http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon37.html

http://reason.com/blog/show/124353.html

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/

http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002714.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon39.html

Palin brought “excitement” to the race merely because she is fairly attractive.

On her positive side, she DOES make Caroline Kennedy look like Miss Teen South Carolina!

PEACE

***

Druckenmiller,

I supplied an example of dismissive and disrespectful coverage. See post#14. There have been many others. You have supplied nothing specific in rebuttal – just general stuff like “look at the articles and blog posts about Paul” and Reason “ran very enthusiastic profiles of Ron Paul.”

So you say… but could you give me some examples? Maybe some examples that were actually published during the campaign, if that wouldn’t be too much to ask? I never ran across any of this enthusiastic pro-Paul stuff myself, and I was looking, but I am willing to back down if you can point me towards some of it. I had no problem finding the negative stuff.

You have twice come real close to calling me a liar, and have intimated that I have an axe to grind.

Well, I’m not a liar. I’m occasionally wrong about something, but then I figure it out and correct it pretty cheerfully. No one is perfect. But I do not lie. In fact, I catch liars, and I’m real good at it.

I DO have an axe to grind though, I admit it. My axe is this – I want my f=cking rights back – all of them, and I’m sick of cynical inside-the-beltway faux-libertarian poseurs who don’t stand up for freedom when it counts, and/or those who undercut and ridiculed one of the main spokesman for individual liberty – Ron Paul.

I submit that if they really believed in individual liberty, they wouldn’t have behaved in such a manner.

And that’s exactly what Reason, the Buckley cabal, Cato, NRA, and all the rest have done over the years.

Now come all you damage-control artists, trying to say “No, No, Reason liked Ron Paul, really we did. We said good stuff about him.”

Nah. No sale.

Why bother anyway – unless you’re trying to rewrite history to put Reason on the right side of it? I guess you rightly fear that Ron Paul will continue to be found correct in all his analysis and predictions.

No, one thing is clear – the freedom movement has written Reason and the other “connected” libertarian orgs off, and has decided to form its own new organizations, like campaign for liberty, free of the cynicism, statism and rot that pervade the inside-the-beltway faux-libertarian mags rags and “institutions.”

To tReason, State-o, NRA, Nat. Review: we, the people who want to be free, know better than to ever count on you again. When it’s crunch time, you’ll side with the state and against individual liberty again and again – for sure. You’re just about enriching and aggrandizing yourselves now, and not about freedom anymore at all.

Many people had tried to explain this dynamic of corrupted freedom organizations to me, but I had a hard time believing it myself. But this Ron Paul campaign and also the financial crisis forced many closet statists out into the open, both to oppose him, and to support government intervention and defend the Fed. Finally the anti-liberty inclinations of many supposed “conservatives” and “libertarians”were finally seen clearly.

So now we know.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice, shame on me.

Much more significant was Sarah Palin.

Barr was polling 5 to 6% in Zogby up until late August. Then the fateful day of August 29 hit. And McCain stunned the entire nation by picking the libertarian-leaning Alaska Governor.

Immediately, Barr’s numbers dropped to less than 1%.

Libertarians were left with no incentive to vote for the Libertarian Party. Why vote for a third-party, when a major party nominates a Libertarian-leaner for Vice-President?

Take a look at the articles and blog posts about Paul and it is so overwhelmingly obvious that you’re lying.

The lie is to state or even imply the opposite.”

I never said they werent mostly against Paul. Just that Reason/CATO/ATR/whatever should be called against Ron Paul because they arent monolithic organizations.

Those who expect certain supposedly libertarian orgs to shoulder the load in the future and speak up when it counts will have to forget the historical record of this election cycle.

One of the most solid libertarian candidates ever was running, debating, and raising money like NEVER BEFORE, at a crucial time of history when the very world financial/monetary “system” is coming apart, and also this guy knows more about economics and currency than even most libertarians.

Given these facts, it was telling that there was no solid outside support coming from libertarian organizations for Ron Paul other than Rockwell and the Paul campaign/movement itself.

I myself got what I think may have been the very first endorsement of Ron Paul by Grover Norquist, and that’s all well and good, but at that time, Norquist wasn’t out there actively telling people about Ron Paul, like he should have been – I had to lead him to the subject myself.

I’m sorry Trent Hill and Steven Druckenmiller, but it comes down to this:

I’m saying Reason and Cato (and plenty other orgs besides just them) didn’t stand behind Ron Paul.

You are implying that I’m wrong.

I didn’t say they never said anything good about him, and I never said that no individuals at these orgs liked Paul.

I simply meant that overall, their insitutional stance, especially during the crucial parts of the campaign, was not pro-Paul at all, and included a distinctly hostile and dismissive tone, which I gave an example of above in post #14.

The treatment of Ron Paul by Reason and Cato has already been documented by others, and I had no intention of re-proving it here, but it’s telling that in way of proof, I found one example of Weigel’s dismissive tone against Ron Paul in about 30 seconds and posted it here. Given time, I have no doubt I could have easily reconstructed the entire sordid record of hostile and dismissive coverage of Ron Paul by Reason, but again, why bother? It’s already a known fact.

Reason doesn’t deal in substance anymore, I don’t think, and that’s why none of Ron Paul’s positions were once explored in any substantive way. All the journalism and many of the comments were and are inside-the-beltway gossipy stuff – cynical, bitchy, apathetic, and with no real scholarship.

No, it’s not a lie to say that Reason, as an organization, was mostly against Ron Paul.

The lie is to state or even imply the opposite.

1. should have layed off of the gold stuff, that still requires STATE control over the monetary system

2. needed to attend some toastmaster meetings. he had no speaking ability

3. he sucked on immigraton, but look at the whackos he had to pander to

4. his “constitution is god” thing got a bit redundant.

5. he has the political skills of mary ruwart. none. that’s why she sucked at the LP convention

6. he endorsed a theocrat, by the name of Chuck Baldwin, now, THAT was a disappoint.

but other than that, he’s alright.

It should be noted that Chuck Baldwin failed to get ballot status in several states, including high population states like New York, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana, Texas, Arizona, and California (where his ballot status was highjacked by Alan Keyes). Missing the ballot in these states killed Chuck Baldwin’s vote total.

I, for one, concentrate my time educating all comers at the grassroots level and still spend time developing and leafletting at any public location with lots of traffic about the Bailouts, the Fed and monetary system and recruiting people to directly engage with their government for real change. We are working to continue to take over precincts and districts with Constitutionally-minded. fiscally responsible, limited government folks and to prepare them for the coming ravages of the economic system. You folks can continue the endless back-biting and bickering. The rest of us and working to prepare for the Recovery once the Great Unraveling and Reckoning have wreaked their havoc on our lives.