When Dr. No Met Bruno ...

In case you hadn't already heard, Congressman Ron Paul appears in the upcoming Bruno movie by Sacha Baron Cohen. Why'd he do that? Turns out he was punk'd into it. Why didn't he see it coming? 'Cause Paul hasn't experienced popular culture since about 1962, according to this interview:

We were in a studio situation. I wasn't invited to a hotel room. A studio situation where they had a lot of lights burn and blaze and all kinds of commotion. They said -- better get in this back room here. And all of a sudden, I was in this room, which they had it all fixed up as a bedroom. So, getting me there was sort of dishonesty. Getting me into the interview.

I was expecting an interview on Austrian economics. So, that didn't turn out that way. But, by the time he started pulling his pants down, I, What is going on here? I ran out of the room. This interview has ended.

When this all gets out, I'm probably going to have to apologize to my supporters because I think most of them are going to figure out why in the world didn't I sock this guy in the nose?

SLIWA: You ran out. But, did you actually see the original Borat film where he pulls these kinds of stunts?

PAUL: No, no. Movies I used to see are 'Sound of Music.' Tonight, I was sitting here watching 'Gone with the Wind.' So, I don't watch that kind of stuff. And I understand he makes a lot of money. But, if he makes a lot of money, I have to permit the market to do this.

I don't like the idea that he lies his way into an interview. That to me is fraud. But, the fact that he has raunchy material and people buy into it, it's sort of sad that that is a reflection of our culture. To me, it's a real shame that people are going to reward him with millions and millions of dollars for being so crass.

I know Paul is still a hero to many libertarians, but his presidential bid was a disaster, and it embarassed a lot of free-marketers by associating them with his crackpot newsletters (for which he has never given an adequate explanation). And now he's appearing as the butt of a joke in this flick.

Oh, joy.

Dr. No More?

Is Ron Paul in danger of losing his Texas House seat? Paul has beaten back every such challenge in the past, usually pretty handily. This time though he appears to be in a tougher fight.

After a rather disappointing showing on Super Tuesday, Paul's campaign announced that, while not dropping out of the White House race, it was scaling back and focusing more on staying in Congress. His district's Republican primary is set for March 4. Reason's Dave Weigel reported:

Paul is legitimately concerned about holding on to his seat. Chris Peden, an ambitious businessman and councilman from Friendswood (pop. 32,460), has overcome a slow start and is buying anti-Paul advertisements which pound home the message that to question the foreign policy that led up to 9/11 is to "blame America first."

Peden has raised enough money and buttonholed enough GOP poo-bahs in the district to put a scare into Paul, who is only the latest torchbearer of a 2008 trend—purging the odd man out.

That purging trend continued with the defeat of GOP congressman and Iraq War critic Wayne Gilchrest in his Maryland primary last week. Paul mentioned it in a rather anxious fundraising appeal to his supporters: "So far, we have raised only about a third of what a well-funded [House race] effort would need."

Now Peden is claiming to be ahead of Paul, saying he has internal polls showing him winning, 43-32. Paul's internals are allegedly similiar. In an interview Peden says he's also going to hit Paul on the newsletters and on his opposition to NASA funding. The latter is significant because a 2004 redistricting put Paul's district near NASA's Houston operations. Presumably a lot of NASA workers now live in there and may not like Paul's record on the agency.

That's what Peden claims anyway. Having never set foot in the district myself or seen a poll done by a reputable third party, it's hard to tell what Paul's constituents are really thinking.

Paul presumably still has several million bucks left over from his presidential bid but he can't legally use them for his House race while he is still running for the presidency. "The congressional campaign has to stand on its own," Paul says. He reportedly doesn't want to drop his White House bid because he's holding out for a good speaking slot at the Republican convention. However since the Texas presidential primary is also on March 4, Paul may be able to run presidential ads that serve both purposes.

In the fundraising appeal, Paul adds:

If I am defeated in the upcoming congressional primary, our ideas will be held to have been defeated as well. It will be proclaimed from the rooftops in DC that such "ridiculous and outmoded notions" as the free market, sound money, personal liberty, limited government, and a pro-American foreign policy are through.

MLK MoneyBomb

Looks like the Free at Last MoneyBomb is at $1.2 million as of 5:10. Not as much as previous ones, but a couple million in a day of fundraising is nothing to sneeze at.

P.S. Looks like Ron Paul is getting an endorsement from Jane Roe, of Roe vs Wade fame, and current head of Crossing Over Ministry.

Ron Paul As President vs. Ron Paul As Person

I was going to write a post on the importance of distinguishing Ron Paul as a person and Ron Paul as president, but then I found this Samizdata post in which Perry de Havilland says almost exactly what I was going to say, but far more eloquently.

In response to David Boaz's (pretty good) post at Cato@Liberty that mentions how Paul has "slimed the noble cause of liberty and limited government," here are the money paragraphs from de Havilland:

Please, gentlemen, take a deep breath. I realise racism is the cardinal sin of our time and that it carries the automatic penalty of public abomination and auto da fe, followed by burning at the stake (it even gets you banned from commenting at Samizdata, although probably not for the reasons most people think), but the notion that the cause of liberty is inextricably tied up with Ron Paul's campaign is excessive hyperventilating, both from Ron Paul's supporters and his detractors.

I never felt he was the dream candidate, just the only one serious about shrinking the size of the state and frankly if he wanted to do that in order to preserve the purity of his precious bodily fluids rather than to increase the general sum of liberty, well so be it, just so long as he really is serious about shrinking the state.

Most of the quotes from the Paul newsletter really are indefensible (some are defensible), but I won't get into that since they have been covered and covered again since the TNR article. What is obvious is that Ron Paul's character has been tarnished.

The point is that I still believe, despite his character and how important his character may be to voters, that Ron Paul as president would understand the limitations of his presidential powers as delimited by the Constitution. And most, if not all, of the other candidates would not.

Not only because of the newsletter controversy but also because of the recent elections, Paul's hopes for president are now none (as opposed to slim-to-none before). This may very well be my last post about Ron Paul. But goddamn, the remainder of the field is depressing.

As far as the claim that Paul has tarnished libertarianism goes, I don't buy it. After all, libertarianism hasn't really been drawing the masses recently. Is there really that much to tarnish? Although each person at both Cato and Reason is a far more "solid libertarian" than Ron Paul, let's face it, Paul has reached more people. And if a few of those people were intrigued enough to look into libertarianism further (like I was about 4 years ago, thanks to Radley Balko's FoxNews articles), perhaps they will discover the ideals for the sake of the ideals, not for the sake of the candidate.

Ron Paul deserves the criticism he has brought upon himself. But I believe that libertarianism in general has been helped by his campaign, not hurt. Those who have been drawn to libertarian ideals thanks to Paul's campaign will - and must, if the libertarian movement is to become significant - understand individual liberty as an ideal in and of itself and look past the quirkiness of Ron Paul as an individual.

Cato's David Boaz on the Ron Paul Newsletter

Strong words. And spot on.

More Ron Paul on CNN

Read Radley.

I thought his appearance was overly defensive, lacked any sort of contrition, and found it wholly unconvincing.

Take Paul's discussion of the drug war's impact on minorities. Yes, it was spot-on. But I've been watching this campaign fairly closely, and I believe that's the most time to date that Paul has spent talking about the drug war. I've actually been surprised at how little he has discussed it. His position on the drug war is one of the main reasons why I was encouraged by his candidacy. This campaign could have represented the first time ever (that I know of) that a GOP candidate challenged his rivals to defend the failure and moral corruption of drug prohibition in a nationally-televised debate. It hasn't happened. That his longest discussion of the drug war to date had to come only after he was confronted about the newsletters, and in the context of defending himself from accusations of racism, is unfortunate. And perhaps telling.

Bingo. Wow is he right. Now my opinion on anything dealing with Ron Paul and/or the libertarian movement should be taken with a grain of salt. I'm not a movement libertarian, nor an expert on Paul. Read Cicero if you want that. He's put out some of the better stuff that I've seen on Paul and the recent controversy. All that being said, I was bothered more after the CNN interview than I was before. I knew about the newsletters. I hadn't seen it laid out like it was in the TNR piece, but I've read warnings from interested observers that this stuff was out there and it would come back to bite him. I wasn't surprised. But during the CNN interview he was angry and defensive, and -- ahem -- for some reason talking an awful lot about the racist drug war. Awful nice of him to do that.....here and now....But where was this rhetoric in the past year?

I tacitly supported (meaning that I donated no money, time or energy -- outside of blogging -- to his campaign) him in a large part because of one issue. The drug war. Of course I agreed with him on other things, but his continued and principled stand against our current drug policy makes the largest difference in my mind. I thought this would be a great opportunity to get the message out about how deep the failures from the drug war run. That's where my disappointment lies and I've said it before here. He was quite on the issue. Instead he became this mish-mash candidate who couldn't decide if he was running as the anti-war candidate, or the Tancredo anti-immigration candidate, or the crazy gold standard guy. Whatever. His stances on those issues could be right. They most likely are in most cases. But he failed to talk about the drug war....That is until he needed a Get Out of Jail Free card when he got called out on his shady past. Well, it didn't work. And it wouldn't have worked. Maybe if the public saw our drug policy as a civil rights issue it would've worked. But guess what? Someone has to get out and make that argument before people will appreciate it. It doesn't work for the general public who has no idea how fucked up our policy is. Not to mention it's disgusting, and should be anti-Paul to use such an important issue in this manner. Sorry, I won't buy the argument that he is merely pointing out that he can't be racists if he wants to undue the most racist policy we have. If he felt that strongly about it, he should have brought it up more.

I've paid close attention to the GOP race out of a political-junkie interest, and Paul in particular, for much too long. Believe me, I know what he was saying, and I know what he wasn't saying. And he wasn't saying enough about the drug war until it came time to prove he wasn't a racist.

Do I vote for him in the MD primary? Probably not. Mostly because I think I'm going to sit this election out. But I might have been more willingly to get out here and cast a pointless ballot for Paul if he 1) Took his own candidacy seriously and handled this issue properly. And 2) Spoke up during this time of intense national media coverage on our hopeless drug war.

P.S. I'd love to make it down to DC for the reason happy hour tonight, but let's face it....35 miles back-and-forth is a dangerously long way on a Friday night. Anyways, I'll be at the BWI Ramada Inn from 5:30 on. Anyone catching a flight is more than welcome to join me.

Ron Paul on CNN

Just saw Ron Paul on CNN defending himself against the newsletter charges. He was strong on proving he's not a racist and spent a lot of time attacking the drug war. But he was very weak on how he didn't know this stuff was going out under his name. He even said that he doesn't have any idea who wrote the articles and couldn't find out if he tried. Give me a break! And not helping matters, he often referred to black people as "the blacks". As in "the blacks are voting for me more than any other Republican candidate." And (paraphrasing) "I'm trying to stop the blacks from being persecuted by our drug law". Memo to Ron Paul: Don't say things like "the blacks" when defending yourself against racism. Especially when the words "the blacks" are in almost every sentence of the very newsletter articles you say you didn't write. And please stop with this unbelievable nonsense about not knowing who could have possibly wrote those articles. It makes you sound like a liar.

Here's the story on CNN.com:

A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."
[...]
Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told CNN the material was not written by Paul, and that he finds them "abhorrent." CNN asked the presidential contender for a direct esponse. He is to appear on CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday afternoon around 5 p.m. ET.

"I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name," Paul said in a written statement.
[..]
Benton maintains that the GOP presidential candidate doesn't know who wrote any of the newsletters. Asked if Paul would try to find out, his spokesman said, "No, what's the point? ... It's time to move on."

Uh, ok. If the Paul campaign is not going to take this issue seriously, then why should voters take him seriously?

The Real Revolution

Ron Paul's long make-out sessions with the worst of the far right aside, here's a glimpse of who really supported his anti-tax, anti-war campaign in New Hampshire:

--13% of Independents vs 6% of Republicans.

--16% of Republicans/Independents who describe themselves as "liberal" vs 7% "moderate" and 6% "conservative".

--22% of Republicans/Independents who think abortion should be legal in most or all cases vs. 11% who think abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.

--24% of Republicans/Independents who support New Hampshire's civil unions law vs 14% who oppose it.

--13% of Republicans/Independents who think illegal immigrants shouldn't be kicked out of the country vs. 8% of those who think they should be deported.

All this suggests, I think, that Dave Weigel and others are right. The campaign wasted their TV ad budget on bashing immigrants instead of reaching out to liberals, moderates and libertarians. Although, I guess it's possible that the anti-immigration, anti-gay, pro-life vote turn-out for Paul would have been lower if it wasn't for his creepy immigrant-bashing ads. But I doubt it. Why didn't the campaign spend its ad money on anti-war-, anti-Patriot-Act and anti-tax ads instead of on anchor babies and student visas?

The Ron Paul Newsletters

I was up past 3am last night reading blog post after blog post and comment after comment about The New Republic's "hit piece" on Ron Paul. Reason. New Republic. Lew Rockwell. Think Progress. I've read them all. There seems to be two libertarian views: 1) The New Republic piece is an intellectually dishonest attempt by a pro-Giuliani writer to smear Ron Paul's name in the hopes of dooming his anti-war campaign. And 2) Ron Paul has a hell of a lot of explaining to do. These views are not mutually exclusive.

I think the author of the piece, James Kirchicks, is intellectually dishonest and definitely a douchebag. He quotes a lot of things out of context and makes quite a few entirely unsubstantiated innuendos. And lets face it, anyone who supports a presidential candidate who supports racial profiling at home and killing brown people abroad is in no position to be judging anyone on issues involving race.

The thrust of Kirchicks' piece, however, cannot be ignored. Ron Paul lent his name to a newsletter that for at least four years was full of racist and homophobic diatribes. Take for instance this witty piece from a 1990 newsletter (and by witty I mean shitty):

A mob of black demonstrator, led by the "Rev." Al Sharpton , occupied and closed the Statute of Liberty recently, demanding that New York be renamed Martin Luther King City "to reclaim it for our people."

Hmmmm. I hate to agree with the Rev. Al, but maybe a name change is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis?

But Al, the Statue of Liberty? Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.

God. It's not even clever. How about at least Crookland. Or Stabbin' Island. You can read other such garbage here.

Now, Rep. Paul has said many times that he didn't write any of these offensive pieces and I believe him. I also believe him when he says he opposes the hateful sentiments expressed in the articles. But why did he lend out his name to the people who wrote them? And why did it take him so long to stop them from perpetuating such hate-filled messages?

Pauls' claims - years ago and now - that he didn't realize what was in the newsletters rings completely hollow. We're not just talking about a newsletter with the words "Ron Paul" in its name. The articles are written in first person as if he - not someone else - is speaking. And he has admitted to profiting from the letters. I don't think there's a single person alive who would profit from something being written in their name who wouldn't check to see what was being written.

I think it's more likely that Ron Paul knew what was in the newsletters and allowed them to be published anyway. Maybe he didn't see every article, but there's no way he didn't see any of them. So why would he allow these articles to happen? Perhaps because he realized there was money to be made selling such dribble. Even if just 5,000 nut-jobs were willing to pay $25 a year to read it, that's $125,000 a year in revenue. That money could not only fund a later foray into politics (the most offensive pieces were written after his unsuccessful run for president on the Libertarian Party ticket and before his successful run for Congress as a Republican) but also help maintain a database of potential funders he could solicit in future campaigns. (I'm not the only one suggesting a theory like this. At least one person in the know is too.)

Of course even if my conjecture is true, it doesn't make Ron Paul a racist. In fact, the evidence suggests he exploited racists - taking their money and using it to spread a message of peace and individual rights. Well, good for him. I guess. But neither him nor his supporters should be shocked that his association with these newsletters casts doubts on his moral integrity and ability to lead a movement. He profited from hate anyway you cut it.

Paul's die-hard loyalists say The New Republic piece is just re-hashing old news. That's true. But it's important news and I want to know more. I want to hear from Ron Paul's own mouth how all this happened. And it's not enough for him - or his loyalists - to say he has addressed this issue already. Because he hasn't addressed it for me. Or the tens of thousands of people fighting on the frontlines to boost his campaign and message. He has a responsibility to many to come totally clean.

Here are six simple questions I want answers for:

1) What exactly was his relationship to these newsletters?
2) If he didn't write these newsletters, then who did?
3) Why did he allow his name to be used by this person (or group of people)?
4) Did he read any of these newsletter before they went out? If not, why not?
5) At what point did the hate-filled messages cease? And why did they cease?
6) Did he profit substantially from these newsletters? And was that money and/or the mailing list built-up by the newsletters used to fund any of his free-market projects over the years, including running for Congress and President?

Finally, a disclaimer: I've contributed money to Ron Paul's campaign and hope the anti-state/anti-war Revolution he has sparked continues to grow.

Ron Paul's Letters

Hit & Run is all over the TNR-Ron Paul story that's been getting a lot of play on this election day.

Ever Clever Mike Huckabee Knows What's Up

He's cribbing from Ron Paul's play sheet.

Speaking to a packed gymnasium Sunday, Mike Huckabee sounded off on how politicians in Washington, D.C. had spent beyond their public mandate. He then threw in a line about money printing that could have come out of Ron Paul’s mouth. “We sent them there to cut spending, and they didn’t do it. They’ve spent more money than has ever been spent. Guess where that money is coming from. Your pocket," Huckabee said. "Just remember this, when government says we’re giving you things, remember before the government can give you something, the government has to take it from you first. And the handling charge is extraordinary.” “We need to say no to government spending when it’s wrecking our grandchildren’s futures. Nine trilllion dollars worth of debt on your credit card that somebody transferred to the next several generations. That’s irresponsible. And what’s their answer? Spend more. Print more, spend more.”

Free at Last

In what could really catapult Ron Paul into the national spotlight (for either good or bad), his supporters are preparing another "money bomb" for January 21st - Martin Luther King Day. This is an interesting follow-up to the previous money bombs, Guy Fawkes Day and Boston Tea Party. For a lot of reasons, I can see how raising a lot of money on this day could provoke some controversy (his position on the Civil Right Act and the civil war, for instance). At every step controversy seems to push up his poll numbers though.

You can learn more and pledge money at www.FreeAtLast2008.com.

Paul Follow-up

I was originally typing this as a comment to my previous post, but what the hell, I'll just make it a post.

However well Paul may be doing in the polls isn't really the point. Paul won't win the nomination. Not to pick on Fred Thompson (I like him better than Romney and Huckabee), but is Paul really any more of a fringe candidate than Thompson right now?

Fuck a few percentage points in the polls... that's basically the margin of error. Plus, polls have been pretty unreliable in the past, even a week or two before the caucus. My point is: Thompson's not going to be the nominee. Neither is Paul. So is there any reason Thompson is considered among Huckabee, Romney and Giulani, but Paul doesn't get a mention?

As a meaningful measure of significance, I'll take record fundraising over a few percentage points in the polls any day. I hope the discussion continues.

Paul Who???

Since I just saw this on TV, I have no sources or links. But CNN just reported the "average" results in the Republican and Democratic presidential polls, and they completely dogged Ron Paul. They showed the percentages of Republicans (well... Giuliani, Romney, Huckabee, McCain and Thompson, anyway) in each of the early primary states (and Iowa).

I could have sworn that Paul was polling at 8% in New Hampshire. But CNN left him out completely and reported the typical five, including Thompson's impressive 3%.

I'm under the influence at the moment, so I can't get too analytical about this, but it seems like CNN thinks that Paul is a less serious candidate than Fred Thompson. Why, exactly?

Fun Fact: Of the six candidates' names that I typed above, Blogger's spellcheck only catches "Huckabee" as a spelling error... and it recommends "Hackable" as the first correction. Interpret it however you like...

Video: Ron Paul on NBC Meet the Press

Awesome, awesome, awesome.

Via LewRockwell.com.

Right On

I read James Pinkerton's smear of Ron Paul in Newsday today. He claimed that Paul called Huckabee a fascist. By any objective viewing of Paul's Fox News appearance, however, Paul didn't. I was going to do a post on how Paul should have said outright that Huckabee is a fascist; but I didn't have the time. Fortunately, Lew Rockwell did.

what is fascism? It is a real ideology, not just an epithet. It is characterized by belligerent nationalism, militarism, aggressive war, suppression of civil liberties, use of religion in the service of the state, exaltation of the executive, opposition to free markets domestically and internationally, corporatism, welfarism, domestic spying, torture, and detestation of the Other, in this case Muslims and Arabs. So not only is Huckabee a fascist, so are most other candidates of both parties, and the entire Christian right

Right on.

More on Ron Paul Fundraising...

The Nation offers it's opinion on how Ron Paul and Trevor Lyman's fundraising campaign is revolutionary.

American Politics

Story speaks for itself:

COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) - Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's supporters raised over $6 million Sunday to boost the 10-term Texas congressman's campaign for the White House.

Called a "Money Bomb," the goal was to raise as much money as possible on the Internet in one day. The campaign's previous fundraiser brought in $4.2 million.

At midnight EST, donations were over $6 million, according to the campaign Web site. Those donations are processed credit card receipts, said Paul campaign spokesman Jesse Benton. Benton said the median donation is about $50 in the fundraiser, which was the idea of Paul supporters who are not officially connected to the campaign.

Trevor Lyman, a Paul supporter who is traveling the country following the Ron Paul blimp, said the date of the fundraiser coincides with the 234th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party.

The Ron Paul blimp is an aerial billboard emblazoned on one side with "Who is Ron Paul? Google Ron Paul." The other side reads "Ron Paul Revolution." The blimp, another grass-roots effort, was in Chester, S.C., on Sunday, and organizers hope to get it to New Hampshire before the Jan. 8 primary there.

A write-up on Trevor Lyman, the guy behind the money bombs, here.

Sunday's Ron Paul Rake

The Ron Paul campaign took in nearly $5 million in another one-day fundraising effort. Right now, the counter on the front page of Paul's campaign site stands at $18.15 million total for the 4th quarter (I'm not sure if the counter will still be on the front page on Monday).

On a sadder note, the Foxnews.com story about the campaign's big-money day, although linked on the front page, is listed as a footnote to a story about how Barack Obama went to church with a throng of reporters in tow just to prove he's Christian enough, and not a Muslim in disguise trying to tear America apart from the inside out.

So Paul has to rake in a cool $5 million in one day to be mentioned in the MSM, and Obama just has to walk into a church. And Huckabee just has to smile. Well fuck.

Still, it was another impressive fundraising day for Paul and company.

It Really Is About The Issues, Not Ron Paul

Professor Roderick T. Long has a new post up at Liberty & Power that is somewhat of a supplement to Professor Horwitz's post about Ron Paul that I blogged about yesterday.

While I agreed with the points that Horwitz made (but had a different conclusion about the Paul campaign), I think Professor Long may be putting words in the mouths of Paul's more enthusiastic supporters that they may not actually be inclined to say.

The argument goes like this: “Even if you think Paul is wrong on some particular issues, he’s still far, far more libertarian than any of the other candidates, so why not support him?” [Emphasis in original]

So far so good. Actually, this is the rationale for my support of Paul's campaign. I elaborate on this in yesterday's post. But here's where I think Long is incorrect:

The reason I find this argument puzzling is that those who make it would not, I suspect, find it plausible in most other contexts.

Imagine, for example, that instead of Ron Paul it’s Randy Barnett who’s running for President. Paul and Barnett have a lot in common; they’re both fairly thoroughgoing libertarians, they’re both enthusiasts for the Constitution, and they both take some positions that many libertarians regard as deviations.

Understanding that I cannot speak for Long, what he seems to be saying here is that there is something about Ron Paul personally that is drawing libertarians to his campaign. And that if the presidential candidate was someone with libertarian positions similar to Paul's, but not Paul, Paul's current supporters may not support that other candidate. As a Paul supporter, I will say that this is not true for me, and I would definitely be willing to support another candidate with a quasi-libertarian platform, even if he or she is not Paul. I agree with this paragraph from Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch's article about libertarianism and Paul in the Washington Post:

That force is less about Paul than about the movement that has erupted around him -- and the much larger subset of Americans who are increasingly disillusioned with the two major political parties' soft consensus on making government ever more intrusive at all levels, whether it's listening to phone calls without a warrant, imposing fines of half a million dollars for broadcast "obscenities" or jailing grandmothers for buying prescribed marijuana from legal dispensaries.

Also, to be honest, I had not heard of Randy Barnett prior to seeing his name dropped in Long's post. But from what Professor Long says about Barnett in his post ("Barnett’s two major deviations ... would be his support for the war and his insufficiently decentralist approach to federalism."), Barnett may not be a good example of an alternative to Ron Paul. One of the major attractions to Paul's campaign for independents and libertarians is his opposition to the war in Iraq. That war is not only putting American troops in harm's way for a questionable reason, but it is severely damaging America's reputation abroad.

I'm going to risk putting words in other Paul supporters' mouths here too, but I would think that they would agree with me that Ron Paul is the most likely candidate to bring the troops home anytime soon. Yes, all the Democratic candidates are speaking out against the war, but it seems to me that they are saying this more to beat the Republican candidate than to actually bring the troops home promptly. Maybe I'm being cynical, and believe me, I'd love to be proven wrong if a Democrat is elected president, but I'm not convinced as to the Democrats' sincerity. One of my favorite things about Paul (and I think even most of Paul's critics would agree) is that when he says something, he means it.

Paul's service in the House of Representatives, voting no on nearly every (every?) spending increase, has been admirable. And his outspoken (although, in my opinion, not outspoken enough) opposition to the War on Drugs is almost unheard of in modern politics, in either party. However, I see no reason why I wouldn't be willing to support any other candidate who spoke out in favor of such positions.

We've Been Given The Right To Choose Between A Douche And A Turd

In a very interesting post on the Liberty & Power blog, Professor Steven Horwitz expressed his doubts about Ron Paul and his campaign. I recommend reading the whole post. Prof. Horwitz makes some excellent points.

The post got me thinking... Here's why: 1) I agree with 100% of Professor Horwitz's post. 2) I'm still enthusiastic about Ron Paul's campaign. Look, I know Ron Paul is not the perfect candidate. I'm not sure I've heard anyone claim that he is. However, Paul is the best serious candidate to run for president in my lifetime. It's unfortunate, sure. But in politics, it almost always boils down to choosing the least bad candidate. I believe Paul is the least bad in 2008.

Moving on, Horwitz begins by addressing three concerns about Paul's stances: abortion, immigration and free trade agreements.

Horwitz agrees with Paul that "Roe [v. Wade] was bad constitutional law", but he claims the Court "got to the right result for the wrong reasons." I agree, but what does he want from Paul here? As far as the authority of the president goes, don't Horwitz and Paul agree completely on policy? Perhaps Horwitz wishes Paul was not so outspoken about his personal opposition to abortion, but it is perfectly in line with Paul's principles that he would not move to ban abortion at the federal level (which is, of course, is the only level he would have authority over as president).

Issues #2 and #3 of Horwitz's post, however, do fall within the scope of the federal government. And I cannot defend Paul's positions here, except to mention once again that I believe that Paul qualifies as the "least bad" candidate overall, despite these somewhat "un-libertarian" views. No candidate seems to be campaigning on a platform of open borders or completely free trade. The Democratic candidates will likely be best on the immigration issue, whereas the Republicans are more likely to support free trade. But while the Democratic candidates may be willing to pass a few policy steps towards more open borders, they will not address the philosophical issue of, in Horwitz's words, "Why should employers be prevented from engaging in labor contracts with adults from anywhere in the world?". And while the Republican candidates may be more willing to support free trade agreements, they will not speak of free trade as the right of individuals to, well... Please refer to the quote in the previous sentence.

The next two paragraphs are worth quoting directly, even though they're quite long:

All of this leads to my general discomfort with Paul, which I think I would characterize as a lack of cosmopolitanism. For example, I don't think he's a racist but there are reasons why he's getting donations from KKK leaders. Even though many of his positions are solidly libertarian, the way they are framed, along with the three above, lend themselves to appealing to the nativist/Buchanan types in a way that I think goes against the historical progressive spirit of classical liberalism. I share David Bernstein's concerns about the way in which Paul addresses the racism issue, even if there's nothing in it that is "un-libertarian" in policy terms. This is an example of the sort of left-libertarianism view I advocated for above (and that I believe L&P co-blogger Roderick Long shares, though I don't know what he thinks of Paul). If the true spirit of libertarianism is a cosmopolitan one, we can and should do a lot better than a policy statement on racism that refers largely, if not only, to the way in which state-enforced racial categories (mostly of the left) have "divided" America. That may well be a problem, but its silence on the racism of the right and the real ways in which people of color continue to face discrimination (though much less than in the past) cuts against the grain of what should be libertarianism's progressivism. What is so difficult and so wrong about saying racism exists in other forms and that as people committed to equal and individual rights we should work to end it?

Libertarianism's progressive spirit is one of cosmopolitanism and openness to cultural change (perhaps best captured in our own time by Virginia Postrel's work). Paul's cultural conservatism and several of his positions push in the opposite direction and, in my view, might do long-term damage to libertarianism even if it reaps some short-term benefits in this campaign. I do not believe the future of libertarianism is in making alliances with the forces of nativism and the wrong sort of isolationism, nor with those who cannot see the ways in which the US is still not a society that treats women, gays/lesbians, and persons of color as equal individuals, both under the law and culturally. (To be clear, I'm not advocating for any state intervention to address these problems - in fact, the state is the source of some/many but not all of them). The future of libertarianism is to align with Postrel's forces of "dynamism" both left and right. Paul's campaign is attracting young people, but I suspect mostly because he does indeed tell it like it is and that straight talking appeals to cynical youth. And I do admire Paul greatly for his honesty and his intellect. But in the long run, the young will never sign on to a movement rooted in cultural conservatism. Paul's campaign is, in that sense, running a huge risk of long-term damage to libertarianism.

I'm not clear on what Horwitz is hoping for here. It seems as though he wishes Paul would speak out more against racism and his less-than-reputable financial supporters. But it seems like he is, to some extent, singling out Paul here. Does Horwitz believe that none of the other candidates have financial supporters who are less than reputable? Assuming that Horwitz recognizes that some shady characters donate to almost every campaign, doesn't he think they should all speak out against them?

In addition, even if Paul is lacking in "cosmopolitanism", I believe that the social issues about which Horwitz expresses concern are getting better without the endorsement of any specific politician, Paul or otherwise. I am definitely not claiming that blacks, Hispanics, gays or lesbians are treated equally as others, and I am not claiming that these specific social issues are unimportant. But America in general is making progress on these social issues without the help of government. (In fact, it's arguable that progress will be faster if government stays out.) Very few politicians have spoken out enthusiastically for gay rights, but can anyone say he or she would rather be openly gay 20 years ago than now? Can anyone say he or she would rather be openly atheist 20 years ago?

On the other hand, monetary policy and free trade do not seem to get increasing support over time without political support (at least not at this time). Although I cannot exactly explain the reasons, libertarian social issues seem to be progressing much faster than libertarian economic issues.

After this criticism, I feel it's necessary to say again: I agree with 100% of Professor Horwitz's post on the level of political philosophy. I only disagree with him on the level of practical politics. Yes, this does reflect very poorly on modern politics, but I don't know of any self-described libertarian who is satisfied with the current political climate.

Professor Horwitz is criticizing Paul's campaign, fairly, from a purely ideological standpoint. I guess my disagreement stems from my frustration with politics in general. In a perfect world (or even a semi-perfect world), we might have a candidate for president who fits the libertarian blueprint detailed in Horwitz's post. But the current political scene is not even close to perfect. So I can't help but be enthusiastic about Ron Paul's candidacy, simply because he's the best candidate in my lifetime who is actually making headlines. And now that a protectionist nanny-statist is leading the GOP polls in Iowa, Ron Paul's imperfect libertarianism is still very refreshing to me.

In case you don't already know, the post title is explained here.

New Palmetto Poll

I'm pulling this directly from a Byron York post over at NRO. I did a quick search to see if the Clemson poll had been fully released and couldn't find it. So I'm trusting the real journalist for these numbers. Pay close attention to Ron Paul's jump in this southern state of South Carolina and Giuliani's nove dive, down to 5th place.

The poll shows Romney in the lead among Republicans with 17 percent – up from his fourth-place, 11 percent finish in the same poll in August. Fred Thompson is in second place at 15 percent, down from his first-place, 19 percent showing in August. Mike Huckabee is in third with 13 percent, well up from his fifth-place six percent in August. John McCain is in fourth place with 11 percent, down from his third-place 15 percent in August. And Rudy Giuliani – who was virtually tied with Thompson for first place with 18 percent in August – is in fifth place with nine percent in the new poll. Giuliani's nine-percentage-point drop is the biggest in the field. Finally, Ron Paul is in sixth place with six percent – up from one percent in August

6% for Paul isn't half bad in South Carolina. You figure his immigration and abortion views would play well there....But that seems awfully good for him...

Reason In the Washington Post

Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch have a "Ron Paul -- What does this all mean" opinion piece in today's Washington Post.

When a fierce Republican foe of the wars on drugs and terrorism is able, without really trying, to pull in a record haul of campaign cash on a day dedicated to an attempted regicide, it's clear that a new and potentially transformative force is growing in American politics.

Read the whole thing.

New N.H. Poll

New poll out of New Hampshire has Romney leading Giuliani by 11% (sounds a little high) and Clinton leading Obama by 21%. Ron Paul is in 4th place with a smudge over 7%, eclipsing Fred Thompson's 5%. Results here. Scroll down about half-way.

Except for Bill's Oval Office BJs, Neocons Should Love the Clintons

Radley Balko writes about how the left's powerhouse, Hillary, isn't all that distinguishable from the depressing adminstration we have right now.

After the first six paragraphs, unfortunately, I think that if he deleted the name "Hillary Clinton" and replaced it with "Rudy Giuliani" or "Mitt Romney," the article would still apply, for the most part.

Libertarians have some very valid arguments against Ron Paul's stances on abortion or immigration. He's certainly not perfect. But for me personally, I can't imagine supporting any major candidate from either party.

As the one candidate who convinces me that he really will cut the size and scope of the federal government, Paul is still the only candidate I can support. Unfortunately, his actual chances at the Republican candidacy are slim to none.

It's only my personal opinion, but I'm going to declare it right now: If it's Rudy vs. Hillary (or Mitt vs. Hillary), I'm either voting third party or writing in Ron Paul.

Ron Paul REVOLution

Dave Kopel in NRO on the Ron Paul Revolution:

This weekend, I attended and spoke at the Second Amendment Foundation’s annual Gun Rights Policy Conference, which was held at a convention center in northern Kentucky, a few miles away from Cincinnati. What I saw and heard there changed my mind about the viability of Ron Paul’s presidential candidacy; Paul is going to far outperform the expectations laid out for him.

[...]

The Republican Revolution of 1994 promised substantial shrinkage of a bloated federal government. The Republicans who were swept into Congress in 1946 had promised the same thing, and they delivered a great deal. The 1994 Republicans delivered much less, were out-maneuvered by President Clinton, and eventually became part of the problem.

But deep down there’s still a hunger among much of the Republican base for someone who will shrink the Leviathan, rather than merely attempt to use it for conservative ends.

Entire optimistic article here. Sidenote: I will punch, in the face, the first Ron Paul supporter I see wearing a REVOLution shirt. Worst slogan ever.

Assorted Political Links

First time in awhile; some bad polling news for Democrats.

Maryland set to raise income taxes, sales tax, and tobacco taxes. Somehow though, according to O'Malley, more Marylanders will be paying less in taxes. Make sense? Yeah, it doesn't. Note to Gov O'Malley -- When the Baltimore Sun is critical of your tax plan, it might be a warning of trouble to come. Just a thought.

Ron Paul is set to debate Ron Paul in Baltimore this week. Just kidding. Duncan Hunter will be there too. From the Sun piece on Paul:

A longtime foe of the government's drug war and of mandatory prison terms for nonviolent crimes, he would permit the use of medical marijuana. Like former Baltimore Mayor Kurt L. Schmoke, he talks about decriminalizing drugs.

Paul's eyes light up at the thought that Schmoke might attend the debate at historically black Morgan State University about issues of particular interest to urban and minority voters .

"Oh, wouldn't that be neat? I'd love to meet him," he says.

He talks about decriminalizing drugs? I certainly haven't heard a peep out of him in regards to drugs...He's been conspicuously quiet on the subject on the campaign trail. My opinion --- You want one reason to be pessimistic about the potential for drug policy reform, look no further than Ron Paul's unwillingness to speak on the matter when he has the huge stage that he has right now. It's a shame, and it's demoralizing for the movement as a whole.

The Future Ex-Mrs.Cicero

Stripping for Ron Paul.

Ron Paul's Semi-Popularity A Reason For Optimism

Yeah, the baby boomers were in general pretty damaging to freedom. But sometimes it is pretty hard for me to be optimistic about my own generation* changing the course. It probably doesn't help that I live in Seattle, where socialist views are as common as evergreen trees. I can count the number of self-described "libertarians" I know personally on one hand (not including you TtPers).

However, the Ron Paul campaign gives me some hope. It is great to see the roaring crowds at every straw poll wearing Ron Paul shirts. And Ron Paul is huge on the Internet, which roughly indicates a young support base.

Although straw polls mean almost nothing, Paul has been showing nicely. In an Alabama poll, Paul took over 80% (216 of 266) of the votes.

I think the best result of Paul winning or placing in many of these mostly meaningless straw polls would be that his name would get out to the general public, and more people would find out what he stands for. However, I wasn't even aware of Paul's success until I recently read it on the Internet. Besides the Iowa poll that Romney bought, I haven't heard any of the others mentioned, certainly not any won by Paul, on the MSM. Props to the Internet; the older media certain won't help Paul out much.

If it turns out to be Rudy vs. Hillary next November, I'm either voting Libertarian, writing in Paul, or staying home and getting so drunk and high I won't remember there's an election going on at all.


* "Gen Y", I think? Not sure... I'm 25.

Yeah Fattie, How 'Bout You Lose a Little Weight?

Via The Agitator, Retro-Ron Paul, anti-Drug War video from the '80's. I certainly second Radley's wish about Paul's campaign. I've been tremendously dissapointed with the lack of discussion from him on drug policy.

"I Could Have Jogged the Rest if it Hadn't Been for the Pain"

Over at her blog, Kelly Halldorson recounts her 38-mile walk from Dover to Concord, New Hampshire, in support of Ron Paul.

After reading of her intent -- and after reading a couple of Comic Book Guys heap scorn and burrito grease on her over at Hit & Run -- Kelly and I exchanged a few e-mails. I felt that while 38 miles was certainly ambitious, she could do it as long as she approached it with some forethought (read: Advil and gin). She finished in about 16 1/2 hours. She should be proud; it's a remarkable endeavor.

Gratuitous photo above from a loverly walk here in Connecticut.

A Ron Paul Disappointment

The libertarian hope for president, Ron Paul, likes his pork as much as every other member of Congress. A WSJ editorial today (subscription only) pointed out that Paul has requested approximately $400 million in earmarks this year.

They include such urgent national wartime priorities as an $8 million request for the marketing of wild American shrimp and $2.3 million to fund shrimp-fishing research.

When we called Mr. Paul's office for an explanation, his spokesperson offered up something that is worthy of pork legends Tom DeLay or Senator Robert C. Byrd: "Reducing earmarks does not reduce government spending, and it does not prohibit spending upon those things that are earmarked."

If you can make sense of that explanation, you are much smarter than I am. In any event, Paul's feeding at the trough of senseless government spending that serves more the elected official than it does the taxpayer, and the country, is very disappointing.

Ron Paul Gives It to Mitt Romney Real Good

not in a gay way (I wish!) but in an anti-war way. Video clip here. Via The Agitator who also links to this story that will make you mad at MADD.

Reason to Have Sex: She Will Let Me

I was going to post something on the Ron Paul article by John Derbyshire at NRO. Then I got distracted by a John Tierney post on reasons to have sex, for some kind of social science paper/study that someone is working on. I really don't care about the specifics. As usual the comments are golden.

Reason I didn’t want to: Because he was an idiot.

Reason I did: Because I am an idiot.

— Posted by Michelle

The simple joke is -- I just boned a chick named Michelle. The simple truth is -- I didn't but I can assure you if women like Michelle didn't exist I would be alone in my bed a lot more.

To recover after the loss of an infant child.

— Posted by Tonton Macoute

Interesting idea...Support groups for newly childless parents...Hummmm

I don’t want to because I’ve had a total hysterectomy and don’t crave it: biochemical theory has something to it! Plus, my man has cancer, and although I know this is not supposed to be contagious, a lot still needs to be learned about viruses. Life is actually much more peaceful and happy without sex!

— Posted by Beyonditall

God, I'm hoping for his sake that this guy dies soon and is given the gift of never having to wake up next to this hag ever again.

I wanted to prove to others/assure myself that I wasn’t queer.

— Posted by Anonymous 2

Right. A couple more years down the road, you will be sucking cock like a pro. I'm done for now. More here. Oh, and that Ron Paul piece, here.

The Ron Paul Article in the NYT Magazine

The NYT Magazine story on Ron Paul is much more balanced than I had thought it would be. It hit on the key point that I tell my leftist friends: be consistent; if you don't want the government controlling your marijuana use then don't let them control any other personal freedoms so long as those freedoms do not inhibit the freedom of or harm someone else. Libertarianism 101 and, thankfully, the readers of the NYT are getting a dose of it.

On the lefty theme from the article:

Paul is a harsh critic of the Federal Reserve, both for its policies and its unaccountability. “We first bonded,” recalls Barney Frank, the Massachusetts Democrat, “because we were both conspicuous nonworshipers at the Temple of the Fed and of the High Priest Greenspan.”

More from comrade Frank:

“He is one of the easiest people in Congress to work with, because he bases his positions on the merits of issues,” says Barney Frank, who has worked with Paul on efforts to ease the regulation of gambling and medical marijuana. “He is independent but not ornery.”

And another reason to love Ron Paul:

He was the only Texas Republican to vote against last year’s Federal Marriage Amendment, meant to stymie gay marriage. He detests the federal war on drugs.

Paul has been slammed for his "opposition to abortion." But his stand is thus:

Paul also opposes abortion, which he believes should be addressed at the state level, not the national one.

I agree with him in that it abortion laws ought to be a legislative decision and not a SCOTUS one. After all, it is the fiat of SCOTUS's Roe v. Wade decision that gives energy and recruiting power to anti-libertarian Christian zealots.

For Reason's story on how Ron Paul is taking in more US troop money than any other Republican candidate go here.

Ron Paul Beating Giuliani

...in contributions from current and former soldiers. I guess the people on the frontlines of U.S. foreign policy want someone for President who actually knows something about foreign policy.

Ron Paul on Bill Maher

Rocks the liberal house here.

Ron Paul Bitch Slaps Rudy Giuliani

I was hoping that Rep. Ron Paul would fight back against Rudy Giuliani and other Republicans who support policies that are basically recrutiment tools for Islamic terrorists. He schooled them real good today. "Cliff Notes" for Rudy here.

WASHINGTON, May 24 (Reuters) - Longshot Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Thursday gave front-runner Rudy Giuliani a list of foreign-policy books to back up his contention that attacks by Islamic militants are fueled by the U.S. presence in the Middle East.

"I'm giving Mr. Giuliani a reading assignment," the nine-term Texas congressman said as he stood behind a stack of books that included the report by the commission that examined the attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001.
[...]
Among the books on Paul's reading list were: "Dying to Win," which argues that suicide bombers only mobilize against an occupying force; "Blowback," which examines the unintended consequences of U.S. foreign policy; and the 9/11 Commission Report, which says that Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was angered by the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia.

Another book on the list was "Imperial Hubris," whose author appeared at the press conference to offer support for Paul.

"Foreign policy is about protecting America," said author Michael Scheuer, who used to head the CIA's bin Laden unit. "Our foreign policy is doing the opposite."

The AgiTRAITOR

Radley Balko's latest column on foxnews.com , which argues that Rep. Ron Paul is right that there is sometimes blowback from America's interventionist foreign policy, has apparently gotten him a few e-mails accusing him of treason. It's a good piece with compelling arguments. My only criticism is that it cites Cato reports and not CIA assessments or the 9/11 Commission Report, which also reached the same conclusions as Ron Paul. Why leave out the fact that America's intelligence community agrees with Paul? That's the most compelling proof that Rudy Giuliani - who takes money from terrorists countries and lobbies for their interests and who allowed New York's emergency command center to be housed in a known terrorist target - is full of crap. But hey, I don't get paid to express my views on Foxnews. And it's a good piece. Even though it doesn't mention that Paula Abdul broke her nose trying to avoid stepping on a Chihuahua. I want what she is on.

CIA bin Laden Expert: Ron Paul "Exactly Correct"

In an interview with Antiwar Radio, Michael Scheuer (former head analyst of the CIA's bin Laden unit) says Ron Paul was "exactly correct" in saying that America's interventionist foreign policy was largely responsible for causing 9/11, and that the war in Iraq is undermining America's long-term security. Listen to it here.

Via LewRockwell.com.

Ron Paul Provokes Foreign Policy Debate on The View

The kind of in-depth debate that should be occuring in the Republican and Democratic presidential debates. Very lively video here.

Saul Anuzis Must Go

It's my hope that good Republicans - libertarians and real conservatives - have enough clout to get Saul Anuzis, head of the Michigan Republican Party, fired for trying to get Rep. Ron Paul excluded from future presidential debates. This is a make or break issue for the future of libertarian/conservative fusionism. Either libertarian ideas - and for that matter the truth - are welcome in the Republican Party or they're not. It is unacceptable for a high-ranking Republican official to be drafting and circulating a petition in support of barring a fellow Republican from participating in future Republican debates. Saul Anuzis must go. If he is not fired, it's obvious that libertarians, true conservatives and other supporters of a non-interventionist foreign policy are not welcome in the Republican Party.

So call the Michigan Republican Party and tell them that Saul Anuzis must go - 517-487-5413.
E-mail address: elephant_ear@migop.org.

And call the Republican National Committee, as well: 202-863-8500. For lack of a better e-mail address, info@gop.com.

Republican Chairman to Libertarians: We Don't Want You, Join the Democrats

I bet it was nice for a while being a war-mongering politician, party hack or political pundit. Beating your chest, feeling like a real man's man, acting tough (although not actually doing anything tough, like you know joining the military and putting your life on the line.) But then reality set in. Thousands of dead U.S. soldiers in Iraq. A growing - not shrinking - terrorist movement. And a nagging feeling deep inside that your support for a reckless foreign policy is at least partially responsible for the chaos in Iraq and the global anti-American blowback. So when someone like Rep. Ron Paul comes along and makes you feel uncomfortable by pointing out the obvious, it's only natural to try to literally run him off the stage. Much easier to sleep at night if no one is allowed to suggest that the policies you helped erect are responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, the fleecing of American taxpayers, an increased police state, and an America made less safe. What else can one make of all the attacks on Rep. Ron Paul from Republican circles (see here, here, here, and here) and the movement to get him barred from future Republican debates?

Michigan party chairman Saul Anuzis said he will circulate a petition among Republican National Committee members to ban Paul from more debates....

"I think he would have felt much more comfortable on the stage with the Democrats in what he said last night. And I think that he is a distraction in the Republican primary and he does not represent the base and he does not represent the party,” Anuzis said during an RNC state leadership meeting...

Anuzis said his petition would go to debate sponsors and broadcasters to discourage inviting Paul.

I guess if Ron Paul should leave the Republican Party, then so should I. Thanks for the advice, Saul. I'm changing by party registration. After I vote for Ron Paul in the Republican primary, of course. There is obviously nothing left for libertarians in the Republican Party. Nothing. Let them wallow in their big-government-loving, war-starting, individual-rights-hating, shrinking party alone.

You can sign a petition to keep Ron Paul in the Republican debates here. And sign a petition urging Giuliani to debate Paul on foreign policy here. Both via LewRockwell.com, which has excellent ongoing coverage of the blowback over the blowback.

GOP Debate

Spare time and drugs presents you with my abbreviated, all Ron Paul, GOP debate reaction...(I missed about 30 min of the debate. It was over an hour. That's not bad.)

I'll say Ron Paul looked and sounded strong tonight. But did he really not mention the Drug War at all? I heard numerous monetary comments, lots of Iraq stuff, but I didn't hear a direct reference to drug policy. He touched on civil rights; he wouldn't suspend habeas corpus, no national ID card -- but I didn't hear a direct condemnation of current drug policy. Even if I missed it (and we will see tommorow if I did), I didn't miss all the foreign policy that he was preaching. Fine by me if you want to spend your primary run on Iraq. It's important to a lot of people. But you can't even mention drugs? I would hope this isn't a trend.

What's the Yiddish Word for Rubbing Salt in Someone's Wounds?

We reported last week that it's been confirmed that Anne Frank's father tried desperately to get her and her family out of The Netherlands and into the U.S., but was turned back by the Lou Dobbs Ron Paul immigration barriers of the time. Now New York Democrat Steve Israel wants to make her a U.S. citizen. Yeah, that totally makes up for our country letting her and millions of others die.

"The best way we can honor Anne Frank in death is to give her what her father sought for her in life," Israel said.

[...]

Bernd Elias, a German cousin of Anne Frank, living in Switzerland told The New York Times: "I cannot see the point. She saw herself as Dutch."

Another cousin living in San Diego, Edith Gordon, said: "It doesn't seem right to me somehow, when we didn't let her into the country."

Not right in deed.

Ron Paul on Douche Bag Lou Dobbs' Show, Minus the Douche Bag

He's right-on on Iraq, a total dumbass on immigration.

Casting a Paul Over New Hampshire

Good profile of Rep. Ron Paul and his GOP presidential ambitions in today's Manchester Union-Leader, the influential, conservative New Hampshire paper.

Not much in the piece you don't know about Paul already, but it's good to see he's described as receiving "rock star" treatment, and scoring standing ovations. Granted, the reporter shadowed Paul at the Free State Project's New Hampshire Liberty Forum, where'd you'd expect such fanfare, but it's still nice to see him getting good press in an important paper that will some day soon hand out a coveted GOP primary endorsement.