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.