Murray Sabrin’s candidacy begins amidst Ron Paul woes

Dr. Sabrin has the potential to conjure up more passion and support among New Jersey voters than Estabrook and Pennacchio. Right now, there does not seem to be much enthusiasm with these two GOP candidates. I think it's foolish to automatically dismiss his candidacy and dumb him down to a third party candidate so quickly. His traditional Republican and conservative stances on limited government, low taxes, and less interventionism will resonate with those Republicans in New Jersey that are tired of the same old moderate to liberal Republicans (like Estabrook) put up for federal office. If Dr. Sabrin proves to run a quality campaign, he will be able to win over the conservatives already with Pennacchio. While Pennacchio is an overall great statesman and conservative, Pennacchio does not seem ready for such high office. Sabrin's message has the potential to win state-wide since he has many traditional conservative stances, but at the same time, not a part of the current conservative establishment either in Washington or Trenton.

Its politicians like Ron Paul and Murray Sabrin who have brought me back to the Republican Party. During my youth, my mother would often ask me to keep the noise down whenever Ronald Reagan was speaking on the television. During 7th and 8th grades, I started listening to conservative talk radio. Rush Limbaugh was the rage in my life, although I could only tape the first 45 minutes of his show at the time while I was in grade school. (this was when casette tapes where still the mainstay medium)

Upon entering high school, although I was heavily involved with the "heavy metal culture" I often carried one of Rush's books along with me to read during short breaks in between classes or during lunch. It was quite a view to see a leather biker jacket wearing, long haired, cigarette smoking, "Slayer" listening youth, school a tree hugging liberal teacher in "Environmental Sciences" class about facts regarding renewable resources for instance.

Upon graduation, the long hair got cut, the jacket put away for special occasions, and off to work I went, still believing in the core principal values of the Republican Party. Hell, I even voted for Bush during the 2000 election because his platform was the same one that Ron Paul is running on right now.

But during the last 8 years, something changed, both on a federal level as well as a state level. The Republican Party lost its way. No longer was it the beacon of freedom that it once was. It has since been replaced by an ideology that employs scare tactics to restrict and remove the liberties of the citizen in the United States. Where once stood proud sentinels, like minutemen, preventing the abuse of powers in our nation, now stands elitists who have been "groomed" from the cradle to hold an elected position.

We no longer are fiscally responsible with the monies collected through taxes, instead we spend, borrow, and spend some more, while we defer the payments upon our grandchildren. Locally, we see this in Trenton, where the Governor just spends away New Jersey's future, and the Republicans in the statehouse don't even utter a word, opting instead for a piece of the pie for their big campaign contributors.

I had given up all hope on politics here in New Jersey and on the Federal Level and was ready to retreat to a more defensible position in north western Pennsylvania where I had already previously lived for a year. I was going to be one of the "70,000" that Mike Doherty speaks about, who flee the oppressive regulations and taxation without the representation of New Jersey. My last dream of starting and operating a small towing company in my hometown destroyed when Corzine force-fed the industry bill #s-2759 "Preditory Towing Prevention Act" which again, adds more beaurocracy, more taxes, and above all, regulates all rates and fees in the towing industry, thus destroying the free market system completely in New Jersey.

Just as I was about ready to seach for a new home and a job, someone emailed me a youtube video about Ron Paul. Being the inquisitive Aquarian that I am, I watched. Amazed, I researched some more, went to New York, met the man, shook his hand, heard him speak in Grand Central Terminal, and ever since then, while chewing on a dirty water hot dog in the shadow of GCT, the epiphany struck me, "There is still hope".

The more I have gotten involved in the grassroots efforts to get Ron Paul elected, the more people I met all of whom are like me, very disappointed with the current state of the Republican Party, the direction of the state of New Jersey, and the general direction of our country.

Now I can say I organize one of the most active meet up groups in New Jersey. We are not just supporting Ron Paul, we are supporting the ideology of smaller government on all levels, fiscal responsibility, the return, and future protection of rights and liberties guaranteed to us through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We are not just some "Fly by night" group of KOOKS as the media would like to portray us. We are Republicans who want so desperately to return to the core values of the party, and who are prepared to push that agenda forward, as we support candidates such as Murray Sabrin who embrace our ideals.

So desperate we are, many of us decided that we can no longer trust the "elitists" within the party, who have sold our ideals in favor of campaign contributions, that we are preparing to take back elected seats and positions on all levels, from County Committee upwards all the way to the White House.

Ron Paul and Murray Sabrin are just the tip of the iceburg. All across the country people are running for elected positions in government on the "Ron Paul" platform, and we are slowly winning. Expect to see more of this in New Jersey as people who support true Republican values are educated, and start using the system themselves instead of issuing silent proxy to others by doing nothing. 

This is not a revolution of violence, it is one of enlightenment, where the tools of the trade are going to be the Soap Box, Ballot Box and Jury Box, and the Paul Revere of our time is the internet.

All you "Republicrats", "We the People" are serving you notice:

YOUR FIRED!  

J. Douglas Fisher, Organizer

Ron Paul Revolutionaries of Passaic County #1251 

Previously on Politickernj, we posted (and here it is again), a link to The New Republic (TNR) piece, Angry White Man, by James Kirchick, The bigoted past of Ron Paul, Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008, referred to by Matt Friedman in this post, above.  For you sincere libertarians out there, Cato-at-Liberty has now drawn the line in the sand, and rejected Ron Paul out of hand. (ht. LGF, here).  At Cato, they say, in pertinent part:

Paul says he didn’t write the letters, that he denounces the words that appeared in them, that he was unaware for decades of what 100,000 people were receiving every month from him. That’s an odd claim on which to run for president: I didn’t know what my closest associates were doing over my signature, so give me responsibility for the federal government.

. . .

Those words are not libertarian words. Maybe they reflect “paleoconservative” ideas, though they’re not the language of Burke or even Kirk. But libertarianism is a philosophy of individualism, tolerance, and liberty. As Ayn Rand wrote, “Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism.” Making sweeping, bigoted claims about all blacks, all homosexuals, or any other group is indeed a crudely primitive collectivism.

Libertarians should make it clear that the people who wrote those things are not our comrades, not part of our movement, not part of the tradition of John Locke, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, William Lloyd Garrison, Frederick Douglass, Ludwig von Mises, F. A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, and Robert Nozick. Shame on them.

Good for Cato.That TNR article detailed many of the outrageous and racially charged articles newsletters that went out under Ron Paul's name for a few decades -- since the late 1970's. 

It is true that many of us may have a natural (and justified) inclination to view with skepticism some of what is published in TNR.  The rubbish that they published by Scott Beauchamp is a good example. But as pointed out by CATO, that is completely beside the point.

And libertarian-leaning Reason Magazine has now published a post detailing even more on the Ron Paul postitions over the years. (Again, ht. LGF).With respect to the Paul article in TNR, therefore, it would seem that a close examination reveals that James Kirchick did his homework on this one.  Even Ron Paul does not deny the existence of the articles in his newsletters.  We're not just talking about a few "wild hair" rantings that went out under his name!

But Paul alleges that he knew nothing about them, or that statements were taken out of context, even though his name adorned the masthead of at least three of those newsletter publications. 

Can anyone seriously believe that in all that time, Ron Paul never once became aware of those ugly polemical rantings?  That he never once read them?  Or that he never once received a letter from a follower or constituent challenging the basis of those, challenging him to put a stop to it?  Because if so, then, as CATO points out, on what earthly basis would anyone else EVER support his candidacy, or for that matter EVER accept his endorsement for candidacy for public office?

What now of Murray Sabrin?  Will he say that, over the years, he never read any of those rantings, never wrote to inform his friend, Ron Paul -- he claims they've been "buds" since 1982 - to warn him that things were getting out of hand on the Ron Paul masthead?  If so, where's the proof, Murray?

These articles were racially ugly to the core, and should inform any decent person that, libertarianism aside -- and there is indeed a legitimate and valuable libertarian tradition and movement in these United States -- that Ron Paul simply does not represent their values, or many of the values that we all hold dear as Americans.

The great American tradition of individual liberty that has underscored our national appeal, that has informed our resistance and our triumph over both the collectivism on the extreme left and on the extreme right over the past century, says otherwise.

So, why does Murray Sabrin now so gleefully accepting the endorsement of Ron Paul?  Well, that's for him to explain, along with his curious silence over the years.

But I say, shame on Ron Paul, and shame on Murray Sabrin for accepting his endorsement!  

by Trochilus

For your information, James Kirchicks credibility as a reporter comes to question quite frequently because of his history of heavily slanting his interpretation of the truth towards neo-conservative ideals.

I shouldn't be surprised here, many neo conservatives right now are scared to death about losing control of the republican party.

As for Ron Paul, he addressed the issue with Wolf Blitzer, and most people I talk to about it, think its a bunch of BS to begin with.

The public didn't buy into the hit piece, my advice, don't allow yourself to be used as a tool.

J. Douglas Fisher 

I sincerely admire your rhetorical skill.

Now, speaking of talking points:

1) The wisdom of our involvement in WWI is unquestionable.
2) Questioning our current monetary regime is a sign of illness.
3) Ron Paul is like a Democrat.
4) The necessariness of the Civil War is unquestionable.
5) Ron Paul is an outdated broken record.
6) Democrats love him (because he's like a Democrat; see #3).
7) Racism.
8) If someone else says something in your name; you either are aware of it, or else are unfit for office.
9) People who support Ron Paul are illogical Trufers.
10) Ron Paul is not a serious individual.
11) Racism.

You did a decent job weaving yours through the post. I guess I should have thrown in a few pejoratives ("little Paulites") and some politico-cred-building narrative to mask mine?

There is actually some real progress:

#1 & 2 & 4 by your last post are just reiterations of #5:

It collapses to Paul's consistency in highlighting his message, which you take as a grating repetitiveness. I'm surprised you admit no parallel between historical cases of American intervention and modern cases. Whether you wish to draw different conclusions is one thing, but to claim no segue?

#3: We are in agreement. Ron Paul (as a quintessential Republican) is not like a Democrat. I do not believe that either 'end' of the political spectrum has a stranglehold on conspiratorial thinking, so that basis of painting him to the left is out. Certainly to class him with Carter or insinuate that he might be against the Revolutionary War was in error.

#6: Obama supporters are easily 'star-struck'; I concur.

#7 & 8 & 11 boil down to #8:

You think that his not realizing that people were putting this stuff out on paper bearing his name disqualifies him for office. That's a position I think would be hard to apply across the board given the way political names get used by others every day. More importantly - given the delegation of responsibilty requisite a Presidency; if any President were held to account for or presumed knowledgeable regarding each and every act performed by someone downstream the chain of command...

In the (I believe unlikely) event that he was aware - I stand by my original comment. The bulk of this further dialogue stems from the secondary talking points you introduced in response.

#9: Here we still disagree: bringing up the beliefs that some of his supporters may hold, so long as those ideas remain outside his platform, seems unwarranted in discussing the man himself.

#10: So far he's beaten Giuliani and Thompson in early showings. If you wish to extend your logic to at least one of these others - perhaps I could more easily understand what you mean by "not a serious candidate."

Might we continue this transaction elsewhere? One of us seems to have hijacked a discussion on Murray Sabrin's Senate run and turned it into a colloquium on Ron Paul.

Mark Rushmore: 

Well, it seems to me that this post by Matt Friedman was based on his keen observation that Murray Sabrin had launched his candidacy for the Senate, including touting a Ron Paul endorsement, at the very time that Paul’s presidential candidacy was suddenly coming under closer scrutiny. 

Therefore, the discussion here turned to what Murray might have been aware of regarding the public expression of some highly questionable views, over the course of many years, in at least three publications, with mastheads prominently bearing Ron Paul’s name.

And the obvious reason it is fair to ask Murray about that, is that he has just freely told us that Ron Paul has been his close friend and political ally since the early 1980s. 

So, instead of gaining a free ride on the Ron Paul celebrity, Murray Sabrin now finds himself at the scene of a political supervention, with all the glaring lights. 

As to your suggestion regarding another venue for continuing this discussion, feel free to post a comment to my site.  But it seems to me that the emerging debate about Murray Sabrin’s candidacy, is taking place right here, right now, on Politickernj. 

And, in that regard, where’s Murray?

by Trochilus

Mark Rushmore: 

These political charges regarding the content of Ron Paul publications may have been "out there" for years, and hashed out in a Congressional district in Texas.  But they are new information here.  That’s Bill Clinton’s usual defense you are suggesting – “Oh, that’s old news.”  New Jersey is getting ready to vote in a presidential primary, and Ron Paul is still running.

Just because Murray Sabrin has bad timing, doesn’t mean I’m trying to splash mud on him.  He stepped into it, not me! 

I read the article in TNR.  I didn’t like what excerpts I read.  I read the additional material posted by Reason.  I was offended by much of it.

If Murray Sabrin was on the mailing list for one or more of those publications over the years, and saw what was repeatedly being published in Ron Paul’s name, don’t you think he should have stepped in to help protect the reputation of his friend? I like to think I would have!   

And Mark, I just know that if I had three newsletters with my name on the masthead, I’d keep a close eye on what was going out in my name.  I would never have allowed that kind of trash to go out and reflect poorly on my name.  But it went out repeatedly! 

So, that's why it all keeps coming back to whether Ron either knew about the articles and did nothing to stop them, or whether he did not know about them, and consequently comes off as a friendly but inattentive persona who was being used by others.  He says he didn’t know.  Fine.  

But the bottom line is that either way it reflects very poorly on his stated desire to be the President of the United States.  Again, the posted reactions by Cato and Reason are spot on as far as I am concerned.  That's why I posted the links to all the materials, above -- so anyone else could look at the material and judge for themselves.

Finally, "running for Senate" means engaging in the debate.  Are you Murray's spokesman?  If not, why should I not conclude he's also "running from" the debate?

by Trochilus

Sure looks to me like Matt's post came to the attention of several Paul and Sabrin supporters.  Don't blame me if they are unable to respond effectively to the positions of Cato and Reason, or from myself.

by Trochilus

In his post above, the Bullhorn makes the following observations, among others:

After all, I'm certain that none of the current crop of candidates seeking the nomination, and whose express responsibility was to represent us in the Congress have ever read The Patriot Act even to this day, or most other bills for that matter that they vote for or against and that impact our collective lives in significant ways on a regular basis.

Well, how does the Bullhorn know that? He or she may well be quite certain of it.  But I'm not.  I say it sounds like a straw man argument to me. 

And, in addition to that unsupported assumption, I would also note that very few individuals in the current crop of Republican candidates are either currently Members of Congress, either Senators, or Members of the House.   

In fact, most of them are not.  Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Mike Huckabee come immediately on the Republican side, and, until he dropped out a few days ago, Bill Richardson was not a Member of Congress either. 

Fred Thompson, of course was a Senator when the first Patriot Act passed and was signed by the President back in 2001.  But he was not a Member of Congress when the modified Patriot Act reauthorization bill passed in 2006.   John Edwards too was a Senator back in 2001, but not in 2006. 

So much for that generalization!

The Bullhorn also makes another curious observation about the materials that were contained in, not one, but at least three publications that went out for years under Ron Paul's name.  Bullhorn said:

I have not seen or read any of these materials, so I cannot judge the materials themselves as either covertly or overtly racist in tone or message.

And yet, the Bullhorn was able to arrive at the judgment that, regardless of what they may have said, those highly charged materials that were contained in Ron Paul publications and therefore bore his presumed imprimatur of approval, should now be ignored in the context of Mr. Paul's candidacy for President. 

Hmmmmm.  Well, that again brings up essentially the same question we raised above, to wit: 

How did the Bullhorn arrive at that conclusion, if as he concedes he never read any of those documents?   In fact, does his argument now not have the same basis to it, as his proffered complaint against all those Senators and Representatives, who he said he was "certain" never read most of the bills they ever voted for or against? 

The only real difference seems to be that we know the Bullhorn did not read the polemical material in the Paul publications.  But we do not know whether the senators or Representatives who are currently running for President really read the bills they voted on.

That is why I posted the links above to the material from the TNR article, Cato and Reason -- so people would have a chance to read as much as is readily available, and base their reaction on information, not just form an opinion based on what appears to be a minimalist argument.

by Trochilus

Gee, Bullhorn, I was not aware that we have “official media reports” (to quote you) here in the good old U.S.A.  Now, I am personally aware that we have plenty of bad media reports, my knowledge of which has been gleaned from a lifetime of having had the misfortune of actually reading many of them.  In the course of acquiring that self-taught skill, I have learned to quickly spot at least some of the more obtrusive dingers. 

The New Republic, in fact, has published some.  The Scott Beauchamp “revelations” story was a very good example, as I noted above.  But this article about the Ron Paul publications was, I think, a pretty solid hit.  And Reason magazine amplified on the subject. 

At the risk of turning this discussion into a discussion of the Patriot Act, I would simply note again that your critical generalization about not reading the bill before voting on it, does not reach to three of the top four contenders for POTUS on the Republican side, as they were not then, nor are they now Members of Congress. 

Again, here is what you said:

After all, I'm certain that none of the current crop of candidates seeking the nomination, and whose express responsibility was to represent us in the Congress have ever read The Patriot Act even to this day, or most other bills for that matter that they vote for or against and that impact our collective lives in significant ways on a regular basis.

Clearly you posited your argument as if it reached to all the contenders.  It obviously does not, and so I continue to take legitimate issue with the basis of your argument, even if Mr. Paul was correct when he charged that no one read it before it passed. You cite no articles for your claims in that regard.  

Hence, in spite of your concluding assertion that, “Nothing said in the previous comment in any way addresses let alone diminishes my analysis as it appears thereafter, and therefore deserves no further comment” you are quite  plainly incorrect on that score as well.  Finally, in your latest offering, you have also said,

My further point is that the actual words don't mean anything if Dr, Paul didn't author, read or know of them no matter what they said.

That is precisely where, I think, I would most take issue with you, Tucker Carlson’s remonstrance on the subject notwithstanding.These were Ron Paul publications, with his name on the masthead of each.  It was not just one or two such instances.  They went out repeatedly and over a considerable number of years.  How could he not have been aware?

But even if he was entirely oblivious to these offensive articles and characterizations, it is still a very bad reflection on Mr. Paul insofar as he now proposes to run the country!  Get serious.  I agree with Cato’s conclusions on the subject. 

You say it is all meaningless.  We disagree.

by Trochilus