Looks Like Ron Paul Is Done

pspr · Dec 23, 2011

Once the information contained in this story by Reuters gets around, Ron Paul won't be a viable candidate. Much of the damning information is near the end of the story.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/23/us-usa-campaign-paul-plots-idUSTRE7BM03320111223

Covertibility · Dec 23, 2011

Paul can't be bought, so he stands no chance to get the nomination. It's pretty clear CNN is being motivated by someone to bring up the past because this wasn't the case in 2008. Romney and Gingrich can easily be bought but the public doesn't like them. Perry is an idiot. Bachmann illustrates why voting should not be a universal right.

The clown car continues onward.

Daxtrader · Dec 23, 2011

I don't care if Ron Paul is a racist as long as his voting record is clean and doesn't infringe on our liberties. He can hate blacks and jews all he wants, who cares. Of course, the good Dr. is not racist. How can a medical doctor write all that garbage about AIDS patients? He must be one hell of an actor to not have spoken in that tone in any interview he has ever done in his entire career.

achilles28 · Dec 23, 2011

So what? There's nothing particularly shocking about that article.

The Government does play-down the HIV-homosexual link.

There really is a push for world government.

As far as currency being traceable, who gives a sh*t.

Btw, the "investigative journalist" quoted in that reuters story, James Kirchick, is a senior fellow at a mainline Neocon think-tank that's headed by Bill Kristol, Joseph Liebermam, Richard Perle and Charles Krauthammer. You don't suppose the neocons want Paul taken out?

Mvector · Dec 23, 2011

Just like Rand Paul was brought down by late BS stories about him.

lol

Daxtrader · Dec 23, 2011

From RP Forums. Newsletters debunked. And yes Kirchick is a liar.

PROOF RON PAUL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE NEWSLETTERS

The newsletters were published for decades. As a monthly publication that went on for at least 30 years, we can estimate that there were NEARLY 400 newsletters in total.

James Kirchick even concedes that nothing racist/homophobic appeared from the 1970's until the late 1980's. In this youtube clip, he asserts that the racist stuff occurred "when paul was out of congress." (incidentally, he proves himself a liar with this statement, that contradicts his '20 years of invective' accusation made minutes earlier)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EURO1djA_jA

Likewise, nothing racist appeared in any issues after 1994.

Most issues even in the bad time (when ron had nothing to do with the newsletter) were not racist. Ones regarding David Duke criticized his past, but expressed support for his views on free markets.

It also should be noted that David Duke ran for office in 1992 DENOUNCING racism and his past. Yes, Duke has subsequently proved to be a racist and a fraud, but this is the context of the time period.

For more exposition on Duke, see this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClduC...eature=related

Here is proof that the good Dr. was NOT involved in any way shape or form after April of 1988:

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/Investm...rApril1988.pdf (The Dr. was the editor of the newsletter at this time, as Kirchick points out)

http://www.tnr.com/downloads/Investm...terMay1988.pdf (but a month later, Paul is not listed as having ANY ROLE in the newsletter; Lew Rockwell is now editor.)

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...3-de262573a129 (the newsletters, out of hundreds, that kirchick published)

When you put it all together, there are exactly TWO racist newsletters. The other ones merely point out politically incorrect truths about MLK. Divisive, un-Pauline, and unnecessary, (considering the great things MLK did accomplish) but hardly racist, and say good things about David Duke's campaign. (see above.)

There are a number of homophobic newsletters, to be sure. Four in total, which makes it harder to totally debunk charges of homophobia. (unlike charges of racism,of which there is no case at all) But the defense of Paul's does pass certain scrutiny.

In this interview, for example, Paul doesn't buy into this interviewer's homophobia. He claims that what makes him more tolerant of gays is his medical training.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIeW0DY64bE

But in the newsletters the ghostwriter blatantly contradicts this, saying that "Ron's" medical training makes him see through the lies of the gay agenda." In other words, this guy is directly contradicting Paul.

This isn't an anamoly. One of the anti-MLK newsletters, the author, (presumably Paul) brags about voting for a Federal Holiday for that "fraud." (1)

Yet congressional records show Ron Paul TWICE voted for the MLK holiday! (2)

So there you have it. Out of hundreds of newsletters, Kirchick cherry-picked two racist and four homophobic ones, in a time period where Paul had nothing to do with the newsletters publication.

In my view, it was Lew Rockwell who wrote the newsletters. It certainly looks like his writing style, and hardcore "paleo," ideology of the time. Today, Lew is no longer a racist or homophobe, and is a friend of Ron's and all of us. People change, and who here doesn't have flawed friends?

Ron believes in laissez-faire management, whether it is in government or personal life. People do make mistakes, (as was proven in a few of these hundreds of newsletters) but far more often, people are to be trusted and individualism and independence are to be cherished.

1- http://www.tnr.com/downloads/February1991.pdf

2- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/71/

EDIT-

Finally, the icing on the cake:

Kirchick, who throughly researched Ron Paul INTENT on smearing him, admitted in a casual exchange with a fellow gay man that even HE doesn't believe the good doctor to be a racist, anti-semite, or homophobe.

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/200...n-paul-is.html

And this was AFTER he had obtained the newsletters.

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/200...rin-szoka.html

I consider myself a moderate supporter of gay rights, (insofar as I am a traditionalist, but support voluntary associations and try not to be judgmental) but the author of that site hits the nail on the head:

James Kirchick is a liar, charlatan, and hypocrite.
More...

Tsing Tao · Dec 23, 2011

I'm sorry, even if the Reuters articles was true (which it is not) there is nothing damning about Ron Paul in it. Nothing at all. How is he "done" again?

Wallet · Dec 23, 2011

I've been waiting for this and hopefully Paul's campaign is as well, when the MSM can no longer ignore Paul's numbers (which btw is telling in itself) they will bring their full smear resources to bear on Ron Paul.

Since they believe that they can persuade the sheeple by fabricated public opinion, if you say it long and loud enough they will believe it the MSM, in concert will begin to pound the message. When and if that doesn't work they will lie.

Take notice Dr. Paul, they now take your bid for the Presidency serious.

Stand firm and speak the truth.

Lucrum · Dec 23, 2011

Quote from Daxtrader:

I don't care if Ron Paul is a racist as long as his voting record is clean and doesn't infringe on our liberties. He can hate blacks and jews all he wants, who cares. Of course, the good Dr. is not racist...
More...

Ditto

377OHMS · Dec 23, 2011

The MSM has had fun destroying each republican candidate in turn.

4 more years of Obama, I'm afraid that is my prediction.

Too bad the republicans let the MSM pick our candidate. Sad.