This is a deadhorse ping. More BS from KP about 'Racist' newsletters. He loves the attention and thinks he is a reporter.
Posted on 01/18/2008 5:13:56 AM PST by steadfastconservative
Since my article "Angry White Man" was posted on our website last Tuesday, many have asked who the author of Ron Paul's newsletters could have been. Published since at least the late 1970s--and at their most incendiary from 1987 to 1996--these newsletters have at times been filled with conspiratorial warnings about the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group, animus towards black and gay people, and sympathy for right-wing, anti-government militia movements. Many libertarian bloggers have intimated or concluded that the man chiefly responsible for this content was Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., Paul's former congressional chief of staff and the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. John Robbins, who succeeded Rockwell as Paul's chief of staff, released an "Open Letter to Lew Rockwell" on the Internet last week. "This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron's newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign," Robbins wrote. "Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable." Rockwell, however, in an interview conducted before "Angry White Man" was published, denied that he had any role in writing the newsletters.
Hours after my article appeared on the TNR website, the Paul campaign released a statement. "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed," Paul said. "I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts." . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
Paul still maintains that it was all somebody else's fault.
It may have been his name, and the newsletters may have listed him as editor, but he really didn't write it, he really didn't edit it and he apparently never read it, either, over the course of a decade.
A classic non-apology apology.
He maintains that someone else wrote the articles in question. But he's accepted responsibility, a number of times, for what was written and has condemned the articles.
That's a little different than just saying it was someone else's fault.
It may have been his name, and the newsletters may have listed him as editor, but he really didn't write it, he really didn't edit it and he apparently never read it, either, over the course of a decade.
Maybe he didn't do any of those things. I trust him and accept his word at face value. Do you have any evidence about what his actual role was in the daily operations of those newsletters?
If you don't than you are just engaged in wild speculation and helping to smear a good man. And why? Because you don't agree with some of his politics. Nice.
Which word do you accept at face value? The story he told in 1996? Or the story he told in 2001? Or the story he's telling now?
I never claimed they were forgeries.
I went to the Newsletter link and there are only a couple of pages posted. Do you have a link to the full newsletters?
I’d like to see what the masthead said, if anything.
Is that what you think he will actually get when the votes are tallied?
Let me show you, with a humble modification what I mean:
...Either way, this whole episode proves yet again that Paul is unfit to be President.
I have no idea. I can't forsee the future, nor do I have confidence in polls.
Is that what you expect him to get on Saturday?
Fair enough. I wasn’t asking you to foresee the future. I was just asking what you thought.
This is a deadhorse ping. More BS from KP about 'Racist' newsletters. He loves the attention and thinks he is a reporter.
I think Paul is DOA as far as the Republican nomination. If he accepts the Constitutional Party offer, he’ll be a good fit for their brand of politics. But I doubt it’ll have much affect on Republican prospects. At the percentages he’s been running, little support has come from Republican ranks.
It's only a deadhorse thread to those tired of hearing it. Similar in a way to the Democrats trying to ignore the Lewinsky scandal during the Clinton administration; nothing to see here, time to move on.
Oh, and if it's such a dead horse, why are you pinging everyone and wasting their time?
http://www.calthomas.com/index.php?news=2158
But I'm sure Cal Thomas is a Code Pinker/Truther.
I'm not a pollster, but those sound reasonable.
About 20 links at Selections From Ron Paul's Newsletters. There was a second article with links, which I don't have handy, and the six above from FR
Not so fast. The other candidates are going broke and Paul still has $8 million to play with. He is beating Giuliani and Fred Thompson in votes handily. Counting Paul out, when only a few early states with half of their delegates stripped because they jumped the gun have voted, is foolish.
If he accepts the Constitutional Party offer, he’ll be a good fit for their brand of politics.
Chances are that he won't. Right now it's all speculation, mostly driven from the GOP elites who need a scapegoat if their nominee loses in the general election.
But I doubt it’ll have much affect on Republican prospects. At the percentages he’s been running, little support has come from Republican ranks.
So why worry about it then? Here's what's so hilarious about you guys bitching about Paul. You say that only leftist kooks are supporting him - so why haven't Paul been able to win above 4th place so far? Where are all the hordes of leftists and anti-war types crossing party lines to vote for him? Now you're telling me these people are supporting Paul in the primaries but then you're going to worry about him running 3rd party when you should be embracing it? Stop with the illogical BS.
Watch your language!
So why worry about it then?
What, me worry? Where in my post did I indicate I was worried about Ron Paul?
Now you're telling me these people are supporting Paul in the primaries but then you're going to worry about him running 3rd party when you should be embracing it?
Please point out where I said (or implied) I'm concerned over a third party run.
Stop with the illogical BS.
The only one showing illogical BS is you.
Oh, and since you're here, perhaps you can answer the question I posted to CJ Wolf in post #53; since this is such a deadhorse issue, why are all you PaulBots so quick to jump on these threads and misstate our posts?
For the record, here's the post to which you replied: "I think Paul is DOA as far as the Republican nomination. If he accepts the Constitutional Party offer, he’ll be a good fit for their brand of politics. But I doubt it’ll have much affect on Republican prospects. At the percentages he’s been running, little support has come from Republican ranks." Please be kind enough to re-read it, then reply to my questions above.
“It is disingenuous, to say the least, for Paul to plead ignorance here. How on earth can we elect as President a man like Paul who, as the publisher of newsletter, was either ignorant of his subordinates’ activities or unable to control them?”
Fred hasn’t come clean about his representing Aristide for free....
He “can’t recall” (how Clintonian) the content of his conversation with John Sununu.
How convenient.
I think that if you publish something under your name, you need to be extra careful to make sure the content reflects your sentiments.
I think RP may have started a “franchise” that was recognized under his name and then let someone else run it. He should have insisted they change the name if it was no longer going to be under his imprimatur.
That said, read the docs themselves. They could have been stitched together from various conservative message board postings. That they give rise to accusations of being insensitive or paranoid or racist or non-PC, and whether those accusations or the very terms used in the accusations have merit is debatable. Do you wish to license some terms of condemnation when they might be used against you someday?
It’s best to stick with quotes from the newsletter, provide a link to more context, and debate the value of what the quote and context actually say.
The guy is 72 years old. Of course he's done as a Republican Presidential candidate after this race. He'll win his Congressional district by between 60-70% of the vote. Those people here pushing Peden as any real competition for Paul are smoking the stuff that some here accuse Paul supporters of smoking.
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.