Skip

Angry White Man
January 8, 2008 12:53 PM   Subscribe

Angry White Man. The New Republic examines the archives of Ron Paul's newsletters.
posted by empath (283 comments total) 22 users marked this as a favorite

 
Flagged as Ron Paul
posted by kittens for breakfast at 12:55 PM on January 8, 2008 [13 favorites]


.
posted by Mister_A at 1:00 PM on January 8, 2008


ugh. Makes me wonder about those signs sprouting up on suburban street corners.
posted by desjardins at 1:01 PM on January 8, 2008


In January 1995, three months before right-wing militants bombed the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, a newsletter listed "Ten Militia Commandments," describing "the 1,500 local militias now training to defend liberty" as "one of the most encouraging developments in America." It warned militia members that they were "possibly under BATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms] or other totalitarian federal surveillance" and printed bits of advice from the Sons of Liberty, an anti-government militia based in Alabama--among them, "You can't kill a Hydra by cutting off its head," "Keep the group size down," "Keep quiet and you're harder to find," "Leave no clues," "Avoid the phone as much as possible," and "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here."
posted by empath at 1:02 PM on January 8, 2008


“What [the newsletters] 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....Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (‘What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!’ one newsletter complained in 1990. ‘We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.’) In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the ‘X-Rated Martin Luther King’ as a ‘world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,’ ‘seduced underage girls and boys,’ and ‘made a pass at’ fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as ‘a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.’ While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.”
posted by ericb at 1:03 PM on January 8, 2008


"Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters. They frequently quoted Paul's 'old colleague,' Congressman William Dannemeyer--who advocated quarantining people with AIDS--praising him for 'speak[ing] out fearlessly despite the organized power of the gay lobby.' In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine 'who certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist.' In an item titled, 'The Pink House?' the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush's decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite 'the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,' adding, 'I miss the closet.' 'Homosexuals,' it said, 'not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities.' When Marvin Liebman, a founder of the conservative Young Americans for Freedom and a longtime political activist, announced that he was gay in the pages of National Review, a Paul newsletter implored, 'Bring Back the Closet!' Surprisingly, one item expressed ambivalence about the contentious issue of gays in the military, but ultimately concluded, 'Homosexuals, if admitted, should be put in a special category and not allowed in close physical contact with heterosexuals.'

The newsletters were particularly obsessed with AIDS, 'a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby,' and used it as a rhetorical club to beat gay people in general. In 1990, one newsletter approvingly quoted 'a well-known Libertarian editor' as saying, 'The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is 'Silence = Death.' But shouldn't it be 'Sodomy = Death'?' Readers were warned to avoid blood transfusions because gays were trying to 'poison the blood supply.' 'Am I the only one sick of hearing about the 'rights' of AIDS carriers?' a newsletter asked in 1990. That same year, citing a Christian-right fringe publication, an item suggested that 'the AIDS patient' should not be allowed to eat in restaurants and that 'AIDS can be transmitted by saliva,' which is false. Paul's newsletters advertised a book, Surviving the AIDS Plague--also based upon the casual-transmission thesis--and defended 'parents who worry about sending their healthy kids to school with AIDS victims.' Commenting on a rise in AIDS infections, one newsletter said 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.'"
posted by ericb at 1:06 PM on January 8, 2008



‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’

Man I wish New York was really called any of those names, ‘Rapetown,’ not so much. Now someone come into the thread and say this was written for Ron Paul and not by him. The people who are Paul fanatics are just going to take this as further proof that everyone is out to get him because of his big ideas, no?
posted by Divine_Wino at 1:10 PM on January 8, 2008


Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004. Paul enthusiastically blurbed Woods's book, saying that it "heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole." Thomas DiLorenzo, another senior faculty member and author of The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War, refers to the Civil War as the "War for Southern Independence" and attacks "Lincoln cultists"; Paul endorsed the book on MSNBC last month in a debate over whether the Civil War was necessary (Paul thinks it was not).

Well, he's playing to the home crowd in South Carolina, then. Next Tuesday should be interesting.
posted by 1f2frfbf at 1:11 PM on January 8, 2008


uh, are we just going to copy/paste chunks of the article here?
posted by p3on at 1:11 PM on January 8, 2008


Err, next Saturday, I mean. It's all too much of a whirlwind for my brain to keep up...
posted by 1f2frfbf at 1:12 PM on January 8, 2008


or comment that he looks like tommy lee jones in that picture?
posted by shabadew at 1:14 PM on January 8, 2008


Wow.

I mean, I already thought the guy was a loon and his supporters horribly misguided, but wow.
posted by Artw at 1:14 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


But, who else will protect our Purity of Essence?
posted by Bromius at 1:16 PM on January 8, 2008 [6 favorites]


Why do people get away with attacking NY as a "welfare town", when NYC, and the Northeast in general, subsidize the rest of the country? Whenever I hear some moron say stuff like this, I say "hey moron, New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut pay out far more federal tax dollars than they receive from the federal government—jerk!"
posted by Mister_A at 1:16 PM on January 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


I think that DOCTOR RON PAUL is the ONE being OPPRESSED HERE.
posted by Avenger at 1:18 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


So what's this talk of Ron creating a new party...? That'll be the Nazi party, then.

Wonder what all those 'Google Ron Paul!' people think now... ?
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:18 PM on January 8, 2008


I think a collective effort to get this onto the homepage of Digg is required - think of the wonderful fireworks!
posted by Artw at 1:21 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Google Ron Paul! Just don't scroll down!
posted by billysumday at 1:21 PM on January 8, 2008 [22 favorites]


You know who else loved blimps?
posted by merlinmann at 1:21 PM on January 8, 2008 [10 favorites]


Ron Paul's response

"“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”


I am NOT a Paul supporter, but I don't like to see this kind of primary day hit job done to anyone.
posted by lattiboy at 1:21 PM on January 8, 2008 [10 favorites]


I had no idea he was such a psychotic. Scary and terrible. However, I might consider moving to a town called Dirtburg, Zooville, or Lazyopolis.

Hi. I'm from Dirtburg.

Yeah, that works.
posted by The Loch Ness Monster at 1:22 PM on January 8, 2008


Kucinich fan. Loving this.

(Yeah, I know, he'll never win, either . . . )
posted by CommonSense at 1:22 PM on January 8, 2008


Interesting timing from TNR. Why launch an attack ad against he ONLY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE who is against the continued occupation of Iraq in more or less the only state where he would do well? Worried that the "Bomb Iran" caucus is loosing steam TNR?
posted by three blind mice at 1:22 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]




This is old news.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:23 PM on January 8, 2008


I see, if someone tries to post a piece on Ron Paul that is positive it needs to get taken off because of all the "Ron Paul spam", but the smears, hey, that's news. Never mind there is a thread that is three days old on Ron Paul, a front page post is called for.

Now someone come into the thread and say this was written for Ron Paul and not by him. The people who are Paul fanatics are just going to take this as further proof that everyone is out to get him because of his big ideas, no?

Is there anything lamer than pretending to take some sort of meta-type position above the debate? Like we're all so predictable and you just know how it's going to play out; it implicitly gives you that 'in-the-know' pose. How condescending.

-----

Reposting a section of my response to this on the other post:

This is a hit piece and these allegations were dealt with months ago in a number of places, including here. I'll just point out a couple of items of note. The linked article provides fuller treatment.

From the article:

"Like blacks, gays earn plenty of animus in Paul's newsletters."

James Kirchirk is a liar.

From his own article:

"When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said 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.""

From the Free Market News, quoting Ron Paul:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."

And somehow I doubt this will matter much to you at all. To those who harp on this and only this, what the man believes and what he's done, really isn't the issue. If you disagree with policy, that's one thing, but condemning him as a candidate because of what Kirchick wrote makes clear how susceptible you are to the image makers.

-----

On preview: An lgf link?!? Jesus.
posted by BigSky at 1:25 PM on January 8, 2008 [6 favorites]


This is old news.

To some -- yes. To many others -- no. It's new news.
posted by ericb at 1:26 PM on January 8, 2008


Ron Paul campaign volunteer: Ronpaul ronpaul, ronpaul ronpaul ronpaul. Ronpaul the ronpaul, but ronpaulling ronpaul is simply ronpaullish.

Giuliani campaign volunteer: Nineeleven nineeleven, nineeleven. Nineeleven, September the eleven, elevenseptember September eleven. One one nine, nine one one.

RPCV: RONPAUL! RONPAUL RON RON RON, PAUL DO RON RON!

GCV: What the 9/11?
posted by WCityMike at 1:26 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


You know, if I were putting out a newsletter with my fucking name on the masthead, I sure as all hell would bother reading it every once in a while. If Paul really didn't approve of the paper's content, then he's lazy, careless, and stupid - three more attributes to add to the list of reasons why supporting him is a bad and dangerous idea.
posted by item at 1:30 PM on January 8, 2008 [31 favorites]


Alternatively it means he's mastered plausible deniability for shady activities - a good solid presidential skill.

...except he put his fucking name on it, so that doesn't work either.
posted by Artw at 1:32 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


This is a hit piece and these allegations were dealt with months ago in a number of places, including here.

Whenever I'm looking for serious, hard-hitting, against the grain reporting, I go to freemarketnews.com. And just like Ron Paul, they don't believe in bylines either!
posted by SweetJesus at 1:33 PM on January 8, 2008


Secessionist? Really? After all these years? If Paul is elected will the South rise again, or secede? Will Ron put his face on pennies and obliterate Lincoln?
posted by Cranberry at 1:33 PM on January 8, 2008


So either Ron Paul is indeed a nutcase, or those trying with fake old newsletters to discredit him are utter nutcases.

Either way...

Why oh why can the US election cycle, again and again, be defined as "what? you think *that* was batshitinsane? Take a look at this!"
posted by DreamerFi at 1:34 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


Will Ron put his face on pennies and obliterate Lincoln?

Maybe. His supporters will, anyway.
posted by Gary at 1:35 PM on January 8, 2008


Ron Paul doesn't believe in pennies.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:35 PM on January 8, 2008


Cry me a river, BigSky.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 1:37 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


"But the Texan has been active in politics for decades."

Texan... that clinches it.

DON'T MESS WITH RON PAUL!
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 1:38 PM on January 8, 2008


A man chooses, a slave obeys.
posted by Artw at 1:39 PM on January 8, 2008 [5 favorites]


Please don't start with the anti-Texas bullshit again.
posted by item at 1:39 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


It's ok. Ron Paul is used to being SILENCED ALL HIS LIFE.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:40 PM on January 8, 2008 [9 favorites]


What I don't get is how he's supposedly got the support of all these science-loving internet types when he's a creationist looney.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 1:41 PM on January 8, 2008


Ron Paul doesn't believe in pennies.

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAS NO RIGHT TO MINT CURRENCY!
posted by SweetJesus at 1:41 PM on January 8, 2008


Why launch an attack ad against he ONLY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE who is against the continued occupation of Iraq in more or less the only state where he would do well?

because the new republic, along with a good part of the liberal establishment, wants the iraq war to continue and silencing the liberals who want the war done with isn't good enough for them
posted by pyramid termite at 1:44 PM on January 8, 2008


Am I the only one who DOESN'T CARE whether Ron Paul actually wrote the newsletter himself or was just so politically tin-eared as to allow a racist homophobic conspiracy-kook newsletter to be published under his name for DECADES? Either way, I don't want him anywhere near the white house.

I mean, what a bizarre defense - "He's not a crazy racist, he's just an idiot!"
posted by kyrademon at 1:44 PM on January 8, 2008 [9 favorites]


The author of the article has admitted to simply trying to incite the opposition.

"Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! " - Jamie Kirchick

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018421.html
posted by ratdog at 1:44 PM on January 8, 2008


The Ron Paul fans out there who are defending someone for publishing years of evil garbage, on the basis that he might not have read what he was putting his name to...

Please find a quiet, contemplative place, for example a blimp, and meditate on the Sunk-Cost Fallacy. Thank you.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 1:49 PM on January 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


The author of the article has admitted to simply trying to incite the opposition.

And that proves or disproves what exactly? Are you saying that Ron Paul didn't print a crazy, borderline racist tract that carried his name in one way or another for nearly 30 years?
posted by SweetJesus at 1:50 PM on January 8, 2008


This is a total hatchet job! It reminds me of something that happened to me just the other day. I was in the contentious banana pudding thread that we had recently here on Metafilter, and I was all like "I hate banana pudding. I have always hated it and I will always hate it!" and some liar came in there and did a hatchet job on me saying "Oh yeah ND¢? What about this quote I found in your user history:

OMG i total luv banana pudding lollercopter!!!1
posted by ND¢ at 8:35 PM on June 4"

So I clearly explained that I am really busy and important and so I give my Mefi password out to people who have views totally different than mine, views that I actually find abhorrent, and let them post whatever they want under my name and that I don't ever read over it, and so I can't possibly be responsible for it. Well that liar actually didn't accept the reasonableness of that explanation. Hatchet job! Plus it was old news. OLD NEWS HATCHET JOB!
posted by ND¢ at 1:52 PM on January 8, 2008 [48 favorites]


Interesting timing from TNR. Why launch an attack ad against he ONLY REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE who is against the continued occupation of Iraq in more or less the only state where he would do well?

Oh please. Few New Hampshire voters will see this before they vote today. It doesn't seem to have hit any of the major media outlets yet. If TNR were trying to destroy Paul's chances in NH, it would have been published 3-5 days ago to give it time to make the rounds before the primary.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:52 PM on January 8, 2008


posted by item Please don't start with the anti-Texas bullshit again.

What do you expect from a candidate whose wife makes frozen fish sticks?
posted by fandango_matt at 1:55 PM on January 8, 2008 [4 favorites]


TNR is basically a republican front-org, a la FOXNEWS, now. It's a publisher thing. This is a hitpiece but the underlying connections between a sizable subset of Ron Paul supports and the militia movement is undeniable.

It is not unfair to Dr Paul to analyze this dynamic, since Paul's radical libertarian "States Rights" federalism does and would feed this sort of silliness.
posted by panamax at 1:56 PM on January 8, 2008


It's gold, Ronnie, gold!
posted by Artw at 1:56 PM on January 8, 2008


In other words libertarianism stupider than assumed.

Or as orthogonally would say, it was written by a ghostwriter, Dr. Paul never wrote it. Probably, thus the sacred vessel of Dr. Paul which carries the heart of libertarianism will live forever and ever! Things like words and evidence are nothing to the genius college students who paint "Who is Ron Paul" on the overpasses of the highway of the over-taxed federalist nanny state!

Geeks need to seriously get over libertarianism. Like "steampunk" it only sounds cool. In practice it would be a nightmare. Call me when you guys turn in your federal loans and gas-powered hondas. Naww its cool, South Park is on. Enjoy!
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:57 PM on January 8, 2008 [8 favorites]


I think Ron Paul's supporters are doing well enough destroying Ron Paul's chances, so well in fact that he really doesn't need anyone else helping out.

I've never seen such a politically myopic and conspiratorial group of people under one banner in all my life
posted by SweetJesus at 1:58 PM on January 8, 2008


Of course we shouldn't discount the possibility that what at first appears to be a series of hateful racist screeds is in fact an anti-littering slogan.
posted by Artw at 1:59 PM on January 8, 2008 [7 favorites]


Artw: Would you kindly explain what you think of Ron Paul?
posted by papakwanz at 1:59 PM on January 8, 2008


The author of the article has admitted to simply trying to incite the opposition.

I don't know if this defense will stick though, ratdog. If you've ever been monstered by a TNR journalist, you'd know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can sometimes be.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:59 PM on January 8, 2008


On preview: An lgf link?!? Jesus.

Yeah, this is a much more fluid story now that the champions of unbridled veracity at The New Republic have taken it on. There are still people there who haven't resigned in disgrace yet? Who knew.

Christ, I think Paul's a fucking lunatic but there's no excuse for this FPP still existing. It's already been mostly refuted/debunked and the fucking author of the piece admits he's trolling.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 1:59 PM on January 8, 2008


Bartertown? Thunderdome?
posted by blue_beetle at 1:59 PM on January 8, 2008


Not to mention that the sacred vessel of Dr. Paul has decided that:

abortion is immoral

and

evolution is a bunch of shit.

Get with the program!
posted by damn dirty ape at 1:59 PM on January 8, 2008


ND¢ IS A BANANA PUDDING LOVER!!!!
posted by tkchrist at 1:59 PM on January 8, 2008


I think Ron Paul's supporters are doing well enough destroying Ron Paul's chances, so well in fact that he really doesn't need anyone else helping out.

If I could carve this in giant stone monuments to the stupidity of the Ron Paul rEVOLution, I would.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:00 PM on January 8, 2008


ND¢ IS A BANANA PUDDING LOVER!!!!

That was posted 7 minutes ago. OLD NEWS!
posted by Gary at 2:01 PM on January 8, 2008


It's probably just one of those crazy coincidences, like the fact that someone with my exact name patented this insane devil bunny toilet attachment in 1955. Should I take the blame for that?
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:01 PM on January 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


Artw: Would you kindly explain what you think of Ron Paul?

Just right now? I think he's an awesome target for funnery.
posted by Artw at 2:02 PM on January 8, 2008


Metafilter: I've never seen such a politically myopic and conspiratorial group of people under one banner in all my life.

Sorry, couldn't resist. Not familiar with LaRouche, SweetJesus?
posted by MrMoonPie at 2:02 PM on January 8, 2008


FWIW -- I detest banana pudding, but like Mrs. Paul's Fish Sticks.
posted by ericb at 2:03 PM on January 8, 2008


I definitely need to get more educated on his history etc, but when I saw him speak the other day he seemed to say less obvious crap and intuitively I sort of liked him. I like his (I don't care what I need to say to get elected here is what I believe' sense. But I only saw about 1 minute of his answer to one question at the debate.

The blogosphere and hearsay that is roiling around him has NO credibility whatsoever, and I haven't had the time to search for any original writing or look at his actual voting record from primary sources.

Anyone have any great links handy?
posted by sfts2 at 2:03 PM on January 8, 2008


"Here, some facts!"

"You're trolling!"

The same high-quality argumentation I've come to expect from the Paulsies.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:04 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


I feel nauseated when I find that someone I respect supports Ron Paul, because it means one of the following:
1. They don't know about his background even though this shit has been making the rounds for months. Thus they've barely bothered to do a ten-second Google check on a candidate whom they so idolize that they've switched their party registration for him.
2. They know, but gloss over it. He didn't actually write it, he just put his name on it and accepted money and actively cultivated support from those who agreed with it. Or they don't consider these things important enough to elicit doubts about their hero, much less cause them to run away screaming like I'd expect someone with critical thinking skills to do.
3. They...agree.

"I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."

This is the most condescending apology ever. "And she makes the tastiest lemonade, and boy, you should see her church hats!"
posted by granted at 2:06 PM on January 8, 2008


REVOlution
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:07 PM on January 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


Ron Paul was never going to do "well" in any of the primaries/caucuses, N.H or otherwise. His numbers just have not been good enough, period.

(How the hell can you be a libertarian AND an avid anti-abortionist anyway?)
posted by edgeways at 2:07 PM on January 8, 2008


What makes this truly ironic is the attacks on Paul are mostly coming from Republican-leaning sources, and yet the more they piss Paul's fanatics off and make him think he's getting a raw deal, the more likely he'll be inclined to spend his millions in donations on an independent run.

Please god let this happen
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 2:12 PM on January 8, 2008


It's already been mostly refuted/debunked and the fucking author of the piece admits he's trolling.

It's been refuted, it hasn't been debunked.

And since when is a journalist reporting facts (undisputed facts, by the way) the same as being a troll? Sheesh...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:13 PM on January 8, 2008


Cry me a river, BigSky.

More like shaking my head. I don't take lgf seriously. There is nothing honest about them. When they write or rather, think, the conclusion comes first.

Am I the only one who DOESN'T CARE whether Ron Paul actually wrote the newsletter himself or was just so politically tin-eared as to allow a racist homophobic conspiracy-kook newsletter to be published under his name for DECADES? Either way, I don't want him anywhere near the white house.

Obviously not, that appears to be the majority. Instead it's that I'm the only one (or close to it) who doesn't care that Ron Paul was negligent about what went out under his name when making a decision of this scope. After all, considering the massive problems facing this country, a make-the-world-right foreign policy, economy going off the rails, erosion of civil liberties etc., it seems just about irrelevant to focus on a busy professional's neglect of a newsletter's contents. Seems like a ridiculous criteria on which to make an election decision. But what do I know? You're the majority, not me.

So I clearly explained that I am really busy and important and so I give my Mefi password out to people who have views totally different than mine, views that I actually find abhorrent, and let them post whatever they want under my name and that I don't ever read over it, and so I can't possibly be responsible for it. Well that liar actually didn't accept the reasonableness of that explanation. Hatchet job! Plus it was old news. OLD NEWS HATCHET JOB!

While I might buy this story if you were a professional who had also been active in politics, I'm not buying it from you.

-----

sfts2,

Go here, and look around.
posted by BigSky at 2:16 PM on January 8, 2008


It's trolling when you don't want to hear it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:16 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


Paultards are awesome.

I love the fact that the only two people in the republican party who have any appeal for everyday Americans are complete economic loons (Huckabee with the Fair tax and Paul. Yeah.)

Of course, all the front runners have insane views as well, namely that you can just cut taxes to increase revenues forever.

Anyway, whatever Paul had written for him isn't really that important, since he's not going to win at all.

Someone should put all of his old pamphlets online.
posted by delmoi at 2:17 PM on January 8, 2008


(How the hell can you be a libertarian AND an avid anti-abortionist anyway?)

Lots of people diverge from their party's platform on select issues. Not kidding. Besides he's a Republican.
posted by BigSky at 2:19 PM on January 8, 2008


Sorry, couldn't resist. Not familiar with LaRouche, SweetJesus?

I am, but how many LaRouche supporters do you actually know? They're like albino alligators, precious and rare...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:20 PM on January 8, 2008


I'm working on my new sign:
"Google "ron paul -racist -homophobe -nazi"!"
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 2:20 PM on January 8, 2008 [14 favorites]


YOURE ALL A BUNCH OF MORTON DOWNEY JRS! BLESSED BE TO AYN JESUS RAND AND DO YOUR RESEARCH, WHITE PEOPLE.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:20 PM on January 8, 2008


While I might buy this story if you were a professional who had also been active in politics, I'm not buying it from you.

I am a professional! I work in a banana pudding factory.
posted by ND¢ at 2:21 PM on January 8, 2008


so how many brown skinned people has ron paul and his friends killed in the past 5 years?

how many has our do nothing congress and our do stupid president killed by intention or inaction?

it's a hell of a thing when a person who's got very questionable viewpoints on a lot of things is the only fucking major candidate willing to take a stand against the war

yes, i don't want him to be president - crap, i don't want ANY of these people to be president
posted by pyramid termite at 2:22 PM on January 8, 2008


Besides he's a Republican.

Someone should tell some of his supporters that.
posted by Artw at 2:22 PM on January 8, 2008


By the way, there is a major diffrence between what this reporter did and what was circulating before, a simple re-post of one article that had found its way to Usenet back in the day. This guy tracked down the actual pamphlets, lots and lot's of 'em.
posted by delmoi at 2:23 PM on January 8, 2008


YOU KNOW WHO ELSE LIKED BLIMPS? YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT WILHELM II. DO YOUR RESEARCH.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:26 PM on January 8, 2008


sfts2:

This is one site I got from the link CheeseDigestsAll posted.
posted by cmgonzalez at 2:27 PM on January 8, 2008


I didn't mean that as a "belongs to the Libertarian party", but a libertarian, in-a-philosophical-sense, which he is. The divergent held opinions I mentioned seem to indicate to me more of the "government must fuck off, except in these areas which I believe in government intervention". So, I guess he is really more of a selective-libertarian (notice the small "l"), which in reality all libertarians are.
posted by edgeways at 2:27 PM on January 8, 2008


Italicized words

Words words words CAPITAL WORDS words words.
posted by aftermarketradio at 2:29 PM on January 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


The blogosphere and hearsay that is roiling around him has NO credibility whatsoever, and I haven't had the time to search for any original writing or look at his actual voting record from primary sources.

This is the funniest statement I've heard in some time.

"Nothing said about him is true, but I don't have the time to find out what the truth is about him." Whee!
posted by shmegegge at 2:29 PM on January 8, 2008 [5 favorites]


SweetJesus: It's been denied, not even refuted.

pyramidtermite: "silencing [Ron Paul and] the liberals"

I was unaware that criticism in TNR rendered people incapable of either speech or publishing on t'internet.

More generally, it's a hit piece, but an interesting one with lots of content, which I've just spent half an hour reading*. A long way from "OMG Barrack Hussein Obama is TEH MUZLIMZ".

(* Don't worry, Paulies, I can't vote in your elections)
posted by athenian at 2:30 PM on January 8, 2008


A few days ago, we were discussing Barack Obama's rise and an article on assassination anxiety. It was a troubling thought, so I took a peek at that toxic waste dump of a forum called Stormfront.org to see if the "white nationalists" (adorable) were talking about the same thing. I didn't expect to stay long, as I find clicking around that site to be spiritually corrosive, but I was curious.

So I opened up the political portion of the board, and found little evidence of any board member plotting or advocating Obama's murder. If it's on anyone's mind, they're at least savvy enough to leave it off the Internet. Mostly, these idiots were talking about Obama as the culmination of a one-world government conspiracy -- the final move in a play that began with 9/11. Matter of fact, I didn't find nearly as many threads about Obama as I expected to. The political figure who got the most attention was Ron Paul.

I was surprised, but didn't look much further. By that point, I was feeling overexposed to the Internet equivalent of polonium 210, and clicked away before the poison sunk any deeper. I'm not drawing any conclusions from it - what conclusions can you draw from the subject spread of random, tiny sampling of a message board, after all? And I'm certainly not suggesting that I now think Ron Paul's supporters tend to be bigots -- if they were, my brother has some views he's not discussed with me.

But that's twice in two days that the Internets have surprised me by connecting Ron Paul to some pretty ugly thinking. A lot of his policy positions have sounded appealing to me, but I dunno. For every successive decade these screeds had been published under his name, the "hands-off" defense sheds another chunk of credibility.
posted by EatTheWeak at 2:30 PM on January 8, 2008


delmoi: I'd thought these sounded familiar, then I remembered reading these via USENET or textfile sections of local BBS' back when I was 14 or so.
posted by c0nsumer at 2:32 PM on January 8, 2008


This year is going to feel like twenty by the time I'm done with it. Probably the twenty at the very end, where I'm pissing myself and blabbering incoherently.
posted by koeselitz at 2:36 PM on January 8, 2008


athenian: Why not take a look at the second definition of the word "refuted" in your link there. It has been refuted...
posted by SweetJesus at 2:36 PM on January 8, 2008


After all, considering the massive problems facing this country, a make-the-world-right foreign policy, economy going off the rails, erosion of civil liberties etc., it seems just about irrelevant to focus on a busy professional's neglect of a newsletter's contents.

That's a seriously lame defense there; I'm sorry, but I don't care who you are or how busy you are. If there's multiple messages of racial hatred being published in your name, I'm going to hold you accountable for them. This went on for years. Are you saying that he never even read the newsletter? Not even once? And if I'm voting for someone to fix the many problems of the country, I expect a little attention to detail.
posted by octothorpe at 2:39 PM on January 8, 2008 [9 favorites]


I made a Ron Paul supporter cry the other day. It was beautiful. They cry tears of true emotional pain, you know, when you prove to them that their ideals are flawed and that they have no concept of what is required to maintain a society of more than 100 people. They discuss things like how "small town ethics" and good strong "communities" are the way things should be run, but then you just have to remind them that just like Communism, it all sounds good on paper and can work great for a small group dynamic, the reality of scaling such systems beyond the minimal groups described above, you end up with a complete and utter failure to achieve anything more than social collapse and anarchy.

But, then, most of them think they would thrive in an anarchist state. That delusion is even more fun to crack. You don't have enough bullets to stop them all. That's why the zombies won. That's why the zombies won.
posted by daq at 2:39 PM on January 8, 2008 [7 favorites]


Can someone summarize a few things? I read the article but my parsing skills aren't great.

1. how long was this newsletter published for?
2. when were the offending pieces written?
3. how many offending pieces were there?

I'm not excusing him because personally I wouldn't even be connected, in any way shape or form, to the types of people who would write such plainly racist material. However, I am curious to know exactly what was going on, and for how long.
posted by cell divide at 2:40 PM on January 8, 2008


And I'd like to say that I don't believe Ron Paul's denials for a fucking second and believe that he did, in fact agree with those things at the time and suspect that he continues to agree with those things. He's learned that racist paranoia doesn't play well to a mass audience. Boo the fuck hoo.
posted by Pope Guilty at 2:41 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


Banana pudding lovers everywhere!
posted by mwhybark at 2:44 PM on January 8, 2008


You know who else like Austrian economics....
posted by lattiboy at 2:48 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Can someone summarize a few things? 1. how long was this newsletter published for? 2. when were the offending pieces written? 3. how many offending pieces were there?

From the first few paragraphs of the TNR article:
"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....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....Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society....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...."
posted by ericb at 2:49 PM on January 8, 2008


BigSky et al:

I am not, as it happens, a professional who has also been active in politics. One of my jobs, however, is to ghostwrite a newsletter for a professional who is active in politics. And I am telling you, Ron Paul's story is not credible.

I actually bought it when it was just one article making the rounds. Sure, that can happen. I kind of rolled my eyes at the Unnamed Republican Staffer aspect of it, but I could believe it. The guy at the top where I work doesn't read every single article. I could put in something crazy and he might never know.

But for three decades?

Here is what Paul is asking us to believe:

- Not only did he exercise no editorial control over any of the content, despite it being put out in his name, sometimes with his signature on it, for decades, but ...
- He did not then even bother to ask about some of the important political views of the people he was asking to write a political newsletter, in his name, for decades, and ...
- He was never even sent them, or simply threw them away without glancing over the content, for decades, and ...
- It never occurred to him in thirty years that this might be a bad idea.

Basically we have to buy that some associates of Ron Paul, whose political views he was not very familiar with, went to a Congressman and said, "Hey, we want to publish a newsletter under your name," and he said, "Sure, whatever you think will appeal to my constituents, relative strangers I trust," and never changed his mind about this, read it, or heard any feedback about it that would cause him to take a look at it, over a period spanning decades, through what had to be multiple changes in personnel, format, and title.

This is not how that works. That is NEVER how that works. I work for such a newsletter, and that is NOT HOW THESE THINGS WORK.

This is, frankly, a lie. If it is, somehow, not a lie, it is an act of such monumental idiocy, that, yes, this is a big enough deal that I think it means he is not capable of running the country.
posted by kyrademon at 2:51 PM on January 8, 2008 [47 favorites]


The good thing about Ron Paul is are his bumper stickers. They're like warning labels to other drivers: IDIOT ON BOARD.
posted by fandango_matt at 2:52 PM on January 8, 2008 [4 favorites]


it seems just about irrelevant to focus on a busy professional's neglect of a newsletter's contents.

I wonder what Hannah Arendt would say about some of the loonies stretching to apologize for Ron Paul's heinous behavior in this thread.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:53 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


I was unaware that criticism in TNR rendered people incapable of either speech or publishing on t'internet.

in my state of michigan all the major democratic candidates except pro-war clinton have removed their names off the ballot

my choice? stay home or vote for ron paul in the republican primary

i still haven't decided, but home's sounding better all the time

(* Don't worry, Paulies, I can't vote in your elections)

neither can i and have my vote counted for the national delegate count, it seems

the national liberal establishment really HAVE silenced us in michigan - we can talk - but our votes don't count
posted by pyramid termite at 2:55 PM on January 8, 2008


Here is the text of at least one article attributed to Paul's newsletter. Found via Paul's wikipedia article.
posted by desjardins at 2:57 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


1. how long was this newsletter published for?
1978-present

2. when were the offending pieces written?
Examples given in the article range from 1978-1995.

3. how many offending pieces were there?
Kirchick appears to cite examples from 30 different pieces, by my count, unless he's being disingenuous and including multiple quotes from the same article in different places. But even then, there's at least 11 different dates cited.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:59 PM on January 8, 2008



the national liberal establishment really HAVE silenced us in michigan - we can talk - but our votes don't count


If you guys didn't try to fuck with the natural order of things, the DNC wouldn't be boycotting your primary....
posted by SweetJesus at 3:01 PM on January 8, 2008


Also, I'd like to remind everyone that Paul gave an exclusive interview to the white supremicist website vdare. I'm not linking to them, but you can find it if you google "ron paul vdare", its the first thing that comes up.

And, yeah, the "he didn't write it" line is pathetic. It went out under his name, and he let it sit, under his name, for decades. He didn't even try to claim he disagreed with that stuff until it started hurting his run for president. He could have retracted that insane crap in the issue after it was published, if he really did disagree with it he would have. Its self evident that he approved of the racist, paranoid, stuff or else he would have issued a retraction.

Basically he's a racist, ignorant, superstitious, thug.
posted by sotonohito at 3:02 PM on January 8, 2008


pyramid termite re: Michigan having no deligates at the convention this time around: I'd complain to the idiots in the Michigan Democratic Party who decided to move up their primary date after, *after*, they were told that doing so would result in them not getting to vote at the convention. It sucks for you, but I'd say your local twits are responsible, not the national party.
posted by sotonohito at 3:04 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


If you guys didn't try to fuck with the natural order of things

the natural order of things seems to be that we have the worst unemployment rate, the worst economy and the worst effects of globalization and the rest of the country, including the so-called "working man's" democratic party is ignoring us

i wonder what the natural order of things will be in michigan for november

It sucks for you, but I'd say your local twits are responsible, not the national party.

our local twits are trying to point out a gross injustice and they're not being listened to

if the dems lose michigan in november, don't ask why
posted by pyramid termite at 3:07 PM on January 8, 2008


I like Ron Paul's new campaign theme song.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:08 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


I understand Dr. Paul's frustration.

For many years there was a publication making the rounds that I haphazardly lent my name to. I did it because they told me I would get 20% off Ben & Jerry coupons.

The publication was called The TKChirst Evening Sun Gazette Intelligencer Standard. Which seemed harmless enough.

But the tag line "The Jews Are Trying to Eat Our Babies!" had me baffled at first.

So I called the publisher and told him not only was I troubled by the incendiary implication of the tag line but , appealing to his editors smarts, that the very length of the masthead and tag line would squeeze every thing lead below the fold.

He asked me if "THEY had gotten to me?" I said who? He said the baby eaters.
"You mean The Jews?" I said?
"AH HAH! So they DO eat babies!" He screamed.

So I hung up and just hoped the entire thing would blow over. I never got my coupons either.
posted by tkchrist at 3:09 PM on January 8, 2008 [9 favorites]


Ron Paul is a nut to the highest degree that being said I think he went with the current business model. He decided to make fear, anger, and tin foil ass-hat bullshit his platform. On a short enough timeline this could actually look like the proper way to become president.
posted by hexxed at 3:20 PM on January 8, 2008


the ron paul rap

better version on myspace
posted by pyramid termite at 3:22 PM on January 8, 2008


pyramid termite I'll be the first to say that the Iowa/New Hampshire stranglehold on holding the earliest primaries is a terrible situation. But when the national party says "do not do this or we will not let you have deligates", I'd believe them. Your local twits didn't, and now, *thanks*to*the*local*twits*, you don't get a voice in the Democratic primary.

To me this would suggest that its a good time to fire all the idiots who cost you your voice in the primary, that is: the local twits. Obviously you think differently, and I'll admit that's puzzling to me. What, in your opinion, should the national party have done? If Michigan jumped its primary up without consiqences you know some other state would have leapfrogged Michigan. Again, it sucks that Iowa and New Hampshire are being so obscenely pandered to, but the method chosen Michigan's party elites to deal with that situation seems to me to have been a profoundly stupid choice.
posted by sotonohito at 3:22 PM on January 8, 2008


Kinda funny that the guy wrote this doesn't bother to read his own newsletters.

Here's the money quote:
Congress should read the bills. But to do that requires an appropriate amount of time. More appropriately phrased, Congress should be ALLOWED to read the bills. And no member of Congress should, in good conscience, vote affirmatively on a bill they haven't fully analyzed.
posted by mullacc at 3:24 PM on January 8, 2008 [5 favorites]


PDFs of at least some of the articles in question have been posted here.
posted by kyrademon at 3:24 PM on January 8, 2008


What, in your opinion, should the national party have done?

reform the system - and you know this

but the method chosen Michigan's party elites to deal with that situation seems to me to have been a profoundly stupid choice.

some people thought refusing to sit in the back of the bus was a profoundly stupid choice, too
posted by pyramid termite at 3:27 PM on January 8, 2008


- Pyramid Termite

Have things in Michigan gotten that bad that you are actually comparing the loss of the democratic primary (which you were duly warned not to change the date of) to segregation in the united states? I know Detroit is bad but it can’t possibly be that bad.
posted by hexxed at 3:32 PM on January 8, 2008


Is there anything lamer than pretending to take some sort of meta-type position above the debate? Like we're all so predictable and you just know how it's going to play out; it implicitly gives you that 'in-the-know' pose. How condescending.

You know what guy? What I said was kind of... what... lazy, I guess, too easy... but I don't know in what way I was trying to be above the debate, every time there is a comment/thread which mentions this thing about Paul, someone says "he didn't write it", every time boss, every time. I don't see how pointing that out is condescending, as much as sort of tired of that equivocation and dashed off. Your man either said it, allowed it to be said about him or is such an oblivious dupe that he never checked on years of text that was sent out in his name, unless I'm missing out on some other obvious answer, in any event that can't be ignored. But hey, good luck to Ron Paul, I've got ten months plus of politics threads to go, I need to ease back.
posted by Divine_Wino at 3:39 PM on January 8, 2008


Drawing an analogy between A and B is not the same as asserting that A and B are equal.

I don't agree with Pyramid Termite in this instance, but the fallacious conclusion that someone believes two things equal after he has merely drawn an analogy between those two things is so frustratingly common that I feel obliged to draw attention to it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 3:39 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


While I might buy this story if you were a professional who had also been active in politics, I'm not buying it from you.

Yesterday I found out that if you google my name with a more common spelling variant, you'll find my name and photo on a list of "founders & volunteers" for a non-profit that I had a slight connection with. The relationship never really got off the ground and a bunch of us left on good terms, yet it's three years later and there's me, smiling with my tie. I suppose I should ask them to remove me from their site, but it's not a big deal because they do good work and nobody's googling me anyway.

On the other had, if I held congressional office and had a public image to uphold, then it would be dumb to allow them to keep my name up there. Dumb and negligent, because I would have the staff and interns keep an eye out for such instances and lawyers to go after people using my name. Ron Paul, a professional, active in politics, let newsletters be published under his name with racist and homophobic inflammatory rhetoric. Why would he? I can think of three possibilities:

1. He was dumb and negligent.
2. He agreed with the racist and homophobic inflammatory rhetoric.
3. He was willing to gain support by pandering to bigots.

I actually think it's all of the above. Got any other possibilities, BigSky?
posted by hydrophonic at 3:39 PM on January 8, 2008 [9 favorites]


I wouldn't comment in this thread if I didn't have the ability to remove it from Current Activity, but since I do:

If Paul really didn't approve of the paper's content, then he's lazy, careless, and stupid - three more attributes to add to the list of reasons why supporting him is a bad and dangerous idea.


Indeed. I rather liked him when I saw him on Bill Moyers, but this is repellent stuff, and if you believe that he allowed a newsletter to go out under his name for decades without paying attention to what was in it, I have some Kool-Aid for you.
posted by languagehat at 3:53 PM on January 8, 2008


Dumb and negligent, because I would have the staff and interns keep an eye out

Staff? Ron Paul lives his no-government principles. It's just him in his office, pumping out go-nowhere no-government legislative initiatives year after year.
posted by panamax at 4:03 PM on January 8, 2008


I find it impossible to believe that Rupaul hates gays and blacks. Wait, what?
posted by The Bellman at 4:15 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


Ru Paul '08

Wait, what?

hat tip to taz
posted by AwkwardPause at 4:23 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Incredible as it may sound, I actually hadn't seen The Bellman's comment when I posted that.

AwkwardPause indeed...
posted by AwkwardPause at 4:24 PM on January 8, 2008


Lets say for some reason, you don't believe that the newsletters were ever read by Ron Paul. Then what about this wonderful solicitation letter for his newsletter, frickin' signed by Ron Paul, that says:

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.

..and it actually gets freakier from there, ending with some bizarre get-rich-despite-the-coming-Holocaust pitches. "I've been told not to talk"?! Seriously deranged survivalist nutjobbery, even if you don't buy that he is a racist, or a bigot, or anything else.
posted by blahblahblah at 4:29 PM on January 8, 2008 [12 favorites]


When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.
Jesus fucking Christ.

That rings so fucking hollow it's simultaneously hard to believe it and hard not to believe it.

It's such an absurd and non-absolving excuse that it's difficult to believe that someone could be stupid enough to think it was a reasonable thing to say, unless he was also stupid enough that it was actually true that he published and sold things written as if by him but actually by unconscionably vile individuals without reading them.

So which is it? Ron Paul - repugnant, or idiot?

My money's on both.
posted by Flunkie at 4:39 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


Actually, now that I think back a little more, "I didn't read it" is actually in character. He's on record in a "war against religion" screed as saying that both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are "replete" with references to God, which is an absurdly false statement.

This despite the fact that his main talking point is "defending the Constitution".
posted by Flunkie at 4:43 PM on January 8, 2008


"Lets say for some reason, you don't believe that the newsletters were ever read by Ron Paul. Then what about this wonderful solicitation letter for his newsletter, frickin' signed by Ron Paul...,"

"I do not deny that there may have been moments in the past, where, without my knowledge, certain letters may have been sent which may or may not have had my signature affixed to them. As I'm sure you can understand, being both a Real Medical Doctor and a Congressman, I am very busy and cannot always take the time to read through documents which I sign. "
posted by Avenger at 4:45 PM on January 8, 2008


Angry White Man

Awesome. Heavy metal president.
posted by dgaicun at 4:45 PM on January 8, 2008


I like how Real Medical Doctor is title cased.
posted by Artw at 4:52 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Then what about this wonderful solicitation letter for his newsletter

Huh. Wow.
posted by cortex at 4:59 PM on January 8, 2008


Wow. That solicitation letter is...wow. I am totally speechless.
posted by granted at 5:07 PM on January 8, 2008


The blogosphere and hearsay that is roiling around him has NO credibility whatsoever, and I haven't had the time to search for any original writing or look at his actual voting record from primary sources.

Joe Klein? Is that you?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 5:10 PM on January 8, 2008


And yet...and yet....this is the one guy who's getting any coverage who wants the US out of Iraq soonest.
posted by pax digita at 5:23 PM on January 8, 2008


I like how Real Medical Doctor is title cased.

My understanding was that Avenger pulled that quote out of his ass as a parody, oblivious to the fact that a parody won't be easily recognized as such unless it is noticeably more ridiculous than what it is satirizing.

disclaimer: This viewpoint may or may not represent dgaicun, and his actual beliefs
posted by dgaicun at 5:24 PM on January 8, 2008


Those who act decisively--and have the right information to act on--will survive the New Money and big government's other economic calamities. In fact, history shows that bad times offer the greatest profit opportunities.

This is satire and I'm the dumb one in the room who's taking it seriously and you're all laughing at me, right?
posted by granted at 5:32 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


I didn't mean that as a "belongs to the Libertarian party", but a libertarian, in-a-philosophical-sense, which he is.

I understood what you meant and that isn't a common divergence. But if you consider life to begin at birth then there isn't much tension with the other libertarian principles. A relationship where one being is completely dependent upon another like mother and foetus is tough for libertarians to parse with their ethics emphasizing the individual. Perhaps that's one reason why the vast majority are pro-choice.

That's a seriously lame defense there; I'm sorry, but I don't care who you are or how busy you are. If there's multiple messages of racial hatred being published in your name, I'm going to hold you accountable for them. This went on for years. Are you saying that he never even read the newsletter? Not even once? And if I'm voting for someone to fix the many problems of the country, I expect a little attention to detail.

It's not a defense of his negligence, it's why I don't think it's very important. He has said that he has some moral responsibility for them and no, I am not saying he never read the newsletter. Explanation follows:

"The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”"

You know who else like Austrian economics....

No, he didn't.

Here is what Paul is asking us to believe:

- Not only did he exercise no editorial control over any of the content, despite it being put out in his name, sometimes with his signature on it, for decades, but ...
- He did not then even bother to ask about some of the important political views of the people he was asking to write a political newsletter, in his name, for decades, and ...
- He was never even sent them, or simply threw them away without glancing over the content, for decades, and ...
- It never occurred to him in thirty years that this might be a bad idea.


I don't think so. It may be the case that there was racist content in every last issue but what's been shown so far is that there were some issues over a range of years that had some ugly phrasing. That doesn't mean he never glanced over the content for decades. Read the above quote about how the journal functioned.

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that Paul gave an exclusive interview to the white supremicist website vdare. I'm not linking to them, but you can find it if you google "ron paul vdare", its the first thing that comes up.

And, yeah, the "he didn't write it" line is pathetic. It went out under his name, and he let it sit, under his name, for decades. He didn't even try to claim he disagreed with that stuff until it started hurting his run for president. He could have retracted that insane crap in the issue after it was published, if he really did disagree with it he would have. Its self evident that he approved of the racist, paranoid, stuff or else he would have issued a retraction.


VDare, huh? This is a guy who's never heard of GQ or the Jon Stewart show and he's supposed to be up on VDare?

And this is flat out wrong. He let it sit under his name because his election team thought that would be the best way to handle it when it came to light. And he expressed his disagreement earlier than when "it started hurting his run for president". The excerpted Texas Monthly article was from 2001.

every time there is a comment/thread which mentions this thing about Paul, someone says "he didn't write it", every time boss, every time."

We, and more specifically, I, say it because that's what I (we) believe to be the case. I felt your comment was above the debate because it doesn't respond to the explanation on its own level. Instead it reduces the explanation, which I believe in, as just some rhetorical strategy that doesn't deserve attention on its merits.

And a response to a representative of the "OMG, he's a racist!" bunch.

And I'd like to say that I don't believe Ron Paul's denials for a fucking second and believe that he did, in fact agree with those things at the time and suspect that he continues to agree with those things.

If this is what you suspect then I'm not going to convince anyone of anything here. But I'll tell you why I believe he isn't. The writing style doesn't match. No one in Congress or in his private life has come forward and stated that Ron Paul holds those views. It's pretty unlikely someone would consciously allow that kind of vitriolic language to go forward in a newsletter and totally abstain in person. He is not a dissembler. Even his opponents widely agree that he is straightforward and willing to stick with unpopular positions. He has been outspoken against racism in the past and I don't see why he would be two faced about this issue and none other. And besides, generally when people hide a racist point of view they don't go and share it in a nationally mailed newsletter.

As for the signature, show me that's real and I'll reevaluate. The letter, which is appallingly ridiculous, is not in his voice.
posted by BigSky at 5:34 PM on January 8, 2008


To quote a Republican friend of mine:
"Ron Paul paints his own bathroom wall in feces. I hope he convinces his loony fucking supporters to make him a cape and then he can move to Turtle Island where he can be a CONSTITUTIONAL SUPERHEROE OF TEH INTERNETZ. He is all the worst things about Ralph fucking Nader and Ross fucking Perot. Fuck that guy with a clown shoe."

This was stated before I showed him the solicitation letter.

I do believe the paramedics are at his house now attempting to revive him after the massive seizure he is probably having from trying to read the first page of that letter.
posted by daq at 5:37 PM on January 8, 2008


We, and more specifically, I, say it because that's what I (we) believe to be the case. I felt your comment was above the debate because it doesn't respond to the explanation on its own level. Instead it reduces the explanation, which I believe in, as just some rhetorical strategy that doesn't deserve attention on its merits.

That's you man, once again, mazel tov.
posted by Divine_Wino at 5:46 PM on January 8, 2008


Wow, that letter from Dr Paul is great. He's way loonier than I realized. That stuff is in the same league as Time Cube or the Unabomber's letters. And it's almost as badly written too. Wow, again.
posted by octothorpe at 5:57 PM on January 8, 2008


So I've read the article and the comments, and so far all I've seen in the way of "evidence" is an admitted hit-piece from the fucking New Republic (jesus fucking h christ, you all take TNR that seriously? hmm...) and a 14 1/2 year old transcripted usenet post. A bunch of digital text posted to alt.conspiracy newsgroups a decade and a half ago, that someone claims they transcribed from a newsletter put out by Ron Paul. I'm sorry, but I just can't accept this "evidence" as legitimate without something more to back it up. Compare that with Paul's congressional voting record, which doesn't reflect any of this crap.

If this is what you suspect then I'm not going to convince anyone of anything here. But I'll tell you why I believe he isn't. The writing style doesn't match. No one in Congress or in his private life has come forward and stated that Ron Paul holds those views. It's pretty unlikely someone would consciously allow that kind of vitriolic language to go forward in a newsletter and totally abstain in person. He is not a dissembler. Even his opponents widely agree that he is straightforward and willing to stick with unpopular positions. He has been outspoken against racism in the past and I don't see why he would be two faced about this issue and none other. And besides, generally when people hide a racist point of view they don't go and share it in a nationally mailed newsletter.

As for the signature, show me that's real and I'll reevaluate. The letter, which is appallingly ridiculous, is not in his voice.
posted by BigSky at 8:34 PM on January 8 [+] [!]


I second!


On preview:
And it's almost as badly written too. Wow, again.
posted by octothorpe at 8:57 PM on January 8


Read something Ron Paul has actually written. See BigSky's "not in his voice" comment above.
posted by krash2fast at 5:59 PM on January 8, 2008


?
-------
!
posted by maxwelton at 6:02 PM on January 8, 2008


krash2fast writes "Read something Ron Paul has actually written. See"

How do you know when he's using a ghostwriter, or allowing someone else to write under his name?
posted by mr_roboto at 6:03 PM on January 8, 2008


BigSky Re: VDare.

You are, again, trying to argue that the man you want to be President is a complete idiot. He's a public figure, was, at the time of the VDare interview, a sitting congressman. People check out those who want to interview them. It isn't difficult, in the slightest, to discover that VDare is a racist outfit, and it wasn't back when they interviewed him either.

So, we're back to several explanations,none of which are good for Paul

1) Ron Paul is so frickin' stupid that he lends his voice to anyone and everyone, without even the slightest bit of research.

OR

2) Ron Paul agrees with the racist thugs at VDare.

OR

3) Ron Paul is willing to pander to racist thugs to get their vote.

I really don't think he's stupid, so its got to be 2 or 3, and I'm betting both.

OTOH, he might be that dumb. He is, after all, a man with an MD, an OBGYN no less, who apparently doesn't know what an ectopic pregnancy is, so maybe he really is as dumb as you want us to think he is.

Still, "Ron Paul, so stupid he didn't realize he was helping racists" isn't what I'd call a good campaign slogan.
posted by sotonohito at 6:21 PM on January 8, 2008 [4 favorites]


I'm pleasantly surprised we've gotten through 150 comments without anyone using the acronym "MSM".
posted by naju at 6:21 PM on January 8, 2008


As I was reading the article, something kept creeping into my memory. Unable to put my finger on what I was tring to remember....finally had the answer. This reminds me of the information circulated by Brown and Williamson about Dr. Jeffrey Wigant to discredit him about the harmful affects of cigarette smoking. And, the lawsuits that followed. This is shameful, bias reporting on a primary day, and any one on this blog that cannot see through this crap, has blinders on.

I'm not a supporter of Paul, however some of this crap on his so called newletter, has been rehashed and explained many times. This article is a load of s@%t.
posted by brickman at 6:28 PM on January 8, 2008


Now that the thread seems to be winding down, I'd like to apologize for all of the vile things I used ND¢'s account to say. Also, he means "banana" *nudge* "pudding" *wink*, not actual banana pudding.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:29 PM on January 8, 2008


Still, "Ron Paul, so stupid he didn't realize he was helping racists" isn't what I'd call a good campaign slogan.
Well, sure, when you put it that way, it sounds pretty bad. But consider this one instead:

"Ron Paul, so stupid, he didn't realize he was helping racists for three decades!"

Errrm, on second thought, never mind.
posted by Flunkie at 6:30 PM on January 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


... a 14 1/2 year old transcripted usenet post. A bunch of digital text posted to alt.conspiracy newsgroups a decade and a half ago, that someone claims they transcribed from a newsletter put out by Ron Paul. I'm sorry, but I just can't accept this "evidence" as legitimate without something more to back it up.

You aren't paying attention. The article states: "Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society."

TNR then provides a large number of PDFs of these newsletters.
posted by dgaicun at 6:35 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Yeah, but Ron Paul did not personally convert those newsletters to PDF.
posted by cortex at 6:38 PM on January 8, 2008 [5 favorites]


Compare that with Paul's congressional voting record, which doesn't reflect any of this crap.

Seriously? His congressional voting record seems to show exactly this crap:

Ron Paul was the only member of Congress to vote against a resolution hailing the 40th Anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act claiming that school integration and fair hiring practices violated private property rights and intensified racial strife in the US.

He was one of 33 members of Congress who voted against reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act in the
Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006


Also, he introduced the 2007 Sanctity of Life Act which, among other things, attempted to remove Supreme Court jurisdiction over abortion rights.

The best one of all is the We the People Act, which he introduced in both 2005 and 2007, which, no joke, attempted to remove Supreme Court jurisdiction over
(A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;

(B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or

(C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation


This newsletter story just shows that the people who elected him should have known to expect his crap.
posted by hydropsyche at 6:41 PM on January 8, 2008 [6 favorites]


I’ve been looking for a rationale to blow Ron Paul off and I’m still not satisfied.. He’s the nearest thing to a sane person among the Republicans, which isn’t saying much, but overall he’s got a better voting record than any other candidate, regardless of party, save Dennis Kucinich. In fact Kucinich has offered to be his running mate.

R
posted by Huplescat at 6:43 PM on January 8, 2008


Newsletters are published to disseminate information, of course, but they're also instrumental in raising funds. It stands to reason that any or all of these newsletters would contain some solitication for money. Even something as simple as, "Want to subscribe, send a buck."

So here's the simplest question, though for the answer, somebody would have to post scans of the newsletters: Did Ron Paul profit from screeds printed under his name? It wouldn't matter if he read them or not.
posted by grabbingsand at 6:43 PM on January 8, 2008


I’ve been looking for a rationale to blow Ron Paul off and I’m still not satisfied.. He’s the nearest thing to a sane person among the Republicans

Really?

Ron Paul wants to define life as starting at conception, build a fence along the US-Mexico border, prevent the Supreme Court from hearing cases on the Establishment Clause or the right to privacy, permitting the return of sodomy laws and the like (a bill which he has repeatedly re-introduced), pull out of the UN, disband NATO, end birthright citizenship, deny federal funding to any organisation which "which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style" along with destroying public education and social security,, and abolish the Federal Reserve in order to put America back on the gold standard. He was also the sole vote against divesting US federal government investments in corporations doing business with the genocidal government of the Sudan.

Oh, and he believes that the Left is waging a war on religion and Christmas, he's against gay marriage, is against the popular vote, opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964, wants the estate tax repealed, is STILL making racist remarks, believes that the Panama Canal should be the property of the United States, and believes in New World Order conspiracy theories, not to mention his belief that the International Baccalaureate program is UN mind control..
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:03 PM on January 8, 2008 [38 favorites]


So here's the simplest question, though for the answer, somebody would have to post scans of the newsletters: Did Ron Paul profit from screeds printed under his name? It wouldn't matter if he read them or not.

Well, his signature graces this solicitation letter... (PDF warning)
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:05 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


the worst part is, pope, he's STILL the sanest thing to a sane person among the republicans
posted by pyramid termite at 7:05 PM on January 8, 2008


or the nearest thing - or fuck it, i'll just stay the hell home and not vote for anyone
posted by pyramid termite at 7:06 PM on January 8, 2008


So here's the simplest question, though for the answer, somebody would have to post scans of the newsletters: Did Ron Paul profit from screeds printed under his name? It wouldn't matter if he read them or not.
Try this one that blahblahblah linked to.

In between extremely cogent explanations of how Skull & Bones, the Israeli lobby, the Fed, the Trilateral Commission, the IRS, Barney Frank ("our declared enemy"), "welfare rioters", and others* are preparing to send jackboots ("with the dead eyes of a mako shark") to take all your money and lock you away forever in a hole, it helpfully tells you that the good Congressman wants to send you his new report, "Surviving the New Money", for free - even though it's normally a fifty dollar value!

Of course, you also have to purchase the "Ron Paul Investment Letter", the "Ron Paul Political Report", access to his "Financial Hotline for fast-breaking news", and "The Ron Paul Primer", but all of this is for the low low price of $99, and it's a $224 value!

"P.S.: Your subscription may be tax-deductible!"

"P.P.S.: There's no time to waste"!

I can only assume that the Congressman wouldn't accept that $99 in worthless "pinkback" dollars. But he does take AmEx, Visa, Mastercard, and personal checks! Just call 1-800-RON-PAUL.

* I can only assume that I must have missed the letter's references to the Rosicrucians and the Freemasons.
posted by Flunkie at 7:06 PM on January 8, 2008


I’ve been looking for a rationale to blow Ron Paul off

Here, let me help you.

Choice bit of lunacy, for me at least:

"Yet today, according to government statistics, things are going well. We have low unemployment, low inflation, more homeowners than ever before, and abundant leisure with abundant luxuries. Even the poor have cell phones, televisions, and computers. Public school is free, and anyone can get free medical care at any emergency room in the country".

This, too, was no doubt ghost written, read on the floor, and submitted to the Congressional Record and the RP's congressional website without his knowledge, permission, and/or approval.
posted by panamax at 7:07 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


he's STILL the sanest thing to a sane person among the republicans

That's because the sane Republicans are running on the Democratic Party's side now. The Republican Republicans, well, you know, they never really recovered from Nixon's skullfuck of their party, Morning-In-America™ aside.
posted by panamax at 7:13 PM on January 8, 2008


That's because the sane Republicans are running on the Democratic Party's side now.

i wonder whatever happened to the sane democrats?
posted by pyramid termite at 7:14 PM on January 8, 2008


Ron Paul is a nut-case. He is also a half-wit and most likely someone who holds racist/sexist and homophobic views. He has a terrible voting record. And I have no idea how anyone, anyone can support his candidacy.

Just sayin'.
posted by elwoodwiles at 7:21 PM on January 8, 2008


Well, I give up on arguing about his awareness of/involvment in the newsletter. If people aren't convinced yet, I don't think they're going to be. For myself, I am convinced that his story is not credible.

But as for the argument that it's 180 degrees away from his actual views, I still have to say ... really? You missed his recent television appearance where he was spouting crypto-Confederate arguments about how Lincoln was a big doody-head who should have had the government buy all the slaves if he wanted to free them so much? (Hints: The Southern states seceeded as soon as Lincoln was elected, not on a platform of freeing slaves, but of saying that new states joining the Union wouldn't be slave states. They then launched the first act of aggression in the war. Paul's argument only sounds logical to people who think of it as "The War of Northern Aggression" and are still kind of bitter about it.)
posted by kyrademon at 7:23 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


They're backpacking around Europe, with maple-leaf badges on their bags.
posted by pompomtom at 7:29 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Ron Paul is a nut-case. He is also a half-wit and most likely someone who holds racist/sexist and homophobic views. He has a terrible voting record. And I have no idea how anyone, anyone can support his candidacy

Are you tring to tell me the 14th Congressional District in Texas have elected a half-wit, most likely a racist, sexist and homophobic representative, and have kept him in office for 20 years?

I don't know many people in Texas, however I would appreciate if you would write an open letter to the voters in his district and tell them they are half-wits, most likely racists, sexists and homophobic.

I suspect their reply letters, will tell you, where you can stick your liberal half ass opinions.
If you cannot keep a civil tone to your objections to Congressman Paul. Make I suggest you seek counseling for your obvious delusional manifestations.
posted by brickman at 8:03 PM on January 8, 2008


Are you tring to tell me the 14th Congressional District in Texas have elected a half-wit, most likely a racist, sexist and homophobic representative, and have kept him in office for 20 years?

I don't know many people in Texas, however I would appreciate if you would write an open letter to the voters in his district and tell them they are half-wits, most likely racists, sexists and homophobic.

I suspect their reply letters, will tell you, where you can stick your liberal half ass opinions.
If you cannot keep a civil tone to your objections to Congressman Paul. Make I suggest you seek counseling for your obvious delusional manifestations.


This is the single worst argument I have ever seen, and I did four years in an undergraduate philosophy program.
posted by Pope Guilty at 8:13 PM on January 8, 2008 [9 favorites]


Wow, I checked out of curiosity, and it seems that lots of senior people on the Ron Paul forum seem to be giving up on the guy because of this.
posted by blahblahblah at 8:13 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Are you tring to tell me the 14th Congressional District in Texas have elected a half-wit, most likely a racist, sexist and homophobic representative, and have kept him in office for 20 years?
Bingo!
posted by Flunkie at 8:29 PM on January 8, 2008


And this round-up from Reason of reactions from political commentators across the web, including recent supporters.
posted by blahblahblah at 8:29 PM on January 8, 2008


I'm going to vote for Ron Paul because I only believe what I want to believe and everything else is a lie.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:38 PM on January 8, 2008 [5 favorites]


As far as Paul's bigotry and privately held views go, I think this youtube link gives a fairly clear picture. Ron Paul is being interviewed on a conservative Christian radio network and is being pressured to condemn gay people by the homophobic host. Ron Paul refuses to do so and explains why. If there was any place in the world where he could show his bigotry openly and get away with it, it was on a Christian radio station with listeners who would almost entirely agree with such hatred. And he refused to pander even though that probably cost him votes in a segment he was hoping to do well in. That says a lot about the man.

However, I am very disappointed in him over his non-handling of this issue and for letting his name be misused in the past. I still don't think of him as a bigot but I'm very saddened that he was willing to spend so much time with those who are.

And I'm also mourning the effective death of the spirit of his campaign. Of course the campaign will continue and will probably get the 8-9 percent that it would have gotten without the scandal, but the spirit of the thing will never be the same again.

The spirit of the movement was wonderful. Even if you deride them as 'paultards', I hope you can recognize the deeply iconoclastic streak in the movement and the almost primal desire to return to the idea of freedom above all else, even safety. The idea that government should always be confronted with "Why?" instead of "Why not?" when it wants to assert its power or when it wants to take away another right. The idea that government is not to be trusted and the ultimate power should reside with the people who will be given control over their own destinies, for good or ill. The idea that we should be viewed as individuals, not as a member of a class, sexuality, or race.

This was the spirit and philosophy which drew me in, despite having disagreement with various positions. I viewed Ron Paul as the reset button for the past eight years of Bush/Cheney and for the past sixty years of unbridled growth of government and constant foreign interventions. With the Republicans thrilled about the abuses of the current regime and Democrats delusional in their thoughts that enormous government will restore freedom so long as we're the ones in charge, Ron Paul seemed like the only reasonable alternative. Sometimes I still think he is but any hope if him accomplishing any change is nearly gone now.
posted by pandaharma at 8:45 PM on January 8, 2008 [5 favorites]


I suspect their reply letters, will tell you, where you can stick your liberal half ass opinions.

Wait, isn't that sodomy? Endorsing a sodomite lifestyle? Hm. The 14th district might be worth another look.
posted by maxwelton at 8:46 PM on January 8, 2008


Well, a half-wit is better than a quarter-wit, right? And who's to say he was the most racist or sexist candidate? I haven't done the research on who's run there, but I have faith that this sliver of Texas that lies between Houston and Corpus Christi (while not really encompassing any large cities) could indeed house that quarter-wit!
posted by mikeh at 8:51 PM on January 8, 2008


Think what you want. I suggest name calling be kept to a minimum, and lucid opinions be the order of the day, and not some rant from a lunitic, based on some idiotic and childish bias. It's my hope Pope Guilty, your professional degree is in pschology (abnormal), so elwoodwiles may be treated by you-pro bono. Of course he may resist your attempt at help, based on your undergraduate degree-mumbo gumbo-can't get a job, with stick in other blogger face, make believe degree.
posted by brickman at 8:53 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


wow brickman, was that meant to be funny?

because i found it hilarious.
posted by empath at 8:54 PM on January 8, 2008


If there was any place in the world where he could show his bigotry openly and get away with it, it was on a Christian radio station with listeners who would almost entirely agree with such hatred. And he refused to pander even though that probably cost him votes in a segment he was hoping to do well in. That says a lot about the man.

It says that he's wised up in the past few years about the fact that you can't spew racist, homophobic filth in public without someone taping it and putting it on YouTube. I think politicians nationwide learned a lot from George Felix "Let's all say to Macaca over there" Allen.

I suggest name calling be kept to a minimum, and lucid opinions be the order of the day, and not some rant from a lunitic, based on some idiotic and childish bias.

In which case you may wish to discontinue posting.

It's my hope Pope Guilty, your professional degree is in pschology (abnormal), so elwoodwiles may be treated by you-pro bono. Of course he may resist your attempt at help, based on your undergraduate degree-mumbo gumbo-can't get a job, with stick in other blogger face, make believe degree.

My degree is in Philosophy, thank you; I've just started library school. But let's pretend, for a moment, that I did earn a psychology degree. Tell me, is this meltdown satisfying you... emotionally?
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:01 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Hey, since there are a number of Ron Paul fans here, could you perhaps explain to me how this is factual and not scaremongering?
NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.
Some googling leads me to believe that some academics have proposed things like a shared currency, but it's a far-off idea that has little traction in the US government, or any other government. I'm pretty sure Canada would actually be hurt right now by sharing our currency. What we have here, though, is a statement of fact on the Ron Paul campaign website that there is such a plan. All three governments that would be involved say there is no such plan. The Federal Highway Administration says there is no plan for a "superhighway." So how the hell is a reference to this as a factual basis for argument anything other than a scare tactic conspiracy theory?
posted by mikeh at 9:05 PM on January 8, 2008


You know what Steve Martin says about a degree in philosophy. If you major in something like engineering, you can forget it all, but you study philosophy you will remember just enough to fuck you up for life.
posted by Astro Zombie at 9:05 PM on January 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


Of course he may resist your attempt at help, based on your undergraduate degree-mumbo gumbo-can't get a job, with stick in other blogger face, make believe degree.

i agree with ron paul on one thing - if you're going to post in this country, buddy, you ought to do it in english
posted by pyramid termite at 9:10 PM on January 8, 2008 [4 favorites]


I'd be in favor of such a plan.
posted by empath at 9:10 PM on January 8, 2008


What we have here, though, is a statement of fact on the Ron Paul campaign website that there is such a plan.

Well, there you go. It's on his website. That could be written by anyone. Unless you hear it directly from him, in person, with no professional or amateur ventriloquists within 50 yards, then he's not willing to take responsibility for it.
posted by Gary at 9:11 PM on January 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


Ron Paul is being interviewed on a conservative Christian radio network and is being pressured to condemn gay people by the homophobic host. Ron Paul refuses to do so and explains why. If there was any place in the world where he could show his bigotry openly and get away with it, it was on a Christian radio station with listeners who would almost entirely agree with such hatred. And he refused to pander even though that probably cost him votes in a segment he was hoping to do well in. That says a lot about the man.
Also saying a lot about the man is:
Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas.
Yeah... it's not that he's a homophobe, it's that the Constitution clearly says that Texas can outlaw sodomy.

And those judges who say otherwise? They just want to "advance an activist, secular, multicultural political agenda of which most Americans disapprove".

That's eminently reasonable, and clearly not a thin facade to give cover to his personal opinions. Yeah.

This is not from one of his disavowed "Whoopsie! Didn't realize I've been selling racist, sexist, homophobic diatribes for thirty years!" newsletters. This was from 2003, and has been proudly published on the website of one of his most prominent and vocal supporters for a long time now.

And incidentally, the "no right to privacy and sodomy in the Constitution" claim and the "but states have rights, as in the 9th and 10th Amendments" claim make me again suspect that he hasn't actually read the Constitution, or at least does not have a firm grasp on it:

The Ninth has nothing -- nothing at all -- to do with "states' rights", and everything to do with "people's rights":
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
He has a hell of a lot of gall to explicitly use that statement in his attempt to deny and disparage non-enumerated rights of the people.

And the Tenth is not "states' rights", it's "states' rights and peoples' rights".

Even ignoring that we now have to make a choice between (A) unconscionable bigotry, (B) absurdly poor judgment, or (C) both, this man is not presidential material.
posted by Flunkie at 9:12 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


How can anyone rationally justify this? Am I missing something? I guess what's missing here are the retractions and clarifications by Dr. Paul in subsequent issues.

That is to say, if he was angry when he found out about these racist ghostwriters, why didn't he say so in later issues? Why is he just now saying he was angry, long after the fact? Why are there no retractions, corrections, apologies, etc. in any of these issues? 'Cause if there were, I'm sure that would strengthen his cause and put him in a very good light. (Paulites, get on it, I'm sure you can find something...right?)

But there aren't any, and this is my guess why: he didn't apologize because he agreed with those sentiments. Or somehow didn't care that they happened, which is just as ridiculous.

I don't care how busy Paul was, he had his name on these papers. The lack of retraction or apologies indicates acceptance of these ghostwriters ("ghostwriters"?).
posted by zardoz at 9:20 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Actually, when this first came to light, in 1994, Paul stood by the most widely-known article, the one about the LA riots. He claimed that the article was written "in the spirit of the time". It wasn't until 1996 that the ghostwriter suddenly existed.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:26 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


brickman is the new quonsar, but way better. All hail!
posted by blacklite at 9:31 PM on January 8, 2008


The idea that we should be viewed as individuals, not as a member of a class, sexuality, or race.

See, I understand your sentiment, really, no jokes or snarking there, I really do. The thing of it is though, as I see it, Ron Paul is into liberty and freedom (in limited and proscribed degree) for some and not the same for others, so he is a failure as a true libertarian (which is a unicorn to me anyway, in concept and in execution, but I am neither god nor king and I've always, mostly, known that), but also a flub as a "radical" candidate for anything, dude is business as usual with a good stance on the war (it does make me sad that he is one of the few who feels good about embracing that whole cloth) and a bunch of impractical ideas on finance and a strong lie on his stance on the constitution (which is still a pretty fucking good document, read it again, not perfect, lacking some nuance and provisions for the future, a little arrogant, but really pretty damn fine generally, especially taken on the whole and understood as a living document) and simply horrid ideas socially. See, liberty is great and you'd get a whole new class of subscriber if the "breakout" republican challenger was ready to offer it to gay people and the other "minority" classes, but that is always the thing we get caught on, freedom for some, in certain situations, but not for others, especially when it challenges the status quo. I don't know what else to say on the subject, except to say that freedom isn't free and I don't mean that in the way the US Army bumpersticker does and yet again I really do.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:45 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


NAFTA’s superhighway

I nearly crashed my car laughing so hard when Bob Brinker[1] started in on this when some idiot caller from Idaho asked if it was real or not. He said it's going to have 17 lanes in each direction, including one for bicycles etc etc. totally BSing her on this and she was so dense she still thought it was real at the end.

What I want to know is why there are so many dumbasses in this country. Maybe it IS the fluoridation.
posted by panamax at 9:46 PM on January 8, 2008


wow brickman, was that meant to be funny?

because i found it hilarious.
posted by empath at 8:54 PM on January 8 [+] [!]


I see your degree is in English Composition.
posted by brickman at 9:55 PM on January 8, 2008


My degree is in Philosophy, thank you; I've just started library school.
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:01 PM on January 8 [+] [!]


I'm glad to hear your continuing your education-I suspect you'll become a library cop like Mr. Bookman in Steinfeld. He was very opinionate and obsessed with male genalia and its discharge.
posted by brickman at 10:06 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


Mr. Bookman in Steinfeld!

What a burn!
posted by mr_roboto at 10:11 PM on January 8, 2008


brickman is exactly what i think all ron paul supporters are like.

also: genalia! Take that mister punctuation and grammar pedant!
posted by empath at 10:16 PM on January 8, 2008


You hear that pope guilty? you're a cum drunk uppity homo. An entirely open-minded and unbigoted (and literate and not hilariously goofy) Ron Paul supporter is here to tell you that, seek help, privately funded, of course.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:16 PM on January 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


Ron Paul supporter is here to tell you that, seek help, privately funded, of course.
Did you bother to read my previous posts. I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. However, I do tend to get upset when someone is attcked with languge not conductive to intelligent retort. Mr. Pope Guilty chimed in on a post, I though inappropriate, by elwoodwiles. The other disagreements up to that point seems spirted however were civil in tone.

I have no problem with disagreement, but there sometimes is a wolfpack mentality in this blog. The piling on seems to feed a frenzy of escalating insults. If this necessary for some of the posters, I suggest you steps away from your keyboard, take your meds, calm down and give a little pause before posting.

If I offended anyone with my posts, I'm sorry. I have stepped away from keyboard and regained my composure.
posted by brickman at 10:43 PM on January 8, 2008


Well then Brickman, I retract my assertion that you are a Ron Paul supporter, but not that you are a weird, half-literate, homophobe, so there we are, no hay lobos, good night.
posted by Divine_Wino at 10:48 PM on January 8, 2008 [2 favorites]


He was very opinionate and obsessed with male genalia and its discharge.

Gen X: Born 196x--197x.
Gen Y: Born 198x--199x.
Gen Alia: Born on Arrakis after the coming of the Mahdi.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:58 PM on January 8, 2008 [3 favorites]


but not that you are a weird, half-literate, homophobe, so there we are, no hay lobos, good night.

Thank you Divine_Wino, for proving my previous post was correct about some people on this site.

Good night, and may your meds kick in quickly, so you may enjoy a peaceful night rest, and dream of other insulting commentary to post on this site.
posted by brickman at 11:01 PM on January 8, 2008


I'm guessing the title of this post was meant to be ironic.
posted by ogre at 11:07 PM on January 8, 2008


Classic Metafilter.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 11:24 PM on January 8, 2008


Gen Alia: Born on Arrakis after the coming of the Mahdi.

Dune fan-we have something in common.
posted by brickman at 11:28 PM on January 8, 2008


even a stopped clock.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 11:43 PM on January 8, 2008


Look who we are fighting, If these people can manufacture a war, how easy is it for them to fake these newsletters? They control the media, so it is easy to float these stories and fake documents. Why put it past them, look at 9/11, look at Kennedy, look at Nixon. We live in a world created by their myths. This is just another myth. No oneder the campaign didn't respond about these scanned copies, because they didn't exist, they were just created.

OMG LOONIES
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:59 PM on January 8, 2008 [1 favorite]


even a stopped clock

I talked to you before. Your very good at biting satire directed at person(s), who opinions you don't agree with. Like to insult, and try to impress other supposed enlighten bloggers on this site. I'm not only right twice a day, most of the time, but have intutive ability to fetter out false superior intellect and expose them for what they are. I'm not saying your guity as of this posting, however forthcoming comments from your corner may or may not confirm my suspicions.
posted by brickman at 12:02 AM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


Brickman, thats what your mom said.
posted by Thoth at 12:11 AM on January 9, 2008


"I'm not saying your guity as of this posting, however forthcoming comments from your corner may or may not confirm my suspicions."

What you don't realize is that I'm actually typing this from inside your house right now.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:22 AM on January 9, 2008 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: I have intuitive ability to mumbo gumbo wolfpack mentality, steps away from your blog.
posted by blacklite at 12:23 AM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


I'm reading brickman in a Chris Walken voice, but it doesn't quite work. Maybe Joe Pesci. Actually, maybe Nixon voice would work..
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 12:32 AM on January 9, 2008


Brickman, thats what your mom said.
Did you hear from her recently? Because if the answer is affirmative, I'll have to accuse you of grave robbing and bringing up somebody mother is classless in the extreme.

What you don't realize is that I'm actually typing this from inside your house right now.
If that is the case, please join me in my office, in the basement. I'm catching up on my smart ass response file for superior intellect bloggers. Would you like a beer? Do you need directions? Basement =down, desending landings joined together to reach a lower level in a residence or public place. Please, don't hesitate to post if further directions are needed. I have a seeing eye dog in the back bedroom that will assist you, if needed. His name is Henry-hey that's funny, isn't that your name.

I suggest you use your own voice, ya know, the one in your head that keeps telling you that your a legend in your mind or the one that tells you to jump off the roof.
posted by brickman at 12:55 AM on January 9, 2008


I suggest you use your own voice, ya know, the one in your head that keeps telling you that your a legend in your mind or the one that tells you to jump off the roof.

Whatever you do, don't use a ghostwriter. That never works well.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:59 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


You're in the basement? Gee, there's a surprise.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 1:07 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


Whatever you do, don't use a ghostwriter. That never works well.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:59 AM on January 9 [+] [!]


Thank you for your suggestion BP, however writing and hearing voices in your head doesn't seem to coincide very well. Writing can be very enjoyable and relaxing, but voices in the head, can land you in therapist office or worse. May become resident of facility, where your roommate is picking imaginary bugs off the wall.
posted by brickman at 1:29 AM on January 9, 2008


You're in the basement? Gee, there's a surprise.

Why does that surprise you? Do you have some predisposed phobia to basements or is your comment a attempt to poke some connotion at me, who subject I can only hazard to guess. Perhaps, your superior intellect [sic] is working overtime, and you cannot help yourself.
posted by brickman at 1:38 AM on January 9, 2008


So this is the "brickman posts as many posts as he has in the 9-day history of his account while screaming incoherently" thread?

'cause it seems like we're getting all Metatalky.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:44 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


We need a version of alt.usenet.k00ks for Metafilter.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 2:19 AM on January 9, 2008


Brickman, I'm sorry. That was classless. I meant it only in good natured jest.
posted by Thoth at 2:22 AM on January 9, 2008


I like banana pudding. I especially like the feeling of completion I get when I've just pud. Ron Paul, not so much. Though it was amusing to see him on Faux news one time - immediately preceeding his appearance they had an interview with a Ron Paul supporter who ran a brothel - the blindingly obvious message was then made even more transparent by the interviewer asking Paul how it felt to be voted for by whores. I think his response involved the words freedom and libertarianism, which seemed appropriate for many reasons.
posted by Sparx at 4:30 AM on January 9, 2008


Cortex, have you been letting your markov script have posting privileges again?
posted by Skorgu at 5:03 AM on January 9, 2008


hehe
markov script is more coherent. :)
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 5:18 AM on January 9, 2008


This thread seem to be going as well as I expected.
posted by octothorpe at 5:30 AM on January 9, 2008


Everything is proceeding as you have foreseen?
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 5:40 AM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


Pudding is designed and manufactured by the Industrial Homosexual Complex that control the Jewish Banking Industry to oppress Godfearing White Men. Do your research.
posted by cmonkey at 5:41 AM on January 9, 2008


Classic Metafilter.

Yes indeed! This has the potential to be one of those threads that are remembered until the end of time and brought up at MeFi meetups in galaxies far far away. THANK YOU RON PAUL!
posted by languagehat at 6:17 AM on January 9, 2008


Random Ron Paul Factoid: He went to the same high school in suburban Pittsburgh that Dennis Miller went to.
posted by octothorpe at 8:08 AM on January 9, 2008




Random Ron Paul Factoid: He's a fucking loony tune.
posted by Henry C. Mabuse at 8:34 AM on January 9, 2008


Henry C. Mabuse A vile canard! I doubt the man has fucked since the late 1960's...
posted by sotonohito at 8:37 AM on January 9, 2008


That's you man, once again, mazel tov.

Yeah, exactly the condescending response I expected.

I wonder what Hannah Arendt would say about some of the loonies stretching to apologize for Ron Paul's heinous behavior in this thread.

I've read a little Hannah Arendt and you've got me stumped. What would she say?

-----

pandaharma,

Your comment is on the money. While I had very few disagreements with Ron Paul's policies (abortion was really the only one, but I do support Roe v. Wade being over turned), it was the spirit of Ron Paul's campaign that drew me in and got me involved. It isn't the biggest tent in terms of population but there's a wide range of views across the supporters. Many have reservations about some aspect of his platform. More than anything else it is finding others who are willing to take political action to "return to the idea of freedom above all else, even safety". That's it, right there. Hand in hand with that is the belief that not everyone and not every community needs to move through the world with the same beliefs. America, and the world for that matter, does not need to become some sort of drab monochromatic blob. Local communities can have cultural and legal standards that are appropriate to the conditions of their lives. When we don't look to government as the great provider of our safety and sustenance it will shrink, and the smaller it gets the more receptive to feedback it will be. I'm sure there were a lot of divergent opinions on many issues and that's too be expected. I think most supporters would agree that the binding is an opposition to growing central power.

And he refused to pander even though that probably cost him votes in a segment he was hoping to do well in. That says a lot about the man.

However, I am very disappointed in him over his non-handling of this issue and for letting his name be misused in the past. I still don't think of him as a bigot but I'm very saddened that he was willing to spend so much time with those who are.


I've got some mixed feelings about this. On the one hand I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ron Paul's refusal to pander. For instance, there's that fantastic clip of him in the debate before the largely Latino audience in Miami where he says that he would open trade with Cuba. The guy is straight forward and this refusal to concede anything to considerations of image is one of the attractions to a crowd that is sick of 'politics as usual'. And at the same time, it's pretty naive. He trusts that things will work out the way they should and that the system does not need to be gamed. It fits his politics, run the government as intended by the principles given, don't worry about the results and let the system make its own adjustments. That's fine, I agree and still, he was not only too trusting in those who were putting out the newsletter, but he's been naive in how he's handling this issue. He hasn't been a good steward of his image and unfortunately, I think that goes with being a straight forward, let the chips fall where they may type. Most people don't give the benefit of a doubt, they look to confirm their first impressions. Many are out and out afraid of charges of racism, or antisemitism, or sexism, or homophobia. And it isn't just repugnance at prejudice, it's fear of stigma. Some guy on the Ron Paul Forums was talking about taking the sticker off of his car because racists were considered about the same as racists where he was. Whether this is a good thing or bad thing is irrelevant, it's a fact. Given that, the response of the campaign, both here and the successful campaign in the mid-90s has been absolutely inadequate.

However, I also wonder if this was in some way avoidable, and the sad thing is that I don't think it was. Ron Paul has been around for 30 years or so, consistently saying the same thing. You can't get elected without supporters, and some of the people who care the most about limiting the federal government have some pretty ugly views. It's what comes with giving freedom to others, they have the freedom to be assholes. Assholes, among others, are going to be in favor. We can look around now and say that most of Ron Paul's supporters are ordinary people who hate prejudice just as much as those who support other candidates. But there's a war going on now and that galvanizes support. It isn't just about the libertarian, anti-tax crowd in the 70s and 80s having a number of bigots. The bigots will always show up on the small government side and cluster around those candidates. If they're just there talking about the IRS it's tough to know who they are and even if one does know, outright shunning them is self defeating. Part of politics is taking money from people you don't like and telling them to fuck off later. Taking someone at face value and agreeing to work on common interests while maintaining your own beliefs is both respectable and practical, but for small government conservatives it's a very tricky situation. And now that the neoconservatives are the Republican core and they support the notion of a welfare state, any future small government conservative that appears on a national scale will probably have such a past (e.g. photos with figures from such and such militia, public donations from White Isolationists/Nationalists etc.).

So yeah, I'm disappointed with how they handled it and with his negligence in overseeing a newsletter that bore his name. The fact that it was a separate business is not an acceptable excuse. It's forgivable on a personal level, but not politically. It just doesn't play. But the associations from the past I'm OK with. They came to him. Despite the accusations he never went to any of their meetings nor did he pander to any kind of prejudiced agenda.

Where it gets real bleak is looking forward. I don't buy in to the media's notion of a new movement or growing support for libertarians. This was the best case scenario. We had an very principled, experienced candidate with as distinguished a voting record as one could ask for, highly ethical in his private life, friends with and supported by the 20th century's leading economist, an un-Constitutional war that the public had soured on, an unpopular administration that had reduced our civil liberties relatively recently and the beginnings of a recession. When's that gonna happen again? I'm not saying the newsletters ruined everything. If the candidacy was going to gather any real momentum, it needed to place third in Iowa. But now, instead of a small building block, the marketers who wanted to profit off Ron Paul's name have likely put us further in the hole. Depending on the level of publicity, many won't give a small government platform an open hearing as the TNR article strengthens the wrong headed view that advocating for personal freedom is equal to supporting someone else's prejudice.

Oh well, the American people prefer a possible 100 years of war or a depression, maybe in a few more months it will actually start making sense. Perhaps if Obama takes it down we can have both, maybe even further restrictions on our 2nd Amendment rights to boot. And no matter what, our sense of entitlement is going to keep growing. I'm guessing we'll be needing some more bureaucrats to handle that...
posted by BigSky at 8:44 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


Despite the accusations he never went to any of their meetings nor did he pander to any kind of prejudiced agenda.

Except for that whole newsletter thing.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:05 AM on January 9, 2008


I've read a little Hannah Arendt and you've got me stumped. What would she say?

She might remark a bit on the banality of evil, and how blindly, mechanically and willingly folks like you will follow Ron Paul and further his cryptic, white supremacist agenda — some agreeing secretly with him — others in spite of all the evidence of his problematic past and present associations and writings.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:06 AM on January 9, 2008


Brickman saith: I do tend to get upset when someone is attcked with languge not conductive to intelligent retort.

And then he saith: Good night, and may your meds kick in quickly, so you may enjoy a peaceful night rest, and dream of other insulting commentary to post on this site.

So is he upset with himself, now?
posted by athenian at 10:17 AM on January 9, 2008


Except for that whole newsletter thing.

Except nothing.

She might remark a bit on the banality of evil, and how blindly, mechanically and willingly folks like you will follow Ron Paul and further his cryptic, white supremacist agenda — some agreeing secretly with him — others in spite of all the evidence of his problematic past and present associations and writings.

Probably not. First, there is no "cryptic, white supremacist agenda". Go peddle that nonsense to the 'progressives'. But more to the point, the implicit comparison between supporters of a man who is advocating for more personal freedom and functionaries of a totalitarian state police bureaucracy speaks to both your hatred of liberty and the depth of your ignorance on Arendt's judgment of Eichmann. 'Eichmann in Jerusalem' focuses on Eichmann's characterization of himself as a cog in a machine. He claimed that it was a universal imperative to follow the dictates of the state and so he was not personally responsible. She doesn't find his excuse convincing but she does recognize that Eichmann's (and others') job gave them an opportunity to shrug off the importance of their individual choices under the guise of such an 'imperative'. They were banal in their job, their aspirations, and their personality - 'company men' in other words. And to this you compare those who are fighting the growth of the state and the growth of its powers to observe, arrest and hold citizens and seize their property.

Pure idiocy.
posted by BigSky at 10:27 AM on January 9, 2008


The guy is straight forward and this refusal to concede anything to considerations of image is one of the attractions to a crowd that is sick of 'politics as usual'. And at the same time, it's pretty naive. He trusts that things will work out the way they should and that the system does not need to be gamed.

"Part of politics is taking money from people you don't like and telling them to fuck off later.

There, I just wanted to see those two statements together.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:35 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


I'm reading brickman in a Chris Walken voice, but it doesn't quite work.

I've been reading it in the voice of Shlub & Krump from Sin City. I find it works perfectly with their whole "delusions of eloquence" thing.

also, did brickman put a "[sic]" after the correct spelling of the word intellect?
posted by shmegegge at 10:37 AM on January 9, 2008


Except nothing.

Do your research!
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:37 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


They were banal in their job, their aspirations, and their personality - 'company men' in other words.

Just as you and other Ron Paul followers "keep the faith", even when faced with the documented body of evidence for his past and present associations and actions.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:40 AM on January 9, 2008


Ron Paul is the Republican Radiohead.
posted by humannaire at 11:07 AM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


Kucinich fan. Loving this.

Mike Gravel supporter, and I too am enjoying the debacle.

I mean, just imagine, what if a Republican candidate actually won the next election.

LOL
posted by humannaire at 11:12 AM on January 9, 2008


Except nothing.

Nothing's all you have, BigSky. You don't deny the newsletters exist. You don't deny that Paul lent his name and his signature to the publications. You aren't even denying that Paul (or his agents) wrote explicitly for an audience that was receptive to the racist, xenophobic, and downright crazy opinions expressed in the newsletters. Pandering to a prejudiced agenda is one of the least of the charges that can be brought against Paul. Your way of admitting this in one paragraph then denying it in another makes you sound--entertainingly so (because that's what so great about these threads), but still--like a liar or a imbecile.
posted by octobersurprise at 11:18 AM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


There, I just wanted to see those two statements together.

Yeah, that is pretty sweet.

Should have been a bit more overt that I think Ron Paul or any other future small government candidate needs to do a bit more of the latter, i.e. total rejection of any early supporters whose presence becomes problematic later on. Anyway I think the overall point is clear, the straight forwardness his supporters found charming didn't serve him so well in managing a campaign.

You aren't even denying that Paul (or his agents) wrote explicitly for an audience that was receptive to the racist, xenophobic, and downright crazy opinions expressed in the newsletters.

What? That is more or less what I'm denying, namely that Paul wrote material where he changed his own beliefs to better cater to a racist and xenophobic audience. Nice usage there of 'agents', 'partners' would be more appropriate. Reportedly, this was put together 60 miles away from Paul's home and business with little involvement from Paul.

Pandering to a prejudiced agenda is one of the least of the charges that can be brought against Paul.

Here, this should convince you.

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

...

When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Hope that clears things up!
posted by BigSky at 12:15 PM on January 9, 2008


Oops. Forgot to mention that the quote above is from,

RON PAUL!!!11!!!1!!111!!1!
posted by BigSky at 12:18 PM on January 9, 2008


My favorite part of the justifications is:

this was put together 60 miles away from Paul's home and business

These newsletters were created 60 MILES AWAY PEOPLE! You think that Dr. Paul can see things that are written in 12 point font from 60 MILES AWAY?! Now who is being ridiculous? Everyone knows that his super vision powers only extend to a 20 mile radius. Do your research!
posted by ND¢ at 12:37 PM on January 9, 2008 [3 favorites]


Hope that clears things up!

I think problem is that it doesn't. It's a perfectly expectable denial, of course, but none of it refutes what amounts to 18 years of publications with his name and signature on them saying precisely the things he is now denying. You want to claim that the earlier ones aren't in his voice, and that they're all done by people who acted without his knowledge or permission. fine. what everyone has been saying since you first said that is that that doesn't excuse it. It's essentially ludicrous to believe that he could allow newsletters to be published for and about him that said things like that for 18 years without his knowing about it and that that's somehow indicative of presidential competency. No other candidate has that on their record. No doubt there are fundie lunatics out there who would like to publish all sorts of absurd nonsense under the names of their favorite candidate through a newsletter. But none of the others have ever allowed it.

So what we have here is a gentlemen who is on record as saying he thinks homosexuality is a sin, that evolution is a theory he doesn't believe in and who has 18 years of bigotry published under his name that may or may not have been written by him. His denial of it doesn't prove anything, unfortunately.

as has been said before, that means that he's either incompetent, bigoted or pandering. possibly all three. but none of that points to a capable president.

Hope that clears things up!
posted by shmegegge at 12:51 PM on January 9, 2008


oh, and let's not forget his racist voting record, as documented above.
posted by shmegegge at 12:53 PM on January 9, 2008


I'm wondering how this hasn't hit the digg front page yet?
posted by empath at 12:55 PM on January 9, 2008


BigSky That "sixty miles" bit is hilarious. I mean, even back in the 1970's, when the THIRTY YEAR run of racist slime writing credited to Ron Paul began, there were these magic devices called "telephones", and a mysterious (and, I suppose, from Paul's bogus view, unconstitutional) service called the "US Mail". By using these amazing inventions it is actually possible to be involved in affairs outside your own immediate reach.

There's also the fact that 60 miles is around one hour's travel, and many people, even back in the dark ages of 1973, had longer commutes. In Texas sixty miles is nothing, hell people drive further than that to see a movie around here bub.

Look. All snide remarks to the side. A few crazy/racist/sexist/whatever comments could be explained in the way you are doing. People do get conned sometimes, famous people do occasionally lend their name to projects that they later discover they disagree with.

But you're asking me to believe that Paul is so oblivious that he let it go on for THIRTY YEARS. Its the timeframe that makes your claim completely unbelievable.

The other part is that Paul, in addition to the newsletters, has a sordid history of associating with racist loons (see: VDare), voting for and against bills in a pattern indicating both a Christian Dominationist, and a racist view, etc.

As for his, way too late, and obviously written now that he's trying to run for President denials, no they don't convince me. Mel Gibson claimed he doesn't really hate Jews. Michael Richards claimed he isn't a racist. People claim a lot of things, and Paul's claim, in light of the fact that the racist crap was spewed for thrity years, is patently, laughably, and contemptably, absurd.

Now, if you want to say "yup, Paul is a racist but I support him for reasons which I believe are more important than his racism" that's one thing. But, really, at this point I'm starting to question whether the most dedicated Paulites would give up the "he isn't a racist" meme if it turns out he'd been an active member of the KKK.

Which is one big reason that to those of us on the outside it seems as if you've fallen for the savior syndrome. That you've seen the, undeniable and very bad, problems in the US government, and you've decided that Paul is the lone voice of reason who will fix everything. He isn't. He's just another nutty, racist, sexist, Texan politician, just like all the others. He hates big government, except for when he loves it. He loves the Constitution, when its convenient, and when it isn't he ignores it. He thinks "states rights" are big and important, and he doesn't care one bit about individual rights. Screw him, he's just a nutty right winger who likes to dress up his nuttyness in faux-populist language.
posted by sotonohito at 12:58 PM on January 9, 2008 [4 favorites]


Digg has been really falling down on it's Ron Paul coverage lately, hasn't it?

"I remember when all this was Ron Paul as far as the eye can see..."
posted by Artw at 12:58 PM on January 9, 2008


I'm wondering how this hasn't hit the digg front page yet?

They haven't yet done their research.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:04 PM on January 9, 2008 [1 favorite]


Pandaharma:

The idea that government should always be confronted with "Why?" instead of "Why not?" when it wants to assert its power or when it wants to take away another right.

Interesting idea, and it has value. Unfortunately Ron Paul is massively discrediting it.

I thought Pope Guilty was joking about Paul's claiming that the IB program -- which I am a graduate of -- being UN indoctrination. But Paul really said this.

Well, unless someone else is writing and submitting Congressional resolutions under Ron Paul's name, of course.
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:04 PM on January 9, 2008


(And hey, guess what? Members of Stormfront agree.)
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 1:10 PM on January 9, 2008


UNESCO has designated 47 U.N. Biosphere Reserves in the United States covering more than 70 million acres, without Congressional consultation.

HOW DARE THOSE NEW WORLD ORDER ECOTERRORISTS NOT ALLOW OUR BOYS IN CONGRESS TO DO THEIR RESEARCH
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:10 PM on January 9, 2008


Digg has been really falling down on it's Ron Paul coverage lately, hasn't it?

See reddit. It's actually quite entertaining now that he's losing in the primaries and the conspiracy theories are flying.
posted by Gary at 1:12 PM on January 9, 2008


Sadly their top link, "unless I'm missing something, this country is in the middle of a motherfucking shitstorm, and I have no fucking idea what you're gonna do to get out of it ", is an Onion article and not a Paulite howl of defeat.
posted by Artw at 1:14 PM on January 9, 2008


But, really, at this point I'm starting to question whether the most dedicated Paulites would give up the "he isn't a racist" meme if it turns out he'd been an active member of the KKK.

I'm starting to believe that a lot of Paul-ites are just racist, and are more upset that this became public than they are that it might be true.
posted by empath at 1:27 PM on January 9, 2008


Oops. Forgot to mention that the quote above is from,

RON PAUL!!!11!!!1!!111!!1!


How do you know?
posted by Reggie Knoble at 1:31 PM on January 9, 2008


I thought Pope Guilty was joking about Paul's claiming that the IB program -- which I am a graduate of -- being UN indoctrination. But Paul really said this.

Nope, no jokes in either of those paragraphs. Conversations like this are what I built those paragraphs- which I jokingly refer to as the Paulbomb- for, so that Paul's madness could be easily laid bare. When it's in the format of "Point, refutation, point, refutation, point, refutation", it's easy to lose track of how deep into the rabbithole you've falled. A giant lump of text that is nothing but links- and it looks better on Slashdot, where you can see at a glance that the first paragraph is almost nothing but links to Paul's legislation, and the second paragraph is primarily links to his opinion pieces- makes immediately obvious the scale of Ron Paul's madness and assholeness.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:48 PM on January 9, 2008


But, really, at this point I'm starting to question whether the most dedicated Paulites would give up the "he isn't a racist" meme if it turns out he'd been an active member of the KKK.

It's quite clear they wouldn't. (Prove that that's his signature on the card! How do you know that wasn't a lookalike in the video?? DO YOUR RESEARCH!) That's how you can tell cultists from normal supporters of a candidate or party.
posted by languagehat at 1:50 PM on January 9, 2008


Bob: I talked to you before. Your very good at biting satire directed at person(s), who opinions you don't agree with. Like to insult, and try to impress other supposed enlighten bloggers on this site. I'm not only right twice a day, most of the time, but have intutive ability to fetter out false superior intellect and expose them for what they are. I'm not saying your guity as of this posting, however forthcoming comments from your corner may or may not confirm my suspicions.

Charlotte: ... okay.
posted by From Bklyn at 2:03 PM on January 9, 2008


I tend to be an eternal optimist and think the glass is always half-full. I still stand by the lament I wrote earlier but now that I've slept on it, I can somewhat return to my previous optimism, though not optimistic about the current campaign. When Paul has Reason staffers issuing such harsh criticism, you know Paul has lost or is losing a substantial part of his rational, non-racist base.

But the good thing about the movement is the precedent it has set that you can bring a large number of people together under the umbrella of freedom and constitutional government. For most people in the movement, whether they came from the left or the right, the unifying principles were the ones I stated before, not the racist ideas that Paul may have. Those principles proved to have a surprising level of appeal and my hope is that a younger candidate with less baggage will assume the mantle in 2012 and will restart the movement. I'm also hoping many in the movement will stay with the Republican Party and will attempt to reform it, despite the quixotic nature of the task.
posted by pandaharma at 2:18 PM on January 9, 2008


Rest assured, the movement of the gullible self-centered and shortsighted "drown the government in a bathtub" and "lets stop paying taxes" crowd shall always be with us.
posted by damn dirty ape at 2:38 PM on January 9, 2008


Here, this should convince you.

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed."


That certainly doesn't convince me, given that Paul and his spokespeople explicitly defended the same material from the newsletters to the Houston Chronicle in 1996!
Under the headline of ""Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul... said Wednesday... that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of ""current events and statistical reports of the time."

... A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.
Nary an excuse of 'ghostwriters' operating under the radar in sight. It also completely contradicts his latest statement that the written viewpoints "have ever" represented what he believes.
posted by dgaicun at 3:21 PM on January 9, 2008 [2 favorites]


Nary an excuse of 'ghostwriters' operating under the radar in sight. It also completely contradicts his latest statement that the written viewpoints "have ever" represented what he believes.
That's because that original excuse was written by a ghostwriter. DO YOUR RESEARCH!
posted by Flunkie at 3:50 PM on January 9, 2008


My sincere preemptive apologies
posted by dgaicun at 4:41 PM on January 9, 2008


also, did brickman put a "[sic]" after the correct spelling of the word intellect?
posted by shmegegge at 10:37 AM on January 9 [+] [!]


The word sic is sometimes erroneously thought to be an acronym from any of a vast number of phrases such as "spelling is correct", "same in copy", "spelled incorrectly" said in context", or "sans intention comique" (French: without comic intent). These "backronyms" are all false etymologies.[4]


Source Wikipedia
posted by brickman at 10:40 PM on January 9, 2008


Sic is a Latin word, originally sicut [1] meaning "thus", "so", or "just as that". In writing, it is placed within square brackets and usually italicized—[sic]—to indicate that an incorrect or unusual spelling, phrase, punctuation, and/or other preceding quoted material has been reproduced verbatim from the quoted original and is not a transcription error.[2]
posted by Skorgu at 4:54 AM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


brickman said: Perhaps, your superior intellect [sic] is working overtime, and you cannot help yourself.

That was in response to Henry Mabuse's comment. But Mabuse never said anything about his own intellect, so it appears to be something that brickman himself used to label Mabuse, sarcastically of course. In fact, it appears that brickman was the only person to use the word "intellect" at that point in the thread.

On his blog, Brian Leiter puts a [sic] after any mention of the Discovery Institute. It's not to indicate a spelling error, obviously, but just a way for Leiter to mock an organization that aims to undermine science education while giving itself a name that implies pro-scientific aims. Clearly brickman was attempting to use [sic] in the same fashion here, but it doesn't really make sense because Henry Mabuse never said he had a "superior intellect." brickman should've just used scare quotes.
posted by mullacc at 6:59 AM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


Or maybe one of those keen little animated eye-rolling .gifs.
posted by cortex at 7:46 AM on January 10, 2008 [1 favorite]


> Bob: I talked to you before. Your very good ...

Bob: Wow, this is really becoming one of those annoyingly repetitive Mefi memes that everyone is going to drive right into the ground by overusage, isn't it? Now say "okay" so that this stupid example can end.

Charlotte: No.
posted by WCityMike at 8:22 AM on January 10, 2008


This is now on CNN's website. The story states that CNN obtained some of the newsletters.
posted by joseph_elmhurst at 9:22 PM on January 10, 2008


This story is old news...
"'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."'"*
posted by ericb at 10:26 PM on January 10, 2008


Ron Paul on YouTube

I think he says he "doesn't see colour" about 2 minutes in. Also "doesn't read".
posted by Artw at 11:17 PM on January 10, 2008


Great clip, thanks. The fact that he's holding his next fundraiser on Martin Luther King Day PROVES he's not a racist!!
posted by languagehat at 7:06 AM on January 11, 2008


Did he just say "67% of blacks are prison?"
posted by hydrophonic at 7:51 AM on January 11, 2008


Feeble [sic] monkee spazm.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:03 AM on January 11, 2008


...make that "67% of blacks are in prison."

Listening to it again, maybe he's saying "were in prison." Either way, that number's way off by an astoundingly large margin. We've heard this "most blacks are criminals" stuff from him before. Even though he now claims to be most anti-racist candidate out there, he's still seeking to gain from spouting lies about black people.


From the CNN article linked to above: Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea.
Sounds like Ron's not a very good libertarian then.
posted by hydrophonic at 12:16 PM on January 11, 2008


I think he might have been trying to communicate that 67% of blacks that are in prison are there because of drug laws that he wants to get rid of.
posted by dgaicun at 12:40 PM on January 11, 2008


We've heard this "most blacks are criminals" stuff from him before... he's still seeking to gain from spouting lies about black people

Yeah, to be fair he was saying that most of the blacks that are in prison aren't criminal, and are there for laws he doesn't believe are justified:

"If you want to look for discrimination it's in the judicial system. 14% of the inner city blacks commit drug crime. 67% of blacks [that] are in prison. That's discrimination. That's the judicial code that I am attacking.

Your reading doesn't make sense in context. But if you put an omitted 'that' in there, it makes complete sense in context.
posted by dgaicun at 12:50 PM on January 11, 2008


" ... code that I am attacking."
posted by dgaicun at 12:51 PM on January 11, 2008


To me, his inflection sounds like he's quickly rattling two separate but related facts. It's odd that'd he'd omit the "that", seeing as it completely changes the meaning. But he sputtering along there, so I guess it's possible.
posted by hydrophonic at 1:46 PM on January 11, 2008


Matt Welch at Reason found a number of other reports from 1996 showing Paul originally "defended and took full ownership of the comments".
posted by dgaicun at 2:26 PM on January 11, 2008


« Older How much for that nukie in the window? Boom....   |   Patton Oswalt Eats At KFC Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post