Sunday, January 13, 2008

Newsletter FAQ Updated Again

The newsletter FAQ has been updated again. It's late, so I'll proofread it later. The main change has been to include some articles from and Cato, which provide a wealth of references and opinions.

By the way, here's a flashback from Ron Paul's 12/23/07 interview on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: George Herbert Walker Bush, this is according to Ron Paul: "'Bush is a bum,' Paul wrote in" "November" 15th, "1992 issue of his newsletter, the `Ron Paul Political Report.'" And asked about the current President Bush, whether he voted for him in 2004: "Paul says no: `He misled us in 2000.'" Asked if he voted for Bush in 2000. No, "`I didn't vote for him then, either. I wasn't convinced he was a conservative.'" And actually, in 1987, you submitted a letter of resignation to the Republican Party: "I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card." If Reagan's a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, and you didn't vote for Bush 41--41's a bum and 43 you didn't vote for, and you resigned from the Republican Party, why you running as a Republican candidate for president?

REP. PAUL: Because I represent what Republicanism used to be. I represent the group that wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, the part, that part of the Republican Party that used to be non-interventionists overseas. That was the tradition, the Robert/Taft wing of the party. There was a time when the Republicans defended individual liberty and the Constitution and decreased spending. So the radicals, the ones who really don't belong in the Republican Party and why the Republican Party is shrinking, why the base is so small, is because they don't stand for these ideals any more. So I stand for the ideals of the Republican Party. I've been elected 10 times as Republican. I've been a Republican all my life except for that one year that I ran as a Libertarian. But, no, I represent the Republican ideals, I think, much more so that the individuals running for the party right now.

This was three weeks before the Kirchick story broke. Does anyone else notice how Ron Paul never denies Russert's reference to his newsletter?


You're WIth Me Leather said...

I did notice that. My guess is that he ran with it was because it was anti-bush. But y'know once the good stuff got out, it's a ghostwriter! Reason explained this position exactly, "Ron Paul wants to take the position that he wrote all the good stuff and the ghostwriter wrote the bad stuff."

FuckRonPaul said...

Your newsletter FAQ got a ringing endorsement:

It looks like this story's got legs - lots of blogs are still burning up, both on the left and the right.

I can't wait to see Ron Paul's next televised interview.

FuckRonPaul said...

Now this is an interesting development in the fallout from the Ron Paul Newsletters:

The cover story of the January/February issue of the New Individualist is out. The title?

The Abominable Dr. Paul.

Check out the cover picture!

So now you've got an Objectivist magazine criticizing the Objectivist Ron Paul.

What will Ron Paul's son, Rand - named after Ayn Rand - say when he sees this?