Skip to main content

View Diary: Ron Paul: The Radical Right's Man in Washington (101 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Subsequently fired"? (0+ / 0-)

    This is the second time you've claimed that the person who allegedly wrote Paul's racist remarks was "subsequently fired." Where did you read or hear this?

    •  Wait, are we really talking about the pig fucker (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      retired, ohcanada


      Where the plant from the other campaign sent out a newsletter with racists comments while Ron Paul was on campaign? That was a classic Texas dirty trick that the Houston Chronicle and the Austin Chronicle picked up, then felt dumb about falling for the clever opponent research.

      Is that really what you keep referencing?

      Wesley Clark for President and Ron Paul for Vice-President (though Hagel would be nice, too)

      by pinche tejano on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:25:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I assume... (0+ / 0-)

        ...that he is referring to the Alberto Gonzales that Paul pulled in Texas Monthly regarding his racist newsletter articles:

        "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

        His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"

        Notably missing from this explanation: "I fired the guy who dunnit."

        •  Also notably missing (0+ / 0-)

          is 20+ years of racist propaganda amd legislation written by Paul because...

          it doesn't exist!

          Go back to neocon-ville, you might as well enjoy it because your philosophy will be coming to an end.

        •  He did fire him. (0+ / 0-)

          Was it a bad idea not to come out and say he fired the plant that very second? Yes.

          Did he think people 10 years down the road would completely take the incident to carry out their own partisan agenda? No.

          He didn't want to admit that his campaign had spies in it from the opposition because that would have made him look weak and stupid. And weak and stupid in Texas is a political death nail.

          But I will grant you, he looks stupid for not coming clean that very day, and he was very sloppy in the way he handled it.

          To bad he is not slick as oil politician, maybe more people would like him.

          Wesley Clark for President and Ron Paul for Vice-President (though Hagel would be nice, too)

          by pinche tejano on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:46:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Got a source? (0+ / 0-)

        You keep saying that, but that's not even Ron Paul's explanation for it.  You are just making shit up about it being planted by another campaign.  

        They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time.

        by Mia Dolan on Fri May 18, 2007 at 11:52:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Where is Paul's racist legislation? (0+ / 0-)

          I imagine such a racist would have volumes of work to back up a claim of racism. Yet we supposedly have only one supposed newsletter that no one on the internet has seen in person, no scan of this supposed document exists anywhere online, but we are supposed to believe you in saying he is a racist.

          Where's your first hand source document? And for that matter, where are the volumes on top of volumes of racist material Paul has written over the years?

          Guess where? Nowhere, because it doesn't exist, and Paul is not a racist.

          •  LOL (0+ / 0-)

            Because Ron Paul acknowledged it.  I gave you the link to the Texas Monthly article.  

            They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time.

            by Mia Dolan on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:27:30 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wait, you believe he "acknowledged it" (0+ / 0-)

              but you don't believe what he actually said in that article, which was that it was put into his letter by campaign staff while he was out campaigning? Funny what you choose to believe.

              Again, if he is a racist, where is his racist legislation and volumes of racist writings?

              Either show them, or admit that you are only attempting to defend neocons who are threatened by Paul. We both know the only group he hurts are the Republicans. He can't win the primary, and he certainly couldn't win the general, so why the bizarre attack?

              •  OK (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                phenry, lazybum

                Let me clarify:

                1. Racist statements were in the newsletter.  Ron Paul acknowledges they were there.
                1. In the Texas Monthly article, Ron Paul explains that the racist statements were put in by a staffer without his permission.  That is what I don't believe, but that is just my opinion.  I can't prove that either way.  
                1. In explaining the racist statements in that article, Paul says nothing about the the staffer being a plant from a rival campaign, as Pinche Tejano claims.  If Pinche has something to back that up, I'd like to see that.
                1. As I have made clear to you, I am all for Paul going after Republicans.  I think the comments he made about the blowback are right on.  My problem is the idea that Ron Paul's good attributes go much beyong Iraq and a few other issues, and the for the most part, he is not a good guy.  

                They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time.

                by Mia Dolan on Fri May 18, 2007 at 01:43:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  OK.. I disagree (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mia Dolan
                  but primarily from one piece of evidence Paul mentions (and trust me, I can not stand actual racists and never would support an out and out racist), but apparently that newsletter made some nasty comments about a Barbara Jones, whom Ron Paul actually worked with and thought was a pleasant person. He said he didn't write that part of that newsletter either, and the proof is that, as he says "I never personalize anything", and if you watch the way this guy interacts with people in the youtube videos that you can see... it is quite clear that he doesn't ever personalize anything to any one person.

                  That is why I believe him, because his daily actions and his many written articles I've read online prove that he is neither a racist nor a person who delves into personalization politics.

                  I am not trying to suggest that any Democrat vote for him in the general election either (because there is no way in hell he is getting there), but this racism thing is just so far off the mark of this guys actual character, that it is disappointing that it ever happened.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site