Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I hope you're sitting down when you read this. Bill White, the leader of the neo-Nazi group American National Socialist Workers Party, has written on a white supremacist bulletin board that Ron Paul is secretly one of them but he has to keep that quiet to maintain his political viability. Full text of what he said below the fold:
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
White seems to be a controversial figure with the other racist nutjobs at the Vanguard site. Some condemned him for spilling the beans and therefore hurting Ron Paul's campaign. Others implied that White is really a marxist mole in the group. In a follow up post, White said:
As to why post it --I post it because it annoys me to see politicians and their spokesmen deny racism.
Racism is okay. Racism is popular. Being racist doesn't hurt you except when you hem and haw Pat Buchanan style and try to hide it. So, let Ron Paul come clean and embrace his love for white people. Is that so bad? Will it cost him the election? Hardly.
Personally, I don't think Paul is 100% "racist". He's certainly not racist in the sense I'm racist, and doesn't think of Jews in the way I think of Jews, but he is someone aware of the race question and the Jewish problem. Differences? I believe that Jews and non-whites should, at the least, be deported from the country, and that whites who adhere to Jewish philosophies should be placed in camps and re-educated. Ron Paul would find that abhorrent, because he believes in the Constitution and rights and human equality and all that sort of nonsense.
Plus, I don't think its much of a secret he associates regularly with a large number of white activists. I mean, he goes to dinners where there are dozens of white activists in attendance, so you figure he can't exactly keep the lid on it forever. I won't name all of them here unless I have to, but his involvement in "soft" white activism -- Stormfront, American Renaissance, etc -- is well known.
This could get very interesting.
Comments
"Ron Paul would find that abhorrent, because he believes in the Constitution and rights and human equality and all that sort of nonsense."
So RP has white supremacist friends, but he's not committed to it in any kind of bad way. Kind of like his position on creationism.
I'd think that at least some of his claims--like having congressional office visits--wouldn't be that hard to verify. So we could see if his claims have any credibility. A posting on a white supremacist internet forum could hardly be considered authoritative information.
Posted by: Moopheus | December 26, 2007 10:28 AM
Interesting indeed. Check out this response on the Prison Planet website, which seems to be a Ron Paul support group.
Nothing screams "White Supremacist" like accusing your opponents of being "Isreali Propaganda" tools based on an icon on someone's desktop. Particularly if the organization in question is a neo-nazi organization.
Posted by: Mark | December 26, 2007 10:45 AM
I don't know. My skeptic meter is going off big time. It's a rather substantial claim and I'd have to see some more convincing evidence of it than that and also have to wonder why if he's one of them, white supremacist's would be sabotaging his campaign like that. Seems to me they'd be the most protective of his secret if it were true. I don't like Paul but this rings false.
Posted by: Donna | December 26, 2007 10:58 AM
Donna, I have to agree. I am not a Ron Paul fan, but he has been a Congressman for many years. Why is this just now coming to light? Is it because he raises questions with the GOP about the war? Is it because he is raising support and money the past two quarters? I smell fear by the GOP and we all know when the GOP fears someone the swift boating comes.
Posted by: Melissa | December 26, 2007 11:03 AM
I could write that Huckabee is a secret supporter of evolution but discredits it publicly to maintain his political viability. That doesn't make it so. It would just be one more batshit lunatic claim in a political landscape that loves to give ink to batshit lunatic claims.
I like to rely on a little thing I call evidence. Would you take Bill White seriously on any other subject he cared to rant about? Why should he get a free pass on this one?
Paul bashing runs deep and wide but I have seen very little that goes beyond baseless accusations.
Posted by: Kevin | December 26, 2007 11:04 AM
Interesting? No, I don't really think so. Ron Paul opposes the drug war, the single biggest threat to the welfare of American blacks there is. Even he were a Grand Dragon of the KKK, that fact alone means that his presidency would be more pro-black than that of any other candidate. So let the white supremacists say whatever they want, and I'll continue to not give a damn.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2007 11:07 AM
When I first read the title of this post I thought it meant Paul of Tarsus (you know, the apostle) was supposed to be a Neo-Nazi. Crazy, but White probably thinks that too!
Posted by: Dave M | December 26, 2007 11:14 AM
If we've learned anything about the Swift Boat affair, it's that something doesn't have to be true to hurt the candidate. It just has to appeal to some group and they'll run with it till it either runs out of steam or steamrolls over the candidate.
Posted by: Dave S. | December 26, 2007 11:20 AM
according to Sara Robinson and David Neiwert's research over at Orcinus, Paul does have some connections to White Nationalist groups, so these claims arn't out of the question. Maybe a bit overblown and ginned up to look worse-- not that being only moderately racist make shim suddenly not so bad but still, there may be more truth than fiction here.
Posted by: Keith | December 26, 2007 11:20 AM
This reeks of being posted by a plant
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | December 26, 2007 11:25 AM
Ed, I'd be very careful citing Bill White about anything. He's a world-class liar and always has been. As you may know, I've been interested in hate groups, particularly in the context of Holocaust denial, for a long time now. On a mailing list I belong to, we've been discussing this very claim, and we're all very skeptical, tending to think that Bill White's full of it. In other words, this is just White trying to get attention, something he's very good at. For one thing, there really is no corroborating evidence that Ron Paul showed up at any of the meetings at which White claims to have seen him or that he or his aides ever invited White to their offices to discuss policy.
That being said, Ron Paul is quite disingenuous about his neo-Nazi support. He takes neo-Nazi money. Unless he's a total and complete idiot, he knows what these groups stand for, but he takes their money anyway. His denials that he supports their agendas seem a bit disingenous to me; certainly he doesn't find them abhorrent enough to him to return their campaign contributions.
Posted by: Orac | December 26, 2007 11:26 AM
Okay, first post after reading for a long time.
What strikes me about this is how different the debate on this topic at a place like ScienceBlogs is compared to forums/communities organized around an ideology. I mean, we've got a claim made, people weighing in cautioning skepticism even though it has -some- plausibility based on Dr. Paul's previous associations, and even Orac throwing in information about the source. This is great, especially compared to the PrisonPlanet response that is a terrific example of a counter-smear similarly deficient in plausibility.
I find Ron Paul's candidacy fascinating, and I'm not particularly committed to his supporters or detractors, but this kind of debate helps me form my opinions so thanks y'all.
Posted by: Sefrankel | December 26, 2007 11:43 AM
This is the same Bill White who expressed support for the Columbine teenage killers and published the addresses pf the Jena 6. He is an attention whore of the first order with no credibility whatsoever.
Anyone spreading these filthy vicious lies has to explain to me how come they have chosen to believe this lying scumbag and support his nefarious work. Since Dr. Paul has demonstrated time and again that he has more support from black voters than any other Republican candidate, the only possible conclusion is that anyone spreading and supporting these lies supports the world view of Bill White. Since Bill White's history us easy to find on Wikipedia and elsewhere, there is no way that a blogger or news journalist can claim to be ignorant of who they have decided to trust for their sources of information.
Posted by: Rock Howard | December 26, 2007 11:47 AM
I wouldn't trust anything Bill White says. They guy is a flat out nutcase. Other supremacists consider him so outrageous that they believe he's a plant working for the government. White considers Stormfront to be a "pro Jewish" website.
He also has a charming habit of posting people's home information and encouraging death threats against them.
http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2007/06/more-on-pitts-death-threats.html
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | December 26, 2007 11:52 AM
Here's a website that actually took the time to comb through the Paul campaign FEC reports to determine if the secret meetings in a Thai restaurant actually took place tara-thai-ron-paul-and-white-supremacists-fec-report-data
Posted by: Devin | December 26, 2007 12:01 PM
And on the other hand, there's little question that the one copy of The Ron Paul Survival Report we have (courtesy of it being archived by Nizkor after a neo-Nazi posted it on his website) was written by someone who is familiar with racialist propaganda like that of American Renaissance.
I have speculated previously the folks like David Duke and the rest have possibly read the the Survival Report letters that we have not, and read in them something that they liked a great deal. Now, it may be unfair of me to speculate so, but the Paul campaign could easily end such speculation by releasing those letter to the public.
And I'm still a little surprised that no journalist has bothered turning them up. Maybe someone looked and found them to be unremarkable?
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | December 26, 2007 12:03 PM
There's no question that Bill White is not exactly a reliable source. But this is not an isolated claim, it needs to be put in the context of several other facts:
1. His own past racist writings, which have been widely cited.
2. The fact that he has spoken to openly racist groups.
3. The fact that he has been endorsed by a laundry list of white supremacist groups, including Stormfront and Vanguard.
4. The fact that even after being notified that he had gotten money from white supremacists he refuses to give it back.
5. The fact that he has chosen to associate with a variety of fringe nuts. This is the guy who put both Lew Rockwell and Gary North on his congressional staff.
Is that proof that Paul is a racist? No, I don't think so. But it sure as hell sends up a lot of smoke. It's hardly a stretch to think there may be fire there.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 26, 2007 12:22 PM
Sigh. I'm on deadline and don't have time to go find all the debunking that has already been done on these smears.
I will merely point out that Ron has said "racisim is the worst form of collectivism" and an "error of the heart." He has also said that he will not return contributions he receives from people who support bad things, because they would just use the money to support those bad things.
More later when I have time, if no one else does it first.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 26, 2007 12:33 PM
A beautiful piece of disingenuous rationalization. And he wonders why people think his accepting of neo-Nazi money leads people to wonder how tight he is with white supremacists.
Posted by: Orac | December 26, 2007 12:51 PM
Gee Orac, Ron's position seems reasonable to me. It's the position I would take. But to you it's perfectly clear that Ron is simply a liar. You have a beautiful soul.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 26, 2007 12:56 PM
I wonder why the new digs at Ron Paul lately? What do you really have against the guy? Personally I have more issues with Clinton and Giuliani than Ron Paul. And they are in a way better position to grab the presidency than RP will ever be.
I also agree with others - I have no issues with Ron Paul taking money from anyone who wants to give it to him.
Posted by: yoshi | December 26, 2007 1:20 PM
Orac, I am personally against abortion and I have donated about $500 to the Paul campaign. Should Dr. Paul return my money too?
If you think that this is different because it is somehow symbolic, then consider this. That $500 came in and was spent months ago before the matter of who made the donation was known to the campaign. Now you are, in effect, saying that Dr. Paul should take my $500 that I gave him to run a positive campaign and instead send it to a white supremacist. Well no thank you to that!
On the other hand if you think it is important that a white supremacist has $500 more in his pocket, then by all means send him the money yourself.
Posted by: Rock Howard | December 26, 2007 1:23 PM
Never fails. write something about Paul and his followers show up to defend the faith. At least they bring their own straw men.
We were discussing how a Republican candidate for president is accepting money form Neo-Nazis and may have spoke at their meetings and you can't seem to figure out why this might be of interest? But look, Clinton! In a pantsuit!
Posted by: Keith | December 26, 2007 1:28 PM
Have you guys actually read these Ron Paul supporter comments?! These people are really crazy! Rock actually said
I mean that's just nuts! Nobody seemed to call him on it. I agree with a lot of folks that Bill White shouldn't be listened to without a grain of salt, but the list of knocks against Ron Paul should certainly make one cringe.
Posted by: Scott Reese | December 26, 2007 1:44 PM
Orac:
Assume that Bill White, in a fit of delusion, turned over all his assets to Orac. What would be better... to return the money or not? I'd suggerst NOT!
Your legitimate fears about disingenuous rationalizations can be soothed without returning tainted money. For example, Paul could publicly identify tainted money, state why it was tainted and state his position as to the tainted money, e.g., 'Bill White is a racist, I do not share his views and I will enjoy spending his money to advance a non-racist agenda.' Should you find that insufficient, let Paul accept money from the likes of Bill White and, rather than returning it, donate it to the Simon Wiesenthal Center.
Posted by: Ompus | December 26, 2007 2:03 PM
This may be the case that "enemy of of enemy" is my friend. David Duke and other white supremacists are opposed to War in Iraq. They view America's Middle East foreign policy as been by the interests of Israel. These donkeys are so vehemently anti-semetic that their sympathies lie with the Muslims (the enemy of my enemy). So along comes Ron Paul who is a conservative opposed to the War in Iraq. It is therefore naturual that David Duke & Bill White are drawn to him. But I dont for a second believe that it follows that Ron Paul agrees with their racist ideology. Rather it goes to show that anyone campaigning under a libertarian banner will attract a very odd assortment of supporters.
Posted by: Cheddar | December 26, 2007 2:10 PM
Oh, I read the headline, and I thought you meant Paul as in St. Paul, the former Saul, road to Damascus and everything.
But Ron Paul? I'll bet the denial won't come out until late on a Friday afternoon, perhaps after the Iowa caucuses.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | December 26, 2007 2:50 PM
I'd say you hit the nail on the head, Cheddar.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2007 2:56 PM
Ed,
Your blog for the most part has been pretty reasonable. Yet, you really seem to have it out for Paul. In the past few weeks it seems like your blog has been more of a hit blog against Paul.
Posted by: Mike | December 26, 2007 3:03 PM
http://www.nolanchart.com/article704.html
Posted by: Rico | December 26, 2007 3:07 PM
If Ron Paul wanted to donate the neo-Nazi money to the Weisenthal Center, I'd consider that a perfectly fine solution. But he's not doing that, is he? He's using the money for his campaign--for his own purposes, to get himself elected, not for the purpose of demonstrating that he has no truck with racists.
Posted by: Orac | December 26, 2007 3:17 PM
Pat Buchanan tries to hide his racism?
Yeah, I know. And?
Posted by: Skemono | December 26, 2007 3:17 PM
Mike said:
Yes, Ed has posted a number of critical things about Ron Paul recently, but it's not because he has it out for Paul. They actually have quite a few views in common. I suspect it's more that Ed is a left libertarian and Paul is also libertarian but has attracted a ton of support from right wing nutters (and is right wing in many ways himself), which is both disappointing and disturbing when some of his positions seem so dead-on, and coming from a similar place.
Orac said:
I suppose the idea that a candidate might be supported by racists, possibly even be racist himself, yet support policies which are the most beneficial for minorities must be too much of a robot killer for you.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2007 3:27 PM
Cheddar is close, but not quite there. The support Paul gets from the WN's isn't simply as superficial as that they both oppose the war in Iraq. It's that Paul is extremely (and rightly so, IMO) of neoconservatism - which to them is code for attacking Jews. Couple that with his belief - in an apparently racially sterile version of New World Order conspiracy - and that leads them to believe Paul is speaking in code to them.
Then there's other things about Paul that they are thrilled about, such as his claiming church/state separation is a "phony activist doctrine", his desire to repeal the 14 amendment, and his opposition to hate crimes laws.
The racism is collectivism quote I find extremely unconvincing. "Collectivism" in the context of Paul's views and that news letter is progressive taxation and the welfare state, which means that he's saying anyone in favor of that stuff is functionally racist. It's a form of Newspeak.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | December 26, 2007 3:32 PM
Paul's opposition to the drug war would be beneficial to minorities.
His ignoring of the the 14th amendment's P or I clause which he tends to pretend doesn't exist would not be good for them.
Posted by: Hume's Ghost | December 26, 2007 3:34 PM
Sure, if that's how you want to define "multiculturalism." But if by the term Paul actually means something like this, then "racist" seems to apply pretty aptly. It makes a difference, doesn't it?
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2007 3:37 PM
Ron Paul also voted against a medal for Rosa Parks! That PROVES beyond all doubt that he's a closet racist.
Or...there's another explanation. But you wouldn't accept that explanation anyway. Just can't convince a convinced person.
Posted by: Dude | December 26, 2007 4:23 PM
Voting against a medal for Rosa Parks would actually put an X down in the racist column, unless you think one of the pioneers of the civil rights movement doesn't deserve at least a symbolic gesture from the government for good works done in the name of humanity and decency.
Anyone else notice how all of a sudden, Ron Paul Republicans are the spokesmen for nuance and finely parsed arguments based on complicated platform issues? These were decried as the week-kneed tactics of Al Gore back in the day but suddenly moral relativism and arguments about the meaning of "is" are just dandy.
Posted by: Keith | December 26, 2007 4:37 PM
Dude, I've never heard that one before... so I did some research. And while, at first glance at least, it looks strange not to give her a medal, his reason that he gave in his speech appears to be consistent with his libertarian tendencies:
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm
So just based on the reason that I gave (which I don't personally agree with, but find reasonable), I don't think the incident concerning Park's medal can or should be used at all as proof of any alleged racist tendencies.
But that said, if it turned out that he was inconsistant with his libertarian ideology with regards to giving out medals to others... then I might be forced to change my mind.
Has anyone done any research to see if Paul has voted for other persons to receive similar medals?
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 26, 2007 4:55 PM
Oops... Minor edit in the second paragraph:
So just based on the reason that HE gave....
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 26, 2007 4:57 PM
I think that the issue here is actually very simple. When one gets into the pen with the pigs, one may expect to emerge with a coating of mud. The point is that Representative Paul has gotten into the pen with the pigs (e.g. Lew Rockwell, Bill White, etc.) and therefore has no complaint about his critics pointing out his coating of mud.
Posted by: SLC | December 26, 2007 5:10 PM
doctorgoo:
I'm not aware of him voting "for" any medals, only against - and his reasoning is always the same (unconstitutional use of taxpayer money).
He has voted against medals for Pope John Paul II, the Dalai Lama, Mother Theresa and Charles Schultz (Peanuts creator). He also voted against a medal for the Reagans...yes, those Reagans.
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm
So by Keith's reasoning, in addition to being a "racist," Dr. Paul also anti-catholic, anti-Buddist, anti-Snoopy, and (apparently) anti-Republican. :)
Posted by: deskzombie | December 26, 2007 5:22 PM
O wow. All this talk from these Ron Paul experts and I just assumed that everyone here knew the reason he voted against a medal for Rosa Parks...and Ronald Reagan, and anyone else getting a medal from Congress. It costs the taxpayers. He offered to donate $100 of his own money toward each medal if other congressmen would similarly donate. No one would take him seriously.
Posted by: Dude | December 26, 2007 5:30 PM
Lew Rockwell is a pig? I disagree with him on some pretty fundamental issues, but I never considered him to be a PIG.
Posted by: Dude | December 26, 2007 5:31 PM
The POINT of this is not whether this neo-nazi is telling the truth.
The point lies in the 23 forum pages that show avowed neo-nazis oozing out of every crack in the intertubes to support and defend Ron Paul as some sort of savior for their vision of a pure nation.
His message attracts the whackos like a turd attracts flies.
That is the point. And if you support Ron Paul, the evidence suggests you're attracted to this season's political turd.
Posted by: metoo | December 26, 2007 6:14 PM
That guy is really called White? Almost too good to be true...
And why is he Commander rather than Leader?
Posted by: David Marjanović | December 26, 2007 6:16 PM
Some thoughts, in no particular order:
1. Of course Bill White can't be taken seriously. This wouldn't be the first time crazed racists have tried to claim support from some public figure in order to boost themselves. If there is any evidence of meetings like this, then this is extremely serious and it can and should sink Ron Paul's public status. But there simply isn't any such evidence, not even a hint of it. Besides which, the whole thing just sounds plain crazy (the claim is that a secret alliance of nationally infamous racist groups and well-known Republican officials are secretly but regularly meeting, at a Thai restaurant a block from Ron Paul's campaign headquarters? What?)
2. Prison Planet shouldn't be taken seriously either. The place is run by a crazed talk radio fringer who transitioned from David Koresh/militia conspiracy mongering in the 90s to 9/11 conspiracy mongering in the 00s without missing a beat. The Prison Planet guy also has a similar "problem" to the one Ron Paul is dealing with here-- that he claims not to be anti-semitic, but somehow or other seems to keep giving people that impression. The book "THEM" by Jon Ronson has an interesting segment on him...
3. The reason why Ron Paul is attracting so much attention from people like Bill White, and Prison Planet, is not because Paul is a "libertarian" or because he "opposes neoconservatism" or whatever. It is because he has long-running personal ties to the milieu of that kind of group, dating back to the 90s before anyone really knew what a "neoconservative" was or put the kind of focus on the word "libertarian" you see today. Before the Iraq War and Paul's current image makeover, Ron Paul was effectively the mouthpiece of the Prison Planet/NWO/right-wing fringe types within the mainstream. (To the extent that Ron Paul himself was ever mainstream, of course.) The support he garnered in that era is simply carrying over into Paul's presidential-aspirations, foreign-policy-focused era.
4. What we should find interesting or important here is not that a crazed racist claims Ron Paul to be One Of Them-- it is interesting, but given how little credibility Bill White's word has this is basically a distraction in terms of whether it tells us anything about Ron Paul himself. The thing we should focus on here instead is that groups of crazed racists and conspiracy fringers are, for one reason or another, supportive of Ron Paul-- and have been since well before there was an Iraq War or "neoconservatives" to rally against. There is something in Ron Paul that appeals to them. We should be asking ourselves why.
5. Another thing to focus on is, given that there is some component of Paul's base support coming from groups like this, that Paul does not really seem to be acting as if he is bothered by this. Returning money is one thing, but besides that one thing there's really a range of things besides just returning money that Paul could be doing to distance himself from these groups. He has, from anything I've seen, not. No, quotes saying "I am ideologically opposed to racism" do not count for anything. First off, this isn't by itself very impressive. That politicians will say they are opposed to racism is at this point our barest expectations, not something you get brownie points for. Second off, that Ron Paul claims an abstract, ideological opposition to racism doesn't really address the substance of the criticism-- that Ron Paul has concrete links to groups with racist elements, that he's received material support from them, that he has spoken at secessionist groups or whatever. These groups do not exist as abstractions-- they're actual, real-world organizations of people, and so if there is an appearance of support there it would be reasonable to expect to see Ron Paul taking steps to distance himself from them in a concrete, non-abstract way. I've thus far not seen Paul taking any such steps. I've thus far not seen Paul making any public attempt to make it clear he does not appreciate these people's support. We should, again, be asking ourselves why.
6. As a final aside, this may be a relevant time to note Ron Paul's interview with Tim Russert from this weekend, wherein he puzzlingly reportedly denounced the Civil War as unnecessary and an attempt by the nefarious Abraham Lincoln to destroy the spirit of America; and suggested that rather than simply freeing the slaves, the north should have paid for them?
Posted by: Coin | December 26, 2007 6:23 PM
Dude, get a grip! No one mentioned the Park's medal as proof of Paul's alleged racism until you brought it up first. And given just the tiny bit of factual information that you provided, it seems like you were fishing for an "I told you so!" moment. It's unfortunate that Keith took your bait.
But instead of debating your fishing expedition, why not address Ed's point? In a recent comment, he expanded on why, in addition to the topic of the post, why he has concerns about Paul's alleged racism.
In that recent comment, Ed mentioned five additional reasons why he reposted White's letter in spite of the obvious credibility issues. Afterwards, he concluded by saying: "Is that proof that Paul is a racist? No, I don't think so. But it sure as hell sends up a lot of smoke. It's hardly a stretch to think there may be fire there."
I find nothing that Ed wrote in this post, or any of his other related posts on Paul, to be unreasonable. He even indicates that he, himself, (and like most of us) hasn't yet made up his mind on whether or not the evidence is sufficient to determine for sure that he is a racist.
But if you are such a strong Paul supporter as it seems, then why not dispute these five points instead of bashing the obviously misleading canard of the Parks medal?
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 26, 2007 6:36 PM
Paul is the only one to vote against the patriot act, the war in iraq, wants to end the racist drug war, and you fools mock him.
What about the millions that clinton/bushies take from drug companies, defense contracters, the racist Israeli radical lobby AIPAC that supports apartheid against the Palestinian people, theyve chopped up the west bank in hundereds of peices with Israeli only roads and Israeli only settlements, they divert 85% of the water for Jewish use only, if this isnt racism I dont know what is, So Hillary and Ghouliani are far more guilty of racism than Paul for accepting money from a racist/warmongering entities such as Halliburton and Aipac. Don Black has zero influence on our policies, unlike the corrupt organizations I mentioned above.
Cue "im an anti semite response" My response to that is im not, many jews themselves are against these policies like Chomksy/Finklestein, and also I could just say you all are arab hating racists anyways.
Try sticking with the issues, funny how all this smearing happens right when Paul is picking up steam before the Primaries.
Posted by: cooler | December 26, 2007 7:03 PM
Paul has over 50k friends on facebook etc, many of whom are minorities, I guess they are part of the Neo nazi conspiracy as well.
Posted by: cooler | December 26, 2007 7:06 PM
If Paul receives financial donations from awful groups, why doesn't he donate that money to a charity or (as has been mentioned already) an organization like the Simon Weisenthal Center? Why keep the money? Imagine the field day the conservative radio would have if any of the Democratic candidates for the presidency kept the money donated to them by extremist groups. Do you think the Rush Limbaughs of America would accept the "these awful groups wil do awful things with the money if I return it" argument? Any presidential candidate who keeps the money donated to him/her by racist organizations doesn't deserve to be elected dogcatcher, much less POTUS. End of soapbox.
Posted by: daniel rotter | December 26, 2007 7:09 PM
LOL... That's hilarious cooler! Right before you complain about political smearing, you engage in it yourself! Hillary and Ghouliani (actually, I think this nickname is kinda cute) aren't at all a part of this conversation, but for some reason you prefer bashing them instead of defending Paul.
Playing dirty politics like that might work on other blogs, but very seldom does it fly around here. Stick to the topic at hand please. If you want to criticize the policies of other candidates on this blog, you can easily search for posts that Ed has made on virtually all of them where he has been critical of at least one aspect of their policies.
And besides that, how does pointing out the deficiencies of the other candidates prove that Paul would make a good President?
But I must admit. I've never seen anyone invoke Facebook in the "but I can't be a racist because my best friend is black" defense.
So I guess that you get 10 points for originality. lol But unfortunately, it's minus several hundred points for your (mis)use of logic....
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 26, 2007 7:21 PM
If Paul receives financial donations from awful groups, why doesn't he donate that money to a charity or (as has been mentioned already) an organization like the Simon Weisenthal Center?
I think this is a great idea, but-- just to be clear-- would this actually be allowed under campaign finance law?
Posted by: Coin | December 26, 2007 7:23 PM
Also, I seem to recall hearing that the Rosa Parks medal was to be sold at an expected profit...?
Posted by: Michael Ralston | December 26, 2007 7:25 PM
Partisan electoral politics brings out the ugly in people. Horrible names are used, like fool, and pig. I find myself squirming when I read the comments, both for and against Paul.
We could do with more sober reason and moderate language.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 26, 2007 7:25 PM
I engaged in some mild bashing AND evidence based attacks, if I find evidence someones an idiot, like you are, it not a crime to call him an idiot as long as youve got some evidence.
Oh did anyone watch Paul on meet the Press..........Russert confronted him with a quote he made 20 years ago that all immigration should be legal, and that anyone from anywhere should be allowed to walk into this country! Sure sounds like a neo nazi to me! Cant you Ron Paul bashers get your stories straight?
Posted by: cooler | December 26, 2007 7:28 PM
So by Keith's reasoning, in addition to being a "racist," Dr. Paul also anti-catholic, anti-Buddist, anti-Snoopy, and (apparently) anti-Republican. :)
Nope, just a douche bag. It's a minor charge, I agree, what with the racism, anti-science, bible beating, and general crankery (damn you, fiat money!) but being a rich dick who won't spend a few taxpayer bucks on a medal but thinks spending taxpayer money to strip away women's reproductive rights is just keen deserves to be mocked, called names and ultimately, laughed into political obscurity.
Posted by: Keith | December 26, 2007 7:39 PM
Scott,
Ed is a grown man. He chose to spread these vicious allegations on his own knowing full well the source of the allegations. He did so without pointing out the easily found and quite convincing refutations that have been posted. He was thereby not only doing the biding of a racist but contributing to a calculated smear campaign.
Furthermore he chose to wait until less than 10 days before the primary when the allegations are actually over 2 months old. This type of "innocent rumor spreading" is, in fact, the vilest form of political activity that there is and is why so many people have been turned off to politics over the years. I have always though of Ed as a fellow traveler in many ways and to see him stoop to this type of behavior is sickening.
So you can call me crazy all you want, but it is Ed and not I who must answer for the fact that he chose to post only one side of this despicable story. How has he answered so far in the comments? By compounding the situation by pouring more gasoline on his own fire and still not acknowledging the fact that the supposed meetings almost certainly did not take place.
(FEC documents show that Ron Paul ate at the restaurant in question, which is less than a block away from his office, 7 times in the last quarter but only once on a Wednesday. Therefore the notion of regular Wednesday meetings is a sham. Furthermore the guy who ran the luncheons in question claims that neither Ron Paul nor Bill White ever attended. This is all information that you can easily find for yourself with about 2 minutes of Googling.)
Ed's actions appear to me to be an deliberate act of hate and it is a sad thing to see in someone who I generally agree with in so many areas. I don't like to call people out for their actions like this, and I can assure you that I do not do so in anger, but I do believe that people should be held accountable for their actions.
Unless an explanation or other motivation for these actions is forthcoming from the author, then I am left with the most obvious conclusions. He posted these rumors to harm the Paul campaign and probably did so with glee and without the tiniest compulsion to check out the story on his own. That, my friends, makes him entirely culpable in every way for practicing the same type of divisive politics based on fear mongering, hatred and grand standing as best exemplified by Bill White himself. So I am not accusing Ed of agreeing with Bill White in terms of racist attitudes, but in terms of his willingness to engage in political mudslinging. In my world view, that is simply unacceptable behavior.
Posted by: Rock Howard | December 26, 2007 7:39 PM
Rock-
You can't imagine how upset I am by your disapproval. Really, I'm dying inside. How can I ever make it up to you?
/sarcasm
I have to laugh at the notion that I'm part of some "calculated campaign" to undermine Ron Paul. Yesterday I was accused (not on this blog) of being a stooge of ZOG, which really made me laugh since I'm of the opinion that the modern state of Israel should never have been created. These little conspiracy explanations always crack me up. For what it's worth, I'll have a followup on this post tomorrow morning that will explain my general view of Ron Paul outside the simple recounting of accusations. So keep your powder dry and bring your best armchair psychological explanations here in the morning.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 26, 2007 8:05 PM
Rock, what search terms did you use? Would you post the URL for the results so we can see what you found?
It would be a good example for readers of how to check rumors.
Hell, it'd be a good example for writers.
Posted by: Hank Roberts | December 26, 2007 8:05 PM
It's no "swiftboating." And it's not just coming to light. Many of us have known that Ron Paul was part of the "K-Ration" circuit for a very long time. It's only just coming to a broader, NATIONAL attention.
He's also a tax-protestor. He believes that the 16th Amendment (authorizing an income tax) is not Constitutional (a key point in the tax-protestor movement). He also has some rather weird ideas about the Treasury for the same idiotic and thouroghly discredited reasons as is popular in the tax-protesting movement.
He's also an anti-UN freak and believes in the "New World Order" conspiracy crap.
Anyway, Paul's a known quantity and he's got the nativist movement solidly behind him. And no matter how many Ron-Bots show up to "defend" him, he's indefensable. If you want to read more about Ron Paul, David Niewart, who specializes in tracking this type of creep has an extensive write-up at this blog:
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/ron-paul-vs-new-world-order.html
That's just ONE of many, many, many articles on Ron Paul.
Posted by: Moses | December 26, 2007 8:52 PM
I'm going to have to print out poster-sized copies of these statements and post them next to the smarmy "Join the Ron Paul REVOLution" banners in my area.
Posted by: Azkyroth | December 26, 2007 9:55 PM
I've read this "extensive write-up." Niewart's entire argument amounts to the following: "Some nasty people support Ron Paul, and he has some positions I disagree with, therefore he is secretly a white supremacist who speaks in code and wants to take over the country." I can see how it would appeal to somebody who already hates the man and is looking for more fuel, but a considered evaluation of Paul's actual positions it is decidedly not.
The fact that Paul has some scary supporters is certainly cause for concern. But using that as one's entire reason for condemning the man amounts to an association fallacy. I suppose it's a pipe dream to wish that people would actually argue about what he would do if elected president, and whether it's good or bad.
Posted by: Gretchen | December 26, 2007 10:02 PM
Ron Paul's nativism
-- by Dave
Greg Sargent at TPM has put up a Ron Paul flyer being distributed in South Carolina (naturally) on the immigration issue. The above image was especially bizarre.
I'm not sure how "amnesty" is "trampling the Constitution," but I do believe that trying to take away children's traditional constitutional rights, enjoyed by generations of Americans, as an answer to it in fact tramples those rights.
And how, exactly, is the issue of "amnesty" associated with birthright citizenship anyway? How would taking that citizenship right away affect "amnesty" -- unless you just see the prospect of giving any Latinos citizenship at all noxious, and see amending the Constitution as part of a larger program to deny them?
Paul isn't just being anti-illegal immigration here -- he's being generically anti-immigrant. Check out the sixth step of his six-part plan:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_BLlJwLdIRpk/R1BYBS5F8EI/AAAAAAAAAao/RkN06B11j18/s1600-R/6th+step.JPG
It's not just allowing illegal immigrants to obtain a path to citizenship they oppose -- it's any expansion of immigration at all, even the logical expansion of immigration to accommodate labor and other economic demands that would make the system actually function properly instead of creating a permanent underclass of "illegal aliens."
Note also: the "60 million" figure that Paul cites reflects immigration over a 20-year-period; considering that the total U.S. population by 2030 is projected to be 363 million, that's only about 17 percent of the total population. Given the relatively flat birth rates in the U.S. in recent years -- a trend likely to continue, at the least -- it's clear that immigration will play a significant role in future economic expansion and competitiveness. Paul's program essentially calls for gradual economic suicide.
It is, as Sargent suggests, classic nativism. But then, we knew that about Paul already.
Posted by: Lettuce | December 26, 2007 10:34 PM
Well, sure. If you make up your own definitions of words, you can make anything you want mean anything you want.
Meanwhile, in the real world, words have meanings.
The latter sentence casts a lot of doubt on the former.
Posted by: Skemono | December 26, 2007 10:53 PM
Skemono, you seem to have a real love for guilt by association. You know, I've been in lots of rooms full of Republicans, lots of rooms full of Democrats, and lots of rooms full of Libertarians, and there have been strange people with strange views in all of those rooms, mixed in with the "normal" people. That's just the way the world is. Hell, look at some of the comments here. That's the way blogs are too.
Posted by: Perry Willis | December 26, 2007 11:15 PM
Click on my name to go to the page where the New York Times has just retracted their story about Ron Paul. As you will see, the heart of this retraction related to the exact same story that Ed still refuses to recant. In addition the Times acknowledged that they did not allow the Paul campaign to respond to the allegations before they were published.
Ed said that this "could get interesting" without realizing that the only interesting thing in all this is that the world would get to see which gullible people and news organizations would rise to the bait and spread these unfounded lies. Now we know.
I would also like to say that Dr. Paul is a flawed candidate in my book but, interestingly enough, Dr. Paul would be the first to admit that fact. While he holds his religious views close to the vest, he is still quite devout which blinds him to many important scientific ideas. Fortunately he is not about imposing his own views on others.
Having admitted that flaw, Dr. Paul is a suprisingly strong advocate for medical research including stem cell research (as long as it is not funded by the federal government of course.) He is also very strong on economics, foreign affairs and history. His conclusions in these areas are shared by many leading academics including a significant number of Nobel prize winners. So I forgive Dr. Paul his faults especially in view of the fact that a perfect candidate in my way of thinking would be completely unelectable given the predisposition of the electorate in this day and age.
Posted by: Rock Howard | December 27, 2007 1:14 AM
Do tell. I'm curious to know how you came to that conclusion.
Is it by reading my blog posts on Ron Paul, which only discuss his insane policies and statements, and never once bring up the fact that neo-Nazis support him?
Is it by reading the comments at Orcinus, where I first heard about this story and instantly responded to the effect of "I'd like to see more evidence to verify this before making a big deal of it"?
Or is it because I don't agree with your or Gretchen's dismissal of Ron Paul's racist tendencies?
Posted by: Skemono | December 27, 2007 1:53 AM
The Times did not "retract" the story (it was not theirs to retract, but Bill White's). They printed Paul's denial of the accusations and said they should have gotten them in the original story. That's hardly a retraction.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 27, 2007 2:05 AM
Come now, did nobody else notice that the white supremacists were meeting at a Thai restaurant!? How delicious is that?
Thai food is case-closing evidence of why the nativists are wrong. America without Thai food would just be England with handguns.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 27, 2007 3:04 AM
Re cooler
Just for the information of the readers of this blog who don't read Tara Smiths' blog regularly, Mr. cooler is a crackpot who often posts over there on threads discussing HIV/AIDS. Mr. cooler is a classic HIV/AIDS denier who regularly hijacks HIV/AIDS threads on Prof. Smiths' blog to perpetrate his whackjob ideas about how, in his moronic view, HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I suspect that Mr. cooler is all to typical of the type of nutcases who have gathered in support of Representative Paul.
Posted by: SLC | December 27, 2007 8:34 AM
Wrong! They said "The original post should not have been published with these unverified assertions and without any response from Paul."
That, my kind sir, is a retraction pure and simple. Should not have been published. What can be clearer than that?
Your hatred blinds you. Your continuing display of self-righteousness about this matter is truly pathetic. You are, of course, free to believe and say whatever you wish -- and you will. But I don't see how you are helping your own cause now. Your are just trying to preserve honor for an act that was dishonorable on the face of it and you know it.
Posted by: Rock Howard | December 27, 2007 8:47 AM
The original post from Ed indicates that white supremacists are supporting Ron Paul and that Paul has met with them. Then, anticipating the minions will rush to Paul's defense he says: this might get interesting. That's it.
Congrats Ed on your predictive powers.
Shheeesh,
Dave
Posted by: David Worthington | December 27, 2007 9:21 AM
To retract is to withdraw:
They are not saying they withdraw the article, they are saying it would have been better to have included something more along with it. If they had actually said "should not have been published" period, full stop, you'd have a point. But by leaving out "with x and without y etc." you're making it into something it just isn't.
Which is all a bit nit-picky. The Times is right, the article shouldn't have been published without giving the Paul camp a chance to reply, that's just basic reporting. But the statement is not a retraction.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | December 27, 2007 9:23 AM
Let me make sure I have this exactly right. Dave concurs that Ed's post said that Ron Paul has met with racists and that Ed predicted that this story, which he never suggested might be false, might get a response. That the minions defended Paul with the truth that Bill White's supposed meetings were fabrications was apparently not the point of interest however, just the fact that they felt it was necessary to defend the man's honor. I will admit that Ed was correct to think that his spreading of a vicious lie might not be taken lightly by some.
Jeff then claims that this was not a retraction, just an admission that Dr. Paul's campaign should have been allowed to respond. But this is not what the New York Times said at all. They said that the allegations were not verified.
Journalistic integrity is founded upon, among other things, second sourcing of information. In this case where the allegations were particularly vile, triple sourcing might have been in order, but no verification was done at all. That is an additional reason why the story should not have been published even if the Paul campaign had been contacted for a response.
The operative word was "and". The story needed a second source and the author should have allowed Dr. Paul to respond as well. Neither was done when both were required. The retraction stands as a retraction.
Posted by: Rock Howard | December 27, 2007 10:31 AM
Hey Coin,
I thought that was a great point-by-point write-up and I was wondering what some of your sources were, specifically for Paul's previous associations with the "New World Order" fringers. I'm pretty politically active and in my (pretty progressive) town, support for Ron Paul is predominately coming from the left-wing by way of Prison Planet. It's gotten me interested in how a certain segment of the left is being drawn into Alex Jones conspiracy-mongering craziness, and to a certain overlapping extent, the Ron Paul phenomenon. That's not to say every Ron Paul supporter is far right or far left, as Ed mentioned in his most recent Ron Paul post he has some laudable positions. It's just that I think the more fascinating story than Paul's support among far right "neo-nazi" groups is his support from what might be called the "far left" as exemplified by Prison Planet (although to be fair PP is so "far" that I don't know whether left/right distinctions are useful). Ron Paul really does seem to have garnered tremendously enthusiastic support from an amazingly diverse group of people, and transitioned that into a largely decentralized, self-organizing political movement.
Posted by: Sefrankel | December 27, 2007 10:39 AM
Rock Howard said:
You can call it a French hen if you like, but calling it so doesn't make it so. It's not a retraction. You're just muddying your argument (which is a good one, namely, "This was a bad piece of 'reporting' by the Times) by calling it something it isn't.
Saying the Times retracted the story implies that the Times admits the story was factually wrong and they withdraw it. They're doing neither.
Again, your calling it a retraction doesn't make it one. So claiming weakens your argument. Just say "even the Times admitted it was a bad piece of reporting" and go from there.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | December 27, 2007 11:25 AM
After Rock's last post I decided to look more carefully at the Times blog note , and on second reading it comes across as more of a retraction than I initially thought.
So, I withdraw my objections to the use of the word "retraction", I think that's probably a fair way to characterize it after all. My apologies, Rock.
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | December 27, 2007 11:31 AM
What the New York Times says is utterly irrelevant. They didn't make the accusations, they only reported them (as I did). The only thing added is that the Paul camp denies the allegations. Well duh. But that denial does not disprove them, any more than any other denial disproves any other allegations. Are the allegations true? I don't know. Neither does Rock, though he seems to think that bad arguments like the FEC records somehow disprove the allegations (the FEC records do not show where Paul was, they only show where he paid for meals; he could easily have been there without paying for a meal). The interesting thing about the allegations is not the specific meetings at a Thai restaurant, it's the ideological affinity and the fact that he even talks to such people at all. And as I said, this is made credible by the fact that he has spoken to such groups and courted their support in the past and has gotten their endorsement. That's what lends those allegations credibility. Does that verify every word White said? Of course not. But nor can it just be dismissed out of hand because Paul's office denies it.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 27, 2007 11:41 AM
Jeff, could you give us that Times blog link again? The link doesn't seem to work (at least not for me).
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 27, 2007 11:42 AM
Sorry all, I pasted in the wrong link (too many tabs open). The correct link to the Times blog official note is here.
And in text form (which I think is going to break the layout of the page) is:
http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/
Posted by: Jeff Hebert | December 27, 2007 12:10 PM
I've read this "extensive write-up." Niewart's entire argument amounts to the following: "Some nasty people support Ron Paul, and he has some positions I disagree with, therefore he is secretly a white supremacist who speaks in code and wants to take over the country."
This is a cartoonish straw-man of Neiwert's position, which does not remotely make such an assertion. The core of Newiert's articles on Paul is that he is supported by the far right for the reasons I've already dileneated in brief, plus his history of being on the John Birch Society/militia movement fringe.
Posted by: Hume's ghost | December 27, 2007 1:11 PM
SLC,
youre the wackjob, perhaps you should read the mbekis still in denial thread on taras smiths blog to see how I schooled your idol jp moore, Some of the worlds best scientists have questioned the hiv hypothesis, like shyh ching lo md phd the militarys most distingushed infectious disease pathologist, margulis, nas member, kary mullis nobel prize winning chemist, duesberg, california scientist of the year, all ive done is found their arguments far more compelling, no animal model, tons of chimps injected not one has died over 20 years, the microbe is only in 1/1000 t cells, when no one got sick they extended the latent period from 10 months to 10 years. Cant wait for the vaccine, well all test postive. See the film hiv fact or fraud you stupid cranks.
Cue im a nut response, dont give a fuck, you losers cant even cite the first 3-4 scientific papers that prove hiv causes aids, koch and lo had original documents proving pathenogenicity, waiting for those original papers that must have been published in the mid eighties, please send them to me SLC you idiotic fraud, if you dont then you are admitting you dont have any evidence.
Posted by: cooler | December 27, 2007 1:54 PM
Wow! I've been known to try to read some of Tara's HIV threads... but I usually give up after the first 800 or 1000 comments. So I didn't recognize the name "cooler" right away like I normally would.
Here's some symmetry from cooler's comments on this thread from yesterday and today.
His first comment:
His most recent comment:
Notice how he starts both paragraphs with a prediction of what we'll say next (i.e. pointing out his obvious qualities of racist & nuttiness)... and he ends with an overly rude and dramatic response to what he predicted ("you all are arab hating racists anyways" and "SLC you idiotic fraud").
Cooler, I must admit... you are entertaining, in a 'feed the troll' sort of way... but I do feel a bit guilty about this.
Did you ever consider that you just might actually be an anti-semetic nutcase? Please read through all that you've written on this page, and try to imagine what an objective, outside observer would think of it. Can you not see how anti-social (to phrase it kindly) your rants are?
I hope you'll consider seeking some professional help.
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 27, 2007 2:16 PM
Have you ever considered getting a job? Then you can get professional help for your anti arab hatred and government can never tell a lie disorder. But before you do these things youll need to pass out of junior college, which is where you are most likely stuck at now.
Posted by: cooler | December 27, 2007 4:03 PM
Off a bit, cooler. Actually, I'm probably your worst idea of a human being. Not only did I graduate with an engineering degree, but I'm currently employed by Big Pharma, Inc.
So yes, I'm personally responsible for pushing the HIV lie on millions of unsuspecting persons. Gotta keep those profits up!
My current job at Big Pharma, Inc. is to keep a lookout on the internet for those who know THE TRUTH(tm) about our plans of economic domination by spreading our clever lies about HIV.
So basically, it is my job to silence persons like you! How can I be so evil???
Oh... I'm an atheist too.....
*what-ever*
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 27, 2007 4:18 PM
The interesting part of the discussion is that White is making two claims: First, that RP meets with people associated with the White Power movement; and, Second, that RP actually approves of their message, but can't come out and say as much for political reasons.
The first claim is wholly unobjectionable, although some of the posters here appear to think that there is such a thing as guilt by association. When I was on a Congressional staff, I met with dozens of nutballs, from White Power folks (Kirk Lyons lives in this district, although he didn't move to NC for good until after Jamie was out of office) to antivaxers to an African American dude who dressed up in a uniform and demonstrated carrying a Confederate flag. And if I couldn't run proper interference (or they had some clout) they got facetime with my Congressman. RP meeting with these types really is no big deal: It's part of the job.
The second claim is more troubling, but it is also completely without evidence. Note that for the first claim, dates and a location are given, for the second, only the allegation, without any indication of how Mr. White "knows" that RP is one of "them."
In short, even if true, I don't see much of a story here unless there is a better witness with real evidence as to what RP believes.
Posted by: kehrsam | December 27, 2007 4:54 PM
"I dont beleive you were well liked in college, aka you were one of those goofy militant nerds like orac and the hoofnagle brothers, so you became a government can never tell a lie troll."
Jesus Christ, what a moron.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 27, 2007 5:16 PM
And just for the benefit of the readers here, I'll also clue them in on the fact that cooler is also a 9/11 conspiracy nutcase. Looking around at his various posts on SB reveals that he is the archtypical case of crank magnetism.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | December 27, 2007 5:21 PM
Okay cooler, you're done here. I'm not nearly as tolerant of stupidity as Tara, who is much nicer than I am. Any further comments from you will be deleted immediately. Go away.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 27, 2007 5:32 PM
Nonsense! I'm a Nazi, and I support Clinton all the way.
Posted by: Mungo | December 27, 2007 7:05 PM
That's okay Mungo... it's the Neo guys that support Paul. lol
Posted by: doctorgoo | December 27, 2007 7:16 PM
Ed,
I am not claiming to know the truth, but I have met Ron Paul many times, heard him speak dozens of times and followed his career for 20 years and I haven't been exposed to anything that gives off the impressions that you have of him unless it was generated by political opponents with an axe to grind.
But really this has nothing to do with Dr. Paul as I would have been just as outraged at you if you had spread equivalent rumors about Fred Phelps without supporting evidence. You see I am a skeptic first and foremost. I do not accept outrageous claims from anyone, and especially not someone like Bill White, without some serious verification. You have demonstrated that you are willing to throw away your critical thinking hat and swim in the muck when it suits your whimsy or your established world view.
After about a year of reading your stuff I thought of you as pretty much a kindred spirit (even though I only like about half of your musical selections.) Accordingly I was shocked to see you stoop to race baiting and then refuse to back down even when supporting evidence for your rumors was not forthcoming. It is just another reminder that even self-designated skeptics and rational thinkers are not immune to willful self-delusion when the political season gets cranked up.
Now I have one less person in my "Admired Skeptics" bin and one less blog to track. No problem. I hope you have a good life but I just can't see you truly enjoying the bashing of religious fruitcakes and conspiracy whackjobs quite as much once you start coming to grips with your own considerable predispositions towards myopic non-critical thought.
Rock
Posted by: Rock Howard | December 27, 2007 8:18 PM
"...he was a lovely bloke. [He] used to give his mother flowers an' that.". - On the suject of Dinsdale Piranha.
That Ron Paul has been seen patting dogs & kissing babies is NOT suprising, all politians do that, it's that he hangs around with some very nasty people and won't talk about. This smacks of dishonesty. Why won't he say what Kersham said (essentially) above "Yes, I've talked to nutjobs. Some of the voters in my district have extreme views. I listen and try to understand what that are saying, but I don't absolutely agree with them. These I the thing that I believe...."
Posted by: DingoJack | December 30, 2007 12:20 AM
"...he was a lovely bloke. [He] used to give his mother flowers an' that.". - On the suject of Dinsdale Piranha.
That Ron Paul has been seen patting dogs & kissing babies is NOT suprising, all politians do that, it's that he hangs around with some very nasty people and won't talk about. This smacks of dishonesty. Why won't he say what Kersham said (essentially) above "Yes, I've talked to nutjobs. Some of the voters in my district have extreme views. I listen and try to understand what that are saying, but I don't absolutely agree with them. These I the thing that I believe...."
Posted by: DingoJack | December 30, 2007 12:35 AM
Agologies for the double post. Technical difficulties in the form of SOIC at this end (Stupid Operator In Charge).
Has anyone thought of gathering the collected "wit & wisdom" of Chairman Ron and creating a satirical song using his own words?
No doubt he will just blame others & fire some staffers.
Posted by: DingoJack | December 30, 2007 12:42 AM
First of all, Pat Buchanan isn't a racist. Pat Buchanan's a good, intelligent man and this "Bill White", or whoever else it is, is full of complete and utter bullshit. Why do you try to discredit Paul? I mean, this is just insane. You find something you think can hurt him and you present it like it's factual. Yeah, right.
And two, if White knew Paul was indeed a white nationalist, why would he blow his cover? If Paul was one of them, wouldn't he want him to win the Presidency? So why then would he try to destroy Paul's chances at WINNING?
It makes no sense. Disregard this idiotic hack job.
Posted by: Aaron Kinney | December 31, 2007 1:21 PM