A reckoning

[billyjoeallen]

My eyes are opened. The entire old newsletter flap isn't about Ron Paul at all.

The source of the story is the Reason and Cato guys and they are just trying to take out Lew Rockwell. (as well as get some publicity) WE and Dr. Paul are collateral damage in a factional feud between the neolibertarian beltway boys and The Ludwig Von Mises instute.

We were sold out by our own media! these $#@!s actually make Fox news look fair and balanced!

Watch any cable news show in the next week on the newsletter flap and you will see Nick Gillespie, Radley Balko or Mat Welch spinning their sellout as a defense of "real libertarianism."

READ "Ron Paul: Now for the piling on "on nolanchart.com.

We can still pull this out, but we can't trust Reason or CATO.

read it. it explains everything.

[snaFU]

I don't understand what you mean by CATO attacking lewrockwell. However everyone knows CATO are a bunch of randian big business $#@!s who compromise with their supposed "libertarian" beliefs in favor of the slight increase in business freedom.

[Duckman]

I think Reason and CATO just don't want themselves or libertarian ideas in general to be associated with racism. Consensus judgement is that Lew Rockwell wrote the offensive parts of these newsletters. Reason and CATO are now trying to distance themselves from those in the libertarian movement who are connected to Lew Rockwell or racist ideas. Unfortunately, it seems Ron Paul is one of those people so connected.

[billyjoeallen]

CATO and Reason either caused or exploited the newsletterflap. Nick Gillespie, Radley Balko and Matt Welch are on the talk show circuit spinnin the sellout as defense of "pure" libertarianism.

Their target is rockwell who may or may not be a racist. The point is they are willing to take down the whole revolution just to get him.

Neolibertarians hate Rockwell more than they love Paul. Prove me wrong. Please.

[emeriste]

Reason put Ron Paul on the front cover and gave several pages of favorable attention to Ron Paul and this movement.

You are becoming very distracted if you want to blame Reason or CATO for this ugliness. I support Ron Paul because I don't believe he is a racist. Indeed, I don't think you can be a racist if you are actually a libertarian. I will vote for Paul and continue pushing for him, but it is disloyal to the truth if you don't recognize that his mistakes and his associates have hurt our movement. Can you imagine any better scenario for the forces of fascism than to bring everyone who still believes in liberty together in one place and hang an anchor around all of our necks at once?

I urge people to keep fighting the GOOD fight. With integrity in everything you do. But as you do this, begin to look to the future. This movement has always been larger than Ron Paul and now more than ever it needs to be. Ask yourself what you can you do to keep this movement strong, alive, and respectable so that it is still a force on the day we get a candidate that really deserves this tremendous effort.

Reason and CATO are not being unreasonable. They expect to be in the fight for libertarianism for the long haul and they are understandably concerned about being associated with any of of this nonsense. If you believe this revolution should have a future beyond Ron Paul then you ought to be concerned about the same thing.

www.WeLoveFreedom.com

[billyjoeallen]

Reason has every right to take what they consider the high road, but to me it is a stupid self-righteousness.

According to Reason, Ron Paul is aligned with Lew Rockwell who is aligned with Pat Bucchanon who is aligned with somebody somewhere who is a racist.

How many Kevin Bacon degrees of separation are required before someone is "pure" enough to be a legitimate spokesman for libertarianism??

again I think their strategy and/or their morals are slef-defeating. It's like Groucho Marx's line that "I would never wan't to belong to a club that would have me as a member."

The holy reasonoids are claiming that the politically successful strategy persued by Paul is too pragmatic for them to support. As an alternative they offer...nothing.

[emeriste]

I agree with what you are saying there about electable libertarianism being preferable to theoretically pure libertarianism. But I think Reason is trying to keep itself from being associated with the other messy things. Everything else being scandal free I think Reason would have no problem associating themselves with a 95 percent pure libertarian like Ron Paul.

www.WeLoveFreedom.com

[billyjoeallen]

I actually read reason magazine, at least I did until now. I have a copy next to the computer here as I type. I check the Reason website about a dozen times a day. It was BECAUSE of their coverage on Dr. Paul that I suspect an attempted swiftboating.

Reason has covered Dr. Paul often and fairly until the TNR story broke the day of the NH primary. The mainstream pack dogs smelled blood and Reason, far from fending them off, was ringing the dinner bell. Cursory critism was directed at Kirchick for opportunism, and then the wholesale abondonment of presumption of innocense.

It was shocking to me that Reason was taking the same angle as everyone else instead of seriously questioning the relevance of the story and the direction of the spin. I read the newsletters. They were not good, but not terribly damning either and wouldn't have been news at all if they carried the name of a less reputable person. Dr. Paul's sterling reputation is what makes this bemish stand out. McCain actually says stuff on camera worse than some of the material found in the Ron Paul reports, but Reason treats the "revelation" as if it had the same magnitude of finding a corpse in Dr. Paul's trunk!

Reason's justification for hanging Paul out to dry seems to be this: They are trying to protect the reputation of libertarianism by crucifying the most poular and influential libertarian in our lifetimes! You see, he lent his name (for profit) to a publication that didn't print church hymns and therefore he must be burnt at the steak. Trading on one's own name would seem to be a libertarian idea, but the Reason gang is throwing fuel on the pyre and basking in the glow.

Why? Why would Matt, Nick and Radley join the ugly chant that "someone's gotta pay?" These guys are smart enought to know that witchhunts don't stop when a witch is found.

A journalist has two main responsibilities: to report the facts, and to determine which facts to report. The facts should be timely, relevant and newsworthy. At best the old newsletters only met one of the three criteria.

Reason readers count on a pro-liberty perspective, but Reason showed none in this case. If I was on staff, I would have written something like this: "Attempted Smear Greeted by Yawns" or "Skelletons in Congressman's closet finally found."

The media has enormous power to frame the debate. Putting facts into context is as important as accuracy. Reason failed it's readers, the public and libertarianism spectacularly, by joining in the feeding frenzy and even leading the charge.

Reason's rationale of joining the bloodsport to "protect libertarianism" falls so flat they can't even look us in the eyes while they mutter it. Assuming the absolute worst that Dr. Paul wrote every ugly word in those newsletters himself and believed them in his heart of hearts, he would still be by far the most libertarian candiate in this election and every previous one since 1988 when he ran the first time.

For Reason's rationale to have any merit at all, they would have us believe that any candidate pragmatic enough to get elected was insufficiently idealistic enough to be worthy of office. It can reasonably be asked if Reason serves the establishment more than libertarianism by giving us false representation in the fourth estate and drowning out smaller, more legitimate voices for freedom.

Simply put: I don't like them or trust them anymore. I don't believe you should either.Reason has every right to take what they consider the high road, but to me it is a stupid self-righteousness.

According to Reason, Ron Paul is aligned with Lew Rockwell who is aligned with Pat Bucchanon who is aligned with somebody somewhere who is a racist.

How many Kevin Bacon degrees of separation are required before someone is "pure" enough to be a legitimate spokesman for libertarianism??

again I think their strategy and/or their morals are slef-defeating. It's like Groucho Marx's line that "I would never wan't to belong to a club that would have me as a member."

The holy reasonoids are claiming that the politically successful strategy persued by Paul is too pragmatic for them to support. As an alternative they offer...nothing.


Billy Joe Allen
Truckernomics
Nolanchart.com