But during the late presidential campaign I lost my taste for the site, due to its All-Ron-Paul-All-The-Time editorial policy. Now, to fend off the angry mobs (I've only so much ammunition) I don't have anything special against Ron Paul. I'm sure he's a very fine fellow
As months went by, I was ready to let bygones be bygones if Lew would. But he just can't seem to let it alone. Ron Paul is to Lew Rockwell what William Shatner was to my redneck sister-in-law, back in 1968. (No, I didn't make that up.) He just can't let it go. Last Christmas, Lew posted this piece of...whatever it is. "Yes, Virginia, there is a Ron Paul." Lew! C'mon!
This rant comes about principally because there's no way to comment at LRC proper, and I needed to rant. This morning there were Three! Count'em! Three! articles on LRC about a stupid CPAC straw poll that gave RP the win for the 2012 prez nomination. Enough! It's early 2010, and I am not yet healed from the spillover noise of the last endless election. I'm sure as hell not going to spend the next three years on the next one.
In which, I must add, Ron Paul will NOT be the republican nominee unless every other republican in the country dies beforehand. Lew! Ron Paul may be a very fine fellow
To say nothing of the fact that I've never understood how you can rail about the evils of government out of one side of your mouth, and connive with Ron Paul or anyone else to rule it out of the other. It's at least inconsistent.
Please. Please, let it go. It's gotten embarrassing, Lew.
7 comments:
Amen.
The Federal Reserve is now a subject of debate for practically the first time ever,
it’s possible now to propose that our government’s foreign policy might be a teensy-weensy bit not-conservative,
Benito Giuliani is on the ash heap of history after his attack on Paul's explanation of blowback as a possible cause of 9/11 blew back in his own fascist face
Austrian economics is enjoying its greatest surge in interest since Hayek won the Nobel Prize.
There are more people interested in these ideas than ever before, and another effort could — who knows — triple our numbers.
Now granting how physically and mentally taxing such a campaign is, my question, ranter Joel, is this: can you name any good reasons for Ron Paul not to run?
I'm not asking if he can win. I'm pointing out actions, and consequences. Why shouldn't he run? And why shouldn't LRC boost him? Do you really find principled radicalism so offensive?
And if a 75-year old man can try to change the world, and those of us who sit and watch can actually see some movement, perhaps we can find it within ourselves be just a little bit more tolerant of his actions, and his promoters.
Ron Paul can certainly run for President if he wants. I don't get a vote about that, just as I don't have any legitimate input about what Lew Rockwell does. They're both adults.
Neither do I find "principled radicalism" offensive in the slightest. I do question whether that's what this is. "Reforming" government is radical? Hardly. Nor is it likely to succeed, because you can't reform what isn't broken. The government is doing exactly what it was designed to do, and Ron Paul is never going to change it. Yes, he serves a useful educational function for those few prepared to listen to him, and there's certainly nothing wrong with Rockwell and his other fans giving him a forum. I know people who'd dump every politician in the middle of the ocean - except Ron Paul - and I can't say they're wrong.
That doesn't change the fact that his political ambitions are a joke, and LRC's incessant flogging of them quickly becomes tedious.
If you're going to characterize the good doctor's political ambitions as a joke, it might be wise to know what those ambitions are.
I've met Ron Paul, talked with him, dined with him. He is a gentleman and a scholar in the truest sense of those words. His ambition is not to run the country. He harbors no illusions about his abilities and his chances of winning the presidency. He knows full well that a record of 434-1 votes are an empty symbol.
But the presidency is not his ambition. He sees himself as an educator. Based on the facts in evidence, which you don't seem to dispute, I would conclude that he is succeeding.
Your blog post today discussed the moral and practical consequences of a shooting revolution. Pitched battles are a grim prospect no matter which faction ultimately triumphs. No sane thinking person wants such an outcome.
If we are to avoid that fate, then the battle of ideas must be won. Ron Paul is leading a major front in that battle. I would rate his accomplishments as obviously greater than any freedomista either of us can name.
As for Lew Rockwell, do you understand that he was chief of Ron Paul's legislative staff when Paul was first elected? That Paul is deeply involved with Rockwell and the von Mises Institute? Why on earth should Rockwell show any restraint, just at the moment when there is the slightest glimmer of hope?
You're entitled to be a curmudgeon. You walk that talk. But dissing Ron Paul's ambitions and Rockwell's proselytizing only reveals how little you understand both these fine men, their goals, and the lessons of liberty that they advance so effectively.
For a non-candidate summary of Paul's views, watch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQts21QiKTQ
(part 1 of 3)
or if you rather not wait for video to load, read the transcript at
http://www.ronpaul.com/2010-01-22/ron-pauls-state-of-the-republic-address/
It includes this thought, suggesting that Paul remembered and understands what you had so quickly forgotten before this morning's reminder:
"Must we wait for the inevitable and expect to restore our liberties in a street fight against the overwhelming power of the state? Not a good option!
The only way that we can prevent blood from running in the streets is to offer a better idea of the proper role of government in a society that desires first and foremost liberty."
Not bad for a 75-year old man!
LMAO@that "Yes, Virginia" Ron Paul thingy. What does it mean? Maybe it, like the original it's modeled on, is just a poetic justification for a lie told to ignorant innocents?
Monday (Feb.22) was the best-read single day in the history of LRC.
This was the best-read weekend (Feb 20-21) in the history of LRC.
Nov. 30
Thanks to everyone who made the four-day holiday period last week the best-read Thanksgiving time ever, with traffic up 50% over 2008.
Oct. 10-11
we beat the previous record (8/23–24, 2009) for the most weekend traffic ever.
Gee, maybe he shouldn't let this go after all. It looks like he's got a tiger by the tail.
Just sayin'.
Post a Comment