G
George Dance
Guest
The attempt to discredit Ron Paul as a racist, anti-semite, and
homophobe has had some success. It's received some MSM coverage, and
undoubtedly planted a bug in some voters' minds. But it looks as
though it failed to accomplish its major task: to drive away the
campaign's grassroots support.
In the politically correct world of the Paulophobes, the mere
accusation of the above three sins is the kiss of death; and many did
expect the Ron Paul RevolUTION to immediately die. Some supporters
(mainly, it seems, Beltway Libertarians) have been duly shocked and
appalled, and withdrawn their sanction in good Ayn Rand style. But
many others have risen to defend Dr. Paul - so many that bloggers
carrying the story are complaining about being mobbed.
Briefly, for anyone who's been on Mars this week, that story is: On
the day of the New Hampshire primary, Jamie Kirchik of /The New
Republic/ printed a story recycling the allegations of racist etc.
comments in the early-1990's /Ron Paul Survival Report/. Paul
responded that he was not the author, repudiated them all, and
expressed his commitment to individualism, to judging people on their
own characters rather than collective attributes like race. Which
seems to have satisfied those in the MSM who know him, and have first-
hand knowledge of his integrity.
Hence those pushing the story have changed tactics. In the past few
days, they've begun telling the world that Ron Paul is not only a
racist, but a blatant liar to boot. Which is a far more vicious meme,
which can do much more damage.
For the one thing that unites all polyglot elements of the RevolUTION
- anti-war, pro-life, pro-sovereignty, fiscal conservative, hard
money, constitutionalist, libertarian, et al - is trust in Ron Paul's
integrity. Those who've known, and known of, Dr. Paul for years know
of his integrity: He says what he believes, no matter who finds it
offensive (like his opposition to the Iraq war) or nutty (like his
opposition to the Civil War). He does not flip-flop, he does not
pander, and most importantly, he does not lie.
That's how his supporters see him; and those who see that will follow
him anywhere. The only way to make his supporters desert him would be
to shatter that image of integrity. Hence the new campaign to portray
him as a liar and dissembler, hiding his real agenda from us all.
The claim is that Dr. Paul is lying when he says he did not write all
of his newsletter; in particular that he did not write the passages
TNR calls racist, homophobic, etc. Prove that claim and, they hope,
the RevolUTION dies.
I know that works for me. I don't care who Ron Paul really hates, so
long as his commitment is to liberty; that alone would prevent him
from doing harm to them. But convince me that he's a liar, and
therefore maybe not committed to liberty - and I'm outta here.
How to destroy Ron Paul's reputation for integrity? How to make him
appear to be a liar and a hypocrite? Well, let;s see: here are all
these Ron Paul newsletters, with articles he says he didn't write.
What if Ron Paul did write those articles? Then he'd be not only a
liar, but (in his public statments about racism) a hypocrite; and it's
goodbye integrity. So that's the new direction of the anti-Paul
campaign.
I first noticed that last week when (googling as usual for news of
everything Paul) I came upon this brief screed at the notorious Little
Green Footballs blog:
"In response to the New Republic article on the "Ron Paul Political
Report," Ron Paul stated that he did not write the newsletter and was
unaware of the content.
"But in this December 1990 issue of the newsletter, which labels
Martin Luther King a child molester, there's some pretty good evidence
that Dr. Paul himself wrote at least this entry:
[.pdf]
"Ron Paul's wife is named Carol, and in 1990 he did have
grandchildren."
http://littlegreenfootbal...
Well, OK. But that's not exactly a scoop. Carol Paul's name is well
known, and all America got to see the Paul progeny sing "Deck the
Halls." Presumably anyone working for Ron Paul & Associates would know
those facts as well; so that's really no evidence that Paul wrote even
that little squib.
On Jan. 10, LGF reported further revelations:
" The January 1991 newsletter features the author mentioning another
congressman as "my successor" and talking about his experience as "a
flight surgeon in the air force" and then afterward launching into
another tirade about Martin Luther King. Again this is Ron Paul's
record, not someone else. The author is clearly Ron Paul.
" In that same newsletter the author writes about his time running for
President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ron Paul ran for
President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Here it is
completely unambiguous that the author is Ron Paul and that he is
expressing his own views about Martin Luther King.
" In Feb of 1991 the author writes that he voted against "an expensive
federal holiday for this man" referring to King. Of course Ron Paul
famously voted against recognizing MLK day as a holiday."
http://www.littlegreenfoo...
Well, now, this is the proverbial death by 1000 cuts. With each of
these claims, Ron Paul is meant to look more and more like a liar and
a hypocrite. And they must be true; look, they're even cited.
Of course, when I went to the cited source, http://sultanknish.com, I
found only the same words uncited; but never mind that ... the same
objection applies. Any ghostwriter would be expected to know about Dr.
Paul's service and congressional records, his first presidential
campaign, his voting record ...
No, not his voting record; I know all the rest, but I didn't know
that. And it's an easily checked fact; just google "Ron Paul" "Martin
Luther King".
Which brought me to the Politifact website. Politifact is a project of
the St. Petersburg Times, which debunks politicians' campaign claims.
In no way can it be called a Ron Paul site. In this case it was
picking nits with Ron Paul's claim that he votes only for "legislation
expressly authorized by the Constitution." Says the site:
"An examination of Paul's record shows that although he usually
adheres to his principle, he has sometimes voted for programs that
aren't "expressly authorized" in the Constitution.
"For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize
the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King
Jr.'s birthday on the third Monday in January."
http://www.politifact.com...
Hold on, there. According to LGS, "Ron Paul famously voted against
recognizing MLK day as a holiday." But according to Politifact, Ron
Paul "voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to
celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday on the third Monday in
January."
Bear in mind that the above was not written by a "Paultard", but by a
reporter who actually investigated Dr. Paul's voting record. Unless
that reporter somehow made a mistake, or lied, then LGF made a mistake
(in trusting sultanknish.com) and sultanknish.com either made a
mistake or lied. In any case, neither one can be trusted as a source
of information in the future.
The fisticuffs between Ron Paul and his critics can only be judged by
each individual personally, on the basis of whom that individual
trusts. For this individual, this round goes to Dr. Paul.
- George Dance
------------------
PS - I posted this information to both LGF and Sultanknish.com. It
looks like the first didn't print my reply. The second site, to its
credit, did post my first reply. That in turn drew a response from the
Sultan itself, which is so incredible that I'll quote it in full:
/quote/
actually i also noted that the author was a flight surgeon and ran for
president in 88 on the libertarian ticket
now it could all just be somebody impersonating Ron Paul but that
brings us into the realm of conspiracy theories and if Ron Paul wants
to claim that, he's going to have to prove it
as to your claim about Ron Paul voting for MLK Day, that's a blatant
lie
http://ronpaulsurvivalrep...
/q/
That link didn't work, but I'll try to repair it. I'm also writing
Politifact, to let them know that sultanknish.com calls their claim a
"blatant lie" - I'll post that response if I get one.
homophobe has had some success. It's received some MSM coverage, and
undoubtedly planted a bug in some voters' minds. But it looks as
though it failed to accomplish its major task: to drive away the
campaign's grassroots support.
In the politically correct world of the Paulophobes, the mere
accusation of the above three sins is the kiss of death; and many did
expect the Ron Paul RevolUTION to immediately die. Some supporters
(mainly, it seems, Beltway Libertarians) have been duly shocked and
appalled, and withdrawn their sanction in good Ayn Rand style. But
many others have risen to defend Dr. Paul - so many that bloggers
carrying the story are complaining about being mobbed.
Briefly, for anyone who's been on Mars this week, that story is: On
the day of the New Hampshire primary, Jamie Kirchik of /The New
Republic/ printed a story recycling the allegations of racist etc.
comments in the early-1990's /Ron Paul Survival Report/. Paul
responded that he was not the author, repudiated them all, and
expressed his commitment to individualism, to judging people on their
own characters rather than collective attributes like race. Which
seems to have satisfied those in the MSM who know him, and have first-
hand knowledge of his integrity.
Hence those pushing the story have changed tactics. In the past few
days, they've begun telling the world that Ron Paul is not only a
racist, but a blatant liar to boot. Which is a far more vicious meme,
which can do much more damage.
For the one thing that unites all polyglot elements of the RevolUTION
- anti-war, pro-life, pro-sovereignty, fiscal conservative, hard
money, constitutionalist, libertarian, et al - is trust in Ron Paul's
integrity. Those who've known, and known of, Dr. Paul for years know
of his integrity: He says what he believes, no matter who finds it
offensive (like his opposition to the Iraq war) or nutty (like his
opposition to the Civil War). He does not flip-flop, he does not
pander, and most importantly, he does not lie.
That's how his supporters see him; and those who see that will follow
him anywhere. The only way to make his supporters desert him would be
to shatter that image of integrity. Hence the new campaign to portray
him as a liar and dissembler, hiding his real agenda from us all.
The claim is that Dr. Paul is lying when he says he did not write all
of his newsletter; in particular that he did not write the passages
TNR calls racist, homophobic, etc. Prove that claim and, they hope,
the RevolUTION dies.
I know that works for me. I don't care who Ron Paul really hates, so
long as his commitment is to liberty; that alone would prevent him
from doing harm to them. But convince me that he's a liar, and
therefore maybe not committed to liberty - and I'm outta here.
How to destroy Ron Paul's reputation for integrity? How to make him
appear to be a liar and a hypocrite? Well, let;s see: here are all
these Ron Paul newsletters, with articles he says he didn't write.
What if Ron Paul did write those articles? Then he'd be not only a
liar, but (in his public statments about racism) a hypocrite; and it's
goodbye integrity. So that's the new direction of the anti-Paul
campaign.
I first noticed that last week when (googling as usual for news of
everything Paul) I came upon this brief screed at the notorious Little
Green Footballs blog:
"In response to the New Republic article on the "Ron Paul Political
Report," Ron Paul stated that he did not write the newsletter and was
unaware of the content.
"But in this December 1990 issue of the newsletter, which labels
Martin Luther King a child molester, there's some pretty good evidence
that Dr. Paul himself wrote at least this entry:
[.pdf]
"Ron Paul's wife is named Carol, and in 1990 he did have
grandchildren."
http://littlegreenfootbal...
Well, OK. But that's not exactly a scoop. Carol Paul's name is well
known, and all America got to see the Paul progeny sing "Deck the
Halls." Presumably anyone working for Ron Paul & Associates would know
those facts as well; so that's really no evidence that Paul wrote even
that little squib.
On Jan. 10, LGF reported further revelations:
" The January 1991 newsletter features the author mentioning another
congressman as "my successor" and talking about his experience as "a
flight surgeon in the air force" and then afterward launching into
another tirade about Martin Luther King. Again this is Ron Paul's
record, not someone else. The author is clearly Ron Paul.
" In that same newsletter the author writes about his time running for
President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Ron Paul ran for
President in 1988 on the Libertarian Party ticket. Here it is
completely unambiguous that the author is Ron Paul and that he is
expressing his own views about Martin Luther King.
" In Feb of 1991 the author writes that he voted against "an expensive
federal holiday for this man" referring to King. Of course Ron Paul
famously voted against recognizing MLK day as a holiday."
http://www.littlegreenfoo...
Well, now, this is the proverbial death by 1000 cuts. With each of
these claims, Ron Paul is meant to look more and more like a liar and
a hypocrite. And they must be true; look, they're even cited.
Of course, when I went to the cited source, http://sultanknish.com, I
found only the same words uncited; but never mind that ... the same
objection applies. Any ghostwriter would be expected to know about Dr.
Paul's service and congressional records, his first presidential
campaign, his voting record ...
No, not his voting record; I know all the rest, but I didn't know
that. And it's an easily checked fact; just google "Ron Paul" "Martin
Luther King".
Which brought me to the Politifact website. Politifact is a project of
the St. Petersburg Times, which debunks politicians' campaign claims.
In no way can it be called a Ron Paul site. In this case it was
picking nits with Ron Paul's claim that he votes only for "legislation
expressly authorized by the Constitution." Says the site:
"An examination of Paul's record shows that although he usually
adheres to his principle, he has sometimes voted for programs that
aren't "expressly authorized" in the Constitution.
"For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize
the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King
Jr.'s birthday on the third Monday in January."
http://www.politifact.com...
Hold on, there. According to LGS, "Ron Paul famously voted against
recognizing MLK day as a holiday." But according to Politifact, Ron
Paul "voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to
celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday on the third Monday in
January."
Bear in mind that the above was not written by a "Paultard", but by a
reporter who actually investigated Dr. Paul's voting record. Unless
that reporter somehow made a mistake, or lied, then LGF made a mistake
(in trusting sultanknish.com) and sultanknish.com either made a
mistake or lied. In any case, neither one can be trusted as a source
of information in the future.
The fisticuffs between Ron Paul and his critics can only be judged by
each individual personally, on the basis of whom that individual
trusts. For this individual, this round goes to Dr. Paul.
- George Dance
------------------
PS - I posted this information to both LGF and Sultanknish.com. It
looks like the first didn't print my reply. The second site, to its
credit, did post my first reply. That in turn drew a response from the
Sultan itself, which is so incredible that I'll quote it in full:
/quote/
actually i also noted that the author was a flight surgeon and ran for
president in 88 on the libertarian ticket
now it could all just be somebody impersonating Ron Paul but that
brings us into the realm of conspiracy theories and if Ron Paul wants
to claim that, he's going to have to prove it
as to your claim about Ron Paul voting for MLK Day, that's a blatant
lie
http://ronpaulsurvivalrep...
/q/
That link didn't work, but I'll try to repair it. I'm also writing
Politifact, to let them know that sultanknish.com calls their claim a
"blatant lie" - I'll post that response if I get one.
