What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
His appeal to independents is apparently starting to scare the rightwing fear machine.
I don’t know if it’s all true or even part true. I followed a some of the links and they seemed to come from MSM sources and even a few from quotes from his own writings.
I personally think that there’s not much to the guy. If you listen to him he doesn’t say much of substance. (Not that most of them do but him even less so). I think he’s a flash in the pan along with the Huckster.
The one thing I do question about him is the way he has ignored his grandparents who raised him, while he embraces the legacy of his father who abandoned him. He’s obviously a bright and ambitious guy but not so sure he’s real honest.
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
It’s going to be well-nigh impossible for Ron Paul to get out of this one. The newsletter was printed for well over a decade, and it is something that he should have been dealt with in its infancy. The matter that it had gone on for so long in a pre-internet era (making it somewhat easier to attach to him) is the damning evidence here. After reading it, many of the statements can’t be read as outright “racist,” but the problem is that they are so borderline and that racist people have been using them for years.
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
I don’t know what to think. He seems like a honest guy. If he says it’s not what he believes I have no reason to doubt him. He does attract quacks. Contrary to Fred’s statement he is not quack himself. Every time I convince myself to vote for someone else because of something like this I hear from Paul I remind myself he has served 10 terms in Congress. His district sends him back every election.
"Every time I convince myself to vote for someone else because of something like this I hear from Paul I remind myself he has served 10 terms in Congress. His district sends him back every election.”
So do the districts for Francis Thompson, John Alario, and Teddy Kennedy. Bob Odom was untouchable for over 10 years.
I’m not trying to say Paul is equal to those jerks, but being constantly re-elected by your district isn’t exactly a good way to judge a politician.
Contrary to Fred’s statement he is not quack himself.
I didn’t imply he is a quack, I implied he’s a bigot.
Either way there is certainly smoke all around him to come to such a conclusion. He just keeps getting re-elected in a district that could easily field a well funded republican opponent.
I don’t know what to think. He seems like a honest guy. If he says it’s not what he believes I have no reason to doubt him. He does attract quacks. Contrary to Fred’s statement he is not quack himself. Every time I convince myself to vote for someone else because of something like this I hear from Paul I remind myself he has served 10 terms in Congress. His district sends him back every election.
Like many of these candidates they sound good but looking at their record and past statement can reveal things about them that they don’t want in the current race. IMO Ron Paul is only attracting new supporters because of his anti-war stance.
He’s wasting his time. It’s a shame that the libertarian movement attracts such nuts because I agree with their “leave me alone” stances on most things.
Contrary to Fred’s statement he is not quack himself.
I didn’t imply he is a quack, I implied he’s a bigot.
Either way there is certainly smoke all around him to come to such a conclusion. He just keeps getting re-elected in a district that could easily field a well funded republican opponent.
Barney Frank keeps being re-elected in his district too.
