Ron Paul's Friends

James Kirchick:

Daniel Siederaski of the Jewish Telegraph Agency has a story that should rile all those liberals oddly attracted to the presidential candidacy of Ron Paul: not only have neo-Nazis vocally expressed support for his campaign and form a crucial part of his online spam brigades, but one of their leaders has donated money and the Texas Republican hasn't decided yet whether to return it.

Siederaski's got himself a solid story, one that includes the interesting tidbit that Paul was barred from a Republican Jewish Coalition candidate's forum not for his ties to white supremacists but rather "due to his stance against providing further foreign aid to Israel."

The question, though, is why Kirchick feels this is a point that ought to be transformed into some kind of liberal-bashing exercise. It's liberals like Dave Neiwert who've done the pioneering work on this issue. Paul, white supremacists aside, has all kinds of positions liberals wouldn't like. The people attracted to his candidacy are libertarians and conservatives disgruntled with Bush's war. Liberals have nothing to do with it.

Comments

a simple but stoopid explanation:

liberal and libertarian start with the identical five letters. wait, are you saying they're not the same?

Posted by Hypatia | November 12, 2007 1:54 PM

Jamie The K. makes Jonah The Hut look reasonable. Remind me again, Matt, why your colleague Mr. Sullivan asked him to guest blog while he was away celebrating his nuptials?

Posted by BryklynLibrul | November 12, 2007 2:02 PM

Well said. Does anyone have any real numbers on how many Paul supporters are liberals, as opposed to cranky young kids?

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | November 12, 2007 2:03 PM

Matt, just because Ron Paul's espoused beliefs ring true to conservatives and libertarians doesn't mean that self-declared, if misguided, "liberals" can't also be attracted to him. Your thought process seems to be, "He's in favor of minimal government, ergo everyone who calls himself a liberal hates his guts, by golly." Wrong. Sure, maybe no mainstream, high-profile liberals give two shits about him, but his netroots base isn't composed entirely of die-hard libertarians (and Neo-Nazis); to many people who use the term "liberal" loosely to describe themselves, he represents a like-Obama-but-better change from the Washington status quo, not to mention that he's one of the few candidates to be strongly in favor of Iraq withdrawal and against torture. It's a little twisted, sure, but still true.

Posted by fumphis | November 12, 2007 2:04 PM

it's easy:
all good news is good for the republicans.
any stick can be used to beat liberals.

if there's a possible neo-nazi problem to be attached to ron paul, then it must be a problem for liberals.

keep in mind that kirchik is a very, very stupid partisan.
so this is the way he thinks.
(so to speak).

Posted by kid bitzer | November 12, 2007 2:13 PM

a few weeks ago, based on a few soundbites here and there and a nice interview on NPR, i was somewhat interested (3/10?) in Paul. it wasn't until i learned more that i decided he's definitely not the one for me. but if you'd asked me a few weeks ago if i had a favorable opinion of him, my answer would be "yeah, probably".

in other words: for the temporarily-ignorant mainstream liberal, Paul is attractive enough.

Posted by cleek | November 12, 2007 2:15 PM

I think there's a real need to bring out and underline the wacko quality of Paul's views. A Disgusted Republican friend of mine simply didn't know about the return-to-the-gold-standard stuff, and there's a lot more where that came from.

Posted by MattF | November 12, 2007 2:16 PM

When, exactly, did it become incumbent upon candidates to start returning campaign donations from anyone that might be distasteful, lest the candidate be tarred with that contributors' views? It's really gotten ridiculous, and not just this example with Paul, but all across the board. To take the Paul example, if Paul had solicited contributions from white supremacists, clearly that'd be one thing -- but as long as he's not doing their bidding, if they want to dump their money on him why is that Paul's issue to deal with?

Posted by Glenn | November 12, 2007 2:16 PM

Glenn writes:
When, exactly, did it become incumbent upon candidates to start returning campaign donations from anyone that might be distasteful, lest the candidate be tarred with that contributors' views?

Since the dawn of time, pretty much.

Posted by MattF | November 12, 2007 2:24 PM

The confusions here have been percolating for years. One frequently finds people referring to the "lefty blogosphere", when what they appear to mean is the entirety of antiwar blogosphere. The fact that the antiwar community is predominantly on the left leads some to think of antiwar sentiment as the very defining characteristic of the left.

Something like this phenomenon happened during the Vietnam era as well. Some young antiwar folks started off as genuine left-wingers with an anti-authoritarian bent, and ended up as radical libertarian, right wing, tax rebel militia types living in a shack or some crazy paramilitary compound.

My fear is that Paul is raising a lot of money, is advertising more, and is emerging as the antiwar standard bearer. Eventually, the media is going to pay attention to this guy, and when they do all of the sordid ugliness of his politics will come out at once. The campaign will crash and burn, bringing down discrediting much of the antiwar cause along with it. Unless some of these left-leaning Paul supporters get a clue, they are setting up the antiwar position for an ignominious thrashing. Bush and Cheney could hardly ask for a better setup.

Posted by Dan Kervick | November 12, 2007 2:24 PM

Glenn is correct. I would be delighted if every neonazi, white supremacist, and communist in the country would send all of their disposable income to Paul. Then they'd have that much less money to use on their own causes. Are we really better off if Don Black gets his $500 back to spend on promoting himself, or promoting Stormfront, or buying nooses or whatever? It's also worth noting that it's pretty likely that white supremacists are donating to Paul not because they think he shares their views, but simply because their encounters with federal power have not exactly been pleasant, and so they are lumping themselves in with Arab-Americans, homeschoolers, organic farmers, and the host of other disparate groups that are attracted to Paul's anti-federal-government message.

Posted by Brian | November 12, 2007 2:31 PM

I was under the impression that some liberals were attracted to Paul for the purpose of promoting an anti-war voice in the Republican primary, evenif they were not interested in him in the general. But that's based solely on anecdote...

Posted by Al | November 12, 2007 2:35 PM

Glenn: When, exactly, did it become incumbent upon candidates to start returning campaign donations from anyone that might be distasteful, lest the candidate be tarred with that contributors' views?

MattF:Since the dawn of time, pretty much.

I thought that the Paul campaign handled this with a degree of surprising sophistication. When a Paul staffer was asked something to effect of, 'how can you accept campaign contributions from people like that?!', the Paul staffer responded with 'well, if people are going to give money to a candidate that disagrees with their views, thats their loss.'

Posted by Kolohe | November 12, 2007 2:36 PM

David Neiwart is superb, but in this case the work is done by his online collaborator Sara.

Posted by Mark Centz | November 12, 2007 2:38 PM

Kirchick is obviously going after Paul because he is anti-war and is gaining some traction even within the pro-war party.

It must be scary to be someone like Kirchick right now, watching the complete repudiation of his worldview, and the way the popular consensus is moving far away from the murderous militaristic imperialism that he believes in. The natural tendency is to lash out against any anti-war voice, and that's what he is doing.

None of this, by the way, is to quarrel with the fact that were Paul a serious candidate rather than a protest candidate, his affiliations and associations would certainly be a valid ground to attack him on.

Posted by Dilan Esper | November 12, 2007 2:39 PM

What's really interesting is the unspoken assumption that open support from a neo-Nazi should "rile all those liberals" yet shouldn't seemingly bother conservatives. In a sane society, shouldn't they also be bothered by this?

The fact that most everybody assumes (fairly correctly) that it is only liberals who will be disgusted by this and not conservatives reveals just how far the conservative movement has sunk in its pandering to its extremist, racist, far-right fringe.

Posted by Stefan | November 12, 2007 2:43 PM

Quite simply, if you want to end the war in Iraq, Ron Paul is your man. He has stated in black and white that he will pull all troops out within three to six months. Contrast this with Barack “no option, including military action, (should be taken) off the table” in the effort to stop Iran's nuclear armament Obama or Hillary US Won’t Leave Iraq Until After 2013 Clinton.

Ron Paul is the only candidate with credibility on Iraq.

Posted by James Rednour | November 12, 2007 2:53 PM

Actually, refusing to return ANY contributions is Paul's strategy for avoiding playing the campaing contribution returns gotcha game altogether. Can't say whether it's clever or not, but there is a bit of logic to the position that if someone you disagree with gives you a campaign contribution, they're the ones that lose by you keeping it. The newspaper I wrote for in college had a similar policy for ads to avoid controversies about them.

And calling Robinson's work pioneering is a joke - it's mostly half-incorrectly regurgitated oppo from Paul's 1996 Dem opponent's campaign. Notice the grudging correction regarding the ghostwritting of the newsletter, which even the most cursory of research (like the top 5 links on googling "Ron Paul + newsletter") would have revealed.

Posted by MattXIV | November 12, 2007 2:53 PM

MY:
"Liberals have nothing to do with it."

Anti-war liberals have something to do with it. Paul is anti-war which partly explains why he's been successful lately.

Dan K.:
"Unless some of these left-leaning Paul supporters get a clue, they are setting up the antiwar position for an ignominious thrashing."

The anti-war position regarding Iraq has always had disgraceful allies: Saddam Hussein, Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Syria, Iran, etc.

And there's a section of the libertarian far left that has always flirted with the Timothy McVeigh/neo-nazi/anti-government far right. Gore Vidal and Alexander Cockburn for instance.

Posted by Peter K. | November 12, 2007 2:57 PM

I thought that the Paul campaign handled this with a degree of surprising sophistication. When a Paul staffer was asked something to effect of, 'how can you accept campaign contributions from people like that?!', the Paul staffer responded with 'well, if people are going to give money to a candidate that disagrees with their views, thats their loss.'

I've got the campaign on record saying just that: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123347.html

Posted by Dave Weigel | November 12, 2007 3:02 PM

Oh Petey boy you forgot the scariest, worstest, most disgracefulest of all the Left's allies - THE FRENCH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Posted by Amok92 | November 12, 2007 3:05 PM

Peter K,
Your an ugly smear artist with the heart of a liar. Stop scapegoating people your not worthy to look in the eye. Conservative creep.

Posted by Northern Observer | November 12, 2007 3:06 PM

Kirchik forgot the libertines. What about the libertines?

Posted by shecky | November 12, 2007 3:23 PM

The question, though, is why Kirchick feels this is a point that ought to be transformed into some kind of liberal-bashing exercise.

In Mini-Marty's view, what point ought not to be transformed into some kind of liberal-bashing exercise?

Posted by Pooh | November 12, 2007 3:31 PM

Matt,

I really expected better from you. Ron Paul has addressed the issue of ghost writings and took moral responsibility for not vetting what someone was writing. Dumb of him, but not inherently eeeeeevilllllll.

He made a mistake and for that I'm willing to give him a pass so long as I don't see anything similar come out from the last couple of years.

Posted by Mark | November 12, 2007 3:34 PM

Quite simply, if you want to end the war in Iraq, Ron Paul is your man. He has stated in black and white that he will pull all troops out within three to six months. Contrast this with Barack “no option, including military action, (should be taken) off the table” in the effort to stop Iran's nuclear armament Obama or Hillary US Won’t Leave Iraq Until After 2013 Clinton.

Ron Paul is the only candidate with credibility on Iraq.
Posted by James Rednour

I'm sorry to tell you this but there is no way to accomplish that task in that amount of time. This is another reason why the man is tin foil hat material. For the most part, this country favors Kucinich's domestic policies over Paul's 8 to 1, but neither can remove the troops from Iraq that fast. I'm not going into the reasons with an amateur and diletante like you but suffice it to say that amateurs talk tactics, dilettantes talk strategy and professionals talk logistics.

Posted by LD50 | November 12, 2007 3:34 PM

Speaking of David Niewert, he has a long list of Paul-sponsored legislation that should give any liberal pause. Note to libertarians: Apparently, Paul has also sponsored anti-flag burning legislation. Go figure.

Posted by Charles Kuffner | November 12, 2007 3:35 PM

And there's a section of the libertarian far left that has always flirted with the Timothy McVeigh/neo-nazi/anti-government far right. Gore Vidal and Alexander Cockburn for instance.
Posted by Peter K.

And Chip Berlet warned against this back in 1991. Much of the foundation for Sara and Dave Neiwert's later work was done by Berlet and his associates.

Populist Party, LaRouchite, and Other Neo-fascist Overtures To Progressives, And Why They Must Be Rejected

http://www.publiceye.org/rightwoo/rwooz9.html

As far as support for Ron Paul, it's as solid as vaporware. The result of on-line manipulation.

This post from meta-filter is chock full of links.

http://www.metafilter.com/66234/Ron-Paul-Spam

This link is particularly incriminating. Sickening, too, unless you happen to refer to black people as farm implements.

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=646986

Anyway, the 11/11 "moneybomb" was a bust.

http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/

Posted by LD50 | November 12, 2007 3:48 PM

CAVEAT: I don't know Kirchick. I've stood near MY at events, but don't know him either. This is strictly conjecture. That said, it seems like the most reasonable explanation in part because most of us have probably had a similar experience.

Kirchick is going after Paul because based on interacting with a statistically insignificant sample size of grouchy white folks who are antiwar, antiestablishment, and he mentally classes as "Democrats" or "liberals," he's concerned that some relatively low-information liberals are fond of Paul even though he's a vehemently pro-life anti-government isolationist who neo-Nazis love. By pointing out that neo-Nazis love him on a blog read only by mid-to-high information voters, of course, he's accomplished nothing to reach this type of person.

But his point stands: Ron Paul is NOT a progressive in any imaginable sense of the world. He's a Buchananite. And there are some young progressives who, because Paul is really strident about the war and they see him as a truthteller, have affection for him which is utterly undeserved.

Do those people merit a blog post? Are they likely to be persuaded by it? No. But maybe MY responding by jumping on Kirchick for hitting those liberals will cause some of them to notice it, since they're way more likely to read this blog.

Posted by You Can Call Me Al | November 12, 2007 3:51 PM

this liberal likes Ron Paul. Gov't isn't the answer to everything. Does that make me not liberal? Whatever.

People make their lives better, not gov'ts.

Posted by liberal for ron paul | November 12, 2007 3:52 PM

More great "reporting" from MattY. Not only does he engage in a LogicalFallacy (GuiltByAssociation), but the very first comment at the "ties to white supremacists" link says that smear has been debunked. Why didn't MattY look into that? The facts of the matter are even in Wikipedia (tinyurl.com/3336gq), yet MattY apparently didn't even take the simple step of looking there. (MattY's not the only person spreading this smear: tinyurl.com/ytaps5)

As for Neiwert, on one of the few times that I've visited his site, back in 2005 he falsely implied that a bill would be retroactively applied. He also seems to get most of his "reporting" from the SPLC; last year they joined another group headed by someone with a series of links to the MexicanGovernment.

Posted by TLB | November 12, 2007 4:10 PM

Siederaski's got himself a solid story

Really?

Your colleague Andrew doesn't think so - he calls it a smear:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/11/the-latest-ron-.html

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 12, 2007 4:13 PM

I like Ron Paul because in my dissatisfaction with Bush, I discovered real conservatism in 2004. Someone needs to tell the remainder of the loyal GOP base that they have been mutated into Wilsonian Democrats. George W. Bush's administration has been one of entitlements, increasing gun control laws, invasive government power and the biggest explosion in federal spending *ever*. It has been one where the old Wilsonian Democrat philosophy has been resurrected in the policy of preemptive war. Whoever thinks you can spread freedom by force of arms needs their head examined.

I welcome the support of the left-wingers for their stance against the big-government program called war, but I hope they realize Ron Paul is to socialists what Raid is to insects.

The same goes for those hateful groups who think they'll get something out of him. People who want to use government force against other groups of people based on race or religion will be equally frustrated with Paul, and for the same reasons.

Posted by Ben | November 12, 2007 4:18 PM

James Rednour--yes, Ron Paul advocates a complete pullout from Iraq in what is, pace LD50, an unreasonable amount of time that is likely to produce disastrous results.

But Ron Paul does not have credibility on Iraq. His calls for ending U.S. involvement there do not stem from a reasoned reckoning with the situation there, but from an ideological opposition to, well, entangling alliances. If his view is always "end U.S. involvement," you can expect him to be right once in a while and wrong at other times. (Just as Joe Lieberman's "all war, all the time" policies will sometimes lead to him advocating military involvement in the right way at the right time, but this isn't because he has good judgement or credibility on foreign policy. It's because a stopped clock is right twice a day; so is Ron Paul.)

Pulling out of Iraq is unquestionably the right policy, as ending this horrible misadventure is in the country's and the world's interests. But arriving at that correct position through a dubious path--that of a libertarian isolationist--does not bestow credibility. Surely there are times where isolationism would lead the U.S. down the wrong path, but we can't count on Paul to make a sober evaluation. For example, George W. Bush's disengagement from the Middle East and the peace process has been a shameful abdication of responsibility. The same impulses that place Ron Paul on the right side of the Iraq question would put him squarely on the wrong side of other vital foreign policy questions, such as America's role in the peace process.

If you want to end the war in Iraq while repairing the United States' reputation and, yes, credibility as an international actor, vote for a Democrat, not a libertarian obsessed with the gold standard.

Posted by Anthony | November 12, 2007 4:19 PM

If I may quote Ferris Beuller's Day Off in regards to why a lot of left-libertarian/syndicalists might look at Ron Paul in a positive light:

"DRUGS"

This neo-nazi supported candidate is the only even close to major candidate who does NOT support locking up even more poor and minority citizens in the name of this vile and wicked "war on drugs".

Posted by Sarcastro | November 12, 2007 4:22 PM

What's solid about this story? A lot of innuendo, and one solid fact: that this white nationalist Don Black donated $500. That obviously should be returned, but please MY think before you egg on neocons who just as soon will use those tactics on you (as they have) as they will on others like Paul.

Posted by Joe Strummer | November 12, 2007 4:35 PM

I'd wager not too many libertarians and conservatives make a habit of reading Kirchick. Liberals do, if only to find fault with him.

Posted by southpaw | November 12, 2007 4:43 PM

Oh Petey boy you forgot the scariest, worstest, most disgracefulest of all the Left's allies - THE FRENCH
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

But I like the French. I DON'T care for those ***holes in Uzbekistan.

All of those countries wanted to keep Saddam in power and coexist with him for various reasons. It's not that they're the Left's allies, it's that they agreed with them on this point. Same with liberal hawks and Bush.

Posted by Peter K. | November 12, 2007 4:49 PM

For the most part, this country favors Kucinich's domestic policies over Paul's 8 to 1,

Of course they do. I always love it when people tell me I can get something for nothing. Then I realize it's a lie. The truth is always more painful for people to accept.

Kucinich ain't gonna be president. He has no money in the bank and polls at 1% or worse. Paul had $5 million in the bank at the end of Q3 and has raised an additional $8 million in six weeks. He's now polling at 7% in NH and is just beginning to ramp up the advertising there. He is going to win that primary on his way to the GOP nomination.

And thanks for making it clear that you really do not support an end to the Iraq war. If you want more war, vote Clinton or Obama. If you want to throw your vote away on Kucinich, don't cry when the next president continues down this insane path. If you want the troops home and our fiscal position restored to normalcy, vote for Paul.

Posted by James Rednour | November 12, 2007 4:58 PM

Anthony,

Dr. Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. Please get your terminology correct.

Posted by James Rednour | November 12, 2007 5:01 PM

As as old liberal professor,he is of no interest to me, but the attention he is attracting on college campuses is worth trying to understand.

I think it is two-fold:

1. antiwar
2. "pro freedom" in the anti government sense -- of out of life with respect to file sharing, religion, sex, drugs and so forth, and also most definitely antiglobalization (is this a youthful attraction to anarchy?).

This may be misbegotten on the part of youth but there is a broad --liberal in a sense attraction of youth to this campaign --that the villagers should not ignore but try to understand.

Posted by linda smith | November 12, 2007 5:02 PM

James, He seems pretty isolationist to me. "Non-interventionist" might not have the taint that has accrued to isolationism, but at least as represented by Paul, it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.

Posted by Anthony | November 12, 2007 5:04 PM

Siederaski's got himself a solid story,

I don't think Siederaski's got much of a story at all. Hot Air reported this months ago and last week Dave Wiegel got the Paul campaign to admit they were not returning the donation. Kind of like discovering Monica Lewinsky three months after Drudge. If anyone has a story, it's Hot Air and Reason.

The only new thing Siederaski accomplishes is outing himself as a student of that oxymoronically-named school of thought known as Libertarian Socialism--a philosophy neither libertarian nor socialist, which can be more appropriately described as Torches-and-Pitchfork Communism.

What I've always wanted from the Paul campaign (regarding racism) is a believable response to those mailers referencing black criminality. A rogue racist in the Paul camp in charge of the politician's information dissemination never struck me as a credible explanation.

Posted by Shinyk | November 12, 2007 5:06 PM

"Dr. Paul is a non-interventionist, not an isolationist. Please get your terminology correct."

I know "Dr. Paul" likes to say that, but let's face it: he wants to pull out of NATO and the UN. He doesn't believe in international institutions or treaties (not having to do with trade). He is an isolationist. Just because he wants to trade with the world doesn't change that fact. It is good to have Paul as a gadfly in the House, but as President--um, that is a little too far.

Posted by d | November 12, 2007 5:06 PM

Northern Observer:
Peter K,
Your an ugly smear artist with the heart of a liar. Stop scapegoating people your not worthy to look in the eye. Conservative creep.

I like Vidal and Cockburn, but it's true. And by the way, I'm not conservative, I'm a libertine liberal hawk pretty much, so sounds like I'd agree with Ron Paul about torture and the drug war. The US should also be tougher on Israel and Turkey and Pakistan, etc., our allies. I don't know about cutting em off cold turkey, though. Anyhow, the "liberal" Democrats rolled over on warrantless wiretapping and waterboarding.

The gold standard would be good too, since it would bring about another global great depression and financial chaos, thereby hastening the REVOLUTION.

Posted by Peter K. | November 12, 2007 5:07 PM

Ron Paul is toast. Never had a chance, never will.

Only real support is from the kooks at Lew Rockwell and neo-nazis, white nationalists and white supremacists

This country may be full of fools and idiots - enough voted for Bush - but totally insane? Not yet, I hope.

Posted by Ron Pauliac | November 12, 2007 5:11 PM

You just knew it wasn’t going to stop with the Weekly Standard’s lame attempt to paint Ron Paul and his supporters as lunatics. Now come the accusations (Matthew Yglesias: “solid story“) that while Paul may not be an anti-Semite, some of his supporters are.

This might seem a novel, though foolish, way to take down the representative, but it is just a repeat of what the media did to Barry Goldwater back in 1964.

On the Saturday evening news, days before the 1964 Republican convention opened, CBS news correspondent Daniel Schorr reported from Germany that “it looks as though Senator Goldwater, if nominated, will be starting his campaign here in Bavaria, the center of Germany’s right wing,” adding that Goldwater would be visiting “Hitler’s stomping ground.” He finished by claiming “it is now becoming clear that Senator Goldwater’s interview with the newsmagazine Der Speigel was an appeal to right-wing elements.” None of this was true and Schorr was forced to retract his story on air. Nevertheless, the political damage was done.

Posted by Murray Mises | November 12, 2007 5:17 PM

Not to put too fine a point on it, but other commenters have made a similar point and it bears repeating. Almost the ENTIRETY of Ron Paul's support comes from three broad groups:
1) The SLUTtiest liberals (No to wars! Yes to drugs!)
2) The GRUMPiest conservatives (No to foreigners! Yes to guns!)
and
3) Actual Libertarians. Which are, of course, a perfect blend of the above two.

I'm going to make the bold prediction that the combined forces of these three groups are not enough to win an election, or, dare I say it(!) even a nomination.

They might MIGHT be enough to swing an election as a third party candidate, but I'm not even 100% sold on that, and that's about as serious as I'm willing to take Ron Paul.

Posted by Just Another Greg | November 12, 2007 5:30 PM

Ron Paul is toast. Never had a chance, never will.

Dr. Paul had over 38,000 individuals donate to him on November 5th. No candidate has displayed such broad support in a single, focused fundraising drive.

Dr. Paul raised over $4 million dollars online on November 5th. No candidate has ever had a better day raising money on the Internet.

Dr. Paul has a very real chance. Your fear is showing.

Posted by James Rednour | November 12, 2007 5:37 PM

James Rednour, I don't think any of us are scared of a Paul presidency. Disastrous as a return to the gold standard would, it is just not realistic enough to have me shivering in my boots the way, say, the prospect of a Giuliani presidency does. What you're noticing is probably the frustration with his acolytes and their strident faith that he will somehow win the nomination, combined with our being a bit creeped out as disciples come out of the woodwork.

It reminds me of working the 2004 caucuses in Washington State for the Dean campaign. Kucinich fans who had woken up to politics about 5 minutes previously tried to convince me that, although he had failed to achieve meaningful results in Iowa or New Hampshire, Kucinich would still win because, mathematically, there were still a lot of delegates up for grabs. They also attributed my disagreement to fear of the Kucinich juggernaut. It must be difficult when, no matter how hard you believe, the facts just won't allign themselves.

Posted by Anthony | November 12, 2007 5:57 PM

Dr. Paul had over 38,000 individuals donate to him on November 5th. No candidate has displayed such broad support in a single, focused fundraising drive.
Dr. Paul raised over $4 million dollars online on November 5th. No candidate has ever had a better day raising money on the Internet.
Dr. Paul has a very real chance. Your fear is showing.
Posted by James Rednour

I believe it is wise to fear proto-fascist movements and nip them in the bud. This one has been nipped before the bud, bud.

Posted by Ron Pauliac | November 12, 2007 5:59 PM

"liberal and libertarian start with the identical five letters. wait, are you saying they're not the same?"

The wikpedia has a good essay on how the confusion came about. Suffice to say that at one time the term "liberal" sensibly refered to people who's highest value was liberty. When that ceased being the case, the people who cared most about liberty had to find a new name.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 12, 2007 6:11 PM

Youtube tip from Ron Paul guerrilla "gamer"

Technicians can advise on the viability of these methods. VNNers should know this information, nevertheless. A concerted effort by a few who have time for this, focused on a particular WN Youtube video can move it into view by thousands. It just takes a little organization. Everybody here can do this, except bjb w/his niggerberry.

Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:20:38 -0000
Subject: [RonPaulGraphics] The gaming Youtube event to support the November 5th event

This is a shout out to organizers of ron paul groups nationwide.

Please pass this on to all your members and volunteers.

I have noticed various discussions about the possiblity of "guerilla marketing" campaigns involving dropping info or money from airplanes,
getting airplanes to pull banners, buying billboard space, advertising on buses or park benches and other schemes and publicity
stunts. We all seem to be aware that time is SHORT and the need for publicity is HUGE.

With the primaries quickly approaching, a plot to contribute over ten million dollars in a single day has gained some interest. If you visit the website http://thisnovember5th.com you can see that thousands have already committed to taking part in this historic even on November 5th. As of today 5000 people have signed up to participate. But we need abut 95000 more Ron Paul supporters to sign up. I have created a video on youtube to rally more support for the November 5th plan. If only a few hundred people watch it however it will not have much of an impact.

So this letter is to offer you and your volunteers an opportunity to help get this message heard by hundreds of thousands of people who may support Ron Paul but have not yet joined any meetups or online networks, and who therefore may not know about the November the 5th campaign. It will work and it is FREE. ABSOLUTELY FREE. The cost is ZERO.

Here's how it works....

Will this give Ron Paul supporters a bad reputation if we get caught? I would certainly give publicity to whatever we are trying to get
noticed, which is a good thing. Call me crazy but aren't corporate media reporters far and wide claiming that we are using bots and hacking every poll anyway? Really, what do we have to lose? It's not like the NWO played fair when they established the 16th amendment by fraud or when they established the 17th amendment to make sure we can't recall senators who sell out to monied interests. [or the 13th and 14th Amendments that made farm implements equal to humans. -Ed]

We have been under unfair attack for a long long time. If you go a step further and install the "auto-refresh" plug-in for internet explorer 7 then you don't have to keep manually starting your favorite video over and over to watch it again and again. I would just keep playing over and over automatically. This is how those "gaming youtube" in the past got 80000 views on their 4 second video from just one or two computers. So if we Ron Paul supporters do this, what video should we make our "favorite?"

http://www.vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=646986

Posted by Siggy Heil | November 12, 2007 6:11 PM

Ron Pauliac,

Is that you Edward?

Posted by MattXIV | November 12, 2007 6:14 PM

"I believe it is wise to fear proto-fascist movements and nip them in the bud."

Sheesh. And your definition of "proto-fascist" would be, what? "Anything I disagree with"? Paul is, by any objective examination of policy preferences, a hell of a lot further from fascism than any of the Democratic candidates for President.

Fascism has a meaning, you might want to find out what it is before you start slinging it around.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 12, 2007 6:15 PM

"And your definition of "proto-fascist" would be, what?"

You, Brett, you monstrously confused glibtard idiot.

Posted by Ron Pauliac | November 12, 2007 6:28 PM

Fascism has a meaning

Brett, are you me? Finish my book, dammit! This is embarassing!

Posted by Jonah Goldberg | November 12, 2007 6:32 PM

Tony Pierce, an independent, semi-informed, occasionally-political blogger makes the case for Ron Paul here, http://www.tonypierce.com/blog/2007/11/and-now-for-question-time-with-tony.htm

Posted by miguel | November 12, 2007 7:21 PM

"You, Brett, you monstrously confused glibtard idiot."

That jibe really means a lot to me, coming from somebody who doesn't know what "fascism" is.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 12, 2007 7:23 PM

His stance on wars, drug war, executive power, etc. all are quite atractive to many liberals. And his ideas i most hate are those that seem least implimentable, eg welfarestate dismantlement.

Posted by yoyo | November 12, 2007 7:59 PM

I am a gay jewish liberal long-time Democrat. I am not afraid of Ron Paul.

Hillary is inevitable.

Hillary will make middle east war permanent.

The NeoCons support Hillary.

Paul is not only antiwar, but anti-NeoCon. Paul is for legalizing drugs too. Paul is also against domestic surveillance. Every time I see him on TV or online, Paul also exhibits a fearlessness that no Democrat can even peddle.

Paul is anti-permanent war. Perhaps it comes from the wrong set of principles, but at least it has principles.

If Paul can change disastrous U.S. foreign policy rather than try and sell it to Democratic liberals, which is what Hillary will do, than I am for Paul. We worry about the 'kooky' side later.

Posted by negropontedeathsquads | November 12, 2007 8:04 PM

I am a gay jewish liberal long-time Democrat. I am not afraid of Ron Paul.

Hillary is inevitable.

Hillary will make middle east war permanent.

The NeoCons support Hillary.

Paul is not only antiwar, but anti-NeoCon. Paul is for legalizing drugs too. Paul is also against domestic surveillance. Every time I see him on TV or online, Paul also exhibits a fearlessness that no Democrat can even peddle.

Paul is anti-permanent war. Perhaps it comes from the wrong set of principles, but at least it has principles.

If Paul can change disastrous U.S. foreign policy rather than try and sell it to Democratic liberals, which is what Hillary will do, than I am for Paul. We worry about the 'kooky' side later.

Posted by negropontedeathsquads | November 12, 2007 8:05 PM

------------------------------------------
James Rednour, I don't think any of us are scared of a Paul presidency. Disastrous as a return to the gold standard would, it is just not realistic enough to have me shivering in my boots the way, say, the prospect of a Giuliani presidency does.
-------------------------------------------

The gold standard is not disastrous. Since Nixon took the US off of the gold standard in 1971, median wages have stopped increasing. For the 25-34 demographic, median wages are lower today than they were way back in 1972, 35 years ago. That median wages have not increased since 35 years ago is absolutely outrageous.

It was Nixon's decision to take the US wholly off the gold standard that spurred Ron Paul to run for office in the 70's.

Posted by Mike | November 12, 2007 11:14 PM

Mr. Weigel-
Ah yes, that's where I remember reading about the Paul campaigns position on returning donations that I wrote about above

Posted by Kolohe | November 13, 2007 12:06 AM

Dear Lord!
The Bots are at it again. Mention Ron Paul and they come swooping in.

Posted by Nyx of the Orient | November 13, 2007 12:38 AM

Paul has all sorts of positions that liberals don't like.

But if MY can paint Paul as antisemitic, they'll have found one they do like!

Posted by Thomas | November 13, 2007 1:15 AM

Mark, to clarify:

Dave and I have both done posts on Paul. But the two most recent pieces, including the one with all the links Matt is referring to in this post, was Dave's alone. (Well, almost alone: he based it on an avalanche of links provided by one of our regulars, Trefayne.)

My last piece on Paul was at least a couple months ago, and was mostly sourced out of stuff PHenry originally ran over at Kos, along with a few new details of my own. And I also made rather broad sport of Paul's claim that the racist stuff in his "Survival Report" (am I the only one who groks the implications of that title?) was the fault of an errant staffer. He bought it, paid for it, and let it go out under his name. If he really didn't know it was in there, he's too negligent to hold high office.

Posted by Mrs. Robinson | November 13, 2007 1:32 AM

If you think that Ron Paul is an anti-semite, just go to www.jews4ronpaul.org, read the forum, and see why there is growing Jewish support for Ron Paul.

Posted by mketcher | November 13, 2007 1:43 AM

What's really interesting is the unspoken assumption that open support from a neo-Nazi should "rile all those liberals" yet shouldn't seemingly bother conservatives. In a sane society, shouldn't they also be bothered by this?
Posted by Stefan | November 12, 2007 2:43 PM

Er... who are the neo-nazis railing against that right-wingers aren't ?
Not sure if you've noticed but the whole hispanic immigration issue has been kind of a bonding exercise for the right and the far right.

Even on the topic of Jews, where you would expect them to break, they turn a blind eye. In a climate where a domestic terrorism story brings out the entire right-wing blogowhatever on a single issue, no matter how retarded, they still tread carefully.

In between the mass panic about some arabs buying cell phones and some arabs speaking arabic on a plane, both of which solicited the obvious response, white supremacists carrying out actual terrorist attacks on US soil got not a single mention from any right-wing bloggers. Not once any time this has happened, with a favourite target being Jews.

Posted by Kana | November 13, 2007 8:30 AM

What's really interesting is the unspoken assumption that open support from a neo-Nazi should "rile all those liberals" yet shouldn't seemingly bother conservatives. In a sane society, shouldn't they also be bothered by this?
Posted by Stefan | November 12, 2007 2:43 PM

Er... who are the neo-nazis railing against that right-wingers aren't ?
Not sure if you've noticed but the whole hispanic immigration issue has been kind of a bonding exercise for the right and the far right.

Even on the topic of Jews, where you would expect them to break, they turn a blind eye. In a climate where a domestic terrorism story brings out the entire right-wing blogowhatever on a single issue, no matter how retarded, they still tread carefully.

In between the mass panic about some arabs buying cell phones and some arabs speaking arabic on a plane, both of which solicited the obvious response from right-wing bloggers, white supremacists carrying out actual terrorist attacks on US soil got not a single mention from any right-wing bloggers. Not once any time this has happened, with a favourite target of these attacks being Jews.

Posted by Kana | November 13, 2007 8:31 AM

Liberals, conservatives, phoooey. I'm only here for the drugs.

Posted by libertine slut | November 13, 2007 9:17 AM

Liberals view society not in terms of individuals, but of GROUPS. According the liberal battle cry, particular groups (such as women and racial minorities, etc.) deserve special priveleges.

In addition, liberals do not seek equal opportunity, they seek equal RESULTS. Hence, the reverse discrimination caused by affirmative action.

So how is this achieved?

Easy. Force.

To me, the implication still exists that, one race is inferior to the other.

So tell me how this differs from Nazism or Neo-Nazism.

Posted by Live FREE or DIE | November 13, 2007 11:29 AM

What about Ron Paul's stance against providing further foreign aid to ANY country in the Middle East? Should Jews (or Arabs or anyone) exclude a candidate on the basis of adherence to his non-interventionist beliefs?

Not to mention the fact that even though people like David Duke are idiots, they know full well that their open support for a candidate or cause will make folks think twice about supporting. I beleive that Castro supported Bush over Gore, and Gore had some unwanted admirers as well!

Posted by Doug K | November 13, 2007 2:17 PM

LF or Die:
Aboslutely every single statement you made is incorrect. Clearly you have never even met an actual liberal. For you, "liberals" are monsters that live on the other side of the hill.

Here's some advice: meet your fellow human beings directly before swallowing the slanders that others will spread about them.

Posted by Whispers | November 13, 2007 3:01 PM

Whisper:

While I disagree with LF or DIE's conclusion that American liberalism is Nazism (particularly in that Nazism supports the majority at the expense of the non-majority and American liberalism usually makes its own special exceptions for groups that are perceived as non-majority), to say something as bold as "Aboslutely every single statement (LF or DIE) made is incorrect," you should probably present some sort of argument.

These three strike me as particularly difficult to refute:
Liberals view society not in terms of individuals, but of GROUPS.

In addition, liberals do not seek equal opportunity, they seek equal RESULTS

So how is this achieved? Easy. Force.

Regarding the latter, it's worth noting that almost everything any State does (not just things that American liberals want to do) is backed up by some form of coercion (necessarily: without the ability to coerce, the State would be powerless and anarchy ensues).

Don't like a ban (drugs) or a mandate (income tax)? Try violating it in the presence of a government agent.

Posted by Shiynk | November 13, 2007 6:05 PM

Doug K wrote: "What about Ron Paul's stance against providing further foreign aid to ANY country in the Middle East? Should Jews (or Arabs or anyone) exclude a candidate on the basis of adherence to his non-interventionist beliefs?"

Yes.

What you call "non-interventionism" is a pretty horrible foreign policy for the most powerful state in the world to adopt. George Bush's disengagement from the Middle East did not exactly succeed with flying colours; it is certainly enough to oppose a candidate if his ideological convictions--even while accidentally leading to the correct-ish response to Iraq--would bring about very bad policy in a volatile region. Ron Paul is probably old enough to bury his head in the sand and pretend that the resolution or continuation of the Middle East conflict doesn't affect us; the rest of us really don't have that luxury.

Posted by Anthony | November 13, 2007 7:30 PM

Why are the Socialist AND the neo-cons both afraid of Ron Paul? Does it have anything to do with the fact that his Libertarian views are the same as most Americans?

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.
Mohandas Gandhi

Posted by J. Maxwell | November 13, 2007 9:28 PM

I'd love to see Ron Paul win the Republican nomination if only for the heads that would split on both sides of the aisle.

But--seriously, guys--anyone who thinks that an isolationist go-back-on-the-gold-standard get-rid-of-the-IRS get-rid-of-all-international-treaties is going to be acceptable to the US business community--well, I'd like some of what they are smoking.

Still, it's gonna be fun. Especially if the media start seriously interviewing Ron Paul supporters of the kind that post above.

Pass the popcorn.

Posted by grumpy realist | November 14, 2007 6:40 PM

BULLSHIT

Daniel Siederaski was exposed by his own colleague for lying about Ron Paul:

JTA Washington Bureau Chief, Ron Kampeas, writes:

----------------------------------------
This is kind of sensitive for me. My colleague, Daniel Sieradski, posted the "takes money from Nazis, won't take calls from Jews" comment on his personal blog. On the other hand, he describes his exchanges with the Paul campaign in his capacity as a JTA staffer.

The problem with all this, is that the Paul campaign WAS responsive, giving my intern here, Beth Young, an exclusive statement on where Paul stands on Israel for a story we posted yesterday (the day Dan posted his blog item.) (I have no idea why Dan was pursuing his own story when he should have known DC was pursuing a story, but that's a boring internal JTA matter.)

I pointed this out to my boss, asking her the best way to address the anomaly; she suggested (and I think this is wisest), that I simply point out that Dan's blog posting is wrong, Paul does talk to the JTA - and point out Beth's story.

Which is what I'm doing.

Posted by Mike | November 15, 2007 1:10 AM