The Shotgun Blog
« Why I Love "30 Rock" | Main | No Nukes, No War »
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Endorsing Ron Paul
Texas congressman Ron Paul is an anti-war Libertarian who is running for presidency of the United States (Last time I checked he had 7% of the votes in New Hampshire or IOWA) and he seems not to have much chance to win any thing in the primary elections but let's take a look at those who endorse him:
Neo-Nazi members donated money to his campaign And still no response from Congressman Paul or his campaign aides to the open letter addressed to him asking very legitimate questions as to why he does not repudiate these loonie supporters.
Andrew Walden has a close up and detailed look at The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters.
Posted by Winston on December 15, 2007 in Current Affairs | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/22305/24240062
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Endorsing Ron Paul:
Comments
Ron Paul has millions of supporters. He cannot, nor he should he waste his time attempting to, screen the personal beliefs of all those who support him. You should judge him on what he is advocating, not on what the craziest of his supporters are in favor of.
By the way, he did repudiate the white supremacists and has said their worldview is immoral and he doesn't want or need their donations. (He discusses it in this interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqaTUUejZD4&feature=related). He has said that he is against prostitution and was unhappy with Tucker Carlson for bringing the brothel owner to his event and making an issue of it. His quote was "I advocate freedom, not what people do with it." He has said in no uncertain terms that he does not believe the U.S. government had anything to do with the planning of 9/11.
All of the candidates have millions of supporters, you could obviously find crazy people supporting all of them. What is the purpose of pointing out the crazy views of these people when you know (or should know) that Dr. Paul doesn't support these views? These people do not make up the majority or even a significant fraction of his supporters. The implication in your piece is that Dr. Paul supports these views. That is not true.
Posted by: PK | 15-Dec-07 11:25:42 AM
PK: outside of Kusinich, show me another candidate that truthers and neo-nazis support?
Posted by: Neil Flagg | 15-Dec-07 11:47:32 AM
"show me another candidate that truthers and neo-nazis support?"
Didn't Canadian neo-nazis support the Reform party when it was first created?
Posted by: Fact Check | 15-Dec-07 11:56:23 AM
Hey Neil,
if you want "unlimited freedom" (or at least as close to it as possible), and that's what libertarianism is all about after all, you will also get people who want to use it for their own purposes you don't agree with.
You have to take the bad with the good, simple as that. He cannot control who endorses him anymore than you can control what others are saying about you, so why try to hang him on that? If you want to hang him, hang him on what he endorses / says, not what others say about him.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 15-Dec-07 11:56:44 AM
Polls earlier this year showed nearly 30% believing in the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Yes Virginia, mass insanity is alive and well in the mainstream these days, and guess who many of them are supporting?
Posted by: deepblue | 15-Dec-07 12:00:43 PM
Neil, that is irrelevant. The whole purpose of my post is to say that it doesn't matter who supports him, it only matters what his positions are. It is not surprising that people like neo-nazis who are against the government are going to support the most anti-government candidate. But that doesn't mean that this candidate supports them.
I am sure there are neo-nazis or other crazies that support other candidates. This is a big countries with a lot of crazies, and they all have to support someone. I'm not going to waste my time finding some of them just to argue with you. But as I said, the crazy supporters are irrelevant. The positions of the candidate are the only thing that matters.
Posted by: PK | 15-Dec-07 12:11:05 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_UBMO9XPec
would u shutup now ?
Posted by: Marc | 15-Dec-07 12:13:09 PM
Thanks for that marc.
In 30 seconds he went from gladly getting their money so he could spend it his way, to not wanting or needing their money.
At least he is consistent. Consistently bad.
Posted by: deepblue | 15-Dec-07 12:18:17 PM
The position is simple. If they send him money, he's not giving it back, but he's not going to encourage them to send him money and he's going to publicly denounce their worldview. That is perfectly consistent and ethical.
Posted by: PK | 15-Dec-07 12:24:11 PM
If you start sending money back, then you're wasting your time, and you're setting a terrible precedent. You're announcing to the world "find something wrong with the views of any of my supporters and I'll send their money back." Why would RP want to do that? It is perfectly ethical to spend that money on worthwhile things instead of sending it back to neo-nazis so they can use it to promote the neo-nazi cause.
Posted by: PK | 15-Dec-07 12:28:04 PM
I have a question...
How come a candidate like Ron Paul is having so much attention from the Shotgun ?
I mean, does someone who have "no chance to win" and only being endorsed by some few "neo-Nazi supporters" really need that kind of attention ?
Me thinks that his message hook anyone concerns with issues like freedom and liberty. No wonder why this Neo-con blog spend so many treads tarnishing the Man.
Posted by: Marc | 15-Dec-07 12:41:54 PM
marc,
Why would you spend so much time on a "neo-con" blog site?
Would that make you a "gasp" neo-con?
Posted by: deepblue | 15-Dec-07 12:47:50 PM
Keep your friends close and your enemy closer.
Posted by: Marc | 15-Dec-07 12:58:48 PM
marc
That works for criminals, but not for politicians.
No matter how you try to spin this, if you take money from someone you will always be associated with them.
Just look at Bush and the Saudis. He will never live down those associations. He could play every card completely by the book, and still be suspected of selling influence.
Ron Paul needs to give back every cent that can be tied to any of these radical groups.
Posted by: dp | 15-Dec-07 1:14:21 PM
Ron Paul opposes foreign aid to Israel, but he also opposes the $4.5 billion in aid to Egypt, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Sudan, and Jordan – all counties that are seen as potential or actual enemies of Israel. He’s not exactly a friend of Muslim radicals. He also happens to be a Christian libertarian, which makes him theological and ideologically at odds with Muslim radicals.
Ron Paul is not a 9/11 Truther – and my guess is that the number of people who actually think the US government orchestrated the events of 9/11 is very, very small.
Brothel owners should support Paul, as should any advocate of state rights. According to your link, “Paul spokesman Jeff Greenspan says while Paul does not personally condone prostitution, the candidate does not think it's the role of the federal government to regulate such activity.” That’s a reasonable position – it’s also an honest reason for some so-cons to oppose his candidacy.
As for the neo-Nazi stuff, Paul makes his views on racism clear:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/
It’s the typical Randian view on the matter shared by most libertarians:
http://freedomkeys.com/ar-racism.htm
Many of Paul views are at odds with elements of conservatism. I think it would be more productive to discuss these views, than to attempt to link Paul to the marginal or ugly views of a few of his supporters.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 15-Dec-07 1:19:49 PM
"just look at Bush and the Saudis. He will never live down those associations."
Today, it has emerged that Bill Clinton accepted $10 million for his Little Rock Library & Massage Parlour from these same Saudis in 1998 while he was still President.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html
Posted by: obc | 15-Dec-07 1:41:47 PM
Like I said obc, it never goes away.
How about some examples closer to home. I'm sure we can prove that money ties people together tighter than any other bond.
Posted by: dp | 15-Dec-07 1:51:07 PM
dp ~
Agreed. Jean the Creton is a prime example of a Canadian in the same boat. And let's not forget Maurice Strong who is on permanent vacation in Red China for fear of being prosecuted for walking off with millions.
Posted by: obc | 15-Dec-07 2:01:02 PM
Willy also pardoned Marc Rich after his wife donated a million the the Democratic Party and $450,000 to the Clinton library. Slick also pardoned four Hasidim from up state NY after they ripped off the gov't for $11 million. Hillary Clinton won all the community’s votes in her senate race.
Winston also conveniently forgot the group Jews for Ron Paul. How did that ever happen?
Posted by: DJ | 15-Dec-07 4:46:06 PM
DJ, Today I saw a group of Jews protesting the Indigo-Chapters bookstore support for Israel. There are jews like Professor Finklestein who denies Holocaust. Those Jews support Crazy Papa Paul could be related to them too... We are dealing with sick people here.
Posted by: winston | 15-Dec-07 5:30:07 PM
any support for Israel is good.
any support for a prez nomination is suspect.
an ethical thing is to "attempt" to return the money from suspect orgs. Other than attempting then who gives a fuck?
Posted by: reg dunlop | 15-Dec-07 6:15:06 PM
Sick people? Come on, Winston.
As I mentioned before, my friend and founding subscriber to the Western Standard, Walter Block (www.walterblock.com), is part of Jews for Ron Paul (www.jews4ronpaul.org). Walter was the senior economist with the Fraser Institute (www.fraserinstitute.ca) in the early days – and he’s a friend of Ted Byfield.
Walter is not "sick".
Ronald Hamoway is also on the Board of Advisors of this group. Hamoway taught at the University of Alberta and former Western Standard writer Colby Cosh (www.colbycosh.com) did his post-graduate work in European intellectual history under him.
I hear from friends that Hamoway is a bit grumpy, but, again, not “sick”.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 15-Dec-07 9:32:31 PM
I don't know who this "winston" character is (does anyone?), but he is self-evidently a clown. Norman Finkelstein (note correct spelling) is hardly in a position to deny the Holocaust, given his family history (see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Finkelstein). The late Raul Hilberg, foremost historian of the period, after careful calculation estimated the numbers of Jewish deaths at 5.1 million, and this is the number Finkelstein uses. (See here: http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=3&ar=102)
Using Hitler to attack Ron Paul is further proof (if further proof were needed) of neocon depravity (and desperation).
Posted by: Kevin Michael Grace | 15-Dec-07 11:13:10 PM
There are jews like Professor Finklestein who denies Holocaust.
Posted by: winston | 15-Dec-07 5:30:07 PM
Where is Finkelstein saying the Holocaust didn't happen? He claims (and I think he has a point here) that a certain political spectrum within Israel has taken the Holocaust over to use as their own personal cash machine in order to extort money from Germany and companies who were involved in the Holocaust.
His claim is that most of the money collected for the jewish victims never gets in their hands, victims of other affiliations (Communits, Democrats, Homosexuals, mentally disabled) are completely ignored by this "Holocaust Industry".
Do you really want to equate that position with Holocaust Denial? If so, get your head examined.
Posted by: Snowrunner | 15-Dec-07 11:47:19 PM
This nutcase Paul advocates that we should leave the world to itself and leave it alone. Wonder if he thinks we still live in 17th century and I wonder if he thinks we should leave Israelis to the mercy of their arab neighbors.
The guy is an anti-Jewish nutcase that won't win a chair, let alone the US presidency. It's terrible to see that there are anti-semites in the race for president.
Posted by: winston | 16-Dec-07 5:39:15 PM
Post a comment