13 Responses to “1 800 Ron Paul?”

1. Fritz Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 12:43 pm

   You can stop someone from creating a 1800 number, just because? Wow, I better find out who has my name in numbers and tell them to stop. Grow up, already. OK Ron Paul let it happen, he admits that. Can somebody focus on something important? Are you all trained to focus on the mundane through the Britney and OJ Simpson conditioning? If I didn’t know better, I’d think that the absolute most heinous thing anyone can be is potentially, with no evidence, politically incorrect in regards to talking about minorities, maybe but it’s been explained. A whole nation of children, please don’t vote for Ron Paul, I would hate to think he attracts the lamest of our once great nation.

2. Michael Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 12:50 pm

   So, you are saying Ron Paul (or anyone for that matter) with that deep hatred/anger towards those listed in those newsletters has been able to keep it from coming out of his mouth for the 40+ years he has been in public life?!

   Look at the mans’ record… He does not waiver on anything he believes in!

   Dr. Paul says he didn’t write the articles and he doesn’t know who wrote them. He has MORE THAN EARNED the benefit of any doubt in this situation.

3. huckme Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

   oh joy! While we’re digging up dirt and deciding who shouldn’t be in office..
   http://therealmccain.com
   http://opposehuckabee.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

   There’s all those pics of the cross dressing Guiliani who profited from “9/11″ - definitely not somebody to be in the oval office.
   And there’s the chameleon Romney in ‘94 where he distanced himself from Reagan and suddenly now he’s the ultimate Reagan supporter? Can’t trust him.

   and the Dems aren’t much better.. maybe we’re supposed to just vote for “none of the above”? Or don’t vote at all?

4. huckme Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 1:02 pm

   oh joy! While we’re digging up dirt and deciding who shouldn’t be in office..
   http://therealmccain.com
   http://opposehuckabee.com/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page

   There’s all those pics of the cross dressing Guiliani who profited from “9/11″ - definitely not somebody to be in the oval office.
   And there’s the chameleon Romney in ‘94 where he distanced himself from Reagan and suddenly now he’s the ultimate Reagan supporter? Can’t trust him.

   and the Dems aren’t much better.. maybe we’re supposed to just vote for “none of the above”?

5. Kelly O Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 1:25 pm

   “…but what kind of guy allows somebody else to create a 1-800 number without his permission? How could he just let this go on?”

   Why not ask this question: What kind of guy allows someone to raise money to fly a blimp with their name on it for a few months.

   Or, what kind of guy allows people, unaffilliated with his campaign, to organize $6 million dollars of donations in one day?

   What kind of guy allows people around the world to organize Meetup groups - more than any other candidate?

   That kind of guy is Ron Paul. Ron Paul has an influence on a lot of people and, like the other candidate’s supporters, not all of them are good people. Yes, there are some racist Ron Paul supporters out there but Ron Paul has said many times that he will not “tell people what to do”.

   I agree with Michael that Ron Paul has earned the benefit of the doubt on this considering his consistent honesty.

6. Micah Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 2:15 pm

   Justin,

   I defend you when your point is worth defending, but you haven’t a defensible point here. As previous posters point out, no one can stop anyone else from getting a 1-800 number that happens to spell out your name (or dozens of other possible permutations).

   Having a little background knowledge here, the story is not as straight forward as many like to portray. Paul simply acquiesced to the wishes of some trusted advisors (admit it, Mr Rockwell) that they be able to use his name recognition to advance the cause. While Paul SHOULD have kept a closer eye on the goings-on in light of that, it hardly makes him responsible for the content. It would be fair to question his judgment in lending his name to a publication he didn’t intend to closely monitor, but it doesn’t imply complicity.

   I think you’re heart and head are generally in the right place, Justin. You are off base on this issue. It is certainly a real issue that must be dealt with, but we don’t need knee jerk reactions from intelligent people who don’t want to end up being called a racistj ust because they support a particular man (who also isn’t a racist).

   On the issue of judgment - while it might be a slight blemish on his otherwise impeccable record, it in no way comes close to the lack of judgment clearly on display amongst the other candidates. I am not happy about the newsletters, but it doesn’t do a thing to make him any less than the only candidate worth a classical limited government conservative’s vote.

7. Brad Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 3:38 pm

   I have lost much faith in the intellectual ability of many who call themselves journalists/bloggers this election cycle. Many have shown that they lack any objectivity and are easily led by the bridle of emotion. Few discuss action or event. Most involve themselves with hasty generalizations that allow for ill conclusion of what Ron Paul stands for. None seem up to the task of talking about his positions; just the extrapolated ideals in derogatory presentation or how some of his supporters are Zealots.

   Ron Paul has shown that he has Root Cause And Corrective Action Ability superior to his rivals. He is willing to talk with conviction about Reality and not shirk from substance on the tough issues. He does not change position in the political wind for convenience. His stands derive from the genuine want for the betterment of people world wide. He does not let Fear rule and does not succumb to Emotional Reflex.

   If “News” was more about Substance Over Symbolism and less filled with emotional detritus Ron Paul would be leading this race for the White House.

   Those who continue to ride the Racism Foolery have obviously not read the greater sum of Ron Paul’s essays, KNOWN to be of his own hand, or listened to the bulk of his speeches on the floor of congress. Petty circumstantial evidence should not out weigh greater example of views diametrically opposed to bigotry. Refuse to be simpletons.

   I vote for virtue; I vote for Ron Paul.

8. Brian Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 5:02 pm

   Man, is this completely laughable. Ron Paul has just proved that honest men aren’t allowed to run for office. Never-mind the landfill of feces that covers Rudy and Hillary, never-mind the rest of the candidates that have sold their souls to the globalists, nope, let’s nit-pick on a few newsletters that Paul’s constituents already knew, already been debunked and they have already re-elected Paul election after election after election.

   Here’s the real story that should give Paul supporters heart: Notice that Paul is still being attacked even after finishing low in NH after a satisfactory showing in IA. You’d think the MSM and the GOP elites would ignore him - but keep in mind that anywhere Paul places above last, is still a victory for him because he was supposedly written off at “2%.” Paul has more money and votes than Thompson and Giuliani, and it’s only a matter of time before Huckabee hits reality, and McCain and Romney fight each other to the death. Paul will go the distance, he’s a former high school track state champion, so he knows a thing or too about keeping pace, and add to the fact he can go independent and completely drive a stake through the RINOs that have taken over the GOP, and that’s why the GOP and their lapdogs at Faux News are scared s–tless.

9. Kevin Houston Says:
   January 11th, 2008 at 5:15 pm

   Please, please, please is it too much to ask that people actually read each piece before jumping to the conclusion that it’s all racist tripe. It’s not.

   Before you hang Dr. Paul, shouldn’t you look at each piece yourself instead of taking TNR’s word for it?

   Here are the first two:

   Let’s look at the “kind words for David Duke” .pdf that TNR is promulgating.

   ——–Begin Quote—-
   The Duke’s Victory
   David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race in Louisiana, 60% of the white vote and 9% of the black vote!. This totaled 100,000 more votes than the current governor when he won.

   Duke lost the election, but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment. If the official Republican hadn’t been ordered to drop out, he might have won. Certainly there would have been a run-off.

   Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotas, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight, we concede the election”, he said. “But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans.”

   To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. and if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.

   Liberals like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post say he got so many votes because Louisianians were rascists and ignorant. Baloney.

   David Broder, also of the Post and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject , had it right: “No one wants to talk about [race] publicly, but if you ask any campaign consulltant of pollster privately, you can confirm the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle-class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative action programs.”

   Liberals are notoriously blind to the sociological effects of their own programs. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are there waiting in the wings without such a taint.

   ——End Quote——–

   Can someone please point to any support for David Duke’s racism? The part where the author (whoever he is) said it seemed like common sense was attributed to the voters of Louisianna, not the author himself and was refering to the platform of tax cuts, and spending reductions.

   Here’s the “He called Dr. King a plagarist and a gay pedophile”

   It’s a report of the FBI file’s allegations of misconduct and the MSM’s charges of plagarism.

   You can argue that unsubstantiated charges like this should not have been printed, and I (and it seems even Ron Paul) will agree with you but it’s not racism on the author’s part, even if it is libelous.

   —–Begin Quote——–
   “Dr.” King
   So now even the establishment press admits that Martin Luther King plagiarized his PhD dissertation, his academic articles, his speeches, and his sermons.

   He was also a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.

   King, the FBI files show, was not only a world-class adulterer, he also seduced underage girls and boys. The Rev. Ralph David Abernathy revealed before his death that King had made a pass at him many years before.

   And we are supposed to honor this “Christian minister” and lying socialist satyr with a holiday that puts him on a par with George Washington?

   Congratulations to Arizona! Who could doubt that the result would be exactly the same if the other 49 states could also vote on a holiday for this affirmtive-action saint?

   ———End Quote——-

   Dr. King is not being shown in a poor light for his race, or ethnicity, but for the content of his character. This poor light is not reflected upon the civil rights movement, nor upon the idea that everyone is equal, but upon the effort to make MLK day a national holiday.

   I have not been throuugh the rest, but I bet the majority of them will similarly turn out to be completely overblown.

10. A Hole in Ron Paul’s Explanation of His Newsletters Says:
    January 11th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

    [...] notice that Donklephant is pointing out another chapter in the story: However, the story is growing because Polimom uncovers this pretty damning nugget within one of [...]

11. Paul Says:
    January 11th, 2008 at 8:16 pm

    That’s funny…up until now gross ignorance has been a pre-requiset to the oval office. Almost every President up to now has had an abundance of it. I also think that if that 1-800 # was in number form, you could apply for that number without the consent of Ron Paul. 1-800-766-7285. I’m sure that the suppliers of said number would not automatically think, “Hey, that spells Ron Paul.”
    Your assertions are just wrong. Those letters are old, theyv’e been hashed and re-hashed for over a decade, and yet each year Ron Paul is re-elected by a larger margin…he beat his last opponent by somewhere around 20%. His actions in everyday life absolutely DO NOT reflect the ideals printed in those letters, and that is where the proof lies. It’s what you DO.

12. Scott Says:
    January 11th, 2008 at 9:36 pm

    The insinuation that Paul did write any of these makes absolutely no sense. The “newsletter” was public, and if he really felt that way, there would be audio/video of him speaking these sentiments. There aren’t. What kind of person writes such derogatory remarks in a public newsletter, but speaks like a completely different (and consistent) person for his entire career? Logic proves that he did not write any of these.

    That said… it is unbelievable that people focus on writings, when the policies of most of the other candidates will directly result in the deaths of 100s of thousands of Arabs. Who are the real racists?

13. The Master Says:
    January 11th, 2008 at 9:38 pm

    Justin,

    You (and Polimom) find the use of 1-800-RON-PAUL to be highly significant–at least it seems to be disturbing you quite a bit. I’m not sure why. To me it suggests nothing more than an integrated Marketing machine, in this case one designed to sell newsletter subscriptions.

    I don’t know that this makes Ron Paul look any better. It suggests that he was a publisher (which is what he was, not the editor or necessarily the writer) of newsletters filled with bigotry and paranoid ravings. These newsletters were sold at least in part to a market segment where bigots and paranoids form a substantial part of the population. In that case, taking issue with the content at the time of publication might have cost the publisher subscriptions, and therefore revenue.

    Did he read the newsletters? Probably, at least once in a while. Did he know what was in them? Sure. Did he disagree with some of the content? Quite likely, IMHO. Was he motivated to do anything to tone the content down or moderate it? Nope.

    Far more damaging to Ron Paul, at least to me, is his 1996 declaration that he not only approved of the content of the newsletters but that he actually wrote them as well.

    “So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken “out of context” and proof of his opponent’s “race-baiting,” Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.”

    Either he was lying then, or he’s lying now, or both.

    Sigh. A politician who does disreputable things for the money and lies is nothing new of course, but for a politician whose message and support is based in part on being a man of principle, a man who will not pander for votes, well, that’s kind of like a preacher man being caught in bed with a 18 year old choir girl.

    Not a crime, but hardly an example of integrity and fidelity to expressed principles.

Leave a Reply

Related Posts:

• The “Ron Paul Realism” Posts
• Ron Paul Suspends Presidential Campaign
• Ron Paul Won’t Back McCain
• Ron Paul Documentary To Air On PBS
• So Ron Paul Won’t Make A 3rd Party Run, Eh?
• Ron Paul Event Moves To Bigger Venue
• Ron Paul Likes Obama?
• An Evangelical On Ron Paul
• Could Ron Paul Win 3rd In Iowa?
• Barack Obama, Ron Paul Lead Wikipedia Readership