Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Freedom... refer[s] to a social relationship among people -- namely, the absence of force as a prospective instrument of decision making. Freedom is reduced whenever a decision is made under threat of force, whether or not force actually materializes or is evident in retrospect.”     Thomas Sowell

January 13, 2008

A Good Point in the Ron Paul Kerfluffle

by Adam Selene

This point at Classically Liberal is really quite a good one.

Paul’s final defense is to ask us to believe that he doesn’t pay attention to his own affairs or what is done in his name. He doesn’t read the publications he sends out. In fact, he doesn’t even write his own material. He doesn’t investigate it when problems are brought to his attention. In other words his defense is that he isn’t a bigot but that he is totally inept in such matters. And he wants us to put him the White House — well we had enough of that kind of presidency already.

That’s exactly right. Either Paul knows who wrote these things and won’t speak out against someone who is clearly doing his campaign and libertarianism a massive disservice. Or he doesn’t know.

In one case he is lying and using “I can’t recall” as a defense. That reminds me strongly of Bill and Hillary. I said, then, that I couldn’t support either of them because of that, it would be hypocritical of me to do differently with Paul.

In the other case he is incompetent and inept in managing his staff. That reminds me strongly of George W. and Rumsfeld. I said many times that I couldn’t support that either. Again, hypocrisy.

So, no matter which of the two alternatives it is, Paul is just one more politician. Either a liar or an incompetent.

All you “libertarians” screaming about those of us who don’t support Paul, take that into consideration. He is behaving just like all the other statist politicians that you despise in order to gain the presidency. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ……..

Update: I won’t answer anyone that “debates” using ad hominem techniques. You are trying to discredit the message by attacking the messenger. Anyone who wishes to give me an alternative that is not one of those two, in a rational fashion, I will be happy to discuss it with you.

Update 2: I am not saying, in any way, shape or form that I think Paul is a racist. I am not implying it in any way, shape or form. Anyone who says anything to the contrary in the comments is either making a personal attack or doesn’t read for comprehension. In either case, I won’t respond per update 1.

Update 3: To clarify a bit, I personally think that what we have is a mix of the points that Doug makes here, incompetence in managing people and publications he was responsible for, and refusing to “throw someone under the bus” (which means that Paul is not telling the entire truth about something fairly despicable that he has knowledge of). As Doug and Mark have pointed out, Paul is damaging the message he is attempting to spread. He can either clean house (which we know he won’t do) or he can withdraw. Either of those options would help to prevent damaging his message about individual liberty. The path he is on will not.

Update 4: So, I really have to thank all of you who came by to comment, even the folks who weren’t really intelligible. It would appear that I have had the single best post for number of comments in the history of The Liberty Papers. I think that 174 (and still going strong) comments on a Ron Paul post definitely qualifies for a drink in UC’s little game!


Permalink || Comments (222) || Categories: Politics
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/13/a-good-point-in-the-ron-paul-kerfluffle/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

222 Comments

  1. lol@doug jr.

    Comment by lulz — January 13, 2008 @ 11:17 am
  2. It’s surprising the Paulies have not swarmed to this article denouncing it. I swear that they are delusional.

    Comment by Joe Lennar — January 13, 2008 @ 11:26 am
  3. lulz,

    Brilliant response. You sure addressed the issue.

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 11:31 am
  4. Well said – I don’t dispute the author’s ponts. But here’s where I think libertarians hurt themselves….

    Many politicians (like Clinton and Bush, as you mention) are tainted by scandal and/or are inept managers. But that’s not really why we oppose them – we oppose them because they advance an anti-freedom agenda.

    Are we saying that for us to support someone, we are going to require they advance a pro-freedom agenda AND they don’t suffer from the scandals or ineptness of other politicians?

    All these people who make it to high office are, in the end, mere human beings. Some are inept, some are liars, some are both. But in the end, it’s the policies they endorse that have the biggest impact.

    I love the idealism of many libertarians, but I also don’t think we should wait for a saint while our country continues down its statist path.

    Comment by rEVOLution 08 — January 13, 2008 @ 11:32 am
  5. I am black and I don’t need anymore explanation from him. Those views are inconsistent with his actions and the core philosiphy he has a record supporting. I also perfer he does not spend anymore time explaining what happened because it takes away from the message that needs to be heard.

    Comment by courtney — January 13, 2008 @ 11:33 am
  6. yeah, even d.m.’s daily rants dont draw up as much flak as they used to. in the past his posts would get 150 comments, now they dont even get 50. looks like thelibertypapers is well on the way to sinking back into internet obscurity.

    Comment by Henry Kissenger — January 13, 2008 @ 11:34 am
  7. I do support Ron Paul and have been working on the grassroots campaign.

    I just wanted to say that you HAVE brought up a good point. I wonder just how good a manager Dr. Paul would be.

    Never gave it a thought in relation to his defense of the newsletters, but now I am thinking about it.

    I don’t think he’d be a perfect president — but he’d HAVE to have the right people in place. Good management of people under him is vital.

    Nobody is “swarming” this yet because perhaps you have given us something we need to think about.

    Still — I’m not casting a vote unless he’s on the ballot. I don’t see another good choice for president and I was a completely apathetic ex-republican until his candidacy.

    Comment by paulie-girl — January 13, 2008 @ 11:35 am
  8. Every other viable candidate (apologies to Kucinich and Gravel) are tied to the banking / military industrial complex. The man could choose a goat as a VP and still be a better choice than any of the other war mongers up on the 2 party stages.

    Comment by Alexia — January 13, 2008 @ 11:40 am
  9. No President could handle the job without a good team. Again, this is about the message. Finally someone who is willing to carry the issues of the people to the highest position in the world. I believe he would do what he says which sets him apart from everyone else.

    Comment by courtney — January 13, 2008 @ 11:43 am
  10. rEVOLution wrote:

    Are we saying that for us to support someone, we are going to require they advance a pro-freedom agenda AND they don’t suffer from the scandals or ineptness of other politicians?

    Nope, but I will demand a pro-freedom agenda and that the candidate is not inept or a liar themself. I’m not saying that this is about others. I’m saying that Paul is either inept or a liar himself.

    paulie-girl:

    I don’t think he’d be a perfect president — but he’d HAVE to have the right people in place. Good management of people under him is vital.

    And this entire affair brings that into question, doesn’t it? That is my point. Either he’s inept or he’s a liar. Neither gives me confidence in voting for him.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 11:44 am
  11. Give us Americans a break cut the crap and focus on the issues. You think we are mindless twits. I ran a large organization things were said and done in my name that wasn’t endorsed by me. I didn’t get to know about all these things till after the fact. We think people in an organization are mindless robots and cannot do or think for themselves and need everything figured up from the top and endorsed from the top. No leader of a large organization has that kind of time in his already busy schedule. Cut out the smear campaign and lets take care of this country. You sound like some cheesy self righteous magazine covering Britney Spears.

    Comment by joseph — January 13, 2008 @ 11:44 am
  12. First of all, many authors and bloggers have ghostwriters and occasionally some do not even read their own finished autobiographies, are they hypocrites too?

    It is very disappointing to see how people are quick to judge these days;

    “using “I can’t recall” as a defense”.
    - there is no definite proof he has done such an act but you swiftly assume he has and that he needs a “defense”. I thought the American legal philosophy was “innocent until proven guilty” but in these times where Guantanamo Bay prisoners have been considered less than human by a federal judge and the writ of Habeas Corpus is non-existant, I can’t say it is surprising.

    Comment by CJ — January 13, 2008 @ 11:45 am
  13. You are right but there is no evidence that Ron Paul would use those forces against Americans and the rest of the world.

    He is not hiding criminality like the Clintons.

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 11:45 am
  14. CJ, he’s not on trial, so “American legal philosophy” has nothing to do with it. I don’t think he needs a defense. I think he is one of two things, neither of which I’m willing to vote for.

    uhm, how can you trust him?

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 11:49 am
  15. The offensive articles were ghost-written, in a style completely unlike Dr. Paul’s voluminous published writings and speeches. The mistake he made was to trust people whom, in hindsight, he should not have trusted. As there is no clear attribution, he would be on shaky ground, ethically and legally, to start publicly accusing specific individuals.

    Dr. Paul was between stints in Congress, having returned to his full-time Obstetrics and Gynecology practice. If you know many doctors, you will agree that they barely have time to see their own families, let alone actively manage any extra-vocational enterprises.

    Most of the offensive newsletters were brought to light many years ago, when Dr. Paul again ran for Congress. The diverse voters in his district, many of whom know Dr. Paul personally, know that he was wronged by the writer(s) of those disgusting commentaries. Dr. Paul acknowledged moral responsibility, and his constituents reaffirmed their trust and support by reelecting him.

    You accuse Dr. Paul of being a lying, and/or incompetent, statist, just like every other politician. If that were true, he would have scape-goated someone on this issue years ago. That would have been the politically expedient thing to do, but it would have been wrong.

    Comment by Richard B. — January 13, 2008 @ 11:50 am
  16. Joseph:

    I ran a large organization things were said and done in my name that wasn’t endorsed by me.

    I’ll just ignore the ad hominem portion of your comment because I think you bring up an interesting point. You see, I run a large department within a large corporation. I don’t micro-manage my staff. I do make certain that my direct reports are people in line with my philosophy and approach to business. And expect them to do the same. I’ve fired two people in my department for lacking ethics, and done so publicly. I took responsibility for the outcome of their actions, because they were done in my department’s name. I also held them responsible for their actions.

    Now, Paul is doing neither of those things. Instead, he is trying to spin. Libertarians are supposed to be big on personal responsibility. Paul is neither taking responsibility well nor holding others accountable for their personal responsibility.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 11:55 am
  17. An important character witness has come forward. Don’t judge Ron Paul guilty without giving him a fair trial. Please read this:

    http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2…d-for-ron.html

    Remember, Ron Paul is the only candidate who will get us out of Iraq. He is the only candidate who will restore our civil liberties (look up the Military Commissions Act of 2006); the only candidate who will reduce our military presence around the world preventing further blowback; the only candidate who will balance the budget; the only candidate who will curb currently skyrocketing inflation; and the only candidate who won’t allow the federal government, and specifically the presidency, to seize more and more power, little by little. In short, the only candidate who will preserve our liberty. Don’t doom our country.

    Comment by Michael — January 13, 2008 @ 11:55 am
  18. Why don’t you do your dang homework! You sit there waste your time writing pointless articals that have been hashed over time and time again for the past 20 years. People who know Ron Paul know he did not say those things and doesn’t even believe them. Do your homework! You may not be aware of this but this country is headed strait to the bottom and its not the time to be optimistic its time to be logical. Enough about being but hurt over something that took place thirty years ago. This country needs to reverse its trend and correct the mistakes it has made for the past century. If we don’t get finacially stable we will forfit this country as Russia did when it became financially incapable of sustaining itself. Do your homework. We have nothing left to back up all the debt that we have accumulated and no more surplus’. We are really all dried up and the Washington knows this. That is why they are putting so many new restrictions on alot of our common, constitutional rights. No more Habeus Corpus. The Patriot Act. The Disarment of Veterans act. The Home Grown terrist act. National ID cards. This is all being put into motion because the U.S. government expects a retaliation from true Americans that appretiate being independent and free. The idea we are a free peoples is a hoax. The American people since 1916 have been subject to slavery. Voluntary Slavery. We spend 1/3 to 1/2 of our life paying the IRS. And they spend our hard earned money on premptive wars that haven’t been declared by the Congress as is dictated by the constitution. What is going on here people, do you homework. When we do have our inevitable crash which we will, we are seeing it in the housing market already, its going to get really tough. Like third world tough. And a magical hand is going to reach down to us and lift us to our feet, and we are going to smile up at Dick Cheney who is going is A) going to pitch you the North Amercian Union so that we can go back to being a strong nation, or B) he is going to shoot you in the face. Take your pick. ok…dick cheney and B)… is a little far fetched but that still doesn’t get rid of the fact that we must take this country back from the crazy politians that are selling it all off to foreign countries. All of the other canadates are sellouts compared to Ron Paul. Ron Paul might have neglected a couple of articals of a news letter that were printed under his name but at least he isn’t going to sell our ports to China. At least he isn’t going to rob our social security fund to pay for wars. We ARE NOT a welfare state. This is the USA! This is America. I know if I had 1/3 of my money back every year, I would help out every American I possibly could because that is who I am and what this country is all about. Lets go back to the constitution. Lets go back to our roots. Ron Paul 2008

    Comment by cory — January 13, 2008 @ 11:56 am
  19. Cory,

    Nobody is saying that Ron Paul wrote those articles. I take him at his word when he said he didn’t. The problem, though, is that they were published under his name. When they were brought to light in 1996, he didn’t say back then that he wasn’t the author, instead he defended the content of the articles in question.

    This leads to one of two possibilities. Either he was not telling the truth in 1996, or he’s not telling the truth today.

    The deeper problem, though, is the fact that he has been allied to this day with people who believe the nonsense that was in those newsletters. A man is judged by the company he keeps and the people he calls allies. Right now, Ron Paul isn’t looking too good.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 13, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
  20. Or 3rd.
    He wasn’t a hands on manager to the newsletter.
    He was way to trusting of other people.
    He is telling the truth overall and his only lie, maybe, is in protecting those that wrote it because it could ruin their lives in at least their local community (if so good for him).
    This association with this newsletter is a single blimish on his record and comparing his long, consistent, distinguished career to the Clintons or the Bushes is not only unfair, it is entirely inaccurate. Its like comparing a jaywalker to a serial killers. Your article doesn’t deserve to much attention and brings nothing new to this matter. Just your opinion based on other bad opinions.
    No one has come forward, with first hand knowledge, to accuse him of anything. Not one person. All we have are these old newletters which would be considered as hearsay in a court of law. This is your smoking gun? This is all it takes to condemn a man as being a racist? This is how little your integrity sells for?

    Comment by Jeff Roark — January 13, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
  21. Richard B wrote:

    You accuse Dr. Paul of being a lying, and/or incompetent, statist, just like every other politician. If that were true, he would have scape-goated someone on this issue years ago. That would have been the politically expedient thing to do, but it would have been wrong.

    Nice try, but not what I said. I said he was acting like other politicians. I did not say he was “statist”. There are certainly policy issues he supports that I could take issue with (like immigration and abortion) to tackle whether he is a statist. But that isn’t what I said. Don’t put words in my mouth.

    On the inept point and scapegoating. George W stood by Rumsfeld long after it was apparent to everyone but hardcore GOP that Rumsfeld was incompetent and bringing about disaster in Iraq. To this day he will not make Rumsfeld responsible for the outcome there. That is what I was talking about in saying that what Paul is doing reminds me of George W. He will not call out those personally responsible and hold them accountable. That is one of the biggest problems in politics, as most of a libertarian bent are usually very quick to point out.

    Of course, when it is their candidate, they don’t. See my collectivism comment for more thinking on that topic.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
  22. This is all it takes to condemn a man as being a racist?

    I don’t condemn him as a racist. That makes your comment an indirect personal attack. The only reason I responded is to make it clear that I don’t say in any way, shape or form that Paul is a racist.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 12:03 pm
  23. Paul is neither taking responsibility well nor holding others accountable for their personal responsibility.

    How do you figure? He has said repeatedly that he takes moral responsibility for allowing the publications.

    The only question is whether or not the words were representative of his beliefs. If you believe they are, so be it. The way I see it, if he really is a closet racist, he’s so deep in the closet that it doesn’t really matter.

    I don’t see why your support hinges on his decision not to throw someone under the bus.

    Comment by Jeff Molby — January 13, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
  24. Ron Paul has already stated that he is not a racist and gave a good explanation for those newsletters. Unfortunately, you have the desire to attack someone based on someone else’s actions. Your continual attack on Ron Paul shows that your motives are political. If they are not, then they border on delusional because of the overwhelming evidence in his career that he is not a racist. Your attempt to try to bring down a good person says more about your character than anyone else’s.

    Comment by Ron M — January 13, 2008 @ 12:06 pm
  25. Remember, Ron Paul is the only candidate who will get us out of Iraq. He is the only candidate who will restore our civil liberties (look up the Military Commissions Act of 2006); the only candidate who will reduce our military presence around the world preventing further blowback; the only candidate who will balance the budget; the only candidate who will curb currently skyrocketing inflation; and the only candidate who won’t allow the federal government, and specifically the presidency, to seize more and more power, little by little. In short, the only candidate who will preserve our liberty. Don’t doom our country.

    Mark and UCrawford now have to drink all alcohol found for 7 blocks in any direction.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 12:09 pm
  26. I don’t trust him completely such as on abortion (saw an article about a bill he made that goes against his federalist rhetoric) and immigration (they aren’t here for welfare, they are here because they’ve been screwed by us, leaving them no other choice but to come here, having their panties hung on trees).

    I do believe from his voting record that he would cut spending. He has been a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq and is against attacking Iran. I don’t see him changing those stances. He voted against the patriot act and has been vocal about his opposition to bills like the patriot act. I don’t see him coming into office and reversing himself on those things.

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
  27. Ron Paul is inept? I don’t know what is inept about trusting people to do the job you expect them to do. They sometimes disappoint you. That is the reality of management. If you do not know this then you have never been a manager.

    Do you think Steve Forbes reads everything that goes into Forbes magazine before it prints? He has an editor to do that job. His name is on the cover but I am sure there have been things printed that Steve Forbes regrets or does not agree with.

    The fact that someone writing in The Ron Paul Newsletter made statements that Ron Paul does not agree with is hardly reason for condemnation of Ron Paul. He has said he did not write the comments, does not agree with them, and takes moral responsibility for not maintaining closer oversight.

    It seems that some will be happy with nothing short of Hari-kari in atonement. Meanwhile the fact remains that his policy positions put him head and shoulders above every other candidate for president in the area of respect for the individual and personal freedom.

    People need to stop focusing on minutia from 10 or 15 years ago and look at the big picture. There is no better alternative to set the future direction of this country than Ron Paul.

    Comment by Greg Worrel — January 13, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
  28. Greg,

    Let me be blunt

    It should be blindingly obvious by now that Ron Paul is not going to be President. He’s not going to win a single state primary, and the two delegates he got out of Iowa may be just about all he has at the convention. He won’t have a prime-time speaking slot either.

    The question now isn’t selecting a President, it’s what happens to the cause for liberty after Ron Paul.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 13, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
  29. I’ll make clear why he’s inept. A good manager makes sure, as I said above, that his direct reports are people in line with his philosophy and approach to doing business. So does a good leader, in case someone is going to try and say he’s not a manager, but a leader. ESPECIALLY when that manager or leader is going to be going against the grain and flying directly in the face of business as usual.

    When it becomes apparent that someone working for you does not line up with you, you get rid of them (as far as we can tell, he didn’t, since it is likely Lew Rockwell), make sure that folks know why and take action to correct the problem. What Paul has done is what every other politician does. Spin, maneuver and avoid.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
  30. [...] yours truly in a comment to this post at The Liberty Papers: Let me be [...]

    Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » What The Ron Paul Newsletters Story Is Really All About — January 13, 2008 @ 12:26 pm
  31. What explanation to Ron Paul supports give for Paul defending the newsletters in 1996 and only taking *partial” moral responsibility in 2001.

    Why are his explanations so inconsistent and often times contradictory?

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 12:34 pm
  32. Well Mr. Selene,

    Perhaps I will start publishing things in your name. Then you can explain how you had no knowledge of the publication thereof. Then we too can pass judgement on you knowing that you are either a liar or incompetent. Perhaps I’ll start today……then you can experience what you dish out.

    Comment by k tunstall — January 13, 2008 @ 12:37 pm
  33. Doug,

    I have been a voting libertarian for about 30 years. I have never seen a candidate better represent and popularize libertarian positions than Ron Paul. He is not perfect but it is amazing to me to see libertarians being some of his most vocal critics.

    Anyone concerned about the cause for liberty should be defending Ron Paul left and right. This newsletter stuff is not even new. It was being discussed two months ago and references newsletters from 15 years ago.

    What other libertarian, let alone what other Presidential candidate, has such extensive writings to define his positions? Look at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org. There is no need to reference newsletters that he didn’t write to see where he stands on issues.

    This blog post comes up on the first page of Google News when searching for Ron Paul right now. While that may stoke the writer’s ego, it makes the writer part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    Those concerned about the cause of liberty should be making the maximum contribution to Ron Paul, and discussing his positions with all their friends, not throwing him under the bus because of a few words in a newsletter that he didn’t write and does not endorse.

    Comment by Greg Worrel — January 13, 2008 @ 12:38 pm
  34. Ron Paul supporters, please ignore these attacks, lets concentrate on the job, walk the neighborhoods, get the message out.

    The attack has not produced desired results and is slowly dying down.

    Comment by Abul Kalam — January 13, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
  35. I find it interesting that Dr. Paul continues to be attacked after a poor showing in NH. You’d think the MSM and GOP elites would ignore him.

    The fact remains is that Paul has the money and support to continue well beyond Super Tuesday, and even then he can always run as a 3rd party or independent candidate. I’ve always felt Dr. Paul should fight for the GOP nomination but it’s obvious that the powers-that-be want him silenced. It’s clearly time for Paul to go independent and drive a stake into the GOP. This is the real reason why this stupid story has already been debunked – the Houston Chronicle went over this in the 1990s.

    Paul’s “poor” explanations can be attributed to the fact that he doesn’t play the politically-correct game.

    Comment by Brian — January 13, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
  36. Ron Pauls own words from long ago:

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as 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.

    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.

    In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

    Comment by Mayberry — January 13, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
  37. Thank you Mayberry for the best post yet.

    I am going out right now to knock doors for Ron Paul. Become a precinct leader. Check it out at http://www.ronpaul2008.com.

    Comment by Greg Worrel — January 13, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
  38. This is from 1976. That’s all you’ve got, from 10 terms in Congress? You need to go outside and get some fresh air. You’re declaring a Veteran, a 10-term Congressman who often wins running against his own party establishment, a Medical Dr with 4,000 births and 50 years of marriage, incompetent based on his response to a political smear from 1976? And I wondered why I had stopped reading Liberty Papers. That man is taking on the entire Military Industrial Complex, swinging the biggest pair you are likely to run across. Wipe the mud from your eyes, you’re missing history.

    Comment by linus — January 13, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
  39. “Update 2: I am not saying, in any way, shape or form that I think Paul is a racist. I am not implying it in any way, shape or form. Anyone who says anything to the contrary in the comments is either making a personal attack or doesn’t read for comprehension. In either case, I won’t respond per update 1.”

    So, in effect you are doing what you accuse others of. You don’t think he is a racist, but yet at the same time you condemn him for racism. Even though you and everyone else knows he didn’t write it, someone else did. And it was mentioned like 7 months ago that the person who wrote it was fired.

    Make your mind, can’t have it both ways. I’m not even sure what you expect here, other than to make obviously baseless attacks – by your own admission. Isn’t trying to tie racism to someone who isn’t a racist an “ad hominem” attack? Hey, if it walks like a duck…

    Comment by badmedia — January 13, 2008 @ 12:49 pm
  40. Btw, 1976 was 31 years ago, I know because that was the year I was born…

    Seriously, what are you being reduced to here?

    Comment by badmedia — January 13, 2008 @ 12:51 pm
  41. I second the comments of rEVOLution 08. I don’t feel like waiting for a saint to come along. The whole newsletter episode does cast a bad light. It was bad judgement that those newsletters went out in his name without his review or even with it. He has committed an unethical or immoral deed. Of course, all the other Presidential opponents haven’t ever done anything as unethical or immoral.

    Comment by Andrew Panken — January 13, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
  42. Paul a typical politician? He VOLUNTEERED the information in 2001 when he expressed regret for the newsletters and took esponsiblity. Has Adam bothered to read the Texas Monthly of that year? None of this matters to Adam, however, who is obviously gleeful in destroying a good, but all too human, fighter for liberty.

    Does Adam plan to become an anarchist and support another candidate who is better? Please let him name this candidate.

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 12:56 pm
  43. I’d rather vote for a guy proven to be inept at being a newsletter editor (But not so much at being a Congressman or a Doctor) that has consistently stood by his ideals for 30 years than any of the jackasses up there now.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 12:58 pm
  44. Also, I’ll add that I think a lot of the problems with the Paul campaign has been with the campaign staffers. I really wish Paul would just toss them and start over with professionals. So that’s two obvious slights on Paul:

    A horrible newsletter editor

    Trusts those who’s stood by him for two decades too much. Although, really, they’re hurting him and he owes it to his supporters to toss them already.

    Even still, he beats everyone else by a landslide.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
  45. Ron Paul isn’t running to MANAGE the government. He’s running to SHRINK it.

    I’m getting sick of this stuff. The ONLY people who are concerned are WHITE.

    Let me say this again,

    I can’t find any black people who are pissed. They understand and believe Paul. My guess is, the ONLY people who care about the newsletters are WHITE PEOPLE and political enemies of Dr. Paul.

    White people just don’t understand what real racism is. That way, when they think they smell it (since they don’t feel it) they get all excited to say “I hate racists!”

    Well, unlike Dr. Paul… you still hate someone. That makes you something exactly like a racist.

    Since Dr. Paul is nothing like a racist, he doesn’t understand why you people who are exactly like racists are so mad… in short, he doesn’t get you because you’re too close minded.

    Comment by Rhys — January 13, 2008 @ 1:04 pm
  46. “I’d rather vote for a guy proven to be inept at being a newsletter editor (But not so much at being a Congressman or a Doctor) that has consistently stood by his ideals for 30 years than any of the jackasses up there now.”

    Ditto! Ron Paul has my whole family’s vote…that’s 11 and its the first time in our family’s history that we’ve voted for the same person.

    Comment by Linda I — January 13, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
  47. Adam,

    “Mark and UCrawford now have to drink all alcohol found for 7 blocks in any direction.”

    Fucking hell dude, I’m still hungover from last night.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 1:09 pm
  48. A comment by NAACP leader on Ron Paul saying he is not a racist:

    http://zaphodforpresident.com/2008/01/13/is-ron-paul-racist-the-naacps-take/

    Comment by Timur — January 13, 2008 @ 1:11 pm
  49. R. Merz,

    I agree with you. For the record, I don’t believe Ron Paul to be a racist, but I do think he’s a very questionable judge of character. Because of Paul’s policy platforms (the president should have less authority) that’s less worrisome to me than it is with Bush (a statist who constantly argues that he and his subordinates should be given more power) so I’ll still be voting for Ron Paul. But in my mind he’s definitely gone from being a “good” candidate to merely being the “least-worst” candidate.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
  50. (staggeringly drunk having just consumed every beer within a seven block radius)

    I just wanted to address the argument that other (anti-freedom) politicians get away with incompetence, lies, and scandals, so therefore we should still support Ron Paul. This is at least a coherent argument, which I partially addressed here:
    http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/01/four-step-argument-against-voting-for.html

    But I want to elaborate a little bit more. Paul is either a protest vote or a vehicle to advance the libertarian philosophy (although I think his affiliation with paleoconservatism undermines this substantially to begin with). The above-referenced post addresses the protest vote issue sufficiently for me, at least – though others will differ.

    But on the issue of advancing the philosophy as a whole, I think any further support he gets is counterproductive, as it will only attract people to the Rockwellian brand of libertarianism that is much closer to Pat Buchanan’s paleoconservatism than to libertarianism, IMHO. More importantly, though, Paul has – for better or worse – become the face of libertarianism in this country. If he is to continue in that role and if he has no actual chance of winning, libertarians should hold him to a higher standard. This is especially true where the scandal is one that ties (fairly or not) Paul’s ideology to blatant racism.

    When a politician is running primarily to advance an ideology with which the majority of people are unfamiliar, that politician will symbolize the ideology to those people for all time. This means that libertarians may only get one crack at this- ever. If the candidate that gets that crack is perceived as a racist or (equally bad) accepting of racism as a legitimate philosophy, he will tarnish the ideology for a very long time. Yes, he may still gain new adherents to the philosophy- but he will turn off far more people from even allowing adherents into the door in the first place.

    People don’t have to be libertarian to be persuaded by libertarian policy arguments- but they do have to have at least a positive or neutral impression of the people making those arguments in the first place. The more that Ron Paul remains the face of libertarianism, the more negative the view of libertarians will become, and the less impact libertarians can have on a national, state, or local scale.

    Comment by Mark — January 13, 2008 @ 1:15 pm
  51. Mark,

    “If he is to continue in that role and if he has no actual chance of winning, libertarians should hold him to a higher standard.”

    I think that’s actually very fair all things considered. I would have argued a bit before but now that the votes have been cast in several states and we’ve got a sense of his actual support (better than when he started out, but about the same as the scientific polls indicate) I think it’s fair to say that he does qualify as a protest vote and as such should go for the more ideologically pure libertarian message than he’s been doing (such as on immigration and welfare, a topic he’s waffled on in his televised appearances). As his chances of election decline, his willingness to sound off about what libertarianism really means should increase…there’s no reason for it not to since he has no interest in compromising those values for political expediency.

    If you were really drunk you’d never have written something that coherent…neocon fraud :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
  52. This response misunderstands the nature of business. Paul was given a minority interest in a newsletter in exchange for his name. No one seriously thinks Paul wrote the articles. It isn’t Paul’s language and it’s hardly similar to the topics he’s interested in. At worst, he was negligent about keeping up with the publication, but so what? I would be more worried about a sexual harrassment claim at Ron Paul Barbeque or a malpratice claim at Ron Paul’s medical practice.

    At worst this is one of life’s lessons for Paul. There is no doubt that he regrets it happened. He claims responsibility. But punishing the one presidential candidate who isn’t interested in executive power only punishes Americans generally and the liberty movement specifically. Worse, it looses sight of what’s important in this election. 4,000 Americans have been killed in war. The leading frontrunner beligerently stated that he would keep America in Iraq for 100 years (McCain). Both parties have arrested power over our economic system and intend to tinker with it until it cannot help but rely on government controls. By the time another libertarian can credibly make a bid for the White House, we will have endured so many crises that Americans will be desparately shoveling their rights back to the state. When that happens, you can count the love out of the rEVOLution.

    Comment by Grizzle Griz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
  53. When George Bush spends a month on vacation while President, while thousands of people are dying or losing their homes in New Orleans, it is relevant that George Bush wasn’t paying enough attention to people in his administration working on his behalf.

    When Ron Paul is a private citizen, with a medical practice and speaking engagements, and doesn’t pay attention to what people write in a newsletter that he is not the editor of (he was the publisher), I’m NOT SURE this warrants the same level of disgust.

    I do not know enough of Ron Paul’s activities during this period, to say conclusively whether he should have been paying enough attention to this newsletter. But it is clear to me that he wasn’t as negligent as Bush has been. So I wouldn’t be so quick to make this analogy as you have. Do some more research into his activities at the time, and then report on that.

    It would be nice if someone did some original research on this topic, because near as I can tell, everything is just reporting what people said years ago, which was focused on the sensationalism of what was printed in a newsletter only some 5000ish subscribers – rather than on how much he should have been paying attention given his activities at the time.

    Comment by Jeff Winchell — January 13, 2008 @ 1:24 pm
  54. I’m going to agree that people that excuse Paul from ‘dirty tricks’ because ‘other politicians’ do it are kidding themselves. They really just have to accept that Ron Paul /does/ have faults. He is a human being, just like everyone else, and people need to stop raising him on such a pedestal.

    I’ve never had a problem with this. Even as a human being though, he’s a pretty great guy just like a lot of people. His only worrisome flaw, for me at least, is as UC pointed out: He’s not a very good judge of character. While this is pertinent to deciding who you’ll vote for president, I don’t hold that it’s as damning as people would have you believe. The goods far outweigh the bads, and this ratio of good and bad is /far/ better than anyone else out there so far.

    I’m also not buying the fact that Paul is /generally/ incompetent. He’s the worst newsletter editor on the planet, this has been established. But he’s tackled stuff a little tougher than that without a major mistake on record, like being a doctor and a congressman. Even with this glaring problem, I don’t have any problem voting for him.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:29 pm
  55. Still waiting for an explanation from Ron Paul supporters about why he defended the newsletters in 1996.

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:30 pm
  56. Joe
    —-”It’s surprising the Paulies have not swarmed to this article denouncing it. I swear that they are delusional.”

    See we all are racial and derrogotory at times.
    If he really is as rasist as you and the others says why has no body found a clip of him speaking this way. There is ALWAYS a clip!
    But, hey lets elect, one of the others who we know are going to keep us in this war. Obama and Clinton both said that we would be in the war until we won it. I am sure that you know that the others are saying the same thing.
    Be ready to pay for it with your money and your 2 year service commitment that is working on being passed right now. It says that anyone man or woman (having kids does not excuse you, only mental or physical health will), illegal or citizen, between the ages of 18 to 42 must serve a 2 year term and one of the conditions in activating this law, a prolonged occupation!
    Guess what, Iraq is considered that.
    On the money side, the war, right now, if we bring troop levels WAY down (which none of them plan to do) each family cost for the war so far is about $26,000 dollars per year.
    If anyone wants the information that I have just listed above I will be happy to get it to you.
    Thanks for listening!

    Comment by Teresa — January 13, 2008 @ 1:32 pm
  57. Shane,

    This goes to his judge of character. He said in 2001 that his campaign aides told him to own up to it because, ‘it appeared in a newsletter with your name therefore you’re stuck with it’. Despite this, he still fired the guy that wrote the offensive material. So maybe he wasn’t defending it as much as you think.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:34 pm
  58. R. Merz,

    Who did he fire? I’ve yet to see a place where Ron Paul said he fired anyone. If he did indeed fire someone, could you give me a name and source it? I’ve been trying to track down that rumor.

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:36 pm
  59. “A good point?” Here is a “Good Point” you seem to have ignored:

    Your precious “dirt” on Ron Paul just happened to break on New Hampshire’s primary day… Why do you think that is? He’s held office for a long time, the issue of those newsletters have been addressed long ago, but “SHOCKER”, it just happens to get new life on a primary day. Keep grasping at straws!

    And another “Good Point” you may want to consider: If Ron Paul is such a racist then why would he pardon all of the non-violent prisoners arrested on drug charges, most of which are from minority decent? Do you think those people and their families will think he is a racist? Other candidates recite tired, empty emotionally laced pandering crowd pleasing one liners, but “Where’s the beef”?

    By the way, why haven’t Sharpton, Jackson and company jumped all over Paul? Where is the “outrage”? It seems it’s mostly “Angry White ‘Anti-Paul’ Men”, who are trying to rally around this pathetically transparent political hatchet piece, clutching on to the “Newsletters” with a death grip.

    Why does the protection of individual liberty and a restoration of the constitution scare you guys so much? I recommend reading George Washington’s farewell address, and then reconsider which candidates truly represent the people.

    The Liberty Papers? This is a joke right?

    Just curious… who is it that you “defenders of liberty” support? Why not boldly express who your favorite candidate is? Make your case. Don’t just take pot shots. Who’s your choice and why?

    P.S. Have you ever served in our military? Let us know what you have done to sacrifice for this country. Share with us your background. Ahh, never mind, I think I already have a good idea of what your about… SEMPER FI Tinkerbell!

    http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=smedleywasright

    Comment by Matt — January 13, 2008 @ 1:38 pm
  60. ok then dont vote because all these losers have serious problems and im not talking 30 years ago im talking about right now. Besides I would urge people that want to know more about paul should hear it from him and not from you. You suck and dont belong in his company. Let people see him on youtube defend himself rather than hit pieces from nitwits like you.

    Anyways I doubt these hits are going to work because they only give him more attention which is the last thing you want if you hate the guy. The more you see of him the more you have to like him.

    Shill

    Comment by scrappy koala — January 13, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
  61. Every single report I see about the incident says he fired the guy that wrote it. I can’t track down an exact source right now, so I’m afraid I can’t really substantiate the argument, but you were looking for an answer so that’s the best I can give. They never gave a name, my personal guess is for legal reasons or he didn’t want to trash the guy any further.

    But, again, I can’t recall an /exact/ source. If I find one, I’ll throw it up here, but I was reading it from solid accounts.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
  62. Matt,

    When is the appropriate time to bring to attention to a national audience, the past associations of a candidate? After the primaries?

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:40 pm
  63. Shane:

    For Christ sake, have you read the 2001 article in the Texas Monthly in which he VOUNTEERED that he had lied in 1996 and wrongly defended the comments in 1996. BTW, who is your better candidate? BTW, politicians lie. The only difference is that Paul admitted when he didn’t have to (back in 2001). Does that carry any weight for you?

    For an account from last year, see here:

    http://thestressblog.com/2007/05/22/ron-paul-is-not-a-racist/

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
  64. Shane—–
    “Still waiting for an explanation from Ron Paul supporters about why he defended the newsletters in 1996″
    I do not know the answer to why he defended the newsletters in 1996.
    Maybe because only 7,000 people were subscribed to the newsletter so it would take longer to come out.
    What you should be wondering is why he still got elected after this all happened if he was indeed
    saying these things. His political career should have been over a long time ago, if he was guilty.
    Do you believe that the people of his district are either so stupid, or so “racial” themselves that they kept electing him?
    Can we please use logic and think here?

    Comment by Teresa — January 13, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
  65. Another article ignoring the truth of the matter, and reality in general.

    1)Yes, it’s not only possible that he didn’t know about these (few) tid bits that went out under his name, it’s ordinary. People that can’t believe “someone else” could write things in a politician’s name are totally naive and don’t know how this type of stuff works in the real world. -Tons of stuff is put out EVERY month under their name and they don’t even get close enough to blow their nose on it. -Paul is an ACTUAL politician, who was ELECTED into Congress, unlike any Libertarian ever.
    2) When these things were printed Ron had left Washington disgusted and disillusioned and lent his name to a very small, right if center publishing outfit that operated 60 miles away from his house. Paul took up his medical practice and speaking tours and farming and all the other crap that goes along with being a father of four.
    3) I’ve read all the stuff (in it’s entirety) in those publications and for the time, it’s pretty mild right of center, talk radio type of fodder. -He’s a human, and as such he made some mistakes and oversights that were taken advantage of in a hit piece by a lefty rag. -A rag responsible for one of, if not the WORST, cases of journalistic fraud EVER. -Forget Ron Paul, Google search Stephen Glass!
    4) While we’re all curled up in fetal positions, sobbing about the revelation that our (gasp!) leader turned out to be a human being, Hillary Clinton is winning in the race for the nod from the LARGEST PARTY in America!
    -Hillary…the lady who’s got Whitewater, dead bodies and the worst White House sex scandal ever in her past.

    So yes, I have no problem with a president who has just a teeny tiny bit (in comparison) of white lying and indiscretion in his past.
    But make sure to post an update if Gandhi’s mummy joins the race. -I might consider him too.

    Comment by Billy — January 13, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
  66. R. Merz,

    My sense is that, since on the Wolf Blitzer interview, he acted like he basically had no idea what was going on, not once mentioned firing anyone, that it’s just an internet rumor by Paul supporters that he fired anyone.

    His statements defending the newsletters in 1996, to his taking *partial* responsibility in 2001, to the “I cannot recall” defense of 2008, doesn’t look honest to me.

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:42 pm
  67. Billy,

    When did calling African-Americans “animals” become mild right of center?

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:43 pm
  68. What’s interesting is not the story itself, but to watch the media, working as one, pushing a 15-year-old story that’s been readily available to them for years, as “breaking news.”

    Just think if this piece was about the fact that Giuliani is considered a fraud and a coward by NY firemen? You people would automatically be up in arms about that, wouldn’t you? What if the corporations decided to whip up a story about Hillary’s extremely shady past with Bill (complete with body count)? Gee, then you people would be outraged about that. How about Marge Shoedinger? She actually filed charges against GW Bush and accused him of rape and brutality, and then she “committed suicide”. Let the corporations break that story …

    You see, when our information sources are bought and sold, a few people can calmly decide what you’ll spend your time and energy on. They can withhold terrible truths, and they can turn trivialities into grand melodramas–as you see here.

    So they’ve handed you 15-year-old photo copies, and now you lab rats can get outraged on cue, and respond according to the program, and only think about what you’re instructed to think about.

    Comment by rob — January 13, 2008 @ 1:44 pm
  69. Teresa,

    I’m not as interested in his election results, as I am in how *he* handles the situation, which so far as been done without honest, transparency, or contrition. I find that more telling.

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
  70. R. Merz,

    To be honest, before his poor character-judging ability was exposed I saw him as something of a Gerald Ford-type president only while passing less legislation. He’d do some good stuff but not all that much because he’d have a hostile Congress, he’d veto most of the horrible bills that crossed his desk, he’d follow some smart foreign policy and get us out of countries where we had no interest in being, and generally I thought he’d be pretty decent but not great. Now I see him more as a Jimmy Carter-type of president…poor decision-making, won’t get much done at all, somewhat prone to manipulation on foreign policy by foreign leaders who can b.s., not very good about dealing with setbacks. I still think he’d be pretty good about vetoing bad bills and he certainly wouldn’t be the worst person ever to sit in the White House, but I can’t see him as anything more than a one-termer and I think a lot of people would end up disappointed in him.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
  71. Keep pounding this tempest in a teapot. It actually brings to light some darker areas of YOUR beliefs. I’m still trying to figure out why you call yourself “libertarians”.

    Comment by Larry in SC — January 13, 2008 @ 1:45 pm
  72. rob,

    These newsletters weren’t that easy to find. He had to got Wisconsin to find them, and they only became easily accessible after recent conversion to micro-fiche. This is the first time anyone’s been able to read the nuttiness.

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
  73. Larry in SC,

    “Keep pounding this tempest in a teapot. It actually brings to light some darker areas of YOUR beliefs. I’m still trying to figure out why you call yourself “libertarians”.”

    UC takes a drink.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
  74. UC,

    I see your point, it did take some convincing to get him to run in the first place, but I really think all this newfound support has charged him up. While he may have trouble with is, it’s STILL a step in the right direction, even if it’s not all that grand a step. We’ve been on a landslide for decades and Ron Paul is a monkey wrench that could possibly toss us in the right direction.

    Shane,

    I’m blaming this on the campaign. It’s inept. It’s trying to play this off as something unimportant that’ll blow over. It’s not really happening. In Paul had professionals in his corner in stead of libertarian activists, he’d be doing a lot better than the stumbling that’s going on here.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
  75. Larry,

    Who are you talking about, and why?

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
  76. Shane:

    Nonsense! The newsletters used by the TNR reporter were in Kansas, not Wisconsin. You are half right here. There are also copies in Wisconsin too! Also, the newsletter issue was reported in 1996, 2001 and have been in Paul’s Wikipedia’s entry since 2006. In your frenzy to destroy to Paul, you appear to be showing the same footloose attitude toward the truth that you accuse him of him of.

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
  77. You’ve ignored Dr. Paul’s actual explanation. While he was not in Congress in the late 80s and early 90s he allowed these newsletters to be co-opted by others and did not pay attention to what was being printed. They were NOT being printed by him or mailed by him or his office and he wasn’t receiving any income from the subscriptions. This was all pre-internet and email so unless someone mailed or faxed him a copy it wouldn’t come to his attention as it would today. He washed his hands of the newsletters. He says he takes moral responsibility for having allowed this to happen. To label him as either the moral equivalent of Clinton or the inept management of W is just wrong. Point to one other area either label would apply to Dr. Paul, you can’t. You have to put out two possible smears because neither one has any other supporting evidence. You need a little more water in your bucket to make either argument float.

    Comment by John R — January 13, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
  78. Shane
    “I’m not as interested in his election results, as I am in how *he* handles the situation, which so far as been done without honest, transparency, or contrition. I find that more telling.”

    Be “honest” Shane, you didn’t like him before this stuff came out did ya!
    Most of you were just waiting for the reason to hate him.
    What really gets me is that you are the very people who have been calling us all kinds of names and putting us in different racial catagories way before this stuff about Paul came out. Please do yourself a favor and be as honest with yourself as you demand Paul be.

    Comment by Teresa — January 13, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
  79. As i see it the so called liberty papers has done a great job of attacking the only pro liberty canidate . Just review the number of attacks from this blog. but for a while they stopped attacking paul now they are back to there old tricks.

    Maybe another view point is best. I invented a product that receives many request for Lic. When, I agree to lic the product by another name for the most part I have no say so over the marketing of the product. Sure, I could require some kind of strict rules but in the end it’s hard to police all the rules from various groups.

    At times it puts my product at risk if sold by the wrong person but in the end it’s still the same product. As I see it the more my product is lic the more people benefit from the product. I can’t speak for unlike most who post on blogs I doubt any of us have assited the ideals of Liberty as paul does. Sure, you can make a case for or oppose paul on this issue. but it’s best to look at his actions and not perceive negative points but rather look at what he has done over the last 30 years.

    Likewise, when my patent is picked up from various companies it may be sold by groups I don’t support and I have little say so over what the profits from the product will be used for.

    So all of these anti paul sites really need to focus on Mike Huckabee, or the the supported CFR options instead of attacking Ron Paul who has my deep respect. For those of you who want to BMW go support somone else.

    Comment by Darel — January 13, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
  80. Shane never mistakes, never lies, and most of all (unlike Paul) never ever admits error. Got that?

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 2:02 pm
  81. Dods, he clearly doesn’t like Paul and is looking for reasons to not like him even more, but he’s mostly just poking at angry supporters. He’s not really being as totalitarian as you’re laying out, though.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
  82. Oh, yet another POINT if he wanted to he could have just paid the right people to cover the whole thing up.
    I am sorry that you trust the people who would have done that very thing to keep something from coming out instead of the one who faced it and took moral responsibility.
    Nobody is perfect, why do you expect him to be. His voting record is 100% when compaired to the things he says he wants to accomplish. But you would rather have someone who flip-flops.
    I guess you will be wondering if this race thing was really so important when you are serving your mandatory 2 year service in the war.

    Comment by Teresa — January 13, 2008 @ 2:06 pm
  83. I think Adam and Doug enjoy talking about liberty and freedom but in the end it’s just talk. They will find reasons not to support Paul. it’s kind like Tucker carlson who says he supports Paul but then invites a pimp to support Ron Paul. If you really supported ron paul I would have never invited a pimp to a news event.

    But Adam and Doug don’t stoop to those low standards instead they imply dishonest points and for some reason still lack the ability to support Dr. Paul. Also, I have watched the FEC fillings and excuse me if I’m wrong but I have not seen Doug’s name on the FEC fillings for somoone who supports paul. has anyone else?

    As time passes and I age each year it has became clear tome over time that there are a larger number calling themselves patriots but in the end most still will not expose the corruption of gov or even visit local gov issues. SO unless this changes nothing will change.

    Adam and Doug only talk about the issues which makes it just as bad as if they were deaf and dumb about the issues.

    Comment by Darel — January 13, 2008 @ 2:09 pm
  84. well said Darel

    Comment by Teresa — January 13, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
  85. I know….but all this has been known for years. Here is the source of my frustration and not just shane: If the righteous crusaders at Liberty Papers is so hot and bothered about it now, why were they talking it about it (at least not very much) back in 2007 or earlier? The basic facts in the case haven’t changed much since reported by Texas Monthly in 2001. Perhaps they owe an apology for their failure to monitor the situation properly.

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 2:12 pm
  86. I meant to say why weren’t they talking about it back in 2007.

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
  87. Shane,

    Calling African Americans “animals” is not mild right of center, but calling rioters who may happen to be African American “animals” was and IS mild right of center, talk radio, walk-up-to the-line and spit-over-but-don’t-cross-it kind of stuff. Not my bag, but I tune in to righty tighty radio (and NPR as well) once in a while. -Listen to that stuff for a week and tell me if I’m wrong, and while you’re at it, read the pieces in question in their ENTIRETY. I’m sure their not your cup of tea and they aren’t mine either, but there is really nothing that big of a deal there. -Thanks

    Comment by Billy — January 13, 2008 @ 2:13 pm
  88. I didn’t like Ron Paul before, and I’ve documented why on my website, where I show how he’s not really a libertarian (imho), but just a right wing christian crank, who is only a constitutionalist if as long as you ignore the fourteenth.

    I’ve always been honest that I don’t like Ron Paul which is why I linked my website to all my comments.

    I make mistakes all the time. However, I don’t defend them first, and then years later claim I didn’t know what was going on and blame the amorphous “someone else.”

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 2:14 pm
  89. Dods,

    He’s running for a national office. It’s not old news to most of the country. Maybe the few facts we do have haven’t changed, but what has changed is Paul’s explanation. In 2001, he only took *partial* moral responsibility. His words, not mine. Now he’s trying to change it and spin it that he’s always taken full responsibility, which isn’t true.

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
  90. Darel,

    “As i see it the so called liberty papers has done a great job of attacking the only pro liberty canidate [sic]”

    (UC takes a drink)

    “Maybe another view point is best. I invented a product that receives many request for Lic. When, I agree to lic the product by another name for the most part I have no say so over the marketing of the product. Sure, I could require some kind of strict rules but in the end it’s hard to police all the rules from various groups”

    Actually if you own a property and license it out, you do have the ability to control the marketing campaign of that product. It’s called a contract. People often make them when they engage in consensual activities with each other and the person who has ownership of said product generally has the authority to dictate terms on how that product is used or presented if he includes that authority in the contract. So Ron Paul is actually responsible for everything that was written in the newsletter that went out under his name and, let’s not forget this, made money for him. Nice bullshit rationalization, though…I’ll be adding it as one of the rules for the Paulestinian Drinking Game.

    Rule 7: Rationalization for why Ron Paul is not responsible for things he does or things that his employees do while officially representing him = one drink.

    (UC takes a drink)

    “So all of these anti paul sites really need to focus on Mike Huckabee, or the the supported CFR options instead of attacking Ron Paul who has my deep respect. For those of you who want to BMW go support somone else.”

    Rule 8: Engaging in the fallacy of tu quoque (the fallacy of defending an error in one’s reasoning by pointing out that one’s opponent has made the same error) = one drink.

    (UC takes a drink)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
  91. Ron Paul has taken blame and hasn’t blamed someone else. That’s part of the problem. He refuses to throw someone else to the woods for his mistake. You still can’t get your facts right in your zeal to destroy Paul.

    Thanks for the personal confession of virtue. We lesser humans don’t quite measure up I’m afraid.

    I, for one, plead guilty to making mistakes, foolishly defending them, and then apologizing later. I suspect most of humanity can say the same with the notable exception of that paragon of virtue named Shane.

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
  92. Yawn, we know they’re clearly not written by Paul, so i see your lack of oversight comment…but here’s where your failure comes in.

    Paul should not censor what is said.

    Paul merely allowed his report as a vehicle for those who wished to announce their views. in a sense a modern day Internet forum.

    just as you are not responsible for the comment i make. nor is he…

    your conclusions are wrong in that he is neither a liar nor incompetent.

    he isn’t using the “i can’t recall”, and he isn’t protecting anyone or anything but free speech.

    actions speak louder than words. had he chosen to censor what was said, or repeal them or make large edits to them, what service would he have done to their writers. It is by his inaction that he eludes this “statist politician” nonsense that you espouse him to. By allowing these minority voices to be heard in this forum he stood by his position of personal freedom.

    Ron Paul Revolution.

    Comment by FrancisM — January 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pm
  93. For Christ’s sake Shane, it was Paul who VOLUNTEERED the information back in 2001 when he safely elected for their third time and said he was resposnible and your’re going to quibble about a single word.

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
  94. You’re likely not getting many responses from Paul enthusiasts not because they’re discouraged, but because this column’s writing is vapid. This author brings nothing new, just parrots others. You wanted honest opinions, that’s mine.

    Comment by AB — January 13, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
  95. Shane,

    You said yourself, he defended some comments in ’96. So he clearly took a large measure of responsibility there, and I’m telling you the firing thing is no rumor. When it propped up in ’07, it was mentioned in every report. I can’t fight them right now, but I’m not bending any facts here.

    All of that stuff is, in large part, the campaign’s fault for being incompetent and also, in large part, Paul’s part for not firing the lot of idiots and doing right by his supporters.

    Because of his staff and his unwillingness to change, he’s not winning in 08′. I thought he might’ve earlier before I knew the staff were idiots, but now I know he’s not.

    However.

    He /still/ beats everyone else in integrity and on the issues even if he’s fucked up and has a judgment problem. He’s not winning, but I’m still voting for the best.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
  96. Mertz,

    The whole reason for the white lie debacle was because he used a well known Republican strategist for his return bid. It won him the election, but he regreted taking the advice, owned up on his own, and refused to use slimy strategists after that. -Hence the crappy condition of the way his campaign is being run. By libertarians!

    P.S. -I’ve been in the LP for ten years and we can’t win jack shit! Knowing this, it’s unbelievable that Paul got ten percent. That’s a tidal wave for libertarians!

    Comment by Billy — January 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
  97. Let’s take a breath here. Could it just be possible that since Dr. Paul has taken moral responsibility for 20 years about this and has still not pointed fingers at those who are responsible to turn them into scapegoats that he is in fact taking a principled stand?

    Can anyone understand how there is absolutely no way to remove this smear except to deliberately accept it as the smear that it is, act in a manner that Dr. Paul views as principled, and move on?

    Dr. Paul is already in the limelight and is already being “hit” over multiple things. Regardless of how he feels about the writings or the writers what good would it do to try and shift the focus of that limelight onto someone else potentially ruining their lives over something they wrote 20 years ago?

    Don’t libertarians as enlightened individuals believe in the ability of people to change? Don’t libertarians as people believe that actions speak louder than words (how many sound-bites from other politco’s do you believe?).

    Dr. Paul is taking a rational, principled stand on whether or not he should name names. Please step down off your high horses and take another look at the candidates again. Dr. Paul is not simply the “lesser of the evils” among the candidates, he will actually promote the cause of liberty. And the more he does so, the less the allegations of racism will make sense, and the less they will matter. Supporting Dr. Paul is NOT a vote for racism or irresponsibility. He has taken moral responsibility for what happened in his name, why should he shift it to someone else now?

    Comment by Chad_Underdonk — January 13, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
  98. Dods,

    How magnanimous of Ron Paul to volunteer information about newsletters written under his name, often in the first person, referring to Ron Paul’s wife and kids. Very impressive.

    And yeah, I will quibble, because it’s a big difference.

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 2:27 pm
  99. Francis,

    “Paul should not censor what is said. Paul merely allowed his report as a vehicle for those who wished to announce their views. in a sense a modern day Internet forum. Just as you are not responsible for the comment i make. nor is he…”

    If somebody at the Liberty Papers were to write racist material blatantly incompatible with libertarian thought it’s extremely likely that Brad, who owns the page, would boot them (although he’s not really prone to censorship either)…because he as owner is ultimately responsible for what goes out under his site’s name. He certainly wouldn’t allow it to continue over a period of years.

    Ron Paul had the same responsibility for the newsletter he put out, because he attached his name to it and actually profited from it both monetarily and in reputation. He is not absolved of responsibility for the articles that the writers employed by him put out…whether he knew who they were or not, and whether he read the articles or not. It was his product, he accepted the benefits from it and he therefore also shoulders the blame.

    In Paul’s defense, he accepted moral responsibility and condemned the articles but he did so far too long after the fact. And while I don’t think he’s a racist, because I’ve read the articles he himself has written about racism, the rest of the population who don’t know that much about him likely aren’t going to buy it. Nor, with his exceptionally inept handling of the situation, can we really blame them.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 2:32 pm
  100. Mertz? For the love of God, it’s spelled RIGHT THERE! Why must I continue to be plagued!?

    But anyway, I agree. I really wish he’d do it again.

    But it’s not going to happen.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
  101. To me, Ron Paul sounds like he belongs more in the Constitution Party. His right Christian beliefs and scientific ignorance would be right at home there.

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 2:38 pm
  102. If Ron Paul wanted his newsletter merely as a vehicle, why didn’t he just have the authors use their own names?

    Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 2:40 pm
  103. R. Merz (aka Ethel),

    “Mertz? For the love of God, it’s spelled RIGHT THERE! Why must I continue to be plagued!?”

    Because you have the misfortune of having a last name that is extremely similar to a beloved character of classic TV comedy. :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 2:43 pm
  104. Also, people, we are kind of ignoring the actual level of severity of the letters. Are they that terrible? Would you say the rioters during the Rodney King fiasco were well behaved civilized human beings and NOT acting like animals? (regardless of their ethnicity)

    Martin Luther King DID have infidelity problems, etc. etc. The choice of words were harsh and mean but nothing in those statements were really off the mark in terms of some core of truth. I’m sure when Ron was much more laughed at he was much more free with what he said or allowed supporters to say, and now he is under the PC microscope as the situation surrounding him has changed, but I defend his right to free speech and free though regardless of what the new-right ‘libertarian’ thought police and reason and others want to say.
    Congratulations jerks, you’ve turned the libertarian movement into another lackluster compromise-fest that is likely to provide us with continued spineless non-choices like John Kerry over people with some guts like Howard Dean. Who will be the libertarian compromise turd this year over Paul? Who will be guaranteed NOT to ‘stir up any excitement’ but will have a record clean as silk?

    Comment by Wayne Wilson — January 13, 2008 @ 2:44 pm
  105. “well we had enough of that kind of presidency already.”

    Who is we? The person that wrote that hasn’t lived in the United States for 20 years, and in the meantime has been kicked out of two other countries (that were supposed more libertarian than America). He is hardly qualified to provide analysis on U.S. politics, let alone to use the term “we.”

    Comment by David — January 13, 2008 @ 2:45 pm
  106. Darel,

    Why are you so obsessed with who I contribute to, if anyone at all ? As I’ve said before, it’s none of your business.

    No, I haven’t contributed to Ron Paul. I haven’t given money to a politician in over 15 years and, at the moment, there are more important things in my life for me to be worrying about then whether I should send $ 25 to some guy who is running for President.

    Now, shut about that particular issue, ok ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 13, 2008 @ 2:47 pm
  107. The same point I was going to make Shane.

    I’ve never said, even once, that I’m a Ron Paul supporter. I’ve never said what ethnicity I am. Nor even whether I’m male. This is obviously a pseudonym, you folks have no idea who I am other than what I write.

    Interesting all the folks choosing to make assumptions about who I am and attack that.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 2:50 pm
  108. “Denial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence. The subject may deny the reality of the unpleasant fact altogether (simple denial), admit the fact but deny its seriousness (minimisation) or admit both the fact and seriousness but deny responsibility (transference). The concept of denial is particularly important to the study of addiction.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 2:56 pm
  109. I’m generally a Ron supporter – I love his ideas and his general credibility and straight-shooting approach. But this whole newsletter business has me scratching my head. If it had been me – when these issues came up 20 years ago, I would have immediately done a thorough investigation to see who was responsible and make sure that person was far away from my newsletters. I saw a very recent Blitzer interview where Paul was saying he was busy giving speeches, his medical practice, Congress, traveling, etc. and often did not read the newsletters. OK, fair enough – no need to read everything that goes out under your name – all good leaders can delegate and have trust in their assistants.

    But once it became a scandal how could he not have figured this out? In the Blitzer interview he was still acting as if he had no idea who was responsible for those awful words.

    One plausible explanation is when the scandal arose he instructed a trusted lieutenant to handle and this person is no longer available to answer questions. But he did not say this in the Blitzer interview . . .

    Comment by Sage — January 13, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
  110. Final demise? Perhaps it’s the final demise of those who support liberty in words only. I don’t think Patrick Henry would be proud of you. I’m ashamed to have ever called myself a libertarian.

    Whatever you are trying to do, it sure isn’t to reclaim any of my freedoms. Thanks for nothing.

    Comment by John Danforth — January 13, 2008 @ 3:03 pm
  111. As a believer in personal responsibility, if you do not vote for Ron & instead support one of the other candidates, please do not spend any time during the next presidency posting complaints about that or any of the other candidates in any shape or form. You know exactly what you’re voting for with all the other candidates & if you do not it is an utter lack of personal responsibility on your part for not researching their voting histories; in every case, their governmental affairs are in the public record & either your informed or uninformed vote is a personal endorsement of 99% of their future actions, as their future actions will not be vastly different from their past actions, nor from the actions of the past 30 presidents riding the same ship of state. In substance (& not tinkering around the edges), I wonder what differences you see between the current crop of candidates (excluding Paul) & the past 10 generations of presidents? It sounds like your personal choice, then, will be to vote for a killer since that is the history of the presidency, so if you know someone who dies in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan or some other hell-hole of war, please do not complain or look for sympathy, as you will have made your decision & must accept responsibility for it as well as you say Dr. Paul must for his. Please do not complain or duck into Canada if a draft is reinstated & you are called up. Serve your “duty” because that will have been the choice you have made. Do not complain about about taxes or anti-constitutional bills & do not complain about the price of gas or a loaf of bread costing $6 or the cost of someone you may know heating their home with only a Social Security check; you will have made your decision to do nothing about the Fed or inflation, accept the responsibility of that decision. Do not complain about the ramifications of the Patriot & Military Commissions Acts, nor the Soviet-style National ID program as these programs hit full stride. Do not complain about medical costs, torture, secret prisons, or habeas corpus dismissals. You know full well that none of the current crop of presidential candidates excluding Paul will even attempt to do anything to curb the powers the State has assumed.

    & please do not complain anyway by saying you voted for a third party candidate. If you would accept real responsibility for your actions, you would know there is a 0%, absolutely 0% possibility of a third party candidate being elected president & your vote for such will be little more than a symbolic shucking of your responsibility to try and change things in a substantive manner.

    My guess is if you’re to accept real personal responsibility for your vote, this will be one of the last posts we will ever see from you that is essentially a complaint about Washington DC. Your vote for any other candidate besides Paul will be a personal decision that the one admittedly outside shot in our lifetime at attempting substantive change in Washington is not needed.

    Good luck.

    Comment by Tim — January 13, 2008 @ 3:04 pm
  112. well the newsletters were written when he wasnt in government so to say that he would run his presidency ineptly is a reach. Also the fact that he is returning thousands of dollars of left over money from his congressional office again this year tells me he knows what he is doing. The problem is, it doesnt quack like a duck. Even if Paul were a racist at least he wouldnt use government policies to disciminate against people like every other republican.

    Comment by matthew golden — January 13, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
  113. “To me, Ron Paul sounds like he belongs more in the Constitution Party. His right Christian beliefs and scientific ignorance would be right at home there.”

    Shane,

    Too bad he was the Libertarian Party candidate in 88 and your squeamish and knee jerk nature only show exactly why I wasted ten years in the Libertarian Party.

    When are people like you going to figure out that the ultra-right, limited government position of libertarianism only appeals to right wing oriented people and not lefties? The fiscal position of libertarianism is considered the ultimate nightmare to the left and they’ll do anything to undermine it. -They’ll even go so far as to time a hit piece against a guy running in nearly last place for the Republican nomination, just out of the fear that a few lefties might wise up to some of the ideas he’s talking about and jump ship.

    Honestly, I’d rather hang out with a surly old Korean war vet who tells off color jokes once in a while but agrees with ALL the amendments. It sure beats some of the “Obama girls” I saw jumping around in New Hampshire. -Sasquatch women who view half the world as hard-ons trying to rape them into oppression. So they don’t like the war! They don’t like me, or limited government, or reason either. Do you think you can make a libertarian out of someone who’s main issue in life is getting Mark Twain books banned from the local library?

    Comment by Billy — January 13, 2008 @ 3:16 pm
  114. And from the commenter known as “Tim” we have our Paulestinian Drinking Game letter of the day.

    By the way, “Tim”, the president doesn’t actually control bread prices, heating prices, or employment for old people, and Ron Paul actually advocates taking those Social Security checks away. Go check his record on entitlements or his policy page. He wouldn’t as President actually have much to do with taxes and un-Constitutional bills beyond the ability to veto them…that’s Congress. The president is the check and balance on their power. Even if Ron Paul got elected, he’s still got a free-spending Congress to deal with, one that’s likely to be exceptionally hostile to him and will have a great incentive to override his vetoes. And considering that all of the bills you’ve named have come out of Congress, and considering that Ron Paul is a member of Congress, I’d say that he really hasn’t demonstrated that he’s all that great about convincing any of those guys to change their ways because most of that stuff passed through on his watch.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 3:17 pm
  115. I am amazed by how weighty circumstantial evidence has become.

    Impressive faith based reasoning well employed.

    The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion. Continue to focus on your unassailable conclusion, for their is no logic that could sway you.

    However, while you perpetuate your Judgment based upon a weak IF; America continues to the edge of its very existence.

    Labels of party affiliation cloud your perception by preconceived notion. You would do better to put Country Before Party.

    There is great doom approaching on many fronts. Only Ron Paul is speaking rational to issue. He understands Root Cause And Corrective Action Analysis. He is wise and uses reason to arrive at conclusion. Many look at his conclusion and decry “lunacy” without attempting to understand what his reasoning was. The lazy and the foolish will doom us all.

    Economic Catastrophe is in motion and has been for some time. Only Ron Paul has been aware and loudly proclaiming for most of his career about what has arrived. Band aids and Bubble gum can no longer hide what has been forged. We will all suffer in proving him correct.

    I find it unfortunate that many would focus on not being part of the solution. Children tend to break their toys.

    With knowledge comes sorrow.

    I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!

    Comment by Brad — January 13, 2008 @ 3:32 pm
  116. “I am amazed by how weighty circumstantial evidence has become.”

    Uhh…wow. Just wow. I actually don’t know where to begin with that sentence.

    Actually that whole comment is in competition with Tim’s, I think.

    Actually, after reading that comment, I’m starting to understand some of this stuff coming from the Rockwell Brigades. I’m going to call it “libertarian millenialism.”

    Comment by Mark — January 13, 2008 @ 3:45 pm
  117. Ok enough all ready.. Eric Dondero was in charge of those newletters the guy who works for Rudy now.. the New Republic guy is a huge Rudy guy.

    frankly I think it is wonderful that Dr. Paul is taking responsibility and manning up and not outing Dondero, but I will.

    Eric Dondero is a racist neo con anti liberty jerk who got fired because of his support of racist agendas and neo conservative idealism.

    and now he has been whining ever since and jumped on the rudy train.

    Look, Dr Paul is right that he is responsible and should have known what was being put in his name, but we do not see Rudy hitman owning up to his responsibility. Rudy is pissed he is losing to Paul and sent the attack dog on him, a sad disgruntled former employee with a giant axe to grind.

    Comment by ACUTS — January 13, 2008 @ 4:00 pm
  118. Adam,

    The newsletter was not written by any Ron Paul staff. These were independent writers circulating a newsletter exploiting Dr. Paul’s name.

    In any event, do you know how many newsletters and websites are named or dedicated to Ron Paul? It’s overwhelming.

    Did you stop to think that maybe Ron Paul was too busy doing his JOB in Washington, D.C. to even begin to think of keeping up with every Tom, Dick, and Harry using his name to push some personal agenda?

    I’ll make this offer…perhaps a number of us should start writing underground newsletters “In Tribute to Adam Selene” and we’ll see just how well YOU keep up!

    If Thomas Jefferson were running for President today, I’d be voting for him – even with all of the skeletons he had in his closet. Apparently, you would surely be wasting time ranting about some alleged affair he may or may not have had with a slave instead of the genius of his Constitution! However, in the absence of Jefferson, Ron Paul follows that same Constitution and, therefore, gets my vote.

    Comment by Eric — January 13, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
  119. matthew golden:

    well the newsletters were written when he wasnt in government so to say that he would run his presidency ineptly is a reach.

    If we don’t have an example of the man as a government executive (sorry, being a congress critter gives us no insight into how well he would manage something) we have to look at what we do have. We have an example of him managing his medical practice, his campaigns for congress and a newsletter that he published (aka managed).

    Yes, Ron Paul would love to shrink the size of the federal government, but it’s not like he is going to miraculously accomplish that by being elected. He is going to have to manage the federal government, his political position and his relationship with congress if he is elected. Should this episode give us much confidence that he will do that well? Remember, the entire federal government, except his cabinet, is going to be in opposition to the man. They will be doing whatever they can to undermine him. They will say, do and write things that are contrary to his philosophy.

    Will he fire the people doing that? Will he call them out publicly? Will he ignore what is happening?

    I’m not suggesting that nothing should be done about the federal government because of the situation I outline above, by the way. I am questioning whether Paul could be a competent manager or if the bureaucracy would make him and his cabinet ineffectual. We only have his past to judge on. We can see what the folks who dislike the Bush policies have done to Bush (note: I do not like his policies, this is a discussion of the bureaucracy in question), and it would be ten times worse if Paul was President.

    I don’t think Paul is directly lying, but he is certainly not telling the truth. And he is demonstrating a lack of competence in managing people. These are not things to inspire confidence in a would be executive. Especially one who will be at odds with the entire federal bureaucracy.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 4:11 pm
  120. Shane,

    Sure, Paul’s a Christian…but really, he hasn’t trumpeted it. Perhaps on abortion, but the guy’s delivered over 4000 of the little suckers, so it’s understandable he’d have some sympathy. Paul barely mentions his faith to the point where most might think he’s an atheist. It really doesn’t impact his politics.

    As to the ‘scientific’ thing, I’m guessing you’re on a hang up about that evolution thing. I don’t see anything wrong with not completely buying into the theory. I personally believe it, but it’s really here nor there with what he espouses. However, when asked for candidates that didn’t believe the theory of evolution at that one debate, he didn’t raise his hand.

    But I’m pretty sure you’re just trying to rile up people at this point, so maybe I just shouldn’t bother responding.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 4:12 pm
  121. Eric,

    “The newsletter was not written by any Ron Paul staff. These were independent writers circulating a newsletter exploiting Dr. Paul’s name.”

    Done with his full sponsorship, knowledge and approval (although apparently without his editorial involvement), with profits paid to him. Don’t even waste anyone’s time here with that bullshit because the candidate has openly said this himself.

    “In any event, do you know how many newsletters and websites are named or dedicated to Ron Paul? It’s overwhelming.”

    He’s only being held accountable for the one he sponsored, written by people who worked for him.

    “Did you stop to think that maybe Ron Paul was too busy doing his JOB in Washington, D.C. to even begin to think of keeping up with every Tom, Dick, and Harry using his name to push some personal agenda?”

    Actually he was out of office for a substantial amount of that time. The newsletter was done to keep his name in circulation, with his sponsorship, knowledge and approval. That’s why he bears moral responsibility, which he’s already claimed. You don’t watch much news, do you?

    “I’ll make this offer…perhaps a number of us should start writing underground newsletters “In Tribute to Adam Selene” and we’ll see just how well YOU keep up!”

    Considering that Adam wouldn’t be offering you his sponsorship (as Ron Paul admitted he gave his newsletter) that wouldn’t actually be any reflection on Adam (which actually isn’t his name). It would, however, clearly demonstrate that you’re a liar and a tool.

    “If Thomas Jefferson were running for President today, I’d be voting for him – even with all of the skeletons he had in his closet.”

    If were still a slaveholder I wouldn’t, nor would any other libertarian or non-racist. Libertarians wouldn’t, however, care about who he was sleeping with…as long as it was consensual, of course, and not predicated on the idea she had to put out because he “owned” her.

    Kudos to you on correctly spelling “Constitution” however…you’ve distinguished yourself from many of your Paulestinian brethren by demonstrating the ability to use your spell-checker, which is pretty much the only thing of value about your entire comment.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 4:13 pm
  122. I’ll concede Paul may not be good at “managing people.” If that is your main, or even secondary, priority I suspect you you would prefer another candidate. Who is that? If you have no such candidate, are you proposing staying home on election day. I can respect that…..but is that what you want?

    Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 4:15 pm
  123. If you really think Ron Paul had no involvement or benefit from the newsletters, take a look at this:
    http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2008/01/09/7698

    Comment by Mark — January 13, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
  124. R. Merz,

    “Sure, Paul’s a Christian…but really, he hasn’t trumpeted it.”

    He has, but only when discussing the fact that he finds it distasteful that people use their personal faiths as a campaign platform because he thinks it shouldn’t be a qualifier. I thought it was a very well-stated position and I respect him for it.

    He’s very pro-life, however, but since that position is neither libertarian nor anti-libertarian on it’s face (since nobody can agree about where life begins) I’m okay with it. His solution to how the feds should deal with the issue is the same as mine (I’m pro-choice)…leave it to the states to decide.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 4:16 pm
  125. Adam,

    I completely agree that, as far as the newsletter goes, he’s bad at it. He clearly considered it unimportant and continues to do so, to his fault, today. However, I don’t think mismanagement of this newsletter is important in the slightest. I’m not going to look down on him because he didn’t care about some subscriber-only newsletter.

    The only thing that worries me is the campaign and how he hasn’t kicked all the bozos out at this point. He can afford to, but he doesn’t. That’s what should be focused on, not some newsletter he’s clearly never cared about. Maybe it hasn’t hit him, but the campaign is what’s ruined his chances for make President. Even so, I highly doubt he’d be ‘ten times worse’ than Bush. He’s clearly shown throughout Congress that his political actions are rock solid on the dependability factor. He’s proven to be absent as far as the campaign goes and not having the heart to jettison the more incompetent staffers, but even with this, his stance on the issues is still making me vote for him.

    It’s really not big enough for me to change my mind. He’s not perfect, and even as worrisome as that is, he’s still an obvious step in the right direction. The others may be far better at managing their closer ties than he, but they’re wrong on everything else.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
  126. Dodsworth,

    “I’ll concede Paul may not be good at “managing people.”

    Managing people is an essential part of what the President does. It’s one thing to have a great agenda as President, but it doesn’t matter if you appoint people who work against what you hope to accomplish because you don’t really know what they’re all about and they have their own agendas.

    “I’ll concede Paul may not be good at “managing people.” If that is your main, or even secondary, priority I suspect you you would prefer another candidate.”

    Most of the commenters aren’t endorsing another candidate but are distancing themselves from Ron Paul because they’re not interested (quite rightly) in being tarred with the same brush that Paul has effectively tarred himself with. That said, I’m still voting for the guy and have said as much, but my support is much less enthusiastic and I won’t be going out of my way to actively trumpet him as my candidate. That goodwill went away with his poor handling of the newsletter fiasco.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
  127. R. Merz,

    “The only thing that worries me is the campaign and how he hasn’t kicked all the bozos out at this point.”

    That’s really the same issue as mismanagement of the newsletter. He didn’t distance himself from the newsletter and the people writing it back then because he was a poor manager then, and his campaign reflects that same shortcoming now. In 20 years he hasn’t changed. That’s a problem.

    But no, he will not be worse than Bush in my opinion.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 4:27 pm
  128. Below is the information on an article posted on the Rasmussen Report yesterday 1/12/08: an article taken from another source published under Rasmussen name. I doubt the Rasmussen family; backers specifically read every word of this inserted article. The last paragraph has an incorrect statement:
    “It’s a missed opportunity. The economy is clearly top of the mind for the Republican base. And now, at long last, supply-side policy prescriptions are top of the mind for the GOP candidates.”

    From day one, Ron Paul has run his campaign on constitutional standard and economic issues with proposed solutions. The Rasmussen Reports failed to correct this inaccuracy. Do you expect the Rasmussen owners in 15 to 20 years to recall this specific article, who wrote the story and where the original writer came from? In addition, by then who cares, this error is not specifically impugning the truthful desire of Rasmussen owners. Ron Paul took personal responsibility for the newsletters, how about every other candidate, and their past lack of oversight. We can just close the presidential process install a king and call it a day.

    artical title:
    GOP Candidates Go Supply-Side
    author:
    A Commentary by Lawrence Kudlow
    COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC

    artical link:
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/political_commentary/commentary_by_lawrence_kudlow/gop_candidates_go_supply_side

    Comment by tim — January 13, 2008 @ 4:28 pm
  129. UC,

    I agree with you completely on both of those points. Huckabee would be Duncan Hunter without his Christian spiel, and as a Christian I’m pretty ticked at him for it. He knows it’s the only thing he has going, so he pushes it.

    And, funnily enough, I agree with abortion being a states’ rights issue and I’m on the other side of the fence (pro-life). However, it’s a compromise that neither side has ever put forward, and I found the answer oddly appropriate. And neither radical parts of either of the sides will like it, but that’s how you know it’s a good idea.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 4:29 pm
  130. I think the only fault in your analysis is that Ron was – or should have been – responsible for the content. We all engage other people for a particular purpose and grant them authority to carry it out. That doesn’t mean that we are responsible for their diversion of that authority to some other purpose.

    In this case, Paul has made it clear that he did not authorize or agree to the offensive articles. He has repudiated the bigotry expressed in his name and (presumably) received assurances that it would never happen again.

    The problem is not with Ron Paul, nor even the content of the articles. The problem is the failure of the person responsible to acknowledge their errors and accept the consequences. That is their choice, not Ron Paul’s.
    But, I think you’re right. Ron should have been less kind to a “friend” who had done him wrong.

    Comment by Bill Westmiller — January 13, 2008 @ 4:34 pm
  131. R. Merz,

    We probably wouldn’t agree if we’re arguing about what should be done at the state level…but since I believe we live in different states I figure why argue over a point that we’re not in conflict on? :) Abortion is at its base a moral issue because of the unanswerability of the “where life begins” point, and I believe local communities should be able to set their own moral standards. There are limitations of course (such as when they come into conflict with the Bill of Rights) but despite the fact that I’m pro-choice I will agree that abortion is an alienable right in our country, not guaranteed by the Constitution.

    “it’s a compromise that neither side has ever put forward”

    If you believe life begins at conception, then abortion is murder and you pretty much have to be against it. If you believe that life begins at birth then the woman has a right to control what happens to her own body. There’s just not a lot of room to compromise, which is why the federal government is particularly ill-equipped to deal with the issue.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
  132. I am a “Paulite” and I agree with you wholeheartedly. This has been a huge hit for me personally because I am really in favor of what Dr. Paul has been spreading and am hopefull that these ideas can come to the forfront and become popular again…not in rhetoric but in practice.

    As I have been embaressed by this whole mess and especially on how far back and how many examples there are, I still can’t bring myself to vote for any of the other candidates.

    I do not believe Dr. Paul is himself a racist, and I have always believed he has been very skimipy on details…I have yet to hear him advance any firm plan on HOW he would really DO anything that he advocates…but at the same time…he wants to do a LOT less then current government does, so he and his staff would pry have time to figure it all out.

    I am in the military and I truly am ashamed of what we are doing all over the world, and I can’t bring myself to vote for more of the same. When its all said and done…Paul does not represent more of the same as you are advocating…he may have some of the same people managment skill deficits like the current administration but I am voting based on his ideas, and I believe his ideas and the direction he would take this country would negatively affect this country FAR LESS then the negatives the current and former administration has taken us.

    Also, if Dr. Paul does name names and makes it public of who wrote what…it passes the buck and his critics would say that he is deflecting blame onto “so and s0.” I think what he is doing is correct and shows a lot more character and bravery to take this on and not pass it onto someone else, because he has ALREADY taken repsonsibility for it in the past, it would be inconsistent to not now when his presidential aspirations are on the line.

    Comment by Ben — January 13, 2008 @ 4:36 pm
  133. Wow Eric, where to start. Let’s try this one:

    Apparently, you would surely be wasting time ranting about some alleged affair he [Thomas Jefferson] may or may not have had with a slave instead of the genius of his Constitution!

    Actually, I think that extra-marital affairs are between husband, wife and the third person involved. So, I wouldn’t be worried about Thomas Jefferson and his involvement with Sallie. I would be concerned about him owning slaves and his declaration that all men are created equal, in today’s culture and political environment, however. I’m not very concerned about in the 18th century, however.

    Oh yeah, Thomas Jefferson did not write the Constitution, Madison was the primary author. Jefferson was not particularly happy with the Constitution or the Constitutional Convention. Probably ought to check your history better. Of course, I suspect this is a clue in your support of Paul.

    The newsletter was not written by any Ron Paul staff. These were independent writers circulating a newsletter exploiting Dr. Paul’s name.

    Really? There’s no evidence of this that I’ve heard. What I’ve heard is that they were newsletters he was associated with in some fashion, including as publisher. If you have evidence of your claim, bring it forth.

    In any event, do you know how many newsletters and websites are named or dedicated to Ron Paul? It’s overwhelming.

    But we aren’t talking about those, we are talking about the very few newsletters in the 1980′s and 1990′s published as his, with his consent, with him as the publisher. That he profited from in a variety of ways. Again, provide evidence that there was no association. Certainly you cannot provide such evidence from Paul’s own words.

    Did you stop to think that maybe Ron Paul was too busy doing his JOB in Washington, D.C. to even begin to think of keeping up with every Tom, Dick, and Harry using his name to push some personal agenda?

    Ummmmmm, he wasn’t in Washington at the time, he was a doctor in medical practice in Texas. I would expect that if he were lending his name as the publisher and profiting from it, he would pay attention, at least to some degree, to what was in the newsletter. Since he did not …… I think there’s a problem.

    I’ll make this offer…perhaps a number of us should start writing underground newsletters “In Tribute to Adam Selene” and we’ll see just how well YOU keep up!

    Have fun doing that. I will, however, categorically state that I have nothing whatsoever to do with those newsletters. And, of course, Adam Selene is a made up character that I chose as a pseudonym for my writing. So, really, feel free.

    Come on guys, I know you can do better!!

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
  134. Merz wrote:

    Even so, I highly doubt he’d be ‘ten times worse’ than Bush.

    I didn’t say that. Why don’t you quote what I actually said? I’ll quote it for you:

    We can see what the folks who dislike the Bush policies have done to Bush , and it would be ten times worse if Paul was President.

    The word it in this sentence clearly is referring to what the folks who dislike Bush policies have done to Bush, not how good or bad a manager Bush is. Therefore, what I’m saying is that the federal bureaucracy would behave 10 times worse toward Paul than they do towards Bush.

    Please refrain from misquoting me to say things I haven’t said. I haven’t done that to any of you who disagree with me, no matter how tempting it has been.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 4:45 pm
  135. Adam,

    “Again, provide evidence that there was no association.”

    Come on, you should know better than to demand proof of a negative proposition. Don’t be a “truther” :)

    It’s a moot point anyway, Ron Paul has admitted he was responsible for those newsletters so Eric would have to prove that Ron Paul is lying in order validate his position. And you know Paulestinians don’t question their Dear Leader. It’s why I suspect that more than a few of them have experimented with cults :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 4:47 pm
  136. Adam,

    And I’ll stick up for Merz…I don’t think he was trying to misrepresent your position, I think he just misinterpreted it. He’s been keeping his arguments pretty fair so far so I don’t think he’s one of the Paulestinians. :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
  137. chuckles, I need a drink after all of this. I think I’ll join the Ron Paul drinking game. Way better than joining the cult.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 4:52 pm
  138. Oh come on! That was very vaguely worded, I was hardly scheming to put words in your mouth. Adam, I think too many months of dealing with trolls has made you a /tad/ paranoid.

    Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
  139. Okay UCrawford, I’ll give Merz a misinterpretation. Merz, if that’s the case, I apologize.

    I will say that I believe that Paul, if elected as President, would be horribly ineffective. Not because he’s “worse than Bush” or some such thing. Because he’s not an effective manager and he would be facing the incredible hostility of the millions of folks in the federal bureaucracy, most of whom would be trying to undermine every policy position and philosophy he set forth. If he was an effective, competent manager, he’d have some sort of chance.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
  140. Ben,

    “Also, if Dr. Paul does name names and makes it public of who wrote what…it passes the buck and his critics would say that he is deflecting blame onto “so and s0.” ”

    But as someone who’s served you should also recognize that there comes a point at which people do need to turn over their subordinates for doing the wrong thing. If you’re a CO and your 1SG is, say, sleeping with junior soldiers or giving preferential treatment to people he likes, it doesn’t matter if he’s a good manager and a good guy, he’s doing something that will eventually undermine the effectiveness of the unit and the credibility of the chain of command, so he has to be held accountable…and sometimes that has to be public so that the soldiers recognize that the rules are the rules for everybody and the system can be respected. I can understand why Paul doesn’t want to dime out somebody because it’s never a fun thing to do, but if he wants to maintain credibility for what he says he stands for it’s what he needs to do because this person represented his position as Paul’s. Besides which he’s certainly not stepping up to take credit for his work, so this loyalty definitely one-sided and I don’t think Paul would be out of line or particularly disloyal for throwing the guy under the bus.

    That’s just life, especially in politics.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 5:01 pm
  141. Adam,

    “Because he’s not an effective manager and he would be facing the incredible hostility of the millions of folks in the federal bureaucracy, most of whom would be trying to undermine every policy position and philosophy he set forth.”

    Good point. Milton Friedman pointed out in “Free to Choose” that the hostility of the federal bureaucracy was what basically destroyed the negative income tax proposal that he’d championed. By the time the government got done working and re-working that thing to satisfy the people whose jobs would be effected even Friedman opposed it. If he can’t find people who can help get what he wants done any proposals he makes are pretty much screwed.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 5:07 pm
  142. Inept or liar is too harsh! You shouldn’t be so disullioned when you find your idol has clay feet – as all humans do.
    Researching Congressman Paul, found him to have such integrity beyond reproach. He’s an intellect not an ego driven clever politician like the rest of the rep/dem candidates.
    As a leader he will be the best! He is smart, dependable, responsible, honest, fair, courageous, and seems not to make irrational emotional comments or decisions.
    As to who wrote the ridiculous articles, the persons name was mentioned in the Nolan Chart. Apparently, he is a long time friend of Dr. Paul.
    Which brings me back to the word integrity also synonymus with honor. An honorable and courageous leader will not push the blame on a friend or employee but would rather take the responsibility and consequence.
    Further, on the newsletter, I walked in his shoes once. I use to write a newsletter as a hobby, for an outlet for – any sort of – creativity. Over the years, I let others contribute but never really read them because my schedule became too hectic. I just trusted the writers! It seems Dr, Paul did the same thing, just trusted the writers.
    My opinion on this whole thing, and doubting Dr. Paul is just negative and petty. Suggest we all move on and help Ron Paul meet his destiny of becoming the next President of the United States!

    Comment by Linda — January 13, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
  143. One thing that is also important to remember in this whole debate: The people (and specifically the person) who almost certainly wrote the newsletters at issue are in fact still very close advisors to Paul. Moreover, some of the affiliations and arguments that that/those particular individual(s) have written in recent years don’t exactly suggest that they’ve changed much. Yet Paul continues to keep them close to his campaign. Not good.

    Comment by Mark — January 13, 2008 @ 5:15 pm
  144. Ugh. Pretend as if I didn’t repeat the word “that.” Drink two times for a non-Paulestinian acting like a Paulestinian.

    Comment by Mark — January 13, 2008 @ 5:17 pm
  145. You know, I find this pretty amusing that in spite of all the true issues this country faces, the fact that these newsletters have been debunked, and really arent’t relevant to anything whatsoever, people continue to foam and froth at the mouth over them, taking this holier than thou stance. ‘Oh my God, he’s oneuthem RACISTS! Uhhhhh, he must must be INEPT!’ You know what’s funniest is when you compare him to GWB or Rumsfeld and call him a liar. Yeah, the ONE GUY who just leveled with the american public about what our government is up to right now, and has the only viable solution to save this country from the biggest depression we have ever seen, is a liar. HA! Give me a break Adam, I would love to hear your so called solution to our dollar crisis. Oh wait, you don’t have one. I’m sure when all your wealth is robbed from underneath you when our dollar is worthless, you really are going to care about what was said in some stupid newsletter in the 90′s. People like you will get exactly what they deserve when the crash comes. See ya in the bread line!

    Comment by gamele50 — January 13, 2008 @ 5:27 pm
  146. I’m not sure why people are posting and arguing points, the subject of this article is a statement of fact.

    Adam believes that Ron Paul is either a liar for saying that he doesn’t know who wrote the articles, or inept for not knowing who wrote the articles.

    I, personally, accept that Ron Paul has taken moral responsibility for his failure of oversight (not full responsibility since he did not write/edit said articles). Since he was back to being a practicing doctor at the time rather than holding public office I’m not surprised that he had Lew Rockwell et al both edit and write the newsletters…not exactly an unheard of scenario.

    In any case, Adam has made his decision and I hope he finds another candidate to support/vote for…I’ll remain a Ron Paul voter/supporter and give him a pass on this minor, all be it embarrassing, mistake when compared to his own writings, speeches, 10 terms in office and career as a doctor.

    Comment by Alun H — January 13, 2008 @ 5:30 pm
  147. gamele50, if you truly believe that massive dollar devaluation and a major depression are imminent, there is nothing whatsoever that Ron Paul could do to stop it, even if here elected President in November.

    Not sure which rule that invokes, but he is certainly ascribing superhuman prowess and miraculous solutions to Ron Paul and it calls for a lot of drinking!

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
  148. Re: A Good Point in the Ron Paul Kerfluffle

    Whether you think it’s a good point or not, the two options left by thr columnist leave out Ron Paul’s record which shows without a doubt that the Congressman is certainly not incompetent. There’s no evidence to show in his long record in the public that he’s a liar (the omniscient judgemental can go ahead and call him a liar). The author doesn’t give a more reasonable option where Ron Paul had a very unfortunate occurence in his past, which he has owned up to and taken moral responsibility for, and denounced such writings as small-minded and immoral. Here’s a couple choices you can make, trust Ron Paul for now whether you support him or not, or close your mind and the book on the subject and go on your merry fucking way.

    Comment by Scott — January 13, 2008 @ 5:40 pm
  149. I guess some folks aren’t smart enough to push a button on the computer to see what he stands for. Brainwashed dupes it’s laughable this story has been around forever. Dr. Paul has addressed it. This story gets beat down and then shows up again at another newspaper or blog.

    Comment by Ralph Z — January 13, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
  150. “UCrawford,”

    Please site a link to the Paulian bill in his 10 terms in Congress which sites that he, in your words, “actually advocates taking those Social Security checks away.”

    Also I can’t remember writing that Paul would have any effect on, “employment for old people,” would you please site your source for my saying that as well?

    Also, please site where I said the president “controls” bread prices & heating prices.

    The president in fact certainly has significant power to INFLUENCE everything I mentioned through his actions or inactions & the policies he pursues or does not pursue as president, & in turn these will directly influence the markets & result or not result in things like skyrocketing prices in certain sectors of the market. Inflation as measured by PPI is dramatically higher than the government’s CPI figures. Food was up 34% last year alone, oil was up 42%, etc. Is it really your opinion that Presidential policies such as inciting wars in places like Iraq & Iran have nothing at all to do with influencing the dramatic price surges Americans are seeing (like heating oil costs & bread prices)? Is it really your assertion that the Fed acts entirely independent of the policies & actions of the President in his time in office & is not influenced by them at all? Again I said “influence,” not your word “contol.”

    Further is it your assertion that a president’s policies as reflected in his bully pulpit, his veto power, his appointing of cabinet members (& before you say Congress approves them all, remember Michael Bolton), have nothing at all to do with bills being pushed through Congress like the Patriot & Military Commisssions Acts, secret courts, the legalizing of torture, the National ID card, & habeas corpus dismissals that will eventually affect everyday Americans?

    Did you really mean to imply that the President is in your words only a “check & balance” to Congressional mandates? In other words, I do not suppose that your implication honestly is that the president’s an innocent bystander with no power at all to stop or control Congress, bully through policies, nor does the president have any real power whatsover to affect the economy or Congressional programs through his own actions, cabinet appointments, vetoing upper hand, or ability to appear on national TV any time he wants to? So what is your real (rather than anti-Paul) opinion of the role Presidential powers actually assume?

    Also, sir, a single Congressman’s powers in a chamber of 435 are vastly different from Presidential powers. Just as a a bat boy grabbing the bat before someone comes around third base’s role is different from a Cy Young winning starting pitcher’s role. Or a silly blog comment in comparison to a NY Times editorial.

    If you do not understand these simple principles, someone’s surely been “drinking” tonight as you say, but it’s not me. Sleep it off, & have another crack at mis-stating what I say & spouting off what you’ve learned in UC’s Politics 101 class come morning after you’ve had a cup of coffee.

    Comment by Tim — January 13, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
  151. Scott:

    Whether you think it’s a good point or not, the two options left by thr columnist leave out Ron Paul’s record which shows without a doubt that the Congressman is certainly not incompetent.

    Provide an example of management competence to outweigh the example of incompetence that we have in front of us.

    He has a record of competence in practicing medicine, a fairly bland record as a congressman and no record as a manager, except for the management of his newsletters and campaign. So, show me where he has a record of management competence.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 5:51 pm
  152. I’m a Ron Paul supporter, and so please keep this in context with my response.

    I’ve been aware of this newsletter issue with Paul for about a decade now, and I’ve gotta say that I don’t really understand why some folks are so angry at Paul.

    I’ve read, heard, and even seen Ron Paul take responsibility for failing to follow these newsletters and failing to take greater action. I’ve gotta say that I’ve never seen any politician take such responsibility before… never in my lifetime! Politicians typically blame everyone but themselves, but Paul has claimed moral responsibility time and time again.

    I did an interesting experiment a few days ago… one I hope you might like to reproduce. I went to Google and typed in “Hillary Clinton racism”, “Giuliani racism” (which I misspelled several times), “McCain racism”, etc. Each time, I found pages and pages of news articles proving that each candidate is racist for this-n-that, and never apologized for it. This racism issue is so old-hat, so overdone, and by now so impotent that I’m amazed I’m spending free-time writing about it. But at the same time, I realize how important it is to see things from many perspectives before ejaculating an opinion.

    The man’s certainly got his flaws, but his response to these attacks simply ain’t one of ‘em. And regardless, the message of Ron Paul’s campaign is about as close-to-perfect as I have ever seen.

    Thanks for your time, and good luck with your work!

    lache pas,
    Dr. Steven F. LeBoeuf

    Comment by Dr. Steven F. LeBoeuf — January 13, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
  153. Steven, I’m not angry at Paul. I don’t think any of the folks who contribute on this site are angry at Paul. I won’t speak for them other than that. I am disappointed that Paul chose to run. He can’t win, he has baggage that will be destructive to his message and even if he did win, he would end up being horribly ineffective as President.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 6:09 pm
  154. Paul’s problem is that his campaign is essentially a “children’s crusade”
    speaking truth to power & all that.

    But, in this newsletter incident he’s not holding himself to the same
    standards of truthfulness.

    Even in the unlikely event he didn’t know who the offending writers
    were, a whole organizational chart of the writers/articles circa 1992 could be forensically
    reconstructed by a few of the editors & writers.

    Apparently this “moral responsibility” angle will fly in a congressional race.

    But, it’s amazing that his campaign staff thought it would suffice in a run for
    POTUS.

    Paul’s best shot at defusing this would of been serving up LEW ROCKWELL or GARY
    NORTH’S head up a a platter in the CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

    Even though it makes no sense in the regular work-a-day world, it might
    make sense in the MSM political matrix when shaped by a professional
    campaign manager.

    The old media would have been satisfied with blood.

    That’s politics.

    It would of been a lot easier to explain for the true believers.

    So, Ron Paul is apparently happy to play the role of the gadfly.

    And not fit for Presidential politics.

    Comment by stackdad — January 13, 2008 @ 6:44 pm
  155. “I support Dr. Ron Paul because I believe a lifetime of actions far outweighs an editorial oversight from a decade ago caused by his trusting people who took advantage of his good name.”
    -John Armstrong

    Seek his message. Compare him to the other candidates and their faults (they all have them, you know). THEN tell me who comes out on top.

    Comment by Jeff — January 13, 2008 @ 6:54 pm
  156. Tim,

    In response to this:

    “please site [sic] where I said the president “controls” bread prices & heating prices.”

    …I’ll reference this comment…

    “Do not complain about about taxes or anti-constitutional bills & do not complain about the price of gas or a loaf of bread costing $6 or the cost of someone you may know heating their home with only a Social Security check;”

    …that you made while bitching at everybody about all the bad things that will happen if Ron Paul is not elected President. Care on how Ron Paul would change any of that?

    “The president in fact certainly has significant power to INFLUENCE everything I mentioned through his actions or inactions & the policies he pursues or does not pursue as president, & in turn these will directly influence the markets & result or not result in things like skyrocketing prices in certain sectors of the market.”

    Not if he has little to no support from Congress, which is the case with Ron Paul. The Democrats hate him because he wants to take away their power to buy votes and the GOP hates him because he didn’t buy into their pork-barrel ways. An isolated president affects little if he’s not capable of at least building a competent team around him.

    “Also, sir, a single Congressman’s powers in a chamber of 435 are vastly different from Presidential powers.”

    Yes, they’re dependent upon his ability to build coalitions and garner support for the legislation he drafts. Ron Paul is seen as an irrelevant anachronism by many because he’s never done a very good job of doing that. Based on the newsletter debacle and his poor handling of it after having 20 years to come up with a defense, I can’t imagine he’s suddenly going to change if he gets in the White House or that he’s suddenly get Congress to march in step when they’ve ignored or marginalized him for most of his time in the legislature.

    Jimmy Carter, sport…you’re backing the libertarian Jimmy Carter. Well-meaning but ineffective. That’s okay, though, I recognize that he’s Jimmy Carter yet I’m still planning on voting for him.

    “Did you really mean to imply that the President is in your words only a “check & balance” to Congressional mandates?”

    That’s what the Founders intended. That’s why they gave the power of the purse to the legislative branch. There were never meant to be three co-equal branches…Congress was meant to be dominant. But they also realized that you need an executive and a judicial branch with the power to block their excesses. The problem we have is that the executive branch has gradually consolidated power and gone against our Founders’ intentions. Frankly, the Democrats in Congress could break Bush on Iraq (or anything else) anytime they wanted to…if they weren’t led by an incompetent and cowardly Speaker and Senate Majority Leader or if they had any clue of what they wanted to do instead of what Bush is doing.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 7:09 pm
  157. Nothing he could do? You have got to be kidding me! How about bringing home hundreds of thousands of troops overseas, and closing all of our bases, saving hundeds of billions of dollars, taking the pressure off the federal reserve to print up endless amounts of money? That would be a good start if you ask me. How about stopping borrowing billions from China? Do you understand what our central bank is? Or how our dollar is devalued every time they print up another piece of paper with George Washinton’s picture on it? Come on man, if we don’t change foriegn policy real soon, we’re all screwed, and Ron Paul is the only one talking about it, and the only one who WILL do anything about it if he gets elected.

    Comment by gamele50 — January 13, 2008 @ 7:18 pm
  158. Gamele50,

    “How about bringing home hundreds of thousands of troops overseas”

    Actually, after this I’m less convinced that he’d be capable of pulling that off, even though the President has the authority to move troops. Mainly because I’m questioning his ability to put a competent SECDEF in charge. If he planned to leave Robert Gates in charge or gave any indication of who he’d nominate, then I’d probably give him the benefit of the doubt. But, as another Ron Paul supporter pointed out, he’s never come up with specifics…at all. He says what he wants to do in big-picture generic terms but he never discusses the how. And frankly I’m not sure I trust him enough anymore to hire competent people to accomplish his goals.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
  159. And I especially mean this in regards to withdrawal from Iraq. He says he’d like to leave as quickly as safely popular. But the SECDEF is one of the primary determiners of how that can pulled off. If he’s got a guy like Gates (who has done a good job in his position and isn’t a Bushie on foreign policy) I think he’ll be served well. If he puts Lew Rockwell or one of his buddies in charge and they have no clue what the fuck they’re doing or are incapable of working with the military (which was Rumsfeld’s biggest problem) it could very easily turn into a complete disaster for our troops…a potentially bloody one.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 7:41 pm
  160. Yeah, I’m terrified that a flight surgeon for 5 years in the AirForce would have trouble finding a competent SECDEF to start the pullout. I’m sure that all the other candidates with no military experience(except McCain, who wants us there for 100 years) will find a much better one. So let me get this straight: Everything he has put his full attention to he has excelled at(5 years in the military, OB/GYN, and elected congressman for 10 terms) but a stupid newsletter that means absolutely nothing that he didn’t pay attention to and didn’t write gets some wierd stuff published, and that means he is INEPT? Give me a break. This man is more deserving of this office and is more competent than all of the other candidates combined.

    Comment by gamele50 — January 13, 2008 @ 7:58 pm
  161. Uhhhhh, since the system is rigged to make sure incumbents get re-elected, only the first election counts for any particular competency. I know a lot of doctors, it’s not as tough to be a reasonable doctor as folks make it out to be.

    His competence to manage people and organizations is being questioned.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 8:19 pm
  162. UCrawford,

    When I politely asked you to specifically cite several of your many ill-informed references in response to my original post, all you could come up with is a single specific citation, which you’re wrong on, but attempt to prop up anyway? Again, I said SPECIFICALLY, “influences” not your word in my mouth “control.” I never said “control,” and in the citation you use I never say “control,” so what’s your point or argument? Are you really TNR’s kerchief secretly trolling around trying to extoll your ridiculous virtues as a “journalist”? Sorry you LOSE on the single citation out of the many I asked you to offer up in defense of your absurd & indefensible statements against my original post.

    Though, in good spirits, I’ll give you one more try. You cite out of my original argument, “that you made while bitching at everybody.” I cannot recall “bitching at everybody,” in fact my initial argument was a response only to the original poster of this thread, while my second argument specifically addressed only you. Now, do you have a citation that addresses a post of mine in this thread where I’m addressing, in your ridiculous mistranslation of my words, “everybody”? Of course you don’t because I never did so, so I’m sorry you LOSE on your hail-mary pass as well, kerchief.

    As for the rest of your post, it’s equally preposterous & misleading & I don’t have the time right now to answer the opinion & daytime talk show innuendo of someone who cannot offer specific facts & reasoned arguments. Call the Dr. Phils of political talk, Sean Hannity & Bill O’Spinly. They’d be very receptive to your misleading political opinions, & how America really needs many MORE politicians building “coalitions” like those in favor of torture, secret prisons, habeas corpus dismissals, bankrupting spending, secret courts & national IDs, rather than more Statesmen legislators standing up to these abuses of power like Ron Paul does.

    I humbly asked you to wait till morning, have a cup of coffee, & rethink things before you responded. I would have been glad to debate you on what I said, versus what you think I “really mean.” You did not wait till morning, & you handled yourself in the most absurd manner possible.

    Hate for Ron Paul is not a personally defensible argument in terms of responding to his policies or in responding to other bloggers. Neither is attacking other people based on your “opinion” of what they’ve said & mis-quoting their arguments at length.

    I’d suggest you shoot off an email to the New Republic. They’d land themselves a “conservative” golden needle in a haystack if they hired you to their staff.

    Comment by Tim — January 13, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
  163. So, in light of your conclusions, and relative to everything else you know about ron Paul, his message and ‘version’ of a conservative libertarianism, do you think that his actions regarding these newsletters diminish the desirability of him becoming your president? I know what he stands for, I know he is also human (warts and all), and I would guess he also has some personal agenda he wants to fulfill… BUT, I also know that of all the avaiable candidates on BOTH the right and left, only Ron Paul will provide the vehicle and path for truly momentous and necessary change. If you want to believe that this incident ‘proves’ that Ron cannot manage effectively and therefore is not ‘presidential’ material, I submit that you were never going to vote for him in the first place and have finally found an excuse to couch your views. That’s fine.

    Comment by LPM — January 13, 2008 @ 8:28 pm
  164. If anything, he’s guilty of trusting people too much, which may be a libertarian drawback, and that’s probably what he would do if he was in office, as long as we were following the frikkin’ constitution for a change. I choose that head and shoulders above the other scum we have to pick from, all of which want nothing but more power and to control my life with taxes and war.

    Comment by gamele50 — January 13, 2008 @ 8:46 pm
  165. Tim,

    “Are you really TNR’s kerchief secretly trolling around trying to extoll your ridiculous virtues as a “journalist”?”

    You know, this reminds me of a humorous article in the Onion discussing how Bush’s foreign policy was keeping American expatriates from getting laid (which it does, in reality). There was this comment from a student in Amsterdam who got lectured by two girls about how he had to tell the President he was wrong to which he responded, “If I had that kind of pull with the President of the United States do you really think I’d be a bar in the Netherlands trolling for anonymous Dutch p***y?”

    “Hate for Ron Paul is not a personally defensible argument in terms of responding to his policies or in responding to other bloggers. Neither is attacking other people based on your “opinion” of what they’ve said & mis-quoting their arguments at length.”

    Had you bothered to read my comments on the subject of Ron Paul over the last six months you’d have clearly seen that my position on him is far from hatred. I respect the man, I agree with his stated policy positions for the most part but I think he’s a poor manager of people and a questionable judge of character and this will compromise his ability to operate competently as he will have few allies outside of his administration and will therefore have to depend heavily on his staff to get things done and stay on message. Basically, I consider him a good man, but a poor presidential candidate.

    As for mis-quoting you the quotes I used were taken directly from your comments via cut and paste with the only additions I use being “[sic]” to point out your quite frequent spelling errors (so people would realize they weren’t mine). The frequency of those errors, by the way, indicate a laziness on your part with expressing your point clearly or insuring that it was understandable for the reader. So you weren’t misquoted, although you may have been misinterpreted. If you don’t like the excerpts chosen I suggest you invest some time in spell-checking and perhaps cut down on the jargon, rhetoric, rambling, and not-so-clever plays on peoples’ names that inundate your comments…in the interests of brevity, so that your relevant points and questions aren’t lost under a wave of gibberish that I or any reader have little interest in digging through.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 8:51 pm
  166. So… just for th sake of discussion, let’s say he is Racist. Or… he knows who the writer is but doesn’t want to hang them out to dry.
    If he IS racist, he doesn’t vote like it, he doesn’t act like it so I doubt it would be an issue. There is always the possibility that his views could have changed over the years, but there is no way someone could admit to that without them still hanging him out to dry. Which brings me back to the fact that regardless, he defends and strongly believes in individual liberties.
    If he’s covering some writers arse, it could have something to do with protecting the right to free speech.
    He could also really not know who did it. Is it really that ridiculous that he could have left the publication in the hands of someone else? It’s not like it was a big business. It was a news letter. Not Time magazine!
    Regardless… it still brings me back to the fact that he doesn’t vote or act racist. If you believe in everything else he says.. I wouldn’t be so quick to no trust him on this one.
    All the others are singing the same tune we’ve been hearing forever!

    Comment by Dave — January 13, 2008 @ 9:02 pm
  167. I submit that you were never going to vote for him in the first place

    That’s true, I was never going to vote for Ron Paul. But that was long before this became public. And I never said anything to the contrary.

    I would explain why, but UCrawford did a good job of explaining it. That, and I can’t abide the Lew Rockwell folks that happen to be near to him.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 9:05 pm
  168. Dave,

    I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist nor, as far as I can tell, does anyone else here. We just thought he exhibited very poor judgment in how he dealt with people who worked for and with him while the newsletter was being published and that he’s currently demonstrating he hasn’t learned much from the experience.

    I see Ron Paul as more of a gadfly than a leader. He has great ideas and he’s a decent man but I’m reaching the conclusion that he just doesn’t possess the necessary qualities to implement those ideas, nor is he particularly capable of hiring people who can.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 9:11 pm
  169. I love this drinking game. Best damn game ever invented!

    Ron Paul supporters this is for you. I think this guy will help you help you! You know?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJ50uv-RL4s

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 9:20 pm
  170. Gamele50,

    “If anything, he’s guilty of trusting people too much, which may be a libertarian drawback,”

    It’s not a libertarian drawback, it’s a personal weakness. It’s understandable if you get fooled occasionally by people, that happens to everyone from time to time. But Ron Paul has pretty consistently surrounded himself with people who aren’t particularly great at helping him advance his agenda or who end up being problematic down the road. Even now, most of the support he’s gathered for his presidential campaign has been in spite of the efforts of his hired staff, not because of it. There’ve been several people who have done volunteer work on Paul’s campaign who have posted their frustration with how inept the official Paul campaign is and how little support they get, despite the fact that he has significant resources to draw from. That’s a sign of a dysfunctional organization and that goes to his ability to surround himself with competent staff or to manage them. Why should anybody assume it would be somehow different if he were president?

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 9:21 pm
  171. uhm,

    “I love this drinking game. Best damn game ever invented!”

    Thanks man, I’ll try and let you know whenever we’re playing it again :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
  172. Sweet I appreciate it :D

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
  173. Look, Paulestinians, the man has a massive campaign warchest, all things considered. With good management, his campaign should be doing well, not in disarray. This entire newsletter thing should have been anticipated, it’s how the game is played. The ties to Lew Rockwell, etc. should have been seen for the serious problems they would become.

    While not dealing with all those things means he is not a “typical politician”, it also means he is not particularly competent as a manager, organizer or leader.

    This is the first time in more than 75 years that the Presidential race has been this wide open. It coincides with a real hunger for change and a fairly significant amount of anti-government sentiment. This is the biggest opportunity to put a Goldwater/Reagan type in the White House that has presented itself since at least 1980, probably earlier (Reagan was a Black Swan event).

    And what we get is someone who cannot be elected, has very questionable populist and paleo-libertarian views, and proves to be a marginal, at best, organizer and manager.

    And you guys want me to be pro Ron Paul? Explain why again? I might as well be pro myself for President, I think my views are clearer and more consistent than his, and I know I’m a damn sight more effective and tough as an organizer and manager.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 9:32 pm
  174. Damn, that’s pretty funny to watch uhm.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 9:35 pm
  175. Adam,

    I might as well be pro myself for President, I think my views are clearer and more consistent than his, and I know I’m a damn sight more effective and tough as an organizer and manager.

    I’ll write you in :)

    Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 9:42 pm
  176. I know Adam. ;) It is something Ron Paul fanatics need to hear. I just don’t see how anyone could defend what you pointed out. We are supposed to believe that everyone involved in the newsletter has amnesia. It is ridiculous.

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 9:52 pm
  177. ‘NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist’
    http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html

    Comment by Brad — January 13, 2008 @ 10:28 pm
  178. That quote is not at all a good summary or a fair assessment of Ron Paul as a candidate for president.

    To suggest he would be an emperor in chief, such as the past 2 presidents, because of his handling of this incident, is outrageous.

    No other candidate will be less of an “emperor in chief” than Ron Paul. He would seek to remove power from the office of the president, and reduce the scope of the federal government.

    Comment by Jono — January 13, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
  179. No one is saying Ron Paul is a racist. No one is saying he will be an “emperor in chief” but an “incompetent in chief.”

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 10:35 pm
  180. Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years says Paul is being smeared because he is a threat to the establishment.

    Comment by Brad — January 13, 2008 @ 10:36 pm
  181. And the Philadelphia NAACP president said that Donovan McNabb was a shitty QB who tried to act white (both incorrect assessments).

    Just because the NAACP president of whatever town makes a statement doesn’t mean it’s fact. Paul’s getting smeared because he fucked up and because that’s politics. If he didn’t realize this was going to come up then he’s not a particularly effective politician, regardless of what Nelson Linder said.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
  182. Of course he is a threat to the socialist but that doesn’t mean he gets a free pass for not telling/or finding out the TRUTH!

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 10:42 pm
  183. Reading all these comments has made me tired. The fact is, we have a bunch of crappy choices in front of us for President. None of the candidates are ideal. If I could, I would vote “none of the above” and request a new batch.

    Since that isn’t possible, I’ll vote for Ron Paul in the primaries and see what happens. I don’t like the direction the US is headed. He’s the only candidate addressing *my* concerns about foreign policy, financial accountability, soveriegnty, national ID, etc. So that makes him electable, even if he isn’t as pretty as xxx or a chameleon like xxx. All of the candidates have baggage, all of which I find more difficult to stomach than your concerns about Ron Paul and his leadership abilities. I’d choose change (any change) through his presidency, rather than pursuing the agendas being forced on us.

    Comment by Amy — January 13, 2008 @ 11:03 pm
  184. I agree Amy, crappy choices and I’ve run out of beer and liquor but what a fun game!

    Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 11:24 pm
  185. And you guys want me to be pro Ron Paul? Explain why again? I might as well be pro myself for President, I think my views are clearer and more consistent than his, and I know I’m a damn sight more effective and tough as an organizer and manager.

    Now you’re getting it! HELP HIM! If you think so, get in on the fun! This campaign is all about ideas and free thought! I think you’re right the campaign needs work, but the only candidate that gives a damn about the ordinary person getting involved is the guy you’re trying to marginalize! If you think the problem is the campaign being run poorly, GET INVOLVED! Always room for one more in the revolution, my friend, I hope you come around:)

    Comment by gamele50 — January 14, 2008 @ 1:48 am
  186. I guess I’ll have to mark Liberty Papers down as being against Liberty.

    Trashing a man over such a trivial issue, and defending that position ad nauseum, reveals a deeper motive. And that motive is not to help free me from the statists, or do educate the masses on the evils of debt-based currency.

    Taking potshots at a man with the guts to do what he has done from the comfort our your keyboard reveals a lot more about you than it does about him.

    It also rules out the possibility of you, yourself ever running for office. Because your writings here will be used to haunt you to the ends of the earth in the same manner.

    Comment by John Danforth — January 14, 2008 @ 7:21 am
  187. John Danforth,

    I guess I’ll have to mark Liberty Papers down as being against Liberty.

    Trashing a man over such a trivial issue, and defending that position ad nauseum, reveals a deeper motive. And that motive is not to help free me from the statists, or do educate the masses on the evils of debt-based currency.

    Taking potshots at a man with the guts to do what he has done from the comfort our your keyboard reveals a lot more about you than it does about him.

    It also rules out the possibility of you, yourself ever running for office. Because your writings here will be used to haunt you to the ends of the earth in the same manner.

    Criticize St. Ron=Against liberty

    Got it.

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 7:49 am
  188. It’s that collectivism thing again Kevin. If we don’t agree with this group of people, then we are against everything that is good and right.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 7:53 am
  189. Oh, please. I don’t care if you agree with the man. But you have to admit that the country is in sad shape and we are being sidetracked by non-issues so that we don’t address real problems. This has been going on for years.

    Real issues are not what race, sex, religion a candidate is. Yet hasn’t that been what the “NEWS” has tried to push us to believe? Real issues involve fiscal policy, foreign policy, sovereignty. Sub issues under those headings include: war, healthcare, debt, recession/depression, national ID.

    As a whole, the candidates say that it is ok to start wars as long as it is to ‘protect our interests’, that it is ok to continue the wars as long as it ‘protects our interests’, and that we need national healthcare to ‘protect our poor and middle class’, that we need national ID or license to ‘protect us’ from illegal immigrants, etc, etc.

    I don’t want these forms of protection. No candidate is giving me the CHOICE to say that. That is really collective thinking. Scares the heck out of me.

    So while the messenger is not in a great package (older, not charismatic, a bookish/geeky guy) the MESSAGE is making me listen.

    Comment by Amy — January 14, 2008 @ 8:35 am
  190. Amy,

    It’s worth mentioning that there are part’s of Ron Paul’s message that aren’t libertarian at all.

    His position on international trade and immigration are clearly outside the mainstream of libertarian thought.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 14, 2008 @ 8:47 am
  191. Doug,

    Actually, I haven’t seen diversion from libertarian thought on trade from Ron Paul. He opposed NAFTA because it was managed trade, not free trade, and because he thought passing the bill would impede the movement towards free trade (although there’s room to debate whether he was right on that or not). He also supports the removal of all tariffs or restrictions on trade. I do think that a lot of populists/nativists are drawn to him because they opposed NAFTA because they hate free trade, but I think a lot of that is because they’re idiots who don’t get the distinction.

    As for immigration, no arguments here…I think Ron Paul’s completely on the wrong side of the issue and that his arguments in favor of restricting immigration (they’ll overwhelm the welfare system, national security) are rationalization at best. It’s also a crossover point for the racists to jump on board. Coincidentally his poor personnel managing skills are also making me reconsider whether his position on immigration shouldn’t be a fatal flaw…since he’s apparently incapable of distinguishing nativist from libertarian in his hires, which makes this a prime issue for him to be dragged off course and to let statutory racism creep in.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 9:07 am
  192. Amy, you and the others who are going on about the message are not listening to the rest of us who are questioning parts of the message and the man. At some point the message has to be put into action, doesn’t it? And I don’t believe this man can do that. Not only that, I think he would be an unmitigated disaster as President, for the same reasons that Jimmy Carter was. Great theory, horrible execution.

    You know what’s worse than our current situation? The complete meltdown of the libertarian agenda as a viable (in the eyes of the voting public) agenda for a President. If you don’t think that would be likely to happen, consider how badly Carter’s failure impacted the Democrats for electing a President. And that was a relatively mainstream agenda.

    Now imagine that Ron Paul is elected and flubs managing the bureaucracy like he has flubbed managing this newsletter. Just think what the outcome of that will be in terms of damage to the credibility of an agenda of liberty and limited government.

    I choose to support no one. I will wait for the next opportunity. I will continue to be active in my community and with my friends and family. But I cannot support someone that I think will be a disaster. Not to mention, I’m not a paleo-libertarian, populist libertarian, etc. and find many things in Paul’s message (e.g. immigration, gold standard, conspiracy theories) to be objectionable.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 10:09 am
  193. Hmmmm, this must be the “making a mountain out of a molehill” that I used to hear so much of in my youth.

    Comment by Dung — January 14, 2008 @ 10:10 am
  194. Not to mention, Amy, that most of the pro RP crowd is behaving as a collective here. If we aren’t with them, we must be against them, is how they say it. What, in that message, would an individualist find appealing?

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 10:10 am
  195. “So, no matter which of the two alternatives it is, Paul is just one more politician. Either a liar or an incompetent.”

    He’s incompetent. Duh. He sucks at people, look at how long he kept that jackass Dondero around.

    I’m quite confident that the American public can keep Ron Paul in check. Despite his flaws he advocates two things – liberty and the rule of law, that make him a Good candidate instead of picking from a wide variety of evils.

    You can attack Ron Paul’s flaws all you want, his personal and philosophical flaws are aplenty for sure. However, I don’t see you or anyone else but some truly evil and incredibly loathsome pieces of human garbage on the debate stages.

    If Ron Paul, an honest and good man with at least a basic understanding of liberty and law, isn’t good enough for you, then I don’t think there ever will be a candidate good enough for you. I’ll vote Ron in 2008, if by some miracle he wins then I’ll probably be voting for someone else in 2012 who is more aligned with pure libertarian philosophy. Y’all would seem quite content to attack Paul and try to kill the single best thing to happen to American politics in a very long time. Keep biting his heels, you’ll be able to drag him down, and then you can do the same for any other chance we have. You can celebrate your victory as Hilary takes office – that’ll be a real success for libertarianism in America!

    Comment by Patrick Henry — January 14, 2008 @ 11:54 am
  196. “Not to mention, Amy, that most of the pro RP crowd is behaving as a collective here. If we aren’t with them, we must be against them, is how they say it. What, in that message, would an individualist find appealing?”

    Actually, if you examine the RP crowd, there isn’t a single or even just a few perspectives. There are many. Some of those are collectivists, who seeing a crowd joined in without knowing or caring to know what it was they were joining. Many others are individualists who are fed up with people obsessing over petty bs regarding Ron Paul instead of discussing the issues at hand. If you are against Ron Paul, then you are against the best chance America has had in many decades or even centuries. Y’all attack Paul, but offer no alternative or solution.

    It’s not being against me, or even Paul, that angers people – it’s being against Paul for the smallest of reasons.

    I’m against Paul on abortion, on state’s rights versus individual rights, libertarian philosophy, many other issues. I support him because of his position on the Fed, the IRS, and most importantly, liberty and the rule of law.

    Y’all seem to be against him for not meeting your personal philosophical standards or for having exercised poor judgment of other people’s character.

    Comment by Patrick Henry — January 14, 2008 @ 12:00 pm
  197. Patrick,

    Against him ? Not really, just very disappointed that someone I voted for a long time ago has changed from what I thought he was.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 14, 2008 @ 12:05 pm
  198. Not to mention that the poor judge of character and cronyism is a really big issue in the Presidency. It is one of the most damning facets of the Bush Presidency (Rumsfeld, Gonzales, the SC nominee before Roberts, for example). Many of the worst choices made by the Bush Administration can be directly linked to some very poor choices for Cabinet positions and very poor management of the Executive Branch. One of the worst choices was Karl Rove, actually. A great political operative, but he advised Bush against ever vetoing a spending bill, even the most egregious ones. Something we all shriek about all the time. I could go on and on, but I would hope the point is clear.

    Do you see anything to indicate that Paul would do well as the Executive, or are you so worried about electing a message that you are willing to destroy any chance to have the message administered effectively after the election?

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 12:10 pm
  199. Amy,

    Fine since you want to discuss issues. I’m against Ron Paul’s positions on the gold standard, immigration, trade, conspiracies, foreign policy, his “transitional” tax reform “plan”, and his support for pork barrel spending.

    I don’t know his plans for health care and social security so I won’t comment on them.

    Want to talk issues?

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
  200. This Amy would like to comment… the Amy that made the comment on January 13 at 11:03pm is not the same Amy that was debating with Adam on the Chavez thread. I went to bed! Too much beer, too much football, too much typing…

    I just wanted to clear the record, since I saw some references to Carter, collectivism, and the your with us or against us statement. I have been accused of being a hypocrite; you don’t think I would give you this much ammunition-do you?

    I hadn’t reviewed this thread too much, so I would have to get up to speed on the conversation. In the meantime I added a letter to my name.

    Comment by Amyz — January 14, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
  201. Amyz

    I wasn’t sure if it was you, or not, so I didn’t bring in anything else from our other conversation. The point I made about collectivism and the RP crowd is one I’ve made before any conversation with you, though. I promise, it isn’t about you.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
  202. Why would Ron Paul lie? Has he EVER lied about any position he has ever taken even in the face of all those who disagree and would ridicule him for it? NO. If he didn’t write it and doesn’t agree with it and denounces it, what does it matter who wrote it? It should be clear to anyone who knows Ron Paul that those are not his beliefs and he is the one running for office so his stance is the only one that matters. While I will agree that he should have had more awareness what was being written in something being put out under his name, which he has also said himself, I believe he has learned his lesson there and I realize he’s human and I know that even Ron Paul has made mistakes like everyone alive has. But I challenge anyone to put your life and beliefs and intentions under the microscope next to Ron Paul’s as I don’t believe there’s many people alive who’s record would be as clean and honest and good willed as Ron’s. It saddens me and sickens me that a so-called liberty/libertarian website has to join the smear Ron Paul campaign, Ron Paul has done more to spread the message of liberty and libertarianism in recent history than all other libertarians of recent history combined, you should be supporting him and thanking him.

    Comment by Alex — January 14, 2008 @ 2:29 pm
  203. Well Alex, he clearly is, or was, lying. See, each time he discussed this he explained it differently, so one of those things was not the truth. And if you honestly believe that he cannot remember who did what back then, you probably also believe that Bill and Hillary can’t remember anything about their involvement in the Whitewater development either.

    Come on, he has told, as a minimum, lies intended to protect someone from disclosure.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
  204. “Come on, he has told, as a minimum, lies intended to protect someone from disclosure.”

    Yet another troubling sign of his poor management skills. It’s one thing to protect an employee who made an honest mistake from public humiliation…it’s another to refuse to hold employees accountable for their poor performance and questionable ethics by continuing to employ them.

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 3:13 pm
  205. Kevin, it would be helpful to me if you could provide a blurb for each of your afore-mentioned grievances with Paul’s policies. One might state they are obvious, but I am interested in your opinion.

    Gold Standard:

    Immigration:

    Trade Policy:

    Conspiracies:

    Foreign Policy:

    “transitional” tax reform “plan”:

    Pork barrel spending:

    Comment by Amyz — January 14, 2008 @ 3:56 pm
  206. Amyz,

    Sure.

    Gold Standard

    A gold standard has all the problems of fiat currency (can be debased, subject to government control, can be counterfeited) with none of the advantages (can be adjusted to meet the economic needs). Also, there is not enough gold to meet the demand for money.

    Immigration

    Why should we turn anyone away who is in good health and wants to work?

    Trade Policy

    NAFTA, CAFTA, the WTO, etc. are not true “free trade” but they’re a hell of a lot better than the previous arrangement: tariffs.

    Conspiracies

    He believes in secret societies that are conspiring to rule the world, I don’t.

    Foreign Policy

    There is a role for the United States in international affairs; Ron Paul disagrees. Also, once the US withdraws from the world like Ron Paul suggests, which countries will fill the vacuum of power?

    “transitional” tax reform “plan”

    His “plan” is to add a bunch more tax credits and further complicate the tax code in lieu of actually reforming it. I support actually making the tax code simpler.

    Pork barrel spending

    He supports taking my tax money and spending on projects for special interests in his district, I disagree with it.

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 4:21 pm
  207. thanks it gives me something to work with. Please expound upon the pork barrel spending

    “Pork barrel spending

    He supports taking my tax money and spending on projects for special interests in his district, I disagree with it.”

    Comment by Amyz — January 14, 2008 @ 4:32 pm
  208. Amyz,

    Ron Paul proposes earmarks for special interests in his district such as shrimpers.

    Comment by Kevin — January 14, 2008 @ 4:46 pm
  209. I no longer do “collective thinking”. In fact, I think that’s what is wrong with our country. We’ve been pushed and prodded into not thinking for ourselves and instead we accept at face value what is presented to us. I know, because up until about 6 months ago I was one of those people. I’ve spent more time researching issues, studying, thinking, talking/debating… It’s amazing to watch/read “the news” and to see how I’m being pushed to think a certain way because now I’m more prepared and have made an effort to educate myself beyond what is given to me in snippet news. I’m going back into recent history and reevaluating what has happened. I’m coming away more and more concerned. I’ve got two kids and I am incredibly concerned for them.

    Adam, I actually agree with your point about Ron Paul’s leadership ability. I have been pondering Paul’s ability specifically as an administrator/supervisor given how his campaign has been run. He’s going to have to be more responsive more quickly and be especially alert if he’s going to lead a successful presidency. Grassroots is great, but only goes so far. But…unlike you I am willing to risk it and back him with my vote in the primary. Not because I am “so worried about electing a message that [I am] willing to destroy any chance to have the message administered effectively after the election”, but because I feel that he can rise to the occasion. I have experienced this in my own life, and seen others do the same. I am not afraid to have faith in this candidate, I’m not afraid to trust a message that is so different from what others are cramming down my throat. I like what this particular candidate is saying about issues important to me, and I’m willing to support getting him into a position where he might be able to actually do something. That’s my job–to vote for him. And if he fails me once he’s in office, it’s my job to vote him out. Yes, plenty of things could go wrong in a Ron Paul presidency. But plenty could go right.

    Comment by Amy — January 14, 2008 @ 8:25 pm
  210. To address the comparison to Carter, who many feel was ineffectual as a President: The difference between Paul and Carter was that Carter MICROMANAGED everything. I understand why you would use Carter as an example. All I can say is that I feel Paul has more transparency than many candidates and yes, we’ve seen evidence of the opposite as well. But…I think he would pull through if he were in the position.

    Adam, I think you are wasting a lot of talent, ability and common sense by taking a hands off approach. I hope you at least exercise your right to vote. Not showing up on poll day doesn’t count, as most politicians view it as laziness and not as a “protest”.

    In fact, I’d appreciate a better understanding of why people think that not voting is somehow a protest of government or somehow makes our country better. I find this attitude confusing and troublesome. So many have fought for the right to vote that it seems wrong to me to just ignore a responsibility. Please educate me!

    Comment by Amy — January 14, 2008 @ 8:31 pm
  211. One more comment. Although I sympathize with the Libertarians–very much, as I voted Badnarik rather than Bush or Kerry–I’d like to point out that this is 2008 and not 1988. The guy is not running as a Libertarian. This constant referral to how he’s not a true libertarian means nothing to me under the circumstances. But if there’s a reason I should be more concerned about this issue, please enlighten me.

    Comment by Amy — January 14, 2008 @ 8:41 pm
  212. Amy, it is not that he is not a “true libertarian”. Rather, I find many of his positions objectionable, if not in outright opposition to mine. Here’s a few examples, just so I’m not being totally generic.

    I don’t support the idea of the gold standard. Kevin gave some good reasons in another thread that match my own.

    I don’t agree with his position on borders and immigration, even in a country that has some social safety net and welfare programs. I feel fairly strongly that RP’s position on immigration is a populist one that panders to nativist, even outright racist, folks. In any case, I disagree with him.

    I do not agree with him on abortion, although I’m heartened to hear him agree that it should be a legislative and state issue.

    I do not agree with his isolationist foreign policy, or the idea that we should rapidly and unilaterally withdraw from Iraq. Despite my very serious misgivings about, and opposition to, the Bush/Clinton/Bush interventionism and adventurism, I think we have a tar baby now and we can’t let go that easily.

    I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory approach that he, mostly implicitly, appears to subscribe to.

    Those are some pretty significant differences between RP and I. Given that I think he will be a very poor president, the areas where he and I are in agreement are not enough to overcome those differences.

    As far as not voting goes, I am actually a rational anarchist and believe that I am solely and entirely responsible for my actions. If there is no candidate for President that I can, in good conscious, vote for then I will not be individually responsible for a choice to put the “least of the evils” in office. That is not a protest, nor a cop out, nor do I think it somehow makes our country better. What this choice does is allow me to choose to adhere to my own beliefs and not compromise them.

    On that tuesday in November, I will walk in a voting booth. I will vote for each person, or ballot measure that I can support in good conscious. If I cannot vote yes or no or for a support someone without compromising myself, then I will leave that section blank. It seems likely that I will not vote for anyone for President at this point.

    I do have a mild attraction to Fred Thompson, but I’m pretty sure that’s going to go away as soon as I look at his politics.

    By the way, I have never voted for a Libertarian. I doubt that will change.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 9:04 pm
  213. “I do have a mild attraction to Fred Thompson”

    Heh, heh…man-crush. It’s the deep voice isn’t it? :)

    Comment by UCrawford — January 14, 2008 @ 10:20 pm
  214. And he’s tall!

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 14, 2008 @ 10:58 pm
  215. Sadly for Thompson, Obama has all the ladies swooning!

    I like Thompson’s enthusiasm. He seems completely uninterested in seeking power.

    Comment by uhm — January 15, 2008 @ 12:01 am
  216. “I do have a mild attraction to Fred Thompson”

    Heh, heh…man-crush. It’s the deep voice isn’t it? :)

    Going on record here to remind y’all of my comments a few weeks ago when I said “don’t blink”.

    http://www.pinnaclecascade.com/ has some of the best round up on his positions on the web.

    Comment by Kay — January 15, 2008 @ 4:51 am
  217. Could be Kay.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 15, 2008 @ 3:53 pm
  218. Well, with the problems with a gold standard as there are, a fiat based monetary ssytem has never lasted more than 200 years, are we about to set a record? The fiat dollar will collapse, more likely sooner rather than later. What do you propose for a monetary system if not a precious metal based one?

    Comment by Bill — January 16, 2008 @ 10:27 am
  219. ATTN: Paul Supporters, BOYCOTT MAINSTREAM NEWS NOW! DO NOT WATCH NETWORK or CABLE NEWS! Don’t play their game! The BEST way to support Ron Paul, is a TOTAL boycott on Mainstream News Media until he wins. A fox boycott isn’t enough. There isn’t one mainstream media news source that we can turn to. We rule on the web, so make them fight on our turf. Besides, you aren’t going to miss much anyways. Get your news media from google and youtube only!

    Comment by Matt — January 17, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
  220. Bill, the insistence on precious metal backed currency indicates a lack of understanding of what currency represents and how fiat currencies collapse. And plenty of precious metal currencies have collapsed too, through currency debasing. The gold standard is not a panacea, nor will it bring about utopia.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 17, 2008 @ 8:37 pm
  221. Take a look at the debasing of the currency in the Roman Empire, for example…

    Although in the present world, it would simply occur due to the government by fiat resetting whatever peg it had with gold. So rather than slow devaluation of the currency, you’d have it all at once.

    Also–why gold?

    (Some wag once suggested we go on the pot standard–very easy to increase your currency base when needed and hell, you could always smoke it.)

    Comment by grumpy realist — January 19, 2008 @ 1:21 am
  222. laughs, I like that.

    Comment by Adam Selene — January 19, 2008 @ 9:11 am

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML