During the past month or so the conservative blogsphere and media has finally discovered the fact that GOP Presidential hopeful and Texas GOP Congressman Ron Paul has some very strange supporters. During the past months on Blogcritics, I have been exposing various and sundry rather tawdry aspects of the whole anti-immigration movement with profiles on John Tanton and Tom Tancredo.
The Blogcritics piece I recently did about the white supremacist assault on Senator Lindsey Graham is garnering some interesting comments from the far right. But no series exposing the extreme and far right forces distorting the once-honorable conservative agenda could possibly be anywhere near complete without a commentary about some of the supporters of Ron Paul.
This isn’t the first time Ron Paul has run for President. In 1988 he did so as a libertarian candidate, attracting little attention. This time, though it is different as Paul and his supporters have mastered the art of the internet candidacy and almost defined a new and improved way to raise funds. Instead of going for a few high dollar supporters, they are going for large numbers of small dollar donors, and are rewriting the way fundraising is done.
Conservative bloggers are patting themselves on their ramrod straight backs for finally facing the fact that their movement is being hijacked by white supremacist forces from the far right. Unfortunately they are miles behind the curve, and just a little too little too late as far as I am concerned. Congressman Ron Paul has some very nasty white supremacist friends. If the problem dated only to this election cycle it would be one thing, but Paul has a past history of making some rather racially insensitive remarks, on a rather consistent basis.
In 2004 Paul made a short statement from the floor of the US House of Representatives about his refusal to vote for the renewal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society. Federal bureaucrats and judges cannot read minds to see if actions are motivated by racism. Therefore, the only way the federal government could ensure an employer was not violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was to ensure that the racial composition of a business's workforce matched the racial composition of a bureaucrat or judge's defined body of potential employees. Thus, bureaucrats began forcing employers to hire by racial quota. Racial quotas have not contributed to racial harmony or advanced the goal of a color-blind society. Instead, these quotas encouraged racial balkanization, and fostered racial strife….”
In 1996 in an article, in the Houston Chronicle, “…Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." ... Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks. "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action," Paul wrote. Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered "as decent people." Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote: "Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. 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," Paul said. Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Paul Klavins
Good smear peice, but I think you forget to mention how Ron Paul kills puppies with his bare hands and grinds there bones to make bread.
2 - Dean
Thanks for your opinion. Unfortunately your article points to at best 1% of his support. How about looking into other campaigns and reporting on some of there shining supporters and give us the facts on them! It would be nice if people would actually focus on the man's ideas (without one's personal twisted interpretation) If you want people to take you seriously, think about posting a seriously lagitament article. Facts speak louder than one sided searches to discredit a genuine candidate inwhich his track record speaks for itself in it intirity. Not just just excerpts that go towards supporting your personal opinion. Either state all the facts or consider yourself discredited.
This is not an attack it is just a reference to the basis of true Journalism as it was defined.
3 - Hotchney
Very shoddy hitpiece. I'm sure since you went out of your way to find the racist comments in Paul's newsletter that you know he didn't write them and he apologized for their publication. As for the donations, please. Corporate insiders and adventageous movers-and-shakers donate to all the big candidates and this is far more maligning to our country's fabric than a couple neo-nazis who happen to want to be left alone by the federal government.
Very disappointing piece.
4 - Landon
This article was writen with great distaste for Ron Paul and his suporters. His actions merely represent his interpretation of the Constitution. If one will take a minute and examine why he has chosen a side to a particular issue, you will discover his beleife in that issue and then understand why he took that stance on the perticular issue. Ron Paul does not favor to any Supremesy or racial groups. He only accepts campaign contributions from individuals. Not beleiving in every thing I see on television, I reserched every candidate runing for President and found that I will be represented the best by Ron Paul. I found out where he stands on the issues and why at www.ronpaul2008.com You can take a look for yourself and see what you think.
5 - Nathaniel C
Stop promoting this filth. Ron Paul is not a racist. He supports the constitution and liberty--for all. If you attack him you are attacking the constitution. You need to wake up to the fact that Ron Paul is going to be President--no matter what the media thinks. We the people want Ron Paul. He has already raised over 9.2 million. Just wait until Dec. 16th--Vegas oddsmakers estimate over 6 million in one day. The media will be panicking. Stop slandering Ron Paul.
6 - AK
It seems to me Dr Paul wants to limit the ever-encroaching Fed Govt. I like the idea, and *many* others do, too. The fact that some fringe groups like it as well doesn't seem like a big deal, unless, of course, you hate the message of restored personal liberties he espouses. In that case, anything will do to smear him. Be it brothel owner, white supremacists, etc.
If you're conservative, such smears look like shooting oneself in the foot. Do you want to help, or do you just care for increased readership?
In any case, please read Ron Paul's positions on 'Issues' (like on his homepage), and then provide constructive criticism of them. (Unless that would attract serial killers to this blog and the attendant publicity).
Cheers,
A
7 - AJ
I'm not sure if attacking a candidate based on his supporters is a right idea. The man is principled and there is a reason behind his stands. Please research them completely first before writing about them. Your article feels like you researched and found what you wanted to find. You judged beforehand.
The kinds of complaints about Paul
1) he won't distance himself from 911 truthers
2) he won't distance himself from anti-jew people
3) he won't distance himself from supremacist people
The reason he won't is fairly obvious. The more he goes on defensive, the more there'll be smear attacks and ill-researched prejudiced articles. Better yet for all people, go to his web-site and see HIS OWN statements on his stands.
8 - Brian Middleton
Why stop at the smear add you keep running over and over again?? Why not add;
that Paul is also involved with slave trade of young kids;
that he dances naked at night with chicken blood covering his body;
that he supports child molesters and prostitution;
that he smokes crack in the gutter with his crack addict friends; that wants to blow up with Whitehouse;
that he runs a sweatshop for Asian kids under 6 years old;
that he has his own pornographic websites.
that he burns crosses on his lawn daily and has a Swastika tattooed behind his neck and wears a white sheet and hood when he gets cozy at night.
Hmm, let's see, anything else we can come up with to smear him? I am out of colorful smear tactics. Anyone else?
9 - Dave Nalle
Guys. Paul has attracted a lot of unfavory supporters. That's not his fault. No blame attaches to him for it.
However, he has repeatedly passed on opportunities to distance himself from the extremists who have flocked to his banner. Just a few simple, public statements as simple as a clear statement that he doesn't think the government was involved in the 9/11 attack, and he'd be in the clear. But he won't do it, because he thinks that the money coming in from the extremists might somehow propel him into the White House.
It's great to have money coming in to your campaign, but if the money is tainted and you're a person of integrity as Paul claims to be, then you don't take it. Paul takes it, so doesn't that make his claims of integrity a lie?
dave
10 - gao xia en
Let's hear about Hillary's Chinese friends.
11 - Ben Ray
So I guess its guilt by association. Even Ron Paul is not associated or has not invited endorsements from any KKK, White Supremacist, and Neo-Nazi Supporters. Now if there are some who wish to provide cash donations to Ron Paul's campaign then that's there lost. I wonder since I'm an African American does that make me an Uncle Tom or a radical Black Panther operative? Paul hasn't openly protray folks like Obama and who has hosted an event with Donnie McClurken who has said some very homophobic statement. Even worse Rudy Guiliani who has accepted an endorsement from Pat Robertson the same guy who was on the fore front with Jerry Falwell accusing the attack on 9/11 and Katrina Hurricane as the result of America's tolerance of homosexuality and secularism. Now why is Ron Paul recieving such sentiments when he doesn't endorse the views of those who claim he does. I wonder if I was to create a forum/site expressing deep hate for Jews and whites or maybe even religious fundimental hatred towards a certain religious group and add a link to Rudy, Mitt or Hillary Clinton's campaign site would the same backlash happen? Of course not because anyone with sense would ride it off as some wacko's view and not the view of the majority. It seems these same articles like the one on American Thinker are only being expressed online and not on cable or national TV because they can tell the difference. I haven't seen any hatred in my local ron paul group of 257 folks here in Miami, while online i know there are some who take a discussion way over the line (and some who just commenting look for a reaction from bloggers) so I wonder are you equating the views of a minority to represent the majority? Now I may not agree with paul on everything but that doesn't mean my opposing views are Paul's.
12 - Janet
Is this the best you can do? The media must be getting desperate--you are now trying to defame ron paul because of his supporters. Nice try. The MSM should go back to the "Ron Paul can't win" slogan. It worked for a while until we raised 4.3 million on 1 day.
13 - Commenter
Dave,
Are you familiar with the classic trap question...
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Demanding that Ron Paul address this crap is the political equivalent.
14 - gao xia en
I'm more interested in all the candidates' contributions from big business. Any info on that?
15 - A. Drew
When you write "...Paul and his supporters have mastered the art of the internet candidacy" and "...Paul has some very nasty white supremacist friends", are you deliberately trying to make an effort to paint him as a racist or you are simply don't give a rat's arse about proper English structure.
So on-line he has some supporters but in his spare time he hangs out in his backyard with "nasty white supremacist friends". We can see your bias from afar. You're not fooling anyone.
16 - U Essay
Dave~
I dont' think he needs to or should. For one it's a distraction to the campain, but also doing so sits in judgement of supporter's beliefs which is inconsitant with his libertarian stance. Morover, anyone can find people to dislike in someone's doner rolls. I think his knowing they're just human people acting on thier sovrein minds, and letting it be without "playing politics" reflects actual integrity, and I dare say Grace.
A more interesting and usful medea artice would mention who are the unsavory doners on the other canditate's lists? Bet'ya there's lots... & that they're all the same ones on each list to boot!
17 - gao xia en
Har, har, har. Go pound salt.
18 - Ralph
Ron Paul is not a racist. This is the classic smear article. I will never visit this website again.
RonPaul2008.com
19 - BC
Re comment by 'dave'
I think you need to read Ron Paul's stance on issues before expecting he'd use 'every opportunity' to distance himself from his supporters. And how is this money 'tainted'? If I (for example) believe in polygyny, would my money be tainted? Would it satisfy you, if he gave 1% of his contributions to charity to cover any possible miscreant who gave to him? How much time/effort is required in this?
If you're really a Giuliani, Clinton, Romney, Obama, etc. supporter, OK, but please keep your (perceived) dirt to yourself.
We CARE about the MAN, not his supporters!
And back to the original article:
Lots of little money from lots of people versus a lot of money from a few? You are NOT serious on this one, are you? RP doesn't accept any corporate/lobbyist money, period. Think about it. It's a Good Thing®
20 - Ben Ray
Hey Brian Middleton just thought I let you know ROn Paul has denounced the 9/11 Truthers like Alex Jones and others who claims that the government planned the attack on the towers. He mentioned it months back on Fox News when they questioned him for going on the show and he stated great points about addressing all media heads even though he doesn't agree with them on everything even with fox news. But yet your right even when he defends himself people like SJ Reidhead they don't look at all sides they just report what another says without doing fact checks. It's just basically a hit piece. But no i do not believe paul is avoiding questions about those types of supporters he has addressed the issue and i know he will continue to. All we can do is keep the comments comming correcting these folks and keep our info accurate
21 - Ron Aldof
Who are these people that wnat to ruin this great country. They put this article on and dismiss any real facts. They smear and lie. They are the haters of the free people. Must be spoon fed all thier lives then set out to diminish the middle class in the United States.
Ron Paul - " A great American Statesman. The next president of the United States!!!!!!!!!
22 - Bob
Check out this piece on Paul. The only true choice.
23 - Billy Budd
From Ron Paul's website..
This is a nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
24 - Leonardo
Umm...
You have to do some "Quality Piece" that will stick!
This is "OLD" and it ain't gonna cut it. Sorry...
25 - Paul
Why not write about Giuliani's unsavory endorsers? Or are you worried (rightfully so) that you'll end up "sleeping with the fishes"?