4 ms·

The newsletter debacle is 'damning' simply because the US corporate media has decreed it so. The newsletters are definitely offensive, and are reasonable cause

The newsletter debacle is 'damning' simply because the US corporate media has decreed it so. The newsletters are definitely offensive, and are reasonable cause for disliking Paul as a candidate and perhaps even a person, but as others have pointed out, they are relatively mild as far as political skeletons in the closet go. If the media favored him, they could be easily downplayed as have been countless much more serious missteps and outright crimes by mainstream candidates in the past. I was personally very disappointed when I found out about the newsletters and disgusted by the idea that Paul would even associate with people who would think manipulating racial tensions for political expediency is morally acceptable. But let's put it in perspective--in the last decades the lies and criminality of the US political class have led to the wrongful deaths of millions, illegal torture, vast illegal wiretapping programs, vast financial fraud and unprecedented transfers of wealth to the very richest people in the world, stripping of civil liberties that have been fundamental since the Magna Carta... need I go on? How much airtime do we see devoted to examining establishment political figures' complicity in these and laundry lists of other history-making type crimes? I'm sorry, but the idea that Ron Paul's lapse in oversight on some barely-circulated newsletters 15 years ago somehow ranks as 'damning' on the scale of political transgressions is, quite frankly, utter horseshit. This is just continuation of the usual program--distract from the real issues and manipulate public opinion through manufactured divisiveness and tabloid journalism.

aamar 15y ago
You're inappropriately comparing the actions of candidates with people who have actual power. Neither George W. Bush nor John Yoo is running for office. Ron Paul is, and as a non-leadership representative, he's not in a position to affect policy in any significant way. He hasn't had the opportunity do things that Bush did. In order to assess him as a candidate, we have to understand how he acted given his opportunities. Considering how small those opportunities were, a profitable newsletter publishing articles exhibiting this level of inaccuracy and racial animus is meaningful.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  he's not in a position to affect policy in any significant way I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy. As president, on the other hand, the job is to find ways to implement the policies that the Congress has defined. We get all excited about Presidential election, but at least in theory, the Executive is less important than the other branches. On the other hand, Congress has ceded so much power to the Executive branch (e.g., giving the EPA, IRS, FDA, etc., so much latitude in defining regulations) that power tilts significantly in that direction -- although not to that office itself, but to that branch. And I suppose that it's natural to focus on the single individual figurehead, when the power of the Legislature, even if it really is more important as I claim, is more diffuse across all the members of that body.
  - aamar 15y ago
    > I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy. We're evaluating individuals here, not branches of government. The House is probably the most most important single body in the government, and if we are unhappy with the laws, we should indeed generally hold that body as the first layer of accountability. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of 435 members of the House. He does not chair a committee and has chaired one subcommittee for one year. He heads a congressional caucus--that's good--but it has ~12 members and virtually no record of legislation or other action. Separately he has gotten ~1 bill passed in his career and a very small number of notable amendments. He has not been a decisive vote on virtually any issue. Many individuals have policy powers vastly exceeding this, including not only (obviously) the president, AG, Supreme Court, and perhaps 100+ Congressional leaders, but also (I would aver) the Cabinet, Federal Reserve Board, OLC, JCs, and dozens or hundreds of others. I think it's very common for people to treat all members of Congress as if they're the same, but Ron Paul is not John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi. Ron Pauls's power comes from his writings and speeches on various principles of governmental power and the economy. If he's been remiss on that exact front--hired famous cranks like Lew Rockwell to ghost for him and then failed to review his work--then he's mismanaged his power. I'm not saying that he's a criminal in the sense that, say, Warren Harding is a criminal, but it's absolutely relevant to his candidacy. edit: Ron Paul does chair one subcommittee as of Jan 2011--misstated that.

aamar 15y ago

You're inappropriately comparing the actions of candidates with people who have actual power. Neither George W. Bush nor John Yoo is running for office. Ron Paul is, and as a non-leadership representative, he's not in a position to affect policy in any significant way. He hasn't had the opportunity do things that Bush did. In order to assess him as a candidate, we have to understand how he acted given his opportunities. Considering how small those opportunities were, a profitable newsletter publishing articles exhibiting this level of inaccuracy and racial animus is meaningful.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
he's not in a position to affect policy in any significant way I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy. As president, on the other hand, the job is to find ways to implement the policies that the Congress has defined. We get all excited about Presidential election, but at least in theory, the Executive is less important than the other branches. On the other hand, Congress has ceded so much power to the Executive branch (e.g., giving the EPA, IRS, FDA, etc., so much latitude in defining regulations) that power tilts significantly in that direction -- although not to that office itself, but to that branch. And I suppose that it's natural to focus on the single individual figurehead, when the power of the Legislature, even if it really is more important as I claim, is more diffuse across all the members of that body.
- aamar 15y ago
  > I think you misunderstand the separation of powers in the US government. As a member of the House of Representatives, part of the Congress, it's been explicitly Paul's job to set policy. We're evaluating individuals here, not branches of government. The House is probably the most most important single body in the government, and if we are unhappy with the laws, we should indeed generally hold that body as the first layer of accountability. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is one of 435 members of the House. He does not chair a committee and has chaired one subcommittee for one year. He heads a congressional caucus--that's good--but it has ~12 members and virtually no record of legislation or other action. Separately he has gotten ~1 bill passed in his career and a very small number of notable amendments. He has not been a decisive vote on virtually any issue. Many individuals have policy powers vastly exceeding this, including not only (obviously) the president, AG, Supreme Court, and perhaps 100+ Congressional leaders, but also (I would aver) the Cabinet, Federal Reserve Board, OLC, JCs, and dozens or hundreds of others. I think it's very common for people to treat all members of Congress as if they're the same, but Ron Paul is not John Boehner or Nancy Pelosi. Ron Pauls's power comes from his writings and speeches on various principles of governmental power and the economy. If he's been remiss on that exact front--hired famous cranks like Lew Rockwell to ghost for him and then failed to review his work--then he's mismanaged his power. I'm not saying that he's a criminal in the sense that, say, Warren Harding is a criminal, but it's absolutely relevant to his candidacy. edit: Ron Paul does chair one subcommittee as of Jan 2011--misstated that.