The New York Times has an interesting front page piece on Ron Paul’s relationship with the racists, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in his coalition (sorry, but whatever you think of Lew Rockwell, Stormfront and David Duke certainly deserve such labels).
His three defenses are: 1) He didn’t have direct knowledge of the really bad things and cannot remember anything when people provide evidence that he did.
2) He won’t disavow support from neo-Nazis and white supremacists because their endorsement of him doesn’t imply or suggest his endorsement of them. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say.”
3) Last he believes that his continued reliance on their support can be justified because he’s championing the cause of liberty. “I’ll go to anybody who I think I can convert to change their viewpoints — so that would be to me incidental,” he said. “I’m always looking at converting people to look at liberty the way I do.”
All of these are deficient. Let’s start with his first argument. I simply don’t believe him. His claim would require not only that he never wrote the newsletters in question but that he never read them, either. It would also strongly suggest that he never discussed their basic editorial thrust with a close aide and editor who was writing under Paul’s own name. He even claims that he never paid attention to his lucrative newsletter business because nobody ever complained about their content.
I admit to a writer’s bias here, but your byline is one of the most valuable things you own because it reflects not just your work and thought but your character and reputation as well. I think Paul is lying about at least some of this. But even if you take him at his word that he was merely grossly irresponsible and incompetent in his handling of a few newsletters, how are we supposed to believe he could do the job of president if he has such poor management skills and such rotten choice in staff? (Admittedly, his choice in staff was only rotten if he’s telling the truth and his newsletters don’t reflect his views).
Then there’s his second argument. Yes, it’s true that support from racists doesn’t make you a racist. But working with them is a different matter. Tolerating them, never mind campaigning for their support, even obliquely, is damning.
Which brings us to his third claim: that he’s on a quest to convert people. I’m actually very sympathetic to this argument, as it is one I’ve invoked myself and it’s one Bill Buckley used to make. Politics is about persuasion. If Ron Paul were out there converting neo-Nazis to classical liberalism I’d be cheering him on. But where is the evidence he’s doing anything of the sort? Talking about hard money and the conspiracy at the Fed is not a sincere way to convince racists to drop their odious views. Is there any serious evidence that he’s tried to convince such supporters they’re wrong? I’ll take the word of people like Cato president Ed Crane and others that Paul doesn’t in fact believe much of this stuff. But where’s the proof Paul ever spent any real effort trying to enlighten Lew Rockwell, never mind the folks at Stormfront? If there is such proof, his communications people are doing a fantastic job keeping it secret.
If Paul’s explanations are to be believed at face value, he’s a shockingly naïve man. If your goal is to persuade people that the libertarian cause is free of bigotry, courting support from bigots is a really stupid way to do it.
What happens when Ron Paul wins Virginia?
What happens when the one candidate you've done so much to ram down the throat of the rank and file LOSES Virginia, and loses Virginia to a kook, but loses because the kook was the only alternative on the ballot?
You've gone to Herculean lengths to "make straight" the ways of Romney.
And for all of your efforts, what have you got to show for it but a candidate who can't break out of the mid 20s in national polling of the GOP!
Isn't it amazing, just amazing, that in certain congressional districts in Virginia that are OVERWHELMINGLY Democrat, the ONLY TWO out of the ENTIRE Republican field who managed to garner enough signatures was the kook so far to the right that he's now out there popping up on the left, AND the guy this publication has gone to bat for in a way that sickens most people familiar with the history of this publication.
Romney and the kook are the ONLY two Republicans who managed to garner enough signatures in overwhelmingly Democrat districts.
BUT Romney is the guy we're supposed to go for!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt probably should be an "if" not a "when," and it is a big "if."
First of all a very large chunk of the electorate is not firmly committed to a particular candidate. Romney's 20-30% is not a ceiling, he is many voter's second choice and over half of the Republican electorate consider him an acceptable nominee.
In order for Paul to win in Virginia: 1. the opposition to Romney will have to grow and solidify, 2. there would have to be a coordinated effort by the other candidates or major allies to encourage voters to vote for Paul instead of voting for Romney, leaving the top of the ballot blank, or not even bothering to show up to vote (which I think a lot voters who find both candidates unacceptable might do), 3. the voters would have to be willing to help candidates that were too incompetent to get on the ballot in the first place, and 4. the voters that favor other candidates to Romney and Paul would have to vote overwhelmingly for Ron Paul who is at 9% in Virginia and who has these newsletters written in his name and sounds like Jeremiah Wright on foreign policy.
Remember that McCain in 2008 got more than 50% of the vote in Virginia against Huckabee. How many of these voters that voted for McCain in 2008 are going to vote for Paul? Romney I think will have better odds, especially when the alternative is Ron Paul instead of Huckabee.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRemember, Virginia is where those high-salaried Federal Government employees live. It has different priorities from the rest of the country when it comes to "making Washington irrelevant."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe Richard's analysis is correct. He was being if anything too nice in his reply to you, Drek. There is no way on earth that your hero Ron Paul wins Virginia. Romney's 20 - 30% is not a ceiling, as Richard points out. Do you really think that the majority of Gingrich, Santorum, Huntsman, and Bachmann supporters in Virginia are suddenly going to see the glory that is Ron Paul and rally under his banner? If these people show up at the polls, they're going to vote overwhelmingly for Romney.
I'd have more respect for Paul's supporters if they had a solid enough grasp of reality to know that his candidacy is doomed but supported him anyway, out of a misguided belief that they were adhering to some sort of high-minded principle come what may. As it is, many seem to inhabit the same alternative universe as hard-core leftists - another bad sign for the movement.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseStrategic voting.
If by voting for Paul, they can stop Romney, many people will vote for Paul.
After all, there's no chance he's going to win any delegates outside of Iowa and Virginia. So it's a safe vote that denies those delegates to Romney.
If I lived in Virginia, I'd vote for Paul.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLet me point out that before Gingrich was disqualified for not submitting enough valid signatures he was leading in the polls in Virginia, the fact that he will not get any delegates from Virginia is more harmful to Gingrich than the possibility of Romney not getting delegates from Virginia.
I don't think a majority of voters in Virginia will follow in your footsteps. Remember McCain was able to get over 50% of the vote, there are not as many of you as you think. Romney will more than likely win Virginia.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is guilt by association of the worst sort, and not worthy of Goldberg's usual high standards.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood grief. Can it just be enough that his positions on foreign affairs, money and immigration are unreasonable? Those areas along leave plenty of material to discredit Ron Paul. This weird obsession on the professional right with his alleged associations with people harboring bad thoughts is nuttier than the people holding those bad thoughts. It's nuttier than Paul's view of an Iranian nuke.
Obviously, I'm no Ron Paul fan. I'm less of a fan of two-bit race hustlers and fabulists. Put the damned letters up on the web and let people make up their minds. This guilt by association by association by oblique reference nonsense is despicable, even when aimed at a fruitcake like Ron Paul.
I've lost a lot of respect for you G. You should be better than this.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou lie down with dogs, you're going to get a flea or two. Ron Paul seems to have an entire kennel of bigoted racists at home.
Plus, I think the point Jonah makes first is the is easily the most important point: His explanation of these newsletters just isn't plausible.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat troubles me about this is the newsletters are not publicly available. The few quotes I've seen are not horrifying to me. Out of context, it is tough to tell, but they seemed pretty mild. Charles Murray has said worse.
Instead, we get conservatives breaking into hysterics,claiming these letters were calls for a return to slavery and celebrations of the Holocaust. That gets my BS detector going. If the actual letters were as bad as claimed, there's no need for the hysterics.
I also note that Jonah and the others have decided to skip a few steps and get right to the condemnations. Let's establish the truth about these newsletters first and then we can judge Paul's level if guilt. Instead, Jonah is pretending that's all been worked out by his friends at the Times.
Again, I think Paul is ridiculous. Yeah, he is right about some stuff, but c'mon. The guy holds some very weird opinions. Even so, it does not excuse the race bating we are see from our side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNot public? They're newsletters. You just haven't looked very hard.
External Link
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for proving my point. These are a few selected pages that don't tell me much. Put the whole unadulterated copies up on-line. For all I know the page preceding the first entry could be a long explanation of why the following is wrong.
Again, I think Paul holds some strange views. I think his followers are mostly crazy. The trouble is, his detractors are looking a little nutty too. That's what bugs me. I'd really hate to learn that Jonah Goldberg is being fitted for an aluminum foil hate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for proving mine (13:28).
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseCan you kindly take your repugnant wink-wink nudge-nudge bigotry somewhere else?
Only a bigot or a loon could whine "out of context."
Only a bigot or a loon could say "doesn't sound that bad to me."
Only a bigot or a loon could make up the fanciful pretzel-twisting nonsense you've come up with here.
Just go away back to your fellow 'race-conscious' 'non-racists.'
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSorry, but I don't think Obama's professional associations with two unrepentant domestic terrorists, a devout racist, anti-American black separatist preacher, and an active member in an organization that was an unindicted co-conspirator to aiding and abetting terrorists were at all irrelevant.
In fact, they were quite revealing. Those of us who paid attention to those associations were the ones not the least bit surprised by Obama's efforts to jam through a leftist agenda.
Likewise, with Ron Paul, his past associations are thoroughly relevant, at least for gauging the types of people with whom he'd surround himself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseexactly right, madisonian!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAgreed. And Goldberg's piece was certainly fair comment even if some here don't agree with it. It is not a case of his trying to tar Paul with "guilt by association" as some are trying to pretend.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't understand your logic. To borrow a phrase, if someone is pal-ing around with white supremists, isn't that something that should be shouted from the rooftops? Maybe it is not a big deal to you, but it sure is to me. Too many good Americans, most of them white, gave their lives to tear down that filthy, crooked-cross rag that Stormfront and its ilk like to wave to ignore this story. Also, Ron Paul's laughable defense raises major questions about his honesty. Again, isn't that something that should be aired and discussed? Who I lose respect for is those who chose to look away when confronted with an ugly truth.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh..the horror. We cannot have a realist President. All of our Presidential candidates need to be Truthers - you know the Iraqi WMD, Iraqi-Al Queda connection type. Why do you people hate rational thought? Is it because you aren't capable of any, and that is why you run to candidates who spout talking points written by people sucking off the federal teat.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere were WMD's in Iraq, and there was an Iraqi-Al Queda connection. There were also connections between Iraq and a multitude of other terrorist groups.
Despite the beliefs of the neo-isolationists, terrorism did not begin and end with Al Queda.
What is it about Paulistas and their complete inability to deal with the world as it actually is?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse