Posts Tagged ‘ Ron Paul ’

"Smear as a noun refers to 'a slanderous defamation;' as a verb, it means to 'charge falsely or with malicious intent; attack the good name and reputation of someone.' The Ron Paul 'newsletter controversy' is not a 'smear' in either sense of the word, and those who attempt to make it one -- and to shift responsibility for the newsletters' content from their owner and publisher to those who happened to notice it -- do their candidate a disservice." (12/25/11)

"[T]he options before libertarians -- whose numbers have swollen in recent times in no small part due to Paul -- is that they can circle the wagons around him and attack his attackers by: blaming his troubles on a giant media conspiracy; condemning libertarians troubled by the newsletters as rigid purists; changing the subject by comparing Paul’s current, cleansed agenda with that of his opponents; cheering him on as he walks off TV interviews and so on. Or it can demand accountability from Paul." (12/25/11)

"Those of us who watched all of this happen over two decades knew it would come back to haunt us and so it has, unfortunately just as Ron Paul and libertarianism are on the cusp of something really amazing. And that only goes to show what a mistake the paleo strategy was: imagine if the newsletters were not an issue and Paul were to win Iowa. Yeah, he might get ignored, but he would not be the easy media target he is now, nor would all of libertarianism pay a potential price." (12/23/11)

"As an anarchist, I believe the state is unjust, unnecessary, and dangerous. So I’d certainly like to see it reduced in size rather than expanded. And Ron Paul is actually interested in making the bloated behemoth that is the United States government smaller (though he still seems mistakenly to treat it as legitimate in principle). But I think it’s vital to proceed dialectically, in full awareness of the interconnections among various forms of oppression." (12/21/11)

"I'm actually sort of re-growing a soft spot for Ron Paul after my period of disillusionment with him. I won't vote for him, mind you; but since I won't vote at all, I won't vote against him, either. I don't see any reason to retract any of the harsh things I've said about him, because they are all true; but looking back at my meanness, I have, over time, realized that I had a tendency to drop one key piece of context ..." (12/19/11)

"Fox News Pundit Chris Wallace told Fox news Pundit Neil Cavuto that if Ron Paul wins the Iowa caucuses it would discredit the Iowa caucuses. ... Maybe all of the discredit is being given to the wrong person. Maybe Fox News Pundit Chris Wallace has discredited Fox News Pundit Chris Wallace." (12/19/11)

"While big government statists in both the Republican and Democrat parties remain mystified over Ron Paul’s surge in the polls in Iowa, the ones who seem most confounded by this phenomenon are the members of the mainstream media, who themselves are statist to the core. They just can’t figure out how it’s possible that increasing numbers of people are gravitating to the Paul campaign, especially when the mainstream media has either ignored Paul’s campaign or done its best to ridicule Paul’s libertarian positions." (12/19/11)

"It is Walter Block who provides us with the 'moral obligation' argument regarding Paul as a 'libertarian litmus test.' Block restates this litmus test in a recent article disqualifying Wendy McElroy from being a libertarian because of her refusal to support Paul’s candidacy. The best thing I can say about Block is that he clearly demonstrates the folly of treating libertarianism as a moral theory." (12/16/11)

"Every legacy media and central planner's worst nightmare is slowly coming true: as the broader field of GOP candidates is rapidly dropping like US secret drones blowing up nuclear power plants in Iran, due to general idiocy, incompetence, too much baggage-ness or general reverse American Idol syndrome where Americans get tired with any given 'leader' only to vote them out of the primary the following week, the one clear winner is becoming Ron Paul." (12/13/11)

"Ron Paul is the Rodney Dangerfield of Republican presidential candidates. The 12-term Texas congressman ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket back in 1988 and was widely seen as a sideshow in 2008, despite finishing third in the GOP field behind John McCain and Mike Huckabee. Why, despite a small but devoted set of supporters, does this 76-year-old obstetrician turned politician routinely get no respect from the media and GOP operatives?" (12/09/11)

"The magnitude of support for Ron Paul is impressive. He is poised to do very well in Iowa and it looks like the campaign to support libertarian's favorite Texas member of Congress has more enthusiasm behind it than Paul's 2008 campaign. What is fascinating is how gullible libertarians are regarding Paul's excuses, the way he panders to them too and the double standard libertarians take toward him." (12/11/11)

"The latest poll from the Des Moines Register not only shows the demise of Herman Cain. It also shows the growing strength of Ron Paul." (12/03/11)

"I can't forgive myself for voting for Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor during the 2003 recall. ... If everyone who voted for Schwarzenegger under the belief that McClintock couldn't win had voted for McClintock, who's now a congressman, perhaps he would have won the governorship. The Schwarzenegger v. McClintock race springs to mind as Ron Paul, the quirky Texas congressman with unwavering libertarian principles, pursues the GOP nomination for the presidency." (11/27/11)

"A little feedback to NPR, dropped down the deepest well in the world. No likelihood of ever hearing a splash, but what the hell. ... A complete and deliberate NPR 'blank out' when it comes to mentioning how Ron Paul had scored a close second in the poll." (11/21/11)

"With one and only one exception, every Republican presidential candidate is either stupid, crooked, insane, or a little of all three. ... The one exception is doctor and Congressman Ron Paul. I have been severely critical of the good doctor in the past, and will doubtless continue to be in the future. He is mistaken on a couple of important issues. But he is also the only Republican candidate who understands what's wrong with this country, how to fix it, and is willing to do so." (11/20/11)