Obviously, having our most successful candidate ever lose big in New Hampshire and outed as having operated a newsletter that published racist material is not libertarianism's finest hour. But I'm actually glad this happened (and no, not because I hate Ron Paul).
I was at an event last night where this came up a few times, and the words "The Movement" got thrown around. This always feels a little strange, since I'm not really a member of "The Movement": I didn't come to my squishy libertarianism until rather late in life, and so I missed the round of internships, political meet-and-greets, and low-level think-tank jobs that cement people into it.
Nonetheless, I am now on its fringes. And sufficiently steeped in it to know, as all younger libertarians in the wonkosphere kind of know, that it has some ugly moments in its history. Specifically, a lot of its funding used to come from crazy old white people hoping to turn back the clock to the days before minorities and women got all uppity. Ron Paul is a good example of the kinds of people who got in bed with these folk of the festering fringe--probably he didn't exactly believe what was being published under his name, but it certainly didn't bother him enough to do anything about it. His quasi-populist, rural, America-first type politics fit well enough into their beliefs about the ideal America that as long as he overlooked their animus towards people who were poorer and darker skinned, he could raise a lot of money from them.
What matters, though, is that this isn't an important component of "the Movement" any more. The money doesn't come from racists, nor does the political energy, or the leadership. Ron Paul's unfortunate moment, and the outing of Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker as the probable authors of the bile, have given libertarians the opportunity to make decisive break with that past--and thankfully, they all seem to be taking it.
Hi Megan,
Did you know that years from now, history will record you as one of the fascists? Well done, sweetie.
Megan,
Maybe it would be fair to read Paul's response to the sort of charges you're making? Here it is:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters
Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
That first post was uncalled for. Truthfully, I don't know that much about the early days of Libertarianism, nor about Ron Paul's alleged racist articles to make an argument one way or another. But this article was sensibly written, and challenges all Ron Paul supporters (including myself) to think about why they support him, and by extension, the libertarian position.
I've read a lot of postings by people who are genuinely moved by the thought of limited government, but I've also seen a lot of rants by people who are blindly following Ron Paul just like someone would blindly follow any other candidate.
Given Ron Paul's current success and the controversies surrounding his campaign, this is a good time for all Ron Paul supporters to step back, reassess their belief in this campaign, and either come back all the stronger or leave a little wiser.
Meg, why is your Queen of Marx being given a pass on her past anti-Semitic rants. Look here.
Hillary's Foul Mouth
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/wiki/Hillarys_Foul_Mouth/
Why don't we focus on the real issue, like religious motives for the war in Iraq. Watch this video to see what I'm talking about.
Racism is wrong, period. It is also ignorant.
I point out that while trying cure "racism" we often create an environment where self reflection is lost. Continuing to play the blame game slows down progress to making race as irrelevant as hair color or gender, which it should be.
It's pretty clear in our countries history Blacks got a bum deal, American Indians too.
Racism IS still practiced here in the U.S. but
to revel in that and blame all of today's whites for yesterdays heinous mistakes won't solve racism. Reverse racism is just as dumb as racism.
I'd say we may be moving away from "racism" to another form of prejudice "classism"...We are creating a new underclass and there will be plenty of minorities as well as white people in it. Rich white guys that run Corporations are color blind...they think all poor people are scum.
I do submit we need to ask why blacks are disproportionately incarcerated. The "War on drugs" seems to be a war on minorities and to a lesser extent lower income people of all races...
I do think laws that give an extra penalty for a
"racial hate crime" are incorrect as well as some quotas. Some would argue well meaning white Americans actually help to perpetuate racism by their fawning attitudes. Hey white liberals...it's okay to dislike a black person, if that person is an a-hole...we get it, don't hate them based on race. Got it, now go back to your gated communities hypocrite!
Some Media hypes the "black vote"
as if all blacks vote alike...that is racism folks. When we protect "individual liberty"
and hold that as sacred, we can do alot to cure racism. None of us are color blind, there are social, physical and cultural differences here in America and that's not a bad thing...what's most important is all people are protected equal under the law. All people have feelings and deserve respect as human beings. We have come a long way in this country regarding racism, for that we should be thankful
We still have a long way to go.
For the record, I'm white and could care less
if you're green. Good and bad people come in all colors. I beleive Ron Paul feels the same way.
Ron Paul seems to be the only candidate who will protect individual liberty for EVERYONE.
He also seems to be the only one asking why the "war on drugs" has lead to alot of minorites being incarcerated.
I'd raise another question why do so many minorities die in wars started by rich white chicken hawks? Is Romney going to send his kids to war? Did Cheney or GW Bush go to war?
Ron Paul for President 2008
Im just glad that Ron Paul had no downfall, but that he is rising and his ideas are here to stay and will have to be answered to by ANY other candidate in the future.
"newsletter that published racist material"--MM
MM,
do us a favor, point out, from those newsletters, what you think was Racist.
I am glad to know that "probable" authors have been identified. Can you share your method for calculating the probability?
Dear Megan,
Where you refer to... "the outing of Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker as the probable authors of the bile" ...I think you owe Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker an apology.
Don't get me wrong. I AM a Ron Paul supporter and I would LOVE for someone to be able to identify the real authors of the "bile" (as you call it) so that it would be clear to all that the author was NOT Ron Paul.
I do believe Ron Paul when he denies writing this. All the same, I appreciate how others who do not know him might be skeptical about that.
I have also met Lew Rockwell on a couple of occasions and know him to be an honorable man, as well. If Lew Rockwell were the author of any of these articles, I am entirely confident that he would eagerly step forward to take the credit or blame for them ...espescially where it is so clear that WOULD help Ron Paul's campaign!
I do NOT know Jeff Tucker but I do believe he should be presumed innocent of writing any such articles unless he steps forward to confess to writing them or is otherwise proven responsible.
I would also plead for whoever DID write these articles to have the intestinal fortitude to step forward and acknowledge responsibility for them.
In the meantime, it is irresponsible of you to go spreading rumors about who has been "outed" as the "probable" author of anything so controversial.
Please apologize to Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker.
Thank You!,
James Hines
I know who the sources were for the Economist's post, and as far as I'm concerned, it's not in serious dispute.
Yellow Journalism Alert!!!!
"Ron Paul is a good example of the kinds of people who got in bed with these folk of the festering fringe.." -MM
Are you for real Megan? I can't believe you actually used the words "In bed with" in the same sentence as the honorable Ron Paul. That’s Despicable! You should no better as a journalist. Anyone who spends a credible amount of time looking at his past record will find that Ron Paul DOESN’T compromise his values with ANYONE, and he especially stays clear of special interest groups, lobbyists, and hate groups. Look it up. It’s a spotless record. Spotless enough to make any illegitimate and unqualified candidate squirm when going up against Ron in a truly fair and balanced debate. Your article doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. Smear pieces like this will have their day in the history books, shown as the lies and filth they are.
P.S. I’m I proud Republican and I support Ron Paul!!
It's poor journalism to assert that much of Ron Paul's funding comes from white racists. Where is your proof or investigate journalism to back up that statement? One loser racist from the StormFront organization donated $500. So what? I say take the money and use it to bring our country out of the military and economic mess that we're in. Have you seen the housing market lately?
As a Hispanic who wants the War to stop immediately, Ron Paul still has my vote and support. He is the only candidate consistently in support of civil liberties for all Americans, of all races. On Martin Luther King's Day, thousands upon thousands of his supporters are going to donate a Money Bomb to Ron Paul to end our imperial adventures overseas and bring all our troops home, of all races.
They aren't all taking the opportunity. Sadly, one of the two institutional centers of libertarian thought, the Mises institute, has taken a circle the wagons approach.* Some of your readers seem to be doing so as well.
And even in the larger libertarian realm, the silence of so many people who knew about the newsletters doesn't look good.
None of this is to deny that the vast majority of libertarians are not racists. But the newsletters will continue to hurt the movement for years to come, more than canceling out any positives arising from the Ron Paul candidacy, and the continued association of Rockwell with the Mises Institute isn't going to help.
*Though in fairness, for those of you who don't frequent libertarian web sites, it is, indeed, true that most libertarians are taking the "opportunity to make decisive break with that past."
Megan,
Your notion of libertarianism isn't just squishy - It is spoiled rotten to the core.
As for being a part of any movement - you aren't. Your brand of 'love me' libertarianism is a weak, watered down substitute for a real principled position, and is part of the problem.
I know who the sources were for the Economist's post, and as far as I'm concerned, it's not in serious dispute.
Posted by Megan McArdle | January 11, 2008 9:53 AM
But still won't point to what, exactly, you think was 'Racist'?
Niice..
Quote from TNR article:
In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC's Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, "Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo." "This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s," the newsletter predicted. In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."
If referring to African-Americans isn't racist, then I don't know what is.
Whoops. Last sentence should read
If referring to African-Americans as animals isn't racist, then I don't know what is.
goebbels would be proud.
"when i grow up i want to be a journalist so i can print lies and distortions. with a bit of luck i will help turn the US into a dictatorship, just like north korea."
Aren't we all animals, Chris?
You must be one of those evolution-denying creationist types. Huckabee in 08, buddy?
Chris,
There's more, of course. But honestly I don't expect that engaging people like MEH is going to accomplish much; you know he's just going to come back with a response somehow trying to rationale the quote as not racist (and therefore confirming his own racism).
And that's (part of) my point. It may be (is mostly) unfair, but most people are going to see that sort of shit as the face of libertarianism.
Ron Paul's downfall? Do you mean upfall? He won the biased Fox debate last night, even though they asked him questions that attempted to make him look stupid. Did you see that Reuters story that just came out in support of Paul? 'Paul Flying High.'
RON PAUL 2008
I am troubled by Huckabee's call for AIDS victims to be quarantined.
I am uncomfortable with Romney's attitude towards all Muslims and his saying that homosexuality is equivalent to pedophilia.
I have concern about McCain's alleged recent comment about hating "gooks." I was aghast when he said he did not want to trade with middle east nations because all they have to offer is burkas.
Thompson's comment about sending Muslims to see "their virgins" was equally offensive.
I am not justifying Ron Paul's negligence regarding the newsletter...but at least I have never HEARD him SAY anything like the above.
Downfall? Very mistaken. "The Movement" is getting larger everyday at an accelerated pace, and it will continue to.
But hey, we are making a list, and now your on it! :)
Good day.
I don't think we did lose big in NH. If you look at the towns that just didn't count Paul's votes and consider the lop-sided contridictions of the electronic vote versus the hand re-count ... Obama probably beat Hillary and Paul probably took 3rd or 4th.
As for the newsletters ... I equate it to a teleprompter. Sure, most news anchors real the scripts before the segment ... but if what shows up on the teleprompter says something different, you can bet they're going to read it aloud.
Paul has accepted responsibility. Everyone knows he's not a racist ... even those who try to paint him as one.
Lets move on.
I think Letma Peoplego makes an excellent point. No one is calling out the other candidates with such fervor. It is only because Paul's ideas are gaining such traction that such smears are coming out. Hundreds of thousands of people have donated to Ron Paul's campaign. I would say at least 95% did not know much or anything about Ron Paul before this election cycle began.
They are not racist. Paul has never publicly or privately said anything racist, as far as I've been able to find. That's all the dirt they have on Paul - these newsletters. There isn't anything else out there. I don't doubt that there were some fringey, white supremacists out there that supported Paul. But they supported him not because of his views on minorities, but because they each had common goals: states rights, for example. But the reason they want States rights lies in two entirely different directions.
A white supremacist wants States' rights to legitimize his viewpoints; to make it easier to spread hatred. Ron Paul wants States rights to make sure the minority (the individual) had a greater say in how he is governed.
I haven't had a white roommate in ten years. The majority of my friends are of various ethnic groups. And I support Ron Paul, 100%.
Chris,
thanks for the attempt, funny that MM chooses not engage with specifics..
I hear you about that line, it's inflammatory, and easy to conflate the subject with: "Blacks".
To me, it isn't explicit. Also, I think, the 'animals', being referred to, are those, of any color, that have been addicted to Gov't transfer payments and inculcated with the idea that they are "owed"..
Personally, is it the type of stuff I care for? No, not quite, though if you'd like to see some real racism, I suggest: http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=racist+propaganda
Those who want to, so readily, call Rascist, at every provocative utterance, are doing way more harm than good..
get ready for H.R.1955
Ron Paul is a man, and quite probably the wrong man to represent our interests. But he voiced issues we need discussed. You are a journalist and we look to journalists to keep the public aware of the truth. Keep the issues on the table-- what is the true cost of being world policemen? What is the true deficit? Are we just printing money? You can make sure the Press serves as a check on government excess instead as an accomplice to government excess.
John McCain is our next Commander in Chief! 2008
When the British soldiers were shooting at us George Washington as a Commander in Chief was always on the Battle Front, on the line of fire, bullets were flying near his head, the sound of Cannons going off and dead soldiers all over the field.
A brave man George Washington was.
So John McCain will be our Commander in Chief in 2008 because in this Video he says how he will lead the troops.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wru8NRLdFE
John McCain President and Commander In Chief - 2008
^^Roger, you sound like you need to rub yourself...get it out and get back to work.
Ron Paul did not operate the newsletter.
No Megan will not be remembered as a fascist, you will be remembered as one of the approx 100 million brainless yuppies who think they know something yet dont know their head from a hole in the ground. Ron Paul's racist newsletters... lol... why not throw in Ron Paul hates Rosa Parks while you're at it. Morons like you believe whatever crap is thrown at you, as long as it comes from your elite controllers who want nothing more than to own everything you think you own. And guess what?! They basically have it all. I bet you're in debt just like most of the dumbed down NH "conservatives" who picked McCain. They picked McCain because they spend more time watching Fox's Daily Britney than they do actually doing any research. You people truly do deserve what you got coming. You're gonna get wiped out, 401k, pensions, social security, your homes, everything, kiss it all goodbye. And I aint gonna shed one tear for you, I only cry for the constitution which you morons will shred in your desparate attempt to cling to a standard of living you can neither afford nor deserve.
I hope in 5 years you idiots will treat the words of the founding fathers with a bit more respect.
Ron Paul, and most of his supporters, have been truly exposed.
Paul says: "For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
His supporters quote this remark, and believe it somehow absolves Paul of the very moral responsibility he claims to have accepted.
Only in the fantasy world of the Paulites does taking responsibility for something mean you are not responsible for it.
Wow, what a principled man.
This will be your downfall and theatlantic downfall. You will be remembered in the history as fascists and liars!
You are trying to smear Dr. Paul and brandmark him as a racist? How stupid are you to think Dr. Paul is so small minded?
Read his own resolutions and his record and you will know that he is the dfender of liberty and that his idols are Martin Luther King and Rosa Park who defended civil liberties!
By the way, libertarians can't become racists, because they don't see people in groups, but as individuals with rights.
Stupid journalism and liars like you are wha bring us in this mess!
You clearly put much thought in your interpretation of libertarianism. Perhaps if you were not hostile to the naturalistic undertones of libertarian's innate sense of being an individual within individuals, you'd be able to see the nuances you have seemingly overlooked.
The most telling of which is, libertarians keep libertarianism in check. Quite literally, "Don't Tread On Me" translates as "I Won't Tread On You". See, in valuing my affairs as my life's concern, and no others...I automatically respect the same in others. To 'tread on you' invites you to 'tread on me'. For sake of wishing to be left to my affairs, I'll not meddle in those of others. Now, should my own interests and that of another happen to be in concert, a respecting cooperation is formed. Be this between two individuals, two homes, two towns, two states...so long as the golden rule of living to leave others be is minded, libertarianism is the holy grail of societal living.
I want to go to the beach. Do you want to go with me? No? Ok.
I want to go to the beach, but there is property not of my own in the path. Do they mind I cross there? Or do I find another route to where I wish to go?
I went to the beach, but it was crowded with tax collectors and lemmingesque extroverts with no appreciation for solitude. So I left.
Libertarianism works wonders in the work force as well. The 'Boss', if the person is libertarian, values the staff with high regard. They know full well their welfare is dependent upon those cooperating with their individual goals. The work force, in kind, understands they are dependent upon the infrastructure provided by the employer for sake of pursuing their own personal wants. Balance is reached and maintained with neither being a negatively overbearing influence upon the other.
The negative rub of libertarianism stems from...it's easily convoluted by the wolves in the believers clothing. Indeed, zealots and greedy sorts are always quick to exploit opportunity...in all walks and philosophies of life at that eh. Communism could feed the world were it not such an open buffet to despotic pinheads with a penchant for tyranny. Libertarianism happens to be easily plagued by capitalists with no concern of their impact on the lives of others.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that displayed substance and thought process in his answers. The man basses his decision on logic and reason, not emotion. He recognizes that emotion is for guidance not decision making. He is a man of great character and those who question it have obviously not been exposed to the vast amount of essays and speeches this man has given over the years. Circumstantial evidence if repeated enough will bend the weak minded to inaccurate conclusion. Think for yourself; Do not be easily led by the bridle of emotion.
Ron Paul is having a rough time gaining traction with voters because the media keeps painting him in a less than desirable light while over simplifying his positions to make them sound crazy.
Reality is that Ron Paul has great skill at Root Cause And Corrective Action Analysis. The topics he deals with are very complex and do not lend themselves to easy understanding. He is willing to consider a greater scope of data before making his decisions. He is not driven to foolish conclusion by emotional reflex.
If the media would attempt to discuss the issues with logic and reason, then people would have a better chance of understanding. Unfortunately this is not possible for many in the media because they are safer using a large vocabulary and smug attitude to attempt to bring him down out of fear. It is much easier to destroy than build when you do not understand. It allows safety in that no one ever finds out that you have no knowledge.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that does not blow in the wind and has the wisdom to ask the right questions to allow logical conclusion.
I vote for virtue; I vote for Ron Paul.
oh the ironies, anarcho libertarian communist for ron paul http://plawiuk.blogspot.com/2008/01/smearing-paul.html
cf. dissident voice and counterpunch columns by leftist naderite joshua frank for ron paul
great book, btw, on Murray Rothbardite libertarians in YAF working with radical leftists in sds by Rebecca Klatch, Univ. of California Press, "A Generation Divided. Blurbed by Tom Hayden and William F. Buckley, Jr.
Count me among those advocating a break from the Rockwell Brigades- I've noticed the all too close to the surface undercurrent of racism and anti-semitism there for awhile, and their closeness to the Paul campaign always made me uncomfortable. The clear suggestions and outright accusations that Rockwell himself was penning this stuff came as no surprise to me- and I've only been in "the Movement" for a very short while. (I came to it even later than our hostess, it would seem).
I fail to see how the Rockwellers' views fit within the libertarian mindset captured by Reason's slogan "Free Minds and Free Markets," especially given their deep-seated opposition to immigration. If you are opposed to a free market in immigration, then most other freedoms fall by the wayside: you are artificially limiting the free market in labor, you are actively preventing people from choosing to leave countries where freedom really is lacking, and you are doing this all with government coercive force.
While I don't think it's right to force other countries to be freer, it is at least equally wrong to actively prevent residents of those countries from becoming freer by moving here.
Along with their ties to the neo-Confederates, the attitude I've noticed from the Rockwell Brigades seems to primarily be that they're in favor of freedom- but only for themselves.
Well-written article, Megan, and quite to the point. Here's my message to Ron Paul, as a crestfallen volunteer organizer in his campaign:
"Congressman Paul,
I would first like to thank you, because this could end up sounding harsh. Like any good doctor, your goal has been to first do no harm - and this principle is clearly at work in your many (sometimes lonely) years defending Americans and the Constitution from our government's oppressive turn. It takes personal and moral courage to see the big picture and declare that your nation's government has gone bad. It takes superhuman dedication to actually make progress towards a solution, as your have by educating and activating so many millions of Americans. And so it is with genuine sorrow that I withdraw my support for your candidacy. While the ripple effect of your message still shows me a glimmer of hope for this nation's political future, and you may yet win back my vote, I can no longer in good conscience be involved with your Presidential campaign.
As you know, the voluntary contract is supremely important to libertarians. Now, in light of recent revelations, your supporters will have to decide whether you remain the candidate that they had bargained for. You have always espoused a clear set of values, which are backed up with decades of consistent voting. Your stubborn insistence on providing a rational explanation for each of your positions has had the wonderful effect of elevating the discourse at every forum you attend. Even if one doesn't agree with you on every issue, the philosophical points of contention are easy to locate - simple name calling and sloganeering have never been your m.o. The unspoken contract between you and your supporters has been founded on their clear understanding of where you stand - and also how you got there.
This transparency is what made your refusal to return a Neo-Nazi's donation so justifiable and, in its way, honorable. You had done your part and represented yourself clearly - you stood for limited government and you stood against racism. If a Neo-Nazi found something in your platform that appealed to him, that's fine: but it was money poorly spent if he was expecting to influence you. We have always assumed that you give the same message to every audience, and that this message is constitutional, intellectual and dignified. Your refusal to return that single controversial $500 donation (one of over 100,000, after all) had a clear libertarian rationale, and served to reinforce your image as the most high-minded candidate. You were the one who didn't pander.
Yet it turns out you have pandered for years - to the worst elements in your constituency. I refer to the revelation from The New Republic that the political newsletters written in your name (for years) contained countless bigoted statements about just about every scapegoated group in America. The hatefulness of the newsletters is heartbreaking, and the stupidity is just embarrassing.
Let me present people with one of your many statements denouncing racism:
“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.” -The real Ron Paul (not ghostwritten)
This is how you talk and I believe it's how you truly feel. It sounds like Ayn Rand speaking on the subject, and you did after all name your son Randall after her.
I can imagine marginal groups being legitimately drawn to your message of limited federal government (i.e. them opposing hate speech laws, or being frightened by the feds' killing of the Branch Davidians). But it had to be natural policy outgrowths of your pure, constitutional principles that attracted them. Actively reaching out to such people completely changes things. And it almost makes it worse that you allowed a ghostwriter to do this dirty work in your name, so that you could maintain your spic-and-span image. Perhaps building a following on the sort of moronic, cartoonish hate mongering found in your newsletters was a necessary evil if you, a truly anti-establishment candidate, were to be elected to Congress. If so, it can't have been worth it. You'll forgive me if your Presidential run left me with the impression that you valued intellectual and moral honesty over vote-whoring. Of course, it's even worse if these bigoted ramblings represent your deepest held opinions.
For almost a year now, I have defended your honor and my own against charges that you were racist. These claims were flimsy for the longest time - often based on an ideological opposition to libertarianism, or the simple identity politics that you're an old white Christian Texan Republican (surely racist!). When The New York Times published an article that you had monthly meetings with a white supremacist group, and then almost immediately retracted the entire factual basis of their article, I felt confident that the worst of the closet-digging had been done with, and that nothing was found. When I learned that a few racist quotes had appeared in your newsletter, I was satisfied with the explanation that they were isolated within the long history of a ghostwritten publication, and that you in no way endorsed their content. But I'm simply swayed by the new evidence presented in the New Republic article. Even though its timing indicates that it is a standard "hit piece", the facts remain as they are (It may be proven to be a complete fabrication, but I doubt it, especially considering your reaction. And what's wrong with an accurate hit piece? I wouldn't mind seeing one about, say, Hillary Clinton).
I can no longer campaign on your behalf because there's no defense for what you've had said in your name. Sure, I could canvass door-to-door and point out that you're the lesser of nine evils, and that your actual policies like ending the War on Drugs will help America's blacks more than anyone else's agenda. But that's not enough, and it's certainly not inspiring. Perhaps you're not as inspired as I thought you were. Founding father material? And just when you thought American politics might shed its nightmarish quality...
Others can vote for you - I still may - but I can't promote you any longer in good conscience.
This is not what I had bargained for. As you once said, "I have my flaws, but the message has no flaws." I will continue to fight for the message, but I've got too much self respect, not to mention respect for blacks, gays, Jews, and any other group slandered in your newsletters' pages, to continue to fight for Ron Paul, the man.
Sincerely,
Grant Valdes Huling"
Taken from my blog (hyperlinks in original version):
http://shoestringcentury.blogspot.com/2008/01/open-letter-to-ron-paul.html
Re: Roger's comments at | January 11, 2008 11:13
Roger, don't you realize, John McCain holds the kind of views that George Washington warned against e.g staying in Iraq for 100 years. Washington knew that we can't have a Republic at home and an Empire abroad.
"What matters, though, is that this isn't an important component of "the Movement" any more. The money doesn't come from racists, nor does the political energy, or the leadership. Ron Paul's unfortunate moment, and the outing of Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker as the probable authors of the bile, have given libertarians the opportunity to make decisive break with that past--and thankfully, they all seem to be taking it."
As a libertarian, why should I have to break away from non-libertarians who were never libertarians? Should I also disavow the Klan and the Nazis, despite having never met or had any contact or connection to them?
No, the only person who needs to make a break with their past mistakes and associations with foolish jerks is Ron Paul, and he did so a long time ago.
Any truth to the rumour that Lew Rockwell and Cindy Sheehan are a dating couple? Apparently started after Cindy gave a speech at a conference organized by Rockwell. A Lew Rockwell/von Mises blogger, head of the Econ. Dept. at Univ. of Dallas, IIRC, is a close friend of Sheehan. The Daily Kos Diary by Sheehan that got her banned there was full of the lines of Rockwell on the Income tax and the Federal Reserve Bank.
Hi Megan
Why is it that we support Ron. It is because he is the only candidate that is profoundly knowledgeable about economics and the government. Not only is he an MD. but also and economist. He actually covers the critical issues that all intelligent US citizens should think about. His views on US foreign policy seem spot on and his solutions are simple and smart. The only problem I see is that many of the special interest groups that make a tremendous amount of money are fighting with what every small voice they can find to stop his movement. It is much larger then Ron Paul as always the truth is.
"His supporters quote this remark, and believe it somehow absolves Paul of the very moral responsibility he claims to have accepted.
Only in the fantasy world of the Paulites does taking responsibility for something mean you are not responsible for it."
No, it means that he made a mistake, he accepted responsibility for that mistake, time to move on unless you are intent on rehashing old news to smear the one honest candidate for President. Only in the very large world of anti-Ron folks does being an honest human being mean that you are not eligible for the Presidency.
Ron Paul is human. He is not right on everything. He made mistakes in the past, he's making them right now, and will continue to make mistakes.
I'll take an honest man with his flaws instead of a lying stealing fascist or socialist who will intentionally wreak harm upon America.
Let's see...who do I want for President? The man who made a mistake in the past and took responsibility for it? Or the man or woman dedicated to destroying America to build the NAU and then the NWO (hey man, I'm not crazy, those are the words of the politicians, I didn't make them up or use them first - the globalists did)?
The man who stands for personal responsibility? Or a collectivist? The defender of freedom? Or the advocate of a police state? The refuser of more taxes? Or the raiser of more taxes? The one man who as representative rules by law as required in this republic? Or one of countless men and women who rule as tyrants and usurpers dedicated to destroying what remains of the rule of law?
I'll take the human man Ron Paul versus the monster Hilary or the hollow shell of a human being Romney any day.
I also agree that the article was well-written. I am a supporter of Congressman Paul and while I am not happy about this recent event; I have decided to continue as a supporter. I agree that the Congressman should pay closer attention to anything that goes out under his name; but I have never witnessed his policies or any other rhetoric outside of those newsletters that have sounded even remotely in character to a racist. If the news media wants to continue going after this, they should find out who the editors were that distributed this information. Paul has publicly come out and taken responsibility for the mishandling of the event years ago and does so again to day.
Quite honestly, I believe when you are dealing with someone who has a clean of a record as the Congressman, any news that comes out is "big news". Until I see something he has written or done on his own personal behalf in regards to these type events, I will continue to support him.
After watching last night's debate, I really hope Ron runs on a third party ticket if McCain gets the nomination. For Ron to deny McCain his life long ambition would be so good - even if the price is Clintion achieving hers. At least people recognize Clinton for the big government social democrat that she is.
Megan,
I'm not going to spare the language with you since you've been obnoxious about Ron Paul yourself.
First, he's not the most successful libertarian ever. Goldwater was. It's unfortunate that so many libertarians and so many goldwater conservatives are too dumb to knwo they're the same damned things.
Second, you're pretty much the reason "the movement" is failing. No, not you personally, but the attitude that you cannot vote libertarian until you get the perfect candidate for your taste. You spazzed out about Paul and influenced who-knows-how-many people to do the same. Your beef was...the gold standard, if I recall. What is your problem going to be with the next guy?
I am amazed how many so-called libertarians like the title better than the substance. Guess we have to invent yet another name to get rid of the dregs or the dregs need to sack-up and quit whining.
Good points in the article - Some of you guys are vicious in your responses. Really immature. RP will not get elected because of this newsletter debacle. Though I question his leadership if he can't even supervise a simple newsletter. He is not going to be elected because he can't get the message out of his mouth. He mutters, stutters, rants, twitches, and talks much to fast with scattered points and ends up coming off like a ranting looney or bumbling boob at best. I don't mean this with disrespect, it’s a fact. He needs some major help in presentation skills. Advice - sloooow down, they are giving you the 1.5 minutes you need to make your point. Pick a couple of key points on topic and make them clear and understandable. People will listen more attentively and your points will come off with better credibility. After 15 seconds of his rambling his points get lost and people tune out and he ends up sounding like an idiot, which he not! The other candidates laugh at him and even the questioners give it chuckle. It's embarrassing to watch at times. Appearance and basic presentation ability counts! Why don’t you support the real libertarian candidate? Nice smile with 99% of the same values.
Megan McArdle,
Do you write these blogs in order to be provocative so that you can show your boss that people actually read what you write? None of what you say has any rational common sense to it.
An individual who can understand the fiscal deficit that the USA is in will understand why Ron Paul is good for America and Americans, aswell as dear little Megan.
It is quite apparent that you have know repsect for the founding fathers, of whom some were British I might add, espousing the minds of Jefferson, Paine, Madison and Washington who were thoroughly versed in the thoughts of John Locke, arguably the catalyst for the American War of Independence which gave inspiration to those around the world seeking freedom from henious bankers and kings. You worship the despotic ideology of Hamilton and the 'money masters'. In which case you are no libertarian, your true nature is to lust for power and authority, so you can rule others with ruthless guile in the guise of a princely attire.
If you have studied some economics recently Meg you'll relaise that very shortly you won't be working for yourself you'll be working for the government, i.e Communism, but clearly like your Hmailtonian frinds you like Dictatorial, Authorotarian, Centralism.
You're not on the fringe of libertarianism, your firmly in the camp of Totalitarianism. The unnescessary aggressiveness of your language only makes people like myself more motivated to defeat you. With slurs as disgracefull and adhoc as those in your article, you are clearly an enemy of Ron Paul, which makes you my enemy and at that an enemy of millions of other people.
Don't think that we will forget this treasoness behaviour. What you do now will be with you for ever more. 'When the time comes Megan,... when the time comes'.
And yes, that is a thinly veiled threat.
As the 'Revolution' grows, You have no idea.
I think Ron Paul has done a lot of good for the "movement" as you call it because in reality there was no noticeable movement before him. In many ways I feel badly for Dr. Paul and for myself; I don't want to believe he is a racist, but his explanation about the newsletters is totally implausible.
Where I think Dr. Paul did a lot of good was to bring up issues that weren't being discussed. John McLaughlin called Dr. Paul the person of the year because "he injected the presidential campaign with a dose of truth serum." I think most people who saw the debates will remember him for this. He stood up against all of the other candidates in the debates who wanted more surveillance, torture, and war, and he told the truth. He called a spade a spade--America is an empire. I hope he will be remembered for that and not old newsletters that seem to contradict his message today. Paul was never a viable candidate. He had a good message, but he was not a good messenger. We should all rally around another, more electable candidate and try to get them nominated as the Libertarian candidate. Anyone know what Gary Johnson (former governor of New Mexico) is doing these days?
"Don't think that we will forget this treasoness behaviour. What you do now will be with you for ever more. 'When the time comes Megan,... when the time comes'.
And yes, that is a thinly veiled threat.
As the 'Revolution' grows, You have no idea."
Jesus Christ, Adam.
"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals." - Ron Paul
"... it is the federal government more than anything else that divides us along race, class, religion, and gender lines." - Ron Paul
"The true antidote to racism is liberty." - Ron Paul
ou worship the despotic ideology of Hamilton and the 'money masters'
Would those be the people who argued, ultimately successfully, for a strong central government and unified economic system, in contrast to the failed Continental Congress? That is, the people who gave us the Constitution in its current form?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm
via http://www.memeorandum.com
1:15 GMT +00:00
The Rockwell files
Posted by:
Economist.com | WASHINGTON
Categories:
Ron Paul
WOLF BLITZER today, speaking in gerund phrases, examining the Ron Paul newsletter controversy, interviewing the Republican presidential candidate, who claims not only that he had no hand in writing numerous racist and homophobic items that appeared under his name over a period of years, but that he does not know—or care—who did write them.
Mr Paul is probably not himself a racist, and many of the sentiments he expresses in his CNN interview are admirable. It is equally plausible that the hateful items published in his newsletter, so different in style from the congressman's own speech and writing, are not his handiwork. But his protestations of ignorance, both about what was being disseminated on his behalf and who was responsible, are much harder to credit.
While his statements sometimes leave the impression that Mr Paul simply licensed his name to people with whom he had little contact, there is much evidence to the contrary. The newsletters that appeared under his name were published by M&M Graphics and Advertising, a company run by Mr Paul's longtime congressional campaign manager Mark Elam—which Mr Elam himself confirms. And according to numerous veterans of the libertarian movement, it was an open secret during the late-80s and early-90s who was ghostwriting the portions of Mr Paul's newsletters not penned by the congressman himself: Lew Rockwell, founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and members of his staff, among them Jeffrey Tucker, now editorial vice president of the Institute.
Mr Rockwell denied authorship to Jamie Kirchick, the reporter whose New Republic article published earlier this week reignited controversy over the newsletters. But both Mr Rockwell (who attacked the New Republic article on his site) and Mr Tucker refused to discuss the matter with Democracy in America. ("Look at Mises.org," Mr Tucker told me, "I'm willing to take any responsibility for anything up there, OK?") According to Wirkman Virkkala, formerly the managing editor of the libertarian monthly Liberty, the racist and survivalist elements that appeared in the newsletter were part of a deliberate "paleolibertarian" strategy, "a last gasp effort to try class hatred after the miserable showing of Ron Paul’s 1988 presidential effort." It is impossible now to prove individual authorship of any particular item in the newsletter, but it is equally impossible to believe that Mr Rockwell did not know of and approve what was going into the newsletter.
This matters because, while Mr Paul may disavow the sentiments that were expressed under his name over the years, he has scarcely disavowed Mr Rockwell, who remains a friend and adviser. Mr Rockwell is one of the congressman's most vigorous online boosters, accompanied him to an appearance on The Tonight Show, and often publishes Mr Paul's writings on his Web site. Mr Paul now says the identity of his ghostwriter is of no importance. But if the person responsible for spreading venom under his name for many years remains a close associate, it suggests that Mr Paul is at least prepared to countenance pandering to racists, however respectable his own views. The candidate owes his supporters a far more complete explanation than he has thus far provided.
Rise of the Paulcolytians! Wow. This comment thread reminds me: it's been a long time since I have seen so much talking produce so much dead air.
I guess all that Paul needs to do now is commit a bit of tax evasion and suffer a martyr's prison term for it, and the spirit of Lyndon LaRouche will have fully possessed both him and his followers.
it means that he made a mistake, he accepted responsibility for that mistake, time to move on
"Accepting responsibility" does not give you a free pass to "move on." Accepting responsibility means accepting responsibility, not shirking it. If he accepted responsibility, that means he was conceding to being judged for his actions in this regard.
Ron Paul supporters want to dismiss this as irrelevant, as a smear - but even your man Ron Paul agrees that he is culpable in this matter. He accepted "moral responsibility." That has to mean something. It doesn't mean, I made a mistake, now forget about it. It means accepting the consequences of your actions.
But really, this is all a sideshow. The reason Ron Paul will fail, like everyone of his ideological stripe before him, is because his agenda is widely and deeply unpopular. With the exception of a few issues - Iraq, maybe the War on Drugs - public opinion is overwhelmingly against the Ron Paul agenda.
The majority of people in this country want government-funded health care. They want it to be a federal crime if they are fired because of their race or gender. They want Roe v. Wade to be the law. They want federal minimum wage and overtime standards. They want Social Security. They want federal environmental regulations. Etc. etc. etc. etc.
No one is buying what you're selling. Ron Paul has maxed out his support; every "North American Union" conspiracy theorist who wants society to regress back to the 19th century has found Rep. Paul already. There are no more of you. Now go away and murmur amongst yourselves about the NAFTA superhighway and the reptilian elites that control the world. The rest of us have a serious political campaign to attend to.
As the DNC said in ‘96 ‘It is the economy stupid’.
Our Nation produces 13.1 trillion dollars of wealth each year, and of that the government takes 2.4 trillion dollars and spends 2.6 trillion dollars. Since the government spends more than it takes, it has developed a debt, which is currently 10 trillion dollars. We have promised to make future expenditures above and beyond what we are currently spending, to an amount of 58 trillion dollars between 2017 and 2040. This works out to an average of 2.5 trillion dollars a year. In addition to this, 4 trillion dollars of the debt will also need to be paid back without any additional sources of revenue, although existing taxation can be increased.
To put this in perspective, imagine that you work for a company that earns $131,000 of annual revenue, they pay you $23,000 a year, and your budget is $26,000 for the year. At the same time you have $64,000 on the credit cards and $46,000 that you have borrowed from your 401k, and just signed a 30 year mortgage for your parent’s house for $580,000, but the property is condemned. And this is all okay because you have $6.59 in the bank. Your parents are going to give you $1,000 a year until 2017, and then they need you to start paying them back.
We have established significant control over air travel, but our boarders are open, illegal immigration is not under control, our ports are not secure, and our visa system has not been updated. If the government thought that terrorism is a serious problem, they haven’t done anything to stop it, yet they have stripped our rights and liberties under the banner of terrorism since October of 2001. Although we haven’t plugged any of the holes in our system, there hasn’t been a terrorist attack on U.S. soil for over 6 years. The government spending and the economy will destroy this nation in less than 33 years.
I believe that Ron Paul is the only candidate from either the Republican or Democratic parties that will even attempt to fix this.
(Numbers have been obtained from the CIA Fact book.)
Megan, since you don't have the life-long exposure to libertarianism that I do, I'm sure you don't know that the 'Movement' has been fraught with infighting and various splits and reconnections since it began after WWII. For instance, Murray Rothbard, Lew Rockwell's mentor, was an original Cato Institute member, before his quite ugly falling out with Ed Crane. He was also aligned with leftists during the 60s due to his strong anti-war stance. (I highly recommend you peruse some of Rothbard's writings over at LRC. The man's really smart, and he's quite willing to take ideas to their logical extreme. It makes for fascinating reading.)
Libertarians, being a small but extremely ideological group, are especially prone to these kinds of purer-than-thou feuds and constant shifting of alliances. Though it makes for fun parties for nerdy ideologues, it has the effect of weakening the overall message to the general public. For this I'm sorry, because instead of focusing on commonalities that would have widespread appeal there is a tendency to get distracted trying to denounce the apostate views of Crazy Libertarians (whatever they may be).
The biggest mistakes people make are all related to their inability to accept differences in other people. Yes, there are paleo-libertarians that believe that traditional gender roles are ideal and that Abe Lincoln should have allowed the South to secede. Are they awful people who should be shunned? I don't think so, because they contribute to the discourse of libertarianism just as Nick Gillespie and his drug-glorifying brand of libertarianism does. I think ignoring certain branches of libertarianism doesn't have any long-term value and leads to the type of intellectual stagnation that has plagued the Republicans.
Ron Paul's reluctance to forcefully denounce his fringe followers and delve deeply into this newsletter fiasco shows just how much he's trying to avoid the kind of balkanization of beliefs that has crippled libertarians for so long. Though it annoys you and others that he won't take a hard line on these guys, to me it shows that he thinks that the ultimate goal of achieving a truly Constitutional government is more important than enforcing some regime of acceptable beliefs that goes beyond the simple platform that he's running on. In that sense he's really a very pure libertarian since he doesn't see it as his duty to tell his supporters what to think.
First, when you take a condescending tone in an article, don't expect the replies to be glowing. The tone of the article almost always dictates the responses. Don't want to be disparaged, than try to avoid overtly disparaging others. I'm pleasantly suprised that most of the responses are not overtly condescending, given the amount of anger that the original article invoked.
I actually am enjoying the show at this time. When I first heard about the full blown scandal I was dismayed. Not at Ron Paul but at the fact that a 'campaign killer' came out. it didn't matter if it was true, but that my perception of how people would react would be enough (and I think that case has merit, given some of the anti-Paul people).
But in reality, I do think RP has handled this as best he could. You can only take responsibilty for what you've actually done (mismanagment) and continue to point out how your stands, as you have always stated them, are the opposite of the charges. To change his stance in face of this opposition would please a few people, and destroy his whole credibility. [what the anti-Paul people really want]
I agree the odds of election are as slim as ever and I'm not sure this hurt it more, but while I have seen the unfortunate result of years of statist mindset and soft fascism in many people, I have also discovered many willing to go beyond their PC indoctrination and actually think for themselves. And that gives me hope.
I guess all that Paul needs to do now is commit a bit of tax evasion and suffer a martyr's prison term for it, and the spirit of Lyndon LaRouche will have fully possessed both him and his followers.
Anony-mouse, I usually enjoy your comments, but this is just bad. For your edification and everyone else's: Lyndon LaRouche is a Democrat. He has never held anything close to a libertarian policy position. Hell, he was a real Communist for a while.
Also worth mentioning is that though Ron Paul believes in the value of civil disobedience, he ran for Congress and the Presidency so that he can change the policies he disagrees with, instead of just protest against them.
Christina,
While your defense of Mr. Paul is the most coherent one in this thread, there are a few problems with your analysis.
(1) A point that Megan made a few days ago - for very good reason, racist beliefs, to a much greater extent than other "fringe" beliefs, have become socially unacceptable in our society. Whether you think that that is a good or bad thing (I think it's a good thing), it's a fact. Whatever Mr. Paul's personal beliefs (I expect that he is not in fact a racist), his failure to distance himself from his racist followers is going to taint him in ways that will hurt his message. (Note that "will" is entirely divorced from "should." For complex reasons, I tend to also think that "should" applies, but that's not the issue.)
Successful political movements sometimes do need to cast some people outside the tent. As painful as it may be for a movement as small and balkanized as the libertarian movement to go that route, it is a necessary step if it is to have any kind of long term success. Of course, lots of libertarians, partly for that reason, eschew electoral politics entirely. A defensible position. But once you make the decision to engage in the political arena, there are compromises that must be made. Don't want to make the compromises? Don't get involved in electoral politics. There is nothing more pathetic than someone who makes just enough compromises to lose his principles, but not enough to have any chance of gaining benefits from such compromise. Ron Paul in a nutshell.
(And of course the irony here is that there is plenty of reason to believe that the worst of the content in the newsletters itself represented such a compromise, pandering to a racist constituency alien to Mr. Paul's true beliefs for financial/political reasons. What goes around comes around.)
(2) Constitutional government is not by any means the same thing as libertarianism. In fact, it is arguably inconsistent with libertarianism in many respects. As I'm sure you know given your experience in the movement, that's a point made by many libertarians. I'm not at all certain that having a constitutionalist as the standard bearer for libertarianism is a good thing.
Let's stop pretenting this is journalism. It just propaganda, put out there to stop a movement; government control of our news sources is pretty much complete.
Oh, one more point.
The argument regarding "enforcing some regime of acceptable beliefs that goes beyond the simple platform that he's running on" is a straw man. This isn't merely a case of Ron Paul having some questionable supports, and people demanding that Paul denounce them (yes, some people did make that demand; that is not the current issue). This is a case where vile racist opinions went out under Mr. Paul's name. That is a horse of a different color.
LarryM,
I certainly agree that in the long run Ron Paul has hurt himself in this election by not vociferously distancing himself from the nuttiest of his supporters, but that's the price of principled libertarianism. Either he's principled and believes that personal beliefs have no relation to the issues of governance, or he abandons that and resorts to the pandering typical of politicians. Because Ron Paul is promoting a message more than himself, the choice as he sees it is simple, though it will certainly serve to keep him out of the Oval Office.
Americans like to be pandered to, even if they know how insincere it is. The trick, and Huckabee in particular has mastered it, is to be very skilled at coming across as sincere. Presentation is everything.
As to your second point about Constitutionalism not being the same as libertarianism, I completely agree. Ron Paul has chosen to run as a Republican and a strict Constitutionalist because he sees those as having broader appeal than bald libertarianism, and because, like Milton Friedman, he thinks of himself as a Republican with a big R and a libertarian with a small l. For him, the GOP is the best platform from which to run his campaign.
Of course it also bears mentioning that the closest you can get to strict Constitutionalism is libertarianism. So though the two aren't the same, they are very closely related.
Christina,
My point, ultimately, is that he has hurt the movement as well. And, perhaps more importantly, (to me, anyway, as a person increasingly defining himself as a left libertarian (in the meaningful sense of the term, a la Roderick T. Long, e.g.), but not yet (and perhaps never) a part of the "movement"), he has IMO hurt two causes very dear to my heart, non-interventionism and opposition to the drug war. Or that's my perception, anyway. YMMV.
But thank you for the civil and logical response. And your comments regarding constitutionalism are dead on, except that I'd remove the word "very" from your last sentence.
And finally, at the risk of sounding like a suck up, it's nice to see someone really knowledgeable about libertarianism comment on these threads. It sometimes seems that most self described libertarians commenting here and elsewhere know significantly less about the movement than I do - even given my relatively recent and still incomplete journey in that direction.
Libertarians should have a natural distrust for politicians -- yes, even for Ron Paul. Trusting Ron Paul when he says he had nothing to do with the newsletters and believing that his personal views must be perfectly aligned with his public ones is a dangerous attitude for one to take toward any politician.
In this particular case, the attitude tethers Ron Paul's own presidential ambitions to libertarianism so well that if the former fails (and it will), then the holder of the attitude is likely to reject the latter as well. The irony is that those who loved Ron Paul the most unreservedly are the least likely to remain libertarians once this is all over.
I am an anarchist and to me a statist, even a minarchist, is much worse than a racist.
A racist is a person associate and discriminate based on race. Every individual discriminates in life when dealing with other humans in society and some do this based on race.
This may upset some other people, it is probably even to the disadvantage of the discriminitor but it is just discrimination. There is no agression against anybody.
A statist, even a minarchist, on the other hand, actively supports agression against property by the hand of the government. He/she is morally supporting a criminal organization that takes property away by force and usually restrict many liberties based on property rights.
Now, this is a political campaign that even atracts the support of welfare statist liberals and some so called libertarians are getting upset over atracting truthers, neo nazis and racism stuff.
This is politics.
The alternatives in this race, all of them represent the initiation of force by the state against individuals.
And the only person that has a chance to even slightly stop this is getting this heat.
People making a big deal out this and hope for the demise of Ron Paul are either deluded or arent sincere libertarian.
So, do you guys have a special hotline from AIPAC?.. or do you use some kind of code to get your marching orders? (maligning orders)
How dare you accuse Lew Rockwell of being the probable author of those articles. I have known him for years and he does not think that way any more than Ron does.
Who the hell are you to make such unfounded accusations? Moreover, your work as a reporter is sloppy garbage. That newsletter thing has come up more often than you change your underwear and you are just now finding it? Obviously, you don't read anything written by libertarians.
I am so sick of pseudo intellectuals pretending to be libertarians when they know nothing of the principles and certainly don't act on them.
MM, you are filth. The worst kind. You think you are important and that your words have some kind of meaning. About all you are good for is word vomiting.
The argument regarding "enforcing some regime of acceptable beliefs that goes beyond the simple platform that he's running on" is a straw man. This isn't merely a case of Ron Paul having some questionable supports, and people demanding that Paul denounce them (yes, some people did make that demand; that is not the current issue). This is a case where vile racist opinions went out under Mr. Paul's name. That is a horse of a different color.
I was addressing the longer-running and far more prevalent contention (seen in last night's Fox debate) that Ron Paul has an obligation to distance himself from every wack-job who supports him.
The specifics of the newsletters' content are, in my opinion, not relevant to whether or not Ron Paul is the best candidate running for President. As far as I'm concerned, he apologized for not monitoring them and either I accept that apology and move on, or I don't. Since I see his voting record, personally written writings, and actual policy positions as much more relevant to the campaign than the newsletters, I have chosen to continue supporting him. If the newsletters are deal-breakers for you, then so be it. Though I bet you weren't interested in Ron Paul before this all came out, so this really has no effect on your vote anyway. Am I right?
I certainly hope libertarians break with the past (the gun-toting, tinfoil hat-wearing potheads) and move towards a more mature, small government message.
Before anyone jumps on me for this, I've been involved in Libertarian (big L) politics for 14 years. I vote L, root for R.
The Republicans have given Libertarians an opportunity to steal the small government mantle from them -- and it's up to us to do it. We cannot, however, do it by rambling on about oddball topics.
I hope Ron makes a huge impact in this race, but hopefully, he's just the beginning of a libertarian resurgence.
(FWIW, I think Ron really needs to stop talking about the gold standard. He makes points, but they're not indisputable points, and the topic is way too wonky for the average American to make sense of. The use of fiat currency is not the biggest problem facing America.)
The reason the real author of the newletters isn't stepping forward is because he's dead: Murray Rothbard wrote them and he wrote plenty more like it. The style is exactly the same and he's made plenty of racist statements in the past -- though conveniently enough, nothing featured on the internet.
My favorite post:
No Megan will not be remembered as a fascist, you will be remembered as one of the approx 100 million brainless yuppies who think they know something yet dont know their head from a hole in the ground. Ron Paul's racist newsletters... lol... why not throw in Ron Paul hates Rosa Parks while you're at it. Morons like you believe whatever crap is thrown at you, as long as it comes from your elite controllers who want nothing more than to own everything you think you own. And guess what?! They basically have it all. I bet you're in debt just like most of the dumbed down NH "conservatives" who picked McCain. They picked McCain because they spend more time watching Fox's Daily Britney than they do actually doing any research. You people truly do deserve what you got coming. You're gonna get wiped out, 401k, pensions, social security, your homes, everything, kiss it all goodbye. And I aint gonna shed one tear for you, I only cry for the constitution which you morons will shred in your desparate attempt to cling to a standard of living you can neither afford nor deserve.
I hope in 5 years you idiots will treat the words of the founding fathers with a bit more respect.
Posted by Iconoclast42
Dear MM,
I also hope that you will enjoy the kind of America you are helping to create. Enjoy paying into SS for the rest of your life never getting one dime. Enjoy the fact that you will never be able to own a home. Enjoy the double digit inflation that will be here for decades - by the way sweetie, it is here now.
Enjoy the rest of your rights being washed down the toilet. Be careful what you write lest one of your unhappy readers labels you a commie, er, terrorist and YOU end up in Gitmo. Without a lawyer good luck fighting for your rights, oh that's right, you don't want any - you would rather write a hit piece against the only men in this world protecting your sorry little tush.
Enjoy Iran, I am sure when you get drafted the fighting will be fierce. Don't believe me? Oh, baby, a draft is coming. It must. How else can we police and attack the world. We don't have any soldiers left. And since you wouldn't dream of being sexist, they will include women too. But you would rather attack the men who are trying to protect you from that too.
Good job dearie. Well done. May you get all that you deserve. (Look that one up as I am sure you won't get it.)
So, do you guys have a special hotline from AIPAC?.. or do you use some kind of code to get your marching orders? (maligning orders)
Good heavens, of course not. I don't get all that many calls, so they can just use my regular phone.
Has anyone skimmed through the solicitation posted here: http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf.
It seems as though Ron Paul, on Ron Paul letterhead, signed by Ron Paul, proudly proclaims his forewarnings of a "coming race war in the big cities, the federal homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one)," among other "exposes". This seems to hint at some of the more appalling "warnings" issued in the newsletters, which he has disavowed. If those newsletters are not what he's referring to here, what is he referencing?
The other 'parent' ideology for the present so-called libertarian movement besides JohnBirchers and frustrated white racist/states rights fanatics is even weirder.
If the Repub base gets a whiff of the Ayn Rand, 'Objectivist' roots of Dr Paul's ideology their heads will explode. Economic determinism. Atheist. Anarchist-leaning.
Wonderful folks. The most interesting inmates in the asylum.
Christina,
Partially. Actually, I go back and forth between non-participation, a protest vote for Ron Paul, and (blush - here is where I probably lose all of my credibility) a vote for Obama, as the best of a very bad set of options (Paul never really had a chance).
The newsletter controversy does reduce the chance of a protest vote for Paul - not that I will likely have a chance to do that, unless he makes a third party run, which is unlikely. If he does - eh, who knows, I could see myself pulling his lever, even now, depending upon the other candidates, despite disagreeing with him on a whole host of issues.
But apart from my vote, in a larger sense, I stand by my opinion that he is doing the movement more harm than good. Not that I blame you, at all, for your continued support.
It's a huge issue, and it's being used to tax Americans through the "back door." Republicans want to be against taxes, but they like devaluing the currency to pay for their warmongering.
I thought Ron Paul did a great job in tying this to the housing bubble (it is absolutely directly related) during the Fox SC debate.
Are you ever uneasy about cashing your paycheck?
Ron Paul has written a huge number of articles over many years. Many can be found on Lew Rockwell's web site. If you read these articles and compare them to the newsletters, it is clear stylistically that Ron Paul did not write the damning text in the newsletters.
Should he have been paying more attention to what was published under his name? Absolutely! But in the 20 years I've been following Ron Paul's career, I've never seen anything to even hint at racism, but I've seen lots from him to indicate he hates "group think" of any kind. I don't believe for a second that he's racist.
My point, ultimately, is that he has hurt the movement as well. And, perhaps more importantly, (to me, anyway, as a person increasingly defining himself as a left libertarian (in the meaningful sense of the term, a la Roderick T. Long, e.g.), but not yet (and perhaps never) a part of the "movement"), he has IMO hurt two causes very dear to my heart, non-interventionism and opposition to the drug war. Or that's my perception, anyway. YMMV.
Ah, the left libertarian. At the risk of sounding doctrinaire, I don't know how one can be a left libertarian. It seems like an oxymoron to me. :-)
In any event, I don't think Ron Paul has been able to make any impact on the election with regards to the Drug War. It's seen as so self-evidently necessary by most people that he's really not given a chance to talk about it.
Though he does get attention to his views on foreign policy, I think his message has been clear enough that he's garnered quite a bit of support for it. I think that if he were to win the GOP nomination and face Hillary it would force a lot of people, on both sides, to re-examine their beliefs. And that's a good thing.
And your comments regarding constitutionalism are dead on, except that I'd remove the word "very" from your last sentence.
Isn't there some famous writer who said that 'very' should be eschewed most of the time?
And finally, at the risk of sounding like a suck up, it's nice to see someone really knowledgeable about libertarianism comment on these threads. It sometimes seems that most self described libertarians commenting here and elsewhere know significantly less about the movement than I do - even given my relatively recent and still incomplete journey in that direction.
Well shucks! Thanks for your kind words. My dad was an outspoken libertarian and subsequently I grew up with tons of libertarian reading material around ranging from Cato publications, to REASON magazine, to Mises Institute newsletters, to some super obscure stuff that I would bet only 100 other people in the country knew of. Then I went to George Mason University and took economics classes, which helped me get a more thorough grounding. In addition, my husband got his BS in econ from Mason and spent a summer interning at Cato, which resulted in us getting a TON of books Cato has published over the years. So I've spent my life reading authors that most people have never heard of, but that are giants in the realm of econ and libertarian thought. Indeed, before we found out I'm having a girl, we were thinking of naming our kid Carl after Carl Menger.
"Ron Paul has written a huge number of articles over many years. Many can be found on Lew Rockwell's web site. If you read these articles and compare them to the newsletters, it is clear stylistically that Ron Paul did not write the damning text in the newsletters."
Jim-Thanks for the link. But, unfortunately, I can't find anything as incendiary--or, depending upon your perspective, disconcerting--as what is described in the solicitation. Nor do I believe he's a racist, but this is probabilistic nonetheless. Although, I would never take politicians public statements or positions as their true underlying preferences or beliefs. Remember, these were written for a targeted audience, with no anticipation how something so abhorrent could be disseminated so rapidly in the future.
This leads me to wonder, as a thought experiment, if something as offensive as a post on Megan's blog, without her explicit imprimatur--well, none of her posts have a byline, so we assume she's writing the posts--would be forgiven so passionately by the same people who rush so quickly to absolve Ron Paul? Could she even keep her job? By allowing it to continue--assuming the Atlantic didn't can her toute de suite--is she not, at least tacitly, endorsing it? Wouldn't that be the conclusion one would draw if your not a fervent Megan Mcardle supporter?
Christina,
On the left libertarian point (and sorry for other readers here; this is getting increasingly obscure), there is, as you probably know, a pretty rich tradition of serious libertarian thinkers at least identifying themselves as left libertarians. (And I'm not talking about leftists who have libertarian impulses, which is a seperate phenomenon.)
Now, some of them, and I'm talking about the anarcho-syndicalists, specifically, though, not just them, probably aren't libertarians in any meaningful sense. Apart from anti-interventionism, Noam Chomsky has little in common with, say, Friedrich Hayek.
But people like Roderick T. Long and Charles Johnson (not the lgf dude), for example, have a perfectly valid claim to be libertarians (and, in fact, are more anti-statist than mainstream minarchists). They also have impeccable anti-collectivist credentials. And, of course, there is a rich tradition of like minded precursors, e.g., Thomas Paine.
So then the question becomes: are they "left"? Well, many of them define themselves as such. Without going into a huge amount of detail, and I'm still exploring this myself, the key here is that "left" can mean a lot more than what it usually stands for in the United States today. Long and Johnson, for example, have done some interesting work reconciling libertarianism and radical feminism.
There's much more, but sadly I'm running out of time for the moment. Sometimes I get the impression that left libertarians are even more fragmented than the rest of the movement. But whatever left libertarianism is - wrong, right, interesting, irrelevant - it isn't an oxymoron.
And of course Rothbard himself went through a phase of associating himself with the left, specifically with elements of SDS in the late 1960s. I wouldn't call Rothbard a left libertarian, he would roll over in his grave to hear himself referred to as such, and, influenced by Rockwell (or so the story goes), he ended up in a VERY different place (among the paleolibertarians), but he worked with and influenced a some people who identified as left libertarians.
Though I'm still sorting out my own feelings toward Rothbard. As a part of the CATO wing of the movement, my guess would be that he isn't one of your favorites, though I could be mistaken. Actually, given your ecumenical feelings towards the movement, I probably am wrong.
The Rothbardian/Rockwellian/Paulian cozying up to white supremacists goes back _decades_, at least back to Rothbard's support for Strom Thurmond's presidential campaign on the Dixiecrat ticket in 1948 (if not to Rothbard's support for Franco in the Spanish Civil War). It's not just a matter of Paul inadvertently getting some unsavory supporters he's reluctant to disavow; after the end of the Cold War, he joined the effort to suck up to Klansmen like the late Sam Francis (who wrote admiringly of the anti-Semitic radio priest Father Coughlin, and who's approvingly mentioned many times on Rockwell's site, if you just do a little searching) to form a "Paleo" coalition. That's why, among other things, they abandoned Mises' support for open borders in favor of nativist xenophobia.
To paraphrase Churchill, "Ron Paul is the worst form of candidate except all the others who are running."
Will we be better off with a man with a few warts who would restore sanity to government, or someone who is gung-ho for a one hundred year occupation of Iraq, massive new unfundable social programs, or the desire to be Theocrat in Chief?
Ron Paul would make a better president than anyone else running. I wish he was a more perfect candidate, but he's not.
Can I have a source citation to the outing of Lew Rockwell and Jeff Tucker, please?
Who cares about what is written, Ron Paul is for more things that would help black people than any candidate. Do you think it's fair black people go to jail more than white people? Do you think it's fair they they go to prison more? Do you realize how many black people are in prison from marijuana possession charges? It's nuts to associate Ron Paul with being racist.
I stand for Ron Paul because I VALUE human life. I VALUE our republic. I DESPISE the war in Iraq, a war given to us under the cover of "supporting democracy". If we support democracy, why do we subsadize China by borrowing money from her and supporting military dictators that slaughter their people? Seriously, wake up America, this is ridiculous. Here we have a President who is actually putting liberty above all and you are looking at news articles... Open your eyes. The military even agrees with him. I've talked to soldiers who have been in Iraq for extended tours and 2+ terms. "It's a civil war." "We have no business over there." Why do you think they are all supporting Ron Paul? Giulliani and Romney DODGED THE DRAFT TO VIETNAMN, do you want a draft-dodger to be your next commander in chief who is so fast to send our brothers and sisters to war but so reluctant to join themselves?
12,000+ U.S. suicides from Iraq War
1,000,000+ Iraqi deaths
30,000+ U.S. injured (limbs blown off, blind)
and that isnt even counting head injuries and suffering of post traumatic stress syndrome. If you are for liberty, show it. If you are for the Constitution, show it. Iraq is a lie, Afghanistan is another lie, and we are talking of invading Iran and Pakistan (Obama supports attacking Pakistan). It's up to you, dig your own grave or dig your way out fellow Americans. If a newsletter is casting doubts on your belief on Ron Paul, you never were a true Ron Paul supporter in the first place. End of discussion.
I must admit I am frustrated by these revelations, especially as someone who has actively tried to spread the word about Dr. Paul. However, I will continue to support and vote for him, mainly for the same reason I was intrigued by him in the first place: his policy views. While I consider myself Libertarian, I am more concerned with country than party. And I felt that most of Dr. Paul's views represent the ideals that we should strive for as a nation.
What makes him truly unique is his record; many who have come before and those who may come in the future may have similar talk, but who can point to a voting record as long or as consistent as his?
My question is: will I be able to vote for another non-warmongering, small goverment, pro-life candidate in my lifetime? Are there any well-spoken Republicans capable of pulling this off? Will this episode encourage others with similar beliefs to run? Or will it scare them back to the far reaches of political life?
Peace be with you.
Megan, try to track down Bill Evers. He was very active in the LP when Paul ran in 1988, and had his thumb on the whole Berglandista v. Rothbard affair. He probably knows all the ins and outs of why Paul was not universally beloved in the LP, why Rockwell and Rothbard pulled out in 1989 and launched their nasty little paleolibertarian movement, offering Paul a slice of the profits for lending his name to the affair. Many LPers always considered RP a libertarian conservative, so his policy failings - then and now - are not really indicative of the mainstream libertarian movement.
Ron Paul's downfall? I'm not sure he's out quite yet. The rascist remkarks in the newsletters have been around for over a decade, and Ron Paul has stated the situation. I know you may not believe him, but I trust the man. I've seen him, and seen his record, and I have never seen him say anything that was a lie or even a change in oppinion.
But even if the man does not win the nomination, or the presidency, it is irrelivant in the long run. You know why? Because the movement has taken off. The movement is not Ron Paul, it is his message. You might be able to count out the man, but you cannot count out the Revolution.
? I don't understand why the media writes this junk and then expects a turn around. Why is the media afraid of freedom. Why is the media afraid of true patriotism? These are the questions that need to be answered. The fact that you want to extract the black voters is very disturbing. Ron Paul supports and fights for individual freedoms. This has nothing to do with race. Ron Paul is a civil rights leader.
What part of, "ANYTHING, so long as it doesn't initiate force or fraud," don't you get? Unless you can stomach defending the rights of the vilest redneck, you are but a paper libertarian.
Ron Paul hasn't fallen yet. In fact, he is doing
well.
No Libertarian presidential candidate in history had done as well as Paul.
Go Paul go.
Ron Paul did not get in bed with no one except his wife. As a Flight surgeon in the Air Force during the Cuban Missile Crisis and the early days of the Vietnam War he operated on mangled American boys trying to keep them alive on military jets as they were being transported to Germany. Then he went on to stand at the end of the bed so to speak and deliver over 4,000 babies.
Then he got involved in the political life. What did you do before you went to work for this blog thing that's on the Internet?
Just curious.
Many of us who have known Paul for 30 years and been involved with libertarianism knew this was going to happen. Rockwell's racists are a blight and they dragged Paul down. Paul, however, is not entirely innocent. He let the articles go out in his name. He published the articles. His campaign manager printed the newsletters. And Paul knows all this. His problem is that he is still associated with the Rockwell crowd even as most libertarian groups have distanced themself from Rockwell and the Mises Institute. Rockwell came from the conservative movement and was always more a conservative than a libertarian. His influence has been detrimental and destructive and seeing him outed is a good thing.
Your title is misleading, there is no downfall here.
This is a noble effort from a genuine patriot to save his country from the fate it has been led to by decades of 'leaders' who compromised the values inherent in your greatest document, the Constitution. While you are almost certainly correct that Ron Paul will not receive the Republican nomination, he has, is and will continue to wake people up to the hard realities you face. For that, and especially in the face of hostile media coverage and smear attempts, history will honor him.
How will history remember your efforts?
I doubt that someone who truly values individual rights and freedoms would disparage Dr. Paul's admirable efforts to educate the American public about the unsustainability of your current Empire overseas and the fiscal suicide pact you cling to at home.
Regardless of Dr. Paul's electoral success in this presidential cycle, he is winning the battle of ideas. Indeed, he cannot help but win this more important battle - his opponents are intellectually unarmed and cannot refute him. That victory has been ensured by the efforts of Dr. Paul and especially of his numerous volunteers who have spread his message far and wide. Indeed, it has spread to the fertile ground of open minds within your borders and far outside your nation. The movement supporting freedom will only grow larger now that the seeds have been sown.
While the next President will have much influence over the four years of his/her reign, enlightening hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people about officially discouraged topics is how the war against statism will be won.
An open discussion and debate about the competing ideas of Empire versus Republic, hard, honest money versus corrupting, manipulated paper currency, and individual freedom versus collectivist serfdom is the only way to pull your country out of the death-spiral you have been set on.
I am encouraged that the young students attracted to Dr. Paul's message of freedom, tolerance and respectful cooperation will be the true springboard for the restoration of the promise of your once-great Republic. This is the true victory of Dr. Paul's presidential run. The man can be beat in this election, but it will be a Pyrrhic victory for his statist opponents. The lies, smears and attacks reveal the agenda and nature of the enemies of true freedom. Their falsehoods will reside forever in the internet as self-incriminating evidence, serving to innoculate successive generations against their lies.
One only hopes that the proto-fascism of the current regime and most of the pretenders to the throne will not have choked freedom totally out of your country before the coming generation can lead you out of the darkness.
Ron Paul has done surprisingly well with business as usual, gaining 28 million in campaign contributions and becoming the internet's darling. This probably gives him 5% of the voting constituency. However winning the nomination or the presidency is another story and would take a major coup in strategy. He has done well in responding to the charges which have a least gotten him into the media albeit negatively. He needs to fuel this negative publicity and turn it publicly to his favor with his hugely popular truthful message and persona. Or he remains in congress and the country continues business as usual til the well runs dry.
I once saw Ron Paul scissor-kick Angela Landsbury.
You Paulbots sound like Communists. Sorry, but you do.
There seems to be a pattern all over the internet, that applies to lots of Ron Paul supporters.
(1) the question is always phrased as the strongest possible, yes-or-no terms "IS RON PAUL A RACIST?!?!?" (Never, for instance, "Did Ron Paul look the other way while racists used his name?" or "Did Ron Paul think it was useful to associate with racists?", etc)
(2) Any wrong doing is rejected, based only on Ron Paul's say-so. No critical thinking, nothing. Like the youtube vid of Ron Paul saying he's not a racist and.. case closed.
siiggh
No, he did wrong and he said so. Therefore he's not God or even Joan of Arc. Duh. If his sin is too great to exclude him from the presidency well then it is. That is the case for you to make.
RG,
You missed DRH's point. He wasn't commenting upon Ron Paul, he was commenting upon his followers, many of whom seem to engage in a kind of groupthink which appears to some of us to be rather ... unlibertarian. Well, not unlibertarian in the strictest sense, but at least inconsistant with the spirit of libertarianism.
Oh Megan,
You need to learn the history of the early movement and its various fringe players. There was for example a murder of a key figure of one of the fringe groups---the murderer took over the organization and is now a very, very (Arabian horses wealthy) man.
Adam: wtf? you have forgotten the LOVE in the rEVOLution.
Christina: I like your comments. "Big tent" libertarianism is desperately needed. If that means we get support from some people with nutty ideas, there's not much we can do about it. Freedom of conscience means the freedom to hold nutty ideas, and freedom of conscience is too valuable to abandon just so we can be politically correct. Besides, it's not like the mainstream doesn't have plenty of nutty ideas of their own - and nutty ideas that are likely to be ultimately more harmful than racism (and no, I am *not* belittling the harm of racism - that harm is immense).
LynnS: You wrote, `To paraphrase Churchill, "Ron Paul is the worst form of candidate except all the others who are running."' Yes.
The existence of these newsletters is troubling, yet for all that Ron Paul has a voting record that is much more favorable to minorities than any other candidate. Ultimately, actions speak louder than words, and Ron Paul has a better record of acting honorably than any of the others in this race, in spite of some fearmongering about immigrants and international bankers.
In any case, Ron Paul is not the whole rEVOLution, and it's nice to see that the rEVOLution is frightening our fourth estate overlords.
Miss overgrown elf, could you please cite a source for the Rockwell, Tucker claim?
Yes, Megan. Please cite a source for the Rockwell Tucker claim. Since you didn't one can only assume you pulled it deep out of your anus. I hope you didn't type the rest of this after you did, or your keyboard must reek - as badly as your writing does.
I do hope that some day you get attacked by a stupid teenager trying to make a name for herself by attacking you on something completely unfounded. Perhaps by then it will be enough of an attack to get child protective services against you, or the land you in Gitmo.
You ungrateful little twerp. Lew Rockwell has been espousing freedom and liberty longer than you have been alive and you attack him? Who are you? You can't even get a job!
Nice smear job. Have fun with your new national Id card while your lily white tail is being shot at in the desert. I hope your number comes up first in the draft. After all, that is what you are leading the country into. You little trash. You don't even have the right to speak those men's names and yet you dare to throw out libelous crap like it means nothing? Do you realize who you are hurting you little skank?
You have just destroyed the hopes of the poor, the sick, the elderly, and all minorities in this country. Ron Paul was their only chance at getting a fair shake in this rigged system, and your RACIST drivel will drive them deeper into the ground than any comment made 15 years ago in some un-read newsletter.
Good job, you evil witch. I guess it is easy to attack people who are offering real hope to the downtrodden in this society when you are living off your parent's money. Typical liberal, you talk a pretty game, but when it comes to the point where you might actually lose a little of that white power you so mightily enjoy, you slam anyone who might take it away from you. I would love to see what you would have said about MLK.
Do you realize that Dr. Paul is the first and only man running for President, including Obama, ever to have tried to help the black man in this society with actual policies and not just rhetoric?
Can you read? Have you ever read Lew Rockwell or Mises? With Austrian economics the black man would not be oppressed in this society - but then you don't know what the Austrian school teaches do you?
Oh, you are the worst kind of racist on the planet. The one who throws knives while speaking of equality. The kind that does the most damage because following your policies will continue the oppression for another few decades at least but you pretend to help so other feeble minded liberals will follow you. You are pure evil missy. Pure evil.
Yes, Megan. Please cite a source for the Rockwell Tucker claim. Since you didn't one can only assume you pulled it deep out of your anus. I hope you didn't type the rest of this after you did, or your keyboard must reek - as badly as your writing does.
I do hope that some day you get attacked by a stupid teenager trying to make a name for herself by attacking you on something completely unfounded. Perhaps by then it will be enough of an attack to get child protective services against you, or the land you in Gitmo.
You ungrateful little twerp. Lew Rockwell has been espousing freedom and liberty longer than you have been alive and you attack him? Who are you? You can't even get a job!
Nice smear job. Have fun with your new national Id card while your lily white tail is being shot at in the desert. I hope your number comes up first in the draft. After all, that is what you are leading the country into. You little trash. You don't even have the right to speak those men's names and yet you dare to throw out libelous crap like it means nothing? Do you realize who you are hurting you little skank?
You have just destroyed the hopes of the poor, the sick, the elderly, and all minorities in this country. Ron Paul was their only chance at getting a fair shake in this rigged system, and your RACIST drivel will drive them deeper into the ground than any comment made 15 years ago in some un-read newsletter.
Good job, you evil witch. I guess it is easy to attack people who are offering real hope to the downtrodden in this society when you are living off your parent's money. Typical liberal, you talk a pretty game, but when it comes to the point where you might actually lose a little of that white power you so mightily enjoy, you slam anyone who might take it away from you. I would love to see what you would have said about MLK.
Do you realize that Dr. Paul is the first and only man running for President, including Obama, ever to have tried to help the black man in this society with actual policies and not just rhetoric?
Can you read? Have you ever read Lew Rockwell or Mises? With Austrian economics the black man would not be oppressed in this society - but then you don't know what the Austrian school teaches do you?
Oh, you are the worst kind of racist on the planet. The one who throws knives while speaking of equality. The kind that does the most damage because following your policies will continue the oppression for another few decades at least but you pretend to help so other feeble minded liberals will follow you. You are pure evil missy. Pure evil.
I am a libertarian. I support Lew Rockwell and thank him for his amazing contributions to the human race.
For those of you out there with a brain I dare you to go to www.lewrockwell.com and read. Then go to www.ronpaullibrary.org and read.
Then you will know that this person doesn't know what she is talking about.
It is that simple.
For those wondering about Lew Rockwell and the associates he has, here's a simple search that's quite illuminating.
http://www.google.com/search?q=lew+rockwell+vlaams&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&start=0&sa=N
Considering what some of Ron Paul's supporters are posting here, I'm afraid "batshit lunatic crazy" remains the main flavour the hoi polloi will be picking up. But then, that unfortunately describes a lot of those that hang around libertarian camps....
Uh, guys? Just a little bit of info about politics: people aren't going to vote for people who sound crazy. Not one bit. Nor are they going to listen to any of your ideas. You're coming across exactly like the weird old geezer who rants on the corner, convinced he's picking up UFO signals on the fillings in his teeth. And now he's running for Prexy.
Open Letter To Lew Rockwell
January 12, 2008
Dear Lew,
You have now had three opportunities - 1996, 2001, and 2008 - to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.
This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron's newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.
Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.
If you were Dr. Paul's friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron's message.
You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it's time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.
John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985
For God's sake.
Our country is facing insolvency. Paul's downfall is that Americans, and the mainstream media, just can't understand that if you spend more money than you make, you go insolvent.
All those moronic attacks at Paul who is the ONLY man running with any character at all is going to give you exact the crappy, incompetent, spinless, president you deserve as a nation.
Enjoy the riots and desperation, because they are coming when the dollar goes to 1/4 of it's current value. Good luck guys, you're going to need it.
100% proof that Ron Paul is racist.
http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/
If Ron Paul is the ONLY this, that, or the other thing what are you going to do when/if he loses? Or when/if few to no other Paulites gain high office after this election?
I'm trying to be more polite, but this is something I have difficulty relating to. I've never been that invested in any candidate for any office. In some respects that kind of enthusiasm is admirable, even if I feel it's misplaced. Still I'm wondering how you deal with the potential for disappointment that such a thing opens you up to.
I've just stumbled across this. It appears that the heat is getting to Lew Rockwell, so he's sending his surrogates out to defend him. And, not surprisingly, the man who won't come clean about authoring the Ron Paul newsletters is (through his surrogates) demonstrating that he is ready to throw Paul under the bus:
"The burden of the newsletter content is on Ron Paul, the man whose name graces the covers, and shame on you scoundrel 'libertarians' for automatically drawing the assumption that Lew Rockwell must have, had to be, surely was involved in writing those passages that have you all so horrified. Yet you claim that this man, who has worked so hard - on his own time and dollar - to open peoples' minds to the more radical aspects of freedom and free markets, is 'destroying your movement,' as if this is some juvenile brotherhood of badges, pin pricks, sworn statements, and membership cards."
You can read the entire tiresome screed here:
http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002714.html
By the way, did anyone else not know that Rockwell was accused some time ago of having an affair with Cindy Sheehan? Google it if you want to read about it. I thought good paleos weren't so morally lax, what with being "traditionalist Catholics" and all that.
First, it's sad this much energy is going into quotes made decades ago that actually weren't written by Paul. If that's the best you got, Ron Paul is in great shape. Second, I'm not part of any "libertarian" movement and neither are a lot of other Paul supporters. The CATO institute is corrupt and refuses to address the key foreign policy and monetary issues that Paul is. Additionally, the Libertarian Party itself is a complete joke - unable to perform basic maintenance like sending out materials to interested parties. The goal is to create a counterbalance within the GOP against NeoCon foreign policy. This rEVOLution is unique to Paul and his teachings; it is forward-looking. Last, its a movement that is not necessarily looking for liberals to sign up. I'm not surprised that the Atlantic and its minions don't understand the charity inherent to libertarianism- that citizens help one another out. Typically the generosity of a "liberal" is stealing money from others and handing it out in one's own name.
"what with being 'traditionalist Catholics' and all that."
Traditionalist Catholics seem fairly common with paleos, but surely they're of varied other religions too.
And although I'm Catholic there were certainly morally lax Catholics from Vatican I to Vatican II. Curiously that seems to have been an appeal for some Anglican converts in the nineteenth century. They felt freer to confess and, sadly, in some cases brood on their guilt or sexual shames. There is some evidence that in England of that era some homosexual Protestants converted to Catholicism because the faith offered repentance and the chance to lead something other than a married heterosexual life. (Although difficult celibacy at least offered less dishonesty and risk of jail time. There was no Protestant respect or tradition of celibacy, except maybe with the Quakers)
Wow. There's a lot of thoughts to address on this little page of opinion- let's start with this one, which is reflected upon by several writers here:
"I question his leadership if he can't even supervise a simple newsletter."
In point of fact, Ron Paul wasn't "supervising a simple newsletter" during the years the controversial quotations were published.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” --Ron Paul
He simply lent his name to a publication run by people he trusted when he wasn't in office and was performing his usual job as a OB/GYN specialist-
duties which would undoubtedly preclude serving as editor for a newsletter as well. His only error was in this trust he placed in these individuals.
The Goldwatering of Ron Paul continues.
Before I forget (again):
Much has been made of Lew Rockwell and the Von Mises institutes position on the right of a state or states to secede from the Union- implying that by agreeing with the Confederate States right to remove themselves from that affiliation, the Von Mises institute and Lew Rockwell therefore support the reasons behind the Confederate withdrawal.
This is like saying that the ACLU is a fascist organization for defending the Nazi party's right to rally and exercise their free speech. It's not the content of the speech the ACLU is defending, it's the right to say it.
Just because someone says that States have a right to secede doesn't mean one is in favor of slavery or opressing minorities.
Here's a press release on minorities who support Ron Paul...
For Immediate Release
For more information contact: Sherry Baker, Ron Paul Grassroots Media Volunteer, 404-377-1398, sherrywritepro@aol.com
African-Americans for Anti-War, Personal Liberty Presidential Candidate:
Black Supporters Deny Rep. Ron Paul Is A Racist
ATLANTA—Rep. Ron Paul rising popularity has astounded media pundits who labeled him a “lower tier” presidential candidate only a few months ago. The ten term Congressman from Texas with a libertarian philosophy scored second place in the Nevada Republican and Louisiana caucuses, broke records by raising millions of dollars from supporters in one day, and has beaten “front runner” Rudy Giuliani in every primary and caucus so far.
What’s more, his supporters encompass perhaps the broadest spectrum of any candidate – his campaign is drawing together Republicans, Democrats and Independents; college students and elders; black and white.
Recently, however , CNN reported that newsletters published under Dr Paul’s name in the early l990s were filled with racist tirades. So why would any African American still support Ron Paul as president? Because, as Dr. Paul and Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, his friend of 20 years, have stated, the comments were not written by Dr. Paul, he had no knowledge of them and he is anything but a racist. In fact, for decades , the Dr. Paul has consistently hailed Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks as two of his greatest heroes.
In the metro Atlanta area , Ron Paul supporters include African Americans who find that Rep. Paul, a medical doctor who has delivered over 4,000 babies, shares their values about personal freedom , fiscal responsibility and an end to the Iraq war. Dr. Paul is also the only candidate who has forcefully spoken out about the huge disparity between drug arrests and sentences given whites and blacks – a disparity seen by many as a sure sign of racism.
Joel Guerra is one of Georgia’s most active and committed Ron Paul supporters. He holds a degree in sociology and works in the geographic information science field. Not only is Guerra a black man, but he has a unique perspective on many issues concerning immigration and people of color. Guerra, 27 is an immigrant of Afro-Spanish origins from the country of Trinidad and Tobago, an area known for its rich cultural African, Indian, Spanish, French and Chinese mix .
“ I support Ron Paul for a multitude of reasons. I feel that he is the only candidate who is serious about downsizing a government that is out of control and getting it back to the limits of the constitution. As an immigrant, I feel that he is the only candidate running, whether Democrat or Republican, who truly respects the fact that I paid attention to America’s rule of law in my efforts to come here. I also feel like he is honest and is the most knowledgeable about the economy, and he wants to bring back the original ideas of prosperity and individual freedom that made America great,” says Guerra. “Lastly,I see no need for the government to be spending one trillion dollars a year in taxes on keeping military presence in 130 countries around the world when it doesn’t really benefit America. It is not possible to talk about lowering taxes, improving the economy and cutting government spending if you are not willing to withdraw those soldiers and taxpayer dollars from those 130 countries, as Ron Paul has vowed to do.”
Guerra says his research has convinced him Ron Paul’s platform is particularly important to African Americans and other minorities. “Non-minorities often have the privilege of being seen as individuals. Minorities, on the other hand, are often grouped together in a limiting way, based on ethnicity or other factors. Ron Paul wants a return to constitutional government, which focuses on the individual rather than groups. I like this approach of being treated like a person by the federal government rather than an entity simply associated with a color,” Guerra states. “Currently blacks and other minorities have an expanding middle class. Ron Paul would work to see that the federal government stops taxing minorities on the fruits of their labor by abolishing the income tax and the IRS. I think also that young minorities can benefit greatly from maximum freedom and options, such as being able to opt out of a plan like Social Security – something Dr. Paul strongly supports.”
What about the racist charges leveled against his candidate? “It makes no sense for Ron Paul, who has such admiration for MLK, Gandhi and Rosa Parks to be called a racist. The main basis for these allegations is a portion of a newsletter that wasn’t even written by Paul. This is not the first time detractors have trotted out this item in attempt to smear Paul, and it will probably be done again. I hope people will look past the spin and decide for themselves the facts of the situation,” says Guerra. “The U.S. needs Dr. Paul’s experience, economic knowledge and dedication to freedom for all. I’m convinced that the more minorities research Ron Paul and what he stands for, the more they will see he is the best candidate for all Americans.”
For information on Ron Paul, visit www.ronpaul2008.com
# # #