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
Video: Ron Paul Responds to TNR on CNN
On CNN's Situation Room, Ron Paul addresses the charges
made in The New Republic, and
reason's Matt Welch advises the Paul campaign to
reveal the authors of Ron Paul's various newsletters. (Note:
Because of YouTube's 10 minute video limit, Blitzer's intro has
been excised.)
Discuss.
jet|1.10.08 @ 7:03PM|#
From the CNN website: "Matt Welch, the editor-in-chief of "Reason" magazine ..." Huh?
drawnasunder|1.10.08 @ 7:03PM|#
As bad as the newsletters are, and as foolish as he looks on that front; holy schmitt, that is good stuff on to hear on MSM on the drug war.
Derek|1.10.08 @ 7:03PM|#
Well, at least Paul's showing some fire. You can tell he's genuinely upset.
wealthandtaste|1.10.08 @ 7:04PM|#
For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of
nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would
STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200 years.
The other candidates sweet talk the MSM while continuing to murder
civilians abroad, steal a third of our livelihood under threat of
violence, and lock up innocent people for the supposed crime of
using a goddamn plant to get high!
I'll take racial slurs over a gun to my head from the IRS any day
of the week.
|1.10.08 @ 7:04PM|#
jet,
Matt Welch came back from the LA Times to take over for Nick
Gillespie who is heading up ReasonTV.com
VM|1.10.08 @ 7:07PM|#
"For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of
nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would
STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200
years"
*whistles*
well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. a flawless moron
residing permanently in abstraction land!!
and the answer to the question: "to whom were the newsletters
directed".
run along, now, Pilly Pecker wanted you to finish waxing his car
over an hour ago!
|1.10.08 @ 7:10PM|#
For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting
of nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he
would STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200
years.
And people wonder why the supporters of this campaign are being
called "cultists" by more than a few out there.
Christ on a crutch.
sweet|1.10.08 @ 7:13PM|#
GET IN. Paul tells his critics where to go, and does it very very well. instead of looking to the MSM for anti-Paul foolishness, we need only visit Reason. seriously, get over yourselves..
Episiarch|1.10.08 @ 7:14PM|#
Hey, Ron wasn't bad. It got better because Wolf was pretty light
on him (and seems to believe him), and he got a chance to talk
about who he is and what he believes. He should have stressed that
he had nothing to do with them more, though.
Not fantastic, but definitely on the "better" side.
|1.10.08 @ 7:14PM|#
"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."
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 7:15PM|#
well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. a flawless
moron residing permanently in abstraction land!!
While I don't agree with that poster, I do have to say: The
newsletters constitute racial insults. At the end of the day,
insults are abstractions. Policy is real; words are symbolic. In
fairness to his point, a racially insulting asshole who favored
good policies would, in fact, be more desirable than a sensitive
and sweet-spoken soul who favored bad ones.
That being said, GOD DAMN IT PAUL YOU OWE US THE NAMES.
jet|1.10.08 @ 7:15PM|#
Thanks Kwix.
This website still shows Nick as editor-in-chief (under Reason
Staff).
theThia@yahoo.com|1.10.08 @ 7:17PM|#
isn't it sad that Matt's quote wasn't even taken out of context.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 7:20PM|#
Not that it matters since the campaign is dead, but I do note
that in passing Paul confirms what has only been speculation and
inference until now: that if President he would employ the pardon
power as a rubber stamp to nullify federal laws he doesn't agree
with.
That's a pretty radical statement to make. I wish the campaign had
been more aggressive and provocative in this way all along, instead
of campaigning on bases like, "Hey, I'll kick out illegals TOO!"
and "Hey, I don't like abortion either!"
|1.10.08 @ 7:21PM|#
I wasn't expecting that.
Ron Paul will now be on my CNN 24/7.
Hopefully he can take that frustration out on that bitch Soledad
O'Brien.
|1.10.08 @ 7:22PM|#
What the Paul campaign needs is for supporters to post more
hysterical manifestos. Or not.
Count me among Paul's former supporters. I don't believe the man is
a racist, but I also think he is lying when he says he doesn't know
who wrote the articles. His failure to loudly and publicly separate
himself from those elements of the libertarian movement and the
individuals responsible makes him unpalatable in my eyes.
Dedalus|1.10.08 @ 7:22PM|#
Homerun! Paul is masterful.
Now can you hand-wringers finally bury it? The only place this
story has any legs is on supposedly "friendly" places like
Reason.
Minion of URKOBOLD|1.10.08 @ 7:23PM|#
NOBODY EXPECTS WOLF'S GRECIAN FORMULA.
ITS COLORS ARE AUBURN.
AUBURN AND FALL SUNRISE.
AUBURN AND... I'LL COME IN AGAIN.
|1.10.08 @ 7:24PM|#
Can someone explain this one to me. He says he's for "the blacks" by eliminating drug laws in this clip, yet I've seen him in other clips saying "would you want some drug dealer crossing the border, having a baby here and having it get citizenship". He's legalizing and then punishing the same thing. No?
|1.10.08 @ 7:25PM|#
I wish the campaign had been more aggressive and provocative
in this way all along, instead of campaigning on bases like, "Hey,
I'll kick out illegals TOO!" and "Hey, I don't like abortion
either!"
Yes. Not cosmopolitan.
Provoked you just fine, though.
Derek|1.10.08 @ 7:25PM|#
Captain Chaos: have fun waiting for 30 years until the next politician with as sterling a record and as successful a campaign as Paul has comes along.
VM|1.10.08 @ 7:27PM|#
"Now can you hand-wringers finally bury it? The only place this
story has any legs is on supposedly "friendly" places like
Reason."
no because we hold people who claim "libertarianism" to a higher
standard. It is, after all the philosophy of the higher standard,
so we naturally hold candidates to it.
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE??? ahem. sorry.
|1.10.08 @ 7:28PM|#
Now can you hand-wringers finally bury it? The only place
this story has any legs is on supposedly "friendly" places like
Reason.
No. The man allowed hateful filth to be published under his name,
and has not offered a satisfying explanation, and apparently still
associates with the folks who are responsible. So no, I won't be
pretending this won't happen.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 7:28PM|#
No, nameless one. I did not need to be provoked.
And all the candidates except Giuliani are pro-life. Why on Earth
would Paul campaign on that issue? Pro-life voters have a wide
selection of candidates to indulge their monomania.
And all that anti-immigration stuff did wonders for Tancredo,
didn't it?
In a 6 man race you campaign on the basis of what makes you
different. Immigration and abortion don't make Paul different.
Advocating the same thing as the other candidates, but with cheaper
and less-well-written ads, is no way to win anything.
svf|1.10.08 @ 7:30PM|#
I'd give him a B-.
Plenty of great stuff (anti-drug war, civil disobedience...)
Some head-scratchers ("they're afraid" that you're getting so many
"black votes"? a publisher often isn't aware of what's in his own
magazines?)
A few cringe-inducing comments. (That MLK Day money bomb ain't
gonna be $4 million+ so please don't build up the media's
expectations... and didn't you vote against the MLK Day holiday, by
the way?)
I guess that's about par for the course for Ron Paul TV
appearances, though...
It helped greatly to have a rather sympathetic interviewer in Wolf.
He may have been crucified by O'Reilly or Russert.
In any event, while I hope this is laid to rest for once and for
all, I somehow doubt it...
Keep the gloves off in the debates tonight and give 'em hell,
Ron.... you truly have nothing to lose at this point!
|1.10.08 @ 7:30PM|#
Derek- We're doing snark now? Fine. Have fun explaining why we're not a bunch of bigots to everyone who will now associate libertarianism with the sort of poisonous drivel in those newsletters.
|1.10.08 @ 7:30PM|#
B/B+. Started out poorly, finished up well.
He kept hitting the drug war stance and its disproportionate impact
on minorities, and that really helped him. Even people who don't
agree with him on the issue are going to view what he said as solid
evidence of his non-racist character.
And Wolf Blitzer certainly went out of his way to help him, and it
worked.
Let's see
"Libertarians are incapable of being racist." Uh huh. Every single
political philosophy that isn't explicitly racist can point to
tenets that refute racism. Weak.
"Let me get my message out, because you put that other message out"
No, Ron, YOU put that other message out, or let it be put out.
That's the problem.
How did this happen. Who wrote this? "Well, well..." Pause "I have
no idea." Bullshit. Lie. Nice stutter and shuffle. Very
transparent.
"Why don't you believe me?" Boo hoo. How about, because you're a
professional politician, and people don't believe any of
them?
"Nitpicking" and the general effort to treat this like a little
fluff story when we should be talking about more weighty matter:
this isn't a story about your cleavage. This isn't a story about
screwing up a joke. This isn't a story about having to shout and
having a horse voice. You, apparently, put out a fucking newsletter
full of neo-Nazi claptrap! You need to answer for it, not shrug it
off as no big deal.
"...the blacks...the blacks..." Don't say "the blacks." Jumping
Jesus on a pogo stick, you're trying to refute the idea you're a
racist, and you refer to them more than once as "the blacks." Just
freaking wonderful.
"Nobody heard me say this, nobody heard me say this" sounds more
like "You can't prove nuffin" than "I didn't do it."
On the other hand, very effective reference to Martin Luther King
and Rosa Parks. Sure, everybody says they like Martin Luther King -
just cherish him, really - for his nonviolence and opposition to
racism, but by singling out the "libertarian value of civil
disobedience" - civil disobedience not being terribly popular in
the era of George Bush and giant puppet-marches - Paul's claim
comes across as quite credible, because he singled out something
controversial. Very effective.
OK, I started out at B/B+. Going through my notes, I'm dropping
that to B-/B. Not too bad, Stopped the bleeding, anyway. The story
isn't dead, and he's going to have to do better than this when it
comes up, but he did well enough that he's going to have a shot at
doing it effectively.
BTW, those of you who've decided that your response to this scandal
will be to wage a civil war in your puny fringe movement remind me
of a combination of the Bolsheviks and the Judean People's
Front/People's Front of Judea scene in the Life of Brian. Grow
up.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 7:30PM|#
Hey, I'm pissed off about this, too.
But I don't think that Captain Chaos was ever a supporter, so stop
the violin music, bub.
|1.10.08 @ 7:32PM|#
Wolf Blitzer gave him a chance to speak and get his point across. Wolf knows a smear when he sees it!
thoreau|1.10.08 @ 7:32PM|#
The most credible thing to come out of his interview is what we
already knew: That he doesn't agree with the stuff that was
published under his name.
But his agreement was never the issue for me. I never had reason to
suspect that he agreed with that stuff. Rather, the issue is that
he has yet to show any evidence that, when he learned what was
being put out there in his name, he (1) published a denunciation of
those articles in the same newsletter, to clear the air and (2) cut
ties with the people who wrote that garbage.
He might not believe in that stuff, but he sure wants to maintain
good relations with the people who will eat it up.
|1.10.08 @ 7:32PM|#
He's legalizing and then punishing the same thing.
No?
no. he's protecting our domestic drug industry.
|1.10.08 @ 7:33PM|#
Derek-If I wanted to overlook major character flaws because a candidate happens to share some of my ideas, I would have stuck with the major party candidates.
thoreau|1.10.08 @ 7:34PM|#
"For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200 years."
Well, as long as he votes for a tax cut, I guess it's all good,
right?
Derek|1.10.08 @ 7:34PM|#
Captain Chaos: people who aren't willing to look past a few isolated passages from 15 years ago that Paul didn't write for a newsletter he didn't edit, but that he has taken responsibility for and condemned, and won't take into account the body of the Doctor's career, work, actions and speeches, probably wouldn't be open to libertarian ideology anyway.
|1.10.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Fluffy-I donated more than $100, attended meetups, and signed up as a precinct captain for Paul. You're flat wrong on this one.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 7:35PM|#
This was contracted out and probably penned by some pimply faced interns. He many not know (or remember) who actually wrote the words in each case.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 7:35PM|#
Joe -
I think that's a pretty good assessment of the interview.
The word "blacks" does kind of labor on the ear now, though,
doesn't it? Funny how it used to be the acceptable word to
use.
Since Paul apparently didn't know who Tom Cruise was when he met
him before the first Leno appearance, maybe he's just too far
behind the times to know you're supposed to say "African-American"
now.
|1.10.08 @ 7:36PM|#
"didn't you vote against the MLK Day holiday"
Sure he did, and he'd vote against a holiday for Elvis or Jesus
Christ, too. The principle is consistent: it's not for the federal
government to declare national holidays.
-jcr
|1.10.08 @ 7:36PM|#
Derek-And just what does "taken responsibility" mean? In the absence of actions to totally repudiate the folks who did write the newsletters and his association with them, "taking moral responsibility" is nothing but an empty phrase.
Derek|1.10.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Madam Chaos: Not knowing Paul personally, I'm not in a position to judge what his character flaws may or may not be, and I don't think you are either. See my previous message.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 7:37PM|#
Madam Chaos: Are you suggesting an anarchist strategy of not-voting....because the all-too-human alternatives to Paul are going to disappoint you even more.
|1.10.08 @ 7:38PM|#
I'm one of those who more or less pulled my vocal support for
Ron Paul over this, and I'm not sure he's getting it back, but I
think he said all the things I wanted to hear.
...got to give him credit for that.
"Libertarians are incapable of being racist." Uh huh. Every
single political philosophy that isn't explicitly racist can point
to tenets that refute racism. Weak."
I think he followed that up with the suggestion that real
libertarianism is about the ultimate respect for individuals rather
than groups, which doesn't seem like such a weak argument to
me.
|1.10.08 @ 7:38PM|#
Given this isn't the first grief Ron Paul has gotten over this,
you'd have thought he'd be better prepared. Trying to segue into
libertarian talking points about how the drug war hurts blacks the
most just sounded like evasion--which it just possibly was.
Wolf wasn't just easy on him--he was feeding him the answers a
better prepared candidate would have had memorized.
Wolf: So do you reject racism and all its works and all its empty
promises?
Paul: Uh...I do!
Good on Wolf though for pointing out to Paul that now he's in the
big leagues (or at least the Triple-A minors) he's going to have to
expect as much scrutiny and criticism as any other candidate. Had
Ron forgotten that after spending months around crowds of young
people who thought he was the Second Coming, I wonder...?
Sean|1.10.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Dear Ron,
We all make mistakes and do stupid things. Luckily, yours didn't
include voting for an illegal and unconstitutional war, the erosion
of our civil liberties and the growth of a corrupt
government.
I still love you. Give 'em hell!! This ain't over yet!
I forgive you!
|1.10.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Fluffy,
"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.
Gay people, the gays.
It implies exactly the view of people from a minority group as
undifferentiated members of a collective that Paul is renouncing,
and using to distance himself from the sentiments in the
newsletters.
Derek|1.10.08 @ 7:40PM|#
Madam Chaos: I'd assume it means he understands the passages were inappropiate, wrong and offensive and understands he was ultimately responsible for them, and he understands he is the one that deserves any and all criticism because the buck stops with him.
|1.10.08 @ 7:41PM|#
Derek-I think what madam chaos (my beloved, who has been reading over my shoulder, and dictated that response) was getting at is that you can make judgments about a person's character based on their actions, or lack thereof.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 7:41PM|#
Fluffy:
Perhaps but "blacks" is still the main word of choice in both
races. Even those who say African American lapse into it most of
the time....and for good reason.
Who'd want to say :African American Panthers or "African American
and proud?"
svf|1.10.08 @ 7:42PM|#
"didn't you vote against the MLK Day holiday"
Sure he did, and he'd vote against a holiday for Elvis or Jesus
Christ, too. The principle is consistent: it's not for the federal
government to declare national holidays.
jcr -- absolutely... I'm just sayin', beware of rallying behind a
MLK Day online fundraiser if you oppose the whole idea of that (and
any other) Federal holiday in the first place... "oh, I see -- now
that you can use it to fundraise you're in favor of it..."
etc.
joe -- thanks for posting all the stuff I wanted to say but
didn't.
|1.10.08 @ 7:42PM|#
It implies exactly the view of people from a minority group
as undifferentiated members of a collective that Paul is
renouncing, and using to distance himself from the sentiments in
the newsletters.
Yeah, I was cringing every time he said "the blacks" and I wanted
to be convinced by this interview. Very unbecoming.
|1.10.08 @ 7:42PM|#
Ending the drug war is what he should have been emphasizing all along, not television ads on immigration and "terrorist nations."
cicero|1.10.08 @ 7:44PM|#
joe | January 10, 2008, 7:40pm | #
'"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.'
Yep. I don't think it's just chance that Paul said "the blacks"
numerous times during an interview where he claimed he didn't write
articles that used the term "the blacks" over and over again.
|1.10.08 @ 7:44PM|#
Ken Shultz,
I think he followed that up with the suggestion that real
libertarianism is about the ultimate respect for individuals rather
than groups, which doesn't seem like such a weak argument to
me.
OK, let's go through this.
Christians are incapable of being racist, because we believe that
each and every one of us are God's children and made in His image.
A Christian can't hate God's children. Did I convince you that
nobody who's a Christian can be a racist yet?
Communists can't be racist, because we believe that racism is a
tool used by the oppressor class to divide the workers and destroy
their class consciousness. Did I convince you that nobody who's a
Communist can be a racist?
Derek|1.10.08 @ 7:45PM|#
"Derek-I think what madam chaos (my beloved, who has been
reading over my shoulder, and dictated that response) was getting
at is that you can make judgments about a person's character based
on their actions, or lack thereof."
That's a valid point. But then, I return to my previous point. This
basically comes down to two or three newsletters published 15 years
ago while Paul was busy with his medical practice that contained
material Paul didn't write or edit. He's denounced the material,
etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, we also have his ENTIRE LIFE, 30
YEARS of public service, whole voting record and countless speeches
and writings that speak FOR this man's character, FOR his honesty,
etc. Paul goofed up for sure. But this man deserves the benefit of
the doubt when it comes to this newsletter fiasco.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 7:46PM|#
Give me a break. This is nitpicking, not sinister:
"black people" v. "blacks" What's the difference?
Same with "whites" v. "white people"
Should we also say lesbian people instead of lesbians?
Derek|1.10.08 @ 7:47PM|#
And that's what distresses me. Too many people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. They seem almost eager to toss him overboard. Paul doesn't deserve to be tossed overboard. Criticized -- yes. Thrown overboard? No.
|1.10.08 @ 7:48PM|#
Homerun! Paul is masterful.
Unless you were being really, really wry with a pun about
"masterful", no. I cringed a couple times watching the video. I
think Paul's telling the truth about not holding racist beliefs,
but not a good job of spin control -- and I got the perhaps
mistaken impression he does know who wrote the newsletters. He's
gonna get hammered by this, debate after debate, unless he can get
the author(s) of the newsletter to do a public mea culpa.
Still voting for Ron Paul, but holding my nose a bit.
|1.10.08 @ 7:49PM|#
He did look a little weak. Fluffy said he owes us those names,
but I don't feel like I'm owed the names, because I never read the
stupid newsletters to begin with. I just think it is the only
decisive move he can make. I don't think the man is a racist, but
the real point is, he wants to be President, but his name is on
things he claims to be diametrically opposed to. That's not
leadership. He should either make with the names, or make it a
point that he is taking this very seriously, and he is working hard
to discover who did this. Acting like he is not interested in who
did this is almost complicit after the fact.
I think the reason he isn't doing that is because if he did, he
knows some of this stink would stick to his buddy Lew Rockwell. I
mean, I like Austrian economics, too, but not enough to lay down
under a bus to protect. And any of my friends that have said crap
like that are on their own.
He can talk about what a drug war hero he would be after he makes
with the names.
Make with the names so we can move on, already!
|1.10.08 @ 7:49PM|#
dodsworth, I wouldn't say "sinister" so much as
"counterproductive," for exactly the reason I already laid
out.
"Whites" strikes the ear a little funny, too. Let's say Al Sharpton
began a sentence with "When the whites..."
|1.10.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Let's face it, folks: Ron Paul is lying about not knowing who
wrote those newsletters. He might technically be telling the truth
-- "I don't know if it was Lew Rockwell, or Gary North, or some
intern" -- but he certainly knows who was responsible for the
newsletters, and that person or persons know who wrote for them.
This is not the Associated Press with hundreds of reporters
worldwide; this was a small-circulation newsletter that probably
involved, at most, 10 people or less.
Eric Dondero claims that the newsletters were edited by Rockwell,
and I believe he indicated that "80%" of the articles were written
by Rockwell. The fact that Rockwell is allowing Paul to twist in
the wind demonstrates that he is an absolute, complete, total and
utter piece of garbage who cares about one thing, and one thing
only: Lew Rockwell. Why a Christian gentleman like Ron Paul would
lie for a such a scumbag is a mystery to me.
I'm sorry I wasted my money and my time for such a hopelessly
foolish and morally confused man.
|1.10.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Derek-I don't believe the man is a racist. I think Madam Chaos is satisfied on that point as well. If Paul were my friend, I would forgive him and move on. But he's not my friend: he's the most public face of a movement I believe in deeply, and as such, needs to be held to a higher standard. Paul may well be a wonderful person. But he isn't the best face for the freedom movement. Having said that, I've got to step away from the machine for a while, so don't think I'm not responding to any other comments out of rudeness or indifference to what you're saying.
Sje|1.10.08 @ 7:49PM|#
Did anyone notice the last line of that post? "Discuss."
As if any encouragement were needed when the word "Paul"
appears.
Anyhow, I predicted right from the start of this whole thing that
Paul's past would come back to haunt him. I had never seen these
newsletters, but I did suspect that there would be nearly
interminable amounts of dirt to be dug up from what Tom Palmer
likes to call the "fever swamp", i.e. (mostly) the associates of
Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute.
Presidential elections aren't fair. If voters cannot make out
whether a candidate is a John Birchy conspiracist tendencies
pretending to be a libertarian, or rather a libertarian who has
some experience with pretending to be an Old Right racist-then that
candidate is walking a fine line between picking up both (fairly
marginal) constituencies and picking up neither.
People who whine that this way "we" are losing the "only chance" to
do this-that-or-the-other great wonderful libertarian thing are
wrong. If this were the only chance, things would be pretty
hopeless indeed. It may take until the baby boom finally enters
senility before the quaint coalition of unions and cultural
progressives and the quaint coalition of chamber-of-commerce types
and religious fundamentalists lose whatever the hell it is that
holds them together and keeps the sensible middle locked out. But
weirder things have happened before, and the key to patiently keep
pushin' at it steadily and from all sides until it gives.
Martin|1.10.08 @ 7:50PM|#
Christ, some people here, nitpicking over blacks vs black people, are more fucking PC than a stadium full of left-liberals. Jesus fuck.
thoreau|1.10.08 @ 7:50PM|#
It's not about his views. I know and respect his views.
What you do when you find out that somebody's been publishing filth
under your name is a test of character. It's supposed to be an easy
test of character. If you don't want to talk about how you
performed on that test, there's something wrong.
If some jerks published trash under my name, once I found out about
it I'd have FUN. I'd be bragging about it. You wouldn't need an
investigative journalist to figure out what I did in response. You
wouldn't need to ask a bunch of questions and parse evasive
answers. All you'd need is Google, because the video would be on my
web page, and at the end of the video I'd be smiling and waving at
the camera.
cicero|1.10.08 @ 7:51PM|#
"Should we also say lesbian people instead of lesbians?"
What you shouldn't say is "the lesbians". And if you're accused of
writing something along the lines of "it's time to take back our
country from the lesbians" you shouldn't say something like "the
lesbians support me more than any other Republican candidate. I
think of people as individuals not groups. The lesbians know
this."
|1.10.08 @ 7:51PM|#
Well, I feel better. Whether or not he knew anything about those past publications, he certainly doesn't hold those beliefs NOW, and he repudiates them in no uncertain terms.
Derek|1.10.08 @ 7:52PM|#
"But he's not my friend: he's the most public face of a movement
I believe in deeply, and as such, needs to be held to a higher
standard."
And I maintain that, despite this incident, no one will come as
close to meeting those high standards as Paul does. Not only that,
but it's difficult to see someone matching the success Paul has
experienced.
Sje|1.10.08 @ 7:52PM|#
Oh, and by the way: the last thing to be bothered by is the fact that Paul said "blacks" rather than "people of color" or "African Americans" or "black people" or whatever the euphemism of the day is. It may not be the best political strategy, and I suppose that may be something you could be concerned about especially if you gave him money and feel he has a responsibility to actually do what it takes to win. But there is nothing inherently reproachable about it.
LevStrauss|1.10.08 @ 7:53PM|#
Fluffy, I was also glad to hear about his potential use of the pardon. If we knew what exactly else he would pardon, I'd bet one would get a lot more votes because that helps a lot of people and their families out. That is an automatic benefit, more direct than any of these government programs anyone else is proposing and it is a concept that is very easy for the electorate to digest. More nonviolent offenders in the workforce, able to start supporting the families they already can't afford instead of dodging same sexed rapists in jail, working for pennies.
|1.10.08 @ 7:53PM|#
I am more convinced that Ron Paul is not personally a racist now than I have ever been. You could hear the truth in his voice (just as you could hear the evasion in his voice when he said he had no idea who wrote the columns), and sticking his neck out for civil disobedience - not the teddy bear MLK that National Review writers pretend to admire, but the pain in the ass overturner of apple carts MLK - is very convincing.
|1.10.08 @ 7:54PM|#
The man hit it out of the park. He didn't defend the
newsletters, he denounced and repudiated them; he stated his own
position; defied anyone to show him ever saying otherwise, and
pointed out that he's the only candidate who will free the POWs of
the drug war.
So, I'm one Jew-boy who considers the racism question asked and
answered to my satisfaction.
-jcr
|1.10.08 @ 7:54PM|#
Yep. I don't think it's just chance that Paul said "the
blacks" numerous times during an interview where he claimed he
didn't write articles that used the term "the blacks" over and over
again.
Yep. People who live in a particular area don't develop accents and
particular ways of phrasing things, so that multiple people in, to
take a completely random theoretical case, Texas, might commonly
use the phrase "the blacks".
OMG! Ron Paul used the word "the"! And the word "the" is in the
newsletter! Definitive proof he wrote "the" newsletter.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 7:54PM|#
What do people here want? He could have talked like Eisenhower I suppose and said "you people" instead of "the blacks?"
Sje|1.10.08 @ 7:56PM|#
@cicero:
What you shouldn't say is "the lesbians".
Shouldn't as in: it's not a prudent thing for a politician to
say.
As far as I'm concerned (me, personally), it matters more what is
being said than how many definite articles are used to express it.
I'm perfectly willing to give somebody the benefit of the doubt who
says the right thing but doesn't know the details of how to say it
in the "right" way. And I think that this is a healthy
attitude.
But a politician should not count on winning by attracting only
voters with a healthy attitude.
Derrick|1.10.08 @ 7:59PM|#
8.5 out of 10.0. He was in a tough spot, and handled it about as
well as one could hope for.
As many others here noted, I was really struck by his repetition of
the term "the blacks." That's only slightly more P.C. than saying
"the coloreds." That's really the only problem I have with what he
said.
I was surprised that he kept steering his comments to the
proposition of releasing non-violent drug offenders from jail. I
haven't heard talk of that in the major media in, well, never. I
can't say that I've ever heard that in the major media.
Finally, nice exposure for Reason and Matt Welch.
cicero|1.10.08 @ 8:01PM|#
Sje: "Oh, and by the way: the last thing to be bothered by is
the fact that Paul said "blacks" rather than "people of color" or
"African Americans" or "black people" or whatever the euphemism of
the day is."
The issue isn't blacks vs. people of color or blacks vs. "African
Americans." It's the use of "the blacks". He sees black people as a
group, not as individuals. Just like the author of those newsletter
articles....
I think he should have said "communties of color are being
devestated by the war on drugs and I'm trying to stop that." That
would have shown racial sensitivity and political saavy. "Black
communities..." would still have been fine. I could have lived with
"blacks are being hurt by the war on drugs..." But to say "the
blacks" over and over again is just plain stupid. And looks
racist.
|1.10.08 @ 8:01PM|#
Sje,
I was just commenting on how effective his performance is.
Like it or not, people hear different subtexts to "the blacks" vs.
"black people."
There are two differences. First, the former lumps them together
into an undifferentiated mass. Not good. Second, the noun in the
latter is "people," an acknowledgment that the central feature of
their being is their humanity, while the noun in the former phrase
is "blacks," which implies that the central element of their
existence is their race. It's exactly the opposite of the message
he was conveying, and undermines what he was attempting to do.
|1.10.08 @ 8:03PM|#
Yeah, even "blacks" would have been better.
If he'd said "the Jews," would we even be debating whether that was
poor phrasing?
cicero|1.10.08 @ 8:05PM|#
"People who live in a particular area don't develop accents and
particular ways of phrasing things, so that multiple people in, to
take a completely random theoretical case, Texas, might commonly
use the phrase "the blacks".'
Maybe. But I've never met anyone who constantly referred to black
people as "the blacks" who didn't sound prejudiced. If I hear Paul
refer to his white supporters as "the whites" then I'll believe
you're right.
|1.10.08 @ 8:06PM|#
"He sees black people as a group, not as individuals"
What's your next guess?
See here, read and learn:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/
-jcr
|1.10.08 @ 8:06PM|#
"The fact that Rockwell is allowing Paul to twist in the
wind demonstrates that he is an absolute, complete, total and utter
piece of garbage who cares about one thing, and one thing only: Lew
Rockwell. Why a Christian gentleman like Ron Paul would lie for a
such a scumbag is a mystery to me."
I couldn't agree more, Andrew Taylor. Before this story even broke
(the most recent iteration, anyway), I have read numerous insiders
who say Lew is an unbearable ass. It was never qualified, so I just
assumed he was a shrewd person to tangle with, or something. But
this really puts it into context, doesn't it. I'm not 100% sure
Paul knows who wrote that crap, and I'm not 100% sure Lew even
wrote any of it, but I am positive Lew knows who did, and
I am equally certain Ron Paul knows Lew knows who did, at the very
least.
Does Ron Paul want to make a serious run at the Presidency, and do
what he can to promote the ideals of limited government and
individual liberty, or does he want to protect a friend who is
doing nothing to protect Paul right now? Lew Rockwell should be
making with the names, but that obviously isn't going to happen. So
Ron Paul should demonstrate the ideal of personal responsibility by
stepping aside and letting Lew Rockwell answer for the articles he
(at the least) edited. To protect Lew from his own personal
responsibilities is like subsidizing his character, like handing
Lew's personal responsibility a welfare check, it's akin to
engaging in social and political collectivism. If Ron Paul is truly
the candidate of principle, he should insist that Lew take
responsibility for what was written while he was editor, the same
as Paul himself took "moral responsibility" for not paying
attention to what was being said in his name.
svf|1.10.08 @ 8:06PM|#
cringe-inducer I neglected to mention...
he twice referred to himself as "the anti-racist" I
believe...
the Dr. doth protest a bit too much...?
final thought, though -- I mean it was pretty much a CNN set-up
with a slickly produced intro proclaiming him guilty of racism and
then asking him to prove himself innocent as "RACIST WRITINGS UNDER
SCRUTINY" is on the bottom of the screen the whole time.
considering that, he did pretty damn well and frankly kept his cool
better than many probably would have.
"you wanna be president of the united states you have to expect a
lot of scrutiny..." -- Wolf almost apologizes at the end. That's
kind of great...
Sean Gerety|1.10.08 @ 8:07PM|#
Ron Paul KNOWS who the editor of the newsletter is - the man
responsible for publishing the articles under Paul's name - he said
so to Blitzer. Yet, Blitzer missed the boat.
I am confident the Editors of Reason know even if Blitzer is too
slow to have even asked the question. Paul needs to separate
himself from him and name him. That's the only way this will be
over.
Beside Paul is right, there is no doubt that the Republican
establishment is responsible, but until Paul assigns a name to
those newsletters, he's name is still on the masthead.
|1.10.08 @ 8:09PM|#
"I've never met anyone who constantly referred to black people
as "the blacks" who didn't sound prejudiced. "
How about Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela?
Come on, enough with the nit-picking and witch hunting. The man is
no racist, and what person in their 70's keeps up to the minute
with the latest PC terminology?
Hell, if Jesse Jackson were to become a free-market advocate, I'd
let him skate on that "hymietown" crack.
-jcr
cicero|1.10.08 @ 8:09PM|#
"See here, read and learn:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/"
That's my whole point. His message is that he sees people as
individuals not as groups but then refers to black people as "the
blacks". That undermines his message.
Sean Gerety|1.10.08 @ 8:12PM|#
So Ron Paul should demonstrate the ideal of personal
responsibility by stepping aside and letting Lew Rockwell answer
for the articles he (at the least) edited. To protect Lew from his
own personal responsibilities is like subsidizing his character,
like handing Lew's personal responsibility a welfare check, it's
akin to engaging in social and political collectivism.
I posted this here earlier, but this is from a former Paul Chief of
Staff in the 80's:
I have known Ron Paul for more than 30 years. He is not guilty of racism, and the suggestion that he is a racist is preposterous. I worked for him in 1976 and again from 1979 to 1985, the last our years as his chief of staff. The juvenile racial slurs in his newsletters were written by others; I have my suspicions as to who they were. 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.
|1.10.08 @ 8:12PM|#
"'"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.'"
Who appointed you as the arbiter of correct speech?
-jcr
|1.10.08 @ 8:13PM|#
"then refers to black people as "the blacks". That undermines
his message."
Bullshit. His message is consistent, despite the witch-hunting and
grammar policing.
-jcr
|1.10.08 @ 8:17PM|#
"I'm sorry I wasted my money and my time for such a hopelessly
foolish and morally confused man."
Frankly, I find it rather more likely that you never supported RP
in any way, than your pretense at being a supporter who's coming
down with the vapors over a smear campaign.
-jcr
cicero|1.10.08 @ 8:17PM|#
'"'"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.'"
Who appointed you as the arbiter of correct speech?"
People can say what they want. I'm just saying how it looks. Even
"black people" could be problematic. For instance, "black people
are getting on my nerves". I'm just saying if he's going to defend
himself against these charges he should parse his words better.
Saying "I see people as individuals not groups and the blacks know
that" undermines the point of his message. But hey, I could be
wrong.
|1.10.08 @ 8:18PM|#
Now Paul is claiming that he not only didn't write it, didn't
read it but now he pretends he can't remember who wrote the pieces.
If his memory is so bad how does he know he didn't write it. His
office tells CNN that he won't even investigate the matter.
He knows who wrote -- just ask Lew.
Paul is a liar. He can't remember because there were transitions --
transitions that apparently went on for years. A transition that
went on for years is not a transition but policy.
Anyone who says a libertarian can't be a racist doesn't know
libertarianism. Libertarians don't initiate force but that doesn't
mean they are incapable of hating groups. Paul was pathetic.
|1.10.08 @ 8:20PM|#
Well as you say, Mr. Randolph, you let your support for his
political positions influence your opinion of his
performance.
Try to get a little distance. Or, give up on trying to rate how
effective his performances are.
Francis|1.10.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Fluffy-I donated more than $100, attended meetups, and
signed up as a precinct captain for Paul. You're flat wrong on this
one.
My goodness, did you mow lawns all summer to get that kind
of scratch? Simply amazing dedication, $100.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 8:21PM|#
Well then, you have a better memory than i do. If I contracted out a weekly newsletter nearly twenty years ago that had hundreds of issues, I doubt I remember who wrote every article. I would remember, however, who the editor was....but Paul was not asked about that
Sje|1.10.08 @ 8:23PM|#
@cicero and @joe:
"I was just commenting on how effective his performance is."
And as far as that is concerned, I agree with you entirely. I
understand the rhetorical effect of referring to groups as "the
{adjective}s", and it ain't pretty.
|1.10.08 @ 8:24PM|#
So good to hear the campaign talking about ending the drug war instead of those ads about "terrorist nations." We need more of this in tonight's debate.
|1.10.08 @ 8:24PM|#
John Randolph, after the first Bush/Kerry debate, there were
people who wrote in the comments, "Really? You guys thought Kerry
won? Really?"
It's a natural response to root for your guy on go easier on him.
It's worth a little effort to strive for objectivity if you wish to
understand the effect of his performance on those who didn't "know"
he'd hit a homerun before they even saw the video.
|1.10.08 @ 8:25PM|#
I have to admit, he did better than I thought he could do.
It's not enough to really satisfy me, but it may be enough to
satisfy some. And his response might be good enough to have nobody
ever ask him about it again.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 8:26PM|#
Disagree. I predicted the Foxies will bring it up tonight.....though it may backfire on them if Paul keeps his cool and brings up the drug pardon again.
|1.10.08 @ 8:27PM|#
For his own sake, Ron should have quoted, amongst the other people who know him who wouldn't believe that he wrote that stuff, that the guy who posted them on TNR didn't even think he said any of it.
NP|1.10.08 @ 8:27PM|#
(Note: Most of the stuff below is from a previous thread.)
I did believe (before the CNN interview) and still believe (after)
Paul when he says that he did not write the offensive materials
himself. But Paul's almost certainly lying or bending the truth a
lot when he says--as he does after a rather long pause in the
middle of this interview, as others have pointed out--that he very
infrequently read his newsletters and thus come across 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.
I'd say Paul is not being forthright not necessarily to "cover up"
per se for his previous and current associates--including, yes, the
execrable Lew Rockwell--but rather to avoid straining his
relationships with them, some of whom might be involved in his
current campaign. Still, it's disappointing that he's not showing
the level of honesty we've come to expect from him.
Also, Wolf Blitzer was way soft on Paul. (BTW I do like 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.) 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, as he noted during the
interview, that he was busy with all his 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
capability as the president of the most influential and powerful
nation on earth?
These questions should be actually more important than what now
should be the non-issue of who actually wrote the newsletters
(unless, of course, the writer was indeed Paul himself), but it
looks like many will disagree with me on this.
|1.10.08 @ 8:28PM|#
What you do when you find out that somebody's been
publishing filth under your name is a test of character. It's
supposed to be an easy test of character. If you don't want to talk
about how you performed on that test, there's something
wrong.
Absolutely, thoreau. I just am utterly amazed at his defenders for
continuing to rely on the "but he didn't write it" excuse. It
doesn't matter - he let that stuff go out under his name for years.
This wasn't a one time incident. Had it been just once, followed by
a vehement denunciation, with the outing and firing of the writer,
I'd give him a pass. But you all know damn well that this stuff
wasn't being said without his knowledge for all those years. I find
it absolutely inexplicable that anyone without those views and with
an ounce of judgment, intelligence and thoughtfulness would have
allowed that to go on for even one minute, much less years. Nor
would anyone with those qualities have run with the crowd he
apparently associated with - racists, neo-Nazis and a bunch of
wackjob conspiracy theorists. There is no more time for
excuses.
The damage done by all this in terms of the image of libertarians
for millions of Americans (already a difficult problem) more than
undoes whatever good he accomplished by bringing libertarian issues
to the debate. That he still doesn't get the seriousness of this,
thinks he can brush it off as no big deal, and still won't
publicly denounce the writer by name just shows that his
embarrassing lack of judgment (and this is the most generous
interpretation) has not improved in the intervening years. It is
time for Paul to end his campaign now before he does any more
damage.
Sje|1.10.08 @ 8:28PM|#
@wmb:
"Anyone who says a libertarian can't be a racist doesn't know
libertarianism. Libertarians don't initiate force but that doesn't
mean they are incapable of hating groups."
And that, I would submit, is one of the major problems with modern
American libertarianism of the don't-initiate-force variety that
deduces things from metaphysical first principle of one sort or
another.
Classical liberalism is more than "don't initiate force." It's a
vision of humanity as being advanced by peaceful interaction and
held back by wasting time on violent struggle between classes and
races and nations and suchlike.
Jacob|1.10.08 @ 8:29PM|#
In all fairness, Rockwell is probably more important to the libertarian movement than Ron Paul. If one of them has to lay down under a bus, it's better if it's Paul.
|1.10.08 @ 8:31PM|#
Man, his passion on the Drug War is inspiring. I wish my
Congressman talked like that.
"I have no idea who wrote them..." shifty eyes, shifty eyes. His
eyes didn't budge for the entire rest of the interview.
Uh uh. That's not gonna do it.
|1.10.08 @ 8:32PM|#
"This is being brought up for political reasons."
I don't care if it's being brought up because you ran over Jamie
Kirchick's puppy. He didn't make up the newsletters.
dodsworth|1.10.08 @ 8:33PM|#
Paul took responsiblity. I think he feels responsibiliy What would it accomplish for him to self-righteously "out" someone and say......see he did it? I'm throwing to the wolves. Nobody respects a boss who makes his employee, a la Richard Nixon. a scapegoat for his screw ups.
NP|1.10.08 @ 8:34PM|#
And as to whether "black people" would've been the better choice than "blacks": a simple "minorities" would've been even better.
Lew Rockwell|1.10.08 @ 8:36PM|#
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.
Mattias|1.10.08 @ 8:36PM|#
Paul or Rockwell under a bus?
Rockwell might be more important IN the libertarian movement. But
is that good?
Peter|1.10.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Can some one please tell me how you refer to a group of people without talking about them as a group? How could I say black people without grouping them?
|1.10.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Why do any of you need satisfaction? Some here are acting like
outraged liberals who will accept nothing less than for him to
prostrate himself before Jesse Jackson to end the issue.
Ron Paul is a politician. He is trying to handle the issue as such.
At least in theory, people here support his principles. Lay
off.
There isn't going to be a sparkling clean libertarian messiah
descending from the Heavens any time soon. Ron Paul is the best
there is, has been, or ever will be. Don't kid yourself thinking
that any of the beltway libertarians will stop playing it safe at
their think tanks and enter the political fray someday. Politics is
above them, as is clear, and their disdain of populism dooms them
with the populace.
|1.10.08 @ 8:38PM|#
Nobody respects a boss who throws his employees under the bus
for his own mistakes, dodsworth. Big difference.
Now Paul probably would've replied, as he noted during the
interview, that he was busy with all his political and
gynecological activities.
Wow, we found someone who phrases things even worse than Ron
Paul.
Bow-chika-bowow!
NP|1.10.08 @ 8:40PM|#
dodsworth,
Paul did not take responsibility, at least not enough of
it. The least he could've done is to claim that none of
his current associates, including those involved in his current
campaign, had nothing to do with the offensive parts of the
newsletters. Until he does that this scandal is not gonna go away
for a while.
|1.10.08 @ 8:41PM|#
Man, his passion on the Drug War is inspiring. I wish my
Congressman talked like that.
"I have no idea who wrote them..." shifty eyes, shifty eyes. His
eyes didn't budge for the entire rest of the interview.
Uh uh. That's not gonna do it.
You're absolutely right. He is not an experienced liar. That is a
good sign for a man in general, but not so good for a
politician.
|1.10.08 @ 8:41PM|#
Can some one please tell me how you refer to a group of
people without talking about them as a group?
You avoid using the terminology that racist people use when
discussing them.
Like "the Jews" and "the blacks."
|1.10.08 @ 8:42PM|#
Paul took responsiblity.
He did? How? That is such a tired line used by anyone who wants to
make whatever trouble he's in go away. Just say "I take full
responsibility, now can we move on." Where is the responsibility?
It's a cop out. Taking responsibility ought to involve more than
mouthing the words.
thoreau|1.10.08 @ 8:43PM|#
I'm not looking for an experienced liar, and I'm not looking for
him to prostrate himself before any political figure. I'm looking
for proof that he passed a very simple character test: "Congressman
Paul, when you found out that racist douchebags were publishing
junk under your name, what did you do?"
There are lots of right answers, and many of them are quite
fun.
If he can't provide one of the many possible right answers, then I
don't want anything to do with him. It's that simple.
adrian|1.10.08 @ 8:43PM|#
you libertarians (he grouped us, oh no!) are ridiculous. he
should quit before he damages the libertarian movement? Do you know
how retarded that sounds to the other 99.9% of people in this
country? The importance you people give to a virtually non-existent
movement is laughable. Enjoy talking deep into the night about how
your pure principles preclude you from looking past this and resume
planning out the next 20 years of 2% support while the country
falls deeper into socialism/totalitarianism.
jokers
|1.10.08 @ 8:44PM|#
I take moral responsibility is a really lousy line.
First, "I take responsibility" without doing anything is
meaningless.
Second, putting the word "moral" in there looks like he's
qualifying his responsibility-taking.
|1.10.08 @ 8:44PM|#
I wonder if Dr Paul delivered any babies for "the blacks"? If he
did, he gets my support. If he looked at the woman in labor, saw a
skin color that made him nervous, did he call for another
doctor?
I think we know the answer and that speaks well of his character.
Ron, you da man !!!
Brandybuck|1.10.08 @ 8:45PM|#
Oh, and by the way: the last thing to be bothered by is the fact that Paul said "blacks" rather than "people of color" or "African Americans" or "black people" or whatever the euphemism of the day is.
Words mean things. Unfortunate but true. Just last night I was
talking with a man about birthright citizenship. I said that that
clause in the 14th amendment was necessary at the time to give
citizenship to the "negroes".
OMG! I said the N word! I didn't mean to say it. It's definitely
not a word that I use. But out it came like squeaky fart during
silent prayer in church. I could see the eyes glaze over in the guy
I was talking to. Sigh.
|1.10.08 @ 8:48PM|#
I don't care if it's being brought up because you ran over
Jamie Kirchick's puppy. He didn't make up the
newsletters.
Right. His answer doesn't really satisfy me, but hasn't anyone else
noticed that "it's political!" is a sufficient response for...95%
of Americans? It's so common of a response these days.
Eric Dondero|1.10.08 @ 8:48PM|#
Who wrote the Newsletters?
Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell. From what I witnessed in my 12 years
working for Ron, I'd say maybe 40% came from him in the way of
scribbles (and I literally do mean scribbles) on a yellow pad, that
was then faxed to his office staff in South Houston for editing and
publication.
I'd estimate that the rest - 50 to 60% was written by Lew. But when
I say Lew I also mean his staff of Interns, which during that
period included most prominently Jeff Tucker and Mark Thornton of
Auburn Univ. in Alabama.
It was my general impression that Thornton wrote the bulk of the
heavy economic stuff, Tucker the political stuff, Lew crime and
race relations, Ron Paul anti-Israel/foreign policy.
As to the Production Team:
In the 1980s Nadia Hayes was Newsletter Publisher. Her assistant
was Jean McCiver. Both lived in South Houston/Clear Lake area. The
office was located on 1120 Nasa Rd. 1, Suite 1 (catty-corner from
the NASA Space Center.)
The Newsletter itself was produced and printed by Marc Elam, Ron's
longtime Campaign Manager, out of Elam's office on Fuqua, South
Houston, very close to Hobby Airport.
Hayes was forced to resign in an Embezzlement scandal in late 1988
involving the Investment Newsletter and Ron Paul's other business
and political enterprises.
McIver then took over. She was assisted by David Mertz, better
known as David James, a close friend and associate of current Ron
Paul Campaign Co-Campaign Manager Kent Snyder. Both Snyder and
James currently live in Northern, VA, Falls Church area.
For the period in question, early 1990s, post Nadia Hayes, David
James, Jean McIver and Marc Elam were the entire Production Team
and Editors of the Newsletters.
Lew Rockwell was more of a Contributing writer, and less Editor.
But his writing, as I said before, constituted approx. 50 to 60% of
the Newsletters.
All of this is general knowledge known by all Ron Paul campaign and
Congressional staffers. There are numerous individuals who can be
contacted to confirm these facts, both present and employees of Ron
Paul.
They can also be confirmed by Houston-area libertarians and Ron
Paul activists.
jkii|1.10.08 @ 8:48PM|#
Blitzer didn't ask Paul why this went for so long and what, if
anything, Paul did about it.
Paul is still going to have to answer that one.
Windypundit|1.10.08 @ 8:49PM|#
[T]he issue is that he has yet to show any evidence that, when he learned what was being put out there in his name, he (1) published a denunciation of those articles in the same newsletter, to clear the air and (2) cut ties with the people who wrote that garbage.
Exactly, exactly right. Paul and many of his supporters keep
missing the point. I believe Paul didn't write those letters, but
he's awfully cozy with the people who did.
If someone wrote racist crap in my name, I'd want to repudiate it
on the spot, and I'd damned sure want to know who they were so I
could keep them from ever being in a position to represent me
again.
Maybe there were a lot of writers of the newsletter drifting in and
out, and Paul really doesn't know who wrote what. I guess that's
possible. So what's the name of the editor who let this crap run?
Did Paul cut ties to him? Or is he with the campaign?
Supporters are saying it doesn't matter what people say, it only
matters what they do. Fine. What did Paul do to stop this once he
found out?
Maybe he really took care of the problem in the past, which is why
it's "old news," but now that it's out there again, he needs to
take care of it again.
Bingo|1.10.08 @ 8:50PM|#
yeah cosmotarian has a real space age feel to that like you got
a sweet space ship and green-skinned babe with her head in a fish
bowl.
COSMOTARIANS, UNITE!
|1.10.08 @ 8:50PM|#
What this whole debacle shows me is that Ayn Rand's perception of Libertarians was right on the money.
|1.10.08 @ 8:51PM|#
Blitzer didn't ask Paul why this went for so long and what,
if anything, Paul did about it.
In Blitzer's defense, he's dumb as fucking post.
Eric Dondero|1.10.08 @ 8:54PM|#
Ron Paul had a Campaign book in the 1988 Libertarian
Presidential bid. It's "Freedom Under Seige," (famously mis-spelled
10,000 copies in the first print run. I still have one of those
mis-spelled copies.)
Lew Rockwell ghostwrote virtually that entire book.
Brandybuck|1.10.08 @ 8:54PM|#
cosmotarians
I vote for cosmotarians. It rolls of the tongue very nice.
|1.10.08 @ 8:55PM|#
yeah cosmotarian has a real space age feel to that like you
got a sweet space ship and green-skinned babe with her head in a
fish bowl.
...drinking something colorful out of a martini glass.
The LP should nominate Zaphod Beeblebrox.
|1.10.08 @ 8:56PM|#
The LP should nominate Zaphod Beeblebrox.
Yeah. He actually is two-faced, and all he ever did was
steal a really freakin expensive space ship
Bingo|1.10.08 @ 8:58PM|#
You know, Zaphod Beeblebrox is probably the original
cosmotarian! good call joe.
Someone needs to register mainstreamcosmotarian.com before Dondero
gets it and makes it a campaign site for Bloomberg
Edward|1.10.08 @ 8:59PM|#
If the sleazy old fuck did release the names of his collaborators, I bet they'd have a tale to tell about the good old days.
|1.10.08 @ 8:59PM|#
This is no longer about Ron Paul; it's about
libertarianism.
This episode demonstrates that Ayn Rand was right about the
libertarians all along. If you're only about freedom and
non-coercion but don't have an objective moral foundation, then you
end up with whack-job racists, secessionists, and pedophiles in
your movement.
The only true philosopher of limited government and laissez-faire
capitalism is Ayn Rand.
Sje|1.10.08 @ 8:59PM|#
@Brandybuck:
Yes. Words mean things. Thank you. I agree.
In this particular case, though, I'm willing to put this down to
Paul's shaky command of the fine art of political rhetoric.
What I am not willing to put down to mere incompetence, and what I
can get worked up about much more easily, is his apparent
willingness in the past to pander to actual racists and actual
homophobes and actual antisemites (as opposed to people who throw a
politically incorrect definite article into a CNN segment.)
As I said earlier, I predicted that something or other like this
would come up sooner or later, just because things like this have
been known for a long time to be the kind of things that sooner or
later come up when it comes to people who associate with some of
the people he associated with.
And sure it did.
The pity is that many of the people who rally around him now would
probably prefer to rally around a candidate who represented a
libertarianism not loaded by shades of conspiracy theory and
paleo-whatever think tanks from Alabama: that is, a libertarianism
more like Reason's and less like Paul's. But this is what they've
got, and quite a few of them seem to be in denial about it.
Duckman|1.10.08 @ 9:00PM|#
Well, I do like the fact Ron Paul mentioned the drug war.
But, as has been pointed out here, Ron Paul obviously lied about
not knowing who wrote the articles. Very bad for a political
movement based quite a bit on honesty.
Brandybuck|1.10.08 @ 9:00PM|#
Lew Rockwell ghostwrote virtually that entire
book.
Aaargh! Next you'll be telling us that Gary North does Ron's
hair!
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 9:01PM|#
The strange thing about Dondero's claim above is the part where
Rockwell "wrote about crime and race relations".
When he writes about crime now, he seems motivated purely by a deep
mistrust and dislike of police. If there was something in the
newsletters that said, "Buy automatic weapons and give them to
negroes so they can shoot the police" I would believe it was
Rockwell. But the stuff that has been highlighted about race sounds
more like something a law and order conservative would write if
they were having a Mark Fuhrman moment. Has Rockwell changed the
object of his ire over the years?
|1.10.08 @ 9:01PM|#
In Blitzer's defense, he's dumb as fucking post.
Heh. I have to say joe, that is a beautiful sentence.
|1.10.08 @ 9:02PM|#
In any event, while I hope this is laid to rest for once and
for all, I somehow doubt it...
Well, I doubt it, too. I'll continue to support the guy, I don't
believe he had any direct involvement with those letters, and I'll
give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know,
specifically, who wrote that content (although I'm pretty damn sure
he must have some good guesses, even if he really doesn't know the
specifics).
For all that, I found it to be an unsatisfying rebuttal. Even if he
doesn't know the specific writers, he's got to know who
was running the day to day operations, and those people would
surely know who the author(s) were.
Understand, I'm not holding the newsletter against him, but he has
a PR disaster on his hands, and he's not handling it well. If he
doesn't have the facts, he'd damn well better get them, because
getting them out in open is the only way he's ever going to put
this to bed.
Christopher Espinal|1.10.08 @ 9:02PM|#
Why his appearance just wasnt good enough:
http://neocondossier.blogspot.com/2008/01/cnn-appearance-on-bigotry-not-good.html
Ali|1.10.08 @ 9:03PM|#
Eric:
Can you bring any evidence that Lew and the other people you
mention are racists or have published or said anything explicitly
racist?
Sje|1.10.08 @ 9:04PM|#
@Dondero:
Thanks for your clarifications. I would find it interesting also to
hear your thoughts about why things went down they way
they did. What strategy was behind this? To what extent was it
sincere? Do you think that matters? If it was sincere, how much of
it lives on among the Alabama crowd?
|1.10.08 @ 9:04PM|#
Eric,
Are you actually saying Ron was involved in the WRITING OF these
letters!?!
How could he not have read the finished product?
WHAT IN ALL THAT IS HOLY IS GOING ON HERE!?!?!
|1.10.08 @ 9:04PM|#
ididntwritethis wrote (or didn't write :-)):
"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."
But what about that Jon Stewart? He laughed in David Frum's face
after the latter attempted to dismiss and insult Ron Paul the other
night. No scriptwriters needed to convey that primal scorn. My son
almost fell onto the floor, he was laughing so hard at the sheer
audaciousness of it. I frankly don't care if Stewart likes Paul or
not, or even whether the subject of the interchange was Ron Paul or
not; the fact that Stewart responded to Frum's obvious
trash-talking crap with derisive laughter on nationwide TV makes
him a hero in my eyes. We need to see more of this aimed at the
punditocracy.
Dedalus|1.10.08 @ 9:05PM|#
No. The man allowed hateful filth to be published under his
name, and has not offered a satisfying explanation, and apparently
still associates with the folks who are responsible. So no, I won't
be pretending this won't happen.
Than go find your perfect candidate and vote for him or her.
Dipshit.
|1.10.08 @ 9:05PM|#
I usually agree that when people say "I take full responsibility
for..." it is a B.S. line. For example, when Janet Reno said she
took full responsibility for Waco, her words rang hollow. Her
merely saying that line does not provide restitution to the
families of those who were killed.
Ron Paul, like everyone else, should be held accountable for the
consequences of his actions. Let's assume for a minute that he did
write every last word of this. What were the consequences? Did his
newsletter cause any harm to anybody? I don't think so. So what
more responsibility does he need to take?
thoreau|1.10.08 @ 9:06PM|#
The only true philosopher of limited government and
laissez-faire capitalism is Ayn Rand.
I can think of no better way to bring some sanity and decorum to
this affair than to bring in the more cultish branches of
Objectivism.
Edward|1.10.08 @ 9:09PM|#
go find your perfect candidate and vote for him or her.
Dipshit.
How about just one who isn't a neo-Nazi racist conspiracy creep?
Moron.
Condoleeza Rice|1.10.08 @ 9:09PM|#
Eric: Since you are of course a well-distinguished "socially
tolerant" political butterfly and general representative of a broad
spectrum of libertarians and all, why did you knowingly keep such
close company with obvious gosh-darn awful bigots for twenty
years?
Could it be that, being the opportunistic Florida hick that you
are, you saw a sliver of a chance of hijacking somebody's
small-time seat in the House and will make up almost anything about
anyone? No, couldn't be that now could it? It's not as if I am
blindly following Dr. Paul, I just don't find you to be anything
resembling a credible source of information.
|1.10.08 @ 9:09PM|#
Heh. I have to say joe, that is a beautiful
sentence
...and a textbook example of joez law.
Dedalus|1.10.08 @ 9:10PM|#
but not a good job of spin control
I am sure Romney would welcome your support. He has teams of "spin
control" people.
You want "different" but in reality you want the same.
"Give me spin! Please Mr. Jesus Politics, give me spin! But make it
taste more delicious this time!"
jkii|1.10.08 @ 9:11PM|#
So what more responsibility does he need to take?
It raises some questions about his competence as an executive.
"Sorry about my staff writing and publishing position papers I
completely disagree with."
|1.10.08 @ 9:11PM|#
joe -
How many black people do you interact with on a regular basis in
person? Where do you live? Is there anything resembling a sizeable
black population there? When did you become the arbiter of what's
an acceptable, collective moniker for a group?
|1.10.08 @ 9:12PM|#
How did that get in there? Honestly, Vanessa, that sort of thing is not my bag, baby.
NP|1.10.08 @ 9:13PM|#
Lost_In_Translation,
Dondero is not necessarily saying that Paul wrote the offensive
contents of the newsletters. Remember, the dirty materials
were only a small part of the newsletters (or that's my
understanding, since I haven't read any of them in their
entirety).
Sje|1.10.08 @ 9:13PM|#
@obi juan:
"Politics is above them, as is clear, and their disdain of populism
dooms them with the populace."
But one man's disdain of populism is another's Principle with
Capital P. Take immigration. The Cato position is in a way the
principled one, while the position of Ron Paul and many at the
Mises Institute is a very opportunistic kind of pragmatism, stating
that open borders must wait until the conveniently far-off goal of
abolishing the welfare state lock stock and barrel has been
accomplished.
Note that the current US legal immigration policy is not just harsh
on janitors. It is also restrictive for, say, US-trained biologists
with Irish passports. (The H1B quota was lowered to the point where
it really starts to matter a lot.)
crw|1.10.08 @ 9:14PM|#
To me, the Ron Paul newsletters flap comes down to the issue of
administrative competence and judgment. No, Ron Paul by no means is
a racist. But this sordid affair demonstrates a lack of good
judgment and a lack of administrative smarts. And that's
important.
Let us not forget. On day 1, Ron Paul will not be able to lay off
90% of the government and usher in libertopia. He'll have to work
slowly with the other branches of government to reign things in. In
the mean time, he is the chief administrator of the largest
employer in the United States. There is no room for "oops, I didn't
know what my employees were doing in my name" when you have
over 1.8 million people working for you. And
there's no room for brining in less than completely trustworthy
people to your inner circle when you're inheriting that much power
(reference: the entirety of the Bush administration).
To me, this little episode demonstrates Ron Paul just isn't fit for
the job as it exists. Even understanding that he wants to
drastically change the job, that wont happen overnight as said. And
until then, the ship of state needs a firm and attentive hand at
the wheel. If Ron Paul were to somehow miraculously win, I think
he'd bungle the administrative aspects of the Presidency so badly
it'd discredit libertarianism for a generation. We can't afford
that.
Don't get me wrong. I think Ron Paul is running a fine educational
campaign, and I want him to stay in to keep the ideas at the
forefront. I don't think his baggage is going to hurt the message
too much, in the long run. But he'd make a lousy president.
|1.10.08 @ 9:15PM|#
Plenty. Across the street from a Zimbabwean family. Yes, in a
city with sizable numbers of both African immigrants and
African-Americans. Nobody, I'm just capable of operating in
American society without people concluding I"m a racist
crank.
Any other questions, asshole?
|1.10.08 @ 9:15PM|#
NP,
I know that, but it indicates he was involved in some of the
content, which if that were true, means he knows who was writing
the other parts.
|1.10.08 @ 9:16PM|#
"Like 'the Jews' and 'the blacks.'"
Oh, for crying out loud. Jews have been referring to themselves as
"the Jews" for thousands of years. "The" is not an epithet.
-jcr
|1.10.08 @ 9:18PM|#
Hey, neubatten, do you ever find yourself having to ward off
completely unfounded accusations of racism based on trivial
comments or terminology that have absolutely no racist intent
behind them?
I don't.
|1.10.08 @ 9:18PM|#
James,
I agree with you on Jon Stewart. That "you should check out *your*
guy" line was the best STFU ever delivered by a comedian to a party
hack.
-jcr
|1.10.08 @ 9:19PM|#
If Ron Paul were to somehow miraculously win, I think he'd
bungle the administrative aspects of the Presidency so badly it'd
discredit libertarianism for a generation.
I know. So help me, when this guy starts talking, I hear Jimmy
Carter. OTOH, we survived Carter, and we'd survive Paul, too, and
truthfully, the alternatives aren't any more appetizing.
|1.10.08 @ 9:19PM|#
You ever have that experience, Randolph? People accusing you of
racism based on completely innocent statements?
I wonder what it's like.
|1.10.08 @ 9:20PM|#
"my 12 years working for Ron"
You know, you still haven't told us what he fired you for. Is it
that embarassing?
Come on, how bad could it be?
-jcr
|1.10.08 @ 9:21PM|#
Not a bad interview. Could have been better, but still, it should serve to ease this situation.
Sje|1.10.08 @ 9:22PM|#
@joe:
"I don't."
Good for you.
As an old principle of network engineering says, be liberal about
you input and conservative about your output. (Liberal and
conservative used, of course, in the meanings of "permissive" and
"strict".)
It helps to improve the smooth running of the 'net, and it helps to
improve civil discourse.
|1.10.08 @ 9:22PM|#
Oh, but, hey: if you can come up with an explanation of how
people are so totally wrong to misinterpret your meaning, in three
part harmony with footnotes and historical references, than that's
totally cool.
Because if you can do that, than it means no one is going to read
anything unintended into your words. That's exactly how it
works.
Dedalus|1.10.08 @ 9:22PM|#
Lew Rockwell was more of a Contributing writer, and less
Editor. But his writing, as I said before, constituted approx. 50
to 60% of the Newsletters.
Oh, the fired district worker do-nothing flunkie has said it. Must
be true.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 9:23PM|#
Hey, neubatten, do you ever find yourself having to ward off
completely unfounded accusations of racism based on trivial
comments or terminology that have absolutely no racist intent
behind them?
Which is simple enough to do, of course.
But then again, some of us are tired of keeping up with the latest
acceptable language, and are tempted to declare that if a minority
group at one time demanded the use of a particular term,
that term is acceptable forever.
"Stop using the slur 'handicapped'!" Whatever.
|1.10.08 @ 9:24PM|#
You know, you still haven't told us what he fired you for.
Is it that embarassing?
Come on, how bad could it be?
I bet the last straw was when Dondero ass-raped Ron Paul's
dog....
|1.10.08 @ 9:24PM|#
Boy, there are so many cliche putdowns and denouncements of
libertarians and libertarianism in this thread that my liver is
shaking in fear that I will be tempted to start a round of the LP
drinking game, based on the material here.
In the publishing industry, people lend their names to magazines or
other publications without ever being expected to edit or provide
quality control over the operation. A case in point: Isaac Asimov's
Science Fiction Magazine, to which I subscribed back in the days
when Paul's newsletter was circulating. Asimov may have
occasionally read "his" magazine, or some of the stories in it, and
of course he contributed editorial material to it on a regular
basis and knew some of the upper-level staffers. But on numerous
occasions over the years, he or others cheerfully admitted that his
was a "buy the name" deal with the publisher. The understanding
was, "we'll put out the best magazine we can and you get a cut
because we'll sell more copies with your name on the cover, and
your few hundred words on the inside, than without."
Of course, one would think that a "name deal" would involve more
personal involvement or supervision in the case of a
limited-circulation newsletter than in the case of a circa 100-page
magazine that was distributed on newsstands across the country. So
Paul's protestations of near-total uninvolvement don't have the
ring of silver to them.
What concerns me even more, though, is his insistence that he has
no idea of who wrote the controversial material. Since this has
been a campaign issue for him on numerous occasions, and since the
newsletters are all dated, it seems as if it would be a fairly
simple thing to read the newsletters, identify potentially
incendiary passages, and get in touch with the newsletter editor
who was responsible. Paul may not wish to reveal the name(s) of the
people involved, but I simply cannot believe that he doesn't know
it(them). This sounds more as if he is exhibiting loyalty to an
friend or staffer, and if so, he needs to learn to handle these
things more gracefully. As Blitzer said, there's a lot more where
that came from, on the campaign trail.
|1.10.08 @ 9:25PM|#
Dude, "the blacks" hasn't been acceptable terminology in fifty
years.
Keeping a close eye on how the larger society will respond to your
choice of rhetoric isn't optional for a presidential candidate.
|1.10.08 @ 9:26PM|#
"You ever have that experience, Randolph? People accusing you of
racism based on completely innocent statements?"
Sure, and it's probably happened to anyone who's opposed racial
discrimination even when it was going in disguise as "affirmative
action".
FWIW, I've been called a commie, a nazi, a jew-lover, a jew-hater,
an anarchist, a fascist, a homophobe, a faggot, a satanist, and
many other things which said far more about the person accusing me
than they did about myself.
-jcr
Condoleeza Rice|1.10.08 @ 9:27PM|#
You know, you still haven't told us what he fired you for.
Is it that embarassing?
I'll tell you what he was fired for. I'm coming out, right
now, as an anonymous ex-campaign Ron Paul staffer in the
90's, that he was let go for using petty cash to buy wrinkle-free
slacks at Sam's Club, food at a local "Sonic Burger", and a novelty
foam cowboy hat that he routinely flaunted around the campaign
office in a fashion show manner.
|1.10.08 @ 9:27PM|#
There is no hedging in that promise. Indeed, Paul has earned
the nickname "Dr. No" because he has a long history of standing
against the tide on even very popular measures because he disagreed
on principle. But "never" is a tough standard to meet, and 17 years
in Congress covers an awful lot of votes. An examination of Paul's
record shows that although he usually adheres to his principle, he
has sometimes voted for programs that aren't "expressly authorized"
in the Constitution.
For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he
voted to authorize the continuing operation of
NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday on
the third Monday in January.
A
few exceptions to his small-government principles
Edward|1.10.08 @ 9:28PM|#
The most amazing part of Ron Paul's goofy defense was the notion that this has come up now because of his large following among African Americans ("the blacks"). He must think his groupies are completely brainless, and he's probably right. Send more money, fuckwits.
|1.10.08 @ 9:30PM|#
I feel your pain Fluffy; but then, I once had a room mate who
went to the mats insisting that there was no racial element in
using the term "nigger-lipped" to describe leaving saliva on a
bottle after taking a sip from it.
Pay a little attention. Do you SEE public figures talking about
"the blacks?" Are characters on television shows who use the phrase
"the blacks" generally sophisticated, sympathetic characters?
Look, I told you how Paul came off to an audience who isn't already
in his corner. Don't shoot the messenger.
|1.10.08 @ 9:31PM|#
"he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to
celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday on the third Monday in
January."
Are you sure? I thought he voted against the MLK holiday.
-jcr
|1.10.08 @ 9:31PM|#
All the above being said, however, I have to say that it was
wonderful to hear Paul stand up and offer to oppose the Drug War as
President, and pardon all non-violent drug offenders (regardless of
race, he reminded us).
The message that stupid wars of ANY stripe hurt minorities worst is
important as we try to understand who are the REAL racists in the
Presidential contest.
|1.10.08 @ 9:34PM|#
Joe,
it is still common down here to here african americans referred to
as "the blacks" or "the coloreds" or "the negroes" depending on the
age of the person making the referrance.There are some terms that
are not acceptable socially such as the "N" word. It seems to make
more of a difference what the speaker's intent is when using such
phrases as "the blacks"
Sje|1.10.08 @ 9:36PM|#
Question about the "our only chance" theory: is it really true that no major politicians and/or presidential candidates with more-or-less libertarian viewpoints and a less shady past could arise in the near future in the US? Do you know anyone up-and-coming who would fit that bill?
|1.10.08 @ 9:38PM|#
It's just not believable, not remotely believable, that this
stuff went out under his name on multiple occasions for years and
he didn't know. Are you going to tell me that nobody he
knew (besides the racist crackpots) ever read his newsletters, was
shocked at what he read, and called Paul up to say something like,
"Hey, do you know there's some pretty racist garbage in there under
your name. What's up with that?" Nobody on his staff read it over
and raised a concern with him??
And if it were true that nobody on the staff ever raised a
concern, that's even worse. Was everyone who worked for
him or on the newsletters so comfortable with that kind of stuff
that it didn't even move them to inquire about Paul's approval of
it? Either way, it just says nothing good about Paul and those he
associated with.
Further, the claim that he doesn't know who wrote it is either a
lie, or worse. Did whoever it was save his racist bile
only for the newsletters but never spoke like
that when talking to Paul in person? Or, again, was it that so many
staffers held those views that he truly doesn't know because it
could be any of them? And again, either way, this says
nothing good about Paul or those he associated with.
Sje|1.10.08 @ 9:43PM|#
And one last thing about "the blacks", just a little
analogy.
I'm gay. I know that when a politician talks about "homosexuals"
that is a likely sign of bad weather. Politicians who respect gay
people or at least legislate as if they did (which is close enough)
tend to call us "gay" and not "homosexual." There's nothing
inherently vicious about the word "homosexual", but the correlation
is pretty good.
But if some older politician, maybe one who has only recently come
around to a more tolerant (cosmopolitan, cosmosexual, whatever you
want to call it) attitude, says something like "but then when I
found out that my next-door neighbor, who is a very nice guy, was a
homosexual, I changed my mind"-then I'm willing to chalk up one
little victory for sanity and good will over bigotry.
|1.10.08 @ 9:46PM|#
Apparently everybody and his dog in the world of libertarianism knows that Lew Rockwell and/or one or more of his associates were the idiots behind the most stupid parts of Paul's newsletters. So why won't Rockwell just admit it and save Paul from ever more odium being heaped upon his 72-year-old head?
Eric Dondero|1.10.08 @ 9:46PM|#
Lost in Translation, yes I am saying that Ron Paul wrote a good
portion of those newsletters. My estimate - 40%.
He did not do this in the traditional way of sitting in front of a
computer screen. Rather, he was more basic, using a yellow
pad.
He would also dictate the articles for the newsletter in one of two
ways: sometimes directly to his daughter Lori at the Clute office,
and other times to an old fashioned small tape recorder located in
the back ofice room of his home in LJ. Lori would put the writings
in legible form and fax them to Elam in Houston for publication.
Or, she would mail or send by courrier the cassette tapes to
Houston.
|1.10.08 @ 9:48PM|#
Yes, but what I'm asking Eric is did he know who was ghostwriting for him the other articles (the ones in question)?
|1.10.08 @ 9:50PM|#
The only reason this whole "black people" vs "the blacks" thing
is even remotely noticeable is because he said it in an interview
where he was specifically working to shoot down the accusation that
he's a racist, or in bed with white-supremacist Confederate
weirdos.
Everyone watching that clip, especially after that opening with the
inflammatory racist rhetoric, was looking for clues about Paul's
attitudes on race. So little things matter.
Sje|1.10.08 @ 9:51PM|#
And what I'm asking him is his personal judgment of whether Paul and those around them were sincere in writing the nasty things they wrote, and if so, whether they (or some of them) still believe them.
Nigger|1.10.08 @ 9:53PM|#
Reason used to be a really intelligent place to come to. It was
breath of fresh air where you could feel comfortable discussing
what the mainstream world would deem controversial.
Now, it seems that it's being infiltrated more and more by JREF
type, quasi rationalists whose emotional output trumps reason. They
have pet issues that they agree with in the Libertarian movement,
but they just can't seem to let certain irrational impulses
go.
If you are willing to not vote for Paul now, then you were likely
never really sincere about the campaign in the first place. I
couldn't care less how many wackos his campaign attracts. It's
absolutely meaningless to the actual debate.
There are people who will only vote for the third party candidate
no matter what. They're of little relevance to my reasons for
voting. To concern myself with why they are voting is simply a
waste of time.
I fail to see how any of this invalidates Paul's campaign. To deny
every other issue that he has championed because of this early 90's
newsletter is simply insane.
Obviously it provides a perfect lynching point for anti-Paul
campaigners, but it reminds you how utterly knee-jerk, and
hyper-emotional people have become.
And I thought penalizing a Golf analyst over an innocent comment
was utterly insane. This kind of scrambling is truly disappointing
to witness on here.
Eric Dondero|1.10.08 @ 9:55PM|#
Sje, Ali, thanks for your questions.
Whether it's all "legitamate" is for others to decide. I merely
wish to bring to the attention of those here and others the
mechanics of the whole thing. Who produced the newsletters, how
they were produced, when were they produced.
I'm just amazed at the ignorance people have of Ron Paul. People
don't even know some of the very basics of who he is, and who are
his closest allies and advisors.
I was floored last night, when a reporter for a major - MAJOR -
publication called me up and asked me some of the most basic things
about Paul. I started talking about Marc Elam, and he said, "Who is
Marc Elam?"
If you don't know who Marc Elam is, you don't know anything about
Ron Paul.
Lots of people are talking out of their asses right now about what
"they know" and "insider details" about Ron Paul.
I've seen Bloggers who have gotten about 70% of their articles on
this subject completely wrong.
If you want to know about Ron Paul and the details of his
Newsletters, and his operation go to the people who know him best.
Ask former campaigners and staffers of his, not just me, but people
like Michael Sullivan, Brian Roe, Phil Boyd-Robertson, Michael
Franks, Don Loucks, David Palmquist, John Monus. Ask oldtime
Houston Libertarians who know Paul well, like Kevin Southwick, Mike
Holmes, Matt Monroe, David Hutzleman and Lonnie Brantley.
Don't get your information from some Blogger who has "come aboard
the Ron Paul Train" within the last year, and thinks he knows every
little insider detail about the man and what makes him tick.
Get your information from people who've known Ron for years.
Lolcat Extraordinaire|1.10.08 @ 9:57PM|#
Dondero: first you say Rockwell wrote 80% of the newsletters, then 60%. If Paul himself wrote another 40%, what the heck did all the other newsletter staff do?
Condoleeza Rice|1.10.08 @ 10:01PM|#
Eric Dondero: You are purposefully evading joe's friendly inquiry concerning the nature of your termination.
|1.10.08 @ 10:01PM|#
I couldn't care less how many wackos his campaign
attracts.
That's not what this is about, and you either know that or ought to
know it by now.
They have pet issues that they agree with in the Libertarian
movement, but they just can't seem to let certain irrational
impulses go.
And here I almost thought you were describing the racist
wackos...
charlie|1.10.08 @ 10:01PM|#
Lolcat,
One thing you can always say about Ron Paul whether you agree with
him or not -- he always gives his 180 %.
GILMORE|1.10.08 @ 10:01PM|#
I have no dog with paul, but his defense that he had no idea who
generated this stuff is disingenuous. He should throw somebody on
swords to at least protect his credibility. At the moment he's
defending anonymity for some reason which makes him look
weak.
he needs to bail away from the folks who support him who make him
look like an extremist. He needs to be an average guy misserved by
his acolytes. Which he fails to do here in his rebuttal.
JG
Dedalus|1.10.08 @ 10:03PM|#
To deny every other issue that he has championed because of
this early 90's newsletter is simply insane.
Indeed. I don't believe for a moment this "I supported him
completely up till now, but this 15 year old violation of political
correctness rules is just a bridge too far. I'm going for a real
libertarian like Guiliani now!"
|1.10.08 @ 10:04PM|#
In Blitzer's defense, he's dumb as fucking post.
Heh. I have to say joe, that is a beautiful
sentence.
Fixed!
|1.10.08 @ 10:04PM|#
That was somebody else. And Dondero says he quit.
What I want to know is why he spent so many years working there if
he thought it was a nest of racist and anti-semitic vipers.
Condoleeza Rice|1.10.08 @ 10:05PM|#
Brian Courts says: And if it were true that nobody on the
staff ever raised a concern, that's even worse. Was everyone who
worked for him or on the newsletters so comfortable with that kind
of stuff that it didn't even move them to inquire about Paul's
approval of it?
You would be served well to direct this question to the former
faithful Ron Paul campaign staffer that was "let go" from the
campaign, but managed to keep good company with and never made an
effort to expose so-called horrible bigots. That is, until it
looked like the TX-14 House seat might open up.
|1.10.08 @ 10:05PM|#
I almost missed the strikethrough there.
Damn you prolefeed! Damn you to hell!
Your an idiot.
BakedPenguin|1.10.08 @ 10:07PM|#
The only reason this whole "black people" vs "the blacks" thing is even remotely noticeable is because he said it in an interview where he was specifically working to shoot down the accusation that he's a racist...
QFT. Paul & his campaign have to be the most PC of any campaign
out there from now on if they want to have credibility, and the
blame for that lies entirely with Paul for letting that shit go out
the door with his name on it.
Also, no more "no immigrants from terrorist nations" commercials
would be a real good idea.
Sje|1.10.08 @ 10:10PM|#
Eric,
That sounds like sensible advice. As far as I'm concerned, I don't
really care so much about the campaign of a candidate who will not
win a presidential race in a country where I was never a citizen
and where I no longer live (although I might return some day; I
never used to think I would like the US all that much before I
moved there, but let's say it's an acquired taste.)
What I frankly care about much more is the long-term health of some
sort of classical liberal movement in the US and in the world at
large. Not necessarily a movement of true believers that gold is
the only real money (and platinum Will Not Do!) but a tendency to
think hard, twice, before recklessly invoking the strong arms of
the law to solve this or that problem. And for that, I think that
the Paul campaign could mean a step back or a step forward. I just
don't know, and I think nobody really does, least of all the
candidate himself, who has appeared fairly befuddled by it all.
Nigger|1.10.08 @ 10:13PM|#
I never said that's what this is all about. However, it is a
fairly common comment when discussing the Ron Paul campaign, and
amounts to nothing more than an attempt at guilt by
association.
I don't need Ron Paul as a father figure. I even disagree with him
on certain issues, and often find that he engages in a bit of
hyperbole when it comes to assessing the socio/politcal climate of
the U.S. At the same time, I feel that I am mature enough to not
think that I have to agree with him on every issues in order to
feel like he is the best thing we have going.
Do you know how rare it is to have a candidate whose voting record
is as consistent as Paul's? we finally get what we want, and seems
that we're trying desperately to find reasons not to feel good
about it. It tells me that many people are jumping ship because of
irrational societal connotations, and that's pure cowardice in my
book. Be gone. The politcal process doesn't need you.
If I didn't vote for Paul, I would vote for Obama, and that's like
showing up at an Asian Tan parlor and simply walking out with a
massage.
Nigger|1.10.08 @ 10:15PM|#
^^^In response to : "I couldn't care less how many wackos his
campaign attracts.
That's not what this is about, and you either know that or ought to
know it by now."
Edward|1.10.08 @ 10:17PM|#
Gilmore,
Maybe if he gave the names, they'd have plenty to say about
him.
|1.10.08 @ 10:29PM|#
Indeed. I don't believe for a moment this "I supported him
completely up till now, but this 15 year old violation of political
correctness rules is just a bridge too far. I'm going for a real
libertarian like Guiliani now!"
Nobody is saying that. If someone is at all objective about a
candidate then you have to have a realistic view in which you
balance the things you like with the things you don't like and come
to some decision on your level of support. If you found the balance
somewhat in his favor before, something like this could, and to my
mind should, tip that balance to one of disfavor. I'd say the
problem is when so many people view their preferred candidate as
some kind of hero or savior that no amount of information can shake
their faith. It seems to lead them to search for ever more
contrived rationalizations and to lash out at the critics as
heretics or apostates or never true-believers to begin with.
Oh, and I'd say that is was a bit more than merely violating
political correctness - I would hope you don't think that is all
those kinds of views amount to. There is a more
substantive objection to them, you know.
|1.10.08 @ 10:29PM|#
"If you are willing to not vote for Paul now, then you were
likely never really sincere about the campaign in the first
place."
"I don't believe for a moment this 'I supported him completely up
till now, but this 15 year old violation of political correctness
rules is just a bridge too far. I'm going for a real libertarian
like Guiliani now!'"
I realize a lot of folks on all sides feel strongly and are getting
a little over-excited here, but these are two of the goofier
statements I've seen posted at H&R. First, those statements go
quite a bit beyond "violation[s] of political correctness." And
second, these developments show Paul to at best to have terrible
judgment about the people he associates with and the causes he
lends his name to; and at the very worst to be a serious racist
(FWIW, I think the former is far, far more likely than the latter).
That should give a lot of supporters of Paul's candidacy, even the
"really sincere" ones, at least some pause.
|1.10.08 @ 10:29PM|#
I am a minority but I don't believe RP is a racist. But I also
find it absolutely unbelievable that he did not know what was being
published under his name. Not every article, but am I supposed to
believe that in all that time somebody didn't come up to him and
alert him to at least one of these articles? And if it happened
once, I would expect a reasonably intelligent person to keep an eye
on something published under his name after such an event.
Now for those who say that he doesn't believe it and that's what
matters; here are my issues with that. In his own words he said
that being a racist is the antithesis of being a libertarian; yet
he allowed just such a message to be propogated and perpetuated
under his name. I find that dichotomy hard to swallow (I'm assuming
he is the "man-of-character" he is supposed to be and not a typical
politician). In effect, Words matter, like it or not. I got into a
fierce argument with a friend in college when he argued that
"nigger" was just a word. I argued, word or not, it had meaning,
and that meaning--at least coming from a skinny, pasty-faced white
kid like him--was not good. I finally got fed up with him and
grabbed him by his arm and started dragging him back to the bars.
When he asked me what I was doing I told him we were going to test
his theory and go up to the first African-Americans we saw and I
wanted him to call them that. I told him their response would prove
which one of us right. Needless to say he about shit his pants and
conceded the argument. Bottomline: some things sound great in
concept but are full of shit in the real-world.
I see many commenters here mentioning that the ideas that RP is
spreading are what is important. I agree. So why is it so hard to
understand that it was the discriminatory message that was spread
under his name in these shitty articles that is important (IMHO)?
He didn't know about it? I don't believe it. But if he didn't, that
doesn't speak well of the man either. What if the articles in his
newsletter contained anti-gun or pro-tax screeds instead? Would
that give any of his current defenders pause? Doesn't it anger you
when you have to defend your libertarian beliefs against morons who
think all libertarians are simply gun-loving, pot-smoking,
no-compassion racists because that is how you are portrayed by much
of the establishment? Aren't you angry against those who perpetuate
such stereotypes? Doesn't it hurt your cause? Well, as a minority,
I feel the same way about people who perpetuate and spread racist
stereotypes. Again, I don't believe that RP is a racist, but I also
don't believe that he didn't know. For whatever reason, he allowed
such racist and discriminatory stereotypes to be spread under his
name. Just as bad, maybe worse, in my book.
As a liberal with libertarian leanings (I know, I know, there are
some of us that do exist!), I was leaning towards RP in the
elections. He just had his chance to convince me and he failed. I
speak only for myself, but his explanation re: these newsletters
was
a typical "politicians answer". I expected so much more from him. I
apologize for the long post.
Dedalus|1.10.08 @ 10:33PM|#
I would hope you don't think that is all those kinds of
views amount to.
I am completely convinced that the worst of these PC hand-wringing
liberal-studies crappy ass college types would cross the street to
avoid having to walk past a real live African American. But they
cluck their self-righteous tongues in perfect harmony. Love it.
Hypocrisy and a side of wheat toast.
|1.10.08 @ 10:35PM|#
"...we finally get what we want, and seems that we're trying
desperately to find reasons not to feel good about it."
Christ almighty - do you honestly believe that people here are
looking for a reason to dump on Paul? Are you really that
delusional? With the number of people here who have donated to his
campaign, volunteered their time, made ludicrously optimistic
predictions about polls and primaries, etc.?
Wanting a credible explanation for how and why the candidate you
support so strongly has his name attached to such virulently racist
statements is a hell of a long way from "trying desperately to find
reasons not to feel good about it."
|1.10.08 @ 10:37PM|#
People rely on a candidate's words and actions to predict how he
would behave if elected. If we can't trust that words published
under his name are his words, how can we know what he stands
for?
The proposition that Ron would neither know nor care that offensive
words were being published under his name for decades is wildly
implausible. That he would not know who did it is literally
unbelievable.
That other politicians do bad things is irrelevant. Libertarians
claim to adhere to a higher standard. They should be judged by that
standard.
|1.10.08 @ 10:39PM|#
"I am completely convinced that the worst of these PC
hand-wringing... blahblahblah... liberal...blahblahblah...
college...blahblahblah... self-righteous...blahblahblah..."
And I'm completely convinced that you couldn't find your ass with
two hands and a flashlight, which is made all the more ironic by
the fact that your head is so firmly lodged there.
Hey, this is fun!
|1.10.08 @ 10:42PM|#
I am completely convinced that the worst of these PC
hand-wringing liberal-studies crappy ass college types would cross
the street to avoid having to walk past a real live African
American. But they cluck their self-righteous tongues in perfect
harmony. Love it. Hypocrisy and a side of wheat toast.
I have no idea how that is at all a response to the sentence it is
purported to respond to.
Dedalus|1.10.08 @ 10:43PM|#
And I'm completely convinced that you couldn't find your ass
with two hands and a flashlight, which is made all the more ironic
by the fact that your head is so firmly lodged
there.
OK tough guy, calm down now. All that righteous indignation welling
up inside you isn't good, even for your little 20-something blood
pressure.
|1.10.08 @ 10:44PM|#
At a minimum, Dr. Paul was very foolish for allowing others to
write bad things in his name. Everyone seems to agree with that.
So, let's condemn him, rightly, for his mistake.
Now, let's take a look at the log in our own eye.
"We the people of the United States…" Here are some of the things
that we allow to be done in OUR name that go far beyond expressing
impolite thoughts.
Starving the children of Iraq
Bombing the people of Iraq
Supporting the dictator of Pakistan
Raiding medical clinics in California and stealing sick people's
medicine
Counterfeiting
Taxation
Torture
We vote, we accept the outcomes of elections, we pay our taxes
without protest; we add our affirmation that this is a legitimate
government. I hear all the time about the difference between the
government of the united States and the people of the united
States, but look whose name is at the top of the founding
document.
Nephilium|1.10.08 @ 10:46PM|#
joe: Wow... for one of the first times... I agree with you...
the usage of the term "the blacks" is political suicide... For
fucks sake... just add the syllable and say "black people"...
especially when being accused of racism...
And I say this as someone who works in a place that's 60%+ black...
and jokes with most of them about the fact that my pasty white skin
allows me to enjoy winter more... I can lay in the snow and be
invisible... and in summer... I only can really allow myself to be
seen by the sun for about five minutes before I turn a lovely shade
of red...
Nephilium... pasty white guy.
Nigger|1.10.08 @ 10:47PM|#
"As a liberal with libertarian leanings (I know, I know, there
are some of us that do exist!), I was leaning towards RP in the
elections. He just had his chance to convince me and he failed. I
speak only for myself, but his explanation re: these newsletters
was
a typical "politicians answer". I expected so much more from him. I
apologize for the long post."
Okay, so he actually isn't Jesus. Now go vote for someone else.
|1.10.08 @ 10:48PM|#
"OK tough guy, calm down now...."
Oh, don't worry, I'm quite calm; but thank you for your concern. It
takes a considerably more serious intellect than yours to get me
wound up. But for my amusement's sake, please keep posting.
Eric Dondero|1.10.08 @ 10:49PM|#
I'm not trying to be evasive, but you all please understand I'm
getting bombarded with questions from media, and bloggers. I'll try
to get to as much as I can.
Quickly:
Why did I spend so much time working for Paul? In short, cause I
felt I could influence him to the "angel" side of libertarianism.
And I'm proud to say that for a few years I succeeded. Paul
significantly mainstreamed starting in 1995, all the way up til
9/11. Then he turned back to the dark side (Lew Rockwell's
influence) of the paleos. That's when Ron and I started to be on
the outs.
Again, in now way was I "fired" from Ron Paul's staff. For
confirmation of this, simply contact Thomas Lizardo, Chief of
Staff, US Congressman Ron Paul, 205 Cannon House Ofc. Bldg.
Washington, DC 20005 or call him at 202-225-2831.
Nigger|1.10.08 @ 10:49PM|#
"Christ almighty - do you honestly believe that people here are
looking for a reason to dump on Paul? Are you really that
delusional?"
Sweetheart, there ARE people like that here. I was referring to
those people.
The standards continue to plummet.
|1.10.08 @ 10:54PM|#
I'm firmly convinced that using the phrase "college type" as an insult makes it safe to ignore you.
Dedalus|1.10.08 @ 10:55PM|#
Why did I spend so much time working for Paul? In short,
cause I felt I could influence him to the "angel" side of
libertarianism.
But you never worked on the policy side of that shop at all, did
you?
Because the policy jobs are all in D.C.
So your policy views were about as relevant as those of the
janitor, because you were not a policy guy, right?
|1.10.08 @ 10:56PM|#
Nephilium,
Let's not get hysterical here. The use of the phrase was
sub-optimal. It wasn't political suicide.
joe, pasty white Irish guy who bursts into flame each July
Condoleeza Rice|1.10.08 @ 10:58PM|#
Why did I spend so much time working for Paul? In short,
cause I felt I could influence him to the "angel" side of
libertarianism. And I'm proud to say that for a few years I
succeeded.
You've got some kind of God complex, boy. Must be really durn
persusasive. Makes me wonder how you haven't exercised your
influence to upgrade from that lousy Kia Sephia.
Nigger|1.10.08 @ 11:00PM|#
"I'd say the problem is when so many people view their preferred
candidate as some kind of hero or savior that no amount of
information can shake their faith."
Or maybe they just don't give a shit. So, there's an inconsistency
in some tripe printed in a newsletter 15 years ago. If you believe
that Paul isn't a racist, then you must logically believe that
there was some trouble in monitoring what was being printed.
In no way do I think such an inconsistency trumps the multitude of
other reasons to support him, and his actual voting track
record.
Do people honestly believe that Presidents themselves are perfect
administrators?
The expectations are so incredibly strict that it often forces one
to ignore making any decision.
The fascinating discrepancy that I find in these forums is between
the acceptance that a state should not endorse the notion of a
utopia since human beings are inherently flawed, yet such logic is
dismissed when assessing the virtuosity of an individual's
character.
Nephilium|1.10.08 @ 11:00PM|#
joe:
I'm not getting hysterical... I already have the opinion that
anyone of non-pallor in my office who knows I'm a Ron Paul guy...
and follows politics is going to question me quite a bit when I get
back from Jury Duty hell... but in the context of defending oneself
from accusations of racism... it's a really bad call...
Nephilium
Eric Dondero|1.10.08 @ 11:01PM|#
No, I did not wish to work on the policy side. Bored the 'f' out of me. I was more interested in the political side, and the message - mostly that libertarians can actually win elections running as Republicans. And convincing Republicans that libertarians weren't all kooks. It worked for a while in the late 1990s.
Dedalus|1.10.08 @ 11:07PM|#
No, I did not wish to work on the policy side.
Was not an option for you.
I was more interested in the political side
However as a taxpayer-paid district staffer you were legally
prohibited from engaging in such activities.
But I am told you were a hell of a driver -- when you were sober
and actually showed up for work, that is.
Fluffy|1.10.08 @ 11:10PM|#
Tell me, Eric, is the "angel" side of libertarianism the side
where you work to advocate deliberate genocide and deliberate war
crimes, as you did in this thread?
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123587.html#comments
Or is it when you work to educate people about how [snort!] Saddam
Hussein was secretly behind the Oklahoma City Bombing, as you did
in this thread?
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123665.html#comments
You were actually supplying something resembling information here
for a few minutes. Then you had to go and start saying ridiculous
things, like how you represent the "angel" side of
libertarianism.
|1.10.08 @ 11:10PM|#
"Sweetheart, there ARE people like that here. I was referring to
those people."
If you've spent any meaningful amount of time at H&R, and you
have a brain in your head, you presumably realize that those people
are very few and far between, and most of them are not regular
posters here. That's a little different than saying "_we're_ trying
desperately to find reasons...".
Also, you better buy me a drink before you start calling me
sweetheart.
jkii (wingnut edition)|1.10.08 @ 11:12PM|#
What this whole debacle shows me is that Ayn Rand's
perception of Libertarians was right on the money.
IIRC, the problem Rand had with Libertarians was that they held
liberty as a given, an axiom. As such they had no way to defend
liberty on more fundamental grounds and would be easily overwhelmed
by the first thug that told them to get out of way. Even the
Christian belief that liberty has divine (metaphysical) roots is
better than no explanation at all. Ron Paul is a Christian and
doesn't fall into the Libertarian category Rand objected to.
Timothy Sandefur has some Objectivist POV writings on Paul's
ideas on Federalism and the Constitution which I find
interesting.
Of course any discussion of Rand or Objectivism makes me a
wingnut.
Mr. X|1.10.08 @ 11:13PM|#
That's a decent response, but I prefer his performance in the South Carolina debate.
Condoleeza Rice|1.10.08 @ 11:15PM|#
You were actually supplying something resembling information
here for a few minutes.
Unfortunately, no, it was never credible information. He's a sly
one, that Dondi. I know I always do a double-take and question
myself when I see those squnty puppy dog eyes calling out to me,
pleading "arf arf, I'm the true libertarian. ignore the fact that
I'm a war-mongering sack of shit without principle"
|1.10.08 @ 11:15PM|#
Thoreau: "I can think of no better way to bring some sanity and
decorum to this affair than to bring in the more cultish branches
of Objectivism."
Name one libertarian philosopher who developed a systematic
philosophy in defense of laissez-faire capitalism?
Don't even try to name Rothbard or Nozick.
|1.10.08 @ 11:20PM|#
"The fascinating discrepancy that I find in these forums is
between the acceptance that a state should not endorse the notion
of a utopia since human beings are inherently flawed, yet such
logic is dismissed when assessing the virtuosity of an individual's
character."
I'd say a more fascinating discrepancy is between what most people
here are saying and what you're claiming we're saying. Nobody here
who's paid any attention thinks Paul is perfect, or expects him to
be; and few people here are abandoning him. But even if you believe
he isn't a racist (and again, it appears the vast majority of
people here, myself included, don't think he is), at the very least
he's shown atrocious judgment in what he does with his good name
over an extended period of time when he should have known better.
That's the best case scenario, and that's not a very good scenario.
I'd definitely still vote for him if I voted in a primary that
meant a goddamn thing, but I find that troubling.
|1.10.08 @ 11:21PM|#
N-
"Okay, so he actually isn't Jesus." Now go vote for someone
else."
LOL. I had no such illusions about the man. But thank you for
assuming.
"Now go vote for someone else."
Nice touch--you work for RP's NH campaign by any chance?
"Nephilium... pasty white guy."
No offence intended by my earlier remark on this. It's easy have
ethnic jokes with those you know (my friends and I do it all the
time), not so much with strangers.
Shane Brady|1.10.08 @ 11:21PM|#
A lot of die hard Ron Paul defenders have claimed once Ron Paul
found out about the newsletter problems he fired people. Sure
didn't sound like that was the case when he was on CNN. He acted
like he never had any idea what was going on either way (if you
believe him that is).
Is this firing story a previous defense or a made up defense by Ron
Paul fans who can't face reality?
LevStrauss|1.10.08 @ 11:23PM|#
Man George Carlin let himself go, and I never knew he was an undecided republican.
Nigger|1.10.08 @ 11:26PM|#
"Nice touch--you work for RP's NH campaign by any chance?"
Hey, you can't win them all. I like to think of myself as a
predominantly practical person, which is why I don't work in
politics.
Trying to convince the perpetually suspicious only turns you into a
cartoon.
LevStrauss|1.10.08 @ 11:26PM|#
Shane Brady,
I have never seen that fired writer scenario from a credible
source. I think it is a rumor, semi popular one.
Nigger|1.10.08 @ 11:28PM|#
"That's the best case scenario, and that's not a very good
scenario. I'd definitely still vote for him if I voted in a primary
that meant a goddamn thing, but I find that troubling."
Obviously not troubling enough, which is my entire point. The
people who should get upset at my comments, are the ones who are
getting upset at my comments. So, I would say that I'm addressing
the right people.
|1.10.08 @ 11:37PM|#
Then I guess my entire point then is that you're preaching
rather angrily to the choir. Perhaps you've intended your comments
to be addressed to a very small minority of posters here, but that
hasn't been the least bit clear (at least to me) from what you've
said.
Most people here would love the opportunity to vote for Ron Paul,
even after all this crap. But we would have loved it a hell of a
lot more before all this crap.
Roger|1.10.08 @ 11:40PM|#
jkii, that was indeed an interesting article. Thanks for the
link. I will not begin to attack what the author is trying to get
at w.r.t. inconsistencies as a federalist. But a philisophical
presupposition that the author suggests, that any "libertarian" is
supposed to adhere to, I cannot agree with. As a quite unreligious
person, having not been raised with a religious tradition and
current God-doubting agnostic, I cannot buy into this statement
that Mr. Sandefur so blanketly offers as gospel: "Not only
would it have declared that all embryos nationwide are human beings
(which, just to be clear, they are not)
I believe that Mr. Sandefur is confusing the Libertarian Party
platform with consensus, which it is not. My own scientific view,
the view of many others like me, that at conception unique human
DNA is formed and the embryo begins to replicate as a parasite on
its mother, does not strip the developing animal of its de facto
status as a human. Indeed, the child is still parasitic in so many
ways after it has been birthed. The prevailing "pro-choice"
mentailty is that terminating the apparatus of life within the womb
does not equal murder, while willful neglect leading to the death
of an infant that is incapable of foraging does not equal murder.
One specific foundation of U.S. Law and Western values is the
"right to life" of the government's citizens, which is Federal
law.
Now, personally I do not believe in the metaphysical "right" to
life at all, but I fully endorse this constitutional republic stuff
since it seems to lead to a very fruitful lifestyle that I can
easily conform to.
Nigger|1.10.08 @ 11:45PM|#
"Perhaps you've intended your comments to be addressed to a very
small minority of posters here, but that hasn't been the least bit
clear (at least to me) from what you've said."
If it's not clear to you, then just ignore me.
|1.10.08 @ 11:56PM|#
"...just ignore me."
Fair enough. That sounds like excellent advice for almost everyone
here.
|1.10.08 @ 11:57PM|#
"Name one libertarian philosopher who developed a systematic
philosophy in defense of laissez-faire capitalism?"
Is this a challenge?
Herbert Spencer.
Not knowing the answer to this question, or thinking the answer is
"Ayn Rand," gives you a F in libertarian intellectual history.
Frankly, it gives you D in philosophy. Everybody should know
this.
By the way, a command shouldn't have a question mark at the end of
it. F for grammar.
Nigger|1.11.08 @ 12:05AM|#
"Fair enough. That sounds like excellent advice for almost
everyone here."
Maybe their will is stronger than yours.
twv|1.11.08 @ 12:07AM|#
Not a question at all . . . but good answer (H. Spencer).
And boy do these strings go far afield.
To recap:
1. Ron is probably not a racist.
2. Ron soiled his name by having someone else write racist stuff in
his newsletter.
3. On matters of personal integrity, 2 may be worse than 1.
4. Nevertheless, the field is so bad that I would still likely vote
for Ron.
5. He could have responded to Wolf's questions a lot better.
How?
"Look, I had to deal with this painful experience 12 years ago. I
prayed about what to do. I stopped talking to the main person
responsible, Mr. X. And those who convinced me to allow this? One
is dead, and I forgave him, though never quite trusted him again.
I'm afraid I still have regular dealings -- though not business
dealings -- with the one other person who convinced me that this
was the right way to go, who defended the highjacking of my
newsletters. This is the most awful thing I ever did, giving up my
name for others to abuse to promote ideas I believed in to people
who were racists, using racist language. I repudiated this a long
time ago. I made what amends I could a long time ago. My
constituents forgave me. It is sad that it was brought up at this
time."
Couldn't he have said SOMETHING along these lines, but written less
hastily than what I offer. I mean, go quarter way to what a decent
person should do?
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.|1.11.08 @ 12:13AM|#
Herbert Spencer.
Spencer, schmencer. Looks like I had the last laugh after all
Herbie.
Sam Grove|1.11.08 @ 12:14AM|#
Anyone who says a libertarian can't be a racist doesn't know
libertarianism.
But if HE believes that of libertarianism, then his point is made
with respect to his belief.
And I think that a real libertarian has to make an effort to
remember that the world is populated with individuals and
collective reference is only a convenience of speech, which is
something I'd like to remind 'libertarian' supporters of the Iraq
invasion and the concurrent necessity of killing many individuals,
many of whom are dismissed as 'collateral damages' (as opposed to
active hostiles).
Brandybuck|1.11.08 @ 12:17AM|#
If you don't know who Marc Elam is, you don't know anything about Ron Paul.
At first you constant name dropping moderately impressed me. But
only for a very brief spell. It got tiresome quickly.
But now it has crossed over the line into elitism. You're putting
people don't just because they don't have the same knowledge of
Houston (catty-corner to NASA) libertarian insider trivia. Bitching
that a reporter doesn't who doesn't know the name some minor
functionary of a minor politician from another state is bizarre.
Suggesting no one knows Ron Paul except those in your very narrow
clique is insulting.
jkii (warning: abortion sub-to|1.11.08 @ 12:27AM|#
One specific foundation of U.S. Law and Western values is
the "right to life" of the government's citizens, which is Federal
law.
I don't think the abortion issue was the most compelling topic in
Sandefur's blog, but since you brought it up and Ron Paul is a
pro-life zealot...
The identification of a citizen is a bit of problem here if the
government makes citizenship begin at the moment of conception (or,
in science-speak, when the DNA of a new human is actualized).
Abortion: right or wrong, what is government (at the federal or
local level) going to do to ensure the embryo is given its due
rights?
I suggest that every women who enters child-bearing age have her
eggs counted and that she fill out and submit a form E-999, with a
doctors signature, that accounts for the eggs in her reproductive
system. This should be repeated annually until she reaches
menopause. We will need check-points to identify when any these
eggs are fertilized. Men are not off the hook, but it's a bit
impractical to keep track of their bodily fluids. It would,
however, be practical to get a DNA sample from each male at birth
so the government could find out which man fertilized the egg,
should an aborted citizen-fetus be found.
Roger|1.11.08 @ 1:12AM|#
jkii: Agreed, the sperm database is a very novel idea. Kudos. I
tend to still see the whole business of a female having dominion
and absolute control over the life functions fetus-citizen
fundamentally at odds with murder laws. I wonder when or if this
topic will be addressed and ready for consumption by the general
public. The solution is not moral relativism, but lack of morals or
a moral code that is explicity contradictory and does not find its
roots in religious dogma.
However, abortion is wholly consistent with the old Roman way of
doing things where a man's family was his property to do with as he
pleases through a very coersion-based law of the jungle cemented
into civil society through tradition.
stephen the goldberger|1.11.08 @ 1:14AM|#
well this guy is clearly racist since he refers to
"blacks"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItmcIxe5Fs
seriously joe wtf?
|1.11.08 @ 1:20AM|#
Ron Paul is not a racist-Nothing like that.
The only thing wrong with "ranting against the Israeli lobby" is
the ranting. "Ranting" is a pejorative. Brought up in this context,
it unfairly conflates Jews in general with the many sins on the
Israeli government and its supporters.
.
|1.11.08 @ 1:27AM|#
...shoulda been: "it unfairly conflates Jews in general with the many sins *of* the Israeli government and its supporters."
Annonyomous|1.11.08 @ 1:47AM|#
What exactly is considered racist here?
Blacks have a high per capita crime rate, at a rate unthinkable for
any other ethnic group?
Blacks have a high out of wedlock birth rate, at a rate unthinkable
for any other ethnic group?
Blacks have a high level of support for big government, at a rate
unthinkable for any other ethnic group?
These are all facts, my friends. Go to hell with your PC fantasies,
blacks are the greatest enemy to those of us who believe in
personal responsibility and civilization itself.
Of course I could give the standard disclaimers here (not all
blacks are criminals, etc) but what's the point? I wouldn't have to
go through the trouble if talking about evangelicals or southerners
or any other group made up mostly of white skin people. You're all
full of shit.
Egosumabbas|1.11.08 @ 2:12AM|#
I confess, I was a hard-core supporter, but I'm reluctant to contribute any more until Ron Paul does some serious house-cleaning on this issue. I believe him when he says he is not a racist (or at least renounces racism), but he needs "out" the punks responsible for the offensive content. He could do it if he tried. I understand he might be embarrassed revisiting the newsletters, but he needs to do it. Yesterday. My opinion on the matter is here.
Neu Mejican|1.11.08 @ 2:21AM|#
twv,
You hit it right.
Paul comes across embarrassed about this, but not apologetic.
Paul: I did not have sex with that woman write those
articles.
|1.11.08 @ 2:24AM|#
The only thing wrong with "ranting against the Israeli
lobby" is the ranting.
Rick Barton, indeed, if that is taken as a purely general
statement, with no other context, I would agree - disagreement with
the policies of Israel is not anti-semitic. However, context
matters, and in the case of Ron Paul's newsletters that "ranting
against the Israeli lobby" is being done right alongside ranting
against blacks and gays and a host of utterly nutty conspiracy
theories and talk of the coming "race wars."
Trying to argue that what was in those newsletters isn't racist is
a losing (lost) battle. Trying to parse out the non-racist
motivated rants from the racist ones isn't likely to be any more
credible either. It is only a testament to how completely untenable
those other options are at this point that you're actually better
off going with the "Paul was somehow totally unaware of what his
associates were writing under his name for years" nonsense if
you're going to try anything. Of course making Paul out to be
nothing but a decades-long dupe for those racist puppet-masters
doesn't exactly instill much confidence in his judgment,
intelligence, or leadership abilities, but at this point it's
probably the least damning result given the facts.
jkii|1.11.08 @ 2:37AM|#
I tend to still see the whole business of a female having
dominion and absolute control over the life functions fetus-citizen
fundamentally at odds with murder laws.
Roger,
I see the prospect of the government's dominion over a woman's
reproductive system fundamentally at odds with the right of a woman
to have dominion over her most essential property, her own
body.
If you're worried about murder laws, you can still have your juries
wonder like monks about whether or not the killer of a pregnant
woman should executed once or twice.
Avi|1.11.08 @ 2:41AM|#
Paul sounds like a nutjob. That's not to disagree with his
politics but I can't believe he had nothing to do with these --
i.e. even if they were ghost written, he knew about it and didn't
stop it after decades and decades. Either Ron Paul believes it or
he's easily duped -- neither of which I want in a president.
Also, his association with Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute are
telling as they are known racists. I work for a free market think
tank abroad, founded by Austrian economists, and we can't deal with
Rockwell or Mises because of their racism.
|1.11.08 @ 3:04AM|#
Abolishing the drug war would be the best thing to happen to black America in decades, if you were to think of it as a pure interest case, calling Paul a racist would be absurd.
|1.11.08 @ 4:42AM|#
"and didn't stop it after decades and decades"
It DID NOT LAST decades and decades, it lasted 3 issues out of all
that time.
Not that hard to miss, and was corrected as soon as they became
aware of it. (The intern was replaced by the editor) Paul had
nothing to do with it.
robc|1.11.08 @ 9:19AM|#
he's just too far behind the times to know you're supposed
to say "African-American" now.
blacks != Afrrican-American
See ESPN and the Formula 1 driver.
robc|1.11.08 @ 9:20AM|#
If you're worried about murder laws, you can still have your
juries wonder like monks about whether or not the killer of a
pregnant woman should executed once or twice.
Thats just silly. We (meaning the state of Fla, which Ive never
lived in, so Im not sure what kind fo "we" this is) didnt execute
Ted Bundy multiple times.
Arno|1.11.08 @ 9:23AM|#
It's not like the Rockwell/Racism connection was not known to
anybody. Tom Palmer was alerting us for a long time :
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php
Search for 'Rockwell' and see what comes up.
Roger|1.11.08 @ 10:59AM|#
jkii: Not trying to "disagree" with what you say in any explicit manner. State-sponsored capital punishment also being fundamentally in conflict with murder laws. I propose law (written) exceptions to the concept of "murder" where appropriate, endorsed or rejected appropriately by each individual State apparatus. An alternative and easy to this tough question would to completely remove the criminal pretext to death in general and allow it to be sorted out as a "civil" matter.
|1.11.08 @ 11:27AM|#
It DID NOT LAST decades and decades, it lasted 3 issues out
of all that time.
F, you might want to, you know, actually read the article
and the the cited newsletters that are from the 70's, 80's and
90's. It was far more than three issues and that would have been
one long serving intern.
anonymous coward|1.11.08 @ 6:14PM|#
You all should stop believing fairy tales about races' supposed
equality.
The
average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 70. The average IQ of
Asians is 105. The average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 115.
Likely due to mixing with other races, the average IQ of African
Americans is 85. In places in the Caribbean where less such mixing
has occured, the average IQ is still 70.
Decades of affirmative action and attempts to reduce the Black
educational and achievement lag have not been able to reduce the
chasm. This is even though Asians, who were also disadvantaged when
they first came to the US, are prospering without any government
help whatsoever.
All evidence points to that there is an essential difference in the
various races' intellectual capacities, and it is
genetic.
I am in favor of equal treatment for members of all races. I am in
favor of no discrimination on the basis of color alone. There are
black people who are intelligent and capable, and there are white
people who are inept.
But it should be possible to recognize publicly that there
are differences between races without having to endure the
intellectual equivalent
of
stoning for that.
Ron Paul is denouncing racism because he doesn't want his candidacy
to be over just as soon as if he failed to do that. But he doesn't
publicly humiliate the authors of those words, or denounce the
white supremacists who support him, because deep down he feels that
their sentiments are justified.
In private, I think Ron Paul is probably a racist: not a man who
thinks that blacks should be oppressed, but one who knows that not
everyone is genetically equal.
If he is, he's right to be. You should be, too. The alternative is
to be ignorant.
|1.11.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Brian Courts at 2:24am:
...in the case of Ron Paul's newsletters that "ranting against
the Israeli lobby" is being done right alongside ranting against
blacks and gays and a host of utterly nutty conspiracy
theories.
So what you're saying is that one may infer anti-Jewish racist
intent in this case. For a number of general reasons, that seems
unwarranted. And Assuming that Dr Paul did write the anti-Israel
government/lobby pieces, any such contention is undermined by his
friendship with Murray Rothbard, who was Jewish.
Can you please cite (with links) two "utterly nutty conspiracy
theories" from the newsletters? (Or just one, if you can't come up
with two.)
Trying to argue that what was in those newsletters isn't racist
is a losing (lost) battle.
Can you please cite (with links) two racist comments from the
newsletters? (Or just one if you can't come up with two)
...going with the "Paul was somehow totally unaware of what his
associates were writing under his name for years"
nonsense
Not "totally unaware" for all the issues but that he was for some
of them is supported by the fact that, for at least part of the
time, Dr Paul was only a small minority owner of the
newsletter.
.
|1.11.08 @ 7:48PM|#
anonymous coward:
But he doesn't...denounce the white supremacists who support
him, because deep down he feels that their sentiments are
justified.
That's not true. Dr Paul does denounce white supremacists and has
for a long time.
BTW, I'm a chess player. I'd like you to meet Maurice Ashley. And
please note that he's from the Caribbean !!
http://tinyurl.com/2d3d3y
|1.11.08 @ 8:20PM|#
...My point in pointing to Maurice Ashley is that if we make
assumptions about individuals and their potential based on
population IQ statistics, we're being both naive and unfair.
.
|1.11.08 @ 9:47PM|#
I defy any person who says Ron Paul is a racist to find one
single solitary spoken word of his, any words in or around his life
or campaign, that shows even the remotest sign of racism. Or show
where he voted for anything other than the support of individuals
and their rights. Dr. Paul is not a racist. He has some very, very
"out of the box" ideas, ones this nation needs. One of the things
it doesn't need, under any circumstances, is racism which would do
nothing more than divide us even greater than we are. If anything
others running for President have smacked very close to being
racist (against either side of the human coin).
I have read the articles, accusations, and smears from anti-Paul
posters and pundits and so far there has been no proof at all that
Dr. Paul is lying when he says he didn't know about the comments
attributed to him. Funny how when it comes to Dr. Paul it falls
"guilty until proven innocent." And if these falsely written
documents are the only things that anybody can dig up on Paul,
compared with the plethora of goods on the other candidates, Paul
proves his integrity in spades yet again.
GILMORE|1.12.08 @ 6:19PM|#
blacks are the greatest enemy to those of us who believe in
personal responsibility and civilization itself.
...
ok, "anonymous".
With such confidence in your convictions, maybe you should attach
your name to grand statements like this so your insights can be
quoted for posterity.
with libertarians like this, who needs a 'communist
conspiracy?'
(maybe that guy was in a different thread = that "RP criticism was
actually a secret, coordinated effort by closet maoists")
as i've mentioned before a couple of times, sometimes people who
nominally share your political views are a greater liability,
politically, than those that 'oppose' you. Any successful political
movement's first priority should be to disavow and disparage the
douchebags in their own midst.
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