77 votes

WSJ - Why Ron Paul Matters

Excellent Article in the Wall Street Journal!

- - - - -

Why Ron Paul Matters

Among all the GOP presidential candidates, he's the only one who stands for constitutionally limited government.


The controversy surrounding decades-old newsletters to which GOP presidential aspirant Ron Paul lent his name is regrettable. First, it is regrettable because the sometimes bigoted, intolerant content of those newsletters is inconsistent with the views of the congressman as understood by those of us who know him. Yet, while Mr. Paul disavows supporting those ideas, he refuses to repudiate his close association with their likely source, Lew Rockwell, head of the Alabama-based Mises Institute.

Second, the New York Times editorialized recently that these unsavory writings "will leave a lasting stain on . . . the libertarian movement." That is wishful thinking on the part of the Times, but it adds to the background noise surrounding Mr. Paul's candidacy, obscuring the real libertarian policy initiatives that have made his candidacy the most remarkable development of the 2012 campaign.

Ron Paul's libertarian campaign has traction because so many Americans respond to his messages:

Continue Reading: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020463220457712...

Comment viewing options

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


Attention! Beware The Kochtopus! They are no friend of Ron Paul, and no friend of liberty. This War Street Journal article reads less like an endorsement or a compliment, as a cold acceptance of Paul's success and a superficial attempt to steal his thunder and define the movement. Here is a blog post I wrote describing more for those interested:


Did Hell Freeze Over?

First, we have a favorable article in the WSJ on Dr. Paul.

Second, it is written by Ed Crane.

I expect to see a flying elephant any time now.


It is rather remarkable that Cato and Reason have started "seeing the light" over the past few days.

Unfortunately, this looks like an effort to get back in front of the parade that is leaving them behind.

I have been a Cato supporter for over 20 years but, sadly, I doubt I will never be able to trust them again.

Most of my support will be going to the Mises Institute and a few other places from now on.

Just the same, I am glad to see Cato and Reason changing their ways. This will help Paul.

If they "walk the walk" long enough, I might start taking them seriously again.

Whoever wrote the articles . . .

needs to come forward now and do the right thing. To hell with their "reputation", such as it is. It does not matter if it is Lew or someone unknown, or if they are dead.

Someone knows who was behind them and should step out from behind the shadows and take this monkey off of Dr. Paul's back.

Anyone old enough to have lived through half or more of this past century has had some level of "racist" thoughts on occasion. Racism is just another of the many flavors of elevating yourself or your group you believe you are a part of, above your fellow man in order to justify your narrow-minded views, your fears, your angers, etc.

Nearly all of us have done it. Blacks, whites, jews, christians, etc., etc. Perhaps even Dr. Paul at some point in his ancient history. but I don't see how anyone could honestly believe that of this man now. I simply can't.

May the truth be disclosed now, and let the chips fall where they may. May the guilty party have the courage to step forward now and face their past. You are certainly not alone. Not by a long shot.

Who in the press, the candidates, or from whatever corner feels righteous enough to throw stones at another? None of us should cower before our accusers for any past mistakes, even racism. It's called GROWTH, for God's sake! It's amazing that any of us can grow out of our past programming at all. But we all do, eventually. It's just one of life's little miracles. So why don't we all just stop judging and condemning and show a little mercy?

Even if...

Lew came out and said he wrote them. No idea if he did or not. I don't think it would matter to the media. They would simply say, look at his closest friend. And if Ron "unfriended" Lew they would say but he was friends so long with this "bigot" or I can't believe he just abandoned his friend. They will twist it no matter what.

Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto. - T. Jefferson rЭVO˩ution

"Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state wants to live at the expense of everyone.” - BASTIAT

I know the history between

I know the history between Rockwell and Crane. But what you're implying is that Crane lied about Rockwell writing the letters that are damaging Ron.

It certainly seems that everyone is assuming Lew Rockwell wrote those newsletters. And it would fit in with the fact that he's been Ron's ghostwriter for decades, newsletters and books included.

So, are you implying that because Cato is a bunch of jackasses, which they are, Lew Rockwell should not come forward and help his supposed buddy, Ron? Because if Lew Rockwell did take credit for what he probably wrote, Ron would be off the hook to a large degree. However, Lew, knowing Ron is not the type to give him up, is allowing Ron's presidential campaign to twist in the wind and get slammed on every TV network.

Or is Lew, by his silence, saying that Ron really did write those letters? Because I know Ron, and I do not believe that for a second.

The above post was in response to this, but I put it in the wrong place:
Submitted by marlow on Sat, 12/31/2011 - 12:24.

Crane and CATO have detested detested Rockwell and the Mises Institute since before its founding. Rothbard and the Kochs, founders of CATO had a falling out. Rothbard later jumped on board the Mises Institute when Rockwell founded it. The Kochs had "instructed" Rockwell not to create the Mises Institute as they had decided Mises intransigence toward government was contrary to their objectives. Their economist of choice was Hayek who was more willing to massage his ideas to make them palatable to the power elite whom the Kochs wanted to influence. So Crane is using the newsletter flap to get a dig in against Rockwell.

I didn't mean to imply "that

I didn't mean to imply "that Crane lied about Rockwell writing the letters" as I don't know who wrote them. I know several libertarian "insiders" (I know Wendy McElroy wrote of this on her site) attributed them to Rockwell. That doesn't make it so. Several people here at the DP, including myself, have called upon Lew to own up to writing them IF he did. Others have said Jeffrey Tucker may have had a hand in writing them. I have enormous respect for Tucker, Rockwell and Paul but none of them has, to my knowledge, made an attempt to identify the author(s). Paul states he doesn't know who wrote them so I take him at his word but Rockwell and Tucker have been uncharacteristically quiet on the matter. As Lew Rockwell is such a strong supporter of Ron's presidential run and his entire professional life has been devoted to furthering liberty I just can't imagine he would let Ron take the heat if he (Lew) were the author. You may have read elsewhere that if unnamed ghostwriters are responsible that contractual nondisclosure agreements may exist that preclude all involved from identifying the author(s). But I have read of no one confirming that to be the case. As to Crane, I believe he simply enjoys seeing Lew feel the heat so he thought he'd turn it up a notch.


My understanding

is that they are losing subscriptions from the Ron Paul supporters. Hit them where it counts, always! Money is what they understand - nothing else. WSJ is owned by Rupert Murdoch - Hannity & O'Reilly's boss.

I doubt he did it..but he

I doubt he did it..but he could say he did, true or not..LOL

WSJ, The Financial Bible, Seems To Have Left Out ...

The fact that Dr. Paul's portfolio has increased by 537% over the last 10 years.
Supposedly the best performing long term portfolio in Congress. { Word of Mouth,,no link }

His portfolio is Gold and Gold stock orientated. I guess Dr. Paul really can predict the future better than others seeking the office of President.




Cato Endorsement

An endorsement from the Cato Institute is nothing to sneeze at.

Freedom, Prosperity and Peace

reedr3v's picture

Ah Choo! Excuse me, I tend to sneeze

in drafts caused by back stabbing.

If Crane were truly committed to promoting peace and freedom, he would not be making snark attacks on those who have done far more to educate people on those principles than Crane and Cato combined.

Can someone clarify this for me, please?

Bump for an excellent and refreshingly positive article from the WSJ.

I am confused by something in the 1st paragraph and would appreciate clarification. On one hand, Mr. Crane states that he knows that bigotry and intolerance are not in Dr. Paul's nature. Then he goes on to write: "Yet, while Mr. Paul disavows supporting those ideas, he refuses to repudiate his close association with their likely source,..."

Okay, I understand Wall Street is not the moral epicenter of the world. But, to most people in the NY Metro area ratting someone out is considered wrong.

Did I mistake Mr. Crane's intention in that statement?

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox

Even if Ron Paul knows for a

Even if Ron Paul knows for a fact that Lee Rockwell was the one who wrote those racist and bigoted articles or statements, Ron Paul was the publisher of the newsletter and should have read them before sending them to the printer!

I think such articles appeared in more than one issue. It has the appearance of being consistent with his own beliefs that such articles continued to be present from issue to issue.

I know that Ron Paul hired minorities to be on his office staff in Washington, D. C. and that he asked Walter WIlliams, the prominent black economist, who works at George Mason University. I don't think Ron Paul is either racist nor antisemitic.

I am already bending over backwards in support of him for president despite my being pro choice by believing that a pregnant woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy for reasons of her own.

I agree with Ron Paul that the Founders dreaded another tyranny and tried to do everything they could think of to assure that the Federal government they were bringing into existence would never evolve into the monstrosity it has become, well beyond the bounds envisioned by them.

No other candidate appears to be aware of the perilous state of our country and the urgent need to curtail its descent into despotism and bankruptcy.

I trust Ron Paul to keep his word and to take the necessary steps to get the country back on the right course.

We cannot afford to wait any longer. We don't have the luxury of time to spare.

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.

There was nothing racist about them....

They were anti-PC... And Ron Paul still is NOT PC. Did you see his answer on Sexism today?

Here is a definition of racism and please keep in mind when you go back and put those INVESTMENT newsletters into full context.

Racism: "The disparagement of an ethnic groups genetic or cultural characteristics (real or imagined) for the purpose of LEGAL discrimination".

Thus both libertarianism and "those racists newsletters" are not racist at all. Not one tiny bit. The Political Correctness police and vague and wide definitions of anyone taking "offense" was and is the poison pill that Reason and Cato accepted and the RP newsletters rejected. Thanks to "friends" like Reason, libertarian's greatest "gateway libertarian" gets "outed" the week before the NH primaries in 2008. Yea, with friends like these, who needs enemies? That was an opportunistic political stab in the back. And now here.

With friends like "bleeding heart libertarians" beltway libertarians over at Reaon & Cato who cannot dissect any supposed offensive statement to see if indeed it is, and instead just do what all others do, assume that they are "racist", "antiSemitic", "sexist", "homophobic" do nobody who loves libertarianism a favor. Clear Definitions and NON PC Multiculturally "sensitive" ones is what libertarianism STILL NEEDS. Until it rejects the PC MC vague and wide definitions, liberty will continue to be attacked by the liberal PC police and we will get things like "hate crimes" which are clearly "thought crimes". There is more evils to come against Liberty as long as its libertarian defenders, even its bleeding heart ones, cannot and will not call a spade a spade.

As a long time reader of those INVESTMENT newsletters, they were lots of fresh air from the PCness that swept America in 1990's. The fact that CATO and REASON did not defend "those racist newsletters" back then and today, and took the side of the liberal rag The New Republic, makes CATO and REASON apart of a dead movement, if not the enemy. The new movement, the R3VOLution and the Campaign for Liberty is all about Respecting individual rights, but it is not down with the PC MC police. Just like most right wing conservatives who supported Herman Cain, they are done with that. Hence the wrath they gave those 2 Reason Pukes, Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez, for "outing" without discussion Ron Paul in 2008 - stab in the back that we shall never forget.

Yes, today, Ron Paul disavows & apologies for the rude offense it may have had and Lew Rockwell bites his lip, for the near universal ascendancy of the PC MC crowds are everywhere and their loose, vague and wide definitions reign king in America today. TODAY. But soon all libertarians including Reason and Cato will realize that for libertarianism to survive, it must explicitly reject PC definitions and go on the offensive against the The New Republic and others who sell such poison.

If libertarians, bleeding heart ones too, really care about free speech, they will take a vacation out of the USA for several months, then come back and listen to the silence in America, the fear, the tongue tied twisting that goes on all in the name of not wanting to cause "offense" and be labeled with the dreaded "R" on the sweater from the puritanical liberal pilgrims. Not only does this kill vibrant free speech, its thought control. Today only comedians like Carlos Mencia, Dave Chappell, and Chris Rock and '90's shows like "In Living Color" can make generalities that noone else can make.

Go back and place all 23 sentences that the TNR has pulled from years of investment newsletters and put them all back into context and use that definition for racism above. You will see that nothing is so "vile" so "odious" so "appalling" about them. Such comments should SHOULD be applied to real racism that use the N word, disparages ethnic characteristics (real or imagined) and attempts to use that to justify LEGAL discrimination. Under the PCness that we live in today, with its wide and vague definitions and the fact that (as ron and rand paul have pointed out about the 64 civil rights act) a businessman's property rights are so run over that all is nearly lost to fascism.

As Chris Rock I believe said, "They hated smokers so dam much they got slammed back in the corner of the restaurant,... then that wasn't enough, "that second hand smoke offends me"! So they got the chilly cold spot outside the restaurant. And New York just passed another law and now they can't go anywhere and smoke ! Dam I scared cause I eat red meat! That's right, I know whats's comin'. Before long I will be cuttin my steak and vegan white bitch will be sittin' at the next table over and she'll get up screamin' "I am so offended, I'm so offend!" Next thing I know I will be cuttin' my steak outside in the cold!"

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Crane and CATO have detested

Crane and CATO have detested detested Rockwell and the Mises Institute since before its founding. Rothbard and the Kochs, founders of CATO had a falling out. Rothbard later jumped on board the Mises Institute when Rockwell founded it. The Kochs had "instructed" Rockwell not to create the Mises Institute as they had decided Mises intransigence toward government was contrary to their objectives. Their economist of choice was Hayek who was more willing to massage his ideas to make them palatable to the power elite whom the Kochs wanted to influence. So Crane is using the newsletter flap to get a dig in against Rockwell.


Thank you

Now I understand. I wasn't aware of most of that. Thank you for explaining it so well, Marlow! Very interesting.

“It is the food which you furnish to your mind that determines the whole character of your life.”
―Emmet Fox



By Ed Crane,

founder or co-founder of the Cato Institute.

New Hampshire and Ecuador.

This was a very good read

This is a great article! Keep it bumped



Excellent article.