Clinton-Obama Contest Opening Up a Potentially Dangerous Split for Democrats, With Women Going for Clinton and Blacks for Obama By Wide Margins, as New Revelations of White Supremacists and Other Far-Right Extremists' Support For Republican Ron Paul Dog His Campaign
By Skeeter Sanders
As Americans pause to reflect on the life and legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. on the national holiday honoring his birth, the often-ugly politics of race and gender have come out of the closet for both major parties in the contest to choose a successor to President Bush -- subtly for the Democrats and overtly for at least one Republican.
On the Democratic side, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who won Saturday's Nevada Democratic caucuses, claimed her second win of the presidential race, defeating her closet rival, fellow Senator Barack Obama of Illinois by a narrow 51 percent-to-45 percent margin. Former Senator John Edwards of North Carolina finished a shockingly poor third, with only four percent of the vote.
But entrance polls conducted by The Associated Press showed that Democrats were sharply divided along ethnic, racial, gender and generational lines -- divisions that could be exacerbated in this Saturday's Democratic primary in South Carolina, where half of the Democratic electorate is African American -- and leaning heavily toward Obama.
If these divisions persist by the time the Democrats gather for their August national nominating convention in Denver, it could spell serious trouble for the party in the fall campaign leading to the November 4 general election.
On the Republican side, controversy over racist articles published in a newsletter bearing the name of Representative Ron Paul of Texas continues to dog him, amid new revelations that his campaign is drawing more support from avowed white supremacists and other far-right extremists than was previously thought.
Paul finished a surprising second in the Nevada GOP caucuses, edging out Senator John McCain of Arizona, 14 percent to 13 percent. Former Governor Mitt Romney of Massachusetts coasted to an easy first-place victory in Nevada with 51 percent of the vote.
Meanwhile, McCain captured the South Carolina GOP primary, narrowly defeating former Governor Mike Huckabee of Arkansas, 33 percent to 30 percent. Former Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee finished a disappointing third, with 16 percent of the vote -- and was rumored on Sunday to be preparing to drop out of the race.
Romney -- who had written off South Carolina, with its high concentration of Christian evangelicals, to concentrate on Nevada, with its large Mormon population -- finished fourth, with 15 percent. Paul finished way back in fifth place, with only four percent of the vote, while former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani -- who's concentrating his campaign on Florida's January 29 primary -- finished dead last, at two percent.
(Representative Duncan Hunter of California withdrew from the race just hours before the Nevada caucuses began, but his name remained on the South Carolina ballot and his votes were not counted).
Women Powered Clinton's Win While Blacks Snubbed Ex-First Lady
Women made up nearly 60 percent of those taking part in Saturday's Nevada Democratic contest, according to the AP's entrance poll, and the former first lady led Obama by a margin of 52 percent to 35 percent among those voters.
Clinton, who won last week's New Hampshire primary, swept the Latino vote in the Nevada caucuses by a nearly three-to-one margin. Latinos make up about a quarter of the state's population and 14 percent of caucus participants, the poll found.
Obama led overwhelmingly among the 16 percent of his fellow African Americans who came out to caucus. Nearly 80 percent of black caucus-goers supported Obama, who won the January 3 Iowa caucuses -- and black voters are expected to make up about half of the electorate in South Carolina, the scene of the party's next primary on Saturday.
Even more revealing of a racial split, nearly 70 percent of black voters in Michigan -- who made up more than a third of the votes cast in that state's Democratic primary last Tuesday, which Clinton won -- refused to back the former first lady, choosing the “uncommitted” option instead. According to CNN exit polls, those voters overwhelmingly favored Obama, whose name did not appear on the ballot.
I'm a native of New York City who's called the Green Mountain state of Vermont home since the summer of 1994. A former freelance journalist, I'm a fiercely independent freethinker who's highly skeptical of authority figures -- especially when they're on the wrong side of the issues I care about. But I'm not afraid to also call into question those with whom I would usually be "on the same page" if and when they, too, are on the wrong side of the issues I care about.
"On the Republican side, controversy over racist articles published in a newsletter bearing the name of Representative Ron Paul of Texas continues to dog him, amid new revelations that his campaign is drawing more support from avowed white supremacists and other far-right extremists than was previously thought."
It's not Ron Paul's fault that kooks suppots him. He can't be held liable for his supporters' actions or ideologies. There is no complicity. No one holds Jodie Foster accountable for encouraging murderous behavior in one of her fans. Neither Ron Paul nor Jodie Foster did anything to cause or encourage the insanity of their followers. The White Supremicists who've claimed to meet with Ron Paul, with his full knowledge of their agenda, have been proven to be liars. Is anyone surprised that people with such low morals and egocentric agenda are capable of lying for the sake of grabbing attention for themselves?
The newsletters are the only evidence of racism in Ron Paul's life, and he did not write them, and he condemns them. To throw all other evidence out the window when trying him as a racist, to disregard everything he has said and done to show he is innocent of the charges, and to conclude that ONLY the newsletters matter is essentially tantamount to framing him.
People have also taken Ron Paul to task for allegedly making comments against ML King. Is Martin Luther King a god, and criticism of him amounts to blasphemy or instant racism? If I say Eva Perone was promiscuous, will those who subscribe to this kind of logic conclude that I harbor vicious prejudices against everyone from Argentina? Fact is, history tells us that Dr. King was a womanizer. But you can say that he was a womanizer in one breath and a hero in the next breath without contradicting yourself, or being a hypocrite. No one's perfect...not even Martin Luther King.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Monday, January 21, 2008 at 10:52:59 AM
Goddammit, he DID write them! He ADMITTED IT to the Dallas Morning News in 1996. Go look it up in the paper's archives -- May 22, 1996. His '96 congressional campaign spokesman CONFIRMED IT tothe Houston Chronicle the VERY NEXT DAY! Look that up in the Chronicle's archives.
IT'S ON THE RECORD -- Ron Paul DID write those articles. He LIED to CNN and the New Republic when he denied being the author. FACE IT -- THE MAN GOT CAUGHT IN A LIE! No amount of denial on your part is going to change that.
by
Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments)
on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 1:26:01 AM
I located the article you referred to in the archives, but one has to sign up with the paper and BUY the article. I'm not interested in purchasing it. Can you refer me to any OTHER articles that carry these admissions of guilt? Or was this the one-time confession?
I saw bits and pieces of this 1996 article before, and I didn't see what I was "supposed" to see. I saw him defending some of the content (and I think some of it is defensible...what's so 'racist' about calling African Americans fleet of foot?) but I couldn't find the part where he said explicitly, "I WROTE THESE" or "Yes, I'm the author." That's what I'm looking for.
There are witnesses crediting Lew Rockwell or another fellow, Rothbard, for writing the scandalous content. These witnesses don't seem sympathetic to Ron Paul, so I'm wondering why they would even bother going public with what amounts to a cover-up for him, unless it's true, and they just want to fault Ron Paul for having shady friends.
I'll look into it more, and if I find an outright confession in a credible source I'll come back here and eat crow on your behalf. Still, I must make the point that much of what's being targeted as racist doesn't strike me as racist. So he said the rioters picked up welfare checks...so what? That's against rioters, not minorities in general. People who spend their days looting stores and rioting probably DON'T have regular jobs, and probably ARE on welfare. With respect to the blacks in D.C. being 95% criminal, while that figure seems exaggerated, I'd like to know what the real figure is. I'd also like to know in what context he was using that statistic: was it to show the insanity of incarcerating blacks for mere drug possession and branding them as "criminals" for it? If marijuana usage constitutes crime, then my graduating class was also about 95% criminal. And I went to same mostly-white college as Ron Paul. So you can say the same thing for whites in some places.
And frankly, it's not the fault of the criminals so much as the society that's oppressed and worked against them. I'm wondering if Ron Paul (or his ghost writer) spoke of criminals charitably, in that context, or coldly. You see, the problem with all the articles about this topic is that they aim to persuade you of something- that he is guilty or not- and skew the content accoprdingly. They never quote long paragraphs and give you a chance to see for yourself what the context was; rather, they try and indoctrinate you and make you see things THEIR way. The more an article interprets the facts FOR me, the more I regard it as useless propaganda.
Ron Paul is a kind man, not a neonazi. He delivered many babies for minority mothers at no charge. Very few doctors would do the same. He has black friends and black heroes...seems very normal to me. If he did succumb to making these ugly rants for political advantage...it would be VERY out of character for a man who doesn't mold his speeches for ANYONE. (He told the Iowans point blank that he would NOT subsidize corn for ethanol since hemp produces ethanol; he admitted in front of a crowd of Cuban Americans that he wants to resume talks with Castro, and got booed for it. That's telling the truth at the expense of votes.)
Anyway, sorry for exasperating you to the point of cursing, I'm as interested in knowing the truth as you are.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 9:16:55 AM
Recalling my college days brought to mind the following insight.
Ron Paul has been ridiculed for his unorthodox opinions about Abraham Lincoln and the Civil War. His fervent argument that the Civil War should not have been fought has been interpreted by many critics as another manifestation of his alleged racism. Since I doubt you are interested in the specifics of those arguments, I won't list them here. But I want to call your attention to the fact that critics have narrowly interpreted Dr. Paul's arguments and failed to present any other facts that might contradict their conclusions.
Whether you believe he's a racist or not, a high standard of truth in journalism is always desirable, and in this case, I believe his comments are rooted in compassion for suffering humanity, for the hundreds of thousands of slaughtered soldiers, and not for the baser reasons he's charged with.
One relevent fact that's never mentioned when this issue comes up is that Ron Paul's opinions of the Civil War must have been strongly affected by his years at Gettysburg College. (Just as going to school in Dresden, Auschwitz, or Nagasaki would have affected anyone's views of WWII.) I can say from personal experience that the death of 51,000 men in 3 days is still very palpable in Gettysburg, and you can't spend four years there without being strongly affected by the omnipresent reminders of those deaths. Even the main building of the college was used as a hospital during the battle. The floors were reported to be literally flooded in blood. That same large building was a dormitory for over a hundred years after the battle, and it's very possible Ron Paul LIVED there. I won't tax you with ghost stories, but I hope you will consider that his own repulsion for that war is likely to have emerged from his more visceral experience of it and its eerie legacy than most people have ever known. To trace his motive in decrying the Civil War back to emotions of petty contempt for blacks ignores where he was and what he was doing in his formative years. He was in Gettysburg, and yes, it matters.
My larger point is, again, that the media only tells the part of the story they WANT you to hear.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 11:54:50 AM
Your Arguments, Ingrid, Remind Me of Holocaust Deniers. . .
I read both of your arguments in defense of Ron Paul, and it's clear to me that you will continue to deny his racial insensitivity no matter how much evidence I or anyone else present to you.
You remind me of those despicable Holocaust deniers who adamantly insist that the Nazis didn't exterminate six million European Jews despite mountains of irrefutable proof that they did. You claim that the white supremacists I cited in my articles were proven liars, but you didn't furnish ONE IOTA of evidence to back you up.
You're a racism denier.
by
Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments)
on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 4:57:39 PM
Thanks for the so-called "proof" that Ron Paul EVER admitted to writing the newsletters. I told you that I would be willing to consider whatever proof came my way. So far you've helpfully provided the following "evidence" that Ron Paul SAID HE WROTE the newsletters:
1) link to an archive that I'd have to subscribe to and then purchase. I seriously doubt you looked at this firsthand yourself, since you never mentioned I'd have to BUY this evidence.
2) The Houston Chronicle article says Ron Paul wrote the articles. Ron Paul never admitted to writing the newsletters in that article. In fact, he denies he is a racist, and faults the Chronicle for taking those quotes out of context.
3) The third link has expired.
Thanks alot. You're full of hot air.
And your die-hard belief in the honesty of these sicko White Supremicists is weird.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Tuesday, January 22, 2008 at 8:15:11 PM
Okay, Ingrid, since you've demonstrated that you're too closed-minded -- or too cheap -- to shell out the three bucks needed to access the Dallas Morning News article on Ron Rapul's racist newsletters, I've taken the liberty of doing it for you.
Here is the article in its entirety:
The Dallas Morning News
Candidate's comments on blacks questioned Catalina Camia Washington Bureau of The Dallas Morning News Published: May 22, 1996
WASHINGTON - Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot."
An official with the NAACP in Texas said the comments were racist and offensive.
Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.
"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character . . . come and talk to my neighbors."
Dr. Paul, an ex-congressman and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, defeated Rep. Greg Laughlin, R-West Columbia, in April for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House. An obstetrician from Surfside, he faces Democratic lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris of Bee Cave in the November general election.
Mr. Morris, who said he was familiar with the writings in question, declined to comment about the specifics. "Many of his views are out on the fringe," Mr. Morris said. "But voters in the 14th District have to characterize these the way they see it. His statements speak for themselves."
According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers.
A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. Dr. Paul also said he did not know how his newsletter came to be included in a directory by the Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi group based in Canada. The newsletter was listed on the Internet under the directory's heading "Racialists and Freedom Fighters."
No one answered calls to the Heritage Front, which lists only a hotline connected to a tape-recorded message in the Toronto telephone directory.
Gary Bledsoe, president of the Texas NAACP, urged Dr. Paul to apologize for his comments about blacks and asked Republicans to denounce their nominee. "We need someone who can represent all the constituents of Texas, not someone who is negative or engages in stereotypes," Mr. Bledsoe said. "Someone who holds those views signals or indicates an inability to represent all constituents without regard to race, creed or color."
About 11 percent of the population in the 14th District, stretching from near Austin to the Gulf Coast, is black. Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoidmisrepresentation.
Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character. "If someone challenges your character and takes theinterpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?"Dr. Paul asked.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men. "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: 'Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.
PHOTO(S): Dr. Ron Paul . . . says his comments are being taken out of context.
Copyright 1996 The Dallas Morning News Company
by
Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments)
on Friday, January 25, 2008 at 11:26:56 PM
For footing the bill there. But don't call me cheap. You don't know what my circumstances are.
This article makes a strong case for the argument that Ron Paul admitted to writing the papers. After all, the newspaper says repeatedly that he wrote them, and weaves in various remarks made by Dr. Paul that suggest he wrote them. It also presents comments made by Dr. Paul that seem to show he doesn't care what the NAACP thinks of him.
It's a poorly written article, however. Too much is alluded to without being sufficiently explained or put into context. For example, when Dr. Paul defends himself about the "95% criminal" remark, saying the figures were that of a report he was quoting, the author of this article neither investigates the report or provides context about it: in short, there is no way to determine whether Dr. Paul was ridiculing or applauding the report. Dr. Paul is quoted here speaking in defense of the fleet of foot remark. This is presented as evidence that he wrote it. Again, that does not mean he wrote it or approves of the newsletters altogether; we are only told about that one response. I hope you will be able to disengage your prejudices long enough to see that I'm criticizing the obscurities in this article here, not necessarily defending Ron Paul.
The article uses the phrase, "he does not deny he wrote." Well, that's interesting. Why would it even occur to us that he WOULD deny he wrote any of these articles? Nobody asks the author of a book whether or not they "deny" having written it. Why would the interviewer even mention that, unless Ron Paul had already made denials? Answer: he wouldn't have.
Also, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that "he does not deny" means "he admits." For all we know, he wasn't even given an opportunity to comment on it.
This article does not contain any admission by Dr. Paul that he wrote the newsletters. It repeatedly claims he wrote them, but there is no admission of authorship here. Furthermore, by alluding to "denials," the article reveals that by this time, Dr. Paul probably had already denied writing at least part of the newsletters. Which makes the complete absence of reference to his previously stated denials a curious admission, if the object of the article was to present an objective, complete story and not a heavily contrived piece of political propaganda.
Finally, one last point: if you google Bill White (the aptly named White Supremicist) and Jamie Kirchick, author of the explosive New Republic article that claimed Ron Paul is a racist homophobe, you will find some evidence that supports my earlier claim that he, White, is a liar. And that Kirchick relied heavily on him as a source.
Why anyone would think these Nazis can be trusted for a minute to tell the truth is beyond my comprehension. It makes no sense for you to discredit Ron Paul's denials that he ever met with the White Supremicist camp on the grounds that Paul is a racist...but then you take the Nazis' word for it instead. Sure, they've got lots of credibility.
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Saturday, January 26, 2008 at 8:55:46 AM
Ingrid, Ingrid, Ingrid. . .You STILL don't get it. Ron Paul denied to The Dallas Morning News only that he is a racist. He never denied being the author of those Afrophobic screeds -- and he never denounced them, either.
If Dr. Paul truly isn't Afrophobic, then he would have not only declared right then and there in 1996 that he did not write those articles, he would have DENOUNCED them as well.
Did he do that? NO! Did he express any regrets? NO! Instead, he DEFENDED those articles and accused his critics of taking them out of context!
WHY would a man who says he's not Afrophobic defend articles that clearly were offensive to African Americans?
WHY would a man who says he's not Afrophobic wait 11 long years after he defended the screeds to deny being their author?
Ron Paul KNEW that those articles were out there -- a ticking time bomb ready to explode at any time during his presidential campaign. Yet he didin't have the foresight to prepare for their eventual disclosure. If Ron Paul truly isn't Afrophobic, he sould have dealt with those newsletters front and center before he declared his White House candidacy.
WHY would a man who says he's not Afrophobic accept campaign contributions from known white supremacists, knowing full well that public knowledge of those contributions would cause controversy?
And most important, WHY would a man who says he's not Afrophobic not take firm action to distance himself from those who are? White supremacists have attached themselves to Ron Paul as far back as 1996. WHY has Ron Paul enabled them by not distancing himself from their racist and anti-Semitic venom?
The evidence is staring right into your face, yet you still refuse to believe it. And then you criticize those who bring that evidence out into the open.
Jesus said, "There are none more blind than those who refuse to see." As far as I'm concerned, you're blind about Ron Paul's Afrophobia. If you still want to believe that Ron Paul isn't Afrophobic, that's your perogative.
But I refuse to join you.
by
Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments)
on Monday, January 28, 2008 at 1:52:38 PM
Skeeter, Skeeter, Skeeter...You trust the Dallas Morning News to have presented the full story. Looking at the article objectively, I do not. That's at the core of what we are arguing here. You plunk your money down and say, "That article's telling the whole truth." I say, "It's bullshit, piecemeal, contrived, and smacking of political corruption, so I don't trust it."
I do not value that article whatsoever and cannot ascertain from its pathetic quality of journalism what was said between the interviewer and Ron Paul. I do not conclude that an absence of denials in that article equals an absence of denials from Ron Paul- they are obviously writing in an election year and endorsing his opponent and this is a biased piece. I do not trust the author to have published any denials Ron Paul did make at that time.
The fact stands: the article does not contain an admission by Ron Paul that he wrote the newsletters. So far you have not supplied a source for your assertion that he admitted to writing them. His apparent defense of some of the content is not even an implicit admission that he wrote what's contained in them.
Also, if he defended any of the content, it was probably part of the larger argument that things were being taken out of context. Which is the heart of the matter here. Because...believe it or not...this will really blow your mind...the media DOES take things out of context very often and deliberately when it is trying to influence voters. (Note that this was written in an election year.) Journalists really should not take things out of context, and the comments they were alluding to may not have been racist in the slightest, only easily distorted as such in the hands of calculating smear artists. As I said before, if Ron Paul says the "95% criminal" remark was quoting another report, and the Dallas Morning News doesn't present that report as part of the story, WHY should I just dismiss Ron Paul's argument like the Dallas News did, and conclude what the Dallas Morning News is essentially DIRECTING me to conclude? Where's the full story? I'll bet that if the full story WERE more condemning they would have presented it. Don't you think so? Don't you see the pattern, doesn't your sense of probability inform your judgement here? Because the Dallas News didn't avail themselves of that opportunity, I assume the content was benign as Ron Paul claimed.
The article sucks, that's my point. There are many things in this world that I am not good at, but I am very discerning about writing, I have proven it in my education and writing career, and if I say it sucks, it's not just a flippant dismissal or cop-out. It really does suck.
Jesus..you mentioned Jesus so I will, too... also said that by their fruits shall ye know them. Ron Paul's whole life has born fruit of equality and justice for all races. It should be weighed in the balance. Can you SEE that by releasing all non-violent drug offenders from prison Ron Paul would free more blacks at one time than has ever happened since the Civil War? He delivered black babies for free. He has black friends. He has criticized the newsletters, (which, face it, you haven't read any more than I have, so neither of us is an expert here.) In truth, he is not a racist, has no racist crimes on his record or racist leanings in his voting, so why should he have flown this flag of old controversy ahead of his presidential parade as you suggest, only to give the wrong impression? Why should he yield to pressure and pander to his enemies, who throw out ultimatums like "give that Stormfront money to charity or we'll assassinate your character!"? He shouldn't. His argument, that he can take their money and use it for peace, is moral and logical and, in short, good enough.
The White Supremicists hate Ron Paul for being in league with Jews (Von Mises crowd), and they deliberately stick to him because they know their power in tarnishing people by association. Chew on that version of the story- it just might be true. I don't hold Ron Paul responsible for being stalked by these kooks. But I do hold his detractors responsible for making this same weak point incessantly and failing to bend to logic: good people should not be judged by or held accountable for the views of errant fans and followers. Nor are bad people exonerated by the goodness of their followers. There is no intrinsic relationship amongst strangers bound by an apparent, though not necessarily existent, common interest.
We are so used to the lobby system and patronage equaling influence that people fail to see that donations are another story with no obligations involved. And they are so mesmerized by the scandals coked up by a biased media that they can't focus straight on the remarkable badge of honor Ron Paul has earned, being one of the only politicians who takes no money from lobbyists. That's what counts. You can't buy influence with him.
Are you still reading this?
I didn't ask you for a convoluted argument suggesting that Ron Paul inadvertantly admitted to guilt by failing to coerce the Dallas Morning News to present his denials in their entirety. Knowing how journalists fudge things, I was looking for a straightforward, unmistakeable, direct admission that he WROTE the newsletters. Something that couldn't be fudged. I doubt that statement is out there anywhere.
Final thought on the information monopoly we are faced with in this day and age: "There can be no freedom for a society that lacks the means with which to detect lies." - Guy Debord. The Mainsteam Media is full of liars, I know that much is true, and we are not free if we defer to them for our opinions. I form most of my opinions by books and comprehensive articles by eminently competent journalists, such as you'd find in The Atlantic Monthly. (It's no coincidence to me that Atlantic Monthly contributing author Andrew Sullivan has endorsed Ron Paul.)
by
Ingrid (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 118 comments)
on Tuesday, January 29, 2008 at 9:55:24 PM
Skeeter, Skeeter, Skeeter...You trust the Dallas Morning News to have presented the full story. Looking at the article objectively, I do not. That's at the core of what we are arguing here. You plunk your money down and say, "That article's telling the whole truth." I say, "It's bullshit, piecemeal, contrived, and smacking of political corruption, so I don't trust it."
You're going to have to prove it to me. The Dallas Morning News is owned by the A.H. Belo Corporation -- which has long been known as a conservative, pro-Republican company. Moreover, the Morning News isn't known to be friendly to liberal Democrats -- It hasn't endorsed a Democratic presidential candidate since native Texan Lyndon Johnson in 1964.
I do not value that article whatsoever and cannot ascertain from its pathetic quality of journalism what was said between the interviewer and Ron Paul.
Your comment reveals a total disregard of -- even a contempt for -- journalism and for journalists. Having been a journalist myself for 19 years before I retired from the profession in 1999, I consider that an insult.
I do not conclude that an absence of denials in that article equals an absence of denials from Ron Paul- they are obviously writing in an election year and endorsing his opponent and this is a biased piece. I do not trust the author to have published any denials Ron Paul did make at that time.
You cannot prove that Ron Paul made any such denials at the time. On the contrrary, his 1996 campaign spokespeople also refused to deny that he was the author of those screeds is separate interviews with the Houston Chronicle, Austin American-Statesman and The Washington Post.
The fact stands: the article does not contain an admission by Ron Paul that he wrote the newsletters.
Nor does the article contain a DENIAL by Ron Paul that he wrote them.
So far you have not supplied a source for your assertion that he admitted to writing them. His apparent defense of some of the content is not even an implicit admission that he wrote what's contained in them.
Nor have YOU supplied a source for YOUR assertion that he denied writing them. And for you to assert that his defense of "some of the content is not even an implicit admission that he wrote what's contained in them" utterly strains credulity. No one in his or her right mind is going to defend something he or she is accused of writing if he or she didn't write it. That person would deny writing it foresquare qand then condemn it -- and there's no way that you can convince me otherwise.
Also, if he defended any of the content, it was probably part of the larger argument that things were being taken out of context. Which is the heart of the matter here. Because...believe it or not...this will really blow your mind...the media DOES take things out of context very often and deliberately when it is trying to influence voters. (Note that this was written in an election year.)
That does NOT absolve Dr. Paul of the FACT that he DID NOT DENY writing the articles. COMMON SENSE can tell you that if Dr. Paul didin't write them, he would have said so right then and there. Nor did Dr. Paul even say that SOMEONE ELSE wrote them -- or even say that he DIDIN'T KNOW who wrote them.
Journalists really should not take things out of context, and the comments they were alluding to may not have been racist in the slightest, only easily distorted as such in the hands of calculating smear artists. As I said before, if Ron Paul says the "95% criminal" remark was quoting another report, and the Dallas Morning News doesn't present that report as part of the story, WHY should I just dismiss Ron Paul's argument like the Dallas News did, and conclude what the Dallas Morning News is essentially DIRECTING me to conclude? Where's the full story? I'll bet that if the full story WERE more condemning they would have presented it. Don't you think so? Don't you see the pattern, doesn't your sense of probability inform your judgement here? Because the Dallas News didn't avail themselves of that opportunity, I assume the content was benign as Ron Paul claimed.
I have to concede on this point. The Washington Post story DID mention the report that Dr. Paul cited. But The Post also noted Dr. Paul's LACK OF DENIAL that he wrote the newsletters. And by the way, why would Dr. Paul claim that the articles were "taken out of context" if he didn't write them without SAYING that he didin't write them? THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
The article sucks, that's my point. There are many things in this world that I am not good at, but I am very discerning about writing, I have proven it in my education and writing career, and if I say it sucks, it's not just a flippant dismissal or cop-out. It really does suck.
I'll also concede that the Morning News article was poorly written -- or rather, poorly edited. But when you have other media outlets both inside and outside Dallas covering the story ALSO noting that Dr. Paul DID NOT DENY writing the articles -- and by the way, there is no statement on record by Paul's 1996 campaign saying that he denied being the author of those articles, either -- the only conclusion that one can come to is that Dr. Paul did, in fact. write them.
Jesus..you mentioned Jesus so I will, too... also said that by their fruits shall ye know them. Ron Paul's whole life has born fruit of equality and justice for all races.
As long as you're on the subject of "by their fruits, ye shall know them," how, then do you explain all these so-called "white nationalists," present and former Ku Klux Klansmen and neo-Nazis latching on to his presidential campaign -- which, by the way, Dr. Paul has YET to distance himself from? I'm by no means the only blogger who's exposed these whackos' support for him.
The White Supremicists hate Ron Paul for being in league with Jews (Von Mises crowd), and they deliberately stick to him because they know their power in tarnishing people by association. Chew on that version of the story- it just might be true. I don't hold Ron Paul responsible for being stalked by these kooks. But I do hold his detractors responsible for making this same weak point incessantly and failing to bend to logic: good people should not be judged by or held accountable for the views of errant fans and followers. Nor are bad people exonerated by the goodness of their followers. There is no intrinsic relationship amongst strangers bound by an apparent, though not necessarily existent, common interest.
Then answer me this: WHY HAS DR. PAUL NOT PUBLICLY DENOUNCED THOSE WHACKOS -- AND HAS EVEN TAKE A CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION FROM ONE OF THEM (DON BLACK), FULLY AWARE OF HIS NEFARIOUS ATTITUDES AND ACTIVITIES? Sorry, Ingrid, but THIS part of your argument holds no water with me.
We are so used to the lobby system and patronage equaling influence that people fail to see that donations are another story with no obligations involved. And they are so mesmerized by the scandals coked up by a biased media that they can't focus straight on the remarkable badge of honor Ron Paul has earned, being one of the only politicians who takes no money from lobbyists. That's what counts. You can't buy influence with him.
HA! Tell that to Don Black. If he's not a lobbyist for white supremacy and racism, than I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you. You can't deny that Dr. Paul took money from that scumbag -- it's on file with the Federal Elections Commission.
Are you still reading this?
Obviously yes.
I didn't ask you for a convoluted argument suggesting that Ron Paul inadvertantly admitted to guilt by failing to coerce the Dallas Morning News to present his denials in their entirety. Knowing how journalists fudge things, I was looking for a straightforward, unmistakeable, direct admission that he WROTE the newsletters. Something that couldn't be fudged. I doubt that statement is out there anywhere.
And I expected you to furnish evidence that Dr. Paul did NOT write those articles. I'm still waiting.
Final thought on the information monopoly we are faced with in this day and age: "There can be no freedom for a society that lacks the means with which to detect lies." - Guy Debord. The Mainsteam Media is full of liars, I know that much is true, and we are not free if we defer to them for our opinions.
You'll get no argument from me on that one. Especially since Fox News was launched in 1996. It's why I got out of the mainstream news media and into blogging. But I ask again, how would a conservative, pro-Republican newspaper that the Dallas Morning News is stand to gain from smearing a Republican congressional candidate runniing against a liberal Democrat? Answer me that.
I form most of my opinions by books and comprehensive articles by eminently competent journalists, such as you'd find in The Atlantic Monthly. (It's no coincidence to me that Atlantic Monthly contributing author Andrew Sullivan has endorsed Ron Paul.)
I wonder if Andrew Sullivan made his endorsement of Dr. Paul before or after he learned that Dr. Paul's newsletters also contained virulently anti-gay screeds. As I'm sure you know, Sullivan is openly gay.
by
Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments)
on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 2:05:33 AM
It Really Doesn't Matter Anymore... Ron Paul's Going Nowhere
Just as a P.S., Ingrid. . .You can save yourself the trouble of trying to convince me that Ron Paul didn't write those racist newsletters, because you can't.
But it no longer matters, for Dr, Paul hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican presidential nomination.
As I'm sure you know by now, Dr. Paul got only three percent of the vote in the Florida GOP primary -- which was a CLOSED primary; only registered Republicans could vote in it.
It's no secret that most of Ron Paul's most die-hard supporters are not registered Republicans (Hence his second-place showing in the Nevada caucuses, which were open to independents).
The majority of the reamining GOP primaries are closed primaries --no indpendents allowed. And most registered Republicans think Ron Paul is a fringe candidate.
So I'm finished with this conversation with you. Ron Paul is going nowhere -- and that's a good thing.
by
Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments)
on Wednesday, January 30, 2008 at 4:40:01 AM
"I would have addressed your last long comment, but you threw in the towel.
Who cares about Florida?"
"Who cares about Florida?" . . .Well, well, Ingrid, you've shown your true colors with that last line.
You just gave yourself away as a zealot who doesn't give a damn what mainstream Republicans think about Ron Paul -- even though you KNOW that there's no way he's going to win the GOP nomination.
Too bad. You'll just have to learn the hard way -- as supporters of Lyndon LaRouche and Dr. Lenore Fulani have -- that candidates who have ties to the radical lunatic fringe can NEVER win the White House.
Ron Paul has made NO ATTEMPT to distance himself from the white-supremacist scumbags on the lunatic fringe who have latched on to his campaign.
'Bye-bye -- LOSER!
by
Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments)
on Thursday, January 31, 2008 at 4:44:10 AM
"Who cares about Florida" was both bait (testing your ability to stick to your guns and really LEAVE when you said you were leaving) and a rebuttal. I've proven that it was effective bait. Here is what I meant, in terms of rebuttal:
Florida is not America, what happens in Florida is not indicative of what is happening in the whole country, as you were so foolishly suggesting. (If it were, Ron Paul would not have placed second in two states so far.) Florida was a strategic loss for Ron Paul: it was a winner-takes-all state, therefore, Ron Paul's loss with 3% means the exact same thing, in terms of delegates, as Romney's loss with 31% (which cost Romney a rumored 30 million dollars in futile advertising.) Paul conserved his resources by skipping that state: it was doubtful he would win, especially since it was closed to all voters but Republicans.
But I applaud your cleverness in contorting my message to mean something so phenomenally bizarre as "Florida, the state, can go to hell." As if I meant that the people are worth nothing, the Everglades are annoying, the nice weather is anathema to me, maybe I don't like old people, nor Cubans, nor rich people, nor anything else in Florida, and so on. You limit yourself to arguing such cogent points, don't you?
Just because you haven't looked for Ron Paul's statement of distancing himself from the wacko white supremicists doesn't mean it's not there. Why don't you troll YouTube for some forensic evidence and get back to me. I'VE seen it, now YOU go look for it.
Don Black may be a lobbyist, but he is not lobbying when he sends money via the internet or phone to Paul's compaign, any more than I am lobbying when I send money. Ron Paul has stated (yes! in public! on television!) that he does not monitor or run background checks on each of the contributors, and he has said he never heard of Stormfront before the news got wind of their donations and blasted him for receiving them.
GayWiredNews has just endorsed Ron Paul. You must think they are pretty dumb to be endorsing this homophobe who is so well-known for his virulent remarks against them. And...I'll borrow from your way of rationalizing here...who are YOU to say that gays are dumb??? I take offense to that.
(I was parroting your argument that by criticizing one article in the Dallas Morning News and remarking on the woeful ubiquity of shoddy journalism I was somehow accusing you of being a subaverage journalist. You barged into the set I was defining and took
