Why don't National Review like Ron Paul?

Hello all,

On page 4, of the January 23, 2012 issue of Nation Review, "The Week"
column's editors called out RP on his infamous newsletters from the
eighties and nineties. They were much incensed by such "pretty out-there
stuff" such as when after the Los Angeles riots, "one letter noted,
order was restored only 'when it came time for blacks to pick up their
welfare checks.'" But that was true! Indeed, I recall seeing a cartoon
of a smouldering LA neighborhood with destruction everywhere except for
one building which was untouched: The Welfare Office.

The editors went on to call RP "a crank with cunning enough to appeal
opportunistically to the fringes of larger bodies of opinion."

And if this ad hominem attack item weren't enough, Rob Long in his "The
Constitution and the Coot" (page 24), takes cheap shots at RP's strict
adherence to the Constitution, calling him a "principled weirdo, the
unlikable old coot down the street." Rob Long also took RP to task on
his newsletters, saying they're "filled with a nutty blend of
libertarian boilerplate and conspiracy fruitcakery."

"With friends like these . . .."

My first instinct after reading these fluff was to cancel my
subscription and call out National Review's editors and writers as war
mongers who only want Republican candidates who support the status quo
(Obama in white face). When I cooled down, I wondered: Is there method
to their madness?

Maybe by giving RP so much space (as NR often do in other editions) and
mostly criticizing him and his supporters, the editors of NR are giving
Ron Paul a left-handed endorsement. After all, RP is not a "koshered"
conservative while NR's conservatism is 100% koshered.

What do you think? Is everyone ready to subscribe to National Review?

Thank you for your attention.

Alton

Hi Alton,

No, I do not think the NR has any method to its madness. Being who they are, they simply need to have the opportunity to call Ron Paul a weirdo, since Dr. Paul's character is impeccable, so they cannot target that!

Now, at the risk of my being beat up, I will say Ron Paul seems to be addressing, not the general public who needs to be converted, but us insiders who already support him. The media loved his response "zero" regarding the level of taxes he would voluntarily want to pay. We supporters cheered; but did the average Joe (including the NR) have any clue why zero is the correct answer.

The talking to the converted, I have always maintained, is an ailment that affects libertarians in general, reducing the chances of our success.

Marcy

Hi Marcy,

Thank you for your reply, in which you said, partly:

<< No, I do not think the NR has any method to its madness. Being who
they are, they simply need to have the opportunity to call Ron Paul a
weirdo, since Dr. Paul's character is impeccable, so they cannot target
that! >>

I will reserve my judgement that NR has a method to its madness, but I
agree that Dr. Paul's character is "impeccable."

<< Now, at the risk of my being beat up . . . >>

I will gladly give you a spanking. :-;

<< . . . I will say Ron Paul seems to be addressing, not the general
public who needs to be converted, but us insiders who already support
him. >>

A most astute observation,which I absolutely agree. I'd like RP to step
away from the dais and stop lecturing. Just show We the People that he
feels their pain, that he will take care of them, that he will protect
them. And unlike Lord Obama, he will not provide for them. Or to be less
charitable, he should show We the People that he's human. (I know I've
invited a severe beating.)

<< The media loved his response "zero" regarding the level of taxes he
would voluntarily want to pay. We supporters cheered; but did the
average Joe (including the NR) have any clue why zero is the correct
answer. >>

My response, exactly. I was dying for RP to better explicate his "zero"
tax! If he had done so, he would had been invincible. Hello. RP v. Lord
Obama debates! RP wins by KO in every round.

And if you read his book , End the Fed, he said that the government
collected around $1 trillion in income taxes, all of which is spent by
then and current politicians to establish an American Empire, vis a
vie, its foreign policy. And with the Federal Reserve's monetary
printing press to pay for the government's "excesses," there is no need
for an income tax, period. (And we must not forget about the cost to
"America" of the cost to just collect the income tax, which was
estimated to be 65 cents, in 1995 dollars, over the cost of the income
tax, but that's another story.)

<< The talking to the converted, I have always maintained, is an
ailment that affects libertarians in general, reducing the chances of
our success. >>

Marcy, it's always easier to "preach to the choir." Still, I understand
and wholeheartedly agree with your point. But how to present our freedom
message to the "unwashed" has been a vexing problem.

When I attended "Freedom Fest 2010," in Las Vegas, I met a woman who was
a nurse who attended the wholesale disaster that was Haiti in 2010. She
lamented that she could provide little help in view of the widespread
suffering, though she helped several individuals.

I told her that while the suffering was widespread, I asked her how did
the people she helped felt. "Didn't you make a difference to those
people you helped. Didn't those people feel grateful to you," I asked.

She sat back, reflected, and seemed more relaxed. She smiled, and said,
"I see your point. Thank you."

Marcy, I guess my point is if we could "preach to the choir," then it's
good "practice" to reach the "unconverted." And that we must reach one
person at a time with patience. (Mary Ruwart, and others, preach this
"method of patience." Though I must admit, I often lack this patience.
Hello Ghandi.) If you have a successful method, please tell me.

Lastly, Marcy, would you like to direct RP's campaign? If so, I'm
certain you're among the best qualified. And do count me as another
"director."

Talk to you.

Alton

--- In lpsf-discuss@yahoogroups.com, "lpsfactivists" <amarcyb@...>
wrote:

Hi Alton,

No, I do not think the NR has any method to its madness. Being who

they are, they simply need to have the opportunity to call Ron Paul a
weirdo, since Dr. Paul's character is impeccable, so they cannot target
that!

Now, at the risk of my being beat up, I will say Ron Paul seems to be

addressing, not the general public who needs to be converted, but us
insiders who already support him. The media loved his response "zero"
regarding the level of taxes he would voluntarily want to pay. We
supporters cheered; but did the average Joe (including the NR) have any
clue why zero is the correct answer.

The talking to the converted, I have always maintained, is an ailment

that affects libertarians in general, reducing the chances of our
success.

Marcy

>
> Hello all,
>
> On page 4, of the January 23, 2012 issue of Nation Review, "The

Week"

> column's editors called out RP on his infamous newsletters from the
> eighties and nineties. They were much incensed by such "pretty

out-there

> stuff" such as when after the Los Angeles riots, "one letter noted,
> order was restored only 'when it came time for blacks to pick up

their

> welfare checks.'" But that was true! Indeed, I recall seeing a

cartoon

> of a smouldering LA neighborhood with destruction everywhere except

for

> one building which was untouched: The Welfare Office.
>
> The editors went on to call RP "a crank with cunning enough to

appeal

> opportunistically to the fringes of larger bodies of opinion."
>
> And if this ad hominem attack item weren't enough, Rob Long in his

"The

> Constitution and the Coot" (page 24), takes cheap shots at RP's

strict

> adherence to the Constitution, calling him a "principled weirdo, the
> unlikable old coot down the street." Rob Long also took RP to task

on

> his newsletters, saying they're "filled with a nutty blend of
> libertarian boilerplate and conspiracy fruitcakery."
>
> "With friends like these . . .."
>
> My first instinct after reading these fluff was to cancel my
> subscription and call out National Review's editors and writers as

war

> mongers who only want Republican candidates who support the status

quo

> (Obama in white face). When I cooled down, I wondered: Is there

method

> to their madness?
>
> Maybe by giving RP so much space (as NR often do in other editions)

and

> mostly criticizing him and his supporters, the editors of NR are

giving

> Ron Paul a left-handed endorsement. After all, RP is not a

"koshered"

> conservative while NR's conservatism is 100% koshered.
>
> What do you think? Is everyone ready to subscribe to National

Review?