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.
One of my hugest pet-peeves is when someone who never served complains about the service of someone who did honorably, be it Paul, McCain, Bush, whomever. If a vet wants to go ahead and do so, I won't raise a peep, but for non-veterans, forget it.
Which is immaterial to the point: Ron Paul by his own admission served in a military he did not believe in solely for the cash.
He was a doctor with a private practice when he was commissioned. He certainly wasn't "moving on up" financially. And a very good portion of our guys and gals serving overseas currently enlisted due in large part for the financial benefits. Please don't smear them.
And what does that have to do with an article on Ron Paul's lies about the newsletters?
What a coincidence, here I am changing a dirty diaper on my son and the first ping I see is to a Ron Paul thread...
Guess what the diaper and Paul have in common...
Who is changing the subject? Paul has apologized but others have not for their past actions. It is just pointing out a double standad. Paul screwed up big time and at least tried to make up for it. Fred and McCain didn’t even really try. If you want to raid Paul out of town on a rail, fine....but then don’t turn around and give people you like a free pass and who still refuse to apologize for their actions.
I see some have almost successfully changed the subject and buried the topic that Paul blatantly lied either in 1996 when he admitted he wrote the articles and they were just taken out of context or in 2001 (and this week) when he claimed he never wrote them and never saw them.
So supporting the murder of infants and disproportionately disarming minorities are signs of "sound character"?
Ahhh, should have Googled. It's Friday and I'm lazy.
Paul is not a racist; he just wants racist to believe he is while keeping non-racist convinced that he isn’t. //sarcasm off
I'm not defending Aristide. I am pointing out that Aristide - like many elected executives who became dictators - played the game of pretending to support popular government at the beginning of their careers.
It's a ruse that was employed by Castro, Mugabe and Chavez as well.
It is currently being played by Evo Morales in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.
***************
It's an eye-opener for me.
“I guess changing the subject is easier than defending the indefensible.”
How funny! I was CORRECTING wideawake on his incorrect timetable about Fred’s support of Aristide!!! Now I’m ‘changing the subject?’
The proof is in the links below.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=48#48
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=62#62
“You have not made any effort to address the issue at hand. You are using the classic Democrat defense of “everybody does it...””
Total lie. What are you, wideawake’s twin?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=10#10
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=16#16
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=48#48
The chick I was responding to in that post is one of the few Giulianites left here on FR. I just saw that Rudy item on the news before work and wanted to rub it in a bit. If you were here early last year and saw some of the nastiness the Rudy people were spewing against Fred, you'd understand.
“I’m not defending Aristide. I am pointing out that Aristide - like many elected executives who became dictators - played the game of pretending to support popular government at the beginning of their careers.”
No he didn’t.
See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=62#62
Posting broken links to unsubstantiated information isn't "proof" - at least to normal people.
What is true:
Ron Paul admitted in 1996 he wrote the newsletters.
Ron Paul claimed in 2001 that he didn't write them.
Ron Paul's campaign has refused to release copies of his own newsletter to the media.
Either Ron paul was lying in 1996 or he is lying now.
Please tell me which was the lie: the 1996 affirmation or the 2001 denial?
I ask you again:
Was Paul lying in 1996 when he admitted authoring the newsletter?
Or was he lying in 2001 when he denied writing the newsletter?
It was one or the other. Which was it?
“Guess what the diaper and Paul have in common...”
They are both free-market solutions for catching the production of sh*t?
“Foolishly stood by” describes his actions and his supporters well.
You still have not made any effort to address the issue at hand. Will you ever address the issue, or will you simply continue to deflect?
People who don't know how to pluralize words ending in "st" should not be allowed on the Internet.
LOL, good grief, RG has ZERO to do with RP’s ZERO accomplishments in office.
Speaking of websites, Ron Paul’s site is always “intertaining”.
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.