Ron Paul - Funded By Supporters Of Racist Websites?
by BigJolly | 10/23/2007 12:38 pm | Alert moderatorIn this post on Lone Star Times 12 days ago, Hamous had a simple request for the Ron Paul campaign:
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.
As directed by the local Ron Paul legislative office, Lone Star Times Managing Editor Matt Bramanti has left three messages over a four day period with the Ron Paul 2008 national campaign spokesman, DEMANDING answers to four specific questions regarding this issue.
- We are assuming that the ad appearing on Stormfront was the result of the site’s owners actions, not the campaign’s– correct? Please confirm that’s the case.
- Will the campaign take measures to block Stormfront as a referring URL, so no more donations can come from there?
- Will they take any steps to track past donations that come from people who arrived at their donation page from Stormfront, and return any such donations?
- Will they take any legal action, or simply send an official request to the site, telling them that their association is unwelcome and demand that they remove the link?
The Paul campaign has not responded to Bramanti, the questions remain unanswered, and the phenomenon continues to grow. Everyday, more supporters of Ron Paul are advertising on white nationalist, separatists, racist websites.
Here are a couple of screenshots from the ‘White World News” site:
In this screenshot, Stormfront is encouraging it’s readers to flood online polls for Ron Paul.
Can there now be any doubt about the online polls being worthless?
The questions above should be very easy to answer for his campaign. Why are they delaying? Could it be that the funds are flowing in too fast to turn them down?
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
Time for you guys to sign up for the witness protection program - no wait - the laptop with everyone’s identities just got stolen
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Go Ron Paul!
October 23rd, 2007 at 12:59 pm
DJ - I wouldn’t take donations from or funneled thru Stormfront either. This isn’t an unreasonable request.
If Republicans or any other political party has done so in the past, then shame on them. Seriously.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I clearly remember when storm front donations and them showing up at rallies were the reason people should hate the Minutemen. It was found that storm front was attempting to destroy their credibility.
Something stinks and it aint Ron Paul.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:09 pm
Well, let’s just keep limiting freedom of speech to the point that no one can tell who is supporting what. Let them post and receive funds from whomever, and those that oppose should readily see that they should go elsewhere. What’s wrong with freedom of speech and transparency?
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
So you think that Stormfront is trying on purpose to ruin Paul’s credibility? All the more reason for him to publicly repudiate them and return the donations, no??
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
In all fairness, I appreciate Matt’s willingness to seek an honest answer to these questions. But at the same time I can completely understand why Paul’s campaign is ignoring them, given the way that the media treats manufactured “controversies” like this one.
Like it or not, in today’s 24 hour news cycle a “disavowal” of anything is equal to an admission of wrongdoing. That’s just the way it is. If you “disavow” somebody, the MSM automatically assumes your guilt and plays it as an apology. And being “guilty” of an association with somebody like Stormfront is just about as bad as it gets.
Ron Paul did nothing wrong here and I’ve yet to see any evidence that he willingly or voluntarily sought or accepted Stormfront’s support. They simply linked to his website and urged their members to support him - on their own volition - just as they have done for dozens of candidates over the years including George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004. No matter how it is spun, Ron Paul bears no guilt for that fact because he did nothing of his own that initiated or solicited it.
Regardless, the very second he “disavows” the nazi thugs it will be spun as an apology and admission of guilt. That’s just the way it works in the media where the politics of feigned “outrage” overtake substance on any given day. If Paul issued a statement as requested here the next thing we’d see is some lickspittling progeny of Red Oktober like Chris Wallace slamming him about his “apology” in a loaded question at the next debate with Wendell Goler doing his best foghorn leghorn laugh impersenation in the background. And in the 24 hour news cycle, it WOULD NOT MATTER if Paul had no fault of his own in this case. Perception is everything and the story would be “Ron Paul apologizes for association with neo-nazis.”
So in answer to the 4 questions:
Please. There is not a single sane or honest person here who thinks that Ron Paul’s campaign placed that link there as an ad. Why do you need to confirm this to be the case when you already know the answer?
This question is certainly fair, though it should be offered as advice for ANY campaign - not an attempt to embarass them publicly or get them to admit something on the record that they bear no guilt in. URL blocks are an imperfect solution and they can be circumvented, but as advice goes it’s a legitimate thing to do (and for all we know, it may have already been done). But again, the issue becomes media perception. If the Ron Paul campaign has to issue a public statement saying “we blocked stormfront” the media spin is not “Good for Ron Paul for blocking stormfront - others should do the same.” Instead it becomes “Why did Ron Paul have to block stormfront? Is he a secred neo-nazi?”
If they want to block the stormfront URL - and I’ll be the first to say that they should do that - it’s entirely a matter of internal discretion at the campaign itself. They have no need or obligation to publicize it, and for the reasons I have stated doing so would leave them vulnerable to a media smear job.
I consider this to be an unfair question by comparison. Assuming they even retained URL logs from months ago, there is no guarantee that a donation came from an actual stormfront member unless that member explicitly stated so. Seeing as stormfront has no PAC to my knowledge and seeing as its members use anonymous pseudonyms, identifying and returning a non-declared donation is nearly impossible. That said, I would strongly advise the Paul campaign to return any IF they have conclusive proof it came from a stormfront member. But again, returning to the media perception issue, it isn’t something they should publicize either unless they want Chris Wallace asking them in the next debate “why did you have to return contributions from a Hitler group? Does that mean you support Hitler like you support Al Qaeda?”
Paul is a public political figure, so a cause of legal action would be nearly impossible to prove in this case. If he was a private citizen and they put up a link urging their members to go to his OB-GYN clinic he *might* have a cause against them for financial damage from an unsolicited and unwanted association. But he’s a public figure, and any court would look at a suit of that sort and throw it out in a second. So the question thus becomes “why ask him to commit to a lawsuit that has no chance of going anywhere?” Again, the only thing that could ever come of it is media spin and accompanying embarassment.
So my unsolicited advice to Ron Paul on this whole matter:
1. Ignore the questions about disavowing Stormfront. It’s a manufactured controversy from the political gutter and stepping into it only gets your shoes covered in crap. If you step in the media will spin it against you and, regardless of your innocence of wrongdoing, you will be portrayed as having made an apology and a concession of guilt.
2. While ignoring the questions, it would nevertheless be prudent in future speeches to include oh - say - Hitler in an explicit condemnation of totalitarian racist thugs, much as you regularly do with the Soviets. Even though no honest person here thinks you support Hitler, this would send a clear message of condemnation TO STORMFRONT ITSELF without any association, reference, or appearence of a concession to the stormfront link in which you bear no guilt or fault.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
#5 - I don’t get what you’re saying. If Ron Paul doesn’t want to keep Stormfront’s money (or their indirectly solicited donations), that’s not suppression of freedom of speech.
If LST calls for the honorable Dr. Paul to ’splain his position on such contributions, that’s not suppression of freedom of speech, either.
Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:14 pm
I do.
Head.Shaker.com rocks!
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:16 pm
#3
I take it then that you will be penning a letter shortly to George W. Bush demanding that he disavow the support that Stormfront gave him in the 2004 election.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Astormfront.org+%22vote+for+bush%22&btnG=Google+Search
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:18 pm
10/23/2007 12:38 PM,…Klunck, wrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, Ting! bigjolly opens up yet another “Can O’Worms” ;=) Let the floggin’s begain.
http://blog.b92.net/arhiva/files/images/can%20of%20worms.jpg
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:19 pm
#7 - I disagree. He could put out a press release quiet-like that says something to the effect of:
“It has come to our attention that Stormfront.org, a known racist organization, has been soliciting donations for our campaign. We want nothing to do with such an organization, will be blocking incoming links to our donation site from any IP address associated with Stormfront.org, and will be reviewing our donation records and will return any that we can determine originated at stormfront.org’s website.
It ain’t hard, it is the right thing to do, for ANY candidate, and I would do it myself in a second.
Sometimes you have to repudiate people publicly. The fact that Paul is just quietly receiving money from these guys is an indictment in and of itself in many people’s minds.
I would expect the same of HRC or any candidate.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:21 pm
I think the reason Daniel is for Ron Paul is that he has the same nickname as Ron in that first screenshot.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
The money has to be coming from somewhere. College students and full time anti-war protesters are broke.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:22 pm
#10 - That’s over, and we aren’t electing George Bush anymore.
If I found out at the time, I certainly would have. Sort of too late now, no?
Tell you what. You show me a Republican candidate that I could potentially vote for in ‘08 that is receiving donations from Stormfront, and I will not only let them know of my displeasure, I will call, fax, email and send an old-fashioned letter with a stamp…
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
I have noticed where the liberal media has been hyping Ron Paul. Obviously, they are trying to disrupt the Republican primary, giving him media time. You don’t see the liberal media give any candidate other than HELLary, Obama and Edwards any camera time but Ron Paul gets some for the Republican side. The liberal media wants a Ross Perot effect on the Republicans where Paul draws from them either in the party or as a third party candidate.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
BTW, I just noticed that Kay Bailout was one of a handful of Republicans in the Senate to voted to keep the pork flowing. Does she think no one will notice these votes when she runs for Governator?
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:23 pm
#9 - If you really believe that, you would be well advised to contact Dr. Paul’s campaign with your concerns…
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Good God bigjolly
You need to start a new thread.
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/vote-bush-162607.html
Ohhhh my?
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
#12 - If he put out the press release you suggest Chris Wallace’s next question to Paul would be:
“Rep. Paul, I know you disavowed Stormfront as you should do, but could you explain to me why they were supporting your campaign in the first place? Could it be that there is something about your positions that is out of step with the Republican Party and in step with the Nazi Party, Hitler, and Al Qaeda?”
Repudiation only works when the connection is genuine and the candidate himself bears part of the fault. When one of Mike Huckabee’s evangelical organizers led a public prayer calling on divine will to smite his enemies and impoverish their children, Huckabee should have disavowed the guy. He should have disavowed the guy because the connection to the campaign was real and went two ways. The stormfront “connection” to Paul isn’t real though. It’s a manufactured attack by his political enemies at LGF and other peddlers of cheap, lazy, hyperbolized political schlock.
In this case, acknowledging it only gives it legs - which is exactly what Paul’s opponents want for this story. And when it gets legs, two-bit communist-bred scoundrels like Wallace are bound to jump in and exploit it for a very cheap and very public political smear.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:28 pm
#10 and #19 - you guys are rehashing old stuff. That is a link to a forum where racist bigots are fairly independently saying that they’ll vote for Bush. That’s not a front-page banner link to Bush’s website soliciting contribution in Stormfront’s name. Bit of difference there.
Beyond that, read my #15 again.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Is Bush running again? I missed that.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:31 pm
#14 -
And let me guess - you think the neo-nazi skinhead guy who lives in a “compound” consisting of a 30 year old double-wide on cement blocks and works as a gas station attendant in rural Montana is just overflowing with cash to hand out to his pet political causes.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
jimb
Correct me if I am wrong but that is the man that runs storm front??
He was actively campaigning for GW.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:32 pm
#22 - jimb specifically asked about any republicans who got stormfront support IN THE PAST. Last I checked that includes Bush. But if you want current, ask Tom Tancredo. There are dozens of posts on that site of people pledging support to his current presidential bid as well.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
bigjolly
Likely people just like me sending in $25 here and $25 there.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Phil_M,
If you think that Stormfront, White World News, and other organizations are run by the stereotypes you laid out, you haven’t been paying much attention to the ‘movement’. These guys are far removed from that and yes, they have serious money.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:35 pm
In addition to Phil_M’s Tancredo note in #25, be sure to ask Fred Thompson, who recently added a Stormfront fave to his campaign, George Allen.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:36 pm
This is a tragedy of epic proportions.
I dont know what to do…I am scared…bigjolly will you hold my hand and tell me its gonna be alright?
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Aw, poor kittycat. Did you get in too deep again?
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:38 pm
#27 - Far from it. The average stormfront MEMBER (as in the people who are allegedly donating) is not far removed from exactly what I described. The site’s owners have various forms of illicit monies…mostly out of phishing schemes run through their servers and bounced out of eastern europe. But i’ve yet to see their names on Paul’s donor reports. So unless you have evidence showing otherwise, I am left to conclude that the alleged stormfront donations - if indeed they even exist - came from regular members, meaning the Montana gas station guy who sent $25.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Stormfront for Ru Paul?
http://www.bubblestheartist.com/fans/rupaul-autograph.jpg
Why would a white supremacist organization support a black transvestite!
Man, the world is upside down!
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:40 pm
#28 - You’re certainly free to include that in your Thompson hit piece of the week.
I think most Republicans believe that George Allen’s loss last year was a bad thing, and despite his idiocy as a campaigner, he was a reliable conservative vote in the senate. But if you disagree with that and think Jim Webb and the Democrat senate majority he brought are good things, i’m sure you can figure out a way to bludgeon Thompson with it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:47 pm
It’s scary to see that people are actually defending Ron Paul for failing to do the decent thing. I wonder about the motives of such people, and whether they sympathize with the views of the websites in question.
Despicable and indefensible.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Phil_M,
I only pointed that out because of your Tancredo slam. You and I both know that neither Allen nor Tancredo are advertising on that site. There is a big difference.
I still haven’t figured out why you continue to say that I have a weekly Thompson hit piece. It isn’t true at all.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:56 pm
#34 - No Rick. It’s scary to see otherwise intelligent and sensible conservatives wading around in the trashy low-brow political schlock of manufactured controversies that they should be smart enough to avoid.
It’s also scary to see the same people feigning moral “outrage” at anybody who refuses to indulge in the same brand of gutter politics, and downright offensive to brand them via unfounded innuendo of secretly sympathizing with a Hitler website.
I respect you as a commentator here, but that last remark was over the top. There are few things more evil in politics than a character assassination built upon manufactured charges of Hitler-sympathy. Sensible and intelligent people can disagree on candidates and political positions without resorting to untruthful personal smears. You owe several readers here an apology.
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:57 pm
What I’m curious about is where is the “watchdog” media on this story? Why isn’t the Houston Chronicle, or the Dallas paper, or one of the networks, asking Ron Paul about this? Do they figure he’s too insignifant in the race to bother with?
October 23rd, 2007 at 1:58 pm
#35
What’s good for the goose…
And you and I both know that Paul isn’t “advertising” there either. To advertise means to pay somebody for a statement of support. Stormfront put up an unsolocited link to Paul that he neither paid for nor asked for.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:00 pm
36.
It is despicable and indefensible for anyone to suggest Ron Paul should not firmly address this issue.
Apologize to who? Those who defend this associaton? No thanks.
His supporters can filibuster all they want, but there simply is no justification.
And his campaign’s silence despite repeated inquiries is what is over the top.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:01 pm
#37 - Or perhaps this manufactured “story” is so deeply entrenched in the gutter that even the Chronicle won’t touch it. It will be a sad day when LST stories start to reflect favorably upon the journalistic “standards” of the Chronicle, but when I read stuff like this I can only conclude that day is fast approaching.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:02 pm
But is Paul accepting donations from white supremecists and blatant racists? Has to done what he can to “unlink” to this group?
We don’t see any evidence of that. And why won’t he address it?
Don’t you think that’s odd?
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:03 pm
Phil_M,
I never said that Paul was paying for the ads. I asked if his supporters were.
And another question that I failed to ask, are these paid ads being reported as campaign donations?
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:05 pm
#39 -
No Rick. It’s a political smear job to demand that he “address” (which in the politicized 24 hour news cycle means “apologize”) something that he bears absolutely no guilt in.
And yes, when you slam innocents with trashy, ill-concieved, and patently false innuendos of Hitler sympathy, it’s something you need to apologize for. I don’t care what you think about their position on Paul or how “outraged” it makes you feel to see someone defending him. That still doesn’t give you free license to falsely brand people with the names of history’s biggest mass murderers.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:09 pm
41 -
See #7. Paul is a public political figure. His legal recourse in forcing them to “unlink” to his site is virtually nil. As a lawyer you should know that.
Besides, Stormfront runs its servers through phishing networks in Eastern Europe and all over the third world. US court verdicts aren’t enforceable in Bulgaria.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:11 pm
42 - When you call it an “advertisement” you are implying that it is being paid for by definition. That’s what an “advertisement” is. I’ve yet to see any evidence that it is anything other than an unsolicited link, and until you produce something showing conclusively otherwise it is dishonest to use the term “advertisement.”
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:20 pm
That’s a fair point, I’ll remember that in the future.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Oh yeah, just WHO is going to determine the “correct” supporters for presidential candidates???
Stormfront members are American Citizens and have every right to support whoever they want. First Amendment anyone?
Who else should be banned? The NAACP, LaRaza, AIPAC, any religion you don’t belong to, Homophobic Boy Scouts, Lefty Hollywood Types, NRA members, Mormons, Jews, Arabs, the list is endless… Give me a break!
Every American Citizen should be encouraged to make their opinion known and contribute in any way to get the person they want elected.
If you don’t like it, donate MORE to YOUR candidate, that’s how the system works (or should).
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Because they are all a part of the Government/Media Complex?
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:26 pm
AAAAAAAAANdre - Can you show me where ANYONE has called for people to be banned from donating? Come on. Show me where that was said.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:28 pm
But you Paul defenders constantly tell us to shut up criticizing your savior, even as we give you a forum to whine. Do you not see the extreme irony in that?
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:30 pm
By the way, I noticed this fine website has links to “JEW NEWS”, Conservative T-Shirts and a bunch of “Racism” Google Ads, support sites for “racist” Border Agents! I’m Outraged!! Who’s responsible???
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:32 pm
Uh, THIS was suggested by “jimb”..
“will be blocking incoming links to our donation site from any IP address associated with Stormfront.org,”
If that’s not “Banning” what is it?
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:33 pm
AAA-boy
Wear that outrage proudly because no one here really cares.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
#50 - That’s the great irony of Ron Paul threads, be they here or anywhere else on the internet. If anything, criticism of Paul tends only to embolden his typical supporters.
As much fun as that can be to watch and participate in on both sides, a small part of it does defy rationality. Why go out of the way to build up such a patently manufactured and silly controversy about a guy who has no chance of winning the nomination?
This is why I don’t mind heated discussions and even criticisms of how Paul did in a debate amidst a discussion of the other candidates, but also why I find threads such as these, which serve only to propagate a very low-brow political smear, so objectionable.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
AAAAANDRE - People can donate to whoever they want for whatever reason. I think what is going on here is that we’re asking Paul to disassociate himself from those people in whatever reasonable way possible. His silence is damning to some of us.
Oh, and this is not a hit piece, it is a legitimate question.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Didn’t someone post a letter a couple of weeks ago from RP that addressed this?
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
#25 - I am not talking about posts on a forum on stormfront.org’s site, I am talking about frontpage ads on stormfront.org’s site. You find one of those for Tancredo there or, say, the KKK, you let me know.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:37 pm
The Paul campaign refusing to take donations from racist pigs is not banning or infringing on anyone’s first amendment rights. its showing you have a moral compass. I don’t like mustard on my hamburger but I’m not banning anyone else from putting it on theirs.
Dr. Paul has every right to accept donations from anyone he wants. And we have every right to point out who those people are.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Has hillary distanced herself from LaRaza, AIPAC?
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:39 pm
#52 - Blocking incoming links from Stormfront.org’s contribution banner ad is not “Banning” anybody from making political contributions. Contribute as an individual, outside of the umbrella of stormfront.org.
Any stormfront.org member who wants to contribute to El Salvador Ron Paul can go directly to his website and contribute there.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
#60, I certainly hope so. If she were “my candidate” and I knew that their website was putting a “donate to HRC” banner on the front page, I would ask her to distance herself from them toot-sweet.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:43 pm
#60 - Since this is a Ron Paul thread it doesn’t make a difference to me what Clinton is doing, but just for the sake of the argument I checked La Raza’s website:
http://www.nclr.org/
Nope, no Hillary for President banner. Next shuck-and-jive.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
In fairness to Phil (and other sane Ron Paul supporters), it seems clear to me that RP ISN’T “advertising” on Stormfront or other racist websites.
In fairness to many LST contributors, I think it is reasonable, practical, politically prudent and morally to be encouraged for the Paul campaign to take a few simple steps to clearly disassociate his campaign from the ugly bigots who are trying to pollute his cause.
Phil– in #20 you wrote:
If he put out the press release you suggest Chris Wallace’s next question to Paul would be:
“Rep. Paul, I know you disavowed Stormfront as you should do, but could you explain to me why they were supporting your campaign in the first place? Could it be that there is something about your positions that is out of step with the Republican Party and in step with the Nazi Party, Hitler, and Al Qaeda?”
Here is what Paul could quite easily say, if he wanted to:
——————
Chris, thank you for that question.
To be honest, I CAN’T explain to you why a racist or a Nazi would be attracted to my campaign, because I can’t imagine what sort of sickness of the soul turns someone into a racist or a Nazi.
I can tell you this– their views repulse me and I reject their so-called ’support’ completely.
Frankly, I suspect they are trying to hijack my cause–which is a beautiful cause, the cause of liberty and freedom and equality for all citizens, of all races and ethnicities and creeds–and hijack it for their own ugly ends.
I won’t let them. They need to crawl back under the rock from which they came, and hopefully die there.
But I thank you for that question, and the opportunity to clarify where I stand.
Oh course, if Ohio had only been admitted into the Union in an appropriate manner back in the early 1800’s…
——————
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Just for grins I checked out other racist organizations comparable to stormfront, MEChA:
http://www.nationalmecha.org/
Nope, no Hillary banners there either.
And how about the racists over at the New Black Panthers?
http://www.newblackpanther.com/
Gosh darn it! I can’t find any other candidate’s banners on other racist websites! Help me out here, boys.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:50 pm
Failed to make this point– no one here is Hitler, nor (G-d forbid) a MSM hack for the Houston Chronicle, so let’s pull back from the hate and focus on the debate.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
#65 - How about the KKK? Any banners there?
Nope, I’m not about to go there from the POE and check myself…
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Here’s a question I’d like to get everyone’s reaction to–namely, WWEHD? (What would Edd Hendee do?)
Imagine for a moment what would happen if Stormfront put an “Eyes on the Border” banner on their frontpage?
What do you think Edd would do in response?
what would you want him to do in response?
Discuss.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
67 Sorry, I’m not hitting that one from work either. I’ll check it out when I get home.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
How do you know that Stormfront are really white supremacists, and not an FBI agent provocateur sting operation?
It’s public knowledge the the KKK was heavily infiltrated by the FBI. COINTELPRO, much?
Ron Paul would like to do away with the FBI, and I wouldn’t put anything past them. Do some digging on the FBI and COINTELPRO.
Don’t believe anything you hear, and only HALF of what you see. Do your own research.
Supposing that Sormfront really ARE white supremacists/separatists, whatever, could it be that maybe they’d also like some freedom from the nanny state? Politics makes strange bedfellows, so they say.
Ron Paul is a man of honor. I know he stands for equal rights and equal protection under the Constitution for all.
This story is pure propaganda BS smear tactic.
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:59 pm
All my effort to turn this thread towards Reason is about to suddenly come to naught.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Alright! Now we’re getting down to the real nitty gritty! Double secret agents and stuff. THAT’S what I’M talking about!
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:06 pm
#70 - cue the Twilight Zone music.
And you wonder why we think Ron Paul attracts kooky supporters.
AYWWWTRPAKS™
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:07 pm
And how do you know that the LST Frontpagers are not provocateurs in on the sting? And all the Paulestinians defending their man aren’t really supporters at all, but more agent provocateurs sent down by the GMC to tease the real Paulestinians out in the open before we WHAP! declare Martial law and ship them off as test subjects in waterboard training school in Guantanamo. Blowback, baby! Then Suckforward.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
Join us at the next Ron Paul rally. Last week’s was so successful when we managed to capture one of these from the enemy.
http://www.thesubtimes.com/Fircrest-tm.jpg
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Hey, you’re right Daniel. This is much more fun and interesting than the real world. I’m sold!
/purchased with 100% fiat currency-free coinage, of course.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Ok, David, I’ll bite - Edd would forcefully and uneqivocally disavow and vebally eviscerate Stormfront on air. Then he would set up a new website, called “Adopt a Bomb to Obliterate UnAmerican Thugs” (ABOUT). Listeners would contribute to buy a surplus Soviet 1,000 lb. bomb. Edd would pilot the Eyes on the Border plane to the Stormfront compound, and drop the bomb on the compound. Bramanti would live-blog from the copilot seat. Pat Gray would anchor from the KSEV studio.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:15 pm
#71 David do you really think that the truly rabid supporters of He whom I will not name, are willing to discuss anything about their savior with any reason? Like I have said before, this is Ross Perot, Howard Dean all over again.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:16 pm
#76 - I know that I should have held on to those silver certificate notes I had a few years back…
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
#68 -
A lot would depend on how the story played out. If they put up am Eyes on the Border link and nobody was paying attention to it save a couple obscure leftist blogs, I think it would be prudent to simply ignore it. Responding at that point in the story brings only unwanted controversy to a project that is only barely making it into the pages of a hostile news media as it stands. And I think Edd is sensible enough to recognize that - he probably wouldn’t want to give new life to something that was already dying by its own hands and could end up hurting the greater good he was doing with the Eyes on the Border Project by giving it an early bad reputation.
This was, in part, the minutemen group’s mistake, particularly when they launched in Texas. Very early on they picked up some pretty nasty characters who, for the most part, weren’t welcome. If they were sensible (and sadly the minutemen tend not to be) they would have cleaned up their own house, then launched. Instead a couple of the early Texas minutemen leaders responded to the racists by bolting from the fledgling group to do their own competitor operations, and that became the very first news exposure they got in Texas rather than anything they were doing in terms of border patrols.
OTOH if the Houston Chronicle called up about Eyes on the Border and tried to make a story out of a stormfront link, I think Edd would probably use the forum of his radio show to make a strong and clear denunciation to control the story’s sprouting legs. He’d hang a lantern on the problem, and he’d use it to turn the heat on stormfront with full and justified outrage.
The question for Paul in this case is this: where does this “story” stand today?
Right now I see it as a cheap political smear with the potential for outrage (and even a few people who, upon seeing it, are genuinely outraged at it). Yet at this stage, as I see it, the “story” only exists as a topic of discussion because somebody with a very big axe to grind against Paul (namely one Charles Johnson of LittleGreenFootballs) is trying to give it legs, and a few other people around the web who generally dislike Paul for various unrelated reasons are all too happy to repeat it.
If it becomes something that news outlets start calling about, then that’s an entirely different thing. And if I were advising Ron Paul’s campaign, that’s when I’d issue a very strong and very careful dissassociation.
Now Edd does have one thing that Ron Paul doesn’t - a radio station where he can shape the response message and ensure that the full version of his response gets aired. If anything, that distinction would allow Edd to formulate an earlier response while limiting the risk of the response overtaking the actual story of Eyes on the Border. Paul doesn’t have that luxury - he has to carry his message through a medium that works at best through sensationalized soundbytes and, in its worst cases such as Fox News right now, is openly hostile to his campaign.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:17 pm
#77 And Dan would take the credit
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Did I just write that?
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:21 pm
So you’re saying that RP should stick his head in the sand, ignore them and hope they’ll go away? Much like his foreign policy?
If he manages to go anywhere in the primary, that decision would come back to haunt him and he would have to deal with it then. Better to deal with it now, proactively than later, reactively.
But what do I know? I really only care about this for its smear value on Ron Paul, after all…
You know what really worries me about Ron Paul supporters? You guys, almost to a man, think that The Paul can do no wrong whatsoever.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
Phil, I would think that an early and strong statement from Dr. Paul, BEFORE the big media outlets pick it up, would be beneficial to his campaign. Once it “has legs” it will appear he is only reacting to the press.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:29 pm
#59 -
That’s entirely fair politics. But I do ask one thing: you need to name the specific names.
Innuendo based on the claims of anonymous pseudonyms from a racist message board is not proof of a donation. It’s not sufficient to say “Hitlerfan1939 said in post 18 he was going to give to Ron Paul, so Ron Paul is taking stormfront dollars!”
Anyone can post claims like that on an anonymous message board. That doesn’t mean the person went through with the donation. It doesn’t mean the person was being honest. It doesn’t even mean the person is a real Ron Paul supporter. Maybe he is, maybe he isn’t. But the burden of proof has not been met yet to substantiate the claim that Paul is taking stormfront cash.
If you want to prove that you need to go to a reliable and independently verifiable record such as Paul’s FEC disclosure filing. If you can find an name on there that is conclusively linked to Stormfront or any other similar nazi group then you will have made your case. And if you make that case, I’ll readily join you in making a polite, measured, and firm request to the Ron Paul campaign seeking the return of that specific donation to that specific identified person.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Phil, we’re not talking about anonymous pseudonyms. It’s a big “Ron Paul for President” banner on the front page of Stormfront. I think he should ask them to remove it and, like Reagan in 1980, tell them he doesn’t want their support. I’m baffled as to why that request seems unreasonable.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Once again, and I’ll type slowly this time: Stormfront.org, as an organization, posted a link to Paul’s donation form on their website. This goes beyond some bubba saying in a forum that he supports Ron Paul…
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
#84 - That only works if you already have a guaranteed media presence as a frontrunner. Right now, Paul is fighting for every drop of ink he can get in the papers. His number one goal is to boost his name ID to voters who know Rudy and McCain but have never heard of him.
If he comes out now on this topic now, all news coverage associated with the name “Ron Paul” instantly shifts to the Stormfront story and that story becomes the very first exposure many voters ever have to the name Ron Paul. I don’t know about you, but if I were running for public office as a little-known dark horse I would not want the words “nazi” and “stormfront” to appear in the first story that many voters ever read about me - especially if I knew the media was hostile to my candidacy and would deny me a full airing of my position/explanation/statement.
If Ron Paul denounced them today the story in tomorrow’s paper would read as follows:
Headline: “Republican candidate Ron Paul tries to distance himself from neo-nazi supporters.” (Note how the story is already loaded)
Opening Paragraph: 3 sensationalized sentences describing the “controversy,” and pointing out that stormfront is a neo-nazi group at least twice.
Paragraph 2: soundbyte-style snippet from Paul’s actual statement denouncing the group, probably trimmed to sound like an “apology” instead of a denunciation and almost certainly leaving out any hard hitting statements to indicate that he has never condoned any groups like Stormfront.
Paragraph 3: the reporter inserts his/her own “prediction” attributed to anonymous “experts” about how this controversy may adversely impact Paul’s presidential campaign.
Paragraph 4: Slightly more detailed description of what Stormfront is, using the words “nazi” at least twice and including an unrelated quote praising Hitler, pulled from one of their pages as an “example” of what they are.
Paragraph 5: Another soundbyte from Paul’s statement.
Paragraph 6: Statement from a designated spokesperson from another campaign to the effect of “Suzie Smith, deputy assistant press director for Rudy Giuliani, responded to the revelation by saying ‘It’s a sign of just how out of touch for Rep. Paul’s presidential campaign is that he is drawing support from these quarters. We’re glad that he finally repudiated them, but we would certainly never take support from racists and nazis.’”
Paragraph 7: “Expert” quote from Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center again reiterating that Stormfront is a nazi site.
Paragraph 8: “Expert” quote from a liberal political scientist indicating that campaigns with racist “controversies” in recent history have tended to collapse, followed by a reminder of George Allen’s “macaca” statement as an example.
Paragraph 9: concluding sentence that quotes a Paul campaign spokesman denouncing the group while again reminding everybody that Stormfront is Nazi.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
#85 Phil,
But if have read the requests that have been made to RP’s campaign all we are asking of them is to do a little self policing of the sites that have linked to both their site as well as their donation pages…. That is not unreasonable.
Besides here is a link to the FEC and RP’s current statement. Note that there is no detailed listing of buy state or anything else.
http://query.nictusa.com/pres/2007/Q3/C00432914.html
and here is the schedule A showing all 4800 people who had donated as of Oct1
http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00432914/307525/sa/ALL
Tell me you can find the nazi’s in these reports… RP’s website administrators if they are worth their salaries have all of the transaction information available to them, and it should not be difficult to have them verify IP Addresses that were routed through the questionable sites…
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:48 pm
#86 - I understand what it is - a banner and a link. I also understand that anybody can go on the internet, find a Ron Paul banner (or a Rudy Giuliani banner or any other candidate), right click on it and save it, then post it with a link on whatever website they wanted.
That still doesn’t prove they are making donations, and it certainly doesn’t demonstrate that the banner link was solicited by the campaign itself.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:51 pm
#89 - Try the Federal Elections Commission directly, or one of the dozens of sites out there that provide free FEC databases. The actual forms list the name, state, zip code, and occupation - plenty of information to find out exactly who a person is.
Find one of those who is conclusively linked to stormfront or a neo-nazi group. Then you will have your proof. Remember that the burden is on the accuser. I’m simply stating that the burden has not been adequately met here.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:52 pm
#88 Phil, that can be avoided by doing 2 things…
1) on his website posting the press release that announces that he will return any donation that is found to come from Stormfront or any other like organization.
2) At the next debate or public event where multiple candidates are available stand up and denounce the organization and challenge all of the other candidates there to do the same… Then look at the press and challenge them to publish the names of those there who fail to agree with that stand…
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
People People, the name of the game is raising money, and lots of it. The belief is, the person with the most money wins. That’s why Hillary Clinton breaks all kinds of campaign laws to solicit donations from fake people living in fake addresses. That’s why Ron Paul will take $5 from anyone who wants to give it. These people lay down with dogs……. and they have fleas.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:56 pm
#86 -
And it may come to that. But what I’m saying right now is that it is WAY too early in the media aspect of things for that, because it’s giving a very artificial story legs that it probably doesn’t deserve. If the story grows legs anyway, then yes. That’s what Paul should do. But right now the only people who want this story to have legs also have an axe to grind (to wit, Johnson) or simply don’t like Paul so they echo Johnson.
Furthermore, there’s a legal issue involved with stormfront that virtually ensures Paul is powerless to force its removal and could become very messy if he tries. He’s a public political figure and no judge is going to sustain that sort of a ruling. Furthermore, Stormfront is notorious for routing its servers through a bunch of third world crapholes because most self-respecting U.S. based ISPs want nothing to do with them. Even if Paul won the case, he can’t make the government of Albania pull the site down to enforce it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:57 pm
Funny how Hillary does not have any problem answering questions about her donors. I guess the honorable Dr. Pauls stance is not as wide as hers.
October 23rd, 2007 at 3:59 pm
#92 - Again, it may come to that. Or this thing may not get the legs Charles Johnson wants, and it simply dies away. If it gets legs, then yes - Paul would be wise to denounce it.
But denouncing it here and now for the sake of appeasing a schlock stirrer like Charles Johnson who hates you anyway and will continue to hate you even if you give him what he claims he wants…well that’s only inviting negative media attention 1000 times as broad as anything Johnson and a couple of other Paul-hating bloggers could ever generate on their own.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
All he needs to do is answer the question. I can see the screaming LST Headline now.
RON PAUL STEPS IN AND EXPLAINS HIS WIDE STANCE ON CAMPAIGN CONTIBUTIONS
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:01 pm
#91, Phil you are missing the point. These reports do not say what the source of the funds was, check, cash, credit card via phone, credit card over the Internet…
But any vendor that deals with online transactions should be able to tell you all of the information including where the transaction originated from. I know that this is possible, because I have my church website which tells us both what the IP address of the visitor is as well as how they accessed our page, and this includes coming in from a link in Google, yahoo, or any other search engine….
And how do we know where these nazi’s are living? The problem is RP’s campaign has not and does not have to divulge that information. We as citizens have the right to get that information and if we have to go to FEC to demand that this information now be made public then that is what we should do. The problem is right now that information is not something that you or I can access due to the security on the site with regards to the donations page. And I know they are not going to open up access to that portion of the site in any way shape or form.. So requesting that they examine their records and return any questionable donations is our only option…
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
#95 - Hillary answered only because a major newspaper called. To date I know of not one single newspaper, network, television station, radio outlet, or magazine who has either (a) conclusively found stormfront money on Paul’s FEC disclosure, or (b) called him to ask about it.
If that day ever comes I have no doubt his campaign will say something in response. But again, that goes back to the burden of proof from an actual FEC report (just like they did with Hillary) and in this case it is simply not being met as of right now.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Who said any one “hates” Ron Paul. My my such strong words.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Not familar with how those widgets work are you Phil.
Well let me enlighten you. With each widget palced there is a record where it was located and the amount of hits/revenue it generates.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:05 pm
#95 Squawk
Watch out, Squawk. You were getting dangerously close to being hilarious there.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
99 - nobody’s arguing that Paul is legally obligated to do anything. Sometimes, the right thing to do isn’t required by law, however…
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Here’s how the story would play out on LST:
Headline: Dr. Ron Paul responds to Questions about Stormfront.org donation banner
Paragraph 1: background on why we asked the questions.
Paragraph 2: A list of the questions we asked followed by his answers.
Paragraph 3: Depending on his answers, a commentary, our understanding of whether he met our request.
Paragraph 4: We would like to thank Dr. Paul for taking the time to respond to our request.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:06 pm
texpat
I will take a grumpy pill here in a minute. I wuld not want anyone to think i have a sense of humor.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:08 pm
I like the funny squawkbox more than the grumpy but lovable squawkbox.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Jimb’s right. This really has nothing to do with legality. It’s the right thing to do and it’s the measure of a man.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm
#105, heaven forbid you actually be funny Squawk, I mean what with the Astro Tombstones and the boy crying and pointing to it…
Nope no sense of humor there…
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
…assuming that they kept such records. Many vendors don’t beyond a couple weeks. Furthermore, you’re about to open a whole can of worms on legal privacy issues. Paul’s campaign can be proactive right now and block future incoming visits from sites. It’s much more complicated looking back, especially if you start running into privacy laws about the sharing of collected ISP data, linking it to names, linking it to credit cards, and making it public.
Suppose a stormfront link actually produced a donation and Paul’s campaign was able to retrieve electronic proof of that. Then suppose they released it publicly and the guy’s name got in the news. With his name out there in the papers, he becomes known as the “stormfront donor guy” and loses a business contract at work, or loses a client who doesn’t want to be associated with him any more. Next suppose that the guy insists that he does not regularly visit stormfront but just happened to be on it that day from a random google search, not knowing fully what he was viewing and pleading ignorance (yeah - i know he’d have to be pretty stupid for that to be true, but people will try anything).
In this litigious society you basically have the formula for an instant lawsuit - the “stormfront donor guy” insists that he was wrongly targetted for a website he only visited once and sues because he lost clients and reputation after being associated with a neo-nazi site.
What you propose has the makings of a legal nightmare and any campaign would be prudent to avoid it, even while taking proactive steps to prevent future ISP hits from sites like stormfront.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:13 pm
squawk this post is frivolous in my opinion. Just sour grapes that the Ron Paul campaign is very tight with their funds and have a very over worked staff that cannot keep up with messages sent to them. The country is going broke. This is the critical issue. An excellent article is posted here: http://financialsense.com/fsu/editorials/dollardaze/2007/1020.html People need to wake up and see that this is why the Ron Paul campaign has very dedicated supporters and very dedicated opposition from the status quo.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm
101 and 103 - See my last post. Even if Paul’s campaign has old ISP hit records and wanted to disclose the stormfront donations, they’d be walking into a whole new legal can of worms over privacy and potential civil liability.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:16 pm
Who said I had any sour grapes Brian?
I am calling them as I see them…..
Just like you.
AND PHIL
The records exist. This is the wrong thread to spend much time explaining why. Shock!! you will just have to trust me on this one won’t you?
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:18 pm
There’s no supposing. Dr. Paul’s campaign knows EXACTLY how many donations came through the stormfront banner (and every other banner on the web). There’s no great mystery here, except why his supporters don’t seem to think this is a big deal.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
I tend to agree with Phil that addressing this head-on — no matter how he handles it — would probably result in bad publicity and an unfair perceived connection with Neo-Nazism.
Right now it isn’t clear that this story has legs, and Paul doesn’t want to publicize the fact that he is being supported by racial extremists. No matter how clear his disavowal, it just wouldn’t look good for him. And since he hasn’t done anything to affiliate himself with these wackos, he doesn’t think he deserves the bad exposure.
On the other hand, part of it’s Ron Paul’s own fault; he’s made statements that have been regarded as racially offensive (some rightfully so), and these would undoubtedly come up if he disavowed on the links on StormFront. I think that’s a major concern of his as well.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Holy crap, guys. All we’re suggesting is that Ron Paul go to reasonable lengths to not be associated with a bunch of losers like Stormfront. If they kept good server logs, they could maybe return some donations. Nobody in their right mind is going to sue for a return check being cut to him with an explanation of why.
It isn’t like we’re asking Paul to expose the names of all donors referred via Stormfront’s web site.
And it is simple to block website referrals from Stormfront.org.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:22 pm
#115, BINGO
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Ein Reich! Ein Volk! Ein Ron Popeil! Ein Weinerschnitzel…. mmmmmm weinerschnitzel!
http://www.bavarian-beerhouse.co.uk/se_data/_filebank/__schnitzel1.jpg/549.jpg
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:24 pm
#110 Nope. I cannot dredge through another central bank, fiat currency, gold standard, federal reserve article from you guys. They all say the exact same thing. I’ll stick with Green Eggs & Ham.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Here is something to think about. Ron Paul believes in and stands for the respect of private property and individual rights. He may agree or disagree with the ideas promoted by Stormfront and alike, but don’t you think that his job as a president would also be to protect the rights of Stormfronters to freely express their views? Now you want him to publicly denounce the right of Stormfront to support his candidacy in any way they see fit? Don’t you think it will go against his belief in freedom? By the way Nazis cannot support Ron Paul if they are true to their ideas, because Nazism is statist and socialist and does not fit in Ron Paul views. Nationalists, Separatist on the other hand might as well support him, because if you cared enough to read Dr.Paul’s “Freedom under siege”, you might have noticed that Ron Paul stated there that free people have right to discriminate. And that fits into Stormfront philosophy, I think. As a side note, Ron Paul also supports the freedom of association.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:26 pm
Only Ron Paul can change the current headline.
Which is:
RON PAUL REFUSES TO DISAVOW RACIST SCUMBAG SUPPORT
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:27 pm
I will not eat geen eggs and ham
I will not eat them wit a Nazi
I will not eat them with a patsy
I will not eat them with a security guard in the mall
I will not eat them with Ron Paul
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:29 pm
LOL!
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Not at all. As so many LSTers have said, we’re not asking for any government action or regulation on this matter. None.
We’re not asking for anyone’s freedom to be restricted. We’re asking Ron Paul to exercise his freedom of association to make it clear that he will not be affiliated with neo-Nazi scumbags.
My freedom of speech does not mean you have to listen. And your freedom to offer political contributions does not mean I have to accept.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Ron Popeil supports hair in a can. Not that Chinese Hair in a can, but American hair in a can.
Whup whup whup whup…………
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDnA3vGYWJ0
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I’d vote for Hillary before I voted for Ron Paul, and I mean it. Of course I’d smash my left testicle between two bricks before I vote for Hillary.
Ron Popeil introduced earmarks for studying the Wild American Jackalope.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I’m still kinda new round these parts, so there’s still couple of things I don’t understand:
I thought Saturday was the designated Beat the Dead Horse Day… I haven’t seen any new opinions, or any less stubbornness today than a couple of weeks ago (from either side…) What’s the point?
If anyone is really worried enough about racist groups to “demand” that Ron Paul answer to them directly about it, they should probably make a short drive to Vidor Texas and do some real protesting against racism. (And when you’re done there, keep heading east! You’re only a few hours away from Jena, LA.)
Lastly, if your going to dis Ron Paul for not making a prompt individual response to the Managing Editor of Lone Star Times, perhaps you should also “demand” that some of the anointed front runners give this web log individual attention as well, and see how far you get.
“Nothing to see here people…”
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Asking Ron Paul whether he has disavowed white supremacists would be like asking all of you if you had stopped beating your wife yet.
I see my previous attempt to ridicule the ridiculous was taken maybe a smidge too seriously.
Ein Weinerschnitzel? Ya!
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:38 pm
212 - Whether it exists or not, there are laws governing the public use and release of those records. There are also liability matters associated with their public use and release. Both are legal cans of worms that no campaign wants to get itself involved in if it can avoid doing so.
215 - It’s not about the guy suing over a returned check. It’s about the guy suing over his name in the newspaper who got his check returned because of a stormfront connection that, when publicly revealed, cost him a client at work.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:48 pm
No one here has suggested Dr. Paul reveal the information of any stormfront connections. Just simply return the donations and say thanks, but no thanks.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Guys,
I really don’t think you’re getting it. Ron Paul (and his supporters) DON’T WANT to repudiate Stormwatch and their ilk. It’s obvious by now, that He, at the very least, likes the contributions that are rolling in from such sites and vermin. And, it’s entirely possible that he agrees with at least part of their agenda. That’s the only possible explanation for his stonewalling and his supporters continued excuses.
The question is, is it really that big a deal? None of the rational contributors to LST are going to change their minds about RP as a result of this, and heaven know he’s said enough loopy things in the past to convince most other cognitive individuals that he should be the president.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Phil
Ron Pauls campaign is well aware of where what money comes form where on the web, That information is used for targeting purposes. So do not tell me Ron Paul or his handlers do not know that funds are coming in from that web site.
You are taken to a donation page. Each hit to that page is recorded either the name of or the IP address of that referred to that donation page. You answer is bogus.
This whole debate is about Ron Paul answering a simple question not outing any one person.
October 23rd, 2007 at 4:58 pm
Sorry,
SHOULDN’T be president.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
You tell me. Earlier today one of your colleagues accused me of sympathizing with Hitler for simply suggesting that the guaranteed negative publicity associated with this story makes a statement from Paul’s campaign imprudent at this time.
When people pull the Hitler card out and use it to bludgeon opponents engaged in a reasonable discussion it usually means they have a deep and irrational emotional investment in a topic. In certain cases, that investment is called “hate.”
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:06 pm
Matt, I would agree with you 100% if Ron Paul accepted contribution from Stormfront as political organization (that will be really bad) but as far as I understand they just asked their members (supporters) to donate to Paul campaign as private citizens. When I filled out donation form for RP campaign I was not required to state my political association (and no, I am not affiliated with Stormfront or any other group of that kind). Anyway, if Ron Paul should start rejecting donations based on political affiliation, where would he draw the line. Should he take money from anarchists, democrats, communists, liberals … or only from libertarians and true conservatives? Or should he welcome everyone who supports him?
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:07 pm
I believe if you read further down that statement was qualified and an appropriate retraction made.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:10 pm
“Should he take money from anarchists, democrats, communists, liberals …”
His core supporters?
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:13 pm
130 -
And you know this for a fact? You know that they sit there and individually look up the originating link on every single donation he receives? Or could it be the more likely case that their credit card handler has *some* of the more recent donations in a merchant account database somewhere that most people on the campaign have never even seen or heard of.
And again you know this for a fact? You know exactly how Ron Paul does his targetting? Or are you simply assuming you know - assuming that since the credit card stuff is somewhere, somebody must be using it for something? I ask because, unlike you, I actually do know a couple of people who contract with Ron Paul’s campaign on his targetting lists, supplies distributions etc. (as I also know vendors involved in several of the other campaigns). They have lists to be sure, but they certainly aren’t culled from a contracted merchant vendor’s credit card site records of the referring URL. Most of them have been collected over several years. Others have been donated, purchased, and assembled from other sources and vendors. Others are collected from places that have absolutely nothing at all to do with the internet, such as checks received in the mail.
In the sense of somebody sitting there and actively looking up where every single donation comes in as it is made, then no. They do not know where they are coming from.
Could they potentially find out if some of their donations came from a stormfront link? For some of the online ones, yes. It is feasible. But that’s a very different question than sitting there and actively screening incoming donations. Confusing these two very different things serves only to bury the weakness of your case in dishonesty, squack. At the end of the day you still don’t have so much as a single donor’s name with a conclusive link to stormfront. Only speculation. Only innuendo.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:14 pm
Who would RP have as a running mate? Dennis Kucinich?
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/09/28/the-dream-team-paulkucinich-08/
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Yeah Phil I know it is a fact.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
135
Heh
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Fat albert - it’s also entirely possible that YOU routinely kick your dog, beat your wife, starve your children, grow pot in your closet, run a gay pimp service out of the shed in your backyard, and keep a family of illegal immigrants living in your garage. You certainly haven’t done anything recently to prove to me that any of these insinuations are false so I simply HAVE to conclude that they are within the realm of possibility. Right?
In reality, since I have no affirmative proof of any of these things it would be irresponsible of me to make these allegations. And you don’t have any affirmative proof of a single stormfront donor’s name to Ron Paul, much less proof that he actually enjoys or desires their support. Thus your innuendo is similarly irresponsible.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Phil, all of that information is automatically logged in a database. When someone clicks on the banner over at stormfront, the ip address of the user’s computer and the url of the referring website are automatically recorded. Since it is in a database it would take all of 10 seconds to identify every donation made from that banner.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Oh wait Phil
Let me qualify my statement this way:
Yeah Phil I know it is a fact.
Now I feel better.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:21 pm
138 - Then I’m certain you can provide the names of the people and firms who manage his targetting lists and the specific details of how they run their databases, what software they use, what sort filters they apply, and where they obtained their current lists. Needless to say, i’m not holding my breath.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Nice try phil. Nice try.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
I’m curious Phil. What is your investment in this argument?
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:24 pm
Wow an RP thread without a disproportionate number of Ron-bots? What is wrong with their systems.
RP running mate? Art Bell?
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
The entire internet works that way, phil. Why would you demand proof of that? But besides all that, even if no one on earth clicked on that stormfront banner and made a donation (an impossible supposition), the banner still exists and Dr. Paul has every right to demand they remove it.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:27 pm
That’s not the question though. The question is what’s being done with that database. Is it a database that the Paul campaign actively uses on a day-to-day basis to come up with a carefully tailored and hand-generated targetting list? Or is it simply a file tagged to credit card records buried deep in the harddrive of a merchant account provider that is simply contracted out to take online donations?
Is somebody actually sitting there going through that database to look for and pull out stormfront links? Or is it simply an unidentified numeric record among hundreds of thousands that nobody’s bothered to look at for simple want of time and resources?
Having a database with information that *might* have link records going back to stormfront is a very different thing than actually knowing specific donations came from stormfront. Though you have repeatedly asserted the latter, the most you can substantiate is the speculative existence of the former. Which again brings us back to the keyword of this entire post: innuendo.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:29 pm
Hamous,
You are right information of referring web site is logged into Web Server Log file (not exactly database but close). Now imagine that someone did Google search on Ron Paul and clicked on the link to Stormfront , did not read anything there, just saw the link to Ron Paul web site and went there. Yes he was referred from Stormfront, but how does it prove that he is “neo Nazi scumbag” and not just an innocent bystander?
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:33 pm
146 - No investment…just calling it as I see it. Surely squack you know me better than to suggest something like that. When I find something objectionable on LST I often comment on it. When I find something I agree with here, I also comment on it. When I find somebody using cheap innuendo to make a sloppy argument that weakens the overall quality and reputation of this blog, then I not only comment on it but also engage the poster in an extended discussion.
To some I’m a simple commentator. To some I’m a gadfly. To some I’m both. But I seldom if ever post here out of a personal investment with anything.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:37 pm
139 - methinks the man doth protest too much……
Look Phil, I’m sure that you are a fine upstanding person. I’m sure that you don’t kick dogs, pick on small children or cheat on your taxes. OK? The fact is, none of us have incontrovertible FACTS about any of this, except two.
1. We KNOW, beyond any reasonable doubt, that evil despicable people are actively soliciting funds for Ron Paul. They have posted his banners on their web site, and are directing their readers back to his site to contribute money and participate in his campaign.
2. We KNOW, that Congressman Paul has done nothing to tell these vermin that neither they, nor their money is welcome in his campaign and to tell the rest of the world that he doesn’t want them and doesn’t agree in any way with their beliefs.
I cannot comprehend why he does not do this. Granting for a moment your argument that the media will twist the whole thing back on him, why not get it over with now. Project forward a few months - suppose that, unlikely as it seems, RP does win the nomination - what do you think the media will do with it then? Better to deal with it now while it’s small, don’t you think?
And,BTW, if I said it just now (back in 129) you can bet the media is just waiting to say it later.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:38 pm
Apparently phil you do not read the full comments before jumping off the cliff. I have already given you short how it works above.
Golly Phil I have only built 5 or 6 websites and maintained them. You are right I would not have any idea at all that when you read the logs that referring webpages are revealed in one of two forms either IP address or “real name”. Nor would I know of about 5 different programs that easily commpiles this information. And geez it is so hard to do a whois search in these database compilers or setting up a chronjob to do that work for me. Nope I would not know any of this.
Cause you Phil, yes you Phil are “The Man”. I came into this thread just because you were here to make you look like a fool. But alas I have failed. I hang my head in shame. You are just too powerful. You know it all. I don’t know why I even try.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:40 pm
So you’re saying the entire internet culls through its visitor traffic ISP by ISP and referring site by referring site to screen for objectionable visitors? Sorry, but there aren’t enough campaign staffers in all of Washington to do that with every single presidential candidate website visit. Sure - it may go into a database somewhere if they keep it long enough. But again, that’s a very different question from whether or not they are actively mining that database for information.
You did assert he’s taking stormfront money, did you not? That’s a pretty serious allegation by any standard, and it’s one you should be able to back up with a name on a credible report such as the FEC disclosur at minimum.
I’ve already addressed the legal issue here and the short answer is no. There’s not a court in this nation that would sustain such a challenge because Paul is a public figure. But since you bring it up, you should know that Stormfront’s URL is registered through at least three layers of proxy servers bouncing all over this country and likely abroad to mask exactly who even runs the place. U.S. courts can’t order foreign countries to take down a site.
October 23rd, 2007 at 5:45 pm