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.
“Oh, it’s definitely a bull$hit blog, no doubt about that.:”
Are the boston.com quotes of Fred phony too?
You just keep on trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill with your whining about 20 minutes worth of “work”.
It’s funny how all the Thompson “haters” try and rehash the same old BS that they try and smear him with time and time again.
You people did it to him in 94, and again in 96, and the same old BS has surfaced once again.
“It’s funny how all the Thompson “haters” try and rehash the same old BS that they try and smear him with time and time again.”
I don’t hate Thompson! Sheesh. I don’t like any of the candidates 100% and I don’t worship or make excuses for their weaknesses. I also defend them when they deserve it.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952442/posts?page=2#2
As I have said in previous posts - the only 3 candidates I could vote for with a good conscience are Hunter, Thompson, and Paul.
The only one I’ve sent $ to is Hunter but I think his campaign is for all intents and purposes over.
Libertarians have planted their feet firmly on the leftist side of the divide on the issues that count: military and social. With that degeneration of libertarianism, there can be no compromise. They are a small group in any event and easily replaced by various dissatisfied constituencies in the Democratic Party. For example, many ethnic minorities are pro-military and socially conservative. Toss the libertarians overboard, recruit the disaffected Democrats to the GOP and we can wean them from reliance on government and the minor economic issues.
If the libertarian left (in "conservative" drag) want to try and seize control of the GOP as the tail that would wag the dog, then let's get on with the fight, Crushing paleoPaulie is first on the agenda and then take out their tiny platoon of what amount to fifth columnist Congresscritters like Paul and Jones, and then we can fight it out over what issues matter most on the Right. We have lacked a disciplined conservative movement since the night that Ronaldus Maximus was elected and it shows. It is time that it was rebuilt and that we stop the several decades long "Let a thousand weeds bloom" phase of conservative malaise. This is a political movement or ought to be one again. Let us be fierce partisans and let us (metaphorically) eliminate the traitors and the deserters.
We need not treat the "paleo"eccentrics as though they merit respect or any consideration other than targeting.
Words, including "conservative" have meanings and meanings worthy of defense. Cowardice in foreign policy is NOT conservatism. Tolerance and promotion of mass murder of innocent infants (a la Goldwater) is NOT conservatism. Tolerance and promotion of "same sex" relations, twelvesomes, multiple arrangements of an interspecies variety, lusting for space aliens, and, ummm, "better living through illegal chemistry" as an unholy grail of the libertoonian movement are NOT conservatism.
If libertarians don't like that, they have their own party and a swimming success they have been in it or out of it and not without ample reason. You go right ahead and vote for Paul and identify yourself for what you are.
GITP: You are, perhaps, incurably confused. Burying one’s head in the sand is the ostrichlike, Neville Chamberlainite foreign and military policy of your hero, the paleopipsqueak. IF you could ever vote for Paul, why, oh why, do you suppose that ANY conservative could ever take you or anyone like you seriously?
Meant to ping you to #406 which was a response to yet another libertoonian windtunnel for paleoPaulie and the destruction of our nation.
Best thing of all: CRUSHING Ron Paul and his windtunnel sycophants. Bickering assumes wrongly that there are two sides to the issue. Fortunately caucus and primary voters are proving that paleoPaulie and his paleosidekicks are an utter irrelevancy in American public life, useful for target practice and little else.
Are you a Bears fan?
He admits to using a ghostwriter for some of them, so both are true, he didn't actually write all of them, but he still has to take responsibility for what was written in his name.
Which he has.
Other articles were not written by him at all and do not have his name attached to them.
Now, that being said, if his Democratic opponent couldn't convince the voters in a majority democratic district that this was a major issue, but the new PC police of the Republicans are?
Frankly, I don't fine the quotes in the Reason article attributed to him to be racist.
For example, In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
So?
We have a movie (White Men Can't Jump) made how about how black men can jump better then white men and the statement that 'black men are swift' is considered racist? and those are the kind of statements that are being attributed to him as being 'racist'.
Comrade.
Of course, those teams and players are in mere football. I am actually much more of a baseball fan generally and a Yankees fan particularly. I look forward to such young players as Joba (not Neville) Chamberlain, Phil Hughes, Ian Kennedy, Austin Romine, Chase Weems, Carmen Angelini, Robinson Cano, Jose Tabata, Austin (Action) Jackson, Mark Melancon, Ross Ohlendorf, Jose Montero and many other current minor league stars in the Yankee system establishing themselves in the Bronx and destroying the Red Sox. Minnesota can keep Johann Santana. I want our farm system to be left intact. Think of the Red Sox five years from now as far better than a functional equivalent of paleoPaulie but crushed and broken nonetheless.
My Yanks are not likely to win the World Series in 2008 and that bodes well in recent decades for GOP success in POTUS election years. I am afraid that by 2012, the Yankees should be ner automatic.
I like Paul, but I hate the Sox (and I REALLY fu%&ing hate the Patriots), and for some reason I found that pretty funny. Well done.
No, actually the movie is about a white man who makes money by taking advantage of the false stereotype that white men cannot play street basketball as well as black men.
The movie is in large part about a white man who can jump and thus about the bankruptcy of racial stereotypes.
Comrade.
Idiot.
Patterico's Pontifications
Jan. 11, 2008, 10:52PM
Readers here will not be surprised that I find Matt’s take on it to be much more rational, insightful, and appropriately skeptical than Radley Balko’s reaction, which was pretty much taken apart by Ace of Spades here.
Radley’s piece is not altogether nonsensical. Much of his piece rejects the bile in Paul’s newsletters and criticizes Paul for not taking a strong enough stance rejecting them. That’s fine, as far as it goes.
The parts of Balko’s piece that irritate me are the parts where he is credulously willing to impute good motivations to Paul right now, based on the fact that Radley likes Paul’s policies. No kidding. For example:
First, a few caveats. I think Paul’s prone to nutty conspiracy theories, but I don’t think he’s a racist, at least not today. Perhaps there was a time when he held views that I and many people reading this site would find repugnant. But I certainly don’t think that’s the case now. Paul’s temperament and demeanor in public does not suggest he’s the kind of person capable of writing the bile Kirchick quotes in his article. Paul’s position on the drug war alone—which he has acknowledged disproportionately affects minorities—would do more for blacks in America than any proposal any of the other candidates currently has on the table. Paul has also recently rescinded his support for the federal death penalty, also due to its disproportionate impact on blacks. Those two positions alone certainly don’t indicate a candidate who fears “animal” blacks from the urban jungle are coming to kill all the white people.
Look, just because Radley Balko thinks that the repeal of drug laws would help blacks doesn’t make it a) true or b) what Ron Paul thinks in his heart of hearts. I have seen plenty of violence committed against minorities by people on drugs — and I haven’t seen anyone make a convincing case yet that repealing drug laws would decrease usage. I believe the contrary to be true, and most opponents of the drug law acknowledge that increased usage is likely to be a side effect of decriminalization, at least at first. So, repealing drug laws would spring some minority drug dealers from prison — don’t worry, Radley, here in California, Arnold is going to spring them early anyway — but would probably end up getting more innocent minorities killed. Radley might be comfortable with that trade-off, but I’m not. (I’m not sure he recognizes that there would be a trade-off, frankly.)
But put all that aside. My question for Radley is simple: were you shocked by the content of these newsletters? Because you seem to be — and there are a lot of us who just weren’t. The fact that you seem a little taken aback suggests to me that your love of Paul’s policies blinded you to the reality of Paul’s unsavory associations and what it said about him.
For a good explanation of the difference between Balko and Ace, check out this exchange. Balko says:
Any time you’re a fringe candidate cobbling together support from those who feel disaffected and left behind by the two-party system, you’re going to end up bumping elbows with a few weirdos.
And Ace responds:
True enough, but when you’re cobbling such support from Stormfront, Alex Jones’ Prison Planet lunatics, Truthers, etc., perhaps you ought to step back and ask if this is the sort of coalition you’re comfortable associating yourselves with. I haven’t seen such a motley collection of mutants and malcontents since the Cantina sequence in Star Wars.
For a much more skeptical take, see Matt Welch’s piece today. Matt sets emotion aside and goes straight for the facts, as revealed by Nexis:
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.
Matt gathers together a lot of damning quotes that collectively show that Ron Paul knew about the problem over the years and refused to disassociate himself from it.
My message to libertarians is simple: now you know about the problem with Ron Paul. If you similarly refuse to disassociate yourselves from the problem, despite this knowledge, I will feel no pity for you if your movement gets tarred by the stain of this event.
Even if you think that decriminalizing drug laws would be the greatest thing for black people since the end of slavery (a proposition I find highly dubious), you should follow Matt’s lead and not Radley’s. Don’t defend this guy. Not now.
UPDATE: Christoph points to a newer Balko post that is more critical of Paul.
If you think that was well done, wait until you see that army of young Yankees. Best farm system in my life and I started rooting for the Yanks in 1951 when the Mick was a 19-year-old rookie. We gotta keep Yogi and Whitey alive to witness these kids and the dynasty that is coming.
“So the ONLY site thats actually “dedicated” to trashing Thompson is more than likely something set up by a paul supporter just like the sites that were purportedly set up to “support” other Republican candidates.”
Both Antiwar and lewrockwell used to have a banner listing the other as a sister site. Both are linked to the Von Mises Institute where lew rockwell is the president. Raimondo is a policy analyst at the Center for Libertarian Studies. CLS affiliated with the Von Mises Institute. The links between Antiwar, Von Mises, lew rockwell are many. They are all avid supporters of Ron Paul.
If we take Ron Paul at his word, that he had nothing to do with these newsleters, then he’s just confessed to mail fraud. This was a paid subscription news letter. If, as Ron says, he had nothing to do with the news letter published under his name, then he participated in fraud. Since the newsletters were sent by US Post, then that would be mail fraud.
“The links between Antiwar, Von Mises, lew rockwell are many. They are all avid supporters of Ron Paul.”
So what?
THere are plenty of idiot supporters of Thompson and Hunter on FR, but I don’t hold that against the candidates!
“If we take Ron Paul at his word, that he had nothing to do with these newsleters, then he’s just confessed to mail fraud. This was a paid subscription news letter. If, as Ron says, he had nothing to do with the news letter published under his name, then he participated in fraud. Since the newsletters were sent by US Post, then that would be mail fraud.”
You win the dumbest post of the day award.
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.