NationStates Jolt Archive


Ron Paul freaks out Gartref hard.

Gartref
19-01-2008, 04:41
Like many of you, there's things that Ron Paul stands for that I like a lot. Reducing the size of government and fiscal responsibility being chief among them. I also admired his criticism of Bush, the Iraq debacle and the constitutional issues these relate to.

I was, however, shocked when I started seeing very racist & homophobic excerpts from Ron Paul's newsletters from the last few decades. At first I thought it was a smear campaign. Then I found out that, yes, those were all true quotes.

I was somewhat relieved to find out that Ron Paul was not only very sorry for those articles but that, in fact, he did not write them. He claims they were ghost-written for him and that he had little to do with the newsletters even though they bore his name and the editorials were supposedly written by him.

I was only somewhat relieved, though. To allow over 15 years of racist comments in your name to continue with no oversite, is a little hard to believe. If I do choose to believe it, though, it certainly implies that Ron Paul is an incredibly reckless, thoughtless and foolish person. This just didn't square with my perception of him though.

So over the last few days I have dug a little deeper and found some things that really confused me at first.

Back in 1996 Ron Paul was facing a tough election in Texas. His oponent had stumbled onto the newsletters and made them an issue. Here is where I got confused. Ron Paul didn't deny he wrote those comments. He actually defended them. His only responses were that these quotes were taken out of context and that you had to read the whole article.

Huh what? Why not disavow them??? Ron had a thousand opportunities in that contentious 96 race to disavow those quotes. He never did.

So... when did Ron finally start saying that those comments were not his and he was very sorry they appeared under his name? It was a 2001 issue of Texas Monthly. I provide here a link to the article:

http://www.texasmonthly.com/2001-10-01/feature7-1.php

This article is a glowing piece of praise for Ron Paul and provides him the chance to break the story that he didn't actually write those terrible things. Here are the relevent quotations:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around."

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"

Well. There you have it. I was pretty turned off by Ron Paul at this point because I knew he was a liar. He either lied a hundred times in 1996 when he defended those words as his own or he's lied a 1000 times since 2001 when he claims those words were not his.

But this isn't really why I'm posting this thread. For those who recognize my name, you have seen very few threads started by me in the last year or so. Most of my responses are also confined to meaningless dumbass remarks that amuse myself and very few others.

No the reason I am posting this thread today is because I realized something just about an hour ago. The timing of the Texas Monthly article where Ron Paul first claims that his newsletters were not written by him appeared in OCTOBER of 2001. That's less than a month after 9/11.

In my own mind, this seems like too big of a coincidence. I can see the wheels turning in his mind. Finally he has a galvanizing issue to run with on a national level that perfectly meshes with his long held foreign policy beliefs. He knows, however, that he could never run a national campaign with those newsletter quotes hanging over his head.

You may be able to run as a racist in rural Texas, but not on a national stage. He had to do something about it. His old "quote out of context" crap wouldn't hold water anymore. The only way out was to claim he didn't write them. It made him look careless and stupid for allowing his name for so long to be associated with those comments, but it was better than actually having to defend them. In fact, he could then get on the bandwagon and villify those comments like everyone else.

So... a quick call to Texas Monthly and a glowing puff piece turns into a way out. And I mean a QUICK call too. I don't know what the deadline is for a monthly publication, but if somethings going into the October issue, it had better be ready by the third week of September. This means that old Ron had his plans in place while the towers were still smoldering.

So what do you think? Am I reading too much into the timing of the Texas Monthly article? Do you actually believe Ron Paul when he says that he didn't write those newsletters that bore his name for over 15 years? Do you belive he never actually even read them?

Or do you believe like I do that Ron Paul watched the towers fall and knew he had a chance to make a political gain on a national stage if only he could figure out a way to shed his racist rants of the past.

Let me know.
Nova Corporation
19-01-2008, 04:50
Whoaw. That is some heavy theoretical stuff, and way to plausible for me to dismiss it. I have supported Ron Paul's Issues from the start, but there was always something off about him. When I saw the newsletter I thought that I had found the thing. But damn, that is a big accusation. We need to turf this to the major bloggers, see what they can scrounge up. It is amazing the stuff that they can find with enough time and effort.

Its too bad he is crazy, his policies and stances (Except for Iraq) are in par with my own. Too bad he associated himself with the FairTax.
Mer des Ennuis
19-01-2008, 04:52
Three things I want to say;

1) When/if you vote for Ron Paul, you aren't voting for the man, but are trying to show that the libertarian ideal still has a place in the republican party. This is akin to Pat Buchannan showing that the religious faction of the party could vote.

2) Lew Rockwell apparently wrote them.

3) I have a feeling his words upon reading what was published under his name was "holy shit, that's not good for anyone." However, I do think we the Paul supporters deserve a damn good explanation for how and why those newsletters are out there.

Just my thoughts.
Vojvodina-Nihon
19-01-2008, 04:54
- long post is loooong -

Or do you believe like I do that Ron Paul watched the towers fall and knew he had a chance to make a political gain on a national stage if only he could figure out a way to shed his racist rants of the past.

This ^ and by proxy Gartref, receives a Vojvodina-Nihon's Official Doodlebug o' Approval.

The stereotype of the politician is that of the cynical, unprincipled, ambitious double-talker. These traits are generally viewed as bad, so whoever violates them (by affecting a sort of "plain folk" mentality) is generally viewed as a viable candidate. Ron Paul's setting himself up to be a plain-folk candidate, and he's got the little band of loyal supporters -- two necessities -- but alas, he can't quite pull it off. And unsurprisingly he is nowhere near a front-runner.
Straughn
19-01-2008, 04:55
Most of my responses are also confined to meaningless dumbass remarks that amuse myself and very few others.

:(
Sumamba Buwhan
19-01-2008, 05:06
If there was a good explanation for that racist crap, it would have already been revealed IMHO.


Location: Try looking into that place where you dare not look. You'll find me there, staring back at you.

Roseanne Barr's crotch?


:D <3 ya Gartef
Gauthier
19-01-2008, 05:08
I gladly count you as one of the few and proud. :)

How long before the Paulitburo declares you a Suppressive Person?
Gartref
19-01-2008, 05:08
:(

I gladly count you as one of the few and proud. :)
Straughn
19-01-2008, 06:19
Now, are you doing this because
you've never found any of Gartref's posts funny and the notice that they are humorous has made you realise you're lacking a sense of humour
or
because you do and the realisation that most don't is bumming you out?
No, i was doing that because i'd eaten an overripe banana and my cell phone cut out on me when i was complaining to someone about it. I happened to be on this thread at the time.
...but now that you've given me this perspective .... uhm ...
..
.
OR?
...
:( :(
Demented Hamsters
19-01-2008, 06:20
:(
Now, are you doing this because
you've never found any of Gartref's posts funny and the notice that they are humorous has made you realise you're lacking a sense of humour
or
because you do and the realisation that most don't is bumming you out?
Straughn
19-01-2008, 06:21
I gladly count you as one of the few and proud. :)

:)
http://manolobrides.com/images/2007/04/rose-schot-1_2497_st.jpg
*cries w/joy*
Straughn
19-01-2008, 07:04
This happens to me all the time. I just assume someone likes me because my over ripe banana is in their mouth.Are you SUPPOSED to be the winner of your own thread?
Gartref
19-01-2008, 07:05
No, i was doing that because i'd eaten an overripe banana and my cell phone cut out on me when i was complaining to someone about it. I happened to be on this thread at the time.
...but now that you've given me this perspective .... uhm ...
..
.
OR?
...
:( :(

This happens to me all the time. I just assume someone likes me because my over ripe banana is in their mouth.
Gartref
19-01-2008, 07:18
Are you SUPPOSED to be the winner of your own thread?


Much too early to call a winner. BTW Where the hell are the army of Paul supporters that are supposed to haunt the internet?

I as much contended that Ron Paul has built a money machine on lies and the corpses of 9/11 victims and not one fanatic has tried to slay me. How disappointing.
Straughn
19-01-2008, 07:18
Much too early to call a winner. BTW Where the hell are the army of Paul supporters that are supposed to haunt the internet?

I as much contended that Ron Paul has built a money machine on lies and the corpses of 9/11 victims and not one fanatic has tried to slay me. How disappointing.
I noted how you were lamenting the fact that you used up your one serious post/topic already on another thread .... COULD be that other people were thinking you hadn't used it up yet, and haven't hit this thread yet because they had been thinking this might be a joke thread.
?
Wilgrove
19-01-2008, 07:49
Yea, I'm pretty much turned off my Ron Paul too. I like his stance on Government and on foreign policy, but being a racist and Homophobic is something I can't overlook. That's why I took down my Ron Paul for '08 banner and put up Proud Libertarian Banner.
Todsboro
19-01-2008, 09:28
*snip*
So... a quick call to Texas Monthly and a glowing puff piece turns into a way out. And I mean a QUICK call too. I don't know what the deadline is for a monthly publication, but if somethings going into the October issue, it had better be ready by the third week of September. This means that old Ron had his plans in place while the towers were still smoldering.

So what do you think?


I think you're speculating wayyyyy too much.

It would help to find out when that piece was actually written. If it's an October magazine, it probably arrived in homes in September, and was written pre-9/11.
BackwoodsSquatches
19-01-2008, 09:55
Wow.
Holy crap, a serious post from Gartef!

Politicians are lying bastards?
Seriously!?
Since when?!


Yah, seriously, the candidates this time around are the worst ever.
There isnt a single person running that can, or would do a decent job, or rather, there isnt one thats actually qualified to run a country.

Here are your choices:

1. A power hungry oligarchist.
2. A n00b.
3. A freakin' tort lawyer.
4. A guy who doesnt believe in the IRS OR EVOLUTION.
5. A twice divorced catholic, 9/11, WHAT?
6. A rich mormon douchebag, with perfect hair.
7. A lying racist douchebag, who like all politicians, will lie...especially when convenient.
BackwoodsSquatches
19-01-2008, 09:58
Yea, I'm pretty much turned off my Ron Paul too. I like his stance on Government and on foreign policy, but being a racist and Homophobic is something I can't overlook. That's why I took down my Ron Paul for '08 banner and put up Proud Libertarian Banner.

Awww....

And all the gay minorities belonging to Third Parties will love you...





















Right.

I'll just get me coat then.....
Non Aligned States
19-01-2008, 10:32
Here are your choices:

2. A n00b.


Obama?

I can see the reactions now if Obama won.

Obama: Hah! I am l33t. Presidency is mine!
Repubs: No wai! He hax!
Obama: Rolf! Pwnd!
Repubs: Call the EC! He hax the sh!t! Ban him
Obama: You sux. I pwn you all!
Repubs: Hah! My guildie Putin is a lvl 80 dictator. Pwn your ass.
Obama: Go cry suxxorz.

:p
Laerod
19-01-2008, 11:37
Are you SUPPOSED to be the winner of your own thread?Why else would you start them?
SoWiBi
19-01-2008, 11:49
Yea, I'm pretty much turned off my Ron Paul too. I like his stance on Government and on foreign policy, but being a racist and Homophobic is something I can't overlook. That's why I took down my Ron Paul for '08 banner and put up Proud Libertarian Banner.

Well, as much as I still disagree with your choice of policy support, I think it needs to be said that I congratulate you on this decision which makes you stand out from all the droney fanboys (of whatever candidate, mind you; they come in all flavors).
Ashmoria
19-01-2008, 16:13
.

So... a quick call to Texas Monthly and a glowing puff piece turns into a way out. And I mean a QUICK call too. I don't know what the deadline is for a monthly publication, but if somethings going into the October issue, it had better be ready by the third week of September. This means that old Ron had his plans in place while the towers were still smoldering.

So what do you think? Am I reading too much into the timing of the Texas Monthly article? Do you actually believe Ron Paul when he says that he didn't write those newsletters that bore his name for over 15 years? Do you belive he never actually even read them?

Or do you believe like I do that Ron Paul watched the towers fall and knew he had a chance to make a political gain on a national stage if only he could figure out a way to shed his racist rants of the past.

Let me know.

do you buy magazines, gartref?

the october issues comes out sometime in september. it was probably out by the 15th, no more than a week later

that issue was put to bed in late august or maybe the first week in september if it runs on a very late schedule.
Gauthier
19-01-2008, 16:17
Yah, seriously, the candidates this time around are the worst ever.
There isnt a single person running that can, or would do a decent job, or rather, there isnt one thats actually qualified to run a country.

Here are your choices:

1. A power hungry oligarchist.
2. A n00b.
3. A freakin' tort lawyer.
4. A guy who doesnt believe in the IRS OR EVOLUTION.
5. A twice divorced catholic, 9/11, WHAT?
6. A rich mormon douchebag, with perfect hair.
7. A lying racist douchebag, who like all politicians, will lie...especially when convenient.

n00b@/\/\@ 2008
Dempublicents1
19-01-2008, 16:18
Three things I want to say;

1) When/if you vote for Ron Paul, you aren't voting for the man, but are trying to show that the libertarian ideal still has a place in the republican party. This is akin to Pat Buchannan showing that the religious faction of the party could vote.

If Ron Paul actually espoused the libertarian ideal, this might be a point. But since he's actually rather authoritarian....
Telesha
19-01-2008, 16:27
n00b@/\/\@ 2008

If I put that on a campaign sticker, do you think anyone'd buy it?:D
Muravyets
19-01-2008, 16:35
If Ron Paul actually espoused the libertarian ideal, this might be a point. But since he's actually rather authoritarian....
Ah, you beat me to it. Ron Paul is just evidence that libertarians are just as gullible as other people. He's a right-winger in sheep's clothing.

If I put that on a campaign sticker, do you think anyone'd buy it?:D
Yes. Do it. :D
Dyakovo
19-01-2008, 16:49
If I put that on a campaign sticker, do you think anyone'd buy it?:D

probably
Newer Burmecia
19-01-2008, 16:49
Yea, I'm pretty much turned off my Ron Paul too. I like his stance on Government and on foreign policy, but being a racist and Homophobic is something I can't overlook. That's why I took down my Ron Paul for '08 banner and put up Proud Libertarian Banner.
What, the same 'Libertarian' party that wants to endorse Ron Paul for President when he gets the Republican nomination?
[NS::::]Olmedreca
19-01-2008, 20:35
No the reason I am posting this thread today is because I realized something just about an hour ago. The timing of the Texas Monthly article where Ron Paul first claims that his newsletters were not written by him appeared in OCTOBER of 2001. That's less than a month after 9/11.

In my own mind, this seems like too big of a coincidence. I can see the wheels turning in his mind. Finally he has a galvanizing issue to run with on a national level that perfectly meshes with his long held foreign policy beliefs. He knows, however, that he could never run a national campaign with those newsletter quotes hanging over his head.


If your theory is correct then I think everyone should vote for Ron Paul without hesitation, as he clearly is most intelligent president you can ever have. Forseeing in 2001 how Bush will stay in charge for 2 terms and also totally mess up, so that he would have a chance in 2008, must require mastering the psychohistory (as seen in Isaac Asimov's Foundation). Either that or Ron Paul has working crystal ball and its irrelevant how you vote because he has already seen that he will win anyway. :p
[NS]Click Stand
19-01-2008, 21:14
Here are your choices:

1. A power hungry oligarchist.
2. A n00b.
3. A freakin' tort lawyer.
4. A guy who doesnt believe in the IRS OR EVOLUTION.
5. A twice divorced catholic, 9/11, WHAT?
6. A rich mormon douchebag, with perfect hair.
7. A lying racist douchebag, who like all politicians, will lie...especially when convenient.

1.Hilary
2.Obama
3.Edwards?
4.Paul
5.Guiliani
6.Romney
7.Huckabee?

What about McCain?
Talopoli
19-01-2008, 21:43
I think 4 is Huckabee... that might clear it up... least I KNOW Huckabee thinks Evolution is ebil magiks.
Straughn
19-01-2008, 22:09
Why else would you start them?

0.9

That sounds a *lot* like my question-answer about religions a few days back.

Anywho, i've started threads to see where they would go before, to get some feedback i hadn't anticipated, new angles on things, et cetera. Anecdotes, for example. :)