Thursday, 17 January 2008

Will Paultards Answer This ?

Times are not good for the newest cult on the block . Those nasty newsletters are not going away and now it seems Ron Paul supporters are desperate to link him to non-whites in a good way . You know , "Some of my best friends are black". The NAACP one was desperate . Turns out he wasn't the president of the NAACP , but the chapter of Austin NAACP . Ron Paul gets a rather low ranking in NAACP terms , the equivalent of an F. They even try to suggest that he wanted to use his money to make a medal honouring Rosa Parks . Not quite the full story , he refused to vote for one going on about tax payers cash and said he would pay towards one if all the other politicians did . Nice try. No escape blaming the equally bad tasting Lew Rockwell either ( secessionist supporting head of Ludwig von Mises Institute ,of which Paul is rather fond ). He's the same guy that talks of Lincoln supporters being part of a cult and that it wasn't a civil war but a war for southern independence . He even has given platform to those who say the free market would have ended slavery for economic reasons , just like it ended states rights , sorry , segregation without the need for something like a civil rights act ( that Ron does not support). Seems he is not satisfied with taking the US back to the 1890's when there were obviously no poor people at all , but also is none too dismissive of the southern states in the 1850's.

Anyway . This is someone else's list they let me use, and thought it would be good for the Paultards to engage with it .If they can tear themselves from the surging momentum they talk of , from 10% to 8% to 6%, it's kind of important that they are able to answer the questions below. If they can't square it at the end , they are probably brainwashed , like wearing white sheets and burning crosses , or worse , are willing to ignore the nasty parts just for the bits they like , an enabler . Fingers in ears time ......lalalalalalalala.......

"I still want this newsletter thing put straight (amongst many other matters). It is not clear to me he is not a racist. Lets see the story so far.

1 . Quotes arise in a 1996 election campaign talking of fleet footed black criminal youths , 95% of the black population not having sensible views and an opponent being "the archetypal half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism." . This is not denied , rebutted or claimed to be ghost-written . The defense includes that this reflects reality and comments Jesse Jackson has made .

2 . A full 5 years pass before any kind of denial or attempt to distance himself from the words written.In all this time , no ghost writers are suggested. It takes till 2001 to claim they are ghost written quotes , a few bad apples in the bunch that slipped through. This new defense , though unsatisfactory to many people, many others are willing to give the benefit of the doubt here .

3 . Ron Paul in the 2008 campaign refuses to release other past newsletters . It is considered old news and unimportant . Criticisms of racism persist . Some claim of his past linked to fringe extreme groups . The donation by a racist is brushed off with an explanation that seems acceptable in the light of what is in the public domain . To return the donation would show a clear repudiation of racism but in the context of the time many feel he does not need to show this.The context is about to change and as a result , a great deal needs explaining. The news letters and former related criticisms cannot be ignored so easily in the greater picture.

4 . In a New Republic piece

James Kirchick unearths some of the pamphlets which show an array of homophobic , racist and conspiratorial comments.

These are not a few that can be explained as being an aberration , but extend over a considerable number of years. The former defense is now very weak in this light. Jesse Benton , Paul's spokesman , is claimed by Kirchick to have said some were written by Paul some not only to later change this position.

5 . Ron Paul denies these are by him .

He and his supporters use a defence that includes these were ghost written , old news , had already been public , already been debunked and were a smear campaign akin to swiftboating. The basis of the defence is " I didn't do it " , " It was someone else " "It is old and not relevant or important".These are their standards .Paul tries to paint himself as not racist with a position that libertarian views prevent this . Whether racists that support him see others as individuals not groups would seem unlikely.Indeed , he himself has talked of whites in groups not individuals before.

"From Paul's 1988 book, Freedom Under Siege: ``White people who organize and expect the same attention as other groups are quickly and viciously condemned as dangerous bigots. Hispanic, black, and Jewish caucuses can exist in the U.S. Congress, but not a white caucus, demonstrating the absurdity of this approach for achieving rights for everyone.''

Indeed , when talking of Americans not individuals he seems to be able to see race very clearly

"We quadrupled the TSA, you know, and hired more people who look more suspicious to me than most Americans who are getting checked," he says. "Most of them are, well, you know, they just don't look very American to me. If I'd have been looking, they look suspicious ... I mean, a lot of them can't even speak English, hardly. Not that I'm accusing them of anything, but it's sort of ironic."

one more time on that

"they just don't look very American to me..... they look suspicious ... Not that I'm accusing them of anything"

He does not address the reality of the situation in the CNN interview and supporters project what is essentially an attempt to use character as a defense ( not addressing the heart of the matter ...see 8 and 9), be it that these do not match his comments/ position or supporters claiming this does match their perception , or are deceitful with stories associating him with civil rights figures.

6 . Ron Paul could be shown to advance the news letter positions in his policies as in his position on immigration , a position that goes against the 14th amendment of the constitution despite his constitutionalist stance ,as well as countering libertarian ideas of free-trade needing a free movement of peoples .The approach dresses up more unpalatable positions in what appears at first as more approachable stances ,until such approaches are thought through that is. His states rights position could alternatively be used by secessionist / neo-confederacy camps.


Being selective in choosing which bit of the constitution to adopt and which to reject

"Consider the Lawrence case decided by the Supreme Court in June. The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution. There are, however, states’ rights – rights plainly affirmed in the Ninth and Tenth amendments. Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards. But rather than applying the real Constitution and declining jurisdiction over a properly state matter, the Court decided to apply the imaginary Constitution and impose its vision on the people of Texas."

Rejecting the Civil Rights Act /paying for the slaves

conspiratorial attitudes ( here the UN/association with the John Birch Society and a defense of the Branch Davidian cult respectively )

More here

Such positions certainly attract a disagreeable brand of supporters . Paul may or may not be in such camps , but there has been association ,his services have been used by such fringe groups ,and such supporters are not attracted to any tax or economic position . They are attracted to those matters that match their position , even if Ron Paul does use the language of liberty to forward positions that will erode liberties.

"Why is it that when a white supremacist supports Ron Paul, the Paulbots will dismiss it as irrelevant, but when a black person supports Ron Paul, OMG, it becomes the most relevant piece of evidence ever? Especially when Ron Paul is vastly more popular among the white supremacists? It's almost as though there's some sort of double standard."

7. Evidence of how much Ron Paul's integrity is worth can be measured by other actions that display a lack of straight talking and honesty . For example , when the question of evolution was raised at a debate , he failed to show he did not agree with it . Those who admitted this position had large sections of the public be highly critical of them . Ron Paul's staff furthered this position. Later in a small meeting he rejected evolution saying there was not enough evidence ( negating an understanding of theory in science despite a scientific education ) , claimed it was a theological question , not one of science and stating he believed in a creator .Paul advocates claim this is unimportant ( despite his previous lack of candour ) as it is not reflected in his policies .

"Of particular note is is the question asked by Tom DeRosa of the Institute for Creation Research: "Will your office support and encourage a more open approach to education in the presentation of scientific facts that contradict the theory of evolution?" Ron Paul answered this question "yes"."

One could argue that his positions on abortion , homosexuality , the "sanctity of marriage" , and a position on religion in state life that transgresses his claim of being a strict constitutionalist show otherwise.Some argue he uses diversionary tactics if one is less than generous, such as the drug policy used as a defense in his Wolf Blitzer interview/"grilling" ,associating himself with the MLK holiday to raise money without regards to the MLK estate, or elsewhere being creative with words and definitions as in isolationism/non-interventionist.

Further ,he is not beyond lies and smears in a campaign

"In the years of defending himself against the assembled liberal multitudes, Paul has learned a slashing campaign style of his own. "Ron Paul specializes in attack, only he is much better at it than they are," says Dan Cobb, the editorial page editor of the Victoria Advocate, which endorsed Sneary. "He used Sneary's own record as a county judge to attack him in a misleading fashion, but it worked." Indeed, in a "Truth Test" report during the 2000 campaign, TV station KVUE in Austin found three out of four claims in Paul's ads to be false; a fourth was "true but misleading." Says Sneary, who is still upset about the campaign: "It's one thing when you criticize our position. It's another thing to take that information and use half-truths and no truths in a campaign."

8.So can Ron Paul's defense against the news letters hold credibility? CNN senior political analyst David Gergen does not think so

"That's not good enough, says one political veteran.........These stories may be very old in Ron Paul's life, but they're very new to the American public and they deserve to be totally ventilated," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst. "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'"

Matt Welch at the libertarian Reason magazine now questions matters too.

"Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon."

9 . So as to the credibility of the position . How credible does Ron Paul sound in the light of the following

a) The original defense applies when a voluminous number of abhorrent positions appear that come from a spread of many many years b)The original defense applies despite the references appearing in a news letter named after Ron Paul , written in the first person , often with personal references and published by Ron Paul and Associates. c) That this 8 page pamphlet was too much to handle for a man considered to scrutinise laws in detail and be aware of matters in the smallest degree. d) That if the pamphlet was ghost written he just hired someone,anyone , to edit/write for him without concern as to if their views matched e) That it makes a difference if the articles were by others at the time . Isn't it the message that is important in a political/survivalist report ? Why were no other names attributed apart from one known time?Readers would be supporters of the content. What does this suggest about Paul being the author or attaching his name to the letters? f) That this newsletter was off his radar despite accounts that it made a nice amount of money at a time he was not in political office , in one year $940 000 per annum, and in fact had a large enough subscription ( it was not junk mail) as to require a subscription manager. g) That subscription manager ,Jean Mclver , who now works as part of his election staff , did not bring the odious points to his attention ever , nor any others employed in it's production. Nor did any of the many members of the fringe community he was in contact with mention any of it to him . Nor did any libertarians , including the ones who were angry at the time mention it to him. Former Reason editor Virginia Postrel notes

"I do fault my friends at Reason, who are much cooler than I'll ever be and who, scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn't do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked my old boss Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul's newsletters back in the early '90s. Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul's populist appeals. (Note that by "cosmopolitan" I do not mean "Jewish." I mean cosmopolitan.) I suspect they did but decided it was more useful to spin things their way than to take Paul's record and ideas seriously."

"The disclosures are not news to me, nor is the Paul campaign's dismissive reaction a surprise. When you give your political heart to a guy who spends so much time worrying about international bankers, you're not going to get a tolerant cosmopolitan."

I do note she gives some credence to Lew Rockwell having a hand in some articles in her opinion, still that does not address the matter properly though given the closeness between Rockwell , Paul and the Von Mises Institute, and it is part of her position that generally backs up a belief in Paul's undesirable traits. Reason and Cato may be distancing themselves now , but if they turned a blind eye despite what was clear and knowable , even without the news letter information that recently came out ( though it seems it was well known enough in such circles for it to be raised as concern ) ,they have some soul searching to do too. They linked themselves with a man with abhorrent positions all in the name of greater glory , they do not emerge clean.

10 . At what point will Ron Paul or his supporters actually engage with reality and consider matters rationally without a knee-jerk almost cult-like response . The matter is not addressed , it would be ludicrous to say it was . " I didn't do it" , "It wasn't me " or "It is old rehashed news " are not answers and not a credible position to take . It is certainly not presidential ,fulfilling any moral responsibility, even reflective of general competence . You wouldn't accept it from a 5 year old child claiming he didn't raid the cookie jar , the crumbs cascading down their t-shirt.

An answer is required . A few good positions are not reasonable trade off in the light of the above . A further deluge of irrelevance does not hide the stink .A concerted internet campaign falsely suggests a greater number of supporters than exist in reality and is quantity over quality. Supporters who attempt to bury unfavourable/awkward points of view ( and yet scream of media blackouts ), and flood critical blogs with the zeal of young moaists in the cultural revolution are not an alternative for an answer.

Continual promises are not reality. Fifth is not third , and third is not a win. A conspiracy will not be an explanation , or a satisfactory show for failure. Nor is a blimp an excellent excuse for a campaign. The matter will not go away and any defense of Paul that does not settle the matter will be to only further bring the issue to the attention of others who will eventually see all the information , not that which Paul supporters want you to see , so don't kid yourself otherwise. The cult of the [Revo]lution is built on sand and will be recorded as such if not addressed. Win me over . Go on. Otherwise you are going to look like a joke. "

Author unknown . Probably ghost written.

"The ever-gullible and faithful followers
They are much like puppets on a string
Blind faith loses all the power of reason
And gains the ability to justify anything"

Wise words by evilpoet