There have been so many little things at Reason that make me wonder, since the days where some of their writers advocated war and nation-building in Iraq. But this takes the cake. I don't subscribe to the magazine, so I can't cancel the subscription, but here's my letter to the editor:
"Katherine Mangu-Ward's repeated assurances on Fox News that "Ron Paul not going to win" are strange and emotional. Her suggestion that she somehow is part of the inner circle and Ron Paul's own head, and can confidently say "...and Ron Paul knows he's not going to win," and is planning accordingly are even more outlandish, and fall into the realm of fantasy.
I have been following the campaigns of all the candidates. I haven't seen any of the candidates talk about what they are going to do beyond this: 1) Obama is going to do what he has been doing (which in no way was what he said he would do during his first presidential campaign); and 2) the other Republican candidates (except Paul) are all saying they will NOT do whatever it is that Obama's been doing, but since what he's been doing is exactly what the GOP supported under George W. Bush, it is not clear that they are being truthful in their vague campaign promises.
I'm just trying to reason this out
-- Paul actually does things like vote "No" on spending increases, war, debt ceiling hikes, etc. He actually votes "Yes" on liberty and autonomy of people and of states, relative the the federal government. He openly says what he believes, he votes consistently in Congress relative to what he says. That sounds a plan for being President to me. Being a reasonable person, watching all of the candidates posture, I would expect President Paul to veto unnecessary spending, to end the wars and bring troops home, to honor the Constitution in all of his actions, to reduce overseas spending and aid, and enhance the practical security of the people from the state, though the bully pulpit and through policy, those unalienable rights described in the first ten amendments. That is indeed a solid plan for being President. Perhaps the Reason senior editor was talking about the menus for the dinners he would host, or the color of the drapes he would choose for the Presidential bedroom.
I suspect that George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, among others, would also be accused by Reason Magazine for "not having a plan to be President." But my real problem is that Reason seems to have gone fuzzy-headed, or perhaps is planning to change its name to "Candyland: The Thinktank That Requires no Reading or Counting Skills."