For Those Tired of Sound Bites
by Tom Trumpinski • Jan 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm •
For those of you who are tired of sound bites, controlled debates and media cutting off candidates before they’re allowed to explain their beliefs in detail, I offer you this page:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=AtGoogleTalks
One hour minimum interviews with the political candidates in front of an audience with an average IQ of 140. Watch your favorite candidate and make sure you want to support him or her. Watch Ron Paul and understand why I love the man with all my heart. Watch the guy you think you oppose and understand on a gut level why. Enjoy.
Tom Trumpinski
Comment by Seneca the Younger on 11 January 2008 at 8:20 pm:
Uh, Tom, don’t the recent disclosures about Paul’s past publications trouble you the least little bit?
Comment by tet on 11 January 2008 at 8:46 pm:
I actually own a copy of the entire year’s reports for 1993, to tell the truth, Seneca. My friend, Mike Taht put them up on his website. (It turns out that he’s exceeded his bandwidth, so if you’re curious, let me know and I’ll email them to you.) I investigated this story myself back in the fall.
Both the Texas Monthly (in the mid-90s) and the New York Times (last year) investigated the allegations that Paul was racist or homophobic because of what was printed in his newsletter. They interviewed Paul at that time and he said the same thing that he said last week:
He sponsored the newsletter. He occasionally wrote for it. Sometimes he didn’t even read it.
That’s the beauty of real libertarianism, actually. Unpopular political beliefs can be expressed without instant condemnation. The first amendment does not exist to protect “politically correct” stuff. It exists primarily to protect unpopular forms of speech, which a lot of the newsletters certainly represent.
I remember the 70s and 80s fondly as a time when people could actually speak their mind. So, no, Seneca, a piece or two makes me cringe a bit, but this is the sort of thing that some people in the US still believe–not being allowed to say for fear of economic repercussions or arrest is the real problem, not what they’re thinking.
As far as some of the other “horrible things” that Paul advocated, I agree with him that Lincoln removed a lot of the original founders’ intent when he prevented the South from seceding. I do not think that if he had let the South go it would have made for a better world. Lincoln made the best of a bad deal. I disagree with Paul on that point.
I agree with Paul that slavery would have been abolished in the US within a generation, if for no other reason than from diplomatic pressure from the British empire, which was intent on ending slavery worldwide. It was simply no longer economically feasible and one of the reasons that Dixie could not compete with the North.
I also support the current rights of states to secede from the Union that was proposed in the meetings that Paul attended in the mid-90s.
His newsletter was wrong about a 90s race war, right about the gold standard and a bit hysterical on a few other issues. The authors are free to have whatever views they wish–we’re in no danger from libertarians having these views because they will never attempt to use government power to coerce me into accepting any of them.
I’m certainly not alone in my continued support of Paul in the blogosphere post-TNR article. I’m proud to be in the same camp as John Derbyshire, Vox Day, Mike Taht, and Andrew Sullivan.
Tom Trumpinski