Posted on 01/11/2008 6:59:44 AM PST by jdm
Reason Magazine has long associated themselves with the Ron Paul campaign, if not officially endorsing him. Their Hit & Run blog has served as the heart of rational Paul apologetics, and in their skilled hands, that has proven essential to his campaign. Now, as the magazine has Paul on its cover, its new editor has the unpleasant task of looking a little more closely at the candidate, and Matt Welch finds it an unpleasant journey.
Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago. ...
So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.
Indeed. Rather than claiming he had never read these newsletters, as Paul absurdly did on CNN last night, Paul claimed that he himself wrote the newsletters. Matt Welch find this in the contemporaneous Dallas Morning News report on the newsletters during Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign (May 22, 1996, emphasis mine):
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
Matt has more examples of Paul's non-denials in 1996. Twelve years later, Paul wants people to believe that not only did he not write any of his newsletters, he never read them either. His role in the single most effective piece of outreach of his organization, he explained to Wolf Blitzer last night, was as a publisher -- one who didn't bother to read his own publication. These 1996 quotes put lie to his CNN interview answers.
Not only does this show dishonesty, but it indicates that Paul had a lot more involvement in the publication of the despicable statements found in his own newsletter than Paul or his less-rational apologists want to admit. The supremacists and conspiracy theorists surrounding his campaign apparently got attracted by more than just Paul's views on the Constitution; they read the newsletters and determined that Paul was one of them. His refusal to recant in 1996 and his explanation that he can't recall ever reading the newsletters today signal to them that he still wants their support.
People wonder why this matters, given Paul's fringe appeal. It matters because we can't allow this kind of hatred to get legitimized in mainstream politics again. This kind of rhetoric used to be mainstream, and not just in the South, either. Republicans cannot allow the party to get tainted by the stench of racism and conspiracy mongering. If enough of us don't step up and denounce it, strongly and repeatedly, we will not be able to avoid it.
Matt Welch and the people at Reason have reached that same conclusion in regards to libertarianism and their magazine. Good for them, even if it came a little late.
I think I figured it out, some posters support Marxist Military Coups.
It doesn't look like that's going to be and issue. Thus far the media hasn't characterized him as a Republican, and the DNC hasn't picked up on the issue. His nuttiness and particularly that of his supporters probably helped in that regard. My guess by the time the general election comes around, he'll clearly not be a Republican. The other candidates will be able to handle this issue if it comes up.
Luckily, the GOP has more brains than you, as evidenced by the New Hampshire GOP boycotting the debate last week after they dumped Paul. I'll take their word over the "steely eyed killer of the deep". What does that even mean, anyway?
So your a “fool” if you ever made a foolish mistake oh perfect one? He made a foolish mistake, just like Fred did when he called for Aristide’s restoration to power (and later claimed falsely to the contrary).
This could cost Ron Paul the Republican nomination for President. /sarc
Probably when the Vietnamese government formally apologizes to him for brutally torturing him for years. Imagine a man having unkind words for the nation that deputed sadists to torture him! What gall! It's not as if he had a good excuse for that kind of language, like having a newsletter for example.
BTW, the torture of McCain started around the same time that Ron Paul was sitting around in an air-conditioned National Guard examination room doing things he didn't believe in in exchange for cash.
“That’s changing the subject from the thread topic: i.e. the demonstrated fact that Ron Paul is a lying scumbag.”
He explained this in 2001.
He’s not lying, and he’s not a scumbag.
However, the namecalling - scumbag, traitor, etc.
Aristide was a committed leftist in 1991, as well, btw.
His campaign was marred buy violence of his supporters, he called the US the “Great Satan,” and he urged his supporters to “necklace” his opponents. This was in 1991.
I guess namecalling is easier than researching.
“Probably when the Vietnamese government formally apologizes to him for brutally torturing him for years. Imagine a man having unkind words for the nation that deputed sadists to torture him! What gall! It’s not as if he had a good excuse for that kind of language, like having a newsletter for example.”
McCain did forgive the Vietnamese govt.
He went with Kerry to get the trade normalization pact done.
McCain opened Communist Vietnam to trade with the US.
Again he admitted writing the newsletter before he denied writing the newsletter.
So he was either lying then or he is lying now.
Whatever the answer, he remains a liar.
There was this Republican debate thingie last night, and granted I was two glasses of merlot deep at the time, but I could have sworn Ron Paul was on my TV screen. Maybe I was just f$%&ed up. Who knows?
Which branch of the military did you serve in?
His moment of glory is betraying his country, and taking bloodmoney of the back of our troops, from seditionists, traitors and racists.
He can go to hell.
I must admit, you’re very good at calmly pwning the Posse wannabes on these threads. Well done.
Would you also agree that the GOP needs too distance itself from gun-grabbers and pro-abortion Republicans?
Apparently "researching" to you means reading the columns of gay activist/Ron Paul supporter/Milosevic apologist Justin Raimondo.
The reports of necklacing came from the 1996 split between the OPL party and Aristide's Lavalas faction, when there was open violence in the streets between Aristide supporters and his former allies.
But keep digging.
back to the topic of the thread:
Ron Paul is a lying weasel, as demonstrated by the libertarian Reason Magazine's inability to justify his continuously changing story about his whacko newsletter.
So you think its okay to call the Vietnamese Gooks (still not fully apologized for), but not okay for Paul who unlike McCain, has fully apologize for his newsletters, eh? McCain can be a racist and that's okay with you.
A freeper defending Aristide. Imagine that. Next, you’ll be defending Chavez and Castro (both of whom your pal Aristide admires).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.