Question came up in this Pit thread on an (arguably) racist remark by Huckabee, which I don’t intend to discuss here.
Paul has been photographed with the owner of Stormfront and his son, but that does not necessarily mean he knew who they were at the time. It is no secret that Paul is the fave candidate of the Stormfronters – see this discussion thread:
(link broken because of Board rule against directly linking to hate sites)
– not because they regard him as a fellow “White Nationalist,” but because he’s strict on immigration, and because a libertarian approach to federal government (without the welfare state, which they regard as mainly benefitting nonwhites) is the most palatable alternative to them at this stage of history. Of course, that does not necessarily mean Paul shares their thinking on racial issues as such.
But there have been various public statements quoted against him as racist, and articles in his newsletter (of which he has denied authorship and contemporary knowledge).
In my opinion, it is ridiculous to raise such questions over that photograph. It is clear that he’s signing an autograph in a crowded lobby. It is totally unclear whether he even knew who those people were. “Mr. Paul, would you mind letting us snap a couple pictures!?”
I can understand raising the issue of racism based on the old newsletters, even though I argue against it. But this? This is just stupid.
It’s like raising the question of whether Al Gore is a homophobe and hates America just because he was photographed with the Fred Phelps clan. This topic, with the completely baseless support of that photo, is just amazingly dumb and unworthy of the SDMB, let alone Great Debates.
Believe it or not, it first came to my attention in an Free Republic thread. A keyword search on “Paul” also turns up multiple threads on the newsletter articles, Paul accepting and keeping a donation from Stormfront founder Don Black, etc. (The partisan blogs, echo chambers at most times, are most fun to visit when there’s some sort of intramural dispute.)
That thread is a more than a month old, and it includes a link to a video with Neil Cavuto in which he explains, with a damn good reason, why he didn’t return that money. He left Neil scraping for a response.
It is my opinion that this thread is disingenuous. It’s like Lyndon Johnson raising a bullshit charge and saying, “Let the fucker deny it.”
No, I really suspect RP might be a racist. Not that it much matters, he doesn’t have a chance. But the influence of racism in the modern (post-1960) American libertarian tradition is an issue clearly worthy of discussion. Certainly an accusation of racism against Barry Goldwater (sort of a proto-Lib), based on his opposition to civil rights legislation, while not a slam-dunk, would be legitimately debatable.*
Skirting the “liar” rule there, don’tcha think? In any case, to paraphrase someone else, I think it is a reasonable question for a person to ask if he is unfamiliar with [Ron Paul].
For myself, I’ve not seen convincing evidence that Ron Paul is a racist. On the other hand, his willingness to let racists ghostwrite his campaign literature speaks to an astonishing lack of common sense, at best. The most convincing evidence that he’s a racist would be evidence that he’s got a lick of common sense: if he does, then he’d definitely be aware of the trash published under his name.
Does he harbor good ol’ boy feelings about blacks like they are more dangerous than whites, lazier, and can’t be trusted? I wouldn’t be surprised if a few of those feelings are lying around in his head. But does it influence his voting? Absolutely not.
You can’t find a single politician whose personal opinions matter less.
Is it really possible to know any more than this? He gets some support from racists, we know that, but there’s no way to prove he wrote what’s in the newsletter. Supposedly, those views are not consistent with what he has said and done as a Congressman and Presidential candidate - or so his supporters say, and I’ve never seen any quotes from his speeches that indicate he’s such a racist or a bigot. So as far as that goes, I’m willing to take his word that he doesn’t view black people as animals. But it’s an academic question for me, since I wouldn’t vote for him anyway.
Because of his extensive 30 year voting record. The guy’s idealistic to the core. He doesn’t have a campaign fund raising commission, was the only congressman to vote against giving Rosa Parks a medal of honor (waste of taxpayer money on an empty political gesture–he offered to pay for it out of his own pocket), he has never accepted a congressional bonus and, although personally opposed to abortion, he has voted against banning it. He has also gone on record as being against roe v wade, because abortion is a state issue, not a federal one.
The man’s a federalist through and through and you can predict with almost 100% certainty how he will vote on any issue (hint: it’s probably “no”)
>I really suspect RP might be a racist. Not that it much matters, he doesn’t have a chance.
Looks awfully unlikely that he’d become president. Still, I’m interested in the other ways in which it might matter if he’s racist. Does he seem to legitimize racist attitudes, or carelessness with such a sensitive issue? Would he become some kind of rallying point for backwards and harmful initiatives? Or, do we learn anything surprising about other people who have worked with him around these themes and are themselves in some position of power? There are all sorts of interesting tangents.
I’m a libertarian and a future Ron Paul voter, but I’m troubled by his association with racists. I’m not talking about the Stormfront folks, but his relationship with Lew Rockwell. Rockwell may or may not be a racist, but he certainly appealed to racists with his writings in the early 1990s. Most folks are pretty certain that Rockwell is responsible for the racist crap in the Ron Paul newsletters. Paul’s close friendship and business ventures with Rockwell give me some pause. While I don’t think Paul is a racist, I do think he may be a little too comfy with those who are.
That’s why I said it was disingenuous. Why even bring up a photo that proves nothing? Would you let a debater get away with saying, “Hey, here’s a picture of the moon. It doesn’t prove that the Clintons murdered anyone, but what if they did? They’re talked about in a bunch of conspiracy blogs.”?
Obviously, I can’t read Ron Paul’s mind or heart, and don’t really know what he thinks about other races and/or religions.
But my gut feeling? I don’t think he’s a racist. I don’t get the sense that Paul is passionate enough to hate anybody.
But there is no doubt, absolutely none, that Paul (like many leading libertarians) attracts a huge number of complete wingnuts. And whereas mainstream politicians of both major parties worry about being associated with loons and will eventually draw a line, Ron Paul has no such qualms. Paul probably isn’t a racist or anti-semite, but he’s attracted huge numbers of fans and associates who are, and it doesn’t seem to bother him.
That’s a danger that comes with being a fringe figure. The longer you’re on the fringe of civilized society, the more loonies you wind up rubbing elbows with, and the MORE confined to the fringes you become.
That’s a dumb analogy. A better analogy would be, “The Clintons are accused of massive corruption. The whole wrecked keyboards at the end of the administration is a nonstarter, but what about Travelgate–is that proof of corruption?”
The photo IS something that’s been discussed, and while it’s not evidence of racism, it’s okay to point it out as one of the items discussed.
At any rate, the core question is worthy of discussion; this is a hijack that distracts from the main question in favor of an ad hominem attack on the OP. Can we agree that it’s just a distraction and focus on whether Ron Paul really is a racist? I do find that an interesting question, and my mind’s not made up on the issue.
I suppose we should also agree that I’ve made an ad hominem attack on the OP, and that all other words you utter are absolute truth. I suppose we should agree to ignore the point that I made, which is that the photo in the OP is completely irrelevant with respect to whether Ron Paul is a racist just as the photo of Al Gore with the Phelps clan is completely irrelevant with respect to whether Al Gore is a homophobe and hates America. It is the OPENING POST, not the opening poster, that I am saying is disingenuous, and it is because of the reasons I’ve stated.
So, no. We cannot agree that this is just a distraction, other than for your junior modding. I think it is relevant to point out that the photo in the OP is worthless to the discussion and that including it is poisoning the well for absolutely no good reason. Therefore, if you believe unilaterally that the discussion between you and me is a distraction, there is something you can easily do about it. You can drop it.
I don’t know whether Ron Paul is currently a bigot.
What matters is that he’s drawing support from numerous bigots, his past history suggest comfort with racist attitudes (the newsletters are a prime example), and his current positions are appealing to bigots. His enthusiastic support for “states’ rights” (as embodied in his proposed “We The People Act” which would prevent people wronged by state laws from appealing to federal courts for relief) explains why hate groups find him the most appealing candidate.
Has he rejected support from Stormfront, Mel Gibson’s Holocaust-denying father Hutton Gibson, David Icke or any of the other bigots who’ve come out for him? Not that I’ve heard.
I have numerous other problems with Ron Paul (including his plans to gut vaccination efforts and eliminate FDA oversight over potentially dangerous drugs and supplements), but of all the things Paul groupies seem willing to overlook about the guy, his comfort level with hate-group support is perhaps the most glaring.