Posted on 12/23/2011 5:30:26 PM PST by mnehring
(The following is a transcript of a Ron Paul article from 1990 in his newsletter, The Ron Paul Survival Report. Links to the scanned copies are here:
http://i43.tinypic.com/2rylfv7.png
http://i44.tinypic.com/wgqgeh.png
David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race in Louisiana, 60% of the white vote and 9% of the black vote!. This totaled 100,000 more votes that the current governor when he won.
Duke lost the election, but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment. If the official Republican hadn’t been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off.
Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight, we concede the election, “ he said. “But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans.”
To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.
Liberals like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post say he got so many votes because Louisianians were racists and ignorant. Baloney.
David Broder, also of the Post and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: “No one wants to talk about (race) publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, you can confirm the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle-class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative-action programs.”
Liberal are notoriously blind to see the sociological effects of their own progress. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are waiting in the wings without such as taint?
I didn’t put it in breaking, just politics.
Yes, Ron Paul lying with documentation is Breaking, especially this close to the Iowa caucus.
“All the Ron Paul supporters are so far absent from this thread. I wonder why?”
Oh we’re here, but we have lives outside of FR.
I’m having a good laugh at this thread. This gets more over the top by the day.
So, where is the article showing indisputable evidence that Ron Paul was on the grassy knoll?
I put it in breaking news.
Not to me (Breaking News, I already knew this), but I’ve been called a racist b4. I love people so much I’m gonna go to the Lickher store and get some Jim Beam Devil’s Cut to try and break this flu and infect the poor slob selling it to me with the same. It’s New Braunfels Texas he is probably not Black but Hispanic like me.
“Yes, Ron Paul lying with documentation is Breaking, especially this close to the Iowa caucus.”
Which means that it’s policy.
Don't have that, but I do have a video of Paul cozeying up to some Kennedy Conspiracy types egging them on by stating things like it was 'doubtful Oswald did it'. You'll love that one.
“You’ll love that one.”
I probably will. So post it.
I’m enjoying transcribing some of these newsletters right now, but I will before Iowa. It is still on here somewhere from the 2007/2008 run.
Only because he tried to run as a Republican. If he was a Democrat he'd be fine, like Sen. Byrd.
“I’m enjoying transcribing some of these newsletters right now, but I will before Iowa.”
Please put the info out there. It’ll speak for itself. Or it won’t.
No, Jim sets the policy for FR, not the mods, EVER. This action was made by one mod although other mods agreed with it.
I don't see that the article is praising Duke, but rather analyzing his performance in the election. On several occasions the article notes Duke's "baggage" and "taint" and suggests that a future candidate who doesn't have that baggage and taint but has the same platform could succeed.
Put another way, the article can be summarized as "A candidate who wasn't a racist who ran on a platform of lower taxes, no welfare, etc. could win." How is that "praise" for Duke?
I guess you missed the part where he cheered ‘scaring the blazes out of the establishment’ and saying he made good sense?
If you are indeed a Paul supporter, it’s weird that you admit to “having a good laugh” when your candidate’s record threatens to torpedo his campaign.
Might want to sober up.
We all do the best we can at the time.
I would hate to have all my choices re evaluated years later on some Monday am quarterbacking.
Hope your flu goes away soon!
Green tea with ginger root shaved in is great for curing that too. don’t forget, a cap on your head will help too! Its scientific as 90% of our body heat leaves through our head.
Clinton was in the doghouse/WhiteHouse in 91, nothing made sense. Not even David Duke, but Edwin Edwards...Hell I would have voted for neone the Republican ticket of Louisiana put forth, unfortunately that was the Dukester. Disaster, Yes..I guess I’m trying to say-Ron Paul’s a Nut, not me.
Actually, Bush was in the WH, Clinton didn’t get elected until 92.
It doesn't to me. I've read some of Ron Paul's more recent writings, and the style of this piece looks different. For example, that one-word sentence "Baloney." looks like someone else's writing. Ron Paul doesn't write that way; he doesn't use one-word sentences for emphasis.
You know who should take a look at those letters? Jack Cashill. He's the expert in the matter, given how he exposed Billy Ayres. Some Paul-bashers will be disappointed, but there's a real scoop waiting for him if he does.
I have read some speculation that the real author was Murray N. Rothbard, but again I'm not the expert in the matter.
The trouble is, if you put out a newsletter you are responsible for what is in it. There is no big amount of material to lose track of here.
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.