Posted under Ron Paul
David Weigel must be enjoying his moment back from JournoList exile. No doubt he was excited to tell his family and friends he was on the Rachel Maddow show the other night and tell them the New York Times cited his article. Don’t believe me? Read for yourself:
“The New York Times finally does a big take-out on Ron Paul’s ties to the seamier* sides of the conservative movement. No disrespect intended, but… well, what took so long? Here’s one of the key points in the story, explaining why Ron Paul’s allies thought they should go after racists and convert them to the cause…This is new to the Paper of Record, but Julian Sanchez and I wrote about this — these two exact essays…Why has it taken four years for these public domain facts to become “news”?
Weigel has complex relationship with Ron Paul (I was going to use tortured but that might be too strong.) I think he likes Paul, said he supportive of him back in 2008. But judging by his recent writing in Slate, he also has the knife out ready stab Paul in the back to cover his own ass once again. But if he thinks this will absolve him from saying nice things about Paul over the years think again. He’ll be tarred and feathered one more time like it or not. We all know that’s how the race card is played inside the Beltway, especially by people who don’t like a particular person. Weigel survived one excommunication, can he survive two?
You know, it’s funny for a writer one who once worked at Reason not to realize libertarianism practiced right in front of your eyes. What did Ron Paul say in the last debate? “I don’t want to be a President who will run your life.” Ergo he’s going to be libertarian President. He doesn’t micromanage, he doesn’t look over people’s shoulder, he’s not a control freak. Is that poor management practice? I suppose from the perspective of journalists used to the “Imperial Presidency” it is. But it’s what makes Ron Paul, Ron Paul. He does, as what Paul Wellstone once said: “Try not to live your life separate from the words you speak.” And that’s how he’ll conduct himself as President. He won’t be in your living room every night. He won’t make news every day. Some days, you won’t notice he’s the President. And that’s exactly the idea. He’s a 21st Century Calvin Coolidge waiting to be elected. Because the only way to save the Constitution is to reign in the Executive Branch.
Now if one thinks that’s a disqualifier for the highest office in the land, it’s a fair argument. But that’s should be the argument, not whether Ron Paul is racist. If eve a little worm like Eric Dondero said he never wrote those words (“he was a figurehead”) in what was basically a fan club newsletter, then why are we arguing about words he never wrote and which already said he repudiated and took moral responsibility for? Why is this not enough? My guess is Weigel (and others too) want him to throw someone under the bus and blame him for all those words? But what would that solve and or prove? Nothing. Then he’d attack him for hanging around racists and “kooky” people as you usually Weigel often does in his writing. And what kind of a man takes responsibility and then blames someone else for his own lack of negligence? A typical politician that’s who (It was the staffer’s fault!). And people wonder why he has hardcore support.
This has nothing to do with race but everything to do with desperate opponents who the past four years never bothered with the “newsletters” until one day Paul was on top of an Iowa opinion poll. Now they want to say Iowa doesn’t count, just like they did with the Straw Poll. What are they going to say if he wins New Hampshire? Or South Carolina? They don’t count too? There’s no answer Ron Paul can give the media which is going to satisfy them. Weigel’s Reason story on the newsletters sat around for four years with neither himself, or anyone else for that matter, doing any new reporting. This only leads to one conclusion: Weigel had come to terms with Paul’s answer and pretty much like everyone else didn’t take Paul’s campaign seriously until this past month. Now it’s an issue. It wasn’t back when he was at five percent. Now he wants answers. Now he wants to play “journalist.” Too late pal.
mpresley on 27 Dec 2011 at 10:20 pm #
I am very interested in how Paul continues to not confront the issue. True that he did not “walk out” of the CNN interview as was first shown (great job of editing, CNN), yet Paul is demonstrating that he is unable to handle an hostile press very well.
On another (related?) note, Llewellyn Rockwell’s site is going out of its way trying to convince anyone who stops by that there are no “racists” at home, nor were any ever. In the meantime, the other candidates enjoy the spectacle, but always with one eye open to the possibility that this could be them if they make the “wrong” move. Lessons are being learned by all.
Very disheartening. It is about time that someone, anyone, on the Republican side started explicitly standing up for white interests. But they are all worthless, and none will do it. I tell you, before all of this is over we’ll see each and every Republican candidate paying homage to MLK at that recently erected Communist Chinese inspired DC monument, in a couple of weeks.
How anyone can take these people seriously is beyond me.
C Bowen on 27 Dec 2011 at 11:20 pm #
Because it’s about you, mpresley?
Supporting the invasion of Iraq, the starvation of Iraq, the second invasion of Iraq–that was a sin.
Supporting or looking the other way, the murders at Ruby Ridge, Waco–that was a sin.
Supporting the bankrupting of the nation to ensure an elite network remained in power–that was a sin.
Indelicate language is not a sin.
mpresley on 28 Dec 2011 at 1:40 am #
Mr. Bowen,
I am unsure what you are referring to. I do not think Mr. Paul supported any of those things you mention (although I have not heard his views on Ruby Ridge, but can guess).
Next, what is the indelicate language you refer to? The language in the newsletters? Paul now disavows them, if I understand his message.
Although what you mean is not clear to me, what is clear is that if one is to take Mr. Paul seriously, and if he is expects to progress politically, he ought to at least learn how to deal effectively with CNN reporters in a more compelling fashion, and learn to deal with his past. His demeanor in the matter does not inspire much confidence.
Aaron on 28 Dec 2011 at 5:44 am #
Did Weigel accuse Ron Paul of being racist? I thought he was one of those who didn’t. They’re all kind of blurring together.
The “moral responsibility” issue is relevant because even as Paul takes “moral responsibility” (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean), he continues to lie and withhold the truth. He did take moral responsibility in 1996, but now he’s changed his story and decided to take irresponsibility.
To the main point, though, of the relevance for a libertarian president: Whatever Ron Paul’s vision of the ideal, limited presidency, his presidency wouldn’t be anywhere near it. That’s simply because we’re not starting from anywhere near it. A president Ron Paul (yikes!) would be involved in managing crises and getting very involved in important, complicated problems that, ideally, a president shouldn’t have to worry about at all.
When it turns out that the president’s chief of staff (analogous to Rockwell) and high-level advisor (analogous to Rothbard) are running wild with an openly stated and explicit strategy that’s contrary (wink, wink) to the president’s own program and goals, then “I was busy” is not an excuse that will go over well.
In a sense, you’re right that the newsletters shouldn’t be important, if you consider Ron Paul a spokesman for libertarianism and nothing more. And that’s basically what he is, since of course he has no chance of winning. You can say, OK, he chose a reprehensible strategy back then to gain political power and money and he’s lying about it now, but he was probably never a bigot, and anyway it’s irrelevant to the libertarian ideology. But if you take him seriously as a candidate, then the newsletter thing is extremely relevant to his ability to serve as president.
Matt on 28 Dec 2011 at 6:21 am #
In the period of time since the newsletters ended, Newt has advocated for at least four entirely unnecessary wars. Gargle with that tonic if you find Paul’s judgment hard to swallow.
mpresley on 28 Dec 2011 at 11:28 am #
The despicable Gringrich has now called Paul a racist and anti-Semite in association with the newsletters. This demands a response, and it will be interesting to see whether Paul will stand up for the dispossessed majority, or simply shrug his shoulders, say he never wrote the articles, doesn’t know who did, and never read them.
It is becoming more and more a circus. Only Paul can stop it. But I really don’t think that he has thought any of it through, or if he has, he is not acting like it.
His supporters do not really care about it. But his supporters are not those he needs to convince if he is to win elections.
. on 28 Dec 2011 at 3:34 pm #
Speaking of Dondero Rittberg, he was recently spotted lying on CNN. Apparently he go interviewed about the newsletters and dissembled, claiming he is not working with any of the other campaigns for the Republican nomination. In fact, he has been gathering signatures for Perry and Romney in Indiana and Vermont. Worm indeed.
C Bowen on 28 Dec 2011 at 11:22 pm #
mpresley;
I was attempting to write a tactical response to your post, but further, I am at a loss to explain those in our ideological camp who are using these moments to talk about the things they wish for.
It’s right there–as good as it is going to get in 2011. I am going to focus–that is, post on comment boards, talk in person… on getting the outrage up over the various atrocities I have observed.
Get negatives up, and on this board, encourage the skeptics to not stand on the sideline with their grievances.