rapeland would've at least been funny.
Rob | Homepage | 01.09.08 - 2:29 pm | #

fuck...anyone else having issues with our comments? i had one, now it's gone, and i noticed the same thing earlier on a different post.
Rob | Homepage | 01.09.08 - 3:01 pm | #

Cicero,

Fair, objective post (like you needed my corroboration). BLUF (bottom line up front): I too am a Paul supporter and think he should come out strongly and refute/explain this part of his past (I don’t need to hear it personally, but there are those that do). As much as I hate to see him lend any semblance of credence to Kirchick’s’ willful ignorance by responding to it, he is running for the highest executive office in the land (subjectively speaking) and should explain his apparent lack of executive oversight in these instances.

Just from the excerpt you posted (and other bits I’ve read) it’s obvious to me that the majority of the writing is not even consistent with Paul’s style. I don’t know that I believe he would knowingly allow these kinds of ideas to be published under his name due solely to monetary gain (may be totally wrong), but that’s the very problem isn’t it…all this conjecture is the very reason he needs to be straight with his supporters and, in the process, maybe answer some/all of your questions.

Stabbin Island…love it!

Tom
Tom Sullivan | 01.09.08 - 4:27 pm | #

Rob, yeah comments seem to be srewed-up. Two of yours showed when I posted my earlier one...now there's only your first one showing. The comment counter in the post still ony shows one. ???
Tom
Tom Sullivan | 01.09.08 - 4:29 pm | #

Humm...well I'll just blame blogger and forget about it. Always works!

As for Paul...Tom makes the point that everyone is making --

"that’s the very problem isn’t it…all this conjecture is the very reason he needs to be straight with his supporters and, in the process, maybe answer some/all of your questions."

yes. i'm not a die-hard supporter (but i would've vote for him in the MD GOP primary), but if i'm supposed to take him and his canidacy seriously it would be nice if he did the same, and answered some questions.
Rob | Homepage | 01.09.08 - 6:56 pm | #

Tom,

I guess it wouldn't have to be a personal appeal although that would be nice. I think ideally he should release a youtube clip explaining this whole thing. But I guess a detailed campaign FAQ might relieve some of my concerns. As for my conjecture on monetary gain, I could be wrong. But if it wasn't for money, then why? Because he believed it? Or because he really did lend out his name without seeing what it was being used for? And didn't read the newsletter for at least four years. During which time some of the offensive pieces made news in some libertarian circles and no one pointed it out to him.
cicero | Homepage | 01.09.08 - 7:51 pm | #

Cicero, good points no doubt. And you could also be right on the money thing, especially if we take what WIRKMAN says at face value; I guess my point was that it seems inconsistent with his character. I think it possible (or maybe just want to believe) that, when sold on something by someone he trusts/trusted, he appears to me like he could be a bit too trusting, too hands-off. Especially if that someone promised him to oversee the project, edit as necessary, control content, you know, manage. The good Dr. doesn’t strike me as a micro-manager. He also could have periodically reviewed these rags (I haven’t seen anything from him that states whether he did or did not) and just missed the worst ones. I only get the local paper on weekends, which means I’m “reviewing” the general style and content but could be missing some significant news that’s printed on other days. I know I’m really reaching here in an effort to maintain (in my mind) the shiny armor of his character, but hey, desperate times…

All of this being said, regardless of the explanation, this does seem to speak to his managerial style, hence the problem.

BTW, the comments seem to be working now.

Tom
Tom Sullivan | 01.10.08 - 9:05 am | #

The truly repugnant stuff all falls between June 1990 and Feb 1991. And is really limited to 4 Newsletters.

Everything else is weird and kooky, perhaps inappropriate but not hateful. I could see these things slipping by Paul's review.

OTOH Someone needs to take the fall for them. Its big boy politics when you run for president. Paul needs to out whoever was in charge of these newsletters in 90-91, otherwise right or wrong, the buck will continue to stop with him.
Dakota | 01.10.08 - 11:38 am | #

Tom nails it with this:

"All of this being said, regardless of the explanation, this does seem to speak to his managerial style, hence the problem."

The way he's handled it so far is not how I want a congressman, much less a president, to act.
Area Man | 01.11.08 - 3:56 pm | #