Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 16, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

RON PAUL'S RACIST SWILL....I haven't blogged before about James Kirchick's piece in the New Republic that blew the whistle on the years worth of racist swill that was published in the Ron Paul Political Report during the early 90s, but to make a long story short, it turns out that during the early 90s the Ron Paul Political Report published years worth of racist swill.

Over at Reason today, Julian Sanchez and David Weigel do some further investigating that puts several more nails in the coffin and come to this conclusion:

Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists — and taking "moral responsibility" for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past — acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.

Question: what's the difference between a "racist" and someone who was "complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists"? Nothing, as far as I can tell, except that at least the former is bit more honest about things.

So as damning as everyone thinks this stuff is, I think it's even more damning than that. We're not children here, after all. It's plain that Paul knew what was being published in his newsletters. It's plain that he was familiar with the well-developed strategy that inspired the early-90s turn to racist demagoguery. It's plain that he knew it was a key part of his fundraising appeal. Paul can weasel all he wants, but it's plain that he endorsed a strategy of overt appeals to racist sentiment in order to build support for his political career. If he's given all that up since then, it's only because he no longer needs it.

This whole affair highlights one of the reasons that I wish everyone would stop swooning over minor candidates who play the part of bold truthteller. When you have no chance of winning and therefore nothing to risk, it's cheap and easy to stick to your guns. But as Ron Paul has shown, back when it actually mattered he was willing to do whatever he needed to raise money and rekindle his political career. I don't doubt that he'd do it again if anything serious were on the line.

POSTSCRIPT: This is also why adults should stop taking fruitcakes seriously. A guy who's a loopy conspiracy theorist today was probably a loopy conspiracy theorist yesterday, just with different conspiracies. It's only a matter of digging them up.

Kevin Drum 5:54 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (177)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

I am mystified as to why anyone would take Ron Paul's denials seriously when he doesn't name the allegedly guilty party, so we can get their side of the story.

According to the Paul camp, the author of these pieces took advantage of Ron Paul's good name to spread vile and reprehensible opinions, effectively traducing and defaming Dr. Paul. And yet Paul continues to shield the author. So how is Paul distancing himself?

Posted by: Warren Terra on January 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

Heh, heh. It was a beautiful day in Southern California, and Mr. Kevin Drum was restless and somewhat bored, so he threw some big honking chunks of red meat into the cage of insane tigers.

Posted by: shortstop on January 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM | PERMALINK

I withheld judgement on Paul, saying I wanted to hear a case of racism out of his own (or pen). After all, I'd read his statements about MLK being a great man, praising Muhammad Ali, and his "racism is a sin of the heart."

Then [he just wrote this http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12180]:

Musharraf, unfortunately, appears to have learned how to work our system, much in the way a career welfare recipient has learned to do the same. The perpetual welfare recipient promises to look for a job.

I think he's inadvertently shown the background his mind works with.

Posted by: jim p on January 16, 2008 at 6:09 PM | PERMALINK

As a dedicated fruitcake maker and eater I am a bit appalled at your association here.

He's not a fruitcake, he's a whoo-whoo entering into his twilight years.

Posted by: optical weenie on January 16, 2008 at 6:12 PM | PERMALINK

But the Kool-Aid drinkers will say that all this has been debunked.

And what shortstop said.

Posted by: Gore/Edwards 08 on January 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM | PERMALINK

This whole affair highlights one of the reasons that I wish everyone would stop swooning over minor candidates who play the part of bold truthteller. When you have no chance of winning and therefore nothing to risk, it's cheap and easy to stick to your guns.

"This whole affair" demonstrates the peril of unexamined swooning over politicians, which I agree is perilous, if only because the inevitable backlash will obscure the truths one wants boldly told. But ignoring billionaire vanity candidates and single-issue crusaders just because they are often reduced to bold truth-telling is equally perilous.

Bold truth-telling has merit beyond distinguishing minor candidates, and I think we should encourage as much of it as possible. In fact, minor candidates trying to grab headlines by goring sacred cows is about the only saving grace of our otherwise stupid first-past-the-post electoral system.

Posted by: Eric Scharf on January 16, 2008 at 6:16 PM | PERMALINK

I actually think this is worse than typical racism. To a degree, racism is just being incorrect. You pappy told you a bunch of stuff and you believed him.

But to be complicit with racism means you are willfully going along with it. You are actually choosing evil. I find that far worse.

Posted by: Mark on January 16, 2008 at 6:17 PM | PERMALINK

Paul is a politician from Texas.

Posted by: Brojo on January 16, 2008 at 6:21 PM | PERMALINK

Please don't get me started on Dennis Kucinich, who parades around as an uncompromising liberal on the presidential stump, but when the county neighboring his district tries to build a commuter rail to Cleveland to cut down on pollution and urban sprawl, he promptly bows to NIMBYism and squelches it.

Crap, you guys got me started.

Posted by: AMP on January 16, 2008 at 6:22 PM | PERMALINK

It's also obvious that his Texas constituency is complicit. He was publishing this racist trash and his voters knew it, yet they kept sending him back to Congress and giving him a large platform to continue the practice. The voters should also be roundly criticized. And Texans wonder why they're held in such low esteem and credibility.

Posted by: Al Whassizname on January 16, 2008 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

When I think of Ron Paul, I think of a diagram that my Political Science 101 teacher in college drew on the blackboard. He said that the political spectrum is not linear, it is more like a circle. If you go far enough right and far enough left, the viewpoints converge. I consider myself a leftist (and proud of it), but I find myself agreeing with Ron Paul on a number of topics (but not all). Maybe because he is so far right, that my leftist views converge with his....

However, some of his views are simply ill-informed and dangerous - like eliminating the Federal Reserve. If you think you can snap your fingers and eliminate the Fed without the economy coming to a grinding halt, you simply don't know what the Fed does. From clearing checks, to running the Fedwire and ACH systems, to paying new currency into and removing old currency from circulation, to securities transfers between banks to the discount window operation to banking regulation, the Fed is a critical, absolutely essential lubricant for our free market economy. And it ain't owned by the Illuminati or the Bilderbergers, either, folks.

Posted by: The Conservative Deflator on January 16, 2008 at 6:27 PM | PERMALINK

Explosion from the RonPaulites in...tick...tick...tick...tick...

Posted by: shnooky on January 16, 2008 at 6:28 PM | PERMALINK

Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.

But the problem is the philosophy to which Ron Paul has committed his life. One of the cornerstones of American libertarianism is the notion that once people are truly free, the whole melting pot problem will be solved because people will sort themselves into groups with similar ideas and interests. If you're in a community where you aren't welcome, say the libertarians, you are always free to move somewhere where you would be welcome. The racists and Nazis are attracted to libertarianism because they see in it the promise of self-rule.

Posted by: dr sardonicus on January 16, 2008 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

"Question: what's the difference between a "racist" and someone who was "complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists"? Nothing, as far as I can tell, except that at least the former is bit more honest about things."


Seems like there is a pretty clear distinction. The former hold racist views, and are thus either stupid or badly indoctrinated. The later do not hold racist views but enable those who do for personal profit. That is certainly sleazy.

Not saying one is better than the other but they are very different things.

Posted by: Tlaloc on January 16, 2008 at 6:34 PM | PERMALINK

I find it funny that no one can seem to find bad things about Mr.Paul except this stupid story that whoever wrote this dwell's on. Who ever you are, I would like to give you a peice of advice. First, actually look at Mr. Pauls veiws and compare them with the constitution, second think about the future of your children, and their childrens future, if you dont do anything now, and what kind of world it will be, third just for the heck of it actualy read the patriot act, and you will clearly see that bush is planning to not let a new president in if the right one does not get elected, by exersizing the decleration of marshall law. ( someone who will not agree with THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION). If he actually does this you will see another staged terrorist attack, or other emergency, between Dec and Jan of this comming year. All this is in the patriot act should you choose to read it. Bush has Illegaly gave himself the right not to allow another president to get into office.

Last but not least be a optumist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3dAnSMzUlo

Posted by: Bruce on January 16, 2008 at 6:40 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul's attack on the Federal Reserve system is warranted.My question is how do you throw the rascals out and save the economy when the rascals control everything? To think that a corrupt system can function without corruption is a long reach.

Posted by: t o on January 16, 2008 at 6:54 PM | PERMALINK

I cheer for RP for all the reasons Eric mentions. At least some bold (but embarassing) truths get publicly aired. Cheering for him, and voting for him are of course quite different matters here. Perhaps his bold truths can manage to budge the Overton window just a bit.

Posted by: bigTom on January 16, 2008 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

From the fag-bashing Evangelicals, to the state-rights racists, from the authoritarian fascists, to the strip-mall hero-worshipers.

I'd say the GOP candidates are fairly representative of their constituents this year.

(i am going to hell)

Posted by: absent observer on January 16, 2008 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

THE NORTH AMERICAN UNION

Ah yes, the SHADOWY CONSPIRACY that is evidenced by SHADOWY PLANS to build a giant freeway connecting Mexico and Canada.

A giant freeway!

Like Interstate 5, I guess, but somehow MORE EVIL!

Posted by: cdc on January 16, 2008 at 7:10 PM | PERMALINK

have you read the newsletters yourself? or only 'about' the newsletters? and i don't think you have the timeline straight either. a handful of selected quotes from different authors taken out of context is really not all that damning.and keep your opinion to yourself if all you are going to do is repeat unresearched gossip. when he found out what was being written he took care of it. and there is no point to revealing who did write the stuff. he may or may not know, but why should they be exposed? did they commit a crime? are they running for office? it wouldn't settle anything,make anybody happier. it woudld just be more raw meat for the dogs to go after. but there ultimately would be no point made.

Posted by: leah on January 16, 2008 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

You know what runs on the NORTH AMERICA UNION Interstate? NORTH AMERICA UNION cars!!!

Open borders with no tariffs is so libertarian... I mean unlibertarian... I mean.....

Posted by: absent observer on January 16, 2008 at 7:17 PM | PERMALINK

Jesus H. Christ, Kevin, that one link had 420 posts. I wonder if that is your all time record. You ought to post the "top 10 threads of all time" or something on your web page. I thought the Les Paul guitar thread topped, but that was just about 360 posts. Whew!

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

Question: what's the difference between a "racist" and someone who was "complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists"? Nothing, as far as I can tell

I take this to mean you believe Hillary Clinton is a racist then. Glad we got that ironed out.

Posted by: Orson on January 16, 2008 at 7:28 PM | PERMALINK

Bold truth-telling has merit beyond distinguishing minor candidates, and I think we should encourage as much of it as possible. In fact, minor candidates trying to grab headlines by goring sacred cows is about the only saving grace of our otherwise stupid first-past-the-post electoral system.

Seconded.

Posted by: Thumb on January 16, 2008 at 7:29 PM | PERMALINK

"Like Interstate 5, I guess, but somehow MORE EVIL!"

You forgot to go DUN DUN DUN!

Posted by: Joshua Norton on January 16, 2008 at 7:31 PM | PERMALINK

Paul's defense is, essentially, "I'm not a racist, I'm just the sort of towering moron who holds political ambition, and thus allows the publishing of a political newsletter in my name, in order to raise money, while being unaware for several years of what the newsletter contains."

When this is considered the best defense, well, that pretty much says it all.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 16, 2008 at 7:33 PM | PERMALINK

I will miss teasing the Paultards.

Posted by: jimmy on January 16, 2008 at 7:34 PM | PERMALINK

i think you need to consider the way politics is done in the usa. let us never forget that zenith of the reptillian establishment, george herbert walker bush, and willie horton. nor should we forget his feigned love for "cracker" delights, pork rinds.

i don't read a lot of pol newsletters, nor attend a lot of pol events these days, but from where i have lived[ohio, massachusetts, northern virginia, to colorado, to texas] i have certainly heard and read major pols and major candidates say things that were certainly targeted at various constituencies. and if not overtly rascist, demeaning, the remarks were carefully encoded so that the audience heard the message that the pol had identified as what was desired.

the constituency of ron paul's congressional district is overwelmingly white oil field trash...it is a land of urban cowboy, redneck mothers. cumbaya is a noble ideal, but in that congressional district[and in thousands of others throughout the usa] it won't get you elected to any office.

as to the pejorative of "loopy" conspiracy theory, let us stop that slander right now, mr drumhead. if you think that the understanding of how the bushit regime stimulated this country to invade first afghanistan, then iraq is an understanding only held by "loopy" conspiracy theorists, then i would have to identify you as a prevaricator, a reptillian spin-meister[at heart].

it is HISTORY, not conspiracy theory that the bushit regime conspired to deceive the us congress and the american electorate so as to facilitate these invasions. as paul o'neill has related in his memoirs, these invasions were active agenda items at the first cabinet meeting that he attended[within hours after bushit's inauguration].

it is HISTORY, not conspiracy theory, that the orders of the potus[george walker bush] prohibited the normal/routine investigations of 4 commercial airliner accidents that occurred on 11/09/01.

it is HISTORY, not conspiracy theory, that the MSM cooperated/has cooperated with the bushit regime to not investigate these stories. in fact, cooperated/continues to cooperate so as to facilitate the potus conspiracies to deceive.

it is HISTORY now, not conspiracy theory, that the U S DEPT OF THE TREASURY, and the BANKERS' AGENT[alan greenspan], and the SEC, conspired to allow the u.s. banking system to create financial instruments that are proving to be, to have been, as notional/fradulent as saddam hussein's involvement in the events of 11/09/01.

if it is that you still don't recognise that these events have been created by conspiracies, then i must inform you, you are the "loopy" one.

in closing, by and large, HISTORY is the record of conspiracies. for one not to recognize that is to announce that one is as sentient as a stalk of brussels sprouts.

Posted by: albertchampion on January 16, 2008 at 7:39 PM | PERMALINK

Question: what's the difference between a "racist" and someone who was "complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists"? Nothing, as far as I can tell, except that at least the former is bit more honest about things.

Well, there's arguably a difference of some sort, but when your defense is one that George Wallace could have made, you're on pretty weak ground. Wallace wasn't personally a racist, as far as one can tell. He just pandered to racists to get votes. Can somebody explain why Paul is better than Wallace?

Posted by: John on January 16, 2008 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

Well, not quite all. It should be noted that those who closely identify with a party which gives a speaking slot at their national convention to a person who has urged others to drive a "white interloper" out of a neighborhood, a person who stood by silently while an associate urged a mob to "make this cracker suffer", prior to a homicidal firebombing, and does not decry the party's decision to give such a speaking slot to such a person, is not in a good position to castigate Paul.

Posted by: Will Allen on January 16, 2008 at 7:42 PM | PERMALINK

Like Interstate 5, I guess, but somehow MORE EVIL!

It's been done. They built I-35 - which interestingly enough intersects with the Highway to Hell (I-70) about two miles from my house.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 16, 2008 at 7:45 PM | PERMALINK

obamaw will take often

Posted by: Grisey on January 16, 2008 at 7:49 PM | PERMALINK

oops, that should read:

obamaw will take often

Posted by: Grisey on January 16, 2008 at 7:50 PM | PERMALINK

Hilarious, Keep the hate coming.

All you have is decade old newsletters to hit Ron with and no real evidence he even wrote them or have a transcript of any speech he has made that would support your wacked out theory of him being a racist.

I love you guys. Keep it coming. the more people Google ron paul, the more people see he is a REAL conservative.

Oh yeah, did you not read the fact that the head of the NAACP stated Ron Paul is not a racist? He has known Ron Paul for over 20 years.

Just Google NAACP and Ron Paul. Go ahead, give it a shot. Get informed.


PS. HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Posted by: david on January 16, 2008 at 7:53 PM | PERMALINK

People have being brain-washed to think we need the Fed-Res. Please!
No we don't since they only pay the crazy accumulating interest in the debts we have from China and others!
It does nothing for us! NOTHING>>>>> People think they need it-no we don't. We need to cut the budget to 2000 level and the difference alone from 2008's budget will approximate what the government is forcing the american people to [pay out in income taxes.
Get an economics book-It would work following a schedule/plan... What is the option? Continue this unwinnable war for 100 years while China already owns us and could take us over because how much we have borrowed from them?
We could become their slaves!
It has happened before-America is in deception thinking it can't happen again....
Also, the NAFTA superhighway is not on Ron Paul's imagination like the other real "flakey" candidates want to make you believe.. It is in the Government from Canada's website and also-Vicente FOx was in LArry King (OCT 2007). He said it was the long term goal from pres Bush and him to build it but that it would take time... People... this is real. EVERYTHING RON PAUL says you can verify...
Also, why are you still saying Ron Paul doesn't have a chance when actually you continue to promote the other 2 loser candidates (Ron beat them -again!) they are the long shots! My goodness do you have a conscience? How can you sleep at night....?
www.thecaseforronpaul.com
www.ultimateronpaul.com

My hard earned money is going to Ron Paul.
I have hope in America and must have it for my children -(boys)-which may get drafted to this flakey-unwinnable war that is bankrupting our country!
Please reconsider and study Ron Paul-don't believe everythin you hear.
Ron Paul 2008!

Posted by: tanah on January 16, 2008 at 7:56 PM | PERMALINK

I have absolutely no interest in Ron Paul, as a person or as a politician, but I must point out (with a large number of caveats that we can't go into here) that his criticisms of the fed, and of the fiat money system, do have some merit. His solutions might not be the most sensible ones, (although he hasn't articulated a fully formed policy) but i think it's definitely time the country took a good close look at the structure of this whole financial monolith it has built.

Posted by: billy on January 16, 2008 at 7:57 PM | PERMALINK

Lew Rockwell, who appears to have written the piece, was a semi-regular blogger at the Huffington Post until a story broke in August of 2006 that he was having an affair with.... Cindy Sheehan!

You can't make this stuff up!

Posted by: Brainster on January 16, 2008 at 8:09 PM | PERMALINK

...whoever wrote this dwell's on. Who ever you are...
be a optumist
don't believe everythin you hear

Along with everything else, the paulbots have liberated themselves from the oppressive rules of spelling and grammar. This is America, kids. Now learn to speak and write English.

Vicente FOx was in LArry King
Now there's a scandal!

NAFTA superhighway is not on Ron Paul's imagination
No, I suppose not. If it exists it's probably on the ground.

keep your opinion to yourself
Love them libertarians!

Posted by: thersites on January 16, 2008 at 8:14 PM | PERMALINK

Did you ever think about doing real journalism for a change and actually read the newsletters for yourself to see if they are being presented in the proper context?

Oh, what am I thinking. It's obvious by the name calling throughout this article you don't give a damn about anything other than a hit piece.

Posted by: badmedia on January 16, 2008 at 8:15 PM | PERMALINK

Oh yeah, did you not read the fact that the head of the NAACP stated Ron Paul is not a racist? He has known Ron Paul for over 20 years.

so if the head of the NAACP said Ron Paul was a racist, david, then you'd agree? what's that? you wouldn't? I see. then why are you citing his opinion?

Posted by: shams on January 16, 2008 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Yeah, we've taken a look at the letters. We've also taken a look at the mail that went out to get people to subscribe to them, and we got some nice conspiracy wackiness there.

So yeah, "loopy" is the right word.

Ron Paul seems to have managed to swoop up together in one net a sizable chunk of the conspiracy-fantasy groups the US has had for the last several decades. Doesn't seem to have gotten the "moon landing was faked!" conspiracy nuts nor the weirder minority group nuts, but he's managed to suck money out of everyone else.

Have fun, suckers!

Posted by: grumpy realist on January 16, 2008 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

The problem with the Federal Reserve System is its corruption by the capitalists it is supposed to protect the rest of the economy from. To simply remove the Federal Reserve from the market would increase economic volatility and fraud. The Fed needs to be overhauled; the influence of the wealthy corporations should be downgraded and Reagan's supply sider ideology discarded so the Fed can perform its public service.

Posted by: Brojo on January 16, 2008 at 8:26 PM | PERMALINK

badmedia: new around here? Kevin Drum doesn't have it within himself to look through the newsletters and try to separate the bad from the good. He just does what he's told in some way or other.

The reader should really do some research into some of the "conspiracy theories" Ron Paul discusses and which hacks dismiss out of hand. Ask yourself who profits from trying to dismiss everything RP discusses.

Here's my discussion of the TNR article, and see my archive in the sidebar all about the NorthAmericanUnion. Turns out there's a map on a Canadian government website showing the NAFTASuperhighway - marked as the "NAFTASuperhighway" - despite Kevin Drum telling us it doesn't exist.

Posted by: The annoying LonewackoDotCom on January 16, 2008 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

Speaking of eccentrics, you can learn all about the people behind the attacks on Ron Paul, Jamie Kirchik and Martin Peretz, at:

http://vdare.com/sailer/080113_paul.htm

There are some pretty funny stories...

Posted by: Steve Sailer on January 16, 2008 at 8:32 PM | PERMALINK

The Dude's district incorporates Beaumont and its surrounding cities, no shit he panders to racists! No one wins there unless they do.

Check out how this bitch tries to play off the area's wrongness...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/12/21/racism.guestcommentary/index.html

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 8:38 PM | PERMALINK

Tigers, tigers, burning bright.

Posted by: shortstop on January 16, 2008 at 8:40 PM | PERMALINK

Please google interview,

"NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist", Austin, TX, KLBJ Alex Jones radio show, 1/13/08.

The following is a partial transcript from that show.

Will CBS air this? Or will the "Political Animal" report this? Doubt it..... but here it is. I thought I'd make it easy for you........

Linder says Paul being smeared because he is a threat to the establishmentAustin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.
Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.
"Knowing Ron Paul's intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that....so I think it's very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that's what I'm hearing," said Linder.
"Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he's a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform," he added.
Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded "No I don't," adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.
Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.
"I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.
"If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.
"What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

Posted by: leila on January 16, 2008 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

Wow. What a piece of garbage. Let me make a long story short, since it’s the JV “blogging” thing to do – you can not kill Ron Paul or his ideas. My children’s future is what I care about most and Obama, Hillary, McCain, Fat Huckabee, and Levered Long Romney offer no solutions to the near term bankruptcy of this country. If you think the status quo is acceptable, then I contend you are a monkey. If you can not explain our monetary system or understand why our current account deficit is unsustainable (if you don’t know what Dr Paul is talking about when he says China is our banker), you should hang it up and never vote again because you are dangerous. We all forgive Ron because there is no other alternative.

Posted by: TC on January 16, 2008 at 8:54 PM | PERMALINK

Steve, thanks for the web-site, it sheds a lot more light. I'll check into this, but since Kevin can post without research, so will I...
From http://vdare.com/sailer/080113_paul.htm
-------
In sharp contrast, Kirchick's boss, Marty Peretz, is the reincarnation of St. Francis of Assisi.

Oh, oops, check that … As Alterman points out, Peretz is in thrall to an "obsessive and unapologetic hatred of Arabs". Alterman quotes Peretz as recently saying about Arabs:

“They are ‘violent, fratricidal, unreliable, primitive and crazed … barbarian’; they have created a ‘wretched society’ and are ‘cruel, belligerent, intolerant, fearing’; they are ‘murderous and grotesque’ and ‘can't even run a post office’; their societies ‘have gone bonkers over jihad’ and they are ‘feigning outrage when they protest what they call American (or Israeli) atrocities’; they ‘behave like lemmings’, and ‘are not shocked at all by what in truth must seem to them not atrocious at all’; and to top it all off, their rugs are not as ‘subtle’ and are more ‘glimmery’ than those of the Berbers."

Posted by: TC on January 16, 2008 at 9:04 PM | PERMALINK

leila, think for yourself. Go to Beaumont. Here, let me tell you a story...

I once had a small business in Austin, TX slinging network and telecom cable as a subcontractor for larger companies who couldn't handle the grunt work. Anyway, I once took a job in Beaumont. I had one African American and two Mexican Americans on my crew that weekend. On our VERY FIRST LUNCH BREAK we went to McDonalds. It was busy and all, so we waited in line awhile. When we got to the counter, I let my employees order first. The bitch at the counter looked over them and asked me what I wanted. I told the bitch there were people in front of me. She proceeded to ignore me and move to the next white behind me. We stood there as they served everyone there until me and the minorities were left. Then they served us. The manager came out and buffed up his chest. My employees got their food and walked away. I told that mother fucker I wouldn't eat the trash he was serving and flicked the tray with the food and drink I just bought over the counter and onto the floor at his feet. He didn't have the numbers, so the pansy just stood there.

We got sandwich shit from convenient stores the rest of the weekend. So, fuck Paul, and Beaumont...

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 9:08 PM | PERMALINK

The fact that a consumption tax is also a wealth tax is well know and one of the reasons consumption taxes are attractive. Yes, somebody who managed to save $600,000 out of the same income as somebody who manged to save less is going to do less well under this system, but so what? Why is this any more unfair that somebody who earned $600,000 more because they worked harder and is less well off under an income tax system? Consumption and income taxes both take more from the more virtuous - higher savers or harder workers -- and more from those who have more, either more wealth or higher paid abilities.

The good thing about a consumption tax is that it taxes wealth and there is nothing those with wealth now can do about it now. If you think that wealth taxes are unfair to the less well off, then just raise Social Security payments.

So what is the objection here? Yes, taxes are 'unfair', but there's nothing special about consumption taxes here.

Posted by: stefan on January 16, 2008 at 9:12 PM | PERMALINK

If you read Ron Pauls words for what they say and not read your own interpretation. You will see he is nothing but honest. His phylosophy is OBJECTIVISM while also believing in God. He is a fan of Ayn Rand who developed objectivism and wrote Atlas Shrugged. He even named his son Rand. Wow! If you know her phylosophy you would know racism is simply irrational. I have a colleague who is a Democrat and who always votes for Ron Paul. I asked him why. He said, "first of all I did residency with the man. He is one of the smartest people I know and he is absolutley honest. Those thing are important to me."

Posted by: Lane Sebring MD on January 16, 2008 at 9:19 PM | PERMALINK

Question: what's the difference between a "racist" and someone who was "complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists"?

Follow-up question: What's the difference between saying, "I take moral responsibility," and just flapping one's lips with no sound coming out?

Posted by: RSA on January 16, 2008 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

I ain't voting for Ron Paul, and I hate racism, but I have to agree that if all you have is ten year old or older writings and no real proof he wrote them, then all that comes to pretty weak tea.

With other people it has been much more clear: speeches in front of Congress. Pictures taken with the KKK. Patterns of votes. Acts taken by them.

Paul is an MD, is there any hint of racism in his treatment of patients?

Paul is a representative, is there any hint of racism in his speeches before Congress, OR in his votes?

Kevin, where I come from in the Democratic 818, your living behind the Orange Curtain pretty much makes you complicit in pandering to racists and John Birchers. Yes or no, have you canceled your subscription to the Orange County Register yet? Yes, or no, it's a simple question and your obfuscations tell me all I need to know.

Come back when you have actual proof.

Posted by: jerry on January 16, 2008 at 9:20 PM | PERMALINK

Elmo, while I applaud your stand against racism, you appear to be a sexist and a homophobe.

Posted by: jerry on January 16, 2008 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Paul -- because the nation is finally ready for a man to campaign hard against Abraham Lincoln.

Posted by: Kenji on January 16, 2008 at 9:34 PM | PERMALINK

Think again, jerry. I attack morons where it hurts them the most in language they can easily understand. Believe what you want, but I was raised by an activist grandmother who marched on a courthouse in Dallas with disenfranchised blacks demanding to sit in court during their own trials! And I have many gay friends. I just have learned how to poke wackos where it hurts them the most. Uncle Sam gave me my rudeness, but I am an equal opportunity bitchslapper...

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 9:39 PM | PERMALINK

And for the record, I am for a modest consumption tax. As long as it is coupled with a progressive income tax starting at say...75k to 80k a year of ALL earnings.

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 9:46 PM | PERMALINK

your living behind the Orange Curtain pretty much makes you complicit in pandering to racists and John Birchers.

jerry, first time I have seen mention of this "Orange Curtain" terminology. Let us in on more! I've never been west of the continental divide...

Posted by: Doc at the Radar Station on January 16, 2008 at 9:49 PM | PERMALINK

Blah Blah Blah Blah
Elmo's song!

Yes Elmo, some of my best friends are Jews, there's no way I can be anti-semitic. You have convinced me your grandmother is an okay soul, you just haven't convinced me you are.

Posted by: jerry on January 16, 2008 at 9:53 PM | PERMALINK

Has the swarm hit? Can hardly bear to read comments.

Posted by: David in NY on January 16, 2008 at 9:55 PM | PERMALINK

Elmo's song!

Never heard that one before, jer. Want to get in a rude-fest, Paulinator? I live for this shit...

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 10:03 PM | PERMALINK

Looks like to be a Paul supporter, you have to be really, really ignorant about what the Constitution says, about economics, about personal responsibility for what you publish in your own name, and lots of other stuff. Their punctuation is atrocious as well.

If Paul didn't agree with racist trash, why did he allow it to be printed in his own publication, entitled "The Ron Paul Political Report"?

Posted by: David in NY on January 16, 2008 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Clearly, Ron Paul's true believers don't mind that he used to use the vilest sort of racist garbage to rake in contributions, or that he has numerous connections to racist institutions, or that he has neo-Nazis on his staff.

If the Paulists are comfortable with this, we don't have to wonder what sort of people they are.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 16, 2008 at 10:05 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, and jer, get aloud of this...

http://faithoftheabomination.blogspot.com/

I am helping two of my best friends (lesbians) put this together...

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 10:07 PM | PERMALINK

His phylosophy is OBJECTIVISM while also believing in God. He is a fan of Ayn Rand who developed objectivism and wrote Atlas Shrugged. He even named his son Rand. Wow! If you know her phylosophy you would know racism is simply irrational.

There are those who would tell you that belief in God is irrational as well, but that doesn't stop Ron Paul from believing so.

You would also think that an MD would know how to spell "philosophy". Hell, I can spell it, and I'm not really a doctor, I just play one on the internets...

Posted by: dr sardonicus on January 16, 2008 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

E.g.: The fact that a consumption tax is also a wealth tax is well know [sic] and one of the reasons consumption taxes are attractive.

Now, that's just wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Consumption is what you spend. Wealth is everything you own. Poor people consume, but have no wealth. Wealthy people like, say, Michael Bloomberg, Mitt Romney, have far greater wealth than they will ever consume.

A consumption tax affects the poor far more than the wealthy and is unacceptably regressive. It is totally unattractive to those who can think about it.

Posted by: David in NY on January 16, 2008 at 10:09 PM | PERMALINK

Think again, jerry. I attack morons where it hurts them the most in language they can easily understand. Believe what you want, but I was raised by an activist grandmother who marched on a courthouse in Dallas with disenfranchised blacks demanding to sit in court during their own trials! And I have many gay friends. I just have learned how to poke wackos where it hurts them the most. Uncle Sam gave me my rudeness, but I am an equal opportunity bitchslapper...

If you need to take a break, I'll pitch in and help out.

Hey! Ron Paul fucktards!

What do want to complain about this time? How much of a beat down do you slimy weasels want tonight?

There's a good twenty or thirty of us ready for you ratfucks tonight, and we won't run off like that shitheel Hannity did in New Hampshire...

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 16, 2008 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

Have they fled yet?

Posted by: David in NY on January 16, 2008 at 10:10 PM | PERMALINK

Doc, when Atrios first started posting (from Aliso Viejo) he used "behind the Orange curtain."

Forty years ago Orange County was mainly wingnut territory, but a lot of the outright racists moved to Idaho, and now it's merely affluently conservative.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 16, 2008 at 10:11 PM | PERMALINK

crickets, crickets

Shhh, have the gone yet?

Posted by: David in NY on January 16, 2008 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Cool, thanks Pale Rider! I need a smoke break.

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Forty years ago Orange County was mainly wingnut territory, but a lot of the outright racists moved to Idaho, and now it's merely affluently conservative.

Yes!

The conservatives in Orange County--and their corrupt, incompetent County management--have seen their ideology hung around their necks. They have a tradition of picking some really, really bad people to run things.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 16, 2008 at 10:18 PM | PERMALINK

Shhh, have the gone yet?

Have you ever watched a lizard breathe? They're out there. Breathing. Emotionless little bulbous eyes darting this way and that. Waiting. Not sensing anything. Just breathing. Tongue darts out. Tongue darts in. Time to move? Or time to sit for another three hours, breathing?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 16, 2008 at 10:20 PM | PERMALINK

Shhh, have the[y] gone yet?

Have you ever watched a lizard breathe? They're out there. Breathing. Emotionless little bulbous eyes darting this way and that. Waiting. Not sensing anything. Just breathing. Tongue darts out. Tongue darts in. Time to move? Or time to sit for another three hours, breathing?

I'd swear, a verbatim quote from a cowboy movie I saw when I was five.

Posted by: David in NY on January 16, 2008 at 10:24 PM | PERMALINK

I'd swear, a verbatim quote from a cowboy movie I saw when I was five.

I hope not. Tryin' not to plagiarize.

Although, I am going to have to go back to the thread Drum linked on the front page and recycle some of the shit I said to those Paultards when they show up-got a few of them hopping mad.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 16, 2008 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

Tell me, is the offices of Washington Monthly located on the Orange Line of the D.C. Metro subway system?

Just curious. It so happens that everyone else who's opinion magazine is located on Orange Line(Reason for example) too. Strange.

But I suppose you "cosmos" do stick together.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on January 16, 2008 at 10:30 PM | PERMALINK

This sentence is incomprehensible:

It so happens that everyone else who's opinion magazine is located on Orange Line(Reason for example) too. Strange.

May be proof of my hypothesis that the things which draw the Paulites together are bad punctuation, bad syntax, and inability to proofread. But maybe not.

Posted by: David in NY on January 16, 2008 at 10:37 PM | PERMALINK

Tell me, is the offices of Washington Monthly located on the Orange Line of the D.C. Metro subway system?

Uh oh-sounds like someone bought some Sarin gas from some Japanese cult members off that darned Internet again.

You oughta know by now-your white hooded sheet needs to have a built-in filtered breathing device AND heavy duty eye pieces to protect ya'll this time.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 16, 2008 at 10:42 PM | PERMALINK

You would also think that an MD would know how to spell "philosophy". Hell, I can spell it, and I'm not really a doctor, I just play one on the internets...

Thyngs are cooler when you spell them wyth a 'y'. Or perhaps it's just a bit of cognitive dysfunction.

Posted by: RSA on January 16, 2008 at 10:43 PM | PERMALINK

In questioning whether pre-emptive war was truly a conservative position, Paul at times brought some healthy counter point to the Republican debates.

He was not the only conservative who questioned the Iraq War. Many conservatives did back in 2002, but still he was alone in the debates when he challenged the war on conservative grounds.

Obviously I'm sickened by his racism, but I guess I'm also sorry to see that point of view discredited in this way because it isn't wacky, in my view, for conservatives to oppose pre-emptive and/or unnecessary wars on principle.

Posted by: PE on January 16, 2008 at 10:45 PM | PERMALINK

...bad punctuation, bad syntax, and inability to proofread...

Ok, I've been there once or twice...but I ain't no Paulinator...

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 10:46 PM | PERMALINK

"All your Whackos are belong to us"

Posted by: Ron Paul/08 on January 16, 2008 at 10:48 PM | PERMALINK

You all bore with with your self righteous chatter...and this even more self righteous column.

No one seems offended by the racist comments on live television last week by 2 major candidates but you are consumed by a little newspaper with no circulation almost 20 years ago?

Please.

A man is capturing the imagination of the few citizens left in this country who value liberty and respect the individual. Good for him.

As for you...I simply must grin at the irony of your statements that Texans are racists as well as the other sophomoric rants...found here. Enjoy your self flagellation and utter pointless opinions.

Posted by: letma on January 16, 2008 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

PE, I'm all for Ron bitchslapping the Retrdicans on Iraq...

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

Ok, I've been there once or twice...but I ain't no Paulinator...

Ya gotta understand-these guys have a competency level that hovers somewheres between that of a "Scooby Doo" villain and a guy who used to be in charge of the Arabian Horse Association, but got fired for doing stupid shit.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 16, 2008 at 10:49 PM | PERMALINK

Ohhhhh! I get it now Pale ...;)

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 10:52 PM | PERMALINK

It appears that the Metro station nearest the Monthly's address is Metro Center, which services the Red, Orange and Blue lines.

The cosmos is not sticking together, however. Not only is it expanding, galactic clusters fleeing each other, but the rate is accelerating slightly, an effect termed "dark energy."

Posted by: bad Jim on January 16, 2008 at 10:54 PM | PERMALINK

Want to get in a rude-fest, Paulinator? I live for this shit...

Settle down, hayseed. The reason you liberals go to bed every night hungry, frightened and utterly defeated is that you're always flapping your hands and quivering your lips and falling all over crowded public spaces wasting valuable energy and anytime minutes and whatnot. Just tell this jerry fellow that you're dating Miss Amanda Marcotte and I assure you he will self-destruct verbally without our help in no fewer than 50 obsessive soliloquies. No care or feeding required.

But I come to offer a little advice to the yelping acolytes of Ronald Paul, a moment of wisdom penetrating the desperate darkness of their Linux- and Hostess Cupcake-littered lives. Give up now, Paul groupies. You cannot win. As one of our greatest presidents said after my preadolescent father gave him the line, the business of America is business, and Ronald Paul, 'Gina Doctor, is a resounding failure at all commercial ventures.

I know business, sirs. I am a spectacular success at business. Ronald Paul knows hoo hoos. When this country needs to make its next preemptive strike against the crazed fanatics who want to murder us in our beds well before the REM stage sets in, will Ron Paul tell us to just keep our legs closed and we won't get into any more trouble? When hardworking industrialists and selfness CEOs who provide wealth and jobs need a little temporary bailing out, will Ron Paul rudely shove our feet into stirrups and scream at us to push?

No, the last thing this country needs is a man who has spent his entire adult life demonstrating Kegel exercises. If Dr. Love knew anything about the free market or making a buck through non-menstrual blood, sweat and tears, he would be financing his campaign himself like respectable businessman Mitt Romney instead of showing up on YouTube to plead with antisocial basement dwellers for 20 dollar contributions.

You lose, Paul patients! You may get dressed now! Payment is expected when services are rendered!

Posted by: Norman Rogers on January 16, 2008 at 10:57 PM | PERMALINK

Thank the Lord for honest, intelligent, newsmen such as Kevin Drum. This country is doing great! If you'd come to the Washington Metro Area and see the thousand and thousands of huge mansions you'd get these Paulbots to stop there boohooing and woe to me and my country. The Federal Reserve and China are making this possible. If you think the Media or the Federal Gov is going to let Ron Paul and his ilk destroy this you have to be kidding. Keep up the good work Kevin!

Posted by: LG on January 16, 2008 at 10:59 PM | PERMALINK

ding ding ding ding!

Paul fucktard alert!

A man is capturing the imagination of the few citizens left in this country who value liberty and respect the individual. Good for him.

Uh huh. And what's he capturing the imagination of the people with? His love of America? Or his belief that most of the black males in Washington DC are criminals?

As for you...I simply must grin at the irony of your statements that Texans are racists as well as the other sophomoric rants...found here. Enjoy your self flagellation and utter pointless opinions.

A whole mess of Texans aren't racist at all. That's a generalization I don't think anyone would try to make.

Ron Paul? Well, that's a whole other kettle of fish.

Tell me-how many of you Ron Paul fucktards have ever actually gone through the speeches and opinions that are, right now, published on his own house.gov website. Here's one for ya--

September 7, 2000

UNITED STATES HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL MUSEUM
------------
Statement of
HON. RON PAUL
OF TEXAS
[Pages: H7291]
Mr. Chairman, I rise today in hesitant opposition to H.R. 4115, the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum Authorization Act. We as vigilant Americans must never forget the horrific lessons of the past and those attendant consequences of corporatism, fascism, and tyrannical government; that is, governmental deprivation of individual rights. A government which operates beyond its proper limits of preserving liberty never bodes well for individual rights to life, liberty and property. Particularly, Adolph Hitler's tyrannical regime is most indicative of the necessary consequences of a government dominated by so-called `government-business' partnerships, gun-confiscation schemes, protectionism, and abandonment of speech and religious freedom in the name of `compelling government interests.'

On September 7, 2000, the US House voted on HR 4115.

415 Yeas
1 Nay

That one guy, voting against the appropriation of funds to create a United States Holocause Memorial Museum?

Ron Paul.

[pardon me while I reload...]

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 16, 2008 at 11:02 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, ur commentary about Ron Paul is way out of line...Explain to me why Ron Paul gets the most support from blacks, and explain to me why Ron is the only candidate running that wants to END the war on drugs, which causes more problems for blacks, than any other race...Also, Ron has consistently spoke out against the war on drugs, since when he first ran for president, back in 88'. Its understandable that these racist remarks in the Ron Paul Political Report, should not have ever been published and he has expressed remorse and guilt for allowing these reports to be published...Its not that Ron is "complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists" but rather he feels that everyone, no matter what people believe or feel should and will be able to speak FREELY. I dont agree with the racist remarks in these stories. They are WRONG, however, people in a free society, should be allowed to voice their opinions, thats what freedom of speech is.
Ron Paul is a STRICT Constitutionalist and even if he partly might not agree with your views, he doesnt try to dictate what your ideals are...
BTW he is not a conspiracy theorist, every so called "conspiracy" that he brings to light, really isnt a conspiracy its real and there is evidence. For example, the North American Union, its coming and its real, and the Amero is going to follow it as well, just get informed and you will understand what am talking about. RON PAUL REVOLUTION!!!

Posted by: Mike on January 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

Settle down, hayseed.

Oh, that's good, for a chickenhawk.

But I do give you kudos for the "Kegel exercises" crack! Bravo!

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 11:06 PM | PERMALINK

What Norman Rogers said! Yeah!

Posted by: LG on January 16, 2008 at 11:10 PM | PERMALINK

...explain to me why Ron is the only candidate running that wants to END the war on drugs...

Ok, as long as we're being honest...I'm all for that too...

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 11:12 PM | PERMALINK

Its understandable that these racist remarks in the Ron Paul Political Report, should not have ever been published and he has expressed remorse and guilt for allowing these reports to be published...Its not that Ron is "complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists" but rather he feels that everyone, no matter what people believe or feel should and will be able to speak FREELY. I dont agree with the racist remarks in these stories. They are WRONG, however, people in a free society, should be allowed to voice their opinions, thats what freedom of speech is.

So you're not smart enough to see the direct correlation between the rabid anti-Israel rhetoric in his early 1990s newsletters and the fact that he spoke, on the floor of the US House, as the one member of Congress to oppose and vote against the creation of the US Holocaust Museum?

I mean, really. How fucking blind can you people be? How fucking desperate and lonely are you for a savior to lead you out of your miserable, shitty lives are you to think that this toad named Ron Paul is The One?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 16, 2008 at 11:13 PM | PERMALINK

Doc, badJim has it right. There is Los Angeles County and just south, Orange County, which was known for it's conservatives and wingnuts. One of the first mega-churches was built there (and I have to say, the Crystal Cathedral (built in Garbage Grove but that's another story) is actually quite pretty).

The big newspaper is the Orange County Register which I believe was one of the first libertarian but otherwise very conservative newspapers.

Here's the Urban Dictionary which is sort of correct, but doesn't denote the very conservative nature that the Orange Curtain usually means (I think.)

behind the orange curtain
11 up, 5 down

This term is used by people in Los Angeles, when referring to travelling within Orange County. This refers to the idea that people in Orange County know nothing about what's going on in Los Angeles or even the world, and only are concerned with local affairs.

Comes from the term for Russia "behind the iron curtain" from the cold war era.

Now, that damned CW apparently has everyone wanting to live in the OC, still, where I grew up a "Democrat" like Kevin Drum that lived behind the Orange Curtain was very suspect. Most likely a crypto-conservative, if not an outright Bircher.

Elmo, you can call me a "Paulinator" but apart from your repeated and animated claims to have best friends that are gay, what we know about you is your use of sexist and homophobic terminology.

You are sort of the reverse Senator "I am not gay and never have been."

As for me, what we've seen in this thread is my saying I wouldn't vote for the guy, but that I think Kevin doesn't have enough evidence, and then I suggested likely places to find that evidence if it is there.

I understand that you think that innocent until proven guilty is the mark of a libertarian Paulinator. The rest of us actually love and want to defend our Bill of Rights and are appalled that you would claim to be a liberal at the same time as you make fun of defenders of the Bill of Rights, and make claims they must be some sort of libertarian asshole.

Posted by: jerry on January 16, 2008 at 11:15 PM | PERMALINK

A man is capturing the imagination of the few citizens left in this country who value liberty and respect the individual.

Oh, please. Spare us your sanctimony. I await your ringing defense of Ron Paul's impassioned call to "Free Trade in Unpasteurized Milk".

I can only surmise the freedom lovers' battle to end flouridization of drinking water has found a new outlet at it were.

Posted by: bobbyp on January 16, 2008 at 11:16 PM | PERMALINK

...what we know about you is your use of sexist and homophobic terminology...

Blah, blah blah. You Haven't seen nothing yet mother fucker...

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 11:22 PM | PERMALINK

I'm Jewish. How does voting against the Holocaust Museum make him an anti-semite or racist? I think it shows either his stupidity or intellectual honesty to be the one person not afraid to vote against an "apple pie and ice cream" bill.

By the way, on the Thom Hartmann show, Democratic socialist and Independent (and Jewish) Bernie Sanders has said some very good things about Paul, calling him a friend and describing him as scrupulously and intellectually honest.

Yes, I'll take Bernie Sanders knowledgeable opinion about this over Kevin Drum's or Elmo. This makes me as much a libertarian or Paulinator as Bernie.

Posted by: jerry on January 16, 2008 at 11:27 PM | PERMALINK

How does voting against the Holocaust Museum make him an anti-semite or racist? I think it shows either his stupidity or intellectual honesty to be the one person not afraid to vote against an "apple pie and ice cream" bill.

Yeah, you're totally right. There's nothing wrong with being the only Congressman to vote against the Holocaust Museum in 2000 after disavowing years and years of newsletters full of rabid, anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli statements, and then taking money from white supremacists from "Stormfront."

What was I thinking?

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 16, 2008 at 11:31 PM | PERMALINK

Oh jer, I do agree with Paul on Iraq, and drugs. Fuck the rest...

Come over to my neck of the woods, boy...

http://blindintexas.blogspot.com/

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 11:40 PM | PERMALINK

You guys! Listen!

This whole Ron Paul thing makes sense if you don't think about it and if you just look at the TV and drool while someone tries to sell you glass beads and a ThighMaster...

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 16, 2008 at 11:45 PM | PERMALINK

Troll in a total gym, Pale, and I'm in!

Posted by: elmo on January 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

i am astounded by how ignorant the posters on this board are.

let us consider racism, for a moment.

the racism that the united states of amerika has imposed on the world for scores of decades.

as h rap brown said, racism is as amerikan as apple pie. and he got it accurately.

after lincoln's war, what did u.s grant energize? a genocidal war to eliminate the plains residents.

then there was the next racist, fascist bastid, teddy roosevelt. pause and think on what he did to cuba, puerto rico, columbia, and the philippines.

and then there was that purported progressive, woodrow wilson. who sent marines throughout the caribbean basin to exterminate all those opposed to the imperialism of the united states of amerika.

and then there was the ultimate imperialist, teddy's cousin.

franklin. a stockbroker at heart.

and his successor, old harry. definitely a gangster and a racist bastid.

as was his successor, old ike.

and his successor. etc etc ad nauseam.

if you think it hasn't been this way, then you really have been asleep at the switch.


Posted by: albertchampion on January 17, 2008 at 12:01 AM | PERMALINK

Aw, I'm sorry to see that no one took up Will "I want to tar Democrats as racists but no one will play with me" Allen up on his idiocy.

Of course Will is the same racist scum who cheered on the slaughter of innocent Iraqis because in his warped little mind he imagined that Saddam Hussein might one day become a threat to the United States. Or, barring that, because Will "I voted for the worst candidate available for President, twice because that demonstrates I'm not a Democrat and therefore independent" Allen thinks that this nation has the might, and therefore the right, to control our oil even when (for reasons that only Will knows) God chose to put it under the feet of slimy brown people who aren't smart enough to give it to us.

Give it up for Will "I support bombing Iraqis just as I supported Nixon bombing Cambodia and then have the gall to blame the tragedy which came from that on the Democrats" Allen. Hater of Democrats, two time voter for George W. Bush (and proud of it), supporter of bombing anyone with brown skin and racist extraordinaire.

Posted by: noel on January 17, 2008 at 12:07 AM | PERMALINK

Awwwww, albertchampion. A man of my own heart! Now help me and my grandmother's long lost soul end this shit!

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 12:10 AM | PERMALINK

Libs are rather hypocritical on the subject, criticizing only imagined slights from whites, no matter how trivial.

Certainly there are no representatives in Congress more racist than Luis Gutierrez and Mel Martinez in their support for racial preferences for Hispanics, even at the point of rewarding law breaking! Yet your self-hating white libs just do what they have been conditioned to do after years of brainwashing in Pavlov's PC lab. Drool. One could go on and on about this subject, but a characteristic of libs is an inability to see their own hypocrisy. We see this, for ex., when they catch on that Fox has a conservative bias, but insist that the major networks are sort of "neutral."

Posted by: Luther on January 17, 2008 at 12:21 AM | PERMALINK

self-hating white libs

LOL!

Lucifer? Stop changing your name...

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 12:29 AM | PERMALINK

I Got What America Needs Right Here
By Jimmy Carter
January 9, 2008 |
The Onion Issue 44•02
Sometimes I'm a little stupid, maybe, a little slow in the head, so I'm wondering if you can help me get something straight. Maybe you can help me understand one fucking thing right now, America, and explain to me what in the Christ is going on here. 'Cause, 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. I mean, are you seriously considering voting for one of these shitbags you got here in '08? Fat fucking chance.
Way I see it, America needs a president who's gonna somehow un-royally screw up the Middle East, do some serious cleaning up after you dropped your pants and took a steaming dump all over the fucking environment, and—boom!—restore dignity, honor, and all that shit to these United States.
See, I got solutions to all your problems—I got 'em right here in my big, hairy ballsack.
You better get down on your hands and knees and kiss Jimmy Carter's rosy-red Georgia-peach-picking ass and beg me to run your fucking country again, because there's no way I'm ever gonna come to you fuck-knobs and politely ask you if I might please be a presidential candidate in your precious fuckin' election. So you can just bite my cock. I've had it with you jerkoffs and your jerkoff candidates.
You actually seem to think one a' these assholes is gonna prance in and wave a magic wand and make everything all nice again. Look at you, sitting there like a common fucking schnook and eating all their bull about bi-fucking-partisanship, and how they have all the goddamn answers. Let me tell you something: These fags are dogshit compared to Jimmy fucking Carter, all right? I was arbitrating Mideast crises when this bunch was still sucking on their mamas' titties.
But who comes to me, huh? Fucking nobody. Why ask old Jimmy anything? What the fuck could he know about peace in the Middle East? It's not like he fucking won the Nobel Peace Prize for that shit. You myopic pricks. Back in '79, I sat Sadat and Begin right down and made those two dicklicks shake hands. It was beautiful—I had all the pieces lined up and I smiled and waved in my best fucking suit and tie right there on TV. And what do you do, you pieces of shit? You screw the whole goddamn pooch.
Cocksuckers.
Oh, what's that I hear? The weather's all screwy? You got a global warming problem? Boo-fucking-hoo! I was telling you morons to turn off your lights and unplug all your shit at night to conserve energy in 19-fuckin'-75, for chrissake. Gee, I wonder what woulda happened if we'd all switched to solar power like I fucking did back when we had a fucking chance to do something about it. Think we'd still be sucking Saudi Arabia's dick like a five-dollar whore? I sure as fuck didn't get no fancy Oscar for that little spiel, though, did I? No. But Al Gore, that cum-sucking pig, steals the shit from me and now he's the greatest thing since Jesus Christ made a fucking sandwich.
Well, he can lick my asshole right after George W. Bush, that fuck.
You want compassion? Somebody who's looking out for the little guy? Why don't you take a look at Jimmy Carter, 'cause unlike, oh, every motherfucking candidate out there, he spent the last fucking quarter-century building houses for the homeless. And what does he get for it? A fucking hernia. Some fucking gratitude, you selfish twats. You talk to me about compassion? I'll shove a crucifix so far up the Democrats' asses they'll be asking me to buy them dinner and kiss them good night.
Funny thing about me: I actually fucking know shit! Not like these goombas trying to weasel their way into the White House. I practically wrote the book on collapsing bridges, inflation, and the working poor, fuck-o. I even got a degree in nuclear engineering or some shit. You know how easy I could swoop down right now like a guardian angel and solve all your fucking problems? Snap. Bam. Do it in my fucking sleep. Just fucking try me.
So you want me to run for president again? Yeah, sure, absolutely, I'll do it. I'd be honored to do it—with my fucking dick in your mouth, you worthless scumbags.
You had your chance with Jimmy Carter, and you fucking blew it. So get fucked. Fucking country.

Posted by: Op Ed on January 17, 2008 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

I must admit, this piece superbly illustrates one thing I perversely "favor" about Kevin Drum's pseudo-journalistic diatribes. Unlike the vast majority of corporate MSM mouthpieces, he doesn't "stoop" to any semblance of subtlety, nor adhere to prescribed notions of "objectivity", while engaging in his own rabid smears and exclusionary rants against legitimate candidates.

All hail Drum, the would-be Great [campaign] Equalizer!

Oh, and vote for Hillary ... or else!!!
.
By the way, nice touch with that maliciously slanderous "postscript".

[end sarcasm]

But speaking of "fruitcakes" and "conspiracy theorists", Mister Drum, have you yet located a reliable source to substantiate your own highly dubious, naked assertion that the Iranian Hormuz video was "a total fabrication"?

Physician, heal thyself!
.

Posted by: Poilu on January 17, 2008 at 12:45 AM | PERMALINK

Op Ed? Dawd? Jimmy did have it right, bitch.

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 12:50 AM | PERMALINK

le'me guess? The holy mother of all SHITSTORMS is coming to this bog? I can't wait...

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 12:53 AM | PERMALINK

TC, I'm 11b. You are a fraud. Look up thread, you know where to find me...

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 12:58 AM | PERMALINK

I want a DD214 sent in comments to my site, TC. I've given nothing less...

(if you have trouble finding my dd214 in my old posts, I'll dig it up for your lazy ass, on my own time)

http://blindintexas.blogspot.com/

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 1:16 AM | PERMALINK

Good night...west coast pussy...

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 1:18 AM | PERMALINK

Yeeah...what shortstop said way earlier.

Posted by: grape_crush on January 17, 2008 at 1:19 AM | PERMALINK

I deserved that, grape...

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 1:29 AM | PERMALINK

Actually, the tigers I was referring to were the Ronbots...they performed on schedule.

Posted by: shortstop on January 17, 2008 at 1:33 AM | PERMALINK

Much akin to Kevin Drum's -- or should that be The Washington Muckrakerly's -- exclusionary views on "democracy":

NBC excludes Kucinich from debate: a gross violation of democratic rights

Welcome to democracy, General Electric-style.

The exclusion of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich from the Democratic Party presidential candidates debate in Las Vegas Tuesday night casts a bright light on the reality of American political life: NBC, a privately owned company and a subsidiary of giant conglomerate General Electric, had the final word as to who would participate and who would not.

On January 9 NBC invited Kucinich to participate in the Las Vegas debate to be broadcast on cable network MSNBC (jointly operated by NBC and Microsoft). The Kucinich camp received an email from an NBC official that congratulated the congressman "on another hard-fought contest," and continued, "This letter serves as an official invitation for your candidate to participate in the Nevada Presidential Debate at Cashman Theatre in downtown Las Vegas. You have met the criteria set by NBC and the Debate."

Less than two days later, NBC Political Director Chuck Todd notified the Kucinich campaign that the network was "redoing" its participation criteria and that only the three leading candidates -- Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards -- would be invited.

Political motives determined the change in policy. NBC had issued its invitation to the Ohio congressman when former New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson was still in the race. The network wanted to include Richardson, whom the media deemed to be an acceptable figure, but since Kucinich was running ahead of the former governor in several polls, they couldnt very well bar Kucinich. Once Richardson dropped out, NBC felt free to exclude Kucinich. ...
.

Posted by: Poilu on January 17, 2008 at 1:36 AM | PERMALINK

If you rely on the "mainstream media" for your news coverage, I can understand the source of your opinion about Ron Paul and the newsletters, produced by ghostwriters (apparently without any oversight by Dr. Paul) after he had left politics and returned to his ob/gyn practice full-time.

"News" of the newsletters was released on the day of the New Hampshire primary by a supporter of Rudy Guiliani, working for an avowedly liberal magazine, in a transparent attempt to harm Dr. Paul's campaign. ("News" is in quotation marks because the newsletters had been "old news" in Dr. Paul's district for years, and despite them, his constituents saw fit to return him to office for 10 terms in the House of Representatives.)

You may also want to do a Google search for "Ron Paul" and "NAACP." That search will lead you to radio interviews with Austin, Texas NAACP President Nelson Linder. As a black person who has known Ron Paul for 20 years. Mr. Linder is presumably in a good position to know whether or not Dr. Paul is a bigot. Mr. Linder refutes claims that Dr. Paul is a racist, and says he's being attacked because he's a threat to the establishment. This really IS news, but this story has received zero coverage in the "mainstream" media.

It may also interest you to know that Dr. Paul seems to have more support from minorities than any other republican candidate (also a legitimate news story, also unreported by the "mainstream" media.) (I apologize for not having a citation for this, other than an interview with Dr. Paul on CNN. And you seem to believe he's lying about the newsletters, so you may choose to believe he's lying about everything else.)

As a longtime supporter of his, I'm also disappointed that Dr. Paul didn't respond more forcefully to this character assassination. But that just doesn't seem to be his style. As a libertarian who practices what he preaches, Dr. Paul really doesn't care what you think! He believes that your thoughts and opinions are your business, and you have a right to them...no matter how ugly or disagreeable they may be to him or anyone else. I think this is probably why he hasn't "outed" the ghostwriters who worked on those newsletters (if he even knows who they are). He thinks they're entitled to their opinions. Why? Because freedom of speech and freedom of thought are the cornerstone of our political system. Dr. Paul is the only Constitutional candidate in the race...and the First Amendment protects the rights of figures like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. or Malcolm X or Al Sharpton just as much as it protects the rights of anyone spouting racist or bigoted nonsense. You can't get one without the other.

As a veteran of a number of political campaigns, I wish Dr. Paul had been more "politically correct" in his response. I wish there had been more "mainstream" coverage of the fact that Dr. Paul thinks economist Walter Williams (who, by the way, is black) would make a great running mate. Or the fact that he always votes against awarding Congressional Medals of Freedom (because such an expenditure is not authorized by the Constitution) but when Rosa Parks was nominated for one, he offered to chip in money from his own pocket so the taxpayers didn't have to foot the bill. (None of his colleagues took him up on his offer, and instead raided the Treasury (i.e., your pocketbook).

Unfortunately, the American electorate has been sufficiently dumbed down that it merely takes an accusation of racism to destroy a candidate. But again, that's just not who Ron Paul is. He's the Anti-Romney. He's non-slick and non-calculating. He's essentially a freedom-loving policy wonk who wants to strip power from an out-of-control, financially and morally bankrupt federal bureaucracy and return it to the individual American citizen.

It's tragic to think that the American electorate is so easily manipulated, and that political correctness has run amok to the extent that we can't even have an honest dialog about racism in politics and society...in this of all years.

And finally, from his website, www.ronpaul2008.com, here's his statement on racism: "A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty."

Posted by: anonymous on January 17, 2008 at 1:53 AM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drum, would you please, grow up?

Posted by: godra on January 17, 2008 at 1:55 AM | PERMALINK

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality

In a free society, every citizen realizes that we are all in this together. You are a fraud...like all those before you...

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 2:02 AM | PERMALINK

You know, it's truly amazing to me that so many here, ostensibly appalled by Ron Paul's alleged "racism", should proceed to issue a barrage of subtanceless, sweepingly generalized invective at Paul's supporters that rivals the vicious anti-semitic rants in Nazi publications like the Volkischer Beobachter.

It seems that NOTHING brings out the festering Brownshirt mentality latent in some alleged "Liberals", "Progressives", and other denizens of the Political Animal zoo quite like the mere mention of the name Ron Paul.

Then it suddenly becomes "book burning" time at the Washington Monthly.

Schadenfreude lives! :-(
.

Posted by: Poilu on January 17, 2008 at 2:13 AM | PERMALINK

Anti-Paul: smug, witchhunting, self-congratulatory, non-sequitur derogations
Pro-Paul: the facts

Doesn't this get old after awhile? I guess not.

Posted by: PA on January 17, 2008 at 2:25 AM | PERMALINK

Cleaning up after libertarian self-congratulatory crap is pretty much like walking a dog.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 17, 2008 at 3:44 AM | PERMALINK

I am completely blown away by the utterly inept blather that you have spewed in this article. Did you somehow manage to skip critical thinking in college? Did you go to college? It is PLAIN that you are not aware that Dr. Paul was not running for office during the time the offending newsletters were released. He was not trying to raise money. He was not campaigning. There was no one to pander to. Instead, he was delivering babies, writing his books, traveling to promote his books and for speaking engagements. If you had a working cell in your confused brain, you would realize that that kind of writing would have destroyed his real writings and their liklihood of success as well. I suggest people look at the books he did write instead of believing your spew.
The man had 5 children to raise, he had a wife and a home to care for. He had a MINORITY interest in the newsletter, there were other partners, were you ever going to mention that? He was a busy man. Two seconds at your computer would have informed you of this much.
Due to his heavy schedule, he left the day to day running of the newsletter in the hands of someone who obviously took advantage of the lack of oversight and spewed their own racist trash~when in fact it was racist trash~ and it was published in a newletter that bore his name probably more to encourage circulation w/name recognition more than anything else, given his past political fame. He has apologized for his lack of oversight, and taken responsibility morally for its having been printed because of that lack of oversight...And so bearing this kind of a brunt for something he did not do is honorable you dumb@ss. Show me one other politician that would have stepped up that much!! Just ONE. There are some that would have killed to keep that quiet.But in spite of his not lying about it, you accuse him of lying. I have seen Rudy Guiliani, running away from bldg 7 near ground zero BEFORE IT FELL say to the reporter shooting him, that they were told to get away from it , it was coming down", and then the very next video he is lying and denying he ever said it, and its on tape!!!! And you want a freakin witch hunt for a man who did no actual wrong, he made a mistake, he didn't provide sufficient oversight, he trusted the people running it...what a bastard...huh? Where the hell is your perspective? You have none. Given the reality of the situation, what the hell else COULD you want but a nice juicy witchhunt, You are a gossip monger. I can tell it turns you on. That is the only reason it matters to you who wrote those articles...you'd like to burn them at the stake with the good doctor.

It is NOT plain that he is guilty of ANY of the things you say. You have no proof of him doing anything, or having his hands in any of it beyond his minority stake in it as a partner in the firm that put it out.


Some of what you offer as proof of bigotry is nothing more than an observation being made. What you call kind words for David Duke for example, were no such thing. It was an observation used to make a point about the popularity of liberty and the wisdom of following the constitution. Is that why its only linked and not printed on the main page?
http://www.tnr.com/downloads/November1990.pdf
Whoever wrote that, Dr. Paul or someone else, was speaking to a very specific portion of Duke's campaign platform. The author (assume a male) was noting that despite his "baggage" (a reference to a problematic past, which strongly suggests the author also sees it as a problematic past, not that he condones it) a lot of people responded to that part of Duke's campaign message, (lower taxes, no welfare, no busing, uphold constitution, etc). The author even ended the observation with a reference to Duke's being tainted. His whole danged point was that EVEN David Duke the old KKK jackass got alot of votes based on that portion of his platform.the author was saying that David Duke's POLITICS/stand on the constitution etc could have won the day despite such a dark background and that it scared the bejesus out of the status quo, just like Dr. Paul scares them, as a matter of fact. The authors last word on the subject was the inference that the status quo should be afraid because such a platform will come again, and again and again...via those who are NOT tainted, like him, if not for your viscious, misguided slander...

You can actually READ english, can't you? If so, you sure couldn't tell it by your research...or blatant lack thereof. You are LOOKING for something where it does not exist. You are an hysterical alarmist.


I happen to believe that YOU are racist. The comments an author made re: Barbara Jordan, who was referred to as a half educated victimologist never said anything about her color being responsible for any of what he apparently believed were her shortcomings, it criticized her as a person and her political philosophy, but it never said anything about her color making her that way. The only thing it said about her race was that it protected her from criticism,and I am about to prove the reference correct with a single statement. If the comments made about her had been made about a white woman, we would not be having this conversation, in fact, its doubtful that even a single copy of that newsletter would have even survived if that was all there was to it... Ms. Jordan was most certainly protected by the sensitivities to race in this country since the 1970s and beyond.Your viscious attack on Dr. Paul proves it again. The author criticized a politician that happened to be black, and look at you...you've gone clean off the deepend. You've proved it yourself.


I would certainly add that Dr. Paul has expressed especially great regret and more that this comment was ever written or published. He had and still has great respect for Ms. Jordan and was saddened that she may have read it while she was still living and believed it generated by him. He considered her a friend and valuable collegue.
But you wouldn't write that would you?(I'd say report rather than write, but this tripe is hardly reporting...more like a perez hilton blog on acid..) Because you are a self-righteous biased, lazy...yeah, blogger.


As to the comments regarding Martin Luther King Jr. Perhaps, if you were not so completely biased and utterly inept (did I mention that?)you would have included the FACTS that Dr. King did indeed commit:
*adultery many many times (serial aldulterer), *employment of prostitutes (many prostitutes are underaged, its not much of a leap), *embezzlement,
*the Mann Act(transporting women over a state line for immoral purposes).
*and his last night on earth was spent having sex with 2 women and physically abusing a third.(And the walls came tumbling down/abernathy)
He does indeed have a phony PhD. in that he did not in fact earn it, he cheated.('His' "I have a dream" speech and his PhD dissertation were heavily plagerized ~in the case of the "I have a dream" speech almost entirely plagerized~ from an acquaintance of his, a pastor by the name of Archibald Carey, in the case of the dissertation from a man named Jack Boozer. These are well known facts).

Further, he was neck deep in communism, acted as an agent of communism, was investigated by the FBI due the communist company he kept. His long time advisor, stanley levinson was found to be a communist agent, as well as several other comminists employed by the king office. Despite his later disavowing Communism and the fact that he never joined the party, there is no defense, according to the congressional record:

*King was affiliated with over 60 Communist organizations(Congressional Record May 29, 1968 pg. E4785)

*The Washington Observer Newsletter reported "When the FBI agents had King under surveillance, they observed him meet a well-identified Soviet espionage agent at the Kennedy Airport in New York. They also secured evidence that King was receiving large sums of money from a well-known American Communist agent who gives King instructions that he implicitly obeys." (Congressional Record April 11, 1968 pg. E3005)
* I could not find the reference, but he also apparently was receiving money from Cuba, as a check made out to him, endorsed by communist agents under castro, was found in his possession during a raid on the So. Conference Educational fund.

He lied about his communist beliefs because he was in the public eye in a republic and he wanted to stay there; He would have wanted that to be his little secret in that political atmosphere so would never have joined the party; that would have been a political death wish in those times.

He despised capitalism, didn't believe in the America that could compete and reach for a dream...rather, he believed in a "meshing of individual will and community will".(communism)oh yeah, he had a dream alright...On the other hand, he could read a speech, couldn't he? Give him major props on moving an entire country to resolve to never go back...good on him. But that does NOT change the facts buddy.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/829049/posts
*Carl Rowan, a syndicated columnist, writes about the FBI surveillance that produced "at least 15 reels of tape about sexual entertainment and conversations between King and Abernathy that might lead to the conclusion that there was a homosexual relationship between the two ministers."
*His FBI records have been sealed until the year 2027 because they would "ruin my husbands reputation"(Mrs. King). Look it up..in fact,
here are some references, crack a friggin book for God's sake.
1. The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.- - (an official publication of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change).
2. "King's Plagiarism: Imitation, Insecurity and Transformation," The Journal of American History, June 1991, p. 87) David J. Garrow
3. New York Times" of October 11, 1991, page 15.
4. "The FBI and Martin Luther King, Jr.", David J. Garrow, (1981).
5. "And the walls came tumbling down," Rev. Ralph Abernathy (1989)

So, if the things that were said about him in that newsletter are true, if the references to Ms Jordan were not racial but personal and political, if the authors see that Duke was tainted acknowledge that only the untainted could win such an election, then where's the motivation? And where's the swill? Not in the whistle blower surely, or one who later references the factual incidents. No, the fault and the swill was in the man himself It was he who committed all those wrongs and then played the doctor and the saint with plagerized material; and then of course, there's the swill in your racist, biased, hateful hyper-imaginative-self-righteous and uninformed brain. Its PLAIN that your problem is that, being a racist, all you can see is color. So you find it criminal to utter a truth if it bears any vague resemblence at all to a stereotype...you panic...you accuse, you move a safe distance away and throw rocks. The proof is in the pudding Kevin: If ANY white well known (or otherwise for htat matter) preacher were found to have done even a small portion of all of that Dr. King did, no speech on earth would have saved his @ss...and you know it. Thus, if Martin Luther King Jr. had been a white man, we would not be having this conversation.

You are a Racist, a Bigot, a liar, a slanderer, an athiest I take it? and an incompetent idiot in general. By the way, didn't the nov 94 copy have a byline? I am pretty sure it did and it wasn't the doc...who's pandering who Mr Pot?...lol... You didn't include the lead page where it would have been cited...(?)why not? kill your argument? no fun telling the whole truth is it?

Further, I went and looked at some of the links and "snippets" (of course, we can't have context for Gods' sake, now can we?)of past newsletters and noticed one that I couldn;t believe that you apparently found objectionable swill. It had to do with exposing our leaders and what they in fact actually do in the Bohemian Grove...If what has been broadcast and videotaped and proven about that place is not sufficient cause for you to reconsider your position on that issue, and if you are ok with your corrupt presidents, senators, world leaders and powerful billionaires running naked together through the forests of Bohemian Grove every year, many indulging in rampant homosexual behaviors (to each his own, but own up MFs)sacrificing a child in effigy to the owl god Molech in a pagan act called the Cremation of cares ceremony, then you are one sick, evil and twisted individual which totally explains every ignorant word you have written here. I'd accuse you of being one of them if you weren't a total non-person, peon at best, in their eyes.

those of you who just believe what ever anyone tells you without critically looking at the questionable materials and judging for yourselves, and then auto-spew hate for people are just as bad...ignorant, lazy, incompetent idiots. Just lay back, plug your brain in, and let old Kevin here~~ the REAL uneducated victimologist/racist/slanderer~~ download what you are supposed to think today. If you'd rather not submit to Kevin however, perhaps then, you could use reason, and ask yourself some common sense questions, like: 'would anyone in politics who planned to someday go back to politics, ever write some of what has been offered as Dr. Paul's writing?'


I say look at his record, look for anything like that in his speeches, in his behavior, anywhere that is really him, and you wont find anything. Uncited material is hardly damning...don't write him or anyone else off on the word of someone else, especially this moron; you will only be screwing yourselves in the end if you keep this up.

Well Kev, I suppose you will be going after poor Hillary next for daring to suggest that the president of the United States of America had anything at all to do with what was accomplished for civil rights...Because clearly, King did it ALL by himself.tic...can I assume that There Will Be BLOOD? lol. Nah, she isn't a threat to who ever washed your brain this morning...is she? Paul's a different story.

In the end we should all take king's plagerized speech to heart, and NOT judge anyone by the color of their skin, BUT THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER. That whole character thing is ironic, huh? Cause especially if one's leader's characters are lacking, one should be able to say so no matter what color they are, from Carey's lips to King's ear; from King's lips to God...he damns himself.
Get off your rocking horse and crack a book.

Posted by: maggie on January 17, 2008 at 3:56 AM | PERMALINK

"withheld judgement on Paul, saying I wanted to hear a case of racism out of his own (or pen). After all, I'd read his statements about MLK being a great man, praising Muhammad Ali, and his "racism is a sin of the heart."

Then [he just wrote this http://www.antiwar.com/paul/?articleid=12180]:

Musharraf, unfortunately, appears to have learned how to work our system, much in the way a career welfare recipient has learned to do the same. The perpetual welfare recipient promises to look for a job.
I think he's inadvertently shown the background his mind works with."


LOL. With all due respect, you sound more racist than he did in that comment. What makes you think that he is talking about blacks? There are PLENTY of career welfare whites in this country, but you jump immediately to the conlusion that he is being a racist. No. he is not. He is making a valid comment regarding an inefficient overburdened entitlement system that is breaking states down to economic nubs instead of economic hubs. If you are not aware by now of the fact that whole generations of people of all colors work that system like a charm. Wake up to the hypocrisy of this kind of rank atmosphere. This is a witch hunt. Almost all the comments I read criticizing him were invalid, unresearched, lies at worst, misunderstandings at best. I hope its the latter.

People have no faith. If you had wathced him over the years, look at what people say about him in congress, how deeply respected he is by his peers across the board, how reagan felt about him, how well and widely respected he is world wide, how educated and smart...how many well educated white supremists do YOU know? come on....

One ounce of common sense and two hours of deep research would make anyone a believer in his cause; Liberty, just plain old liberty...not that too many of us would actually recognize it if it hit us in the face. He deserves the benefit of the doubt. He does not know who wrote the articles, they are not cited and he was not on site during those years except for on rare occasions. he lived 600 miles away for Pete's sake! open your eyes, openyoureyesopenyoureyesopenyoureyes

Posted by: maggie on January 17, 2008 at 4:09 AM | PERMALINK

Oh, goody. Defending Saint Paul by traducing King. That's the way to refute the racist taint.

Posted by: bad Jim on January 17, 2008 at 4:15 AM | PERMALINK

Write much, maggie?

Posted by: Kenji on January 17, 2008 at 7:12 AM | PERMALINK

:Oh, goody. Defending Saint Paul by traducing King. That's the way to refute the racist taint."

Posted by: bad Jim

Hi bad Jim,

If anyone is doing any traducing here, I am afraid it is you. I speak to your apparent belief that it is wise to label someone who is reciting the facts (that I CITED for you) to be called a racist because he (I assume) pointed out unpleasant documented truths about a man of color. I hate to beat on a dying horse, but there it is again...that same blinding, can't see the forest for the trees, groupthink and the resulting inherent, often unconscious bias. What if the author of those same couple of phrases or the man who's name the publication was under had been black? Would it be racist then? Or would it be assumed that he was speaking to Dr. King's character and the differences in their ideals? the definition of racism is within that question.

Not a single comment that I made referred to his color. I spoke only to his character as it pertains to the accusations which were addressed in the Newsletter's in question. All documented acts, I simply went and checked the records on those accusations...that is how you do it, they accuse, you answer the accusation...see? like debate. But its merely discussion, not traduction.
Its an actual method of communicating differences and coming to a consensus...I didn't make it up,I looked it up, you should try it.


I don't have anything personal against Dr. King, I respect his achievments very much, admire his courage immensely and acknowledge with pride that he was a powerful and influential American leader during a time of true horror for so many and of course, gave his life for the dream. But he was nonetheless just a man, and I don't worship him, like so many seem to, so I am not blind to his faults, like so many are. and you call it traducing Dr. King...that is absolutely untrue, and a cop out too. Kinda chickensh^t even...


FirstI cannot tranfer blame to the man it already belongs to. I cannot transfer the blame from a man who bears no blame for King's choices. I did not commit any of those deeds. I am not making it up...but the point (which you apparently missed) is that how on earth is reciting documented confirmed facts about someone racist in your mind? Given the subject at hand, don't you think elaboration is called for? How can a piece be shown to be other than racist if it cannot be divulged that the comments are factual without being called a racist oneself...deep sigh...common sense for sale...one dollar an ounce!!!weg

First of all, I was not defending Paul when I spoke of Dr. King, I was referring to the author of the article and pointing out that what the author said is in fact documented, corroborated, AKA facts. Did you miss the citations for the congressional record? the five books? One written by Abernathy himself? Or was it just easier to take the safe road and not look up anything. I assume that is the case since there is nothing of substance in your reply. Just casting more of the same kind of baseless aspersions. It is not racism to discuss the character and acts of an individual, even if they are black. African Americans are people too.

I note that you don't mention Ms. Jordan, or my explanation of the observations about Duke's candidacy...you make it sound like the whole thing was a slam against Dr. King...you are a bit confused too. Maybe more than a bit biased yourself.

We all know that PC is the best way to train ourselves to take care with the treatment of others feelings and integrity etc...but PC does not mean 'pretend it didn't happen if someone is a person of color'. PC means don't be derogatory by reason of race, religion, gender, etc etc. It is not racist to speak to someone's character, ask Dr. King, it is right in the famous I have a dream speech. He said it with his own mouth and you deny him and infer that those who do so are racist...that is hypocritical..


Dr. King was an intelligent man, a great thinker and orator, a light in the dark for an entire generation; and he gave that speech like nobody else could have in those days. He had a sense of perseverence that was translated to the people like electricity jumps from hand to hand when you walk across a carpet. And if not for him, we may never have heard Pastor Carey's beautiful sermon or been galvanized against racism as a nation. But he nonetheless held a deep conviction for beliefs not conducive to the American way as we all perceive it to be. He was deeply involved in communist activities, but no doubt with the best intentions for the country and mankind, I am not suggesting that he meant the country deliberate harm with his ideals, just that those were his ideals...in FACT. And he was a flawed man personlly as mentioned previously.


But oddly, while there is still a way to go before people let go of the remnants of their old prejudices, ideas and apprehensions, in some ways its gone way too far. When one cannot even speak the truth without being crucified for it because it is about someone of color, famous and beloved or not, well, that my friend, is racism.

Racism is any behavior that occurs as a direct consequence of the color of one's skin. Even those ones you don't realize you have. Like you, for example not permitting the negative part of Dr. king to see the light of day, because its uncomfortable and easier not too and you've apparently been told that if black people do anything that may seem vaguely stereotypical, it can't be mentioned...and so you deny proof, evidence, reason, witnesses, testimony, first person books by close associates, CIA plants, corroboration, congressional records, audiotape, and the newspapers in favor of jumping to snarkeyland where you commence to attempt to punish me, (better luck next time.)

Lets try another example:
It is my opinion that there is more racism between blacks and whites than any other two races in any combination. So let them be our sample...assume that a white man was guilty of the same things that Dr. King chose to do, and a black man wrote about it, or broke the story; just exactly the same way I wrote about Dr. King, with citations and congressional records and explicit explanations based on having read the entire articles in question and studied Dr Paul's books and genuine articles for years...the only critical peep we would hear would be from the asylums and the guy's mother. If the man in question had career in politics or clergy, it would be dead on arrival of the bad news. And guess what? NOBODY would scream racism. It would be assumed automatically that he was being judged by his character and his deeds and in this country, one oh sh*t wipes out ten atta-boys in one fell swoop. I challenge you to deny it...any of it...with some substance this time if you can.
I don't think you can. African Americans are human too kiddo...and your comment denies that. You've lost sight of the critical importance of truth and character and don't see anything but color...that isn't my problem, that is YOUR problem.

These are realities, bad Jim, I didn't make it up. I admire Dr. King for his critical part in the progress made by entire nation over the last 45 yrs, he was a great inspiration, but he did not do it alone...and he was fallible, and weak, and human every bit as much as he was eloquent, strong and perceived as a superman...

But when others begin to pay for what he did, because they are punished for revealing it, its time for a dose of reality.

Finally, my defense is of the principle more than Dr. Paul I used him as an example because I know him and this subject is related to him. But I would argue this truth to the floor on behalf of anyone.

In any case, the first email was directed to the author of the above article(I couldn't find an email address or it would have gone directly to his personal email..)I wrote him because he neglected to leave all of that pertinent information out as he promoted a line of theory that leads people to believe that those were slanderous lies when they are not; hence the rigidity and detail...he is a hack... If he is going to call himself a reporter, then he needs to report, not blog.IMHO
have a good one...

Posted by: maggie on January 17, 2008 at 7:41 AM | PERMALINK

maggie,

You ignorant fool.

What on Earth makes you believe that we must accept or tolerate the ranting and raving of the followers of a man who has built his political career on publishing racist literature?

What makes you think we have to welcome you and your ideas to the table-your ideas are misguided, racist, backwards, un-American and are designed to deprive minorities of the very "liberty" that you and your Paultard ilk are constantly spouting off about. What you seek to do is make legitimate the idea that we have to engage you and talk to you. This elevates you from sheet-wearing yokels who gather around burning crosses to participants in the normal political discourse in this country. And you know what? We're under no obligation to reach down into the muck and filth and pull you up to our level. You get our foot in your face and you get to stay down there, wallowing in the slime and the obscurity from whence you came. Your hatred and backwards ideas are yours to practice in a free country, but that doesn't mean the gatekeepers and the public at large have to give you equal time and give your ideas a hearing in the larger arena. You're just kooks. You're just irrelevant to progress. You're a sad byproduct of inbreeding and fear.

If any of you believed ANYTHING about actual 'liberty' and what it really means, you would disavow Paul and support a candidate who doesn't have a history of pandering to racists and using faux outrage to inflame a half-witted group of Americans who are uninformed and gripped with fear and paranoia about minorities.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 17, 2008 at 7:57 AM | PERMALINK

Not a single comment that I made referred to his color.

Well, that's good, because I had to go look up whether MLK was black or not.

But he nonetheless held a deep conviction for beliefs not conducive to the American way as we all perceive it to be. He was deeply involved in communist activities, but no doubt with the best intentions for the country and mankind, I am not suggesting that he meant the country deliberate harm with his ideals, just that those were his ideals...in FACT. And he was a flawed man personlly as mentioned previously.

No, he wasn't. But you and your racist kind have been perpetrating these myths for years.

The real story of how the FBI put MLK under surveillance, with the approval of Bobby Kennedy, reveals that he was flawed, yes, but he was NOT a communist:

King's biographer, David J. Garrow, has demonstrated rather conclusively that the origin of the Bureau's suspicion of King was its discovery in January 1962 that a wealthy New York businessman named Stanley Levison had emerged as King's closest adviser. And Levison, according to the Bureau's most trusted informants in the American Communist Party, code-named "Solo" (Jack and Morris Childs), had been until about 1954 the American Communist Party's most important financier. Then he had apparently dropped out of the party. Now the Bureau learned that it had been shortly after Levison's supposed separation from the party when he had befriended King. The Bureau's conclusion--based on circumstantial logic rather than hard evidence--was that Levison represented an ambitious and apparently successful Communist plan to gain control over the Civil Rights Movement and its most prominent spokesman, Martin Luther King.

[snip]

Given the Bureau's concerns over King's association with Levison and Jack O'Dell, another SCLC staff member with a Communist history, Sullivan had Division Five produce a report on Communist infiltration of the Civil Rights Movement, with particular attention to its likely role in the upcoming March. Sullivan's August 23 report concluded that "there has been an obvious failure of the Communist Party of the United States to appreciably infiltrate, influence, or control large numbers of American Negroes in this country." Although the report played it safe by saying "time alone will tell" whether future efforts by the party to exploit blacks would be as unsuccessful as those in the past, Sullivan's conclusion was that Communist infiltration of the Civil Rights Movement was negligible and need be of no further concern to the Bureau or the country.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover was baffled. Sullivan's latest report contradicted the steady stream of information he had been sending Hoover about Communist influences on King. Hoover fired the report back at Sullivan with the handwritten comment that "this memo reminds me vividly of those I received when Castro took over Cuba. You contended then that Castro and his cohorts were not communists and not influenced by communists. Time alone proved you wrong. I for one can't ignore the memos re [deletion, presumably Levison and O'Dell] as having only an infinitesimal effect on the efforts to exploit the American Negro by the Communists."

The oft-repeated smear of King as a communist is such a classic ploy by racists to denigrate the man. Whatever flaws he had are well known and understood and do not diminish what he accomplished. King's actual opinion was that communism was a rival ideology to Christianity, and that's why he was interested in it. To suggest that a black southern Baptist preacher would abandon Christianity and take up communism is ludicrous. By associating yourself with such hate literature, you only did yourself deeper into the slime.

But that's what Paultards do. They pretend to be high-minded while they fiddle with the knife behind a person's back.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 17, 2008 at 8:14 AM | PERMALINK

Warren (if you're still reading this) I take charges of racism very seriously -- I can think of only a few charges that are worse, and people that are racists can and should and deserve to be treated harshly, with disgust, and worse.

Like other such serious charges, it lends itself to abuse. Just being accused can lead to horrible treatment, and we humans are prone to a) blame the victim, and b) believe that where there is smoke there is fire all of which makes it very useful to toss around charges like racist as a trump card. If it's not true, it's a wonderful smear, it sticks, it instantly casts mud and shit all over the target, and it leads to a pile-on by lots of good and bad intentioned people.

If TNR claims to be a reputable source (and I have almost never read it, but based on what the liberal bloggers in the liberal blogosphere I do read have to say about its reporters and Marty Peretz, I have reasons to doubt them) then before they charge Paul with racism they need to be sure to double check all of their claims.

If Ron Paul says something along the lines of "I did not write that, someone else wrote that under by name" that should be a relatively easy thing for a reporter to determine.

Ron Paul, or you, should not have to participate in his own lynching.

If the newsletter was large enough to have some form of staff (even if volunteer) to help get it out the door (even if that staff's jobs were solely to run the mimeograph machine and stuff envelopes or put a stamp on each newsletter) than there is a pretty good chance that some of these people were credited in one or more issues if not in each issue on some masthead. And it should have been the TNR's job to state: we spoke with the manager, and the other staff, and this is the first they ever heard of articles being ghostwritten.

Apparently from my brief read of the article, the only person Kirchick spoke to about this was Paul's current campaign spokesman and the article doesn't describe him as having any real role with the newsletters back then.

The TNR did not seem to put up the entire newletters only pdfs of excerpts, so from the half dozen I glanced at it's not clear whether there was a masthead or not.

Nowhere in the TNR's article does Kirchik say, "we asked Paul who the editor was". Instead all Kirchik will do is discuss how hard it was for him to find the newsletters at all in a self-congratulatory manner.

As I've said before here and at other sites, if Paul's a racist he should be treated as such. But if he's a racist, there should be more evidence than from a bunch of newsletters that are now 15 years old or older.

What has he said in front of Congress, or on TV? How has he voted? How has his care of patients been?

The TNR report really is a lot of smoke and mirrors.

Posted by: jerry on January 17, 2008 at 8:57 AM | PERMALINK

Maybe Kevin can ask Kofax to do the digging up of loopy conspiracy theories by Dr. Paul. Because of course there aren't any conspiracies, and so any intimation that there are is loopy.

Pay your taxes. God Bless America. Go USA.

Posted by: 白岩 on January 17, 2008 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

You get our foot in your face and you get to stay down there, wallowing in the slime and the obscurity from whence you came.

Pale Rider, I really am not too fond of people that describe how eagerly they will stomp their boots on other people's faces forever. It's a bit Orwellian. And so are vague accusations of racism.

Posted by: jerry on January 17, 2008 at 9:01 AM | PERMALINK

It's "Orwellian" to reject racist scum and reject their attempts at legitimizing their coded hate? It's "Orwellian" to reject an ideologue who preaches hate and intolerance?

I happen to think that standing up for the minority against vicious thugs and demented idiots is the American way.

I do not think that word "Orwellian" means what you think it means. You're probably just stupid on purpose, and for that you should be ashamed of yourself.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 17, 2008 at 9:20 AM | PERMALINK

As I've said before here and at other sites, if Paul's a racist he should be treated as such. But if he's a racist, there should be more evidence than from a bunch of newsletters that are now 15 years old or older.

How about a speech on the floor of the House in September of 2000 where that racist Ron Paul speaks out as the sole voice of opposition against the creation of a Holocaust Museum? It's kinda hard to reconcile that with the vicious anti-semitic comments that permeate his newsletters AND his acceptance of campaign funds from members of the "Stormfront" organization.

Maybe in your little world of sunshine and puppies it works, but in the real world, we just call it what it is. And it's fucking racist, dude. Deal with it.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 17, 2008 at 9:22 AM | PERMALINK

Well, jer, how 'bout a boot up the ass?

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 9:35 AM | PERMALINK

"Question: what's the difference between a "racist" and someone who was "complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists"? Nothing, as far as I can tell, except that at least the former is bit more honest about things."

By this reasoning, someone who is "complicit in a strategy of pandering to Christians," -- like, say, Mr. Bush -- is somehow a Christian.

That may be true, but it doesn't necessarily follow. Just like the sincerity of Mr. Bush's "faith."

Posted by: Laszlo Toth, Jr. on January 17, 2008 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINK

this thread apparently now has Paulsy

Posted by: perianwyr on January 17, 2008 at 10:13 AM | PERMALINK

My congratulations to all who withstood the onlsaught of the ignorant through the dark night. "O'er the ramparts we watched," etc.

I still haven't found among their semi-literate meanderings the answer to my question: Why, if Ron Paul is not a racist, or a hack willing to exploit the racist fears and beliefs of others, did he ever allow the racist swill Kevin cites to be published under his own name, in his own publication, "The Ron Paul Political Report"?

The man's a racist, entirely unprincipled, or both. Probably both, given his ridiculous views on other matters, mumbo-jumbo designed to appeal to the unlettered know-nothings of our country.

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 10:29 AM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider: You get our foot in your face and you get to stay down there, wallowing in the slime and the obscurity from whence you came.

Orwell speaking to Winston Smith: If you want a picture of the future imagine a boot stomping on a human face-forever.

And as I said earlier, as a Jew, I find nothing racist about what Paul said regarding his vote. It frankly seems to fit in with his libertarian philosophy, and seems damned brave to actually cast such a politically incorrect vote that way.

And once again, I will rely on Bernie Sanders, Independent, democratic socialist, Jew, Senator over some dubious Internet dog smearing people in a forum and threatening violence.

Posted by: jerry on January 17, 2008 at 10:56 AM | PERMALINK


Kevin:

Question: what's the difference between a "racist" and someone who was "complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists"? Nothing, as far as I can tell, except that at least the former is bit more honest about things.

Not defensible either, but if you care about logical distinctions:

A panderer by definition perhaps doesn't *believe* in the concept but promotes and tolerates it for various reasons, either to get support, put political pressure on someone/thing, needs someone's help for other reasons and overlooks that flaw etc.

I am opposed to careless mushing of categories and concepts, and that's no endorsement of what any actors in them do.

Posted by: Neil B. on January 17, 2008 at 11:07 AM | PERMALINK

And once again, I will rely on Bernie Sanders, Independent, democratic socialist, Jew, Senator over some dubious Internet dog smearing people in a forum and threatening violence.

See, that's the problem with Paultards. Don't put your faith in politicians--they'll just let you down.

Instead, vote for people who will best represent you, hold them accountable for what they do, and reward them with your vote if they do a good job. If not, participate in the process to defeat them by voting for their primary opponent or against them in a general election.

The way the Paultards want to do it, they want to construct a cult of personality around Paul and then scream down any attempt to hold Paul accountable for what he has done.

My position is that-ya'll aren't welcome at the table unless you reconcile this whole racist literature thing and quit taking money from Stormfront members.

And that boot, smashing the human face? You do realize that's just fiction, right? That it is the work of a man who was imagining a future, right? Because throwing quotes from Orwell around really doesn't accomplish much, other than highlighting why we don't think too much of your intellect.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 17, 2008 at 11:09 AM | PERMALINK

From yesterday's Counterpunch:

Ron Paul doesn't seem to know much about his own newsletters. The libertarian-leaning presidential candidate says he was unaware, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, of the bigoted rhetoric about African Americans and gays that was appearing under his name. He told CNN last week that he still has "no idea" who might have written inflammatory comments such as "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks--statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists--including some still close to Paul--all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

Tax filings from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared--roughly 1989 to 1994--Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic. To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul"accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.

Posted by: Brojo on January 17, 2008 at 11:14 AM | PERMALINK

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly Black and Unapologetically Christian... Our roots in the Black religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are an African people, and remain "true to our native land," the mother continent, the cradle of civilization. God has superintended our pilgrimage through the days of slavery, the days of segregation, and the long night of racism. It is God who gives us the strength and courage to continuously address injustice as a people, and as a congregation. We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a Black worship service and ministries which address the Black Community.

On the website of Barack Obama's church. You've got nothing on Ron Paul. We see your fear, because you know he has a chance LOL.

Topic: Political Correctness
Playing the racism card

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Phil Manger
(Libertarian)
Try, for just a minute, to imagine the following scenario. The New Republic, or some other stronghold of neocondom, has just discovered the website of the church Ron Paul has been attending for the last 20 years. At the very top of the site's home page is the following statement:

We are a congregation which is Unashamedly White and Unapologetically Christian...Our roots in the White religious experience and tradition are deep, lasting and permanent. We are a European people, and remain "true to our native land", the mother continent, the cradle of civilization...We constantly affirm our trust in God through cultural expression of a White worship service and ministries which address the White Community.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess what would follow. The story would be on all the evening newscasts, the neocon and Beltway libertarian talking heads would be all over the cable news channels expressing their disgust, and even the paleolibertarians would jump ship. No explanation he could offer would be acceptable. Ron Paul's campaign would be dead.

But if you just change "White" to "Black" and "European" to "African" you'll have the exact words that appear at the top of the home page of the website of the Trinity United Church of Christ, the Chicago church that Barack Obama has been attending faithfully for the past 20 years. Yet, so far the media — with the exception of a few conservative columnists — have given Obama a pass on his connection with this church.

The terms "racism" and "racist" are thrown around so much these days that they have effectively lost all meaning. Well, not all meaning. In fact it's very simple if you just remember that racism is what lies at the root of one's opponents' thoughts and actions, while one's own thoughts and actions arise from only the purest of motives.

The charge of "racism" is most often made by the Left against the Right. However, increasingly — and distressingly — conservatives are hurling the "racist" epithet at their opponents on the Left. There are so many examples of this, it is not necessary to provide links to them. Just Google "Alberto Gonzales" and "racist" to find some examples. Or go look up what some neocons have said about Ron Paul.

When Wolf Blitzer was questioning him about his old newsletters on CNN last week, Dr. Paul said "Libertarians are incapable of being racists, because racism is a collectivist idea". I don't know that I agree with the first part of that statement, but Dr. Paul should be forgiven because he was being ambushed with a question and had only a few minutes to answer it. (A much better exposition of his views on racism can be found on his campaign website.)

I think a libertarian can be a racist because I think anybody can be a racist. I don't mean a hooded, cross-burning, night-riding racist; just someone for whom race is a factor, however minor, in his or her personal decision calculus. Most people naturally prefer the company of people who are like themselves in most ways. They might not require the exclusive company of others like themselves, but they also don't want to associate exclusively with people who are very different.

Thomas Schelling, a Nobel laureate in economics, once proposed a game. Get a roll of pennies, a roll of dimes and a large sheet of paper divided into one-inch squares. Distribute the coins one per square on the sheet of paper, leaving about a third of the spaces empty. Adopt a rule: assume each coin wants at least some proportion — say, a third — of its neighbors to be of the same kind. Now find a coin for which the rule is not satisfied — i.e. less than a third of its neighbors are of the same kind — and move it to a square where it is. Repeat this step until all coins are on squares that satisfy the rule. When you get to this point, you'll find that the pennies have tended to cluster with other pennies, while the dimes are clustered with other dimes.

Under the rule adopted, these coins are very open minded — each is willing to live where up to two-thirds of its neighbors are of another "race". Nevertheless, the end result of this "invisible hand" process is that most end up living where all of their neighbors are the same.

The point of the game is to demonstrate how a pattern of racial segregation can result from the individual decisions of people whom hardly anyone would accuse of being racist. Which is one of the reasons the charge of "racism" is one that is almost impossible to defend against.

A person accused of being a racist can usually clear his or her name with the accuser only by agreeing with the accuser. Last week on The Huffington Post Earl Ofari Hutchinson demanded that Ron Paul issue "a clear and direct public statement...that says I fully support all civil rights laws, will work hard against racial and gender profiling, and will push government economic support initiatives to boost minorities and the poor" as the price for being absolved of the charge of racism.

In other words, the only way the libertarian Dr. Paul can prove he's not a racist is to abandon libertarianism and adopt Hutchinson's statist policy prescriptions. That's like telling a Christian televangelist whose assistant had swindled viewers that repentance and restitution are not enough — he has to renounce Christianity if he wants to be forgiven.

The significant point about libertarians and racism is not that a libertarian can't be a racist; it's that, in a true libertarian society, racism is irrelevant. A libertarian government would not have the authority to enact legislation that favors one racial or ethnic group at the expense of another because it would not have the authority to enact legislation that favors anybody at the expense of another.

Nor would the government have the authority to enact legislation to correct the results of "invisible hand" processes like Schelling's game. In fact, the mere attempt to do so would be not only racist, but futile as well.

An example of the futility and racism inherent in using the police power of the state to correct racial discrimination — intended or otherwise — resulting from individual decisions are laws prohibiting racial discrimination in employment. Since the hiring decision is multidimensional, a racist manager could claim any number of reasons for rejecting an applicant of the "wrong" race. Hence the need for affirmative action if the law is to achieve its desired effect. But, since affirmative action requires basing the hiring decision on race, it is itself racist (and most probably in violation of the law it is meant to enforce).

One of the silliest things a politician or pundit can say is that she/he opposes affirmative action, but supports laws prohibiting racial discrimination in employment. You can't have one without the other. If you don't believe it, consider this: age discrimination is against the law, too, yet it's rampant in the workforce. Just ask any computer programmer over 40. The difference is, there's no affirmative action based on age. Ron Paul is probably the only Presidential candidate in either party who understands this.

There are, of course, people whose attitudes about race go far beyond just feeling more comfortable around people who are like themselves. But is that necessarily something to get alarmed about? As long as they're not harming or threatening anyone else, why should we care? If they choose to act out their hatred by harming people of another race, then the government can act. Otherwise the government is trying to read minds.

Racism and racist are words that, through overuse, have lost their sting. They are what you say when you have nothing else to say. Probably the best thing for all of us would be to banish them from the language. Certainly, they add nothing constructive to political discourse.

Posted by: JOY on January 17, 2008 at 11:20 AM | PERMALINK

Racism and racist are words that, through overuse, have lost their sting.

No they haven't, Joy. If they had, you wouldn't have poured paragraphs of turgid prose into your comment. Empty charges of racism might not have much power, but Ron Paul allowed racist appeals to go out under his name for years. There is ample evidence of just what a racist, or an unprincipled hack, he is.

Moreover, charges of racism supported by the evidence sting because avowed racists do not go far in our national political process anymore. Their position was discredited decades ago. In Mr. Paul's case, moreover, his racist statements contradict his reputation as a defender of the Constitution, since racism is directly contrary to the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution. Paul is clearly willing to ignore the Constitution when it is to his political advantage to pander to his constituent's prejudices.

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 11:31 AM | PERMALINK

My, my, my, look at all the comments here on comments in a 20-year old newsletter nobody believes (including Reason) Ron Paul had written or had much to do with.

If you want to fault Ron Paul for negligence or naivetivity, fine. That's a fair criticism. If you believe that would make him a lousy President, that's fine as well. But a racist, homophone, anti-Semite? Laughable.

The story on these newsletters came out in 1996 when Paul was making his comeback and he's been re-elected six times since. Obviously the people in his district don't believe he's a racist either.

The cosmopolitians who want to beat this dead horse know all this so they're targeting those whom Paul associates with.

Well if that's going to be the standard upon which we judge the candidates, then why are there no attacks on Obama for the racist, anti-Semitic preacher of his church or the fact he had an ant-gay singer at one of his rallies? Or Huckabee for associating himself with the anti-Catholic, anti-Arab preacher John Hagee? Or Rudy Guliani who has a mobbed-up indicted and scandal-tarred Bernard Kerik working for him along with a pedophile priest?

Then again for some people, time stopped in 1963. Racism, like Communism or Islamofascisim is the boogeyman most referred to to stoke peoples fears.

Sometimes speed of the post gets the better of me.

Posted by: Sean Scallon on January 17, 2008 at 11:34 AM | PERMALINK

And Joy, if you think Paul's libertarianism means people are free to deny others jobs, places in public accomodations, voting rights, and so on, based on their race, just come out and say so. It's pretty much what your post implies -- that anti-discrimination laws are not consistent with Dr. Paul's libertarianism.

Because I think that view is nothing other than racist all by itself. The enabler of racial discrimination cannot shield himself from responsibility for the results of his or her views.

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 11:40 AM | PERMALINK

None of the ancestors of the congregation of Paul's church were slaves in America, but many might have been slave owners. They also immigrated to America. Most of the ancestors of Obama's church were slaves in America. They did not immigrate to America, they were kidnapped to America.

I am impressed with the statement by Obama's church. It is optimistic and does not express resentment to God for what He has allowed to happen to the Africans kidnapped and brought to America.

It is my opinion, and one I think Libertarians should share, that slaves are morally obligated to kill their masters. That the church Obama attends does not share this opinion and instead wants to trust God and use courage to fight injustice rather than violence, demonstrates their greater spiritual evolution.

Posted by: Brojo on January 17, 2008 at 11:45 AM | PERMALINK

I don't mean a hooded, cross-burning, night-riding racist;

Actually, you DO mean a hooded, cross-burning, night riding racist when you talk about Ron Paul:

Not all officials express alarm when discussing cross burnings. U.S.Rep.-elect Ron Paul, a Texas Republican from Surfside, described such activity as a form of free speech in some situations.

"Cross burning could be a crime if they were violating somebody's property rights,'' he said during his campaign. But if you go out on your farm some place and it's on your property and you put two sticks together and you burn it, I am not going to send in the federal police."

See, it kinda invalidates everything you say when we can come up with example after example after example that completely refutes everything you people claim to know about Ron Paul.

I would probably guess that I know more about Ron Paul-from the research I've done and the time spent on his congressional website-than more than half of these rabid Paultards and there's just no denying it-the guy is nuts. In the early 1990s he found kinship with racists and he's never abandoned or changed his views.

He's just been more cautious about revealing what he really thinks.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 17, 2008 at 11:48 AM | PERMALINK

If you want to fault Ron Paul for negligence or naivetivity, fine. That's a fair criticism. If you believe that would make him a lousy President, that's fine as well. But a racist, homophone, anti-Semite? Laughable.

You wish. It's not laughable because it clearly wasn't negligent. Paul's buddy (both then and now) Rockwell wrote this stuff for him to try to put together a coalition of prejudiced, ignorant Neanderthals, to advance his political career. Paul is a crappy politician just like Romney, willing to say anything to get ahead in politics.

The joke here is that you folks have been taken in by an ordinary politician willing to appeal to people's basest instincts when it suits him and to pretend to change when it doesn't. Remind you of anybody? Paul puts out racist swill he disavows. Giuliani supports gay rights then doesn't. Romney is for all-inclusive health care, then isn't. The truth is they're all the same. Think about that.

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 11:49 AM | PERMALINK

The Texans in Paul's district believe he's a racist, otherwise he would not be reelected.

Posted by: Brojo on January 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

...Obviously the people in his district don't believe he's a racist either.

His district? Beaumont, TX? LOL! You cannot get elected there UNLESS YOU PANDER TO RACISTS!

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 11:50 AM | PERMALINK

Is cosmopolitan some kind of dog whistle, Pale Rider? 'Cause I take it as a real compliment. As a description of someone who understands no only his own locale, but the world as well. Someone who is not constrained by local prejudices, like Dr. Paul and those to whom he panders.

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINK

elmo on January 17, 2008 at 1:29 AM: I deserved that, grape...

Oh, geez, no, elmo...It's kinda fun watching you and Pale take potshots at some of the kooks that have attached themselves to Paul...

Re: Ron Paul Racism -

So all this boils down to three different ways to consider Paul's interaction with racist entities in the past:

1) Paul's racism manifests itself in his newsletters, or
2) Paul knowingly pandered to racists in his newsletters to further his career, or
3) Paul had no idea what racists were writing in his newsletters.

All three options are bad...but the number (3) option is bad in a slightly different way...It paints the picture of an charismatic ideologue who is not aware or un-curious of what his associates are doing in his name. And people like that get used easily.

This, too, is not a good quality to have in a President. Positively Bush-like, in fact.

Posted by: grape_crush on January 17, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINK

"Question: what's the difference between a "racist" and someone who was "complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists"? Nothing, as far as I can tell, except that at least the former is bit more honest about things."

Best be careful with this definition given the course that Clinton seems to have taken.

Posted by: Sebastian on January 17, 2008 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINK

Cosmopolitan is a polite way of saying "high falutin'" and "hoity toity."

These idiots are going to be at this for days on end. We need to arrange a shift schedule and consolidate our efforts at beating back the latest Paultard invasion.

grape_crush--

It's hard to envision whether your option 3 is even believable--this went on for years. And we're supposed to believe that the man never read his own newsletter?

I think your option 2 is more believeable.

Posted by: Pale Rider on January 17, 2008 at 12:07 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks, Pale. Better a cosmopolitan than a prejudiced know-nothing, I always say.

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 12:10 PM | PERMALINK

Did you even read the comment? I didn't write the article.

Topic: Political Correctness
Playing the racism card

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Phil Manger
(Libertarian)

Posted by: JOY on January 17, 2008 at 12:13 PM | PERMALINK

Cosmopolitan was a slur used by the Soviets after WW II to identify Jews for another of Stalin's purges.

Posted by: Brojo on January 17, 2008 at 12:16 PM | PERMALINK

You don't believe what the article says, Joy? Why did you include it? I don't understand at all. Sorry. Try to be more clear, maybe.

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 12:17 PM | PERMALINK

Cosmopolitan was a slur used by the Soviets after WW II to identify Jews for another of Stalin's purges.

Good point. I hadn't made that connection, or maybe just a telling coincidence, or maybe not.

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINK

I think he's inadvertently shown the background his mind works with.

That, or you're saying all welfare receipients are Black.

Posted by: Juanita de Talmas on January 17, 2008 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINK

Although I agree that Paul is a racist, doesn't anybody else see a bit of a blind spot here: Obama had an openly homophobic minister up on stage throughout the South - isn't that pandering to bigots, and if so, doesn't that, by your logic = bigotry?

We need to judge everyone by the same yardstick. I think anti-gay is as bad as anti-black (and I happen to be straight, for what it's worth), and I think ANY bigotry by ANY candidate from ANY party should disqualify that candidate from serious consideration by thinking people.

Obama's refusal to kick this guy off, and the campaign's excuse: many blacks in the south agree with the minister's position - absolutely disgusted me. Imagine if the minister were anti-semitic or anti-white - would he have been on that stage for a nanosecond? I think not.

Obama's campaign showed immense hypocrisy, and I suggest that all the young yuppies who are supporting him are similarly hypocritical.

Posted by: Samuel on January 17, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

This thread is about Paul. In the Obama threads, people criticize Obama for his pandering to homophobes. Obama did not spend a decade writing or publishing homosexual hatred in a newsletter to energize a constituency, however.

Posted by: Brojo on January 17, 2008 at 12:37 PM | PERMALINK

I attack morons where it hurts them the most in language they can easily understand.

So you think that "bitch" and that "pansy" are reading this?

Posted by: Jenna's Bush on January 17, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINK

So you think that "bitch" and that "pansy" are reading this?

Who cares? Someone just like them is...

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 12:56 PM | PERMALINK

If Ron Paul is a racist, I'll take his form of racism (bring troops home, release non-violent drug offenders, abolish the IRS) to the racism of George Bush/Israel/CBSABCNBCFOX.

The Bush/Israel/Media racism is killing hundreds of innocents a day. Paul's racism just seems to annoy some politically correct fatasses in New York and DC.

Posted by: JD on January 17, 2008 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINK

[Trolling deleted. And my but your IP trace is interesting!]

Posted by: Jenna's Bush on January 17, 2008 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINK

See, JD, the Paul racial stuff says two things about him. First, he's pretty clearly willing to say anything, even dispicable stuff, to advance his career, just like, or even worse than, other politicians. So that makes his other stuff, like getting out of Iraq, not to mention a really impossible goal, abolishing the IRS, seem really suspect. When you analyze it, it's all crap. I suggest you get yourself a candidate who isn't a charlatan.

Posted by: David in NY on January 17, 2008 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

Jenna, go shave your bush. Nice spin job, cracker...

Posted by: elmo on January 17, 2008 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK

David in NY: "I suggest you get yourself a candidate who isn't a charlatan."

Like Hillary, Obama, McCain or Huckabee? LOL!

No thanks. I'll take Dr. Paul. His strengths far outweigh his faults. That can't be said of any other candidate.

Posted by: JD on January 17, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Pale Rider on January 17, 2008 at 12:07 PM:

It's hard to envision whether your option 3 is even believable--this went on for years. And we're supposed to believe that the man never read his own newsletter?

Not my options, just the various things we are being asked to believe...and the third slot is occupied by the Paulite's arguments that he didn't know what the hell was going on in his organization...which is a crappy argument that says nothing good about Ron Paul: He may not be a racist, but he's able to be easily duped for a long period of time or just doesn't pay attention.

As for what I personally believe? I'm somewhere between all three options: Paul leans racist, does little to discourage racist groups from attaching themselves to his 'revolution', and that, as his own special flavor of libertarian, he's not very concerned about how the how the implementation of his ideas would work in the real world.

Posted by: grape_crush on January 17, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

There's a lot of confusion upthread. Libertarianism means minimal government (which I am suspicious of) and therefore no rules making restaurant owners let in blacks, no punishment for cross-burners, etc. It doesn't mean they are racist, anymore than if they support drug legalization, they are drug dealers. Enablers? Maybe, inadvertently, and such results count as counterarguments v. libertarianism per se but not a reflection of proponent's character or intent. We're supposed to be the careful logical thinkers, remember?

Posted by: Neil B. on January 17, 2008 at 1:56 PM | PERMALINK

[Your personal threat has been deleted, your IP has been recorded, and comments are now off. --Moderator]

Posted by: Stephen on January 17, 2008 at 2:03 PM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly