Ron Paul was the only candidate besides Romney running ads in Nevada.

Stated differently, he came in second out of two.

Stated still differently, he came in last among those actually running.

"Stunning" is hardly the appropriate word.

Posted by KipEsquire at January 20, 2008 02:36 AM

Once again, Paul gets more votes than the combined attempts of Thompson and Guiliani, and beats a four-term Senator from the adjacent state. Their excuse - that they didn't campaign in Nevada - is laughable; to have three candidates with the national recognition of McCain, Guiliani and Thompson falling behind a chap unknown outside of libertarian circles not twelve months ago is indicative of the substantial achievements of the grassroots campaign, and the failure of the recent smear attempts in TNR and endorsed by Cato, Reason &c. And Romney's overall victory is clearly a reflection of his religious support: from this sample, 45% of the total (out of 51% that ultimately did - ie, 90% of his final support) had already decided to vote for Romney prior to his decision to jettison SC, and amongst Mormons, he stands at 95%.

An exceptionally good sign for Paul, however, is here, CNN's entrance polling, broken down on party and religious lines. Whereas McCain, the Republican "maverick," gets just 13% of independents, Paul takes over half, as well as 42% of the atheist vote. Add to this the next 'money bomb,' planned, IIRC, for 21st January, and surely Paul is perfectly posed for an independent run as the small-government federalist, with a message of freedom, peace and prosperity, against the twin evils of big government socialism and big government fascism. A Paul-Richardson ticket would be an excellent bipartisan combo, with a real chance of taking votes from both parties.

Oh, and Duncan Hunter has dropped out.

Posted by Andrew Roocroft at January 20, 2008 02:50 AM

Congrats to Paul. He took second in a two man race.
That makes him the first place loser. But does this deter our valiant Paulbots? No, sir, it does not! They're as giddy as little girls at their first sleep over. OMG! Did you see how well he did? Victory could be right around the corner!! For an example of how far from reality these folks are, please see the post above.

Posted by Swede at January 20, 2008 03:14 AM

Congrats to Paul. He took second in a two man race.

Gosh, thanks Swede, for a moment then I actually thought Guilliani and Thompson and Huckabee and McCain were running too! I had no idea that the candidacies of those nationally know politicians were not offered up in Nevada. Yup, you learn something every day.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 20, 2008 03:33 AM

Whereas McCain, the Republican "maverick," gets just 13% of independents, Paul takes over half, as well as 42% of the atheist vote.

Do you have any idea how many independents and atheists there are in the overall electorate?

Posted by a.sommer at January 20, 2008 04:04 AM

Well, it appears it may have taken the determination of a Paulite to actually get to a voting booth. There seems to have been some difficulties.

All the same, this is hopefully being noted by the Republican oligarchs that think we are 'belong' to their party. RP is, for now, my plan 'B' after Fred. Unless of course, it looks like a big gov Republican might win. Then I will be forced to vote Democrat.

Posted by Midwesterner at January 20, 2008 04:07 AM

Wait for it, tomorrow the Paulistas will be claming a moral victory because Ron Paul came in second in Nevada and Romney came in next to last.

otpu

Posted by otpu at January 20, 2008 04:13 AM

They don't get any national news in Nevada, don't you know? They haven't watched any of the debates, not even the one there. They just tivo everything and fast forward to the commercials ... so they thought only Paul and Comrade Romney Sultan of Subsidies was running.

Posted by Rich Paul at January 20, 2008 04:27 AM

Well, it appears it may have taken the determination of a Paulite to actually get to a voting booth. There seems to have been some difficulties.

All the same, this is hopefully being noted by the Republican oligarchs that think we are 'belong' to their party. RP is, for now, my plan 'B' after Fred. Unless of course, it looks like a big gov Republican might win. Then I will be forced to vote Democrat.

How dare they feel strongly about shrinking the state, restoring liberty, evading economic collapse, rescuing their nation from creeping socialism, and putting the resources we waste being the handout-hander to the world back in the hands of the poor slobs from whom they were stolen?

They must be up to something

Posted by Rich Paul at January 20, 2008 04:32 AM

Okay kids... it was Nevada and it was a caucus that nobody cared about except for Hillary. We all know that Ron appeals to a subset that will show up anywhere and at anytime to work against the establishment. The establishment being anyone who has a life.

Posted by Bill at January 20, 2008 06:25 AM

Okay kids... it was Nevada and it was a caucus that nobody cared about except for Hillary. We all know that Ron appeals to a subset that will show up anywhere and at anytime to work against the establishment. The establishment being anyone who has a life.

Posted by Bill at January 20, 2008 06:26 AM

Okay kids... it was Nevada and it was a caucus that nobody cared about except for Hillary. We all know that Ron appeals to a subset that will show up anywhere and at anytime to work against the establishment. The establishment being anyone who has a life.

Posted by Bill at January 20, 2008 06:26 AM

I'm a little baffled. I'd thought Ron Paul would be considered more like the BNP than the UKIP.

Posted by HokiePundit at January 20, 2008 06:27 AM

I'm a little baffled. I'd thought Ron Paul would be considered more like the BNP than the UKIP.

American politics does not map well to the politics of other countries. The culture is different, the issues are different, the people involved are different.

Posted by a.sommer at January 20, 2008 07:14 AM

Yes! So I wish people outside of the States would stop encouraging loonies like Paul to run - it's not helping! If he's a libertarian, I'm a hard boiled egg.

Posted by Tim in TX at January 20, 2008 08:04 AM

I was surprised Paul got 14% of the vote.

Not because he was the only other candidate who put money into Nevada, but because of his recent difficulties and the fact that he associates with bigots.

I suppose maybe cause all the controversial articles were prejudiced against blacks and Jews. Nevada has a large hispanic population and I can tell you hispanics have their own prejudices against blacks. I live in South Texas (Rio Grande Valley) which is mostly Mexican and I'll tell you Mexican folks here have no love for black people.

Far from being a scientific observation, I know, and I have no idea how Paul's vote breaks down, but it is something I feel is worth noting at least.

In fact, now that I think of it, I have to wonder how Barack Obama's vote breaks down as well (I don't follow the Democrat vote much myself).

Posted by Robert at January 20, 2008 08:22 AM

So I wish people outside of the States

Like who?
Posted by Alisa at January 20, 2008 08:23 AM

I'm a little baffled. I'd thought Ron Paul would be considered more like the BNP than the UKIP.

Hardly. The BNP are nationalist socialists.

Posted by Ian B at January 20, 2008 09:57 AM

Tim:

So I wish people outside of the States would stop encouraging loonies like Paul to run - it's not helping! If he's a libertarian, I'm a hard boiled egg.

I'd agree Paul isn't as libertarian as I'd like - in particular on immigration, and his vague plans on how to fund the federal government after abolishing the income tax (I've seen him suggest that tariffs might be acceptable) - but given that he's sufficiently libertarian-orthodox to have been invited by the LP to seek their Presidential nomination, I don't quite understand how Paul doesn't fall into the libertarian category. Seems like petty "People's Front of Judea" fragmentation to say that he isn't libertarian.

Swede:

Victory could be right around the corner!! For an example of how far from reality these folks are, please see the post above.

Paul can never win either the Republican nomination or the Presidential election; I didn't claim, nor do I expect, that he has a reasonable chance at either. That he has a pretty good chance of weakening whoever the Republican candidate is by drawing fiscal conservatives away from Huckabee, Romney or McCain, if he runs as a third party candidate, seems perfectly plausible. And to the end of advancing libertarian policies, nothing can be better in the present system than Republicans in opposition, obstructing all legislative progress on the socialist agenda for partisan reasons, whilst being forced to rebuild the Reagan coalition, with a substantial committment to fiscal conservatism. Paul isn't the person to do this, but he's now well placed, even if he only hovers around 10% of the Republican-primary vote, to spoil the general election for the Republicans and force the party to appeal to its traditional base, which, as with Rudy's dismal showing in every state so far, is far from dominated by the national security authoritarians of the present administration.

Posted by Andrew Roocroft at January 20, 2008 10:58 AM

by drawing fiscal conservatives away from Huckabee, Romney or McCain, if he runs as a third party candidate, seems perfectly plausible

He'll draw more of the ANSWER crowd away from the Democrats (especially if it's Hillary), than conservatives from the Republicans... but it's ok with me. Let him run.

Posted by Jacob at January 20, 2008 12:02 PM

I've been watching Sky News and they are doing a very good job of ignoring the Republican vote in Nevada and mentioning only "key wins for McCain and Hilary in South Carolina and Nevada" parsing that accurately requires you to work out where the comma goes without the benefit of having it written down. If you aren't paying attention you'd think McCain won Nevada.

In fact if it weren't for Pyjamas media backed up by the "they can't spin this that much - can they?" credibility of the BBC I'd believe that too.

The BBC also, controversially for Samizdatistas, takes the line:

"Ron Paul, the only other Republican seriously to campaign in the state, came second with 14%, ahead of Mr McCain with 13%."

and that's pretty much all it says about him.

Posted by Simon Gibbs at January 20, 2008 12:56 PM

Their excuse - that they didn't campaign in Nevada - is laughable; to have three candidates with the national recognition of McCain, Guiliani and Thompson falling behind a chap unknown outside of libertarian circles not twelve months ago is indicative of the substantial achievements of the grassroots campaign, and the failure of the recent smear attempts in TNR and endorsed by Cato, Reason &c.

Denial is not just a river in Egypt, Andrew. We've been over this ground before; while Ron Paul has sought to assure people that he did not endorse the views that were carried in those newsletters - Reason magazine identifies Lew Rockwell as the author - he should, as a man who profited from these newsletters, have been a bit more bloody careful about the material that goes out under his name. I find the excuse-making by Ron Paulite supporters on this issue to be unedifying. Fortunately, the libertarian movement is a sizeable one, and while Ron Paul has his merits, I am afraid the future of the libertarian movement must rest in more thoughtful hands.

Posted by Johnathan Pearce at January 20, 2008 01:52 PM

Ah, so it was Lew with the taste of shoe leather in his mouth? He does that a lot.

But whatever... I tend to stop listening when I hear the word 'racist' these days. It is sadly no longer a word that conveys information. it is a generic schoolyard taunt like 'facist'", "moron" or "retard". If one were to attempt to give it a 21st Century definition it would be something like:

"(1) A person with differing political views from those considered self evidently correct in the academic world. (2) Any person who does not subscribe to the dogma of original victimhood. "

A word is a terrible thing to waste.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 20, 2008 04:23 PM

The animosity RP generates proves he must be doing something right. But I remain confused as to why so called Republicans are against a candidate that espouses small govt. and individual responsibility.

Splitters!

Posted by JezB at January 20, 2008 04:44 PM

"Okay kids... it was Nevada and it was a caucus that nobody cared about except for Hillary."

...and that's all that need be said, really.

For the benefit of those who aren't familiar with the system: the caucus system isn't a plebiscite: it's designed to get hard-core party members to reach "consensus" within each caucus (and you have to register before you may even enter a "caucus" -- think "closed shop"). Then the caucus votes with a single voice.

All that said, Nevada is an interesting state. Once solidly Republican or conservative Democrat, it's starting to become more liberal Democrat as Californians flee the People's Soviet, and rebuild California in Nevada. It's most apparent in Las Vegas (which is actually more strongly unionized than Detroit, because of all the hotel operations), and in the areas near Lake Tahoe (where NV shares a border with CA).

Retirees are a major force in all this, and the native Nevadans are very resentful. "We don't care how you did it in California" is one of the most popular bumper stickers in NV. Others are far less polite.

Posted by Kim du Toit at January 20, 2008 04:46 PM

it is a generic schoolyard taunt like 'facist'", "moron" or "retard"

I think a better characterisation would be that any word with the suffix "ist" or "phobe" is now akin to the word "heretic" or "blasphemer" in past times. They're not so much taunts as demands that the person be ignored, shunned and, ideally, carted off to confess to an Inquisition. We now have the most rigid code of public morals since the middle ages. Thank you, "liberalism".

Posted by Ian B at January 20, 2008 04:53 PM

All that said, Nevada is an interesting state. Once solidly Republican or conservative Democrat, it's starting to become more liberal Democrat as Californians flee the People's Soviet, and rebuild California in Nevada.

The issue of what one might call, um, "geographic mobbing" or even "memetribe invasion" hehe is one that Libertarians et al need to address, not least because it's an issue that directly questions the wisdom of Libertarian beleifs in open borders (which seem to be the default Lib position).

I've been calling it (to myself, since nobody listens to me anyway) the Zionist's Dilemma, purely because Israel is fairly unusual in that it was set up as a country specifically for a purpose; as a homeland/haven for the Jewish people. As such, if it were mobbed by non-Jews, it would cease to be the very thing it was intended to be and lose any utility. You can imagine something similar with, say, a "a homeland for Libertarians". Imagine you create on Libertarian country. How do you stop it being mobbed by collectivists and thus losing its Libertarian flava? What if the Libertarians' children are seduced by collectivism? Can a purposed state sustain itself or is it inherently doomed to dilution and failure? On a more general level, can any reasonably free state survive the contagion of collectivism, as they flee each state they've ruined to prey on others which were reasonably successful, nice places to live until they arrived?

Posted by Ian B at January 20, 2008 05:05 PM

Ian: we do listen to you, dear! Seriously, I had exact same thoughts, and Israel's example is very apt (I live in Israel). I do have an answer, hint: I think I am even more pessimistic than you are.

Posted by Alisa at January 20, 2008 06:05 PM

I'll add to the notes about the unusual state of Nevada... a friend of mine who was I think the LP state chair at one point, later was brought in by the Republicans as the state CIO. That is perhaps one reason why an out and out Libertarian like Paul would do well.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 20, 2008 07:39 PM

I will also add that as much as I would be in disagreement with Lew Rockwell on many subjects (and he with Samizdata for not being purist enoiugh) he is absolutely not a racist (original real definition). He's just someone who believes everyone is utterly and totally responsible for their own state, regardless of how effed up it is. So if you live in a ghetto, then it is not someone else's fault you have not chosen to leave or try to change it. That is something I agree with. We've got areas in the UK that a pure native Celtic and absolutely as bad as the worst areas in the US. Race has *nothing* to do with it. Socialism has *EVERYTHING* to do with it.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 20, 2008 07:44 PM

Even though Republicans, other than Ron Paul, did not campaign against Mitt Romney in Nevada, and even though it is a caucus State (rather than a primary State), 16% is still a very good result for Congressman Ron Paul.

As for leftist Californians. It is true that many of the people who leave California carry statist ideas with them (not understanding that statism is the cause of the very things they are leaving California to get away from) but why should such leftist Californians (who are more of a factor in Colorado anyway) vote for Ron Paul?

After all they had three anti Iraq war candidates in the Democrat caucus events to vote for - so why go to all the trouble to attend the Republican events?

No.

The truth is simple - 16% of the vote is a very good result for Congressman Ron Paul, and those of us who do not support him should still admit that it is a good result.

Posted by Paul Marks at January 20, 2008 07:47 PM

I think I am even more pessimistic than you are.

I am sorry to hear it Alisa.
I try to keep a semblance of hope. But after reading israeli blogs for 2 years, and especially after making acquaintance with two israeli liberals- deep down, I feel pessimistic, too.
As you live there and able to observe the situation on the ground, you must have even more reasons for pessimism.

Again, sorry to hear.

Posted by Tatyana at January 20, 2008 07:58 PM

I'm not as pessimistic as Alisa...

Here's my analogy. Gay bars and clubs... OK, they obviously attract straight women who don't want to be groped by drunken louts. Straight women attract straight men and before long the whole place is 70+% straight... But... it still remains gay in the sense that two men can kiss without getting beaten up or even looked at funny.

Posted by Nick M at January 20, 2008 08:12 PM

It is true that Ron Paul took second place in Nevada, but since he received only four delegates (the ultimate factor in the primaries), it means very little. Romney took 18 delegates in Nevada, while McCain took 23 in Nevada and South Carolina. Those two were the big winners on Saturday. As I've stated in my blog and posts to other ones, I remain puzzled as to why people keep looking at the voter percentages and not the delegate counts.

Posted by Mat at January 20, 2008 08:57 PM

Perhaps it is because we are measuring different things. I do not expect a Libertarian to win the Republican nomination, at least not this time around. So the fact that we do not have large numbers of delegates does not matter to me as much.

The vote totals tell us there is a reasonable percentage of the Republican population who will back an outright no-holds barred Libertarian candidate.

The larger the percentages, the more media coverage. The more media coverage, the more people get our message. That's what I'm interested in measuring.

The delegate count is not totally without value though. The more delegates Ron has going into the convention, the more power we wield over the platform and the higher the profile we can demand within the convention. That is also what matters. Can we move the GOP in a libertarian-ward (upwards) direction? I have long believed it impossible and have told my libertarian friends (who have sworn that working inside the GOP is the way to go) that they were wasting their time.

Well, I am prepared to be proven wrong.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 20, 2008 09:10 PM

To the Republicans I'd use an old line from another time and cause:

"Guess who's coming to dinner?"

:-)

Posted by Dale Amon at January 20, 2008 09:17 PM

I'm not as pessimistic as Alisa...

Here's my analogy. Gay bars and clubs... OK, they obviously attract straight women who don't want to be groped by drunken louts. Straight women attract straight men and before long the whole place is 70+% straight... But... it still remains gay in the sense that two men can kiss without getting beaten up or even looked at funny.

I don't think that analogy holds up. States and businesses are fundamentally different. Businesses have owners. The owners choose the gay friendliness of the venue, operate a door policy and can randomly evict unsuitable customers. Businesses aren't democracies. There aren't votes about how the venue should be. If it's getting too straight for the gay customers, the owners can change door policy.

In a state, once you get a certain saturation of (in our analogy) non-gays, they'll start voting for a change of policy to straighten the place up. They'll vote straights into management. They may well vote for it to cease to be gay friendly. That's the Zionist's Dilemma. You can only keep your state "purposed" by preventing that happening; and in a state you can't be as ruthless as a business owner. You can't just throw people out for being not your type of person or having the wrong ideas. Well you can, but then you're being a tyrant of some kind, or at least that's what you'll be accused of.*

An obvious example of this is a country run on liberal democratic lines, with a growing population of, say, religious fundamentalists. Once they reach a large enough proportion that they can vote themselves into power and abolish liberal democracy, it's game over. I believe Algeria faced this specific issue.

*Of course in a progressive tyranny of the type we're now heading towards, businesses fall under state regulations and find that, indeed, they can't run a door policy, because that's discrimination blah blah. In that situation, the business can lose its purposive nature too. Not much use running a gay bar if you can't discriminate in favour of gays.

Posted by Ian B at January 20, 2008 09:56 PM

The animosity RP generates proves he must be doing something right. But I remain confused as to why so called Republicans are against a candidate that espouses small govt. and individual responsibility.

Splitters!

Because that isn't ALL he stands for.

Posted by Tim in TX at January 20, 2008 09:59 PM

And as an aside, those pointing to Paul's invitations from the Libertarian party as some sort of credentials - pffft. I have no more use for the Libertarian party than I do for Paul; this is why we have "Libertarians" and "libertarians" here.

If you people across the pond had to actually deal with Ron Paul supporters, their opinions, and their crazy-assed conspiracy theories on a daily basis, you'd find that Ron Paul had lost some of his charm.

Posted by Tim in TX at January 20, 2008 10:04 PM

Ian B,
Countries do have door policies. I can't just pitch up in the USA and get a job. Americans have a similarly hard time in the EU. The problem is that our door policy is demented. We make it real tricky for educated, capable native English speakers to come live in the UK but we invite in and shower with benefits people who have no interest in or liking for this country and we then encourage them to retain their seperateness. It's as though the owner of the gay bar offered free pints to queer-bashing BNP thugs and turned away the guys in chaps and leather caps...

Well, how else do you explain the fact I've known a great many third generation Pakistani immigrants who think of themselves as Pakistanis. Bloody hell, I've got more justification to think of myself as Irish!

Well, what's the solution? We have a constitution and we bloody well stick to it come hell, high-water or Mike Huckabee.

Posted by Nick M at January 20, 2008 10:30 PM

Meanwhile, here's some typical Ron Paul supporters conversing on their favourite subject
(My favourite line is probably "The jews are not what we've been told and not what they seem. Their religion is a made up thing, and that last paragraph is stunning, they promise to lie to everyone, in a bargain with God?" The paragraph in question, by the way, is about the Talmud's injunctions concerning a prayer written hundreds of years after its completion. Perhaps a new slogan for the Fascist anti-Fascists who provide the spine of Ron Paul's support can be "Linear time = Fascism", after all they've exhausted everything else.)

There are many excuses for supporting Ron Paul, but ignorance of the loathsome nature of him and his supporters ceased to be an operative one long before newslettergate.

Posted by Gabriel at January 20, 2008 10:54 PM

Well, what's the solution? We have a constitution and we bloody well stick to it come hell, high-water or Mike Huckabee.

That's not a solution Nick. What do you do when the majority of the population no longer support this Constitution of yours? Look at America. They've got a constitution. Hardly anybody actually wants it to be followed any more. How do you prevent your state getting to that, um, state?

How do you operate a door policy when you've no idea what is in the hearts of the peope, and no way to find out, coming through the door? What do you do when a memecult starts spreading; it might be a religion, or it might be something like communism. Purges and pogroms against its believers? Not very libertarian, or liberal, or democratic is it?

Consider this; suppose you set up a state for atheists (this was actually the first example I thought of, way back). How do you stop religion getting in and spreading? Ban it? Ban bibles and qurans? Exile people caught praying? What do you actually do to keep the purposive state true to its purpose?

Posted by Ian B at January 20, 2008 11:15 PM

Hmmm... all I see at that URL are google ads for volunteering to help in Israel...

Posted by Dale Amon at January 21, 2008 12:24 AM

I get this message

No Thread specified. If you followed a valid link, please notify the administrator

Which I assume means it's been taken down since I posted it, which is weird because there's been a link to it here for a couple of days now.

To summarise from memory, a "senior member" of the Ron Paul Forum posted a speech by a 'Jewish Defector' detailing how Jews were responsible for both World Wars, Communism, the graduated income tax and more besides in some excessively convoluted attempot to establish a Jewish state. Then for good measure there was some stuff about how they are not really Jews at all, but Khazars who used to worship Penises and how the Talmud mandates lying. Then other senior members piled in to say what a wake up call the speech was to all true patriots, post links to offensive material from the talmud and discourse on how profoundly ironic it was that the Palestinians were the true semites. Not one person condemned the post, though one did, whilst agreeing that the claims must be taken seriously, counsel caution.

I got used to this sort of stuff a few years ago, but I do remember that once upon a time it made me feel genuinely sick. The Ron Paul revolution is a sewer and absolutely no-one's going to come out of it without stinking.

Posted by Gabriel at January 21, 2008 12:48 AM

Don't worry, there are still plenty of fun threads for all your gutter needs.

Posted by Gabriel at January 21, 2008 01:07 AM

Because they'll probably be taken down by whoever prowls samizdata.

This is why the land itself is always being fought over. They believe that Jerusalem will be the center of Jewish govt. during the 1000 years. There is much more to this but suffice it to say that this is the reason for our foreign policy the way it is. It is promoted by Zionist Jews and Zionist “Christians.” Sadly, many “Christians” today hold to these unbiblical views. It is actually Judaism in disguise. You now can see clearly why there is a huge fear of Ron Paul by the establishment. The Zionist Jews who control the govt., Hollywood, the banking cartel, the gold, and the elections will not have this man to be the President of the United States. Period.

I have known this for a long time, but with the Zionists running virtuall all the media in the country, we're in deep shit. If we can find a way to break up that little tea party, we can get our country back. One way is to end their licenses under dual citizenship.

Think you know who is in charge of our country? Would it surprise you to learn that the men who control our government have dual citizenship? Would you be shocked to know that their first loyalty is to Israel? Be sure to listen to this weeks fabulous radio program, Jews Rule America—Evidence of a Startling Coup d'Etat and Sinister Takeover of U.S. Government, as Texe names these Jewish elite who give orders to Bush and Cheney, leading our once great nation into a Zionist cesspool of evil and death. Help up awaken the slumbering masses by forwarding this information to all of your friends and family.

You know how flies are attracted by shit?

Posted by Gabriel at January 21, 2008 01:13 AM

Because they'll probably be taken down by whoever prowls samizdata

Huh? You seem a little confused over what gets you axed in this here parish.

Even if a Ron Paul forum attracts nutters, I am not sure why I should care. All I care about is finding ways to shrink the state. If members of Stormfront, the David Icke Fan Club and the Massed Bands of the Gordon Highlanders all support someone who will do that, no doubt for very different reasons than those which motivate me, it is not something I am going to lose a lot of sleep over... so... so what?

Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 21, 2008 01:20 AM

Yes. A forum with a few people who post great volumes of crap. Imagine that. Next thing you know people will be selling 'toys' via unsolicited emails and offering you deals in Nigeria.

It is a hard choice I suspect. The easiest route is to have no forums/commenting; the alternative is, like at Samizdata, to have people watching all the time... but that won't work too well on a political site because the person you p*s* off by banning might well be someone who just donated $1000 and who is working 12 hours a day on the campaign. That's a no win situation.

I imagine you will find the same sort of thing on the forums of any candidate who has forums.

We've had people post worse stuff *here*... and we tend to be a bit smiteful on such things.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 21, 2008 01:26 AM

Huh? You seem a little confused over what gets you axed in this here parish.

I meant whoever took the first thread down from the original forum within an hour of me posting it here.

If members of Stormfront, the David Icke Fan Club and the Massed Bands of the Gordon Highlanders

Well, two out of three ain't bad as they say.

no doubt for very different reasons than those which motivate me, it is not something I am going to lose a lot of sleep over... so... so what?

Fine, touch pitch all you want. Bathe in it for all I care.
Posted by Gabriel at January 21, 2008 01:26 AM

I imagine you will find the same sort of thing on the forums of any candidate who has forums

OK, if you can find any thread on any forum dedicated to any other presidential candidate with an equivalent anti-semitic theme and no critical comments, then I'll stop viewing the Ron Paul movement as a collection of blinkered enthusiasts blissfully unaware that they are being drowned in sewage as they prostrate themselves before their filth idol.

Seriously, just one.

Posted by Gabriel at January 21, 2008 01:33 AM

OK, if you can find any thread on any forum dedicated to any other presidential candidate with an equivalent anti-semitic theme and no critical comments, then I'll stop viewing the Ron Paul movement as a collection of blinkered enthusiasts blissfully unaware that they are being drowned in sewage as they prostrate themselves before their filth idol.

Racism (including anti-semitism, properly defined) is always smacked down quickly and sternly in the Ron Paul facebook forum.

I really doubt that you are doing anything as positive for the liberty movement as we Ron Paul supporters are. Someone who'd call the most libertarian candidate in american politics in 50 years a "filth idol" likely isn't the type to accomplish much of anything.

Posted by matt at January 21, 2008 05:36 AM

Kim;
hey, that's Oregon as well. I think Californians may qualify as viruses - move into host, corrupt internal mechanisms to replicate, destroy host, move on.

Posted by spidly at January 21, 2008 05:58 AM

Kim, I was at the caucuses, and the Republican caucuses did not have much in the way of group think inducements. People had a chance to speak, up to one speaker for each candidate, about 2 minutes each (we had three speakers), and then people voted in a secret ballot system. There was only one precinct with a unanimous sheet and multiple votes, and that had three votes on it. The rest were varied, actually to a surprising degree. Most rooms had one Ron Paul supporter.

It's also worth noting that there was not a contingent of campaigning Ron Paul supporters outside, and that most of the Paulites at our site were very polite, including the guy keen enough to watch the vote counting. I hear at other sites there were some jerks, but we had awesome guys.

It's further worth noting that Paul's campaign in NV was not like his campaign in other states. Very straight down the line conservative, pro life, strong defense, low taxes. Lots of people with Romney first choice, Paul second, and vice versa.

Almost universal despising of McCain.

Posted by James of England at January 21, 2008 06:01 AM

Tatyana, re my pessimism: actually I was not referring to Israel's particular political and security situation, but to the case of liberty in the West in general. That does include Israel as well, as it is part of the West, and is a welfare state like the rest of them, but I actually think that the situation here in that regard is slightly less dire than it is in the UK, for example.

Ian: I agree that Nick's gay analogy does not work, but the point about the door policy is not the crucial one - democracy is. Democracy has to be limited to protect liberty. The US founders understood that, and tried to do their best towards that end through written constitution. There are things that they have not (and could not have) thought of, and that practically could be implemented in the ideal libertarian "Zion". But the real problem is human nature: most people will ultimately choose security over liberty, and no system can prevent that.

Posted by Alisa at January 21, 2008 06:54 AM

NickM: It is MUCH easier for educated American's to get work permits for the UK and EU than it is for educated Europeans to work in the US.

It's also a lot easier for American's to qualify for Indefinite Leave to Remain than it is for most people to get a Green Card through a pure work permit route. That is actually changing as they tighten up ILTR rules.

The process to get a general skilled immigrant work permit (the UK version of the now completely unavailable H1B takes a fraction of the time of the H1B and a lot less effort.)

That said, I understand that the UK is making it a lot harder.

Posted by Daveon at January 21, 2008 08:33 AM

Nick M:

Here's my analogy. Gay bars and clubs... OK, they obviously attract straight women who don't want to be groped by drunken louts. Straight women attract straight men and before long the whole place is 70+% straight... But... it still remains gay in the sense that two men can kiss without getting beaten up or even looked at funny.

In my area, there exist neighborhoods that are (or in some cases once were) predominantly lesbian/gay in residence. Once these neighborhoods have been sufficiently "gentrified", it's not uncommon for straight people to start to move in.

I know of neighborhoods where this has happened, and the next steps are that a neighborhood homeowner's association forms and starts trying to put a stop to certain types of gatherings and social outings. Ordinances get changed that effectively drive gay clubs out of existence. The police get called and asked to prevent gatherings in the park. In one case, "concerned citizens" started photographing anyone that looked like a drag queen (or otherwise transgendered) on a web site, on the theory that such people were streetwalkers, and should be shamed from doing business in their neighborhood. All of this, in a neighborhood that a mere decade earlier was mostly gay.

So I'm not too sold on the validity of your analogy.

Posted by Josie at January 21, 2008 11:26 AM

Racism (including anti-semitism, properly defined)

I don't want to digress, but this is not true. Anti-semitism does indeed comprehend racism directed at Jews, but it also describes a far more hysterical phenomenon that is conceptually different. The genuine belief that the very existence of Jews imperills the earth and that they have inexhaustible reserves of secret power finds no analogue in any form of racism. (A handy way of differentiating the two is to ask opinons about zionism. Type i anti-semites are often pro-zionists - such as Lord Balfour - or zionist neutral. Type ii anti-semites are always fanatical anti-zionists. This is why "I'm not an anti-semite, but ... zionism..." should be seen not as extenuation, but a warning sign). It's fairly clear that Ron Paul attracts type ii, which is more akin to a paranoid mental disorder than run-of-the-mill prejudice.

is always smacked down quickly and sternly in the Ron Paul facebook forum.

Well whoop-de-doo sailor. You'll notice how that does not answer my challenge.

I really doubt that you are doing anything as positive for the liberty movement as we Ron Paul supporters are. Someone who'd call the most libertarian candidate in american politics in 50 years a "filth idol" likely isn't the type to accomplish much of anything.

You're doing nothing positive for liberty. You are part of a noxious personality cult that has absorbed the dregs of humanity from both ends of the political spectrum. I'm sure you, like Perry and Dale, have your excuses for joining swimming in filth, but your only achievement when this whole grotesque debacle is over will be to have dirtied the name of libertarianism for another few decades.
Posted by Gabriel at January 21, 2008 11:43 AM

he genuine belief that the very existence of Jews imperills the earth and that they have inexhaustible reserves of secret power finds no analogue in any form of racism

Maybe, but it's hardly an inexplicable phenomenon. The pretty much unique thing about the Jewish people as an indentifiable ethnic minority is that they are, as a group, successful. The racist who hates, say, black people, sees black people as mob of beast-men, barely humans who will overwhelm the superior white race by sheer force of numbers, violence, etc, as a kind of parasitic race plague. Blacks are seen as lazy, stupid, etc. This obviously can't be applied to the Jews who are demonstrably quite the opposite.

The anti-semite notes the sheer number of Jews in powerful positions- in commerce, in the intelligentsia and so on, and thus sees them as a fifth column. There's ample evidence of this, from Jews in banking, in industry, in academia. Heck, take that last one. If you're an anti-socialist looking for someone to blame, you can look at Marx (Jewish), the Frankfurt School (all Jewish) and so on. If you're a socialist, there's the Rothschilds, Lehman Brothers, etc. If you're a anti-anti-sex feminism, you may note the malign influence of Gloria Steinem (Jewish) or Andrea Dworkin (Jewish) etc etc etc, or if you're worried about the EU, notice that the Lisbon Treaty was signed by David Millipede (Jewish) and so on.

Now this is cherry picking. Its not fair on Jewish people. But, if you're a conspiracy theorist looking for someone to blame, it's hard to find another coherent ethnic group who are so prominent in the elites. You can't find many Lithuanians or Paraguyians in similar positions. There aren't many Africans at the top of the big business heap. Add to that the general awareness among humans that we're tribal and as such will work to benefit whoever we class as "our own", and that Jews actively maintain their tribal otherness (don't marry out, tribally brand your sons' genitals) and lapsing into anti-semitism is pretty easy.

Racists tend to classify those they hate as sub-human, a mass of beasts who will overwhelm one's own race from below. The only unique thing about anti-semitism is the inversion in that the belief that the hated race has already overwhelmed from *above*.

Posted by Ian B at January 21, 2008 01:20 PM

Ah, but there is another subgroup with similar characteristics: the Chinese. Read Thomas Sowell and you will see that real racism is not limited to those few groups that Western societies are familiar with.

The Chinese are known for being industrious, hardworking and family oriented. Any where they go they are successful. This has led to violent repression of Chinese subpopulations that are very reminiscent of those visited about Jews in Europe.

You need look no further than Indonesia in the 60's for a mass killing of a people just for being successful. Of course it was partly in the guise of being 'anti-communist'. it was really about an 'alien' culture outcompeting the native one.

As to zionism... why do you think I am such a rabid proponent of commercial spaceflight? The truth is, I am now and have been nearly my entire life a libertarian 'space-zionist'. I am unconvinced we will ever make head way here (although I have gained some small sparks of hope from this campaign) and so must migrate off planet as soon as that becomes economically feasible.

As to Israel, i'd have to put myself in the zionist camp... but I will admit to the occasional thought that if we knew in 1948 what would ensue it might have led to second thoughts.

I would not agree with the above poster who seems to automatically assign all anti-zionists to be anti-jewish. It is simply not true. You can construct a 2x2 matrix of those beliefs and there most definitely would be a pro-jewish anti-zionist corner. Hell, not even all jews were pro-zionist back in t948 nor are they today. Likewise, I agree that there is a pro-zionist anti-jewist, amongst the types who, like Abe Lincoln, would prefer to get rid of 'the other' in a kinder gentler fashion. (Lincoln was a force behind shipping former slaves to Liberia)

Posted by Dale Amon at January 21, 2008 02:12 PM

First, don't get distracted from the central point, which is that Ron Paul attracts hysterical anti-semites like a magnet.

Secondly, I didn't claim all anti-zionists are anti-semites. I said all type ii anti-semites, as I defined it, are fanatical anti-zionists, which is true. There are anti-zionist positions that would imply neither type i or type ii anti-semitism, though they are in reality extremely rare and, though it might be hard to establish in theory whether or not a particular anti-zionist position is anti-semitic, in practice it is usually blindingly obvious to everyone except anti-semites.

Finally, to argue that a position is not anti-semitic because it is held by Jews is a non-sequitur. Plenty of Jews have been and are type ii anti-semites.

(As an aside, if "anti-Jewish" is being employed because anti-semitism is taken to refer more properly to prejudice against all semites. this is silly. First, semite is a language not a racial group. Secondly, anti-semitic was a term invented by some 19th century Germans and was never employed to mean anything other than hatred of Jews. I ask whether you would use the term homosexualphobia on the grounds that homophobia properly means a fear of sameness? Anti-Jewish should be saved for opposition to the Jewish faith, which is perfectly respectable.)

Posted by Gabriel at January 21, 2008 02:55 PM

First, don't get distracted from the central point, which is that Ron Paul attracts hysterical anti-semites like a magnet.

It may be your central point but I rather doubt many of the folks here who support RP share the view that it is central to anything. For me the central point is finding ways to shrink the state, everything else is just operational/tactical issues.

Posted by Perry de Havilland at January 21, 2008 03:59 PM

Also, it's probably true that any outsider political group will attract cranks and extremists, because the cranks and extremists don't have a home in the mainstream. Heck, libertarians in general are considered cranks and extremists by many people. Any politician or group thereof trying to crack the mainstream will need some way of dealing with the embarrassing long tail of supporters who are more burden than boon.

Posted by Ian B at January 21, 2008 04:17 PM

Ian B,
I'm stunned that got past "smite control". Anyway, calling our beloved foreign sec "Millipede" is my coinage (as far as I know). As is "Millibland". I've got names for all of them from Hazel Bleary to Ruth "David" Kelly, to Hariet Harman which is in itself the most foul two words in the English language. American's can substitute with Hilary Clinton.

Your analysis of nutcase anti-semitic types is good but incomplete. You fail to take into account that some people believe the Jews invented both Communism and Capitalism as a co-ordinated plan to achieve World Domination. Jesus, I can almost hear the drone of EL Wisty.

Perry,
More recently, the Rodney King riots in South Central LA targeted Korean owned businesses for exactly the reasons you outlined. The Koreans had made a better fist of things than the Afro-Americans.

Gabriel,
Good. No point beating around the (burning) bush. You know what an anti-semite is, I know what an anti-semite is and so does everyone else.

Posted by Nick M at January 21, 2008 04:41 PM

... in the ideal libertarian "Zion".

I'm ready for those GPS coordinates, Alisa.

It is MUCH easier for educated American's to get work permits for the UK and EU than it is for educated Europeans to work in the US.

Daveon, maybe we are trying to quarantine ourselves from infestation with "educated Europeans". It is not a demographic with an overall good record. :-)

... so must migrate off planet ...

Sign me up, Dale. I'll keeping checking my in box.

Posted by Midwesterner at January 21, 2008 05:31 PM

The pretty much unique thing about the Jewish people as an indentifiable ethnic minority is that they are, as a group, successful.

In the real world the Jews lost 1/3 of their number 60 years ago, have one tiny state, half of which is infertile, with little or no natural recources and lacking almost all the good bits they were promised by Britain and is in the process of being forced by the world's only superpower to hand over territory gained in defensive wars of survival to a group of people who have publicly stated their intention to complete the holocaust multiple times, recreating the security situation of 1948 when arabs regularly made border raids in settlements and slaughtered all the inhabitants in ther sleep.

But, hell, people believed it when the Jews were sitting in delapidated shacks in Poland, so why not believe it now? Ideas of succesful Jewish conspiracies are, as I said, more similar to a mental disorder than any form of amplifed xenophobia.

Any politician or group thereof trying to crack the mainstream will need some way of dealing with the embarrassing long tail of supporters who are more burden than boon.

How about, Nazi Punks - Fuck off?

More recently, the Rodney King riots in South Central LA targeted Korean owned businesses for exactly the reasons you outlined. The Koreans had made a better fist of things than the Afro-Americans.

But have you ever heard or seen of anything along the lines of
Think you know who is in charge of our country? Would it surprise you to learn that the men who control our government have dual citizenship? Would you be shocked to know that their first loyalty is to Korea? Be sure to listen to this weeks fabulous radio program, Koreans Rule America—Evidence of a Startling Coup d'Etat and Sinister Takeover of U.S. Government, as Texe names these Korean elite who give orders to Bush and Cheney, leading our once great nation into a Korean cesspool of evil and death. Help up awaken the slumbering masses by forwarding this information to all of your friends and family.

Didn't think so.

It may be your central point but I rather doubt many of the folks here who support RP share the view that it is central to anything. For me the central point is finding ways to shrink the state, everything else is just operational/tactical issues.

Well that makes you both immoral and foolish, for all Ron Paul's loathsome gang are doing is placing Libertarianism in a gutter from which it may never recover.

I don't get it, maybe I just live on a different planet to the rest of you, we're looking at the same thing. One of our moral compasses is completely, totally, 100% fucked up, that's for sure. I suspect it's not me, though, because I know what sort of evidence would change my mind about Ron Paul and there really doesn't seem any low that he and his minions could plummet to that would change your minds.

Posted by Gabriel at January 21, 2008 05:32 PM

Did you actually read what I wrote, Gabriel?

Posted by Ian B at January 21, 2008 05:42 PM

Your theory that a world Jewish conspiracy is made expliacable because of the high profile of Jews in the media, academe, business and whatever is crap for the reasons outlined.
Your theory that such viewpoints are just racism + an inferiority complex analogous to that of Harlem blacks against Koreans is also tosh for the same reasons.

Posted by Gabriel at January 21, 2008 05:53 PM

Have you ever met the man? Sat and talked with him? I have. About the only bad thing I can say about him is he seemed to get a bit narky when he was exhausted from the campaign trail and too little sleep.

I am not going to claim him as a friend; I only worked with him to brief him on an event appearance and wrote policy for him in 1988. These personal attacks on someone who I personally think is a very fine person (alibiet one with whom I have strong foreign policy disagreements) are something I am beginning to find quite offensive.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 21, 2008 06:24 PM

Dale:

... but I will admit to the occasional thought that if we knew in 1948 what would ensue it might have led to second thoughts.

Why?

Posted by Alisa at January 21, 2008 06:39 PM

Alisa: Imagine you were sitting around in the UN back then when the creation of Israel was being discussed and that as part of the discussion you had perfect knowledge of all the wars that were to come in the region; of Arafat's murderous career; of the Lockerbie bomb; the German discotheque, the Achille Lauro, the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympics and on and on.

If that had been the case, might you have not thought it better to just let the Middle Eastern focus on destroying itself rather than giving it a target to blame for its own abject failures?

Since no had such a crystal ball, the future was impossible to see and the world is as it is and must be dealt with as it is. Israel exists and whatever problems that caused are ones we just have to live with and deal with. One can hope that our current crystal ball is equally silent on what the next 50 years might bring. Perhaps in those 50 years Israel's existence could bring about good to the region that would not otherwise have occurred.

One can hope.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 21, 2008 06:52 PM

Sorry for an OT link, but: I just got this from a friend, and sent it to everyone who I thought would appreciate it. Ian, since I don't have your e-mail, this is for you.

Posted by Alisa at January 21, 2008 07:00 PM

Thanks for the link, Alisa. Most inspiring :)

My email

Nick M-

It didn't get past smite control. It set the conspiracy wonk alarm off :)

Posted by Ian B at January 21, 2008 07:15 PM

Dale:

Imagine you were sitting around in the UN back then when the creation of Israel was being discussed and that as part of the discussion you had perfect knowledge of all the wars that were to come in the region; of Arafat's murderous career; of the Lockerbie bomb; the German discotheque, the Achille Lauro, the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympics and on and on.

Yes, yes and yes. Imagine you were sitting in Independence Hall in 1776 when the US independence was being discussed, and that as part of the discussion you had perfect knowledge of...oh, where to begin?

Israel exists and whatever problems that caused are ones we just have to live with and deal with.

Are you sure as to the real cause of these problems?

Perhaps in those 50 years Israel's existence could bring about good to the region that would not otherwise have occurred.

how can you be sure that this has not happened already? I don't mean good - this is the ME after all, but less bad than it would have otherwise been?
Posted by Alisa at January 21, 2008 08:12 PM

So the creation of Israel stuck a weed up the asses of the Islamist. So fucking what?

I seem to recall Danish cartoonists and a British novelist did similarly much more recently. Big deal. They get fighty at the drop of a hat.

It's what they do people! Israel is an excuse. If it wasn't that it would be something else.

Islam is evil. Muhammed was evil. It's as simple as that.

Now we can either appease it or tell it to fuck off in no uncertain terms. And yes, I would shed no tears over Mecca, during the next Hajj, being turned into a glowing hole in the ground.

1400 years of this ass-clownery is enough don't ya thingk?

Posted by Nick M at January 21, 2008 08:32 PM

Hmmm... We are not talking about a strongly held opinion even. Just a something I have once in awhile wondered. I question *everything*.

Alisa: You may well be right. This is just a hypothetical about an unknowable alternate history. Consider it an interesting talking point and nothing more.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 21, 2008 08:52 PM

Sure:-)

I question *everything*.

I do too. That's what we are doing here after all, aren't we.
Posted by Alisa at January 21, 2008 09:02 PM

Did you actually read what I wrote, Gabriel?

When people catch the particular bug that Gabriel has come down with, no amount of reading will guaruntee comprehionson, no amount of logic will get the point across.

When someone reaches the point of automatically equating criticism of the state of Israel, their influence in US politics, and their dreadful human rights record with anti-semitism, reading alone is no longer the issue.

In 2008, the US will (almost certainly) elect a dreadful president. People who think at Gabriel's level are responsible.

Posted by matt at January 21, 2008 10:47 PM

their influence in US politics

Can you point to any particular result of that great influence, so that we can finally start counting our blessings?

their dreadful human rights record

'Dreadful' as in absolutely dreadful, or comparatively speaking?

Mind you, unlike Gabriel, my opposition to Ron Paul is not necessarily based on some of his supporters being bigots/racists/anti-semites (as far as I am concerned, the jury is still out on whether he in fact does or does not share their views). So I'd rather not be doing this right now, but it seems to me the woodwork here is in need of a of some fresh air.

Posted by Alisa at January 21, 2008 11:45 PM

Matt:

I understand your point and such debate is fine. But... you should realize that you cannot necessarily transplant your belief in how people should live from the very safe and comfortable environment of a centuries old civil society to one in which murderous behavior is demanded by the culture.

Israel is a small nation mostly surrounded by bloodthirsty savages. You simply cannot expect them to always play nice in that schoolyard. The middle east is "Nature, red in tooth and claw" and woe to Israel if they forget that any time soon.

I do have hopes that the situation there will change this century. My top hope is that we have started a domino effect with Iraq. I think that country now has a chance, and if it does indeed succeed as a 'liberal capitalist democracy' (liberal, capitalist and democratic by Middle East standards, not yours), the populace there will become wealthy and the imam and dictator oppressed people's in the area will start asking themselves questions which Imam's and Dictators would very much prefer they did not ask.

A wealthy and free young generation might demonstrate at their Universities and wave "Death to Israel" signs along with their "Save The Earth" and "No More War" sings. Then they will graduate and get on with life instead of blowing themselves up.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 22, 2008 12:18 AM

Alisa,
Maybe 'dreadful' was too strong a word, since Hitler was dreadful and they aren't even in the same ballpark, but they are holding the Palestinians in conditions equal or worse to those South African blacks were subject to under apartheid, so the situation certainly isn't good.

As to the influence, let me cite Mearsheimer and Walt's book the Israel Lobby, which (unaided by any antisemitism on the authors' parts) suggests a powerful pro-Israel bias in the way our foreign policy is handled. Here's a little more about that(Link)

Posted by matt at January 22, 2008 12:20 AM

Either all nations should be held to the normal standards of international law and the Just War Theory or else those standards should be entirely discarded.

Israel has nasty neighbors, but they're given plenty of excuses to behave that way. Terrorism can't mean that the rules for being free, capitalist, and democratic dissapear, or else those ideals will be lost to all of us forever.

Posted by matt at January 22, 2008 12:31 AM

Alisa,
My first reply was smitten, let me try again.

I'm not suggesting that Israel is comparable to Pol Pot, Mao, or Stalin, but I am pointing out that their treatment of the Palestinians is tantamount to apartheid, and that's inexcusable.

In regards to the Israel lobby, I think that they have influenced American affairs in the region, and probably not to our benefit. Mearsheimer and Walt's book corroborates this.

Posted by matt at January 22, 2008 12:36 AM

But then, what would you do if the next town down the road from yours was randomly firing small rockets with explosives into your town and random individuals from that town visited your local nightclub for the occasional bang up time? How would you want your town to deal with it?

Matt: you are asking some good questions, ie the hard ones. The subject of the behavior of a society in war is one that has been debated for centuries. I think you will find that most of the Samizdata writers and editors subscribe to Catholic "Just War Theory". The best exposition of this I have seen is Robert Poole's "Defending a Free Society". He's a former editor of Reason if you are not familiar with the name.

As to the success of the "Israel Lobby"... There is a good reason for that. Very large numbers of Americans are very well disposed towards Israel and do not want to see it come to harm. I know this was true in the small western Pennsylvania town I grew up in. If I remember properly there was one (count it one!) Jewish family in town, or at least amongst my school mates so one could not say there was any pro-Israel political base. We just liked Israel because they were like us, they were spunky and willing to defend themselves and the history from what happened in WWII was only two decades past. Our teachers had fought in the war and knew what the enemy was like: EVIL, with no mitigating circumstances. I grew up playing with my tommy cap gun in the back yard shooting at imaginary Japs and Germans. The imaginary body counts were quite large, let me assure you!

So i am not the *least* surprised that there is a pre-disposition to support Israel beyond the case one could make from pure national interest.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 22, 2008 12:50 AM

When someone reaches the point of automatically equating criticism of the state of Israel, their influence in US politics, and their dreadful human rights record with anti-semitism, reading alone is no longer the issue

Of course I have done nothing of the sort, but then matt is either a liar or a nutter or both so it seems a bit silly to try and defend myself.

The facts remain
1) It is the object of U.S. foreign policy to create a Palestinian state.
2) The U.S. is currently in the process of co-ercing Israel this end.
3) The potential benefits to the U.S. of a Palestinian state are precisely bupkiss, zilch, zero, nothing.

In the real world it is Saudi money that makes Bush dance and the U.S. supports a policy that threatens the existence of the state of Israel despite overwhelming support for it from the American population. If you believe the Israel lobby has anything more than negligble impact U.S. foreign policy you are either a plain vanilla moron or a paranoid delusionist, no less so than those who though Jews ran the world as they were herded into gas chambers. At a guess I would hazard that Ron Paul supporters divide about 50-50 on this score.

Posted by Gabriel at January 22, 2008 01:51 AM

Okay. I am going to nip this in the bud before others are drawn into a self-defensive flame war. We do not allow ad homimem attacks here. Gabriel, you are treading over the line and this is a warning. Stick to debate on issues and drop the name calling. Period.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 22, 2008 02:02 AM

Imagine you were sitting around in the UN back then when the creation of Israel was being discussed and that as part of the discussion you had perfect knowledge of all the wars that were to come in the region; of Arafat's murderous career; of the Lockerbie bomb; the German discotheque, the Achille Lauro, the massacre of Israeli athletes at the Olympics and on and on.,

This is all completely irrelevant because the UN did not create Israel. Israel was created by the ability of the Jewish people and their militias to defend themselves from the arabs. The UN meaningfully intervened only after it became clear that the Jews were winning in order to impose a ceasefire.

Posted by Gabriel at January 22, 2008 02:04 AM

Stick to debate on issues and drop the name calling.

The issue, or at least one of the issues,

ENTRY DELETED.

Last warning. Be civil or else. - Ed.

Posted by Gabriel at January 22, 2008 02:11 AM

I don't think that a Palestinian state would be particularly beneficial to the US, but it would be inestimably beneficial to the Palestinians. Also, with the level of US interest (and military presence in the region), I'd wager that if the US really wanted an independent Palestinian state, one would exist.

Certainly the descendants of the brave Jewish militiamen who fought for a homeland can appreciate the interest Palestinians have in having their own state, couldn't they?

The Saudi pressure versus Israeli pressure question in regards to the invasion of Iraq is a little harder to answer. For sure, Iraqi missiles were aimed at Israel and not Saudi Arabia, and we are constantly hearing from all corners here in the states that Israel is the only democracy in the region and that we have a duty to support her. Apparently Arab elections have less credibility than Israeli ones, for some reason. The fact that the speakers of these quotes are often AIPAC-connected can't be coincidence, can it?

Posted by matt at January 22, 2008 02:25 AM

Matt... and which Arab democracies would you be talking about? Saudi Arabia and Emirates are all run by Kings and Saudi Arabia is a theocracy to boot; Iran is a 'democracy' in the sense that if the theocracy knows you will do what they say you can run for 'election'; Syria is an out and out dictatorship; Lebanon is somewhat democratic except that it doesn't even control its entire country because Syria and Iran are keeping it destabilized; Egypt is perhaps closest and they made peace with israel; the Palestinian state is nothing but a balancing act between two factions who disagree only on how to kill everyone in Israel... Afghanistan and Iraq are somewhat hopeful but that is because of the US intervention... Jordan is at peace with Israel but ruled by a king who has more reason to hate the Palestinians than he does Israel... Kuwait is at least partly democratic and also thoroughly despises Palestinians for supporting Saddam when their country was being raped by him... Pakistan has been under military rule for a decade or so...

I could go on.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 22, 2008 02:38 AM

But then, what would you do if the next town down the road from yours was randomly firing small rockets with explosives into your town and random individuals from that town visited your local nightclub for the occasional bang up time? How would you want your town to deal with it?

That analysis ignores the Israeli bombings of Palestinian towns, always with the stated purpose of killing terrorist leaders, but often conducted in ways that involve the killing of innocents just as certainly as the nightclub attacks do.

I am not saying the two are equal per se, but nations must treat criminals (including terrorists) according to different standards than foreign parties with whom one's nation is at war.

Catholic Just War theory is fine, I subscribe myself, but "palestinian terrorists" are not a country, and for this reason, JWT doesn't apply, but rather, since the palestinians (terrorists and not) are citizens, not armies, these rocket attacks are a criminal matter.
y

Posted by matt at January 22, 2008 02:38 AM

NON-INFORMATIONAL PORTION DELETED. -Ed.

Anyway, I'll have a bash at matt's latest outing

I don't think that a Palestinian state would be particularly beneficial to the US, but it would be inestimably beneficial to the Palestinians. Also, with the level of US interest (and military presence in the region), I'd wager that if the US really wanted an independent Palestinian state, one would exist.

The first claim is highly doubtful, but more importantly you appear not to have, in fact, read Walt and Mearsheimer. Their hypothesis, summarised, is this:
1) States normally calibrate their foreign policiy in their own self-interest.
2) Supporting Israel is not in the U.S.'s interest.
3) The discrepancy is explained by the Israel lobby.
However, their theory is wrong because, in the real world, the U.S. is supporting a Palestinian state that threatens Israel and provides no benefits to the U.S.

Certainly the descendants of the brave Jewish militiamen who fought for a homeland can appreciate the interest Palestinians have in having their own state, couldn't they?

Is this a rhetorical point or a serious one? It appears to form no part of a logical argument.

The Saudi pressure versus Israeli pressure question in regards to the invasion of Iraq is a little harder to answer. For sure, Iraqi missiles were aimed at Israel and not Saudi Arabia, and we are constantly hearing from all corners here in the states that Israel is the only democracy in the region and that we have a duty to support her. Apparently Arab elections have less credibility than Israeli ones, for some reason. The fact that the speakers of these quotes are often AIPAC-connected can't be coincidence, can it?

What quotes? You are being incoherent. Please stick to one argument per sentence or at least ones that logically follow from each other. As far as I can understand what you are saying, here goes a response. The reason why the mass-media is genuinely supportive of Israel is because most Americans are and not the other way round. In fact, the media and U.S. foreign policy are much less pro-Israel than American public opinion. There is absolutely no need to posit an Israel lobby to explain either, if anything one needs a counter-Israel lobby to plug the gap.
Posted by Gabriel at January 22, 2008 02:46 AM

So let us go with that idea. You first ask the council in the town up the road to please arrest all of the rocketeers and the people making the bomb suits. They smile and say that of course, we will do something but it is very difficult.

The missiles keep falling and the bombers keep walking into your shops and pubs.

So you send a party of police over to the next town to see if they can arrest some of the people responsible because you know who they are, or at least some of them.

The police get ambushed by heavy machine guns and RPG's. One or two make it back to your town alive.

So you send in the SWAT guys and blow the hell out of them.

Seems fair enough to me.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 22, 2008 02:51 AM

Wouldn't it be more practical/humane to bar them from your shops, let them secede from your country, and set up a nice DMZ between yourselves and them?

Posted by matt at January 22, 2008 03:25 AM

That was indeed the point of Israel's version of the "Peace Wall" like we had here Belfast. Funny how it was called a human rights issue that they built it.

Israel does block Palestinian entry from time to time but that also causes great hardship because Gaza just has no economy and no other way to get in or out.

And it does nothing about the homemade rockets randomly pelting the towns on the other side. The local Palestinian government does nothing because it can do nothing. The terrorists are the government to a great extent. The two main factions are like gangs who control particular turf in Gaza and who use their local thuggery to make sure they get votes enough to gain power in the election. The gang with the best strongarm tactics gets the most votes.

I do think Palestine should be a state... but given its past history it would almost instantly commit acts of war on Israel and leave no choice but invasion and occupation.

I really do not know the answer, at least not one which will solve the problems in less than decades or generations.

Posted by Dale Amon at January 22, 2008 03:37 AM

I don't know the answers either, Dale. This is one of the world's stickiest questions, and I have little to guide me but my great relief that I'm not on either side.

That said, just because you don't have the answers doesn't mean you can't criticise. I think there's a duty to criticise all injustice even when the problem is difficult. I criticise Israel's actions, and I make no apologies just because their motives are not entirely evil.

Posted by matt at January 22, 2008 04:14 AM