Video: Only man who can save America spins like a top while sandbagging Wolf Blitzer
posted at 6:28 pm on January 10, 2008 by Bryan
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Can anyone but the most credulous Ronulans on the face of the earth buy the spin that Ron Paul a) doesn’t know who wrote his newsletter, b) he can’t find out who wrote it and that c) he never even read it for all those years? That’s his defense. He even compared it to a magazine owner who doesn’t know everything that goes into the magazines he publishes, which is absurd. His newsletter wasn’t a sprawling, international operation with bureaus stretching from Texas to Moscow to Beijing, Baghdad and beyond: It was a newsletter put together with desktop publishing software by someone that he, Ron Paul, hired to put it together. Its purpose was to put Ron Paul’s world view out there for his fans to read. If the Ron Paul newsletter wasn’t representing the Ron Paul world view, what was its purpose? I’m sure the Paul supporters that we have around here will do their absolute best to defend and explain this, but Paul’s spin really is an insult to their and everyone else’s intelligence. It makes no sense from any angle.
If his spin is true, then take it for what it is: Ron Paul is so incompetent that he’s not only not fit to run the executive branch or a Dairy Queen, he’s not even fit to write a check. That is what he was doing all those years, writing checks to people who were publishing nonsense in his name, people he can’t identify now who he now claims were writing things that he didn’t even believe. But he was such a hands-off guy that he never bothered to take an editorial look at what they were writing, across a decade. Talk about an easy boss.
On the other hand, if his spin is not true, then he’s lying now and he really did believe all that back when it was published and may still believe it. And if he’s lying, he’s not quite the principled patriot that his fans believe he is.
But do you know what irks me most about this interview? It’s the way Wolf Blitzer just lets Paul sandbag him with long, irrelevant answers. He lets Paul rant on and on about what a great, tolerant guy he is, and never once brings up any of the angles I brought up in my post about Paul’s newsletters yesterday — the association with Truthers, the donation from Stormfront, any of it. Blitzer did a terrible job in this interview, and whiffed on a chance to put Paul out of the race once and for all. He left that job to the other GOP candidates in tonight’s debate, and I wonder if he didn’t do that intentionally.
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]
From the report:
Warmongers. Why do they think the slavering beasts hate them?
I’m all for decapitating trolls.
LagunaDave on January 10, 2008 at 7:56 PM
Paul actually does that alot in his videos, watch some on his site
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues
offroadaz on January 10, 2008 at 7:56 PM
I noticed that too.
Also the sneering reply.
Talon on January 10, 2008 at 7:57 PM
Holy crap, OReilly is going all out to bury MSNBC with this story about GE doing business with Bin Laden and currently doing business with Iran.
broker1 on January 10, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Ah yes, I finally quit that thread because no one would answer my points . . . they just kept calling me a “neo-con chickenhawk”. Reminds me of the Proverb that says, “Never argue with a fool, he’ll only rant and scream.”
srhoades on January 10, 2008 at 8:06 PM
Hint: This is probably not something you want to say in response to “He’s lying.”
Jim Treacher on January 10, 2008 at 8:09 PM
Let’s forget about Ron Paul for a second.
Let’s take a look at the remaining candidates that are going to “save America.”
Fred Thompson’s going to save America? Maybe after he wakes up from his nap (I do like his humor though). Giuliani and Romney won’t get the Christian vote (and yes, it’s needed to win in November against the Libs). Hucakabee is toooooo theocratic. So this leaves McCain as your best shot. He has the experience that most want in a candidate. However, he’s also the guy who wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years and give citizenship to illegals.
I will say that Giuliani could pull it out, especially if you live in fear and Romney would be a shoe in if it wasn’t for the Christian vote.
What you all don’t realize is that this “New” Republican party doesn’t stand a chance in November against any Democrat nominee.
I made a bet about two years ago that Hillary would be our next President. I still stand by that….and I don’t like it one bit. Just like in November 2006, there is no chance the Republicans, with the same platform, can expect different results.
Bloomberg is a wildcard, but he might be too late to the party.
Either way, I look forward to the debate tonight….but this is all going to be a waste of time for each and every one of you come November (me too).
Back to Ron Paul…he has 10 more months running as a 3rd party candidate to get his message out. This is all he really cares about. I will support him and his message during these 10 months and it really is “the message” that is important here, sans any racial attachments.
I’m supporting him, because Ron Paul didn’t change….the Republican party did…and I’m…”Fed Up” (with it) as many others are too…especially the youth who have to pay for our choices.
Enjoyed the discourse…and good luck!
Fed Up on January 10, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Heh. He’s obviously part of the conspiracy.
Attila (Pillage Idiot) on January 10, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Just being honest. He isnt the best public speaker, especially compared to Obama and Huckabee
offroadaz on January 10, 2008 at 8:13 PM
Well, if there’s a 10% write-in vote for Oliver Stone in the coming Republican primaries, we’ll know that his supporters have left him for good. Denial, though, is a mighty potent force.
More seriously, I wonder where his 5-7% of voters will go? Probably not vote at all for the most part. But there are some good, decent people who support him. Not the crazy leftwing dopers, mind you.
SteveMG on January 10, 2008 at 8:15 PM
Well, it’s okay, we already know he’s lying. You’re supposed to be on his side!
Jim Treacher on January 10, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I dont think hes lying, but if proven otherwise I will recant. I wish all of the GOP candidates were running on a small government, personal liberty, economic reform, end foreign war platform. But hes the only one
offroadaz on January 10, 2008 at 8:22 PM
This is the first lengthy talk coming out of Ron Paul I have listened to.
How did this idiot get this far? I don’t care who Ron Paul is, who or what is the entity using him?
I expect to see some tumorous giant slug to poke out of his mouth or ear.
BL@KBIRD on January 10, 2008 at 8:25 PM
If Bryan or Allahpundit didn’t take every opportunity to hate on Paul, legitimate or not, they might have some credo on this topic.
Granted, letting that content go out in his name was a big mistake.
But everything that Paul has said over 30 years, including praising Rosa Parks on the house floor, keeps me from believing he’s a closet racist.
It’s no surprise the people who hate him already won’t accept innocence.
Jimmy Liberty on January 10, 2008 at 8:34 PM
Not to mention he suggested a black man as a potential running mate months before this story broke.
Jimmy Liberty on January 10, 2008 at 8:35 PM
I don’t know if he is a closet racist but he gives me major creeps. In the interview he struck me as acting like he just got caught for shoplifting.
Pathetic and creepy.
BL@KBIRD on January 10, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Some of my best friends are black…
The Race Card on January 10, 2008 at 8:50 PM
Let’s hope that the reason the FNC allowed Ron Paul back into the debate is so that Chris Wallace can destroy him.
Good riddance, NAZI scum.
Dave R. on January 10, 2008 at 8:57 PM
I don’t think it’s all that helpful to continue attacking Paul on the basis of his heresy on issues of race and sexual orientation. We all know racism is evil and most of the mainstream culture, if not here, knows that homophobia is evil. We get nothing we can teach out of this. On the other hand, Paul’s ideas about foreign relations are something worth arguing. They are popular, but we can persuade people that those ideas are as wacky and as unacceptable as a Stormfront pamphlet.
Let’s not fight battles already won over and over again–as the left and Stormfront wants us to do with race. Such arguments against Paul let them control the agenda. We need to control the agenda here and fight the battles that we think are important now: immigration, the war with Islam, lower taxes, smaller government, and government social policy based on individual responsibility.
thuja on January 10, 2008 at 8:58 PM
Anyone accuses Paul of being a Nazi has listened to Allahpundit more than they’ve listened to Paul speak. He’s the antithesis.
Jimmy Liberty on January 10, 2008 at 8:59 PM
Please vote for the republican candidate that you like the least.
Mcguyver on January 10, 2008 at 9:00 PM
There is something Seriously Wrong with that skinny Anti-American Whimp, and obviously all those that blindly follow him.
What a liar and a cheat.
awesum on January 10, 2008 at 9:04 PM
You know, when I first saw this story, I wasn’t convinced that it was an issue. Most of the examples of “racism” just seemed to be touting the conservative line that racial pandering is ruining the black community. I didn’t read too far because it all just seemed like a hatchet job on a guy I had no intention of voting for anyway and who wasn’t doing to well in either the polls or the primaries. Even Bryan’s earlier article didn’t convince me that this was a problem.
But evidently Paul himself thinks there was a problem with these views since he has pretty consistently tried to blame them on someone else. I pretty much look at that as a confession that he is, in fact, a racist or has racist leanings.
This still begs the question of why we care. Isn’t it better to have all the nuts supporting Paul rather than embarassing the legitimate candidates. I would hate to think what would happen to Thompson’s already struggling campaign, for instance, if Paul suddenly dropped out of the race and endorsed him. Of course, it would be nice to have the extra votes, but I can’t help but wonder if the association with the Paulbots wouldn’t just poison the well beyond hope of recovery. That goes for any of the other conservative candidates, as well. Of course the non-conservatives like Huckabee and Giuliani would be safe from such a scenario.
JackOfClubs on January 10, 2008 at 9:14 PM
I too would like to wish the world away.
But, sorry Rep. Paul, this isn’t the 19th century. The world will not go away; as much as you may want it to.
If the US is not the dominant power in the world, some other power or powers will replace us.
Who would the Paul supporters like that to be?
Russia? China? Or a series of regional powers? Iran in the Persian Gulf. China in Asia.
Somehow the Paulists believe that the rest of the world will just sit idly by while the US removes itself from much of it. Well, believe it or not, there are more dangerous things in the world than the US government.
As difficult as that is to believe.
SteveMG on January 10, 2008 at 9:14 PM
People that hate him love the state, they love their chains, they lover their masters, and they love war. They have turned the Declaration of Independence on its head and they love it that way. That is the bottom line.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 9:19 PM
They sound strangely alike.
BL@KBIRD on January 10, 2008 at 9:40 PM
In his most recent newsletter Dr. Paul drops these names: Ludwig von Mises, Hayek, Henry Hazlitt, Murray Rothbard, Rose Wilder Lane, John T. Flynn, Isabel Patterson, and Garret Garrett.
Now, first of all, anyone taking these voices seriously is not a threat to society. Quite the opposite.
Secondly, I venture that not one of the other candidates has read, and possibly never heard of, any of these thinkers.
And third (because the accusation of antisemitism is so strong here at HA again Paul) , Mises was Jewish, Hayek was Jewish, and Rothbard was Jewish and a friend of Dr. Paul’s.
Fourth, all of these thinkers were intellectual staples at National Review at its founding. Not all the editors at NR agreed with them, but all respected them and were expected to understand and seriously consider the arguments.
The editors of HotAir should be ashamed of themselves for slamming and insulting Ron Paul at every turn in his candidacy. You, my friends, are no conservatives.
Drum on January 10, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Is it just me or was his defense against charges of racism borderline racist. He basically claimed Black folk can’t help but break the drug laws. If he judges people as individuals why is his platform about Drug laws based on crappy 90s identity politics?
Rob Taylor on January 10, 2008 at 9:46 PM
Eric Dondero responds to this interview, interesting
jp on January 10, 2008 at 9:49 PM
Holy Christ this racist Ron Paul is a complete idiot..
Does anyone else get the impression they’re watching that cult leader.. i think his name was Do .. the cult that killed themselves when the Hale Bopp comet came.
VinceP1974 on January 10, 2008 at 10:01 PM
For once, Bryan, I agree with pretty much everything you wrote. I’ve thought for awhile that many of the things that Ron Paul says were crazy and unrealistic, but I at least gave him the distinction of being the only candidate with a completely distinct, consistent, and uncompromising message. In this interview, I’ve seen him flounder for the first time. I’d love to believe that he’s telling the truth, and that all of his excuses are valid… but the evidence (especially as you laid it out) seems pretty damning. Good luck to Mr. Paul, though. I hope that he can prove that he never had these indefensible views, and never knew that they were being distributed under his name. If not, good riddance from the political scene.
Yoosaion on January 10, 2008 at 10:28 PM
Reality check: I live in South Texas. I have heard Ron Paul off and on on the (local talk show) radio over the years — LONG before this campaign was ever dreamed of.
Sorry to disappoint you Paul-haters, he never hinted at any of this stuff. I have to believe he didn’t write it. I can believe he didn’t always read it: He was still practicing medicine.
Will the first person on this thread who actually READS ALL of his mail pleased stand up?
Ron Paul is a decent man. Quit smearing him as a monster: It hurts your own credibility.
If you disagree with him, then — dam mit — disagree with him on the MERITS of his current campaign (and not alleged “thought-crimes” from decades ago).
Finally, that said: I disagree with Paul on foreign policy and do not plan to vote for him.
He is still a decent man, however. Quirky, perhaps. An evil man — NEVER!
sanantonian on January 10, 2008 at 11:27 PM
But what does that have to do with anything?!? We aren’t talking about Ron Paul receiving bigoted junk mail. We’re talking about him sending it out under his name at the very least.
You call him a decent man. Up until a few days ago I was willing to share that sentiment, even though I have profound disagreements with parts of his politics. However, given recent developments I’m not even willing to give him that much. Decent men do not act in such ways.
JohnTant on January 10, 2008 at 11:49 PM
That sensible and cogent response was well received by this so called Paul-hater. (I don’t hate the guy; I’m actually partial to crotchety quirksters.)
I don’t think the man was being smeared as a monster, with the exception of him being called a Nazi*. I think he was found to be a racist. At best he does not eschew being known and well-liked among bonafide racists, racialists, neo-Nazis, Skinheads, etc. Don’t forget the 911 Truthers and all the blacks.
In defense of Ron Paul (lightning strikes), he has some wiggle room. The infamous quotes, while clearly sourced, do not clarify their own author. We could even say the original document’s chain of custody easily allows for some tampering. That’s a reasonable defense, for about 10 minutes.
Then you drop this dung heap.
The fact that you even present such a blatantly useless retort indicates to me how stupid you think the rest of the world is. I will never meet your standards because I use logic and my limited capacity to observe and infer. I am quite sure that you must have a crystal ball or some other mystical implement.
I can not compete with your wizardry.
Since I am a simple man, I’m sure you know what I’m thinking whenever I say these words: Ron Paul Political Report.
The Race Card on January 11, 2008 at 12:11 AM
Bryan, can you pull out the old movie “Blues Brothers” and compare Henry Gibson facial features with Ron Paul. I really think there is a resemblance. BTW, he play the Nazi party chief.
PrettyD_Vicious on January 11, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Jesus christ!, with all of the un-abashed hatred toward Dr. Paul, you’d think he skinned alive a black jewish baby in front of a crowd of white supermists. i’ve seen more restraint toward the islamist sociopaths. i’m not going to vote for Dr. Paul for president, but i will play devils advocate:
1) say he is a racist, i don’t really care, and to those who think he’s a racist scumbag, that’s fine, i don’t care about your stance on race relations anymore than the skin-head. i care when you break the law, but i don’t have the will or the jurisdiction to police the opinions of any american.
2) say he is a racist, so we’ve never had a racist president before? i woulden’t vote for a man who was openly racist and would let his racism guide his policy decisions, but so-far, that has not been shown of Dr. Paul, if you can prove to me it has, then i will concede my point and withdraw any support for him.
3) The type of domestic policies he endorses, which rely on individual responsibility, not special interest groups and race equality, because in America, an American is an American, regardless of your color, or any individual description of oneself, even if your a racist. so if he is a racist, then he’s endorsing the wrong policies for a racist to promote.
i’ll say again, i’m not voting for Ron Paul but i support a lot of his ideals and with the exception of aspects of his foreign policy, the choice of voting for a racist with no record of letting his bias guide his policy decisions, vs. Hillarycare or Obama Osama, or the “corporation slayer” might just be an acceptible one.
RMC1618 on January 11, 2008 at 1:06 AM
ROFLMAO!!!
NightmareOnKStreet on January 11, 2008 at 1:18 AM
Ron Paul is the only candidate serious about individual responsibility . . . uh, except if you are a congressman putting out a news letter. The congressman-newsletter exception allows you to publish anything and then get whiny and uppity when asked to explain.
snaggletoothie on January 11, 2008 at 1:29 AM
There’s a scene near the beginning of the first Austin Powers movie, just after Austin is thawed and goes to collect his possessions from the Quartermaster:
Every time I see one of these interviews where Ron Paul gets asked about why his campaign has turned into such a troll magnet, it reminds me of that scene.
SteakRules on January 11, 2008 at 2:32 AM
Paul looks like a cross b/t the Mad Hatter and Applegate…. looooney
whiskeytango on January 11, 2008 at 4:12 AM
He wasn’t talking about blacks.
He was talking about the Don Black family and how much support he has from “the Blacks.”
JohnTant on January 11, 2008 at 9:27 AM
Another great screencap of RP
Ugly on January 11, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Well Hell. Try this.
Ugly on January 11, 2008 at 11:10 AM
Bryan, Wolf Blitzer is a creampuff. The Paul interview is like a replay of an interview Blitzer did with Yasser Arafat in 2002. Blitzer’s interview with Arafat was very sympathetic to Arafat (in contrast to Mr. Blitzer’s same day interview with Ariel Sharon). But at one point, Arafat starts going into an antiSemtic rant about how in 1969, “A Jew” (Arafat’s words), tried to burn down the Aqsa Masque and the Dome of the Rock. Arafat kept saying “A Jew did it”. The claim was preposterous. They arsonist was arrested on the site and he was an Australian who did not speak Hebrew and was Christian and had his own bizarre interpretations of the scriptures. And Wolf Blitzer, was very familiar with the incident gently interrupted Arafat and said that the arsonist was “an Australian Christian”. Arafat, pathological liar that he was, raised his voice and starts ranting: “He is a Jew. He is a Jew”. Blitzer is by this time completely intimidated by Arafat. Blitzer gently responds to Arafat’s “He is a Jew” rant by saying in his (Blitzer’s) softest voice: “Well, Mr Chairman, I will look into it”. Watching the interview, I was astonished at Blitzer’s wimpiness. What on earth did Blitzer have to look into? The arsonist and his identity were in every newspaper and broadcast in the world back in 1969. But here is Blitzer saying to Arafat that he (Blitzer) will look into something that Blitzer already knows is a lie. And Blitzer could have said to Arafat: Do you blame every Arab for the murder of Robert Kennedy?
Arafat, sensing that he had already intimidated Blitzer, just gave the smile of a fox who is already in the henhouse.
Up against a guy like Ron Paul, Wolf Blitzer is cat nip.
Larraby on January 11, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Is Wolf Blitzer Ron Paul’s son?
Travis1 on January 11, 2008 at 12:22 PM
I was actually with him there when he was describing the libertarian belief to protect the individual. After tht, its just loony toons…
kylun on January 11, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Ron Paul talking about “the blacks” reminds me of a girl in my history class a few years ago asking the prof why “the negroes” needed to engage in civil disobedience in the 60’s.
Yeah, Paul is the “anti-racist” because he doesn’t see people in collective groups or believe in all those negative stereotypes, and also because he thinks he’ll keep “the blacks” and all other minorities out of prison by legalizing drugs.
wahhaw on January 11, 2008 at 10:03 PM
Good God, I had the sickest dream last night and Ron Paul was in it. I dreamt that I attending this polictical fundraiser here in NY, in somebody’s beautiful Manhattan Townhouse - whose - you got me, I have no idea, but instead of the fundraiser being for Rudy, it was for Ron Paul, of all people. Which is already crazy as my parents are still all for Rudy and think Ron Paul is beyond meshugena.
Anyway it was a very garrish townhouse with a huge private dining room with a full formal sit-down dinner and the star attraction at this political fundraiser - besides - Ron paul was a vampire - a male vampire with a French name. And all the Ron Paul groupies were going crazy for and about this rich French vampire that the dinner was also for. Ron Paul stood up and toasted him, he toasted Ron Paul and the Paul-followers went wild with glasses raised cheering.
The host - who I have no idea who it even was, no one I have ever seen in my life - seated me at dinner 2 seats down from the vampire and my father didn’t like it, he made me move, and we got up and left. Talk about wild, I have no idea where this dream came from, it was so real. The vampire had the white vainly face like Brad Pitt had in Interview, and the blue eyes, the long fingernails.
This morning I told my parents and they told me I was reading too many blogs and need a vacation from politics.
AprilOrit on January 12, 2008 at 12:33 AM
http://www.vampiresforronpaul.com
Fed Up on January 12, 2008 at 9:54 AM
No, in my dream he was not the Vampire, the Vampire was a major supporter and a guest of honor at the Ron Paul Fundraiser and he was French.
AprilOrit on January 12, 2008 at 1:49 PM
A good rebuttal to the New Republic hit piece…
Ron Paul is Not A Bigot: Refuting the New Republic Charges
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_james_w__080116_ron_paul_is_not_a_bi.htm
Fed Up on January 17, 2008 at 4:21 PM
Comment pages: « 1 [2]