It is such a shame that Ron Paul, the only Republican candidate who has made any sense whatsoever on foreign policy and the Iraq war at the Republican debates, is otherwise a far right kook. I first noted Paul’s extremism (and not the good kind, in defense of liberty) with regards to his acceptance of right wing revisionist history which denies the fundamental role of separation or church and state in the founding of this nation. As I wrote in July:
While I sympathize with Paul’s opposition to the war and some of his other positions, his absurd claim that “The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers” prevents me from considering him as a candidate, or believing his rhetoric of being a strict defender of the Constitution. Paul has supported keeping “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, has co-sponsored the school prayer amendment, and supported keeping the Ten Commandments on a courthouse lawn.
That was enough to eliminate any consideration of backing Paul, but so far this doesn’t make him worse than the bulk of the current Republican Party. There have also been the embarrassing moments with the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, but Paul escaped serious damage here when he distanced himself from their beliefs. In general a candidate cannot be expected to turn down the votes of those who hold some beliefs they disagree with.
There are notable exceptions to this. This morning Jesus’ General noted that Ron Paul has received the endorsement of the white supremacist group. Stormfront. There has been significant support for Paul in their discussion forum for some time.
This is one group whose support Paul should repudiate if he hopes to be considered a serious candidate, even among Republicans. Instead it appears Paul is encouraging such support. Steve Benen reported on other signs of Paul’s extremism as seen in this handwritten letter (pdf). Hatewatch reports on plans for Paul to speak before a racist group. Orcinus has further reviewed “Paul’s extended history of dalliances with right-wing xenophobes, racists, and conspiracy theorists.”
guilt by association, useless post.
Have you ever thought that maybe stormfront is a rightwing group that was setup to prevent anyone from running against the establishment warmongering gop? I think it’s odd that these extremist groups always back the candidate that speaks the truth. Therefore trying to diminish their credibility. I’m not falling for this and will maintain supporting Ron Paul.
PROOF that Ron Paul is a racist! Smoking gun — Must-see —
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ji_Ft23BDw
GO RON PAUL! GO RON PAUL! GOD BLESS RON PAUL!
RON PAUL FOR PRESIDENT 2008!
Best Ron Paul video – (Reply: WRONG!…Best Presidential Candidacy Video EVER!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFfdB5OzlyQ
Ron Paul “Dream On” Video!!!!
http://youtube.com/watch?v=IWfIhFhelm8
Ron Paul “Don’t Tread On Me” Video
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FG_HuFtP8w8
Ron Paul is a constitutionalist.
Ron has never voted to raise taxes.
Ron has never voted for an unbalanced budget.
Ron has never voted for the Iraq War.
Ron has never voted for a federal restriction on gun ownership.
Ron has never voted to increase the power of the executive branch.
Ron has never voted to raise congressional pay.
Ron has never taken a government-paid junket.
Ron voted against the Patriot Act.
Ron votes against regulating the Internet.
Ron voted against NAFTA and CAFTA.
Ron votes against the United Nations.
Ron votes against the welfare state.
Ron votes against reinstating a military draft.
Ron votes to preserve the constitution.
Ron votes to cut government spending.
Ron votes to lower healthcare costs.
Ron votes to end the war on drugs.
Ron votes to protect civil liberties.
Ron votes to secure our borders with real immigration reform
He does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program.
He returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress.
Listen To Ron Paul Speeches: http://www.ronpaulaudio.com
Review over 100 Articles Ron Paul Authored by Subject:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul-arch.html
How can you not love this guy listen to him he is truly a man who
tells the truth “We The People” are taking our country back and
restoring the original Constitutional Republic and returning Amerika
back to America not the “United States of Surveillance”
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot
survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor
moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling
through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself.
For the traitor appears not a traitor—he speaks in the accents
familiar to his victims, and wears their face and their garment, and
he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He
rots the soul of a nation—he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of a city—he infects the body politic so
that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared.
— Cicero: orator, statesman, political theorist, lawyer and
philosopher of Ancient Rome.
“In the time of universal deceit, telling the truth
is a revolutionary act” GEORGE ORWELL
“None are more enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
— Goethe
“guilt by association”
Not at all. The post distinguishes between having hte support of people with off the wall views, like the 9/11 conspiracy theorists, as opposed to a connection to groups such as Stormfront. If Paul were to distance himself from these groups there would be no problem. Instead Paul shows an affinity for them in his own writing and in agreeing ot speak to such groups.
“maybe stormfront is a rightwing group that was setup to prevent anyone from running against the establishment warmongering gop?”
No. That makes absolutely no sense.
“If Paul were to distance himself from these groups there would be no problem. Instead Paul shows an affinity for them in his own writing and in agreeing ot speak to such groups.”
Oh really, when has he shown affinity for white nationalists ?? You’re purposefully conflating very different groups. He went to the debate at Morgan state, while others didn’t, and had an interview with Tavis Smiley to explain the old allegations from 1995.
This clearly is a “guilt by association” piece, Of course, when someone is in politics, particularly a campaign that is out of the ordinary, they attract some fringe groups. Maybe you should also take a look at what groups support the other candidates. For example, a Giuliani supporter is Paul Singer, the head of a Vulture hedge fund that financially rapes third world countries.
“This clearly is a “guilt by association” piece,”
I already responded to this. The problem is not simply one of association. This must be the mantra of the Paul supporters to ignore these connections. I’m still waiting for Paul to disassociate himself from such groups but so far he appears to be seeking their support.
“I’m still waiting for Paul to disassociate himself from such groups but so far he appears to be seeking their support.”
Such a “Did you stop beating your wife ?” question.
How can one Disassociate himself from something that he did not associate himself with ?
And if you say he did – I expect to see your proof.
“Such a “Did you stop beating your wife ?” question.
How can one Disassociate himself from something that he did not associate himself with ? ”
No, it is not a beating your wife question at all. Paul has already taken steps to disassociate himself from the 911 conspiracy theorists by stating that he does not share their views. He could speak out against groups such as Stormfront–as virtually any other candidate would do if they received such an endorsement. Instead we see signs that he is attempting to appeal to such groups.
“And if you say he did – I expect to see your proof.”
Just follow the links in the post.
Little Green Footballs hates Ron Paul.
Ron Chusid hates Ron Paul.
Therefore Ron Chusid hold the views of LGF, a well-known hate site.
This is not guilt by association.
FZappa,
That argument is total nonsense. There is no relationship between your example and the examples cited with Paul.
Little Green Footballs and I probably agree on a number of things. We also probably agree on hating murderers and rapists. There is no guilt in having an occasional area of agreement. I also have no problem in discussing areas where I disagree with them. Little Green Footballs has not endorsed me as Stormfront has endorsed Paul. I have done nothing to attempt to attract the support of Stormfront while Paul has agreed to speak before a racist group.
As already discussed, the charges against Paul have absolutely nothing to do with guilt by association. This is just a nonsense line you keep repeating due to the lack of any real defense for Paul.
If Paul speaks out against Stormfront and agrees to stop appealing to racist groups for support then you can defend him. Falsely claiming this is all guilt by association is no defense.
You attacked Ron Paul. Big no-no. His crazy supporters will come out in defense now, spamming your blog. I’m quite tempted just to have a post on my blog that says “Ron Paul,” with no words to follow it. I want to see how many vermin will crawl out of the cracks.
Ok, I see now, your hate group – ” Marcus Epstein (right), who serves as the executive director of both white nationalist Pat Buchanan’s The American Cause and the Team America PAC”
No serious person calls these groups white hate groups, and Epstein would certainly not be welcome at stormfront. What a joke.
John Galt,
As I’ve said, your attempts to rationalize this mean nothing until Paul disasociates himself from groups such as Stromwatch. To quote from the link at Hatewatch, from the Souther Poverty Law Center:
You give away a lot about yourself when you do not consider these to be hate groups.
Sarah,
“I’m quite tempted just to have a post on my blog that says “Ron Paul,” with no words to follow it. I want to see how many vermin will crawl out of the cracks.”
I noticed early on that having a post which mentioned Paul, either favorable or unfavorable, would attract a lot of traffic. Obviously anything critical led to lots of comments. Posts which were complimentary or neutral typically led to pasting in the typical pro-Paul post which we see pasted all over the blogosphere.
As the campaign has gone on, I’ve noted that simply having Paul mentioned in a post no longer attracted as much attention as previously, I’ve wondered if that is because of increased publicity for Paul (making hs supporters less likely to seek out every blog post with his name) or if it indicates a decrease in his on line support.
Based upon this my prediction is that simply having a post which says Ron Paul will no longer attract a lot of attention as it once did. Obviously criticizing him will bring out this type of response.
They certainly do not help Paul when they spam blogs in this manner and offer such poor defenses.
Why does Ron Paul has to distance himself from any group when he contiously states that we don’t get our liberties as a group, we get them as individuals. He’s obviously not a racist, so what difference will distancing himself make? Why should he even acknowledge the group? If those people want to endorse him, let them, that is their right as individuals. If you think otherwise, you never beleived in his message to begin with.
Another comment I would like to make is that Ron Paul is probably the most well documented candidate out there with his quotes and his views. Searching for The notion of a rigid separation between church and state has no basis in either the text of the Constitution or the writings of our Founding Fathers” on the internet, I find a lot of pages, but NO SOURCE.
Even if he did say this, the keyword is “ridgid”. You cannot deny that the constitution and it’s framers were heavily influenced by biblical views. A separation must of course be maintained, but not so far as to DENY citizens and governors their religious practices.
As I said above, Paul’s supporters are certainly not helping him.
It doesn’t help Paul to deny any need to disasociate himself from groups such as Stormfront. It also doesn’t help his cause to repeat extremist claims denying the strong basis for separation of church and state seen in the works of the founding fathers. The Constitution is a secular document which purposely disavows the conventions of the day to cite religion, and this intent of the founding fathers is clear in their writings. Separation of church and state is not about denying anyone the right to practice their religious beliefs.
just to expand on that… look to the recent case where a Jewish sued because his city had Christmas trees. Is that what you’re advocating when you say that Ron Paul is wrong with his statement? That we should have a religious war of lawsuits?
Just for everyone’s context who is reading this, I did find the source:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html
“Separation of church and state is not about denying anyone the right to practice their religious beliefs.”
If you quote him in context, he meant exactly what I was trying to say in my first post:
“Certainly the drafters of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both replete with references to God, would be aghast at the federal government’s hostility to religion. The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.”
“just to expand on that… look to the recent case where a Jewish sued because his city had Christmas trees. Is that what you’re advocating when you say that Ron Paul is wrong with his statement?”
No, that is a trivial issue.
“The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.””
Untrue, as is noted in the writings of the founding fathers.
“If you quote him in context, ”
I did quote him in context. If you read the full paper, it gets even worse in its revisionist history and claims of a Christian America.
Its too bad your ‘liberal values’ dont include knowing and understanding history. There is no giant wall that separates church and state. If you actually read our historical documents, it involves the statement establishing and promoting an official church. If there was such a wall as you would like to believe, the key being ‘like’, is that nearly every document from the constitution down, invokes a creator and other religious references. You cannot separate religion from the part it has played in our formation as a country/government.
Please stop trying to expand this separation to be more than it is.
BTW, I am an atheist.
Additionally, Paul would not need to disvow himself of these groups.
If these groups say they support Jesus, would Jesus need to disvow himself of them? Its a stupid argument. If someone distateful agrees with your position, it means nothing. However, if Ron Paul started saying he agrees with a group’s distateful position, that would be another story.
What if a white supremcist group said ‘we support universal healthcare’? Should Hillary not encourage that view? Just because supposedly bad people (I dont know this group at all) agree with a good idea, it neither diminishes the good idea or says anything about the originator of the good idea. Only the weak minded, the foolish, or the opponents of the idea find fault with it.
Where does the Constitution invoke a creator? At the time the Constitution was criticized by many for failing to do so, as the intent, as has been made clear by the founding fathers, was separation of church and state.
I’m afraid your attempts at revisionist history aren’t very convincing.
“Paul would not need to disvow himself of these groups”
Once again the Paul supporters show their extremist nature in failing to understand why most find such a connection distasteful.
I don’t expect Paul supporters to understand. The point is to demonstrate to those who find Paul reasonable during the debates (which is easy considering who he is up against) that Ron Paul is not a viable alternative. While Paul cannot entirely be blamed for the attitudes of his supporters, the comments here are likely to demonstrate the extremism of this movement.
Nor do I expect reason and facts from a typical liberal. You show the typical liberal mantra, name calling and put downs (‘I don’t expect Paul supporters to understand.’ as if to say they are not smart enough or incapable) are the method when you cannot provide a reasoned argument.
As for invoking the creator, I mispoke. I meant the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
As for the extremist nature, such attitudes are a joke that one cannot take seriously. You have yet to show an extremist other than with your labels. I noticed you did not even address any the points I made regarding support for Jesus or support for any of Hillary’s ideas. If you did, you might show some consistency but it wouldnt fit your argument.
So, then who is your paragon of virtue that you hold up for the Presidency? For whatever you may think of the Republican field, weak that it is, the democratic side isnt worth the paper their ballots will be printed on.
“Nor do I expect reason and facts from a typical liberal. You show the typical liberal mantra, name calling and put downs ”
Sounds to me like you’re the one resorting to name calling.
“As for invoking the creator, I mispoke. I meant the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.”
That’s quite a difference. You didn’t just misspeak–you showed your ignorance of the topic. The Declaration of Independence did not establish a government. When it came time to write a Constitution, as well as other documents, the decision was made not to invoke reference to a creator due to their belief in separation of church and state.
“You have yet to show an extremist other than with your labels.”
Untrue. Both white supremacist beliefs and promoting revisionist history denying the importance of separation of church and state are extremist beliefs. To call you an extremist is not resorting to name calling. It is a statement of fact.
“I noticed you did not even address any the points I made regarding support for Jesus or support for any of Hillary’s ideas.”
Because these arguments are total nonsense, comparable to the LGF argument I disputed above. Sharing agreement on a non-extremist position has absolutely nothing to do with being endorsed by a white supremacist group and cultivating such support.
While I still do not expect you to understand this, the reason why non-extremists will not take Paul seriously unless he repudiates such groups can be summed up in a quotation:
“All that is needed for the forces of evil to succeed is for enough good men to remain silent.”
Ron Paul received their endorsement. Now the ball is in his court to show what type of character he has.
“the democratic side isnt worth the paper their ballots will be printed on.”
As I noted above, it is you who is resorting to “name calling and put downs.”
“The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.””
Untrue, as is noted in the writings of the founding fathers.
You’re saying it us untrue that the First Amendment’s purpose was not to drive religion out of public life? i.e. you beleive it’s purpose WAS to drive religion out of public life? I don’t think that’s what you meant, so please explain. That would be very strange to want that if they considered themself christian.
“Once again the Paul supporters show their extremist nature in failing to understand why most find such a connection distasteful.”
I do think it’s distasteful, and after watching an interview on Abrams Report (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2EH_TRa6aU) yesterday where Ron Paul said he would say no to an endorsement from president Bush because Bush’s neocon ideas are not what he beleives. I think if they asked him if the supremacist group asked if they should endorse him, it would be a different story. I’m pretty sure he feels their endorsement is worse than that of Bush. But if you want to beleive otherwise and think he MUST repudiate all these things, noone can stop you.
Your writing is truly comedy at its finest.
“Sounds to me like you’re the one resorting to name calling.”
I called you a liberal, which your blog describes you as. This is name calling? Is it untrue? Are you not a liberal? Do you find being defined as a liberal to be an insult. It would seem you do.
“That’s quite a difference. You didn’t just misspoke–you showed your ignorance of the topic. ” But of course, its impossible someone can simply make a mistake. So then I expected every single thing you do in life is perfect? Except, of course, that in your response it should have been ‘misspeak’ and not ‘misspoke’. Perhaps that wasnt a mistake on your part but more a symptom of your ignorance of the english language.
“The Declaration of Independence did not establish the government.” I never said it did. Nice flannel shirt on that straw man.
“While I still do not expect you to understand this, the reason why non-extremists will not take Paul seriously unless he repudiates such groups can be summed up in a quotation:…” While I dont expect you to understand this, your reasoning on this completely off base. Ron Paul’s popularity and mass appeal has absolutely nothing to do with this. It has strictly to do with the media’s attempt to deny his very existence and marginalize him; most people just dont know who he is. He was often left off polls and when people would complain about it, they would be less than nicely told, ‘shut up already’. ABC did this several times. At this point its very hard for them to ignore him but many people still dont know much about him. Thats why information has to get out for people to make up their own minds.
“Ron Paul received their endorsement. Now the ball is in his court to show what type of character he has.” Frankly, I could care less if he addresses this issue. He could turn it around say ‘even these racists can recognize a good idea’. I do not expect any candidate to satisfy your need to address every group that might throw their support behind them. There are much bigger problems that need addressing and their time is better spent dealing with those issues.
“As I noted above, it is you who is resorting to “name calling and put downs.”” Ah yes, the ‘well you started it’.
David,
You are quickly outwearing your welcome here. If you can engage in meaningful conservation you are welcome here, but if this nonsense is all you can come up with no further comments from you will be put through.
“I called you a liberal, which your blog describes you as. This is name calling? Is it untrue? Are you not a liberal? Do you find being defined as a liberal to be an insult. It would seem you do.”
But that is not the name calling I was referring to. What you actually said was, “Nor do I expect reason and facts from a typical liberal.” Do you forget that what you wrote is just above and it does not good for you pretend you didn’t write what you wrote?
“But of course, its impossible someone can simply make a mistake”
You miss the point that your whole argument was disputed. There is a significant distinction between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution when discussing the intent to establish a government based upon separation of church and state.
“Ron Paul’s popularity and mass appeal has absolutely nothing to do with this. It has strictly to do with the media’s attempt to deny his very existence and marginalize him;”
He is “marginalized” by his own actions when he cultivates such extremist support.
“There are much bigger problems …”
Sorry, for those who are not extremists this is a big problem. Paul cannot both claim to be the candidate who supports freedom and cultivate the support of neo-Nazis. His character matters to those who would consider voting for him.
““As I noted above, it is you who is resorting to “name calling and put downs.”” Ah yes, the ‘well you started it’.”
What type of nonsense is this? It is you who have repeatedly resorted to name calling.
Daniel
Check Americans United’s site for info on separation of church and state and the issues which defenders of this principle are concerned about.
That would be very strange to want that if they considered themself christian.
“That would be very strange to want that if they considered themself christian.”
Many were Diests and not Christians. Plus, being a Christian doesn’t mean opposing the idea of separation of church and state. Actually it was often very religious groups which were the strongest advocates, realizing that keeping government out of religion was important to maintain religious freedom. For example, Roger Williams was an advocate of secular government.
“I think if they asked him if the supremacist group asked if they should endorse him, it would be a different story. I’m pretty sure he feels their endorsement is worse than that of Bush.”
I hope someone asks him that question.
“I hope someone asks him that question.”
What do you think he will answer? Personally I don’t think it needs to be asked. It would be damaging to his credibility if he accepted it, so no matter what the truth is, he would repudiate.
Do any of the other presidential candidates address every single accusation? If not, why do you expect Paul to? If they do, I’d like to know whom. I’d especially like to ask Obama about the CFR and it’s plans for a world government.
Daniel,
“I’d especially like to ask Obama about the CFR and it’s plans for a world government.”
CFR? That’s meaningless. Almost everyone in the foreign policy establishment winds up a member. They are not some type of world government conspiracy, and Obama’s membership doesn’t mean a thing.
Paul’s credibility wouldn’t be harmed if he repudiates the white supremacists. If he claims Bush is worse then them, I’ll think less of Paul despite my low opinion of Bush.
Paul doesn’t have to answer, but if he doesn’t he presumption will persist that Paul welcomes such support.
“CFR? That’s meaningless. Almost everyone in the foreign policy establishment winds up a member. They are not some type of world government conspiracy, and Obama’s membership doesn’t mean a thing.”
No, not everyone, only the top-tier candidates whose ideas of this nation’s and it’s people’s well being I sincerly question.
“Paul’s credibility wouldn’t be harmed if he repudiates the white supremacists. If he claims Bush is worse then them, I’ll think less of Paul despite my low opinion of Bush.”
Correct, that’s what I said. So no matter what the truth is, he *would* repudiate. Then you could move on to ask wether he’s lying or not, and so the store continues. All this boils down to wether you choose to beleive the man or not, and him publically denouncing their endorsement is not going to, I beleive, change your opinion. Especially not since you’ve chosen to question it already.
So maybe I can ask… if he does repudiate, will you like him better? Do you think others will like him better, or do you think they, as I’ve indicated, would question his word?
To go on from that point is without merit, and will quickly deteriorate to something faith-based.
In other words, if you think he has dealings with white supremacists solely based on this endoresement, you will keep thinking that.
for some reason my comments arne’t going through.
Daniel
A couple of your posts got caught up in the Akismet spam filter. It picks up hundreds of spam posts and track backs per day and very rarely picks up legitimate comments as spam, but on rare ocassions it picks up real comments as spam. While it is generally a very valuable plug in, it is a nuisance when it makes mistakes as it sends me no reports of what it has collected, and there is no way to configure it on the individual blogs end to correct errors. Another problem you might want to watch out for is that many blogs use this, and it is one system scanning many blogs for spam. Therefore there is the possibility that if Akismet has somehow tagged your comments as spam there is the risk it will happen at other blogs. It does look like the two most recent longer comments got picked up as spam but the short ones didn’t. You might need to divide comments into two or three shorter comments to get past the filter.
As for your last comment, having Paul repudiate the support of such groups would improve my view of him. This assumes his actions are consistent and he doesn’t repudiate the support one day and then go after a similar group’s support another. Paul still does have the possibility of rehabilitating his reputation if he repudiates such support and makes a good faith effort to stay clear of such groups.
I just want to add that the “handwritten letter” is a generic photocopy and not some sort of unique letter specifically sent out to this one person.
I’m looking at mine right now. Very shaky evidence! the facts were not correlated before this was sent out.
In this day and age, though information is very much out there, please cross-reference material.
I earnestly hope that the main blog will be changed to reflect this.
“I just want to add that the “handwritten letter” is a generic photocopy and not some sort of unique letter specifically sent out to this one person.”
It is not claimed to be some sort of unique letter to one person. It is described as a fund raising letter meant to look like a handwritten letter in the linked material. There is nothing to change in the main blog as this is one of several examples of why Paul cannot be taken seriously.
Well, I am from Houston, and am the son of a US Government Teacher. Ron Paul was one of the first politicians that I ever heard of, and it was a sad day when I realized that he was among the exceptions and not the norm for those that would represent us.
Ron Paul supporters are as varied as the country. I for one would love to have the choice of the better for 2 goods,instead of the lesser of 2 evils.
I would humbly assert that the reader should go to the official website @ http://www.ronpaul2008.com and get the information for themselves. In this day and age, while there has never been so much information available, it is critically important to try and go to the source as much as one can, and then cross-reference the data.
With an extremely devalued dollar, open borders to the south, and over $500 Billion at least invested in nation building in a War Powers Act Operation, there are some critical reasons that people should get informed about the issues that our country faces.
Quite frankly, in this day and age, Congress seems more concerned with getting re-elected and satisfying special interest groups than upholding the Constitution.
Thank you for your time.
Earnestly Submitted,
Christopher F. Dillard
“if he repudiates such support and makes a good faith effort to stay clear of such groups”
I’m really wondering what he can do to stay clear. I’m certain the endorsement was unexpected to begin with.
Another issue for him is to clarify saying that “don’t ask don’t tell” is a decent policy when it’s clear that people are being kicked out of navy/army etc for being gay.
That said, he’s been very clear and forthright that we’re all created equal, with the same rights. I don’t know how much clearer he can be.
“I’m really wondering what he can do to stay clear. I’m certain the endorsement was unexpected to begin with.”
I don’t think this endorsement was so unexpected. Paul seems to go out of his way to appeal to far right wing groups. It wouldn’t be hard at all for Paul to condemn groups such as Stormfront if he wanted to. Of course I don’t think he wants to.
Ron Paul never solicits such endorsements, let’s not forget that. Its pretty hard to criticize a man who is such a rigid constitutionalist that you inevitably end up blaming the constitution itself when you criticize him.
Larry Craig got support from certain homosexual groups too, but does that mean he was seeking that out?
Ron Paul is not an extremist. What is extreme is the views of the radical right and lately the radical left. I am a radical leftwinger myself and am stunned to hear the pro-war, pro-business and pro-corporate words coming from MY candidates.
No wonder I am big fans of Kucinich and Ron Paul. Neither of those candidates sold their souls to the neoconservatives unlike the rest of the radical right and the radical left.
I don’t see what the big deal is. People are free to support whomever they want. We might not always agree with a certain group of people’s views, but ultimately it has nothing to do with us or the candidate. So a racist group supports Dr. Paul? Whoopie. How about all these other groups that I don’t agree with that support other candidates? I personally am against abortion and am disgusted when Planned Parenthood endorses a candidate. But why should that really affect me and my vote? It doesn’t. It is a free country.
I think racist groups are repulsive, but it is not up to me who they support. And I read the handwritten letter several times and I still don’t see what’s wrong with it. It looks like a campaign letter sent out to anyone who signs up at his official website. I don’t think it’s something he sent specifically to anyone in any group or way of thinking. In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if Dr. Paul was unaware of support from this group. He’s appeared on shows that he’d never even heard of like the Colbert Report. I think he just spreads his message and whomever responds to it responds to it. It’s a free country.
The problem isn’t only that a certain group supports Paul but that he appears to seek out such support. The letter is hardly a typical campaign letter as it is written to appeal to the far right.
Paul has a choice of either appealing to a more mainstream group which is anti-war, anti-big government and fed up with the major parties or of appealing to the extremist right. His campaign might be of some value if he did the former, but instead he concentrates on the later–most likely as this is exactly the type of group he feels more affinity towards.
“[Ron Paul] appears to seek out such support”
“Instead it appears Paul is encouraging such support.”
What is it that gives such an appearance, pray-tell?
FYI, that letter was sent out to people who donated (I received a copy). What in that letter gives signs of this you call “extremism”?
btw, you can watch the adress at the Robert Taft club here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8cPoCcqL3U
It must be noted also that in regards to primaries that candidates almost always appeal to the extremes because it is those people who actually vote in them. Primaries have an incredibly low voter turn-out with mainly die-hard politically aware citizens voting. It is normal to play to that base.
I still don’t think Dr. Paul is aware of this group’s support. If he isn’t, I’m sure he soon will be and he may make a statement distancing himself. However, I won’t fault him if he doesn’t. You can’t control who likes you. And if you look at some of the other candidate’s financial supporters, they probably have groups that are just as bad or worse supporting them, and you don’t hear them coming out decrying their endorsement. Sadly, money speaks volumes.
The talk of wold government and the UN taking away guns is typical of far right organizations. This is the language typically used by extremist racist and anti-Semitic groups when they are attempting to put forward a less objectionable public face. While everyone who holds these views isn’t necessarily racist and anti-Semitic, these are well known code words to appeal to such groups.
There are many things Paul could have written in such a letter. He cold have talked about the war, the Patriot Act, or the concentration of power in the Executive Branch under Bush. These would be consistent with what he says in more public arenas such as the GOP debates. It is alarming that when communicating more directly with his core supporters that instead he uses messages which would appeal to the extreme right and not the mainstream audiences he tries to appeal to in the debates.
Candidates do appeal to the base, but the problem is that Paul’s base appears to be far right extremists. It is doubtful that other candidates receive so much of their support from groups such as Stormfront, and if they did they would realize that they would need to distance themselves from such groups if they wanted to be able to appeal to the general public.
Ron,
From your writings, I’m more and more starting to feel there’s absolutely nothing he could have said or done that you would be pleased with.
You still haven’t clarified what was wrong with the letter?
The UN IS trying to take away our guns. And if you’re against guns, please start reading some history on gun control. I was against guns as well two years ago, but I realized I had no justification. Once I started reading history, there is NO other conclusion than we have to be able to retain the right to defend ourselves.
For example, Nazi Germany implemented gun control in 1938. As part of the gun control license which one was required to obtain, you had to list your race. One of the first things Hitler did when he came into power (the gun control laws had been put in place 5 years prior to his election) was to use those gun control records to go and disarm all the Jews.
“The UN IS trying to take away our guns.”
If you believe this, you won’t understand the problems with the letter.
This post isn’t directed towards you and I wouldn’t expect you to understand or agree. This is directed towards the people who see Ron Paul in the Republican debates and, seeing as he often makes more sense than any of the rest of them, believe he is a viable candidate. This is written to point out that there is far more to Paul than his more reasonable views which he presents in more public forums.