Things are looking bad for Ron Paul. In addition to his crushing defeat in the most libertarian state in the US, he also has to deal with the recent revelation from James Kirchick of the New Republic.
Right now, the Paultards are running scared, and they're acting just as irrational as ever. For instance, if you perform a search for "Angry White Man Ron Paul" on digg.com, you will only see two results with a few dozen diggs between them, both written in defense of Ron Paul. The original article by TNR has recieved over 300 diggs and has been covered on the national news, but has successfully buried by the Paultard community.
In this diary, we'll go over strategies for dealing with them.
Tip #1: Dealing with their stock arguments
If you're involved in internet discussions about Ron Paul, then you may have noticed just how persistent and hard headed the Paultards really are. It's tiring having to refute the same talking points over and over again. Remember, Paultards are trolls, and they don't mind trying to win an argument through brute force and numbers, rather than through sound argument.
I recently took the liberty of writing out an in-depth FAQ on the subject, where most of their talking points have already been refuted. This FAQ has been updated for the Kirchick piece. The contents are as follows:
- The newsletter article was an isolated incident
- Just because that newsletter Ron Paul has his name on that, doesn't mean that he was involved!
- This is a smear campaign! Your evidence is weak! Ron Paul is honest and infallible, and you can't trust anyone who says otherwise!
- Those articles were a mainstream media hit piece!
- Ron Paul has a solid record that stretches 30 years!
- Ron Paul's voting record is proof that he isn't racist!
- But if Ron Paul was really a racist, then why don't we see more of that in his interviews?
- I demand audio/video evidence before I believe you!
- Didn't you read "Government and Racism," by Ron Paul?
- But Ron Paul said that racism is bad! Doesn't that disprove that he wrote the newsletter?
- Those article were written by a ghostwriter!
- Didn't you read what he said in Texas Monthly?
- You can't prove that Ron Paul even read that article!
- Ron Paul was a full-time Congressman and Doctor, he didn't have time to work on that newsletter.
- The article wasn't written in Ron Paul's language, and it sounds nothing like him!
- But I have a newspaper article where the writer says that he believes Ron Paul!
- Ron Paul has suggested Walter Williams as his running mate, and Walter Williams is black!
- The Ghostwriter was already fired. Case closed! What more could you ask for?
- What about the article from Free Market News?
- What about Ron Paul's official statement?
- What if Ron Paul is telling the truth?
- Is any of this relevant?
Hopefully, this should save you some time.
Tip #2: The Strongest Evidence Against Ron Paul
One thing that I've noticed after months of debating this subject is the fact that most Paultards will completely ignore the 1996 coverage of Ron Paul, even after you point it out to them. This coverage includes two local newspapers; the Austin Chronicle and the Houston Chronicle. During that time, Ron Paul was asked to comment about the newsletter, and rather than simply denying authorship over it, he instead chose to defend the writings while claiming that had been taken out of context. This isn't hearsay, and this isn't a ghostwriter. This is Ron Paul's own words, as published by the popular media. How does a Paultard argue against the word of Ron Paul? They can't. Moreover, Ron Paul has never once claimed that he was misquoted, or that he was reported inaccurately. Most Paultards will insist that Ron Paul denied the story, but the ghostwriter invention didn't actually happen until 2001, a full five years later.
After a while, I realized that this wasn't just a minor oversight. It was, in fact, a very willful ignorance. Why? Because is where they were vulnerable. It's easy to rationalize the time period before 1996, by insisting that Ron Paul was completely ignorant on the contents of his own newsletter. And it's easy to rationalize the time period after 2001, when Ron Paul first began to deny the story. But how do you rationalize that time period in between, when the scandal first became public? That's a lot harder to explain, and so most Paultards won't bother. Most of them will respond by changing the subject. Don't let them get away with that.
Tip #3: What if Ron Paul is telling the truth?
My third piece of advice for dealing with the dedicated Paultard is a change in strategy. The dedicated Paultard has a hard time believing that Ron Paul would accuse black people of being "fleet-footed," they're not going to believe that Ron Paul accused MLK of being a gay pedophile. This means you need to change your focus, away from "Ron Paul is a racist" and more towards "Ron Paul is incompetent."
Here's an excerpt from Ron Paul's official statement in regards to the Kirchick piece:
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
If Ron Paul really does hold moral responsibility for being negligent, as he claims, then the first thing that we should do is hold him responsible. You can't simply say, "I take full responisibility, but please don't hold it against me." That's not how things work, and that's not a quality that we look for in a President.
Tip #4: Focus on Ron Paul's own issues
Ron Paul cites his stance on racism as one of his main campaign issues for 2008. If Ron Paul is advertising himself on his ability to deal with the issue fo racism, then it's only fair to bring up how well he's handled the issue of racism in his own newsletter, the newsletter that he claims to have taken moral responsibility for. Doesn't that sound fair to you? Because otherwise, it would imply that Ron Paul's sense of moral responsibility is worthless, and that his campaign promises are worthless. And that's not a great selling point for a future president.
Conclusion:
The main key to dealing with the Ron Paulogists is to use their own idol as your weapon. Cite Ron Paul's responses from 1996 in the popular press. Cite Ron Paul's claim of moral responsibility from just just recently. Cite Ron Paul's own campaign promises. That won't convince them, and that won't stop them from their silly denials. But what it will do is give you a focus, while forcing the Paultard to squirm. This way, you only need to invest minimum time and effort into the discussion, where as the average Paultard will need to invest a Herculean effort in order to explain the situation away.