There were some interesting exchanges today (transcript here) between David Frum and Craig Shirley on the topic of Ron Paul's sincerity, and the "problem with the moderates and liberals within the Republican Party" - Craig's whining was nauseous to listen to here, and it's only marginally less nauseous to read.Start reading where David Frum writes "It's a family business, and they're building the family business." There was also considerable laughter to David Frum's answer to why Craig Shirley shouldn't filibuster him.
http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mccalla/anonymous-reveals-close-ties-between-ron-paul-and-neo-nazis/It just keeps getting better.
Thanks.As Bob notes, this stuff is pretty vague - as is this article you link to. But if they're really getting documentation, it will hopefully be less vague in the near future.
Daniel, as I said, this blogger has a history of making very large claims with no availability of solid proof. He's like Alex Jones, only his subject is Ron Paul rather than the Illuminati. Spend a little time reading Gane-McCalla's other articles and then tell me that you're willing to view his articles as objective-- I simply don't think that is the conclusion you'll draw (objectivity).
Oh my gosh. According to a guy who was trying to take over a country with 30 guys (if I'm reading that story right), and who was implicating as many people as he could to save himself, Ron Paul was "aware" of the nefarious plan. He's not the man I thought he was.
Does this not shift your priors at all Bob?The information is vague at this point, but based on the link above it sounds like we'll be getting more details soon. I doubt he was involved with this plan at all. I suspect he probably was more involved with this group than anyone in the liberal tradition should be able to stomach.But then again, if you're able to brush off the connection to the newsletters you're probably able to brush off his connection to this as well. As far as I'm concerned, this stuff is becoming less surprising and more troubling.
I certainly do hope that more details come forthwith, because I simply do not trust the writer of this story based upon his past work the opinions of others in the black community regarding his work. However, I have a feeling that the details that do come out will not support his premise. Time will tell.
Well the "premise" is left fairly vague here.I'm just providing the link here, and I've said to people that it's unclear what exactly is going on.But given all the issues with Paul and race in the past, I expect there are connections between Paul and white supremacists that he doesn't want to get out. I'm guessing that much will be verified in some of these Anonymous documents.I highly doubt he's instrumental or involved in this island invasion thing.But let's be honest - this crazy plan sounds like something straight out of a rant by that guy with a lot of H's in his name. It's not a Ron Paul type of a plan but it's absolutely not surprising that Paul would identify with people who would advocate that sort of thing.This stuff oughta matter.If you want to convince me Paul is not going to grab a gun and invade an island, save your breath. I know he's not going to. That's not the point. The point is that people in this Ron Paul personality cult seem unable to just drop the guy even as this kind of stuff just keeps piling up.If Obama or Clinton or Warner or any of the other politicians I actually have a modicum of admiration for were involved with half this stuff I would have dropped them a long time ago. What is so special about Paul?
OK, I see that this is definitely going to take more than a subscript comment to fully elaborate my point. A blog post will be forthcoming.
If you're going to entertain this......where was all the birther, Jeremiah Wright, .......just sayin
By "just sayin" do you mean "I feel more comfortable casting aspersions than actually checking out what Daniel has said"?I've talked about Wright. I've made no bones about the fact that I don't like him and I've never tried to deny that Obama was friends with him, and I believe I even applauded his decision to cut ties with him. If you want to draw equivalences between Wright and white supremacists, you are welcome to make that case, but I see the two as very different cases. Wright actually said some things that were tough to hear, but quite true, about the way this society treats black people, and the way it operates in the world. My concern is that he addresses those problems with something of a separatist attitude. But as far as I know, he doesn't have anything like a supremacist position.The birther movement? What about it. Do you think it is equally credible as these claims about Paul? If you do, we can argue about that.I'm not exactly sure what to make of this yet. The article is quite vague. But it certainly shifts my priors.
Does anybody else not see the irony in an all-black organization attempting to link Paul to all-white organizations? Anyway, the story shows that Paul was not implicated in the crime discussed in the column, rather his name was mentioned as somebody who was "aware" of a plan, later to have the court dismiss the claim due to the conclusions of a grand jury. Then, he attempts to link others to Paul because they either donated to his campaign or held signs with his name on it. Also, if you read some of Gane-McCalla's other Paul articles, you find his investigative conclusions to be even more absurd; he linked James von Brunn as a friend of Paul because von Brunn had posted a comment on a pro-Paul website. He also links Paul to Willis Carto because Carto's 'American Free Press' has run some of Ron's columns and Paul has not sued-- thousands of websites run Paul's columns, Texas Straight-talk recordings, email announcements, etc and Paul hasn't sued them either. I had more respect in your objectivity in the past, now I am not so sure. If you ever get anything that sticks, let me know. Just a little note: there are threads on 'BlackPlanet' forums calling for Casey Gane-McCalla's firing due to his past inconsistencies in reporting.
Sorry, I should be more clear. There are threads on 'BlackPlanet' forums calling for Gane-McCalla to be fired from 'Newsone for Black America' due to past inconsistencies in reporting.
I may be going out on a limb here, but I don't think it's the "all white" part of the organization that's the problem.Let's think of it this way: Consider a hypothetical white guy seeking admission to the NewsOne team. Now consider a hypothetical black guy seeking admission to the Stormfront team.Which hypothetical guy would you rather be, Joseph?Why?Come on people!
Personally, I don't think in those terms and I certainly wouldn't want admission to either. However, if I had to make a choice I would probably go for the all-black organization if Stormfront is the only other alternative posed (though, there are other black organizations that I would choose before NewsOne). The point is that any group that is all-one-race is inherently racist from its inception, regardless of the intent-- the irony of it is upheld. As somebody who is not racist, I see this clearly.That is all beside the point that the writer of the article makes claims that cannot be supported by the material that he presents, and this is a pattern seen in his past writings, as well. Almost all of his output linking Paul to any racist characters uses the fact that they either donated to his campaign, wrote on a pro-Paul forum, mentioned Paul on racist forums, mentioned his name at all, and/or held a sign with his name on it; as evidence of a relationship. If we applied this to just about any other candidate (or any person in general), I am sure that we would find plenty of unsatisfactory characters, but nobody is implicating them.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Sigh" The irony continues.
All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.
Daniel Kuehn is a doctoral candidate and adjunct professor in the Economics Department at American University. He has a master's degree in public policy from George Washington University.