Smear, Smear Again

Little Green Footballs has moved, over the space of a few weeks, from mercilessly mocking Ron Paul and banning him from its straw polls to putting him at the center of a conspiracy for worldwide Nazi domination. Sitemaster Charles Johnson has hammered the tired Don Black donation story and is now promoting photos, taken from the Value Voters Debate in Florida, of Paul, Black, and Black's son Derek. It's a "photo-op," Johnson says!

I'll give Johnson some credit: He's consistent, and he has a zero-tolerance policy for the white pride/European pride crowd. His fellow travellers have attacked him for blogging against the Belgian right-wing party Vlaams Belang. [UPDATE: In the comments, Robert Spencer complains about being linked. He misunderstands me: I'm not saying he was one of the attackers, I'm referring to the attacks that he defended Johnson from.] The attack on Paul for having his picture taken in the scrum outside a debate, though, is a smear. Paul's never had an entourage or secret service protection. When Don Black eased in for a photo with Paul, the candidate had no idea what Black looked like. (Did anyone? Black looks a little thinner and greyer than the photos of him that come up on image searches or the photo on Stormfront's banner.) Unless Black came up to Paul and said "I am the blandly-named fuhrer of a white pride site. You share the goals of my revolution," I don't see what Paul was supposed to do.

Here, for some context, is footage of Paul milling around before the Values Voters Summit (no relation to the debate) in October. He's being buttonholed by a crazy person who's obsessed with the devil, by Nation reporter Max Blumenthal, and by nutbar businessman/fringe candidate Daniel Imperato. He doesn't know who they are, but he talks to them and gets in frame for their cameras and camcorders anyway.


Lee of Right-Thinking on the Left Coast has a good take on this.

I’m irritated that Ron Paul was photographed with an asshole like Don Black. But these guys shake hands and pose for photos with thousands of people. It’s called campaigning. They don’t have time to check everyone’s background. This was not a Stormfront event, this was a Values Voters debate.

I’m having trouble finding it on Google, but I remember back in ‘96, Ross Perot making a big deal about a photo of Bill Clinton shaking hands with a drug dealer at a campaign event. I remember people making a big deal out of Rosalyn Carter shaking hands with John Wayne Gacy. I thought it was bullshit then and it’s bullshit now.

I haven't tried to cover up the fringe right's love for Ron Paul. When I saw Jamie Kelso blogging from the Ron Paul tent at the Ames Straw Poll, I noted it in my article on that event. But in the shape of things, it's so... irrelevent. Does anyone think Stormfront posters are *this close* to white revolution and all they need now is a presidential trojan horse? For the record, Black's donation makes up 0.002 percent of Paul's 2007 campaign haul.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I know this charge is baseless, but this is going to sting. There's only so much you can explain away before people will simply associate Paul and Black.

    Damn...

  • ||

    The major candidates gleefully accept thousands in donations from companies that benefit on the war with the intent of the money to produce more war-that is morally much worse than a few random bad apples throwing a few hundred bucks to Paul's campaign.

    If a hate monger like Ann Coulter were to donate to a campaign should that candidate give the money back, too ? Ann probably has as much hate in here for democrats as this white supremacist has stored up in him.

    It is so ironic though- here is Dr. Paul who has been "giving back" to the federal government (we the people) the retirement and benefit package that Congress has given themselves- showing by example his beliefs and morals- and he gets cheap shots about the few weirdos donating to his massive campaign funds.

  • ||

    I don't think this is an issue at all. There are more people excited about Ron Paul than there are worrying about who he shook hands with. I'd rather have Paul keep the $500 instead of that idiot Black.

  • Highway||

    I did like Ron Paul's Dogbert-esque response to people who said he should give back the money, essentially 'Whoever the money comes from, I'm using it to spread liberty and advance my campaign. Would you rather I gave it back to him and let him then use it to advance his agenda that you don't like?"

  • Fluffy||

    The proper response to what LGF is doing, and what the allies of the Republican party establishment in the media are doing, is to bail on the Republican party. Forever.

    The face of the Republican party is now a bunch of fucking retards speaking in tongues on the side of I-35 because they think it's a holy highway. Personally I would rather be photographed with Don Black than with a Huckadroid. I prefer evil to crazy and retarded, thank you very much.

  • Episiarch||

    You have to understand that Charles Johnson is 100% committed to the "war on terror". This is his A-number-1 primo obsession. Anyone, no matter what their other views on any subject, who either a) thinks that the Islamic threat is not WWIV, b) wants to reduce our troop presence in other countries, c) thinks we should finish up in Iraq and not hit Iran, or d) Jeebus forbid thinks all of the above, is a fool, a dangerous kook, and an ostrich with its head in the sand.

    Understand this and you understand the attack on Paul. The slightest whiff of Truther, no matter how unjustified, results in utter derision.

  • ||

    This was not a Stormfront event, this was a Values Voters debate.

    Must...not...take...bait. Must...be...good...responsible liberal.

  • Episiarch||

    By the way, the above is not a justification for LGF. It is just an explanation. Johnson is the typical close-minded liberal-turned-neocon (who will then express amazement that sombody calls him neo-"conservative", which is not really what neocon stands for). When he was a liberal, he was absolutely positive about being right about his beliefs, and now he is equally positive about his new beliefs--even though they are totally different from the beliefs he used to be so positive about.

  • ||

    Yesterday I commented on the awfulness of the Wonkette commenters. I forgot the combination of ignorance and hatred that is the fanbase of LGF.

  • Robert Spencer||

    With respect I must ask: are you people completely nuts? You have attacked me before without substance (details and links to older pertinent material here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/016492.php ), but this really takes the cake: above you link to a piece I wrote with the sentence, "His fellow travellers have attacked him for blogging against the Belgian right-wing party Vlaams Belang."

    If you had actually bothered to read the post in question, you would see that I actually defend Charles Johnson and say he raises valid points about Vlaams Belang.

    When is Reason going to change its name to "Prejudice"?

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer
    www.jihadwatch.org

  • ||

    Drink!

  • ||

    did i get that right?

  • ||

    I agree.. you cant do background checks on everyone that asks for a photo or autograph. If this does grow legs, it will do nothing but give RP airtime rationally explaining this. The $500 donation he didn't return bought him air time on Fox, where he got a chance to explain why he didn't return it and spent 5 minutes talking about foreign policy. Not a bad way to spend that $500.

  • Episiarch||

    did i get that right?

    For a magazine named Reason...

    Back when Virginia Postrel was editor...

  • ||

    When is Reason going to change its name to xxx...?
    Sounds close enough to me.

  • ||

    Steve S,

    Better drink. Just to make sure.

  • ||

    Harping on one small donation is very encouraging. It's a nothing story already growing stale and the fact that they keep jumping on it, means they can't find anything substantive to fling at him.

  • Fluffy||

    OK, Spencer, I'll alert the guys at www.douchebagwatch.com to update their entry on you immediately to reflect the fact that you have lined up solidly behind hatred of Vlaams Belang.

  • Fluffy||

    If the question is how the campaign should respond, the best sentence Paul could utter would be "I am starting to get concerned that this Don Black person is stalking me, and I am asking the Secret Service to look into it." Voila - frame changed.

  • ||

    I wish that was true, Warren.

    "Harping on one small discrepancy in his war stories is very encouraging. It's a nothing story already growing stale and the fact that they keep jumping on it, means they can't find anything substantive to throw at him."

  • ||

    Fluffy for the win!

    Man, wouldn't THAT be a kick in the pants?

  • Robert Spencer||

    Ah, "Fluffy," your reasoned, intelligent response has indeed bested me! Alas, I am slain! "Reason" magazine demonstrates its overwhelming intellect yet again, and I retire from the field!

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  • ||

    Ron Paul needs to give the money back and tell these clowns to get the hell away from him. If I were Ron Paul I would go to court and get a restaining order agains this guy coming within 50 feet of me. If Ron Paul does in fact object to being associated with these people, he needs to give their money back.

  • ||

    I don't see the big deal. Haven't many Republican leaders spoken with leaders from neo-Confederate (i.e CofCC) groups or at their events? Usually it's organizations like the SPLC that goes after them for that and it's usually for more than a mere $500 political donation.

  • ||

    I don't think it is fair. I would also like to beleive that Reason would say the same thing if it were McCain or some candidate they didn't like. Unfortuneately, if it were McCain, I would imagine they would be doing the same thing LGF is doing right now or worse.

  • Episiarch||

    "Reason" magazine demonstrates its overwhelming intellect yet again, and I retire from the field!

    Drink again! Robert, keep this up and I'm gonna be hammered.

  • Jim Henley||

    This would never have happened back when Gillespie was running the magazine.

    Lizardoid invasion in 5 . . . 4 . . . 3 . . .

  • ||

    If someone comes forward and proves Black stole the money from them (fraud, collected under false pretenses, etc.) then give it back to them, not Black. Otherwise, the Nazi mofo loses his $500. And, perhaps for many reasons, it is time for RP to have a security detail.

  • ||

    Hey, Robert! I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of eldeberries.

    How's that for intellect?

  • ||

    Dr. Paul's lunch with neo-nazis busted?

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/whitesupremicistisisraelishill.php

    Not sure what to make of it, but it sure seems like a coordinated attack on Dr. Paul. first the donation, then the anonymous posting about a luncheon, and now a 15-second encounter blown up into more than it is.

    Perhaps Karl Rove quit his day job to join the Ron Paul campaign too - on the dark side of course.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Voila - frame changed.



    If Fluffy's politics were anything other than libertarian, he'd be working as a campaign spin doctor.

  • Jim from LGF||

    I don't think for a second that Paul subscribes to the neo-nazi Stormfront crap.

    But I do say he is a Bircher. The John Birch Society and the Ron Paul Revulsion have the exact same to-do list.

  • Fluffy||

    Ummmm...by the way, Spencer, Weigel's piece says that Johnson has been attacked for blogging against Vlaams Belang. As evidence of this, he links to your post, which laments that attacks on Johnson appeared in your comments and that you have taken them down. It sounds to me like the link is, in fact, providing evidence that Johnson has been attacked. You yourself acknowledge in your post that some of those attacks are from people who would otherwise be allies. It doesn't appear to me that there's anything wrong with Weigel's link/cite at all.

    Due to what is probably immense egomania, you chose to interpret Weigel's link as a statement that you, personally had launched the attacks being referenced. Where does it say that in Weigel's piece? Please, point it out to me.

    I guess you shouldn't try to write for a magazine named Reading Comprehension... [glug].

  • Fluffy||

    Hey Jim from LGF -

    Just so you know, anyone who blogs at a site where registration is closed is a great, big pussy.

  • ||

    But I do say he is a Bircher. The John Birch Society and the Ron Paul Revulsion have the exact same to-do list.

    That may be a logical fallacy, but at least you tried to be clever.

    Here's a cookie...

  • Robert Spencer||

    Weigel:

    Thanks for the correction. Your statement was not clear, especially in light of attempts by CAIR and others to link me to such groups, and I appreciate the clarification.

    Classy site you've got here, with high-level commenters. Congratulations.

    Cordially
    Robert Spencer

  • ||

    Classy site you've got here, with high-level commenters[sic]. Congratulations.

    Sorry there, Spencer, I guess we were too busy not being idiots to be classy. We'll try to work on that...

  • Robert Spencer||

    Taktix:

    Yes, I guess so.

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Commenter

  • Jim from LGF||

    That may be a logical fallacy...

    No its not. Compare their agendas. The same, except that Paul hasn't brought up the Build a Burgers yet.

  • ||

    Thanks for the correction.

    I would also like to thank Weigel for correcting this Robert Spencer fellow.

    He seemed genuinely confused, and it was nice of you to set him straight.

  • Fluffy||

    Fuck you, Spencer. That's not a correction. Weigel's merely charitably adding a disclaimer to help out people who are slow on the uptake - like you, apparently.

    There was absolutely nothing in the original post as written that needed to be "corrected".

  • BakedPenguin||

    LGF Jim - yeah, the Birchers are all about ending the War on Drugs.

  • Jim from LGF||

    Fluffy said..
    "...anyone who blogs at a site where registration is closed is a great, big pussy."

    So then, I suppose you think it takes courage and bravery to blog here using an anonymous ID? Ha.

  • ||

    Careful, Robert, or I shall taunt you again.

  • ||

    What Fluffy said at 10:41.

  • ||

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2267/1603765701_7d4d42f819_o.jpg

    Nuff'said.

  • severin||

    I know a guy who I can positively identify as a heavy pot smoker. He has a picture of him and Ronald Reagan shaking hands (the photo was actually taken by a secret service agent). I guess this proves that Reagan was a pothead and an associate of known drug users. Guilt by association Little Green Footballs!

  • Jim from LGF||

    Gene Trosper said

    "nuff said"

    Not the same thing at all Gene. Was Gacy an avowed Carter supporter donating cash and support.

  • ||

    Hello, Jim:

    Gacy was a Precinct Captain for the Democratic Party and supported the Carter campaign. he even received a security clearance from the Secret Service.

  • ||

    Ron Paul needs to give the money back and tell these clowns to get the hell away from him.



    It would be even better if he donated it to The United Negro College Fund, or some other such philanthropic organization.

  • Fluffy||

    Hey Jim -

    I can post here, and you can answer my posts. As you have. At LGF, you can post, and other people can't answer your posts. This is by design, because criticism flutters your little heart so much that if you opened registration and left it open you'd have to hide even further under the bed than usual.

    My personal identity is irrelevant to the content of my posts. If it was relevant - if I was relating a personal experience and you wanted to check the details, or if I was claiming technical expertise or a credential - you'd have a point. But I haven't, so you don't.

  • Fluffy||

    Gene -

    I believe the youngsters call that "pwned".

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    I'm tired of guilt by association politics. Ron Paul hasn't shown a propensity for changing his views in response to campaign contributions. It seems that Jim from LGF doesn't actually think Paul agrees with Black's nutty views on race, so why on earth would he want Paul to donate $500 to Black's cause by returning the money? I'd rather Paul had that $500 and would consider Black losing the money to be no great shame.

  • ||

    For what it's worth, the Spencer cite/link originally confused me too.

  • Jim from LGF||

    Gene Trosper,

    "Gacy was a Precinct Captain for the Democratic Party and supported the Carter campaign."

    Thanks for that information. But I'm sure that photo was taken before the evidence came out about Gacy's murders. But its no secret what Don Black stands for.

    Still, I'm sure Paul didn't know who Don and Derek Black were or even recognize their names when they likely introduced themselves to him and I'm sure Paul isn't on board with their Nazi crap.

    But he has done very little to distance himself from them.

  • ||

    "I am starting to get concerned that this Don Black person is stalking me, and I am asking the Secret Service to look into it." Voila - frame changed.

    Fluffy Spinmeister, excellent.

  • ||

    Jim from LGF,

    Great minds discuss ideas.
    Average minds discuss events.
    Small minds discuss (gossip) people.

    Where do you fit in?

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    Jim - You say he has done very little to distance himself from them, but what more do you want him to do exactly, what would satisfy you? He's stated he doesn't agree with their views, on both the PBS interview and with Glenn Beck, he describes racism on his campaign site as "an ugly form of collectivism," YOU don't even believe he's a racist.

    Why then would you want him to give that money back, why are you so desperate for him to give money to a man whose views he doesn't agree with simply because that man made a seemingly irrational decision to donate it in the first place?

  • Jim from LGF||

    Hayekian Dreamer

    Don Black has already gotten more than $500 in free publicity from the stunt. And really the amount of the check is irrelevant. But it gives Ron Paul more money to spread the exact same message that already attracts Nazis.

    I like the idea of him forwarding the donation to the UNCF that mediageek mentioned above. That would be interesting.

  • Jim from LGF||

    You know another thing I hate about this site? There are too many trolls. It can be annoying.

    Also, I love to sniff dog farts.

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    I think you're making a rather obvious logical fallacy though if you assume that any message that attracts Nazis is inherently something to be avoided, it's a misapplication of the idea that some people subscribe to that if a monster like Hitler appreciated something then decent people should avoid it.

    My understanding is Hitler was a dog lover. Should I then be ashamed that I own a dog? Spreading a message of freedom and liberty shouldn't be taken as scary because some white supremacists want to be left alone by government too.

  • ||

    Classy site you've got here, with high-level commenters. Congratulations.

    Well, we can't all be as classy as "This is further proof that all muslims are your enemy and must be treated as such."

  • Jim from LGF||

    J sub D

    Thats clever but a bit too simplistic. All minds great and small discuss ideas, events and other people. I always try to post things that I would feel comfortable discussing with strangers in public.

  • Jim from LGF||

    Nice nic-jacking Fluffy. That took a lot of bravery and courage.

  • ||

    Jim,

    Voltaire once said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

    This issue is a matter of principle. Even scumbags like Don Black have the right to speak, even through campaign donations. The ACLU has defended the KKK in court, but that does not taint the ideal of free expression of political ideas.

    Logically, why should *any* candidate give back donations from unsavory individuals? Unless that money was derived from illegal activity (such as robbery, murder and so forth), one person's money is just as good as another's. I'll be honest with you Jim: this isn't about receiving money from a racist nutjob, it's all about trying to taint a candidate you don't agree with.

    Let's face facts: each candidate wants to raise as much money as possible and do NOT want to give a penny of it up. the ONLY reason they give it up is due to pressure brought about by opposition research.

    It would be intellectually honest if LGF would post a statement saying "we disagree with Ron Paul and want to bring him down by any means necessary". I would have much more respect for this Jerry Springer hit job if the truth were spoken.

  • Boris Banger||

    My understanding is Hitler was a dog lover.

    Your understanding is correct. I know firsthand, as I went back in time and kicked Hitler's dog. Those were some good times.

  • Episiarch||

    Why the fuck are you arguing with Jim? He and his crowd hate Paul. They will tenaciously cling to any "dirt" like a terrier to a bone because they hope it will scuttle Paul. Ron scares the shit out of them because he may just pull a Nader and torpedo the GOP candidate in this election. Because all that matters to them is the WOT, they want a hard-ass Republican in office.

    This isn't about logic, so don't use that with them. It's about discrediting Paul so that he isn't as damaging to any pro-war candidate.

  • ||

    Jim from LGF, thanks for the "clever" nod. Let me be less subtle. Only small minds think tangential associtions that occur to all people are relevent to a discussion of policy, politics, or a public figures morality. Is that spscific enough for you?

    Care to discuss the weirdos, jerks, and asswipes that you've been photographed with? Of course not. Being in the same photo frame with somebody, even shaking hands (common courtesy where I grew up), means nothing and you know it.

  • Edward||

    Unfortunately, Dr. Paul has smeared himeslef by writing crap like this:

    The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day--are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against "The Man." And "The Woman." A lady I know recently saw a black couple in the supermarket with a cute little girl, three years old or so. My friend waved to the tiny child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way? I've never heard of it. --Ron Paul

  • Jim from LGF||

    Hayekian Dreamer

    The Hitler-dog reference is a weak comparison. All of the flak about the picture with Don Black would never have happened if Paul had made it clear he wasn't interested in any of their cash or support.

  • ||

    Episiarch:

    I'm not arguing with Jim. I am having a conversation with him. I'm not interested in arguments or heated exchanges. I think it is important that we remain principled, even in the face of such attacks.

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    Jim - As I mentioned, Paul denounced Black in both the PBS and Glenn Beck interview and said he wasn't interested in their cash or support. I still don't see why he should give that money away rather than using it to further his own goals.

  • ||

    Oh Edward is here. I hope somebody with more tolerance for moronic rants than I will alert me if he posts anything relevant, intelligent or humorous.

    Thanks in advance.

  • Jim from LGF||

    Hayekian Dreamer

    OK then. We'll just have to see how it all plays out. This episode is somewhat akin to how the white supremacists in VB have tried to infiltrate the anti-Jihad movement in Europe. Some say that you should take any help in your cause no matter how unseemly it may be, but I disagree. The ends don't justify the means.

  • ||

    Jim from LGF -
    Perhaps your time would be better served denouncing all of the mob money the Catholic church has used to feed the poor, heal the sick, and educate the young. I've heard it's a lot more than $500.

  • Egosumabbas||

    I wrote a small parody on the Ron Paul and Don Black thing, I hope you enjoy it.

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    Jim - Do you then object to the candidates (from both parties) who take money from various lobbying groups and then take positions on issues near and dear to them? Which other Republican candidate is LGF holding to this amorphous standard about vetting your supporters? Is it acceptable to take money from a lobbying group whose issues you then support but not acceptable to take money from individuals whose views you DON'T support?

  • VM||

    JsubD:

    EDWEIRRRDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO is better than the LGF twaddlenock, FWIW...

    but will do!

  • ||

    I hate that Black guy.

  • Jim from LGF||

    Hayekian Dreamer

    The question is, do lobbying groups give money to a candidate in order to buy future favors, or do they support candidates who already pursue the same agenda as their own. I'm sure there are both. But I don't consider Don Black as an individual donor. He runs a neo-Nazi website that promotes and recruits to the cause of white supremacism.

    Its not just another lobbying group like the Sierra Club or the NRA.

  • ||

    EDWEIRRRDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO is better than the LGF twaddlenock, FWIW...

    but will do!


    I have always depended on the kindness of strangers.

  • Edward||

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/4/151735/850/188/417817

    Across the ideological spectrum, only one presidential candidate has identified in black-and-white terms the "actual and potential terrorists" who are destroying America. That candidate is Ron Paul (R).
    Among those who aspire to the White House, only Paul has informed his closest supporters that "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin." [FN 1]
    Paul published a newsletter that issued those words under his byline. He has also taken "moral responsibility" for those words. Yet nine years later, Paul blamed an unnamed staffer for writing them, and claimed that it would have been "too confusing" for him to denounce those words when they were first mailed to his supporters in the column under his byline in the Ron Paul Political Report in 1992.
    Either Paul was lying when he admitted to writing those words, or he was telling a belated and convenient lie when he claimed that they were ghost written by an unnamed staffer. Either way, Paul is a liar. Further, he has repeatedly refused media requests to release all of his newsletters. (Paul published the Ron Paul Political Report from 1985 to 1992, then changed the newsletter's name to the Ron Paul Survival Report in 1993.)

  • Edward||

    Don't kid yourselves. The Nazis didn't choose Ron Paul as their man at random.

  • Edward||

    Ron Paul has repeatedly refused media requests to release all of his newsletters. Why???

  • x,y||

    Jim from LGF posted on reason.com/blog

    Commenters on reason.com/blog support Ron Paul

    Ron Paul once stood next to a white supremacist

    OMG LGF'ERS ARE TEH NAZIS!!111!!!!!1

  • Egosumabbas||

    Edward posts from the daily kos! That bastion of intelligent and reasoned journalism!

    Either Paul was lying when he admitted to writing those words, or he was telling a belated and convenient lie when he claimed that they were ghost written by an unnamed staffer. Either way, Paul is a liar. Wow! Totally unsubstantiated claims backed by no evidence whatsoever! You've convinced me Edward, I'm voting for Hillary...

  • ||

    As I mentioned, Paul denounced Black in both the PBS and Glenn Beck interview and said he wasn't interested in their cash or support. I still don't see why he should give that money away rather than using it to further his own goals.

    Talk is cheap. He should, literally, put his money where his mouth is. Otherwise, he is materially benefiting from the support of white supermacists.

    If making a political donation is "free speech," than accepting that political donation is free speech as well. It is the act of choosing to listen to that speech.

  • Egosumabbas||

    Ron Paul has repeatedly refused media requests to release all of his newsletters. Why???

    Maybe if they weren't written by him, he doesn't retain the copyright for them anymore?

  • Edward||

    Totally unsubstantiated claims backed by no evidence whatsoever!

    The evidence is in what Ron Paul actually fucking wrote. Can't you read?

  • ||

    joe, I agree with you that keeping the money is politically inept. I don't think it's morally wrong. What do you think of my mob money/Catholic church point? Just wondering because the Catholic church, uhhh, keeps the cash.

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    Talk is cheap. He should, literally, put his money where his mouth is. Otherwise, he is materially benefiting from the support of white supermacists.

    Yes, and they're not benefiting. I rather think that's the point. If Paul isn't going to advocate their viewpoint why should he take responsibility for the fact that someone with views he disagrees with donated to his campaign and take any different action than he would with any other donation? Why treat it like it's "special"? I think most people would consider a libertarian benefiting and a racist losing $500 to be a positive development. That's $500 less they can use to spread their filth.

  • Egosumabbas||

    Hint to Edward: He says he didn't write it. If he says it was ghostwritten, and it's not not of his writing style, I have no reason not to believe him. If he's said "yes I wrote it" or you have a picture of him writing it, by all means bring it forward.

  • ||

    J sub D,

    I don't think it's morally wrong, either. On the merits, Ron Paul is exactly right - if those suckers want to give me their money, hey, a fool and his money...

    I'm just talking strategery.

    As for the Catholic Church, I'd say giving the money to charities, which they do a great deal of, is cool. Using that money to put new gold leaf on something, not so much.

    You can talk about Ron Paul's "Good Works" - his presidential campaign - being like a charity, but I doubt you'd find that terribly convincing if the candidate is question was advancing a political agenda you didn't support. It's the element of self-interest inherent in trying to make one's self the most powerful person in the world that puts the kibosh on that argument.

  • Edwardf||

    Egodumass

    If he didn't write it, why the fuck didn't he immediately denounce it and fire the asshoile who did?

  • Egosumabbas||

    Egodumass

    If he didn't write it, why the fuck didn't he immediately denounce it and fire the asshoile who did?


    He was on vacation at the time. And very clever mangling of my pseudonym by the way.

  • Jim from LGF||

    J sub D

    Don Black donating to Ron Paul aint the same as Don Corleone donating to John Paul. or something like that..

  • ||

    H.D.,

    Same to you - it's the element of self-promotion that makes that argument unpersuasive.

    Don't worry, I'll use the money for something noble and good - making myself President! You wouldn't buy that line coming from Hillary Clinton.

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    No, I wouldn't buy that line from Hillary. I've seen her body of work, and I've seen Paul's. Personally I trust Paul not to change whether his donors are hippies or neo nazis. whether he receives money from actors or oil companies. I don't think he panders to his donors, I think he's delivered a rather consistent message over the years.

    I think Hillary, or just about any other candidate has been shown to pander to their donors.

  • Jim from LGF||

    To test the logic, take it to the extreme..

    So if its such a good thing that Ron Paul now has $500 more and the Nazis have $500 less, why stop there? Maybe he should put out a big media campaign pleading Nazis everywhere to send money to his campaign.

  • VM||

    oh!oh!oh!

    LGF has given a word problem.

    Two trains leave stations, 500 miles apart. On one train, Ron Paul is accelerating the money supply by (1/r)^3 units per quantophile. The other train is relying on eye-pleasing, morally superior bible burning for fuel.

    What times to those trains reach Omaha?

    [clearly not of sound mind]

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    Jim - I think that it would be unwise to pander to white supremacists. At the same time, that doesn't explain why Paul should do anything different with the donation, particularly when it was unsolicited. That is, since he DIDN'T solicit it in the first place, why are you trying to hold him responsible for accepting it? If a man walked up to you and handed you $500 and you later found that while he came by that money honestly from his job he also went home that night and killed his wife would you feel moral responsibility for it?

  • ||

    Well, HD, let's remember - we're talking about his political strategy.

    Most people are not part of the Ron Paul Cult, ready to accept his unimpeachable propriety without question, the way you do. Most people, quite reasonably and prudently, are going to look at the actions and explainations of this career politician as he describes his decision to take more money to advance his efforts to become the Lord High of All Politicians through the same lens they use to judge the actions of all of the other candidates.

    Your personal observations, produced through years of observing him as he served in office, have led you to draw certain conclusions about his beliefs and character. My personal observations, drawn from years observing John Kerry as he served in office, led me to draw certain conclusions about him, conclusions which the public that was just learning about him for the first time through his presidential campaign did not come to agree with.

    That's life. If Paul is going to amount to anything more than the boutique candidate preaching to his choir, he needs to make strategic decisions based on how his actions would look to somebody who, say, wouldn't know what a "Hayekian Dreamer" is.

  • Jim from LGF||

    Hayekian Dreamer

    Its not that he accepted it, his staffers may have very well had no idea who Mr. Don Black was when they cashed the check. Its that he sees nothing wrong with keeping it and has so far only made very tepid recriminations against Stormfront and the Nazis promoting him.

    Cub fans make a stronger statement when they toss the other team's home run ball back onto the field.

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    Joe = So you're suggesting Paul is politically inept? That's ok with me, he'll either win or he'll lose, that doesn't tell me why he should bend to fit people's expectations. I think keeping the money is an entirely valid political statement, particularly since the media is then obligated to inform their readership as to "why" that is, Paul's reasoning.

    I find Paul's reasoning sound, you do not. We'll let the primary suggest who was right.

  • ||

    Boris Banger:

    That song is great. I just added you to myspace friends list.

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    Jim - So what IS wrong with keeping it? You know Paul well enough to acknowledge he doesn't agree with Black. reply to this

  • Episiarch||

    I just thought I'd pop in and point out that you are still arguing with Jim, who will never change his attitude and will split hairs down to the quantum level in order to say why it's wrong for Ron but not for his favored warmongering candidate.

    Again: it's not about logic, it's about whatever is necessary to damage Paul. Jim needs to practice his hoop-jumping, and you're helping.

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    Whoops, I was trying to add BLACK knows paul disagrees with him so where's the beef? What does it matter if he is using the money?

  • Hayekian dreamer||

    sorry, I think I forgot to close my tag

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    That should fix it though.

  • robc||

    Perhaps your time would be better served denouncing all of the mob money the Catholic church has used to feed the poor, heal the sick, and educate the young. I've heard it's a lot more than $500.

    My church is very anti-gambling and fought against lottery legislation. A couple who were members of the church won a very large lottery prize (not powerball level but 7 figures, I think). They wanted to give 10% of it to the church but asked the minister first about it, knowing the churchs take on gambling/lottery. He told them, "It is between you and God, but if you decide to give the church the money, we will cash your check."

  • ||

    HD,

    So you're suggesting Paul is politically inept? I wouldn't go that far. I think he's making a mis-step here.

    particularly since the media is then obligated to inform their readership as to "why" that is, Paul's reasoning.

    I hope you're right, HD. I hope this leads to a mature and substantive discussion of the issue, with fair consideration of Paul's points, and a re-examination by the media of how it treats these donation "scandals."

    Wanna put a fiver on it?

  • Fluffy||

    Sorry to disappoint you Jim, but that wasn't me that nic-jacked you. When I nic-jack I always have the person say that they blow goats.

    I don't think I've ever nic-jacked anyone at this site other than Eric Dondero. And Dondero deserves it, because he accuses all his opponents of being a dualie of one person.

    By the way, Gene identifies quite neatly why white supremacists might like Paul - he's the closest thing to an ACLU lawyer they'll ever get as a Presidential candidate. And while they hate liberty for everyone else, American Nazis do love their ACLU lawyers. Black probably figures - I imagine quite correctly - that if Paul was President the FBI and ATF might be forced to leave him alone.

  • robc||

    It's the element of self-interest inherent in trying to make one's self the most powerful person in the world that puts the kibosh on that argument.

    I dont think the President will be the most powerful person in the world once Paul is done with it. And that is a good thing.

  • Episiarch||

    sorry, I think I forgot to close my tag

    HD, you broke the internets!

  • ||

    Don Black donating to Ron Paul aint the same as Don Corleone donating to John Paul. or something like that..

    Whoa there! That is too nuanced, excessively deep for me. I'd better stay away from those LGF guys. I'm obviously overmatched.

  • x,y||

    I find Paul's reasoning sound, you do not. We'll let the primary suggest who was right.



    The primary process is incapcable of determining whether any reasoning is sound. It also won't tell you if it's going to rain tomorrow.

    At most, the primary process will indicate how persuasive it is (and even then, only in part).

  • Hayekain Dreamer||

    Episarch - heh, yep!

    Joe - you're right, it might not change anything, and you're right again, it was probably a POLITICAL misstep. I don't think Paul typically puts politics above principles though and I think that is part of his charm. From the establishment's perspective his entire career is based on doing things that for most politicians would be career suicide (voting against government spending, voting against subsidies for his district, not getting money from lobbyists, etc). I don't think it's fair to doubt Paul when his entire campaign as been exceeding most people's (low) expectations the entire way.

    Would you have taken a bet 3 months ago that Paul would raise 18 million dollars in the 4th quarter? (with time to spare)

  • ||

    robc,

    It's not wise to assume that you needn't apply the same critical thinking and skepticism towards "your guys" as to the other guys.

    I might as well say that Hillary Clinton will only use her power for good, too. And you'd laugh at me for my naivete, and you'd be right.

  • ||

    He told them, "It is between you and God, but if you decide to give the church the money, we will cash your check."

    Interstingly enough, the Savation Army in Florida(?) turned down a large donation by a lottery winner on principle. 2-3 years ago, IIRC.

  • ||

    H.D.,

    Having spent several years observing libertarians in their native habitat - the internet - Paul's fundraising ability came as no suprise to me whatsoever.

    Y'all's some enthusiastic mofos.

  • ||

    Talk is cheap. He should, literally, put his money where his mouth is. Otherwise, he is materially benefiting from the support of white supremacists.

    What's he supposed to do with it? Give it back to the Nazis so they can use it for their purposes?

    How does it help matters if he gives it someone else? Is it somehow better to merely launder money for Nazis rather than keep it? And won't whoever he gives the money to be "materially benefiting from the support of white supremacists" as well?

    Isn't the real question not "what will the Nazis do for Ron Paul" but "what will Ron Paul do for the Nazis"? In that case, I think Gene and Fluffy have it about right - Ron will increase the space for political dissent in this country, and the Nazis will be an incidental beneficiary of that.

    You got a problem with that, joe?

    Now, but contract, ask yourself the same question about Hillary's big financial donors - "What will Hill do for the unions? What will Hill do for the defense industry?" etc., and you get a very different set of answers and concerns.

  • ||

    "but contract" = "by contrast"

    Blast it.

  • Jim from LGF||

    Fluffy said..
    "...he's the closest thing to an ACLU lawyer they'll ever get as a Presidential candidate. And while they hate liberty for everyone else, American Nazis do love their ACLU lawyers."

    Good point.

  • Salvius||

    One of my favorite quotes (from David Gerrold) seems relevant here:
    "Liberty is about protecting the right of others to disagree with you."

  • DRH||

    Hmmm.... how much money is flowing through "stormfront" links to Ron Paul's website today?

  • DRH||

    The party line seems to have settled on : "What's he supposed to do with it? Give it back to the Nazis so they can use it for their purposes?"

    Easy. Give the money to a Jewish orphanage in the developing world. Give it to a scholarship for poor black kids. Use it for charity instead furthering your own political ambitions!

  • Salvius||

    Give the money to a Jewish orphanage in the developing world. Give it to a scholarship for poor black kids. Use it for charity instead furthering your own political ambitions!


    A contrite but worthless symbolic gesture, then.

  • ||

    RC,

    What's he supposed to do with it? Give it back to the Nazis so they can use it for their purposes?

    You know what the answer to this question is, and you're pretending you don't. Weak.

    Is it somehow better to merely launder money for Nazis rather than keep it? You mean "from Nazis," not "for Nazis," and the answer is yes, it is better to donate the money you get from Nazis than to use it to benefit yourself.

    And won't whoever he gives the money to be "materially benefiting from the support of white supremacists" as well? No, because the white supremacists didn't support them, the Paul campaign did.

    Isn't the real question... That would be the real question, and you and Paul have a very good answer to it. The political question is, would you rather have every media story about Ron Paul between now and the primary be about that very good answer, or about Ron Paul's libertarian agenda?

    DRH puts it well: Use it for charity instead furthering your own political ambitions! Ron Paul DOES have an agenda beyond getting himself elected to political office, right? Why can't he use that money to "advance the freedom agenda" in some way that doesn't personally benefit him?

  • ||

    A contrite but worthless symbolic gesture, then.

    So let me get this straight - $500 spent on political ads for the politician you like is significant and meaningful, but the same amount of money spent on feeding orphans is worthless.

  • Salvius||

    Did I say that $500 spent on political ads for the politician I like was "significant and meaningful"? Or even that it was any more significant and meaningful than feeding however many orphans $500 would feed?

    I'm not really even saying Paul shouldn't donate the money - after all, worthless symbolic gestures are the very warp and weave of politics. I just think a few of us should try to keep in mind that that's what it would be.

  • Hayekian Dreamer||

    Joe - Of course not, but that's not the test. You want Paul to single out a particular donor for special scrutiny and to suggest he doesn't have as much right to give money for a particular purpose as anyone else. HIS views may be wrongheaded and mean spirited but why should the ideological test for keeping that money be whether you approve of the donor's views? The money was Black's to give, he gave it. That means it is now Paul's to spend and I fail to see the connection between spending the money to promote a libertarian Republican's political campaign and promoting the rise of the 4th Reich.

    Personally I think the biggest rejection of Black would be to treat the donation like any other... giving it to some other charity would just be giving the story more publicity, as it is LGF had to dig and try to force some more oxygen into the story in an apparent attempt to reunite Mr. Black and his money. If Paul does nothing unique with the money then the story will die, if he singles it out then Black gets special treatment.

  • libertarian||

    Thanks for being "reasonable" about this issue! The only political lesson I see in this "scandal" is that candidates should stay away from any "Value Voters" debates in the future! haha

  • ||

    Giving money to a charity because one is pressured to do so is (repeat after me) INSINCERE and HOLLOW.

  • ||

    H.D.,

    You want Paul to single out a particular donor for special scrutiny and to suggest he doesn't have as much right to give money for a particular purpose as anyone else.

    No, that's not it at all. First, Black has already been singled out by the press. Like it or not, that train has left the station. Second, I'm not saying Black doesn't have a right to donate. I'm saying Paul doesn't have a duty to accept it. Sort of like Black has a right to send videotapes of his speeches to people through the mail - that doesn't mean you or I have a duty to watch them.

    HIS views may be wrongheaded and mean spirited but why should the ideological test for keeping that money be whether you approve of the donor's views? It's not that I don't approve of the donors' views - I don't approve of the views of the million or so libertarians and conservatives who've donated to him - but that this particular donor's views are so far beyond the pale.

    giving it to some other charity would just be giving the story more publicity, as it is LGF had to dig and try to force some more oxygen into the story in an apparent attempt to reunite Mr. Black and his money. If Paul does nothing unique with the money then the story will die, if he singles it out then Black gets special treatment. That is not, historically, how these "scandals" have played out. Getting rid of the money (or apologizing for the remark, or whatever) is a story for one news cycle, while "are you going to give back the money?" can keep being asked and asked for months. We aren't seeing any more stories about the "Throw Hillary's Donor From the Train" story these days, are we?

  • ||

    Gene,

    You mean it would be a campaign stunt done purely for the purpose of public relations?

    Yep. Lovers of political progress, like lovers of sausage,...

  • Salvius||

    Joe,

    Is your argument that Paul should donate the money to charity, not because it would be the morally/ethically right thing to do, but because it would be the politically savvy thing to do?

    If so, I don't hold a strong opinion one way or the other. In the political strategy/game aspect of running for office, I can see ways it could be used to Paul's political advantage either way, and other ways it could blow up in his face either way. I think it ultimately depends mostly on the political skills of all the players in the game, and not so much on whether he spends the actual money on a campaign ad or a charity donation.

  • ||

    Yes, Joe: it would have no meaning other than to be a "stunt" to placate his critics, who would only dance in the streets that they were "victorious" in this particular battle.

    They will have to put their dancing shoes back in the closet for another day because frankly, their Jerry Springer approach to Ron Paul simply isn't working. It may be "big news" in the blogosphere, but most voters simply don't give a damn about blogs. Notice how most of the *big* media are keeping their distance from this story? All they are reporting is that Ron refuses to give the money back. They are not delving into the tin foil hat territory that LGF is wading through right now...likely because they know this story is full of holes so big, you could drive a Mac truck through them with room to spare.

  • ||

    I love it how Reason is all over LGF for allegedly smearing Ron Paul for having his picture taken with a real Nazi. But "American Conservative's" depicting of Rudy in facist gard is okay.

    Reason just has no integrity.

  • ||

    This was not a Stormfront event, this was a Values Voters debate.

    Must...not...take...bait. Must...be...good...responsible liberal.


    LOL, joe! Oh, wait, are you now going to accuse me of "partisan bias" for highlighting your quote and no one else's? ;)

  • ||

    "I am starting to get concerned that this Don Black person is stalking me, and I am asking the Secret Service to look into it." Voila - frame changed.

    Does Ron Paul get Secret Service services yet? At what point does that kick in?

  • ||

    Oh Edward is here. I hope somebody with more tolerance for moronic rants than I will alert me if he posts anything relevant, intelligent or humorous.

    Oh, he post lots of humorous stuff, J sub D -- usually unintentionally.

  • x,y||

    How many people who think Paul should give the money back (or give it to charity) would practice what they preach if a Nazi gave them $5,000,000 of lawfully earned money?

  • Ali||

    Funny, my eternal criticism of LGF is that it is neo-supremacist. Same crap, different pile.

  • ||

    Hint to Edward: He says he didn't write it. If he says it was ghostwritten, and it's not not of his writing style, I have no reason not to believe him. If he's said "yes I wrote it" or you have a picture of him writing it, by all means bring it forward.

    That column appeared in The Ron Paul Survival Report (or whatever it was called that year) in 1992. Even if Paul didn't write everything himself, he was definitely part of the small group involved in publishing the newsletter and should have exercised editorial approval of stuff being published in his name. Subscribers were certainly supposed to take the articles as Ron Paul's words and ideas.

    That piece was publicized by Paul's congressional opponent in 1996. At that time, Paul did not disavow authorship. In 2001, Paul told a magazine reporter that he didn't actually write that piece.

    Maybe you think this casual denial 9 years later clears Paul of all responsibility for his (ghost-written or not) published writings. To my mind, it's typical weaselly politician doublespeak.

    One nice thing about being a libertarian is not having to play unpaid spinmeister for every asinine thing that our side's politicians do or say. Seeing people do this for Ron Paul is embarrassing.

  • ||

    Good article. They are scared of Ron Paul, and with a flawless history, what else can they do but try and make mountains out of molehills?

  • SIV||

    I remember people making a big deal out of Rosalyn Carter shaking hands with John Wayne Gacy

    What about Ros posing with the Rev Jim Jones just before he and his followers left for Guyana?

  • Lance Braga||

    EE over at LGF says:

    "The Ron Paul antisemitic base appears to be the core of the group of supporters of Ron Paul. That's why when these haters are stressed, they turn to bashing the Jews. That's their prime scapegoat, and that's the glue that keeps this odd assortment together."

    The batshit insane LGF crowd might as well be employees of Charles Johnson. They take turns working his balls and shaft.

    And when they can't come up with anything substantive against Ron Paul, I guess it's okay to just make stuff up. Like EE has done. Come on over here, EE, where people can talk back to your cowardly self, and defend your bullshit. I dare you.

  • Edward||

    How can we explain Ron Paul? This is a big country with hundreds of millions of people, some of whom are attracted to quirky, anti-establishment candidates. And some of those people are angry, looking for an outspoken leader and searching for an easy answer to the nation's problems. But there simply are not all that many of them.

    The Internet undoubtedly has made it easier for Paul supporters to connect with the campaign and with each other, and it's become a terrific way to raise cash for a candidate with emotional followers. But Web chatter, declarations of undying support on Facebook and even surprising fundraising totals don't make a serious contender out of a candidate from the political fringe. Ultimately, it's about votes. --Stuart Rothenberg

  • Eric Dondero||

    I had to chuckle about a post by a guy named Mo above, "Haven't the Republicans been attending Conferedarate meetings for years..."

    Actully Mo, it's Ron Paul who has been attending such events. He's even been the guest speaker at numerous Confederate Memorial services here in Texas, where a myriad of Texas Republic, Separatist, and other fringe groups gather.

  • ||

    DONDEROOOO! Don't even both commenting. You've been discredited more often than the National Enquirer and own3d more times than anyone could possibly count.

    Seriously, save whatever integrity you have left and ride off into the sunset already. The only purpose you serve is to make us laugh and we're already looking for the 10' stage hook.

  • ||

    Is there anybody that is NOT a moron on this blog?

  • ||

    Truthseeker
    You need to seek help.

  • ||

    Gene Tosper,

    Hopefully, Ron Paul is basing his strategic and tactical decisions on something smarter than saying "I'll show YOU!" as you are. No, it is not a good feeling when your scumbag critics get to "dance in the streets" for a news cycle, but from the perspective of running an effective campaign, that's better than allowing them to shake their heads gravely and say "tut tut" from now until the election.

    x,y,

    I wouldn't give a flying leap about what the press would say if a neo-Nazi gave me $5 million. But, you see, I'm not engaged in a national political campaign. Ron Paul has to care what the press is saying.

  • B||

    Hey assholes, the whole "scrum following the debate" defense might be a little bit more fucking credible if he had returned the money that the guy gave him. And please don't tell us this is "tired" because the nutjob fucker refuses to return money donated to his campaign by a guy who thinks Hitler was a fucking hero.

    P.S. joe is a fucking douchebag who thinks Castro is a more benevolent tyrant and that Chavez is a democrat. Stay stupid, joe.

  • ||

    Good morning, Joe.

    I'm not saying Ron Paul should say "I'll show you". Sorry if that's your interpretation of it though.

  • Insipid Teenager||

    Don't forget, Arnold Schwarzenegger still admires Hitler, and did during his California governor campaign. Of course he only admires the political skill of Hitler and God forbid nothing else.

  • BabbaZee||

    Does anyone think Stormfront posters are *this close* to white revolution and all they need now is a presidential trojan horse?


    Of course not. But by that logic... we should say zero about any evil in the ~isms until said evil is already in our faces, holding power, and biting us in our collective asses?

    Lets not say anything about the jihad either, since obviously we are not six seconds from an American Caliphate....

    If I emailed Charles a picture of Hilary with Don Black..... and a disbursement sheet where it shows she took $$ from Stormfront and lunched with the "new right" would people here want Charles to sit on that?


    You are advocating for silent assent with this line of "reasoning"

    All it takes for evil to rise
    is for good men to say NOTHING

    RONPAULCALYPSE NOW

    He was put in place as a spoiler,
    and now
    he's spoiled.

    GOOD.

  • ||

    How many different kinds of antisemitic conspiracy nut supporters does this guy have to acquire before normal people are allowed to have doubts about a Ron Paul presidency?

  • Mark||

    $500 bought Black a lot of press.

  • ||

    Am I allowed to find Derek Black rather cute?

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement