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.
hey, I admited my guy lied and condemn him but applaud his apology. You won’t admit the same for your guy or call for him to apologize. Can you say double standard?
And not a single Fred supporter will admit he lied.
Wrong. They were not just published in one year but over something like 17 years.
He didn't lie, see that little word and?
This is a Ron Paul thread.
Finally.
So, continuing on the topic of the thread, why hasn't he told the public who wrote them so his story can be corroborated?
Clearly he can no longer be taken at his word. What is his proof that the 2001 story is the real story?
menhrling, I'm just pinging you for your analysis of my new tagline.
She has more brass than either of us. If Janeway’s candidate had lied she’d condemn him. She plays no favorites. What is your execuse for refusing to condemn Fred’s lie? I have done so for Paul. What about you?
“That is more honesty than the candidate himself showed, and still more honesty than you yourself are willing to show.”
Not true - 2 posts before yours.
Are you even reading the thread or just posting the same stupid question over and over?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1952012/posts?page=130#130
But of course, I first addressed it in
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952012/posts?page=16#16
“Actually he set the record straight in 2001.That’s when the Texas Monthly article came out.”
You know, while I was correcting wideawake’s lie.
“Take it to Fred thread.
This is a Ron Paul thread.”
Your lying about Fred’s record on Aristide made that a subject.
Now YOU want to change the topic!
After your dozen or so lies.
Ho hum.
I don't have a guy.
I still haven't decided who I am voting for on February 5th, but I have eliminated Paul and Giuliani from the running.
It is a thread about a politician lying. Here’s where we stand: you condemn the lie of the politiican you don’t like (even though he apologized) but refuse to condemn the lie of the candidate you do like (though he hasn’t apologized).
I hear ya on that. But hear me out. There is an untapped market of young voters who are looking for a candidate who is trendy amongst that demographic. They can either go with someone like Kucinich or Obama and be indoctrinated with socialist domestic positions, or they can go with Paul and hear for probably the first time in their lives things like logical pro-life arguments, the case for small government, and why the 2nd Amendment is just as important as any other one. Having Paul around is a net plus.
“Finally.”
No, another lie on your part.
In post #16 I said materially the same thing.
And its from Iranian Press today.
“Presidential hopeful Ron Paul believes the US claim that its warships were harassed by Iranian boats is just an excuse to bomb Iran.
“People are looking around for an excuse to bomb Iran. . . . We don’t need another war,” Paul, a fierce critic of the US foreign policy said.
The 10-term congressman was speaking at a Fox News debate Thursday night attended by the leading Republican presidential candidates in which he had brought under sharp criticism by his rivals, including former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney.
Romney accused Paul of reading “press releases” from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, while US Republican presidential candidate John McCain said: “I’m not interested in trading with al-Qaeda. All they want to trade is burqas. I don’t want to travel with them. They like one-way tickets.”
...Iran said the incident, ‘a routine’ measure conducted by Iranian boats to identify foreign ships navigating near its territorial waters, has been used by Washington to garner supports for the US President George W. Bush on the heels of his Middle East visit.”
(Excerpt) Read more at presstv.ir ...
Now that you have specified when paul was lying, can you tell me why he hasn't revealed the real author of those newsletters, so we can confirm the truth of his 2001 story?
It's unfortunate that the question had to asked seven times in the same thread before you finally answered.
Oh well. Even a Ron Paul supporter can learn -- eventually.
“He didn’t lie, see that little word and?”
I stand corrected on that point.
All the other whoppers he told stand.
Just call me Mr Magnanimous.
This ain’t about Fred, you transparent fraud.
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.