Among Ron Paul’s selling points is the idea that he is more reliable and consistent in his beliefs than the other candidates. His supporters frequently cite his consistency, and use it to contrast him with the other candidates whose positions have changed on one or more issues. But is Ron Paul’s consistency real, or is it myth?
If Ron Paul is so consistent, then why does he say one thing to one audience and something else to another? Take these interviews about 9-11. On John Gibson’s mainstream radio show, Ron Paul clearly disavows 9-11 Truther theories. He doesn’t disassociate from Truthers or from Truther-in-Chief Alex Jones, but does reject Truther theories. But when he talks to Truthers from WeAreChange or Students for 9-11 Truth, he tells a very different story. He tells the student group that he’s interested in working with Dennis Kucinich to open up another investigation of 9-11, and tells WeAreChange that he won’t say what he really thinks about 9-11 because he can’t handle the controversy. If he isn’t a Truther, then what’s the controversy? It doesn’t seem likely that the controversy he can’t handle is dealing with disappointed 9-11 Truthers. If he cannot handle such a fringe controversy, he is incapable of performing as president. As for another 9-11 investigation, I was no fan of the official 9-11 commission or its report. Jamie Gorelick and others seem to have been placed on and around that commission for the express purpose of papering over their own failures leading up to the attack. But it’s fair to say that given their own records, two fringe back-benchers are unlikely to improve on the commission’s work.
Seeing how Paul handles the different audience makes a couple of things clear. One, he does understand who Truthers are and where they can be found. And two, he is pandering to one of the two audiences. He is either pandering to the Truthers while not being one himself, or he is pandering to the mainstream while hiding his Truther beliefs.
We see the same behavior play out regarding the newsletters. He wrote them or allowed them to be published under his name and actively promoted them while they were being published, but now disavows their contents and claims not to have even read most of them. He clearly understands that they pose a problem for him now. But one of two things must be true: They either reflect his views, or they don’t. If they do, he is pandering now by disavowing them. If they don’t, then he took his subscribers for a ride in selling them a product published in his name that did not reflect his views at the time. There is a third possibility, that they reflected his views then, but don’t now. He has not made that argument, though, so it’s not in play.
Again, his behavior leaves no middle ground here. Ron Paul is pandering to someone, and is not the consistent figure he presents himself as and that his supporters believe him to be. Ron Paul is taking someone for a ride concerning what he really thinks. The questions are, who and when?






Bryan, wouldnt you say that all of our primary candidates and Obama pander for all they are worth?
Would it be so terrible to actually drill down and find out more about 9/11. You say yourself that the last commission was “papered over”.
I am not a Paul supporter, I just want the truth. And when I see the MSM conservatives do all they can to discredit Paul when his economic ideas sound pretty good to me. Of course, I am a small businessman who has seen 90% of his business disappear in front of me.
If you had lost 90% of your readers, all of your income and had to borrow from Peter to pay Paul to keep your company open because there are no jobs to be gotten for a 59 year old baby boomer, you might just be a little more intellectually curious. If I had my choice, I’d want to see Paul Ryan but he’s not running. I will vote for any Republican before Obama but that is not the subject here. the subject is why are you and PJM so adamant to take out a guy who has been pretty disciplined on message for years?
Getting rid of the Fed sounds pretty good to me since they couldn’t explain to Allen Grayson, whom I abhor, where 9 Trillion Dollars of off the books loans went!
Getting out of these constant wars sounds pretty good to me after the War in Libya that our neocons and Obama all thought was such a great idea. and now Syria, Iran, Yemen and who knows what else.
Getting rid of a Congress who is willing to vote for a bill that allows American citizens to be classified as terrorists with no rights and using SOPA to control the Internet just doesn’t sound all that good to me.
With all of the top down authoritarian bills being passed and you want to jump on one guy pretty much everyday, it makes me look a little harder at why that is. I don’t agree with any of them all of the time but I am tired of seeing our female citizens groped by a under trained Federal agency, I am tired of seeing all of our taxes going for things that make no sense, tired of seeing oil prices that should be at least a dollar a gallon lower but are propped up so we can use our food, and waste money on solar and wind.
Bryan, wouldnt you say that all of our primary candidates and Obama pander for all they are worth?
No. Obama did and does, as do many but not all politicians. Paul promotes his consistency as making him different and better than other politicians, but I’ve shown that consistency to be about as authentic as a unicorn. As for PJM, we don’t have a policy of supporting or opposing any particular candidate, and you’ll find that several candidates have support among our writers, but most of us do seem to agree that Ron Paul’s foreign policy does not reflect ours and that he is no friend of Israel at all. Add in his stupidity on 9-11 — that’s what Trutherism is, stupidity. Those are all deal breakers.
Bryan, thanks for the response. I have a lot of respect for commentators and reporters who will get out here with “We, the Great Unwashed”!
Without getting caught in the weeds, I would love to see as much skepticism of Obama and the Democrats when it comes to SPECIFIC weaknesses in their policies, their prevarications and obfuscations and their past. 9/11 has been used b y both parties as the reason for our Middle East 10 year war. Does the lack of honesty by this administration and the past one not make you pause. Was Libya a good idea? Do the non stop war drums against Syria, Iran and Pakistan not require your attention?
Half of my customers in the construction industry are out of work or so under employed to be behind in their house notes or about to go bankrupt. We Americans in Flyover Country have a huge disconnect with the liberal, elite bastions of New York and Washington. We have some of our smartest kids going into finance in order to work with Hedge Funds and the banks. The Dervative scam by banks across the world is the real story. No product is made, no service rendered. They take Trillions with a “T” and basically bet with other peoples money while expanding it a hundred times over. There will be a winner and a loser. Who will be able to afford Hundreds of Trillions of losses? After GM, MF Global and AIG, we know it won’t be the banks but the people of America by the Fed and IMF printing more of our money.
I am sorry for going on and on, but why is it you think Ron Paul is the problem. You, Radosh and Simon have rendered him impotent, when do we take on the real thugs, thieves and Crony Capitalist Criminals?
Bryan, you seem like a good guy. Maybe you see yourself as a Patriot…I hope so. Are the primary candidates of the Republican Party the people that should be torn down or the people that are robbing our country and our world of it’s wealth?
I’ve written in several posts that Libya was a misadventure. I don’t support intervening in Syria. But Iran and Pakistan are different animals. You’d do well to look through my archives here to see just how skeptical of the current administration I really am. As for the Bush administration, it was dealing with an attack on our own soil and Saddam Hussein’s decade of trying to get around the feckless UN. Paul and his supporters take too simplistic an approach to that history, fail to consider the context, and Paul overtly blames America for being attacked. That’s unacceptable.
As I said on another thread:
Do you get a tingle up your leg when you consider that you’re supporting a candidate with many of the same foreign policy views as Barack Obama?
The whole Paul-is-a-truther theory is based on some pretty thin evidence.
“wants to open investigation”
“says he can’t handle controversy”
Did I miss anything?
Why is an official investigation needed?
Look at it this way. At the helm of Fedzilla right now is a man who got elected painting Boooooooosh as the next thing to Satan incarnate. He’s held that power for close to 3 years so far.
Don’t you think, after all that time, that if a single solitary shred of evidence had appeared to show that Booooooooosh was behind 9/11, that they wouldn’t have trotted it out post haste? Doing so would have a number of beneficial (to an Obamabot) effects. It would distract from the many mistakes Obama has made, it would allow them to get closer to the Mideast dictators they so obviously favor, it would embarrass the GOP, it would rally the leftoid base, it might even get some Ronulans to follow Obama.
The only logical reason that such evidence hasn’t been leaked by such a fervent anti-Boooooooosh administration must be because it doesn’t exist.
So if 3 years of digging for dirt on Booooooooosh (and I’m certain Obama has had people doing just that for the entire time, for the reasons stated above) hasn’t turned up anything, what the heck is another investigation gonna do, except rally the Troofer base?
The problem with Ron Paul is that he looks and sounds like a lunatic. He can never get elected, so why bother voting for him in the primaries?
9/11 wasn’t an inside job – the government is neither competent enough to carry that out nor capable of keeping it secret. If it was an inside job, where are the whistle-blowers or the folks making a buck off their memoirs? Or the postings to web forums? Or a raft of suicides by those who would have talked? Why do the only people who posit Truther theories those who sound unbalanced?
Those newsletters are very important as well – either he was lying to his subscribers or he’s lying now.
Taken for a ride? Yes but what a fun and magical mind trip it is.
Last night I held Aladdin’s lamp
And so I wished that I could stay
Before the thing could answer me
Well, someone came and took the lamp away
I looked around, a lousy candle’s all I found
Well, you don’t know what we can find
Why don’t you come with me little girl
On a magic carpet ride
Well, you don’t know what we can see
Why don’t you tell your dreams to me
Fantasy will set you free
Close your eyes girl
Look inside girl
Let the sound take you away
Steppenwolf 1968
Money don’t get everything it’s true
What it don’t get, I can’t use
Now give me money
That’s what I want
Beatles, “Money (That’s What I Want)”
Say you don’t need no diamond ring
And I’ll be satisfied
Tell me that you want those kind of things
that money just can’t buy
For I don’t care too much for money
Cause money can’t buy me love
Beatles, “Can’t Buy Me Love”
The Beatles wrote these lyrics or allowed them to be published under their name and actively promoted them while they were being published, but they both avow and disavow the utility of money. This clearly poses a consistency problem. But one of two things must be true: the utility of money either reflects their views, or it doesn’t. If it does, they are pandering now by announcing its futility. If it doesn’t, then they took their fans for a ride in selling them a product published in their name that did not reflect their views at the time. There is a third possibility, that the lyrics reflect the view of two different songwriters. They have not made that argument, though, so it’s not in play.
The point: newsletter writers do not march in lock step, and as a publisher/editor, Ron Paul does not have to place his imprimatur on every syllable in the newsletter.
Brian Preston’s conclusion can only yield one of two values: he is being disingenuous or just plain petty. ;^)
Right, his name and picture were on it, he promoted it as representing his point of view, it contained numerous references to his family as if it was written by him, and he had total control of who he hired to manage it, but it’s petty to bring it up.
The outright hero-worship of the Ronulans rivals that of the Obamabots, doesn’t it, Bryan?
A politician pandering to an audience? Adjusting a message for the people who are listening? Surely not. Say it isn’t so.
You’re right. Obama does it all the time, or used to when he could get away with more easily. Oh and Paul does too.
Ok PJM – Time to step back, take a deep breath….
“Showdown in Sioux City: Ron Paul’s Waterloo?” [8:04 pm on December 15th, 2011]
“Ron Paul Loses First Online Poll” [10:08 am on December 16th, 2011]
“Is Iowa Now Shifting to…Ron Paul?” (Ron-Paul-is-a-truther-spin) [7:16 am on December 19th, 2011]
“Is Ron Paul a Liar and a Bigot? Or Is He a Liar and a Fool?” [8:01 am on December 19th, 2011]
“Ron Paul Rise Good News for Romney?” [8:35 am on December 19th, 2011]
“Ron Paul in 1988: Accuses George H. W. Bush… Walks Out of CNN Interview Today” [2:52 pm on December 21st, 2011]
“Ron Paul Makes a Fool of Himself – and His Supporters” [10:40 am on December 24th, 2011]
“Former Staffer: Ron Paul Just Might be a 9-11 Truther” [8:54 am on December 26th, 2011]
“Video: Ron Paul Just May Be Lying About Those Old Newsletters” [11:30 am on December 26th, 2011]
“Why the Ron Paul Newsletters Actually Are Important” [7:19 am on December 27th, 2011]
“Video: Ron Paul Supporters Create the Dumbest Ad Ever” [7:03 pm on December 27th, 2011]
“Are Ron Paul’s Supporters Being Taken for a Ride?” [7:20 am on December 28th, 2011]
“As for PJM, we don’t have a policy of supporting or opposing any particular candidate”