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
Exclusive: Ron Paul Responds To New Republic Story
About an hour ago I followed Ron Paul outside the Radisson in Manchester, NH to get his response to James Kirchick's explosive New Republic piece, "Angry White Man." The article goes through the Texas Republican's newsletters from the 1970s through the 1990s, and finds dozens of offensive comments about gays, blacks, and other targets.
I was told by Paul's staff it was old news and he didn't want to talk about it, but I asked the candidate a few questions as he moved to his car.
Here's a transcript:
reason: Do you have any response to The New Republic's article about your newsletters?
Ron Paul: All it is--it's old stuff. It's all been rehashed. It's all political stuff.
reason: Why don't you release all the old letters?
Paul: I don't even have copies of them, because it's ancient history.
reason: Do you stand by what appears in the letters? Did you write these...?
Paul: No. I've discussed all of that in the past. It's just old news.
reason: Did the New Republic talk to you before they ran it?
Paul: No, I never talked to them.reason: What do you think of Martin Luther King?
Paul: Martin Luther King is one of my heroes because he believed in nonviolence and that's a libertarian principle. Rosa Parks is the same way. Gandhi, I admire. Because they're willing to take on the government, they were willing to take on bad laws. So I believe in civil disobedience if you understand the consequences. Martin Luther King was a great person because he did that and he changed America for the better because of that.
reason: You didn't write the derogatory things about him in the letter?
Paul: No.
Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned.
Matt Welch blogged an MSNBC appearance by Kirchick yesterday.
reason on Ron Paul here.
|1.8.08 @ 3:52PM|#
What will kill the Paul campaign is the refusal to deal with this in a direct, no holds barred manner.
ed|1.8.08 @ 3:53PM|#
But is this the end, the beginning of the end, or merely the end of the beginning?
KJ|1.8.08 @ 3:54PM|#
It was a dirty tactic on the Kirchick's part. I mean, if he took
some time to do some research, contact Paul's campaign folks, and
etc. I'm sure this all could've been dealt with accordingly, but he
went through with it for some personal reason, not journalistic
ethos.
This makes me disappointed since I support the New Republic, but
looks like they lost another customer by publishing this piece.
Brett|1.8.08 @ 3:55PM|#
Old news or not, very disappointing. Crap like this will likely cause him to lose his congressional seat as well.
|1.8.08 @ 3:55PM|#
First time I've seen Paul act like a standard-issue
politician.
Old news. Rehashed. A staffer who's been let go.
When did he hire Ari Fleischer?
|1.8.08 @ 3:56PM|#
Has this thing hit the major media outlets yet?
If they pick up the story, it will almost certainly be the end of
the campaign. Racism is one of those accusations that is so toxic
that truth (in this case, Paul apparently didn't write the articles
in question and gives no signs of being a bigot) is no defense. It
was a great ride while it lasted, anyway.
fyodor|1.8.08 @ 3:56PM|#
I guess everyone's thinking the same thing, but I'll come out and say that I'm never happy when a candidate says something's old news or politically motivated or that he's addressed it before, although the last of those may be pardonable if he doesn't have the time or resources to adequately address it at the moment, then he can refer as specifically as possible to when he did, which of course Paul doesn't do here. It may be frustrating to address inflamatory stuff you've addressed before, but so it goes, that's how it works. But it doesn't make sense to say it's old news since if it's being discussed now it's current news, and so what if a charge is politically motivated, that has nothing to do with its truth or validity.
WLMH|1.8.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Kirchick admits he's a mere propagandist, not a journalist:
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
Other information about the article:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html
|1.8.08 @ 3:57PM|#
Is this the best the Old Media can do? To rehash long-since
disproven charges of bigotry?
Ron fired the guy who wrote much of this crap and repudiated his
vitriol, but it seems the Old Media is getting very desperate.
highnumber|1.8.08 @ 3:58PM|#
Now that I have finished reading the article, here is the
definitive take on it:
The anti-black and anti-gay stuff are just awful, awful things to
have one's name associated with. The bits about Israel don't seem
that extreme. Kirchick doesn't quote anything anti-Semitic at all.
The warnings to militias seem reasonable. RP's associations with
crackpots outside his newsletter don't seem like that big of a
deal. Get active in anti-(big)government movements, even if you are
perfectly sane and reasonable, and you will find yourself
associating with some people who are totally rational about
something like foreign policy or property rights and totally
bonkers about the ATF or the FDA or something.
Kirchick tells us that the newsletters were "consistently saturated
in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering." He
does not demonstrate that. He shows that racism and homophobia
played in the newsletters on at least some occasions. Paul and his
campaign should answer for that.
njgood|1.8.08 @ 3:58PM|#
The fact that very few of the newsletters have any kind of bylines are NOT going to help his case in the least.
|1.8.08 @ 3:59PM|#
Meh. Weak defense. How did it happen multiple times? He doesn't
read what his office puts out?
Crap, now I'll have to go and read the article.
|1.8.08 @ 3:59PM|#
I don't know if I blame him...he doesn't have a lot of MSM visibility, and this certainly isn't the way the one would want to gain it.
fyodor|1.8.08 @ 4:00PM|#
This will not satisfy people shocked by the Kirchick piece,
but Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he
stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has
disowned.
I take it this is what Paul said when he "discussed all of that in
the past"?
Guy Montag|1.8.08 @ 4:00PM|#
TNR just did a glowing article on the Dr. Paul staffers. Sounds like they are not forcing a position from the editors down to the reporters. Or, perhaps, they are trying to play both sides?
Ray Robison|1.8.08 @ 4:00PM|#
Old news? Is there a statute of limitations on being a racist,
old kook?
Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret
Terror Documents'
http://www.bothinonetrench.com
|1.8.08 @ 4:00PM|#
Ron Paul is a huge threat to rich white men. By the way would a racist want to repeal federal drug laws?
|1.8.08 @ 4:00PM|#
What did he say that isn't true. It may be politcally incorrect, but its all true.
njgood|1.8.08 @ 4:01PM|#
Also, it's not like these were newsletters he was merely
"associated with". These were put out under HIS NAME.
Whether he wrote them or not...that's not a good look.
|1.8.08 @ 4:01PM|#
The guy who 'broke' the story admitted he didn't believe his own
accusations and that he was trying to get a candidate's supporters
'riled up', and because Dr. Paul's are so enthusiastic they were an
easy target.
Now suddenly it's on Drudge and MSNBC? Ridiculous!
|1.8.08 @ 4:01PM|#
The reason he says it is old news is because it WAS brought up in his congressional campaign and debunked.
|1.8.08 @ 4:01PM|#
That was disappointing.
Look, if a newsletter goes out with your fucking name on, you own
it. And even if he didn't write it, or read/approve it, that
doesn't excuse anything. That makes him incompetent and stupid and
possibly lazy. He should have had more input on it. It was going
out in his name.
IMHO, This whole hiding behind an ex-staffer is cowardly, and so is
his refusal to talk about it.
For someone who is supposed to be so gosh darn principled and
forth-coming he sure seems to want to avoid this subject and
deflect any and all responsibility.
|1.8.08 @ 4:01PM|#
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine
full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not
edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a
decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying
closer attention to what went out under my name."
Yeah, that wasn't too smart of a thing to do.
|1.8.08 @ 4:02PM|#
lets not forget who the New Republic is, they're agenda driven socialists, for gods sake. Paul is right it's "political", a smear job.
thinkahead|1.8.08 @ 4:02PM|#
What a bunch of nervous nellies, all of you. And so ready to jump ship, too. Did you think this sort of smear campaign wasn't coming? We haven't seen anything yet. Think about the Institutions whose existence are threatened by a successful Paul candidacy.
|1.8.08 @ 4:03PM|#
I guess we finally have our answer to the question "Why would Don Black donate money to a libertarian?"
Brian Carnell|1.8.08 @ 4:03PM|#
"This will not satisfy people shocked by the Kirchick piece, but
Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he
stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned."
Um, David, does that explanation satisfy you? Maybe if he was
running for mayor, that's one thing, but we already have enough
nonsensical "plausible deniability" and passing the buck to take
seriously the claim that Paul gets to pick and choose which quotes
from his own newsletter count.
Guy Montag|1.8.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
Check Forums: AKO Discussions (Group: AKO Discussions),
there is a thread related to this over there.
|1.8.08 @ 4:03PM|#
Having personally been involved in the libertarian movement since 1988, I can attest to the crackpots we can attract. I remember seeing a couple of NAMBLA members at the 1993 LP national convention and at a california LP canvention in 1994, a booth was selling The Spotlight and other anti-semitic/racist garbage. We banded together and physically moved their booth far away from the other vendors. Interestingly, some LP members objected to the move because we "violated" the contact that vendor had with the LPC to sell their wares.
|1.8.08 @ 4:04PM|#
Letting something slip by with your name on it is forgivable.
Having it happen time and again over decades is not. If Paul
doesn't finish in the money today in NH it won't matter. Everyone
will go back to ignoring him. If he does outperform his poll
numbers, this could be big trouble for him.
goddamnit
Ben|1.8.08 @ 4:04PM|#
That's a pretty sloppy article. And none of the stuff quoted sounds like any of Paul's other articles or essays. The author clearly has an agenda here.
|1.8.08 @ 4:05PM|#
It is over for Ron Paul. No way he surivives this. He needed to run a perfect campaign to make it into March, but this is a deal killer.
|1.8.08 @ 4:05PM|#
how shocking. He stands by the stuff that makes him look good
and disowns the stuff that exposes him as a petty bigot.
Either he was involved in the hateful words put out in the
newsletter, or he was incompetent enough to let a newsletter with
this kind of evil garbage be put out IN HIS NAME for years and
years.
Either way it doesn't look good.
|1.8.08 @ 4:05PM|#
Yes, it's a hit piece. Yes, Kirchick is disreputable.
So, does that make the ink disappear off the back issues?
Jamie Kirchick is a P.o.S., therefore it's ok that this crap was
published under Ron Paul's name.
The phrase "as homenim" gets thrown around here a lot, whenever
someone calls someone else a mean name, but that's not what ad
homenim means.
|1.8.08 @ 4:06PM|#
ChicagoTom, could you be more hysterical?
his refusal to talk about it.
He did talk about it. He said it's old news.
Look, if a newsletter goes out with your fucking name on, you
own it. And even if he didn't write it, or read/approve it, that
doesn't excuse anything. That makes him incompetent and stupid and
possibly lazy. He should have had more input on it. It was going
out in his name.
He's never said that it excuses him. He's taken responsibility for
the fact it went out in his name.
From the Statement: "For over a decade, I have publically taken
moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went
out under my name.""
So yeah, you can hush now. He's talked about it, said he
acknowledges that he has moral responsibility for it but said he
didn't write the material or endorse.
What do you guys want, tears or something?
|1.8.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Racism has been a plague on America for so long. And so many of these comments in the article are not racist, but the reaction to call them racist certainly is. Other comments are indefensible. Luckily, liberty is color blind. As a fierce anti-racist, I will continue to support Ron Paul.
From RP|1.8.08 @ 4:06PM|#
Campaign Response:
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The
New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not
represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we
should only be concerned with the content of a person's character,
not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage
and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights
of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental
policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on
the day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer
attention to what went out under my name."
|1.8.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Evan,
What was debunked? The Ron Paul Freedom/Survival Report DIDN'T say
what Jamie Kirchick reports?
|1.8.08 @ 4:07PM|#
I thought Kirchick was going to provide photo-copies of the newsletters - where are they?
Tammy|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
A Fitting End for Ron Paul
Dean Barnett captured the Ron Paul phenomenon best with this
analysis, appropriately titled "The 'Don't Tase Me, Bro'
Candidate." But now the New Republic's Jamie Kirchick has finally
found the documents that prove what most of us knew all along: Dr.
Paul isn't just kooky, he's deranged. (You may not be able to get
through to the TNR server, probably because it's been spiked by
Drudge traffic though I don't discount the possibility that the Ron
Paul blimp has met its fate in some kind of kamikaze mission
against the TNR offices.) Kirchick found the documents at the
University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society, and
while they often contain no bylines, they are published in Ron
Paul's name, and frequently written in the first person:
[W]hoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one
thing in common: They were published under a banner containing
Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a
newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem
designed to create the impression that they were written by
him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of
obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia
movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays.
In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking
antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but
rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest
traditions in American politics.
I won't reproduce the quotes here, but there is no plausible
explanation that might insulate Paul from the fallout. Kirchick and
others attacked Paul a few months back over his failure to return a
$500 check from a prominent white supremacist. At the time, Paul
had explained that he couldn't possibly screen ever donor. Of
course he couldn't, but the media had screened this one for him,
and he refused to give back the money anyway. Now we know why. He's
been speaking in code to the dregs of American society this whole
time. And he had no intention of alienating his base of
support.
|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
A disappointing response by Dr. Paul to this issue. Surprising,
because he had to KNOW it was bound to come up eventually.
I have read the newsletters on line for an article I wrote, and the
writing was certainly NOT his. That being said, his response to the
issue, which is NOT old news to many people who have never heard of
him before, was tepid, at best.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig8/malone2.html
chris|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
"People actually read The New Republic?"
No, but DailyKos and Little Green Footballs will team up with them
if it involves smearing Ron Paul.
|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
This is just a distraction from the real issue. What is more racist, publishing colorful opinions in a newsletter 20 years ago which were probably used out of context in The New Republic (owned by Murdoch), or policies which have led to the deaths of hundreds of African Americans and hundreds of thousands of Arabs, not to mention the maimed and emotionally wounded. This is how the media works, they emphasize the trivial and ignore the truth. Wake up everybody!!!
|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Besides, NH is today and I doubt that this is really going to affect the voting in a significant way.
Sam Grove|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
I'm sure he's learned something about what you can trust others
with. Obviously he mistakenly placed his trust in someone he
shouldn't have.
I do remember this being hashed out on this site in the past year.
The timing tells us all we need to know about it.
ed|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
I can't help but wondering what this thread will look like after the 400th post...
|1.8.08 @ 4:08PM|#
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The
New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not
represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we
should only be concerned with the content of a person's character,
not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage
and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights
of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental
policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on
the day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer
attention to what went out under my name."
Steven|1.8.08 @ 4:09PM|#
So either Paul is a racist/bigot/homphobe/anti-semite (true) or
he's an incompetent naive fool (also true) who allowed un-named
staffers write this filth under his name for YEARS without ever
checking on them? What kind of leader does that say he is?
Sorry Paulians (actually not really), the Truth (you all should be
real familiar with that work) about your Messiah has been exposed
again and your pathetic mob tactics won't work again.
|1.8.08 @ 4:10PM|#
You are being lied and manipulated by the media. They want war.
They are agents of death and are lying about Ron Paul, because he
threatens them.
RON PAUL'S OWN WORDS:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 58. I saw Muhammad Ali as
a man of great courage, and I admired him for this, not because of
the courage that it took to get in a ring and fight men bigger than
he, but because of his stance in 1967.
In 1967, he was 25 years old. He was the heavyweight champion of
the world, and for religious beliefs, he practiced what Martin
Luther King made popular, civil disobedience, because he disagreed
with the war. I thought his comments were rather astute at the time
and were not complex, but he merely said, I have no quarrel with
the Viet-Cong. He said the Viet-Cong never called him a name, and
because of his religious convictions, he said he did not want to
serve in the military. He stood firm, a man of principle, and I
really admired this as a quality.
He is known, of course, for his athletic skills and his
humanitarian concerns, and these are rightly mentioned in a
resolution like this. But I do want to emphasize this because, to
me, it was so important and had such impact, in reality, what
Muhammad Ali did eventually led to getting rid of the draft, and
yet we as a people and we as a Congress still do not have the
conviction that Muhammad Ali had, because we still have the
selective service; we say, let us not draft now, but when the
conditions are right, we will bring back the draft and bring back
those same problems that we had in the 1960s.
I see what Muhammad Ali did as being very great. He deserves this
recognition, but we should also praise him for being a man of
principle and willing to give up his title for 3 years at the age
of 25 at the prime of his career. How many of us give up something
to stand on principle? He was a man of principle. He believed it
and he stood firm, so even those who may disagree with his position
may say at least he stood up for what he believed in. He
suffereconsequences and fortunately was eventually vindicated.
|1.8.08 @ 4:10PM|#
This piece written in the New Republic more or less jibes with the perception I had of Paul while growing up in Lake Jackson: an extremist who was always on the fringe.
|1.8.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Ron Paul may or may not believe the things written in his newsletter. But, assuming the newsletter was not free, he has made money off these racist conspiracy groups for decades. Not unlike Alex Jones (albeit much more under-the-radar).
|1.8.08 @ 4:10PM|#
The newsletter was put out by a seperate corporate entity in
which he held a small minority position. It was a business over
which he presumably had little control or oversight. Most of the
smear pieces had nothing to do with his campaign office or
campaign, and whenever somebody was involved that person was
fired.
You can talk all you want about the newsletters, but the voting
record and his public statements before the house and the people of
the country represent an anti-collectivist, anti-racist platform
and to me such individualist thinking is about as far from racism
as you can get. I'd be hard pressed to find another candidate,
especially on the dem side, who is more anti-racism than Dr. Paul
is.
|1.8.08 @ 4:10PM|#
"For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility
for not paying closer attention to what went out under my
name.""
What does this mean? Does it mean he agrees that he is just as
morally culpable as if the words came from his pen?
|1.8.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Well, if all the spin that has been put on him about who have
aligned themselves with his campaign, this will surely get him
elected!
If not, Hillary at least won't be the 2nd black president.
From The Keystrokes of John Q.|1.8.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Old Racist who has done pro bono work for women of low incomes, including black and hispanic women... Straight out of the pages of the KKK handbook right there. Not like he could get a woman of "color" to go on TV and say He delivered my baby pro bono.
Bingo|1.8.08 @ 4:10PM|#
Can everyone please flame each other without copying and pasting
the same thing over and over again?
Sheesh.
|1.8.08 @ 4:11PM|#
This is all old news. And has been discussed and explained to my
satisfaction many times. Ron Paul is the most pro-gay rights,
anti-racist, and anti-sexist candidate running in either party, bar
none. He is a libertarian in name and in principles. He would never
have been nominated to be the LP presidential candidate if he was
not pro-freedom for everyone, including the folks that all of us
hate.
Ron Paul did not write these things in the old newsletter. Some one
else did. The person was fired. Additionally, be careful of the
context and the question being asked. Ron Paul does not speak in 30
second sound bites. It takes time to explain his positions on
complicated issues where the government has been screwing things up
for people and the harm needs to be undone. Furthermore by his
actions over many years it is 110% clear that these accusations are
all part of a smear campaign by the neocons to discredit Dr. Paul.
The reason is simple; he is beginning to have his anti-war,
pro-economic and pro-individual freedom message heard by America.
And he is taking votes away from the other 5 pro-war candidates.
Slowly but surely he is showing them all out to be inconsistent
flip floppers! He is the un-politician. It is a simple and ugly
smear campaign. That has been tried before. Check out his web site
and his voting record for 30 years. He is the most consistent
pro-individual rights person running. He voted against the Patriot
act for gosh sakes! The New Republic, like Fox News, seems to have
been taken over by the neocons present in both parties. I support
and trust Ron Paul.
RALPH|1.8.08 @ 4:11PM|#
LEW ROCKWELL IS A TERRORIST-CODDLING, AMERICA-HATING, BUSH-LOATHING AGENT OF PIAPS!!!!
|1.8.08 @ 4:11PM|#
This is old news. The only thing shocking is that none of you seem to be aware of these newsletters. I'm pretty sure it was even on drudge a few months back before it resurfaced here today. It's been brought up a couple of times in Paul's past congressional races as well.
RP supporter|1.8.08 @ 4:11PM|#
Well, if Ron Paul thought 30 years ago that Israel was spying the the US, that means I now think we should be in Iraq for the next 100 years and exectue pot smokers! TNR showed me the light!
|1.8.08 @ 4:12PM|#
This is old news ONLY if you never heard it before. Otherwise it is enlightment of Ron Paul's thought process.
|1.8.08 @ 4:13PM|#
A man w/ his record for defending individual liberties does NOT go and make statements like this. He's human and made a mistake by not editing his publication while he was occupied w/ delivering babies. Someone else printed this in his name, he didn't review it, and he's accepted moral responsibility for it. That takes a full grown man. I'm still going to vote for him in SPITE of this obvious smear job. Everyone of you should do the same thing...his message hasn't changed (that takes integrity), nor will my vote (I'm demonstrating my integrity).
|1.8.08 @ 4:13PM|#
Has the Soviet-style, self-policing brainwashing become so effective in this country that people react so viscerally to allegations of politically incorrect opinions? Even if he said these things or some of them -- so what? Do you really believe the Harvard and Yale boys, the power brokers, bankers, and high finance people that run this country and hold positions of power are choir boys? You're in a fight for your country and possibly your life and your playing right into to this kind of priggish, censorious non-sense intended to distract and divide. Hillary, Obama, Guiliani, and Romney aren't saints, you know -- a little bit of research into their writings or personal life will quickly reveal that. So Ron Paul might have said some uncomfortable, offensive things. So who you going to vote for -- the rest are soooooo much better and moral, right?
Todd|1.8.08 @ 4:13PM|#
"The only reason blacks stopped rioting in LA was because their
welfare checks were ready to be picked up."
That's hilarious! Does anybody know if backcopies of RP's
newsletters are available for purchase?
|1.8.08 @ 4:13PM|#
The racial slurs that Kirchick gives dates for are all from the
years 1990-1994. This is exactly the same range of dates in which
the stuff that came out 12 years ago was published. Kirchick's
statement on MSNBC last night that it "spanned two decades" is, to
put it kindly, not supported by the evidence he offers.
If you believed Dr Paul's explanation before, why do you not
believe it now? That's what I don't get.
|1.8.08 @ 4:13PM|#
The campaign should have responded within minutes of Kircheks
remarks on Tucker yesterday. I realize this is all old news and has
been dealt with in the past, but that wont satisfy some. It is a
political smear tactic on Kirchek's part, he needs his guy
Giuliani, to beat Ron Paul today. That is the reason for drudging
this back up. The New Republic is a disgisting leftwing/pro-war
rag, which once referred to Ross Perot as a Hitler lover.
The new York Times attempting this kind of smear, and they were
forced to retract their statements.
Kirchek admitted on Tucker that he has never seen or heard ron paul
use anykind of racist statements in any kind of public speech or
talk. Instead he insinuated that Paul uses codewords, never
mentioned what those codewords were, but I have a feeling that the
primary code word he is reffering to is "states rights." That left
wing rag, hates states rights.
If anyone buys into this crap, especially being released the day of
an important primary, and taking into account the background of the
magazine (i.e. Stephen Glass, Pro-war agend) and taking into
account the political leanings of Kirchek (a huge Giulini
supporter, major neo-con, pro-war) and lastly take this email
response into account from Kirchek: you can see it yourself
at:
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I'm glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the
Boston Globe. I'll try and make the [DC Log Cabin Republicans]
party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn't
particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR
for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls "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
lol|1.8.08 @ 4:14PM|#
"No, but DailyKos and Little Green Footballs will team up with
them if it involves smearing Ron Paul."
Ironic isnt it? the crazy socialists and the crazy war mongers
unite as one to condemn who Senator McCain calls "the most honest
man in congress"
|1.8.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Everything the New Republic listed as being in the Ron Paul newsletters is either true or widely held as true. Go ahead, prove me wrong. BTW, isn't the New Republic the rag that makes up sensational stories?
|1.8.08 @ 4:14PM|#
So in other words, we pillory him for stuff allegedly written
over twenty years ago, with no original sources, no real
authorship, and the only link is the name of the newsletter they
supposedly appeared in?
If this were a courtroom the case would be laughed out of
court.
And the fact that this twerp went to obscure places to find this
stuff indicates that he had an agenda to fulfill, to try to smear
Dr. Paul, and that completely undermines his credibility.
So let's see the sources, and let's have this guy PROVE his
allegations.
Sorry, I don't buy it.
And even if it were true, isn't it possible and entirely proper
that people can change their views for the better???
|1.8.08 @ 4:14PM|#
The New Republic is run by a man who wants to enslave you. Don't
believe it's lies.
Herbert Croly and The New Republic
Posted by Bill Anderson at January 8, 2008 02:27 PM
The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly, a "Progressive" who
believed that the Constitution should be abolished in favor of the
will of governing elites. Here is what Virginia Postrel wrote about
him several years ago:
Crolyism overturned the ideal of limited government in favor of a
combination of elite power - commissions to regulate and plan - and
mass democracy.... Frustrated with constitutional limits, Croly
wrote, "It remains ... true ... that every popular government
should in the end, and after a necessarily prolonged deliberation,
possess the power of taking any action, which, in the opinion of a
decisive majority of the people, is demanded by the public
welfare." This statement, while extreme, pretty much sums up
today's governing philosophy.
So, keep in mind that this is the philosophy behind TNR. It is a
view that the political elite need to tell everyone else what to
do, and use lethal force against people who resist.
|1.8.08 @ 4:15PM|#
---Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he
stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has
disowned.---
Figures, if we just take his word for it, then he is a tool who
isn't bright enough to know what is being written in his name. If
we don't believe him, he is just trying to cover for poor
statements.
Either way, he is not presidential material.
|1.8.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Obama is the only practicing racist in the Presidential
field.
His church dogma is more pro-Africa than American, pretty
disgusting to say the least. Read carefully, these people are full
blown racists parading as christians.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
|1.8.08 @ 4:15PM|#
What I don't understand is why he has to abandon the opinions in the newsletter...whether it makes people uncomfortable or not, the fact is that 95% of the material in the newsletter was spot-on.
fyodor|1.8.08 @ 4:15PM|#
It seems a little implausible that he had no idea, that it never got back to him, that this stuff was in his newsletters. It's possible, sure, but it's hard to swallow. The standards for proof for judging a presidential candidate are different from those in a court of law. Would I refuse to vote for Paul based on this? I don't know, and more info is probably required. Would I support him as enthusiastically now as I would have previously? No.
|1.8.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Bets on how long it takes this thread to crash Reason's
servers?
I submitted a comment, and by the time it showed up, there were
four comments below it already!
|1.8.08 @ 4:16PM|#
If you can't see this is an obvious smear job, then I suggest you vote for Romney. We don't need stupid people voting for Ron Paul.
Shiger|1.8.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Ummm.. If you are running for President, you are going to have to address this again Mr. Paul. The American public doesn't know you yet.
|1.8.08 @ 4:17PM|#
This is a repost from someone else with more detail on the
smear.
Quote:" These were written by an outside writer and it was
discussed many years ago in a Texas Monthly interview with Ron
Paul.
Excerpt from the Texas Monthly interview
"What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was
that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential
race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could
never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really
written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me
with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara
Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together
and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended
up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action,
and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never
personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand:
"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for
them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it
doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's
too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on
that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a
measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his
contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our
interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in
retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told
the truth at the time."
Since I believe in Ron Paul from watching him for 30 years, it is
clear to me that he is protecting someone that is close to him. It
must have been someone very close for him not to release the name.
I can only surmise that he is protecting someone that he does not
want to hurt. You and I can only speculate on why that might be. I
can come up with several good reasons for him to do this. In any
case he has repudiated the columns and outside of the weird non-Ron
Paul writing style, there is nothing else of substance to this
rehashed smear campaign from the neocons.
joel|1.8.08 @ 4:17PM|#
At least New Republic is consistent. I mean, look back at how they exposed the racism of Strom Thurmond and Trent Lott.
R C Dean|1.8.08 @ 4:17PM|#
A disappointing response by Dr. Paul to this
issue.
What would not have been a disappointing response? I thought the
official press release wasn't too bad.
He denies writing the quoted stuff. He denies editing the quoted
stuff.
He denounces it.
He states (plausibly) his support for civil disobedience and
admiration for black and brown practitioners of the art.
He states his belief in a colorblind values.
What's not adequate about that response? What did you want him to
do? Burst into tears about the media conspiracy against him? For
that, go to the Hillary campaign.
|1.8.08 @ 4:17PM|#
The fact that this is coming out now only serves to prove that
Paul's campaign is gaining traction. I'll have to claim ignorance
as to the claims being debunked in the past, though I am sure it
will be dealt with again.
To ask him to deal with this today, during NH's primary is perhaps
expecting a bit much. I have to think his schedule must be grueling
today.
|1.8.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Edited to give clickable link.
Obamas racist "church" dogma:
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
thinkahead|1.8.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Fanning the flames of racial tension is one of the best ways to keep people divided.
Shiger|1.8.08 @ 4:17PM|#
I suggest that Ron Paul supporters take down the "Google Ron Paul" signs and put up "Take our word for it" signs.
|1.8.08 @ 4:17PM|#
A lot of the responses here confirm why I finally let my subscription to Reason lapse. Most writers and apparently many readers are not really libertarians, just as Cato isn't really libertarian. Dr Paul's campaign is not over, it has just begun regardless of this old hearsay and inuendo. If you don't get that, well, it's a libertarian thing.
|1.8.08 @ 4:18PM|#
OK, let's pretend that the Bill Clinton Report, the John Kerry
Report, the John McCain Report and the George Bush Report were
begun by each of those men, but they gradually became less involved
in their operation.
Anybody believe that these newsletters would contain denunciations
of black, gay, and Jewsish people? I agree that Ron Paul is almost
certainly non racist in any sense beyond being a white man of a
certain age with a traditionalist cultural background, but how did
such people end up publishing his newsletter?
|1.8.08 @ 4:18PM|#
How pathetic - dragging out an old smear that has been debunked
for years.
Even IF it were true, which it is NOT, it STILL wouldn't be as bad
as Huckabee pardoning rapists to rape and kill again, Rudy
supplying NYFD with faulty equipment that cost many lives, or
McCain wanting to continue the military occupation of the Middle
East for another 100 years.
Get some perspective people.
|1.8.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Re: Gene Trosper's post (above) on | January 8, 2008, 3:52pm
|
"What will kill the Paul campaign is the refusal to deal with this
in a direct, no holds barred manner."
Are you serious??? "What will kill Paul's campaign?" HAHAHAHAHA.
You actually believe he ever had a chance in teh first place?
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
That is hilarious!
|1.8.08 @ 4:18PM|#
To those that are disappointed. Do you really believe what Mr K
said?
Now if Mr K has his photocopies showing Ron Paul wrote those
letters...that is different and yes, I would be disappointed. But
don't you think, just for a moment, that people that previously ran
against wouldn't have had this info?
I am tired of politics as usual and I am also tired of bad
journalism (or whatever you call hanging by association.)
|1.8.08 @ 4:18PM|#
This is far to long in coming if you ask me. To bad this wasn't made public as he was gaining a voice in the national stage.
|1.8.08 @ 4:18PM|#
It's a hit piece... A desperate attack by the MSM. I was more
shocked that they hadn't found anything worse!
Unfortunately when fighting out on the edges you associate with
many loose cannons! In hindsight he should have been more careful.
All I can say is I agree with 90% of what he is fighting for and
could care less about this.
I refuse to get stuck with candidates I don't agree with at all!
Grow a backbone people. The attacks will get worse!!
|1.8.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Thomas DiLorenzo has debunked Jamie Kirchick's secessionist
conference smear.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html
It was a Mises Institute conference covering *northern*
secessionist movements among abolitionists, Quebec secession
movement, European secession movements, federalism in general, how
the U.S. was created by a war of secession from the British empire,
and even "How to Secede in Business" by substituting arbitration
for litigation. Not exactly a hotbed of Confederate flag
waivers.
How desperate can Jamie Kirchick be?
|1.8.08 @ 4:19PM|#
I don't recall Paul as indulging in cocaine throughout a large
part of the 70's and 80's as our current sitting President did to
pass time. I guess the enemies of freedom and change need something
to attack. The establishment must really be afraid of Paul for a
hit piece to come out on him, and only him, the day of the NH
primary.
We are at the point now where Paul is gaining percentage points as
each day passes while the rest of the Republican candidates are
losing percentage points. It is no surprise the sick hit pieces
come out now. They will ironically have an effect opposite their
intention, increasing awareness of his campaign.
|1.8.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Ok, so by this reasoning Obama is a Coke dealer, Hillary an arms and gun runner, McCain (prisoner of war) PTSD, ......... and on and on....
|1.8.08 @ 4:19PM|#
I used to be a Ron Paul supporter, up until today. Im extremely saddend to know I supported someone with such insane views. Whether it be a smear job or not, it came from his mouth, unless he denies saying it. I'm glad I know now what a maniac he is before I voted.
|1.8.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Assuming the article is correct, is it worse than setting free a
rapist to rape again? Was someone actually harmed by Paul's
newsletters?
That what I find funny, you have people backing Huckabee but
trashing Paul for the newsletters.
Addison|1.8.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Rest in peace, Ron Paul. Maybe the GOP can actually have a debate in peace now without this whack job spewing garbage. He needs to take Economics 101 too. What he says about economic issues makes about as much sense as the democrats. Oh well, he was always a good laugh... just like Alan Keyes.
Seriously|1.8.08 @ 4:19PM|#
Who thinks he has a shot at winning a primary? Because if the answer is no one, then just let the issue go.
|1.8.08 @ 4:20PM|#
I want to physically see the articles in question and have Ron answer the accusations. The he can say they don't reflect what he believes, even though they do. At that point Mr. Paul will become what he says he is trying to defeat.
|1.8.08 @ 4:20PM|#
I wish people would stop with the "this is old news" bullshit.
Gee I guess if it came out that Paul was a guard at Auschwitz, we
would just ignore it as "old news"? This is pretty nasty stuff and
there is no statute of limitations on being a dirtbag.
That said, no one here knows who actually wrote those articles and
how much Ron Paul had to do with them. Since I don't claim the
ability to look into the man's heart, so I will take him at his
word that he doesn't beleive all this stuff.
What does it say about Paul's character that he would associate
with people who believe this crap and let them publish it under his
name? How much courage does it take to say, "if you are going to
use my name, you can't put that crap in there"? How much courage
and judgement does it take to disassociate yourself from people who
hold these views? Understand this is not a case where Paul was
friends with people who hold horrible views. That I think is
understandable. This is a professional an ideological association
with these people to such an extent as publishing a newsletter. I
don't condem Paul for being a racist. I condem Paul for not having
the judgement or moral certainty to stop associating with
racists.
|1.8.08 @ 4:20PM|#
No way I'm jumping on the "Ron Paul is a racist" bandwagon just
because of this pieces, written by a very questionable person with
questionable motives published by a web site I have trouble
with.
I've seen about as many of Paul's speeches and writings as one can
reasonably absorb over the past few months, and never have I seen
any of the venom displayed in that article. I've already heard the
allegations, and how they were handled during his Congressional
race.
Based on his voting record, and his speeches, Paul doesn't support
any kind of black agenda, or white agenda, or latino agenda, and as
a minority (latino) I'm completely fine with that. We each need to
be judged for our own merits, whether applying for a job, getting
graded on collage papers, or whatever. Some of the things in that
article were completely fine, some appear like there are plenty of
reasonable contexts, and some clearly are horrible.
Paul already talked about the embarrassment of having staffer(s)
who used his name to publish things he greatly disagrees with. Of
course his political enemies were going to raise these issues again
in a Presidential race, but it was done in a very questionable
manner.
For now, Paul continues to have my complete support, based on the
platform he is running on, his message, and his history. He has
sufficiently responded to these allegations in the past, and based
on all I know about him and heard from him, I completely believe
him.
webguitartabs.com|1.8.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Ron Paul says he did not edit his newsletter and he's
sorry.
Just one question, if you don't mind. Did you, RON PAUL, READ your
newsletter? I don't care if you edited it. Did you read it? It had
your name on it, so are you going to play us like a fool and tell
us you were completely ignorant of the content? Come man... go
stand in the corner with Bill Clinton "I did not have sexual
relations with that woman".
Game over Ron Paul.. and all his moonbat supporters. Ciao!
getreal|1.8.08 @ 4:20PM|#
Just look at the editors of this trash, who owns it, their history of scandals, and the declining readership. You never know what the future will hold...Be careful about smearing Ron Paul.
|1.8.08 @ 4:20PM|#
colorful. politically incorrect.
Why are there people who actually defend the content of these
columns here, and would some of the other libertarians please say
they are wrong to do so?
|1.8.08 @ 4:20PM|#
I have never seen, or heard Ron Paul utter a racist, or bigoted comment... EVER. Dr. Paul still has my vote.
highnumber|1.8.08 @ 4:21PM|#
I smell Bagels on this smear job.
I smell the gas chamber on that comment.
|1.8.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Ron Paul has committed political suicide
- if he wrote the articles he is racist
- if he allowed such a number of strongly racist positions to be
written in a newsletter carrying his name, then he is racist
- if he (as he says) wasn't paying attention to what was being
written in a newsletter carrying his name then he is
incompetent
We neither want a racist nor an incompetent president
|1.8.08 @ 4:21PM|#
Bingo | January 8, 2008, 4:10pm | #
Can everyone please flame each other without copying and pasting
the same thing over and over again?
Sheesh.
***
No, apparently not.
|1.8.08 @ 4:21PM|#
OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE:
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The
New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not
represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we
should only be concerned with the content of a person's character,
not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage
and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights
of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental
policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on
the day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer
attention to what went out under my name."
Chris|1.8.08 @ 4:22PM|#
wow, they are desparate and afraid of a last minute NH comeback by ron paul. very obvios
|1.8.08 @ 4:22PM|#
I know people who used to read his stuff back then and it was Mr. Paul who wrote that stuff. If he wants to come and say he was wrong I think most people would forgive him for that garbage but if he keeps saying he didn't write it then he is going to be in trouble politically.
|1.8.08 @ 4:22PM|#
At the moment it's bad publicity, but if it's proven to be a smear it's going to make him a front runner. This could be the backfire that blows both parties out of the running. I sure hope it does because the dems and repubs suck tihsgod.
|1.8.08 @ 4:22PM|#
i read through many of the transcripts and its not for the faint
at heart. For the times...someone had to say it and put it in the
arena. It wasn't that far off from what we talk about today, only
in a more concentrated form that weak minds cannot handle and are
pre-programmed to feel certain ways about certain
words/subjects.
Peace,
Q.
|1.8.08 @ 4:22PM|#
I just ate two sandwiches and a bowl of soup.
I'm still on the fence as to whether I want a hard boiled egg.
|1.8.08 @ 4:23PM|#
This is a media hit piece. I'm not shilling for Paul, but I know
from my own reading long ago about this. Paul had a
survivalist-slanted newsletter and a ghost writer who wrote much of
it in his name. HE penned those lines in the newsletter and Paul
disavowed it all a long time ago.
The press should knwo this if they're doin their homework. This is
just cheap blow to try and push Paul out of the race. Next time,
hopefully, he'll better vet his associates.
You can wiki it if you think I'm being partisan.
|1.8.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Dr. Paul must be gaining in the polls. Both sides are
hysterical. I love the guy. AND I don't care what went out in a
newsletter 16 years ago.
I want to see them sifting Obama's garbage in chicago... I can just
imagine what he did or said to get into chicago politics.
None of this stuff matters to Paul supporters. He is a
constitutionalist. that's all that matters to me.
Hillary, Obama, McManiac, Thompson... all craft images for
consumption. Jackals - all of em.
|1.8.08 @ 4:23PM|#
Shiger...go do some digging and you'll find that, even though you are desperately trying to fan flames, it is an old issue. Plus it isn't an issue as portrayed by Mr K.
|1.8.08 @ 4:24PM|#
This is all old news. I guess that none of you have been paying attention to any of this nonsense over the last few months. I suggest that you take a look at who you are voting for, look at their past voting record, then compare that to Ron Pauls'. He has not changed his position on any of the major issues we face for 30 years...are there any other candidates that even come close? This country is almost to the point of no return in becoming a fascist state. All of the "top tier" candidates of both parties in either of the parties are members of the CFR, an organization that is determined to abolish the sovereignty of our country. Research this !! Pay attention people this is important stuff. Ron Paul is America's only hope in maintaining our sovereignty and regaining our personal freedom.
Mookie|1.8.08 @ 4:24PM|#
What kind of sick person lets this go on repeatedly under his
name... profits from these racists... and then refuses to talk
about it when it gets exposed?!?!
Ron Paul is a sad excuse for a presidential candidate. At least
Obama owns up to his mistakes and takes 100% of the
responsibility.
fyodor|1.8.08 @ 4:25PM|#
We don't need stupid people voting for Ron Paul.
No? I thought we needed a majority!! :-)
|1.8.08 @ 4:25PM|#
His exit poll numbers must be shockingly high or this would not have been re-released today. Anyone who has followed his career knows this is BS. He started out lending his name to a Libertarian newsletter for which he sometimes wrote articles. They later used his name as promotion for the newsletter. Later wackos started getting articles published in the newsletter. It's true he should have paid more attention to what was being written by others under his name, but these accusations are false, ancient history, and attempt to stifle a real voice of the people.
charlie|1.8.08 @ 4:25PM|#
In the age of youtube, don't you think if Ron Paul was actually
some Big Bad Racist, that some video clip would have surfaced by
now, ala George Allen's "macacca" moment? I mean, we have a man
that's been in the public spotlight for the last 30 years, and
there's not one clip of him saying something remotely racist?
Is he really that crafty, or is this TNR piece just more
bullshit?
|1.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Please - everyone, spend ten seconds and google this author "James Kirchick" and all questions will be answered. Ron can't respond to this the NIGHT OF A PRIMARY you monkeys. The press is looking for a headline. This was perfectly played by Drudge to sink Paul support and flash some headlines right when NH is going to the polls. No conspicracy - this is politics. Paul is at 14% and he is taking real votes away from McCain.
|1.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#
"Old news? Is there a statute of limitations on being a racist,
old kook?"
As demonstrated by the career of Robert C. Byrd D-WV, apparently
yes. Was Ron Paul ever a racist? No. Thanks for coming on the
show.
|1.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#
You are being lied and manipulated by the media. They want war.
They are agents of death and are lying about Ron Paul, because he
threatens them.
Do you want to die in war? Do you want you family to die in war? DO
NOT BELIEVE THE LIES OF THE WARMONGERS.
RON PAUL'S OWN WORDS:
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 58. I saw Muhammad Ali as
a man of great courage, and I admired him for this, not because of
the courage that it took to get in a ring and fight men bigger than
he, but because of his stance in 1967.
In 1967, he was 25 years old. He was the heavyweight champion of
the world, and for religious beliefs, he practiced what Martin
Luther King made popular, civil disobedience, because he disagreed
with the war. I thought his comments were rather astute at the time
and were not complex, but he merely said, I have no quarrel with
the Viet-Cong. He said the Viet-Cong never called him a name, and
because of his religious convictions, he said he did not want to
serve in the military. He stood firm, a man of principle, and I
really admired this as a quality.
He is known, of course, for his athletic skills and his
humanitarian concerns, and these are rightly mentioned in a
resolution like this. But I do want to emphasize this because, to
me, it was so important and had such impact, in reality, what
Muhammad Ali did eventually led to getting rid of the draft, and
yet we as a people and we as a Congress still do not have the
conviction that Muhammad Ali had, because we still have the
selective service; we say, let us not draft now, but when the
conditions are right, we will bring back the draft and bring back
those same problems that we had in the 1960s.
I see what Muhammad Ali did as being very great. He deserves this
recognition, but we should also praise him for being a man of
principle and willing to give up his title for 3 years at the age
of 25 at the prime of his career. How many of us give up something
to stand on principle? He was a man of principle. He believed it
and he stood firm, so even those who may disagree with his position
may say at least he stood up for what he believed in. He
suffereconsequences and fortunately was eventually vindicated.
Its_pathetic|1.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Their are only a couple of people here that keep posting negative stuff under different names. Its part of an orchestrated smear job.
|1.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Ron Paul isn't very careful about who he associates himself with. End of story. Tell us something we don't know.
Bingo|1.8.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Okay so the plan tonight is go for a jog, have some beer.
Definitely thinking of hitting on the chick that works at the
falafel place, hot damn she's gorgeous! Oh yeah and eat some
falafel. Then some more beer and falling asleep.
What are you guys up to?
|1.8.08 @ 4:27PM|#
joe - it's obvious the whole gang of folks is here to state over
and over again what they believe to be true, and no amount of
reason is going to change their minds.
Paul can't win to these clowns: either he's a "racist" or "too
incompetent" to be President....*sigh*...big surprise that this
comes out and a whole mess of people have set it up so the man
can't just apologize like he has and we all move the fuck on.
|1.8.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Actually, I took time to read what the newsletters purported to
say, I was undecided but now he gets my vote!
He also has a sense of humor!!!
|1.8.08 @ 4:27PM|#
To me, the Paul campaign isn't so much about Ron Paul, as much as it's a big "fuck you" to D.C. It bothers me that he seems to be a crypto-racist, but until a better "fuck you" option comes along, I'll keep supporting him.
|1.8.08 @ 4:27PM|#
Obviously some hideous corner of the Net linked here...I've never seen so many anti-Paul spammers, as it were.
highnumber|1.8.08 @ 4:27PM|#
joe,
It is awful stuff. No, it's not just "colorful" or "politically
incorrect." The racist bits are awful.
|1.8.08 @ 4:28PM|#
It makes me sad that we have to go through this. If the country were really interested in libertarian-style ideas in the first place we would actually have a choice of candidates with libertarian-type positions. Instead we have to put a lot of stock in one person's campaign, which obviously, has its downsides.
PC|1.8.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Guess Fred is going to bow out after Paul takes South Carolina by a record margin due to this news.
Guy Montag|1.8.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Allen Lottinger, TNR is NOT owned by Murdoch, unless
you know of some sort of secret-conspiracy-shell-game that is going
on and have some proof of it.
That magazine is bizarre. They supported the GWOT for a while and
many of their Leftie friends attacked them relentlessly, even
though their position was that the wrong party was running the
war.
Then they ran the "Baghdad Diarist" series, that they had nobody
in-house with a military background to make a guess if they were
true. As soon as those were proven false, they got a boost
from the military-hating Lefties, but it is not clear if
TNR intended to bash the military or not. They just did
not seemed to go along with whatever was sent to them and treated
it like a movie review.
A couple of days ago, TNR published a glowing article of well
mannered, smart, nice, Ron Paul supporters in NH. No telling if
that one was factual, of course, but now they publish this re-hash
of stuff long since debunked.
Is Can-West going to be publishing The Protocols of the Elders
of Zion as some new revelation in the evolution of the Jews
before Valentine's day?
They seem like the political version of 2600, without the
consistancy.
|1.8.08 @ 4:29PM|#
ed-I was under the impression that there were only a few articles with racist statements in them, and that they were published over a short period of time. It's starting to look like that wasn't the case, and that's a lot harder to explain away.
|1.8.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Having it happen time and again over decades is not.
Warren, "it" didn't "happen time and again over decades". There
were two essays at the time of the LA riots that have
decidedly offensive racist content.
The remainder of the "anti-semitism" and "hate" can be pretty much
summed up as, "Ron Paul criticized Israel, thinks welfare programs
are bad and thinks it's OK for people to own guns." Yes, really, in
some circles these things are considered wrong.
Jweaver|1.8.08 @ 4:30PM|#
My favorite part is the lack of thought with the Ron Paul supporters here. You may hate the New Republic, but guess what -they have the goods. Ron Paul should have handled this DECADES ago, but that would have taken character. Saying you take responsibility and actually taking responsibility are not the same thing. If Paul did not author these pieces he should say who did. Yet he has not and it does not matter about Kirchick's motives - it matters if these did appear under Paul's name and if it happened over a period of time. If the guy cannot control a freaking newspaper with his name on it, how in the hell will he be able to control the government. P.S. The quirky Jew-baiting by some of you idiots really does not help your case (Bill Whalker - I am looking at your post).
|1.8.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Hm? I do a newsletter each month to send to some of my clients.
Maybe 500 or so each month.
There are many times that my staff does the editing (for good
grammar reason) and sends out the newsletters. There are times I am
not in the office for an entire month and didn't have a chance to
read the final article.
There are many companies that have a newsletter go out and the
newsletter is supplied by a third party. It isn't even written by
the company whose letterhead appears on it.
I can easily see how a newsletter could go out and R. Paul didn't
write the nasty stuff. Those that say he is incompetent because he
didn't read it....well you may have much more time on your hands
than me.
|1.8.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Ayn_Randian,
Is there anything that could be published in Ron Paul's name that
would change your opinion of him? Honestly, if George Bush had
published these newsletters, you would be on here saying they were
no big deal? Perhaps Paul can't win with some of us, but it is
equally clear he can't lose with you.
|1.8.08 @ 4:30PM|#
This is silly. An unbalanced staffer he later fired was
responsible for this stuff. How can you claim he "didn't do
anything about it" when he fired the guy?
Paul doesn't even have control over his fundraising. He lives and
works like a libertarian: he's not a narcissistic control freak
like Hillary, Barack, Mitt, Rudy, et al.
He's actually sane enough to be given power, and he's the only one
in the race that is. If we don't elect him we're doomed, really
doomed. We're degenerating into an amoral, over-armed, parasitic
blight on humanity. Bromides about "change" will not even slow our
descent. Even Paul, if elected, can only reverse direction for a
few years. We would have to stick with it after that, and I doubt
we will.
WE don't deserve this chance. The hit piece from TNR, and the play
it is getting, prove that.
|1.8.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Okay so the plan tonight is go for a jog, have some beer.
Definitely thinking of hitting on the chick that works at the
falafel place, hot damn she's gorgeous! Oh yeah and eat some
falafel. Then some more beer and falling asleep.
I'm gonna go for a run, then with any luck, I'll be doing horrible
things to the hot tattooed bartender who inexplicably seems to like
me. She has a topless chick tattoo on her arm. Wish me luck.
|1.8.08 @ 4:31PM|#
Besides, NH is today and I doubt that this is really going
to affect the voting in a significant way.
True, but Michigan is next Tuesday, a primary open to Democrats and
independents with a large minority population.
Which probably explains why the TNR article was first slated to
appear this Friday. Now that Ron Paul is threatening to earn more
votes than Giuliani again, they decided to move it up a few
days.
|1.8.08 @ 4:31PM|#
Sage,
That egg should be done by now.
Bingo,
Definitely hit on the Falafel girl...
spamme|1.8.08 @ 4:33PM|#
It's funny how so many of you are attacking Ron Paul now, even though you admit that the writer of this piece is not a good journalist, and the writing also did not appear to be that of Dr. Paul's also. Saying Dr. Paul refused to return the racists check sent to him made him a racists and supports the article was also stupid. I think you watched Dr. Paul's response in that one, he cannot screen everyone, and two, it's good that he took away money from a racists. I think the second part was important, but there are a lot of left wing airheads out there. Also, drawing only two conclusion from this situation like some of you have only shows your stupidity. You suggest that either Ron Paul wrote this article, which is game over for him, or if he didn't, then he was too incompetent and lazy to have let this slip under his name. This certainly limits the outcome to where both cases are bad for RP, but I guess the stupid can hardly be blame for not being able to come up with more reasons. So let me do it for you, could it be that RP hired the staff because he certainly have some trusts in them? He did say those were published while he was practicing medicine full-time. So I guess it's inconceivable to some people that, the time required to review everything that is published might not be there, and that he could actually trust his staff to not make some racists comments and betray him is so unusual?
Guy Montag|1.8.08 @ 4:33PM|#
At least they did not fabricate a quote for Dr. Paul saying he drives a hybrid ;)
Ben|1.8.08 @ 4:33PM|#
Calling Ron Paul racist for this stuff that he has already stated he didn't write is like saying that every article The New Republic has ever published is false because of Stephen Glass.
|1.8.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Pig Mannix | January 8, 2008, 4:07pm | #
I thought Kirchick was going to provide photo-copies of the
newsletters - where are they?
Here
|1.8.08 @ 4:34PM|#
I wouldn't take much stock in the accusations made in the New
Republic. This came out on the day of the New Hamp. primary for one
reason, the establishment is afraid of him.
Always judge a man by his actions, not by what people say about
something they say someone says. Wow, one OPINION article on the
day of the primary and you're ready to jump ship? C'mon, don't be
such a wimp. Check the background of the one who wrote the piece to
make sure he doesn't have his own agenda. Also ask yourself this:
Just how does a candidate get to be in the lead? I think you will
have to admit that they are pretty much fielded by who the media
wants to talk about. Ron Paul espouses beliefs which are contrary
to those of the establishment and the establishment's media. Sounds
conspiratorial, I know. However, if a person considers themselves
to be so damn open-minded, why not check out those rumblings rather
than just taking what someone in the establishment's media says as
gospel?
|1.8.08 @ 4:34PM|#
So he stands by the stuff he claims he wrote if it's not embarrassing and he disclaims the stuff that's embarrassing because he didn't write it, even though his name is on the newsletter mast. Pretty neat. I am reminded of the environment fanatics who use any variety of weather anomolies, either too hot or too cold, as evidence of global warming. If it cannot be disproved, except by denial, then it's just old news.
|1.8.08 @ 4:35PM|#
LJ,
Not quite.
Put egg in saucepan with water covering it. Bring to boil (just
short of a rolling boil, IMO). Remove from heat. Let stand 12-15
minutes.
Highnumber,
Simple green works well, but you need to dilute it for floors. For
degreasing engines full strength is the way to go.
The Democratic Republican|1.8.08 @ 4:35PM|#
I think the worst part of this is that the article is more favorable to Paul than the actual newsletters.
Ivan|1.8.08 @ 4:35PM|#
This is nothing more than a smear article on the night of the NH
caucus. Ignore it until real proof is provided not BS from a BS guy
who was fired.
Ron Paul has never said anything racist in his life.
|1.8.08 @ 4:36PM|#
I'm not a Ron Paul supporter for a number of reasons, mostly due
to fact I completely disagree with his ignorance in foreign policy
and the very valid war against terror. BUT much of what this
liberal Kirchick writes does not show raciscm, it shows how you
can't say a single thing critical of liberalized special interest
groups, without getting yourself smeared in the process. Is it not
possible to criticize anyone that belongs to one of these protected
groups? As a conservative, I also don't like this liberal writer's
attempts at smearing all libertarian thinking and smearing Ludwig
Von Mises for example. There are no doubt a lot of kooks in the
libertarian side of the spectrum, but conservatism and
libertarianism share a lot of very worthy points of view, and they
don't involve racism or sexism, and are not anti-semitic. I happen
to share a lot of the views espoused by Ludwig Von Mises although
disagree on some points as well. Von Mises you will know, was
absolutely correct in his views of socialism/communism, and that is
probably why this liberal writer is trying to smear his name (as
well) in the same article.
Again, I don't like Ron Paul's candidacy and I don't share a lot of
his views, so I won't be voting for him, but I have to call a spade
a spade. I don't like smears written by ardent leftists who write
for the New Republic.
|1.8.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Yes - the author of this story is a gay neocon who has argued that Paul's ideas on stopping support to Israel is dangerous. That didn't take long for us to find now did it. It took Drudge longer than it took me, but he took all the links down when he found out. Now lets all get back to work...Ron Paul 08
Josh|1.8.08 @ 4:36PM|#
There appears to be a line of argument that if Paul can't
properly moderate every line (keep in mind, 90+% of the
newsletters' content were not racist, homophobic, etc.) in a
newsletter, that he's unfit to be a President.
Huh?
It was a newsletter, that was not public, with a very limited
subscriber base. If he read every title, he's probably giving it
more attention than it deserves.
Ted Kennedy ran over a girl, and tried to cover it up.
Clinton...lots there. Huckaby's son went Michael Vick in the 90s.
McCain used his power to keep a criminal out of jail, and then
enjoyed the kickbacks. Guliani is about as corrupt as they come. I
could go on.
BUT OH MY GOD RON PAUL DIDN'T EDIT A NEWSLETTER!
These guys are guilty of abusing power, doing bad things that
actually affect people. Ron Paul's guilty of not closely editing a
newsletter that nobody read and affected nobody. Perspective,
folks.
The Democratic Republican|1.8.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Kevin: Be angry at TNR all you want, but the truth is that they can only write an article like this because of what PAUL said or allowed to be said. He hung himself.
|1.8.08 @ 4:37PM|#
This story is like the one about Obama being a Muslim extremist.Any threat to the military industrial corporations will be met with this kind of smear. Haliburton and the war mongers are scared to death that peace is going to break out.
spamme|1.8.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Jweaver, you're an idiot. He has said that he did not write those articles, what is the reason for pointing out who did it? Who cares about the person that did it? I only care that he did not write it. Also, the fact that this happened about not being able to run his own paper only shows your ignorance of the platform he runs on. He is running with the Constitution in mind, that is limited government, and protect people's liberty, not trying to control it. For all of you who do not think such limited government works, look at Hong Kong and understand why they became so rich so fast.
|1.8.08 @ 4:38PM|#
It is interesting that Ron Paul has such great things to say about MLK and the like but he associates with people who consider the Civil War and the freeing of the slaves to be the defining failure of American history. For anyone, letalone a white person who never suffered under slavery or Jim Crow to sit around and talk about how horrible the civil rights act and the Union's winning of the civil war was is disgracful and Paul does that a lot. It is one thing to say, "our government is too big and we need to put it back the way it was". It is quite another thing to say that "we should have left the government small even if that meant continueing slavery and Jim Crow." That is just crap.
highnumber|1.8.08 @ 4:39PM|#
sage,
I use this Mexican cleaning solution that smells like passion
fruit.
The Wife made an egg casserole from a Paula Deen recipe the other
day. Wow, it was yummy.
John|1.8.08 @ 4:39PM|#
TNR is full of shit. No proof and no factual sources? How can
you post something about a candidate on the day of elections when
it can influence the vote. Provide actual copies signed or endorsed
by Ron Paul and then I will believe it.
I call BS all the way. Shame on TNR.
|1.8.08 @ 4:39PM|#
Um, sorry, if you put out a newsletter in your name, you pay
attention to what it says.
Why?
Because otherwise someone might say something stupid and racist and
hold you responsible.
He sent out the newsletter in his name to communicate his message.
Now he wants to pretend he had nothing to do with it?
This is a test. They have made the "special" koolaid and are asking
you to drink. Paulians, are you smart enough to say no?
Btw, Sullivan apparenlty is not.
|1.8.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Jamie Kirchick (author of the New Republic story):
"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."
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
|1.8.08 @ 4:40PM|#
If the guy can't supervise a newsletter with his name on the masthead, how exactly do we expect to manage the country?
|1.8.08 @ 4:40PM|#
As a Ron Paul supporter, I am shocked by these latest attacks. You really have to dig deep and dirty to find anything on the most honorable man in Washington and if you can't find it you make it up. As for the groups that Ron Paul mistrusts, Bilderbergers, CFR, Federal Reserve Bankers and the like, these are not conspiracies, these are real groups that meet behind closed doors to decide the fate of the World. One World Government run by the elite, destroying sovereignty and liberty is not something that I envision for my grandchildren. Unjust laws that promote special interest are unconstitutional. True liberty can never be achieved until all individuals are treated equally under the law. I look at Ron Paul's platform and his record and I can tell what kind of man he is. He wants to end the war and bring all of the troops home from around the world. He wants to end the unconstitutional IRS. He wants to have sound economic policies that are not controlled by the Federal Reserve bankers. He wants to stop the Patriot Act that trashes the Bill of Rights. When this country is engaging in secret tribunals, torturing people, suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, engaging in undeclared wars and our media is controlled by propagandist and the only hope this country has is an honest man that has the wisdom and foresight to lead us out of this quagmire, your smear piece will not work for me and others like who choose to use their own research, their on intelligence to make their choice for president. Freedom is Ron Paul's message! He has said "even an army can not stop an idea whose tome has come". You and the likes of you can not stop us now. This country will be free again! By the way, I recommend that you listen to one of Ron Paul's supporters by
Bingo|1.8.08 @ 4:41PM|#
LJ: She brought up quantum physics last time I made a carryout
order *siiiigh*
Damn sage, you're an artist with the eggies, thats some patience.
Personally, I go for the "plop it in a pan and scramble, serve with
spicy salsa" method.
|1.8.08 @ 4:41PM|#
From Lew Rockwell's site:
January 08, 2008
The New 'Republic'
Posted by Lew Rockwell at January 8, 2008 02:04 PM
TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism,
and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive
movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation,
centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and
fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having
published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass,
which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an
important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long
ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree
ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically
correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a
cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he
was running for president. That is the publication's
style--hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.
|1.8.08 @ 4:41PM|#
I had never heard that MLK was a child molester, but i don't doubt it. He was a communist and the entire civil rights movement was a sham orchestrated in Moscow to cause chaos and disorder in this country curing the Cold War. If you don't believe me, look into MLK and Rosa Parks' relationship to the Highlander Folk School in Tennessee.
|1.8.08 @ 4:41PM|#
"""Just one question, if you don't mind. Did you, RON PAUL, READ
your newsletter? ""
He should but, it's not legislation to be voted on. I'll bet no
politician read their newsletters.
Ron Pauls response is consistant with anything I've read or seen
from him. Since when was any other candidate consistant. Even if
Ron Paul is flip-flopping, he's still flip-flopping less that the
other republican candidates.
If the republicans have a problem with the ever changing position,
for whom will they vote???? Oh wait, it's ok for their guy to
flip-flop, just not the other guy.
|1.8.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Bingo,
I'd probably do the scramble if I was starving. But I'm just
topping off lunch.
Highnumber,
Passion fruit, eh? Yeah, my wife doesn't care for the simple green
smell anyway; I mostly use it in the garage.
|1.8.08 @ 4:43PM|#
Don't get distracted by the smoke and mirrors. Stay focused on
the issues:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues
spamme|1.8.08 @ 4:44PM|#
Jose Ortega y Gasset, that is the point, he is not suppose to manage the country. He wants to let the free market do it, and hence my reference to how well something like this works out for a country. Look at Hong Kong, when the British took it over, they didn't do shit, they just let the market work itself out there, and Hong Kong just got wealthier and wealthier. If you think a President should manage all the aspect of the country, then you should look at old Soviet Russia.
|1.8.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Only The Mentally Minuscule Take Words Out Of Context To Bend
Them To Their Preconceived Paradigm.
If you refuse to look at the actions of a man for temperance of
judgment then you truly castrate you mind and make it easy to
arrive at wrong conclusion.
The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion.
Racism is not consistent with the philosophy expressed by Ron Paul.
He has rebutted these accusations from the same distortions in
previous days.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would trust with my money and
my family's safety.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!
|1.8.08 @ 4:45PM|#
The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the
closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far
better off when social pressure forced them to hide their
activities."
I think he released this stuff because he is angling to be
Huckabee's running mate.
highnumber|1.8.08 @ 4:45PM|#
sage,
I keep buying the passion fruit stuff because the Wife loves it. It
makes the house smell like candy.
|1.8.08 @ 4:45PM|#
I note with displeasure that there was not a single use of the term "Paultard" in any of the comments prior to my own. Balance is now restored.
Richard|1.8.08 @ 4:46PM|#
If you go over to TNR's site, they do have PDFs of the newsletters at issue. No, they're not "signed by Dr. Paul." But they were published in a newsletter he founded, by people he trusted. I don't think Paul's a racist either, but he has way too high a tolerance for kooks and cranks.
|1.8.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Ron Paul:
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine
full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not
edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a
decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying
closer attention to what went out under my name."
http://tinyurl.com/3xfocd
Yawn|1.8.08 @ 4:49PM|#
Yawn.
Some, at worst, politically-incorrect rhetoric written by someones
other than Ron Paul many, many years ago.
Yawn.
However, one piece of friendly advice for the author: From what
I've seen of some Paul supporters, and the passion that the
Revolution is stirring, he'd do well to watch his back.
|1.8.08 @ 4:49PM|#
What a let-down, it will certainly kill his campaign. It proves though, that we take very seriously any threat to the gains we've made againest racism; now if we would only begin to concern ourselves with other things that threaten our freedoms as well. Ron Paul was the only one that I thought might help return to us the freedoms we had enjoyed for so long. I guess the middle class will cease to exist.
|1.8.08 @ 4:50PM|#
"I don't think Paul's a racist either, but he has way too high a
tolerance for kooks and cranks."
Judging from the behavior and comments of his supporters, really?
You don't say?
|1.8.08 @ 4:50PM|#
The hysteria on these pages! So many comments of, "I was the biggest Ron Paul supporter but this is just awful, awful, awful, and I'll never vote for him now". Pathetic.
|1.8.08 @ 4:51PM|#
"We will soon send money to our man on MLK day."
YOU KNOW IT! One money bomb coming up....
I know that I'll be donating to Dr. Paul on that day.
BlackAmerican4Paul|1.8.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Well, as a black American, I admit that I found this a little
bit disturbing at first.
However, the timing of this piece is highly suspect. And given the
recent exclusion of Ron Paul (the GOP candidate with the most
fund-raising totals from the Fox debate, for which no legitimate
reason was provided) it has become pretty blatantly obvious to me
that Ron Paul is absolutely terrifying the people who control this
country, and the Establishment.
I also have to consider the source and examine the motives of the
New Republic journalist.
This gives me pause for concern:
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
-------
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 [DC Log Cabin Republicans]
party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn't
particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR
for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls "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
-------
Hmmm. It's pretty obvious from this that the journalist (Kirchik)
is a Rudy supporter, or at least admires Rudy. He himself admits
that he doesn't think Ron Paul is a homophobe, so why did he go
through with this article? He says himself that he simply loves to
get people riled up by hurling barbs at their favorite political
candidate, so why should I take this person seriously.
I don't like it when the media tries to use race as a wedge against
people who want to radically change the status quo. I'm 26 years
old, but from what I've read in my studies, this is very similar to
what the media did to Barry Goldwater (saying he was a racist),
when in reality Barry Goldwater was a member of the NAACP. I see
this happening again, and I don't like it. It makes me wonder if
the media's accusations of a person's alleged racism increase in
proportion to their opposition to the Federal Reserve. Makes you
wonder.
Also, I have a hard time believing that Ron Paul is racist when he
has stated publicly that he would consider Walter Williams as his
running mate:
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/05/do_tell_ron_paul_on_babies_pro.html
"Sleuth: If you were to defy the polls and the odds and win the
nomination, who would be your running mate?
Paul: Well, I don't know, but if I won, you know, I'd want a
recount. You know, lets be certain about what's going on
here.
But a running mate. Somebody like Walter Williams. Walter Williams
is a very good economist. John Stossel, John Stossel would be
good."
Walter Williams is a well-known black American economist. I have to
wonder: how many other GOP candidates have mentioned a black
American as a possible VP pick? My guess is none of them.
The media is in a tough spot here. Because FOX was so blatant about
it, a lot of people are aware that the media has an obvious agenda
to keep Ron Paul's message out of the debates and off the air.
People are not stupid and can see this. This story has been
literally been around for months before this, so the fact that
TNR's article happens to coincide with the NH primary is further
proof that Ron Paul has someone scrambling. Something stinks here,
and I'm not buying it.
|1.8.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Don't get distracted by the small-minded idiots. Stay focused on
the issues:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues
|1.8.08 @ 4:53PM|#
Reason Editors: This thread is becoming a train wreck. Any hope of actual discourse has been lost amid the shrieking and the cut-and-paste posts. Let's just end it. Please.
|1.8.08 @ 4:53PM|#
BlackAmerican4Paul,
Ron Paul like Nixon handed his enemies the sword with which to kill
him. If you don't want fleas, don't sleep with dogs is all I have
to say to Paul.
|1.8.08 @ 4:56PM|#
Of course he's anti-gay, he wants to end the drug war and quit
subsidizing state sponsered, just look the other way, rape in the
prison system, we can spin that as anti-gay right? (maybe there's a
racist spin angle in there we can work up too?)
Let's! Let's be in the cool clique and bash him about it, it's the
new hip thing, it's easy and gets you hits on your site, and will
undoubtedly help your bright future! Of course, might torpedo it
too, if [when] people decide they can make up thier own minds
instead, and/or learn they've been mislead...
Roll the dice yo, I'm still behind what is obviously a Great Man as
it's my bet most all people will see this in him one day, one way
or another; for me it's just a question of if it'll be soon enough
to significantly help our lives or because it's too late. I'm also
taking notes on who's pulling for what, [indivduals, sites, papers,
stations, networks, channels, et al] and will remember you 'cool
clique' so-called journalists and your actions and slants forever,
if you were a friend of mine I'd candily advise you to hop on or
under.
Additionally, to friends, this is likely just the beginning of a
dedicated 'whatever is nessecery' campain, I'd like to remind
readers that all those who claim to be or have been RP supporters
really are/were, and that those of us who indeed are need to have
thick skin and dedication.
|1.8.08 @ 4:57PM|#
I'd rather live under the tyranny of freedom advocated by a
racist than the liberty of socialism advocated by a neo-con
twat.
Fuck Clinton, Fuck-abee, vote Ron Paul.
Next topic, please.
|1.8.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Does anybody think "The Bill Clinton Newsletter" would contain
this crap, regardless of whether Bill Clinton editted it?
The John Kerry Survival Report?
The George Bush Political Report?
Somebody who writes "The LA riots only stopped because it was time
to pick up the welfare checks" doesn't work in an environment full
of political debate without giving off whiff. You might not know
whether the guy in the next cubicle at Stanley Morgan is a racist,
but you can get a pretty good idea of what somebody writing for a
political publication thinks about politics.
Ron Paul didn't edit it, fine. He didn't read it, fine. Somebody
editted it. Somebody wrote it. Somebody read it. There must have
been several people involved in the publication of this repugnant
shit, and none of them thought it inappropriate enough to get rid
of the writer after he did it the first or second time? That tells
me that everyone involved in the publication of the Ron Paul
Political/Survival Report was, at a minimum, ok with those
sentiments.
|1.8.08 @ 4:58PM|#
Why is everyone so eager to believe the bad things and ignore
the things that are really important and good? Does he have to go
over this every time someone wants the advantage over him? It's
pure politics and nothing more. If you can't believe in your
candidate then leave him be but don't try to smear him with
innuendos you don't even know the facts to.
I have been around for many years and would not or could not
imagine Ron Paul lying to any of us. He is a man of principle and
stands for everything you should want in our country. Mainly
FREEDOM!!! Even John McCain said Ron Paul was the most honest
person he has known.
I'LL VOTE FOR RON PAUL OR NOT AT ALL!!
|1.8.08 @ 4:59PM|#
Damn poeple!!
He said it was old news because it is old news!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy
It's come up and been used by his opponents for office but debunked
every time since.
This is a classic smear & distraction piece, (the timimg should
tell you something!!!).
ivan|1.8.08 @ 5:00PM|#
To all the alleged "Ron Paul supporters" that say he is over and
finished, I have this to tell you:
YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN TROLLS. Stop posting false opinions and
stirring up the conversation into a direction of hate to satisfy
your agenda. It's devils like you that put down good people with
good ideas. I hope you get what is coming to you in this or the
next life.
Do your own research and then make up your mind about Ron Paul.
|1.8.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Why is everyone so eager to believe the bad things and
ignore the things that are really important and good?
Becasue we can see the effing newsletters!
VM|1.8.08 @ 5:01PM|#
or, joe - how would some react hier to such (or functionally equivalent) phrases from the HRC newsletter? pretend it was from a HRC newsletter saying "Kyoto is needed to thwart the US economy". etc.
|1.8.08 @ 5:01PM|#
Yeah, do your own research.
Read the content of the newsletters, handily linked to in this very
thread.
Jamie Kirchick's motivations don't change a single word of that
dreck.
|1.8.08 @ 5:02PM|#
"""If you don't want fleas,..."""
Stay out of politics, the public will think you have fleas, the
facts be damned.
|1.8.08 @ 5:02PM|#
"Why is everyone so eager to believe the bad things and ignore
the things that are really important and good?"
Because it is a bunch of people from the same organization trying
to do a coordinated attack on Ron Paul. It's the same guy posting
over and over again under different user names.And, it's not just
happening on this site.... it's happening all over the Net right
now. Check Google news. But, it doesn't change the fact that Ron
Paul is an honest and good man. He always has been. Those who
aren't sure can always go do their own research and learn for
themselves: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues
|1.8.08 @ 5:03PM|#
There are some folks out there very very afraid. And I don't
blame them.
Eggs have a violent effect on me.
|1.8.08 @ 5:03PM|#
Ron Paul is the only politician running for president that
speaks about actual policy and ideas. Everyone else is I will do
this and I will do that with no idea how to do them. I will vote
for the truth and this smear campaign will not work. Notice how
this comes out when he is gaining ground. No one can fight him on
policy or his voting record so they have to go 20-30 years in the
past and lie to get a shred of something to smear. It will not
work.
RON PAUL 2008!!
|1.8.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Andrew Sullivan Speaks:
"But there is a simple way to address this: Paul needs to say not
only that he did not pen these excrescences, he needs to explain
how his name was on them and disown them completely. I've supported
Paul for what I believe are honorable reasons: his brave resistance
to the enforced uniformity of opinion on the Iraq war, his defense
of limited constitutional government, his libertarianism, his
sincerity. If there is some other agenda lurking beneath all this,
we deserve to know. It's up to Ron Paul now to clearly explain and
disown these ugly, vile, despicable tracts from the past."
Yep. Except Paul doesn't do a very good job disowning ugly, vile,
despicable supporters.
|1.8.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Joe
Is you problem with the fact that Ron Paul didn't read, or edit his
newsletter? Or do you believe he wrote it?
spamme|1.8.08 @ 5:05PM|#
Heh, John, just remember this, under your standards, think about the last few mistakes you've made, and tell yourself that you're the biggest idiot/loser ever. People make mistakes, get over it.
|1.8.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Don't get distracted by all the mud-slinging, hand waving, and name calling. Stay focused on the issues: http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues
|1.8.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Right, Spamme, I believe the idea is to have someone at the top
to get things like unnecessary restrictions out of the way so that
we can manage our own affairs at a reasonable cost.
Touche, John, ...Huckabee's running mate...no kidding, why isn't he
being harrassed for his obvious bias?!
|1.8.08 @ 5:06PM|#
Please guys & girls.. Why do you think a neoconnish outfit
publishes this smearpiece a day before the primary RP would most
likely perform well?
Surely, the letter is disappointing. But RP is not a racist, anyone
with two (or one) eyes can see that this man is a good man. He may
be conservative, he may be oldfashioned, but at heart, he's clearly
the best we've seen.
The big picture is to have his message spread. Otherwise, we'll be
locked into the neocon-liberal paradigm.
And who is this Kerchik anyway? What kind of credibility does he
have? Don't you all suspect his motives, at least, a bit? I
do.
I will vote RP, or I will not vote.
|1.8.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Where's this debunking? It sure looks like this stuff went out under his name. What did he do about it at the time? Nothing?
|1.8.08 @ 5:07PM|#
Jamie Kirchick (author of the New Republic story):
"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."
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
|1.8.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Here is what your missing. The New Republic is owned by CanWest
Global, which is owned by the Asper family trust. The Aspers are
stanch supporters of Israel. No doubt they felt threatened by this
campaign which if successful, would end U.S. involvement in that
region. The Asper's own most print media in Canada along with
Global TV network. They have a policy (yes, actual policy) of hands
off of Israel. No criticism allowed. Do a google search on Izzy
Asper or CanWest Global if you want more info.If it was not for
Paul's non-interventionist policies, they may have actually gotten
support from CanWest.
As for the actual content of those newsletters, they've been know
for a very long time and should have been considered prior to the
campaign. They were bound to come out at the worst time and they
did.
rhys|1.8.08 @ 5:10PM|#
I don't think he is going to lose many supporters. If people
will vote for Huckabee after he claimed HIV infected people should
be quarantined, and Romney after he claimed it is okay to abort
babies as long as the he gets to be governer, and McCain after he
claimed that the American people are to blame for making the US
government lose Vietnam, and Giuliani after he claimed that freedom
is about giving up individual discreation to the government, and
Thompson after he claimed that his trophy wife was his favorite
possession, then I don't think some ancient writing that was
'supposedly' from Paul is going to dissuade his voters.
First, few will believe the MSM over Paul since the MSM has no
credibility with his supporters. Second, everyone that supports him
knows that the people in power are afraid of him. And third, there
is no evidence that this is a part of his beliefs, motivations, or
platform since no action he has ever taken has ever corroberated
this supposed 'evidence' with his character.
It's just dirt like any other. The timing is not good either for
inflicting damage either. If someone wanted to really hurt Paul
they should have come out with it on Thursday or Friday of last
week.
I think this will slip off. America needs Paul too much. If this is
the worst there is, there is no other possible choice for a voter
like me who demands that the President actually uphold the oath of
office.
|1.8.08 @ 5:10PM|#
What Jamie Kirchick is attempting is a "Swiftboating." By
throwing accusations out at an inopportune time, he is hoping the
claims can't be disproved in a timely fashion and that he can build
a career move off of being the man who brought down Ron Paul.
Luckily it appears that the mainstream media learned their lesson
on Switfboating with John Kerry. The media jumped on that bandwagon
then, and they not only ended up looking like fools, but also
helped elect George Bush in the process.
It was irresponsible journalism that put George Bush in the White
House then, and who knows what damage irresponsible (and selfishly
motivated) journalism may have done now.
|1.8.08 @ 5:11PM|#
This, from the The New Republic article, seems to give credence
to Paul's contention that he didn't write those things in the news
letters:
During some periods, the newsletters were published by the
Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul
founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul
& Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned
a minority stake, according to his campaign
spokesman.
RP Supporter|1.8.08 @ 5:11PM|#
Man, this country is in trouble when nonsense from 20 eyars ago
can end the truth to power you've been currently speaking.
And how stupid are those so easily swayed? Does this change what
Paul has recently said? His campaign is about positions, not
personality (unlike the other republicans). Does this change his
current positions? Do you think his plan is to be elected as a
small government candidate and then open the death camps for jews,
gays and blacks two months later, all the while twirling his
mustache?
Sheesh, you think they guy did something really bad like smoke in a
car containing a monuir child.
|1.8.08 @ 5:13PM|#
The media and special interest are desperate to discredit and hurt Ron Paul's run. They are putting in their own words into old articles to try. Ron Paul is honest and principled. He is for personal freedoms, no matter race, sexual preferences or whatever.
|1.8.08 @ 5:14PM|#
Man!!
We're definitely out of the "ignore" and "ridicule" stage….
…it's pure "attack" mode now baby!!
Brace yourselves, (Mr Smith has gone to Washington!!)
|1.8.08 @ 5:15PM|#
"""Yep. Except Paul doesn't do a very good job disowning ugly,
vile, despicable supporters."""
True, he doesn't stoop to their level and play their game. Of
course most Americans want the drama of the game, so they dislike
him for not playing. When someone attacks you, you must fight back
or be a precieved loser. Turn the other cheek, or taking the high
road means little to Americans these days. Ron Paul is handling
their attacks the way Jesus would. By mostly ignoring the them.
Funny that god fearing Americans don't pick-up on it. Hell, I would
say that he is one of the most christian of the pack.
Tom W|1.8.08 @ 5:17PM|#
Lord knows there've been things that appeared under my name that
I didn't write.
One coincidentally involved a story in Liberty containing a Ron
Paul anecdote. Bill Bradford (RIP) changed my article in order to
make some cracks about Lew Rockwell and Burt Blumert. Of course,
Bradford called me to tell me of his changes after the damn thing
went to press. At the time, I was too much of a wuss to do anything
about it or demand a correction.
My feeling is that Ron was uncomfortable with some of the stuff
being written, but didn't put a stop to it soon enough. He's a nice
guy, you know.
VM|1.8.08 @ 5:20PM|#
ding ding ding ding ding ding
TomW gives the lamest fucking excuse there was.
fuck me. how lame. remind me not to have you on my side in the
battle against bullies and bigots.
weak, weak fucking too. Your attitude is exactly the fucking thing
that enables and emboldens the bullies.
|1.8.08 @ 5:20PM|#
Waquiot,
This wasn't Reason Magazine. This was some obscure little
newsletter. If Ron Paul ran the Ron Paul Newsletter, then this
might be a story. But he didn't. It's a testament to Ron Paul that
the worst thing his enemies can did up on him are 20 year old words
he didn't write expressing sentiments he doesn't believe.
|1.8.08 @ 5:20PM|#
I researched this heavily when it first popped on my radar a
year ago. I'm not impressed by this new republic article... it only
shows how desperate the machine is to silence the only one speaking
truth to power. Fortunately for us, I think the public is smart
enough to see through this charade.
RP2008
From The Keystrokes of John Q.|1.8.08 @ 5:21PM|#
"I don't think Paul's a racist either, but he has way too high a
tolerance for kooks and cranks."
The problem with statements like these is that they mistake
Tolerance for Acceptance. You don't have to agree with someone when
they say something terrible and ignorant to fight for their right
to say it.
|1.8.08 @ 5:21PM|#
In the "article", Kirchick claims that Dr. Paul was an Army
surgeon.
Dr. Paul was in the Air Force.
If he can't get a simple empirical fact right, I'd have my doubts
about the rest of his "journalistic" abilities.
|1.8.08 @ 5:22PM|#
The reason that Ron Paul says this is "old news" is because it is. I've been reading this disgusting attempt to smear him for months now. Even the great New York Times had to print a retraction because their source proved to be "unreliable." Do you people not get it? They just keep bringing up the same old lies trying to get them to "stick" to an honest statesman. Don't buy into this disgusting tactic.
From The Keystrokes of John Q.|1.8.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Fortunately for us, I think the public is smart enough to see
through this charade.
RP2008
Ha... Last Famous Words...
|1.8.08 @ 5:27PM|#
TrickyVic, what's my problem? I'm gong to quote myself:
Somebody who writes "The LA riots only stopped because it was
time to pick up the welfare checks" doesn't work in an environment
full of political debate without giving off whiff. You might not
know whether the guy in the next cubicle at Stanley Morgan is a
racist, but you can get a pretty good idea of what somebody writing
for a political publication thinks about politics.
Ron Paul didn't edit it, fine. He didn't read it, fine. Somebody
editted it. Somebody wrote it. Somebody read it. There must have
been several people involved in the publication of this repugnant
shit, and none of them thought it inappropriate enough to get rid
of the writer after he did it the first or second time? That tells
me that everyone involved in the publication of the Ron Paul
Political/Survival Report was, at a minimum, ok with those
sentiments.
It's pretty damn tough out there for white supremacists and
neo-nazis. They've learned to be pretty good at sniffing out where
they are welcome, because they get their asses kicked (figuratively
or literally) if they come out in the wrong place, sort of like
being gay 30 years ago.
And they seem to have found a home with Ron Paul.
|1.8.08 @ 5:29PM|#
"Old News" is the hoariest, weakest non-denial denial in the
political lexicon.
Ari, new information has surfaces indicated even more White House
invovlement in the Plame outing than was previously known...
Yawn, sigh. Look, this story is old news, and I'm not going to talk
any more about it.
But...
Old news.
But...
Old news.
|1.8.08 @ 5:29PM|#
"Old News" is the hoariest, weakest non-denial denial in the
political lexicon.
Ari, new information has surfaces indicated even more White House
invovlement in the Plame outing than was previously known...
Yawn, sigh. Look, this story is old news, and I'm not going to talk
any more about it.
But...
Old news.
But...
Old news.
|1.8.08 @ 5:31PM|#
It doesn't matter a whit whether Paul actually wrote or endorsed the vile rhetoric. He allowed it to be published under his name for a reasonably long period of time, and it doesn't matter if it was an error of ommission or commission, because either error disqualifies him from public office. Not all fuck-ups can be wished away, and this is one of them. It is analogous to a pediatrician allowing a newsletter to be sent out under his name for a period of time in which it is advised that parents have their babies play with the plastic wrap from the dry cleaners. It wouldn't matter whether the doctor actually wrote such nonsense or believed it.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 5:33PM|#
joe,
I think Ron Paul's appeal to those on the fringes stems from the
fact that they have nowhere else to go. None of the other
candidates hold any appeal for them. Not that Ron Paul has done
anything specifically to attract them.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 5:37PM|#
Will Allen,
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Nobody died from reading these newsletters.
Babys playing with plastic wrap have.
You need a better analogy than that.
|1.8.08 @ 5:44PM|#
This story has no legs. A quick search of google news shows
precious few mainstream reactions.
TNR just shot itself in the foot.
|1.8.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Shame. I liked some of Paul's ideas and his apparent honesty. However, a man who writes these things, or allows them to be written in a publication bearing his name and blessing, has no business being President of the U.S. He's trying to cover up his inner hatreds. Good job on the journalist's part. This kind of stuff, which has a bearing on public policy, is repugnant.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 5:46PM|#
Maybe they have finally learned their lesson.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
highnumber|1.8.08 @ 5:46PM|#
My house smells like candy.
And I got a job offer.
Life moves so quickly.
|1.8.08 @ 5:47PM|#
@Will Allen
Yeah, right. RP excused himself many years before. It was going to
come up, sometime. If you knew about this beforehand, than I'd say
you'd have a point.
@beetlejuice
True. They came to him, not the other way around. He'd have better
without those guys and hand the donation back, but he chose to
stand by his principles to receive money from everyone.
I always feared this smear-thing would happen since he took on
Giuliani in the summer. Not the Bush-bunch freakshow warmongering
HotAir-LGF-NRO-FOX neocon-fasci are attacked for all their wrongs
and ills --- no, no, no, not in this world --- but the one man who
preaced peace and freedom during the whole campaign and tried to
change his parties' ways.
No, instead of RP, McCain leads the polls.. That old hawkish
militarist stages a comeback. You know, I knew he would lose, but I
hoped it would be a bit more gracious than, because of this
disgusting smearpiece.
|1.8.08 @ 5:47PM|#
Sorry, beetlejuice, wrongful death is not the standard. Even if no baby ever died from such ridiculous child care advice, such a doctor would have shown himself to be hopelessly incompetent. Politicians' goods are their rhetoric. A politician who allows such rhetoric to be put out under his name is, through the most charitable prism, hopelessly incompetent. Time for Dr. Paul to leave the profession of politics.
|1.8.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Let's just say for a second that Ron Paul is in fact a racist or
racist syphathizer.
He has called for ending the drug war - one of the most racist
actions our government undertakes today.
Wouldn't that make him inconsistent in his views?
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 5:53PM|#
@ Will Allen,
Surely you have said something in life that you regretted
afterwards. By your standard, you would be incompetent.
I'm pretty sure that other politicians have said some stupid things
before. Are they all incompetent?
|1.8.08 @ 5:58PM|#
ORCHESTRATED LIBELOUS HIT PIECE...
Drudge put this up...thought better of getting sued for libel and
pulled in within minutes.
Why_________ Folks....
There is more than meets the eye with Drudge and TNR
On January 8th, 2008 MediatorMPA says:
You mean to tell me that Drudge knows about TNR serious credibility
problems (because he exposed them on the below HA). Yes, Choice
morsels for any libel suit--not to mention Drudge's timing. I
believe the cursory test for slander/libel is: 1) is it false and
2) was it malicious?
This below is titled Drudge vs. The New Republic ...ha love
it.
____________
October 24, 2007
Drudge vs. The New Republic
Posted by BLAKE DVORAK
If you haven't seen yet, Drudge is proclaiming to have documents
which would eviscerate The New Republic's "Shock Troops" author
Scott Thomas Beauchamp's credibility. And perhaps the magazine's as
well. So far as I see, no word yet from TNR editors.
Powerline has the background on the story here, with links to
previous posts. end...
_______
Point is---Drudge knows the people are liars---because he exposed
the New Republic's October major false story. That is why Drudge
pulled the libelous story.
http://time-blog.com/real...
|1.8.08 @ 5:59PM|#
Well, well. We have a very intelligent man, Ron Paul, who wrote the TRASH mentioned in this article by Kirchick??? Get a grip people! NO man with Ron Paul's values would have written such things! DO NOT believe the neocon's tactics to cause you to turn your back on and to withdraw your support from Ron Paul! What are these cowards who write this garbage afraid of, ask yourself! I support Ron Paul! ONWARD to the Whitehouse!!
Tom W|1.8.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Vm, I'm not making excuses you jerk, I'm just saying I know what it's like to have sh*t printed under your name that you didn't write. It doesn't make me a bad person.
|1.8.08 @ 6:02PM|#
I just voted for Ron Paul. And now I read this re-hash of
smears.
The New York Times tried to slander him a few weeks back and had to
retract it.
Now it's TNR's turn.
Me thinks that some polling at the DP saw the support Paul gets
could tank their turn at the USS Imperial Presidency so it's their
turn at the USS SwiftBoat.
|1.8.08 @ 6:06PM|#
All YOU PEOPLE THAT ARE CHANGING YOUR MIND ABOUT RON PAUL OVER
THIS HIT PIECE ARE SIGNING YOUR OWN DEATH SENTENCES.
The United States is on the verge of a collapse ECONOMIC and
Constitutional. The WAR is going to continue with Democrats as it
did with Republicans. Your liberties will be GONE soon. YOUR ONLY
HOPE WAS RON PAUL.
IF YOU TURN YOUR BACKS ON HIM NOW AND HE DOESN'T WIN BECUASE OF IT
.......
...YOU WILL CERTAINLY DESERVE EVERYTHING THAT AWAITS YOU !
|1.8.08 @ 6:06PM|#
beetlejuice, I'm not asserting that I should be elected
President of the United States, and if one newsletter went out, one
time, with such rhetoric, I probably would see it differently. This
was many newsletters, over a reasonably long period of time.
Why do you have such low standards?
|1.8.08 @ 6:14PM|#
I cannot believe that any of you are falling for this hit piece.
If you read Ron Paul's writings at lewrockwell.com, you can read
several speeches and articles he's written that condemn racism and
bigotry.
This is political assassination at its worst. The establishment has
to destroy Paul. He's a huge threat to them. If you can't see that,
you are blind people.
|1.8.08 @ 6:18PM|#
dave how is it a political assasination to note what rhetoric a politician allowed to be put forth under his name? I mean, who allowed the name "Ron Paul" to be used? The Tooth Fairy?
Colin|1.8.08 @ 6:22PM|#
Kirchick has been debunked. He claimed, on a gay forum no less, that he merely said those things "to rile up Ron Paul supporters." Looks like it worked. Now everyone, please shut the hell up about this. :)
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 6:23PM|#
Will Allen,
From what I have read of these newsletters, only a couple say
anything horribly objectionable (the ones from 1990-1992). The
others are merely provocative. That would narrow the list down
considerably. Obviously you would disagree.
In any case, Ron Paul has disowned these statements, and the
individual responsible for them. What more can he do? What more
would you expect him to do? Judging from your comments, there is
nothing in your eyes that he can do to redeem himself.
|1.8.08 @ 6:24PM|#
Tiquan says "95% of the material in the newsletter was
spot-on".
Have you really claim to have read the newsletters sufficiently to
make such a claim, Tiquan? What was your difficulty with the 5%
that was not spot-on?
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 6:28PM|#
Will Allen,
You wrote: "A politician who allows such rhetoric to be put out
under his name is, through the most charitable prism, hopelessly
incompetent. Time for Dr. Paul to leave the profession of
politics."
You certainly look like you are engaging in political assassination
with a statement like this.
C. de V.|1.8.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Well, I for one am sorely disappointed. If you guys can't see how damaging this is, then I don't know how to convince you, because I just feel it doesn't matter whether he wrote it or not. If the newsletters have his name on them, then perception is reality, regardless of whether we want it to be that way or not. I really thought Ron might have a chance at making real change.
|1.8.08 @ 6:32PM|#
Another cheezy smear job by the establishment left designed to influence the NH primary. And surprise, surprise Kirchick just so happens to be a big booster of neocon Rudy Guiliani.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 6:34PM|#
Colin,
I wish we could shut up about it, but the opposition insists upon
bringing it up over and over. We have to keep objecting, for the
benefit of those just now looking into Dr. Paul.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 6:36PM|#
C. de V.,
We can only hope that folks can see through the game that the MSM
is playing.
Yeppers|1.8.08 @ 6:38PM|#
Hey... maybe now his supporters will stop defacing public property. I am tired of the Ron Paul bumper stickers on every traffic sign in the Boca Raton area. Can we bill his campaign for clean-up?
|1.8.08 @ 6:39PM|#
beetlejuice, for some unfathomable reason you seem to think that three years is a short period of time. This is not a one-time failure to supervise. What constitutes "assasination" in noting that gross incompetence (the most charitable explanation) is a reasonable basis to call for the end of a career? Do we need mega-gross incompetence? Again, why are your standards so low? This is not a guy saying he should be elected county commissioner.
C. de V.|1.8.08 @ 6:40PM|#
Beetlejuice,
Do you really think they're lies? Please tell me they are! But I
don't know what to think. The argument I read today is...
compelling, for lack of a better word. I mean, how many years were
these newsletters being published? When did Ron disavow the author
and why did it take so long? Crap, man. Crap, crap, crap. Ron, say
it ain't so!
|1.8.08 @ 6:42PM|#
Will:
Paul acted on this back in 1999. I'm old enough to remember the
scandal back then. He apologized publically and in his newsletter.
He said back then that he'd been so busy, he'd let others write for
him. He fired the staffer who wrote them. What else do you want for
the man?
Besides, Krchick admits to a blogger here that he LIED in the
article. Read this!
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
|1.8.08 @ 6:45PM|#
My letter to TNR:
I see you are following Fox News in smearing and marginalizing Ron
Paul. Ron Paul has been writing articles and speeches for years in
which he condemns racism and bigotry of any kind. Many of them can
be found at lewrockwell.com. You should have done your research
before publishing this trash.
While I may agree that he should have been more dilligent in making
sure things weren't said in his name that he didn't write - back in
1999, he didn't write what Jamie Kirchick says he wrote.
Furthermore, in the article, Kirchick offers no references, no
bibliography and no facts, just his own special brand of
smear.
Jamie Kirchick goes out of his way to smear Ron Paul the night of
the NH primary. Unfortunately, be aware that Jamie Kirchick has
already admitted to lying in this article here.
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
What is left of our support if this article goes mainstream will
make it our personal goal to ruin The New Republic. Boycotting your
sponsors will be just the beginning. I see libel lawsuits in your
immediate future, filed on behalf of Ron Paul by his wealthy
supporters like me.
Pull the piece now, before it's too late
C. de V.|1.8.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Will, how long was he letting others write this darned newsletter? I really need to know, man. Help me out here. I'm trying to hang on as a supporter!
|1.8.08 @ 6:47PM|#
Drudge has just removed their links to the article and others are following suit. There is too much propaganda in the hit piece to call it factual.
|1.8.08 @ 6:49PM|#
"Will, how long was he letting others write this darned
newsletter? I really need to know, man. Help me out here. I'm
trying to hang on as a supporter!"
There were only two articles and they were written back in 1990 and
1991, when Paul was not in Congress. He had left the newsletter in
operation and was working on many other projects. He made the
mistake of trusting a staffer to publish a few issues on his own.
That staffer was a racist, but Paul had no idea, The staffer used
Paul's newsletter for his hateful commentary. When Paul found out,
he publically apologized and fired the staffer.
C. de V.|1.8.08 @ 6:50PM|#
Dave, you're right. I just looked. But is it going to stick? Do you guys think it will stick?
|1.8.08 @ 6:51PM|#
I want such a grossly incompetent politician to get out of the profession, Dave. Why am I being asked to be so tolerant of such inadequate performance? I wouldn't tolerate it anybody else I supported financially or otherwise; why should I tolerate it in someone who wants me to help elect him President?
|1.8.08 @ 6:52PM|#
Read these articles by Ron Paul and see if you can reconcile
them with what Kirchgick says:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
|1.8.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Will: the man was NOT in politics when those two articles were written which is why Paul was unaware of them at the time.
West Indian|1.8.08 @ 6:54PM|#
So the angstrom deep Andrew Sullivan is starting to have second
thoughts? Always with a finger to the wind, huh?
Look, there is an entire class of these never-worked-a-day trust
fund kids who actually make a living at Cato and all these other
hokey 'think tanks,' or at rags like Reason or TNR. They
continuously manufacture environmental crises or holocaust crises
or racism crises or whatever other boogey man they need to keep the
dollars rolling in to keep them from having to put in a day's work
like the rest of us hoi polloi.
Meanwhile, Dr. Paul has a message that resonates with many, many
people and we will not be stopped.
danb|1.8.08 @ 6:54PM|#
press release:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters
granny miller|1.8.08 @ 6:55PM|#
The timing and nature of this "controversy" accentuates its
spiteful and pitiful political nature.
One can only surmise that Congressman Paul must be seriously
rattling establishment media cages to get both a NR hit piece and a
snub/forum exclusion from Fox News within a 72 hour period.
I saw the clip of Kirchick's ill informed and ignorant rant on
Tucker Carlson.
Not only did Kirchick slander Congressman Paul he also slandered
Thomas DiLorenzo.
I agree with Tom DiLorenzo that Ron Paul will never sue James
Kirchick for defamation of character because he is a public
figure.
But I sure hope to hell that DiLorenzo sues and shows Kirchick a
righteous and honest to goodness Angry White Man.
C. de V.|1.8.08 @ 6:57PM|#
Dave,
Are you sure it was only two articles? But wait a minute, man.
Something doesn't add up. I just went back to the article and there
are newsletter articles that date 1990 and '91, but also to 1992
and 1994. This is not good, Dave, because if you're saying that Ron
fired the SOB in 1991 or shortly thereafter then that doesn't
explain the later articles, except to say Ron had something to do
with those, at least.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 6:58PM|#
Will Allen,
If he was still employing this staffer, and simply ignored the
issue altogether, then that would constitute gross incompetence. He
did address the issue, however belatedly. Yes, he should have acted
sooner. I'm sure that he learned a lesson from this. Nothing like
this has happened in the 20-odd years since, so I think he has. He
certainly has not done anything worse than this.
|1.8.08 @ 6:58PM|#
You know what folks:
Issues, Issues, Issues. What should we be discussing? Let's take a
breath of reality for a second.
The United States is over 9 trillion dollars in debt, climbing at a
rate of almost 2 billion dollars per day in interest alone. We have
a trillion dollar trade deficit and a 1 trillion dollar budget with
a trillion dollar budget deficit. The actual adjusted budget is
closer to 4 trillion dollars which is obscene.
Millions of Americans are losing their homes. Unemployment is
climbing and real unemployment (the U-6 report) is approaching 13%.
Millions of jobs have been exported and cheap labor is being
imported. We've lost 50% of our manufacturing/industrial base with
more companies moving outside the US each week.
Our fiat currency is falling fast and is predicted to hit as low as
.60 this year. That is causing the price of oil to skyrocket so gas
prices by the end of this year could hit $5.00 per gallon. Food
prices are rising so fast, some goods are priced 100% higher than a
year ago. But wages aren't keeping pace with accumulated inflation,
so we are going broke and over-extending ourselves with
back-breaking credit - just like our government.
We're fighting a 1.4 trillion dollar war in Iraq and a .75 trillion
dollar war in Afghanistan. People are dying and we're paying in
both lives and treasure. Pakistan and Iran may be next. Meanwhile,
in the supposed war on terror where we fear men living in caves
half-way around the world, our civil liberties and bill of rights
are being destroyed.
Should I go on? If we don't get a POTUS in office that obeys the
constitution NOW, we'll all be broke and our great nation will
become a third world country. We cannot continue to pay for the
huge empire we've built with over 700 bases in foreign
nations.
We cannot afford to keep fighting pre-emptive wars and providing
other nations with financial aid when our own people are hurting.
Millions of our own children go hungry every night. Is that
right?
Yet, with any of the candidates running except Paul (and Kucinich),
you'll get more of the same, so is there any need for
discussion?
I have been a fan of Paul since the 1980s. He is no racist and he
is no bigot.
So what? Do we now drop our support for him and elect another
CFR-controlled, bought-and-paid-for POTUS who will ruin our country
beyond compare, all because of a mistake he made 15 years
ago?
If we allow this to destroy our resolve to effect change, we will
only have ourselves to blame.
C. de V.|1.8.08 @ 7:04PM|#
Dave,
You hit the nail on the head (several times), but I can't help but
think, okay, if I give Ron the benefit of the doubt that he's not
racist, he really does admire men like Ghandi and Dr. King, but
then if he didn't know what was going on with a newsletter than
bore his name then he looks just... well, like an incompetent
amateur. Crap, man. I mean, surely you see what I'm saying. You're
making great points, but holy cow. If that article is even half
true then we're in deep doo I think.
Oh Please|1.8.08 @ 7:04PM|#
C. de V., please get an f-ing spine, man. You're starting to embarrass me.
|1.8.08 @ 7:04PM|#
First off, only TWO of the articles were inflamatory. Others
were merely philosophical and perhaps controversial. Kirkchick has
admitted he twisted the facts to a blogger he knows.
The newsletter had a tiny circulation in the 14th Dist. TX. Paul
was not even aware these articles had been published until several
years later. He should have closed the newsletter down when he left
congress. That was his big mistake.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 7:05PM|#
Dave,
You are quite right. With all the these things going on, I am
hardly going to let an overblown issue from 20 years ago stop me
from voting for the one candidate who could put a stop to
those.
|1.8.08 @ 7:08PM|#
C. de V.
I understand your concerns. You need to understand that Paul is a
very honest man, but he's human. His only mistake was in trustng a
staffer to run his newsletter while he returned to his MD
practice.
|1.8.08 @ 7:10PM|#
Whoops. Hit the enter key too soon. :)
Because Paul has no dirt in his closet except that mistake, his
opponents are going to try to divide us with this smear. It's ALL
THEY'VE GOT!
Look at the other candidates and tell me that they have no
skeletons in their closet - far worse than dropping the ball for
two years and trusting someone he thought he could trust.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 7:10PM|#
Van Meses,
The attitude you just expressed is a good example of what disgusts
me, and I daresay many others, about the state of politics for the
past 30 years.
C. de V.|1.8.08 @ 7:10PM|#
Oh, Please,
Why do you have to go and talk like that? I'm just concerned
something bad is happening to the candidate I firmly believe would
make a great president. Where do you get off talking like that?
I've been hearing for months at websites like this that someone
from the MSM or someone established in the government would try to
take Ron down. Doesn't that concern you? Don't you believe?
VM|1.8.08 @ 7:14PM|#
TOM W:
OH YEAH! YOU'RE A DOUBLE JERK. NEENER NEENER.
URKOBOLD WILL BE HEARING ABOUT THIS!
(your other excuses might make you a bad person - enabling the
bully is pretty fucking awful)
|1.8.08 @ 7:14PM|#
This is ancient history that has been debunked and thoroughly
addressed years ago. The New Republic is a despicable libel rag,
and even the author of this hit piece admits that it isn't true,
that he just wants to stir mud up in the political waters. A
lawsuit is called for. The New Republic is attempting to subvert an
election! TNR also wants to boost its circulation beyond a trifle
65,000 fossils of collectivism, and so naturally they attack the
front runner against status quo lawlessness in D.C. Remember, one
of the founders of the rag was hypercollectivist Council on Foreign
Relations member and Fabian Socialist Walter Lippman, who coined
the term "MANUFACTURING CONSENT"! It was founded with Whitney
family fortune capital, a family which includes Skull and Bones
(elitist) members and Soviet spies. This is a rag which supported
the Soviet Union, a regime which murdered 60,000,000 human beings.
NOBODY in their right mind takes TNR seriously because it is a
stunted relic of communist sympathizing lunacy.
It is a filthy tactic to rehash already explained lies and to
repeatedly demand an answer when a satisfactory one has already
been given. How many times must this libel be spread before it
sinks in that it is a delusional phantom? The NY Times had to
retract a story along similar lines.
LAWSUIT!
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Sean,
I really wish he could sue, but this would just fan the flames even
higher.
John Sabotta|1.8.08 @ 7:20PM|#
In a larger sense, this is the price unfairly paid by the libertarian movement for having tolerated the Lew Rockwells and the Hans Hoppes for far too long.
chris matthews|1.8.08 @ 7:25PM|#
I look to Reason to be a sane and thoughful voice in a sea of
"me too's". This is your cover piece? Really?
Anyone with half a brain could see this coming as soon as Paul
started winning electoral votes.
This hands off approach as objectivity isn't going to fly with your
educated readers.
If I wanted to hear bought and paid for political news I'd be
watching Fox. Get off your ass and deliver the story.
Oh Please|1.8.08 @ 7:26PM|#
C. de V.
I'm talking like that because you are coming across as a
fairweather supporter and a whiny little bitch. The fact that Ron
Paul is being attacked with crapola just means that he is now in
the same league as Hillary, who has been accused as being a lezbo
and a wiccan, Obama, who has been accused as being a closet al
Quieda member, etc. It doesn't mean you have to post multiple whiny
posts as if your world is coming crashing down. Like I said, get an
f-ing spine, man!
|1.8.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Anyone who has read Ron Paul's writings, much of which can be
found on his Congressional home page, will immediately note that he
could not have written this stuff unless his writing style has
radically changed since then.
But let's say he wrote every last word, it wouldn't change his
Congressional record or his stated political platform, both of
which make him the best choice for POTUS.
There are millions of people who are excellent at what they do but
hold unpalatable personal beliefs--are we going to deny them a
position they may be highly qualified for because if this? Frankly,
I find this whole thing to be rather yawnworthy and irrelevant to
the presidential race.
I suspect Paul was merely trying to make a buck on the side, so he
used what little prestige he had as a former Congressman to put out
a newsletter, but he let other people handle the nuts and bolts of
the thing. If true, this would show a degree of naivety on his
part, and indeed a moral responsibility for the content, but not a
personal one.
|1.8.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Folks:
Keep in mind that after a hit piece like this is published,
opponent candidate agents will be on blogs and forums like this one
pretending to be Ron Paul supporters who are now dropping their
support.
I see we have a few of them here.
Check this article aout by Jamie Kirchick in which he shows he is a
Giuliani fan. That says it all.
http://advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Pauli|1.8.08 @ 7:37PM|#
My biggest problem with Ron Paul in this campaign has been it's
underlying unseriousness. If he had been serious, he would have
figured out a way to innoculate himself against the racist
allegations which seem to be substantiated at this point, perhaps
crafted a conversion story or something. If he decided that wasn't
going to work he should have spared all his zombie followers the
disappointment he brought on by his Kucinich-style doomed
presidential bid.
Instead he poses for a photo-op with Don Black, goes on Alex "9/11
Truther" Jones' show at least 5 times and tries to spin it all by
playing Mr. Persecuted-for-bucking-the-establishment. He taped the
"kick me" sign to his own back.
|1.8.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Yeah well Pauli, I guess none of our past POTUS or candidates
ever made mistakes. Looks like the smear piece is doing its job.
paulw as in third place. Now he's in sixth.
Thanks REASON, for helping a hit piece make its mark on our last
hope for America.
smith|1.8.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Ron Paul supporters, I have one question. Which one of the names
Ron Paul suggested for New York do you guys like the most? Please
choose just one:
1. Welfaria
2. Zooville
3. Rapetown
4. Dirtburg
5. Lazyopolis
I vote for Dirtburg. It has a nice ring.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 7:57PM|#
Pauli,
"perhaps crafted a conversion story"?! That is something
politicians do. Ron Paul would not lie about it. And no, they
aren't substantiated. Do some research.
|1.8.08 @ 7:58PM|#
Anyone who actually believes this crap is an idiot. I have read many, many of Ron's newsletters and other writings and these particular pieces in question don't even match the style and tone of his usual writings. YOU'VE BEEN NEO-CONNED. Geez, it's so sad how gullible people are!
Pauli|1.8.08 @ 8:00PM|#
Yeah well Pauli, I guess none of our past POTUS or
candidates ever made mistakes.
Yeah, and I guess those mistakes were all equivalently as bad as
allying with white supremacists and referring to blacks as
"animals".
Paul was in third place. Now he's in sixth.
Yeah, well I guess we won't have Ron Paul to kick around
anymore.
Tom Explains It|1.8.08 @ 8:01PM|#
January 08, 2008
"Pimply- Faced Youth" Slanders Ron Paul on Tucker Carlson
Show
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at January 8, 2008 01:11 PM
An emailer informed me this morning that a young kid whom he called
a "grossly uneducated, pimply-faced youth" slandered both Ron Paul
and myself on the Tucker Carlson show last night. The pimply-faced
youth (PFY) is one Jamie Kirchick, who writes for the left-wing,
pro-war New Republic magazine. In the YouTube video of the
conversation the PFY asserts over and over that Ron Paul is a
"racist." When Carlson asks him if he ever heard Ron make a racist
remark he says "No." But then, with a Gotcha! look on his face, the
PFY announces: "BUT," he DID attend a conference on secession in
1995!! Aha! Gotcha!
This ignorant little kid posing as a "journalist" then informed
everyone that the conference was sponsored by a "neo-Confederate"
group and that Ron Paul speaks to "the neo-Confederate community,"
whatever that is, "in code language. (I knew that Ron was in touch
with the Martian community, and with the residents of the planet
Remulak, home of the supposedly "fictional" Coneheads of Saturday
Night Live fame, but not the "Neo-Confederate Community" as
well).
Well, I was at that secession conference and presented a paper
there. It was sponsored by the Mises Institute, which has nothing
to do with Confederates, neo or otherwise, as anyone who surveyed
the Institute's programs on its web site (www.mises.org) would
know. The PFY did not bother because he is only interested in
slandering Ron Paul, not in being a serious journalist.
My paper was about the Northern secessionist tradition prior to the
War between the States, including the Hartford, Ct. secession
convention of 1814, and the secession movements of the mid-Atlantic
states that existed prior to the war (see the book, The Secession
Movement in the Middle States by William Wright). The famous
abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison was a Northern secessionist
whose credo was "No Covenant with Death," the "covenant" being the
U.S. Constitition, and "death" being slavery. Other papers had to
do with the Quebec secession movement, European secession
movements, federalism in general, how the U.S. was created by a war
of secession from the British empire, and even "How to Secede in
Business" by substituting arbitration for litigation.
But don't take my word for it. The proceedings of the conference,
which the PFY is obviously ignorant of, were published as a book:
Secession, State and Liberty, edited by Dr. David Gordon, whose
Ph.D. from UCLA is in the field of intellectual history. It
includes essays by scholars and professors from Emory University,
Florida State University, UNLV, University of Montreal, University
of South Carolina, and even a lawyer from Buffalo, New York. It was
published a few years after the Soviet empire imploded as the
result of eleven separate acts of peaceful secession, which made it
especially relevant to social scientists.
In fact, secession remains a lively topic of academic discourse,
something that the PFY is obviously unfamiliar with. A few weeks
ago a secession conference sponsored by the National Endowment for
the Humanities was held in Chrleston, South Carolina, featuring
some thirty historians and legal scholars. In little Jamie
Kirchick's empty mind, the NEH must necessarily be a hotbed of
pro-slavery sentiment. (A friend in academe tells me that the
participants in this conference spanned the ideological spectrum
from left/liberal to Marxist).
Only an ignorant conspiracy theorist like Jamie Kirchick would
assume that anyone who studies secession in a scholarly way is
necessarily some kind of KKK-sympathizing kook. He knows that Ron
Paul will not sue him for defamation because he is a public figure.
I, however, am not a public figure.
smith|1.8.08 @ 8:10PM|#
Oh man these newsletters are priceless. Here's a quote of Ron
Paul describing a writer for the oldest running gay publication The
Advocate "The reporter--who certainly had an axe to grind, and
that's not easy to do with a limp wrist..."
Ha ha ha lol. I didn't Ron Paul was a comedian as well as a doctor.
I can't wait to read all of these.
|1.8.08 @ 8:13PM|#
Pauli: Your quite wrong. Paul's campaign will continue and according to Drudge, Paul is right now with 10% of the vote counted actually is fifth with 8%, Guiliani has 9%, Huckabee has 12%, and Thompson who was invited to yesterday's FoX News debate has 1%.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 8:19PM|#
Not to mention what the TNR hit-piece says about the state of our politics.
smith|1.8.08 @ 8:27PM|#
beetlejuice, your supporting a racist says something about the
state of your politics. Did I mention the the racist website
Stormfront.org has a 1000 page plus thread supporting Ron Paul? No?
Here check it out:
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-jan-8-388512.html
Roach|1.8.08 @ 8:30PM|#
Libertarianism permits all kind of private racism, and
libertarians are dishonest by pretending this will not happen, will
go away, or is even a bad thing since you don't define private
association disassociation as "real harms" the government should
concern itself with. You guys want to have your cake and eat it
too. Liberty means all white clubs, all white golf courses, private
all white schools, etc. That's why people in the past loved liberty
so much: they were trying to preserve a white way of life.
Libertarians are so sad. They so want the approval of their liberal
friends, but they have nothing intelligent to say about the
equality which liberals care about so much.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 8:34PM|#
smith,
Oh, please. Guilt by association. I don't care if they write a 1
million page thread about him. It doesn't mean Ron Paul supports
them.
Do you know what Paul said about such people giving him money? He
said they would be wasting their money.
|1.8.08 @ 8:34PM|#
Smith: What the heck does a Stormfront message board have to with anything? I think you might want to go over to the TNR web site. You might feel more at home there.
|1.8.08 @ 8:37PM|#
I so disagree with this lady, but anyway big thumbs up to Hillary for beating the MSM tonight!
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Roach, who said we want liberal approval? Equality? Enforced at the point of a gun?
smith|1.8.08 @ 8:40PM|#
I agree roach. These racists are using the subterfuge liberty in an attempt to first camouflage and then to legitimize their White Nationalist agenda. Go read their forums. This is part of their plan.
smith|1.8.08 @ 8:44PM|#
It's not guilt by association if he wrote it. You know you can download the newsletters don't you? But you won't, Ron Paul supporters like to keep their head in the sand.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 8:47PM|#
smith,
For your information, I have read the newsletters. He did not write
them, they were ghostwritten by somebody else, who he since
disowned.
You are the one with your head in the sand. Do some research.
Gretchen|1.8.08 @ 8:48PM|#
Libertarianism permits all kind of private racism, and
libertarians are dishonest by pretending this will not happen, will
go away, or is even a bad thing since you don't define private
association disassociation as "real harms" the government should
concern itself with.
Yes, freedom of association is a terrible thing. Everybody should
be required to have friends of every ethnic background and
religion, because that will make prejudice go away. If you want to
change people's minds, the best way to do so is by threatening them
with fines and/or prison terms.
smith|1.8.08 @ 8:57PM|#
lol. I love the "do some research" line. You guys cute.
I'm not even going to try to explain how silly it sounds to say he
didn't know about, didn't write and didn't approve of a publication
with his name and picture on it. Why? Because you guys have your
head in the sand.
But I will say if I was a politician and a blatantly racist
publication had me on it and I didn't agree with them. I might
think about asking them to stop, and then suing them.
But that's only if I disagreed with them.
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 9:02PM|#
smith,
What? Sue them, and generate even more publicity about the subject?
As a public figure, he can't sue anyway.
smith|1.8.08 @ 9:10PM|#
LOL - Ohhh man you must need a really fine toothed comb to get
all that sand out of your hair. Do you use Lava soap as a shampoo?
Man that's rich.
But seriously, that is the worst defense I have every heard. I'm
going to have to find forum with people who have better arguments
for Ron Paul's racism than this place.
VM|1.8.08 @ 9:11PM|#
"Libertarianism permits all kind of private racism"
just wow.
understanding it exists, and understanding that there are times
when you're limited in how you oppose it is different from
permitting.
just wow.
presidential candidates|1.8.08 @ 9:13PM|#
this is bs. pure & simple. a hit job. yes paul should have paid more attention to the newsletter, but so what? that doesn't make him a racist. the fact is that there are some "nutjobs" who are attracted to the idea of freedom and thus are attracted to the libertarian party and to people like ron paul. it's not that surprising that some of these people ended up working for him and writing these things.
Jake in Los Angeles|1.8.08 @ 9:18PM|#
I read the article and none of the comments seemed racist to me.
The more support the honorable Dr. paul builds the more likely that
he will be attacked.
"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!" -Kirchick
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 9:18PM|#
smith,
Just wait a second, you are the one arguing for "Ron Paul's
racism"!
smith|1.8.08 @ 9:27PM|#
beetlejuice, you're just thick, it's not that hard to figure out
what I was arguing for.
Take care though. I'll be back when the next story about Ron Paul's
racism breaks. Which won't be that long.
|1.8.08 @ 9:27PM|#
Apparently, TNR has in the past published pro-fascist articles with titles such as "An Apology for Fascism," and "Fascism for the Italians" according to Lewrockwell.com. What shall we say of this?
K73|1.8.08 @ 9:31PM|#
Gretchen.... As a bi-racial man, I have to say, that ...that was
the worst and most moronic thing I have ever read:
Yes, freedom of association is a terrible thing. Everybody should
be required to have friends of every ethnic background and
religion, because that will make prejudice go away. If you want to
change people's minds, the best way to do so is by threatening them
with fines and/or prison terms.
Oh really! So your solution is to imprison people if they don't
have friends of other races or fine them....WOW SAD!
beetlejuice|1.8.08 @ 9:33PM|#
smith,
Okay, let me put it another way. Why would anybody here argue for
"Ron Paul's racism"? We are arguing against the belief that he is
one.
observer111|1.8.08 @ 9:57PM|#
"Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he
stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned."
In other words, the things that Ron Paul talks about, over and
over, year in and year out in the Congressional Record and CSPAN,
the points he makes about freedom and liberty and limited
government and taxation, he stands by.
The other smear stuff, the political dirt that we never actually
hear him say or him espouse in any way shape or form, the Ron Paul
attacks on what he supposedly said in a newsletter 20 years ago
(but maybe not), and seems sensational and surprising because the
smear material is diametrically opposed to what Ron Paul is all
about, that is B.S. and he has disowned.
Hey, we knew they would have to say *something* to attack him. And,
this is the best they can do. The attacks are lame and like other
things directed at him, tend to backfire.
|1.8.08 @ 10:11PM|#
U.S. Debt clock
http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
each American's share of our debt $30,264 and growing.
Some one need to stop this. If not Ron Paul then who? Will there be
time to wait for another?
Tom W|1.8.08 @ 10:24PM|#
VM, I didn't say I'd let it happen again, I just got a flashback
to how it feels.
Who is this Urkobold person to whom I keep seeing references?
Guy Montag|1.8.08 @ 11:48PM|#
From TNR's article:
With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically
off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F.
Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline
conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy
publications.
Equating Dr. Paul to anything Burch is just pathetic. This is the
mark of a total bullshit artist.
bmoore|1.8.08 @ 11:59PM|#
this is the first negative article I have read on the internet
about Dr. Paul. For all I know this is all created by one person,
even most of the comments. it's time to turn the page.
later,
bmoore
|1.9.08 @ 1:47AM|#
yessir, let's dig up some old unproven stuff from 1970 & start to tear someone down!! Fun, FUN! Too bad David Weigel can't think of something original. Try changing jobs David.
an american|1.9.08 @ 1:59AM|#
Wait till the Mormon homophobia, sexism, and racism that Mitt
Romney has in his past hits the fan. Will make all this look like
peanuts...
Don't worry, its coming ;)
Skeletons are in everybodys closet. I agree with enough of what Ron
Paul says... "humble foreign policy" to back him all the way.
Ken|1.9.08 @ 2:11AM|#
It's funny how the lefties are pulling out all the stops against
Ron Paul. You'd think he was a front runner or something. That
tells me that of all the knuckleheads running for President, the
one they fear the most is Ron Paul. No one gives a ferret's fat ass
if Ron Paul said that stuff. Hell most Americans probably agree.
Only silly lefties who love playing the race card give a rip. Warms
the cockles of my lower intestine to think that it pisses them off
though. Go Ron Paul!
Ken
www.LaserGuidedLoogie.com
|1.9.08 @ 2:55AM|#
And the Washington Post or New York Times should get shut down and sold every time they need to print a retraction for something they printed that was incorrect, or every time one of their editors misses an over the top opinion piece. Come on, only consumer cabbage-brains get sold on this kind of emotionally provocative crap.
Stephen Gordon|1.9.08 @ 2:55AM|#
Equating Dr. Paul to anything Burch is just pathetic. This
is the mark of a total bullshit artist.
Guy,
In my state, that's a key thing we are fighting from a media
angle.
Andy Z|1.9.08 @ 4:00AM|#
The author of this article is just an angry zionist neo-con who is mad that Dr. Paul is claiming the US should stop supporting Israel. America needs to wake up and realize that all the middle-east wars are because of Israel, and NO american blood should be spilled for the zionist regime.
|1.9.08 @ 4:15AM|#
I'm laughing at the delicate little PCs who are so offended by by the relatively mild comments in Paul's newsletters. I grew up on the Mojave Desert in the 1950s and was a GI in the 1960s so I've been in the presence of genuine malignant racists all too often. Evidently the jerk who wrote the TNR article believes that any criticism of any minority group is taboo, except, of course, for straight white males. Well, that's his problem. I'm going to vote for Ron Paul in the primaries and then hold my nose and vote for Giuliani or McCain in the general election.
|1.9.08 @ 4:47AM|#
Attack his credibility in saying that what was written by some aide that he fired in his name completely reflects his views as an individual and you damn every politician that has done the same. At that rate, don't vote for anyone, just blow something up (preferably anywhere lots of politicians congregate). Actually, that's not such a bad idea. Hold your nose, people... this one's gonna be a stinker for the ages!
|1.9.08 @ 7:49AM|#
But, But, But ...
Mitt Romney has "evolved" from his formerly racist opinion of
blacks. Perhaps Ron Paul should simply say that he TOO has
"evolved".
|1.9.08 @ 9:35AM|#
It's amazing, the same people who are into those conspiracy theories about somebody who went to school with somebody who's father was in business with somebody who once was seen at a hotel owned by somebody who said something at a CFR meeting, are so quick to apologize for Paul about his own newsletter and whine about "guilt by association". hypocrites.
|1.9.08 @ 10:10AM|#
Even if it's 100% true, then he's changed his mind or positions
since. (It's not his words) Without a time machine let's presume
it's all fact. It's STILL less flip-flopping than Guiliani, Romney,
Huckabee and McCain.
So what percent of it do you believe? Would you join up with the
liar's club and sell our country to foreign powers to simply spite
Ron Paul?
|1.9.08 @ 10:22AM|#
This is an obvious smear job. Dr. Paul has dealt with this long ago. People who demand a more thorough rebuttal are unwittingly (or knowingly) playing into the hands of the jerks that are orchestrating this smear campaign. Does anyone here understand politics? If he were being accused of being a child molesting pedophile, do you think it would be appropriate for him to stop everything and hold a press conference; bring in character witnesses, results of polygraph tests, turn over the contents of his hard drive, produce alibis for every day of the last six months, etc. etc. etc.? Of course not. The more he protests the more he will suffer politically (which is exactly why the charges were revived). I thought his answer was full and forthcoming, and anything further would be to dignify this trash beyond its worth.
BC|1.9.08 @ 11:24AM|#
Looks like you guys are losing some of your supporters. But I'll
bet you guys are overjoyed this morning that you had better numbers
in NH than Giuliani, who's as dead in the water as can be? You guys
are kinda sad. Really, did you guys ever think you had better than
a snowball's chance in hell? Did you really think that?
Hey, I got a joke for you guys, maybe you've heard it. Q: What's a
Libertarian?
A: A liberal who's studied economics.
I love that one.
|1.9.08 @ 12:42PM|#
WOW that really blue it for Paul, I don't now about him he is
SOOOO I don't know what!!!!
At first I thought he might be able to get in 3rd or 4th in a lot
of states, but this is TROUBLE for Paul
GO HUCKABEE!!!!!!!!!!!
Huckabee a TRUE conservative!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|1.9.08 @ 12:50PM|#
I think the definitive defense of Dr. Paul was written by
Stephen Green of Vodkapundit.
http://vodkapundit.com/?p=9346
Once you've read that, there really isn't anything left to say.
|1.9.08 @ 2:04PM|#
From Bev Harris, 01/09/08:
http://blackboxvoting.org
I just got off the phone with Jennifer Call, Town Clerk for Sutton.
She confirmed that the Ron Paul totals in Sutton were actually 31,
and said that they were "left off the tally sheet" and it was human
error.
This is not an acceptable answer, especially because one of the
most common forms of fraud in a hand count system is to alter or
omit results on the reporting sheet. Hand count is lovely,
transparent. They then fill out another reconciliation sheet, often
in front of witnesses, and it looks fine. Then they provide a
summary or media sheet with the incorrect results.
|1.9.08 @ 4:34PM|#
Even if this smear were true (and there's no proof that it is;
no copies of the alleged papers -- my, isn't that curious . . . ),
Dr. Ron Paul is still the only pro-liberty candidate. He is far and
away the best presidential candidate in a generation:
* Repeal the income tax and abolish IRS (replacing it with
NOTHING!!)
* Stop perpetual U.S. foreign meddling which breeds terrorism and
is leading to our financial collapse.
* Restore honest money. Stop printing worthless dollars which
destroy your savings & purchasing power.
* End give-away programs to special interests, rich and poor.
* Reduce, if not dismantle, the military-industrial complex.
Liberty is the only decent political value. Liberty would
phenomenally improve your life, in countless ways. But, the many
beneficiaries of government spending would see their cash inflows
go down. Hmmm . . . might any of them have an interest in smearing
Dr. Paul?
|1.9.08 @ 9:31PM|#
The MSM and political pundits, including the GOP itself, have
apparently conducted a very effective censorship/smear campaign
against Ron Paul. We all expected it to get nastier out there for
him, although unable to foresee precisely what might eventually be
thrown his way by political opponents.
Since many of Ron Paul's supporters in the primary will be voting
for Obama in the general election, I can't help but wonder whether
one of the objectives of this article in the New Republic was also
aimed at fragmenting Obama's Unity movement by stirring up memories
of old bigoted passions, reminding America that it can't be
done.
Since I am a Republican and it is too late in Colorado to
re-register as a Democrat, I've decided to actively campaign for
Obama. Thank you New Republic for reminding me just how much work
yet remains to accomplish Obama's dream. I can only hope that one
day, journalists who seek to smear good men by publishing the
writings of angry men, reflect more on the publisher than on the
target.
|1.9.08 @ 11:12PM|#
Why are so many Ron Paul supporters simply blowing this off like
it's been dealt with and it's no big deal?
The fact is, these were printed in his newsletter, in a manner in
which it would lead people to believe they were his words. He
didn't say anything for years about the bigoted crap that was
posted under his banner, and he's only mentioning it now when it
awkwardly comes up because it embarasses him at this point. I'm a
die-hard libertarian but I don't care WHO allows things like this
to be said in his own newsletter, it's unforgivable.
|1.9.08 @ 11:13PM|#
http://the-fineprint.blogspot.com/
Jamie Kirchick's hypocrisy
Jamie Kirchick, the new fluffer at The New Republic, recently
attempted to smear an honorable man in her vicious attack on Ron
Paul on the day of the New Hampshire primaries. It may have hurt
Dr. Paul in those circles where the opinions of fussy college
graduates matter (like TNR), but what it reveals is the true
hypocrisy of the environment in which Miss Kirchick resides.
Miss Kirchick authored a piece (in which she defended the notorious
anti-semite Daniel Pipes) in 2003 in which she stated:
"Passion for one's ideas is well and good, but shouting others down
with irrational cries of "racist" and "McCarthyite" is hardly
liberal at all."
http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/866
Campus left silences opposing views
by James Kirchick
Yale Daily News
November 12, 2003
It would seem that Miss Kirchick, unlike Dr. Paul, is willing to go
against her own principles to shout down someone she disagrees
with.
|1.9.08 @ 11:26PM|#
Have any of you read any of this stuff that was supposedly so
evil? I read the excerpts on the Pajamas Media site, and was not
particularly horrified by most of them. A few of the quotes were
bigoted, but a lot of them are TRUE, albeit phrased in a rather
tactless and insensitive matter. Unfortunately, it's politically
incorrect to mention facts such as:
* For whatever reason, there are (very unfortunately) a
disproportionate number of black teenagers involved in crime.
* Many American blacks DO harbor racist opinions, but there's a
double standard so it's considered OK. That's not right or
fair!
* American Zionists DO try to drown out criticism of Israel. (Not
saying they're the only people who do that sort of thing, but they
ARE biased.)
* Some of the friction between ethnic groups CAN be attributed to
economic envy. (What do you think is one of the primary causes of
anti-semitism?)
* A lot of leftists DO attack America's European Christian
tradition. Not that our heritage is perfect, but it's not evil,
either.
I did not see the any QUOTE of the alleged slander of Martin Luther
King, which I think is probably a red herring.
|1.9.08 @ 11:30PM|#
It is unfortunate that the fact that Ron Paul is a crazy racist
anti-Semitic paranoid moron will now reflect badly on his movement
and the multitude of crazy racist nti-Semitic paranoid morons that
believed in him.
Yep. It's just too bad!
|1.9.08 @ 11:58PM|#
Press Release from the Ron Paul Campaign site:
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The
New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not
represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we
should only be concerned with the content of a person's character,
not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage
and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights
of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental
policies.'
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on
the day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name."
|1.10.08 @ 1:10AM|#
To all my Ron Paul brothers and sisters: It is time to take to
the streets: a Ron Paul sign in our right hand, and a Barack Obama
sign in our left hand (or vice versa).
We can not be free if we are not united. As Republicans we have the
obligation to vote our conscience in our state primary or caucus,
sending the message to GOP headquarters that we are against the War
in Iraq, against torture, against the loss of civil liberties and
habeaus corpus, against the falling dollar and the loss of American
jobs to foreign countries.
We must hold the GOP accountable for violating our trust and
wandering far off from its Republican principles. We can send this
message to the GOP by voting for Ron Paul in our state primaries or
caucuses. Ron Paul is the only Republican candidate who is
committed to bringing our troops immediately home, protecting our
civil liberties, as well as the increasing the value of our
dollar.
As we have all seen during this current Primary/Caucus season, the
MSM and political pundits have censored and slandered Ron Paul,
turning we the people against one another. Please read Kasper
Hauser's comment in this thread. It represents the mainstream
product of the MSM assault against Ron Paul, showing us that before
we can pursue freedom and liberty, we must first Unite together in
hope and understanding. Ron Paul's message is way ahead of its
time. Barack Obama understands this. Without Unity there can be no
Liberty.
In sum, therefore, the only thing worse than Ron Paul not becoming
the next President of the United States, would be a Clinton
Presidency. Had Paulites voted for Obama in NH, for instance, Obama
could have beat Clinton hands down. Let's begin to show our support
for Unity and Liberty!
|1.10.08 @ 1:41AM|#
So go vote for Hillary. She has a racist on her staff.
Hillary Picks La Raza Leader As Campaign Co Chair
Thu, 04/12/2007
The former president of an extremist group that organized many of
the country's disruptive pro illegal immigration marches and
advocates the return of the American Southwest to Mexico will
co-chair Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
Best known for his radical pro Chicano work during 30 years as
president of the National Council of La Raza, Raul Yzaguirre is
being promoted by the Clinton campaign as a prominent Hispanic
activist who will lead the New York senator's outreach to Hispanic
voters.
The reality is that Yzaguirre alienates many American citizens of
Hispanic descent (in other words, those qualified to vote) with his
so-called La Raza rhetoric, which has been repeatedly labeled
racist.
The National Council of La Raza describes itself as the largest
Latino civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States,
but it caters to the radical Chicano movement that says California,
Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico and parts of Colorado and Texas belong
to Aztlan.
The takeover plan is referred to as the "reconquista" of the
Western U.S. and it features ethnic cleansing of Americans,
Europeans, Africans and Asians once the area is taken back and
converted to Aztlan.
While this may all sound a bit crazy, this organization is quite
powerful (thanks to Hillary's new campaign co-chair) and annually
receives millions of dollars in federal grants. Its leaders also
managed to get included in congressional hearings regarding
immigration. Last year alone, the National Council of La Raza
received $15.2 million in federal grants and one senator gave the
group an extra $4 million in earmarked American taxpayer
dollars.
The organization uses the money to support projects like a Southern
California elementary school with a curriculum that specializes in
bashing America and promoting the Chicano movement. The school's
founder and principal, a Calexico-educated activist named Marcos
Aguilar, opposes racial integration and says Mexicans in the U.S.
don't want to go to white schools or drink from white water
fountains.
|1.10.08 @ 1:42AM|#
Why the hell would Paulites vote for a CFR/socialist buffoon like Obama? Good grief.
Sean Gerety|1.10.08 @ 5:45PM|#
Paul needs to name the names of those who wrote those things
attributed to him and his old newsletters. LR are two initials that
come to mind as a distinct possibility. It's basically he either
cuts his ties with those who now discredited him or his campaign is
going down in flames.
As one of Paul's former Chief of Staffs has written in response to
the TNR article:
"I hope Ron dissociates himself from them by name. I think Ron has
made some poor judgments lately and has accepted advice from men
who do not respect the Constitution and the Rule of Law. If the TNR
article torpedoes his campaign, the torpedo was provided by men who
have pretended to be friends of Dr. Paul for years. If anything,
they have preyed on his trusting nature and naivete."
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