Skip to main content

View Diary: 'Pestered' about his racist newsletters, Ron Paul walks out of CNN interview. Still won't come clean (282 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  i mentioned this... (5+ / 0-)

    to a coworker this morning and their first reaction was "good for him. those reporters just go after people."

    i was flabberghasted.

    i had more progress telling my "drug war" paulite friend that Paul was pro-life while claiming to be this principled anti-govt champion (her line of defense for paul was that he was PRINCIPLED above all else).

    We keep electing whores to congress, and we wonder why we get screwed while the money flows to their pimps.

    by papa monzano on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:49:38 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Suggestion (11+ / 0-)

      Rather than framing Paul as "pro-life", frame him as "anti-woman" - which is really what he is.

      We're resigned to our collective fate because we've been conditioned and brainwashed to believe that this is as good as it gets. It's not.

      by Richard Cranium on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 10:58:27 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  good point. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1, Matt Z

        this is the same friend who is living entirely on her husbands disability and her subsidized student loans. It galls me every time i see that stupid yard sign at their house.

        We keep electing whores to congress, and we wonder why we get screwed while the money flows to their pimps.

        by papa monzano on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:01:18 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  This is what happens when people become cynical (7+ / 0-)

      and frustrated with political and social institutions. It's the same cynicism and frustration that drives the 'throw the bums out' meme. There is nothing in contemporary American politics that would make either line of thought unreasonable.

      Voters are asked to make all kinds of unsavory compromises when selecting a politics candidate, mostly along the lines of accepting some kind of crony capitalist who rarely delivers a thing that doesn't line the pockets of wealthy special interests. Is is very likely your friend has compromised again in letting Paul's earlier attempts at demagoguery slide in the hopes that it doesn't become an real policy issue.

      Paul pushing cynical Lee Atwater-style demagoguery - which may or may not express a personal racism - and CNN throwing out cheap-shot hit pieces are not mutually exclusive concepts. The corporate media has been throwing punches for the Republican establishment since the primaries begin, taking-out every front runner that is neither Romney nor Gingrich. CNN should put all the candidates hypocrisies- the President included - under intense scrutiny, but I bet that they are never going to put Romney's blatantly duplicitous nature to any intensive scrutiny.

      Nevertheless, the corporate stooges in Big Media really appear to be in the tank for Romney and will hit Paul with these unanswered allegations until he personally disavows his long-time friend and personal Lee Atwater, Lew Rockwell.

      •  i agree, but (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Loge, Matt Z, TrueBlueMajority

        i can hardly characterize it as a "hit piece" to ask a presidential candidate about "that decade where letters signed with your name called MLK a pedophile and claimed 95% of all black men were criminals". Especially not when that same candidate just made news for saying someone close to him deserved to die because of personal responsibility issues.

        That's the crux of my flabberghast.

        Not to mention the fact that there hasn't been a serious "reporters going after someone" moment for any politician in the last 10 years. The idea that our journalists are strong-arming anyone is laughable. There are tried-and-true spin control answers for these kinds of "from your past" presidential campaign issues. Tearing the mike off, claiming you don't know who wrote the letters you signed your name to, and leaving is as childish a reaction as I've ever seen and has no place in the presidency.

        We keep electing whores to congress, and we wonder why we get screwed while the money flows to their pimps.

        by papa monzano on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:43:10 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Very true (6+ / 0-)
        This is what happens when people become cynical and frustrated with political and social institutions.

        I won't allow myself to descend to a Godwin's Law moment in analyzing this comment, but there's a lot of merit to it.

        Mitt Romney is carrying around a lot of baggage - so much baggage, in fact (real, imagined, and faith) that he doesn't have a snowballs chance in hell of actually beating Obama in the general election.  But then, there's more baggage in the GOP clown car among all the candidates than you could put in the baggage compartment of a long distance passenger train anyway.

        Why the media hasn't really focused yet on Mitt's 1%-related baggage is beyond me.  I can only draw the same conclusion.  The legacy media is in the tank for Romney, and has been since the beginning.

        Paul is reaping the scrutiny of being the latest "Not Romney".

        We're resigned to our collective fate because we've been conditioned and brainwashed to believe that this is as good as it gets. It's not.

        by Richard Cranium on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:45:20 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Lee Atwater style (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Bulldozer, Matt Z, TrueBlueMajority

        is a bit more subtle.  He himself said that by 1988 -- before these newsletters -- "you can't say n-----, n-----, n-----."

        Maybe the public actually is entitled to know if the Iowa republican front runner is a racist.  The fact that his anti-government, weird militia shit is of a type with his goldbuggery is sort of an added bonus.  If the Presidential race came down to Romney and Paul, I'd vote for Romney.  

        "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

        by Loge on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 11:57:08 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Romney is the far bigger threat. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Bluefin, trevzb, TrueBlueMajority

          He stands unequivocally for the 1% and their efforts to implode democracy and the middle-class. As a corporate pirate, he has vast experience destroying, productive, community-building enterprises for quick cash and massive poverty.

          Frankly, I would rather put up with the yodels of some racist assholes who can be easily marginalized, than the swift and utter extraction of the 99%s reaming wealth and suffrage, which will affords us no protection from those same assholes.

          •  I'd rather not put up with (or excuse) them, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            phenry, Matt Z

            and the fact that you and others are out here defending Ron Paul effectively un-marginalizes his racism.  Indeed, the very notion he'd be an opportunist flies right in the face of his extreme language, as the Atwater contrast, not comparison, demonstrates.  

            As far as economic policies, how is that a meaningful difference with Ron Paul?  Paul doesn't want to just end regulations, etc., he wants to pursue economic policies that would be explicitly contractive, tightening the money supply.  On other issues, I'd prefer Paul's views, but thankfully Obama falls between being a neocon and and isolationist.  Still, as Kevin Drum notes, at some point in every presidency, there's some unforseen crisis, and I think Romney would be able to handle, say, a Hurricane Katrina, while Ron Paul would watch people drown while lecturing us all on the proper role of government.  Huntsman would be more competent than Romney, but less competent or ideologically simpatico than Obama.

            "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

            by Loge on Thu Dec 22, 2011 at 12:51:13 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I'm not defending Crazy Paul (0+ / 0-)

              any more than you're defending Shady Romney, but is is intriguing how our choice of shit sandwich reflects the reality and depth of the divide in the Democratic Party.

              Racism, in this day and age, is easily isolated. Despite the attempts of the entire Republican Party to stoke a racist backlash, the influence of racism shrinks with each generation.

              However, the surest way to engender racists is to cut the knees off of the economy, which Romney and his Rove lead neoliberal gang are set to do as soon as they return to power.

              As far as crisis resolution, I see nothing that indicates that Romney is any more willing or able to handle crisis than George Bush: using them for political gain and personal profit at the expense of both the taxpayer and the citizen.

              •  this doesn't have anything to do (0+ / 0-)

                with the democratic party;

                Romney is not "neoliberal;"

                Romney is also significantly more accomplished than Dubya ever was -- this seems to be part of the objection;

                racism may or may not be easily isolated, but it isn't when something like Paul's position's don't make him complete persona non grata.  A few years ago, wasn't it worth France reelecting the corrupt Jacques Chirac when Jean-Marie Le Pen unexpectedly made the runoff?

                "This world demands the qualities of youth: not a time of life but a state of mind[.]" -- Robert F. Kennedy

                by Loge on Fri Dec 23, 2011 at 10:22:23 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site