Rep. Ron Paul distanced himself from the ugly remarks in the newsletters published under his name. He says they don’t represent his views and, given that no one has ever reported hearing such ugly words from his own mouth, it seems reasonable to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. But what of the people who eagerly leap to the defense of the newsletter remarks themselves? They can support Ron Paul or they can support the racist remarks attributed to him. Ron made it clear that he thinks that they are indefensible. That should go for the person who wrote those hateful statements and the people who defend them, as well. Ron Paul, by the standards of Mr. Raimondo (“on closer examination, the material that is being called ‘racist’ turns out to be no such thing”), is an arch-evil “cosmotarian”:
“I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines,” he said, adding he wanted to “make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it’s obviously wrong.”
You put your finger on it, bro. Ron is a lot better than than the racist jerks over at LRC, Lew the worst among them. Why Ron sticks with people who embarrass him so much is hard to figure out.
Clearly you’re just shilling for the KochtopuSS….
I don’t think Paul takes racism and homophobia seriously enough, but he does have a pretty solid grasp on why they’re wrong. To actually defend the content of the offending newsletters as Raimondo does–or even to throw out that hoary “they’re just un-PC” pseudo-defense (“Are we not allowed to say what is [here, that blacks and Asians in DC are animals], or must fear reduce our language to strings of euphemism? Is every word to be examined and measured in terms of its political correctness quotient?”)–is to demonstrate that you can’t even fake your way through an opponent’s argument in good faith. Nor can he tackle the Confederacy issue in a non-cartoonish fashion (the CSA was to the USA as Poland and Estonia were to the USSR…it was really all about freedom from tyranny). Nor can Raimondo even build an affirmative argument that doesn’t look suspiciously like an anti-libertarian parody of libertarianism (“Culture of black entitlement”?).
I could go on. “King was indeed a philanderer of epic proportions….Why be prudish about it?” Dear god. But one last point: Someone who poses for his byline pic with a cigarette dangling from his mouth, yet sneers at Nick Gillespie for wearing a leather jacket, truly has no shame.
Speaking of having no shame: http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/020854.html
Way to “say what is,” James.
Sweet Jesus, Tom.
I would think you are smarter than this. MLK, Jr. is a commie traitor and hero? Pick one. And since it took so long for anyone to come clean about those letters, who’s to say we will ever know who penned them. There are textual analysts who can tell you. It sounds like you might be in a form of denial yourself.
I think Tom is being very smart about this. Ron Paul wrote or put his name to reprehensible things, but has never been quoted or recorded saying them. He goes on television to denouncess those things and says he did not say them. But Raimondo and Rockwell revel in them. So why does not Ron Paul denounce Raimondo and Rockwell? And why does he turn around and shill for the author of those statements, Rockwell, who was identified as the author by none other than Ron Paul himself? Curioser and curioser.