Posted on 01/11/2008 6:59:44 AM PST by jdm
Reason Magazine has long associated themselves with the Ron Paul campaign, if not officially endorsing him. Their Hit & Run blog has served as the heart of rational Paul apologetics, and in their skilled hands, that has proven essential to his campaign. Now, as the magazine has Paul on its cover, its new editor has the unpleasant task of looking a little more closely at the candidate, and Matt Welch finds it an unpleasant journey.
Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago. ...
So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.
Indeed. Rather than claiming he had never read these newsletters, as Paul absurdly did on CNN last night, Paul claimed that he himself wrote the newsletters. Matt Welch find this in the contemporaneous Dallas Morning News report on the newsletters during Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign (May 22, 1996, emphasis mine):
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. [...]
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
Matt has more examples of Paul's non-denials in 1996. Twelve years later, Paul wants people to believe that not only did he not write any of his newsletters, he never read them either. His role in the single most effective piece of outreach of his organization, he explained to Wolf Blitzer last night, was as a publisher -- one who didn't bother to read his own publication. These 1996 quotes put lie to his CNN interview answers.
Not only does this show dishonesty, but it indicates that Paul had a lot more involvement in the publication of the despicable statements found in his own newsletter than Paul or his less-rational apologists want to admit. The supremacists and conspiracy theorists surrounding his campaign apparently got attracted by more than just Paul's views on the Constitution; they read the newsletters and determined that Paul was one of them. His refusal to recant in 1996 and his explanation that he can't recall ever reading the newsletters today signal to them that he still wants their support.
People wonder why this matters, given Paul's fringe appeal. It matters because we can't allow this kind of hatred to get legitimized in mainstream politics again. This kind of rhetoric used to be mainstream, and not just in the South, either. Republicans cannot allow the party to get tainted by the stench of racism and conspiracy mongering. If enough of us don't step up and denounce it, strongly and repeatedly, we will not be able to avoid it.
Matt Welch and the people at Reason have reached that same conclusion in regards to libertarianism and their magazine. Good for them, even if it came a little late.
bump!
Go away troll.
You asked the same question 7 times already and I answered it.
Instead of responding, you keep asking the same question.
Do you still beat your wife, yes or no?
Neither is not an answer.
Of course that’s a silly assumption - there’s no right answer. It’s a logical fallacy.
Yet - That’s the kind of logic you are employing.
No you haven't.
There is essentially one question, one that you have dodged the entire thread:
Was Paul lying in 1996 or in 2001?
He made one statement about the newsletters in '96, and another completely contradictory statement about them in '01.
Only one of the statements can be accurate, which means that the other is a lie.
So again: Which one was the lie?
Yes, Paul lied but so did Fred about Aristide. Paul has apolgoized for his lie but Fred hasn’t. Please note that Paul apologized in 2001 when he didn’t have to. If want to destroy Paul, fine, but your moral obligation is clear. You have to do the same or worse to Fred.
So we have one Ron Paul supporter who answers that Ron Paul was lying in 1996.
True, but Chris Peden is running in the primary against Paul, and should Paul win reelection, the GOP leadership could in fact deny Paul the right to caucus with them, in effect ostracizing him. If you pull his ability to use RNC resources for fundraising, you’ve put a helluva kink in his money stream, internet or not.
LOL, now that is funny.
You’re really a fair guy. You quote out of context but never admit what I said about Fred’s lies or address the double standard. This is apparently a game for you not a give and take discussion.
“Only one of the statements can be accurate, which means that the other is a lie.”
1996 was the ‘lie’ which he explained and repudiated in 2001.
When will you live up to your documented lies in this thread, such as those about
- the timetable of Thompson’s support for Aristide
- the nature of Paul’s military service
- how or why Fred was fooled by Aristide
- your claims about what I’ve said or not said in this thread, which I rebutted several times, backed up by links to the posts?
I know. I'm just busting your chops. There aren't many Rudy people I can gloat to around here these days. Nothing personal.
That is more honesty than the candidate himself showed, and still more honesty than you yourself are willing to show.
They could. I doubt he'll be using RNC resources, but he's got plenty of his own. Besides, a third party question makes the question moot. Hopefully we won't be looking at a one vote House split.
Picard is a lot more awesome than Kirk.
Captain Kirk was able to answer the question, GITP.
He says Paul was lying in '96.
Which leads to the next issue about the authorship of Paul's newsletters.
Captain Kirk says that Paul was foolish not to out the real author of thiose newsletters.
Yet to this day, 12 years later with his credibility on the line, he has not given the names of the authors.
And that issue dovetails with the fact that much of the newsletter was written from a first person perspective using Paul's personal details.
Why was Paul taking money from people on the understanding that they were reading his personal thoughts and reflections on the news of the day, when they were actually reading someone else's?
Why was Paul running this scam on his own fans?
Wideawake won’t answer you. When Fred lies about Aristide (and still continues to lie), it is okay with him. All for the cause, you know. I condemn Paul’s earlier lie but forgive him because the apologize. Wideawake neither acknowledges Fred’s lies.
Trade is an aspect of that. Supporting and lobbying for US trade policy regarding whom we trade with isn’t a blind support directly for a specific representative.
Maybe I need to dumb it for Captian Kirk. Just because you believe in the right to transport down to a planet doesn’t mean your supporting that right also defines you support Scotty.
Your timeline od the Texas Monthly article - another lie.
You said in #9
“. In Texas Monthly and earlier this week he denied writing them and said anyone who thinks them is small minded.”
It was in 2001.
Paul told one white lie in 1996 - I almost need 3 hands to count the whoppers you’ve told on this thread alone. :)
DING! DING! DING!
We have finally gotten an answer to the very simple question.
It's now a total of two Ron Paul supporters who admit that Ron Paul lied.
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.