In Defense of Ron Paul
I’m just about the last guy in the world anyone would expect to come to Ron Paul’s aid, which is precisely why I should do it in this case. But this hit piece in The New Republic is just that — a hit piece.
The gist of James Kirchick’s great big exclusive pile of muck is that Paul is a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, cheats at solitaire and doesn’t always courtesy flush when doing the deuce in public bathrooms. And you have to admit, there’s some pretty damning stuff in the article, most of it culled from Paul’s old newsletter from decades ago.
Fact of the matter is, Paul’s newsletter was ghostwritten. And, when Paul found out what was getting printed with his name on it, he put an end to it. But there’s no news here — this particular story had been brought up, and promptly debunked, months ago. Why TNR is suddenly treating it as news is anyone’s guess, especially if anyone’s initials happen to be “Primary Voter.”
There’s also the case of a $500 campaign donation from the neo-Nazi Stormfront group which Paul accepted and declined to return. I would find Stormfront’s money too tainted to touch. However, Paul does make a certain, mercenary sense when he argues that [wildly paraphrasing from memory], hey, the stupid people have $500 less and we have $500 more. In fact, I took a look at a lot of this same stuff while writing a anti-Paul cover story for The New Individualist back in October [Jan/Feb issue], and concluded that I had to take Paul at his word on this one, even if “he doesn’t always make it easy.”
Do I think Paul should have shown better judgement in hiring and firing writers? You bet. Would I take money from avowed racists? No way. Then again, I’ve always found Paul’s judgement to be suspect, on those few occasions where it wasn’t just plain old wrong.
All that said, Paul has publicly praised — in his own, non-ghostwritten words — Martin Luther King, Jr and Mohammed Ali. And, again in his own words, Paul has denounced racism as “simply an ugly form of collectivism.” Now it’s no secret that you’ll find a lot of closeted (and not-so-closeted) racists in Paul’s legion of fans. Just check out the comments over here. But there are nutcases of every stripe attached to Team Paul. He’s like the pied piper of Arkham Asylum.
Fact is, Ron Paul is a lot of things. He’s a conspiracy-theory nut, a gold fetishist, and an old-fashioned populist phony posing as a defender of liberty and the Constitution. What he’s not is a racist.
ONE OTHER THING: By dredging up all these old and debunked issues — and not looking even one step past them even on Google — The New Republic has proved it hasn’t learned a thing from the Stephen Glass or Scott Beauchamp affairs. TNR is just a stupid, lying magazine that doesn’t care one whit about its own reputation or your intelligence.
UPDATE: A more reasonable magazine actually bothered to talk to Paul in response to TNR.
UPDATE: As I said, Paul’s judgement is suspect even on a good day, and today was maybe his worst. It sucks though that his campaign was destroyed by cheap shots, instead of taking on the worst parts of his platform directly.
Stephen,
You write “when Paul found out what was getting printed with his name on it, he put an end to it.” The problem is that this isn’t one or two newsletters but years and years of them. I can believe he didn’t write “The Ron Paul newsletter.” What defies belief is that he didn’t at least READ the newsletter with his name on it. I was too busy being a doctor? Come on. No one cares so little regarding what is put out under his name as to not at least skim it. He had to have known what was being written under his name for years and did nothing to stop it. In my book, that makes him responsible for it.
Harsh,
You’ll get no argument from me. As I usually do, I found Paul’s judgement to be terrible. But when asked specific questions about race, Paul sounds like a stand-up guy.
Then again, maybe I’m wrong and he really is a closet racist – although I don’t think TNR’s evidence is nearly enough to convict him of that. But if it’s true, I guess that would give me my million and seventh reason not to vote for Paul.
TO: Stephen Green, et al.
RE: So….
…why is TNR doing a ‘hit-piece’ on Ron Paul?
[1] They REALLY think he has a chance?
[2] Slow news day?
[3] The color of crayon they’re smoking?
[4] All of the above?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Who really cares what TNR publishes anymore, anyway?
One statement in the TNR article confuses what we (mostly) know now with what we knew in 1990, and one of the “conspiracy theories” the author mentions appears to have some basis in fact. Details on that and more at my name’s link.
TNR has killed off Ron Paul’s campaign. Biggest achievement of Kirchik’s career.
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/december1990.pdf
Read the very last paragraph of that pdf file and tell me again that it was “ghostwritten.”
EXPOSURE,
R
Listen to the interview here: youtube.com/watch?v=Whqtv9D9g-Y
Specifically, the part about the TC and Bilderbergers. Could anyone be more of an absolute suck-up? He even puts a happy smiley face on BohemianGrove.
It sucks though that his campaign was destroyed by cheap shots,
Did he ever have a chance. And besides he did much better than Thompson in NH.
Well that didn’t work
Funny that Ron Paul’s “passages” are listed on his “fitness to be president” rating on “Fit to be Pres”.
Steve-
I’d encourage you to look into RP’s position regarding the Civil Rights Act, the We the People Act and then look at these letters. Basically, he’s against any federal protection of civil rights and then he “allows” this to be published under his named over a 15 year period and claims to not know it was going on? The subscription manager is now his campaign manager in Texas!
How can you really believe the “I don’t really mean it/Someone else wrote it”? Seems like once he decided to get back into national office (he wasn’t a congressmen when most of these letters where published) he decided to show a good face to the nation while working an agenda designed to get at what he truly wanted.
How is it that everybody treats his flat denial of being a racist, accompanied by some nice flowery language about MLK and Rosa Parks, at face value as if it proves the point entirely? I guess Bill Clinton never had sex with that woman, Hillary is a genius in the cattle futures market, and Richard Nixon really wasn’t a crook.
As others have already noted, this went on for YEARS. LGF earlier today showed that at least one of the issues with racist garbage in it contained a very personal message referring to Paul’s grandchildren by name.
I’ve also seen that a former Paul staffer is naming Lew Rockwell as the principle “ghostwriter” for the newsletter. Rockwell, of course, remains a close friend and supporter of Paul.
I’m rapidly coming to the conclusion that Paul is David Duke without the Klan baggage.
Is this really any different from other Republicans who won’t denounce fundamentalist Christians, or Democrats who won’t denounce Friends of the Earth or semi-communist groups in their party?
All the parties have people who take it to extremes. Politicians running for office won’t get up and say “will all the flat-earthers in my party please get lost.”
A better test of Ron Paul would be does he have any minorities on his staff? Any gays? All I read about is all the volunteers, but I have no idea about his professional staff.
We’ll see if he’s dead yet. His online support may slow down for a bit or it may go away and that will be the judge of things. New online polls like fittobepres.com where they previously would have ruled will be the best indicator.
Ron Paul is either a racist homophobic liar or a completely disorganized scatterbrain who lends his name without regard or oversight – in neither case a candidate to be taken seriously.
Holding a person responsible for words uttered or written under his own name is not swift-boating – particularly given that parts of these newsletters contain personal details written in the first person (see LGF’s entry on that).
TNR didn’t sink RP’s campaign – RP and his supporters did. See the comments section over at PJM – half the commenters say “RP didn’t write that!” and the other half say “so what? it’s the truth!”
Ron Paul represents an area where there’s a significant (but very on-the-QT) Klan presence, some of them desperately trying to clean up their image, some of them totally unreconstructed. So this sort of thing popping up is no surprise.
And, Frankly, RP’s campaign has been a mess from the beginning. The tragedy for those of us agreeing with many of the messages, yet lamenting the incredible weakness of the candidate (I love RP on domestic policy, but he’d be Carter redux, b/c the man obviously has not mastered the microphone/bully pulpit), is that none of the other folks running seem to think of the Constitution as a contract the way we do.
So for those of us on the libertarian side of the Reagan Coalition, (not the LP, they were never part, and therefore don’t get a say), it’s hold one’s nose, or get behind somebody like John “I killed the 1st Amendment” McCain. At this rate, 90s gridlock is starting to look REALLY good.
Tom, lack of supporting federal Civil Rights legislation is evidence of racism only if one assumes that racism is the motivation for the position. In Rep. Paul’s case, I believe his lack of support for a slew of federal legislation on Libertarian and Federalist grounds serves to explain his position on Civil Rights legislation. I see your use of this not unlike those who claim lack of supporting Affirmative Action equates to racism.
I’m amazed that a lying, Neocon racist like Kirchick can call one of the most decent men in American politics a racist and a bunch of braindead, PC-addled sheep fall into line.
I’m sorry, but that’s a really bad excuse. Even if somehow he was completely ignorant of what was being published in his name, maybe he should have thought twice before letting his name be used for something he wasn’t actively involved in or keeping an eye on. If that’s true, and I consider that a sizeable “if,” then this is the fruit of his non-labor: being held responsible for that which was printed in his name.
“being held responsible for that which was printed in his name.”
He’s already taken responsibility for it. It would appear that some won’t be happy until he commits public hari-kari.
It would also appear that whatever form of racism that he’s accused of is worse than the racism displayed by the various factions that have allowed over a million dead Iraqis to not cloud their collective consciences.
Do I think Paul should have shown better judgement in hiring and firing writers?
And if his judgement is that questionable when it comes to find writers, do you think it’ll improve when it comes to oh, say, Supreme Court nominees, Cabinet nominees, or even his Chief of Staff?
“And if his judgement is that questionable when it comes to find writers, do you think it’ll improve when it comes to oh, say, Supreme Court nominees, Cabinet nominees, or even his Chief of Staff?”
Like the judgment displayed by Bill Clinton when finding extra-marital partners or the amazing business judgment displayed by the Bush family? They were in business with the Bin Laden family, for God’s sake.
The ‘judgment’ question seems to selectively applied.
Yep, let his name be co-opted for 15 – 18 years and attached to a newsletter that spilled undiluted racism. Clearly, it’s an honest mistake… could happen to anybody. Besides, he said it bummed him out. Can’t we just move on?
I know, I can’t handle the Troof…
“15 – 18 years”
You’re being dishonest as to the length of time. No surprise.
“undiluted racism”
To restate, the Neocons and their fellow travelers that oppose Dr. Paul are far more racist than anything that ever came out of that newsletter.
But here’s the difference: He changed his ways. They haven’t. I trust a man owns up to his errors over a man that continues to pull the same boneheaded crap over and over again.
Any Neocon and associated swine comes to mind when speaking of boneheaded crap.
JD: Neocons are racist? Because they believe that the Middle East(or, for that matter, the rest of the world) can be democratic and free if you kick out the kleptocrats and tyrants, and give them a chance at good government?
“Is this really any different from other Republicans who won’t denounce fundamentalist Christians”
Republicans of most stripes regularly denounce Fred Phelps and his ilk.
“Neocons are racist?”
If anyone were to speak about Jews, blacks or anyone else the way that Neocons speak about Arabs and Muslims, they’d be run out of town.
“if you kick out the kleptocrats and tyrants, and give them a chance at good government?”
We appear to back kleptos and tyrants. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Israel are but three examples.
“Republicans of most stripes regularly denounce Fred Phelps and his ilk.”
They won’t denounce Huckabee and his Dominionist tendencies. The MSM won’t mention it either.
PatHMV says: “As others have already noted, this went on for YEARS. LGF earlier today showed that at least one of the issues with racist garbage in it contained a very personal message referring to Paul’s grandchildren by name.”
Actually, the only things mentioned are:
1. His wife’s name.
2. The fact that he has grandchildren.
And, from that, LGF leaps to the conclusion that he wrote that passage. Oh, and then they hedge their bets.
That type of activity is so very low and/or braindead that I delinked them (I had linked them a few years ago after some issue or something).
Also, it’s possible to oppose both RP and question the backstory of the TNR piece, yet few seem able to do that.
Let me suggest watching the first part of video I provided above and then double-check what the TNR author said about the PanamaCanalTreaty. At the very least he’s a complete suck-up.
“And, from that, LGF leaps to the conclusion that he wrote that passage. Oh, and then they hedge their bets.”
Um… sorry, but that is that same as NOT “leaping to a conclusion”, since these allegedly separate actions were done in the same paragraph.
It should be clear from my comment that both those were “mentioned”, by implication in the same document. Whether it’s the same paragraph (not stated) doesn’t matter, and the fact that someone would try to make something of it shows they’re on the LGF level.
Here’s the entry:
But in this December 1990 issue of the newsletter, which labels Martin Luther King a child molester, there’s some pretty good evidence that Dr. Paul himself wrote at least this entry: [scan] Ron Paul’s wife is named Carol, and in 1990 he did have grandchildren. Read the whole PDF document by clicking the picture above. Even if this was written by someone else, it’s almost more disturbing that Ron Paul could be so disconnected and dysfunctional that he let freaks like this run his newsletter.
The fact that they’d first jump on something that most people in his circle and even many of his constituents would know as proof that he wrote it, and then backtrack, tells you all you need to know about them.
I’m surprised at Vodkapundit’s defense of Ron Paul here, because I think Harsh Pencil’s right that it strains credulity that Ron Paul permitted racist, bigoted, and whacko conspiracy theory rants to be published repeatedly under his name for *fifteen years* without realizing it.
I’d be willing to cut someone some slack if it was a only a couple issues published over a course of several months–or even six months. But fifteen years!?!
Even giving Paul the extreme benefit of the doubt suggests that maybe he isn’t malfeasant, but he’s certainly nonfeasant in a way that raises serious questions about his capacity for outright evasion. But I still think that’s being way too charitable to a man who’s all to willing to impose his fundamentalist Christian “charity” on Americans generally.
I have just discovered that a book entitled Mein Kampf was written in my name and that for almost 10 years certain actions were taken in my name.
While I take moral responsibility for my lack of diligence, I was busy making trains run on time and was unaware of these matters. I do not even read German and did not know what policies were being advocated in my name and as for the death camps, I understood those to be Jewish Social Centers with extra large ovens for toasting bagels.
I do not approve of these actions, and regret any discredit my lack of attentiveness has brought to National Socialism.
I also understand that my specific instructions to “Attack Pograms” were somehow misconstrued as “Attack Poland” My bad!
“Passion for one’s ideas is well and good, but shouting others down with irrational cries of “racist” and “McCarthyite” is hardly liberal at all.”
-Jamie Kirchick
11-12-03
http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/9160?badlink=1
Thank you JD. I knew I could count on your support. I knew you’d stand by me against those filthy Je….uhm,,,,,,,those people who do not support the gold standard!
Don’t know what to make of the latest regarding Paul’s newsletter. On the one hand, from both right and left, the current contenders for the White House are just the most stunningly amoral, bland, pandering, prevaricating, and/or fatally flawed assortment of losers I can recall since I started paying attention to elections in 1972.
On the other hand, it’s not enough that Paul is right about so many things and commits himself clearly and fearlessly on issues. I have talked him up plenty without ever entirely getting comfortable – he’s the only guy on the National debate stage talking about the ruined economic system, the lending/homes debacle we should have seen coming years ago, self-destructive neo-con empire “building”, etc. But he didn’t quite pass the smell test, and not only because of this latest brush with the “racist” label. “Getting out of the UN” is like opting out of the planet; an absolute anti-abortion platform based on personal convictions is a serious inconsistency for someone so closely connected with libertarianism; and finally, libertarianism itself is a bit of a problem. Taken to it’s logical extreme, the weak should *die*, and are there no workhouses? I want a little socialism, and a little capitalism, maybe even a little libertarianism – every “ism” I can think of goes rotten when it gets unfettered reign.
Unfortunately, the history of the US in modern times has been that third party candidates are myopically orthodox zealots, who have a tin ear when it comes to speaking to anyone BUT “the choir”, and are virtually incapable of collaberation or compromise with “the enemy” in the next chair. Too bad, we could use an alternative to the one-party system.
Stephen,
Your first mistake was assuming that Ron Paul is rational. Your second was taking him at his word without verifying what he said. The man is not a rational actor, his supporters are not rational actors. They will do and say most anything to gain support from useful fools, then do whatever they like once in power. Remember, Mussolini* had reasonable people convinced he would do good for Italy*.
*Gotcha! I bet you thought I was going to say “Hitler” and “Germany”, now didn’t you?
Leave Ron Paul Alone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdlA2Xz0dP4&eurl=http:
“Your first mistake was assuming that Ron Paul is rational.”
Is this an intuition of yours or do you have proof of irrationality? If it’s intuition, it’s not a rational conclusion.
Thank you very much for this. I understand you don’t support Paul, and don’t blame you, but I am pleased that you are decent enough to blow the whistle on the attempt to label Paul as a racist. He’s not, and everyone that says he is either doesn’t know who he is or is a liar.
You mean having two first names isn’t proof enough?
Ron Paul has for years advocated radical libertarian positions which one would think would alienate a large portion of orthodox conservatives. But he kept his House seat with no primary challenges for many years. This might explain it: the old-time Texas racists knew (off the record) he was in their corner, and that mattered more than isolationism or advocating dope legalization.
I am saddened by the misinformation here. Dr Paul has denounced racism and the like for years. At least he owned up to having these disgusting letters printed in his name and stopped them. Hey anyone who can bring 4000+ babies into the world be a congressman have time to read all this? I think not. What counts now is who is he and how does he stack up against the other Candidates? I think well.