Yes and no. I think most of the current Paul issues stem mostly from Radley Balko. While I've read Radley for a long time as well as Reason, I think Radley was a little late to raise the "shocked" flag. His peers pointed all of this out back in May of '07 but as I recall, this has been dealt with in the past.So - yes - Radley needs to come down off of his high horse. It's almost as if he had just heard there was a holocaust and demanded a response from the Germans....
Sumwatt,Thanks for stopping by. I am inclined to agree with you, although I have to admit to being a bit shocked myself. Even though I never supported the man and new about the fringe nature of some of his supporters, I never knew how entangled these groups were to the Rockwell/Mises Institute variant of libertarianism. I was outraged.Furthermore, I do recall Balko's peers raising a red flag in the spring, yet he makes the cover of Reason.I can understand the newsworthiness but I can't help feel they deserve to get a bit burned for this.
My problem with the coverage was not surrounding the newsletters. They raised the flag. If someone knew how extensive the problem really is, then I'd be more upset on that. But I think they gave the attention it deserved at the time.I've been more angered at the general cheerleading in the face of logic. I expect a little more intellectual pursuit. Any cursory glance at Paul's positions should've revealed a dangerous difference. Instead, they got swept up in the newness of having a national figure.
No, I think Reason got it pretty right. It's just an unfortunate truth. The movement will die with Ron Paul if we cannot muster more than one poorly known congressman to spread the message of liberty.
Post a Comment