Monday, December 31, 2007

Aspies for Ron Paul

It appears that Ron Paul has become quite popular among people with Asperger syndrome. From their website:

A brief overview of Ron Paul's career:

• Ron Paul is a veteran WoW player, and became the first level-80 Druid in late 2005.

• Ron Paul supports the rights of middle-class, white Americans; he would eliminate government handouts, which would lower taxes and allow more of these individuals to purchase video games and computers.

• Ron Paul currently represents the 14th district in Texas (south of Houston) in the U.S. House of Representatives. It is well-known that Ron Paul counts the House's ceiling tiles on a daily basis. One afternoon Paul realized a tile was missing, calling it a "failure of our current unconstitutional government."

• He is serving his 10th term in Congress.

• He is an expert C programmer, and once quipped that all governments should be like C, because he admires its minimalism.

• He is known to regularly use the term "ad-homenim attack" on web forums.

• He consistently scores a perfect 100 on The New American magazine's "Conservative Index."

• He has received many awards and honors such as the National Taxpayers Union, Citizens Against Government Waste, Council for a Competitive Economy, and Young Americans for Freedom.

From the Blog of Brad DeLong

The above photo comes courtesy of Brad DeLong. I'm not familiar with his work, but the photo itself is priceless. Brad also provides a link to an American Prospect posting by Ezra Klein:


As Dana says, it's a bit hard to square the immense affection Ron Paul receives from putative civil libertarians with his intensely restrictive attitude towards such issues as whether a woman will be forced to use her body as a vessel for childbearing. But, as Peter Suderman argues, it's probably a mistake to focus too intensely on policy when trying to evaluate the appeal of Paul. Rather, Paul provides a home for those who feel alienated, misled, lied to, and marginalized by mainstream politics. As one of my commenters said, "It's like he's quietly amassing and army of outcasts from the Perot and Nader campaigns." Add in outcasts from whomever the Libertarian party tends to run and I think you've got a pretty good sense of the coalition.

With Paul, the positions aren't the point. His candidacy is tonal, aesthetic in nature. It's a movement united behind Howard Beale: They're mad as hell at politics, and not going to take it anymore. The force of that statement is far more important than whether Beale's political opinions or likely comportment in office precisely match up with what his supporters would desire. Paul's candidacy is an indictment of the system, not an argument for who would best administer it.

Saturday, December 29, 2007

Ron Paul Hopes to Become the Next Leeroy Jenkins

The following article comes from rawstory:

Presidential hopeful Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), whose legion of online supporters have besieged internet polls, lofted a blimp and helped their man notch a record-setting $6 million in donations in a single day, has rallied another group of die-hard backers to his ranks:

Gnomes. And dwarves. And possibly even night elves -- because the world of political activism has hit the World of Warcraft.

On New Years Day, Paul-backing devotees of the online multiplayer game are planning a march through WoW's sprawling virtual universe to show support their candidate. Participants will be represented by one of an array of mythical avatars that populate the fantasy-themed game, in which players take on adventures and duel against rival characters.

It looks like Ron Paul is hoping to become the next Leeroy Jenkins. And just what we need: More online trolls who support Ron Paul.

Thursday, December 27, 2007

FAQ: Ron Paul and his Racist Newsletter (Updated)

It looks like Ron Paul's infamous newsletter has been making another round in the blogosphere. You know, the ones that where Ron Paul rallies his battle cry against fleet-footed black people. This is most likely in response to Ron Paul's recent appearance on Meet the Press, where he opposes the Civil Rights Act and insists that Lincoln was a tyrant.

The Ron Paul supporters of the internet are quick to dismiss these claims, of course, insisting that the newsletter articles have been "debunked," and that there is no purpose to bringing them up again in the future. Don't believe them when they say that. Here's a basic summation of all the popular arguments used to defend Ron Paul, as well as the appropriate refutations.

Updated: TNR has recently uncovered a new batch of newsletters, including articles where Ron Paul is listed as Editor and Publisher. This is pretty damning.

1. The newsletter article was an isolated incident
2. Just because that newsletter Ron Paul has his name on that, doesn't mean that he was involved! (new)
3. This is a smear campaign! Your evidence is weak! Ron Paul is honest and infallible, and you can't trust anyone who says otherwise! (edited)
4. Those articles were a mainstream media hit piece! (edited)
5. Ron Paul has a solid record that stretches 30 years!
6. Ron Paul's voting record is proof that he isn't racist!
7. But if Ron Paul was really a racist, then why don't we see more of that in his interviews?
8. I demand audio/video evidence before I believe you! (new)
9. Didn't you read "Government and Racism," by Ron Paul?
10. But Ron Paul said that racism is bad! Doesn't that disprove that he wrote the newsletter?
11. Those article were written by a ghostwriter!
12. Didn't you read what he said in Texas Monthly?
13. You can't prove that Ron Paul even read that article!
14. Ron Paul was a full-time Congressman and Doctor, he didn't have time to work on that newsletter.
15. The article wasn't written in Ron Paul's language, and it sounds nothing like him!
16. But I have a newspaper article where the writer says that he believes Ron Paul!
17. Ron Paul has suggested Walter Williams as his running mate, and Walter Williams is black!
18. The Ghostwriter was already fired. Case closed! What more could you ask for?
19. What about the article from Free Market News? (new)
20. What about Ron Paul's official statement? (new)
21. What if Ron Paul is telling the truth? (new)
22. Is any of this relevant?
23. What about his appearence on CNN? Ron Paul claims to be incapable of racism! (new)
24. I have some photos/youtube videos of Ron Paul with black supporters! (new)
25. The signature was forged/other wear arguments (new)
26. What about the war on drugs? (New)

  1. The newsletter article was an isolated incident
    False. the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society."

  2. Just because that newsletter Ron Paul has his name on that, doesn't mean that he was involved! (new)
    This is an evasion tactic. This is not open to debate. Ron Paul himself has accepted moral responsibility for the content of the newsletter. His signature appears on the solicitation letter. If you don't think that he should be held responsible for it, then you're going to need to take that up with him, and not with us.

  3. This is a smear campaign! Your evidence is weak! Ron Paul is honest and infallible, and you can't trust anyone who says otherwise! (edited)
    The best evidence against Ron Paul comes from Ron Paul himself. Can we trust Ron Paul? This story first broke out in 1996, when Ron Paul was mounting a huge election to return to congress. What exactly was Ron Paul saying back then? did some digging through Lexis-Nexus, and found the following publications:
    • May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News
    • May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle
    • May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman
    • May 26, 1996 Washington Post
    • July 25, 1996, Houston Chronicle
    • July 25, 1996, Dallas Morning News
    • July 29, 1996, Roll Call
    • Aug. 13, 1996, Houston Chronicle
    • Sept. 26, 1996, Austin American-Statesman
    • Sept. 30, 1996, San Antonio Express-News
    • Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle
    • Oct. 11, 1996, Austin American-Statesman
    Excerpts can be found on their website. I have also provided direct links to the 5/23/96 Houston Chronicle and the November 1996 Austin Chronicle. The common theme among these articles is that Ron Paul never once denies writing for the newsletter, and insists that he's been quoted out of context. For instance, the Dallas Morning News reports that:
    Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.
    That's a very odd statement to make if you had absolutely no involvement with the newsletter in question. Although Ron Paul supporters will insist that he already denied the story, the ghostwriter invention didn't happen for another five years. Ron Paul was either lying in 1996, or he was lying in 2001. Either way, Ron Paul is a proven liar.

    But here's the problem. It's easy to explain why Ron Paul would lie in 2001, denying responsibility for something that he would later regret. But how do you explain why he would lie in 1996, claiming responsibility for something that he disagreed with and which he didn't do? There has never been anything resembling a decent explanation for this. Most Ron Paul supporters will respond by pretending that these reports don't exist. Don't let them get away with that.

  4. This is all a mainstream media hit piece! (edited)
    Many Ron Paul supporters insist that the above list of articles can't be trusted. This is another evasion tactic. Not even Ron Paul claims that he was misquoted or represented inaccurately during this era, so again, you're going to have to take it up with him. Moreover, we have over a dozen citations from 1996 that showing him defending the content, and not a single citation to the contrary. You can't just cry "hit piece!" and "mainstream media conspiracy!!!" just because the media prints something you don't like. Yes, they're critical of Ron Paul, but this is material that warrants criticism.

    Some people have attempted to discredit James Kirchick. David Boaz of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, doesn't seem to be buying it. He recognizes this as a basic ad hominem attack, and writes the following:
    Mutterings about the past mistakes of the New Republic or the ideological agenda of author James Kirchick are beside the point. Maybe Bob Woodward didn’t like Quakers; the corruption he uncovered in the Nixon administration was still a fact, and that’s all that mattered. Ron Paul’s most visible defenders have denounced Kirchick as a “pimply-faced youth”—so much for their previous enthusiasm about all the young people sleeping on floors for the Paul campaign—and a neoconservative. But they have not denied the facts he reported. Those words appeared in newsletters under his name. And, notably, they have not dared to defend or even quote the actual words that Kirchick reported. Even those who vociferously defend Ron Paul and viciously denounce Kirchick, perhaps even those who wrote the words originally, are apparently unwilling to quote and defend the actual words that appeared over Ron Paul’s signature.
  5. Ron Paul has a solid record that stretches 30 years!
    30 years of what? Again, Ron Paul refuses to release his archives from that time period. But Ron Paul's record has never been squeaky clean. Even the libertarians at Cato thought otherwise, and that was before the recent newsletter scandal. David Boaz writes:

    And so it’s understandable that over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know. We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold.

    However, let's assume for a moment that this claim is true. Would that prove his innocence? No. You can't un-ring a bell, and you can't un-write a newsletter. It would be like trying to refute the fact that Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face, by pointing out the number of people who Dick Cheney hasn't shot in the face. Logic doesn't work that way. Even if Ron Paul never writes another racist statement in the future, that wouldn't change the fact that he has written racist statements in the past. Thanks to Kirchick's research, we now know that these articles were more far reaching we initially suspected. This was not an isolated incident, this was a clear pattern of behavior. One that Ron Paul made no effort to address.

  6. Ron Paul's voting record is proof that he isn't racist!
    This is another claim we hear a lot. Unfortunately, the people who make this claim never follow up on it, by citing specific examples. Ron Paul was against the Civil Rights Act, against the Voting Rights Act, and he has voted in favor of voter suppression. How does that prove that he isn't racist?

  7. But if Ron Paul was really a racist, then why don't we see more of that in his interviews?
    People who are racist aren't necessarily going to admit to it in public. There's a reason why Ku Klux Klan is known for wearing hood, and why white supremacist organizations have rules against being outed. In most cases, people aren't even aren't even aware of their own racism. So when overt signs of racism does break through the social stigma, you know you're just seeing the tip of the iceberg. Just look at what happened to George Allen and Trent Lott. You can't prove that George Allen knew the meaning of the word "macaca," but that doesn't mean that you can't use that against him.

    Ron Paul, like most other politicians, will say different things to different people. Look at his recent
    flip flop on evolution. If Ron Paul can't even admit to being against evolution during the debates, then why would anyone expect him to be express overt racism without even being provoked? The newsletter was written while Ron Paul was working as a private physician, and distributed to private subscribers. Apparently, running as a presidential candidate has forced him to become a bit more cautious.

  8. I demand audio/video evidence before I believe you! (new)
    This is a ridiculous request. Ron Paul's newsletter archive was written in two decades ago, long before people have had video cameras on their cell phones. He didn't re-enter the public eye until this past year, well after the George Allen and Trent Lott scandals. Since then, the political climate has gotten a lot more sensitive on the subject of race, and Ron Paul has had more than enough time to adapt

    Here's the question, though: Why is video/audio evidence required? After all, I might not have any video footage of Ron Paul going to the bathroom, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't go. Courts typically don't require you to provide video/audio evidence to convict someone, because you're not going to find any the vast majority of the time, no matter how guilty the person may be. No, the main goal here isn't to be reasonable, but to be unreasonable. To move the goalpost so far that it's nearly impossible to reach. It's annoying, but the fact that they have to rely on such cheap tactics reveals the underlying weakness in their argument. It's an act of desperation. They know their case looks bad, so they're grasping at straws. Don't let them get away with that.

    But if you really want video evidence, then I suggest you check out Ron Paul's recent ad on immigration, where he vows "No visas for students from ‘terrorist nations." Personally, I think that that the idea of labeling an entire nation as being "terrorists" to be pretty darn racist. Even Justin Raimondo of, who vehemently defended Ron Paul in the past, still found this ad to be "disgraceful."

  9. Didn't you read "Government and Racism," by Ron Paul?
    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.
    This article is frequently brought up in an attempt to "debunk" the newsletter piece. However, there is nothing in the piece that actually refutes the newsletter. In fact, his current writings and his newsletter writings are completely complimentary to one another. In the above writing, Ron Paul is writing in defense of Don Imus. Ron Paul also makes the same argument, nearly word for word, in a 2002 article where he defends Trent Lott.

  10. But Ron Paul said that racism is bad! Doesn't that disprove that he wrote the newsletter?
    Yes, but when Ron Paul criticizes racism, he is defines "racism" as "promoting diversity." This is not the same form of racism that Ron Paul himself is being accused of. Therefore, his statement only supports the accusation.

    Remember, when Ron Paul was asked for comment in the 1996 Houston Chronicle piece, he claimed that he opposed racism, and then went on to defend the newsletter article anyway. Apparently, when Ron Paul claims to oppose "racism," his narrow definition of "racism" doesn't include the newsletter in question. Making the statement irrelevant.

    As David Neiwert explains, "This is, in fact, just a repackaging of a libertarian argument that multiculturalism is the 'new racism' -- part of a larger right-wing attack on multiculturalism. This is, of course, sheer Newspeak: depicting a social milieu that simultaneously respects everyone's heritage -- that is to say, the antithesis of racism -- as racist is simply up-is-down, Bizarro Universe thinking."

  11. Those article were written by a ghostwriter!
    This is something we hear a lot, but the evidence doesn't support it. For instance, let's take a look at the LA Riots piece. First, the article makes frequent references in the first person, talking about Ron Paul's personal experiences, and even makes references to previous articles on the subject of race. Second, the article makes reference to "expert Burt Blumert." Blumert is a coin dealer, as well as a close, personal friend of Ron Paul.

    Since the Kirchick piece came out, the story has gotten even more damning (see scans.). For instance, on the same page where Ron Paul accuses Martin Luther King of seducing "underage girls and boys," he also makes a reference to how his wife Carol and his grandchildren wishes the reader to have a Merry Christmas. There is no break in character. In his letter asking for solicitations, Ron Paul refers to his personal expertise as a medical doctor, and signs the letter with his own signature. He also uncovered articles where Ron Paul is listed as Editor.

    Perhaps the best example comes from the January 1991 edition, where Ron Paul writes that:
    In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday.
    Why in the world would the writer bring this specific incident up, unless it actually happened to him, and unless he was still bitter over the experience? And who else could this experience have happened to, other than Ron Paul?

    However, even if these pieces were written by a ghostwriter, it still wouldn't matter. The point is that Ron Paul signed off on them and never offered a retraction, which suggests that at the very least, he would have agreed with them.

  12. Didn't you read what he said in Texas Monthly?
    The following text appeared in a 2001 edition of Texas Monthly:

    When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

    His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

    Ron Paul's 2001 version of events sounds very heart-felt. Unfortunately, his story doesn't mesh with past events. Here is what Ron Paul was saying five years earlier, in a 1996 edition of the Austin Chronicle:
    In one 1992 article, Paul labeled the illustrious congresswoman Barbara Jordan, now deceased, a "moron" and "fraud" whose accomplishments depended on her race and sex. Paul now explains that he's been wronged -- his "academic, tongue-in-cheek" opinions have been stripped of their context. But when the Victoria Advocate requested the entire copy of the newsletter, promising to publish its entirety, he refused that too.
    For the record, Barbara Jordan passed away earlier in that very same year. Ron Paul's story for the Texas Monthly may sound sympathetic, but it isn't supported by past events. If he's felt any regret over his comments, then it doesn't seem to show here.

  13. You can't prove that Ron Paul even read that article!
    We've established that the newsletter went out under Ron Paul's name, with Ron Paul's permission. At some point, we need to assume a basic level of competency for Ron Paul over his own name. If we can't assume competence, then why in the world should we elect this man as president? We also can't "prove" that George Allen knew the real meaning of the word "macaca," but that doesn't mean that we can't use that against him.

    The narrative in the newsletter postings are highly personal and specific to Ron Paul, and even if we believed that they were written by a ghostwriter, it would be hard to believe that Ron Paul and the ghostwriter had absolutely no contact. Furthermore, in order to accept Ron Paul's story, we would have to believe that none of the readers ever phoned in to complain or cancel their subscriptions. That no one on the staff ever notified Ron Paul of what was going on. That none of Ron Paul's friends or family members ever notified Ron Paul about what was going on. Out of over 7,000 readers, not one of them would have a direct line to Ron Paul.

    Moreover, we would have to ignore the numerous news articles from 1996, when the story was brought to Ron Paul's attention by the popular media. The Ron Paul supporters can attempt to rationalize the time frame pre-1996, by pleading ignorance. And they can attempt to rationalize the time frame post-2001, when Ron Paul first began to deny the story. But how do the rationalize the time period from 1996-2001, when Ron Paul was aware of the situation, and still chose to defend the newsletter? Well... they can't.

  14. Ron Paul was a full-time Congressman and Doctor, he didn't have time to work on that newsletter.
    The first part is false. Ron Paul left congress in 1985 and returned to congress in 1997. The second part is irrelevant. Having a full-time job is not the same thing as having a full-proof alibi. We're talking about an 8-page newsletter that would have been distributed once a month. Even if Ron Paul was working 60 hours a week, that would still give him 15 hours per day to work on a newsletter. It would take him roughly ten minutes once a month to read an 8-page newsletter. Yet somehow, he can't manage to find the time for it?

    Ron Paul's official website proudly boasts that, "Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress." Since 1997, Ron Paul has written 350 pieces of legislation, and that he has voted over 7000 times. Yet we're supposed to believe that as a civilian, Ron Paul can't find the time to write one 8-page article? That as a civilian, Ron Paul can't even find the time to even read his own 8-page newsletter?

    This literally does not add up. 350 pieces of legislation over 10 years translates into three pieces per month. Does Ron Paul hire a ghostwriter to write his legislation as well? Will he start using that excuse when his legislation proves unpopular? Where exactly will it end? Again, at some point, we need to assume a basic level of competence.

  15. The article wasn't written in Ron Paul's language, and it sounds nothing like him!
    This is another claim we hear a lot. Not because his supporters actually believe it, but because Ron Paul himself has said it, and his supporters are good at parroting. Ask them what they mean by Ron Paul's "his language." They won't answer. This isn't a claim that can be objectively verified or disproven. However, I have written out specific examples to doubt Ron Paul's story.

    This is an also example of begging the question. If this article sounds nothing like Ron Paul, then what would sound like Ron Paul? The answer there is, "Whatever we personally approve of."

  16. But I have a newspaper article where the writer says that he believes Ron Paul!
    Appeal to authority fallacy. The newspaper in question could be wrong. Don't just tell us that people believe Ron Paul, give the reasons behind their opinion, and give us something that we can decide on or verify on our own. Moreover, these newspapers were likely printed prior to the Kirchick piece, which suggests that the newsletter articles that we had were not an isolated incident.

  17. Ron Paul has suggested Walter Williams as his running mate, and Walter Williams is black!
    This is a modern variant of the classic "I can't be a racist, some of my best friends are black!" argument. Having a black friend doesn't disprove accusations of racism, any more than having a female wife would disprove accusations of misogyny. Being racist doesn't mean that you hate all black people. Being racist simply means that you are being unfair to black people as a general rule. There's a difference.

    This is another evasion tactic. It doesn't disprove the fact that Ron Paul wrote that newsletter. Quite the contrary. Here's an excerpt from the original text:
    Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are, however, outnumbered.
    The fact that Ron Paul has a few black friends doesn't disprove the fact that he authored the newsletter, because it the author of the piece had a few black friends as well.

  18. The Ghostwriter was already fired. Case closed! What more could you ask for?
    We hear this one a lot, but we never hear any first hand evidence or links supporting it. If you want to convince us that the supposed ghostwriter was fired in direct response to these articles, then cite some evidence, and not some general appeal to the "rumor mill." Better yet, give us a name, and some way of verifying the claim.

    In fact, if we're to believe Ron Paul's statements in his Wolf Blitzer interview, than a firing would have been impossible. Ron Paul claims that he had no idea what was being printed in his name. Ron Paul claimed that, "I don't know any of their names. I absolutely honestly do not know who wrote those things," and "A lot of the things you just read, I wouldn't have recognized them." It's pretty hard to fire someone who you don't know over something that you didn't know about. And that's assuming that there even is a ghostwriter, which we still have absolutely no evidence of.

    So if Ron Paul didn't fire the supposed "ghostwriter," then who did he fire? If Ron Paul honestly didn't approve of the newsletter content, then someone's head ought to have rolled over this. If it isn't Ron Paul, and it isn't the writer, then who? How about the Publisher? The Economist reports that the newsletter was "published by M&M Graphics and Advertising, a company run by Mr Paul's longtime congressional campaign manager Mark Elam—which Mr Elam himself confirms." Elam's company was in charge of double checking the newsletter before it went to print, yet he apparently never notified Ron Paul about the content. Fortunately, Elam is still involved with Ron Paul's official campaign, and is currently listed on their contact page.

    Okay. Then what about Jean McIver, the subscription manager? Surely, she would be familiar with the material that she was selling, right? And if the racist articles were really a fluke, and then at least a few subscribers would have called in to complain, right? So was Jean McIver fired?Nope. It turns out that Jean McIver wasn't fired in 1996, when the story first came to light. In fact, it turns out that James McIver is currently being listed on the official campaign website as the "Texas Field Coordinator." Lew Moore, National Campaign Manager, writes even gave her a special mention in the official campaign blog.

    Another update: James Kirchick finds newsletters where Ron Paul is listed as Editor and Publisher, thus making him directly responsible for the content.

  19. What about the article from Free Market News? (new)
    The Free Market News Network article doesn't really offer any new arguments. It makes a lot of unverifiable claims from a lot of unnamed sources with flimsy excuses -- most of which have already been addressed on DailyKos. For instance, it cites the fact that the newsletter headquarters were "60 miles away" from Ron Paul's office, as though 60 miles is an insurmountable distance for your monthly newsletter, and as if there was no such thing as fax machines, telephones, and overnight delivery.

    The article claims that Ron Paul was upset when he heard about the comments, but it doesn't explain the lack of a retraction, nor does it explain his 1996 response in the popular press. Even if Ron Paul didn't read the newsletter himself -- which is ridiculous -- there are thousands of people who did. Moreover, once again, these articles weren't simply one or two examples slipping through the cracks. They stretch over the course of decades. There is no excuse.

  20. What about Ron Paul's official statement? (new)
    What about it? The official statement comes over a decade too late, and it doesn't really refute anything. Ron Paul says once again that it was a ghostwriter, but he fails to explain how how he could be completely incompetent in running his own newsletter, nor does he explain his initial response to the scandal in the first five years after the story first became public.

  21. What if Ron Paul is telling the truth? (new)
    In his official statement, Ron Paul claims that "For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name." If you can't hold Ron Paul accountable for his racism, then you should at least hold him responsible for gross incompetence. Otherwise, you're not taking moral responsibility. You can't say, "I take full responsibility for this, but please don't use it against me!" It doesn't work like that. Either you take responsibility, or you don't.

    If Ron Paul can't even run an 8-page monthly newsletter, then how does he expect to run an entire country, or even an entire war? If he can't even read 8-pages that goes out under his own name once a month, then how can he expect to read through thousands of pages worth of intelligence reports and legislation? If he can't even hire the right people to write under his name, then how can he expect to hire the right people to run his cabinet?

    At some point, Ron Paul needs to stop making excuses, and start focusing on his strengths. What are they? This isn't a question of what you like about him, or what you agree with him on, it's a question on what he's actually shown he can do.

  22. Is any of this relevant? (new)
    Many Ron Paul supporters insist that this matter isn't relevant, because even if Ron Paul is a blatant racist, it still wouldn't matter, because it's not like Ron Paul would be able to issue legislation to promote his racist agenda. I disagree. I think that Ron Paul's views on racism is entirely relevant. More importantly, Ron Paul himself thinks that his views on racism are relevant.

    On his website, Ron Paul cites his stance on racism as one of the major issues that he intends to campaign on, and one of the major reasons why you should vote for him. Ron Paul is arrogant enough to believe that he understands the problem and the solution for racism better than the civil rights activists who actually fought and sacrificed for change. But Ron Paul can't even handle the blatant racism that goes on in his own office in his own name in plain sight of thousands of subscribers -- how in the world does he expect to deal with the far more subtle forms of racism that permeate throughout society? It would be like trusting Britney Spears's mom to write a book on motherhood.

  23. What about his appearence on CNN? Ron Paul claims to be incapable of racism!
    I think this picture pretty much sums it up. No one is "incapable" of racism. A person who believes in liberty should be capable of just about anything. Ron Paul is basing his argument on an impossible premise, which shows that he is either lying, or he is completely in denial. In fact, not only is Ron Paul in denial, but he blatantly contradicts himself a little while later by making several references to "the blacks," using the exact same language that Blitzer cited from his newsletter. Ron Paul can't even go two minutes without completely contradicting himself.

    Ron Paul refers to himself as an anti-racist. An anti-racist is like an anti-hero. He has different motivations from the traditional racist, but in the end, he fulfills the same basic purpose, and the traditional racist can count on him to get the job done.

  24. I have some photos/youtube videos of Ron Paul with black supporters!
    Yeah, so? Do you have any idea how racially condescending this argument actually is? Oh hey, Ron Paul managed to stand next to a black person without lynching him. That proves that he isn't a racist and that he had no involvement in his own newsletter, personal details and signature be damned. If Ted Bundy can have female groupies despite being a murderer, then Ron Paul can have minority groupies despite being a racist. Sorry, but you can't undo decades worth of racism with a few snapshots It's not that simple.

    Related articles on this subject can be found here, here, and here.

  25. The signature was forged/other wear arguments
    Dude, just give it up. I think that Sultan Knish did a great job this one, by visiting the Ron Paul Forums and chronicling the character arc of a single poster, a senior member by the name of DaronWestbrooke. Westbrooke starts off by freaking out over the Ron Paul story, and demanding some comeback lines he can use.

    Eventually, Daron decides to start from the assumption that there's a conspiracy at work, and then moves on to try to invent one. He concludes that since the smoking gun here is Ron Paul's own signature, then the best solution would be to spread the rumor that the signature has been forged, even though Ron Paul himself has never made this claim. In the most telling line, Daron states that "All we got now is the signatures, but the points is to repeat it over and over. we can make that thought reality."

    In other words, even though the statement isn't true, it can be made true through sheer force of repetition. This is a tactic that they've used before. The same goes for their "the ghostwriter was already fired" meme, which was repeated so often that even many of Ron Paul's critics began to believe it as accepted reality, even Ron Paul's most recent statements make that meme impossible. And it also goes for the "the newsletters were already debunked, so we don't have to go through them any further meme."

    The goal isn't to come up with an explanation that sounds plausible. The goal is to come up with an explanation that you can repeat, ad naseum, over and over again, until eventually it becomes so accepted that it no longer requires explanation. This is common among Ron Paul's supporters, who are too far invested and too alienated from their from friends to give up now. Daron's only crime is that he decided to say out loud what everyone else was already thinking. Even Daron acknowledges that the explanation is bullshit, but he doesn't see any other alternative. So the next time you debate this subject with a hardcore supporter, please keep this in mind.

    Not surprisingly, the thread now requires a password to read, although you can still try to find it on google cache.

  26. What about the war on drugs? (New)
    Irrelevant. Ron Paul doesn't oppose the war on drugs because it's racist, he opposes it because he opposes everything. The war on drugs could be the most racially equitable program in the history of Earth, and Ron Paul would still oppose it, because it isn't mentioned in the constitution. Some people will try to argue, "But if Ron Paul was a racist, he would support the war on drugs!" This is a faulty syllogism. If the underlying premise were true, then we would have to conclude that Stormfront isn't racist either. Is anyone going to argue that Stormfront isn't racist?

    But if you want further proof, then check out Ron Paul's solicitation letter. Page one. Hey look, Ron Paul opposed the war on drugs even then. So his current opposition proves nothing, since it doesn't contradict the newsletter in the least.
Conclusion: So there you have it, an in-depth refutation to the most common talking points. Spread the word, and tell your friends.

Additional Links:
Angry White Man, by James Kirchick of TNR.
Newsletter Clipping, and More Newsletter Clippings, by James Kirchick of TNR.
Paul's Blowback, by Matt Welch of Reason
"Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"? by Matt Welch of Reason
5/23/96 Houston Chronicle Article
November 1996 Austin Chronicle Article, plus Sidebar.
Ron Paul in his Own Words, by Paul Henry
Black People Love Us

Link to this article

Ron Paul reminds students to leave their guns at home

The Ron Paul campaign is running a student event in Iowa. Here's an excerpt from their press release:

What to bring:
Think in the context of staying in a heated cabin (boy scout/church camp), in Iowa in January (cold/snow), and during the day you’ll be walking door to door.

Week 1 = 10 days, week 2= 9 days
- Student ID to verify you are a student
- Warm/Nice Clothes (gloves, scarf, hat, etc. and you will be representing Ron Paul to Iowans, don’t be a slob)
- Comfortable shoes (lots of walking, possibly in the snow)
- Pillow, sheets, warm blanket (all you get is a mattress, but cabins are heated)
- Towel
- Bathroom supplies (tooth brush, deodorant, soap, shampoo, etc.) - Medication
- Umbrella/Raincoat
- Laptop, Portable DVD player, Ipod, cards
- Backpack
- Your best answer to why you are supporting Ron Paul and why Iowans should too!

What NOT to bring:
- All the obvious things
- Alcohol/Drugs
- Guns, knives, fireworks
- Large banners, signs
I don't know what's more disturbing. The fact that Ron Paul apparently has to remind his student supporters to leave their guns at home, the fact that guns aren't filed under "obvious things," or the fact that Ron Paul thinks that there are 10 days in a week. Even Lyndon LaRouche supporters know to leave their guns at home.

Ron Paul wasn't the first candidate with a blimp

This one was reported by the good people at Wonkette, who decided to run an investigation on presidential blimps throughout the 21st century:

Are the Paultards taking their cues from the ultimate Internetardation forebearers — the rabid supporters of Howard Dean? This link appears undeniable, at least regarding blimps. Maybe you all heard about this back in ‘03, ‘04 — I sure as hell didn’t, thank god — but Dean’s online supporters once tried to launch a blimp of their own, for all the same Paultarded reasons. Suddenly, the Internet is making a lot more sense.
This is satire, right? Please tell me that this is satire.

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

The Radical Truth About Ron Paul

The Ron Paul Internet Gestapo will boast about being more tech-savvy than the average troll, based on the constant supply of e-mail spam and youtube links. However, it seems that whatever they make up in volume, they more than lack for in skill. Below is a case example, titled "The Radical Truth About Ron Paul":

The video relies on the standard tools of the trade: Monotone narration, combined GIS. Ron Paul is a kindly old doctor who has raised over $18 million in private contributions from real people outside his campaign, as opposed to his opponents, who are competent dastardly enough to organize fund raising events on their own.

For those of you who don't feel like watching, here's the cliff notes version:

  1. Ron Paul: sometimes people give him money
  2. When asked simple questions, he replies with grandstanding rhetoric about the Constitution
  3. His opponents say he's radical because he has strange ideas and refuses to explain how they're supposed to work
  4. Ron Paul has a hot line to the Founding Fathers and they explain to him exactly what they meant
  5. Ron Paul doesn't want to destroy public education, he just wants to completely dismantle the existing system instead of fixing the broken parts
  6. Did I mention only Ron Paul understands the Constitution? (bad photoshop of Constitution on fire)
  7. Ron Paul is only out of the mainstream because a majority of Americans don't agree with his rigid originalist interpretation of the Constitution (photo of kitten playing in snow for some reason?)
  8. If you don't agree with Ron Paul, you are a slave to corporate interests
  9. Photo of snarling bear, same one Colbert always uses I think
  10. Contrary to available evidence, all government programs are failing
  11. If you don't vote for Ron Paul, you make Benjamin Franklin sad
  12. Ron Paul loves to vote 'no' because it makes him feel special
  13. Just in case I haven't mentioned it, only Ron Paul understands the Constitution
  14. Ron Paul disagrees with everyone because he can
  15. Other Congressmen are jerks
  16. Other candidates are corporate puppets
  17. Ron Paul is the entire Constitutional Convention, somehow
  18. Ron Paul really likes the Constitution
  19. Crappy echo effect on closing statements
Actual user comment from Konnin19: "If it wasn't for the fact that the Jews own CNN,just like over 90% of the media,they would put it on. I mean why wouldnt they?"

My final summary: this video is confusing, abrasive, and not particularly interesting. It's not gonna win anyone new over to the cause, but it pays nice lip service to existing Paulites who think they've got the inside track on an exciting new movement and has quite a few unintentional laughs.


Tuesday, December 25, 2007

Ron Paul clarifies his positions on Church and State

Ron Paul, the OB/GYN who recently flip flopped on evolution, has recently solidified his position on the role of religion in government. In case you aren't sure, he's in favor of it. This comes from Kade, a senior member from the Ron Paul Forums, who writes the following:

Official Campaign Message to Facebook Users:

What role should the personal faith of a President play in his/her decision-making?

Ron Paul

Position: It should play a strong role

"Like the Founding Fathers, the core of my political philosophy is grounded in the knowledge that rights come from the Creator, not the government. Since rights do not come from the gov't, the gov't cannot violate those rights. Religion has a very important role to play in a limited gov't philosophy."
Ron Paul's basic point seems to be that the will of God should trump the will of government. The difference is this: We have people who can speak on behalf of government, and who can hold government accountable. Who gets to speak on behalf of God? Who holds God accountable? Jesus? The Pope? Ron Paul himself? I, for one, see absolutely no room for abuse from this guiding ideology.

Kade goes on to say that he has written several candidates about their views on atheists in the government. Barack Obama, John McCain, Dennis Kucinich, and Rudy Giuliani have all sent letters, and Barack Obama even went so far as to send him a personal reply. But no letter from Ron Paul. This should come as no surprise to anyone who read up on Ron Shank's attempt to get an honest response on Ron Paul's views on evolution.

Needless to say, the Ron Paul Internet Gestapo hasn't responded very well to this posting, where you now need to enter a password just to access it. Fortunately, you can still find it on Google Cache, although I have no idea for how long. A screen shot of the posting can be found below.

Merry Christmas, from Ron Paul

Monday, December 24, 2007

Ron Paul is Unhappy with the Constitution

This one comes from Talking Points Memo. It's a mailer that's being sent out by the Ron Paul Campaign, detailing his six-point plan involving immigration. One of my friends saw this and responded by saying, "It took me a while to realize that this was supposed to make me want to vote for Ron Paul."

Ron Paul would like to make it clear that he will put an end to birthright citizenship. Somewhere out there, Dred Scott is rolling over in his grave. We live in a country where if you're born here, then you're a citizen, period. It doesn't matter who your parents are, it's not like you had much control over who your parents were anyway. You don't get to go around changing the rules just because it's a race of people who you don't like.

Ron Paul Flip Flops on Evolution

It turns out that despite being a medical doctor for the past forty years, Ron Paul does not accept the theory of evolution. Ron Paul made this revelation at a rally last November, which can now be found on youtube:

This is a drastic flip flop from last May, when all the republican candidates were asked for their views on the subject. Just so that there was no room for confusion, a blogger by the name of Ron Shank even wrote into the Ron Paul campaign, and received the following response:

Ron Paul did not raise his hand during that question, it was Tancredo, Huckabee & Brownback who raised their hands. Dr. Paul is physician and believes in evolution.
Apparently, we can't really trust Ron Paul on the subject of medical science, or frankly, any science at all. We can't trust Ron Paul to place empirical evidence and observation over basic ideology. We also can't trust Ron Paul to support the separation of church and state, and to keep his religion views out of science class. But apparently, we can't even trust Ron Paul to be honest about what Ron Paul actually believes, nor can we trust his campaign when asked point blank about it.

Which only begs the question. What can we trust Ron Paul on?

Ron Paul Endorsed by Lifeguard, Wrestler, and Football Tackler

Has anyone had a chance to visit Ron Paul's list of endorsements? Pretty funny stuff. Basic rundown: "Academics & Education" composed almost entirely of people in the field of economics, most of whom seem to be members of the academically unsound Austrian School, none of them seem to have any notable awards or achievements listed next to their names.

The "Authors & Media" section is composed almost entirely of bloggers, and authors of obscure anti-government textbooks that no one in the mainstream cares about. Two highlights include Peter Allison, "homeschooling father of 7," and Karen Kay, "Historical Romance Author."

The "Celebrities & Entertainers" section features such astute minds as Donna D'Errico, "Actress," Glenn Jacobs, "World Wrestling Entertainment superstar," and Todd Wade, "Starting Tackle, Washington Redskins."

The entire purpose of an endorsement is to convince people that if such and such person supports a certain candidate, then you should support that candidate as well. Apparently, not only are these endorsements the best that Ron Paul could do, but they're also endorsements that Ron Paul is proud of, at least enough to put them on his website. Who wants to bet that the Ron Paul supporters will start crying media blackout over the fact that Todd Wade's endorsement somehow didn't make it to the front page?

White People Love Ron Paul

The Ron Paul supporters keep droning on and on about Ron Paul's donations, and how those donations come from "regular people." But which people in particular are donating to his campaign? Jason Rosenbaum of The Seminal does the work in a piece entitled, "Ron Paul Means Change, But Who Benefits?" Jason provides an analysis of Ron Paul's economic policy, then breaks down Ron Paul's donors by geography. As the old saying goes, a picture is worth a thousand words.

This latest revelation only rubs more salt in the wound when you look at one of Ron Paul's next upcoming fund raisers, "Free At Last, 2008." An event where Ron Paul supporters plan to honor Martin Luther King by donating money to Ron Paul.

Ron Paul appears on "Meet the Press"

The liberal media conspires makes another strike against Ron Paul. This time, they've chosen to silence him by giving only one episode of "Meet the Press" rather than an entire month. The video is available online, as well as a transcript for people who don't feel like sitting through the entire interview.

In a nutshell: Ron Paul continues to advocate his magical taxation system without addressing any of the criticisms. Pork barrel libertarianism isn't hypocritical if your constituents really, really want them. You're not a hypocrite if you demand mandatory term limits to thwart the wills of voters and politicians, as long as you don't encourage voluntary term limits where you choose to resign on your own. The civil war was an evil plot by Lincoln to destroy the original intent of the public. Ron Paul doesn't believe in ghostwriters when Sinclair Lewis does it.

Missing from the interview are any news stories regarding Ron Paul's recent scandals involving his connections to white supremacists.

Not surprisingly, the Ron Paul martyrs of the internet are already on youtube crying persecution over the fact that there are journalists who are actually willing to take Ron Paul seriously enough to ask him some serious questions, rather than simply taking Ron Paul at his word.

Saturday, December 22, 2007

Ron Paul supporters go from being shameless to shameful

For some reason, the Ron Paul Supporters just love to rig polls in their attempt to declare an early victory. It's pretty simple. The RPS enjoy polls that are easy to manipulate, like straw polls and online polls, and they resent polls that are hard to manipulate, scientific random sampling. Their attempts to dismiss more traditional polls are dubious at best. For instance, they'll often rationalize that modern phone polls don't account for cell phones (they do), that cell phone users represent a huge segment of the population (they don't), and that the political views of cell phone users are different enough to represent a sound victory for Ron Paul (they aren't).

Last October, the RPS cried media conspiracy when CNBC took down an online poll, insisting that CNBC was doing their best to silence the majority. In response, Allen Wastler, Managing Editor, explained that their webmasters aren't idiots, and that poll manipulation can be proven by examining the survey logs. Surprisingly, it turns out that the vast majority of people who participated in their polls were linked there directly via a Ron Paul spam site.

It appears that RPS are finally starting to cover their tracts. A blog post by LGF shows that the RPS are now replying on using broken links, which can't be traced. (I don't really enjoy link to LFG, but it appears that the Ron Paul Forums have since modified their initial post in response to being outted). In fact, the Ron Paul supporters have even created an official database of online polls, which now launders their links through "" To a website manager, that's roughly the equivalent of trying to conceal a package of Steve Martin's All-Natural Penis Cream by shipping it in a plain brown wrapper with the words "Not Penis Cream" stamped all over it in big red letters.

Guys, the problem people have is that you rig polls, and not that you get caught rigging polls. The solution here isn't to be more sneaky about it, the solution is that you stop doing it altogether.

AFL-CIO: Ron Paul Crosses Writers’ Picket Line

If there's one thing that Ron Paul Supporters enjoy, it's posting youtube interviews of their favorite guy. Even if it means that their favorite guy has to be a union scab. According Seth Michaels of the AFL-CIO, Ron Paul is the first (and, currently, the only) candidate to cross picket lines regarding the writers strike, by making an appearance on "The View." A show that several other candidates had been scheduled to appear on as well, but chose not to, out of respect for the writers.

Thanks, Ron. It's bad enough that you're a scab, but seeing your supporters spam the AFL-CIO webpage in response only rubs salt in the wound. Do they honestly think that that union activists will suddenly oppose unions just because a Ron Paul supporter told them to?

One thing that I find amusing about Ron Paul supporters is how quick they are to dismiss the idea of "the ends justify the means," except, of course, when they do it. Get them on a discussion about FEMA or Universal Healthcare or the Civil Rights Act, and you hear them rant about how absolute property rights trump everything, and we shouldn't violate that even if it leads to good ends. Get them on a discussion of Ron Paul being a union scab, and they'll sing a different tune about how Ron Paul needs the publicity, so it's okay.

(Photo on left was taken from

Washington Post does Fact Checking on Ron Paul's IRS Policy

One of the main reasons that people support Ron Paul is because of his promises to cut taxes. "We could completely eliminate that IRS," they promise, "We just need to go back to 2000 spending levels." A bold claim. An appealing claim. But is it true? Michael Dobbs of the Washington Post does the fact checking, and gives Four Pinocchios for Ron Paul:

This seemed too good to be true, and it was. Without the revenues from individual income tax, the federal budget would shrink to the size it was in the early 1990s, not the year 2000. The discretionary share of the federal budget--the money the government spends on defense, the federal bureaucracy, the environment, education, and health--would dwindle to zero. All remaining federal revenues would be earmarked for mandatory entitlement spending such as social security--which Paul has said he would not touch--and interest on debt.
Remember, kids, there's no such thing as a free lunch.

Introduction - The Ron Paul Infection

The 21st marked a new revival in the zombie genre. "Resident Evil," "Dawn of the Dead," "Shaun of the Dead," and "28 Days Later" all became instant hits. In these movies, you have perfectly normal people from all walks of life, dealing with an abnormal situation. The zombies are never very smart, and they're rarely very strong. But they are persistence. And what they lack in smarts, they more than make up for in their numbers.

I think that there's a good reason why we saw the resurgence in zombie movies. It was in anticipation of Ron Paul. Is anyone else tired of seeing them spam every product review and youtube video they can with endorsements of Ron Paul? Is anyone else tired of seeing them attempt to invalidate every online poll they can find? Is anyone else tired of hearing them brag about how much money they raised on a single day, or how they "won" some no-name straw poll that no one cares about? Is anyone else tired of hearing their conspiracy theories on the non-existent North American Union, or how there's a media conspiracy to keep the latest straw poll that no one cares about off the front page of the New York Times? Is anyone tired of seeing them vandalizing public and private property? Of course you are. Or you wouldn't be here.

This blog is for people who need a safe haven from the zombie hoard. This is a blog for people who need to see a little sanity and reason back in their lives. It's also a place where we can plan out our strategies on how to deal with the zombie menace. In nearly every zombie movie, there comes a point where the heroes realize that running and hiding is not enough. Eventually, they need to reclaim the world that was once taken away from them. And that's what we're going to do here.

To the Ron Paul Supporters of the internet: Send your thugs elsewhere. The entire reason we created this site was to get away from people like you. There is no magic youtube video that will win us over to your side. There is no magic conspiracy theory that will convert us to the church of Paul. Chances are that anything you have to say, we've already heard it. The more you attempt to annoy us, the more you prove our case.