Ron Paul Newsletters..
I've been following the online Ron Paul-mania for some time now, and this just surfaced on ronpaul2008.com http://ronpaul2008.typepad.com/ron_paul_2008/2008/01/message-to-supp.html
Today, as New Hampshire voters headed to the polls, The New Republic published an article carefully timed to hurt Ron Paul.
This article rehashes an old issue of quotations from newsletters published under Dr. Paul's name, but not edited by him. Dr. Paul takes full responsibility, as he has for over a decade, for failing to adequately monitor the words that went out under his name.
Apparantly it was this article (not linked to by Ron Pauls site) that prompted his response:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
The Newsletters in question are supposedly full of various forms of racism, ad hominems, name-calling, sexual bigotry and conspiracy theories. According to Ron Paul, he didnt write them, so that doesnt matter.. but as stated in The New Republic article:
This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.
So there.
Today, as New Hampshire voters headed to the polls, The New Republic published an article carefully timed to hurt Ron Paul.
This article rehashes an old issue of quotations from newsletters published under Dr. Paul's name, but not edited by him. Dr. Paul takes full responsibility, as he has for over a decade, for failing to adequately monitor the words that went out under his name.
Apparantly it was this article (not linked to by Ron Pauls site) that prompted his response:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
The Newsletters in question are supposedly full of various forms of racism, ad hominems, name-calling, sexual bigotry and conspiracy theories. According to Ron Paul, he didnt write them, so that doesnt matter.. but as stated in The New Republic article:
This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.
So there.
1 Comment
joedirtLOL, don't upset the Paultards.
I do think he would be better than any other candidates, even though he is a little extreme. The real problem (aside from racism oozing out of him) is that abortions would be illegal faster than Bush invaded Iraq. No really, he wants to amend the Fifth (?) Amendment to assign a fetus personhood.
He also probably would do the same for corporations. He's a real nut when it comes to corporate personhood. He believes corporations have the Constitutional right to use deadly force to protect their property and assets. And yes, he did say that airline employees should all carry guns to protect company property (and spare me those who would try and spin that speech).
Discuss...
Enable JavaScript to submit a comment.