Ron Paul’s Base

December 30th, 2011 at 8:20 am David Frum | 129 Comments |

| Print

Here’s another tragic misunderstanding of Ron Paul’s message of human freedom: Paul has just gained David Duke’s endorsement. This week, the former KKK Grand Wizard telephoned into the radio show hosted by Stormfront founder Don Black to announce his support, and the two men had the following conversation.

Ron Paul was a hot topic this week on the talk radio show hosted by prominent white supremacist Don Black and his son Derek. Mr. Black said he received Mr. Paul’s controversial newsletters when they were first published about two decades ago and described how the publications were perceived by members of the white supremacist movement. Former KKK Grand Wizard and Louisiana Congressman David Duke also phoned in to explain why he’s voting for Mr. Paul.

“Everybody, all of us back in the 80′s and 90′s, felt Ron Paul was, you know, unusual in that he had actually been a Congressman, that he was one of us and now, of course, that he has this broad demographic–broad base of support,” Mr. Black said on his broadcast yesterday.

Mr. Black is a former Klansman and member of the American Nazi Party who founded the “white nationalist” website Stormfront in 1995. He donated to Mr. Paul in 2007 and has beenphotographed with the candidate. Mr. Paul has vocal supporters in Stormfront’s online forum.

Black said on air he does not regard Paul as “currently” a white nationalist. To which David Duke answered:

Again, I go back to that, you know, traditional topic that I always talk about, you know, the powers of international Zionism–a power in banking, a power in media, a power in government influence, in campaign finance–a power that’s, you know, hurting the values of this country on behalf of Israel,” Mr. Duke said. “So, I would vote for Ron Paul at this moment because he’s one of the few candidates who have policies in this regard and this realm that I wholeheartedly support, and that’s why I’d vote for him.”

A politician isn’t answerable for the antics of every one of his supporters. But there’s surely a reason, isn’t there, that racists, anti-Semites, 9/11 Truthers, and Holocaust deniers are so strongly attracted to the Paul campaign. They hear something. They continue to hear it too, no matter how firmly Ron Paul’s more mainstream supporters clamp their hands over their own ears.

Recent Posts by David Frum

129 Comments so far ↓

  • Nanotek

    “But there’s surely a reason, isn’t there, that racists, anti-Semites, 9/11 Truthers, and Holocaust deniers are so strongly attracted to the Paul campaign. They hear something. They continue to hear it too, no matter how firmly Ron Paul’s more mainstream supporters clamp their hands over their own ears…”

    Of course there is. But so much of Paul’s base is the GOP’s base that it all, at least from a proud progressive vantage, seems a distiction of degree not kind.

    Since Paul has such a history, that distinction better explains why — only as he rises to the top in Iowa — his history is only now displayed by conservative pundits. If it was a distinction of kind — why wasn’t this history talked about from day 1?

    • nitrat

      Because there is so little legitimate journalism left and they all have ADHD.

    • Ludwig von Mises

      David Frum (aka The Cattle Whisperer) is at it again. Whispering sweet-scary ghost-story lies to the bovine masses. “Be scared of Ron Paul because he’s a vicious racist who will eat your little black baby.”

      As the following video demonstrates, the people are waking up and the word is spreading through the grape vine how Frum and his Neo(con) masters are smearing Ron Paul.

      Hey Frum, go tell your bosses that the propaganda isn’t working anymore. Advise your bosses to start investing in guillotine factories, because the truth is going to eventually come out. And when it does, even if it’s a few years down the road, when the truth fully emerges, then it’s going to be open season on you and your criminal cartel. Headhunting season is coming. The masses are waking up and educating themselves. Some see you for who you are! The numbers of those who are part of The Ron Paul Revolution are growing too fast now for you to contain.

      The Ron Paul Revolution is an idea whose time has come, and it transcends race, religion and politics. Frum and his kleptocratic cronies are the real enemy of low-income blacks, jews, whites, browns et al even of each other. They are smear artists who would eat their own grandmothers in order to advance their power.

      • angeleno

        Ron Paul is an old goat. Someone should put a bell around his neck.

        Libertarians are such children. Do you really think arguing in favor of the Confederacy puts you in a position of moral authority on anything?

        • Ludwig von Mises

          Yeah, Ron Paul is an old goat alright; an old billy goat without any crony-capitalist support. The oligarchy on Wall Street hates him. The Banksters at the Fed hate him. The Presstitutes are smearing him. The Neocons—like Frum— are coming down on his back with both feet…….Yet look how far he has come! And that funny feeling that Michele Bachmann, Newt Gingrich, Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum all feel from behind is that old billy goats’ horn up their *sses.

          Just imagine what the political climate will be like when the borrow-to-spend economy finally collapses and Ron Paul is proven correct and then Rand Paul has his turn at running for President!!!

          Ron Paul 2012! End The Fed! End The Crony Capitalism! End The Wars! End The Runaway Government Spending! End The BS, e.g. RP is for a Confederacy is total BS!

          Rand Paul Next Up IN LINE!!!

        • jg bennet

          I believe you have been propagandized. Perhaps you should spend an hour or so on this website.

          All of your name calling tipped me off to the fact you have been a victim of the methods on the link above..

        • Ludwig von Mises

          jb, lol, man…’re a hoot if you’re talking about me! If not, sorry, man, but I just have to rant!

          Lol, yeah, I’m a victim of propaganda, alright. Look, friend, I can smell propaganda a mile away and it stinks just like all of you Neocons do because you’ve been stuffed full of it. I read Edward Bernays’ Propaganda long before it was available online; therefore, I can assure you I know the game! So put a bell around your neck and a sock in your mouth and go get a life, OK?

          Happy New Year, I’m done with all of you Neocons fools for now……

      • valkayec

        I recommend in future we all ignore Von Mises – or whoever he really is – to avoid the inevitable gastro-intestinal upsets that follow each of his posts since he fails to add anything especially illuminating to the conversation.

  • icarusr

    Surely there is a reason that most of these racist, homophobic, sexist, secessionist pro-slavery nutcases end up in the Republican Party.

    Oh, I forgot – the Southern Strategy; St Ronald’s “Welfare Queens”; Willie Horton; Buchanan’s Culture Wars; Rove’s “permanent majority”; Fox News’ latest “Obama looks like a skinny ghetto crackhead quip” … in short, for more than forty years the Republican Party has not only courted southern Democrats – former Confederate secessionists – but actively stoked their grievances; Republican Party “elites”, opinion makers and leaders have, since the election of the Kenyan Socialist to the WH, gone out of their way to keep the embers of White Supremacist disaffection alive in the South and in rural areas … and now it is a surprise that a former Klansman actively supports a Republican presidential candidate who is rising in the polls in a white christianist rural state?

    A Republican presidential candidate actually mused about secession, but it was not that treasonous talk that sank him; a former Republican National Committee chairman has been trying to whitewash the Confederacy, but it was not that nonsense that prevented him from running; and you claim to be worried about Ron Paul’s supporters?



    • Nanotek

      “A Republican presidential candidate actually mused about secession, but it was not that treasonous talk that sank him; a former Republican National Committee chairman has been trying to whitewash the Confederacy, but it was not that nonsense that prevented him from running; and you claim to be worried about Ron Paul’s supporters?”

      + 1

      you made the point much better than I did

      • jg bennet

        Just this year the Southern Republican Leadership Conference dropped “Southern” from its name. Why?

        Really someone should ask them why? I think I know…. it is because all of the GOP is now southern.

        Trump is a Lincoln Republican & so was Reagan. They are/were pro tariffs and support other old pre southern strategy Republican ideas but today are called Union/Yankee totalitarians AKA RINO’s.

  • jg bennet

    It’s the Southern Strategy Stupid!

    I know I’ve been the whacko on your forum calling the GOP a bunch of neoconfederates but it is true & Paul proves it..

    Look at the GOP platform on trade, welfare, infrastructure and many more. It shows that today’s GOP is clear proof of the success of Nixon’s southern strategy……

    A David Frum Waterlooesque metaphorical the GOP went Confederate (Call it “The GOP’s Ft. Sumter” ) article would be FANTASTIC!

    Something Like this one……

    One might make the argument that if you take the long view, the Confederacy actually triumphed.

    We can start with the Republican Party, founded in 1854 to oppose the Dixie way of life, but now a reflection of Southern attitudes. In capturing the Republican Party, the political descendants of the Confederates are accomplishing through politics what their ideological ancestors failed to accomplish on the battlefield.

    To be sure, chattel slavery has long been abolished in this nation. But you could consider slavery a form of cheap labor with no legal protections for the laborers. Now consider the GOP current efforts to bust unions, cut wages and benefits, and reduce workplace safety regulations.

    In other words, one essence of the antebellum South’s economic system is becoming part of the national economic system.

    One might also ponder income distribution in pre-war Dixie. It was extremely skewed with a few rich folks, mostly planters, sitting on most of the wealth, and outside of their slaves, lots of “poor white trash” scrounging for a meager livelihood at the bottom. It was close to feudal, sort of like the country you get with continued tax breaks for millionaires and billionaires, ensuring there isn’t much for the folks further down the ladder, especially after you privatize Medicare and cut Social Security.

    Lincoln and the Republicans of 1861 supported protective tariffs, not just to help finance the federal government, but also to support domestic industry and raise wages. The South supported free trade — South Carolina’s first secession threat came in 1832 in opposition to “the tariff of abominations” — and today’s GOP is a big supporter of free trade.

    The Old South also opposed federal spending on “internal improvements” — canals, railroads, turnpikes and the like — in the first part of the 19th century. That is, investment in national infrastructure, and where does the anti-investment rhetoric come from today if not the GOP?

    Nor was the South big on spending for education. Southern senators and representatives blocked early efforts to establish state land-grant colleges. As for the local common schools, the illiteracy rate in Dixie, even among whites, was much higher than in the North, which supported public education. The Southern heritage of poorly funding public education is now a national Republican policy, which also involves taking money from the public coffers to support private religious schools.

    When it comes to foreign policy, the South was expansionist and imperialistic, with designs for a “Golden Circle” of a slave-holder republic surrounding the Caribbean after the acquisition of Cuba and the rest of Mexico. The idea was to control their resources and bring “the blessings of republican government” to an unruly part of the world. If that bears any resemblance to recent American foreign policy, well, perhaps it’s just a coincidence.

    When you look at contemporary culture, those who fly the stars and bars and esteem Nathan Bedford Forrest are somehow considered patriotic, rather than admirers of treason.

    Add all this up, and there’s a strong argument that the Confederacy actually won the Civil War — not by force of arms, but by taking over the political party that had once been dedicated to its destruction.

    Freelance columnist Ed Quillen ( of Salida is a regular contributor to The Denver Post.

  • Deep South Populist

    You bring David Duke into the conversation with a perfunctory wink and nod at the end that Paul has no control over who endorses him and who does not — as if most people in your audience care about that distinction.

    A pretty cheap shot even by Frum’s standards.

    I’m not wild about Paul; I just prefer him to the alternatives.

    Meanwhile, in Israel, ultra-orthodox Jews have been spitting on Christian clergymen again. According to the ADL, this practice is a long tradition among extreme Jews.

    You love Israel so much Frum; why don’t you write about them? They support expanding settlements, no concessions and other elements of Likud and AIPAC program.,7340,L-4160706,00.html

    • Nanotek

      we have learned nothing, as a species, it seems … hate always speaks with a louder voice than love

    • Primrose

      A certain sect of ultra-orthodox has been spitting on everyone, including a nine year old modern orthodox girl. To suggest that the Israeli equivalent of those people who protest at military funerals is supported by most Israelis, even religious ones is ridiculous, and one may suspect caused by problematic motivations.

      Mr. Paul may not support the ideals of white supremacists but he is clearly not embarrassed by their support. Nor is he willing to consider the long-term consequences of some of his statements. This shows at the very least an appalling lack of both intellectual rigor, and character.

      I find this problem rife for most libertarians who seem to have no answer for detrimental side effects of anything goes. They don’t take the lack of freedom suffered by racism, anti-semitism, or sexism seriously. You don’t, of course, have to the same answer as we currently do, but you have to have one. You have to take it seriously, and explain how it can be mitigated. He doesn’t. Like most libertarians he claims the market will take care of it, even though it was to serve the market that it was created.

      • jg bennet

        Ron Paul is a classical liberal, so was Jefferson Davis and, like I said, most GOP leaders…..

        According to E. K. Hunt, classical liberals made four assumptions about human nature: People were “egoistic, coldly calculating, essentially inert and atomistic”.

        Being egoistic, people were motivated solely by pain and pleasure.

        Being calculating, they made decisions intended to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

        If there were no opportunity to increase pleasure or reduce pain, they would become inert.

        Therefore, the only motivation for labor was either the possibility of great reward or fear of hunger.

        This belief led classical liberal politicians to pass the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834, which limited the provision of social assistance.

        On the other hand, classical liberals believed that men of higher rank were motivated by ambition. Seeing society as atomistic, they believed that society was no more than the sum of its individual members.

        These views departed from earlier views of society as a family and, therefore, greater than the sum of its members.

        Classical liberals agreed with Thomas Hobbes that government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. They thought that individuals should be free to pursue their self-interest without control or restraint by society.

        Adopting Thomas Malthus’s population theory, they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, as they believed population growth would outstrip food production; and they considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth.

        They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.

      • Deep South Populist

        To suggest that the Israeli equivalent of those people who protest at military funerals is supported by most Israelis, even religious ones is ridiculous, and one may suspect caused by problematic motivations.

        I’m not suggesting mainstream Israelis support them. My point is the exact opposite; the mainstream Israelis who support expanding settlements can’t do anything about the fact that the Christian spitters also support expanding settlements. Likewise, Ron Paul can’t do anything about the fact that David Duke and other fringe figures support him.

        Quit speculating about my motives. What are your motives here? You went out of your way to point out that these spitters also spit on Jewish girls. I take it you don’t believe the fact that they spit on Christians is worth reporting because they also spit on Jews.

        • Xclamation

          …Ron Paul can’t do anything about the fact that David Duke and other fringe figures support him.

          I’m sorry, but I think that’s nonsense. You know what I would do if Stormfront and David Duke and the John Birch Society were all standing up and cheering my name? I would stop saying things that they like to hear. I would, in fact, repudiate them and work overtime to either apologize for whatever it was I said that they approved of, or explain that they had misunderstood me.

        • Geprodis

          “I would stop saying things that they like to hear. I would, in fact, repudiate them and work overtime to either apologize for whatever it was I said that they approved of, or explain that they had misunderstood me.”

          That is nonsense – no candidate is going to alter their message just because some racist idiots are confused about it.

        • Primrose

          “Meanwhile, in Israel, ultra-orthodox Jews have been spitting on Christian clergymen again. According to the ADL, this practice is a long tradition among extreme Jews.”

          Thus, your point is that christians are under siege and since your next comment was “you love Israel so much” I think pointing out “this practice” is not an attack on Christianity but anyone who disagrees is valid and necessary. If you don’t want your motives questioned, stop being misleadingly specific.

          Nor did I have to go very far out of the way to bring up the phrase Jewish girls because the behavior of certain sect was in the news, specifically over this girl, who is not simply Jewish but modern Orthodox (which I thought was an important point). The modern Orthodox keep all the laws of Leviticus, though they do not model their life on the culture of a 19th century polish stetel (spelling).

          And yet even this isn’t good enough, thus we can not say that they are anti-Christian, or anti-non-religious Jews. (Indeed, they even come into conflict even with slightly more tolerant ultra-orthodox.) They are anti everyone who isn’t them. This is an important distinction. Your statement suggested that there was specific, systematic persecution of Christian clergymen, which would be false.

          On a completely another note, even if you meant what you said second, the point is not valid. If I said there are a lot of racist redneck idiots in the state Ron Paul represents, thus he must agree with them, the metaphor might be valid. However, Mr. Frum and to a less extent myself were saying that specific people specifically supported him and he had not taken much (if any) pains to distance himself from their views. Indeed, he has said things that sound similar to them.

          Whether Mr. Paul agrees with them or not, he is perfectly happy to live in the world they create, not taking seriously what that world means for millions of other Americans. I don’t have to call him specifically racist to find that unacceptable.

        • valkayec

          Bravo. You go, Girl.

        • Deep South Populist

          Thus, your point is that christians are under siege and since your next comment was “you love Israel so much” I think pointing out “this practice” is not an attack on Christianity but anyone who disagrees is valid and necessary. If you don’t want your motives questioned, stop being misleadingly specific.

          It was not my point; my point was that guilt by association is wrong.

          The above comment is simply not up to your usual intellectual standards.

          I was not “misleadingly specific.” That’s your own strange interpretation that you are imposing on my comment.

          I got the information about these Jewish spitters from the Anti-Defamation League, a Jewish organization. If you had followed my link, you would have seen that my comment was based on an article from the ADL. The article mentions extremist Jews spitting on Christians and only Christians.

          How in the hell in was I supposed to know these Jews spit on everybody and that they are anti “everyone but them”? The article I quoted doesn’t mention anyone but Christians.

          So if I was “specific” in mentioning Christians and only Christians, I was “specific” in the same way the ADL was “specific” in mentioning Christians and only Christians.

          And no, guilt by association is wrong, period, no matter who does it. Just as it is wrong to associate all Israelis with this small number of Jews who spit on Christians, it is just as wrong to associate Ron Paul and his supporters with a fringe figure like Duke and the small number of people he represents.

          Here is the full text so there is no further confusion.


          ADL: Spitting at Christians a ‘repulsive act’

          Jewish group calls on Israel’s Chief Rabbinate to denounce decades-old ultra-Orthodox practice of spitting at Christian clergymen on the street. ‘This is a hateful act of persecution against another faith group’

          The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has called on the Chief Rabbinate of Israel to publicly denounce the decades-old practice by ultra-Orthodox Jews of spitting at Christian clergymen they encounter in the street.

          “This repulsive practice is a hateful act of persecution against another faith group and a desecration of God’s name according to Jewish law,” said ADL National Director Abraham H. Foxman.

          “This display of hate and bigotry has no place in Israel and is inimical to Jewish values of treating all people with respect and kindness.”

          In a letter to Chief Rabbis Shlomo Amar and Yona Metzger, ADL urged the rabbinical leaders to meet with haredi leaders in an effort to end the practice and to join together to educate their community about having respect for coexistence with other faiths.

          “The issue makes headlines every few years, and promises are made to combat it, but it continues every day,” said Rabbi Eric J. Greenberg, ADL director of interfaith affairs.

          “We believe it is time for Israel’s religious leaders to stand up for the Jewish values of treating others with respect and kindness, and to put an end to this ugly phenomenon.”

          Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court Judge Dov Pollock recently dismissed the indictment of a Greek Orthodox priest who punched a haredi yeshiva student in the face after the student spat at him in Jerusalem’s Old City.

          Judge Pollock noted that this practice has been recurring for years, and that authorities have not been able to identify the perpetrators or to stop these acts.


        • Primrose


          Had you simply said when I responded that, Oh I didn’t know. I could easily buy you didn’t know, I might not doubt. Or had you added the first time around, But obviously I wouldn’t suggest all Jews are against all christians then that point would have been clear. Instead you left the phrase about Christians hanging. Nada. No explanation.

          And instead of simply saying that I had misunderstood your point, you suggested my point was strange and out there.

          Because what? Certain intolerant Christians today aren’t talking about how they are being “persecuted”? Or perhaps what you find strange is the idea that Jews are often blamed in just such a manner?

          You may feel I missed your point but there is nothing strange about mine.

          Blame by association, as I suggested in the second post, depends on what one means. If I said for example that all Christians were intolerant, hypocritical idiots because of the presence of that group I mentioned earlier that would wildly unfair guilt by association. However, if that group supported a certain candidate, let’s say Billy Bob Hershowitz, then Billy Bob would need to make clear that he did not accept their views. I recently ran across a quote, which said “ You may support me but I do not support you”.

          I agree with you that Mr. Frum’s questioning Mr. Paul because some of his supporters are wacko’s is unfair. However, prominent wackos are different. For me as I have said, my problem is Mr. Paul’s refusal to acknowledge these forces in America.

          Or to acknowledge how easily one may be understood. If someone misunderstands you, takes something you said the wrong way, the ordinary rules of social interaction are to explain that this is not at all what you meant. We all say things that come out wrong, seemed obvious to us etc. Sometimes we say things and don’t consider the implication. That is not the problem of the listener. Or that unusual.

          But Mr. Paul treats people who may be offended as if they have no right to be, as if they haven’t faced the brunt of policies such as Mr. Dukes, or segregation. It is always somebody else’s problem.

          That is not advocating for more freedom but the irresponsibility of sullen teenagers.

  • jg bennet

    Here is one for you David Frum, it’s about conservative leadership from a non neoconfederate Yankee RINO……………

    Trump, a staunch Republican, told the Sun in an interview from Florida that Canada’s Conservative government was showing better leadership.

    “It’s an outrage our president isn’t approving the Keystone pipeline,” he said. “And Canada is lucky to have superior leadership to ours.”

    • armstp

      What exactly is the U.S. going to get out of the Keystone pipeline? The oil is just going to be exported outside of the country. There are genuine landowner and environmental issues that the people and Republican government of Nebraska have. Why not take the time to get it right?

      • nitrat

        Yeah, who will make more money from this oil going to Texas refineries rather than Canadian refineries?
        They do have refineries in Canada, right?
        Does Canada not want it going 1/3 of the way across their land?
        But, it’s OK for it to go the length of the USA?
        If we trucked this oil, it would create more long lasting jobs than a pipeline. Let’s power the trucks with hydrogen fuel cells.
        I think the oil companies can afford it.

        I am really concerned what the gas and oil industries are doing to our finite fresh water supplies. Will they sell us clean water at the same price as gasoline once they contaminate all our water supplies?

    • The Walking Eye

      As a resident of the Midwest, I’d rather this oil not be shipped all the way to Texas and drive my gas costs up due to less refining in the Midwest. If Canada wants this oil to be refined, why can’t they build the plant(s) needed or a pipeline to Vancouver?

      • jg bennet

        The United States already has over a quarter million miles of oil and natural gas transmission lines, and millions more in gas distribution lines.

        There are currently 21,000 miles of pipelines crossing Nebraska, including 3,000 miles of hazardous liquid pipelines. Many of these pipelines co-exist within the Ogallala aquifer.

        The goal is not to “create jobs” in the sense of paying somebody to do nothing. Instead, the goal is to create new real income and wealth.

        A key measure to look at is not the cost of the project (how much is going to be spent on people and pipes), but instead its value added. And this has been the main reason that Keystone has always looked like it should be an easy decision.

        Light sweet crude in North Dakota is still selling for $20/barrel less that you could get for it if you could find a cheap way to transport it to the Gulf of Mexico. A quick calculation suggests that infrastructure that could move 500,000 barrels a day would generate $3.6 billion in annual value added. That benefit would go to the people who work to build the pipeline, motorists who buy the gasoline, workers and companies that produce the oil, and the government that collects taxes from all the rest

    • NRA Liberal

      jg bennett, it’s good to see that you have moved on from your “neoliberal” screed posting phase to “neoconfederates”.

  • JimBob

    Stormfront founder Don Black endorsed George Bush in 2000 a man Frum wrote speeches for. Don Black even organized rallies on behalf of George Bush during the Florida recount fiasco.

    Black Panthers and Black Nationalists voted for Obama. Does that mean Obama believes in their views?? Of course not.

    Frum is truly a reprehensible little man.

  • JohnMcC

    The longer this Repub clown show goes on, the more rocks get turned over and the more snakes and scum we see.

  • armstp

    Does anyone even know what Ron Paul’s platform is?

    From his website the only policy prescriptions are:

    1) ABORTION:

    A big pro-life supporter (so he hates government, but is fine with government telling 50% of the population what they can and cannot do with their body.

    * Immediately saving lives by effectively repealing Roe v. Wade and preventing activist judges from interfering with state decisions on life by removing abortion from federal court jurisdiction through legislation modeled after his “We the People Act.”

    * Defining life as beginning at conception by passing a “Sanctity of Life Act.”

    2) HEALTCARE: Get rid or ACA bills and replace it with nothing. Let the free market do all healthcare. Turn everything into healthcare saving accounts.

    His healthcare policy prescription does absolutely nothing to solve both the coverage and costs issues with healthcare.

    3) ECONOMY: He wants only balanced budgets (which the U.S. has bascially never had) and no raising of the debt ceiling. I am not sure how balancing budgets will get this economy moving. In fact, it will likely do the exact opposite.

    He wants a strong dollar policy. Not sure how that helps anything.

    “Eliminating the income, capital gains, and death taxes to ensure you keep more of your hard-earned money and are able to pass on your legacy to your family without government interference.”

    So with this massive reduction in taxes and his requirement of balancing the budget, this will result in massive spending cuts. How exactly would he do that?

    His plan for the economy is basically that he has a lack of a plan for the economy.


    His military policy is basically exactly the same as the Democrats to a large extent.

    ” Revitalize the military for the 21st century by eliminating waste in a trillion-dollar military budget.”

    He is asking for massive cuts in taxes and a balanced budget, so that would require a massive cut in spending. However, he says nothing about cutting the very large defense budget. So where exactly is he going to make all these big spending cuts?

    5) END THE FED

    All he wants to do is to get rid of the Fed. Great. Then what? He has the kooky idea that there is no role for monetary policy. I guess this moron wants to see more extreme highs and lows in the economy.

    6) TAXES

    He wants 0% income taxes and 0% capital gains taxes.

    Boy, that is going to help with the income and wealth disparity in this country.

    He does not tell us how he is going to pay for these massive tax cuts.

    etc. etc. etc.

    • Geprodis

      How will he pay for the tax cuts? -By cutting spending drastically.

      His military policy is basically the same as the Democrats?!

      The Democrats don’t want to cut military spending! That is just Republican propaganda…and Democrat propaganda…in reality the Democrats have the same foreign policy as the Republicans.

      Yes he wants to end the Fed…and you know nothing of monetary policy so what exactly is your problem?

      I disagree with him on abortion..but abortion is a non-issue so I can still vote for him.

      • armstp


        “How will he pay for the tax cuts? -By cutting spending drastically.

        That does not answer the question. Why doesn’t Ron Paul tell us what actual spending he wants to cut and how much?

        “The Democrats don’t want to cut military spending! “

        Not sure what planet you have been living on. A central plank in the Democrats many plans for cutting the deficit has included significant military spending cuts. Whereas the Ryan plan made absolutely no mention of military spending cuts, the Democrats plan (“Restore the American Dream for the 99% Act” and their budget plan”The People’s Budget”) includes significant military spending cuts.

        “Yes he wants to end the Fed…and you know nothing of monetary policy so what exactly is your problem?”

        A strange statement from you. How would you know how much I know about monetary policy? There is no proof that the Federal Reserve System has not benefited the United States since its creation in 1913. The Federal Reserve has done a very good jobs since 2008 in stabilizing the financial system and economy. Why would you ever want to give up the important economic tool of monetary policy and the various important roles of the Fed?

        • valkayec

          Actually, Paul has. He’s said he wants to cut $1 Trillion in his first year. In order to accomplish that feat, he plans to eliminate the alphabet soup of government agencies – name one and he’ll cut or eliminate it, including SS, Medicare, and Medicaid – and reduce the government down to State and Defense. Gotta stay Constitutional, you know, regardless of how that would affect global competition.

          As I’ve said before, after looking at what he’s said and his platform, he’d push the US back to the days of the Articles of Confederation. Not a winning strategy for the American people in the 21st Century.

        • Primrose

          +1 Valkayec

        • armstp

          Paul has not been specific at all about what he wants to cut or how he wants to make the cuts.

          He wants massive tax cuts (completely eliminating income and capital gains taxes) and also to balance the budget, so I am sure that would be about the same as cutting the $3.7 trillion a year the government spends in half.

          To balance the budget he would need to cut spending by about $1 trillion to start with. And then he is proposing to cut taxes by about $1.4 trillion a year (total individual income taxes bring in about $1 trillion and corporate income taxes about $400 billion) with income taxes representing 60% of all taxes, so he would have to cut spending by another $1.4 trillion. So what he is proposing is something like $2.4 trillion in yearly spending cuts, which would be like cutting government spending by 65%.

          Where is he going to get $2.4 trillion PER YEAR in spending cuts from?

          Take defense budget to zero would still leave you with $1.4 trillion of spending cuts to do. Taking the non-military discretionary spending of about $600 billion down to zero (basically eliminating every Department of government) would still not get you all the way there.

          If we follow Paul’s plan we would essentially have no government.

      • nvrbl

        Abortion is not a non-issue for 51% of the population. The personhood amendments that are so popular with Republicans right now and which Dr. Paul supports would deny life saving medical abortions to women in emergency medical situations. These bills should be called the “let women die” bills. The fact that they would outlaw the majority of birth control is icing on the cake. This is certainly not a conservative position much less a libertarian position. As a woman, I can’t even begin to express how offensive this is.

  • Dex

    I just read the one of Mitt Romney’s sons is telling reporters that his dad doesn’t have to release his tax returns untill President Obama releases his birth certificate and school transcripts.

    So maybe it is time to contemplate just what a bunch of scumbags the Romney base contains.

    • icarusr

      Really? Do you have the link by any chance?

      This is, like, totally f*cking awesome!

      Now let’s see how Frum characterises this as yet another “cynical” ploy by a man who otherwise knows better.

    • jg bennet

      BRING ON TRUMP! He is the Realeasor & Chief :)

      Here is the Video of little Willard spilling the birther beans…. the last statement by liitle Wiilard#1 is telling

    • icarusr

      Thanks man. Chip off the old blockhead:

      The entire family, it seems, is composed of say-anything douches:

      In response to tax return question:

      “He has not said that he will not do it, and he’s also not said that he will,” Matt Romney said.

      Translation: “He has not yet flipped or flopped, but expects to do both.”

      And then,

      After the younger Romney made the birther joke, Tagg, another of Romney’s sons, quickly chimed in to note “that was not my dad saying that.”

      So now one son flips, while the other flops.

      But get this, even after Tagg tries to save the day by holding daddy blameless for birther sh*it, the son doesn’t give up. He does not say, “oops”. He says:

      “No, no no, that was just a suggestion,” Matt added.



      This is not even Palin territory; we are in Trumpland.

      Holding my breath for some sort of a reaction from Frumpland.

  • Graychin

    I’m no fan of Ron Paul, but this guilt-by-association is unfair.

    Dixie flag-waving morons will gravitate toward whoever beats the States’ Rights drum the loudest. This year, it’s either Ron Paul or Rick “Ni**erhead” Perry.

    • Geprodis

      Every candidate has morons for supporters.

    • Ex Cathedra

      This is guilt by association. And is intellectually dishonest. I disagree strongly with many of Paul’s policies, but I disagree even more strongly with using guilt by association to attack him.

      One could just as easily accuse some of being endorsed by child molesters when the Catholic Church effectively endorses them.

      • valkayec

        My question is why so many of these questionable groups supporting him? Why does he attract all of them? Moreover, why does he not state loudly and clearly that he thinks their ideology is wrong and harmful to the nation?

        In other words, I don’t assume he is responsible for their being attracted to him, what I care about is his not denouncing them in the clearest words possible if he does not belief the same as they do.

        • Primrose

          I agree completely with you. Mr. Frum’s criticism was unfocused and thus unfair but the point you make is exactly right.

    • NRA Liberal

      “Dixie flag-waving morons will gravitate toward whoever beats the States’ Rights drum the loudest. This year, it’s either Ron Paul or Rick “Ni**erhead” Perry.”

      Harsh but cogent, Graychin. You cut right through the haze of BS with that one.

  • midwest guy

    The Obama Presidency started as a celebration of cultural and racial inclusion, but has subsequently brought out some of the most virulent racism I have seen in my 60 years. Ron Paul is the only guy who is being targeted by Mr. Frum and many other pundits, but I challenge any of the current GOP candidates to demonstrate that they stand against such primitive tribal behavior. None of the current GOP candidates will dare to speak about racial, cultural, or religious equality because they know such words will cause them to lose the GOP base. The GOP has become the party of “white power” since Mr. Reagan’s time; Mr. Frum and his pundit colleagues are SHOCKED, SHOCKED!!!, despite the myriad of ways they have used coded language and the “Southern Strategy” to promote this very carefully conceived GOP party philosophy. The cast of cartoon candidates we have for 2012 is sufficient evidence that the party no longer has any core values whatsoever. Ron Paul is not the problem—–he is merely the most visible and articulate symptom of the demise of the party.

    • Grace

      Agreed. Can’t really figure out what Frum’s problem is here. Isn’t Paul’s blatant support for racist rhetoric just the logical endpoint of the Southern strategy?

      Bush/Rove/Frum didn’t have any queasiness about getting homophobic measures put on the ballots in as many swing states as possible during Bush’s runs, to bring out that crowd. Seems more than a little like the pot calling the kettle back to hyperventilate about Paul’s open appeals to the racicsts.

      For the record, I think Ron Paul is a racist, sexist, conspiracy-mongering crackpot who shouldn’t be allowed in the White House on a public tour. But the GOP long ago chose their poison with the Southern strategy and those who have whispered to the bigots from the shadows all these years are no better than Paul. They’re just annoyed that he’s doing it wrong.

      Hey, Frum, what was up with that whisper campaign about McCain’s illegitimate black child during the 2000 election? If you objected, I’d love to be pointed to the evidence.

    • nuser

      Chrissakes: It is all about Israel again. Ron Paul wants no more wars unless we are directly targeted, even more important : No more aid to Israel.Do you for one moment think this Forum is concerned about racism or Paul’s? I suggest you read the book of mormons, which
      I might add is Romney’s bible and you will see racism at its best! Red herrings and manipulations.

    • Primrose

      I think this is a fair critique of Mr. Frum. He doesn’t mention, for example, that Mitt Romney has let his son start skirting the birther issue.

  • MSheridan

    I wouldn’t even bother trying to calculate the exact percentage of Paul supporters who are racist. Some not insignificant percentage, no doubt, and many of that percentage are doubtless attracted to him exactly because of his past associations and controversies. But I expect a fair number of people with stars and bars bumper stickers on their vehicles like him primarily because he is the only GOP candidate on display who looks in a dim light as if he were a populist. In reality he’s not even close, but he rails against Wall Street and big government in a populist-sounding way. His rhetoric sounds more genuine than that of his opponents. He’d eliminate the social safety net and simultaneously cut out a lot of regulation that the vast majority of Americans support and rely on, but as he’s been so consistent on those positions throughout his career he doesn’t sound like a politician pandering to his audience.

    • JimBob

      I wouldn’t even try and calculate how many of Obama’s supporters are racists. The black community is full of bigots.

      • MSheridan

        Racist as defined by what, exactly? Has Jimbob felt oppressed?

        By the by, you do realize that “the black community” makes up only 12% of the US population, right? They are an important constituency in the Democratic Party (for which we can thank the Southern Strategy), but most of us voting Democrats are white. That will change soon, probably, but only because the Republicans have decided to gift us most of their once sizable Hispanic vote. See this piece over at The American Conservative:

      • armstp

        Classic conservative complaint: we whites are victims, as we suffer from all this racism. ??? A complete joke.

    • valkayec

      Don’t forget that he’d slash the military budget and bring all the troops home and close all foreign bases. One of the things I noticed was Paul is gaining a lot of support from ex-military and current GIs. That’s gotta tell you something about how the GIs feel about our neo-con military adventurism.

  • rbottoms

    Ron Paul is too racist for the party of Limbaugh.

    That’s too funny.

  • Xclamation

    We all know the joke about the priest caught in the flood, right? The one where a parishioner comes and offers to take him to safety, then a rescue crew arrives and then a helicopter but the priest refuses all of them. He drowns of course and in Heaven asks how God could have allowed him to die?

    I feel like Ron Paul and his supporters are a particularly dark variant of this joke.

    “Why? Why didn’t anyone tell me Ron Paul was a terrible person?”

    “Well, he employed terrible people. He was friends with terrible people. He profited off of terrible words. He was supported by terrible people. What more did you need?”

    • Geprodis

      Yes, if Ron Paul becomes President he is going to round up all the Jews and blacks and put them in camps.

      Paul has no interest in curtailing the Patriot Act, or cutting the insane military budget, or cutting spending, or pursuing a peaceful foreign policy. His trumpeting of civil liberties, peace, and financial solvency is just scenery – the ultimate goal is denying homosexuals, blacks, and Jews their rights.

  • gmat

    Has Romney explicitly disavowed the racist doctrine of his church?

    I may have missed it.

    • _will_

      doing so would surely only hurt him during the primary, i would imagine. bringing up his faith would only underscore his otherness and criticizing racism seems to really piss off the tea party.

    • valkayec

      The Church has pretty much disavowed that for themselves which is why they’re now all over Africa and Asia recruiting.

      • gmat

        “pretty much disavowed”?

        The priesthood ban was lifted in 1978, after years of non-stop awful publicity starting with a Time article in 1965 on the Priesthood-Ban and the Curse of Cain Doctrine, and possibly a threat from the Carter Administration to pull their tax-exempt status. (Carter refuses to comment on it).

        The official position of the church is, “the Church has never taught that black people are cursed, has never taught that black people are the children of Cain and we do not know the reason why blacks were banned from the priesthood and temples for 130 years.”

        So you tell me. Is denying that something ever happened the same as disavowing it (or even “pretty much” disavowing it)? Does it meet the rigorous zero-tolerance-for-racism standard of FrumForum?

    • Primrose

      Actually, I think Romney’s father did take a stand about that. I seem to recall reading a reference to him doing so. I am no Romney fan so don’t take this statement as support, just fairness.

  • Baron Siegfried

    Well, this is all nice and good, but the GOP would much rather throw the election to Obama than run the risk of a loose cannon like Paul in office. The Rove and Armey PACs, Super Pacs, Super-Duper-Double-Secret-PACs, bagmen and professional slanderers would all turn around and open up on Paul the day after his nomination speech. The one thing that the right cherishes above all is control; Paul by definition isn’t under theirs, and they won’t be having any of THAT, thank you very much . . . When they buy a politician, they damn well expect him to STAY bought!

    Obama they can deal with – he’s a known quantity, knows how the game is played (though not how roughly until very recently) and can be counted upon to react in accordance to the way the game is played. Paul . . . not so much.

    As for disaffected leftists flocking to him because of his anti-war stance, keep dreaming. If he were to get the nomination, the exposure of his speeches and writings to the light of day would solidify his support amongst the teabaggers, but utterly alienate anyone not having drunk that Kool-Aid already.

    • gmat

      As he hasn’t a prayer of getting nominated (and only a 35% chance of winning in Iowa), I think his getting non-interventionism into the debate is his highest and best use.

      (making Bachmann look like an idiot in that debate was a bonus)

    • ottovbvs

      (though not how roughly until very recently)

      A rather unsophisticated take Herr Rittmeister. Obama knows exactly how it’s played but it’s just that he’s chosen to position himself as the adult in the room. This doesn’t satisfy the more immature on the far left (and the media of course who want continuous mud wrestling because it’s good copy) who prefer Trump style histrionics, etc etc but it’s hardly a reflection of reality.

      • nuser

        Are you trapped in a chinese bakery making fortune cookies,or maybe in a galley on a boat?
        Happy new year!

        • ottovbvs

          Good guess on the boat, for at least part of the time. Either way happy new year to you. On the fortune cookie front I’m coming round to the view that economically 2012 is going to be a fairly good year for the US. And if it is, and Europe makes progress on resolving it’s politico/economic problems, there is going to be a tremendous rally in equity markets where most of the doom and gloom is priced in.

        • Traveler

          Happy New Year to you and to all!

  • Gus

    Ron Paul’s supporters do him no favors, and I’m not talking about Duke or other white supremacists. I’m talking about commenters on forums like this one who think the man can do no wrong. Whenever I see a cult of personality like the one that’s building up around Paul, I get creeped out. So despite liking some of his stances on issues (drug war, Iran), I’ll pass.

    • Geprodis

      Gus, Ron Paul is constantly attacked on this forum, and it’s just ad hominem attacks!

      You “will pass” because Ron Paul actually inspires people? You are a fool to judge a candidate by their supporters.

  • ottovbvs

    Why is Romney being so coy about releasing his tax return? Every serious Presidential candidate since Hector was a pup releases their return so what’s the big mystery?

    • LaLupa

      He is going to wait until he secures the nomination. Then he will release his returns and we will find out that he is still getting millions from Bain and paying little taxes. The GOP will realize it made a mistake in choosing Romney. And we will have people like David Frum who pushed so hard to have Romney as the nominee to thank for.

      • valkayec

        Yep. Pretty much.

        The other day I read a NYT story about Romney’s college days at Harvard. Seems like the man studies every angle and makes decisions based on winning. That’s okay. I’ve no problem with that in business. It’s how Apple and Google got to be great companies. But in politics it’s a bit more of a problem because of the overwhelming ramifications to the lives of 300 million Americans.

      • ottovbvs

        This is probably an argument for getting them out now. I tend to agree on the reason he’s holding back. We’re likely going to find out he’s paying lower taxes as a percentage of his income than a school teacher in Wisconsin.

    • armstp

      There are two reasons why Romney does not want to release his tax records:

      1) he does not want everyone to see how much money he makes

      and more importantly

      2) he does not want people to see how little taxes he pays. With no real income (as he is unemployed) and only investments his total tax rate is likely close to the 15% capital gains tax rate or likely even lower. There is a chance he pays no taxes or even gets a refund.

      This whole tax record issue should be a big problem for Romney. The Dems should pound a way at it. The Republicans always us personal tax issues against their opponents.

  • Ray_Harwick

    Oh yeah. Isn’t Paul a Republican? When/if Romney gets the nomination, the KKK/Duke/Stormfront will be his base, too. But you know that.

  • jg bennet

    You know, Ludwig Mises (the commenter) had a good point about Edward Bernays.

    In his autobiography, titled Biography of an Idea, Bernays recalls a dinner at his home in 1933 where Karl von Weigand, foreign correspondent of the Hearst newspapers, an old hand at interpreting Europe had just returned from Germany, was telling him about Goebbels and his propaganda plans to consolidate Nazi power.

    Goebbels had shown Weigand his propaganda library, the best Weigand had ever seen.

    “Goebbels was using my book Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany.”…………

    In a way Bernays & his methods are the reason Ron Paul is a Republican and why Paul has a cult following.

    Below is a historical fact on how Bernays work flipped Republicans into liberals back in the FDR days and kept them there all the way to today as evidenced by Ron Paul..

    Here is a sample that still works today……….

    September 1929 By Robert La Follette

    The Smoot-Hawley Tariff bill, conceived in greed, drafted in secret and packed with “jokers,” was submitted to the Senate on September 4.

    “If this bill is passed by Congress and signed by President Hoover, every farmer, every wage-earner, every house-wife, every legitimate business and merchant in the land will feel its blighting effects in increased taxes upon the necessaries of life and upon every phase of production, in the factory and on the farm.” …………

    For several years, Bernays met privately with key opinion leaders like the publisher of the New York Times and progressive Senator Robert LaFollette. He sent out blizzards of canned articles, Op Eds, letters, reports, etc.

    Ron Paul is a liberal & so is anybody who supports the free market & limited government. But that’s not liberal is it?

    ****Progressives like Sen. LaFollette (the guy who wrote the Smoot clip above) used free market liberal propaganda to support free trade to undermine the power base of Republicans –Woodrow Wilson would admit as much in a speech to Congress. A brief resurgence by Republicans in the 1920s was disastrous for them. Woodrow Wilson’s ideological understudy, Franklin Roosevelt, would essentially blame the Great Depression upon the protectionist policies exemplified by the previous Republican President, Herbert Hoover………. Which anybody that can google can see is not true.

    So if a “socialist” Democrat like FDR supported free trade and was against protectionism to undermine the Republicans why is it that Republicans so staunchly support it today?

    Bernays & his classical liberal propaganda machine is why…..

    Imports during 1929 were only 4.2% of the United States’ GNP and exports were only 5.0%. Monetarists such as Milton Friedman who emphasize the central role of the money supply in causing the depression, downplay the Smoot-Hawley’s effect on the entire U.S. economy.

    So the moral of my ramble is: Supporting free trade aka free market economics is liberal and most conservatives don’t know it thanks to Bernays methods.

    “If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing about it? The recent practice of propaganda has proved that it is possible, at least up to a certain point and within certain limits.” Edward Bernays

    He called this scientific technique of opinion-molding the ‘engineering of consent’.

    • Primrose

      I don’t quite think this example fully reveals the deviousness of Mr. Bernay’s propaganda skills. Switching similar sounding words and and equating associations with fact is child’s play (You see DSP I didn’t disagree with every point,). He was the master at chain reaction persuasion.

      However, I am always happy when light is shed on the father of PR since it is rather like Toto barking at the great wizard Oz behind the curtain.

      Also, I think it puts the move of people like Mr. Paul (though he hardly stands alone here) to put all trust in corporations in a new light. Mr. Bernays didn’t really like or trust democracy because he shared his Uncle Freud’s dark view of mankind. He trusted corporate overlords to herd us. He saw a Gibsoneque dystopia as a good thing, a “consumption devoutly to be wished” as poet said.

      Or to put it another way, it is not government they dislike but democracy.

      The invisible hand of the market they speak of is not the will of the people, but the will of the sellers. They very specifically don’t want the choice of the consumer to exist, because we might not consume what they say (or at all).

  • nuser

    Why don’t we take the limelight off Ron Paul and focus on “Romney The liar”?

    • jg bennet

      Indeed… Romney the corporate raider not the job creator…..

      Here is just one article from his corporate raiding days.

      The Intelligencer 10 -11 -1994

      Mitt Romney’s claim to
      have created thousands of jobs
      through his venture capital firm:

      Kennedy’s latest ads feature
      Indiana workers who lost
      their jobs in a Romney-engineered

      The television commercials focus
      on former employees of
      Smith Corona Corp.’s SCM Office
      Supplies in Marion, Ind.,
      which was bought by Ampad in
      July in a takeover engineered by
      Romney’s firm, Bain Capital Inc.
      Ampad fired SCM’s 350 employees,
      telling them they would
      have to reapply for their jobs.

      About 220 people were rehired,
      then went on strike in August
      over pay cuts and loss of health

      Romney, who has never previously
      run for or held elective
      office, contends he has created
      10,000 jobs through his venture
      capital firm.

      In another development, The
      Boston Globe reported Sunday
      that Romney last year helped
      Corning Inc. take over the medical
      diagnostics company Damon
      Corp., closing its suburban Boston
      headquarters and laying off
      115 workers.

      Romney told the paper he was
      paid almost $40,000 in directors’
      fees and took a capital gain of
      more than $100,000 on sales of
      Damon stock…………

      What happened to Smith Corona?

      The company moved its typewriter manufacturing operations from Cortland to Mexico in 1995 and announced it was cutting 750 jobs as a result of continuing sales declines. Shortly thereafter, the company declared bankruptcy.

      What happened to Damon Corp?

      It became was one of the most legally thorny of Bain Capital’s deals. Damon ended up pleading guilty to defrauding the federal government of $25 million and paid a record $119 million fine.

      Romney sat on Damon’s board. During Romney’s tenure, Damon executives submitted bills to the government for millions of unnecessary blood tests. Romney and other board members were never implicated.

      The list could go on & on

      • nuser

        Thank you. Anyone really interested can google Willard’s records , and pretty they ain’t!
        All things considered it is a mess and took roots when the “Shellacking “occurred in nov. 2010.

  • Emma

    After reading today’s gibberish, including Frum’s, I am completely dispirited.

  • buddyglass

    This is pretty low. If David wants to taint Paul by virtue of Duke’s endorsement, then why don’t we look at *which political party* is overwhelmingly supported by white bigots? Yeah. That’d be the Republican Party. And you can bet they’re not all behind Paul. I’m guessing more than a few support Perry, Gingrich or Bachmann.

  • ConnerMcMaub

    If you really want to hurt Ron Paul on this issue just point out the difference of how he defended his newsletter now and back in 96. In 96, he never denied writing them and defended the outrageous statements. Now he denies writing them. Which is it?

    • buddyglass

      I haven’t read that Paul ever copped to writing the offensive portions of the newsletters. Have a link? In every article I’ve read on the subject he always claims someone else wrote them and that he wasn’t involved in the process of approving content.

  • jg bennet

    Here is a Paul whopper!!! He wanted to abolish the Mann Act back in 1988.

    What is the Mann Act?

    The White-Slave Traffic Act, better known as the Mann Act, is a United States law, passed June 25, 1910.

    ***The most common use of the Mann Act was to prosecute men for having sex with underage females.****

    It is named after Congressman James Robert Mann, and in its original form prohibited white slavery and the interstate transport of females for “immoral purposes”. Its primary stated intent was to address prostitution, immorality, and human trafficking. It was later amended by Congress in 1978, and again in 1986 to apply only to transport for the purpose of prostitution or illegal sexual acts.

    In 1978, Congress updated the act’s definition of “transportation” and added protections against commercial sexual exploitation for minors. It added a 1986 amendment which further protected minors and added protection for adult males.

    In particular, as part of a larger 1986 bill focused on criminalizing various aspects of child pornography that passed unanimously in both houses of Congress.

    PAUL WANTED TO SCRUB IT? here is the article that says he wants to appeal the act

    • Primrose

      Really? While I appreciate intellectually the argument for legalizing prostitution (I don’t think the real world application stands up to it.) What on earth is good about permitting child prostitution? I thought he said Libertarians were against violence?

  • FoolForum

    Good to know Ron Paul’s base of college students are all klansmen and neonazis.

    Good show, Frum, good show.

  • jg bennet

    “The Ron Paul campaign is really about re-educating America to what can only be called Neoliberalism. Which, based on the evidence and writings of its supporters, appears to be a thin gruel of free markets and non-interventionism seasoned heavily with anti-Semitism, morally obtuse Neo-Confederates, and an outspoken contempt for both conservatism and conservative leaders past and present.”

    Jeffrey Lord, a contributing editor to The American Spectator, is a former aide to Jack Kemp and Ronald Reagan.

    Here is his article that has the quote

  • Deep South Populist

    At the end of the day, you anti-Pauls can screech, howl and rave to your heart’s content.

    It won’t change the facts.

    You people do not have a credible case that Ron Paul’s policies would be worse for Blacks and minorities than this president’s policies, or a Republican president’s policies.

    The War on Drugs disproportionately targets Blacks and other minorities.

    Ron Paul wants to end to it.

    Every Republican candidate and Barack Obama want to continue it.

    Ron Paul=fewer Black drug arrests, fewer Blacks in jail.

    Barack Obama/Republicans=the status quo continues

    Ron Paul Calls for an End to War on Drugs

    • SpartacusIsNotDead

      DSP wrote: “You people do not have a credible case that Ron Paul’s policies would be worse for Blacks and minorities than this president’s policies, or a Republican president’s policies.”

      You’re kidding, right? While the War on Drugs does indeed affect blacks disproportionately, it still affects far fewer blacks than would be harmed by Ron Paul’s other proposals. Many, many more black people would be hurt by Paul’s plan to end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Pell Grants, public education and just about every other form of government spending. I’m amazed that this is not obvious even to you.

      And, of course, we can’t even measure the harm to minorities that is likely to flow from the reluctance of a Ron Paul Administration to enforce the federal anti-discrimination laws that Ron Paul vehemently disagrees with.

      • Deep South Populist

        I think those things have to be weighed against the benefits to Blacks and everyone else of the other policies Paul would likely pursue. Paul would end the wars, cut defense spending, and eliminate corporate welfare, among other things.

        Has Paul said he won’t enforce federal discrimination laws?

        • SpartacusIsNotDead

          Of course these things have go be weighed against Paul’s other policies. That’s exactly what I did and why I can say with such certainty that his policies would be a disaster for minorities as well as whites. We know what a country without Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, free public education, environmental protection laws, etc looks like. Since no one here is clamoring to move to Somalia I don’t think any halfway intelligent person would conclude that minorities or whites would be better off under Paul than Obama.

          Paul hasn’t said he won’t enforce discrimination laws, but I think it is naive to think that someone who thinks those laws are unconstitutional and harmful will be as vigorous in enforcing them as someone who doesn’t think that way.

          I understand the appeal of some of Paul’s positions. I strongly agree with him on some of those issues, but the guy is a crank with mostly crank ideas. He’s a failed legislator with no record of leadership at any level in any capacity in his life. Only the naive overlook these salient facts.

        • Primrose

          He’s said business’s should be free to segregate if they desire. In an interview with Chris Wallace, he has said that the government should not prevent sex discrimination and that a woman who is sexually harassed should just quit if she doesn’t like it. So one has to infer that he is similarly opposed to federal involvement in racial discrimination.

      • buddyglass

        “We know what a country without Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, free public education, environmental protection laws, etc looks like. Since no one here is clamoring to move to Somalia”

        Big straw man here. Why Somalia? Why not (ignoring SS) “the United States in 1964″?

        Also, Paul doesn’t want to do away with free public education; he wants to end federal support for primary and secondary education along with the portion of federal tax revenue that finances it. States would then raise taxes and fund it at the state level.

        Paul’s vision for environmental protection (like pretty much everything else) is that it’s for the states to handle.

        • SpartacusIsNotDead

          A straw man, really? Paul does want to end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all the other things I said. He does not support them and he does not want the federal government to spend any money on them. Many states are not capable of raising the taxes to pay for these things. Other states will simply refuse to raise the taxes. Environmental laws must be enacted nationally because adverse environmental effects do not limit themselves to man-made state borders.

          You’re right in that I didn’t have to pick Somalia. I could have easily picked the U.S. However, it wouldn’t have been the U.S. in 1964. Instead it would have been the U.S. circa 1840. Other than a few neo-confederate white racists, I don’t know anyone in the U.S. who is clamoring to go back to those days.

          The problem that conservatives and today’s libertarians seem to have is that they don’t realize there is a reason a free, democratic people decided to enact laws that would create from scratch things like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, federal support for public education, environmental laws, etc. They saw what the country was like before these things existed and they decided the country would be better off with these things.

          Only children and the most juvenile adults fail to grasp this.

        • buddyglass

          “A straw man, really? Paul does want to end Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security and all the other things I said.”

          Yes, a straw man. The U.S. would not turn into Somalia if Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security were phased out and subsequently replaced by similar programs at the state level, which they almost assuredly would be. Even if they weren’t, the U.S. would *still* not morph into Somalia given the vast personal wealth (relative to Somalia) of the U.S. citizenry, our stable government, relative lack of corruption, relatively high level of education, lack of dependence on subsistence farming, etc. The notion that the U.S. under Paul becomes Somalia is ridiculous.

          “Environmental laws must be enacted nationally because adverse environmental effects do not limit themselves to man-made state borders.”

          FWIW most environmental effects are local. Obviously climate change is an exception, along with polluting rivers that cross state lines, air pollution near borders, etc. Paul likely advocates that such issues between states be settled in federal court. Just a guess. So, ultimately, the fed would still be calling the shots on environmental issues that span state lines.

          “The problem that conservatives and today’s libertarians seem to have is that they don’t realize there is a reason a free, democratic people decided to enact laws that would create from scratch things like Medicare, Medicaid, SS, federal support for public education, environmental laws, etc. They saw what the country was like before these things existed and they decided the country would be better off with these things.”

          Conversely, the problem with (some) liberals is that they fail to acknowledge that such programs weren’t universally supported *even when they were enacted*. And, as you point out, they were enacted at a time when the consequences of their absence were widely known.

    • Primrose

      You clearly have a point on the end to the war on drugs, though I’m not sure legal Heroin and Cocaine will make society prosper. There certainly under his plan won’t be any money for rehab, and if one throws to the states, well poorer states with rampant Meth use will be broken.

      However, a man who thinks that segregation is OK is not going to be better for African-Americans. If it is legal to refuse to serve someone because of their color (and therefore also not to hire, not to buy their supplies etc.) African-Americans will have less freedom. They won’t be able to just book hotels, sit down and grab a cup of coffee, or the everyday actions of life, unless there is and they can find the African-American side of town. And of course, it will suddenly be legal to put employment notices that say No Blacks Allowed. Plenty of firms already have one.

      Don’t think it happens still. Try getting a job when you have a name that HR managers have decided is African-American. I have one and it is really amazing what they think. No, I’m not making this up, they’ve told me. The only jobs I get are with firms too small to have HR, and usually fairly liberal ones.

      When a large corporation my husband worked for needed to us its diversity it gave a seminar to its employees to look for more diverse candidates on resumes. When the logical statement was asked, but in a resume how are we to know? They said specifically look at their names. My neighbor who was of this same profession (HR) said yes, if I didn’t know what race they were I would ask them to come in and sign an employment application.

      So Mr. Paul is just fine with making all this legal, to letting us wallow in racism (making it grow not recede). And his great claim as to why? More freedom.

      I simply can’t respect someone who is so intellectually vacuous as to make such a statement. If Valkayec remembers that wonderful article on race and libertarianism she put up a few months ago, I’d link to it. That I thought decimated Mr. Paul’s entire approach better than I ever could.

  • Rossg

    Ohmygosh!!! Rep. Paul’s desire to dismantle scores of Federal safeguards will hurt minorities in ways too numerous to discuss here. His so-called desire to end the war on drugs, which real value to minorities is dubious, simply cannot counterbalance, let alone obliterate all these other things.

  • chephren

    Ron Paul is the candidate of those who believe the wrong side won the Civil War.

  • jg bennet


    Did you read what the GOP Southern Strategy was all about?

    I guess not! Here it is from a one time Republican National Chairman. The strategy was about marginalizing the “blacks” into extreme poverty with little political representation, exactly where Southern Democrats aka Ron Paulites want them to be.

    It aint about low taxes, states rights & limited government, those are not original Republican ideas those are Southern Democratic/Neo Confederate ideas. The GOP Chair says it way better than I can.

    I tried to paste the unedited quote but it did not pass so here it is without the N words

    1981….. “You start out in 1954 by saying, Ni*ger, n*gger, n*gger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nig*er”—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, STATES RIGHTS and all that stuff. You’re getting so abstract now [that] you’re talking about CUTTING TAXES, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] BLACKS GET HURT WORSE THAN WHITES
    And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I’m not saying that. But I’m saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that CODED, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me—because obviously sitting around saying, “WE WANT TO CUT THIS” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a HELL OF A LOT MORE ABSTRACT than “Ni*ger, ni*ger”.

    Lee Atwater said that & he was advisor to Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and was the Chairman of the Republican National Committee.

    A vote for Ron Paul or any othe Republican (thanks to Nixon) is a vote for old school Southern ideology.

    • Primrose

      I don’t think you can tag Mr. Paul with the coded southern strategy because he wants to cut,cut, cut since he wants to cut everything.

  • Quote Of The Day |

    [...] Again, I go back to that, you know, traditional topic that I always talk about, you know, the powers of international Zionism – a power in banking, a power in media, a power in government influence, in campaign finance – a power that’s, you know, hurting the values of this country on behalf of Israel. So, I would vote for Ron Paul at this moment because he’s one of the few candidates who have policies in this regard and this realm that I wholeheartedly support, and that’s why I’d vote for him. — David Duke, on white supremacist Don and Derek Black radio program [...]

  • Deep South Populist

    Andrew Sullivan responds to Frum’s smear.

    The pull quote from Glenn Greenwald is excellent, and the Paul video from the ABC Sunday show is too.

  • Are the Attacks on Newt Personal? (Nah, Just Ron Paul Destroying the GOP) | The Pink Flamingo

    [...] be honest here. Normal Republicans are not the ones supporting Ron Paul. His supporters are drawn from the ranks of Dems, libertarians, white supremacists, and [...]

  • Unforgiveable Transgressions: The Problem with Progressive Cheerleading of Ron Paul | | Political ContextPolitical Context

    [...] a candidate espousing racist garbage and one who has consciously and materially benefitted from others’ racist garbage).  Fox wants Paul to win in order to make the GOP primaries more exciting. I know a few people who [...]

  • The problem with Ron Paul | Hoystory

    [...] then there’s the people that support him. It takes some doing to get both Louis Farrakhan and KKK Grand Wizard David Duke on your side. (And with the latter, it appears to be a mutual admiration [...]