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.
Let me ask the same question of you since I have, as you kindly admit, condemned Paul’s lie. Will, you on record now, and hold Fred to the same standard or haven’t you been deprogrammed yet? If not, you are just as bad, or worse, than the most reflexive of the Paulbots.
That gun confiscation was a hell of an accomplishment for Rudy. What a dreamboat.
“That gun confiscation was a hell of an accomplishment for Rudy. What a dreamboat.”
Rudy “Sanctuary City” Giuliani - and that was AFTER the 1993 WTC bombing.
He’s sooooo dreamy!
I WISH Rudy was just a dream!
No, Fred said he was against the embargo and NOT for the restoration of Aristide. Some of his supporters later backtracked when shown this was a lie. Paul won’t the name the editor I suspect out of a misplaced belief (but admirable) that he screwed up by letting it be published under his name and should take the bullet himself.
Its sad as a part of me really wants to believe.
He just has way top many weird things not to mention followers.
“No, Fred said he was against the embargo and NOT for the restoration of Aristide. Some of his supporters later backtracked when shown this was a lie. Paul won’t the name the editor I suspect out of a misplaced belief (but admirable) that he screwed up by letting it be published under his name and should take the bullet himself”
Paul said in 2001 that he took full moral responsibility for it - as he did a few weeks ago.
Hey, all because you're all about Jonathan Archer is no reason to jump down my throat, OK? At least my guy got a full 7 seasons.
“Hey, all because you’re all about Jonathan Archer is no reason to jump down my throat, OK? At least my guy got a full 7 seasons.”
Kirk gets better hotel rates!
;)
Full moral responsibility for what?
Publishing a newsletter filled with racist content, lying about it, or refusing to take responsibility for it for over a decade?
This is a Ron Paul thread.
*****************
That's the point, isn't it? Paul's fans can't defend his history.
Lurking, it’s not even worth arguing with them anymore. Every time you make a point, they’ll go, “Ooooohh, shiny!”
“Ron Paul HAS claimed responsiblity and accepted blame.”
Him and his zoo keeper snyder have been out there denying that paul even wrote the damn newsletters.
Even Erik Dondero, who hates Paul’s guts, doesn’t think Paul wrote the articles.
“McCain will fully apologize for callling the Vietnamese gooks “
I don’t think that is needed.
Supporting the restoration of Aristide at the time of the 1991 coup and supporting the restoration of Aristide in 1994 are two different things.
And the question of whether the embargo was a good idea or not is an open one.
Paul won’t the name the editor I suspect out of a misplaced belief (but admirable) that he screwed up by letting it be published under his name and should take the bullet himself.
That won't wash. He isn't taking the bullet himself, he is out there saying that it was the mystery editor and not himself who is responsible for what was published.
Why would he defend someone who betrayed him by making him out to be a racist and an anti-Semite?
Simply not true. It does note that Paul foolishly defended the comments in 1996 but that has been known since 2001 when he volunteered the information himself to Texas Monthly.
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.