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
New Republic Writer: Ron Paul Called MLK a "Gay Pedophile"
On Tucker Carlson's show 45 minutes ago, The New Republic's Jamie Kirchick alleged that Ron Paul called Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile," and stuffed 20 years' worth of "Ron Paul" newsletters full of "racist, anti-semitic, homophobic invective."
Kirchick, whose story for TNR (along with screen-shots
of the newsletters themselves) are scheduled to go up
at midnight EDT "tomorrow afternoon," said
that Paul "called black people animals," and spoke at a
"pro-secessionist conference." In teeing up the segment, Carlson,
who was skeptical about some of Kirchick's claims, reported that
the Paul campaign has apologized for the content of the newsletters
to both Kirchick and Carlson.
More to come from here after the gong strikes midnight.
reason on Paul here. Dave Weigel talked about Paul's newsletter racism back in July. Nick Gillespie and I tried to make sense of the rEVOLution for the Washington Post late last year. Brian Doherty covered the Paul campaign from the beginning, asked if Paul was good for libertarians in July, and wrote our current cover story.
UPDATE: Video here.
Elemenope|1.7.08 @ 7:42PM|#
It's pile-on time.
Paul, Obama, Huckabee...all outsiders in the establishment sense,
and all doing "better than they oughta", terrifying many. Can't
wait for the real dirt to start flying; all my newfound hope and
faith for humanity in general and my fellow Americans in particular
was never going to last, anyways.
|1.7.08 @ 7:42PM|#
They keep digging and finding the same old, worn out stories, always ready to fling, just in case this time it sticks. Soon we should be back around to Ron Paul's a KKK member because he didn't give back the $500 donation from Black. After that, we should expect another round of how he's a hyporcite for putting earmarks in the bills he vetos and so on and so forth.
|1.7.08 @ 7:44PM|#
The only problem about flinging mud at Paul is that when you reach down to grab the juicy, gotcha dirtball story, the best you can find is a dust bunny under a borrowed couch.
alan|1.7.08 @ 7:45PM|#
Can't wait for the real dirt to start flying; all my
newfound hope and faith for humanity in general and my fellow
Americans in particular was never going to last,
anyways.
Ah, Jeez. I agree Elempope. Sobriety was okay while it lasted, but
I'm going back to the bottle, and I'll likely pick up a few other
habits depending on November.
|1.7.08 @ 7:56PM|#
Wake me up when Dr. Paul is caught:
1) in a bathroom stall taking a wide stance,
2) with a dead girl,
3) or in bed with a live boy.
That is all.
Condoleeza Rice|1.7.08 @ 7:57PM|#
God dammit I knew this guy was a racist, I just had this feeling about him. I don't know how I could have bought into all of his disgusting verbal rhetoric that praises MLK. I am sickened.
|1.7.08 @ 7:57PM|#
wow, the media is scarry. I'm starting to see visions of Hitler in them, not Paul.
|1.7.08 @ 7:58PM|#
The fact that the Paul campaign has yet to respond to this,
makes me worried that this will be a big story tomorrow. Tucker
Carlson did a horrible job refuting the claims of this neocon
publication, and didn't have anyone from the campaign to refute the
claims.
THE CAMPAIGN MUST RESPOND NOW!!!
|1.7.08 @ 8:02PM|#
She who hath mud to fling, sinless or not... let 'er first
cast!
Be not the first the mud to fling, nor the last to cast some!
Cast mud! There is no shortage of it! God will make more.
When a the smear hit a your ear like a bigga pizza pie, that's more
a fun!
Ain't politics grand!
Ruthless
Theophanes|1.7.08 @ 8:06PM|#
I went to Yale with Jamie Kirchick. To think he's had the nerve to call himself a "libertarian" before. He's one of those delightful people who automatically equates all criticism of Israel with antisemitism. I think all of this crap comes out of his cognitive dissonance from being a homosexual supporter of the oppressive, anti-gay, Republican Party. Heaven help him if I run into him at a reunion or the Harvard-Yale game...
drawnasunder|1.7.08 @ 8:06PM|#
I care. I like Paul and would consider voting because he's
running.
If he's proven a racist, then I wouldn't vote for him, nor root for
his campaign. He'd be an embarassment. If he's written outright
racists rants, he will have done a huge disservice to the
cause...
|1.7.08 @ 8:07PM|#
hey Joe, we supporters already know the background on this story, and it is not true. These are based on something a ghostwriter wrote, not Paul himself. This same old thing has come up over and over again, and every time these people are proven wrong. However, although he didn't write it, like a real man, he has taken responsibility for it because it was his newsletter
|1.7.08 @ 8:08PM|#
PROVE IT! Until then, I believe nothing because people HAVE to make stuff up just to make him look bad. Wah, ok, wah, go cry about it, then show me some proof!
|1.7.08 @ 8:09PM|#
Blah blah blah.
This garbage was refuted LONG ago.
gay pedophile? Did some 14 year old write that?
|1.7.08 @ 8:10PM|#
I would like Paul to explain it again since I'm sure there are people that have seen this for the first time. Never heard the statement "MLK was a gay pedophile". I think that might be an out and out lie of ever what the ghost written paper said.
|1.7.08 @ 8:11PM|#
tina,
I've been following Paul pretty closely, and this is new to
me.
This particular charge is quite something else than the
maybe-ghostwritten "newsletters" that he allowed to be published
under his name.
|1.7.08 @ 8:11PM|#
Guess they take issue to stuff like this:
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc289/LSUfanFR/?action=view¤t=Helms.jpg
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1923902/posts
|1.7.08 @ 8:12PM|#
This excerpt from Wikipedia demonstrates how the same thing
happened in to Ron Paul in 1996.
"Paul's Democratic opponent in the fall election, trial lawyer
Charles "Lefty" Morris, lost in a close margin, despite assistance
from the AFL-CIO. Paul's large contributor base outraised Morris
two-to-one, giving the third-highest amount of individual
contributions received by any House member (behind Gingrich and Bob
Dornan).[53] It became the third time Paul had been elected to
Congress as a non-incumbent.[10]
Morris ran numerous attacks, including publicizing issues of the
Ron Paul Survival Report (published by Paul since 1985) that
included derogatory comments concerning race and other
politicians.[54][55] Alluding to a 1992 study finding that "of
black men in Washington ... about 85 percent are arrested at some
point in their lives",[56][57] the newsletter proposed assuming
that "95% of the black males in Washington DC are semi-criminal or
entirely criminal", and stated that "the criminals who terrorize
our cities ... largely are" young black males, who commit crimes
"all out of proportion to their numbers".[58][59]
In 2001, Paul took "moral responsibility" for the comments printed
in his newsletter under his name, telling Texas Monthly magazine
that the comments were written by an unnamed ghostwriter and did
not represent his views. He said newsletter remarks referring to
U.S. Representative Barbara Jordan (calling her a "fraud" and a
"half-educated victimologist") were "the saddest thing, because
Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful
lady."[60] The magazine defended Paul's decision to protect the
writer's confidence in 1996, concluding, "In four terms as a U.S.
congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered
anything remotely like this."[35] In 2007, with the quotes
resurfacing, New York Times Magazine writer Christopher Caldwell
concurred that Paul denied the allegations "quite believably, since
the style diverges widely from his own,"[10] but added that Paul's
"response to the accusations was not transparent."[10]"
Peter|1.7.08 @ 8:15PM|#
I'm probably going to get pilloried for this, but setting
Slavery aside, is there anything wrong with the concept, or "right"
to secede per se. I mean, if the secession issue wasn't sullied
with racism by the fact that the last most successful secession was
over slavery, among other things, it would seem to me the perfect
cause celebre for liberals to take up ... rebelling against the
powers that be and starting a new society. No, it seems to me the
same onus of the sort when Ronald Reagan talked about states'
rights in the south and got shit for it.
Did anyone think it might be good for a government representative
to treat these guys with respect now and then, lest we find
ourselves with roaming militias?
|1.7.08 @ 8:15PM|#
Just had a funny thought, maybe the reason they're taking so long to respond is they're trying to find out where in the hell Kichick picked it up from and he's not responding to calls from the campaign. That's alot of newsletters to read.
|1.7.08 @ 8:16PM|#
he also said that jews were hooknosed userers who drink the
blood of christian babies. and that the irish were retarded drunken
potato heads.
doesn't anyone besides me care whether or not this is
true?
Michael McDonnough|1.7.08 @ 8:18PM|#
Does anyone really accept anything that is said by these neocon
hacks as being the truth? They always take a thin layer of truth
and cover it with a huge helping of pure BS on their crap sandwich
they serve up.
I think people are waking up to this fact. I just hope enough
people can wake up fast enough to keep these crazy neocons from
leading us all into destruction in their vain attempt to take over
the world's oil reserves.
|1.7.08 @ 8:20PM|#
Hey Joe,
I'm glad to hear you have been following him, but perhaps you have
not been as involved as I and my friends have? I don't know and do
not want to make any guesses as to your level of involvement. Many
of us, myself included, are pretty hard-core and have learned every
single thing we could about his life. My group on myspace heard
about this months ago, and several times since then. It has been
proven incorrect. Not to mention the fact that if this were true,
the chance of it not being discovered previously is pretty low
considering he's done 10 terms in congress. Somebody would have
drug this out a long time ago, and he wouldn't be a congressman at
this point.
Nutter|1.7.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Those newsletter articles are the only thing Dondero has ever written that anyone cares about, and he doesn't even get credit for them.
alan|1.7.08 @ 8:22PM|#
Joe, yes, if there are substantial racial rants that can be
attributed to Ron Paul it would definitely make a difference.
However, at this point it seems so Bloom County,Bill the
Cat caught in tryst with Jeane Kilpatrick, seems like a parody of
the political process. If it is not true, then the New Republic has
to be the most pathetic news organization since the 1930's New York
Times. If it is true, well say sayonara to our hopes and dreams
(not just the presidency race but it would also be a threat to the
image of libertarians in general).
|1.7.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Man. They're shaking in their boots about Ron Paul. What do they
know that we don't?
Certainly he's no racist. Why are they smearing him so hard?
|1.7.08 @ 8:23PM|#
Ah, the ghostwritten newsletter comes up again. It must be that time of the month. They are going to try and dust off this old chestnut, eh? Sigh.... I've lost track of how many times this has been debunked... They are just trying to make something stick.
|1.7.08 @ 8:24PM|#
This is actually mentioned in this anti-paul youtube video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBGIQ7ZuuiU
|1.7.08 @ 8:25PM|#
Yeah, I agree the media is becoming frightening. They are
ruining our ability to think for ourselves.
All these racist smears are just nonsense and disinformation. They
were raised and addressed months ago. These statements were written
by a staffer who was fired.
Ron Paul supports the US Constitution as the supreme law of the
land. If you cannot agree with this, then you don't belong in
America.
|1.7.08 @ 8:25PM|#
"I'm probably going to get pilloried for this, but setting
Slavery aside, is there anything wrong with the concept, or "right"
to secede per se."
In a President? ...probably, yes.
|1.7.08 @ 8:27PM|#
Those newsletter articles are the only thing Dondero has
ever written that anyone cares about, and he doesn't even get
credit for them.
I don't like Dondero anymore than anybody else here, but he wasn't
working for Paul in the 70's. he joined in '87.
Stephen The Goldberger|1.7.08 @ 8:27PM|#
Certainly he's no racist. Why are they smearing him so hard?
They aren't, this is just the way the game is played for the big
boys.
VM|1.7.08 @ 8:27PM|#
hier is how EDWEIRDOOO is celebrating this news.
[keed keed: apparently, it's Mr. Steven Crane]
Max Engel|1.7.08 @ 8:28PM|#
Call for a retraction of these false allegations
CanWest Media Works International
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
CanWest MediaWorks UK Ltd.
4th Floor
Roman Landing
Kingsway
Southampton, Hants
SO14 1BN
Telephone: +44(0)238 038 4100
Fax: +44(0)238 038 4160
E-mail: info@canwest.co.uk
Web site: www.canwest.co.uk
CANWEST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC.
Deighton House
Dayrelle's Road at Deighton
St. Michael BB14030
Barbados
Telephone: (246) 436-3421
Fax: (246) 228-3847
CanWest MediaWorks New Zealand
P.O. Box 8822
Symonds Street
Auckland, New Zealand
Telephone: (64) (9) 373-2435
Fax: (64) (9) 373-2483
Web site: www.mediaworks.co.nz
NETWORK TEN
1 Saunders Street, GPO Box 10
Pyrmont, NSW
Australia 2009
Telephone: (61) (2) 9650-1010
Fax: (61) (2) 9650-1111
Web site: www.ten.com.au
The New Republic
1331 H Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 508-4444
Web site: www.tnr.com
Original 106fm Solent
Roman Landing
Kingsway, Southampton
SO14 1BN
Telephone: 023 8038 4100
Fax: 023 8082 9844
Web site: www.original106.com
Original 106.5fm Bristol
County Gates
Ashton Road, Bristol
BS3 2JH
Telephone: 0117 966 1065
Web site: www.originalbristol.com
CanWest Medya Turkiye
Buyukdere Caddesi C.E.M. Is Merkezi
No.: 23 Kat: 4 34361Â Sisli
Istanbul, Turkey
Telephone: +90 (212) 368 62 04
CanWest Media Works International
INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS
CanWest MediaWorks UK Ltd.
4th Floor
Roman Landing
Kingsway
Southampton, Hants
SO14 1BN
Telephone: +44(0)238 038 4100
Fax: +44(0)238 038 4160
E-mail: info@canwest.co.uk
Web site: www.canwest.co.uk
CANWEST INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS INC.
Deighton House
Dayrelle's Road at Deighton
St. Michael BB14030
Barbados
Telephone: (246) 436-3421
Fax: (246) 228-3847
CanWest MediaWorks New Zealand
P.O. Box 8822
Symonds Street
Auckland, New Zealand
Telephone: (64) (9) 373-2435
Fax: (64) (9) 373-2483
Web site: www.mediaworks.co.nz
NETWORK TEN
1 Saunders Street, GPO Box 10
Pyrmont, NSW
Australia 2009
Telephone: (61) (2) 9650-1010
Fax: (61) (2) 9650-1111
Web site: www.ten.com.au
The New Republic
1331 H Street, NW Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 508-4444
Web site: www.tnr.com
Original 106fm Solent
Roman Landing
Kingsway, Southampton
SO14 1BN
Telephone: 023 8038 4100
Fax: 023 8082 9844
Web site: www.original106.com
Original 106.5fm Bristol
County Gates
Ashton Road, Bristol
BS3 2JH
Telephone: 0117 966 1065
Web site: www.originalbristol.com
CanWest Medya Turkiye
Buyukdere Caddesi C.E.M. Is Merkezi
No.: 23 Kat: 4 34361Â Sisli
Istanbul, Turkey
Telephone: +90 (212) 368 62 04
|1.7.08 @ 8:31PM|#
Media media media lol, suckers. Ron Paul rocks... He 's got my vote regardless of whatever crap media brings up. Keep trying fox/abc news.
Joshua Holmes|1.7.08 @ 8:32PM|#
Kirchick...said that Paul "called black people
animals,"
Huh, I thought Paul didn't believe in evolution.
|1.7.08 @ 8:35PM|#
This is supposed to scare away independents for tomorrow's
primary. Refuting this many claims can't be done in 12 hours.
January surprise, I guess.
ASSHOLES!
|1.7.08 @ 8:35PM|#
Could the timing on this be any more transparent? The sad thing is that I think this time it may work.
Theophanes|1.7.08 @ 8:37PM|#
"I'm probably going to get pilloried for this, but setting
Slavery aside, is there anything wrong with the concept, or "right"
to secede per se."
A pro-secession president would be the sweetest thing ever. You
anti-secession posters, what kind of libertarians are you?
|1.7.08 @ 8:38PM|#
alan,
There were some pretty deplorable things said about Martin Luther
King back in the day. Genuinely disgusting, usually sexually-themed
smears that would make your stomach turn.
It is because I've seen quotes and footage of people making "gay
pedophile"-level smears about King that I'm not immediately
dismissing this.
|1.7.08 @ 8:39PM|#
I have no doubt that Thomas Jefferson would have favored allowing states to secede.
Stephen The Goldberger|1.7.08 @ 8:39PM|#
A pro-secession president would be the sweetest thing ever. You anti-secession posters, what kind of libertarians are you?
ones who are able to separate theory from practical reality.
|1.7.08 @ 8:40PM|#
I've written a lot of nice things about Ron Paul, and how his
campaign could exceed expectations and influence American
politics.
But if you think anyone at the New Republic is actually scared of
Ron Paul winning the New Hampshire primary or the nomination,
you've bobbed to the bottom of the kool-aid bowl.
|1.7.08 @ 8:41PM|#
This is the second time The New Republic has done this. They are getting desperate. He called Tom DiLorenzo a secessionist. DiLorenzo wrote a book very critical of Abe Lincoln.
rho|1.7.08 @ 8:42PM|#
"I'm probably going to get pilloried for this, but setting Slavery aside, is there anything wrong with the concept, or "right" to secede per se."
I have no idea what "speaking at a pro-secessionist conference"
means.
If I gave a speech at a reason conference, I'd be speaking
at a conference for abortionists and drug-users.
I just wish I knew why Ron Paul gets this grief when he's nothing
more than a "gadfly". If this sticks better than the last time, he
will be asked nothing else until Super Tuesday.
|1.7.08 @ 8:43PM|#
Yeah, the New Republic is so desperate and so out to get Ron Paul that they...um...wrote a sympathetic profile about how he's campaigning in Nevada which was linked to in Hit & Run last week.
|1.7.08 @ 8:43PM|#
Jamie Kirchick is a perfect candidate for treason. What a looser. Ony in a FREE country can someone get away with propaganda and lbogus info.. The sad truth is that it's very easy too BUY a fool like that. And who knows how much jaime is paid. Its don;t take much to bribe a fool
Jeff|1.7.08 @ 8:43PM|#
I'm not so sure if it's the New Republic so much as it's Kirchick. He's an ass through and through. If you do a google search, I'm sure you'll find an article of his where he explains that neocon is actually a code word for jew, and thats why liberals love using the term so much.
|1.7.08 @ 8:45PM|#
Anyway, if those newsletters appeared above the byline "Hillary Clinton," there is not a chance in hell anyone would let them slide, no matter how many times she said they were "ghostwritten."
Nutter|1.7.08 @ 8:45PM|#
I don't like Dondero anymore than anybody else here, but he
wasn't working for Paul in the 70's. he joined in '87.
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the articles from the 90's
that Dondero wrote. That's almost the level of lazy, sloppy
commentary that gets job offers from Fox.
kinnath|1.7.08 @ 8:46PM|#
Echoing the comments above, Ron Paul has run for president in the past and has served 10 terms in congress. If there were any demonstrably true facts that showed him to be racist, they would have emerged a long time ago.
SIV|1.7.08 @ 8:46PM|#
Who are all these dorks calling TNR a "neocon"
publication?
from wiki:
Politically, the magazine supports modern liberal public
policies.
They are quite well known for publishing "fabrications".
|1.7.08 @ 8:47PM|#
Let us not forget that this slandering comes from a staunch Giuliani supporter. If anyone can fudge the facts on someone, while trying to cloak his own misgivings (his father and uncle were in the mob for goodness sakes!) it is Giuliani.
PC|1.7.08 @ 8:47PM|#
Jeff,
Yeah whoever started that "neocon=jew" talking point is a lying
ass. Of course I prefer the term "Straussian". I figure we might as
well get straight to the point and show the roots of their
worldview.
Bingo|1.7.08 @ 8:49PM|#
I haven't read this discussion yet but I'm already laughing based off the headlines
|1.7.08 @ 8:49PM|#
Is that why Ron Paul called Rosa Parks a hero and was the only
one in all of Congress to uphold the Constitution for her:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8so
SIV|1.7.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Anyway, if those newsletters appeared above the byline
"Hillary Clinton," there is not a chance in hell anyone would let
them slide, no matter how many times she said they were
"ghostwritten."
joe
She got away with saying "Barack Obama hasn't done the
Spade Work to be President" on TV this
morning.
|1.7.08 @ 8:50PM|#
This is a good article to read as a follow-up to this
one...Kirchick is a strong Giuliani
supporter.
Ron Paul, Giuliani and Double Standards
by Andrew Sullivan
The Ron-Paul-Is-A-Closet-Nazi meme continues. It seems to me that
there are a lot of reasons to oppose Ron Paul. Jamie Kirchick's
vision of US foreign policy is one of them. But to say that a
single $500 contribution from a neo-Nazi crackpot is somehow
"keeping company" with fascists is absurd. Michael Goldfarb
asks:
Andrew, are you not troubled at all by the creeps who've signed on
to the Paul campaign, or the fact that he is so completely
unperturbed by their support that he has yet to distance himself in
any way from it? Maybe not--Sullivan's "simple message" to Ron Paul
supporters: "You're welcome here." That includes the Nazis, or
no?
There are plenty of reasons to be perturbed when loons and
hate-mongers support a candidacy. But this game of
guilt-by-association can be played endlessly. I tend to place
greater emphasis on loons and hate-mongers that candidates actively
seek out. Pat Robertson is a loon and an anti-Semite and a vicious
homophobe who blamed Americans for 9/11. Giuliani didn't receive
some unsolicited money from him; he actually stood on a platform
and embraced him. Why one standard for Paul and another for
Giuliani? If Obama embraced Louis Farrakhan as a supporter, you
think Goldfarb and Kirchick would be silent? They'd have a cow
because it's unthinkable. But naked bigotry is more than thinkable
in today's GOP: it's integral to it. What's the difference between
Farrakhan and Robertson? I can't see any. Maybe Goldfarb and
Kirchick can spell it out.
Giuliani also promoted and endorsed a seriously mobbed up man to be
head of the DHS; he fully embraces and employs a priest credibly
accused of sex abuse of a minor (and refuses to distance himself
from him); and actively endorses torture as a foreign policy
weapon. Jamie Kirchick actually supports Giuliani for president -
but is hyper-ventilating about a $500 check that Paul hasn't even
decided what to do with! There you have the massive
double-standards on the neocon right.
Here's an idea: when Giuliani disowns his abusing priest, his
mafia-consigliere and his anti-Semitic nutcase, Ron Paul should
send back the $500. Deal?
|1.7.08 @ 8:50PM|#
Sorry, I thought we were talking about the articles from the
90's that Dondero wrote.
No, this seems to be something new, and not the stuff that has so
totally been vetted and disproven so we don't have to worry about
it at all ok?
Were those newsletters from the 90s really written by Dondero, or
are you just joshing?
|1.7.08 @ 8:52PM|#
I only wish I was able to express how hard I'm laughing at you,
SIV.
Wow, yeah, using the phrase "spade work" is exactly like saying
that 85% of the black men in Washington are criminals.
You sure got me there!
SIV|1.7.08 @ 8:56PM|#
joe,
Yeah but she actually said it.Hillary doesn't say anything without
careful deliberation and scripting. That is why she won't be
interviewed or take questions from anyone but shills.
|1.7.08 @ 8:57PM|#
If there were a Ken Shultz Newsletter, regardless of whether it were written by me or my associates, the chances of it calling Martin Luther King a gay pedophile, or containing any racist invective whatsoever actually, would be really, really low.
|1.7.08 @ 8:57PM|#
Just watched the video; this is the same bull as the newsletter
articles that have been known about for years. He accuses Jesse
Benton of originally saying that the newsletter was written by Paul
himself (?!), then changing his story afterward. This is a strange
assertion, since Dr Paul himself said he didn't write all of the
newsletter back in 1996 and since.
According to Kirchik, he was 'speaking in code' at the
pro-secession conference. I tell you, the 9/11 Truthers have
nothing on this guy when it comes to conspiracy theorizing.
Bingo|1.7.08 @ 8:58PM|#
Also the fact that this guy looks exactly like me only much gayer and fatter this si the best troll ever okay its too early for vodka but im gonna drink some moore woop
|1.7.08 @ 9:00PM|#
HAHAHA, he speaks in code!!!!!! GIVE JAMIE A TIN HAT!!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
This guy is so outraged and wants blood so bad you can see it in
his eyes.
Ron Paul is not a racist,,,Or when he says "We dont get our rights
because we belong to groups, we get our rights because we are all
individuals" that must be code for, I'll meet you guys at 7pm at
the barn, bring the hood and cross to burn,,
WHAT A JOKE!!!!
|1.7.08 @ 9:00PM|#
joe,
The examples he gives in the video are already known about. He
talks about the slurring of Barbara Jordan, which has been known
about for a long time. Obviously, I'm keeping an open mind, but
this had better be completely different from the stuff that's
already known, or I'm calling shenanigans on TNR.
|1.7.08 @ 9:02PM|#
I don't know the man, and I doubt he's a racist. ...but I don't
understand how a guy who would run for office could let somebody
publish something like that under his name.
...oh well, at least he doesn't want to universalize health care.
Is that what I'm supposed to say?
|1.7.08 @ 9:02PM|#
The New Republic
1) Part Owned by Steinhart a pro Israel proponent ( having problems
with the Dr. Paul's stance of no longer sending US cash to
Israel)
2) Part owned by Can West ( FOX Sportsworld is a subsidiary of
theirs)can you say payback for exposing an FOX fraud?
3)Look up Stephen Glass, L Seigel,Shalit,Ackerman,Beauchamp: their
former so called "journalists" that have been publically shamed and
fired for outright journalistic fabrication, plagerism and
more.
We are seeing the "DIRTY TRICKS" like "Swiftboat" (John Kerry) and
McCain's "illegitimate" daughter being played here. Those were
filthy lies and so are these but because the public wasn't informed
of the real truth in time and their chances for election were
destroyed just as they are trying to destroy Dr. Paul. Don't fall
for it! This Ultra liberal trash rag must be petrified of Dr.
Paul's message to try this crap.
Bingo|1.7.08 @ 9:03PM|#
I wanna pinch his cheeks and give him a kiss DO YOU HEAR THAT JAMES KIRCISHCISHCHK! A PINCH AND A KISS
|1.7.08 @ 9:04PM|#
None of this corresponds to the language or tone that Ron Paul uses, or the political views he holds. The mild-mannered decency of Ron Paul is obvious.
Jerry|1.7.08 @ 9:05PM|#
Saying that all Southern secessionists are racist is prejudice as well. Practice what you preach Mr. James Kirchick.
|1.7.08 @ 9:06PM|#
I would consider that Ron has a truely consistent voting record.
He does what he says he will do. He is an honest man. He is
honorable. I will accept his explanation- if any explanation is
required.
Respectfully,
Alan W. Moorehead
|1.7.08 @ 9:06PM|#
I was willing - just barely - to give Paul the benefit of the
doubt about the couple of newsletters from the 90s. It's within the
realm of possibility that a couple of things that directly
contradict his personal philosophy could slip out.
But if this goes back to the 1970s - The Ron Paul Newsletter,
published by Ron Paul Productions - and there has been a consistent
pattern of saying godawful stuff about black people, then that's
that. It's like Ken Shultz said at 8:57.
I see too many arguments on this thread along the lines of "Ron
Paul can't be a racist, because he's a libertarian." That is blind
partisanship, people.
Brandybuck|1.7.08 @ 9:06PM|#
Certainly he's no racist. Why are they smearing him so hard?
They're smearing him because they hate him. He stands for
everything they hate: the Constitution, liberty, limited
government, non-intervention, etc, etc. They also fear him, fear
that even if he doesn't win, he will take votes away from them.
He's already trounced Giuliani hard in an actual primary. If he was
only polling at 0%, they would be ignoring him.
|1.7.08 @ 9:07PM|#
"The New Republic
1) Part Owned by Steinhart a pro Israel proponent ( having problems
with the Dr. Paul's stance of no longer sending US cash to
Israel)
2) Part owned by Can West ( FOX Sportsworld is a subsidiary of
theirs)can you say payback for exposing an FOX fraud?
3)Look up Stephen Glass, L Seigel,Shalit,Ackerman,Beauchamp: their
former so called "journalists" that have been publically shamed and
fired for outright journalistic fabrication, plagerism and
more."
But did they ever publish anything accusing Martin Luther King of
being a gay pedophile?
...and if so, are they running for President?
SIV|1.7.08 @ 9:08PM|#
We are seeing the "DIRTY TRICKS" like "Swiftboat" (John
Kerry) and McCain's "illegitimate" daughter being played
here.
Christine
The Swiftboat veterans offered unrefuted facts and their personal
opinions. There were no "dirty tricks" involved.
|1.7.08 @ 9:09PM|#
Were those newsletters from the 90s really written by Dondero, or are you just joshing?
Joe
If you mean "the fleet footed black men" newletters - I doubt
Dondero wrote them.
They were too well put together.
I doubt Eric could have constructed such a sophisticated argument.
He is a moron and lacks the mental capacity.
rho|1.7.08 @ 9:10PM|#
I don't know the man, and I doubt he's a racist. ...but I don't understand how a guy who would run for office could let somebody publish something like that under his name.
Get back to us when you're doing this as Congressman. Many things
are delegated to staff under the assumption that they won't act a
fool. Printing a newsletter is one of those things.
You can't see how it would happen because I'm guessing you've never
done anything comparable to being a Congressman. Many people think
that things which they don't understand are easy to do.
|1.7.08 @ 9:10PM|#
It's very disappointing that some people's belief in Ron Paul can be undermined so easily - and all because of such an obvious smear-job.
|1.7.08 @ 9:11PM|#
joe,
Kirchick responds to Carlson's question of how all this could have
gone under the radar till now by saying that it came from when he
was out of Congress, and you can get away with more when you're not
in Congress.
Dr Paul has been in Congress from 1976-1984 and 1996 to present.
So, either Kirchick is wrong about it being from when he wasn't in
Congress, or he's wrong about it spanning 20 years. Even assuming
he hit the ground running and entered full racist mode in 1984, and
stopped on a dime in 1996, that's only 12 years.
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 9:11PM|#
Ken,
Paul has been in and out of government.
The story as it has been represented to me is that while he was out
of government, he was approached and asked if his name could be
used to promote a libertarian newsletter, and he said yes. The
newsletter was the Ron Paul Report in the way that a video game
might be Tony Hawk Pro Skating or John Madden Football. I don't
think Hawk or Madden write a lot of code.
Paul should have known better, because let's face it - when dealing
with libertarians you never know if they're going to whig out and
start putting in articles telling people to drink silver, or
telling people to resist enforcement of the tax code with guns and
pipe bombs. Heck, if I was one of the writers I'd be likely to put
an article in titled "Bill O'Reilly is a Smelly Cunt". I doubt Paul
gave a shit until he decided to run for Congress again.
Brandybuck|1.7.08 @ 9:12PM|#
But if this goes back to the 1970s - The Ron Paul Newsletter, published by Ron Paul Productions - and there has been a consistent pattern of saying godawful stuff about black people, then that's that.
Stop believing the bullshit Kirchik is feeding you. There was one
newsletter. One. The only pattern in sight is the pattern of his
opponents dredging up this one single newsletter every time they
get a bowel movement.
Jerry|1.7.08 @ 9:12PM|#
Kirchick: Actually, last week on MSNBC he touted a book
called "The Real Lincoln" by a guy named Thomas DiLorenzo, who is a
neo-confederate.
Oh, this will get a nifty response from DiLorenzo I'm sure.
Lean like a cholo|1.7.08 @ 9:12PM|#
I thought black people are animals. Just like white people,
orientals, and the rest.
Now if he had said black people were fungus, that would be
news.
|1.7.08 @ 9:13PM|#
You're right, tarran, that certainly doesn't read like
Dondero.
And Dondero spends too much time complaining that Paul hasn't hired
enough black or Latino staffers.
It doesn't much read like Ron Paul's writing, either.
Best case scenario, he's like an absentee landlord who doesn't know
what's going on in his building.
|1.7.08 @ 9:14PM|#
I could say I'm surprised Tucker Carlson would let himself be used to put this out; but, I'm not.
|1.7.08 @ 9:15PM|#
Who invented the term 'neoconservative'? I know I read it in Rand. She used it disparagingly of course. Only a Neocon could conclude that it was a secret codeword for "Jew". Being Jewish herself, perhaps Rand was transmitting in code that she was actually a neocon, disagreed with her own philosophy, and was a closet theocratic Hegelian.
Jerry|1.7.08 @ 9:15PM|#
No, Kirchick himself gives the period as 1988 to 1994, when Paul was not in Congress.
|1.7.08 @ 9:15PM|#
Oh COME ON.
This is supposedly from a circulated newsletter.
As if, for the first time, this is suddenly discovered. The guy ran
for president on the Libertarian ticket and would have been creamed
then. He's been running for congress for 30 years on and off, and
never has this been discovered.
Heck, any of the people he beat when running for congress would
have paid big big bucks for these newsletters, but they don't
appear until NOW.
Yeah, I believe it. Sure.
|1.7.08 @ 9:16PM|#
crimethink,
KIrchick was referring to one specific set of writings with that
"out of Congress" remark. He also mentions the newsletter going
back to the 1970s.
Brandybuck,
Stop believing the bullshit Kirchik is feeding you. There was
one newsletter. One. How do you know? The newsletters -
newsletters have editions, you know - haven't been put up on the
internet yet.
|1.7.08 @ 9:16PM|#
Who gives a good dog damned!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Why do you post such trash?
@#$!#@!@#$!@#$!#@$!@#$!@#$!@#$!#$!#$
Ben|1.7.08 @ 9:17PM|#
He speaks in codes that only us racist libertarians can
understand, haha.
Oh man, they must be frightened about New Hampshire tomorrow to
spring tripe like this at the 11th hour.
Matt|1.7.08 @ 9:17PM|#
He just taped Leno. He's on a plane heading back to N.H. The timing of this was perfect; however, don't think he doesn't have a response already prepared. It's just a matter of him landing and releasing it.
|1.7.08 @ 9:17PM|#
This is an old story. Ron Paul had a guy that wrote his
newsletters back in the eighties. This guy wrote some of his own
personal nastiness in a couple of these letters and Paul fired him.
The media has been trying to rehash this for months.
If you have ever heard Ron Paul speak, you know that he doesn't
have a racist or discriminatory bone in his body.
The media digs in Pauls closet for dirt. Ron Paul's closet is
clean, so they try to pass others words for his. Remember who in
politics is honest and who isn't.
|1.7.08 @ 9:18PM|#
I bet there is the stuff that is already known about, one other thing, and then a bunch of stuff saying we shouldn't give aid to Israel. That will be the "code."
|1.7.08 @ 9:19PM|#
joe,
Yes, the specific set of writings that use racist language and
disparage MLK, etc. Tucker didn't restrict his question to any
specific quote.
If some of the racist stuff was published while Dr Paul was in
Congress, why is Kirchick using the fact that he was out of
Congress as an excuse for why it hadn't been discovered?
In any case, in a few hours, we'll know what he's got.
cicero|1.7.08 @ 9:19PM|#
Even if Ron Paul wrote the article that appeared in his newsletter more than a decade ago, what exactly is racist about what he said. Reading the whole article (http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793), I don't see anything in it that is racist. I suppose if one were to slice a few sentences out of it and put in a few ..... you could make it look racist. But reading the whole thing I don't see anything racist in it.
CL|1.7.08 @ 9:22PM|#
"I'm probably going to get pilloried for this, but setting
Slavery aside, is there anything wrong with the concept, or "right"
to secede per se"
The abolitionists went there (I mean, mentioned the "S" word)
first:
http://veryidea.blogspot.com/2007/12/1847-debate-on-abolition-and-disunion.html
Also, here's the state's rights argument for defying the Fugitive
Slave Act:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Massachusetts
Too bad we never learned about these things in school.
CL
|1.7.08 @ 9:23PM|#
This is trivial, but I wanted to ask.
Did Jim Kirchick sound like he was really nervous, or was it the
poor audio quality during the interview?
|1.7.08 @ 9:25PM|#
Ron Paul is taking on every vested interest there is, this kind of smear was only a matter of time.
|1.7.08 @ 9:27PM|#
Too bad we never learned about these things in
school.
You mean it wasn't Enlightened, Racially Sensitive North vs. Evil
Racist South?
Mr. X|1.7.08 @ 9:28PM|#
You know, as a response to an attack alleging that Ron Paul is racist, claiming that "The New Republic is owned by Zionists in bed with Fox" is a pretty weak argument.
Rielle Hunter|1.7.08 @ 9:28PM|#
The charge that John Edwards cheated on his dying wife and knocked me up is dirty politics.
|1.7.08 @ 9:30PM|#
1. Giuliani is tied statistically with Paul in NH after getting
his ass handed to him in Iowa and would have to abandon his
'50-State Strategy' if Paul beat him yet again, and could even put
his candidacy in jeopardy.
2. The GOP is failing miserably in matchups vs. Obama and Clinton,
and thus need the votes Paul is pulling to close the gap.
The dumb thing about this is many, many Paul voters are supporting
Paul for the simple reason that he *isn't* like the rest of the GOP
and this giant bump won't materialize in enough numbers for it to
be effective against Obama or possibly even Clinton.
As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Dondero handed the story to
TNR, given his years of close proximity to Paul. Of anyone, I'd
think he to be the likeliest to take anything about Paul and twist
it into a smear just ripe for the NH primary election where Paul
stands to benefit most.
|1.7.08 @ 9:30PM|#
To be honest, joe, I think the newsletter was penned by Gary
North or someone in his circle. It's important to note that Gary
North was a staffer for Ron Paul did work for him during the early
days of Ron Paul's political career.
Gary North is a Christian
Reconstructionist, a member of a movement calling for a
Christian version of sharia to be imposed throughout the
world. he also tends to write apocalyptic articles about coming
societal collapse.
Gary North still is associated in Ron Paul's circle, namely his
writing on economics are routinely published on lewrockwell.com.
Lew Rockwell, of course, was another Ron Paul staffer, and is still
close to him. The Mises Institute publishes Ron Paul's books, and
Ron Paul is a regular commenter on lewrockwell.com
|1.7.08 @ 9:32PM|#
Romney says Chineese are stupid gooks.
Huckabee's computer littered with child pornography.
McCain say more glass needed and only way to get it is put a nuke
in middle eastern sands.
Thompson admits to having downs syndrome.
Guiliani is revealed as closet homosexual.
Paul reveals his attempt to reinstate constitutional powers and
restore PERSONAL RIGHTS and FREEDOMS.
|1.7.08 @ 9:33PM|#
> Mr. X | January 7, 2008, 9:28pm | #
>
> You know, as a response to an attack alleging
> that Ron Paul is racist, claiming that "The New
> Republic is owned by Zionists in bed with Fox"
> is a pretty weak argument.
First, what makes you think there aren't a bunch of shills writing
to this as we speak?
Second, I think this is a pretty obvious smear job. Why were the
letters found 1 day before the NH primary?
Why aren't the letters available now? If they have them, why can't
we see them, now?
Why did it take 20 years to find these? I mean, all the people that
lost to Paul when he ran for congress and won would have loved
these.
It seems a bit unlikely to say the least. Sad that our nation has
been reduced to outright dishonesty. We have a pathetic group of
people in power.
Jerry|1.7.08 @ 9:34PM|#
tarran, even North is far removed from other Reconstructionists. I do think North is idiosyncratic, but he couldn't hurt a fly in a million years.
|1.7.08 @ 9:35PM|#
"Get back to us when you're doing this as Congressman. Many
things are delegated to staff under the assumption that they won't
act a fool. Printing a newsletter is one of those
things."
Some mistakes 'll get you fired if you're workin' for me. ...first
time! Take racist invective using my name, for instance...
|1.7.08 @ 9:36PM|#
A lousy run of luck, in which he hired a guy who wrote racist
stuff under his name in the 70s, and then another guy who wrote
racist stuff under his name in the 80s, and then another guy who
wrote racist stuff under his name in the 90s?
I suppose it's possible. But only because I want to be polite.
|1.7.08 @ 9:36PM|#
If this pans out. I will be very upset. Not only will I regret
the time and money I've given to the campaign. This will undo all
the progress the Paul campaign has made for libertarian
politics.
The timing is very suspect. If this is an elaborate ruse, and TNR
is making a mountain out of a mole hill, well all I can say is that
sort of scummy yellow journalism deserves repercussions.
|1.7.08 @ 9:36PM|#
OK... am I the only one unnerved by James Kirchick's simian appearance? As for the current flap, first, publishing a newsletter is not the same as writing it. How much of this stuff is Ron Paul and how much is just a bunch of idiots publishing crap under Ron Paul's name? Hell, I don't know. I do agree that giving libertarian's a newsletter with yoru name on it is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenaged boys (apologies to O'Rourke). On a positive note, when Kirchick started with the "talking in code" crap, I began thinking that libertarians have not cornered the crazy market.
Mike Huckabee|1.7.08 @ 9:37PM|#
I did not, have gastric bypass surgery, with that woman, Monica Lewinsky.
|1.7.08 @ 9:38PM|#
Why did it take 20 years to find these? I mean, all the
people that lost to Paul when he ran for congress and won would
have loved these.
Where's Paul's district? Cambridge, Massachusetts? San Francisco?
Some college town in a midwestern state?
|1.7.08 @ 9:40PM|#
all I can say is that sort of scummy yellow journalism
deserves repercussions.
If I had a subscription, I would cancel it, by golly.
|1.7.08 @ 9:40PM|#
This is so absurd. Look at someone's values, and then decide
whether a story has merit. Frankly, after spending so much time
with Ron Paul, Tucker should have had more skepticism.
Ron Paul doesn't want to force people to do things.
That's a core value of his.
He applies it so thoroughly, that if someone says something racist,
it doesn't matter whether the person donated money to him, or
whether the person wrote some articles in a publication that he is
associated with. He believes in free speech, FAR MORE than the
Republican demagogues.
Tactically speaking, I thought his answer about the racist donating
$500 to his campaign was perfect. He said that's $500 less that
racist doesn't have to spend on something useful, because Paul said
he has no intention on spreading a racist message (just go look at
his home page, racism is one of menu items on his main menu of
issues).
As for apologizing, yes I'm sure Paul doesn't like some of the
stuff other people wrote in that publication he put his name to. He
also has no desire to ever gamble or go see a prostitute, but he
isn't going to turn gamblers or Nevada brothels away from
supporting his campaign.
He's a libertarian. Let people do what they want as long as they
don't interfere with other people doing what they want.
As Paul continues to get more donations, and better poll numbers,
expect more outrageous comments to come out in the media. And if
it's like most media, they won't bother to dig in deeply to
understand what it's about.
OTOH, when someone from the media does ask Paul and they have the
patience to listen. Invariably there is a logical explanation to
the controversy.
But you can't have the attention span of a 2 year old if you want
to support Paul.
|1.7.08 @ 9:41PM|#
Jose, you are NOT the only one unnerved by Kirchick's
appearance.
As far as the idea that a politician cannot possibly talk in code
or use dogwhistle politics, do you think the same thing about Pat
Buchanon's description of Capitol Hill as "Zionist Occupied
Territory?" How about the liberal use of "our traditional way of
life" by segregationists in the 50s and 60s? How about the
anti-crime ad against Willie Horton?
|1.7.08 @ 9:41PM|#
joe,
We're not sure whether it dates back to the 70s and early 80s yet.
Kirchick's answers on that topic were contradictory. Again, wait
till we have the full story before you start insinuating.
|1.7.08 @ 9:43PM|#
"You can't see how it would happen because I'm guessing
you've never done anything comparable to being a Congressman. Many
people think that things which they don't understand are easy to
do.
Actually, I'm a self-made guy. Left home at 14, worked my way
through a prep school, workin' on farms, unloading trucks. You name
it. I've started numerous businesses. Now I'm a developer, gettin'
bigger all the time. A lot of the people I used to work for want to
come work for me. ...not a bad measure of success.
...but what's any of that got to do with Ron Paul's apparent lapse
in judgement?
Sam|1.7.08 @ 9:43PM|#
Are you folks ignorant of the true story here? It was the Reverend Ralph Abernathy who made these claims against MLK in the book he published before he died. The media pretty well ignored Abernathy who was MLK's right hand man. I believe the Paul newsletter was simply discussing what MLK's friend, fellow pastor and close associate said of him...that he was incredibly unfaithful to his wife, had numerous afrairs that even included relations with young men. Do a little research and you will find the book.
|1.7.08 @ 9:44PM|#
If you have any doubts about Ron Paul, watch this video Ron appeals to supporters
|1.7.08 @ 9:44PM|#
I thought the person who wrote the racist newsletter was fired right away? Or is this a new racist newsletter? If it is, where can I find it?
Hillary Clinton|1.7.08 @ 9:44PM|#
Vince Foster had it comin'.
Jim McDougal couldn't keep his mouth shut, so we shut it for
him.
CL|1.7.08 @ 9:45PM|#
"You mean it wasn't Enlightened, Racially Sensitive North vs.
Evil Racist South?"
No, it was "Enlightened, Racially Sensistive people would never
consider disunion", "Secession is for evil racists", etc. What I
really meant was that the two documents I linked to were never
mentioned in the public schools I went to even though Wendell
Phillips and the Fugitive Slave Act were covered topics. I seem to
recall, against the ravages of age and heroic efforts on my part to
forget everything I learned in school, that it was a foregone
conclusion that Wendell Phillips was a dangerous radical. No reason
given (that I remember, of course), but I now surmise that it was
his invocation of the "S" word that could have gotten him so
labeled.
CL
|1.7.08 @ 9:45PM|#
When I am President, I, Me, I, ME ME ME, I will blow up the whole world with my new military toys.
Rye-guy|1.7.08 @ 9:45PM|#
Rho's right, Ken, you haven't done anything comparable to being a Congressman. You've actually contributed to American society.
|1.7.08 @ 9:46PM|#
joe,
It's not an impossible thing...but it can't be the first
assumption, without some other evidence to corroborate it. Occam's
Razor and all.
|1.7.08 @ 9:46PM|#
"As an aside, I wouldn't be surprised if Dondero handed the
story to TNR, given his years of close proximity to Paul. Of
anyone, I'd think he to be the likeliest to take anything about
Paul and twist it into a smear just ripe for the NH primary
election where Paul stands to benefit most."
Dondero is suspiciously absent from this thread.
|1.7.08 @ 9:47PM|#
"A lousy run of luck, in which he hired a guy who wrote
racist stuff under his name in the 70s, and then another guy who
wrote racist stuff under his name in the 80s, and then another guy
who wrote racist stuff under his name in the 90s?"
If that's the way it is, then I don't get that either.
...and I'm not sayin' the man's a racist--I seriously doubt he's a
racist. ...but I don't understand making the same mistakes over and
over again.
|1.7.08 @ 9:47PM|#
joe, going back to the 1970s OR from 1988-1996, depending on which one fits the story better. See video.
19th CENTURY LEAFLET|1.7.08 @ 9:48PM|#
"Jefferson is a mean-spirited, low-lived fellow, the son of a half-breed Indian squaw, sired by a Virginia Mulatto father"
Sam|1.7.08 @ 9:48PM|#
Here's the person who really said those things about MLK.
Privacy for the dead? - Ralph Abernathy's autobiography and
revelations about Martin Luther King Jr
National Review, Nov 24, 1989
Privacy for the Dead?
|1.7.08 @ 9:49PM|#
I only pretend to have a clue, and that is when I am most sarcastic in my attacks on others.
|1.7.08 @ 9:50PM|#
"Religion, evolution, sexuality, and race are all outside the scope of Federal business and have no place in political discussion except to divide the people"
|1.7.08 @ 9:51PM|#
Oh, I know. He was writing in code while he was in Congress, and then let things slide when he left. Then, when he went back into Congress, he started writing in code.
|1.7.08 @ 9:53PM|#
Joe and Ken Schultz in agreement with me.... (plunk) Sorry, I was a little disoriented and fell out of my chair.
Kathleen Willey\'s Cat|1.7.08 @ 9:53PM|#
I wish I could have "put some ice on it" and been OK like Juanita Broderick.
|1.7.08 @ 9:54PM|#
crimethink,
Occam's razor, when applied to what appeared in The Ron Paul
Freedom Report, would not seem to steer us towards the conclusion
that Ron Paul was wholly unaware of what appeared therein over the
course of 20 years.
So I re-watched the video. "Most of" the worst stuff appeared "when
he was out of Congress." Once again, I guess we'll see.
|1.7.08 @ 9:55PM|#
Can someone reliable summarize this for us unfortunate ones who are still at work?
|1.7.08 @ 9:55PM|#
The Ron Paul Survival Report was first published in 1985, and
allegations of racism contained in it were used against Dr Paul in
the 1996 election. So, I think it's safe to assume that he didn't
go on publishing racist invective after that time.
So, we have a maximum of 11 years of material here (unless there
were other Ron Paul periodicals before then).
|1.7.08 @ 9:55PM|#
> Mr. X | January 7, 2008, 9:28pm | #
> You know, as a response to an attack alleging > that Ron
Paul is racist, claiming that "The
> New Republic is owned by Zionists in bed with > Fox" is a
pretty weak argument.
If you were directing this towards my comment, one should note I
didn't say that TNR is "owned by Zionists."
However, some people who strongly support Israeli policy vis-a-vis
the Palestinians view anyone who is against foreign aid to Israel
as anti-Semites.
Note that "some people who strongly support Israeli policy
vis-a-vis the Palestinians view anyone who is against foreign aid
to Israel as anti-Semites" is not code for "Jews," rather it means
"some people who strongly support Israeli policy vis-a-vis the
Palestinians view anyone who is against foreign aid to Israel as
anti-Semites."
Also, this is obviously a total hatchet job. Even if the article
and newsletters reveal that Ron Paul is a frothing Nazi, why is it
coming out now? At the beginning of the day of the NH primary? 20
years of analog newsletters seems like a bit much to review such
that the proper time for publishing them would be at
midnight.
My conspiracy theory is: TNR desperately wants to make sure that
someone who supports the war wins the election. This could be HRC
or all the Republicans but Paul. If HRC drops out soon, then Paul's
criticisms of the war, despite the fact that he no chance of
winning, would help to weaken the Republican field in the general
election.
|1.7.08 @ 9:55PM|#
crimethink,
Oh, I know. He was writing in code while he was in Congress,
and then let things slide when he left. Then, when he went back
into Congress, he started writing in code.
Uh, no, the newsletter stopped publication entirely when he went
back to Congress.
Did somebody say something about twisting the facts to fit the
story they wanted?
|1.7.08 @ 9:55PM|#
It would be much easier to evaluate these charges with some evidence. Now we've got to wait until tomorrow, after many people in NH have voted, to see the evidence?
|1.7.08 @ 9:57PM|#
Hey, writing the newsletter does not make someone hurtful.
In fact, if you read the newsletter closely, it isn't making a
racial point so much as a cultural point, and is entirely
consistent with Gary North's other writings. If you ignore the
tone, it sound a lot like what Bill Cosby has been saying
recently.
With that being said, we know Ron Paul is too trusting. I cite as
exhibit A Eric Dondero, who is Ron Paul's Bernie Kerik.
Does this poor judgement disqualify Ron Paul from the presidency? I
honestly think that it does. I have strong reservations about his
judgement, much as I have a soft spot for the guy.
I think that Ron Paul is a moses; he will see the promised land
from afar but will not lead his people into it.
|1.7.08 @ 9:58PM|#
On a more serious note, do libertarians really need any more bad news? Can we find a couple of non-kooks to "stand and deliver"? Paging Thoreau! I can't tell anyone I have libertarian leanings without feeling a little silly. Reading this about Paul, true or not, gives me the inevitable sinking "the other shoe is dropping" sensation.
toddb|1.7.08 @ 9:59PM|#
Politicians suck and Ron Paul is a politician, therefor,
etc...so bad stuff is possible.
That being said, I think I will judge him on his decades of
consistent behavior and public statements (which can actually be
looked up, verified, judged objectively) until more than the
hyperbolic and conveniently timed claims of a partisan opponent
stand against him.
Rye-Guy|1.7.08 @ 10:00PM|#
The only thing holding me back from voting for Paul is naming his kid Rand. Come on, now. That's like an Apple fanboy (the one who's been able to reproduce) naming his kind Jobs.
|1.7.08 @ 10:00PM|#
SWEET BABY JESUS! Are you telling me there's a connection between Ron Paul and terminal nut job Gary North?
|1.7.08 @ 10:00PM|#
I doubt they're worried about Paul winning the primary outright, let alone the nomination. This is probably intended to depress independent turnout for Paul, lowering the total number of votes and thus raising the percentage for another candidate, such as Giuliani.
|1.7.08 @ 10:01PM|#
Fing Fang Foom,
You are completely correct that TNR makes a habit of accusing
people who don't support the Likudnik line of being anti-Semites.
Its owner, Martin Peretz, wrote in a story about the dismissal of
Lawrence Summers as Harvard's president that it was due to
"anti-Jewish animus" among the Harvard faculty. No, really. That
actually happened.
And they are certainly not above doing hatchet jobs on anti-Iraq
War politicians. But these days, they are down on the war,
too.
But so what? So they've got a motive to release these newsletters,
and maybe the timing is suspicious? The newsletters are going to
say what they say. Bad New Republic does not necessary equal Good
Ron Paul.
|1.7.08 @ 10:01PM|#
Does anyone else see how convenient the timing is on this article's release? They will have this plastered all of the television in NH tomorrow...as a tool to alter the vote. Our media is pathetic.
|1.7.08 @ 10:01PM|#
"Does this poor judgement disqualify Ron Paul from the
presidency? I honestly think that it does. I have strong
reservations about his judgement, much as I have a soft spot for
the guy."
I'm afraid you could be right, and I hope you're wrong.
Right now, I can't think of an explanation for this lapse of
judgement that would make it okay with me, but I'm willing to
listen to him explain it and I want to believe.
|1.7.08 @ 10:02PM|#
"Does anyone else see how convenient the timing is on this
article's release?"
No question in my mind that they timed this.
|1.7.08 @ 10:04PM|#
The New Republic is a Democratic magazine, and they turned
against the war a year ago.
They're opposed to everything Rudy Guiliani stands for
domestically, and wrote a hit piece about him last week. They were
among the first to jump on the Bernie Kerik story.
C|1.7.08 @ 10:06PM|#
Where is the proof this is a big story anyway? A few minutes on Tucker fucking Carlson? geez.
|1.7.08 @ 10:06PM|#
A journalist nobody has ever head of, looking to make a name for
himself, could do worse than release a sensational story about a
politician the day before the NH primary.
As could a magazine whose subscription numbers have been following
Tanya Harding's career trajectory.
|1.7.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Oh, now I understand... TNR is the Wicked Witch of the West and
Kirchik is a flying monkey.
I hate those monkeys.
As for Gary North, I haven't heard that name since the Y2K nonsense
in '98 and '99. I ran into some survivalist types on the Internet
who were convinced Y2K was going to be TEOTWAWKI. Gary North was a
big cheerleader for the doomsayers... while making a tidy living
selling them his newsletter. It's a strange world out there.
Sam|1.7.08 @ 10:07PM|#
This stuff appeared in National Review in 1989 when they
reviewed Abernathy's book. This stuff came from Abernathy, not Ron
Paul.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n22_v41/ai_8134905
|1.7.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Matt just changed the original post to say that they're going to
post the newsletter material tomorrow afternoon, not at
midnight!
So, we're just going to have this accusation hanging in the air for
the primary, with no actual data to refute.
|1.7.08 @ 10:07PM|#
Boy, FAUX must be TERRIFIED of Dr. Paul! What drivel. If Ron
Paul is doing so poorly as a Presidential candidate...why is this
NOISE the ONLY thing FAUX airs?
Because Ron Paul's message has the potential to unseat the
corporate machine's that presently RUN this country. Rupert and his
ilk stand to lose MUCH!!!!
Dr. Paul doesn't even have to get elected, for that to
happen!
The story is trash and we all know it....
rho|1.7.08 @ 10:08PM|#
Now I'm a developer, gettin' bigger all the time. A lot of the people I used to work for want to come work for me. ...not a bad measure of success.
I didn't say anything about success or running a business. You're
confirming what I said about how you don't seem to understand what
a Congressman does and therefore think it must be easy to do.
A Congressman has thousands of pesky constituents and needs to work
closely with a bunch of other folks with the same problems. Add to
that that Ron Paul has a solid reputation for getting things done
for his constituents--part of the reason why he keeps getting
re-elected. On top of that he has to run for his job every two
years in a popularity contest--campaigning, fund raising, all kinds
of annoying busywork.
Your point about firing the guy who wrote these things was a good
one. Which, as I recall, Dr. Paul did. So what's your complaint
again?
cicero|1.7.08 @ 10:08PM|#
The timing is definitely suspect. And now TNR is saying they'll release the article tomorrow afternoon. Why? Probably to give Paul less time to respond to it. The Tucker interview and the fact that it's coming out sometime tomorrow is all reporters need to do print stories for tomorrow's papers. In any event, if this blows up in a big way it will be hard for the MLK Day moneybomb to raise money. And that moneybomb will guarantee a whole lot of controversy.
|1.7.08 @ 10:08PM|#
I do care about whether this is true or not
Tomorrow afternoon is slightly less sketchy.
|1.7.08 @ 10:09PM|#
Donna,
Fox News has nothing to do with this. The article is in National
Review, and the TV appearance was on MSNBC.
thoreau|1.7.08 @ 10:10PM|#
I have no idea what to believe right now. I want to look
carefully at what's being claimed.
Sadly, I wouldn't be shocked if some of it is true. Libertarianism
attracts some nuts, Ron Paul himself definitely holds some fringe
positions, so there's no telling who might write what in whose
newsletter.
And, truthfully, it's (sadly) possible that a conservative white
guy of his age who holds some fringe positions might have gone
through a stage where he wasn't entirely hostile to certain
positions, you know what I mean?
Bottom line: I need to learn more before I draw any conclusions. I
suspect some of this will shake out in the next few days.
|1.7.08 @ 10:11PM|#
cicero,
We had a money bomb on Guy Fawkes Day, and that didn't require Dr
Paul to have a high opinion of Guy Fawkes...
|1.7.08 @ 10:12PM|#
Paul on race, circa 2002:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
"Conservatives and libertarians should fight back and challenge the
myth that collectivist liberals care more about racism. Modern
liberalism, however well intentioned, is a byproduct of the same
collectivist thinking that characterizes racism. The continued
insistence on group thinking only inflames racial tensions.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a
limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of
individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means
free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and
competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity."
|1.7.08 @ 10:13PM|#
If the accusations are true, and there are SIGNIFICANT new
revelations here, it's better for Dr Paul to have it come out
later.
If they aren't true, it's better for him to have it come out
earlier, to give time for refutation.
|1.7.08 @ 10:13PM|#
"You're confirming what I said about how you don't seem to
understand what a Congressman does and therefore think it must be
easy to do.
You're confirming that you don't seem to understand that what I do
for a living has nothing to do with Ron Paul's apparent lapse in
judgement.
P.S. I was under the impression that the alleged outrages occurred
while Dr. Paul was out of office.
Condoleeza Rice|1.7.08 @ 10:13PM|#
As could a magazine whose subscription numbers have been
following Tanya Harding's career trajectory.
We're going to have to part ways at this point, joe. I don't see it
that way. Tanya Harding's appearance on Fox Celebrity
Boxing gave her career the shot in the arm it has needed to
coast on its own momentum for years.
|1.7.08 @ 10:13PM|#
Thoreau! My 9:58 p.m. comment invoked you and you have
appeared!
After NH, it will be a nonstory because Paul's candidacy isn't
going anywhere. This is just TNR piling on because the "story" is
going stale quickly.
9/11 TRUTH|1.7.08 @ 10:14PM|#
Boy, FAUX must be TERRIFIED of Dr. Paul!
What is with all the FAUX News and neocon shit when the piece is
being published in a liberal rag?
cicero|1.7.08 @ 10:16PM|#
crimetink, good point but I think this is different. Guy Fawkes isn't a national hero, and most Americans think of a hollywood movie when they see his name not the actual bomber. And Paul wasn't bashing Fawkes and calling him a gay pedophile while his supporters were using his name to try to raise money. I guess the question is does this TNR piece get picked up in real press.
Sho \'nuff It surely does|1.7.08 @ 10:17PM|#
Libertarianism attracts some nutshttp://www.highclearing.com/
Stephen The Goldberger|1.7.08 @ 10:17PM|#
It is true Ron Paul speaks to me in code. He tells me that January 8, 2007 is the day to rise up and begin the neo-confederate agenda of wearing confederate flags, drinking beer, and watching nascar.
|1.7.08 @ 10:17PM|#
And God bless him for that, Kim.
Glancing up the thread here, I don't think many of us consider Ron
Paul a racist for this.
I see people questioning his judgement. Why did he let this happen
more than once? ...if it indeed happened more than once.
|1.7.08 @ 10:19PM|#
Donna,
Tucker Carlson appears on MSNBC.
crimethink,
This article is in (Even) the (Liberal) New Republic.
rho,
No members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation have ever
put out newsletter calling black people animals.
Secretary Rice,
There's something I've always wanted to ask you: what's Lawrence
Eagleburger REALLY like?
Ali|1.7.08 @ 10:22PM|#
Dondero is suspiciously absent from this thread.
I am sure he's watching us all now and laughing. 1, 2, 3... there
we go!
(wouldn't it be awesome if he actually shows up now? Then I'll
regret not wishing $1M instead. Lets see.)
rho|1.7.08 @ 10:24PM|#
You're confirming that you don't seem to understand that what I do for a living has nothing to do with Ron Paul's apparent lapse in judgement.
P.S. I was under the impression that the alleged outrages occurred while Dr. Paul was out of office.
Could be. If it's the 1980-something newsletters that's causing all
the, then yes, he was out of office. And, as has been explained, he
allowed his name to be used in association with a newsletter under
which he did not sufficiently birddog. I suppose that's a lapse in
judgement. Not a particularly horrible one; I imagine we've all
made similar ones in trusting a friend or colleague. Only
difference is that we're not running for President where our lapses
in judgement 20 years ago becomes relevant.
If it came while he was in office, then the pressures of the job
come into play.
I guess my point is that it's really easy for you to chuck potshots
from the sidelines about how You'd Never Do Such A Thing. Which is
almost certainly not true, but until you run for a very public
national office we'll never know.
|1.7.08 @ 10:25PM|#
joe, TNR only looks like it turned against the war. They are
part of a massive conspiracy.
I bet this is what Paul said about MLK:
"Who cares if MLK slept around? I wouldn't care if he were a gay
pedophile; he did more to advance the cause of civil rights and the
antiwar movement than anyone."
|1.7.08 @ 10:25PM|#
Jamie Kirchick thinks he is above reproach because he is Jewish and can simply yell "anti-Semite" at anyone who disagrees with him. That old ad hominem ruse is becoming increasingly less tolerated, even within the community. It is exactly Kirchick's ethnic and religious identification that motivates him, far more than his sexual or political identity. As such, he is very threatened by Paul's suggestion to let Israel stand on its own without U.S. taxpayer subsidy. That is what Kirchick's smear campaign is actually about. Kirchick claims to be a conservative, even a libertarian when it suits him, but his actions regarding Ron Paul demonstrate that his first loyalty is to Israel and not to the Constitution of the United States of America.
rho|1.7.08 @ 10:25PM|#
No members of the Massachusetts Congressional delegation have ever put out newsletter calling black people animals.
As near as I can tell, nobody has done so. If mere
accusations are proof enough for you, then, well... bully for you,
I guess.
|1.7.08 @ 10:26PM|#
Some people I know have told me that in essence, Ron paul simply
lent his name out for the newsletter. Don't know if that's true,
but if so, it would seem to jibe with him basically being overly
trusting: "You want to use my name? That sound terrific!"
I think Ron Paul is simply excited about getting HIS message out
and would talk to *anyone* who would listen. Just look at that
video of him being interviewed in some kid's dorm room as an
example.
|1.7.08 @ 10:26PM|#
I have no doubt that Thomas Jefferson would have favored
allowing states to secede.
Well, yes! Several of the states specifically reserved the right to
secede contingent to ratifying the Constitution. That was
specifically the right the Revolutionary War was fought over - the
right of the States to secede from Britain.
While not exhaustive, here's a column by Walter
Williams outlining the history of that right.
Until the civil war, the right of secession was the ultimate check
on abuses of power by the federal government.
Mad Max|1.7.08 @ 10:26PM|#
Dr. Paul should simply say that he's sorry the ex-editor of his
newsletter published an open letter praising Stalin on the occasion
of his show trials,
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1282/is_n17_v46/ai_15844166
Dr. Paul should also say he's sorry that the ex-editor was such a
lying sleaze that Hayden ("Darth Vader") Christensen played him in
the movie version of the story.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0323944/
Dr. Paul could also express his regret that it took a four-month
"investigation" before a problem was acknowledged, with some of the
investigating being in the impartial hands of the offender's
wife.
http://gawker.com/news/apologies/the-new-republic-grudgingly-retracts-baghdad-diarist-stories-329277.php
Oh, wait, that's the *New Republic.* So why bring up old stuff?
Edward|1.7.08 @ 10:27PM|#
By the way, no one can claim that this is a response to fifth-palce Ron Paul's sudden viability.
SIV|1.7.08 @ 10:27PM|#
joe,
Reading these comments suggests a lot of Paul supporters used to be
or are "your people"
I might have to go back to Fred Thompson
Too Damn many liberals stinkin' up the joint here
|1.7.08 @ 10:28PM|#
cicero,
What are you, kidding me?
Sigh. There was this newsletter, you see, titled "The Ron Paul
Freedom Report..."
SIV|1.7.08 @ 10:30PM|#
By the way, no one can claim that this is a response to
fifth-palce Ron Paul's sudden viability.
You are going to eat your words Edward
No less an authority than Robert Novak predicts Paul will finish
6th !
|1.7.08 @ 10:30PM|#
[Jerry | January 7, 2008, 9:05pm | #
Saying that all Southern secessionists are racist is prejudice as
well. Practice what you preach Mr. James Kirchick.]
Oh please. If you're still fighting that battle over 100 years
later, you have issues you are not discussing. Also, you can't
separate Southern secession from the attempt to preserve slavery -
they were and are intertwined.
The South was not entitled to secede if its primary purpose in so
attempting was to deprive a huge class of people of their liberty.
The Southern secessionists have no place in a morally or
philosophically consistent libertarian movement.
|1.7.08 @ 10:31PM|#
Some people I know have told me that in essence, Ron paul
simply lent his name out for the newsletter. Don't know if that's
true, but if so, it would seem to jibe with him basically being
overly trusting: "You want to use my name? That sound
terrific!"
This strikes me as the best case scenario.
If so: yeah, let's put that guy in charge of the federal
government.
|1.7.08 @ 10:32PM|#
Some people I know have told me that in essence, Ron paul
simply lent his name out for the newsletter. Don't know if that's
true, but if so, it would seem to jibe with him basically being
overly trusting: "You want to use my name? That sound
terrific!"
It's certainly in character - that's what he did with the Ron Paul
Liberty Dollars.
Of course, I'm not really sure that kind of naivety is a quality I
want to see in a president. More than anything else, it's that kind
of unworldliness that disturbs me about him...
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 10:32PM|#
Well, we might also want to judge the quality of Kirchik's
criticism by examining the other part of it - the claim that Paul
is an associate of neoconfederates.
The basis for that claim appears to be that he accepted the
invitation to speak to the Robert Taft club.
Well, Reason editors attended that speech. That would make Reason's
editors "associates" of neoconfederates, too.
And Joe posts at Hit N' Run. That would make Joe an associate of
neoconfederates, transitively via his association with
Reason.
Joe, I'm horrified to learn of your neoconfederate
associations.
|1.7.08 @ 10:34PM|#
rho, cicero,
Did either of you bother to click the link and watch the
video?
Carson, who's been openly pro-Paul for some time, didn't dispute
the contents at all.
rho|1.7.08 @ 10:35PM|#
Oh, wait, is this it?
But the Crips and the Bloods, it turns out, have been "misunderstood," according to Ted Koppel who interviewed two of these animals. After spending several hours with them, he decided he liked them. Unfortunately, they didn't pull him out of his stretch limousine.
Sounds to me like he's calling Crips and Bloods animals. And by
"he", I mean the guy who actually wrote this, who we have heard
explained was not Ron Paul. I guess you could make the case that
Dr. Paul was lying and he actually did write this. Now all you have
to do is explain how "Crips and Bloods" == "all blacks".
|1.7.08 @ 10:35PM|#
Fluffy, would you believe me if I told you I simply lent out my
name to someone who's been posting here for six and half years, and
didn't bother to check what he's been writing?
No. SRSLY. Would you believe that?
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 10:37PM|#
Justin -
That's entirely the wrong way to frame the issue.
According to Kirchik, anyone who thinks states have the right to
secede is a neoconfederate.
Well, I think states have the right to secede. But I also have
stated here on several occasions that I wish John Brown had won at
Harper's Ferry, and that his rebellion had caught every slaveholder
sleeping in their beds.
Certainly the Lincoln-hatred of someone like Rockwell is based on a
straightforward desire to see the US federal government weak and
small, and not a desire to see slavery still practiced.
|1.7.08 @ 10:37PM|#
Wow, that's pretty repulsive, rho.
Unfortunately, the guy whose politics I don't like wasn't beaten
and murdered by gang members.
Is there anything that you wouldn't defend as perfectly harmless if
it appeared above Ron Paul's byline?
cicero|1.7.08 @ 10:37PM|#
joe,
ha ha. I see. Your evidence is what someone on TV says Paul said. I
guess I will have to wait until the article comes out. Hopefully it
is cited.
Mad Max|1.7.08 @ 10:38PM|#
News flash! I have in my hand a list of notorious
anti-semites:
Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Nathan Glazer, Michael
Novak, George Gilder, Irving Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Thomas
Sowell, James Q. Wilson, Charles Krauthammer, Leon Kass, Richard
John Neuhaus, George Weigel, Gertrude Himmelfarb, and William
Kristol.
All of these people allowed their work to be republished in a book
called *The Essential Neoconservative Reader.* As we know,
"neoconservative" is a code word for jewish people, so by
associating themselves with the termm "neoconservative" the above
authors legitimated it, thereby giving aid and comfort to the
anti-semites.
Or maybe these authors were tricked by the editor, Mark Gerson,
into letting their work be included in the book. Maybe Gerson said
it would be called *The Niceness Reader,* or something else
inoffensive. When they saw the dread code word *Neoconservative* on
the cover, they must have winced!
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|1.7.08 @ 10:38PM|#
joe:
Fluffy, would you believe me if I told you I simply lent out my name to someone who's been posting here for six and half years, and didn't bother to check what he's been writing?
No. SRSLY. Would you believe that?
Well, joe, in all honesty, I think someone could just take "joe"
without asking.
Now Taktix, on the other hand, he has his name trademarked.
Mad Max|1.7.08 @ 10:38PM|#
See book review at
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0377/is_n126/ai_19101771
|1.7.08 @ 10:39PM|#
I think back to all the times I've been called a partisan, and
I'm about to pee my pants laughing.
Give it up, fellas. We're in "that episode with that other man in
the rest room was all a big misunderstanding" territory here.
|1.7.08 @ 10:40PM|#
Fluffy, would you believe me if I told you I simply lent out
my name to someone who's been posting here for six and half years,
and didn't bother to check what he's been writing?
Maybe I wouldn't believe of you, but I'd certainly believe it of
some people. As I pointed out, there are other examples of Paul
doing similar things, so it's not exactly without precedent.
Of course, there's obviously an argument as to whether that's a
quality you want to see in a president.
Someone Who Doesn\'t Want to L|1.7.08 @ 10:40PM|#
and by someone I don't mean me; my name cannot be
abbreviated!
(thus the lack of response)
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 10:40PM|#
Joe -
If you were in my 50's and didn't think you were going to run for
Congress again, you might not give a shit. Particularly if you had
been paid for the use of your name.
|1.7.08 @ 10:40PM|#
This could all be resolved if Dr. Paul would just reveal the truth that he is actually Sammy Davis,Jr. in disguise.
Ali|1.7.08 @ 10:41PM|#
PROVE IT! Until then, I believe nothing because people HAVE
to make stuff up just to make him look bad. Wah, ok, wah, go cry
about it, then show me some proof!
And the funny thing is that this TNR person makes only
claims now with "proof" to be published tomorrow?
After the NH elections? NH voters won't go with that.
|1.7.08 @ 10:42PM|#
ha ha. I see. Your evidence is what someone on TV says Paul
said.
Um, no, my evidence is what the guy on TV defending Ron Paul, who
had apparently seen the newsletters, acknowledged.
booyachubby|1.7.08 @ 10:43PM|#
It is a demonstrable fact that blacks have a greater propensity for violent and anti-social behavior. This is a result of the coddling welfare state, not some genetic curse. Pat Moynihan pointed this out years ago, but we as a society have done nothing to address this fact. Even if Paul had made some of those comments ... I dont have a problem with it. Now, can it sink his chances at attaining high political office? Yes, of course. Everyone knows you can't get the presidency by telling the truth that hurts.
|1.7.08 @ 10:43PM|#
I'm sure there will be a perfectly logical explanation for all of this, and I'm sure a number of people will find it all beyond question.
|1.7.08 @ 10:47PM|#
I think he said some of it was weird. The stuff he noted we
already knew about.
I do think this questions his judgment.
Note, I don't actually support Paul (too many issues where I
disagree with him), but this seems like BS.
cicero|1.7.08 @ 10:47PM|#
Joe,
There's a big difference between something appearing under
someone's byline and something appearing in a newsletter named
after him. In any event, calling gang members animals is hardly
anything to get worked up about. And it's certainly far, far
different than saying blacks are animals. I've heard more hatred
come out of John Edwards' mouth. Why is it bad to attack gang
membres but ok to attack rich people? I think that's the point of
the newsletter article actually. Political correctness run
amuck.
|1.7.08 @ 10:47PM|#
Yeah, I hate to agree with Joe twice in one thread, but all of the attacks on Joe for partisanship ring a little hollow when some the posters here would defend Ron Paul even if he were convicted of killing Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman. C'mon, guys. I can sympathize with some of Paul's positions on issues, but he's a kook. If there were an Ortega y Gasset newsletter, I'd triple proof every page.
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 10:49PM|#
Joe -
I guess tomorrow we'll see exactly what Kirchik thinks he's
got.
From the interview, it sounds like Kirchik himself asserts that the
majority of what he's talking about is "code". If that "code" turns
out to be "property rights", or "Tenth Amendment", or "states'
rights", then Kirchik can go fuck himself.
|1.7.08 @ 10:50PM|#
Carson, who's been openly pro-Paul for some time, didn't
dispute the contents at all.
Come on, joe. How is he supposed to dispute the contents of
something he hasn't seen? Kirchick says Dr Paul said this and that
in some of his newsletters...how is Carlson going to dispute this
without access to the newsletters themselves, or at least some type
of specificity?
It would be like if I said, "oh yeah, joe called George Bush a
closet Nazi in some Hit & Run thread at some time in the past
seven years, and I'll post the link tomorrow sometime." How is you
or anyone else expected to refute this?
rho|1.7.08 @ 10:51PM|#
Is there anything that you wouldn't defend as perfectly harmless if it appeared above Ron Paul's byline?
Not sure what you're getting at here. I'm taking Dr. Paul's
explanation that he's allowed things to be published under his name
at face value. It tracks with his public record regarding race, and
the passages I've read do not track with his writing style.
If TNR can convincingly show that Dr. Paul has made many such
offensive statements, and that he actually did write them or
directly authorized them, then no, I will not defend him. It would
have to be pretty convincing, and not based around what Tucker
Carlson says on TV.
BTW, what I quoted came from one of those newsletters that many
people agree that it isn't Dr. Paul's writing style.
|1.7.08 @ 10:52PM|#
If there were an Ortega y Gasset newsletter, I'd triple
proof every page.
I agree, and if Paul failed to do that, it seriously calls his
judgment into question. I don't think the jury is in yet on exactly
what occurred here, and until I've seen the evidence I'm not
prepared to take a side on the matter either way. Best to keep an
open mind until all the facts have come to light....
Ali|1.7.08 @ 10:53PM|#
For some reason LRC is not putting anything on its blog. Are they scrambling re how to respond?
|1.7.08 @ 10:54PM|#
How many more times will this issue claim to be the smoking
gun?
This issue was discussed in the early part of Ron's run.
I have followed Ron Paul for years I have never heard him say one
negative thing about other races.
Ron also obtains a very high percentage of the black vote more so
then most other GOP members.
I have also seen many "L", "R" and "D" who are black who provide
great articles of high praise for Ron's run.
Consider the source the New Republic are pro-war, pro bush.
A few weeks ago they stated that Paul released a internet Bot which
turned out to be false..
They then claimed a few weeks ago that Ron supported members of the
clan when it appears to me and others that the guy just took a
photo short of Paul.
Besides how many times do we have to read the FBI uses groups like
the KKK and others to co-opt an issue?
As for me and my home I will vote for Ron Paul. A man who respects
all races.
rho|1.7.08 @ 10:57PM|#
If there were an Ortega y Gasset newsletter, I'd triple proof every page.
As I said to Ken Shultz, that's pretty easy to say.
Didn't Ron Paul go back to his medical practice when he was out of
Congress?
TNR has been rocked with various hideously embarrassing scandals
recently. They of all people should know that goofy things happen
in an organization, and that doesn't necessarily mean the whole
thing is rotten from top to bottom.
|1.7.08 @ 10:57PM|#
Fluffy,
The "code" reference appeared to be limited to the neo-confederate
stuff.
crimethink,
The spot left me with the impression that Carson had the
newsletters, or at least quotes of the relevant sections, in front
of him.
And did you read the column tarran linked to? I'm perfectly
comfortable using the term "racist" for that crap.
What about you, rho, did you read that? It most certainly does NOT
track with the statements Paul has made in public about race.
I'm taking Dr. Paul's explanation that he's allowed things to
be published under his name at face value. I think it's
mindbogging naive for you to think that, and don't believe for a
nanosecond that you would extend that rather extraordinary benefit
of the doubt to a politician you didn't support.
Condoleeza Rice|1.7.08 @ 10:58PM|#
Secretary Rice,
There's something I've always wanted to ask you: what's Lawrence
Eagleburger REALLY like?
I don't need to say much more than the following phrase: Mister
Eight Inches.
Mad Max|1.7.08 @ 10:59PM|#
JOyG,
Ron Paul *could* have killed Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman.
Remember, the real killers have never been found!
Someone who gets elected and re-elected to Congress by defying the
political power strucure pretty much has to be something of a
weirdo. It's Darwinian selection.
The people who get elected to Congress as supporters of the
establishment are weird enough - exhibitionist, grandiose
glad-handlers. And that's if you go along with the establishment.
To have the stubborness to swim against the current and still get
sent back to Congress requires a personality somewhat different
from the normal. You have to be *really* self-confident, which
usually translates to eccentric. Otherwise you wonder what the heck
you're doing, and retreat, embarrassed, from the public eye.
The deal-breaker for me would be if Dr. Paul suddenly did something
beyond the normal range of craziness, like changing his skin color
(to blue) or getting attacked by a giant rabbit, or spending Easter
being serviced by an intern, or claiming that the Constitution
gives him monarchical powers.
|1.7.08 @ 10:59PM|#
Pig Mannix,
Ron Paul said back in 2001 that he let someone else publish the Ron
Paul Survival Report without checking it. That part is already
known (if we are to believe Dr Paul).
The question, I guess, is whether there are other instances of
racist writings, at other times, that were published under his name
or by him.
NP|1.7.08 @ 11:01PM|#
Let me bring some rationality into this "debate." All of you, hold your tongue (or hands) until the Jamie Kirchick item appears tomorrow and then judge for yourselves. We'll see if this is indeed a more serious charge than the previous newsletter incident.
|1.7.08 @ 11:02PM|#
or spending Easter being serviced by an intern
but any other time of year is OK, right?
Rye-Guy|1.7.08 @ 11:03PM|#
"If there were an Ortega y Gasset newsletter, I'd triple proof
every page."
I'd totally call it the Ortega y Gasset Gazette.
Ortega y Gasset Quarter-ly Gazette even better
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 11:05PM|#
I think it's mindbogging naive for you to think that, and
don't believe for a nanosecond that you would extend that rather
extraordinary benefit of the doubt to a politician you didn't
support.
It depends.
A major national Democrat or Republican? Probably not.
A Green officeholder, OTOH? I probably would. Even though I hate
Greens.
I just know enough about the way minor party / fringe politics
works to know that everybody involved, at every level of sanity,
wants to plaster the officeholder's name on every piece of crap
they put out.
I can absolutely see, for example, a situation where Nader's name
might turn up as "on the board of" or "an advisor to" some
environmental group that did something stupid or published
something stupid.
rho|1.7.08 @ 11:06PM|#
I think it's mindbogging naive for you to think that, and don't believe for a nanosecond that you would extend that rather extraordinary benefit of the doubt to a politician you didn't support.
I haven't in the past, no. I'm trying to be better about such
things. For example, I don't think Barack Obama is a secret Muslim,
and I don't believe Hillary Rodham Clinton drinks human
blood.
(I do still think Edwards is a scum-sucking snake-belly lawyer, but
I'm praying hard about that. Maybe Jesus will fix me.)
What about you, rho, did you read that? It most certainly does NOT track with the statements Paul has made in public about race.
joe, I quoted from it. No, it does not track with his
public comments on race; neither does it track with his writing
style. Many people agree that it didn't sound at all like Paul
wrote it.
Now, either Paul is a secret racist, along with being a
crypto-Nazi, or somebody other than Paul wrote something for the
Ron Paul Newsletter that's being attributed to him. I'm giving Paul
the benefit of the doubt, and you're eager to torpedo him. Without
much evidence, IMO.
|1.7.08 @ 11:08PM|#
The question, I guess, is whether there are other instances
of racist writings, at other times, that were published under his
name or by him.
Well, I don't think any have come to light, and now that I've
watched the video, it seems to me that Kircheck hedged quite a bit.
He didn't come off as exactly trustworthy himself.
I suppose we'll see what he's got tomorrow. Until then, I don't see
much of a point in forming a conclusion.
|1.7.08 @ 11:17PM|#
Strange that all this talk about racism is being directed at Dr.
Paul, the ONLY candidate that true honesty and integrity.
Yet nobody ever seems to mention that Barack Obama belongs to a
Blacks Only church. http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
|1.7.08 @ 11:26PM|#
Thin the herd. Anyone who chooses to believe Ron Paul is a
racist, isn't welcome in this r3volution. This is a revolution of
the minds. Just sit back, take a soma, and play some Wii. You don't
want to waste your time questioning reality. It might hurt.
Ron Paul '08
Jerry|1.7.08 @ 11:27PM|#
Justin Sobodash, I'm not even American, so the point about personal issues is mute. I think that advocating secessionism is just consequential libertarianism.
Klintron|1.7.08 @ 11:28PM|#
To all those who keep asking why this is considered a new story:
Since 1996 Ron Paul has refused to release his newsletters to the
public, so all we've had is a few cherry picked comments to draw
our conclusions from. (source:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.html)
Dondero blames Lew Rockwell for the newsletters:
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html
As for his blame shifting, here's what Cynthia McKinny said after
her campaign was accused of antisemitism:
"The people who made those remarks were not associated with my
campaign in any formal way, and I want to make clear from this hour
that any informal ties between me and my campaign and anyone
holding or espousing such views are cut and renounced. The fact
that the remarks occurred after some verbal and other provocation
initiated either by members of the press or so-called security
people attached to members of the press is no excuse for the
content of the remarks themselves.
Denunciations of entire religious or racial groups, statements
ascribing this or that behavior or motivation to "the white man" or
"the Jew" have never been part of my lexicon, my public or even my
private dialogue. Anyone who makes blanket denunciations of Jews or
"the Jew" is certainly not a supporter of mine, not a staff member,
not a consultant to, nor is welcome to be a volunteer in my
campaign. Such people are in fact not living in the real
world."
Has Paul issued such a strongly worded statement? In 1996 he
suggested that the reason white supremacists liked him was because
he supported individual liberty (see Austin Chronicle article
above). That's not a good way to distance yourself from them.
highnumber|1.7.08 @ 11:31PM|#
Consider the source the New Republic are pro-war, pro
bush.
Is it the poor syntax/grammar, or am I thinking of a different
The New Republic?
|1.7.08 @ 11:38PM|#
Odd that the New Republic is so desperate to go after and attempt to discredit Paul. Sounds like a gross distortion or an engineered rumor to try to quell any further support for Paul. Paul supporters are primarily well educated geeks, yet Fox, media corporations and his rival candidates are trying to paint a different picture. This man has served 10 terms in congress!Why are they so afraid of what he has to say?
Edward|1.7.08 @ 11:39PM|#
This is interesting:
http://www.sadlyno.com/archives/7833.html
Ron Paul's support among racists comes from outright white
supremacists. I have seen this personally. Go to any gun show in
your area if you doubt me. In rural Arkansas, one shouldn't be too
hard to find. That's where I've seen the support for Ron Paul
blossom (I belong to an anarchist organization that tables these
events, among others). And in this case, since I read back issues
of the Ron Paul Freedom Report in the Spencer collection at KU (the
nation's largest collection of both far-right and far-left
pamphlets and periodicals), I know full well that this white
supremacist support is based on the man himself and what he deeply
believes.
Ali|1.7.08 @ 11:42PM|#
Has anyone noticed the spike in donations that started at
6pm?
http://paulcash.slact.net/
phdoom|1.7.08 @ 11:45PM|#
Ron Paul is no racist. That is absurd. I could go on a website
and call anyone i wanted a racist. I hope people wouldnt blindly
follow.
Ron Paul is no Racist, and does more for personal liberties(isnt
that what mlk was all about) than anyone in our time.
Dont be a fool and listen to this type of dirty rumors.
www.ronpaul2008.com
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 11:46PM|#
So this person's evidence that Paul is a white supremacist comes
from the fact that his supporters attend gun shows - that the
commenter also attends themselves!
And his writings are in the Spencer collection at KU - no doubt
just like the writings of anarchists, like the commenter!
|1.7.08 @ 11:46PM|#
This thread just needs ASCII goatse and it will be
complete
Don't tempt me. I have no shame.
Edward|1.7.08 @ 11:47PM|#
phdoom
Shouldn't we read the newsleters first and then decide whether he's
a racist?
|1.7.08 @ 11:49PM|#
Please, the people aren't buying it anymore. It's pathetic
actually. Look, this game has been tried already and they lost
which caused some retractions in MSM articles. Bring all the
allegations out and let everyone see your real colors. After this
one they will turn from yellow to black and blue.
Peace
Vote Ron Paul
Edward|1.7.08 @ 11:49PM|#
fluffy,
No, he bases his opinion on having read back issues of the Ron Paul
Freedom Newletter, which are housed at the Spencer Collection at
KU. Can't you fucking read?
Fluffy|1.7.08 @ 11:50PM|#
Edward -
Why can't I just read the Libertarian Party of America's 1988
platform and decide if he's a racist?
|1.7.08 @ 11:54PM|#
Wow,
Hey Edward, thanks for the link; it was one of the most
hysterically funny things I read in a long time. There was enough
straw being burned there to feed a pretty big sized herd of cattle
through a Minnesota winter.
|1.7.08 @ 11:54PM|#
If Paul was racist he wouldn't even be trying to bring our
troops home from Iraq, you know, lower income people, their lives
not being as valuable as the Politicians kids..... of
course.......
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiFsxp5qOpM
Edward|1.7.08 @ 11:54PM|#
C'mon Fluffy, if racist stuff appeared in the Ron Paul Freedom Newsletter repeatedly over a long period of time, it counts as strong evidence that he's a racist. But we have to read the stuff ourselves before we draw such a conclusion, right? I'll read the excerpts tomorrow. How about you?
Bernd|1.7.08 @ 11:56PM|#
Uh, all this hubbub aside, did anybody but me read the linked HD Thoreau article? And marvel at how many names that man took, and how many asses he kicked? My "Bob", that was some good writing...
Brandybuck|1.7.08 @ 11:56PM|#
If there were an Ortega y Gasset newsletter, I'd triple proof every page.
Yes, I'm sure you would. But what if, just what if, one day you got
sloppy? Would that prove that you're a vile despicable racist? Of
course not! Ron Paul is NOT a racist, he's just a lousy newsletter
editor. Sheesh.
|1.7.08 @ 11:58PM|#
"I'm taking Dr. Paul's explanation that he's allowed things
to be published under his name at face value."
I think it's mindbogging naive for you to think that, and don't
believe for a nanosecond that you would extend that rather
extraordinary benefit of the doubt to a politician you didn't
support.
joe,
Mitt Romney just caught some flack about not knowing what was in
his leaflets or something. I don't have the particulars because I
figured it's no big deal -- as a CEO type, it would be perfectly in
character for him to delegate such a task. Anyway, there's an
example where you might have to suspend disbelief for 2
nanoseconds.
Fluffy|1.8.08 @ 12:06AM|#
Fine, Edward.
We'll read the newsletters.
But I'm telling you right now: I will completely reject as evidence
anything Kirchik offers that's "in code". I will also completely
reject out of hand any speaking engagements Paul accepted as
evidence of anything. I will also reject any daisy chains of
personal associations.
But we'll read the newsletters and see what we've got.
By the way, your "witness" who has "read the Ron Paul Freedom
Report" also in that same post accuses white anti-war liberals of
being default white supremacists, and says that anti-war activists
who aren't also anti-capitalist are also white supremacists. He
then goes on to say that all Republican party candidates for any
office and most Democrat party candidates are also white
supremacists. That's what the world looks like when you are an
anarchist douchebag, Edward.
By the way, looking back over that thread I also feel the need to
specify that any evidence linking Paul to "militia" groups or
"antigovernment extremist" groups will also be rejected out of hand
by me as evidence that Paul is a white supremacist. There's a nice
little dance going on in that comment thread equating these groups
as essentially identical, and no adequate basis is offered for such
an equation. Personally I think the experience of the Bush years
shows that [at least some of] the militia guys were right all
along.
|1.8.08 @ 12:09AM|#
Bring all the allegations out and let everyone see your real
colors.
One problem here - they're bringing out these allegations the day
before the New Hampshire primary, which is crucial to Paul's
campaign. By the time he gets the opportunity to respond, the
primary will have come and gone.
Does anyone else find the timing of this suspicious?
A local paper pulled the same stunt on my old man when he was
running for a local office. Of course, they retracted what they'd
printed - after the election.
Edward|1.8.08 @ 12:15AM|#
Right, Fluffy, we'll wait for the excerpts from the actual newsletters. I'm not rushing to judgement.
|1.8.08 @ 12:15AM|#
As Dr. Paul has a very long record of truth and the New Republic does not and Dr. Paul speaks up for us and the New Republic does not, and this is an an old story I would Have to take Dr. Pauls word on it and disbelieve the New Republic. Shame on you New Republic.
|1.8.08 @ 12:20AM|#
So, what's wrong with attending secessionist rallies? Does anyone in this country know anything at all about our history?
|1.8.08 @ 12:21AM|#
I went to school with "Jug Ears" Jamie. He was an annoying paranoid zionist asshole bootlicker. I can tell some very disturbing stories about his uncomfortably bizarre antics when drinking. Some things never change…except he may not be drinking.
thoreau|1.8.08 @ 12:28AM|#
I've watched the video.
To be honest, I find it confusing. It may well be that Ron Paul was
basically an absentee landlord on this newsletter. However, it's
curious that he never got even a whiff of it in all that
time.
Here's my best guess (and yes, it could be totally wrong): Ron Paul
does not have any personal animosity against black people as a
general group. However, his views on issues such as welfare and
anti-discrimination laws probably make him ill-disposed towards a
certain subset of black Americans. If one is sufficiently
ill-disposed towards a subset of a group, and if one is also
influenced to some extent by various stereotypes, it becomes easy
to keep certain company and tell oneself "Oh, he's not talking
about all of them, just, you know, the ones who do [insert
whatever here]."
This doesn't constitute holding a malicious view of an entire
group, but it is nonetheless unacceptable.
That's my best guess of what's going on here. I find it hard to
believe that Ron Paul is personally so bigoted. Not because of
partisan sympathy, but because he doesn't seem like a sufficiently
masterful politician and actor to keep any of his personal
convictions so tightly under wraps on the campaign trail.
None of this should be construed as a defense of anything.
|1.8.08 @ 12:36AM|#
CanWest is owned by the Asper family. I'm sure they wouldn't be happy with Ron Paul's plan to end support for Israel. In fact, they don't allow critical comment of Israel of any short on their Canadian publications, and have a policy to dismiss any of their editors or writers that do. And no folks, I'm not making this stuff up, its their actual policy.
|1.8.08 @ 12:37AM|#
If these accusations are true, why hasn't Dondero made more political hay out of them? Here we have a guy who, the last time I checked (?), was vying for Ron Paul's congressional seat and attempting to discredit him at every turn, on every ridiculous blog and website he publishes. Wouldn't Dondero, a man intimately familiar with the *real* character and philosophy of Paul, be have been going to TOWN with allegations like these from DAY ONE of losing his job?
|1.8.08 @ 12:39AM|#
The claim that Lew Rockwell or an associate of his may have been
the real writer of some or all of these comments strikes me as
possible, since a Rockwell associate (unfortunately unnamed by my
source) has accused King of homosexuality and pedophilia on at
least once other occasion:
"'King bedded other men's wives, other wives' men, underaged girls,
and young boys,' raged a columnist in the newsletter Rockwell ran
before he started his website. '[M]y guess is that even holes in
the ground had to watch out.'"
That quotation is taken from a justly infamous article
(http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={47BA180E-2C05-4AF1-8396-50E0F709F3FE}),
but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy. (I believe it was also
quoted in Frum's earlier book Dead Right.)
paulie|1.8.08 @ 12:41AM|#
Since The Dondero is being discussed here.
I did not make this site, although Eric thinks I did.
http://ericdondero.com
More information
on my blog
MLK\'s lube|1.8.08 @ 12:41AM|#
Hm, if that's the case then this story won't have much legs,
because the reporting might have to touch directly on the MLK
question, which the MSM will want to avoid.
Are you folks ignorant of the true story here? It was the
Reverend Ralph Abernathy who made these claims against MLK in the
book he published before he died. The media pretty well ignored
Abernathy who was MLK's right hand man. I believe the Paul
newsletter was simply discussing what MLK's friend, fellow pastor
and close associate said of him...that he was incredibly unfaithful
to his wife, had numerous afrairs that even included relations with
young men. Do a little research and you will find the
book.
|1.8.08 @ 12:41AM|#
Here is a better link for that article.
http://www.nationalreview.com/frum/frum031903.asp
|1.8.08 @ 12:49AM|#
I went to yale with jamie kirchick as well--seems like there are lots of us here--and I too can voch for what a whackjob the boy is. He always claimed to be libertarian, or conservative when it suited him--always the sensationalist, he revelled in being the "gay Republican"--but not a debate would go by when he wasn't accusing somebody or another of being an anti-Semite or racist or homophobe. HUGE neocon.
|1.8.08 @ 12:56AM|#
but not a debate would go by when he wasn't accusing
somebody or another of being an anti-Semite or racist or homophobe.
HUGE neocon.
You must be new here - he'd fit in fine on Hit & Run!
|1.8.08 @ 12:57AM|#
"but I have no reason to doubt its accuracy."
I meant that I have no reason to doubt that it was really written
by a Rockwell associate, not that the content is true. I know King
was a womanizer, but this is the only time I have heard him accused
of same-sex, let alone pedophilic, sexual activity.
Grand Chalupa|1.8.08 @ 1:19AM|#
I don't know about gay pedophile, but as others have pointed out
its been documented that MLK was a prositute beater, plagiarizer
and Marxist.
http://vdare.com/misc/mlk_day04.htm
The myth continues due to our modern secular religion that says
stamping out racism takes priority over the US constitution,
private property rights, freedom of association and historical and
biological facts.
vincent gigante|1.8.08 @ 1:19AM|#
Considering Paul's "heroes" are mises and rothbard, both jews
and he named his son after ayn rand..
He also mentioned Walter Williams as possible VP and has a 30 year
record where no one has ever heard him say anything remotely racist
I find these claims ridiculous, and they keep on getting
recycled... and have been refuted
Also Paul has been a constant critic of the war on drugs calling it
a racist policy...
|1.8.08 @ 1:27AM|#
The difficulty is that Paul always notes that he rarely actually writes the material attributed to him. He has ghost writers who do it in his name -- evidence of that is seen when he can't answer specifics about the very things he allegeldy wrote. In the newsletter case the material was penned by Lew Rockwell who does hang out with racists, bigots and anti-semites and who is lovey-dovey with the League of the South and types like that. Rockwell brought that agenda into the libertarian movement. Now Paul still is responsible for letting his name be put on such material. You may remember Rockwell was infamous for his published piece praising the police for the Rodney King beating and lamenting the day when cops didn't beat more suspects in the paddy wagon before they went to trial. He thought that was a good thing. Poor Mises, what sins are commited in your name.
|1.8.08 @ 1:29AM|#
> I don't know about gay pedophile, but as others have
> pointed out its been documented that MLK was a
> prositute beater, plagiarizer and Marxist.
>
> http://vdare.com/misc/mlk_day04.htm
Well, in defense of King, although he may have had serious faults,
he also had serious accomplishments. We're all flawed and we all
have nobility, but some people can still be very flawed and still
have incredible greatness.
|1.8.08 @ 1:39AM|#
Its all allegations, gossip and rumor mongering until I actually see the documents in question.
|1.8.08 @ 1:40AM|#
James Kirchick is a Giuliani supporter (Giuliani did lose to
Paul in Iowa and might just finish behind Paul again in NH) and
belongs to the Yale Friends of Israel Group. I am not anti-Semitic
nor anti-Israel (I'm actually an observant Jew, want the U.S. to
stop funding and arming all foreign nations including Israel and
her "enemies", and wish peace for all individuals in that region)
and I've noticed that most attacks on Ron Paul come from the same
group. This is a group that stands to lose billions of dollars in
aid if President Paul becomes president and his ideas are enacted.
As an avowed "Friend of Israel," Kirchick is extremely threatened
by Paul's non-interventionist foreign policy. The following is what
Oliver Stiffins who went to Yale with Kirchick had to say about
Kirchick's character:
"He was an annoying paranoid zionist asshole bootlicker. I can tell
some very disturbing stories about his uncomfortably bizarre antics
when drinking. Some things never change…except he may not be
drinking."
I have a friend(we're both administrators of a Gays & Lesbians
for Ron Paul Facebook group) who personally knows Kirchick and says
he is a lying schmuck.
|1.8.08 @ 1:42AM|#
Why is everyone in such a tizzy? You act like people actually watch the Tucker Carlson show...
|1.8.08 @ 1:43AM|#
Things aren't always what they seem.
Jamie Kirchich is a Rudy Giuliani supporter, who is quite possibly
just a little pissed off that Ron Paul beat Giuliani in Iowa, and
is doing badly in the primary elections and that Giuliani's
campaign is in the toilet at the moment.
I find this very odd because Rudy Giuliani's campaign official just
made statements about how ALL Muslims are bad and should be chased
back into their caves. That is what I call an ethnocentric
hate-filled statement.
I do know that Ron Paul is not a warmonger and the Giuliani is very
preemptive war. He basically wants to exterminate the entire Middle
East. This seems to be a despiration ploy by the MSM to discredit
Ron Paul out of fear of Paul doing well in New Hampshire, and Rudy
getting left behind in the dust.
Neal|1.8.08 @ 1:44AM|#
Of course I care if Ron Paul is a racist.
Like many others, I've spent the last year supporting this
campaign, putting in many hours locally and nationally offering
free professional services which amount to far more than the
dollars I can legally donate, and I've done that as well. If I saw
proof that Ron Paul himself made racist statements and I did not
hear a satisfactory explanation directly from him, my support would
end.
Having said that, and given the amount of research I've done on
him, the legislation he's written, the hundreds of speeches, press
releases, articles, video clips, blogs, etc., etc... that proof
would have to be solid. I mean rock solid.
Given the sources that are out there, the motivations they have for
ending his candidacy, and the fact that if they had something solid
this campaign would have ended long ago, I won't hold my breath.
Instead, I will continue harder than ever to fight.
|1.8.08 @ 2:00AM|#
"You may remember Rockwell was infamous for his published piece
praising the police for the Rodney King beating and lamenting the
day when cops didn't beat more suspects in the paddy wagon before
they went to trial."
These days Rockwell seems to hate policemen with a white-hot fury.
I wonder if he regards his views as having changed or if he somehow
regards these views as compatible.
"Why is everyone in such a tizzy? You act like people actually
watch the Tucker Carlson show..."
Good point. This article may well affect Paul's long-term
reputation, but I doubt if it will have much effect on tomorrow's
(or rather today's) election results.
I am also a little startled to learn that Paul named one of his
sons Rand.
Sam|1.8.08 @ 2:03AM|#
Paul named his dog Liberty! But he actually named his son Randy. Randy changed it to Rand because his father taught him to read and understand and respect the principles of Liberty...including Ayn Rand.
|1.8.08 @ 2:08AM|#
Via Berin M. Szoka ---
Monday, January 7, 2008
Jamie Kirchick: "I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just
cynical"
Jamie Kirchick announced with a smirk on his face the size of
Manhattan--that his hit piece accusing Ron Paul of racism,
homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the next
day--which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very day
of the New Hampshire primary.
I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable
libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my
"Ron Paul 2008" button, he snickered and said, "Oh, Ron Paul...
I've been reading up on him.
I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just
what he found so offensive. His response:
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I'm glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the
Boston Globe. I'll try and make the party tonight, though Patrick
Sammon isn't particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece
[attacking Log Cabin Republicans for not endorsing Giuliani as the
"the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in
history"]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Anyways, I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical
and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If
you were a Giuliani guy I'd have called him a fascist. But I must
say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the
bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best,
Jamie
When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I
could read more, he answered: "Patience, my friend :-)"
Patience, indeed.
Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a
hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is
a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New
Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse.
His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political
damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is
attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his
name.
NP|1.8.08 @ 2:13AM|#
Grand Chalupa,
I don't know why you wanna make ad hominem attacks by bringing up
MLK's personal failings, because they're clearly irrelevant to this
thread. You might counter that whether MLK was in fact a gay
pedophile matters in this case because such an accusation was made
in the newsletter, but the thing is, just the fact that Ron Paul or
his associates engaged in such name-calling suggests that it had a
racist intent.
Anyway, we again should wait and look at the actual newsletters
before making our judgment, but I gotta say, so far it doesn't look
too good for Dr. Paul. At the very best (and I do mean
very best) he will come out of this incident as a lousy
manager--certainly not something we want in our
commander-in-chief.
|1.8.08 @ 2:13AM|#
Here is a typically interminable case of libertarian infighting
between some guy named Stephen Kinsella and some guy named Tom
Palmer, in which Rockwell's remarks on the King beating are
extensively quoted:
http://ancapistan.typepad.com/the_palmer_periscope/2005/02/palmer_on_rodne.html
Here is an article by Rockwell in which he does (in passing)
distinguish the King case those cases of police brutality that he
decries:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/cincinnati-beating.html
|1.8.08 @ 2:43AM|#
MLK, gay pedophile?
Hahahahahaha!
THEY ARE STARTING TO SWEAT! KEEP IT UP GOOD PEOPLE!
RON PAUL IN 08, UNSTOPPABLE BABY!
Grand Chalupa|1.8.08 @ 3:13AM|#
Well, in defense of King, although he may have had serious
faults, he also had serious accomplishments. We're all flawed and
we all have nobility, but some people can still be very flawed and
still have incredible greatness.
All of King's "accomplishments" are myths. All the "civil rights"
movement did was foster government dependency among blacks, a
bitterness about their own failings and make them lose any sense of
personal responsibility. I don't feel like providing the links for
you, but do your own research on black crime rates and out of
wedlock births before and after the 1960s. Not to mention whites
who've been victims of black crime, discriminated against by
affirmative action and have been subsidizing blacks' breeding
And you may consider beating prostitutes and believing in the most
murderous ideology in the history of man as minor faults, but to me
they're more than enough to qualify a man as bottom of the barrel
scum.
Peter|1.8.08 @ 3:46AM|#
I am sure that some nobody internet pundit James Kirchick found all this evidence exposing 20 years of racism and Tim Russert found only that Dr. Paul inserted some earmarks and didn't think we HAD to fight the Civil War
|1.8.08 @ 5:03AM|#
Does anybody except me care whether or not this is
true?
Too long of a thread to see if this was said, but I couldn't care
less whether or not MLK was actually a gay pedophile.
|1.8.08 @ 5:10AM|#
Here, a comment from Red State on this issue:
http://www.crosstabs.org/blogs/rudy08/2008/jan/08/ron_paul_has_called_mlk_a_gay_paedophile
This will be big, I bet. I think we are witnessing the end of the
Ron Paul campaign here, boys. Woo-hoo!
i'd rather he didn't go down this way, though by gideon1789
i'd prefer that voters rejected his positions on the merits
Not me
by bamapachyderm
The people he represents (neo-Nazis, white supremacists, troofers,
etc.) and the hate he spews should be rejected first. That kind
does not deserve a seat at the table, and the sooner that filth is
made taboo, the better.
His hateful, nutty theories (NWO/CFR/Trilateral Commission
nonsense, abolish the Fed--an old favorite anti-Semitic goal--etc.)
all go hand in hand with his alliances with the scum of the earth.
You can almost not have one without the other.
Ron Paul is an utter disgrace to America, and an even worse
disgrace to the GOP. I'm appalled that he even gets to run as a
Republican. I don't want his type identifying as "Republicans"--let
the crazies run with the irrelevant Crazy Parties.
Don't you think it's a bit curious that virtually all of the most
virulent hate groups are on board with the Paultards?
I've done the research. It's not made-up nonsense; he has
long-established ties to the filthiest people on the far, far,
extreme "right" (it makes me sick saying they're on "the
right").
Rudy has plenty to answer for (hey, who doesn't?), but it's not
even in the same universe as Ron Paul's transgressions
pathology.
(from a Fred supporter)
|1.8.08 @ 5:30AM|#
Not for nothing, but I could give a hoot how anyone feels on
these sort of issues. The point is to NEVER write anything down
that can be held against you. The Clintons are pros at that.
BIG BROTHER IS ALWAYS WATCHING
It is government interference in our personal lives that leads to
racism anyway. I've never met a racist person who did not have a
legitimate experiential reason for having their view.
Remember, the Arabs DO hate us because we interfere in their
countries, invading their autonomy.
Our government does the exact same thing here in America, only it
is through affirmative action and other unfair, unconstitutional
laws.
Forced integration leads to clashing cultures and war. It is an
invasion of individual autonomy.
Actually, I think it is a load of crap that we claim to embrace
free speech, yet if a white person says anything negative against a
non-white it is considered "hate speech."
Personally, I am against all laws (except traffic etc). Laws
negative our Rights.
The Amish are the only humans I truly respect.
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death
your right to say it."
-Voltaire
|1.8.08 @ 5:32AM|#
BTW, I see that the shit eaters at vnnforum.com have linked this, and are discussing this issue. I only found that site thanks to Nolan Charts, and now need multiple showers.
voxpo|1.8.08 @ 6:47AM|#
Gee, maybe TNR is rushing this. Couldn't they work on it a few
more hours and then text-blast it to voters 5 minutes before polls
open? Or heck, enlist the Air Force to drop leaflets *on* polling
places.
The video won't play for me, but forgive me if I don't see Tucker
Carlson's reported failure to mount an effective defense of Paul as
particularly significant.
I think the timing is likely VERY significant and indicative of a
weakly grounded smear. Smears work best when they can influence
events before the truth can be sorted out. If this is a valid,
well-documented criticism of Paul, why not release it weeks ago
when it could have prevented him from trouncing a top-tier
non-racist in the first caucus? If this hurts Paul, on the other
hand, and is later debunked, just think how satisfying a post-NH
retraction won't be.
p.s. Wow, speaking of TNR, some list of luminaries
here (scroll down).
|1.8.08 @ 6:49AM|#
As Berin Szorka has shown,this is just a redux of the Glass
affair at the New Republic. Those Peretzian capitalists will
tellany lie to sell their Dewmit version of the "National
Enquirer"
I was at the party and observed Kirchick saying and smirking about
the same kinds of things.
New Republic exposed -- Glass fraud redux
skip to main | skip to sidebar
Monday, January 7, 2008
Jamie Kirchick: "I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just
cynical"
Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, appeared
tonight on Tucker Carlson's show to announce--with a smirk on his
face the size of Manhattan--that his hit piece accusing Ron Paul of
racism, homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the
next day--which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very
day of the New Hampshire primary.
I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable
libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my
"Ron Paul 2008" button, he snickered and said, "Oh, Ron Paul...
I've been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy's
written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!"
I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just
what he found so offensive. His response:
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I'm glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the
Boston Globe. I'll try and make the party tonight, though Patrick
Sammon isn't particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece
[attacking Log Cabin Republicans for not endorsing Giuliani as the
"the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in
history"]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Anyways, I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical
and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If
you were a Giuliani guy I'd have called him a fascist. But I must
say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the
bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best,
Jamie
When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I
could read more, he answered: "Patience, my friend :-)"
Patience, indeed.
Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a
hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is
a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New
Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse.
His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political
damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is
attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his
name.
The richest irony is that the Ron Paul grassroots campaign in
Washington, DC--Jamie's hometown--has found its earliest and
strongest supporters in DC's gay community. It would not surprise
me if our slate of delegate and alternate delegate candidates for
Ron Paul is the gayest slate in DC (measured by number of gay
individuals--not gayness of individuals), very probably the gayest
slate in DC ever, and probably one of the gayest slates for a major
party Presidential candidate of any state ever.
Posted by Berin M. Szoka at 8:25 PM
Labels: Smear tactics
|1.8.08 @ 6:52AM|#
Ron Paul must be getting 50% GOP votes in NH. Media is getting
desperate. Tucker Carlson is a shill. First attempt to discredit RP
came in Nevada (brothel owner, hot chicks, etc.) Then this. RP
campaign must distance themself from this little turd. Reason can
produce "hit and run" piece, but can not hide.
Go Ron Paul!!!
|1.8.08 @ 8:15AM|#
For some reason LRC is not putting anything on its blog.
Are they scrambling re how to respond?>/b>
I read Lew Rockwell's site every day and I agree it's curious why
no one there has mentioned anything about it yet. It's also rather
curious why Rockwell doesn't publicly defend himself against the
charges that he himself wrote some of those controversial articles.
he claims to be a friend and supporter of Ron Paul. If so, why
won't he publicly come out to once and for all put these rumors and
charges to rest? Well, Lew???? The future of Ron Paul's campaign is
at stake now. Will you be man enough to do the right thing?
That said, Jamie Kirchick is a muckracking propagandist of the
worst order.
|1.8.08 @ 8:15AM|#
Ron takes third place in early voting in Hart's Location
On the Republican side, McCain received 6 votes, Mike Huckabee 5,
Ron Paul 4 and Mitt Romney 1.
Ali|1.8.08 @ 8:16AM|#
Didn't Tucker endorse Paul and write this amazingly good article in TNR? I can't believe he did not know about this ahead of time! He looked like an idiot yesterday.
|1.8.08 @ 8:22AM|#
Tucker let himself be used by an obvious muckracker on the eve of polling. Disappointing.
|1.8.08 @ 8:22AM|#
*ugh* Bad HTML in my previous post. My bad.
Another thing I would like to point out: Ron Paul has himself
surrounded by a bunch of paleolibertarians of questionable honor. I
think they latched onto Ron because:
1. He is a man who has garnered some level of influence by being a
congressman. They are akin to hangers on who flock to anyone who
has even a modicum of celebrity status.
2. The man is trusting. It's easy to hitch your wagon to someone
that trusting. State's evidence # 1`: Eric Rittberg-Dondero.
Let's face it: Eric Rittberg-Dondero would be NOTHING today if it
weren't for his parasitic association with Ron Paul. He sullied
Ron's name then and he continues to do so simply for the glory and
attention.
|1.8.08 @ 8:22AM|#
I just re-read Kirchick's comments...he didn't say this stuff spanned "20 years", he said "two decades". That could plausibly refer to 1988-1996, since that includes years from the 80s and from th 90s. So, perhaps he didn't flat-out contradict himself later when he said it happened while Dr Paul was out of Congress, though it's still pretty misleading in my book to call a span of 8 years "two decades".
Ali|1.8.08 @ 8:28AM|#
Another thing I would like to point out: Ron Paul has
himself surrounded by a bunch of paleolibertarians of questionable
honor.
Such as?
|1.8.08 @ 8:29AM|#
Ali,
Tucker knew about the previous instances of racist writings in the
Ron Paul Survival Report, and that writer's attacks on Barbra
Jordan. Also, he can't refuse to let someone on his show just
because they might hurt Ron Paul. The guy's a journalist, he's
supposed to retain some degree of objectivity.
Nobody knows what Kirchick claims to have found, because they
haven't published it yet. That's what really gets me about this;
TNR is making a pretty momentous accusation against Dr Paul without
releasing evidence so he can respond.
Ali|1.8.08 @ 8:37AM|#
crimethink- I know. You're right regarding objectivity, but I no longer have any faith in journalists (and not only because of this incident).
|1.8.08 @ 8:40AM|#
As of now, this smear is only being picked up by some paper in
the Netherlands.
One benefit to the media ignoring you? They ignore the good with
the bad...
Shane Brady|1.8.08 @ 8:45AM|#
Why would anyone think Ron Paul is a homophobe? Just because he
thinks the idea of gay marriage is comical, wants to ban gay
marriage, and has said on national television that he thinks "Don't
ask, don't tell" which federally discriminates homosexuals is a
fine policy?
What would ever give anyone the idea Ron Paul is a homophobe?
|1.8.08 @ 8:46AM|#
Taktix,
It's also likely that reputable papers don't want to run an
attention-grabbing story without any evidence beyond the word of
Kirchick, and risk having egg all over their faces if what he comes
up with turns out to be nothing new.
Maybe they know something about Kirchick's "evidence" that we
don't...
|1.8.08 @ 8:49AM|#
Ron Paul has been newly elected to Congress three times. and has
served ten terms. He has run for President once before. He is a
well known OB/GYN in Texas. I find it hard to believe that if these
allegations were true, they would not have become fodder for the
press long before now.
By the way, Rudy Giuliani used to hold swingers parties in Gracie
mansion, Mike Huckaby and Bill Clinton are actually first cousins
(family conspiracy to rule the world), and Fred Thompson's biggest
supporter is Barbra Stresiand.
Bradley in DC|1.8.08 @ 8:50AM|#
This was on RonPaulForums.com
Jamie Kirchick: "I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just
cynical"
Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, appeared
tonight on Tucker Carlson's show to announce--with a smirk on his
face the size of Manhattan--that his hit piece accusing Ron Paul of
racism, homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the
next day--which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very
day of the New Hampshire primary.
I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable
libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my
"Ron Paul 2008" button, he snickered and said, "Oh, Ron Paul...
I've been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy's
written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!"
I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just
what he found so offensive. His response:
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I'm glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the
Boston Globe. I'll try and make the party tonight, though Patrick
Sammon isn't particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece
[attacking Log Cabin Republicans for not endorsing Giuliani as the
"the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in
history"]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Anyways, I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical
and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If
you were a Giuliani guy I'd have called him a fascist. But I must
say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the
bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best,
Jamie
When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I
could read more, he answered: "Patience, my friend :-)"
Patience, indeed.
Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a
hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is
a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New
Republic's history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse.
His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political
damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is
attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his
name.
The richest irony is that the Ron Paul grassroots campaign in
Washington, DC--Jamie's hometown--has found its earliest and
strongest supporters in DC's gay community. It would not surprise
me if our slate of delegate and alternate delegate candidates for
Ron Paul is the gayest slate in DC (measured by number of gay
individuals--not gayness of individuals), very probably the gayest
slate in DC ever, and probably one of the gayest slates for a major
party Presidential candidate of any state ever.
POSTED BY BERIN M. SZOKA AT 11:25 PM
|1.8.08 @ 9:02AM|#
Of course, the funny thing is, this story might actually help him with South Carolina Republicans next week...
|1.8.08 @ 9:15AM|#
sixstring,
I can buy "some leaflets," especially since Romney washed his hands
of them within the week.
This is about a decade or more worth of newsletters.
|1.8.08 @ 9:20AM|#
More quality journalism from
The New Republic?
Credibility is so hard to regain one lost.
|1.8.08 @ 9:26AM|#
A lot of people raise good points about Paul using rhetoric and
taking stances which are not only non-racist, but fly in the face
of and would actually be offensive to actual racists. Not to
mention, the style of writing in the racist columns that have come
out is clearly incompatible with how Paul speaks and writes.
Definitely leaning towards the "absentee landlord" position. Also,
thoreau's take seems about right: if you're a little bit of a
"racial traditionalist," and you hold far-right positions on issues
like gun rights or seccession, it's possible to find yourself in
and among some genuinely revolting people and misunderstand where
they're coming from. Particularly if you are the Congressman and
they're trying to make you happy so they can ride your coattails,
and if you are maybe a bit too trusting and unconcerned with
details.
|1.8.08 @ 9:38AM|#
Move Boyle, J. from the "duct tape and fiberglass" list to the "watchful eye" list.
miguel|1.8.08 @ 9:42AM|#
A couple things in the video leap out at me.
1 - He specifically states that Ron was able to get away with this
stuff from when he wasn't in congress, which was late 80s early
90s, then simultaneously claims he's been allowing/writing racist
rhetoric since the 70s. Nice dodge of the Tucker's question.
2 - The speaking in code thing is just ... odd.
He gives no examples of the "code" just tried to make a baseless
accusation.
3 - The insinuation that Thomas DiLorenzo is racist. Has he even
sat down and read "The Real Lincoln"? Probably not.
I'm going out on a limb and saying this guy really has nothing and
just tried to see if he could cause a ruckus. You'll notice through
a quick google search that pretty much every single major news
outlet aside from the tucker interview has pretty much ignored this
guy, even though this is probably something that would be great
feeding material. This is how low this guy's credibility is.
Sheldon Richman|1.8.08 @ 10:15AM|#
Is it true that for over 20 years Ron Paul's newsletter
published such garbage? If so, how can it be explained as the work
of a ghost writer? Why didn't Ron Paul know such a creep worked for
him? Why didn't he fire the guy after the first publication? Why
didn't he look at a newsletter bearing his name before it was
released?
I've been rooting for Ron Paul, but I am astonished at how some of
his supporters are using the flimsiest grounds for dismissing this
story. And since when are the age of a charge and the number of
times it has been raised relevant?
If the magazine author is not lying (seems unlikely), how can the
movement recover from this?
|1.8.08 @ 10:22AM|#
if you're a little bit of a "racial traditionalist," and you hold far-right positions on issues like gun rights or seccession, it's possible to find yourself in and among some genuinely revolting people and misunderstand where they're coming from. Particularly if you are the Congressman and they're trying to make you happy so they can ride your coattails, and if you are maybe a bit too trusting and unconcerned with details.
One point I want to add to this. By the early 1960's libertarianism
was dead. I'll bet there were only a few hundred libertarian
intellectuals left in the U.S. The primary argument weren't about
whether the welfare state was a good idea but how big it should be.
The monetary policy of all major central banks and nation states
were based on Keynesianism, and the debates were focused on how
much to 'prime the pump'.
When one has few allies, and one sees disaster in the looming in
the future, it is understandable that one will be less choosy in
which people one makes common cause with, much like the U.S.
alliance with the Soviet Union against Germany
In this decade libertarianism has tens of thousands of
intellectuals promoting it. It has a robust culture to the point
that it is impossible to personally meet every influential
libertarian thinker or supporter. I think we have turned a corner;
modern communications technology ensures that libertarianism will
probably never come again so close to extinction as in the dark
decades before Ron Paul raised his standard.
Furthermore, despite what I see is a poor judgement about people,
my hat is off to Ron Paul. It is clear to me that he would rather
not be a politician. I think the guy would absolutely love to be
back in Texas giving his grandchildren and great-grandchildren
rides on his tractor and enjoying the life of a semiretired and
respected physician.
When Nixon went off the gold standard ti set the stage for a
monetary disaster, Ron Paul correctly recognized the implications
of this policy decision and jumped into politics, not because he
wanted the glory of being a Congressman, but because he felt
someone had to jump into the breach. Like the hobo made famous by
Robert Heinlein who died trying to save a woman who had gotten her
foot wedged in some railroad tracks, Ron Paul has poured
irreplaceable years of his life into something that he clearly does
not enjoy.
That is why I have a soft spot for the man. Yes, he has weaknesses.
Yes, he makes colossal errors on occasion. But unlike many people
who read the same economic textbooks as he does, unlike many people
who correctly recognize the near certainty of economic ruin that
accompanies currency debasement rather than sniping from the
sidelines and sneering at society, he rolled up his sleeves and
dove into the task of averting disaster despite his many
shortcomings. For that, I will always respect him.
It is important to note that Ron Paul's movement is not about him.
he is merely the figure head. Another can rise up and take his
place. Far more important are the ideas he has been advocating of
limited, prudent government. It is important that we not lose sight
of that fact. Americans tend to go into fuhrer worship, and some of
that has been happening with Ron Paul's fan base. It is the ideas
that are important, not the man.
|1.8.08 @ 10:23AM|#
Do we know who the people were behind the Ron Paul newsletter? Is it possible he won't identify the writer because the writer is still allied with his campaign?
|1.8.08 @ 10:30AM|#
Sheldon,
The grounds I'm using for doubting this story are that the evidence
has not yet been produced. What we have at the moment are
accusations without evidence. Also, in that interview, Kirchick
left himself plenty of wiggle room if it turns out that there's
nothing new here.
Mike Laursen|1.8.08 @ 10:48AM|#
Why is it so mysterious what's in these newsletters? Are there not copies sitting around in some dusty corner of some library in Texas? I wish reason would dispatch a writer to Texas to find them, read them, and report on any nastiness contained therein. If the family dog has to be put down, it seems like reason should be one's to take Ol' Yeller out behind the shed.
|1.8.08 @ 11:28AM|#
Those newsletter excerpts mirror the tone and content of the
non-Rothbard writing in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report.
Dondero-Rittberg's charge that Rockwell wrote them is plausible,
although someone else close by could have written it or at least
collaborated.
Ron should surely apologize for not checking what was going out in
his own newsletter, but the indulgent paleocon bigot who wrote it
needs to do the real apologizing for publishing his own pet
prejudices in the good doctor's name.
|1.8.08 @ 11:36AM|#
Back in 1996 when Ron ran for congress again against a party switcher, the GOP establishment brought these same charges up. I lived in Ron's congressional district back then. So the New Republic a magazine that seems to make stuff up on the fly brings this stuff up again right before the vote in New Hampshire. Okay. Anything else. Its no secret beltway libertarians hate Ron Paul. The CATO Institute won't even mention his name. They know what side their bread is buttered on. CATO are the NeoCons of libertarians.
|1.8.08 @ 11:38AM|#
That said, the newsletter thing is overblown. TNR accuser Kirchik is/was Marty Peretz's sidekick - talk about neocon central. Kirchik is prone to ad hominem attacks and Marty has referred to Arabs as primitive, crazed barbarians.
Mike Laursen|1.8.08 @ 11:50AM|#
CATO are the NeoCons of libertarians.
Wow! Kids, can we say, "hyperbole"? From Cato's website:
"Cato's foreign policy vision is guided by the idea of national
defense and a security strategy appropriate for a constitutional
republic, not an empire. Cato's foreign policy scholars question
the presumption that an interventionist foreign policy enhances the
security of Americans in the post-Cold War world, and maintain
instead that interventionism has consequences including, the
formation of countervailing alliances, the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, and even terrorism. The use of U.S. military
force should be limited to those occasions when the territorial
integrity, national sovereignty, or liberty of the United States is
at risk."
Sounds like something Dr. Paul himself might have said.
|1.8.08 @ 11:50AM|#
I've had two reservations about Paul for many years:
1) He's Dr. No - an uncompromising executive is a disaster for any
movement he ostensibly supports.
2) He's tinged with some flavor of the kookdom he attracts.
I didn't think the second was the more probable disaster of a Paul
campaign. I don't think a neutral look at this situtation permits
one to ethically support the guy.
|1.8.08 @ 11:53AM|#
If Kirchick is actually as much of a p.o.s. as he appears, and the newsletters actually do say what he claims, it really doesn't matter what you think about his character and motivations.
|1.8.08 @ 11:59AM|#
[..] and [if] the newsletters actually do say what he claims [...]
I think, at this point, this is a pretty big "if."
|1.8.08 @ 12:03PM|#
CATO is big on Fred Thompson. The same Fred Thompson who still defends invading Iraq
|1.8.08 @ 12:06PM|#
Well, Jake, we do know for certain that the couple of newsletters from the mid-90s say some horrible racist shit. Maybe the Ron Paul Freedom Report took a decidely more racist turn in the mid-90s, but probably not.
|1.8.08 @ 12:22PM|#
I've been subscribing to Ron Paul's Newsletter since the mid 80s. I don't remember any racist stuff in them. Far too many people consider politically incorrect stuff to be racist. Many Reasonites do. I was called a racist on this forum last summer for not supporting the Bush McCain Kennedy amnesty bill.
Factster|1.8.08 @ 12:36PM|#
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5
Mike Laursen|1.8.08 @ 1:30PM|#
CATO is big on Fred Thompson.
What are you basing that statement on? The first hit in Google for
Cato articles on Fred Thompson starts with these words: "Republican
presidential candidate Fred Thompson may have set a modern record
for the amount of sloppy thinking on defense policy in a single
speech."
|1.8.08 @ 1:32PM|#
On further review, there will never be a Gasset Gazette. Too damn much shit can go wrong. At best, there will be a Dead Spanish Philosophers Quarterly published by O and Y, Inc., with Page 3 dedicated to a topless girl and Page 4 to a 10,000 word disclaimer saying that the views expressed in the Gazette do not reflect teh views of O and Y, Inc, any subsidiary companies, its officer and directors or any family pets.
|1.8.08 @ 1:42PM|#
FREDalism
Cato Institute VP Sneers At Ron Paul: He's Not Our 'Kind of
Person'!
CATO Institute
fails to mention Ron Paul During Discussion on Barry
Goldwater
Bottom line. CATO is funded by some very big NeoCons. They're
Belway hacks.
|1.8.08 @ 1:42PM|#
You are such a liar. Didn't you try this months ago? Ron Paul has praised Martin Luther King on MANY occasions and used him to inspire his supporters. If this lie is your best shot at discrediting him, you KNOW he has consistent, principled integrity.
capt|1.8.08 @ 1:45PM|#
Assuming Ron Paul didn't actually write the racist diatribes
published in his political newsletter - are we suppose to believe
he also never read his own newsletter?
Not very likely.
Brandybuck|1.8.08 @ 2:20PM|#
Is it true that for over 20 years Ron Paul's newsletter published such garbage?
Sheldon- I thought you were quicker on the uptake than that. The
smear is referring to one single issue of a ghostwritten
newsletter. It has been explained and refuted innumerable times.
Yet the media keeps bringing it back up over and over like a bad
burrito.
As I'm sure you mother told you, take everything the media tells
you with a fifty pound bag of rock salt.
|1.8.08 @ 2:24PM|#
Ron Paul is close to the paleo-libertarians.
The paleo-libertarians were more or less founded as a strategic
effort to rebuild the old right through an alliance with
paleo-conservatives. There are racist and anti-semetic
paleolibertarians.
Paul's "personal" newsletter was part of that broad strategy.
Which paleo-libertarian was tasked with editing Paul's personal
newsletter? Which paleo-libertarians and paleo-conservatives wrote
things for it?
I think it is entirely credible that Paul didn't bother to read it.
I think one of the reasons he isn't very forthcoming about the
entire issue is that there were all of these readers thinking they
were getting the straight dope from Ron Paul, when really they were
reading a publication edited by some other paleo-libertarian and
written perhaps by various paleo-libertarian and paleo-conservative
nobodies.
Mike Laursen|1.8.08 @ 2:38PM|#
So, I found an article on the Cato website where the writer said
bad things about Fred Thompson, and you found one where the write
said good things. That shows that Cato allows different writers to
express different points of view on their website.
I'm perfectly willing to accept your assertion that Cato doesn't
want to be associated with Ron Paul. Which is, of course, a
separate matter than whether Cato backs Fred Thompson. After I
found out about Ron Paul's views on immigration and birth right
citizenship, I can't lend my support to him, either.
|1.8.08 @ 2:39PM|#
Here's the smear, but it looks like someone's launched a
denia-of-service attack preventing me from seeing hte linked
PDF:
http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/08/ron-paul-on-andy-rooney.aspx
Edward|1.8.08 @ 2:51PM|#
The Nizkor Project mainly collects documentation on Holocaust
deniers, but they have what appears to be the complete text or at
least a long passage of an issue of the Ron Paul Political Report.
Some excerpts:
The Los Angeles and related riots mark a new era in American
cultural,
political, and economic life. We now know that we are under assault
from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American
civilization
...
Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to
pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. The
"poor" lined up at the post office to get their handouts (since
there were no deliveries)--and then complained about slow service.
What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would
have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting.
But they were paid off and the violence subsided.
...
Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not
going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done
to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed
the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots. Many more
are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief 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. This
conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely
unavoidable.
...
Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots,
burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years
of racial politics. The looting in L.A. was the welfare state
without the voting booth. The elite have sent one message to black
America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing.
That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in
April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the
transfer
|1.8.08 @ 3:11PM|#
This is sound proof that Paul has people shitting in their pants. I've worked in the national news media for over 5 1/2 years. Trust me, Paul is becoming extremely popular with Americans
capt|1.8.08 @ 3:12PM|#
No reason to pretend it is some smear.
The "ghost writer" excuse is just that or he would have been
consistent, eh?
http://alternatereality456.blogspot.com/2007/11/ron-pauls-original-defense-to-his.html
Edward|1.8.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Here's an excerpt from Kirchick's piece. Boy, has David Duke
returned the favor.
Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters,
which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify
opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy
Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We
can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s,
a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a
"world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced
underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights
leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists
who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that
"Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis"
were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a
comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced
the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced
integration."
While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former
Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage
titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44
percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary.
"Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of
the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's
new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good
for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our
priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax,
anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign
meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent
package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me
that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made
information about Ron Paul available on his website.
Jeffrey|1.8.08 @ 3:16PM|#
Personally I tune out any and all mudslinging, regardless of the
candidate. What matters to me is the message and the candidate's
record in backing up that message. Right now only Ron Paul has
shown that he not only talks the talk, but walks the walk.
Message to all candidates... "Tell me why to vote for you. Don't
tell why to vote against someone else"
|1.8.08 @ 3:20PM|#
And according to this very intelligent writer, Dr. Paul speaks in a special "code" language that only white supremacists really understand...what? Freedom=slavery, war=peace. Welcome to the new reality, thanks Orwell.
WOWSER|1.8.08 @ 3:25PM|#
If the content of his own newsletter is somehow mudslinging
against him - what kind of a man is he?
Too bad the Paultards seem so cultish - they might have broken
double digits long ago if they were honest enough to consider their
candidates negatives - or any negatives.
Ron Paul is not a savior, he does not walk on water, he is just
another lying politician. That is until he can come clean on his
racist background:
"What is interesting is Paul's idea that the identity of the person
who did write those lines is "of no importance." Paul never deals
in disavowals or renunciations or distancings, as other politicians
do. In his office one afternoon in June, I asked about his
connections to the John Birch Society. "Oh, my goodness, the John
Birch Society!" he said in mock horror. "Is that bad? I have a lot
of friends in the John Birch Society. They're generally well
educated, and they understand the Constitution. I don't know how
many positions they would have that I don't agree with. Because
they're real strict constitutionalists, they don't like the war,
they're hard-money people. . . . "
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=4&oref=slogin
Sure, the Birchers aren't racist in the least, eh?
highnumber|1.8.08 @ 3:30PM|#
One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to
rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria,"
"Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better
alternatives.
I have been to NYC more than once. Dirtburg is a perfectly fair
name for it.
Edward|1.8.08 @ 3:36PM|#
I can't believe that the intelligent staff Of Reason magazine are going to continue touting Ron Paul now. Rational libertarianism shouldn't be tainted with this garbage.
Mike Laursen|1.8.08 @ 3:48PM|#
I can't believe that the intelligent staff Of Reason
magazine are going to continue touting Ron Paul now. Rational
libertarianism shouldn't be tainted with this garbage.
I've been getting the impression reason's staff has been
having trouble resisting the urge to jump on the bandwagon, but, to
their credit, have kept one foot on solid objective journalist
ground. The tone of this very post is a little sarcastic about
Kirchick, but, on the other hand, Welch brought up the accusations
rather than suppressing them.
The stuff I just read on the Drudge website is pretty damning.
Unless he just made up those newsletter excerpts, its going to be a
big blow against the already troubled public image of
libertarianism.
|1.8.08 @ 3:55PM|#
This is ludicrous.
The racial things Kirchick cites all occur between 1990 and 1994 --
precisely the period that the previously known slurs were published
in. There's little new here. "Over a span of two decades" my
ass.
In other words, if you already believed Dr Paul's explanation that
he didn't approve these things, there's little here to disabuse you
of that notion. If you didn't already believe his explanation, than
you already think he's a racist.
|1.8.08 @ 3:59PM|#
From Kirchick's article:
The people surrounding the von Mises Institute--including
Paul--may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing
like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the
libertines at Reason magazine.
Take that, you people saying Reason is shilling for Paul. Even
Kirchick thinks otherwise.
I also wasn't aware that Reason was staffed mainly by
"libertines".
Mike Laursen|1.8.08 @ 4:02PM|#
It doesn't matter whether it was over a span of two decades. Four to five years is a long time for Ron Paul to claim to be unaware of the content of newsletters with his name on them.
|1.8.08 @ 4:06PM|#
If you didn't think that already, w
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