But today I must profess that I, like James Kirchick, am deeply troubled that Paul issued, under his name, terrible racist propaganda in the 1990s. Paul disclaimed the abusive statements in 2008, saying that he had not paid sufficient attention to the Ron Paul Political Report that was written and edited by others. But I am not reassured for two reasons:
- During his 1998 campaign for Congress, Paul did claim responsibility for the statements, but contended that they had been "taken out of context." (So what was the context for claiming that the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. was a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours...and seduced underage girls and boys"? )
- Even after his 2008 disclaimer, Paul has continued to spin astonishing conspiracy theories. For example, Paul has continued to make appearances on the radio program of Alex Jones, a conspiracy theorist run amok. (Jones has claimed that the US government is adding chemicals to the nation's water to turn everyone homosexual so they don't have children, and that the government blew up the space shuttle Columbia as a "textbook psychological warfare operation.") In March 2009 Jones asked for Paul's thoughts on the alleged conspiracy by NORTHCOM, the U.S. military command for North America, to take over the country. Paul responded that "the average member of Congress probably isn't a participant in the grand conspiracy." Note that Paul did not say that the "grand conspiracy" does not exist! And Paul claimed in a 2010 speech that the CIA had implemented a coup and seized effective control of the U.S. government and military (see it on YouTube here).
- First, to accept his 2008 disclaimer I must also accept that he lied in 1998 when he did take responsibility for the newsletters.
- Second, and most importantly, his utter inattention to newsletters that were going out under his name betrays an inability to act as a trustworthy manager of a political enterprise. How am I supposed to trust him to manage a cabinet and federal agencies, when his utter detachment from a small staff that reported directly to him allowed bitter and reprehensible propaganda to stream forth under his name for a decade?
13 comments:
(continued...)
As to Alex Jones, what a fallacy to interpret (even Mr. Kirchick's own interpretation of) Ron Paul's response to the NORTHCOM question as anything other than a "polite non-response". It seems obvious. Again, I see people in the media make this fallacy all the time with politicians I loathe, yet I will defend that politician against the baseless attack in spite of my misgivings. And here, there is simply no way to divine that his response was anything beyond a polite non-response.
Re: "to accept his 2008 disclaimer I must also accept that he lied in 1998 when he did take responsibility for the newsletters." Although you may have figured this already by the time you read this based on the fact that Ron Paul had retired without intention of returning to politics at the time of the incident, I will say that it is not a contradiction to take responsibility for not paying better attention to a newsletter that continued after his time in Congress while at the same time not taking responsibility for something, as far as anyone can tell, he did not write. And that obviously makes the last paragraph of your blog null as well.
I will say that I do not think Ron Paul is infallible and I do not agree with him on everything. But where I do disagree with him, I feel he would accomplish little to nothing as president because the president does have to contend with the Congress and such. I don't need someone who personally represents my vision or who I identify with in terms of political labels or who lands in the same place on the left-right political spectrum as I do. I can think of plenty of politicians who represent me on all those levels but in the end are just another war-mongering corporate whore in spite of their rhetoric and such. And that is something I despise. I am more grounded in realism and am not desperate to make things conform to my worldview and demonize politicians outside of my preferred spot on the left-right spectrum and contort myself to make excuses for politicians who do fall near my preferred spot on the left-right spectrum. I could go on.
Be careful who you trust, nameless blogger. May I suggest associatedpress.com? It is there that you can find out things like the fact that we are in 7 wars currently (not including Iraq) instead of the 2 or 3 that is popularly believed, or that the federal reserve made $16 Trillion in secret loans to foreign banks last year, and I could go on. You wouldn't refer to the Associated Press as "conspiracy theory" just because it does not conform to your world view, would you?
I'll leave you with this thought:
Noam Chomsky wrote, "The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to STRICTLY LIMIT the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum - even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there's free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate." [added emphasis] In the US, the spectrum of acceptable opinion is limited to the corporatist agenda. That is, the public debate of "socialism" vs. "capitalism" is actually a debate of crony socialism vs. crony capitalism so that no matter which side wins, the corporatist agenda wins. An effective public conversation that would actually make a difference on the outcome is populism vs. corporatism, but populism is far outside of the limited spectrum of acceptable opinion. Altered misleading Orwellian lip service is often given to populism to prevent the public from seeing what it truly is. Even many of the more free thinking individuals in our society do not see with clarity that true capitalism and true socialism are 100x closer to each other than they are to their corporatist counterparts, and likewise that crony socialism and crony capitalism are 100x closer to each other than they are to their populist counterparts.
trouble with commenting. My second comment was posted while my first wasn't. Blogger.com, why you no make sense?!
1st comment, take 2...
Dear unnamed blogger,
Even cursory independent research reveals that Ron Paul's story from square one has been that Lew Rockwell ghost wrote much of that newsletter at a time when Ron Paul had returned to his medical practice with no intention of returning to Capitol Hill. It seems that your cursory research though was not independent but rather very dependent - entirely dependent on one James Kirchick.
His article is the very first mainstream media attack piece I know of in my life to make an issue of who a politician permits interviews. To my knowledge, until now, this fallacy has been strictly in the realm of hardly read blogs plus a handful (not all) of these left or right leaning, partisan-to-the-100th-degree, so-called "fact checking" websites which weave a fine tapestry of truth with half-truths, lies, propaganda and wishful thinking. Many baseless hit pieces attack politicians who could easily be blown out of the water on substantial material but instead decide for the baseless divisive accusations so as to add gasoline to the fire which is unfortunately a good bottom-line business decision as far as editorials go. It seems that Mr. Kirchick's baseless hit piece falls into that category.
As to discussion of the CIA being in the drug business being labeled a "conspiracy theory" would require one to label the likes of ABC and CBS News as conspiracy theorists as well. It is clear Mr. Kirchick is wishfully thinking that this puts Ron Paul on the fringe.
Of course, it is quite clear that this sort of cognitive dissonance concerning un-preferred candidates is the norm among mainstream media and crony corporatist politicians (for instance, statements that if Ron Paul gets 2nd or 3rd in Iowa it still doesn't make him a top-tier candidate, then turning around and stating that if he wins Iowa, then what's important is who gets 2nd and 3rd place. See progressive Cenk Uygur's analysis: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=R8EwKLAuSyw ).
Back to Lew Rockwell - at first, Paul tried to be gentlemanly and avoid naming him (as is consistent with the many irresistible opportunities RP passed up in this campaign to lambast his pathetic opponents). Paul fired Lew Rockwell immediately, but has not shut him out of his political sphere. Me personally, I would shut him out completely, but again this is consistent with his actions, I have to admire Ron Paul's bravery sometimes in seeing the many varied audiences he is willing to court without changing his message. For instance, how in the world does he speak at a Southern Baptist, Muslim hating, moral majority type of convention and get people to applaud his foreign policy? I seriously don't have the kind of openness or guts that he has, and I am saying this as someone who is 20x more open with who I associate than your average Joe. And contrary to Mr. Kirchick's baseless assertion, "to anyone who bothers to look into Ron Paul’s record, that claim is simply" very very credible.
Hi oiysdfjkhsacjhwef -
I'm not sure why you think I'm a nameless blogger, when the URL of my blog is christopherfalter.blogspot.com. Oh, and I think you misspelled your name: shouldn't it be spelled oiysdfjkhsacjhwer instead? That's the common anglicization of your name, which is Serbian in origin--correct me if I'm wrong. Yeah, it's easy to type an 'f' in place of an 'r', but don't worry, I've got your back. ;)
As for Ron Paul firing Lew Rockwell immediately...only if "immediately" is defined as "more than 4 years later." The newsletters were a big controversy (at the state level) in Paul's 1998 campaign, so would you agree with me that Paul really did know enough about the newsletters in 1998 to go ahead and fire Rockwell "immediately" at that point? And if so, why was Rockwell a paid consultant to the 2002 Paul congressional campaign? Quite an odd way to fire someone in 1998, that.
I agree that Paul showed great courage in sticking up for the right of Muslims to build mosques. I would dispute the characterization of Southern Baptists as Muslim haters, though. That's quite a broad brush to paint with.
"Most congressmen are not participating in the great conspiracy that you just mentioned" seems like an odd way to give a polite non-response to a question. Just sayin'. Please note that I am not making an issue of who Paul granted an interview to; I'm just concerned about how he responded to some of the interviewer's questions. The reason I cited Jones' odd beliefs was because Paul could not claim to be caught by surprise by Jones' questions regarding a grand conspiracy. I probably didn't make that clear enough in my original post, so I thank you for giving me the opportunity to clarify the point.
As for the contradiction between the 2008 disclaimer and the 1998 taking of responsibility, it has to do with the way he took responsibility in 1998. He didn't say in 1998, "I didn't write it, but I should have read it and stopped the nonsense earlier." Instead, he stated that his statements were "taken out of context" by his 1998 political opponents. So that's why I'm not able to square the two. If you could dig up some Ron Paul quotes from 1998 that in fact say what he's saying now, by all means supply some links.
With regard to the "CIA conspiracy" theme, I think that there is a very sharp distinction between what Paul stated and what other news sources stated. Others stated that the CIA has possibly been a participant in the illegal drug trade in order to raise some extra funds. Paul stated that the CIA had staged a coup and taken over the federal government. Doesn't that sound a little different to you? "Effective coup over the entire federal government" vs. "illegal drug marketing" point in different directions, as far as I can tell.
As for the "lamestream" media...sure, we have to take everything with a grain of salt. But no one in the Paul campaign has said that any of the documents that Kirchik has cited are not authentic, so I think I am justified in relying on those documents.
I am a bit perturbed that I am accused of simply parroting other media sources, as if I have not checked documentation and read Paul's rebuttals before drawing my conclusions. The fact that I disagree with Paul on this issue does not constitute evidence that I did not give his view careful consideration.
Thanks for stopping by, and I've found the conversation interesting so far. I hope you have too, oiysdfjkhsacjhwer. Please stop by again and continue the conversation.
Best regards,
Oive! You can really split some hairs over teeny tiny details AND SO THAT IS WHAT MAKES YOU THINK HE ISN'T FIT TO BE A PRESIDENT?????? Hahaha! "Technically all my details are in some sort of way correct. There's a big difference between saying it this way and the fraction of a sentence quoted that says it that way". And in all the minutia you completely lost track of the purpose of your blog post. How was he racist again? That is truly desperate. Hahahaha! Obviously you are going to think that anyone who runs against the war mongering corporate whore you voted for in 2008 is unfit to be a president, no matter what. You will will find ANY excuse! Your pride is far too great to see things with balance. That lame obscure attack piece in the media is the closest excuse you could come up with to an actual reason to be against Ron Paul. And you make it sound so reasonable, too. "He's really good for many reasons, but..." Hahaha!
Yep! You're right! Ron Paul must be a racist who is unfit to be a president! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
And here is the PROOF! RON PAUL'S RACIST RANT FINALLY CAUGHT ON TAPE! NOW IT IS UNDENIABLE! I DEFY ANYONE TO WATCH THIS VIDEO AND THINK HE ISN'T A RACIST! hahahahahaha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B6Cn4svUfd0
Oiy -
Re-reading my comment, I see that I indulged in some unsuitably glib rhetoric when I used the phrases "quite an odd way to fire someone..." and "Just sayin'." I apologize for the unwarranted tone.
I share Paul's concern that U.S. foreign policy has been far too hawkish, and it's a serious problem. I'm glad that you and I agree about that.
I do acknowledge that I looked past some serious flaws when I voted for Obama in 2008. It is the nature of voting for any politician, I suppose, that you have to take some chaff with the wheat when you pull the voting lever. I would definitely vote for Huntsman over Obama, and I would quite possibly vote for Paul over Obama in spite of my serious concern about how Paul handled the newsletter issue from 1998 to 2002. At this point I'm not so sure about the rest of the GOP field, though.
Hurrah! Thank you for getting to the crux, Christopher J. Falter. On a serious note, I know you haven't believed in me for a long time, but I need someone with your hare-splitting abilities to prove my existence in court. It will be the greatest case since the miracle on 34th St. All these skeptical adults never buy any carrots for their their children to leave me. And then they raise a generation of greedy, unappreciative little boogers who leave out Easter baskets expecting my candy. They leave milk and cookies for Santa Clause but WHAT DOES THE EASTER BUNNY GET?! NOTHING! I need you to take my case, Chris, then the world can treat me with a little more respect :)
I don't know where Mr. Kirchick gets the dates 1998-2002 from. The date of the incident was in 1990 I believe. The statement MOST LIKELY (but never proven to be) written by Lew Rockwell was written in response to the LA riots and then a few years after that he was fired. 1998 to 2002 (or whatever is being claimed, there's lots of numbers being thrown around) is way off. Not that it matters much...
@Easter Bunny - Unfortunately, I am not able to vote for our all-time favorite presidential candidate: Truman
@Oiy - The point is that Rockwell's statements in the Ron Paul Report (and related publications under Paul's name) came to light in 1998...yet as of four years later Ron Paul was still employing Rockwell as a paid consultant to his campaign. In my opinion that demonstrated extremely poor judgment by Paul with regard to displaying basic respect for Americans of all ethnicities, not to mention civil rights--which are an important function of the federal government under the 14th and 15th amendments to our constitution.
And btw that's my point, not Kirchik's, fwiw. :)
Something like that. True enough. It's somewhat muddled. Ron Paul is very open with who he associates in the way that Jesus wined and dined with tax collectors and prostitutes, or heck, parallels can even be drawn to the X-Men with all their character flaws.
Again, I'd avoid the Lew Rockwell like the plague personally but Ron Paul employed him for his skills and connections in a setting in which his racism could play no part. Me personally, I wouldn't do it, but if that's all the dirt we can dig up on the guy (and the establishment is EXTRAORDINARILY DESPERATE to do so) I think he gets an "A" on his background check and I'm glad it was brought into question.
There were many people who called Obama's character into question for associating with that undoubtedly crazy pastor for years and years. And there were other associations that Obama kept even as president which could be called into question for similar reasons, but honestly that was something I was never concerned about. And even though I knew Obama was pro-war before he was even elected, I was always telling others who brought up the pastor that that was a really poor erroneous reason to disapprove of Barack Obama. But of course, partisan is as partisan does. No good reason is necessary.
I'm still wishing I could vote for Hare-y Truman.
Post a Comment