I've never thought Ron Paul's presidential candidacy was serious enough to merit much attention. But I have to acknowledge that it has caught fire on the Internet and that he's done surprisingly well in the voting so far. He's raised substantial money and has gotten support from some very serious bloggers and other commentators. Ilya and David have previously pointed out the problematic nature of his campaign in posts, for example, here and here, noting especially his failure to repudiate some of his extremist supporters. It does neither libertarianism nor conservatism any good to be associated with a fringe of hateful conspiracy mongers.
Now Jamie Kirchick, a rising young writer at The New Republic, has connected Paul more directly to a political legacy of conspiracy-mongering, racism, anti-Semitism, and homophobia, which may provide some context for Paul's reluctance to confront these things among some of his supporters. Kirchick's article exposes some nasty stuff published in a newsletter running under Paul's name back in the 1980s and 1990s. The newsletter was variously called Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Political Report, and The Ron Paul Survival Report. Some of the newsletter material is available here.
Paul's campaign has responded by claiming that Paul wrote some of the material that appeared in the report, that he did not write the more incendiary passages, that he often did not see material published in the newsletter, that he disagrees with at least some of it, and so on. Paul's campaign has issued a perfunctory press release to this effect, adding that the charges against him are "old news." Kirchick concludes that the Paul campaign's excuses don't matter much:
In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.
I agree. It's perfectly acceptable to publish a newsletter containing material you disagree with. But it seems reasonable, under those circumstances, at least to disclaim any endorsement of it. The large volume and context of the material published strongly suggests that it represented Paul's views, at least at the time. Whether Ron Paul actually wrote the material, endorsed but did not write it, or was simply negligent in allowing it to appear in a newsletter bearing his name, he bears heavy responsibility for it. Self-serving disclaimers now, in the middle of a presidential campaign, aren't terribly convincing. Even if he has since changed his views about the material in his newsletters, they seriously call into question his judgment. He was, after all, an adult and had even served in Congress when this material appeared. He has at worst endorsed, and at best coddled, some of the most base impulses in American politics.
Paul has fringe supporters who won't be troubled by what's in the newsletters or who will turn cartwheels to excuse it in some way. But many well-meaning people have endorsed Paul as a refreshing alternative to what they see as stale and mealy-mouthed politicians and to big government run amok — whether in Iraq, in taxes, in spending, or in regulation. The moral challenge for these prominent and responsible Paul supporters now is to repudiate his candidacy.
UPDATE: Andrew Sullivan, perhaps Paul's most prominent supporter in the country, calls the newsletters "ugly" and "repellant" and has shifted his support to McCain.
Related Posts (on one page):
- A damning indictment of Ron Paul:
- More Trouble for Ron Paul:
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“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.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Link to the release
Here's my take: I'll accept for the sake of argument the notion that he didn't know that this stuff was in the newsletter. But I can't imagine a responsible person permitting a publication under his name without reviewing it occasionally. I also can't imagine a responsible person permitting a publication under his name without vetting the editor/publisher sufficiently to keep out the sort of whackjobs who would publish stuff like this. How can you expect anyone so careless with his own "brand" to be any more careful with the country's "brand"?
Why would we want such a person running the country?
Neat pre-smear of those who would point out that Kirchick doesn't provide context for much of it and there there are no citations or scans so the reader can decide for themselves.
While he mentions "conspiracy theories" he doesn't go into too much detail, and one he does appears to be based in fact.
Also, perhaps someone can tell me what we knew in 1990 and whether they think Kirchick just made a "mistake" or was trying to deceive.
Source first. And when you consider that, you don't, morally can't, go any further.
@Gabriel - isn't that how a lot of people have been describing Dubya?
I don't have a lot of trouble believing that Paul was clueless about what was being written if it didn't bring heat from the voters in his district.
"He's no worse than Dubya!"
Hardly a persuasive argument to elect someone president at this point.
Apparently it is reactionary, hateful, and cowardly to think any less of Dr. Paul simply because he uses the same method to chose which publication to sponsor as Krusty the Klown uses to select product endorsements.
Senator Robert Byrd
You can find dirt on anybody.
Heh.
If only the American legal system had allowed Paul some sort of recourse against such scoundrels! But alas, he was helpless.
On the other hand, if he did know, then he also has no business being president.
As David Bernstein pointed out, Paul is and has been a sane but non-mainstream politican, but his nonmainstreamness has attracted a varirety of nutjobs to whom Paul negligently trusted his newletter.
If this is the worst that can be said of Paul, I think it is praise by faint damnation. He's the only candidate who believes in obeying the Constitution as it is written, including the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment. Romney and Giuliani would also butcher the 2nd Amendment, either from failing to having a clue about what it means or from deliberately misinterpreting it. McCain supports unconstitutional restrictions on political free speech (remember McCain-Feingold?).
I admit that some of Paul's positions may be a bit naive, but attacking him on what other people said in his newsletter is not a "damning indictment", it is an ad hominem attack.
He seems to think that merely denying being a racist and praising MLK and Rosa Parks puts the issue to rest. But Bill's angry denial of having sex with that woman did not really mean he didn't. As we all know, it turned out that Nixon really was a crook, too.
The crucial question at this point is whether the people who wrote this filth have remained associated with Ron Paul. He so for won't tell us who wrote this garbage in his name, or even, so far as I know, who edited the newsletter at the time. Are any of those people working for his campaign? And did Paul find out about the garbage before or after it became a scandal in his 1996 campaign? If he didn't find out before, why not? If he did, why didn't he fix it faster, and repudiate it then?
When Joe Sobran and Pat Buchanan like a candidate as much as they do Paul, that alone might be cause for pause. (There are a great many more reasons to reject him, of course, but I thought to throw these endorsements into the mix.)
I wouldn't repudiate Guliani because he got bamboozled by Kerik, or Hilary because she's a cuckhold, or anyone else because of an embarrassing episode that they clearly and obviously (to anyone besides axe grinders) wish never happened and, by that embarrased silence and downplaying, repudiate.
No candidate is as pure as a law professor, of course, so we're left with picking among those reality contestants willing to submit to modern campaigns. Their quality makes it too easy to wallow in unseemly swifboating with Yglesias or his right wing analogs, but I generally appreciate Volokh.com for keeping campaign debates at a higher level than this post.
Asides from this, from what I gather, Pat Buchanan in 1992 and Pat Robertson in 1996 both had a great deal more support than Ron Paul. But weren't they (at least Buchanan, not sure about Robertson) associated with just as many fringe elements as Ron Paul is, if not more? And their rhetoric was also far more hostile to the other side as that of Ron Paul, who doesn't try to demonize his opponents. My point is just that while today you have a lot of really extreme fringe rhetoric from the left, there really isn't much of it from the right, especially by comparison to the recent past.
While I agree with the substance of your comment, Buckley was actually a bit mealy-mouthed about Buchanan, saying something like, "even though he walks and talks and writes like an anti-Semite, I don' think he is one."
Paul has fringe supporters who won't be troubled by what's in the newsletters or who will turn cartwheels to excuse it in some way.
This statement was proven true in what might be record time.
The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
From the August 1990 issue of the Political Report: "Bring Back the Closet!"
A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."
Was Clayton Cramer ghostwriting for Dr. Paul?
Imagine someone who holds views of what the government should do that are completely out of line with what the views of the mainstream -- be it a theocrat, a monarchist, a feudalist, a white supremacist, etc. The ideal government for all these people would be a far cry from libertarianism. However, for theocrats, monarchists, feudalists, etc., everything that the government does today makes basically no sense, so a libertarian government is more acceptable than supporting any of the mainstream Republicans or Democrats. Buchanan and Sobran are not even as extreme as white supremacists, monarchists or the like, but the point still stands: people with very "unconventional" views would be rational by supporting libertarians.
And that aside, Ron Paul's platform involves cancelling all foreign aid, which includes cancelling all aid to Israel. That alone would attract support for Buchanan or Sobran. So if you believe that cancelling all foreign aid is in itself a reason not to vote for Paul, fine, but there is no need to rely on Buchanan or Sobran's support as a proxy.
(Incidentally, in Ron Paul's ideal society, there would be no income tax, and therefore rich Jews and others would have a great deal of money to contribute to Israel, among other causes, if they want to do so. I support foreign aid to Israel personally, but I am not convinced that a system with no income tax and no foreign aid would really make Israel that much worst off).
I can see three substantive arguments against Paul: (1) his foreign policy will hurt America more than his domestic policy will help, (2) he has nutty domestic policies (e.g., the gold standard) that can hurt America, and (3) he has a slim chance of winning the primary, so in our current winner-takes-all system, it would be best to vote for a viable candidate.
Does anyone really believes that this hit piece by Kirchick (conveniently timed for NH primary) is really a damning indictment of Ron Paul despite the difference of his platform versus those of the all the other candidates? What actions would he take as president that you would object to? (Of course, if you already disagree with Ron Paul, then Kirchick merely adds icing to the cake.)
Person A says P.
Person A is evil.
Therefore P is false.
No, the choice before us is do we want a sputtering racist who wrote disgusting stereotypical articles, or a normal functional human being?
Ron Paul said that gays were better off in the closet. Do you want that man to be President of the free world? I don't care what other positions he holds, if he's racist and bigoted then he will be a horrible leader that would make a mockery of the country.
And, as Tom Cruise will tell you, it's better in the closet.
1) Read the newsletter. It was written the week of the LA riots and most of those quotes don't come across as racist if you read them in their context. You would think a group as savvy as this would know to go to the original source instead of accepting a vaguely worded accusation at face value. Isn't this one of the prime lessons of law school?
2) Ron Paul has written hundreds (perhaps thousands) of articles and posted many of them on the internet. His style and his political and philosophical views are readily apparent from his attested works and they haven't changed much in 30 years. These works contradict this notion that he is some sort of prejudiced figure.
I can readily believe that he didn't write this and probably doesn't believe it. But if he selects people like this, I wouldn't want him as President.
“Perhaps worst of all, Paul has bought into the conservative nativist line on immigration. He not only favors a massive crackdown on illegal immigration but even seems to endorse the view that immigration should be "reduced, not expanded" whether legal or not.”
Since this is an example of the “worst” of Ron Paul, let’s deal with it. Unless you are an advocate of open borders, what is the problem with a “crackdown” on illegal immigration? I assume a crackdown means the tightening border security, and the deportation of people who have entered illegally or overstayed their visa. If this is an extreme position, then most every country in the world is extremist. If a crackdown includes enforcement of our laws against tax evasion and identity theft, then how is enforcing these laws in any way an extreme position?
What is the optimum total population for the United States? Is it infinite or finite? If it’s finite then give me a number. Once we reach that number we will require some curtailment of immigration unless our population starts declining.
According to dictionary.com the word “nativist” means: the policy of protecting the interests of native inhabitants against those of immigrants. Should the president put the interests of immigrants above those of the current inhabitants? Is that what citizens should vote for?
BTW I’m not a fan of Ron Paul, and would not vote for him.
I do not say that about other candidates, although I may disagree with their policies.
They all have an equal chance of winning, or they are suppose to. The public is suppose to vote and then collectively decide who becomes president... It is not Fox News job or a freelance journalists job to say Who Will and Who Will not be President. You do not have that authority, give yourself a break.
Restore the Republic! We were not founded or ever meant to be a "Democracy." The constitution contains the word Democracy- Zero Times.
Alexander Hamilton said:
"It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
No, we're exercising one of those Constitutional rights that's actually IN the Constitution, the right to freedom of speech and of the press. We're not saying he legally CAN'T be President, we are making a prediction that he will never be President. Sorry you have such trouble with basic communication.
There's a problem you don't mention, which is that the normal functional human beings would ignore the Constitution; specifically and especially the Tenth Amendment, which Jefferson (a racist, though not exceptionally so for his time) called the foundation of the Constitution.
Simply put, in the late 80's and early 90's AIDS was a huge concern that was mostly misunderstood and not well researched. there was no welfare reform, large cities were bastons of crime and poverty, race relations were at an all-time low, political questions involving affirmative action were largely unanswered and merely being white and opposing affirmative action was considered racist, there were local and university speech codes restricting so-called racist and offensive speech, there was an economical recession producing more pressure more discontent among the poor, there were race riots in the inner cities, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and many many other problems.
It was not a fun time and it is no surprise that Ron Paul's rhetoric reflected these political realities.
"Libertarians" inside and near the Beltway will never accept a real libertarian like Paul, as that would put most of their federal government employee and contractor friends, and indirectly their lobbyist friends, out on the streets. Any real libertarian is thus a "nutjob", "anti-Semitic", or whatever other dirt the beneath-the-Beltway crowd can throw at him.
I mean, look at Archon's statement above, excusing referring to black people as "animals" who are coming to get all the white folks, or that "95% of all black men are criminals," as just "reflecting the political realities of the times."
They were racist statements then, they're racist statements now, and it's becoming increasingly clear that a large number of Paul supporters would feel very comfortable with the folks at Ruby Ridge and Waco. That scares me.
Second, the "95% of black men are criminals" statement was clearly political hyperbole when read in context. It is the equivalent of saying "all democrats are socialists" or "all republicans are racist." Clearly the person making the statement doesn't actually think that is true. They are using exageration to make a point. The same came legitimately be done using race without being "racist."
Here's the real irony. The New Republic is as anti-gay as they come. The comments that Ron Paul supposedly wrote in his newsletter about gays is mild compared to what the TNR has written in the past.
So what is their point is exposing his homophobia? They AGREE with it! Except now, I guess, when being homophobic is bad when you want to bash a candidate you don't like. My head is spinning.....
More and more, witnessing what Paul's political establishment foes will stoop to in order to spike his campaign, I'm convinced he's the guy I ought to be supporting whole-heartedly. He's not perfect, but he's the only one of them who's not trying to take the government in the direction of more usurpations of power, and more intrusions into our lives.
First it was the "MSM" hand-selecting which counties to report first to make RP look bad. Now that he's losing WORSE than before, the MSM is delaying the results so that he looks bad for a longer time.
Then, this gem: "more suspicious activity: all of a sudden we've fallen behind Rudy by 1100 and we are only 1% behind same as when we were 200 behind." Not such a great understanding of statistics over there, huh? 1% of 20,000 is 200; 1% of 100,000 is 1000.
Then lots of questions about why McCain is still winning even though there are a lot more precincts reporting, as if all the Romney supporters live in one super-secret precinct just to screw with people.
Good times.
Well, since he was referring to Washington D.C.'s black population, Marion Barry's reelection? :-D
Nick
You can ease your troubled mind by doing research into both cases, since I don't think you understand them.
Entertainment value: I don't know what you're refering to, but see the quote from the youtube video above. The author of the piece is a complete suck-up, and some group stands to gain from such articles. Asking whether there's a connection is a very valid question.
Also, Fox News may have deleted RP's name from a story they ran, although I haven't checked that out to verify it. While some "conspiracy theories" are indeed fantastic, some turn out later on to have been partially or completely true.
Vile. Anybody who defends this kind of vile racist garbage is vile. Defend Ron Paul if he didn't say it, fine. Defend Ron Paul for now praising MLK and Rosa Parks, fine. But defend what's written in those articles, and you are a vile racist, period.
So now Ron Paul's sole crime is using the wrong verbage. I guess in your mind making politicl statements that fall outside of the mainstream political conventions of decency is racist. Sure, its hard hitting commentary, but that doesn't make it racist.
First, in the late 80's and early 90's black crime was a HUGE problem in the inner cities. In that time it would be impossible to have an effective color blind discussion about crime. Also, it would be foolish and counterproductive to ignore race when having such a discussion especially when the numbers indicate that blacks are responsible for a huge proportion of crime in certain jurisdictions.
Secondly, especially in the era before welfare reform, it is quite possible that the inner city riots (which took place in areas heavily populated by welfare receipents) broke up because people found it necessary to tend to other matters such as making sure they had enough money to pay monthly bills. I don't think it is far fetched to suggest that welfare check distribution had something to do with the rather sudden brake up of violence.
Third, Ron Paul's commentary was mostly concentrated about the backlash that would happen against white people in South Africa once aparthied ended. Well, what do you know, history proves that he was right. White people were subjected to violence and illegal land seizures. But I guess in your warped mind this racist reaction was justified...
Also, as for "National Hate Whitey Day" well that was pretty much the theme during the late 80's and early 90's on most college campuses and in extremely liberal areas of the country. At that time, black racism was acceptable and widely demonstrated on MLK day.
Tell that to the author of the piece Jamie Kirchick who is openly gay. I'm not sure when the New Republic produced anti-gay pieces (they are an old magazine, so they may well have years ago), but given Andrew Sullivan was their openly gay editor in the early to mid-90s, I don't think it's fair to say they've been anti-gay for some time, if ever in the modern era.
riiiiiight.
and i have an equal chance of winning a MMA fight with Randy Couture.
"A 1989 newsletter compares Salman Rushdie to Ernst Zundel, a Canadian Holocaust-denier."
But when you actually click on the link, what the newsletter actually says is that Zundel's writings are offensive, but that TNR -- yes, it singles out TNR by name -- is hypocritical because it supports Rushdie's free speech but opposes Zundel's.
I couldn't begin to defend -- and wouldn't want to -- the bigotry in there, but Kirchick does twist a lot of things out of context.
Golly, who cares what St. Andrew of the Sacred Heart-Ache thinks? Besides, his support for McCain is only temporary. He's going to support Obama in the end. You read it here first!
One of these three is not like the other.
One has a whole lot more anti-jewish statements attached to him.
I was also amused by Pat HMV's reference to 'latant racism.' Nothing latent about it.
Nick
- Ron Paul has repeatedly stated that he does not have racist, anti-semitic, or white supremicist views.
- He has denied condoning or agreeing with the statements in the newsletter.
- At the time other people were producing the newsletter he was occupied working in a - I'm guessing probably busy - OB/GYN practice.
Conclusion:
This a well-timed smear piece from the establishment Left. And the Conspiracy, or at least parts of the Conspiracy, are much more neoconservative and much less libertarian than they let on for giving this crap this much exposure. (And no, that isn't a contradiction - the establishment Left, the establishment Right, and neoconservatives are all threatened by and hate the Ron Paul candidacy and the movement it has inspired.)
Harry Eagar... I've got no problem if you want to call Jesse Jackson a racist. I would agree with you. But that's very different from saying all (or most) black people are racist. It's using the actions of a minority of the members of a race to tar the entire race with misconduct. Talking about "blacks" this and "blacks" that seems to me to be the antithesis of the individualist outlook that Ron Paul purportedly supports. Making generalizations about an entire race is by definition not looking at the individual.
In other words, not only are many Ron Paul supporters (and Paul himself, to the extent he didn't totally disassociate himself from these newsletters after the first time he read one) racist, but they are complete hypocrites, preaching individualism while engaging in judging black people as a race.
According to former Ron Paul staffer Eric Dondero, Lew Rockwell was the primary ghostwriter for the newsletters. That explains a lot.
Right, the same Lew Rockwell who every day on his libertarian website features articles from Jewish, latino, openly gay, and African-american writers.
The same Lew Rockwell who holds Ludwig von Mises, who was Jewish, as one of his main economic and philosophical influences.
If you're going to smear people at least do some fundamental research.
And for you, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, to demand anyone do research is laughable.
Nick
Oh yeah, by the way, you would be a fool to think that if the company was still passing out the payroll to a bunch of strikers that they wouldn't break to collect their checks. I'm sure the same is true for people who were on the government dole at the time.
Also, you can't brand commentary "racist" becuase it might be viewed as offensive to people with delicate sensibilities. Nothing that Ron Paul wrote (if indeed he actually wrote it) falls outside of acceptable political rhetoric.
So all the conspiracy theorist nuts supporting Paul are saying: he has "repeatedly stated" that he's not racist, therefore he can't possibly be a racist. Fascinating. If only they accepted other repeated denials as quickly and easily.
Hmmm. Ron Paul regularly writes articles for Lew Rockwell's website and is a good friend of Lew Rockwell's. Paul's articles appear alongside articles from Jewish, latino, openly gay, and African-american writers. Yep, they sound really racist, anti-semitic, and anti-gay to me. And Paul also holds Ludwig von Mises, who was Jewish, as one of his main intellectual influences in economics and philosophy. Plus seeing as how libertarian philosophy is just about as anti-racist as you can get, your theory is showing some major flaws here.
And those who criticizes this smear piece are "conspiracy theory nuts"? I think that's what's known as an ad hominem attack. Perhaps you would do better with some substantive arguments.
TLB false says “Kirchick doesn’t provide context for much of it and there are no citations or scans so the readers can decide for themselves.” In fact I read the scans of the newsletters on the New Republic site before I read the article. He proved his case very conclusively. In addition I read the Paul newsletters during the 1990s and remember some horridly anti-gay sentiments then along with pieces that smacked strongly of racism. Seeing the reprints of them confirmed what I remembered.
Bornyesterday: Here is the difference between this story and the earlier revelation of racist material. The earlier story was based on one issue of the newsletter. It was plausible to say Paul didn’t know about that one issue. This covers numerous issues over a period of years showing a pattern and removing the excuse used when the first story came out.
In addition we can’t say this attacking Paual “on what other people said.” Some of this material is written in the first person as if Ron Paul wrote it. And his name is plastered in big letters at the top of the front page. In addition the people involved with that newsletter are still involved with Paul. He has remained close friends with them even after he claimed things happened without his knowledge. It is inconceivable that he published a newsletter in his own name for several years, with articles published as he wrote them, without him ever looking at them to see what was being said.
Jim at FSU says Paul has written 100s of articles. How do you know that? One thing this shows is that a lot of what was published in his name he says he never even saw. And I know the ghost writers of his book on gold. Paul doesn’t write nearly as much as people think.
Finally I too have known Dr. Paul long before he started this run -- back when he was something more of a libertarian -- before accepting Rockwell’s anti-immigration stand for instance. Even back then Paul flirted with anti-gay sentiments and only tried to excuse them when questioned about them. I had one long talk with him expressing my displeasure at his antigay views. He had excuses but he continued on with them long after that in his newsletters -- as we have seen. There was a lot of discussion about gay libertarians in his previous presidential bid as to whether or not they should support him because he was seen to be prejudiced on the matter. Some didn’t and some, like myself, reluctantly went with him only because we disliked other choices even more.
In other words, not only are many Ron Paul supporters (and Paul himself, to the extent he didn't totally disassociate himself from these newsletters after the first time he read one) racist, but they are complete hypocrites, preaching individualism while engaging in judging black people as a race."
Not necessarily. When the writer of the newsletter talks about "blacks", he is not referring to all blacks, but only to the black people that he is criticizing. If he talks about blacks involved in riots, for example, he is only talking about those blacks who are involved in the riots, not saying that all blacks are involved in riots. And I don't see any of his sentences that implies anything bad with respect to ALL black people. I certainly agree that the newsletters are not PC and thus not acceptable in today's political discourse, and I also think that some of the statements may be wrong on the merit, but it is simply false to say that the comments are making unsupported generalizations about race.
By the way, I am a Romney supporter, not a nut.
Better than fundamental research - I heard Lew Rockwell speak (1994 national YAF convention). The man is a racist. You don't repeatedly refer to blacks as a group as being inferior without being a racist.
What did he say? Do you have documentation? If that's the case why does he feature latino and black writers on his website?
And for you, a 9/11 conspiracy theorist, to demand anyone do research is laughable.
Reasonable, rational people can have problems with the official story of 9/11. And a lot do. But I'm sure you have all the answers, and everyone else is a kook.
That garbage is all vilely racist, and those of you defending it are racists.
You better be careful about who you are calling a racist. I'm not racist and I didn't defend anything that was written, I merely pointed out that Ron Paul has stated that he didn't write those things, doesn't agree with them, and that his general political philosophy is anti-racist.
Between this and his creationism (anyone remember that, from just a few days ago?), Ron is obviously completely irrational.
Ron Paul: All it is—it's old stuff. It's all been rehashed. It's all political stuff.
reason: Why don't you release all the old letters?
Paul: I don't even have copies of them, because it's ancient history.
reason: Do you stand by what appears in the letters? Did you write these...?
Paul: No. I've discussed all of that in the past. It's just old news.
reason: Did the New Republic talk to you before they ran it?
Paul: No, I never talked to them.
reason: What do you think of Martin Luther King?
Paul: Martin Luther King is one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that's a libertarian principle. Rosa Parks is the same way. Gandhi, I admire. Because they're willing to take on the government, they were willing to take on bad laws. So I believe in civil disobedience if you understand the consequences. Martin Luther King was a great person because he did that and he changed America for the better because of that.
reason: You didn't write the derogatory things about him in the letter?
Paul: No.
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“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.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Via:
Gays for Ron Paul
Well, you can believe him or not, but what seems certain is that many of the "quotes" attributed to Paul cannot be attributed to Paul.
Carry on.
If you want to continue to draw some fine line to distinguish it in your mind from "real" racism (and just what constitutes that in your mind, out and out equating black people with monkeys or something?), go right ahead, but insisting that this is just "not PC" is wrong. That the KKK and Stormfront (hmmm... who accepts money from Stormfront?) exude even worse racism doesn't make this "not racist."
No, they cannot.
Having "doubts" about 9/11 is, in the words yesterday of that noted George Bush supporter Bill Clinton, "nuts".
And I'm sure some Klan members eat peanut butter. Does that mean they're not racist because George Washington Carver was black? What on earth does one have to do with the other? If I think Top Gun was a fun movie, does that mean I must be a fan of Scientology? If you show that lots of Jewish people drive Fords, does that mean Henry Ford wasn't an anti-semite? Do you actually even pay attention to your arguments, or do you just hope nobody else will, either?It's also pro-immigration, but that doesn't seem to impact Ron Paul. Libertarians are people, not political platforms. They can hold non-libertarian views on some issues.
Perhaps he likes the contents of what they wrote? Again, what does one have to do with the other? You can be a bigot towards a particular minority without wanting to burn the books written by members of that minority.
But no matter how hard you strain, it's hard to explain away this one:From looking at the actual newsletter, it looks like it was an attempt at a humorous little gibe. The problem, to state the obvious, is the mindset of someone who would actually think that this was humorous. If it was said orally, one might be able to excuse it as an attempt at humor that went wrong -- but it was written. Someone had time to look at it on paper, and yet included it anyway.
"...what the newsletter actually says is that Zundel's writings are offensive..." What the newsletter actually(!) says is not that, nor anything so unequivocally condemnatory of Zundel or his writings. Rather than, "Zundel's writings are offensive," it was first, "I (Paul?) am personally offended by writings advocating fascism, socialism, Communism, and other forms of special-interest big government." Then, "Many people find offensive Zundel's writing." And Zundel wasn't characterized as a "Holocaust denier," but rather as someone who had "questions" about the Holocaust.
Also, why neglect to note, "But his (Zundel) case is no different in principle from Rushdie's, except that he is poor and in jail, and Rushdie is rich and protected." Really, no different other than "poor and in jail" vs "rich and protected"? And how about the speculation that those who "hyped" the Rushdie case were "anti-religious" trying to make all religous believers into ayatollah religious zealots, or doing so to "make Moslems look bad for geopolitical reasons." (Not surprisingly, there was no speculation of any sort about the motives of those championing the Holocaust denier's cause.)
The old adage is that when you have neither the law, nor the facts on your side, then pound the table loudly. You will have to pound much, much louder and shout a great deal if you hope to direct attention away from where it should rightfully go here. And that is not to the TNR reporting, but to the story itself.
First a deluded, isolationist foreign policy, next his creationism, and now his crypto-racism and homophobia. The guy is an utter crackpot.
No wonder he hangs out with Stormfront.
it's entirely possible (easy, in fact!) to urge a fight against crime without talking about "black crime."
And it's possible to fight a war against estrimist Islam without ever naming it and calling it a "war on terror" instead.
But the fact that it's possible to ignore salient facts doesn't mean it's necessary or a good idea.
You are less afraid of the ATF than Randy Weaver and family? What did they do to anybody?
Ditto the Koresh folks. The ATF screwed the pooch on both of these cases and then turned them over to the cowboys of the FBI.
If Koresh is accused of child molestation, then it would be useful to explain what in the ATF's charter deals with child molestation. And to ask why the local cops did nothing about it.
As one reporter said, ref Ruby Ridge, the Weavers got screwed but we didn't cover it much because he was an unpleasant person.
Maybe that is the same as being read out of the protection of the constitution in your view.
When I was closely following the Duke Lacrosse rape frame one of the things I observed that surprised me was the depth and breadth of black hatred for white people displayed. I fully expected that the black response to white people getting railroaded would be a sarcastic "Aww, poor you." I did not expect blacks to be loudly, energetically, enthusiastically in favor of false prosecutions so long as the victims are white. But they were - how else to explain Nifong's election victory long after it was clear to all outside observers that his case was a frame?
While some of the quotes on other subjects (particularly Jesse Helms &Israel) are pretty nutty, this part of the "scandal" perfectly fits the definition of a "gaffe":
A politician accidentally telling the truth.
"I'm hardly a member of the PC police."
Then immediately contradicts himself by acting like he is:
"There is certainly a way to discuss the particular problems experienced predominantly in very poor African-American communities. These writings don't do that, not by a long shot."
Wow, that's a gross generalization. All Ron Paul supporters? Good thing that this kind of generalization wasn't about race or else... Of course, the same comment could be made about at least some of the Ron Paul detractors; see ridiculous comment by "advisory opinion".
As for the comment about renaming the city of New York, many commentators (e.g., Coulter and Savage on the right, Maureen Dowd and Frank Rich on the left) constantly insert jokes, often not funny, to villify and mock those who disagree with them in their writings. This is not a particularly effective debating tactic, but that's not the authors' primary concern. Of course, unlike the RP newsletters, Coulter and others have the good sense not to make their demeaning comments about race (Dowd doesn't, but as a liberal she can get away with it).
But of course "being demeaning" wasn't the issue. What is at issue is that the use of such labels in this particular case reveals Paul's underlying attitude towards race. Coulter et al. may be vindictive against their political opposites (and in the case of Coulter, gay people), but they haven't revealed themselves to be singularly vindictive about race.
Ron Paul, on the other hand, stands revealed as a casual racist. Paul's bigotry which you try to soft-peddle here as 'humorous' won't fly. And you know it. Yet you remain a committed apologist.
The parody here is you.
Deluded foreign policy, scientifically-illiterate creationist, and crypto-racist. Game over for Ronnie Paulnuts. :)
Paul was on candid camera with Stormfront founder Don Black and has accepted Stormfront donations. Paul is on record as 'not accepting' the theory of evolution. And Paul's Neville Chamberlain impression is also well known (in fact the repudiation of alliances is one of his policy lodestones). So: everything about Paul is ludicrous.
And as Dale has observed, Pauline idolators tend to be rather overzealous in their defence of the man. Thank the stars he is unelectable.
I read the New Republic piece, and I've changed my mind. His name was on the newsletter, and presumably he had editorial control. Even if he didn't have pre-publicaiton editorial control, certainly he should've objected after the first offensive story was published. His name was on it, he didn't stop it, it's fair to say that's because he supported what his newsletter was printing.
Plus I watched him in the NH debate, and he was a little more twisted than I've seen him before. The obsession witht he gold standard thing is now bordering on the bizarre.
So my impression went from "harmless strange little man who may do America a service by bringing libertarian ideas into the public debate" to "weird little crackpot."
This wasn't the primary reason why I am no longer a libertarian, but unfortunately, the LP attracted a lot of very crazy people--the sorts who I run into supporting Ron Paul today.
Nope. I found Paul's newsletters also bizarre and worrisome.
All of which makes Paul's supporters' defence of the indefensible even more galling, and their imputations of bad faith on the part of Paul's critics especially laughable.
country, even if I disagreed with him on a host of domestic issues. I was planning to register Republican to vote for him.
But, I could never vote for someone who put out newsletters like that.
I think they do reveal a racist, anti-semitic, and homophobic side to him that I did not know to exist. It also perhaps explains his refusal to disavow support he has received from the neo-Nazis and white supremacist groups who have contributed to his campaign.
Sorry Dr. Paul supporters, but his hiding from his past is not good, and makes me think he is not the "straight-shooter" he appears to be. His apparent belief in some of the nuttier conspiracy theories undermines my faith in his judgment, which appears to be clouded by this strange ideology that has nothing to do with libertarianism, and everything to do with the marginalized white supremacists who believe in this stuff, and who were apparently Dr. Paul's associates for many years when he was in the political wilderness. Now, maybe the man has changed but I haven't seen convincing rebuttal evidence showing this to be the case. While I admire underdogs and grass-roots campaigning, I can only accept so much kookiness from any candidate.
Ron Paul is different because he was a nut and still is a nut. He likely will remain a nut. But Professor Carpenter's post damns Paul based solely on what happened in the past. I just felt it necessary to point out that such a tactic is not always wise.
(long title: How to drum up false charges of racism, sexism, anti-semitism, or homophobia to perclude an individual from forwarding their message and make them irrelevant in the eyes of the mainstream political establishment)
1. Send out researchers to comb over every recorded written record or verbal utterace that can be found about the target. The older the statement the better. Researchers should also target statements made during turbulent times or specific events. For instance, statements made during school integration, race based riots, the Matthew Shephard case, and similar events are good examples.
2. Read for any phrase or sentence that could be construed as being even remotely mildly offensive and that relates to sex, race, religion, and sexual orientation and set aside.
3. Select and publish said qoutes in an out of context manner and include outside commentary that suggests motivation for making the statement were hatred and bigotry.
For example, the qoute "David Duke's candidacy shook the Republican establishment" frame the statement to appear as not just be an observation about Duke's candidacy, but is also somehow an endorsement of that candidacy.
4. Quickly after publication, begin to change the public dialogue away from analyzing the actual qoutes and begin to generalize them. Turn the specific qoutes into more generalized statements. You must successfully do this in order to turn what, in context and reviewed in the timeframe in whcih they were made, appear to be statements of blatant bigotry. This way three qoutes discussing race and crime in the inner city become simply "(Person X) thinks all black people in a city are criminals."
5. After successfully conversting specific statements into generalized, distorted general summations begin to use these in the media until it catches on and no one publishes the actual, specific statements.
6. Begin attacking anyone defending the target. Use charged terms such as "racist", "apologist", "denier", and "bigot" to describe those people. Ask them, "why are you defending a bigot/racist?" Attempt to make the person defend themself and not the target.
7. Now to seal the deal, begin to pronounce the statements as "indefensible" and begin to publicly brand the target as a bigot, racist, homophobe which then makes him and everything he stands for irrelevant.
8. Now urge supporters to disassociate themselves with the target and publish public condemnations. Keep in mind that very few people will want to even remotely seem like they are publicly supporting someone who is being called a racist or bigot.
9. Call for the target to apologize and explain thier statements. This gives the target only a few choices. They cannot continue to defend their statements since public dialouge has been converted from discussion about the material to discussion about HOW racist is the material. It is now widely assumed that the material was in fact racist/bigoted.
The target can attempt to continue a defense, but this will become ackward shortly.
The target will then either after to make the decision to apologize and explain or ignore these calls. If he ignores the calls to apologize he seems like nothing more then an unapologetic bigot. "He did apologize - that means he must agree with all that racist trash he said," most people will say in response.
If the target does apologize, it will solidify and make the public believe that these statements were indeed racist and at one point the target may be racist.
With any of these results the character of the target will be sufficiently reduced and his legitimacy will be severely harmed.
Repeat as necessary.
What would you say in defense of your own summary account, if Kirchick were to fire back: "Nieporent 'simply misrepresented' what is in the newsletter, maintaining as he did, '(W)hat the newsletter actually says is that Zundel's writings are offensive.' Those who bothered to see for themselves what was actually in t