Why I can’t vote for Gingrich or Perry

Because they weren’t organized enough to get the petitions signed to get on the Virginia primary ballot!

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has failed to qualify for Virginia’s March 6 Republican primary, a development that complicates his bid to win the GOP presidential nomination.

“After verification, RPV has determined that Newt Gingrich did not submit required 10K signatures and has not qualified for the VA primary,” the Republican Party of Virginia announced early Saturday on its Twitter website.

Perry also fell short of the 10,000 signatures of registered voters required for a candidate’s name to be on the primary ballot, but former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Texas Rep. Ron Paul will be on the ballot.

State GOP spokesman Garren Shipley said volunteers spent Friday validating petitions that the four candidates submitted by the Thursday 5 p.m. deadline to the State Board of Elections. Shipley was not available early Saturday to discuss the announcement posted on the website.

Failing to get on the ballot will be a major setback for Gingrich, who has tried to use his recent upsurge in popularity to make up for a late organizing start. Ironically, Gingrich had a slight lead over Romney, with others farther back, in a Quinnipiac poll of Virginia Republicans released earlier in the week.

The load of catching up on organizing work and a lack of advertising money to counter an onslaught of negative ads from his rivals have been major disadvantages.

Gingrich had to leave New Hampshire on Wednesday and race to Virginia, where he needed 10,000 valid voters’ signatures to secure a spot on the ballot.

He said Wednesday he had enough ballot signatures, but he wanted to come to Virginia to deliver them personally. Taking no chances, his volunteers asked everyone to sign petitions before entering Gingrich’s rally Wednesday night in Arlington, just across the Potomac River from Washington.

Gingrich’s early-December rise in several polls gave him renewed hopes of carrying his campaign deep into the primary season. Failure to compete in Virginia, which is among the “Super Tuesday” primaries, would deal a huge blow to any contender who had not locked up the nomination by then.

The state party’s Shipley said the party was validating petitions the candidates submitted by the Thursday 5 p.m. deadline to the state elections board. It began validating signatures Friday morning.

The 10,000 registered voters must also include 400 signatures from each of Virginia’s 11 congressional districts.

It was unclear if Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum or former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman submitted petitions to the state board.

Meanwhile, Virginia’s Democrats said President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign gathered enough signatures to get him on the state’s primary ballot though he was the only candidate who qualified.

via Gingrich, Perry fail to make Va. ballot – CBS News.

Why you need an organization–and to be organized–to run for president!

UPDATE:  Bachman, Santorum, and Huntsman also failed to turn in enough petition signatures.   So my only choice will be between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul!

Gingrich, who is a resident of Virginia, is complaining that the state’s requirements are too onerous.  But in the last presidential primary in 2008 all six of the major Republican candidates made the ballot.  This just reinforces the impression that we have a competence problem in the current slate of candidates.

Gingrich is calling for a write-in campaign.  Too bad they are illegal in primary elections in Virginia.  Something else he should have known.  The state has 50 delegates, making it a big Super Tuesday prize, which will now go to either Romney or Paul.

I wonder if similar surprises await in other primary states.

Which of those two would you vote for?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Caleb Land

    I would have to go with Paul. Not that he dosen’t have plenty of issues, but at least he would actually get something done. Romney is too liberal and too “political establishment” for me.

  • Caleb Land

    I would have to go with Paul. Not that he dosen’t have plenty of issues, but at least he would actually get something done. Romney is too liberal and too “political establishment” for me.

  • SKPeterson

    Paul, of course. I’m not sure what it is about Massachusetts politicians but Romney just comes across as the Republican version of John Kerry. I’m usually asleep before the end of the first sentence.

  • SKPeterson

    Paul, of course. I’m not sure what it is about Massachusetts politicians but Romney just comes across as the Republican version of John Kerry. I’m usually asleep before the end of the first sentence.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    I look down the road and every possible future I see looks dark. Whether Obama wins or Romeney wins, things are going to get worse long before they get better. Maybe in the long term it is necessary that we visit Greece, and have our noses rubbed in the results of our financial irresponsibility. However, I fear that when that time comes, we will not take corrective steps, but instead, in the pattern of History, we will institutionalize the crisis and make it permanent.
    I am not one prone to entertain apocalyptic thoughts, but the specter of the West’s final descent is becoming distressingly plausible.

  • http://gslcnm.com Pastor Spomer

    I look down the road and every possible future I see looks dark. Whether Obama wins or Romeney wins, things are going to get worse long before they get better. Maybe in the long term it is necessary that we visit Greece, and have our noses rubbed in the results of our financial irresponsibility. However, I fear that when that time comes, we will not take corrective steps, but instead, in the pattern of History, we will institutionalize the crisis and make it permanent.
    I am not one prone to entertain apocalyptic thoughts, but the specter of the West’s final descent is becoming distressingly plausible.

  • WisdomLover

    Virginia’s rules for getting on the ballot are pretty tough.

    You need 10,000 signatures statewide and at least 400 in each congressional district.

    Signatures can be thrown out for a number of reasons that don’t make much sense. For example, if the person collecting your signature is not registered or eligible to vote in Virginia, then your signature doesn’t count, even if you are eligible to vote and have voted in the every election for the last 20 years. The document on which signatures are submitted is two pages of printing. If this is submitted as two single-sided sheets stapled together, the form is disqualified. It must be a single sheet printed on both sides to qualify, etc.

    A lot of the people working on this campaign were the same ones working for McCain, Romney, Huckabee and the rest last time…they’ve also been working on other state-wide elections that must meet the same standards. It seems likely that they would find it more difficult each time to meet the requirements.

    Rules from the Republican party of Virginia new to this election cycle go like this: If you get 15,000 signatures and 600 from each district, you are presumed to have met the statutory requirement. If not (let’s say you only get 599 from one district), then every signature must be checked.

    Both Perry and Gingrich submitted enough signatures to meet the statutory requirement, but not to meet the ‘safe harbor’ standard that the Republican party added. When submitted to the signature-by-signature scrutiny, enough forms were probably found to be flawed enough to disqualify them. Maybe they dropped below 400 in Jim Moran’s district.

    Note that it’s entirely possible that Romney and Paul also failed to meet the statutory requirement, but the Republican party has said that they’re only going to spot check for compliance in their case.

    Anyone see a problem?

    The candidate most willing to have supporters fake up signatures is also most likely to qualify, because they’ll meet the safe harbor requirement and only face spot check compliance testing.

    Given the choice you have, you’ve got to vote for Romney. Paul has no chance of beating Obama. His anti-Semitic ties are going to bury him. And Romney doesn’t want to give the world to the enemies of the Constitution that he professes to love.

  • WisdomLover

    Virginia’s rules for getting on the ballot are pretty tough.

    You need 10,000 signatures statewide and at least 400 in each congressional district.

    Signatures can be thrown out for a number of reasons that don’t make much sense. For example, if the person collecting your signature is not registered or eligible to vote in Virginia, then your signature doesn’t count, even if you are eligible to vote and have voted in the every election for the last 20 years. The document on which signatures are submitted is two pages of printing. If this is submitted as two single-sided sheets stapled together, the form is disqualified. It must be a single sheet printed on both sides to qualify, etc.

    A lot of the people working on this campaign were the same ones working for McCain, Romney, Huckabee and the rest last time…they’ve also been working on other state-wide elections that must meet the same standards. It seems likely that they would find it more difficult each time to meet the requirements.

    Rules from the Republican party of Virginia new to this election cycle go like this: If you get 15,000 signatures and 600 from each district, you are presumed to have met the statutory requirement. If not (let’s say you only get 599 from one district), then every signature must be checked.

    Both Perry and Gingrich submitted enough signatures to meet the statutory requirement, but not to meet the ‘safe harbor’ standard that the Republican party added. When submitted to the signature-by-signature scrutiny, enough forms were probably found to be flawed enough to disqualify them. Maybe they dropped below 400 in Jim Moran’s district.

    Note that it’s entirely possible that Romney and Paul also failed to meet the statutory requirement, but the Republican party has said that they’re only going to spot check for compliance in their case.

    Anyone see a problem?

    The candidate most willing to have supporters fake up signatures is also most likely to qualify, because they’ll meet the safe harbor requirement and only face spot check compliance testing.

    Given the choice you have, you’ve got to vote for Romney. Paul has no chance of beating Obama. His anti-Semitic ties are going to bury him. And Romney doesn’t want to give the world to the enemies of the Constitution that he professes to love.

  • Abby

    Romney.

  • Abby

    Romney.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Wisdom Lover, you make some good points. But these labyrinthine requirements were also the product of Republicans. The new 15,000 rule would seem to make it easier to get through because you wouldn’t be obliged to check every signature as before. Again, in 2008 all six of the candidates were on the Virginia ballot: Romney, Paul, McCain, Huckabee, and two also-rans whose names I can’t remember.

    It appears that Gingrich and Perry did submit petitions, but they had too many disqualifications. The others apparently didn’t submit any petitions at all, whether because they didn’t even try or because they didn’t get 10,000 is not clear.

    The rules were clear for all. The candidates are spending all of their attention on Iowa (28 delegates) and New Hampshire (12 delegates), ignoring the long haul.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Wisdom Lover, you make some good points. But these labyrinthine requirements were also the product of Republicans. The new 15,000 rule would seem to make it easier to get through because you wouldn’t be obliged to check every signature as before. Again, in 2008 all six of the candidates were on the Virginia ballot: Romney, Paul, McCain, Huckabee, and two also-rans whose names I can’t remember.

    It appears that Gingrich and Perry did submit petitions, but they had too many disqualifications. The others apparently didn’t submit any petitions at all, whether because they didn’t even try or because they didn’t get 10,000 is not clear.

    The rules were clear for all. The candidates are spending all of their attention on Iowa (28 delegates) and New Hampshire (12 delegates), ignoring the long haul.

  • Pingback: Obama: The conservative in 2012 – The Washington Post « Ye Olde Soapbox

  • Pingback: Obama: The conservative in 2012 – The Washington Post « Ye Olde Soapbox

  • MichaelZ

    It doesn’t matter, The primary is over before Virginians vote anyway. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida determine the Republican candidate. The rest of us just sit and watch. If a moderate can’t win NH and FL they drop out. If a conservative can’t win IA and SC they drop out. Simple as that.
    Virginia, (and more than half of America) don’t matter in the Republican primary.

  • MichaelZ

    It doesn’t matter, The primary is over before Virginians vote anyway. Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida determine the Republican candidate. The rest of us just sit and watch. If a moderate can’t win NH and FL they drop out. If a conservative can’t win IA and SC they drop out. Simple as that.
    Virginia, (and more than half of America) don’t matter in the Republican primary.

  • Steve Billingsley

    MichaelZ,
    You make an important point. This may be the rare cycle that goes deeper before a nominee is determined. But Iowa, NH, SC and Florida do have an outsized influence on the process.

    As far as the original question that Dr. Veith asked is concerned. Romney. But I am sorely tempted to vote “none of the above”.

  • Steve Billingsley

    MichaelZ,
    You make an important point. This may be the rare cycle that goes deeper before a nominee is determined. But Iowa, NH, SC and Florida do have an outsized influence on the process.

    As far as the original question that Dr. Veith asked is concerned. Romney. But I am sorely tempted to vote “none of the above”.

  • WisdomLover

    Dr. Veith-

    The two also rans were Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.

    I think to get a fair comparison, you’d have to look at how the GOP insured compliance in 2008. I honestly don’t know what the GOP standards were.

    In any case, you can see that the process will be terribly expensive, and only well-funded campaigns are really going to have much of a chance to qualify. I’m actually a bit surprised that Gingrich was even able to mount an effort. He’s probably gotten a bit of an uptick in fundraising recently since he’s been the frontrunner. Bachmann’s, Santorum’s and Huntsman’s failure to even submit the forms does not surprise me. They just don’t have the money.

    In contrast, all the candidates in 2008 had some money. Paul has a very devoted, but small, support base who pony up a lot of cash, and Romney is rich. As for the other four, we were in the middle of the ‘Huckaboom’, and Giuliani, McCain and Thompson had all been ‘frontrunners’. So all four had a ‘moment in the sun’ where they could raise some cash at this point.

    Bachmann’s moment was far too brief, and poor Santorum and Huntsman have never been there.

    I think that you are also right about the focus on Iowa. I think most of the candidates have recognized that Romney has the long game advantage. So they need to score a quick knockout to beat him. I supported Perry initially because, apart from being the candidate with views most similar to mine and an excellent executive record, I thought he could fight in the long game against Romney. I support Gingrich now because I think he’s the only one who can really perform a quick knockout of Romney. And that’s looking more doubtful every passing day.

  • WisdomLover

    Dr. Veith-

    The two also rans were Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson.

    I think to get a fair comparison, you’d have to look at how the GOP insured compliance in 2008. I honestly don’t know what the GOP standards were.

    In any case, you can see that the process will be terribly expensive, and only well-funded campaigns are really going to have much of a chance to qualify. I’m actually a bit surprised that Gingrich was even able to mount an effort. He’s probably gotten a bit of an uptick in fundraising recently since he’s been the frontrunner. Bachmann’s, Santorum’s and Huntsman’s failure to even submit the forms does not surprise me. They just don’t have the money.

    In contrast, all the candidates in 2008 had some money. Paul has a very devoted, but small, support base who pony up a lot of cash, and Romney is rich. As for the other four, we were in the middle of the ‘Huckaboom’, and Giuliani, McCain and Thompson had all been ‘frontrunners’. So all four had a ‘moment in the sun’ where they could raise some cash at this point.

    Bachmann’s moment was far too brief, and poor Santorum and Huntsman have never been there.

    I think that you are also right about the focus on Iowa. I think most of the candidates have recognized that Romney has the long game advantage. So they need to score a quick knockout to beat him. I supported Perry initially because, apart from being the candidate with views most similar to mine and an excellent executive record, I thought he could fight in the long game against Romney. I support Gingrich now because I think he’s the only one who can really perform a quick knockout of Romney. And that’s looking more doubtful every passing day.

  • Dan

    Steve B. please, please resist the temptation to “vote none of the above.” The worst of these candidates is still better then the person currently in office. I’m not a fan of Romney just as I wasn’t a fan of McCain in ’08 but I still voted for him. I think far too many people gave into the temptation that you mention above in ’08 and we are now living with the results of it!

  • Dan

    Steve B. please, please resist the temptation to “vote none of the above.” The worst of these candidates is still better then the person currently in office. I’m not a fan of Romney just as I wasn’t a fan of McCain in ’08 but I still voted for him. I think far too many people gave into the temptation that you mention above in ’08 and we are now living with the results of it!

  • Bob

    ‘I think far too many people gave into the temptation that you mention above in ’08 and we are now living with the results of it!’

    President Obama won the 2008 election by 8.5 million votes over John McCain.

    To think that the results would’ve been any different if folks who didn’t like McCain would’ve voted for him and it would’ve changed anything…

    Is called wishful thinking.

  • Bob

    ‘I think far too many people gave into the temptation that you mention above in ’08 and we are now living with the results of it!’

    President Obama won the 2008 election by 8.5 million votes over John McCain.

    To think that the results would’ve been any different if folks who didn’t like McCain would’ve voted for him and it would’ve changed anything…

    Is called wishful thinking.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Is it me, or are there far too many attempts to justify this pathetic showing here?

    I mean, come on. Yes, it’s difficult — as judged by the average person — to get on a state’s ballot, maybe even slightly more difficult in Virginia than other states, but doing so is literally these people’s jobs! How does this failure on their part not make it absolutely clear how unqualified they are to be President?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Is it me, or are there far too many attempts to justify this pathetic showing here?

    I mean, come on. Yes, it’s difficult — as judged by the average person — to get on a state’s ballot, maybe even slightly more difficult in Virginia than other states, but doing so is literally these people’s jobs! How does this failure on their part not make it absolutely clear how unqualified they are to be President?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, I’m currently registered with the Democratic Party in Oregon — not because I have much sympathy for the party, but because it usually is the more interesting primary to vote for out here.

    Oregon’s primary is, as usual, pretty late in 2012 (May 15), such that the odds of us having any impact on the final outcome are minimal. That said, should Paul be anywhere near close to competitive, I just might switch my “affiliation” to Republican just so I can vote for him. Because the Democratic primary is going to be dull, dull, dull next year.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, I’m currently registered with the Democratic Party in Oregon — not because I have much sympathy for the party, but because it usually is the more interesting primary to vote for out here.

    Oregon’s primary is, as usual, pretty late in 2012 (May 15), such that the odds of us having any impact on the final outcome are minimal. That said, should Paul be anywhere near close to competitive, I just might switch my “affiliation” to Republican just so I can vote for him. Because the Democratic primary is going to be dull, dull, dull next year.

  • WisdomLover

    Bob-

    You’re right about McCain. It wasn’t just the disaffection of conservatives that did him in. In fact, that was probably a very small part of the story. Most conservatives, for all their threats and whining in the primary season, will hold their nose and vote for a moderate Republican over a liberal Democrat in the general. And I I think McCain had a winning share of the independents right until the very end. He was leading in many polls until the end.

    Then the banking crisis hit, and people were very afraid. Right or wrong (and I think mostly wrong), Bush shouldered a lot of the blame for the crisis. At least early on. That already made it hard enough for McCain, as the representative of the President’s party, not to be blamed for it. But the idiot McCain made of himself during the early days of the crisis ruined him. Voters may not have had much faith that Obama was the right man to handle the crisis, but they were sure that McCain was the wrong man.

  • WisdomLover

    Bob-

    You’re right about McCain. It wasn’t just the disaffection of conservatives that did him in. In fact, that was probably a very small part of the story. Most conservatives, for all their threats and whining in the primary season, will hold their nose and vote for a moderate Republican over a liberal Democrat in the general. And I I think McCain had a winning share of the independents right until the very end. He was leading in many polls until the end.

    Then the banking crisis hit, and people were very afraid. Right or wrong (and I think mostly wrong), Bush shouldered a lot of the blame for the crisis. At least early on. That already made it hard enough for McCain, as the representative of the President’s party, not to be blamed for it. But the idiot McCain made of himself during the early days of the crisis ruined him. Voters may not have had much faith that Obama was the right man to handle the crisis, but they were sure that McCain was the wrong man.

  • Tom Hering

    Todd, what about Paul’s avowal / disavowal / avowal / disavowal of his 1980s and ’90s newsletters? Or his 2009 appearance before the John Birch Society? Or his carefully crafted “whatever” posture whenever he’s asked about the support he accepts from right wing crazies? Seems to me he’s got more baggage to answer for (with straight answers, for a change) than Cain or Gingrich ever had.

    I’ll be back to read your comment after I finish wrapping my new-style bills in tin foil, so I can carry them in my wallet. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Todd, what about Paul’s avowal / disavowal / avowal / disavowal of his 1980s and ’90s newsletters? Or his 2009 appearance before the John Birch Society? Or his carefully crafted “whatever” posture whenever he’s asked about the support he accepts from right wing crazies? Seems to me he’s got more baggage to answer for (with straight answers, for a change) than Cain or Gingrich ever had.

    I’ll be back to read your comment after I finish wrapping my new-style bills in tin foil, so I can carry them in my wallet. :-D

  • Bob

    4 more nails in Newtie’s coffin, and this is just from a quick newssite scan:

    1 — CNN has uncovered court documents that clearly show Newt wanted the divorce from Jackie, his first wife, though Newtie has been crowing the opposite recently.
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    2 — GW Bush Senior wants nothing to do with the Newtster.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/22/bush-41-gingrich-stood-me-up/?iref=allsearch

    3 — Clinton says Newtonian lied about his part in the balancing of the budget during the Clinton Admin.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/20/bill-clinton-gingrich-shouldnt-take-all-the-credit/?iref=allsearch

    4 — Like Todd said (#12), Newtie’s kids couldn’t get him on the Virginia ballot?

    Just another example that Newt isn’t ready for prime time.

    He never will be.

  • Bob

    4 more nails in Newtie’s coffin, and this is just from a quick newssite scan:

    1 — CNN has uncovered court documents that clearly show Newt wanted the divorce from Jackie, his first wife, though Newtie has been crowing the opposite recently.
    http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/politics/gingrich-divorce-file/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

    2 — GW Bush Senior wants nothing to do with the Newtster.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/22/bush-41-gingrich-stood-me-up/?iref=allsearch

    3 — Clinton says Newtonian lied about his part in the balancing of the budget during the Clinton Admin.
    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/20/bill-clinton-gingrich-shouldnt-take-all-the-credit/?iref=allsearch

    4 — Like Todd said (#12), Newtie’s kids couldn’t get him on the Virginia ballot?

    Just another example that Newt isn’t ready for prime time.

    He never will be.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@15:

    Frankly, I’m tired of debating the newsletter topic (not on this blog, but elsewhere), so I’ll bracket that for the moment. Suffice to say that, in my view, it’s a non-issue and a mostly-manufactured controversy. It is, however, something that should have been brought to attention.

    But how is the rest of this alleged “baggage” actually baggage? As someone vaguely sympathetic with many of the John Birth Society’s views, how is Paul’s unofficial affiliation with the society problematic? And just what sorts of “right wing crazies,” specifically, should Paul be disavowing publicly and why? And what exactly constitutes a right-wing crazy for you, Tom? Are we talking militant would-be terrorists in Montana enclaves or simply organizations that you/Janet Napolitano disagree with? And why should he be disavowing them in any case? Obama and the Democratic Party are endorsed by all sorts of groups I would consider disreputable and/or extremist–and I’m not even thinking about all the orthodox pro-choice groups–but I don’t expect Democrats specifically to repudiate each and every one.

    In other words, some clarification would be nice. In my view, Paul doesn’t have much to hide for a nationally-prominent politician.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@15:

    Frankly, I’m tired of debating the newsletter topic (not on this blog, but elsewhere), so I’ll bracket that for the moment. Suffice to say that, in my view, it’s a non-issue and a mostly-manufactured controversy. It is, however, something that should have been brought to attention.

    But how is the rest of this alleged “baggage” actually baggage? As someone vaguely sympathetic with many of the John Birth Society’s views, how is Paul’s unofficial affiliation with the society problematic? And just what sorts of “right wing crazies,” specifically, should Paul be disavowing publicly and why? And what exactly constitutes a right-wing crazy for you, Tom? Are we talking militant would-be terrorists in Montana enclaves or simply organizations that you/Janet Napolitano disagree with? And why should he be disavowing them in any case? Obama and the Democratic Party are endorsed by all sorts of groups I would consider disreputable and/or extremist–and I’m not even thinking about all the orthodox pro-choice groups–but I don’t expect Democrats specifically to repudiate each and every one.

    In other words, some clarification would be nice. In my view, Paul doesn’t have much to hide for a nationally-prominent politician.

  • SKPeterson

    Tom@15 -

    Following up on Cincinnatus’s reply to your query and to WisdomLover’s @ 4.

    I don’t think the anti-semitism charge against Paul can reasonably stick (unreasonably – well the leftist media, Romney, Obama and Fox will definitely try) as one of his best friends was the Jewish economist Murray Rothbard and his economics are inspired by the Austrian Jew, Ludwig von Mises (who met plenty of anti-semitic hostility from the bastions of liberalism in NYC after he fled the Nazi’s). Unfortunately, in modern American politics anti-semitism can only be repudiated by toeing the AIPAC line toward Israel. It’s one of those “third rails” of American foreign policy. Just read the screed published by Dorothy Rabinowitz in the WSJ this past week; also note the complete lack of a response to her diatribe in the Letters to the Editor. The silence is deafening and a sign that Paul is actually scaring the entrenched powers that be, both left and right. That can only be a good thing considering where their combined malfeasance has led us.

    As to extremist groups backing Paul – he rightly is saying he doesn’t know everyone personally who sends him money. Some have apparently been Nazi’s or such, but Paul’s political and economic policy proposals are inherently inimical to anything remotely fascist. I’m sure Obama gets donations from Americans who support Sendero Luminoso or the FARC or think that Stalin was just a poor misunderstood Georgian, but I don’t believe Obama needs to answer for their warped politics. Neither should Paul answer for the warped views of everyone who sends him money; he’s been perfectly clear what he believes in for decades and if people want to send money despite that why should he say no?

    Another way to look at it Tom is why do Lutherans continually have to apologize for decontextualized accusations of anti-semitism by Luther, even after they’ve acknowledged the sinfulness therein, or the Roman Church continually have to defend the Inquisition or the Crusades? Why do the Turks never have to apologize for taking European slaves or invading Europe (and we won’t even mention the Armenian issue)? Why do the Arabs seemingly never have to apologize for anything? Why must some continually have to apologize for things done in their name, but others get a complete pass?

  • SKPeterson

    Tom@15 -

    Following up on Cincinnatus’s reply to your query and to WisdomLover’s @ 4.

    I don’t think the anti-semitism charge against Paul can reasonably stick (unreasonably – well the leftist media, Romney, Obama and Fox will definitely try) as one of his best friends was the Jewish economist Murray Rothbard and his economics are inspired by the Austrian Jew, Ludwig von Mises (who met plenty of anti-semitic hostility from the bastions of liberalism in NYC after he fled the Nazi’s). Unfortunately, in modern American politics anti-semitism can only be repudiated by toeing the AIPAC line toward Israel. It’s one of those “third rails” of American foreign policy. Just read the screed published by Dorothy Rabinowitz in the WSJ this past week; also note the complete lack of a response to her diatribe in the Letters to the Editor. The silence is deafening and a sign that Paul is actually scaring the entrenched powers that be, both left and right. That can only be a good thing considering where their combined malfeasance has led us.

    As to extremist groups backing Paul – he rightly is saying he doesn’t know everyone personally who sends him money. Some have apparently been Nazi’s or such, but Paul’s political and economic policy proposals are inherently inimical to anything remotely fascist. I’m sure Obama gets donations from Americans who support Sendero Luminoso or the FARC or think that Stalin was just a poor misunderstood Georgian, but I don’t believe Obama needs to answer for their warped politics. Neither should Paul answer for the warped views of everyone who sends him money; he’s been perfectly clear what he believes in for decades and if people want to send money despite that why should he say no?

    Another way to look at it Tom is why do Lutherans continually have to apologize for decontextualized accusations of anti-semitism by Luther, even after they’ve acknowledged the sinfulness therein, or the Roman Church continually have to defend the Inquisition or the Crusades? Why do the Turks never have to apologize for taking European slaves or invading Europe (and we won’t even mention the Armenian issue)? Why do the Arabs seemingly never have to apologize for anything? Why must some continually have to apologize for things done in their name, but others get a complete pass?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom (@15), it kinda seems like you’re trying too hard. The main thing that I want to know about candidates is what they believe, what their policies are or would be. Which was why the thing that turned me off to Gingrich wasn’t anything along the lines of what you’ve proposed, but rather his ideas about the judiciary.

    But why are you bringing these things up now? Are you trying to dissuade me from voting for Paul? Then tell me something about his policies. But as it is, your comment appears to be little more than a “But he’s soooo crazy!” smear. I’ve heard that from several doctrinaire liberals, but none who appear terribly serious about discussing Paul as a politician.

    Are you trying to suggest that Paul is, secretly, a racist? A white supremacist? What, exactly?

    Meanwhile, of the three candidates you mentioned, Cain has, by far, the most “baggage” — by which I mean that he is clearly the least ready to be a politician at the federal level, much less President. The man is simply not competent. Gingrich is competent, but I happen to think some of his ideas are too radical.

    Paul’s ideas are radical, to be sure — at least, in the modern era. But they seem to have a pretty good precedent in our nation’s past. Or, at least, in theory, in our Constitution.

    Meanwhile, what’s so great about Obama, for whom I can only guess you’re voting? Looked for any baggage in his trunk?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom (@15), it kinda seems like you’re trying too hard. The main thing that I want to know about candidates is what they believe, what their policies are or would be. Which was why the thing that turned me off to Gingrich wasn’t anything along the lines of what you’ve proposed, but rather his ideas about the judiciary.

    But why are you bringing these things up now? Are you trying to dissuade me from voting for Paul? Then tell me something about his policies. But as it is, your comment appears to be little more than a “But he’s soooo crazy!” smear. I’ve heard that from several doctrinaire liberals, but none who appear terribly serious about discussing Paul as a politician.

    Are you trying to suggest that Paul is, secretly, a racist? A white supremacist? What, exactly?

    Meanwhile, of the three candidates you mentioned, Cain has, by far, the most “baggage” — by which I mean that he is clearly the least ready to be a politician at the federal level, much less President. The man is simply not competent. Gingrich is competent, but I happen to think some of his ideas are too radical.

    Paul’s ideas are radical, to be sure — at least, in the modern era. But they seem to have a pretty good precedent in our nation’s past. Or, at least, in theory, in our Constitution.

    Meanwhile, what’s so great about Obama, for whom I can only guess you’re voting? Looked for any baggage in his trunk?

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus @ 16, why should the newsletters have been “brought to attention” if they’re a “non-issue” and the controversy surrounding them is “mostly manufactured”? (That danged liberal media again!) Is it because they were sold under Ron Paul’s name and signature, i.e., they were undeniably authorized by Paul in some way – though he’s been clear as mud when asked to explain just what way? I mean, he never even read them? Though they made a million dollars for him? Really? It stretches the credulity of most folks to the limit.

    I would say Paul’s appearance before the Birchers is problematic because most voters, unlike yourself, aren’t even “vaguely” sympathetic toward the John Birch Society. (Your misspelling, “John Birth,” unwittingly put the Society in the appropriate camp.)

    I do expect Democrats to disavow extremist groups who support them. I even expect them to return any money extremist groups have sent them. Because I don’t want Democrats beholden to them. But I guess Paul doesn’t have any such scruples about his associations. Or maybe it’s just that he doesn’t plan to do anything as President anyways (in line with his philosophy). :-D

  • Tom Hering

    Cincinnatus @ 16, why should the newsletters have been “brought to attention” if they’re a “non-issue” and the controversy surrounding them is “mostly manufactured”? (That danged liberal media again!) Is it because they were sold under Ron Paul’s name and signature, i.e., they were undeniably authorized by Paul in some way – though he’s been clear as mud when asked to explain just what way? I mean, he never even read them? Though they made a million dollars for him? Really? It stretches the credulity of most folks to the limit.

    I would say Paul’s appearance before the Birchers is problematic because most voters, unlike yourself, aren’t even “vaguely” sympathetic toward the John Birch Society. (Your misspelling, “John Birth,” unwittingly put the Society in the appropriate camp.)

    I do expect Democrats to disavow extremist groups who support them. I even expect them to return any money extremist groups have sent them. Because I don’t want Democrats beholden to them. But I guess Paul doesn’t have any such scruples about his associations. Or maybe it’s just that he doesn’t plan to do anything as President anyways (in line with his philosophy). :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “Are you trying to suggest that Paul is, secretly, a racist? A white supremacist?”

    Todd, no, I’m suggesting he’s openly racist, because he put his name on racist statements (likely written by others) in his newsletters. If nothing else, he was lazy and incompetent in the extreme where his newsletters were concerned – and I doubt that his ability to practice oversight has improved with age. (Oversight is something a President should be good at – yes?) Further, to my knowledge, Paul has never disavowed those newsletters without, at the same time, excusing himself in the most ridiculous ways.

  • Tom Hering

    “Are you trying to suggest that Paul is, secretly, a racist? A white supremacist?”

    Todd, no, I’m suggesting he’s openly racist, because he put his name on racist statements (likely written by others) in his newsletters. If nothing else, he was lazy and incompetent in the extreme where his newsletters were concerned – and I doubt that his ability to practice oversight has improved with age. (Oversight is something a President should be good at – yes?) Further, to my knowledge, Paul has never disavowed those newsletters without, at the same time, excusing himself in the most ridiculous ways.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@20: I don’t really feel the need to defend Paul on this point, as I consider the newsletter thing to be a tired accusation that has been trotted out and dispelled several times running over the past ten years. However, your claim that “Paul has never disavowed those newsletters” is flatly, patently incorrect. Paul has explicitly disavowed those letters and roundly repudiated the views expressed therein many, many times both recently and in the past. One (like myself) might argue that he has nothing for which to apologize, but he has loudly apologized anyway. So he’s an “open racist” who has explicitly disavowed racism and racist views?

    As tODD notes, however, what’s really at issue here is a willful ignorance of the issues. Are we going to continue to critique Cain and Gingrich for their sexual indiscretions (mostly irrelevant) or are we going to examine their (un)fitness for office? I hope the latter, and I hope you’ll extend the same courtesy to Paul. And besides, if the worst “scandal” associated with Paul is that someone back in the 80′s and 90′s wrote controversial (but not necessarily immoral, etc.) newsletters under his name without his knowledge and that, moreover, bear no discernible relation to Paul’s actual policy positions, then I must say he’s veritably spotless.

    Meanwhile, I’m still not following why Paul’s unwillingness to disown and rebuff various and sundry groups and individuals of whom you disapprove renders him in any way unfit for higher office. Maybe you could provide us with a list of approved speaking venues and funding sources so that Paul can avoid offending sensitive souls such as yourself who are unwilling to engage with substantive political issues.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@20: I don’t really feel the need to defend Paul on this point, as I consider the newsletter thing to be a tired accusation that has been trotted out and dispelled several times running over the past ten years. However, your claim that “Paul has never disavowed those newsletters” is flatly, patently incorrect. Paul has explicitly disavowed those letters and roundly repudiated the views expressed therein many, many times both recently and in the past. One (like myself) might argue that he has nothing for which to apologize, but he has loudly apologized anyway. So he’s an “open racist” who has explicitly disavowed racism and racist views?

    As tODD notes, however, what’s really at issue here is a willful ignorance of the issues. Are we going to continue to critique Cain and Gingrich for their sexual indiscretions (mostly irrelevant) or are we going to examine their (un)fitness for office? I hope the latter, and I hope you’ll extend the same courtesy to Paul. And besides, if the worst “scandal” associated with Paul is that someone back in the 80′s and 90′s wrote controversial (but not necessarily immoral, etc.) newsletters under his name without his knowledge and that, moreover, bear no discernible relation to Paul’s actual policy positions, then I must say he’s veritably spotless.

    Meanwhile, I’m still not following why Paul’s unwillingness to disown and rebuff various and sundry groups and individuals of whom you disapprove renders him in any way unfit for higher office. Maybe you could provide us with a list of approved speaking venues and funding sources so that Paul can avoid offending sensitive souls such as yourself who are unwilling to engage with substantive political issues.

  • Tom Hering

    Look, let’s say I accept all of Ron Paul’s disavowals. He never read any of the newsletters that made a million dollars for him. He never wrote any of the racist (or wacko conspiracy) articles that his name appears above, or his signature below. But … he had to hire, or at least approve the hiring, of the people who did write those articles. Do you mean to tell me he had no idea what their ideas were, or what sort of articles they’d write? The very best construction that can be put on this is that, no, he didn’t know a thing about these people, but allowed them write and publish things in his name anyways. So, yes, let’s talk about Ron Paul’s fitness for the office of President …

  • Tom Hering

    Look, let’s say I accept all of Ron Paul’s disavowals. He never read any of the newsletters that made a million dollars for him. He never wrote any of the racist (or wacko conspiracy) articles that his name appears above, or his signature below. But … he had to hire, or at least approve the hiring, of the people who did write those articles. Do you mean to tell me he had no idea what their ideas were, or what sort of articles they’d write? The very best construction that can be put on this is that, no, he didn’t know a thing about these people, but allowed them write and publish things in his name anyways. So, yes, let’s talk about Ron Paul’s fitness for the office of President …

  • #4 Kitty

    I’m dismayed at the prospect of voting for anyone who can not be trusted to keep his wedding vows!

  • #4 Kitty

    I’m dismayed at the prospect of voting for anyone who can not be trusted to keep his wedding vows!

  • Grace

    Kitty,

    Unfortunately, there are many men and women who have not kept their “wedding vows” or any other “vows” they have made. Does repentance mean anything to you? – so, … since God accepts repentance from those who sin (you are a sinner, yes? – have you repentanted? ) then it would be good to accept others.

  • Grace

    Kitty,

    Unfortunately, there are many men and women who have not kept their “wedding vows” or any other “vows” they have made. Does repentance mean anything to you? – so, … since God accepts repentance from those who sin (you are a sinner, yes? – have you repentanted? ) then it would be good to accept others.

  • Grace

    Post 25 .. should read: ” repented”

  • Grace

    Post 25 .. should read: ” repented”

  • Patrick Kyle

    Tom @23

    “the newsletters that made a million dollars for him.” RP denies that he made $1million from these letters. Where is your proof?

    So all you’ve got is this newsletter thing from 20+ years ago? His policies, voting record, and literally thousands of public statements and speeches lay to rest these accusations. Try something else…

  • Patrick Kyle

    Tom @23

    “the newsletters that made a million dollars for him.” RP denies that he made $1million from these letters. Where is your proof?

    So all you’ve got is this newsletter thing from 20+ years ago? His policies, voting record, and literally thousands of public statements and speeches lay to rest these accusations. Try something else…

  • #4 Kitty

    @Grace 25

    He’s repented? Citation?

  • #4 Kitty

    @Grace 25

    He’s repented? Citation?

  • Tom Hering

    Patrick Kyle @ 27, not just this newsletter thing from 20+ years ago, but his current excuses for the newsletter thing. If he couldn’t run his own newsletters (which carried his name and signature), or at least maintain a minimum of oversight (keeping racism and wacko conspiracy theories out of them), how’s he going to lead the nation, and fulfill the duties of President? According to his own excuses – “I didn’t write, read, or agree with my newsletters” – the man is a nincompoop.

  • Tom Hering

    Patrick Kyle @ 27, not just this newsletter thing from 20+ years ago, but his current excuses for the newsletter thing. If he couldn’t run his own newsletters (which carried his name and signature), or at least maintain a minimum of oversight (keeping racism and wacko conspiracy theories out of them), how’s he going to lead the nation, and fulfill the duties of President? According to his own excuses – “I didn’t write, read, or agree with my newsletters” – the man is a nincompoop.

  • Tom Hering

    “His policies, voting record …” – @ 27

    The Atlantic Wire 12/27/11:

    Of the 620 bills sponsored by Ron Paul during his long career in the House of Representatives, only four have ever made it to a vote on the House floor and only one of those became an actual law. An analysis by The Washington Post shows that Paul’s success rate of 0.2 percent falls far below that of most legislators …

    Americans elect a President to get things done. Not to succeed at getting nothing, or next to nothing, done. Even if that’s his philosophy of government. :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “His policies, voting record …” – @ 27

    The Atlantic Wire 12/27/11:

    Of the 620 bills sponsored by Ron Paul during his long career in the House of Representatives, only four have ever made it to a vote on the House floor and only one of those became an actual law. An analysis by The Washington Post shows that Paul’s success rate of 0.2 percent falls far below that of most legislators …

    Americans elect a President to get things done. Not to succeed at getting nothing, or next to nothing, done. Even if that’s his philosophy of government. :-D

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@31: I’m starting to sound like a fanboy Paultard now, but that’s not really a valid “accusation.” Paul can’t be President because not many of his bills have passed Congress? Dumb.

    First of all, during Paul’s tenure in Congress, Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate for most of that time. And during none of that time have Republicans been the sort of small-government federalists that Paul (thankfully) is (which is why we love him).

    Second, all the laws primarily sponsored by Paul are controversial and counter-establishment by design. Auditing the fed? The cowards in neither party want to touch that. Ending the drug war? Ha! You get the idea. Paul’s policy proposals are just too “wacky” to establishment politicians. Furthermore, your charge would only be relevant as an “accusation” if Paul were running as some sort of great legislative compromiser like McCain. He is not. Nor is he running as someone who can “get things done.” Sure, maybe Americans want a President who can “get things done” (much to their own demise), but Paul’s “failure” to achieve legislative victories is hardly a “scandal.” Again, if you’re going to attack Paul’s policies, do so on the basis of actual votes he has taken (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/) or policies he has announced. Paul is strikingly clear about these things, unlike…all the other candidates. And, speaking for myself, I know that most of Paul’s fans support him not because of his successes or promises of success but because he consistently and clearly and unashamedly represents certain political views that are sadly stifled in our current arrangement. So, whether he actually succeeded in auditing the Fed or withholding funds from unauthorized military actions (some recent pursuits of Paul’s) is mostly irrelevant given that they were doomed from the start (because our congressmen are universally liars, frauds, and criminals with no understanding of a constitutional system, etc.); we’re mostly just happy that he tried and that our side of the story has a hearing, at the very least, in Washington.

    Here’s where I append my usual disclaimer: Paul isn’t going to be President, and he isn’t going to win the nomination. He knows this, and all but his most dogmatic followers know this. But, again, if the only complaints against him are that someone published a controversial newsletter under his name and that few of his (awesome) legislative proposals have actually made it into law, then, again, he’s the most scot-free candidate we’ve had in ages or perhaps in the entire history of the Republic.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@31: I’m starting to sound like a fanboy Paultard now, but that’s not really a valid “accusation.” Paul can’t be President because not many of his bills have passed Congress? Dumb.

    First of all, during Paul’s tenure in Congress, Democrats have controlled the House of Representatives and the Senate for most of that time. And during none of that time have Republicans been the sort of small-government federalists that Paul (thankfully) is (which is why we love him).

    Second, all the laws primarily sponsored by Paul are controversial and counter-establishment by design. Auditing the fed? The cowards in neither party want to touch that. Ending the drug war? Ha! You get the idea. Paul’s policy proposals are just too “wacky” to establishment politicians. Furthermore, your charge would only be relevant as an “accusation” if Paul were running as some sort of great legislative compromiser like McCain. He is not. Nor is he running as someone who can “get things done.” Sure, maybe Americans want a President who can “get things done” (much to their own demise), but Paul’s “failure” to achieve legislative victories is hardly a “scandal.” Again, if you’re going to attack Paul’s policies, do so on the basis of actual votes he has taken (http://www.votesmart.org/candidate/key-votes/296/) or policies he has announced. Paul is strikingly clear about these things, unlike…all the other candidates. And, speaking for myself, I know that most of Paul’s fans support him not because of his successes or promises of success but because he consistently and clearly and unashamedly represents certain political views that are sadly stifled in our current arrangement. So, whether he actually succeeded in auditing the Fed or withholding funds from unauthorized military actions (some recent pursuits of Paul’s) is mostly irrelevant given that they were doomed from the start (because our congressmen are universally liars, frauds, and criminals with no understanding of a constitutional system, etc.); we’re mostly just happy that he tried and that our side of the story has a hearing, at the very least, in Washington.

    Here’s where I append my usual disclaimer: Paul isn’t going to be President, and he isn’t going to win the nomination. He knows this, and all but his most dogmatic followers know this. But, again, if the only complaints against him are that someone published a controversial newsletter under his name and that few of his (awesome) legislative proposals have actually made it into law, then, again, he’s the most scot-free candidate we’ve had in ages or perhaps in the entire history of the Republic.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Tom Hering,

    I rarely agree with you on politics, but you are spot on about Ron Paul. He is a crank of the highest order. In my office there are a couple of Paul supporters that I interact with and I have had the same discussion with them about his newsletters, his hypocritical pork barrel spending (while crying to the high heavens about cutting government spending) and some of this other views. These supporters just don’t want to face up to facts. As a thought experiment, just substitute the name “George W. Bush” or “Barack Obama” to the newsletter flap, put Paul’s response (non-response?) to the flap in their mouths and ask yourself if you would be satisfied that it is a non-issue. I am registered Republican and one of the things that annoys me the most politically is the way that Democrats tend to throw the accusation of racism around willy-nilly at Republicans. But the Ron Pauls of the world give Democrats a leg to stand on.
    At the end of the day, the Ron Paul phenomenon shares a great deal of common ground with the JFK conspiracy theorist. Anything you say to a Paul supporter only confirms their support, no matter what it is. Any damning information about Paul only serves to confirm to his supporters that the”establishment” is out to get him. Any agreement with any of his policy positions only proves that he is right about everything else. It is a no-win, never ending cycle. It just gives me tired head to think about it.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Tom Hering,

    I rarely agree with you on politics, but you are spot on about Ron Paul. He is a crank of the highest order. In my office there are a couple of Paul supporters that I interact with and I have had the same discussion with them about his newsletters, his hypocritical pork barrel spending (while crying to the high heavens about cutting government spending) and some of this other views. These supporters just don’t want to face up to facts. As a thought experiment, just substitute the name “George W. Bush” or “Barack Obama” to the newsletter flap, put Paul’s response (non-response?) to the flap in their mouths and ask yourself if you would be satisfied that it is a non-issue. I am registered Republican and one of the things that annoys me the most politically is the way that Democrats tend to throw the accusation of racism around willy-nilly at Republicans. But the Ron Pauls of the world give Democrats a leg to stand on.
    At the end of the day, the Ron Paul phenomenon shares a great deal of common ground with the JFK conspiracy theorist. Anything you say to a Paul supporter only confirms their support, no matter what it is. Any damning information about Paul only serves to confirm to his supporters that the”establishment” is out to get him. Any agreement with any of his policy positions only proves that he is right about everything else. It is a no-win, never ending cycle. It just gives me tired head to think about it.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom Hering (@29) said of Paul:

    According to his own excuses – “I didn’t write, read, or agree with my newsletters” – the man is a nincompoop.

    Are you abusing the quotation marks there? I can’t find anything like that quote coming from Paul.

    Anyhow, I’ll let cincinnatus’ reply (@31) serve as mine, as well.

    Steve (@32) said:

    Anything you say to a Paul supporter only confirms their support, no matter what it is.

    Well, if all you’re trying to use as your argument is fairly tangential stuff (which it appears both you and Tom are), then that’s not too surprising.

    What I don’t see you or Tom — or most other Paul decriers — doing much of is engaging with him on the issues. No, both doctrinaire Democrats and Republicans apparently feel much more comfortable simply writing him off as craaazy (cf. Tom’s “tin foil” comment), slandering him as to his personal beliefs (cf. Tom’s “openly racist” comment — nice “best construction”, by the way), or, gosh, if issues must be discussed, then flat-out misrepresenting Paul on the issues (cf. the very popular “isolationist”/Chamberlain slur found on other threads here).

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom Hering (@29) said of Paul:

    According to his own excuses – “I didn’t write, read, or agree with my newsletters” – the man is a nincompoop.

    Are you abusing the quotation marks there? I can’t find anything like that quote coming from Paul.

    Anyhow, I’ll let cincinnatus’ reply (@31) serve as mine, as well.

    Steve (@32) said:

    Anything you say to a Paul supporter only confirms their support, no matter what it is.

    Well, if all you’re trying to use as your argument is fairly tangential stuff (which it appears both you and Tom are), then that’s not too surprising.

    What I don’t see you or Tom — or most other Paul decriers — doing much of is engaging with him on the issues. No, both doctrinaire Democrats and Republicans apparently feel much more comfortable simply writing him off as craaazy (cf. Tom’s “tin foil” comment), slandering him as to his personal beliefs (cf. Tom’s “openly racist” comment — nice “best construction”, by the way), or, gosh, if issues must be discussed, then flat-out misrepresenting Paul on the issues (cf. the very popular “isolationist”/Chamberlain slur found on other threads here).

  • Tom Hering

    “Paul can’t be President because not many of his bills have passed Congress?” – @ 31.

    Sure he can be. But why would anyone awake in the real world want him to be?

    “… all the laws primarily sponsored by Paul are controversial and counter-establishment by design.”

    So, Don Quixote 2012? He even looks like well-known drawings of the man of La Mancha. (It’s my theory that this is the cultural basis of his appeal. “To dream, the impossible dream …”)

    “… we’re mostly just happy that he tried …”

    See above.

    “… someone published a controversial newsletter under his name …”

    Someone? Now you sound like Paul himself, “I have no idea who wrote my own newsletters.”

  • Tom Hering

    “Paul can’t be President because not many of his bills have passed Congress?” – @ 31.

    Sure he can be. But why would anyone awake in the real world want him to be?

    “… all the laws primarily sponsored by Paul are controversial and counter-establishment by design.”

    So, Don Quixote 2012? He even looks like well-known drawings of the man of La Mancha. (It’s my theory that this is the cultural basis of his appeal. “To dream, the impossible dream …”)

    “… we’re mostly just happy that he tried …”

    See above.

    “… someone published a controversial newsletter under his name …”

    Someone? Now you sound like Paul himself, “I have no idea who wrote my own newsletters.”

  • Tom Hering

    “I can’t find anything like that quote coming from Paul.” – @ 33.

    Todd, what happened to your Googling skills? I found this on my first try:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html

  • Tom Hering

    “I can’t find anything like that quote coming from Paul.” – @ 33.

    Todd, what happened to your Googling skills? I found this on my first try:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters-fact-checker-biography/2011/12/21/gIQAKNiwBP_blog.html

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@34: Thanks for saying absolutely nothing about anything. I’ll name some other quixotic quests in contemporary American politics: the fight to end abortion, the fight to stop gay marriage, the fight to end drug consumption, the fight to end premarital and/or teenage sex, the fight to end corporate influence in politics, the fight to shrink entitlement expenditures, the fight to reform Social Security or Medicare, the fight to trim our defense establishment, the fight to avoid inflationary monetary policies. I could go on. You get the idea, however. Some of these causes are worthy, some perhaps not. Some of them are Paul’s, some not. But neither party is willing to do anything serious about any of these issues. Paul is, and he’s not simply spouting “fringe” ideas to garner votes and donations. By all indications, he’s sincere. That’s why he has devoted followers. I have serious and substantial disagreements with Paul on some substantive questions. But more power to him!

    Steve@32: Ditto. Thanks for saying nothing of substance. You hinted at an accusation of possible merit–his potential “hypocrisy” in accepting pork-barrel spending. But, in my opinion, something of a non-issue. Find me a politician, either for or against pork barrel projects, who turns down all federal money for his/her district. It’s a stupid qualification for acceptable Presidential candidates because you’ll never, ever find such a politician. Maybe Paul is hypocritical, but you’ve got to love his justification (this isn’t something he hides, by the way: “If Washington takes our money, there’s nothing wrong with trying to get it back.”

    Anyway, as tODD keeps repeating, can we say anything–anything at all–of merit or substance about his actual policy prescriptions? Every single charge I’ve seen leveled against Paul on this blog–he’s an “isolationist,” he’s a racist, an anti-semite, a hypocrite–is either blatantly false or petulantly shallow. Can we do better?

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@34: Thanks for saying absolutely nothing about anything. I’ll name some other quixotic quests in contemporary American politics: the fight to end abortion, the fight to stop gay marriage, the fight to end drug consumption, the fight to end premarital and/or teenage sex, the fight to end corporate influence in politics, the fight to shrink entitlement expenditures, the fight to reform Social Security or Medicare, the fight to trim our defense establishment, the fight to avoid inflationary monetary policies. I could go on. You get the idea, however. Some of these causes are worthy, some perhaps not. Some of them are Paul’s, some not. But neither party is willing to do anything serious about any of these issues. Paul is, and he’s not simply spouting “fringe” ideas to garner votes and donations. By all indications, he’s sincere. That’s why he has devoted followers. I have serious and substantial disagreements with Paul on some substantive questions. But more power to him!

    Steve@32: Ditto. Thanks for saying nothing of substance. You hinted at an accusation of possible merit–his potential “hypocrisy” in accepting pork-barrel spending. But, in my opinion, something of a non-issue. Find me a politician, either for or against pork barrel projects, who turns down all federal money for his/her district. It’s a stupid qualification for acceptable Presidential candidates because you’ll never, ever find such a politician. Maybe Paul is hypocritical, but you’ve got to love his justification (this isn’t something he hides, by the way: “If Washington takes our money, there’s nothing wrong with trying to get it back.”

    Anyway, as tODD keeps repeating, can we say anything–anything at all–of merit or substance about his actual policy prescriptions? Every single charge I’ve seen leveled against Paul on this blog–he’s an “isolationist,” he’s a racist, an anti-semite, a hypocrite–is either blatantly false or petulantly shallow. Can we do better?

  • helen

    Grace December 27, 2011 at 1:49 am
    Kitty,
    Unfortunately, there are many men and women who have not kept their “wedding vows” or any other “vows” they have made. Does repentance mean anything to you? – so, … since God accepts repentance from those who sin (you are a sinner, yes? – have you repented? ) then it would be good to accept others.

    I’m afraid “repentance” with one eye on the Presidency doesn’t impress me very much!

    It appears that annulments are easy to get these days, though.
    A friend told me he needed one, so he could marry again in the church. It cost him $25.
    And here I thought you had to be a Kennedy to afford an indulgence!
    (Time was, you did!)

  • helen

    Grace December 27, 2011 at 1:49 am
    Kitty,
    Unfortunately, there are many men and women who have not kept their “wedding vows” or any other “vows” they have made. Does repentance mean anything to you? – so, … since God accepts repentance from those who sin (you are a sinner, yes? – have you repented? ) then it would be good to accept others.

    I’m afraid “repentance” with one eye on the Presidency doesn’t impress me very much!

    It appears that annulments are easy to get these days, though.
    A friend told me he needed one, so he could marry again in the church. It cost him $25.
    And here I thought you had to be a Kennedy to afford an indulgence!
    (Time was, you did!)

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom asked (@35):

    Todd, what happened to your Googling skills?

    Um, I’m more inclined to ask: What happened to your quoting skills? I asked (@33) if you were “abusing the quotation marks”, and it turns out you were, as you were merely paraphrasing … sort of.

    Anyhow, let’s run with your assertion — which, I remind you again, is contrary to the Eighth Commandment — that Paul is “openly racist”. Let’s assume, as you apparently do, that the newsletter statements were written by Paul himself two decades ago.

    Here’s my question: can you point to anything else he’s done — notably, in his role as congressman — that has in any way hinted at his being racist? That is, has his racism, which you so boldly claim is “open”, actually surfaced in a way that would have an impact on his presidency?

    Because we all know we’re going to vote for candidates with problems of one sort or another. And while I find racism to be a troubling personal aspect, it’s not the worst flaw I could find in a politician for the reason that open racism isn’t really tolerated in this country. At least, not at the national level. Sure, racism is a problem, but it’s largely an ideology that even most racists know to keep on the down-low, because it isn’t all that popular these days.

    My point being, the office of the President is far more likely to keep racism in check than it would restrain other flaws. Among these other flaws I would number: a disdain for the Constitution, an inability to balance our budget (leading to potential economic downfall), and so on. A politician whose flaw is extreme financial profligacy or a willingness to bend the rules to get his way will, in general, not be restrained by the culture in D.C. these days. An “open racist” will be.

    All that defense assuming, of course, that your uncharitable assertion is perfectly true.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom asked (@35):

    Todd, what happened to your Googling skills?

    Um, I’m more inclined to ask: What happened to your quoting skills? I asked (@33) if you were “abusing the quotation marks”, and it turns out you were, as you were merely paraphrasing … sort of.

    Anyhow, let’s run with your assertion — which, I remind you again, is contrary to the Eighth Commandment — that Paul is “openly racist”. Let’s assume, as you apparently do, that the newsletter statements were written by Paul himself two decades ago.

    Here’s my question: can you point to anything else he’s done — notably, in his role as congressman — that has in any way hinted at his being racist? That is, has his racism, which you so boldly claim is “open”, actually surfaced in a way that would have an impact on his presidency?

    Because we all know we’re going to vote for candidates with problems of one sort or another. And while I find racism to be a troubling personal aspect, it’s not the worst flaw I could find in a politician for the reason that open racism isn’t really tolerated in this country. At least, not at the national level. Sure, racism is a problem, but it’s largely an ideology that even most racists know to keep on the down-low, because it isn’t all that popular these days.

    My point being, the office of the President is far more likely to keep racism in check than it would restrain other flaws. Among these other flaws I would number: a disdain for the Constitution, an inability to balance our budget (leading to potential economic downfall), and so on. A politician whose flaw is extreme financial profligacy or a willingness to bend the rules to get his way will, in general, not be restrained by the culture in D.C. these days. An “open racist” will be.

    All that defense assuming, of course, that your uncharitable assertion is perfectly true.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, Tom (@34), it’s clear you don’t want to discuss actual issues here. Your comments are little more than name-calling (e.g. “tin foil” hats, “Don Quixote 2012″, etc.). Do you think that makes your position seem more informed? Because to me, it seems like you’re mainly grasping at straws, without any real defense for whomever it is that you favor, much less real arguments against Paul as a politician.

    As to Paul’s would-be ineffectiveness as a congressman, I really can’t believe you think that’s a good argument, either. People who like Ron Paul, you must have noticed, are generally opposed to the status quo. If I wanted to preserve the status quo, I would certainly vote for a congressman who was instrumental in bringing many of the extant laws into existence. But then, I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul, either.

    That is to say, I don’t merely want a President who will “get things done”. Any number of tyrants “got things done”. George W. Bush “got things done”, too, I suppose. In your opinion, is this to his credit, or does it maybe matter what, exactly, a politician wants to get done, as well?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Anyhow, Tom (@34), it’s clear you don’t want to discuss actual issues here. Your comments are little more than name-calling (e.g. “tin foil” hats, “Don Quixote 2012″, etc.). Do you think that makes your position seem more informed? Because to me, it seems like you’re mainly grasping at straws, without any real defense for whomever it is that you favor, much less real arguments against Paul as a politician.

    As to Paul’s would-be ineffectiveness as a congressman, I really can’t believe you think that’s a good argument, either. People who like Ron Paul, you must have noticed, are generally opposed to the status quo. If I wanted to preserve the status quo, I would certainly vote for a congressman who was instrumental in bringing many of the extant laws into existence. But then, I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul, either.

    That is to say, I don’t merely want a President who will “get things done”. Any number of tyrants “got things done”. George W. Bush “got things done”, too, I suppose. In your opinion, is this to his credit, or does it maybe matter what, exactly, a politician wants to get done, as well?

  • #4 Kitty

    @helen

    It appears that annulments are easy to get these days, though.
    A friend told me he needed one, so he could marry again in the church. It cost him $25.
    And here I thought you had to be a Kennedy to afford an indulgence!
    (Time was, you did!)

    Yes, I remember it cost my father a small fortune back in the day. But $25.00? LOL ~that surprises me.

  • #4 Kitty

    @helen

    It appears that annulments are easy to get these days, though.
    A friend told me he needed one, so he could marry again in the church. It cost him $25.
    And here I thought you had to be a Kennedy to afford an indulgence!
    (Time was, you did!)

    Yes, I remember it cost my father a small fortune back in the day. But $25.00? LOL ~that surprises me.

  • Tom Hering

    “Thanks for saying absolutely nothing about anything.” – Cincinnatus @ 36.

    “Your comments are little more than name-calling …” – Todd @ 39.

    Jeepers guys! I know my name appears on a lot of comments in this thread, and I know they sound like they were written by me, personally. But honest, I didn’t write them, and I have no idea who did write them. I never even read them, myself, until you guys brought them up just now. So I completely disavow the contents of all those comments with my name on them. Anyone who knows me knows I never say things like that.

    I’ll be waiting for your apologies – for treating me so unfairly, and for not limiting yourselves to discussing my ideas. Thanks! :-D

  • Tom Hering

    “Thanks for saying absolutely nothing about anything.” – Cincinnatus @ 36.

    “Your comments are little more than name-calling …” – Todd @ 39.

    Jeepers guys! I know my name appears on a lot of comments in this thread, and I know they sound like they were written by me, personally. But honest, I didn’t write them, and I have no idea who did write them. I never even read them, myself, until you guys brought them up just now. So I completely disavow the contents of all those comments with my name on them. Anyone who knows me knows I never say things like that.

    I’ll be waiting for your apologies – for treating me so unfairly, and for not limiting yourselves to discussing my ideas. Thanks! :-D

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom (@41) said:

    I completely disavow the contents of all those comments with my name on them. Anyone who knows me knows I never say things like that.

    Thanks, Tom. I agree that the above comments were pretty ridiculous, whoever wrote them. You’re usually a pretty even-keeled guy, so I was surprised to see such nonsense attached to your name. I’m glad to know you didn’t write such tomfoolery.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom (@41) said:

    I completely disavow the contents of all those comments with my name on them. Anyone who knows me knows I never say things like that.

    Thanks, Tom. I agree that the above comments were pretty ridiculous, whoever wrote them. You’re usually a pretty even-keeled guy, so I was surprised to see such nonsense attached to your name. I’m glad to know you didn’t write such tomfoolery.

  • Tom Hering

    Whew! I knew if you believed Ron Paul’s disavowals, you’d believe mine too. So, if you don’t mind, I’ll let you know when I’m running for office. But no cash contributions, please. The government can track those redesigned bills. :-)

  • Tom Hering

    Whew! I knew if you believed Ron Paul’s disavowals, you’d believe mine too. So, if you don’t mind, I’ll let you know when I’m running for office. But no cash contributions, please. The government can track those redesigned bills. :-)

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@43: Personally, I don’t find many of the newsletter comments in question to be terribly offensive. There is a rather vast difference between claiming, like Abraham Lincoln, that blacks are qualitatively different beings who should be shipped back to Africa and noting that crime rates for African Americans are dramatically higher than for whites.

    But I digress.

    Why don’t you believe Paul’s repeated and clear disavowals? (And they are clear: despite your attempts to make them seem ambiguous, all the quotes I’ve found are crystal-clear). Has anything he’s ever said in a public venue comported with the racist statements in the newsletters? Are any of his public policies “racist” or in line with the newsletter views? I’ve weighed the evidence and concluded that Paul’s newsletters are sufficiently divergent from his actual stated views to render his disavowals credible.

    Instead of lobbing silly potshots across his bow, perhaps you could attempt to convince me, with actual evidence, that I’m being gullible, or that the newsletter issue is relevant to my assessment of his policies–or anything of substance, really. I understand your general policy: don’t trust anything politicians say. It’s a decent policy, but one can’t simply conclude that everything every politician says–particularly when the politician in question prides himself on consistency and upsetting rather than flattering the “establishment”–is false. Suspect? Sure. Verify his claims. Don’t just believe what you’ve been told. Apparently, you’re simply eating up the Republican and Democratic talking points that are floating around the internet about Paul’s newsletters. Do some digging of your own if you actually care.

  • Cincinnatus

    Tom@43: Personally, I don’t find many of the newsletter comments in question to be terribly offensive. There is a rather vast difference between claiming, like Abraham Lincoln, that blacks are qualitatively different beings who should be shipped back to Africa and noting that crime rates for African Americans are dramatically higher than for whites.

    But I digress.

    Why don’t you believe Paul’s repeated and clear disavowals? (And they are clear: despite your attempts to make them seem ambiguous, all the quotes I’ve found are crystal-clear). Has anything he’s ever said in a public venue comported with the racist statements in the newsletters? Are any of his public policies “racist” or in line with the newsletter views? I’ve weighed the evidence and concluded that Paul’s newsletters are sufficiently divergent from his actual stated views to render his disavowals credible.

    Instead of lobbing silly potshots across his bow, perhaps you could attempt to convince me, with actual evidence, that I’m being gullible, or that the newsletter issue is relevant to my assessment of his policies–or anything of substance, really. I understand your general policy: don’t trust anything politicians say. It’s a decent policy, but one can’t simply conclude that everything every politician says–particularly when the politician in question prides himself on consistency and upsetting rather than flattering the “establishment”–is false. Suspect? Sure. Verify his claims. Don’t just believe what you’ve been told. Apparently, you’re simply eating up the Republican and Democratic talking points that are floating around the internet about Paul’s newsletters. Do some digging of your own if you actually care.

  • Tom Hering

    … noting that crime rates for African Americans are dramatically higher than for whites.

    “Noting”? That’s a nicely sanitized way of putting it, Cincinnatus @ 44.

    Why don’t you believe Paul’s repeated and clear disavowals?

    Because he was co-founder and president of the company that put out all those newsletters for all those years – years when he wasn’t in Congress. He only disavowed those newsletters when he returned to Congress, and tried to become President of the United States.

    … Paul’s newsletters are sufficiently divergent from his actual stated views to render his disavowals credible.

    Or do his more carefully stated views as a candidate diverge from his newsletters? And they are his newsletters. Where is the evidence (not speculation) that Ron Paul didn’t write the newsletters that bore his name and his signature, and were published by his own company (Ron Paul & Associates)? Where is the man who has stepped forward to confess, “It was me, not him”?

    … anything of substance, really.

    You don’t consider Paul’s racism and conspiracy theories to be matters of substance? For voters? I mean, I know you’re no fan of democracy, Cincinnatus, but some of us kind of like it, and want to see all the candidates scrutinized.

    Verify his claims.

    How does anyone verify stuff like this? The United Nations (Who Else?) Wants To Take Away Your Guns, Burn Down Your Churches, And Dissolve The United States Of America – Woo Hoo!

  • Tom Hering

    … noting that crime rates for African Americans are dramatically higher than for whites.

    “Noting”? That’s a nicely sanitized way of putting it, Cincinnatus @ 44.

    Why don’t you believe Paul’s repeated and clear disavowals?

    Because he was co-founder and president of the company that put out all those newsletters for all those years – years when he wasn’t in Congress. He only disavowed those newsletters when he returned to Congress, and tried to become President of the United States.

    … Paul’s newsletters are sufficiently divergent from his actual stated views to render his disavowals credible.

    Or do his more carefully stated views as a candidate diverge from his newsletters? And they are his newsletters. Where is the evidence (not speculation) that Ron Paul didn’t write the newsletters that bore his name and his signature, and were published by his own company (Ron Paul & Associates)? Where is the man who has stepped forward to confess, “It was me, not him”?

    … anything of substance, really.

    You don’t consider Paul’s racism and conspiracy theories to be matters of substance? For voters? I mean, I know you’re no fan of democracy, Cincinnatus, but some of us kind of like it, and want to see all the candidates scrutinized.

    Verify his claims.

    How does anyone verify stuff like this? The United Nations (Who Else?) Wants To Take Away Your Guns, Burn Down Your Churches, And Dissolve The United States Of America – Woo Hoo!

  • Steve Billingsley

    Wow Tom, you mean you don’t believe Ron Paul’s Sgt. Schultz imitation? How could you be so unloving?

    If he didn’t write them, he knows who did (it’s not like he had a staff of 100 working for him, he had a very small staff) and he was fine with pocketing the money (in the neighborhood of $1MM). The link below has an interesting perspective from a long-time libertarian who lays out what he believes this is all about.

    http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/

  • Steve Billingsley

    Wow Tom, you mean you don’t believe Ron Paul’s Sgt. Schultz imitation? How could you be so unloving?

    If he didn’t write them, he knows who did (it’s not like he had a staff of 100 working for him, he had a very small staff) and he was fine with pocketing the money (in the neighborhood of $1MM). The link below has an interesting perspective from a long-time libertarian who lays out what he believes this is all about.

    http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2011/12/how-did-we-get-here-or-why-do-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/

  • Tom Hering

    Interesting stuff, Steve. Nonetheless, until someone steps forward and takes responsibility for writing the newsletters, Ron Paul owns them. Wait. What am I saying? Even if someone else admits to writing them, Ron Paul will still own them, because he was co-founder and president of the company that published them. So you can see why his devotees have to take the stand that the content of those newsletters wasn’t really so bad.

  • Tom Hering

    Interesting stuff, Steve. Nonetheless, until someone steps forward and takes responsibility for writing the newsletters, Ron Paul owns them. Wait. What am I saying? Even if someone else admits to writing them, Ron Paul will still own them, because he was co-founder and president of the company that published them. So you can see why his devotees have to take the stand that the content of those newsletters wasn’t really so bad.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Tom
    Agree 100%. He owns them and in my opinion the content of those newsletters is a disqualifier, period.

  • Steve Billingsley

    Tom
    Agree 100%. He owns them and in my opinion the content of those newsletters is a disqualifier, period.

  • Tom Hering

    And you don’t have to go back to the 1980s and ’90s. What candidate of sound mind would, in 2007, have his photo taken with Don Black of Stormfront?

  • Tom Hering

    And you don’t have to go back to the 1980s and ’90s. What candidate of sound mind would, in 2007, have his photo taken with Don Black of Stormfront?

  • SKPeterson

    Tom – Candidates who are at public forums in which anyone can come in and take a photo with you. Sort of like how people not on White House guest lists get in to White House dinner parties and get their pictures taken with Presidents (apparently of sound mind).

  • SKPeterson

    Tom – Candidates who are at public forums in which anyone can come in and take a photo with you. Sort of like how people not on White House guest lists get in to White House dinner parties and get their pictures taken with Presidents (apparently of sound mind).

  • Steve Billingsley

    sigh….

  • Steve Billingsley

    sigh….

  • Tom Hering

    SK, I’m tempted to sigh as well. It doesn’t matter whether Black was known to Paul. Why did Black want his picture taken with Paul, and why does Stormfront support Paul? Just a little policy overlap? Or the fact that Paul, through his newsletters, actually courted groups like Stormfront to build a paleo coalition? It wouldn’t be until 2008 – a year after the photo was taken – that Paul would distance himself (sort of) from the groups he used to reach out to. Because of the heat he was starting to take for it as a candidate.

    I know, I know – that heat was unfair. Because Paul just preaches liberty to anyone who’ll listen.

    Sigh.

  • Tom Hering

    SK, I’m tempted to sigh as well. It doesn’t matter whether Black was known to Paul. Why did Black want his picture taken with Paul, and why does Stormfront support Paul? Just a little policy overlap? Or the fact that Paul, through his newsletters, actually courted groups like Stormfront to build a paleo coalition? It wouldn’t be until 2008 – a year after the photo was taken – that Paul would distance himself (sort of) from the groups he used to reach out to. Because of the heat he was starting to take for it as a candidate.

    I know, I know – that heat was unfair. Because Paul just preaches liberty to anyone who’ll listen.

    Sigh.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom, whoops, you appear to have forgotten your original assertion in bringing this topic up!

    Here, I’ll remind you. You asked (@49):

    What candidate of sound mind would, in 2007, have his photo taken with Don Black of Stormfront?

    See that? You’re accusing Ron of knowing it was Don Black. Now let’s jump to your next comment (@52):

    It doesn’t matter whether Black was known to Paul.

    Huh. Well, it does matter, if someone is accusing Paul of intentionally having his photo taken with Don Black — as you did (@49), remember?

    Of course, we could play this game of yours with any candidate. Why was Obama photographed with members of the New Black Panther Party? Clearly because he’s also a racist intent on abusing his power to get whitey, you see. How could be so naive to support a candidate who hates people with white skin, like you?

    Why did Black want his picture taken with Paul, and why does Stormfront support Paul? Just a little policy overlap?

    Whoops again! Now you’re suggesting that what you’d previously suggested was only a personal flaw in Paul’s “open racism” actually has seeped into his “policy”! I say “whoops” because, of course, you’ve studiously avoided answering the several questions directed at you, asking how Paul’s alleged racism has manifested itself in his job as Congressman — or how it would do so, should he be elected President.

    So, do tell. What “policies” of Paul’s do you think Don Black supports?

    Or are you just throwing whatever mud you may find, to see what may stick?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom, whoops, you appear to have forgotten your original assertion in bringing this topic up!

    Here, I’ll remind you. You asked (@49):

    What candidate of sound mind would, in 2007, have his photo taken with Don Black of Stormfront?

    See that? You’re accusing Ron of knowing it was Don Black. Now let’s jump to your next comment (@52):

    It doesn’t matter whether Black was known to Paul.

    Huh. Well, it does matter, if someone is accusing Paul of intentionally having his photo taken with Don Black — as you did (@49), remember?

    Of course, we could play this game of yours with any candidate. Why was Obama photographed with members of the New Black Panther Party? Clearly because he’s also a racist intent on abusing his power to get whitey, you see. How could be so naive to support a candidate who hates people with white skin, like you?

    Why did Black want his picture taken with Paul, and why does Stormfront support Paul? Just a little policy overlap?

    Whoops again! Now you’re suggesting that what you’d previously suggested was only a personal flaw in Paul’s “open racism” actually has seeped into his “policy”! I say “whoops” because, of course, you’ve studiously avoided answering the several questions directed at you, asking how Paul’s alleged racism has manifested itself in his job as Congressman — or how it would do so, should he be elected President.

    So, do tell. What “policies” of Paul’s do you think Don Black supports?

    Or are you just throwing whatever mud you may find, to see what may stick?

  • Tom Hering

    “So, do tell. What ‘policies’ of Paul’s do you think Don Black supports?”

    Don Black says he’s been a Ron Paul supporter since the 1980s and ’90s because of the newsletters. And currently because of Paul’s ideas about the Fed and immigration. But listen to Black’s 12/27/11 program for yourself: http://wpbriradio.com/cm/blogs/derek-black

    Or you could ask your question here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t850102/

  • Tom Hering

    “So, do tell. What ‘policies’ of Paul’s do you think Don Black supports?”

    Don Black says he’s been a Ron Paul supporter since the 1980s and ’90s because of the newsletters. And currently because of Paul’s ideas about the Fed and immigration. But listen to Black’s 12/27/11 program for yourself: http://wpbriradio.com/cm/blogs/derek-black

    Or you could ask your question here: http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t850102/

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom said (@54):

    And currently because of Paul’s ideas about the Fed and immigration.

    Oh, I see. And Paul’s position on the Fed — is it born of his “open racism”, or does Paul’s racism merely reveal itself in his position on the Fed?

    As to Paul’s position on immigration, I didn’t read all 26 pages of the Stormfront thread you pointed me to, but it seems clear that quite a number of the white supremacists there don’t actually like Paul’s position on immigration.

    So what was it you were saying about “policy overlap” and “open racism” again?

    And remind me again, are you arguing that Paul knew he was having a photo taken with Don Black, or not? And does it matter if he knew, or doesn’t it?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Tom said (@54):

    And currently because of Paul’s ideas about the Fed and immigration.

    Oh, I see. And Paul’s position on the Fed — is it born of his “open racism”, or does Paul’s racism merely reveal itself in his position on the Fed?

    As to Paul’s position on immigration, I didn’t read all 26 pages of the Stormfront thread you pointed me to, but it seems clear that quite a number of the white supremacists there don’t actually like Paul’s position on immigration.

    So what was it you were saying about “policy overlap” and “open racism” again?

    And remind me again, are you arguing that Paul knew he was having a photo taken with Don Black, or not? And does it matter if he knew, or doesn’t it?