December 26, 2011

Ron Paul is not an anti-Semite, but he is "most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general."

"He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs."

Writes Eric Dondero, who was a senior aide to Ron Paul, 1997-2003, campaign coordinator in 1995/96, the national organizer of Draft Ron Paul for President (1991/92), and a personal assistant to Ron Paul 1987/88.

Dondero also writes that Ron Paul is not a racist, that in 12 years of working for the man, he "never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth." I note the limitation "toward Blacks or Jews" and have no idea whether Dondero intended to create a suspicion that he may have heard a "racist word" against some other group or groups. Dondero calls Paul "clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture" and "most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence." This is strong language — most certainly intolerant and clueless — and we're left to guess what kind of cantankerous or inept remarks Dondero heard over the years.

Consider that "racist" is such a strong word that it might mean little to say I've never heard a racist word. I have no idea what sorts of things Ron Paul actually said. In fact, for all I know, Dondero would say that the things in the Ron Paul Letter that have caused Ron Paul so much trouble were not racist, though they were certainly clueless and intolerant.

As to gay people, Dondero has this:
Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.
So what's Dondero saying? Paul is okay with gay people as long as they stay away from him? And we should cut him some slack because he's an old guy? Not very encouraging to those of us who expect the work in the executive branch and the military to be fully open to gay people. Dondero recounts a couple incidents: 1. Ron Paul refused to use the bathroom at a gay man's house (and yelled at Dondero for not getting him out to some fast food restaurant where he could use the bathroom), and 2. Paul "literally swatted... away" the hand of a gay man who reached out to shake hands with him. Dondero writes: "I would not categorize that as 'homo-phobic,' but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally." This says something about Dondero's standards, Dondero who "never heard a racist word." But exactly what did he hear that he's not classifying as not racist the way he's not classifying those bathroom and hand-shaking incidents as homophobic?

There's quite a bit more to Dondero's article, covering the "sheer lunacy" of Ron Paul's ideas about foreign policy and asserting that he "expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions." Dondero says that "Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11," and that he would have voted no on the war resolution, but switched his vote at the last minute for reasons Dondero only guesses about.

50 comments:

Daniel Fielding said...

The article reaffirms my feelings about Rep Ron Paul- that he is totally clueless about a lot of policy issues. And is clueless in a bad way.

Deb said...

Dondero sounds a bit clueless too in his assessment of what is/is not anti-Semitic and homophobic.

Ann Althouse said...

Dondero's writing is so bad that it makes me wonder about Ron Paul having him as a close aide for so long.

Deb said...

...which make me wonder even more about Ron Paul's judgement. I am more and more convinced he is a complete loon.

Jess said...

Quoth Deb:
I am more and more convinced he is a complete loon.

I could wish that the Republican PTB had been more inclusive in the debates, so that small-government alternatives to Paul, such as Gary Johnson, had gotten a better hearing. But that's not the Republican party which we have. More's the pity.

Scott M said...

I am more and more convinced he is a complete loon.

I'm hip. Although, truth be told, even loons can come up with a good idea now and again. Auditing the Fed, for instance.

America's Politico said...

No one in the Press will focus on Paul. If you want to be a famous op-ed writer, have a tv-show, you have to get audience. If you hurt Paul, you are finished. So, what they do is to keep on the edge.

Ron Paul will win the IA caucuses. You heard it here first. The internal polling at a super K-street shop sent the results to me two days ago. He wins by 2% over Romney (who is still invisible). Newt comes in third, then Santorum. Perry, oh well...

Psychedelic George said...

Researchers have found that in disaster/crisis situations people behave in the following ways:

80 percent do nothing. They freeze. Brains lock up. It's called "behavioral inaction."

10 percent take charge, take action. They do something, often the right thing.

10 percent panic.

Those are the Ron Paul supporters.

ps...If you can't sit in an exit row, sit as close as you can.

Doug said...

Dondero has had a grudge against Paul ever since he got fired from his staff ten years ago. I wouldn't believe Eric if he told me the sky was blue without looking out the window.

He's a hack (as his writing shows) and a political opportunist who has been hanging around in libertarian Republican circles since the early 90s

Writ Small said...

The not shaking hands with or using the same bathrooms as gay men is rather odd, but not disqualifying.

But this:

"For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such. "

... and this:

"Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

. . . He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration."


Ron Paul wouldn't have fought the Taliban post 9/11 and he wouldn't have fought Hitler. It's incredible he's a serious candidate who could win Iowa.

Aridog said...

A-P said: "Ron Paul will win the IA caucuses. You heard it here first"

If so, that will the final proof positive that the Iowa caucuses are a pathetic waste of time and meaningless...for either party in any year.

Pogo said...

He's not anti-semitic; some of his best friends are Jews.

John said...

So who is Eric Dondero?

Well, among other things, he ran against Paul for the Congressional seat in 2008.

He was also fired for incompetence back in 2007.

See this article from back in 2007:

http://reason.com/blog/2007/05/22/ron-paul-on-9-11-and-eric-dond

He also seems to have been thrown out of the Libertarian Party after trying for the Vice Presidential nomination in 2000.

Dondero also has a rather poor grasp of history. He claims that we should have gone into WWII because

"like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY."

But this all happened AFTER we went to war with Germany, not before.

And "Right Wing News"? Is this the best outlet that Dondero can find?

I think before giving him too much credence we should see if there are other sources corroborating him.

Or even just Google him.

He is also, apparently, a Mitt Romney supporter and claims that "Romney is a libertarian". I can think of lots of things to call Romney, but libertarian is not one of them.

He is currently CEO of something called Pro-America Campaigns (according to his LinkedIn profile)and a "Republican Political Consultant"

I could not find a website for Pro-America Campaigns. Must be some huge organization.

Anyway, Google Dondero. There is quite a bit about him going back to 2000 and earlier.

Then decide whether you want to take him seriously.

John Henry

John said...

Are America's Politico and Eric Dondero the same person?

Look at the writing style of both. Very similar.

John Henry

Tank said...

Others beat me to it. Dondero is a guy with a vendetta against Paul and everything he says is suspect.


I'll repeat here what I've said elsewhere. RP is one of the most public persons of the past 20 years. He is constantly speaking, writing, voting, placing comments in the record, meeting with small and large groups, writing articles, giving speeches,etc.

In this world of non-stop audio and video of everything, why is there not a single audio or video of Paul saying something racist or bigoted? Because this nonsense is recycled crap.

The Crack Emcee said...

I think it's interesting how many people are trying to smear Dondero, when everything Dondero's saying is pretty evident to anyone watching closely.

So he got fired, big deal. And claiming it was for incompetence - when we're talking about working for Ron Paul - is golden.

I'd wear it like a badge of honor,...

Alex Ignatiev said...

Aside from the collected nonsense of the article, there's absolutely no evidence to support any assertion that we entered WWII to save European Jewry from extermination, largely because no one knew about the final solution when we entered the war, chiefly because the policy hadn't been elucidated by Hitler at the time.

Writ Small said...

@Alex Ignatiev

If Dondero is to be believed, Ron Paul wouldn't have fought Hitler knowing what we know today. Everyone who agrees with that should feel no hesitation in pulling the lever for Paul.

Writ Small said...

And I agree entirely with Crack.

If Paul's recent debate responses were wildly inconsistent with the views Dondero ascribes to him, that would be one thing. Dondero's descriptions of Paul's foreign policy views are completely believable given what we've heard Paul say.

traditionalguy said...

Hitler's favorite way of insulting Roosevelt was to call him a Jew Lover. That is the ultimate insult in both Ron Paul's world view and A. Schicklegruber's world view.

Neither one is a wise choiuce to take over a world military power.

And how did Germany succeed using that world view to make its decisions?

Writ Small said...

And if we accept the chacterization of Dondero as being a semi-literate fool with no grasp on history who can't keep his facts straight, what the hell does that say about Ron Paul employing the guy for seventeen years?

Maguro said...

Paul hasn't been the same since they cancelled Frasier. Of course, he blamed it on the Jews.

ricpic said...

Gee, ya think Dondero might be harboring a grudge? Nah, couldn't be.

Brooklyn Blood said...

Since the state of Israel was founded on the premise as a country for Jews, it is safe to say that when you are anti-Israel, you are also anti-Semitic. And yes, you can also still be a self-loathing Jew, thus hating your own people.

Brooklyn Blood said...

"Ron Paul will win the IA caucuses. You heard it here first." Hmmm - We have heard that from others for wrote a few days, which impeaches the credibility of the Iowa caucus. Don't expect him to win many more. Again, it is Iowa...

edutcher said...

surprised he doesn't feel "uncomfortable" around Catholics.

ricpic said...

No, Brooklyn Blood, to be anti-Israel, as you put it, is not to be an anti-semite. If Paul favors less aid to Israel that is a perfectly legitimate and defensible position. All you're doing is cheapening the coinage of anti-semite.

Cedarford said...

Brooklyn Blood said...
Since the state of Israel was founded on the premise as a country for Jews, it is safe to say that when you are anti-Israel, you are also anti-Semitic. And yes, you can also still be a self-loathing Jew, thus hating your own people.

================
That is the Zionist perspective, which conflates grovelling support of al things Israel wants with "DO as we say, or you are anti-Semitic!"

Others have tried the same gambit.
The Jewish Boshevik thinkers learned from the Jacobites, and created the class conflict model - in which the "dispossessed classes" could criticize the bourgeoisie..but criticism the other way was deemed worth a trip to the Gulag or firing squad.

Blacks were fans of the tactic by the 60s - any criticism of dysfunctions of black society was termed "racist" and critics hounded and fired.
Muslims then found the same laws Jews forced on nations barring "hate speech" and taboos on "white Christians" speaking ill of others in more informal PC strictures could be well-exploited by them in turn. It is bigoted and Islamophobic to criticize Muslims or Muslim nations.

Now we have the Chinese. Belligerant and nationalistic - more and more they have taken to express outrage at any slighting of what China does as "racism against the Han People".

Eventually, this stifling of criticism does not succeed. It first becomes a "truth everyone knows about but does not discuss in polite society" (who runs Hollywood)..then moves on to "yes, but" criticism. As in "Yes, I love black people, but their high illegitimacy,welfare parasitism, and high crime rate is a matter of concern.."

"Of course Islam is the Religion of Peace and it is hard to find a more wonderful and magnificent group of people anywhere than the Ummah and their noble immigrants....BUT!!"

Spread Eagle said...

If Paul favors less aid to Israel that is a perfectly legitimate and defensible position.

Well, actually, when you're dealing with those who disfavor Israel, you have to drill down to get to the root of why they do. And when you do that you almost always find anti-Semitism in their world view.

Cedarford said...

Ron Paul is right in one area - that the Lessons of Munich - that America must intervene not in our vital national interests but "Anywhere people are oppressed and Freedom! is needed and JFKesque, we will bear any burden, pay any price in blood and treasure, we owe it to them! - is a prescription for endless war.

Now we have a process of guilt-tripping Americans into endless war..because we failed to mobilize in the midst of the Depression and invade Germany to "Save the Jews" we are now morally obligated to Save the Noble Iraqis, Afghans with 1.2 trillion in nation-building and 50,000 casualties...after we failed to save the Noble Rwandans..but did "atone" by having wars to save the Noble Bosnians and Kosovar Muslims. We are now debating how much we are morally obligated for new wars to save the noble Darfurans, noble Conglese, noble Iranians from themselves. We did have a nice little Libyan war...and we are throwing in Neocon fantasies of liberating Cuba and N Korea, helping the noble Somalis...

As Ron Paul, a flawed vessel on foreign policy in many aspects but right on certain things yells to crowds..."Where does it end? When do the Endless Wars stop?? We are near-bankrupt! We can't afford this!"

We saw Munich, and for decades had the economic advantage over nations destroyed in WWII to afford to be the world's free 9/11 service and talk about our "endless obligation" to other peoples and nations.

Quaestor said...

traditionalguy wrote:
Hitler's favorite way of insulting Roosevelt was to call him a Jew Lover.

Not only that, the Nazis claimed FDR was racially a Jew. Julius Streicher published a series of articles in Der Stürmer, a vile anti-Semitic tabloid aimed at the least educated of Germany society that was so low-brow even Goebbels would have nothing to do with it, which claimed that the Roosevelt family were Jews who emigrated from Russia and changed changed their name from Rosenfeld, a name most Nazis would identify as typically Jewish, to Roosevelt to help them blend in with New York's Dutch aristocracy. He also claimed that Theodore Roosevelt was openly Jewish, even to wearing sidelocks and never going without a hat. Fritz Kuhn, the leader of German American Bund, repeated these nonsensical claims in speeches to American audiences and was believed!

Knowledge is fragile. What we know, or more accurately what we think we know is liable to be overturned by new information that could come to light at any moment. The enlightened must live and find some happiness in that uncomfortable uncertainty. Smiling idiocy however is unconquerable.

Eric said...

I have been a libertarian since the 1970s, and while my political philosophy has nothing to do with Ron Paul, in recent years people assume that when I say I'm libertarian, that means I must be a Paul supporter. He has become so closely associated with libertarianism that in many people's minds, he and libertarianism are synonymous. That is simply not fair. His kooky ideas about foreign policy, gays, minorities are not mine, and they should not be allowed to define libertarianism. Or Libertarianism.

Jason said...

Ron Paul is a harmless crank. Well, harmless unless he gets elected to the presidency. He's useful as a backbencher Congressman, because he is an effective articulator of the economic school of thought we used to call "goldbuggery," until we found that the old goldbugs had a point.

However, once he gets in the presidency, then we are hostage to his rolodex. If you think the idiots at the deputy undersecretary level under Obama were destructive, that will be nothing compared to Paul's coattails. He will begin to appoint every Lyndon LaRouche dickhead and David Duke lover in the country to positions of responsibility in his administration. Not high enough to get Congressional or media scrutiny, but down the chain a few notches.

His administration will prove to be riddled with crankery and incompetence, and because he will quickly alienate not only Democrats, but all Republicans who aren't congenitally stupid, he will not even be able to get his economic agenda through Congress.

I can't stand the Socialist in Chief currently embarrassing the institution of the presidency. But I will pull the lever for Obama before I pull the lever for Paul.

Take note, you Paulbot bastards. I'm not alone.

rcocean said...

We need to stop talking about trivial issues in the 2012 campaign and focus on the important stuff, like WWII, Gays, Evolution and Israel.

This article is a step in the right direction.

Spread Eagle said...

Well, issues aside, it is a useful thing to know whether a candidate is seriously in need of being medicated.

Quaestor said...

rcocean wrote:
This article is a step in the right direction.

I suppose you intended that as a snark. Nevertheless it is true. This article is a step in the right direction. Of course WWII, gays, evolution and Israel are unimportant if one considers history irrelevant?

rcocean said...

"Of course WWII, gays, evolution and Israel are unimportant if one considers history irrelevant?"

Who said history was irrelevant? No one. Do you post at BHTV?

Jason said...

A candidate's view of history is vital. If his view in the rear view mirror is deranged, so will be his view through the windshield.

rcocean said...

"A candidate's view of history is vital."

I agree, that's why I can't vote for Mitt Romney. His position on the Hay-Herbert Treaty is nuts.

Joe said...

(The Crypto Jew)


Oh Ron Paul be still my heart…R3VOLUtion….get a blimp…he’s the ONLY True Conservative…If by “Conservative” you mean Lew Rockwell/Rothbardian/Nut Job.

Jeff said...

Ron is advocating the same policy view Netanyahu stated on May 24th when he spoke on the House floor in Congress:

See video starting 3:45 - 4:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BaMLlnb_KI

Dondero is incompetent.

Ron is bringing conservative back into conservatism.

Gary Rosen said...

"RP is one of the most public persons of the past 20 years. He is constantly speaking, writing, voting, placing comments in the record, meeting with small and large groups, writing articles"

Except for those newsletters put out under his name he had nothing to do with!

Donald Douglas said...

Linked: 'Ron Paul Campaign Pushes Back Against Former Staffer's Report'.

roesch/voltaire said...

I like Paul's anti -colonial and consistent stance against on-going wars and its terrible cost to this country.But thanks to the Wisconsin Historical Society, we have the old copies of his news letter, and David Frum;s article on CNN opinion pulls all the pieces together to show Paul as a Codger and a con-artist with questionable ethics. I could care less about which john he does or does not use.

a psychiatrist who learned from veterans said...

I can understand how people are uncomfortable with a fiat currency and some of RPs isolationist views. I guess I wish heard more about whatever libertarian views he has. What most concerns me is that he will be disloyal to the party that has given him a platform, run as an independent and split the Republican presidential vote, electing Obama.

William said...

Please note that we did not declare war on Germany. Germany declared war on us.....Does anyone really, truly believe that the only cause of Arab hatred towards us is Israel? What is the cause of their hatred towards Copts and Bahais and even other sects of Islam or their treatment of their own women. When Arabs condemn random acts of terror directed against minorities within their borders with the same fervor that they condemn Israel, I'll be more sympathetic to those Palestinians who have to wait an extra hour at an Israeli checkpoint.....I wouldn't think of Paul as any kind of bigot, and the attempt to label cranky old men as bigots is itself a kind of stereotyping.

Gene said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Gordon said...

I remember when Ron Paul visited Fargo as part of his campaign for president in 1988 as a Libertarian. He gave a little talk in the basement of the Civic Center. Besides my wife, myself, and our two kids, there was one reporter, one aide and about ten gay men. At that time, the Libertarians were the only party pushing for full civil rights for gays.

Yackums said...

ricpic said:
No, Brooklyn Blood, to be anti-Israel, as you put it, is not to be an anti-semite. If Paul favors less aid to Israel that is a perfectly legitimate and defensible position. All you're doing is cheapening the coinage of anti-semite.

You're the one with the incorrect linkage here.

To be anti-Israel is indeed to be an anti-Semite.

To criticize Israel (or to be against foreign aid to Israel - more about that later) is not necessarily to be anti-Israel. The particular criticism must be examined for the "three D's" in order to make that determination: Double-standards, Demonization, and Delegitimization. Ron Paul, according to Dondero, runs afoul of all three, ergo, anti-Israel. Ergo, anti-Semite.

QED.

One comment about foreign aid: Most Israelis today favor less American aid to Israel. The aid Israel receives today is a tiny fraction of its GDP, and the strings attached (it must be used for American-made military hardware) have only served to stifle the Israeli aerospace industry. Aid to Israel today is nothing but an American jobs program, which is the only reason it still exists.

M. Simon said...

But this all happened AFTER we went to war with Germany, not before.

Evidently you never hear of the Reuben James or the rest of the war in the Atlantic with the Germans pre-10 Dec.