While much of the responses I received were genuine, there were also some that were suspicious. They used the same language and nasty attacks. And this leads to one of the things that’s wonderful about the web. You can be a troll if you like but trolls leave tracks. This blog uses WordPress, and its comment feature indicates the IP address used by the commenter and time of posting to the comment narrator (me).

Here are some comments from purportedly different people using the same IP address:

HP — pederson.howard@yahoo.com — 69.64.222.154 — Submitted on 2011/12/28 at 8:08am
Shouldnt use your column to settle scores. Sounds like Mr. Stone is in your wheelhouse BIGTIME!

Smoke — Rogermanis@hotmail.com — 69.64.222.154 — Submitted on 2011/12/28 at 7:42am
Warren—this is just sour grapes. If the NY Libertarians had nominated Kristin Davis insrtead of you thay would have won 50,000 votes and wouldn’t have to petition their way onto the ballot. You are the one who hurt the party.

Joe paine — Joepaine1@hotmail.com — 69.64.222.154 — Submitted on 2011/12/28 at 7:39am
Warren– You make a living getting drunk drivers who kill people behind the wheel for a living off. Who are you to criticize anyone?

Not only are they from the same IP address (in bold), but they were also posted within about 30 minutes from each other. Here’s another couple:

Susan Greenberg — susangreenberg88273@aol.com — 99.58.192.216 — Submitted on 2011/12/27 at 4:15pm
I read what you wrote defending older men have sex with teen age girls. It was perverted. I would not want my daughters anywhere near you. I’m glad you moved to Florida. The children of the Albany area are safer because of it.

Seth Greenberg — dvader2283@aol.com — 99.58.192.216 — Submitted on 2011/12/27 at 4:10pm
Warren – didn’t you publically call your opponent Kristin Davis a whore ? Didn’t you refuse to share the NYLP voting delegate lists and convention rules with any other candidate before the NY convention? Who is guilty of dirty tricks? Look in the mirror.

Again with the same IP address. And the comments were posted 5 minutes apart. There were also two other comments posted within 12 minutes after the last one, using different IP addresses but similar language and form of attack (references to my work as a defense lawyer, or to Kristin Davis, who is not even mentioned in the blog post).

One other piece of evidence is the purported e-mail addresses. I searched for them on the web and can’t find a single one of them. Here’s a Google search for Pederson’s:

If these were real people using their real e-mail addresses, you would think at least one of them would show up on a Google search. But they’re not real people. It’s all probably one or two cowardly people using fake names to attack others while remaining hidden.

Here’s two more:

DontMissYou — loyalopposition@gmail.com — 67.241.174.81 — Submitted on 2011/12/27 at 3:45pm
Gee if the NY Libertarians had had a fair and open convention to nominate a candidate for Governor perhaps Roger Stone wouldn’t have killed your chances to get 50,000 votes and put the Libertarians on the map. Instead you used gestapo tactics and refused to share delegate lists with the other candidates. You reap what you sow. Even in South Florida.

PeteSzabo — newyorklives@gmail.com — 67.241.174.81 — Submitted on 2011/12/27 at 3:43pm
I read what you wrote defending older men having sex with teen age girls. It was perverted. I would not want my daughters anywhere near you. I’m glad you moved to Florida. The children of the Albany area are safer because of it.

These two were posted from the same IP address, two minutes apart. And notice how the second one is exactly the same, word for word, as the “Susan Greenberg” comment. And another comment (not posted) used the same language as “DontMissYou”.

The image below shows some of what I see in the WordPress comment moderation screen. Please note there were two more that I could not fit onto the screen. Click on the picture to see it in a larger size:

Short story, from her perspective: Her job did not include health insurance. She was diagnosed with tumors in her uterus. Then she couldn’t get insurance coverage for this pre-existing condition. So she favors Obamacare. For a fuller version of her side, see her blog post: I am Obamacare.

One key detail she does not mention: While her job did not include health insurance, she chose not to pay for health insurance out of her own pocket.

Now she complains that she can’t get insurance for this pre-existing condition. But this is a misunderstanding of what the word insurance means.

Please consider this analogy:

Her job didn’t include car insurance, and she did not buy any on her own. She got in an accident and the car was damaged. She went to a car insurance company, and they refused to pay for the pre-existing damage to her car. And this was a nice insurance company, so they didn’t laugh at her.

The more reasonable version of pre-existing conditions is where you have a condition that makes you more likely to suffer certain diseases, but you have no symptoms or evidence of such disease yet. That creates an adverse selection problem – the people who are likely to get sick are more likely to buy insurance, and they cost more to insure so that drives the price of insurance up. Then the people who are less likely to get sick are less likely to buy insurance. Removing them from the risk pool increases the total risk, further driving prices up. This is an area where some economists argue, somewhat credibly, for government intervention to address this form of market failure.

But the current discussion about Obamacare and pre-existing conditions is not about adverse selection or “insurance”, as the photo above shows. Insurance is about covering for the risk that something might happen, not about covering for something that did happen.

This part of Obamacare is about bailing out people who chose not to pay for health insurance. And the blame does not fall only on President Obama and the Democrats. Most Republican insiders are just as bad. Government bails out people who did not buy adequate insurance for floods. It has bailed out banks, car companies, and so on.

One of the main reasons I support Ron Paul is that he clearly does have principles (following the Constitution, and supporting liberty), and I generally share those principles.

Mitt Romney does have principles but not in the same way. Looking especially at his political career, Romney focuses on representative democracy and sound management.

The representative democracy principle is the source of his flip-flopping on issues. Seeing himself as Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney was pro-choice because his constituents were pro-choice. Once he started running for the Republican nomination for President, his constituency became pro-life and so did Romney. The same analysis explains his changing positions on universal health insurance, gun rights/control, climate change, and so on.

If Romney becomes President he would view his constituency not as just Republicans, but the whole nation. As such, he is unlikely to do much about the controversial issues that trouble Democrats. Instead, he would focus his presidency on his second principle.

Mitt Romney’s greatest strength in the campaign is his history of competence in business, in saving the Salt Lake City Olympics, and as Governor of Massachusetts. At his core he is running for President because he believes he would do a better job of managing the federal government than any of his GOP opponents, and better than Barack Obama. With the exception of Ron Paul, I have to agree.

Johnson is the former Governor of New Mexico, and a long-time critic of the drug war. Because of the latter, I featured him on my drug policy reform website, Repeal.NET.

Early in the current presidential campaign, I saw Johnson as possibly next in line for the Ron Paul movement. As Paul’s support grew and Johnson floundered, I was hopeful that Johnson would endorse Paul and start working on his campaign. Even if Paul doesn’t win, this would have set the stage for Johnson to be the movement’s candidate in 2016. Johnson’s 1-2% could make a minor difference for the Paul campaign in the early states, especially New Hampshire.

Instead Johnson chose a different path. While he has said positive things about the Paul candidacy, he has not made an overt endorsement. To the contrary the small amount of support Johnson has is drawn away from Paul. His campaign is not even secretive about it, invoking Ron Paul’s name in its request for contributions on the campaign home page:

Giving money to Gary Johnson’s campaign does not “support Ron Paul.”

So far these are minor grievances. The larger problem with Gary Johnson is his decision to embrace evil, in the person of Roger Stone. In September Stone endorsed Johnson, and Johnson posted the endorsement on his campaign website. A couple weeks ago Johnson told Daily Caller that he is working with Stone. And about a week ago Stone posted an interview with Johnson, a puff piece with softball questions.

So what? Roger Stone is known for dirty tactics in politics. This was thoroughly covered in a piece in the New Yorker about Stone. He brags about it himself, even posting covers of these portrayals on his website.

He includes such quotes on his About page:

Professional lord of mischief - Weekly Standard

Legendary conservative political hit man - TheHill.com

A dashing, colorful artist of the underhanded - David Brooks, New York Times

Skilled in the dark arts of politics - The Atlantic

Master of right-wing political hit jobs - Politico.com

Is this who you’d want on your team? If you embrace dirty politics, Stone is your man.

In case it’s not obvious or you don’t already know, I’m one of Stone’s victims. I’m certainly not the only one, as the quotes above were all written before my encounter with him. About one year ago, Stone participated in a horrendous and false mailer calling me a “sexual predator”. This was sent to thousands of homes, including to my neighbors and my mother. As Stone surely intended, it got a lot of media attention, including this article in The Daily News. Stone bragged about his role in damaging both me and the Libertarian Party on his blog post, Libertarian Payback.

Gary Johnson’s political problem will not be solved by attacking others. His problem is that he did not do well enough in getting media attention, fundraising, and other things to build up his own name.

His choice of Roger Stone is disturbing because he should know Stone’s reputation. Embracing such a negative figure with such a high profile shows that Johnson does not care about doing what’s right. Evil men like Stone should be shunned by any candidate with decency.

I personally reached out to a number of people involved with the Johnson campaign, to make sure they know who Stone is and why they should disavow him. This has not happened.

Despite my past support of Johnson and my general agreement with him on many issues, I cannot accept a candidate who works with Stone, or others like him. I will work to oppose Johnson’s effort to become the LP candidate. Libertarians should recognize that Stone tried to subvert the LP nomination process in New York in 2010, and then attacked the party when he failed.

–Update– Adding emphasis to the Stone-Johnson connection, Stone wrote an article today supporting Johnson in the Daily Caller.

Our Spending Problem

The US Government is $15 Trillion in debt, or about $50,000 per American. Under the Obama administration, that debt is growing by over $1 Trillion a year. This is unsustainable. It is the biggest problem facing America today.

Romney did hold the line on spending as Governor of Massachusetts, but he hasn’t offered any clear plan on how to cut. In stark contrast, Ron Paul has offered a plan to cut $1 Trillion in spending in the first year.

Jobs Jobs Jobs

The US is struggling with high unemployment. The establishment answer is for government to “create jobs”. That answer is wrong. Government-created jobs come from taxpayer money, exacerbating the spending problem. And government simply is not good at choosing where to create jobs. The Solyndra debacle is a great example (and it’s not just Obama’s fault).

Ron Paul knows that real jobs are created by the private sector. Government interference in the economy discourages small business entrepreneurs.

The deeper problem is how big government leads to crony capitalism. Both Obama and Romney play that game, as a listing of their major contributors shows:

Obama gets large contributions from employees of big corporations. Romney gets his from the banks and financial sector. Perry is funded by the energy industry. These special interests are focused on getting money for themselves, not for creating jobs.

Ron Paul’s contributions are more spread out among regular people not tied to any company or industry. His biggest contributors are soldiers.

Foreign Policy and National Security

Our national security depends on our ability to defend our own country. We are spending ourselves into bankruptcy, which will badly impair our national defense. By cutting, including our military spending overseas, we will save our economy and our capacity to protect the borders of this country.

The establishment criticism of Ron Paul focuses on his foreign policy. They call him “extreme” because, for example, he wants to eliminate all foreign aid – where the government gives our money to other countries. The establishment is out of step with the people – a majority of Americans favor cutting foreign aid.

Another example is the concern about Iran developing a nuclear weapon. The establishment says Ron Paul is dangerous because he would allow Iran to do so. Yet the same establishment is remarkably quiet about the fact that George W. Bush allowed North Korea to do the same.

No one knows better about threats to our country than our soldiers on the front lines. As mentioned above, they are his leading contributors. Read more about this from The New York Times.

The Constitution and Civil Rights

While the media frequently refers to Ron Paul as a libertarian, his core message really centers on the Constitution. The Constitution limits the federal government. By overgrowing its constitutional limits, the federal government interferes with states’ rights to manage their own affairs, and with the private sector creating jobs.

As part of federal overreach, our individual civil rights are impaired. Congress just passed the NDAA which authorizes indefinite detention without trial. Similarly there has been a great deal of concern about the Patriot Act.

You may or may not like California legalizing medical marijuana. But do you really think the federal government should interfere with a state’s decision on the issue? This story cuts to the core of both states’ rights and civil liberties under the Constitution.

Beware the False Attacks

There are many insiders who fear Ron Paul, and they have relaunched a plethora of old attacks against him. You have to recognize that those who criticize him are engaging in propaganda, and that they don’t really care about these issues. What they really care about is protecting the flow of government money their special interests receive.

1. Ron Paul is a racist – This is not only false but idiotic. Ron Paul is the only candidate who criticizes the racism in our government policies. In 1979, Ron Paul voted for Martin Luther King Day. Newt Gingrich voted against it. Why aren’t the same critics calling Gingrich a racist? The National Review is among the critics, despite its own history of racism.
2. Ron Paul hates Israel and/or Jews – I’m Jewish and I support Ron Paul. There are others, such as David Kretzmann. I’ve looked at all the criticism and most of it fails miserably. Ron Paul is the only candidate who recognizes Israel as a sovereign nation. Back in 1981 Ron Paul was one of only a few who supported Israel when it bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak. The difference is that the establishment views Israel as a client state, where we give Israel money and Israel obeys us. Ron Paul views Israel as a sovereign and independent nation.
3. Ron Paul is a kook – Running up $15 Trillion in debt is crazy. Ron Paul is the only one with real answers. In a political world full of big spenders, he certainly is outside the mainstream. That’s exactly what we need.
4. The newsletters – This is the strongest criticism of Ron Paul. He did allow his name to be used on newsletters that contained controversial material. At best you could call some of it politically incorrect. But it is widely agreed even by his critics that the objectionable bits are not in his writing style, and they are not consistent with the things Ron Paul has been saying for decades. Ron Paul did do a poor job as a publisher in this regard, 20 years ago. That is the strongest criticism against him, and it isn’t much. These bits were a very small part of a lot of material, including some anti-racist comments. The critics fail to mention that mostly the newsletters were about investing, especially in gold. And they certainly don’t mention the parts that openly reject neo-Nazis, David Duke and the KKK, like this:
5. Ron Paul is unelectable (or can’t beat Obama) – Ron Paul consistently polls better against Obama than all GOP candidates other than Romney. He polls better among independents and Democrats than Romney does.

Consistency and Honesty

Even his critics concede that Ron Paul is the most consistent of any of the candidates. He has been saying the same things about government for decades. He does not change his views to fit polls nor to get campaign contributions.

That consistency means something – honesty. No one doubts that Ron Paul says what he means and that he means what he says. In contrast, the flip-flopping by Romney, Gingrich and Obama show that they are inconsistent, calling their honesty into question.

It’s time for an honest leader. It’s time for Ron Paul.

Winning in Iowa would bring a whole new set of challenges for the Ron Paul campaign. Below I discuss how the campaign can best address them.

Managing the Media Surge
One practical problem will be handling the media surge that would follow an Iowa win. For a campaign that has been ignored by much of the media (famously mocked by the Daily Show’s Jon Stewart), they will face many requests for newspaper interviews, TV appearances, and more.

The campaign team should, in advance of January 3rd, assess which media outlets will reach the largest audiences so that they can capitalize on the attention. Ron Paul’s time should be focused on the best of those. The Today Show and Good Morning America are examples of morning talk shows that are watched by many. The campaign should also have surrogates at the ready to handle those that can’t be fit into the candidate’s time. Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the candidate’s son, has served in this role before and is recognized by the media. Campaign chairman Jesse Benton should also be ready, but the campaign may want to have at least one more surrogate. Congressman Justin Amash (R-MI) would be another good option.

A related consideration is which media will treat Ron Paul fairly. Some so-called journalists have demonstrated extreme bias, as Bob Schieffer did during a November interview with Ron Paul on Face the Nation. Similarly, Bill O’Reilly on Fox News is openly biased against the Paul campaign. Others have been favorable and it might make sense to reward them with the early interviews. While cynical, it is not unusual and is a part of the game that politics has become.

The campaign should ensure that the candidate’s time is devoted to media that are more likely to be fair. Surrogates should be used for the ones who will try to ambush him. A surrogate can respond more aggressively.

Message Clarity
Another critical issue for the campaign is honing the message. Ron Paul speaks well to his base, but he needs to work on reaching out to mainstream Republican voters if he wants to win the nomination. The candidate often gives long-winded answers and fails to talk about why his message matters to those voters.

A prime example of this is the Federal Reserve. Most voters simply don’t understand why it matters. If Ron Paul is going to talk about the Federal Reserve, he has to find a way to communicate to voters why it matters to them, and do it without long-winded statements.

The Des Moines Register recently had this quote from the candidate: The middle class keeps getting smaller and smaller, because when you destroy a currency by printing too much money, the value of the money goes down, prices go up, jobs go overseas (and) the middle class gets poorer. That statement is too complex and lacks clarity.

In other situations Paul has said something along the lines of: The bankers got bailed out and the people suffered. That is more direct and connects better with voters.

The Skeleton
As we have seen with other candidates, skeletons in the closet can be very damaging. With Ron Paul there is one particularly bad moment in his past – the Ron Paul newsletters (Reason.com). It happened 20+ years ago, but it will come up again.

The short story is that newsletters were sent out in Ron Paul’s name. Some of these newsletters contained language about African-Americans and gays that could at best be described as politically incorrect. Others have described them as racist and bigoted.

While this story has been addressed in the past a Ron Paul win in Iowa will bring a whole new round of attention, with dramatically increased intensity and thorough scrutiny. An example of the nastier side can be seen on HotAir.com, describing Paul as “a candidate with a long history of disseminating racist, anti-gay and crypto-anti-Semitic tracts”. The campaign has to get this right or it will end his candidacy.

His past response has been inadequate. In 2008 CNN described it this way:

Paul told CNN’s “The Situation Room” Thursday that he didn’t write any of the offensive articles and has “no idea” who did.
“When you bring this question up, you’re really saying, ‘You’re a racist’ or ‘Are you a racist?’ And the answer is, ‘No, I’m not a racist,’” he said.
Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments.
“I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines,” he said, adding he wanted to “make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it’s obviously wrong.”

While his repudiation is important, he also needs to accept responsibility and explain his role. These newsletters went out under his name. He should acknowledge that it was a mistake on his part for allowing it to happen, and demonstrate that he’s learned from it.

There has been a call in past coverage for disclosure of who actually wrote the offensive statements. The pressure for that will increase exponentially. This should be done the first time he’s asked about it. It is widely thought that Paul supporter Lew Rockwell wrote or at least edited them. If Rockwell truly believes in Ron Paul and the liberty movement, he should be prepared to fall on his sword and take the heat. This is something the campaign should discuss thoroughly with the relevant parties to ensure everyone stays on message when it is done.

Update
Since this post was written, the newsletter question has been raised already and Ron Paul has been addressing it well. He turns on the question and talks about his record of opposition to racism. In one interview the CNN the reporter kept asking the same question over and over. I’d suggest if this happens that he challenge the reporter: “We’ve covered that. Let’s talk about something that matters to the voters, like the economy. I proposed cutting $1 Trillion in spending and some people say that’s radical. Don’t you think we should talk about that?”

Optimism
One of Ron Paul’s longer term problems in this campaign is that his outlook tends to be gloomy. He frequently talks about how our country is bankrupt. While this is true, and it connects with what people are feeling now, what they really want is hope for the future.

Ron Paul can, and sometimes does, deliver this kind of optimistic view. When confronted on Meet the Press with the Keynesian attitude that cutting government spending damages the economy, Paul pointed out what happened at the end of World War II: “draconian cuts … stimulated the economy.” He truly believes that his plan will remove the shackles from the US economy and generate spectacular growth. He needs to communicate this positive vision, perhaps in manner similar to Reagan’s “Morning in America” approach.

The campaign should be ready with a TV commercial to hit the airwaves shortly after the Iowa win, talking about how the coming Ron Paul presidency will bring America back to greatness. They’ve done an excellent job with commercials so far, but they need to turn to the positive with clarity, in a way that connects with ordinary people.

If Ron Paul wins Iowa it can be the start of a long and successful campaign. He has to be ready to seize that moment and get it right.

Among Ron Paul supporters, there’s another aspect that gets criticized. Many print and online news sources minimize any discussion of Ron Paul, and it’s most notable in the headlines. Here are a few examples, and down below are some projected future headlines.

It started in August after the Ames Straw Poll, on Politico.com:

Then these two headlines, on CNN.com and WSJ.com, after a recent Iowa poll:



The repeated choice to mention third-place and ignore second-place is part of the media blackout. Ron Paul was a very close second to Michele Bachmann in the Ames Straw Poll, and was a solid second place in the recent poll in Iowa.

So, looking ahead, here are some headlines we might see:

March 7: Romney Super in MA; Second In Other States

August 28: Romney not chosen at GOP convention; Trump endorses Obama

November 7: Obama Loses!!! Bill O’Reilly Joins MSNBC

Ron Paul Headlines? Black this out!
—-
Newer headlines since the original post below:

Here’s a beauty – now Ron Paul is threatening:

Then you’ve got this one. With other candidates there’d be a positive spin about them rising in the polls. With Ron Paul, the headline glass is half-empty.

Not a headline, but a graphic from a CBS News report:

Many people have criticized President Obama over the Solyndra debacle. Newt himself said that he would have fired the Energy Secretary over it.

But Solyndra is not the only solar energy company with a dubious history of government support. Another prime example is BrightSource Energy. There’s a story explaining the insider deal BrightSource got on the BigGovernment website.

The short version is that they got a huge taxpayer guaranteed loan ($1.6 Billion), which is three times the size of the Solyndra deal. Their business model stinks: “The company is $1.8 billion in debt, had total revenue of just $13.5 million in 2010 and ran an operating loss of $71 million.” And of course, the company is connected to President Obama through the Kennedy family and others.

And now we come to Newt Gingrich, and his 2010 anti-Obama book, To Save America. Gingrich, who is well known for openly supporting the ethanol industry, also spoke up for BrightSource (pages 255-256):

“BrightSource Energy proposed building in the Mojave Desert three solar plants with enough energy to power 142,000 homes, a project that would generate billions of dollars in revenue. The site was perfect. … If we cannot develop a major solar power project in the middle of the desert, then where can we?”

The Newt Gingrich myth is that he would somehow do a better job of managing government than President Obama. That’s not the problem. The real problem is that the federal government should not be in the business of picking winners and losers. It feeds the game of crony capitalism, a world Gingrich knows all too well.

Both are misleading. The question is not “If” they get the bomb. The issue is really “When Iran Gets the Bomb”. And Romney’s notion that he could somehow stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons is downright laughable.

Let’s start with Romney’s “resolve”. How can anyone expect the US to be credible on anything with a flip-flopper like Romney as President? From abortion and gay rights through Obamneycare, Romney had demonstrated a complete lack of resolve on every important issue he’s confronted, and then run from. He is Brave Sir Robin from Monty Python’s Holy Grail:

When danger reared its ugly head, he bravely turned his tail and fled.

Romney’s specifics defy reality:
I will begin by imposing a new round of far tougher economic sanctions on Iran. I will do this together with the world if we can, unilaterally if we must.

The world isn’t going to go along, and unilateral sanctions would be little different from current policy.

I will speak out forcefully on behalf of Iranian dissidents.

Wow! That’ll teach those Mullahs. This is like Demi Moore in A Few Good Men – we strenuously object!

Oh, I thought you were just objecting. If you strenuously object, that’s so different. Romney isn’t just going to speak out, he’s going to forcefully speak out. Romney isn’t even known as a forceful speaker.

I will back up American diplomacy with a very real and very credible military option. I will restore the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously.

Not just real, or credible, or even real and credible, but very real and very credible. Those Iranians are quaking in their boots now. Mitt Romney has no credibility, and emphasis in language isn’t going to cover that gap.

Then there’s the practical problem. Where will these aircraft carrier groups come from? Our military is pretty much stretched to the limit already. If we’re going to maintain our presence in other places, how much more money will all of this cost Mr. Romney?

This goes back to credibility as well. We can’t afford our current spending. Mr. Romney has offered no substance on spending cuts, and certainly won’t admit to supporting tax increases. We are a few steps behind Greece on our own road to bankruptcy. The Iranians might be crazy from our perspective, but they’re not stupid. They can see quite clearly that we lack the financial and political will to do anything.

Another practical question is why patrol the Mediterranean? We have air bases in Turkey, which borders Iran.

Turning to the Journal editorial, this notion of “if” is foolhardy. The Journal describes a nuclear-armed Iran as a “catastrophe”.

It is perilous … to assume that Iran is a “normal” regime that wouldn’t dare use nuclear weapons.

Is nuclear North Korea a “normal” regime? How about nuclear Pakistan?

The hard truth is that the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. We are talking about technology that is roughly 70 years old. Any country with enough resources can develop nuclear weapons.

If we really want to discourage Iran – and others – from developing nuclear weapons, we should reduce their incentives for doing so. The Journal acknowledges the incentives quite clearly:

But the power of nuclear weapons lies in the fact of their possession even if they are never used. Iran could use ambiguous threats or work through proxies to both provoke and deter its adversaries in the region, including the U.S. Iran’s prestige would also be immediately bolstered, both at home and abroad, by developing nuclear weapons in the teeth of international opposition.

All of this ignores an even bigger moral problem. US foreign policy flies in the face of one of the greatest principles of human civilization – The Golden Rule.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

We use nuclear weapons to deter our adversaries. We engage in all kinds of tactics around the world that we would not tolerate if others used them against us.

If we want to claim the moral high ground in international affairs, we should start by acting morally. That hasn’t happened under Barack Obama and it won’t happen under Mitt Romney.

So, when Iran gets the bomb, we’ll have to deal with them. We will do so as we do now with North Korea and Pakistan. It will be uncomfortable. But we have to come to grips with reality.

After showering praise on Newt Gingrich and briefly discussing several other candidates, Ms. Rabinowitz finally shows openly what the Journal thinks of Congressman Ron Paul. It’s no surprise.

Here are some examples of how she mischaracterizes Ron Paul’s statements and positions:

If he doesn’t like the views of the person who wins the nomination, he won’t support the Republican candidate.

That’s a rather glib way of putting it. What Ron Paul actually said was that he would not support the nominee if that person failed to support the Constitution. Examples of this include continuing the unconstitutional wars and failing to confront the Federal Reserve. Having watched the various candidates, it’s possible that he would support Bachmann or Perry if either became the nominee. Both seem to have adopted Paul’s position on the Fed, for example.

Ms. Rabinowitz says is one of many reasons Paul should retire from further debates. Apparently she feels support for the GOP nominee is a litmus test. But would Ms. Rabinowitz support Ron Paul if he were the nominee?

She goes on to describe him as an envenomed crank. Please, tell us what you really think.

Envenomed translates, as best I can tell, to poisonous. Huh? That sounds an awful lot like name calling and sorely lacking in substance.

But Ms. Rabinowitz does address one thing Paul talks about. She mischaracterizes his position on the 9/11 attacks as justification … [that] the terrorists were driven by American policies.

No, that is not what he says. It is not what we in “his devoted army” believe. The attacks were not justified. They were not “driven” by our policies. That suggests we caused the attacks. No.

What Ron Paul says, and we believe, is that our policies have consequences. When you bomb people for years, some of them are going to hate you. They are likely to strike back at you. This is not the thinking of a crank. It’s called “blowback”, and it is widely recognized by thinking people. See, for example:

HDS Greenway in the New York Times

Wikipedia on Blowback (mentioning that the CIA originated the term)

Chalmers Johnson

It’s a long list.

Does Ms. Rabinowitz believe there is no such thing as blowback? That our policies do not have consequences?

Is the Golden Rule now for cranks only? The simple fact is that if another country acted toward us as we act toward so many others, we would fight back. We should not be surprised that others then fight back against what we do.

What is more disappointing about Rabinowitz’ piece is her uncritical assessment of Mr. Gingrich.

He would go into detail the key policies he would put in place if elected, something other Republican candidates have done regularly to little effect.

In detail? Mr. Gingrich has not named a single spending cut. Ron Paul put forward a plan with $1 Trillion in specific spending cuts in the first year.

The Gingrich response: “If you come to me and tell me I need to lose 30 pounds and you’re going to amputate my right leg, I think it’s a non-starter.”

That glib line ignores a couple of realities about the federal government. First, we don’t need to lose 30 pounds, which would be 15% of the 200 pounds Gingrich might weigh. With revenue of perhaps $2.5 Trillion and a deficit of about $1.3 Trillion, we need to lose about 80 pounds.

Second, the right leg argument might make sense if we were talking about a person. We’re talking about the federal government, which has hundreds of legs.

But I thank Ms. Rabinowitz for finally saying what has been obvious for quite some time – the Wall Street Journal has a clear bias against Ron Paul.