Posted on 12/23/2011 5:30:26 PM PST by mnehring
(The following is a transcript of a Ron Paul article from 1990 in his newsletter, The Ron Paul Survival Report. Links to the scanned copies are here:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2rylfv7.png
http://i44.tinypic.com/wgqgeh.png
David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race in Louisiana, 60% of the white vote and 9% of the black vote!. This totaled 100,000 more votes that the current governor when he won.
Duke lost the election, but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment. If the official Republican hadn’t been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off.
Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight, we concede the election, “ he said. “But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans.”
To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.
Liberals like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post say he got so many votes because Louisianians were racists and ignorant. Baloney.
David Broder, also of the Post and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: “No one wants to talk about (race) publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, you can confirm the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle-class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative-action programs.”
Liberal are notoriously blind to see the sociological effects of their own progress. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are waiting in the wings without such as taint?
Or this paragraph.
“Kempocrisy
Liberal Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) recently pointed out that Jack Kemp’s 27-person public affairs office is spending its time on Kemp’s next campaign instead of HUD.
Mikulski, chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees HUD, deleted the funding to cries of anguish from Kemp. Undoubtedly it will be restored, but I still enjoyed the whole thing.”
So you are a fan of Democrat Senator Barbara Mikulski now and support HUD?
Are you sure you are on the right forum. First supporting David Duke, then supporting a Democrat Senator, then supporting HUD?
or the final paragraph posted.
“U.N. Tyranny
I recently visited a Congressional friend involved in foreign affairs, and he told me that the administration may push
— end of page 4 —”
That was the sum total of the text for the two pages posted from the newsletter, which was at least 5 pages long.
Have a Merry Christmas.
I am off to visit family.
I have read the two pages that you posted. I don’t think the weight of the paper supports the claims you are making against Ron Paul.
I prefer to see accurate claims made, not hyperbolic claims.
Actually, that last one really says a lot. If you remember, Kemp was attempting to greatly overhaul and reform HUD, reducing it in size and scope and the Democrats, led by Mikulski, were attacking him.
It says a lot about Ron Paul if he sided with the Democrats here due to his hatred of Republicans.
I see you are playing the game of intentional misunderstanding. This post is about, “The Duke’s Victory” section of the newsletter.
I’m not here to cheer on Ron Paul, but its sad that we have to choose between him and business as usual Republicans like Romney and Newt.
A lot of good people were elected in the wave that brought Newt to the speaker’s position.
But his Contract With America did not say flat out that government power and size would be reduced.
One part I remember was that the government rules and regulations would apply to Congress like everyone else.
The real issue is the government rules and regulations in the first place, not who they apply to.
I’d rather be a Paultard than a goose-stepper.
Then go be one. Don’t let the door hit ya.
A distinction without a difference.
Fortunately, I don’t have to choose.
90% of the black vote for David Duke? In a GOP primary, sure.
Where'd that silly question come from?
If you can't appreciate the pure beauty of the violin after hearing this, something's wrong with your ears.
Or you can get raw with these strings.
How about this gamechanger from America's Got Talent (which they SHOULD have won).
Either way, the violin is sweet yet lethal.
Do it!
I'm the fellow who said that Jack Cashill should look into the matter.
Not really, but apparently you don't understand the sentence containing the reference to good sense:
"Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight, we concede the election, “ he said. “But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans.”
To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that."
The sentence containing the phrase "plain good sense" refers back to the sentence on Duke's platform of tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. It obviously doesn't refer to Duke himself, or Duke's racist views, characterized as "baggage from his past" which the article indicates those who voted for him were willing to overlook due to their approval of the ideas in his platform.
Do you consider tax cuts racist? Do you think advocating an end to quotas and affirmative action is racist? Do you think Ward Churchill is a racist? Is ending or reducing welfare racist? Do you think Bill Clinton is a racist? Do you think busing is a good idea? Few conservatives would say "yes" to any more than one of those questions.
You obviously don't like Ron Paul, and that is an opinion you are certainly entitled to share. But arguing that some article which states that an endorsement of a platform of ideas like cutting taxes and ending affirmative action quotas is "plain good sense" is evidence of racism plays right into the hand of the most ardent liberal who sees every conservative political idea as racist.
Put more simply, if the Republican party advocated cutting taxes, reducing welfare, and ending affirmative action and quotas, would that make them a racist organization?
Apparently you fell for the wolf in sheep’s clothing too. Just because he claimed to stand for those things doesn’t change who he was or what he really stood for. They were window dressing and Paul was empowering him.
It is as bogus as the BNP saying their only goal is reduce crime.
I would suggest reading Goethe’s Faust sometime.
That is a nonsensical argument. Paul is not endorsing or supporting Duke in the article, he is commenting on how apparently the voters - including 9% of the African Americans who voted - chose to hold their noses and vote for Duke based on the identified portions of his platform in spite of Duke's "baggage".
The article is really arguing that voters supported a certain set of ideas often associated with conservatives and libertarians, such as cutting taxes and ending quotas in spite of the odious nature of the particular candidate.
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.