accept ALL we say as THE TRUTH.
    You will watch what we choose.
    You will buy those products we advertise.
    You will vote for whom we tell you to vote.
    You will NOT vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul is UNELECTABLE.
    Believe it, simpletons!
    –ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX et al

  27. Believe it, simpletons!

    My bet: Unfortunately, they will.

    1. Thanks for the linke.

      I dunno, I don’t think this piece was particularly egregious.

      It is hard to see how the party faithful, who recoil from Romney because he feels phony and alien to them, will be able to stomach Gingrich for long enough to make him their candidate.

  28. Four years ago I might have agreed, but by no objective standard is Paul any less credible than the other men and women running this time.

  29. For all of Reason’s fawning on Ron Paul this year, the fact remains that he’s *not* libertarian. He may be more libertarian than the other candidates running for that party’s nomination, but he’s not libertarian. He’s a lovely federalist, but libertarians don’t think it’s OK for the state to ban things just because it’s unconstitutional for the feds to do so. Libertarians want government out of the way, not just the government shifting the bans to the next level down.

    1. He’s more Libertarian than hacks like Bob Barr, Wayne Allyn Root and Eric Dondero to name a few. Yes it’s still the state banning things but at the local level. Local politics are “easier” battles than Federal ones. Dr. Paul is a Libertarian through and through

      1. If by libertarian you mean someone who doesn’t actually care about the level of freedom or tyranny people live under as long as it’s not the federal government making the decisions. By your definition 19th century Southern slaveowners were libertarians.

        1. Poor analogy. Slave owners are by definition un-liberterian. The taking of others’ liberty goes against libertarian principle. Paul has never advocated for this.

          BTW he’s a lot better than your warmongering candidates (BO/JB), no?

        2. Here you have it, people: Tony as Exhibit “A.”
          Lord hear my prayer.

        3. Havent you figured out by now that you have zero credibility on this site? Even Lonewacko figured that one out

        4. Tony, do practice at being this much of an idiot or are you just a gifted amateur?

      2. Bob and Root are hardly the same and Donderooooo is a Republican. I would suggest you understand a little more fully the positions of those you are trashing.

    2. Well, he is a member of Congress, running for President, both of which are national offices.

      Division of power, devolution, etc. are all perfectly libertarain notions. I see no contradiction in a libertarian saying “As a national officeholder, I think the national government shouldn’t do any of this shit. I realize that leaves it to the states, but that’s better than the feds.”

      1. As I like to point out, I know where my mayor lives and he doesnt have any bodyguards.

        If he turns into Stalin, I can take care of him my damn self.

        1. Thinking less violently, federalism also allows people to freely move (gambol?) to a different state if they feel misrepresented.

          1. Fuck that, I like my home. 🙂

      2. Representative isn’t a national office.

    3. Ron Paul: True Fucking Scotsman.

    4. This is true. So are you saying we should rather have the status quo where the feds AND states ban things? Me, I’d rather have the feds adhere to the Constitution and then fight my battles in my state or pick a different state that best reflects my own opinion.

      1. Come on, this is no place for pragmatism.

    5. Do you support the UN banning countries from doing unlibertarian things?

      Because that’s where your logic leads.

  30. Dr. Paul is a Libertarian through and through

    Er, no. But he is the best we’ve got.

    1. Yeah, he’s a constitutional Federalist paleoconservative, with some libertarian tendencies. A libertarian would support a federal ban on state laws banning gay sex, drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. I don’t give a crap about states rights if those are going to violate my liberties.

      The Tenth Amendment has its uses when it comes to differences on positive liberties and localized government services provided, but when it comes to negative liberties, I should not be violated by any government.

      1. Re: Proprietist,

        A libertarian would support a federal ban on state laws banning gay sex, drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc.

        That’s not true.

        The Tenth Amendment has its uses when it comes to differences on positive liberties, but when it comes to negative liberties, I should not be violated by any government.

        And you think giving the power to decide which liberties to protect to the Federal Government alleviates that?

        1. No, I’m saying a libertarian believes negative liberties are inviolate, and if the federal government banning states from violating those rights is the way to make that happen, so be it.

          I’m a libertarian and not a constitutionalist. The Constitution was a compromised document in which the Ninth Amendment was far too vague and unclear language left the role of government more or less open ended.

          I have no problem if at the local level, a government decides to provide certain social services (roads, education, health care, fire protection, etc.) while others provide nothing beyond police and courts.

          1. So you take the same approach to things you don’t like as liberals and conservatives do: BAN IT!!!!

            1. Sure, all libertarians want to ban government from doing things it shouldn’t be doing. What’s your point?

              1. I guess we’ve reached the natural law vs. utilitarian divide.

                Forcing component governments to implement your ideology even though their population disagrees with it (aka the “I fuck you, you fuck me, I fuck you” approach to governance) is not conducive to stability.

                1. Forcing component governments to implement your ideology not violate individual rights even though their population disagrees with it is not conducive to stability authoritarianism via democracy.

                  Without the First Amendment being extended to the states, for example, we’d have states lynching people for unpopular speech and religion/non-religion. That would have been worse for liberty than a federal ban that asserts our basic rights.

            2. Just when I’m starting to feel all warm inside about you, Tulpa — this. (Or was that a joke? Fuck the Age of Irony.)

        2. how about SOME libertarians would and some wouldn’t?

          i think getting into wanks about what a true libertarian must support when it comes to stuff like this is kind of silly.

          it, like most laws, is about tradeoffs.

          by supporting a federal ban on criminalizing those activities, you are SUBSTANTIALLY increasing federal power , but that federal power is going towards limiting state power TO limit personal freedom

          that’s pretty fucking meta.

          as a libertarian, i think it’s better to recognize the concept of states as laboratories.

          iow, one state CAN legalize drugs, etc. (and not have some bullshit commerce clause interpretation giving the feds power to ignore their internal workings) and another state can be much stricter

          then, INDIVIDUALS can make their choice as to which state to live in, etc. and in the real world, people can see that one policy works BETTER than another policy.

          and move to that state OR change the laws in their state

          the problem with overweening federal power is it subverts the authoritah of the states to have such distinctions

          one of the reasons so many states have gone to “shall issue” is that the people saw that when OTHER states did it, and homicide went down or stayed the same iow it didn’t negatively affect violent crime, minds were changed on a policy basis (setting aside my personal belief that because of the 2nd amendment, all states should be shall issue)

          i personally chose my state because we recognize more expansive liberty than the federal constitution does in regards to search, seizure, that we have NO income tax, that we are a strong RKBA state, etc.

          federal govt. should protect basic rights, but generally speaking those should be rights guaranteed by the constitution, and sorry … but most of the libertarian positions we support are not a constitutional requirement, they are a policy preference

          1. You’re forgetting that all libertarians must agree with me on everything or else they’re not libertarian.

            1. darnit, somebody needs to send me an updated manual!!!

          2. I don’t believe there’s one “true” libertarian. By all means, I don’t fit the traditional libertarian stereotype, supporting (optional) land value taxes to receive government services, debtor’s prisons, ending state incorporation and bankruptcy, etc.

            I’m just saying that when it comes to my liberty I don’t care who defends it. If the Federal government defends it better than state governments, great.

            If Ron Paul lambastes the Supreme Court for the Lawrence decision, one of the very best expansions of liberty in the past decade, he’s not really very libertarian.

            In essence, he believes the Federal government should act in a libertarian fashion, yet doesn’t seem to care much about state and local authoritarianism. I know he’s not elected at the state level, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t speak out against oppression regardless of which entity does it.

        3. Thank you, OM. Proprietist, you are dead wrong on this.

          1. Care to explain? I think I’ve defended my point sufficiently that state-level democratic authoritarianism is not significantly better than federal-level democratic authoritarianism. The First Amendment, combined with the Fourteenth, is a federal mandate the states must uphold. Are you complaining about that?

            1. Re: Proprietist,

              I think I’ve defended my point sufficiently that state-level democratic authoritarianism is not significantly better than federal-level democratic authoritarianism.

              No, that’s not what you argued. You argued above for all to see that you would prefer an activist federal government instead of an oppressive state government. This regardless of the fact that a State is much less powerful and much less ubiquitous as a federal government.

              1. Yet if the same exact oppression happens at the state level, as the victim it’s just as bad. It’s kind of nice to be able to appeal to the Federal Government and the Constitution to protect my rights if the state violates them. Either you want more expanded protection from government authoritarianism and ability to appeal violations of rights, or you don’t.

                Answer my question: should the federal government and federal courts step in and stop Arizona from mass execution of illegal immigrants, or should the follow Paul’s vision of the Constitution and state’s rights and let the issue die at the state court level, which was, of course, appointed by the same individuals committing the actions? The ramifications of Paul’s unwillingness to check state-level assaults on liberty with the federal government if necessary is not a compelling libertarian defense of my rights.

      2. Who is gonna run the debtors prisons then, if there is no government at all?

        1. LOL. Where did I say I was an anarchist? Fraud and theft violates my rights, and refusing to pay back debts in bad faith is no different.

          1. I just don’t want to listen to him called non-libertarian because he believes in Federalism. If thats a valid argument, then you aren’t libertarian because you aren’t an anarchist. I don’t want any state at any level stealing my money, but if it’s gonna have to happen, then lets at least stick to the by-laws, as written in the charter.

            1. Federalism is not libertarianism by any means. Many states rights activists throughout history, from slavery advocates to Joe Arpaio, have been extreme authoritarians.

              Ron Paul supports state rights to uphold sodomy laws over the federal government striking them down. He also believes that the Supreme Court should not have even accepted the Kelo vs. New London challenge because he opposes the crossover into deciding state laws at a federal level, as supposedly the Constitution does not apply to states.

              Yet the 9th Amendment upholds our non-enumerated rights, so if the Federal government is acting to defend our rights, that is a libertarian and a Constitutional action. His paleoconservative interpretation of the Constitution in essence ends up not being very libertarian. Where does the line stop? If Arizona starts taking illegals out back and executing them en masse, should the federal government interfere?

              1. I don’t think Ron Paul would have a problem acting in you take-em-out-back-and-shoot-em-scenario. But you knew that.

                So you essentially call him not a libertarian for drawing the line in a different place than you do. By that same logic I now consider you a dirty statist for not being an anarcho-capitalist.

  31. Chris Wallace is guilty of the same kind of reporting of the left. That serves his own agenda. ask the questions let them answer and stop making yourself out to be righter than rain

  32. As I recall, the RonPaul newsletter was a business deal. A way for Lew and Murray and Ron to make money from Ron’s name (or else why not call it the Hard Money/Paleo Libertarian report or some such?) Those who know RP know he isn’t a racist, nor was Murray nor is Lew. But, while RP counted the royalties, Lew and Murray went after the mouth-breathers with what they considered clever insults against the limousine liberals and pinkos (whom they could easily defeat in reasoned academic debate but which the mouth-breathers would not pay good money for.) At the end of the day, RP can be faulted for not paying attention – over a span of many issues – with the base rhetoric spewing forth in “his” newsletter.
    One issue, with the responsible person getting fired quickly, we could understand and forgive. This inattention is the disturbing part of the RP resume. [Remember, too, that a key trusted campaign staffer his 1988 embezzled a relatively large amount of money because there was no accounting controls in place.]
    Where is the evidence that a president RP would be able to identify and stop rogue subordinates from undermining his attempts to restore constitutional government? All that said, he is still head and shoulders above the other contenders and I just put a Ron Paul 2012 bumper sticker on my car.

    1. Re: romulus augustus,

      This inattention is the disturbing part of the RP resume.

      You’ve got to be kidding me. It this the one thing that tarnishes his resume, in your opinion, he would be no worse than St. Augustine.

      Where is the evidence that a president RP would be able to identify and stop rogue subordinates from undermining his attempts to restore constitutional government?

      Where is the evidence for any of the last 10 presidents, RA? Give me a break. The worst that happened is that a guy’s offensive tirade was published in some newsletter 20 plus years ago, seen only by a few subscribers. You quickly forget that this was the era when e-mail was still a thing people did in unversities. So fucking what?

      Remember, too, that a key trusted campaign staffer his 1988 embezzled a relatively large amount of money because there was no accounting controls in place.

      And the Clintons made millions in shady deals. You’re talking about a staffer, when we had a president that was allegedly already a fucking CROOK and a RAPIST.

      You’re asking for purity that nobody can match.

  33. I normally would not post anything from the Daily Paul website, but this is insane:

    Jerry Doyle Under Fire For Supporting Ron Paul

    Recently Jerry has ramped up the pressure on the media and O’Reilly especially for continuing to try and marginalize Ron Paul in spite of the fact that he is rising in the polls and is clearly a frontrunner.

    Jerry has been reading hate mail lately that he has been getting from neocon true believers that are pissed about what he has been saying about Newt and Romney. Hate mail from listeners because he has been exposing Trump and his motivations for the now cancelled “debate”. Hate mail from listeners who are angry that he is telling the truth about Ron Paul.

    On Monday Jerry came as close to an official endorsement as he could and stated that if he endorsed Ron Paul, that he would support him no matter what happened. Even if Ron Paul ran as a 3rd Party candidate.


    Yesterday Jerry wasn’t live. He tweeted the topics he was going to cover but instead I heard an old show being replayed

    I read on Facebook that his staff has been fired

    All of the in studio videos that his Producer Jesse are not available on Youtube anymore

    Today I tune in and Bill Wattenberg, a recently fired talk show host from KGO in San Francisco is filling in for Jerry.

    This has gone beyond the simple expediency of attacking one politician to defend another. This has gone beyond the vapid discussion over the validity of the newsletters as a political weapon. This is beyond Aqua-Buddha moments. This is suppressing speech. This is retaliation. This is, clearly, using the tactics of the left to obtain a gain for the neo-conservatives.

    This is a totally different animal, guys. This time, is for real.

    1. AKA freedom of association.

      If you don’t like the radio station’s decision, inform them of that fact and stop listening to them until they come around.

    2. You must be wrong, Old Mex. Ron Paul’s opponents would never fight dirty. Or so I’ve been told.

      1. ???

        Who said that?

        1. Re: robc,

          Who said that?

          Nobody. Someone claimed that the newsletters would bring RP’s candidacy down in flames and I told him that he was full of shit. CN simply construes that statement by me as meaning that I would never, ever think that RP’s opponents would rely on dirty tricks.

          See how logical discourse loses its meaning when faux libertarians enter the mix?

          1. Now let me get this straight, robc and Old Mex. You’re conceding that Paul’s opponents will use the newsletters against him?
            So then you’re positing that, even with no new clear response from Paul, the average voter will be, like “ah, whatever, who cares?”
            This is what you’re saying?

            1. will TRY to use them, yes.

              Im saying its old news and he has responded appropriately to it and anyone who cares can look at his answer and decide for themselves.

              Do you have any specific problems with his response from 4 years ago? Is there any reason he cant respond like a PM and refer to the answer he gave some (4 years worth) moments ago?

              1. Is there any reason he cant respond like a PM

                Why yes. Yes there is.

                1. Im waiting….

            2. Re: Citizen Nothing,

              Now let me get this straight, robc and Old Mex. You’re conceding that Paul’s opponents will use the newsletters against him?

              We’ve been through this before, CN. NOBODY has said that nobody would be stupid enough to try. What *I* contended, as did many here, was that it would be a non-issue, another Aqua-Buddha moment. *YOU* were one of those that alleged that the mere mention of the newsletters would bring his candidacy to a crashing halt.

              So then you’re positing that, even with no new clear response from Paul[…]

              This is the part where you, like Rev. Blue Moon and Tulpa, show your total lack of honesty and obfuscate like Max. He DID respond to the controvery. He DID disavow himself from the content of that essay (it wasn’t “racist newsletters” as you and the other liars are alleging, it was only ONE essay.) He did this 4 years ago on national television, with Wolf Blitzen, a much more serious journalist than Kirchik or Gillespie or Walker or Wiegel or Hannity.

    3. According to the comments, he’s out for shoulder surgery. And of course, nothing in the post you quote is substantiated, it’s the perception of one person.

      1. Re: Tulpa,

        According to the comments, he’s out for shoulder surgery.

        Yes, I know, but that is not why I posted that: Read the part where it says that the JD staff is gone.

    4. See the comments:

      Jerry Doyle’s FB page and saw this:

      Mike Lee just got a email from the program director:

      He is still very much on KDWN. He has had shoulder surgery which is why he is not on his show.

  34. Where is the evidence that a president RP would be able to identify and stop rogue subordinates

    Where is the evidence that Newt, Romney or Obama can identify or stop rogue subordinates?

    We know Obama cant…assuming they are actually rogues. I have no doubts at all that a Gingrich administration would be filled with corruption.

    Bush 2, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Carter…they all had rogues. Dont remember any from Bush 1, but there were probably some. No clue if Ford had time for that.

    1. There’s no such thing as a rogue in an administration that has no principles and no clear direction.

      1. Which one was that?

        The others had SOME principles. The Obams principles seem to be:

        1. Pass health care at all costs
        2. Destroy the economy even more than #1 does

  35. the myth of journalistic objectivity and all that

    If that’s so, then why should we believe anything you say?

    1. On a thread filled with retardedness, this is easily the retardedest.

      1. I cant see what you responded too (yeah incif), but you shouldnt speak that way about your own posts. Have some self esteem.

        1. I know you are but what am I? Nyaa, nyaa, nyaa!

    2. At least I’m not a hyphen.

  36. Peace out, dudes. Beer calls. I hope RP is still standing in the morning — and in a month.
    No one will be happier than I if robc and Old Mex prove us doubters wrong.

    1. In all your posts, you never once answered the questions asked of you. Sigh.

      I seriously wanted you to respond to the questions asked DIRECTLY. Not with prayers or eye rolls.

      1. (Rolls eyes.)
        Ouch. That was a big one.

    2. Re: Citizen Nothing,

      Peace out, dudes. Beer calls. I hope RP is still standing in the morning — and in a month.
      No one will be happier than I if robc and Old Mex prove us doubters wrong.

      Agreed, let’s chill out.

      I am sure the use of the newsletters as a weapon will explode in the faces of those that try it. Let’s hope that it is so.

      1. Take Ron Paul’s cock out of your mouth for a minute and breath, Old Mexican. Your brain needs the oxygen.

        1. Oh, great one, pet yorkie. Don’t forget to clean up the stains you left in your mommy’s basement carpet, you perv.

        2. What’s that, Max? You got a demon inside of you? Oh, you got semen inside of you. But that’s not relevant.

      2. I am sure the use of the newsletters as a weapon will explode in the faces of those that try it.

        “Explode” may be too strong a word, but I think it’s reasonable to suppose that 1) anyone for whom the newsletter thing is a big deal isn’t going to be voting for Ron Paul, anyway, and 2) for every person who might vote for him, but is negatively swayed by it, there is at least one other person so sick of all this race-baiting crap that for them it will be a positive influence.

  37. They may crush my boy Ron will all the stuff we’ve been talking about in these threads –

    – But I guess Ron has decided that he’s taking Gingrich down with him.

    He just called Gingrich a draft dodger on Fox News.




    1. I will say I think this is old news too.

      Goose/Gander and all that, but Newt handled* this 25 years ago.

      *we can legimately debate whether he handled it well.

    2. Mitt and Rick appreciate his service. Now they can get down to business with each other.

    3. From the link:

      There was one other issue I personally found annoying. He’s probably as aggressive with the military as anybody. He supports all the wars in Middle East. A thousand times more than if I would. But in the 1960s when he was drafted he got several deferments. He chose not to go. But he will send our kids to war. He said one person wouldn’t make a difference. He didn’t know how he could make a difference. I see that as important information. People should know that and it reflects on him.

      he’s clearly NOT putting him to task for dodging service, but for being so enthusiastic about sending someone else to be killed. He is questioning his consistency.

      Paul is a sharp guy. He knows exactly where not to tread; he was able to call Gingrich a “draft dodger” while at the same time not directly saying it.

      1. Don’t you think that CN, Tulpa, the Rev and others are ignoring the proverbial 999 pound gorilla in the room?

        We are in a depression. There are millions more homeless today than on January 20, 2009. There are millions more without gainful employment today than on January 20, 2009.

        So, what is more important to the average person who has lost either or both his job and his castle in the last three years:

        (a) his economic condition and prospects

        (b) some possibly racist assertions in one essay written 17 years ago by an associate of RP

        (c) conforming to the tastes of faux / beltway / pretend libertarians who do not even understand that racism means favoring law and policy based on race.

        Take a wild, fucking guess.

        1. Yawn. I was describing reality, not saying one way or the other my preferences. Go back to killing Lincoln in your dreams.

    4. But where can he go with this since I would assume that RP is/was against the draft to begin with?

      1. I guess Paul figures that Gingrich has 7-10 days left in which he can win or lose this, and if he just keeps punching Gingrich every day Newt won’t be able to regain the initiative.

        He probably wants Newt to get all outraged, so he can then say, “Well, we criticized Bill Clinton for this, so integrity demands that we criticize Newt Gingrich for it too” or words to that effect.

  38. http://www.libertarianinternat…..n-freedom-
    The media confuses the thoughts of the Pauls and others with the actual developers of modern libertarianism. As Rand Paul said, he isn’t really versed in the issue.

  39. It sure as fuck won’t matter. The boring old fuck knows he’ll never win the nomination. Only his dimwit followers are delusional enough to think he can.

    1. Well, I see you understand Stalin’s words:

      Its not who votes that counts, its who counts the votes.

    2. Oh, Maxie-pad. I’m not one of his “dimwit followers”, but you’ve convinced me. I’m reasonably certain I could live out the rest of my life doing the exact opposite of whatever you advised me, and would be content at the end of the day.

  40. So vote Republican!


    News Bulltin: Ron Paul is a Huge Racist

    “The slight complicating factor is that Paul’s newsletter was unsigned, so even though it purported to express his views, he can plausibly deny having authored any single passage personally. But the general themes of white racial paranoia are so completely pervasive that the notion that they don’t represent Paul’s own thinking is completely implausible. It is possible that another contributor could have snuck in a line here or there that did not reflect Paul’s thinking, but they couldn’t have set the consistent ideological line for his newsletter. Paul may be a dissident from the main thrust of Republican policy-making but this is not because he’s more tolerant or more sensible than the leaders of the GOP. It’s because he’s crazier.”

    1. Re: Max,

      You’re too late, someone already posted that, you brainless twit.

      1. Hey, did you take Ron Paul’s cock out of your mouth? Feels good, huh?

        1. Re: Max,

          Did you stop jerking off from that image you just described? Don’t forget to wipe the floor later…

          1. “Feels good, huh?”

            Gross, Max. That’s one rhetorical question you needn’t ask. I know you love the cock.

  42. If Ron Paul doesn’t win this time around this cuntry might as well pack it in and call it a day. Dingrich, Romulan, etc. are nothing but a bunch of izn’treal loving crooks.

  43. Chris Wallace is on my “SHIT LIST” along with O’ Reily

  44. In the Republican debate, Ron Paul gets another pass on his racism and long-time association with birchers and lunatic militias–the former subscribers to his newsletter. I guess that’s another sign that nobody really takes the pathetic old fuck seriously.

    1. Yawn. The bandwagon fallacy is so cliche. Try harder, Max.

  45. I think it is funny that to you people racism doesn’t matter unless it is drummed up about a political figure who challenges the establishment. Personally I believe anyone who has not done the research behind Dr. Paul is simply disillusioned. If you do not know the facts then get out of the discussion please. If you would like to participate then let us be balanced and informed. All of your assertions to discredit the man are insignificant compared to thirty years of established record. P.S. If you are pro-establishment it doesn’t matter what you think because your system is broken. If you don’t think so then check your country’s new credit rating.!

    1. Go fuck yourself.

  46. No, Mr. Wallace: If Ron Paul wins in Iowa, YOU won’t count.

    Don’t let the studio door hit you in your brain on the way out.

    1. Rest Easy, Mr. Wallace. If Ron Paul wins in Iowa, Iowa simply has more halfwits than anyone realized.

      1. That’s so cute! Your like a little barking chihuahua! Can I put a bow on you?! Heheh…

  47. Chris Wallace is a neo-con shill.

  48. Chris Wallace is Jewish and obviously a Zionist pretending to be an American.

  49. Get Fox to fire his ass!

    Fox news complaints: 1-888-369-4762

    He is a debate moderator, so he is SUPPOSED to
    be fair and balanced.

    Copy and paste ? pass to your friends!

  50. Ron Paul for President – 2012 – he is our only hope.

    The “Lame Stream Media” is so afraid of Ron Paul that it is using censorship to stop us from knowing anything about him .. they know that if they do any real true reporting on Ron Paul, their Corporate sponsors will punish them .. because corporations, banks, the democratic and republican parties, and the federal reserve are all afraid of Ron Paul because his goal is to take back control of our country from them and give it back to We the People .. check out these videos on how they are trying to hide Ron Paul from us ..

    Mainstream Media censorship – not reporting on Ron Paul

    See the video below on how to Vote for Ron Paul in the Republican Primaries, (if you need to change your registration to Independant or Republican, you can change it back to whatever you want after you vote for Ron Paul), after he is elected as the Republican candidate for President, we can support him in the General Election for President in 2012 .. that is the best chance for him to win because his voice can then be heard .. no more censorship by the media and hiding him from everybody .. if worse comes to worse and the Banksters keep his name off of the ballot in the general election, we may still have a chance to elect him if we write him in .. write his name .. Ron Paul .. it is our only hope. Vote for him as soon as you can .. see video below ..

    How to Vote for Ron Paul

    God Bless America.

  51. See video – Ron Paul has been trying to save us for years .. he cannot do this by himself, he needs our help ..

    Ron Paul needs Our help…

  52. My friend just met a lover on this site – It’s where for men or women to find intimate encounters.It’s a nice place for people who wanna start a short-term relationship .No hesitation to find your true love.

  53. Of course Chris Wallace would say this. The establishment will stop at nothing to try and stop Ron Paul.

  54. Keep on pissing us off Wallace and the like. We the people are getting sick of your b.s. You are nothing like Ron Paul, and you can kiss his ass after he wins IOWA.

  55. biggest a hole on planet earth. Go hide your head in the sand

  56. Chris Wallace is a clown. Fox News is not credible. Fox News is simply a propaganda machine for the facist wing of the Republican party.

  57. Sign the petition to have Chris Wallace Removed from fox news due to his biased views that he says represent the conservative Americans.
    Let Fox know that we have had enough of their propaganda!!…..-fox-news#

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.