Old school racist, Ron Paul, is making small news by claiming Bush and Obama only differ in style, not substance.
Rep Ron Paul, R-Texas, took aim yesterday at President Barack Obama, noting Obama was elected on a platform for change, yet is every much of a neo-con now as former President George W. Bush was on some issues. [MORE]
Kind of like the way Ron Paul and Robert Byrd are both racists who only differ in style, not substance.
Byrd was a card carrying Klan member, and Ron Paul used to author a racist news letter.
UPDATE: Let’s clear a few things up. The authors of this blog are not cheerleaders for Bush. He did a lot of good, and he also fell drastically short on several issues. Iran and the first bailout come to mind. Regular and long time readers of this blog will tell you that we are not reflexive defenders of Bush or Republicans.
One point of this post was in response to an incorrect statement on racist Ron Paul’s part, that there is no difference between Bush and Obama. They do indeed share some similarities, but there are far more differences than similarities.
Another point to this post was to highlight the fact that Ron Paul has no credibility in the eyes of this blog. Like it or not Ron Paulians, your dear leader edited a racist newsletter. He denies it, yet he signed his name to the issues. Perhaps Ron Paul’s supporters would like to make the case that he is no longer a racist, like Democrats try to argue about Klansman Byrd, but those arguments are problematic at best.
So for those Ron Paul supporters who are threatening to never visit this site again, we wish you would reconsider. But if you choose to stick to your guns, it was nice having you while you were here. Take care.
This is the only principled man left in Washington. He predicted the current economic crisis and he has stood more for our founding principles than any other politician. He knows more about the Constitution than any 3 politicians combined and you offer up the tired political game that he is a racist? Are you a liberal? That is a liberal argument to any counter point? Do you know what collectivism is? How about individualism? I contend that Ron Paul is the most PRO-individual politicians in the country right now. Collectivist -or- people who participate in group think- (like yourself) like to paint people with a broad brush stroke. This is the root cause of racism. I’ve found in my experience that the RACIST is usually the guy telling everyone else who they should hate. You suck – Grow a pair and stand for freedom you un-American tool. OBAMA is BUSH on steroids you party shill. Your blind devotion to a party is sickening.
You just lost a reader with the he’s a racist liberal pandering regarding Ron Paul. You might want to educate yourself if your going to write about this stuff…
Identifying Ron Paul as a racist in order to discredit his ideas is not clear thinking nor do I think it correct. If you disagree that Obama and Bush do differ in more than just style, put your argument forward. Calling Paul a racist though does nothing to further such an argument unless you expect that if you effectively call him a racist you don’t have to bother with the substance of the argument because people will automatically throw the baby out with the bathwater if they believe it true.
Limeridger, the last 9 words of the post (a link you clearly did not make use of) are the substance of the label.
that Paul is a racist has nothing to do with Bush & Obama.
furthermore, that you require this blog to document for you any appreciable difference in the policies of Bush & Obama is unsettling.
This is the last time I come to this website.
I think you over reacted to Ron Paul’s statements. You are defensive for George Bush and responded to a fairly accurate description of BO’s foreign policy with getting in the gutter name calling, but nothing of substance to his arguments. I personally agree with Bush and Obama as far as keeping a presence in the middle east, we should secure the area for energy purposes. Paul is right about closing up bases in Germany and Europe in general. Time for the EU to stand on it’s own feet in their defense and not be left up to the American taxpayer.
I’ve enjoyed coming here, but calling Ron Paul a racist was wrong.
That story was old about the newsletter and he even said himself those were not the works of him and had no knowledge of them.
Mr. Paul is a honorable man, and I cannot say that about most, but Ron Paul is 100% honorable and to put in him with Byrd…I just don’t get it.
I wish you and your blog lots of success, but I can’t support it.
Dr. Pacebags, it is correct that Paul’s views on race has nothing to do with Bush and Obama and is the point I was trying to make. Even if Paul is in fact a racist, a claim that I am NOT making, it still would just be a label that has nothing to do with the merits of his claim that Obama and Bush differ only in style. Please understand that my comment about putting your argument forward was not about requiring this blog to document anything for me but rather was an extension of my point that we should discuss the issues rather than call names which I believe detracts from the issue. Although I’m not a Paulian, I think that some of his comments are spot on and other are not. Whether he is a racist does not change whether his comments are right or wrong, thats all. I generally enjoy your blog so keep it comin’….
Limeridger,
first, thanks for the clarification.
for the record, i believe Paul has an undeniable racist past. whether or not that deficiency informs his current thinking, i know not, but that does tend to…ahem…’color’ whatever it is i hear him say. in exactly the same way that i always take byrd’s comments with a grain of salt. or trent lott’s. or &c.
i believe that was the point of using the label.
second, this isn’t my blog, but i do enjoy it immensely.
When Stalin (or Mao) held power, one way to prove you weren’t a class enemy was to denounce someone else. Glad to see you’re keeping up the tradition by doing the same to Ron Paul. It also makes it so much easier to just label someone a class enemy (aka racist,sexist,homophobe) so you don’t actually have to face up to their arguments, doesn’t it?
The funny part is how the left has sold this mechanism to “conservatives” and how much the left just ignores it when convenient while the right uses it to tear themselves apart.
Brilliant left. Stupid right.
Of course, the next thing you need to do is take down all the “Founding Bloggers” window dressing BS here because you have nothing in common with the American founders and their enlightenment based philosophies. But good luck feeling all warm and self righteous with your collectivist morality.
I’ve taken this blog off my favorites. Maybe someday you’ll achieve some political maturity. Until then, see ya round the campus, doc.
Ron Paul is a little strange but I believe he relates to more of the common people than any politician in Dc. I might not want Paul to be the President but would love to see him in a Cabinet with some power.
I think you snide remarks about Ron Paul overshadows some of the good points he makes. I had and still do have the utmost respect for Bush but he rolled over the last couple years and let the dems run over him and the Republicans and he didn’t help with some of his decisions during that time.
Comparing Ron Paul to Bryd is pretty extreme and while I am no Ron Paul fan his stance on drug reform alone would do more for americans and minorities especially than anything Bush or Obama have or will do.
this kind of reporting is like the MSM reporting something but overshadowing it with unrelated news to dilute the story. Plus you are dragging up something that happened what 17 years ago?
I am not a “Ron Paulian” as you suggest. My point is that you skirt the issue you were arguing about, that of Bush and Obama, by not giving even one point of their difference. You seem to rather argue that Ron Paul and Robert Byrd are raciest. I won’t argue about their past nor their excuses. I will argue that everybody has the capability of change and unless there is something current I am willing to accept that both are true to their claims they are not racists. But whether they are or they are not, if you want to argue the point of Iraq then that is where you should make your point. Not some other reference. Try to stay focused.
JT- “Plus you are dragging up something that happened what 17 years ago?”
Well, we do hold Bill Ayers responsible for the things he did decades ago.
Obama should be held responsible for his overt devotion to a racist preacher, even decades from now.
Why should Ron Paul get a pass? Just because some people support him with almost blind devotion?
It seems inconsistent.
Because there is alot of evidence he didn’t write it and it just seemed he got duped to put his name on something he wasn’t maybe watching as closely as he should have. Again comparing Bill Ayers and obama going to rev wright is a lot different. If ron paul blows up a black church or goes sits in a KKK meeting than you would be comparing apples to apples and i would be behind you 100%
If you have an issue with Ron Paul you should have posted another post/article just about him and address all of it there and not dilute his comments with your own. I know you might not believe it but I am not a ron paul follower and never have voted for him but I do like a lot of his ideas because they are simple and would be more effective then these long complex ideas most politicans come up with.
Its not inconsistent its being fair. this is what our political system has become a constent childlike arguement on who can get the last word that hurts the most and the real important points of the arguement gets lost in all the back and forth banter.
Thanks for helping me understand why my square peg never fit in the Republican round hole, and giving me some more reading for my list. I don’t agree with this article, but I will defend your right to your views.
“anarcho-capitalist” represents a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history–the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states.
and,
“anarcho-capitalist” who viewed the state as nothing more than “a criminal gang”
Why is the statement 96% of blacks voted for Obama not racist, but believing the above makes you one?
The word racist is being used so much today that it has lost it’s power. So if your argument is that if I disagree with you, I am a racist, then so be it. I take a little mud to stand up for what I think is right.
K, funny how this was a “favorite” site for you until they dissed Paul.
now who’s feeling “all warm & self-righteous”?
moreover, where’s YOUR argument for why Paul ISN’T a racist?
seems like you like to cast labels around as much as those you accuse….
I’ve met Dr. Paul, listened to thousand of his speeches and read 3 of his books and i can say without question Ron Paul loves freedom for ALL people, it’s to bad you can’t see that. His movement is called the freedom movement for a reason. I thought only brain dead liberals used racism as a political tool.
Perhaps at one time Ron Paul was a racist. Perhaps he still is. Yet perhaps he isn’t anymore. Currently, there is no evidence to support he is still a racist, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. But regardless of his feelings towards other races, it does not mean all of his arguments are “voided,” so to speak. That’s like saying because Biden plagiarized some of his speeches we shouldn’t listen to him… and yet people listened to him and now he is currently the vice president of the U.S.A.
People change over time. For instance, someone I discovered before the 2008 presidential election was Bob Barr. His beliefs are similar, if not identical, to Ron Paul’s. Bob Barr used to be a fervent Republican that was dedicated to outlawing Marijuana. However, now that he is a Libertarian he has changed his stance and now believes the complete opposite (see bobbarr.org if you want to read up more on him- I recommend it).
In conclusion, I believe it to be a bad choice to discredit someone like Ron Paul based on one thing from the distant past. Especially since a majority of his ideals overlap with the conservative nature of the articles presented on this website.
-Mike
PS – The simple fact that you’re comparing something like a newsletter to a former *klansman* is utterly ridiculous. This is the first article I have 100% disagreed with and hence the first time I am commenting, not that it will do anything.
PPSS – I still plan to check your website. :P Just wanted to through my objection in here.