This is pretty weak gruel, Mr. Goldberg. Frankly, I was surprised by Carney's piece as he had never struck me on the few times I'd seen him on McLaughlin's show as anything other than a typical mainstream conservative, which always entails a cautiousness about never revealing how nastily the neoconservative movement likes to police people. He does indeed make it all sound a little nefarious-and your immediate responding to it rather strengthens rather than weakens that point of nefarious suspicion, doesn't it? Who's Tim Carney anyway? Hardly a overwhelming conservative movement voice-why such a rush to respond to one little squeaking voice of predictive defense for Paul and what is indeed very likely to happen if he wins in Iowa?

You also casually insinuate, while conveniently avoiding any specifics, that Buchanan had some of it coming since some of the charges against him were...what? Not exaggerations? Really? So it wasn't a smearing at all? Just because of the one AIPAC "amen corner" remark he made?-is that why he deserved to be viciously smeared in, as opposed to other more expected places, NR by Buckley's silly interminable essay in '92? And these stupid twenty-year old newsletter comments that left-wingers like New Republic's Kirchik drag up are proof of Paul's perfidy, I suppose?

The irony of all of this is that neoconservatives are CONSTANTLY complaining about the Left's tactics and style of argument, the way hurling accusations of racism and anti-semitism often substitute for any defense of their position(s). Supremely Ironic-when you consider they do EXACTLY the same to paleocons like Pat and Old Right paleolibertarians like Paul. It's all so transparent, childish, and predictable. And inherently Leftist btw; this constant gnawing need that some movement conservatives seem to feel to constantly police only those to their right is probably Buckley's most unattractive legacy. I say good for him, Carney that is, for telling it like it is (or like it will surely be if Paul wins Iowa. We'll know soon enough, won't we? Latest PPP poll, has him at 23, 3 over Romney. Newt is down to 14.)

Carney most certainly is NOT trying to preempt anything in terms of discussion/debate about Paul. It's legitimate that Paul deserves criticism for claiming he doesn't know who wrote the newsletters; whether it was Rockwell or someone else, that non-explanation strains credulity. (Though the whole stupid story is overrated, and yes, I read every comment in them) The difference is that the whole point, which Carney admirably makes, of bringing them up as silly Sean Hannity already has w/Bill Bennett, would most certainly be to bring Paul down and keep the nomination from him, not to perform a truth-telling service, that's for sure! If he wins Iowa, the con mainstream press will bring them up, and hysterically. If even that doesn't work, he wins NH and a miracle happens and he gets the nomination, THEN the leftist MSM will bring them up. In neither case, will journalistic integrity be on display, but in both cases political policing of ideology will be, something that again, ironically, only the paleos on the Right never seem to practice on others!

Anyone's support of "states rights" should disturb every Republican. We had to fight a Civil War to stop such tyrannical nonsense. States do not have rights, only individuals have rights. "States rights" is the language of socialism and slavery (Isn't it interesting that the Democrat party is home to both?). States have sovereign powers because we the people delegated only certain enumerated powers to the national government. Note the difference in language in the 9th and 10th Amendments.

The Slave Power (aka Democrat Party) rejected language of social compacts and natural rights because it undermined their will to spread slavery throughout the country. Instead they settled on terms such as "states rights" because it sounded like a moral defense of federalism while at the same time undermining the very principles on which federalism and the Constitution were founded.

Your hypocritical speech is nauseating.

You claim all the other candidates were 'vetted' by the MSM. Correct except the 'vetting' came from the Left. In Ron Paul's case, the propaganda arm of the 'Republican Establishment', will be leading the attack against him instead of the Left.

So to recap in layman's terms. Fox news cheer leads flawed candidate after flawed candidate that they back but when someone comes along that in their party that they don't like then they lead the attacks.

Your yellow journalism attack about 911 conspiracies need to stop. Either make a claim with links or be revealed for the fraud you are.

Jonah,

You hold paper like nobody I know. Do you not remember the explanation Paul gave the first time this issue surfaced? Good journalism demands an extra google or two, rather than offer statements like your closer above: "Assuming there is a defense that reassures anyone who is not already converted to the cause."

If you were not persuaded, say so. If you don't recall what it was, google it. But it makes you look like a snipe or even a back-bencher to "not know" some basics about a big deal in GOP politics.

Totally agree. I remember the NR articles from the same time period. Another thing that will surprise people is that COMMENTARY magazine at that time had some stuff that I wouldn't consider outright racist, but definitely not PC. Thanks for the post, I thought I was losing my memory.

How many voters would vote for this, once they find out who RP really is?

On Marriage for example:

"In a free society,.... all voluntary and consensual agreements would be recognized. ....But look at where we are today, constantly fighting over the definition and legality of marriage........I'd like to settle the debate by turning it into a First Amendment issue: the right of free speech. Everyone can have his or her own definition of what marriage means, and if an agreement or contract is reached by the participants, it will qualify as a civil contract if desired.

- Ron Paul, Marriage - "Liberty Defined" Chapter on Marriage

He wants to legalize basically, anything...just tip of iceberg. Paul needs to be throughly exposed....he and Lew Rockwell.

Many principled conservatives, as well as libertarians like Paul, criticized nation-building during the Bush years. But I'm not aware of any principled conservatives who think 9/11 was America's fault, and not the fault of fascist elements of Islam.

Conservatives abandon Paul right at the point where his views and Michael Moore's intersect.

Sadly, I knew this was coming once I started seeing the knee-jerk pro-Paul responses. Why is it that Ron Paul draws these sorts of folks? (I'm not saying mgginva's comments reflect Paul's beliefs.)

I've given up on National Review staffers showing any respect to Ron Paul's principled position on his most "controversial" position - foreign policy. However, I wish someone (perhaps a lowly intern who sneaks s/t onto this site) would at least acknowledge that Ron Paul has REASONS for taking his positions. You might not agree with them, but you can stipulate that he does have arguments for his positions. Some of these are:
1. Words of founders regarding dangers of "entangling alliances."
2. Unintended consequences or danger of "blow back."
3. Should adhere to Constitution and declare wars before we commit troops and begin bombing campaigns.
4. We're broke and such campaigns make us broker.
5. "Nation-building" and "being the world's policeman" are not a proper role for a nation.
6. Empires die because they go broke or become overextended.
7. "National security" is not enhanced by expensive commitments that exhaust troops and must be financed with debt that will have to be repaid.
8. Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistant, etc. are not Real threats to the U.S.
9. Israel can easily defend itself.
10. "Fear-mongering" has always been a dubious government tactic to manipulate public opinion.
11. Civil liberties are being eroded by use of "fear mongering."
12. It's not in America's long-term or short-term economic or security interests to intervene militarily and otherwise in so many foreign countries.
13. Skepticism about war propoganda, given the possible consequences and all the unknowns, is not a bad thing.
14. The idea that the leadership of Iran is hell-bent on nuking Israel or America and guaranteeing its annihiliation doesn't pass the common sense test.
15. Beware of the Military Industrial Complex.
16. "Non-interventionism" does not equal "isolationism."
17. Wars should be declared by Congress.
Given that many NR staffers must appreciate Ron Paul's economic policies and his long-proven principles about the value of limited government, it seems that the magazine might refrain from joining the Republican and Mainstream establishment in trying to knock Ron Paul's campaign down.
"On foreign policy, we disagree with his non-interventionist views but do allow that they are principled, well thought out and deserving of being heard in debate."
Can you at least throw in some kind of qualifier like that? Out of fairness and respect?
Finally, why do I think the National Review is part of the "Republican establishment."
Well, treat Ron Paul's ideas with respect - perhaps even endorse him or his platform - and see how the other members of the Republican establishment respond to you. The "establishment" is the Status Quo, which Ron Paul is trying to save us from. I wish National Review would join the fight - then, "This time, I know our side will win."