is not our friend.
There are a few at Reason who are rooting for Ron: Brian Doherty and Jacob Sullum. But particularly Matt Welch, Julian Sanchez, & Nick Gillespie is precisely the reason why the libertarians continue to be fractured around supporting Dr. Paul.
It was Welch & Sanchez who obviously coordinated it with Jamie Kirchick, who more than likely got the cue where to look for the newsletters if not outright copies handed to them directly from Eric Dondero. Every current MSM article now has more or less passive-aggressively is beginning to say that Dr. Paul himself is not as alleged, but "continues to maintain supporters from the extreme fringes."
Phase 2 is now fully about guilt by associations & 'why have you not disavowed their support'-meme as cheerleaded by NYT article yesterday.
Gillespie pretended to be neutral over Sanchez & Welch's accusation that Lew was the ghostwriter. Keyword: "rumored."
And frankly, I personally view Murray & Lew reaching out to paleoconservatives to forge an alliance as nothing more than diplomacy. Extended further, what do beltarians delude when we talk of diplomacy? It means sharing & introducing better ideas voluntarily to those who either never heard it before, or on more extreme ends, 'talking to your enemies.' Otherwise, they'll always be your enemies. Think Nixon and Mao (setting aside CFR/NWO backplay), think JFK & Khrushchev, think Iran.
Gillespie could have forcefully answered that RP is NOT as alleged, but instead he kept referring back to their 2008 smear piece on Dr. Paul, so that people can get their full propaganda composed along with Kirchick against the Doc.
All liberals are linking back to is that very Reason article. He's not doing us any favors. It only accomplished what the Reason set wanted: to malign Lew & Misesians. In fact, almost guaranteed, most who never heard of LewRockwell.com until that article now only views him as Reason Mag's alleged RP Newsletter ghostwriter with a cynical reach out to extreme elements.
Funny, CSPAN is willing to interview Van der Plaats next who no doubt called gays as "fags" and sinners, etc. Yet, won't have a true libertarian intellectual like Lew, though I believe they did interview Tom Woods once or twice.
Regardless by any standards, if what they accuse Dr. Paul's non-controversial associations isn't on par with their taste, how in the world does it justify interviewing (in fact 'printing' by TV standards if they were print publishers) murderous lunatic illegal war/torture/rape/secret indef. detention policy designers of all previous administrations?
They literally would rather have murderous lunatics who deserve to be no where else but at Nuremberg Trials to be interviewed on TV!
Talk about a crazy topsy turvy world.
Predictions in due Time...
"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here: