The New York Times has an interesting front page piece on Ron Paul’s relationship with the racists, anti-Semites and neo-Nazis in his coalition (sorry, but whatever you think of Lew Rockwell, Stormfront and David Duke certainly deserve such labels).
His three defenses are: 1) He didn’t have direct knowledge of the really bad things and cannot remember anything when people provide evidence that he did.
2) He won’t disavow support from neo-Nazis and white supremacists because their endorsement of him doesn’t imply or suggest his endorsement of them. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say.”
3) Last he believes that his continued reliance on their support can be justified because he’s championing the cause of liberty. “I’ll go to anybody who I think I can convert to change their viewpoints — so that would be to me incidental,” he said. “I’m always looking at converting people to look at liberty the way I do.”
All of these are deficient. Let’s start with his first argument. I simply don’t believe him. His claim would require not only that he never wrote the newsletters in question but that he never read them, either. It would also strongly suggest that he never discussed their basic editorial thrust with a close aide and editor who was writing under Paul’s own name. He even claims that he never paid attention to his lucrative newsletter business because nobody ever complained about their content.
READ MORE AT: