Friday, August 29, 2008

Who does the Cato Institute support? Not Ron Paul!

Since today is money bomb day I thought I'd investigate which members of the libertarian movement actually put their money where their mouth is.

Here are the public records of campaign donations in the last 10 years of people who list their employer as the "libertarian" Cato Institute. Notice that some very non-libertarian candidates made the list, but not a single one of them has donated so much as a dime to Ron Paul.

This list predates the newsletter "scandal" that supposedly has all the Catoites "outragedm" and which they claim caused them to withdraw their support. The reality is that support never existed. Not a single Cato employee is on record donating to Ron Paul even though they drop thousands of dollars on other candidates. From opensecrets.org

Records: Name/ City/ State/ Zip/ Employer/ Date/ Amount/ Recipient


ABDNOR, LEANNE ALEXANDRIA,VA 22312 CATO 8/1/1996 $200 Thune, John

ABDNOR, LEANNE ALEXANDRIA,VA 22312 CATO INSTITUTE 2/10/1996 $200 Thune, John

BOAZ, DAVID D WASHINGTON,DC 20009 CATO INSTITUTE 10/16/1996 $1,000 Weld, William F

BOAZ, DAVID D ARLINGTON,VA 22201 CATO INSTITUTE/EXECUTIVE 8/15/2005 $750 Term Limits America

BOAZ, DAVID D ARLINGTON,VA 22201 CATO INSTITUTE/EXECUTIVE 8/1/2003 $500 Term Limits America

BOAZ, DAVID D ARLINGTON,VA 22201 CATO INSTITUTE/EXECUTIVE 7/30/2004 $500 Term Limits America

BOAZ, DAVID D ARLINGTON,VA 22201 CATO INSTITUTE/EXECUTIVE 6/20/2002 $500 Term Limits America

BOAZ, DAVID D ARLINGTON,VA 22201 CATO INSTITUTE/EXECUTIVE 7/27/2001 $400 Term Limits America

CRANE, EDWARD FALLS CHURCH,VA 22044 CATO INSTITUTE 5/4/2000 $250 Garrett, Scott

CRANE, EDWARD FALLS CHURCH,VA 22044 CATO INSTITUTE 3/26/1998 $250 Miller, Demaris H

CRANE, EDWARD H FALLS CHURCH,VA 22044 CATO INSTITUTE 2/13/1996 $500 Miller, James C III

CRANE, EDWARD H III FALLS CHURCH,VA 22044 CATO INSTITUTE/PRESIDENT 7/14/2001 $1,750 Term Limits America

CRANE, EDWARD H III FALLS CHURCH,VA 22314 CATO INSTITUTE/PRESIDENT 5/8/2000 $250 Keller, Ric

ELLIS, PEGGY ALEXANDRIA,VA 22305 CATO INSTITUTE 7/29/1997 $250 Value in Electing Women PAC

ELLIS, PEGGY ALEXANDRIA,VA 22305 CATO INSTITUTE 5/5/1998 $250 Value in Electing Women PAC

ELLIS, PEGGY ALEXANDRIA,VA 22305 CATO INSTITUTE 4/26/2000 $250 Value in Electing Women PAC

LAMPO, DAVID ALEXANDRIA,VA 22307 CATO INSTITUTE 11/16/2001 $250 Warner, John W

LAMPO, DAVID C WASHINGTON,DC 20001 CATO INSTITUTE 6/25/1999 $750 Republican National Cmte

LAMPO, DAVID C MR ALEXANDRIA,VA 22307 CATO INSTITUTE/PUBLICATIONS DIRECTO 4/23/2004 $250 Bush, George W

LEVY, ROBERT NAPLES,FL 34108 CATO INSTITUTE/SR. FELLOW CONSTITUT 10/4/2006 $5,000 Club for Growth

MALCOLM, MARY LEE MC LEAN,VA 22101 CATO INSTITUTE 1/31/2003 $2,000 Isakson, Johnny

MOORE, STEPHEN WASHINGTON,DC 20001 CATO 4/1/1999 $250 Political Club for Growth

MOORE, STEPHEN K FALLS CHURCH,VA 22043 CATO INSTITUTE 12/8/1999 $250 Bayh, Evan

NISKANEN, WILLIAM A JR WASHINGTON,DC 20003 CATO INSTITUTE 8/2/1994 $250 Devine, Donald J

NISKANEN, WILLIAM A MR WASHINGTON,DC 20003 CATO INSTITUTE/ECONOMIST 8/8/2000 $1,000 Bush, George W

NISKANEN, WILLIAM JR HON WASHINGTON,DC 20001 CATO INSTITUTE 8/2/1994 $250 Devine, Donald J

NISKANEN, WILLIAM JR HON WASHINGTON,DC 20001 CATO INSTITUTE 10/24/1994 $250 Devine, Donald J

NISKANEN, WILLIAM JR HON WASHINGTON,DC 20001 CATO INSTITUTE 10/24/1994 $250 Devine, Donald J

ZEMON, RAY B OAK PARK,IL 60302 CATO INSTITUTE 8/26/1994 $1,000 Devine, Donald J

ZEMON, RAY B OAK PARK,IL 60302 CATO INSTITUTE 11/4/1994 $500 Devine, Donald J

ZEMON, RAY B OAK PARK,IL 60302 CATO INSTITUTE 11/4/1994 $500 Devine, Donald J

Default Reason doesn't fare any better

So how about all those "libertarians" over at the Reason Foundation? They donate thousands of dollars to political candidates too. You'd think at least a few of them would give to Ron Paul, wouldn't they?

Well, nope.

POOLE ROBERT F LOS ANGELES,CA 90025 REASON FOUNDATION/FOUNDER
10/8/2002 $250 Feeney, Tom

POOLE, ROBERT SHERMAN OAKS,CA 91403 REASON FOUNDATION/EXECUTIVE
4/25/2000 $1,000 Browne, Harry

POOLE, ROBERT SHERMAN OAKS,CA 91403 REASON FOUNDATION 3/2/2000 $500 Campbell, Tom

POOLE, ROBERT SHERMAN OAKS,CA 91403 REASON FOUNDATION 11/7/2000 $500
Campbell, Tom

POOLE, ROBERT SHERMAN OAKS,CA 91403 REASON FOUNDATION 7/19/2000 $500
Howell, Carla

POOLE, ROBERT FORT LAUDERDALE,FL 33317 REASON FOUNDATION 6/30/2003 $500 Pro-Growth Action Team

POOLE, ROBERT LOS ANGELES,CA 90034 REASON FOUNDATION 4/5/1996 $500 Republican Liberty Federal Campaign Fund

POOLE, ROBERT JR LOS ANGELES,CA 9002 REASON FOUNDATION/PRESIDENT 1/31/2002 $250 Patterson, Norwood James Jr

POOLE, ROBERT JR LOS ANGELES,CA 90034 REASON FOUNDATION 9/10/1997 $250 Republican Liberty Federal Campaign Fund

POOLE, ROBERT W LOS ANGELES,CA 90034 REASON FOUNDATION 7/6/2000 $1,000 Libertarian National Cmte

POOLE, ROBERT W LOS ANGELES,CA 90034 REASON FOUNDATION/EXECUTIVE 2/4/2003 $250 Libertarian National Cmte

POOLE, ROBERT W LOS ANGELES,CA 90034 REASON FOUNDATION 4/28/2000 $249 Libertarian National Cmte

POOLE, ROBERT W JR LOS ANGELES,CA 90034 REASON FOUNDATION 7/8/1996 $1,000 Libertarian National Cmte

POOLE, ROBERT W JR SHERMAN OAKS,CA 91403 REASON FOUNDATION 11/22/1995 $500 Smith, Katherine Hatch

POOLE, ROBERT W JR SHERMAN OAKS,CA 91403 REASON FOUNDATION 7/8/1995 $500 Browne, Harry

POOLE, ROBERT W JR SHERMAN OAKS,CA 91403 REASON FOUNDATION 9/11/1998 $250 California Lincoln Clubs

POOLE, ROBERT W JR LOS ANGELES,CA 90034 REASON FOUNDATION 8/6/1998 $250 Libertarian National Cmte

POOLE, ROBERT W JR SHERMAN OAKS,CA 91403 REASON FOUNDATION 4/3/1998 $250 Gray, James

POOLE, ROBERT W JR SHERMAN OAKS,CA 91403 REASON FOUNDATION 12/3/1997 $250 Westmiller, William

SCARLETT, LYNN P CARPINTERIA,CA 93013 REASON FOUNDATION 9/28/1999 $1,000 Bush, George W

TEASLEY, HARRY E JR TAMPA,FL 33611 REASON FOUNDATION 3/22/1996 $500 Mack, Connie

Thanks for nothing, David Boaz

This well-written article on the Cato Institute's attitude toward Ron Paul's presidential campaign is worth reading in its entirity. I'll excerpt the best passage here:

The Cato Institute was supposed to set everything and everyone straight. They could out-argue everyone on economics. They could fill in the nuances between Paul’s 30-second soundbites. They could bring the old guard of limited government Republicans back into the fold. They would legitimize a helluva lot. David Boaz to Ron Paul could be like Bill Kristol to George W. Bush, except accurate in his predictions and not so deserving of a proper beating by the entire United States Military. And it was sure to come…I mean…if Bill Maher could say something nice about Paul, God knows the biggest libertarian think tank would bring it home. But nothing was happening. They just acted like he didn’t exist.

Continue reading.

Bombshell: Jamie Kirchick's source revealed

Originally Posted: January 2008

One of Jamie Kirchick's sources for the New Republic hit piece has outed himself. And I'm not talking about his Reason/Cato collaborators either. This source is much more disgusting, vile, and repugnant - so repugnant that Kirchick would never dare name him publicly in any of his articles.

Kirchick's vile source is Bill White, white supremacist extraordinaire, self-appointed Fuehrer of the U.S. nazi party, and vocal Ron Paul hater.

Justin Raimondo first hinted at this possibility yesterday so I decided to investigate further.

I'll get to the evidence shortly, but first I'll comment on another ironic twist to this story. Bill White hates Ron Paul with a passion. He hates Ron Paul because - get this - he thinks Ron Paul's campaign is infiltrated by "the Jews" and he cites none other than the Ludwig von Mises Institute (named after a Jewish economist and co-founded by another Jewish economist) as "proof" of this. So much for Kirchick's "Ron Paul is an anti-semite" theme.

So how do we know that Bill White is Kirchick's informant? Because Bill White himself admitted it all over the dark little toilet of the internet he inhabits - a repulsive neo-nazi website called the "Vanguard News Network" (VNN) More importantly Bill White admitted it before Kirchick's story broke. Along with a couple of "beltway libertarians" who have already been discussed, Bill White was the only person who knew this story was coming before it hit presses. That is because the New Republic called him for background on the newsletters.

Bill White posts on the VNN site under the name "ANSWP Commander" (yes, for those who know their history that means American National Socialist Worker's Party - as in Nazi - Commander). The sites this material comes from are hate-filled sewers and are not for the faint of heart, so be warned. The URLS are there if anyone needs proof, but the links are intentionally broken or redirected to google cache where it exists so we don't give this scum any traffic. It is necessary to give the sources of them though because they reveal that Kirchick has been hanging out with some very shady company and he needs to be called out on it.

Proof #1:

Bill White's post, made one week before the New Republic hit piece:

Quote:
I spoke to the New Republic todayh, briefly. I don't think I quite gave them as much information as they wanted.
Source: (vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=63682&page=19)

Proof #2:

Bill White's post, made two days before the New Republic hit piece:

Quote:
I am told that the New Republic has verified all my claims and is planning a huge front page story on this -- they have even asked me not to give other reporters information so they don't get "scooped".
Source: (vnnforum.com/showthread.php?p=700083#post700083)

Proof #3

Bill White's statement yesterday where he admits his earlier communications with the New Republic:

Quote:
Even I told the New Republic I didn't think he was a "white supremacist", just someone who takes money from "the movement".
Source: (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...lnk&cd=1&gl=us)
Hat tip: Justin Raimondo

CONCLUSION: Bill White knew about the New Republic story a week before it hit the web, and admitted this all over his putrid little neo-nazi website. He knew about it because the New Republic called him up for material in their coming hit piece against Ron Paul. Jamie Kirchick would never dare publicly credit somebody as disreputable as Bill White, but Bill White's own statements prove beyond a doubt that he was one of the unnamed "sources" the New Republic contacted. How else could he know that this story was about to come out before it broke? The only other people who knew about it were Kirchick's friends in the Cato/Reason crowd who got tipped off by Kirchick.

But now we have proof that the New Republic smear piece came from a very disreputable source: the head of a neo-nazi party. People like Kirchick have an agenda to smear Ron Paul. They will yield to no boundary and stoop to any new low to conduct that smear, even if it means going to the nastiest piece of bigoted anti-semitic racist gutter trash on the web to do it. Of course Kirchick will never publicly put that in his text, but he didn't need to because his neo-nazi source also has a big mouth.

Cato/Reason Smear Machine Roundup

Originally published: January 2008

They're still at it, including the ones who insist they are really trying to help Ron Paul (apparently by embarrassing him into taking their side in the Cato proxy war against Rockwell). Here's the roundup for today:

David Boaz, Cato

His article, entitled "Don't believe everything you read," is an attempted response of what he calls "attacks on the Cato Institute and several of our staff members" from the blogosphere "fringe" "all because of our attempt to separate the grand old cause of classical liberalism from racism and bigotry." Strangely, this lengthy rant doesn't refute any of the specific charges made against Cato. It doesn't explain Cato's role in the story's background, or when/where/how Cato first learned of the "bombshell" that Kirchick was about to drop. It doesn't explain Cato's stand-offish reception of the Ron Paul campaign before the New Republic. It does not dispute the now-documented fact that Boaz and Jamie Kirchick have been friends with each other since long before the story broke.

He urges his readers not to believe what has been said about Cato yet offers no proof why this should be so, and in fact he refuses to do so on the grounds that it would be like "wrestling with pigs" to respond to his accusers in any substantive, meaningful way. Boaz's entire 6 paragraph rant can actually be reduced to this: "I deny all the charges against Cato and myself, but I'm not going to offer any proof because anybody who attacks us is a closet racist and not a real libertarian."

Tom Palmer, Cato

His latest response is a simple link to Boaz stating "nuff said," implying his endorsement of the shoddy logic outlined above.

In case anyone's missed it, there's a beautiful irony in the Palmer/Boaz line of response. These guys are both demanding that the Paul campaign "out" the author of the newsletters. Like shrill harpies, their whines echo through the tunnels of the Orange Line. They constantly impugn the Paul campaign with innuendos of deceit, ineptitude, and collusion with people they deem "racists," and they constantly tell us that the Paul campaign's response is "insufficient" unless he outs and publicly flogs Lew Rockwell. Yet when evidence emerges showing that the Cato/Reason crowd colluded with Jamie Kirchick on this story, they refuse to talk. Note to Tom and David: I've seen your responses to the allegation of collusion with TNR, and it's insufficient!

Julian Sanchez, Reason

Sanchez makes the official attempt to respond to Justin Raimondo's excellent analysis of the TNR story.

Sanchez's argument is wanting on several counts.

1. First, he repeats the meme from his appearance late last week on this forum: "we're just reporters investigating a story and sharing notes with Kirchick out of professional courtesy." Let's break that one down point by point. Well, Mr. Sanchez, let's get one thing straight: you are not a "reporter" and Jamie Kirchick is not a "reporter." You are both nothing more than glorified bloggers at ideologically charged niche magazines with minuscule circulations who hold jobs there for no other reason than your own ideological concurrence with that magazine's niche. The various odds and ends you call a "job" may be enough, as Karen DeCoster has suggested, to pay the rent in a one-bedroom flat on the outskirts of DuPont Circle, but the simple fact is that neither of you will be up for a Pulitzer nomination at any point in your current careers. On the totem pole that is called professional journalism, you sit only marginally above the guy who sells major dailies from a crate at the highway overpass. You don't hold a candle to a typical beat writer in any major daily paper (which, despite being AWFUL for plenty of other reasons, are actually real full time careers with at least some semblance of journalistic professionalism and standards behind them). You aren't a newscaster (not even a bad one like Bill O'Reilly). You aren't a news commentator (not even a bad one like Hannity). Hell, you aren't even the weather girl at the Jackson, Mississippi CBS affiliate. You aren't a Michelle Malkin, painfully attempting to straddle the world between writing newspaper op-eds and blogging, because you do entirely the latter wherein a small portion of the latter is misidentified as the former by virtue of appearing in your own blog-in-print called Reason Magazine. So stop calling yourself a "reporter," stop insisting that shameless hack bloggers like Kirchick are your "professional peers," stop pushing this ridiculous line that you are simply "following the story wherever it leads," and, quite frankly, get a real job and GROW UP.

2. Sanchez does attempt to tackle Raimondo's actual article, but poorly at that. The main thrust of Raimondo's piece was a point-by-point dissection of Kirchick's shoddy journalism, abusive misquotations of the newsletters, and obvious political axe. Yet the bulk of Sanchez's response is caught up in the trivial quips of Raimondo's well-known acerbic writing style. It's easy to see how this happened because Cato and Reason were the direct targets of a sharp tongue in this case. But Sanchez spends so much time concentrating on the insults (many of which are very funny and are meant to be read that way) that he completely misses the main body of the article itself.

3. When moving to the main body of Raimondo's response, Sanchez decides to punt and admits doing so: "I, for my part, don't feel much need to talk about the bulk of Raimondo's piece." All he has to say about his friend Kirchick is this:

Quote:
I don't think it's my job to defend Kirchick's article: It was a hit piece, it did sometimes stretch to put things in their worst light, and it did make a fuss about some passages that weren't really offensive at all.
Then he drops the issue. Yes, he admits, Kirchick did a hatchet job. "But that's neither here nor there, really." So the content of Kirchick's allegations is neither here nor there, Julian? I submit that that content is the story itself, both in its claims and in its abusive misportrayal of the quotes. Keep the following in mind: the story is as bad as it is precisely BECAUSE Kirchick gave the worst possible spin to the quotes and precisely BECAUSE, until Raimondo, nobody even questioned that spin. And I can easily prove this to be the case by pointing out that Paul had easily weathered older newsletter stories before where the "offensive" content was exactly the same, but the spin was scrutinized and the response was different.

4. Sanchez's next line is a logical contortion of epic proportions. He just admitted that Kirchick did a hatchet job, but rather than ask how Kirchick's spin affected the way the story played out he dismisses it as an irrelevant attempt at "parsing out the exact percentage of some New Republic article one agrees with." The worst of the worst, he tells us, is simply beyond defending so anything questioning Kirchick's spin is useless - "preposterously strained is the attempt to minimize their awfulness." The problem with this argument is what Raimondo pointed out and others have pointed out all along: yes, there is some truly awful stuff in the newsletters but this "worst of the worst" is isolated to a few short lines The rest is all padding by Kirchick - quotes intentionally taken out of context and contorted into the worst possible light imaginable.

Yet to Sanchez none of that matters. He flippantly dismisses it all as irrelevant. Let's follow his logic: Kirchick's reporting is for the most part shoddy and deceptive, but he did get it right on a couple of really bad examples, so therefore we must unquestioningly accept Kirchick's conclusions as a whole and, in fact, it is not our place to question parts of those conclusions? Am I missing something, or does this simply not add up?

5. Divide and conquer. This is Sanchez's final argument, and it's logical flow is about on par with the earlier ones. Sanchez points out that the Paul campaign repudiated the newsletters. It follows that Raimondo's rebuttals (which we were just told don't matter anyway, no matter how truthful they are) are at odds with the Paul campaign's repudiation of them. The implication then is that Raimondo and Paul are at odds with each other, and therefore Raimondo's argument must be misguided. Think this one through though, all the while keeping in mind that only moments earlier Sanchez dismissed Raimondo's argument as irrelevant but now considers it material for its apparent contradiction of Paul.

Here's what's really going on, and it involves two divergent but equally necessary tactics from a political angle: Paul's campaign, by necessity of the way the media works, HAS to dismiss the newsletters and has to do so in a short, sweet, and simple condemnation. If they get caught up in the details at any level beyond that it becomes too difficult to explain in 15 second soundbytes on Wolf Blitzer or Tim Russert. This sad byproduct of the 24 hour news cycle leaves some people (including his supporters) wanting a more substantive response, but it is politically necessary because a more substantive response is also by necessity more complex...which means it's harder to explain in 15 seconds and only makes the story worse in the public mind.

In contrast, Raimondo is conducting an equally important analytical dissection of Kirchick's article. He is providing the answer to those of us who want more substance on Kirchick, and he is also throwing a large wrench into the gears of the Cato/Reason crowd, which up until this point has taken Kirchick's abusive spin as truth without question (possibly in part because many of them are personally friends with Kirchick himself). In other words, Raimondo His purpose is doing what we'd like the Paul campaign to do but what they cannot do because of political constraints imposed by the media spin cycle.

This is Campaign School 101 stuff, and it is mind-boggling that a self-styled political "reporter" like Sanchez could be so completely lacking in political sense that he doesn't recognize it. To react as he does is to pretend that the Paul campaign exists in a vacuum, impervious to the political realities of the news cycle and therefore making its pronouncements that are clearly tailored to that news cycle an artificial point of rebuttal to Raimondo, who is not bound by that constraint. If anyone wondered why these Cato/Reason types take the career of glorified blogger instead of real reporters or real political movers and shakers here's your answer in its full glory: they don't understand the politics of the same media circles they pretend to inhabit, and that makes them and their chosen candidates inherently unelectable.

David Weigel, Reason

Weigel's latest is an attempt to keep the newsletter story going by chaining it to today's MLK day themed money bomb. As Weigel puts it, "Anecdotally, from personal contacts and contacts across the web, I know some casual Paul fans have given up supporting the campaign since this scandal. Many will still vote for him, but they're uncomfortable posting signs or giving him cash." His "evidence" in the numbers is that after 9 hours, the money bomb produced only $400,000.

Keep in mind that these first 9 hours fell between midnight and 9 AM this morning - i.e. the time that most normal people are asleep. I guess that excludes the typical Reason/Cato cosmotarian crowd, which spends the wee hours of the day hopping around the trendy nightclubs of Adams Morgan (or blogging at 4:37 AM after spending the morning doing god knows what else...). But most normal Americans actually sleep at night. Predictably, today's moneybomb trends have accelerated rapidly after about 8 AM EST when the non-cosmotarian world began to wake up (http://www.ronpaulgraphs.com/last_48...donations.html). And as of right now we're at a solid $1 million for the day. Weigel's next point is to predict that this moneybomb will fall short of the last ones. Clearly, Weigel is setting the stage for a self-fulfilling prophecy where a "disappointing" moneybomb can be blamed on the newsletter "scandal," and ends up vindicating everything that Reason and Cato have been doing for the last two weeks.

The only problem is that a $1 million haul or more for the day is NOT a failure! Sure, it falls short of the $6 million Tea Party haul but that comparison is about like saying a 4 minute mile is a failure because it didn't break the world record. Bottom line: if today's moneybomb stays at its current pace things are looking very good for a solid and commendable 1-day haul, the Cato/Reason Smear machine not withstanding.

Cato and the New Republic newsletters: the evidence

A lot has been written about this today, including a post by DiLorenzo at Lewrockwell.com suggesting that Cato was behind the Jamie Kirchick smear and a response at Volokh by David Bernstein claiming that evidence of Cato collusion is a silly conspiracy theory.

Although I don't know the inside of this story, I'd like to offer couple of observations that seem to support - at minimum - the idea that the Cato Institute is in collusion with the forces behind the TNR story.

1. Cato's hostility to Ron Paul is well documented and predates the newsletter thing. By all sensible measures, the Cato Institute should have been embracing Paul's campaign from the beginning as the only libertarian of either party in the race. But they didn't. But not only were they stand-offish. They were AWOL and even hostile at times. We heard for months and months how Cato was leery of involvement with Paul under a litany of excuses that ranged from silly to just plain bizarre. Remember what we were told by Cato sources BEFORE all this newsletter stuff came out?

  • By helping Paul, Cato jeopardize their tax exempt status
  • Paul isn't a "true" libertarian because of his immigration stance
  • Paul's brand of libertarianism isn't "cosmopolitan" or hip enough
  • Paul's trade views are actually "protectionist" since he doesn't embrace WTO corporatism
  • Paul is too close to the Rockwellites (remember that article in the Economist with statements from an "anonymous" Cato scholar ranting about how horrible Rockwell is?)
  • If Paul's campaign gets too popular, it could make the libertarian movement look like a bunch of kooks.

We've heard all of that and more from Cato-affiliated sources for months. Also notice that virtually NONE of the major Cato "scholars" were very supportive of Paul's campaign, and all have been spinning and downplaying him since the beginning. That includes Tom Palmer, David Boaz, David Bernstein, Brink "I love war" Lindsay and the rest.

2. Since the moment TNR story broke, the Cato crowd has been all over it - almost as if they were just waiting to pounce. The major figures at Cato have each blogged multiple times over about it, all linking to each other and expressing their collective "outrage." Palmer, Boaz, Bernstein...they've all been posting up to the minute screeds on each and every detail that emerges about the newsletters. They are literally foaming at the mouth over it. No other source - not the mainstream media, not the leftist losers at Daily Kos, and not even the neocon bloggers - have been so dogged in their pursuit of this story as the Cato crowd. That tells me they knew it was coming and like vultures they're happy about it.

3. There is circumstantial evidence of a Cato "conspiracy" angle to the newsletter story does exist.

A couple years ago somebody created an anonymous called RightWatch. Rightwatch did nothing but post lengthy and poorly written screeds about Murray Rothbard, the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and Lew Rockwell - usually accusing them all of being "racists" and "homophobes." There has long been evidence suggesting that "Rightwatch" is a secret side project of Cato Veep Tom G. Palmer, who has a well known longstanding feud with the Rockwell crowd. Here's the evidence:

  • Rightwatch came online on June 18, 2005 with a screed about how some people who claim to be libertarians are really "authoritarian" homophobes.
  • Tom Palmer knew about Rightwatch's existence almost immediately (he claimed it was sent to him by email) and blogged its praises on June 19, 2005
  • What are the odds of an obscure anonymous blog popping up on the web one day and getting an immediate link from one of the best known "libertarian" bloggers in the country less than 24 hours later without that blogger being in on it?
  • Over the next two years Palmer linked to Rightwatch repeatedly and used its "information" as the basis for "stories" on his own blog.
  • Rightwatch is obsessed with Hans Herman Hoppe, a libertarian economist at the University of Nevada Las Vegas. Tom Palmer shares this similar obsession with Professor Hoppe. Both accuse Hoppe of homophobia - a charge that stems from an incident several years ago when Hoppe stated publicly that Palmer was using libertarianism to promote his sexual orientation (Palmer is gay).
  • Rightwatch suddenly went offline on February 27, 2007 after posting an anti-Hoppe screed.
  • Rightwatch suddenly reactivated after almost a year of silence on January 9, 2008 with a lengthy rant about the Ron Paul newsletter story. It's published four more rants against Ron Paul in the last four days.
Coincidence? I think not. By the way, Palmer is also widely rumored to be the source of several of the anti-Ron Paul quotes that have been attributed to an "unnamed Cato executive" in dozens of pre-TNR news stories where the Catoites inexplicably distanced themselves from Ron Paul.

Welcome

The purpose of this blog is simple: to provide a medium of information illustrating and critiquing the excesses of feuding factions within the libertarian movement.

The author has taken up this task because he believes those factions are harming the libertarian movement and the reputation of its most visible institution, the Cato Institute, by allowing it to become a vehicle of feuding, ostracization, and character assassination against other libertarian "enemies," both real and perceived.

This blog is not intended to settle any scores, and it does not exist to take the side of one faction in the feud over another. It exists to simply document the activities of its participants and illustrate the harm that they are doing to the larger libertarian movement.

I will open the blog by here by archiving multiple older articles that illustrate this purpose by showing how certain members of the Cato Institute actively assaulted and undermined the presidential campaign of Ron Paul in order to carry on their own petty, personal feud with longtime rival and Paul ally Lewellyn Rockwell. The great tragedy of this affair is not Rockwell's continued association with Paul, as the Catoites would have you believe, but the harm that its Catoite participants brought to the single most successful libertarian bid for political office in modern history...all because they were more interested in settling personal scores.