Tuesday, January 08, 2008

Ron Paul's day of reckoning

It seems the racist hate groups supporting Ron Paul may have had good reason to do so, according to a report in The New Republic which made its way rapidly through the righty blogs today.

The report centers on a series of newsletters published by various organizations either founded by, headed by, or carrying Ron Paul's name. The newsletters included the type of things that give conservatives a bad name and that the freakazoids on the left like to attribute to all conservatives:
Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England."
There's much more in TNR's article, and it's well worth reading.

Ron Paul's campaign issued the following statement in response to the article:
“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 fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
But some industrious contributors over at Little Green Footballs turned up a newsletter that puts Paul's response in a questionable light. He simply couldn't have not known what was being published in his name.

Really, now...isn't it time for Ron Paul's fans to admit they were wrong about him and repudiate him? Or are his fans as bad as he is?


George Dance said...

Little Green Footballs claimed to have evidence that Ron Paul wrote the article calling Martin Luther King a "gay pedophile." That "evidence"" turned out to be a Christmas greeting in the same issue mentioning his wife, Carol, and his grandchildren. Which is no evidence at all; those facts were public knowledge.

In fact, In fact, the evidence is clear that Paul did not write the article on MLK; because (1) the article opposes making Martin Luther King Day a public holiday and (2) Ron Paul voted in favor of making Martin Luther King Day a national holiday.


Eric said...

As a Ron Paul fandroid, you should be more selective of the links you provide. That one, while it does in fact state that he voted in favor of the MLK holiday, also calls him a liar.

Anonymous said...

Suppose I hack into your blog and insert a racist comment. Since you include personal information in your blog, does that mean you must have written the racist comment too?

"Newslettergate: Did Dondero Do It?"


Eric said...

How, exactly, does one "hack into" a newsletter?


Tyler said...

Blogspot (Blogger) is owned by Google, how would someone go about doing that? I think Google takes network security at least a tad serious...

Eric said...

Tyler's right...hacking a blogspot blog would be pretty damned difficult.

But, to clarify my point, comparing a hacked blog entry to a Ron Paul newsletter article possibly written by someone other than Ron Paul isn't even comparing apples and oranges...it's apples and rocks.