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 | printer-friendly
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: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »
I am Ron Paul supporter and I feel the need to defend him here. But I won’t. I generally try to keep my thinking clean by rejecting any motivation that arises out of emotion.
A SECOND LOOK AT NOT-RON PAUL
Ars Moriendi on January 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM
@William Amos on January 8, 2008 at 1:57 PM
Well said.
Aggie85 on January 8, 2008 at 2:35 PM
@ bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Reading that, its on Drudge.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM
This leaves two possibilities:
Either he shares the views and therefore wants to give them attention, in which case he should be shunned;
Or he genuinely has no clue, in which case he is specatularly unqualified to head up the Executive branch of the government.
JohnTant on January 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM
@ bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 2:31 PM
Reading that, its on Drudge.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 2:36 PM
So, as AP warned might be true, Kirchick was absolutely overstating his case. He admits in his TNR article he has no evidence that the alleged bigoted statements were written by Ron Paul. Ron Paul has written things (i.e. with his name signed to them) that directly contradict the alleged sentiments that Kirchick says are expressed in these unsigned articles. Read Fed Up’s links a few comments above to see what Paul thinks of racism. And anti-Jew rhetoric? Please. Find me one quote where Ron Paul expresses anti-Jew rhetoric.
If Kirchick had a racist article with Ron Paul as the author, he could just excerpt it and Paul’s words would hang himself. If Paul really believed these things, there’s no way he’d have been elected 10 times to Congress.
And what’s with Gibson calling Paul a “9/11 Truther” ? Ron Paul has repeatedly said that those theories are ridiculous and preposterous. It’s Gibson who is the conspiracy theorist, for believing that there’s a big conspiracy to hide Ron Paul’s “real views” on 9/11.
Mark Jaquith on January 8, 2008 at 2:38 PM
This is why Ronulans don’t listen to reason. It’s not about Ron Paul, there’s no cult of personality about him. I mean, just listen to the guy. He’s the convergence of practically every Old Right movement. The Birchers, the segregationists, the non-interventionists. And then he wraps himself up in the flag of libertarianism.
And these people are willing to get along because they see the means to all of their ends.
By the way, I find it funny that people are posting LewRockwell.com links in his defense. The fact that his stuff is posted there with his consent should be evidence ALONE of his beliefs.
He’s not just a “Constitutionalist, small government, sound money, lover of liberty” he’s so much more for all of the crazy right wing fringe groups. And many of the libertarians too.
Keljeck on January 8, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I was paraphrasing but here is the exact quote:
that was in a 1992 version of this newsletter.
He said on Leno last night that he consults with Kucinich on Foreign Policy because they vote the same. Which is anti-Israel every chance they get, even if its toothless votes. Like last year during the Israel/Hezzbollah war. 2 No votes: Paul and Kucinich. To show support for Israel against the Terrorist outfit that was fighting them.
Yes Paul, it does take sides. The side of Democracy and Freedom against a Terrorist Outfit wishing to enslave the planet to Sharia law and is Iran’s puppet army.
and NO the CONSTITUTION does grant for alliances, just as much as it doesn’t.
the VERY FIRST foreign policy move by the founders, under John Jay, was to form an ALLIANCE with FRANCE. The “entangling alliances” thing is a myth that confuses teh politics of the time. None of the founders who actually ran FP did that. Its all rooted in Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” which was revolutionary propaganda to convince fence sitting colonist they needed to cut ties with the British Empire and all it had to offer, good and bad.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 2:39 PM
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Pajamas Media:
Ron Paul Bigotry Revolution
bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 2:45 PM
Can’t get on the TNR site. Either it’s slammed right now…or they can’t deliver the newsletters in all their racist glory.
Redhead Infidel on January 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Is the Hot Air website getting hammered, or are the Ron Paulians up to their old tricks and decimating this website with DoS attacks or some such thing?
I keep getting frequent “database down” errors and whatnot, but mostly just for THIS particular thread. I’m getting the same thing at the TNR Report link above. Seems too coincidental to simply be a glitch, unless thousands and thousands of people are hitting these links all at the same time. That seems unlikely at this time of day.
SilverStar830 on January 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Now I’m getting the msg that the TNR server is “Too Busy”
Redhead Infidel on January 8, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Drudge link.
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Well, the original Constitution implicitly endorsed slavery, so I guess Ron Paul really is the “constitutional originalist” his supporters claim.
LagunaDave on January 8, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Don’t be naive, either. You said he had a good position on Affirmative Action. I agree. I’ve also had people claim I was a racist bigot for being against Affirmative Action as well as being against Hate Crime legislation. That doesn’t mean I find it okay to discriminate based on race, or does it mean you do just because you see Affirmative Action is a crock.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 2:49 PM
A lot of it is on http://www.Pajamasmedia.com
bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Dont you know…
all that racist, bigoted, antisemitic conspiracy stuff is in the Constitution.
Really. It is. Ronpaul says so.
Always Right on January 8, 2008 at 2:51 PM
Wa-wa… the poor little titty babies can handle the TRUTH that their super hero is nothing but a goose stepping idiot!
Confederate on January 8, 2008 at 2:52 PM
If he wrote a single one of those newsletters, I wont vote for him. Prove to me he wrote a single one of those newsletters.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 2:53 PM
Ron Paul thought the Civil War was a mistake and advocates that the South should have succeeded from the Union. His thoughts, so he said in an interview a few days ago, was that slavery would have been eliminated eventually anyway. He didn’t mention how long.
By the way, there is still a lot of slavery in the world today.
bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 2:53 PM
I especially like this quote from Kirchick:
So he admits that he’s just engaging in offhanded libel. Wow. My credibility meter just fell BELOW zero.
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 2:53 PM
No surprise here. His entire movement should be suspect because it consists of (basically) nothing but angry white male nerds. No women, no minorities, nobody with families.
Just a bunch of ill tempered, badly dressed, socially awkward, anime porn devotees.
thareb on January 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM
We don’t need to, muyoso, IT WAS HIS NEWSLETTER, his name is on the news letters and the articles kept coming, year after year, after year. He either approved of them or wrote them himself. If he didn’t know about them he is too stupid to be president.
bnelson44 on January 8, 2008 at 2:54 PM
@ Dhurka Dhurka on January 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM
Interesting thoughts Dhurka, but am I supposed to base my voting decision on what the candidate stands for or upon the people who support my candidate based on their own personal criteria?
Last I checked, all Americans can vote for anyone they choose to, but that doesn’t have an affect upon me and my voting decision. If we start telling people that have different views than us whom they can vote for, we’re on the path towards anarchy.
If a White Supremist, Jew, Muslim, Catholic, Lutheran or Scientologist wants to vote a certain way, are they not given that right by the Constitution under the 15th amendment?
Article XV of the U.S. Constitution
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
To put your onus upon someone who differs from you is not what America is about.
Enlighten me to where I may have misdiagnosed your words…
Fed Up
Fed Up on January 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM
Ron Paul funded various newsletters in a period of 30 years. It seems all of them had hate filed speech.
Whether he wrote the material or not by this point is irrelevant. We shouldn’t have to prove that he wrote it, what needs to be proven was that he was complacent.
You’d think at one point in a 30 YEAR TIME SPAN he would have taken a look at his FRICKEN NEWSLETTER. Which was written to propagate his views.
Keljeck on January 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM
They were published under his name, for years. He has acknowledged that much. What more do you want?
Bryan on January 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM
I’m sure that’s why Jay Leno had Ron Paul on his show for not one, but TWO segments last night.
*rolls eyes*
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Those are not newsletters from Ron Paul. They are letters from Barney the purple dinosaur.
infidel on January 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Yeah, just watched the vid. Tucker does not seem happy. Shaken, and a little stirred.
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 2:57 PM
Whether true or not, this was inevitable. Paul is done, Thompson is done. Enjoy your future liberal president America.
If this stuff is true, it’s not good. And I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly. Giuliani, Romney, McCain, and the Huckster are all liberals and socialists, and if you vote for them, you deserve whatever you get. Unfortunately, you’ll be dragging me down with you.
RWLA on January 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM
Ron Paul said during his 1988 libertarian run “We shouldn’t build a border fence or guard our border…it is unconstitutional” Imagine if Ron was elected then…we would probably have 150-200 million illegal aliens in the country unable to speak english!
HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM
They don’t want anything, really. As Allah said:
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM
OK, you’ve had time to read TNR. So can I now say “Dude?”
Cuffy Meigs on January 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM
hotair staff must be breaking out the champaign right now. They lead with an article written by a guy who brought you beauchamp. Hotair spent alot of time covering and discrediting the story and the TNR site
Now they are taking their words as truth and not spending the time to fact check the article. A shining example of journalistic integrity.
offroadaz on January 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM
Wait, he was on Jay Leno for two whole segments?
Well, silly me. I must clearly be wrong if he was on Jay Leno for two segments. It disproves everything I’ve just said.
If only Huckabee would have been on Jay Leno for two segments, then the whole floating cross controversy would have been laid to rest.
Keljeck on January 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM
I’m a Paul supporter too. I’m going to wait and examine the evidence that comes out.
I don’t have much of a problem voting for Thompson in my primary if I have to.
BlackCapitalist on January 8, 2008 at 2:59 PM
This is the most collectivist, racist comment I’ve seen on here.
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:00 PM
Paulbots in the hizzle.
Cuffy Meigs on January 8, 2008 at 3:02 PM
THIS.
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:02 PM
Again Muyoso and othe paulies just tell Ron to tell Black and stormfront to take a flying leap. Tell Ron to take a hammer to the truther movement.
If Ron was truely a leader he would CONFRONT this stupidity not shrug it off. The ball is in Ron’s hands if he fumbles it then its HIS fault and no one elses.
William Amos on January 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM
For Ron Paul to personally and publicly own up to all those things he has espoused over all those years in his personally published newsletters and drop that “most ethical” and “most integrity” shtick wouldn’t be enough for the zombie hordes of Ron Paulians. Basically, I think God himself would have to appear in the sky in all his thunderous glory and say it’s so… and even then I bet they’d dismiss it as some mushroom or LSD flashback.
SilverStar830 on January 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM
Somebody with the screen name Cuffy Meigs ought to understand Ron Paul as well as anybody. Sadly, it appears not to be the case.
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:04 PM
And don’t forget, either, it is not just one newsletter. It extends over a considerable period of time. If he found the views expressed abhorrent, wouldn’t it seem like he would have either retracted them in the next publication and made *damn* sure that it didn’t happen again, much less repeatedly?
Claiming “it’s just a staffer whose views don’t reflect mine” is about as credible as Obama’s claim that the Democrats election win is responsible for the Sunni awakening.
Even if we believe the current denials (which I don’t) what does it say about Paul’s fitness to be president if he allowed racist, neo-Nazi propaganda to be published under his name for years without noticing and without putting a stop to it?
LagunaDave on January 8, 2008 at 3:04 PM
Be interesting to see Paul’s response to this, with his fame he clearly enjoys, maybe he’ll come out and apologize trying to keep it and repudiate everything published under his name.
Did he really speculate the 1993 WTC attack was a Mossad job? ties right in with the 9/11 truther idiots.
Its important to remember that Youssef came to US on an Iraqi passport and his partner Yassin fled to Iraq after teh bombing and was never caught and was on Saddam’s govt. payroll we’ve since discovered. plus Youssef was KSM’s nephew. People don’t know this, many think we went into Iraq just because of WMD
jp on January 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM
@ Bryan on January 8, 2008 at 2:56 PM
What do I want? Maybe for hotair and other sites to stop saying these are HIS beliefs, when you ALL know that is a lie. They were published under his name, I posted a link in here where he attempts to explain the newsletters. Accept it or don’t, but dont lie and say that he wrote these things, or that he believes them, when you have sbsolutely no proof.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM
To believe that Ron Paul wasn’t directly responsible for the things that have gone out under his name for a couple decades is akin to believing Bill when he says all the bad stuff was him, and all the good stuff was Hillary.
Poor Tucker. He’s a small government true believer. I like him alot.
And the TNR add on at the end: he’s a transmitter? I have a conspiracy theory about your conspiracy theory? Spare me that part.
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM
Every time you people use a pejorative like Paulites or Ronulans, you are engaging in flawed, collectivist behavior, thus invalidating your entire argument that Ron Paul is racist.
Ron Paul does not have to “tell off” somebody who endorses his campaign. Racist bigot homophobes want to live in a free country just like the rest of us. You are telling him that he should offer to be President for only some people in this country. Moreover, ignoring the endorsement and NOT publishing it on his website (yes, that’s right, check it out) is “shrugging off” enough.
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM
A major difference. What Beauchamp wrote about the U.S. military was not consistent with what people in the military knew about that organization, which is why it was questioned.
The writings from Paul’s newsletter are consistent with things he has said in the past.
Paul could end this controversy pretty quickly by releasing all old editions of his newsletters to the media. Think he will?
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM
@ William Amos on January 8, 2008 at 3:03 PM
I wish he would. I don’t run his campaign, but if I did, he would be out there railing against those things.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 3:08 PM
No surprise here. His entire movement should be suspect because it consists of (basically) nothing but angry white male nerds. No women, no minorities, nobody with families.
Just a bunch of ill tempered, badly dressed, socially awkward, anime porn devotees.
What a horrible thing to say. All that was left out was “drug takers”.
I have a lot to change about my life if I’m to live up to this persons idea of a Paul supporter.
RWLA on January 8, 2008 at 3:09 PM
Obviously, it doesnt take much to get something over Tucker Carlson’s head. What a dumbass tool he is.
As for Ron paul, who here is really surprised by all this. Ron Paul is a true creep masquerading under a faux libertarian white sheet.
Always Right on January 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM
He had no idea about the views of those he was hiring to write in his own newsletter?
Keljeck on January 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM
Shameful. Not sure what he can do to rescue any respect that I’ve held for him, short of proving that he immediately fired every single one of the authors of the filthy quotes. It’s doubtful that that was the case.
As with all cults, there is enough truth in many of those quotes to grab the less than disinterested reader. And that’s the trap.
Bummer.
Drum on January 8, 2008 at 3:10 PM
“Ron Paul said during his 1988 libertarian run “We shouldn’t build a border fence or guard our border…it is unconstitutional” Imagine if Ron was elected then…we would probably have 150-200 million illegal aliens in the country unable to speak english!”
HaraldHardrada on January 8, 2008 at 2:58 PM
This is off-topic HaraldHardrada, but what Ron Paul says…is that if you take away the incentive, the illegal aliens would stay where they are. Heck, if I lived in another country and had no health coverage, it’s free in the U.S., so let’s go! Going to have a baby? Get it delivered free in the U.S.! Then your baby will get government social security payments because it can’t take care of itself and don’t forget the government provided food stamps! For illegals, our current system is “UTOPIA!”
Fed Up
Fed Up on January 8, 2008 at 3:11 PM
this is further proof of how incompetent the national GOP is, they should’ve been on this over a year ago and kicked him out of the party. Instead they sat back and watched this internal cancer grow that so easily could’ve been removed in its early stages, before the Cult of Personality developed around him.
Paul would be nothing without the “Republican” brand name.
jp on January 8, 2008 at 3:11 PM
Were they in his newsletter? Did he allow them to continue? Were they under his name?
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 3:11 PM
I bet you typed that without even realizing what it says about you and your kind.
LagunaDave on January 8, 2008 at 3:12 PM
Thanks for those. I agree that racism is a form of collectivism.
Spirit of 1776 on January 8, 2008 at 3:12 PM
this kind of incredible RP disclosure is precisely why and how he’s raised so much $$$ — some from the nut job righties and some from the left wing psychos (like Sorors, who wants RP around to discredit Reps.).
now are we happy that RP was included in the Rep. debates?
not very smart.
jimmer on January 8, 2008 at 3:12 PM
To those who think America is hated for its projection of power around the world, remember – there are many who ASK for that presence, and many who beg for it. If we pulled back to our own shores to appease the America-haters, the world would be in even worse shape. And who would get the blame? America, of course, and the America-haters would say that it’s because of our selfishness and indifference to the world’s problems. Either way America can’t win. No matter what we’ll be blamed for anything and everything.
JimRich on January 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Look at the “pant pant” of all the Ron Paul haters celebrating the New Republic’s article. How ironic.
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Wow, I said a while back that the only thing more unhinged than a Ron Paul supporter was a Ron Paul detractor. (That’s paraphrasing jp). This thread is all the evidence one would need. He doesn’t support getting involved in Middle East conflicts: Anti-Semite, doesn’t support civil rights / affirmative action: bigot, someone on newsletter with his name on it mentions gays: homophobe.
This whole summer was spent TRASHING TNR. Now they are go to guys. Look when libs start pointing out everyone who went to a Bob Jones College seminar and label them with every negative adjective that they can find, remember this threads.
The detractors really should stick to the issues and leave the labels to the other guys.
sweeper on January 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM
Why would he have a newsletter with his name on the top, and never write any of the articles? even if he did do that, amazingly, then why would he hire writers that held these views. and let them continue to put them out.
or is the next step in this, “Well Ron Paul never actually read the newsletters either, he had no idea what was written in them”
jp on January 8, 2008 at 3:14 PM
Do tell, Oh wise one. I am sure you know exactly zero about me. Please, educate me more in your usual collectivist fashion.
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM
I understand him much better today, thx.
Cuffy Meigs on January 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM
The sooner we can bid “adieu” to Ron Paul the better. He’s out of his mind. It was disturbing because his support seemed like more than a momentary blip for a while there. No problem saying bye to him!!!
mattyj86 on January 8, 2008 at 3:15 PM
What do I want? Maybe for hotair and other sites to stop saying these are HIS beliefs, when you ALL know that is a lie. They were published under his name, I posted a link in here where he attempts to explain the newsletters. Accept it or don’t, but dont lie and say that he wrote these things, or that he believes them, when you have sbsolutely no proof.
muyoso on January 8, 2008 at 3:06 PM
Badger91 on January 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM
See Slublog’s latest comment.
amerpundit on January 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Bullcrap. By not taking on their message Ron Paul condones it. Thats why I label his followers collectively you either stand up as Ron Paul supporters and condeme those Ron Paul supporters who are racists or you stand accused of being complict with them. Thats why I call you paulies because you lack the ability to be critical of any other segment of your followers. When you act collectist on an issue such as this you deserve the label
William Amos on January 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Are you kidding? Jeez, the guy has never been above single digits — it’s not as if he pulled votes away from Fred or Duncan Hunter. If anything, he pulled votes away from Kucinich. What the RNC needs to concern itself with is the reality that their nominee may be Mike Huckabee. Now that would be a fate worse than … no, that will be the death of the party.
Drum on January 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM
Well, that’s just a sterling example of Paul’s “leadership”. Instead of “The buck stops here”, it’s more along the lines of: “That’s not my buck–I never saw it before, and have no knowledge of it. Besides, it’s not backed by the gold standard anyway.” Inspiring.
ReubenJCogburn on January 8, 2008 at 3:16 PM
As though you were ever anything but predisposed against him in the first place. How very honest of you. You have “seen the light!”
/me rolls eyes
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:17 PM
Link to that quotation, please. Thank you, Oh wise one.
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:17 PM
I knew that guy was a nutjob.
It really makes his supporters look like fools. I wonder if it’ll be picked up by the rest of the news agencies?
Vanbasten on January 8, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Quite a few of us have fact checked the article.
Perhaps when you spam our highways with signs to “Google Ron Paul” you should be more cognizant of what will turn up.
Bob Owens on January 8, 2008 at 3:18 PM
And yet everybody wants to spend their day Paul-bashing. How appropriate.
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:18 PM
Go ahead. Ron Paul may be a racist(this is the Beauchamp people, for God’s sake). So? Huckabee appears to care more about illegal Mexican immigrants than US citizens. Which is worse? A racist or a Mexican nationalist?
MadisonConservative on January 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Well, forgive us for “trashing” a guy who – this bears repeating – keeps money from Nazis. I hope this story and the revelation of the writings under his name finally convince the stupid GOP to keep him out of the debates. This guy needs to be sidelined.
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM
This loon needs to be shown to the door of the Republican Party, just like Pat Buchanan.
LagunaDave on January 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Prove Paul wrote the articles?
I have a better idea. If the Paul campaign wants to sell the idea that he didn’t write them, then let them produce the author. The onus is on them, not us.
JohnTant on January 8, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Are you frickin kidding?
Cuffy Meigs on January 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Heh.
Um…”Selectively Google Ron Paul!”
Slublog on January 8, 2008 at 3:20 PM
Ah, yes, the old Mary Mapes defense – prove that the allegations are NOT true, otherwise – the story runs. Well, congratulations, you’ve graduated from the Dan Rather School of Journalism with honors!
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM
it looks like LGF and even the Free Republic had this story a while ago. What nobody listens because it wasn’t from one of their sources. TNR hardly has the “moral high ground” in journalism.
Just A Grunt on January 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM
Actually, as perhaps one of the foremost TNR trashers, I’d had to focus you on the fact that we trashed Frank Foer, Peter Scoblic, and Jason Zengerle, but we never touched Kirchick, as he was in no way involved in that meltdown, at least as far as evidence shows.
Bob Owens on January 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM
That article you linked pulls from the same newsletters as TNR. They also have no proof paul actually wrote, read or approved them. Its no more credible then the TNR article
offroadaz on January 8, 2008 at 3:21 PM
About what? That I want a link for his absurd non-sequitur-laden quotation that you obviously didn’t read in its entirety?
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:22 PM
Ohhhhh Noooooo!
I want teh Fred! to garner more votes, but this way?
So, if the story is true, AND Ron Paul drops out – does whoever gets the RP votes inherit a taint in any way?
I have to admit that I am surprised at the support for this article, considering it is from TNR.
What kind of cred/rep does this reporter have?
Still, we all knew Paul was freakin’ bugnuts. Not a surprise that something like this would come out eventually.
Now that Carvelle and crew are reboarding the SS Clinton, expect lots of dirt to come out about Obama, Romney, etc.
Hey – could this be considered the big hit piece on one of the candidates that has been expected? The Romney “Disciple Of Mormon” news release was kind of a dud.
Timothy S. Carlson on January 8, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Hmm yeah, how exactly did you fact check it? There are no photos, page numbers or copies of the articles in question….
offroadaz on January 8, 2008 at 3:23 PM
Go back and read all the Beauchamp HA headlines. They mention TNR. You are quibbling.
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Horace Mann… what hast thou wrought?
Keljeck on January 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM
Keep hope alive, offroadaz!
Jim Treacher on January 8, 2008 at 3:24 PM
This is Thomas DiLorenzo’s response to TNR’s Jamie Kirchick’s characterization of Paul and DiLorenzo (He’s the author of the book, “The Real Lincoln”)
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html
Fed Up on January 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM
This is another bigoted, collectivist comment. Do you really believe that 100% of Ron Paul supporters are NOT conservatives?
fossten on January 8, 2008 at 3:25 PM
And he will still probably beat Thompson in NH and continue to poll higher then McCain, Hunter and Thompson in SC. Nobody pays attention to some obscure article on the web. Just ask Dan Rather?
Just A Grunt on January 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I know you wrote “Racist homophobe bigots want a free country just like the rest of us.”
Did it occur to you that racism, homophobia and bigotry are not exactly consistent with wanting “a free country”?
LagunaDave on January 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM
I finally got through to the TNR link.
Aaaand… not one link, scan, photo, or anything to back up the claims in the story. Why is that? So, based on that fact and the fact that TNR isn’t worthy of puppy house training use in print on paper, I’ll wait for independent verification of the articles claims before I ever believe what anyone at TNR says. Mind you, I’m not a Ron Paul supporter, but I’m defintely more than skeptical of TNR’s storys and claims after their Beauchump fiasco and the piss-poor way they handled that scandalous bit of pre-school journalism.
One thing’s for sure, TNR’s timing right at the beginning of the primarys seems patently unfair. Especially since there are NO LINKS, SCANS, PHOTO’S or even a BIBLIOGRAPHY of the newsletters that Kirchick’s quoting and culling from. That sort of tends to lead me to believe that this may be another TNR folly with the intent to stir up ire and damage with unsubstantiated claims and possibly outright lies. It’s not like they haven’t done that sort of thing before!
SilverStar830 on January 8, 2008 at 3:26 PM
Do you even know what proving a negative is?
The campaign says someone else wrote the articles. Paul says someone else wrote them. OK, how do they know that? Presumably they know who did. So let them produce the author(s). That’s not even close to proving a negative. That’s proving out their statement that someone else wrote the racist trash.
I’ll also make mention that, unlike your awkward attempt at equivalency, the campaign isn’t disputing that the newsletters were forged. They are saying they’re real, but someone else wrote them.
Oh?
Who?
JohnTant on January 8, 2008 at 3:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 ... 7 Next »