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.
“Ron Paul, proving that a political “movement” can be financed with money normally reserved for Bite Sized Skittles and pot, along with a few bucks chipped in from “Uncle George”...”
All his contributors are there for everyone to see, Soros name isn’t there.
If you think Soros is giving money to other people and can prove it, he will go to jail.
I’d applaud your efforts, too. Have at it Jonesie!
Live long and proposer or whatever...
So, first Dr. Paul never disassociated himself from these statements. Then when discovered he did, well that was eight years ago, and now, why not back in 96?
Politics is war. Once your opponent/s pull out the most sacred and most reliable of all, the race card, they have a potential winner. It doesn’t even have to be true, the mere suggestion is often good enough to get the job done.
Political truths are a shell game played by masterful illlusionalists. It takes a voter with like skills to determine which shell contains the truth.
In this case, under which shell hides the actual newsletter?
The problem for me, I can’t find it. If it has been produced here or anywhere, I have not been able to discover it.
I think it important to see the actual newsletter, not just second and third hand stories regarding what was in it.
Does anyone have it? The actual newsletter?
“You guys never make a good point, at least not in this universe...”
You guys ask a question or a statement, get a response that is true but you don’t like, and then duck your head in the sand and dismiss it.
“Live long and proposer or whatever...”
Nanoo nanoo! :)
It is apples and oranges.
In Paul’s defense, I don’t think he is a racist. I think it is a simple case of him being the ultimate opportunistic political whore who gives less than a rat's ass who he has to sleep with to satisfy what ever sick goal he wishes to achieve. His love fest with the Anti War crowd proves that in spades......
I’m pretty sure the G.D. bomb is not permitted on FR.
Well if whatever it’s name is actually learned how to click a link and read the info inside it wouldn’t be a problem now would it?
Step 1: Click on link provided
Step 2: Click on the link mentioned BY NAME inside the link in Step 1.
It’s so simple a caveman could do it.
BUT, what does he do? He spins, he says that I “threw it in there” as if it had nothing to do with what HE brought up. He goes and waives these PDF documents in the air as if they were fact even though there has already been precedence set in using forged documents to smear a candidate.
I point out the FACT that there are some serious questions about the website thats slamming Thompson.
The big questions are why the cloak of secrecy on the website?
Who is on the staff?
Who is posting these “articles”?
Why are they claiming to be part of a group that has no agenda against Thompson?
The “Conservatives Against Fred Thompson” site is a fraud designed to smear Thompson.
Frankly at this point it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if a paul supporter was behind it.
Wow, where have I seen that before?
“Wow, where have I seen that before?”
Your bathroom mirror? How should I know?
I posted an article quoting Thompson saying he did work for Aristide.
He did work for Aristide, for free (????), after Aristide said, in September 1991, A “The burning tire, what a beautiful tool! ... It smells good. And wherever you go, you want to smell it.”
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/18/ap_interview_thompson_defends_lobbying/?page=2
He was talking about necklacing. You know, where a doused in gasoline is placed over someones head and lit on fire.
Even if the documents are phony, which I doubt, the real document would exist.
Thompson said his work on behalf of Aristide was limited to a single phone call. “I never met with the client. I never met anybody on behalf of Haiti or received any compensation for it.” (this paragraph is from the link above)
Why did he do work for Aristide for free after Aristide made the odious comment?
thats a TIRE doused in gasoline.
“Your bathroom mirror? How should I know?”
How about your posts?
“How about your posts?”
No, it’s your mirror.
I posted public sources of the same information and quotes from Fred himself, but you’ve not addressed them at all - instead floated your tinfoil theory that the pdf is a phony.
Nanoo nanoo!
No it isn't. Please read the article that begins this thread, keeping a close eye for the phrase "when he wrote the columns."
The Grahams do not write every article in the Washington Post. There’s a difference between Publisher and Author.
The Washington Post is called "The Washington Post", it is not called "The Graham Family Newsletter."
If it were, and if it contained no bylines, and if it were only a few pages long and only published monthly, then I would presume that the Graham Family authored it.
There are, after all, hundreds of newsletters published in the name of specific individuals which are entirely written by those individuals each month.
Paul's friend and associate Joe Sobran, for example, writes a monthly newsletter called "Sobran's" which is authored entirely by Sobran himself, unless he specifically gives a byline to a special guest.
Again, in 1996 he claimed he wrote them and in 2001 and subsequently he claims he didn't write them.
Which is it?
“He was talking about necklacing. You know, where a doused in gasoline is placed over someones head and lit on fire.”
Why don’t you tell the rest of the story?
That this so called “necklacing” was used in dealing with the Tonton Macoutes.
The Tonton Macoutes was the militia death squads that were created during the “Papa Doc” regime.
And the FULL QUOTE follows:
“If you catch one, do not fail to give him what he deserves,” Aristide said on Radio Nationale, during a bout of mob justice. “What a beautiful tool! It’s lovely, it’s cute, it’s pretty, it has a good smell; wherever you go you want to inhale it.”
He was specifically talking about the Tonton Macoutes.
So do you not think this was a justified punishment for the Tonton Macoutes who for decades would go around and butcher people with machetes and then hand what’s left in public squares?
But back to Thompson.....Cough up some billing records, or phone records or better yet the real document.
Relying on a document that appeared out of thin air on a site who’s intention is to slam Thompson is pretty shallow. I don’t even think that dan rather would stoop as low as that...Oh wait he did.
So are you saying that Thompson should have billed Aristide for one phone call? Hell most lawyers grant a free consultation.
“I posted public sources of the same information and quotes from Fred himself, but you’ve not addressed them at all - instead floated your tinfoil theory that the pdf is a phony.”
Oh, like you of all people should talk.
That should be hang what’s left in public squares
Oh, it’s definitely a bull$hit blog, no doubt about that. There’s a ton of ‘em out there. People on this thread are way too concerned with playing a game of logical gotcha. It’s Friday night. Everyone ought to chill. There’s better things to do than bicker about Ron Paul.
“But back to Thompson.....Cough up some billing records, or phone records or better yet the real document.”
There are no billing records. Did boston.com make up Fred’s quotes? You seem to have different standards of evidence for different people.
As for the Tonton Macoutes - I am not a fan of vigilante justice. Aristide was the elected official whose job it was to instill rule of law. That’s something Haiti had very little of. Encouraging vigilante justice was questionable at best.
Even if Thompson was just trying to get the embargo lifted, as he claimed, why lift a finger for the scumbag Aristide?
A Marxist who was not much less violent and repressive than the Papa/Baby Doc regime.
In 1988, Aristide said, “American Imperialism has supported the Haitian government. Elections aren’t the answer, elections are a way for those in power to control people. The solution is revolution, first in the spirit of the Gospel; Jesus could not accept people going hungry. It is a conflict between classes, rich and poor. My role is to preach and organize....”
Aristide was kicked out of the Roman Catholic church for his Marxist “liberation” theology.
This is the guy that Thompson even lifted a finger for, for free?
“So are you saying that Thompson should have billed Aristide for one phone call? Hell most lawyers grant a free consultation.”
The call wasn’t WITH Aristide - it was TO John Sununu.
Fred had to file documents that he was going to lobby for a foreign government entity before he could make the call. Someone from Aristide’s camp spoke to him about what they wanted - Fred didn’t do this all on his own. That’s at least one other call and/or meeting that Fred never explained.
Lawyers turn down clients all the time. Why did he go through so much trouble to get the embargo lifted for this scumbag? A lot of unanswered questions!
This is all public record - even without the document whose veracity you doubt.
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.