As many people have been pointing out for a long time, despite his current attractiveness to disaffected conservatives Ron Paul is a crazy, racist conspiracy loon.
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first-person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics. ...
[skip past pages of craziness]
In other words, Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a na?ve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.
Anyone who supports or associates with this sort of idiocy should be ashamed. I know that none of the mainstream Republican candidates are perfect reincarnations of the idealized Ronald Reagan, but that doesn't excuse embracing a nut like Ron Paul.
I first thought Ron Paul might be crazy when I saw him come out of nowhere to win the PJM straw poll months ago (currently he's not even an option in the PJM poll on my left sidebar because he didn't make 1% in a Gallup poll). Since I never heard of him, I figured his followers must have been spamming the poll. Since someone would have to be a loon to think spamming an internet poll could translate to actual support, then I figured someone with so many loony followers was probably crazy, attracting loony moths with his flame of crazy.
I was right. In the last GOP debate, he blamed America for 9/11, basically saying our policy should be dictated by the beliefs of Osama bin Laden. Since then, I looked more into Ron Paul and found other crazy beliefs.
MORE CRAZY BELIEFS OF RON PAUL
* The disappointing PS3 debut is our fault because we bombed Nagasaki.
* The unclear fate of Oceanic Flight 815 is a direct result of our occupation of Hawaii.
* The reason the local Chinese restaurant is always messing up his order is because of the actions of Charlton Heston in 55 Days at Peking.
* The reason Taco Bell menu items so much fat is because of our illegal Mexican-American War.
* Edwards's poor manicure is our fault for going into Vietnam.
Probable presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) never shies away from speaking his mind, even (or, perhaps, especially) when it sets him apart from the herd. But has he gone too far by suggesting the raid on Osama bin Laden was "absolutely not necessary"?
Paul told WHO Newsradio 1040 in Iowa that "things would be done somewhat differently" had he been in charge. A Ron Paul administration would have "respect for the rule of law and world law and international law."
Paul says his strategy to capture bin Laden would have been one of cooperation with the Pakistani government, similar to the way Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was apprehended.
"They arrested him, actually, and turned him over to us, and he's been in prison," Paul said. "What's wrong with that? ... Why can't we work with the government?"
Critics would argue the fact that bin Laden was more or less hiding in plain sight in Pakistan leaves room for doubt that Pakistan would have been fully cooperative in an effort to retrieve him.
The video referenced above, is it supposed to prove he is crazy? I watched it and most of the audio didn't sound too far off to me.... Maybe some of the images could be seen as a little "funny" or something.... Most of what is said about fiscal practices, education, and individual liberties sounds pretty right on.
(from the posts on this thread, I have a feeling I am in the minority on this....)
I kind of like Ron Paul. I think he's got a certain honesty about him, and doesn't care about being politically correct. Hah, and obviously the opposition is scared of him, or else they wouldn't be going through such a bias hooplah to try and get people scared of him. Makes me proud!
Discover Scentsy at Lucky Lucy Scentsy Products - an independent Scentsy consultant!