To Ron Paul Apologists: Racism is Never OK

Ron Paul will not win the Republican nomination for president, though I think he'll launch a third-party run this year.

But his racism is not a disqualification for his candidacy in the Party.

The GOP candidates love racism as a tool, and they love their states' rights. [States' rights to take away a woman's right to choose; states' rights to gerrymand voting districts; states rights to obstruct voters, and so on.]

Paul's racism is a disqualification from the more civilized members of our community and Paul's apologists deserve a knock-down.

By Phil Scarr

Ta-Nehisi Coates takes Ron Paul to the woodshed over his position on the abolition of slavery. It’s a thing of beauty.

For those who don’t know, Ron Paul was not OK with freeing the slaves through the Civil War. It represented an illegitimate theft of private property from the southern plantation owners (property the rest of us casually refer to as “people”).

Here is Ron Paul speaking with Tim Russert and blaming the Civil War on Lincoln.

MR. RUSSERT: I was intrigued by your comments about Abe Lincoln. “According to Paul, Abe Lincoln should never have gone to war; there were better ways of getting rid of slavery.”

REP. PAUL: Absolutely. Six hundred thousand Americans died in a senseless civil war. No, he shouldn’t have gone, gone to war. He did this just to enhance and get rid of the original intent of the republic.

MR. RUSSERT: We’d still have slavery.

REP. PAUL: Oh come on, Tim. Slavery was phased out in every other country of the world. And the way I’m advising that it should have been done is do like the British empire did. You, you buy the slaves and release them. How much would that cost compared to killing 600,000 Americans and where it lingered for 100 years? I mean, the hatred and all that existed. So every other major country in the world got rid of slavery without a civil war. I mean, that doesn’t sound too radical to me. That sounds like a pretty reasonable approach.

Ta-Nehisi Coates points out the gaping flaw in Dr. Paul’s logic (the same Dr. Paul who thinks the gold standard is just ducky, he shouldn’t have to share a toilet with gay supporters and that the Federal Reserve should be abolished):

When Ron Paul claims that Lincoln “shouldn’t have gone to war,” he is deploying a convenient and erroneous frame which necessarily holds that the inciting aggression was not in raising an Army, seizing federal property and arms, urging revolution among ones neighbors, and then firing on a federal fort, but in democratically electing a president with whom slave-holders disagreed.

Throughout the War, Lincoln attempted to bring about a peaceful and magnanimous end. He pitched compensated emancipation, and was rebuffed, not by the Confederates, but by slave states still loyal to the Union. When Union armies brought states back under federal control he urged easy paths to regaining citizenship.

The racist states-rights advocates have been advancing the same, tired argument since 1865.

Some things never change.

Iowa Poll: It's Romney, Paul, Santorum, Gingrich, Perry and Bachmann

GOP - Angry, racist, and authoritarian

Update: Romney, Santorum and Paul Top the Pack: What the Iowa Caucuses Reveal About the GOP Base

Murderers’ Row this line-up of Republican liars, shills and whacks is not.

The 2012 Republican field is the weakest slate of candidates offered up for president by a major party in modern American, political history.

Des Moines Register’s latest Iowa Poll Results

Mitt Romney - 24 percent
Ron Paul - 22 percent
Rick Santorum - 15 percent
Newt Gingrich - 12 percent
Rick Perry -11 percent
Michele Bachmann - 7 percent

From the Des Moines Register

The Des Moines Register’s latest Iowa Poll shows a surprise three-way match-up in contention to win the Iowa Republican caucuses: Mitt Romney, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum.

Ron Paul in Shot with KKK Grand Wizard, NAZI, Stormfront Goes Viral

Ron Paul with former American Nazi, Current KKK Grand Wizard
and Stormfront.org webmaster - Shot at the at the Values Voter Presidential debate
in Fort Lauderdale on September 17, 2007.

As "Ron Paul tries to scare the crap out of Iowans about the UN takeover and riots in the streets over the emerging dictatorship in America" (TPM), comes this charming shot (to the right) from the Values Voter Presidential debate in Fort Lauderdale on September 17, 2007.

The keynote speaker to the 50th anniversary of the Appleton-based John Birch Society? (Steven Walters in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) Nice.

Publisher of the racist, and pathetically bigoted newsletters in which Ron Paul made $millions and tried to defend, and later attested he never read or approved, first reported by James Kirchick almost four years ago. Really nice.

Now, comes a shot (above) of Ron Paul pictured with former American Nazi Party member and the current KKK Grand Wizard and Stormfront.org webmaster, Don Black that is going viral.

Just maybe our neighbors to the Southwest have the wrong idea about Ron Paul. So Iowa, wise up.

And hey Paul, to win the GOP nomination or even the Iowa caucuses, you need to be subtly racist, not overtly racist.

Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters Costing Him—Again, with Assist from Wisconsin

Ron Paul - White and proud of it

In 2008 James Kirchick at The New Republic broke a disturbing expose about the anti-war, self-proclaimed libertarian candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Lake Jackson, Texas; 14th District), now for the first time leading polls for the GOP nomination for president in Iowa, and who has a plausible path to the 2012 GOP nomination, to the utter panic of many Republicans.

Kirchick, whom many regard as a neocon writer, took a lot of grief from the many, loyal pro-Ron Paul fans. [So did I for merely applauding Kirchick in a piece that drew a lot of hits at the site, Uppity Wisconsin.]

By Michael Leon

Some of the political commentariat point out that Paul received a lot of support from veterans in 2008, though Ron Paul 2012 does not list Veterans Benefits as an issue in his webpage, and his anti-government benefits ideology makes this writer dismiss him as a veterans' advocates.

What's ironic is that a fairly rightwing writer, James Kirchick, may be dooming Ron Paul again and some believe throwing away the GOP's last, best hope to defeat President Obama in a GOP field dominated by lightweights and to be candid: Whacks.

Paul, who has a distinguished record as a flight surgeon in the U.S. Air Force, also has a political past where he was the publisher of several racist, anti-Semitic newsletters uncovered by Kirchick who concludes, "Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing -- but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."

Ron Paul is a radical, a politician who in the words of Gary Weiss "is a true friend of the 1 percent" engaging in a campaign of phony populism. In fact, just months after Kirchick's 2008 blockbuster, Paul traveled to Wisconsin (Steven Walters in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) where it was reported the "(f)ormer Republican presidential candidate ... will keynote Saturday's session of the 50th anniversary of the Appleton-based John Birch Society." The John Birch Society, dating back to the 1950s, is infamous for its conspiracy-minded, anti-Semitic, and Joe McCarthy-supporting radicals.

From Jonathan Chait:

"As early as December 1989, a section of his Investment Letter, titled 'What To Expect for the 1990s,' predicted that 'Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities' because 'mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’' Two months later, a newsletter warned of 'The Coming Race War,' and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, 'If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.' In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, 'Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.' 'This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,' the newsletter predicted."

Below is a video from C-SPAN in which Paul discusses his newsletters [starting at the 1:40 mark] in which Paul, speaking in the first-person, ["I"], describes his racist nonsense as a business-investment, political-type of investment-monetary newsletter.

How panicked is the GOP? Here's some recent pieces indicating why even a nomination of Newt might bring Karl Rove and the Koch brothers better news than a potential Ron Paul nomination:

• Why Don’t Libertarians Care About Ron Paul’s Bigoted Newsletters? (Kirchick, The New Republic, 2011)
• How Ron Paul could give the GOP a heart attack (Kornacki, Salon)
• Grappling With Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters (Friedersdorf, The Atlantic)
• Ron Paul Gets Testy With Gloria Borger Over Questions on Racist Newsletters (Heather, Crooks and Liars)
• The Company Ron Paul Keeps (Kirchick, The Weekly Standard)
• News Bulletin: Ron Paul Is a Huge Racist (Chait, New York Magazine)
• Tim Carney's Preemptive Defense of Ron Paul (Goldberg, National Review)
• The Ron Paul Double Standard (Klein, Washington Examiner)

What did Kirchick expose in 2008 and for how long did this ugliness have Paul's assent?

Kirchick writes (Jan. 8, 2008):

Paul’s newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. ... What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. ...

[In a] special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, Kirchick cites:

According to the newsletter, the looting (1992 LA riot) was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with 'civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.' It also denounced 'the media' for believing that 'America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.'

And these beauties, noted by Kirchick:

• [L]iberals who “want to keep white America from taking action against black crime and welfare,” adding, “Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”
• One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives.
• While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled “The Duke’s Victory,” a newsletter celebrated Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Senate primary. “Duke lost the election,” it said, “but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment.”
• In an item titled, “The Pink House?” the author of a newsletter--again, presumably Paul--complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite “the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,” adding, “I miss the closet.”
• “The ACT-UP slogan, on stickers plastered all over Manhattan, is ‘Silence = Death.’ But shouldn’t it be ‘Sodomy = Death’?”
• His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called “Barbara Morondon,” Eleanor Holmes Norton is a “black pinko,” Donna Shalala is a “short lesbian,” Ron Brown is a “racial victimologist,” and Roberta Achtenberg, the first openly gay public official confirmed by the United States Senate, is a “far-left, normal-hating lesbian activist.” Maybe such outbursts mean Ron Paul really is a straight-talker. Or maybe they just mean he is a man filled with hate.

Kirchick must have had to research long hours to dig up these Ron Paul newsletters housed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison's State Historical Society [a state agency in itself), which maintains a very broad and deep collection of political material dedicated to preserving American history for the benefit of people of all states.

The Wisconsin State Historical Society has been collecting political newsletters and other material since 1849, the year after Wisconsin became a state.

At the very top of Rep. Paul's Congressional site, Paul quotes Frederic Bastiat, "Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all."

Right about now, Ron Paul likely wishes that preserving his racist tripe were not done at all.

Ron Paul explicit race-baiting

TNR's Kirchick Vindicated for Revealing Ron Paul's Racist Past

James Kirchick who wrote a piece in The New Republic in January knocking down the former candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul, as a bigoted nutbag has been vindicated.

Steven Walters in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reveals today that "(f)ormer Republican presidential candidate U.S. Rep. Ron Paul of Texas will keynote Saturday's session of the 50th anniversary of the Appleton-based John Birch Society."

The John Birch Society, dating back to the 1950s, is infamous for its conspiracy-minded, anti-Semitic, Joe McCarthy-supporting whacks.

Writes Kirchick in the January 8, 2008 The New Republic on Paul:

Finding ... (Ron Paul's) pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. ... (Ron Paul's) The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles 'Lefty' Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that 'if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,' and that black representative Barbara Jordan is 'the archetypical half-educated victimologist' whose 'race and sex protect her from criticism.'

New TNR Revelations on Ron Paul's Bigoted Newsletters

Too bad about Ron Paul. I liked his anti-war positions.

But the newest TNR revelations leave no doubt about the bigotry in his repulsive journals; it must be the issues that he never read, if we are to believe Paul's explanations.

If you have not read James Kirchick's first piece on the story, give it a look.

###

Wisconsin Historical Society Archives and Enterprising Writer Should Doom Ron Paul's Candidacy

James Kirchick at The New Republic has a disturbing piece about the anti-war libertarian candidate for president, Rep. Ron Paul

Kirchick has researched old Ron Paul political newsletters that contain blatantly racist tracts.

And the Wisconsin Historical Society, a repository for such political periodicals just may be responsible for putting an end to a candidacy that has been a thorn in the side of the pro-war GOP.

Writes Kirchick:

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society.

The racist nature of several pieces in the newsletters is obvious:

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism." At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

###

Is David Broder Capable of Being Substantial? No, That Is Why He Ignores Ron Paul

David Broder has never tried to hide his positive bias toward the Bush, Cheney, and Rove administration.

But Broder's bias extends to the GOP generally, and because it's difficult to manage regular, substantial plaudits for the Party, Broder does what he does best: Banal pandering.

Watching last week's CNN YouTube Debate while attempting to adopt the mindset of a Republican primary voter, the immigrant-bashing, war-mongering, hate-fest nature of the forum was impossible to miss.

John McCain and Mike Huckabee did come out with positions approaching rational and human concern for immigrants and their families, positions similar to the standard Democratic position.

Yet, for David Broder, only GOP candidates draw praise in taking rational positions contra the GOP. [In fairness to Broder, rational GOP positions do not often come.] Writes Broder:

What sets McCain and Huckabee apart is most evident in the way they treat the contentious issue of illegal immigration. ...

But, unlike the others, who seem to take their rhetorical cues from the rabidly anti-immigrant Tancredo, Huckabee and McCain always remember that those who struggle to reach the United States across the deserts or rivers of the Southwest are human beings drawn here by the promise of better lives for their families. ...

If the Republican Party really wanted to hold on to the White House in 2009, it's pretty clear what it would do. It would grit its teeth, swallow its doubts, and nominate a ticket of John McCain for president and Mike Huckabee for vice president -- and president-in-waiting. ...

McCain and Huckabee have been notable for their clarity, character and, yes, simple humanity.

So, does this clarity, character, and humanity apply to the Democratic candidates who have taken essentially the same positions (but less putative) as McCain and Huckabee on immigration? No.

Broder continues:

McCain is ... a principled battler for what he considers essential on Iraq and other national security issues.

McCain's position is that we should sacrifice more American soldiers in Iraq (though even the most dim of observers realize that the war was sold through lies), bankrupt our military's readiness, and begin a massive influx of new troops into the slaughter, a pro-war position that is supposed to appeal to the GOP primary voters.

McCain's pandering to the religious right is well known and merits no further comment, other than to ask Broder whether this is another demonstration of McCain's character.

McCain's principle is that he wants to be president. [Though he chastised Romney on torture at the debate, McCain also has caved in to Bush on torture last year, and besides shouldn't the not-torturing position be axiomatic, and GOP pro-torture positions be the subject of non-stop media and political condemnation?]

Broder says this of Huckabee: "His combination of religious principle, good humor, tolerance and clear passion on education and health care ...," blah blah blah.

Clear passion? Huckabee is against universal health care, and, whatever Broder thinks, Huckabee will not go down in history as the Education Governor.

Huckabee is a religious right zealot who does not believe in evolution, and these beliefs have propelled Huckabee to be the favorite to win the Iowa caucuses.

Broder then writes the following of Ron Paul (and other candidates):

" ... are exercising their lungs but running for exercise, happy to be part of the proceedings but with no hope of being nominated."

Broder, like the national GOP, is afraid of Rep. Ron Paul because of his libertarian, clear anti-war positions, his lack of cant, and criticism of Bush's lies on Iraq that has helped Paul raise millions of dollars in weeks in grassroots' contributions.

And Ron Paul's clarity has earned him the favored candidate status from veterans across the nation.

But for Broder, that will not win Ron Paul (or any Democratic presidential candidate) the praise of having "clarity, character and, yes, simple humanity."
###

Huckabee and Paul Impress, Romney and Thompson Flop in CNN/YouTube Debate

Update: For those of you not pretending to think like a Republican primary voter, Salon has two analyses, and here's Nichols' take:

- What you missed while watching "Chad Vader" by Michael Scherer

- The godawful GOP debate by Walter Shapiro

- Out-Tancredoing Tancredo at GOP's Anti-Immigrant Debate by John Nichols

As a libertarian liberal watching the GOP's CNN/YouTube debate trying to think as a Republican primary voter, here are some impressions:

Rudy Giuliani - Did nothing to hurt himself. Seems unafraid to take unpopular positions, but reeks of the City. Still standing after immigration grilling. Not great on today's Politico's Billing-the-city piece. Third place.

Mike Huckabee - Impressive, witty, and religious; appears in sharper command of issues than in previous weeks. Co-winner.

Rep. Duncan Hunter - Unremarkable

Sen. John McCain - Slow start, but took off after torture question and demonstrated the command and clarity that made McCain an early front-runner. Second place.

Rep. Ron Paul - Decisive, earnest, anti-war and pro-vet. This guy is popular with veterans and is raising one hell of a lot of money. And the Iraq War is not nearly as popular with GOP voters as many pretend. GOP better find a way to stop this guy. Co-winner.

Mitt Romney - Indecisive, insincere and slick; unsteady, especially on the gays-in-the-military and torture questions. Big loser.

Rep. Tom Tancredo - Unremarkable

Fred Thompson - Listless, uninspired, and fading fast. Big loser.

The first primary is weeks away. And debates, mini-scandals and talking heads now matter. Campaign operatives are losing hair, I assure you.

###