Posted on 01/11/2008 6:59:44 AM PST by 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.
I was thinking more like being full of, but I do like that end result...
I could believe he didn’t approve these things before publication but I could never believe that he didn’t read the newsletters following publication. He should have raised hell at that time. He didn’t and therefor should be judges as if he were the author.
“I would be willing to, except that he himself told the USA Gold newsletter that he believes his service was wrong and he told the Dartmouth Review that a strong inducement for his staying in the military for the duration of his medical residency was because it gave him shorter hours with better pay.”
I linked to the USA Gold interview here
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1952012/posts?page=280#280
that’s not what he says at all!
I don’t have the Dartmouth link but I doubt what you say about it since you misrepresented the first.
PDS!
I figured, so I changed my reply :)
Haven't had time to catch up on this thread. Been helping a friend set up his new Vista laptop (yuck!) to the Internet and a home network. What a pain!
Did you know that Ronald Reagan called libertarianism the "heart and soul of conservatism"?
“No, I don’t. I think trade with China and Vietnam is a disgrace. It is NOT treason which is paleoPaulie’s entrenched habit. Since paleoPaulie has no morals in foreign policy and Bush has somewhat flawed morality in the respects you mention, there is no moral equivalency between patriot Bush and treasonous weasel Dr. Demento. Will you next pull from the leftist rhetorical quiver the dreaded H word (hypocrisy)? That won’t work either.”
So advocating trade with some commies is treason, but enacting it with others is not.
Good going BlackIlk! You never fail to disappoint.
Ah, Vista...
It sucketh...
That's pretty straightforward.
He isn't claiming here that it only dawned on him many years later.
Paul weaved commentary on the current health care situation into a short autobiographical speech. He spoke of getting drafted for the Vietnam War in 1962, fresh out of Duke Medical School. He commented that working for the Army wasn’t so bad as his pay went from $195 per month in residency to $700. While in the military he moonlighted three nights a month at the local hospital.------------------
Paul is given to mulling things over morally. His family was pious and Lutheran; two of his brothers became ministers. Paul’s five children were baptized in the Episcopal church, but he now attends a Baptist one. He doesn’t travel alone with women and once dressed down an aide for using the expression “red-light district” in front of a female colleague. As a young man, though, he did not protest the Vietnam War, which he now calls “totally unnecessary” and “illegal.” Much later, after the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, he began reading St. Augustine. “I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian,” he recalls. “The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”
-----------------
The medical training was soon interrupted when he received a draft notice and entered the U.S. Air Force during the Cuban Missile Crisis.[28] He remained in the military during the early years of the Vietnam War.[29] He served active duty as a flight surgeon from 1963 to 1965, attending to the ear, nose, and throat problems of pilots in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia, and Turkey, but was never sent to Vietnam. Based out of Kelly Air Force Base in San Antonio, Paul achieved the rank of captain[10][30] and obtained his private pilot's license.[16] The experience of performing physicals on helicopter pilot candidates, at a time when he saw many copters being shot down, deeply affected Paul; he later considered his indirect association with the Vietnam War as a catalyst for his rejection of interventionist foreign policy.[31]Paul received a higher wage from the Air Force than during his initial residency, $700 per month;[32] he joked that he was "fantastically rich."[16] While in San Antonio, Paul also moonlighted three nights a week in a local church hospital's emergency room for $3 per hour, and became involved with Barry Goldwater's 1964 presidential campaign.[14] He then served in the Air National Guard while completing his residency (1965–1968), having switched to ob/gyn at the University of Pittsburgh.[33] His residency research into causes of pregnancy toxemia was subsequently published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. He moved to Surfside Beach, Texas, on July 3, 1968, and eventually delivered more than 4,000 babies.
I don't have a problem with his military service, but he and his supporters play on it a bit much. He was drafted, it's good he didn't resist, but I'm not sure it's big on the list of qualifications for President. And it sounds like the pay was a factor in the National Guard enlistment. Compare the constant harping on Paul's military record with Hunter or McCain.
I misrepresented nothing about what paul told USA Gold.
"He spoke of getting drafted for the Vietnam War in 1962, fresh out of Duke Medical School. He commented that working for the Army wasn’t so bad as his pay went from $195 per month in residency to $700. While in the military he moonlighted three nights a month at the local hospital. "
http://dartreview.com/archives/2007/10/14/ron_paul_md_speaks_on_health_care.php
And there you go.
Being drafted wasn't so bad because it paid three times as much as his civilian job and unlike a civilian residency (which is a 100 hour per week job) his military residency left him enough spare time to work a second job.
Basically, the military paid him about seven times as much per hour as being a civilian resident. A windfall for Paul.
That it do...
I gave them advice a week ago. I told them to get a PC with XP installed. They came home with the Vista machine. I guess they didn't want to wait for Dell to ship one. And Best Buy told them they didn't offer any.
I'm not used to working with Vista so everything took way longer than it should have. Plus quirky things going on with their old PC, getting a new printer hooked up and it's acting goofy, I never did finish. I have to return Monday for another round. Sheesh!
“Being drafted wasn’t so bad because it paid three times as much as his civilian job and unlike a civilian residency (which is a 100 hour per week job) his military residency left him enough spare time to work a second job.”
lol the 2nd job was at $3 an hour - hardly a windfall even then.
He did it for the experience. He also did research that was published.
You are just fishing for things to attack him over - still haven’t addressed your lies about Fred/Aristide tho.
Try researching those links.
I was annoyed by the evangelicals’ being so supportive of pre-emptive war, which seems to contradict everything that I was taught as a Christian,” he recalls. “The religion is based on somebody who’s referred to as the Prince of Peace.”
Guess he's had issues with Evangelicals for 45 years.
Watching the wheels come off the Paultards’ bandwagon will be entertainment GOLD.
The reason for fighting paleos is that they want to do nothing about abortion, nothing about perversion but want to take over the GOP and make it a vehicle for financial stinginess uber alles, for Goldwaterism over Reaganism, for Neville Chamberlainite foreign policy cowardice and inaction and paralysis, and a wide variety of other unacceptable positions.
I know you only on Free Republic and only as a serious and thoughtful fellow Catholic and fellow Christian. I have no idea of your background in the conservative movement as such. I shall respect you as a person whether I agree with your politics or not because I respect you as a Catholic who has proven himself here on religious matters.
I have been involved for more than 40 years in conservative movement activity and I utterly reject the notion that the social and political eccentrics known as "paleos" are even vaguely conservative. I have two years experience accompanying a daughter every week to the uberpaleo Rockford Institute's "Real American History" course to back up my opinions of paleos. These people admire lavender loonie Justin(e) Raimondo of antiwar.com. Access that website and decide for yourself. Access the Rockford Institute's Chronicles.com (I think) and decide for yourself. Access Llewellyn Rockwell's websites and decide for yourself. If we disagree, we disagree. I know that these people have no place in a legitimate conservative movement. Spending energy purging them is well worth it.
Limited government is a long way away if ever. very few Americans get up in the morning asking themselves what they can do today to limit government. A lot more get up every morning trying to figure out what their government can do for them rather than vice versa or rather than just to have the government leave them alone.
Limited government certainly won't be accomplished by an eccentric weasel like Dr. Demento. He gives that cause a bad name by coupling it with his lunatic foreign policy,. his association with Alex Jones and the Truthers, his refusal to return the contributions of blatant racists and anti-Semites even when called on it, his steady stream of policy dishonesty, and a host of other baggage we don't need in this movement.
For good and sufficient reasons, the policies of Ron Paul were rejected by the conservative movement and by the GOP long before anyone knew who Ron Paul was or would be. Now, as those who defeated them decades ago in the rise of the conservative movement of our time, pass on, one by one, and with them the history of how the Paulistinian types were routed, Ron Paul slithers forth selling snake oil to the young and unsophisticated. Like the snake in the garden, he whispers to them that the future can be without income taxation or IRS, without legal restraint on indulgence in recreational drugs or sexual perversions, without military action and without military service, with anarchy and without many rules, rights without responsibility, and above all a future of unrestrained materialism and without the restraint of religious values.
Thus paleoPaulie is more dangerous by far than is McCain. He SAYS he is pro-life and pro-family and he poses for holy pictures as such while hiding behind his curious views of the constitution and claiming that the federales can DO NOTHING and that we should leave it all to the states. Do you see California banning abortion? New York? Your Oregon? My Illinois? Connecticut? Taxachusetts? In the absence of a federal crackdown, abortion will continue to flourish, plain and simple.
Dr. Demento prescribes impossibility and futility and makes a great show of "constitutional" fussiness over anything he does not want to act for or against. He claims fiscal conservatism while stuffing appropriations bills with Galveston pork projects. He then votes against the bills to pose for "fiscal conservative" holy pictures, knowing that tons of the pork is on its way to Galveston with the votes of his colleagues.
Neither paleoPaulie nor anyone like him will ever get my vote.
“I don’t have a problem with his military service, but he and his supporters play on it a bit much. He was drafted, it’s good he didn’t resist, but I’m not sure it’s big on the list of qualifications for President. And it sounds like the pay was a factor in the National Guard enlistment. Compare the constant harping on Paul’s military record with Hunter or McCain.”
To be fair, it’s wideawake who brought it up on this thread and has challenged his service as being dishonorable.
You know what’s funny, up until a couple months ago I didn’t pay any attention to Paul. I even made fun aof a few friends for being 1%ers and didn’t still think much of it.
The hysterical attacks and namecalling I’ve seen on this forum led me to be curious - was this guy as bad as he was made out to be?
I read some of the posts on here, and found that many were taken out of context and others were just plain ridiculous.
I don’t like Paul 100% - I think it’s important to finish the job in Iraq, for example. I supported the war since it started, but have been disappointed by many leadership decisions.
However, I don’t like any of the candidates 100%. As it is now, the only 3 I can stand are Hunter, Thompson, and Paul. I have problems with all of them, but this is the real world.
The funny thing is, as a result of the hysterics on FR, I’ve gone from ignoring Paul to being willing to vote for him in the primary if it looks like Fred has no shot of winning delegates in AZ.
I don’t agree that our foreign policy ‘creates’ terrorists, but I do think that the hysteria about this guy on FR is creating Paul supporters. Go figure.
Let's look closer, shall we?:
"If you analyze it I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. I think conservatism is really a misnomer just as liberalism is a misnomer for the liberals–if we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives today would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories. The basis of conservatism is a desire for less government interference or less centralized authority or more individual freedom and this is a pretty general description also of what libertarianism is.
Now, I can’t say that I will agree with all the things that the present group who call themselves Libertarians in the sense of a party say, because I think that like in any political movement there are shades, and there are libertarians who are almost over at the point of wanting no government at all or anarchy. I believe there are legitimate government functions. There is a legitimate need in an orderly society for some government to maintain freedom or we will have tyranny by individuals. The strongest man on the block will run the neighborhood. We have government to insure that we don’t each one of us have to carry a club to defend ourselves. But again, I stand on my statement that I think that libertarianism and conservatism are travelling the same path.
So, in other words, Reagan believed that in 1975 (the time of the interview) libertarianism and conservatism were traveling the same path.
33 years later, it is obvious that the inherent flaws of libertarianism as an ideology - the flaws that Reagan warned against in this interview - are manifest and that while conservatism and libertarianism may have been traveling the same path in 1975, they are not in 2008.
Interestingly enough, I would argue that one year after Reagan's interview the two paths began to diverge considerably.
In 1976, Barry Goldwater refused to endorse Ronald Reagan and endorsed Ford instead, a move that arguably cost Reagan the nomination and gave us 4 years of Carter.
Why? How could Goldwater endorse a big government Rockefeller RINO like Ford?
Because Goldwater was a libertarian and a strong advocate of abortion. Reagan was a conservative who was uncomfortable with abortion on demand, while Ford crusaded on behalf of abortion.
This was the crucial moment when the libertarians broke with the conservative movement and the moment when Goldwater began his disgusting decline into irrelevance and moral decrepitude.
“In 1976, Barry Goldwater refused to endorse Ronald Reagan and endorsed Ford instead, a move that arguably cost Reagan the nomination and gave us 4 years of Carter.”
Paul supported Goldwater in 64 and Reagan in 76.
You can stop lying about what I have said. What I said was that we serve Cuban Americans in Florida for their patriotism by denying trade to Cuba and that they have earned that service. I knkw that airhead trade almighty types may disagree with that policy, but ask me if I care. I don't.
Ron Paul is a treasonous weasel by opposing our military and our government in the prosecution of this war. George Bush is a patriot whetever his flaws. Paul's supporters lust for further abandonment of American interests by pulling all troops home from everywhere and being a good, tame, little paleopeacecreep nation. As a former Libertarian Party state officer who grew up and quit the LP when the Libertarians began their enthusiasm for legalized baby-killing and other evils, I would remind you that conservatism is considerably more than mindless materialism. In fact, materialism is and ought to be very low on the totem pole.
Considering that you can and do support the paleopipsqueak for POTUS, your every insult is a compliment. Pour it on.
Meanwhile, I shall call you: The Windtunnel Libertoonian Problem unless and until you grow up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.