Fuck you, Young Conor, you entitled no-talent douche:
For me, the disconnect between the Ron Paul newsletters, which make me sick, and Paul’s words and actions in public life, which I often admire, put me in mind of the way I reacted when candidate Barack Obama was found to associate with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers, both of whom had said execrable things.
I’m not violent, I try not to be.
WereBear (itouch)
Oh, yeaaaaah. Exactly the same situation. Serving on a board with someone & and making money from a newsletter for years.
CarolDuhart2
Did Jeremiah Wright work for Obama? Did he ever pose as a representative for Obama? No.
What gets to me is that nobody ever realizes that Jeremiah Wright was entitled to his opinions. A black man his age and with his intelligence was frequently humiliated, told he was nothing, threatened with violence if he showed leadership. He came to his opinions about white people at least honestly. What did blacks or Jews ever do to Ron Paul that was even close? Yet Jeremiah was far more charitable that Ron Paul ever has been or is even capable of being.
Maude
Take a spoon and smack him on the bridge of his nose.
Redshift
Yes, clearly, the association between Barack Obama and Jeremiah Wright is just as close as the association between Ron Paul and Ron Paul.
PeakVT
So stupid. Nothing in any way comparable to Paul’s newsletter ever went out under Obama’s name.
Freidersdorf is a false equivalence peddling hack.
Trentrunner
People need to read these newsletters.
The contain some of the most appallingly racist, homophobic, xenophobic, propagandistic paranoia I’ve ever come across.
Anyone who supports Paul after this is a racist homophobic ignorant bigot. Period.
Thanks for FPing this.
Trentrunner
@Redshift: Perfect.
Linda Featheringill
Hey, Jesus Christ associated with some pretty questionable characters.
On the other hand, that may have been a factor in his conviction and execution.
Never mind.
wrb
Never understood what it was that Wright said that was execrable.
Raven
@wrb: Goddamn America it was.
Anya
You know who was heh-indeeding that pile of garbage? That’s because as Mnemosyne noted libertarians don’t care about civil rights, they only care about civil liberties.
Linda Featheringill
Ron Paul reportedly accepted the money that shit brought in. If this is true, then he is responsible for what was said. It doesn’t matter whether he wrote it or not. He did not publicly disavow the newsletters and he took the money. So now he is stuck with them.
On the other hand, don’t you love it when the mild mannered, very wise Mr. Paul is pushed on something and gets all “tetchy” about it? Maybe we could make him throw a temper tantrum or something.
CarolDuhart2
And the relationship between Wright and Obama was so the same as between Paul/and his alleged racist ghostwriter. Those who have been exposed to the real Ron Paul are looking desperately for equivalency to the hated Obama. But there is none. Obama speaks for himself, and if others speak for him, he avows that they have done so and defends his opinons.
Experience is replete of parishioners agreeing with the spiritual teachings and tuning out the political ramblings of a minister. And Obama has never given a hint that he agrees with the political ramblings of his spiritual teacher.
wrb
@Raven:
Oh.
I think I’ll faint.
In a bit. After I finish this glass of wine.
Hill Dweller
Obama served on the board of a charity along side Republicans and Ayers, who is a professor at the University of Illinois. I’m not absolving Ayers of his past behavior, but to pretend he was some sort of radical when Obama met him is absurd.
The same could be said of Wright. Despite all their allegations and literally hundreds of hours of video, they could only find ‘objectionable’ clips from three sermons spread over a five or six year period; none with Obama in the church.
They destroyed Wright to hurt Obama. Unfortunately, Wright took the bait, went a bit crazy with the spotlight on him, and made matters much worse.
Furthermore, Obama has never advocated any of the things Wright and Ayers are accused of saying/doing.
Trentrunner
@Hill Dweller: Just to make the history complete, Wright did go over the top at the Press luncheon/conference thing, and that’s when Obama had to repudiate him. I’ll if I can find it.
Mark S.
@wrb:
Me neither. That god damn America sermon was in the context of excoriating our foreign policy, namely, the Iraq War.
PeakVT
Maybe I shouldn’t be so harsh. It’s not like there’s a highly respected journalist who has been blogging about the problem of false equivalence for the past couple of months at the Atlantic.
wrb
@Mark S.:
exactly
I thought it was a good sermon.
If there was a preacher like that around here I might take up church goin.’
Amir Khalid
Repost from previous thread:
I too found myself getting impatient with Conor Friedersdorf. Never mind that Ron Paul talks a good game about reforming certain policies. Politicians do that when they’re campaigning. If Paul’s excuses about the newsletter are true, then he was oblivious to what was going on right under his nose. If they are false, then Paul is a bigot, a liar and a coward. Either way, Paul is clearly unfit to be president. Friedersdorf should withdraw his endorsement, but he won’t.
Friedersdorf’s mention of Obama’s association with Bill Ayers And Jeremiah Wright isn’t just false equivalency, it’s misrepresentation of the very facts. Obama was a child living abroad when Ayers was a radical and saying radical things; their only association was when they served on a committee decades later. Obama was in Wright’s congregation for many years, true; but congregants do not tell a minister what to say. Obama never condoned or endorsed the objectionable utterances of either man, and he left Wright’s congregation over what Wright had said.
@CarolDuhart2:
Not quite the same, though. Paul owns what was said, purportedly by him, in a newsletter (with his name in the title) published by him — whether or not he actually wrote the words himself. Obama the congregant didn’t own what Reverend Wright said.
Anya
@Hill Dweller:
My dad believes that Wright acted crazy so that it was easier for Obama to sever ties with him in public. I kinda believe that because everyone who knew him was shocked at the way he was acting. Wright was always eccentric and theatrical, but he never acted the way he acted at the press conference and at the NAACP.
AxelFoley
I’m surprised it took them this long to bring Rev. Wright back up.
Citizen_X
@Anya:
I think that’s right, but that garbage doesn’t make any sense. How can someone claim to defend my civil liberties if I have to be white to claim them? That makes them entitlements, not rights, and I have to be part of an entitled class to “deserve” them. It’s a form of Monarchism, not democracy.
Guster
If Ron Paul’s newsletter had served as a Marine in Vietnam, we’d be told that any criticism of it undermines the troops.
Trentrunner
@AxelFoley: And pretty soon they’ll start hinting that Obama is BLACK. Or at least high yeller or an octaroon.
Anya
@AxelFoley: For wingnuts and false equivalency champs, Rev. Wright is the joker-piece: He fits everywhere.
MattF
FWIW, Sullivan has backed away from his ‘endorsement’ of Paul. No linkie.
ChrisNYC
To further crush the analogy, Obama never said, “Hey that’s off limits and you have to love me in spite of whatever Wright said.” Never. He gave the race speech in response. Rather than, you know, storming out of CNN because someone had the temerity to ask a candidate for office a question about his past, Obama deigned to explain to voters. You could say that what he did was let the awesome market (for votes) work in an unfettered way. So delicious that libertarians are demanding what amounts to affirmative action, a vote subsidy if you will, for Ron Paul. It’s positively communist.
Pavlov's Dog
@Hill Dweller: Exactly. Rev Wright had hundreds of sermons up in the church website, and all they could find objectionable was three minutes or so that the news networks ran on an endless loop for a month.
AxelFoley
@Anya:
That’s exactly what my mom and I thought when that whole thing went down.
Sad thing was, wasn’t it Hillary’s people who brought up Rev. Wright’s words (which he was quoting someone else) in the first place? The same Rev. Wright who prayed over Bill Clinton when he was going through his impeachment?
Anya
@Citizen_X:
But isn’t that the way libertarians talk about civil liberties, as an entitlement, rather than a right?
SiubhanDuinne
Only very slightly off-topic: Why do so many writers/pundits affix the term “avuncular” to descriptions of Ron Paul? What’s so fucking avuncular about him? If I had an uncle like him, I’d run shrieking from the room and ask the grandparents to disinherit him.
Seriously, Google the words ron paul avuncular and just look at all the different citations that come up. What a weird and inappropriate meme!
AxelFoley
@ChrisNYC:
I’d LMMFAO if Ron Paul had to give his version of “A More Perfect Union” to keep his campaign alive. That shit would be interesting, to say the least.
MattF
@SiubhanDuinne: As in ‘crazy uncle.’
Raven
Christmas in the Trenches
John McCutcheon
Trentrunner
Ron Paul has been married three years longer than Barack Obama has been ALIVE.
When all else fails, we can Bob Dole/John McCain his ass.
Mike in NC
Has Andrew Sullivan commented yet on the homophobic content of the Ron Paul newsletters? Or does he hold his buddy to a different standard?
Abijah Lovejoy
Also, just for comparison, Barack Obama was 8 years old when Bill Ayers did what Bill Ayers did whereas Ron Paul was 48 years old when Ron Paul did what Ron Paul did. You could hardly expect Obama to have known what Ayers did 30 years earlier, but you would expect Paul to remember what Paul did 30 years earlier.
dmbeaster
The newsletters are beyond damning. The racist bile went out repeatedly under his control and direction. Conor’s ridiculously long-winded and futile effort to argue this does not matter just demonstrates how much it does. Putting on blinders so that you can see your hero as pure just shows how blinded you are by your ideology, and also how your Paul loving ideology stunts your thinking.
Shazza
@CarolDuhart2:
THANK YOU!!! I never understood some white folk’s fear of Jeremiah Wright. He’s not racist, he just doesn’t see America as this wonderful utopia they did. He joined the military right after it was desegregated so I’m sure that wasn’t free of racism. He was part of a surgical team who operated on LBJ.
Maybe if you listen to his sermons in context, you’d understand what he meant.
Anya
@AxelFoley: Not to bring back the primary wars, but the Clinton campaign did a lot of despicable things. Many of the wingnut attacks on Obama originated with them.
But going back to Rev. Wright, has he said or done anything since his performance at the National Press Club?
Trentrunner
@Mike in NC: Especially relevant since Paul’s newsletter rant (disgusting, won’t even quote it now) was directed squarely at gay men like Andrew who contracted HIV after the first wave, when everyone knew it was a virus and how to prevent transmission, but who, for whatever reason, didn’t/wouldn’t.
In other words, Paul just took a big shit on Sully’s core identity and the central fact of his life, retroactively blaming him for contracting HIV.
V.O. [golf whisper]: We’ve secretly replaced Andrew Sullivan’s favorite libertarian GOP candidate with a rabid paranoid homophobic nutfarm. Let’s see if Andrew notices.
Hill Dweller
I’m interested to see how Jon Stewart handles these latest revelations. He has displayed a bit of a man crush on Paul recently.
Or how about Cenk Uygur. He was just on the teevee last week advocating Paul’s candidacy.
It’s interesting that these guys were willing to seemingly support someone as crazy as Paul, but will throw Obama under the bus in a heartbeat because he isn’t perfect.
Raven
@Shazza:
I agree with everything you said except it wasn’t really “right after” desegregation of the military:
On July 26, 1951, the US Army formally announced its plans to desegregate, exactly three years after Truman issued Executive Order 9981.
wrb
@AxelFoley:
If I remember correctly it was disgust with that faux outrage that moved me from “they are both great, don’t care, let’s get on with beating the Republicans” to being all in for the skinny lying sosalist satyr.
ChrisNYC
Sullivan did address the homophobia in the newsletters briefly. In response to an objection from a reader. I can’t find it now but it was basically, “Same rules apply as the race stuff.”
PS — I don’t read that blogazine (ha!) anymore. But just want to note that Sullivan is completely crazy and megalomaniacal. There is a post titled, “Why I Endorse” that goes on for paragraphs. And then one of those “Ask Andrew” things about what he eats. Nuts. (ETA — Meaning he’s nuts. Not that he eats nuts. I don’t know what he eats.)
Woodrowfan
Forget the newsletter, aside from his opposition to some wars, I find most everything that comes out of Paul’s mouth either crazy, or disgusting, or both.
Trentrunner
Once again, if you’re not following RP_Newsletter on Twitter, they’re still excerpting choice nuggets from Paul’s Newsletters.
The last few have been celebrating DAVID DUKE’S strong showing in the Senate race.
David fucking Duke, people.
Santiago
@Mike in NC:
Sully dumps Ron Paul.
LOL
AxelFoley
@Anya:
I want to say the last I heard anything about him was about a year ago. I believe he was a guest speaker at some place. I thought the media would hound him again, but they didn’t make much of it.
SiubhanDuinne
@MattF:
Yeah. Except that’s not really what it means, and I doubt that many of the writers tossing it around mean it that way.
But for sure, if he is an uncle, he’s definitely the crazy one.
AxelFoley
@Trentrunner:
[spits out drink]
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
John Cole
@Redshift: I tweeted that.
Tom Hilton
We were all over that one at Ta-Nehisi Coates’ place the other day.
That’s the piece, incidentally, that Greenwald described on Twitter as a “thoughtful, nuanced” view of the Ron Paul racism issue. (Greenwald himself dismisses Paul’s racism with an airy “all candidates are flawed”.)
Trentrunner
@Hill Dweller: I don’t know if it’s a TDS mancrush, or if they’ve just been highlighting how the MSM has been ignoring Paul even though his polling has been as good/better than other candidates who’ve gotten more coverage.
Anne Laurie
@SiubhanDuinne:
It’s the Reporterese version of “bless his heart”. Everyone old enough to read the news has — or at least knows the trope about — the Crazy Uncle that has to be carefully shepherded at family gatherings because he’s not quite dangerous enough to be exiled by force. When they call Dr. Ron “avuncular”, they mean don’t leave the kids alone with him, keep him away from the punch bowl, and for heavens’ sake do NOT let him “borrow” the keys to the pickup!
Trentrunner
@Anne Laurie: +1
Comrade Mary
@Santiago: Reminds of an ancient Aislin cartoon showing Irving Layton writing with a huge fountain pen sticking out of his fly. [/obscureCanadianism]
Joseph Nobles
Not to mention that the Wright sermon Goddamning America was a hermenutically sound treatment of the prophet Jeremiah Goddamning ancient Israel for being immoral and forgetting God.
But then again, that was Jew-on-Jew Goddamning, and not black-on-white Goddamning, so Rev. Jeremiah Wright had to go, natch. /sarcasm
G
Shorter Ron Paul: “We must fundamentally respect the rights to property that rich, white men attained by stealing it from Native Americans and denying it to blacks and women for generations!”
Nellcote
@Trentrunner:
JS has been Paul-curious for a few years now. Go back thru the youtubes to see.
JoyfulA
@Anya:
Why wasn’t I smart enough to figure out why Wright went haywire? Thanks for the insight. I appreciated his sermons on YouTube and thought only early senility could explain what he’d turned into at the National Press Club.
Brutusettu
Conor forgot to type that Obama went to a church that followed a book, that said “Blessed shall he be who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rock”
Uh oh, how can anyone in the world agree with a single part of that entire book if it has that line it?
Exactly the same as Ron Paul putting racist stuff out in his newsletter and allowing the readers to think he wrote the stuff (at best for Paul).
AxelFoley
@Nellcote:
Which is just as silly as Sully being curious about Paul, since, from what I hear, Paul’s newsletters ragged on Jews, too.
Chris
@AxelFoley:
Interesting.
At the time, I remember wondering if the entire Wright controversy hadn’t been orchestrated by the Obama campaign in order to shine a spotlight on his church – and in so doing make it irrefutable that he does, in fact, go to church, which would do a lot to scuttle the persistent “he’s a Muslim” whisper campaigns. Too 11-dimenstional-chessy?
J. Michael Neal
@Anya:
Unfortunately, yes, and it blows out of the water the above expressed idea that Wright deliberately took one for the team and made it easy for Obama to denounce him. He did an interview in 2009 in which he blamed Zionists within the administration for the fact that Obama hadn’t spoken to him since the controversy.
Nellcote
@AxelFoley:
It will be telling if TDS addresses Paul’s newsletter at all.
Buttered Toast
The really worrying thing about the newsletters is that he will not say (or find out and then say) who actually wrote them. Does he still have any association with them, are they at all associated with his campaign? We do not know, and HE does not know, since he (ostensibly) doesn’t know who was writing the newsletters.
One would think it a relatively simple issue to put to bed. He finds out who wrote that garbage, comes back and says either: 1) “The authors were X,Y and Z, and I’m proud to say that I’ve had no association with them in 20 years”; or 2) “It was X,Y and Z, and I’m very sorry to say they have had such-and-such relationship with me, but I hereby renounce them because such people are not what my campaign is about.” Or, if he prefers, 3) “It was X,Y and Z, but they are good people, I’m keeping them around, and if you don’t like it, you can all suck it.” I wonder why he can’t do that…
JS
Maybe a bit.. what I remember at the time is that after Obama gave “The Race Speech” (which pointedly did not denounce Wright the man, only the comments), the main press accepted the explanation. But it was the ratfking conservative bloggers and pundits (and FOX “News”) who did anything they could to keep the issue alive.
Add me to the list that is 99% sure that Rev. Wright deliberately tanked the Press Club appearance so that Obama would have to repudiate him. I imagine he didn’t want any chance of going down in history as the scapegoat who cost Obama his chance.
Also, too: Sullivan said he’s “rethinking his endorsement” – waiting for Ron Paul to give a proper explanation of the controversy. I can only hope he pulls out his Inspector Clouseau hat again, and follow this mystery with even half the doggedness he showed on the Trig beat.
BO_Bill
Ummmmm, uhhhhhh, could somebody please point out exactly which parts of those newsletters were inaccurate?
JS
Deliberate or not, the perception that Wright is no fan of his certainly isn’t hurting the president.
Or you could look at Wright’s life experience, and what he went through in 2008.. the resentment could be legitimate – maybe after the next election we’ll get a Wright book.
SiubhanDuinne
@JS:
Say, did Sully ever solve that mystery?
skippy
@ChrisNYC: it’s a pretty good guess to assume that sullivan actually does eat nuts.
wrb
You’ve got your dates wrong. It was the Pumas/Firebaggers.
Unforgivable.
Progressives my ass.
polyorchnid octopunch
@Hill Dweller: Bit late to this, but, I think it’s like this. They like Paul because he’s just about the only guy up there in the rarefied air that actually speaks the truth about what US foreign policy is. That is deserving of a lot of credit, no matter how nutbar he is domestically. Doesn’t mean he should be President, but still… credit. Not to mention that (for Ugyer and Stewart) giving him airtime means giving airtime to those core truths about US foreign policy.
I’ve known about his racism for a long time; I twigged to it years back while following links (I think I started on C&L), some of which led me to some online versions of his newsletter. I read a few and bailed; I’d seen enough. I also knew it wasn’t widely known (and hard to convince people of… I should’ve saved those links I guess), and I can also see that promoting him in the primaries helps achieve a certain sort of political culture goal by helping introduce those truths about US FP to an audience that is more accustomed to rah rah rah versions of it. Still, there’s a big difference between talking about him and endorsing him… esp. after the newsletters became widely known.
Of course, we’re assuming ignorance of those newsletters on both Conor’s, Stewart’s, and Ugyer’s part. I suspect that assumption may not be safe for all of them.
Lysana
Sweet Jesus, Friesdorf is trebling down on the stupid on Twitter right now. He really, truly thinks exaggerated reports of collateral damage from drone strikes is the exact same thing as being a racist, homophobic, and transphobic douchebag.
JS
@SiubhanDuinne:
I think it was Bill Kristol in the Library with a flaming copy of the Constitution. But Sullivan gave up pushing back on Republicans when Obama broke his heart by leaving Bowles-Simpson at the altar. Even though it had zero chance of passage, and the Republicans would have hung every unpopular cut in the plan on him in the coming election.
TooManyJens
@G:
Wow, that about sums it up, doesn’t it?
amk
@G: You win the internetz today. Pithiest comment on this racist scumbag.
fasteddie9318
Hey, awesome, it’s BO Bill! Say, Bill, did the dry cleaner manage to get the Cheetos stains out of your white hood, or did you have to replace it?
Fed Up In Brooklyn
Ugh. I’m no big fan of Obama, but this comparison is absurd.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
I’ve been off here for a while—I see Body Odor Bill is back. It only took him a week or so to get banned from Pharyngula. But, Bob, you do know now that it’s moved to Freethoughtblogs, most of the original banees have been given amnesty to make asses of themselves again, right?
wasabi gasp
I hope to hear Paul’s speech on race.
Roger Moore
@skippy:
I thought he didn’t like the Teabaggers.
lacp
@wasabi gasp: I’m not sure I’d hold my breath for that one.
And, BTW, it was asked upthread why the good doctor Paul is referred to as “avuncular.” Given the state of The Great American Media Machine, my best guess is that those describing him as such think they’re saying that he doesn’t have any vunculs. Or fistules. Or something.
Bruce S
Dishonest douchebags are a dime a dozen. Which means I can get you a Conor for less than a penny.
pluege
I’m not violent, I try not to be.
yea, that liberal nonviolent thing sure does seem to get in the way sometimes, but ultimately it is what separates humanity from the republican/conservative perversion.
tomvox1
Hey, thanks for the h/t, Doug:
https://balloon-juice.com/2011/12/24/give-em-enough-thread-21/#comment-2951113
Frankensteinbeck
You don’t even have to go to Ron Paul’s freakish xenophobia and conspiracy theories. The man’s political positions are completely insane. He only sounds admirable in any way if you cut away everything but ‘We need to be way, way, way less militaristic’ and ‘Marijuana should be legal.’ He believes in abolishing… well, the entire government. All of it. You name it, he wants to get rid of it. The whole social safety net. All social services, period, such as education. All federal regulations. He is an absolute nutbar and he only wants to get rid of bad things because he wants to get rid of everything.
Samara Morgan
How many times did i tell you intransigent kumbayah morons that friedersdorf, kain, freddie, greenwald etc are all just glibertarians?
the thing i loathe most about about Kains tenure here as a frontpager was his sneaky Obama hatred that usta creep in around the edges.
sully went there too.
did you miss it?
tolejasotolejasotolejaso
Samara Morgan
Sully
Samara Morgan
Shall i go back and resurrect some of your “good post from Young Conor” douchebaggery MasterTroll? or mebbe when you tole meh Kain was a “liberal”.
you are NO DIFFERENT from Sully and Greenwald.
This site is NO DIFFERENT from Fucking FOXnews.
OzoneR
@Tom Hilton:
you don’t say.
Shazza
@Raven:
OK, thanks for the correction.
John M. Burt
@Shazza: What would it take to listen to Rev. Wright’s sermons “in context”?
I suppose you could go on Craigslist to hire someone to dress up like a cop and accost you on your way to the church in the company of your significant other, demand you hand over your wallet and drop each card on the sidewalk as he pretends to look at it, then beat you bloody with a nightstick and walk away laughing….
At Talaq
@CarolDuhart2:
True. Obama does speak for himself. Out of both sides of his mouth.
Sarah Proud and Tall
@At Talaq:
You may want to reconsider the value of posting your snappy comebacks at 3 in the morning on dead threads that no one is ever going to read …. There are a heap of live threads up at the top of the site where people will be overjoyed to be told how wrong they are.
Yutsano
@Sarah Proud and Tall: Yes dear, but that would involve pushback. And delicate little firebaggers cannot handle them some pushback. Sad, really.
Sarah Proud and Tall
@Yutsano:
Hello there. How was your Christmas?
We spent ours looking at castles and eating pastries.
Yutsano
@Sarah Proud and Tall: Mine was spent spoiling hens and eating too much. And there were waffles. And perhaps a Dawg. :)
tomvox1
Reading that just completely cleared up my lingering Holiday blahs. So good I think I need a cigarette…and I quit smoking 14 years ago. I laughed so hard milk came out my nose.
Ratfuck or dimwit defense, thank you for posting this, Mr. Cole.
P.S. Will this latest flameout of the not-Romney frontrunner lead to a Draft Jindal movement from the Sullys of the world? Maybe back to that fat bastard in Jersey? Or Jeb “like it never happened” Bush? Magic 8-ball time, methinks…
tomvox1
@tomvox1
Whoops, wrong thread. D’oh!
Americanist
@pluege:
So “that liberal nonviolent thing” is only a liberal thing? Wrong! This is the kind of lie and propaganda that stirs the pot and divides people into groups and pits one against the other.
I have avoided violence and stopped violence my whole life. But I am not a pacifistic either, if clearly threatened or attacked.
So since I’m “non-violent” I can’t be a Republican/conservative and a human at the same time? Sounds just a little biased to me.
But I would like to know if a sworn oath is OK to break, and suffer no consequences?