The End of Ron Paul?

The New Republic Strikes

Well, it was fun while it lasted. Ron Paul’s movement was gaining
steam. Supporters chased the disgusting Sean Hannity back to his
hotel. Fox News was feeling the heat from their exclusion of Paul from
their New Hampshire debates. He was polling in double digits in key
primary states. Leno had him on as a guest. Twice. He had the money to
make an impact. It looked like Paul, if he were to break with the
Republicans and run as an independent after the primaries, could
actually force the big party candidates to address the death zone of
Iraq and our loss of civil liberties back home.

Enter pro-war James Kirchick of The New Republic.

On the day of the nation’s first primary, Kirchick ran an online
piece, “Angry White Man”, detailing some of the more outlandish material
that appeared in publications Paul endorsed during the 1970s to the
1990s when he was not active in national politics. Much of the
rhetoric was homophobic and overtly racist, demonizing Martin Luther
King Jr. and other civil rights heroes. And while Kirchick admits he
can’t prove Paul actually wrote any of the words he quoted, as there
were no by-lines, the Texas congressman’s name appeared on the cover of the newsletters –including the now deceased Ron Paul Political Report.

As one passage in The New Republic screed read:

In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine ‘who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.’ In an item titled ‘The Pink House?’ the author of a newsletter—again, presumably Paul—complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite ‘the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,’ adding, ‘I miss the closet.’

This doesn’t read like any of Paul’s writings I’ve perused, and I
don’t actually think he wrote this crap, but the fallout, nonetheless,
could be devastating, as if 8% in the New Hampshire Primary wasn’t bad
enough.

Sadly, Paul’s campaign did not give what I believed to be a very
convincing response to the accusations, “The quotations in The New
Republic
,” Paul says, “are not mine and do not represent what I
believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and
denounce such small-minded thoughts.”

While I don’t believe Paul endorses such hate, I think in order to
potentially save his campaign he must come forward with the names of
the actual authors and editors of the material, proving they are no
longer associated with him in any way, and hope the mainstream press
buys it.

Kirchick most certainly has an agenda, admitting to a pro-Paul gay
rights blogger named Berin that he “doesn’t think Ron Paul is a
homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political
candidates riled up.” Even with Kirchick’s attempt to smear Paul as an
anti-Semite for his criticisms of Israel, much of Kirchick’s flailing
dung may actually stick to Paul’s reputation, deeming him even more
fringe than the media already portray him as.

This may be just the excuse the neo-cons and their pro-war
liberal cohorts need in order to further isolate the anti-imperialist
ideas Paul espouses. Many on the Left too will happily etch Paul in
their memory banks as a whacko-racist, who didn’t even have the tact
to oversee what was being printed in his name. While I may agree with
the latter, I still feel sympathy for all of his supporters as well as
his efforts to end the war in Iraq. If Paul can’t survive this
debacle, one must hope the movement that’s led him this far can.

Does this really mean an end to the Paul campaign? If he doesn’t come
forward with a detailed rebuttal, naming names, showing exactly how he
wasn’t involved and how he never profited from any of the newsletters
quoted (I’m told he did), it may just be. If Ron Paul begins to rise
in the polls once more, the mainstream media has ammunition to take
him down.

Indeed, it would be a sad ending to a noble effort.

Joshua Frank is co-editor of Dissident Voice and author of Left Out! How Liberals Helped Reelect George W. Bush (Common Courage Press, 2005), and along with Jeffrey St. Clair, the editor of Red State Rebels: Tales of Grassroots Resistance in the Heartland, published by AK Press in June 2008. Check out the Red State Rebels site. Read other articles by Joshua.

65 comments on this article so far ...

Comments RSS feed

  1. Brad said on January 8th, 2008 at 3:53pm #

    Only The Mentally Minuscule Take Words Out Of Context To Bend Them To Their Preconceived Paradigm.

    If you refuse to look at the actions of a man for temperance of judgment then you truly castrate you mind and make it easy to arrive at wrong conclusion.

    The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion.

    Racism is not consistent with the philosophy expressed by Ron Paul. He has rebutted these accusations from the same distortions in previous days.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would trust with my money and my family’s safety.

    I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!

  2. Peter said on January 8th, 2008 at 3:56pm #

    The New Republic has lost its credibility sometime ago… all this stuff has already been debunked…

  3. The Truth said on January 8th, 2008 at 3:57pm #

    Jamie Kirchick (author of the New Republic story):

    “I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist.”

    (see here)

  4. JMS said on January 8th, 2008 at 3:57pm #

    Even if he does explain himself and prove that he did not write those materials and show that he’s no longer affiliated with the authors – no one will listen. It’s over. The anti-Paul media has the fuel to finish him off.

    Even Ron Paul’s endorsement of a candidate would be damaging. I’m not so sure that his political career is over, but I think his current campaign is done. I wonder what path Ron Paul supporters will take – defect to the libertarian party candidate? That footage of Ron Paul supporters chasing down Hannity was great. Lets hope that they keep fighting for what they believe in, with or without Paul. If Paul was able to recruit thousands and thousands of new activists – I’d say his campaign is still somewhat of a success. Just because Paul might be out, doesn’t mean they should stop attacking the corporate media etc.

    It should be very interesting seeing what path these activists and supporters take. It would surely be a dissapointment if this stops them dead in their tracks.

    Keep making noise Paulites.

  5. Mark Turton said on January 8th, 2008 at 3:58pm #

    What a shameless politically motivated attempt.

    James Kirchick’s “article” doesn’t provide any bibliographical references or factual information. This is old news which has been proven time and time again to be false – try digging dirt on someone else chump.

    I’ll leave you with a quote from Kirchick:

    “Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch!”

    (see here)

  6. Ralph said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:01pm #

    This is more of the same. It hasn’t stopped Ron Paul in the past and it won’t stop him now.

  7. chris said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:02pm #

    the ghostwritten newsletters. this smear is new and interesting…

  8. Paul said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:03pm #

    I imagine that Mr. Kirchick finally looked at Ron Paul’s wikipedia entry and decided to bring up some old news. This has been out there for years.

  9. JMS said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:06pm #

    I also want to state that Ron Paul should run as an Independent once the Republicans nominate their candidate, if not sooner.

  10. Get Real said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:07pm #

    So, are you saying that he is guilty until proven innocent? This is a Stalinist tactic. It’s like asking someone, “So have you stopped beating your wife?” He has clearly stated that he was unassociated with those comments and did not make them.

    Should someone now write an article about Hillary Clinton to ask: “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”

    Dr. Paul does not have to do anything about this lie or give it any more acknowledgement. If he did, it would definitely draw unwarranted attention to it and the biased media will presume guilt until…well…forever…unless, of course, he were a pro-war, pro-big government, national sovereignty sell-out like the rest of the candidates on either side.

  11. anti-smear said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:09pm #

    As I said elsewhere…

    “The timing for this smear and distraction piece is the giveaway.

    We’re definitely out of the “ignore” and “ridicule” stage….

    …it’s pure “attack” mode now baby!!

    Brace yourselves, (Mr Smith has gone to Washington!!)”

    Peace …

  12. Nathan said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:09pm #

    Well the end has always been speculated, so this version is actually not a suprise. Anyone who tells the truth will always have things to haunt him in the PC World where the truth must be hidden to make people feel better.

    It saddens me that people will only look at the MSM account of this and not dig into the reality and how much truth there is (unfortunately) in the statements made, because they are the blowback of many social and economic policies. I wish what he said wasn’t true, but in reality it is. And because we can’t speak of it, it will only get worse.

    I am thinking of supporting of all people Obama. He’s got the oratory skills and I honestly think he wants to do what’s right. Its very possible he may actually wake up and learn that thinking with your heart isn’t always the best solution. The rest don’t even have a heart and just pander to whoever can get them the most power.

    The only reason RP got as far as he did is that he exposing the truth that will have to be fixed. We are despised oversees and have a magnitude more of people willing to kill themselves to hurt us. Our economy is a royal mess and the corporate fascist state will continue to implode, especially if we have even more nanny state government to go with our imperialism.

    God bless and good luck everyone.

    (And I’m an agnostic)

  13. Jared said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:11pm #

    Isn’t this the second time you have tried to end the Ron Paul campaign? It’s not over until us supporters say it is over. And I say that Ron Paul is the farthest from a Racist than anyone. Libertarians and Racists now that is an oxymoron.

  14. John said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:17pm #

    I’m a supporter of his, and I’ll still vote for him on February 2nd.

    The fact is, while this piece listed a high number of scandalous statements spread over a long period of time, I was aware of some of the comments previously, and accepted Paul’s explanation then and still accept it today. I got involved in the Paul campaign because of the writings I read on his house.gov/paul website, and the writing style isn’t even remotely close.

    He’s still the only candidate close to the mainstream who isn’t a centrist hell bent on perpetual war and growing the welfare state, and for that reason alone, I accept his apology, stand by his candidacy, and have my debit card ready for the next money bomb.

    Besides….the author is an admitted Giuliani supporter. I find it more offensive that Giuliani made 30 million dollars selling a shady datamining company that tracks the behavior of U.S. citizens. I’m all for free market capitalism, but not from neo-con warmongers like Mr. Giuliani.

    Another thing more offensive than a ghostwritten newsletter from way back when? How about Mitt Romney’s security adviser being a Blackwater VP. Talk about a conflict of interest. If someones company stands to gain billions of dollars by expanding the unwinnable “War on Terror”, you can throw away any chance of that person making a rational decision. The reality is, most Americans have no idea the sweet deal Halliburton, KMR, Blackwater and the like got from us going into Iraq, and the shady bullcrap that went on with our money.

  15. Cedric said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:19pm #

    I’ve known about this for over a year now, still voting for Ron Paul. I’m not a racist, and neither is he… this is all so transparent to me… I hope the rest of the public can see through this garbage.

  16. Elaine Mckillop said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:19pm #

    Ron Paul is the most honorable man in Washington. This is just another feeble attempt to discredit him. Let us take a look at the other candidates. Judicial Watch names Hillary, Obama, Huckabee and Rudy on their top ten most corrupt politicians. I saw the Romney camp stuffing straw poll ballots in Tampa. Why aren’t they under scrutiny? Not one of the CFR corporate owned candidates will get us out of the war, reign in big pharma, or restore the civil liberties destroyed by the Patriot Act. Did I mention the IRS and the Federal Reserve? I will proudly vote for Ron Paul.

  17. Jay Chawla said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:21pm #

    Ron Paul is an intellectual who has been writing and speaking regularly, most often as a member of the US Congress, for decades. As would be expected for a Republican from Texas, some of the people with whom he has associated over the years have been 1970s-era Texas Republicans. Ron Paul is a virtuous man who I have not heard making general, out-of-place remarks about any other person or group, including racial groups. Ron Paul supports prosperity and empowerment for ALL Americans, no matter what color or creed.

    Ron Paul wants to shrink government and enhance civil rights. If you are a voter who is concerned about racism against, for example, African Americans, please take the time to think about the dramatic centralization of racist, eugenic public health measures directed at drugging and forcing therapy on African American males from 2 years old to 90 years old, in prisons and in schools, and on supervised release. Ron Paul will stand up for their civil rights. Will your McDonalds candidate stand up? Or will they just take their orders from AFSCME, big Pharma, and the for-profit prison, drug, and therapy ‘for their own good’ industry?

    By the way, I have nothing to do with Ron Paul or his campaign. It just irks me, like Jay Leno, that the political McEstablishment is so terrified of the truth that they are constantly bashing Ron Paul. I also have nothing against McDonalds. In fact my favorite president was named Ronald. ;-)

  18. Diana said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:26pm #

    This is what I found on the web: TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication’s style–hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.

  19. Gary Lapon said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:28pm #

    Josh,

    I can’t believe you’re still covering for this guy! Really, there are three possibilities here, all of which warrant condemning Paul:

    (1) Paul wrote the articles. He was at one time a bigot of the first degree, and there is little evidence of a clear turning point. In fact, if you go to his website you’ll find that his denunciation of racism is a call to claim that if we just ignore race, racism will go away. That’s worked well.

    (2) Paul didn’t write the articles, but knew about them. At worst he’s a lazy bigot. The best scenario here is that he isn’t a bigot, but felt that giving bigotry a platform would help him out in some way. In either case, the effect is the same: spreading bigotry. This is not some harmless error to be excused…a glance at history shows the terrible suffering brought about by such behavior.

    (3) Paul didn’t write the articles and didn’t know they were being published. In this case, the man is so incompetent it’s amazing he noticed the Iraq war was even going on, not to mention opposing it.

    Your short-sightedness continues to amaze me. So Ron Paul is against the war. But he’s a bigot. Bigotry against Muslims played a major role in making this war possible. The US imperial project is not going to end with Iraq, and until we are able to convince enough people in the US to take a principled stand against the bigotry that enables the “War on Terror” to continue, blood spilt by the US military and its cronies will continue to drench the sands of the Middle East and beyond. Applauding bigots while apologizing for their bigotry is not a step in that direction.

    I’m still not sure I understand what form your support for Paul takes, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just happy to see people getting excited about someone who, albeit for the absurd reasons, opposes US imperialism. Activity and excitement in times of crisis, however, when they result in support for hard-line racists, have the very real tendency to lead to more slaughter, not less (Nazi Germany comes to mind).

  20. Larry in SC said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:29pm #

    Get real folks. This is politics at its dirtiest. This guy “Kirchick admits he can’t prove Paul actually wrote any of the words he quoted, as there were no by-lines, the Texas congressman’s name most certainly appeared on the cover”. What is this, guilt by association?

    If you want to paint Paul with this brush, then prove he wrote the articles. Good Luck. I’ve examined 30 years of writings and speeches with Ron Paul’s name actually on the writings and never have I seen anything even close to this diatribe attributed to this smear piece.

    His message is getting out and now the worms are crawling out of the garbage to try anything they can to stop the momentum. It won’t work.

    A good man walks amongst us and his name is Ron Paul.

  21. John from Warren, MI said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:42pm #

    This is old hat. It didn’t stick before, and it won’t stick now.

  22. Tannim said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:44pm #

    Man, don’t you people check your info? This stuff has been debunked many times in the past and yet it comes up again? IS THAT ALL YOU GOT?–articles with no attributed authors that were ghostwritten two decades ago by a man who is not even close to being a racist?

    It is telling that the allegations in question have been debunked for years, and that Drudge had to take down his link to the article because of its shoddy reporting, non-existent sources, and lack of evidence.

    Sorry, but this is not only a non-story, but it is fiction, and those who would pile on to this load of $h!t are just rephrensible and deserve a seat on the nearest short bus, because that’s where their brain levels are at.

  23. bkusz said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:47pm #

    ARLINGTON, Va.–(Business Wire)–In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul
    issued the following statement:

    “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do
    not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
    uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

    “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that
    we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character,
    not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
    House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and
    high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of
    individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

    “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
    It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the
    day of the New Hampshire primary.

    “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
    newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
    writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
    publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
    to what went out under my name.”

    Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
    Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115

  24. cbo said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:54pm #

    Your all wrong. Ron Paul isn’tdamaged by these things. Ron Pauls campain has been one for a thinking population. Anyone who is satisfied with 30 second sound bites or unfounded accusations would not vote for him anyways. This isn’t an issue for him to defend anymore than he has. Americans have the responsibility for filtering thier own information. If anything, the end of Ron Paul can only come from the laziness and ignorance of the American public not from his own actions.

  25. Goober said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:57pm #

    Joshua is obviously another establishment POS. The Ron Paul movement is not even about the man “per se”, it’s about his message of Freedom. All the trickery and sleight of hand cannot stop “We The People” from banning together as one….for FREEDOM.
    Period, end of story.

  26. Jeff said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:59pm #

    First, thank you for taking the time to give Ron Paul some credit and being fair. I noticed you included Paul’s response, but here is the rest of the press release from his website picking up where you left off:

    “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’ — “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. — “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

    Now, I and Dr. Paul agree that it was his responsibility to assure that literature in his publications was suitable. However the difference between he and I is that he is willing to stand and take it. Not turn and push the blame. He is a man of true integrity, please check his record, his actions, his writings for yourself, before you judge him. Thank you.

  27. shunaki said on January 8th, 2008 at 5:00pm #

    Remember Ron Paul supporters, this was to be expected. The Neocons are obviously worried.

  28. boppinblogger said on January 8th, 2008 at 5:01pm #

    clearly he poses a huge threat to the corporate welfare complex that mainstream republicans bury in their “moral” and religious” bullsh**. he lays bare the flagrant inconsistencies all over hte mainstream political map. precisely because he DOES have core principles, holds onto constitutional integrity… etc. etc. he is a resurgence of a true- *legitimate- republican. As Paul says himself, “they [Bush, Cheney, Reagan, Romney, etc. etc. etc.] aren’t” even Republicans!

    (I also don’t think we can even call most “democrats” true democrats; which is all part of the same political shiftage this country’s seen in th past four decades or so.)

    But: how come ron paul is so BELOVED by white nationalists? does anyone know what’s up with that? i see why we NEED him as a dissident voice- for ANY dissident voices- regardless, but my own jury about ron-paul-the-politician is still out.

  29. Michael Donnelly said on January 8th, 2008 at 5:17pm #

    They never were gonna let him in on the Party anyway. This just makes it even more imperative that he run as an Independent, so we’ll have at least one anti-war candidate who will force the others to respond.

    Of course, it also assures a D victory in Novemeber and will set up a Paul-as-Nader hate camp within the GOP. Only this time, there’ll be some reality behind the spoiler claims. And, the GOP deserves it at least as much as the Ds did in 2000.

  30. Dan Alba said on January 8th, 2008 at 5:24pm #

    This one is starting to shape up like the New York Times‘ Virginia Heffernan’s fraud on the same grounds.

    Berin M. Szoka, of Gays and Lesbians for Ron Paul, posts a recent e-mail response from Jamie Kerchick, where Kerchick confesses:

    Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch!

    Thomas DiLorenzo — one of many intellectuals whom Kirchick referred to last night as “neo-confederate” — debunks Kirchick’s smear (stress mine):

    [Jamie Kirchick] asserts over and over that Ron Paul is a “racist.” When Carlson asks him if he ever heard Ron make a racist remark he says “No.” But then, with a Gotcha! look on his face, [Kirchick] announces: “BUT,” he DID attend a conference on secession in 1995!! Aha! Gotcha!

    This ignorant little kid posing as a “journalist” then informed everyone that the conference was sponsored by a “neo-Confederate” group and that Ron Paul speaks to “the neo-Confederate community,” whatever that is, “in code language. (I knew that Ron was in touch with the Martian community, and with the residents of the planet Remulak, home of the supposedly “fictional” Coneheads of Saturday Night Live fame, but not the “Neo-Confederate Community” as well).

    Well, I was at that secession conference and presented a paper there. It was sponsored by the Mises Institute, which has nothing to do with Confederates, neo or otherwise, as anyone who surveyed the Institute’s programs on its web site (www.mises.org) would know. [Kirchick] did not bother because he is only interested in slandering Ron Paul, not in being a serious journalist.

    Another suchly maligned intellectual, Lew Rockwell, writes of The New Republic‘s dubious distinctions:

    TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication’s style–hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.

    The current smear, like all the other neocon and state-worshiping frauds, are easily destroyed.

    But like you said in so many words, Joshua: it is a damage-done sort of drive-by hatchet job. And those frauds do leave some kind of mark, especially with an effectively dumbed-down audinece of corporate media programming (e.g., “Tucker”).

  31. Jason said on January 8th, 2008 at 5:25pm #

    Since when does the “mainstream press” even cover him anyway? lol Actually, I bet that this story gets more attention than breaking the all time single day fundraising record.

    Sean Hannity goes out to bait a protest into doing something to him and gets upset when supporters call him a sellout and a bad American, which is true. The Murdoch Opinion Channel is not news and Sean Hannity is just like every other wo-is-me talking head chickenhawk. “We excluded one of our own candidates from the debate because he dare disagree with our globalist war machine, and his supporters yelled rude things at me.” Boo Hoo Sean, cry me some fake Hillary sized tears.

    What a joke, this is the neo-con rag that is all about bombing and killing brown people all over the world and taking their natural resources. Now they have the balls to call some else racist.

    We arent buying it.

  32. Ralph Ray said on January 8th, 2008 at 5:26pm #

    How many readers does the New Republic actually have? It once had great political influence in this country but for the last 30 years or so it has been little more than a neo-liberal, mindless and reflexively uncritical pro-Zionist rag. In the last couple of years, under new ownership, it has improved slightly. It remains mindlessly pro-Zionist, however, and Ron Paul’s failure to support the Zionist agenda is undoubtedly why those hypocrites at the New Republic decided to attack him. Folks who support the Zionist agendahowever, are in absolutely no position to attack anyone else for racism unless they are, like the NR crowd, totally obtuse. I am a Green Party member and will almost certainly vote for Cynthia McKinney for president in November. However, I do prefer Ron Paul to any of the other mainstream party candidates, Republican or Democrat. Israel Firsters such as Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Guiliani or McCain are hardly in a position to accuse anyone else of racism. Even Kucinich’s position and record with regard to Israel is bad when compared with Ron Paul’s. Most of the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates stood on the steps of the U.S. capitol in the summer of 2006 and applauded murderous assault on Lebanon by the IDF that left over 1,000 innocent Lebanese noncombatants dead. Compared with any one of them, Paul looks good. Finally, though, I simply do not think man of Ron Paul’s supporters read the New Republic and I doubt that his campaign will be significantly damaged by James Kirchick’s piece. I cancelled my subscription to the New Republic back in 1966, around the time they fired Andrew Kopkind for writing pieces opposing the Vietnam war. I suspect that even less people care now what they think than did then.

  33. Rick Cain, Tulsa, OK said on January 8th, 2008 at 5:31pm #

    They swiftboated Kucinich with the UFO crap, now they’re swiftboating Ron Paul!

    Who is they? You know who THEY are. Corporate media, political pundits funded by corporatations, big government moguls, lobbyists, everybody we all know and hate.

    Ironic that Kucinich is now supporting Ron Paul. When you are part of the non-CFR group that is excluded, you find friends.

    We are with you Ron, everybody knows the paid smear merchants have gotten their checks and are busy during this campaign.

  34. Mark J. Seydel said on January 8th, 2008 at 6:16pm #

    This, as was stated prior to my comment, is old hat. This stuff has been dealt with, apologized for and is done. The Ron Paul campaign, is not done.

    Ron Paul still has this ex-democrat (so that I can vote for Dr. Paul in the primaries), gay, atheists vote. Ron Paul is the person for the job of President of The United States of America in 2008.

    Intelligent people vote intelligently.

  35. Alice said on January 8th, 2008 at 7:18pm #

    I’m not with him at all..he is anti-choice. A blatent disregard for to each their own body. If it’s IN my body, it IS my body.

  36. boppinblogger said on January 8th, 2008 at 7:42pm #

    i am more than willing to say that there is no one less entitled to accusations of racism then the New Republic, or any of the dominant centrist/rightist Big Pols and Media Moguls- ANYONE so clearly down with bombing and colonizing brown people all over the world for the sake of a “New” World Order.

    but about Ron Paul: HOW COME STORMFRONT (a most prominent white nationalist organization, as WN orgs go) SO OVERWHELMING SUPPORTS HIM? they are open, militant racists, many of them neo-nazis in fact (earnestly regretting the civil rights movement, denying the holocaust happened…); WHAT IS RON’S APPEAL to people like them? is it just a state’s rights/secession rights… “he’ll let us phobic separatist bigots make our own laws…” kind of thing? this doesn’t necessarily mean ron paul harbors their ideologies per se, but it’s a mortifying association nonetheless… CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN?

  37. boppinblogger said on January 8th, 2008 at 7:47pm #

    and btw how come every paul supporter (except the white nationalists, seems to me…) have to trumpet their own “intelligence” and ability to “think”?

    this too is striking…

  38. Scott said on January 8th, 2008 at 7:55pm #

    I’m pissed. I have Ron Paul bumperstickers on my cars a sign on my lawn, I discuss the issues of my candidate while others talk about how their candidate makes them feel. If someone happens to hear this bullshit 11th hour smear shit and bring it up in a political discussion, I’m going to bitch-slap somebody. Kirchick himself said in a later interview that he doesn’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe or anything, he just did this article to get under people’s skin because he’s an admittedly deeply dark cynic. He can’t stand to see people of truth and sincerity, and like a pathologic he has to bring things down.

  39. boppinblogger said on January 8th, 2008 at 8:04pm #

    (and alice: ditto on teh pro-choice bit. he’s personally so-called pro-life, and wnats to repeal row v. wade on the state’s rights grounds… to let STATES decide to seize hold of women’s ‘self-ownership.’ WTF? are women to be seen as nothign more than baby-barers interfering with the manifest destiny of the fertility happening, as you say, INSIDE them? hahaha when a libertarian schtick protects the rights of a legistative body over OUR bodies, something’s up. and- don’t know aobut you but- i can already smell the sh** seeping out….)

  40. Annamae said on January 8th, 2008 at 8:57pm #

    before you make up your mind about Er. Paul please read this

    http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

  41. T. Watson said on January 8th, 2008 at 9:02pm #

    A 1990 newsletter dismisses the “gay political agenda” as “uniformly statist.” That same newsletter calls Martin Luther King Jr. a “world class adulterer” and a pedophile (“he also seduced underaged girls and boys.”)

    Oh yeah: the above mentioned newsletter ends with the following:

    “My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. May we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists…”

    So Ron Paul wrote the newsletter’s holiday greeting but had no input into anything else in it? Or any of the other newsletters published using his name? We’re supposed to believe that?

  42. Gary Lapon said on January 8th, 2008 at 11:24pm #

    boppinblogger,

    I’ll take a stab at your question as to why neo-Nazis and open racists like David Duke support Ron Paul.

    If you look at Paul’s positions on foreign policy in isolation from the ideology he derives them from, they seem to mirror those of many on the radical Left. Take his position on Israel. He calls for an end to US aid to Israel. I’m opposed to US aid to Israel because I view Israel as an apartheid state responsible for the brutal oppression of the Palestinians, as well as an outpost of US imperialism in the Middle East. David Duke opposes US aid to Israel because he is an anti-Semite whose recent book “Jewish Supremacism” warns of a supposed plot by certain Jews to take over the countries in which they live.

    I’m a socialist, in opposition to bigotry no matter who is the target. David Duke is a professional bigot, a former Grand Wizard of the KKK. We share the same position on aid to Israel in the strictest sense, but I would never dream of working with Duke in any coalition. Duke also opposes the war in Iraq. Not because he cares about the Iraqi people, but because he feels that the war is against the interests of the US (I would argue that it’s in the interests of a small, rich minority, and against those of the vast majority), more specifically whites, and because he thinks Israel is the reason the US is fighting the war. According to Duke, the US should stay out of other countries’ business and seal its borders (and cut social services, presumably allowing the disproportionately-minority poor folks to starve) so it can remain

    Now, it’s hard to imagine Duke (and the neo-Nazis) supporting Paul if he was actually anti-racist, or if they felt he posed a threat to white superiority, the core of their belief-system. Of course, Paul claims not to be a racist, but politicians say a lot of things when they run for office that turn out not to be true. Maybe he’s the first honest major-party politician in history, but I tend to think he got his honesty out of his system while writing those bigoted newsletters. His views on immigration (deporting all undocumented immigrants and ending birth-right citizenship) are a form of racism, I would argue. David Duke writes, “America will become a Third World nation unless we make Ron Paul the next president, and let him secure the borders and get rid of the anchor baby loophole.”

    Paul’s solution to racism is to end all government intervention in the matter, and let the “free market” sort it out. Considering the general rule (with rare Horatio Alger exceptions) that you have to have money to make money, this will simply continue the economic racial disparities we have today. In addition, as corporations are a primary force in spreading racist ideas through the media (both directly and through omission), as well in the workplace (racial division hampers unionization, and racism creates an underclass that is a source of cheap labor), societal racism will flourish. David Duke and the neo-Nazis like this.

    These newsletters reveal Paul’s ideology. Yes, he denies writing them now, but be realistic. Since when are politicians honest. He expressed his true opinions in the past, and now that there is more at stake he has toned down his rhetoric, just like David Duke has taken off the hood.

    Neo-nazis and racists like Duke support Ron Paul because he’s one of them:

    http://www.littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28537&only&rss

  43. hoaxbuster said on January 9th, 2008 at 1:20am #

    These attacks on Ron Paul are threadbare. He denied the charges then and denies them now. And btw, where’s the letterhead on that Little Green Fascists exhibit? Looks more like pages ripped out of a Franklin Quest Planner and shoved into the typewriter. LGF and TNR = lying neocon hacks. Burdon of proof is still on all of you Paul-bashing liars.

  44. m jones said on January 9th, 2008 at 8:02am #

    the new republic is a rag, but they are a major magazine that cannot get away with libel and slander. hence, i don’t buy the argument that Kirchick is “flailing dung.” it might stink, but its your shit to smell, josh frank!

    we get no where by pissing on people and telling them its raining. its dishonest. people who have been pumping up ron paul while consciously, knowingly turning a blind eye to his unquestionable bigotry really need to dramatically change course.

    unempathetically,
    a “left” activist who doesn’t vote democrat either

  45. messianicdruid said on January 9th, 2008 at 8:44am #

    Have any of you people ever heard of “DIVIDE AND CONQUER”???? If you do not recognize that as a rhetorical question, considering what is written above, this is friggin hopeless…

    The ONLY thing all Americans can agree upon is Liberty and the Constitution. This simply proves to me that most of you are not Americans, because you cannot allow others to exercise Liberty and abide by the Consitution.

    Instead you will attempt to use the government in the District of Corruption to force people to conform to your version of whatever ISM you are currently frothing at the mouth about, and to make things worse, – force them to foot the bill for it.

    The Revolution goes on, without you and without Ron Paul, if need be, because it is not about him, and it is not about you. I’m thinking of the Sam Adams quote here, which contains “go from us in peace”, but I can’t even stir up enough ‘phileo’ for you at this point.

  46. Binh said on January 9th, 2008 at 9:35am #

    As I said in my blog about Ron Paul’s newsletter:

    “Recently he has been charged with being a hardcore racist based on excerpts from a small newsletter he published in the 90s called The Ron Paul Survival Report. This was the heyday of Pat Buchanan, the right-wing anti-government militia movement, and the white supremacist terrorist-bomber Timothy McVeigh.

    “Today Paul claims the incriminating articles were written by a ghostwriter and that he had no knowledge of their contents, but that’s not very convincing given that the newsletter was only eight pages long and had only 7,000 subscribers. (He has refused to allow the media access to the complete collection of old issues.) He later took ‘moral responsibility’ for the comments, but the fact that such racist filth could come out under his name says a lot about him and who he makes alliances with.”

  47. Michael Pugliese said on January 9th, 2008 at 9:51am #

    Yo’ Paulistinians, the bloggers at the libertarian Reason Hit and Run site, are mostly against your special pleading for your man. Check ‘em out.
    Overall, I’d say that just as in the radical Left mileau full of unreconstructed Leninists and other utopian idiots (Dennis Kucinich, anyone?) the Ron Paul Revolution on the radical Right, is full of kooks.

  48. Michael Pugliese said on January 9th, 2008 at 9:54am #

    Another loon. Cynthia McKinney recommending The Spotlight/The American Free Press of Willis Carto on 9-11. Carto, is a acolyte of the late neo-fascist intellectual Francis Parker Yockey. Every issue of The American Free Press and its predecessor, The Spotlight, has ads for favorable documentaries on the Nazi Waffen SS.

  49. Michael Pugliese said on January 9th, 2008 at 9:58am #

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html
    November 14, 2007
    The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
    via Binh

  50. messianicdruid said on January 9th, 2008 at 10:01am #

    Yeah I hear ya, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, Lysander Spooner, Sam Adams, Daniel Shays, and all those losers that signed the Declaration – loons, complete waste of oxygen.

  51. Michael Pugliese said on January 9th, 2008 at 10:16am #

    http://www.socialistworker.org/2008-1/657/657_07_RonPaul.shtml

    Why Ron Paul’s left-wing champions are wrong

    January 11, 2008 | Page 7

    not that the ISO isn’t as stupid as the Paulites but…

  52. Steven Argue said on January 9th, 2008 at 11:27am #

    The Ron Paul “Revolution”, an Extreme Rightwing Threat

    By STEVEN ARGUE

    For the most part the Iowa caucuses were business as usual for the Democrat and Republican Parties. Among the Democrats, “Anti-war” and “pro-single payer health care” Democrat Dennis Kucinich put his support behind pro-war anti–single payer health care, Barrack Obama. Yet on the far right, anti-war Libertarian and Republican Ron Paul gained a stunning 10% of the vote.

    Seeing the failure of the Democrats to deliver a candidate worth supporting; some left leaning individuals have been suggesting support to Ron Paul. One is anti-war Vietnam veteran Stan Goff, who suggested in his January 4, 2008 article ”Monkey Wrenching the System, Ron Paul’s Revolution” that people vote in the primaries for Ron Paul, switching party registration right away if they live in a state where such a move is necessary to vote in the Republican primaries.

    At the root of the Ron Paul “revolution” is the dismantling of Social Security and the Department of Education as well as other basic social programs, and the elimination of worker and environmental protections. Advances like single payer health care? No way. Ron Paul’s message is that you need to take care of yourself, and that there shouldn’t be such government programs, nor such interference with private profit. While he puts forward reasons for not supporting going to war abroad, his domestic policies would ignite civil war at home.

    In addition to pretending he’s against all government, he’s for the continued ban on same-sex marriage. He was one of the original co-sponsors of the “Marriage Protection Act”.

    On abortion, Ron Paul is against it and puts forward a “state rights” argument. It took the national Roe v Wade decision to legalize abortion. Getting rid of national protections for a woman’s right to choose is one way to move towards the banning of abortions.

    In addition to his opposition to a woman’s right to choose, Ron Paul opposes any protections for women being sexually harassed on the job, saying they should just quit.

    He’s also a religious extremist who thinks that creationism should be taught in the schools.

    On race, Ron Paul was one of 33 Congress members to vote against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, an act that was first passed to give Blacks in the south the right to vote. On a similar note, he says the Civil Rights Act violates the Constitution and impedes on individual liberties as well as states rights. Once again “state rights” are being used to defend Ron Paul’s racist and sexist positions. Speaking of Blacks in Washington DC he states in campaign literature, “95 percent of African Americans in are semi-criminal or entirely criminal”.

    Anyone who votes against the renewal of the Voting Rights Act is a racist. And you can spare me the Civil War era “states rights” rhetoric. Abraham Lincoln and the Union Army, including 200,000 Black soldiers, smashed the southern slavocracy, and this was a tremendous step forward. More recently the Voting Rights Act was passed, but if it were up to Ron Paul, it would be abolished.

    No wonder the American Nazi Party has close relations with him (see letter from Nazi Commander Bill White below). In addition, Ron Paul has the support of other white supremacists such as David Duke, and has knowingly taken donations from former KKK Grand Wizard Don Black.

    Hell would freeze over before I’d support Ron Paul. And being an atheist; that will be a long time.

    There are plenty of candidates to the left of the Democrats worth considering supporting who oppose the war, would preserve public education and Social Security, who would provide single payer or socialized medicine, and who aren’t raving racist, homophobic, and sexist “Libertarian” fanatics. Why not look at them rather than someone from the loony right?

    I discuss some of the campaigns that may be worth supporting in the following article:

    The Case for Socialized Medicine in the United States,
    And the Struggle to Achieve It
    By STEVEN ARGUE
    http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/01/02/18469739.php

    Or here is a different version of the same article:
    http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2008/01/93820.html

    *****************
    American Nazi Party Chief says Ron Paul is one of us

    Bill White, commander of the American National Socialist Worker’s Party, aka The American Nazi Party, wrote the following on the Nazi Vanguard News Network:

    Comrades:

    I have kept quiet about the Ron Paul campaign for a while, because I didn’t see any need to say anything that would cause any trouble. However, reading the latest release from his campaign spokesman, I am compelled to tell the truth about Ron Paul’s extensive involvement in white nationalism.

    Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays. This is part of a dinner that was originally organized by Pat Buchanan, Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, and has since been mostly taken over by the Council of Conservative Citizens.

    I have attended these dinners, seen Paul and his aides there, and been invited to his offices in Washington to discuss policy.

    For his spokesman to call white racialism a “small ideology” and claim white activists are “wasting their money” trying to influence Paul is ridiculous. Paul is a white nationalist of the Stormfront type who has always kept his racial views and his views about world Judaism quiet because of his political position.

    I don’t know that it is necessarily good for Paul to “expose” this. However, he really is someone with extensive ties to white nationalism and for him to deny that in the belief he will be more respectable by denying it is outrageous — and I hate seeing people in the press who denounce racialism merely because they think it is not fashionable.

    Bill White, Commander
    American National Socialist Workers Party

    *********
    Poor Bill White. He’s having trouble with his brand of racism, anti-Semitism, mass extermination, and genocide not being “in fashion”. But hey, you’ve got to thank the knuckleheaded Nazi for confirming our suspicions on Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan! -Steven Argue

    This has been a public service warning of Liberation News, subscribe free:
    https://lists.riseup.net/www/info/liberation_news

    Also see, the Ron Paul Time Machine!
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7884Z6-FiMY

  53. Anthony Kennerson said on January 9th, 2008 at 11:32am #

    How nice, Joshua, that you have so fully drank the Kool-Aid and become one of Ron Paul’s groupies. I would have thought better of you.

    Let’s just put aside the history of all that ugly racist smack imminating from his newsletters (and NO, the fact that he denies writing any of that crap personally doesn’t absove him of anything, since it appeared ultimately under his name, and he did nothing to alter them).

    The real issue is this: How in the HELL do you expect the Left to gain any ground without substantial support from Black and Brown people, from women, or from sexual dissident people…the very ones who Paul would be the first to liquidate if he actually managed to become President??? Would ending the war be worth that risk???

    Ron Paul will remain a racist and a reactionary long after the war ends. We can do much, much better.

    Anthony

  54. Elizabeth said on January 9th, 2008 at 2:34pm #

    Wait a minute. Ron Paul’s own newsletter published disgustingly racist and homophobic stuff, and we’re supposed to be upset because… this could be unfairly portrayed by the media and ruin his campaign? (The one that’s running on the “end birthright citizenship” platform?)Because after all, he didn’t write the crap himself?!

    This, to me, is a really sad sign of a Left that’s lost its way.

  55. Zozobra said on January 9th, 2008 at 2:48pm #

    Paul people, when did Ron Paul learn about the bigotry in his newsletters? When and where did he publicly acknowledge and condemn the bigotry?

    I’m having trouble corroborating the Paul campaign’s claim that he “dealt with all of this already long ago.” Would those of you who are more familiar with him and his campaign provide some evidence of this?

  56. Michael Pugliese said on January 9th, 2008 at 4:02pm #

    From the thread at Orcinus blog on RP and the TNR article. >…>…Pantload, I didn’t say the newsletters were dog-whistling. As you note, they’re quite blatant.

    But everything in Paul’s present-day persona elides the guy who wrote the newsletters. He goes out of his way to look moderate and reasonable, and put things in such a sensible way that I find myself nodding and agreeing with about 85% of what he says. It does, absolutely, sound like everything I ever wanted a politician to say. And I’m far from the only liberal who feels that way.

    But liberals who’ve never been around Birchers or Spotlight readers don’t have their ears tuned to hear all the ways in which Paul’s whole message is shot through with hoary old Bircher and white supremacy stuff. The racists in our midst hear the same words, but get something entirely different out of them. He says he wants the same things we do — but for completely different reasons. That’s the dog-whistle effect.

    Dave and I have been writing on this since June, and have gotten no end of flak from not only Paulbots, but also progressives (including, very publicly, Glenn Greenwald) who just didn’t understand how we could be hearing racism in what he was saying. The more we tried to explain it to them, the more they thought we were just a bit cranky on this issue.

    These newsletters are ample confirmation that we got that story right from the get — though I doubt Greenwald will ever give us our due on that.
    Mrs Robinson | Homepage | 01.09.08 – 12:19 pm | #

    http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2008/01/ron-pauls-far-right-foundations.html

  57. jesus was a monkey said on January 9th, 2008 at 4:03pm #

    i’ve never read such tripe in all my life as the stuff served out to us in this article. oh, yeah the guy’s a raging homophobe and racist BUT, BUT, BUT.

    for fu#$s sake, joshua frank and all the other ron paul “left wing” apologists, go and re read your marx (or ‘read’ as the case may be), that’s about the most useful thing you can do with yourselves. stop pretending to be “radical”.

  58. Michael Pugliese said on January 9th, 2008 at 4:05pm #

    If you do a Google Blog search, “Kirchick Ron Paul, ” threre is tons of blog commentary on the contro. Along with allegations that Diebold machines were hacked to deprive RP on his N.H. victory.
    And, would be interesting if Lew Rockwell (see below) girlfriend, Cindy Sheehan gets Paulistinians to work in her campaign vs. Pelosi.
    Orcinus blog of Dave Neiwert, as usual, has commented, as well. He was great on the naivete of Glenn Greenwald in Salon.com defending Ron Paul.

    http://reason.com/blog/show/124286.html

    Those Newsletters

    Jesse Walker | January 8, 2008, 5:02pm
    For what it’s worth, I believe Ron Paul when he says he didn’t write those newsletters. I’ve been active in libertarian circles for many years now, and I can remember hearing occasionally that someone or another had a gig ghostwriting for Ron Paul. This was after the newsletters in question had appeared, but I assume the congressman had made such arrangements in the past as well. The race- and gay-baiting quotes in the New Republic piece — and, even more so, the documents’ general gestalt of an impending apocalypse — sound like the sort of material that often appeared in far-right direct-mail packages in that era. My suspicion is that someone who wrote such packages also picked up a job writing the Ron Paul Survival Report.

    I’m glad that Paul has repudiated the racist and anti-gay comments that appeared in the Report. But the issue he still has to address, and which his official response only dances around, is what exactly his relationship to that publication was. If Paul didn’t write those articles, who did? If he didn’t know what had appeared in his newsletter, when did he find out and how did he deal with it? If the candidate is vague on these points, it will only fuel suspicions that he held those beliefs after all (or that he was willing to stay silent despite his disagreements because the newsletters brought in some cash).

    The story isn’t going to go away on its own. By releasing its article the day of the New Hampshire primary, The New Republic pretty much guaranteed that if Paul does well at the polls today any reports about his success will include this much-less-flattering information as well. Transparency, please.

    http://reason.com/blog/show/124282.html

    Thoughts on Ron Paul

    Nick Gillespie | January 8, 2008, 3:48pm

    As someone who has written and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Ron Paul, I’ve got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning. As former reason intern Dan Koffler documents here, there is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping.

    I don’t think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn’t matter–the newsletters carried his name after all–and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage.

    Various staffers will be weighing in on this through the day.

    The New Republic has posted newsletters here.

    Update: Ron Paul’s official comment is here:

    http://reason.com/blog/show/124288.html
    Paul’s Blowback

    Matt Welch | January 8, 2008, 5:24pm

    A quick round-up of reaction to the New Republic’s cache of Ron Paul’s awful and embarrassing “Ron Paul” newsletters (which Nick Gillespie commented on here, and Dave Weigel hustled a terse Paul response to here).

    Lew Rockwell:

    TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication’s style–hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.

    David Harsanyi:

    The end of Ron Paul? For me, it is. Not the principles, but the man. Sure, Paul has experienced tremendous grassroots support and I’ve been very sympathetic to a lot of his strong Constitution-based rhetoric. But if even a slither of the quotes in this New Republic article by James Kirchick are accurate, I’m not sure how mainstream libertarians can absolve him.

    David Bernstein:

    I give Paul the benefit of the doubt on this one, and assume that some right-wing cranks paid him to use him name on their newsletters, and he didn’t actually read the newsletters carefully if at all, much less write them. That shows very poor judgment, but is a lot less damning than if he did read, write, or edit these newsletters.

    [A]s Kirchik in TNR notes, there are really two disparate groups to whom the limited-government message appeals: philosophical libertarians (which consists of a tiny percentage of Americans, but something like 10% are at least inclined toward a general libertarian perspective), and those who hold a deep grudge against the federal government based on a range of nutty conspiracy theories, ranging from old chestnuts like a freemason conspiracy, a Council on Foreign Relations/Bildeberger conspiracy, or a conspiracy to strip the U.S. of its sovereignty in favor of world government; to variations on old anti-Semitic themes (ranging from domination by Zionist conspirators to domination by Jewish bankers led by the Rothchilds to domination by Jews in Hollywood); to newer racist theories; to novel conspiracy theories about 9/11, the pharmaceutical industry, etc.

    Mainstream libertarian groups like Cato and Reason have nothing to do with the latter types, but other self-proclaimed libertarian groups, like the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, play footsie with them. (I recently turned down an invitation to do a book review for an academic journal published by LVMI because I don’t want my name associated with the Institute.) Paul himself seems to have made a career of straddling the line between respectable libertarian sentiment and conspiracy-mongering nuttiness, receiving support and accolades from both sides.

    But now that he wants to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate, he can’t get away with it anymore.

    Ryan Sager:

    I truly don’t understand the Paulites defense that Ron Paul bears no responsibility for any of this … just because. (Read the comments to the article — as usual for the Paul brigades, they’re unhinged.)

    At least Andrew Sullivan may be waking up to the fact that the Ron Paul “revolution” is a front for something much uglier than opposition to the Iraq war and defense of the Constitution.

    Chuck Demastus William Flax:

    The fact that our Neo-Cons have an army of would-be Sancho Panzas in the media, propagandizing America with slogans and half-truths, does not make their absurdity more valid. Nor should it make it more palatable.

    But, oh how they vent their hatred on Dr. Paul.

    Ann Althouse :

    Look, I said it on Bloggingheads: The things Ron Paul has been saying made me suspect that his libertarianism was a cover for racism.

    Orinn Judd:

    A philosophy that is so entirely dependent on love of the self can’t help but be plagued by hatred of the other.

    Andrew Sullivan:

    They are a repellent series of tracts, full of truly appalling bigotry. They certainly seem to have no echoes in his current campaign, but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be taken seriously [...]

    I don’t know enough about the arrangements behind these pamphlets to tell if this is a plausible defense or not. But there is a simple way to address this: Paul needs to say not only that he did not pen these excrescences, he needs to explain how his name was on them and disown them completely. [...] If there is some other agenda lurking beneath all this, we deserve to know. It’s up to Ron Paul now to clearly explain and disown these ugly, vile, despicable tracts from the past.

    Andrew Sullivan again, after the Paul response:

    I’m very glad to hear it. Taking moral responsibility is the right thing to do. But I should say I think less of Ron Paul after reading this article than I did before. Much less.

    Ken Layne:

    The anti-war/hippie embrace of Dr. Congressman Ron Paul is one of the absolute strangest things to ever happen in politics.

    Rand Simberg:

    I’m willing to believe that he wasn’t the author, and even that he didn’t endorse the newsletter, but I find it troubling that he let this stuff go out under his own name for so long. The fact that he now takes “moral responsibility” for it now is nice, I guess, but it really makes one question his judgment. And his campaign continues to attract many unsavory elements of American politics, including 911 “Truthers,” who he seems to unwilling to denounce.

    Michael Goldfarb:

    Dr. Paul isn’t just kooky, he’s deranged. [...] [T]here is no plausible explanation that might insulate Paul from the fallout.

    Matthew Yglesias:

    I think Ron Paul’s responses as given to Dave Weigel and now issued in a press release are reasonably reasonable. If you’re a pro-life, anti-war, anti-immigration, libertarian I don’t really see anything here that would make you suddenly embrace John McCain as a preferable presidential candidate. Meanwhile, it shouldn’t really be surprising to see a link between a libertarian politician and white supremacists. The main constituency for Barry Goldwater’s message was white supremacists, after all.

    Arnold Kling:

    I think this is a very important moment for libertarians.

    Me? I’m tempted to agree with the latter, but I’m not so sure, at least not in the same way in which I’ve heard pre-emptive anxiety for months from libertarians, who all seemed to be holding their breath waiting for this day to come. My personal preference for limited government (and limited thinking about government) really has never had anything to do with revisiting Civil War history, hatin’ on uppity urban blacks and going all purple-faced about political correctness, real or imagined. And I can guar-an-tee that the general (and significant) trend toward political independence, don’t-tread-on-meism, and especially a full-throated embrace of live-and-let live freedom, tolerance, and choice-driven exploration among people younger than me has bugger-all to do with Fear of a Black Planet. The source for freedom’s popularity is not, and probably never will be, located in the mouth or heart or rancid old newsletters of any politician.

    http://reason.com/blog/show/124284.html
    Ron Paul

    Radley Balko | January 8, 2008, 6:20pm

    I’m disappointed in Paul and in his campaign.

    First, a few caveats. I think Paul’s prone to nutty conspiracy theories, but I don’t think he’s a racist, at least not today. Perhaps there was a time when he held views that I and many people reading this site would find repugnant. But I certainly don’t think that’s the case now. Paul’s temperament and demeanor in public does not suggest he’s the kind of person capable of writing the bile Kirchick quotes in his article. Paul’s position on the drug war alone—which he has acknowledged disproportionately affects minorities—would do more for blacks in America than any proposal any of the other candidates currently has on the table. Paul has also recently rescinded his support for the federal death penalty, also due to its disproportionate impact on blacks. Those two positions alone certainly don’t indicate a candidate who fears “animal” blacks from the urban jungle are coming to kill all the white people.

    I also think the Paul phenomenon ought to be separated from any personal baggage Paul may have. Yes, there are some losers who support Paul’s candidacy. Any time you’re a fringe candidate cobbling together support from those who feel disaffected and left behind by the two-party system, you’re going to end up bumping elbows with a few weirdos. But there’s nothing bigoted about the thousands of college kids, mainstream libertarians, war opponents, drug war opponents, and hundreds-long threads on sites like Digg and Reddit where enthusiasm for Paul’s candidacy is strong. This movement is about ideas. There’s a vocal, enthusiastic minority of people out there, skewing young, that is excited about “the Constitution,” limited government, and personal freedom. That’s significant and heartening, and shouldn’t be tainted by the fallout from Kirchick’s article (though I fear it will—more on that in a bit).

    I’d also point out that if we’re going to clean house, here, we should go ahead and give it a thorough cleaning. When it comes to alleged sordid associations with neo-confederate organizations, Paul’s in good company in the Republican Party (see Haley Barbour and John Ashcroft, among others). When it comes to anti-Semitism, one needn’t look any farther than Al Sharpton, who still commands inexplicable respect from the Democratic establishment. None of this excuses what’s in those newsletters, nor does it excuse Paul’s association with them. It just means he has company, and I suspect the outrage we’ll see in the coming days will be rather selective.

    All of that said, let me get to the scolding. Like Nick Gillespie, I think the most disappointing thing about all of this is what Dave Weigel posted this afternoon from New Hampshire: Paul doesn’t consider this worthy of a serious reaction. I was hoping for much, much more. If Paul didn’t write these screeds, he should tell us who did, or assign someone from the campaign to do some research, and reveal the authors’ identity. He should explain his relationship with the authors, and how it is they came to write for a newsletter that went out under his name. He should acknowledge which of these positions he at one time supported but now repudiates, which he has never supported, and which he still supports. If he’s going to claim he merely lent his name to some people and causes he shouldn’t have, and with whom he didn’t at the time or doesn’t now agree, he should say so, and explain how he could let a newsletter continue to be published under his name after first, fifth, tenth, or twentieth time it ran something he found offensive. Like Kirchick, I find the prospect that Paul never read the newsletter implausible.

    The 1990s is not “ancient history.” We were by then well past the point in American history where the kind of racism and bigotry present in those articles had any place in civil discourse. I simply can’t imagine seeing any piece of paper go out under my name that included sympathetic words for David Duke. That a newsletter with Paul’s name did just that demands an explanation from Paul. The “I’ve answered that in the past” reply isn’t sufficient. You’re running for president, now. You have a national platform. You’ve been an ambassador for libertarian ideas on Colbert, the Daily Show, Meet the Press, and Jay Leno. That you’ve provided a brief explanation for some of these passages a decade ago during a little-noticed congressional campaign doesn’t cut it. No one was paying attention then. Just about everyone is now.

    That Paul and his campaign don’t consider this worthy of a serious reaction I’m afraid makes it all the more difficult to buy into the least damning spin on the story (and even that is still pretty damning). It suggests at the very least a certain obliviousness to the resonance and impact of racism and bigotry.

    Of course, Paul was never going to win. So the real concern here is what happens to the momentum for the ideas his campaign has revived. The danger is that the ignorance in those newsletters becomes inextricably tethered to the ideas that have drawn people to Paul’s campaign, and soils those ideas for years to come. You needn’t be a gold bug or buy into conspiracies about Jewish bankers, for example, to see the merit in allowing for private, competing currencies (what PayPal once aspired to become). You needn’t believe blacks are animals or savages or genetically inferior to believe that the welfare state’s perverse incentives have done immeasurable damage to black families. You needn’t be a confederate sympathizer to appreciate the wisdom of federalism. You needn’t be an anti-Semite to wonder about the implications of the U.S.’s broad support for Israel.

    Some of these ideas have always faced a certain hurdle in the national debate. To argue against welfare, hate crimes laws, and affirmative action, libertarians (and conservatives) always have to clear the racism card first. To argue for ending the drug war or knocking out huge federal agencies, we always have to clear the “‘I’m not a kook” card. Today’s news, combined with Paul’s high profile, I think carries the potential to make all of that a little more difficult.

    I also fear that newly-minted Paulites on sites like Reddit, Digg, Slashdot and the like—whose first exposure to libertarianism was Ron Paul—are going to click over to the New Republic piece in the coming days, become disillusioned, and assume that this is really what libertarianism is all about.

    Paul’s candidacy attracted broad support because he unabashedly embraced what the GOP claims to be on fiscal issues—low tax, limited government, pro-federalist—and what the Democrats claim to be on social issues—pro individual freedom and pro-privacy. Paul’s campaign has essentially called both parties on their bullshit, and made them explain the gap between their stated principles and the way they’ve governed. Both sides I think were surprised at how strong he came on. So both sides dismissed him as a nut, and cited the kookiest fringes of libertarianism and dug up the most whacked-out Paul supporters to prove their point. Unfortunately, the quotes pulled from these newsletters will for many only confirm those worst stereotypes of what he represents. The good ideas Paul represents then get sullied by association. The Ann Althouses of the world, for example, are now only more certain that opponents of federal anti-discrimination laws should have to prove that they aren’t racist before being taken seriously.

    There have always been issues where I disagree pretty profoundly with Paul—immigration and the Fourteenth Amendment, to name two. Still, I’ve been encouraged by his campaign because it’s been heartening to not only watch a candidate talk about limited government, humble foreign policy, and individual liberty over the last several months, but to see his support actually grow as he does.
    Paul’s success and media coverage have exposed a large portion of the country to libertarian ideas for the first time. Before yesterday, that was a good thing. But now I’m not so sure. If this new audience’s first exposure to libertarianism now comes with all of this decidedly unlibertarian baggage—that many may now wrongly associate with libertarian ideas—maybe it would have been better if Paul’s campaign had sputtered out months ago, and we waited a cycle or two for someone else to come along to tap the sentiment.

  59. Michael Pugliese said on January 9th, 2008 at 4:22pm #

    Um, Steve Argue, as you can see I despise the Ron Paulbots and their loony libertarian “free market” bushwa but, the piece by that Neo-Nazi Bill White, has been debunked. Bill White is a notorious bullshitter. Once called me, on a Left Unity list he infiltrated, “the leading West Coast organizer for the CPUSA, ” ! I dislike those Stalinists as much as I do the Paulians.
    http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003689204
    NYT’ Says Its Blog Post on Ron Paul ‘Should Not Have Been Published’
    By E&P Staff

    Published: December 27, 2007 9:00 AM ET

    NEW YORK The New York Times on its Web site posted a lengthy Editors’ Note last night concerning a blog posting this week by reporter Virginia Heffernan. That post had opened, “Ron Paul, our Internet president, seems to have Nazi troubles, as in they’re saying he’s one of them.”

    The Editors’ Note reads:

    “A post in The Medium that appeared on Monday about the Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul and his purported adoption by white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups contained several errors. Stormfront, which describes itself as a ‘white nationalist’ Internet community, did not give money to Ron Paul’s presidential campaign; according to Jesse Benton, a spokesman for Paul’s campaign, it was Don Black, the founder of Stormfront, who donated $500 to Paul.

    “The original post also repeated a string of assertions by Bill White, the commander of the American National Socialist Workers Party, including the allegation that Paul meets regularly ‘with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review and others’ at a restaurant in Arlington, Va. Paul never attended these dinners, according to Benton, who also says that Paul has never knowingly met Bill White. Norman Singleton, a congressional aide in Paul’s office, says that he met Bill White at a dinner gathering of conservatives several years ago, after which Singleton expressed his indignation at the views espoused by White to the organizer of the dinner. The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul.”
    *
    To comment or read more, go to Paul.

  60. Michael Pugliese said on January 9th, 2008 at 4:46pm #

    The blog intern/editor at TNR (where blog comments have to be approved) is awfully liberal.
    1275 comments so far there. Among them.
    Posted by Oliver Stiffins
    393 of 1275 | warn tnr | respond
    I went to school with “Jug Ears” Jamie. He was an annoying paranoid zionist asshole bootlicker. I can tell some very disturbing stories about his uncomfortably bizarre antics when drinking. Some things never change.except he may not be drinking.

    | Posted by Francis from Stripes
    394 of 1275 | warn tnr | respond
    I bet Kirchick wrote the entire article with one hand and used the other to keep jamming a broomstick up his ass. After he finished writing, he probably took a month off to go vacation in San Francisco…queer capital of the world. “Any of you homos touch me, I’ll kill ya.”

  61. ashley said on January 9th, 2008 at 7:17pm #

    Gary,

    thxs for yr example of why very different people can end up embracing the same policies.

    As to the white racism issue. I have been studying it of late and find some of the arguments valid and compelling even though I am personally convinced that race is not the best basis for communal identity and culture. The issue that comes before whether or not one concludes that race is the basis, or blood-ties, or religion, or ideology, or location etc. etc. etc. has to do with creating strong community, nation or culture, or rather than strong we could say homogenous, or with clear identity and character. It fits together.

    Now this is an interesting topic and one far too often not discussed even though it is beneath many major issues and dynamics. The so-called ‘liberal’ modern ‘multicultural’ model has real problems – in my view – some of them so basic and deep as to make the entire movement, or cultural fashion really, essentially harmful.

    In any case, one of the main arguments of the white racists, I think goes like this: the white race has created, for thousands of years, the most advanced civilisations in the world, or leadership for them (the white, red-headed line of Egyptian Pharoahs for example). This race has a basic underlying culture and gene pool worth protecting. Multiculturalism will basically dissolve this culture and gene pool thereby eradicating the race.

    There is nothing unreasonable or extreme about this line of thinking, indeed there is probably hardly a Jewish person in the world who doesn’t either think along those lines or at least contemplate them frequently. How do you retain the Jewish culture and race/bloodline over time? How to protect and maintain it? You have to have clear identity, generally marry within the clan, protect this identity and so forth.

    Finally, the white racists are into Paul (and I suspect he is one as well) simply because they are pro freedom, anti central government, anti corporate control and so forth. They would like to be free to create their own communities and states without the tyranny of liberal multiculturalism imposed from on high by laws which, when all is said and done, undermine their culture and identity.

    Something like that.

  62. Ron Lawl said on January 10th, 2008 at 1:49am #

    “Ralph said on January 8th, 2008 at 4:01 pm : This is more of the same. It hasn’t stopped Ron Paul in the past and it won’t stop him now.”

    It hasn’t stopped Ron Paul in the past because the people of Texas apparently had no problem with electing a racist. Ron Paul returned to office in 1996, the same year that the newsletter first became public. The newspapers asked him for comment, and Ron Paul defended the text and insisted he had been quoted out of context. He didn’t invent the ghostwriting story until 2001. Yet for some reason, the people of Texas still elected him, 5 years before he was willing to deny the story.

    Anyway, I get tired of dealing with the same talking points, so I created an in-depth FAQ

  63. Mick Russom said on January 10th, 2008 at 5:23am #

    End of Ron Paul. Nope just getting started. We predicted the vote fraud; see here:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQxB5VKWlfg

    Once people figure out whats going on, currency, freedom liberty and peace have a chance.

  64. James Kirchick has no credibility regarding his Ron Paul allegations | Ron Paul War Room said on January 11th, 2008 at 2:51pm #

    [...] following is from dissidentvoice.org dated 1/8 by Joshua Frank entitled, “The End of Ron Paul?” {and of course the answer is ‘HELL NO!’}: Well, it was fun while it lasted. Ron Paul’s [...]

  65. 2008 Election: On the Candidates « Hope2012 said on January 17th, 2008 at 6:15pm #

    [...] Times 1/1/08) Ron Paul vs. John Edwards – Failures of Sectarianism (Dandelion Salad blog 1/4/08) The End of Ron Paul? The New Republic Strikes (Dissident Voice 1/8/08)If you want to check the credibility of the source, google “New [...]