Ron Paul didn't do too badly in New Hampshire last night, but a lot of people expected him to poll about 5% higher. I found out a possible reason. A carefully timed smear campaign by The New Republic magazine. It would be interesting to find out how many New Hampshire voters had planned to vote for Ron Paul, but who changed their votes after they heard the screedish claim that Ron Paul must be a homophobic, secessionist, anti-Semitic racist.Update 1/18/2008: Ilana Mercer observes that Beltway Libertarians are screaming bloody murder because Ron Paul doesn't bow to them.
How does one recover from the lowest of blows, wherein, with no time to respond, someone tells the vilest of lies about you, and it affects your presidential campaign at what was expected to be one of its brightest points? Good ultimately prevails, so I believe that the Ron Paul campaign will recover. And the ultimate truth will be told. Ron Paul is NOT a racist. Ron Paul is NOT a homophobe. Ron Paul is NOT a secessionist. Ron Paul is NOT an anti-Semite. The New Republic is scared spitless that Ron Paul will become president because, unlike anyone since perhaps Ronald Reagan, Ron Paul has the ability to rally people to the side of truth.
The irony of the current presidential campaign is that the one candidate that has not packaged himself in soundbites was damaged by none other than a soundbite from the New Republic. The Ron Paul ship, however, is still more than seaworthy, and we will continue our mission.
The New Republic, erstwhile champion of Communism and current defender of socialism in all its forms, timed the release of a series of lies and non-contextual statements, supposedly written by Ron Paul, to coincide with the New Hampshire presidential primary. Did it affect the vote? I don't know, but I'll respond to The New Republic (and anyone who believes their long-disproven allegations) about their charges of racism anyway (I plan to take up the other allegations in a subsequent article):
Is Ron Paul a Racist?
No. But TNR thinks that you won't click the hyperlinks in their article to find out just what they're claiming is evidence of Ron Paul's racism. Well...I clicked the hyperlinks.
Here's TNR's first inept example of what it used to accuse Ron Paul of Racism. It does a terrible job, because there is no racism in the paper--merely documentation of events surrounding the largely black riots in Los Angeles after Rodney King resisted arrest by police. My synopsis of the article is in the paragraph below:
In the 8-page paper, it speaks out not against black people, but instead inveighs against black icons who encourage black people to see themselves as social victims. It gives a long explanation of the untold portion of the Rodney King affair, which led to Los Angeles riots. The reality is that 3 people were in King's car. All were black. Two of them laid on the ground as instructed by police. King exhibited very erratic behavior, including reaching back into the car for what might have been a firearm. Rodney King was subsequently not arrested for another crime, due to his then-current notoriety. When the verdict was announced, an almost-exclusively black mob began a riot. Black leaders Jesse Jackson and Maxine Waters were on hand to encourage and condone the violence. Those, including many blacks involved, stopped the rioting, three days later, on the date that welfare checks were being handed out.Strike one.
How about the accusation that Ron Paul is a racist because "he had kind words for David Duke." In addition to the fact there are any of a number of people who could have written the article in question, the article is once again a simple statement of facts, including these (some paraphrased, emphasis added):
David Duke received 44% of the vote and 9% of the black vote.Strike two.
When Duke advocated equal rights for all Americans, the newsletter said this "seems like just good plain sense."
"Liberals say Duke got so many votes because Louisianans were racists and ignorant. Baloney."
What about the supposedly racist things that Ron Paul said about Martin Luther King Jr.? Exhibit A has absolutely no markings to identify when it was published or who it was published by. That's pretty good evidence of Mr. Paul's racism, wouldn't you say?? Here's another one without any identifying markings. Who wrote it? I allege, with as much evidence as the New Republic has, the The New Republic wrote it, but it won't do me any good to smear them, because they aren't running for President of the United States! You want more? Here's another one, which is just as admissible in court as the first two!
Here's what Ron Paul had to say about the (in my opinion carefully orchestrated) smear campaign against him:
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.In other words, it's not true, but the New Republic knew that at the same time that it knew nobody would have the time to look into the allegations before the New Hampshire primary.
So, which would you believe? Ron Paul or a couple of photocopied pages that don't have any identificational markings on them?
Steerike Three!! The batter is out!!
I hope, in your liberty loving heart of hearts, that you can take a man at his word, rather than believing someone who has a lot to lose, as far as their stock in trade is concerned, if Ron Paul becomes president and exposes their socialist lies for what they are.
That which combines against us usually makes us stronger and more successful. I hope that Americans everywhere, regardless of whether they vote for Ron Paul or not, will look at this filthy attempt to smear Ron Paul and make a determination that such lies will not influence our voting patterns or our search for the real truth.
Voting history should influence us. Writings and speeches clearly attributable to the candidate should influence us. In short, truth should influence us.
But not lies.
It's a disgusting show of cowardice that they stoop to this level of junk journalism. In the end though I think it will entice more people to look into Dr. Paul, which can only serve to bring him more supporters.
ReplyDeleteIt is remarkable how like wildfire this unprofessional "research" has been picked up and spread across the country. It was on Drudge. It's on Little Green Jackboots. It's on Hot Air. And I can't remember the other places I found it, but all from one silly, shoddy piece of research that so many other people so desperately want to believe, due to the fact that if it's not true, the man who could become President will have a dramatic effect (with his policies) on their livelihoods.
ReplyDeleteFrank,
ReplyDeleteYou're making quite the logical leap in implying when Paul says "The quotations in the New Republic aren't mine . . . " that he is also saying they weren't his newsletters.
I've seen no reason to doubt that the "photocopied pages that don't have any identificational (sic) markings" were in fact pages from Paul's newsletters. Paul hasn't said the quotes in question are fakes, he's just sticking by his somewhat unbelievable claim that "all the incendiary stuff" in his newsletters wasn't written or endorsed by him.
Sorry, I'm not buying it. As the former Paul supporter I quoted previously said, " . . . it's still an incredible lack of judgment to allow a letter bearing your name to go out without vetting it when the most important thing a man has is his good name."
(And BTW, I don't know how anyone could read the 8-pages of the "Special Issue on Racial Terrorism" and not find it dripping in racist, hateful rhetoric toward black people.)
I think I just done been called a racist!
ReplyDelete;-)
How do you expect the newsletter to sound when in fact nearly all of the Rodney King rioters were indeed black? (Maybe you could take a paragraph or two and show how you would rewrite them, or better yet, show how those paragraphs are inaccurate.)
I DO have reason to doubt that the photocopies came from Ron Paul's newsletters, and that was my primary point in my article. But even if they did, it is bizarre beyond the point of ridicule for someone to insinuate that he had anything to do with the writing of them. In NO writings that are attributable to him have I ever seen him write something racist.
Especially while he's in a presidential campaign, you would think the New Republic's "research" would have included the entire newsletter, so that you and I don't have to speculate on opposite sides of the issue.
Yeah, I called you a racist. Sure, whatever. I'm not even calling Ron Paul a racist. I'm just saying that his disavowal of the racist and hateful rhetoric in his newsletters rings quite hollow to me.
ReplyDeleteI will let the words in the newsletter speak for themselves. Seriously, right off the bat, in the introductory paragraph, the racist tone is set:
We now know, if we did not before, that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality.
I wouldn't even know where to begin to get rid of the racist overtones.
What is your reason for doubting that the photocopies are from the newsletters? Has Paul said they are fakes? If they are, I would think that would be the first thing out of his mouth. It just doesn't make logical sense to claim they are fakes based solely on the lack of identifying markings.
I was just kidding about the being called a racist thing.
ReplyDeleteThat's why I put the ;-) in there.
The paragraph that you indicate doesn't speak of blacks at all...
We now know, if we did not before, that we are under assault from thugs and revolutionaries who hate Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for: private property, material success for those who earn it, and Christian morality.
Most hard-core socialists fit that description.
I'm doubting that the photocopies are from a Ron Paul letter for essentially the same reason that I believe Dan Rather showed some phoney documents about GW Bush on CBS News. Any hatchet man could make it up. As soon as I see the whole thing, I'll be a believer, but that still doesn't mean that Ron Paul is racist.
"The paragraph that you indicate doesn't speak of blacks at all..."
ReplyDeleteYou're kidding, right? He (whoever actually wrote the report) was talking about the "Los Angeles and related riots." By your own words you've said that the connotation within the article is that it concerns black people: "How do you expect the newsletter to sound when in fact nearly all of the Rodney King rioters were indeed black?"
I don't know if you've got blinders on or what, Frank, but it's a huge stretch to say that this newsletter isn't full of racism and hatred. Sure, you can look at one small quote, out of context, and maybe make an argument that it's not about black people. But come on, the whole thing is about black people and how they're just a bunch of criminals and barbarians waiting to mooch off of or steal from the white man. Regardless of whether or not Ron Paul wrote the sh*t, the least you could do is admit that it's a steaming pile of racist garbage. Then we could move on to discussing the implications for Ron Paul having his name attached to it and why he hasn't more forcefully denounced it. (He still hasn't said any of the copied passages were fakes, has he?)
"I'm doubting that the photocopies are from a Ron Paul letter for essentially the same reason that I believe Dan Rather showed some phoney documents about GW Bush on CBS News. Any hatchet man could make it up."
ReplyDeleteYes, you're right, any hatchet man could make something like this up. So that begs the question, why would anyone do so in this day and age, especially after what happened with Dan Rather? This argument actually reinforces my belief that the documents aren't fake.
And yes, you're right again, even if the documents are real, that doesn't mean Ron Paul is a racist. But it does make me question his mealy-mouthed denunciation of the content in question and does lead me to greatly question his judgment.
Don,
ReplyDeleteYou've been reasonable and have attempted to understand my position in the past, so I'll trust that you will when I try to explain it more clearly:
I'm assuming you're finding offense with the term "Euro-American civilization" as a white extremist condescension. In my perspective it is not at all. Where did the concepts of liberty and democracy come from? From Europe, which was largely white. This, however, is no condescension to black people (because most black people subscribe to the ideals of liberty), but rather a statement of fact. In this light, the author of the document is simply decrying the societal breakdown that results from a rejection of "private property, material success,...and Christian morality". The most I could say of this paragraph is that it is "religionist" in that it incorrectly implies that only Christianity is moral.
Other than that, it is in my opinion less than coincidental that mostly blacks participated in the riots. Jesse Jackson, Maxine Waters, and probably other black "leaders" incited such disproportionate participation. A few whites and others of different races did, I'm sure, participate, and to the extent they did, they were the targets of the same excoriation by the author of the newsletter article.
If this wasn't your interpretation (the phrase Euro-American being condescending), then I apologize, but also then I clearly don't understand where you're coming from.
Within the context of the entire newsletter, it is my opinion that the phrase "Euro-American civilization" and the fact that "it" is under attack by black "thugs and revolutionaries who hate . . . everything it stands for . . . " is clearly racist in nature. Furthermore, that is not the only passage with racist overtones. I'm not going to go through them one by one, because clearly, we aren't going to agree.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion of the newsletters in general is that they are full of hateful, bigoted and racist subtexts. If you don't see it, or can explain it away, well then I guess we'll have to move on.
Whether the MLK pages are from Dr. Paul's political report, some other newsletter or were made up entirely, is moot since the articles are simply re-tellings of what is contained in FBI files (adultery, underage girls and boys) or was printed by the WSJ, the Boston globe, and others (plagerism, not being a "real" doctor.)
ReplyDeleteThese criticisms (true or false)are not based upon the color of Dr. King's skin, but upon the content of his character. In addition, his failings are not used to suggest that all people of African descent are like this, nor were these character defects used to suggest that people (of whatever color) weren't entitled to full rights. Nor were Dr. King's ideas attacked based upon his flawed character.
There is no ad hominem, where the idea is attacked because of the man.
Instead, the focus of the article was to show that a national holiday shouldn't be awarded to someone who has such a flawed character. In such a case, calling the person's character into question is a legitimate argument.
Just like the "kind words" that aren't really kind words (yeah, I was troubled by those links also - How dare TNR publish that kind of trash in a presidential campaign.)
This is being protrayed as something it isn't.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your insight. I haven't researched MLK enough to know what I think about his supposed immorality. In this context though, it is enough for me to know that Ron Paul never said such things about King.
I will not hesitate, however, to say negative things about Jesse Jackson, as, including his incitement to riot in LA all those years ago, Jackson has engaged in a plethora of shenanigans that are disgraceful not only to his race, but to America and the concept of liberty.