The Real Ron Paul (Updated)
John on January 8, 2008 at 2:24 pm
I’ve taken some heat for getting down on the Ron Paul, so of course I’m going to go a step further. The New Republic has excerpts from Ron Paul’s newsletters that leave little doubt he’s not playing with a full deck:
In an undated solicitation letter for The Ron Paul Investment Letter and the Ron Paul Political Report, Paul writes: “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove–perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.”
So I guess Huckabee’s Christmas ad isn’t the first time he’s seen fascism coming. He’s been seeing it for a long time now.
Update: Bryan at Hot Air has a post worth reading on the controversy. This paragraph sums up my own thoughts on the newsletters:
Let’s take Paul’s latest defense at face value for a second. The best that can be said about it is that he mismanaged a newsletter and turned it over to cranks who don’t represent his views. Set aside that there’s a remarkable consistency between the views expressed in the newsletters and the views many of his supporters hold now. If Paul really didn’t write the most risible material in that newsletter, and if the ghostwriters really don’t represent his views, then he isn’t even competent enough to manage a newsletter in a way that keeps out the riffraff and represents his own thinking. Paul supporters still want to turn the executive branch of the government over to someone who exhibits this level of incompetence across a stretch of years?
Exactly. Either he’s a conspiracy nut. Or he’s an incompetent manager. Personally, I tend to favor answer c)…all of the above.
Category: Politics |
I always thought he was a little weird, but after reading about this on Hot Air, I’d say he’s seriously disturbed.
January 8, 2008 @ 2:38 pmPaul’s response.
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“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 publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
January 8, 2008 @ 3:30 pmhttp://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
The Ron Paul story you are endorsing was debunked months ago. Drudge has removed the story.
January 8, 2008 @ 4:54 pmiMonk,
Seems like a lame excuse to me. The newsletters had his name on them. He has no one to blame but himself if he’s embarrassed.
I don’t suppose he’ll return the money he made off this crap.
January 8, 2008 @ 8:15 pmI think Bryan’s latest post on the whole RP flap says it best. Once your name is on the document, you own it.
I will say this though. If McCain or Huckabee end up as the nominee, I’m voting Obama.
January 9, 2008 @ 11:30 amObama! Surely you jest, PR. Did you know he voted for a bill before the Illinois Senate that exempts doctors from providing medical care to a “fetus that survives an abortion” (i.e. an infant)?
January 9, 2008 @ 1:32 pmThanks, PR, I agree. And if he thinks what was published under his name was disreputable, why not discredit the author by name.
Probably because the author is Lew Rockwell, his former staffer and ideological twin.
January 9, 2008 @ 2:25 pm