Audio: TNR editor pores through the archives of Ron Paul’s newsletters; Update: TNR article now available; Update: PJM has more; Update: Ron Paul responds
posted at 1:04 pm on January 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
It’s James Kirchick, who earned the wrath of the blogosphere’s resident Conservative of Doubt a few months ago by daring to criticize Paul for pocketing campaign cash donated by known Nazis. Curious as to how Paul assembled such a jolly constituency of white supremacists, Truthers, et al., Kirchick went hunting for Paul’s old newsletters and found copies in a pair of university libraries. Or so he says — supposedly they’re being published on TNR sometime today. Reserve judgment until you can read them for yourself, as they simply can’t be as brutally bad as Kirchick makes them out to be. For one thing, if they were, Paul could never have gotten elected to Congress; for another thing, it is, after all, TNR. And yet Kirchick’s obviously confident enough in what he found to go on the air here with Gibby and make accusations. It’s nine minutes plus but bear with it. Devastating.
Update: Lest there be any confusion, Kirchick isn’t the editor of TNR. (We know who that is.) He’s the assistant to the editor.
Update: Here’s Kirchick’s report. Transcripts of the newsletters should be available on the site soon.
[W]hoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him–and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics…
Paul’s campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically–or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point–over the course of decades–he would have done something about it.
Lots of anti-black, anti-Israel, pro-militia nuttiness at the link. This guy’s been in Congress for 31 years. No one in his district was able to beat him with this on his record?
Update: Excerpts galore at Pajamas Media.
Update (bp): Here’s Kirchick’s interview with Tucker Carlson, who has been supporting Paul and traveling with him. Note Carlson’s reluctance to believe that this garbage came from Paul even though it was printed by Paul under his name. Tucker will probably come around in a day or two, but will most of Paul’s supporters? Not without some ugliness, imho.
Update: Here’s Paul’s response. No denials that this material appeared in his newsletter; only a denial that he agrees with it. He says he takes “moral responsibility” for the content, though. In which case, how about dropping out?
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
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 Next »
and they come out with this….right during the time frame that Barack Obama is rising to stardom with the “Democrat” brand name. While TNR is eager to attach this to Paul while he has the “Republican” brand name next to his name.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM
I found this on Kos awhile back, no doubt doing their own opposition research which is related to these same newsletters.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/5/15/124912/740
interesting part:
in politics, it doesn’t really matter if its true or not. Especially for someone that is still against the Civil Rights Act and refuses to return Nazi donations.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:11 PM
Wanna bet?
I’d take him over Huckabee, but that’s versus Huckabee.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 1:12 PM
I always thought Alex Jones was the one who believed all those crazy conspiracies first, I guess he learned the stuff from Ron Paul.
Complete7 on January 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM
How “Sheets” Byrd got in my Senate I’ll never know…
saint kansas on January 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM
meh, lots of talk with no proof. The guys just as bad as the conspiracy theorist he criticizes
offroadaz on January 8, 2008 at 1:15 PM
But if Ron gets out, who will save America?
Weight of Glory on January 8, 2008 at 1:17 PM
racist quotes on the “Ron Paul Political Report”, with his name at the top isn’t ‘proof’?
jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Time to take down Paul already? I thought he had no chance? /sarcasm
BlackCapitalist on January 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Nine minutes? Who has nine minutes? Can’t they give me the executive summary? I’ll wait for the scans. Plus, this isn’t nearly as sexy as NH running out of dem ballots. BHO is gonna walk on water tonight. Maybe conjure the spirit of Adlai Stevenson. Spook stuff.
Vote Sauron 08 on January 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM
So if he posts the newsletters and they back him up, you’ll turn on Paul, right?
No, of course you won’t. He won’t lose a single vote over this if it’s true. Which is Kirchick’s whole point about his supporters.
Allahpundit on January 8, 2008 at 1:18 PM
Oh, the spin machine’s just getting warmed up. Of course it’s not proof. Just like accepting money from known Nazis isn’t proof, just like endorsing Guy Fawkes Day fundraisers isn’t proof — no proof here. Just an amazing amount of circumstantial evidence.
Allahpundit on January 8, 2008 at 1:20 PM
This guy is a psycho. He is not a Republican, a libertarian racist and shouldn’t be given a public forum.
MyImamToldMeToDoIt on January 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM
The Ronulans are always claiming that their Prophet has never ever changed his positions on anything. So if these turn out to be authentic (it is TNR), that would mean that he still believes that stuff.
I can’t wait to see them get dizzy from all the spinning.
ReubenJCogburn on January 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM
some of these quotes from the “Ron Paul Political Report” have been brought up before, TNR is reporting more than what they had in the past. anyway, his spin in the past was that he didn’t say what the report said, that it was someone who worked for him and he didn’t endorse their views.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:21 PM
Heh. Hope yesterday’s opening of the comment registration didn’t bring in too many Paul supporters.
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:22 PM
Did we ever have any DOUBT?
Ron Paul is a total loon. All anyone has to do is listen to him speak, and if theyre still on board, I feel sorry for them.
He needs to just stay on the blimp.
NickTx on January 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Ron Paul is the Marshall Applewhite of American politics.
Pasalubong on January 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM
He has ALWAYS reminded me of Marshall Applewhite
NickTx on January 8, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Yeah, I’m willing to bet that every last offensive word cited by Kirchick was written by someone else. Every last one. By the anonymous staffer with whom Ron Paul stridently disagrees. Despite publishing the guy’s rantings in his, um, own newsletter.
Allahpundit on January 8, 2008 at 1:26 PM
Well that was a painful 8-9 minutes. When TNR posts these tomorrow then that’ll be the real story. That’s pretty damning stuff though.
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Some evidence? I can’t link, but a quick search finds this, from the The Washington Post, May 26, 1996:
Interesting.
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:27 PM
Wasn’t it an eight-page newsletter? The racist articles were published under his name, regardless of whether or not he employed others.
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Whether true or not, this was inevitable. Paul is done, Thompson is done. Enjoy your future liberal president America.
BlackCapitalist on January 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
My money says the Ronulans will say its alllll a grand conspiracy. Darn Bildeburgers.
NickTx on January 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
He has ALWAYS reminded me of Marshall Applewhite
NickTx on January 8, 2008 at 1:26 PM
They look alike… both geezers from Texas leading suicidal cults…
Pasalubong on January 8, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Is your implication that nominating Paul would stop Obama?
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 1:29 PM
If we nominated Ron Paul, it would REALLY be time to put on the black Nikes and have some Kool-Aid
NickTx on January 8, 2008 at 1:31 PM
We’ll find out soon. A couple already identified themselves yesterday.
And to repeat a comment I made then, I can remember when moonbat trolls were the most annoying people you had to worry about sneaking in during registration. At least they had some entertainment value. Those were the days…
ReubenJCogburn on January 8, 2008 at 1:31 PM
I don’t care what they say/spin. I believe in judging a man by his words and his actions, not by others. If he put his name to the things laid to his charge here, he takes responsibility for it.
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 1:31 PM
yeah, read the DailyKos if you can bare, link above.
This past summer after reading some about his Israel views, I found a quote from one of these in which he called the “Israel Lobby the most evil in Washington” paraphrasing. There spin basically boils down to “Paul didn’t write that stuff”, ignoring that his NAME is at the top, which is all that matters.
there are 2 – Thomas Liafson pieces in the American Thinker that are long and detailed on this stuff and his supporters.
Just google: “Ron Paul KKK” and see how many more hits you get than diong the same for any other candidate. They support him for a reason.
this stuff is the last thing you want attached to “Limited Government” ideals.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM
If given the chance by the media, yes. I think Americans would rather have their own money in their pocket, other than the federal government telling them how to spend it.
BlackCapitalist on January 8, 2008 at 1:33 PM
Then the question is why Paul employed and provided a forum for racists.
snickelfritz on January 8, 2008 at 1:33 PM
This might get some Paulites to switch or stay home *if* the word gets out.
My guess is not too many of them read TNR.
bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM
I will be interested to see if anything comes of this, or if this is another dumb attack like associating him with truthers and neo nazi’s.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 1:35 PM
All righty then…..80
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
8O
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
Well, that didn’t work out.
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 1:36 PM
I think TNR is worried about the Youth vote joining up with the Revolution and hurting the Dems in November. at teh end of that audio, the TNR guy mentions “kids need to know”. Obvious reference to college age young voters.
If not for that, I figure they’d wait until it hurt the REpublican party the most.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:37 PM
simple answer: To keep these racist from using their time and resources to promote their “small ideology”. What better way to do that than working for the “Ron Paul Political Report”
ok, I’m trying to compare to the not returning Don Black’s contribution spin.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:40 PM
Yes, that’s a good question. But even if you take the supporters’ spin as gospel, it’s still bad: someone who lets crap like that that he doesn’t endorse go out under his own name is pretty crappy at being an executive and handling delegated communication, and having appropriate control over an organization. Not exactly a great thing to have on your resume when you’re seeking the Presidency.
So one doesn’t need to accept the “stealth white power guy” hypothesis to see this episode as a serious disqualification.
Splunge on January 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM
Listening to this douche speak, it makes me think there is nothing behind this. This guy sounds like the conspiracy theorist, not RP.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 1:41 PM
This is a Ron Paul supporter: Lalalalalalalalalala, I can’t hear you, nasty neo-cons!
This is an undecided voter: Dude, this is f***ed up!
mram on January 8, 2008 at 1:42 PM
HAHA, listening to this crap, its such a mischaracterization. Calling “blacks animals”. No, he was calling the people who were rioting, animals. And the people who were rioting happened to be black. But I guess its ok to make the jump and just report that he said black people were animals.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM
So do you think the Washington Post was lying as well?
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Spin spin away! Weeeeeeee!!!!
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Looks like I may have to vote for Mickey Mouse this time around. B. Hussein Obama would never get my vote. Mike Hucksterbee is just as bad, but at least I can chalk many of Obama’s gaffs to being naive, not a calculated tax and spender.
Sadly, the closest candidate to my views (Hunter) hasn’t got a chance in hell of winning any primary.
Mercutio on January 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM
Actually, to me he looks exactly like the head Illinois Nazi from The Blues Brothers.
James on January 8, 2008 at 1:47 PM
@ Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM
No, Paul addressed that thing a long time ago. You can either accept his explanation or not, I am guessing you will not.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 1:48 PM
Looking at the Messiah groundswell, I think a very high number would rather have the other guy’s money in their pockets. Never overestimate the American voter.
a capella on January 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM
@ Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:45 PM
No better than a liberal you are.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Sorry, I give someone the benefit of the doubt right up to the point when they keep money from freaking Nazis.
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM
Over at Redstate, where the blog headlines this as:
Ron Paul has called MLK a “gay paedophile”
some commenters posted some links to some of this that has been around. In 1996 in the Houston Chronicle:
http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1343749
also:
jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM
@ Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:49 PM
But you have no problem supporting a candidate who receives money from giant contributers which will affect policy decisions right?
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Dude, why do you bother? Someone could have a photo of Paul spraying swastika graffiti on a wall and the Paulnuts would claim he was painting a mural. This is Kirchick’s whole point. They can’t be reasoned with.
Allahpundit on January 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM
And paulians wonder why I look at them, shake my head, and walk away. God Help us all!
upinak on January 8, 2008 at 1:52 PM
@ jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM
AND???
I know you want to be the PC police, so godforbid we mention race, but what he is saying is true.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Grant research is boring.
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
The epic space battle between the Paul blimp and the Farrakhan mothership is going to kick so much a$$.
saint kansas on January 8, 2008 at 1:53 PM
Be kinda funny to watch Paul flounder in a debate with Obama though…
“No, I’m saying that you black people don’t have sensible political opinions…..!”
JohnTant on January 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM
@ Allahpundit on January 8, 2008 at 1:51 PM
You apparently see no difference in accepting money that will not affect policy decisions from an undesireable, and accepting money from someone which WILL affect policy decisions. If given a choice, I choose the former. I dont like my politicians being bought by lobbyists, China, and large corporations. If you do, that is your choice. I just dont see the whole nazi thing as a big deal. If you want to nail Paul on some points, there are plenty of points to nail him on.
Afghanistan Oil pipeline
Income tax cannot just dissapear, its too large
Possibly foreign policy
When you focus on stupid crap like this, it makes you look juvenile.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Hell, he could be burning a cross and the Paulnuts would say he’s just reenacting his favorite scene from Madonna’s “Like a Prayer” video.
Pasalubong on January 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I tell you what Muyoso if you really want to help Ron Paul in this matter then do this.
Get you and other Paul backers and march to the RP HQ and demand he issue a statement condeming Don Black and Stormfront and other racists. While your at it ask him to also attack the 9/11 Truther movement.
Have Ron Paul stand up to the biggots and truther idiots that associate with his campaign. Have RP tell them to take a hike that they dont belong with him.
If Ron Paul does that I would have a lot more respect for Ron Paul and so would others here. We would start to let up on attacks on him. Its Ron Pauls silent approval of these people that gives alot of us doubt here.
William Amos on January 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM
I’m guessing that there is a subset of Paulnuts (half, maybe?) that are libertarian-oriented or antiwar conservative college kids who simply have not heard much about their chosen candidate’s history. It took reporters nearly a year to get around to digging this stuff up, so it’s not necessarily mainstream knowledge. Some of those who are just learning about it now will deny it as some sort of conspiracy (as some of our friends here have), but others will leave his camp on account of it.
Big S on January 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM
to the first point about “PC Police”, as long as the Dems/Left control the National Dialogue and have the huge megaphone they do, politically you better be mindful of it….if you know, you actually want to win and keep the Dems out of power.
as to the Second point about what Paul is saying being true, well thats nice to know. also, Paul should know by 2008, much less the 90’s, you can’t classify by race so much and make it in the mainstream…in this country. And aside from that, the other stuff they claim to have is pretty bad to defend, on top of what has come out in the past.
This is a guy that just got finished on national TV telling Russert he’s against the Civil Rights act and refuses to return Neo-Nazi donations.
Neo-Nazi’s support him for a reason and have for years.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM
If the quotes amount to nothing more then what he stated in his speech as to why he opposed the civil rights act of 1964 then I dont have a problem with it.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism
offroadaz on January 8, 2008 at 2:01 PM
I love how the paulies argue that the right doesnt want to discuss the US’ Foreign policy and all the problems it has caused in the world. That we wont talk about all the conspiracy theories about actions the US has taken
Yet when we ask them to confront their guys missteps we are told its a subject we cant talk about its all part of some conspiracy and the subject is close.
If you demand an honest debate then dont sit there and fall silent when the honest debate turns an ugly eye on your guy.
William Amos on January 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM
@ jp on January 8, 2008 at 1:59 PM
Thats fine. I personally believe the neo-nazis support him because he is all for a vast reduction in the size of government, and as you know, neo-nazis arent big fans of government. We will see if anything comes of this TNR thing, and if it does I will revise who I support. Thinking about it though, now that FRED! is dead in the water, even if it turns out RP is a raging racist neo-nazi, who else do I support for president?
Romney is out
Huck is OUT
McCain is annoying and out
Giuliani ?????? VERY DAMN CLOSE TO BEING OUT
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM
Slublog,
Here’s a great link to Ron Paul objecting to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
He does a good job with the Affirmative Action smoke screen but he can’t help but let slip the idea that he feels it is a constitutional right to be a racist bigot.
bj1126 on January 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM
TNR is claiming they have “MLK was a Gay Pedophile” in one of these newsletters.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM
This stuff has been circulating for years and it’ll be interesting to see if Kirchick prints anything new. There is no doubt that RP said or wrote none of the things that have already been published.
Nonetheless, he is completely responsible for what gets published in a newsletter with his name on it. Moreover, he is completely responsible for the employees he has hired (or his staff has hired) that write for his newsletter. Bad company corrupts good manners, and Ron Paul must account for this.
This is the trouble with libertarianism and liberalism: in order for one to stay consistent, one must make common cause with the dregs of society.
Conservatives tend to shrug off Ron Paul as having some good ideas, but basically an ideologue who ought not be trusted too much. Ideology traditionally has no place in conservatism. For those of you who care to know why, read Russell Kirk or Eric Voegelin.
Drum on January 8, 2008 at 2:04 PM
And he proved my point.
bj1126 on January 8, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Interesting article. That’s really the tragic thing about Paul. He can, at times, sound not at all insane and defend small-government conservatism with passion.
Other times, though…
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 2:06 PM
So what you’re saying is, they’re as ignorant of Paul’s history as they are of the rest of history.
ReubenJCogburn on January 8, 2008 at 2:08 PM
@ William Amos on January 8, 2008 at 2:03 PM
No one is asking anyone to talk about conspiracy theories about the US, I just want some people to read a damn history book on our actions overseas. Wonder why Iran hates us?? Of course its mainly because of Israel, but also, we funded a war against them, we shot down one of their civilian airliners, we put a damn leader in charge of their country, etc. Why the hell wouldnt they hate us? Its things like that, which people seem to gloss over, and shoot directly to the chest beating flag waving, kill all our enemies patriotism, when very few choose to think that we wouldnt HAVE to defend ourselves from so many, if we just stayed out of their business to begin with.
As for your Paul thing, no one is falling silent when people attack Paul. I have commented on every one of his stories, and had a discussion with 5-10 people at once in every thread.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 2:09 PM
Strictly from the point of the devil’s advocate, isn’t it? Not in the sense of doing something to someone else, but last I heard, thought wasn’t illegal. Oh wait…
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Here are Ron Paul’s own words on Racism:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
and
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
This issue was discussed before in May of 07′: http://www.freemarketnews.com/Analysis/134/7587/high%20alert.asp?wid=134&nid=7587
People can judge for themselves what they think about Paul.
(I’m a frequent poster on MicheleMalkin.com)
Fed Up on January 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM
You make a good point about American foreign policy. Fortunately (his radical nationalism notwithstanding), Pat Buchanan lays a lot of this out in his books and commentary. The war machine is too big and powerful to budge, and conservatism (or what passes for it) has been bought and paid for by the war party.
Those who find some common sense coming from Ron Paul should feel no more guilty about it than Allah does (or doesn’t) when he finds common sense coming from Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris.
Drum on January 8, 2008 at 2:16 PM
@ Fed Up on January 8, 2008 at 2:13 PM
Thanks for posting that, both are a good read.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Like Bin Laden, right?
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM
Does this mean we can be sure of the veracity of this article? TNR has (deservedly) looked very bad in recent months.
thirteen28 on January 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM
OK lets examine this thinking shall we ? You want to empathize with the enemies of the US saying they having reason to hate us right ?
OK so now you and Ron Paul and all the other KNOW FOR A FACT the motivation of others living in other countries. You know ALL their reasons and motivations for taking actions based on what youtr hatrid of the US ?
The People in Iran dont match to just an anti US tune. Did you know in 1979 the also attacked in burned the soveit embassy ? What US policy caused that ? Did you know that Saddam and Iran went to war ? What US policy caused that ? And I will point out to you 85 % of Saddams military aid came from the Soviets not the US. Saddam was a socialist (Check the history the Baathist party is the Arab Socialist party. They were backed by the soviets.)
Do you know that Saudi Arab distrusts Iran ? Its because the Iranians are shia and the Saudis are wahabbists. It has little to do with US policy.
The bottom line is every nation takes actions in its own self interest. The US backed the Shah to stop the Soviets. The Soviets backed the Baathists to counter the US. Iran has backed the Muhajadeen in Afganistan far more than the US did during the 1980s. Every nation takes actions else if it didnt its enemies would exploit the situation and use that as an advantage. So you fall silent on the enemies of the US (know there is such a thing as the KGB ? Why do you want to gut the US when there are foreign intelligence agencies that plot to distroy the US ?) taking actions.
You blindly argue for us to take a look at actions the US has taken. I urge you to open your eyes and see the whole world not just wearing your anti american colored glasses.
William Amos on January 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM
There are numerous Ron Paul supporters on another small website I frequent. Most of them I’ve known personally for many years (15+ years) as back in the day we used to be in an internet gaming clan together. They’re from all over the Western U.S. and from time to time we used to get together for lan partys and BBQ’s etc. We don’t do that sort of thing except for once in a great while now, but it was several times a year back when. They’re all well educated gainfully employed productive adults (now). Back then they were mostly college students and so on. The rest of the newer aquaintances are presently college students. It’s a fun group of intelligent and decent people.
When the Ron Paul POTUS candidacy started heating up, they voluntarily surrendered their hearts minds and souls and became part of the Ron Paul zombie horde. As discussions about Ron Paul started becoming prominent on that small website (and still are), I started pointing out some of Ron Paul’s shortcomings. Namely, the truther and Neo-Nazi support and the like. I included links to reputable reports and the actual sources (Stormfront; et al.), as well as photographs of Ron Paul posing with Neo-Nazi leaders and their children.
Some of those guys that I’ve known for so long became rabid dogs. All of them are completely blind to it all. They absolutely REFUSE to acknowledge any “guilt by association” between Ron Paul, the racists, the troofers, his past newsletters, and his POTUS campaign. Most brush it off with the flick of their wrist and some turned ugly, real ugly. I might as well had been trying to relate to some of them that their beloved mother’s are prostitutes and their beloved father’s are child molesters. Their reactions to the info was shocking, and bizarre.
It’s like Adolf Hitler and the Hitler Youth, in a sense, when equating the surrendering of their minds and souls to Ron Paul. Or, you could equate it to the Reverend Jimmy Jones, Marshall Applewhite, etc etc. It was, and still is, shocking and a bit sad.
I know the majority of those guys and gals, and have for over a decade, and it seems I’ve now lost long friendships over calmly presented materials, information, and pictures germaine to Ron Paul’s personal associations, POTUS campaign, and the man’s true colors. I hope when this is all over that fences can be mended. But to see these people I know go so overboard and hysterical with blind allegiance is scary.
You could post actual video of Ron Paul in the worst light possible, and the Ron Paul zombie hordes would never accept it. It would be explained away and poo-pooed in the simplest of terms like a child getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
I would have loved to join the Ron Paul supporters because some of his ideals and some of his campaign promises are very appealing to me. Very very appealing. But I cannot support a POTUS whom associates with Neo-Nazis and troofers and pockets their donations for personal gains. I cannot and will not… and that bums me out quite a bit because the rest of the POTUS candidates are just as bad, if not worse, in their own ways.
I may just write in my vote, for Zombie Reagan. At this point, even that seems to me to make more sense than voting for any of the viable candidates we have now.
Dhurka Dhurka on January 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him
So youre basing this entire post off something that isnt even true? The author says in the very beginning that they appeared to be by paul, while he has no actual proof.
This is no different then those chain emails you get saying they are written by george carlin or some other celebrity.
offroadaz on January 8, 2008 at 2:23 PM
@ amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 2:19 PM
I am not sure what you are getting at with Bin Laden, but if you look at HIS words for the reasons he attacked us, its along the same lines. Of course, this is in no way justifying him or his actions, but they are the reasons he cites for his hatred of the west in general. He claims that the US is on Holy land in Saudi Arabia, which frankly I dont know or care much about. What I do care about, it that we shouldnt be in Saudi Arabia at all. I understand that we maintain a presence in the region because our entire society is completely drugged on their oil, and we want to protect ourselves. I understand that, to an extent. There will always be maniacs who come up with reasons to hate the US, but as long as we give them opportunities to popularize their message to normal, non insane folk, by maintaining foreign military bases, giving billions in military aid to a country that seriously doesnt need it anymore, and generally EFFING with middle eastern politics, I feel there will be no end to terrorism.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
He could paint a swastika on a wall while burning a cross, wearing a hood and having sex with a dead tranny hooker after shooting up with heroin and his supporters would simultaneously claim:
a) He’s standing up for free speech rights and against the war on drugs!
b) It was a neo-con New World Order operative disguised as Ron Paul to discredit him!
Hell, they’ve already claimed that the Stormfront guy is really a jewish operative pretending to be a racist antisemite so he can damage Paul’s candidacy while also claiming that he doesn’t represent Paul or his supporters even if he is a racist.
Hollowpoint on January 8, 2008 at 2:25 PM
Come on Allah Im originally from West Virginia and we hav eelected Sheets Byrd for years. Some people just dont care about this stuff. The democratic party itself falls silent on Byrd and you thing a minor congressman from a small district should be held to a higher standard ?
William Amos on January 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM
I am voting for Ron Paul in the Primary. If he loses, I will write him in on the General Election ballot. Unfortunately, I will now be painted as a kool-aid drinker, idiot, Ronulan, Paultard, etc. There is NO candidate in this entire process who is even close to Paul in being a Constitutionalist, small government, sound money, lover of liberty. I would love to hear who the folks on this site are supporting as they bash Paul. Rudy, Huck, Mitt, McCain?! Not a single small government, conservative listed. All of them love big government and the Nanny state. They all are just megalomaniacs who believe that THEY are the one smart enough to use the big hammer of the government to rule better than the big government democrats. I will be the first to admit that Paul has some issues, but just like every voter, I accept some negatives to hopefully gain the positive out of a candidate. Paul’s stated positions on almost every issue is what I believe.
King of the Britons on January 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM
So which is it a quote or paraphrasing? I’ve seen this before, like when you link to a headline and that headline is from someones comments. This stuff is a farce. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Ron Paul. This whole “he is a racist/anti-semite/homophobe” is a very effective tool but one usually reserved for liberals.
sweeper on January 8, 2008 at 2:26 PM
How about a Yeats break?
Er,
RiverCocytus on January 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Allahpundit said:
And I spit coffee all over my laptop.
rightwingprof on January 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
Oh don’t be dense. The difference is that the Civil Rights Act didn’t outlaw thought it outlawed the action of creating an all white business, bus, school or bathroom. Paul thinks that the Civil Rights act infringed on property owners rights. Following that to its logical conclusion it is ok in his mind to discriminate based on race if you want to.
bj1126 on January 8, 2008 at 2:27 PM
I can’t believe you damn liberals are trying to destroy Ron Paul by quoting his own words in the context in which they were originally presented. Fascists!!
Jim Treacher on January 8, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Good Idea.
I also feel, as do others, that the teachings and writings of Sayyid Qutb significantly helped shape OBL’s philosophy.
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM
in the 1980’s Paul was claiming that The Bush Family were in bed with the CIA and were big drug dealers. He mentions in that Morton Downey clip: “George Bush and the CIA, dealing the drugs”
this was back when running as LP nominee for President and of course legalizing drugs was a big issue for them.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 2:29 PM
LGF : Ron Paul’s Old Newsletter Revealed
bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 2:31 PM
@ William Amos on January 8, 2008 at 2:21 PM
All I will say to you, because from previous posts its worthless to really spend much time “debating” you as you will just shrug off your wrong assumptions and move to something more inane is this:
Put yourself in their shoes.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 2:33 PM
No, this is a lot different. For one, they’re not email chain letters. They are allegedly archived documents from reputable institutions. They’re Ron Paul’s newletters. They are also written in his name. Whether they’re actually authored by Ron Paul or not, they’re HIS newletters and they’re in HIS name.
One would hope that if you were to publish a newsletter in your name that you would have the sense to review them before allowing them to be published, especially if you’re a sitting member of Congress. Afterall, he is constantly touted by the Ron Paulians as ever-so-intelligent (among other super powers he possesses… like “most ethical” and “most integrity” of ALL the other candidates). So, in essence, authored by Ron Paul or not, they’re his and they can’t be discarded as irrelevant by some nuance and contrived explanation.
However, after having said all that, I also have to remind myself that this is TNR, and they are at the bottom of the layer of pond scum in journalism as far as their own reputation goes, as far as I’m concerned, so I’d really like to see some reputable verification in the near future.
SilverStar830 on January 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 ... 7 Next »