Ron Paul

Tuesday, January 8th, 2008

I’m disappointed in Paul and in his campaign.

First, a few caveats. I think Paul’s prone to nutty conspiracy theories, but I don’t think he’s a racist, at least not today. Perhaps there was a time when he held views that I and many people reading this site would find repugnant. But I certainly don’t think that’s the case now. Paul’s temperament and demeanor in public does not suggest he’s the kind of person capable of writing the bile Kirchick quotes in his article. Paul’s position on the drug war alone—which he has acknowledged disproportionately affects minorities—would do more for blacks in America than any proposal any of the other candidates currently has on the table. Paul has also recently rescinded his support for the federal death penalty, also due to its disproportionate impact on blacks. Those two positions alone certainly don’t indicate a candidate who fears "animal" blacks from the urban jungle are coming to kill all the white people.

I also think the Paul phenomenon ought to be separated from any personal baggage Paul may have. Yes, there are some losers who support Paul’s candidacy. Any time you’re a fringe candidate cobbling together support from those who feel disaffected and left behind by the two-party system, you’re going to end up bumping elbows with a few weirdos. But there’s nothing bigoted about the thousands of college kids, mainstream libertarians, war opponents, drug war opponents, and hundreds-long threads on sites like Digg and Reddit where enthusiasm for Paul’s candidacy is strong. This movement is about ideas. There’s a vocal, enthusiastic minority of people out there, skewing young, that is excited about "the Constitution," limited government, and personal freedom. That’s significant and heartening, and shouldn’t be tainted by the fallout from Kirchick’s article (though I fear it will—more on that in a bit).

I’d also point out that if we’re going to clean house, here, we should go ahead and give it a thorough cleaning. When it comes to alleged sordid associations with neo-confederate organizations, Paul’s in good company in the Republican Party (see Haley Barbour and John Ashcroft, among others). When it comes to anti-Semitism, one needn’t look any farther than Al Sharpton, who still commands inexplicable respect from the Democratic establishment. None of this excuses what’s in those newsletters, nor does it excuse Paul’s association with them. It just means he has company, and I suspect the outrage we’ll see in the coming days will be rather selective.

All of that said, let me get to the scolding. Like Nick Gillespie, I think the most disappointing thing about all of this is what Dave Weigel posted this afternoon from New Hampshire: Paul doesn’t consider this worthy of a serious reaction. I was hoping for much, much more. If Paul didn’t write these screeds, he should tell us who did, or assign someone from the campaign to do some research, and reveal the authors’ identity. He should explain his relationship with the authors, and how it is they came to write for a newsletter that went out under his name. He should acknowledge which of these positions he at one time supported but now repudiates, which he has never supported, and which he still supports. If he’s going to claim he merely lent his name to some people and causes he shouldn’t have, and with whom he didn’t at the time or doesn’t now agree, he should say so, and explain how he could let a newsletter continue to be published under his name after first, fifth, tenth, or twentieth time it ran something he found offensive. Like Kirchick, I find the prospect that Paul never read the newsletter implausible.

The 1990s is not "ancient history." We were by then well past the point in American history where the kind of racism and bigotry present in those articles had any place in civil discourse. I simply can’t imagine seeing any piece of paper go out under my name that included sympathetic words for David Duke. That a newsletter with Paul’s name did just that demands an explanation from Paul. The "I’ve answered that in the past" reply isn’t sufficient. You’re running for president, now. You have a national platform. You’ve been an ambassador for libertarian ideas on Colbert, the Daily Show, Meet the Press, and Jay Leno. That you’ve provided a brief explanation for some of these passages a decade ago during a little-noticed congressional campaign doesn’t cut it. No one was paying attention then. Just about everyone is now.

That Paul and his campaign don’t consider this worthy of a serious reaction I’m afraid makes it all the more difficult to buy into the least damning spin on the story (and even that is still pretty damning). It suggests at the very least a certain obliviousness to the resonance and impact of racism and bigotry.

Of course, Paul was never going to win. So the real concern here is what happens to the momentum for the ideas his campaign has revived. The danger is that the ignorance in those newsletters becomes inextricably tethered to the ideas that have drawn people to Paul’s campaign, and soils those ideas for years to come. You needn’t be a gold bug or buy into conspiracies about Jewish bankers, for example, to see the merit in allowing for private, competing currencies (what PayPal once aspired to become). You needn’t believe blacks are animals or savages or genetically inferior to believe that the welfare state’s perverse incentives have done immeasurable damage to black families. You needn’t be a confederate sympathizer to appreciate the wisdom of federalism. You needn’t be an anti-Semite to wonder about the implications of the U.S.’s broad support for Israel.

Some of these ideas have always faced a certain hurdle in the national debate. To argue against welfare, hate crimes laws, and affirmative action, libertarians (and conservatives) always have to clear the racism card first. To argue for ending the drug war or knocking out huge federal agencies, we always have to clear the "’I’m not a kook" card. Today’s news, combined with Paul’s high profile, I think carries the potential to make all of that a little more difficult.

I also fear that newly-minted Paulites on sites like Reddit, Digg, Slashdot and the like—whose first exposure to libertarianism was Ron Paul—are going to click over to the New Republic piece in the coming days, become disillusioned, and assume that this is really what libertarianism is all about.

Paul’s candidacy attracted broad support because he unabashedly embraced what the GOP claims to be on fiscal issues—low tax, limited government, pro-federalist—and what the Democrats claim to be on social issues—pro individual freedom and pro-privacy. Paul’s campaign has essentially called both parties on their bullshit, and made them explain the gap between their stated principles and the way they’ve governed. Both sides I think were surprised at how strong he came on. So both sides dismissed him as a nut, and cited the kookiest fringes of libertarianism and dug up the most whacked-out Paul supporters to prove their point. Unfortunately, the quotes pulled from these newsletters will for many only confirm those worst stereotypes of what he represents. The good ideas Paul represents then get sullied by association. The Ann Althouses of the world, for example, are now only more certain that opponents of federal anti-discrimination laws should have to prove that they aren’t racist before being taken seriously.

There have always been issues where I disagree pretty profoundly with Paul—immigration and the Fourteenth Amendment, to name two. Still, I’ve been encouraged by his campaign because it’s been heartening to not only watch a candidate talk about limited government, humble foreign policy, and individual liberty over the last several months, but to see his support actually grow as he does.

Paul’s success and media coverage have exposed a large portion of the country to libertarian ideas for the first time. Before yesterday, that was a good thing. But now I’m not so sure. If this new audience’s first exposure to libertarianism now comes with all of this decidedly unlibertarian baggage—that many may now wrongly associate with libertarian ideas—maybe it would have been better if Paul’s campaign had sputtered out months ago, and we waited a cycle or two for someone else to come along to tap the sentiment.


Digg it |  reddit | |  Fark

26 Responses to “Ron Paul”

  1. #1 |  Packratt | 

    While I’m personally unsure about libertarianism for my own reasons which are not associated with Ron Paul in the least…

    I think that you might be more worried than you need to be that people freshly exposed to libertarianism might associate Mr. Paul’s old views with the ideology.

    I think, maybe, you can have a bit more hope in the people who were receptive to the idea than you might be giving them credit for. People will keep with the ideology if they are partial to the ideas even if the person who turned them on to the message had different views in the past.

    Just thought I would give you some outside perspective on the issue.

  2. #2 |  Robert | 

    I also would like his campaign to come out stronger against these writings. Not particularly because I believe Ron Paul believes (or ever believed) in these ideas, but rather to make his candidacy about his ideas, not stuff published in his name that he doesn’t agree with.

    I can’t imagine that anyone who has followed Ron Paul much, and watched him speak and be interviewed would believe that he wrote these articles. That’s beside the point, he’s looking for new people, who unfortunately might see this first and make their judgement of him based on it.

    I would also imagine that anyone who is a true Ron Paul supporter would already know about these documents. I certainly did.

  3. #3 |  Von Mises Grad | 

    I think your points are interesting, but I don’t see why libertarianism can’t be big tent with respect to these issues. Libertarian has no inherent view on racial issues other than demanding legal equality and nondiscrimination by the state. And historically it’s been opposed to civil rights laws. You do know the folks at the John Birch and Lew Rockwell sites are your people too.

    After all, equality and liberty have long been seen in conflict. Most “states rights” and libertarians historically wanted to protect restrictive covenants, segregationist schools, anti-union contracts, and all the rest. Big government, interference with private property, and interference with freedom of contract have all been perpetrated by the state in the name of civil rights for blacks, and libertarians before they became drug-obsessed emphasized these matters because they affected ordinary people.

    I distinctly remember at the von Mises Institute in the summer of 1993. Jeff Tucker, columnist for Free Market, said in a parlor conversation about what time in history we’d like to live, that he’d like to live in the Reconstruction South, where he could be a “Knight of the White Camelia” and protect “White Women’s Honor.” Surely you won’t say the von Mises people aren’t libertarian, will you? They just have a different view on racial issues and history. I thought libertarians are supposed to “live and let live” and none of this should matter because the government shouldn’t do jack squat to end private discrimination.

    It’s not just about smoking weed and renegade cops. It’s about renegade institutions like sexual harassment laws and nondiscrimination laws. It’s about the renegade Supreme Court creating rights that empower the federal government at the expense of private institutions and local government.

    We should be allowed to have all white clubs, neighborhoods, and golf courses under libertarian theory. And all black, Asian, female, male, and any other thing you can think of. And if you don’t like that you should call yourself a liberal, not a libertarian. Because we don’t think these things are “merely allowable but abhorrent.” There’s no “real harm” because there’s no state action. Since when is voluntary association (and disassociation) a harm worthy of government attention in the libertarian universe?

  4. #4 |  Jim | 

    The campaign his isssued a press release on this that’s a little stronger than the quotes DW got.

    “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do
    not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
    uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.”

  5. #5 |  Scott | 

    No mention of Sen. Byrd or Sen. Hollings? How about Dick Gephardt? A successful career in politics isn’t necessarily out of reach for overt racists, be they reformed or otherwise (nor are “neo-confederate organizations” the sole purview of old-school GOPers)

    You’re right, though. Paul needs to address this story fast. Like right-this-very-minute fast. He in the remarkable position of being a Libertarian candidate who people actually pay attention to and being coy about these allegations can only hurt the party as a whole.

  6. #6 |  Jack | 

    Thanks for writing this. A conservative friend of mine just sent me a dozen links to the Paul shitstorm and I just copied the trackback to this post and responded with that.

    Bro, you save me time. Thanks again.

  7. #7 |  CK | 

    “Paul’s success and media coverage have exposed a large portion of the country to libertarian ideas for the first time. ”
    Which would explain why the home of Stephen Glass would publish this rehash now.
    TNR supports Guiliani.
    Kirchick supports Guiliani
    Dr. Paul was not interviewed for the article ( this reminds me of that NYT hit piece of a few weeks ago ).
    The piece is designed and timed to derail Dr. Paul in the early state where he has the most appeal. It is of a kind with the rest of the schmear jobs.
    “I think Paul’s prone to nutty conspiracy theories…” such as? I don’t recall Dr. Paul ever coming out with anything as conspiratorial as this: That is the link to the Sibel Edmonds story about the selling of american nuclear secrets by US government officials.
    “When it comes to alleged sordid associations with neo-confederate organizations,…” such as the Mises Institute at Auburn ?
    “Of course, Paul was never going to win.” That certainly has been the mantra in every article, every interview, why I bet that is why 200,000+ donated 20mil last quarter. You know those kooky kooks just love to throw their money away.

  8. #8 |  anne | 

    I had the same reaction when I read the New Republic piece. These newsletters can’t be dismissed so non-chalantly. Especially after taking contributions from avowed white supremicists.

  9. #9 |  CK | 

    How many people have the name Donald Black in the USA?

  10. #10 |  David Chesler | 

    It’s 8:10pm and the polls just closed in NH, 11% of precincts reporting. Paul and Giuliani seem to be tied for 4th place in NH. CNN is showing Giuliani 9%, Paul 9% with a few fewer precincts (was 8% earlier.). Except in the pie chart where Paul’s piece doesn’t get labeled at all.

    The degree to which MSM is treating Paul unfairly makes me think he’s worth supporting.

    Otherwise I agree with you Radley, this mud ought to be dealt with. Thanks for the rebuttals explaining why it’s OK to have views that particularly kooks also have.

  11. #11 |  Lee | 

    The half logic at work here is troubling. Here’s some things to think about: you must be fair, so examine the life and ACTIONS of the other candidates, and keep in mind that because someone says something doesn’t mean it’s true; one can’t be held accountable or for the personal actions of someone else, so taking a donation from someone that believes XYZ is no big deal, since you’re doing good with the money; you must be fair, so that means the backgrounds of ALL donaters to ALL candidates must be examined — this is simply unrealistic and not even fair because guilt by very loose association is a ridiculous premise.

    Everyone is so quick to judge and throw stones. I submit that everyone has associated on some extremely loose level with people that society would find reprehensible. Does that mean you have to come out and disavow the person to appease “society”?

    And to say “someone never would have won” means you can predict the future, which we know you can’t. Reaffirming your guess (which is all it is) after the fact is invalid, since a guess can always be affirmed after the fact.

  12. #12 |  Michael | 

    While I can see your point, I feel like it is precisely for the reasons you mention that Ron Paul is an ideal candidate. Ron Paul isn’t interested in mud slinging or playing the political game.

    Why should he have to acknowledge any of the claims against him? Acknowledging them would give them some kind of weight or value. He doesn’t want to make this a she-said, he-said contest. An election for the presidency should solely be about the issues, backed by someone who shows consistency in supporting those values (i.e. voting record).

    If a presendential candidate had to vehemently dismiss all the mud slung at them, what we’d find up with is a bunch of crappy political partisian games. Oh wait, that’s what we have.

    So I guess the point is: Yes, a political game exists where this sort of exchange occurs quite frequently. Unfortunetly, the American people are blind to the negative consequences of these games, so they allow them to exist and they become an essential part of the political process.

    Should Ron Paul submit to this crap just to win the election? Or should he stick to his beliefs and run for president the correct and honest way?

    I guess you believe the former.

  13. #13 |  prairie | 

    Being a reader of this site for some time, I have found that Radley Balko seldom devotes this much print space to any topic. It must be really, really, important to use precious web space to discuss an article filled with opinion and undocumented accusations of events 30 years ago (I think Mr Balko was probably in diapers at the time-just a guess).

    I have enjoyed the investigative work this site has done, sadly, it has chosen to take on a political opinion page too.

  14. #14 |  Chris Berez | 

    I would have been able to dismiss those newsletters somewhat easier at one point. I honestly would like to believe that Paul’s name was used to promote ideas he did not/does not support. But as you pointed out, his lack of a response is disturbing to say the least. Not to mention, lending out your name for newsletters you haven’t approved before release is staggeringly sloppy.

    Add to this Paul’s views on immigration and his anti-14th amendment stance (a stance I find particularly sickening) and you have some of the major reasons I stopped supporting Paul several months ago.

  15. #15 |  John C Jackson | 

    Von Mises Grad,
    I am a libertarian. You can call me a liberal if you like or perhaps one of the other stupid names “populist” so-called libertarians throw around. Though that certainly wouldn’t make it true. I am also an individualist. So NO, I don’t agree with your racial collectivism.

    While it is true that libertarians support freedom of association and reject the state attempting to outlaw private discrimination, state mandated segregation is not “libertarian.”

    I don’t believe in “State’s Rights.” I believe in individual rights. I do not believe a state should have the power to mandate racial segregation or any other kind of violation of individual rights- just because it is not done on the “federal” level. The state itself should treat people equally and not force private discrimination. ALLOWING for private discrimination is completely different.

    Maybe that view is “federalism” but, IMHO, it ain’t libertarianism.

    While I agree libertarianism should have a big tent ( though a lot of your friends apparently don’t think so), racial collectivists who seek to use state power to impose their views are not libertarians in my view.

  16. #16 |  Jlangley | 

    I guess you missed the update, after Paul denounced the letters, the national review released scanned copies of the letters and several are signed or have other articles by his wife that are written in first person. he either had to know or he is an idiot controlled by other people.

  17. #17 |  whiskey | 

    I’m going to cross-post my comments from Reason here:

    There are quite a few things that killed my support for Paul months ago:

    #1: The newsletters and his campaign’s reaction thereto. I first heard about the newsletters in May of ’07. I’ve been making fun of the whole fleet-footed blacks thing for months now. There’s some seriously virulent racism going on, and Paul’s reaction to this really, really, really has been underwhelming since it was first unearthed during his Congressional runs.

    #2: Immigration

    #3: 14th Amendment

    #4: Darfur divestment: Somehow he votes against a bill that would prevent the federal government from 1) spending money 2) overseas. What the fuck? How is this in any way consistent with his stated politics? It’s just so bizarre that it gives credence to concerns that he’s using libertarianism as a cover for racism.

    #5: His involvement in the anti-psychiatry movement.

    #6: War on Christians/Christmas bullshit

  18. #18 |  icr | 

    #4: Darfur divestment:

    To the best of my knowledge Paul has always oppossed economic sanctions.

  19. #19 |  Chris | 

    Sadly, it looks like Ron Paul will not get the Republican nomination and we will be subjected to another four years of bad government and no new ideas.

    If he ran as an independent candidate, I would vote for him. He has more views I agree with than all the others combined.

  20. #20 |  whiskey | 


    It’s a bill to reduce government expenditures overseas, and doesn’t prohibit anyone other than the federal government from doing business in Darfur.

  21. #21 |  Lloyd | 

    It makes sense that TNR would be out to sink Paul’s candidacy. Paul’s the only antiwar candidate getting double digits — he threatens to steal disaffected liberals’ votes. Whassup with Reason piling on? The oh-so libertarian Reason that’s being taken over by the original warblogger Matt Welch? I just answered my own question. Howabout dat?

  22. #22 |  Deus X. Nihilo | 

    Von Mises Grad:

    “You do know the folks at the John Birch and Lew Rockwell sites are your people too.” That’s my choice to make for myself, not yours to make for me.

    Striving for MATERIAL equality and freedom have historically been in conflict: a forced equality of job and educational opportunities, housing, income, etc. However, equality of individual rights and individual freedom has been, or at least I thought, at the core of libertarian philosophy as expressed in the non-aggression principle.

    When you see in one of those newsletters analysis of the L.A. riots couched in racially collective terms of “the blacks” and “the whites,” purporting to know the political views of each group, one has to wonder if the author actually subscribes to von Mises’ methodological individualism, or refrains from it when it doesn’t suit his unproveable prejudices.

    As you well know, one has every right to associate with or dissociate from whomever one wants. One can also express whatever social analysis one wants, no arguments there. But when one publicly expresses racially collectivist views or crude sterotypes, one does not have the right to be free of criticism.

    I think what we’re really dishing about here is values, not what’s properly or improperly “libertarian.” Not all values are necessarily explicitly or even implicitly “libertarian,” as you yourself are aware. Certainly, any libertarian worthy of the label would actively oppose government interference into racially segregated schools, but that doesn’t mean that libertarians are obligated to uphold racial segregation as a value, and neither are they obligated to refrain from persuading others to voluntarily withhold their sanction of racial segregation. (If racial segregation is enforced by state or local law rather than wholly voluntary, then I would say that it IS distinctly unlibertarian to be unopposed to such segregation. The non-aggression principle doesn’t apply to the Feds and yet exempt the local tyrants.) Accordingly, opposition to drug laws does not necessarily obligate libertarians to uphold indulgence in recreational narcotics as a value, and neither does that position obligate them to refrain from persuading others to voluntarily withhold their sanction of narcotic indulgences.

    It would appear that a great many libertarians don’t agree with many values expressed in some of those newsletters. Perhaps they will dissociate themselves from libertarians who do, as is their prerogative under the right of free association.

    And to think I didn’t even smoke any weed before I started writing this…

  23. #23 |  Mark | 

    I’m disappointed in you Mr Balko.

    I’ve been reading your blog for years now, and I’ve disagreed with you before, but I’ve never been as surprised by what I read as in this piece.

    I think the most disappointing thing about all of this is what Dave Weigel posted this afternoon from New Hampshire: Paul doesn’t consider this worthy of a serious reaction.

    I find nothing disappointing about his response. Frankly I’m impressed he had the courage to react that way. Most people would react by immediately blaming someone else, shirking responsibility, hurling return accusations. Ron did none of those things. He apologized, took responsibility for the fact that he did not exercise good judgment in who he allowed to use his name, and dismissed it generally as something he had already addressed in the 90s. This was just being dredged up again as a smear campaign and Ron was literally not going to dignify it with an extended response.

    Ron is one of those people who lives with enough integrity that as you noted in your first two paragraphs that a simple look at the things he has actually said, and the things he has done, openly disprove such baseless allegations. To my mind, they are an embarrassment to the one who made them, not to Ron. That’s without even getting into the credibility issues of the people publishing it. Even people I know who don’t like Ron dismissed the information out of hand just from being informed who published it.

    Given Paul’s schedule and the amount of reading he does already I don’t find it the least bit implausible that he didn’t bother to read a letter from a couple of Mencken want-to-bes.

    Of course, Paul was never going to win.

    I think you’ve been involved in the Libertarian party too long. See, this isn’t an exercise in issue campaigning. The plan is to win, and yes, it can still happen. You’re being rather short-sighted and such pessimistic comments from someone with your influence only makes it more difficult. Very irresponsible. Do you actually want things to change for the better or are you only here to complain about how they’re bad? Is this blog purely an academic exercise? What have you actually *done* to try to help him win?

    As for your argument that this now taints everything, I think you’re making some big leaps. I know you haven’t exactly been involved in it at the grassroots level, but I’ve talked to hundreds of of them. They are not here because of Ron. Ron is only a vessel. As you noted briefly they are part of the campaign because of the issues. Most of them disagree with Ron on this or that point. That is not the issue. The reality is that he is the only one going in the right direction, and if you actually really truly want to put this country back on track then you’ve got to get behind and push.

    Frankly, if you’re not willing, then I was wrong about you, and you’re really nothing more than a Libertarian version of Rush Limbaugh.

    The reality is that anyone who would attach such foolish statements, divorced from their contexts, to the overall theories and positions of Ron as if they were somehow interdependent needs so much education that it doesn’t matter. Anyone that ignorant and devoid of basic reasoning skills cannot possibly apprehend the ideas. So they’re going to need so much work that adding on the need to disabuse them of their misconceptions hardly makes a big difference.

    [Maybe it would have been better if we had] waited a cycle or two for someone else to come along to tap the sentiment.

    Oh, of course, that’s brilliant. I mean, sure – we’re headed into a bad recession, if not worse. We’re arresting citizens of the united states and holding them indefinitely without trial. The govt is snooping in the details of the private lives of citizens without a warrant. We’re in debt to our eyeballs. The dollar is barely worth the paper its printed on. We’re facing the possibility of going to war with not one but two additional nations. We have the clear and present danger of national martial law.

    But hey, lets just go ahead and see what the next couple terms bring right? Maybe we’ll get lucky and your perfect candidate that thinks exactly like you will come along, and everyone will love him, and we’ll sweep him into office in victory and nobody will have to lift a finger. And there’ll be rainbows, and unicorns, and ….

    Get real. People, if you want your liberty you’re going to have to work for it. Quit your whining and do something.

  24. #24 |  prezronpaul2008 | 

    Open Letter To Lew Rockwell – January 12, 2008

    Dear Lew,

    You have now had three opportunities –1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.

    This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.

    Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.

    If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message.

    You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.

    John Robbins, Ph.D.
    Chief of Staff
    Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985

  25. #25 |  Congress Check | 

    Woody makes a movie as if he were lighting 10,000 safety matches to illuminate a city. Each one is a little epiphany: topical, ethnic, or political.GeneWilderGene Wilder, in regard to Woody Allen

  26. #26 |  Congress Blog | 

    Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.PlatoPlato, 427 BC-348