Posted on 12/22/2011 11:39:51 AM PST by TBBT
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" arrives at "I did not read those newsletters with my name on them."
Let me get this straight.
Twenty years ago someone put some crazy, racist stuff in newsletters bearing Ron Paul’s name and written in the first person as if they were from Ron Paul.
Ron Paul never read them.
Ten years ago, when confronted with some of the crazy stuff (I’m trying really hard not to use “crazy s**t” here), Ron Paul says he wrote them, but they must be taken in their whole context to understand them.
Fast forward to the present and Ron Paul never wrote them, does not know who wrote them, cannot recall the names of anyone who worked for him who might have wrote them, is shocked to learn he made big money off them, and people think this guy has the qualifications to be President of the United States?
Letting someone write bat crap crazy stuff under your name, not knowing who they are or what they are doing, profiting from them, then taking responsibility before denying responsibility is credible?!
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
Ron Paul; you lying, crusty old fart; come clean.
Ron Paul is racist and anti-Semitic. This will only make his supporters love him more.
Understandably he'd want to support his dad, but by doing so doesn't this damage Rand's credibility as well?
Wait, Ron Paul is in the lead in Iowa — he can beat Romney, and we all need to drop our candidates and support him, or else we are really just liberal-lovers who want Obama re-elected.
At least, that’s what the Gingrich people told me when their guy was first.
RP is smoking some of the dope he want to legalize!
Given his “home” territory, legalizing folk’s stash for him is a vote getter.
Why have we let this Dennis Kucinich get so far?
Here's a novel idea. Let's wait and see what Rand Paul says!
Rand is tarnished by virtue of dna.
Ron Paul is a liar. He said, in a 1995 C-SPAN interview, that he wrote the newsletters. He changed that after the newsletters became controversial in 1996.
Ron Paul in 1995: Say, have you read my newsletters? (Watch video of a young Ron Paul)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2823904/posts
The following is from the above article written by Morrissey
“Today, of course, Paul insists that he never bothered to review the newsletters before publication and rarely read them at all, much different than his 1995 promotion of the newsletters as his primary vehicle for political engagement ...It explains why in 1996 Paul neither denied authorship of the passages nor familiarity with the thrust of his publications when he was interviewed by the Dallas Morning News, and quoted by Reason Magazine in 2008:
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. [...]”
******************
Note in the second paragraph, Ron Paul said, “...when he wrote the columns...” this is from a 1995 interview with C-SPAN.
Ron Paul’s cult won’t care. This past week, I have seen some of the most lame excuses the cult uses to defend the decades of these offensive newsletters from their leader and it is pitiful. There was everything but a denial of the newsletters’ existence to ignoring them because crackpot Paul now claims he did not write them. Maybe the only honest one I heard from one of them was “who really cares”.
The cult really needs to hold off their comments until they get their talking points from one of their kook fringe conspiracy shows so they can sync up the stories. This may be all part of the Illuminati, New World Order (which Ron Paul believes in), or even a chemtrail induced mind control on the rest of us.
Now, there's a useful thought.
BINGO!
Thankfully his “suspenders” are significantly fewer than they present in their “puffed up” activism.
That’s painting a sizable group with a mighty broad brush.
Not being in RP’s district, I suspect they re-elect him because he brings home a lot of pork.
In the 2008 Texas GOP presidential primary, Ron Paul garnered 6% of the vote.
In his home district, he got only 9% of the vote.
I.e., the people who know him best don't take him seriously as a presidential candidate.
To repeat:
Ron Paul sold one product in the marketplace: ideas. He didn’t print a catalogue that featured the products of others. He didn’t run a store that sold the products of others. He sold ideas written in the first person under the banner “Ron Paul’s X Newsletter” (the name changed from time to time.
A few articles contained bylines from another person, further suggesting that those ideas without bylines and written in the first person were by Paul.
Celebrities who endorse products that we all know they didn’t make or design are held accountable for the failure of those products. In those cases, the celebrities are responsible even thought they don’t pretend to have designed the product and we all know they didn’t.
In this case, Paul held himself out as the creator of the product, those ideas. Nobody knew any better; that was part of the deceit, the formula. He profited from publishing those ideas as his ideas. He took money for those ideas in the past. He profited well from ‘his’ thoughts, about a million dollars per year. He claimed a decade after the fact that he wrote those ideas.
He now says he didn’t write those ideas (although the person named by his campaign denies writing them). He says he didn’t know what ideas were written for years under his name, and sold under his name, as his ideas - the ideas that created his brand and that generated his political support and raised his money from dubious sources, such as neo-Nazi groups.
So if Ron Paul didn’t write those ideas, I’ll ask as I’ve asked on other threads: Was Ron Paul a naïve, absentee overseer of his newsletter, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf for years, while profiting mightily and only pretending to do business in the marketplace of ideas? Or was Ron Paul a man who was willing to put his name to anything as long as it brought in money and support - without regard to the ideas attributed to him, to who wrote the checks or which neo-Nazi supported him?
Because I abhor either Ron Paul.
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.