Patterico's Pontifications

1/8/2008

Ron Paul Newsletter Scandal

Filed under: 2008 Election,General — Patterico @ 7:11 pm



For those who believed Ron Paul condoned nutty conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, and other forms of bigotry and craziness: vindication.

109 Responses to “Ron Paul Newsletter Scandal”

  1. Plus white supremacism, Patterico, don’t forget that.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  2. The Paulist line is that no one can prove that Ron Paul actually personally wrote any of the racist material, so he’s off the hook.

    Of course, the idea that a man who for 25 years was either – (if you accept Ron Paul’s assertions that he didn’t write any of it, since the only evidence he didn’t is his word) – completely in the dark or looked the other way about a publication using his name spewing racism might be unfit for the Presidency has not entered their minds.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  3. The “hey, how did my name get on that?” defense will actually work, because the Paulists will believe any ludicrous defense. In fact, if Ron Paul claimed the newsletter was really a CIA false flag operation, his numbers would go up.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  4. I came to the same conclusion recently after doing my own reading. The author shows considerable sophistication in describing the threads of libertarian thought, and the nasty neo-Confederate version Ron Paul promotes.

    Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4)

  5. Hear, hear, Bradley J. Fikes!

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  6. The YT video at the post’s link has the author of the TNR piece saying this:

    “When someone mentions the Trilaterial Commission in nefarious terms, you know that they’re a little kooky… …The Bilderbergers, that’s a real out there conspiracy theory…”

    Then, he pretended that Bohemian Grove was just a “men’s social club in Northern California”.

    I don’t know how delusional you’d have to be to agree with him, but neither do I want to know.

    I provide some issues with the article itself here. Perhaps this site should consider being just a little skeptical of what it’s told.

    TLB (08032f)

  7. Thanks, Christoph.

    TLB, even if the points you gave are valid, there’s still the matter of Ron Paul’s coziness with the Lincoln-hating Lew Rockwell set. The author is dead-on accurate when he distinguishes that group’s views from that of the Cato Institute or Reason. I am very saddened by what I learned about Murray Rothbard, btw. In my library is a copy of Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State I bought many years ago.

    The venom that pours from the Lew Rockwell types such as Thomas DiLorenzo about Lincoln is a warning to stay far away:

    At last month’s FreedomFest, held at Bally’s on the Las Vegas Strip, DiLorenzo discussed highlights from his most recent book, Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed To Know about Dishonest Abe (Random House) on July 5 to about 100 people. For longtime Libertarians, his research is no shocker. Of his blistering critique of Abe, arguably America’s most iconic president, DiLorenzo practically profiled the 16th President a child rapist.

    Libertarians, both small-l and big-L (I happen to be both), should not damage their credibility and warp their judgment doing mental gymnastics trying to defend Ron Paul. My mind is still hurting from having done so, as the readers of the group blog I co-host can attest.

    Just go to Lewrockwell.com and read what DiLorenzo and his types have to say about Lincoln, the Civil War and the Southern Confederacy. Decide if you feel comfortable with them. Ron Paul does.

    Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4)

  8. Perhaps this site should consider being just a little skeptical of what it’s told.

    Except when you’re the one telling it, right?

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  9. Decide if you feel comfortable with them. Ron Paul does.

    I’m sure a lot of the Ronbots feel comfortable with LewRockwell.com.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  10. I’ve seen TLB make that same comment on a number of blogs today.

    Interesting that Lew Rockwell was Ron Paul’s Chief of Staff. Folks over at Reason are speculating that Lew wrote and/or edited some of the newletters for at least some of the period in question.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  11. You know the only thing worse than Illinois Nazis?

    Ronulans.

    Jim Rockford (e09923)

  12. Jim Rockford,

    Please be nice. I was a semi-Ronulan. Focus your attention on factual information about the Confederacy-loving world of Ron Paul and his cronies. Perhaps some Ron Paul supporters with doubts will change their minds. Insulting them personally is not the way to do it. (That proviso doesn’t apply to Rockwell and DiLorenzo, who are among the leaders of this movement and not the deceived followers).

    Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4)

  13. Perhaps some Ron Paul supporters with doubts will change their minds. Insulting them personally is not the way to do it.

    Yeah, but it’s fun!

    Jim Treacher (592cb4)

  14. As I said elsewhere today, the only surprising thing about this is that some people seem surprised.

    But he seems so sincere!!!!!!

    daleyrocks (906622)

  15. Funny. I figured he had some kind of dog whistle thing going on with the StormFront and Troofers being such rabid supporters. I didn’t expect that he had trained them to roll over and bark ahead of time.

    Oh well. Nothing that a couple weeks on a colloidal silver regime couldn’t cure.

    And Bradley, sorry to hear about reality coming crashing down on you w/r/t Murray Rothbard. When I had to actually live overseas in some government-free locales, is when my bubble on anarcho-capitalism was burst pretty hard. A better term for such a state would be Strongmanocracy – rule by whoever can grab the mostest power firstest. These days I view Rothbard as a more economically-literate version of Jean Jacques Rousseau… somebody so brilliant that many of their ideas are completely insane. As has been noted, many forms of insanity involve not the lack of reasoning and intelligence, but an excess of them.

    Al Maviva (89d0b6)

  16. The Paulbots are a cross between Moonies and Lyndon LaRouche-ites. I can’t stand them.

    PCD (5c49b0)

  17. All the Paulites will say is “so what if he’s a neo-Nazi who hates blacks, jews and gays! Ron Paul is against George W Bush and those evil neo-cons who are ruling the world!”

    The progressive Left has no idea the monsters their Bush Derangement Syndrome has created.

    syn (9c2583)

  18. Interesting that Lew Rockwell was Ron Paul’s Chief of Staff.

    When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends.
    – Japanese Proverb

    LarryD (feb78b)

  19. Gee, Ron Paul is not responsible for the things that appear in his own news letter? How convenient.

    Dr. Paul was my representative for a long time until redistricting. Over the years, I watched him evolve from making some sense to complete lunacy. I don’t know any of the people that used to campaign for him that are still on board with him unless they are borderline nuts who have more in common with Texas politics of the 50’s than Republicans of 2008. And while Dr. Paul says he is such an honorable fellow, his attack machine has already started a smear campaign against his opponent in the next Congressional race.

    You put your name on a paper, you approve what is written or don’t bother to proof that paper making sure it is in line with what you believe, you own it.

    Paul owns that newsletter and I am sure there will be more than on person who goes to the Texas archives to dig in his past when it comes to what he said.

    retire05 (c97682)

  20. Crazy people often don’t know they’re crazy. Exhibit 1 – Dr. Ron Paul.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  21. All the hatred of Paul really boils down to cries of “whaaaah — he wants to take away my government.” Just like a baby getting a teat pulled out of its mouth — which is basically what happens when a libertarian takes over government. That’s the only reason anyone cares about his personal views — they want to scare his supporters away from him, because he’s a threat to their teat. And yes, that even goes for supposed “limited government” neocons who just want a massive military and police force imposing a micromanaged political/moral/economic structure in their favor.

    So am I concerned if Paul is a closet racist? Not really — unless it turns out he’s also a closet non-libertarian. I would rather elect a libertarian who had a very different view of the world from me on various “hot button” issues like abortion, race, gender, religion, etc, than politician with views fairly similar to me who thinks government is basically a resource to use to accomplish anything and everything.

    People who can’t understand the concept of actually limiting government for the sake of freedom, rather than simply to limit people who disagree with you, who just see government as a resource to be captured for their side, have no clue why Ron Paul’s personal moral/ethical/religious/social views aren’t of much concern to Ron Paul supporters.

    Of course they think Paul is “crazy.” Why would anyone not use government as a tool to their fullest advantage? What kind of politician doesn’t try to offer to solve all of the problems of his voters — isnt’ that what government is for?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  22. Wow, Phil.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  23. Phil is a [person not in command of his faculties best described as a water-bird with a loud, piercing cry]. Ignore him.

    nk (4bb3c1)

  24. Phil, I’m tempted to take apart your comment, but you really did such a good job of making an ass of yourself, I don’t see how further assistance is necessary.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  25. Your reaction is pretty similar to the reaction of most non-libertarians I talk to. The word “freedom,” to you, means “the government does what I want it to.” Any other interpretation to sounds crazy.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  26. Phil, I’m a libertarian, and I think you’re nuts.

    I’m in favor of legalizing drugs, but I wouldn’t want a President who uses drugs. I’m in favor the right to associate freely, but I don’t want a bigot as President.

    I’m in favor of a very limited government; I just think Ron Paul is the wrong man for President.

    Steverino (e00589)

  27. Phil is not a libertarian. He is a fantasist who has lost control over his fantasies.

    nk (4bb3c1)

  28. Perhaps some Ron Paul supporters with doubts will change their minds. Insulting them personally is not the way to do it.

    Question: do Ronulans deserve anything but scorn and derision?

    Answer: Nope.

    All the hatred of Paul really boils down to cries of “whaaaah — he wants to take away my government.” Just like a baby getting a teat pulled out of its mouth — which is basically what happens when a libertarian takes over government.

    Or possibly because we think he’s a racist kook. Really, either/or I guess.

    That’s the only reason anyone cares about his personal views — they want to scare his supporters away from him, because he’s a threat to their teat.

    Oh my teat! Don’t take me away from my teat! Please! Please Mr. Paulbot, please don’t!

    And yes, that even goes for supposed “limited government” neocons who just want a massive military and police force imposing a micromanaged political/moral/economic structure in their favor.

    Oh yeah, I can’t wait for that micromanaged political/moral/economic structure. I’ve been waiting seven years and that neo-con Bush still hasn’t given it to me! What the hell? He only has 51 and a half weeks left to get the job done!

    The military-industrial-congressional-Jew complex better get cracking is all I can say.

    So am I concerned if Paul is a closet racist? Not really — unless it turns out he’s also a closet non-libertarian. I would rather elect a libertarian who had a very different view of the world from me on various “hot button” issues like abortion, race, gender, religion, etc, than politician with views fairly similar to me who thinks government is basically a resource to use to accomplish anything and everything.

    So Ron Paul possibly holding, how to say, non-libertarian views on blacks, gays, Jews, etc., doesn’t really matter to you, as long as he doesn’t hold non-libertarian views.

    Check. Gotcha. You’re a retard.

    People who can’t understand the concept of actually limiting government for the sake of freedom, rather than simply to limit people who disagree with you, who just see government as a resource to be captured for their side, have no clue why Ron Paul’s personal moral/ethical/religious/social views aren’t of much concern to Ron Paul supporters.

    People with brains can’t understand why Ron Paul’s “personal views” – and just what are “personal views”? How are they different from, I guess, “political views”? Explain that one to me, Paulbot – aren’t of much concern to Ron Paul supporters.

    Of course they think Paul is “crazy.” Why would anyone not use government as a tool to their fullest advantage? What kind of politician doesn’t try to offer to solve all of the problems of his voters — isnt’ that what government is for?

    Oh I’m sorry Mr. Retard Paulbot, but that’s a hilarious lie. How many times have we been forced to endure the braying nonsense of you morons about how Ron Paul will solve all of America’s problems by destroying the Jews – oops, I mean the “neo-cons” – and forcing the “animals” – oops, I mean blacks – to get off the welfare gravy train?

    Don’t try to spoon-feed us your bullshit about how Ron Paul hasn’t promised to fix everything in America.

    Go pack your mind-reading crystal ball back up and throw it back down in the basement. You made yourself look like a complete retard, which is pretty much par for the course for anyone who supports Ron Paul. Sorry Mr. Fikes, but you must have been having a semi-brain fart to be a “semi-Ronulan.”

    chaos (9c54c6)

  29. I’m in favor of legalizing drugs, but I wouldn’t want a President who uses drugs.

    You’ll have to be more specific . . . do you mean illegal drugs? Because that wouldn’t be a problem if drugs were legal. Do you mean alcohol? I didn’t think so. Do you mean heroin and cocaine? My first instinct is to agree . . . but then, if someone actually managed to rise to the level of being a major party nominee while using heroin and cocaine on any kind of a regular basis, I frankly would be incredibly impressed by them for overcoming the negative effects of that type of drug use.

    I’m in favor the right to associate freely, but I don’t want a bigot as President.

    This is the catch-22 that a libertarian faces. By nature, a libertarian will always appear to “support bigotry” to non-libertarians. Because a libertarian will observe bigotry and not immediatly thing “we need to use government to fix this problem.” And in fact, when others try to use government to fix the bigotry problem the libertarian will probably oppose them.

    So by being a libertarian, you by nature will be branded as a bigot by non-libertarians.

    And oddly enough, to libertarians, the definition of “bigotry” generally involves using force against others to enforce a pre-conceived scale of human value on the rights and privileges of others. Which is rather un-libertarian. So to libertarians, true “bigotry” makes you a non-libertarian.

    Crazy, no? I know. . ..

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  30. Why “Ronulan” and not “Ronette”? That squeaky little twerp sissy-voice kind of inclines for the later.

    nk (4bb3c1)

  31. Oh I’m sorry Mr. Retard Paulbot, but that’s a hilarious lie. How many times have we been forced to endure the braying nonsense of you morons about how Ron Paul will solve all of America’s problems by destroying the Jews – oops, I mean the “neo-cons” – and forcing the “animals” – oops, I mean blacks – to get off the welfare gravy train?

    You ask me, so I’ll answer — none that I’m aware of. Please cite sources.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  32. So Ron Paul possibly holding, how to say, non-libertarian views on blacks, gays, Jews, etc., doesn’t really matter to you, as long as he doesn’t hold non-libertarian views.

    No, I didn’t say that — you did. You are making up arguments to criticize.

    I’ll leave you now to continue that little conversation with yourself.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  33. What Steverino @26 said.

    Bradley J. Fikes (d84fc5)

  34. One last point about Paul and bigotry:

    How does it make sense for a bigot to run for office on a libertarian platform? If I were a true bigot and wanted to use government to enforce my bigoted views on society, I would run as big-government authoritarian.

    This is another reason that it’s so hard for me to buy the whole “Paul is a racist bigot” line.

    There is SO much more exploitable opportunity for racist bigots as an authoritarian tough-on-crime, war-on-terror, homeland-security wing of the Republican party than the libertarian wing. Why would Paul be a libertarian in the first place, if he’s really a racist bigot?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  35. Because he’s not a libertarian in the first place, you idiot. He’s a racist bigot who wishes he could own slaves.

    nk (4bb3c1)

  36. Why didn’t Paul run as a Democrat when he holds these views?

    Before you libs start, may I remind you of Jesse Jackson’s Hymietown remark that he was never punished for? Or How about Howard Dean’s Gay slurs?

    PCD (5c49b0)

  37. Yes and we all see what stunning Success jesse Jackson and Howard Dean have had.

    What punishment did you have in mind for Jesse Jackson, dear? Throw him in a tub of boiling oil like in Mandingo? Or just an old-fashioned non-high-tech lynching?

    David Ehrenstein (da3648)

  38. There once was a Libertarian party. It had ideas. Some of those ideas were good.

    For some reason, around 2000-2001, a lot of people joined the Libertarians who had bad ideas. And they were angry. But the Party still had some good ideas.

    Then came Ron Paul.

    The End.

    Merovign (4744a2)

  39. “Because he’s not a libertarian in the first place, you idiot. He’s a racist bigot who wishes he could own slaves.”
    Comment by nk — 1/9/2008 @ 11:00 am

    NK, you didn’t answer my question at all. Why is Paul running on a libertarian platform if he’s a racist bigot who wishes he could own slaves?

    It’s like someone accusing Ralph Nader of being pro-big-business. It makes you say “really . . . because if believes what you say he believes, he sure seems hell-bent on sabotaging his own beliefs at every turn.”

    That’s not to say Paul isn’t a racist bigot — just that for a racist bigot, he’s sure not promoting the sort of policies that would make you think “gee, that’s exactly why I don’t want to elect a bigot to public office.”

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  40. Yes and we all see what stunning Success jesse Jackson and Howard Dean have had.

    Howard Dean’s running the DNC. Jesse Jackson is always in the news, and his quotes are sought frequently. It’s hard to say either of them have been abject failures.

    Trent Lott said something far less offensive than Jesse Jackson, and Lott ended up forced out of his position and marginalized thereafter. If Jesse had been so marginalized, I think that would have been a fair “punishment”.

    Steverino (e00589)

  41. “Trent Lott said something far less offensive than Jesse Jackson, and Lott ended up forced out of his position and marginalized thereafter.”

    Trent Lott wished for a return to segregation at a public occasion. Jesse Jackson’s remark was overheard on an airplane flight when he was chattign with a friend.

    No difference in your view whatsoever, I gather.

    BTW, what did Howard dean say?

    David Ehrenstein (da3648)

  42. David, Google is your friend…

    reff (bff229)

  43. Trent Lott wished for a return to segregation at a public occasion. Jesse Jackson’s remark was overheard on an airplane flight when he was chattign with a friend.

    No difference in your view whatsoever, I gather.

    Trent said that he thought Strom Thurmond might have made a good President. He didn’t say anything about segregation.

    Jesse Jackson used an ethnic slur.

    There is a difference between them: Jackson’s act was more offensive. Jackson’s was actual bigotry, Lott’s was inferred but not in his actual words.

    I have no idea what Howard Dean said; perhaps the person who brought it up can enlighten us?

    Steverino (e00589)

  44. BTW, who was that idiot who said that the other idiot senator from West Virginia, the one who was a KKK member, would also be a good leader in any era???

    I’ve Googled it, but I’ll let all of you do the same….David gives great advice….

    reff (bff229)

  45. According to David, it’s okay to use racial slurs as long as you’re on an airplane chatting with friends.

    BTW, that’s baloney, David. There was a reporter in Jackson’s presence when he said the slur: it wasn’t a private conversation among friends.

    Steverino (e00589)

  46. “He didn’t say anything about segregation.”

    Yes he did. Don’t you remember his “We wouldn’t have all these problems” crack?

    David Ehrenstein (da3648)

  47. Duly Googled.

    This is why I gave up on the Democrats.

    David Ehrenstein (da3648)

  48. Yes he did. Don’t you remember his “We wouldn’t have all these problems” crack?

    You’ve only proved my point, David: you inferred segregation from Lott’s words.

    Here is the full quote:

    “I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either.”

    Nowhere in there is segregation mentioned. The nation has faced a lot of problems over the years, Lott could have been referring to anything. You are the one who inferred segregation from that statement, it’s not actually there.

    So, is a statement into which racism is inferred worse than a statement with an overtly bigoted slur?

    Steverino (e00589)

  49. I see David’s misrepresentations continue apace.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  50. “Nowhere in there is segregation mentioned.”

    Of course not. It’s coded. What do you think he was referrring to by “all these problems over all these years”? Double-parking?

    Pull the other leg — it’s got bells on.

    David Ehrenstein (da3648)

  51. Stevereno
    There is a difference between them: Jackson’s act was more offensive. Jackson’s was actual bigotry, Lott’s was inferred but not in his actual words.

    If you really believe that bigotry is somehow less offensive when it’s implied/inferred rather than simply spoken outright, you clearly have no idea why bigotry is offensive in the first place.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  52. Just a question: isn’t “implied” a much different word than “inferred?” Meaning, implied racism in a remark means racism was intended to be expressed, albeit in an indirect way, by the speaker. Inferred racism means the hearers take racism out of what was said, independent of whether or not racism was intended by the speaker.

    That said, not sure what Stevereno meant. Could he clarify?

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  53. Stevereno = Steverino. Sorry.

    no one you know (1f5ddb)

  54. If you really believe that bigotry is somehow less offensive when it’s implied/inferred rather than simply spoken outright, you clearly have no idea why bigotry is offensive in the first place.

    Phil: there’s a difference between implying something and inferring something. The speaker/writer implies; the listener/reader infers. A listener can infer something that the speaker never implied.

    I believe that thinking something isn’t as bad as saying or doing something. I especially believe that other people thinking you meant to say X when you said Y is not so serious an act as you actually saying X.

    If you believe otherwise, then you should fully support prosecution of thought crimes.

    Of course not. It’s coded. What do you think he was referrring to by “all these problems over all these years”? Double-parking?

    Ah yes, it’s coded. How could I have overlooked the code? Is this part of the same code that Charles Rangel referred to when he said, “It’s not ‘spic’ or ‘nigger’ anymore, it’s ‘let’s cut taxes’?” I’ve never been very big on code words.

    I don’t know with any certainty what he was referring to, and neither do you. All you can say with any truth is that you think he was talking about segregation. But we know for a fact that Jesse Jackson called Jewish people hymies, and you think that’s mitigated by him saying it on an airplane.

    Steverino (e00589)

  55. NOYK: I meant exactly as you said: that the listeners to Lott’s statement inferred racism from it, without actually knowing whether he implied it. It’s pretty clear in the cross-post.

    Steverino (e00589)

  56. My point is that bigotry is not simply about words, but about actions. Implied (or correctly inferred) bigotry is based on actions. Thus it is in fact more offensive than simple spoken words.

    If someone makes bigoted statements in the open, there is, at the very least, no attempt at deception, and gives the person facing bigotry a chance to directly address the bigot. If bigotry is going on behind the scenes, it’s worse, because it has a more incidious effect.

    I don’t know, it’s true, what Lott really meant. But if he meant what was inferred/implied, that’s a hell of a lot more offensive to me than if he just stood up and said “I wish segrigation had never ended.” Because by simply implying his statements in code, he’s attempting to work under the radar, without being detected, to deny his opponents a chance to dispute his bigoted point of view.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  57. Because by simply implying his statements in code, he’s attempting to work under the radar, without being detected, to deny his opponents a chance to dispute his bigoted point of view.

    Is that sort of like allowing a newsletter bearing your name to print racism for over a decade?

    chaos (9c54c6)

  58. I’m sure Ron Paul would take responsibility for the actions of his own administration just as bravely as he accepts responsibility for this petty little hate-letter. In some of these Nazi ramblings, Paul specifically mentions his wife by name, as his wife, to tell other nazis how she is doing.

    There is no doubt whatsover that Ron wrote some of this hate-material. None, once you’ve looked at it. Ron is a monster. Those who follow him are also monsters. Either they refuse to seriously look into serious charges because they don’t care, or they actually agree. Either way, such people do not belong in the political process.

    Someone said we should be nice, so as to compel Ron voters to our side. No. I don’t want them on my side. No tent should be that big. Ron Paul supporters can support he next Larouche, and the one after that, forever, and remain irrelevant except to demonstrate how the real candidates are able to deal with monsters. So far, it’s been one of Rudy’s few triumphs.

    Jem (9e390b)

  59. I don’t know, it’s true, what Lott really meant. But if he meant what was inferred/implied, that’s a hell of a lot more offensive to me than if he just stood up and said “I wish segrigation had never ended.”

    And if my aunt had wheels she’d be a wagon. You’re making a supposition contrary to fact.

    Steverino (e00589)

  60. Jem, could you provide a link to the actual material? I’ve been trying to find it, and I’ll I’ve managed to find is people talking about it.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  61. Jem, hear, hear. I made this rejoinder at the Captain’s Quarters and in this specific case, I’m sure you’d agree:

    Initial Commentator: His [Ron Paul’s] followers had a zeal that a smart candidate (or party) needs to figure out how to capture!

    My Reply: The G.O.P. doesn’t need that kind of radical zeal. It was personality cult-like and not based on reason and certainly not on decency. You don’t need voters who will follow an anti-Semite white supremacist demagogic bastard to the gates of Hades… you need thinkers and people of decency to weigh the candidates and fight their hearts out for the right one for the right reasons.

    Ron Paul’s supporters were more like internet brown shirts.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  62. And if my aunt had wheels she’d be a wagon. You’re making a supposition contrary to fact.

    You really think that Lott being a subtle bigot is as unlikely as your aunt having wheels?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  63. Christoph, what Ron Paul campaign have you been watching? “Personality-cult?”

    Tell me this: I want a candidate who will promise to reduce the size of government, be cautious about going to war, stop being so paranoid about terrorism, lower taxes, cut government spending across the board, and reduce government intrusion into private life (including the drug war). Who should I support? Every other candidate in the picture (other than Paul) will turn at least one of those issues completely on its head.

    Paul is a boring, not particularly dynamic, very old, high-pitched, somewhat abrupt man with none of the traits of a charismatic leader. He’s one of the last people I would choose as electable IF I COULD CHOOSE A CANDIDATE. Unfortunately, there are no such choices.

    I could give a rat’s ass about Ron Paul’s personality. There is nobody out there representing all of these points of view. If you can find one, seriously, I will drop Ron Paul like a hot freaking potato, because the guy means nothing to me as a personality.

    And I think a large portion of his supporters feel the same.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  64. Christoph, what Ron Paul campaign have you been watching? “Personality-cult?”

    Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
    hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    ha

    That’s the funniest thing I’ve read all day. Tell me, for someone so knowledgeable about America’s Greatest Patriot, how can you be so ignorant?

    chaos (9c54c6)

  65. chaos, answer my freaking question. Do I have another option, based on the issues I described?

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  66. I think debating Phil on whether Ron Paul’s racist and other crackpot views ought to be a political career killer is a waste of time. Considering America’s history of slavery, the terrible civil war, racism, and finally healing and increasing unity between the races, Ron Paul’s white supremacists’ leaning, support, and supporters (among others like the anti-Semitic views he’s endorsed) are quite rightly taboo.

    America doesn’t need his crap — and it doesn’t need Phil’s either, not that that’s any kind of shock.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  67. I see. So in other words, you can’t answer my questions, have no rational response to my arguments, so you’re using the old “they’re crazy” line again.

    Fine, it’s not like I’m not used to it.

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  68. There is always the option of voting for a large-L Libertarian candidate.

    Bradley J. Fikes (d84fc5)

  69. I do agree that we need to try to funnel Paul’s support into the Libertarian party, absolutely.

    That doesn’t change the fact that the Libertarian party hasn’t been able to convince anyone that they’re actually electable.

    Being in the debates was a huge boost for Paul, because people who’ve been wishing for a libertarian candidate (but not wanting to utterly waste their time with a Libertarian candidate, or not even knowing who that party’s candidate was), suddenly saw hope. Real hope, even if it did come in the form of a high-voiced old man with a somewhat dubious past.

    The Libertarian party hasn’t been able to do that yet — create hope. That’s why Paul made so much money. Because he actually gave people hope for the first time. It’s so incredibly depressing to have to pick from the other candidates — “do you want more government, or more government?”

    Phil (6d9f2f)

  70. Whoo-hoo! Now *real* conservatives can get back to doing what they do best: borrowing, spending, and blowing up stuff!!

    Butler T. Reynolds (0a7677)

  71. Patterico, not surprisingly Ace has decimated Ron Paul and, by extension, Radley Balko. You’ll probably want to look over his piece. It’s a tour de force of reason (pun not intended) and decency.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  72. I think this is what you meant, Christoph.

    nk (4bb3c1)

  73. Thanks, nk, for correcting my link! Anyone wanting to find Ace’s take on Ron Paul and Balko, visit nk’s link instead.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  74. I’ve now read Ace’s post. His position appears to be “I’m a total asshole with no respect for anyone who disagrees with me, I prefer to call people names and insult them rather than attempt to respect and understand their point of view — and by the way, I can’t believe that anyone supports Ron Paul because he’s a RACIST!!!”

    He’s mighty persuasive.

    Phil (aa9cba)

  75. Ace pretty much nails it.

    Ron Paul’s support has always been puzzling in one way. He has a lot of support from people who nominally don’t share his positions. Now we know why, they know something about Ron Paul that they – and Ron Paul – don’t want to admit knowing.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  76. Lets see, current mainstream Republican candidates generally want to:

    use military force to impose their preferred form of government on the primitive, savage Arab Muslim nations who only resist democracy because they are too dumb to know better

    punish crack cocaine dealers at 10 times the level of powder cocaine dealers, because, well, crack is just worse not because of race or anything. . .

    expand the death penalty, not because juries far prefer to execute minorities, but because we want justice for the victims . . .

    make sure rich white people can cross borders with impunity to hire cheap labor, but poor brown people can’t actually BRING their own cheap labor across the border to America (yeah, that’s one thing I disagree with Ron Paul on and agree with McCain on) . . .

    Thank goodness they aren’t RACIST.

    Phil (aa9cba)

  77. That was pretty lame, Phil.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  78. Wow, SPQR that’s actually the least over-the-top response I’ve ever received to a comment on this site. I really don’t know what to make of it . . . I’m so used to being called a raving lunatic racist commie retard . . . I really don’t know how to respond to “lame.”

    I’ll just respect your opinion, I guess. Maybe it was lame.

    Phil (aa9cba)

  79. You really think that Lott being a subtle bigot is as unlikely as your aunt having wheels?

    No, I think you are imagining a hypothetical wrong when you admitted you had no evidence of it.

    Even if Lott is a “subtle” bigot (take a look at his actions before you condemn him for words he didn’t say), how does that square with the unvarnished racism in Ron Paul’s newsletter?

    Steverino (af57bc)

  80. Steverino for whatever reason my point is utterly lost on you. I’ll just say it’s my fault — forget it.

    As for your point . . . sure, we have no proof Trent Lott is a racist just because he wishes Strom, who ran on a platform of racism, had become president — but Ron Paul is definitely a racist because racists published stuff in his newsletter.

    Whatever, I don’t care who’s a “racist” or what they supposedly believe — I care about what they goddamn well DO. So go support your war-loving, police-state-making, over-taxing “conservative” republicans (who, thank god, aren’t racists) and I’ll support Ron Paul.

    Phil (aa9cba)

  81. I dunno if speaking at Thurman’s funeral was ever a good idea.
    Predictably, things went…um…. south.
    Next time just do the “there was a huge heart under that a lot of folks never let themselves see” or some such BS, go have a bourbon and call it a day.

    SteveG (4e16fc)

  82. Well, having finally found the newsletters, I can say this: the venomous, incredibly angry and cynical tone of them sounds way more like Little Green Footballs or Ace than the Ron Paul who speaks today.

    If it was Paul who wrote them, well, he sounds like the rest of the right in tone (he just apparently despises gays and blacks and jews instead of muslims, mexicans and liberals).

    If Ron Paul talked like that today, I’d role my eyes and move on. Totally a waste of time.

    Of course, the newsletters sound exactly like the neocon blogosphere today, in tone — full of spitting hate and totally convinced he’s right, and everyone else is insane.

    Is that who Ron Paul really is? I dunno. Like I said, it seems like if he was really that kind of person, he’d be better off aligning himself with the neocons, who love to hate and demonize their enemies.

    Anyway, it’s pretty much moot, since his reputation is now trashed. Back to the drawing board. Whoever gets elected, it’ll be four more years of massive spending and government expansion — the only question is, will it be socialist welfare-state populism, or militaristic police-state authoritarianism? We’ll see.

    Phil (aa9cba)

  83. chaos, answer my freaking question. Do I have another option, based on the issues I described?

    No, you don’t have another option if you want to vote for fringe ideas on the Right.

    Boo fucking hoo.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  84. Of course, the newsletters sound exactly like the neocon blogosphere today, in tone — full of spitting hate and totally convinced he’s right, and everyone else is insane.

    ROFL, jackass, you’re projecting yourself and the other Ronulans again.

    chaos (9c54c6)

  85. Yeah, you don’t sound like that at all, chaos.

    Phil (aa9cba)

  86. Phil, you always remind one of why they don’t take your thoughts seriously. You could get new thoughts of course, but failing that, I don’t take you seriously.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  87. That’s OK, Christoph, I don’t take your thoughts seriously, either.

    Phil (aa9cba)

  88. Coming from a Ron Paul supporter…

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  89. “neocon blogosphere” ? Really phil? I can’t think of anyone in the blogosphere who is a neocon.

    But that’s because I’m using the real definition of a neoconservative – which is that of a old style liberal who has shifted to a form of conservativism based on a rejection of failed coopted socialist ideals and holds ideas based on conservative forms of liberty without adopted the social conservative positions.

    I’m not using it in the more typical leftie codespeak for “them joos”.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  90. OK, maybe I should just use “the war-loving wing of the republican party.” Is that accurate enough for you>

    Phil (aa9cba)

  91. I enjoyed Ace’s piece, even though I’m a little more warm-hearted toward some of the Reasoners for their willingness to jump off the ship. (Balko, like Volokh conspirator David Bernstein, appears willing to accept Paul’s current explanation, which looks patently incredible to me.)

    This is an opportunity of sorts for Libs like Bradley J. Fikes to renounce the evil part of their party – and, unsurprisingly, he was ahead of the curve. Virginia Postrel said she thought he was too irrelevant and crazy before to talk about, but that former editor of Reason has nothing nice to say about Paul.

    If you don’t call out the crazies, they get id’d with the party or movement, whichever political stripe it is. It’s tougher to (accurately) explain that anti-illegal sentiment isn’t racist if some of the people espousing that are hanging out with the secessionists. So there are some Libertarians we don’t have to throw in the trash heap. But those that support Paul past this date are unuseful to intelligent debate.

    –JRM

    JRM (355c21)

  92. Accurate or not, Phil, feel free to call everyone you dislike “neocons”. It makes it easier to figure out that the rest of your rant will be irrelevant and a waste of time. Signals like that save me 20 or 30 minutes of wasted reading each day.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  93. Oh but you guys have so much fun telling me how crazy I am and patting each other on the back about how right you all are. It’s not all a waste 😛

    Phil (aa9cba)

  94. Phil, you are wasting your time here. If you support Ron Paul, quit arguing with people whom you will never convince. Go walk your precincts. I am now the chairman of my precinct (because my competition dropped out). I am, therefore, on the executive committee of the Republican Party in my County for the next two years. I can have more influence talking to my neighbors about Ron Paul and working for fiscal conservatism in my county, than I ever could arguing with commenters on a blog.

    Jerri Lynn Ward (bf2d8c)

  95. Why Ronulan? Because it brings in the Star Trek nutcases who wear Trek Uniforms every day to work. There was some woman who did that as an OJ Jury alternate IIRC.

    Ronulans are loony obsessive nutcases just like that.

    And hey Libertarians — now whenever people think “Libertarian” they think kooky, nutty, conspiracy-theory lunatic racists! That may not be fair but that’s life for you!

    I’m hoping Fred, McCain, Mitt, Huck and of course Rudy! smack Ron Paul and the Ronulans around in the next debate. Tell Ron Paul he’s in the wrong party, the American Nazis are down the street and he ought to goose step right on over there. And take his SA with him.

    Jim Rockford (e09923)

  96. See Jerri, if you’ve lost Jim Rockford … well, you’ve lost.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  97. “I’m so used to being called a raving lunatic racist commie retard”

    I don’t remember ever calling Phil a racist, but the other labels fit pretty well. He forgot fuckstick, though.

    daleyrocks (906622)

  98. And hey Libertarians — now whenever people think “Libertarian” they think kooky, nutty, conspiracy-theory lunatic racists! That may not be fair but that’s life for you!

    I hope this catastrophe has a positive side for the libertarian movement, in that from now on we will be much more aware about candidates who talk the libertarian talk, but cultivate nutty/or racist allies.

    Bradley J. Fikes (1c6fc4)

  99. What? No mention of Matt Welch?

    tired (592cc6)

  100. I first raised an eyebrow about Dr Paul when he stated that it was not worth fighting the Civil War over slavery, that the government should have bought the enslaved AFricans and then freed them. I thought that was an odd point of view, but decided to hold my judgement.

    Now I am close to forming a judgement.

    I would really like to know the real principle for Ron Paul’s opposition to the war in Iraq. For what principle or kind of person would a President Paul cause American blood to be shed?

    Mary (ab45c1)

  101. I first raised an eyebrow about Dr Paul when he stated that it was not worth fighting the Civil War over slavery, that the government should have bought the enslaved AFricans and then freed them.

    Which shows what an insane idiot Paul is. The kindest view of the Southerners choosing to secede over abolition is that they were very afraid of the slaves that would be freed. (The kindest view, not necessarily the correct view.) Unless, he left unsaid the second part of all Civil War revisionists, “and then sent them all back to Africa”.

    nk (dda711)

  102. “I would really like to know the real principle for Ron Paul’s opposition to the war in Iraq. For what principle or kind of person would a President Paul cause American blood to be shed?”

    Mary, you’re asking some great questions. I think you’ll find Ron Paul opposes using force against any enemy of International Bankers, I mean Israel Jews.

    Christoph (92b8f7)

  103. Steverino wrote:

    Phil, I’m a libertarian, and I think you’re nuts.

    I’m in favor of legalizing drugs, but I wouldn’t want a President who uses drugs. I’m in favor the right to associate freely, but I don’t want a bigot as President.

    I’m in favor of a very limited government; I just think Ron Paul is the wrong man for President.

    BRAVISSIMO, Steverino!

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  104. Jim Rockford wrote: Why Ronulan? Because it brings in the Star Trek nutcases who wear Trek Uniforms every day to work. There was some woman who did that as an OJ Jury alternate IIRC.

    Close. It wasn’t an O.J. juror, it was a prospective juror the Whitewater trials of Jim Guy Tucker and the McDougals.

    I’ve been thinking a lot about Susan McDougal lately. If Arkansas jurors weren’t so gullible, I wouldn’t have to look at Mark Geragos’ ugly mug all the time.

    L.N. Smithee (b048eb)

  105. Anyone with a computer and acolor printer could have mocked up this or any other newsletter.
    If this was Ron Paul’s style, this sort of thing would be plentiful, easy to find and all of them would have found their way into the media long, long before this one did.
    He’s done better than Thompson (NH: Ron’s 18,303 to Fred’s 2,886) and Giuliani (IA: Ron’s 11,817 to Rudy’s 4,097) on seperate occasions. So it’s not hard to fathom this newsletter could have been conjured up to deflate what little voter support Paul has been getting. All one need do is examine who would be the one(s) to profit from Paul’s political demise.
    Christ, it’s bad enough the guy can be victorious to any degree as well as Fred and Rudy and not get any coverage and be excluded from televised debates. Now this? And who is possibly going to find this accusation credible?

    foxisms (8eec84)

  106. I do not know how people can make such big issues out of a couple comments. Racism is and was blatant and I do not think the comments that Paul made make him racist or the evil man all of you prescribe him to be. Ignorant racial comments were made and still are made constantly. It is not so much a reflection of evil ideology but is our screwed up society. I hope all of you feel empowered on your soapboxes. If you seriously are going to write off someone for comments you cannot even prove they made you are reaching. Moreover, for all of you anti-paul voters, whom would you vote for? What candidate has a clean mistake free slate? I am not a Ronulan or whatever lame name you people use. I am embarrassed for you for I can almost guarantee that the majority of you have done things in your lives that make Paul look like a boy scout. In the real world people make mistakes and say regretful things and we are all bigots in our own way. Racism is not OK but to act like a couple of comments someone made years ago is sooo awful when the sitcom you watch on TV is more racially damaging is ignorant.

    cindilu (3c80ff)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1157 secs.