26 votes

Sunday NY Times Front Page: Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance

SAM TANENHAUS and JIM RUTENBERG have written a piece on Rand Paul running on the New York Times front page, "Senator Paul Looks to Move Libertarianism to Mainstream," with a short video interview, and a longer article.

Rand Paul’s Mixed Inheritance

Front page item:


A version of history from the left on libertarianism, the extremist Ron Paul, and his politically saavy Senator son. The tone is friendly, the article isn't personally hostile, but it is philosophically hostile.

In the comments, both father and son are dangerous and crazy extremists.

It's a strange kind of hysteria that turns our lovable country doctor into a monster.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Oh my...

I'm amazed how many that buy into the crap media tells them. I must say I raged a bit when I read the comment section especially when some compared Libertarianism to Communism which are are complete opposites.

Their comparisons were flawed to say the least and they fail to see the way government work now is not sustainable. Using the Somalia argument of course which has been debunked countless times.

A lot of commentators come off as if they were little spoiled kids arguing: government give me money they good, libertarians will make government give me less they bad.

Its sad to see that the good comments only got 30 votes or less.

Rush Fan

"And he followed the rock band Rush, some of whose lyrics had libertarian themes.

Gary L. Gardner Jr., a high school friend, said: “I remember even back then being on a swim team bus and a Rush song comes on. I think it was the song ‘Trees’."


"I, __________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic."


There is no duration defined in the Oath

New York = Hillary

The Clinton attacks begin!

I read about 4 paragraphs

I read about 4 paragraphs before I decided to stop. It took me that long to figure out this article was an attempt to label Rand Paul as an "extremist" and not to discuss his ideas about government.

that's about how far I got

Except, my reaction was, why am I reading the NYT?

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Michael Nystrom's picture

Just saw the paper

It is a huge front page spread, with a big picture.

He's the man.

The article is poorly written garbage

that is a blatant hit piece.

I'm sure they directly attacked the Mises Institute simply because they don't want people exposed to the vast trove of literature there - including audio books.

I highly recommend The Politics of Obedience by Etienne de La Boetie.

Michael Nystrom's picture

I read the whole thing. It has its merits

I wouldn't call it a blatant hit piece. There are some key insights to be gleaned.

It is a smear piece in that it tries to conflate Rand with a bunch of stuff that he doesn't want to be associated with:

“I want to be judged by who I am, not by a relationship,” Mr. Paul, a self-described libertarian Republican, said in an interview last week. “I have wanted to develop my own way, and my own, I guess, connections to other intellectual movements myself when I came to Washington.”

(I hope the people of the Daily Paul hear this)

With regards to the Mises Institute:

Some scholars affiliated with the Mises Institute have combined dark biblical prophecy with apocalyptic warnings that the nation is plunging toward economic collapse and cultural ruin. Others have championed the Confederacy. One economist, while faulting slavery because it was involuntary, suggested in an interview that the daily life of the enslaved was “not so bad — you pick cotton and sing songs.”

Mr. Paul says he abhors racism, has never visited the institute and should not have to answer for the more extreme views of all of those in the libertarian orbit.

Rand Paul has never visited the Mises Institute. I found that both interesting and surprising. Is that due to political calculation, or because he's just not that into the ideas?

Finally this, which I just thought was hilarious:

Housed in a brick-and-limestone building near Auburn University’s football stadium, the institute is overseen by Mr. Rockwell, who declined to be interviewed. When a New York Times reporter requested a tour recently, Mr. Rockwell asked him to leave, saying he was “part of the regime.”

There's crazy old Lew Rockwell, closing the door on the NY Times: "Please leave. You're part of the regime."


He's the man.

They salt & pepper stories with anecdotes like that to

increase its circulation. This story is one that I would classify as preaching to all the choirs simultaneously. People that read the article will cling to the parts that reinforce their current beliefs. This type of article is aimed at keeping ideological lines drawn in the sand rather than genuinely attempting to promote meaningful discussion on seemingly divisive issues.

It's a perfect example of mainstream propaganda aimed at maintaining the status quo, imo.

I hope they continue with this nonsense. It shows their stripes more openly, and it will likely result in further loss of respect.

Michael Nystrom's picture

It is what it is.

I mean come on, it is the New York Times. They have a big audience. They have to tell the story in such a way that it is of interest to the broad cross section of people that reads their paper. If they salt + pepper their stories to increase readership, that is just capitalism.

They had a big cover story on Christie last week, and I'm sure it did the same thing.

BTW, did you see the cover of the Magazine in the same issue? I haven't read it, but based on the cover, it is not flattering. PLANET HILLARY. If they did this to Rand, can you imagine the outrage!?

He's the man.

Definitely a widely used

technique. I wonder how much is conscious, or if journalists just lamely imitate the style. All of Obama's speeches are crafted like this.

Rachel Maddow points it out in this segment, 'A tale of two speeches'.


Michael Nystrom's picture

And I'm sure Rand will use the same technique

Why? Because it is effective.

And that is how the game is played.

He's the man.

If the intent is to

deceive, then it is propaganda and manipulation. If the time comes when one can post video of Rand on both sides of a dozen issues, correlating with changes in office, it will be clear he is not his own man.


The comment section following the article in the NY Times goes a long way in explaining why there is such a need for alternative media. The commenters clearly buy into and parrot what they've been fed by the state run rag. Reality to them apparently does not exist and facts aren't important.

Michael Nystrom's picture

If NutjobCentral.com supports Rand Paul for President

Is that good for him, or bad for him? Read that first "framing" sentence again:

The libertarian faithful — antitax activists and war protesters, John Birch Society members and a smattering of “truthers” who suspect the government’s hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks — gathered last September, eager to see the rising star of their movement.

- - - -

Rand has always said he's not a libertarian. He want to distance himself. The NY Times says, "No way! We'll paint you how we like.

“Senator Paul is a credible national candidate,” said Mitt Romney


That is not to be denied.

He's the man.

Like they say if you can't beat em join em

I say if we can't beat em, F@@@ em, keep rolling full steam ahead.

Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must. like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it.-Thomas Paine

The R3volution requires action, not observation!!!!


I like how it's a long article but in the first paragraph the author refers to a "smattering" of conspiracy theories. When is it ever appropriate to open with a reference to a small number of people attending the conference who believe something very polarizing.

Such distortion.

Check out http://ronpaulforums.com for activism and news.

Michael Nystrom's picture

Yeah, the NY Times have got Rand's number.

Right in the first paragraph:

The libertarian faithful — antitax activists and war protesters, John Birch Society members and a smattering of “truthers” who suspect the government’s hand in the 2001 terrorist attacks — gathered last September, eager to see the rising star of their movement.

The "framed" him. It is so obvious.

Want to read more about "framing" issues / candidates? Read: "Don't think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame the Debate."

For you politico types that want to help Rand, read that book, and put it to use.

He's the man.

Liberals have a weird fear of the John Birch

Society. It's like evoking a mystical terror, everything-they-stand-against. Does anyone know the origin of that?

I believe

they were among the 1st in the modern era to criticize global influence upon domestic policy (ie. the UN etc)


hence one reason why they are associated with being early 'NWO conspiracy theorists'.

Unfortunately they traversed into the logical fallacy of claiming to know that many of the ill-effects of poor policy were by intentional design


although it doesn't necessarily mean that they were wrong

I can answer that

The John Birch society is anti communist and pro constitution.

I think it's tied more specifically

to a political event. There was a battle between the birchers and William F. Buckley who painted the birchers as crazies. I think liberals have been using the boogieman association since the frame job done by Buckley, but I'm not sure about it.

When I was recruiting people to support Ron Paul

My most dedicated, hard working volunteers were the John Birchers and the home schoolers. One JB lady over 70 yrs years old, very bright, came up to me with tears in her eyes and said, "we have been waiting 20 years for Ron Paul to run". There is a passion in this country few understand, and I am so glad I was a part of it.

I know.

I know.

Anti Communism. Most of the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto are in place in the US. The JBS is the only major group that talks about it. Most Liberals seem to hate being called Socialists, let alone Communists. The John Birch Society calls a spade a spade. The liberals say JBSers are still living in the Cold War, and mock them.

The John Birch Society puts out a lot of good materials, books, movies etc. They don't get enough credit in my opinion.