Ron Paul's Chief of Staff, on Lew Rockwell

I just had a conversation with Tom Lizardo, Ron Paul's longtime congressional chief of staff, who wanted to say this on the record:

Last week, a statement was prepared by Ron Paul's press secretary Jesse Benton, and approved by Ron Paul, acknowledging Lew Rockwell as having a role in the newsletters. The statement was squashed by campaign chairman Kent Snyder.

I've called the Paul campaign to see what, exactly, the statement said.

UPDATE, 7:53: Jesse Benton responds:

I respect Tom Lizardo, but he does not work for the campaign and has no authority to comment on campaign business.

Yesterday Julian Sanchez and I published our own findings on Rockwell.

Comments

matt | January 17, 2008, 7:47pm | #

Well, that's curious.

John Bigboote | January 17, 2008, 7:47pm | #

Did you say . . . Lizardo?

Gossip Girl | January 17, 2008, 7:51pm | #

I need the information! This is going to be one hell of a witch hut, boys! YEEEEHAAAW! Round up the posse, we got an anarchist to hog tie!

lolroffles | January 17, 2008, 7:51pm | #

Thomas DiLizardo is a well known neo-Confederate.

Utter | January 17, 2008, 7:51pm | #

This tidbit was so urgent that you couldn't just wait until they called back?

joe | January 17, 2008, 7:52pm | #

Didja ask Tom Lizardo why Dondero got canned?

Gossip Girl | January 17, 2008, 7:53pm | #

Detailssssss! +joe

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 7:56pm | #

I'm not gay!

Kolohe | January 17, 2008, 7:56pm | #

Hey Joe Allen:

HERE IS YOUR M*****F****** THREAD!

William R | January 17, 2008, 7:59pm | #

The Lavender mafia along with the Israel firsters are trying to destroy Ron Paul. I suppose if Ron Paul talked about gay marriage, walked in a gay pride parade, or said Israel is our most important ally this might not be happening.

I'll break it down in simple terms.

I've been on the gun show circuit for over 20yrs. At gun shows you meet all sorts of people. Hunters, self defense people, gun collectors(sellers) Birchers, 2nd amendment enthusiast and ROCK SOLID libertarians. This Saturday and Sunday I will be at a show. There will be a few Fred Thompson sticker, a few more for the Huckster, but the vast majority of stickers sold will be Ron Paul 2008. And yes, at these gun shows lots of stickers like "We Don't Care How YOu Did it Up North, You're in Dixie Now" With a Confederate flag will be sold. Most of the dealers are white as are most of the people that attend. You won't talk to anyone concerned about gay marriage. But you can have endless conversations about Hilly, Obama, immigration, gun grabbers, taxes, property righs etc etc. Lifestyle libertarianism isn't on the agenda.

Back in the 60s Murray Rothbard tried to make alliances with antiwar folks on the left. Students for a Democratic Society, SDS. But they were commies for the most part. Karl Hess actually joined the SDS

Anyway I suspect Rothbard in the late 80s wanted to try and put together a new coaltion of anti government folks. Sorta like the gun show crowd. White, lower middle-middle class, folks who see state enforced affirmative action as a threat. The people at gun shows are very patriotic, but they see the government as a threat to their way of life. Now this strategy might not appeal to Tom Palmer David Boaz or Virginia Postrel, but I for one would rather hang with the gun show crowd than a bunch of Beltway libertine libertarians, or cosmopolitans. The folks that actually think Gay marriage is the second civil rights movement.

Elemenope | January 17, 2008, 7:59pm | #

Tempest in a teacup...

Dan | January 17, 2008, 8:00pm | #

could we please have more posts on these newsletters? Thanks. I appreciate it.

J sub D | January 17, 2008, 8:01pm | #

Kolohe, I'm ready for him.

Page
Down

Page
Down

Page
Down

Page
Down

Page
Down

Page
Down

Commence reading again.

Erich Dondero Britteberg | January 17, 2008, 8:03pm | #

See, see you pussy-boys! I told you that Rockwell was behind everything! I was right all along, I've been talking about that racist ever since the newsletter story broke and nobody listened to my post ex facto cautions! You fucks all owe me an apology. I won't hold it against you if you convert back to "angel" libertarianism like me. Okay now it's time to support the only true libertarian in the race, liberal authoritarian lawyer and hero-Mayor "Fighting" Rudy Giuliani!

Geoff | January 17, 2008, 8:06pm | #

I suppose if Ron Paul talked about gay marriage, walked in a gay pride parade, or said Israel is our most important ally this might not be happening.

Just so happens he's been questioned on just that very question more than a few times. You might want to look it up; I'm pretty damned sure it came up in Stossel's ABC interview with him.

Geoff | January 17, 2008, 8:08pm | #

Or, rather, he's been questioned on that very topic more than a few times...

For what it's worth, I thought he gave more than appropriate answers.

Matt Welch | January 17, 2008, 8:08pm | #

The Lavender mafia along with the Israel firsters are trying to destroy Ron Paul.

Which group does Paul's chief of staff belong to?

Elemenope | January 17, 2008, 8:10pm | #

Dan wins...whatever. It's not even a thread anymore.
---
A guy just had a conversation with a guy, who wanted to say this on the record:

Last week, a statement was prepared by a guy, and approved by his boss, acknowledging a guy as having a role in the thing. The statement was squashed by some other guy.

A guy called the boss to see what, exactly, the statement said.

UPDATE: A guy responds:

I respect that guy, but he does not work for the thing and has no authority to comment on the thing's business.
-----
That's what I got out of this edifying blog post. Keep it up!

Limp Wristed Cocktail Swiller | January 17, 2008, 8:10pm | #

Yay! More dirt! Too delicious!

Nutter | January 17, 2008, 8:11pm | #

Did you say . . . Lizardo?

I hope David Ickes looks into this.

Geotpf | January 17, 2008, 8:11pm | #

William R | January 17, 2008, 7:59pm | #

That's nice.

However, none of that matters.

Look at this:

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

Note that it has Ron Paul's signature on it, and is told in the first person as if he wrote it (and talks about his training as a doctor, again, in the first person).

Now, skip to page six, third paragraph from the bottom.

There's no way anybody who wrote (or authorized others to write in his name in a public document) that paragraph can ever be considered a legitimate, viable candidate for president. Period. End of story. I can't believe there's even any discussion on this point.

Of course, in reality, it didn't matter, because Paul was never going to be the nominee, let alone win the election. But if he really was leading in the primaries, that one paragraph (and the entire document, and the various newsletters) would have been enough to sink him.

matt | January 17, 2008, 8:12pm | #

I just love that you're bringing this out the day that the accused party goes in for surgery.

Stay Classy, Reason!

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 8:12pm | #

Thats what she said!

Happy Jack | January 17, 2008, 8:12pm | #

The Lavender mafia along with the Israel firsters

Is this in relation to the infamous Purple Gang? I know they were predominately Jewish, but the Licavoli brothers were also members.

Pabst-itarian | January 17, 2008, 8:16pm | #

You know who's behind these smears that Ron Paul associates with racists?

Jews and homosexuals, that's who! And I have it good authority that many of the Jews are, in fact, homosexuals, and that many of the homosexuals are secretly Jews.

Down in Dixie, where there are white people who are neither Jews nor homosexuals, we love Ron Paul! And let me tell you something else, city boy: we've got guns. Lots of guns.

So, to sum up, we white people of South, with our guns, will defend Ron Paul from the spurious accusations of the Jews and homosexuals that he is a racist. Unlike you suspiciously cosmopolitan, urban lifestyle libertarians.

Did I mention that I'm white?

Whitely Yours,

Whitey McNotgay, Christian

Matt Welch | January 17, 2008, 8:17pm | #

I just love that you're bringing this out the day that the accused party goes in for surgery.

If you are referring to Lew Rockwell, he was given two different opportunities to comment on the Weigel/Sanchez story (also, our phone number is listed). Our publishing schedule is not determined by other people's (or our own) medical problems.

William R | January 17, 2008, 8:18pm | #

Missed the Stossel interview

Protecting Marriage From Judicial Tyranny

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 8:20pm | #

hahaha William R is hilarious

Condoleeza Rice | January 17, 2008, 8:22pm | #

Look at this:

joe | January 17, 2008, 8:23pm | #

It occurs to me that if 1% of the effort being expended to stop people from talking about the newsletters was spent on stopping those newsletters from going out under Ron Paul's name in the first place, none of this would have happened.

joe | January 17, 2008, 8:23pm | #

Very Zen, Madame Secretary.

Condoleeza Rice | January 17, 2008, 8:26pm | #

matt | January 17, 2008, 8:26pm | #

If you are referring to Lew Rockwell, he was given two different opportunities to comment on the Weigel/Sanchez story (also, our phone number is listed). Our publishing schedule is not determined by other people's (or our own) medical problems.

Your hard-charging journalistic instincts are remarkable. Keep fighting the good fight.

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 8:26pm | #

Yes but can you do it with an open bold tag?

joe | January 17, 2008, 8:27pm | #

You're teasing us, you minx!

William R | January 17, 2008, 8:28pm | #

Flashman, Ron Paul, James Kirchick—And Liberty

Marty Peretz vs. Ron Paul. Kids (And “Mentor”) vs. Grown-Ups

the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS | January 17, 2008, 8:29pm | #

My God! On page six, paragraph 3 "Ron Paul" calls Senator John Kerry a leftist!

Now we know who was behind the swiftboat attack lies

Master Shitfit | January 17, 2008, 8:32pm | #

What is the sound of me not caring?

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 8:33pm | #

Irrefutable proof Lew Rockwell ordered a Grande Meal at Taco Bell

Bilo | January 17, 2008, 8:33pm | #

Quality reporting as usual.

Reason: Free Minds, Free Markets...and we'll keep talking about the Ron Paul newsletters cuz it gets a lot of hits!!!

the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS | January 17, 2008, 8:34pm | #

What is the the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS ?

Duckman | January 17, 2008, 8:35pm | #

Very interesting to see support from Derbyshire. He's been tilting towards Ron Paul for a while now.

If Ron Paul approved it, it should have been published. I think it could have solved the current situation.

Matt Welch | January 17, 2008, 8:42pm | #

Best quote from the Derbyshire piece William R linked to:

They might, though, justify those of us who believe that, in getting rid of old benighted laws and practices practices, we threw out the baby with the bathwater; and that, as George MacDonald Fraser correctly said, the name of the baby was Liberty.

Follow the link and you'll get an anti-Martin Luther King screed. Thus, according to La Derb, by celebrating Martin Luther King, we have sacrificed our liberty. What a bizarre fucking notion.

Further in the linked piece:

Violence certainly accompanied the civil rights revolution, which included an invasion of the South by civil rights activists and the federal military. But the isolated violence inflicted on activists pales in comparison to the black savagery, directed against whites and other blacks, which has characterized American urban life since the late sixties.

I dunno, that hasn't characterized my urban life these past 10 years....

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 8:45pm | #

Well, one thing's for certain. Matt Welch is turning out to be a much more confrontational editor-in-chief than Gillespie ever was! It's a good thing, in a way, but I suspect he's going to die of exhaustion in the next few months if this keeps up...

Duckman | January 17, 2008, 8:45pm | #

The tentacles of racism are still deep.

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 8:49pm | #

I read that fundraising letter. Did anyone else catch where Ron Paul essentially called William Bennett a "Hitlerite"? Bill Bennett may be a Conservative. He may be a Drug Warrior. But Hitlerite?

Pabst-itarian | January 17, 2008, 8:50pm | #

Our publishing schedule is not determined by other people's (or our own) medical problems.

Aha! I knew it! You can try to cover it up...

I dunno, that hasn't characterized my urban life these past 10 years....

WE know what characterizes urban life, Mr. Cosmopolitan! That's why we've got guns!

joe | January 17, 2008, 8:51pm | #

I couldn't get the link to work. What's it say?

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 8:52pm | #

Joe, are you asking me about what that fundraising letter said?

Gene Trosper | January 17, 2008, 8:53pm | #

Is Reason becoming the PerezHilton.Com of libertarianism?

joe | January 17, 2008, 8:54pm | #

Nevermind, there it goes.

Man, the Lavender Mafia, the Israel Firsters, and the Skull and Bones! I'd be happy to take one of your flyers, but only because I can smell the ink from your 1962-vintage mimeograph machine.

Mr. Octopus | January 17, 2008, 8:55pm | #

Did someone say tentacles?

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 8:55pm | #

Guys, anyone who knows Tom Lizardo, knows how difficult it is to rattle his cage. I think I've seen Tom really pissed off a grand total of two times in the 25 years I've known him. He doesn't get angry very easily. He's quite stoic, reserved, and sometimes even bland.

For him to make that quote indicates that there's serious disgreement, and maybe even chaos in the Ron Paul camp.

This story doesn't let up. It keeps building and building.

Captain PC | January 17, 2008, 8:55pm | #

Burn the witch!

Reason is starting to appear more PC than campus faculty.

T | January 17, 2008, 8:57pm | #

I'm confused. Does referencing someone else calling a third party a "Hitlerite" invoke Godwin or not?

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 8:59pm | #

What's up with this Benton guy? FYI, he's a Newbie to the Ron Paul camp. Certainly wasn't around during my stint with Paul - 1987-2004. Never even heard of the guy before this year.

Anyway, from Weigel's post, first Benton sides with blaming Rockwell. But the latest, he's changed his mind and blasts Lizardo?

Anyone have any theories on this?

chombo | January 17, 2008, 9:01pm | #

T | January 17, 2008, 8:57pm | #

I don't think you can declare Godwin's Law retroactively on an earlier argument.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 9:04pm | #

I agree with D O N D E R O about the insight this gives into the official Paul campaign structure, who've been unimpressive pretty much from the start IMHO. Luckily, the strength of his campaign has never been in that official campaign hierarchy itself, but in the independent grassroots efforts. Unfortunately, it also looks like we've given $30M to be allocated by what appears to be a highly dysfunctional organization.

Lisa Frequency | January 17, 2008, 9:04pm | #

I don't know racism is for fearful people. I think Ron Paul seems like a very courageous man speaking his mind like he does in public and in the media.

If he is not afraid to say the things he says plus stands behind his ideas I can't see the racism in any of his actions or speeches.

Julian Sanchez | January 17, 2008, 9:06pm | #

Eric-
Presumably, one can be on one side of an internal campaign debate, but not necessarily want the details of that internal conflict discussed in the press by staffers unauthorized to make public statements about such matters. I don't think it suggests that he's "changed his mind".

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 9:08pm | #

My local meetup group has been quietly directing people to donate to a pro-Paul PAC in Albany, for instance, rather than the official campaign, due to the idiotic commercials and other foolish things they've produced.

chombo | January 17, 2008, 9:11pm | #

By the way, I think this pretty much solidifies the dislike that many of the grassroots have had of Kent Snyder and the campaign organization since the horrible commercial campaign began.

adrian | January 17, 2008, 9:12pm | #

ron paul has placed higher in the primaries since newslettergate broke.

I think America is racist!

Keep this going reason, super tuesday will be ours!

jokers

grumpy realist | January 17, 2008, 9:12pm | #

Sheesh, if a bunch of self-proclaimed Paulites can't even get their act together for a political campaign, (and Ron Paul himself seems to be singularly hands-off in doing anything to get this show on the road in one piece) how in the heck do we expect them to run a country?

And if you think that the collapse of governmental power will result in a libertarian utopia, I suggest you take a look at what happened to Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Guess who took over from the state? The Russian mafia.

chombo | January 17, 2008, 9:14pm | #

grumpy realist, the Russian mafia already WAS the state.

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 9:17pm | #

When Stormfront and VDARE jump on a train I'm riding, I get the fuck off.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 9:17pm | #

I don't know Jesse Benton of course, but he definitely mishandled the situation when Kirchick called him about the newsletters prior to publishing his article. Again, I'm not impressed by him.

And you can bet Lizardo knew the official campaign wouldn't want him going on record about this (which is probably why he said it). It's good to see that at least one of Dr Paul's associates has his best interest at heart.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 9:20pm | #

Cesar,

You allow those groups to decide which train you ride in?

who knew | January 17, 2008, 9:21pm | #

Why the witch hunt about racism? And yet reason is a-ok promoting neocon anti-religion bigots such as Christopher Hitchens?

As you so rightly point out, most blacks aren't stereotypical losers. And many religious people are not theocon fascists. Why is one form of bigotism worse than another?

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 9:21pm | #

You allow those groups to decide which train you ride in?

Yes, because their presence generally indicates something rotten. Sorry, but its the truth.

Julian Sanchez | January 17, 2008, 9:24pm | #

Yes, this is exactly like a witch hunt. If witches were real. And if we replaced "burning at the stake" with "writing articles."

DerEwigeJude | January 17, 2008, 9:25pm | #

Cesar: but you wouldn't get off a train containing socialists or other fascists bigots?

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 9:26pm | #

Ron Paul weighs more than a duck!

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 9:28pm | #

Here's a good summary of the problems the grassroots are having with the official campaign.

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 9:28pm | #

Cesar: but you wouldn't get off a train containing socialists or other fascists bigots?

If you're referring to Christopher Hitchens, no, I wouldn't be on the same train as he. In fact the only thing I have in common with him is that I'm an atheist. But unlike him, I don't hate religious people or even religion. Religion just doesn't appeal to me.

Happy Jack | January 17, 2008, 9:28pm | #

due to the idiotic commercials

They may not make sense from a libertarian view, but they fit in nicely with a populism message.

joe | January 17, 2008, 9:28pm | #

You know, it's kind of funny to watch certain people on the receiving end of the same guff they used to hand out about Paul not getting rid of the Don Black donation.

Geotpf | January 17, 2008, 9:29pm | #

Ugh. I guess I have to type out the paragraph in question.

"I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica. And the Soviet-style "smartcard" the Justice Department has in mind for you."

I mean, we have racism, homophobia, and at least four different conspiracies-in one single paragraph. That has to be a record of some kind. There's eight pages of this crap in that letter, not to mention all the stuff in the actual newsletters themselves. This document has a letterhead that reads "Congressman Ron Paul" and has his signature on it. Plus, the "my training as a physician" bit in the quoted paragraph also reinforces the idea that Paul PERSONALLY wrote the letter, or at least allowed somebody to do so with the intent of everybody thinking he did.

This is slightly different than the newsletters themselves, where inferring that some of the articles were written by ghostwriters is not unreasonable (although the sheer volume of offensive material makes it highly unlikely that Paul didn't know about and approve of their publication). This letter intentionally is designed for the appearance that Paul wrote that nonsense I quoted.

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/solicitation.pdf

In any case, I repeat my statement. Nobody who has that text attached to their signature (whether or not he wrote it or merely authorized it) can ever become President or even be considered a serious candidate by the public at large. Not going to happen.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 9:30pm | #

Cesar,

Whatever you say, but if that's the case I'm not sure whose train you're going to be riding on. I suppose you can just avoid everyone's train, but that seems kind of a defeatist stance, doesn't it.

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 9:30pm | #

crimethink:

oh no, not #2!

2. The word is spreading that Arlington staff has been told to have no communication with certain of us with "conspiracy views." That condescending attitude towards a HUGE part of your support base (and I am not limiting this to 911 stuff) is AWFUL, and is only going to hurt the campaign in the long haul. We have had enough with pandering to the "conspiracy-nuts-in-the-grassroots- don't-deserve-our-attention" attitude.

lol

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 9:33pm | #

Whatever you say, but if that's the case I'm not sure whose train you're going to be riding on. I suppose you can just avoid everyone's train, but that seems kind of a defeatist stance, doesn't it.

I won't be on the same train as racists, conspiracy theorists, war supporters, or socialists/communists. Anyone else I don't mind being with for a common cause. But when anyone of the above category are present, it indicates something has gone wrong.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 9:33pm | #

Happy Jack,

True, but whether populist or libertarian, they obviously didn't make sense from a "getting votes" point of view, which is supposed to be the guiding light of a political campaign. Then again, I'm not a professional campaign staffer in all this, so I might be wrong.

chombo | January 17, 2008, 9:36pm | #

How can the conspiracy theorists not realize that their presence at any rally is political Kryptonite?

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 9:38pm | #

Bingo,

As one would expect, many of the meetup group members have some whacky theories. But those same people, in my experience, know when to shut up about those things and talk about Ron Paul. If the official campaign is trying to push those people away -- not merely tell them to make sure they push RP instead of their pet theories -- they're really hurting the campaign.

dodsworth | January 17, 2008, 9:39pm | #

Geotpf:

Oh Really? McCain called Vietnamese gooks and his still seriously considered for the presidency while Hillary used the N word in front of state troopers and skated.

Ammonium | January 17, 2008, 9:40pm | #

Are all of the random people showing up here and posting about a "witch hut" really just Lew Rockwell fans? Seems to me that the press release would have helped Ron Paul but hurt Lew Rockwell... except Lew Rockwell probably doesn't have a lot of supporters who would be too upset about the content of the newsletters.

RightWing Anarchist | January 17, 2008, 9:40pm | #

how in the heck do we expect them to run a country?

not a bug but a feature

chombo | January 17, 2008, 9:40pm | #

"I won't be on the same train as racists, conspiracy theorists, war supporters, or socialists/communists. Anyone else I don't mind being with for a common cause. But when anyone of the above category are present, it indicates something has gone wrong."

Cesar, that's 90% of America. You're going to need people the above categories in order to have a meaningful national campaign. If a libertarian candidate is able to persuade those people to vote for him even if they disagree with him, something is going very, very right.

Kolohe | January 17, 2008, 9:41pm | #

Cesar-
You're going to be doing a lot a walking.

Just sayin'

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 9:41pm | #

chumbo,

If they don't talk about their conspiracy theories or bring 9/11 Truth signs with them, I don't see why they'd be a problem. The vast majority of them know better than to do these things.

Nazi Spambot | January 17, 2008, 9:42pm | #

McCain called Vietnamese gooks
Austin NAACP supports Ron Paul

chombo | January 17, 2008, 9:47pm | #

crimethink,

Maybe I should have said "visible presence". The problem is that if even one conspiracy theorist can't keep their mouth shut, they turn off a lot of potential voters.

Time Traveller | January 17, 2008, 9:47pm | #

I won't be on the same train as racists, conspiracy theorists, war supporters, or socialists/communists.
If you find yourself in 1940s Germany avoid being on the same train as Jews,the retarded, trade unionists,Jehovah's Witnesses,homos wearing yellow stars etc

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 9:49pm | #

You all think it was any different in the 1988 Ron Paul for President Campaign? Hell no! It was sheer and utter chaos, particularly the last two months.

Kent Snyder was heavily involved with that effort, as well, along with his sidekick David Mertz alias David James.

That Campaign ended in a huge financial scandal. The Campaign Manager (and Ron Paul's Newsletter Managing Editor) Nadia Hayes ended up going to jail for 6 months and had to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars or restitution, for embezzlement.

They blamed it all on Nadia. But I and others strongly suspected a very general loosey goosey approach to accounting and campaign finance was more the culprit.

$3.5 million was raised in that effort. Like today, everyone back then was expecting nationwide television commercials, radio buys, and big media. The only thing that ever emerged was a late full page NY Times ad, that was truly awful.

INot trying to sound cliche' but I'm starting to feel deja vu all over again:

Tons of money raised but the Money not being spent as was promised, No national television ad buys, general chaotic atmosphere at the very highest levels of the campaign, infighting, factions within the campaign blaming each other...

Happy Jack | January 17, 2008, 9:51pm | #

crimethink - if you go after strictly libertarian votes, I suspect you would have to place a decimal before the number. Perot/Buchanan voters would boost those numbers significantly.
The only problem with this strategy is that The Huckster is waging a populist campaign at the same time. He could be sucking up a lot of those votes. If you look at the exit polls, McCain got the anti-war vote, while Paul received "economic concern" voters. I'd say Paul's campaign knew who they were directing their message at.

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 9:52pm | #

thanks for breaking the wheel on my mouse joe allen

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 9:53pm | #

Hey Joe Allen:

HERE IS YOUR M*****F****** THREAD!

Amen. Brotha.

Kolohe | January 17, 2008, 9:54pm | #

homos wearing yellow stars

Seriously I thought it was pink triangles, and that is why some current movement symbols are kinda ironic

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 9:56pm | #

Proof That RP Is A Racist

That's right, I posted this link before. But today, it's New To Reason!

joe | January 17, 2008, 9:56pm | #

It's pretty clear that, for people who deny there is anything amiss in those newsletters, it would indeed be the best thing to banish the word racism.

M | January 17, 2008, 9:56pm | #

RightWing anarchist beat me to it at 9:40pm

how in the heck do we expect them to run a country?

We don't. That's the platform.

Roger | January 17, 2008, 9:59pm | #

Anyone else I don't mind being with for a common cause. But when anyone of the above category are present, it indicates something has gone wrong.

Suit yourself and pull pud. I'll be in the next state over taking advantage of this political climate to talk to voters in front of the caucuses, specifically opposition to the "inflation tax", and many other platform points I find Ron Paul to be libertarian on. There will always "undesirables" in any practical political movement. Like many others, I believe that Ron Paul could have benefitted greatly from excommunicating some of them. For me this primary isn't so much about trying to pimp Ron Paul into taking the nomination; that has been an unrealistic goal to me from the get-go based on the contemporary perception of many libertarian ideas becoming radical in the eye of the public. The percentages Ron Paul has garnered so far have exceeded my wildest dreams. For me it's about having this opportunity to talk to folks in an appropriate political context, outside of polling places.

Pink Triangle | January 17, 2008, 10:00pm | #

Ron Paul supports State drug prohibition

el profesor erótico | January 17, 2008, 10:02pm | #

You don't really expect me to read all that, do you?

el profesor erótico | January 17, 2008, 10:03pm | #

You might want to avoid going to Fort Troff, unless you need a "dick plug", that is.

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 10:04pm | #

Video compiled by Texas NAACP in support of Ron Paul

Matt Welch | January 17, 2008, 10:05pm | #

McCain called Vietnamese gooks and his still seriously considered for the presidency

There is a difference between very very sporadically using derogatory language to describe the people who imprisoned and tortured you for five and a half years, and making your money for years on newsletters consciously aimed at anti-black "outreach to rednecks." Can you see what that difference might be?

Roger | January 17, 2008, 10:05pm | #

Joe Allen: I am sympethetic toward the "paleos", but also enjoy reading what this "beltway cosmo mouthpiece" has to say and its readers have to contribute. Cut the shit, you fucking maniac, please. I beg of you, go fuck a vagina or a mouth or whatever pleases you, there must be something to do where your time is better served. I would be shocked if you have ever been out on the streets helping the campaign, you just sit here at your computer pulling your dick and circlejerking on some insular message board.

Geotpf | January 17, 2008, 10:07pm | #

"dodsworth | January 17, 2008, 9:39pm | #
Geotpf:

Oh Really? McCain called Vietnamese gooks and his still seriously considered for the presidency while Hillary used the N word in front of state troopers and skated."

Got a link to audio, video, or a printout of a document signed by them with that text? In any case, there's a difference between a single passing comment and an intentional publication of tons of crazy shit over a period of decades.

Just saying "nigger" or "gook" once is a lot different that trying to sell people newsletters by ranting about things like the "federal-homosexual cover-up of AIDS" (what does that even mean?), and then ranting about such random insanity inside the newsletters themselves.

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 10:11pm | #

Godwin's Law invoked, drink!

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 10:11pm | #

Geotpf -

You had me worried for a minute there. The newsletters are much, much worse than the solicitation. That paragraph from the solicitation letter is merely hysterical, and the newsletter content was much more offensive.

And if hysteria disqualifies you from being a credible candidate, all I can say is: Have you heard the Edwards stump speech lately? It is absolutely as hysterical as that solicitation letter paragraph. But "progressive" hysteria, for whatever reason, is respectable and redneck hysteria isn't.

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:11pm | #

I'm pretty sure Matt Welch won't be losing any sleep over the fact that a guy who defends the content of the newsletters on the grounds that racial segregation is good and natural called him a Nazi.

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:12pm | #

Godwin's Law invoked, drink!

He also alluded to not buying the magazine anymore.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 10:13pm | #

Joe Allen's 9:49 post had 4,060 words in it. That's not counting the gigantic post immediately after it. I'm not for censorship, but a word count limit would definitely be in order, I think.

chombo | January 17, 2008, 10:13pm | #

First they came for the racists...

Argo | January 17, 2008, 10:13pm | #

Joe Allen

Not even worth the trouble coming up with an insulting title

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 10:13pm | #

When Stormfront and VDARE jump on a train I'm riding, I get the fuck off.

LOL.

I feel like that when people start talking about how Californicate's guber Schwarzzengroper is a libertarian.

coke-snorting limpwrister | January 17, 2008, 10:13pm | #

"federal-homosexual cover-up of AIDS" (what does that even mean?),

We don't know either but it is PROOF!PROOF ! that Ron Paul is a HOMOPHOBE

charlie | January 17, 2008, 10:13pm | #

Yes, Matt Welch, it's okay to use term "gooks" to describe Asians so long as a small subset of that rather large group -- Asians -- tortured you (after your plane crashed trying to drop bombs on them and their lightbulb factories, also known as a "war crime").

Meanwhile, Ron Paul, who no one has ever accused of saying a single racist thing in more than 30 years in the public spotlight (well, as much of a spotlight as an obscure libertarian from Texas can get), but if a newsletter publishes things in his name derogatory toward blacks -- things no one accuses him of actually having written or approved of -- that, my friends, is beyond the fucking pale and disqualifies him for the presidency.

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:16pm | #

Actually, charlie (heh), he used the term to describe precisely that "small subset of that rather large group." Which is still not very nice.

Nazi Spambot | January 17, 2008, 10:16pm | #

McCain says gook Austin NAACP supports Paul

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 10:16pm | #

Just saying "nigger" or "gook" once is a lot different that trying to sell people newsletters by ranting about things like the "federal-homosexual cover-up of AIDS" (what does that even mean?)

Since I don't know what that means, let's consider one of the other hysterical aspects of the paragraph in question: the Bohemian Grove stuff.

It's a bit ridiculous, but are you seriously saying it's worse than calling someone a nigger?

Let's try an experiment. Walk up to a group of black people and say, "You know what? I believe in the Bohemian Grove conspiracy." Then walk up to another group of Asian people and say, "What are you gooks doing here?" See which is considered worse.

Worrying about Skull and Bones is merely silly and a bit sad. It's not like it's offensive or immoral in the way the "fleet of foot" story in the newsletter was.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 10:17pm | #

but I am saving the last copy of Reason I ever buy for when I run out of toilet paper.

I think that comes under section (b)2a of the CANCEL MY SUBSCRIPTION drinking rule.

DRINK!

Roger | January 17, 2008, 10:17pm | #

Are all of the random people showing up here and posting about a "witch hut" really just Lew Rockwell fans? Seems to me that the press release would have helped Ron Paul but hurt Lew Rockwell... except Lew Rockwell probably doesn't have a lot of supporters who would be too upset about the content of the newsletters.

I am a casual observer that reads a lot of both the "paleo" and "cosmo" side of things, it's all information to sort out. This is smelling too much like a witch hunt. Yes, we all agree that if Rockwell is indeed responsible for the newsletter content (this is all juicy rumour at this point), then he would be a shitbag to leave his "old friend" high and dry like this. But none of you, some of the Reason gossip queens, and maniacs like Joe Allen don't know the truth and won't know it until it comes out of the mouth of the fabled ghostwriter or Paul himself..

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 10:17pm | #

joe,

There's probably multiple triggers for every single rule of the Drinking Game in those posts somewhere, but I don't feel like wading through 20,000 words of diatribe looking for them. I'll just chug a bottle to be safe.

SIV | January 17, 2008, 10:17pm | #

Actually, charlie (heh)
joe threadwin nomination

liberty - think! | January 17, 2008, 10:18pm | #

I've laid bare the coming race war

Is this a Southern Poverty Law Center pitch?

The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS

Reason finally got around to covering this story in 1994

The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful.

President Nixon called it the "faggiest goddam thing I've ever seen." Paul seems more softspoken on the matter, though unlike Nixon, has never attended himself...

Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry

Is this inaccurate? Is "demonic" too strong? Maybe it's a warm & fuzzy frat, and the author is mistaken? If you're a member and can tell us more, please do so.

Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.

Now, that nice young man, the unifier Obama is a big pal of AIPAC -- I'm sure he would object to this coarse language! Heavens! Scandalous.

And the Soviet-style "smartcard" the Justice Department has in mind for you.

Did you catch Chertoff's REAL ID press conference last week?

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:19pm | #

You can't be too careful with these things, crimethink. Good man.

chombo | January 17, 2008, 10:19pm | #

Joe, this isn't Reason magazine going after Ron Paul because they want to smear him. This is them sadly picking through the ashes of a failed libertarian campaign, trying to find out who knocked over the lantern.

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 10:19pm | #

Roger -

The problem is that Snyder probably thinks, "Whew, we survived that newsletter thing!" and thinks that if he hides under a pile of coats in the corner it will go away. Since they didn't throw Rockwell under the bus the first or second day, doing so now "churns the story back to the top" again and that's not what they want to do.

Dumb. Definitely dumb. But I bet that's what Kent is thinking.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 10:22pm | #

Ron Paul : Lew Rockwell :: George W Bush : Alberto Gonzalez ?

charlie | January 17, 2008, 10:22pm | #

Joe-

Mccain said, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

He later tried to explain that he was "only" speaking of the guards who tortured him.

You do see how the subtlety of the statement "I hated the gooks" could be lost on, I don't know, more than one billion Asians?

Kolohe | January 17, 2008, 10:22pm | #

Lew Rockwell, the Mrs O'Leary's Cow of the 2008 Presidential Campaign?

Tom Walls | January 17, 2008, 10:24pm | #

I see the jackapenestrians aren't letting up here either.

Good reporting, Dave. I met Benton a bunch of times on the campaign trail. He's a good kid.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 10:24pm | #

Joe Allen, you are alienating people who might take your point of view seriously when you start with teh shite. So, don't be tossing your cookies all over the Man In Black, Mr Welch, or Balko.

Joe Ailin' | January 17, 2008, 10:25pm | #

Dave Weigel : the Jeffrey Dahmer of campaign reporters!

Joe Ailin' | January 17, 2008, 10:26pm | #

Julian Sanchez: The Millard Fillmore of the Eastern Seabord!

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 10:27pm | #

Cesar, that's 90% of America.

90% of the American people are conspiracy theorists, commies, and racists? Really? I didn't think those were hard categories to stay out of.

Julian Sanchez | January 17, 2008, 10:28pm | #

"juicy rumour"? For god's sake, what additional proof is required here? Old super-8 footage of Rockwell drafting the newsletters in his own blood, confirmed by DNA test? We really have to suspend judgment until someone at LvMI deigns to acknowledge and respond to the Himalayan pile of evidence? Seriously, this has ceased to be an open question.

branden | January 17, 2008, 10:28pm | #

If we learn anything from Dondero, Lizardo, et. al., it's that the Ron Paul coterie included a lot of opportunists. Kent Snyder gets points for standing up to them. May the purge begin!

http://libertariansurge.blogspot.com/2008/01/newslettergate-did-dondero-do-it.html

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 10:28pm | #

What are we drinking, BTW, cosmopolitans?

You'll be thrilled to know I'm drinking Yuengling. If thats too high class for you, sorry. I'm not going to drink Natural Ice to prove I'm outside the beltway.

Roger | January 17, 2008, 10:29pm | #

Fluffy: Dumb. Definitely dumb. But I bet that's what Kent is thinking.

I agree, agree, agree. There are so many better people for that job, but nobody with large enough nuts has stepped up to the plate and offered up a compelling enough sales pitch to knock the good Doctor's socks off to issue an immediate organisational regime change in the campaign. I am not the aforementioned salesman with a 9" cock, so I will keep working with this incredible opportunity that we are blessed with.

Joe Ailin' | January 17, 2008, 10:29pm | #

Kerry Howley: the Lot's Wife of cosmotarian spokesmodels.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 10:29pm | #

Cesar,

You also said war supporters. It may not be as much as 90%, but you're not going to find a movement free of all such people.

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 10:29pm | #

Charlie, the problem is this scandal goes much, much deeper than Ron Paul's simple quasi-racist statements. So far, the media, including the libertarian media, have only scratched the surface. We're only at the very beginning of this story.

Donklelephant Blog, a very popular Centrist non-partisan site, delved a bit deeper into the story early this morning. They're questioning the financial aspects of Paul's past efforts.

If you focus just on the quasi-racist comments in the Newsletters and Lew Rockwell, you are missing a big, big chunk of the overall story.

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 10:30pm | #

Two-buck Chuck from Trader-Muthafuckin-Joe's bitches. Yeah I eat organic and got guns, you better watch yourself around my cosmo ass!

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 10:30pm | #

Hey, stop using my email address!

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 10:30pm | #

Mccain said, "I hated the gooks. I will hate them as long as I live."

Well, at least he didn't refer to them as slopes or zipperheads.

chombo | January 17, 2008, 10:30pm | #

Cesar,

You also said "socialists" and "war supporters". Those are huge, huge groups.

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 10:31pm | #

You also said war supporters. It may not be as much as 90%, but you're not going to find a movement free of all such people.

I don't really mean all war supporters. I mean the really hard core warmongering/WWIV believers like Norman Podhoretz. Those people scare me as much as the Stormfront kiddies.

Justin Slotman | January 17, 2008, 10:31pm | #

Why is anybody still posting? This thread was won on the second comment.

"Big-boot-tay! TAY! TAY!" BLAM!

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 10:32pm | #

What are we drinking, BTW, cosmopolitans?

Cosmopolitans are for wimps and communists. I drink rubbing alcohol strained through old toast. AND I LIKE IT!

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:32pm | #

charlie,

Let me get this straight - you are willing to turn yourself inside out like a circus freak to argue that the content of those vile, violent, racist propaganda rags was perfectly innocent, but when it's not your guy in the crosshairs, your Al Freaking Sharpton.

Screw McCain for saying that. Screw Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul, and every other right-wing lunatic p.o.s. who had anything to do with putting out that filth harder, longer, thicker, and with less lube. One's a human failure. The other is purposeful campaign of hate for purpose of gaining political power, and I know what's worse.

I suppose it's an interesting question who is worse: Rockwell, who appears to actually believe it, or Paul, who just went along cynically, but regardless of what's in Paul's heart, I can read what's in his newsletters just fine.

Eric Dondero | January 17, 2008, 10:32pm | #

Wow! That one takes the cake. I can understand many advocating me being purged from the Ron Paul camp, but Tom Lizardo?

You're seriously in danger of striking a backlash if you go after Lizardo. He's about as loyal a Ron Paul guy as there is in this Hemisphere or even the Universe, save Norm Singleton.

You start questioning Lizardo's credibility and you are in essense questioning Ron Paul himself.

Julian Sanchez | January 17, 2008, 10:33pm | #

Hmm... an ambitious campaign to transform a country's fundamental institutions suffers a devastating setback... but instead of acknowledging the problem, blame is focused on the defeatist media for reporting on it, since they must want the enemy to win. Why does this sound familiar?

Joe Ailin' | January 17, 2008, 10:34pm | #

Ron Bailey: The Doctor Mengele of the Fourth Estate!

Roger | January 17, 2008, 10:34pm | #

Jules: "juicy rumour"? For god's sake, what additional proof is required here?

I need for the nature of Rockwell's involvement with the newsletters to be spelled out for me explicitly. Are you withholding information from your curious readers? Call me cautious.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 10:34pm | #

Brandon, I been throwing suspicion at Eric D right along. Motive and evidence. [shrugs]

Then again I may be half kidding.

Ken Shultz | January 17, 2008, 10:34pm | #

"I've been on the gun show circuit for over 20yrs. At gun shows you meet all sorts of people. Hunters, self defense people, gun collectors(sellers) Birchers, 2nd amendment enthusiast and ROCK SOLID libertarians. This Saturday and Sunday I will be at a show. There will be a few Fred Thompson sticker, a few more for the Huckster, but the vast majority of stickers sold will be Ron Paul 2008. And yes, at these gun shows lots of stickers like "We Don't Care How YOu Did it Up North, You're in Dixie Now" With a Confederate flag will be sold. Most of the dealers are white as are most of the people that attend. You won't talk to anyone concerned about gay marriage. But you can have endless conversations about Hilly, Obama, immigration, gun grabbers, taxes, property righs etc etc. Lifestyle libertarianism isn't on the agenda."

It's nice to see there's still a place with a lot of diversity of opinion left out there.

Jacob | January 17, 2008, 10:35pm | #

Uh oh, now Lew is going to burn a cross on your lawn*.

*Recycled joke but I used it at the end of another thread.

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 10:35pm | #

Wait, I've been to gun shows. Guess you can't call me a "Cosmotarian" anymore.

Ken Shultz | January 17, 2008, 10:36pm | #

"The Lavender mafia along with the Israel firsters are trying to destroy Ron Paul.'

In a wrestling match between the Lavender Mafia and the Gold Bugs, I wonder who would win?

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 10:37pm | #

Joe Allen is the mirror universe Edward.

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:38pm | #

cowards with too fragile of sensibilities to work for real change.

You know, by telling neo-Nazis and race-war Armageddonists that they're right.

You know, working for real change.

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:39pm | #

That's true, because Edward is succinct.

Jim Bob | January 17, 2008, 10:40pm | #

Suicide is our only option.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 10:41pm | #

Cesar,

Funny you should mention that. Now that the forums have turned somewhat against Dr Paul, it seems like Edward has disappeared...he's probably trolling some Obama forum now.

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:41pm | #

Too late. You people pulled the trigger when you mailed out those letters.

You're just noticing your temple hurts now.

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 10:43pm | #

Crimethink-

For the good of the Republic, I hope hes trolling Clinton or Huckabee forums.

Kolohe | January 17, 2008, 10:43pm | #

My thoughts are my own.

Or cut 'n pasted from others.

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 10:43pm | #

"You people"

How insensitive!

chombo | January 17, 2008, 10:43pm | #

Joe, pandering to racists and conspiracy theorists are not "political compromises". There aren't enough of them that reaching out to them is worth it. Moving from .5% to .75% doesn't mean a damn thing. Ron Paul has had the success he has in this campaign because of normal people, especially young people like me, attracted to the libertarian message. That's how you broaden the libertarian movement into a politically relevant group, not by grabbing whatever weirdos you can off the street.

Some "cosmopolitan" libertarians committed the sin of actively supporting the Iraq War and the Bush administration. Some "paleolibertarians" committed the sin of pandering to racists. Both sides need to recognize their mistake, and then we need to move on.

Julian Sanchez | January 17, 2008, 10:44pm | #

"too timid to make the political comprimises"

OH... Now I get it. The way to not "betray libertarianism" is to do whatever it takes to get white supremacists on your side. I've been such a fool.

fort troff | January 17, 2008, 10:45pm | #

putting out that filth harder, longer, thicker, and with less lube

more lube joe

barry liberty | January 17, 2008, 10:46pm | #

We should be proud of everything Ron Paul wrote in his newsletters. it's all true

Kolohe | January 17, 2008, 10:46pm | #

my inner conspiracist says that Edward was Welch and Gillespie the whole time.

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:46pm | #

So if "cosmotarian" refers to libertarians who are disgusted by the newsletters, what are the people who defend them?

I nominate "libertaryan."

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:47pm | #

I am so not clicking that link.

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 10:48pm | #

For those people bitching about how certain people at Reason and CATO supported the Iraq War in 2003, please remember that 95% of the country was going through a juvenile retard stage from 9/11 until mid-2004.

95% of the country was not going through a racist stage in the early 90s. Thats why you can forgive people for being racists in say, 1940. But 1992?

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 10:48pm | #

damn, i knew we kept joe around for a reason!

dodsworth | January 17, 2008, 10:48pm | #

Well said. Unfortunately, neither side has learned the mistake though to Rockwell's credit he largely abandoned this strategy in 2001. It would be good for him and the movement, however, if he admitted his past mistakes as it would be for the cosmos if they did the same on the war issue. Too many egos are involved on both sides, however, for this to happen.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 10:48pm | #

That's how you broaden the libertarian movement into a politically relevant group, not by grabbing whatever weirdos you can off the street.

Chombo, Joe isn't interested in broadening the libertarian movement. He's just arguing in his spare time.

numb3rz | January 17, 2008, 10:48pm | #

There aren't enough of them that reaching out to them is worth it.

16% think federal government officials were involved in 9/11.

Has an LP presidential nominee ever scored even 1.6%

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 10:50pm | #

Once again, when reading Dondero's posts, one has to keep in mind that he has admitted at this site that he believes that Saddam Hussein was behind the Oklahoma City bombing.

[HA! Fooled ya! You thought I'd pull out Dondero's advocacy of genocide, but I thought I'd mix it up for a change.]

So Dondero is here to educate all of us about all the "crazy conspiracies" Paul believes in - and also to let us know about how Saddam Hussein's masterminding of the Oklahoma City bombing has been covered up!

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 10:50pm | #

I am so not clicking that link.

Be happy you didn't.

Kolohe | January 17, 2008, 10:51pm | #

Too late. You people pulled the trigger when you mailed out those letters.

You're just noticing your temple hurts now.



The United States Postal Service: The Carcano rifle of RonPaul2008.

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:51pm | #

Hmm, what's worse: supporting the cause of George Bush in 2003, or supporting the cause of Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1993?

I don't like either of them, but that is not a difficult question. At least the deluded Iraq War supporters had the excuse of not knowing what they were getting into.

crimethink | January 17, 2008, 10:51pm | #

Well, one thing we definitely have to understand is that the state of libertarianism was quite different in the late 80s/early 90s from where it is now. Before the Internet expoded, the philosophy was very much marginalized. "Gun nut", white supremacist, survivalist, and other fringe groups were probably much larger than the population of libertarians, of either the cosmo- or paleo- variety.

Jim Bob | January 17, 2008, 10:53pm | #

joe, are you referring to me as part of "you people?" And if you are, why? Do you recall me having a giant hard-on for Ron Paul around here?

charlie | January 17, 2008, 10:54pm | #

Joe: Let me get this straight - you are willing to turn yourself inside out like a circus freak to argue that the content of those vile, violent, racist propaganda rags was perfectly innocent, but when it's not your guy in the crosshairs, your Al Freaking Sharpton.

C'mon, say it ain't so Joe (heh). You know I've done nothing of the sort. From what I've seen of the newsletters they were a mix of some rather benign conspiracy-mongering and some much, much less benign bigotry and ignorance. There, can I now point out how the race records of the other candidates -- the ones no one in the media dare call "racist" -- are just as bad, if not worse?

John McCain can only rely on the tired "war hero" excuse for so long. Using the term "gooks" when campaigning for president in the year 2000 is unacceptable and, yes, he should have been forced to apologize for it. And in a more just world, he would also have to apologize for the anti-muslim bigotry he displayed in the last debate (along with Thompson, Huckabee, and oh, the rest of the GOP for good measure).

This isn't about excusing Ron Paul or trying to defend the content of the newsletters as "innocent." Calling blacks animals is as unacceptable as calling Asians gooks -- or it should be.

I just think it's a sad commentary on our society when we (rightly) condemn in the harshest terms bigotry towards blacks, but come up with a million excuses as to why it's not a big deal to use a highly offensive term for asians. And I think it shows how racist this country still is that it's perfectly acceptable -- an unworthy of noting -- when major party candidates conflate merely talking and trading with Arab countries as "trading burkas with al Qaeda" (as McCain did).

Ken Shultz | January 17, 2008, 10:54pm | #

"OH... Now I get it. The way to not "betray libertarianism" is to do whatever it takes to get white supremacists on your side. I've been such a fool."

Not that I've ever been there other than to confirm the rumor, but if you go to stormfront.org and scroll to the bottom, guess who's ad they're running under the heading "What Ron Paul Must Do To Win?"

How embarrassing!

Bingo | January 17, 2008, 10:54pm | #

hhahahah the forttroff link is priceless

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:55pm | #

Chombo, Joe isn't interested in broadening the libertarian movement

It appears that his goal for the movement is similar to his goal for the country as a whole: keeping it pure, with just his kind of people.

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 10:55pm | #

Not that I've ever been there other than to confirm the rumor, but if you go to stormfront.org and scroll to the bottom, guess who's ad they're running under the heading "What Ron Paul Must Do To Win?"

How embarrassing!

Yuck. I've only been to Stormfront before to troll. Very difficult to troll Stormfront, though. Everyone there is so ridiculous already, its hard to gauge success.

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 10:56pm | #

95% of the country was not going through a racist stage in the early 90s.

Cesar, the 90's were the 60's for the radical right. Waco and Ruby Ridge sequed into the militia movement which segued into Y2K. Armageddonism, conspiracy, anti-government zealotry, the whole shebang was all over the place. For us regular people, the 90's were about the internet, grunge music and the stock market boom - but for the fringe, the 90's were about imminent revolution and/or The Coming Dark Age and/or black helicopters.

We're supposed to overlook the crazy shit people on the left said during the 60's [because "they were young" or "that's how a radical group like MECHA would express itself" or "nobody ever really believed that" or "there was a war on" or whatever], but for some reason people who said crazy shit after the King riots or Waco don't get the same pass.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 17, 2008, 10:58pm | #

Personally, I am delighted with the term Cosmotarian. It makes me LOL every time I see it.

I don't recall who coined it but it came out of Virginia Postrel's remark:

When you give your political heart to a guy who spends so much time worrying about international bankers, you're not going to get a tolerant cosmopolitan

joe | January 17, 2008, 10:59pm | #

There, can I now point out how the race records of the other candidates -- the ones no one in the media dare call "racist" -- are just as bad, if not worse?

Not if you were hoping to avoid people laughing in your face.

By all means, condemn John McCain all you like. I agree with every word.

But don't use it as an excuse to yell "Hey, look over there!" when these newsletters come up.

wmb | January 17, 2008, 11:00pm | #

The Rondroids are truly cultic. They flood the site with irrational comments, wacko conspiracy theories and insults but ignore the substance. If you want to see why Ron Paul is dangerous to libertarianism just look at the lunatics he has out there defending him.

Fluffy | January 17, 2008, 11:00pm | #

Hmm, what's worse: supporting the cause of George Bush in 2003, or supporting the cause of Nathan Bedford Forrest in 1993?

I don't like your math here, Joe. Neither of them is very good, but one of them killed a half million people and the other didn't, and one of them took a trillion dollars out of the pockets of the taxpayers and the other didn't.

I could walk outside right now and scream "I love Nathan Bedford Forrest!" over and over for the rest of the night, and other than a couple of my neighbors being inconvenienced it wouldn't mean a god damn thing relative to Hillary's war vote. You might not like that, but them's the facts.

Cesar | January 17, 2008, 11:00pm | #

Fluffy-

Thats true enough, and if the Lew Rockwell Krewe would just say "We were a bit crazy then, but we don't believe that shit anymore, and Stormfront should leave us alone" I'd be more sympathetic.

montaigne | January 17, 2008, 11:00pm | #

It's nothing new for a campaign to tear itself apart. And as for being dysfunctional, with the exception of the Clinton machine and a few others, most campaigns are dysfunctional and poorly organized. Hell, many a business is dysfunctional and poorly organized. If anyone has worked on a campaign (even winning campaigns) you'll know this to be true. A lot happens in just a few days let alone months.

Anyway, if I'm going to armchair campaign, I'd say Paul needs to come clean, point fingers, and rally the base. Clean house if necessary and right the ship in the next few days, otherwise it's over. With the money he has he can outlast Thompson at the very least. And as for the ads, just hammer at what the republican, conservative base cares about: constitution, America is great, founding fathers, and all of that. Ron Paul is crazy? Why? Because he wants to take us back to the Constitution? Wow. So republicans don't care about the constitution? It's a game, and Paul needs to buck up and play for keeps.

The economy is going to hell, the crown jewels of the nation are being sold off to foreign lands, and many Americans are about to go upside down on their houses. It's a great time for "new" ideas to have an impact.

Ken Shultz | January 17, 2008, 11:03pm | #

"The economy is going to hell,