Infinite Monkeys

The 17-years of apparent bigotry in the Ron Paul Newsletter?

Hey Ed, that's not fair. At least point us to a credible source for the contention.

Here, I'll do it. http://www.reason.com/news/show/124426.html

Personally, while I've been a registered Libertarian in the past, and now find myself in the realm of the Republican Party's Liberty Caucus, I would not feel comfortable having voted for Paul. If he can't run a newsletter responsibly, how could he run the federal gubmint, no matter how shrunken? I'll take Cheney pulling the strings before Lew Rockwell.

I apologize for not pointing to the Reason article, my fault for thinking it universally-known, my Pauline Kael moment.

17-years of apparent bigotry? That's rich. I'm sure what you meant to say was a handful of possibly race-baiting statements written over no more than four years by a ghost writer who might (or might not) have been Lew Rockwell (or someone on his staff) and that all ended 15 years ago and has already been repeatedly denounced publicly by the candidate. Right?

And Brad, might I ask when you will be expecting Mitt Romney to disavow the full-frontal racism (not to mention the Scientology-level insane beliefs) of his religion? After all, Romney says he is proud of his Mormon faith, the "faith of his fathers." If Paul should disassociate himself from Rockwell (who hasn't even been confirmed as the source of the alleged material) then why shouldn't Romney disassociate himself from his church's racist doctrines?

Or is this some kind of moral failure on his part? How does it compare with the brazen documented infidelities of McCain and Giuliani? Is not knowing what someone else is printing in a low-circulation newsletter that has your name on it REALLY worse than cheating on your wife and then leaving her for a much younger woman? If failing to reel-in newsletter writers (did I mention this business is FIFTEEN YEARS OLD?) is a mark of executive incompetence, what sort of resume-enhancer is "very public affair, followed by divorce from first wife and marriage to mistress"?

Ron Paul has taken moral responsibility (his words) for and publicly denounced (repeatedly) the stuff that was written in his name all those years ago. But this is all hatchet-job "politics of personal destruction" B.S. that's barely worthy of the Clintons. It says no more (in fact, considerably less) about the character or capability of Dr. Paul than the items I list above about the three "front-runners" (and I use that term VERY generously about Giuliani, who will probably be out of the race by the end of the week.)

I'm sorry to be harsh, but if this kind of crap is what you find to object to (as opposed to, say, the consistent record of bad political decisions that Romney, McCain, and Giuliani still defend) then I don't know why I even bother. Paul's 20-year congressional voting record is unassailable when evaluated against his stated principles of constitutional government. Romney couldn't find a consistent political principle with two hands and a magnifying glass.

Nonetheless, I will point to this article by Justin Raimondo going through and responding to the accusations regarding the newsletter. His tone is about as ungracious as my own, but I think that's to be expected when people with no substantive criticism resort to this kind of cheap shot.

I have heard Romney disavow the religion's racism on a few occassions. Did you not hear his retelling of being brought to tears when hearing the report of his church's finally coming around to Mitt's family's beliefs on race? He has disavowed with regard to the church's racist past. The Scientology parallels? Well, we can only keep hoping.

Hey, on the Paul thing, I pretty much blew it off until I saw that Reason was taking it seriously. The accounts of the newsletters' content, and how it wasn't just an isolated incident 15 years ago, were pretty noteworthy.

But, honestly, the tone of my response was really just nah-nah piggybacking on Ed's jab at you. I meant to make you shake your head and sigh, not get mad. Sorry, dude. I guess I feel a level of license regarding a candidate who gets 3% of the Florida primary.

As you said earlier, if you disagree with Paul on the war, then the rest pales in comparison. Well, I do. I have to admit, though, that I had not beeen following Paul close enough to hear the wording of his denouncements. My bad. Of course, I had heard of of his denouncements and assumed he was taking "moral responsibility."

As for the moral failures of the frontrunning crowd, I say, "touché." Was it something I was able to overlook with Guiliani? Yes. I considered it a "micro/private" issue (in Prager terms) rather than a "macro/public" issue. I do actually see a difference between relationship failings on a personal level and matters of racial bias, so there's the sattelite view of the divide. But when Rudy was shown to have made his private relationship problems public through some boneheaded moves, my support for him waned.

Regarding the Mac, I have a different take on his infidelities. I think his betrayal of his first wife is more of a betrayal than your run of the mill move-on to a second marraige. And I was disgusted when he opened his victory speech last night with comments about how well Florida had treated his family while he was being held captive. Disgusted.

But back to the matter. Sorry I piled on your guy. Call me a knee-jerk sucker, but I think the newsletter story would be poli-sci "fair game" no matter who the candidate was. Could it be explained reasonably? Of course. But really, I was just interested in taking a guys'-lockerroom style shot at you, Robb. I wanted to elbow you gently in the ribs and give you a hard time, "Even REASON is bustin' your guy's chops, friend!" (And how often does Lew Rockwell make the news? Unsubstantiated, sure, but given the buzz and the loud silence, shouldn't that word be preceded by "all but"? Again, a chance to give you a little ribbing.)

Sorry to have shaken your cage without clear signals that I meant for it to be more lighthearted. Stuff like this sounds different in person, and you'd have to admit that when gathered together, we Monkeys (or we Bible study gang) have all said things acceptably that would look awful in print.

As I mentioned off-line, I slapped back aggressively because I have worked hard on keeping these posts positive and substantial, and I couldn't let a drive-by ("Psst! I hear Ron Paul's a racist!") stand without a vigorous rebuttal.

On a personal level, this is the first (and possibly last) political candidate to whom I've ever made a donation. And I RE-REGISTERED Republican so I could vote for him in the primary. If you know me (and you do) you know both of those things say something. I was more than happy to register my protest vote by voting for Michael Badnarek during the last presidential election, but I didn't send him a penny, and I didn't register Libertarian for him. Ron Paul is different. Is he perfect? By no means. But he's given me hope that there is still a receptive audience for freedom in America. I hope that that's not a false hope.

I'm sorry if it seemed confrontational, I was primarily interested in how a Ron Paul supporter addressed the issue. Now I know.