Get Them Haters Out Your Circle
David Weigel | November 14, 2007, 4:41pm
Justin Raimondo
credits me for predicting, way back in May, the
slanderlanche that would come if Ron Paul started making headway in his presidential race.
[He] as absolutely right when he predicted it months ago, although the trepidation in his tone was, I think, unwarranted.
Looks like. This week brings two anti-Paul arguments, both supernaturally unconvincing. First, Republican consultant
David Hill argues that Paul will lose his congressional re-election for his "increasingly leftish libertarian bent".
Paul’s critics have a bona fide challenger lined up: Chris Peden, a mainline social conservative who has distinguished himself opposing the tax hijinks of local elected officials. If Paul files to run for both Congress and the presidency by the Jan. 2 deadline, he’ll likely lose to Peden on March 4. That’ll be OK, though. Dr. Paul can just move to New Hampshire where the libertarian Free State Project might try and elect him their first governor, leveraging the boost in name ID and image that his presidential bid will have wrought. Good riddance.
Before you run and check: Hill is
not actually twelve years old.
National Review political reporter David Freddoso
debunks the column pretty easily, including the important fact that Peden has been
out-fundraised by Paul—just in House race funds, not counting the presidential race money—by about 80 to 1.
The other argument actually poses a danger to Paul. Over at Jewcy
Daniel Sieradski argues that Paul has a "Jewish problem" and at The American Thinker*
Andrew Walden rages against Paul's "neo-nazi support." I ignored Sieradski's column as various
liberals,
libertarian hawks,
paleocons, and
Andrew Sullivans took turns playing pinata with it; dismissal's the correct response to an article that claims a Murray Rothbard devotee refuses to speak to Jews. [UPDATE: Joe argues that the piece is more about perception and that Sieradski's being sympathetic. I can see his point, but Sieradski's closing line didn't come off that way.) Walden's piece is a livelier read, a crazy-quilt of bulletin board comments, angry assertions, and six-degrees-of-Kevin Baconisms (one guy who gave money to Paul once worked for a group that was affiliated with the guy who wrote the
Turner Diaries!) which treats Michael Medved as
the authority on Paul's integrity.
Paul does get money and vocal support from white supremacists. How should he respond to that? If he turns it down, he gets a one-day news story (at least) and probably spooks the voters who aren't constantly online and haven't heard of this.
Jonah Goldberg gets it right:Conservatives have a lot of experience with this, starting with Buckley. The left is perfectly happy to blur the lines between a mainstream conservative and a Klansmen. For this and other reasons, it's that much more important for conservatives to make those distinctions very clear. Of course, sometimes this can seem like hoop-jumping for a bunch of jerks who, in their monumental bad faith, don't care what the truth is and merely want to make all conservatives appear evil to the American public. Hence, it can be very annoying. And there are times when it is right to refuse to jump through their hoops. But there are other times when it is wrong not to make a clear statement, even if it's prompted by someone yelling "Dance!"
Ron Paul is getting real money, real attention and, increasingly real poll numbers. It's time he learned how to dance like a pro.
Sort of related, John McCain's web site has a new "game" where you answer leading questions about how terrific John McCain is. Here's what happens if you claim Ron Paul's a stronger candidate:
Horrible headline explained
here.*I welcome the existence of another site that gets
"for a magazine called..." disses.
Bill Woolsey | November 15, 2007, 9:31am | #
Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan both
advocated a return to the Gold Standard.
Obviously, Reagan didn't include moving to
gold as part of his program during his
Presidency. Similarly, Greenspan ran the
fiat system as best he could, and only from
time to time mentioned that a return to gold
would be an ideal reform.
In discussing Ron Paul's ideas recently, Steve Forbes insisted on returning to gold. He appeared to have in mind an immediate reform--using federal reserve policy to fix the price of gold.
Paul's platform does not include a return to gold, but rather reforms to reduce the burdens on those who wish to attempt to use gold (or other commodity monies) as a parallel currency to the current fiat money.
The key reform appears to be freeing gold and silver from capital gains tax.
The primary difference between Reagan and Paul, then, is that Paul talks about the evils of fiat currency more. He spends more time discussing the need for something like a gold standard. Reagan's handlers, apparently,
were able to convince him to keep his mouth shut about his true beliefs in this area.
There are a good many free market economists who favor a gold standard. Those who claim the idea is crazy, are just ignorant. Many
of the "arguments" about why it is purportedly crazy are based upon ignorance.
That isn't to say that there are no disadvantages to a gold standard that must be balanced against the disadvantages of a fiat currency.
Regadless, Ron Paul isn't running on implementing a gold standard during the next 4 years.
So, the claim, "Ron Paul is crazy because he favors a gold standrad," requires that one take the position that Ronald Reagan was crazy. While this might be a common view among liberal Democrats, it won't get much traction among Republican primary voters.
More generally, one must also claim that Alan
Greenspan is crazy. A difficult position to
maintain.
As for the notion that Ron Paul is crazy because he is proposing to institute a gold
standard now... Well, that is just false.
joe | November 15, 2007, 10:33am | #
Oh, so now Ron Paul is so insignificant that he shouldn't bother worrying about his public image? He's running a quantum campaign, too small for the rules of larger campaigns to apply? Comparing Paul to John Kerry's campaign flatters Paul by granting him greater status than his campaign warrants at this point - that much is true.
But if Paul actually does manage to break through and receive national attention, which it's starting to appear like he might, it won't be "a few left and right bloggers." It will be the complete weight of the Republican Noise Machine, the same one that put together the Swift Boat liars.
Did you see R C Dean's comment about Hillary Clinton up there? That's how these stories work in the Big Leagues - the candidate either actively accepts the money, or returns it, and both are treated as overt acts that tell us about the candidate's beliefs and principle. Is that fair? No probably not. If Ron Paul wants fair, he should drop out of the presidential race and play Monopoly with his family.
It's interesting that you want him to come out and publicly distance himself from racists, but claim that his direct and absolutely true rebuttal to the charge was ignored. It's only interesting to someone who doesn't have much of an understanding of politics beyond 1% vote getters and petitition signing. It's obvious, documented, tried and true, obvious, intro-level stuff to anyone who understands the slightest bit about how real political campaigns work. Talk is cheap. Money talks. By their acts you shall know them.
Why do you think a big ceremony wherein he declares he's not a Nazi will be any better? Holy flaming straw man! I said he should mail out a check and put out a press release. You know, like a real candidate with a clue about how electoral politics works does.
Rudolph Guiliani hired one of the big Swift Boat funders to help his campaign. But you're probably right, his opponents will probably just let this drop if he doesn't talk about it, because that's totally how stories about slimy political donors work. In Candyland.
Eric Dondero | November 15, 2007, 10:39am | #
Obviously, there are very few Republicans here at H&R. So, I can fully understand why so many of you could care less about the GOP retaining the CD 14 seat.
There are very hot rumors floating around that the Dems will be announcing a "celebrity candidate" for Ron Paul's seat in the coming weeks.
They are smelling blood. They know Ron Paul is vulnerable, and that countless GOPers are disenchanted with him in his own backyard.
Do you all know that RP's longtime friend and ally, Brazoria County GOP Chair Yvonne Dewey, is literally going door to door in RP's hometown of Lake Jackson collecting signatures to put Chris Peden on the ballot? When even Yvonne goes against Ron Paul you know the situation is very serious.
Anyway, Peden has a much better shot at retaining the seat for the GOP than Ron Paul.
The District is heavily minority - by some estimates 40%. In the southern areas, there are towns that are fully 70% Hispanic. They thoroughly distrust Ron Paul and would never vote for him.
If the Dems recruit an attractive Hispanic who is moderately conservative to run for the seat, Paul will be extremely vulnerable.
Keep in mind, Ron Paul is the only Republican still holding a Congressional seat in South Texas. Every other Congressmen from El Paso to San Antonio to Galveston is a Hispanic Democrat. (Republican Henry Bonilla lost his seat last election.)
Peden is a strong candidate. He's a good fit for the District, mostly cause he's got a "Surburban Houston Moderate to Conservative" Persona.
He can keep the GOPers. He can also win over some Conservative Dems in suburban Houston.
Peden is a much better choice for the GOP.
iih | November 15, 2007, 3:12pm | #
Tunisians who have just outlawed the burqa and are standing up to Islamic extremists in their land
Hold it right there pal! They outlawed all types head scarves, not just burqas. When has a simple head scarf been considered extremist? What is happening in Tunisia is outright oppression of freedom of religion.
FWIW, on 9/11 I was with a former F-117 air force pilot (Gulf I and Balkan vet). We pretty much disagreed on everything political. But on that day, the two of us happened to be together. The two of us discovered how we cared very much about each other -- especially that I was a foreigner, from an Arab country and Muslim. I was outraged at the terrorists, but worried like hell from the repercussions. It so happened that the only working phone was my office phone that my friend could use to contact his wife, who on that day was on an American Airlines flight (she is a flight attendant there).
So, Eric, 9/11 is a whole lot more about feeling rage. If the only thing you felt on that day is rage, I am certainly glad that I was not near you on that day. What was needed is measured response. We neither got the appropriate response (see Michael Scheuer's
Imperial Hubris regarding Afghanistan), nor was it appropriate (Iraq).
It is time to stop, take a breath, and put America back on its non-interventionist policies of much of the 19th century. Anything else would only make things worse. Your positions, sir, would certainly only make things worse.
Go Ron Paul! The only true patriotic candidate! (And don't you dare, sir, challenge anyone's patriotism, neither Ron Paul's nor rho, nor my love of what this country truly stood and should stand for)!
Eric Dondero | November 15, 2007, 8:53pm | #
Rattle Snake Jake, I have 100% solid evidence. I was there. In fact, I remember it just like it was yesterday.
I was in Houston at the Houston COC breakfast when the planes hit. I got back to our Freeport Office, and our Chief of Staff Tom Lizardo called me to tell me to "empty the offices, and tell everyone to go home."
I asked Tom how Ron was, and he said that he had just passed the Pentagon when the planes had hit, but he added, that Ron told the DC staff that he thought that this would all lead to bigger government programs now.
I said to Tom, You cannot be serious? That was the first thing he said to the staff when he got into the office. And Tom responded in his typical Lizardo tone, "Yup."
I relayed this to our District Director Jackie Gloor in Victoria. She was absolutely aghast!
She told me right there, that she considered resigning on the spot over Rons callousness.
I said, "me too."
We hung in there.
Ron flew home the next day, (may have been a couple days after 9/11).
I confronted him about his comment, and he got pissed off at me. Threw one of his typical Ron Paul tantrums.
I kept my mouth shut on it for weeks after that.
Than the Afghanistan War was commencing.
Ron told the staff that he was not sure how he'd vote. And asshole Joe Becker, our LD at the time, was urging him to vote no.
Jackie and I were completely baffled, and distraught. I told Ron one day to his face, that if he didn't vote for the War in Afghanistan I would resign. He sighed, but didn't say anything.
But Jackie told him the same thing in much stronger terms. He took Jackie's threat very seriously, for she was the key to all the Religous Conservative voters in Victoria.
Even Ron's family members were expressing concern over his non-commital of a "yes" vote on Afghanistan.
I remember talking to Carol around that time about it, and her saying something to the effect of, "I wish that Joe Becker would just shut up."
Well, the day came for the vote. Jackie and I were on pins and needles, almost preparing our resignation letters.
But Lizardo soon informed us that Ron voted "yes." But he added that he thought Ron would be introducing some legislation to modify his vote, and that we needed to be prepared to sell it in the District.
Hope that helps you shed light on what happened.
You may confirm all this with Lizardo if you wish. Or, Norm Singleton. I have no doubt either one of them will back up my story. Though, you'd be putting them in a very uncomfortable position since they still work for Ron.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
