Paul campaign’s “payment” to Alex Jones was a partial refund of his donation
posted at 1:38 pm on October 29, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Duly noted and duly corrected. You’ll find the disbursement here about three-quarters of the way down. I could have done without the insinuations of laziness (“bloggers can’t be bothered to do five minutes of research”), especially when bloggers are credited in the same post for having discovered the donation from Don Black — can the campaign “not be bothered” to police for that sort of thing, given their unsolicited yet rising support among white supremacists? — but kudos to Paul for returning, well, not quite all of Alex Jones’s filthy $2,300 but a good-sized chunk of it. The first step is always the hardest.
As for Paul’s relationship with Jones:
I fear that Paul isn’t about to denounce Jones, and it’s a shame. When Paul made his most recent appearance on Jones’s radio show, I asked the candidate’s spokesman why he continues to associate with Jones. I detected some quiet frustration in his answer that Paul had promised the interview and that he keeps his word in such matters. Considering that Jones’s entire operation exploits gullible people willing to believe anything about 9/11, he might want to consider making fewer such promises in the future.
Indeed. Or none at all, even. Between that, his fears of a new Gulf of Tonkin incident in the Persian Gulf to precipitate war with Iran, and his warnings about the plans for a North American Union (replete with new Amero currency), people might start to get it in their heads that he’s a crank.
To make amends, I offer the Paul campaign a bit of free advertising. Here’s New Hamphire ad number two, a vast improvement over New Hampshire ad number one.
Update: One other point from Freddoso’s post. What does this mean?
The “payment” to Jones (and yes, it is that same Jones) was not a payment at all, but a partial refund of Jones’s $2,300 contribution. It is clearly marked as such, if you look in the right place on the electronic FEC forms. Paul’s spokesman said he put a line in to the campaign treasurer when he noticed it being discussed on the blogosphere, but that’s the answer he’s going to get.
Does that mean he didn’t notice they’d received a contribution from Jones until he heard bloggers talking about it? Or that he didn’t notice that it might be a problem until he heard bloggers talking about it? I’m guessing the latter. If Paul had some strong objection of his own to Jones and his money, he wouldn’t be appearing on his radio show.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
This is a much better ad.
Out of curiosity, not critique, why does Ron Paul get as much attention here as he does?
Spirit of 1776 on October 29, 2007 at 1:45 PM
AP: Now you’ve done it… I expect to see the Rontards now declaring that HotAir has “seen the light and are now supporting Ron Paul” anytime now.
RINO_Hunter on October 29, 2007 at 1:46 PM
The integrity of Hot Air stands untarnished. Let’s see Kos make such a retraction.
MUCH better than the last ad. The last one seemed like they got the worst actors in the world.
MadisonConservative on October 29, 2007 at 1:54 PM
This will double his numbers in NH.
All kidding aside, it’s the “pull out now” message that gets the whackjobs fired up. But that will all be worth it if he can get his message of “it’s not in the Constitution” back into the debate for the Republican nomination.
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 1:57 PM
I just re-read my pocket copy of the Constitution. Where does it say you can’t have deficit spending?
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on October 29, 2007 at 2:00 PM
In the same section it says you can take my money and pay for someone else’s healthcare.
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 2:06 PM
He’s never voted for an unbalanced budget, but he doesn’t mind submitting 400 million in earmarks.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292334,00.html
RINO_Hunter on October 29, 2007 at 2:08 PM
Why do I always feel like I am defending this guy? Because of his views on Iraq, I am not supporting him.
Nevertheless, the Fox story specifies $10 million in earmarks and says he requested $400 million. That’s quite a difference. And if he voted against the appropriations bill in the first place, he is true to his statements.
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 2:21 PM
I prefer “Paulsies” to Rontards.
Verbal Abuse on October 29, 2007 at 2:22 PM
Returning $1,300 of a $2,300 contribution? Is $1,000 Paul’s threshold for creating undue influence on him?
Dusty on October 29, 2007 at 2:31 PM
It amazes me that Allahpundit and his merry band of Ron Paul-troofers here at HA, refuse to label this guy an anti-semite and a racist. How much more obvious does it have to be??? And I have yet to see Paul’s statement on the Israel Resolution fisked by the illustrious AP. Or any other obnoxious Paul statement. Yet, posting Ron Paul propaganda, oops, I mean ads, is just fine. I’m not worried as much by the money this guy gets as by the words he says. After all, David Duke recieved lotsa greenbacks, but his own words brought him down. So shall it be with Paul. This guy should be incessantly vilified, not treated like a legitimate candidate. Just my two cents.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 29, 2007 at 2:33 PM
Please elaborate. I have heard this accusation before, but I am not sure what you are talking about.
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 2:35 PM
A little OT: But I caught COAST TO COAST AM on Sunday morning, coming home from a party and caught Alex Jones in hysteria mode. My God, that man has to be leading a totally miserable life, believing the things he does.
A person CAN’T be happy with all that paranoia rolling around in their mind.
tickleddragon on October 29, 2007 at 2:40 PM
Asking for the Earmarks, and then voting against them, knowing his colleagues will pass the measure, doesn’t bother you?
RINO_Hunter on October 29, 2007 at 2:44 PM
All earmarks bother me, but I think you have the process backwards. Apparently, he voted against the approbriations (sp?) and loss. Once the money was approved (would be spent regardless) he applied for the earmarks.
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 2:47 PM
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
RINO_Hunter on October 29, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Paulsies? Rontards?
Somewhere I read that the supporters refer to themselves as “Paulistinians”.
Seems fitting somehow.
heldmyw on October 29, 2007 at 2:47 PM
Wouldn’t let me link, said the article was too old.
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Here a quote from a Ron Paul article he wrote for the anti-war.org website:
How deranged and anti-semitic do you have to be to conclude that Israel is THE threat to peace in the Middle East??? Expand the Israeli homeland!?!?!?!?! WTF? Israel has GIVEN up land for peace. Its just that the Arabs/Muslims don’t want the land, they want all of Israel. But this schmuck can’t figure that out, or he’s an anti-semite. Since I don’t think he’s stupid, the latter applies.
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 29, 2007 at 2:55 PM
I understand the sentiment. Of all things, I think he has proved his fiscal con cred. I’m not a supporter, either, but I would be pleased to see the conversation shift to his policies and less character assasination by association. Though I acknowledge the legitimacy of the concerns.
Spirit of 1776 on October 29, 2007 at 2:57 PM
David Freddoso of NRO is a crypto-Rontard.
He was first to defend Paul against the “new Tonkin” crap he agreed with on Alex Jones radio show.
And he defended Paul against Rudy’s 9-11 slam in one of the early GOP debates.
So, it’s no surprise he gets his panties in a twist when Paul gets bad press. Again.
Cuffy Meigs on October 29, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Thanks, BTW it’s antiwar.org not anti-war.org The latter provides interesting pop-ups. I haven’t been able to find the article in which this quote appears. I haven’t gone through all of them just the titles that I thought would match. Would you be kind enough to provide a link to the actual article?
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 3:09 PM
I hate to be the one to break the news to the Corner but they slightly messed it up. The Paul refund noted with their reference is not done in accordance with the FEC guidelines for filings. What they point to is the combined page of all the Schedule B line 28 items.
They somehow managed to miss that a refund should also be reflected in the sub report that only lists what are called line 28A items.
You can view that report which reflects all the refunds by the Paul campaign and you will see that the Jones refund is not in the list because it was not coded with the proper FEC transaction code to put it into the line 28A group.
CommentGuy on October 29, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Paul also beleives in the fringe-left-kook conspiracy, that the Bush family and the CIA are huge Drug Dealers. He talked about it openly when he ran for President in 1988, as part of his legalization of all drugs platform.
jp on October 29, 2007 at 3:15 PM
and lets not forget his beleif in the newly popular, “North American Union” and of course the more old-school Fed. Reserve conspiracies.
Conspiricacy beleifs are part of his package, always has been.
Saying that George W. Bush is “determined to impose martial law” and that he would contrive some devious plot to do it is a wild conspiracy, defaming of the office of POTUS and CinC. And that alone makes the guy unfit for command.
jp on October 29, 2007 at 3:17 PM
Since GWB signed that prescription drug bill, I know my parents are getting much better (and more) drugs.
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 3:20 PM
H CON RES 21
BILL TITLE: Calling on the United Nations Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and the United Nations Charter because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel
Final Vote: 411 YEAS, 2 NAYS, 11 “PRESENT,” 8 NV.
Who are those two “nays?” Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
H RES 548
BILL TITLE: Expressing the ongoing concern of the House of Representatives for Lebanon’s democratic institutions and unwavering support for the administration of justice upon those responsible for the assassination of Lebanese public figures opposing Syrian control of Lebanon.
Final Vote: 415 YEAS, 2 NAYS, 15 NV.
Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
H RES 557
BILL TITLE: Strongly condemning the United Nations Human Rights Council for ignoring severe human rights abuses in various countries, while choosing to unfairly target Israel by including it as the only country permanently placed on the Council’s agenda
Final Vote: 416 YEAS, 2 NAYS, 14 NV.
Who are those two “nays?” Congressmen Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.
http://bamapachyderm.com/archives/2007/10/29/why-jew-haters-love-ron-paul/
bnelson44 on October 29, 2007 at 3:33 PM
Why only give $1300 of a $2300 donation back?
bnelson44 on October 29, 2007 at 3:37 PM
Yes, it’s a much better ad. Of course, that’s like saying Madonna is much classier than Britney Spears.
Splashman on October 29, 2007 at 3:38 PM
I know that I’m sounding like a broken record here, but are you talking about this: http://www.house.gov/paul/tst/tst2006/tst082806.htm
Because I could go either way with a trilateral agreement between the countries in North America. That said, what is conspiratorial about that?
Ron Paul supporters will take anything they hold dear and claim that Ron Paul agrees with them. Ron Paul detractors, it is becoming apparent, seem to believe the same.
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 3:42 PM
NO, with the NAU he is using it as part of his platform as if its fact. Its on record in many places.
also, he beleives in the AIPAC and CFR conspiracies about our Foreign Policy and Isreal…and is on record saying the ‘Israeli Lobby is the worst lobby’ in washington ‘of the bad sort’.
Fed Reserve conspiracies are rooted in anti-semitism.
I’m not sure which version of the “Bush family are Drug Dealers with the CIA” he beleives in, but he has stated it as fact publicly. one wild version I heard, was that when George W. was “AWOL”, he was really flying drugs in and out of the country, and its ‘documented’.
Accusing W. of a “Gulf of Tonkin” and trying to “impose Martial Law” through devious means are wild conspiracy theories, providing no proof.
jp on October 29, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Club for Growth rates Ron Paul
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/2007/10/ron_pauls_record_on_economic_i.php#more
bnelson44 on October 29, 2007 at 4:01 PM
Club for Anti-Semitic Crackpot Curmudgeons rates Ron Paul:
“Woot!”
Splashman on October 29, 2007 at 4:18 PM
bnelson just a quick question; if you believe the USA should not be in the UN, would you vote “Yes” on any house reolution that calls on the UN to do anything?
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 4:30 PM
My eyes have been opened for me. Ron Paul is an anti-semite for not supporting Isreal. Of course he doesn’t support China so that makes him anti-Sino, and don’t forget that he doesn’t support England that anti-Anglo b@#tard. I really am just starting to educate myself on these matters. But I have to admit that it is enlightening.
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 4:35 PM
Sure, because I live in the real world.
bnelson44 on October 29, 2007 at 4:44 PM
thats not why he’s anti-semitic.
see his views on AIPAC and Isralie lobby, in context of his above votes. the fact he gives Alex Jones the time of day should be enough.
jp on October 29, 2007 at 4:50 PM
recent blog by RP’s longtime employee that is of note. This was a post about RP denying involvment with the nuts that went after Rudy on boat in Mich., but gets into a past campaign he worked on when opponent was going to show Anti-Semitic connections Paul had.
http://libertarianrepublican.blogspot.com/2007/09/ron-paul-campaign-officials-deny.html
jp on October 29, 2007 at 4:59 PM
This stuff sounds so much like what happened in other times in our history. If Ron Paul really is not anti-Jewish or anti-Zionist, if he really isn’t a believer of the junk Alex Jones sells, he needs to strongly speak out against it.
Why doesn’t he?
bnelson44 on October 29, 2007 at 5:04 PM
So you would prefer our politicians to deal with things the way they “wish” they were instead of the way they “really” are? Isn’t living in a fantasy world just a bit of an indication that someone may have “issues”?
P.S. I wish the U.S. whould exit the U.N. and promptly escort it right out of our country, but then again, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.
Fatal on October 29, 2007 at 5:05 PM
Quote from American Thinker
bnelson44 on October 29, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Not at all. Politicians should deal with the real World. But no time should ever be wasted on “non binding resolutions” or “sense of the house” votes. And if a politician believes the UN has no authority to do anything, then the vote should always be “Nay”
If you truly wish that the US was out of the UN and someone asked you a question that started with “Do you think the UN should…?” Unless the question ended with “dissolve” you would have to say “No”
I’m rambling now, so I am going to go drink.
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 5:14 PM
the spin that his above votes are about the UN and not Israel are just that, spin.
if he disagrees with the UN, why even vote in this. Voting NO, gives just as much credence to the existence of the United Nations as Voting YES.
if it were, ‘principled’ votes, as Paulbots always spin this stuff, he would’ve not voted at all. Instead he took time to vote.
jp on October 29, 2007 at 5:23 PM
I don’t understand is someone saying Paul doesn’t vote in favor of any “sense of congress” bills? After looking all of 2 minutes, I have found that is not the case.
bnelson44 on October 29, 2007 at 5:41 PM
Update: Latest Presidential Straw Poll
bnelson44 on October 29, 2007 at 5:49 PM
Uhm, no. It would totally depend on the question. If the question was, “Do you think the UN should support Israel against Iranian threats to wipe it off the map”? My answer certainly would not be “No”. If my primary concern was with the existence of the U.N., my answer would be “I don’t think the U.N. should exists, but as long as we are faced with the reality that it does, I would much prefer the U.N. to support Israel against Iran than vice versa”.
If he were truly trying to vote his conscience, it would have not have been a “no” vote, it would have been no vote at all.
As jp points out:
Fatal on October 29, 2007 at 6:56 PM
Absolutely 100% f**kin’ wrong. You’re joking though because you were already drunk when you wrote this. Right?
Andy in Agoura Hills on October 29, 2007 at 7:50 PM
Wrong,
But I’m feeling pretty good now and the beer / whiskey haze has let me see the light. Amen Brother
You are no different than the “you are against reparations…you must be a bigot” crowd!
Hours ago I asked that you send me a link to the article in which Paul said those bigoted words. Instead you sent me to the (wrong) website. I figured out where I was supposed to go, but instead of giving me the actual article you left me hanging.
So I went through numerous articles, BTW I would say you owe me some brain cells, but apparently you are running low, and I found nothing anti-Semitic. I found many articles saying that the US should not be giving foreign aid to the Middle East, but not once did I see the quotes that you attributed to him.
Furthermore, is it your opinion that my labor should go to Israel (and Egypt and Palestine)? This point that Paul makes (as does Benjamin Netanyahu) I agree with whole heartedly, that the federal government should not be giving U.S. tax dollars to foreign governments for their defense.
Call me what you will, but I will call you a phony American
sweeper on October 29, 2007 at 10:05 PM
Which went to nurses, shrimp factories, and other assorted “unconstitutional” groups. If the money was going to be spent regardless at least he could spend it on things that are consistant with his political thought.
Keljeck on October 29, 2007 at 11:57 PM