“Ron Paul reiterated Tuesday that he did not write a series of newsletters that appeared under his name in the 1980s and 1990s that included controversial comments about African-Americans, including a claim that ‘[o]rder was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.’
“Asked by CBS News and National Journal if the newsletters are fair game on Tuesday in New Hampshire, Paul responded, ‘I don’t know whether fair is the right word.’
“‘I mean, it’s politics,’ he continued. ‘Nobody talked about it for 20 years until they found out that the message of liberty was making progress. And everybody knows I didn’t write them, and it’s not my sentiment, so it’s sort of politics as usual.'”
“Mr. Paul, who is a physician, had said his political persuasion as a libertarian precluded him from harboring such biased views because ‘I don’t see people in collective groups.’
“On Monday, his deputy campaign manager, Dimitri Kesari, reiterated that Mr. Paul ‘did not write, edit or authorize’ the language.
“‘He totally disavows what was said and disagrees with it totally,’ Mr. Kesari said. ‘The only responsibility he takes is for not paying closer attention.'”
“He tends to bring any conversation back to the malignancy of US foreign policy. In the final debate in Iowa, he rambled on about how worries about the Iranian nuclear program are ‘war propaganda,’ but if the Iranians get the bomb that they’re not developing, that’s entirely understandable, since we’re ‘promoting their desire to have it.’
“Jeane Kirkpatrick famously condemned the ‘Blame America First’ Democrats; would that she had lived long enough to condemn the ‘Blame America First’ libertarians.
“In the debate, Paul went on to warn against a push ‘to declare war on 1.2 billion Muslims,’ as if a country that has resorted to force of arms to save Muslims from starvation (Somalia), from ethnic cleansing (Bosnia, Kosovo) and from brutal dictators (Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya) is bristling with an undifferentiated hostility toward all Muslims.
“This isn’t an expression of an anti-interventionism so much as a smear. It goes beyond opposition to American foreign policy to a poisonous view of America itself.”
“Paul has been in Congress, off and on, for nearly 30 years. In that time, he will rightly tell you, Congress has spent money with reckless abandon, expanded the state’s police powers, launched numerous wars without a declaration of war and further embraced fiat money (he got into politics when Richard Nixon took us fully off the gold standard). During all of that, he took to the floor and delivered passionate speeches in protest convincing … nobody.
“Paul’s supporters love to talk about how he was a lone voice of dissent. They never explain why he was alone in his dissent. Why couldn’t he convince even his ideologically sympathetic colleagues? Why is there no Ron Paul caucus?
“Now he insists that everyone in Washington will suddenly do what he wants once he’s in the White House. That’s almost painfully naïve. And it’s ironic that the only way the libertarian-pure-constitutionalist in the race could do the things he’s promising is by using powers not in the Constitution.”
“But because the Republican Party insists on insider moderates or at least gives the impression that’s who they support, then it opens the door for all kinds of people to make headway because the Republican primary base is not interested in who the establishment is interested in. It’s just that simple. I’ll tell you something I’ve been saying here for the last couple, three weeks, maybe even longer than that, that Mitt Romney can’t get higher than 30% anywhere. Other than New Hampshire, he gets 35. But in truth no other Republican does, either. When you get right down to it, no other Republican is, either. Now, the reason for that is primarily this. The Republican establishment is trying to split the conservative vote among all the other conservative candidates, the Gingriches, Bachmann, Perry, Santorum, I don’t mean to leave anybody out here, but they’re dividing that vote in the hopes of securing the nomination for Romney.
“The problem is that the Republican primary voter does not want a moderate. They don’t want somebody they perceive as being a moderate. The Republicans might say, ‘Hey, look, no, no, no, we’re trying to tell you, Mitt’s a strong conservative, he’s the strongest conservative we got.’ Well, the Republican primary voters don’t believe that when they’re told that. So they’re divvying up their votes elsewhere, and that is allowing a creep on the part of Ron Paul. Ron Paul foreign policy is out there, along with the conspiracy theories and everything else, it is out there, and it’s guaranteed defeat. It’s guaranteed defeat. Republicans will take the gloves off if Ron Paul wins. None of this needs to be happening. But the Republican Party is insistent governing against the will of its own voters, at least in the primary. That’s how it appears to me.”
“The concerns in Iowa are real, if perhaps a little exaggerated. But what about the rest of the country? Are we in for a Ron Paul wave that engulfs the nation and leads the 76 year-old libertarian to the Republican nomination? Not a chance.
“In New Hampshire, Paul is in third place with 16.5 percent, behind Romney, with 33.8 percent, and Gingrich, with 20.8 percent, according to the RCP average. Other than Iowa, New Hampshire is Paul’s best early state — and he has half the support of the frontrunner…
“Paul has plenty of money to stay in the Republican race for a long time. But there’s no evidence he is a threat to win, or to finish second, or anything better than a distant third. It’s fine to subject him to new scrutiny, but Paul’s position as a major player is unlikely to last beyond Iowa.”
“It is possible that Paul will come in first in a fractured field in the Iowa caucuses: Those caucuses reward intensity of support, which he certainly has. The notion that he will be the Republican nominee is too absurd to spend a moment contemplating.
“Somewhat more likely is that he will mount a third-party run in November 2012. But getting on the ballot will be difficult, especially in states that discourage primary-campaign losers from running in general elections. If he were to help the reelection of President Barack Obama by splitting the Republican vote, the party would probably hold it against his son and ally, Rand Paul, who is in his first year as a Republican senator from Kentucky and is widely considered more politically talented than his father. Does the elder Paul want to take that risk?”
“Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney ties Obama at 47 percent among registered voters in the poll, but fully 21 percent of all voters say they’d pick Paul as an independent candidate over either Romney or the president. Obama would win such a three-way match-up by 10 percentage points. The potential damage is less obvious for former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who trails Obama by eight points in a two-way contest and 11 points with Paul in the mix.
“As a third-party contender, Paul would draw heavily on Republicans and independents who lean toward the GOP, and less so from Democratic ranks. As a result, Obama takes a smaller (albeit significant) hit in a three-way race than either of the two leading Republicans.”
“Mr. Paul has often been asked to deny a third-party bid, but he has never done so. As recently as last Thursday’s debate, Mr. Paul said he had ‘no intention of doing that’ but was again careful to keep his options open. ‘I don’t like absolutes,’ he said. ‘I don’t like to say I absolutely will never do such and such.’ Mr. Paul doesn’t shy from absolutes in his foreign policy, so why here?…
“As he was losing to John McCain in 2008, Mr. Paul noted that ‘If you’re in a campaign for only gaining power, that is one thing; if you’re in a campaign to influence ideas and the future of the country, it’s never over.’ If he runs as a third-party candidate, his influence truly will be ‘over’ and his legacy destructive. Mr. Paul owes the Republicans whose votes he is seeking a good-faith answer on his political plans, win or lose the GOP nomination.”
“The evidence at this point is pretty overwhelming to any reasonable person (which I understand does not apply to the core of Ron Paul’s support): if you are a 9/11 truther and you can catch Ron Paul in a situation where he doesn’t realize that he’s being recorded or think that his statements will get out to the press, he will wink and nod and let you know that he’s really on your side. When he’s in front of the mainstream press, however, he has to play the game and pretend like he’s not an insane conspiracy theorist (only Ron Paul is so very full of crazy conspiracy theories that sometimes he can’t help himself and they burst out on national television during a debate).
“Given this, I don’t know why anyone would be so hopelessly naive as to believe that Ron Paul didn’t know about the racist and paranoid ramblings that appeared for years and years in his highly profitable newsletter. Ron Paul has built an entire political career off of pandering to the paranoid and hate filled when he thinks no one is looking, as his numerous appearances on the Alex Jones show will attest. The suggestion that he somehow broke with this tradition when it came to his own newsletter simply beggars the imagination. Ron Paul’s many fawning sycophants like to pretend that Ron Paul’s problem is that he is despised by the Establishment because he’s too pure in his love for the Constitution. The reality is that Ron Paul hasn’t been given nearly the shunning he deserves for his paranoid insanity or his coddling of racism throughout his entire career. Frankly, I think Ron Paul’s retirement at the end of this campaign will be the best thing to happen to the GOP in decades.”
“If you’re new to the Ron Paul bandwagon, and are wondering why you haven’t heard this all before:
“Because the media covers up for him, because they love his hard-core hard-left appeasement/anti-Israel/peace at any cost mentality. They would love to see him as a nominee, because, for one thing, he would be demolished by any candidate, and, for another thing, he would drive Obama’s foreign policy to the left by criticizing him from the Chomskyite point of view.
“And, if the old buzzard somehow did get elected — at least we’d have the foreign policy the media prefers (at least in a Republican candidate).
“They have a vested interest in hiding this information from you.
“At least until they’ve tricked you into nominating him.”
Via the Right Scoop.