Ron Paul’s Gift to the Black Race

Politics & Current Events

Via Dale Carpenter at the Volokh blog, I was referred to this devastating indictment, in (what may be) Ron Paul’s own words, of Ron Paul. James Kirchick of The New Republic, which has had its own fair share of problems through the years with alternately endorsing and damning its authors’ handiwork, has tracked down back issues of Paul’s Ron Paul Political Report, or as it was more appropriately entitled at one time, The Ron Paul Survival Report.

One must scroll down a bit to get to the meat of what Paul published or (maybe) wrote in the 80s and early 90s, on the subject of black people and homosexuals, but it’s pretty damned vile. See for yourself. Paul of course denies that he wrote any of it, it was done by anonymous others with whom Paul doesn’t (necessarily) agree, but read the article and, again, see for yourself.

I’m going to call the primaries now. I predict that Barack Obama will win the Democratic nomination. I predict that John McCain will win the Republican nomination. Though I disagree with both men about a great many things (and like a number of things about both men, in fairness), I think that McCain is also indisputably better qualified to be President of the United States.

I’ll call things further. I believe that Paul is going to run as a third-party or independent ticket, an even meaner Ross Perot, in November. He’s not going to get the Republican nomination, and he’s not going to stand for a hawkish moderate like McCain on “his” party’s ticket.

McCain, after Bush, will have his work cut out for him anyway. But with whatever minuscule lunatic fringe Paul is going to pull away from the Republicans, it’s going to be harder still. That fringe, when it votes, tends to hit the (R) by default. If the election is close, Obama will win, in part because of Ron Paul.

Again, read the article, and decide for yourself if my scenario wouldn’t be the most poetic of justice.

Last 5 posts by Patrick

15 Comments

14 Comments

  1. Patrick  •  Jan 8, 2008 @5:22 pm

    And of course if I’m full of shit, and if I’m still breathing in November, I’ll link to this post to show just how wrong I was about President-elect Huckabee.

  2. Ken  •  Jan 8, 2008 @6:24 pm

    Yes, I see that this news has even shaken Andrew Sullivan in his dogged support of Paul. I have to shake my head and wonder what he had been reading before this.

    The comments are more entertaining than the article, frankly. The horde of Ron Paul flying monkeys is out in force, calling this a smear job and everyone else tools of the liberal mainstream media.

    Paul’s defense is amazing — he’s basically saying that yes, there were various “Ron Paul Newsletter” publications, but he didn’t review them or edit them. That may excuse him from responsibility for the actual sentiments. But it shows extremely questionable judgment, particularly in the crucial leadership fields of selection and supervision of underlings. Being President is partly about what you do, but mostly about selecting and managing smart and decent people to do stuff in your name. The fact that Paul selected such a freak to write a newsletter in his name — or, at the most charitable, allowed somebody about whom he knew nothing to write a newsletter in his name — reflects very badly on him, I think.

    Patrick, moving on to your predictions, I think Obama vs. McCain is as good a guess as any. I agree that McCain is more “qualified,” in the sense that he has more experience doing things that we traditionally see as qualifications for the office. I don’t know that would make him the best President. Increasingly I think what a President needs is the ability (and willingness) to choose and manage the right people and convincingly convey the right messages — in other words, lead. That’s not to say I’m gaga for Obama. But he has at least some of those qualities.

    I agree that Paul could be a spoiler for the Republicans in a race, rather like Nader was for Gore. I think a McCain vs. Obama race would be interesting. McCain has a tendency to say what he thinks, occasionally in a hey-you-kids-get-off-my-lawn manner, which is entertaining. In the last week Obama has shown good skills in being unflappable and parrying attacks and offering clever ripostes. Others have said this first and better: the Republicans are going to be careful that it doesn’t get turned into a contest between the crotchety old guy and the charismatic but calm young guy.

  3. Patrick  •  Jan 8, 2008 @6:41 pm

    The fact that Paul selected such a freak to write a newsletter in his name — or, at the most charitable, allowed somebody about whom he knew nothing to write a newsletter in his name — reflects very badly on him, I think.

    You’re speaking of him as though Paul was ever a serious candidate, anything but a fringe spoiler. Paul has, for me, never been about anything but comedy and protesting The Man. Saying that anything makes him look bad is like saying that Gus Hall’s apologetics for Stalin reflect poorly on his political judgment.

  4. Ken  •  Jan 8, 2008 @6:54 pm

    I’m making an effort to take him seriously, like when you listen and nod respectfully to your great-aunt’s political notions.

  5. Grandy  •  Jan 8, 2008 @7:20 pm

    See, I’m only listening there to know when it’s time for another nod. I wouldn’t say I’m actually processing information.

    For “great aunt” you could just substitute “most of the people Peacedog knows”, though. I think I’m getting bitter.

  6. Ken  •  Jan 8, 2008 @7:44 pm

    Glenn Reynolds of Instapundit just quoted my post at Volokh on this issue. He even gave me an “Indeed.”

    I think I feel dirty.

  7. Ken  •  Jan 8, 2008 @7:53 pm

    From that Instapundit post, I saw this at Little Green Footballs showing an excerpt from one of the newsletters. It has what purports to be a Christmas greeting from Dr. Paul.

    Now, a ghost writer can write a Christmas greeting just as easily as a political screed. But at least this ghostwriter had a good feel for the Ron Paul style, inasmuch as it’s the only Christmas greeting I’ve recently seen with an explicit reference to the Trilateralists.

  8. Grandy  •  Jan 8, 2008 @7:57 pm

    I did not think you scincere on the trilateralist reference. Sorry.

  9. Patrick  •  Jan 8, 2008 @8:44 pm

    The trilateral commission does support big government. What’s wrong with calling a spade a spade?

  10. Patrick  •  Jan 8, 2008 @8:46 pm

    Oh, and tonight’s setback aside, I still believe Obama will pull it out.

  11. Grandy  •  Jan 8, 2008 @8:57 pm

    I assume you were humerously referring to what would be a generic “conspiracy” reference in the news letter. Reality, of course, was so much more delightful.

    Patrick: why particularly? I feel like Clinton will grind this out. I’ve got no real reason for this belief – it’s very early and NH aside, Clinton has stumbled out of the gate. I think Obama is probably a superior choice, and that this belief is why it will be Clinton, and merely the latest in a series of punishments from some sort of unfathomable cosmic entity I offended once.

  12. Derrick  •  Jan 9, 2008 @6:02 am

    WTF dude, I logged on this morning and saw 11 comments and thought this was an old fashioned Paulbot fight.

    I’m not as optismistic as Patrick regarding Obama’s chances in gutting it out, though I still hope he will. I’m of the mind that the “Democratic Machine” will go full bore for Hillary. IMO, Edwards needs to bow out and back Obama. Too bad that will never happen.

  13. Grandy  •  Jan 9, 2008 @6:39 am

    I’d be lying if I said I was not hoping to see some Paulbots stop by. Licking their wounds, I guess.

  14. Ken  •  Jan 11, 2008 @5:33 pm

    Ooops.

    Looks like the current Paulian excuse — someone else wrote it, not me — is
    entirely different than the 1996 Paulian excuse, which was “I wrote it, but you are taking it out of context, and saying that 95% of blacks in a city are criminal is not so bad.”

1 Trackback

Leave a Reply

Allowed tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>