David Frum hit piece on top on CNN

jonhowe

Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2007
Messages
1,820
Not sure if this has been posted, couldn't find it:

http x ://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/opinion/frum-ron-paul-newsletters/index.html?hpt=hp_bn9


Truly the most vile set of lies I've found yet:

"Paul now is gaining a larger following, especially among younger voters attracted by his message of drug legalization and his comprehensive -- if utterly wrong-headed -- explanation of the country's economic crisis."

"It's fair to say that almost no one who has followed the controversy believes that Paul is telling the truth about any of this. "

"Ron Paul is the Max Bialystock of monetary cranks -- and this latest presidential campaign represents the summit of his bunco artist career, his very own "Springtime for Hitler.""
 
David Frum is irreconcilable and completely dishonest without a shred of integrity....don't waste your time.

Many Republicans dislike him, including Glenn Beck. Brings a smile to my face when the neocons fight amongst themselves such as the Beck/Frum feud.
 
Last edited:
This is getting sad, CNN is throwing everything they can at Ron Paul and he's smacking it out the park every single time. There is no stopping this man.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win - Ghandi".
 
Send him back to Canada where he came from. On second thought...we don't want him back. Please keep him.
 
This is getting sad, CNN is throwing everything they can at Ron Paul and he's smacking it out the park every single time. There is no stopping this man.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win - Ghandi".

I love that quote! We are definately in step three. Now let's get to four!
 
Hmm, could backfire and help us with the GOP vote. They cannot stand Frum. And I don't blame them at all.
 
CNNOpinion - Ron Paul: Codger, crank or more

I'm not sure what's up with CNN, but they definitely dislike Ron Paul.

They just published a completely scathing article entitled "Ron Paul: Codger, crank or more?" that's not even worth a partial cut and paste for this forum.

If the article had truth to it I could handle it, but it's so blatantly biased that I think that a three year old could see through it.

I think that they must be looking for hits to their website. Should I link to it? I guess so, but I wish that I could completely ignore such unprofessional "reporting."
h ttp://www.cnn.com/2011/12/26/opinion/frum-ron-paul-newsletters/index.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ugh, my dad just emailed me this link this morning. This scandal is really effecting him. There is no chance I can bring him over to Ron Paul at this point unfortunately.
 
Ugh, my dad just emailed me this link this morning. This scandal is really effecting him. There is no chance I can bring him over to Ron Paul at this point unfortunately.

Be patient. The race will come down to Flopney vs Paul.

Many people are willing to come to terms with all kinds of things including Newt loving FDR. Most voters still think in terms of lesser of two evils. They don't expect candidates to be perfect. Just win the battle of RP being the lesser of all evils.
 
So, I wonder how explains his steady rise in both state and national polls??? I mean "nobody believes him" ,right?
 
This^anyone who believes in any of this shit was probably not reachable to begin with.

And I disagree that its affecting him-he's still rising in the polls, after this "scandal" broke.

Well, the issue is that Herman Cain was still rising in the polls after his issues, as was Newt, but as somebody around here said it usually takes about 2-weeks for the polls to start really showing how news will affect(or effect?) somebody.
 
Home for Christmas, my old school WWII generation Italian family members are completely against Paul and believe me there is no arguing or persuading them, they are adamently anti-Paul...they don't want hear it...he's too old and he is not going to get the nomination, and if he runs third party he'll be a spoiler....and they hate Obama. Oh well.
 
"Ron Paul is the Max Bialystock of monetary cranks -- and this latest presidential campaign represents the summit of his bunco artist career, his very own "Springtime for Hitler.""

This line is particularly disgusting. These so called intellectuals are anything but; they whip up people's emotions and use hyperbole to advance their ideas, all the while ignoring the facts and reality.
 
Well, the issue is that Herman Cain was still rising in the polls after his issues, as was Newt, but as somebody around here said it usually takes about 2-weeks for the polls to start really showing how news will affect(or effect?) somebody.

I can't believe that you are going to compare this non- issue smear of Dr. Paul to those two adulterers who have no principles. Have some common sense man and learn to differentiate between apples and oranges which in this case would be cheating on their wives by the establishment puppets as compared to something the good doctor did not even write. And who is this somebody that you speak of in your post? Typical corporate lamestream "media" tactic of as "some say" etc..
 
Ron Paul: Codger, crank or more?

Ron Paul: Codger, crank or more?
By David Frum, CNN Contributor
December 26, 2011 -- Updated 1617 GMT (0017 HKT)
hxxp://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/26/opinion/frum-ron-paul-newsletters/index.html?hpt=hp_c2

111220021730-am-ron-paul-rise-polls-00001107-story-top.jpg


David Frum says there's more to Ron Paul than the image he projects of being a codger willing to speak out candidly.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS
David Frum says Ron Paul is riding high in GOP polls
He says Paul benefits from an image of being a codger unafraid to say what he thinks
Frum says racist remarks in Paul's newsletters belie the benign image he projects
He says Paul has peddled extreme views for his personal benefit

Editor's note: David Frum, a CNN contributor, was a special assistant to President George W. Bush from 2001 to 2002. He is the author of six books, including "Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again," and is the editor of FrumForum.
Washington (CNN) -- Texas congressman Ron Paul now leads among Iowa Republicans and has tied Newt Gingrich for second in New Hampshire. Republican conservatives have cycled through a series of "Not Mitts." Is it now Paul's turn?
Paul's core following has been small but fervid. However, Paul now is gaining a larger following, especially among younger voters attracted by his message of drug legalization and his comprehensive -- if utterly wrong-headed -- explanation of the country's economic crisis.
Unexpectedly, young voters seem also to appreciate Paul's grandfatherly anti-charisma: his self-presentation as a good-natured old codger, charmingly baffled by the modern world. The ill-fitting suits, the quavering voice and the slack-jawed laugh all support the image of an anti-politician, the lone voice of integrity in a sullied word.

There is however a flaw in this benign image of Paul: the now-notorious newsletters published under his name in the early 1990s. Paul collected nearly a million dollars in one year from newsletters suffused with paranoia, racial bigotry and support for the period's violent militia movements. Four years ago, Jamie Kirchick of the New Republic unearthed partial collections of the newsletters in the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. From Kirchick's subsequent report:
"Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. 'Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began,' read one typical passage.
"According to the newsletter, the looting 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.' "

There's a lot more in this vein.
Paul now claims that he did not write the newsletters, was unaware of their contents at the time and now has no idea who did write them.
It's fair to say that almost no one who has followed the controversy believes that Paul is telling the truth about any of this. The authorship of the newsletters is an open secret in the libertarian world: they were produced by a community of writers led by Paul aides Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, who wrote a newsletter of their own at the same time that expressed similar ideas in similar language. The racism of the newsletters -- and the elaborate lying subsequently deployed to evade responsibility for the newsletters -- say much about the ethics of Paul himself and the circle around him.
Yet Ron Paul is something more (or less) than a racist crank. As Michael Brendan Dougherty aptly observed in the Atlantic last week:
"As crazy as it sounds, Ron Paul's newsletter writers may not have been sincerely racist at all. They actually thought appearing to be racist was a good political strategy in the 1990s. After that strategy yielded almost nothing -- it was abandoned by Paul's admirers."
A fellow libertarian offers more detail on Paul's racism-as-strategy. Paul and his circle aspired "to create a libertarian-conservative fusion ... [by] appealing to the worst instincts of working/middle class conservative whites by creating the only anti-left fusion possible with the demise of socialism: one built on cultural issues. ... [The strategy] apparently made some folks (such as Rockwell and Paul) pretty rich selling newsletters predicting the collapse of Western civilization at the hands of the blacks, gays, and multiculturalists. The explicit strategy was abandoned by around the turn of the century, but not after a lot of bad stuff had been written in all kinds of places."
Don't get the idea, however, that racism-as-strategy was some brief, futile dead-end for Paul. Paul exploited bigotry throughout his career, before as well as after the newsletter years. As Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez reported in the libertarian magazine Reason, "Cato Institute President Ed Crane told Reason he recalls a conversation from some time in the late 1980s in which Paul claimed that his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for The Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto until it folded in 2001."
Crane is the president of the premier institution in the libertarian world. If his recollection is correct, Paul was appealing to consumers of Holocaust denial for political purposes half a decade before the newsletters commenced.
Nor is it wholly accurate to describe Paul's strategy of appealing to the extremes as "abandoned." Ron Paul delivered the keynote address to the John Birch Society as recently as the summer of 2009. He is a frequent guest on the Alex Jones radio program, the central station for 9/11 Trutherism. As I can attest first-hand, anybody who writes negatively about Paul will see his email inbox fill rapidly with anti-Semitic diatribes.
Not all the "bad stuff" of Ron Paul's newsletter period was racist, exactly. Some of it was just general-purpose paranoia, designed to trick money out of the pockets of the fearful and gullible. Reuters has unearthed an example of a solicitation letter for the Ron Paul newsletters:
The solicitation warns of the coming danger of "new money":
"I uncovered the New Money plans in my last term in the US Congress, and I held the ugly new bills in my hands. I can tell you - they made my skin crawl!
"These totalitarian bills were tinted pink and blue and brown, and blighted with holograms, diffraction gratings, metal and plastic threads, and chemical alarms. It wasn't money for a free people. It was a portable inquisition, a paper 'third degree' to allow the feds to keep track of American cash, and American citizens."
[In an e-mail to CNN, Paul's campaign chairman Jesse Benton said, "Dr. Paul did not write that solicitation and the signature is an auto pen. It does not reflect his thoughts and is out of step with the message he has espoused for 40 years." He added, "He should have better policed it and... he has assumed responsibility and apologized."]
The daffy old coot side of Ron Paul's personality is genuine enough. The crank side is certainly genuine, as are at least some of the racial views. Even after Paul abandoned the crude race-baiting of his 1990s newsletters, he continued to engage in elaborate apologetics for the Confederate side of the Civil War.
Also genuine, however, is the huckster aspect of the Ron Paul persona. That's the persona that terrifies people who had never before heard of "diffraction grating" that the government might use this optical scanning technology, which can detect counterfeiting, to wiretap their wallets.
Ron Paul's admirers see him as a man of integrity. They are tragically mistaken about that. Despite his too-dotty-to-lie persona, Ron Paul is not in fact on the level. In evading responsibility for his newsletters, Paul has replied "I don't know" and "I don't remember" to queries whose answers he must know and surely remembers. The back story of the newsletters shows a man who, sufficiently saturated in racism and extremism himself, was ready to exploit the even greater racism and extremism of others for financial gain. Ron Paul is the Max Bialystock of monetary cranks -- and this latest presidential campaign represents the summit of his bunco artist career, his very own "Springtime for Hitler."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top