View Full Version : Orange County Register: Steven Greenhut: Getting serious about Ron Paul
sailingaway
11-26-2011, 11:23 AM
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/paul-328514-serious-republican.html
I'm hoping the OC Register will end up endorsing Ron. I think they might. They REALLY like his budget and were trying to get other candidates to adopt it, almost warning that if they were serious candidates, they should at least explain why they didn't.
I note this here is a letter to the editor by the editor of calwatchdog, however, the editors did do a write up of Ron's budget ^.
Fredom101
11-26-2011, 11:47 AM
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/paul-328514-serious-republican.html
I'm hoping the OC Register will end up endorsing Ron. I think they might. They REALLY like his budget and were trying to get other candidates to adopt it, almost warning that if they were serious candidates, they should at least explain why they didn't.
I note this here is a letter to the editor by the editor of calwatchdog, however, the editors did do a write up of Ron's budget ^.
In this day and age, why does it matter what newspapers "think"? They are a dying breed, and many now know they are just puppets for pro-government propaganda.
sailingaway
11-26-2011, 11:54 AM
In this day and age, why does it matter what newspapers "think"? They are a dying breed, and many now know they are just puppets for pro-government propaganda.
OC Register may impose its views, but they might be different from that of other paper chains. They speak for/are persuasive to /affiliated with a group of national publications in their own right, although not the biggest one, and are more Goldwater/Reaganesque than others. They aren't neocon, even if they can be hawkish. They understand the economic condition. I think they are worth courting.
RonRules
11-26-2011, 12:31 PM
The Orange County Register openly admits that they have a Libertarian bent, yet I see them as a very weak paper and rarely cover gov fraud. I tried to get article printed by them to no avail.
BTW, last Sunday, i had dinner at a friend's place and an LA Times editor was there. I spoke to her about 1/2 hour about politics, which she covers in her articles. Would you believe that she didn't know that Ron Paul had won the California Straw poll?!! That straw poll happened in Los Angeles too!
I haven't subscribed to a newspaper in decades. Until they start doing more investigative journalism, I'll keep it that way.
sailingaway
11-26-2011, 12:34 PM
I'm not saying you need to sign up for the paper, I am saying it reaches the exact demographic the internet DOESN'T and it would be great to have them endorse Ron. Particularly since they have a national network. When they wrote up Ron's budget plan I saw the write up picked up by 8 or so other regional papers in other parts of the country, at least.
Here is the Orange County Register's write up of Ron's budget plan. This was BEFORE he was tied for first in Iowa and second in NH. Note that it is written by the editors, not merely a columnist.
http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/paul-324150-plan-candidates.html
VoluntaryAmerican
11-26-2011, 01:00 PM
In this day and age, why does it matter what newspapers "think"? They are a dying breed, and many now know they are just puppets for pro-government propaganda.
So you think we will not have newspapers 20-30 years from now? :rolleyes:
Newspapers are essential for any society. But yes, new media has hurt newspapers earnings,
but all this means, end game, is you will get your news from online newspapers and not on your doorstep.
It does not mean they are dying - this is a common misconception.
sailingaway
11-26-2011, 07:11 PM
So you think we will not have newspapers 20-30 years from now? :rolleyes:
Newspapers are essential for any society. But yes, new media has hurt newspapers earnings,
but all this means, end game, is you will get your news from online newspapers and not on your doorstep.
It does not mean they are dying - this is a common misconception.
but right now there is still an older generation that is not comfortable with computers because they didn't use them in their day at work, and never changed over. And that is the audience that is at the mercy of corporate news media. I don't know that OCR will endorse Ron, but I actually think they might, if his numbers are reasonable at the time they endorse. I don't know when in the cycle they do that, though, with California's primary so late.
1stAmendguy
11-28-2011, 09:48 AM
http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/28/ron-pauls-moment
The same ole montra that "he can't win" is mentioned throughout the article. :rolleyes:
Delivered4000
11-28-2011, 09:52 AM
Moment? More like AGE
bluesc
11-28-2011, 09:53 AM
This is the same article that was in the OC register. They (OC register) always seem to like Ron's ideas, but instead of supporting him, just repeat the same old "he can't win" crap.
LibertyEagle
11-28-2011, 09:58 AM
They're assholes. Move on.
Matthew5
11-28-2011, 10:00 AM
I spat in Reason's general direction. :p
CaptUSA
11-28-2011, 10:02 AM
Something I found interesting about reason (and the Libertarian party for that matter).
They always seem to take a contrarian view. I suppose it is so they can criticize whomever is in power. It sort of gives them an ego boost. Forget that Ron Paul is the closest thing they will ever have to their "ideal" candidate, they cannot support him because if they did, they feel like they'll lose their ability to view themselves as superior to the politicians.
It's sad really.
bluesc
11-28-2011, 10:03 AM
This isn't actually written by anyone who works for Reason. I don't like them, anyway.
The guy who wrote it, on his facebook, liked "audit the fed", "campaign for liberty", "Mises", "Lew Rockwell", and........................ "Gary Johnson". No Ron Paul. Yep, he's one of those libertarians. Also, he liked "Koch Industries".
kylejack
11-28-2011, 10:04 AM
This is the same article that was in the OC register. They (OC register) always seem to like Ron's ideas, but instead of supporting him, just repeat the same old "he can't win" crap.
Ah yes, thought it sounded familiar.
LibertyEagle
11-28-2011, 10:08 AM
This isn't actually written by anyone who works for Reason. I don't like them, anyway.
The guy who wrote it, on his facebook, liked "audit the fed", "campaign for liberty", "Mises", "Lew Rockwell", and........................ "Gary Johnson". No Ron Paul. Yep, he's one of those libertarians. Also, he liked "Koch Industries".
I don't care. They carried it. Plus, they've said that much or worse about Paul, all on their own.
They're assholes.
RforRevolution
11-28-2011, 10:10 AM
I'm pretty sure it's mostly sarcasm when he says "he can't win."
Example:
Too bad everyone “knows” he can’t win.
bluesc
11-28-2011, 10:12 AM
I don't care. They carried it. Plus, they've said that much or worse about Paul, all on their own.
They're assholes.
He's been syndicated there for a weekly article since Nov 7th. They didn't specifically choose this article. I don't like Reason any more than you do, but if you're going to get angry over this article, make sure you direct that anger properly.
Sola_Fide
11-28-2011, 10:14 AM
Ugh. Reason....
sailingaway
11-28-2011, 10:15 AM
It actually doesn't say he can't win. It says not voting for the best person because you think they can't win, to get someone acclaimed as more 'electable', gives you someone who doesn't at all address the issues that need addressing. He compares it to his vote for Schwarzenegger when the far more conservative candidate in that race was McClintock.
As he says at the end of the first paragraph:
I selected a “winnable” loser rather than now-congressman Tom McClintock, a principled conservative who knew what policies to pursue to right California’s sinking fiscal ship. If everyone who voted for Schwarzenegger under the belief that McClintock couldn’t win had voted for McClintock, perhaps he would have won.
Then he essentially says that Ron Paul has a firm grasp of the most important issues and would actually do something about them and the rest are a bunch of tools. (I paraphrase.)
I agree that McClintock would have been a better Governor. Frankly I would have rather had him for Governor than Congressman, since the things I DON'T like about him really come out more on the federal level. Wish we had him as Governor now. Moreover, every conservative in California likely feels the same.
speciallyblend
11-28-2011, 10:16 AM
my comment ,Win iowa and NH and shut the lying ,misleading media up. 2 way race now but the media lies. Ron paul vs Status Quo 2012 , Ron paul is the most electable and i hope reason has to eat their own ____. When we win iowa and place 2nd in nh or even WIN IT! Ron Paul will win the gop nomination or the gop will run obama/status quo 2012 bendover! Ron Paul 2012 Bring Our Troops Home, the only one left with credibility,something reason is lacking when i read their articles!
guys -- as much as i hate the 'he can't win' meme... this article isn't as bad as some of you make it out to be. it's point, really, is that we should be voting for Paul irregardless of whether he can win or not. That's an important point, too. And certainly an important point to be made to anyone who thinks Paul can't win...
because once we get them thinking they should vote for Paul anyway, it's only a matter of time till they realize their man -can- win.
sabu140
11-28-2011, 10:53 AM
After the incident with their senior editor I cancelled two subscriptions I had to Reason and will never give them any money until she is replaced.
ChrisDixon
11-28-2011, 11:21 AM
Reason is a lot like the RLC: "we're independent libertarians run by a bunch of devout Gary Johnson supporters."
Move on.
low preference guy
11-28-2011, 11:24 AM
The same ole montra that "he can't win" is mentioned throughout the article. :rolleyes:
I think Brian Doherty is the only one who doesn't suck at Reason.
KingNothing
11-28-2011, 11:28 AM
Welch and Gillespie are awesome. Radley Balko is ridiculously awesome.
I think many of you folks need to lighten up on Reason.
sailingaway
11-28-2011, 11:28 AM
This isn't a Reason article. In fact, I posted it over the weekend when it came out with Orange County Register. It is a GOOD article aimed at persuading people who like him but are afraid he can't win to vote for him. I'm going to find where I posted it in the first place and merge these. People aren't reading the article, they are just responding to the OP.
KingNothing
11-28-2011, 11:28 AM
Welch and Gillespie are awesome. Radley Balko is ridiculously awesome.
I think many of you folks need to lighten up on Reason.
KingRobbStark
11-28-2011, 11:42 AM
This is the same article that was in the OC register. They (OC register) always seem to like Ron's ideas, but instead of supporting him, just repeat the same old "he can't win" crap.
I have heard of so many who "like" paul, but seem to think that he doesn't deserve their vote, because he is unelectable. That kind of reasoning pisses me off.
sailingaway
11-28-2011, 11:43 AM
Welch and Gillespie are awesome. Radley Balko is ridiculously awesome.
I think many of you folks need to lighten up on Reason.
They had a big part in launching the long debunked newsletter story the day before primary eve in NH last time, according to various blogs. And they would have known better, just as with their recent senior editor 'alluding' to it. They have other reasons they don't like Ron, involving corporatism and a desire for open borders, from what I can tell, and keep hinting the newsletters are actually an issue when they well know he never wrote them. Having a far longer libertarian bent involvement than I do, they know Ron's name was used by an independent editor working with volunteers, and that the newsletters ran for a decade with only a handful of references amongst them being objectionable. They know that this was gone over ad nauseum in the 1990's when he left his medical practice to return to Congress, and he has been returned to office many times since then. However, while I will never forgive those involved in that smear job unless they underwent character change, I wouldn't call out reason for this article, which is positive, didn't originate there, and in any event is being picked up a number of places.
low preference guy
11-28-2011, 12:02 PM
Nick Gillespie and Welch might have cool jackets and stuff like that, but they're not even libertarians. Both support the welfare state and believe that there should be a safety net.
Look at the crap (http://mattwelch.com/warblog/archives/000385.html)Matt Welch spouts:
I'm a liberal. I take liberalism to mean a belief in policy geared toward easing poverty, extending rights to every walking human who hasn't utterly forfeited them, getting the government out of the morality business, regulating markets judiciously, ensuring the pervasive yet hopefully efficient delivery of non-market goods such as education, health care and national defense, and otherwise having the sense to let the private sector handle private concerns
So education and health care are "non-market goods". That sounds like communism to me.
Justin Raimondo also has an article titled Who Is Matt Welch? (http://takimag.com/article/who_is_matt_welch#axzz1f1Z5m6Ft). The first sentence:
How did Matt Welch, who knows nothing about libertarianism, ever get in the position of becoming editor of Reason, the emblematic libertarian magazine?
kylejack
11-28-2011, 12:16 PM
Welch and Gillespie are awesome. Radley Balko is ridiculously awesome.
I think many of you folks need to lighten up on Reason.
It had some pretty bad neocons for a while, along with Cato, but I think it's starting to drift back to normal libertarian thought.
kylejack
11-28-2011, 12:17 PM
The day Reason fires Balko is the day I'll forsake them. But not until then.
LibertyEagle
11-28-2011, 01:14 PM
He's been syndicated there for a weekly article since Nov 7th. They didn't specifically choose this article. I don't like Reason any more than you do, but if you're going to get angry over this article, make sure you direct that anger properly.
I did. What's more, I called them and expressed my disgust at their behavior towards Ron Paul. I did not mention a particular article.
bluesc
11-28-2011, 01:18 PM
I did. What's more, I called them and expressed my disgust.
I'm sure the Koch's covered their losses when all of us unsubscribed after some of the stuff they put out in the past. They have no credibility. I wish complaints made a difference.
KingNothing
11-28-2011, 01:31 PM
Nick Gillespie and Welch might have cool jackets and stuff like that, but they're not even libertarians. Both support the welfare state and believe that there should be a safety net.
Look at the crap (http://mattwelch.com/warblog/archives/000385.html)Matt Welch spouts:
So education and health care are "non-market goods". That sounds like communism to me.
Justin Raimondo also has an article titled Who Is Matt Welch? (http://takimag.com/article/who_is_matt_welch#axzz1f1Z5m6Ft). The first sentence:
I'm almost positive that Welch has backed away from his previous views. I can't think of the specific article, but I know that he's said he's coming around to our brand of liberty.
FWIW, he wrote this wonderful article last week:
http://reason.com/archives/2011/11/22/the-simpletons Basically it is a wonderful endorsement of Paul and Libertarianism and a massive attack on punditry and authoritarian hacks.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.