the way i see it, the insecurities lie w/ the obama supporters who focus so much of their ire on paul, a candidate who better represents their core principals on a number of issues much better than obama does. its funny - i had friends who made fun of me for supporting paul in 2008 - they had bought into obama and had the stickers and the posters...but after 3 years of obama now they are paul supporters too, or at least receptive to what he says. obama has been a major disappointment to many liberals and people who thought we would get something different than bush III. many people who supported obama in 2008 will not be voting for him this year - its a problem and obama supporters know it. paul running as a 3rd party candidate is as much a threat to obama as it would be to romney, as he would siphon off a significant percentage of the youth vote and the more leftist liberals.
You're not the one spamming this thread trying to convince everyone that Ron Paul is going to win or that Ron Paul is going to collect 500 delegates or telling everyone about every appearance he makes. You're the reasonable Ron Paul supporter - I have no issues with you people like you. It's the other ones that make the whole Ron Paul contingent look bad - that's why I say ToyCen is arguably the worst possible representative he could have picked. He just finds every Ron Paul link he can and reposts it without fact checking or knowing anything about politics, as he's admitted. I agree - his goal is to get his views out there and accepted outside of the fringe. He didn't do it in 2008, but has become an important force in the 2012 campaign and the way candidates approach issues. I think he's a great minority voice in the GOP.
Except the problem is that he doesn't. Maybe on a few issues here and there like drug policy and foreign policy, but most liberals hate his overall vision of government. That's the nature of libertarians and why they are stuck as a minority party - elements of each side like a few things they believe, but can't get on board with the whole program. Liberals - and conservatives for that matter - never bring up Ron Paul. It's always in response to his supporters. At the end of the day, if some of his supporters weren't so obnoxious, no one would be talking about him outside of a few discussions on his views and his role in shaping the modern GOP. That would be great - because like the other candidates, we could then have a reasonable discussion on what he's brought to the table and the influence he's had. But instead, you have people who insist he's perfect and unlike everyone else and is the only candidate that can win and a bunch of other nonsense. And it all gets supported by Ron-Paul-fanatic spamming of online forums, polls and other things. It really wouldn't. There's a reason Ron Paul runs as a Republican and not a Democrat. He doesn't fit into the party very well, but he fits in far better there than with the Democrats. He's basically like a bad version of Dennis Kucinich on the left: Kucinich has all his views that appeal to the left (foreign policy, drugs, etc) but without all the things the left would hate. He'd certainly siphon off some of the vote, but at the end of the day, he'd take away more from the right than the left - it would open the door for Obama to win some states with 45% of the vote, which creates a much wider playing field for him.
Indeed, how could Ron possibly be accountable for what is in his personal newsletter composed in first person? It's amazing how naive Ron Paul supporters are -- he knew exactly what was going in those newsletters.
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/rGH77lZsglU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
So the "reality check" basically ended with "we don't know". RP's former secretary and current supporter says he knew and read each one. Other sources close to the campaign say he did it to attract the lunatic fringe (which appears to have worked) and spread his message. Ron Paul himself says he didn't write them, takes responsibility (whatever that means), but won't actually answer any questions about who wrote them or why he allowed it - which, if it's so innocent - could quickly put an end to all the discussion. "I take responsibility, but don't blame me. And I won't share what actually happened." THAT is the defense of Ron Paul? And that is the guy who's going to bring transparency and honesty to government?
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/6fw8_xvLj-4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
The Washington Post, not some fan run internet blog, did an interesting piece on the newsletters. In essence, Ron Paul isn't a racist at heart, but he was fully aware and signed off on every piece. Why? It was part of a greater strategy to spread his Libertarian views. Peppering the newsletter with outright racism and bigotry increased circulation.
My point is this: Paul takes the responsibility of these newsletters, despite not having written it, not knowing about it when they first came out, and clearly stating that these views are wrong. If he doesn't do it, didn't know about it, and states that it is wrong... how does that make him a racist? I think it means that he's human, and that he is not omnipresent/omniscient since he was working as a full time doctor (probably the hardest working people) and didn't necessarily have the time to focus on every single newsletter. Also, rather than judging a person by what he didn't do, or the accusation based on a incomplete evidence, I would choose to look at what they have done throughout their lives. <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8Rv0Z5SNrF4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> you can worry about what other people's views are and police them or you can actually do something about it in the real world. paul chose the latter and it is evident throughout his life.
That cynical mindset should automatically disqualify him in any rational discussion about who should be president
It was written in his name. And if he didn't, who did? As Pericles notes, the Washington Post disagrees. I once again mention the 1996 Houston Chronicle article when it was brought to his attention, and his spokesmen didn't deny it, and which I have linked to many times. The New Republic has at least 25 different newsletters with various insane crap. You're telling me Paul never got a single call from someone who said "Hey, your newsletters have a lot of racist stuff in them?" That he never went " Oh, hey, maybe I should take a look at that newsletter which I'm making money off of?" What has Paul actually done as a member of Congress that has helped to show the spread of his ideas? He's been there for over 20 years. He's had one bill proposed by him which has passed.
What exactly does taking responsibility entail, given that he doesn't want to be judged by them and refuses to answer any questions about them? I agree he didn't write it. All the evidence points to the fact that he did know about it and approve it. It doesn't. I don't think he's a racist. I think he's a typical politician / sleazy businessman that's willing to cater to racists and other fringe groups to make money and spread his other views. The point is that, if he'd just answer questions, we could have far more complete evidence. Simple question: for someone who claims to be all about openness and transparency, why won't he be open about this subject that has followed him around for a decade?
He holds responsibility for not paying attention to what was going on and he has said this on many occasions. If you are trying to say that he wrote them, not only do you not have ANY evidence of that, but it would fly in the face everything he has said and done throughout his life. No, he didn't. Go to 1:40, he clearly states they are business/investment newsletters. <iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eW755u5460A" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Taking responsibility is saying that it was wrong, not try to blame anyone else, and saying that he could have done better. He says this in a few of his interviews. What more do you want from a guy that didn't write it in the first place? Typical sleazy businessman/politician? LOL x LOL -He returns over $140,000 of his office budget back this year (and ~$400,000 in the last 4 years) to the US treasury because he believes in being frugal with the taxpayer's money. -he refuses to take part in the "immoral" pension system of those in washington -as president, he plans to take a salary of $39,336, which is approximately equal to the median personal income of the American worker -he lives in a house that's worth ~$300k. what a stark difference from the rest of the people who live in multi-million dollar homes. it's not because he can't afford it but more a matter of living a life that is parallel with his principles. Not getting things done in congress while he's there? for example when he's never voted for tax increase, yet the other politicians do it anyway. or when he says let's not raise our own salaries, instead we should cut them to send a message to the people that politicians are also making sacrifices, and he gets shot down by the other politicians? how can you blame the one guy that's trying to do the right thing but is overwhelmingly outnumbered by corrupt and selfish politicians?
Anybody who honestly thinks paul wrote their letters is honestly kidding themselves, the only candidate whose stood by the same principles for 20 years despite the political pressure wouldn't just throw that all away especially on some stupid newsletter.
I won't speak to the rest of the post, but I certainly agree with this. My fond hope is that Paul will eventually decide to run as an "independent," which would make him the Ralph Nadir of the Republican Party. Obama would win in a walk. Please do, Dr. Paul!!
Wait, you aren't electing him BECAUSE you want him to battle all those corrupt and sleazy politicians? Anyways, dealing with relevant politicians, I guess we can thank Palin for something after all.
Yes, he did know and if he says he didn't he is lying. From the Washington Post article percicles posted: “It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’
It is a matter of he said she said at this point because Paul flatly denies proofing it: <iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MGt5-LwiW_Q" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> To me, all of Paul's actions are proof enough that he isn't a racist and wouldn't willingly allow racist statements in a newsletter under his name. I think the people who insist Paul is a racist and/or that he approved the newsletters dislike him for his policies, not his character...
