Topic: Ron Paul
The Reason Magazine Kevin Bacon Game Reason suggests Paul is aligned with Lew Rockwell who is alingned with Pat Bucchanon who is aligned with somebody somewhere who is aligned with a racist! That's why he's bad.by Billy Joe
(Libertarian)
Monday, January 14, 2008
I traded a few emails with Reason Magazine's Matt Welch recently.
Unlike almost everybody, I actually read reason magazine, at least I did until now. I have a copy next to the computer here as I type. I check the Reason website about a dozen times a day.
When the old newsletter non-story broke on the day of the New Hampshire primary,Reason very abruptly quit singing his praises and joined the MSM howls of condemnation.
It was BECAUSE of their coverage on Dr. Paul that I suspect an attempted swiftboating.
Reason has covered Dr. Paul often and fairly until the TNR story broke the day of the NH primary. The mainstream pack dogs smelled blood and Reason, far from fending them off, was ringing the dinner bell. Cursory critism was directed at Kirchick for opportunism, and then the wholesale abondonment of presumption of innocense.
It was shocking to me that Reason was taking the same angle as everyone else instead of seriously questioning the relevance of the story and the direction of the spin. I read the newsletters. They were not good, but not terribly damning either and wouldn't have been news at all if they carried the name of a less reputable person. Dr. Paul's sterling reputation is what makes this bemish stand out. McCain actually says stuff on camera worse than some of the material found in the Ron Paul reports, but Reason treats the "revelation" as if it had the same magnitude of finding a corpse in Dr. Paul's trunk!
Reason's justification for hanging Paul out to dry seems to be this: They are trying to protect the reputation of libertarianism by crucifying the most poular and influential libertarian in our lifetimes! You see, he lent his name (for profit) to a publication that didn't print church hymns and therefore he must be burnt at the steak. Trading on one's own name would seem to be a libertarian idea, but the Reason gang is throwing fuel on the pyre and basking in the glow.
Why? Why would Matt, Nick and Radley join the ugly chant that "someone's gotta pay?" These guys are smart enought to know that witchhunts don't stop when a witch is found.
A journalist has two main responsibilities: to report the facts, and to determine which facts to report. The facts should be timely, relevant and newsworthy. At best the old newsletters only met one of the three criteria.
Reason readers count on a pro-liberty perspective, but Reason showed none in this case. If I was on staff, I would have written something like this: "Attempted Smear Greeted by Yawns" or "Skeletons in Congressman's closet finally found."
The media has enormous power to frame the debate. Putting facts into context is as important as accuracy. Reason failed it's readers, the public and libertarianism spectacularly, by joining in the feeding frenzy and even leading the charge.
Reason's rationale of joining the bloodsport to "protect libertarianism" falls so flat they can't even look us in the eyes while they mutter it. Assuming the absolute worst that Dr. Paul wrote every ugly word in those newsletters himself and believed them in his heart of hearts, he would still be by far the most libertarian candiate in this election and every previous one since 1988 when he ran the first time.
For Reason's argument to have any merit at all, they would have us believe that any candidate pragmatic enough to get elected was insufficiently idealistic enough to be worthy of office. It can reasonably be asked if Reason serves the establishment more than libertarianism by giving us false representation in the fourth estate and drowning out smaller, more legitimate voices for freedom.
Simply put: I don't like them or trust them anymore. I don't believe you should either.Reason has every right to take what they consider the high road, but to me it is a stupid self-righteousness.
According to Reason, Ron Paul is aligned with Lew Rockwell who is aligned with Pat Bucchanon who is aligned with somebody somewhere who is a racist. How many Kevin Bacon degrees of separation are required before someone is "pure" enough to be a legitimate spokesman for libertarianism??
Again I think their strategy and/or their morals are self-defeating. It's like Groucho Marx's line that "I would never wan't to belong to a club that would have me as a member."
The holy reasonoids are claiming that the politically successful strategy persued by Paul is too pragmatic for them to support. As an alternative they offer...nothing.
Billy Joe Allen Truckernomics Nolanchart.com
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 18 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Billy Joe only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Billy Joe is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Actually, it's Ron Paul who is aligned with Pat Buchanan. They go way back. Ron is much closer to Buchanan than Rockwell. It was Buchanan who called his friend Ron Paul the night before Paul was going to launch his 1992 Presidential bid, and got him to drop out of the race. Paul then endorsed Buchanan a few days later.
Amazing so many people are so ignorant of the true facts on Ron Paul.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
