Ron Paul

NAACP Head Ben Jealous on Ron Paul: "We've Found Common Cause with Libertarians…"; Plus, New Newsletter Allegations

|

Delayed hat tip to Slate story: Alan Vanneman, whose blog is always worth checking out.

Former Reason scribe, now with Slate, Dave Weigel caught up with the head of the NAACP, Ben Jealous, and asked him a question about Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas).

Slate: Ron Paul answered a question about his old newsletters by saying he was the most anti-racist candidate: He wanted fair criminal justice reform. Did you buy it?

Jealous: We've found common cause with libertarians across the South, for years. In Texas, Ron Paul's state, we've passed a dozen progressive criminal justice reforms last year, working with the Tea Party. In South Carolina we got one-to-one on crack versus powder, which we couldn't get Congress to do when Democrats controlled it. In Georgia, we just pushed through the biggest review of criminal justice policy in the entire country, again, working with a Tea Party governor and Tea Party supporters. Criminal justice reform is, if you will, the big silent agreement in this country. It's ideas like treatment instead of incarceration appeal from libertarians to liberals alike, to progressives and conservatives alike.

If you divide the Tea Party, it divides into three groups: The libertarians, the fiscal conservatives, and the social conservatives. And when you go them and say rehab is seven times more effective than prison, they pay more attention. The pot-smoking wing pays attention. The Christian conservatives, who are very involved in prison ministry, already know it. So Ron Paul has a point that policies he is promoting, on criminal justice reform, are policies that need to be discussed and would have a positive impact on the black community.

Emphasis added. More here.

Hat tip: Alan Vanneman.

In a related story, The Washington Post reports allegations today that while the congressman may not have written the racist newsletters that went out under his name for years, "he always got to see the final product. .?.?. He would proof it." That comes from Renae Hathaway, who worked at Ron Paul & Associates, the publisher of the newsletters. The same article cites another Paul business associate who says, "I just do not believe he was either writing or regularly editing this stuff."

Paul's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, tells the Post that when it comes to the racist material, Paul "abhors it, rejects it and has taken responsibility for it as he should have better policed the work being done under his masthead."

If you've read Reason's 2008 story, "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?," there isn't much new in the Post account, which itself indicates a problem. At this point, the only one who can end interest in the story is Ron Paul himself.

I wish that Paul would be more forthright in naming the people behind the newsletters (and if he doesn't remember off the top of his head, he could certainly burn a few more calories in finding out). I don't think that Ron Paul is a racist and I agree the NAACP's Jealous that Paul's policies are in most ways far more beneficial to black Americans than those pursued by the rest of the Republican presidential field, the Democrats, and President Obama. Indeed, Paul is the only would-be GOP presidential nominee who is clearly against the drug war, which disproportianately affects African Americans. The economic freedom he promulgates, especially when concerning licensing regulations that hurt very small, low-capitalized ventures such as hair-braiding and taxi services, would similarly help low-income blacks as much or more than any other group in America.

Yet when you go back and look at the actual newsletters, the level of offensiveness and sheer stupidity is stunning. In one "Survival Report," for instance, the writer defends "Poor Marge Schott!," the rancid owner of the Cincinnati Reds who defended Hitler, railed against "sneaky goddamn Jews," and at one point whined about "million-dollar niggers" (one of whom, Eric Davis, had helped the Reds win the 1990 World Series). Schott was fined for such comments and eventually squeezed out of baseball. The writer of the Surivial Report likens such actions to being prosecuted for "thought crimes from the novels of Orwell and Huxley [sic]." While regularly arguing that businesses are private spaces that can set their own rules for employment and service, the writer argues that "Schott's leftist critics have no concern for the First Amendment." What's more, people who get bent out of shape by racist language "never seem to mind whenever someone uses the Creator's name in vain?" The writer also doesn't bother quoting Schott's slurs, a classic strategy in defending the indefensible.

Schott didn't deny making offensive comments, instead usually argued that she was joking or taken out of context. She worked in a business whose long history of institutionalized racism is still rightly a touchy subject; no one with half a brain could be surprised that she would get sanctioned for such loose talk, or eventually kicked out of the ownership club for good. Poor Marge Schott? Eh, I don't think so.

As I wrote in late December, I don't think the newsletters invalidate Paul's candidacy or his years of principled small-government legislating. But they remain disturbing and, more to the point, show a real failure of leadership first in their existence and second in his unwillingness to get to the bottom of a story that troubles some of his most sympathetic followers. His unwillingness to settle things once and for all is a sad reminder that no politician is perfect, even one who wants to cut $1 trillion from next year's budget.

NEXT: Reason Writers on the World's Greatest Network: Matt Welch Talks About the Eternal State of the Union on WGN

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

  1. Finally! A picture of Newt that doesn’t make me cringe.

    1. Well, the Saint Bernard humanizes him.

      1. Shoulda seen that coming. But I didn’t.

      2. You, sir, are a gentleman and a scholar.

    2. Are you a bicurious having trouble finding honest and safe places to have bisexual chat ? Well you’ve come to the right place—datebi*cO’m—. Just join in for free!

      1. Why go there when we have pansexual chat here?

        1. cO’m oN. Just join in for free!

  2. newsletters? yawn

    1. Dickhead Dave Weigel is more obsessed with those fucking newsletters than Inspector Javert was with Jean Valjean.

      1. +1.

        Even if Paul wrote the newsletters. Even if he meant every word, he’s a better candidate than everyone else on stage.

        I’m sick of this race-baiting. Paul disavows it. Can’t that be enough.

        Word to the media: we are NEVER. I mean NEVER going back to the racist 1200s. You sound like the National Enquirer when you pretend that it is a possibility. This is such a big fat non-issue, I can’t believe it is constantly covered. This country will sink into the ocean of debt, but we will still be debating who wrote an insensitive newsletter years ago.

        1. And no, I’m not a Paulbot. I JUST DON’T FUCKING CARE.

          1. + 1,000,000

            1. When the head of the NAACP, and leading black men and women such as Walter Williams, Juan Williams, and Dr Iris Mack from Harvard think that this issue is being overblown, Nick, maybe it is time for you white boys at Reason to give it a rest. We know you want to bolster your street cred, but you’re trying just a tad too hard here.

              1. It’s not to bolster street cred. Nick has more than enough libertarian street cred, and more than enough skepticism about Paul cred.

                It’s the cocktail parties that keep them coming back to the newsletters.

              2. This is a story about the story about Paul. This is pretty big in the mainstream right now. It’d be kind of irresponsible for Reason to ignore a big story about the biggest liberty loving candidate in the GOP at the monent.

        2. I’m sick of this race-baiting. Paul disavows it. Can’t that be enough.

          When that’s all you’ve got, then no it can never be enough. Somewhere Max and Tony are taking turns blowing. Max because he appreciates the effort. Tony….well cuz that’s just how he rolls.

          1. Somewhere Max and Tony are taking turns blowing.

            Somewhere Max and Tony are taking turns blowing….Jamie Kirchick.

            Fucking reason.com squirrels!

  3. Ron Paul has a point that policies he is promoting, on criminal justice reform, are policies that need to be discussed and would have a positive impact on the black community.

    Be this as it may, the black community will still vote overwhelmingly for Barack Obama.

    1. Takes the sting out of the RACIST meme, though.

      And, seriously, if you were writing a book and named the NAACP head “Jealous”, the race-baiters would be all up in your grill.

    2. The black community that votes will go 99% for Obama if it’s him and Romneystorumgrich. The difference is, they’ll go 90% Obama if it’s him and Paul…Maybe, at most.
      Fact is they’re not going to vote against him. Those African Americans who are upset with Obama just won’t vote at all. So the quantity of blacks who vote for Obama will certainly be a lot less than 08, but the percentage is going to be pretty much the same. Even as upset as many of them are with the president, virtually none will pick a guy like Romney over Obama.

      1. Why would they? I wouldn’t pick a guy like Romney over Obama either.

        1. Black people voting 100% for the black candidate is really a racial problem, Brandon. It’s disturbing.

          1. Didn’t you hear? Only Team BLUE can save the black community from the scourge of racist policies that only the Uncle Toms, house niggers, and lawn jockeys of the black community could support.

          2. When did I say it was a racial problem? I don’t see any good reason for anyone to pick Romney over Obama, so I can’t really fault black people for not doing so.

  4. She worked in a business whose long history of institutionalized racism is still rightly a touchy subject

    Auto sales? Really?

    1. You know who else worked in a business whose long history of institutionalized racism is still rightly a touchy subject?

      1. Nick Gillespie?

      2. Albert Einstein?

        1. David Carradine?

  5. who the fuck keeps the surname “Jealous”?

    1. He changed it from “Lustful”.

      ** snort **

      1. Everyone knows the proper form is “Was Jealous.”

        1. It is “I be jealous, and if you ax me again I still be jealous”.

    2. There is a representative from one of our vendors who is named Jim Terrible.

    3. For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

      Exodus 34:14

      1. So he’s jewish?

  6. As a fan, I will defend to the death anyone and everyone connected with the 1990 Cincinnati Reds.

    Schott was an embarrassment (for plenty of reasons other than her racism), but I still think it was wrong for baseball to drive her out.

    1. Here here

      I was born in Cincy and grew up in Dayton. There was a mixed atmosphere at the time. There were folks that wanted her gone, but there was a good number of people who were skeptical that Schott was the first owner ever to say the word nigger.

      She truly cared about the fans. She kept ticket prices low throughout the 80s, almost lowest in the league.

  7. You know who else is a libertarian? Yup, Ron Swanson.
    Did you see the way he bowled last night?

  8. Has it ever occurred to you people that Ron Paul doesn’t *want* to hang someone over something they did 30 years ago, for the sake of politics? It would be perfectly in tune with his character.

    1. Good point. The idea that Someone Must Be Sacrificed is a petty, irrelevant way for pols to dodge tough realities.

      Paul is weathering an ugly truth, and it may be part of what limits him in the end, but the image of him tsk-tsking some old colleague at this point would be nauseating.

      1. Then he’s got to stop avoiding the issue and take responsibility for it. He keep saying “it was my name but I didn’t do it so I’m not responsible”

        I’m sorry Dr. Paul, but you let that shite get published under your name. Own it.

        1. Bloody pom. Mind your own business.

    2. You don’t understand Reason’s motives. The backed off the newsletter stuff when Paul was doing well in the polls. Now that he’s going to bomb in Florida they defaulted back to their anti Rothbard/Rockwell position.

      1. Are you kidding? Reason has zero influence on the election & they know it. They are reporting on a story about Paul. This is only important because there are so many words being written about in the mainstream press. It would be irresponsible for Reason to ignore it.

        1. And, by pursuing the story a couple of years ago, they’ve probably helped Ron Paul avoid having to drop out of the race in scandal a couple of weeks ago.

    3. That he refuses to engage in finger pointing politics which revolves around throwing others under the bus should be seen as a GOOD thing, not some error that must be resolved. He’s trying to usher in a new era of politics, and he’s being an example of those politics.

      Why would he go against his principles and do exactly what he’s been so careful to avoid thus far? To satisfy Nick Gillespie probably isn’t a very valid reason.

    4. I don’t understand, either, why it is considered important to know who wrote the racist articles.

  9. Highly acclaimed syndicated columnist and a Distinguished Professor of Economics Dr. Walter E. Williams who happens to be black has recently stated, “The accusations about Ron Paul being racist are not true,…I’ve known him personally for at least 20 years, 25 years, maybe. He’s a good guy.” Austin, Texas president of the NAACP, Nelson Linder, another friend of the Texas congressman, has stated in many interviews that the Republican (Ron Paul) does not harbor ill feelings towards Blacks or other minorities.
    Nelson Linder has also commented that, “the accusations of racism against Dr. Paul are part of a smear campaign being orchestrated by the establishment, who sees him as a clear threat to the status quo.”

    Ron Paul is not a neo-Nazi nor does not he support neo-Nazi ideology. Paul has no control over who supports him anymore than any other candidate. A statement from a member of Stormfront, which is a neo-Nazi organization, “We understand that Paul is not a white nationalist,” one Stormfront member explains, “but most of our people support him because of his stand on issues,” particularly his tough stances on immigration and the Federal Reserve. As Presidential Candidate Paul has stated, “They’re endorsing what I do or say,” not vice versa,” he explained. “I’ll go to anybody I can convert to look at liberty the way I do.”

    The way Ron Paul looks at liberty is that it is meant for everyone no matter what their race or creed. Ron Paul fully respects and wholly adheres to every nuance contained within the four corner of the U.S. Constitution, which sadly is an anomaly for far too many holding or running for office.

  10. Please shut the fuck up about the newsletters already. It’s done. It’s over. Quit beating a dead horse.

    It’s like this article was written by fucking Maxipad.

    1. Please shut the fuck up

      We will if you will. Deal?

      1. derp, if this weren’t about the newsletters I wouldn’t have said anything. Holy fuck you’re a moron.

        1. +69

        2. derp, if this weren’t about the newsletters I wouldn’t have said anything.

          Yes, but…you did say something, didn’t you?

          That’s the point, dude.

          1. We get it, don’t we.

    2. It’s going to be nothing but newsletters, 24/7, if he somehow gets the nomination.

      1. A reason even I, a die-hard libertarian might vote against paul 😛

      2. In which case, I’d kinda hope that the pragmatic side of the liberal/progressives speak up for him on drug war, etc. issues. I mean, it’s only a very tiny hope. Even so.

      3. I hope so. If they don’t have anything else on him, the election will be a walkover.

  11. He doesn’t defend them because it is a distraction.

    What are people who make the newsletters a big deal trying to say? What are they ultimately getting at?
    That Ron Paul is a racist and approved racist material in his newsletters.

    The proof is in his policies, his positions, his relationships with diverse Americans.

    Please stop spreading this trash. Its not a story anymore. Its a non-issue.

    1. We are part of the Chat-O-Tariat and it’s a free country and we have a right to say whatever we want, poopy-pants!

      1. Who said you didn’t? Self-victimize much?

    2. Jim, it’s the leftists doing this. It’s Libertarian (or RP) derangement syndrome. Racism is the worst sin in their catechism, and one for which no forgiveness is possible. Whether they actually believe he’s racist, or are just pretending to, doesn’t matter. They’d hate him for his views even if the newsletters didn’t exist, this is just icing on the cake for them.

    3. The electorate is stupid. Facts don’t matter. Reality doesn’t mater. Only perception matters because that is THEIR reality.

  12. I don’t know, the Newt is almost inherently cringe-worthy.

  13. Let’s say you had a good friend who had a penchant for saying racist things, and one day someone mistook something he said for something you said. Would you throw him under the bus in public, or just try to sweep it under the rug? It might be politic for Ron Paul to throw Rockwell (or whomever else) under the bus, but I respect that he prefers not to air his dirty laundry in public.

    1. I think I could have fit a few more aphorisms into that post… 😛

    2. In so many words, Ron Paul said it was Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard in the NYT article. He said they liked antagonizing people and he liked bringing them together. That was in fact the perception many libertarians had at the time. R&R were the attack dogs and RP was the nice guy.

  14. Reason, why do you feel it neccessary to continually beat a dead horse? In one part you act like its obvious he didn’t write them, and abhors rascism. He was out of politics and working in his medical practice, I work with physicians, I am an EMT in the emergency room, and can tell you, their life is their work. PERIOD. The fact that all you do is bring this up on a monthly basis is getting old.

    1. I don’t think the newsletters invalidate Paul’s candidacy or his years of principled small-government legislating. But they remain disturbing and, more to the point, show a real failure of leadership first in their existence and second in his unwillingness to get to the bottom of a story that troubles some of his most sympathetic followers.

      I think Gilliespie is pretty clear that he feels RP should give a better accounting of this. You may disagree with that, but it’s not an unreasonable (drink!) position.

      Also, the left is driving this. They won’t let it die.

      1. Well, when a post starts out quoting Dave Weigel, a leftist is driving the bus.

    2. Emergency Department physicians are really the only physicians with horrible hours…

  15. Ok so its like there is a mobile site monster that is slowly but steadily devouring threads. Each new post works fine on android for a few minutes and then inexplicably gets redirected to the mobile site.

    1. MOBILE MONSTER, OM NOM NOM NOM!!!

      (this message brought to you by the letter M and the number 4.)

    2. Typical. “It’s all the MSM’s fault!”

  16. That comes from Renae Hathaway, who worked at Ron Paul & Associates, the publisher of the newsletters.

    Hathaway… Hathaway… that’s a ZOG named, isn’t it…?

  17. Much of the progress made by the civil rights movement during the 1960s has been effectively eroded. Drug prohibition and the selective enforcement of drug laws have become the successor system to Jim Crow. They selectively target people of color, removing them from civil society and then barring them from the right to vote.

    Drug Prohibition is the primary factor in the destruction of African-American families and African-American communities.

    A disproportionate percentage of African-Americans are being branded as felons. This effectively eliminates the chance of finding decent employment, and with it the possibility to successfully raise and support a family.

    The following facts are indisputable:

    * Our heavily militarized Police force is effectively laying siege to black neighborhoods. This is not happening with the same force and zeal in predominantly white neighborhoods.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f…..mgeCeGk–I

    * (2009) Afro-Americans do not use drugs at a perceivable higher rate (9.6%) than white Americans (8.8%) Source: http://recovery2day.org/Alcoho…..yment.html

    * Afro-Americans are being stopped and searched at a far higher frequency than white Americans.

    * Afro-Americans represent just 12.2 % of the population but are 37% of those arrested for drug offenses.

    * Afro-Americans comprise 53% of drug convictions but are just 12.2% of the population.

    * Afro-Americans comprise 67 percent of all people imprisoned for drug offenses but are just 12.2% of the population.

    * One out of three young African American (ages 18 to 35) men are in prison or on some form of supervised release.

    * There are more African American men in prison than in college. That’s a four times higher percentage of Black men in prison than South Africa at the height of apartheid. 

    In July 2011 The NAACP passed an “historic” resolution, calling for an end to drug prohibition. Very soon, many other civic organizations, the entire faith community and all persons of good conscience will join the many who are already demanding that this horrific assault on the African-American community be halted immediately. What about YOU?

    Whatever the exact dynamics involved, these racial disparities are a direct result of drug-prohibition and are quite clearly unacceptable. This dangerous and costly moronothon has done nothing but result in generations of incarcerated and disenfranchised Afro Americans. Any citizen not doing their utmost to help reverse this perverse injustice may duly hang their head in shame.

    “The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice”
    – Martin Luther King Jr

    “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
    – Desmond Tutu

  18. Ron Swanson bowling, ha ha

    1. yo, fuck Ron Paul Racism Newsletters.

      where’s the Ron Swanson Bowling Newsletters (RSBN ™).

  19. If he did see every newsletter, he probably only gave them a “Congressional Review.”

  20. You just can’t get it up anymore about these newsletters anymore, can you Nick? It just seems like your heart isn’t in it.

  21. hello everyone!Are you a bicurious having trouble finding honest and safe places to have bisexual chat ? Well you’ve come to the right place—datebi*cO’m—. Just join in for free!

  22. Are you a bicurious having trouble finding honest and safe places to have bisexual chat ? Well you’ve come to the right place—datebi*cO’m—. Just join in for free!

    1. Why? Hit & Run is already an honest and safe place to have bisexual chat. Or any other sort

      1. We need a trisexual chat.

        1. That is what Warty is for. Warty is omnisexual.

          1. How do you think he got all the warts?

  23. If you divide the Tea Party, it divides into three groups: The libertarians, the fiscal conservatives, and the social conservatives.

    And ne’er the twain shall meet, except at the occasional Glenn Beck rally.

    1. I don’t think there’s a libertarian element in the Tea Party. I have a hard time believing a libertarian organization would prefer Mitt Romney or Rick Santorum over Ron Paul.

      1. There really isn’t a tea party candidate running.

        1. But why does every opinion poll I’ve seen indicate the Tea party prefers Romney and Santorum to Ron Paul by about 2:1???

          1. Because that reflects the ratio of conservatives to libertarians that identify with the Tea Party?

          2. Because RP refuses to bomb Iran. RP should do a 180 on defense/war, and when he’s elected, refuse to serve. Talk about a protest vote!

  24. His unwillingness to settle things once and for all

    What else is there to settle? Suppose he finds out who wrote it and approved it… Then what? Cuss them out over something they did two decades ago? Demand a public apology so he’ll finally be able to wash his hands of it? Is that really all it will take to make his critics shut-up about it?

  25. But I thought the Tea Party was racist? That is the thing about the SOCONs. Most of them are real doo gooders. And as a result they are, as this guy says, very sympathetic to prison reform. They might not support drug legalization. But they will support ending the really draconian laws.

    The people who are driving the drug war in this country are not the SOCONs. The public employee unions and the moderate to liberal suburbanites who would lock us all in prison to save their little special snowflakes from ever facing any responsibility are the ones driving it.

    1. That’s a pretty good point. Prison ministries in much of the country are ran by Socons, and they tend to be tremendously effective.

    2. BINGO. The SOCONS are not the enemy.

  26. Can Reason just let it go already? Seriously, we understand that Ron Paul is not the absolutely PERFECT Libertarian…we get it. But you guys are really just grasping at straws lately. For the first time in a long time in this country, a good amount of Libertarian views have a really, really, really good chance of making it into the American mainstream, and that’s thank’s almost solely to Dr. Paul. Tell me someone else who is in a as good of a position to have the same influence and I’ll support him.

    So just cut the bullshit rhetoric already. You’re beating a dead horse. Just support the fucking guy, Gillespie. I’ll take a guy who shares about 75% of my views over another 40 years of Bush/Obama/Romney/Clintons. You apparently won’t.

    1. Your user name is deliciously ironic. Gillespie doesn’t support any candidate, FWIW.

    2. Like him or not, RP is our standard-bearer in this election. Calling for a better accounting for the newsletters is basic self-preservation. The left already believes, as a matter of infallible doctrine, that libertarianism is inherently racist. The newsletters, and RP’s tepid response to them, are not doing any good for the reputation of libertarians. This is about brand maintenance.

      1. If you believe introspection gets you any respect in politics, you got a lot to learn, buddyboi.

      2. Unless Ron drags Rockwell out of his office, horsewhips him, tars and feathers him, draws and quarters him, and then cleanses him with fire, lefty/prog/lib pearl-clutchers won’t change their mind about the newsletters, and probably not even then.

        They are what they are. He’s said what he’s gonna say. Either throw him under the bus for it, or shut the fuck up about it.

  27. newzletterz, that’ll drive up the hits and comments. getting really tired, reason.

  28. I wish that Paul would be more forthright in naming the people behind the newsletters.

    It’s a point that seems to go over Nick’s head. James Kirchick already has the name, and he had it when he first reported on it. Paul is a busy man with a lot of things on his plate to bother with penny ante bullshit that obsess journalist who apparently have too much time on their hands. You want to know more about it, ask Kirchick why he removed Powell’s name from the PDFs. It would not be in the nature of journalist to protect their own, would it?

    https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B7f4_ohEI3YZOGE5ZmE3NjUtOWMzNy00ZmZlLWI1MDUtNWQ4ZDA1ZTIxYTdi&hl=en_US

    1. Somehow this is all journalists, the howling left doesn’t exist. Got it.

      1. The fact that hardly anyone gives a flying fuck about this beyond ineffectual naval gazers like you and the six or seven people who watch MSNBC tells me that yes, indeed, the journalist are the problem. Why would you want to be swindled by someone like Kirchick who is only doing this out of opposition to Paul’s foreign policy goals? Are you a sadomasochist mark?

        1. Why would you want to be swindled by someone like Kirchick who is only doing this out of opposition to Paul’s foreign policy goals? Are you a sadomasochist mark?

          “swindled”? I am three exits past caring about the newsletters, but the response from the Deniers is too precious.

          1. Swindled is the right fucking term. He took Powell’s name out of the PDFs for a reason. That being so we would be distracted by fighting over who actually wrote those newsletters. From the standpoint of the operative, it worked beautifully too.

            1. Is that reason he gave, or is it one you just made up?

              1. Just think it through, you have been played.

                1. *yawn*…And if you fold a $20 bill just right, it looks like 9/11!!

                  1. *yawn*…And if you fold a $20 bill just right, it looks like 9/11!!

                    That old line ever works on the ladies, shrikey?

        2. I still oppose involuntary commitment of the insane, even despite this.

          1. Killaz, not you Rev.

          2. What the fuck ever, I may be a lunatic, but I have never been made a chump by anyone, especially any one with a neo in their political alliance of preference.

            1. I have never been made a chump by anyone, especially any one with a neo in their political alliance of preference.

              You’re doing just fine on your own.

              Here is the right and proper statement on RP: “The newsletters suck, but they have been hashed over sufficiently. RP, despite his deep flaws, is still a great candidate. I pledge never to call him DR PUAL or talk about reason “sucking Koch”.

              THE END. No one was “swindled”. Ron Paul fucked up. But people are allowed to fuck up. That doesn’t mean we need the Apaulogists coming in trying to whitewash (ha!) Paul’s fuck-ups.

              1. I’m not whitewashing anything. You don’t want to admit the obvious that Kirchick who regards us as The Enemy played us like puppets.

                1. Yes, it’s Jaime Kirchick’s fault…not, you know, the guy who spent 10 years pandering to the basest beliefs of rural white America.

                  1. You think that is the only thing this story is about? Jesus fucking Christ, did you just get off the banana boat, Rev?

                    1. You think that is the only thing this story is about? Jesus fucking Christ, did you just get off the banana boat, Rev?

                      Wait, is RP’s role or responsibility somehow diminished because other people with *gasp* political agendas are using this against him? You mean I am just supposed to shut up and fall in line behind DR PUAL?

                      I didn’t just get off the banana boat, but you have got Kool-Aid all over your lips.

                    2. Now you got your own agenda to worry about, right Rev? Protect your own heap of exclamation on this piss ant topic. Fuck that shit. Paul has gone further than anyone with a libertarian oriented message has gone since the days of Goldwater who wasn’t exactly the perfect standard bearer either. If you want to wallow in the mire, that is your business, but I’m still going to point at you navel gazers and laugh because it is all so fucking beside the point that you, Nick and the others who keep harping on it have become a side show spectacle.

                      I’m not angry about it, I’m just laughing at you clowns who think this shit is important.

                    3. oh, the old “I don’t care…you care!” gambit to prove that your impotent rage is in fact “laughter”. Keep it up, chumly, this is comic gold.

                    4. No. You’re comic gold, sunshine. You don’t do Scarface allusions unless you are having fun, and believe me buddy, I’m having a blast.

                    5. You’re a towel!

                    6. Guys, Guys, Guys!!!!

                      We get it. You both have small penises of equal length. No need to prove who has the smallest dick in the world. You both do. It’s ok though because some girls prefer small dicks…in the ass.

                    7. It’s ok though because some girls prefer small dicks…in the ass.

                      Did you acquire this preference from your father, your brother, or both?

                    8. I’m a pre-op paraplegic tranny so I don’t qualify as a girl nor do I have a preference one way or another.

                      But if you want to know who raped me, it was my social worker.

                    9. No dick is large enough for your big mouth, right Ms. Bone?

                    10. I’ll have to ask my social worker.

                    11. You see, that’s much better. I love you, Rev.

                    12. See, we’re like family. We can fight amongst ourselves, but if some outsider comes around insulting us, we turn on the interloper.

      2. I thought most journalists were part of the howling left. Did this change when I wasn’t looking?

  29. Oh look, another Ron Paul newsletters article. As if Stephanopolous didn’t effectively kill the story almost a month ago. I think I’ll try to get some work done today.

  30. I always think Newt looks like he’s turning into a Muppet when he laughs.

    1. ..Turning into?

    2. That’s just him turning back into demonic form. Nothing to worry about.

  31. Most people in the media are unaware that people don’t care where the fireman, who is willing to save their babies and put out the raging fire slept the night before.

  32. Governor George Wallace dis-associated himself from his earlier career stand in the school house door. Is that how Representative Paul should be viewed having grown out of earlier convictions? If not greater clarity on the news letter’s is required.

    1. Well, hell, Robert Byrd was just about as racist as you can get early in his life, and he was one of the darlings of the Democrats later in his career.

    2. A good point, Kristen, and one we need to keep hammering. They never purged Byrd for being an actual Klansman.

      1. They didn’t purge him because HE PLAYED FOR THEIR FUCKING TEAM.

        Ron Paul could resurrect MLK with a Lazarus pit and make him his running mate and it still won’t matter to those intellectually lazy fuckwits. They’ve got one card to play, but it’s always an ace to them.

      2. They didn’t purge him because HE PLAYED FOR THEIR FUCKING TEAM because he kept winning elections.

        1. Or…he kept winning elections because they didn’t purge him.

      3. In fairness, Byrd was a Klansman in a state that allowed black men to join the Klan.

        http://www.spunk.org/library/p…..000788.txt

  33. (and if he doesn’t remember off the top of his head, he could certainly burn a few more calories in finding out)

    Why would he have any interest whatsoever in doing this?

    And why doesn’t a reporter burn a few more calories to find out if he is so interested?

  34. There is a dude that clearly knwos what day of the week it is. Wow.

    http://www.real-time-privacy.tk

    1. True dat Dosman! True dat.

  35. “The writer also doesn’t bother quoting Schott’s slurs, a classic strategy in defending the indefensible.”
    this is ironic (though unsurprising) because when reason first started bitching about this, they wildly misrepresented the content of the newsletters with inaccurate/incomplete quotes. for example, they used this quote, “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions…”, without including the 2nd half of that sentence or the once after it: “…i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit?not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people.” there are more examples in the link at the bottom of this post. i stopped reading reason about a month ago over their RP coverage, but today i was like “fuck it, i’ll see what they’re writing about today”, and this shit shows up. congrats reason, you’ve lost another reader, but my offer of renewing my subscription still stands: one vigorous bj from matt welch, no eye contact, and if he gags the jig is up. charles koch can’t watch tho, or he has to pay 100.

    http://takimag.com/article/why…..z1fAU0iHwr

    1. i stopped reading reason about a month ago over their RP coverage, but today i was like “fuck it, i’ll see what they’re writing about today”,

      DRINK!

      In other words, yeah fucking right you fucking liar.

    2. i just happened to show up and all of my biases were confirmed. what a fuckin’ coincidence, eh? excuse me while i go fellate justin raimondo some more.

      1. ok i’m raising the stakes: welsh has to finger my asshole too. hope you’re proud of yourself, now poor mrs. welch is gonna have to absolutely debase herself just for my $20 subscription fee.

        1. I am going to donate $20 in your name. Oh, even better, I am going to donate it to institute “The Justin Raimondo Chair For Yokeltarian Studies”.

      2. i’m guessing you’re a libertarian. so do you read reason to have your biases contradicted? apparently, i have confirmation bias because i disagree with something in reason. you, in your infinite libertarian wisdom, are not subject to confirmation bias, which is how you have objectively determined that my bias has blinded me to reason’s wisdom. then you went on to derogatorily mention the author of the article i posted, most likely without reading it, which of course indicates no bias on your part, as you are incapable of having any. if i have a pro-RP bias, does reason, or at least nick g, have an anti-RP bias? “bias” suggests decisions made with insufficient information. by trying to add information that was left out of the article, i have displayed bias?

  36. Nick, if you don’t have anything new to say on the newsletters, and you don’t, then why do you feel compelled to say anything?

    Here’s a thought: anytime you mention Ron Paul, just drop a footnote, like this:

    Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul* is concentrating on caucus . . .

    *Standard Newsletter Disclaimer.

    1. You have to admit, though, that schizophrenia re: private business owners and the First Amendment really just looks like RP was trying to defend a bigoted old lunatic.

      I’m originally from Northern Ohio, and Marge Schott and her affinity for Hitler can rot in hell, AFAIC.

    2. Nick, if you don’t have anything new to say on the newsletters, and you don’t, then why do you feel compelled to say anything?

      I do concur with this, however. I just find it “odd” that RP talked about First Amendment Rights re: a private business owner.

  37. I’d say about 1 out of every 8-10 Reason posts on Ron Paul discusses the newsletters, which sounds about right to me. Paul spent about a decade pandering to a hateful bunch of people and made pretty good money doing so – he deserves to be called out.
    I know he’s not a libertarian Gallahad, but if he is on the ballot in November I’ll vote for him enthusiatically. But he has to cope with his baggage the same as everyone else.

  38. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9eGal0PTTU

    This pretty much ends the entire controversy. A journalist being a journalist.

  39. How in the fuck those newsletters don’t invalidate Ron Paul’s candidacy is a great mystery that Gillespie keeps shoved way up his fat right-wing ass.

    1. Re: Maxipad,

      How in the fuck those newsletters don’t invalidate Ron Paul’s candidacy is a great mystery that Gillespie keeps shoved way up his fat right-wing ass.

      How did the fact that a man who was a Grand Dragon of the KKK invalidate the great eulogy given by those great stalwarts of civil rights and propriety, i.e. Joe Biden and Obama.

      It’s a mistery to me, arf arf.

      1. Byrd was never a Grand Dragon.

        Byrd held the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops.

        I will give full unqualified credit to the Klan for having the most interesting rank titles in history.

        1. I’ll never make Supreme Gryffin with broken links. 🙁

        2. Re: Hank,

          I stand corrected. I do agree that being an Exalted Cyclops sounds like a formidable title.

      2. For one thing, the Ku Klux Klan in West Virginia did not discriminate against their black members.

        http://www.spunk.org/library/p…..000788.txt

  40. After all, it’s pretty important what people do to each other and whether or not they harm each other, but what really, really matters is what people think and what they say. Barry may be killing and bombing people and locking people up for using “drugs” and kicking the shit out of the Bill of Rights, but he talks real pretty and never says anything that offends our sensibilities and THAT’S what really matters.

    1. False dichotomy is false.

      Why can’t it be both?

  41. In the same way that Jesse Jackson’s “Hymie town” remark and his admission that he would be afraid to “be in a dark alley with a band of black yutes” doesn’t invalidate the reverend.

    It’s a post racial America, you need to find some other boogeyman to scare team blue with.

  42. No one cares about the newsletter except people who make a living caring about things. I think the whole thing reflects poorly on Paul. But it is not why he is not doing better.

    He is not doing better because he didn’t rebrand himself on foreign policy. He is so right and the time is so right for his domestic views, people would have over looked a lot on foreign policy.

    All he had to do was say “I am ending the wars of occupation and for future reference our policy will be ‘ruble doesn’t make trouble'” and he would have been fine. Instead he had to go on and whine about the poor Iranians and how understandable it is that the world hates us and how 9-11 was all our own fault and so forth. All of that was totally unnecessary and gratuitous to his point. And it killed his campaign.

    1. I just want to say that John has the best comment on this thread so far. The newsletters are now irrelevant to the general public; the problem is RP not just shutting the hell up about foreign policy, or, at a minimum, spinning his noninterventionism as “ending the wars of occupation/our enemies should be destroyed not coddled” That was fuckin’ easy-peasy, and RP screwed that up too.

    2. He is not doing better because he didn’t rebrand himself on foreign policy.

      Tom D made some excellent suggestions to that effect on the debate of the other night. I have to agree explaining his foreign policy is his key weakness. Don’t harp on the military support, Paul, that gets tedious fast. And don’t make claims that suggest you can keep every body who is currently in uniform. If you are going to make those spending cuts on the military side, people are going to have to be let go.

      Paul got a lot of praise for his performance last night, but after watching the clips, I just didn’t see anything that looked like an improvement.

      1. I know a lot of Paul supporters in the military. And they support him because they think he would end the wars and just bomb anyone who screwed with us into oblivion rather than try to nation build. They are getting that idea from somewhere. Why couldn’t Paul explain that better during the debates and campaign?

        1. Even my mixed up cousin* who is being redeployed this Spring is a Paul supporter, but by harping on it, I mean, I just don’t want to hear him repeat the same lines. He needs to engage the subject, talk more slowly, and not act like he has to get all the points in you ever wanted to make on a subject in a two minute answer. Even if Paul just cover two or three sentences in the time they allotted it would still make a better answer if he just engaged the question and attempted to smooth over the doubts people have.

          *The latest version of why he reenlisted up he told me yesterday, he wants to get away from his wife and kid. civilian life makes him miserable. What do you tell the guy? Running away from his family and problems doesn’t make them go away in the long run when he is paying alimony and child support on a grunts salary? That’s what I told him though I don’t think I helped much.

          1. He reenlisted, I mean, and now is head back to Afghanistan.

          2. There is a lot of guys like that. I am border line that way. Honestly, the times I have spent over seas have been some of the happiest most fulfilled times of my life. It is seriously fucked up. I readily admit that. But it is true. The dirty little secret of war is that if you are lucky enough to come back in one piece it has its charms. You are not supposed to admit that. But it is true.

      2. I think the easiest way Paul should have marketed his foreign policy:

        “As president, I am responsible for both the safety of our troops and the budget. My primary job is to ensure we are using our military efficiently, effectively and, ideally, as little as possible. However, I understand it is a dangerous world and there will be times when imminent threats require rapid and strong responses.

        My two foreign policy goals are to 1.) avoid unnecessary wars and meddling in other countries’ affairs as much as possible to insulate ourselves from blowback and unintended consequences and 2.) that, if we must use the military as a last resort, we follow the Constitutional procedures for declaring war and we respond strongly, but in keeping with our core national values of justice.”

        I certainly appreciate Paul’s expression of empathy for civilians trapped in war zones and ability to see things from the other perspective. That’s a highly rational way of looking at things and I respect that he’s taking political hits to express that POV.

        However, I’d rather him be president and actually be able to use the military in an empathetic fashion. Expressing the right balance of restraint and strength is all Paul really needs/needed to do.

        1. I disagree – this is what Paul should say his foreign policy is:
          “if you fuck with us, we will kick your asses into oblivion, & then come home and fuck our wives & have a nice bowl of ice cream for dessert”

          Nice, simple, and to the point.

          1. Rawr. War, yay! Blowjobs for everyone!

        2. “use the military in an empathetic fashion”

          What in the name of fuck does that even mean? Holistic bombing?

    3. The one thing he could have said about 9/11 that would make certain fuckheads piss their pants would be: “No 9/11 was not primarily OUR fault, but it was primarily government’s fault. The government stopped representing the people long ago. They fucked up. Repeatedly. Domestically and in the foreign policy. They didn’t listen to you. It’s their(and a bunch of pissed off delusional foreign whackjobs) fucking fault.”

    4. The one thing he could have said about 9/11 that would make certain fuckheads piss their pants would be: “No 9/11 was not primarily OUR fault, but it was primarily government’s fault. The government stopped representing the people long ago. They fucked up. Repeatedly. Domestically and in the foreign policy. They didn’t listen to you. It’s their(and a bunch of pissed off delusional foreign whackjobs) fucking fault.”

      1. Fuckin’ server squirrels.

  43. Yet when you go back and look at the actual newsletters, the level of offensiveness and sheer stupidity is stunning. In one “Survival Report,” for instance, the writer defends “Poor Marge Schott!,” the rancid owner of the Cincinnati Reds who defended Hitler, railed against “sneaky goddamn Jews,” and at one point whined about “million-dollar niggers” (one of whom, Eric Davis, had helped the Reds win the 1990 World Series). Schott was fined for such comments and eventually squeezed out of baseball.

    Beltway Libertarianism defined: Defend the defendable only jsut to seem “libertarian,” all other things irrelevant – even a person’s freedom to be an asshole.

    1. wuuut?

      OM, do you think before you speak?

      Why was RP going on about “First Amendment Rights” in a private organization?

      Was Marge Schott’s freedom violated because she was expelled by her employer/contracted party who had power over her?

      1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

        Why was RP going on about “First Amendment Rights” in a private organization?

        RP didn’t write that, which means your question is loaded.

        Was Marge Schott’s freedom violated because she was expelled by her employer/contracted party who had power over her?

        She was the owner of the team, Rev.

        1. RP didn’t write that, which means your question is loaded.

          Do you mean Ron Paul didn’t write that phrase, or the phrase doesn’t mean what it says?

          She was the owner of the team, Rev.

          So what? I am an owner who voluntarily signed up to get fined under a HOA/Condo agreement. Schott knew she could be fined and removed by MLB for being an obnoxious Nazi-loving old fruitcake. That’s how freedom of association works, OM.

          It’s like certain libertarians completely forget their principles as soon as they join Cults of Personality.

          1. Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

            Do you mean Ron Paul didn’t write that phrase, or the phrase doesn’t mean what it says?

            No, I mean you’re being disingenuous and dishonest.

            So what? I am an owner who voluntarily signed up to get fined under a HOA/Condo agreement.

            If you violate the terms of the contract, they can fine you. I hardly believe the terms of the contract between Mrs. Schott and the MLB included thought control. Unless you happen to be privy to that agreement, then you have no argument in favor of what was a violation of her freedom of speech. Initiation of violence is STILL wrong no matter who commits it, Rev.

            It’s like certain libertarians completely forget their principles as soon as they join Cults of Personality.

            I haven’t forgotten my principles, Rev. You didn’t have any to begin with.

            1. No, I mean you’re being disingenuous and dishonest.

              An ad hominem to avoid responding.

              If you violate the terms of the contract, they can fine you. I hardly believe the terms of the contract between Mrs. Schott and the MLB included thought control. Unless you happen to be privy to that agreement, then you have no argument in favor of what was a violation of her freedom of speech.

              Major League Baseball can pretty much fine its owners for whatever the hell it wants to. The fact that you don’t know this doesn’t make your argument any good, by the way. This is the contract MLB owners sign with the league. Here’s a source to show you don’t know what you’re talking about.

              Initiation of violence is STILL wrong no matter who commits it, Rev.

              It is simple and plain contract enforcement. All major sports teams and associations have vague, broad, and ill-defined “morality clauses”. So do contracts concerning endorsement deals. There is no “initiation of violence” – Marge Schott voluntarily subjected herself to the terms of her agreed-upon contract. The League enforced the agreement and she complied with the enforcement.

          2. “So what? I am an owner who voluntarily signed up to get fined under a HOA/Condo agreement. Schott knew she could be fined and removed by MLB for being an obnoxious Nazi-loving old fruitcake. That’s how freedom of association works, OM”

            This.

            When you voluntarily join a private organization (which is exactly what buying a professional sports team is) you have to abide by their rules and regulations.

            Interestingly enough. Had she been an avowed Nazi, and not just someone who claimed that they made a shit ton of statements that were “taken out of context”, and had her team been banished from the MLB she would actually have a very strong case for a discrimination lawsuit.

    2. i disagree; the definition of “beltway libertarianism” has to include something about koch funding. i used to think the von Mises-Antiwar.com/ Cato-Reason distinction was meaningless, but when i read about the original split, and its causes, it was so cynical and gross and discouraging that it changed my mind. they hire ppl like welsh, who isn’t even a libertarian. they support gary johnson, who wanted to keep gitmo open, and repeatedly use shallow, identity-politics attack journalism against the single most important libertarian public figure in the last century. they also have written approvingly of mark “i spit on libertarians” ames’ bullshit “journalism”. i learned more in a month of listening to antiwar radio than i did in years of reading reason.

      1. – Welch is at least a classical liberal. Who said Reason had to be an ideologically pure libertarian magazine?

        – Gary Johnson said he’d keep Guantanamo open until we find a better place and process for the prisoners there. There’s a big difference between seeking an end while pragmatically realizing we can’t set them all loose the moment he’s in office. I doubt even Paul would do that.

        – Being critical of one aspect of Paul’s history that harms his ability to get elected does not mean Reason is engaging in “attack journalism”. He’s harming himself and the libertarian cause by his intentional or unintentional racist affiliations and by responding to every question about it with a deflection.

        – I don’t recall Reason ever being remotely positive of Mark Ames.

        – AntiWar.com and Raimondo are divisive hardliner, small-tenters in the Rothbard tradition. That’s the great tradition that has crippled the LP’s electoral appeal and allowed the establishment party statists to run the entire show.

        1. Not that long ago, I would’ve agreed with you. That changed when I read “Who is Matt Welch?” by Justin Raimondo. I implore you to read it; or at the very least, just read the following passages and see if they mesh with your ideas (there are links supporting each quote/claim in the original piece):
          “Welch now claims he took no position on the Iraq war, yet he spent the run-up to the invasion disdaining antiwar commentary, touting his fellow anti-“Islamofascist” “liberals” like David Rieff for supporting the invasion in the name of “modernity,” denying the atmosphere of intellectual intimidation that made the march to war with Iraq nearly inevitable, and trying vainly to prove that the sanctions imposed on Iraq since the Bush I era only killed a few thousand people, instead of the hundreds of thousands claimed by several experts?and that it was all Saddam’s fault, anyway, for trying to defy the American hegemon.”

          Welch said: “I’m a liberal. I take liberalism to mean a belief in policy geared toward easing poverty, extending rights to every walking human…regulating markets judiciously, ensuring the… delivery of non-market goods such as education, health care and national defense…”

          “Welch was the editor of a magazine published in Prague called Prognosis. While conservatives like Buchanan were discovering that our foreign policy of relentless aggression had a down side, Welch was unearthing new rationales for U.S. military intervention in Central Europe:

          “I can talk pretty confidently about Central Europe from 1990-98, and especially the expansion of NATO and U.S. involvement in the Balkans (both of which I wrote and edited about extensively). And in those cases where my limited knowledge has brushed up against the party line of the Chomskyite Left’s foreign policy views, I have been appalled. For example, I’ve received more than a dozen e-mails from people quoting Chomsky while citing Kosovo as yet another example of empire-extending, militaryindustrialcomplex bloodlust on the part of a hypocritical U.S. This is so wrong, words are hard to come by…For starters, that period exposed just how not-ready-for-prime-time the idea of collective European defense was, which was yet another argument for expanding NATO.”

          According to Welch… NATO expansion is a good thing. Chomsky is a monster for suggesting otherwise, and for opposing our attack on a nation ? Yugoslavia?which never posed a threat to us. No mention is made of the 5,000 of its citizens we killed in the process.”

          seriously, read that article, and hopefully the other one i linked to above, and see if you still feel the same way. some times strict orthodoxy is justifiable

        2. so, in summary:
          1) Welsh is a self-described “liberal”, with multiple very un-libertarian qualifiers added; in no way is he a “classical liberal”
          2) go read/watch an interview with johnson where he talks about gitmo. he had no intention to close it.
          3) mentioning the newsletters once, twice, five, ten times, could plausibly be justified. but to keep rehashing it – only during elections, even when there’s no new information to justify a new article – is not “journalism” in any meaningful sense. its purpose is not to inform or persuade. what useful purpose is served by endlessly editorializing about this one literally 20year old issue? and this is ignoring their context-dropping of quotes. when the guy they’re smearing is arguably the single most important libertarian public figure of the last century, and they’re supposed to represent libertarianism, how do you not infer some kind of ulterior motive?
          4) here’s one of their love letters to Mark Ames: https://reason.com/archives/200…..ith-malice
          there are others, though
          5) antiwar.com is divisive? thaddeus russell, the liberal historian, cited antiwar as the main source that made him more sympathetic to libertarianism. there is very little in antiwar’s journalism that would be objectionable to most liberals; they don’t do domestic policy. I have learned more from reading Raimondo than all reason writers combined. seriously, i used to think like you. then i read “Who is Matt Welch?” read that and see what you think

          1. Dude, I’ve read it. Lots of ad hominems and outdated quotes from years ago. I’m willing to listen to people who aren’t lockstep with my views. Hell, Ron Paul is not lockstep with my views, and I’m more than willing to vote for him. He criticized the federal ruling in Lawrence v. Texas by stating that it’s a misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment to extend constitutional protections to the States. That’s not a very libertarian stance, especially for such a fundamental right as privacy and freedom of association.

            Rarely if ever does Welch advocate statism and war in Reason, so either he’s had a change of heart or he’s managed to hide his statism incredibly well to the point that it doesn’t matter. My own stances weren’t very libertarian 10-15 years ago – I grew and learned.

            Reason/Cato are trying to make libertarianism mainstream-accessible, which means advocating pragmatism and incrementalism, criticizing divisiveness, racism, small tentism, etc. and expanding the exposure of audiences to libertarian ideas.

            Lew Rockwell, Antiwar.com, Raimondo, etc. are hardliners who reject any compromise or catering to currently non-libertarian audiences that are necessary to expand into to actually implement a libertarian direction, have propped up an unquestioning cult of personality around one fallible politician and treat Reason/Cato harshly even though we’re technically on the same team. I welcome all anarchists and radicals even if I don’t agree with them, as long as they keep their eye on what is actually acheivable politically vs. unwavering utopian radicalism. I appreciate the educational aspect, as well as antiwar.com’s outreach to the pacifist Left – I’m pretty much 100% with Paul on foreign policy.

            Just don’t get what the radical libertarians get out of bashing pragmatist libertarians trying a different means from them to get the same outcome. The radical approach has largely failed miserably as evidenced by the LP’s low vote totals. The highest LP vote total ever? The squish who founded Cato was VP. Even Paul has to use the GOP platform to get his message out, indicating the radicalism in the libertarian movement has been counterproductive to building a distinctive and effective brand.

            1. To use an example, it’s like if two players on a basketball team with different playing styles and clashing personalities refuse to pass to the other. Because they keep hogging the ball and lobbing up bad shots, the team never wins a game. The ballhog may have an awesome stat line and may feel great about their own performance, and blame the other player for the loss – but if they were the most inefficient player on the team to take shots, they (or the coaches) are to blame.

              That’s the libertarian movement in a nutshell. We’re the Washington Generals/Wizards of politics.

            2. dude, if you had read the article, why did you make multiple easily falsifiable claims that are refuted in the article? 1) welsh isn’t a “classical liberal” in any sense, and he spent a good chunk of his career as a US empire/ NATO/ interventionism apologist. 2) johnson said about gitmo: “i’ve kinda been sold on the notion that this is something we have to have, that if its not guantanamo its gonna be somewhere else… ive been wooed over to the side that there are reasons for keeping it open.” this position alone should disqualify him from being described as a “libertarian”, and it disqualified him from the list of people i could ever vote for. http://www.lewrockwell.com/blo…..86709.html 3) speaks for itself. 4) a quick search of the reason archives would hopefully have discouraged you from writing that sentence about Mark Ames. they’ve repeatedly written about longing for his donging 5) this claim is the kicker; no evidence, no citations, just a mixed metaphor about “politics basketball” and “ball hogs”. There’s no way you could have read Raimondo piece about the newsletters and come out believing that an “unquestioning cult of personality around one fallible politician” exists. Case in point: raimondo’s piece on the newsletters was published in 08, when reason first picked up the story from james kirchick (a bloodthirsty neocon). since then, raimondo has written no articles on the newsletters at all; he’s not going out of his way to defend Paul every time this comes up, nor is he joining in the attack. contrast this with reason: how many negative blog posts, articles, etc. has reason run on this topic this year alone? i just searched the reason archives and there were 10 pages, of 10 articles each, articles containing “ron paul newsletters”, at least 40 of which had it in the headline. reason talks more about paul than raimondo, its just all negative

              1. 1.) Dude, his name is “Welch”. Your failure to get this basic fact right indicates weaknesses in your grasp of subtleties. Matt Welch co-wrote a popular book advocating for advancing libertarian policies. Sure, he might have supported some shitty foreign and domestic policies years ago and he might not be hogwild about Paul. Ten years ago I was a full-blown Green socialist. Also, 9-11 made lots of people lose their perspective. What exactly is your point? That Welch is some sort of Koch-sent trojan horse? There are hundreds of articles since where Welch has made his libertarianism/classical liberalism obvious.

                2.) Johnson has said he wants to give the prisoners in Gitmo full civil or military trials or release them. Gitmo itself is not the problem – military prisons are legitimate – what is illegitimate is the way Gitmo has been implemented and has engaged in violations of the rights of the prisoners.

                And by that attitude, I could say “Ron Paul is not willing to stand up for freedom to block states from infringing on the right to engage in consensual sodomy. He wants to close the border. I’m not voting for him.” Come on, there’s no perfect politician. We all know Johnson’s flawed too.

                3.) I don’t think the repeated mentions of the newsletters are due to opposition of Paul. I think they are because most of the people at Reason and the readers ARE supporters of Paul and think he’s shooting himself and potentially the libertarian movement in the foot by not coming forward with the full story on the newsletters. It’s not like Reason is driving the news – they are reacting to a trending topic related to a candidate that was gaining in popularity until the newsletter story broke again more fiercely nationally.

                4.) A quick search of the archives also reveals that most of the writers here think he’s a rabidly anti-libertarian douchebag fucktard. I’ve never even heard of the author who wrote the article you posted, and even that was still more about admiration for the way they broke down barriers against press freedom in Russia than support for their beliefs. Look, they also wrote an article heralding Westboro Baptist Church for testing the limits of free speech. You think they love them too?

                5.) “reason talks more about paul than raimondo, its just all negative” Are you fucking serious? You’ve obviously never read Reason or Brian Doherty and are just trolling. You’re probably one of the Lew Rockwellites who comes over here and screams every time they post a link about Reason posting something having to do with a perfectly legitimate, newsworthy aspect of a candidate for President that may end up affecting the libertarian movement as a whole in the long run. If Ron Paul would answer the fucking question, the question would go away. I’ll still vote for him as will many, since he would be better than any of the other GOP candidates running even if he happened to be the Grand Cyclops Kleagle of the KKK. As long as he doesn’t advocate racist policies I don’t care, but many of the independents he needs to win the nomination do.

    3. Not to mention that nothing is more unforgivable than offensiveness and stupidity. Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in a pointless, illegal war, well that’s forgivable. Locking up hundreds of thousands for people for crimes without victims, that’s forgivable. Gutting the Constitution of its fundamental protections, that’s forgivable. But being offensive and stupid, there is no greater shame or sin and it is something that needs to tar you for the rest of your life.

    4. MLB is a private business. Schott was free to be an asshole and her colleagues were free to reprimand her under the rules of their organization. I don’t know what squeezed out means, but I don’t give a shit about baseball and it doesn’t sound like something that was done with my tax dollars, so I’m not particularly concerned.

  44. The writer also doesn’t bother quoting Schott’s slurs, a classic strategy in defending the indefensible[.]

    Maybe because is is irrelevant, Nick. You might be offended by speech, but speech is protected for that reason: So your own subjective valuations and opinions do not materialize into very real censorship. Her team could’ve just quit on her or her sponsors leave her, but to “fine” her and then “squeeze” her from her property reeks of thought police.

    1. Thanks for picking up on that! Obviously quoting Schlott would suddenly invalidate the writers point about free speech.

    2. Aaaand OM shows he doesn’t really believe in freedom of association.

      1. Seems that I recall Schott really getting into trouble over her response to an umpire’s death, and that much of the racist statements were hearsay from people that she was SUING for contract breaches and outright theft.

        I remember thinking at the time that she was an indelicate old b#$%^, but also that she was getting smeared by the old boy’s network in MLB.

        Whatever else she was, she hit a glass ceiling with a sledgehammer-people who do that get cut.

        One would think that readers of a magazine named “Reason” would be a bit more inquisitive.

  45. Indeed, Paul is the only would-be GOP presidential nominee who is clearly against the drug war, which disproportianately affects African Americans. The economic freedom he promulgates, especially when concerning licensing regulations that hurt very small, low-capitalized ventures such as hair-braiding and taxi services, would similarly help low-income blacks as much or more than any other group in America.

    Yet when you go back and look at the actual newsletters,

    The pool is indeed clean, pristine and beautiful, but look at that bug on the water! OMG!

    Somehow I get the impression that whatever the good doctor does, it will never be enough for good ol’ Nick to stop poisoning the well with that non-issue.

    1. How is ten years worth of racist garbage a non-issue, you slimy right-wing puddle of puke?

    2. This is a good point that doesn’t get enough play – there were 240 newsletters & I’ve only heard about 3 with this kind of awful content.

  46. Oh and by the way, Nick, thanks for giving more fodder for Salon and other left wing rags. Couldn’t have come at a better time. One day our grandchildren will thank you – on scraps of toilet paper smuggled out of the gulag. Liberty is great in theory, but we sure wouldn’t want to risk actually achieving it.

  47. As I wrote in late December, I don’t think the newsletters invalidate Paul’s candidacy or his years of principled small-government legislating.

    A revelation that makes me wonder just why insist on rehashing this matter over and over, especially when there’s nothing new being said. The newsletters are not showing any new words appearing suddenly and as if by magic. If you really believe they do not invalidate his record, then what’s the point of bringing them up? Is it to give the impression that you’re a more hip version of a libertarian? Or is it because he is – gasp! – a Rothbardian?

    If the years with Ayers and Jeremiah Wright did not invalidate Obama’s candidacy, then the same standard should be applied to Paul whose economic knowledge and Constitutional bonafides are much greater than the former Senator’s.

  48. “In South Carolina we got one-to-one on crack versus powder…”

    I hope that doesn’t mean punishment was increased for powder.

  49. The Newsletters came up again because the Washington Post did a a story on it.

    It was good to know.

    Also, I generally defend Paul on the newsletters. I would rather not say something untrue. There was some new information in the Post article which will make me more careful in what I saw in defense.

  50. According the the Wash Post piece, Ron Paul’s wife and daughter worked on the newsletters, so they must be a couple of racist cunts.

  51. In the intellectual libertarian discussion, why would Paul’s newsletters with racially charged statements matter? Paul is not advocating for any discriminatory policy. Policy and law, I will repeat, is what matters. Suppose that Paul came out and said that he wrote them, which he has said he did not, then what? To a libertarian would that matter? I personally do not like gay people, I think they are disgusting. But I also do not care if they get married, or whether they have their anal meanderings, so long as they do not rub it in my face (no pun intended). Isn’t that what matters? Policy, not personal opinions. Somebody may think black people have a culture of criminality and normalizing illegitimate children. But that does not mean that person wants to put them in chains, and prohibit them from the lunch counter! Policy, not opinion, is what matters. Thought crime, is not a crime.

    1. You’ve just demonstrated why libertarianism is doomed to the margins, you digusting piece of shit. Thanks.

      1. Max, you seem to be in the opinion matters over policy camp. You want a nice fluffy world where everyone agrees with everyone elses lifestyle and choices. I got news, its never going to happen. What matters is policy, a world where everyone can live their lifestyle as they choose, and where people are free to believe what they want.

        1. The sort of people Ron Paul was appealing to with his racist newsletter sure as hell aren’t going to live and let live when it comes to blacks and gays. Oh, and fuck you.

          1. As far as I am aware of, in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s when those financial letters were published, not Ron Paul, nor any other major figure was advocating for a return to racist laws or policies. Paul published like 18,000 pages of news letters and only a few paragraphs making racially insensitive statements have been found. Do you think Paul wrote 18,000 pages while running a medical practice and all in just a few years?

            1. Do you really think he was so stupid that he let that shit go out under his name for ten years and didn’t know about it?

              1. Read what you wrote, you make it sound like he was publishing some Hitler manifesto or something. They were financial and investment letters with a spin of suspicion of government spun into them. They were not 10 years of racist news letters. Again only a few paragraphs of racially insensitive statements, among 18,000 (?) pages. So yes, it would have been very easy for him not to have known. How many writers were working for him? And secondly, even if he did know, I don’t care! Paul will end the Drug war, that will help blacks and everyone else.

          2. As far as I am aware of, in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s when those financial letters were published, not Ron Paul, nor any other major figure was advocating for a return to racist laws or policies. Paul published like 18,000 pages of news letters and only a few paragraphs making racially insensitive statements have been found. Do you think Paul wrote 18,000 pages while running a medical practice and all in just a few years?

            1. Go fuck yourelf twice.

              1. Lol, Max I’m hurt. Why do you say such things to me sweetheart? Are you upset because the cookie monster stole your dildo again?

      2. Max, are you really to stupid to comprehend the point he is making? Nobody is really that stupid, are they? I repeat what I wrote above:

        Killing hundreds of thousands of civilians in a pointless, illegal war, well that’s forgivable. Locking up hundreds of thousands for people for crimes without victims, that’s forgivable. Gutting the Constitution of its fundamental protections, that’s forgivable. But being offensive and stupid, there is no greater shame or sin and it is something that needs to tar you for the rest of your life.

        I have little doubt that you would be only too happy living in Orwellian world dictated by thought police.

  52. I feel sorry for the American people. It looks like they are going to have to choose a racist President this year. You see , our Fair and balanced media has already established for us that the President and the 4 remaining Republican candidates are already racist
    President Obama has been called a racist for attending the Reverend Wright’s church for 20 years.
    President Obama himself has been called a racist by many people, including Glenn Beck, who triggered a fire-storm after saying he believes President Obama doesn’t like white people.
    Newt Gingrich was called a racist just a few months ago for calling Palestinians an invented people. He also called Spanish the language of the Ghetto.
    Mitt Romney was called a racist by Bill Maher because he is a Mormon, and called racist by MSNBC for continually calling the President by his first and last names instead saying President Obama.
    Rick Santorum has been called Racist because he is a Homophobe and does not like anything Islamic.
    Ron Paul is being called racist because of the newsletters.
    What are we going to do?
    Since we have all established that all of them all Racist , let’s see which candidate actually is the least Racist of them all.
    Which one of the candidates is advocating not to bomb to smithereens, brown people in Middle East? Which of the above wants to end the War’s that effect minorities disproportionally? Which on of the above wants to pardon all non violent drug offenders?
    Which one of above believes that True racism in this country is in the judicial system , wherein the percentage of people who use drugs are about the same with blacks and whites. And yet the blacks are arrested way disproportionately.
    Which one of cites Martin Luther King is one his heroes for practicing “he libertarian principle of peaceful resistance and peaceful civil disobedience, ?
    Which one of the above stands up for our civil liberties and adherence to the constitution ?
    Which one of the above voted against the Patriot Act , NDAA and Iraq War ?
    His name is Ron Paul

  53. Whatever Reason’s motivation is for bringing the subject up, the fact is that the newsletter issue doesn’t seem to be impeding Paul much right now.

    But the longer he stays in the race, the more delegates he gathers, the more likely it is that the issue will be raised by people who *aren’t* otherwise sympathetic to Paul or his politics, and at a time when the stakes are even higher than they are now.

    At that point, Reason’s take on Paul, and the newletters, won’t be entirely dismissable because it was blindly, uncritically, in the Paul camp. Any appeals by Reason for others to consider the bigger-picture – putting the newsletters in the broader perspective the other stuff Paul’s about – will retain some credibility. (And be entirely dismissed for *other* reasons. My bet will be for a lack of “seriousness”.)

    1. The racist newsletters aren’t impeding Ron Paul because his fans are morons whose lips get sore when they read.

    2. Actually, uh, it does seem to be impeding Paul. He was the frontrunner in Iowa for a while. Everyone was talking about how he was going to win and invalidate the Iowa caucus. Then the newsletter stories were plastered across the news and he got third place. It sure hurt him, imho. He needed to win Iowa, his best chance to have a modicum of momentum. Now he’s the only remaining candidate that hasn’t won a state.

  54. Don’t you mean racist morons?

    And what do their sore lips have to do with their opinion of the newsletters?

    Draw a diagram or something.

  55. DEAR GUESTS FROM LEW ROCKWELL:
    AS MUCH AS WE LOVE YOUR HYPERVENTILATING, FOR YOUR OWN WELL-BEING, PLEASE GO HOME, DRINK A BEER AND CHILL OUT. REASON DOES NOT HATE RON PAUL AND YOU’RE ONLY HELPING THEM GENERATE PAGE HITS AND AD DOLLARS BY COMING HERE AND TROLLING ABOUT HOW MUCH THEY REALLY DO, DESPITE ALL THE EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY. THANK YOU, AND I’M SURE THE BLOOD VESSELS IN YOUR BRAINS AND EYES THANK YOU AS WELL.
    LOVE,
    PROPRIETIST

  56. None of those newsletters have any bylines, except for the “Special” issue, whose byline had the name James Powell.

    Also the tangent about Marge Schott was unnecessary.

  57. OMG! Ron Paul gets two pivotal Maine endorsements Saturday! Share this EVERYWHERE! http://www.examiner.com/libert…..ine-events

    #1 #RonPaul Iowa vote fraud article in the world! Get this article out to the far reaches of the universe! http://www.examiner.com/conspi…..d-official

  58. Ok I think i have read enough of the ‘closet racist’ comments.

    THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUCEMENT TO ALL AND I MEAN ALL WHITE PEOPLE: You have no idea and will never understand what is means to be BLACK in america. SO do yourself and the rest of the world and the BLACK community a favor and stop acting like you understand, care, support, FEEL FOR US, and anything else that would imply any kind of empathy,sympathy or feelings of remorse. There is NOTHING and I repeat NOTHING you or any political figure can make RIGHT the years of abuse, mistrust, anger,strife, HATE, and outright injustice that you or any other person in government have done to the African community. REMEMBER we were brought here against our will. CIVIL RIGHTS, SLAVERY, AND NOW RON PAUL. You expect any black person with half a brain to think that its ok to say whatever you think is OK because WE should be pasted it. FUCK YOU AND ANYONE that feels that way! You have never walked into a mall and tried to buy something without looking like you didn’t have the money, or pulled over for LOOKING like someone they wanted to arrest, or just plained IGNORED cause of the color of your skin. AGAIN THIS IS A PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUCEMENT: YOU WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT ITS LIKE TO BE BLACK IN AMERICA!!!! SO STOP ACTING LIKE WE SHOULD CARE FOR A BIGOT WHO GOT CAUGHT!!!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.