Saturday, December 17, 2011

A little more on Ron Paul

In the comment section of this post, James Miller somewhat vaguely notes that "Paul has already addressed them", referring to the racist newsletters that made the rounds in the 2008 election and are making the rounds again.

This is true - he has addressed them... a couple different times, in fact. Now that he's running for president, he says he didn't write them. In 1996 when he had no aspirations to be the leader of the free world and was more concerned about a local voting base, he did not deny writing them and he even reiterated his point from the newsletter that black teenagers that rob you are hard to catch because they're fast runners.

Politicians lie because they like staying in office. Ron Paul likes being a Congressman. He likes working in Washington. He loves being on TV. He loves people talking about him and thinking about him. Fine, it's intoxicating stuff I'm sure and all of them do. As I've said before, when I was born in Sugar Land, Texas, in 1984, Ron Paul was my Congressman and he represented that district for years before I was born. The man is a career politician and he obviously likes being a politician, and he's obviously very good at it.

That's all fine. They all have this sort of power-trip personality. It just comes with the territory.

I don't personally want a president that shows a very weak understanding of the economy (remember Andolfatto's criticism of Paul, which he had to take down because he was criticized so sharply by Paul's supporters?). And even though James Miller is reassured by recent denials (what is he gonna do in 2011 but deny it?), it bothers me. I don't want a president that was writing or editing this sort of stuff in the 1990s.


  1. Wow, I heard about those newsletters before and I just took his word for it that they were ghost written. But I didn't realized he had actually defended them. That's worrisome indeed.

  2. In other Ron Paul news... I was surprised to see that he didn't cast a vote on NDAA. Busy campaigning, most likely, but again, this reiterates Daniel's point.

  3. Your district was once a very Democrat-voting district, was it not? Did they choose him despite his personal leanings or because of it?

  4. "I don't personally want a president that shows a very weak understanding of the economy"

    But I'm sure you have no problem with the fact that your current President believes that high unemployment is because of productivity gains, like ATM machines. I'm no Ron Paul fanatic or proponent of Austrian economics, but to suggest that he is more ignorant of economic thoughtnthan the current status-quo is very revealing of your enormous political bias.

  5. Ron Paul is not Shaolin.

  6. tzane -
    No I've posted on Obama's flirtation with structural unemployment. I'm not happy with that. But he still seems to have better understanding of what's actually going on despite the fact that he has been known to throw out complete non-sequitors at staff meetings. He also has good staff.

    There's no political bias here, trust me. Any political affiliations I have are to ideas and policies worth pursuing. I do like Obama for the most part and am happy to say that, but it's got nothing to do with bias. What possible interest could I have in defending him after he becomes a problematic president? What use at all would that be? And when he has turned more problematic, I'd criticized him plenty on here.

  7. I read the newsletter about the LA riots and I didn't find it to be overtly racist. Most of the comments that people cite were taken out of context. There is one line that I thought was pretty racist and that was the one about the welfare checks, but that was it. Though, I will add that I live in a primarily black ghetto neighborhood in East Cleveland, and I don't know very many people around here that aren't on welfare or some other form of assistance (other than me, of course).

    As for whether he wrote them or not, that I do not know. I do know that it sure doesn't sound very much like him and the writing style is different than most of his other work.

    In case you're interested, Justin Raimondo wrote a rebuttal to Kirchick's piece back in 2008...

  8. I have to agree with Joseph on this one (big surprise I know) but the language those letters were written in doesn't sound like Paul.

    Hypothetically if Paul did write them (the Reason piece points out that he did), why the emphasis on the 90's?

    Would you have held the same standard to Lincoln who was openly racist while running for president. "I don't want a president that was speaking this sort of stuff in the 1840's"

    I know you don't agree with Paul's economics but the emphasis on the letters seems like a stretch for opposition.

  9. By 1992 any realistic resort to "science," to culture, etc. had more or less fallen away. What hasn't changed is Ron Paul's use of divisive issues to try to scare the electorate.

    The analogy to Abraham Lincoln doesn't seem to work; recall that Lincoln was strongly opposed to the war in Mexico in the late 1840s and he was opposed to it on the basis of the displacement it would cause the people already living there. I'm sure this immediately translates, for the good Doctor's supporters, into a discussion on principled stands on immigration. Until that link is made, though, the facts speak clearly: Lincoln was against racial aggression and did much for black Americans. Ron Paul has just expressed dismay at the thought of Afro-Americans ever integrating into society. These are different subjects, and only one of them really proves his allegiance to facts and to the right causes - that man was Lincoln. Lincoln's voice is silent on modern developments; Paul has every opportunity he needs to take the principled side and rebut and refute his earlier arguments.


All anonymous comments will be deleted. Consistent pseudonyms are fine.