Ron Paul Gets White Supremacist Support
It was bound to happen someday. Paul was about the only candidate that Goldwater Republicans could support, and a lot of libertarians have been energized by Paul. If there is not repudiation of the endorsement of the White Supremecist group Stormfront, though, Paul’s candidacy is dead in the water.
The news is out. White Supremacist group Stormfront has endorsed the candidacy of Ron Paul. So, the man who make sense, who has endeared himself to countless Republican voters on the libertarian side of the party, now has a new constituency. That is, if Ron Paul doesn’t repudiate the support of Stormfront. Alas, Liberal Values notes that Ron Paul seems to encourage this kind of support.
But if Paul does announce he’s going to repudiate the endorsement by the White Supremacist group, will that impress any of the people who vote in the Republican primaries? Serious question here. We liberals find consorting with White Supremacy groups to be simply wrong, and also a kiss of death to a campaign. But does that association necessarily harm Ron Paul in some areas of this country?
Our own Richard Blair has written about Ron Paul’s successes, especially with fundraising. I’m dying to see his take on this.
“We liberals find consorting with White Supremacy groups to be simply wrong…,”
So you go from pointing out that if some fringe group supports Ron Paul, that automatically equates to his consorting with that group. Wonderful logic.
As well, I am a conservative, Mr. Steve, and I don’t find that consorting with white supremacy groups ’simply right,’ as your statement implies.
In politics, I think you would find it hard to control who ’supports’ you and who doesn’t.
Gosh, I don’t know, Steve, why don’t we reform campaign contribution laws to include a mind scan to determine the true intention and thoughts of EACH donor of each candidate’s campaign for every election… we’ll set up a U.N. panel to judge the worthiness of each donor based on correct thought - weed out those with any aberration of thought or thought process and take funds from only those who meet a strict criteria based on Truth, Justice and the Way of the New Global Community. Would that make you happy Mr Steve?
This is still the United States of America and there certainly are a LOT of diverse groups here, aren’t there, Steve? Last time I was in New York I saw a lot of ‘Celebrate Diversity’ bumper stickers…
Tom
BTW, Dr Paul will be online this morning at 10 to answer questions. Why don’t you ask him?
http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/content/submit_2008goppaul.htm
Shall we start pointing out every nuke screaming idiot who supports a candidate etc?
And ask yourself this - why would such a group do such a thing publically? Do you think it is to help the candidate? Come on, be smarter than that.
You are kidding me right? I’m a Christian and in no way a supremacist of any kind. Can I vote for Paul if an atheist votes for him? Or, how about if I know a Muslim that’s voting for him? After all, we don’t believe the same things! My gosh, I’m a female. Can I vote for Paul if a gay male supports him? OH NO!!! Guess I can’t vote for anybody. Maybe I should just stay home. There might be someone with whom I disagree voting for all the candidates. Yeah, Great reasoning. Sheesh
I knew we’d get some Paul supporters on here. I’ll just say that if I were him, and a White Supremacist group was vocal with support for me, I’d let it be known I did not want that support. It’s that easy a calculation for me.
Evidently such calculation isn’t so easy for some.
Tom, Tom, Tom. I know a Tom who is a libertarian. I quite respect libertarians, actually. Most libertarians I know would have nothing to do with a White Supremacist.
What a LOAD! The innuendo here that Ron Paul is some how connected to a bunch of white supremest retards is laughable, and I mean all day long laughable! Its quite possible that an anti-Paul group put the retards up to it in a vain effort to make Ron Paul look bad. Kind of like what this article is attempting to do.
There is no innuendo here that Paul is connected to White Supremacists, James. there is an explicit statement that White Supremacists are supporting Paul, and that Paul ought to denounce that support.
Please note that my original post lauds Paul’s bringing together Goldwater and libertarian Republicans. I’d love for those folks to repudiate what have become the present Republican values of huge governemnt stomping on the rights of Americans. Good for Paul pointing all of that out. Some think Paul has encouraged the support of the White Supremacists. I do not evaluate that claim at all. I do say that Paul should repudiate these folks.
Why do you think he should ignore them?
“I knew we’d get some Paul supporters on here.”
Well, publishing such utter nonsense leads me to conclude the only reason for this piece was the hope for increase in traffic to your ‘progressive’ site.
How kind and progressive of you to throw some respect toward libertarians. Now try showing some respect for libertarianism instead of socialism; the road for which both liberals and neocons are paving.
Personally, I have more respect for guys like Jefferson and Franklin, and those who understood their principles - someone like Ron Paul, of course.
It really sucks when you have someone you don’t agree with enjoying the same level of freedom as you, eh, Steve? (Don’t get me wrong, I don’t ascribe to nor consort with the white supremist or his view, but I do respect his right to have it - just like the Muslim, the homosexual, the Trekkie, the Christian, the deer hunter, the tree hugger, etc. Makes your ‘progressive’ title seem rather oxymoronic, doesn’t it?)
Tom
There’s where we disagree, Tom. White Supremacy is a stance for which I have no respect. Such a philosophy explicitly values one human over another based solely on the color of skin. I’m not understanding what about that philosophy you respect.
Libertarians, on the other hand, support the freedom of speech of all citizens, but also the taking of responsiblity for that speech. I’m merely calling for Ron Paul to take responsibility, or not, for the speech of his supporters. If he’s got people rallying for him, while they also claim that some Americans don’t have the same value as they do, then that is completely counter to any libertarian philosophy I’ve heard of. Should Paul ignore those differences? I think not.
Oh Steve, There was no implication in my comment that I respected white supremacy, in fact, I made a point to tell you that in my first comment. I think you have confused my respect for the freedom we all enjoy and spun that to mean that I respect white supremacy. But then, this is the ‘Spin zone.’
Also that attribute you apply to libertarians about taking responsibility for their speech… I never read that in the Libertarian Rule Book. I would think that is simply common sense.
So, let me understand. You disagree strongly with racist speech, but you’re OK with them supporting your candidate?
Why?
Heck, I’d even be OK with YOU supporting Ron Paul. Why? Because I feel that he should be President of the United States. This is a big country, guy, lots of viewpoints out there. Should Dr Paul lash out at all of the supporters he disagrees with? If he did, he’d be a hypocrite, wouldn’t he?
Just because someone supports you doesn’t mean you agree with their line of thought. Should he become President of the United States, he’ll support your RIGHT to continue this blog along with your FREEDOM to continue this blog - whether he agrees with you or not. Ain’t that comforting?
We’re kind of having a little argument right now. We disagree. In fact, I think your viewpoints and tactics are sophomoric, to throw a little gasoline on the fire… But if I bought a product or service from one of your advertisers and you knew about it, would you bounce them off of your site?
Tom
You used to be better than these insults, Tom, and you used to also be better with analogies. You do not hold racist views. Indeed, on here you denounced them. So if you bought from one of our advertisers, were I to have that knowledge, I’d have no problems.
White Supremacists do hold overtly racists views. They promote them all the time. Were I a candidate, and they publicly supported me, then I would denounce them. I do not want to be associated with them. Why would you?
As to your consistent insults on here, why is that necessary? I’m just asking Ron Paul to do something I believe is morally necessary. I’d do the same for any other Republican or for a Democrat. I suppose your not seeing denouncing White Supremacists as morally important means you must stoop to outright insults? I don’t understand that at all.
But, hey. Why not try my phone number. I’d be glad to have an honest discussion on the subject.
Sorry, it’s late in the day, I’m old and I’m ready for a nap. I’ll work on the quality of those insults and analogies.
Anyway, see, you put the spin on, once again, that Dr Paul is ‘associating’ with this kind of group. This is the point you allude to in your piece. He’s not, but you insist that if he doesn’t denounce them then he is.
I disagree with you, OK? Why did I insult you? Because I was annoyed at your taking the liberties you did by covertly slamming my candidate - but I’m not going to write my Congressman urging him to draft a law in order to shut you down. Having differing points of view is healthy, Steve. I apologize for the insults
“I’m just asking Ron Paul to do something I believe is morally necessary.”
Isn’t it great that the Constitution of the United States protects your right to make that request? Just be glad that you are home on your keyboard making it, instead of at FSU. You’d probably be in jail by now.
FSU?
Regardless. Nobody here is talking about any laws regarding speech. Your mention is a nonsequitor at best.
A fallacy has been spread that Ron Paul is a libertarian. He is a libertarian to the extent free trade is within the US or even among white people. Ron Paul has opposed all free trade agreements including those with Singapore. He belongs to the House Immigration Reform Caucus which supports a moratorium on immigration even for those foreigners married to US citizens. Does this sound like a libertarian to you? I hope not. More like a Marxist or a simple old fashioned racist would be a more precise definition.
i am totally sick of the black people yelling that they are being miss treated- i am sick of the government and private industries living in fear of racial whining- come on people cant we all just get along and try to act like human being- i dont think that taking dog the bounty hunter and imus out of the media is where we need to start- how about these rappers promoting gangster life styles and talking bad about women in general come on people wake up.. you dont see al sharpton and jessie jackson rallying against a rapper who has used the n word- what makes it okay for black people to use it– what about the blacks using the term uncle sam- thats degrading to the white people- i think the whole name calling is nothing but juvenile- get over yourselves-
Sorry to hear you do not have one. I suppose that is a good reason for being so bitter.
The reason that Ron Paul does not support the “free trade agreements”, like NAFTA, is that they are extremely complex agreements, which are not required for free trade, and which on the contrary contain huge amounts of regulation.
There is one simple thing that a country has to do in order to have free trade with every nation in the world: repeal all it’s tariffs and quotas on imports and exports. That’s it.
Yes, other countries might continue to have tariffs against our goods. That would harm them and it would harm us, though less than it would harm them. Fine. For me to institute a tariff against you in “retaliation” after you have instituted a tariff against me make as much sense as cutting myself and bleeding on your shoe to “get revenge” for your having cut yourself and bled on my shoes.
To recap: it’s not the half-assed free trade in NAFTA to which Ron Paul objects … it’s the crap hidden under the covers.
And obviously, he is not racist. Some of his supports probably are. So what. They’re wrong about their views on race. They’re right that Ron Paul is the best possible president for America. Good. So rather than the good cause they support sending their money back, so they can spend it on lawn crosses, maybe the guys who sell them lawn crosses should send their money back, so they can send it to Ron Paul.
He already said he doesnt need or want thier support on pbs.