More smearing of Paul as a bigot - this time from the left

[i2ambler]

Have you read the article in question? I personally saw no indication that the writing was by Paul. The style is completely different and very focused on people as groups, which is the anti-thesis to what Paul has been saying for decades. I also recall that the writing was analyzed by experts (in the 2001 article, I think) and found it to depart considerably from Paul's writing style.

The issue is no-win situation for Paul. He can either offer the real writer as a sacrificial lamb to the press and hope that that is the end of it, or he can keep to his principles and address the situation as he has been. Neither option will guarantee that the issue will be over, unless the writer him/herself comes out admitting to writing the article. But I doubt even that will prevent those keen on smearing Paul from using the article.

And, of course, addressing the article before absolutely necessary, will mean that it will be headline news the next day.

How about HQ coming out and saying 'ron paul did not write this article, it was written by a staffer named X" fixed.

 

[Vaughn]

yeah and Will Smith loves Hitler and Al Gore is homophobic
yawn

Why doesnt hq come out with something like that? lol

 

[all J's in IL for RP]

How about HQ coming out and saying 'ron paul did not write this article, it was written by a staffer named X" fixed.

From what I can tell, Ron doesn't want to drag an ex-employee through the mud for his own benifit. And besides, bringing the person forward would NOT stop the attacks. The NYT article already resolved the issue for those interested in the reality of the situation; those posting the same allegation are NOT interested in reality; only perception.

 

[PredatorOC]

How about HQ coming out and saying 'ron paul did not write this article, it was written by a staffer named X" fixed.

Because, apparently, Paul doesn't want to name the person. And I understand it, actually. It would have been fine 20 years ago, when this all took place. But now it will be national news and will probably destroy that persons life.

Also, I suspect HQ is waiting for it to be actual news. And a few blogs aren't big news. Consider what would have happened, if Paul would have held a press conference on the Bill White post; the 'news' reporters would have had legitimate reason to jump on it. Now when they tried to pass it off as news, it was easily shot down with the truth.

For some reason, the media outlets are still trying to hold on to some shred of journalistic integrity. I'm not sure why, since their bias is thinly veiled as it is.

 

[raiha]

Well they got one thing right...Huckfabee(knew there was an 'F' in there somewhere) is a sociopath!

 

[Billy Budd]

Ron Paul addressed this years ago. He said he did not write it but he takes moral responsibility for it. This was generally believed at the time because it wasn't Paul's style or writing or isn't something that he would say.

 

[Jeremiah]

Dr. Paul has taken moral responsibility for the article since it appeared in his newsletter, although I have yet to see the actual article. RP fired the author in question.

I have searched for the report on it in the 1996 Houston Chronicle but it isn't there. The only pieces I have seen keep repeating the same quotes over and over again. All the references link to the other references doing the same thing and the only original is the Houston Chronicle which does not have a listing of the article. Very strange. It originated during his run for the House and his opponent in that race, a trial lawyer, brought it up. RP's campaign manager was Jewish and he went to a meeting, wearing his yarmulke, with Charles "Lefty" Moore (I believe that was his name), the opponent, to tell him loudly he was way off base calling RP a white supremacist. I thought it made an interesting picture.

Of course it is all nonsense but rest assured it will keep popping up. I came across it in the comments on a Mother Jones article, The Apostles of Ron Paul. That is when I made the fruitless search. My own thinking is, the remarks are taken out of context, but I agree that the campaign should deal with it, just as they have done with the earmarks issue which is also going to keep coming up. Anything at all they can use to throw dirt will be used. Our guy is an easy target because his reputation is pristine. If they can hang anything on him it makes him look hypocritical, notwithstanding the less than sterling reputations of all the rest of the candidates. I keep focusing on the real issues and deal with them. I refer the mudslingers to the good doctor and tell them he will answer their accusations graciously and truthfully as he always does. "The more mud you throw, the more ground you lose".

 

[james1844]

Why should we be on the defensive here, we OWN the internet. Its our strength, so lets hit em hard with the facts.

Lets go the comments section, and post paul's denunciation of white supremacy:

http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/350/index.html

 

[Sgt Rock]

The Bitter 'Progressives'

I think it shows how desperate and angry the so-called ‘progressive’ wing of the Democratic Party is.

The Democrats promised to end the Iraq war and put the brakes on Bush’s assault on our liberties and didn’t do either.

The only Democrat who is clearly running on an anti-war platform is Kucinch and he is polling around 1%. Their frontrunners voted for the Iraq War and the Patriot Act, where as Ron Paul opposed both.

How embarrassing for the so-called ‘progressives’ and it shows by their smearing Ron Paul that they lack principles and would rather vote for a Democrat no matter what their views are on Iraq and our liberties.