Posted on 10/26/2007 9:52:25 AM PDT by jdm
The Lone Star Times has found an embarrassing donation in the Ron Paul records. The new husband of David Duke’s ex-wife Chloe and a supremacist in his own right gave $500 to Paul’s campaign, which reignited a past controversy of an earlier Paul campaign. It also calls into question just how much responsibility a candidate has for its uninvited donors:
A LoneStarTimes.com investigation has conclusively established that a leading figure in the American neo-Nazi / White-Supremacist movement has provided financial support to Ron Paul’s 2008 Presidential campaign.Matt and David at LST lay out a series of questions for the Paul campaign designed to determine how much effort they made in either encouraging or discouraging this donation and the Stormfront endorsement. They also call on the Paul campaign to donate the money to one or more charities, including the US Holocaust Museum, a move that would almost certainly discourage any financial support from the supremacists. At the least, they want the Paul campaign to acknowledge the problem, which to this point they have not done. Amusingly, their second-latest press release on the site focuses on Paul’s success in gaining support from black Republicans.
The individual in question is Don Black, the founder, owner and operator of Stormfront, a “white power” website that both professional journalists and watch-dog groups have identified as the premier English-language racist/hate-site on the Internet.
Previous LST posts have focused on banner “widgets” appearing on the front-page of Stormfront. It is important to emphasize that these are NOT “advertisements” placed on Stormfront BY the Paul campaign, but rather publicly-available graphics that Stormfront’s owner has chosen to place himself, with links directly to Paul’s donation page.
Paul at some point has to respond to Black’s contribution. No one so far has alleged that Paul or his campaign sought out the donation, but having it exposed forces them to either get rid of it or take ownership of it. Returning it or donating it will be the only options for a campaign that wants to get past the 1992 newsletters bearing his by-line that asserted that “95 percent of the black males in that city [Washington DC] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” among other inflammatory statements. Paul has since repudiated the newsletters and apologized for their content, but this won’t help matters.
However, we should remember that one unsolicited donation does not reflect on anyone. The allure of Ron Paul to the neo-Nazis comes from his radical libertarianism that reduces the size and reach of the federal government, which the supremacists want for purposes separate from Paul’s motivations. Black wants the FBI off his back, so he’s donating to the candidate most likely to deliver that for any purpose. That’s a reflection of Black’s psychosis, not Paul’s policies, and certainly not Paul’s intent.
Would the same Republicans linking to this today do the same if Black donated to Fred Thompson or Duncan Hunter? I think not. They would understand that tying a candidate to the most extreme of their unsolicited donors is not just unfair but a wide opening for extremists to game the system. If a $500 unsolicited donation could ruin a candidate, then it wouldn’t cost much money for Stormfront, International ANSWER, or any other fringe group to smear respectable candidates of either party.
The problem comes from solicited donors. Norman Hsu became a celebrated Democratic Party powerbroker and an insider with the Clintons for delivering tons of cash, none of which the Clinton campaign vetted. They never bothered to check out Hsu, who turned out to be a fugitive con man leveraging his influence to run even more Ponzi schemes. The Clinton team didn’t just take donations from Hsu, they took him to their bosom and gave him access. He even wound up on the New School board as a trustee.
Paul should answer for this donation by getting rid of it as quickly as possible. If he doesn’t, then I think he has some explaining to do. I don’t necessarily think a single unsolicited donation and a hijacked graphic make Paul into a crypto-Nazi. We need a lot more evidence than what we have at the moment for that conclusion.
I’m no fan of Paul but this is just Media Matters-type nonsense.
‘I’m no fan of Paul but this is just Media Matters-type nonsense.’
My tag line speaks for itself.
I see this the same way you do. I don’t think Ron Paul is actively courting racists, or just turning a blind eye to them as they donate to his campaign.
He’s just a kook, and as such gets kooks contributions. That neither he, nor his few remaining supporters here at FR will realize this speaks volumes.
It’s exaggerated, but you know the MSM is going to use this as a hammer on the head of EVERY Republican, not just Paul.
I think it’s reasonable for Paul’s campaign to answer for this. They aren’t responsible for every single donor, but...if you dig around and read the entire LST article, Stormfront’s had Paul ads and links (not from the actual campaign) on their website for weeks and months, and they’ve never been asked by RP ‘08 to take them down. It’s kind of like Paul’s support among the reprehensible Troofer crowd and the ANSWER/Code Pinko anti-war fringe. They aren’t begging for it, but they sure aren’t turning it down.
I don’t believe for one second that Ron Paul is a racist, I really don’t. But I think he and/or his campaign handlers are making some REALLY bad decisions right now.
}:-)4
President George W. Bush meets with Chile's Jose Miguel Insulza, left, Secretary General, Organization of American States and Raul Yzaguirre, center, CEO of the National Council of La Raza, Thursday, July 21, 2005, following the President's address to the Hispanic Alliance for Free Trade in Washington. RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RUE PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RUE PAUL, RON PAUL RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RUE PAUL, RON PAUL. RON PAUL.
RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RUE PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RUE PAUL, RON PAUL RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RUE PAUL, RON PAUL. RON PAUL.
RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RUE PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RUE PAUL, RON PAUL RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RON PAUL, RUE PAUL, RON PAUL. RON PAUL.
That's more like it.
That's more like it.
That's more like it.
That's more like it.
That's more like it.
A past controversy? What was that? An older Stormfront donation which Paul perhaps kept? It's hard to say since the article doesn't elaborate on this, unless I missed it.
I agree with you guys but these Stormfront types have been anti-war, anti-government, nationalist isolationists for some time now. It’s not like he had to court them. As said, that alone should speak volumes.
My point is this article seems to be to link their racist views to him rather than their political ideology. That type of smear seems dishonest.
There have been a couple of articles about donations coming from the bedsheet and pillowcase wearing crowd the past six weeks or so, I suspect thats what is being referenced.
I’v enever been able to take any person that finds shopping for clothing at ‘bed, bath and beyond’ seriously anyway.
Even when its as close to Halloween as we are today.
Oh yeah: RON PAUL.
I took a look at that website. It reaffirms my belief that most supremacists (of any race) who claim to be so proud of their race are usually the worst examples of their race.
Not sure what you are saying here.
The other incident, I suspect they’re referring to his newsletter controversy some years ago. When out of office he published The Ron Paul Political Report. You’ll find a article that appeared in one issue at http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793
Five years after publication it came to light, during a Senate run I believe. Paul disavowed the sentiments, and contended it was written in his name, but by someone else. I think that’s true, it doesn’t sound like him stylistically. There were requests at the time, and by the NY Times earlier this year, for the name of the author, which Paul refused to divulge. An explanation how it could take five years for it to come to his attention, doesn’t he read the newsletters, was requested but not forthcoming. Also requested were copies of other newsletters, which he refused, accusing the NYT of trying to portray him as an antisemite, odd since the above article is about blacks, not Jews, and again raising the question of what was in the other newsletters.
His supporters may not like it, they may not think it’s fair, but these are questions a viable Presidential candidate will have to answer. Personally I think they should be answered, stonewalling is usually worse than the offence. Had he been forthcoming at the time, this would be old news.
Mr. Nathaniel J. Friedman
August 23, 1980Dear Mr. Friedman:
Just a line to thank you very much for your letter to the editor of the Los Angeles Times. It was kind and generous of you to do this, and I am most grateful.
It wasn’t until I left the South and was in New York that I learned the Klan had endorsed me. I immediately made it plain in a press conference that I do not want such an endorsement and that I repudiate it and everything the Klan stands for. I guess Mr. Young didn’t pay much attention to that.
Again, my heartfelt thanks.
Best regards,
Ron-----------------
April 30, 1984
Dear Morris:
While in China, I have been distressed to learn that some individuals back home have questioned whether my views on the Ku Klux Klan have somehow changed since 1980. Nothing could be further from the truth.
In 1980, I said that I have no tolerance for what the Klan represents, and would have nothing to do with any groups of that type. If anything, my feelings on this subject have only grown stronger. The politics of racial hatred and religious bigotry practiced by the Klan and others have no place in this country, and are destructive of the values for which America has always stood. Those of us in public life can only resent the use of our names by those who seek political recognition for the repugnant doctrines of hate they espouse.
I firmly believe that there is no room for partisanship on this question. Democrats and Republicans alike must be resolute in disassociating ourselves from any group or individual whose political philosophy consists only of racial or religious intolerance, whose arguments are supported only by intimidation or threats of violence.
We must, and will, continue our unified rejection of such elements of hate in our political life, for while there are many issues which divide us, it is fundamental principles such as this which will always draw us together.
Sincerely,
Ronald Reagan[The Honorable Morris B. Abram, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1121 Vermont Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20425]
----------------
His campaign’s reaction to the current controversy.
The Paul campaign dismissed the pro-Paul activities among these groups. “We don’t know who these people are,” said Jesse Benton, Paul’s communications director. Their support has “nothing to do with Ron Paul, and what he stands for….His message of freedom, peace and prosperity - that’s why people support him.”
The support is a fact, the publications are a fact, the campaign acknowledges it, but claims they don't know who these people are, and that they support him for His message of freedom, peace and prosperity is absurd.
Racists support him for freedom, peace and prosperity , heck of a statement.
My advice, he needs to take two minutes, suck it up, insult some of his supporters, and perhaps update Ronald Reagan's direct, unequivocal statements in the same situation. I'll help.
I have been distressed to learn that I have been receiving support from various hate groups and that my columns have appeared in their print publications. The latter will end immediately. I do not want such support and I repudiate it and the beliefs espoused in these publications.I have no tolerance for what these groups represent, and would have nothing to do with any groups of that type. The politics of racial hatred and religious bigotry have no place in this country, and are destructive of the values for which America has always stood. Those of us in public life can only resent the use of our names by those who seek political recognition for the repugnant doctrines of hate they espouse.
I firmly believe that there is no room for partisanship on this question. Democrats and Republicans alike must be resolute in disassociating ourselves from any group or individual whose political philosophy consists only of racial or religious intolerance, whose arguments are supported only by intimidation or threats of violence.
We must, and will, continue our unified rejection of such elements of hate in our political life, for while there are many issues which divide us, it is fundamental principles such as this which will always draw us together.
Simple, 5 minutes to type a press release and send it out, but won’t be welcome in certain quarters.
He doesn’t have a large enough base of support to do as you suggest. Its a good idea, but Reagan had a large base nationally from his efforts in the 1960’s and 70’s.
Thats not to say Reagan wouldn’t have done this, just noting the difference between the level each was at respectively at the time.
Like it or not, it's a political fact of life he, and perhaps Republicans, will have to deal with.
He puts himself before these people.
Is the support coincidental? He's advertised as a columnist in Willis Carto's (supremecist, Holocaust denier, Klucker of a half century standing) American Free Press. Medved has called for an explanation of this. He column is printed in the Council of Conservative Citizen's publication The Citizens Informer. He's appeared on their loosely affiliated radio show Political Cesspool, and there are hotlinks to Paul's site at Stormfront. He puts his face in front of these people, support is to be expected. That his campaign is clueless doesn't ring true. Certainly doesn't now, since it's been covered on numerous blogs and Medved, number 8 in listenership I believe.
Reagan did do it, the first two letters were Reagan's.
If by not having a large enough base you're suggesting you're suggesting he's be concerned about a loss of support were he to issue a condemnation, you're probably right, but that's not the issue. IMO a condemnation is the right thing to do, if he believes it. And he's poisoning any chance he has to become a viable national candidate. The press won't leave this alone, though they'll address it when it's to the left's advantage.
A thread about a minor dust up in a congressional campaign. You'll not the charge that the dem candidate has associated with antisemites, who he has condemned, by attending the KOS convention, is refuted with the charge that Congressman Kirk hasn't condemned Ron Paul and Darryl Issa for being anti-Israel. False comparison, anti-Israel isn't antisemitism. Had they used the connections in this thread, they'd have had a point. The NJDC probably didn't know then, they don't read FR much, but I bet they do now.
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.