Posted on 12/21/2011 6:55:21 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Via Mediaite, the same bit jumped out at me as jumped out at Ace:
Borger: “These things are pretty incendiary.”
Paul: “That’s because of people like you.”
Really? Only liberal/media types should find the newsletters offensive? He can’t mean that because he keeps saying that he disavows the content. I think he means that the newsletters are water under bridge which everyone rightly should, and would, never mention again if not for the media repeatedly bringing them up. Which is interesting for a few reasons. One: Every other candidate’s dirty laundry has been aired and re-aired over the past few months and no one else has enjoyed an “asked and answered” defense. How many thousand times has Perry been pressed to apologize for his dumb debate remark about immigration hawks being heartless, for instance? Two: As Dave Weigel notes, Paul actually hasn’t answered all the questions asked about the newsletters. He won’t say who wrote them or whether he still associates with the author. All he knows is that none of this is fair game anymore, which goes even further than Obama did when he tried to dismiss an obnoxious association of his own.
Three: Until this week, when his odds of winning Iowa suddenly started to look real, Paul’s gotten an almost total pass from the media on this. Partly that’s because he used to look like a longshot who wasn’t worth bothering about and partly it’s because the media admires him as a Republican who hates other Republicans, especially when it comes to foreign policy. By the end here, in fact, Borger seems almost apologetic in having had to ask about it. Would any other conservative, save possibly Huntsman, have drawn that tone from a reporter in a line of questioning about racism? And four: To echo a point Ed made a few days ago, if Romney or Perry or Gingrich had these newsletters on their resume, they’d be dead on arrival. Even if primary voters believed their “didn’t write ‘em, never saw ‘em” explanation, they’d be perceived as unelectable against Obama and therefore un-nominatable. Paul, ironically, gets some leeway from people on this, I think, because he’s already perceived as unelectable and un-nominatable (except by his core supporters, of course). Why beat him up over an old disgrace when he’s about to have a moment in the sun in Iowa and then fade?
For what it’s worth, his answer here tracks perfectly with the reactions I typically see from Paul fans in blog comment threads whenever the newsletters come up. It’s never a matter of “yes, they’re disturbing and absolutely fair game, but we need to elect Paul anyway because we desperately need his fiscal discipline.” Rather, it’s always a case of “Meh, old news. This again?” Good luck in the general election, guys. Exit quotation from Philip Klein: “Ron Paul transparency: Bradley Manning is a hero for leaking classified info, but don’t dare ask who wrote my newsletters!”
Update: Ed e-mails to ask if I can recall another presidential candidate walking out of an interview with a mainstream news outlet. I’m sure it’s happened, but I honestly can’t think of an example. Anyone?
Update: A reader e-mails that it looks to him like the interview was already over when Paul started pulling his mic off and that Borger simply kept asking questions, i.e. that he didn’t actually walk out. Hard to tell, but duly noted. Either way, Paul’s displeasure is obvious.
He’s a flipping nazi.
Sounds to me like Ron Paul was buddies with Jared Taylor and Samuel Francis. Even though both of them had valid remarks and documentation in their writings, the MSM branded them racists and much of what they wrote is tainted with the brush of racism.
I don’t know all the details, but it seems Ron Paul made money off racial tirades in a newsletter with his name yet criticizes Newt about making money of Fannie and Freddie
But, but, but he will still legalize dope so he must be okay.
I think Paul is a loon but I cant blame him for walking away from this badgering.
The media labels all Republicans racist. Wait until Romney wins the nomination and they start grilling him about blacks and the Mormon church.
Yeah, and all those down in Texas who have voted for him over and over, are a bunch of racist, Nazis, anarchist and KKK members!!
Watch out!
I just finished reading 58 of Pauls newsletters. They are filled with hatred. It’s blacks. Ofcourse Israel. And boy he even spouts the MLK garbage like it is fact. And he was soooo proud of David Duke almost winning in LA. My head hurts form all the nastiness. Boy ole Skeletor sure earned his name. OMG
He attacks Reagan and even lists all the Repubs he hates.
What a miserable human being.
YES! We would have heard the usual suspects voicing "deep concern" with "new questions raised" about "troubling" statements, blah blah blah. But no: these people knew about these newsletters all along.
Ron Paul & Stormfront - now there’s a match for ya.
RE: I just finished reading 58 of Pauls newsletters.
He says that the views express in the newsletters do not reflect his own ( go figure ).
UH HUH, well they are fairly PERSONAL to NOT be written by HIM.
He never accepts responsibility for his actions.
It’s always one of his crazy followers ...doncha know/s
It’s Ron Pauls turn to get “Cained” now.
Stick a fork in him, he’s done.....
I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, but the I never saw robert “sheets” Byrd get cross examined by the corrupt MSM. They seemed okay with ‘old Sheets.
You bet, he was charging 50 bucks for a newsletter he didn’t even write. WOW what a fraud.
What a Pu**y !
Sauce for the goose, Mr. Paul.
I hate straw-man arguments so I’ll define why I think they’re pining for paul. The fed. That’s it and they’re right. The fed is killing this country with inflation. His other policies I disagree with. The world is complicated and isolationism will just get us killed.
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.