January 8, 2008

The Real Racist Candidate

Do you want some "hold music" while I'm finishing up my next article from Fallujah? It should be ready later today, and I'll give you something else on another topic to consider in the meantime.

In the comments section yesterday I asked readers to please stop throwing the "racist" label at presidential candidates they don't like. That's a serious and potentially libelous charge that needs to be backed up with real solid evidence. (Rudy Giuliani and Barack Obama were both unconvincingly called racists by someone or other.)

This is what a real racist presidential candidate looks like. I didn't quite buy that particular accusation against Ron Paul, but now I sure do.

UPDATE: Ron Paul disowns the monstrously racist articles that appeared in his newsletter. That's something, but geez, man. Those kinds of articles certainly would never appear in a newsletter with my name on the top of it. He says he didn't edit his newsletter. Fine. Did he ever read it?

UPDATE: Roger L. Simon says what I mean a little more bluntly: "The only name on those newsletters is Ron Paul, no matter who wrote the actual articles. We all know that most politicians do not write their own speeches, but we certainly hold them to the contents. Why not Paul? And this creepy stuff went on for over ten years. It's not like one week slipped by."

UPDATE: John Podhoretz at Commentary puts it even more bluntly: "Ah, so the Ron Paul Political Report featured articles expressing views a man named Ron Paul found abhorrent, did it? This is reminiscent of the hilarious denunciation by Charles Barkley of his own ghostwritten autobiography. The only difference is that Charles Barkley was a basketball player at the time, while Ron Paul is a sitting member of Congress and a candidate for president of the United States. If he did know about what was published under his name and he’s lying about it now, he’s a blackguard as well as a disgusting public figure. If he didn’t know, he’s a pathetic buffoon who sold his own name to racists and intellectual thugs. Not sure which is better."

Posted by Michael J. Totten at January 8, 2008 1:17 PM

Michael, you might want to take a look at this Sullivan post. I'm far from a Paul fan, but as a black man, I've never sensed any racism from him, and find his defense creditable.

Posted by: Woodrow Jarvis "asim" Hill Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 1:38 PM

This does a lot to explain where Paul's money is coming from. The really ugly cranks haven't had a dog in the fight for years. There has to be a pool of hate money that Paul is tapping into.

Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 1:40 PM

Michael, just a friendly warning of events that may come. Saw the article at PJ and there were over 130 posts. I would say 95% by RP's supporters. "Conspiracy" seemed to be the main theme. It should be, educational to see what happens here.

Eagerly awaiting your next article.:)

Posted by: Kevin Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 1:41 PM

Ron Paul has issued a response disowning and condemning the articles in question:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts."
Posted by: creamygoodness Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 1:42 PM

Thanks for that link, Creamy. Update added.

Posted by: Michael J. Totten Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 1:52 PM

It appears that the offensive words were not uttered by Ron Paul, merely published under his name. If this was a once-off and an apology had been published in the next issue, he would have a lot more credibility. Because he doesn't have a published retraction until now, his statement carries a lot less weight.

He should have spent some more of the campaign money investigating himself. This shows a lack of managerial competence and foresight in his organization, not something that recommends voting for the candidate.

Posted by: Patrick S Lasswell Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 2:05 PM

When a candidate runs on an anti-establishment platform it is only natural that he will draw other anti-establishment types to himself, even if they disagree with the particulars. The further outside the establishment they are, the angrier and more active they will be, and who is farther than racists and the 911truth people? To insinuate that a majority, or even a sizable minority, of the astoundingly broad support Ron Paul has received falls into either of those two categories strikes me as being cynical in the extreme.

Posted by: ATBowman Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 2:49 PM

It appears that the offensive words were not uttered by Ron Paul, merely published under his name.


He had someone ghostwriting his newsletter for him, and didn't bother to read it before it was published?

Either way, it looks bad. Very bad.

Posted by: rosignol Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 3:14 PM



He's attributing them to a ghostwriter, but is acknowledging that they were published under his name. Ronulans hoping for a Rathergate scenario are going to be disappointed.

Posted by: rosignol Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 3:22 PM

Let's say that Ron Paul didn't write a single word in those newsletters. He doesn't share any of the opinions expressed in them at all.

That means for years in his name and by his staff a newsletter went out propagating falsehoods and he either didn't notice or didn't care.

Now as president, I wonder if he would display the same attitude towards administrative actions taken by his staff in his name?

Anyways, pay a visit to the Ron Paul Forums (ronpaulforums.com) if you want to either waste time or watch a ridiculous and frankly cultish response to the TNR article. It's a bizarre mix of conspiracy theorists who deny it all, others who are preparing to jump off a building and a minority who agree with everything in the newsletters and can't see what the fuss is about.

Posted by: cyberpunk fiction Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 3:31 PM

I should repeat what Kevin posted earlier.

Your blog may be invaded by the Ron Paul Revolution. Supporters knocked out TNR's web site for about two hours earlier this afternoon.

Posted by: cyberpunk fiction Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 3:35 PM

I wish that we had about 50 Ron Paul clones in the Congress, because the guy looks out for my wallet. I dread the thought of Ron Paul in the White House.

I do not believe for a second that Ron Paul is a racist. I do believe that he has a campaign made up largely of kooks whom he does a poor job of supervising. His candidacy had a good opportunity of lending greater credibility to the small government views of both large "L" and small "l" libertarians. Unfortunately, he is running a campaign that will ultimately damage the cause.

Libertarians already had a tough sell to make because they are usually misrepresented as single-issue, marijuana legalization activists. The recent behavior of his supporters has taken a glimmer of hope that small government philosophy could be taken more seriously and snuffed it out. To be fair, Paul's foreign policy views are not helping things, either. But, the rabid, foaming-at-the-mouth weirdos who constitute a significant chunk of his grassroots supporters have destroyed all credibility for his campaign and, by extension, the ideology that underlies his domestic policy view.

Consider a recent encounter that I had with some Paul supporters. I was in NH during Christmas and his supporters were swarming the streets of downtown Portsmouth. One approached me and attempted to hand me a political flyer. I politely refused, stating that I am aware of his positions. The guy stated, in a joking but polite way, "so you're voting for him, then?" I stated no - that I like his domestic views, but I think foreign policy is the bigger issue this year and I do not like his views on Iraq.

That was when it began. I got the standard BS line of, "well, if there were a draft and guys like you and I had to face the prospect of being sent to Iraq, then I think that more people would support Ron Paul." Not being completely braindead, I understood his higher context message, and it is a load of crap. I pointed out that two months prior, I returned from my third deployment to Iraq, yet I still oppose Paul's view. He gave the standard "thanks for your service" crap. When I pressed him to defend his position and explain how it is that I could support continuing the fight, he wouldn't even address the question.

And that, in my opinion, is pretty typical of the support for Ron Paul. While they hold the small government view, it is largely people with pacifist views who constitute the energetic grassroots support for his campaign. His kook foreign policy views have alienated those of us who are reasonable. Unfortunately, he will ultimately be remembered as a libertarian who was soundly defeated because he was only supported by kooks. And the long faltering libertarian movement will remain inviable.

Posted by: Saint in Exile Author Profile Page at January 8, 2008 4:49 PM

Saint in Exile:

That's good, your blog is good. That should be repeated there. When looked at in a historic perspective, and in context, the Ron Paul effect chills the metaphorical spine.

He actually wasn't supported only by kooks, though I know one who started posting as a 'Troofer'. He was ALSO supported by those who didnt have the ambition to dig down into what postulating politicians REALLY menat in their claimed positions. They, at one and the same time, saw the blatant hypocrisy of the left elites claiming to be for the 'victim', but making thier fortunes in that exploit. While they saw Republicans as the same... and for good reason, if for nothing else but the pork.

Posted by: pettyfog Author Profile Page at January 9, 2008 7:49 AM

Ron Paul has been on my "radar screen", so to speak, for the past eight years. His core support is from people who desire radical changes in U.S. monetary policy - specifically, a return to the gold standard. There is so much money that could be made in odd places if Paul is elected that it is no wonder that he has financial supporters, though not as deeply-pocketed as the tort lawyers who support Edwards.

Posted by: Solomon2 Author Profile Page at January 10, 2008 6:39 PM

Roger Simon wrote "Pajamas Media has gotten a ton of it from these fanatics -"

How aPauling! The reason they bear the name supremacist is because they won't take "shut up" for an answer. Ron Paul's supporters' constant barking is really a distraction, but also a warning reminder that birds of a feather flock together.

Posted by: Dadmin Author Profile Page at January 10, 2008 7:05 PM

More reminding -- sad that it's needed -- that a kook in power is not just funny, he's DANGEROUS.

Posted by: Brian H Author Profile Page at January 11, 2008 2:19 AM

So when he passes our written material these days how do we know when he really means it?

When he speaks how can we be sure he is not just a ventriloquist dummy?

I suspect every thing he says including "the" "and" and "uh".

Posted by: M. Simon Author Profile Page at January 13, 2008 5:25 AM

I might add that I voted for him in '88.

Never again.

Posted by: M. Simon Author Profile Page at January 13, 2008 5:29 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Winner, The 2008 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Winner, The 2007 Weblog Awards, Best Middle East or Africa Blog

Read my blog on Kindle


Recommended Reading