Reason Magazine DEFENDS dismissing Ron Paul

[Agorism]

http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/17/reasoners-on-the-tube-is-ron-p

gillespie@reason.com

[Sola_Fide]

Wow...just wow...

Appealing to intrade for support. Good going guys.

[CaptUSA]

I have to admit to being a Reasonite for a long time. Curious thing about them, though. They have all the right ideas, but they often behave like the libertarian party - they shoot eachother in the foot, they get caught up in the little things and lose sight of the big picture, and they pay far too much attention to personalities instead of just choosing who most closely represents their issues.

Still, great magazine, though.

[acptulsa]

Thank you. Unlike the other thread, you said what this one is about.

Great magazines do not do this sort of thing. Great news sources just report news.

I hope no one clicks that link. They do not need traffic for crap like this.

[Petar]

How much more obvious can it be that there are big-money mercantilists who actually call the shots are Reason magazine?

Phoney "beltway" libertarians are the most nauseating traitors of all...

[muzzled dogg]

http://i.picasion.com/pic38/d63521058f29936fbef59943da2b70e5.gif

[MRoCkEd]

I don't think he was defending dismissing Ron Paul as much as he was defending his colleague's right to a unique opinion on this and other subjects:


We've fielded more than a couple demands that Mangu-Ward be fired for her remarks, which seems to be a strange request of an organization that trades in "Free Minds and Free Markets." Reason staffers disagree on a wide range of topics, including the current issues of whether and why Ron Paul is getting the coverage he deserves and just how likely he is to win the GOP presidential nod, much less win the general election in 2012. These are conversations worth having, but they are not the stuff of vendetta.

As for the full article, I thought it was pretty good. Can't really disagree with this:

Paul is saying things that are wildly resonant with the American public and that are equally wildly out of step with establishment pols and media types. This is a guy who managed to storm the New York Times best-seller list with books about the founding of the country and ending the Federal Reserve, after all. Virtually alone among members of Congress, much less members of his party, he opposed the warfare state from his first days in office. He was against TARP and the bailouts, against Bush and Obama stimulus spending, has brought new scrutiny to the nation's central bank.

Which helps explain why Paul is, for too many partisans and press people alike, to tough to tangle with. To engage the issues that he raises would require too much recalibration for most Republicans, and a total brain transplant for most Democrats and members of the press (who aren't ideological as much as they are fundamentally unserious).

That's a damn shame, but it's one the is surely on the decline. Ron Paul may not be getting the coverage he deserves, but he is getting more of it than he did the last time around and, as the issues he pushes become ever-more central to what voters care about, his views and ideas will be right at the center of the moment, regardless of whether he wins, shows, or places in New Hampshire and beyond.

That is the real story and it's one that won't be going away despite the best efforts of establishment types who wish otherwise.

[LatinsforPaul]

I have to admit to being a Reasonite for a long time. Curious thing about them, though. They have all the right ideas, but they often behave like the libertarian party - they shoot eachother in the foot, they get caught up in the little things and lose sight of the big picture, and they pay far too much attention to personalities instead of just choosing who most closely represents their issues.

Still, great magazine, though.

It has nothing to do about the Libertarian Party. The Koch brothers despise Ron Paul and everything he stands for...

The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html)


Unfortunately, the efforts of the Kochtopus against the Mises Institute have continued to the present. The current campaign for the presidency of Ron Paul has secured for libertarian ideas a greater public hearing than ever before. But owing to Paul's long association with Rothbard and Rockwell, his campaign had little appeal to Cato. High officials of Cato cooperated with James Kirchick's malicious smears against him in The New Republic. (After his losing Senate campaign to Phil Gramm, Paul had been employed by Koch as chairman of Citizens for a Sound Economy, but his contract was not renewed. Like Rothbard, Ron Paul is a man of principle and would not compromise on his advocacy of the gold standard and opposition to the Federal Reserve System. Charles Koch did not want this: such measures would hardly help him gain influence with the Republican Party, to which, if I am not mistaken, he and his brother are the largest private contributors.Further, Paul would have no part of Koch's efforts to have the CSE, beneath free market rhetoric, lobby to promote legislation beneficial to his business interests.) It should come as no surprise that Matt Welch, the new editor of Reason, has published a viciously negative piece against Rockwell and Paul. Koch is a large funder of the magazine, and, as Murray Rothbard learned to his cost, he expects those he funds to obey his dictates.

[KEEF]

Not to be nit picky either, but the teacher in me found this typo that was just staring me in the face. "Which helps explain why Paul is, for too many partisans and press people alike, to tough to tangle with." Use too not to.

On that note, yeah I don't send them any traffic.

[NewRightLibertarian]

They're traitors, they're not real libertarians. Fuck these guys. This is nothing new though; they carry water for the establishment.

[GopBlackList]

Don't know much about the Kock Brothers ("the Soros of the Right") but aren't they board members for Reason Foundation?

[Napoleon's Shadow]

Here is her FB page if you want to send her a message: https://www.facebook.com/kmanguward?ref=ts

[Jingles]

Don't know much about the Kock Brothers ("the Soros of the Right") but aren't they board members for Reason Foundation?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon39.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon86.1.html

[Diurdi]

Just a bunch of hipsters who think it's cool to be unique. Guess they'll have to find a new fringe-philosophy as libertarianism is getting more popular.

[jtstellar]

since nick came out defending her, certainly the magazine has fallen off the cliff on my list.

[fearthereaperx]

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com is doing a number on them in the comment section:


Justin Raimondo|8.17.11 @ 6:52PM|#
Let's see: Reason collaborates with the neocons over at The New Republic to smear Ron with charges of "racism" -- and then they send out Mangu-whatever, a former Weekly Standard staffer, to declare that he can't win. And they're shocked -- shocked! -- that libertarians are calling them on it. Is there anyone more clueless than Nick Gillespie, wannabe talking head star and champion narcissist?

Justin Raimondo|8.17.11 @ 7:57PM|#
So why doesn't the Mangu come here and defend herself? Or is she too good for that? I can just hear her at one of those Washington cocktail parties:

The Mangu: Boy, I sure pissed off those libertarians the other day on Fox! [Insert smirk here]

Bill Kristol: Good girl, Kathy! I'll be sure to get you free tickets to the Norman Podhoretz Aware Dinner -- you've earned them!

The Mangu: Gee, thanks Bill. You taught me all I know!

What's really disgusting is that the non-libertarian lady, I'd never heard of her, is the one defending Ron against the Mangu! This shouild tell us all we need to know about not only the Mangu but Reason magazine as a supposedly "libertarian" institution. It isn't anymore: it's a Beltway institution. That's how Weigle wriggled his way in there.

[Bern]

There is a difference between asserting a fact and offering an opinion. Asserting an opinion as fact is either high incompetence or malicious intent. If it were just a mistake, Reason should have no problem apologizing and clarifying. F them.

[sailingaway]

Wow...just wow...

Appealing to intrade for support. Good going guys.

a bit circular isn't it? Particularly given how much ink they give Gary Johnson and used to give Cain?

[mello]

What I can't understand is why would Reason tear down the only libertarian
leaning politician in the race? Just by default, shouldn't they have a vested
interest in him winning since Ron is the only libertarian that has the closest
shot of getting in the Whitehouse?

[Brian4Liberty]

Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com is doing a number on them in the comment section:


Justin Raimondo|8.17.11 @ 6:52PM|#
Let's see: Reason collaborates with the neocons over at The New Republic to smear Ron with charges of "racism" -- and then they send out Mangu-whatever, a former Weekly Standard staffer, to declare that he can't win. And they're shocked -- shocked! -- that libertarians are calling them on it. Is there anyone more clueless than Nick Gillespie, wannabe talking head star and champion narcissist?

Justin Raimondo|8.17.11 @ 7:57PM|#
So why doesn't the Mangu come here and defend herself? Or is she too good for that? I can just hear her at one of those Washington cocktail parties:

The Mangu: Boy, I sure pissed off those libertarians the other day on Fox! [Insert smirk here]

Bill Kristol: Good girl, Kathy! I'll be sure to get you free tickets to the Norman Podhoretz Aware Dinner -- you've earned them!

The Mangu: Gee, thanks Bill. You taught me all I know!

What's really disgusting is that the non-libertarian lady, I'd never heard of her, is the one defending Ron against the Mangu! This shouild tell us all we need to know about not only the Mangu but Reason magazine as a supposedly "libertarian" institution. It isn't anymore: it's a Beltway institution. That's how Weigle wriggled his way in there.

Raimondo gets it right.

[puppetmaster]

What I can't understand is why would Reason tear down the only libertarian
leaning politician in the race? Just by default, shouldn't they have a vested
interest in him winning since Ron is the only libertarian that has the closest
shot of getting in the Whitehouse?

because they sold out years ago.....now with Ron gaining traction they have to out themselves to pay off their debt to their masters.

such bitches

[KingRobbStark]

just a bunch of hipsters who think it's cool to be unique. Guess they'll have to find a new fringe-philosophy as libertarianism is getting more popular.

burn!!

[osan]

http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/17/reasoners-on-the-tube-is-ron-p

gillespie@reason.com

Seems to be some good stuff there. To wit:


Which helps explain why Paul is, for too many partisans and press people alike, to tough to tangle with. To engage the issues that he raises would require too much recalibration for most Republicans, and a total brain transplant for most Democrats and members of the press (who aren't ideological as much as they are fundamentally unserious).

That's a damn shame, but it's one the is surely on the decline. Ron Paul may not be getting the coverage he deserves, but he is getting more of it than he did the last time around and, as the issues he pushes become ever-more central to what voters care about, his views and ideas will be right at the center of the moment, regardless of whether he wins, shows, or places in New Hampshire and beyond.

That is the real story and it's one that won't be going away despite the best efforts of establishment types who wish otherwise.


On the whole, the impression I took away from the article that Ron is in fact the best choice out there and that because he is an "outsider", the GOP establishment wants nothing to do with him. The article appears to hold a low opinion (if tacitly so) of those who declare that he has no chance of winning. I am unclear where the objectionable passage lays. Could you point it out? I am a notoriously slow reader and do at times miss things, so any help would be appreciated.

[Cowlesy]

I also think it's stupid for them to be getting angry emails demanding the writer be fired (who knows whether that was true or not).

If you don't like what they're writing or posting, don't read it! One writer does not a whole magazine make.

[Bern]

I also think it's stupid for them to be getting angry emails demanding the writer be fired (who knows whether that was true or not).

If you don't like what they're writing or posting, don't read it! One writer does not a whole magazine make.

Mangu-Ward is a senior editor, not just a writer.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?310175-VIDEO-RT-Reason-Magazine-against-Ron-Paul&p=3483054&viewfull=1#post3483054

[jtstellar]

i think the new blood needs to break away from the old. the old ones, if enlightened over the years since ron paul, are of course welcome to join the new.

i regret rp having ever taken up the name libertarian and run on libertarian ticket. many of us new bloods joined the rp movement and took up the term libertarianism unsuspectingly.. not knowing how many timid and cowardly people stuck at the bottom of the pit there are in the thing called the libertarian party.. there was a reason why these losers haven't advanced at all these years and even managed to contract during the years when tea party grew and the two parties lost voters. this movement should have started under a different brand altogether.. anarchists and old world libertarians really could have just kept the label and we would have gone on not disturbing each other, and this movement would be carrying much less weight. just think how much baggage we have had to carry since ron became associated with the term libertarian.

and since we are the "late comers".. it sort of becomes that we have to justify OUR views in why it may differ from the .001% of the losers still stuck in the libertarian party and support a central bank/federally sanctioned abortion because it was as if we were unwittingly trying to fit the label on ourselves. we don't EVEN have to discuss social issues if we started under a different brand because the wacks leftover in libertarian party have become so fringe that they have to argue full time on abortion and gay rights to grab attention. we could have just claimed a platform of strictly financial and foreign policy reform--like what the tea party did. if we didn't try to take up the old label with so much human dirt still stuck under the sticker, we wouldn't have had to deal with all that and instead it will be the old libertarians who can choose to come around to us if they wish to or better yet stay where they had been.

i think this is EXACTLY why rand paul is having such an easier time.. and i think it's just so smart that he didn't associated himself with the libertarian party.. he must have seen what his dad had to deal with over the years. imagine if we didn't have those baggage.. we might be somewhere altogether different today.

the young people today are NOT libertarians.. they are something different and much more evolved. we should come up with a name for ourselves and cut the ties for good. we HAVE grown at least 1000% in terms of supporter base since ron's 1% national polling in 08.. we must be outnumbering those old fossils by something like 10 to 1.. there is no need for us to carry the water.

[Kludge]

Mangu-Ward is a senior editor, not just a writer.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?310175-VIDEO-RT-Reason-Magazine-against-Ron-Paul&p=3483054&viewfull=1#post3483054
Still, the opinions in the magazine reach far and wide. It's a great range of liberal-leaning and conservative-leaning folks over there who have a tendency of writing up very insightful articles. I seem to have let my subscription run out a few months ago, but it's really the only political magazine I enjoy reading. Veronique de Rugy's economic articles going into specifics of how government obfuscates numbers is always enlightening. Brian Doherty's "Radicals for Capitalism" is also a fantastic in-depth book on the history of libertarianism - he also writes interesting articles for Reason.

I'm a little dismayed over Mangu-Ward's comments, but I think the defense of her right to say it in their magazine which other staff posted is very solid. It's silly to characterize an entire staff by the opinions of a few. I'm very glad the magazine isn't an echo chamber like Freedom Watch or Stossel.


.... Though, ideally... A magazine would be started by John C. Dvorak and Mike Masnick, combining Reason with Maximum PC (uh... I mean PC Mag), and then as a counter-weight, they'd bring Cory Doctorow on, too. Ooooo....!

[KingRobbStark]

Im going to let my subscription expire. Any magazine defending censorship doesn't deserve my money.

[LibertyEagle]

I don't think he was defending dismissing Ron Paul as much as he was defending his colleague's right to a unique opinion on this and other subjects:


As for the full article, I thought it was pretty good. Can't really disagree with this:

I dunno. Looks like covering their ass, to me. The damage had already been done by their Senior Editor when she repeatedly proclaimed on national TV that Paul had no chance to win.

[Corpsman4Liberty]

Funny too because I just recently bought "declaration of independents"

what a joke.

america is on the cusp of getting a libertarian in office and a libertarian magazine starts pandering to the media. it's pathetic.

[TruckinMike]

Reason magazine is made up of leftist that have kind of seen the light. Every since i saw Nick and some other reason dude on Freedom watch arguing FOR social services they were on my do not trust list -- along with Rush, hannity and the rest. Nothing unexpected here.

TMike

[brushfire]

Thank you. Unlike the other thread, you said what this one is about.

Great magazines do not do this sort of thing. Great news sources just report news.

I hope no one clicks that link. They do not need traffic for crap like this.

Agreed... break the link. I've unsubscribed, and have no interest looking back.

I too say fk reason - lets carry on without 'em.