Dr. Paul Exonerated by Reason Magazine!

[tanverenzo]

EDIT--There is already another thread on this. Sorry about that.

 

[angelatc]

Exonerated is hardly a word I would use. He is still close to the people named. In the eyes of the detractors, that's a far cry from the implications that the person was fired when the words first came to light.

 

[torchbearer]

tolerance?

 

[jmc1144]

Exonerated is hardly a word I would use. He is still close to the people named. In the eyes of the detractors, that's a far cry from the implications that the person was fired when the words first came to light.

Yea Rockwell is still extremely close to Paul. To most people, that doesn't really look good if Rockwell was the racist author. Like Obama and Brezinski. How can you say Obama will change anything in our foreign policy when he's got someone like Zbig working as a foreign policy adviser for his campaign?

 

[tanverenzo]

Yea Rockwell is still extremely close to Paul. To most people, that doesn't really look good if Rockwell was the racist author. Like Obama and Brezinski. How can you say Obama will change anything in our foreign policy when he's got someone like Zbig working as a foreign policy adviser for his campaign?

This is a pretty good point, but I think the article address it well; most of the race-baiting was a paleoconservative fund-raising/galvanising ploy that has since been diminished by Dr. Paul's very own success.

 

[Xenophage]

Reason's motives for this are pretty clear: they're interested more in the preservation of the integrity of libertarianism by distancing it from any accusations of a racist agenda, than they are interested in Paul's bid for president.

I understand this position, but I don't think its necessary. Libertarianism itself, the entire philosophy, is a refutation of racism.

 

[Johncjackson]

Reason's motives for this are pretty clear: they're interested more in the preservation of the integrity of libertarianism by distancing it from any accusations of a racist agenda, than they are interested in Paul's bid for president.

I understand this position, but I don't think its necessary. Libertarianism itself, the entire philosophy, is a refutation of racism.

I agree, but if your "strategy"' is to appeal more to collectivist non-libertarians I think the perception changes.

 

[angelatc]

Reason's motives for this are pretty clear: they're interested more in the preservation of the integrity of libertarianism by distancing it from any accusations of a racist agenda, than they are interested in Paul's bid for president.

I understand this position, but I don't think its necessary. Libertarianism itself, the entire philosophy, is a refutation of racism.

That was pretty clear to me, when I was reading the material, that the text was mean spirited, dumbed down and rather "inciteful" to appeal to a certain subsection of readers.

I am standing behind Paul. But from a political perspective, this hardly undoes any damage, because like I said - "fired the staff writer immediately" is a long way from "is still in my inner circle."

The author could still fall on the grenade, but unless Congressman Paul can eventually claim righteous responsibility for changing the very thought processes of the mind that wrote that claptrap, this does nothing.

 

[fmontez]

I think it is pretty clear that Ron Paul didn't write the Newsletters (to RP supporters.) To non-supporters it is a bit more murky/muddy. I think RP's excuse that he didnt' pay attention from 1978 up through the late 90's is not reasonable. Heads need to roll, and Dr. Paul needs to be wielding the axe... even if that means exposing and denoucing his long time friends.

 

[angelatc]

But it is too late for that. You can't fire somebody for something that happened 20+ years ago, if you've known about it for those 20+ years.