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.
“THere are plenty of idiot supporters of Thompson and Hunter on FR, but I don’t hold that against the candidates!”
I hold this against Ron Paul. The ‘Ron Paul for President’ Banner is still up at Stormfront.
“You win the dumbest post of the day award.”
Since you’re a Ron Paul defender, you have no standing to call anything said by any one, “dumb”.
Oh, heaven's to Betsy! That's not a suggestion that Affirmative Action is some kind of free pass is it? How awful!!!
He said during the debate, “you’re not helping me.” He doesn’t endorse them.
Paul isn’t a racist and he speaks out against racism. I’m not sure why they have the banner up. Just dumb I guess. Maybe they want to hurt him? I have no idea.
“Since you’re a Ron Paul defender, you have no standing to call anything said by any one, “dumb”.”
You’re batting 0-thousand today!
How is it mail fraud to license ones name?
Goes George Foreman personally make every grill?
Colonel Sanders doesn’t even own the restaraunts - it’s a franchise.
If it’s mail fraud, cite some case law or something. Otherwise you’re just spewing stupidity.
I guess in your opinion hating Paul makes one a genius?
You and Hillary! Geniuses, both. laugh.
“Perhaps, the ongoing destruction of paleos generally and paleoPaulie in particular here will bring out into the light those “paleos” who need to unconditionally surrender ideologically or be driven from the pretense of being part of the conservative movement.”
How about the open borders “neos” like Bush and Rudy? Bush is just like a pro-life Rudy, but not as well spoken.
“Words, including “conservative” have meanings and meanings worthy of defense. Cowardice in foreign policy is NOT conservatism.”
Open borders, such as supported by Rudy, McCain, Huckabee, and to a lesser extent Romney is conservative?
Is bluster conservative?
“Tolerance and promotion of mass murder of innocent infants (a la Goldwater) is NOT conservatism. “
That was later in his career. Of course, Paul is an anti-Abortion obstetrician.
“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.”
Paul thinks that marriage is a religious ceremony and that government should get out of the marriage business. How is this a federal issue?
“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.”
Some of the ‘mainstream’ republicans have the views you described. I don’t. Dr. Paul doesn’t.
I’m not sure what you’re going on about.
“I hold this against Ron Paul. The ‘Ron Paul for President’ Banner is still up at Stormfront.”
I’m a Jew. I think Stormfront are a bunch of douchebags. Who cares who they support? They are idiots.
however
Dr Paul is a staunch 2nd amendment defender. Bush signed CFR and now he’s working on destroying the 2nd amendment.
Government files amicus — on DC’s side!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952482/posts
Who is dangerous?
Think about it.
Remind me to buy stock in a popcorn company!
They assumed that “he wrote the columns” - they would be mistaken. It’s all cleared up now.
If Paul had said “I wrote the columns” it would be a different story.
You can “presume” that Ron Paul wrote the articles, but there’s no evidence to prove that.
“I don’t hate Thompson!”
Then why are you dismissing the obvious hackjob by that anti-Fred website?
“I don’t like any of the candidates 100% and I don’t worship or make excuses for their weaknesses.”
Then why all the cheer leading you do for paul and his supporters?
“I also defend them when they deserve it.”
The ONLY one you have defended is paul, and quite frankly that two faced lying hypocritical POS RINO doesn’t deserve to be defended.
“As I have said in previous posts - the only 3 candidates I could vote for with a good conscience are Hunter, Thompson, and Paul.”
Yet you constantly attack Thompson in this thread (and probably other threads too but you’re not worth the time to bother reading through all your pablum).
“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.”
Figures.
“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.”
Yep.
“So what?
THere are plenty of idiot supporters of Thompson and Hunter on FR, but I don’t hold that against the candidates!”
There you go with the excuses again.
“Then why are you dismissing the obvious hackjob by that anti-Fred website?”
There’s nothing on that website that Fred didn’t say himself in the boston.com article.
“Then why all the cheer leading you do for paul and his supporters?
“Then why all the cheer leading you do for paul and his supporters”
Settle down, sparky. So why did I ping you to another thread where I was accused of cheerleading FOR Thompson?
“The ONLY one you have defended is paul, and quite frankly that two faced lying hypocritical POS RINO doesn’t deserve to be defended.”
He supports more of the GOP platform than most other candidates. If he’s a RINO it’s only because the GOP has moved left.
“Yet you constantly attack Thompson in this thread (and probably other threads too but you’re not worth the time to bother reading through all your pablum).”
See, you yourself don’t know that I have only defended Paul, because you haven’t looked at my other posts.
I guess that makes you a two-faced hypocrite?
Pot, meet kettle.
“How is it mail fraud to license ones name?”
Produce the license agreement. The newsletter was advertised as the “Ron Paul Newletter”. Subscribers expected to get Ron Paul articles. If, as Ron Paul has stated others wrote the articles, then the newsletter was produced and marketed fraudulently. If the US mail was used to deliver the newsletter that is mail fraud.
“Colonel Sanders doesn’t even own the restaraunts - it’s a franchise.”
But one does expect to get the Colonel’s ‘thirteen secret herbs and spices’ cooked according to the Colonel’s recipe. If someone puts up the Colonel’s sign and does not deliver the advertised product, it is fraud. You go to jail for that.
“I’m a Jew. I think Stormfront are a bunch of douchebags. Who cares who they support? They are idiots.”
It’s not so much a matter of who Stormfront supports. What matters is that the Ron Paul campaign has not taken action to get the banner taken down. Also, the Ron Paul campaign has refused to return campaign contributions from known neo-nazis even after those contributions have been made known to the campaign. The campaign has given several outrageous excuses none of which hold water.
Quite frankly, any competent campaign would have acted immediately rather than have their campaign associated with such elements.
“Produce the license agreement. The newsletter was advertised as the “Ron Paul Newletter”. Subscribers expected to get Ron Paul articles. If, as Ron Paul has stated others wrote the articles, then the newsletter was produced and marketed fraudulently.”
Some had no byline, some had other peoples. The articles he wrote had his.
How am I supposed to produce some kind of license agreement?
I don’t know any of these people personally.
Anyway, I think you should take this to the Postmaster General and have them investigate it. Get back to me when they let you know the results.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” Ron Paul.
“published under my name that I did not edit” That is fraud.
“Anyway, I think you should take this to the Postmaster General and have them investigate it. Get back to me when they let you know the results.” GITP
The statue has surely run. The point is not a conviction but just another demonstration of Ron Paul’s duplicity.
“There’s nothing on that website that Fred didn’t say himself in the boston.com article.”
Another excuse.
“Settle down, sparky. So why did I ping you to another thread where I was accused of cheerleading FOR Thompson?”
I doubt that.
“He supports more of the GOP platform than most other candidates. If he’s a RINO it’s only because the GOP has moved left.”
Another excuse.
“See, you yourself don’t know that I have only defended Paul, because you haven’t looked at my other posts.”
I have looked at what you have spewed on here, hence the determination that you’re not worth the effort.
“I guess that makes you a two-faced hypocrite?”
I’d have to be a ron paul supporter to be one.
“Pot, meet kettle.”
Only if you’re looking at yourself in the mirror.
“Another excuse.”
Excuse for what?
What a silly comment.
Is this what passes for an argument, in your mind?
Like I said - ignore everything else and focus on what Campaign FRed Reform said about his representing Aristide for free on boston.com.
Mr: “Settle down, sparky. So why did I ping you to another thread where I was accused of cheerleading FOR Thompson?”
You: “I doubt that.”
You RESPONDED to the post, lol, but with a red herring response.
Here’ is where I pinged you to my response to being accused of cheerleading for fred.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1952454/posts?page=9#9
“I have looked at what you have spewed on here, hence the determination that you’re not worth the effort.”
Unlikely, or I wouldn’t have had to ping you to that post, again. ;)
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.