December 30, 2011

"Is Ron Paul A Racist?"

"Don’t be absurd. Might as well charge Barack Obama with racism based on his associations."

49 comments:

Andy R. said...

Assuming that Ron Paul is actually opposed to all the racist homophobic bigoted stuff in his newsletters, we are supposed to believe that not only was he not reading what was in the newsletters but not a single person thought to ask him about what was going on in the newsletters?

Quaestor said...

Sure he's a racist. He's a self-identified Republican, correct? Ergo a racist.

Browndog said...

as to Obama-

Is American considered a "race" yet?

If so....OK.

Browndog said...

Sure he's a racist. He's a self-identified Republican, correct? Ergo a racist.

Brilliant.

Ann Althouse said...

"Assuming that Ron Paul is actually opposed to all the racist homophobic bigoted stuff in his newsletters, we are supposed to believe that not only was he not reading what was in the newsletters but not a single person thought to ask him about what was going on in the newsletters?"

Let's be fair. I think he made a lot of money on those newsletters. That's a completely separate motivation for publishing that stuff. Do you think everyone who publishes porn loves exaggerated, promiscuous sex?

Don't Tread 2012 said...

I do not think Ron Paul is a true 'racist'. He probably has prejudicial thoughts, opinions and attitudes on occasion just like anyone else.

The modern template is that anyone that does not self-identify as a democrat is suspected of 'racism'.

We know only democrats cannot be racists, due to the fact that it is they that control the definition of the word.

ricpic said...

Ron Paul is a realist, Obama is a shuck and jive con man and Hatboy is a schmuck.

Chip S. said...

Do you think everyone who publishes porn loves exaggerated, promiscuous sex?

It's my casual impression that the typical chef is overweight.

Petunia said...

Assuming that Barack Obama is actually opposed to all the racist bigoted stuff shouted by Jeremiah Wright, we are supposed to believe that not only was he not listening to the voice form the pulpit, but not a single person thought to ask him about what the pastor of his church of 20 years was saying?

Quaestor said...

Is it possible Ron Paul's attitude toward his newsletter was similar to a blogger's attitude toward his publication?

If so the opinions expressed by the contributors might not reflect Paul's stance on those issues. Who knows? Not me.

askewhatguy wrote:
[W]e are supposed to believe that not only was he not reading what was in the newsletters but not a single person thought to ask him about what was going on in the newsletters?

Of course we are not to believe this, else the guilt by association meme would fall on its face. BTW, guilt by association and racism by proxy only work against conservatives. That's why Obama is POTUS and not just another anonymous racist member of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's congregation.

I'm not a Ron Paul supporter. I consider him a crank. But I don't approve of character assassination in any case. What I want to know is why this newsletter wasn't a campaign issue 20 years ago.

mccullough said...

No idea if Ron Paul is a racist, but his "newsletters" certainly are. And it would be nuts for Romney and the others not to completely discredit Ron Paul here. Paul's explanations for the newsletters are awful. He just keeps digging a hole. The Republicans should do whatever they can to make sure that Ron Paul is finished so that if he decides to mount a third-party run, he will receive less than 1% of the vote. The next step will be for Republicans to start tarring Paul's supporters as racists and put them on the defensive. Their goal should be to limit Ron Paul's support to the actual losers who subscribed to his newsletters.

Paddy O said...

Will Ron Paul also not be aware of what goes on in his administration?

He's a racist or he's an irresponsible leader.

Either way, it's not a good indication of his possible administration.

BigFire said...

Nah, he just wish State of Israel doesn't exist, and we didn't have to fight WWII to defeat Nazi.

Here's his interview on Iranian TV:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1t4O9CcZQ0

Writ Small said...

Assuming that Barack Obama is actually opposed to all the racist bigoted stuff shouted by Jeremiah Wright, we are supposed to believe that not only was he not listening to the voice form the pulpit, but not a single person thought to ask him about what the pastor of his church of 20 years was saying?

Whose chickens-come-home-to-roost view of American foreign policy would be most welcome in Jeremiah Wright's church? Hint: it's not Obama's.

themightypuck said...

Ron Paul doesn't appear to be a racist in any meaningful way by which I mean willing to use the power of the state to discriminate against people on the basis of race. He may be racist in his desire to keep the state out of the business of redressing past injustices but that is hardly a novel position.

jeff said...

"Of course we are not to believe this, else the guilt by association meme would fall on its face. "

These were newsletters put out by Ron Paul, under his name. That isnt guilt by association.

"What I want to know is why this newsletter wasn't a campaign issue 20 years ago."

They've been a issue since the day the first one came out. Are you asking why the media didnt report it in this quantity on a person on the fringe until he became a front runner in the Republican primary? Really?

shiloh said...

"Do you think everyone who publishes porn loves exaggerated, promiscuous sex?"

Another inane rationalization/deflection from Althouse to go along w/the typical conservative disingenuous sarcasm from her flock.

Speaking of conservative racists, Limbaugh is Althouse's hero ~ a certain symmetry, eh.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Lol. That's funny. Did Obama ever sign his name off on any of the allegedly racist utterings of his "associates"?

Andy R. said...

I think he made a lot of money on those newsletters. That's a completely separate motivation for publishing that stuff.

You seem to be saying that he published racist stuff to not because he really believes it but in order to make money, as if that is better, whereas I think it's worse.

See, for instance, Rush Limbaugh. It's possible Limbaugh is actually racist, but I think he's just doing it because it is good business among the conservatives who listen to his show.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Let's be fair. I think he made a lot of money on those newsletters. That's a completely separate motivation for publishing that stuff. Do you think everyone who publishes porn loves exaggerated, promiscuous sex?

Politicians assume responsibility for what they pander to in a way that figures who lack that degree of public accountability do not. Integrity goes to the character of the elected official.

Once we can vote publishers and producers in and out of office (a direction in which FOX seems to want to head), then we can expect of them what we expect of government officials.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

In the above I should have said "vote publishers and producers in and out of a job".

edutcher said...

He certainly dislikes Israel. Does hating a certain portion of the Semitic race make one a racist?

Andy R. said...

Assuming that Ron Paul is actually opposed to all the racist homophobic bigoted stuff in his newsletters

I wasn't aware standing on Bible teaching about homosexuality constituted racism, but, if it's convenient, the Lefties can turn anything into racism.

Paul Zrimsek said...

Believe what you will, but I've got to figure that if Paul's rogue contributors had instead been calling for red revolution and a dictatorship of the proletariat, he would have managed to find out somehow and put a stop to it.

Andy R. said...

I wasn't aware standing on Bible teaching about homosexuality constituted racism, but, if it's convenient, the Lefties can turn anything into racism.

Those are multiple adjectives describing multiple things. Some of what he has written is racist, some is homophobic, and some is bigoted, but in a way that isn't racist or homophobic. Like if I said Clifford is a big red dog.

Do you not know how to read?

Curious George said...

"Andy R. said...
See, for instance, Rush Limbaugh. It's possible Limbaugh is actually racist, but I think he's just doing it because it is good business among the conservatives who listen to his show."

How is Rush Limbaugh a racist? Please enlighten us.

Curious George said...

Ron Paul is a typical white person. So of course he is a racist.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

I dunno, maybe stuff like this. No way anyone could possibly misinterpret something like that, right? Nothing racially demeaning about that.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
I dunno, maybe stuff like this. No way anyone could possibly misinterpret something like that, right? Nothing racially demeaning about that

You realize:
1) The “Magic Negro” is a Hollywood term, right?
2) The Article discussing Obama as the “Magic Negro” was written by a BLACK dood, for the LAT, right?
3) So that when Limbaugh spoofs the idea of the “Magic Negro” he’s making fun of White People, right?
Something you might work on Ritmo is understanding.

ken in sc said...

I've been listening to Rush for over 20 years. I have never heard him say anything racist.

Ritmo Re-Animated said...

Yep, that's why all those subtle and oh-so-mitigating nuances were omitted from the song, Joe.

It also helps explain why the guy who distributed it was canned from his RNC chairmanship bid and replaced by Michael Steele.

When posting on a forum that discourages "bad faith" comments, it's probably not a good idea to defend attempts by Republicans to engage doublespeak by putting out an offensive message with a crucial and subtly less offensive backstory, that none of those involved, incidentally, cared to emphasize.

Blue@9 said...

If he's not a racist, he's certainly a dumbass. It's not like he's marginally associated with the stuff in his newsletter--it's got his name right on the title.

Obama was a dumbass to go to a black liberation theology church, but at least he could say he didn't agree with everything said there. Would have been much harder if he went to the "Barack Obama Church of Hate the Whiteys."

As for whether Paul is actually a racist or not... it's kind of moot. No one can know for certain what goes on in a person's brain. But the newsletter itself is troubling enough IMO.

As for Althouse's claim that maybe it's not so bad because maybe he was just in it for the money-- does that really make it any better? "Hey guys, I'm not really a racist... I just published that so I could make a buck." Yeah, that really makes me think Paul is a-ok. Not.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)
It also helps explain why the guy who distributed it was canned from his RNC chairmanship bid and replaced by Michael Steele

You realize that the guy who distributed is named Paul Shanklin, right? It’s the plaintive cry of Rev. Sharpton about being displaced by Obama…please demonstrate the “racism.”

Levi Starks said...

Right off hand I can think of only one person who was not a racist....

Hellen Keller

Lem said...

Ron Paul is not a racist..

I read his Newsletter ;)

traditionalguy said...

Ron Paul never focused on being or on not being a racist. He had much bigger fish to fry.

Paul was one of the main John Birch Society poisoner of men's minds. Black, white or yellow skin was never his concern. Paul wanted to control all men's minds with his cult powers... just to prove that he could do it.

And he has not changed at all.

Ann Althouse said...

Can we all just agree that with the Ron PAul Letter in his background, Ron Paul is not a fit candidate for the GOP?

It's pretty simple.

Ann Althouse said...

"As for Althouse's claim that maybe it's not so bad because maybe he was just in it for the money-- does that really make it any better?"

Where did I say it's not so bad?

Sorry if my humor is too dry for you.

Andy R. said...

Ah, you're right. You offered no value judgment about what it might mean if Paul was only publishing racism (and homophobia) for the money.

I've always though Paul's candidacy was most useful in helping to point out the racism/idiocy among his supporters.

rcocean said...

A Paul Presidency has me confused.

1. Libertarians think government is evil
2. We get a Libertarian President
3. So, is government still evil, or is it now OK?

Or does Paul dismantle the government - since its still "evil" even though he's in charge?

Asst. Attorney General said...

Happy New Year to all you racist mother fuckers.

(That dude with the hat is one lame-ass looking cracker!)

shiloh said...

"3. So, is government still evil, or is it now OK?"

Indeed, as Reagan said ~ govt. is not the solution, it's the problem ~ hence, ergo, therefore by definition Reagan should have resigned while giving his inaugural speech ...

It's always somewhat amusing when a lifelong Republican politician rails against the govt.

shiloh said...

The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. ~ P. J. O'Rourke

Ralph L said...

It's always somewhat amusing when a lifelong Republican politician rails against the govt
But it's always tiresome when a Democrat conflates a desire for a less powerful & costly government with a desire for no government. That all you got?

shiloh said...

"desire for a less powerful & costly government"

Reagan/Bush/Bush increased America's debt by $14,198,057,303,103.50 which means that in a total of 20 years, these three presidents have led to the creation of 93.82% of the entire national debt in only 8.5106% of the 235 years of the existence of the United States of America.

take care, blessings

btw, I'm not a Democrat.

Don't Tread 2012 said...

"The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it. ~ P. J. O'Rourke"

This is really more illustrative of the decay that has been introduced courtesy of the 'other' party.

Just try and tell me a city like Detroit, the attitudes of its citizens ('Obama is gonna give me money') and its depravity is the result of the 'other' party. Go ahead. We've got all day.

Tank said...

Ann Althouse said...
Can we all just agree that with the Ron PAul Letter in his background, Ron Paul is not a fit candidate for the GOP?

It's pretty simple.


He's not the best person to present his views, but he is the only candidate of either party who understands the extent of the financial mess we're in, and who actually believes in small constitutional limited government, a modest foreign policy focused on defense, not empire, and freedom and liberty for individuals.

As the only candidate who believes these things, and the only one likely to govern based upon these beliefs, he is the only candidate fit to be President.

Ann shows that despite her admittedly brilliant intellect, and her obvious gifts, she is a "typical white woman," (as the Zero might say) devoid of wisdom.

Freeman Hunt said...

There's a sentence preceding that one in the PJ O’Rourke quote:

The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn.

Freeman Hunt said...

Tank, Paul would never be elected. Ever. It's a fantasy.

Blue@9 said...

1. Libertarians think government is evil

You seem to be mistaking libertarians for anarchists. Government itself isn't evil, but if unchecked it can visit all kinds of evil on its people. I don't know of any libertarian who doesn't want an army or police or sewer maintenance.