Finally Someone Takes A Good Long Look At Ron Paul

And I’m shocked, shocked! at what they found

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum. Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad. In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a “formidable stander on constitutional principle,” while The Nation praised “his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq.” Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC’s Jake Tapper described the candidate as “the one true straight-talker in this race.” Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to “dismiss the passion he’s tapped.”
Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business. In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse…
…But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him–and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

Read the whole thing. And if you have the stomach for it read the comments, as the Ronulans are out in force.
The MSM have been so under the thrall of their BDS that anyone with a (R) next to their name who was anti-Chimpster was A-OK with them. It has amazed me the love affair and free pass that this whack job loon Paul has gotten so far.
Kudos to The New Republic; this story will go a long way to help restore their reputation.

9 Responses to “Finally Someone Takes A Good Long Look At Ron Paul”

  1. Tainted Bill says:

    If I thought he had a chance of winning, I’d care more about his nuttiness. He’s a protest vote for me, as the allegedly electable candidates are all unpalatable.

  2. The_Real_JeffS says:

    A good article…..I don’t even see Ron Paul as a protest vote, but he encourages what I see as mental illness, and I’m glad to see someone point out his problems.
    And you might not have to worry about a Paulbot assault, if Captain Ed is correct.

  3. Mr. Bingley says:

    Worried? Hell, the Ronulan comments are the most entertaining part of the whole thing, Jeff!

  4. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Well, I thought you might be worried about the competition here, Mr B! ;-P

  5. Honest to God, what took so f*ckin’ LONG to come up with this stuff?
    I also read where an opponent had tried to bring this up in an election years ago. Paul got re-elected anyway, using the same “published in my name but I never inhaled read it” gambit he tried here. For shame on his constituents.

  6. The_Real_JeffS says:

    I saw the same level of stupity amongst votes in Chicago, where an alderman was re-elected to office while he was in jail after being convicted of a crime.
    IIRC, he was in the county lock up. I suppose that made the difference, somehow. Or he was a slick talker as well.

  7. nightfly says:

    JeffS – you could also look at Marion Barry, the convicted drug felon who thus couldn’t vote for himself when he was elected mayor of DC. (But at least that led to one of the funniest Norm MacDonald Weekend Update bits.)

  8. The_Real_JeffS says:

    Yea, nightfly, ain’t it depressing how many idiots are exercising their franchise? Between these three examples, plus the recent Hillary! gains in NH, I long for an IQ test for voters.

  9. John says:

    I wonder if he ever wrote for the Spotlight?

Image | WordPress Themes