Haha, yeah, cause Suicide Girls is a credible source. Gimme a break man. Is this that 1992 article that keeps getting recycled for these silly ad hominems? Why, yes it is. Amusing that this is all you all can dig up, a repudiated 15 year old article, when the man has repeatedly published completely the opposite statements all over the place, consistently, over the past 30 years. You guys need to do your homework a little better, you're starting to look desperate.
It seems to me that what he's saying here is simply that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are not doing black Americans any favors, and are increasing rather than decreasing racial intolerance. That's nothing new, or racist.
Bret,
Troll all you like. SuicideGirls pointed to the source, they weren't the source.
Susan,
There's no possible way to torture the article's plain speech to get what you got out of it. Therefore, I have to conclude that you read the SuicideGirls blurb (much of which I disagree with), rather than the original article, which is openly and unabashedly racist.
Regards,
Tom
Uhhh.... Don't you think that if he was a racists there would be more than 2 or 3 quotes in his more than 30 years of writing? LOL Come on.
Sorry. The man is NOT racists.
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/
Such assumptiveness doesn't become you, Tom.
When I wrote that I had only read what you quoted. I later read/scanned the full piece, which is indeed rather tediously racist in tone (also poorly written).
I still haven't read the SG comment(s), and don't particularly intend to.
Tom, as has been reported elsewhere the referenced article was written by a ghostwriter. In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly magazine Paul stated concerning the article: "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. ... It wasn't my language at all.” Apparently the ghostwriter was fired.
Does this say something about the man's judgment, in that he hired someone who would write such an article? Or that he would allow so much to go out under his name without having read the material? Maybe.
However, I know of a specific case where a certain ghostwriter composed a fundraising letter for a Presidential candidate that was used to raise money for a project that never materialized. The money has never been accounted for, the Presidential candidate denied ever lending his name to the letter (though he obviously did), and the ghostwriter and one of the principles have distanced themselves from the project.
If Ron Paul is a racist based on this evidence, then you, Michael Badnarik, and Stephen Gordon are perpetrators of fraud for similar reasons. I know that you are not a scam artist, Tom, based on the entirety of your record. I also know that Paul is not a racist based on the entirety of his record.
That Ron Paul is constantly used by the David Duke's of the world IS a valid criticism of his campaign. It is Paul's views on immigration that create these horrid bedfellows. And, of course, I am 100% with you in denouncing Dr. Paul's immigration policy positions. However, to call the man a racist when his 30+ year career has focused on smashing collectivist ideas ... I think you go too far.
Well I am a liberal who supports Ron Paul. Hillary or Obama might nuke Iran if elected. My brother is is prison for drug laws, my parents in poverty because of the IRS. Ron Paul is against the drug war, period. Who do you think is affected most by the drug war? African Americans. Overturning the drug war more than makes up for any racist comments. Would you rather have a cranky old white bigot who respects peace, liberty, and individuality or a feel good candidate like Hillary, who will continue the police state, war on drugs, invade iran, darfur, somolia, lebanon, venezuelia etc... No one will be able to implement their social issues( liberal or conservative) anyway. This is drama between ever expanding empire and intervention, or a republic. This is not about liberal vs. conservative, don't be fooled. Support Ron Paul if you care about liberty, or don't complain when a democrat keepsbombing foreign civilians, oh wait democrats didn't care when clinton bombed the serbians, iraqis etc.. I objected as a liberal.
This will continue to be dug up by Ron Paul's detractors till the end of time it seems. Observe Dr. Paul's detractors well, observe their agenda. It's all there.
Chris,
If I could kiss you right now, I would ... because you brought up an important aspect that I was hoping someone would.
In your analogy, Michael Badnarik would be analogous to Ron Paul, and I would be analogous to Ron Paul's ghost writer. For the analogy to work, Badnarik's response to queries regarding the LibertyMix letter would have been "I couldn't say it because the letter had my signature on it, but Knapp didn't phrase things quite the way I would have" ... with no further comment on the matter of Libertymix, implying that he thinks the big deal is not the LibertyMix fiasco, but his ghost writer's ability to voice him well.
Paul DOESN'T distance himself from the CONTENT of the piece. He just says that it wasn't said the way he would have preferred to say it.
Not "I don't believe that trash and I apologize that I allowed it to come out under my name."
Not "I'm embarrassed that this came out under my name and I assure you that it does not represent my ideas."
Not "I made a mistake and I apologize for it."
Just "that wasn't my language."
It's not the fucking style that concerns me. It's the substance. Paul disavowed the former, not the latter.
Susan,
I'm sorry if you think I was "assumptive." The only reasonable assumption to make (given my knowledge that you are both literate and well-versed in the issues at stake) was that you hadn't read the full piece, and that assumption turned out to be correct.
Regards,
Tom
Tom, you adorable little snake - do you really think it's -that- easy to distract me with flattery?
Don't try that rhetorical silliness on me - not when the full text of the discussion is posted right above. If you had said "you hadn't read the full piece," your assumption would indeed have been correct. But you didn't.
Instead you said "Therefore, I have to conclude that you read the SuicideGirls blurb ... rather than the original article," which was an incorrect assumption on your part. Just own up to it. Don't try to turn it back on ME. Sheesh.
Yes, I'm picking nits. I'm bored. I'm leaving for a new job in a week and have, as a co-worker describes it 'itis'. I will continue to plague you until I am insanely busy at the new job.
If I could kiss you right now, I would ...
OK, but no tongue.
In your analogy, Michael Badnarik would be analogous to Ron Paul, and I would be analogous to Ron Paul's ghost writer.
Well, I wasn't trying to make a direct analogy. They are obviously two different scenarios and situations.
The point I think that is more relevant is that Michael Badnarik had no recollection of the letter, at all. The reason: at the time he was signing a LOT of material that you were writing. What this highlights is that someone in the position that Bandarik and Paul are/were in will often have things written for them that they never get a chance to fully read. You implied that because it went out under his name, then "the unvaoidable [sic] conclusion is that this is what Paul believes." I disagree. It is certainly a conclusion that can be drawn, and in the absence of any other information it is indeed unavoidable. However, the rest of Dr. Paul's record contradicts the implications within the article's text, and Dr. Paul has stated that he did not write it.
Is he still morally responsible? Yes.
Which brings us to:
It's not the fucking style that concerns me. It's the substance. Paul disavowed the former, not the latter.
Should Dr. Paul have directly and forcefully disavowed the substance? Yes. Did he disavow the article directly? No. Did he disavow the substance at least indirectly? Yes. Many times throughout the following 15 years in his speeches and writing. But he is morally responsible for the content in the article, and he should have and should soon apologize for its creation forcefully and directly.
Personally, I believe Dr. Paul's immigration policies have racist consequences, as do Dr. Phillies' for that matter. However, I do not believe either man is a racist.
BTW, I like that Suicide Girls site. 
Chris,
One small correction. You write:
"The point I think that is more relevant is that Michael Badnarik had no recollection of the letter, at all. The reason: at the time he was signing a LOT of material that you were writing."
Actually, no he wasn't. I don't remember the exact date of the LibertyMix letter, but it was some time after the 2004 election, since which I had not been writing for him. I'm pretty sure he writes most of his own stuff when he's not in a situation where he's mainly running between airports with a phone on each ear.
Regards,
Tom
Susan,
Ah, poor communications skills on my part. When I referred to "the original article," I mean "the original article in Paul's newsletter," not "the original article on my blog." Sorry about that.
Regards,
Tom
Racist?
You would think I was the Libertarian Presidential candidate who referred to illegal immigrants as 'chicken-pluckers' and 'gardeners', or the Libertarian Presidential who referred to 'islamofascists' as though such a thing existed.
Try Again.
My position remains that our country is enormously enriched by the immigration that it welcomes, and that--unlike some other Presidential candidates--I support our Party's platform and the sensible economic observations of Dr. Friedman.
With some modest effort, you will confirm that almost all of my hard-working graduate students, who I delightedly and voluntarily agreed to take on as students, have been fresh-off-the-airplane immigrants, Most of them have remained in America and are making America a better place.
Boy is this ever silly.
1) I know that's what you meant by 'original article' (the Paul piece).
2) When I wrote my first response I had read neither the Paul piece nor the SG comment(s).
3) You assumed ('have to conclude') that I had read the SG bit, but had not read the Paul piece. You were half right.
4) I pointed out that you'd made an assumption.
5) You said you were correct because half of your assumption was correct.
6) Whatever.
Gee, this is fun. Much better than picking on poor Wes Benedict.
Hey, George (I'm getting bored with annoying Tom; time to move on):
You say "I support our Party's platform and the sensible economic observations of Dr. Friedman."
You DO know that 'sensible' Friedman's policy prescriptions contradict the LP platform in many ways. Right?
Calm down, George. I clearly said that I do not believe in any way that you are a racist.
Susan,
Milton Friedman changed his mind on occasion. His recommendations sometimes contradict *themselves*. That's why I stay with his *wise* recommendations.
George
I've read many, many Ron Paul articles and this was just not his writing style.
If all you can find is a 15 year old article that is not in his writing style, then you should admit that he is no racist.
However George, I do find your immigration policy positions to have racist consequences as discussed in greater detail here:
http://www.lastfreevoice.com/200...sidential-race/
I'm sure this is unintentional on your part, but it is one reason why I cannot support your bid for the LP nomination.
FYI,
Since George seems to want to get frisky, I'll quote verbatim the bit he alludes to:
"With respect to border security specifically, opening up immigration to peaceful people would make securing the border cheaper, not more expensive, because we'd only be chasing the real bad guys, not the people coming here to pick our grapes, pluck our poultry and landscape our lawns."
That's Steve Kubby from last night's debate with Wayne Allyn Root, available at:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/hos...x?
show_id=26918
If you find the statement offensive, I guess you can blame his ghost writer
When George wants to support his anti-libertarian "allow the state to hold immigration freedom hostage to welfare statism" position, he tells us that the immigrants he objects to are not "western Europeans" who share our "Roman" values. When he wants to deflect any accusation that this position is racist, the best he can come up with is noting another candidate acknowledges the value of some of the important jobs which many of our non-western-European, non-graduate student immigrants do.
Want to throw down, George? Si se puede.
Tom, I have great respect for you. No joke, I really do.
And you have done a HELL of a lot more for libertarians (and Libertarians) than I have.
But ...
1) This whole smear is pathetic. As many others have said, it's ONE newsletter many years ago balanced against years of arguably anti-racist deeds in defense of the Constitution. Some have claimed those quotes were in more than one newsletter, I really doubt it. I still haven't seen any pictures of the actual newsletter.
I am not a conspiracy theorist most of the time, but I can almost believe that some of the Republicans have been deliberately sending this pathetic smear attempt to liberal and libertarian websites to discredit Ron Paul. I don't have proof. But it's VERY thin gruel...not really solid stuff.
2) I enjoy your OSSotD series and until today I had assumed that the stupid statement had to have been SAID either that day or the day before. This one is a REAL stretch.
Ghostwriters aside, what exactly is racist in this?
Does he say, "Bring back segregation?"
No.
Does he say, "Blacks are biologically inferior?"
No.
What he does say is that the black community has been ideologically misled, and this has led to hatred and violence toward whites and Asians.
I find it hard to argue with that. A lot of people are ideologically misled. That's why the Libertarian Party typically polls less than one percent of the vote.
I don't see the problem. He didn't write it, someone else did.
Tom, this is what you've become in the last two years, an enabler of the authoritarian police state? This pains me, really.
Ron Paul on Racism
From the article:
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
Reject Draft Slavery
From the article:
All drafts are unfair. All 18- and 19-year-olds are never drafted. By its very nature a draft must be discriminatory. All drafts hit the most vulnerable young people, as the elites learn quickly how to avoid the risks of combat.
If you want to retain your ideological purity in politics, I'd suggest getting the hell out now. Politics and libertarianism are, by defnition, anathema to each other.
I've been around this block once or twice, you know that, and Dr. Paul's candidacy is the best opportunity this movement will have at this time to effect the change we'd like to see.
Dredging up nonsense like the quoted material means that Dr. Paul, unlike some in the movement, is human and has traits (even if the quoted material is close to his views on the subject) that are less than savory. Moreover, that was Ron Paul circa 1992, the one that wrote the article linked above was written in 2007... pretty sad that a libertarian can't stop to accept the concept that men could possibly *gasp* change their views on something... yo know, tolerance and all that.
This is the saddest thing that's happened in relation to Paul's campaign so far. Color me completely disappointed with you Tom.
Ta,
Tom Luongo
Thomas, you should be ashamed of yourself. Not only has Paul accepted responsibility for this when it happened, he has absolutely repudiated the racist implications made in the article in many different ways.
Most recently he did this in the New Hampshire debates when he explained that racism is a form of collectivism and that rights are bestowed upon individuals no groups.
You're simply shilling for pageviews Thomas. You are attempting to grab Dr. Paul's coattails and hope it will gain you some notoriety. How disgusting.
Guys,
Shilling for pageviews? That's just fucking silly. If that's what it was about, I could buy page views for eight bucks per 10,000, post some affiliate links to porn sites, and make some money.
Or, for that matter, I could just write the usual nice things about Dr. Paul and it would get me just as many views as writing what I did write, without the attendant outrage from long-time friends.
If you believe that I'm saying the things I'm saying about Ron Paul for some kind of effortless, meritless gain -- for myself, for my favored presidential candidate, whatever -- and that I don't actually believe what I'm saying ...
... well, you're entitled to your opinion, but so far as I am concerned that means we really have nothing of importance left to say to each other until one of us or the other discovers, and admits, that he was wrong. If you've followed my activities at all, you know I'm not too proud to do that.
As a matter of fact, I'll go one better. I have never erased a post from this blog, preferring to leave my errors intact -- helps me keep myself honest. If I discover that I'm wrong on this, I'll delete this post so as not to allow it to do continuing damage to Dr. Paul's reputation, and I'll replace it with a post that says something like "in this space, I once made some shamefully erroneous allegations about a good man, for which I apologize."
In the meantime, knock off the "more in sorrow than in anger" routine. You've as much as named me an enemy, so at least have the goddamn respect to treat me like your enemy instead of like your sloppy drunk friend whom you're trying to convince to stop hitting on the fat chick.
What would you say, Tom, if Ron Paul read a statement now in which he totally and completely repudiated the content of that article?
As anarchists (I believe I read once that you're an anarchist, forgive me if I'm wrong) it's my humble opinion that we should not be looking for any "silver bullets", but always viewing politics as an amoral system with which we interact, or not, to achieve moral outcomes as individuals (to the extent possible). We would be foolish to seek moral government, or moral leaders, thinking that that our morality is somehow predicated on anothers'. So even if Paul is a racist, so what? If he's the best candidate to advance our interests, then so be it.
You're correct that Ron Paul is no perfect candidate. But he's got the establishment a little scared, and that's of no small value. If I supported Ron Paul, it would not be because I don't think he's a racist (even though I doubt it thoroughly). It would be because he's well positioned to cause damage to the machinery or the system, which betters our position - at least I think so.
Kubby sounds like a wonderful candidate, too, so I really don't have anything to say to convince you to throw any weight behind Paul. And I'm glad you've brought these issues about Paul up. I think Paul would do well to address it in a forthright manner now, because much of what you say has merit until he sets the record straight.
Jeremy,
If Paul read a statement now in which he totally and completely repudiated the content of the article, then I would consider that, coupled with his former explanation that it was ghost-written, to constitute a complete closure of the matter, at least for me.
Keep in mind that I'm not pre-disposed to dislike Paul. I've treated him very positively in the past, and am as mad at myself as I am at anyone else here -- I have my own failure to sufficiently investigate who and what I was supporting to account for.
On the other hand, I don't consider Paul "the best candidate to represent our interests." I've offered a number of reasons for that opinion, and this particular matter represents another.
While I take full responsibility for writing what I've written, the fact of the matter is that I'm not the only, the most widely read, or anything like the first, writer to cover it ... and regardless of what he does now (or what I do now), both Paul himself AND the libertarian movement, Libertarian Party, etc., are going to suffer some blowback from the fact that that article was written and published under his name in the first place. That's just a fact of life.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
My second response to you was too long Thomas. So I just wrote you a letter. And no, I am not your enemy.
http://demidog.blogspot.com/2007...app-
please.html
If there is more fear instilled among participants of the Libertarian movement for what others may perceive of Ron, or of the Libertarian Party by hoisting up this ghost-written document, rather than fearing for the soundness of our principles, then I think that's a total waste of time and energy.
It's no small fact that Libertarians are not very successful in national politics, but I find it very contrary to disparage against a less principled but more successful candidate on a single document that defies the substantial content of his remaining speeches and writings, which are for the most part in line with what Libertarians, in general, are seeking for a presidential hopeful.
Ron should address and repudiate the document if it becomes an issue in the present tense, but I don't see why the LP should get so worked up with garnering a bad reputation considering they're not even supporting the guy officially, as far as I know. Credit should be given to the member of the LP who makes the effort to actually ask Ron himself about the article so that there is a clear record.
At the very core of Libertarian philosophy is, and remains to be an appreciation for individualism, and we should not be discomforted by the things another individual may have said. Collectivists, statists, and general enemies or political opponents of Libertarianism will feel how they will in broad terms about the whole lot of us, but those are shallow arguments, easily brushed aside when people have an opportunity to shine truth on the matter.
Ron has a spotlight, and an opportunity to shine truth, despite the spin and smear of mainstream media.
Wish you luck with your ambitions, but in this case it's not productive to assume and muddy the waters. Ron is on record as denouncing the article, and he may have to address it again if he wins a nomination. Until then...
John
from :
http://everything2.com/index.pl?...node=Ron%
20Paul
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
Instead of going batshit crazy over really old statements that weren't written by Ron Paul, has anyone *looks over at Tom* actually bothered lately to ask him his personal view on racism?
Tom,
If you are worried about "blowback" to the Libertarian movement regarding these non-statements from Ron Paul, then why add fuel to the fire? This subject has already been posted numerous times all over the blogosphere and debated ad nauseaum. In fact, the subject was beginning to settle down and (for the most part) go away.
I'll be honest: Even though I have great respect for you, your hopping onto the bandwagon to smear Ron Paul (at this late date) has really accomplished nothing of any value.
Gene,
You are correct that this subject has already been posted numerous times all over the blogosphere. That's precisely why I'm not worried about "adding fuel to the fire." This is a small blog with an insular libertarian readership. If there's a fire, I've added a splinter to it, not a log ... and we are the people who NEED to be discussing it, because ...
You're wrong. There has not been much "debate" at all on the subject.
Anti-libertarian conservatives have played some "gotcha" with the newsletter piece.
Anti-libertarian leftists have trotted it out as a reason for their fellow leftists not to adopt Paul as their anti-war figurehead.
And libertarians, as demonstrated right here, have pretty much plugged their ears with their index fingers and screamed, as loudly as possible, "if the facts are inconvenient, well, FUCK the facts; let's just call them a smear, pretend they've been addressed already, and hope they go away; I'm not LISSSSSTEEEEENNINGG ..."
That's not a debate. That's just wishful thinking harnessed to the desire to not confront reality.
I've probably said pretty much all I'm going to say about Ron Paul for awhile, unless I see convincing reason to retract things I've already said, in which case I'll do so. "I don't like the facts in front of me, so I guess just make up some I DO like and accuse you of being a smear artist" doesn't meet that test.
Regards,
Tom
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the link to Paul's article and a lively debate over it. I'll be upfront and politely disagree with your conclusions and ask you to reconsider your request for ditching Paul.
Why do I ask this? Well....
Let's first start by agreeing to the assumption that he wrote the piece himself and fully believes it as it is written. That way we eliminate the whole problem of basis and history revisionism. Then we can launch strait into whether it is a racist* document or if it is a presentation of facts and opined conclusions to those facts.
But, before we do that, may I ask that you re-read the Paul document, fully, completely, and specifically trying to eliminate any preconceived bias you have?
# # #
Back yet? Good.
The article presents a multitude of soft and a few hard 'facts.' Not widely distributed tidbits on Rodney King's beating and resulting officers trial, 30 year background on US population brainwashing, anecdotal grocery store events, abandonment of the general populace by 'those in charge,' NAACP jury tampering, etc, etc, etc.
So, moving along as I'm not really trying to pen a dissertation. Given the piece isn't perfect and really could do without the 'marketing' elements like the child in the grocery store, but, on the whole do you disagree with the 'facts' presented? Some of them? All of them? Can we generally agree that the facts as presented are reasonably close to the truth?
Well, I hope so, because I'm not trying to start a nitpick the world here, so assuming you agree with me that the facts presented are reasonably close, then why are the conclusions so unpalatable? Quite frankly, they seem fairly spot on, even if harshly presented.
Yes, a large portion of African Americans have been brainwashed into the 'something for nothing' mentality over several decades by politicians, yes they do have a vastly larger violent criminal element than the average US population, and yes they did riot. And as horrifically as it is to say it, that given the facts presented, the conclusion that one subset of America is under assault from some other subset isn't wrong or even racist. It just is.
The piece does not promote that one subset is inferior, nor does it promote that one subset should rule over another. If anything you could seriously read into the piece that it is against racism, as it wants equality for all. In the end, it's against the backhanded racist governmental policies that lead to the riot.
# # #
While you don't have to change your mind, I hope you will, as Ron Paul, pretty much without argument, is the best means for libertarians to move the US society back to our libertarian roots. He's got the brand name recognition, he's got the money, and he's got a whole lot more support than anyone else available for us to chose from. All while delivering a very strong libertarian message.
So, even if we throw out all my arguments above and establish
seems like it was worth raising on this forum as an issue. Also seems like it is mostly a molehill, not a mountain, since RP has repudiated it at least indirectly through his actions alone, in the intervening 15 years.
Meanwhile. altho I have not seen the original (who has the time?), I gather that it was mostly (even within its ghosting status) more about chiding black folks for becoming acolytes to the churches of Jesse and Al, et alia, and doing themselves a disservice in the process.
[How Rude, Holoscan chopped my comment. The rest follows. --MJ]
. . . So, even if we throw out all my arguments above and establish the piece as a purely racist diatribe, a statement along the lines of, “While I support Ron Paul as probably the best current choice to promote libertarianism, I don't support his known racist views,” would seem to be much preferred to your blanket statement to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Your friend, no mater which side of this debate you fall on,
M.J. Taylor
Publisher
from Reason to Freedom
* racism [from dictionary.com]
1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Mises could not hold Friedman's economic jockstrap, and Rothbard was a silent queef in the middle of the night compared to Mises.
Can it be no surprise that these anti-capitalist, militia-loving, back-to-the-woods, retreatist/defeatist "libertarians" are not offended by Dr. Paul's racial collectivism? These are the same people who have deified the racist Rothbard and who condone LewRockwell.com posting articles from genocidal racists and Christian Talibs.
The good news is that you liberhicks are a minnow in the ocean of the burgeoning libertarian movement outside the woefully immature LP. Ron Paul cannot damage the LP any more than one can damage a cold turd on a paper plate. But he can damage the burgeoning movement if people associate his Pat Buchananisms (where are he and Buchanan at odds? I want to know) with libertarianism.
Throw the baby out with the bathwater when that baby is racist. Ayn Rand said it best when she said "racism is the crudest form of collectivism."
As for asking Ron Paul's view on racism: He'll probably condone government discrimination and then go on to say he's for individualism. At least that's what he does when it comes to gays -- supporting government discrimination via Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell and then saying he's for equal treatment. WHATEVER. Go read another DavidDuke.com columnist.
Read this first:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/Wo...s.asp?
nid=41822
But let's say, for arguments sake, that Ron Paul does suffer from the specific form of stupidity called racism (even though I've yet to read anything by him or hear anything said by him that would convince me of this). Is the fear that Paul would do a 180 on his federalist views and try to use the federal government to enact and enforce institutional racism? If not, what is the fear?
Guys,
Like I said, I'm pretty much refraining from further comment on Paul -- among other reasons because his contributions have been LARGELY positive to liberty. I'm not interested in slagging him, I'm just interested in getting the libertarian movement the hell away from him before the explosion.
But this, from Steve, requires a response:
"seems like it is mostly a molehill, not a mountain, since RP has repudiated it at least indirectly through his actions alone, in the intervening 15 years."
Um, no ... at least not unless you exclude having the head of a racist terror group ("the Minutemen") as guest speaker at his birthday celebration last year. But I guess maybe a ghost party planner is responsible for that.
Tom you act as though Ron Paul is running as a libertarian. As a libertarian what do we have to lose if he becomes the republican primary candidate? We have a lot to gain if he becomes The President (one less in libertarian type conservative in congress :P), otherwise he doesn't change much else.
I didn't become a libertarian because of the politicians, I became one because it made sense, because of the ideas. Ron Paul won't turn people away from libertarians and he is running as a republican!
MJ,
I've read and re-read that particular article a number of times, and no, I do not agree that, as you put it, "the facts as presented are reasonably close to the truth."
I also don't support Paul as "the best current choice to promote libertarianismm," because I don't think he is -- but that's a strategic, not moral, issue.
Regards,
Tom
Tom,
You can call me wrong if you wish, but I disagree with your assertion that it hasn't been debated. I've been tracking this all over Digg, Technorati and various e-mails for the past few weeks. There has been a very vigorous discussion on this matter.
Also, log or splinter, it's *still* feeding the fire.
I'll be the first to admit Ron Paul is not the *perfect* candidate, but I'll be damned if I'm going to let this (so far) once in a lifetime opportunity pass me by. I am fourty-fucking-one years old. I'm statistically half way through my life. I want to see a substantial increase in liberty before my number is called. Ron Paul's candidacy is the highest-profile pro-liberty presidential campaign I have ever seen in my lifetime.
People can pick nits all they wish, but if this is going to be THE best pro-liberty campaign in OUR lifetimes, wouldn't it feel stupid to have blown an opportunity such as this?
Liberty is the cause. Liberty is the goal. Like it or not, Ron Paul is bringing the message of liberty to America. Granted, it's not a pure message, but it's a damn sight better than I have seen presented on the national scene.
I seriously doubt that Ron Paul is a racist. I cannot believe that such a fundamentally decent person could possibly indulge in such an ugly form of collectivism. This being said, the libertarian position is "who cares if he is"? So long as he does not advocate force to impose his views on me, I have no problem with his personal opinions. I do not agree with him about abortion and do agree with him about the drug war. However, on both issues he says that the Feds have no business meddling in it. Exactly. I think we all agree that Jim Crow was wrong. This does not justify federal intrusion into state affairs. Even if he is a racist, his answer on this question is exactly the same as mine. The Feds have no business meddling in the matter.
Ron Paul want to end the empire and its wars. He wants to end the IRS and the drug wars. Is there any other politician who says this? I am very angry about his immigration position but no politician is perfect. As an anarchist, I don't believe in the constitution but turning the clock back a hundred years would be a pretty damn good start.
TK -> I also don't support Paul as "the best current choice to promote libertarianism," because I don't think he is.
Seriously? He made the front page of the Washington fukkin Times. He made the Colbert Show. Bill Maher says Paul is his hero and Tucker Carlson obviously admires him too. Who else is getting our message out to anyone? Never mind such a broad cross-section of the American people.
David - The Feds do have business "meddling" in race issues. It's called the rights protected under the 14th amendment. "Who cares if he is?" I do. Because if I wanted a collectivist as president, I have a ton of other choices to choose from.
Gene (and others),
If you want to support Ron Paul, that's your call to make. I think it's a bad call, but I trust your intentions.
Now ... please trust mine.
If you think my command of the facts is weak, fine. That will eventually come out in the wash one way or another.
If you think that my view of the strategic implications of Paul's campaign is bullshit, that's fine, too. I'm not 100% certain of it myself.
But trotting out documented facts and reaching reasonable -- maybe not absolutely correct, it's hard to tell, but certainly plausible -- conclusions based on those facts is not a "smear."
Nor is this about promoting Kubby. If that's what it was about, I'd be doing exactly the opposite of what I'm doing -- in my opinion, the bulk of libertarians who clock out of the LP and go over to the GOP to support Paul for this election cycle tilt the LP ever more toward nominating Kubby for the nomination as they go.
Paul has already stolen Phillies' Know-Nothing thunder on immigration and waltzed its supporters right out of the LP for this cycle. Any cachet that GOP affiliation has for libertarians is now vested in Paul -- at the expense of Wayne Root. From that perspective, I should be cheering Paul on vigorously.
I'm hacking Paul because this is some seriously fucked up shit, folks. Even if you don't believe that, I hope you'll believe that I believe it.
Honestly, the existence of this newsletter disturbs me. Written by Paul or not, it feels/looks/sounds bad. His explanation was late and little.
However, this has been "out" for MONTHS. Well, years really. I remember this being quoted and linked in his Wikipeda entry last year when I read it ( around the time of the COngressional primary). Just being a Libertarian and browsing the 'net for information about past candidates, libertarian successes,etc- I have come across this material several times without really trying.
What surprises me about this post is I expected Knappster to have some new development in the "Ron Paul racist" story. However, this is the same stuff that was already a controversy and discussed, debated, investigated, debunked... um, I think a couple months ago? Or maybe it just seems like it, but it was certainly a LONG time ago in internet/blog time.
TLK: "I'm just interested in getting the libertarian movement the hell away from him before the explosion."
If there is something terribly wrong with Ron Paul, bring on the evidence. For gosh sakes, don't force us to wait for you to release this apparently top-secret information you apparently are keeping under your bed in a folder you have labelled "Ron Paul Information Grenade - DO NOT OPEN until it is safe for 'the movement'".
As for the birthday celebration, if you think Ron Paul or other presumably fully functioning adult humans can be mentally coopted just by being at the same event with a anti-illegal alien agitator type such as Jim Gilchrist or Chris Simcox, then SAVE ME TOM! SAVE ME! I have been within 8 feet of Chris Simcox and LISTENED TO HIM SPEAK! Is there some kind of electroshock therapy that can clean me of the guilt by association which is apparently the poison that is even now tainting my very bloodstream? Am I doomed to rent and watch DVDs of the Dukes of Hazzard from now until eternity as a result of my seemingly concious but unknowing perfidy? Oh the horror!
Lastly, let's touch on your calling the Minuteman Project a racist terror group. There may be racists who operate the group and others who volunteer for the group but calling it a terror group is more piece of chicken-little-the-sky-is-falling hyperbole on your part. Have they claimed responsibility for killing anybody? Do they publicly advocate bombing anybody or any group? Nope, I must have missed that part when Simcox came to Coco's Restaurant to speak to the Arizona Breakfast Club. Calling them a terror group is strategery worthy of Karl Rove.
I live rather closer than you to the US/Mexican border here in Tempe, Arizona and I may not watch very much tee-vee and I may not read the local newspapers more than once or twice a week but you think I might have noticed the Minuteman Project mentioned as a source of "terrer" but I have not, not even once. Funny the absence there heh? Maybe you might have more info on what the Minutemen Project people actually do (and then again you might not).
Even Arizona state Representative and anti-Minuteman advocate hottie Kirsten Sinema (who I also have listened to in person) doesn't use that term to describe the Minuteman Project.
And in case I need to mention it again, if there is something terribly wrong with Ron Paul (who I also have had the opportunity to see and hear in person in the recent past) that you haven't pointed out so far, please bring on the evidence.
Thomas, you apparently think there is something quite alarmingly wrong with Ron Paul, nobody above is disputing that (we can't - we aren't you).
Unless I missed it though, many but not all of the rest of us are all having quite a bit of difficulty reaching the same 'reasonable and plausible' conclusion you have made based on commonly available knowledge. Pardon the those of us who wonder who managed to slip beer
...
goggles onto you without you noticing (all the while hoping that they will fall off soon or if not soon eventually).
I always hoped Libertarians were above this sort of thing. I know that I lost respect for leaders, journalists, and politicians when they result to Ad Hominems and other Logical Fallacies. This piece is essentially a basket of Logical fallacies bundled with conveniently forgotten information relating to it.
Finally, I wasn't planning on voting for the LP this year, as I've seen a candidate with a better chance in another party, but with things like this coming out of its members, I may consider not voting for them again.
If the president had only the powers outlined in the Constitution, Article II, Section 2, along with properly functioning checks and balances, it wouldn't much matter what he privately (or possibly publicly, in this case) believed. Dr. Paul's professed belief in the constitution IMO far outweighs these old opinions. (I myself used to believe the North was right in the War of 1861.)
Thane,
You write:
"Lastly, let's touch on your calling the Minuteman Project a racist terror group."
I admit that sometimes I wonder whether they're really a racist terror group or just plausibly deniable union muscle. But it's one or the other, and most of the evidence weighs toward the former.
I appreciate that you're closer to the Mexican border than I am. You should appreciate that the Minutemen are a national group with a malignant presence in my own state ... and that in my experience with them so far it's not Swedish engineers they're trying to terrorize into fleeing the US, but rather those little brown guys what speak Espanol.
I spent most of my formative and young adult years in northern Missouri, where some of my early political activities brought me into oppositional contact with the Ku Klux Klan, the Covenant, the Sword and the Arm of the Lord, etc. -- and later friendly contact with the militia movement until I saw the same faces and ideas popping up there as had been dominant in the previous organizations.
It's no accident that southern Missouri, which was a hotbed of those organizations' activities, is now similarly a center of Minuteman activity. They constantly strive to make their ideas more palatable, but hanging the sheet and hood up in the closet doesn't change the basic ideology.
Is it possible that Paul was and is unaware of the pedigree of the Minutemen? Sure. But when his invitation to the head of the Minutemen to speak at an event of his is placed in the context of other things he's done, other groups he's chosen to associate with (rather than merely having them try to tag on to his name without his consent), it doesn't look that way.
The Council of Conservative Citizens -- a re-organized, vanilla-ized edition of the southern segregationist White Citizens League -- could carry Paul's column in their newspaper without his permission or even his knowledge. I doubt that he appeared live on their radio show without his own permission or knowledge, though.
I'm not a court of law. "Innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" isn't a principle most individuals operate on, and when the scent of racist affiliations starts emanating from an allegedly libertarian campaign, I'm not going to pretend it's roses I'm smelling.
On the positive side, I'm also not going to make a jihad of it, and I'm willing to be convinced that he just accidentally picked up some of it on his shoes rather than rolling in it.
Regards,
Tom
Correction: Southern, not northern, Missouri. Brain fart -- I happened to be thinking about the LAST group calling itslf the "Minutemen," which was formed in northern Missouri in the 1960s by Robert Bolivar DePugh.
Tom,
You say you don't think Ron Paul is the best current choice to promote libertarianism (obviously I do based upon what I wrote above), but, can I get your thoughts on who is the best current choice and why?
Actually you stumped me bad enough that I created an open thread for the discussion, so I'd like to open the question up to all of us.
Who do you feel is the best current choice to promote libertarianism?
Tom, I try to hold no biases, so, please prove me wrong,
MJ
MJ,
I don't know if there is a "best choice to promote libertarianism." What I do know is that Ron Paul isn't a choice to promote libertarianism.
Paul may be a libertarian. If elected to the presidency, he might preside as a libertarian.
However, he is not campaigning as a libertarian, nor is he promoting libertarianism.
He is campaigning as a conservative, and in doing so, the only issue he's taking an overtly libertarian position on is foreign policy ... a position which he's describing as a "Taft conservative" position rather than a libertarian one. On other issues -- immigration, don't ask/don't tell, etc. -- he's even taking very anti-libertarian positions.
In order to be in the running for "best choice to promote libertarianism," he'd need to either be promoting, or exhibiting an intent to promote, libertarianism. He's doing neither. Right now, the connection between libertarianism and Ron Paul is a one way street. Libertarians cough up, conservatism benefits.
If you wander over to third party watch, the same thread has risen, without Tom Knapp's remarks.
Fellow Libertarians Re: The Smearing of Tom Knapp:
I've been reading a handful of the comments on Knappster here, specifically this thread on Tom's blog with respect to the Ron Paul for President campaign. I've pretty much absorbed a lot of the sniping that's been going back and forth on here. Most of the swipes and other barbs aimed at Tom have been, for lack of a better term or phrase, repulsive.
I hate to be the one to come off as a curmudgeon here, but give me a fucking break!! The smears aimed at Tom because of his highly critical analysis of the Ron Paul campaign, especially when Tom IS right about the campaign, are uncalled for. His hard work for liberty and his dedicated, unbridled passion for debate -- not to mention his willingness to bring fairness to the table -- are the definite marks of a true libertarian. There's no one I know who can article himself better than he can.
It is true that Tom has called Ron out on the descriptive nature of his campaign. It is true that Tom has noted that the original article containing Ron's comments (which date back to the 1990s) were racist. And yes, it's true that Tom has pointed out that Ron Paul is truly a conservative, even though Paul has expressed libertarian-leaning ideas, even though a good percentage are very anti-libertarian to the core.
The thing is, while I haven't always agreed with Tom on everything, I have always respected and supported his right to his views, even if it's proven that he's wrong. Not only that, I even support his right to challenge libertarians, even if that move involves rattling every libertarian's cage.
Tom's a good man, and I have always trusted his judgment. While I haven't always seen eye to eye with him and his approach to certain things, I will say this -- when the man's right about Ron Paul, it's immensely difficult -- if not, next to impossible -- to argue against some of the facts surrounding Ron which may come back to haunt him.
Tom's original points regarding Ron are paramount, because, whether any of you care to admit it or not, acknowledge it or not, or like it or not, Ron -- if he has made these statements in the past -- needs to put them to rest once and for all. If anything, whether Ron intended these statements to come off racist or not, he is still responsible for them. Period. End of argument.
As for Ron's very anti-libertarian positions on a few issues, they have been brought up throughout his campaign, and, I hate to be the one to say this, folks, but Ron is and should be fair game, considering he is a presidential candidate. Not only that, he's running as a Republican presidential candidate.
Look, Gene, Susan, and quite a few others to name a few....
You shouldn't be pointing the finger at Tom for bringing up these matters on the board. You shouldn't blame Tom for calling Ron out on these points, let alone calling it like he sees it. If anything, and I'
Tom, you were willing to support Russo, whose immigration position was as bad as Paul's. You (and I) were willing to support Badnarik, who had himself published flat-out unlibertarian (and unConstitutional) stuff on the web regarding the treatment of prisoners. Remember that? I'm still embarrassed for what was written there, and I don't recall an official, satisfactory retraction.
The media refers to Paul as a libertarian. He comes out against the war. This alone is reversing much of the damage caused by pro-war "libertarians."
I'd much rather have a libertarian call himself a conservative than a conservative call himself a libertarian. Much.
Ayn Rand thought "we" owned all the oil under those "savages" in the Muslim world. She wasn't above racial, cultural and national collectivism, herself.
Todd,
Thanks for the defense ... but I think it will all come out in the wash. Some people will never agree with my take on Paul's campaign, but we'll get past it and on with other things.
The one thing that bothers me here is that I just barely scratched the surface on the racial thing. If anyone wants to put a little mousefinger sweat into it, they can find more, and more disturbing, material. I suppose it's quite possible that Paul isn't a racist, but he's certainly been willing not just to accept, but curry the favor of, racists ... and that kind of stuff sticks to you, and to the people around you.
The newsletter article was what broke the camel's back with me. I've defended Paul vociferously in the past. I've said that he couldn't stop Willis Carto and David Duke from re-printing his columns, and that that shouldn't be held against him ... but then it turns out that some of these relationships aren't one way, that they're reciprocal.
I prefer to keep as many degrees of separation as possible between the Libertarian Party/the libertarian movement and racist people and organizations. Ron Paul constitutes a link that brings things like the Christian Identity movement, the "white power" band Prussian Blue, etc. within 1-3 degrees of separation in various ways. I'm not comfortable with that, and I'm not going to pretend to be.
It was easy, but wrong, to avoid knowing this stuff for a long time ... and most of us did so. Now it's no longer easy, because Paul's presidential campaign is bringing it out of the woodwork. We're going to have to do the right thing, or we'll pay for doing the wrong thing.
Regards,
Tom
Umm, Todd; I wasn't attacking Tom. I agree with him in large part. SO please don't lump me into any lumps, OK? 
Anthony,
You write:
"Tom, you were willing to support Russo, whose immigration position was as bad as Paul's."
Yep ... and I resolved never to fall into that trap again. Of course, Russo was back and forth on immigration prior to the nomination. Drove me fucking crazy, it did.
"You (and I) were willing to support Badnarik, who had himself published flat-out unlibertarian (and unConstitutional) stuff on the web regarding the treatment of prisoners. Remember that?"
I remember a really stupid joke Badnarik made about making prisoners lie in bed instead of providing them with weight-lifting equipment, if that's what you're talking about. I wasn't happy about it, but at that particular point Badnarik was the LP nominee and the only candidate I could support. Ron Paul isn't even seeking the nomination of a libertarian political party, and there are other choices available.
I will say that I've moved a little further down the road in my standards since 2004. I'm no longer willing to get behind an LP nomination candidate whom I can't fully support on (or who gets weird and inconsistent on) what I consider the key issues. No hard feelings, necessarily, but I'm just not going to do it. After the nomination, we'll see, but I'm already feeling less inclined to break my balls for a candidate I'm not completely comfortable with there as well.
"The media refers to Paul as a libertarian. He comes out against the war. This alone is reversing much of the damage caused by pro-war 'libertarians.'"
Hopefully, but not definitely. It depends on how much play Paul's associations with Larry Pratt, the League of the South, the Council of Conservative Citizens, etc. gets. If Paul continues to make headway, his campaign could very quickly and very publicly start getting very different treatment than it has so far ... to the detriment of the libertarian movement.
"I'd much rather have a libertarian call himself a conservative than a conservative call himself a libertarian. Much."
Sure, fine. And I'd much rather have a libertarian calling himself a libertarian than a conservative calling himself a conservative.
Regards,
Tom
Tom, are you sure that was a joke by Badnarik? A campaign web site that calls for such a flagrant violation of the 8th Amendment, if a joke, is still a big-time blemish.
Anthony,
My recollection is that it was not on the web site with a "straight face," but rather was something he said off-the-cuff in an interview as a "here's one of the stupid things government does, wouldn't it be smarter to go the other way given the problem you're describing?" kind of thing, and that that was later EXPLAINED on the web site as having been such. But I could be wrong.
All that happened before I joined the campaign. One of the reasons I was brought on board was to help Michael sound good ... I didn't spend too much time agonizing over the ways in which he'd previously sounded bad, except to the extent that I was asked to help him re-voice his position papers and such. I was never asked to touch that particular thing.
But, I know what you're talking about. Early in his nomination campaign, before I decided that Russo was da man, I wrote a speech for Badnarik -- it was the speech he added the "blow up the UN building" bit to. I didn't think that improved the speech, but then again I'm probably over-fond of my own prose.
Tom,
No problem.
The crux of the matter is whether Ron can seriously take responsibility for the statements that he allegedly made. If Ron did INDEED make them, and I'm inclined to believe that he did make them, then he is doing the libertarian movement a grave disserve on those grounds.
Like you, Tom, I call it like I see it. Unlike some people in our movement, I don't like to stick my head in the sand, hoping that the issue will go away. Why? Because I know that the issue won't go away, and, unless Ron does address the matter satisfactorily, it will plague his campaign right 'til the very end.
I concur with you that this entire ordeal will certainy and eventually come out in the wash. Some people might think that Ron will end up having a clean slate after this, but then I'm inclined to think that this won't happen. If it turns out that Ron did say these things in the article, then he will a lot of explaining to do, not only to his supporters, but also to his campaign donors as well.
The thing is that, if Ron does have any other more skeletons in his closet, someone with plenty of time to kill, an axe to grind, and maybe a clever way to pull a few political strings might be able to digg up more dirt on him. As you and I and anyone else knows, any political candidate who files paperwork with the FEC (and that includes your boy Steve) is and should be fair game. Not only that, but if there are any deep, dark secrets about that candidate, nothing will stop insiders within the government to conduct a gamut of background checks on him or her. Your candidate's former campaign manager recently-proven bogus charges regarding Kubby is an excellent case in point. After all, any candidate who files with the FEC will end up having his dirty laundry aired out in public, whether that candidate likes it or not.
As for Ron, what I tried to point out in my missive (but didn't get posted because of the length of my post) was that, if Ron Paul supporters become irate because of any juicy, tabloidish hit pieces that come out of the woodwork, what they fail to understand is that the critics are not making Ron out to be bad. If anything, if anything of a terrible controversial nature does come out, it's because Ron and his supporters made themselves look bad. If they want to blame someone, they need to blame themselves for inviting that scrutiny from the get-go.
Whatever happens from here, it will happen. I just hope it doesn't get as ugly as we know it will be. But I'm refraining from any further judgments until we know all the facts from the inside out.
Yours Truly and in Liberty,
Todd Andrew Barnett
I've not supported any candidate for anything since I gave up on the LP in 1980.
I don't see Ron Paul as a "racist" in the narrow definition, and he's not advocating any aggression, but that is a secondary consideration for me.
He's a politician, firstly, and even though he seems to understand the free market and the requirements of individual liberty better than most of them, he's still willing and able to condone continued government theft and control - even if his desire is for less of it. That's a lot more important to me than anything else.
I don't want anyone for president, now or ever, racist or otherwise. My vote is for "NONE OF THE ABOVE."
Susan:
I didn't lump you "into with any lumps." You've done a pretty good job of doing that yourself.
Your rejoinders to Tom certainly did come off as standoffish, defensive, and, not to mention, hostile. And, if I come off the same way towards you, it's because you started coming off as very combative on the matter yourself. And since I was willing to defend Tom from many on here who were more than willing to browbeat the man with baseless, unfounded accusations of a smear job aimed at RP, I wasn't going to turn the other cheek or even bite my tongue just to play nice with certain folks with enormous egos to bruise.
I'm not here to pick a fight with you, Susan, but if you're here to pick one with Tom and me in the process, then prepare for a duel....because it won't be pretty.
Yours Truly and in Liberty,
Todd Andrew Barnett
Todd,
One upon a time, the founder of the John Birch Society accused Dwight D. Eisenhower of possibly being a Communist agent. Russell Kirk's retort was "Eisenhower's not a Communist. He's a golfer."
Susan isn't an enemy. She's a nitpicker.
Yes, that can be annoying, but it's also quite helpful. I pay more attention to making sure I have my facts in a row since Susan started looking over my shoulder. Which, I'm sure, is the effect she intended to have.
Agree or disagree with her on any particular issue, I know that if I post something and she doesn't find anything in it to bitch about, I did a reasonably good job of making my argument.
Tom, you're wrong. It appeared as one of Badnarik's issue positions. I'm looking at the web archive right now. It's quite egregious.
The missing element in this debate is the distinction between feeling and fact. Tom is feeling that others might feel uncomfortable by things Ron Paul has said. That's good. Empathy and sensitivity are nice, but they aren't of foremost importance in the running of a Presidential race.
More important are facts. It's a fact that people are dying needlessly in a war that isn't accomplishing anything and would be immoral in any case. It's a fact that socialism keeps people poor. It's a fact that humans own their own bodies and their property and the government has either no or VERY limited rights to involve itself.
And, finally, it's a fact that Ron Paul has a better understanding of these truths than anyone else in the race.
Also, MC Hammer may be on board.
"It's a fact that humans own their own bodies ... Ron Paul has a better understanding of these truths than anyone else in the race."
Ron Paul is anti-abortion. He believes that if you remove a few cells from your body, then you are a murderer.
Anthony,
Hey, when I'm wrong, I'm wrong!
Regards,
Tom
Tom:
Honestly, I never said that Susan is "an enemy." Combative and hostile she is, but I've never seen her as "an enemy." I see her as someone who, at various times, keeps shooting herself in the foot, even if she's aware of the fact that she has done so.
I'm relieved and elated to hear that she's a great provider of balance in your thinking, especially when you cite a lot of facts stored in your head. That's a commendable asset to possess, and I'm sure she uses it to her advantage.
However, if she's only going to "bitch" about those said facts, then she needs to do it in a less confrontational way. I don't see how her catty, sometimes smarmy way of responding to you is beneficial to you in the long run. However, if you think it's doing you a world of good, then I have no desire to make a further issue out of it than I already have.
Personally, I think you're a better judge of character, not to mention better judge of the facts than anyone else. But, of course, that's just me though.
Todd Andrew Barnett
Matt,
You write:
"Empathy and sensitivity are nice, but they aren't of foremost importance in the running of a Presidential race. More important are facts."
History says otherwise. A politician who has full factual command of the issues is not going to be elected if the voters have a bad feeling about him. A politician whom voters feel good about can be elected if the voters have a GOOD feeling about him.
If command of the facts was the criterion of electability, Michael Badnarik would be winding down a relatively uneventful first term, President Browne and the Libertarian majority in Congress having left him a pretty clean deck.
I agree that command of the facts is necessary. It is not, however, sufficient.
There are also points at which fact and feeling interact. If Paul is perceived as having racist associations -- and the more I dig, the more that perception seems to be in accordance with the, um, facts -- that perception will evoke feelings. Those feelings will in turn be informed by certain facts. Racism isn't reviled merely because it makes people feel all icky. It is reviled -- and it makes people feel all icky -- because it has manifested itself in abominable actions ranging from discrimination to segregation to slavery to murder.
Todd,
No problem -- I just didn't want to see you and Susan throwing down or anything
Tom
...to racism to...
However, Happy Juneteenth, everyone.
George
"Ron Paul is anti-abortion. He believes that if you remove a few cells from your body, then you are a murderer."
I don't believe that's quite true. Ron pushed hard to legalize RU 486. He is more outraged by fetal abortion than killing cell clusters.
I don't believe that's quite true.
Ron Paul co-sponsored a bill that would define life as beginning at conception. There is absolutely no dancing around the issue: Ron Paul is anti-abortion and would outlaw abortion if possible. Thankfully, he doesn't believe a federal ban is constitutional. However, he at least implies that states SHOULD ban abortion.
I like Ron Paul. I've sent the man's campaign money. But I will not delude myself into thinking that his stances on abortion and immigration are anything less than anti-abortion and anti-open borders.
Hey, Tom, are you going to retract your statement? You wrote:
"The unvaoidable conclusion is that this is what Paul believes ... or at the very least that he's comfortable with having others believe that this is what he believes."
This is not an unavoidable conclusion at all. Ron Paul has made it clear he does not believe this tripe. He has made this inescapably clear. It is also clear he didn't read it before it was published under his name. He is not "comfortable with having others believe that this is what he believes." His only fault is taking bad advice from his staff and not distancing himself from this comments immediately. But he has said this is not what he believes and he was unhappy about its publication.
So, now that this has all been pointed out to you, will you revise your statements?
Anthony,
To the best of my knowledge, Paul has not "made it clear he does not believe this tripe."
He's said that those weren't the words he would have used. He's said that wasn't his style. I have yet to see him disavow the content.
As far as his comfort with having others others believe that this is what he believes, he's obviously uncomfortable with some people (for example, mainstream voters) believing that this is what he believes ... and apparently comfortable with others (for example, the audience of "Political Cesspool" and prospective campaign contributors who find him through the Council for Conservative Citizens) believing that this is what he believes.
So, what does Ron Paul believe? Apparently that depends on what audience he's speaking to. And frankly, I find that at least a problematic as being able to say with certitude that he believes a particular thing, however repugnant that thing might be, all the time.
Ron Paul has referred to racism as a sin. In everything he's actually said on the subject, he's championed individualism, not racial collectivism. I really think you should retract your statement. As it is, it's inaccurate, to say the least.
Tom, you write: "He's said that those weren't the words he would have used. He's said that wasn't his style. I have yet to see him disavow the content."
Here he says they do not reflect his beliefs:
"In 1992, I was back in medicine full time, but lent my name to a foundation that published large volumes of material. A staffer wrote some things under my name that I did not approve. I have taken responsibility for these comments and apologized. If you look at my 30-year record and my numerous writings on the subject of race, I think anyone will clearly see that those comments do not reflect my beliefs."
http://www.muckrakerreport.com/i....com/
id447.html
Sorry to be late to the party, but I feel it pertinent to make a couple points;
1. Most important - MamaLiberty is the only one whose position makes sense to me. A pox on all their houses and their little dogs too! Well, maybe the dogs get off...
2. Far less important - I'd like to see a picture of this newsletter. Can anyone provide it? All we have are transcribed versions. We have Paul saying he didn't write it. He has written, on numerous occasions, positions and ideas *flatly* contradictory to the views advanced in that article. Need anymore be said?
Ron on racism:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/...ul/
paul381.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/...aul/
paul68.html
Hateful, no?
I doubt Ron Paul would be endorsing Walter Williams as a possible vice president is he were racist being that Williams is Black. I also doubt Williams would be endorsing him for President.
You might not like Ron Paul, but he's the ONLY winnable candidate that actually believed in taking government to it's small government, low tax roots. So on that front, it really wouldn't matter if he's racist or not (he's not) because the Federal government doesn't have authority to pass racist laws, and him being a strick Constitutionalist wouldn't violate that. Whatever you think about him, he's a man of integretty.
You honestly think a Libertarian party candidate has any chance?
Please.
Tracy
Commenting by HaloScan
