I've taken the Ron Paul banner down, for now. Here's why, succinctly:
This is not an adequate response to this.
Now, for what it's worth, I'm inclined to take Eric Dondero at his word when he claims that the ghost writer was "80% Lew Rockwell". First, because Dondero worked for Paul at the time, and second, because Dondero has bashed Paul every chance he has gotten during this campaign. So he really has no reason to out Rockwell, and thus support the campaign's position that all of this was the work of (poorly supervised) ghost writers (unless he has a beef with Rockwell even bigger than the one he has with Paul.)
Also, because frankly this sounds like the sort of shit a confederate apologist like Rockwell would write if he didn't have to sign his name to it.
Radley Balko's take on this pretty much reflects my own. To which I will only add that I stand by my support of Paul for the reasons I have supported him--to wit, that he is the only candidate in the race (either major party) who has clearly articulated 1) a position on the constitutional limitations of the executive that I can stomach, and 2) a comprehensive foreign policy of non-intervention. With regard to the presidency, everything else is small potatoes as far as I'm concerned.
That said, I'm pissed off at Paul and his campaign for not handling this better.
Addendum--The fact that Paul was not contacted by Kirchick or The New Republic for the piece is just plain shitty. This doesn't mean that the newsletter issue doesn't need to be addressed, but let's not pretend that this is objective journalism, here.
6 comments:
agreed -- glad I didn't give him any money. Though I might still do it just to get a bumper sticker and yard sign (got to love that Club Blvd. frontage).
You better wait until 45 days before the primary, though.
When is the NC primary anyway? 2010?
I haven't made any drastic decisions about actually voting, and won't until I have to.
There is a non-zero probability that I won't vote at all.
OK I read the article and he should have been watching what people were doing under his name, no doubt. but two points that troubled me about the 'expose" are that 1. The Confederacy's stance on slavery (a absolute wrong) notwithstanding, the argument in this country about how centralized the government should be is a legitimate debate. And 2. the stereotypes (another absolute wrong) aside, I think the term "racial victimologist" is also a legitimate description. Rev. Sharpton has made a cottage industry out of that, and being a victim is the greatest excuse going for a person to use in place of just admitting to their incompetence. Ask Bill Cosby if that isn't so.
The Confederacy's stance on slavery (a absolute wrong) notwithstanding, the argument in this country about how centralized the government should be is a legitimate debate.
I think you know I agree with you on this 110%. However, any argument that even hints at the notion that 'maybe the CSA wasn't so bad' is dead on arrival because of the complete moral bankruptcy of slavery. Anyone who really cares about decentralization of power should distance themselves from that kind of rhetoric.
Rockwell et al. (and I say this as someone who does agree with them on a lot of things--that I have no permanent link to their site is no accident) have a bad habit of doing the exact opposite. Ditto the newsletters in question. I wouldn't presume to know why--whether it's an attempt to be provocative by needling PC sensibilities, or something more sinister--but in any case I don't think they do the cause of liberty any favors.
Gino, it's about the ideas, not the person. Right now I am on the fence as to whether Paul as the public face of the ideas I care about is a net benefit or not.
Post a Comment