Political People: Ron Paul's opinionated past newsletters may end his run
People Features
By Stone Martindale Jan 8, 2008, 19:58 GMT
And Also
Ron Paul - View Ron Paul Pictures - Ron Paul News
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Headlines in People
- 1. Eminem's X Factor ambition
- 2. Usher in record row
- 3. Man basher Ashley Greene
- 4. Cerys Matthews gives birth
- 5. Taylor Lautner's school torment
Older Talkback
page: 1 2
This stuff has all been disproved months ago. This is just a smear piece to try to derail his campaign. The NYTimes wrote a detraction about something like this they wrote a few weeks ago. Just consider the source and you'll understand the objective.
This is not a 'new' discovery and if you did your homework you will see that DR Paul did not write these articles and he has addressed these issues in the past and it is a non issue.
Stop trying to dig up dirt where there is no dirt.
Its funny that you are bashing a man that wants individual rights instead of group rights ( black, jew, gay). Why should those people have any rights the rest of us dont have. Just because he is against those groups having special rights you accuse him of being against that group. Corrolation does not equal causation sir. You say since he was against the civil war he is a racist. Do your own research sir. The civil war was not over slavery. That being said, i suppose you think the killing of 600,000 people would have been acceptable to free slaves. Well I say, why not look at now every other county rid itself of slavery? No other county fought a war to end it (and neither did we really).
It should be noted that Kirchik has no quotes or evidence indicating that Ron Paul wrote or said any of the things in the newsletters. If you read his article, he makes frequent use of phrasing like, '...the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained...'
There's a lot of 'seems' and 'presumably' in the piece, mostly because Ron Paul has never said any of these things in public, nor written them in a bylined article.
You should check your sources before printing a smear attack.
This is an excerpt from LRC dot com:
'Pimply-Faced Youth' Admits He's a Liar
Posted by Thomas DiLorenzo at January 8, 2008 02:12 PM
Susan sent me this letter to her from our pimply-faced youth, Jamie Kirchick, who first told her that Ron Paul was a 'homophobe,' and then he writes her that 'I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up.'
Also from lewrockwell
The New Republic was founded by Herbert Croly, a 'Progressive' who believed that the Constitution should be abolished in favor of the will of governing elites. Here is what Virginia Postrel wrote about him several years ago:
Crolyism overturned the ideal of limited government in favor of a combination of elite power — commissions to regulate and plan — and mass democracy.... Frustrated with constitutional limits, Croly wrote, “It remains ... true ... that every popular government should in the end, and after a necessarily prolonged deliberation, possess the power of taking any action, which, in the opinion of a decisive majority of the people, is demanded by the public welfare.” This statement, while extreme, pretty much sums up today’s governing philosophy.
So, keep in mind that this is the philosophy behind TNR. It is a view that the political elite need to tell everyone else what to do, and use lethal force against people who resist.
Not being a big Ron Paul fan I was waiting to read that piece in the New Republic. There is so much hearsay and inuendo in the piece that I'm surprised it qualifies as journalism. Unless you can point out that Paul actually said something or it says, 'By Ron Paul' then I don't see how you can attribute these things to him. Sure, the newsletter has his name on it but it honestly isn't any different than any other newsletter I used to get - remember, these were the blogs of their time and they were pretty common.
Kirchick is a little too young and over his head on this one. He might get patted on the back by his young leftist colleauges at first but I think this might hurt his journalism career in the long run. It's just nothing but smear.
Come on, guys. If you don't like the guy's politics... fine. But play fair.
How's that for perfect timing? Another hit piece based on old and debunked allegations right on the eve of New Hampshire. Notice that this guy doesn't provide any evidence or photocopies of the newsletters. Not to mention in the countless interviews, speeches and books by Ron Paul there is not a trace of bigotry or hatred in the man. In fact, he rails against the idea of collectivism which fosters bigotry and racism.
Throughout the entire Paul campaign all we've seen from the media is ridicule, lame hit pieces or simple omission of Ron Paul. Why is the media so afraid of discussing Ron Paul's ideas of liberty, obeying the Constitution, non-interventionist foreign policy, limited government and sound money? What hope does a nation have if it's press can only focus on the superficial and the meaningless while an outrageous war in Iraq continues? Last night I had to listen to the Anderson Cooper team waffle on about Hillary's crocodile tears while an army of Ron Paul supporters waved signs behind him.
Let's not forget that the media is partially to blame for the public acceptance of this stupid war. The media that drummed up support for the war, appeals to blind patriotism and hatred towards the muslim world - that sounds pretty overtly racist to me. If you haven't seen Bill Moyer's 'Buying the War' you really should go watch it.
This is all previously debunked old news. The New Republic is a agenda laden cesspool. James Kirchick is a Rudy shill, a muckraker and a pitiful human being. This will bounce of Ron Paul like all the other smear attempts have.
That's the trouble with the internet news. One lie gets repeated a 1000's of times. Site owners are more concerned with web traffic than diligent reporting. They'll wrongly assassinate a mans character if it gets them enough web hits.
Shame on you M&C for repeating this tired old garbage and for suggesting that the lying vitrol coming out of James Kirchick's mouth is going end anybody's run. Perhap's you didn't see James on MSNBC suggesting that Paul speaks 'in code' to his followers is subtle ways that only 'they' can hear. Ha ha ha ha!!!
Hi M&C-
Before you believe this hit piece, ask the author for his cites and bibliographic sources. He only references 'this newsletter' and 'that newsletter' with no dates, volume numbers or authors.
Ron Paul is the most honest man in DC and possibly America. It will take more than mere lies to stop us.
For the record, the author of this hit piece is a self-admitted poop-stirrer and liar:
(look up link at gays-for-ron DOT blogspot DOT com)
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the [DC Log Cabin Republicans] party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls 'the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history']
Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best,
Jamie
As a Ron Paul supporter, I am shocked by these latest attacks. You really have to dig deep and dirty to find anything on the most honorable man in Washington and if you can't find it you make it up. As for the groups that Ron Paul mistrusts, Bilderbergers, CFR's Federal Reserve Bankers and the like, these are not conspiracies, these are real groups that meet behind closed doors to decide the fate of the World. One World Government run by the elite, destroying sovereignty and liberty is not something that I envision for my grandchildren. Unjust laws that promote special interest are unconstitutional. True liberty can never be achieved until all individuals are treated equally under the law. I look at Ron Paul's platform and his record and I can tell what kind of man he is. He wants to end the war and bring all of the troops home from around the world. He wants to end the unconstitutional IRS. He wants to have sound economic policies that are not controlled by the Federal Reserve bankers. He wants to stop the Patriot Act that trashes the Bill of Rights. When this country is engaging in secret tribunals, torturing people, suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus, engaging in undeclared wars and our media is controlled by propagandist and the only hope this country has is an honest man that has the wisdom and foresight to lead us out of this quagmire, your smear piece will not work for me and others like who choose to use their own research, their on intelligence to make their choice for president. Freedom is Ron Paul's message! he has said 'even an army can not stop an idea whose tome has come'. You and the likes of you can not stop us now. This country will be free again! By the way, I recommend that you listen to one of Ron Paul's supporters by the stage name, King Solomon, Utube 'Ron Paul for the Long Haul'. It will be insightful!
Anyone who understands the policies he supports would realize that Ron Paul is a huge threat to rich white guys.
The funny part is I read the article and agreed with most of the statements on principle (though am not sure the facts are 100%) They indicate the decay that has been brought about by collectivist ideals and the welfare/nanny state. Those of us that aren't part of the favored group and play by the rules are getting a bit fed up.
But by only citing the headline, you actually seem worse than an obviously biased article by someone with an agenda. Even the juiciest quotes that are in direct contradiction to everything Ron Paul has publicly said aren't even that bad (the MLK thing is just odd. Sorry. It doesn't even square with the rest of the quotes at all. The rest are pretty consistent)
Include parts of the article, or if you can't, encourage people to read it for themselves.
I smell a big lawsuit heading to the New Republic.
The author cites a source link to the New Republic article in lieu of quoting the allegations that Kirchick makes.
I follow all the Ron Paul articles on this site, and the funny thing is they are overwhelmingly positive, inciting ire from regular neocon readers like that SP4 who hate Paul. They accuse this site of pandering and supporting Paul!Now comes one article that presents a newsworthy bit of info on Paul that POSSIBLY isn't positive, and you condemn it as mud slinging-that's rich!
This is all old news. And has been discussed and explained to my satisfaction many times. Ron Paul is the most pro-gay rights, anti-racist, and anti-sexist candidate running in either party, bar none. He is a libertarian in name and in principles. He would never have been nominated to be the LP presidential candidate if he was not pro-freedom for everyone, including the folks that all of us hate.
Ron Paul did not write these things in the old newsletter. Some one else did. The person was fired. Additionally, be careful of the context and the question being asked. Ron Paul does not speak in 30 second sound bites. It takes time to explain his positions on complicated issues where the government has been screwing things up for people and the harm needs to be undone. Furthermore by his actions over many years it is 110% clear that these accusations are all part of a smear campaign by the neocons to discredit Dr. Paul. The reason is simple; he is beginning to have his anti-war, pro-economic and pro-individual freedom message heard by America. And he is taking votes away from the other 5 pro-war candidates. Slowly but surely he is showing them all out to be inconsistent flip floppers! He is the un-politician. It is a simple and ugly smear campaign. That has been tried before. Check out his web site and his voting record for 30 years. He is the most consistent pro-individual rights person running. He voted against the Patriot act for gosh sakes! The New Republic, like Fox News, seems to have been taken over by the neocons present in both parties. I support and trust Ron Paul.
Only The Mentally Minuscule Take Words Out Of Context To Bend Them To Their Preconceived Paradigm.
If you refuse to look at the actions of a man for temperance of judgment then you truly castrate you mind and make it easy to arrive at wrong conclusion.
The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion.
Racism is not consistent with the philosophy expressed by Ron Paul. He has rebutted these accusations from the same distortions in previous days.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would trust with my money and my family's safety.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!
This is a repost from someone else with more detail on the smear.
Quote:' These were written by an outside writer and it was discussed many years ago in a Texas Monthly interview with Ron Paul.
Excerpt from the Texas Monthly interview
“What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
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.”
Since I believe in Ron Paul from watching him for 30 years, it is clear to me that he is protecting someone that is close to him. It must have been someone very close for him not to release the name. I can only surmise that he is protecting someone that he does not
It's a bummer that this is getting more attention again.
thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/08/ron-paul-race-smear-erased/
andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-paul-respon.h tml
page: 1 2
Your Talkback on this Story