February 14, 2008
Missoula's Ron Paul supporters misinformed
“Opinion polls show only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions.”
“Jury verdicts, basketball games, and even music are enough to set off black rage, it seems.”
“[M]aybe a name change for New York City is in order. Welfaria? Zooville? Rapetown? Dirtburg? Lazyopolis?”
If you are like the above, there is more where that came from. Much more, in the pages of the “Ron Paul Freedom Report,” the “Ron Paul Political Report,” and the “Ron Paul Survival Report.” These were newsletters produced and distributed from 1978 on, by none other than current presidential candidate…Ron Paul (See The New Republic of Jan. 30, 2008 for more details).
Paul’s newsletters allow his readers to know his sentiments first hand. On the fight against apartheid in South Africa: “[a] destruction of civilization.” On far-right “militia” groups: “One of the most encouraging developments of our time” (1995). On Martin Luther King: “beat up his paramours…seduced underage teenage girls and boys…(and) replaced the evil of forced segregation with forced integration.”
Paul’s campaign claims that he did not write many of the more offensive articles in his newsletters. In which case we should accept that the man spent prodigious amounts of money distributing bigoted opinions under his name but did not really agree with them. Is this a serious candidate for the most critical office in American government?
Ordinarily, no. However, Paul’s willingness to act as such has secured access to some highly prestigious aspects of the electoral process — participation in televised debates, use of the Reagan Library as forum, probable speaking time at the Republican national convention and so forth. Apparently, the Republican nomination process gatekeepers are unable to screen out a publicity-seeker who holds beliefs that are moral anathema to an overwhelming majority of Americans. But at least the Montana party faithful have been shielded from the evil machinations of Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger.
More disturbing is the willingness of a substantial number of UM students to join the Paul movement, which allowed him to win the Missoula County Republican Caucus last week. Let us not deliver too much censure to his local followers. Many probably thought they were backing a grandfatherly anti-war activist, and unaware they were being duped into carrying water for a rear-guard segregationist. Happily, the primary season will not prove entirely barren for them; at least they will have learned next time to do some basic research before embracing the political flavor of the month.
Tate Jones
UM Graduate Student, History
This story has been viewed 136 times.
Comments
I have a question regarding what makes one a bigot or racist. Ron Paul puts out a newsletter with the comments in the above article, and whether he said them or not, is a racist because of them. Keep in mind I am not saying he did not say them, or that he did, the point is the same either way.
However Barack Obama can go to a church with a very racist preacher, say he has never heard those sermons or just doesn’t agree with the preacher on that part, and no one seems to think twice about it. Now I don’t know about anyone else but I don’t make a habit of going to a church that I don’t agree with.
Especially on a subject as serious as that. So Barack can go to a racist church, listen to a racist preacher, and he is just a good guy.
Ron Paul makes a few comments and he is a racist. I am not condoning his comments either so much as inquiring on a double standard. Now how does this work? If Ron is a racist then Obama is a racist too. If Obama is not a racist then I don’t see how Ron could be either.
At least Ron Paul believes in the Constitution and is committed to America. Whereas Barack Obama refuses to place his hand on his heart for the National Anthem, and has an ‘unconditional commitment to Africa’. Now there is nothing wrong with loving Africa, but shouldn’t the man that wants to lead this country (which is America by the way) have an ‘unconditional commitment to America’ instead of Africa?
So let me ask this, is the reason that Ron is a racist and Obama is not simply because it is okay for blacks to be against whites, but yet horribly wrong for whites to be against blacks?
Posted by Fred Thompson on 04/16/2008 at 8:49 pm
