According to those of Doherty’s ilk, I guess “real”
libertarians are George Bush, Dick Cheney, Dick Armey
and Alan Greenspan. “Entreprenuers” in other words.

Let’s just shovel Reason Magazine in with the
neo-cons, who also support “globalization” and the
“New World Order” of international finance capitalism,
financed by the World Bank, the Export Import Bank,
and the Federal Reserve.

How really much different is “libertarianism” from
Tom Friedman’s “Flat World, or for that matter Norman
Norman Podhoretz’s neo-conservativism?

If I had any confidence that I’m not wasting my time
I’d post here. And anyway, I agree with most
of his views.

Unfortunately, though, it’s been my experience that
some well-known pundits aren’t at all accessible.
And after the time and expense spent on well
structured replies, I have usually discovered my
replies to their posts ignored.

So, I just sort of saw Raimondo’s name attached to the
post and figured it’s likely a lost cause posting a
response. Forgive me if my assumption is a stupid one.

Glenn Fitzgerald.

Looks like I was dead wrong.

I’ll have to return here
in a little while and respond.

Glenn Fitzgerald.

In the piece, “Is He Good for the Libertarians?”
Doherty seems to use slight of hand language to
slyly raise the allegation of racism against Ron Paul.

First, Doherty clearly characterizes Ron Paul as
“yokel” with, “some ugly things in his past that no
Libertarian wants to be linked with.” In the next
sentence almost, Doherty makes the horrible nature of
those “ugly things,” totally clear.

He then refers to Ron Paul’s past newsletter which
allegedly made some “ugly” (re: racist) and
“race-baitng comments.”

Doherty also, almost as an after-thought of fairness,
mentions that Ron Paul, attributed the comments to
one of his staffers. But now that the racist
allegation has been made, and the reader’s opinion
already formed, the damage to Ron Paul’s reputation
has already been already accomplished.

In American politics, the allegation of racism is
always the kiss of death---or so it would seem to me.

Doherty’s piece gives evidence of a pundit inclined
to abuse language for the sake of dishonest
rhetoric. On the other hand, maybe he can
be judged in a more positive light on the basis of
his other pieces.

Anyway, that’s sort of a first impression of his piece.
I had to scan over the piece kind of fast, so maybe
I didn’t read carefully enough.

Glenn Fitzgerald.

I used to be an avid reader and supporter of Reason magazine. However, since the arrival of Cathy Young and her brethren from the old Sowjet Union, the staff at the magazine had to subordinate its mission for “free minds and free markets” to the supreme order “will it help Israel?”. The indirect trashing of Ron Paul just confirms my observation.

it’s jealousy.

I had a free trial subscription to Reason.  I found it to be a neo-con inspired rag and opted not to sign on.  Much better to read the Sobran Report and Takimag.com if you are looking for an independent voice with real reason instead of imagined.

I think Raimando is basically
wrong.

Doherty is playing the role of journalist, telling a story of interest to libertarians, about libertarians.

I support Ron Paul.

I think it is good to have libertarian publications that are more than cheering sections.

As I contact libertarians in my community (who I basically contact when there is some kind of political campaign,) asking for support for Cong. Paul’s effort, it is useful to understand these sorts of things.

And I think it is important to be aware of the “racism” story.  Trying to keep it secret from libertarians is foolish. 

Apparently, all of those “cosmopolitan” mainstream libertrians, who think Paul is a yokel, speak off the record.  I am surprised that Doherty didn’t describe them all a bit better in his gentile criticism of their view.

Still, it is better that they remain silent than that they attack Cong. Paul.

Anyway, I greatly appreciate Reason’s coverage of the Paul campaign on its blog. 

I prefer to support my candidate with open eyes.

Since when is a highly educated obstetrician a “yokel”? Perhaps Doherty needs a dictionary.

Dr. Paul is a rare man and an even rarer Congressman. Faced with a potential scandal about his newsletter, he refused to hand over the ghostwriter to the wolves. Nor did he distance himself, as every other politician would have done. He comes out of this incident standing even higher because of his loyalty, discretion, and decency. Meanwhile, those slinging the mud need to ask not whether his campaign is good for libertarianism but whether their attacks on him are good for liberty.

It is typical of the neocons, poor journalists,and worse writers at Reason to tell only part of the story and to portray Dr. Paul as inhabiting their own sorry level.

The Libertarian Party has been deeply infiltrated by Democrats and Neo-cons who were booted from their own Parties. The Dems want open borders without considering the impacts on infrastructure,free sex and freedom to use drugs without personal responsibility for their own actions… they purport to be hippies but what they really are is loudmouthed fools.

Meanwhile, the NeoCons preach about “Limited Government” while busily building their own profitable bureaucracy within the Lib Party.
Naturally neither of these two encampments can or will support Ron Paul. They have lost their way by using the Libertarian Party for personal gains - from the debacle of the National Party’s involvement in driving it to the door of bankruptcy with specious purchases, salaries, and investments, to the State Parties’ attempting to use donated monies to pay for their personal leadership’s radio programs. And neither faction knows how to run a real political campaign, nor wants to learn - they make their own Ego Juice and drink it like Jim Jones’ Koolaid at every meeting, patting themselves on the back for accomplishing nothing. 

The. Libs. Will. Never. Be. Anything. But. Losers. Until. They. Boot. The Imposters. Out.