Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Get Them Haters Out Your Circle
Justin Raimondo credits me for predicting, way back in May, the slanderlanche that would come if Ron Paul started making headway in his presidential race.
[He] as absolutely right when he predicted it months ago, although the trepidation in his tone was, I think, unwarranted.
Looks like. This week brings two anti-Paul arguments, both supernaturally unconvincing. First, Republican consultant David Hill argues that Paul will lose his congressional re-election for his "increasingly leftish libertarian bent".
Paul’s critics have a bona fide challenger lined up: Chris Peden, a mainline social conservative who has distinguished himself opposing the tax hijinks of local elected officials. If Paul files to run for both Congress and the presidency by the Jan. 2 deadline, he’ll likely lose to Peden on March 4. That’ll be OK, though. Dr. Paul can just move to New Hampshire where the libertarian Free State Project might try and elect him their first governor, leveraging the boost in name ID and image that his presidential bid will have wrought. Good riddance.
Before you run and check: Hill is not actually twelve years old. National Review political reporter David Freddoso debunks the column pretty easily, including the important fact that Peden has been out-fundraised by Paul—just in House race funds, not counting the presidential race money—by about 80 to 1.
The other argument actually poses a danger to Paul. Over at Jewcy Daniel Sieradski argues that Paul has a "Jewish problem" and at The American Thinker* Andrew Walden rages against Paul's "neo-nazi support." I ignored Sieradski's column as various liberals, libertarian hawks, paleocons, and Andrew Sullivans took turns playing pinata with it; dismissal's the correct response to an article that claims a Murray Rothbard devotee refuses to speak to Jews. [UPDATE: Joe argues that the piece is more about perception and that Sieradski's being sympathetic. I can see his point, but Sieradski's closing line didn't come off that way.) Walden's piece is a livelier read, a crazy-quilt of bulletin board comments, angry assertions, and six-degrees-of-Kevin Baconisms (one guy who gave money to Paul once worked for a group that was affiliated with the guy who wrote the Turner Diaries!) which treats Michael Medved as the authority on Paul's integrity.
Paul does get money and vocal support from white supremacists. How should he respond to that? If he turns it down, he gets a one-day news story (at least) and probably spooks the voters who aren't constantly online and haven't heard of this. Jonah Goldberg gets it right:
Conservatives have a lot of experience with this, starting with Buckley. The left is perfectly happy to blur the lines between a mainstream conservative and a Klansmen. For this and other reasons, it's that much more important for conservatives to make those distinctions very clear. Of course, sometimes this can seem like hoop-jumping for a bunch of jerks who, in their monumental bad faith, don't care what the truth is and merely want to make all conservatives appear evil to the American public. Hence, it can be very annoying. And there are times when it is right to refuse to jump through their hoops. But there are other times when it is wrong not to make a clear statement, even if it's prompted by someone yelling "Dance!"
Ron Paul is getting real money, real attention and, increasingly real poll numbers. It's time he learned how to dance like a pro.
Sort of related, John McCain's web site has a new "game" where you answer leading questions about how terrific John McCain is. Here's what happens if you claim Ron Paul's a stronger candidate:
Horrible headline explained here.
*I welcome the existence of another site that gets "for a magazine
called..." disses.
|11.14.07 @ 5:16PM|#
I see Huckabee and Thomson aren't even worth dismissing. So this is what it's like to sit at the cool table.
x,y|11.14.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Question #8
Which candidate would best lead us in the global war on
terror?
A. Rudy "I Once Dressed Like a Woman" Giuliani
B. War Hero John McCain
C. Zack Morri..., er, Mitt Romney
D. Cut and "Ron" Paul
|11.14.07 @ 5:22PM|#
Strangely enough it looks on that screenshot as if McCain's diddling himself under the podium.
|11.14.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Well, the quiz question certainly seems to fit with McCain's
outlook on the opinions of voters.
What type of ice cream do you like best?
A) Vanilla
B) Chocolate
C) Praline
D) Rocky Road
You like chocolate, you marijuana-smoking dumbass?! The correct
answer was C, Praline.
|11.14.07 @ 5:26PM|#
I don't know why a 'Saved by The Bell' Reference is funny here, but it is. Two marks for x,y.
Vermont Gun Owner|11.14.07 @ 5:32PM|#
Anyone else notice the link to the TV ad that claims McCain is the only candidate who stands up to "wasteful government spending"? Seriously, how can he not give Paul credit on THAT?
|11.14.07 @ 5:34PM|#
Strangely enough it looks on that screenshot as if McCain's
diddling himself under the podium.
Kinda looks like both of 'em, are.
Anyway, I didn't think there was much McCain could do to make
himself look like even more of a tool, but that silly site
is proving me wrong.
|11.14.07 @ 5:40PM|#
wasteful government spending
Is there any other kind?
Col. Jessup:
All spending is just and right and A-OK, as long as it's done by an
elected body.
Didn't you hear the news yesterday? Dan T. was all over that
shit.
OH, AND EDWARD? Quit your lame limericking, you
fatuous shitsicle.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 5:42PM|#
Except for the unfairly alleged Nazi connection, Ron Paul is a
wonderfully appealing candidate. What American doesn't want to go
back on the gold standard and abolish the Dept. of Education?
Ron Paul's opponents are running scared. That's why they're beating
the Nazi drum and constantly bring up blatant racist stuff that
appeared in Ron Paul's newsletter without ever mentioning that Ron
Paul didn't actually write it. Oh, the lengths they will go to!
|11.14.07 @ 5:44PM|#
Horrible headline explained here.
Aside from the lousy lyrics the song has some nice music to it. But
why do all the backup singers on it sound better than the lead
female vocalist? She sounds like an amateur that should just be put
out of her pain.
|11.14.07 @ 5:47PM|#
This is so much PC BS. A closet racist would have returned this
paltry sum of money immediately. Ron Paul is not a racist, but he
is nothing if not principled. To deny the free speech of fringe
individuals destroys the meaning of free speech. And campaign
contributions, like flag burning, remain, to my mind, free
speech.
Paul, unlike most everyone else in politics, is entirely unbeholden
to his contributers. Donating to him is an act of faith - that he
will do as he has said he will. It is not a vote on the direction
he will face.
Dr. Paul is often described as an anachronism. Notice how only the
negative aspects of that claim are ever pursued. The idea that he
could be a representative in a republic, the best man of a given
community, elected to follow his own moral compass with wisdom and
prudence, is beyond the ken of his attackers.
We hear cries for a principled conservative, a man who lives his
credo, a man who can lead in good faith. Ron paul has answered the
call, only to find many too cynical or dishonest to accept him.
|11.14.07 @ 5:52PM|#
Is that really a guy named Hill writing for the Hill?
Reading the rebuttal from National Review, it's clear that the
column is so fact-averse and the author straining so hard for
evidence that it cannot have been written as a straight piece of
reporting. Weigel characterizes it just right - it's a hit piece.
One aimed at a Beltway audience.
As for the Jewcy pieces, yeah, Weigel totally mischaracterizes
Sierdaski's argument. He goes out of his way to make it clear that
Paul is not an anti-semite, even heading off and refuting charges
that his positions, such as his stance on aid to Israel, are
evidence of anti-semitism.
It's a piece about perception, and makes the same point Goldberg
makes - if Paul wants to be a part of the big boy campaign, he
needs to call and end to amatuer hour and knock knucklehead stuff
like this down.
|11.14.07 @ 6:01PM|#
Why Ron Paul is the anti-Nazi:
Actual Nazis thought preemptively invading other countries for
national security was okay. Kind of like all the other top tier
candidates. Ron Paul opposes preemptive war.
Actual Nazis thought spying on your people with secret police was
crucial for homeland security. Kind of like all the other top tier
candidates. Ron Paul opposes domestic spying and secret
police.
Actual Nazis implemented gun registration and then confiscation
from groups their government defined as questionable, allowing the
subsequent imprisonment in detention camps and wholesale slaughter
of those individuals. Kind of like all the other top tier
candidates, to one degree or another. Ron Paul opposes any form of
gun control.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 6:04PM|#
Even if Ron Paul is an anti-Semite --I don't think he is--didn't Nixon long ago make the point that "they don't vote for us anyway." The Nazi thing goes beyond anti-Semitism. Nazis have a bad inage from all those World War II movies. Ron Paul should definitely say he's not a Nazi.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 6:07PM|#
"I am Ron Paul. I am running for president. I am not a
Nazi."
Simple as that.
|11.14.07 @ 6:12PM|#
Craig,
That would be a good statement to put out - in the press release
announcing he's giving the money back.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 6:12PM|#
Come to think about it, a straigtforward declaration from Ron Paul that he is not a Nazi will force the other candidates to declare that they are not Nazis either, leveling the playing field.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 6:15PM|#
Actually, Craig's statement would imply that the other candidates are Nazis. Not a good idea.
|11.14.07 @ 6:16PM|#
I don't get the neo-nazi support. This is a man that has portraits of von Mises and Rothbard, two Jews, hanging in his Congressional office. I wonder how many of the Stormfront idiots now that.
Fluffy|11.14.07 @ 6:18PM|#
Joe -
Why do you want Don Black to get $500?
I think you must be some sort of secret Nazi sympathizer. Showing
up on message boards and demanding that people send Don Black $500
in the mail.
|11.14.07 @ 6:18PM|#
I remember going into the Goldwater office several mornings to see that swastikas had been daubed on the door and windows. Eventually we called the cops and reported it, but otherwise just painted them over and went about our business. Some stupid, silly ass accusations don't deserve a response.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 6:24PM|#
Cesar,
Don't forget that von Mises and Rothbard are dead, the Nazi
definition of a "good Jew." Now if Ron Paul had a picture of Woody
Allen hanging in his office, that would be another story.
|11.14.07 @ 6:26PM|#
Don't forget that von Mises and Rothbard are dead, the Nazi
definition of a "good Jew." Now if Ron Paul had a picture of Woody
Allen hanging in his office, that would be another
story.
I do believe Lew Rockwell is Jewish, as well. Who is very much
alive and also a friend of Ron Paul.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 6:26PM|#
"Some stupid, silly ass accusations don't deserve a
response."
Especially if responding involves giving money back.
Gene Berkman|11.14.07 @ 6:29PM|#
An excellent expose of the evils of Nazism is "Omnipotent
Government" by Ludwig von Mises - sold by the Mises Institute, to
which Ron Paul is attached.
(Also available @ www.renbook.com)
I have suggested to people in the Paul campaign that Paul should
not send the money back to the nazi that sent it - he should use
that money to buy an Israel bond.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 6:29PM|#
Cesar,
Yes, Rockwell even has Ron Paul's piece "The War against Religion"
on his site. But does Ron Paul have a picture of Rockwell hanging
in his office? Are you sure Rockwell is a Jew?
Edward|11.14.07 @ 6:32PM|#
"He should use that [Nazi] money to buy an Israel bond."
Brilliant. But wouldn't that be supporting the Israeli state and
it's collectivist policies?
|11.14.07 @ 6:33PM|#
Brilliant. But wouldn't that be supporting the Israeli state
and it's collectivist policies?
Can't you tell the difference between public foreign aid and
private foreign aid, dipshit?
|11.14.07 @ 6:34PM|#
Hey, look, it's joe'z law of teh intenets. I wonder how many
of the Stormfront idiots now that.
Fluffy, I think you must be some sort of secret Nazi
sympathizer. Showing up on message boards and demanding that people
send Don Black $500 in the mail. You got me! Oh, well, I had a
good run. The American Socialist White People's Party will have to
hire another mole.
creech, Some stupid, silly ass accusations don't deserve a
response. Totally. This Swift Boat thing will blow over. I
mean, the charges are totally idiotic. It's beneath Paul to dignify
such muck with a response. Let me see if I can come up with a few
more Bob Shrum quotes from 2004.
Edward, Ron Paul broke the single-day fundraising record, like,
last week. Stick to the poetry.
|11.14.07 @ 6:36PM|#
I am not a pedophile
I am not a nazi
Not good PR, but fuck it even if it was.
This is a revolution. You guys do understand that libertarianism is
revolutionary right?
Mr White Nationalist(not a nazi, who has nothing in common with
Paul) has a right to speak. If he wants to give a buck to Paul, who
isn't gonna change because of it, why should anyone care? They
don't, they are only made to care through manipulation of their
political correctness, their self-censorship.
This campaign is about getting Ron Paul elected. But it is about
changing memes too.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Cesar,
But what real libertarian would give private aid to a bloated
state? Oh, wait. A Nazi would never buy an Israeli bond. Aha, I see
your point.
"I am Ron Paul. I am running for President. I am not a Nazi. How
could I be? I bought an Israeli bond."
Couldn't he just eat a bagel and chopped liver in public?
|11.14.07 @ 6:37PM|#
Hey, look, it's joe'z law of teh intenets. I wonder how many
of the Stormfront idiots now that.
Joe, was it really necessary to point out a single freaking typo?
If there was an edit feature, I'd fix it. But since this site lacks
one, I think double-posting a correction is a bit obnoxious when
its blatantly obvious what word I meant to type.
|11.14.07 @ 6:40PM|#
Bullshit joe, that's my law of the internet. I claimed it
first.
Also, you have man-boobs.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 6:41PM|#
This campaign is about getting Ron Paul elected. But it is about
changing memes too.
Right! Forget the Nazis. Let's stick to going back on the gold
standard, abolishing most government departments, turning abortion
decisions over to the states and popular stuff like that.
|11.14.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Edward, I doubt you know enough about monetary policy to be even be able to comment on the subject.
|11.14.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Are the other candidates confident that NO ONE questionable has contributed to their campaign? Demanding that Ron Paul sift through the resumes of close to a hundred thousand contributors to make sure none of them are anti-semitic is absolutely nuts. If someone took the time, I'm sure they could find KKK, Mafia and crack dealer money in the Rudy McRomney coffers.
|11.14.07 @ 6:47PM|#
"I welcome the existence of another site that gets "for a
magazine called..." disses."
WOW THIS SITE SURE IS SOMETHING AWFUL
|11.14.07 @ 6:47PM|#
Cesar, it'll get you. You can't avoid it. If you insult
someone's intelligence on the internet, you will misspell
something, and make yourself look like an idiot.
You can try to fight it. You can run spell check, or carefully
proofread your writing, and maybe you'll even catch a typo.
Yipee!
But it won't last; you'll still have that karmic debt to pay off,
and you'll just end up with a really bad misspelling somewhere
else, when you least expect it.
I'm not judging you, bro. We're all subject to Teh Law. I'm just
trying to raise awareness. It's the only way to fight this terrible
scourge.
Silence equals desth.
|11.14.07 @ 6:50PM|#
For those of you who missed the Monday evening mass, I reiterate
-
After Saint Benedict's parish received a large donation from
the Grambino crime family patriarch, Father Anthony was asked
"Don't you know that's the devil's money?" The good Father replied,
"The devil's had it long enough. Let us see what the Lord can do
with it".
And that ended Monday's sermon.
|11.14.07 @ 6:52PM|#
Edward,
Have you ever wondered why most commenters on this site hold you in
contempt, but actually engage joe in discussion on the merits of
his arguments?
It's simple: the purpose of argument is to convince. You never try
to convince anyone of anything. You spew out soundbite-sized
bullshit that any one of us could refute trivially. But we don't
bother anymore, because we know that 1) you aren't going to bother
reading or replying intelligently to that refutation and 2) you
aren't trying to convince us of anything.
You're arguing for the sake of epeen. And frankly, there's only so
many times anyone can be bothered with the same damn epeen waving
before it's no longer worth the effort.
So feel free to continue posting, but don't be surprised when rude
one-line responses are all you get, while others who share your
political leanings receive thoughtful and considered responses.
|11.14.07 @ 6:53PM|#
Are the other candidates confident that NO ONE questionable
has contributed to their campaign? Nope, everyone else's
campaigns get caught, too. Hillary got bagged a couple of months
ago when one of her fundraisers turned out to be a felon on the lam
from federal fraud charges.
Demanding that Ron Paul sift through the resumes of close to a
hundred thousand contributors to make sure none of them are
anti-semitic is absolutely nuts. No one is demanding that.
They're demanding that, now that he realizes it, he give the money
back. Like everyone else.
If someone took the time, I'm sure they could find KKK, Mafia
and crack dealer money in the Rudy McRomney coffers. Yes, they
could. They probably will. And they will give the money back as
soon as the story is uncovered, and avoid all of this agony.
Big Boy campaign. Big Boy rules. Sucks, don't it? Jumping through
hoops. Nonsense little hit job stories to handle. The indignity and
dishonor of the rapid response culture. You'd prefer, maybe, that
he get the press treatment he received back at 1%?
|11.14.07 @ 7:03PM|#
isildur,
I think you're wrong about Edward's political leanings. Who's out
there pumping out the Ron Paul hate right now? Anti-war liberals
who've spent the last six years slamming George Bush?
Or neoconservative Republicans?
|11.14.07 @ 7:06PM|#
isulder, regarding your 6:52pm post. All true execpt Edward does
give me the opportunity to practice my foul mouthed cussing skill,
developed and honed from years of life at sea and in waterfront
bars.
It's not a great talent, but what the hey, it's a talent.
|11.14.07 @ 7:15PM|#
Paul's getting good momentum, but it's awfully hard to run
against the establishment. But he's got good buzz, I think he will
could be this elections Jerry Brown (I don't mean that dismissively
as I worked for Brown as an idealistic you man).
I continue to think that Guliani is the most "libertarian" of the
GOP frontrunners. I took CharlesWT test the other day, and what
interested me was that if you take the union and labor questions
out the Democratic frontrunners were easily the most "libertarian"
candidates. I find it interesting that hardcore libertarians would
have a great deal of hate for the Dems because they support raising
the minimum wage. Now THAT is an egregious violation of
freedom!
|11.14.07 @ 7:17PM|#
It's almost like the bizarre hate for McCain among the hardcore
libs because, for all things, campaign finance reform. Dammit if I
could ever afford to run an issue ad I damn well should be able to!
Damn that McCain, Damn him straigh to hell! ;)
Talk about getting all wired up over an abstraction...
|11.14.07 @ 7:21PM|#
Demanding that Ron Paul sift through the resumes of close to
a hundred thousand contributors to make sure none of them are
anti-semitic is absolutely nuts.
Brandybuck, such obvious logistical problems are of no concern to
Rep. Paul's detractors. Even if his staff members were able to do a
superhuman stunt and find every single one of those contributions
and return them, I believe they would still not be content.
|11.14.07 @ 7:23PM|#
joe, about Edwards likely political leanings.
Also, You sir, are a smartass. ;-)
|11.14.07 @ 7:23PM|#
joe-
You're correct that neocons are the ones that have been smearing
Paul the most recently. But I think Edwards said a while back he
supports Richardson.
I have seen a few hit jobs done on Paul from leftist sites (Kos,
DU, Pandagon) but yeah, not nearly as much as from the right.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 7:24PM|#
Isildur,
Why the hostility? What's wrong with suggesting, as I did, that we
forget the Nazis and concentrate on the positive positions Ron Paul
takes? We Ron Paul supporters shouldn't be attacking one
another.
Fluffy|11.14.07 @ 7:25PM|#
Personally, I would prefer that Ron, or a campaign spokesman, respond to all questions on this matter by saying, "Go fuck yourself." Precisely because, as you point out, what's really being demanded here is jumping through a hoop, and performing a ritual obeisance to "sensitivity". The proper answer to that is always "Go fuck yourself." But unfortunately they won't let me run the campaign.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 7:27PM|#
Joe,
I no longer support Richardson. I've been convinced that Ron Paul
is the best choice. I'm no Republican, but as far as I can tell,
neither is Ron Paul. He's for freedom. Who can be against that?
Also, I don't think he's a Nazi, but I wish he would say he isn't
becuase by now, a lot of people probably think he is. Maybe he
should give the money back.
|11.14.07 @ 7:29PM|#
The proper answer to that is always "Go fuck yourself." But
unfortunately they won't let me run the campaign.
Fluffy, I'd go with fortunately. They won't let me write press
releases either. Probably a wise decision.
rho|11.14.07 @ 7:34PM|#
if Paul wants to be a part of the big boy campaign, he needs
to call and end to amatuer hour and knock knucklehead stuff like
this down.
Ridiculous.
Already Paul gets the same handful of questions again and again.
"Aren't you a libertarian?", etc. If he has a press release that
essentially says "I don't hate blacks or Jews," he'll get endless
questions on "why do you feel the need to deny racism and
Jew-hatred?" If Ron deviates from the-message-not-the-man he opens
himself up to bullshit MSM reindeer games.
You know, quite a few of the people who are currently giving Paul
"advice" are the same people who said he'd be a footnote right
about now. Just my opinion, but I'm guessing not
listening to these people is the winning strategy.
Paul|11.14.07 @ 7:35PM|#
What American doesn't want to go back on the gold standard
and abolish the Dept. of Education?
*Tentatively raises hand. On the dept. of education part, at
least.*
Oh, in the conservative/liberal debate on any Federal control of
education, who's agin it, and who's fer it?
I sometimes come to the party late, but last time I looked,
liberals were fer it, conservatives agin it, but then came this
whole NCLB thingamaboo, and then liberals seemed to be agin it, and
conservatives fer it. But I also hear noises that liberals, liking
the new handles to power over education at the federal level, are
agin Bush's implementation of it, and hence it needs fixed, not
eliminated. So I guess that would make liberals fer it (if hillary
wins) and conservatives agin it (if hillary wins). Now my head
hurts.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 7:36PM|#
I should say that even though I'm an atheist and Ron Paul thinks the Founding Fathers envisioned a "robust Christian nation," he also thinks they wanted it to be tolerant (something, by the way, a real Nazi would never want), so I'm willing to trust Ron paul on that one. The main thing is going back on the gold standard. That's a winner.
Fluffy|11.14.07 @ 7:37PM|#
People who don't like Ron Paul:
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn Beck
David Horowitz
Jonah Goldberg
Bill Kristol
The Podhoretz Cannibal Family
Edward
Donderrrrrrrro
I think all the douchebaggery of all of these people more than
offsets the fact that Don Black likes him.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 7:40PM|#
I think that's Donderooooooooo.
You wound me by putting me with such company.
Fluffy|11.14.07 @ 7:40PM|#
Shit, how did I forget Hannity?
Hannity is the face of evil in America today. Paul could get daily
massages and pedicures from the reanimated corpse of Eva Braun and
it still would mean nothing, next to the hatred of Hannity.
Fluffy|11.14.07 @ 7:41PM|#
"I think that's Donderooooooooo."
You say Donderooooooooo, I say Donderrrrrrrro.
Take my wife, please.
|11.14.07 @ 7:42PM|#
Bill O'Reilly
Glenn Beck
David Horowitz
Jonah Goldberg
Bill Kristol
The Podhoretz Cannibal Family
Edward
Donderrrrrrrro
Its an honor for someone to be hated by a group like that.
Paul|11.14.07 @ 7:44PM|#
I don't get the bit about your wife.
Get with the program. Old Henny Youngman joke.
|11.14.07 @ 7:44PM|#
Am I the only person who hates, just hates ESPN's non-stop bottom of the screen ticker? Jesus it's annoying!
|11.14.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Fluffy, you also omitted (inadvertantly I'm sure) Michael Medved, douchebag film critic.
|11.14.07 @ 7:46PM|#
Glen Beck is the stupidest motherf*cker in the universe. I
cannot imagine someone taking time out of their life to listen to
this guy talk about stuff. Don't they have a diner with unemployed
goofs that opine on things they know nearly nothing about ner
them?
That guy makes Nancy Grace seem like a scholar.
|11.14.07 @ 7:48PM|#
J sub D
Don't you think Medved is certainly faking it? If you read this
guy's bio it seems plain to me that he's a professional writer who
decided that writing for the Right would make him some money...
|11.14.07 @ 7:48PM|#
Am I the only person who hates, just hates ESPN's non-stop
bottom of the screen ticker? Jesus it's annoying!
Not only no, but Fuck No.
|11.14.07 @ 7:51PM|#
rho,
I am a Democrat. I've seen plenty of candidates take exactly the "I
won't deign to dignify that with a response line," one of them just
three years ago. They end up as roadkill, rho. I wish this weren't
so, but it is.
As for, quite a few of the people who are currently giving Paul
"advice" are the same people who said he'd be a footnote right
about now, I hope you aren't making any insinuations about me.
I've been predicting Paul would have a significant effect on the
race for months, and it's easy enough to confirm that by searching
the archives.
|11.14.07 @ 7:51PM|#
I hate the SEC but I actually watch their games on CBS on Saturday instead of ABC/ESPN because of that f*cking ticker. They will actually run the time that games that will be played later on that damn ticker. I hate it. It's ruining my football experience.
|11.14.07 @ 7:53PM|#
God bless the MAC for running football games on Tuesday and Wed. nights! They are one sucky conference but thak god for their mid week scheduling!
|11.14.07 @ 7:53PM|#
I like the ticker. You can keep up on the other games.
But they probably don't need to keep it running through the entire
game.
|11.14.07 @ 8:00PM|#
Don't you think Medved is certainly faking it? If you read
this guy's bio it seems plain to me that he's a professional writer
who decided that writing for the Right would make him some
money...
You mean a whore like Armstrong Williams? Possible. just
possible.
rho|11.14.07 @ 8:08PM|#
I am a Democrat. I've seen plenty of candidates take exactly
the "I won't deign to dignify that with a response line," one of
them just three years ago. They end up as roadkill, rho. I wish
this weren't so, but it is.
I didn't say he shouldn't bat it down if it comes up. His campaign
has done that once already--"if they want to give us money when
we're not catering to their agenda, then they're out the dough".
I'm saying these chumps and fools who are suggesting that he take
pre-emptive measures are wrong.
If Paul had Romney's numbers and hundreds of thousands of dollars
from Nazis, that would be different. He doesn't, so it isn't. It
only becomes a story if he makes it one.
I hope you aren't making any insinuations about me.
No I'm not. I'm casting a wide net. All the people--they know who
they are--who thought Paul was out, out, out and are now telling
him how to run his campaign are idiots. I'm pretty sure Paul
received a lot of campaign advice and I bet none of it was "just
keep plugging away, the message will find its own audience to the
tune of some $4 million in a day".
For example, you'll notice Edward has been reduced to snarky
color-commentator when all his pronouncements turned to shit.
|11.14.07 @ 8:09PM|#
Looks like Ron Paul finally made
Rolling Stone.
Unfortunately, not on the cover - yet.....
|11.14.07 @ 8:16PM|#
Joe has actually changed my mind on this. I don't want Paul to do the same thing Kerry did--not say anything about it. He should probably give a speech on the racist support and that ancient newsletter, strongly repudiating both. Keeping silence will just let the story fester.
iih|11.14.07 @ 8:16PM|#
I do not know where I read about it, but there was this research
that says that with enough mentioning of someone or something
associated with a negativity, the negativity comes to stick to the
person/thing regardless of whether a connection exists or not? (I
do know if I just made any sense, but I am too tired now). So the
best strategy to counteract this neo-nazi thing is for people not
to talk about it and for Paul to just keep delivering his
message.
I do not think we're helping in that effort by (a) having several
threads on the topic, and (2) us discussing it at length everytime
on this thread. When it is brought up, we simply say well it is not
Paul's problem that he has wackos interested in him (for all we
know, they could be sent to do so by Rudy McRomney), and that Ron
Paul's heros include Rothbard and von Mises. We can also refer them
to Walter Block's (a Jew himself) article on Paul
and why Jews should support him. And there is also this. But that is it.
Let's stop talking about it so that the discussion shifts
to what Paul stands up for and not what his adversaries want him
look like he stands for.
|11.14.07 @ 8:20PM|#
rho,
This isn't pre-emptive, the story is out there. And, obviously, the
line about accepting money from idiots is cute and all, but it
hasn't batted anything down, now has it?
It only becomes a story if he makes it one.
Hey, look, it's another one of those Bob Shrum 2004 quotes I was
looking for!
If Ron Paul wants to spend the rest of his campaign explaining why
it's NO FAIR that people are insisting he return a lousy $500, he
can do that. He can probably make a pretty effective case. But it's
not going to leave a whole lotta time to talk about Iraq, the
federal budget, and tax cuts.
|11.14.07 @ 8:56PM|#
Yes obviously Ron will need to find some living jews to be some of his major influences. I'm in trouble too, I am a fan of Jackie Robinson, Marcus Garvey, and Frederick Douglas. Apparently you have to update your references to not be racist these days.
Eric Dondero|11.14.07 @ 8:59PM|#
NASA is very much part of Ron Paul's current Congressional
District. Not the property itself, but the surrounding area. You
could almost throw a stone onto NASA property from RP's CD. That
area of Houston - Clear Lake - is very Moderate Establishmentarian
Republican. This is a new area for RP. His District has changed
dramatically in the last few years. They have no strong ties to him
as a Congressman.
Chris Peden on the other hand is sort of a local hero in the Clear
Lake/Friendswood area. He led a personal crusade against Illegal
Aliens commiting crime in Houston. He's also a diehard Property
Rights/Anti-Eminent Domain advocate. It's wrong to write him off as
a 2nd tier candidate against Paul. In fact, in the last 8 years
he's probably the strongest challenger Paul has ever attracted, and
that includes Nancy Sinatra (Frank's ex-wife) last time around who
polled 28% against Paul in the GOP primary with almost ZERO
campaigning. If Sinatra can poll 28% without lifting a finger,
Peden ought to be able to come real close to 50% against
Paul.
Let's remember, that the Presidential race is going to bring out
Republicans for the primary that would not normally vote.
What an embarrassment it would be for Ron Paul to lose his
Congressional seat here in South Texas the day of the primary. What
a rejection that would be for his leftwing populist ideals.
Even if Peden gains over 40%, that will be a huge rejection of Ron
Paul.
Unfortunately, there is a down side to Peden doing well against
Paul: The Dems will then smell blood against the weak Ron Paul and
recruit a top-notch candidate. There are already heavy, heavy
rumors to that effect.
Thus, it's even more important that Peden not just bust 40% but
beat Paul outright.
|11.14.07 @ 9:03PM|#
Medved posts to Townhall, he is a paid goon. He is so dishonest
with his arguments and provides the usual topic de jour that the
establishment types use. They do have coordinated PR campaigns you
know. Harpers did a story on foreign lobbying called "their men in
washington" about foreign lobbyists, but it would probably apply to
other lobbies as well. Go read it, so many of these pundits are on
the take and so are organizations that run "forums".
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/07/0081591
iih|11.14.07 @ 9:06PM|#
Thus, it's even more important that Peden not just bust 40%
but beat Paul outright.
Why is that important again? So that what happens? Please write the
answer in 3 sentences or less (each sentence no longer than say4-5
words.)
|11.14.07 @ 9:16PM|#
Eric,
Why do you even come here? Wouldn't you be much more idealogically
comfortable over at RedState, where you could avoid all mention of
your nemesis due to their ban of all things Paul?
|11.14.07 @ 9:20PM|#
Eric, I know leftwing populist ideals. Leftwing populist ideals
are a friend of mine.
And Ron Paul, sir, has no leftwing populist ideals.
iih|11.14.07 @ 9:28PM|#
Left wing populist ideals:
1. Stopping illegal immigration
2. Privatizing social security
3. privatizing health care
4. Eliminating IRS and income taxes
5. Abolishing the Fed and returning to a gold standard
6. And the biggest of them all: Anti-Abortion
Very left wing indeed. According to this standard, being right wing
might just as well be being anti-war. Those neo-cons and their
anti-war rhetoric!
Fluffy|11.14.07 @ 9:30PM|#
Dondero, you filthy animal, I want to hear you defend Giuliani
now that Rudy and Pat Robertson 69'd each other on a podium like
they were Bernie Kerik and Judith Regan fucking like minks on the
edge of the WTC crater.
I take it that like Rudy, you agree with Robertson when he says
that 9/11 was the judgment of God visited upon the US for our
secularism?
PC|11.14.07 @ 9:39PM|#
No Eric thinks we have to fight the islamo-hitlers. Not to be confused with the soup nazi. Why get all confused by specific terms like Radical Sunni Wahabbi terrorists, SECULAR Sunni Dictators, and Shiite nations? They all have been at war with each other forever and one tried to help us get Al Qaeda, but they somehow are all united and have the same mission statement. And that mission statement is "the islamo-nazis".
|11.14.07 @ 9:41PM|#
Actually, Fluffy, I have come to the conclusion that there is no such person as Eric Dondero ---- "he" is really just Cheney, Podhoretz and Krauthammer tag-team blog spamming. In retrospect, it really is quite self-evident.
|11.14.07 @ 9:44PM|#
I think Timothy is gone for the evening. Therefore, I present
the following on his behalf:
DONDEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Edward|11.14.07 @ 9:49PM|#
Ron Paul on the issues:
Embryonic stem cell programs not constitionally authorized. (May
2007)
Voted NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines.
(Jan 2007)
Voted NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research. (May
2005)
Voted YES on funding for health providers who don't provide
abortion info. (Sep 2002)
Voted YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad. (May
2001)
Voted YES on protecting the Pledge of Allegiance. (Sep 2004)
Voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)
Voted NO on allowing Courts to decide on "God" in Pledge of
Allegiance. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $84 million in grants for Black and Hispanic colleges.
(Mar 2006)
Voted NO on requiring states to test students. (May 2001)
Voted NO on allowing vouchers in DC schools. (Aug 1998)
Abolish the federal Department of Education. (Dec 2000)
Rated 67% by the NEA, indicating a mixed record on public
education. (Dec 2003)
Supports a Constitutional Amendment for school prayer. (May
1997)
Isn\'t I Onymous|11.14.07 @ 9:58PM|#
Mainstream Libertarians the world over support curtailing civil
liberties and implementing torture against illegal Mexicans to stem
the tide of Islamo-fascism and defeat Ron Paul. Go ahead and whine
about your precious freedom, you friggin' Socialists. Stalin was
for the gold standard, too!
"I've never seen him fuck even a single whore; how in the hell is
that libertarian?" - Unattributed Quote
Thieving Janitor|11.14.07 @ 10:15PM|#
I think it would be a mistake for Paul to comment on the whole
nazi thing. The MSM would have a field day with this story. It
would get more coverage than Nov 5th.
Most people still haven't heard of Paul. It would be a disaster if
many people's first exposure to Paul was in connection with nazis,
even if it's a bullshit story.
This won't come up in the MSM until he is seriously challenging the
front runners. When it comes up he will deal with it.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 10:24PM|#
This won't come up in the MSM until he is seriously challenging
the front runners. When it comes up he will deal with it.
But then won't the question be why he didn't deal with it
before:
"Weren't you horrified, Congressman Paul, to find you were getting
support and even money from Nazis? Did you ever repudiate their
support? Did you return their money?"
It would be a fucking disaster.
PC|11.14.07 @ 10:28PM|#
They are just pulling McCarthy"s "are or have you ever been
affiliated with...." bullshit. You know that its been tested since
the Salem witch trials that if you suspected or accused of it, that
it must be true.
The Republicans whining about this is laughable. What do you think
those skinheads thought of Clinton? Who helped them by squashing
Clinton's anti terrorist bill? White supremecists were the primary
beneficiaries of the squashing of Clinton's bill and they back the
second amendment too. I have met plenty of ignorant and stupid
people of all colors, religions, and backgrounds and I can agree
with them on things like the color of the sky? Which way is north?
What the dictionary says about words like "shall not be infringed"
or maybe words like "right of the people", and matters like that
and you know damn well who the people in question have been
supporting throughout the years. Republican Revolution of 1994? How
do you think the White Supremecists felt about Randy Weaver's
unfortunate incident? Clinton's "assault" weapon ban?
A lot like the Conservative Mainstream.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 10:29PM|#
Maybe the Nazis like Ron Paul's opposition to gay adoption. He could claim he accepted Nazi support to help fight gay adoption. That might fly.
iih|11.14.07 @ 10:38PM|#
This controversy reminds me of Harry G. Frankfurt's On Bullshit. Great read. It and his On Truth.
Edward|11.14.07 @ 10:59PM|#
Gingrich Dismisses New Historian As Holocaust View Raises
Furor
By STEPHEN LABATON,
Speaker Newt Gingrich tonight dismissed the historian of the House
of Representatives -- whom he had appointed just weeks ago -- after
learning that she had once helped to deny Federal financing of an
educational program about the Holocaust on the ground that it did
not present the views of the Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan. Mr.
Gingrich made the announcement this evening after he learned of the
evaluation by Christina Jeffrey, which had outraged many Jewish
groups when it became public in 1988. H...
January 10, 1995
Kolohe|11.15.07 @ 1:19AM|#
includes Nancy Sinatra (Frank's ex-wife) last time around
who polled 28% against Paul in the GOP primary with almost ZERO
campaigning.
1) Are you sure this is Nancy Barbato who was born around 1920 and
make Ron Paul look like a callow youth, or Nancy Sinatra, Frank's
daughter?
2) If it is the ex-wife, your not kidding about zero campaigning,
as there is
virtually no biographical information on her whatsoever. The
only info on that she married had three kids and then divorced. I
can't even tell if she's alive or dead. How the hell does a Hoboken
girl get to Houston anyway? And how does anyone know who the heck
she was to vote for her?
3) If its supposed to be Nancy of the 'walking shoes' fame, I find
it odd that she would be running in a Republican primary in Texas,
considering she lives in CA and
donates exclusively to democrats.
No wonder you got fired if you can't figure out against whom you
boss is actually running.
And I'm willing to eat my words in that last sentence and apologize
if you can provide a link that any nancy sinatra was a paul
political opponent
|11.15.07 @ 1:32AM|#
thought i'd share this breakdown of contributors to the other front-runners as compared to Ron Paul. he may have some kooks supporting him, but at least his top five (employers of) donors are a lot more admirable than the other candidates'.
|11.15.07 @ 2:04AM|#
What a rejection that would be for his leftwing populist
ideals.
YAY!!
I am a left wing populist now!
hell, we are all left wing populists now!
Group hug
|11.15.07 @ 2:20AM|#
I thought freedom meant you had to the right to be to an
idiot?
No wonder the idiots are donating to RP as well as the rest of
us.
Making sure donatations come from "appropriate sources" seems like
the same all to me?
|11.15.07 @ 2:21AM|#
Nancy gave $2000 to this republican
SINATRA, CYNTHIA W (R)
House (TX 14)
CYNTHIA SINATRA CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
That might be what Eric is talking about.
Kolohe|11.15.07 @ 2:31AM|#
Ah thanks Mr Corning, that does seem to explain it. Cynthia is Frank Junior's wife. which would make the candidate either the sister-in-law or daughter-in-law of a Nancy Sinatra. I was incorrect about all the contributions being to democrats (damn faulty quick reading skills); however, my point stands in that Dondero does not know who the heck Paul was running against.
|11.15.07 @ 3:35AM|#
I think he should give the Nazi donations to Charley Tree, who would then donate it to Hillary Clinton. Then all of the pundits could show that Hillary is a Nazi, Chinese Communist sympathesizer.
|11.15.07 @ 7:53AM|#
Astonishing. Hillary's campaign is raising megabucks of illegal contributions, but the negative media attention is on a few perfectly legal contributions to Ron Paul.
|11.15.07 @ 7:56AM|#
You know, Edward, every one of those votes is consistent with the way the Constitution actually reads. Most of them are votes against the federal government sticking its nose in where its not supposed to.
|11.15.07 @ 8:00AM|#
If any of you out there are Nazis or Klansmen and you want to
give me $500, I'll gladly take it.
IDL
|11.15.07 @ 8:14AM|#
Does anybody really think that if Ron Paul gave back the $500
and said, "I'm not a Nazi!", then the Medveds of the world would
move along?
Medved's Nazi rant against Paul is completely disingenuous. If Ron
Paul was a pro-war Republican, Medved would be planting flowers in
his poop.
The accusations say more about Medved and the state of
conservatism. This is a tactic that the left always used. Looks
like they still uses it.
BTR
|11.15.07 @ 9:04AM|#
I don't understand, how does giving money to Nazis show that you're not a Nazi?
|11.15.07 @ 9:11AM|#
If any of you out there are Nazis or Klansmen and you want
to give me $500, I'll gladly take it.
ILAH DUNLAP LITTLE, You should be rolling in dough shortly. H&R
is predominately frequented by -
right wing extremists
left wing extremists
nazis
klansmen
anarchists
communists
secular humanists
relighious fanatics
atheists
socialists,
fascists (the Islamic variety)
fascists (traditional)
traitors to U.S. sovreignity
9/11 truthers
trilateralists
freemasons
the Jooos
and other fringe groups that escape my memory at the moment.
Just ask any if the more irritating trolls who post here. Good luck
with your fundraising ;-)
Edward|11.15.07 @ 9:12AM|#
No, no, Warren. It's not a case of givng money to Nazis; it's a case of giving money BACK to Nazis. I'm pretty sure this is a distinction that won't be missed by anybody playing with a full deck.
|11.15.07 @ 9:21AM|#
Astonishing. Hillary's campaign is raising megabucks of
illegal contributions, but the negative media attention is on a few
perfectly legal contributions to Ron Paul.
I've seen those stories. Remember the one with the big fundraiser
who got pulled off the train and arrested by the feds, RC?
You probably don't, because she gave the money back, and the story
vanished. That's the way it works.
|11.15.07 @ 9:31AM|#
Ronald Reagan and Alan Greenspan both
advocated a return to the Gold Standard.
Obviously, Reagan didn't include moving to
gold as part of his program during his
Presidency. Similarly, Greenspan ran the
fiat system as best he could, and only from
time to time mentioned that a return to gold
would be an ideal reform.
In discussing Ron Paul's ideas recently, Steve Forbes insisted on
returning to gold. He appeared to have in mind an immediate
reform--using federal reserve policy to fix the price of
gold.
Paul's platform does not include a return to gold, but rather
reforms to reduce the burdens on those who wish to attempt to use
gold (or other commodity monies) as a parallel currency to the
current fiat money.
The key reform appears to be freeing gold and silver from capital
gains tax.
The primary difference between Reagan and Paul, then, is that Paul
talks about the evils of fiat currency more. He spends more time
discussing the need for something like a gold standard. Reagan's
handlers, apparently,
were able to convince him to keep his mouth shut about his true
beliefs in this area.
There are a good many free market economists who favor a gold
standard. Those who claim the idea is crazy, are just ignorant.
Many
of the "arguments" about why it is purportedly crazy are based upon
ignorance.
That isn't to say that there are no disadvantages to a gold
standard that must be balanced against the disadvantages of a fiat
currency.
Regadless, Ron Paul isn't running on implementing a gold standard
during the next 4 years.
So, the claim, "Ron Paul is crazy because he favors a gold
standrad," requires that one take the position that Ronald Reagan
was crazy. While this might be a common view among liberal
Democrats, it won't get much traction among Republican primary
voters.
More generally, one must also claim that Alan
Greenspan is crazy. A difficult position to
maintain.
As for the notion that Ron Paul is crazy because he is proposing to
institute a gold
standard now... Well, that is just false.
Fluffy|11.15.07 @ 9:31AM|#
Sorry to go all reductivist on you, Edward, but if you give
money back to a Nazi, you're giving money to a Nazi. Period.
The Nazi doesn't have the money. You want someone to tie a nice big
red bow on it and hand it to the Nazi. The fact that he had the
money at some point in the past is not relevant and does not change
the fact that you want someone to give money to a Nazi.
Edward|11.15.07 @ 9:37AM|#
You know, Edward, every one of those votes is consistent with
the way the Constitution actually reads.
Absolutely! The Constitution is very clear on gay adoptions.
They're a big, big constitutional no-no.
Edward|11.15.07 @ 9:39AM|#
But fluffy, that kind of argument isn't going to get our man Ron Paul anywhere. He should give the fucking Nazi cash back and repudiate Nazi support. That's the only rational thing to do. Sadly, it may already be too late.
iih|11.15.07 @ 9:40AM|#
fascists (the Islamic variety)
LORRL
(I just made that up: Lough Out Really Really Loud.)
|11.15.07 @ 9:52AM|#
Sorry to go all reductivist on you, Edward, but if you give
money back to a Nazi, you're giving money to a Nazi.
Period.
Fascinating, Fluffy. How do recommend we start screening the
political beliefs of people due for income tax refunds?
more money than sense|11.15.07 @ 10:08AM|#
I'llpay 25 bucks for any well known neonazi to send another 25
bucks to guiliani's and romney's campaigns.
who's with me?
rho|11.15.07 @ 10:15AM|#
This isn't pre-emptive, the story is out there. And,
obviously, the line about accepting money from idiots is cute and
all, but it hasn't batted anything down, now has it?
No, the story isn't out there. It's obsessed over by a few far-left
blogs and some right-wingers who hate his Iraq policy. Nobody else
cares.
I know this is a difficult concept, but you are not the
world.
It's interesting that you want him to come out and publicly
distance himself from racists, but claim that his direct and
absolutely true rebuttal to the charge was ignored. Why do you
think a big ceremony wherein he declares he's not a Nazi will be
any better? Except to bring further attention to the matter, it
won't. That's my point.
Comparing a Ron Paul campaign's tactics to a John Kerry campaign's
tactics is stupid.
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 10:28AM|#
Sorry. My mistake. You all are indeed correct. It was Cynthia
Sinatra not Nancy Sinatra. But the original points stands. She
didn't campaign until the very final days of the race, and still
managed to get 28% against Paul in the primary.
Now Peden is campaigning hard, and has a much better reputation
than Sinatra. (She was viewed as a usurper and not even a real
Republican, out for some local media attention.)
Given the fact of all the new GOP primary voters who will be voting
in the hotly contested Presidential race, who've never even heard
of Ron Paul, and given the fact that the District now contains a
healthy portion of Clear Lake/Friendswood hardcore Moderate
Estalishmentarian Country Club Republicanism, I think we'll see a
major shrinkage in Ron Paul's vote total.
Peden could even knock him off, if the turnout is high
enough.
Prediction:
Low Turnout for Texas Primary Day - Ron Paul wins easily with
65%
High Turnout in Texas on Primary Day Peden beats Paul by a few
percentage points
curious|11.15.07 @ 10:28AM|#
"There are a good many free market economists who favor a gold
standard"
really? who?
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 10:30AM|#
Golly gee, the truth hurts 'eh? Say one word negative about the
"Almighty Ron Paul" and Paul-tards go apeshit, accusing those who
criticize him of everyone short of child molestation.
You all need to check out the article in the American Thinker
yesterday which thoroughly documented with links in practically
every sentence, Paul's extensive ties to questionable groups and
supporters, even to NeoNazis.
Be careful though. It may end up challenging your most fundamental
beliefs about Paul, as it's done to numerous former Paul-bots in
the last day or so.
|11.15.07 @ 10:33AM|#
Oh, so now Ron Paul is so insignificant that he shouldn't bother
worrying about his public image? He's running a quantum campaign,
too small for the rules of larger campaigns to apply? Comparing
Paul to John Kerry's campaign flatters Paul by granting him greater
status than his campaign warrants at this point - that much is
true.
But if Paul actually does manage to break through and receive
national attention, which it's starting to appear like he might, it
won't be "a few left and right bloggers." It will be the complete
weight of the Republican Noise Machine, the same one that put
together the Swift Boat liars.
Did you see R C Dean's comment about Hillary Clinton up there?
That's how these stories work in the Big Leagues - the candidate
either actively accepts the money, or returns it, and both are
treated as overt acts that tell us about the candidate's beliefs
and principle. Is that fair? No probably not. If Ron Paul wants
fair, he should drop out of the presidential race and play Monopoly
with his family.
It's interesting that you want him to come out and publicly
distance himself from racists, but claim that his direct and
absolutely true rebuttal to the charge was ignored. It's only
interesting to someone who doesn't have much of an understanding of
politics beyond 1% vote getters and petitition signing. It's
obvious, documented, tried and true, obvious, intro-level stuff to
anyone who understands the slightest bit about how real political
campaigns work. Talk is cheap. Money talks. By their acts you shall
know them.
Why do you think a big ceremony wherein he declares he's not a
Nazi will be any better? Holy flaming straw man! I said he
should mail out a check and put out a press release. You know, like
a real candidate with a clue about how electoral politics works
does.
Rudolph Guiliani hired one of the big Swift Boat funders to help
his campaign. But you're probably right, his opponents will
probably just let this drop if he doesn't talk about it, because
that's totally how stories about slimy political donors work. In
Candyland.
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 10:39AM|#
Obviously, there are very few Republicans here at H&R. So, I
can fully understand why so many of you could care less about the
GOP retaining the CD 14 seat.
There are very hot rumors floating around that the Dems will be
announcing a "celebrity candidate" for Ron Paul's seat in the
coming weeks.
They are smelling blood. They know Ron Paul is vulnerable, and that
countless GOPers are disenchanted with him in his own
backyard.
Do you all know that RP's longtime friend and ally, Brazoria County
GOP Chair Yvonne Dewey, is literally going door to door in RP's
hometown of Lake Jackson collecting signatures to put Chris Peden
on the ballot? When even Yvonne goes against Ron Paul you know the
situation is very serious.
Anyway, Peden has a much better shot at retaining the seat for the
GOP than Ron Paul.
The District is heavily minority - by some estimates 40%. In the
southern areas, there are towns that are fully 70% Hispanic. They
thoroughly distrust Ron Paul and would never vote for him.
If the Dems recruit an attractive Hispanic who is moderately
conservative to run for the seat, Paul will be extremely
vulnerable.
Keep in mind, Ron Paul is the only Republican still holding a
Congressional seat in South Texas. Every other Congressmen from El
Paso to San Antonio to Galveston is a Hispanic Democrat.
(Republican Henry Bonilla lost his seat last election.)
Peden is a strong candidate. He's a good fit for the District,
mostly cause he's got a "Surburban Houston Moderate to
Conservative" Persona.
He can keep the GOPers. He can also win over some Conservative Dems
in suburban Houston.
Peden is a much better choice for the GOP.
rho|11.15.07 @ 10:40AM|#
Hey, look. Eric Dondero cries when people criticize him, then
declares that Ron Paul runs with Nazis.
You are a figure of fun, Eric Dondero. Say, if Rep. Paul is such a
Nazi-lover, why do you litter your comments with "Fmr. Senior Aid
US Representative Ron Paul 1997-2003"? Not sure I'd want people to
know that I was Goebbels' butt-boy for six years. People might
think you're, like, unobservant if you didn't notice all the
swastikas and goose-stepping Dr. Paul did around the office.
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 10:43AM|#
It's quite easy Joe. All Ron Paul needs to do is to give back
that $500 contribution from that Don Williams guy, the
self-proclaimed Nazi from Tennessee. And issue a statement
denouncing the guy, and making a formal plea to David Duke and the
Nazi StormTrooper Front to no longer run his articles on their
sites.
I think that would go a very long ways towards quieting the
critics, myself included.
I'll make a pledge right here and now. If Ron Paul returns that
check, and denounces David Duke and the Nazi StormTroopers I will
lay off of the Anti-Semite connections accusations.
Dave Weigel|11.15.07 @ 10:44AM|#
She didn't campaign until the very final days of the race,
and still managed to get 28% against Paul in the
primary.
What about Gene Kelly, the lunatic septuagenarian who puts his name
on the ballot in Democratic primaries and regularly polls more than
40 percent of the vote? Low-information voters think they're
nominating a celebrity, or at least a name they trust. So the
ballots cast for a famous name in a low-turnout primary aren't the
best indicator of how people will vote more generally.
I'll bet you $20 that Paul tops 60 percent of the vote, low or high
turnout.
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 10:49AM|#
RHO, you just stepped into a pile of shit there boy. Wipe them
shoes off.
Ron Paul changed dramatically immediately after 9/11. When he ran
for Congress in the 1990s he ran as a South Texas mainstream
Conservative, almost "Bush Conservative" Republican. Hell, he even
had Tom DeLay down to the District numerous times to campaign for
him. He had pictures of him and George Bush on his walls in his
office, and quotes from Bush in campaign literature.
He hardly ever mentioned foreign policy. It was all cutting taxes
and opposing Clinton.
Yes, I knew he leaned left on foreign policy. But he hardly every
talked about it. Domestic issues were front and center. If Ron and
I did talk about it, it was for the purpose of friendly banter to
pass the time in the car driving from Houston to San Antonio and
back.
But 9/11 changed everything. Overnight he became some
ultra-non-intervenionist. It got worse with the onset of the Iraq
War. He made a complete transition to Cindy Sheehan, Michael Moore
Conspiracy Theory La La Land.
That's when I made my exit from his staff.
So, to answer your question, I still like the 1990s Ron Paul. It's
the 2000s Ron Paul who scares the living shit out of me.
rho|11.15.07 @ 10:53AM|#
It's obvious, documented, tried and true, obvious,
intro-level stuff to anyone who understands the slightest bit about
how real political campaigns work. Talk is cheap. Money talks. By
their acts you shall know them.
Clever people have already noticed that Ron Paul isn't running your
garden-variety campaign.
Remember when the Paul campaign returned Alex Jones' money?
Speculation ran wild about that--maybe the Ron Paul campaign
hired Alex Jones? Maybe he's a Truther after all? There is
nothing that can be done about this except keep pushing the
message.
Oh, so now Ron Paul is so insignificant that he shouldn't
bother worrying about his public image?
Speaking of strawmen...
No, the Paul campaign's focus is on growth. What you're talking
about is damage control to keep a top-tier candidate from bleeding
supporters. These are two completely different things. Even if
somebody deliberately brings Dr. Paul on to corner him about Nazi
donations that's a positive. Because he can rebut it and get his
message out to more people.
Tell you what. You prove to me that you could raise $4 million+ in
a day by bringing attention to the fact that a Nazi gave you $500
and I'll consider listening to you.
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 10:55AM|#
Dave, I must admit, you do have an excellent point there. The
name Sinatra probably did get her a healthy chunk of the vote she
wouldn't have gotten otherwise.
However, on the converse side, many locals knew of her, and wrote
her off as a crank publicity seeker. So, she probably lost some GOP
primary votes there.
Peden has very few, if any negatives. I don't think there's a
single person down here who has ever said anything negative about
him.
And he is quite well-known. Plus, Friendswood, where he is
Vice-Mayor, is one of the largest towns in the District.
I say Peden far outdistances Sinatra's showing. Maybe about a 30 to
40% shot of winning outright.
Like I said, when Yvonne Dewey, Ms. Republican Congressional
District 14 who comes from Ron's hometown of Lake Jackson, comes
out against you, you know there's trouble in Ron Paul Land.
Yvonne is quite cautious. I don't think she would have made such a
dramatic move, if she didn't know she'd have great many LJ (and
other Brazoria County) Republicans backing her up.
rho|11.15.07 @ 11:00AM|#
So, Eric Dondero, Ron Paul hangs with Nazis AND Cindy Sheehan
AND Michael Moore? Wow, that's so awesome.
Ron Paul changed dramatically immediately after
9/11.
Uh huh. Here's a better theory: you changed after
9/11 and turned into an angry, anti-Muslim hate-machine, bent on
war and retribution towards enemies real and imagined. This would
explain your suggestion that Ron Paul is a racist--classic
projection--and why you couldn't stand his strict, consistent
Constitutionalist position. No place for endless war in a
Constitutional government.
Say, Eric Dondero, how's YOUR candidacy for Ron Paul's seat going?
Swimmingly, I assume?
robc|11.15.07 @ 11:32AM|#
That's when I made my exit from his staff.
Thats an interesting way to put it.
The word you are looking for is FIRED.
|11.15.07 @ 11:35AM|#
rho,
Remember when the Paul campaign returned Alex Jones'
money?
No. Who's Alex Jones? Honestly, I follow the campaign pretty
closely, and I don't remember that story at all. And you say he
returned the money? Yeah, that's what happens when you return the
money - there's a one-day story, and then everybody forgets about
it.
No, the Paul campaign's focus is on growth. What you're talking
about is damage control to keep a top-tier candidate from bleeding
supporters. These are two completely different things. That's
an interesting point, but it's time to recognize that Paul has
grown well beyond the arm waving, pay-attention-to-me phase of the
campaign, and his tactics need to reflect his new position in the
race.
Even if somebody deliberately brings Dr. Paul on to corner him
about Nazi donations that's a positive. Because he can rebut it and
get his message out to more people. That's the thing, he
wouldn't be able to get his message out to more people. The press
would just keep asking him about his dirty, dirty Nazi money.
That's the way those Heathers work.
Tell you what. You prove to me that you could raise $4 million+
in a day by bringing attention to the fact that a Nazi gave you
$500 and I'll consider listening to you.
No, I'll tell YOU what. You name for a candidate that stonewalled
and explained about a fundraising scandal, rather than putting it
to bed, and didn't suffer a collapse, and I'll consider listening
to you. You can't, because there aren't any. How about you listen
to every other successful candidate who has ever had to weather a
dirty-donation scandal?
It's cute that you think these things depend on fairness and the
merits of Paul's explainations, but it's just not true.
rho|11.15.07 @ 11:59AM|#
No, I'll tell YOU what. You name for a candidate that
stonewalled and explained about a fundraising scandal, rather than
putting it to bed, and didn't suffer a collapse, and I'll consider
listening to you.
Ron Paul.
Well, that's not really fair, 'cause he didn't stonewall--he
answered the charge when asked--and it's not much of a scandal
outside of far-left blogs and right-wing war supporters. Well, and
reason, I guess.
Your insistence that Ron Paul apologize for nothing isn't supported
by anything. He's doing better in the polls. He's raising scads of
money. I don't think he needs your advice on this. Me, I think
alerting people that the top dollar contributors to the Ron Paul
campaign come from Google and the military, rather than alerting
people that he's returning $500 from a neo-Nazi, is the better
strategy.
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 12:07PM|#
Hmm, resignation letter notice to your employer, $10,000 bonus, and a lifelong pension from the United States of House of Representatives, plus, utlization of your employer as a reference for future employment? If that's the new definition of "fired" I'll take it!
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 12:09PM|#
rho, just curious. How did you react to 9/11?
Was it another ho-hum day for you? Probably thought there was too
much attention paid to the story, 'eh? Probably had the attitude,
"enough already, let's just move on." Right?
What's amazing is that people like you and Ron Paul did not react
with utter outrage of the attacks of 9/11.
Shows how truly unemotional and cynical and unAmerican you reall
are.
Duckman|11.15.07 @ 12:19PM|#
Eric,
Sure I was outraged on 9/11, but if someone burns down your house,
dies in the blaze and leaves his photo ID at the crime scene, is
the appropriate response to go to the street the guy lived on and
kill everyone there?
There is a huge disconnect in this country between a RATIONAL
response to 9/11 and the irrational response of just killing "all
them Muslims." I think it's hypocritical to suggest that Ron Paul
is a racist with one breath but to support a race-baiting war
against "Islamofascism" with the other.
rho|11.15.07 @ 12:34PM|#
Was it another ho-hum day for you? Probably thought there
was too much attention paid to the story, 'eh? Probably had the
attitude, "enough already, let's just move on." Right?
No, I was pretty pissed, Eric Dondero. I supported Afghanistan,
Iraq, and said such things as "nuke them all and let God sort it
out". It made me feel like a real man to send other people to go
fight a war.
Then I came to my senses. I'm kind of embarrassed about it all now,
and I have a lot of respect for people who never lost their senses
in the first place.
But thanks for calling me un-American, Eric Dondero.
joe:
To reiterate a point, since you claim to be unaware of the Alex
Jones bruhaha. Alex Jones is a reactionary nut with a radio show
who thinks 9/11 was an inside job. Ron Paul used to go on his show
for interviews, and therefore was labeled as a Truther-by-proxy.
The same folks who are outraged by Nazi money were telling him that
he needed to come out and clearly denounce Alex Jones, Trutherism,
and probably colloidal silver just for good measure.
Ron Paul never did. He was asked about that, finally, by some guy
on CNN (I think), and his reply was, "If I only went on radio and
TV shows that agree 100% with me I'd never do any interviews. No, I
don't think 9/11 was an inside job." Seems that works pretty well,
seeing as how you've never heard of this "scandal".
Dave|11.15.07 @ 12:46PM|#
If Paul returned the $500, the press would say, "Why would you give money back to a Nazi who will use it to further his message." Is it so wrong to keep the $$ and use it to spread the word of freedom? Ideas that are very anti-nazi?
R C Dean|11.15.07 @ 1:01PM|#
You probably don't, because she gave the money back, and the
story vanished.
And then went right back to the people who allegedly made the
contributions, asked if they really wanted to give to her, and
practically none did.
So, joe, you think that just because a candidate has a history of
accepting funny money, once their cats-paws are arrested, we should
all just pretend nothing happened?
'Cause thats setting the bar really low.
|11.15.07 @ 1:38PM|#
a lifelong pension from the United States of House of Representatives
So it's true - Mr. MainstreamLibertarian has sucked off of the
federal teat his whole life>
|11.15.07 @ 1:42PM|#
Ron Paul is an incorrect answer, rho, because the "study" is
still incomplete. He still hasn't weathered this storm - it's still
going on.
So, once again, can you give me an example of a candidate who has
weathered a dirty-donation story by explaining why he doesn't have
to give the money back?
Your insistence that Ron Paul apologize for nothing isn't
supported by anything. Putting words in my mouth again, I see.
Apologize? Who said anything about apologize? Campaigns do this all
the time, and apologies have nothing to do with it.
Sending the money back isn't an admission that the candidate did
anything wrong - it's an acknowledgement that the DONOR is a bad
guy, and a move to distance the candidate from the donor. And it
works.
You're the one who wants Paul to keep this alive and be answering
questions about it for the rest of his campaign. If he sends back
the money, it's a one day story, and he never has to talk about it
again.
|11.15.07 @ 1:48PM|#
Excellent point, Dave:
If Ron Paul gives back the $500, then Medved would say that Paul
was donating money to Nazis.
|11.15.07 @ 1:52PM|#
rho,
There's a difference between the talk show situation you describe
and returning the money, as well as between what I'm recommending
and the calls for Paul to make a big deal of denouncing Jones. I
think I understand why you are so adamant and wrong-headed about
this now - because you see the two situations as equivalent - and
if you think about how they're different, you might change your
mind.
First, if Paul simply stops going on the show, there is no more
connection between him and Jones. Ending his appearances cuts all
of the ties. With a donation, on the other hand, he still has the
money. Keeping the money is angoing "scandal" (not really a
scandal, just one of those bogus gotcha stories the press loves so
much), so it will keep dogging Paul the way some media appearances
he no longer engages in does not.
Second, the recommended "solution" from Paul's detractors was to
make a big deal of the episode, while what I'm talking about is a
much more low-key act. I'm absolutely not saying Paul should stage
a big media event and make a big show of distancing himself from
this donor - just mail out a check and send out a two line press
release, like every other candidate does to make these things go
away.
RC, the best thing about the upcoming Clinton adminstration is
totally going to be watching people like you dream up zany
conspiracy theories about her. "Cat's Paw?" Lol. I've got to dig
out that plaid flannel shirt again.
|11.15.07 @ 1:54PM|#
Sending the money to the ADL or some other anti-racist group would probably be a better move than returning it.
rho|11.15.07 @ 2:10PM|#
So, once again, can you give me an example of a candidate
who has weathered a dirty-donation story by explaining why he
doesn't have to give the money back?
Al Gore.
|11.15.07 @ 2:22PM|#
You mean the guy who lost?
The Republicans were hammering Al Gore on his fundraising for the
entire election, and the press went along.
rho|11.15.07 @ 2:26PM|#
If he sends back the money, it's a one day story, and he
never has to talk about it again.
No it's not. It's a bogus charge ginned up by people who want Ron
Paul to be sweating bullshit nickel and dime scandals instead of
continuing to do what's working so well for him.
You're the one who wants Paul to keep this alive and be
answering questions about it for the rest of his
campaign.
But he's not really getting any questions on this, except from
people who want him sweating bullshit nickel and dime
scandals.
Plus, even if he did get questions about his crypto-Nazi past,
there'll be a dozen YouTube videos by black and Jewish Ron Paul
supporters calling it bullshit within 48 hours.
But enough of this--I want an update from Eric Dondero on his
candidacy for the 14th District of Texas! How's it going there,
champ?
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 2:28PM|#
I like the old rho. The rho post 9/11 who wanted to kick the
shit out of the bastards.
But alas, the new rho has become a pussy-boy. He's lost all his
senses. And worse, he's even turned on his own country.
BRING BACK THE OLD RHO, Please!!
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 2:31PM|#
Duckman, YES, YES, YES, YES, AND YES!!!
If someone who is part of an international crusade, comes in and
kills your countrymen you respond by not only killing him, but his
friends too, and his family members, and then you go to his village
and burn the WHOLE MOTHER FUCKING THING DOWN TO THE GROUND.
You then, threaten all his countrymen, and the countrymen in
surrounding countries, that if they EVER MOTHER FUCKING DREAM OF
DOING ANYTNING LIKE THAT AGAIN, THEY SILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES FAR,
FAR WORSE.
It's called you fucka with my country, I fucka with yours 10 times
harder.
Or as Teddy Roosevelt would say, "Walk softly, carry a big
stick."
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 2:33PM|#
Duckman ain't nothing racial about it.
I love small 'd' democrat Muslims who want to fight for democracy
and freedom in their own lands, like the brave Kuwaitis who stood
up against Saddam, or the Tunisians who have just outlawed the
burqa and are standing up to Islamic extremists in their land, or
the Kurds, or Iraqis who are fighting against Al Qaeda.
It's Islamo-Fascism I hate, not Islam.
rho|11.15.07 @ 2:34PM|#
You mean the guy who lost?
You keep moving the goal posts. Besides which, he did rather well
for himself, you know. He practically won.
But I've got more. Bill Clinton. Bob Dole. I can do this all day.
Bush Sr. Reagan. Tip O'Neill. All of them had dodgy contribution
scandals, major and minor.
|11.15.07 @ 3:01PM|#
rho,
No it's not. It's a bogus charge ginned up by people who want
Ron Paul to be sweating bullshit nickel and dime scandals instead
of continuing to do what's working so well for him.
Don't you understand? The fact that it's a bogus charge has
absolutely nothing to do with how it will be played by the media,
or what the best strategy for dealing with it is. The fact that
it's bogus, and only ginned up by people trying to get Ron Paul,
tells us nothing about the smartest way to handle it.
You are right, this is about people who want him to have to keep
talking about how there's nothing wrong with accepting donations
from ZOMG! Nazis Nazis Nazis, instead of talking about his message.
And the very best way to give them what they want is to keep the
story alive instead of pulling band-aid off quickly.
But he's not really getting any questions on this, except from
people who want him sweating bullshit nickel and dime
scandals. Well, he's not really getting any questions at all.
This whole conversation is based on the assumption that Paul's
stock is rising and he's going to start getting media exposure like
that of a real candidate. If he is actually in this to win, rather
than as a protest candidate, he needs to be thinking about how to
handle the media when it starts treating him with the same bogus
gotcha journalism as the other top-tier candidates.
Plus, even if he did get questions about his crypto-Nazi past,
there'll be a dozen YouTube videos by black and Jewish Ron Paul
supporters calling it bullshit within 48 hours. That's still
that small-time thinking. You Tube? If Ron Paul rules You Tube and
loses CNN, he's lost. You know how they'd treat it - "on the one
hand some people say Ron Paul is all smoochy with Nazis. On the
other hand, here's a black guy. Keep in mind, he's a black
libertarian."
But anyway, yeah, let's check in on the Fighting Fourteenth.
|11.15.07 @ 3:04PM|#
You keep moving the goal posts. No, rho. There is only
one goalpost.
But I've got more. Bill Clinton. Bob Dole. I can do this all
day. Bush Sr. Reagan. Tip O'Neill. All of them had dodgy
contribution scandals, major and minor.
Yes, and they all returned funds from bad guys to make the stories
go away.
|11.15.07 @ 3:08PM|#
You know what would totally work, Eric?
If we knocked down a building full of people. No, wait, two. And
brought down a handful of passenger planes.
Any country that suffers a blow like that, boy, I'll tell you, no
way they're going to fuck with you.
No, wait, even better - a months-long campaign of launching rockets
willy-nilly into their capital city, killing thousands upon
thousands of civilians. We can call it "aw shucks," or something
similar.
That will totally work, because people respond exactly as you
describe.
iih|11.15.07 @ 3:12PM|#
Tunisians who have just outlawed the burqa and are standing
up to Islamic extremists in their land
Hold it right there pal! They outlawed all types head scarves, not
just burqas. When has a simple head scarf been considered
extremist? What is happening in Tunisia is outright oppression of
freedom of religion.
FWIW, on 9/11 I was with a former F-117 air force pilot (Gulf I and
Balkan vet). We pretty much disagreed on everything political. But
on that day, the two of us happened to be together. The two of us
discovered how we cared very much about each other -- especially
that I was a foreigner, from an Arab country and Muslim. I was
outraged at the terrorists, but worried like hell from the
repercussions. It so happened that the only working phone was my
office phone that my friend could use to contact his wife, who on
that day was on an American Airlines flight (she is a flight
attendant there).
So, Eric, 9/11 is a whole lot more about feeling rage. If the only
thing you felt on that day is rage, I am certainly glad that I was
not near you on that day. What was needed is measured response. We
neither got the appropriate response (see Michael Scheuer's
Imperial Hubris regarding Afghanistan), nor was it
appropriate (Iraq).
It is time to stop, take a breath, and put America back on its
non-interventionist policies of much of the 19th century. Anything
else would only make things worse. Your positions, sir, would
certainly only make things worse.
Go Ron Paul! The only true patriotic candidate! (And don't you
dare, sir, challenge anyone's patriotism, neither Ron Paul's nor
rho, nor my love of what this country truly stood and should stand
for)!
Duckman|11.15.07 @ 3:16PM|#
Well, I'm sad you feel that way Eric. Suppose a couple of
American white supremacists from the US went over to Nigeria and
blew up a building. Would Nigeria be entitled to attack any target
it wanted to in the United States?
The assumption you make is that because some islamic radicals came
over here and did something very, very bad, that we have the right
to treat all the citizens of the countries they came from as
co-conspirators and just kick the shit out of them. I utterly,
totally, and completely reject that argument.
|11.15.07 @ 3:16PM|#
"I love small 'd' democrat Muslims who want to fight for
democracy and freedom in their own lands, like the brave Kuwaitis
who stood up against Saddam, or the Tunisians who have just
outlawed the burqa"
How is outlawing the burqa justified?
Fluffy|11.15.07 @ 3:17PM|#
OK, help me out here guys. Was the guy who just advocated genocide in response to terrorist attacks really Dondero, or a fake Dondero?
Duckman|11.15.07 @ 3:21PM|#
To put it more succinctly:
I think you can't hold a nation state or the citizens of a nation
state responsible for the actions of particular members of that
nation state. Period.
Similarly, you can't hold a religion, or adherents of that
religion, responsible for the actions particular followers of that
religion make in the name of that religion.
The bottom line is that 9/11 was orchestrated by individuals, that
is, members of Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not a state, it has no
government to declare war against, and attempting to go to war with
actual nation states in an effort to punish Al Qaeda just makes the
situation worse in my opinion.
|11.15.07 @ 3:25PM|#
"If someone who is part of an international crusade, comes in
and kills your countrymen you respond by not only killing him, but
his friends too, and his family members, and then you go to his
village and burn the WHOLE MOTHER FUCKING THING DOWN TO THE
GROUND."
Then why didn't we attack Saudi Arabia since most of the terrorists
were from there?
|11.15.07 @ 3:32PM|#
...like the brave Kuwaitis who stood up against Saddam,...
...
That kind of bullshit is doubly hilarious when you consider that
the Kuwaitis are Wahhabists, while Saddam was a secularist.
And that the number of Kuwaitis who stood up against Saddam was
vanishingly small. The place folded like a cheap tent.
Mind you, one is unlikely to mistake you for any kind of of
historical authority.
|11.15.07 @ 3:44PM|#
"What's amazing is that people like you and Ron Paul did not
react with utter outrage of the attacks of 9/11."
Eric, do you have any evidence that Ron Paul was not outraged over
9/11? He did vote for war in Afghanistan to get rid of the Taliban
who were harboring al Queda.
|11.15.07 @ 4:07PM|#
"But 9/11 changed everything. Overnight he became some
ultra-non-intervenionist. It got worse with the onset of the Iraq
War."
I don't see how Ron Paul has changed. He was very
anti-interventionist when he ran for president on the Libertarian
ticket in 1988 and was very opposed to Desert Storm. Clinton's wars
were of a lower scale than Desert Storm, so Ron Paul focused more
on domestic policy during the Clinton years. His ire was provoked
again during the runup to the Iraq war. All of this is
understandable when you consider the ultra-hawkishness of the
Bushs'.
Franklin Harris|11.15.07 @ 4:31PM|#
OK, help me out here guys. Was the guy who just advocated genocide in response to terrorist attacks really Dondero, or a fake Dondero?
There's a difference?
|11.15.07 @ 7:14PM|#
Ron Paul will send the Stormfront money back as soon as Rudy Giuliani rejects Pat "Blames-Americans-for-9/11" Robertson's endorsement, sends back any money from anyone affiliated with Robertson as well as money from anyone affiliated with anyone affilliated with Robertson.
|11.15.07 @ 7:36PM|#
Seriously, he should routinely log in, and forward, donations from hate groups to the appropriate organization on the opposite end of the donor's spectrum. Like the $500 from Black to the American Thinker or the Antidefamation League. Then see what they do with it.
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 8:44PM|#
That just makes Ron Paul out to be a snake-oil salesman
politician don't you think Rattle Snake Jake?
What you're essentially saying is that Ron Paul changes his stripes
to fit the moment. In 1988 he was needing Libertarian Party money,
so he played the Radical Libertarian card.
In the 1990s, he was needed Governor Bush's support and money from
Conservative Texas GOPers. So, he put Bush's photos on his wall,
and invited all the establishment Republicans down to the District
to campaign for him, and signed letters to Libertarian Party
members in Congressional districts urging them to vote for mainline
Republicans.
Now, here we are in 2007, and Ron Paul is needing money from
radical fringe groups and he's playing the wink, wink, nudge,
nudge, "NeoCons are opposing me," (read "dirty Jews), so he can get
some of that fringe, quasi-Anti-Semite money out there.
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 8:53PM|#
Rattle Snake Jake, I have 100% solid evidence. I was there. In
fact, I remember it just like it was yesterday.
I was in Houston at the Houston COC breakfast when the planes hit.
I got back to our Freeport Office, and our Chief of Staff Tom
Lizardo called me to tell me to "empty the offices, and tell
everyone to go home."
I asked Tom how Ron was, and he said that he had just passed the
Pentagon when the planes had hit, but he added, that Ron told the
DC staff that he thought that this would all lead to bigger
government programs now.
I said to Tom, You cannot be serious? That was the first thing he
said to the staff when he got into the office. And Tom responded in
his typical Lizardo tone, "Yup."
I relayed this to our District Director Jackie Gloor in Victoria.
She was absolutely aghast!
She told me right there, that she considered resigning on the spot
over Rons callousness.
I said, "me too."
We hung in there.
Ron flew home the next day, (may have been a couple days after
9/11).
I confronted him about his comment, and he got pissed off at me.
Threw one of his typical Ron Paul tantrums.
I kept my mouth shut on it for weeks after that.
Than the Afghanistan War was commencing.
Ron told the staff that he was not sure how he'd vote. And asshole
Joe Becker, our LD at the time, was urging him to vote no.
Jackie and I were completely baffled, and distraught. I told Ron
one day to his face, that if he didn't vote for the War in
Afghanistan I would resign. He sighed, but didn't say
anything.
But Jackie told him the same thing in much stronger terms. He took
Jackie's threat very seriously, for she was the key to all the
Religous Conservative voters in Victoria.
Even Ron's family members were expressing concern over his
non-commital of a "yes" vote on Afghanistan.
I remember talking to Carol around that time about it, and her
saying something to the effect of, "I wish that Joe Becker would
just shut up."
Well, the day came for the vote. Jackie and I were on pins and
needles, almost preparing our resignation letters.
But Lizardo soon informed us that Ron voted "yes." But he added
that he thought Ron would be introducing some legislation to modify
his vote, and that we needed to be prepared to sell it in the
District.
Hope that helps you shed light on what happened.
You may confirm all this with Lizardo if you wish. Or, Norm
Singleton. I have no doubt either one of them will back up my
story. Though, you'd be putting them in a very uncomfortable
position since they still work for Ron.
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 8:56PM|#
Duckman, but it was Saddam Hussein who sheltered members of Al
Qaeda in Iraq, before 9/11. And not only that, but he allowed them
to build a Terrorist Training Camp - Al Anwar Al Islam, AND allowed
Al Qaeda members to train at Saddam's other Terrorist Training camp
at Salman Pac.
Are you saying that only the Terrorist's should be blamed, and not
the ones who sponsored them?
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 8:58PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake, why you asking me why we didn't attack the
Saudis?
I've long maintained Bush is basically a War Wimp, more of a
liberal, than a Pro-American Hawk.
I agree. I'm baffled as to why we didn't go after the Saudis.
But then again, you're talking about the guy - Bush - who pushed
through the Port Dubai deal.
Eric Dondero|11.15.07 @ 9:01PM|#
Wrong ihh, and now I seriously question your Americanism. What
was needed after 9/11 was absolute outrage!!
It's ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING to me that individuals like you have the
audacity to yourself an American.
If you weren't outraged on and after 9/11, you Sir have NO RIGHT IN
MOTHER FUCKING HELL to call yourself an American.
You should be ashamed!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
And I'll say that to your asswipe face. You can call me on my cell
phone right fucking now and I tell you over the phone. You mother
fucker.
Fuck you. Don't you ever, ever call yourself an American again you
fucking traitor.
Here's my cell phone number 832-896-9505. Call me right now
asshole.
iih|11.15.07 @ 9:22PM|#
Also:
I said: "If the only thing you felt on that day is rage" which
means that, in addition, to rage I felt other things too.
Fluffy|11.15.07 @ 9:32PM|#
Eric, fuck you and your worthless outrage, you neocon
scum.
You wrote this:
"If someone who is part of an international crusade, comes in and
kills your countrymen you respond by not only killing him, but his
friends too, and his family members, and then you go to his village
and burn the WHOLE MOTHER FUCKING THING DOWN TO THE GROUND."
Fuck you, war criminal.
Generally the civilian casualties that result from war are talked
about in terms of military necessity: "We had to bomb the village
and kill the civilians, because that's where the terrorists were."
You don't even pretend. You wanted women and children and innocent
bystanders killed, because lil' Eric Dondero was angry. Well, fuck
you, buddy.
Your anger at Ron Paul is obviously rooted in the fact that he
doesn't agree with you that genocidal retribution attacks were the
appropriate response to the 9/11 attacks.
That is the real reason you have thrown in your lot with genocidal
psychopaths like the Podhoretz'. It's because you long to drink the
blood of children. That is who you are now. You loathsome,
disgusting piece of shit.
Because you are willing to murder children because you are angry,
it doesn't surprise me that you are willing to lie when you're
angry. If you are capable of the large act you are capable of the
smaller act. This is probably why the focus of your Ron Paul
stories shifts slightly over time, as you try to decide which lie
is working and which one isn't. Fuck you, asshole.
rho|11.15.07 @ 9:42PM|#
Yes, and they all returned funds from bad guys to make the
stories go away.
They returned some, sure. How about those who got money from Jack
Abramoff? That's recent. Plenty took it and kept it. There was no
advantage to making a big deal of it, and it went away. Because,
contrary to the instincts of wonks, nobody really cared that
much.
I think you're wrong on this. We can easily find out. We'll just
wait. If the Ron Paul juggernaut is brought to its knees by $500
from Stormfront I'll buy you a hat and then I'll eat it.
rho|11.15.07 @ 9:43PM|#
Oh, and Fluffy--that's not the Real Eric Dondero™. It's a hilarious simulacrum. Roll with it, baby.
Duckman|11.15.07 @ 11:31PM|#
Fake Eric Dondero is even more realistic than Fake Steve Jobs.
If, indeed, he actually IS fake!
|11.16.07 @ 9:53AM|#
rho,
The Jack Abrammoff story went away?
Really? I'm pretty sure it came up once or twice in 2006.
Eric D,
You know as well as I do that Ansar-al-Islam operated in Kurdish
territory, out of the area where Saddam Hussein's government was
able to operate, for the specific reason that Saddam arrested and
killed all the Islamists he could get his hands on.
You know this, and you repeat this bullshit. You deliberately lie
to further your political agenda, and that, even more than your
hysterical assertions of manliness, is why nobody respects you or
your opinion.
Eric Dondero|11.16.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Gotcha Joe. That's straight out of the liberal anti-war
propoganda guide book that instructs its students to say that
"Ansar Al-Islam was in Kurdish territory."
There is a shread of truth to this. Yes, technically Ansar Al-Islam
terrorist training base was in the Kurdish Northeast part of the
county, BUT, and this is very important point, it was actually
located in one of the very few non-autonomous areas controlled by
Saddam in Kurdish Territory.
In fact, the base was a stone's throw from the border with Iran. In
fact, Saddam viewed it as a outpost for spying on Iran.
Eric Dondero|11.16.07 @ 2:11PM|#
No, those were most certainly my remarks above, and I fully
stand by them.
Again, if you were not outraged by the events of 9/11 I don't give
a fuck if you're a liberal, conservative, libertarian, vegetarian,
if you were not outraged, you don't deserve to call yourself an
American.
Get on the next plane leaving to Havana or Caracas.
Eric Dondero|11.16.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Hey Rattle Snake Jake? Wuzzup Dude? Cat got your tongue?
You asked for evidence of Ron Paul not wanting to vote for the War
in Afghanistan. I gave you a play by play of exactly what happened.
And all of it is easily verifiable by witnesses. And now all of a
sudden you're silent.
Better stick to those garden snakes. Those Rattlers, have seemed to
have bit you, and given you a swollen lip so ya can't talk.
iih|11.16.07 @ 3:59PM|#
Again, if you were not outraged by the events of 9/11 I
don't give a fuck if you're a liberal, conservative, libertarian,
vegetarian, if you were not outraged, you don't deserve to call
yourself an American.
Eric, have you read my remarks at 9:20, 9:22pm above? You do owe me
an apology.
And, read my original statement carefully. Look at the paragraph
that starts with "FWIW,...". Now can you guess why a person like me
would be in the company of a former F-117 bomber? No, we did not
meet at a supermarket, no, we are not neighbors, hmmm... what could
it be? Hint: I graduated from one of the top 5 schools in a
"special kind" of engineering. Enough said.
So, frankly, your opinion matters NOTHING to me, because in real
life I know how much I respect and love what this country stands
for. With that said, it is my understanding that you yourself was a
military person. For that I think you are owed a lot of respect.
And while in my original comment to you I was unhappy about what
you originally said, no where have I ever undermined your own
patriotism, because anyone who would do what you did deserves utter
respect. But when one sees crap being spoken, even by the most
honorable of men/women, dissent and disagreement is most CERTAINLY
legitimate.
Let me say it one last time. I was angered on 9/11. But in addition
to my anger, I was worried about a whole lot of other things. That
included worrying about people, blinded by their own anger, who
would harm me simply because of my origins and religious faith.
rho|11.16.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Really? I'm pretty sure it came up once or twice in
2006.
Nobody, or few enough, gave the money back. Maybe it's a case of
hiding in the crowd, but still--bad contributions were kept.
Anybody still getting Abramoffed?
Yeah, SpEdward. Juggernaut. Considering the chances you gave him
way back when, he's doing awesome.
Duckman|11.17.07 @ 10:32AM|#
I still think it's disgusting to suggest that the only proper way to show outrage over 9/11 is to demand that the U.S. conduct genocide in the middle east.
|11.17.07 @ 9:50PM|#
Hmmmm....after this thread I think everyone at H&R who has
not already arrived at this conclusion will have by now have
arrived at the conclusion that everyone in the Florida LP had
arrived at by around 1989 or so.
Eric Rittberg is an idiot.
No one in the FL LP at that time realized quite how tenuous his
hold on reality was, but nevertheless most of us knew he was an
idiot.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245