Along with many others, I've criticized Ron Paul for not renouncing support from assorted loonies. However, at least Paul has not directly solicited their support (update: as a commenter points out, he does, however, appear regularly on "Truther" Alex Jones's radio show). By contrast, "Obama paid his respects to one of Harlem's top powerbrokers - Reverend Al Sharpton, who says he hasn't decided who he is supporting, but the meeting sent a warning to Hillary Clinton that Harlem could be up for grabs." So long as it's considered acceptable for "mainstream" candidates to actually solicit support from the likes of Sharpton, and for that matter Giuliani supporter Pat Robertson, it gives Paul supporters good reason to question why their candidate is receiving such scrutiny for merely refusing to screen supporters. Apparently, if dangerous fringe demagogues have a sufficiently large political constituency, anything goes. (In my own case, I merely pointed out that the Paul campaign's refusal to disassociate itself from fringe supporters discourages me from supporting him as a protest candidate.)
Ron Paul versus Barack Obama:
This doesn't mean that it's right for Obama and Giuliani to avoid scrutiny for their solicitation of extremists with large constituencies. But I think it's a little naive to say that Paul doesn't solicit the support of extremists.
Rudy &Pat
I thought the post was a parody. Do you seriously equate Al Sharpton with some of the true extremists who support Ron Paul?
"The lead story on the January 5, 2006, edition of The 700 Club was Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's hospitalization for a severe stroke. After the story, Robertson said that Sharon's illness was possibly retribution from God for his recent drive to give more land to the Palestinians. He also claimed former prime minister Yitzhak Rabin's 1995 assassination may have occurred for the same reason.[42]"
and
"Robertson repeatedly supported former President of Liberia Charles Taylor in various episodes of his 700 Club program during the United States' involvement in the Liberian Civil War in June and July of 2003. Robertson accuses the U.S. State Department of giving President Bush bad advice in supporting Taylor's ouster as president, and of trying "as hard as they can to destabilize Liberia."[28]
Robertson was criticized for failing to mention in his broadcasts his $8,000,000 (USD) investment in a Liberian gold mine.[29] Taylor had been indicted by the United Nations for war crimes at the time of Robertson's support."
wikipedia
My point is that both sides have to bend to their base to recruit the borderline crazies or else they wouldn't get elected. Does this say anything about their policies?
How much actual violence can be attributed to these "true extremists"? How much to Sharpton? (Crown Heights, Freddies Fashion Mart).
Well, the Ron Paul extremists merely talk of violence. Sharpton actually goes out and incites it, and deaths ensue. So I guess you are right, in your own convuluted way.
That hole you're digging yourself isn't getting any shallower.
Let me be clear that I'm no fan of Al Sharpton, but your position here is just whacked.
That's no doubt why Sharpton is in jail for his crime of inciting violence (which is clearly unprotected by the First Amendment). Oh, that's right, he isn't. I'll leave you to figure out why.
And, again, given that Obama has campaigned on his lack of fear of talking to even America's worst enemies, what is the harm in Obama talking to Al Sharpton?
I get it, so if someone isn't prosecuted or convicted in a court of law, they didn't do it? Well I guess Hitler and Stalin weren't mass murderers and OJ is innocent.
Troubling logic.
From wikipedia:
Sharpton told the protesters, "We will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business." On 1995-12-08, Roland J. Smith Jr., one of the protesters, entered the store with a gun and flammable liquid, shot several Jewish customers and employees inside the store and burned it down. He killed seven in the store, and himself. Sharpton claimed that the perpetrator was an open critic of himself and his nonviolent tactics. Sharpton later expressed regret for making the racial remark, "white interloper," and denied responsibility for inflaming or provoking the violence.
I guess no one here has spent much time in Oklahoma City.
Hint: read the Supreme Court case law of the last 40 years on the topic.
Nick
I suppose there's a valid point to be made on the differentiation between merely not disowning a particular group and actively accepting an endorsement from a particular group, but except to the extent that endorsement/non-disownance actually affects a candidates policies, I don't see it as a powerful argument.
Sharpton is every bit the liberal equivalent of Robertson or Falwell, and I find the opinions of both rather distasteful, but the mere fact that Guliani accepted an endorsement from Robertson or Obama accepted an endorsement from Sharpton is not relevant in my mind.
On the other hand the extent to which Guliani is likely to actually adopt Robertson's evangelical agenda (highly unlikely) or Obama is likely to adopt Sharpton's ideas about affirmative action (I'm not sure) is relevant.
Huckabee: You know, in my position in this entire election, I need the support of anybody and everybody I can get.
Presumably anybody and everybody would include "assorted loonies."
Huckabee: Sure, they should. I disagree with them, strongly disagree with them on the idea of same-sex marriage, but in a democracy we can have disagreements over some policies and still agree on the greater things that make us Republicans.
So would I accept their support? Of course. Would I change my position on same-sex marriage? No, I wouldn't. But if they're willing to support me, I'll be their president. I'll be anybody's president, but I'll be true to my convictions, and I think that's what Americans look for...
The only difference between this and Ron Paul's loonies is psychological. It is one thing to apply this to log cabin republicans, it is another to apply it to neo-Nazis. It does not make a difference logically or intellectually, but emotionally the close proximity of such unsavory characters clouds things.
You can find extremists in any capacity, and of any ideology. But last time I checked, the Oklahoma City terrorists were punished and put to death, not given interviews on CNN. and fawned over by presidental candidates. I'm not equating McVeigh with Sharpton, I am pointing out the inconsistency and hypocrisy. Sharpton has blood on his hands, plain and simple, and yet he is still respected and listened to. As I said earlier, call it both ways.
I find sharpton's politics distasteful, but he's no more or less a dangerous fringe demagogue than Pat Robertson is, and there's absolutely no denying that both have substantial political followings.
I don't see any harm coming from merely "talking" to them, only from actually implementing their policies.
But then, I also could care less who's supporting Paul except to the extent he might actually support their policies. I'm reasonably sure that if the American Neo Nazi movement had millions of supporters a few more candidates would be willing to talk to their groups as well.
You're right, It was CBS
Exactly. And, obviously, that cannot be proven in Sharpton's case. Thus, your claim that deaths can be "attributed" to Sharpton is slimy and, ultimately, false.
This is a bizarre response to my comments. I didn't make any claim that Sharpton "should" be in jail, nor did I make any similar claim about any of Paul's supporters. It is Prof. Bernstein and others who are trying to make Sharpton guilty of a crime he manifestly did not commit.
Both Sharpton and Stormfront have identical free speech rights. I don't like either of them. But to treat them as somehow equivalent in their ideology is utterly absurd.
The elephant in the livingroom, that everyone is afraid to mention is that blacks can get away with such stuff because anyone criticizing a black will be called a racist. They can even get away with murder (OJ) because of being black. That's where America is today.
Nor should you. Your comparison should be between Sharpton and whatever ideologues provided the incitement for McVeigh's actions.
OJ got off because he had enough money to hire good lawyers. It had nothing to do with the color of his skin. There are plenty of non-blacks who have similarly benefited from good lawyering.
I'm inclined to believe that had much more to do with a multi-million dollar legal budget than race. If that were really true we'd see African American street criminals getting off because they claim the "Cops are racist."
Although there is considerable truth to your point, I think Pat Robertson provides a useful comparison here. He hasn't (to my knowledge) said many racist things, but he says a lot of offensive things and many people rally to his side because he's a religious figure
If that's the worst of it, it's just silly to say he incited violence.
George W, John McCain: sucked up to Bob Jones University nutcases.
Obama: sucking up to Al Sharpton.
Ron Paul: cashed a check from some wackos.
Giuliani: curried favor with Pat "God brought Katrina to punish us" Robertson.
Hey, politics is a dirty business. Please show me the serious presidential candidate without some dirty laundry. Until that time, I imagine we'll continue to have these pointless arguments.
Shaking Hands with Al Sharpton > Cashing a Check from 9/11 Denier > Giving Speech at Racist University > Seeking Support of Freaky TV Preacher ... or should those all be "less than" signs? Who cares?
I can think of only two valid arguments for objecting to Paul's acceptance of these donations. One is that they are a bribe. The other is that Paul shares the views of these groups. Two claims are demonstrably false.
Of course, some voters might not investigate these matters enough and thereby they might be negatively influenced by Paul taking these funds. However, this is only a strategic issue, not an issue for impeaching Paul's character.
For example, a Democrat could make a donation to a Nazi group to fund a "Nazis support [Republican candidate]" ad campaign.
Widespread use of this tactic would add a whole new exciting flavor to the election season.
It's not the worst of it. Al Sharpton's job is to incite and agitate, and he does it well. He was the ring leader of this circus. I could just imagine if the roles were reversed and David Duke had led a demonstration in which seven people died. I have a feeling you'd be singing a different tune.
"At one of many rallies meant to scare the Jewish owner away, Sharpton said, “…There is a systematic and methodical strategy to eliminate our people from doing business off 125th Street. I want to make it clear…that we will not stand by and allow them to move this brother so that some white interloper can expand his business.” Following a demonstration three months later, one of the protestors, a black man, stormed Freddy’s Fashion Mart with a pistol, screaming, “It’s on now! All blacks out!” In addition to shooting, he set fire to the building, eventually killing himself and seven others. Initially, Sharpton denied having spoken at any rallies. When tapes surfaced, he said, “What’s wrong with denouncing white interlopers?”
Or, how about this incident?
Sharpton led 400 protesters through the Jewish section of Crown Heights, with one protester holding a sign that read, “The White Man Is the Devil.” There were four nights of rock- and bottle-throwing, and a young Talmudic scholar was surrounded by a mob shouting, “Kill the Jew” and stabbed to death. A hundred others were injured. Sharpton said, “The world will tell us that [Gavin Cato] was killed by accident….What type of city do we have that would allow politics to rise above the blood of innocent babies?…Talk about how Oppenheimer in South Africa sends diamonds straight to Tel Aviv and deals with the diamond merchants right here in Crown Heights….All we want to say is what Jesus said: If you offend one of these little ones, you got to pay for it. No compromise. Pay for your deeds.” Later Sharpton said, “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.”
All the white jury members voted for acquittal too. Just sayin'
No, my position is that Sharpton committed no crime. Not "he committed the crime but I can't prove it"; he committed no crime. Neither have the Stormfronters (AFAIK). Both have exercised free speech rights that our law permits and I personally support.
That does NOT mean their views are equivalent in any way. You now seem to be dodging this point. If you want to equate the two, then you need to show, using both the frequency of comments and their malevolence, that Sharpton and Stormfront should be considered equivalent in their extremism. You can't do it.
I've never heard of Freddie's Fashion Mart, but if this is all that Sharpton said, then it is patently absurd to say that this is an incitement to violence.
Here's a test: If it is incitement to violence then it is not protected speech that could be prosecuted: Does Mr. Bernstein, or anyone else, think that phrase is a sufficient basis to imprison someone?
Seriously.
Pat Robertson may be a loon, but he just isn't in Sharpton's class when it comes to wilfull incitement of racial and religious hatred, and leveling knowingly false charges of rape and kidnapping.
Pof. Bernstein,
I do like Obama, I donated some money to his campaign last February, and I even made a few YouTube videos about why I like him. In fact, in one of those videos, I even point out how Obama could be that uniter-not-divider that GW Bush promised to be and never was because of the way he reaches out and listens. See Obama Claim to Be Bit Conservative Shows Uniter Not Divider?
I think one of Obama's great qualities is his ability to listen, a quality too rare in both lawyers and politicians. That's why it's wrong of you to try to spin Obama reaching out and listening into a solicitation of support without the facts to back up the claim. I also don't think it's fair to accuse me of being "naive" or "entranced" just because I pointed out that your interpretation got a little ahead of the facts.
[Okay, when Obama sits down to "listen" to Pat Buchanan, or Pat Robertson, or Jim Gilchirst, with the media invited and cameras rolling, I'll grant your point.]
But here's the question, and it's not about Sharpton:
"Why does David Bernstein despise Barack Obama enough to put up a topic as flimsy and transparent as this one?"
Steve Sailer discusses another distasteful person Obama is chummy with here (and it's not the ex-gay gospel singer).
If we demand that someone returns a contribution because it came from a distasteful source, are we not implying that contributions are a form of bribery?
In fact, if some holier-than-thou chastises Ron Paul, and then says, "I would never accept a contribution from Stormfront," isn't that holier-than-thou implying that he wouldn't take such a contribution because he'd then feel obligated to support (or at least pay attention to) that group's cause? Isn't this an implicit acceptance of the notion that contributions are a form of legal bribery?
Which, of course, they are ...
As others have pointed out, you have yet to demonstrate that Obama did so. But even if you had done so, that still wouldn't make Obama equivalent to Paul for the reasons I've given above.
To be clear, I'm not a big fan of trashing candidates because of their supporters. This applies to Paul and Obama, as well as to all the others. What I do think worth considering is the extent to which a candidate's policies, if enacted, would enable or promote extremists. There is NOTHING in Obama's record which suggests such a problem. And that's why your post is so fundamentally flawed.
Now, at least, you're getting closer to a legitimate comparison, and, reading between the lines, I see you retreating a bit from your original comparison. I still think Pat Robertson is the best equivalent to Sharpton. But I guess that wouldn't have made much to post about, would it?
"Why does David Bernstein despise Barack Obama enough to put up a topic as flimsy and transparent as this one?"
Just showing that Obama is no different from any other Democratic politician in that he has to kiss the ring of a racist demagogue. Furthermore, you are missing the point. Bernstein is commenting on the double standards and hypocrisy of the media and other Ron Paul detractors.
What the post does -- and it's truly a slime job -- is smear Obama by the false equation of Sharpton and Stormfront
That's funny, I think I recall a story up here last week about Ron Paul adhering to Nazi principles because he didn't return a $500 check. Or something to that effect. Again, it goes both ways.
(even assuming the facts of the post are accurate, which is in real doubt given some of the other posts).
Care to clarify what you surmise might be inaccurate?
I'm amazed that two commenters have now commented on my lack of reference to Pat Robertson when he's right there in the original post.
Under the Supreme Court's Brandenburg and Hess decisions, even if you incite violence -- as a factual matter -- you've committed no crime if the incitement wasn't direct and imminent.
So, yes, Al Sharpton factually caused the racial murders in the case that David cites.
But he is nevertheless LEGALLY immune from punishment for that incitement, in part because it didn't occur immediately after his most recent incitement.
But it is MORALLY reprehensible to engage in such incitement to commit violence, just as a Nazi who praises Hitler is morally reprehensible for so doing, even though it is protected by the First Amendment to praise Hitler.
And it is morally offensive for a politician to cater to him -- and especially obscene for a politician to meet with Sharpton to discuss "hate crimes," when Sharpton is himself responsible for having precipitated hate crimes.
My point is not the mention of Pat Robertson, it's that there would have been no post if that's all you had.
If Obama had given a speech under such circumstances, I think David would have gone ballistic. Imagine if Obama had given a speech before a crowd with signs referring to Ed Koch as "the Shylock" or some other derogatory word for Jews.
Talking to Rev. Phelps of the God Hates Fags church - bad.
Talking to Rev. Robertson of the hate the sin, love the sinner church - not so bad.
Stormfront/Paul is nothing like that. I don't think Paul really is trolling for those votes and I don't think Stormfront expects anything from the association. They are simply fellow true believers.
(And, usually, the minorities were the victims of the crimes as well.)
And, while we're looking for fun Obama links, let me suggest this as a better avenue to look down. I'm not aware of him having any direct links to the MexicanGovernment, but perhaps at least some of us might consider getting upset when a U.S. Senator marches in support of illegal activity and does so in a march organized by those linked to a foreign government. Instead of helping possible foreign agents with their goals, shouldn't he investigate whether a foreign country has used agents to agitate their citizens who are here illegally?
The video version has gotten over 13,500 views so far, so hopefully sooner or later someone will ask him about it: youtube.com/watch?v=EiullH5jU1A
Not the world's best syllogism there, I would hope that a discerning voter could distinguish between two groups that have little to do with one another.
Personally, I have no issue with Paul's supporters, or Giuliani's cuddling up to Robertson, or Hillary making nice to Sharpton. Or Obama making nice either, if that's what he's doing. None of those things tells me what kind of President he or she would be, it only tells me that during a crowded primary season the candidates need to scrounge up as many likely votes as possible.
Prof. Bernstein wrote: Isn't having a supporter of Obama reading and posting on a DavidBernstein thread on the Volokh Conspiracy proof enough? But, seriously, whether you grant my point that Obama can reach out to both the right and the left, you still have to grant my original point (not a "parody post") that turning a meeting into a solicitation of support is letting your interpretation get a little ahead of the facts, right?
(Was any presidential candidate ever at so much of a loss to answer a question in the course of a debate as when in 2004 someone asked the Reverend what sort of Federal Reserve policy he would want to see if he were to be elected president.)
For what it's worth on the solicitation of Sharpton...
Despite the fact that this was called to Rudy's attention, he went ahead with his butt-kissing news conference with Robertson. Though given many opportunities to recant his "blame America" screed, Robertson continues to display it on his website. Robertson, of course, is not an obscure Nazi but the owner of a multi-million dollar network.
Your concern being that otherwise it would be too difficult for people to distinguish you from a fringe supporter?
Your concern being that otherwise it would be too difficult for people to distinguish you from a fringe supporter?
The point is, there is no double standard here. (Caveat: I've never listened to Jones, so I don't know where he stands on the spectrum.)
Your original post criticized Paul for the extremism of some of his supporters. Those mentioned included the likes of Stormfront and equivalent groups. You specifically suggested that Paul did not deserve support because of those supporters.
Now, however, you've shifted ground, yet are claiming some "double standard". Pat Robertson and Al Sharpton, much as I dislike them, are NOT the political equivalents of Stormfront. Giuliani and Obama aren't in a position equivalent to Paul, so there is no "double standard".
Presidential candidates are busy people. They don't meet with non-family members for fun; they meet with them to solicit their support. They certainly don't meet with them to discuss banalities like "the importance of hate crime legislation." Surely Obama doesn't need Sharpton's input in that area. For "importance of hate crime legislation," read, "importance of Al Sharpton."
I don't like Robertson, nor Sharpton.
It is a long way from either of them to White supremacists, however.
(now if Obama is kissing up to the Louis Farrakhan, you might have a point).
RH
Tony:Acknowledged by whom? He has never been elected to anything by anybody. Not even a non-political office like head of a religious organization. (Although he calls himself Reverend, he has no church.)
I disagree. The fact that Rudy has kissed up to the owner of a multi-million religious network who explicitly blames Americans for 911 is much worse than the fact that an obscure/powerless white supremacist gave 500 dollars to the Paul campaign and has not been embraced by the candidate.
Political commentators like Bill O'Reilly would seem to be busy, too. I seriously doubt that Bill is soliciting support or agreement or anything else from Al Sharpton. Sometimes you talk to people just to find out what they're thinking, and what they think their people want.
As documented in this thread, he has led a number of protests, so black people acknowledge him as a leader. The media turn to him to get a reading on black issues, so the media acknowledge him as a leader, as well. Call him a media creature or call him a demagogue, if you like, but can you think of a widely recognized black leader other than Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?
This is a bit disingenuous. The identity of a candidate's supporters, and the candidate's treatment of them, are two data points that are relevant in deciding whether to support a candidate. They are not dispositive, but they are relevant. If Al Sharpton or Pat Robertson or Jones urge their supporters to vote for a candidate, the implication is htat the candidate's likely actions with respect to certain issues will meat the endorser's approval. If the endorser's own standa and actions are controversial or reprehensible, it is reasonable for potential voters to expect the candidate to clarify this point. This is the relevance—not some sort of guilt by association.
In Giuliani's case, Robertson's support was explicitly based on the candidate's stand with regard to foreign policy and defense. Nobody thinks Giuliani shares Robertson's religious views. If tey did, Giuliani would face questions.
Somebody contemplating voting for Dr. Paul should consider the extent of congruence between the views of Paul and Jones. If they are satisfied, the association should not stop them from voting for Paul.
But they shouldn't expect me to invite them for dinner :).
Election is irrelevant when you're talking about groups that don't have voting functions. Cf. Dr. MLK Jr.
IOW, if David Duke endorses you because you promise to end daylight savings time, that doesn't make ending daylight savings time a racist plot.
Yes, blacks were mad because they are all criminals and Giuliani wouldn't let them get away with it anymore. It had nothing to do with sticking a broomstick up a black guy's anus, or had nothign to do with Guiliani's race-baiting in the 92 election. I'm sorry I didn't realize this, and I apologize.
I believe this is because holding widely unpopular views, whether reprehensible, wacky, or just before their time, causes you to become relatively indifferent to whether an idea or candidate you're assessing is popular. You already 'know' that unpopularity is no guide to an idea's merits.
In some respects, and only some, a member of Stormfront is going to be more open-minded about Paul's non-reprehensible, but also not particularly popular views, than the average person. Just because they're not afraid to embrace something that's unpopular.
But Alex Jones has never shared the stage with the Democratic presidential candidates at debates. So his status is rather higher among his party colleagues than Jones's with the GOP. Which would be close to nil.(Robertson /has/ participated in GOP debates, but not for two decades. And the stuff that people are citing him for came later.)
Without additional evidence, I'm gonna hafta say that Sharpton is far more influential with Democratic candidates that Jones could ever be with Republicans. Unless he is proved correct, and there is actually a Nazi base on the far side of the Moon.
So as Jesse Jackson might say: No podium, less odium.
(Having said that, let's stipulate: I would never vote for a candidate who accepted support from Jones.)
While I'm no fan of Pat Robertson, I'm not aware that he ever advocated anything like the violent racism advocated by Stormfront or the racial violence incited by Al Sharpton.
Nobody has called Robertson a violent racist. The point is that Robertson specifically blames Americans for 911 and, though Rudy was made fully aware of this, he appeared with him in a kiss up news conference.
um, no. the first part of your sentence is correct, in that good lawyering played a part, but a PART. it was not THE reason, it was part of the reason. and as juror interviews after the trial made pretty darn clear, many of the jurors sided with OJ as a blow against LAPD by a black man. that's abundantly clear. it's also clear in that the overwhelming majority of american blacks thought OJ was innocent, and the overwhelming majority of whites thought he was guilty.
saying that race had nothing to do with it, is laughable, if you know the history of the trial, the juror statements, etc.
it IS true that ceteris paribus - expensive and good (not always the same thing) lawyers will get a defendant off where a weaker lawyer wouldn't, even in cases where the guy was OBVIOUSLY guilty. but to claim that race played no part in the trial result is laughable.
99%? rubbish. nice rhetoric.
" Anyone with a cursory understanding of politics in New York City in the '90's would know that Giuliani is to black people what Sharpton is to Bernstein."
and anybody with an understanding of crime (especially violent crime) would know that few men have ever done more to save the lives and protect the health of black men (and men in general) in this country than guiliani. black men are overwhelmingly disproportionately the victims of violent crime, to include homicide. there are literally thousands of black men who are alive today (and who wouldn't be) largely because of guiliani/bratton. these are living, breathing people (disproportionately black, young, and male) who are alive and who would be dead.
so, regardless of what % (and i can guarantee it is nowhere near 99%) of blacks in NYC have a "visceral hatred" of guiliani, guiliani has done FAR more for black men (and people in general) than sharpton ever did. he also didn't commit slander (proven in court), incite (and i realize he did not CRIMINALLY incite) race based murder, etc. like sharpton did.
don't misconstrue this post btw and infer that i am some sort of big fan of guiliani as a prez candidate. i'm not. just speaking truth to power...
In my own case, I merely pointed out that the Paul campaign's refusal to disassociate itself from fringe supporters discourages me from supporting him as a protest candidate
Actually, you "merely" insinuated that Ron Paul winks and nods at racists in order to score their donations. So that's one lie from you. That I know of, and I've hardly heard of you.
Of course, I prefer my candidates to let their politics be generally known and backed up by some 20 years of legislative action, and to not run background checks on contributors.
Rather, the point is that his campaign seems to be taking the same unfortunate position that Goldwater did in 1964; condemning racism in general on principled libertarian grounds, but providing winks and nods that support from racists for racist reasons would be welcome.
This is just a hunch, naturally, but it makes a lot more sense than getting so inflamed about one political contribution among thousands.
Ah, that's a clever dodge. The COMPLETELY DIFFERNET POST was titled "One Last Ron Paul Post" and referenced your previous post. Ordinary people would assume continuity. I guess this is why ordinary people don't attend law school. Too, well, lawyerly.
Still, good on you for allowing comments this time. Say, did you *really* not receive a single email from Ron Paul supporters who refuted the accuracy of your description of the Paul coalition as appealing to racist pseudo-conservatives? Not one email that said, "I'm not a racist, you blowhard"? Not one?
Yeah, I'd bet you did. Wow, that would make you a liar about your lies.
"Call him a media creature or call him a demagogue, if you like, but can you think of a widely recognized black leader other than Sharpton and Jesse Jackson?"
Unfortunately, no...
[Any nation that would have him as VP can't be any good(?).]
This block quote is a good illustration of why Ron Paul's supporters worry me. Please ignore my defense of Paul above. Sharpton, for all his flaws, doesn't believe that the CFR is secretly developing robots that will steal his luggage.
I proclaim: ZING!
Ron Paul is running the most transparent campaign in history and everyone is dithering over $500 he got from a man he clearly doesn't agree with politically.
By the way, I found Stormfront radio via a link in one of DB’s earlier posts, and if you haven’t sampled it, it’s quite a wellspring of social and political wisdom. For example, did you know that Mike Huckabee’s apparent surge in popularity is actually a fiction ginned up by Jews and perpetrated through the Jew media for the sole purpose of undermining Ron Paul? I have to admit I never saw that story in the Jew York Times. And just this morning I learned that Israel only prevailed in its war of independence thanks to the massive military aid it received (presumably prior to 1949) from the US government, or, shall I say, the ZOG. Who knew? Certainly not Harry Truman, but then he was probably too busy colluding in that so-called "Holocaust" fraud to notice....
As for Al Sharpton, I lived in New York during the Brawley and Crown Heights episodes, among others on Sharpton’s inglorious curriculum vitae. At the time I don’t think I’d have found a distinction worth making between Sharpton and the Stormfronters. But that was a long time ago and people can change. My impression is he isn’t remotely the dangerous demagogue now that he was then. Not that he doesn’t still resort to race baiting, and not that I would apologize for a candidate who pandered for his support, whether it was Obama whom I like or Hillary whom I don‘t. But he did mellow considerably after the attempt on his life, and more recently he’s even been an occasional responsible voice for restraint. The bottom line is, as a Jew, I’d have no worry for my safety about driving with Al Sharpton in the back seat of my car. But a neo-nazi? Nuh uh.
One last thing. The $500 donation is something of a straw man. I realize that that was the lede on some piece(s) that raised the issue, but I think the unease here, mine anyway, goes broader than a single donation. I’m both curious and concerned about the extent of Ron Paul’s comfort with a virtually unanimous crusade for his candidacy in certain dark, albeit relatively small circles. I wouldn’t care if he tore up the check for $500 or kept one for $50,000. That’s his business. But I don’t want to casually ignore a parade of goose-stepping canaries in the coal mine. Check out the Stormfront site for yourself, and don’t be surprised when you come away convinced that today’s unifying cause for proud white people is Ron Paul. I doubt he reciprocates the sentiment, but I really don’t think it’s asking too much for him to say so.
Ron Paul was one of two congressmen to vote against a house resolution calling rfor the UN to charge Iranian president Ahmedinejad with genocide for calling for the destruction of Israel. Even most of the anti-Israel stalwarts in Congress-- people such as Kaptur, Rahall, Abercrombie and Stark-- aeither voted either aye or present.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2007/roll513.xml
Yes-- this does raise questions regarding Paul's motivations. Regardless of what these motivations are, however, his views are more attractive to Stormfront.org and its ilk than those of any other candidate.
2) Alex has given air time to Dr. Paul for several years. The so called conservative radio in Houston are so hostile to Dr. Paul, to the point of unprofessionalism. Dr. Paul uses the given air time to address issues. Would it be wrong for, say, Billy Graham to be interviewed by Playboy Magazine?
3) Dr. Paul has been actively working to get the uS out of the UN, to stop LOST, and other things that are viewed by many, myself included, as threats to our sovereignty.
4) Dr. Paul does not condemn Israel for Israel's bombing of the Iraqi nuclear facility and has stated that it was up to Israel to decide what is best in their defense.
Is there any precedent for any politician publicly claiming that he does NOT want the support of any particular group of people? I can't think of any on the top of my head.
Any group who believes that the federal government is going in a fundamentally wrong direction necessarily believes that abolishing most of the federal government (Ron Paul's agenda) would be a step in the right direction. As such, I would expect monarchists, feudalists, white supremacists, theocrats, and maybe even fascists to support the most libertarian candidate, because a libertarian government is closer to the ideal government of monarchists, feudalists, white supremacists, and facists, than the current welfare state advocated by all non-Ron Paul candidates.
Ron Paul should be pleased to get the support of people like Stormfront. We would all be better off if racists and anti-semites (or anyone with beliefs that are plain wrong) advocate a libertarian society rather than a government that openly discriminates against Jews and racial minorities.
Nick
Bill Clinton and Sister Souljah come to mind.
What about all those trying to start WWIII with the arab nations?
Okay, I've ignored this thread for a day, but I haven't said anything one way or another about Ron Paul's foreign policy. So the new 800 pound gorilla is that "Thoughtful" is prejudiced.
DB: "Okay, I've ignored this thread for a day, but I haven't said anything one way or another about Ron Paul's foreign policy. So the new 800 pound gorilla is that "Thoughtful" is prejudiced."
A liberal democrat who shares 95% of Senator Obama's positions comes out strongly against him. Doesn't merely oppose him, but acts over and over again to write things designed to convince those disposed to support him to change their minds. This Democrat mentions a series of reasons to oppose Obama ("I don't like his position on using phonetics instead of "see/say" in teaching grade school students to read", which are widely recognized as minor points and when researched not always an accurate rendition of the candidate's position.) He NEVER says it's because Obama is black. In fact, he never brings up the issue of race at all. But after a while, people begin to wonder...after all, he has published things in the past that suggest that when it comes to whites and blacks, this Democrat often takes positions that amount to "whites can do no wrong".
Someone responds that the 800 lb gorilla in the room is that Obama is black and this Democrat seems to have a problem with that. Highly offended, the Democrat responds, "I've never even mentioned race!" Which is true.
David, this is an analogy. As such, it is not perfect. But perhaps it is sufficient to demonstrate, to other readers if not to you, that your attempt at refutation of my initial hypothesis is weak and inadequate.
You do Prof.Bernstein an injustice.
He has never opposed central banking or called for a return to the gold standard.
He has never said that Korea is worse for American intervention.
He has never said that the civil rights Act of 1964 was a mistake
He has not recommended chartering privateers (see Wikipedia article on Ron Paul)
He has not advocateed withdrqwing from the UN
So why do you say that they agree on everything except Israel?
Please read my last paragraph carefully. No analogy is perfect. I never said Bernstein agrees with Paul about everything but Isreal. But DB has gone out of his way to state that he is not a free-market conservative but is, instead, a libertarian. Paul is clearly the most libertarian of candidates running. It follows that Paul and DB agree on most major issues. Presumably DB agrees with Paul about the drug war, about privatizing social security, about significantly reducing the size of government rather than making it work "more efficiently", about First Amendment issues. On all of these issues and more Paul would clearly be the candidate for a libertarian to support over other Republican candidates, the one who most closely mirrors his own positions on the issues.
Why is it credible to you that a thoughtful libertarian's view is: "I agree with Paul on all the above major issues, but he got a $500 check from a wacko right-wing hate group and won't denounce them, so I'm supporting Thompson" or "I agree with Paul on all the above issues, but think his views on the gold standard eliminate him from serious consideration--I've always felt the gold standard is such a clutch issue"?
DB's position on Israel is well known. It is also well known to people who study these matters, and I assume that includes DB, that Israel couldn't do what it does without the money and tacit support of the US government. So while DB hasn't addressed this issue, I expect he opposes Paul's non-interventionist position especially as it would affect the US's unique relationship with Israel. And I expect this matters more to him than the vital issue of privateer chartering.
Now if you take DB at his word--I do--and he IS a libertarian, it would be surprising if he didn't agree with Goldwater (and therefore Paul) on the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And it would also be surprising if he didn't agree with the Libertarian Party platform that the US should not be in the UN. And while David is not an expert on foreign policy, one needn't be a complete non-interventionalist to argue for the withdrawl of US troops from Korea, as many Koreans wish (something about American military troops being immune to Korean law when it comes to allegations of rape of Korean women, something that apparently comes up with some regularity; Google it.) Eminent scholars, some, like David, associated with the Cato Institute, have argued this for years. So even if he himself doesn't hold these positions strongly, I again have to doubt he would oppose a Presidential candidate who took those positions on those grounds. (Alternatively, maybe he was not sincere when he said he was a libertarian. I really don't know what to make of people who say things like, "I'm a libertarian, but of course don't think that means you can predict any view of mine on any issue; I oppose standard positions of the LP platform, traditional arguments made by libertarians, commonplace arguments made by major libertarian think tanks..." But I prefer to think he is sincere.)
So the dilemma remains: A self-labeled libertarian going out of his way to blog against the most libertarian Presidential candidate for reasons that, on reflection, seem shrill, minor, contrived. It leads one to suspect there must be another reason...thus my post.
If you really take him at his word, and you're not trying to replace his judgment with your own, then why question that his objection is simply what he says it is? I find it a perfectly reasonable explanation without even giving him any benefit of the doubt.
Many Jews-- regardless of how they feel about israel-- are sensitive about anti-Jewish people and groups. They place the burden of proof, so to speak, on candates whom these folks support to show that the candidate does not agree with them.
This is not unique to Jews. If Dabid Duke came out in favor of Ron Paul or anyone else, and was not repudiated by the candidate, then Blacks would wonder what sort of influence Duke and his ilk would have in the administration if the candidate were elected.
Nor is it irrational. There's something about physical survival and civic equality that appeals to everyone Most of us would lean over backward to prevent the ascension to power of those wo would deprive us of these. Moost of us don't care whether or not we have a gold standard if we are confined to concentration camps or are not allowed to enrol in decent schools.
I don't presume to speak for Prof. Bernstein, but most people have multiple group identites, and these many be in conflict. A Jewish libertarian who is concerned about the possible influence of anti-Jewish entites in a libertarian administration can rationally and thoughtfully weigh the importance of these two respective beleifs/identities, and the likelihood that the candidate's election will further or hinder them. He can then decide whether to support the candidate.
The candidate, of course, is a person, and not just a libertarian. In Dr. Paul's case, he is a physician, a Baptist, a husband, a father, etc., according to his own website. So a vote for Paul is not a vote for libertarianism per se, but a vote for Paul and all that Paul is.
A thoughtful person would understand that the real question is that Bernstein needs to decide whether to vote for Paul, rather than that a libertarian deciding whether to vote for a libertarian.
Kendall, your answer is sufficient: Paul is one of the very few who routinely votes against feel-good resolutions and unconstitutional legislation. But in this particular resolution, I believe he thought it was worse than merely feel-good, it advocated (as you note, without effect) transferal of sovereignty, and worse, transferal to the UN.
1. LM: Please don't take my words out of context. Clearly, the statement I was taking DB at his word about was that he was a libertarian. Obviously my post implies I'm not taking his word for everything he says. There is no contradiction here.
2. DB: Your last post's point would hold more water if you could show your postings opposing aspects of the Huckabee, Thompson, Guiliani, Romney, or Tancredo campaigns. Do none of them arouse ire from you as a libertarian?
3. MDLD2B: As a Jew myself, I am well aware that Jews, including libertarian Jews, are "sensitive" about anti-Jewish people. Sometimes, many of us are over-sensitive, sensing anti-semiticism where none exists, where perhaps only opposition to Israeli policy exists. We've been over this before. And you're right that this is not unique to Jews: many would also suggest that cries of racism by blacks who feel affronted are not always accurate. So your implicit suggestion that one must be cautious in choosing a Republican candidate to support to avoid any calling for concentration camps seems a touch overwrought. There is, despite your implication, NOTHING in ANY Paul literature that can be read as "anti-Jewish", so your implications about those serving in a prospective Paul administration is simply a smear. And while it is trivially true that Paul is more than a libertarian, I doubt you really want to argue that people should oppose his candidacy on the grounds that, in addition, he is "a physician, a Baptist, a husband, a fath