Are You Gay, Black or Sane? Ron Paul Might Not Be For You.
There have been mentions of the Ron Paul newsletter from time to time in the MSM. Now, The New Republic’s James Kirchick has dug many of them up and has the scoop on them. Basically, if you are black, he thinks you are a lazy money-grubber. If you are gay, he hopes you get AIDS and die young. If you don’t believe in conspiracy theories, then they could be coming for you next. Before you go off on how I hate Ron Paul because the trilateral commission has brainwashed me, read the article.
And Obama is what we should be worried about?
Tags: 2008 Presidential
As a person with both populist and libertarian urges, I find myself a registered Republican.
I like Ron Paul but am afraid that his 200 proof Libertarianism (blended with old time isolationism) is more of a dreamer than a deep thinker. He might appeal to those who treat the writings of Ayn Rand as holy writ (with the zeal of a snake-handling Bible thumper) as well as to those philosophical adolescents who think that there is a future in anarchism.
He would be an interesting person to spend a few hours with over some fine drinks. It could be draft beer or single malt.
Rep. Paul took moral responsibility for this years ago when it came up in another campaign. This link leads to a press realease regarding the TNR article.
Rep. Paul also has this to say about racism:
The article by Kirchick, while emotionally charged, provides little in the way of actual proof that Paul had anything to do with writings these articles or that he even knew they were being printed in newsletters carrying his name, only that he finds it hard to believe that he didn’t.
While the chances of me voting for Paul are slim, I just don’t buy this racist thing, and will remain skeptical until I see some real proof.
From Paul’s press release: “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
That is more than a little precious, don’t you think? Whoever was writing under his name was doing it pretty consistently for 15 years or so, published by 2 organizations that Paul ran. I just hope that this mysterious ghostwriter had a company credit card or access to the company checkbook, because with management like that, why not live large?
FWIW:
ARLINGTON, Va.–(Business Wire)–In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul
issued the following statement:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of
individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name.”
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115
We saw that fluff already.
If this was a one-time issue, fine. If it takes place over the course of years, I call bullshit.
I can see President Paul now… Gee I didn’t know that the secretary of state was negotiating in my name with Iran. I have lots of people signing my name to lots of things…
It’s incredible. And I mean that as Not Credible.
mmmmm k.
I read the article, and one of the things it states right at the outset is, “Ron Paul is not going to be president.” Which I think is true, and I also think it changes the perspective on this a bit.
To me, Paul is a symptom and not necessarily a candidate. Nobody else is saying the things he is saying, and many of those things are striking a serious chord.
He’s giving people in the Republican Party somewhere to go if they want to vote against the war.
He’s refusing to shut up about America’s overseas empire.
He’s talking about (God help us) using the Constitution as a tool for slowing down the growth of government.
The cost of having those and other ideas bubble to the surface of public debate in a meaningful way is that we (a) have to carry along the people who really do think of Ron as the messiah; and (b) we have to listen to people lecture us about why Ron is nuts for wanting to put us on the gold standard.
As for liberalgeek’s comment, “I can see President Paul now… Gee I didn’t know that the secretary of state was negotiating in my name with Iran. I have lots of people signing my name to lots of things…”
Remember Reagan and Iran-Contra?
Hillary and the Rose Law Firm billing records?
Nixon and the 17-minute gap in the tape?
Bill and “I did not have sex with that woman.”
Not Credible is the new credible in today’s politics.
You can cherry-pick nice catch phrase type positions Paul stands for (individual liberty, small government, THE CONSTITUTION). Bottom line is that if you compared the platform of someone like Paul to the platform of one of those “militia” groups in woods of Montana they’d be strikingly similar, I think.
Every election disenchanted “independents” latch onto a “libertarian” candidate. What is really is is a lunatic fringe (Perot, Forbes, Nader, Paul). They draw disillusioned liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. No one is immune. Many people love calling themselves “independent” simply because they don’t what to be tied to the two parties.
(Full disclosure: I made the same embarrassing mistake as well. I voted for Perot in the general election in ’92 – along with a lot of other idiots. Didn’t he get like 19% of the popular vote?)
Interesting piece from Kirchick and, of course, it’s all true…
Obama’s Offensive ‘Southern Strategy’
by James Kirchick
First published in the Washington Blade, Nov. 2, 2007
In 1968, his second campaign for the White House, Richard Nixon rode into office on what later became known as the “Southern Strategy.” While running as a moderate in most states, Nixon used code words like “states’ rights” and “busing” to appeal to the racist tendencies of southern whites. This was the nail in the coffin of black support for the GOP, which, since the days of Abraham Lincoln, had traditionally been the party of civil rights. Two years ago, former Republican National Committee Chair Ken Mehlman officially apologized for his party’s attempt to “benefit politically from racial polarization.”
How ironic that Barack Obama — the first, serious black presidential candidate in the history of the United States — would resurrect one of the most disreputable features of the Republican Party’s campaign playbook.
Obama is the candidate of the same liberal elites who supported Howard Dean, ecstatic about the opportunity to challenge the old guard represented by Hillary Clinton. He’s promising to end the cynicism embodied by Clinton, the sort that “triangulates,” as he put it in a thinly veiled attack several weeks ago. He is also hungry, however, for black southern voters, many of whom are social conservatives on the subjects of homosexuality and the separation of church and state. So Obama decided to sign Donnie McClurkin, a Grammy-winning, African-American, “ex-gay” singer, onto his campaign as part of a gospel tour of the important primary state of South Carolina.
“The Clintons perfected the art of speaking out of both sides of their mouths on gay rights — and it appears that Obama is learning from his party’s most skilled set of campaigners.”
McClurkin denies being homophobic (explaining away his views with the usual “Christian” apologetics, loving the sinner but hating the sin), yet his message about gay people is egregious. He states that he was drawn into homosexuality by the rape and abuse he suffered as a child. Homosexuality, he says, is an affliction that its victims can overcome.
This sort of bigotry would be bad enough coming from a Pat Robertson or a Lou Sheldon — men far removed from the “gay lifestyle” — but it is especially harmful when spoken by someone who identifies as “ex-gay.” Such individuals can at least claim to have a personal experience, and sympathy toward, homosexuality and their “past” thus gives them bogus credibility.
Would any major presidential candidate associate with a black pastor who spoke of Jews or black people in the denigrating way that McClurkin talks about gays? It’s inconceivable. But gays are the one minority group that it’s still acceptable to ridicule, and Obama — despite his preachy talk of “hope” — is perpetuating this phenomenon. The Obama campaign’s continued advertising of its endorsement by McClurkin once again signifies that the Democrats are perfectly willing to use homophobia for their electoral advantage.
The Clintons perfected the art of speaking out of both sides of their mouths on gay rights — passing the Defense of Marriage Act along with “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” all the while scooping up massive amounts of campaign contributions from gay bigwigs — and it appears that Obama is learning from his party’s most skilled set of campaigners. So much for his recent promise to part ways with the cynics who “tout their experience working the system in Washington.” Obama’s starting to “work the system” just fine himself.
Atlantic Monthly blogger and Obama fan Andrew Sullivan has suggested that the benighted one should fire the staffer who invited McClurkin onto the campaign. This is wise counsel, but how can Obama fire the person who welcomed McClurkin onto the “gospel tour” while keeping McClurkin onboard? In a presidential campaign, the buck stops with the candidate and unless Obama is willing to dump McClurkin he cannot, in good faith, dump some hapless staffer.
Singling out a class of Americans as a basis for that fear — as Nixon did 1968 — is reprehensible and destroyed Bush’s pledge to be a “uniter, not a divider.” For many years, the Human Rights Campaign and the Democratic presidential candidates have promised to offer us something different.
But the events of the past week have shown that even the most platitudinous of liberals is not immune from utilizing the cynical election tactics concocted by the right.
http://www.indegayforum.org/news/printer/31387.html
Obama having the completely odious McGlurkin front his rallys earned Obama a deluge of opprobrium from online sources at least. No idea if the traditional media even picked it up.
But if we are playing a hand of who is playing footsie with the most odious groups, then Ron Paul is still holding a Royal Flush with the Stormfronters, the American National Socialist Workers Party, Council of Concerned Citizens, John Birch Society, and David Duke. There are more of these neo-Nazi, secessionist, white supremecist groups out there that Paul stays involved with and whose members are a big engine to his campaign.
So I guess your point, Tyler, is that all of the bigotry and dog-whistle politics is OK because Obama did it?
My point was about Kirchick, not Obama. But don’t get your panties in a twist, cassandra.
Your claim of “bigotry and dog-whistle politics” is utter rubbish.
Show me where Ron Paul has uttered anything to support yours or Kirchick’s claims, EVER. You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts…any more than Kirchick.
Even Kirchick had to admit he has never heard Ron Paul utter anything resembling his distorted claims, onto which you seem perfectly comfortable latching and blithely repeating here.
His public words and record of long standing are completely at odds with every instance of questionable writings attributed to him, by way of being published in newsletters bearing his name, and for which he has said he takes moral responsibility while repudiating them wholesale.
And show me where Ron Paul has EVER invited into his ranks or even his company any of those from your guilt-by-association character assassination laundry list. We know Obama did his inviting with McGerkin or whatever the hell his name is.
Kirchick is a 3rd-rate self-appointed attack dog, and a pretty flimsy one at that. But I guess where you like his tune his work is fine, but where you don’t it is all about the moral argument huh?
It is obvious you will abide nothing Ron Paul says or does to strongly repudiate the sentiments in these writings. Basically you will not be pleased because of your distaste for Ron Paul.
So get off your self-appointed moral high horse. It doesn’t become you, whoever you are.
Some interesting analysis :
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/kirchicking-of-ron-paul.html
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
Here are Kirchick’s own words to the author :
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the [DC Log Cabin Republicans] party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls “the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history”]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best,
Jamie”
FYI, Tyler. that last comment got flagged for moderation. I just noticed it and released it, thus the delay…
Thanks geek! (why do I feel like I insult you every time I write that?!?)
Tyler, that is all well and good. If a newsletter had been coming out under the title of The James Baker Report for the previous 15 years claiming that white people were the devil and Jews ran all of the banks, would you call him on it?
I don’t mind the title. My wife hates it, by what else is new. My geekiness earned me the nice home that we share… 🙂
Biting the heads off of live chickens must pay very well. I had no idea.
Keep repeating all this, geek. Maybe it will magically become true.
Spread it as you like, the evidence that it is what Ron Paul really thinks will remain conspicuously absent.
So move onto your alternative “he should have known” argument, it is at least marginally more credible…which ain’t saying much.
I find your attempt to personalize it to me with some hypothetical comparison re: James Baker to be weak, irrelevant, and offensive.
But nevertheless, to answer, if Baker personally, strongly, and repeatedly repudiated a handful of incendiary statements found in over 15 years of probably 100’s of articles in newsletters bearing his moniker, it would not be an issue I would consider relevant nor worth raising.
Geek, you should know by now that I don’t play dirty politics like that. Frankly I am sorry you seem to imply I would. Honestly, what have I ever said or done to make you think I would. I don’t play gotcha politics in the ether. I go after the real issues with real meat.
There comes a point where yours and others’ hysteria about this tempest in a teapot really lacks any substantive believability. It is partisan, plain and simple.
Ron Paul addressing the John Birch Society
But keeping company with John Birchers is somehow going to be my failure. I can’t wait to see how you answer Liberalgeek’s question about Baker and 15 years of stupid writing.
The article written by Kirchcik focuses pretty completely on the newsletter writing, not on what Paul has said. Kirchcik may certainly be an attack dog, but he is focused on the 15 or so years of newsletter writing that produced some abominable stuff.
I did not mean it as a personal attack, I mean it as common sense. A person’s historic record includes the things that are published in his or her name.
If all of Poor Richards Almanac wasn’t written by the hand of Franklin, what does it matter since he published it under his name?
I figured you were furiously digging after my post, cassandra, to find a single contradiction.
When I re-read your little smear laundry list I immediately thought to draw a distinction about the The John Birch Society. It may be anathema to you but it is simply not even near the league of other hate groups with which you lump it, at least in the incarnation Paul addressed.
Keep playing gotcha. I am sure you are convinced of the righteousness of your noble quest for the truth.
You didn’t have to wait for my response about the Baker hyperthetical, it preceded your post.
“If all of Poor Richards Almanac wasn’t written by the hand of Franklin, what does it matter since he published it under his name?”
It would matter as soon as it begins being used to destroy the man with smear and hyperbole, despite his consistent and repeated protestations over years.
Were these protestations during the time that these letters were published or after he started his revolution?
I am sure you are convinced of the righteousness of your noble quest for the truth
And you are not?
I did not have to do much digging — there are pictures of Paul with known Stormfronters and other suspects all over the Internets. And certainly these people see Paul as sympathetic to their various lost causes.
It is just fine that Paul has “repudiated” 15 years of writing under his name. But prior to this, he was writing in the context of the time. Not disavowed, not repudiated — and this is from 1996. And saying that you are against racism is not a repudiation worth a damn.
But keep clapping louder, Tyler. If enough of you clap loud enough, perhaps Paul really will be President.
When he became aware of them first, I believe in 1999.
Honestly, geek, I am weary of this reductio ad absurdum game with you.
Your mind is made up…and so is mine. (same for you cassandra).
I detest these extracted quotes from those newsletters but, more importantly, I believe Ron Paul when he disavows them.
You don’t or won’t accept the man’s word, so arguing about it is irrelevant.
I also believe what I have heard him say in many instances to the contrary of your claims…over years, such as in 1988 when Paul stated the drug war was racist (for which Morton Downey savaged him), or at the PBS debate when he similarly cited the unfair disparity in the percentage of blacks imprisoned over drug offenses in proportion with the relative percentage of black drug users, giving example to the system’s racial bias, or when asked who he would consider as a VP his first name was black economist Walter Williams, or when he has called Martin Luther King Jr. a personal hero whose example of non-violent protest is to be emulated.
We see what we want. For me it is the big picture and the vast body of evidence on Ron Paul, not just dubious tertiary inconsistent fragments being trumpeted.
I am well aware of Ron Paul’s flaws but this attack is just sharpshooting trumped-up gotcha BS.
Peace.
Hey cass, I am not looking to crucify anyone like you are here. You are the one on the attack, and here you go with some more of your unsubstantiated smear. You are the one holding inquisition here and dispensing truth as you see it. I am only responding to your noble quest, dear, with a little perspective.
I weary of it as well, but I don’t think this is playing gotcha politics, as you claim. You may believe that it is, because people have dug deeply to find these things. But To dismiss them out of hand because R.P. says so, is ludicrous.
Kudos on the Morton Downey reference, though. I actually own the “Morton Downey Big Mouth Game.” But having Morton Downey say bad things about you simply means that you accepted the invitation to be on the show.
If you aren’t interested in how R.P. interacted with these fringe groups, fine. It concerns me. Truth be told, I’ll never have a chance to cast a ballot for him, unless he gets even crazier and goes third party. But I am concerned that many people are not nearly as discerning about R.P.’s views and flaws as you.
There are cultists among you.
I am not looking to crucify anyone like you are here.
I do hope this makes you feel better. I’ve provided links and pictures and you are free to define that as unsubstantiated. And if responding to your own challenges is an attack, well, there is nothing else to say, right?
But the Stormfronters, the neo-Nazis, the KKK, the CCofC and the rest present a greater threat to some of us than others of us. Close watch of politicians (and their associates) who play footsie with these lost-causers is just plain smart.
No one was safe with Mort. I went to one of Mort’s shows in Sep. ’88 and actually have the show on tape, with me high-fiving him at the show’s beginning. Ahh, the good old days….hah!
I respect your larger concerns with Ron Paul, but the man’s message has been public and consistent for decades. If you want to judge him by a VERY TINY segment of the hugely diverse group of people who have gravitated to his candidacy so be it. If you want to judge him by a VERY TINY and attenuated piece of his long and diverse career as an activist or public official, so be it.
You only denigrate me and others I know who are (or at least try to be) thoughtful in our support for Ron Paul’s message…which is what he has always said his candidacy is about….when you pepper your evaluations with words like “fringe”, “crazy”, and “cultist”.
It is your every right, my friend, and certainly Ron Paul would defend it to the hilt. I just think you should understand that these types of bile-laden assaults and ad hominen broad-brush dismissals say more about you than anything you think you believe you are revealing about Ron Paul.
“And if responding to your own challenges is an attack”
LOL. Yeah, this was about responding to my “challenges”, not about your attack on Ron Paul in the first place. Okey-dokey, mama cass.
“If you aren’t interested in how R.P. interacted with these fringe groups, fine.”
Ridiculous…I would be concerned, IF THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE OF IT.
It seems like the primary charges here (they keep shifting) are that Ron Paul
a) Had or allowed bizarre, scary racist homophobic commentary to be published under his name
b) That Paul attracts supporters who are scary and does not repudiate them
B) first: this is pretty much gotcha politics whether the geek and cassandra want to admit it or not; Bill Clinton greeting the generals who ordered and executed the Tianamen Square massacre in the White House and not making any statement about it…. And he was president at the time. Not a rap on Clinton per se, but he is the first of many examples to come to mind. How many Republicans have cozied up to Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson over the years? How many Democrats refused to repudiate or appear with Farrakhan? This is frankly a convenient double-standard almost ad hominem attack on a candidate that we already have plenty of evidence that the media (can you say Fox News?) wants to marginalize.
As for (A) it’s disturbing and deserves a look, but again it is hardly the immediate slam dunk eliminating smoking pistol that you are portraying it as. My God, after everything from Watergate forward–including Reagan’s apparently real unawareness of Iran-Contra–that you find it amazing to find a skeleton in Paul’s closet is… pretty naive.
And before you dismiss me as just another fanatic, remember that while I am a Libertarian I have not endorsed or stated support for Paul as a presidential candidate.
I think it is the size of the discontent with the current Demopublican monopoly that scares you, not Ron Paul himself. Otherwise, given the fact that, as you say, he’s not going to be President, so why do you care?
Are You Gay, Black or Sane?
Sounds like a “pick two” joke.
I’ll put this up as a post soon, but here’s what TNR has today. Scans of the Ron Paul newsletters in question.
Awesome, thanks!
After perusing a few of these typed, undated, unmarked sheets of “proof” there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ron Paul did not write the incendiary ones about race, sexual orientation, MLK, etc.
(Kirchick is obviously a better fantasy writer than researcher or evidentiary judge. But then he is barely out of college, busy slobbering over Rudy Giuliani half the time. Shock of shocks. He is also one of those fond of calling anyone who dares challenge Israel an anti-semite. Gee wonder why he hates Ron Paul?)
I especially love the obviously absurd prima facie contradiction in the alleged June 1990 newsletter in which we are led to believe that Ron Paul, a vocal national opponent of the drug war as a presidential candidate just 2 years earlier (and in particular marijuana laws), writes about justice for “a gang of young pot-smoking, brandy-drinking animals”. Jyeah, right.
Having seen the actual source of this sketchy rubbish I now have to question the validity of whether some of these alleged newsletter excerpts are connected to Ron Paul even just nominally.
That said, I am fairly certain I know who wrote most of these, based on some inside information someone shared with me last November.
I definitely know it was not Ron Paul. I wanted to see the evidence first, though.
The New Republic should be ashamed of themselves for permitting such shoddy yellow “journalism”. God have they gone downhill.
OK, so your stand is that these are a fabrication? Or that Ron didn’t read any of these documents that went out to his subscribers? Or that someone else posed as Ron Paul and sent out these newsletters? Or is this all some scheme for prevent the illuminati from being exposed by Dr. Paul, should he be elected? 🙂
They aren’t his words, thoughts, or beliefs. How many ways do you need it explained? Jesus H. Christ, already.
Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?
Tuesday, January 08, 2008 – FreeMarketNews.com
Initial post 5.22.07
Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans – has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.
These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time – focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.
The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.
“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”
This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.
Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”
Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken “moral” responsibility for them.
These, for example, ARE his words :
Jan 17, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding this time to me.
[H. Res. 58: To honor Muhammad Ali, global humanitarian, on the occasion of his 65th birthday]
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H. Res. 58. I saw Muhammad Ali as a man of great courage, and I admired him for this, not because of the courage that it took to get in a ring and fight men bigger than he, but because of his stance in 1967.
In 1967, he was 25 years old. He was the heavyweight champion of the world, and for religious beliefs, he practiced what Martin Luther King made popular, civil disobedience, because he disagreed with the war. I thought his comments were rather astute at the time and were not complex, but he merely said, I have no quarrel with the Viet-Cong. He said the Viet-Cong never called him a name, and because of his religious convictions, he said he did not want to serve in the military. He stood firm, a man of principle, and I really admired this as a quality.
He is known, of course, for his athletic skills and his humanitarian concerns, and these are rightly mentioned in a resolution like this. But I do want to emphasize this because, to me, it was so important and had such impact, in reality, what Muhammad Ali did eventually led to getting rid of the draft, and yet we as a people and we as a Congress still do not have the conviction that Muhammad Ali had, because we still have the selective service; we say, let us not draft now, but when the conditions are right, we will bring back the draft and bring back those same problems that we had in the 1960s.
I see what Muhammad Ali did as being very great. He deserves this recognition, but we should also praise him for being a man of principle and willing to give up his title for 3 years at the age of 25 at the prime of his career. How many of us give up something to stand on principle? He was a man of principle. He believed it and he stood firm, so even those who may disagree with his position may say at least he stood up for what he believed in. He suffered the consequences and fortunately was eventually vindicated.
Well you and I disagree on what the standard is. You are willing to take Dr. Paul’s word for it and I’m not buying it. Simple as that.
After perusing a few of these typed, undated, unmarked sheets of “proof” there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Ron Paul did not write the incendiary ones about race, sexual orientation, MLK, etc.
Ridiculous…I would be concerned, IF THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE OF IT.
If you want to judge him by a VERY TINY and attenuated piece of his long and diverse career as an activist or public official, so be it.
There is evidence. His name is plastered all over the publications. He apparently drew enough of a fan base with them to be profitable and to propel him into Congress. How is this different than Yassar Arafat saying one thing in English and another in Arabic. Sure Paul can deny, but he cashed checks and had his name associated with the content.
Now if you would like to cull through the newsletters and find the issue where it says that the views expressed here are those of the author and not necessarily those of the guy that we are pretending is the author, great.
I don’t like arguing with you Tyler. I like you and I suspect the reverse is true. I suspect that we are willing to trust the guy that we like and distrust the rest. Perhaps that is the case here, but it just as likely that I am blinded by distrust as that you are blinded by misplaced trust.
“Sources say”, with no name, of course. 15 years of people writing whatever they want under Ron Paul’s name without his knowing it and this makes Paul Presidential material?
There is a solicitation letter at the docs link that is really instructive. Not only because it takes 6 pages to ask for $99 to subscribe, but because this letter invokes Congressional letterhead and has a signature from Ron Paul. Maybe he didn’t sign it, but it also seems that he ought to be able to take some legal action against folks who have been impersonating him for so long. And, I do hope he can account for his prescription pads.
Geek, I am not blinded by trust, nor by hatred.
Frankly I am enlightened that Paul’s message (the one he actually advocates, not the smear) has been brought to the table in this campaign.
Civil liberties, constitutionalism, peace. Coming from a Republican these days, I will take it.
Those who can’t see what Ron Paul has consistently advocated as his predominant and consistent message in this campaign, those who choose instead to sling mud and dredge up horse dung for their own political agendas are sad, small and corrosive of any shot at an honorable, fair-minded political process.
You can put Ron Paul in league with whomever you conjure, as long as you know I put you in league with those who have trashed him all along. I think you well know that cast of characters and I think it is safe to say you are as sickened by them as I am. So maybe you should open your eyes and take a look at the company YOU are keeping.
Whatever cassandra. I am done with your bitter snark.
If all that I have in common with those people is a distrust of Ron Paul’s authenticity, I think I’ll be OK. Thanks for your concern, though.
I like that Ron Paul wants to bring the troops home. I like that he thinks George Bush is a terrible President.
I don’t like some of the company that he keeps and I don’t like some of his views on macroeconomic theory. I don’t like that he is enough of an amateur that he actually got drawn into being on the wrong side of a civil war debate.
Whatever, geek. Have your game. I fold.
My case is rested, counselor.