RSS 2.0 Feed
A Good Point in the Ron Paul Kerfluffle
This point at Classically Liberal is really quite a good one.
Paul’s final defense is to ask us to believe that he doesn’t pay attention to his own affairs or what is done in his name. He doesn’t read the publications he sends out. In fact, he doesn’t even write his own material. He doesn’t investigate it when problems are brought to his attention. In other words his defense is that he isn’t a bigot but that he is totally inept in such matters. And he wants us to put him the White House — well we had enough of that kind of presidency already.
That’s exactly right. Either Paul knows who wrote these things and won’t speak out against someone who is clearly doing his campaign and libertarianism a massive disservice. Or he doesn’t know.
In one case he is lying and using “I can’t recall” as a defense. That reminds me strongly of Bill and Hillary. I said, then, that I couldn’t support either of them because of that, it would be hypocritical of me to do differently with Paul.
In the other case he is incompetent and inept in managing his staff. That reminds me strongly of George W. and Rumsfeld. I said many times that I couldn’t support that either. Again, hypocrisy.
So, no matter which of the two alternatives it is, Paul is just one more politician. Either a liar or an incompetent.
All you “libertarians” screaming about those of us who don’t support Paul, take that into consideration. He is behaving just like all the other statist politicians that you despise in order to gain the presidency. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ……..
Update: I won’t answer anyone that “debates” using ad hominem techniques. You are trying to discredit the message by attacking the messenger. Anyone who wishes to give me an alternative that is not one of those two, in a rational fashion, I will be happy to discuss it with you.
Update 2: I am not saying, in any way, shape or form that I think Paul is a racist. I am not implying it in any way, shape or form. Anyone who says anything to the contrary in the comments is either making a personal attack or doesn’t read for comprehension. In either case, I won’t respond per update 1.
Update 3: To clarify a bit, I personally think that what we have is a mix of the points that Doug makes here, incompetence in managing people and publications he was responsible for, and refusing to “throw someone under the bus” (which means that Paul is not telling the entire truth about something fairly despicable that he has knowledge of). As Doug and Mark have pointed out, Paul is damaging the message he is attempting to spread. He can either clean house (which we know he won’t do) or he can withdraw. Either of those options would help to prevent damaging his message about individual liberty. The path he is on will not.
Update 4: So, I really have to thank all of you who came by to comment, even the folks who weren’t really intelligible. It would appear that I have had the single best post for number of comments in the history of The Liberty Papers. I think that 174 (and still going strong) comments on a Ron Paul post definitely qualifies for a drink in UC’s little game!
lol@doug jr.
Comment by lulz — January 13, 2008 @ 11:17 amIt’s surprising the Paulies have not swarmed to this article denouncing it. I swear that they are delusional.
Comment by Joe Lennar — January 13, 2008 @ 11:26 amlulz,
Brilliant response. You sure addressed the issue.
Comment by Kevin — January 13, 2008 @ 11:31 amWell said - I don’t dispute the author’s ponts. But here’s where I think libertarians hurt themselves….
Many politicians (like Clinton and Bush, as you mention) are tainted by scandal and/or are inept managers. But that’s not really why we oppose them - we oppose them because they advance an anti-freedom agenda.
Are we saying that for us to support someone, we are going to require they advance a pro-freedom agenda AND they don’t suffer from the scandals or ineptness of other politicians?
All these people who make it to high office are, in the end, mere human beings. Some are inept, some are liars, some are both. But in the end, it’s the policies they endorse that have the biggest impact.
I love the idealism of many libertarians, but I also don’t think we should wait for a saint while our country continues down its statist path.
Comment by rEVOLution 08 — January 13, 2008 @ 11:32 amI am black and I don’t need anymore explanation from him. Those views are inconsistent with his actions and the core philosiphy he has a record supporting. I also perfer he does not spend anymore time explaining what happened because it takes away from the message that needs to be heard.
Comment by courtney — January 13, 2008 @ 11:33 amyeah, even d.m.’s daily rants dont draw up as much flak as they used to. in the past his posts would get 150 comments, now they dont even get 50. looks like thelibertypapers is well on the way to sinking back into internet obscurity.
Comment by Henry Kissenger — January 13, 2008 @ 11:34 amI do support Ron Paul and have been working on the grassroots campaign.
I just wanted to say that you HAVE brought up a good point. I wonder just how good a manager Dr. Paul would be.
Never gave it a thought in relation to his defense of the newsletters, but now I am thinking about it.
I don’t think he’d be a perfect president — but he’d HAVE to have the right people in place. Good management of people under him is vital.
Nobody is “swarming” this yet because perhaps you have given us something we need to think about.
Still — I’m not casting a vote unless he’s on the ballot. I don’t see another good choice for president and I was a completely apathetic ex-republican until his candidacy.
Comment by paulie-girl — January 13, 2008 @ 11:35 amEvery other viable candidate (apologies to Kucinich and Gravel) are tied to the banking / military industrial complex. The man could choose a goat as a VP and still be a better choice than any of the other war mongers up on the 2 party stages.
Comment by Alexia — January 13, 2008 @ 11:40 amNo President could handle the job without a good team. Again, this is about the message. Finally someone who is willing to carry the issues of the people to the highest position in the world. I believe he would do what he says which sets him apart from everyone else.
Comment by courtney — January 13, 2008 @ 11:43 amrEVOLution wrote:
Nope, but I will demand a pro-freedom agenda and that the candidate is not inept or a liar themself. I’m not saying that this is about others. I’m saying that Paul is either inept or a liar himself.
paulie-girl:
And this entire affair brings that into question, doesn’t it? That is my point. Either he’s inept or he’s a liar. Neither gives me confidence in voting for him.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 11:44 amGive us Americans a break cut the crap and focus on the issues. You think we are mindless twits. I ran a large organization things were said and done in my name that wasn’t endorsed by me. I didn’t get to know about all these things till after the fact. We think people in an organization are mindless robots and cannot do or think for themselves and need everything figured up from the top and endorsed from the top. No leader of a large organization has that kind of time in his already busy schedule. Cut out the smear campaign and lets take care of this country. You sound like some cheesy self righteous magazine covering Britney Spears.
Comment by joseph — January 13, 2008 @ 11:44 amFirst of all, many authors and bloggers have ghostwriters and occasionally some do not even read their own finished autobiographies, are they hypocrites too?
It is very disappointing to see how people are quick to judge these days;
“using “I can’t recall” as a defense”.
Comment by CJ — January 13, 2008 @ 11:45 am- there is no definite proof he has done such an act but you swiftly assume he has and that he needs a “defense”. I thought the American legal philosophy was “innocent until proven guilty” but in these times where Guantanamo Bay prisoners have been considered less than human by a federal judge and the writ of Habeas Corpus is non-existant, I can’t say it is surprising.
You are right but there is no evidence that Ron Paul would use those forces against Americans and the rest of the world.
He is not hiding criminality like the Clintons.
Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 11:45 amCJ, he’s not on trial, so “American legal philosophy” has nothing to do with it. I don’t think he needs a defense. I think he is one of two things, neither of which I’m willing to vote for.
uhm, how can you trust him?
Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 11:49 amThe offensive articles were ghost-written, in a style completely unlike Dr. Paul’s voluminous published writings and speeches. The mistake he made was to trust people whom, in hindsight, he should not have trusted. As there is no clear attribution, he would be on shaky ground, ethically and legally, to start publicly accusing specific individuals.
Dr. Paul was between stints in Congress, having returned to his full-time Obstetrics and Gynecology practice. If you know many doctors, you will agree that they barely have time to see their own families, let alone actively manage any extra-vocational enterprises.
Most of the offensive newsletters were brought to light many years ago, when Dr. Paul again ran for Congress. The diverse voters in his district, many of whom know Dr. Paul personally, know that he was wronged by the writer(s) of those disgusting commentaries. Dr. Paul acknowledged moral responsibility, and his constituents reaffirmed their trust and support by reelecting him.
You accuse Dr. Paul of being a lying, and/or incompetent, statist, just like every other politician. If that were true, he would have scape-goated someone on this issue years ago. That would have been the politically expedient thing to do, but it would have been wrong.
Comment by Richard B. — January 13, 2008 @ 11:50 amJoseph:
I’ll just ignore the ad hominem portion of your comment because I think you bring up an interesting point. You see, I run a large department within a large corporation. I don’t micro-manage my staff. I do make certain that my direct reports are people in line with my philosophy and approach to business. And expect them to do the same. I’ve fired two people in my department for lacking ethics, and done so publicly. I took responsibility for the outcome of their actions, because they were done in my department’s name. I also held them responsible for their actions.
Now, Paul is doing neither of those things. Instead, he is trying to spin. Libertarians are supposed to be big on personal responsibility. Paul is neither taking responsibility well nor holding others accountable for their personal responsibility.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 11:55 amAn important character witness has come forward. Don’t judge Ron Paul guilty without giving him a fair trial. Please read this:
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2…d-for-ron.html
Remember, Ron Paul is the only candidate who will get us out of Iraq. He is the only candidate who will restore our civil liberties (look up the Military Commissions Act of 2006); the only candidate who will reduce our military presence around the world preventing further blowback; the only candidate who will balance the budget; the only candidate who will curb currently skyrocketing inflation; and the only candidate who won’t allow the federal government, and specifically the presidency, to seize more and more power, little by little. In short, the only candidate who will preserve our liberty. Don’t doom our country.
Comment by Michael — January 13, 2008 @ 11:55 amWhy don’t you do your dang homework! You sit there waste your time writing pointless articals that have been hashed over time and time again for the past 20 years. People who know Ron Paul know he did not say those things and doesn’t even believe them. Do your homework! You may not be aware of this but this country is headed strait to the bottom and its not the time to be optimistic its time to be logical. Enough about being but hurt over something that took place thirty years ago. This country needs to reverse its trend and correct the mistakes it has made for the past century. If we don’t get finacially stable we will forfit this country as Russia did when it became financially incapable of sustaining itself. Do your homework. We have nothing left to back up all the debt that we have accumulated and no more surplus’. We are really all dried up and the Washington knows this. That is why they are putting so many new restrictions on alot of our common, constitutional rights. No more Habeus Corpus. The Patriot Act. The Disarment of Veterans act. The Home Grown terrist act. National ID cards. This is all being put into motion because the U.S. government expects a retaliation from true Americans that appretiate being independent and free. The idea we are a free peoples is a hoax. The American people since 1916 have been subject to slavery. Voluntary Slavery. We spend 1/3 to 1/2 of our life paying the IRS. And they spend our hard earned money on premptive wars that haven’t been declared by the Congress as is dictated by the constitution. What is going on here people, do you homework. When we do have our inevitable crash which we will, we are seeing it in the housing market already, its going to get really tough. Like third world tough. And a magical hand is going to reach down to us and lift us to our feet, and we are going to smile up at Dick Cheney who is going is A) going to pitch you the North Amercian Union so that we can go back to being a strong nation, or B) he is going to shoot you in the face. Take your pick. ok…dick cheney and B)… is a little far fetched but that still doesn’t get rid of the fact that we must take this country back from the crazy politians that are selling it all off to foreign countries. All of the other canadates are sellouts compared to Ron Paul. Ron Paul might have neglected a couple of articals of a news letter that were printed under his name but at least he isn’t going to sell our ports to China. At least he isn’t going to rob our social security fund to pay for wars. We ARE NOT a welfare state. This is the USA! This is America. I know if I had 1/3 of my money back every year, I would help out every American I possibly could because that is who I am and what this country is all about. Lets go back to the constitution. Lets go back to our roots. Ron Paul 2008
Comment by cory — January 13, 2008 @ 11:56 amCory,
Nobody is saying that Ron Paul wrote those articles. I take him at his word when he said he didn’t. The problem, though, is that they were published under his name. When they were brought to light in 1996, he didn’t say back then that he wasn’t the author, instead he defended the content of the articles in question.
This leads to one of two possibilities. Either he was not telling the truth in 1996, or he’s not telling the truth today.
The deeper problem, though, is the fact that he has been allied to this day with people who believe the nonsense that was in those newsletters. A man is judged by the company he keeps and the people he calls allies. Right now, Ron Paul isn’t looking too good.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 13, 2008 @ 12:00 pmOr 3rd.
Comment by Jeff Roark — January 13, 2008 @ 12:01 pmHe wasn’t a hands on manager to the newsletter.
He was way to trusting of other people.
He is telling the truth overall and his only lie, maybe, is in protecting those that wrote it because it could ruin their lives in at least their local community (if so good for him).
This association with this newsletter is a single blimish on his record and comparing his long, consistent, distinguished career to the Clintons or the Bushes is not only unfair, it is entirely inaccurate. Its like comparing a jaywalker to a serial killers. Your article doesn’t deserve to much attention and brings nothing new to this matter. Just your opinion based on other bad opinions.
No one has come forward, with first hand knowledge, to accuse him of anything. Not one person. All we have are these old newletters which would be considered as hearsay in a court of law. This is your smoking gun? This is all it takes to condemn a man as being a racist? This is how little your integrity sells for?
Richard B wrote:
Nice try, but not what I said. I said he was acting like other politicians. I did not say he was “statist”. There are certainly policy issues he supports that I could take issue with (like immigration and abortion) to tackle whether he is a statist. But that isn’t what I said. Don’t put words in my mouth.
On the inept point and scapegoating. George W stood by Rumsfeld long after it was apparent to everyone but hardcore GOP that Rumsfeld was incompetent and bringing about disaster in Iraq. To this day he will not make Rumsfeld responsible for the outcome there. That is what I was talking about in saying that what Paul is doing reminds me of George W. He will not call out those personally responsible and hold them accountable. That is one of the biggest problems in politics, as most of a libertarian bent are usually very quick to point out.
Of course, when it is their candidate, they don’t. See my collectivism comment for more thinking on that topic.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 12:01 pmI don’t condemn him as a racist. That makes your comment an indirect personal attack. The only reason I responded is to make it clear that I don’t say in any way, shape or form that Paul is a racist.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 12:03 pmHow do you figure? He has said repeatedly that he takes moral responsibility for allowing the publications.
The only question is whether or not the words were representative of his beliefs. If you believe they are, so be it. The way I see it, if he really is a closet racist, he’s so deep in the closet that it doesn’t really matter.
I don’t see why your support hinges on his decision not to throw someone under the bus.
Comment by Jeff Molby — January 13, 2008 @ 12:06 pmRon Paul has already stated that he is not a racist and gave a good explanation for those newsletters. Unfortunately, you have the desire to attack someone based on someone else’s actions. Your continual attack on Ron Paul shows that your motives are political. If they are not, then they border on delusional because of the overwhelming evidence in his career that he is not a racist. Your attempt to try to bring down a good person says more about your character than anyone else’s.
Comment by Ron M — January 13, 2008 @ 12:06 pmMark and UCrawford now have to drink all alcohol found for 7 blocks in any direction.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 12:09 pmI don’t trust him completely such as on abortion (saw an article about a bill he made that goes against his federalist rhetoric) and immigration (they aren’t here for welfare, they are here because they’ve been screwed by us, leaving them no other choice but to come here, having their panties hung on trees).
I do believe from his voting record that he would cut spending. He has been a vocal opponent of the war in Iraq and is against attacking Iran. I don’t see him changing those stances. He voted against the patriot act and has been vocal about his opposition to bills like the patriot act. I don’t see him coming into office and reversing himself on those things.
Comment by uhm — January 13, 2008 @ 12:11 pmRon Paul is inept? I don’t know what is inept about trusting people to do the job you expect them to do. They sometimes disappoint you. That is the reality of management. If you do not know this then you have never been a manager.
Do you think Steve Forbes reads everything that goes into Forbes magazine before it prints? He has an editor to do that job. His name is on the cover but I am sure there have been things printed that Steve Forbes regrets or does not agree with.
The fact that someone writing in The Ron Paul Newsletter made statements that Ron Paul does not agree with is hardly reason for condemnation of Ron Paul. He has said he did not write the comments, does not agree with them, and takes moral responsibility for not maintaining closer oversight.
It seems that some will be happy with nothing short of Hari-kari in atonement. Meanwhile the fact remains that his policy positions put him head and shoulders above every other candidate for president in the area of respect for the individual and personal freedom.
People need to stop focusing on minutia from 10 or 15 years ago and look at the big picture. There is no better alternative to set the future direction of this country than Ron Paul.
Comment by Greg Worrel — January 13, 2008 @ 12:11 pmGreg,
Let me be blunt
It should be blindingly obvious by now that Ron Paul is not going to be President. He’s not going to win a single state primary, and the two delegates he got out of Iowa may be just about all he has at the convention. He won’t have a prime-time speaking slot either.
The question now isn’t selecting a President, it’s what happens to the cause for liberty after Ron Paul.
Comment by Doug Mataconis — January 13, 2008 @ 12:16 pmI’ll make clear why he’s inept. A good manager makes sure, as I said above, that his direct reports are people in line with his philosophy and approach to doing business. So does a good leader, in case someone is going to try and say he’s not a manager, but a leader. ESPECIALLY when that manager or leader is going to be going against the grain and flying directly in the face of business as usual.
When it becomes apparent that someone working for you does not line up with you, you get rid of them (as far as we can tell, he didn’t, since it is likely Lew Rockwell), make sure that folks know why and take action to correct the problem. What Paul has done is what every other politician does. Spin, maneuver and avoid.
Comment by Adam Selene — January 13, 2008 @ 12:22 pm[...] yours truly in a comment to this post at The Liberty Papers: Let me be [...]
Pingback by Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » What The Ron Paul Newsletters Story Is Really All About — January 13, 2008 @ 12:26 pmWhat explanation to Ron Paul supports give for Paul defending the newsletters in 1996 and only taking *partial” moral responsibility in 2001.
Why are his explanations so inconsistent and often times contradictory?
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 12:34 pmWell Mr. Selene,
Perhaps I will start publishing things in your name. Then you can explain how you had no knowledge of the publication thereof. Then we too can pass judgement on you knowing that you are either a liar or incompetent. Perhaps I’ll start today……then you can experience what you dish out.
Comment by k tunstall — January 13, 2008 @ 12:37 pmDoug,
I have been a voting libertarian for about 30 years. I have never seen a candidate better represent and popularize libertarian positions than Ron Paul. He is not perfect but it is amazing to me to see libertarians being some of his most vocal critics.
Anyone concerned about the cause for liberty should be defending Ron Paul left and right. This newsletter stuff is not even new. It was being discussed two months ago and references newsletters from 15 years ago.
What other libertarian, let alone what other Presidential candidate, has such extensive writings to define his positions? Look at http://www.ronpaullibrary.org. There is no need to reference newsletters that he didn’t write to see where he stands on issues.
This blog post comes up on the first page of Google News when searching for Ron Paul right now. While that may stoke the writer’s ego, it makes the writer part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Those concerned about the cause of liberty should be making the maximum contribution to Ron Paul, and discussing his positions with all their friends, not throwing him under the bus because of a few words in a newsletter that he didn’t write and does not endorse.
Comment by Greg Worrel — January 13, 2008 @ 12:38 pmRon Paul supporters, please ignore these attacks, lets concentrate on the job, walk the neighborhoods, get the message out.
The attack has not produced desired results and is slowly dying down.
Comment by Abul Kalam — January 13, 2008 @ 12:39 pmI find it interesting that Dr. Paul continues to be attacked after a poor showing in NH. You’d think the MSM and GOP elites would ignore him.
The fact remains is that Paul has the money and support to continue well beyond Super Tuesday, and even then he can always run as a 3rd party or independent candidate. I’ve always felt Dr. Paul should fight for the GOP nomination but it’s obvious that the powers-that-be want him silenced. It’s clearly time for Paul to go independent and drive a stake into the GOP. This is the real reason why this stupid story has already been debunked - the Houston Chronicle went over this in the 1990s.
Paul’s “poor” explanations can be attributed to the fact that he doesn’t play the politically-correct game.
Comment by Brian — January 13, 2008 @ 12:44 pmRon Pauls own words from long ago:
Comment by Mayberry — January 13, 2008 @ 12:46 pmThank you Mayberry for the best post yet.
I am going out right now to knock doors for Ron Paul. Become a precinct leader. Check it out at http://www.ronpaul2008.com.
Comment by Greg Worrel — January 13, 2008 @ 12:49 pmThis is from 1976. That’s all you’ve got, from 10 terms in Congress? You need to go outside and get some fresh air. You’re declaring a Veteran, a 10-term Congressman who often wins running against his own party establishment, a Medical Dr with 4,000 births and 50 years of marriage, incompetent based on his response to a political smear from 1976? And I wondered why I had stopped reading Liberty Papers. That man is taking on the entire Military Industrial Complex, swinging the biggest pair you are likely to run across. Wipe the mud from your eyes, you’re missing history.
Comment by linus — January 13, 2008 @ 12:49 pm“Update 2: I am not saying, in any way, shape or form that I think Paul is a racist. I am not implying it in any way, shape or form. Anyone who says anything to the contrary in the comments is either making a personal attack or doesn’t read for comprehension. In either case, I won’t respond per update 1.”
So, in effect you are doing what you accuse others of. You don’t think he is a racist, but yet at the same time you condemn him for racism. Even though you and everyone else knows he didn’t write it, someone else did. And it was mentioned like 7 months ago that the person who wrote it was fired.
Make your mind, can’t have it both ways. I’m not even sure what you expect here, other than to make obviously baseless attacks - by your own admission. Isn’t trying to tie racism to someone who isn’t a racist an “ad hominem” attack? Hey, if it walks like a duck…
Comment by badmedia — January 13, 2008 @ 12:49 pmBtw, 1976 was 31 years ago, I know because that was the year I was born…
Seriously, what are you being reduced to here?
Comment by badmedia — January 13, 2008 @ 12:51 pmI second the comments of rEVOLution 08. I don’t feel like waiting for a saint to come along. The whole newsletter episode does cast a bad light. It was bad judgement that those newsletters went out in his name without his review or even with it. He has committed an unethical or immoral deed. Of course, all the other Presidential opponents haven’t ever done anything as unethical or immoral.
Comment by Andrew Panken — January 13, 2008 @ 12:56 pmPaul a typical politician? He VOLUNTEERED the information in 2001 when he expressed regret for the newsletters and took esponsiblity. Has Adam bothered to read the Texas Monthly of that year? None of this matters to Adam, however, who is obviously gleeful in destroying a good, but all too human, fighter for liberty.
Does Adam plan to become an anarchist and support another candidate who is better? Please let him name this candidate.
Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 12:56 pmI’d rather vote for a guy proven to be inept at being a newsletter editor (But not so much at being a Congressman or a Doctor) that has consistently stood by his ideals for 30 years than any of the jackasses up there now.
Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 12:58 pmAlso, I’ll add that I think a lot of the problems with the Paul campaign has been with the campaign staffers. I really wish Paul would just toss them and start over with professionals. So that’s two obvious slights on Paul:
A horrible newsletter editor
Trusts those who’s stood by him for two decades too much. Although, really, they’re hurting him and he owes it to his supporters to toss them already.
Even still, he beats everyone else by a landslide.
Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:01 pmRon Paul isn’t running to MANAGE the government. He’s running to SHRINK it.
I’m getting sick of this stuff. The ONLY people who are concerned are WHITE.
Let me say this again,
I can’t find any black people who are pissed. They understand and believe Paul. My guess is, the ONLY people who care about the newsletters are WHITE PEOPLE and political enemies of Dr. Paul.
White people just don’t understand what real racism is. That way, when they think they smell it (since they don’t feel it) they get all excited to say “I hate racists!”
Well, unlike Dr. Paul… you still hate someone. That makes you something exactly like a racist.
Since Dr. Paul is nothing like a racist, he doesn’t understand why you people who are exactly like racists are so mad… in short, he doesn’t get you because you’re too close minded.
Comment by Rhys — January 13, 2008 @ 1:04 pm“I’d rather vote for a guy proven to be inept at being a newsletter editor (But not so much at being a Congressman or a Doctor) that has consistently stood by his ideals for 30 years than any of the jackasses up there now.”
Ditto! Ron Paul has my whole family’s vote…that’s 11 and its the first time in our family’s history that we’ve voted for the same person.
Comment by Linda I — January 13, 2008 @ 1:06 pmAdam,
“Mark and UCrawford now have to drink all alcohol found for 7 blocks in any direction.”
Fucking hell dude, I’m still hungover from last night.
Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 1:09 pmA comment by NAACP leader on Ron Paul saying he is not a racist:
http://zaphodforpresident.com/2008/01/13/is-ron-paul-racist-the-naacps-take/
Comment by Timur — January 13, 2008 @ 1:11 pmR. Merz,
I agree with you. For the record, I don’t believe Ron Paul to be a racist, but I do think he’s a very questionable judge of character. Because of Paul’s policy platforms (the president should have less authority) that’s less worrisome to me than it is with Bush (a statist who constantly argues that he and his subordinates should be given more power) so I’ll still be voting for Ron Paul. But in my mind he’s definitely gone from being a “good” candidate to merely being the “least-worst” candidate.
Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 1:14 pm(staggeringly drunk having just consumed every beer within a seven block radius)
I just wanted to address the argument that other (anti-freedom) politicians get away with incompetence, lies, and scandals, so therefore we should still support Ron Paul. This is at least a coherent argument, which I partially addressed here:
http://publiusendures.blogspot.com/2008/01/four-step-argument-against-voting-for.html
But I want to elaborate a little bit more. Paul is either a protest vote or a vehicle to advance the libertarian philosophy (although I think his affiliation with paleoconservatism undermines this substantially to begin with). The above-referenced post addresses the protest vote issue sufficiently for me, at least - though others will differ.
But on the issue of advancing the philosophy as a whole, I think any further support he gets is counterproductive, as it will only attract people to the Rockwellian brand of libertarianism that is much closer to Pat Buchanan’s paleoconservatism than to libertarianism, IMHO. More importantly, though, Paul has - for better or worse - become the face of libertarianism in this country. If he is to continue in that role and if he has no actual chance of winning, libertarians should hold him to a higher standard. This is especially true where the scandal is one that ties (fairly or not) Paul’s ideology to blatant racism.
When a politician is running primarily to advance an ideology with which the majority of people are unfamiliar, that politician will symbolize the ideology to those people for all time. This means that libertarians may only get one crack at this- ever. If the candidate that gets that crack is perceived as a racist or (equally bad) accepting of racism as a legitimate philosophy, he will tarnish the ideology for a very long time. Yes, he may still gain new adherents to the philosophy- but he will turn off far more people from even allowing adherents into the door in the first place.
People don’t have to be libertarian to be persuaded by libertarian policy arguments- but they do have to have at least a positive or neutral impression of the people making those arguments in the first place. The more that Ron Paul remains the face of libertarianism, the more negative the view of libertarians will become, and the less impact libertarians can have on a national, state, or local scale.
Comment by Mark — January 13, 2008 @ 1:15 pmMark,
“If he is to continue in that role and if he has no actual chance of winning, libertarians should hold him to a higher standard.”
I think that’s actually very fair all things considered. I would have argued a bit before but now that the votes have been cast in several states and we’ve got a sense of his actual support (better than when he started out, but about the same as the scientific polls indicate) I think it’s fair to say that he does qualify as a protest vote and as such should go for the more ideologically pure libertarian message than he’s been doing (such as on immigration and welfare, a topic he’s waffled on in his televised appearances). As his chances of election decline, his willingness to sound off about what libertarianism really means should increase…there’s no reason for it not to since he has no interest in compromising those values for political expediency.
If you were really drunk you’d never have written something that coherent…neocon fraud :)
Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 1:23 pmThis response misunderstands the nature of business. Paul was given a minority interest in a newsletter in exchange for his name. No one seriously thinks Paul wrote the articles. It isn’t Paul’s language and it’s hardly similar to the topics he’s interested in. At worst, he was negligent about keeping up with the publication, but so what? I would be more worried about a sexual harrassment claim at Ron Paul Barbeque or a malpratice claim at Ron Paul’s medical practice.
At worst this is one of life’s lessons for Paul. There is no doubt that he regrets it happened. He claims responsibility. But punishing the one presidential candidate who isn’t interested in executive power only punishes Americans generally and the liberty movement specifically. Worse, it looses sight of what’s important in this election. 4,000 Americans have been killed in war. The leading frontrunner beligerently stated that he would keep America in Iraq for 100 years (McCain). Both parties have arrested power over our economic system and intend to tinker with it until it cannot help but rely on government controls. By the time another libertarian can credibly make a bid for the White House, we will have endured so many crises that Americans will be desparately shoveling their rights back to the state. When that happens, you can count the love out of the rEVOLution.
Comment by Grizzle Griz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:23 pmWhen George Bush spends a month on vacation while President, while thousands of people are dying or losing their homes in New Orleans, it is relevant that George Bush wasn’t paying enough attention to people in his administration working on his behalf.
When Ron Paul is a private citizen, with a medical practice and speaking engagements, and doesn’t pay attention to what people write in a newsletter that he is not the editor of (he was the publisher), I’m NOT SURE this warrants the same level of disgust.
I do not know enough of Ron Paul’s activities during this period, to say conclusively whether he should have been paying enough attention to this newsletter. But it is clear to me that he wasn’t as negligent as Bush has been. So I wouldn’t be so quick to make this analogy as you have. Do some more research into his activities at the time, and then report on that.
It would be nice if someone did some original research on this topic, because near as I can tell, everything is just reporting what people said years ago, which was focused on the sensationalism of what was printed in a newsletter only some 5000ish subscribers - rather than on how much he should have been paying attention given his activities at the time.
Comment by Jeff Winchell — January 13, 2008 @ 1:24 pmI’m going to agree that people that excuse Paul from ‘dirty tricks’ because ‘other politicians’ do it are kidding themselves. They really just have to accept that Ron Paul /does/ have faults. He is a human being, just like everyone else, and people need to stop raising him on such a pedestal.
I’ve never had a problem with this. Even as a human being though, he’s a pretty great guy just like a lot of people. His only worrisome flaw, for me at least, is as UC pointed out: He’s not a very good judge of character. While this is pertinent to deciding who you’ll vote for president, I don’t hold that it’s as damning as people would have you believe. The goods far outweigh the bads, and this ratio of good and bad is /far/ better than anyone else out there so far.
I’m also not buying the fact that Paul is /generally/ incompetent. He’s the worst newsletter editor on the planet, this has been established. But he’s tackled stuff a little tougher than that without a major mistake on record, like being a doctor and a congressman. Even with this glaring problem, I don’t have any problem voting for him.
Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:29 pmStill waiting for an explanation from Ron Paul supporters about why he defended the newsletters in 1996.
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:30 pmJoe
—-”It’s surprising the Paulies have not swarmed to this article denouncing it. I swear that they are delusional.”
See we all are racial and derrogotory at times.
Comment by Teresa — January 13, 2008 @ 1:32 pmIf he really is as rasist as you and the others says why has no body found a clip of him speaking this way. There is ALWAYS a clip!
But, hey lets elect, one of the others who we know are going to keep us in this war. Obama and Clinton both said that we would be in the war until we won it. I am sure that you know that the others are saying the same thing.
Be ready to pay for it with your money and your 2 year service commitment that is working on being passed right now. It says that anyone man or woman (having kids does not excuse you, only mental or physical health will), illegal or citizen, between the ages of 18 to 42 must serve a 2 year term and one of the conditions in activating this law, a prolonged occupation!
Guess what, Iraq is considered that.
On the money side, the war, right now, if we bring troop levels WAY down (which none of them plan to do) each family cost for the war so far is about $26,000 dollars per year.
If anyone wants the information that I have just listed above I will be happy to get it to you.
Thanks for listening!
Shane,
This goes to his judge of character. He said in 2001 that his campaign aides told him to own up to it because, ‘it appeared in a newsletter with your name therefore you’re stuck with it’. Despite this, he still fired the guy that wrote the offensive material. So maybe he wasn’t defending it as much as you think.
Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:34 pmR. Merz,
Who did he fire? I’ve yet to see a place where Ron Paul said he fired anyone. If he did indeed fire someone, could you give me a name and source it? I’ve been trying to track down that rumor.
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:36 pm“A good point?” Here is a “Good Point” you seem to have ignored:
Your precious “dirt” on Ron Paul just happened to break on New Hampshire’s primary day… Why do you think that is? He’s held office for a long time, the issue of those newsletters have been addressed long ago, but “SHOCKER”, it just happens to get new life on a primary day. Keep grasping at straws!
And another “Good Point” you may want to consider: If Ron Paul is such a racist then why would he pardon all of the non-violent prisoners arrested on drug charges, most of which are from minority decent? Do you think those people and their families will think he is a racist? Other candidates recite tired, empty emotionally laced pandering crowd pleasing one liners, but “Where’s the beef”?
By the way, why haven’t Sharpton, Jackson and company jumped all over Paul? Where is the “outrage”? It seems it’s mostly “Angry White ‘Anti-Paul’ Men”, who are trying to rally around this pathetically transparent political hatchet piece, clutching on to the “Newsletters” with a death grip.
Why does the protection of individual liberty and a restoration of the constitution scare you guys so much? I recommend reading George Washington’s farewell address, and then reconsider which candidates truly represent the people.
The Liberty Papers? This is a joke right?
Just curious… who is it that you “defenders of liberty” support? Why not boldly express who your favorite candidate is? Make your case. Don’t just take pot shots. Who’s your choice and why?
P.S. Have you ever served in our military? Let us know what you have done to sacrifice for this country. Share with us your background. Ahh, never mind, I think I already have a good idea of what your about… SEMPER FI Tinkerbell!
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=smedleywasright
Comment by Matt — January 13, 2008 @ 1:38 pmok then dont vote because all these losers have serious problems and im not talking 30 years ago im talking about right now. Besides I would urge people that want to know more about paul should hear it from him and not from you. You suck and dont belong in his company. Let people see him on youtube defend himself rather than hit pieces from nitwits like you.
Anyways I doubt these hits are going to work because they only give him more attention which is the last thing you want if you hate the guy. The more you see of him the more you have to like him.
Shill
Comment by scrappy koala — January 13, 2008 @ 1:39 pmEvery single report I see about the incident says he fired the guy that wrote it. I can’t track down an exact source right now, so I’m afraid I can’t really substantiate the argument, but you were looking for an answer so that’s the best I can give. They never gave a name, my personal guess is for legal reasons or he didn’t want to trash the guy any further.
But, again, I can’t recall an /exact/ source. If I find one, I’ll throw it up here, but I was reading it from solid accounts.
Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:40 pmMatt,
When is the appropriate time to bring to attention to a national audience, the past associations of a candidate? After the primaries?
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:40 pmShane:
For Christ sake, have you read the 2001 article in the Texas Monthly in which he VOUNTEERED that he had lied in 1996 and wrongly defended the comments in 1996. BTW, who is your better candidate? BTW, politicians lie. The only difference is that Paul admitted when he didn’t have to (back in 2001). Does that carry any weight for you?
For an account from last year, see here:
http://thestressblog.com/2007/05/22/ron-paul-is-not-a-racist/
Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 1:41 pmShane—–
Comment by Teresa — January 13, 2008 @ 1:41 pm“Still waiting for an explanation from Ron Paul supporters about why he defended the newsletters in 1996″
I do not know the answer to why he defended the newsletters in 1996.
Maybe because only 7,000 people were subscribed to the newsletter so it would take longer to come out.
What you should be wondering is why he still got elected after this all happened if he was indeed
saying these things. His political career should have been over a long time ago, if he was guilty.
Do you believe that the people of his district are either so stupid, or so “racial” themselves that they kept electing him?
Can we please use logic and think here?
Another article ignoring the truth of the matter, and reality in general.
1)Yes, it’s not only possible that he didn’t know about these (few) tid bits that went out under his name, it’s ordinary. People that can’t believe “someone else” could write things in a politician’s name are totally naive and don’t know how this type of stuff works in the real world. -Tons of stuff is put out EVERY month under their name and they don’t even get close enough to blow their nose on it. -Paul is an ACTUAL politician, who was ELECTED into Congress, unlike any Libertarian ever.
2) When these things were printed Ron had left Washington disgusted and disillusioned and lent his name to a very small, right if center publishing outfit that operated 60 miles away from his house. Paul took up his medical practice and speaking tours and farming and all the other crap that goes along with being a father of four.
3) I’ve read all the stuff (in it’s entirety) in those publications and for the time, it’s pretty mild right of center, talk radio type of fodder. -He’s a human, and as such he made some mistakes and oversights that were taken advantage of in a hit piece by a lefty rag. -A rag responsible for one of, if not the WORST, cases of journalistic fraud EVER. -Forget Ron Paul, Google search Stephen Glass!
4) While we’re all curled up in fetal positions, sobbing about the revelation that our (gasp!) leader turned out to be a human being, Hillary Clinton is winning in the race for the nod from the LARGEST PARTY in America!
-Hillary…the lady who’s got Whitewater, dead bodies and the worst White House sex scandal ever in her past.
So yes, I have no problem with a president who has just a teeny tiny bit (in comparison) of white lying and indiscretion in his past.
Comment by Billy — January 13, 2008 @ 1:42 pmBut make sure to post an update if Gandhi’s mummy joins the race. -I might consider him too.
R. Merz,
My sense is that, since on the Wolf Blitzer interview, he acted like he basically had no idea what was going on, not once mentioned firing anyone, that it’s just an internet rumor by Paul supporters that he fired anyone.
His statements defending the newsletters in 1996, to his taking *partial* responsibility in 2001, to the “I cannot recall” defense of 2008, doesn’t look honest to me.
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:42 pmBilly,
When did calling African-Americans “animals” become mild right of center?
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:43 pmWhat’s interesting is not the story itself, but to watch the media, working as one, pushing a 15-year-old story that’s been readily available to them for years, as “breaking news.”
Just think if this piece was about the fact that Giuliani is considered a fraud and a coward by NY firemen? You people would automatically be up in arms about that, wouldn’t you? What if the corporations decided to whip up a story about Hillary’s extremely shady past with Bill (complete with body count)? Gee, then you people would be outraged about that. How about Marge Shoedinger? She actually filed charges against GW Bush and accused him of rape and brutality, and then she “committed suicide”. Let the corporations break that story …
You see, when our information sources are bought and sold, a few people can calmly decide what you’ll spend your time and energy on. They can withhold terrible truths, and they can turn trivialities into grand melodramas–as you see here.
So they’ve handed you 15-year-old photo copies, and now you lab rats can get outraged on cue, and respond according to the program, and only think about what you’re instructed to think about.
Comment by rob — January 13, 2008 @ 1:44 pmTeresa,
I’m not as interested in his election results, as I am in how *he* handles the situation, which so far as been done without honest, transparency, or contrition. I find that more telling.
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:45 pmR. Merz,
To be honest, before his poor character-judging ability was exposed I saw him as something of a Gerald Ford-type president only while passing less legislation. He’d do some good stuff but not all that much because he’d have a hostile Congress, he’d veto most of the horrible bills that crossed his desk, he’d follow some smart foreign policy and get us out of countries where we had no interest in being, and generally I thought he’d be pretty decent but not great. Now I see him more as a Jimmy Carter-type of president…poor decision-making, won’t get much done at all, somewhat prone to manipulation on foreign policy by foreign leaders who can b.s., not very good about dealing with setbacks. I still think he’d be pretty good about vetoing bad bills and he certainly wouldn’t be the worst person ever to sit in the White House, but I can’t see him as anything more than a one-termer and I think a lot of people would end up disappointed in him.
Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 1:45 pmKeep pounding this tempest in a teapot. It actually brings to light some darker areas of YOUR beliefs. I’m still trying to figure out why you call yourself “libertarians”.
Comment by Larry in SC — January 13, 2008 @ 1:45 pmrob,
These newsletters weren’t that easy to find. He had to got Wisconsin to find them, and they only became easily accessible after recent conversion to micro-fiche. This is the first time anyone’s been able to read the nuttiness.
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:46 pmLarry in SC,
“Keep pounding this tempest in a teapot. It actually brings to light some darker areas of YOUR beliefs. I’m still trying to figure out why you call yourself “libertarians”.”
UC takes a drink.
Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 1:52 pmUC,
I see your point, it did take some convincing to get him to run in the first place, but I really think all this newfound support has charged him up. While he may have trouble with is, it’s STILL a step in the right direction, even if it’s not all that grand a step. We’ve been on a landslide for decades and Ron Paul is a monkey wrench that could possibly toss us in the right direction.
Shane,
I’m blaming this on the campaign. It’s inept. It’s trying to play this off as something unimportant that’ll blow over. It’s not really happening. In Paul had professionals in his corner in stead of libertarian activists, he’d be doing a lot better than the stumbling that’s going on here.
Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 1:55 pmLarry,
Who are you talking about, and why?
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 1:55 pmShane:
Nonsense! The newsletters used by the TNR reporter were in Kansas, not Wisconsin. You are half right here. There are also copies in Wisconsin too! Also, the newsletter issue was reported in 1996, 2001 and have been in Paul’s Wikipedia’s entry since 2006. In your frenzy to destroy to Paul, you appear to be showing the same footloose attitude toward the truth that you accuse him of him of.
Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 1:55 pmYou’ve ignored Dr. Paul’s actual explanation. While he was not in Congress in the late 80s and early 90s he allowed these newsletters to be co-opted by others and did not pay attention to what was being printed. They were NOT being printed by him or mailed by him or his office and he wasn’t receiving any income from the subscriptions. This was all pre-internet and email so unless someone mailed or faxed him a copy it wouldn’t come to his attention as it would today. He washed his hands of the newsletters. He says he takes moral responsibility for having allowed this to happen. To label him as either the moral equivalent of Clinton or the inept management of W is just wrong. Point to one other area either label would apply to Dr. Paul, you can’t. You have to put out two possible smears because neither one has any other supporting evidence. You need a little more water in your bucket to make either argument float.
Comment by John R — January 13, 2008 @ 1:58 pmShane
“I’m not as interested in his election results, as I am in how *he* handles the situation, which so far as been done without honest, transparency, or contrition. I find that more telling.”
Be “honest” Shane, you didn’t like him before this stuff came out did ya!
Comment by Teresa — January 13, 2008 @ 1:59 pmMost of you were just waiting for the reason to hate him.
What really gets me is that you are the very people who have been calling us all kinds of names and putting us in different racial catagories way before this stuff about Paul came out. Please do yourself a favor and be as honest with yourself as you demand Paul be.
As i see it the so called liberty papers has done a great job of attacking the only pro liberty canidate . Just review the number of attacks from this blog. but for a while they stopped attacking paul now they are back to there old tricks.
Maybe another view point is best. I invented a product that receives many request for Lic. When, I agree to lic the product by another name for the most part I have no say so over the marketing of the product. Sure, I could require some kind of strict rules but in the end it’s hard to police all the rules from various groups.
At times it puts my product at risk if sold by the wrong person but in the end it’s still the same product. As I see it the more my product is lic the more people benefit from the product. I can’t speak for unlike most who post on blogs I doubt any of us have assited the ideals of Liberty as paul does. Sure, you can make a case for or oppose paul on this issue. but it’s best to look at his actions and not perceive negative points but rather look at what he has done over the last 30 years.
Likewise, when my patent is picked up from various companies it may be sold by groups I don’t support and I have little say so over what the profits from the product will be used for.
So all of these anti paul sites really need to focus on Mike Huckabee, or the the supported CFR options instead of attacking Ron Paul who has my deep respect. For those of you who want to BMW go support somone else.
Comment by Darel — January 13, 2008 @ 2:01 pmShane never mistakes, never lies, and most of all (unlike Paul) never ever admits error. Got that?
Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 2:02 pmDods, he clearly doesn’t like Paul and is looking for reasons to not like him even more, but he’s mostly just poking at angry supporters. He’s not really being as totalitarian as you’re laying out, though.
Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 2:06 pmOh, yet another POINT if he wanted to he could have just paid the right people to cover the whole thing up.
Comment by Teresa — January 13, 2008 @ 2:06 pmI am sorry that you trust the people who would have done that very thing to keep something from coming out instead of the one who faced it and took moral responsibility.
Nobody is perfect, why do you expect him to be. His voting record is 100% when compaired to the things he says he wants to accomplish. But you would rather have someone who flip-flops.
I guess you will be wondering if this race thing was really so important when you are serving your mandatory 2 year service in the war.
I think Adam and Doug enjoy talking about liberty and freedom but in the end it’s just talk. They will find reasons not to support Paul. it’s kind like Tucker carlson who says he supports Paul but then invites a pimp to support Ron Paul. If you really supported ron paul I would have never invited a pimp to a news event.
But Adam and Doug don’t stoop to those low standards instead they imply dishonest points and for some reason still lack the ability to support Dr. Paul. Also, I have watched the FEC fillings and excuse me if I’m wrong but I have not seen Doug’s name on the FEC fillings for somoone who supports paul. has anyone else?
As time passes and I age each year it has became clear tome over time that there are a larger number calling themselves patriots but in the end most still will not expose the corruption of gov or even visit local gov issues. SO unless this changes nothing will change.
Adam and Doug only talk about the issues which makes it just as bad as if they were deaf and dumb about the issues.
Comment by Darel — January 13, 2008 @ 2:09 pmwell said Darel
Comment by Teresa — January 13, 2008 @ 2:11 pmI know….but all this has been known for years. Here is the source of my frustration and not just shane: If the righteous crusaders at Liberty Papers is so hot and bothered about it now, why were they talking it about it (at least not very much) back in 2007 or earlier? The basic facts in the case haven’t changed much since reported by Texas Monthly in 2001. Perhaps they owe an apology for their failure to monitor the situation properly.
Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 2:12 pmI meant to say why weren’t they talking about it back in 2007.
Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 2:13 pmShane,
Calling African Americans “animals” is not mild right of center, but calling rioters who may happen to be African American “animals” was and IS mild right of center, talk radio, walk-up-to the-line and spit-over-but-don’t-cross-it kind of stuff. Not my bag, but I tune in to righty tighty radio (and NPR as well) once in a while. -Listen to that stuff for a week and tell me if I’m wrong, and while you’re at it, read the pieces in question in their ENTIRETY. I’m sure their not your cup of tea and they aren’t mine either, but there is really nothing that big of a deal there. -Thanks
Comment by Billy — January 13, 2008 @ 2:13 pmI didn’t like Ron Paul before, and I’ve documented why on my website, where I show how he’s not really a libertarian (imho), but just a right wing christian crank, who is only a constitutionalist if as long as you ignore the fourteenth.
I’ve always been honest that I don’t like Ron Paul which is why I linked my website to all my comments.
I make mistakes all the time. However, I don’t defend them first, and then years later claim I didn’t know what was going on and blame the amorphous “someone else.”
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 2:14 pmDods,
He’s running for a national office. It’s not old news to most of the country. Maybe the few facts we do have haven’t changed, but what has changed is Paul’s explanation. In 2001, he only took *partial* moral responsibility. His words, not mine. Now he’s trying to change it and spin it that he’s always taken full responsibility, which isn’t true.
Comment by Shane Brady — January 13, 2008 @ 2:17 pmDarel,
“As i see it the so called liberty papers has done a great job of attacking the only pro liberty canidate [sic]”
(UC takes a drink)
“Maybe another view point is best. I invented a product that receives many request for Lic. When, I agree to lic the product by another name for the most part I have no say so over the marketing of the product. Sure, I could require some kind of strict rules but in the end it’s hard to police all the rules from various groups”
Actually if you own a property and license it out, you do have the ability to control the marketing campaign of that product. It’s called a contract. People often make them when they engage in consensual activities with each other and the person who has ownership of said product generally has the authority to dictate terms on how that product is used or presented if he includes that authority in the contract. So Ron Paul is actually responsible for everything that was written in the newsletter that went out under his name and, let’s not forget this, made money for him. Nice bullshit rationalization, though…I’ll be adding it as one of the rules for the Paulestinian Drinking Game.
Rule 7: Rationalization for why Ron Paul is not responsible for things he does or things that his employees do while officially representing him = one drink.
(UC takes a drink)
“So all of these anti paul sites really need to focus on Mike Huckabee, or the the supported CFR options instead of attacking Ron Paul who has my deep respect. For those of you who want to BMW go support somone else.”
Rule 8: Engaging in the fallacy of tu quoque (the fallacy of defending an error in one’s reasoning by pointing out that one’s opponent has made the same error) = one drink.
(UC takes a drink)
Comment by UCrawford — January 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pmRon Paul has taken blame and hasn’t blamed someone else. That’s part of the problem. He refuses to throw someone else to the woods for his mistake. You still can’t get your facts right in your zeal to destroy Paul.
Thanks for the personal confession of virtue. We lesser humans don’t quite measure up I’m afraid.
I, for one, plead guilty to making mistakes, foolishly defending them, and then apologizing later. I suspect most of humanity can say the same with the notable exception of that paragon of virtue named Shane.
Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pmYawn, we know they’re clearly not written by Paul, so i see your lack of oversight comment…but here’s where your failure comes in.
Paul should not censor what is said.
Paul merely allowed his report as a vehicle for those who wished to announce their views. in a sense a modern day Internet forum.
just as you are not responsible for the comment i make. nor is he…
your conclusions are wrong in that he is neither a liar nor incompetent.
he isn’t using the “i can’t recall”, and he isn’t protecting anyone or anything but free speech.
actions speak louder than words. had he chosen to censor what was said, or repeal them or make large edits to them, what service would he have done to their writers. It is by his inaction that he eludes this “statist politician” nonsense that you espouse him to. By allowing these minority voices to be heard in this forum he stood by his position of personal freedom.
Ron Paul Revolution.
Comment by FrancisM — January 13, 2008 @ 2:21 pmFor Christ’s sake Shane, it was Paul who VOLUNTEERED the information back in 2001 when he safely elected for their third time and said he was resposnible and your’re going to quibble about a single word.
Comment by Dodsworth — January 13, 2008 @ 2:24 pmYou’re likely not getting many responses from Paul enthusiasts not because they’re discouraged, but because this column’s writing is vapid. This author brings nothing new, just parrots others. You wanted honest opinions, that’s mine.
Comment by AB — January 13, 2008 @ 2:24 pmShane,
You said yourself, he defended some comments in ‘96. So he clearly took a large measure of responsibility there, and I’m telling you the firing thing is no rumor. When it propped up in ‘07, it was mentioned in every report. I can’t fight them right now, but I’m not bending any facts here.
All of that stuff is, in large part, the campaign’s fault for being incompetent and also, in large part, Paul’s part for not firing the lot of idiots and doing right by his supporters.
Because of his staff and his unwillingness to change, he’s not winning in 08′. I thought he might’ve earlier before I knew the staff were idiots, but now I know he’s not.
However.
He /still/ beats everyone else in integrity and on the issues even if he’s fucked up and has a judgment problem. He’s not winning, but I’m still voting for the best.
Comment by R. Merz — January 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pmMertz,
The whole reason for the white lie debacle was because he used a well known Republican strategist for his return bid. It won him the election, but he regreted taking the advice, owned up on his own, and refused to use slimy strategists after that. -Hence the crappy condition of the way his campaign is being run. By libertarians!
P.S. -I’ve been in the LP for ten years and we can’t win jack shit! Knowing this, it’s unbelievable that Paul got ten percent. That’s a tidal wave for libertarians!
Comment by Billy — January 13, 2008 @ 2:25 pmLet’s take a breath here. Could it just be possible that since Dr. Paul has taken moral responsibility for 20 years about this and has still not pointed fingers at those who are responsible to turn them into scapegoats that he is in fact taking a principled stand?
Can anyone understand how there is absolutely no way to remove this smear except to deliberately accept it as the smear that it is, act in a manner that Dr. Paul views as principled, and move on?
Dr. Paul is already in the limelight and is already being “hit” over multiple things. Regardless of how he feels about the writings or the writers what good would it do to try and shift the focus of that limelight onto someone else potentially ruining their lives over something they wrote 20 years ago?
Don’t libertarians as enlightened individuals believe in the ability of people to change? Don’t libertarians as people believe t