Ron Paul and his pathetic excuses
This week we saw the end of Ron Paul as a viable candidate. Sure, we’ll still see Digg spammed by Ron Paul zealots. Paul will still be campaigning his message of right wing Christian values. However, the Ron Paul movement took a big blow when The New Republic dug up a ton of Ron Paul newsletters filled with racism, homophobia, paranoia, and downright nuttiness. Paul claims to have not written any of the articles in question, but his campaign has seemingly given different answers. It’s been reported that Paul claims only to have not written the offensive ones, where on CNN with Wolf Blitzer he claimed to have never written or ready any of them.
In 1996, when the newsletters came up in a local race, Paul claimed the newsletters were being quoted out of context. He even defended the “black youths are fleet of foot” sentiment in one of the newsletters. In 2008 on CNN, though, he claimed never to have read them, so I don’t know how he could have understood the previous context before without reading them. He claims now to not have any idea who wrote the articles, and shockingly, doesn’t care to find out. Not many people, outside of the true blue Ron Paulbots, believe him on that one. I, for one, don’t think he wrote every article, but he knew what was in them and he’s lying now. The New Republic also featured a campaign donation solicitation letter from Ron Paul, that in addition to being filled with kookiness, asked people to buy his newsletters. You have to be almost blind to believe he didn’t know what was in there.
For fun, I though I’d give my responses to some common responses from Ron Paulbots over this issue:
Paulbot: This is old news. He already took moral responsibility for this
me: It’s old news to some people, most of the nation hasn’t heard this before. Also, never before have we had the actual newsletters to read ourselves. Before it was just a few quotes. Oh, and for the record, in 1996 Ron Paul took “partial moral responsibility.” Way to man up, Ron.
Paulbot: Ron Paul is no racist. As soon as he found out, he fired the editor
me: I’ve found no evidence to support the idea that he fired anyone. Quite the contrary, he has claimed to not know what was going on.
Paulbot: What he said was just the truth.
me: I feel sorry for you.
Paulbot: This is just a hit piece by the MSM/Republican Attack Machine/Establishment/International Bankers!
me: He’s running for President of the United States. I don’t think publishing newsletters a candidate was “morally responsible” for qualifies as a hit piece. They didn’t have to make anything up.
Paulbot: He’s still the best one out there!
me: Sorry, racism is more important to me than the gold standard. I feel sorry for you.
Paulbot:It was only one one newsletter. What’s the big deal?
me: The racism, homophobia, paranoia, and kookiness was on a lot of newsletters. You just have to read them.
Paulbot: Libertarians can’t be racist!
me: Really? David Duke isn’t a racist?
Paulbot: Ron Paul is a man of integrity. He wants to blah, blah, blah.
me: Yeah, yeah, yeah. We’ve all heard the stump speech. Now let’s see some actual contrition about calling African-Americans “animals”.
Paulbot: We can’t shoot the messenger! We need to spread the message of freedom!
me: As a libertarian, I want to have high standards. Otherwise, why aren’t you supporting David Duke and other states’ rights, “pro-freedom” white separatists?
Paulbot: You’re just a liberal!
me: I’m a libertarian. A real one, not the fake kind that wants states rights to be racist, misogynistic, and homophobic.
Paulbot: You’re just a republican!
me: I’m a libertarian. A real one, not the fake kind that wants states rights to be racist, misogynistic, and homophobic.
Paulbot: You’re just a neocon!
me: I’m a libertarian. A real one, not the fake kind that wants states rights to be racist, misogynistic, and homophobic.
Paulbot: You’re stupid!
me: Thank you for the reasoned and thought out response. I shall take a long retreat and contemplate how to assimilate such startling insight.
Looking forward to new Paulbot-isms!
Update: I meant to put this in, but because of Ron Paul’s self-immolation, this will be my final Ron Paul post. Everyone knows he’s kook now.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:22 am
You have no respect for the truth. I met Ron Paul in 1988, and I have followed him since before then. I have read hundreds of pieces written by him, about him, in newsletters and other media, and watched hundreds of clips of him speaking. You wish all the other candidtes could be so clean!
This is written by someone who in the late ’60s and early ‘70 took part in the civil rights movement. Paul clearly passes the test of treating everyone according to the content of their character. You are the one disgraced by your attempts make Paul look like a bigot.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Back in the days before publishing became electronic, it was possible for an unauthorized human hand to insert itself between final review draft and the print run. After years of publishing the newsletter without a hitch, no one bothered to look at the print run, because it had always been the same as the final draft.
Dr. Paul’s newsletter began in 1978 and has run presumbly into the present. The racially charged comments began in 1989 and ended in 1992. That suggests that they were not part of a consistent philosophy on the part of Dr. Paul, but of an unknown author who took advantage of the trust of Dr. Paul.
http://libertariansurge.blogspot.com/2008/01/newslettergate-did-dondero-do-it.html
January 13th, 2008 at 10:11 am
all you are doing is repeating what someone else has said. because you do not like mr. paul, you are repeating them. because the american people have been lied to so often, we are now asking for proof of these allegations. were you there when the letters were written by mr. paul. do you know anyone who doesn’t have an axe to grind that will say mr. paul wrote those letters. racists not only write racist remarks, they also talk racist and perform racist acts. give us some details where you personally saw or heard mr. paul doing anything racist. and to show you are sincere, put it in a sworn statement.
January 13th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
If that’s all they can dig up on him, I’d say he is a saint compared to the other slimeballs running for prez.
Join the rEVOLution
January 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
It is ok that you dislike Dr. Ron Paul, I respect that, but with that being said, You are just a sorry little person with shoddy at best journalistic skill, You need to hook up the hose to your suv and breath deep.
January 15th, 2008 at 12:39 am
I don’t know how you can go on, denying the destiny of your people, and the torch that leads the way, namely Dr. Paul. I offer this as an example of the flaws in your argument:
http://tinyurl.com/3dqpww
“Meine Ehre Heist Treue!”
February 6th, 2008 at 10:00 am
Real libertarians don’t believe in “state’s rights,” because no state, including the federal state is legitimate. Likewise, those “libertarians” who cheer on a central state in its domination of its vassals are not anti-statists, but rather centralizers.
To claim that Ron Paul, by objecting to the federal government’s outright refusal to abide by the 10th amendment, is certainly correct in making that objection. Any time a central state aggrandizes its political power that should be of concern to libertarians, even if it is for a “good cause.”
February 6th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Oops, editing error. Should read:
“Ron Paul, by objecting to the federal government’s outright refusal to abide by the 10th amendment, is certainly correct in making that objection.”