No. I usually believe that an article is written by the person whose name appears on the article as the author. To allow one's own name to be used on articles he/she didn't write in academic world is usually cause for disciplinary actions - it is definitely unethical. There was no evidence that he disowned these articles after they were published and before they became an issue in the election. It would be hard to believe that he didn't know about them until today. However you cut it, it is inconsistent with the image he wants to project, that of a straight-talking, no-nonsense guy.
So in your opinion, that footage Fox showed, where Ron Paul attacked Lincoln, and made the claim that the civil war was "unnecessary" to free the slaves, was not a smear, but reporting facts. Ok. Based on these facts, one must conclude that Ron Paul is a racist and a bigot.
I don't see how reporting accurately what a candidate says is a smear. Same with reporting his record. Of course, candidates like to call that "negative campaigning" but what could be more important than his votes or positions on issues? Paul's opinion on the Civil War illustrates the depth of his thinking and his understanding of economics. He is hardly justifying or defending slavery. He merely said fighting a war in which 600,000 Americans were killed in horrible slaughters and in which the US engaged in clear war crimes against the South that should have resulted in the hangings of Lincoln and General Sherman, among many others, was unnecessary. Slavery was quite common and was eradicated elsewhere without this kind of bloodshed. Any honest historian will tell you that slavery was an issue but not the issue that precipitated the Civil War. Rather it was a conflict of economic and governing philosophies that led to war. Consider what Paul said about how the government could have eliminated slavery. He said the government could have bought the slaves. Wouldn't that have made far more sense? Slavery was every bit as legal as owning an SUV today. Would people be angry if a political party advocated confiscating every SUV with no payment to the owner? Such a policy would be seen as clearly unconstitutional. Yet that is exactly what the abolitionists wanted. Slaveowners had a tremendous investment in slaves, as odious as that sounds today. To expect them to simply give them up without recompense was ludicrous. Of course, the New England-centered abolitionists did not own slaves themselves, so they could be moralists at no personal cost. It's always easy to take the high road if the other guy has to pay the cost. Some, like John Brown, wanted to start a race war. Lincoln himself was content to let the South retain slavery. The dispute was over whether it would be allowed in new territories that were being admitted to the Union. The South knew that if the new territories did not allow slavery, eventually the South would be isolated and the abolitionists would have a clear majority to ban slavery everywhere. I admire Dr. Paul for being willing to discuss this issues in rational terms. Our society is so PC, no politician is willing to discuss it without hissing. Given the ridiculous response by Kristol, it's easy to understand why. Consider Bill Kristol for a second. Son of one of the original neo-cons, Irving Kristol, Bill is editor of the Weekly Standard and one of the leading lights of the neo-con movement. He was a rabid cheerleader for the Iraq war. He is a fervent proponent of preemptive war and is all for putting our troops in harm's way all over the globe, or at least wherever Israel has an interest. Anyone who disagrees with him is "unamerican", a "crackpot", "anti-semitic" or one of the other labels he tosses about. Given a choice between Kristol and Paul's foreign policy, I think I would take Paul. Do the Chinese find it necessary to intervene all over the world? The Brazilians? The Indians? The Russians? Ron Paul is no pacifist, but like Pat Buchanan, he sees no reason for us to stick our nose into every dispute in the world.
I find this kind of revisionist history (of yours and Dr. Paul's) dishonest at least. Who started the civil war? When the southern states seceded, what was Lincoln as the president of the USA to do? I suppose both you and Dr. Paul also agree then, that the civil war was in fact the war of northern aggression? That would put you two in the same camp as David Duke and other nut cases even most Republicans would not vote for.
In a speech Paul gave in 2003 in the House of Representatives titled "Neoconned" he called Bill Kristol and his father Irving by name as part of a group that has hijacked foreign policy in the US and turned it into a policy of preemptive war, among other things. Whether you agree with Paul's statement or not, do you suppose there might be just a little bad blood there? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4156174553630131591
Secession was the end of a long process that left Southern leaders thinking they had been backed into a corner and had no other option. Paul's comment, which I agree with, was that it would have been preferable to pay the slaveowners for their slaves rather than kill 600,000 people in a brutal war. If you think that makes us nutcases, you really need to read up on the Civil War and understand the horrors it caused.
No, secession was the ultimatum for war. If the south had stayed in the union, then perhaps a political compromise could have been reached whereby some compensation for the slave owners could have been formulated. Instead, they chose to fight for the preservation of the slavery. That choice made sure that no compensation was possible. You (and Ron Paul) are delusional if you believe that all the south wanted was some form of compensation. No, they wanted to preserve the "southern way of life." You really need to read up on that part of the history.
If you're saying compensation would have been preferable to war, we are all in agreement. No doubt there were extremists on both sides who wanted war, just as there were those who counseled compromise. Lincoln for example apparently was willing to tolerate slavery where it was already established but did not want it expanded. That fact alone undermines the argument that the South seceded soley to retain slavery. Certainly it is wrong to say that the Civil War was fought to free the slaves. It was fought to prevent the South from seceding. Eliminating slavery was an effect more than a cause. The fact is the majority of southerners realized joining the Union had been a mistake. They were out of step politically with the northern manufacturing states on numerous issues. It's ironic that the south is still out of step with the northeast even today. Plenty of southerners would vote to secede now if they had a chance.
guess who!! Who here is stupid enought to think these guys actually work for and help YOU? ---------------------- http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/759119.html By Haaretz Staff Last update - 18:50 05/09/2006 Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is the "best" candidate in the 2008 race for Israel, a panel of eight Israeli experts assembled by Haaretz has determined. Giuliani is followed by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Arizona Senator John McCain and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Ranking bottom of the list is Illinois Senator Barack Obama. As part of a new project, The Israel Factor: Ranking the presidential candidates" the panel will rank the candidates every month, up until the 2008 election, awarding them marks out of 10 on a series of questions that will determine which candidates are "best" for Israel.