WARNING
SOME LINKS IN THIS POST LEAD
TO REPUGNANT NEO-NAZI WEBSITES
In yesterday’s thread discussing the Republican debate on Tuesday, several people, including me, commented on the seemingly tacit acceptance of support from Neo-Nazis and white supremacists by Dr. Ron Paul.
First, let me say this: I am NOT claiming that Ron Paul is a racist or a Neo-Nazi.
I do think it is very strange that so many of these groups are rallying around Dr. Paul.
That said, the simple fact is that the white nationalist website Stormfront.org features Ron Paul’s campaign banner prominently on their front page–thus providing a direct link from the leading White Supremacist site on the web to Dr. Paul’s on-line donation form.
Note–there is NO EVIDENCE that Paul’s campaign itself is responsible for this appearing on the site; instead, it looks like the Nazi owner put it there himself.
Still, as LGF and others have noticed…
- The Nazis over at Stormfront are urging all skinheads to spam the online polls in favor of Ron Paul. Here’s a youtube audio of Stormfront Radio’s commercial for Ron Paul.
- Paul is so popular with these scumbags that even the presidential candidate of the American Nazi Party is complaining that Paul is stealing his support base!
- Ron Paul is the favored candidate of David Duke.
So what is it about Dr. Paul that has Neo-Nazis and white supremacists flocking to his campaign?
And if YOU were running for President and suddenly found that all sorts of racist nut-jobs were jumping on your bandwagon, wouldn’t this fact make you stop for a minute and go “Huh, I wonder what is going on here? Why do all these racist loony bigots mistakenly think I’m their man? And what am I going to do about it to make sure they and everyone else are disabused of this notion?”
I asked numerous times yesterday for a response from the Ron Paul supporters who descend upon LST at the mere mention of their hero’s name. Not a single person could provide evidence that Dr. Paul has publicly repudiated the support or racists and Neo-Nazis. Not one!
One person compared it to the Klan’s “support” of Ronald Reagan in 1980, but when presented with evidence that Reagan quickly, publicly and absolutely disavowed such support, he had nothing more to say.
I have searched for over a week now trying to find a similar public statement from Ron Paul, and come up with nothing.
I understand that Dr. Paul cannot be held responsible for every knuckle-headed Nazi who decides to put a donation link to his campaign on their racist website.
But I do, however, think it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to speak out officially and demand the Nazis and all other racist groups remove these links, and insist unambiguously that he doesn’t want the support, either financial or in the form of votes, of any white supremacist.
If the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul with do this I will gladly publish his statement here.
Update: question mark added to the title 
Filed Under Uncategorized ·
Sounds like an eminently fair request to me……….
I thought they called him their saviour….
his writings address it well:
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=284
http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/document.php?id=508
Recently Ron Paul has addressed in LTE to a NH paper inaccuracies in their article, I would not be surprised to see more of this in the future when such claims make it to the media. We all know he does not support pre-emptive strikes
#3 Stephene
It’s good to see that Dr. Paul has written in the past that racism and bigotry are repugnant and stupid.
It should make it very easy for his campaign to issue an official press release specifically disavowing the support of Neo-Nazis, and demanding that they take the donation link to his campaign off their website.
While they are at it… it shouldn’t be hard for the campaign’s web-guy to look at Stormfront’s IP address and track which donations were made to the campaign from people following that link.
Those donations should be rejected, and the money returned.
Glad this will be so easy to settle.
stephene, nothing in either of those two writings mentions this issue. They are both responses to how people responded to other’s comments. What we would like to see is a specific address from Ron Paul, or some one high up on his staff if it is beneath him, that officially rebukes these groups that are raising money for him and distances him from them. The perception in modern politics is that campaign contributions are quid pro quo. We donate to those individuals who we think will do something for us.
duhmoose,
The issue behind these groups is racism which those writings address. In today’s internet world you will always have “endorsements” you do not want, I agree that they should be disavowed at the right time. However, it needs to be a general statement not toward a singular group, because there are many such that may support because of the protection of liberty and freedom Ron Paul supports. I say it should be a generalized statement regarding something like “disavowing endorsements by groups with a racist collectivist vision” because if you took the time to address each one that exists it would be a very long list. There are other candidates that have endorsements they did not seek, some get disavowed and some do not.
Such examples may be those of La Raza who has endorsed candidates before as well.
La Raza hasn’t endorsed Ron Paul. If and when they do we will ask him to disavow them as well.
#4 David - I would think that hiring the staff to follow IP addresses, etc. would eat up much of the campaign money received, wouldn’t it?
6
That is nonsensical doubletalk. He needs to specifically and emphatically repudiate these groups who are (apparently without any objection to date) using his name and raising money for him. He needs to do what Reagan did - immediately (though too late for that) hold a press conference, denounce the specific group, and say he does not want their support.
To not denounce people who advocate hate and genocide is to tacitly approve their endorsement. This issue will not go away. If he doesn’t reject them, people will draw their own conclusions.
It is scandalous that he has not already taken action.
8. dc
That’s a cop-out. Ron Paul and his supporters talk about what great internet gurus they are. Yet this has been on the internet, and been a discussion in the interet, for weeks, at least. Rest assured, Paul’s campaign is well aware of it, and has done nothing to stop it.
You should not make excuses for bad behavior.
RickG,
By naming a group like stormfront you are giving THEM publicity, and that is what they want.
hamous,
I never said La Raza did, but they have endorsed other candidates in the past. I hardly expect they’d endorse Paul, he is against illegal immigration.
RickG,
to further expand on the thought, the klan was VERY well known and not some tiny group. He does need to disavow but as I said it needs to be as a whole not as each group named out, by naming them out in a huge press release you actually give them free advertising for their propaganda.
Oh Geez there will be 400 hits to this web article by 9 p.m. ST and I need to suit up!!
For such a marginal candidate, Dr. Paul receives an inordinate amount of discussionn in this forum.
Why?
Dr. Paul should ignore the racist groups that claim to support him. He has no obligation to repudiate any one or any group.
That fact that you don’t like it is your problem.
He knows what he stands for.
dcgirl, Actually all it takes is looking at a few server logs. I would think that would actually be a requirement of campaign finance law as it helps to identify bogus/illegal contributions.
little mike, The problem is that if he does not disavow them, it will hurt him in the long run. Let’s say he gets the Republican nomination, do you think the Democrats would hesitate to run adds about him taking contributions from racist groups?
12.
I think we know where you’re coming from. The argument doesn’t wash, though. Paul has not renounced anyone, general or specific. Further, he has a history of making racial charges himself.
Now, in far less than five minutes in the Stormfront slimepit, I came across these remarks of the subhumans over there:
Then, we have this laughable statement:
Any candidate who does not immediately disassociate himself with such cretis is a sniveling coward - or worse.
Do you think Paul hasn’t denounced these people because he doesn’t want to give them publicity? Or is there another reason . . . .
#14 little mike
Right… so if (for instance) HAMAS endorses Hillary Clinton and includes a high-profile link to donate to her campaign from their website, your position would be that she should just “ignore” them because she knows where she stands and is under no obligation to repudiate them?
She shouldn’t lift a finger to figure out who came from HAMAS’ website and gave her money?
Come on.
Hamous’ post is very fair… he says specifically that Paul ISN’T responsible for these Nazis raising money for his campaign.
But basic decency requires that he unambiguously repudiate them and take reasonable steps to reject any money coming from their slimy supporters.
Luckily for Dr. Paul, that’s the politically prudent thing to do as well.
So it’s a “win win.”
the reason that Dr Paul gets so much traffic is because he is one of the most searched names on google, technorati, etc
I support him, but I know there are some real fanatics that love to simply chant, curse, and scream at you.
I am not like that, and most of Dr Paul’s supporters are not. There are many supporters that are not active on the forums, chats, blogs, vlogs, etc; and sadly quite a few of them that are can be very obnoxious even to other supporters.
This is a sign that the support is very vocal and opinionated, his support comes from the youngest soon to be eligibles to the people that live off their Social Security check each month.
There are many myths that can be corrected in the proper tone and attitude. More civil discussions will follow after they have learned.
Dr Paul has a very large following of college students and recent graduates, first time voters, and the future of our country. He is a bright example to them in his principle and humility if they will simply follow his example.
Humble is not an adjective I would use to describe Ron Paul.
#19 stephene
Dr. Paul owes it to all of his non-bigoted supporters (I’m not being sarcastic– I don’t doubt that the vast majority of RP-backers have no hate in their hearts) to clearly repudiate the bigots who mistakenly think he has anything in common with them.
I’d think most RP supporters would consider his cause too important to risk being tarnished by the inclusion of a bigoted few.
btw, here’s a suggestion– at the VERY LEAST, is the Paul campaign willing to block StormFront’s IP address? So at a minimum, no MORE campaign donations will come in from the Internet’s premier Nazi website?
Can we all at least agree they should do that?
#22 - I would think that your approach would be a cost-effective and sensible solution to the problem.
hamous,
Dr Paul is a very humble man, have you not seen him in interviews, post debate coverage, etc?
He is certainly not a boastful and haughty presence like some of those that are running for the GOP nomination.
Isn’t this a news blog?
Has anyone with power to post articles actually called his campaign on this and asked for an official written statement?
You might be able to put this to rest with an email or fax from his campaign, instead of carrying on in a chat forum about what he needs to do……Just call his campaign tell them your report on a web blog LST and that this is a hot topic and you would like an official statement.
If he is so involved with the internet, I would think it would be important for him to respond to a news Blog.
my 2 cents
RickG, I responded to your question on this issue repeated many times, last time at 1.30am at: http://lonestartimes.com/2007/10/10/grading-the-repubs-part-six/ It was a long answer so I won’t repost here.
David,
I have already said that it should be disavowed, just as he would not accept Bush’s endorsement, because it is against his principles.
He is not a racist, therefore he should not accept their endorsement. As for “blocking the IP” it would actually be blocking the referal URL, not the IP, because the IP’s can change, and the user’s IP is not the same as their server, but the referal URL would remain the same or a slight variance that could be detected with a rewrite engine on the server.
A note on that other topic regarding supporting the GOP candidate. He has no intention to run, but at the same time I do not think he will throw support behind the GOP candidate. This doesn’t mean he may not sulk into a booth and vote for the GOP candidate anywhere, there is a difference there, it is the same for Tancredo. It was an abominable question to ask in a “debate” in the first place.
I find these smear-by-association posts, regardless of which candidate they are directed at, to be repugnant in and of themselves, and well beneath the level of discussion that I expect from LST.
It is one thing to ask for a disavowal from a public official who physically associates himself with Duke, or the Nation of Islam, or the KKK, or any other extremist group like that. Trent Lott once spoke to a mississippi group with an innocuous-sounding name that had connections to the White Citizens Council. It was completely fair to demand a disavowal of that group from him, and completely appropriate for him to offer an apology.
But when you start trolling around the web looking for neo-nazi sites that endorse somebody WITHOUT THEIR KNOWLEDGE OR SUPPORT and through no action of their own, then use those sites to smear the person it becomes outright demagoguery.
I honestly don’t care if David Duke posts something on his own as a private citizen in favor of Ron Paul on his website. As long as Ron Paul himself did not ask for Duke’s support and had no prior knowledge of what Duke was going to write about him, he is under no moral obligation to do a public penance for it. What Duke says and does is entirely beyond Ron Paul’s control!
It makes no more sense to tar Paul with Duke’s comments on the presidential race in this instance than it does to tar any opponent of affirmative action with Duke’s name, since Duke has spoken out about that issue too. Same goes for stormfront, the nation of islam, or anyone else.
Demanding apologies and disavowals from people who did absolutely nothing wrong on their own, and trying to link them to the evil acts of other people for which they bear no fault, is the type of gutter politics we decry all the time when the left engages in it.
One particularly notorious instance of this comes to mind when Bill Clinton tried to blame Rush Limbaugh and talk radio for the Oklahoma City bombing because McVeigh was reportedly a talk radio listener. This attempt to smear Paul with the Duke/Stormfront tag is no less sleazy than what Clinton did to talk radio, and what the left does on a daily basis in this country. Frankly, I’m sick and tired of all these feigned cases of “outrage” and “offense” and the accompanying demand for “apologies” and the associated public shaming. I expect them from the left, but it surprises me when I see them from places I thought were above that sort of garbage.
Apologies are an admission of guilt by definition, and disavowals are an admission of prior association with the disavowed. To my knowledge, Paul is neither guilty of support for these groups, nor has formally associated himself with them. He therefore has nothing to apologize for and nothing to disavow.
Wow, I didn’t know Ron Popeil was racist…
http://www.biography.com/biography/images/episode_images/popeil_ron_320×240.jpg
Phil_M,
I agree for the most part but disavowing is NOT an admission of prior association, and therefore it would not be a bad thing for a statement disavowing endorsements by groups.
Trying to smear him with this is not right, but it is politics, that is what happens. To say otherwise would be ignorant.
One of the better comebacks I’ve seen.
Phil - No one demanded an apology. I made it abundantly clear that I am not calling Dr. Paul a racist or Nazi. A public statement along the lines of Reagan’s is not an admission of guilt or prior association. No public statement at all is tacit approval.
If Ron Paul does not get the nomination, and supports another candidate, that implies those who worked for him, and support him, will look to the other candidate. By not supporting anyone republican, Doctor Paul says, screw the Republican party, non of you are good enough to get my support. I would prefer he run as a Libertarian or form his own party. Tancredo said he would not support any other candidate also. The party should pull support from him too. This is too critical an election for a man’s ego to get in the way.
#30 -
It is in the eyes of the media, and it will be spun that way by the political left. When you go out of your way to issue a statement disavowing somebody, it plays before the public as an admission you’ve done something wrong. Paul has done nothing wrong here.
#32 - I’m well aware that you did not call Paul a racist himself. What you did was imply his tacit acceptance of other people who are racists because he has failed to meet your completely contrived and irresponsible demands for a “disavowal” of support he never asked for, solicited, or voluntarily associated with in any documented way.
Phil M
We didn’t smear Paul. The post states very clearly that his campaign DIDN’T advertise on StormFront and ISN’T responsible for a knuckle-headed Nazi deciding to put his campaign donation widget on his racist site.
The the Nazis did, and other people noticed (e.g., LGF and others).
Political campaigns sometimes get hit with bad, unflattering news. It’s happened in campaigns I’ve been a part of. A donor turns out to be a crook; someone you got your picture with ends up being a pervert; a volunteer wrote something offensive while in college, or in a previous job.
Fair-minded people understand that there are a ton of things candidates can’t control.
What they CAN control is their response.
We’re talking here about a press release and a little technical work on their website. They can even cite the Trent Lott incident you mentioned (and Hillary taking money from a HAMAS-supporter, etc.) to make their point.
#34 I didn’t demand a damn thing. Here is exactly what I said:
bigjolly,
Honestly, I don’t think the other candidates want Bush’s endorsement either. Do you? I just can’t see it as being a good thing. They have already shunned him from fundraisers for both the GOP and the candidates. Just to contrast that you say Clinton continuing to raise DNC funds even today, and Reagan for some time as well.
American Woman,
There is no benefit for him to run 3rd party, he will get blamed for “giving” Hillary the election, he is very astute and knows this well.
As for the not supporting the nominee, I personally can not vote for Rudy, if he is the nominee I will not vote for president and instead hope for a miracle in congress. Rudy is more and more looking like the deemed “candidate” from the GOP, I am supporting Ron Paul and fervently praying that anyone other than Rudy is nominated.
I think that Thompson is a sock puppet and would be eating out of the hand of lobby groups - he has 0 record to show otherwise
Romney needs to stop flip flopping, he is worse then John Kerry on this
Mccain - too weak on many issues projects himself as a maverick but it a total DC insider
Hunter - wow people say Paul is an isolationist, this is the true word for isolationist
Huckabee - Hillary in GOP party, “spread the wealth” really caught my ear in the debate, nanny government will never win me over
Hamous is a contriver.
Stephene, I agree and thought it was a good response.
Since we’re on the subject of disavowals though, I have a couple questions pertaining to some “guilty associations” that, unlike Paul’s, are tangible, voluntary, and documented.
1. When will LST demand that Mike Huckabee issu disavow his association with the Rev. Wiley Drake, a vocal evangelical supporter and organizer for his campaign? For those who do not know, Drake led a public prayer a couple weeks ago asking for God to kill his political opponents and make their children starve.
2. When will LST demand that Rudy Giuliani disavow the moral choices of Howard Koeppel and Mark Hsiao? For those who do not know, Rudy lived with Koeppel and Hsiao in their New York apartment for several months when Wife #2 kicked him out of the mayor’s mansion. Koeppel is Rudy’s friend. Hsiao is Koeppel’s “domestic partner.”
3. When will certain LST contributers disavow their own associations with the Rev. Alan Bean? For those who do not know, Bean is the race-baiting propagandist behind the Jena 6 story and has openly defended his own connections to the Nation of Islam, the New Black Panther Party, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, the ACLU, and dozens of other similarly repugnant groups and persons.
I ask these things simply out of consistency in the standards being maintained around here. In each instance, the requested disavowee has a far more tangible and direct link to the named person than ANY of the groups tacked on to Ron Paul at the outset of this thread. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Phil– you’re a good man and make a reasonable point (something you’ve been known to do).
We are in the process of speaking with the campaign at this very moment about an official statement.
the pattern from the ron paul “camp” is they will do things necessary to inflate and over exaggerate their support and existance.
not only this discredits them but also by not refuting the radical and extreme groups that latch on to their ban wagon only adds fuel to the fire.
wont be surprise there will be offical rejection of such extreme and radical groups that join on to the ron paul “camp” when he finally drops out.
until then, it seems ron paul needs the the fringe groups to continue prop up and inflate ron paul’s status as a vital canidate
1. already done
David -
You’re absolutely right on this. It goes with the territory, and it often makes it into the news. I know it, you know it, anyone who follows politics knows it.
But there’s a big difference between acknowledging that fact and joining in on the spin to bring the piece of dirt to the forefront. There’s also a big difference between pointing out an unsavory but tangible connection with somebody that the candidate himself has made and a “connection” that the candidate has absolutely no way of controlling.
In this particular thread, LST is definitely joining in on the spin part - even if LGF or somebody else pointed it out already. The simple fact that LST has chosen to highlight LGF et al (and echo their position) makes it a participant in the spin.
I’d also argue that the specific “connection” LST is attempting to draw here (and that includes whether they directly call Paul a racist or not; the plainly intended innuendo in the latter case accomplishes the same effect) falls on the weaker and sleazier end of the “guilt by association” spectrum, simply because the things Paul is apparently expected to “disavow” are all completely beyond his own control.
Phil–
First of all, “LST” hasn’t asked Paul to disavow anything– Hamous did. Front-page contributors speak for themselves, not the site as an institution.
So if an LST contributor who is a supporter of Huckabee wants to ask that he disavow Drake; or if a supporter of Giuliani that he disavow his gay friends; or if Jenna 6 concerned, that he disavow Bean; well, they can have at it.
I don’t know much about the stories you reference, but for MY PART:
(1) Based on what you said, sounds like Drake is an idiot and Huckabee should disavow him;
(2) If the Bean guy is a race-baiter, screw him;
(3) I don’t really care if Giuliani crashes with some gay friends after getting thrown by his wife, so you’re on your own with that one.
LTC,
That is a very big accusation.
I am a real person, I am a Texan in fact, not in Texas at the moment but a very proud Texan.
There are some very enthusiastic supporters that do some stupid things, but there are many that are very down to earth, educated and non exaggerated.
There are people that think Ron Paul has already won, that online polls showing 70% are perfectly accurate, they live in fantasy land.
there are people that think the current GOP is going the right direction, but upon a long review over the last year I have changed my mind and if others would study the matters they would have some open eyes as well. The GOP going the current direction, and especially if Rudy is nominated is liable to relegate itself history within the next 12 years.
#43 - Hamous -
Oh, so a campaign spokeslady doesn’t “condone” it? How bold of her.
Since your disavowal request was directed at Paul himself though, I would expect nothing less than a statement from Huckabee’s own mouth disavowing this guy. So far I haven’t seen one.
2. You want Rudy to disavow his friend because he’s gay? I might get your point if the Folsom Street Fair organizers were endorsing Giuliani but I don’t think renting a room from your gay friend is on the same level as accepting campaign donations from white supremacists.
I see Hamous addressed the Drake thing.
Phil– I acknowledge your point about Paul not voluntarily or consciously associating with Stormfront. Their actions have been very unfair to him.
What can I say? Nazi’s do bad things.
Maybe you are getting hooked up on the word “disavow.”
How about “repudiate” or “condemn”?
Point is, Paul should tell the Nazi’s “**** You, you disgust me, I don’t want your stinking money, how dare you sully my campaign and cause by trying to associate with it. Go to Hell.”
Rudy’s roomies are the least of his concerns, Alan Placa will be a much bigger story!
3. I’ll let bigjolly take that one.
Oh, that’s easy.
T’aint gonna happen.
Clear enough?
I’ve heard stories about several recent presidential candidates returning donations recently. Why is it too much to ask for Paul (or even a “campaign spokesperson” to actively denounce the support of such fringe groups as neo-nazis or whate supremacists?
Sometimes “staying above the fray” or declaring such people NWOR isn’t good enough, especially if you keep their money…
Hamous,
I have no desire to debate it just stating a fact, so far he’s not said anything publicly to remove his direct association with him. I just searched it to be sure and can not find any statement or release about it, feel free to correct me if I am wrong on this matter.
In fact in the Politico today it says:
“Giuliani and his firm have also faced protests for employing a Giuliani childhood friend and Catholic priest, Alan Placa, who was barred from priestly duties after being accused of molesting boys more than two decades ago. Placa has insisted the charges are false, and Giuliani has stoutly defended him.”
btw I am just Stephen, unless the registered Stephen posts here……no need to add the e, it was simply a placeholder
#45 - David -
Fair enough, and I don’t mean to imply that all of LST’s contributers are culpable in making what I consider a fairly sleazy and underhanded demand of Paul’s campaign. In fact, I would not expect posts like this one from most contributers here.
When one or two of them do make them though, it lessens the credibility of the site as a whole though. And I don’t mean that as a critique of LST itself - it’s just the perception it creates. In my mind, a good blog is one that maintains high quality across multiple articles over time. In other words - it’s something that I can dependably go to any day of the week and know that the stuff I find will be intellegent, well argued, and consistently reliable. LST, to its credit, does this far better than most blogs out there. I find it troubling though when I come here expecting to find the quality posts that I’m used to and instead see a trashy piece of political schlock like this thing on Ron Paul.
I don’t say that as a sometimes-Ron Paul supporter either. As many here know, I’ve been the first to criticize him on many counts and shortcomings. What I’m saying though is that of all the things to go after Paul for, this is not one of them. This is low-brow gutter politics designed for no other reason that to obtain a cheap smear. Even if we acknowledge that smears happen in politics, and - dare I say - they are even justified in some instances, this particular one strikes me as rather gratuitous, and in being such it lessens the quality and reputation of the blog as a whole.
jimb,
They have in fact returned some donations, I have seen it on some sites.
stephen, I am unfamiliar with Alan Placa so will have to do some research. Is he funding Giuliani’s campaign?
7
ROFLOL
Phil– your fairness and credibility are why, to be perfectly frank, I (and others) are taking your criticisms as seriously as we are.
Once again, where is this “demand” you speak of?
Well like I said someone needs to call his campaign and post his response.
Looks like David is doing just that, lets wait and see what RP has to say.
Also - a point of clarification on the Giuliani and Huckabee things…
In terms of my own personal preference, I don’t really care whether they “disavow” anybody. Whether they do or not has little bearing on my vote for either of them. Personally, I don’t care where Rudy wants to live, be it his gay friend’s apartment or a highway overpass.
Huckabee’s evangelical pal who prays for God to smite people is a little unsettling too, and if I were Huckabee i’d distance myself from that guy precisely because of what he’s doing rather than the controversy it could create. But I’m not gonna lose sleep over his failure to “disavow” the guy.
I posed the questions though strictly for consistency, and as a test of the disturbing trend in U.S. elections toward the politics of feigned “outrage” and “offense” at just about everyone over everything no matter how petty or stupid it may be. The point is that those who dwell in announcing their “outrage” and demanding various disavowals of things they deem “unsavory,” whether real or not, are often very selective about where they choose to apply the “outrage” filter.
Take the Rudy example. While I don’t particularly care if he has gay roommates, a lot of conservatives - particularly from the evangelical wing - probably do, including some at the other blogs that have condemned Paul by shameless innuendo linking him to Duke and stormfront. If they contrive “outrage” at Paul but give others a pass for behavior that they themselves find offensive, a matter of consistency emerges. The politics of “outrage” is inconsistent and selective by its very nature though, which is why I tend to place it on the lower end of political discourse.
And yes - that type of political discourse has its time and place. I’m just disappointed to see it here, where I expected better.
David,
Actually I’d like to thank those here for not attacking me as well, it seems when Paul’s name is mentioned on some blogs/sites it is like a 4 alarm fire douse them with water and some anti oxygen foam for good measure to put out the fire!
The purpose of this thread was to - either explicitly or implicitly - solicit a disavowal of these groups from Paul, was it not?
Your own title - “Friends In Low Places” - indicates that you have taken a position on what you think of Paul because of these groups. You’re completely entitled to that position if you like, but, directly stated or not, your post has an overabundance of innuendo contained within it. And I’m simply stating that I find that type of innuendo to be the type of cheap gutter politics we have come to expect from the left but that some of us thought (myself included) to be beneath the intellectual level of LST.
Holy cow, phil. The post states several times we do not think Ron Paul is a racist. I don’t know where you’re picking up on “innuendo”.
hamous,
You need to learn to do like fox News, headline:
Friend in low places?
Or FNC style:
Nuke Iran?
Just for grins, I browsed through 4 months of press releases on RP’s website. He’s ALL ABOUT his internet donations, and hasn’t said one iota about being selective where they come from.
You are a heck of a blogger Phil. But I think you are dead wrong in the motives and chracterizations you have assigned to this thread.
I just read the post again and picked up on something–
Hamous, at times you use “I” statements and at other times you slip into “we” statements. (Which is understandable, given that you were referencing a previous thread where you and several other contributors were all trying to make the same point.)
Still, it adds confusion in that the “royal ‘We’” on LST is usually reserved for posts written by Matt or myself, for “official” LST business or endorsements, etc.
I’ve gone back and tweaked the post a bit to make sure it is always clear that you are writing in your own name, not LST as an institution. (Not that you wrote anything illegitimate; if you did, I’d want to pull the post).
Thrust of post doesn’t change; simply makes things clearer.
And thus, our readers get a behind-the-scenes look at our on-the-fly editorial process.
really the more I think about it, it is great that it comes out here “first”(not technically, but in the first round). Hamous who posted this is here replying, you can talk to the person that wrote the article. there are other media avenues that can’t be as easily replied, or as promptly replied.
This site also has a fraction of the viewership of say, the national news. A medium such as that may not air the other side, or give opportunity to the other side.
It is politics, politics are dirty. no doubt more mud slinging will be coming soon!
I just sent an email to mail@ronpaul2008.com to see what I would get back about the subject. It got bounced back with a “quota exceeded” error. Apparently, they’re not reading their emails much over there.
jimb,
maybe they are just getting 10000’s of emails from the media, rabid supporters, and others?
Not everything is as clearcut as they are not reading, you remind me of some RP supports who think that because it says “naked lady” behind Ron Paul on CNN it is subliminal messaging
Hey, where’s the naked lady?
bigjolly,
My thoughts exactly
It was a GOOD message, it was on situation room, it was a headline of the day scrolling by on the backdrop.
#71. It sounds like the email account is unable to handle the volume it gets.
Perhaps if you attached the question to a small donation it would get more attention
Man, you guys really do know how to raise money.
I’m not donating a dime to anybody this year. I haven’t found a candidate worthy of my donation yet.
Besides, I believe it is a reasonable question to ask: Is it really OK for a presidential candidate to stand by and accept donations from racist fringe groups and endorsements from the likes of David Duke?
#69 - No problem David.
#68 - Shannon -
Ask yourself the most immediate question associated with this thread: why choose to post it?
There are a only couple sensible possibilities:
1. Somebody found it “newsworthy” because other places have already commented on it, and decided to share it.
2. Somebody here genuinely cares about Paul’s campaign and for whatever reason, however misguided I think it may be for reasons already stated, believes they should be proactive in disavowing these groups.
3. Somebody knows this is a guaranteed controversy that will probably draw hundreds of posts and people from all over the web.
4. Somebody wants to tack a smear job onto Paul’s campaign.
I don’t thing #1 is the answer, because the “other source” is LGF and LGF, despite its perfectly commendable accomplishments, deals in little more than schlock that’s heavy on the “outrage” factor but low on newsworthiness.
I don’t think #2 is the answer either. While their are some here who may genuinely have this concern and may even genuinely wish to “help” Paul’s reputation, LST isn’t exactly known as a hotbed of Ron Paul advocacy.
I think #3 is a bit cynical, and I certainly give LST more credit than simply trying to drive up the hits…though it is certainly accomplishing that purpose if that was the intent =)
That leaves us with #4, and I’ve been vocal in my criticism of this intent because I believe that the innuendo contained in this particular smear is very weak and low brow.
Of course all of this begs another question: Why does a need exist to “discredit” Ron Paul? And that question is NOT intended for the Ron Paul supporters out there who think there’s a conspiracy to keep him out of the race or something.
Seriously though - anyone who believes that Ron Paul needs to be discredited by cheap smear jobs such as this isn’t thinking very rationally for several reasons. First, Paul isn’t anywhere near the top of the polls so the electoral benefit of singling him out to attack is minimal at best. Second, it’s fairly safe to say that these types of smears aren’t going to convert any existing votes away from Paul. Most Paul supporters are - how shall I say it? - overflowing with energy and exhuberance. If anything, slinging mud at Paul will only antagonize them further and make them more vocal, more obnoxious, and more conspiratorial than they already are while netting ZERO votes in converts to any of the other candidates. Third, keeping Paul in a race that everyone knows he’s not going to win keeps things entertaining. It’s in the other candidates’ best interest to have him there simply as something they can contrast themselves against, and simply because he introduces subject matter that the Rudy McRomney echo chamber isn’t addressing on its own. In short, attacking Paul serves no rational electoral goal.
It is an HONEST question. I would like to know if my candidate condones the activities of questionable groups that support him. Goes to character.
BTW Ron Paul is not my candidate of choice.
I agree with Phil M that there is a disturbing trend in our overall culture to place great importance on appearances and words and to be “outraged” when those words are not exactly as we would have them. We seem to often place more importance on apologies and repudiations than simply doing the right thing. In short, we have become a culture driven by emotion.
Today I heard that the ambassador from Turkey was called home due to outrage about the description of the murder of Armenians as genocide. When I heard it, all I could think of was when did the adults of the world turn into children throwing tantrums.
While Paul would probably be wise to publicly repudiate Stormfront, it is possible that he is taking the stance that undergirds his political philosophy which is that we have far too much interference into the lives of one another as it is.
Of course it does, and I completely believe you when you state that you don’t think he’s racist. But that begs the obvious question then:
Why make this a story? Why point it out? And if you know already Paul isn’t a racist, why are you demanding that he make some sort of silly disavowal statement to “prove” what you already know?
There’s only one answer, and it’s the innuendo of the story. You can state 100 times over that Ron Paul is not a racist, and yet by posting a story replete with very weak “guilty associations” to racist groups, an explicit judgement of Paul for those associations (you called them Ron Paul’s “friends”) in the title, and an implicit dose of “outrage” lurking behind virtually every line you can simultaneously accomplish the purpose of painting him with the racism brush in the minds of others…and all the while you admit that brush is wrong.
Phil,
Some people enjoy debate and stirring the pot.
I don’t even know of LST until today to be honest, but it seemed if I was going to take time and join in somewhere I’d do it someplace that covered my home state news, along with people that may be hostile toward RP but not in a total irrational manner.
To many Ron Paul is a “gadfly” but what he really is to many, is a threat. Not specifically to the people here on LST that I have seen; but a threat to the establishment that is the GOP and the political system as a whole. He himself is not the threat, his ideas and him being there is the threat because it encourages people to seek out what really is happening in the world.
Let’s say you have never heard of Ron Paul, but are curious, so….. in your search, you find this white supremist website. How would that affect your decision on the candidate?
#81 Jan B.
I get the point you are making, but think you unintentionally do Paul a disservice. He deserves more credit than that.
Paul believes GOVERNMENT shouldn’t interfere in people’s lives, but is certainly a smart enough man to know that libertarianism allows (I’d even argue REQUIRES) that individuals in their private capacity as citizens ostracize anti-social behavior.
Rightly or wrongly, Paul’s campaign has a certain “zany” factor right now that makes many people uncomfortable.
This could be a Sister Souljah moment for him. He should take it.
80 -
If that is the case though, then why does Hamous repeatedly answer that question by stating in no uncertain terms that he DOES NOT consider Paul a “racist” who supports Duke and stormfront?
It seems to me that he had already answered your/his question before it was even asked, again begging why it needed to be asked in the first place. Since the answer - Hamous’ concession that Paul is not a racist - was already known and conceded, the post cannot have been, as you say, an honest attempt to simply ascertain whether Paul supports those groups.
That means it was intended to do something else, and I think it’s pretty clear what that something else is.
Consider this comment my vote for Phil to become a front page contributor, guys. If only because he can string together more than three thoughts, clearly is a man of homor and ethics….and has great recall of political history.
Y’all might corrupt him, though.
:>)
82 Phil
Speaking for myself… I am committed to exploiting every opportunity I can find to remind Jew-haters– Nazi, Islamist or otherwise –that Americans overwhelmingly find them repulsive. So wherever they pop up, I come down like a hammer.
Unfortunately for Dr. Paul, they sidled up next to him.
Speaking for myself, my goal is to whack them, not his campaign.
We’re still waiting for Hillary’s denunciation for recieving the American Communist Party’s endorsement…we wait….wait, yawn….
Oh well, I guess she won’t. I suppose free speech is only good when it’s used against ‘fringes’ and it’s time to construct a irrational hit piece.
Hi, I’m Hillary, and I’m Red…shhhh.
HILLARY CLINTON’S BIGGEST COVER-UPS
http://www.aim.org/publications/aim_report/2003/15.html
David the Hammer, sounds like a wrestling name lol… but glad you are on top of things!
#89….. I thought she was a member of the American Communist Party…….. oh wait , back to Dr. Paul.
#79 Funny thing is phil, it has nothing to do with #4 and is basically a combination of your 1, 2, and 3 in addition to my fervent belief that giving groups like stormfront ANY shred of credibility, and accepting campaign donations does that, only degrades our political process even further.
Despite what his supporters say, Ron Paul is a blip on the political radar. In two years he will be remembered as being about as important as Ralph Nader was in 2004. But the damage done by this could be permanent.
There is no smear here. The campaign has surely known about these associations for a while. I don’t understand the reluctance to distance themselves from this. I truly hope they do and rest assured I will cover it here.
David Benzion, why don’t you ‘whack a communist mole’ listed on post #89? The readers will certainly be dazzled by your hammer of gods swing.
Phil
Can’t speak for Hamous.
That still does not detract from my wanting to know what Ron Paul’s thoughts are though.
Are the only people allowed to ask questions those that do not write blogs? If you have not noticed, one of the purpose of a blog, especially when they allow comments, is to elicit a response. Seems Hamous accomplished a noble purpose here.
1. He informed
2. He elicited a response.
Not just ANY hammer, mind you.
Also Phil
Since LST is “just a blog”
Are the contributors supposed to wait till the vaunted Main Stream Media brings this to everyones attention before they post a story about the subject at hand?
#93 TJ3
Hillary’s early flirtation with Marxist theories are well known.
Also, I lean “libertarian” (really “classical liberal”) in my beliefs, and tend (in the current modern American political spectrum) to vote Republican… so I have a much greater interest in keeping causes and institutions I care deeply about free from bigotry.
#85 Dave; that’s a valid point. I would just note that while making a distinction between government and private citizens, they are inextricably intertwined. Quite simply, government interferes in people’s lives because people/interest groups want government to interfere. At the end of the day, we have become a nation of busybodies and I think some of the dynamics that impact us in adverse ways stem from our propensity to meddle.
As I said, it would probably be wise for Paul to repudiate Stormfront, particularly if he has not made his views about the repugnance of racism widely known. Then again, knowing he is a decent man, most of us assume that as a given (unless proven otherwise by his actions).
#98, never assume, we assumed a lot of things about Gov. Perry.
But you can see the point I’m making. Free speech is for the individual and every individual. Your applying collectivist thought by using such broad strokes to libel an individual. (i.e. Ron Paul)
Rose and Valerie, screaming from the gallery
Say he must go free
(Maxwell must go free)
The judge does not agree and he tells them
So, o, o, o.
But as the words are leaving his lips,
A noise comes from behind.
Bang! Bang! Maxwell’s silver hammer
Came down upon his head.
Bang! Bang! Maxwell’s silver hammer
Made sure that he was dead.–Lennon & McCartney
TJ3
Where is the libel?
The essence of the story can be boiled down to this.
Hey Ron!
What?
Didja see that the Nazis, skinheads luv U on their web site?
Really?
Yeah they even have a donation banner prominently displayed for you.
Really?
Yeah really. Whatcha think about that huh?
/Waiting for answer……….>>>>
#101 Heh, that’s what I was thinking too.
Phil_M apparently considers telling the truth to being a “smear.” Fuzzy thinking, that.