In 1996, Paul Wasn't Issuing Denials

Captain's Quarters ^ | Jan. 11, 2008 | Ed Morrissey

[jdm]

Reason Magazine has long associated themselves with the Ron Paul campaign, if not officially endorsing him. Their Hit & Run blog has served as the heart of rational Paul apologetics, and in their skilled hands, that has proven essential to his campaign. Now, as the magazine has Paul on its cover, its new editor has the unpleasant task of looking a little more closely at the candidate, and Matt Welch finds it an unpleasant journey.

Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.

The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago. ...

So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.

Indeed. Rather than claiming he had never read these newsletters, as Paul absurdly did on CNN last night, Paul claimed that he himself wrote the newsletters. Matt Welch find this in the contemporaneous Dallas Morning News report on the newsletters during Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign (May 22, 1996, emphasis mine):

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

Matt has more examples of Paul's non-denials in 1996. Twelve years later, Paul wants people to believe that not only did he not write any of his newsletters, he never read them either. His role in the single most effective piece of outreach of his organization, he explained to Wolf Blitzer last night, was as a publisher -- one who didn't bother to read his own publication. These 1996 quotes put lie to his CNN interview answers.

Not only does this show dishonesty, but it indicates that Paul had a lot more involvement in the publication of the despicable statements found in his own newsletter than Paul or his less-rational apologists want to admit. The supremacists and conspiracy theorists surrounding his campaign apparently got attracted by more than just Paul's views on the Constitution; they read the newsletters and determined that Paul was one of them. His refusal to recant in 1996 and his explanation that he can't recall ever reading the newsletters today signal to them that he still wants their support.

People wonder why this matters, given Paul's fringe appeal. It matters because we can't allow this kind of hatred to get legitimized in mainstream politics again. This kind of rhetoric used to be mainstream, and not just in the South, either. Republicans cannot allow the party to get tainted by the stench of racism and conspiracy mongering. If enough of us don't step up and denounce it, strongly and repeatedly, we will not be able to avoid it.

Matt Welch and the people at Reason have reached that same conclusion in regards to libertarianism and their magazine. Good for them, even if it came a little late.

[Badeye]

So....how do you really feel about Ron Paul?

(chuckle)

[B Knotts]

McCain opposes the Constitution. That’s worse, in my book.

[B Knotts]

And the other thing is, Ron Paul has no realistic chance at the nomination. McCain does.

[jrooney]

You nailed it. The many faces of Ron Paul. None pretty.

[BlackElk]

Maybe it is time to point out the fallacy of your Aristide argument against Fred. Because our country takes seriously that anyone, even and maybe particularly the despised, is entitled to legal representation, and because lobbying in this case WAS legal representation, Aristide was as entitled as NARAL to such representation, before Congress and before courts. Fred Thompson was employed by a large DC law firm, perhaps as a partner, and had, at most, one vote on representation of Aristide. The firm decided that it would represent Aristide and that Thompson would be either the lawyer or one of the lawyers assigned to that task by the firm. It would be better if major law firms would decline retainers under such circumstances but Aristide would be small potatoes for Fred to resign over. Most of us have had to swallow the unpalatable at work.

A lawyer (which is what Fred is and was then) is not personally responsible for the crimes of the client. Johnny Cochrane had no responsibility for the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and of Goldman the boy toy, just because he represented OJ (assuming that OJ murdered either or both of them which was not the view of the jury.

OTOH, paleoPaulie is supposed to be representing the constituents in his Congressional district and their interests. He takes an oath at the beginning of each term as a congresscritter and, in being an antiwar, antiAmerican peace creep openly siding with our enemies in time of war, he is massacring that oath. Fred has done no such thing and deserves no such response. Dr. Demento deserves to be deported.

[NoLibZone]

Thank you So much!

I know nothing about the Austrian Method and he brought it up last night and later went on to say what he would do to help Social Security.

So as an Autarian Economist he could not believe in Social Security.

Do they believe in Money?

How can just one nation practice it and still trade?

Do any nations practice it?

[jmc813]

PaleoPaulie is a treasonous weasel in time if war.

Do you think Ron Paul ought to be executed for treason?

[BlackElk]

GItP: We ought not to trade with China, Vietnam, Cuba, and any nation describable as Islamofascistan during this war. If any American wants to meet Cubans there are many of them in Florida and other American locations and they won't be Castro's stooges. For any Americans who are not satisfied with that, drop them into Cuba by parachute permanently since they love Castro so much. p> We also ought to abrogate WTO, GATT, and a lot of other sellout pacts that enrich the boardroom types by exporting American jobs to be performed by foreign slaves at slave wages.

The voters in Florida whom we serve by refusing trade with Cuba are called patriots unlike paleoPaulie.

Which part needs quotes as backing? That Ugo and Fidel and Aristide are anti-American??? That goes without saying. The sky is up. Water in its liquid form is wet. That PaleoPaulie is antiAmerican???? That is proven every time he opens his treasonous yap and has become axiomatic. sky...water...That the America haters, foreign and domestic, worship one another???? Come, come Catfish, it is far too late in the game to deny that. Sky...water...

BTW, just how stupid are you assuming Cubans trapped in the prison island asylum of Cuba to be??? I don't remember any Cuban escaping from the USA to reach Cuban soil under the bearded wonder. Just as no one was ever shot fleeing INTO East Germany over the Berlin Wall.

[wideawake]

One of my hugest pet-peeves is when someone who never served complains about the service of someone who did honorably

As I explained, Paul did not serve honorably.

He was a doctor with a private practice when he was commissioned. He certainly wasn't "moving on up" financially.

Incorrect. He was a medical school graduate when he was drafted.

As he told the Dartmouth Review, if he had spent his medical residency in the private sector he would have gotten paid less than he was paid as a resident by the USAF, and he would have had to work much longer hours.

He was getting paid better in the USAF and still getting credit for a residency. His draft notice was a career enhancer.

And a very good portion of our guys and gals serving overseas currently enlisted due in large part for the financial benefits.

Ah, but those guys and gals voluntarily signed up and believe in the cause they are fighting for. And almost all of them who are currently serving, unlike paul, have been in harm's way. The benefits are an added bonus for people who have risked their lives.

As Paul has publicly admitted, he was morally opposed to the work he was doing - i.e. examining pilots to make sure they were fit to do things like participate in bombing runs in Vietnam.

So, unlike our troops in the field, Ron Paul spent his entire military career far from the battlefield while boosting his career and collecting a paycheck, while claiming that he was doing something he was morally opposed to.

There is a word to describe someone who does things he beleives to be wrong in exchange for a paycheck.

And that word is not honorable.

Please don't smear them.

Don't you smear them by comparing them to a weasel like Paul.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

The voters in Florida whom we serve by refusing trade with Cuba are called patriots unlike paleoPaulie.”

So is Bush not a patriot for his supporting all this trade with China and Vietnam?

At least you have to say the same things about him as you do about Paul.

[mnehring]

Money- yes, but not in the sense you and I think. They believe in no central planning such as the Federal Reserve (in the US’s case). In pure theory, they believe that currency ‘value’ is determined between the two parties trading goods or services. Normally, this results in the belief in only gold/silver type currency because those hold an intrinsic value that is stable (according to the theory) in relation to given values of goods or services. Thus, with gold, for example, you are trading a product for another product of equal value. No first world countries use a pure Austrian economic principle, the closest thing you will find in practice today would be smaller, trade-based communities, in the rawest form of the theory. As for the regulatory piece of Austrian, Hong Kong prior to her return to China was pretty close, with little or no government regulation in business (other than building regulation) and a strong emphasis on entrepreneurship. Even the most permissive economies can’t really fall back on pure Austrian economics because of the international nature of trade and currency. It is often why you will see Austrian economists like Von Mises closely tied to Isolationism.

[mnehring]

The interesting thing about Paul bringing up Austrian Economic theory is he never can seem to relate it to the individual. It is almost like he is throwing out big concepts he doesn’t understand. He sounds like an armchair expert on, well anything, trying using big terms to impress people but has the inability to articulate clearly the meaning behind those terms.

[BlackElk]

I don't care as much as many here about economic issues but that is not the hallmark of liberalism. I do care about ending abortion once and for all, prosecuting perversion (a secular sacrament of liberals according to my decidedly conservative Catholic bishop), seeing street crime vigorously prosecuted and punished, seeing crimes against our military crushed, and many other domestic issues. In foreign and military policy, I believe in the absolute destruction of our enemies and nothing less.

I am a conservative. Paleo"conservatives" are cowards and not conservatives. Their role model is the despicable Neville Chamberlain. Their foreign minister is lavender libertine limpwrist Justin(e) Raimondo. They lust for anything antiAmerican. I am not a "neoconservative" because I am not an octogenarian or nonogenarian former protege of Lyndon Johnson coming very slowly to conservatism after Comrade McGovern and his red playmates took over the Democratic Party, turning it into the party of acid, amnesty and abortion. PaleoPaulie is either too stupid to recognize or too dishonest to admit that he would like to likewise turn the GOP into a party that would do nothing about drugs, abortion or perversion and would celebrate traitors by amnestying them while supporting the the pretenses of our nation's enemies.

Other than your tagline, have I missed your substantive posts in favor of Fred Thompson??? You seem to be seen only supporting Dr. Demento or defending him and his kind.

I trust I have made myself clear.

[GovernmentIsTheProblem]

“So, unlike our troops in the field, Ron Paul spent his entire military career far from the battlefield while boosting his career and collecting a paycheck, while claiming that he was doing something he was morally opposed to.”

Earlier you said he served his time in the national guard in texas.

Truth is -

“Paul’s active duty service took him to countries such as South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia and Turkey.”

Stop the lying and smearing!

[jmc813]

As I explained, Paul did not serve honorably.

That's not what his DD-214 says.

As Paul has publicly admitted, he was morally opposed to the work he was doing - i.e. examining pilots to make sure they were fit to do things like participate in bombing runs in Vietnam.

I'm calling BS on this. I'll need a link. You're claiming that he didn't want the pilots to be healthy for their bombing runs, whether or not he personally supported them?

So, unlike our troops in the field, Ron Paul spent his entire military career far from the battlefield while boosting his career and collecting a paycheck, while claiming that he was doing something he was morally opposed to.

You sound like those idiots who bitch about Bush "only" serving in the Air National Guard.

So, unlike our troops in the field, Ron Paul spent his entire military career far from the battlefield while boosting his career and collecting a paycheck, while claiming that he was doing something he was morally opposed to.

There is a word to describe someone who does things he beleives to be wrong in exchange for a paycheck.

And that word is not honorable.

I served in the Army during Clinton's ridiculous adventures in the Balkans. Myself and almost every other soldier I knew realized that the whole thing was bull$hit, but we still gave a 100% effort and got the job done. According to you, I suppose we did not serve with honor.

[jmc813]

I am a conservative.

My bad. I thought you claimed to be a neoconservative earlier. Neither neo- nor paleo-conservatives are actually conservative at all.

[jmc813]

Other than your tagline, have I missed your substantive posts in favor of Fred Thompson??? You seem to be seen only supporting Dr. Demento or defending him and his kind.

It's just that the last several all threads have gone into the hundreds while the Thompson threads don't. I was on the thread yesterday in which we were speculating who Thompson's big endorsement might be (turned out to be the Heritage Foundation).

[mnehring]

I’m actually going to go with jmc813 on this one. Paul did serve and we should thank him for that, he was a doctor and he was in the Air Force so the chance of him being in an actual combat zone was nil. There was a chance, however. My dad was an Air Force radio operator and he was ‘loaned out’ to a Marine base because of a specific need for his skills.

This doesn’t however, change his current position on issues.

[BlackElk]

Let's see. What can it mean to say that McCain opposes the constitution??? Maybe you are referencing Campaign Finance Reform? That law does no seem to have gotten in the way of the admirable Swiftboat Veterans for Truth or the despicable George Soros and Moveon.org. Somehow, it has become an article of faith among otherwise sensible conservatives that the "right" to spend unlimited sums of money for special interest influence upon elections (most of it against us and our candidates BTW) is equivalent to the First Amendment right to free speech. Anyone familiar with First Amendment jurisprudence would know that courts have never read the First Amendment that way. Corporations are "persons" under the constitution and have had no right to spend corporate revenue on politics in national elections for many decades. Likewise, the labor unions themselves. Both set up PACs to make up for that and so the laws against such spending are not effective. When Campaign Finance Reform purported to silence organized critics of politicians (National Right to Life Committee, National Rifle Association, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Fund or leftwingers wildly indignant about nearly everything), for two months before each federal election, there was a lot of wailing by the established groups because they could not pad their respective exchequers by sending hysterical fundraising letters to their most gullible supporters wailing that civilization will come to an end in the election next week unless BIG cash is contributed to them NOW!!!!).

National Right to Life is a prime example. I want an end to abortion, a total end, a national end. NRTL accomplishes, decade after futile decade, zero, zip, nada, nothing. They seem to be satisfied if they can get a gold watch on retirement. If they cannot gull the supporters yet again at election time, maybe the money will be better spent on HLI or Judy Brown or even Nellie Gray. NRA is perfectly capable of setting up whatever kind of organization is necessary to legally communicate and do so effectively. This is a nothing issue.

In the process of regulating the whiners, the Campaign Finance Reform Act also regulated the scandalous "soft money" by which economic elites were buying the respective parties and their legislators and also regulated the influence of the Amalgamated Veeblefritzer Manufacturers, investing campaign funds and soft money in exchange for massive federal subsidies. Invest $1,000,000, get $100 million back. Stopping that seems consistent with "fiscal conservatism" as well as being constitutional because corporations may have limited "free speech" rights but corrupting politicians with "legalized" payoffs is not among those "rights."

Although I am not yet ready to vote for McCain or for any other candidate and have ruled out the paleopipsqueak Dr. Demento and Rooty Julie Annie, I am willing to bet that McCain and Huckabee and Thompson and Hunter have at least as much knowledge of the constitution as does the fraud from Galveston and probably a lot more.

The only other issue I can imagine you referencing as McCain opposing the constitution, is the one about Congress having to declare wars. If so, I agree with anyone who denies it and disagree with paleoPaulie. We can't sit idly by being attacked by our enemies while leaving decisions as to war and peace to the managerie in Congress led by the likes of Nancy Facelift, Dingy Harry, Levin, Murtha and assorted other traitors. The founders established the POTUS as CinC for that reason. Congress has only the power of the purse and, in wartime, that provision is a grave mistake.

Any other "constitutional" problems of McCain???

No one can take from McCain his years in the Hanoi Hilton suffering loyally for our nation and no one can take from Dr. Demento his performance as a treasonous weasel in time of war and as a conscientious objector and do nothing in the moral wars of our time (What paleoPaulie DOESN'T and WON'T DO not what he says in press conference yakathons).

Betraying our country in wartime is the worst in my book as to foreign policy and, even then, there are degrees. Study on Benedict Arnold. He was part of the success at Bunker Hill and Breed's Hill before winning at Saratoga. Those aspects making even Benedict Arnold far better than paleoPaulie and his ilk.

[jmc813]

Those aspects making even Benedict Arnold far better than paleoPaulie and his ilk.

That's just retarded.