First of all, don't diss Listener sex 'till you've tried it. Second of all, Picard also hit thiss...
Discussion over.
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.
Saying he set the record straight in'01 is not an acknowledgement of the fact that he made the record crooked in the first place in '96.
Sp who was he protecting with his '96 lie? Who wrote those articles?
You’re triumph is hollow. We’ve only asked you a thousand times about Fred’s lies (entirely relavant to assessing the lies of another poliitician, Paul).
“I applaud you for finally reversing your silly entrenced position and eventually admitting that Ron Paul lied in 1996.
It’s unfortunate that the question had to asked seven times in the same thread before you finally answered.”
No, I said the same thing in post #16, before you asked the question.
No, it is about whether we should hold accountable and condemn a politician who lies. I think we should. How about you?
I have made no statements on this thread about Fred and/or Aristide. I defy you to show otherwise.
One again, a Ron Paul supporter is lying or deflecting instead of addressing the issue at hand. I take back what I said about Ron Paul supporters eventually learning.
“Saying he set the record straight in’01 is not an acknowledgement of the fact that he made the record crooked in the first place in ‘96.”
Sure it is.
Set the record straight. Npw you’re picking on phrasing.
“Sp who was he protecting with his ‘96 lie? Who wrote those articles?”
I have no idea. If you find out, let me know.
I suggest you read a little more about thompson/aristide first though. It’s real interesting.
After all, Paul has no chance to win, but Thompson does.
“I have made no statements on this thread about Fred and/or Aristide. I defy you to show otherwise.”
That was supposed to be to wideawake.
Sorry the thread is fast and furious :)
See - I correct my misstatements. When will you and wideawake?
First of all, don't diss Listener sex 'till you've tried it. Second of all, Picard also hit thiss...
Discussion over.
“No, it is about whether we should hold accountable and condemn a politician who lies. I think we should. How about you?”
There ya go, changing the topic again! ;)
*guffaw*
This is a Ron Paul thread.
Take it to a Fred thread.
You’re too late to this thread to talk about Paul, Ed. We’re now arguing which Star Trek series had the hottest chicks. Try to keep up.
Point me to one of my misstatements please.
?
Did Thompson at first deny that he supported Aristide against the Cedras coup, and then later admit it?
I thought he acknowledged it from the get-go.
In any case, to get back on topic, why can't Paul's campaign just give the name/names of the real authors of the newsletters?
Then there would be outside confirmation of his story and it would no longer be a question of his personal ideology, but only of his executive competence.
Just ask Ensign (former Lieutenant) Tom Paris.
You said "boob".
He does? Even Paul outpolled him in NH and IA.
RCP has him running 5th in MI and 4th/5th in SC.
Looks like he's toast.
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.