I’m taking it easy from posting on my candidate today, since my guy isn’t competing in New Hampshire, but apparently, a big event has been taking place across the universe of the ‘internets.’ The New Republic posted an expose on Dr. Ron Paul that is pretty damaging. I won’t post the link, but here is a link to Sullivan’s take on the report. Dr. Paul responded in person to the allegations made. The TNR article is extremely rough, and Paul gave a solid response to it:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“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.”
Dr. Paul gave the right response, but it hurts him to have to deal with these types of problems on election day. If it’s true, then he’s got a lot of explaining to do, and in any case, he had to take responsibility for things that were written in his name, and he did. If this isn’t true, then somebody owes him one big apology, and also an apology to his supporters, and to everyone who bought into this type of garbage to influence votes.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
This from the same Clintonite magazine that published the falsified ’soldiers story’ last year.
This has nothing to do with Ron Paul. It’s just a chance for the left to call another Republican a bigot.
January 8th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Lol! Wow! This stuff??? This has been floating around on Ron Paul forums for months and has been thoroughly researched, explained, and debunked. You have to be a collectivist to be a racist, and Ron Paul certainly is not. The funniest accusation is probably Ron Paul being an anti-Semite, considering his office is filled with portraits of Jewish economists. Lol…
January 8th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Josiah,
“You have to be a collectivist to be a racist”
No, you don’t. You just have to believe that people can be categorized by race, and that there are meaningful and intrinsic differences in the races. “Collectivism” has nothing to do with it. That’s like saying “if you’ve never had a root canal, you can’t possibly support the flat tax.”
January 8th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Percent of NH voters that will vote for Ron Paul: 8%
Percent of Paul voters that will read the TNR article in time for it to affect their vote: 0.1%
Percent of Paul voters that aren’t super loyal and will be affected by the TNR article: 0.00001%
January 8th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Tommy,
There’s this too. From Ryan Sager:
http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/ron-pauls.html
January 8th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
There is no right response.
There is no excuse for this stuff under your name.
It can’t be fluffed off as merely being inattentive.
Ron Paul’s 15 minutes are over, absolutely.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
#3 MWS,
Racism is a form of collectivism. You have to see people as groups instead of individuals.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
#3
“You just have to believe that people can be categorized by race, and that there are meaningful and intrinsic differences in the races”
I always thought that it was based on the belief of superiority or inferiority of certain races, not necessarily instrinsic differences. Science may very well tell us that there are significant or instrinsic differences between the races, and that may not be all that bad.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Actually, I’m inclined to agree with Tano (!). It’s a cop out in the extreme to say that he has taken “moral responsibility” for a paper that allows despicably racist content to be published under his name. The paper was called the “Ron Paul Survival Report,” how could anyone allow their name to added to such a paper without allowing it? That’s insanity.
But you know, you have to wonder when Ron Paul also gets significant contributions from known neo-Nazis too. And then refuses to return the money, once he’s made aware of that fact.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
without approving it*
January 8th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
Some of the stuff is pretty innocuous. Its not racism to admit that many black democratic politicians are race-mongering victimologists, for instance. But some of this stuff stinks.
I’m glad Ron Paul is disavowing this stuff. I’d hate to think we could have a presidential candidate running on that kind of view.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
If Ron Paul ever rises above the “also ran” catagory, I will get excited about this. As it is, **yawn!**
January 8th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
I highly doubt that this garbage reflects Ron Paul’s views, but it’s aparently been a long problem that his supporters do or say stupid things.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Everone seems to be on pins and needles. Race42008 seems pretty close
to dead right now. We’ll be coming out of blackout in approximately 3
hours.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I do admit that it was irresponsible for him to be employing a complete loser for so long. Then again, he did fire Eric Dondero.
“But you know, you have to wonder when Ron Paul also gets significant contributions from known neo-Nazis too. And then refuses to return the money, once he’s made aware of that fact.”
And Mike Huckabee not only receives contributions from Christian-reconstructionists but also has attended fundraisers hosted by them. Let’s not have a double standard here, shall we?
January 8th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
well some it actually makes sense
January 8th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
If how quickly Drudge yanked this story off his page after he first posted it is any indication of how long it took to get discredited is any indication of how solid the story is, I’d say Ron will be fine.
As for LJ #9, don’t be ridiculous. If you were a poorly known congressman, and a group wanted to use your name as the name of a newsletter, you’d probably consent too.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Post #17 didn’t quite work out. Let’s try that again, shall we? Lol:
If how quickly Drudge yanked this story off his page after he first posted it is any indication of how solid the story is, I’d say Ron will be fine.
As for LJ #9, don’t be ridiculous. If you were a poorly known congressman, and a group wanted to use your name as the name of a newsletter, you’d probably consent too.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Is this the big bombshell that was to be released Monday?
January 8th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Fester #19,
I hope not. If so, it’s pretty disappointing. It’s got about as much weight as would a breaking story that McCain fathered an illegitimate black child.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Re: Andrew Sullivan’s comments, I gotta say that him praising Ron Paul over resisting “enforced uniformity over the Iraq war” is pretty rich.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Its also not entirely relevant because, as we all know, Ron Paul is unelectable. I’m not even sure why we’re still talking about him, regardless of much you do or don’t respect his politics.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
“Racism is a form of collectivism. You have to see people as groups instead of individuals.”
Well, apparently Paul sees some people as groups?
January 8th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
“Its also not entirely relevant because, as we all know, Ron Paul is unelectable. I’m not even sure why we’re still talking about him, regardless of much you do or don’t respect his politics.”
It’s the principle of the thing. I’d like to think that a guy with those views would not garner 5-10% of the vote.
Also, Paul may be coming back for November, in which case, its terribly relevant.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
If Paul is not relevant why publish this nonsens? Conformists and statists become very afraid now.
I guess, we just finished “he makes some funny points” fase and we moved to “he is a white supremasist rasist” fase.
I think things are going very good for Ron Paul. Can’t wait til we’ll reach the fourth fase.
January 8th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
ABC News has 6% in
McCain 38%
Romney 29%
EARLY….
January 8th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
I was not “fired” by Ron Paul. To say so is slander, and I would advise you in the strongest terms possible to retract your statement.
Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
1997-2003
January 8th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Lots of luck with that lawsuit threat, Eric.
January 9th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I can accept the idea that Paul did not believe the racist views that were espoused in his newsletter. But the next question is, when did he realize that they were being printed in his newsletter, and what did he do about it at the time?
I fully admit that I am not supporting Paul for president, but his supporters should be willing to admit that this story makes Paul look like he was not paying attention to what was being written by others under his own name.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Joshua (#29) said it perfectly. If you are such a rabid Paul supporter that you can’t even admit he showed exceptionally poor oversight here then you’re too far gone to even discuss this with.
January 14th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
bigyaz,
I’m a Paul supporter, although I wouldn’t call myself or any of the other supporters I work with “rabid.” I support Ron’s candidacy because I am a hard line fiscal conservative. You know, what Republicans used to be. That’s why I joined the party fifteen years ago and that’s why I would never, ever vote in a primary election for a candidate that wasn’t a fiscal conservative. If Paul wasn’t running I’d probably vote for Duncan, but in twenty years of representing the Republican Party in Congress, Ron has never voted to raise taxes or Congressional pay and he has an A plus record with the NRA because he will never vote for, or advocate voting for gun laws. He advocates reducing the size and scope of the Federal government and believes in state’s rights. He also served honorably in the Armed Forces, if that matters to “conservatives” anymore. Yet I keep hearing fellow Republicans call Ron liberal and fringe. If most of the people in this Party actually believe that, then the GOP is going down the toilet fast.
As for “admit he showed exceptionally poor oversight”
Being that the quotes in question were taken from a publication (in a one year not ten year time frame) he lent his name to AFTER he left Congress and while he was not in office and did not edit or oversee this periodical I would call it poor oversight. When Reagan called a ten year old black kid a “spearchucker” to his face and then laid wreaths on the graves of SS Soldiers in Germany and then defended the action, -I would call that “exceptionally poor oversight”
I still have a picture of Reagan on my wall and I was looking at it when I listened to Newt Gingrich admit on the Rush show that he believed the Conservate wing of the Republican Party was dead. Rush agreed. -I guess I’m a liberal.