What concerns me about Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is not the man people pretend he is. I've had it with all the worship of a man who has a long trail of issues people tend to brush off.
Permalink
Ron Paul’s Double Talk
“I’ve made the observation before, that Ron Paul, really doesn’t view his job in Congress as one of governing. To him his job there is more about waxing philosophical, making ideological speeches and voting no, so he can then write books, give lectures and the like, about his supposed ideology. Ron Paul isn’t in D.C. to help govern. He’s just there to lecture.
We’ve seen Ron Paul’s double talk on a few things already. He wrote a bill for term-limits, but then served 11+ terms. He rants against earmarks but puts them in the bills. All examples of his waxing philosophical, without really governing.
Here is another example of Ron Paul double talking and waxing philosophical, without actually governing. He’s giving a little speech on abortion. He says he has some legislation in Congress about defining when life would begin. He says it’s been ignored by the pro-life community. But then he turns around and says he wouldn’t support it as president? HUH???
Around 45 seconds in he talks about this bill he has in Congress, but he wouldn’t promote it as president.
http://ronpaulexposed.wordpress.com/2011/07/12/ron-pauls-double-talk-on-abortion/
Sounds like more double talk from Ron Paul to me. Sounds like more from a man who isn’t there to govern, but rather is there to wax philosophical as everyone else does the heavy lifting.
Permalink
“Paul doesn’t get to have it both ways. If he wins Iowa, his outrageous statements and ugly associations will be granted a lot more attention. Deservedly so.”
“The Ron Paul double standard”
I have a number of strong objections to Tim Carney’s Ron Paul column this morning (including his glossing over Pat Buchanan’s record) that I won’t get into, in the interest of keeping my response to a reasonable length. But there are a few points I feel compelled to make.
A major beef I have is that Carney doesn’t really grapple with criticisms of Paul, instead, he lumps all critics together as being part of the “mainstream” and “establishment” that objects to his, “principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian” stances.
That’s hogwash. There are plenty of fair-minded conservatives who may even agree with Paul on domestic issues, but still passionately object to his candidacy. As I wrote last week, though there are those who hold a principled belief that the U.S. should have a non-interventionist foreign policy, Paul often crosses the line beyond mere non-interventionism, especially on Israel.
If Carney wants to defend Paul against such criticisms — including Paul’s decision to go on the official propaganda channel of Iran’s Islamist government to bash Israel and claim Palestinians were living in “concentration camps,” or Paul’s decision to condemn the raid that killed Osama bin Laden – he should do so. But it’s otherwise unfair to dismiss criticisms of Ron Paul with a broad brush as coming from the dreaded “establishment.”
When Carney does suggest that some criticism of Paul may be legitimate, he claims its importance is exaggerated:
Paul’s indiscretions — such as abiding 9/11 conspiracy theorists and allowing racist material in a newsletter published under his name — will be blown up to paint a scary caricature.
But the newsletters were much bigger than a mere “indiscretion.” Even Paul supporters like Carney acknowledge that the newsletters printed racist material. For further details, see Jamie Kirchick’s 2008 New Republic article or his new follow-up piece in the Weekly Standard, in which he also addresses Paul’s indulgence of 9/11 truthers.
It’s important to remember that these newsletters were not just some small part of Paul’s career. As Dave Weigel and Julian Sanchez reported in the libertarian Reason magazine in 2008:
The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the “welfare checks” comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul’s family and [Lew] Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn’t know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback.
It’s one thing for Paul to deny that he wrote the newsletters. But it’s less plausible that he no idea about their consistently racist content. And it’s even harder to believe that he didn’t know who wrote them, as he asserted in a post-debate interview with Sean Hannity just last week. Even if you were to be incredibly charitable and believe that all of this is possible, it still doesn’t absolve him. Because if you’re a public figure, it’s your responsibility to monitor what is being published under your name. And if your best defense is massive disorganization within a business you ran that had just a few employees, it’s a pretty severe indictment of your management abilities as you seek the presidency. And this is where we get to the double standard part.
Rick Perry and Mitt Romney have both attacked each other for what was written in their respective books. If either of those books had included a number of overtly racist statements, their candidacies would be over before they started. If they used the Ron Paul defense – that they didn’t write the words themselves, they didn’t know what was in the books and don’t even know who wrote them, it would only make matters worse. They could kiss their political careers goodbye.
Yet Ron Paul’s supporters in the media demand special treatment. You see, few people believe he’s running to actually become president – he’s just in the race to bring more attention to his message. So Carney, like other Paul sympathizers who agree with that broad message, want to have it both ways. On the one hand, Carney wrote a column a few months ago demanding that people take Ron Paul’s candidacy more seriously. But on the other hand, he writes today’s column smearing Paul’s critics, as if Paul should get a free pass from the scrutiny that’s a natural consequence of being taken more seriously.
Paul doesn’t get to have it both ways. If he wins Iowa, his outrageous statements and ugly associations will be granted a lot more attention. Deservedly so.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/ron-paul-double-standard/265251
Permalink
“Ron Paul Attacked for Views on Health Care.”
Ron Paul’s views on health care came under fire tonight at a campaign stop in New Hampshire, where his position on eliminating Medicaid was met with open hostility from the audience.
Paul has called for the eventual elimination of Medicare and Medicaid and has suggested that charity hospitals should pick up the slack for the uninsured. That view got one woman in Manchester up in arms.
“Thirty three percent of the children in the U.S. are on Medicaid and another 10 percent are uninsured,” the woman said. “You have offered charity by doctors as a solution to this. Do you really think that 43 percent of America’s children will be taken care of by charity?”
Paul said that his current budget preserves the program, but it would eventually be phased out because of the unsustainable cost. Paul added that when he worked in a charity hospital in the 1960s nobody was turned away.
“I really want to promote these medical savings accounts so people can put their money aside and get it off their taxes, and buy their own insurance and pay cash to their doctors,” Paul said.
As the congressman was finishing his answer, another woman in the audience shouted, “What about the 43 percent?”
Paul, seemingly taken off guard, shot back, “You mean when? Right now?”
“I described this transition,” Paul responded over the voice of the woman.
“Why not look at how the country looked before 1965. Maybe it wouldn’t cost so much,” Paul said.
Paul’s voice then picked up as he stared at the woman and added, “It sounds like you’re cold hearted, you don’t care about people.”
“It’s all going down the tubes if we don’t do something about it too soon,” Paul said.
This isn’t the first time Paul was questioned about his views on health care. At a recent GOP debate, Paul was asked a hypothetical question about whether an uninsured 30-year-old working man in coma should be treated.
“What he should do is whatever he wants to do and assume responsibility for himself,” Paul responded, adding, “That’s what freedom is all about, taking your own risk. This whole idea that you have to compare and take care of everybody…”
The audience erupted into cheers, cutting off the congressman’s sentence.
After a pause, Paul was asked, “Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?” to which a small number of audience members shouted, “Yeah!”
Paul, a doctor trained in obstetrics and gynecology, said that when he got out of medical school in the 1960s “the churches took care of them.”
“We never turned anybody away from the hospital,” he said. “We’ve given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves or assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. That’s the reason the cost is so high.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/12/ron-paul-attacked-for-views-on-health-care/
Permalink
Conservative Network- Who Wrote the Newsletters? Ron Paul. Clear Proof.
***I grant permission to anyone to take the content in this entry and redistribute it. The truth needs to get out.***
People wonder who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters.
First, if you’re new to this topic, it’s important because for around two decades, he had newsletters written that contained much racist content. He financially profited off of the newsletters. You can read about it more in depth here .
The purpose of this entry is to answer a simple question.
Who wrote the Ron Paul newsletters?
In a 1996 interview with the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul was asked about his newsletters. In that interview he defended them. You can read a copy of the interview here. You can purchase a hard copy of that interview here.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
“These aren’t my figures,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report
From this interview we gather Ron Paul knew about the content, defended the content and wrote the content.
Let’s look at some internal evidence.
From the above picture we see the newsletter clearly implies it’s written in his name. The arrow points to a sentence that is said in the first person. This would indicate it is Ron Paul writing and not someone else.
The above picture has another first person reference. Indicating it’s not another author.
The above newsletter shows another first person reference along with a major header that indicates Ron Paul is doing the writing.
The above includes his signature. Once again indicating he’s doing the writing.
The above footer indicates Ron Paul is the editor.
We have two newsletter headings with Ron Paul’s name in bold. There are numerous first person references in the newsletters. A footer has Ron Paul listed as editor. There is a 1996 interview where Ron Paul defends the newsletters.
If the newsletter headers have Ron Paul in bold big writing, if the articles are written in first person as if Ron is writing, if the editor is listed as Ron Paul and if he defends the content in 1996, you have to conclude Ron Paul was writing the newsletters.
Of course now Ron Paul offers this standard answer. But we’re not stupid.
http://www.conservativesnetwork.com/2011/12/16/who-wrote-the-ron-paul-newsletters-ron-paul-wrote-them-clear-proof/
