Comments on: David Weigel says: Ron Paul’s economic theories are winning converts

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:40:38 +0000

Scatterbrain,

How is nepotism? People have to VOTE him in. Not just people, people in a-whole-nother state.

By: Wendy

Wendy — Fri, 08 May 2009 21:15:21 +0000

Finally the world catches on…

Nepotism, Scatterbrain? Not when you are VOTING FOR THAT PERSON. And what about Peter Schiff? He’s not Ron Paul’s son, but shares many similar beliefs regarding economic policy? You can’t call that Nepotism…

By: G.E.

G.E. — Thu, 07 May 2009 02:01:15 +0000

When I google David Weigel at Reason, I come up with a fairly new thing about staff. But, I could be wrong.

No, you were right, Kimberly. I was wrong.

By: scatterbrain

scatterbrain — Wed, 06 May 2009 23:53:22 +0000

Does everybody expect Ron Paul to transmute his soul into his son so he can carry on his “good” *snicker* work?

This is nepotism people, plain and simple!

By: Kimberly Wilder

Kimberly Wilder — Wed, 06 May 2009 22:21:56 +0000

When I google David Weigel at Reason, I come up with a fairly new thing about staff. But, I could be wrong.

If one of the other writers knows definitely that he is not still with them, please do correct my article.

(I am working a lot of hours temping this week. And, research and a correction seems a bit too much for me.)

Thanks,
Kimberly

By: Catholic Trotskyist

Catholic Trotskyist — Wed, 06 May 2009 21:34:38 +0000

Do I seem less crazy now after all this? Definitely less crazy than Bachman. Ron Paul’s economic theories will never work, but I would still support Rand Paul for Senate in the Republican primary, but not the general probably.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Wed, 06 May 2009 20:32:42 +0000

GE,

Pot, kettle, black? A bit of your own medicine would do you well, I thought, and I was quite right.

By: robert capozzi

robert capozzi — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:31:00 +0000

ge, beg your pardon, kind sir, I am not “anti revisionist”…that’s an untruth I don’t care to let stand. It IS true that I’m not a neo-Calhounist, that’s true, which I use “revisionist” to mean.

I agree that SOME early GOPers were anti-slave trade for white labor interests. Others were abolitionist. Some were for sending blacks back to Africa.

Cherry-picking factoids doesn’t elicit much truth, IMO.

By: G.E.

G.E. — Wed, 06 May 2009 19:19:21 +0000

Trent – More “generalization?” Dude, can you READ? As editor, maybe you should read your writers’ articles, because then you wouldn’t attack readers (like myself) who are just seeking clarification on something in the story.

Nate – The Democratic Party was white supremacist, too. The GOP, however, was not founded in the name of racial equality. Even the anti-slavery wing wanted slavery abolished so that they wouldn’t have to compete with slave labor — they wanted more jobs for whites. But don’t listen to me — listen to anti-revisionist (i.e., let the lies stand!) Capozzi!

By: robert capozzi

robert capozzi — Wed, 06 May 2009 18:02:55 +0000

Nate, I suspect GE is conflating many things about the founding of the GOP with actions taken by the GOP leadership during the Confederate Elite Insurrection, aka the Civil War. The GOP was not founded during the Insurrection, but years before it, as a coalition of former Whigs, abolitionists and others. I doubt even people like Woods and DiLorenzo would put it as simplistically (and misrepresentatively) as GE has above.

By: libertariangirl

libertariangirl — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:47:41 +0000

Radley Balko is speaking at the Clark County NV LP meeting Thursday May 7th.

Im super-excited

check http://www.clarkcountylp.org for more info

By: Dave Weigel

Dave Weigel — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:33:05 +0000

Thanks for all the kind words. I left Reason after the 2008 elections to take a blogging gig at the Economist and a reporting job at the Independent. So I’m still a contributing editor at Reason but have not written there in a few months.

By: Nate

Nate — Wed, 06 May 2009 17:29:01 +0000

G.E. writes:

“Secondly, it’s not “collectivist” to label people who voluntarily associate with one another. Is it “collectivist” to say Nazis are racist? You’re a proud member of the Republican Party; a party founded on white supremacy, war, nationalism, central banking, income taxation, mercantilism, and protectionism. I can see why you’re sensitive about these issues.”

Firstly, I agree completely on your “collectivist” take. Wanted to write something similar myself.

However, I must protest the remarks about the founding of the Republican party. It most certainly was not founded on white supremacy. It now plays somewhat to that crowd, certainly more so than the Democrats, but in the early years of the Republican party, the KKK was buddy-buddy with the Democrats.

By: Erik Geib

Erik Geib — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:53:07 +0000

I think the above link shows that Weigel did a pretty fair job of only condemning Paul’s lack of condemnation for Lew.

By: Trent Hill

Trent Hill — Wed, 06 May 2009 16:44:26 +0000

“You’re a proud member of the Republican Party; a party founded on white supremacy, war, nationalism, central banking, income taxation, mercantilism, and protectionism. I can see why you’re sensitive about these issues.”

More overgeneralizations. Cute.