NRO - Letters: Ron Paul spokeman responds to Mona Charen

National Review Online ^ | 11/20/07 | Jesse Benton

[George W. Bush]

November 20, 2007, 1:00 p.m.

Ron Paul

To the Editor

I read Mona Charen’s column on Friday and I had to clear a few things up. Outside of the name-calling (“kook,” as I’m sure you remember, was the attack word of choice used by critics of Barry Goldwater), Charen was way off base.

1. Dr. Paul’s commitment to principle is second to none, so to attack him, Charen twists the understanding of what a presidential pardon really is. A pardon is a constitutional check by the executive branch on the judiciary to protect against cruel or unusual punishment. When considering a pardon, a president examines extenuating circumstances to decide whether a punishment for a conviction under the law was unjust. Scooter Libby was convicted of a crime; that is not the issue here. Dr. Paul is not sympathetic to issuing him a pardon because he finds Libby an unsympathetic character. There is nothing inconsistent here. President Bush, who has issued the fewest pardons of any president since World War II, hasn’t pardoned Libby either, by the way.

2. If Charen paid much attention to the campaign, she would know that Dr. Paul never utters the word “isolationist” except to explain why he is not one. He believes in the foreign policy of the founders: peace, commerce, and open friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none. When he references Nixon and Eisenhower, he is clearly talking about past successful Republican campaign strategies, not what they did in office. Eisenhower campaigned to end the Korean War, Nixon to get us out of Vietnam. Dr. Paul argues that the GOP can only win in 2008 with a candidate who will bring hope troops form Iraq. Last I checked, many National Review readers cared a thing or two about Republicans winning elections.

3. Ron Paul is dead serious and very sober about what it will take to reform things like our oppressive tax system. Clearly, a Paul administration cannot end the IRS on January 29, 2009. Ending the income tax, a goal all real conservatives should share, would take major cooperation with the Congress. But, with honest communication and a lot of hard work, Dr. Paul knows that we can end the end the income tax over the course of just a few years. Over half of federal government revenue presently comes from sources other than the income tax. The United States could end the IRS and still fund the same level of big government we had less than ten years ago. There is nothing “unserious” about that.

4. Dr. Paul is a modest man with a sparkling record and unimpeachable personal integrity. I understand why you need to attack him by linking him to less-than-savory individuals (there is simply nothing else to use), but it is just not going to work. Some of your charges are silly. Dr. Paul’s “Texas Straight Talk Column,” for example, is public record and anyone, from the American Free Press to Cat Fancy, has the right to reprint it.

Yes, Ron appears on the Alex Jones radio program. But you know who else talks to Alex Jones? People like Judge Anthony Napolitano. Guess who hosts Alex Jones? FOX’s John Gibson and National Public Radio. Dr. Paul has said time and again that he does not believe 9/11 was an inside job. He does, however, think we should always question authority. When, by the way, were conservatives supposed to become trusting of big government?

Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity, and the protection of inalienable individual rights. He knows that liberty is the antidote for racism, anti-Semitism, and other small minded ideologies. Dr. Paul has focused all of his energy on winning the presidency so he can cut the size of government and protect the freedom of every American. Neither he nor his staff is going to waste time screening donors. If a handful of individuals with views anathema to Dr. Paul’s send in checks, then they have wasted their money. I cannot profess to understand the motivations of Don Black as neither Dr. Paul nor I know who he is, but a simple Google search shows that his $500 contribution has netted him at least 88 news hits, including Charen’s column. Perhaps a better explanation for his “contribution” is not support for Ron, but the attention he knew he would receive.

Mona, I can not expect everyone to support Dr. Paul, especially those who have sunk so much of their own credibility into supporting the Iraq war. In fact, Dr. Paul welcomes open and spirited discussions, and even legitimate criticism. But, I had to get a few things off my chest.

Jesse Benton
Communications Director
Ron Paul 2008 PCC
Arlington, Va.

[George W. Bush]

Ron Paul's spokesman responds to Mona Charen's loopy screed. For a young man, he writes remarkably well.

[George W. Bush]

	Ron's weekly message [5 minutes audio, every Monday] • Podcast • Weekly archive • Toll-free 888-322-1414 •
	Free Republic Ron Paul Ping List: Join/Leave

The Paul campaign responds to recent attacks.

[billbears]

Not only that but Editor of the National Review calls out Ms. Charen

For the most part, these allegations strike me as overblown and unfair. But, for argument's sake, let's say they're not. Let's even say that Paul has the passionate support of the Legion of Doom, that his campaign lunchroom looks like the "Star Wars" cantina, and that many of his top advisors actually have hooves. Well, I would still find him less scary than Mike Huckabee

Dang Jonah doesn't like Huckabee does he?

[West Coast Conservative]

Ron Paul is probably the biggest schmuck to ever run for President.

And his campaign’s excuses on why they won’t give back neo-Nazi money is underwhelming and laughable.

[rineaux]

Read this one. CK posted this earlier.

[George W. Bush]

Sorry, Cap’n. I didn’t notice yours. NRO didn’t give it a very searchable title, did they?

[padre35]

To be honest, I’ve never heard of Mona Cheron until her email appeared her the other day.

[Dog Gone]

Ron Paul is my congressman, and I’ll do what I can financially and activity-wise to make sure he doesn’t represent me in 2009.

He hasn’t said whether he will run for re-election to the House while running for President yet. Duncan Hunter has more cajones than him in that regard.

I assume he will. But maybe he’s just amassing a retirement fund from the suckers who think he has a shot at the GOP nomination.

[George W. Bush]

Mona Charen and Kate O'Beirne just aren't on their pace any more. They both used to be so great. Now, I'm disappointed when I see them on pundit shows. Seems to me they've been inside the Beltway too long, much like so many establishment politicians in both parties. Or maybe they're just trying to play nice with the libs. Either way, they disappoint me considering how much I once liked their writings and style.

Yeah, Jonah likes Tax Hike Mike almost as much as Club For Growth.

[George W. Bush]

He hasn’t said whether he will run for re-election to the House while running for President yet.

He's already filed and plans to run for both offices simultaneously. Being a Texas resident (if you actually are), I would think you would know that LBJ got a law passed to let him do this and it has stayed on the books ever since.

Ron Paul has indicated that if his campaign becomes hopeless, he expects to go home and run for the House full-time.

We've already carried him farther than he ever expected. He's willing to go forward as long as there's a chance. Expect him to be in the first three races (IA/NH/SC), probably the first five. If he has any chance of getting the nomination and our support is strong and growing, he may continue on. But if not, I expect he'll end the national campaign and focus on his House seat.

As for a 'retirement fund', that's just silly. It's against the law. There are various clever ways to use such funds as PAC money but Ron Paul is one of the last politicians who would ever do that. I expect he'll pretty much spend everything we give him on the national campaign. He knows we'll support him in his House race as well.

The new GOP sacrificial lamb is Chris Peden. Ron Paul's last electoral victim was the Dim, Shane Sklar.

Rep. Ron Paul does it his way (Sklar speaks)

[ml/nj]

The comment about the Branch Davidians notwithstanding, I'll go with Mona.

ML/NJ

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

The comment about the Branch Davidians notwithstanding, I'll go with Mona.

Even after she thinks pro-abortionist Rudy is conservative?

That's quite wrong. Social conservatives have trouble with Giuliani, but by no stretch of the imagination is he a Rockefeller (i.e. liberal) Republican. In fact, in many ways Giuliani is the most conservative of the top three candidates for the Republican nomination. He came by that conservatism in the toughest crucible.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MonaCharen/2007/02/09/is_giuliani_a_conservative

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

And his campaign’s excuses on why they won’t give back neo-Nazi money is underwhelming and laughable.

If you'd read the article, you'd discover that the campaign already stated that white supremacists were wasting their money on Paul.

Virtually all of Paul's donations are individual contributions. Does he have time to screen them all?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

Ron Paul is my congressman, and I’ll do what I can financially and activity-wise to make sure he doesn’t represent me in 2009.

Good luck. Peden is a nobody and Paul will have a sizeable warchest, in addition to community & national support lingering from his presidential run.

He hasn’t said whether he will run for re-election to the House while running for President yet. Duncan Hunter has more cajones than him in that regard.

If it's TX law that states he can run for President & simultaneously run for re-election, then I see nothing wrong.

I assume he will. But maybe he’s just amassing a retirement fund from the suckers who think he has a shot at the GOP nomination.

He has his retirement pension from serving in the military & frugal investments. You're talking about a man who refused to participate in the lucrative Congressional pension system & has refused PAC, corporate, and lobbyist money. Hint: People freely gave him the money, he didn't steal it from the taxpayer trough.

[ml/nj]

Even after she thinks pro-abortionist Rudy is conservative?

This article she wrote was about Ron Paul and so was the quoted response. Why do you find the need to change the subject? I didn't say I agreed with everything Mona Charen had ever written. In fact I think you could have inferred from the post you are responding to that I thought her comment about the Branch Davidians was silly, or worse. So I ask you again: Why did you feel a need to change the subject?

ML/NJ

[West Coast Conservative]

Virtually all of Paul's donations are individual contributions. Does he have time to screen them all?

No, of course not. But when a known and prominent neo-Nazi leader gives money to your campaign you should immediately give it back and publicly condemn him and everything he stands for.

Instead Paul gladly accepts his money. One must ask why? It's only $500 after all, right? I think it's because Paul can't afford to offend his base: neo-Nazis and Stormfronters.

[the tongue]

You Paul haters are unreal. Your inability to allow anyone to have a slightly different idea makes you candidates for Fuehrer of the Year, control freaks of the highest order.

[svcw]

No.
It is another example of people saying what RP has said or believes what they think he has said.
It is inconsistent to what he actually says.

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

But when a known and prominent neo-Nazi leader gives money to your campaign you should immediately give it back and publicly condemn him and everything he stands for.

No need to give it back. Use it to promote your agenda (in Paul's case), not their agenda. There's a reason why Black donated to Paul: Publicity. There's a reason why this story isn't everywhere in the MSM, just beaten to death by haters of Paul in the blogs and Internet: It's intellectually dishonest.

I think it's because Paul can't afford to offend his base: neo-Nazis and Stormfronters.

Where is Fred/Romney/Rudy/Huckabee getting their money from? Corporate trans-nationalists, globalists, La Raza open borderists. Maybe some individual white supremacists donated to them too, who knows? Like I said, all of Paul's money comes from individuals. Making a big stink out of $500 from the $13 million so far that Paul has raised this year, that's straight out of the liberal textbook, which is what FReepers usually resort only when Dr. Paul is the topic.

[Dog Gone]

I never suggested that he stole it.

Ron Paul has finally shown his face within his district, although it’s on national TV. He constituents finally know what he stands for, and I guarantee that they don’t agree.

I don’t know anything about Peden. Right now, I’m inclined to vote for him. Ron Paul embarrases me. I want him gone. He sure the hell won’t be President, and I don’t want him as my representative.