The Paul fall; TNR drops the bombshell
First of all Ron Paul NEVER had a serious shot at the GOP nomination. Most in the base look at the guy as a crank, and that includes both of us. At the very least the most important issue which will drive our vote this election is national security and the war, and after listening to his views on foreign policy it's clear this doddering old fool has less than a clue about what this world is about. His ideas, quite frankly, are Wilsonian isolationism, and will only hurt us in the long run.
Given that, yesterday The New Republic released a bombshell expose that reveals some details regarding Paul's newsletter that was written between 1985 (when he left Congress previously) and 1996 (when he was elected back to the House again. And they aren't the only outlet to have dug through his past to find this stuff. Charles Johnson also details some of things said in his newsletter. Ron Paul's excuse that was given yesterday was that he wasn't paying attention to it.
Now that excuse goes over as well as a turd in a punch bowl. If Paul's supporters buy it, then they're even more questionable in their intelligence than we believed. It doesn't fly, folks. Look, on this site there are three people who write here. I do. Marcie does. And Sabrina (our longtime friend) does, too. (Note: Sabrina is on sabbatical, though she does pop in from time to time to say hello.) I know everything that is written here. The rules of posting here are dirt simple, and both Marcie and Sabrina agreed to these rules from the start.
-- No swearing, or if you feel it's necessary, censor it (such as @$$hat, or something similar.)
- Be topical and relevant.
-- If you have a beef with something someone else posted, be professional in dissent. Don't be mean, snarky, or nasty.
-- Don't play Flame Wars with other sites. You can agree to disagree with other bloggers, but do not involve this site in any sort of Flame Wars. I'll delete the offending post, and issue a statement if it happens. (Thus far, this rule hasn't been broken.)
-- No racist posts. No conspiracy theories. No posts that could be considered bigoted.
Pretty simple rules, and as I said, I'm the "editor in chief" here, so the buck stops with me. If Ron Paul allowed ghost writers to write for his newsletter, and they did write such things, they should have been removed and never allowed to write for him again. Some of the things said in the newsletter, and Pajamas Media has even more information after pouring over the newsletters, could be seen for what they seem to be -- racist, bigoted, and conspiracy laden ideas. The excuse he uses can't be allowed to end this issue at all. The writings are paranoid conspiracy rants, racist bomb-throwing, and anti Semitic diatribes. No one but the basest of bigots could ever accept such ideas. And we know the links he's had to such people. Charles Johnson has detailed this as well. (Little Green Footballs search for ALL things Paul is here.)
He has ties to Stormfront, a white supremacist organization that advocates "white pride worldwide." He has been a frequent guest on Alex Jones' conspiracy based radio show. It is plain to see that he is anything but "mainstream" in his thoughts.
His political views have led hundreds of thousands of supporters to flock to his banner. We'll admit that he has some sound ideas regarding smaller government, but too much of it is unworkable. He wants the IRS gone, except that to do that, the 16th Amendment must be repealed. What are the chances of that? Slim and none. He has stated that the FBI and CIA need to be abolished. The chances of that happening? Again, slim and none. (Furthermore, I have a problem with a guy who advocates the dissolution of our primary intelligence agencies while we're in a war.)
He considers our invasion of Iraq "imperialist" rather than justified, which it was. He says that the reason the Islamofascists attacked us is because we were in their countries. (Um, we weren't in Afghanistan when al Qaeda attacked us on 11 September, and Saudi Arabia ASKED us to make a base there to protect them from Saddam Hussein.) He also believes that all the "hype" concerning Iran right now is a precursor for another imperialistic invasion. He buys the recent NIE hook, line, and sinker despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary showing that Iran is on it's way to building a nuclear bomb. The ideas this man espouses when it comes to this war and to foreign policy isn't just crazy, they're dangerous; ineptly dangerous as it shows he has no clue what in this world is dangerous to us.
His supporters stand beside him in lock-step. They are virulent and nasty to those that disagree with their views which shows that they've paid far more attention to the Left than they have to civil political discourse. But Captain Ed made an interesting observation today that bears repeating:
A funny thing happened on my way to the predictable onslaught of Ron Paul supporters in my comments section after yesterday's post about his newsletters. The onslaught never arrived ...
Almost like clockwork, any time a blogger posts anything remotely critical about Ron Paul, it attracts hundreds of comments, most of them refusing to deal with the substance of the criticism. Instead, they usually contained cap-locked diatribes about the Federal Reserve, the Constitution, and how anyone who doesn't support Paul is a traitor or a fool. Many start off by saying, "I am a Hispanic/Jewish/black voter who cares about freedom ..." as a means of defusing the awkward inks between Paul and his newsletters and donation from neo-Nazi Don Black, as well as his 40-plus appearances on the radio show of Truther and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
But not today. It's been more than 14 hours since I posted about the TNR story, and so far ... nothing. I really expected to find scores of outraged commentary in the Disqus moderation queue when I woke up this morning, but so far, it's been as quiet as a church mouse. ...
The Revolution turned out to be a dud. Even the writers at Reason now wonder what kind of crypto policy Paul may have been hiding, and Andrew Sullivan has (rather bravely) called out Paul for his association with the vile rhetoric published for over seventeen years under his own name.
The green curtain has been pulled back, I think, and rational minds have taken control. The comment sections will never be the same.
Captain Ed believes his three losses (Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire), coupled with this story, may have literally been the body blow to do in his campaign. At the very least, it has his supporters being rather quiet on the blogs and talk radio today. (Every once in a while a Paul-bot slips through call screeners and makes it onto the air for a short one minute rant.) Not today. Crickets are chirping louder than these people are, and we're apt to agree with Captain Ed. Like other bloggers, we have dealt with the backlash from Paul-bots for our opinion on the man with no clue. The most notable responses we received came from the reaction to this column we wrote where we referred to him as an "also-ran" with no shot. Our analysis was spot on, but his supporters couldn't believe how "dumb" we were to not see that he was the "only hope" for this nation.
Not to be mean or anything, but the reaction of his supporters to anything that they disagreed with reminded a great deal of how Hitler Youth and Sturmabteilung (or SA) reacted to anything deemed as dissent to the Fuhrer. They shout down and disrupted campaign events for other candidates, and verbally attacked any news people whom they thought were assailing Paul. The fervor they brought to his campaign may have been seen as passion for any like-minded individuals, but to us outsiders it looked foolish, noxious, and repugnant. In short they acted more like unhinged Democrats than cogent political supporters. (And no, I'm not calling them Nazis. I'm saying they acted like those Nazi groups.)
In closing I'll say this: Ron Paul has some explaining to do regarding his perceived views, and if he were smart he'd disavow any and all statements made in those newsletters by those people. If not, then he presents an image of a man who accepts them, and concurs with those opinions. He can claim that this controversy has been dealt with, but searches here at Technorati and on Google shows us that the 'Sphere believes this subject hasn't been addressed properly by him. Questions still linger as to whether or not he truly believes what was written.
The 'Sphere is waiting, Dr. Paul. As the 'Net was your primary source for support and money, you owe it to those in cyberspace to answer these questions definitively. You also owe it to your constituents in your Congressional district who, no doubt, have heard about this story. (Michael Medved and Laura Ingraham, as far as we know, are the only conservative radio hosts to have spoken with him on the air. I'm sure they'd be willing to have him on again to explain this issue.)
Publius II
Given that, yesterday The New Republic released a bombshell expose that reveals some details regarding Paul's newsletter that was written between 1985 (when he left Congress previously) and 1996 (when he was elected back to the House again. And they aren't the only outlet to have dug through his past to find this stuff. Charles Johnson also details some of things said in his newsletter. Ron Paul's excuse that was given yesterday was that he wasn't paying attention to it.
Now that excuse goes over as well as a turd in a punch bowl. If Paul's supporters buy it, then they're even more questionable in their intelligence than we believed. It doesn't fly, folks. Look, on this site there are three people who write here. I do. Marcie does. And Sabrina (our longtime friend) does, too. (Note: Sabrina is on sabbatical, though she does pop in from time to time to say hello.) I know everything that is written here. The rules of posting here are dirt simple, and both Marcie and Sabrina agreed to these rules from the start.
-- No swearing, or if you feel it's necessary, censor it (such as @$$hat, or something similar.)
- Be topical and relevant.
-- If you have a beef with something someone else posted, be professional in dissent. Don't be mean, snarky, or nasty.
-- Don't play Flame Wars with other sites. You can agree to disagree with other bloggers, but do not involve this site in any sort of Flame Wars. I'll delete the offending post, and issue a statement if it happens. (Thus far, this rule hasn't been broken.)
-- No racist posts. No conspiracy theories. No posts that could be considered bigoted.
Pretty simple rules, and as I said, I'm the "editor in chief" here, so the buck stops with me. If Ron Paul allowed ghost writers to write for his newsletter, and they did write such things, they should have been removed and never allowed to write for him again. Some of the things said in the newsletter, and Pajamas Media has even more information after pouring over the newsletters, could be seen for what they seem to be -- racist, bigoted, and conspiracy laden ideas. The excuse he uses can't be allowed to end this issue at all. The writings are paranoid conspiracy rants, racist bomb-throwing, and anti Semitic diatribes. No one but the basest of bigots could ever accept such ideas. And we know the links he's had to such people. Charles Johnson has detailed this as well. (Little Green Footballs search for ALL things Paul is here.)
He has ties to Stormfront, a white supremacist organization that advocates "white pride worldwide." He has been a frequent guest on Alex Jones' conspiracy based radio show. It is plain to see that he is anything but "mainstream" in his thoughts.
His political views have led hundreds of thousands of supporters to flock to his banner. We'll admit that he has some sound ideas regarding smaller government, but too much of it is unworkable. He wants the IRS gone, except that to do that, the 16th Amendment must be repealed. What are the chances of that? Slim and none. He has stated that the FBI and CIA need to be abolished. The chances of that happening? Again, slim and none. (Furthermore, I have a problem with a guy who advocates the dissolution of our primary intelligence agencies while we're in a war.)
He considers our invasion of Iraq "imperialist" rather than justified, which it was. He says that the reason the Islamofascists attacked us is because we were in their countries. (Um, we weren't in Afghanistan when al Qaeda attacked us on 11 September, and Saudi Arabia ASKED us to make a base there to protect them from Saddam Hussein.) He also believes that all the "hype" concerning Iran right now is a precursor for another imperialistic invasion. He buys the recent NIE hook, line, and sinker despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary showing that Iran is on it's way to building a nuclear bomb. The ideas this man espouses when it comes to this war and to foreign policy isn't just crazy, they're dangerous; ineptly dangerous as it shows he has no clue what in this world is dangerous to us.
His supporters stand beside him in lock-step. They are virulent and nasty to those that disagree with their views which shows that they've paid far more attention to the Left than they have to civil political discourse. But Captain Ed made an interesting observation today that bears repeating:
A funny thing happened on my way to the predictable onslaught of Ron Paul supporters in my comments section after yesterday's post about his newsletters. The onslaught never arrived ...
Almost like clockwork, any time a blogger posts anything remotely critical about Ron Paul, it attracts hundreds of comments, most of them refusing to deal with the substance of the criticism. Instead, they usually contained cap-locked diatribes about the Federal Reserve, the Constitution, and how anyone who doesn't support Paul is a traitor or a fool. Many start off by saying, "I am a Hispanic/Jewish/black voter who cares about freedom ..." as a means of defusing the awkward inks between Paul and his newsletters and donation from neo-Nazi Don Black, as well as his 40-plus appearances on the radio show of Truther and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
But not today. It's been more than 14 hours since I posted about the TNR story, and so far ... nothing. I really expected to find scores of outraged commentary in the Disqus moderation queue when I woke up this morning, but so far, it's been as quiet as a church mouse. ...
The Revolution turned out to be a dud. Even the writers at Reason now wonder what kind of crypto policy Paul may have been hiding, and Andrew Sullivan has (rather bravely) called out Paul for his association with the vile rhetoric published for over seventeen years under his own name.
The green curtain has been pulled back, I think, and rational minds have taken control. The comment sections will never be the same.
Captain Ed believes his three losses (Iowa, Wyoming, and New Hampshire), coupled with this story, may have literally been the body blow to do in his campaign. At the very least, it has his supporters being rather quiet on the blogs and talk radio today. (Every once in a while a Paul-bot slips through call screeners and makes it onto the air for a short one minute rant.) Not today. Crickets are chirping louder than these people are, and we're apt to agree with Captain Ed. Like other bloggers, we have dealt with the backlash from Paul-bots for our opinion on the man with no clue. The most notable responses we received came from the reaction to this column we wrote where we referred to him as an "also-ran" with no shot. Our analysis was spot on, but his supporters couldn't believe how "dumb" we were to not see that he was the "only hope" for this nation.
Not to be mean or anything, but the reaction of his supporters to anything that they disagreed with reminded a great deal of how Hitler Youth and Sturmabteilung (or SA) reacted to anything deemed as dissent to the Fuhrer. They shout down and disrupted campaign events for other candidates, and verbally attacked any news people whom they thought were assailing Paul. The fervor they brought to his campaign may have been seen as passion for any like-minded individuals, but to us outsiders it looked foolish, noxious, and repugnant. In short they acted more like unhinged Democrats than cogent political supporters. (And no, I'm not calling them Nazis. I'm saying they acted like those Nazi groups.)
In closing I'll say this: Ron Paul has some explaining to do regarding his perceived views, and if he were smart he'd disavow any and all statements made in those newsletters by those people. If not, then he presents an image of a man who accepts them, and concurs with those opinions. He can claim that this controversy has been dealt with, but searches here at Technorati and on Google shows us that the 'Sphere believes this subject hasn't been addressed properly by him. Questions still linger as to whether or not he truly believes what was written.
The 'Sphere is waiting, Dr. Paul. As the 'Net was your primary source for support and money, you owe it to those in cyberspace to answer these questions definitively. You also owe it to your constituents in your Congressional district who, no doubt, have heard about this story. (Michael Medved and Laura Ingraham, as far as we know, are the only conservative radio hosts to have spoken with him on the air. I'm sure they'd be willing to have him on again to explain this issue.)
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 6:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home