Comments on: Pauling the Paulites

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:13:22 +0000

It didn’t take the latest revelation to lend him an odor. Anybody who says to hell with his country’s friends and allies is certain to turn on others too, sooner or later. That alone makes all the high & mighty rhetoric worse than meaningless. Sure, we’re spread thin protecting the west and the free world — but where will we be–what will we be–if we don’t?

By: Lewis A

Lewis A — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 15:57:30 +0000

Ron Paul is just a lightly airbrushed Lyndon Larouche. He attracts the same sort of creepy conspiratorial, racist, anti-semites that Lyndon did in his heyday. Don’t be surprised if Ron Paul thinks the Queen of England, Holland, and Henry Kissinger control global drug trafficking.

By: Wellspring

Wellspring — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 14:27:12 +0000

I agree with Gary and Michael on this. Pajamas Media confirmed it, Paul himself admitted it. TNR’s poor fact checking does merit a little healthy skepticism, but in this case it appears they’re totally above board. Also I trust Michael Totten’s judgment about Kirchik.

Even if we take Ron Paul completely at his word, this is so damning that a non-fringe candidate would withdraw from the race in shame. His actions in his own version of events are completely unacceptable. He plans on overseeing the US government and he can’t handle a couple people on his staff? What kind of judgment does it take to hire people like that in the first place? Stuff goes out in his name for more than a decade without him checking up on it? And that’s if you accept him at his word, which I don’t.

As for TNR’s timing, they’d have been more effective in scuttling New Hampshire if they’d released this a week ago. Hopefully, RP’s supporters will abandon him en masse before South Carolina.

By: Lem

Lem — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 13:33:24 +0000

For once I want to see somebody stand up and take responsibility.

From Roger Clemens to Barry Bonds and Ron Paul, deny, deny, deny.

For a culture that obsesses the Britney Spears and it’s sports stars knowing and following everything about them, we don’t know comparatevely squat about the people asking to lead us.

By: Buddy Larsen

Buddy Larsen — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 10:06:06 +0000

Wot, no propeller-beanie parades holding little red copies of the Constitution aloft?

By: markus

markus — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 07:45:59 +0000

Sullivan is acceptably chastened. And perhaps this righteous article was the final push Rudy needed to defeat Dr. Paul by a couple thousand votes. Thank you Marty.

By: Gary Rosen

Gary Rosen — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 06:44:32 +0000

“wonder why Kirchik agreed to write for that rag–money, or preaching to the converted?”

God forbid a writer should actually get paid for it! Actually, I sorta agree with Deagle – TNR’s credibility has been damaged enough that you have to take what they say with a grain of salt or at least “trust but verify”. It’s a moot point now, though, because Kirchik has been proven right. Paul isn’t denying, he’s spinning. And does anyone care what Sullivan thinks any more?

By: TomTom

TomTom — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 05:05:13 +0000

I find Kirchik’s piece just a little snarky, as in his suggestion that (all) secessionist thought is wacko. The League of the South used to have a fair # of academics aboard. Kirchik feels good about establishment libertarians like the Cato Institute (as do I), but I sense he respects Cato because they’re urbanely polished, not vulgar like Paul.
Re TNR, wonder why Kirchik agreed to write for that rag–money, or preaching to the converted? Perhaps Mr. Thomson can enlighten us.

By: David Thomson

David Thomson — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:57:38 +0000

“I just was questioning the magazines timing”

I suspect that TNR decided to publish the article before it became irrelevant. Ron Paul is not going to win the GOP nomination! In another few weeks nobody will give a damn about him—except for the possibility that he will start a third party. Moreover, I am glad that Paul is coming under fire. He is, for instance, shooting his mouth off about Martin Luther King, Jr. This hinders folks like myself who strongly believe that the murdered civil rights leader’s legacy must be reevaluated. I do not appreciate being confused with a bunch of right-wing racist crazies.

By: Deagle

Deagle — Wed, 09 Jan 2008 04:19:30 +0000

David,

I don’t doubt that all of his article is true… That was not my initial point. It was just that most of this has been known in the blog world for some time now. Most already knew Paul was a kooky character (along with all the abnormal adjectives).

I just was questioning the magazines timing… It did not really matter if I knew the individual authors of this article since the truth was already known..but of course, it would make a difference in other articles…