Posted on 01/09/2008 8:54:49 AM PST by connell
Leave. Just go.
Mr. Paul, you are NOT a Republican. You may have views that intersect with some aspects of the Republican platform. That does NOT make you a Republican.
The Republican Party is a big tent movement. We don't apply nearly the same strictness when it comes to tests of ideological purity as the Democrats do, but we still have some standards. And you, sir, do not even come close to meeting them.
People who blame America for the acts of war made against it are not Republicans.
People who think that we blew up our own buildings on 9/11...or who hint that we might have...or who attract the support of people with such beliefs...are not Republicans.
People who may be receiving secret funding from George Soros...and who certainly receive energy and succor from radical leftists...are not Republicans.
People who have become the darling of, and the recipient of support from, America's neo-Nazis and white supremacists---and who refuse to openly repudiate that support---are not Republicans.
And people who publish racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-American newsletters...are not Republicans.
Oh, and your protestations of innocence regarding this racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American newsletter to which you attached your name are absurd. As Jonah Goldberg said yesterday on the Michael Medved show, if...
(Excerpt) Read more at modernconservative.com ...
;->
If I do, it means there is no trusting anything he says. Who knows who actually wrote it.
Speaking of which, the Paul camp is having an interesting discourse on the ghost writer issue.
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=83196&page=4
You mean to say that the racism and anti-semetism of RP’s supporters is not that important that they need not be addressed by the major candidates? Whatever, but tell that to the libs and Dems when they allege that conservatives are racists and anti-semites. Since it seems to be an imperative that your candidate not address this issue now you could at least craft a response for the general election. The major candidates could do the party a favor by booting them now, why wait?
And written in the first person, no less.
Sorry, I missed your intent. A one-time occurrence, fully retracted, might be excusable but multiple occurrences over a decade-long span don't pass the smell test.
Not really. Reagan, Bush I and Atwater were vocal in their denunciation. You can't "actually throw someone out" of the party, Duke or Paul, but they ran a second Republican candidate against him. The runoff Duke won was Rep vs Rep. GWB campaigned for John Treen, the other Republican. Might have been his political campaign experience.
Well, “destruction” where I come from (Texas) means “dismantling”. Does he intend to abolish the armed forces?
Because if not, you perhaps might want to modify your word choice.
The first I saw of this was in your post referring to that offline post (which I then went and read for myself). I questioned it because nowhere in Paul's denial did he mention any firing, and that was the logical place to look for such a statement. If he had mentioned it, it would have been monumental because that would have implied control.
But neither does Paul's denouncement provide evidence of lack of control. It implies it, but provides no proof. It's merely a statement. Without real evidence, the Paul campaign is in a tough spot with this.
I wasn't going to reveal this till the article came out, but it's relevant.
In a few days Drudge will be revealing that Ron Paul is, in fact, a robot.
Extraordinarily well programed, but that's understandable given his support on the web. He's got the best of the best.
Not yet clear, who has the remote? /Alex Jones
You make a good point though, who has been writing all the Ron Paul stuff on the web?
I was thinking of an empty headed model, but close enough.
SJackson might have an idea. He still occasionally hangs out at forums with the Rudyites that Jim booted.
I believe that goes back to the Senate campaign disclosure of one article, LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM, in the mid 1990s. His reason for not releasing the newsletters was that it was a single occurance, now we know it wasn't. His reason for not releasing the name of the author was that he didn't work for him any longer, not sure if he actually said fired.
I can support good politicians and reject Ron Paul and other Sorosites both at one and same time.
I’m not a Paulista first of all, secondly please tell me which Repulican candidate you support that isn’t a socialist, nanny statist, anti-2A, government run healthcare supporter, amnesty proponant or willing to take your money and give it to illegals and thier kids?
Well, I guess we see what happened with the ‘single occurance’ comment they made then.
Published on 08/01/08 by wirkman The New Republic once again brought up Ron Paul’s strange career as figurehead for a series of newsletters, complete with racially insensitive statements and provocative rhetoric. As a writer and editor working in the libertarian movement at the time of these “Ron Paul” newsletters, I have vague recollection of “common knowledge”: it was known who wrote these newsletters, and why. It was money for Ron. It was money for the writers. And it was a way of keeping Ron’s name in the minds of right wingers with money . . . future donors. It was designed to be entertaining writing. Provocative. It flirted with racism, like Mencken’s did, and Mencken was indeed the model of the style. But these “Ron Paul” writings went further than Mencken’s usually did (at least for publication) along the lines of annoying the racially sensitive; and they sometimes did veer into outright racism. I was embarrassed by the implied racial hatred, rather disgusted by the general level of hate regardlesss of race. I was also a bit shocked by the writing because the style was so obviously not Ron’s, and so obviously the product of the actual writers, with whom I had tangential relations — is my editor’s* writer my writer? And yet some bits of this writing, held up for inspection by TNR — for example, the bit about Salman Rushdie — seem interesting and worth discussing, not worth quickly relegating to the trash file. The author of the Rushdie/Zundel “comparison” was primarilly attacking the hypocrisy of the mainstream “liberals” regarding free speech. To characterize this as a simple comparison (and thus to suggest a “moral equation”) is to miss a very big point. I figure that if I read more of this stuff, I’d find more missed points. The provocation is obvious. But there’s intellectual content behind the provocation, and the content is worth considering without the bad connotations elicited by the rhetoric. Most of us “old-time” libertarians have known about this sad period of Ron Paul’s career from the get-go. We know that it was a lapse on his part. But we who opposed it (and not all of us did) put much of the blame on the writers involved, not on Paul, who was, after all, juggling family, medicine, politics, and continued study of actual economics. That Paul didn’t realize what he was doing to his own moral stance is amazing. His style is one of earnest moralizing. That fits his character. The ugliness of this career move speaks a sad story. It also indicates the most thing about Ron Paul as presidential timber: he let himself be so easily used and influenced. But then, so has nearly every president in American history, our current president most of all. Oh, so who wrote Ron Paul’s newsletter? I have only hearsay and memory to go on. But really, most of us in the libertarian “industry” just “knew” who. I have four names in mind, I think all contributed at one point or another. But maybe it was only a subset of those names, maybe it was just one or two. One of the names is pretty damn obvious. And one of the names is not obvious at all; the style was abandoned for better things, later on. Like Rodney King, one might prefer we all just get along, move along, and forget about this sorry story. But it is worth exploring. Racism is still a live issue in America. And, apparently, in libertarianism.
This seems to be from an insider. The implication is Ron Paul was not involved in these writings, but the insider questions Ron Paul's judgment in all this.
I would have to agree. How can one go for over a decade without either not knowing, or ignoring published newsletters that implicate him in a racial or anti-zionist agenda? One answer is the person is not in control of his environment. The other is that he's amenable to what's written.
In either case, Ron Paul is NOT presidential timber.
That about sums it up. Most of them also have terrible grammar which adds a comedic angle to all of this.
good... he wasn’t one of us in the first place.
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.