Tracinski: Santorum Must Be Defeated!

administrator's picture
Submitted by administrator on Fri, 2012-02-17 21:47

TIA Daily • February 17, 2012

TIA Daily.com

FEATURE ARTICLE

Santorum Delenda Est

Rick Santorum Is a Principled Enemy of Liberty

by Robert Tracinski

Like just about everyone on the right, I have been hoping that Republican voters would eventually be able to rally around an alternative to Mitt Romney. He is too much of a middle-of-the-road pragmatist who has tailored his positions to the political expediencies of his career, which is not what we really need to turn this country back from its lurch toward socialism and bankruptcy.

So I understand why Republican voters have been trying out a different not-Romney every month, desperately searching for someone who will be a better and more principled alternative.

But rather than bringing us closer to finding a principled advocate for liberty, this process has been taking us farther away. Tragically, every candidate who seemed like a promising leader, or at least a halfway acceptable alternative, flamed out. Michele Bachmann came out against vaccination. Rick Perry turned out to be more inarticulate than George W. Bush. Herman Cain was exposed as a serial philanderer. We are left with the dregs, like the pompous, self-aggrandizing intellectual dilettante Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, whose pronouncements on foreign policy tend to sound as if they were written by Adam Gadahn. And then there is the last not-Romney standing, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum.

With Santorum, voters feel that they have at last found a man of principle. But that's the problem. Santorum is an open, dedicated, and principled opponent of liberty, of individual rights, and of the distinctively American philosophy of individualism.

That is why I'm changing my slogan for the Republican primaries from "anybody but Romney" to Santorum delenda est. Given the form of Santorum's name, I can't resist the use of the Latin, a reference to Cato the Elder's famous invocation Carthago delenda est, "Carthage must be destroyed." In this more civilized context, let's translate it as: Santorum must be defeated.

Mitt Romney's campaign apparatus has only really been effective at one thing: using advertising and media campaigns to destroy his opponents. That was relatively easy to do against Newt Gingrich, considering how much material he gave them to work with. But they have decided to target Santorum by pointing to his history of backing earmarks and voting for big-government expansions like President Bush's prescription drug entitlement. This is shallow and unlikely to be effective on its own. After all, does anyone think that Romney would have stood firm against the prescription drug bill?

The Romney campaign needs to understand where Santorum really stands and target him on a deeper level, identifying and exposing his fundamental anti-liberty convictions. I am not just talking about the fact that Santorum was and still is a prominent advocate of "compassionate conservatism," which embraces the welfare state and tries to run it more effectively according to conservative principles. It is Santorum's basic philosophy that is profoundly antithetical to freedom.

I have linked before to Santorum's infamous claim that "the pursuit of happiness is harming America." Henry Mark Holzer's blog recently brought to my attention to a 2005 speech Santorum gave in defense of "compassionate conservatism." Here is the central passage.

America's conservative heritage never pursued a limitless freedom to do whatever one wants so long as no one is hurt. That kind of "freedom" to be and do whatever we want, irrespective of the choice is a selfish freedom that cannot be sustained or afforded. Someone always gets hurt when masses of individuals do what is only in their own self-interest....

Freedom is liberty coupled with responsibility to something bigger or higher than self. It is a self-less freedom. It is sacrificial freedom. It is the pursuit of our dreams with an eye toward the common good. Freedom is the dual activity of lifting our eyes to the heavens while extending our hand to our neighbor.

The only orthodox conservative philosophy that matches with this is compassionate conservatism.

This is an attack on American individualism at its root. There is a reason why "the pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. If we are to recognize the freedom of the individual to make his own choices and control his own life, we have to recognize that it is legitimate for him to pursue his own interests. We have to accept the idea that each man owns his own life and has a right to use it for his own ambitions and goals, his own happiness, so long as he respects the equal right of others to do the same.

The opposite view, the view openly championed by Santorum, is that the individual is owned by society, which has first claim to his efforts and can direct his decisions for the greater good. And if the individual squawks that he is being oppressed, men like Santorum will reply that no, they are still free, but this is a "self-less freedom" in which they are free to do whatever society requires of them in the name of the "common good."

This is exactly the same philosophy championed by Barack Obama. The only thing that makes Santorum's version "conservative" is a difference in emphasis. Obama emphasizes society's need to limit our freedom on economic issues, while Santorum emphasizes society's need to limit our freedom in our personal lives.

In fact, putting limits on freedom has practically become the theme of Santorum's campaign, and he has been fleshing out exactly what this means. Take his response to the ObamaCare mandate on contraception, which would require Catholic religious institutions like hospitals to pay for insurance coverage for contraception, sterilization, and even abortion. The left tried to make this a controversy over whether contraception is good, but just about everyone on the right had the good sense to identify this as an issue of religious freedom, of forcing Catholic institutions to violate the teachings of the Church. Florida Senator Marco Rubio put it best.

This is not about contraception. It's not about social issues. This is a very simple constitutional principle. We have religious protections as part of our Constitution in the 1st Amendment, the right to express yourself religiously. You have in the case, the specific case of this bill, the Catholic Church that teaches its members that the use of contraception is wrong.

You can disagree with that. But the bottom line is, should the federal government be able to go in and force them to pay for contraception, something they teach is wrong? The answer is no. That's protected under the Constitution.... We either believe in our Constitution or we don't.

Readers of TIA Daily know that I've been promoting Rubio as a good vice-presidential candidate for the Republican ticket. This gives you an idea why. That was the exact right way to frame Obama's contraception mandate, both philosophically and politically.

But that's not what Rick Santorum did. He responded by launching an attack on birth control. Here is what he told a reporter:

One of the things I will talk about that no president has talked about before is I think the dangers of contraception in this country, the whole sexual libertine idea.... It's not okay because it's a license to do things in the sexual realm that is counter to how things are supposed to be. They're supposed to be within marriage, for purposes that are, yes, conjugal...but also procreative.

That's the perfect way that a sexual union should happen. We take any part of that out, we diminish the act. And if you can take one part out that's not for purposes of procreation, that's not one of the reasons, then you diminish this very special bond between men and women, so why can't you take other parts of that out? And all of a sudden, it becomes deconstructed to the point where it's simply pleasure. And that's certainly a part of it—and it's an important part of it, don't get me wrong—but there's a lot of things we do for pleasure, and this is special, and it needs to be seen as special....

I'm not running for pastor, but these are important public policy issues.

Now, I can see a candidate attempting to defend the tenets of his religion when pressed by a reporter. But Santorum here is describing the official Catholic doctrine on birth control, not as a matter of personal conviction, but as a matter of important public policy.

Note how this concedes Obama's basic premise: that it is the job of the state to decide for us what is in our best interests and to impose it. Obama wants to do what he thinks is optimal for the physical health and economic well-being of young women. Santorum wants to manage our spiritual well-being. Or as conservative blogger Conor Friederdorf puts it, while linking to the statement above, "Rick Santorum wants your sex life to be special'," which makes this sound as creepy as it really is. Friedersdorf concludes: "Any politician who regards the adult use of contraceptives as a matter under his purview cannot lay claim to the limited government label."

How far does this go? In his latest salvo, Santorum came out for a ban on gambling. Why? Because it's "not beneficial."

I'm someone who takes the opinion that gaming is not something that is beneficial, particularly having that access on the Internet. Just as we've seen from a lot of other things that are vices on the Internet, they end to grow exponentially as a result of that....

Freedom's not absolute. What rights in the Constitution are absolute? There is no right to absolute freedom. There are limitations. You might want to say the same thing about a whole variety of other things that are on the Internet—"let everybody have it, let everybody do it." No. There are certain things that actually do cost people a lot of money, cost them their lives, cost them their fortunes that we shouldn't have and make available, to make it that easy to do.

So now he's going to police gambling and other "vices on the Internet." (I'll leave it to your imagination to project what those might be.) And what's to stop him? "There is no right to absolute freedom," and there are no absolute rights in the Constitution. Which means that there is no absolute limit to the power of the state.

The link to this statement on gambling comes by way of Alana Goodman at the conservative site Hot Air, who asks, "where's the conservative outrage? If Santorum's comments aren't nanny state-ism in its purest form, then what is?... If you're a conservative and you give Santorum a pass on this, you forego any future right to complain about liberals taking away your Happy Meals and trans fats."

Santorum must be defeated for the content of his views. He also needs to be defeated because he is probably the worst candidate when it comes to the most important political goal of 2012: ensuring that Barack Obama is no longer president. Ignore the polls indicating that Santorum does well in a one-to-one matchup against Obama. It is too early for those results to be meaningful, because most voters are still ignorant of Santorum's actual views. Once voters become better informed—and the Obama campaign will be eager to inform them—those poll numbers will change dramatically.

Santorum's views have zero cross-over appeal; there will be no "Santorum Democrats." They have no appeal to independent voters, who will peg him as a self-righteous prig who wants to impose his religious views on them. And it's worse than that. The resurgence of the right that produced the Tea Party movement and the huge Republican victory in 2010 is based in large part on an alliance between two wings of the right: the more religious wing and the more "libertarian" wing. They have been able to work together because of a de facto truce on the "social issues" while we drop everything else to save the country from a government takeover of the economy. I would add that there has been no need for any kind of truce on birth control or gambling, because those issues haven't even come up. But Santorum insists on bringing them up, and in doing so he breaks the Tea Party alliance and splits the right. He puts the libertarian wing of the right on notice that if they vote against Obama's version of big government, Santorum will use their vote to promote his version of big government.

Someone needs to stand up and speak on behalf of the Tea Party movement to proclaim that we did not come out and march under the banner "Don't Tread on Me" so that we could be hitched once again under the yoke of the "common good" as determined by politicians in Washington.

I can live with Romney as the Republican candidate. While he won't be a staunchly reliable defender of freedom, he will at least respond pragmatically to outside political pressure, giving pro-liberty grass roots activists a chance to keep the ideological momentum in our favor. But in Santorum we would be up against a self-righteous crusader against individualism who looks down on the cantankerously independent spirit summed up in that motto on the Gadsden flag.

A few commentators on the right are beginning to wake up to the idea that Santorum is an enemy of liberty and the standard bearer for a spiritual nanny state. We need to do everything we can to spread the word to Republican voters before Super Tuesday, and we should hope that the Romney campaign discovers this message and learns how to hammer it home.

The need is urgent. Santorum delenda est.

TIADaily.com


Winefield FTW

Richard Goode's picture

It was a serious question and

a ~possible~ glimpse of what can happen when an economy/nation melts down and a frightened populous starts grasping for solutions

is exactly the answer I was hoping you'd give. Actual, in-your-face, historical examples are so much better than mangled metaphors and dietary similes. So, thanks.

Recently Perigo made the claim that for me it is all about "winning". 180° wide of the mark as usual. I don't come here to win. I come here to be won over. So, thanks again.

Recently you called me "nit-picking". You hit the mark with that one. It's 'populace', not 'populous'. You're welcome.

So what? Seriously?

Robert's picture

For a ~possible~ glimpse of what can happen when an economy/nation melts down and a frightened populous starts grasping for solutions look up the following in this order:

(1) Wiemar Republic.
(2) Adolf Hitler.
(3) Third Reich.
(4) World War II.

Or:

(1) Russian Revolution.
(2) October Revolution.
(3) Lenin.
(4) Stalin.

Or:

(1) French Revolution.
(2) Robespierre.
(3) Napoleon.
(4) Napoleonic Wars.

Does it have to be this way. No.

Given the conditions listed below is it entirely on the cards that it might happen this way? Yes

Low level of economic and historical literacy in the contemporary US Population, the ever growing entitlement culture and their tendency to vote for Charismatic Hope and Changeling Leaders who promise Sunshine, Lollipops, Free Healthcare and a halt to the rise of the oceans.

And lastly which is easier?

(1) Repairing the foundation of your house when you notice the crack and live in a that - by and large - respects and protects the contract you can make with a Mud-jacking crew?

(2) Repairing the foundation of your house after it has been razed to the ground and the foundation smashed to pieces by criminal gun-totting marauders who still roam the property at will?

Situation (2) is what you see going on right now in Mexico.

So my question is, how is a war within a nation different to a war between nations -- which you think is abhorrent. Think about that carefully Goode. For once in your life be consistent in the manner by which you apply your principles.

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

You voted National. Therefore, YOU are directly responsible for the current National government. The current National government is YOUR fault.

You'll oust National ... by voting Libz?

I sure as hell won't oust National by voting National.

(I don't vote Libz. I know you're busy initiating force, but do try to keep up.)

You'll oust National....

Ross Elliot's picture

...by voting Libz?

Sounds like a plan

Richard Goode's picture

You'll oust National by voting National.

No worries.

Sure...

Ross Elliot's picture

...what's your point?

Ross

Richard Goode's picture

How will you oust National? Same way you ousted Labour?

Sure

Ross Elliot's picture

"What will you do next time there's an emergency situation, Ross? Choose to oust National?"

Yep. No worries. Save perfection, you go for that which seems less injurious.

The Apocalypse of Bob

Richard Goode's picture

"Heading for a cliff in a run away train" while standing in the path of "the on-rushing locomotive" of interest payments on debt? Interesting mix.

I watched the video. "The US economy will cease to exist by 2027 at the rate we're going now." Suppose it does. So what?

You need more than hope..

Jules Troy's picture

Hope is just one step away from despair.  People need more than just hope, the bus is headed over a cliff and the present candidates are figuring out who gets to sit in the front seat as it nears the cliff never once thinking " I know its gunna hurt but fuck it I gotta turn the damn wheel or we are all royally screwed".

 

Eat spinach or die

Richard Goode's picture

OK, Winefield. Well presented, plus you got DeSalvo's endorsement.

Nicely said, Robert

atlascott's picture

That about sums it up.

The truth is, whoever the GOP nominee is, WILL get my vote. I quibble about whether they are spinach or something more like low-dose arsenic.

The financial picture here is bleak and the most pertinent to the analysis.

Probably the most pressing reason why I support Paul is: he identifies the financial catastrophe and has the integrity to fix it. He may be spinach.

But the rest, especially Gingrich, are all insiders -- all a part of the system which got us here and has incentive to keep us going on this path.

So the other GOP'ers represent, to me, based on what they talk about, debt per American of, say, $100k per American to Obama's $200k per American by 2016. The slower train to catastrophe.

But when one has a choice between a quick end and a slower one, one must choose the slower because life presents HOPE that you may have an opportunity to change things for the better.

Once collapse comes, it cannot be undone. But if we edge closer to collapse more slowly, there is a CHANCE that more pro-liberty candidates get a shot.

Collectivism got us here; only liberty and individualism can get us out.

OK Goode...

Robert's picture

Let me put the case in as simplistically as I can - terms so simple that the argument can be understood by the likes of you: a cloth-eared, dishonest, nit-picking git whose brain has atrophied under the triple assaults of simultaneously listening to Slayer while reading the bible and smoking dope:

The 2012 US election can be understood this way. You can vote for one of two things:

(1) Strychnine: which represents Obama and his fellow travelers*.

(2) Boiled Spinach: which represents the eventual Republican nominee.

You can force yourself to eat spinach and you will survive. Nobody is forcing you to like it (unless her name is Michelle Obama). Eat Strychnine and you will die - Period.

Yes. Obama is THAT bad*.

__________________

*Obama and his fellow travelers propose to increase the per capita sovereign debt from $40,000 per American to $200,000 per American by 2016. Currently, Greece's sovereign debt stands at $38,000 per Greek.

To say nothing of his penchant for appointing "Czars" who exist in the twilight of the Federal system beyond the scrutiny of Congress and the media.

To say nothing of his recent assaults on the First Amendment.

To say nothing of his penchant for initiating military action (Libya) without consulting Congress and a hundred other blatant violations of the Constitution.

But by far and away THE most dangerous thing about him is the level to which the media is prepared to plaster over his screw-ups and unconstitutional activities.

If you think for ONE second that Romney/Paul/Gingrich/Santorium will get that much latitude with the current occupants of the forth estate - then you are barking mad.

The Ethics of Emergencies

Richard Goode's picture

it was an emergency situation and I chose to oust Labour. Done, said, and done again.

What will you do next time there's an emergency situation, Ross? Choose to oust National?

many here did vote Libz. Good for them. They can take what they consider to be the moral high ground.

As opposed to what you consider to be a lifeboat. Ayn Rand correctly observed that advocates of authoritarianism, such as yourself,

are unable to base their ethics on any facts of men's normal existence and that they always offer "lifeboat" situations as examples from which to derive the rules of moral conduct.

Robert

Richard Goode's picture

Short of what mark?

Short of the threshold of moral adequacy I referred to in my earlier comment.

The problem here is Obama - Period. ANY of those GOP candidates ... are orders of magnitude better than Obama.

The problem here (on SOLO) is the delusional, illogical minority who foster the doctrine that it is entirely possible for one principled enemy of liberty to be "orders of magnitude" better than another.

Linz

Michael Moeller's picture

You wrote:

"With your [Goode's] typical bad faith and laziness..."

You're right, the guy is complete waste of time. Bad faith doesn't begin to describe how sick he really is. He evades like mad and constantly change positions -- even on the issue of racism -- all for the purpose of attacking somebody's character.

It is truly shocking how evil and mentally sick he is when put on full display like this.

This is the guy, when deploring people for celebrating Osama bin Laden's death, talked of Christian love and how we should "love thy neighbor" and "quench the thirst of the enemy". And here he is, offering nothing but malice. A rat caught in a trap who can only hiss and snarl. So much for his Christian love.

But alas, as I sign off on his wretchedness, I must note I've had a huge grin on my face ever since he conceded the case, despite all his games and evasions. THAT was skill, and to watch him crumble was great.

It IS revealing to see how low creatures like Goode will sink and what we are up against, which, as displayed by Goode, is nothing intellectually. Just games and evasions and character assaults. I will toast to the fact that people can see his naked evil -- an evil that is puny and impotent.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Do you think people are blind and stupid, Goode?

Only you, Michael.

I just wanted to watch you evade like mad for some truly great entertainment

You're welcome, Michael.

But I think I might finally have twigged to where you're coming from. You think that the evidence you've presented is somehow inconvenient to my currently held ideas. Right? And that consequently my failure to address it constitutes evasion. Right?

Behold! The Unbearable "Lightness" of Goode!!

Michael Moeller's picture

You're just going to evade, as predicted. I already had what I wanted. I just wanted to watch you evade like mad for some truly great entertainment, given the comments you about your "lightness" and allegiance to the facts.

And I thank you, so very much for the demonstration of your "lightness"...hahhahahaha. Do you think people are blind and stupid, Goode?

Let's all have a good laugh, as Goode tried to: (1) present partial evidence, (2) then tried to blatantly sweep aside a small part of the crucial evidence, and (3) evaded answering the questions about the evidence again and again and again and again.

With that in mind, the one and only....Richard Goode!! Oh man, this is awesome. This perhaps deserves a thread of its own, but everybody should truly savor this.

You see, one thing I value, perhaps more than any other, it is the ability to look evidence and facts straight in the face, no matter how inconvenient they may be to my currently held ideas. I never avoid looking the facts straight in the eye.

My sense of security is derived from my passionate attachment to my reason and moral sense—and to all facts.

It goes without saying that I am fanatical in my loyalty to facts and reason...

Oh that is precious, oh so precious. But wait, there's more!!!

What's truly mind-boggling is that you follow up your attack on Scott for lacking this virtue with an attack on me for evincing it. Scott, of course, is a virtous man. He does not lack the virtue of lightness. You just made that up, to smear him. Nor do I lack the virtue of lightness. In the face of clear evidence that I change my views as fresh (to me) evidence comes to light, you just concoct an alternative explanation (viz., that I adjust my opinions just for the expediency of attacking people) to smear me.

Priceless!! Abolutely priceless!!

You've outdone yourself once again, Goode.

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Pretty much the whole thing

The whole thing being what, exactly? What is it that you think you're trying to prove?

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I never said you were trying to prove anything. You're not ...

If I'm not trying to prove anything, then the evidence you present cannot be evidence against what I'm trying to prove. Therefore

The bolded stuff does "not need explanation"

If I'm not trying to prove anything, then the evidence you present is irrelevant. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.

"What's left of your case?"

Michael Moeller's picture

Pretty much the whole thing, as many articles were written over the period of years. Some more really bad anti-semitic and homophobic stuff has come out since the Kirchik article. Unless your position is that Ron Paul always happened to be absent on the days those articles went out. That would be one hell of a convenient set of coincidences, eh Goode?

Michael

Goode...

Michael Moeller's picture

I never said you were trying to prove anything. You're not, you are just making assaults on my character, nothing more.

It is what I am going to prove, so just hang onto your hat and answer the questions. I mean, you said your "lightness" brings you ever so close to the evidence. I am asking you questions about the evidence.

Doesn't seem like it should be a problem for you given your "lightness", and all. Now stop beating around the bush and answer them.

(1) The secretary is testifying that Ron Paul was there. Does this NOT directly contradict him saying he had not read the material until 10 years after the fact? Do tell, Goode.

(2) If Ron Paul was editing and proofing, does this NOT directly contradict he statement that he had not read the material until 10 years after the fact? Do tell, Goode.

(3) If Ron Paul was editing and proofing, does this NOT lend very little credence that he has no idea who wrote the material? What did do, say: "Hey, look at this stuff, I wonder who wrote that? Let me put a few edits in here and there"? Do tell, Goode.

And you see nothing relevant in the other two? Do you care to try again? Let me bold some parts for you and see if you are able to see things a bit clearer.

Paul “had to walk a very fine line,’’ said Eric Dondero Rittberg, a former longtime Paul aide who says Paul allowed the controversial material in his newsletter as a way to make money. Dondero Rittberg said he witnessed Paul proofing, editing and signing off on his newsletters in the mid-1990s.

“The real big money came from some of that racially tinged stuff, but he also had to keep his libertarian supporters, and they weren’t at all comfortable with that,’’ he said.
[...]
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

The bolded stuff does "not need explanation"? REALLY? Waddaya say you give it another shot, eh?

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

She said "always". For arguments sake, let's say he missed a day or two on occasion.

For argument's sake, let's say that Race Terrorism in America went out on one such day. What's left of your case?

What is your case, BTW? What, exactly, is it that you think you're trying to prove?

What, exactly, is it that you think I'm trying to prove?

Richard Goode's picture

The only thing sweeping is your rationalization.

Rationalisation of what, Michael? What, exactly, is it that you think I'm trying to prove?

I think it is obvious to anybody with eyes that you are evading the evidence

Evidence of what, Michael? What, exactly, is it that you think I'm trying to prove?

What Are You Evading????

Michael Moeller's picture

I think it is obvious to anybody with eyes that you are evading the evidence, and my questions about it. Why you are doing this, and your second question, will be obvious enough momentarily, if not already.

What makes this precious, oh so previous -- like a Christmas gift come early -- is your evasions of the evidence come right after your self-proclaimed "lightness" and concern for evidence. Oh man, I wish you could appreciate how hilarious that truly is from everybody else's perspective. Truly something to savor.

Linz points you to the article, and in response and with unbelievable chutzpath, you tell him to look at the evidence and what do YOU provide, exactly? ONLY the statement of Ron Paul's Senior VP of his campaign. WOW.

Then I ask you about the crucial evidence, and -- as if by magic -- you find only one statement relevant, and even sweep that aside as if the words amounted to nothing.

Well, let's see if you can do better this time, or you go down on strike three. C'mon, let's put that "lightness" of yours to work, you can do it!! Here we go again:

(1) The secretary is testifying that Ron Paul was there. Does this NOT directly contradict him saying he had not read the material until 10 years after the fact? Do tell, Goode.

(2) If Ron Paul was editing and proofing, does this NOT directly contradict he statement that he had not read the material until 10 years after the fact? Do tell, Goode.

(3) If Ron Paul was editing and proofing, does this NOT lend very little credence that he has no idea who wrote the material? What did do, say: "Hey, look at this stuff, I wonder who wrote that? Let me put a few edits in here and there"? Do tell, Goode.

And you see nothing relevant in the other two testimonies? Do you care to try again? Let me bold some parts for you and see if you are able to see things a bit clearer.

Paul “had to walk a very fine line,’’ said Eric Dondero Rittberg, a former longtime Paul aide who says Paul allowed the controversial material in his newsletter as a way to make money. Dondero Rittberg said he witnessed Paul proofing, editing and signing off on his newsletters in the mid-1990s.

“The real big money came from some of that racially tinged stuff, but he also had to keep his libertarian supporters, and they weren’t at all comfortable with that,’’ he said.
[...]
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

The bolded stuff does is NOT "in need explanation"? REALLY? Waddaya say you give it another shot, okay Ace?

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

I think ... you are evading like mad.

Evading what, Michael? What, exactly, is it that you think I'm trying to prove?

Sweeping Generalization?!?

Michael Moeller's picture

The only thing sweeping is your rationalization. She said "always". For arguments sake, let's say he missed a day or two on occasion.

She is testifying that he was there. Does this NOT directly contradict him saying he had not read the material until 10 years after the fact? Do tell, Goode.

If he was editing and proofing, does this NOT directly contradict he statement that he had not read the material until 10 years after the fact? Do tell, Goode.

If he was editing and proofing, does this NOT lend very little credence that he has no idea who wrote the material? What did do, say: "Hey, look at this stuff, I wonder who wrote that? Let me put a few edits in here and there"? Do tell, Goode.

And this is you, Goode, blatantly trying to sweep aside just ONE of the statements. You find nothing relevant in the other statements? The unnamed source is the most damaging, of course, and I am sure the person did not want to be named out of fear of retribution. With the Ron Paul Crazies, I don't blame him.

But you see nothing relevant in the other two? Do you care to try again? Let me bold some parts for you and see if you are able to see things a bit clearer.

Paul “had to walk a very fine line,’’ said Eric Dondero Rittberg, a former longtime Paul aide who says Paul allowed the controversial material in his newsletter as a way to make money. Dondero Rittberg said he witnessed Paul proofing, editing and signing off on his newsletters in the mid-1990s.

“The real big money came from some of that racially tinged stuff, but he also had to keep his libertarian supporters, and they weren’t at all comfortable with that,’’ he said.
[...]
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

Are you familiar at all with the legal doctrine of relevance? Do you have any clue how devastating this testimony is, and how the whole case can be ripped apart on questioning?

I think you do, and you are evading like mad.

Where as all your outrage at other racist comments gone? Why is your moral "lightness" failing you now?

Michael

Michael

Richard Goode's picture

Feel free to explain them any time you like.

Of the four quotes you just provided, there is only one that stands in need of explanation.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.

It's a sweeping generalisation. I very much doubt that Ron Paul always got to see the final product.

Tell me something, please. What, exactly, is it that you think I'm trying to prove?

Oh yeah..

Michael Moeller's picture

In case you somehow missed the main evidence in the WaPo article -- and I have no idea how -- below are some of the choice quotes again. Feel free to explain them any time you like.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman’s.
[...]
A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.

“It was playing on a growing racial tension, economic tension, fear of government,’’ said the person, who supports Paul’s economic policies but is not backing him for president. “I’m not saying Ron believed this stuff. It was good copy. Ron Paul is a shrewd businessman.’’
[...]
Paul “had to walk a very fine line,’’ said Eric Dondero Rittberg, a former longtime Paul aide who says Paul allowed the controversial material in his newsletter as a way to make money. Dondero Rittberg said he witnessed Paul proofing, editing and signing off on his newsletters in the mid-1990s.

“The real big money came from some of that racially tinged stuff, but he also had to keep his libertarian supporters, and they weren’t at all comfortable with that,’’ he said.
[...]
Ed Crane, the longtime president of the libertarian Cato Institute, said he met Paul for lunch during this period and the two discussed direct-mail solicitations, which Paul was sending out to interest people in his newsletters. They agreed that “people who have extreme views” were more likely than others to respond.

Crane said Paul reported getting his best response when he used a mailing list from the now-defunct newspaper Spotlight, which was widely considered anti-Semitic and racist.

Michael

Glad You're Back

Michael Moeller's picture

I thought you said you were done, but apparently not. I guess you just can't help yourself when it comes to launching personal attacks.

This is very, very good, though. It gives me an opportunity to address some more matters -- one of which I just became aware, and I will get to later. And perhaps you can clear things up for us.

I am glad you have yourself to vouch for your moral character because I don’t see anybody else stepping up to the plate. And it seems a bit odd that you would assault my character when you admitted -- excuse me -- "In fact, acknowledged" the validity of what I was saying; "for all you care", that is. I think the "for all I care" speaks volumes about your motive, which is nothing more than to attack me.

In fact, Scott – without realizing it -- called you “SCUMMY” for saying that Ron Paul might have purposely left racist material in his newsletters in order to cash-in some extra dollars. While I don’t agree with him on your position there, he has vastly understated the depravity of your moral character in general.

Except now you REALLY ARE scraping the bottom of the barrel. Apparently unable to keep your story straight -- as we've just established that you have "in fact, acknowledged" that Ron Paul might have previously allowed racist content into his newsletters to drum up business -- you now quote the denial of Ron Paul's Campaign Senior VP.

I must say, this seems rather strange. I mean, Ron Paul has been issuing denials since 2008, did you expect the Senior VP of his campaign to now admit it? Well, he continued to deny on Ron Paul's behalf -- wotta shocker!! To bad his campaign spokeman did not say the same thing in 1996.

What really makes your quoting odd, though, is how you blatantly ignore the four sources (3 named) testifying to the contrary. You quote the Senior VP as if he would say something different, and pretend like nothing else exists. But where is your assessment of the others? One would think -- with all your concern for racism -- you would be all over it, as Linz described, like a "bad rash".

Unfortunately not, as apparently the evidence of racism and/or the support of racism is not convenient for your position, here. Maybe you can muster that moral "lightness" of yours at another time when there is evidence that somebody you don't like says something racial and/or supports it.

Yes, you have given us an excellent demonstration of your "lightness" and ability to look evidence straight in the face; which is to say, in your case, not at all. I appreciate you putting it on display for all to see.

Michael

BTW ...

Richard Goode's picture

Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.

I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

Go for the hat-trick!

Richard Goode's picture

Fuck Ron Paul, and fuck you, you scummy Goblian bigoted bastard.

Linz, you forgot the horse I rode in on. Fuck the horse too!

With your typical bad faith and laziness, you fail to take into account the content of Michael's link.

No, I think it is you who has failed to take into account the content of Michael's link. Let's see.

The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s ... Jesse Benton, a presidential campaign spokesman, said that the accounts of Paul’s involvement were untrue and that Paul was practicing medicine full time when “the offensive material appeared under his name.” Paul “abhors it, rejects it and has taken responsibility for it as he should have better policed the work being done under his masthead,” Benton said.

It's slightly puzzling that you should now feel so strongly about the content of Ron Paul's newsletters, since only a day previously you said

the original offending lines in the Ron Paul Letter—whatever the extent of Paul's own responsibility for them—[are] merely mildly "off" in my view

Have you changed your mind?

More Moeller malevolence

Richard Goode's picture

then it's just pure coincidence that your changes of heart are conspicuously timed during an attack on somebody

Oh, such delightful distortions! Oh, such dependable delivery of same!

My "changes of heart" are not "conspicuously timed". Nor are they changes of heart. They're changes of mind. (From a Christian perspective, it's a crucial distinction.)

Did you miss that my comment was a parody of your comment to Scott? I think you did.

You make a big deal of the virtue of lightness (and rightly so, too) and then attack Scott for lacking this virtue. Is it just pure coincidence that your calling Scott a "True Believer" is conspicuously timed during your reading of a book of the same title? I think not.

What's truly mind-boggling is that you follow up your attack on Scott for lacking this virtue with an attack on me for evincing it. Scott, of course, is a virtous man. He does not lack the virtue of lightness. You just made that up, to smear him. Nor do I lack the virtue of lightness. In the face of clear evidence that I change my views as fresh (to me) evidence comes to light, you just concoct an alternative explanation (viz., that I adjust my opinions just for the expediency of attacking people) to smear me.

What a malevolent sense of life you have, Michael.

Baade ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

With your typical bad faith and laziness, you fail to take into account the content of Michael's link.

Which includes:

The June 1990 edition of the Ron Paul Political Report included the statement: “Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.”

Fuck Ron Paul, and fuck you, you scummy Goblian bigoted bastard.

Scott

Richard Goode's picture

What about the fact that [Michael Moeller] might have purposely raised kittens to be raped for profit?

I acknowledge the idea that Michael Moeller purposely raised kittens to be raped for profit. For all we know, he might have.

If it isn't established, and your keep repeating it over, and over, and over, you are dragging a good man's name through the mud

The technical term for such scummy behaviour is 'smearing'. It's "Mudman" Moeller's MO.

Romney Sell-out

atlascott's picture

I think that it is entirely POSSIBLE and that, even as Vice-President, it would be better to have Ron Paul around than not.

And if Romney is truly as "leaf-in-the-wind" as I think he is, then all the better. Let Ron school Romney on some important issues.

Or, if rumors have merit, let Rand.

Why Are You Scolding Goode, Desalvo?

Michael Moeller's picture

Are you calling Goode "scummy", Desalvo? That's not very nice of you. I mean, Goode did write:

"That's right, Michael. I acknowledged the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business. For all I know (and right now, for all I care) he might have."

In fact, Goode is actually keeping more in line with the evidence than you are. Remember this article in which four former Ron Paul associates testified -- three named and one unnamed -- to precisely that fact?

Of course you don't. You merely dispense with inconvenient facts, easy peasy. You can go back to sleep now.

Actually, wake back up for a second. What do you make of the very strong possibility of Ron Paul selling out to Romney, who you referred to as:

"Romney is an empty headed empty suit who supports status-deadly-quo."

I'm curious.

Michael

Scummy

atlascott's picture

"What about the fact Ron Paul might have purposely let racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic content into his newsletters for profit?"

What about the fact that you might have purposely raised kittens to be raped for profit?

If it isn't established, then its not a fact. If it isn't established, and your keep repeating it over, and over, and over, you are dragging a good man's name through the mud without really identifying this alleged racism, homophobia or anti-semitism, or the alleged quotes, blah blah blah. There are al lot of people who dispute whether any of Paul's newsletter stuff is any of those things.

I do not have any evidence that you might have purposely raised kittens to be raped for profit. But MIGHT you have? I do not know.

Scummy.

BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Michael Moeller's picture

Oh, then it's just pure coincidence that your changes of heart are conspicuously timed during an attack on somebody -- whether me, Ross, or Leonid. Sure, pal.

I've actually never seen you change your position on, and I quote: (1) "giving a free pass to a death cult" and (2) "Paul's supposed predisposition to 'look the other way when Iran gets a nuke.'"

What about the fact Ron Paul might have purposely let racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic content into his newsletters for profit? Is it because "for all care" means you don't care at all?

Why don't you tell us how those factor into your Ron Paul Remarkability Quotient?

Michael

LOL

Richard Goode's picture

He'll usually adjust his opinions so that he can get in a Goode attack on somebody.

No, Michael. You see, one thing I value, perhaps more than any other, it is the ability to look evidence and facts straight in the face, no matter how inconvenient they may be to my currently held ideas. I never avoid looking the facts straight in the eye.

My sense of security is derived from my passionate attachment to my reason and moral sense—and to all facts.

It goes without saying that I am fanatical in my loyalty to facts and reason—as against a person or cause—and that, Michael, is why I have changed my mind more than once about Ron Paul.

Ross

Michael Moeller's picture

I wouldn't worry about Goode's pronouncements, nobody takes them seriously. Not even Goode himself. He'll usually adjust his opinions so that he can get in a Goode attack on somebody.

Goode:

You know what your problem is, Leonid? Funnily enough, it's the same as Ron Paul's.

the problem with Ron Paul is not that he cuts his political philosophy with intellectual strychnine, but that his political philosophy is pure libertarianism, cut with nothing.

The problem is that pure libertarianism is strychnine. I'm 99% libertarian. Call the other 1% whatever you want, but it's the 1% that recognises that libertarianism as a philosophy actually doesn't have the philosophical resources to deal with the Musselman. It's the 1% that says no to giving a free pass to a death cult.

Goode:

I canceled my vote for Johnson and gave it back to Cain. Herman Cain now has the clear lead.

Goode:

My only remaining concern is Paul's supposed predisposition to "look the other way when Iran gets a nuke." But is this a realistic concern? If Ron Paul were to become POTUS, would he really allow this to happen? In any case, would Israel allow it to happen?

Goode:

That's right, Michael. I acknowledged the idea that Ron Paul purposely let the material into his newsletters to further business. For all I know (and right now, for all I care) he might have.

Goode:

In the U.S., in the form of Ron Paul, you have a remarkable man and a remarkable opportunity. Not only is he the best candidate by far, he's miles beyond being merely good enough. There is no one else like him.

I guess acknowledging the fact that Ron Paul might have purposely let racist material into his newsletters for profit doesn't factor into his remarkability, according to Goode's calculus.

Does Goode adopt contrary positions for the expediency of attacking somebody?

That's a tough one!!

Michael

Goode-ness gracious!

Ross Elliot's picture

First, thanks, Scott. That I'm not an authoritarian goes without saying, but thanks for saying it.

My vote for National in 2008 was, as stated, designed to end the most dangerous government NZ had had inflicted upon it since Muldoon-National in 1981-84. Voting any other way would not have secured that. But Richard would have had the likes of myself vote for NZ Libertarianz. And to what end? To salve my conscience? To feel cleansed? No, it was an emergency situation and I chose to oust Labour. Done, said, and done again.

But many here did vote Libz. Good for them. They can take what they consider to be the moral high ground. It's instructive that the same people who voted Libz in 2008 and 2011 are now, as I said above "[vociferously debating] the minutiae of the difference between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum as if it mattered in any real sense other than that of getting shot of Obama." Yep, they're advocating a strategic vote just as I did in 2008. Will they feel cleansed over their current advocacy? Surely the proper vote is for the US Libertarian Party? Oh, no! that's essentially a vote for Ron Paul as they both have essentially the same policies.

Richard has the front to mention epistemology when his basis for knowledge, as a true believer, is faith in a supernatural being. Enough said.

Then Richard goes on to champion his support of Ron Paul. Just as I, on balance, do. Yet I'm the authoritarian?

Short of what mark?

Robert's picture

The leadership mark? The speak your mind and to hell with what anyone else thinks mark?

Because if that is the mark then Santorum beats Obama hands down.

If your mark is authoritarianism then explain to me by what system of measurement do you class the man IMPLEMENTED OBAMACARE with the bloke who is determined to abort it?

Watch that video. See OBAMA's treasury secretary Smarmy Tim not even attempt to deny the fact that the CBO with figures provided by HIS department predicts the END of the US economy by 2027.

Now go back and see what Santorum says about the debt. Is it as good as what Paul says. I don't fucking care. The problem here is Obama - Period. ANY of those GOP candidates - as dripping wet and tarnished as they are - are orders of magnitude better than Obama.

And if you can't see that then may be you should cut back on the dope - at least until the bong-smoke clears to the point you can see 5 feet in front of your face.

Robert

Richard Goode's picture

Oh and just to pre-empt the Goodian Snark ... Lest he crap on about how voting Obama is the same as voting for a Republican like Santorum

Who's calling who snarky?! But point taken. "On a par" was not the right choice of words. But my essential point remains. Both Obama and Santorum fall well short of the mark. I care not by how much. Obama and Santorum are both odious and so is the comparison.

Oh and just to pre-empt the Goodian Snark

Robert's picture

Lest he crap on about how voting Obama is the same as voting for a Republican like Santorum who actually acknowledges the EXISTANCE of the on-rushing locomotive which is the interest payments due on the short-term debt we've run up under Bush & Obama

Here is a video that makes the point. Watch the first few minutes of it here on PJTV.com.

Trifecta Team: "Obama's Big Lie: Do Calls for Fiscal Responsibility Mask a Sinister Agenda?"

I'm not going to embed it because I'm not sure about the copyright issues. These vids are usually posted on You-tube after a while.

"fought to constitute a free nation..."

Robert's picture

Agreed.

I guess my point (poorly stated) was that the fact that a single clear theme FOR revolution rang out from the 13 colonies was of the time spent distilling the case and demolishing arguments from nae-sayers.

Without that intellectual effort, I firmly believe that the American revolution would have gone the same way as (pretty much) every revolution since: a war between competing factions attempting to gain the upper-hand until a charismatic strong-man emerges and takes the whole effort in a 180-degree direction -- to the detriment of the populous and freedom.

~That~ is what I'm scared of. I couldn't give a rat's arse about what the rest of the world thinks.

W.r.t supporting the Republicans.

As Thomas Sowell pointed out a while back: in life you can only choose from the choices available. As I explained, the choice will be made for me before I can become a citizen with the right to vote.

Thus, to me, the meat of this argument is hypothetical. Right now, I've got bigger things to worry about - things that I can actually affect with my effort. In short: babies and bills.

It isn't that I don't care for the arguments presented here. It's just that I've got to make more efficient use of my time. The only reason I jumped in was to REMIND people that this circus we are watching is merely the curtain opener to the main-event in November.

It's a reminder that the Republican party is the only horse to support. Would that people hadn't been so dismissive of my calls for an Objectivist/ish political party. But that opportunity (if it ever existed) is lost. Of the rest The US Libertarian party is - in my estimation - a bunch of anarchists and assorted 9-11 trufers poorly concealed by Lady-Liberty's petty-coat. The other parties are even bigger religious zealots than Rick "Lucifer is corrupting America" Santorum.

Voting Republican therefore is the only choice.

Even those who want to the accelerator on the welfare-state set permanently to ramming speed need to check their premises.

If that is your doctrine then you should put the patient out of his misery by voting for the the Communist Party.

If your argument is that America needs to mainline Marxist-Socialism to scare itself straight then don't settle for the diluted stuff (The Democrats).

Scott

Richard Goode's picture

Ross is not an authoritarian.

With all due respect, I beg to differ. Ross is an authoritarian, albeit a smart and funny one.

There are always shouts of "pragmatist!" whenever someone surveys the political landscape and chooses the least worst alternative.

Choosing the least worst alternative in politics is akin to inference to the best explanation in epistemology. In epistemology, however, there are provisos. One such proviso is that it is not reasonable to believe the best explanation unless the best explanation also meets a threshold of adequacy. The explanation must be adequate to explain the phenomena in question. Likewise, in politics, there must also be threshold of moral adequacy. The lesser of evils is still evil. Unless a candidate is good enough, morally speaking, it is wrong to give him or her your vote.

Of course, the problem when you have an undewhelming minority is that voting for the candidate of principle is literally a wasted vote.

No. A vote for a candidate or party of principle is never a wasted vote. A vote for any candidate or party that cannot be described as such is worse than wasted. Of course, if you accept the idea that there must be a threshold of moral adequacy, we can debate where on the moral continuum to set that threshold. Notwithstanding that I'm someone who sets the bar higher than most, there is no way that the New Zealand National Party comes anywhere close to being a party of principle. That's why I call Ross an authoritarian. I could have called him worse. He voted for the National socialists.

Here, with Paul, he is hanging in there. If he gets the Republican Nomination, he will be the candidate. Supporting him is not tilting at windwills; it is picking the best candidate by far, who actually has a shot.

Here, in New Zealand, for a brief time in the run-up to last year's general election, we had a party leader (Don Brash) and a party (the ACT Party) that not only crossed the threshold of moral adequacy, albeit barely, but also actually had a shot. Much to the chagrin of freedom-loving Kiwis, Brash and the ACT Party's chances were scuppered by Michael Moeller's local counterparts.

In the U.S., in the form of Ron Paul, you have a remarkable man and a remarkable opportunity. Not only is he the best candidate by far, he's miles beyond being merely good enough. There is no one else like him. It's a travesty that there are those on this forum who call themselves freedom-lovers yet refuse to endorse Ron Paul's campaign for the GOP presidential nomination.

If you must compare US and NZ politics, then Ross's 2008 vote for the National Party is on a par with a vote for Obama or Santorum. Ross is an authoritarian. I rest my case.

Ross

atlascott's picture

Ross is not an authoritarian.

There are always shouts of "pragmatist!" whenever someone surveys the political landscape and chooses the least worst alternative.

Of course, the problem when you have an undewhelming minority is that voting for the candidate of principle is literally a wasted vote.

Here, with Paul, he is hanging in there. If he gets the Republican Nomination, he will be the candidate. Supporting him is not tilting at windwills; it is picking the best candidate by far, who actually has a shot. Now, no one thinks he is going to wave a magic wand and erase the bureaucratic and Congressional impediments to progress which every President faces. But the face of liberty, the Constitution, the 4th Amendment, and fiscal responsibility will be given center stage. And he can try to close down all of those czars and Cabinet positions and appoint those who are less scoundrels. A very good first step.

AND, either way you vote, do what you can to move the culture, with the sure knowledge that the combined might of old school Conservatives, ARI, TOC, and every other Foundation promoting regard for liberty has FAILED, and we know this by observing where we are and where we are headed. The notion that the best ideas win is BULLSHIT, and some lessons have to be learned -- or taught -- the hard way.

"because of the likes of me"

Richard Goode's picture

I voted for National NZ in 2008 to get rid of Labour and Clark. At the time, and even now, that's considered to be dining with the devil. Others here, because of the likes of me, had the luxury of voting for minor parties like Libz.

Because of the likes of you, Ross, we have a National government. Thanks for nothing.

That others here had the luxury of voting for the Libz is because of the efforts of real freedom-fighters like Winefield and Perigo, not because of authoritarians like yourself. Again, thanks for nothing.

Robert...

Ross Elliot's picture

..."So as far as I'm concerned, if Paul wins the primary - he'll get my vote. If Sanatorium wins the primary - may Galt have mercy on my soul - he'll get my vote."

That's not saying much except that you'll vote for anyone other than Obama.

I get that. And I get it in the sense that I voted for National NZ in 2008 to get rid of Labour and Clark. At the time, and even now, that's considered to be dining with the devil. Others here, because of the likes of me, had the luxury of voting for minor parties like Libz. They salved their consciences but did little to hinder the cancer.

Yet those same now vociferously debate the minutiae of the difference between Romney, Gingrich and Santorum as if it mattered in any real sense other than that of getting shot of Obama.

"If you want a second revolution, gain the time you need to convince people of the merit of your cause. Who knows, maybe the second American revolution will be a velvet one. Gawd help us if it isn't, because the first one was no cake walk -- I shudder to think what another hot-revolution in the era of automatic weapons and rapid fire artillery would be like."

The fact of the (first) American Revolution was that it was fought to constitute a free nation disregarding entangling alliances. The next revolution must be fought for the same reasons: to (re)establish America with scant regard to an ungrateful world.

Scott

Robert's picture

I don't have an actual (as opposed to a hypothetical) dog in this fight yet. If my understanding of the labyrinthine immigration laws is correct, I will become a naturalized citizen just in time to vote in the November presidential election but not in time to vote in any primary.

So as far as I'm concerned, if Paul wins the primary - he'll get my vote. If Sanatorium wins the primary - may Galt have mercy on my soul - he'll get my vote.

I was hoping that Cain would last the distance but he was more Benny Hill (think of the sketches where Benny is being chased by the husbands of numerous scantily women) than Frederick Douglass so that settled that.

Poor judgement killed him off. And by that I mean: his wife is a hell of a lot smarter and better looking than the collection of bimbettes he was chasing. If you are going to commit break your vow and sully your sacred honor by committing adultery then at least have the common decency to boink a goddess rather than a troll. But I digress.

As for a better class of scoundrel. I think when you compare the nominee to Obama and the scoundrels he has surrounded himself with you ARE trading up. I mean Gingrich hasn't sanctioned the running of guns to Mexican cartels in a possible attempt to undermine the 2nd Amendment lately has he?

No I'm not advocating a race to the bottom. What I'm saying is that Obama is bloody awful and the LAST thing we need is a repeat of the Peikoffian Gambit from 2008.

As for Paul. The guy has merit when he talks about the economy. None of them are worth a damn when they talk about social issues and I really don't think that any of them have a winning formula to deal with the Middle East & North Korea.

Yes, I know that Paul said he'd try for an isolationist stance, but remember that Obama campaigned on a Peace ticket in 2008 and look what happened. Obama even had a super majority.

There will always be distance between a candidates promises what they actually deliver.

What I'm looking for is a guy who can read the signs and is prepared to act appropriately to fix the country.

Obama is not that guy. If he was, he'd have used is super-majority and first Black President 'do anything' card to fix Social Security (means test it to stop those rich pricks from getting it and raising the entry age). If he was, he'd have stopped at one stimlunacy, fired Bernake and done something about the deficit like Clinton did. If he was he would have fired Holder the second the body-count got above one Border agent. If he was, he wouldn't sing the praises of Americans having Stay-cations whilst his missus skis in Colorado or sunbathes in Spain every two months.

That's a scoundrel.

And respectfully, yourself, Michael and the other combatants appear to be loosing sight of the short term goal: defeat Obama. Fix the Republican party in 2013. Fix it with a third party if you like.

But realize that the Second Revolution solution isn't a real-world solution.

You think that Objectivism/Libertarianism will win the wasteland of a economic/political apocalypse. History suggests that a Robespierre or Napoleon or worse will rise. The foundation of the first American revolution was the ten years of advocacy & activism that preceded the declaration of independence.

That ground work hasn't been laid this time around. Today's American citizen has a firmer grasp of their dick than they do of economic principles & the foundations of Liberty.

If you want a second revolution, gain the time you need to convince people of the merit of your cause. Who knows, maybe the second American revolution will be a velvet one. Gawd help us if it isn't, because the first one was no cake walk -- I shudder to think what another hot-revolution in the era of automatic weapons and rapid fire artillery would be like.

Good

atlascott's picture

I very much appreciate your thoughts on this, Robert.

"And if that is too onerous for you, then the primary question is not whether Ron Paul will Redeem us, but what form of governance (if any) DO you want?"

These are Congressmen who bundle legislation together. They pass 1000-plus page bills. They act in secret. Back room deals are what see legislation passed. Policing them is not easy, and it is not a manageable task. It may be impossible.

Add to that: THEY have all day and all night to scheme and wheedle. WE THE PEOPLE must raise our children, go to work or school or work AND school, find romantic satisfaction, maintain familial bonds, pursue our hobbies and interests, earn a living, plan for the future. AND, somehow watch this foxes in the henhouse every moment?

Well, perhaps we must. But IF we must, I'd much rather have a man like Ron Paul at the wheel of the behemoth - honest, and with integrity -- than those who have proven records of ethics violations and every manner of political corruption.

Is it too much to ask that we get a better class of scoundrel? Well, I don't think so. And Romney and Newt and Santorum are not a better class of scoundrel. They are the sameold, same old.

That Paul has the moniker "Dr. No" says something very, very good about his grasp of economics and the Constitution.

Please remember

Robert's picture

When you are evaluating these guys that their worst aspects are on display - amplified by a media allied formally (see latest media matters scandal) and informally (see the absence of ANY analysis of the Gun running scandal, the Solyndra et. al. scandals, the national debt equaling GDP, launching a military campaign in Libya without congressional authorization, not closing down Gitmo like he promised, etc. ad nauseum) to Obama.

Now notice that the very BEST of Obama is on display: his ordering the elimination of Bin Laden and removing Don't ask don't tell. And even then, he's LESS popular than Bush Jnr. a man who launched two of the most controversial wars in the post WWII era.

Frankly, in an election between Obama and a zombie version of Nixon, I'd vote for the undead Nixon.

When you are heading for a cliff in a run away train, and the ONLY choices you have are between an engineer who wants to apply the breaks slowly and a mad-man who doesn't believe in the existence of cliffs, only a moron would allow the mad-man near the lever.

America and the Republican party are like the Queen Mary. Enormous, opulent, imperious ships of state that take several miles to come to a dead stop and an enormous turning radius.

In other words, America and the Republicans aren't going to be reformed in a day and certainly not by November 2012.

Look at it this way: when you decide to build a new house from scratch, your first move isn't to demolish the old one before beginning the new one even has a roof. Where would you seek shelter in the interim?

If you want to change the Republicans the solution is to build the replacement and have it tested & ready to switch on at the 2016+ election. Then you are threatening the Republicans with an ACTUAL loaded gun (to mix metaphors) as opposed to threatening to go and build one at a later date.

Does this mean that you pull the lever for the Republican nominee and leave him to it?

No! No matter who they are, the next collection of suited goons to occupy the Capital building and White House need to feel the heat of public scrutiny on them at ALL times. They need to be afflicted, harassed, questioned, heckled, and made to feel so damned set-upon that they wouldn't dare stray from the fiscal path they promised to follow - let alone decide to make a career of politics.

The problem with the American political system is that the voters buggered off some time in the latter half of the last century and left the pricks to do as they pleased.

And that gentlemen will happen with your Republican replacement party too - eventually. That is the nature of this behemoth.

If you want a constitutional Federal republic you are going to have to face the fact that the populous can't give their political leaders an inch.

And if that is too onerous for you, then the primary question is not whether Ron Paul will Redeem us, but what form of governance (if any) DO you want?

Yes, interesting

atlascott's picture

I have considered going over to the Democratic Party to hasten the end of it, but cannot bring myself to do it.

Obama

Stephen Berry's picture

I hope that any Republican candidate this time around gets beaten by Obama so there is the possibility of a new, more effective liberty candidate for the Republican nomination in 2016.
Rand Paul or Gary Johnson?

Ethics

Damien Grant's picture

Does a president need to have strong ethics to be a good president?

Kennedy, clinton, reagan, nixon, all had major ethical issues, but they were (relatively) better presidents than carter, bush jr, johnson, who were highly moral and ethical.

I'm not sure having strong personal integrity is needed to be a good president.

I actually think obama is a good person that believes he is doing good work and that the compromises he needs to make are necessary for the greater good, and that newt would dump his wife the minute she got cancer.

I'd still vote newt. The issue, sadly, is not who we want but picking from those willing to be picked.

You've already lost.

atlascott's picture

"...and I'm not sure he really is, does not mean he would not be a good president."

The ethics scandals? The pimping for Fannie with politicians while it was going down?

Look, if integrity does not matter to you, you'll get the President you deserve.

Newt

Damien Grant's picture

Even if newt is corrupt, and I'm not sure he really is, does not mean he would not be a good president.

Not sure who said it but there is a saying that you need to be a grubby street fighting politician to win the white house and then transform into a statesman once you get there.

Just look at his speech after south carolina. Once his place in history was secured I think the grubby greed would dissipate and be replaced by a desire to do what I think he really wants to do, and you only have to look at what he did when he was speaker.

Newt

atlascott's picture

Utterly corrupt flip-flipper depending on who is paying him. No integrity at all.

A typical political opportunist and hack, he is a partial author of the giant current government, and would continue its ruinous course.

Look closer -- status quo big government Republican Progressive.

Newt

gregster's picture

Nothing good about him? Speaks much sense here;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?f...!

Talks of the free market being better equipped than regulators to clean up pollution etc. Shows some education re the Constitution and Founding Fathers.

Santorum for Michigan!

Damien Grant's picture

That's it.

Thirty nine dollars on Santorum for the Michigan primary on ipredict at 45c.

Good luck to the sodomite hating god worshipping scumbag.

Yes

atlascott's picture

"That is, that to withdraw from supporting an ungrateful world will have no bearing upon the future of America. The only thing that matters is America herself, and the devil take the hindmost."

And on that, I have this to add: America should continue to offer asylum and opportunity to those who wish to emigrate here -- PARTICULARLY INTELLIGENT, EDUCATED, SKILLED people. At some point, the immigration imbalance between assimilating, proud-to-be-American new Americans and "I-love-my-shit-homeland" non-assimilators will have to be addressed. It can be by clamping down on undocumented immigration and by things such as eliminating bi-lingual education programs. A share language is necessary to a national melting pot.

America needs to right her ship. She has imported bad Euro-ocialist economic policies along with Middle Eastern totalitarian civil (non)rights. Right now, it is still the best place to be, but it is no longer clearly the freeest place on earth, and it is supposed to be.

Atlas Scott

Damien Grant's picture

Newt is certainly ethically challenged and Obama I think is a more principled and nicer person than newt, if you had a daughter you would prefer she married some like obama and not someone like newt, but newt would pursue a political agenda closer to what I believe than would Obama.

Likewise with Romney, but I think Gingrich has a stronger belief system than Romney.

Anyway, I agree that Santorum would be awful but he would face plant in a general election.

But, and here is the important issue of the day. Romney is paying 55c on ipredict to win michigian, but Santorum is ahead in the polls, I am thinking of putting ten dollars on Santorum.

Newt = Corrupt

atlascott's picture

Nothing, NOTHING good about him.

Consequences

atlascott's picture

There would be positive and negative short term consequences to America no longer being world policeman and nanny. Many allies who we support in one way or another will howl, but America has neither moral duty nor Constitutional authority to do what she does, and what we have done has resulted in alot of destruction as counted by dollars and lives.

Romney is an empty headed empty suit who supports status-deadly-quo.

Obama

Damien Grant's picture

I'd prefer Obama to Santorum.

Romney would be a good president. The idea that you must be without flaws, or ideologically untarnished, is absurd.

Romney may not believe everything he is currently saying but so what? He has changed his positions depending on his audience, like the businessman he is, he is focused on delivering the product his customers want.

The risk is that he would swing to the centre if elected, and newt would not do that. It is a shame newt fell over. He has a zipper problem but I care not a zit about how he behaves at home. Newt has form and it is good.

Let's remember that during clintons presidency it was newt who drove some of the most important reforms that helped restore prosperity.

Damn right, Scott

Ross Elliot's picture

"This is based upon the premise that many here have accepted the notion that continuing the fighting overseas in the form of nation building and full-scale deployment is the most pressing existence-level issue facing America and the West right now."

And that leads good people to support bad things. They throw the baby out with the bathwater. The crisis that is destroying America has nothing to do with supporting overseas military action. That is, that to withdraw from supporting an ungrateful world will have no bearing upon the future of America. The only thing that matters is America herself, and the devil take the hindmost.

The War on Terror

atlascott's picture

Santorum supports our efforts at occupation and nation-building throughout the Middle East and the world.

He supports fighting them THERE so we do not fight them HERE.

He supports the military-industrial complex, and continuing never-ending wars.

Therefore, based upon past history, I would expect support from a majority of folks at SOLO for a candidate like Santorum.

This is based upon the premise that many here have accepted the notion that continuing the fighting overseas in the form of nation building and full-scale deployment is the most pressing existence-level issue facing America and the West right now.

Of course, this is shoddy, incorrect, and illogical thinking. In fact, in light of the economies in Europe and the regular passage of laws which have destroyed the 4th Amendment, I would call this view delusional.

And, of course, Santorum is the ~absolute~ worst of the GOP field. He, alone, is an embodiment of the fear Dr. Peikoff envisioned when he supported voting Democratic a few years ago to avoid a religious theocracy.

There is no Republican less in support of freedom and more in favor of legislation of Christian morality than Santorum, and with the full weight of a totalitarian government to enforce his moral social views. And, to boot, he has no idea regarding economics.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.