I had a falling out with Lew Rockwell when he asserted that States Rights trumped the right of free association.

Politicians are bad people. No exceptions.

So I never supported Paul, and none of this matters to me re: him personally, or his campaign, or these entirely imaginary people he and it are supposedly drawing to libertarianism.

That's just not happening. His is a fleeting, expedient coalition of mutual antagonists - a name cult (since so few of them know or care about his personality, or his positions on more than their obsessed-over single issues).

Conveniently, none of this is about any of that anyway.

There's a longstanding split between essentially pro- and anti-establishment self-described libertarians that maps fairly well onto the groups stuck with the "beltway" and "paleo" labels. The "beltways" have seized on this flap - and Rockwell's supposed authorship of these things, which is highly doubtful to anyone familiar with his writing style (not that it's not his fault, but the scapegoating's missed its goat, and is creepily reveling in it) - to make a grand display of dissassociation from the "paleos," and, preferably, to excommunicate the "paleos" from libertarianism, at least in the minds of their lefty media associates.
They want that for their own weird technocratic omni-minarchism, and it alone.

They don't deserve it. Though neither do their opposites.

And it's all entirely dishonest - Sanchez's contribution especially, since he's the least libertarian of all the "beltways," and is only trying to wish this "damage" into being.

It's politics. It's bullshit. And it's evil bullshit.

Don't sign up for it.

They want that name, I mean.

OK time for a new band.

Ron and the Schismatics

I used to correspond with Zundel in Canada. The "Nazi" guy.

He was always making subtle fun of the Nazis.

What he proved was that there was a good market for that stuff. He should have stayed out of Germany.

Evidently Ron found a similar niche market and milked it for all he could get.

It is pretty much his attitude in this campaign. Nazis sending me money? Better I have it than them.

I don't know if I can handle politicians that cynical.

"His is a fleeting, expedient coalition of mutual antagonists - a name cult (since so few of them know or care about his personality, or his positions on more than their obsessed-over single issues)."

The facts on the ground, in the primary states and on the Internet would seem to contradict your statement.

He is the only candidate with clearly stated positions on the issues. His positions have not changed for 30 years and are well documented and posted for all to see. The number of web hits he receives seem to indicate that some people, at least, are trying to understand his positions. He polls consistently the same numbers so they probably agree with him. The fact that he polls the same numbers would not be indicative of a fleeting coalition. Huckabee's declining numbers, since Iowa, would be indicative of a fleeting coalition. Thompson's and Giuliani's implosion would be indicative of a coalition which isn't just fleeting but fled.

The fact remains that Ron Paul is the only significant (and, yeah, that means not Kucinich) candidate of either major party who wants to immediately end the War in Iraq and the War on Some Drugs. That, by itself, earns him my support.

Yep, he profited from racist diatribes, even if he didn't write them. Yep, he is tapdancing much more than I like about equal legal status for gays. Yep, it is sort of odd to have a medical doctor say that he doesn't "believe" in evolution (then why do surgeons practice on dogs and pigs?). But, bottom line, he is the only Republican or Democratic Presidential candidate who comes even close to a pro-freedom policy.

Best case is that Dr. Paul gives a real stem-winder of a speech at the GOP convention and kicks off a renewal of a libertarian/Constitutionalist wing in the Republican Party.

Ron - Right on one war wrong on the other.

Ron never explains why there was no declaration of war against the jihadis in 1801 and 1815 and why we need one now.

In fact if you read the AUMF from that time and compare it to the current AUMF it would be hard to tell the difference.

He never explains how letting Al Q have free reign in Iraq is in our long term interest.

And you know I voted for the guy in '88 so I am not unsympathetic to his positions. However, I changed my mind on 9/11 about a couple of things.

Evidently dear leader Ron is incapable of changing his.

Most unfortunate.

Fritz - a stem winder at the R convention? That has as much chance as Al Sharpton being invited to the podium at the Ds.

I must remind all you Paul fans that the L party lost 40% of its membership in the aftermath of 9/11.

Also it might be wise to read the communists idea of American foreign policy. You couldn't tell it from Ron's. I should know. I was a Trot in my youth.

Ron Paul is a communist.

Simon -- your syllogism boils down to:

Communists want America to have a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Ron Paul wants America to have a non-interventionist foreign policy.

Therefore, Ron Paul is a Communist.

The fallacy of that attempt at reasoning is a subject for an introduction to logic course.

The LP has lost membership because it is utterly ineffective. I have been involved, off and on, with the LP since 1975. I know the ineffectiveness from personal experience.

We should have declared war against Al Qaeda in 2001. But that has nothing to do with Iraq.

Having read the Turner Diaries to see what the hoo-ha was all about, these articles seemed very similar. One of the insidious things about the Turner Diaries is that it starts out with, "blacks and Mexicans are bad" because presumably you believe that when you pick the book up, and then tries to slide you into, "but wait until you hear about the JEWS!!!" I'm wondering if that is where Lew/Ron/WhoeverWroteThem was on his way to.