Obviously, this does not come as the horrifying shock that it did for those who were more supportive of Ron Paul's candidacy. At least to judge from the commenters who show up here, Ron Paul's primary appeal is "The 19th century: now with iPods and better health care!" So it's not exactly a stunning surprise to discover that his newsletter struck some of those notes in social chords as well.
For the record, I doubt that Ron Paul is the virulent racist who penned these little treasures. But who cares? At best, he is the kind of guy who maybe wouldn't say these things himself, but finds himself, half-ashamedly, nodding along. What else are we to infer from the fact that he allowed this garbage to be published under his own name--not once, which could be written off as a horrifying editorial oversight, but over and over? If Nick Gillespie had published an issue of Reason with a feature article by Tom Metzger on the international Jewish conspiracy would his staff be saying "Well, he didn't write it"? More to the point, would they have extended a similarly generous benefit of the doubt to, say, Mike Huckabee?
Update Okay, I guess there's another explanation: Ron Paul is the kind of guy who would publish a newsletter under his name, but never, ever, read it. I'm not sure why this is supposed to reflect better on him.
"At best, he is the kind of guy who maybe wouldn't say these things himself, but finds himself, half-ashamedly, nodding along."
At best? Oh, come on.
Let's note that in addition to the newsletters, the material posted on TNR's website includes a letter, over Ron Paul's signature and speaking in the first person, containing all the same garbage. A little bit harder to disown, I think.
That article is a classic smear.
I think the response that it received: http://www.tnr.com/talkback.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca
is pretty telling..
You couln't be more right, Meg. I think I owe you a drink or something to celebrate your superior judgment.
I think I you you a drink if that came across as "I told you so . . . "
At best, he is the kind of guy who maybe wouldn't say these things himself, but finds himself, half-ashamedly, nodding along. What else are we to infer from the fact that he allowed this garbage to be published under his own name--not once, which could be written off as a horrifying editorial oversight, but over and over? If Nick Gillespie had published an issue of Reason with a feature article by Tom Metzger on the international Jewish conspiracy would his staff be saying "Well, he didn't write it"? More to the point, would they have extended a similarly generous benefit of the doubt to, say, Mike Huckabee?
Of course there is a big difference, which is that Nick Gillespie's job is to be the editor of Reason, while Ron Paul's job was to deliver 40-some babies a month. Heck, he wasn't even the majority owner of the newsletter. Nevertheless, Ron Paul did bring about the firing of the writer after finding out, and has subsequently taken responsibility for not keeping the close eye he should have. What would you have him do? Retire from public life forever? This isn't a Macaca moment, though many seem to think it is.
At least to judge from the commenters who show up here, Ron Paul's primary appeal is "The 19th century: now with iPods and better health care!"
Actual limited government that follows the Constitution. How quaint and anachronistic!
Would it be more appealing if he just pretended to follow his oath of office, and merely paid lip service to the ideals of lower taxation and spending like everyone else?
I guess conservatives are glad this issue came up again. It will allow them to get back to what they do best: borrowing and spending!
And during all the time that the newsletter was being published, there was not a single person who read it and said "I know Ron Paul, and I can't imagine him thinking these things. Something's gone badly wrong, and he should be told".
I am a Paul supporter, but pretty much agree with the tenor of Megan's post. I just would like to see Paul stick it out through super Tuesday - if only to see if his constituency can be organized into something politically effective post-Paul.
My take: New Hampshire was the high water mark for Paul, for both the TNR story and poor showing in NH. 8% represents the Libertarian swing vote in the US. Not enough to be a 3rd party that can elect candidates but enough to be a spoiler as a 3rd party. Since we have a highly polarized, roughly balanced partisan electorate, It is also big enough to determine the direction of American politics, if it can be organized to swing as a group between R’s and D’s.
This number is consistent with what David Boaz and Cato determined to be the (small l) libertarian swing vote. The real question is how can these “cats be herded”? If either major party was interested enough in attracting these voters, they could pander to them like any other interest group and potentially win the election as a result. Of course that means they would have to embrace some libertarian policies (more freedom, more peace, less intervention, smaller government). Absent that, and absent a candidate to rally around, the organizing principle would have to be something extremely simple, clear, easy to communicate, easily rationalized and proven to keep the country moving in a libertarian (or less headlong statist) direction. One organizing principle that meets the criteria - Voting for Divided Government. More in the post Curing Libertarian Electile Dysfunction"
I think that Megan is right when she says "At best, he is the kind of guy who maybe wouldn't say these things himself, but finds himself, half-ashamedly, nodding along." As a matter of fact, based on everything I know about RP, I think he is probably at least somewhat anti-semitic and racist.
I still support him for president (btw I am jewish and I strongly dissaprove of racism). The reason for that is that whatever his personal views are, the policies he advocates are neither racist nor anti-antisemitic. These policies would lead to a much smaller and less activist governement both in domestic and foreign policy, which for me is the most important political question of the day. Since none of other candidates (either Democrat or Republican) proposes any significant reduction of the size and scope of federal government, RP is the only candidate I can support.
I understand that Megan disagrees with many of his policies and this is fine, but I do not see how personal views of the candidate, however vile, can trump the actual policies he is advocating (and has a voting record to back-up such advocacy)
just research the past ten years of the "new republic" and you will find out that they have had a lot of politcally motivated writers that are part of the mainstream. mr martin indyk the once head or still head of the paper is an avid zionist supporter. this is typical of the type of media that we live in today. stop aid or say anything that is crtitcal of the israeli zionist regime and you will be slandered for being racist or antisemitic. tnr should be ashamed. why not write an article about rudy and why all of the nypd and nypd think he is a fraud? because he is a blind israel supporter and tnr does not have the guts to speak the truth. you might as well team with the fox news cronies and call yourselves "the fraudulent gangsters". vote obama in 08!!!!