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
Ron Paul to Speak on CNN About Newsletters
In a live reaction-interview with Wolf Blitzer just after the segment that I first spoke of yesterday, at least from what I understand. Scheduled between 5 and 6 eastern time.
Update I: CNN.com has a story up here.
Update II: Though he doesn't mention the controversy explicitly, Paul's latest message to supporters sounds like he's got it on his mind.
Egosumabbas|1.10.08 @ 3:58PM|#
This is the clarification I've been waiting for. This will make or break his campaign.
Dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 4:00PM|#
I can't "make" his campaign but it can keep it alive, no small matter if a brokered convention is in the books.
|1.10.08 @ 4:04PM|#
As I said yesterday, Dr. Paul has the ability to turn this lemon
into lemonaid.
What a good tie in to the Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Money-Bomb.
|1.10.08 @ 4:05PM|#
If he can pull this off credibly and make the attacks look bogus, he gets national airtime, puts it behind him, and gets sympathy for the "MSM is picking on me" factor.
Egosumabbas|1.10.08 @ 4:05PM|#
I can't "make" his campaign but it can keep it alive, no
small matter if a brokered convention is in the books.
Hey, I'm hopeful, not naïve :) What he's doing right now is far
better than the 0.5% that the LP gets every 4 years.
Click \'n\' Learn|1.10.08 @ 4:06PM|#
The only thing that could save his campaign - at least among the
chatterers - would be if the author came forward and had a good
explanation.
What's also interesting here is how the Bad Boys [TM] at Reason
revealed that they're wearing lace under their leather jackets by
more or lease immediately turning tail and running. Rather than,
for instance,
trying to analyze some of the statements from the newsletters
or, for instance, trying to figure out
whether the piece was something other than just good
journalism.
It's possible to think that RP is the worst person in the world
while at the same time thinking the TNR author is the second worst,
but I guess that's too fine a point for Reason to be able to
make.
Richard|1.10.08 @ 4:07PM|#
Thank you Egosumabbas! I'm so sick of people who think Paul is going to win the presidency. Or the nomination. Or a primary.
Ali|1.10.08 @ 4:08PM|#
Bingo- before or after the interview? I'd see a whole lot more after the interview. We're talking 250+.
Brett|1.10.08 @ 4:09PM|#
Keeping my expectations looooooooow. Perhaps he's been reading H&R, but there's not much to give me hope that he'll put this to bed in a satisfactory manner.
Ali|1.10.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Guy Montag- Probably not. I do not think that there is enough time between the supposed interview at the Debates. I am calling 320. Bet? But, hey, no cheating by making silly posts under a different handle!
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Yep, low expectations are in order.
He may just want a chance to repeat his somewhat less than
satisfying statement from the other day in front of a TV
audience.
Nobody listens to me or sends any checks to the Fluffy Political
Consulting Agency, but I would recommend absolute honesty, absolute
contrition, throwing the "real killers" under the bus, and making
the appropriate stirring statement[s] about race and peace, love
and understanding.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 4:14PM|#
Are you calling 170 comments before the piece even appears? Because that is pretty likely.
Mike Laursen|1.10.08 @ 4:15PM|#
Martin Luther King Jr. Day Money-Bomb
Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Money Bomb? Do I wanna ask?
Ron Paul|1.10.08 @ 4:16PM|#
Sorry I wasn't a better vetter
Of what they wrote
In my newsletter
Was it Lew or Gary North
Or some paleo throwback?
If the name's so important
Will you get off my back?
I don't endorse racism,
The Superhighway or Amero
I guess I'll just come clean
And say it was Dondero.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 4:17PM|#
Perhaps he could include the sentence, "While I was doing a bad job overseeing a small-circulation newsletter, my opponents in both parties were overseeing a Drug War that has taken the vote away and taken any possible career future away from millions of African Americans all across the country."
Pottsy|1.10.08 @ 4:18PM|#
Fluffy, that would mean RP actually had decent consultants involved in the campaign.
Shane Brady|1.10.08 @ 4:19PM|#
From CNN.com
"Benton maintains that the GOP presidential candidate doesn't know
who wrote any of the newsletters. Asked if Paul would try to find
out, his spokesman said, "No, what's the point? ... It's time to
move on."
Anyone care to defend him still?
Mr. X|1.10.08 @ 4:19PM|#
At a minimum, he'll be able to say that he's already responded on CNN when they bring it up at the debate.
|1.10.08 @ 4:20PM|#
I'm worried this is going to come across as a bizarre secret club with infighting. In short, Ron can't act as though everyone is supposed to know or care about internal machinations. Keep sincere, focus on the big picture, and don't dwell on details and finger pointing.
|1.10.08 @ 4:22PM|#
Fluffy wrote,
Nobody listens to me or sends any checks to the Fluffy
Political Consulting Agency, but I would recommend absolute
honesty, absolute contrition, throwing the "real killers" under the
bus, and making the appropriate stirring statement[s] about race
and peace, love and understanding.
There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why
racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such
numbers that these newsletters could be written, editted, laid out,
published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone
pulling the fire alarm.
I don't know what that answer is, but Ron Paul had better.
Bingo|1.10.08 @ 4:22PM|#
170 after the interview Ali!
This is the make or break moment for the Paul campaign, and most
people here are expecting him to break it.
Of course if he hits one out of the ballpark even Guy's estimate
might be low.
ed|1.10.08 @ 4:24PM|#
I'm so sick of people who think Paul is going to win the
presidency. Or the nomination. Or a primary.
People talk about the DC Beltway as being an insular world,
separated from reality. H&R is a similar place, but for
libertarians, at least as far as the Paul "revolution" goes. I like
the guy, but come on.
|1.10.08 @ 4:25PM|#
CNN? Would it be more "cosmopolitan" to do this on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer?
|1.10.08 @ 4:25PM|#
The only thing that would save Paul's campaign is a meteor hitting all of the other Republican candidates.. and it wouldn't hurt if HRC and Obama were caught in the blast. The Paul campaign is effectively over given the NH finish. With outsider movements like Paul's, momentum is critical. The machinery just isn't there to push through a bad outing. Except for the politicos and the RP die hards, the explanation just doesn't matter much now.
NoStar|1.10.08 @ 4:26PM|#
Mike Laursen,
RE: MLK Jr. Day Money Bomb
Of course you want to ask.
http://www.freeatlast2008.com/
cut & past or click on my name.
Bingo|1.10.08 @ 4:28PM|#
Jose, you're forgetting about possible 3rd party spoiler run. Thats why its important for him to clear this up and kill the story once and for all ;)
PC|1.10.08 @ 4:29PM|#
Yeah and when they deny that it was Lew and everyone else says
that it is Lew, and when Lew is currently involved in your
financial dealings...you get the point.
CNN: So you have a new book out, Pillars of Prosperity?
Paul: Yes
CNN: Who wrote the intro?
Paul: Lew
CNN: Oh the same guy who everyone else besides you and Lew say
wrote those newsletters?
Yeah this will look great, considering the way the Official
Campaign has handled it so far, everything will just be peachy.
Don't forget to donate more money to someone who couldn't at least
come up with a strategy on this between 0 and 20,000,000 dollars. I
feel bad for the people who maxed out, especially those who spent
more than they should have.
|1.10.08 @ 4:30PM|#
There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these newsletters could be written, editted, laid out, published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone pulling the fire alarm.
I'm still somewhat curious as to why Dondero didn't sound the alarm
after he admitted to getting the faxed proof files of these
newsletters back when he worked for RP.
alan|1.10.08 @ 4:30PM|#
Before the TNR scoop/smear I would have said
There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why
racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism
was unfair, but now,
n such numbers that these newsletters could be written, edited,
laid out, published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without
anyone pulling the fire alarm.
I'm wondering the same thing.
|1.10.08 @ 4:31PM|#
"Time to move on"?
Uh, hey dude-- a whole bunch of racist and homophobic crap under
your own name for a long period of time (and don't--just DON'T try
to claim it wasn't racist and homophobic stuff--you're just digging
the hole deeper), you couldn't be bothered at the time to keep tabs
as to what was there, and now your spokesman says it's "time to
move on"?
Sorta like the spokesman for the Skilling coming out and saying:
"yeah, we did a whole lot of accounting shell games at Enron, but
now you've caught us at it and we promise not to do it anymore and
why's everyone so upset at us? After all, it's time to move
on."
Does ANYONE supporting Ron Paul's run for president understand why
This. Does. Not. Go. Over. Well?
Mike Laursen|1.10.08 @ 4:31PM|#
...he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics
are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these
newsletters could be...
Wow, nice cheap shooting there, joe!
mmX|1.10.08 @ 4:33PM|#
From CNN: Benton maintains that the GOP presidential candidate doesn't know who wrote any of the newsletters. Asked if Paul would try to find out, his spokesman said, "No, what's the point? ... It's time to move on."
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 4:33PM|#
There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to
why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such
numbers that these newsletters could be written, editted, laid out,
published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone
pulling the fire alarm.
Well, for me that comes under the "absolute honesty" header, since
I am assuming that part of the story here is that the newsletters
were deliberately written in a hysterical voice in order to get
contributions and subscriptions from members of the 80's and 90's
militia movement. "The people running the newsletter were trying to
evangelize to the militia movement, and I didn't realize how far
they were willing to go to do that," would be what I would
say.
But based on Benton's comment, I don't think the campaign is going
to take that route. I think they're going to just say, "What, me
worry?" and shrug. And that is a horrible, horrible move.
Unless Benton gave his comment yesterday and since then the little
teapot shitstorm libertarians have been having and the
RonPaulForums guys have been having has had some effect.
|1.10.08 @ 4:36PM|#
Does ANYONE supporting Ron Paul's run for president understand why This. Does. Not. Go. Over. Well?
Yes, and I can't help but watch the whole thing transpire with a
knot in the pit of my stomach.
|1.10.08 @ 4:37PM|#
What a good tie in to the Martin Luther King Jr. Day
Money-Bomb.
Did
somebody listen to me?
Guy Montag|1.10.08 @ 4:37PM|#
As for the racist loonies who flock to folks like Dr. Paul, I
have noticed one thing about the ones I have met (racist loonies,
but not ones who necessarily support Dr. Paul): they all seem to
think, somehow, that giving people choice meand that the
restrictions on individuals thatn they want will be
enacted. Especially if they have a position on 'racial
purity'.
Discussions with them are pretty bizarre, especially if they are
Hitler appreciators and want laws telling us what race we can marry
or be in school with, while they keep trying to say that it some
sort of Conservative position, it certainly is not.
One not far from them is someone I know here in Arlington, and I
have mentioned him before, who swears he is a Conservative but he
is for a windfall profits tax on energy companies and says it was a
Nixon thing! That example was for the pathology, not saying it is a
racially based WPT.
dhex|1.10.08 @ 4:38PM|#
I think they're going to just say, "What, me worry?" and
shrug. And that is a horrible, horrible move.
unfortunately, i think you might be right in that.
and yeah it's the way wrong thing to do.
|1.10.08 @ 4:38PM|#
"""There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to
why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such
numbers that these newsletters could be written, editted, laid out,
published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone
pulling the fire alarm.
I don't know what that answer is, but Ron Paul had better."""
I can think of two things of the top of my head.
1. Ron Paul didn't read the newsletters. I'll bet no politician
does.
2. Freedom. Crazy people, conspiracy freaks, ect. want freedom too.
Since so many people are willing to shut them out, it's natural for
them to gravitate toward freedom loving people who will let them be
themselves.
True freedom loving people, such as myself, don't care that the
freaks and such want to jump on the freedom train. It's a train
where every person in the world should be.
|1.10.08 @ 4:38PM|#
RP supporter David Duke thinks he should double down. What do the RP supporters here think?
alan|1.10.08 @ 4:39PM|#
..he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics
are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these
newsletters could be...
Wow, nice cheap shooting there, joe!
Not a cheap shot, if there was no market for this in certain
libertarian oriented circles, Ro Paul's people would not have
bothered to produce the memos and newsletters.
Episiarch|1.10.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Maybe we can wait and see. Nah, let's pump this fucker up to 1000 posts before we see what he does.
Egosumabbas|1.10.08 @ 4:40PM|#
Thank you Egosumabbas! I'm so sick of people who think Paul
is going to win the presidency. Or the nomination. Or a
primary.
There is a difference between hoping he wins, and making
wild speculation. If he makes a difference in national politics by
elevating (as opposed to debasing as some reasonoids fear) liberty
I'll be happy. I'm worried about some of the college kids getting
their hopes dashed about politics due to overblown expectations and
dirty tricks and smears. They need to grow a tougher skin. And hey,
if the country goes to shit in the next four years, I get to put a
"don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" bumper sticker on my car.
Also, unlike some Libertarians here, I can say that I actually went
out there and tried to get somebody to win, as opposed to being a
cynical (cosmo?) ninny.
|1.10.08 @ 4:42PM|#
There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these newsletters could be written, editted, laid out, published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone pulling the fire alarm.
Probably because the circulation of the thing was somewhere around
eighteen people. Libertarianism was not yet the unstoppable,
2%-of-the-electorate juggernaut that it is today.
|1.10.08 @ 4:42PM|#
I wonder if anyone has records from those days to show if the RP Newsletter even rented the Libertarian Party mailing list for a promo subscription mailing? Rockwell and Rothbard were pretty much persona non grata after they nastily pulled out of the LP. I'd think he got most of his readers from Birchers, hard money currency bugs, and others - not Reason and Liberty readers.
Egosumabbas|1.10.08 @ 4:43PM|#
I'm still somewhat curious as to why Dondero didn't sound
the alarm after he admitted to getting the faxed proof files of
these newsletters back when he worked for RP.
Because Dondero is a self-aggrandizing prick who's trying make a
buck off his former employer? If this was about being a "true
libertarian" he would have done something about it by now. Timing
*is* everything you know.
|1.10.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Does anyone know how those newsletters labeled themselves and
their ideas? Libertarian or conservative?
Some of the stuff in there that I read just recently -- not just
the few insensitive phrases -- seemed more like good old fashioned
conservatism to me.
Jesse Walker|1.10.08 @ 4:47PM|#
trying to figure out whether the piece was something other
than just good journalism
Actually, Lonewacko, I think Kirchick's piece is deficient as
journalism in a lot of obvious ways. My reasons for thinking so
overlap with yours, though you have some criticisms that I would
not make and I have some criticisms that you did not make.
But I also realize that to go on about that at this point just
looks like an effort to change the subject. Kirchick uncovered some
genuinely offensive comments in the newsletters, and they appeared
over the course of several years (1989-94). Paul needs to offer a
full explanation for that material regardless of Kirchick's
sloppiness.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 4:48PM|#
Butler -
I have been telling myself for several years that Paul is a
libertarian who disguises some of his positions in conservative
language, and occasionally in extremist language, because he's
aiming for fusion.
As it turns out, it may have been the reverse. I have to be ready
to accept the idea that he was tricking ME into supporting THEM,
and not the other way around.
fyodor|1.10.08 @ 4:50PM|#
joe,
If I were a terrorist, I'd want the Bill of Rights enforced
strictly, but that doesn't mean that wanting the Bill of Rights
enforced strictly makes you a terrorist. Likewise for racists, who
feel especially violated by hate crime laws and the intrusion of
the Federal Gov't into what should be state matters, but (and
hopefully I don't really have to say this) that doesn't mean that
those who want Constitutional restrictions on the federal gov't
(let's not argue about hate crime laws right now, okay? we can do
that some other time) are racists.
Whether that's a message that Paul can make without coming across
to Joe Average (not to be confused with joe) as being an apologist
to racism, I don't rightly know.
Ron Paul|1.10.08 @ 4:51PM|#
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.
Here I am stuck in the middle with Lew.
Mr. X|1.10.08 @ 4:53PM|#
The problem with Kirchik's piece is that he's entirely too
breathless (he need to show more and tell less) about the comments,
too loose with attribution, and lumps some vaguely
controversial/eccentric positions in with actual racism in order to
make the claim that the newsletters went out for "decades."
I do admire the fact that he went out and did original research,
rather than trying to cobble a story out of the 1996 articles and
the Texas Monthly interview.
Mr Y|1.10.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Mr X: i'm not sure a journalist doing original research requires admiration, does it?
Shane Brady|1.10.08 @ 4:55PM|#
Mr X.
TNR had links to scans of all the newsletters referenced. You can
read the racism, homophobia, and kookiness yourself.
alan|1.10.08 @ 4:57PM|#
Joe,
don't lose yourself in Obama's eyes. Right now he is a rorschach
for anyone to read his personal political philosophy into.
Remember why liberals opposed Quayle, I mean the other reason
besides the fact he was an idiot. That's right, the 'E' word. Same
thing with Clarence Thomas, which the late, (and very great)
Thurgood Marshall had to ask, who is this guy?
Nutter|1.10.08 @ 4:57PM|#
A couple of days ago Dondero claimed that he'd been giving
information to Reason "at the highest levels" (!) and implied that
we should expect a bombshell story to break.
Well?
Mr. X|1.10.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Original research is admirable because it's so rare these days.
It's not necessarily hard work, but it's harder than making a
couple of phone calls and cribbing from other media.
It's too bad Kirchik's writing is so breathlessly sensational. If
he had written a straighter piece, it might have gotten picked up
by more mainstream press, but when it's an obvious hit piece like
this...
TNR had links to scans of all the newsletters referenced. You
can read the racism, homophobia, and kookiness yourself.
I read the scans. The racism/homophobia was confined to a couple of
years around 1990. Only by counting conspiracy stuff from 1978 and
a academic secessionist conference in 1995 does Kirchik get
"decades."
|1.10.08 @ 5:00PM|#
Doesn't matter what he says, this type of material is political
Ebola and 100% fatal. Mea culpas are meaningless.
With a fifth in the LIVE FREE OR DIE state, it's fade to black
anyway.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 5:04PM|#
The racism/homophobia was confined to a couple of years
around 1990. Only by counting conspiracy stuff from 1978 and a
academic secessionist conference in 1995 does Kirchik get
"decades."
Worth repeating.....but I fear it will do no good unless Paul
confronts this head on.
a Duoist|1.10.08 @ 5:04PM|#
Either Dr. Paul knew about the language in the newsletters which
bear his name and agreed with it, or he did not know about the
views being expressed and ghost writers used his name for years to
further their own agenda, at the expense of his reputation.
Either way, he's revealed to be an idiot.
Egosumabbas|1.10.08 @ 5:07PM|#
I can't believe that my first foray into politics in my entire life (besides voting occasionally) hangs on this interview. What a great way to start eh?
|1.10.08 @ 5:08PM|#
Are we to believe that NONE of the subscribers ever suggested that Cong. Paul give a look at what was going out in his name?
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 5:09PM|#
If Paul is an idiot for missing a few (that's all TNR) linkes of racist stuff in a two or so year period,, the same could be said for most members of congress who vote for bills they neither have read nor understand.
Edward|1.10.08 @ 5:09PM|#
It should matter to libertarians because the movement has been tainted by association with this stuff. It is hard to understand why conpsiracy nuts and racists are attracted to libertarianism. Maybe they should be made to feel unwelcome. Having one of them as standard bearer doesn't help.
Nutter|1.10.08 @ 5:09PM|#
Are we to believe that NONE of the subscribers ever
suggested that Cong. Paul give a look at what was going out in his
name?
How many subscribers would it have had?
|1.10.08 @ 5:13PM|#
the same could be said for most members of congress who vote
for bills they neither have read nor understand.
And therein lies the irony of these newsletters, in tight
circulation, being the equivalent of political ebola while the
self-admitted Congress who didn't even read the PATRIOT Act (which
affects a far greater population--like all of America) get off
scott-free by their apologists that claim it was OK then for
whatever excuse, even if it isn't OK now.
|1.10.08 @ 5:14PM|#
I have a hard time believing these things went out to more than
a couple hundred people. I mean they look like such bush league,
DIY, amateurish-looking publications even by early 1990s standards,
typed on a manual typewriter and run off on a mimeo machine in some
guy's basement.
I mean, right...?
|1.10.08 @ 5:14PM|#
CNN streams live at http://www.cnn.com/video/?iref=videoglobal. Click the live video link.
|1.10.08 @ 5:15PM|#
I personally don't have faith that he can pull this off. It would be nice, and someone politically savvy could probably do it very well, but Dr. Paul has shown at debates and other TV appearances that he focuses on what's important to him and not on what's important to the viewers.
|1.10.08 @ 5:16PM|#
Understatement of the year (I know, it's early) from that CNN
story linked to above:
"Paul, who is not considered a front-runner..."
|1.10.08 @ 5:19PM|#
If Paul doesn't realize that a great deal of passionate support
is hinging on a some sort of rational explanation and not more of
"I don't know, let's ignore it", then he's a fool. The guy doesn't
have near enough support to wave this off.
Tactically, he should admit all he knows and promise no more
carelessness with his and by extension "the revolutions"
reputation.
Eldridge Cleaver|1.10.08 @ 5:20PM|#
7,000 subscribers is what I heard.
Geez, I had more support than that.
|1.10.08 @ 5:20PM|#
I personally don't have faith that he can pull this off. It
would be nice, and someone politically savvy could probably do it
very well, but Dr. Paul has shown at debates and other TV
appearances that he focuses on what's important to him and not on
what's important to the viewers.
you're not kidding. he harps way too much on the war.
Dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 5:24PM|#
Disagree. The problem in NH was that he didn't harp on the war enough, hence most of the idiots voting for McCain thought he was the antiwar candidate.
|1.10.08 @ 5:25PM|#
Next time L_I_T, we most definitely need to choose
someone:
More moderate
Younger
More capable of relating to the public
|1.10.08 @ 5:26PM|#
There were alot of technical problems with New Hampshire, but I
can't say which one was the real kicker.
I'd really hope he comes up with a suitable answer for these
shenanigans, so we can most past this and work towards getting a
few more delegates to barter with in the brokered convention.
alan|1.10.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Disagree. The problem in NH was that he didn't harp on the
war enough, hence most of the idiots voting for McCain thought he
was the antiwar candidate.
In other words, even the antiwar faction of the GOP is uninformed.
Is this an uphill climb any principled politician can pull off in
the next four years?
Dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 5:27PM|#
There isn't anyone else out there, except perhaps Gary Johnson. Who's he on the war? What's holding up the interview.
Bingo|1.10.08 @ 5:27PM|#
Dodsworth, McCain isn't against the war, he just thinks it
should be fought differently. Which is a shrewd thing to say since
he gets to criticize the war without alienating the huge group of
"glass parking lot!" types.
Slimy bastard.
|1.10.08 @ 5:27PM|#
A bumper sticker I saw today:
"Don't blame me, I'm voting for Ron Paul -- Blame the niggers and
faggots instead."
|1.10.08 @ 5:28PM|#
Reinmoose,
We all have the ideal candidate in our heads. Only time will tell
if that individual decides to pursue the presidency.
Dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 5:30PM|#
Your "bumper sticker" doesn't note that RP is currently running the most anti-racist, anti-drug war, anti-death penalty campaign in the GOP. That should count for something....but it doesn't seem to.
Pottsy|1.10.08 @ 5:35PM|#
Your "bumper sticker" ...
You're right, but I still nearly spit out my coffee from laughter.
Is that wrong?
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 5:37PM|#
No....just feeling pretty humorless and depressed these days. The last two days have been two of the worst in my life. What's up with this friggin' interview?
MCW|1.10.08 @ 5:38PM|#
Its hilarious to see you Ron Paul wingnuts finally jumping ship. Next stop, you'll be shilling for Huckabee.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 5:39PM|#
All my life, I've been working to make sure that when the
Fed had done its work, and the special interests had looted the
system to their hearts' content, and there was a crisis, I would be
in a position to speak the truth about why, and what to do about
it.
No, Ron. That's what you failed to do. All you had to do was show
up in Congress every day and be yourself and you would be in that
position. But you just had to get involved in the conspiracy crap
too.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 5:40PM|#
Actually, even if Paul personally wrote every line of the
newsletter while stomping on a pregnant black woman while wearing
Wehrmacht surplus boots, I still wouldn't vote for Huckabee.
Better Hillary than Huckabee.
VM|1.10.08 @ 5:42PM|#
He did a pretty good job with the interview, actually.
Definitely had emotion in his voice.
and he and Wolfie ended it on a positive note
paraphrase:
[WB, smiling] running for president exposes you to all sorts of
attacks like these.
[RP, smiling] you bet
Nutter|1.10.08 @ 5:44PM|#
2 Comments:
1-"MLK and Rosa Parks are heroes of mine" sounds too much like
"some of my best friends are black" even though true
2-He refers to "the blacks" a lot for someone who doesn't think in
categories
I'd still vote for him
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 5:45PM|#
I wonder if Wolfie knew that Paul just posted a notice at his website that the world is conspiring against him and a horde of neocon orcs is on his tail. I wonder if he knew that Paul just blew the Diebold dog whistle.
Shane Brady|1.10.08 @ 5:45PM|#
That was pathetic. He sounded so unconvincing when asked who wrote them and if he had read them. And not to mention, Wolf softballed the interview.
VM|1.10.08 @ 5:46PM|#
don't forget Ghandi!
he also brought up the TNR piece together with being excluded from
Faux News debates.
He talked about ending the WoD - clarification hier - is he for
letting the states decide that, too? Or is it for total
elimination?
NP|1.10.08 @ 5:47PM|#
What a pitiful--make that really pitiful--interview. I wasn't expecting much given Paul's generally poor rhetorical skills, but at the same time I was at least expecting him to offer a more detailed explanation. Calling it unconvincing would be a gross understatement.
|1.10.08 @ 5:47PM|#
I just listened to it on the CNN XM channel.
Ron sounded like he was on a 20 oz. espresso and also like he was
pretty pissed off. Lots of rambling and forcefully repeating his
positions on the drug war and Iraq war viz. minorities and his
admiration of MLK, etc.
Wolf gave him as much time as he wanted to explain and never
interrupted, so it was pretty fair. Wolf also offered an
endorsement of sorts (that it's "not the Ron Paul I know").
No names mentioned ("no idea" who).
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 5:50PM|#
He may not have had an idea of who wrote if Rockwell was the editor and one his minions did it. Is Rockwell going to leave Paul hanging out to dry? What does he know?
|1.10.08 @ 5:50PM|#
In all of my previous posts in these threads about this
controversy, I've given Paul benefit of the doubt -- pointing out
that I believe him to be a decent, good, and honorable man. Now I'm
even beginning to rethink that position.
Why? The campaign, through Jesse Benton, says Paul "doesn't know"
who wrote those newsletters. Give me a break! Why doesn't he ask
his partner, Burt Blumert? Don't they have records of expenditures
from "Ron Paul and Associates," even if that corporation no longer
exists? Can't they contact an accountant who did their books and
find out to whom checks were written for writing articles to the
newsletters?
This is truly amazing and incredible. Paul is going to allow his
previous kooky-but-likable persona to be destroyed by this mess,
just so he can take a bullet for Lew Rockwell -- who, according to
Eric Dondero, wrote "80%" of the letters? Why on earth does Paul
think Rockwell is worth it? How has Rockwell made a bigger or more
important contribution to the cause of liberty than Paul -- and/or
what suggests he will do so in the future?
Someone jokingly stated in another thread that Paul only had a
chance at the GOP nomination if all of the other candidates, save
Romney, were photographed by Romney fellating and ejaculating on
each other -- and even then Romney would be the favorite! Paul's
willingness to commit political suicide to "save" Rockwell makes me
wonder what skeletons are in Paul's closet that Rockwell and
Blumert know about.
Mr. Dondero is being proven right on so much so fast that I may
have to rethink my position on the Iraq War!
VM|1.10.08 @ 5:50PM|#
Timon - that was my take, too - I do have to agree with Shane
that it did feel softball, but he came across as someone with
passion. And it appears you also noted the friendly exchange the
two shared.
NP - do you have the feeling he's covering for someone?
AND WHAT THE HELL IS "TAKING MORAL RESPONSIBILITY" AS OPPOSED TO
"TAKING RESPONSIBILITY"?
it seems like a strange way to mitigate things.
something is strange about this, but as these things go, it did
seem better than most.
|1.10.08 @ 5:51PM|#
I can see how this thread will play out: those who have already
decided that any explanation short of a public excoriation of the
writer(s) and a Clinton-style finger-wagging
"I...did...not...write...those...newsletters" will be
disappointed/disgusted and those who have already decided that he's
infallible and this will not change a damn thing about his
candidacy will be satisfied.
Both groups will snipe at one another for approximately
eleventy-billion posts.
penxv|1.10.08 @ 5:51PM|#
I think that he chose a good time to announce that he would
pardon nonviolent drug offenders.
That hits home for a lot of the people that the New republic was
hoping to turn off.
fyodor|1.10.08 @ 5:52PM|#
1-"MLK and Rosa Parks are heroes of mine" sounds too much
like "some of my best friends are black" even though
true
Who WAS the asshole who said some of my best freinds are black, or
colored or whatever the hell he said? That jerk sure tarred and
feathered a perfectly reasonable defense against racism. I mean, if
you really have a number of friends, genuine friends, who belong to
a particular group, can't it reasonably be presumed that you don't
hate said group nor consider them a lower form of life? Of course,
if you're just making it up or look at those supposed friends
patronizingly, that's different, but then the problem is that the
claim is false, not that the claim is somehow meaningless or
inherently bigotted as it's interpreted to be, I think because
someone once said it who obviously wasn't sincere. A cursory
googling of the phrase doesn't come up with anything useful....
PC|1.10.08 @ 5:52PM|#
Not a bad job on CNN, but if it was Lew this is still a moot
point because it all comes down to money then.
In my best Thurston Howell III voice: Of course if the Libertarian
"Cosmopolitans" in the know would come clean with us ingrates that
would save us a lot of trouble.
So how does everyone think the FOX debate is going to turn out
tonight?
highnumber|1.10.08 @ 5:52PM|#
There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to
why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such
numbers...
Good point, er, what a minute - HEY!
|1.10.08 @ 5:53PM|#
I see, so it's evil for Ron Paul to call it like it is 20 years ago, but today you can rail on gays, hispanics, and non-christians.
|1.10.08 @ 5:54PM|#
Also, it's completely permissable to shit on Arabs and anyone against the Iraq war is treasonous.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 5:54PM|#
There's absolutely no reason NOT to name the actual writers. If
it's Rockwell, none of his guys will give a shit. If it's some
crazy Gary North acolyte, they would probably love the notoriety.
"Hey, Ma! They just talked about me on CNN!"
Dumb. Very dumb.
|1.10.08 @ 5:55PM|#
There seem to be a sizable number of Ron Paul supporters who
don't seem to get the fact that being a kindly doddering doctor who
ignored what went out supposedly under his name for years is one
thing--but it certainly kills any sense that you keep on top of
things.
They also don't seem to understand that "yeah, he did all sorts of
incompetent things but Ron Paul's the Only One Who Can Save Us
because he's got the Right Ideas" doesn't go over well, either. Ron
Paul might be able to have brushed off the letters when campaigning
in Texas (tho I predict that his continued re-elections in the face
of the letters will simply confirm a lot of stereotypes people have
about Texans), but he's not going to be able to do it when running
for POTUS.
Click \'n\' Learn|1.10.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Jesse Walker:
About the closest I've come to supporting RP was this,
saying:
This shouldn't be considered an endorsement of Ron Paul; while I support him on sovereignty-related and similar issues, his libertarian economic policies would make me pine for the glory days of Bill Clinton. However, the current top-tier candidates are remarkably bad and anything that will reduce their popularity should be welcomed by all those who, for instance, oppose IllegalImmigration.
I also mentioned a few things of interest in 2005.
Likewise, my infamous post
isn't really supporting RP so much as trying to tear down TNR.
That's somewhat due to their other coverage, such as their support
for IllegalImmigration; see the first link in my post.
In addition, it shouldn't take much tinfoil to see that the article
is obviously an attempt by "The Establishment" - or at least an
establishment hack - to strike back at an insurgent campaign.
While I certainly understand that RP supporters going after the
author would look like they were trying to distract from this
issue, I'm sure that it would be possible to later on look at the
issues I raise regarding the author's possible motivations.
|1.10.08 @ 5:55PM|#
Also, on the side of the disgusted will be the strain who have
already accepted that the guilty party is 100% Lew Rockwell even
though it's not gotten beyond (admittedly very strong)
insinuations.
The jury has decided (in some minds) that Rockwell is the man. He
may very well be. I haven't the foggiest, as I never really read
the guy and I'm completely unfamiliar with his style and
views.
It seems that for a lot of people, though, everything's already
been decided, and it' just Ol' Ron takin' one for Lew. Could be,
but I'm not about to hold it as Gospel truth.
Mike|1.10.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Great job by Ron. He looked very angry about this whole thing but managed to keep control and stick to his stance on the issues (drug war, war in Iraq) that show he is not a racist. He even got Wolf Blitzer to admit that he does not think RP is a racist.
|1.10.08 @ 5:56PM|#
Mr. Dondero is being proven right on so much so fast that I
may have to rethink my position on the Iraq War!
Now THAT'S crazy talk. Though it might be the Cosmopolitan thing to
do.
Edward|1.10.08 @ 5:57PM|#
David Duke claims not to be a racist, too. He doesn't hate all Jews and blacks, just the bad ones.
Nutter|1.10.08 @ 5:57PM|#
Who WAS the asshole who said some of my best freinds are
black, or colored or whatever the hell he said?
I know just what you mean. I don't know the story either.
Vincent Gigante|1.10.08 @ 5:58PM|#
"Timon19 | January 10, 2008, 5:51pm | #
I can see how this thread will play out: those who have already
decided that any explanation short of a public excoriation of the
writer(s) and a Clinton-style finger-wagging
"I...did...not...write...those...newsletters" will be
disappointed/disgusted and those who have already decided that he's
infallible and this will not change a damn thing about his
candidacy will be satisfied.
Both groups will snipe at one another for approximately
eleventy-billion posts."
Agree, as an RP fan, I knew about this for about 5 years and was
expecting thsi to come out.
ON the interview:
- liked that he mentioned the war on drugs as a racist policy
- also liked that he mentioned his record on this matter, which
sows no evidence of racism in speeches, articles written by him and
his voting record.
However I was disappointed in the explanation he gave as to who
wrote that, I believe he didnt write that but it seems that he does
not want to throw someone under the bus, either the writer or the
people that know who wrote this.
Whoever wrote this should just come out and give an explanation,
really.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 6:00PM|#
I suspect a lowly Rockwell pimple-faced minion wrote that stuff and that Rockwell was the editor....hence Paul may not know exactly who penned the words. I could be wrong.
|1.10.08 @ 6:00PM|#
There's too much ambiguity in the charges and lack of interest in the Paul campaign. I may accept the Paul explanation, but he's handing his supporters a gun with no ammo. The cloud of distaste will continue to hang over him for no good reason other than he apparently lacks the interest in pursuing this until he's cleared his name. Why are there people that claim to know about this, claim to know who the individuals are all while Paul says "I do not recall". Well Paul has shown one thing, he's not in this game to win. He may get his points across for a few more debates and use up the rest of his campaign cash, but he'll leave with people thinking he fell on his sword protecting somebody or was completely clueless and willfully so about the newsletters. This sucks!
|1.10.08 @ 6:01PM|#
Assuming Paul didn't write then stuff
2 Questions:
1. why after over a decade hasn't he tried to find out who wrote
the stuff under his name?
2. If he knows, what was/is the downside in naming the person who
poses such thoughts as Paul's own if Paul finds them so
abhorrent.
If an aquaintance of mine started blogging with my name, even
pretending to be me in the text, and called the holocaust a hoax i
would do everything i could do distance myself from him and the
blog, including making it clear that it wasn't me but aquaintance
X. It's one thing for him to say he didn't write it, but it's just
odd that he claims he doesn't know who wrote it and he and his
campaign haven't taken steps to find out who wrote it and are not
going to.
That is, if he didn't write it.
PC|1.10.08 @ 6:02PM|#
Of course if there ever was a primary for this newsletter stuff to come out, South Carolina's the one. Does anyone think this might give him a bump? (See McCain's kids)
|1.10.08 @ 6:02PM|#
And if it was Lew what do the paulites think of Ron's continued utilization of Lew in a professional capacity?
cicero|1.10.08 @ 6:05PM|#
Memo to Ron Paul: Don't say things like "the blacks" when defending yourself against racism. As in "the blacks are voting for me more than any other Republican candidate." And (paraphrasing) "I'm trying to stop the blacks from being persecuted by our drug law". This doesn't help your defense, especially when the words "the blacks" are in almost every sentence of the very newsletter articles you say you didn't write. And please stop with this unbelievable nonsense about not knowing who could have possibly wrote those articles. It makes you sound like a liar. And next time when defending yourself from charges of racism on national television can you please not say you're a libertarian 25 times in five minutes?
Egosumabbas|1.10.08 @ 6:07PM|#
It seems that for a lot of people, though, everything's
already been decided, and it' just Ol' Ron takin' one for Lew.
Could be, but I'm not about to hold it as Gospel truth.
So it's between being principled and protecting a friend versus
being the astute politician and hitting Lew's eject button under
his desk. Sign that he's truly a nice guy, or that he doesn't have
the blood and guts to be POTUS. I think I'm going to have to drink
a few glasses of wine tonight.
|1.10.08 @ 6:07PM|#
Lew Rockwell's name is being mentioned all the time, but as a long time visitor to LRC and reader of his book (of speeches) "Speaking of Liberty", none of the newsletter stuff corresponds to his writing style or tone.
|1.10.08 @ 6:08PM|#
# {S}aid David Gergen, a CNN senior political
# analyst, "I must say I don't think there's an
# excuse in politics to have something go out
# under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I
# didn't write that.'"
Oh yeah, like that never happens in the Beltway.
What's worse is people (Congress) voting to affect others' freedom
without even READING the legislation first. I must say I don't
think there is an excuse in politics to complain about evil
provisions of legislation that nobody read when YOU VOTED YES. And
yet, it happens all the time. And Gergen knows it, just as he knows
that pols employ ghostwriters all the time. Playing dumb and
self-righteous doesn't become you, David. Man, I just lost whatever
respect I may have once had for that guy.
|1.10.08 @ 6:11PM|#
"Anyone care to wager how small the MLK money bomb will
be?"
Not sure, but according to the ticker on RonPaul2008.com, the money
is still pouring in.
PC|1.10.08 @ 6:11PM|#
And if it was Lew what do the paulites think of Ron's continued
utilization of Lew in a professional capacity?
Shane,
I think the first question would actually be, how do you feel about
Ron lying to you and continuing to cover up the truth? Lew is
linked with much of his dealings, seems to be, IF THIS IS THE CASE,
more about personal business relationships than the cause of
liberty. Of course Lew's neither confirm nor deny silence worries
me. Also his first response to the New Republic was pulling out an
eighty year old column sympathetic to fascism, which is nice to
know but really really weak for somebody in the know, whether you
are a "Cosmopolitan" or not.
|1.10.08 @ 6:11PM|#
How can one not think of conspiracy theories having just
observed a highly coordinated media attack on Ron Paul the day of
the New Hampshire campaign? TNR from the left, Fox News and talk
radio from the right, and piling on from beltway "libertarians" who
made a point of loudly repeating the TNR smears and dumping Ron
Paul on the day of the primary. Your eyes did not deceive you, all
this happened. It is the result of a criminal conspiracy, but if
one uses "conspiracy" as a metaphor for social networks of vast
complexity, there is a strong sense in which conspiracy theories
accurately, if metaphorically, explain what happened.
The reality behind the conspiratorial metaphor is the social
networking between denizens of the Beltway, who sport a wide
variety of political labels but are, relative to the rest of the
country, a monoculture. These denizens range from the journalists
who report the mass media news to various think tank and university
scholars at the Cato Institute, George Mason University, and so on.
Vast amounts of federal money, that stuff that is taken out of your
paycheck with such automatic ease, flow into the Beltway area.
Directly and indirectly, almost every person who lives in or near
the Beltway depends on the very income tax that Ron Paul declared
he would abolish -- with no replacement!
Many of these paycheck vampires call themselves "libertarians" and
inspire us with their libertarian rhetoric to support them with our
attention, our blog hits, and our tuition money as well as the tax
money that already funds them or their friends. But at the first
sign of political incorrectness, all these below-the-Beltway
"libertarians" have dumped Ron Paul like yesterday's garbage. Now
they can rest easy that they will still be invited to the parties
thrown by their lobbyist and government employee and contractor
friends, who for a second or two got worried by all those Google
searches that Ron Paul might have some influence, resulting in some
of them losing their jobs (end the income tax with no replacement?!
The guy is obvioiusly a kook, and we don't invite the supporters of
kooks to our parties!). Now everybody around the Beltway can go
back to partying at the taxpayer's expense. All the money will keep
flowing in, hooray!
The lesson millions of young libertarians have now learned from our
beltway "libertarians"? Libertarian electioneering is futile.
Voting is futile. Democracy is futile. Anybody who actually wants
liberty is a kook, as can be proven by their association with
kooks. Beltway wonks posing as "libertarians" are happy to write
things to inflame your hopes for liberty that they don't really
mean. Then they make sure that we elect the politicians their
friends want -- the ones that will enslave your future to pay for
full social security for Baby Boomers. The ones that will send you
off to foreign lands to kill and die. Our Beltway "libertarians"
are happy to sell a whole new generation of libertarians down the
tubes in order to keep their Beltway friends happy.
|1.10.08 @ 6:12PM|#
Egosumabbas,
We've had so many hints and innuendo over the past few days that I
don't know who to believe. And frankly, confusion has made me
frustrated and angry at the campaign. There's no reason this should
be this complicated and if Paul's protecting a friend, he needs to
admit that he knows, that he talked to the people about it and that
he doesn't believe in raking their names through the mud. It may
not win the support back of people that think he should start
naming names and disassociate himself, but it atleast gives motive
for his otherwise incompetent looking response to the whole
thing.
"SAY SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE PAUL!!!!"
highnumber|1.10.08 @ 6:13PM|#
Asking who wrote the newsletters is missing the point. Are you
looking to punish someone?
Confronting that he was a part of it and expressing regret and
sincere apologies while denouncing any further association with
anyone currently transmitting those beliefs and attitudes is what
he needs to do. (Not commenting on what the interview. For all I
know he may have done that. I have not seen it.)
Egosumabbas|1.10.08 @ 6:13PM|#
I may accept the Paul explanation, but he's handing his
supporters a gun with no ammo.
I'm in complete agreement. Whoever wrote it better step forward
fast and take a bullet for the team.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 6:14PM|#
Again, he may not know who penned the words....though I suspect he knows the name of the editor
|1.10.08 @ 6:17PM|#
But at the first sign of political incorrectness, all these
below-the-Beltway "libertarians" have dumped Ron Paul like
yesterday's garbage.
No question about that. There are definitely days I wouldn't mind
seeing a few Enlightened and Tolerant "cosmopolitan libertarians"
get their oh-so-Enlightened teeth knocked down their oh-so-Tolerant
throats.....
Brandybuck|1.10.08 @ 6:18PM|#
Paul's last message mentioned Tolkien. Wow! What a why to rally
the troops!
p.s. But he spelled it "Tolkein" just to let us know that he's
still an unhip but lovable grandfatherly figure.
|1.10.08 @ 6:19PM|#
I'm far more conflicted about this than before the
interview.
+2 on the Drug War facts. Needed to be said.
+1 for referencing his long record of legislation supporting his
argument
+1 for talking about his great respect for Parks and MLK
-1 on saying 'blacks' every other word; that's not going to play
well with Everyday Joe no matter how true the facts were he
presented.
-2 on the positively insane deflection that he had no clue
about the writers (without stepping up and offering anyone he may
have lent his name to, or said editors)
-1 on not just saying he's sorry he ever let it happen in the first
place
|1.10.08 @ 6:21PM|#
"Asking who wrote the newsletters is missing the point."
No, that is the whole fucking point. The newsletters are disgusting
and they're are signed Ron Paul, if isn't wasn't Ron Paul but
someone pretending to be Ron Paul(read the text), then why doesn't
he say who? I wouldn't accept "i don't know" from my own kid, and
the man was cashing the damn checks. Either he wrote it or someone
ele did and he's covering.
Russ 2000|1.10.08 @ 6:21PM|#
...but it certainly kills any sense that you keep on top of
things.
Never seemed to hurt Goerge H W Bush any.
|1.10.08 @ 6:26PM|#
The lesson millions of young libertarians have now
learned...
... that no one, not even libertarians, likes racists but other
racists? And that if you're not racist don't let them get away for
saying racist shit on your behalf, even if you don't find out until
afterward?
NP|1.10.08 @ 6:26PM|#
VM,
I wouldn't say Paul is "covering" for anyone; he probably doesn't
want to strain his relationships with his previous and current
associates, including, yes, the execrable Lew Rockwell.
For the record, I do believe Paul when he says that he did not
write the offensive materials himself. But I gotta say--and I do
admit we have no evidence of this so far--Paul's most likely lying
or bending the truth a lot when he says, as he did--after a rather
long pause, I'm sorry to add--during the Wolf Blitzer interview,
that he very infrequently had come across or read the bile that
appeared on his newsletters over almost two decades. I
can't think of anyone besides his most fanatical supporters that
would take this incredible claim at face value.
|1.10.08 @ 6:29PM|#
I can't think of anyone besides his most fanatical
supporters that would take this incredible claim at face
value.
Well, here's a good place to start.
Had it with LRC|1.10.08 @ 6:29PM|#
Hmmm. Nothing posted at the LewRockwell.com blog.
--fg
That's because Lew Rockwell is perpetually in denial. I have been a
regulsr reader of LRC for the past few years and enjoyed it quite a
bit, but watching Lew let his friend Ron Paul take it from all
sides without saying a damn thing just pisses me off.
My support of Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig Von Mises Institute is
finished.
Pottsy|1.10.08 @ 6:30PM|#
But at the first sign of political incorrectness, all these
below-the-Beltway "libertarians" have dumped Ron Paul like
yesterday's garbage.
I don't think it has nearly as much to do with political
correctness as it does with simply wanting the candidate you
support to be straightforward and honest. I don't think many of us
(even those in and around the beltway) think RP is truly a racist,
but saying "I don't know..." is just an insult to my
intelligence.
|1.10.08 @ 6:30PM|#
"that he very infrequently had come across or read the bile that
appeared on his newsletters over almost two decades."
Unless of course there are 5 racist newsletters out of 300 and they
were carefully selected to smear him... He could have easily missed
a few, but the TNR interns had to plough through the whole lot.
|1.10.08 @ 6:31PM|#
The real lesson learned is to not count on the support of
goody-two shoes liberterians because they'll head for the exits at
the first sign of trouble.
Seriously folks. Paul is not blameless in this. But he is still --
as someone said a day or two ago -- the same man he was yesterday:
someone committed to furthering the cause of liberty and a return
to the Constitution, a humble man with an otherwise sterling
record, and certainly NOT a racist or a homophobe. The way some
people are willing to abandon him and throw him overboard over this
is pathetic. Have fun waiting another 30 years for someone like
Paul to come along and make libertarianism serious again.
|1.10.08 @ 6:31PM|#
Well, here's a good place to start.
like he said, his most fanatical supporters.
|1.10.08 @ 6:33PM|#
[i]But I gotta say--and I do admit we have no evidence of this
so far--Paul's most likely lying or bending the truth a lot when he
says, as he did--after a rather long pause, I'm sorry to
add--during the Wolf Blitzer interview, that he very infrequently
had come across or read the bile that appeared on his newsletters
over almost two decades.[/i]
Two decades, or a handful of issues within a couple of years?
|1.10.08 @ 6:35PM|#
Two decades, or a handful of issues within a couple of
years?
Either, does it matter which?
|1.10.08 @ 6:36PM|#
Derek,
I may still vote for Paul, but you better be damn sure I'll never
be able to convert another person. I'm frustrated as hell because
none of the campaigns response to this makes sense in anything
other than a duplicious way. Fuckin A man, how the hell do I
explain Paul when I don't ever understand myself.
|1.10.08 @ 6:43PM|#
Shane: it's easier to believe Paul when he says he wasn't aware
of this material if it was limited to a handful of newsletters
(three or four) from the early 90s.
Kirchick tries to make Paul sound worse by using the "20 years"
claim (as he did on MSNBC on Tucker), but that's a dishonest claim.
It seems apparant that -- since it's likely TNR went through
everything they had and picked out the worst stuff they could find
-- the offensive racist/homophobic material is limited to only a
handful of issues. In fact, the racist stuff all comes from ONE
newsletter -- the one everyone already knew about because it was
brought up back in 1996.
Paul goofed up and bears responsibility. It's not like racist
comments were appearing in dozens of newsletters going back to 1978
though.
|1.10.08 @ 6:45PM|#
Lost in Translation:
I agree the campaign's handling of this hasn't been ideal. I don't
think they're trying to intentionally hide something though, I
think they're just -- as usual -- being incompetant. It's becoming
more and more apparent that HQ has no idea what it's doing and is
way out of its league right now. Hence the debacle in New
Hampshire.
|1.10.08 @ 6:45PM|#
Put a fork in him. I'm still casting my ballot for him Tuesday, but it's time to regroup, reassess, and not waste what has been achieved in the last year.
|1.10.08 @ 6:49PM|#
Most charitable response I can muster:
I'll take at face value he didn't write or vet the first instances
of objectionable material, but can't imagine he had't gotten flack
from anybody within weeks after it appeared. At that point, there's
a responsibility to go back and read the newsletters, and then to
take editorial control.
I'm voting for Gravel.
NP|1.10.08 @ 6:51PM|#
Now before I start this additional comment, let me say I do like
Wolf Blitzer. I know he takes a fair amount of flak from his fellow
journos and viewers, but despite all their blather he's actually a
pretty fair interviewer. That said, Blitzer was way soft on Paul.
Here are at least two or three questions he should've posed to the
congressman:
1) You say that you very infrequently read the newsletters that you
had allowed to be published under your name for such a long period
of time. Many viewers will find that hard to believe. How do you
explain your ignorance on this matter?
Now Paul probably would've replied that he was busy with all his
the political and gynecological activities. Then Blitzer should've
followed up like this:
2) But that doesn't explain the years when you were not politically
active. Are you saying you still didn't find the time to supervise
your newsletters during this period? 3) If so, then how can we
American citizens vote for someone with such a lack of managerial
capacity as the president of the most influential and powerful
nation on earth?
Or something like that. Those questions should be more important
than what now should be the non-issue of who actually wrote the
newsletters (unless the writer was indeed Paul himself), but
unfortunately it looks like many will disagree with me on this.
Ali|1.10.08 @ 6:52PM|#
Put a fork in him. I'm still casting my ballot for him
Tuesday, but it's time to regroup, reassess, and not waste what has
been achieved in the last year.
As much as you may not like this, but God bless you J sub D!
|1.10.08 @ 6:52PM|#
Paul goofed up and bears responsibility. It's not like
racist comments were appearing in dozens of newsletters going back
to 1978 though.
True but it only takes one to soil a reputation and the actions (or
in this case nonactions) afterward are more damning than anything
else. If it is so far from Paul's personal beliefs, why do so
little to distance himself AND why do so little in regard to
holding the person responsible for the words, if only to clear his
name and clear any confusion about the authorship? this would not
be an issue if Paul could say "yes i spoke to editor so and so who
was the editor at the time and i spoke to writer so and so who
bears responsibility for his own personal beliefs, neither my
campaign nor myself have any association with editor so and so or
writer so and so who so completely misrepresented my views and
beliefs in regard to race."
What i heard instead was, "it wasn't me, it was only a couple
times, i don't know who did it" and the campaign spokesperson
showing no interest in them finding out who did do it.
|1.10.08 @ 6:53PM|#
Ben: Has it occurred to you that Paul DIDN'T receive any flak at the time? It sounds like he was barely -- if at all -- involved in the production of the newsletter -- he was in his medical practice, for crying out loud -- and the subscribers list seems to have been pretty small and directed toward a hardcore rightwing audience. I don't think it's unreasonable to think they received much more than a blip on the radar for the comments.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 6:55PM|#
So it's between being principled and protecting a
friend
Nope. If "a friend" wrote it, they should take ownership of it. If
they really think the things written in the newsletters, they
should be proud to associate the statements with their own name,
instead of someone else's. If they used to think that way and
stopped, or if they freaked out around the time of the King riots
and now feel bad about it, they can own that, too.
Hiding the truth about a friend from potential critics is not
"principled". It's Libbyian.
|1.10.08 @ 6:56PM|#
Shane: I think Paul is unwilling to rat out anyone and would
rather go the route he's taking now. You can put a good
construction on that and say he's following his Christian beliefs
and doesn't want to subject someone else to scorn, or you put a bad
construction on it and say he's hiding something because he's still
close to that person today. Or it could be a combination of
both.
We all agree Paul goofed up. But my point is -- cut the guy a
break. Show some forgiveness! This is the only blot on an otherwise
sterling record, and I think we need to give him the benefit of the
doubt on this. He's taken responsibility for it, condemned the
statements and has done so for more than 10 years now.
VM|1.10.08 @ 6:57PM|#
Wolf should have asked him about S. 1927 (not present) and about
HR 1094, which Paul sponsored.
Brad at Wendy's goes itno it
better.
|1.10.08 @ 6:58PM|#
Addendum:
I agree that Paul and the campaign could be providing a better more
clear explanation on this. But once again, I don't think it's
because they're trying to hide something, it's because HQ is
incompetant and doesn't know how to handle this, and Paul simply
isn't a polished enough speaker to handle it as well as someone
else could. We all know that.
|1.10.08 @ 6:59PM|#
I watched the youtube video and must say, Paul doesn't know how
to handle the media at all. I was embarassed by that interview and
his whole "its a conspiracy, they're just trying to keep blacks
from voting for me...waaaaah"
bad reaction and poor reasoning. I'm very, very disappointed!!
highnumber|1.10.08 @ 6:59PM|#
No, that is the whole fucking point. The newsletters are
disgusting and they're are signed Ron Paul, if isn't wasn't Ron
Paul but someone pretending to be Ron Paul(read the text), then why
doesn't he say who? I wouldn't accept "i don't know" from my own
kid, and the man was cashing the damn checks. Either he wrote it or
someone ele did and he's covering.
None of that says why you think it's so important to have a
name.
cicero|1.10.08 @ 7:00PM|#
If he doesn't want to say who wrote it he should just say so. "I know who wrote it, but out of respect for his family's privacy I prefer not to name him publicly." That would be honest and respectable. Saying he doesn't know who wrote it and there's no way he could find out is dishonest and disrespectful.
|1.10.08 @ 7:02PM|#
One more thought: If the campaign were at all competent, they would have been prepared for this from the beginning. Surely they knew this could have come up. The fact that they didn't seem prepared just shows they're out of their league right now. It's not necessarily their fault -- they just never thought they'd be where they are today.
|1.10.08 @ 7:03PM|#
You can put a good construction on that and say he's
following his Christian beliefs and doesn't want to subject someone
else to scorn, or you put a bad construction on it and say he's
hiding something because he's still close to that person today. Or
it could be a combination of both.
If it's #1 he shouldn't have a problem saying so, if it's #2 it's
even more damning, the problem is he leaves us guessing at the end
of the day. And you have to ask for forgiveness in order to recieve
it. As long as he keeps covering up truth he doesn't deserve any
benefit from me. I was hoping to get a straight honest answer and i
got deflection. no thanks. jsut shows me he's another politician
with a questionable past.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 7:04PM|#
None of that says why you think it's so important to have a
name.
So that they can be properly chastised.
And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that motive.
|1.10.08 @ 7:04PM|#
None of that says why you think it's so important to have a
name.
In order to clear his.
Disgusted Former Supporter|1.10.08 @ 7:07PM|#
I just saw the You Tube versions. Ron did repudiate the racism.
(Although it wasn't the most coherent statement.) But did he not
read the articles that ran with his name on them? Did he not know
the character of the people he was hanging with?
Lew Rockwell should come out and fess up. His finger prints are ALL
OVER this.
|1.10.08 @ 7:07PM|#
But once again, I don't think it's because they're
trying to hide something, it's because HQ is incompetant
and doesn't know how to handle this, and Paul simply isn't a
polished enough speaker to handle it as well as someone else could.
We all know that.
I think it's rather evident by the replies in this thread to the
contrary that no, we don't all think that, much less "know that."
I'd explain the failure in logic here, but I'm afraid you just
wouldn't get it.
|1.10.08 @ 7:07PM|#
The circulation wasn't so limited that his 1996 opponent
couldn't find the fleetfooted 13 year olds on Usenet.
Anyone know exactly when the newsletter shut down? I'd like to hear
that it was right after that item.
cicero|1.10.08 @ 7:07PM|#
It's important to have a name because it would prove that Ron Paul didn't write it. Especially if the person who wrote it said Ron Paul didn't write it. It would also be good to ask the person who wrote it, "did Ron Paul know anything about this?" Paul's position seems to be 'take my word for it, I didn't write this'. But it's hard to take his word for it when he is clearly lying by saying he doesn't know who wrote it and can't find out.
Derek|1.10.08 @ 7:09PM|#
Geoff: when I said "we all know that" I was referring specifically to how Paul isn't exactly a polished speaker.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 7:11PM|#
Geoff: when I said "we all know that" I was referring
specifically to how Paul isn't exactly a polished
speaker.
Pwned.
|1.10.08 @ 7:14PM|#
Incoming, from anon...
"wonders if Ron Paul will ever catch the one-armed man who wrote
his newsletters."
highnumber|1.10.08 @ 7:18PM|#
To clear his name is a fine reason for wanting to know who
actually wrote it, if you think that RP might have written it
himself. If you believe him when he says he didn't write it, the
authorship is of no consequence. No one other than RP has any right
or reason to chastise or punish the writer.
(For the record, I did not write any of the newsletters, no matter
how much that makes it sound like I might have.)
VM|1.10.08 @ 7:19PM|#
Ben Masel - (masel - as in massel "good fortune" or "good
luck"?)
awesome!!!!!!!
|1.10.08 @ 7:20PM|#
To clear his name is a fine reason for wanting to know who
actually wrote it, if you think that RP might have written it
himself. If you believe him when he says he didn't write it, the
authorship is of no consequence.
exactly, the diehard will not care, everyone else is left with
having to just take his word for it. or not. I can't.
Derek|1.10.08 @ 7:22PM|#
Shane, just out of curiosity -- is there anything else Paul has ever done or said that gives you good reason to believe he would be outright lying about this?
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Actually, there really was a one-armed man.
At least, in the movie I saw there was.
He should have said, "OJ is going to find the people who really
wrote the newsletters, and in return Paul is going to find Nicole's
real killers."
Minion of URKOBOLD|1.10.08 @ 7:25PM|#
WROTE THEM BY FIRMLY GRASPING THE SHAFT OF THE MAGNIFICENT
QUILL. KEPT THE STROKE EVEN. AND KEPT WRITING. AND WRITING. AND
WRITING AND WRITING.
SHAWOOOOOOHAHAHAHAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
cicero|1.10.08 @ 7:27PM|#
Paul's first excuse was that he wasn't paying attention. I was willing to cut him some slack and believe him. But to say he doesn't know who wrote it and has no way of finding out makes me question whether or not he new it was going out in the first place.
|1.10.08 @ 7:30PM|#
Watched the interview. Ugh. Paul's campaign is SO toast. I think
he's telling the truth about not being a racist, but he needs to
find out who wrote this and exposes him/her -- unless he already
knows -- or at the very least, say he's trying to get to the bottom
of this.
Every debate from now on, he'll get hammered with questions about
this, and snark from the other candidates, and this will be what
libs get smeared with.
|1.10.08 @ 8:02PM|#
Hope Ron talks about ending the drug war in tonight's debate, and pardoning non-violent drug convicts. That should get Guiliani spluttering.
LevStrauss|1.10.08 @ 8:16PM|#
First I think FOX is going to make an absolute spectacle about
this tonight. And if not there are people pressuring them to,
Bushevik grassroots of course.
On the other end judging from the interview, Ron may have a little
more piss and vinegar in him which could be entertaining. If he
ends up going down, I hope he at least goes down swinging. The
Bushevik opinion of him is low, and anyone he would beat up at the
debate will go down hard in their opinion, especially on a domestic
or gun issue.
Lew Rockwell|1.10.08 @ 8:27PM|#
I see nothing!!! I see nothing!!!
I have no idea what anybody is talking bout. Probably talking about
smear merchants, with their smears and distortions, taking things
out of context. The New Republic wrote an article sympathetic to
fascism in 1927 so there!!! Oh yeah, buy Ron Paul's new book,
"Pillars of Prosperity" today, so we can promote the cause of
liberty and remain in denial and pretend that nothing ever happened
and that nobody has to know the specifics.
Sean Gerety|1.10.08 @ 8:49PM|#
I tend to think I see someone covering his butt at the expense
of his friend . . . not to mention his campaign.
I'd like to think I was wrong.
|1.10.08 @ 9:52PM|#
Lew Rockwell's name is being mentioned all the time, but as
a long time visitor to LRC and reader of his book (of speeches)
"Speaking of Liberty", none of the newsletter stuff corresponds to
his writing style or tone.
I agree - it does not look at all like Lew's style. But that fact
is not enough to convince his detractors. For some reason,
a few wackos think that he was behind the writing in the
newsletter. For some reason, they are convinced that since
his website links to essays written by a few controversial figures
(as controversial as H.L. Mencken), sorely by the fallacious
argument of "guilt by association", Lew Rockwell must espouse all
the beliefs of those characters.
|1.10.08 @ 9:56PM|#
But to say he doesn't know who wrote it and has no way of
finding out makes me question whether or not he [k]new it was going
out in the first place.
He most likely did not know. Just because someone prints a
newsletter with his name does not mean Paul has to be like a shadow
over that person to make sure he does not write unpleasanties - who
the hell has time for that?
Roach|1.11.08 @ 12:22AM|#
It doesn't matter who wrote it. Whether it was Lew or someone
who worked for Lew or some random young college kid who spent some
time at the Mises Institute.
The whole thing shows (a) he's willing to pander for money (b) he's
a terrible manager (c) he forgets that loyalty can be a vice (like
another Texan Republican I know) and (d) he either will not say
what he really believes about these things (or believed at the
time), or he allowed things most people (even me!) don't agree with
that are offensive and at best immature to go out under his name.
The guy is an amateur when it comes to leading a movement, managing
a friggin' newsletter, and would be a terrible President.
Imagine it now . . .
Question: Well, candidate Paul, the Iranians sunk one of our naval
vessels. What do you think we should do?
Paul: Well, we shouldn't be there, so I'm going to say we shouldn't
do anything, and I'm not too concerned who shot them. I didn't even
know we had vessels there. But I do know they wouldn't be there if
it weren't for the pesky Trilateral Commission and the AIPAC money
that is in every greedy SOBs pocket in this town. No, can someone
pass me that awesome weed the blacks brought over . . . not for me
of course, but my unnamed staff. Anonymity's important with the
apocalypse coming up and all.
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