|
Stephann -> RE: Ron Paul...not so cuddly? (1/9/2008 6:28:41 PM)
|
You haven't answered the meat of my point.
The article itself posted hearsay, for one:
quote:
"Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism.""
It's not saying "This was something Paul published." It's saying "This is something that Charles Morris, Paul's political opponent, said that Paul published." Another example:
quote:
In an October 1992 item about urban crime, the newsletter's author--presumably Paul--wrote, "I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."
Does it mean anything that I think everyone in my family should also know how to use a gun in self defense? I do think that if I live in the wrong part of town, sooner or later, it's going to be necessary.
As for the rest of the quotes pulled directly from Paul's newsletters, the themes in the article illustrate 'someone's' opinion on black urban crime. The point didn't suggest that blacks were more likely, as a whole, to commit crime. The point is that we have created a system that locks the urban black population into slums and ghettos, where they can't get out. The quotes point out the same thing that blacks say: that it's the system we have put in place, not the people themselves. That government entitlements have locked these people into a self-destructive circle. It has nothing to do with race.
quote:
In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives.
Which issue? Which number? Which month? When a journalist is quoting sources, they're expected to inform the reader where the source is. "One newsletter" isn't quoting a source; for all I know, the author of this article wrote that 'newsletter' himself.
But the most telling part, is the evidence of the writers of those newsletters themselves, admitting "Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them." ( http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822 )
The TNR article says "His adversaries are often described in harsh terms: Barbara Jordan is called "Barbara Morondon," - Paul himself felt this was "the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady."
Considering how steadfastly this man holds to his ideals, rejecting bill after bill that he felt contrary to the constitution, I can't imagine him flip flopping on an issue like this.
http://www.texasmonthly.com/2001-10-01/feature7.php
Journalism of the TNR caliber isn't always, necessarily, wrong, but if I had to bank on their credibility against Pauls, I think the disclaimer at the bottom of the TNR article illustrates just what sort of journalism they practice.
quote:
"Corrections: This article originally misidentified ABC's Jake Tapper as Jack. In addition, Paul was a surgeon in the Air Force, not the Army, as the piece originally stated. It also stated that David Duke competed in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. In fact, he was a Republican candidate in an open primary. The article has been corrected."
If Paul practiced medicine the way these guys practiced journalism, how long do you think he'd be in business?
Seriously, if you don't like the guys politics, that's cool. I just think that the 'infamous' newsletters aren't particularly telling of anything about the man himself. Obama did both pot and coke. Clinton was married to...well, Clinton. Huckabee rejects evolution. Romney likes to make up things, and Giuliani's a womanizer. McCain carries Voodoo charms (On the 2000 campaign, he carried a 'lucky' compass, feather, shoes, pen, penny, and a rock. He panicked briefly when he misplaced the feather.) None of these issues, for me, shed particularly fabulous light on our next potential president (who will, clearly, come from the group I've just named - Obama, Clinton, Huckabee, Romney, Giuliani, McCain, or Paul.) Neither do I think that these particular issues leaves them unfit to lead. It's their stances on the issues that I care about, that will earn my vote. So far, of this group, only Paul seems willing to disentangle our country from Iraq and foreign disputes in a way that could restore dignity to our country. I don't say this because I fear war; I'm a former Marine. I say it, because I don't want my children growing up and having to worry about terrorists bombing us. The less we depend on foreign oil and the less we dole out foreign aid, the fewer reasons we'll have to get in pissing matches with people we don't understand, in cities many people can't spell.
Stephan
|
|
|
|
