Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

“Governments never learn. Only people learn.”     Milton Friedman

December 21, 2007

Why The Ron Paul / Stormfront Issue Bothers Me

by Brad Warbiany

As most readers of this blog know, I’ve pretty well stayed out of this issue. I’ve never been all that interested in stupid political theater, preferring to deal with the ideological issues instead. I’m a lot more of a policy wonk than a political chess player.

That being said, Doug’s criticism of Ron Paul’s handling of the Don Black contribution has brought a lot of traffic here, and most of it to rip him a new one. And Doug and his detractors largely appear to be talking past each other. So, as a Ron Paul supporter who has some issues with the campaign’s handling of this issue, allow me to try to bridge the gap.

First things first: I don’t believe Ron Paul has any racist intentions, I don’t believe Don Black’s contribution buys any favor from Ron Paul, and thus the contribution itself doesn’t bother me. As one blogger/commenter (Don LLoyd) stated, it’s a lot better that Don Black doesn’t have $500 than if he does, so I’d almost rather see Ron Paul do something with that money rather than return it to Don Black.

The Ron Paul campaign, of course, has been clearly stating that the contribution carries no promise that Ron Paul will work to enact any of Don Black’s racist policies, and thus I don’t think that a guilt-by-association should be a valid criticism of Ron Paul here. I would say that those who criticize Doug firmly believe what the Ron Paul campaign has said– as I do– and think this is much ado about nothing.

The problem is that there’s a blind spot when you get to the American public. Ron Paul can speak until he’s blue in the face about how the contribution doesn’t buy favor with him. But the public doesn’t believe it. They’ve heard that tune before. It’s what every politician says when an issue like this comes up, and then the public watches as the politician gets elected and rewards those contributors.

I don’t believe Paul would do that. Ron Paul’s supporters don’t believe Ron Paul would do that. I don’t think Doug Mataconis believes Ron Paul would do that. But does the American public believe that? After watching politician after politician break similar promises and guarantees, why should they believe, considering the little that they know about the man, that Ron Paul would be any different?

Ron Paul is attempting to fly above all this as if it can’t touch him. It’s a dangerous gamble, and one that I personally believe to be a bad decision. I like the idea of taking that $500 and donating it to a charity that is opposite Don Black’s goals. That has the ability to placate all sides in this mess. Ron Paul gets good press, he wipes his hands clean of Don Black without actually giving Don Black his money back (to be used for unknown/nefarious purposes), and a worthwhile charity gets a nice bit of press and $500. For all that, Ron Paul doesn’t need to scrutinize his donor lists. After all, with the internet watchdogs on the case, these things come up on their own, without the campaigns having to work to uncover them. Everybody wins.

Ron Paul had the chance to take a negative issue and spin it into a positive. Instead, he’s taking that negative issue and treating it like a non-issue. That might be acceptable if you’re polling at 40%, but not when you’re polling at 7%. Doug’s posts indicate to me that he believes the Ron Paul campaign is being run badly. Issues like this make me think the same. I want to see Ron Paul win the nomination and be elected President. However, I believe that this issue will turn off the American public, regardless of Ron Paul’s integrity. I worry that this issue is scuttling Ron Paul’s chances to win the nomination, and that is why I’m pained to see how it’s being handled.

TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2007/12/21/why-the-ron-paul-stormfront-issue-bothers-me/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •

167 Comments

  1. Ron Paul’s election and subsequent effectiveness as President is dependent upon the electorate being able to think for themselves.

    Donating the money to charity is the equivalent of taxes which pay for welfare.

    As long as we premise our politics on the basis that the electorate is incapable of thinking for themselves and therefore lacking in personal responsibility then we may as well join those who support a nanny state.

    I hope that Ron Paul continues to uphold his principles. The electorate is either ready for true change or it isn’t.

    Comment by Commenter — December 21, 2007 @ 9:20 am
  2. You make some valid points. But I believe it was Ron Pauls decision to not return the money. The reason is because he sticks to his principles. He will always follow the constitution as his track record for the past 30 years will show. Unless you believe that the constitution will somehow promote racism then I don’t see the problem.

    Now I know that the biased media will use this to their benefit. All you have to do to hurt a candidate is say their racist. I do have a problem with hate groups donating money to the best candidate. I find it suspicious that the guys name is Don Black and some other neo nazi that said Ron Paul supposedly met with him and his name is Bill White. If you know anything about Politics you will know that their are agents that are used to keep opposing candidates from ever getting a chance to win the election. My belief is this is what has happened with all of this. You have to remember that Ron Paul ran against the first George Bush. And GWB went out of his way when Ron Paul was running for Congress is 1996 to back a democrat against Ron Paul. They used some of the same tactics back then against Paul. Anyone who knows Ron Paul though knows he is an honest person who will work for the citizens.

    Comment by Jared — December 21, 2007 @ 9:21 am
  3. Brad,

    I think you’ve stated the issue rather well.

    As for my own opinions on how the campaign is being run, they are what they are, but I’ve discussed this with other people I know who have been involved in the operational side of politics and from their point of view returning the money, or donating to a charity, is a no brainer.

    Like I’ve said, one second of bad publicity on this issue isn’t worth whatever they’ve spent Don Black’s money on.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 9:22 am
  4. Jared & Commentator,

    What is it about libertarian principles that requires the Paul campaign to accept money from anyone regardless of who they are ?

    Yes, anyone has a Constitutional right to donate to whatever campaign they want (or at least they should, the FEC notwithstanding). That doesn’t mean that the campaign has a legal or moral obligation to accept the money.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 9:24 am
  5. Well when you return the money you set the stage for an easy way for this to happen in the future. I think they should allow him to donate the money to charity. But I think it is against the law to do so. To me that would constitute money laundering. And you don’t want to be involved in that.

    Comment by Jared — December 21, 2007 @ 9:29 am
  6. I disagree because I think the only people that have heard of Ron Paul, that are inclined to vote for him fall into two camps. Those that ardently support him and they know the truth and his principles, and those that know very little about him but were convined by a friend or family member to go to the polls and vote for him. In this way, the media blackout helps because those that know little about him will not hear about this, or they’ll hear it in conjunction with Ron Paul’s reason and it will make sense to them for the same reason it makes sense to us.

    Every time a news org says he’s not giving the money back they couple it with, “he will instead use it to advance liberty.” No harm, no foul. The only people making issue of it are bloggers who most people don’t bother with, and those bloggers are arguing semantics or smearing him. Anyone who falls for smears hasn’t made it past the racist newsletter article from the 90′s and isn’t on the bandwagon anyway.

    If Ron gets the nomination he will come under heavy scrutiny and the opponent will probably try to use both instances against him. Then every news org in the world will interview him on it, and as expected he will say the same thing he has always said and the People will understand.

    By the way, is any news org talking about Huckabee’s animal hatred? There’s two things people can’t stand, those who hurt kids and those who hurt dogs. If it comes to light that hsi son killed a dog violently and Huck covered it up, game over for him. That’s way worse than not returning money from assholes.

    Comment by Bones — December 21, 2007 @ 9:34 am
  7. Commenter:

    Donating the money to charity is the equivalent of taxes which pay for welfare.

    What?!

    What does that even mean? That makes no sense whatsoever.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 21, 2007 @ 9:36 am
  8. A charity that is opposed to his goals? Like what? The “Blonde Women mating with Black Men Charity”? The “Fill America Up with More Minorities Charity”? The Increase Interracial Crime Charity”?

    Comment by Teak Jolson — December 21, 2007 @ 9:36 am
  9. What many people fail to understand about Ron Paul is that because of his strict constitutional pro state rights philosophy, he appeals to a huge base. Black supports Pauls stance on the issues not because Paul is a racist but rather because he is the only candidate that’s against supporting Israel and illegal immigration and pro 2nd ammendment.
    On that note, Paul also appeals to muslims for his anti Iraq war stance. He also appeals to anti war groups. He also appeals to fiscal conservatives. He also appeals to gamblers and potheads and wallstreet types and brothel owners. Paul also appeals to pro life types and homeschoolers. Paul also appeals to gun rights advocates. I can go on and on about the list of his supporters.
    The truth of the matter is that Ron Paul is right, freedom unites everyone. The message is powerful. Ron Paul has been elected into congress 10 times in a row. Ron Paul is a true populist in the sense that he appeals to the largest base of Americans. I think he knows what he’s doing and wouldnt worry about it so much. Freedom is popular. :) By the way, notice how he was asked to be on Neil cavuto’s show just for this hit piece after Ron Paul rakes in 6 million dollars? They are afraid of him, and it shows.

    Comment by SteveNYC — December 21, 2007 @ 9:40 am
  10. Your points are well taken, but I still disagree with you on this. What we have here is typical Ron Paul, an opportunity to educate. He is using this to show that the sheep mentality used by other candidates in which they return such donations because of “bad press” is fundamentally stupid. And “washing their hands” of the supposed misdeed by contributing the cash to another cause is more of the same “spin” that we all hate about politics. In the real world, if a bad person gives money to a good cause, it is an act of redemption, a sign of hope. Ron Paul is exactly right in doing what he is doing.

    Comment by Dwight — December 21, 2007 @ 9:40 am
  11. No, libertarian ideals do not require someone to accept a donation.

    But in Ron Paul’s case, he’s not campaigning to be some private entity. He’s campaigning for president, and if he wins he’ll be president for everyone here, even those people we do not like. As such, I believe that he is obligated to do so.

    Unlike some who, should they win, will only be president for their own little demographic slice and will only listen to them (and then as little as is politically acceptable), Ron Paul will listen to all of us, if I judge his character correctly. Does that mean he’ll do anything more than listen? Depends on what the citizen’s concern is. If it’s something worthwhile, I expect him to do something about it, and if it’s more racist stormfront tripe, I expect him to give it just enough attention to be polite, and then ignore it.

    I would rather that the man include everyone, rather than deciding who gets to be part of his little club. If you want some tight-knit little ideological group that refuses to listen to anyone who doesn’t spout the party rhetoric, then go join redstate or dailykos. We have a chance to do things differently this time around.

    Comment by John O. — December 21, 2007 @ 9:44 am
  12. I agree with the author. It would be very sad if Pauls stubborn refusal to give in to the critics and return the money cost him the presidency. I am just hoping he is waiting ofr the best moment to return it and have a press conference doing it.

    Comment by joshuabrucel — December 21, 2007 @ 9:44 am
  13. i disagree strongly, i am as black power as they come should paul send my cash back? the only thing i see in don black is a anware citizen. i worry more about the halliberton types giving millions.

    Comment by keith — December 21, 2007 @ 9:48 am
  14. Does the federal govt. return Don Black’s income tax? How about his sales tax, property tax or gasoline tax?
    How can we the poeple sleep at night knowing that our government is collecting and using tainted funds from Don Black?

    That must mean our government endorses racism and stormfront.
    IT’s only 500 bucks!

    This whole issue is retarted!

    Comment by Lyle — December 21, 2007 @ 9:50 am
  15. I have faith in the American People.

    They aren’t as dumb as everyone thinks!

    Comment by pope — December 21, 2007 @ 9:54 am
  16. THESE RACISTS ARE AN ISRAELI FRONT!!! Here is the proof! http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/whitesupremicistisisraelishill.php

    Comment by Chris Mcdonell — December 21, 2007 @ 9:58 am
  17. Maybe Paul is not returning it because he agrees with some of Stormfront’s policies, like their deeply rooted anti-Semitism and desire for a border wall with Mexico. Strange bedfellows, politics is, says Yoda.

    Comment by Miguel von Stromlich — December 21, 2007 @ 9:59 am
  18. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/whitesupremicistisisraelishill.php

    Comment by Chris Mcdonell — December 21, 2007 @ 9:59 am
  19. Yoda is an Israeli who puts the needs of Israel above those of American children. http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/whitesupremicistisisraelishill.php

    Comment by Chris Mcdonell — December 21, 2007 @ 10:00 am
  20. lyle – your comments are very astute… does our federal gov’t endorse racism by accepting Don Black’s income tax…
    very good

    Comment by a patriot — December 21, 2007 @ 10:01 am
  21. Chris, that is too funny. You are saying that this is an Israeli plot? That Israelis have infiltrated Stormfront to make Paul look poorly? Good God, some conspiracists will go to any length to twist reality. I suppose the Israelis snookered Black into posing for a photo with Paul? LOL. Thank you for my morning entertainment.

    Comment by Miguel von Stromlich — December 21, 2007 @ 10:01 am
  22. Couldn’t disagree with you more on Paul’s response. Our excitement and commitment to the man is fed by his consistent refusal to play Washington’s games. He said it himself, it’s pandering and he’s not going to do that. He’s no Romney.

    Comment by CJ — December 21, 2007 @ 10:04 am
  23. Chris, you are a prime example why irrational Israel haters have found common ground with Israel-hating white nationalists. You do realize that holding hands with Nazis makes you, well, kind of like a Nazi?

    It would appear as if some of Paul’s base is idealogically in the same camp as Stormfront.

    Comment by Miguel von Stromlich — December 21, 2007 @ 10:04 am
  24. TEFLON RON,
    I just want to scram in your face! Mass Media, is this what your talking about! The dollar is falling Kuwait abandoned it and now all the Arab countries are colluding to use the Yen and the Euro. The problem is so severe! And a $500 donation is all I can see from Mass Media. I want to scream in your face! Arrrrrrrrrrrgh! Maybe this will get your attention, SEX SEX SEX! See, I got you! Gisele Bundchen, the Victoria Secrets supermodel, refuses Dollars and demands to be paid in Euros. My G-d, do you realize what the hell is happening to our currency. I’ll get your attention by screaming, SEX, SEX, SEX! Our currency is going down the toilet. I’m mad as hell!
    The smears won’t stick!

    Comment by Ralph Z — December 21, 2007 @ 10:06 am
  25. “I like the idea of taking that $500 and donating it to a charity that is opposite Don Black’s goals.”

    Exactly WHAT charity?

    Can we go through the other candidate’s donor lists and force them to give any donations by anyone attached to the millitary industrial complex to charities for peace?

    It makes absolutly no sense whatsoever.

    I’ll tell you what, this Black guy and his web site have certainly gotten their $500 dollars worth of attention.

    Comment by doogie — December 21, 2007 @ 10:12 am
  26. What about the Clintons accepting $500 THOUSAND+ from Chinese gangsters…?

    Comment by Johnny Buddha — December 21, 2007 @ 10:13 am
  27. Just because your a moron and don’t know the issues does’nt make me a conspiracy theorist. The ADL and The Southern Poverty Law center have been caught red handed staging these rediculous Neo- Nazi rallies where 8 to 10 trailer park retards show up dressed as Hitler. Then CN shows up with a satelite up -link and a camera crew that out numbers the “Nazis”. Who the hell even knows a Nazi? I sure don’t. THat’s because they don’t exist except in the pro-Israeli Media. Thousands of Ron Paul fans Rally all over the country but you don’t see that on CNN. If you don’t think that Israel inserts propaganda into the American Media your a complete idiot. So, yes you’re an idiot.

    Comment by Chris Mcdonell — December 21, 2007 @ 10:16 am
  28. A Google of the $500 donation story brings up 198 hits, whereas the TeaParty07 story brought up only 142 hits. It is clear what the mainstream media is interested in doing Ron Paul. However, Ron Paul is correctly using an “any news is good news approach” which in the end is good beacuse he needs to increase his name recognition before the Iowa Caucus.

    Comment by William Patton — December 21, 2007 @ 10:16 am
  29. Not to mention the fact that President Bush’s grandfather was a director of a bank seized by the federal government because of it helped bankroll Adolf Hitler’s rise to power.

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,100474,00.html

    Why aren’t the neocons denouncing Bush and telling him to give his familly fortune to charity?

    Ah, yes. Because it is only political theater.

    Comment by doogie — December 21, 2007 @ 10:18 am
  30. The next huge “money bomb” organized by Ron Paul’s supporters is set for Jan. 21 to commemorate the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to the struggle for individual liberty. Please contribute:
    http://freeatlast2008.com/

    Comment by Jim McClarin — December 21, 2007 @ 10:18 am
  31. You are expecting Ron Paul to act like a “politician”. Any politician would return the money or pass it up to a charity.

    Why would he be doing what a politician would do, when his appeal comes from the fact that he never acts like a politican, except maybe to participat ein elections?

    Comment by kerem tibuk — December 21, 2007 @ 10:19 am
  32. the next money bomb is new years eve 2.8mil goal

    Comment by jimmy lala — December 21, 2007 @ 10:22 am
  33. Kerem,

    Um, Ron Paul is a politician.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 10:24 am
  34. But in Ron Paul’s case, he’s not campaigning to be some private entity. He’s campaigning for president, and if he wins he’ll be president for everyone here, even those people we do not like. As such, I believe that he is obligated to do so.

    This is, quite honestly, nonsense.

    I the increasingly unlikely even that Ron Paul is elected President, there are going to be people who don’t support him and who will say, as people do about W and did about Slick Willie, that he is not “their” President.

    Besides, I don’t want Ron Paul to be President of Don Black and his racist cadres. There isn’t a single thing they believe in that any sane President should support.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 10:26 am
  35. Doug Mataconis,

    Black also contributed to Bush in 2000. You have been living with the President of Don Black and his racist cadres for the last 8 years.

    Comment by doogie — December 21, 2007 @ 10:30 am
  36. On the contrary, Brad, knuckling under to the mainstream media’s insistence on political correctedness is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

    This event goes back to October and the media has now attempted to bring it up several times in three-week intervals. Every time time the concensus is the same as your opinion: Ron Paul has way too much integrity to be influenced by political contributions, any one and every one who knows him will tell you that’s true. Let the American people learn it as well, because THAT’S EXACTLY THE KIND OF MAN THEY’RE LOOKING FOR.

    If this is the catalyst necessary to bring Ron Paul to their attention, great.

    Bring on the Rosa Parks Congressional Gold Medal issue, too.

    Comment by Robert C — December 21, 2007 @ 10:32 am
  37. My view on the situation is somewhat different. In short, I believe that Paul doesn’t care who Black is and doesn’t care who cares who Black is. It’s unpolitical, sure, but I think this is a case of Paul providing enough respect for Black as a citizen of this country and a supporter of his campaign not to throw his money away.

    Black doesn’t fully support Paul’s policies, because Paul is not a racist in any way, but this makes him like a lot of supporters. They may not agree with every last one of his issues, or just a piece of it, but they still support him. Paul treats Black like everyone else in that he doesn’t care what Black does beyond supporting his campaign or who knows about it, and that makes Paul a bit more above other candidates in my eye. I’d rather have someone who’d judge an issue objectively rather than give in to the demands of bloggers.

    Paul could give back the money, I suppose, it wouldn’t be against his values, but I find it amusing when people suggest donating to charity. Wouldn’t the charity, then, be accepting dirty racist money? According to popular thought, would not the charity be ‘enabling’ white supremacists? People would argue, ‘Of course not! They’d use it for far better purposes’. But that’s also one of Paul’s arguments for keeping the money.

    Comment by Randy — December 21, 2007 @ 10:34 am
  38. I’d have to disagree with Brad. I think it may actually harm him in the long-run. Supposing he makes it through the nomination process, his single greatest strength is his authenticity. At a time when we’ve had president after president who has lied to us, this will be his greatest weapon. Brad mentioned that people won’t believe him because they’ve had so much experience with dishonest politicians. I’d argue that the opposite will be true if he makes it through the nomination process. It’s true that most people don’t know much about him. If he makes it through the nomination process he will be on the front page of every newspaper and on every radio and television show. They won’t be able to ignore him then. If that happens, everything about him will be scrutinized. What people will then find is that he has been very consistent, often to a fault. I’d say that given the current political climate, with people being disgusted with Democrats and Republicans and the President and Congress, his authenticity will be a suit of armor against any attacks that his opponent, whomever he is, will throw at him. His weakness doesn’t lay in his consistency. His weakness lays in his political and economic beliefs. His political beliefs MAY be an issue. Libertarianism brings to mind selfishness and greed in many peoples’ minds. His economic beliefs, as solid as they may be, are probably beyond the scope of most peoples’ understanding. I can only hope that he doesn’t provide any opportunities for his opponents. While the coverage that he may get for giving the donation to a charitable group may be good in the short-term, I think it will hurt him in the long-term.

    Comment by Justin Bowen — December 21, 2007 @ 10:42 am
  39. Hey man,

    I understand your frustration, but I don’t think you’re right about the voters getting the same line from every politician. Any other politician would throw the money back limp-wristedly and hide his head under a pillow. I think you should look at it this way:

    The same unorthodox, maverick method of campaigning and unwaivering dedication to his philosophy of governance that drew you to Paul is also going to make you cringe from time to time. He just doesn’t pander and he just doesn’t succumb to groupthink.

    But in the long run, you *want* him to be the anti-politician politician. You *don’t* want him to give the money back because that’s exactly what the press wants him to do, and its what they want *you* to want him to do. You know that if it weren’t for the mainstream press, you wouldn’t care. So don’t let them control you too.

    As for mainstream America, it remains to be seen whether they’ll get on board with Paul. But I suspect that they don’t care either. Either way, we need to find out whether America can vote for someone who sticks to his guns. So let him stick it out. I wouldn’t have Paul sell the very things that makes him Paul just because Neil Cavuto is pressing him under Rupert Murdoch’s whip. Breifly, those things are:

    1) Imperviousness to groupthink.
    2) Unwillingness to pander.

    I think you should get back on your blog and post a new post about how you’ve changed your mind. We have to keep the revolution strong and we need to have faith in Dr. Paul. But the last thing we need is for him to turn into a pandering-ass pussy.

    Comment by Grizzle Griz — December 21, 2007 @ 10:47 am
  40. I’m trying to imagine someone who “gets” all that Ron Paul stands for, the urgency of his message, and necessity of his ultimate success, but won’t vote for him because he didn’t satisfy someone else’s scruples in handling Don Black’s contribution.

    Can’t do it.

    Comment by Anthony Flood — December 21, 2007 @ 10:59 am
  41. I take a slightly different view about Don Black and other white separatists: I want them under the big umbrella. I don’t want people who feel alienated from the rest of society to be even more ostracized. I personally beleive that equality and fairness for all is the way to go, and I feel that history has shown us that things have been moving in that direction in popular culture. Let people like him in as long as they behave themselves. Hey, they might make some new friends, and don’t laugh, I’ve see it happen.

    Comment by David — December 21, 2007 @ 11:09 am
  42. Here’s the problem – if Ron gives back that money, Ron is agreeing to screen his donations for unsavory sources and decline their donations. While that sounds like a good thing, it ALSO means that any donations Ron does not return ARE endorsements. That means every bad donation he overlooks will come back to bite him.

    Ron is doing the right thing by simply accepting any and all money from everyone – and making it clear that it will be spent on Ron’s message regardless of the source.

    While I do agree that the typical politician reacts the same way, and that the public does not trust easily, I think they will give Ron the benefit of the doubt based on how well he keeps to his word. The man has integrity, something most other politicians lack.

    Comment by Don — December 21, 2007 @ 11:11 am
  43. I’m African-American, but I believe racists should be able to involve themselves in the political processs as much as anyone. Just as long as politicians do not sell government influence. Ron Paul one of the few candidates that meet this criteria, which is why none of the others could get away with this. There is a level of transparency with Paul that does not exist with the others.

    The focus should be placed on other candidates who do indeed seem to offer themselves up for sale. How has it come to pass that raising hundreds of millions of dollars is acceptable, but 500 dollars from a single man is not. If you speak out against anything Brad, that should be it. This acceptance of the poltics status-quo is the real enemy, but it will not be changed unless people like you fight that perception.

    Comment by silus — December 21, 2007 @ 11:19 am
  44. [blockquote]Besides, I don’t want Ron Paul to be President of Don Black and his racist cadres. There isn’t a single thing they believe in that any sane President should support.[/blockquote]
    The issue is whether he supports their right to believe it.

    Comment by tejón — December 21, 2007 @ 11:25 am
  45. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis noted that the marketplace of ideas is necessary for true democracy to work. “The best and only cure for bad speech is sunlight.” That way the best argument can come from the depiction of each side and show how stupid these racists are. It’s much better they don’t have that money to spread their lies and instead are giving it to someone who upholds the Constitutional rights of ALL races. You can’t filter freedom but you can fight bad words with pure ones and let people come to the right solution themselves.

    Comment by TJ — December 21, 2007 @ 11:26 am
  46. Funny I don’t see anyone griping about the large sums of money given by special interest groups, i.e. drug company and weapons makers, to the other candidates. Far more danger is attached to those donations than a white supremacist or brothel owner. I hope Al Sharpton doesn’t give to Ron Paul. What a shit storm that would bring. Maybe I shouldn’t give Al any ideas. Look what he did for his long time friend Don Imus! And on that thought Don Imus would be a good endorser.

    Comment by mike — December 21, 2007 @ 11:29 am
  47. Doug’s a loser, this white supremist story is months old, all it shows is how desperate the MSM/Corporate media is, its pathetic.

    Here’s an article thats just as pathetic as doug

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/neonazi_complains_about_ron_pa.html

    Comment by Max — December 21, 2007 @ 11:31 am
  48. TJ,

    Your argument is a complete non sequiter

    Nobody is talking about restricting Black’s right to free speech.

    The question is whether Ron Paul should have accepted the donation once it was discovered who it came from and what that person believes in.

    The only sensible answer is no.

    9/11 Truthers, and neo-nazis are not people that one should deliberately, even passively, associate oneself with.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 11:31 am
  49. Max,

    Call me what you will, but I’m just commenting on a post that Brad made.

    I happen to think that Brad’s right, of course.

    And none of us has mentioned the allegations that the link you posted talk about.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 11:33 am
  50. It’s interesting that Ron Paul is running a campaign that says, “I want government out of your lives, you should be able to make decisions for yourselves” and his supporters are often quick to respond by saying “Yes, but we will tell you how to run YOUR life (and campaign).”

    Ron Paul is running a campaign on individual liberty, so in the spirit of that message, let the guy do whatever he feels is best for his own campaign and stop trying to “help him.”

    It’s the same thing the government does when they (with good intentions) “help us” by telling us how to run our own lives.

    Comment by Nathan — December 21, 2007 @ 11:34 am
  51. “9/11 Truthers, and neo-nazis”

    Your equating 9/11 truthers to Neo Nazis?

    So because someone questions the official 9/11 story,you equate them with nazis? I see

    Comment by Max — December 21, 2007 @ 11:35 am
  52. Max,

    Willfully ignorant 9/11 truthers who believe in conspiracy theories that come from men who ought to be wearing tin hats do not deserve to be taken seriously.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 11:36 am
  53. Nathan,

    Just because one is free do something doesn’t mean one ought to do it.

    Libertarians are not nihilists.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 11:37 am
  54. Virtually every donor to Dr. Paul, including myself, probably holds some view that the candidate would consider to be morally unacceptable. For instance, I support abortion choice. Where is the line drawn? Should Ron return my donation because many Republicans consider my support for abortion to equal support for murder? So long as the contributions are legally and ethically made, the opinions of their sources should be of no consequence to the candidates. Millions of American racists contribute each year to political campaigns, including those of liberal Democrats, but the media make an issue only of the contribution to Ron Paul.

    Dr. Paul has clearly stated his antipathy to racism, and his libertarian philosophy is anti-racist by definition. On the other hand, most members of the MSM are outright racists in that they support racial quotas, affirmative action, and other policies that reward people based on their skin tone.

    Comment by Nicolas Martin — December 21, 2007 @ 11:38 am
  55. FYI:

    http://blog.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2007/05/do_tell_ron_paul_on_babies_pro.html

    “Sleuth: If you were to defy the polls and the odds and win the nomination, who would be your running mate?

    Paul: Well, I don’t know, but if I won, you know, I’d want a recount. You know, lets be certain about what’s going on here.

    But a running mate. Somebody like Walter Williams. Walter Williams is a very good economist. John Stossel, John Stossel would be good.”

    …Seems to me that Ron Paul knows more about and cares more about the opinions of Walter Williams than he does about the opinions of Don Black. How many other Republican candidates would publicly state that they would have Walter Williams as their VP?

    Comment by Kyle — December 21, 2007 @ 11:38 am
  56. http://blacks4barack.blogspot.com/2007/10/nyc-councilman-former-black-panther.html

    why aren’t you writing about obama?

    oh, i know why… you’re a hypocrite jumping on a fake bandwagon with nothing interesting to say.

    Even if it were true, which it isn’t don black is a made up nazi, he is allowed as an american to give his money to whoever he wants.

    giving money back from crooks just means you’re pandering to score PC points.

    This is silly.

    Comment by hypocrite — December 21, 2007 @ 11:39 am
  57. Nicolas,

    Racists and people who deny the historical truth of the Holocaust do not belong at any political table.

    It’s that simple

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 11:39 am
  58. Hypocrite,

    Because Obama isn’t calling himself a libertarian.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 11:40 am
  59. No doug I was just pointing out the american thinker piece because its pathetic, just like you

    Comment by Max — December 21, 2007 @ 11:43 am
  60. Max,

    Why am I loser ? Because I don’t believe the 9/11 Truther nonsense ?

    Well, if that’s why, then I’ll wear the label proudly.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 11:45 am
  61. “who believe in conspiracy theories that come from men who ought to be wearing tin hats do not deserve to be taken seriously”

    Then why does popular mechanics, the history channel(two hour documentary) etc feel they have to address the issue, if its a non issue?

    Comment by Max — December 21, 2007 @ 11:47 am
  62. Oh no doug, your a loser because your tear down the most pro liberty candidate in your life time, thats why your a loser.

    Comment by Max — December 21, 2007 @ 11:49 am
  63. Max,

    I didn’t say its a non-issue, merely that the people who continue to believe in those particular conspiracy theories are, well, either willfully ignorant or just plain nuts.

    Popular Mechanics and the History Channel pretty much debunked every argument the so-called “Truthers” make, as I am sure you are well aware.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 11:49 am
  64. Max,

    Its not Ron Paul that bothers me, it’s his supporters.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 11:49 am
  65. “it’s his supporters”

    I mean because we have nothing to be mad about right?

    You mean his supporters who just made history this week by raising over 6 million dollars in one day making history? You mean those supporters?

    Comment by Max — December 21, 2007 @ 11:53 am
  66. The problem with your solution to this potential bad decision is that it involves “spin” (your word). Ron Paul tries to avoid spin, though it is impossible to do so completely. It seems to me that Ron Paul is not interested in winning at any cost. Some of the posts here seem to be motivated by winning at any cost. That is the very approach that characterizes the corrupt nature of the country’s status quo. I would like for Ron Paul to win because he spoke honestly with the voting public, pandered to no one, and did not budge on his political philosophy or the integrity with which he is running his campaign.

    Is that naive? Perhaps. But at some point, it is important to stand firm, even when your friends are telling you to compromise.

    Comment by Jay Hershberger — December 21, 2007 @ 11:57 am
  67. “Ron Paul is attempting to fly above all this as if it can’t touch him. It’s a dangerous gamble, and one that I personally believe to be a bad decision.”

    if ron paul returned the money he would still be tainted. the problem with the ‘guilt by association’ is that no matter what you do, you can’t get rid of it. because your guilt is precisely in the association itself, and not in the type of association. once the association is made it can not be unmade – denials just reinforces the perception that there exists a connection. it is phenomenon well documented in psychological research.

    perhaps you are correct that american public can do no better but base their decision on associations of this kind. well, if so, they will do so to their peril. there is nothing that ron paul can do or could have done about this once the association has been propagated through the media.

    Comment by anica — December 21, 2007 @ 12:12 pm
  68. It would alienate Paul’s base of support to return the money. He can’t afford to alienate his hardest working volunteers who are attracted to him for exactly this type of rational/ethical behavior.

    If he gave back the money, he would be pandering. He would be trinagulating that it will earn him more votes to pay Black $500 measly bucks than to spend Black’s $500 measly bucks. I couldn’t be happier to canvas, blog, donate, and support a candidate like Paul. I feel honored to be associated with his campaign.

    Comment by rhys — December 21, 2007 @ 12:23 pm
  69. It would alienate Paul’s base of support to return the money. He can’t afford to alienate his hardest working volunteers who are attracted to him for exactly this type of rational/ethical behavior.

    How is returning money to, and repudiating the support of, a raving lunatic racist alienating Paul’s base of support ? Surely you’re not suggesting that Paul’s supporters agree with morons like Don Black, are you ?

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
  70. This whole thing is a non issue. These people have already explained why they are backing Ron Paul; due to his stance on Illegal immigration issues and border security. It has been a few months since the MSM trotted this out the first time but IIRC they see him as the only candidate who won’t cave to special interests. Admittedly for different reasons but I also feel that controlling illegal immigration and securing our borders are valid and important issues, should I reject logic simply because some undesirables agree with it. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    Comment by Dan — December 21, 2007 @ 12:30 pm
  71. You can’t apply regular standards to a man of unwavering principle. His consistent, obstinate stand on principal is what makes him attractive. He made a decision based on principle, and that is the end of story. He won’t pander to the media.

    Comment by Casey M — December 21, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
  72. They can’t beat him with ideas but they can smear him with this. Why isn’t everyone attacking other people’s supporters? What’s the problem? I’m sure there are enough racist to go around. Heck, I bet some truthers support Democrats too. People need to hire some private detectives and find out all about everyone who donated and shove it up each candidates ass.

    Comment by uhm — December 21, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
  73. When the Paterson NJ crackhouse surveillance tape comes out the worm is going to turn and he is going to be holding a noose. I can’t wait to watch them dance……..on air.

    Comment by Dominic Suter — December 21, 2007 @ 1:06 pm
  74. Doug, people don’t give back donations like this because they’re not racists. They give back donations like this because they’re afraid of the criticism they’d get. The reason it would alienate his supporters is because it proves two things:

    A. Ron Paul doesn’t care what the hell you do in your free time.

    B. Ron Paul will continue not to care about what the hell you do in your free time, even if everyone knows it and they think it’s horrible and demand that he starts caring about it.

    Short of anything illegal, anyway. And those two things are a lot of his appeal.

    Comment by Randy — December 21, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
  75. Ron Paul would be guilty of denying Don Black his freedom, and rights as a United States citizen to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign if he returned this donation. The way I see it as do most other people, if Ron Paul returned this $500.00 donation, he would fail those who are true Libertarians. I am proud of Ron Paul, and all those that think he is making a mistake by not returning this donation, need to think very carefully about it, and stop worrying about what it looks like to others.

    One of the comments made here by Commenter sums it up perfectly:

    I hope that Ron Paul continues to uphold his principles. The electorate is either ready for true change or it isn’t.

    Comment by Commenter — December 21, 2007 @ 9:20 am

    Comment by Tess — December 21, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
  76. The fundamental argument in this entry is that Paul should pander to win votes, not stick by principles.

    If Paul has gotten any attention at all, it is because he sticks by his principles.

    The principle is that each individual should not have to pass a litmus test in order to be able to donate to their campaign of choice.

    You know it’s a bizarro world when this issue gets almost as much attention as the $6,000,000++ Ron Paul raised in one day from over 58,000 individual donors.

    I’ve said more on this at my own blog. I think you can access it by clicking my name.

    Comment by Matt Dioguardi — December 21, 2007 @ 1:16 pm
  77. This sentence:

    Ron Paul’s election and subsequent effectiveness as President is dependent upon the electorate being able to think for themselves.

    Is pure genius by one of the repliers. This entire candidancy “hinges” on that reflective and well thought out point of view.

    Comment by grizzlybite — December 21, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
  78. Randy,

    And if I believed that racists deserved to be part of mainstream society and have their views taken seriously, I’d agree with you.

    Don Black has a First Amendment right to spout all the white power nonsense he wants to. I have the First Amendment right to think he and his supporters are nuts and unworthy of serious consideration.

    And as for the contribution, well, its obvious that most of you don’t understand why it was a bad idea to accept it and I’m done arguing about it.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
  79. Good doug, because you have as much credibility as the MSM whoars do, which is none ROFL!!!

    Comment by Max — December 21, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
  80. Doug,

    I completely agree that you’re completely within your rights to speak against racists. I think genuine racists, the sort that Don Black definitely is, are pretty screwed up people. But they’re still people.

    You and I disagree on this, and there’s little I can do to change your mind on it, but I don’t think accepting a donation from Black is giving him ‘serious consideration’. The only thing it’s doing is respecting him as far as that piece of the campaign is concerned. It has nothing to do with his beliefs, or whatever values he has, merely his worth as a citizen of this country. Which is what our government’s supposed to be all about.

    Paul isn’t going out there shooting for the supremacist vote. The ones that are on his boat are usually there for the same reason everyone else is, they don’t agree with all positions, but like a few or most of them, but support him anyway.

    All a donation says is that this particular person supports this candidate, and he’s willing to put his money where his mouth is. All Paul can really do is say ‘Thank You’, take that money, and put it toward what it was intended to be put toward: Paul’s campaign. There’s no pandering, just a simple respect based on what common views are shared. In this, I think Paul’s attempting to set an example, and it’s an example I wish a lot of the other politicians would take. That, at least in my opinion, is equality.

    The First Amendment doesn’t shield Paul from this, I’ll completely agree, because he’s an individual free to do whatever he wants. But he’s not doing this for himself, and he’s not imposing his personal views on his supporters. That’s the sort of example people see and are attracted to.

    Comment by Randy — December 21, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
  81. Tess,

    Ron Paul would be guilty of denying Don Black his freedom, and rights as a United States citizen to donate to Ron Paul’s campaign if he returned this donation.

    Can you explain this further?

    Let’s say I was running for Congress, and Don Black donated a nice crisp $100 bill to me. If I stood on national television, said I didn’t want his dirty money, held up a lighter and burned that $100 bill, how have I taken Don Black’s rights or freedom away?

    Is this any different than sending the $100 back to him?

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 21, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
  82. Doug and Brad,

    I think that John O. nailed the problem a lot of people have with the Stormfront/Paul pieces precisely. Ron Paul understands that if he’s elected president, he’s representing everyone, and as such it’s actually rather un-Presidential (and unwise politically) to start rudely throwing donations back at people just because they’re not the “right” kind of donors. Most of the time when this issue gets brought up by the mainstream press, it’s a red herring…a topic that lazy journalists write about when they’ve got nothing else brewing and are looking to stir the shit. Kind of like how they write stories about some politician on a business trip stops in a casino to gamble legally so they can insinuate that somehow he’s somehow a closet scumbag and degenerate gambler, even though he’s not doing anything wrong by merely being at a casino. It’s pointless moralizing, often hypocritical considering how morally contradicted a lot of reporters are, and it’s rarely relevant to anything important.

    The question to ask here is, is Ron Paul actually endorsing racist philosophies by accepting their donation? Both of you seem to agree that he isn’t. In his defense, Doug never implied that he was. So why the constant stories? From my own perspective, it came off more as Doug being offended that his preferred candidate was accepting campaign contributions from people Doug doesn’t like…people who weren’t the “right” ideology…so he continued to beat the dead horse to provoke a negative response, which he received.

    My problems with that are a) Paul isn’t a racist but these constant stories from the Liberty Papers linking him to Stormfront help add to the perception of less-informed voters that he is which undermines the only pro-liberty candidate in the race, b) while I can sympathize with Doug’s dislike of the Stormfront folk, his personal preferences as to how Ron Paul runs his campaign haven’t really got anything to do with promoting a pro-freedom agenda, and most importantly c) as much as I dislike Stormfront and their prejudices, I find it more distasteful that a libertarian has taken it upon himself to start demanding that a man running for President start going out of his way to exclude divergent views from having input into the political process (via their campaign contributions). It’s a very thin line between aggressively fighting for your ideology and demanding that someone else not be allowed to express theirs and I feel that these Stormfront pieces have gotten to the point of crossing that line. Just because somebody is a racist or a Nazi doesn’t mean they can’t hold similar positions to libertarians on some pro-freedom issues (right to free association, right to free speech, limited government). This group has chosen to donate money to a candidate who opposes many of their core beliefs and the money will be used to help advance a pro-freedom agenda…I don’t see a reason to continue to spit on them for doing so. Nor do I see a reason to continually take Ron Paul to task because he chooses not to do so, even if we personally think it was the wrong move. If Doug has a problem with Stormfront and wants to attack their ideology in regards to their racist or supremacist views, fine…that’s in line with a pro-liberty position and I’m happy to jump on board. This campaign contribution “story” isn’t…it’s about a group of pro-freedom people who happen to like Ron Paul being upset that he hasn’t accepted their unsolicited campaign advice, which he’s under no obligation to accept. I think we’ve gotten to the point where we’re more interested in dictating how Ron Paul should sell his issues to the people (which isn’t really our prerogative, it’s his) rather than discussing what those issues are and what they mean (which is what’s really important if Doug’s looking to help the pro-freedom cause). It’s losing sight of the forest for the trees.

    Comment by UCrawford — December 21, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
  83. Ron Paul received contributions from over 100,000 different people this quarter. He received $18,000,000 from those 100,000 people. His support is wide and deep. Look around your town and notice you see RP signs everywhere. Grab a cup of coffee and go to http://freeme.tv

    Comment by Mayberry — December 21, 2007 @ 1:51 pm
  84. Anthony,

    I’m trying to imagine someone who “gets” all that Ron Paul stands for, the urgency of his message, and necessity of his ultimate success, but won’t vote for him because he didn’t satisfy someone else’s scruples in handling Don Black’s contribution.

    Can’t do it.

    As I said in this article, I am a Ron Paul supporter. I plan to vote for him in spite of his handling of this issue.

    But it takes a lot more than the die-hard supporters to become elected. And if the mainstream voters don’t trust Paul because of his handling of this situation, they won’t pull the lever for him. That’s bad for all of us, because Ron Paul, who I believe would be a good President, would then not be elected.

    Comment by Brad Warbiany — December 21, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
  85. Clinton gets another $380,000 of shakedown money from illegal immigrant Asians…isn’t this a bit more “newsworthy”?

    P.S. She has not returned the money…yet.

    Comment by SRQFlorida — December 21, 2007 @ 2:08 pm
  86. I don’t think anyone who disagrees with me on any issue should be able to donate to, or participate in, federal elections.

    Therefore, only I am eligible to vote (a lot of people agree with me on some things, but not all…they are disqualified unfortunately).

    I am going to vote for myself.

    You all suck.

    But especially the douche who runs this site.

    Comment by Me — December 21, 2007 @ 2:11 pm
  87. Crawford,

    Here’s how I see it……libertarian ideas have enough trouble obtaining mainstream acceptance, being associated, however tangentially with troglodyte racists and the 9/11 nutroots doesn’t help the situation at all.

    Comment by Doug Mataconis — December 21, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
  88. Brad,

    …Donating the money to charity is the equivalent of taxes which pay for welfare…

    I take this to mean, & I could be totaly out in left field, that his donating that money because of our political pressure, is the same as the IRS taxing us for welfare. That simple. It’s now HIS money and we’re telling him what to do with it. Only difference? We won’t arrest him & imprison him if he doesn’t comply.

    There are some good points made in this thread, and the best, I think, is the point made that it is a DONATION! Nothing more, nothing less. WE, don’t have to feel good about it. WE, just have to get him elected. I’m just curious which piece of gov’t land the Bush’s & the Clinton’s promised Black if he donated the money as a means to create an issue with which to TAKE PAUL DOWN! Just kidding. I keep having flashbacks of the movie “Wag the Dog”.

    Comment by Tom Brown — December 21, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
  89. Which charity would you suggest that he donate the money to? That in itself could backfire.
    Where did this story surface from anyway? It’s not as if Ron Paul’s campaign offered up this information. Someone started digging for dirt really hard after the record breaking contribution day.

    Also, Black didn’t donate the maximum amount, so it’s not as if he’s an ardent supporter.

    In my opinion the whole story is stretching “newsworthy” status. I’m not concerned about Ron Paul’s integrity, but I do have very serious concerns about the major publications that ran this as serious news.

    Comment by Seth M — December 21, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
  90. Doug,

    You’re not going to change the perceptions of people about the libertarian ideology by ripping people for donating money to the cause and you don’t do it by portraying your most visible candidate as a naive idiot (which he isn’t). You change peoples’ perceptions by convincing people why the beliefs you and the candidates you support espouse are good for them.

    Ron Paul’s been running successful political campaigns longer than many of us have been around. I’d respectfully suggest that we should leave the running of his presidential campaign to him as well unless we’re actually looking to become active members of that campaign or running our own…I can understand the interest in discussing the strategies of the election but he’s in a far better position to determine how effective what he’s doing is than we are and I think continually harping on his strategic choices becomes little more than armchair quarterbacking that serves no constructive purpose.

    Comment by UCrawford — December 21, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
  91. “I don’t believe Paul would do that. Ron Paul’s supporters don’t believe Ron Paul would do that. I don’t think Doug Mataconis believes Ron Paul would do that. But does the American public believe that?”

    Then it is high time for the American public to be educated by Ron Paul on this subject instead of being pandered to.

    Comment by Ken H — December 21, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
  92. It goes something like this. I, myself am a traditional liberal democrat, socialist ideologies if you will. This Nazi, Mr. Black, is the complete opposite as me, holds to a fascist ideology. We both contribute to Ron Pauls campaign as individual donors knowing that the platform is a Libertarian/Constitutionalist agenda. Do I think and expect to buy Ron Paul’s support for a socialist agenda. I think not. Does Mr. Black think and expect to buy Ron Paul’s support for a fascist agenda. I think not.

    What the Libertarian/Constitution do provide is a means to put both in check. I do not want a fascist/neo-con/nazi state any more than Mr. Black wants a socialist/communist state.

    America is at a tipping point and the markers are set for one or the other to have total control of the country. In other words to put it plainly the end of the republic as we know it. Freedom gone, liberty gone, it’s over. I don’t know how plain that can be to any reasonable person from either the right or the left.

    How we got here is all of our fault because we all believe we are right and others are wrong. Would we all rather destroy this country for Mr. Blacks right wing Republican agenda or my left wing Democratic agenda. What Ron Paul is offering all of us is a way to bring it back to the middle. The true middle, not dilluted by ideologies from the right or left.

    I would think that the founders were not much differnt than any of us. How is it that they were able to overcome the same dilema that we face today. Do we not have it within us to achieve what the founders where able to in their day. If not, then we as a people do not deserve the Republic the founders gave all for.

    Comment by Todd Schuller — December 21, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
  93. You wrote: “I like the idea of taking that $500 and donating it to a charity that is opposite Don Black’s goals.”

    Well, that is pretty ironic, because Paul’s campaign is the exact opposite of Don Black’s goals.

    Comment by Brian — December 21, 2007 @ 2:35 pm
  94. Holy Toledo!!!
    -The US Debt as of 21 Dec 2007 09:54:27 PM GMT is: $9,137,821,032,164.29
    -Congress this week approved $70 billion to fund these “Illegal Activities” oversea with our taxpayers moneys.
    -We have a runaway government, spending out of control etc.

    And here we are; “In Discussion” of a minute donation from someone which Dr. Paul has no clue and/or does not his/her view. Wow!!!

    We need to come to our senses!!!

    It’s been quite long now that here we have this honorable man, 72 years of age, devoted his public life to serving his country, has a great vision for future America, knows what the problems of our current corrupted branches. And has a clear ideas to solve them, shares a (fundamental and constitutional) message of Freedom, Prosperity and Peace.

    Who knows maybe, just maybe that $500 would help remove that life-support from our “Liberty Lady” which she’s wearing for centuries now…

    Comment by Leonardo — December 21, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
  95. “I the increasingly unlikely even that Ron Paul is elected President”

    Hey, Doug, when was it more likely that Ron Paul would be elected President? I think it is more likely now, while still a long shot, than it was six months ago.

    Doug, your rhetoric is sometimes over the top.

    Comment by Ken H — December 21, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
  96. “The only sensible answer is no.”

    Actually, Doug, the only sensible answer is yes. You have constantly harangued the Paul campaign. Why don’t you find some other horse to beat? Your act is getting very, very old.

    Comment by Ken H — December 21, 2007 @ 2:43 pm
  97. Where should denying funds from Don Black end? Should we not use his tax dollars either?
    Should we force him to trade through some other means with only racist people like himself?
    Like Paul, I abhor racist views, but we live in a free nation where people like Don Black are allowed their right to pursue hateful rhetoric.

    Comment by Seth M — December 21, 2007 @ 2:44 pm
  98. “Here’s how I see it……libertarian ideas have enough trouble obtaining mainstream acceptance, being associated, however tangentially with troglodyte racists and the 9/11 nutroots doesn’t help the situation at all.”

    Well, you sure do keep stoking the fires about it, Doug. If you think this $500 contribution is so harmful why do you bring it time and time and time again? It’s almost like you enjoy political self-flagellation – if you really are a supporter of Ron Paul and of libertarianism.

    Comment by Ken H — December 21, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
  99. I disagree with everything in this article. Ron Paul has too much integrity and honesty to give the money back OR to donate it to a “charity.”

    The money was given from a supporter to his candidate and for Ron Paul to spend the money any differently than how he has been and will be spending that $18.5 million would be dishonest.

    Think about it, what if he decided to drop out and gave $18 million to “charity.” EVERY SUPPORTER WOULD BE CRUSHED AND ABANDONED. You dont spend others money for purposes other than it was intended and thats exactly what the honorable Ron Paul has said AND has and will do.

    Comment by Aaron — December 21, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
  100. Anybody who thinks this is an issue of any significance is just allowing themselves to be manipulated by the press (and probably white). Look, this was a 3-month-old story that suddenly came up again because AP wrote about it. It was merely an attempt to drown out some of the good publicity he was getting from the $6 million. This is how the MSM controls the people in our government, and I’m glad RP is immune to it. There is no issue of public perception here — it is an illusion.

    Comment by Tracker — December 21, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
  101. In appreciation of an earlier post, a new “journalist” should uncover the story of Mr. Black paying taxes and the Federal Government REFUSING TO GIVE THE MONEY BACK!

    Comment by Aaron — December 21, 2007 @ 3:13 pm
  102. There is a simple solution to the problem for a Ron Paul supporter that is convinced that the $500 should be returned, but cannot convince Ron Paul of this. Simply set aside $500 of his intended suport for Ron Paul and instead give it to Stormfront. Announce it with great publicity. Money is fungible, it all comes out in the wash.

    It shouldn’t need to be said, but DON’T TAKE THIS
    SERIOUSLY.

    Regards, Don

    Comment by Don Lloyd — December 21, 2007 @ 3:45 pm
  103. Quit whining.

    Comment by Ryan from Philadelphia — December 21, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
  104. What is this Don Black character getting for his $500? Hits on his web site. Every time some fools writes about this ‘issue’ some other fools learn about stormfront and check it out. Money well spent I guess…

    However, with that said, I do beleive Dr. Paul when he states that he will use this money (along with my donations as well as other’s) to do good for ‘All’ Americans, not just White Americans, Black Americans, Brown Americans, Yellow Americans, Green Americans, or those freaky Purple Americans. All!

    The biggest problem I have with this writer’s opinion is that it is based on their belief that the ‘public doesn’t believe it’. Why? Because the public is too stupid to think for themselves and only beleives the MSM. Which of course is exactly what the MSM wants us all to believe.

    Comment by Earle in Virginia — December 21, 2007 @ 4:46 pm
  105. “And as for the contribution, well, its obvious that most of you don’t understand why it was a bad idea to accept it and I’m done arguing about it.”

    you don’t have any special access to the “how truly bad idea this is” except the reasoning and facts that you made public. most of us understood very well why YOU THINK that this was a bad idea. most of us (myself included) disagreed with you, for various reasons that were elaborated at length. to say that “we just don’t get it” amounts to stipulating that you must be right regardless of any arguments actually raised.

    Comment by ana — December 21, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
  106. So seriously….let me get this straight. Out of the thousands that donate to Ron Paul (or any other candidate for that matter) any time the media decides to pick through the bunch and hand select a donor with poor morals/ethics etc. The candidate should return the money? That is not only silly, but how foolish for anyone to even still be talking about it. I seriously can’t believe what I am reading!!????? WOW!

    Comment by Ryan — December 21, 2007 @ 4:57 pm
  107. There is a good article explaining the situation. Perfectly logical and is *exactly* what I would do if I was in Ron Paul’s place…

    http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59294

    And I’m a brown skin! If the voting public cannot see the reality behind the spin then I’m sorry, they deserve the leaders they get. Hopefully, they’ve learned from their mistakes. (endless wars, amnesty for illegals, reckless spending on welfare and entitlement programs, the sinking of our currency and national treasure etc.)

    Go Ron Paul!

    Comment by Indian-American — December 21, 2007 @ 5:18 pm
  108. Nonsense. The public can see right through the politics and demands for political correctness. This only helps Paul even more. They’re tired of political correctness and predictability in candidates. That’s on the greatest appeals of the Paul campaign.

    Comment by Drena — December 21, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
  109. Doug- “Besides, I don’t want Ron Paul to be President of Don Black and his racist cadres. There isn’t a single thing they believe in that any sane President should support.”

    It’s because of crazy talk like this that you have no credibility. That statement is meaningless. If they support protecting the environment and the Humane Society, or lower grocery prices or locking up child molesters then only a sane President would scramble to reverse himself on those issues? Really? You say it’s Paul’s supporters that you have a problem with. So, if a few are obnoxious you get to judge all the rest? You are simply being stubborn and arrogant.

    Let me approach the issue another way. If we were talking about a black American that had racially separatist views, my reaction is not to attack them. Rather, I would leave them be and allow them to their right to freely associate, and hope that in time they would become less radical and more integrated, not to attack and isolate them and by so doing make them MORE radical and hateful. I can do this without endorsing their views. As long as a person does not cross the line into criminal behavior it works out for the best FOR EVERYONE if they are not persecuted for their beliefs.

    Comment by David — December 21, 2007 @ 5:36 pm
  110. Gee, Don Black sure got a lot of press for his $500, huh? USAtoday’s “Ron Paul will use white supremacist’s $500…” remains the top Google news search return at this hour.

    I had not heard of Don Black or Stormfront before all this hand wringing sillyness over a measley $500 donation was made. And of course the frothy MSM picked it right up to milk its supposed shock value = ratings = $$$

    This is not Dr. Paul’s first campaign. All the Dear Abby’s out here with your free advice, well it’s worth every cent to him, isn’t it? Yeah, y’all sure know better than some old guy who’s actually done it more ‘n once already and is doing it again. Y’all are pretty funny!

    Make a donation instead. Oh that’s right, that’s what this is all about. But somehow THAT donation is less acceptable than any other donation.

    Any of ya that are holding out for the good doctor to roll over on this red-herring attention-wasting issue before you’ll vote for him, well you’re gonna be blue in the face first.

    Are you going to let yourself get sucked into a guilty-by-association canard just to lose sight of the goal?

    Freedom is inclusive. People are going to be and are free to do things you don’t agree with. Let’s hope they grant you the same freedom to do things they don’t like you doing either. Along with the exercise of freedom MUST BE the exercise of tolerance. Otherwise we get things like the prohibition amendment.

    It is this same Carry Nation moralist mindset that wants to advise, or impose if possible, their limited morality onto a morality which is vastly far more encompassing of everyone’s freedom.

    “I may not agree with what you say, but I defend your freedom, your right to say it.”

    Ron Paul defends Don Black’s right by accepting his donation even though Ron doesn’t agree with Don’s philosophy. (As has been noted elsewhere, W Bush gives lie to the ‘white supremacist’ myth anyway.)

    Dr. Paul doesn’t have to defend himself to me for adding Don’s $500 to his campaign warchest. If Don didn’t donate at all he’d still get the benefit of a Ron Paul presidency. ANYONE who want’s to help Ron Paul beome POTUS is welcome to do so because I get the benefit of a Ron Paul presidency, too. Yes, and even brothel owners, too.

    Freedom really does bring us together. Why does it surprise some of you who you find yourself under this Freedom Message tent with? Or, to use another metaphor, at the same table with?

    Freedom’s just a hollow idea without tolerance, y’all.

    Can we move on now? Have you become a GOP delegate for Ron Paul in your state yet?

    ~PS

    Comment by PapaSmurerf — December 21, 2007 @ 5:44 pm
  111. Sorry Doug, the good Dr. is not a politician, but a statesman. There is a stark difference.

    Comment by cuthbert1776 — December 21, 2007 @ 6:08 pm
  112. Notice how the issue of this donation came back up again immediately after the Dec 16 Tea Party, though it was already old news? Doug, you’re stirring the sh1t for effect, just like the MSM.

    It’s obvious to me, that Ron Paul is trying his best, along with his supporters, to reduce the power that the MSM has in the election process. For the good of the country, it’s a fantastic idea.

    Comment by Paul — December 21, 2007 @ 6:19 pm
  113. $500 wouldn’t even buy the toilet paper for the Clinton Campaign. I can’t believe the despiration of the press that they would even publish such trivial BS when everyone knows the coruption of other candidates is profound. How petty! Part of Ron Pauls message on freedom is that you are entitled to your opinion. He may not agree with you but he will defend your right to freedom of expression.

    Comment by Rand — December 21, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
  114. I think that the whole issue is a non-issue at all. It is taken to the level of an issue by people who have no other method of attack on Ron Paul because he has no skeletons like Huck or Mitt or Rudy do.

    The unassailable wall of his character must be gone around and not attacked directly. It is a Trojan horse of an issue. I say burn the horse and do not let it in the gate.

    With over 120,000 donors to his campaign and counting Ron Paul should not allow the attack hounds in the media to set what is politically correct. Otherwise they will spend the entire next quarter pulling one person or another out of that huge bag of donors and running them up the flag pole to see who salutes. Paul can not afford to waiver on this issue. Burn it right now and he is.

    Comment by libertyman — December 21, 2007 @ 9:20 pm
  115. Brad, you don’t seem to get it: whether “every politician says when an issue like this comes up” is irrelevant. Ron Paul does what Ron Paul does. He’s a man of principle. He doesn’t care that you or anyone else finds his position unattractive. He’s a true individualist. You should know that by now.

    Comment by K — December 21, 2007 @ 10:05 pm
  116. I THOUGHT YOU GUYS WERE GONNA KNOCK THIS SH!T OFF!

    Comment by stackdad — December 21, 2007 @ 10:38 pm
  117. I liked your post. It was fair, reasonable, and made good points. I still disagree. Ron Paul works because he doesn’t play the political game.

    “But the public doesn’t believe it. They’ve heard that tune before. It’s what every politician says when an issue like this comes up, and then the public watches as the politician gets elected and rewards those contributors.”

    The success of Paul will ultimately depend on his reputation that he is not part of the establishment, that he is a statesman rather then a politician.

    It is refreshing to see someone who doesn’t pander. Will the general public reward him? I don’t know, but Paul isn’t playing politics. Paul is being Paul and that is the best we can hope for. If he gives on this, cracks will appear on his wall of integrity.

    People don’t trust politicians. The real question to ask is whether the people will see a statesman. I have faith they will. If they don’t, then no president can save our country–not even Paul.

    Comment by lem — December 22, 2007 @ 1:26 am
  118. If the American public can get ‘turned off’ by Ron Paul’s correct decision to keep the money, they do not deserve Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul did the right thing to keep the money. Ron Paul has guts and principles – something which man people, and not just politicians, lack. Ron Paul is the best hope for America.

    Comment by Richard Wei — December 22, 2007 @ 3:45 am
  119. David has a good point which I would like to redirect everyone’s attention to:

    I want them under the big umbrella. I don’t want people who feel alienated from the rest of society to be even more ostracized. I personally beleive that equality and fairness for all is the way to go, and I feel that history has shown us that things have been moving in that direction in popular culture. Let people like him in as long as they behave themselves. Hey, they might make some new friends, and don’t laugh, I’ve see it happen.

    This is really the domestic side of Dr. Paul’s point about foreign policy (to wit: we have more influence and success with Vietnam etc. when we talk with them and trade with them)

    I think David is saying that the same is true with individuals that hold ideas we find repulsive. I am saying that if kick people out of the movement, hold them up for public ridicule, and generally behave like an a$$, then we will have no chance of ever convincing them that were wrong.

    I know from personal experience that neo-nazis can see the light realize the error of their ways and become decent people, I saw a few examples during my tenure as an LP state chair.

    I also know that not every neo-nazi is neccessarily violent, nor is every one neccessarily against other races. Some are simply in it for the shock value, some are just pro-my race, some are in it for the economic values (socialism, and nationalism)

    My point is that as wrong as I think they are, banning and ostracism is not the answer. Conversation and shared goals is the answer.

    Every dollar that a so-called “neo-nazi” donates to Ron Paul, is a dollar they can’t donate to John “toilet” Bowles (the pres. candidate for the real Nazi party of America), every minute they spend waving signs for Dr. Paul is a minute they can’t wave a swastika. Perhaps they will look around the crowd of faces with them, and begin to realize that not every Jewish person is a member of the secret cabal. That is the day that they will stop being neo-nazis.

    Diplomacy and Trade = Conversation and Events.

    Sanctions and War = Ostracism and Condemnation.

    The first is more likely to acheive your goals than the second.

    Later.

    Comment by Kevin Houston — December 22, 2007 @ 5:28 am
  120. Here’s the problem with you’re argument. You’re missing the whole point of what Ron Paul stands for. He doesn’t sit back and contemplate what others might think of his actions., and how he can adjust his actions for maximum exposure.

    Comment by Alexl — December 22, 2007 @ 6:17 am
  121. I think we should be getting far more upset about the much larger sums of money coming from special interest groups to other candidates such as Labor Unions, etc. They are obviously trying to buy influence. $500 from Mr. Black is not going to buy any influence from a person that is the most principled person running for President. I wish all the people who keep bringing this up as an issue would start digging into other candidates fundraising and start talking about all the black spots on their fundraising. This is ridiculous to think that other candidates are not getting money from some less than perfet people as well. If you are going to rant about Paul’s campaign then do the same about the other campaigns as well on this issue. I am also pretty sure that other candidates are getting far more money that is actually trying to buy influence (and likely doing so) than the Paul campaign.

    Comment by TerryP — December 22, 2007 @ 8:34 am
  122. Ron Paul has a 30 year track record of no compromise and sticking to priniples.

    Everyone wants him to lose his integrity over this stupidity. The problem is people have never seen a man with integrity in politics.

    The press at least is writting about him, instead of ignoring him. The press is lazy and incompetent. Ron Paul has his events listed and they press could give him plenty of normal coverage but they choose to try to discredit him now.

    “First they laugh at you, then they attack you, then you win” Ghandi.

    We are in the hard attack mode now.

    Comment by Dale Legan — December 22, 2007 @ 8:39 am
  123. DID YOU KNOW? RP voted against congress spending $30,000 to give Rosa Parks the Medal of Freedom (I believe?) vote 435 to 1. BUT DID YOU ALSO KNOW that he voted “No” to congress giving RON REAGAN that same Medal (saying the constitution does authorize congress to spend tax-payer money in such a way) BUT INSTEAD he suggested that every congressman give $100 out of their pockets, as you may of guessed–THEY DIDN”T VALUE ROSA THAT MUCH as they all declined!

    BUT According to your logic maybe he should of voted for Rosa, for with all the money waisted in D.C. what’s THE BIG DEAL. PLUS Knowing how the media will spin this (not reporting anything about the REAGAN medal) calling him a Racist instead! But regardless of the Pressure (435 to 1) and the “back-lash” HE STOOD HIS GROUND.

    So even though most of us (myself included) would of voted Rosa the MEDAL, would of given the $500 back or donated it to charity all to “SAVE-FACE.” RP has NEVER been concerned with SAVING FACE! Never worried about what the “smart” thing to do would be…

    THEREFORE Seeing a man with “GUTS” with “courage” is what is exciting, it’s what being an AMERICAN is all about!

    You are calling on him to become “PC” on THIS ONE. I say “NO”. That’s not Revolutionary and that’s not Ron Paul! BRAVO, RP! BRAVO!!

    GO RP 2008…”COURAGE for America”

    Comment by Rob Lilly — December 22, 2007 @ 8:44 am
  124. Paul supporters must express outrage to the campaign.

    This is the end of the line for not only his campaign but his political future. He must change course, fast.

    He absolutely must openly reject the support of neo-nazis.

    What does he say when a reporter asks him if he’d accept $500 from a terrorist or a convicted mass murderer? There is absolutely nothing “principled” in saying you’ll take money from ANYBODY (except a registered lobbyist). As far as i can tell, he has taken money from select PACs and corporations, so what criteria does he use? And the counter-argument about “screening” is a poor deflection.

    It doesn’t seem principled to reject taking money from a lobbyist (simply for being registered as lobbyists) and then to openly take in money from individuals who coordinate neo-nazi groups internationally… a toxic “special interest” group if there ever was one.

    The $500 itself isn’t the issue. It is that he refuses to reject contributions from somebody like this. What if a known terrorist supporter wants to contribute? However folks feel about Paul, it is not a tenable position to basically say you’ll take money from ANYBODY (except a registered lobbyists).

    Furthermore, he’s done two things in that Fox interview that will simply destroy his political career, if not corrected immediately.

    First of all, he suggested he never heard of this guy and doesn’t even know his name. That’s a hard case to sell after months of this being in the media, not to mention the photo with him and Black together. That’s such an extremely serious credibility matter that it is a career killer. He may not be able to undo the damage done there, honestly.

    Secondly, he also implied during that interview that “the REAL evil” were the lobbyists. This was a very poor attempt at deflection. I had to re-watch it a few times. I respect the point he was trying to make, but to use the words “the REAL evil” while deflecting the significance of a donation from the foremost neo-nazi ORGANIZER on the planet… is arguing one of the most significant political flubs I’ve seen in a long long time. If I noticed this subtle implication, I’m quite sure many, many, many others did as well.

    I am not sure why the mainstream media and other candidates haven’t ripped into this full-force just yet. I suspect some very powerful lobby groups and political agents are preparing war on this matter (and how could they be expected let this go?). This is a softball topic for the three leading GOP contenders to chime in on.

    Ron Paul absolutely must clearly, explicitly express not only his disgust for these groups and ideologies, but that he doesn’t want their money and support. AND support. Yes, the last thing he needs is an ‘online poll’ documenting how he’s doing so well due to redirects from this hate website.

    For those who value having Ron Paul in the debates and top tier of our political dialog, it’s time to speak out and to make it clear that this position isn’t acceptable.

    Comment by Publius — December 22, 2007 @ 8:52 am
  125. I SERIOUSLY doubt that a mere $500 is going to buy an ‘favor’ with Ron Paul.

    This guy pays the IRS too — maybe they should give that money back!

    This guy backed Bush in 2000, and Hillary has millions from LaRAZA the group that vows to kill whitey and take over the southern USA.

    Not a word about that!
    So this is a NON_ISSUE…believe me.

    Comment by NH — December 22, 2007 @ 9:24 am
  126. America accepts money from CHINA!!!

    The IRS accepts Mr. Blacks money!!

    So he gives the money back..then what will people say, “And I thought he was a racist, shame on me! He’s got my Vote now!”

    Come on! People will always believe what they want to believe anyway…those who what to dismiss him as a racist will do so anyway despite what he does with that money!!

    Read the above post on Rosa Parks…maybe he ought to get on his knees and beg for forgiveness there as well…

    Besides not being “PC”, what exactly has he done wrong?

    Comment by Rob Lilly — December 22, 2007 @ 9:36 am
  127. There’s a photo now up over at Little Green Footballs of Don Black meeting with Ron Paul in Florida last September.

    Black is grinning behind Paul, while his son is getting Paul’s autograph.

    This could prove far more damaging to the Paul campaign than the $500 contribution, especially if it gets out in the media beyond just LGF.

    Comment by Xen-Man — December 22, 2007 @ 9:57 am
  128. This is total BS. Stick it!

    Comment by BuckinOhio — December 22, 2007 @ 10:02 am
  129. Here’s the url for the Don Black/Ron Paul photo.

    It looks pretty sinister. God help the libertarian movement and the Ron Paul campaign if this gets out to a wider audience.

    Let’s hope that it just goes away.

    http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28353_Ron_Pauls_Photo-Op_with_Stormfront&only

    Comment by Xen-Man — December 22, 2007 @ 10:03 am
  130. Ron Paul is 100% right on this. The public will not be one bit concerned about his position to keep the money, because IT MAKES SENSE.

    People who worry “what people will think” obviously do not know Ron Paul.

    Comment by Fazsha — December 22, 2007 @ 10:45 am
  131. Those who find themselves so worried over this $500 contribution might want to turn their criticism toward a bigger issue.

    Like…say…Hillary Clinton throwing KKK Grand Cyclops Senator Robert Byrd a birthday party in Fredrick Douglass’ former home two years ago.

    Maybe Im just biased…but Giuliani surrounding himself with felons who are in court for federal corruption charges, Hillary throwing KKK members birthday parties in former slaves’ homes, and taking money (as in millions…not $500) from convicted felons (Peter Paul, Norman Hsu anyone?) seems quite a bit more relevant and serious to me.

    Im a black American who will be voting for him and I dont think Paul is a racist in the least. The fact that some are still clinging to this non-story speaks volumes about the fact that they cant offer any legitimate criticism of his actual policy positions that will stick.

    Comment by Julian — December 22, 2007 @ 11:59 am
  132. Tell me why is this news worthy? It was a “legal” donation and shouldn’t be compared to “illegal” donations that were made to other candidates like Hillary Clinton. Ron Paul should keep the money and spend it on his campaign which is anti-racist and for equality, liberty, prosperity, and world peace. You would do a bigger service to the voters by looking at how the other candidates are recieving immoral money from large international oil and drug companies, government contractors, and special interest groups.

    Comment by Dave — December 22, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
  133. I’m black and I’m voting for Ron Paul. I am glad that Ron Paul accepted the 500 dollars from Don Black. Ron Paul is going to do great things with the $500 dollars. Infact, I hope that Don Black gives Ron Paul every dime that he has.

    In Ron Paul we finally have a candidate that is willing to protect and defend the constitution, unlike the current criminal administration that is attacking the constitution and raping our treasury of trillions of dollars for the benefit of his cronies.

    We have a candidate that wants to end the war, protect the constitution, make our money supply strong, cut spending, stop the devaluation of the dollar, get rid of the group of private bankers stranglehold on our money supply, cut unnecessary government programs. We send billions of dollars to Washington for Education, after the politicians get done stealing the money, our schools get leftovers.

    I gave Ron Paul $2,300.00. I would gladly give him more if I was legally allowed to do so.

    I’m voting for Ron Paul for the Next President of the United States of America!!

    Comment by Michael — December 22, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
  134. Every time that I hear Ron Paul smeared it makes me want to send him more money. Today I’m going to send in another $50 bucks.

    Comment by Wendy — December 22, 2007 @ 12:46 pm
  135. The only news here is that a white supremist (who tend not to be the sharpest tools in the shed anyway), has given money to someone who isn’t a racist.

    So what?

    Comment by Kenn — December 22, 2007 @ 1:12 pm
  136. Old news is no news. This is such an old story. As one person put it on another site. Since the USA borrows money from china should we give it all back and stop borrowing since they are communist. It is sad that this is the only thing that the anti-paul people can come up with. Does one think that someone who got 18 million+ is worried about 500, it is the principle of it. The freedom to believe what you want. Huckabee said , in a debate, that he would take donations from homosexuals, yet he is anit-homosexual. Where is the story on this? Isn’t this the same thing since some hate homosexual just as much as kkk hate blacks.

    Comment by David — December 22, 2007 @ 2:00 pm
  137. If he buckles on this issue where does it stop? He believes people are free to think whatever they want, he cant return money based on thought crime, its ridiculous and we are talking about $500, hahaha, beholden to someone for $500? My god we need to go through some lists of past and current campaign donars and find out who those people are beholden to and for how much, the whole thing is just stupid and a non issue made into one because they cant GET anything on Ron Paul.

    Comment by Sonja — December 22, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
  138. Those who shout that Ron Paul needs to return the money are so conditioned with the stench of political correctness it is smelling up the internet.

    A man of principle like Ron Paul can not be purchased or swayed with any amount of money never mind a crummy $500 so get over it. He will do with any money sent to him from any source for the same purpose spreading his message of freedom hope and peace.

    The photo op with those scum bag white pride people is just like the other 1000′s of people that Ron Paul has taken his precious time on the campaign trail to shake hands with sign their pocket constitutions and pose for a picture. He does it a 1000 times per day minimum. No one in their right mind would construe that as anything but an opportunistic straw man of an argument.

    Cripes you people make me ill with this garbage.

    Comment by libertyman — December 22, 2007 @ 4:11 pm
  139. The issue is not what Brad believes or what I believe or what Doug believes or what even you might believe. The issue is what the people who aren’t really familiar with him might believe when they hear about this.

    For those deadset against Paul, this isn’t going to change their minds, although they might point to it as an excuse for opposing Paul. For those familiar with Paul’s integrity, this donation is not at all a problem. It’s only for those unfamiliar with Paul that this donation makes a difference at all.

    And so what is here is a critique of the campaign. That’s all it is. It by no means is a critique of Ron Paul. It’s not garbage, it’s strategy. When you are running a campaign you don’t want to expose yourself to this sort of thing.

    An opposing campaign will try to muddy up the waters in hope that something negative sticks. It’s character assassination, but it’ll still affect the outcome of an election.

    Comment by TanGeng — December 22, 2007 @ 5:47 pm
  140. Brad,

    The only person who wouldn’t win under your scenario would be Don Black and any high profile people who hold unsavory opinions.

    What if Don Black was genuinely serious about promoting the cause of liberty in the United States? Does his white-supremacist background taint his intentions?

    It strikes me as the thought-police disenfranchising people.

    Comment by TanGeng — December 22, 2007 @ 5:58 pm
  141. Ron Paul became a sensation be cause of his principles. And now, because of this ridiculous story, people whine on about how he should return the money. In effect: be pragmatic and betray your principles. I would think that the posters at libertypapers.com would have more good sense. It is pure emotion and irrationality that drives this story forward.

    Comment by somebody — December 22, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
  142. There’s a whole new aspect to this story breaking out. Some self-proclaimed Nazi guy named White of all things, is now claiming that he’s had regular meetings with Ron Paul Congressional staffers in Northern Virginia, at restaurants and regular meet-ups at local racist conferences. He’s got specific details.

    It’s all over the political blogs this morning.

    Taken all separately, there’s not much to these stories – the photos, the $500 contribution by Black, the David Duke website, and now this White deal. But you add it all up, and it’s starting to look pretty bad for the Ron Paul camp.

    Comment by Xen-Man — December 23, 2007 @ 5:30 am
  143. Tim Russert didn’t even mention anything about this subject this morning in his interview of Ron Paul. Not one word!

    I guess it’s only a big issue at “The Liberty Papers” blog and anti-Ron Paul/pro-Big Government blogs.

    A word of advice: “The Liberty Papers” needs to be careful about the company that it keeps in the blogosphere.

    Comment by Ken H — December 23, 2007 @ 6:53 am
  144. In most polls the “sensation” is under 10%. Donating the contribution from the neo-nazis to a pro-minority charity would help Paul among the 90% of primary voters who aren’t supporting Paul more than it would hurt him among his supporters.

    Comment by Bob — December 23, 2007 @ 8:31 am
  145. Bob,

    Probably 99% of primary voters aren’t even aware of the contribution.

    Comment by Ken H — December 23, 2007 @ 11:27 am
  146. Ken,
    Are you arguing that Paul should keep the contribution because he can get away with it?
    Wouldn’t it be better if the campaign gave the money to a charity and made a lot of noise when they did it? Maybe they can get some good press out of this.

    Comment by Bob — December 23, 2007 @ 11:44 am
  147. Bob,

    No, I think that Ron Paul should keep the contribution and use it to promote libertarianism just as he is doing with the contributions of everyone else who has contributed to his campaign, including me.

    It is clear by now that the Ron Paul campaign is not going to return the contribution or give it to someone else but will use in the campaign. It’s time for the anti-Ron Paul folks to move on to a relevant issue – if they have one.

    Comment by Ken H — December 23, 2007 @ 1:34 pm
  148. hey i had ron paul founded the kkk, runs a campaign bankrolled by the kkk, and is the magna pater of all that is evil.

    pass it on.

    Comment by mtcarmel — December 23, 2007 @ 4:07 pm
  149. Ken,
    I hope you’re right and that Paul’s opponents move on. I think its more likely that Paul’s serious opponents will keep this in their quiver to use if/when Paul becomes a real threat to win the nomination.

    Comment by Bob — December 23, 2007 @ 6:18 pm
  150. Couldn’t agree more.. although I don’t blame Ron Paul personally, but think his handlers and his campaign managers need to lift their game.

    Comment by Jono — December 23, 2007 @ 7:03 pm
  151. Well, Bob, it sure isn’t hurting Ron Paul in this spam-proof AOL poll with over 57,000 votes so far:

    http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=208588

    Comment by Ken H — December 23, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
  152. I told you stupid fucks a month ago that Ron Paul should have returned the $500 with a short note saying, “Mr. Black has the right to his beliefs, and I have the right to return his money and tell him to go to hell.” But no, you fucking douches had to treat it like the Spanish Inquisition. Here’s a clue for you fucktards: if a prominent racist gives a candidate money and anyone finds out, the candidate should hand the money back and tell him to go to hell. Why? Because no one should think you are remotely associated with them if you want to convince people you belong as president. This is doubly true when you’re a fringe candidate trying to go mainstream, and you know that the established gatekeepers are going to look for anything to smear you with.

    Comment by Joshua Holmes — December 23, 2007 @ 10:54 pm
  153. Ken,
    One of us is going to change their attitude on online and straw polls when the real voting starts in less than 2 weeks. Either I’m going to develop a new respect for them or you’re going to learn that such polls are worthless.

    Comment by Bob — December 24, 2007 @ 5:55 am
  154. Ken,
    BTW, to see if it could be done I voted twice in the AOL poll. I did it by using a different browser (I usually use Netscape but my computer also has Explorer) I’ve been told it can also be done by removing the cookie that AOL places when you vote. So much for spam-proof. You’ll be happy to know I voted for Paul both times.

    Comment by Bob — December 24, 2007 @ 6:27 am
  155. antiwar.com nails down this fiasco.

    Ron Paul vs. the Dirty Tricksters
    http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12102

    Comment by Nicolas Martin — December 24, 2007 @ 8:27 am
  156. Bob,

    The problem with your analysis is that there are approximately the same number of Democrat and Republican votes in the poll. Are you suggesting that Hillary Clinton supporters are spamming the poll.

    Frankly, I don’t put a lot of stock in any poll – online or otherwise.

    I do put a lot of stock in the number of folks who are contributing to the Ron Paul campaign. It reminds me of what was going on in the Obama campaign earlier this year.

    Comment by Ken H — December 24, 2007 @ 11:29 am
  157. “As most readers of this blog know”

    Yeah let’s talk about what people know,

    Most of the readers are well aware you have it in for White people who are racially aware. And your dislike of Ron Paul, and your bullshit title of “Liberty Papers”. Most people only come here because it appears in google news, and most people leave after a few seconds and a shake of the head. Most people, like me understand you have found a name that draws hits, it gets you traffic. You make 5 articles on the same thing. Most people understand your loyalties are placed elsewhere, in the Middle east no doubt. And most people know that Ron Paul is a patriot and who ever is agaisnt him, is a traitor. And traitors are best delt the Rosenberg treatment.

    Comment by Freedomexplo — December 24, 2007 @ 9:24 pm
  158. The insurgent presidential-campaign of Ron Paul stunned pundits by raising five-million dollars in a single day over the Internet, an all-time record. Although Paul is backed by leading segregationists, such as Pat Godwin, is the “reality” of the Texas GOP-Congressman the same as the “perception?” On the plus side, Paul voted against Rosa Parks “sainthood,” the King Holiday, the Voting Rights Act and the “cold-case” resurrection. He wants Negro-juvvies tried as adults, saying that “black males who have been raised and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.” However, on the negative side, Paul has said that five-percent of Negroes are “sensible,” raising fears that he might not be inclined to keep all minorities and aliens out. He declined an “All The Way” interview. Paul claims to oppose slavery and Sixties’ segregationists and has voiced praise for Martin Luther King. His back-tracking, that he liked King’s activism, but not his adultery, seemed to make matters worse.

    According to Paul, “Only about five percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action.” Such a theory was posed, however, by George W. Bush’s father to install Clarence Thomas, a Negro married to a white woman, in the Supreme Court. Paul has stated that “the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government” and wants out of Iraq. He has noted that “black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers,” but he has not come out in favor of repealing the Civil Rights Bill, under which Negroes have been forced in.

    http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2007/120101.html#29
    © 2007 The Nationalist Movement

    Comment by Conarchi — December 24, 2007 @ 9:54 pm
  159. Take it up with Justin Raimondo. He wrote a fascinating article on the subject recently.
    http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12102

    Comment by uhm — December 25, 2007 @ 3:52 am
  160. Ron Paul was willing to give his own money to help pay for the Congressional Gold Medal given to Rosa Parks.
    http://media.www.dailycampus.com/media/storage/paper340/news/2007/12/03/Commentary/Paul-Right.To.Vote.Against.Rosa.Parks.Medal-3128419.shtml

    As Justin Raimondo notes Ron Paul’s heroes are Jewish. Mises and Rothbard!

    Here is Ron Paul’s views on racism:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul192.html

    The racist crap people quote came from a newsletter written by a ghostwriter. Ron Paul has taken responsibility for it since it was in his name.

    Comment by uhm — December 25, 2007 @ 4:41 am
  161. I tend to run afoul with the white pride people and 911 truthers. I am a faithful Ron Paul supporter and will subdue any inclination that I feel might be of harm to his prospects. I just wish those others did as well since they can not seem to see that they are not helping the situation with their vocal support.

    It is a case of a minority that gets little or no respect looking to a candidate that is truly for individual freedom. That is important to everyone no matter how marginalized they have been made to feel. I am guilty of that sentiment as well. I am also guilty of admonishment of these sorts but I tell it like I see it. I am not the most delicate flower in the field for sure when it comes to decorum.

    Comment by libertyman — December 26, 2007 @ 1:48 am
  162. New York Times retracts smear of Ron Paul. I wonder what The Liberty Papers will do now?

    http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/24/the-ron-paul-vid-lash/?ex=1199163600&en=7b25470d94ea3b8b&ei=5070&emc=eta1/

    Comment by Ken H — December 26, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
  163. ^^Ken, ‘What should Liberty Papers do’? Who cares, just keep exposing this site as controlled opposition. With mental midgets like Doug at the helm, it’s just great satire to read.

    Comment by GeneG — December 27, 2007 @ 2:53 am
  164. The Times still says that the Paul campaign took money from Don Black, who is a known neo-nazi. The Liberty Papers posts seem to be accurate.

    Comment by Bob — December 27, 2007 @ 2:56 am
  165. Again, who cares about a $500 except anti-Paul folks who are playing right into the hands of the Big Government folks.

    With allies like some of the folks commenting on this blog we certainly don’t need any enemies to limited government.

    Comment by Ken H — December 27, 2007 @ 10:52 am
  166. As an American I can and do criticize politicians, including those I support(like Ron Paul), when I think they’ve made a mistake. I don’t understand the desire for liberty if it doesn’t include criticizing the President and people who aspire to be President.

    Comment by Bob — December 27, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
  167. I’m a casual observer to Ron Paul’s campaign and for an unknown to have this many questions about his connections at this time will turn off many people.

    The MSM does get a lot of things wrong, but when it comes to strange fringe candidates who come out of nowhere, they are correct to be suspicious.

    I hope he draws less than 1% of the vote as an independent.

    Comment by Michael H — December 29, 2007 @ 11:59 pm

Comments RSS

Subscribe without commenting

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML