There has been a fair amount of internet activity today around a New Republic article on Ron Paul. Author James Kirchik has unearthed a fair amount of ugly new material from the Paul archives that is more than a little racist and sexist. Some of this we have seen before, as Paul himself points out. Some not. Whatever is new or isn’t, it is undeniably real. Paul’s rebuttal argument seems to be – it may be bad, but I didn’t write it.
Whoa. The only name on those newsletters is Ron Paul, no matter who wrote the actual articles. We all know that most politicians do not write their own speeches, but we certainly hold them to the contents. Why not Paul? And this creepy stuff went on for over ten years. It’s not like one week slipped by.
It’s hard to imagine how his many acolytes countenance this. Would they allow statements like that to made under their names for year after year? Maybe they agree with stuff like: “I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”
I don’t know, but I would like them to explain. No, scratch that. I think we’ve heard enough from them. I don’t want any more obscene email. Pajamas Media has gotten a ton of it from these fanatics – and most of it while Ron Paul was in our Straw Poll, even though they insisted that he wasn’t, telling us so in so many brain dead four-letter words. (They just port over like lemmings from their websites without bothering to read.)
But Paul shouldn’t be alarmed with these revelations. He has the support of Andrew Sullivan. Perhaps Andrew would also favor Le Pen, who similarly insists he is not a racist. (And, no, Andrew, all those anti-gay slurs were not written by Paul. Somebody tricked him while he was asleep.)
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
23 Comments
1. Deagle:While I think Ron Paul is a bit of a kook, I also know that this was discussed on FreeRepublic over a year ago. I would have to also question the timing of the New Republic replaying this at this time. After all, my trust with this magazine is near zero.
That said, it does not really matter that much since he did not have any chance anyway (thank goodness).
Jan 8, 2008 - 4:13 pm 2. Roger:In all fairness, Deagle, there was a fair amount of material in the TNR coverage that I don’t recall being on Free Republic.
Jan 8, 2008 - 4:28 pm 3. Buddy Larsen:I don’t know if I’d minimize the phenom, tho. Some pols are peculiarly destructive of the national political culture — that’s the hard-to-put-your-finger-on background problem of people like the Clintons — their distortion of ideals, their redefining of words and ideas into new and untested forms — and imho Ron Paul is in this category.
Jan 8, 2008 - 4:30 pm 4. Deagle:I’m sure you’re right Roger…after all a news magazine should be able to extract additional facts. Anyway, I would not argue with anyone who has been blessed by Travis McGee… :^)
Jan 8, 2008 - 4:41 pm 5. Deagle:Well shoot! Right after I posted, I realized my error, sorry – still confusing John and Ross (have read both and yours also). I attribute to my old age… (Well, I did like Travis McGee the best – sorry)…
Jan 8, 2008 - 4:54 pm 6. Captain Hate:Thanks for the link Roger; I need to check in occasionally on how Sully’s dementia is progressing. Supporting Ron Paul indicates up a few clicks, not to mention the associated comments. Maybe I shouldn’t check anymore, it’s not even remotely interesting.
Jan 8, 2008 - 4:54 pm 7. Michael J. Totten:Deagle:I would have to also question the timing of the New Republic replaying this at this time. After all, my trust with this magazine is near zero.
The author, James Kirchik, is also a colleague of mine at Commentary Magazine. I trust him, if that means anything to you.
In my opinion, it’s more worth paying attention to the author of an article than the publication in which it appears. I get slammed sometimes for what other people wrote in the same magazine in which my articles appear, and I never appreciate it.
Jan 8, 2008 - 5:19 pm 8. Barry Dauphin:If the name Ron Paul were replaced with Chimpy Bushitlerburton, Sullivan would be in high outrage and be setting new standards in pompous indignation (the record currently held by Bill Maher). I guess he can cut Pauly some slack on lax editorial oversight. Maybe Stephen Glass wrote the stuff.
Jan 8, 2008 - 5:20 pm 9. Michael J. Totten:Deagle, let me clarify something. I understand your distrust of TNR. I do. But there is no chance Kirchik’s story was fabricated (as Beuachamp’s may have been). Ron Paul doesn’t deny that what TNR published is true. He’s just trying to distance himself from its contents.
Jan 8, 2008 - 5:22 pm 10. Deagle:While I agree with your idea that the author is the most important, most do look at the overall output of a news magazine. Seems maybe that the editors are the key…anyway, I do agree, but don’t want to take the time to authenticate each magazine author. The magazine’s reputation is the total of its output. It is always nice if you know a particular author of course which makes it much easier to authenticate the article.
Actually, I have little trust in most news magazines or newspapers for that matter…my problem though.
Jan 8, 2008 - 5:26 pm 11. Argaman:Kirchick provides more detail on the newsletters than Free Republic did – he went and dug up a lot of them in archives. I think it’s very important that this article is being published in TNR, whatever else you think of their politics – it’s the first time this information has broken into the mainstream media.
Jan 8, 2008 - 5:27 pm 12. Deagle:Again, it just did not matter… Ron Paul was a kooky, strange entry at any rate. He could not have had more than 10# of the population regardless. I guess it is good that this may push his supporters to another candidate, but other than that, it is just entertainment value – interesting, but not important.
He was a crazy nut when he entered the race, and he is the crazy nut as he collapses. Unfortunately, his supporters are probably so strange that they would not vote for a normal candidate anyway.
Jan 8, 2008 - 5:44 pm 13. David Thomson:“The author, James Kirchik, is also a colleague of mine at Commentary Magazine. I trust him, if that means anything to you.”
James Kirchik is a very bright and careful writer. He can definitely be trusted. The New Republic sometimes publishes some very sharp individuals. Not all of them are idiots.
Jan 8, 2008 - 6:37 pm 14. Deagle:David,
I don’t doubt that all of his article is true… That was not my initial point. It was just that most of this has been known in the blog world for some time now. Most already knew Paul was a kooky character (along with all the abnormal adjectives).
I just was questioning the magazines timing… It did not really matter if I knew the individual authors of this article since the truth was already known..but of course, it would make a difference in other articles…
Jan 8, 2008 - 9:19 pm 15. David Thomson:“I just was questioning the magazines timing”
I suspect that TNR decided to publish the article before it became irrelevant. Ron Paul is not going to win the GOP nomination! In another few weeks nobody will give a damn about him—except for the possibility that he will start a third party. Moreover, I am glad that Paul is coming under fire. He is, for instance, shooting his mouth off about Martin Luther King, Jr. This hinders folks like myself who strongly believe that the murdered civil rights leader’s legacy must be reevaluated. I do not appreciate being confused with a bunch of right-wing racist crazies.
Jan 8, 2008 - 9:57 pm 16. TomTom:I find Kirchik’s piece just a little snarky, as in his suggestion that (all) secessionist thought is wacko. The League of the South used to have a fair # of academics aboard. Kirchik feels good about establishment libertarians like the Cato Institute (as do I), but I sense he respects Cato because they’re urbanely polished, not vulgar like Paul.
Jan 8, 2008 - 10:05 pm 17. Gary Rosen:Re TNR, wonder why Kirchik agreed to write for that rag–money, or preaching to the converted? Perhaps Mr. Thomson can enlighten us.
“wonder why Kirchik agreed to write for that rag–money, or preaching to the converted?”
God forbid a writer should actually get paid for it! Actually, I sorta agree with Deagle – TNR’s credibility has been damaged enough that you have to take what they say with a grain of salt or at least “trust but verify”. It’s a moot point now, though, because Kirchik has been proven right. Paul isn’t denying, he’s spinning. And does anyone care what Sullivan thinks any more?
Jan 8, 2008 - 11:44 pm 18. markus:Sullivan is acceptably chastened. And perhaps this righteous article was the final push Rudy needed to defeat Dr. Paul by a couple thousand votes. Thank you Marty.
Jan 9, 2008 - 12:45 am 19. Buddy Larsen:Wot, no propeller-beanie parades holding little red copies of the Constitution aloft?
Jan 9, 2008 - 3:06 am 20. Lem:For once I want to see somebody stand up and take responsibility.
From Roger Clemens to Barry Bonds and Ron Paul, deny, deny, deny.
For a culture that obsesses the Britney Spears and it’s sports stars knowing and following everything about them, we don’t know comparatevely squat about the people asking to lead us.
Jan 9, 2008 - 6:33 am 21. Wellspring:I agree with Gary and Michael on this. Pajamas Media confirmed it, Paul himself admitted it. TNR’s poor fact checking does merit a little healthy skepticism, but in this case it appears they’re totally above board. Also I trust Michael Totten’s judgment about Kirchik.
Even if we take Ron Paul completely at his word, this is so damning that a non-fringe candidate would withdraw from the race in shame. His actions in his own version of events are completely unacceptable. He plans on overseeing the US government and he can’t handle a couple people on his staff? What kind of judgment does it take to hire people like that in the first place? Stuff goes out in his name for more than a decade without him checking up on it? And that’s if you accept him at his word, which I don’t.
As for TNR’s timing, they’d have been more effective in scuttling New Hampshire if they’d released this a week ago. Hopefully, RP’s supporters will abandon him en masse before South Carolina.
Jan 9, 2008 - 7:27 am 22. Lewis A:Ron Paul is just a lightly airbrushed Lyndon Larouche. He attracts the same sort of creepy conspiratorial, racist, anti-semites that Lyndon did in his heyday. Don’t be surprised if Ron Paul thinks the Queen of England, Holland, and Henry Kissinger control global drug trafficking.
Jan 9, 2008 - 8:57 am 23. Buddy Larsen:It didn’t take the latest revelation to lend him an odor. Anybody who says to hell with his country’s friends and allies is certain to turn on others too, sooner or later. That alone makes all the high & mighty rhetoric worse than meaningless. Sure, we’re spread thin protecting the west and the free world — but where will we be–what will we be–if we don’t?
Jan 9, 2008 - 11:13 am