• news
  • THURSDAY JANUARY 10 2008 10:00 AM

Naiveté Or a Lame Defense?

I'll cut to the chase: this is another article about Ron Paul. The man has become nigh unavoidable these days on the internet (especially on SG). His supporters range from dissatisfied Republicans to Libertarians to more moderate Democrats to stoner Canadians to white supremacists.

In early October, Stormfront Radio endorsed Ron Paul for president.

From the recorded broadcast:

Whatever organization you belong to, remember first and foremost that you're a white nationalist, then put aside your differences with one another and work together. Work together to strive to get someone in the Oval Office who agrees with much of what we want for our future. Look at the man, look at the issues, look at our future. Vote for Ron Paul, 2008.


Stormfront's founder, Don Black, also contributed $500 to Ron Paul.

According to Federal Election Commission records, on 9/30/07 the Ron Paul presidential campaign received a $500 contribution from a Mr. Don Black, who lists his address as 203 Lakeland Drive and identifies his occupation as “self-employed/website manager”


David Duke, former Grand Wizard of the Knights of the Klu Klux Klan, is also a fan of Ron Paul, going as far as calling him "our king".

If this were a chess game, the neocons have just put our king in check. We must come up with a good response immediately to stay in the game.


Paul's campaign and supporters claim that he should not be held accountable for donations from neo-Nazi groups (much like they denied any affiliation with the Liberty Dollar). Likewise, Ron Paul also fails to repudiate other supporters, who have displayed anti-semitism, (posted by Will Williams, southern coordinator for the National Alliance Party), 9/11 conspiracy theories, homophobia, and anti-atheism.

The denial, bordering on uncomfortable complacency, is presented as naiveté. How can Ron Paul be held responsible for the personal views of his supporters? How is he to know exactly who is contributing to his campaign?

Problem is, they may not just be the opinions of his constituency. The New Republic's James Kirchick explains.

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business.

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.


Well, that doesn't sound too positive. While not all of the newsletters' content could be attributed directly to Ron Paul, the inclusion of the questionable articles is an endorsement of their views by the publisher. Filled with animus towards various social groups (including blacks, gays, and Jews) and anti-government paranoia (including passages alluding to a government cover-up of AIDS), the newsletters are damning indeed.

Choice selections from the newsletters:

On race:

"A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. ... What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided."

This newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as "a world-class adulterer" who "seduced underage girls and boys" and "replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."

On gays:

The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."

A January 1994 edition of the Survival Report states that "gays in San Francisco do not obey the dictates of good sense," adding: "[T]hese men don't really see a reason to live past their fifties. They are not married, they have no children, and their lives are centered on new sexual partners." Also, "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick."

On conspiracy and government:

In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: "I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove--perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress's Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica."

The January 1995 issue of the Survival Report--released just three months before the Oklahoma City bombing--cites an anti-government militia's advice to other militias, including, "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."


When approached with the newsletters, Ron Paul's campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton, responded by saying "that over the years, Paul had granted 'various levels of approval' to what appeared in his publications--ranging from 'no approval' to instances where he 'actually wrote it himself.'"

After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."

In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.

From his newsletters, however, a different picture of Paul emerges--that of someone who is either himself deeply embittered or, for a long time, allowed others to write bitterly on his behalf. His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," Eleanor Holmes Norton is a "black pinko," Donna Shalala is a "short lesbian," Ron Brown is a "racial victimologist," and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a "far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist." Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.


To think that Ron Paul lacks editorial control over newsletters bearing his own name is ludicrous, and for him to not recognize the vitriol published in his name for over a decade is not naïve, but disgustingly negligent and wholly inappropriate for a politician. For his campaign to attempt to portray him as having "minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf" is irresponsible indeed. Therefore, the question must be asked: is this man really capable of holding the position of President of the United States? The answer, regardless of whether or not he participated in the creation of the questionable articles, is a resounding "NO."



MrCrisp spent too much time researching and writing this article, instead of packing the rest of his belongings and moving into his new apartment. In his opinion, though, sleeping on the floor for one night is worth it.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

 ... 10

Next

Comments
_margot_

_margot_

Los Angeles, CA
December 2007

JAN 11, 2008 03:11 PM

Zarth said:

_Margot_ said:

Uncognitive said:

_Margot_ said:

Zarth said:
Isn't Roberto Gonzalez the guy who did "Planet Terror"?


I think he was a baseball player.


Whoever he is, according to Google Image Search he sure can pull of a yellow jumpsuit:

zoom image


OMG. That is my future husband love


Mine, too!


I think I need a yellow jumpsuit.

buckshot420

buckshot420

I'm lost
April 2006

JAN 11, 2008 03:12 PM

coyotemike said:

buckshot420 said:

Uncognitive said:

buckshot420 said:

Uncognitive said:

buckshot420 said:
Your absolutely right, I find it so hard to believe that SG would be against the pro Liberty candidate



Ron Paul isn't "the pro-liberty" candidate. He's the states rights candidate.



WTF ever, it gets that jerk OFF YOUR BACK!
Who cares how you frame it?
wink



Setting the Constitutional wayback machine to 1799 does not get "that jerk", whoever he is, off my back.



Roberto Gonzalez was the specific reference, but feel free too substitute with any Federal Officer,
Also..again with the Wayback Machine...did you ALL go to the same ANTI-PAUL seminar in Vegas last fall?



There was an ANTI-PAUL seminar? In Vegas? And I missed it? Dammit, I bet there were dancing girls involved. frown



Damn straight, VOTE RON PAUL AND THERE WILL BE STRIPPERS IN IT FOR YOU!

_margot_

_margot_

Los Angeles, CA
December 2007

JAN 11, 2008 03:14 PM

Oh my God Tucker Carlson told me to support Ron Paul!
I have been shown the light.

oh yeah I forgot wink

Uncognitive

Uncognitive

Brooklyn, NY
May 2003

JAN 11, 2008 03:20 PM

_Margot_ said:
I think I need a yellow jumpsuit.



Really, who doesn't?

zoom image

_margot_

_margot_

Los Angeles, CA
December 2007

JAN 11, 2008 03:21 PM

Uncognitive said:

_Margot_ said:
I think I need a yellow jumpsuit.



Really, who doesn't?

zoom image



/sigh

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

JAN 11, 2008 03:39 PM

mmmmmm yellow jumpsuit. *drool*

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

JAN 11, 2008 04:15 PM

from cnn:

Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did.

When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.

Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments.



uh huh, sure. very convenient. if so, why were they published under your name?

Paul said the editor of publications "is responsible for daily activities." But he also cited "transition" and "changes" and said that some people were hired to write stories "but I didn't know their names."



okay, but that doesn't address the issue. it only comes of as insincere. by passing the blame on to unidentifiable ghostwriters, he's attempting to shuck culpability and avoid accepting any responsibility. is this duplicity really an electable attribute?

"These stories may be very old in Ron Paul's life, but they're very new to the American public and they deserve to be totally ventilated," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst. "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'"



bingo.

n some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."



oh snap! so really, paul, what's the deal?

The presidential hopeful described the newsletter revelations as a "rehash" of old material dug up by his opponents because he is gaining ground with black voters due to his stance against the war in Iraq and the war on drugs.



so it's a conspiracy against you? not your fault at all? are there any more ways for you to avoid taking a modicum of responsibility? okay, one last shot.

"I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said.

"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."



ugh...you're perfect ron paul. you would never do anything wrong.

emphasis mine, hat tip to BlastProcessing for the link

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JAN 11, 2008 05:04 PM

Yeah, I saw him on Bill Moyers a couple weeks back, and when confronted on the allegations of racism he just stammered the same loony crap about "collectivism." I don't even think that actually means anything.

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

JAN 11, 2008 05:32 PM

Zarth said:
Yeah, I saw him on Bill Moyers a couple weeks back, and when confronted on the allegations of racism he just stammered the same loony crap about "collectivism." I don't even think that actually means anything.



at least, i don't think it means what he wants it to. is he implying that it's impossible for an individual to be racist or that racism itself is a sociological construct?

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JAN 11, 2008 05:38 PM

MrCrisp said:

Zarth said:
Yeah, I saw him on Bill Moyers a couple weeks back, and when confronted on the allegations of racism he just stammered the same loony crap about "collectivism." I don't even think that actually means anything.


at least, i don't think it means what he wants it to. is he implying that it's impossible for an individual to be racist or that racism itself is a sociological construct?


What he seems to mean by it is that it's philosophically impossible for him to see people as belonging to groups. I mean, that's what he seems to think he's saying. As batshit as that is.

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

JAN 11, 2008 06:17 PM

Zarth said:

MrCrisp said:

Zarth said:
Yeah, I saw him on Bill Moyers a couple weeks back, and when confronted on the allegations of racism he just stammered the same loony crap about "collectivism." I don't even think that actually means anything.


at least, i don't think it means what he wants it to. is he implying that it's impossible for an individual to be racist or that racism itself is a sociological construct?


What he seems to mean by it is that it's philosophically impossible for him to see people as belonging to groups. I mean, that's what he seems to think he's saying. As batshit as that is.



it's probably some libertarian code-word. i wonder what kind of signal he's trying to send...

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JAN 11, 2008 06:23 PM

MrCrisp said:

Zarth said:

MrCrisp said:

Zarth said:
Yeah, I saw him on Bill Moyers a couple weeks back, and when confronted on the allegations of racism he just stammered the same loony crap about "collectivism." I don't even think that actually means anything.


at least, i don't think it means what he wants it to. is he implying that it's impossible for an individual to be racist or that racism itself is a sociological construct?


What he seems to mean by it is that it's philosophically impossible for him to see people as belonging to groups. I mean, that's what he seems to think he's saying. As batshit as that is.


it's probably some libertarian code-word. i wonder what kind of signal he's trying to send...


Well, in the Ron Paul Political Report, he does describe black people as the stooges of "Trotskyist-Maoist" agitators, and he rather explicitly accuses blacks of promoting "racism" against whites, so it's probably some way of saying that it's only "racist" when black people are doing it.

JuliusChurch

JuliusChurch

Ashland, PA
November 2005

JAN 11, 2008 06:30 PM

Good article, I didn't know about this.

MrCrisp

MrCrisp

I'm lost
August 2004

JAN 11, 2008 07:45 PM

Zarth said:

MrCrisp said:

Zarth said:

MrCrisp said:

Zarth said:
Yeah, I saw him on Bill Moyers a couple weeks back, and when confronted on the allegations of racism he just stammered the same loony crap about "collectivism." I don't even think that actually means anything.


at least, i don't think it means what he wants it to. is he implying that it's impossible for an individual to be racist or that racism itself is a sociological construct?


What he seems to mean by it is that it's philosophically impossible for him to see people as belonging to groups. I mean, that's what he seems to think he's saying. As batshit as that is.


it's probably some libertarian code-word. i wonder what kind of signal he's trying to send...


Well, in the Ron Paul Political Report, he does describe black people as the stooges of "Trotskyist-Maoist" agitators, and he rather explicitly accuses blacks of promoting "racism" against whites, so it's probably some way of saying that it's only "racist" when black people are doing it.



or, as ron paul calls it, the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth."

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

JAN 11, 2008 07:53 PM

I just can't get over the "Trotskyist-Maoist" thing.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

 ... 10

Next