Posted by
Catmman on Saturday, January 12, 2008 8:00:22 PM
Ron Paul reveals his true colors in many ways.
He has "no idea" who wrote ANYTHING in his newsletter. For 20+ years. Can't remember ANYONE who wrote in his newsletter. Nothing. Zip, zero, nada:
He didn't READ any of it either. Maybe, "there were times" he did, but never heard the bad stuff. Naturally.
Side Note: Oh and what about Pauls racial pandering on "the blacks"? "The blacks" suffer more on drug crimes than "whites". Of course the insinuation is that "the blacks" are consummate drug users and should vote for Ron Paul because he'll take away the war on drugs which will keep more of "the blacks" out of jail. For someone who never read, edited, or knows anything about anything EVER written in his newsletter, this rant seems to be particularly noteworthy:
read some more of Pauls thoughts on "the blacks". This is just one example. Again, for not having read, edited, written or knowing who did write anything in his newsletters - ever -there does seem to be a commonality to his message on "the blacks".
Side Note 2: And just what proof exactly does he have about "the blacks" suffering more in the "war overseas" (ostensibly the Iraq War? This is the old vietnam myth about "the blacks", since they're poor, have no other choice but to join the military and are used as cannon fodder by "the man". Please. (Just over 12.% of combat casualties in Vietnam were from african-americans BTW) Oh and it's "impossible for a libertarian to be a racist? Yet there is a veiled insinuation that others are racist, but not him (especially "whoever" wrote the newsletters maybe Herr Doktor?.
And witch hunt? No one went out and made this stuff up! This newsletter was printed with his name on it. He had to have paid someone for their work on this newsletter. If it were made up and he is as innocent as the driven snow, then why didn't he do something about this earlier. Or when it has been dragged up before? Oh, that's right, he didn't know anything, not enough time to read while he was a Doktor you know.
Bryan over at Hot Air says it well:
Can anyone but the most credulous Ronulans on the face of the earth buy the spin that Ron Paul a) doesn’t know who wrote his newsletter, b) he can’t find out who wrote it and that c) he never even read it for all those years? That’s his defense. He even compared it to a magazine owner who doesn’t know everything that goes into the magazines he publishes, which is absurd. His newsletter wasn’t a sprawling, international operation with bureaus stretching from Texas to Moscow to Beijing, Baghdad and beyond: It was a newsletter put together with desktop publishing software by someone that he, Ron Paul, hired to put it together. Its purpose was to put Ron Paul’s world view out there for his fans to read. If the Ron Paul newsletter wasn’t representing the Ron Paul world view, what was its purpose? I’m sure the Paul supporters that we have around here will do their absolute best to defend and explain this, but Paul’s spin really is an insult to their and everyone else’s intelligence. It makes no sense from any angle.
If his spin is true, then take it for what it is: Ron Paul is so incompetent that he’s not only not fit to run the executive branch or a Dairy Queen, he’s not even fit to write a check. That is what he was doing all those years, writing checks to people who were publishing nonsense in his name, people he can’t identify now who he now claims were writing things that he didn’t even believe. But he was such a hands-off guy that he never bothered to take an editorial look at what they were writing, across a decade. Talk about an easy boss.
On the other hand, if his spin is not true, then he’s lying now and he really did believe all that back when it was published and may still believe it. And if he’s lying, he’s not quite the principled patriot that his fans believe he is.
My take is that according to Paul, he NEVER NEW ANYTHING, READ ANYTHING, WROTE ANYTHING AND REMEMBERS NOTHING about these papers over the span of almost 30 years.
Yeah.
Just think if we had David Duke using this defense?
We'll see how (if) he gets flayed on this in the debate tonight.
No one but the most fanatical Paulbot now believes this guy. Or should.
No one.