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.