Skip to main content

As tonight's Republican presidential debate winds down, I expect to see the diaries humming with praise for Texas Rep. Ron Paul, whose forceful, eloquent anti-war rhetoric sticks out like a sore thumb from the undifferentiated conservative yammerings of the other candidates. The Simi Valley debate earlier this month was many Kossacks' first exposure to Paul, and many of them liked what they saw. Before any other well-meaning liberals decide that we and Ron Paul were made for each other, I think it's important that we dig a bit deeper and learn more about exactly who, and what, he is: a vicious, contemptible racist who comforts the radical right wing like no presidential candidate since David Duke.

We need jump to no conclusion to arrive at this judgment. His own words convict him.

THE RON PAUL EXPERIENCE - A Diary Series

  1. Ron Paul, In His Own Words
  2. Ron Paul: The Radical Right's Man in Washington
  3. Ron Paul: Dude is Wack
  4. Ron Paul Hates You

After his 1979-85 service in Congress as a Republican and his 1988 campaign for the presidency as the nominee of the Libertarian Party, Ron Paul returned home to Surfside, Texas and devoted himself to a variety of pursuits, one of which was his self-published newsletter, The Ron Paul Political Report. Founded in 1985, the eight-page newsletter featured Paul's extreme libertarian perspective on a number of different issues, notably crackpot theories about the Federal Reserve and the money system and a tireless advocacy of a return to the gold standard—a longtime Ron Paul hobby horse. The Ron Paul Political Report would come to feature in the stable of "underground" publications and photocopied "zines" that fed the nascent "patriot movement" that arose in the early 1990s, spurred by anger over federal government actions in Waco, Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and by fear of a supposed "New World Order." Indeed, Paul changed the name of the newsletter to the Ron Paul Survival Report around 1993 in what we may presume to be an effort to tap into the survivalist sentiments then peaking among the radical right wing.

It is extremely difficult to track down content from the Ron Political/Survival Report today. The Report only had about 7,000 subscribers, and Paul has—unsurprisingly—refused to release copies to the media. Lexis/Nexis is of no help, as the obscure publication largely escaped the notice of major media publications during Paul's hiatus from electoral politics. What remains to us today comes almost entirely from secondary sources, such as quasi-samizdat publications and contemporaneous Usenet postings from sources like Google Groups. These few fragments of a much larger body of work—almost all of which have been preserved by Paul's supporters, not his opponents—give us an illuminating and frightening look into his demented, racist worldview.

The only complete article from the Ron Paul Political Report on the Internet that I am aware of is a 1992 piece titled "LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM," on the subject of the so-called Rodney King riots in South Central Los Angeles in 1991. It is available to us today because it was posted to the talk.politics.misc newsgroup on July 30, 1993 by Dan Gannon, a notorious white supremacist and Holocaust denier, and archived by the Nizkor Project, an anti-revisionism organization that was active in cataloging hate speech on the early public Internet. You can read Nizkor's copy of the article here, and see a reposted version on Google Groups here. Some relevant passages from the article (emphasis mine):

Regardless of what the media tell us, most white Americans are not going to believe that they are at fault for what blacks have done to cities across America. The professional blacks may have cowed the elites, but good sense survives at the grass roots.  Many more are going to have difficultly avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable.

Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action.... Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.

If similar in-depth studies were conducted in other major cities, who doubts that similar results would be produced?  We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings, and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.

Perhaps the L.A. experience should not be surprising. The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics.The looting in L.A. was the welfare state without the voting booth.  The elite have sent one message to black America for 30 years: you are entitled to something for nothing. That's what blacks got on the streets of L.A. for three days in April. Only they didn't ask their Congressmen to arrange the transfer.

Reading the entire article will show that I have not taken these quotes out of context, though the article is definitely not for everyone: it's a 3700-word racist tirade that is frankly stomach-turning in its depiction of African-Americans as violent, unevolved savages and even rapists.  Without a doubt, it was articles like this one that prompted the Heritage Front, a Toronto-based neo-Nazi organization, to include the Ron Paul Political Report in its list of "Racialist Addresses and Phone Numbers."

During Paul's 1996 Congressional run, the Houston Chronicle unearthed some additional racial comments from his newsletter (emphasis mine):

Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul's 1992 political newsletter highlighted portrayals of blacks as inclined toward crime and lacking sense about top political issues.

Under the headline of "Terrorist Update," for instance, Paul reported on gang crime in Los Angeles and commented, "If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

... [I]n the same 1992 edition ... [Paul wrote], "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

And the November 1, 1996 issue of the alt-weekly Austin Chronicle offered some additional gems from Paul's oeuvre, including his thoughts about his former House colleague, the legendary Barbara Jordan (D-TX):

University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud. Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up. If there were ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it. She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism.

Years later, in an interview printed in the October 2001 issue of Texas Monthly, Paul changed his story about these and other racist comments: "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me," he said. "It wasn't my language at all." Unfortunately, this explanation doesn't really withstand scrutiny. The Ron Paul Political Report was an eight-page newsletter, not a 200-page magazine; whether he employed other writers or not, it beggars belief that Paul would not have had full control and approval over its contents. Moreover, the L.A. riots article does in fact bear some evidence of having been written by Paul, at least in part. (For example, the article relates the observations of one Burt Blumert, who is labeled "expert Burt Blumert" but who is actually just a gold coin and bullion dealer in San Francisco who happens to be a longtime personal friend of... Ron Paul.) Regardless, the fact remains that Paul suffered these words to be published under his name in his newsletter as a representation of his views, and his efforts to distance himself from them are more than a little bit disingenuous.

I understand how important, how visceral, opposition to the war is for a lot of people. It is for precisely this reason that it is so important that Kossacks understand that, opposition to the war aside, Ron Paul is not our friend.

Originally posted to phenry on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:57 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  WELL HE'S MADE IT A DEBATE! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      pb, shii, rjones2818

      The exchange with Giullinani was interesting.   A single issue can be debated on it's merits and not involve Giulliani's cross dressing or Romney's relationship to polygamy.   Giulliani may have won the base with his stupid attack on Paul but he sure as shit lost the general election.

    •  But Ron Paul's teh sexy! (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      phenry, Subversive, rjones2818

      He's anti-war. Who cares if he wants to destroy the government?

      You really think the country cares if he's a bigot? Look at Reagan, who, if he wasn't a bigot, at least catered to them.

    •  I don’t think there’s much danger (9+ / 0-)

      of  Kosacks  turning into Ron Paul supporters.  But if all Repugs were like him, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

      Hell, they’re all racists.   But Paul appears to be someone who can be reasoned with.  He obviously has some narrow minded, bigoted views about race relations, but the big difference with him is, he doesn’t lie about it (which makes discussion possible).  The other difference is, he values facts and lessons from history.  

      I’m just glad that the voting Repugs got to see more of him tonight. We all know about PNAC and the lies that BushCo used to send our young soldiers into a death trap.  But when Repugs hear anything about it, they believe it’s just nasty rumors being spread by Bush hating Dems.  I didn’t watch the debate, (I can not watch Fox, period.) but I’m certainly hoping that Paul was able to shock some sense into some of the loyal Fox viewers tonight.  Although if it’s anything like the last debate, he will be kept on a very short leash.    

      That said, there are two things about Ron paul that I would certainly like to see rub off on the Dems.  

      1. There is no pretense about the man, he speaks his mind and votes his conscious.  
      1.  He has been sounding constant alarms about the neo-con criminals since before they invaded Iraq.  He minces no words about the depraved intentions of these lying cretins and he continues to call for an end to their reign of terror.  

      Republicans, so long captivated by a turd-blossom, now find themselves trapped in a pile of shit surrounded by maggots.

      by enough already on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:44:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If this is true (0+ / 0-)

      then perhaps Ron Paul needs to think about "blowback" when he writes "The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."

  •  on the plus side (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phenry, scoff0165

    Ron Paul isn't exactly in great danger of winning the Republican nomination, or otherwise getting himself much authority over anything more than his House seat.

    "See a world of tanks, ruled by a world of banks." —Sol Invictus

    by Delirium on Tue May 15, 2007 at 06:49:21 PM PDT

  •  Thanks for the info (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phenry, Jim P, rgdurst, lazybum, scoff0165

    Important to get the whole story before we make heroes out of very flawed men.

    •  At this point, all the heroes are dead, or easily (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      grndrush

      neutralized. Can't be lead into democracy, can only have enough people exercise it, arising from their own hearts.

      Little known Constitutional fact: the phrase "executive privilege," does not exist anywhere in the Constitution! Justice Scalia...?

      by Jim P on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:18:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Excellent! (12+ / 0-)

    Ron Paul is not our friend and after the last debate I saw too much praise by Kossacks of this wingnut.

  •  He's not great. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DaleA, retired

    But, in the long run, if you had to have a Republican as president (out of the batch that's running and seems to be maybe running) he's the best.  Hagel might be better, but he seems to getting ready for an independent run.  I think that's why you see praise for Paul here.  He's better than the rest of them.

    Trust no organizaton bigger than two, and even those are suspect!

    by rjones2818 on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:02:42 PM PDT

  •  It isn't like... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    viscerality, mariachi mama

    ...he has a shot at anything.  He'd be pressed to win the Libertarian Party primary, much less the Republican one.

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:03:53 PM PDT

  •  I'll take an anti-war message (4+ / 0-)

    anywhere I can get one,

    and especially one that's aimed at a captive Gooper audience.

  •  Ron Paul is the darling of The John Birch Society (12+ / 0-)

    The JBers are wingnuts extraordinaire.

    While they oppose the war, lobby against the patriot act and oppose Nafta, it is strictly from a Nationalist viewpoint rooted in God and corporatism.

    They are the organized Facists of America.

    Kossacks beware. While it is nice to have a Republican stand up to the other Republican pinheads.

    Ron Paul is not your man. A rebel ? yes. Although I praised him for his sole Republican vote against the Military Tribunal Act that restricted Habeus Corpus, I could never vote for him.

    I only hope he can shake up the Republican party or split the vote.

    Tu es responsable de ta rose Le Petit Prince

    by Brahman Colorado on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:34:11 PM PDT

  •  Thank you. (5+ / 0-)

    Too many people confuse being anti-Iraq War with progressive.  Surely, while Ron Paul may agree with us vis-a-vis Iraq, he is our enemy.  Same with Pat Buchanan.

  •  Ron Paul is an extremist nut, but ... (5+ / 0-)
    he happened to be absolutely right on what he said about the Middle East and terrorism.  Maybe because he knows he's got no chance to win, he can tell the truth, which I suspect some of the others recognize but figure they can't say.

    I've got a question for Giuliani and those who actually agree with him that the reason we're a target of Islamic terrorists is that they hate our democracy, freedom of religion, and rights for women:  Why aren't they attacking Sweden, or Switzerland, or Canada for that matter?  Sweden and Switzerland are a lot closer, and they're democracies with freedom of religion and rights for women.  It seems to me that maybe there's something to this theory that their attacking us has a lot more to do with our Middle East policy than it does with our domestic freedoms.

    I'm certainly not saying that they were JUSTIFIED in attacking us, but it seems quite clear to me that the REASONS for the attack had a lot more to do with our Middle East policy, and in particular with our military presence there, than with our freedoms.

    "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

    by leevank on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:42:00 PM PDT

  •  Watch Ron Paul's videos on youtube (6+ / 0-)

    The man is not insane, racist, or even impolite. What's really great is that you have no actual photocopy of this supposed document, which is really why I find your characterization so out of hand. Their are so many political groups that are trying to smear this guy and have been trying for the past11 years because they want this seat to go to the party of either the Republicans or Democrats. This guy is far too nice and clear-minded to deserve such disdain. Truly, spend the time to watch videos of him on youtube, it is very clear where his positions are. He is probably the only truly principled person in the congress who can not be bought, mainly because liberty isn't something that lobbyists are interested in, when their main concern is to rig the system for their own gain.

    •  WTF? (9+ / 0-)

      What's really great is that you have no actual photocopy of this supposed document, which is really why I find your characterization so out of hand.

      Dude. He acknowledged publishing these racist articles at least twice. The first time he said he wrote them in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." The second time he pulled the Alberto Gonzales defense and said that staffers wrote them.

      It took me a long time to assemble these resources. The least you could do is check them out before accusing me of making them up. God.

      •  I've already seen what you've been pushing (3+ / 0-)

        And the reason they aren't worth anything is that they are second hand accounts, and for what has apparently been quoted, it is quite possible that it was campaign people in his office who published the material without his complete recommendation.

        The guy has said a lot over his lifetime, and the fact that he stands up for the freedom of every single american citizen reguardless of skin color is clear with every vote that he makes.

        Now, keep in mind that Paul advances legislation for consideration by the congress all the time. Where once has he proposed legislation against any race, let alone one about "blacks"?

        Let me tell you where... no where... because the man isn't a racist, which anyone who spends 5 minutes watching his youtube videos can tell. He is an honest and caring doctor who has delivered 4000 babies. Do you want to take odss on how many of those babies were "black"? I really don't think you would, as you'd find out that your "full-blown racist" story is a piece of crap.

        •  Once again, with feeling. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lazybum

          Ron Paul addressed these statements specifically. For him to do that, they'd pretty much have to exist, wouldn't they? The first time he addressed them, he flat-out admitted writing them. It wasn't until 2001 that he changed his story and blamed them on "other people."

          From the rest of your comment it's obvious that you haven't actually read the diary, so there's really no point in continuing this dialogue until you do.

          •  I've actually read your diary (4+ / 0-)
            I've read forum posts on top of forum posts on this monstrosity of a smear.

            I realize supposedly this Texas Monthly article has some comment from him about this, but I've never seen any reference to the actual date this article supposedly exists in.

            All I've got is the fact that the guy was drafted and "served" in Vietnam as a flight surgeon. I wonder how many minorities he threw off those planes rather than fix their wounds... since he's sucha nasty "racist scumbag".

            I guarentee you he's saved more lives of minorities than you would ever have the guts to, to think that he is being disparaged this way when he has honestly served other people his entire life is the height of the shame smear artists will risk to preserve their own broken houses.

            •  See, that's how I know you didn't read the diary. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mia Dolan

              Because if you had, you'd have seen this:

              Years later, in an interview printed in the October 2001 issue of Texas Monthly, Paul changed his story about these and other racist comments

              •  I actually did read your diary (0+ / 0-)

                and I'm sure that really hurts you in some bizarre way. The reality is that no one has posted that complete article online with the date the entire "actual interview" was supposedly taken. Sorry, I read your diary... and yes, I'm sorry that I read your diary.

                •  Oh, for the love of-- (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Mia Dolan, mariachi mama

                  The article was written by Sam Gwynne, an executive editor of Texas Monthly. It appeared in the October 2001 issue of the magazine. Gwynne writes, in the first person, that he asked Paul about the racist statements directly, and printed Paul's reply. Given magazine lead times, I would imagine the actual conversation took place in early to mid-summer of 2001, if it matters. Yes, I am in possession of the Texas Monthly article, which I obtained from LexisNexis. No, I will not post the entire contents of a copyrighted magazine article online for your benefit.

                  •  That's convenient (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    IndiGlass
                    No need to go further. The man isn't a racist, as it simply isn't in his history of service anywhere.

                    If you should be after anyone, it should probably be Senator Byrd, a guy who actually backed legislation against minority races... but I'm sure you only put your word out on the really bad people... you know, drafted veterans who haven't said a racist work in their lives that has actually been documented on tape.

                    •  wow (4+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      clonecone, jxg, phenry, Mia Dolan

                      You're shilling hard for this guy-- to the point where you're attacking Kossacks and Democratic senators-- in order to deny what is pretty clearly in his record.

                      That's a shame.

                      •  In his voting and legislation record? (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        retired, truong son traveler
                        I'm not finding it. In fact I don't see him having participated in white supremacy rallies either. The guy was born and raised in Pennsylvania, you know, "the north", "the union". The guy only went to Texas when he was drafted, so alot of the associations being made between him and Texas branded racist red meat is hokey at best. That is simply not this guys MO, and you can see it claerly on any youtube wideo with Ron Paul in it.
                    •  Spoken like a true Republican. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Mia Dolan

                      You outed yourself with that Rush Limbaugh talking point. I'm through with you. Cheers.

                      •  Never listened to Rush Limbaugh in my life (5+ / 0-)

                        but Byrd was in fact a Klan member, and if you want to actually be principled in your position, I would assume that you'd want to be even handed in your smear campaigns. Its hard to point the finger when you embrace those of your own party they have largely documented legislative records on the subject.

                        But yes, I am a traditional constitutional libertarian Republican. I am not a neocon though, and in fact the only Republican I support or will vote for at this time is Ron Paul.

                        I voted for Sherrod Brown last election simply to help wash te neocons out of our system, and it is clear to me that another congressional neocon flushing will be required in '08.

                        But the only reason I am doing so is because the Republican Party of today has to die before the Republican Party of liberty can be rebuilt.

                        •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          clonecone

                          Ron Paul isn't anything close to a real constitutional libertarian Republican.  But he is a racist pile of crap.

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

                          by Mia Dolan on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:46:09 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Try reading the constitution (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            IndiGlass
                            and comparing it to his voting record. It is quite clear that he is the only person in the congress who votes with a constitutional principle, and the desire not to waste the people's money.
                          •  I guess that would depend (0+ / 0-)

                            on your definition of waste.

                            Personally, I believe it's more important to live up to the intent of the Constitution than its words. The Preamble tells me its purpose, and I take it to be just as important as the parts that follow.

                            "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding." - Albert Einstein

                            by scoff0165 on Wed May 16, 2007 at 06:48:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  Paul denied Rosa Parks Congressional Medal (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      clonecone, rocketito, lazybum, scoff0165

      http://www.jstor.org/...

      The diarist's quotes can be found all over this article.

      "To be a poor man is hard, but to be a poor race in a land of dollars is the very bottom of hardships." ~W.E.B. DuBois [-6.63, -5.44]

      by rovertheoctopus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:56:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  his position on other things is of no concern. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      truong son traveler

      he won't win. His presence on the podium and osition on the war should make the republicans shiver with dread.

    •  hm (3+ / 0-)

      He is probably the only truly principled person in the congress who can not be bought

      Ever heard of Bernie Sanders?

      You'd get all the civil liberties of Ron Paul w/o all the disastrous economic policies of a corporatist laissez-faire nutjob.

      Let's be honest here -- the only thing about Ron Paul that looks good is his stance on civil liberties, and that's fine... but there's a helluva lot more to being a president than just that.

      He's worth nothing except to siphon votes from (R)s in the general.

      •  Well, I'm a free market type myself (3+ / 0-)

        I believe in the Freedom of Choice, that I know how to spend my money better than any government can, and that the constitution needs to be restored. If we want to change how our society operates, the avenue to doing so is to amend the constitution... bu instead we'd rather continue to allow the constitution to be abused.

        For example, that the congress ducked from declaring war and instead chose to hand that "authority" to the president was clearly unconstitutional.

        Want to know what nutjub extremist voted for that constitution breaking measure? Presidential candidate Senator Hilary Clinton. Want to know which presidential candidate told the President and Congress to suck an egg, voting no on that same war resolution? Congressman Ron Paul.

        And finally, unfortunately for Bernie, the constitution does not contain socialist policies, but that does not mean that they can't be amended into the constitution, just that they haven't been, and are somewhat illegal. Bernie is personally principled, but isn't principled in terms of the constitution.

        •  LOL (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          clonecone, lazybum

          Socialist policies are illegal?   That's a new one.

          Anyway, Ron Paul talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk.   He's an anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-stem cell racist piece of shit.  There probably isn't a bigger hypocrite in congress than Ron Paul.  

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

          by Mia Dolan on Tue May 15, 2007 at 09:42:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  lol... you've got to be kidding me (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lazybum

          Nowhere did I bring up Ms. Clinton.  Why'd you bring her up?

          And finally, unfortunately for Bernie, the constitution does not contain socialist policies, but that does not mean that they can't be amended into the constitution, just that they haven't been, and are somewhat illegal.

          Oh man... what is this, FreeRepublic now?  Dude.  Stop being silly.

          Anyhow.

          Economically, you can already be as free as you want to in the private realm.  But once you start messing with the natural order of things and pretend that the free rider effect doesn't exist you ignore the critical differences between private goods/services and public goods/services... and then you end up with clusterfarked shit like our current healthcare system.  Tip: Gov't is better at allocating limited resources for public goods/services.  It's economic reality.  It's taught in every introductory economics class.  It's life.  FREE MARKET THEORY FOR PRIVATE GOODS/SERVICES WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE APPLIED TO PUBLIC GOODS/SERVICES; IT CAN'T EFFICIENTLY ALLOCATE THOSE TYPES OF RESOURCES.  IT WORKS VERY WELL FOR PRIVATE GOODS/SERVICES.  IT DOES NOT WORK FOR PUBLIC GOODS/SERVICES.

          Sorry to be such a dick, but I seem to have to spend 3-5 hours a week on the internet explaining Econ 101 and I've never been paid a red cent for it.  Just.  Do yourself a favor... take a look into the underlying tenets of the operation of markets -- you'll be surprised by the limited functionality and the stringent rules such that they work as intended.

          •  Try reading (0+ / 0-)

            economic theory other than that of Keynes. In fact, I would suggest you look beyond econ 101. You seem to have stunted your growth as an arm-chair economist. Not to sound like a jerk, There is plenty of evidence from Friedman, who won a nobel prize for his "consumption function" that your opinion of economics is as nearly as valid as the "flat-earth" contingency.

            Yes, there is something beyond Economics 101, I do suggest you try to research it some day.

            •  Dude. I degreed in economics. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              phenry, Mia Dolan

              I think I got past 101. ::sigh::

              It's got nothing to do with Keynesian macro theory; we're talking basic definitions here. It's not 'my opinion' either... it's taught that way at every accredited university.

              You can't ignore underlying tenets.

              •  Let's see a copy of your degree then (0+ / 0-)
                I'm loving these internet Keynesians. The, I'm an economist, I degreed in it balogni. Well, I degreed in Psychology, which has convinced me that you aren't telling the truth.

                By the way, just because I degreed in psychology doesn't make me Doctor Phil, and just because you "degreed" in economics doesn't mean you're anything more than a person who accepted the "theory" of economics that your school presented to you in the few economics classes you were able to take next to all of the other curricula you were forced to take.

                I certainly wasn't exposed to every field of psychology, and I guarentee you weren't exposed to every field in economics, especially the Austrian school of thought.

  •  With a Democratic congress (5+ / 0-)

    we'd see only hs positive side enacted. out of Iraq, repeal of Patriot, and a rollback of the cockamamie drugwar.

    Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

    Runamarchy: n., the end product of corrosion of constitutional order.

    by ben masel on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:49:18 PM PDT

    •  We'd be lucky.... (0+ / 0-)

      ...to get the drug war rollback through a Democratic Congress even with President Paul.

      But, good point.

      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

      by Jay Elias on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:52:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Scheduling of Controlled Substances (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Jay Elias

        By statute, the President, through the AGG,  can remove or reschedule Controlled Substances. The Congress could then reschedule.

        Democratic Candidate for US Senator, Wisconsin, in 2012

        Runamarchy: n., the end product of corrosion of constitutional order.

        by ben masel on Tue May 15, 2007 at 07:58:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Do you want to make me wish... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          inertiac

          ...he did have a chance in hell?

          The sad thing is that would do more good than any possible combination of programs advocated by all the other candidates combined.

          The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

          by Jay Elias on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:01:35 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Did I miss something? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Night Owl, viscerality, lazybum

    Is someone forwarding the name of Ron Paul (R) to be a Democratic candidate?  He's a pig.  They're all pigs.  What's the news?

    We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately. - Benjamin Franklin -5.13/-3.38

    by Grannus on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:02:13 PM PDT

  •  Yes, but... (7+ / 0-)

    Ron Paul is not going to be the next president.  There is zero chance of that happening.  But Paul (no relation... really!) is doing an invaluable service.  He is forcing the Republican candidates to respond to criticism of the war.  Without him, the debate would be about how the Democrats have sabotaged the president's war effort since 9/11 and what are we going to do about it.  If saying nice things about Ron Paul will keep him running, then I am willing to say that he's a swell guy and a snappy dresser.  

  •  Thanks for this. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rocketito

    I've wondered just how deep off he was, and this is pretty much convincing that he's much worse than I imagined. I'll certainly regard him a different way in the future. Can't thank you enough for disabusing me of a little political crush on the guy.

    [BTW, the topic of private central banking, fiat money, income tax, and government overreach--it seems to me they're on to something there. There's certainly a lot of funny business going on with our economic system.]

    Little known Constitutional fact: the phrase "executive privilege," does not exist anywhere in the Constitution! Justice Scalia...?

    by Jim P on Tue May 15, 2007 at 08:14:46 PM PDT

  •  ...And he wants to criminalize abortion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rocketito

    But that doesn't mean it is no longer fun watching him pound on his fellow Republicans, on the issues where he differs from them.

  •  We don't need Ron Paul (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phenry, rocketito, lazybum, Mia Dolan

    So many of these comments seem to be stuck in 2004.  The fact is, an ever-growing majority of Americans hate this war.  Politically, it isn't even up for grabs any longer.  

    We don't need to coddle right-wing Republicans just because they're getting the anti-war face time we couldn't get from 2002-2005.  This is a new time.  Anti-war is our issue and anti-war Dems can no longer be blacklisted-- because they speak for the majority and because they have power.  

    And we definitely shouldn't be praising those with virulent racism among their writing credits.  It just gives credence to the right-wing lie (ala Coulter) that Democratic opposition to racism is just a convenient pose.  

    Sure, it's nice to have someone mucking up their debates-- but we don't need it.  A room full of Republicans advertising for this war is nothing but bad news for the GOP.

  •  Ron Paul is a tradtitional Republican (0+ / 0-)

    of the type that flourished before Reagan. He is against foreign wars. He has all the traditional republican worries about 'colored people'.

    The issue is that all the other republican candidates are more extreme than he is.

  •  This hit piece misses (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Subversive, IndiGlass

    I'm not sure what motivates this diarist but the vitriol and cursing against Ron Paul (a man the diarist probably does not know personally) is a sign of mental illness.

  •  You can trust him to end the war. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    IndiGlass

    There are only three candidates who are willing to end the occupation: Paul, Kucinich and Gravel. For those of us who actually want it to end, as it is the most important thing in the world today, our options are limited, so I don't see a problem supporting Paul, especially when he's one of the only candidates not bought out by the kleptocracy.  I'll take a racist who is willing to enforce the constitution and is willing to correct the course of our government over a authoritarian phony like Obama.  

  •  Not damning evidence (0+ / 0-)

    So, some racist types up a screed and posts it on the Internet, claiming that it comes from a former Congressman and Presidential candidate, and you take his word for it?

    I'm not saying that it's impossible that Ron Paul wrote this, but it is very flimsy evidence with which to damn the man.

    If he stays in the race, I expect that some reporters will dig up a collection of the Ron Paul ** Report, and we can see what was really published.

  •  The DNC... If Bob Schrum Were Still In Charge... (0+ / 0-)

    And now the conscience of the Republican Party... Ron Paul ;-)

  •  I'm a little underwhelmed (0+ / 0-)

    The statistical point he was making about 95% of blacks must be criminals seems to be a jab at the competency of DC criminal justice (since 85% of African Americans there have been arrested according to the report he was talking about) more than at blacks.  The stuff about how it isn't irrational to be afraid of crime from African-Americans isn't markedly different than Jesse Jackson saying (at around the same time) that if he hears footsteps behind him when he walks at night, he's relieved to turn around and see it's a white man, or the stuff that Bill Cosby regularly lays into.  It IS clear that under a Paul presidency, race-based quotas for anything would disappear.  I'm not sure that qualifies him as a racist nutbag either.

    And, as far as his walkback goes, I think it's perfectly plausible to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it could have been an overeager staffer (that should have been fired and maybe was) pumping out stuff into the newsletter that "sort of" gets the Paul position right but attaches with it a bunch of unhelpful rhetoric.  Frankly, that's pretty standard practice for all congressmen to have much of their policy positions and newsletter type communiques written by staffers (and they don't usually sit there all day reading through and signing off on everything either).  

    The whole thing doesn't speak highly of Paul, to be sure, his specific rhetoric in his quotes belie a problem of letting himself get too caught up in his own point and not realizing how most people might take what he's saying (this is a problem, btw, that we saw in the second Republican debate when he let Rudy tee off on him), and he ought to have handled it all much differently, but it's a far cry from Ron Paul as Screamingly Racist White Supremacist Nutbag.  Frankly, if we're talking about presidential candidates who would explicitly legalize torture and continue a foreign policy that's killed probably close to a million people by now (including Iraqis and Afghanis), that strikes me as something of an order worse than somebody whose only racial policy pledge is to nix race-based affirmative action.  

    This "all-or-nothing" approach to politics is also sort of an irritant.  If someone is not a perfect progressive liberal they are just as bad as every non progressive liberal.  You're either with us or against us, and distinctions are meaningless.  

    The fact is no Dkos regulars, even us Ron Paul supporters (there are a few) are trying to get progressive Democrats to even pledge to consider voting for him in a general, much less lift a finger on his behalf.  But Paul represents a critical voice of dissent within the Republican party, and that voice doesn't just help the Republican party (and I am of the mind that the WHOLE of America is better off when BOTH parties get better and offer better choices; some disagree and would rather one party become screamingly offensive nutbags and the other party gain singular control of all elected offices in the nation, and I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the wisdom and reasonability of the latter stance), it helps the entire national conversation.  It's easy to stand in front of a Democratic audience and spread a Ron Paulish message.  It takes brass cojones to do so as a Texas congressman in a national Republican primary.  Good for him.  

    He's good for his party, he's good for the Democratic party (I think it's high time the question of torture and extraordinary rendition and habeas corpus gets posed to some of the Democrats too, if just to make the Republican frontrunners look even worse), and most importantly, HE'S GOOD FOR THE COUNTRY, which is what it should all be about.  

    Some questionable racist comments written in a newsletter in 1992 and at least attempted to be explained later doesn't take away from that, or the mountains of good that Ron Paul is doing NOW.  It's a good diary, I should add, and certainly worth having out there, but I think it's worth keeping in context.    

    What's the difference between Iraq and Vietnam? Bush knew how to get out of Vietnam.

    by glibfidget on Sat May 19, 2007 at 01:11:30 PM PDT

  •  Much ado about nothing... (0+ / 0-)

    Let me understand this...this is a website by communists, for communists and it is attacking the most respected man in congress?

    Do I dare ask what you opinions are of Robert Byrd grand wazoo of the KKK? I guess he gets a pass because he's a leftist racist, such as the ones who run this site?

    Or how about Hillary's demand that people are not allowed to look her in the eye when passing in the hall which is typical of narcissistic dictators? Her racism knows no bounds.

    The whole article is not based on racism it's based on facts of numbers.
    The ideas about the Fed Reserve (that it's a private entity) are true and accepted by those who are educated enough to find out about it.

    Dr. Paul is far too beloved to have your petty smears stick in any way.
    It won't change his popularity one bit. He's teflon. These comments by you are not going to hurt him any more than Bill Clinton's sexism and racism or Ted Kennedy's sexism and racism will hurt him.

    This whole website which I happened on by accident is a joke written by 13 year olds and will hardly be anything anyone will take seriously.

    No Ron Paul is not your friend, because he's not a disgusting socialist.

    This site is in fact run by racists. It's on many lists of racist, terrorist hate groups because it is likely funded by George Soros a man who turned in his own Jewish counterparts to save his own skin.

    So I doubt you are ones to talk.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site