7 votes

[T]reason Magazine DEFENDS dismissing Ron Paul

Personally I think [T]Reason JUST DONT GET IT. Since now they are defending her remarks. Even if its true that Paul doesn't have a big chance of winning, we dont need ONE MORE "LIBERTARIAN" mocking his chances and downplaying it with a SMIRK on her face on TV, because what it does is feed into "im wasting my vote if I vote for Ron Paul."

"Mangu-Ward provocatively states, "I think Ron Paul is getting a tremendous amount of coverage for someone who is never going to be president." Additionally, she says that everyone, including Paul and his campaigners, know that. She continues that Paul " is bringing some great, overlooked issues into the debate" and wonders more why Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-Minn.) is taken seriously rather than Paul marginalized.

As one might imagine, such plain-speaking has brought down upon Mangu-Ward and Reason a Texas-cyclone-sized storm of email questioning our libertarian bona fides, moral certitude, and, strangely, personal hygeine habits. We've fielded more than a couple demands that Mangu-Ward be fired for her remarks, which seems to be a strange request of an organization that trades in "Free Minds and Free Markets." Reason staffers disagree on a wide range of topics, including the current issues of whether and why Ron Paul is getting the coverage he deserves and just how likely he is to win the GOP presidential nod, much less win the general election in 2012. These are conversations worth having, but they are not the stuff of vendetta."

You can write Nick here: gillespie@reason.com I am

Full story: http://reason.com/blog/2011/08/17/reasoners-on-the-tube-is-r...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

My comment on article: "First

My comment on article:

"First off, her statement is ridiculous and I'm surprised that you are defending her here. Ok, so you support free minds and divergent views? If that is so, you'd have no problem calling her out on how stupid her statement was unless you agree with her.

Mangu-Ward reflects negatively to your organization. If she supported endless wars or more government spending, would she be accepted at Reason?

Here is why what she said was stupid.

1. The media has given a lot more coverage other people who are "never going to be president." So even if her one premise were right, the whole argument is wrong. Will McCain ever be president? Or most of the people up there who got or are getting a lot more coverage? It's an idiotic argument.

2. To profess that Dr Paul has no chance of winning is stating something no one can know. He may not win but he certainly has a chance. I'll admit, that if elections were today, he probably wouldn't win, but a lot can happen between now and the election. The other candidates could mess up. The economy could slip further into a depression. The wars could cause a terrible tragedy. So to say that there is no way he can win, just isn't accurate. As we've seen with the Tea Party there are lots of things that can jolt a large part of the American Public awake.

If you've ever been in or seen a long race. One that lasts days, there is one thing you should never forget: Don't count anyone out until it's over. Too many things can happen when long spans of time are involved.

Nick, I'm shocked that you've decided to defend Mangu-Ward here. If you really do have many divergent thoughts there at reason, why not let someone there who disagrees with her respond to her statements instead of just defending her when she says something stupid? Or is what Mangu-Ward said, the general stance of Reason Magazine?"

Reason has been infiltrated already long ago!

And so has Reason Mag! They have been exposed undermining Paul's campaign in more than one election, and remain, thanks to their neocon board member hide-a-way's, the convenient source for the constant misuse of the term 'libertarian' in reference to Ron Paul. Ron broke with them long ago, with major ideological differences, and has remained Republican in name and libertarian in terms of support for Constitutional liberty under the rule of law!

Along with Ron's less than strategic use of drug terms, I consider his slight lack of clarifying this until too late, a very slight weakness in the campaign!

Nevertheless, on the one hand anyone from 'unReason ragazine' should be dismissed as hard core Paul opposition!

On the other, we should take heart that the truthful cause of liberty, constitutional rule of law, sound money, just foreign policy of friendship and commerce, entangling alliances with none, limited government, and a return to constitutional state jurisdiction and sovereignty, is in a tremendous growth phase, mainly due the efforts of Ron Paul and his supporters in 2008. This growth is bringing in fantastic numbers of newly born freedom and sound government converts, spreading the message of liberty across the nation among the grassroots, blossoming into beautiful educated plants, and trees of liberty worthy of the shed sacrifice required to replenish and sustain such a nation.

Let us enter the precincts with renewed vigor, hopeful of the blessing expected by those who put their shoulders to the wheel of truth! Enter those precincts to light those kind of brush fires of which we have heard often, that they burn well among the greatest number, and most diverse of electorate, when well fueled by liberty.

After this much time since the actual media event...

I believe it is safe to say, that whoever keeps bumping up a Reason Mag thread is probably an avid Reason reader and still feels to the need to try to get some DailyPaul people to at least comment on various threads on their site/care about that magazine/stuff like that.

You should be aware of this.

And not that that person is bad or anything, but it's indicative that Reason needs some help as a publication of public interest.

Throwing votes away

I would love for someone who considers Ron Paul to be unelectable to prove that a vote for ANY candidate is of any consequence. If one truly feels that a single vote matters then, logically, one cannot consider any candidate to be unelectable. A vote either counts or it doesn't. The rest seems to be presumption of a collectivist attitude towards certain individuals. I think people simply want to feel that they picked the winner as an exercise in stroking their own egos.

Sent my letter of Congratulations

for shooting the liberty movement in the foot. I dropped Reason back in 2007? when they dissed Congressman Paul than and just thanked Nick because I won't re-subscribe after that type of article..Congressman Ron Paul is the best thing for the Libertarian party & I'm registered (L) but volunteer & support RP all the way...

Working to free the hemp seed - Thanks to Congressman Paul's efforts HR 1831. Peace

Right and left media get their orders from the same place

and after Reason is exposed is exposed as an inside job, there will be another so-called independent media...that is really just another inside job.

tasmlab's picture

My letter and the canned response

Hi Ms. Mangu-Ward,

I've been a Reason subscriber for over ten years and have enjoyed dozens of your articles. I was disappointed with your smug dismissal of Ron Paul on your recent Fox television appearance.

While your entitled to your opinion, I think you were inaccurate in stating that Dr. Paul doesn't have a plan to be president. This is fine article on the subject here:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul647.html

I don't think there has been a candidate in a generation who has a deeper or more technical understanding of government, foreign policy, history, economics, etc. than Dr. Paul. In the last four years alone he's written three books on government and economics and no less than 200 articles.

Gary Johnson is more coherent in his ideas??? Has Gary even tried to express them beyond a few bullet points on his website?

For that matter, does any candidate have a 'plan to be president' that is more articulated and documented? Even our sitting one?

Respectfully,

WARD'S CANNED EMAIL (IGNORING MY QUESTIONS)

Thanks for your note. As I mentioned on Fox Business, I'm glad Paul is a player in the presidential primary--in fact, I agree with him on quite a few issues. But I continue to think it's unlikely he'll actually become president.

For more Reason on Paul--and there are a variety of views among Reason staffers on Paul's policies (and his electoral chances)--feel free to check out our lengthy Ron Paul archive (http://reason.com/topics/ron-paul), which includes plenty of recent commentary criticizing his marginalization. We have a long history of putting him on our cover (http://reason.com/issues/february-2008), naming him one of our "35 Heroes of Freedom" (http://reason.com/archives/2003/12/01/35-heroes-of-freedom/s...), having him write for us (http://reason.com/archives/2008/05/05/the-coming-recession), and declaring his son "The Most Interesting Man in the Senate" (http://reason.com/issues/june-2011).

Best,
Katherine
--

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

So disingenuous of her/Reason

"But I continue to think it's unlikely he'll actually become president."

She said so much MORE than that on FOX: that he won't be president; that he knows it; and that his campaigners know it; that everyone knows it.

That's the establishment party line, and it is untrue. History has shown that many candidates at this stage with a FRACTION of Paul's standing in the polls have emerged to win the nomination, so she is spewing bullshit.

That she and Reason are glossing over her remarks instead of owning them is disgusting.

Yeah

we've got a lot of over-reaction going on here. The fact is that Dr. Paul's chances of winning are slim...very slim. If Katherine feels that there is less hope than that then she is entitled to do so. Not everyone must feel as strongly as we do about Dr. Paul and those that don't but who still espouse the libertarian philosophy still have my respect for being libertarian.
A lot of you folks just need to CTFD.

I would not want to see

I would not want to see Katherine Mangu-Ward dismissed solely for her critical remarks about Ron Paul and his presidential bid. To demand such a reprisal would be hypocritical and reactionary. She should however, be held accountable for what she has said. I do not believe it is unreasonable for her to have to respond to specific questions about her brazen comments. Why does she believe Ron Paul won't win? How does she conclude that he is getting a "tremendous" amount of press coverage? Does she have insider information about Ron Paul's own certitude regarding his electability? What is a "fringe candidate"? Why are the presidential plans of the other candidates any more viable than those of Ron Paul? Ms. Ward is certainly entitled to her opinion. She is not entitled to her own set of facts.

I Wrote Her Too

and got some canned response that didn't even address my complaint. At a time when libertarians need them most, TReason Magazine really showed its true colors. I'll be deleting my YouTube subscription to their page.

I'd say screw them (or if it's just this woman fire her)

It's a great magazine 99% of the time. I used to subscribe, now I read online.

The last thing we need is what is supposed to be a libertarian magazine using the same tactics as Fox News and CNN to bash Ron Paul. If I subscribed, I'd cancel it unless they fire this woman.

My Letter to Reason Senior Editor

Katherine,

In a recent episode with Gerri Willis on Fox, you stated that Ron Paul did not have a plan for what he would do if President. While I haven't seen this mentioned yet in the 2012 race, here is an interview from 2009 on Yahoo! Finance's Talk Ticker with host Aaron Task where Dr. Paul lays out some of things he would do if he was in the oval office.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIjrqOM0Qpw

I hope you will watch this video and take a new look at Ron Paul's candidacy.

Thanks,
...

Everyone needs to chill out

Everyone here talks about how the media is a shill, but expects reason mag to become a shill. Ask no questions, personal opinions be damned, fire any one who dares dissent. Am I the only person who sees a problem with this? We are asking an independent libertarian leaning magazine to become our fox news, our msnbc, our cnn. I like ron paul and think he would make a fantastic president. I am on this site to help make that happen, but never at the expense of people's skepticism. It would not be worth him winning if the only way to do it is to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with ron's positions 100% all the time every time.

This has happend before among libertarians with ayn rand and her followers. An avid atheist who cherished individuality whose followers treat her like a religion and can not fathom some one questioning her greatness. We can not let this happen to this movement. Cling to your skepticism and keep an open mind. Respect others opinions as we have been trying for over four years now to have ours respected. Don't demagogue every ron paul issue. We are not going to win the election with 100% of the vote and should not try to.

-Skeptic

"We are asking an independent

"We are asking an independent libertarian leaning magazine to become our fox news, our msnbc, our cnn."

....WRONG! We are not. We are asking them not to go AGAINST their own interest. Ron Paul is a STAUNCH libertarian who has done more for the movement that Reason could ever dream of doing.

I already explained ad nauseum that telling the public Ron Paul is a losing candidate will make them (most of them) NOT Vote for him thinking they will waste their vote. T hat is not just giving your opinion. That is HURTING libertarianism, because what they are saying is that a libertarian candidate has no chance of ever winning. That is just STUPID coming from Reason.

We are not asking for 100% of the vote. Just 51% ;)

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

More than that...

...she spewed falsehoods, not mere opinion, as facts. THAT is why it is reasonable for her to be shown the door, and for Reason to be shunned.

Why even try to amplify what Reason Mag actually is? LOL

Dude barely anyone reads it. The fact that that editor was on TV was a big deal for them. We let a nobody like Reason rile us up like this, as if they speak for a gigantic pool of open-minded individuals is ridiculous. They only feed on the honest nature of RP supporters that vainly try to educate them on their message boards.

Enough of all this. Reason is a genetic pool that's only inches deep. Let's keep this in mind.

If we simply ignore Reason like it should have been ignored, it will go off and die. That's what their Snark psychology does. It needs someone honest to fuck with, otherwise it will have to substitute its dietary needs with either its own people, or ...nothing at all.

It makes a difference when

It makes a difference when LIBERTARIANS say Ron paul has no chance of winning on National TV... We don't need the self propelled sabotage..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Again, I would point you towards what Reason actually is.

The "mouthpiece" of Libertarians. Hardly. Their own readership (small) makes fun of their crap articles and inattention to actual Libertarian ideas. The entire affair is self-feeding, and if you pretend that this magazine defines Libertarians, that's fine.

What that woman did that interview, is she did her homework, saw there was going to be a media backlash, and decided to DoubleDown on "yeah, screw Ron Paul" and in return, she got a bunch of well-meaning DailyPaulers to write her some really angry letters and fulfilled her fantasy. And Reason's fantasy.

Just stop feeding nobodies like Reason your RP blood, they are obviously STARVING ALREADY.

Snark Psychology

Great analysis. I agree with your perception, this passage:

If we simply ignore Reason like it should have been ignored, it will go off and die. That's what their Snark psychology does. It needs someone honest to fuck with, otherwise it will have to substitute its dietary needs with either its own people, or ...nothing at all.

I haven't heard of that phrase, Snark psychology. I'll have to look it up. From looking at those words and how you described it, especially, I'd say it's:

To act against stated objectives because those objectives are contrary to the intent, which is hidden from outsiders and is destruction of a thing, likely a thing that involves the outsiders. And, until that thing's destruction, the actor must contend that thing for its, the actor's, sustenance, whereupon that thing's destruction means the actor's destruction.

Is my deduction correct?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

I was a subscriber for more than 20 years

but once they joined what Lew Rockwell termed the anti-Ron Paul wing of the libertarian movement in 2008 I decided to never subscribe again. Let them draw their supporters from those who like their Ron Paul is not cool because he's never done drugs, is married to the same woman for 50+ years, goes to church and is too suburban and middle class for the Reason crowd. Not me.

I like your name for them

Treason Magazine. I have been upset with them from the LAST election and their rotten treatment of Dr. Paul.

Prepare & Share the Message of Freedom through Positive-Peaceful-Activism.

Only one way to defeat the Reason psychology:

You starve it from its blood source. You do not visit the site, you do not comment on their stories. You do not write It letters. That publication no longer exists for you. You have then obliterated it. That's the one thing Snark cannot defeat, you give It nothing to oppose, then its psychological Snark defense can only feed on itself and it's done.

I know he's never going to be President.

The country isn't ready for libertarianism, if EVER. That's not why I campaign for him and donate to his campaign. I do it to get his libertarians views in the debates to help make this country freer.

I think the attacks on Reason Magazine for this are stupid.

And then you wonder why people in the media say Paul supporters are unreasonable. Those of you who live in never-never land and attack people for merely expressing opinions make us all look like nuts.

Treason magazine???? Treason??? It's treasonous to give an opinion? Get a grip.

You've been ZAMPED!!!!!!!

hey your entitled to your opinion.

Since it is based on factual evidence. that you yourself have analyzed and come to a conclusion on. thank you for helping the Ron Paul Revolution. I for one respect your position.

That being said. Pandering to the media is NOT an opinion, saying "well in my opinion gravity doesn't exist" is not a viable opinion since it has no basis in reality. That is called lying to yourself (and in this case viewers). It is an error. You are wrong.

People have turned the word Opinion into a defense of error and delusion. In reality if your opinion is based on whatever is already in your brain and hasn't been analyzed against reality, it doesn't matter because it fantasy.

What you think and say maybe

What you think and say maybe here and what you tell a national viewing audience are quite different. Treason mag was done with the same smirk that Kat the Mag had when she dismissed Ron Paul ;) A little tongue and cheek of their own medicine...

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

ZAMP

Member for
4 days 1 hour

Economic Darwinism ...

They accept the fact that they will live or die purely on maket forces.

That means your wallet is everything to them.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Yes, Reason can say or do what they want.

But also yes, their subscribers have those same options.

We shall see.

That lady, whatever her name is, is always very snarky and extremely unlikable in video form.

There is no way she would ever apologize. She would rather lose her job or take down a business than apologize.

Only time will tell.

tasmlab's picture

Reason is a non-profit

They largely live on donations, not just their ad revenues.

Currently consuming: Gatto: "Underground history of education..", FDR; Wii U; NEP Football

Donations, Ads, subscriptions ....

It all comes from someone's wallet.