A lot more. Here. Some of these are worse than others, but it doesn't paint a very pretty picture. It's getting harder and harder for me to differentiate Ron Paul from Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh.
Except that they're just interested in getting wealthy and famous, and Paul is interested in being president.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Like Paul or not, this is all a recycle of the same information that came out in 2008.
ReplyDeleteIt seems odd that someone who is apparently so racist changed his view on the death penalty because it disproportionately affects blacks and one of his major reasons against the war on drugs is that it also disproportionately incriminates blacks...
ReplyDeleteRight... because politicians never lie.
ReplyDeleteI'm not even saying he's a racist. He's probably just an insensitive old guy that maintained those views way later than most people like him did. He probably is still insensitive and suspicious of minorities - Ron Paul certainly has a conspiratorial personality. But he probably played up the race card back then for the same reason that he's playing up "the death penalty disproportionately affects blacks" now - the man's goal in life is to get reelected.
This is true of all politicians.
ReplyDeleteObama plays up his community organizing to get reelected. There's always embellishment and trying to tell people what you think they want to hear.
Speaking as a Sith Lord I can say that Paul (who has good and bad points) doesn't seem like a racist for the reasons mentioned by Patch.
ReplyDeleteThese newsletters were part of the 1996 campaign and 2008 too. I agree with the general idea that he had people who were part of his organization (who they are folks have guessed at) who he eventually had to distance himself from.
I don't think it matters much; Romney is still the most likely of these cretins to be the Republican nominee.
Since Gary Johnson is an actual politician with experience in running a political campaign I hope the LP nominates him; maybe they can put up a semi-respectable performance.
Everyone lies and embellishes. Everyone has stuff in their past they'd rather not admit. Shit man, that's how we grease the social wheels much of the time.
ReplyDeleteJust as a point of clarification - "those newsletters seem racist" and "Ron Paul is a racist" seem to be very different claims, to me at least. Idiots can say things that are racist without being racist. Simple grumpy old insensitive men with no grasp of the idea of progress can say racist things without being racists. At least that's my view.
ReplyDeleteAnyway - the one newsletter was out in 2008. It should have made a bigger splash then, but Paul didn't make it this far so I suppose it was moot. But the consistency with which the paranoia, conspiracies, racism, and homophobia in these newsletters over a couple decades (which is revealed in this post) is new, is it not? I seem to remember there being one "racist 1992 newsletter" in the 2008 campaign. I don't remember getting the sense that the Ron Paul Newsletter was publishing this stuff for several years until I saw this blog post this morning. But I could have been underinformed in 2008. Perhaps this was common knowledge earlier.
"But the consistency with which the paranoia, conspiracies, racism, and homophobia in these newsletters over a couple decades (which is revealed in this post) is new, is it not?"
ReplyDeleteDepends on what circles you run in, what you read, etc. I've known about the contents of this stuff of as an ongoing issue since ~1998-2000 (late 1990s I guess). Paul has never been the uncontested darling of libertarians, market anarchists, etc., and that's mostly how I learned about this stuff.
Before I leave for work...
ReplyDeleteIf you want some inside baseball stuff, back when Sanchez, etc. wrote that article in Reason in 2008 on the newsletters (and it is a good article), there were a number of Paul supporters who went apeshit. Probably the largest rift I've seen in while over an article written in that publication. Lot of flame wars on the boards, etc.
"But he probably played up the race card back then for the same reason that he's playing up "the death penalty disproportionately affects blacks" now - the man's goal in life is to get reelected. "
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time believing that this man is a flim flamin politician who lies his way to get votes. Hes without a doubt the most consistent guy in politics. His views on everything, save the death penalty, have remained virtually the same.
"And although people studying my record will discover how consistent I have been over the years, they will uncover one major shift: in recent years I have dropped my support for the federal death penalty. It is a dangerous power for the federal government to have, and it is exercised in a discriminatory way: if you are poor and black, you are much more likely to receive this punishment.
We should not think in terms of whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other such groups. That kind of thinking only divides us. The only us-versus-them thinking in which we might indulge is the people-and all the people-versus the government, which loots and lies to us all, threatens our liberties, and shreds our Constitution. That's not a white or black issue. That's an American issue, and it's one on which Americans of all races can unite in a spirit of goodwill. That may be why polls in 2007 found ours the most popular Republican campaign among black voters" (Manifesto, p.66).
I'm not saying that everything this guy says is great. I give him major props for his Consistency. I don't think he is a wish washy kind of guy.
I don't think consistency is admirable when you consistently believe things that are wrong, despite being in one of the best positions to gain an education (see the recent article by David Andolfatto of the St. Louis Fed).
ReplyDeleteConsistency is only a virtue when coupled with good policy.
And I don't think Daniel will agree that "we should not think in terms of whites, blacks, Hispanics, and other such groups" as he is currently reviewing a book entitled "Beyond Stock Stories and Folktales: African Americans' Paths to STEM Fields (Diversity in Higher Education)" for the Journal of Negro Education.
You don't have to read that book to believe that black people and other minorities do have their identifying properties - and those properties aren't necessarily "divisive," though they create a difference; if that book's anthologized articles point out that black people (for example) still struggle against de facto barriers to access higher education, that won't be a great shock either.
Aside from the breathtaking improbability of somebody who argued what Ron Paul argued in 1992 advocating truly postracial policies, you ought to consider that there are two ways to be postracial: One is to say that differences do not have to be liabilities; the other is to deny the existence or possibility of liabilities.
This is, of course, not merely a racial issue and that is where people who follow Ron Paul tend to become confused, since they apply this same broken argument to the poor of any stripe.
The point about Ron Paul being consistent is simply to suggest that he means at least some of what he says. It refutes the point that he's merely pushing whatever policies will get him elected.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a Ron Paul fan. I'm too old to get excited about politicians the way some people get excited about sports teams. But he does seem to be genuinely interested in ending the drug war, even when it makes it harder for conservatives to vote for him.
Daniel, would you rather have a racist president who ends the drug war, or a genteel president who continues it, wasting billions of dollars, destroying black communities, and killing thousands of Mexicans? And which one of these two really seems like the racist president, practically speaking?
Also, the less power a president has, the less his personal characteristics matter.
Paul's support for freer immigration (at least he opposes the friggin wall) and opposition to federal intervention in education also seem like policies you'd expect to be advocated by a candidate who isn't racist. Even if Paul personally dislikes black people, he seems less interested in hurting them than his rivals.
ReplyDeletewhy are you engaged in the really stupid effort of drawing a line between Paul, Rush, and Beck
ReplyDeletewho sorts shit?
Dan needs to re-think this comment:
ReplyDeleteIdiots can say things that are racist without being racist.
Why are you defending idiots?
Why don't you do something better with your time, like helping the people who are victims of racism (which includes racist statements)
BTW, do you agree that Don and Russ are racists or not?
This has been the least subtle Kuehn post to date. But Kuehn is never going to admit he's a biased little twerp. And your contrived outrage and ignorance over the newsletters isn't fooling anyone.
ReplyDeleteTom Woods has an article up at his blog concerning this topic. He provides some good links regarding this issue...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-ron-paul-newsletters/
I'm curious as to why Daniel Kuehn, who stresses the importance of civility in a discussion, keeps corresponding with and linking to complete assholes. This Mobutu character is so full of venom that he's willing to deride others as immoral scum over trivial crap. Such tends to be the case with people trying to prove themselves how better they are than everyone else. It's obvious that this guy has it out for Ron Paul to the extent that he will sensationalize the most non controversial statements made in the newsletters.
ReplyDelete"Paul's support for freer immigration (at least he opposes the friggin wall)"
ReplyDeleteDespite claiming that he opposes a fence during the debates, he actually voted for a 700 mile fence on the Mexican border a few years ago. Another example of Ron Paul just being a "politician"?
"Tom Woods has an article up at his blog concerning this topic. He provides some good links regarding this issue...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.tomwoods.com/blog/the-ron-paul-newsletters/ "
x2!
"I have a hard time believing that this man is a flim flamin politician who lies his way to get votes."
ReplyDeleteIt seems clear by now that during the 1980s and early 1990s, Ron Paul lent his name and fame to Lew Rockwell who, with Paul's full knowledge and support published extremely bigoted material as part of a devil's bargain to bring the worst of the paranoid right - with their votes and especially their cash - into the libertarian tent.
There is simply no way that Paul was unaware of the material that was getting published. None. He was a prominent libertarian with lots and if those newsletters were being published behind his back there are more than a few people who would have let him known about it. Sorry - Paul is very *politically* consistent, but he is not morally sound or fit to hold office.
Even he didn't write the letters himself (I still kind of half believe him tbh), at the very least I'm more assured than ever than Lew Rockwell is a scummy character. And Ron Paul's close ties with him bothers me a lot. (look at me! I'm reacting like an average sheeple voter!)
ReplyDelete"but he is not morally sound or fit to hold office."
ReplyDeleteSays the moralizing twerp who supports blood being shed and terror spread on foreign soil.
Oh dear god. Take a look at this video where Ron Paul goes on a racist rant.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=i3EADdr-5AY#!
How dare he imply the drug war and judicial system has made victim out of minorities? It's like he's blaming blacks!
Hey Kuehn, how much is CNN paying you to make these posts?
DK: It's nice that you're so willing to engage a variety of viewpoints, it's the reason I occasionally read your blog, but I have to say, you've either got:
ReplyDeleteA very poor intuition for the character and motivations of other people.....
or
You're just remarkably and unknowingly biased in your perceptions:
A few examples (paraphrasing):
1. Non-libertarians are generally very aware of the nuances of libertarianism
-Libertarians not only espouse ignorant views - they ignorantly think that everyone else doesn't understand them!
2. OW was generally a noble cause composed of people with nuanced and sophisticated economic views.
-The Tea Party is generally composed of rowdy people with ignorant economic views; moreover, their ideology motivates spree killers.
3. Mainstream economists are generally very aware of the limitations of their approach and often have a reasonable idea of the heterodox alternative (completely counter to my firsthand experience).
4. Paul K. is generally a fantastic and consistent economist - (little if nothing is ever said of fame and power motivating his actions - even though he left academia)
-Ron P., Glenn B, and Rush are power and fame whores.
On this last example, I'm not even really sure how you judge a person's motivations. By any reasonable measure, RP is probably one of the most consistent politicians in recent time. Is that a measure of his thirst for power as well?
Generally speaking, you ARE willing to put out purely intellectual criticism of people who you tend to agree with (B. DLong, PK, Keynes, etc...). But, it is a great rarity - if ever - that you have put out a character criticism of those you tend to agree with. Yet you do it liberally, frequently, and without hesitation to those who you don't identify with. Doesn't this strike you as a bit odd, especially as you seem to pride yourself on being an objective thinker? The statistics should get you to stop and think for a second....
And I know you're not going to agree with this; and that's fine, I don't expect it to be a welcomed post. I'm just trying to give you an idea of the kind of reputation that you're cultivating among a good portion of your readers.
I can't think of a single one of those eight "paraphrases" (I figure there are essentially two claims in each enummerated) that I consider an accurate description of what I think.
ReplyDeleteI see the truth that you are bending to get your paraphrases, but I've never said any of that.
I can't do anything other than try to be clear about what I'm saying, if you think I'm saying something other than that I'm not sure what else I CAN do. I'm certainly not going to stop talking simply because you've formed this opinion of me. And if I protest that you're not paraphrasing me fairly, you're probably not going to believe me. So we're at an impasse. But feel free to let me know what I can do.
Some of those things on your list I'm really surprised at - don't I make a point, when I talk about Ron Paul wanting primarily to be re-elected, of saying that this is true of ALL POLITICIANS. How can you say I single him out?
The only things I single him out for are things that are unique to him: racist newsletters, a misguided desire to put us back on the gold standard, etc. Until I find out about a racist newsletter that Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney put out in the 1990s, I have no choice but to single him out on this one.
One thing I have learned, though - people come out of the woodwork to defend this politician. It's incredible what a defense he has working for him.
ReplyDeleteBut what makes David Andolfatto cower in fear shall not sway me!!!!
If this guy became president it would be terrible for the country. That's what it comes down to. Out of all the contenders, we would be in the worst shape if he won. And he's doing increasingly well in the primary (I'm still not sure he can do it, though). So it's worth calling him out on things I can call him out on.
Daniel Kuehn: "I agree/said ths but..... [insert disqualifier here}."
ReplyDeleteright on que
"If this guy became president it would be terrible for the country. That's what it comes down to. Out of all the contenders, we would be in the worst shape if he won. And he's doing increasingly well in the primary (I'm still not sure he can do it, though). So it's worth calling him out on things I can call him out on. "
ReplyDeleteDaniel Kuehn is finally honest (for once in his life) about joining CNN in the smear campaign to undermine his chance at victory? Say it ain't so!
On this one in particular:
ReplyDelete"Mainstream economists are generally very aware of the limitations of their approach and often have a reasonable idea of the heterodox alternative"
This is probably the closest to the truth, but I only think half of this.
I do think mainstream economists are very well of the limitations of their approach. Not only are they aware of virtually all the limitations heterodox economists point out, but they have a deeper grasp of those limitations, and they know of lots of other limitations that most heterodox people don't even bring up. That I firmly believe.
I don't at all, whatsoever, think the second thing. I don't think mainstream economists - generally speaking - are aware of heterodox ways of thinking about economics. I don't think I've ever claimed this. Sometimes I assert things like "that which is considered "heterodox" by some people isn't all that heterodox... for example, Hayek just repackaged a lot of Smith that everyone already knows". But when I note that, I'm not saying the mainstream knows Hayekian heterodoxy. What I'm saying is that what you call Hayekian heterodoxy is actually Smithian mainstream.
The mainstream is largely ignorant of heterodox thought. I've been swimming in heterodox thought and I'm still relatively ignorant. It would be nice if they weren't, but I don't think it's a huge liability either.
"Daniel Kuehn is finally honest (for once in his life) about joining CNN in the smear campaign to undermine his chance at victory?"
ReplyDeleteUmmm... Daniel is and always has been willing to say what he thinks of politicians which he does like and politicians which he does not like.
I love how everything that anyone who doesn't like Ron Paul says in criticism of Ron Paul is a "smear". Can't we just have an honest disagreement with the man? Can't we just make the same criticism of him that we make of all politicians?
"If this guy became president it would be terrible for the country."
ReplyDeleteYou're Kuehn. Nothing could be worse than the green light Obama gave to SOPA and NDAA. This country would plunge into chaos if a firm hand wasn't there to keep us line soaking in the blood of foreigners. But don't worry. You can stay complacent and keep enjoying the view from that ivory tower of yours while the rest of us plebs suffer.
OK - I don't know who you are, but please stop commenting on my blog. We don't need people like you commenting here.
ReplyDelete"I love how everything that anyone who doesn't like Ron Paul says in criticism of Ron Paul is a "smear"."
ReplyDeleteI love how Kuehn how jumps to conclusions. You outright admitted that you're took a dead horse, rotisseried it, and beat it because you view Ron Paul as a threat to this country. If someone asked me what a hit piece looks like, then I could think of no better example.
"We don't need people like you commenting here."
ReplyDeleteRevise the sentence to "I don't want a person of your caliber commenting on this blog" and I might consider your proposal.
"If this guy became president it would be terrible for the country. That's what it comes down to. Out of all the contenders, we would be in the worst shape if he won. And he's doing increasingly well in the primary (I'm still not sure he can do it, though). So it's worth calling him out on things I can call him out on"
ReplyDeleteBut do any of these things you are calling him out on, particularly these racist letters, have anything to do with his policies in office? Its one thing to be worried about some guy and call him out on his policies, but when you try and call him out on things like this, things that you "can call him out on", that matter so little to what he actually wants to do (because what we really need is another president with "good character") it seems like you are trying to smear him at all costs.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteWho is your current pick for the WH?
As in who I would vote for?
ReplyDeleteI like Romney best of the Republicans, and Obama is really the only Democratic option. And between the two of them I'd vote for Obama.
I like Obama, but I wonder if Clinton would have turned out better after all.
I have to say, if Romney did a surprise move and came out in support of something like an investment bank or a big space push, I could probably support him. A little deconstruction of Obamacare plus any kind of fiscal stimulus would be preferable to the maintenance of Obamacare and no fiscal action on the horizon. Plus I bet Romney would be in a better position to broker real entitlement reform than Obama.
But as it stands - right now - I'm going to be supporting Obama.
Over the next eleven months, though, if Romney fans really worked on me I might vote differently.
Well, thanks for being honest. However, taking economics out of the picture, don't you think that Obama has far more political baggage than Paul? I won't get into the details, but I would find Obama's associations far more concerning than these newsletters. I would also find his actions while acting as both CinC and Executive to be alarming, as well.
ReplyDelete"I like Obama"
ReplyDeleteI like the NDAA and SOPA.
I like the war on drugs and its castration of civil liberties and the lives its ruined.
I like it when predator drones rain missiles down on brown children.
I like the environment that fosters rent seeking.
I like a debt to gdp ratio over 100% and 120 trillion dollar of unfunded liabilities
I like it when political figure heads have the power to assassinate people.
I like going down on Lucifer every Sunday.
Does anyone know how to check IP addresses as a blog administrator?
ReplyDeleteI want to cross-check this Anonymous character against a few people.
Thanks
Delete you system 32 file. That should do the trick.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you can do it on blogger without an app. I know if you use Statcounter you can check visitors path and IP. I don't think that you can pick out particular commenters, but you can compare the time log of the visitors path section to the time/date stamp of the comments.
ReplyDeleteShort of that, I would look under your comments/blocker section to see if there is anything there.
Sorry, I use wordpress. I don't know how blogger's dashboard is laid out.
BTW, you need to already be using Statcounter. So, you won't be able to track all of the visitors that have already visited your site thus far. However, I am fairly certain that Statcounter is free.
ReplyDeleteDaniel,
ReplyDeleteIf Paul ending or severely scaling back the drug war, or even laying the groundwork his successors to end the drug war was a significant possibility, how bad would his economic policies have to be for it to be a net loss?
Don't get met wrong. I think this is a post had to be made. It exemplifies Kuehn's peculiar attraction to egotistical and vile bullies like Brad Delong and this guy he just linked us to. Women aren't the only ones who love jerks.
ReplyDeleteStravinsky said:
ReplyDelete"Daniel, would you rather have a racist president who ends the drug war, or a genteel president who continues it, wasting billions of dollars, destroying black communities, and killing thousands of Mexicans? And which one of these two really seems like the racist president, practically speaking?"
Now we're talking (even though this is the classic false dilemma, and the choice is not this simple).
Hopefully a lot of people have gotten over Obama's amazing ethnic/racial qualities and are looking for him to do concrete things. Fair enough - he needs to sell the public on what he has done (the recent banning of mercury in power plant emissions is a great example of hard-won progress getting little media attention) and he needs to give an account of the things he hasn't done.
The drug war is one of the strongest criticisms that Ron Paul can make, and I agree that it typifies a "keep your head down, keep grinding away" approach instead of an intelligent approach (we'd save money over our current approach by focusing instead on supporting people and families wrecked by drug abuse, instead of persecuting and jailing drug offenders, and eventually paying anyway for their rehabilitation and for their kids, privately or publicly).
However, I don't believe any President or legislature is going to make a move on this one any time soon - even if Dr. Paul uses the bully pulpit of the Presidency to question drugs policy, he simply won't get anywhere with it. Remember also that just a few years ago Republican voters were saying of Obama what they had said about Clinton - that he'd be toking it up in the W.H. The real progress on this front is being made in the states (and even there I note strong efforts to roll it back).
So far - one good issue for the Doctor, but not one on which he can deliver.
So to look again at the classic dilemma - do you want an evil candidate who will accomplish good, or a good candidate who will accomplish evil (a bit like Nixon / Carter on domestic issues, don't you think?), why not trade one of these categories, which don't influence the policy, for an ability to get things done?
It would be refreshing to have a President who uses the Presidency to spread good messages - something President Obama has struggled to do. But I don't think that's any substitute for being able and willing to deliver a wider range of good policies (the "drug war" is just one of a range of U.S. policies that could be looked over as anachronistic at best - like the glut of overseas military bases).
@ Daniel:
ReplyDeleteI'd still rank Jon Huntsman highest amongst the Republican candidates. Ron Paul is certainly better than some of them. Romney would be more tolerable if he wasn't massaging popular indignation at Obama with lies. Bachmann can't get a break even when she's right. Santorum is well-meaning but fanatical. Newt is an inveterate old chameleon who seems to wiggle out of having changed his opinions on issues of substance much more recently than the other candidates, on the whole (i.e. being against Rand Paul's "right-wing social engineering before he was against it.")
Yes, I've also found myself wondering if Clinton wouldn't be better as President recently, but Obama hasn't done too terribly either, on balance. Any policy mistakes or lost ground can be gained back - though I say this recognizing that this is too late to help many people screwed over by illegal foreclosures and the rest of the lax oversight pushed by fifth columnists for finance in the W.H.
Anyway, this whole post just demonstrates how poisonous a policy discussion can get when it veers off into political discussion. Gasp! Who'd 'a thought it?
Once again the Sith will rule the galaxy!!!
ReplyDeletePaul's immigration position ain't great.
I sort of agree with anonymous (I sense...); there's a lot of hypocrisy finding about Paul that is B.S. and opportunistic. That's from the right and left.
Then there is something a lot of people have a hard time admitting; the Presidency is less important than we'd like to think.
Stravinsky's comment is the most cogent and intelligent amongst this mess.
I can't wait until the 2012 election is over so people can find something new to bitch about until 2013.
"Anyway, this whole post just demonstrates how poisonous a policy discussion can get when it veers off into political discussion."
ReplyDeleteWhen has any policy discussion been apolitical?
Edwin,
ReplyDeleteKind of hard to gain back all the people we've deported for no reason than the fact that they are brown (and destroyed innumerable families in the process) or those we've killed by drone in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Daniel,
ReplyDeleteLook at this way, controversy drives up your ad revenues. Muhahahahahahaha!
Edwin,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the President is far less powerful than people think in terms of his ability to decide policy, but even if Paul can't actually end the drug war in eight years, I'm sure he'll be able to lessen the terrible consequences of it, and his use of the bully pulpit will sway public opinion against it, making it easier for future lawmakers to roll it back even further.
I happen to agree with Paul about the desirability of the Department of Education and probably a few others (Agriculture? Seriously?), so it's not just one policy.
But the drug war is so terrible, that if a candidate opposed it, he'd have to be pretty terrible for me not to want him in office.
I believe what Anonymous 10:19 is referring to is this article... It is the post that follows the one that you've linked to above.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/burn-in-hell-christopher-hitchens.html#more
Classy stuff.
www.tokojati.com
ReplyDeletepusat mebel
jati jepara berkualitas
pusat mebel
jati jepara berkualitas
pusat mebel
jati jepara berkualitas
Daniel, when you attack the Mises Institute cult, nuts like anonymous show up and spew bile at you.
ReplyDeleteNo, Gene. I hunt Daniel for sport. So I don't appreciate you waltzing in here and spreading your lies. But you should thank me. I presented another opportunity for you to take a petty snipe at the Mises Institute, which you pounced on immediately. Will that be cash or credit?
ReplyDeleteWell, it's nice to know that you think that I am a cultist.
ReplyDeleteGene,
ReplyDeleteYou're a Christian right (did a little research and it seems so)? If so, how do you get off going after the Mises cultists?