I just noticed that ED Kain responded to my post about Ron Paul’s racist newsletters. After distilling out the “liberals are bad” and “I’m less tribal than you” rhetoric, as well as his notion that I was trying to attack him personally as a bigot, which I wasn’t, I think what’s left is this: Paul’s conservatism about involving us in foreign wars is more likely to do more good than the bad that could be engendered from some racist stuff published in his newsletter in the 90’s.
Fair enough, but not good enough. Because the difference between endorsing someone for President and endorsing that person’s positions is the difference between trusting his character and agreeing with his ideas. This is an elementary and common-sense distinction: there are a lot of untrustworthy people who have good ideas. Even if you agree with some of Paul’s positions, it’s clear that he’s one of those people. He showed poor judgment by hiring some racist yahoo to edit his newsletter, and just saying “it wasn’t me writing it” doesn’t work when he made money from its publication.
I’m no expert on the history of the Ron Paul political machine, but from what I can tell, this isn’t the only time Paul has trusted a shady character. But even if it is, if you’re going to endorse Paul, you need to explain how his presidency won’t be co-opted by a racist at the DOJ, or a goldbug at Treasury, when he can’t even control what goes out in his name in a goddam penny-ante newsletter. Where does the buck stop in Ron Paul land? When you endorse someone for Presidency, if you’re serious, you need to address that head-on.
DougJ
Well said.
Endorsing Paul is an attention-getting, contrarian stunt.
Gex
Why do none of these folks, Paul or his followers, have to explain exactly how the market would end segregation absent the CRA. And show their work.
That is in and of itself proof enough to me that the man doesn’t understand shit.
cokane
Ugh that was a fucking awfully written post by ED Kain. I stopped reading after his “Note:” I figured footnotes for such an execrable argument were not worth reading. His argument for Paul>Obama boils down to Paul not being in power. If he thinks people would not suffer under a disastrous Paul presidency he is delusional beyond belief.
Corner Stone
So glad to have had EDK troll BJ for months.
Splitting Image
I’ve always thought that Paul has made a valuable contribution to the country as a member of Congress by presenting ideas which would otherwise be swept under the carpet by the Villagers, but that he should be kept miles away from the Presidency.
According to Google Maps, exactly 2.2 miles away in fact.
Totally agree with the OP by the way. Probably the biggest knock against Hillary Clinton was that she hired Mark Penn to be her chief strategist. Imagine a Presidential candidate who has, over his career, hired a different clone of Mark Penn for every important job on his staff.
That candidate is Ron Paul.
The Ancient Randonneur
I know candidates don’t pick their supporters but I do find it interesting that so many Tea Party candidates and Ron Paul supporters are like this guy::
Paul’s so-called “freedom agenda” attracts quite a few of these guys. Is it a coincidence?
trollhattan
Every family tolerates the crazy uncle until he starts stabbing them with a butter knife at Thanksgiving. Ron has his demon seed in the senate–so his “legacy” is complete. Other than his opposition to our foreign misadventures, he’s peddling a box of shite.
Reminds me of Sully and torture.
Chris
Paul is every bit as crazy as the “mainstream” Republican candidates, just in different ways. Yeah, his foreign policy might be “better” in the “less needless wars” sense, but he’d also pull us out of the UN, NATO, the ICC and any and all other international organizations, plus the abolition of all foreign aid. Yeah, he might marilize legajuana, but he’d also put us back on the gold standard. For every arguable step in the right direction there’s a step further in the wrong direction somewhere else.
So really, thanks but no thanks. (Not that I wouldn’t love for him to go third-party and split the Goopers).
CT Voter
I don’t get the Ron Paul kewl kids kraze that seems to have infected many people. Abolish the Fed, return to the gold standard, get gubmint out of everything so people can die early deaths from contaminated milk, meat, etc, return reproductive healthcare to the 50s…but hey, supposedly no more wars, and marijuana will be legal! And my unicorn is in the mail.
Villago Delenda Est
“Ron Paul” isn’t a man. He’s a concept. One that naifs like ED Kain eat up like it isn’t rancid slop. Which it is.
Admiral_Komack
Fuck Ron Paul.
burnt
Thank you Mr. Paul for questioning the Iraq war. Thank you for questioning US foreign policy. Thank you for questioning the war on some drugs. That is all well and good. However, it’s not going to remove the stain of your support of a racist newsletter and your anti-woman views. And I could go on. And on. And on. And on. Two Pauls in the Capitol. I weep for my country.
El Cid
I think it’s a very different question to ask if someone really trusted the judgment of Candidate X in the actual sitting Presidency than things like ‘do you think his/her views on Z might be less harmful than the views of Candidate Y’ or ‘would you prefer X to win the primary for strategic reasons,’ etc.
Samara Morgan
Kain is wholly delusional.
Paul is not anti-war, he is anti-American interventionism.
Paul would have felt the Shoah was none of Americas bidness, dig?
Paul is not anti-drug war, he just wants to leave it up to the states.
Paul is not pro-gay marriage– he just wants to leave it up to the states.
Paul is, however, exactly like Kain. He is a libertarian.
He believes “economic liberty” trumps civil rights.
Kain and Paul both live in a Free Market Fantasy Forest in their heads.
amk
edk has gone full wingnut. Thanks to bj’ers, I guess.
mistermix
@DougJ: Thanks
@El Cid: Yeah, I’m giving EDK and Sully what I think is the courtesy of assuming that when they endorse someone, they mean the former, not the latter.
AxelFoley
@Admiral_Komack:
And the horse he rode in on.
Chris
@Villago Delenda Est:
This is very true. Even more than most politicians, it seems, people project whatever they want onto him. I’ve seen everyone from ultra-conservative Baptists to coked-out “liberal” college hippies to otherwise normal human beings project all their wishes for hope, change and saving the republic onto that guy, even more than I ever saw with Obama or any of the “mainstream” candidates in either party.
Weird, but I guess it’s a good time for out-of-mainstream candidates.
Janet Strange
@Chris: Actually, if he went third party, I worry that he’d take more votes from Democrats than Republicans. Too many people who will vote for the Democrat if the only alternative is a Republican, will just hear, “no pointless wars, legal dope” and they’re off to the polls to vote for Paul.
Both the Right and the Left have taught Americans to hate government. (e.g. Right: “Government wants to take your guns!” Left: “Government wants to tell you who you can sleep with!”) Too many people come away from the ranting of both sides with a very strong “fuck ’em both” attitude towards the two main political parties.
I still blame Kinky Friedman for giving us Texans Rick Perry for governor with 39% of the vote (no runoffs in Texas gov race, plurality wins). Half the people I know, who always vote Democratic voted for Kinky. Kinky’s positions were standard Libertarian crap, but no one I asked why they voted for him had a clue what his positions were. Kinky’s campaign slogan was, “Why the hell not?” and that was the only answer I ever got to, “Why did you vote for that moron?”
rikyrah
when I’m in the mood, I can chuckle at the ‘philosophizing’ by folks – who aren’t Black – as to whether Ron Paul is a racist.
here’s the thing.
as a Black person, there are certain things for me that are non-negotiable.
and, they’re non-negotiable because I am a Black person in America.
WHEN…you have been given chance upon chance to say that you WOULD have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 if given the chance…
AND, you REFUSE time after time to support it,
and say, flat out – that you would NOT have voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964
we are done.
you are my enemy, and that’s the beginning, middle and end of the story.
JIM CROW wasn’t some ‘ theoretical time’ for Black people…my family…BOTH SIDES of which come from the Police State that was JIM CROW AMERICA.
it was REALITY.
it was reality that my father would have been 42 years old….if he had stayed in the state of his birth, before he LEGALLY would have had his RIGHT TO VOTE ENFORCED in this country…and this is AFTER he put on an uniform and put his life on the line for this country, which, LEGALLY, had him, and all my uncles – WHO ALSO SERVED THIS COUNTRY IN THE MILITARY – as Second-Class citizens CODIFIED INTO LAW.
so, fuck any mofo trying to step to me talking any bullshyt about a racist like Ron Paul.
Omnes Omnibus
If I ever run into EDK in person, he will regret it. He is forcing me to do something that makes my stomach turn and that is to face that fact that m_c was correct about him all along. I am very upset now.
Cacti
@rikyrah:
What makes Paul’s position especially odious is that he’s old enough to know exactly what Jim Crow was.
He was 29 years old when the Civil Rights Act passed.
Xanthippas
Normally I would find this a reasonable argument, but I’m a little put off by our responsible and measured president whose allowed his economic policies to be dictated by friends of Wall Street.
El Cid
I don’t think that a lot of people who think it would be cool for Ron Paul to be President have thought carefully about what that actually might be like.
MikeJ
@Omnes Omnibus: I don’t recall ever disagreeing with anything she said before I pied her, merely the fact she said the same goddamned thing forty or fifty times in every goddamned thread.
5x5
Ron Paul is against imperialist wars, the war against drugs, state’s rights for SSM.
Ron Paul is against Choice, Medica**, Social Security, Civil Rights, and (oh, yeah) government.
Ask yourself: what part of President Paul’s agenda is going to get through Congress.
beergoggles
We all support candidates that aren’t perfect. I’ll still vote for the guy who wants to indefinitely detain americans at will because he’s better for people like me while EK will vote for the guy who’s a racist, sexist, homophobe because he may be better in other areas (or doesn’t want to indefinitely detain americans at will). Both sides do it, etc..
kj
Or MAYBE since it was a penny ante newsletter run by someone else why he practiced medicine giving free and discount service to poor women of all races, he just didn’t pay that much attention to it.
Obviously, YOU, it keeps awake nights.
Omnes Omnibus
@MikeJ: She said EDK was simply playing with people here with respect to his “conversion” to liberalism and that he was looking for greener pastures the whole time. Of course, she said it differently.
Tom Levenson
I’m too old, and tired, and busy, and anxious to do the many more interesting things there are to do in the world than pay much attention to E.D. — but I will confess to being just about over my limit of tolerance for folks who see an argument as superior to experience or real-world knowledge.
Yes, Paul is racist — and I don’t by the “in his heart” distinction, for as rikyrah notes at #20, it’s the action and not the allegation of intent that matters here.
And yes, Paul would be a disastrous president, far worse than the one we have now even if Kain’s litany about him represented an assessment that makes sense in the real world of politics in which Obama operates. If nothing else (and there’s a lot else) Paul’s economic “ideas” (sic!), if enacted, would crater the US and hence the world economy. (See, e.g. Winston Churchill and the gold standard…) If you want to be compassionate/attentive to the lives and wellbeing of strangers, then not launching an economic experiment likely to result in excess deaths that make the Iraq war look like a game of flag football is probably a good first step.
The real world matters, in other words — and what pisses me most about Kain is that in some areas (education) he appears to grasp this. But you can’t cherry pick, and a youthful love of grand words and arguments that sound (and are) to good to be true, and certainly too good to be tested, is a crappy way to ride the goddamn moral high horse he does here.
We seem to have deranged him on this site; he did take some abuse, but the real problem, I think, is that the commentariat did not lard any criticism with gracious respect for the seriousness with which he proposed specious arguments.
cthulhu
I get that the attractiveness of the libertarian position is that it can be made to be internally consistent if you believe hard enough (not that most adherents truly do). But the fact is that it is not consistent with reality so what’s the point really?
Omnes Omnibus
@Tom Levenson: He never really did cotton to us and our strange and savage ways, did he?
Chris
@Janet Strange:
See what you mean about Ron Paul. Okay, on second thought, maybe the third party’s not such a good idea.
True, although I still think there’s a difference between the two forms of “anti-government” attitudes. The right splits up government into two parts, one so laudable and above reproach that it’s unpatriotic and beyond the pale to even question it (the national security state) and one so awful and inefficient and bad that it shouldn’t even exist (the welfare state).
With a few fringe exceptions (whereas on the right those positions are mainstream and basically universal), I’ve never felt that the left was that simplistic and, to put it bluntly, idiotic. We don’t want to abolish the national security state, we simply don’t think it should be above the law. We don’t think the welfare state is perfect, beyond reproach or beyond improvement either, we simply don’t want it abolished altogether.
All in all, it’s pretty much the same approach that “these institutions aren’t doing as well as they should be, but they’re there for a reason, so let’s try to make them better without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.”
Samara Morgan
@Tom Levenson:
that is utter bulshytt. Kain was a freed market fucktard to his very core, and he was totally that about education too. He “changed his mind” about teachers unions as soon as he got the Forbes gig.
I had a ferocious argument with him about the Heckman equation.
I knew him two years longer than Cole did…..he was only here for the page clicks. He never swerved a hair from dogmatic libertarianism.
You were totally fooled by him.
like a lot of people.
El Cid
Ron Paul and his milieu, the paranoid super-anti-Communist right, the Tea Party’s real predecessors: via Digby, RP accepting the John Birch Society’s accolades as he honors their 50th anniversary.
The Birchers aren’t exactly the ones you’d turn to for a more hands-off, let-them-govern-as-they-choose-to-govern-themselves foreign policy. This is a loathsome, disgusting group, with a truly malevolent force in US politics and foreign policy, and I’d consider speaking at their anniversary to the extent that I could prepare my own projectile vomiting.
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: See above.
Spaghetti Lee
I think the thing about Paul is that he is, relatively, compared to his fellow congresscritters, honest about what he thinks. The problem is that what he thinks is absolutely horrifying-a pig without lipstick on it is no less of a pig, to reverse the old phrase. And the people who support him are generally wealthy white men who don’t care about abortion rights or welfare, but who want their pot and who don’t want to go to war.
Redshift
@Tom Levenson:
Heh. You certainly have a way with words. Bravo!
Samara Morgan
@Tom Levenson: i had the argument about Heckman ON THIS VERY SITE. Kain transformed the Heckman equation into a set of “freed” market policies like for profit preschools.
It was unbelievable.
Redshift
@5×5:
I’ve never understood the mindset of favoring someone for president who has vocally supported many awful things based on the assumption that others would prevent those things from happening. Especially from anyone old enough to have lived through the Bush Administration.
And aside from that, it also matters that legislation doesn’t get introduced, laws and regulations that the Executive Branch deliberately undermines or puts the foxes in charge of enforcing. The notion that SS, civil rights, and government in general will be just fine under an administration opposed to their existence is dangerously naive. (Again, we have a recent highly visible object lesson in the form of the Bush Administration.)
dogwood
God, I actually went and read the EDK reply. Simply horrible. Self-centered juvenile drivel, every bit of it. “I’m tired of talking about the Newsletter and racism” or whatever he opened with. Well, if you’re tired of talking about it STFU.
In terms of foreign policy, Ron Paul doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the killing of anyone, especially people of color. He just doesn’t want to fucking pay for it. On the domestic front he doesn’t want to pay to keep people alive, or living with the minimal comforts common decency would expect. EDK should cut out the moralizing. It only exposes him as an idiot or a fraud.
@rikyrah:
I’m a middle aged white woman and opposition to the CRA or the VRA is absolutely a deal-breaker for me. Anyone who would support such an odious man as Ron Paul is morally bankrupt. Tom is right. If people like Ron Paul ever had power in this country, the devastation to Americans and millions around the world would make George W Bush look like a benevolent statesman.
schrodinger's cat
FWIW I was never taken in by his, I am a reasonable conservative schtick either. I always questioned the economic dogma he spewed.
dogwood
@El Cid:
I
Oh yes they have. They’re all white affluent males. It would be nirvana for them. Guys like Sullivan would get to smoke dope, ponder the Bell Curve, and have his marriage protected by the Blue State hippies in Massachusetts.
a hip hop artist from Idaho (fka Bella Q)
@Omnes Omnibus: It’s all I can offer to help:
,,,,,,::!,,,,,,,,,,,!!,,,,,,,::;;;,,,,,,,,
I know rather how you feel, as I have that same circumstance.
carpeduum
Oy Vey, first you fapped over Cain and I said nothing….then I did.
Then you fapped over Gingrich and I said more….but not enough apparently.
Now you will apparently be fapping over
Dopey of the 7 dwarfsRon Paul for the next few weeks I suppose…..sigh…..Anne Laurie
@Tom Levenson:
Yes, praise goddess, that’s the attitude that brought me to Balloon Juice in the first place, and that sustains my participation even unto this day.
Omnes Omnibus
@Anne Laurie: OT, but could I get a little moderation help in the Havel thread?
AA+ Bonds
Lord, don’t respond to libertarians. Their readers are cultists; they’re not going to listen to arguments.
Samara Morgan
@Tom Levenson: just for you, Dr. Levenson.
yes, i know you are not a Phd. it is an honorific.
/sideways smile.
El Cid
@dogwood: Then that doesn’t fall under the category of “thinking carefully” on their part — that’s “momentary hazy fantasy”.
El Cid
We need to end all this lazy throwing around of rhetoric about how Tea Party types are “racists”. Being for smaller government as opposed to lots of monkey children doesn’t make you racist.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Spaghetti Lee: The terminally stupid never figure that out.
Villago Delenda Est
@El Cid:
No, certainly not.
The teatards actually don’t think they’re racist, even though their concern with the deficit didn’t manifest itself until just after 8PM PST on 4 November 2008. At that moment, the deficit became the most important issue, ever.
By a total, complete coincidence, that’s when the networks declared Barack “Hussein” Obama, also known as the new near Sheriff of Rockridge, the winner of the Presidental election. The coincidence is frankly astounding.
I’m still just astonished at this incredible coincidence.
Of course, my old Jedi master once told me that true coincidences are rare.
dogwood
@El Cid:
People like that are in a “permanent hazy fantasy”.
Nellcote
@beergoggles:
This isn’t true. Knock it off.
DonBoy
Here’s my thought about the newsletter: I’d guess that more than a few people who know him saw the newsletter at some point. Of those, not a single one of them thought “My God, I can’t believe what’s going out under Ron Paul’s name! I have to make sure he knows so he can put a stop to it!”
The prophet Nostradumbass
@DonBoy: That’s a good observation.
The Sheriff's A Ni-
As late as 1996, Ron Paul was defending the newsletters. Now he can’t run fast enough from them.
Con artist or true believer hiding his real agenda? You make the call.
Alison
@El Cid: This is precisely how we ended up with the fucking Governator here in good old Land of Fruits and Nuts. A bunch of dumbasses with no ability to think critically or more than six seconds into the future went to the voting booth and thought “YEAH AWESOME I WANT AH-NULD TO KICK EVERYONE’S ASSES IN SACTOWN HAW HAW”.
There are so many crotches I would kick for that shit. SO MANY.
Karen
Why did the Weekly Standard draw attention to Ron Paul’s racist and homophobic newsletters? Isn’t that like the pot calling the kettle black?
Nellcote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3Er5nGfX2ek
Morzer
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353
Just in case you were wondering whether Ron Paul really did leave all the neo-Nazi stuff behind decades ago, you can find him at the link posing for pics with Stormfront’s owner (and son) and even signing autographs for them. As recently as September 2007 even.
Just sayin’.
Schlemizel
I am thrilled to learn that success has not spoiled ED, he is still the brain dead sociopath he always was.
Thanks for letting us know that there is still no reason to read the loser.
The prophet Nostradumbass
@Alison: When I think back to that idiotic circus, it reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer unseats the guy who was the Sanitation Commissioner of Springfield.
Morzer
As a small bonus, quite a nice take-down of glibertarianism and how it becomes an enemy of freedom:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/19/bastardised-libertarianism-makes-freedom-oppression
Schlemizel
@Tom Levenson:
Burns: “I don’t have to take this abuse!”
Hawkeye: “Frank, you invite the abuse, it would be impolite of you not to accept it.”
Villago Delenda Est
@Karen:
Because Ron Paul has some ideas that are abhorrent to guys like William “I’m always wrong, and damn proud of it!” Kristol.
Like the idea that the deserting coward’s adventure in Iraq was a bad idea. Like the idea that blind support of Likud racist shit is a bad idea.
Mnemosyne
Don’t discount the fact that Paul’s pro-forced-birth stance is actually a mark in his favor as far as EDK is concerned. Like many privileged white men, he thinks he can better decide what I should be permitted to do with my uterus than I can.
Alison
@Mnemosyne: Men like that make me want to yank my uterus out and pull it over their heads. Which I think is a fine, fine use for it.
Shalimar
@kj: Except it wasn’t a “penny ante” newsletter. Paul made millions from it. You can’t pretend he was too busy to pay attention to the content of something that was bringing him so much income.
Pseudonym
Anyone know a good resource for debunking Paulonomics? My Facebook feed is getting filled up with Ron Paul/Peter Schiff/Mises/anti-Krugman posts and I don’t know where to find someone countering them directly.
Jason
I’m afraid even this is pure Ron Paul spin. This issue has a long history of blatant prevarication from Paul, but needless to say he was the editor, virtually every page of the newsletter had his name prominently plastered on it, and some of those unbylined segments read like pure Paul. He now claims that he had no idea what was going into his own newletter, and the racist material was the work of a rogue editor who he refuses to name. But in a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, he defended the racist material an an unwelcome truth — which proves he was aware of and authorised the racist material.
The ghost-writer story is plausible, insofar as the newsletter is a familiar example of the genre of poorly mimeographed fringe agitprop authored by multiple hands, but in the same way that “Transformers” is an authentic artistic expression of Michael Bey even if he didn’t personally design all the cool robots and explosions himself, the Ron Paul newsletter, with its far right AIDS conspiracy theories and anti black rhetoric is an authentic artistic expression of Ron Paul.
He showed “poor judgement” in the same sense in which George Wallace showed poor judgement for hiring former Ku Klux Klan leader Forrest Carter to write his “Segregation Now, Segregation Forever” speech. The fact that Wallace didn’t author the words personally is completely immaterial. He lent his name to it, and the words were the words he chose to use and wanted said.
patroclus
Does EDK realize that the Federal Reserve System is, in fact, the private banking industry, and that all Paul’s rhetoric about destroying the Fed system sounds to some like destroying the American banks?? And replace it with what? He never says… I mean, we all hate the banksters and all, but do we really want to dismantle the whole system, with all its counter-cyclical and monetary tools and its safety and soundness responsibilities? Paul talks about a “transitionary period”. From what to what?
I realize that those 1940’s era Austrians were geniuses and all, but haven’t we learned a little about monetary policy and the business cycle since then. Abolishing the principal regulator of the banking industry does not seem to be a particularly good idea; especially because the recent problems stemmed from a dearth of regulation.
Calouste
@dogwood:
Look at it from a young white male perspective: under President Ron Paul you can smoke whatever you like, drink whenever you like, fuck whoever you like and you can have a sinecure in the military (protected by “affirmative action” just like before Truman) where the most exciting thing will be a visit to the Reeperbahn rather than an encounter with an IED. What’s not to like?
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@Calouste:
Except that’s not what Paul actually says. What he says is that the decisions to legalize these activities would be left to the individual states, just as he says about abortion- which he’s against.
So, yeah, legalized weed in California, and the death penalty for a first-trimester abortion in Utah. Yay.
Splitting Image
@Pseudonym:
Bruce Bartlett is a good place to start. He actually worked for Paul back in the day, but has more recently been highly critical of Paul and the tea party.
Johannes
OK, I’ll say it: I thought that EDK was someone we could engage with, and that Samara (as she is now) was too harsh. Time and EDK’s own whiny screeds have vindicated her skepticism, and although I don’t think I piled on in the comments, I apologize unreservedly for thinking she was wrong and obsessional on the subject. Samara, I still think you were obsessional, but you clearly weren’t wrong. Just remember what Churchill recommended, though–“in victory, magnanimity.”
kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Yeah, she did but someone else did too. Anne Laurie said that, on the front page, in so many words.
If we’re giving anyone credit for having ED Kain’s number from the get-go, credit goes to Anne Laurie.
My personal opinion is that these things are fads with him. When Wisconsin was happening, he was Mr. Labor. Now that Ron Paul is peaking, ED’s all Ron Paul. Wait until next month, and we’ll see which bandwagon he jumps on.
I, unlike Anne Laurie, took a while to get that, though. I knew it only after he jumped to Forbes and did a 180 on teachers unions, and the only reason I knew that happened is because makoto chan linked to it. I don’t read Forbes or LOG.
So that’s my take on it. Whatever is currently topical and trending is where he is.
kay
Because I was the libertarians’ favorite Democrat in law school- I don’t know why this was true, but it was: I was surrounded by them, and it wasn’t awful, it was sort of amusing and fun to spar with them-I feel qualified to speak on the ideology, because I spent 3 years listening to it.
Ultimately, I rejected it, because it’s an ideology (and very specific legal framework) that only works if you’re powerful going in.
There’s a damned good reason so few women are libertarians. Not an accident.
My favorite interlude with the libertarians in law school was watching them desperately try to come up with a rational approach to protecting the environment (public assets) without federal law or intervention in private entities/property. They completely failed. Massive, laughable failure, and they weren’t stupid people.
Omnes Omnibus
@kay: Good point, but the difference is that, despite a number of disagreements I have with Anne Laurie on some issues, I do not have a horror of admitting that she is right on this one. With m_c, on the other hand, the obsession and creepiness overwhelm the accuracy of the judgment, and yet she was, I think, basically correct.
kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
Funny, OO. That made me laugh. I agree with you on both points. I just remember Anne Laurie’s calling him out so vividly.
As I recall it, the libertarian solution to environmental protection was that we were going to sell all the public assets, and if anyone polluted or abused in a way that harmed his neighbor, we were going to sue each other for “nuisance”.
They were madly and deeply in love with nuisance. Sadly, nuisance, as a remedy, has been gutted (by statute) in Ohio, but I didn’t find that out until I left law school, and local environmentalists were trying to bring a nuisance suit against CAFO’s, or “megafarms”.
Omnes Omnibus
@kay: Yeah, one of the things that the libertarians forget in their rush to protect individuals against big government is the role government can play in protecting individuals for big business. IOW, as usual, they simplify everything to a playground level and get upset when someone points out that life for grown-ups is more complicated.
kay
@Omnes Omnibus:
The CAFO issue was fascinating here. I spent a summer on it. They eventually (thank God) hired a real environmental lawyer. I was just “helping” at the outset of their effort to stop a giant egg producer from locating here. I’ll never forget how stunned the local conservative-libertarian landowners were when they realized they had no legal remedy outside federal law.
The Ohio EPA had been all but captured by agribusiness, so the regs were useless, and state statutes had been re-written (by lobbyists) to block nearly every avenue into a common pleas court. Boo hoo. It all came crashing down.
A Humble Lurker
@Xanthippas:
What the fuck does that have to do with anything in this thread? Are you lost?
Bob2
Oh lord, I was reading the comments in LOG on which ways liberals voted on the Iraq war. No mention on who fudged the data to get them to vote that way.
Samara Morgan
@kay:
ORLY? because that is not how i remember it.
Link plz?
the way i remember that is that i FORCED AL to admit that in the context of her post mocking me for being thrilled that that slimey little fucker had finally oozed off the BJ masthead.
But i could certainly be WRONG.
so why dontchu link the front page AL statement you are reffing, Kay?
school me, do please.
;)
Woodrowfan
I always had the feeling that Paul doesn’t like foreign wars because they end up involving brown people, many of whom then come to live in the US.
Jonny Scrum-half
I read Kain as saying that all the bad stuff about Paul (racist newsletters, for example) isn’t as important as the fact that he is the only candidate — Republican or Democrat — that gets foreign policy correct. And, by Kain’s calculations, our current foreign policy actually kills lots of people, which makes that issue more important than everything else.
Why isn’t that a fair argument?
Woodrowfan
because the rest of his policies would also kill a whole boatload of people.
Cutting Medicare/Medicaid
Gutting Social Security
Cutting foreign aid such as food and medical aid
Ending unemployment insurance
Allowing states to criminalize abortion and even birth control
Paul’s policies would increase human misery. Cutting back the military monster we’ve created and firing up a doobie are not a fair trade for setting the economy back to 1890
kay
@Samara Morgan:
You’re insufferable, you know that? You didn’t FORCE anyone to do anything, because you’re not that powerful.
I don’t feel like searching this site for AL’s Kain post. You do it, if you’re disputing that AL wrote a post like that.
I don’t take orders from you. Do it yourself.
kay
@Jonny Scrum-half:
This isn’t an argument:
He doesn’t “know” anything of the sort. There are lots and lots and lots of very good reasons to reject Ron Paul other than “team loyalty”.
I reject Ron Paul because he doesn’t believe in the basic legal structure or grounding of the modern United States. I reject Ron Paul because we rejected Ron Paul’s states’ rights ideology in the 1860s. I reject his ideas.
Samara Morgan
@Johannes:
so was Cassandra obsessional.
Cursed by Apollo to always tell the truth and never be believed.
And we all know how that turned out for her and Troy.
did you miss my response to Tom Levenson?
kay
@Woodrowfan:
I keep harping on this, but that isn’t, actually what he believes. Ron Paul doesn’t want to “gut” Social Security. Ron Paul believes Social Security is unlawful.
This is what he believes. Unless something is expressly authorized by the Constitution, it is unlawful. I don’t have any problem with anyone supporting Ron Paul, but I think he means what he says.
WHY does he oppose the drug war? WHY does he oppose US intervention overseas? Those are good, crucial questions, and he answers them, all the time. He doesn’t hide this. He says it all the time.
Paul in KY
EDK, LOOG fucktard free-market hoser…Wallah Wallah, cudlip!
Paul in KY
@Samara Morgan: Good one, better than mine ;-)
El Tiburon
or co-opted by a bunch of Wall Street Corporatist hacks who plunge us deeper into shit while protecting their fat-cat buddies. Or a DOJ that refuses to go after Wall Street. Or a President who seems to defy logic by insisting on trying to work with Republicans time and time and time again for no fucking reason.
yeah, I think Ron Paul is a loon and I’d never vote for him. But to pretend Obama or anyone else is any worse is just pure bullshit. They are all cut from the same cloth, and if anything, I give some props to Paul for some of his convictions. You know I’d take a racist newsletter for some of his ideas. But as EDK and others have argued, why let that bother you when you have a President already who has no problem in bombing and killing innocent children and murdering his own citizens while signing off on indefinite detention.
But hey, at least you can say you bad-mouthed the crazy Ron Paul!
kay
@Woodrowfan:
He doesn’t believe Congress can spend money for the “general welfare”. I mean, that’s just huge. Talking about legalizing pot in the context of that is just crazy. It’s like saying you bought a house because you liked the curtains.
Chris
@kay:
Wait, what the hell? Slavery WAS legal. Which is a horrific fact in and of itself and should be brought up every time someone refers to the Founding Fathers as the ultimate source of all human wisdom, okay… but slavery WAS legal and constitutional and it took a war and a constitutional amendment to change it.
If Ron Paul wants Social Security gone, he’ll have to change the constitution in the same way. (So much for Founder intent, constitutional originalism, going back to our roots and the rest of that rot).
Paul in KY
@Omnes Omnibus: I am also on record as thinking he was a waste of ink. Just wanted to get that in the record.
A Humble Lurker
@El Tiburon:
I agree. No one’s worse than Ron Paul, just for pure insanity. You’ve made an excellent point.
Samara Morgan
@kay: i think Old JAFI might have bitched about Kain portraying himself as the BJ Ombudsman at some glibertarian site…but chu know the BJ code.
Front Pagers aren’t allowed to crit each other.
Membah the ABL, AL, Cornerstone flame up?
She never PUBLICALLY said that until i forced her to.
Unlike you, i can link it.
Heres the thread where AL engages in snake-poking.
Samara Morgan
@kay:
it doesnt exist. you just can’t bear that i was RIGHT ALL ALONG.
and ill be magnanimous….but not to you Kay.
You are lying when you claim AL said it first.
kay
@Chris:
Oh, I think he’d agree with that. As I said, he doesn’t hide the ball. His son Rand hides the ball, but Ron doesn’t.
My point is, Ron Paul’s opinions are not isolated and distinct. One can’t pick and choose with Ron Paul, because his ideology, his set of rules, isn’t fluid enough to allow that.
His beliefs about government are grounded, always, in his fundamental idea of “how this country was supposed to work”, which is radically different than modern US government, or, how this country actually works. That’s just fact.
When he says Social Security is unconstitutional he means unlawful. Outside the law. A deviation or detour that shouldn’t have happened, and must be rectified.
kay
@Samara Morgan:
No, you’re not at all generous. You’re a jerk, Samara. You know damn well AL called out Kain, but you’re going to obsess on your own “rightness”, because you have some ridiculous grudge against AL.
Get lost. I’m not interested in that.
Yutsano
@kay: I think you just volunteered to become the child’s new obsession.
kay
@Samara Morgan:
I think AL made herself clear about Kain. I also think you made yourself clear about Kain. One doesn’t exclude the other.
YOU may disagree about my including AL, and insist you “forced” her into something or other, but we’re not going to resolve it, because it isn’t clear-cut and it’s a difference of opinion.
kay
@Samara Morgan:
I didn’t claim any “first”. I don’t read all your comments. I have no idea who said it “first”.
Here’s what I wrote:
“she did but someone else did too.” Too, Samara. AL said it too.
Samara Morgan
@kay: you know who did say it before AL?
Cornerstone.
Are you confusing AL and CS?
Samara Morgan
@kay:
from the get-go.
did you say that?
liar liar pants on fire.
Samara Morgan
@kay: i dont like liars.
kay
@Samara Morgan:
You’re making up something I didn’t say. I didn’t say “first” Samara. I didn’t say “before”. I said TOO. I said AL said it TOO. In addition.
Look, I’m sorry I mentioned it. You want to be first? Be first. AL can be third, or second, or whatever.
I said it because I remembered Anne Laurie taking Kain to task and no one else (apparently) remembered that. I think AL should get credit for recognizing it. You can have credit too! I promise!
kay
@Samara Morgan:
Oh, bullshit. You won’t give her any credit because you’re holding a grudge, and she’s on your wacko grudge list. I gave her some credit, and tough shit if you don’t like it.
Samara Morgan
@kay: I’m not making up something you didnt say. YOU SAID.
“from the get-go”. that means from the beginning right?
That simply isnt true.
that post i linked is AL mocking me for celebrating Kain disappearing from the masthead. she never admitted he was a grifter until after he jumped to Forbes.
kay
@Yutsano:
And…sorry for going on and on w/her. I’ll stop now.
kay
@Samara Morgan:
Samara, take all the credit. But, you know, you could agree with AL on some things and disagree on others. That could happen. In my view, it did happen, but you don’t see it. Fine. It’s not the end of the world. I don’t care.
El Cid
I didn’t know I was supposed to have a strong opinion on EDK in the first place.
I don’t get the impression that John Cole sees the FP status as quite the super-serious endorsement that it appears to be for many. I don’t think it’s the equivalent of a political party carefully and strategically thinking who should be among their spokespersons.
At worst, I basically see it as that JC liked him for whatever reason, and wanted to have someone in the (likely illusory, but anyway) category of ‘sane conservative or thereabouts’, tried it, and I guess it didn’t work out.
This blog really isn’t the equivalent of some party line generating publication. I know I don’t come here for the heavy duty analysis of and/or reporting on issues, though occasionally it or a link to it appears.
Nor do I view the comments section with the weight that clearly a lot of people give it.
I realize that there is a sort of impact that can be made overall by a blog, even one mostly directed toward anti-GOP snark and bitching like this, so, yeah, if it really did feel like some Ron Paul backing vehicle, it’d be really absurd and offensive, but some strain of talk appearing every now & then which isn’t the best won’t freak me out.
Samara Morgan
@kay: i do agree with AL on a lot of things. However, Dave Weigel, staunch libertarian and Ron Paul fanboi is not one of them.
“shariah ridden brown babies” (her exact words) is another.
i welcome you saying you WERE WRONG….because it never happened.
AL nevah made a front page post exposing Kain. she routinely mocked me for trying to do it in the comments.
you dont like me.
idc.
kay
@Samara Morgan:
That’s not actually true, and you’re making me sad with this whole thing.
Samara, I apologize if I worded it wrong, but you and AL agreed on what you saw as Kain’s “ambition” just to shorten the description and cut to the chase about what we’re really talking about here. Since the commenters were saying YOU and YOU ALONE recognized that I simply wanted to add that AL also saw it. That’s all. Again, I’m sorry I said it because it’s caused all this trouble. It’s not a huge deal, and AL can, of course, speak for herself.
shortstop
As much fun as it is to watch people continue to argue with a demonstrably mentally ill poster who lacks even the mitigating factor of being entertaining or interesting while crazy, and who is fundamentally incapable of ever admitting error, may I sneak in a probably too simplistic observation about Paul supporters, racism and sexism?
I know a lot of self-professed libertarians (really, I do!). In my experience, their reaction to Paul’s racist history and anti-choice positions tends to break down rather neatly along age lines. The older, whiter, smugger Paul corps of engineers doesn’t give a shit about some old newsletters or some chick’s forced birth. The younger ones, a group in which EDK fits alongside the criminally underinformed young liberals who endorse Paul (despite the contrasting ideologies, total naivete and self-satisfaction tie these disparate subgroups of younger voters together) will tie themselves into pretzels denying the evidence.
The same people who (rightly) scoff that no one should have been taken in by the leadup to the Iraq War will look me in the eye and insist that Paul is pro-choice. When corrected, they have the lack of personal dignity to try the old “He’s not really anti-choice; he just thinks it should be up to the states” routine. And they will make damned fools of themselves pretending it’s reasonable to assume that this guy had no idea what was going into his own newsletters, and that, once apprised, he could not have been expected to do something about it.
Really, the older “libertarians” are almost easier to deal with, if only because of their fuck-you attitude about any federal legislation that doesn’t stand to personally enrich them. They’re still in denial about the content of their own positions, but to a far lesser extent than the younger Paulbots.
Chuck Butcher
IF Ron Paul was even the least consistent in his “Libertarianism” there might be some damn reason for the followers of that ideology and their hangers on to be enthused by him. The problem is that he is NOT any such thing. Despite the fig leaf of pot or even foreign interventions what you get is classic Confederate empowerment of the already powerful.
What the hell difference does a State’s or the Fed’s stand on abortion have to do with the concept of Libertarianism? Does the size of a State negate the fact that it is a government? Tell something like that to California when most nations in the world don’t match it for scale or scope. Along with everybody I know that is Pro-choice I don’t like abortion, but it doesn’t take too many brain cells in operation to realize that there is a difference between allowing abortions and mandating a birth in terms of governmental interference.
I’m not going to get into the utter stupidity of the FUIGM idiotology, I’m sure the fuck not going to stand still for the consistency bullshit. Ron Paul is a POS dressed up in a costume of Liberty or libertarianism or what the hell ever. The fact that his bullshit plays in his piss-ant CD in TX doesn’t mean there’s a reason for anyone else to take it in the least seriously any mere than there’s some reason to call him consistent in something other than his bullshit.
I don’t like foreign intervention and I don’t care if you smoke pot as long as you don’t make me deal with your impairment but I’m not going to pretend that forced birth and racism are just inconveniences or that Obama and whatever clown the GOPers put up are equal because they’re not different enough.
No they’re not different enough but then hand grenades and nukes both go bang.
Medicine Man
So M_C was right about ED-Kain. Is she also right about Freddie DeBoer? Inquiring minds.
Chuck Butcher
As for whether somebody agreed with something EDK wrote at some time, does this mean that opposition to foreign intervention is bad because Ron Paul is also opposed? Does agreeing with some point mean that you have to agree with the rest of a person’s points? I regularly called bullshit on EDK’s freemarket junk and yet agreed with him on a post that made sense… so that would make me what? A Paultard?
drkrick
@Redshift: I think you’re misreading which part of the Paul agenda 5×5 thinks can get through Congress.
Samara Morgan
@Medicine Man: yes. i am right. i knew de Bore and EDK from Culture 11. Kain has ALWAYS been a libertarian. Freddie WAS a liberal. Now he is a civil glibertarian.
@shortstop: Kain and Paul are BOTH classic liberty-as-means libertarians. Read Dr. Manzi to see what that means.
The Paradox of Libertarianism.
Classic liberty-as means libertarianism is just localized mobrule….or as i liek to call it…..Distributed Jesusland™
@Chuck Butcher: EDK and Paul are ideologically isometric. They believe in states rights, and that economic liberty trumps civil liberty. They believe that the “freed” market will police itself.
In the runup to Nov 2012, there are no “sane” conservatives or “honest” libertarians.
Samara Morgan
lol, moderation. i do not care enough to try to fix it.
@kay:
One more time.
she might have, but she hella sure never said anything about it until EDK was off the masthead and i rubbed her nose in it for 100th time.
you are right, tho……less have AL pop in and defend herself.
if she can.
:)
Samara Morgan
@Chuck Butcher: one more thought experiment for you.
Would you have intervened in the Shoah?
Because Paul wouldn’t have.
Paul is not anti-war– he is anti-America-paying-for-war.
Samara Morgan
@Medicine Man: of course i am right.
I knew EDK and de Bore from Culture 11. Kain has always been a free market libertarian.
Freddie was a liberal, and he changed to be a civil glibertarian.
Samara Morgan
@kay:
i just do not think that is true.
know why?
because AL is apparently blissfully unaware that her crush Dave Weigel voted for Ron Paul in 2008.
Chuck Butcher
@Samara Morgan:
My default position is getting on the killing machine is a bad idea. I can be persuaded, but I will be reluctant. period.
Do not mistake me for a pacifist, I am not – I can get along with the idea that some people really need killing and that there will be very unfortunate consequences involved in that process. Warfare is a failure of all other processes and you need to be very careful that you can’t live with results short of killing to get another.
Samara Morgan
@Chuck Butcher: that is fine, but wholly irrelevent to my point.
Paul is not anti-war– he is anti- “Americapayingforwar”.
And he is a classic liberty-as-means libertarian.
Just like Kain.
Samara Morgan
@Chuck Butcher:
what post would that be?
All EDK is is pure free market junk.
Samara Morgan
Here Butcher, this is for you and Kay.
Anne Laurie crush Dave Weigel (who voted for Paul in 2008) points out some shit via sully.
Look for Sully and Wiegel to drop Paul like a hot potato.
Kain, i dunno.
Erik may be in too deep.
:)
Samara Morgan
heres fuckin’ Dr. Jim Manzi on prostitution.
Anne Laurie accused me once of trying to start a war between Balloon Juice and the libertarians. I am. I want that war.
I dont think libertarians are charming and quaint like Kay does.
I think those fuckers are gunna destroy America if we let them.
Samara Morgan
And i should have said, drop Paul like a hot rock.
Because they will.
Sully and Weigel will start sayin’ nice things about Mitt pretty fucking quick.
just watch.
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: No one here is Pro-Paul. Do you, can you, understand this?
Benjamin Franklin
@Omnes Omnibus:
In case you want to discuss further….see Manning thread.
Samara Morgan
@Omnes Omnibus: Anne Laurie is pro-Weigel. He voted Paul in 2008, and he’s thinkin’ of doin’ it again.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: I am Pro-Paul.
We get together in TX and stack our gold bars. Whoever has the smaller stack of Au has to rub mineral oil all over the other one’s naked body.
I don’t mind cheating a lil.
Samara Morgan
@Benjamin Franklin: yeah, lets go to tha manning thread.
fucking asswipe cudlips.
Corner Stone
Fuckin’ EDK. He’s so white he might as well have been transparent.
Oh, wait. He kinda was to anyone paying attention.
Corner Stone
@Samara Morgan:
Not possible. I trim the crusts off my PB&J sammiches.
Everyone knows that.
Benjamin Franklin
Why? Are you a uniter or a divider. Enquiring minds want to know…
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: AL likes Weigel’s writing. It is possible to do that without subscribing to all the guy’s ideas. Have you ever seen any of the regular commenters* or front pagers actually say they were in favor of Paul? No, you have seen them talk about him, usually with a mocking edge.
*Cornerstone being the obvious exception, but he is clearly in it for the kink.
Benjamin Franklin
@Corner Stone:
You ought to get together with the Bushs’ and T Boone. Water is the new gold.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2006/10/20/bush-s-paraguay-land-grab/
Benjamin Franklin
@Samara Morgan:
Rabies is on the rise.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m headed to Capital Grille in a few minutes. I’m buying, you in?
Samara Morgan
@Omnes Omnibus: WTF are you talkin about? the Butcher and El Cid just bloviated about Paul having SOME good ideas.
Fuck off.
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: I’ll fire up the Gulfstream and be right there. Order me the shellfish platter to start, would you?
Samara Morgan
@Benjamin Franklin: so is video-gaming.
less us go have some yucks about slaughtering unarmed brown people from choppahs.
Samara Morgan
@Benjamin Franklin: im a divider from libertarians asswipe.
libertarians are basically reavers with a romulan stealthing device. hahahaha
i mean a Ronulan stealthing device– liek ABL said.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: I just figured since you didn’t need a kitchen pass that you’d be down.
Sorry for trying to be inclusive.
Omnes Omnibus
@Samara Morgan: Saying someone has some good ideas does not mean that you endorse that person for president. Corner Stone has some good ideas about restaurants and actresses, but I would never, ever endorse the man for president. N’est-ce pas? Hillary Clinton had some good ideas in 2008, but she was never my candidate. Now factor in that Ron fucking Paul is on the other side. Any good ideas he has tend to either be stopped clock situations or ones where he came to a decent conclusion based on scary reasoning. You know, like “we should feed the puppies … so we can eat them later.”
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone: I asked you to order me the shellfish platter. Jeez.
Benjamin Franklin
@Samara Morgan:
I figure your anger is justified. Just not well-placed.
Preaching to the choir has some purpose, but it seems inefficient, as it is.
Corner Stone
@Omnes Omnibus: Why not? I’ve got some good ideas.
You are one harsh son of a bitch. I’d never rule out an OO run.
Fuck this. I’m going to stop being naked and commenting on the intertrons, and get some expensive clothing on.
Asshole.
Benjamin Franklin
@Samara Morgan:
These folks are in desperate need of perspective. I’ve tried and failed.
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2011/12/effective-is-as-effective-does.html
Omnes Omnibus
@Corner Stone:
Please.
Samara Morgan
@Benjamin Franklin: you aren’t my choir, asswipe.
Do you know how many times i’ve been banned here?
Benjamin Franklin
@Samara Morgan:
I wipe my ass just like you do. Again. your anger is justified.
i just think you are talking to the wrong people. Unless you see
some close conservatives. Is that what upsets you?
Nathanael
Personally, I think if Ron Paul were elected, he would do a lot of really valuable things: end the wars, restore civil liberties, end the drug war, close the torture camps, stop censoring the Internet, end the spying-on-Americans-without-warrants, etc.
He’d also completely, utterly trash the economy. To hell. So bad that no Republican would ever be elected in this country for decades. Unfortunately, possibly so bad that he would be overthrown by a military coup.
I’m actually unsure whether his trashing of the economy would be a good thing or not. Usually the old Communist “we must heighten the contradictions of capitalism so that the workers will be enlightened rise up” thing doesn’t work and just hurts people, but every now and then throughout history it seems like it does work, and those times it causes less disaster overall than staggering along getting worse slowly. The “boiling the frog” myth speaks to the same question.
I’m not endorsing anyone for President, because they’re all untrustworthy. I may have to vote for someone, but since I’m in a “safe state” my vote doesn’t matter anyway….
Samara Morgan
@Anne Laurie: why not stand up for yourself and link your FP revelation about Kain?
you just left poor Kay twisting in the wind.