Ron Paul's Racist Newsletters - Much More Important Than Jules Manson

karo.ambrose said:

Well yes, he did do all those things. But, if you look at the broader picture of his years in congress, he votes down everything that doesn't apply to his strict interpretation of the Constitution. He's an idealist and he stands firmly to his convictions of smaller government, and in that sense, nothing is spared.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that, but I gotta really question what type of person Paul is when he thinks that basic human rights are less important than his questionable idea of smaller government.

karo.ambrose said:

I think Paul needs to address this issue publicly. Ignoring it and shrugging it off and taking his mike off during an interview is only going to make matters worse if he wins the Iowa caucuses. The media digs up any dirt and any possible dirt on all candidates... it's just the way modern American politics work.

What I would like to see is Ron Paul, either in a youtube speech or an interview or something, take responsibility for the appalling lack of oversight with these newsletters. But, at the same time, have him showcase how his policies for the last thirty years have been anything but racist, homophobic, or anti semitic. And as the old adage goes: actions speak louder than words... and in this case, someone else's words. If anyone can uncover any hate-mongering speech or deed done by Ron, I will take this sock and stuff it in my mouth.

Click to expand...

Remember in 2008 when Obama had to give his speech in Philadelphia distancing himself from Reverend Wright and publicly rebuking him? That's the sort of speech Ron Paul needs to give. NOW.

It won't change my mind about him. That ship has sailed. But for someone like Zoombie and others who like some of Paul's positions but are troubled by the way the supposed straight shooter keeps changing his explanations and won't address the matter directly and forthrightly it could be the difference between victory and obscurity.

As it stands, he just appears to be a coward.

karo.ambrose said:

Well yes, he did do all those things. But, if you look at the broader picture of his years in congress, he votes down everything that doesn't apply to his strict interpretation of the Constitution. He's an idealist and he stands firmly to his convictions of smaller government, and in that sense, nothing is spared.

He didn't get the nickname Dr. No because he only voted against civil rights or immigration welfare bills. He votes down all bills that increase the scope of the government's involvement in our lives.

Click to expand...

Which doesn't make Paul an idealist. He's an ideologue and depicting some of his weirder and troubling viewpoints as being pure and principled, only comes as being rigid, unreasonable and unwilling to compromise.

Which also makes him unelectable.

Zoombie said:

I'm in an uncomfortable position. I like Paul's libertarian ideas, but I don't like the whole 'doesn't believe in evolution' thing. And even if the newsletters weren't written by him, his handling of the affair is a bit iffy.

Click to expand...

This is the definitely true.

Look, this is why I analogized to the Whitewater affair. Both are a fair distance in the past compared to when they gained prominence. But both *also* point out moments of (at best) poor judgment.

And yet,some of the same political commentators that I see pointing out this issue virtually dismissed Whitewater because of its distance in the past at the time it came up.

By the way, one of the criticized statements was about the NAACP, not about african americans. Are we meaning to say that a groups allegiance with a minority renders all such criticisms to be about race, and not about the group?

whistlelock said:

Do I think he used uses the racism of his constituents to raise money and get re-elected?

Click to expand...

Editorial correction.

caw

One of the (many) problems I have with Paul is I believe his libertarian views are not so much libertarian as recycled states rights arguments, so popular in the South.

He's against government -- but that's federal government, not state government. Saying the feds have no right to tell people what to do resonates with many, but the corollary is that the feds have no right to protect people either.

So when the SCOTUS struck down Texas's anti sodomy laws, Paul was critical. Not that he believes those laws are anything but ludicrous. But what's more important, to him, is the right of Texas to pass and enforce such laws, however misguided, free from Federal intervention.

So if Paul, the idealist and libertarian, had his way, laws imprisoning people for consensual sexual acts would be still on the books in Texas and 13 other states.

Plus, of course, Texas or any other state could refuse to allow gays to marry, or recognize such marriages in other states.

Or if Texas wished to impose mandatory prison sentences for smoking marijuana, that would be its right. If it wished to totally outlaw abortion at any stage, for any reason, that would be fine too.

So when Paul speaks of intrusive gov't, what he's really saying is that the feds have no right to intrude on state decisions, no matter how egregious and oppressive state laws may be -- as long as the activity in question is not specifically enumerated in the constitution.

All Paul is really doing is elevating state govt's over the federal. If the results are oppressive state governments passing harsh and unjust laws, well that's the price we pay for freedom.

Libertarian? Wolf in sheep's clothing, I'd say.

robjvargas said:

Look, this is why I analogized to the Whitewater affair. Both are a fair distance in the past compared to when they gained prominence. But both *also* point out moments of (at best) poor judgment.

And yet,some of the same political commentators that I see pointing out this issue virtually dismissed Whitewater because of its distance in the past at the time it came up.

Click to expand...

So what? There is no equivalency between the two seperate events.

There were numerous criminal and Congressional investigations into Whitewater and they came up empty as far as it goes with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Paul's newsletters occurred within the past 20 years and while that may seem like an eternity to those suffering from politically motivated short-term memory loss, it isn't ancient history. It cuts to the core of Ron Paul's beliefs, judgment and his appalling lack of managerial oversight.

robjvargas said:

By the way, one of the criticized statements was about the NAACP, not about african americans. Are we meaning to say that a groups allegiance with a minority renders all such criticisms to be about race, and not about the group?

Click to expand...

No, but there are ample arrows from the Paul newsletters directed at the NAACP, Martin Luther King and Blacks in general that an attack on one can easily be considered an attack upon all.

As the NAACP's prime directive is the advancement of the interests of Blacks, how are the Paul newsletters not equally directed at the race as well as the group?

The New York Times took a swing and a miss at writing a scathing hit piece on Ron Paul, and it ended up a surprisingly detailed history of the evolution of the two opposing wings of the libertarian movement.

I primarily say they tried for a hit piece because of the first few paragraphs. By the second paragraph, they're quoting anonymous posters on bulletin boards. Their attempt at guilt by association settles out fairly quickly, though, and they get to the meat of the story.

Even the title is fairly balanced for the Grey Lady.

Paul Disowns Extremists’ Views but Doesn’t Disavow the Support

...
The white supremacists, survivalists and anti-Zionists who have rallied behind his candidacy have not exactly been warmly welcomed. “I wouldn’t be happy with that,” Mr. Paul said in an interview Friday when asked about getting help from volunteers with anti-Jewish or antiblack views.

But he did not disavow their support. “If they want to endorse me, they’re endorsing what I do or say — it has nothing to do with endorsing what they say,” said Mr. Paul, who is now running strong in Iowa for the Republican nomination.
...
The libertarian movement in American politics has long had two overlapping but distinct strains. One, backed to some degree by wealthy interests, is focused largely on economic freedom and dedicated to reducing taxes and regulation through smaller government. The other is more focused on personal liberty and constraints on government built into the Constitution, which at its extreme has helped fuel militant antigovernment sentiment.

Mr. Paul has operated at the nexus of the two, often espousing positions at odds with most of the Republican Party but assembling a diverse and loyal following attracted by his adherence to libertarian principles.

Click to expand...

The essay then goes on to lay out the history of those two strains, how political opportunism led one of those strains to seek alliance with divisive elements, and even details Paul's objections to the idea.

Mr. Paul described Mr. Rockwell and Mr. Rothbard as political provocateurs. “They enjoyed antagonizing people, to tell you the truth, and trying to split people,” he said. “I thought, we’re so small, why shouldn’t we be talking to everybody and bringing people together?”

Click to expand...

The article then veers off to quotes from the most extreme of Paul's supporters, but ends with Paul's own statement about why he's willing to "break bread with sinners."

“I’ll go to anybody who I think I can convert to change their viewpoints — so that would be to me incidental,” he said. “I’m always looking at converting people to look at liberty the way I do.”

Click to expand...

Overall, a far more "fair and balanced" report than I've seen anywhere else.

But I'll also fault them for shoddy research. They missed the connections between Rockwell and Fred Reed. The style of the newsletter pieces and the fact that Reed did some contract work for Rockwell in that period is an area worth exploring, if they wanted to tell the whole story.

Ugh, and now Paul comes out as a proselytizer. He becomes less and less acceptable by the day, and I already knew about his issues with racism.

nighttimer said:

As the NAACP's prime directive is the advancement of the interests of Blacks, how are the Paul newsletters not equally directed at the race as well as the group?

Click to expand...

The ACLU proclaims to defend the Bill of Rights, and yet is quite passive when it comes to the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments.

Any number of right-wing groups claim to be defending the nuclear family while having an... interesting... propensity for electing leaders that cheat on wives.

We all know that intent and action do not always align.

rugcat said:

One of the (many) problems I have with Paul is I believe his libertarian views are not so much libertarian as recycled states rights arguments, so popular in the South.
...

Click to expand...

Is it 'the South' we should be watching? I'm not trying to be snarky, but I think of Palin and Bachmann and various referendums put forward by different states. Those would strike me as very odd indeed in NC now years past Jesse Helms, thank God.

Certainly any states talking about seceding count, but I'd expect that of Alaska sooner than NC or Virgina Explain Arizona politics, then, you know? I don't think 'the South' captures the right variables for what we are looking at.

backslashbaby said:

Is it 'the South' we should be watching? I'm not trying to be snarky, but I think of Palin and Bachmann and various referendums put forward by different states. Those would strike me as very odd indeed in NC now years past Jesse Helms, thank God.

Certainly any states talking about seceding count, but I'd expect that of Alaska sooner than NC or Virgina Explain Arizona politics, then, you know? I don't think 'the South' captures the right variables for what we are looking at.

Click to expand...

"States rights" has had a long history in the South as a code word for justifying discriminatory practices.

Even today, some apologists insist that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, but about states rights -- the right to keep slaves, for example.

Distrust and even hatred of the federal government existed in the South long before the present Tea Party movement.

True, it's spread out of the South and has been embraced by both the right wing and the Libertarian movement, but for me, listening to Paul, a Texas legislator, recycle those same arguments is like having a moment of deja vu.

Don said:

The New York Times took a swing and a miss at writing a scathing hit piece on Ron Paul...

Click to expand...

Nah, they didn't miss. No one could miss this, it's such a fat target.

Imo, those newsletters are one of the principle reasons why Paul can never win the Presidency, the nomination or the general election.

His explanations and excuses for what is in them are weak, to say the least. Nothing he says or does can change the fact that it was his name on those newsletters and that they were published by his org.

rugcat said:

"States rights" has had a long history in the South as a code word for justifying discriminatory practices.

Even today, some apologists insist that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, but about states rights -- the right to keep slaves, for example.

Distrust and even hatred of the federal government existed in the South long before the present Tea Party movement.

True, it's spread out of the South and has been embraced by both the right wing and the Libertarian movement, but for me, listening to Paul, a Texas legislator, recycle those same arguments is like having a moment of deja vu.

Click to expand...

No, I know the history of it, and the Civil War stuff. I just doubt the Civil War is relevant to this discussion. Texas is an interesting place politically, for sure. The recent talk of secession and the polls on that have to have something to do with Paul's popularity there, imho. That state's own history may well play into today's politics there. Fiercely independent, etc. Someone from Texas could explain it much better than me, surely.

As for Paul, he made it clear a long time ago that his politics are so constitutionally-based that he doesn't even support civil rights law. That doesn't work for me at all. It's such an extreme view, and it couldn't hold up as being any realistic solution to how to govern, imho. At least not how to govern this country.

backslashbaby said:

Is it 'the South' we should be watching?

Click to expand...

Sounds like rugcat is merely saying that "states rights" issues, and even those that sound like them, play well to a certain segment of the Southern population whose ears still perk up to such dog whistle terminology. And, he'd be totally right.

I'm not trying to be snarky, but I think of Palin and Bachmann and various referendums put forward by different states. Those would strike me as very odd indeed in NC now years past Jesse Helms, thank God.

Click to expand...

I agree about Palin and Bachmann, and I'm not trying to be snarky, but NC isn't the entire South (and NC should be glad about that. ).

When you have idiots like Zach Wamp of TN suggesting secession (and agreeing with Rick Perry), former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee perpetuating the racially-motivated "Obama is from Kenya" lie, Virginia's republican governor Mike McDonnell declaring April to be "Confederate History Month" and also actively supports Rick Perry's campaign, Virginia's republican attorney general Ken Cuccineli making similar "Obama's from Kenya" statements as well as his continually fighting "Obamacare" at every turn, Tim James (former conservative candidate for governor of AL) telling people to "learn English" if they want to live in Alabama, the pretty harsh anti-immigration laws passed recently in Georgia and Alabama, to name a few examples, it seems that there are at least some in the southern states that respond to the "states rights" (and other racially motivated) dog whistling.

These types of actions/statements from some politicians (looks to be mainly, if not totally, conservative ones) seem to be just modern permutations of a new type of "Southern Strategy." However, the new Southern Strategy appears to now include a nefarious anti-gay and anti-abortion agenda in addition to its other "anti" causes. These can be easily seen in recent pushes to fight gay marriage and defund Planned Parenthood.

The new "Southern Strategy" seems to be less solely about race and more about catering to and fomenting a radically ultra-conservative ultra-fundamentalist Christian agenda (i.e. anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science, anti-minority, etc); therefore, it's becoming a more nationwide strategy although there is still a huge concentration of its intended audience in the South.

I hope that, in the long run, these types of tactics backfire on these politicians but, given the large number of Republicans in office in the South (and everywhere, actually), I doubt they're going away until at least November 2012. Thankfully, it seems that voters are starting to fight back (e.g. recall efforts in Ohio and Wisconsin).

Certainly any states talking about seceding count, but I'd expect that of Alaska sooner than NC or Virgina

Click to expand...

Than Virginia? Check my examples above. You also might want to do more reading on recent Virginia politics.

Explain Arizona politics, then, you know? I don't think 'the South' captures the right variables for what we are looking at.

Click to expand...

Having lived in the South for 35 years, I strongly disagree with your assertion. Arizona politics can be explained by Republican politics. The current Republican party is, as you know, pretty extreme in its views and kowtows to segments of the voting bloc with those same extreme views (the new "Southern Strategy" I described above). I think it's more of an appeal to ultra-conservative Christian values than it is to any latent racism - and I feel the "states' rights" type of talk is also playing up more to those ultra-conservative notions than racial - but it's misinformed to deny that this tactic appeals to large portions of Southerners.

Opty said:

Sounds like rugcat is merely saying that "states rights" issues, and even those that sound like them, play well to a certain segment of the Southern population whose ears still perk up to such dog whistle terminology. And, he'd be totally right.

I agree about Palin and Bachmann, and I'm not trying to be snarky, but NC isn't the entire South.

When you have idiots like Zach Wamp of TN suggesting secession (and agreeing with Rick Perry), former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee perpetuating the racially-motivated "Obama is from Kenya" lie, Virginia's republican governor Mike McDonnell declaring April to be "Confederate History Month" and also actively supports Rick Perry's campaign, Virginia's republican attorney general Ken Cuccineli making similar "Obama's from Kenya" statements as well as his continually fighting "Obamacare" at every turn, Tim James (former conservative candidate for governor of AL) telling people to "learn English" if they want to live in Alabama, the pretty harsh anti-immigration laws passed recently in Georgia and Alabama, to name a few examples, it seems that there are at least some in the southern states that respond to the "states rights" (and other racially motivated) dog whistling.

These types of actions/statements from some politicians (looks to be mainly, if not totally, conservative ones) seem to be just modern permutations of a new type of "Southern Strategy." However, the new Southern Strategy appears to now include a nefarious anti-gay and anti-abortion agenda in addition to its other "anti" causes. These can be easily seen in recent pushes to fight gay marriage and defund Planned Parenthood.

The new "Southern Strategy" seems to be less solely about race and more about catering to and fomenting a radically ultra-conservative ultra-fundamentalist Christian agenda (i.e. anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-science, anti-minority, etc).

I hope that, in the long run, these types of tactics prove to be fruitless but, given the large number of Republicans in office in the South (and everywhere, actually), I doubt they're going away until at least November 2012. Thankfully, it seems that voters are starting to fight back (e.g. recall efforts in Ohio and Wisconsin).

Than Virginia? Are you serious? Check my examples above. You also might want to do more reading on recent Virginia politics.
Having lived in the South for 35 years, I strongly disagree with your assertion. Arizona politics can be explained by Republican politics. The current Republican party is, as you know, pretty extreme in its views and kowtows to segments of the voting bloc with those same extreme views (the new "Southern Strategy" I described above). I think it's more of an appeal to ultra-conservative Christian values than it is to any latent racism - and I feel the "states' rights" type of talk is also playing up more to those ultra-conservative notions than racial - but it's misinformed to deny that this tactic appeals to large portions of Southerners.

Click to expand...

"I think it's more of an appeal to ultra-conservative Christian values than it is to any latent racism - and I feel the "states' rights" type of talk is also playing up more to those ultra-conservative notions than racial - but it's misinformed to deny that this tactic appeals to large portions of Southerners...."

I'm not denying that the tactic appeals to large portions of Southerners; I am saying that it also appeals to Arizonians and Alaskans, as well as other state populations.

"...Than Virginia? Are you serious? Check my examples above. You also might want to do more reading on recent Virginia politics.
Having lived in the South for 35 years, I strongly disagree with your assertion. Arizona politics can be explained by Republican politics...."

I have not heard any news about Virginia talking about secession, no. Have you?

Arizona politics being explained as Republican politics is fine, except that it doesn't explain how the Southerner-states-rights part fits in. We're talking about the predictive value of that compared to other states. Arizona is not Southern, yet the ideology we are talking about goes over very well there. That is my point.

As I go back farther and see points about Obama being from Kenya, I'm at a bit of a loss as to how to explain my point farther. My point was pretty specific, and just a note, really.

Michelle Bachman is what I'm talking about. Palin. Christine O'Donnell. I just think there are better facts to tie the phenomenon together than the Southerner-states-rights explanation. I understand Paul is from Texas, but the regional thing doesn't begin to explain Minnesota, while I think what is happening in Texas and Minnesota have a lot in common.

I should note that I've just been very interested in what on earth is going on in American politics. What are the new dog-whistle issues, you know?

Immigration seems like a big one, but why Minnesota then? I'm seriously trying to figure out the most likely variables that people are reacting to.

I can't speak for rugcat but I took from his post that he feels that Paul's rhetoric is a form of "recycled states' rights arguments" (and then he backed up his argument with specific examples of Paul's anti-federalism) meaning that, regardless of Paul's actual views, his rhetoric is parroting the types of language used by past "states' rights" proponents. In the past, these types of arguments were often meant to play up fears (in Southerners) of an oppressive federal government and the rise of minorities (originally, for the South, the federal government was oppressive because it forced the South to free their slaves).

This same type of language is used by many politicians today, many of whom are Southern. "States' rights" type of language isn't just referring specifically to the word "secession." It's language that elicits, in certain people, fears related to oppressive federalism and minorities overtaking whites. The use of such language to foment such fears/bigotries in order to garner votes is a long-held republican strategy.

My point was that this "southern strategy" has morphed to now include bigotry against not just federalism and racial minorities, but also homosexuals (another minority), non-Christian religious groups (like Muslims), anti-science views (pro-creationism, anti-evolution and anti-climate change), and anti-abortion (Planned Parenthood now being the scapegoat). My point was an addendum and an expansion, not a replacement.

These are all strongly held beliefs throughout the South. That is not to say that such beliefs do not exist outside of the South (like in Arizona) or to say that such beliefs are not spreading. Certainly it's apparent that they are. That is only to say that the "states' rights" rhetoric is historically meant to play, specifically, to Southern fears and interests. If it works on people outside of the South, then I'm sure the politician using such rhetoric won't mind.

Furthermore, I'm having a hard time following your argument. First, you seem to take umbrage with rugcat's use of "states' rights" as applying to the South when you say, "Is it 'the South' we should be watching?...I don't think 'the South' captures the right variables for what we are looking at" yet then you contradict that last statement by saying, "I'm not denying that the tactic appeals to large portions of Southerners;"

That's the entire point; that it appeals to large portions of Southerners. That doesn't rule out it also appealing to voters in a few states outside of the South, but the South comprises roughly 13 states. Unless you can come up with more than just Arizona and Alaska, you're gonna be hard-pressed to prove your point that "states' rights"-type of rhetoric isn't meant to appeal mainly to the South.

To put it another way...dog food is made specifically for dogs (or "dawgs" if you're from GA). That doesn't mean that all dogs will like it or that some non-dogs won't. However, pointing out that a few cats also like dog food or that a few dogs don't doesn't in any way disprove that dog food is made specifically for dogs.

(that analogy isn't at all meant to imply that Southerners are "dogs." Some of us are Gators. Just means that I like dogs more than I like cats, and it was the first thing that popped into my mind).

I have not heard any news about Virginia talking about secession, no. Have you?

Click to expand...

No, but I also haven't heard any news from Arizona talking secession, either (other than that silly law from a year ago stating that a panel could vote for AZ to not follow federal laws).

"States rights" is not a term that is meant, currently, to refer simply to "secession." I think that might be where your confusion here lies. It's a dog whistle term meant to stir up feelings of animosity toward minorities and the federal government, views that have been long-held in the South since the Civil War. Hell, even throwing around the term "secession" plays up to it.

If you believe that "states' rights" is referring specifically to states which have had representatives talk about secession, then why bring up Arizona as your example? The only secession talk coming from AZ has been democrats and some citizens groups talking of seceding from AZ because of Gov. Brewer's and the state congress' stupidity.

The only secession talk I've heard of (referring to secession from the Union) has been from Southern representatives (Rick Perry - TX and Zach Wamp - TN).

Arizona politics being explained as Republican politics is fine, except that it doesn't explain how the Southerner-states-rights part fits in.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly.

We're talking about the predictive value of that compared to other states.

Click to expand...

Who's talking about "predictive value?" Predictive value of what?

We were talking about Ron Paul using language that rugcat feels is recycled states' rights rhetoric. I was agreeing. You disagreed that the language had much to do with the South ("I don't think 'the South' captures the right variables for what we are looking at"). I was articulating why you are wrong. But, as I said, just because it appeals to some people outside of the South does not in any way mean that it is not, historically, a tactic used to specifically appeal to Southern voters.

Michelle Bachman is what I'm talking about. Palin. Christine O'Donnell. I just think there are better facts to tie the phenomenon together than the Southerner-states-rights explanation.

Click to expand...

Then that is the source of your confusion. You are the one are talking about Michelle Bachman, Palin, and O'Donnell. You are the one talking about some sort of "phenomenon."

Rugcat was talking about Ron Paul. He was simply talking about Paul's use of "states' rights" rhetoric concerning his issues and how that appeals to certain Southerners. You argued against that by saying that the South doesn't "capture the right variables." (I still don't know what that means).

However, your argument that, basically, "states' rights language appeals to more than the South" isn't in any way a refutation that "states' rights language is historically aimed directly at the South."

I think you're either confusing the original subject (by believing that "states' rights" only means "secession") or you're unintentionally conflating two different arguments (one regarding the historic use of states' rights rhetoric and the other regarding how such beliefs are seemingly spreading to other parts of the nation) and believing that they are the same argument.

Maxinquaye said:

Haha, if it was me, looking at the current field, I'd go hide in the basement, to be honest. Or I'd buy a one way ticket to Canada.

And I mean the field for both (D) and (R) now. Or I'd write in 'Cthulthu' because I don't fancy voting for the lesser evil.

Click to expand...

Did that. Just don't hitch your wagon to a guy from Alberta. I'm stuck here for the foreseeable future. And while it's not as hardcore right as the states, it can be miserable living here at times. I'd be in BC or ON in a heartbeat if I could.

Opty said:

I can't speak for rugcat but I took from his post that he feels that Paul's rhetoric is a form of "recycled states' rights arguments" (and then he backed up his argument with specific examples of Paul's anti-federalism) meaning that, regardless of Paul's actual views, his rhetoric is parroting the types of language used by past "states' rights" proponents. In the past, these types of arguments were often meant to play up fears (in Southerners) of an oppressive federal government and the rise of minorities (originally, for the South, the federal government was oppressive because it forced the South to free their slaves).

This same type of language is used by many politicians today, many of whom are Southern. "States' rights" type of language isn't just referring specifically to the word "secession." It's language that elicits, in certain people, fears related to oppressive federalism and minorities overtaking whites. The use of such language to foment such fears/bigotries in order to garner votes is a long-held republican strategy.

My point was that this "southern strategy" has morphed to now include bigotry against not just federalism and racial minorities, but also homosexuals (another minority), non-Christian religious groups (like Muslims), anti-science views (pro-creationism, anti-evolution and anti-climate change), and anti-abortion (Planned Parenthood now being the scapegoat). My point was an addendum and an expansion, not a replacement.

These are all strongly held beliefs throughout the South. That is not to say that such beliefs do not exist outside of the South (like in Arizona) or to say that such beliefs are not spreading. Certainly it's apparent that they are. That is only to say that the "states' rights" rhetoric is historically meant to play, specifically, to Southern fears and interests. If it works on people outside of the South, then I'm sure the politician using such rhetoric won't mind.

Furthermore, I'm having a hard time following your argument. First, you seem to take umbrage with rugcat's use of "states' rights" as applying to the South when you say, "Is it 'the South' we should be watching?...I don't think 'the South' captures the right variables for what we are looking at" yet then you contradict that last statement by saying, "I'm not denying that the tactic appeals to large portions of Southerners;"

That's the entire point; that it appeals to large portions of Southerners. That doesn't rule out it also appealing to voters in a few states outside of the South, but the South comprises roughly 13 states. Unless you can come up with more than just Arizona and Alaska, you're gonna be hard-pressed to prove your point that "states' rights"-type of rhetoric isn't meant to appeal mainly to the South.

To put it another way...dog food is made specifically for dogs (or "dawgs" if you're from GA). That doesn't mean that all dogs will like it or that some non-dogs won't. However, pointing out that a few cats also like dog food or that a few dogs don't doesn't in any way disprove that dog food is made specifically for dogs.

(that analogy isn't at all meant to imply that Southerners are "dogs." Some of us are Gators. Just means that I like dogs more than I like cats, and it was the first thing that popped into my mind).

No, but I also haven't heard any news from Arizona talking secession, either (other than that silly law from a year ago stating that a panel could vote for AZ to not follow federal laws).

"States rights" is not a term that is meant, currently, to refer simply to "secession." I think that might be where your confusion here lies. It's a dog whistle term meant to stir up feelings of animosity toward minorities and the federal government, views that have been long-held in the South since the Civil War. Hell, even throwing around the term "secession" plays up to it.

If you believe that "states' rights" is referring specifically to states which have had representatives talk about secession, then why bring up Arizona as your example? The only secession talk coming from AZ has been democrats and some citizens groups talking of seceding from AZ because of Gov. Brewer's and the state congress' stupidity.

The only secession talk I've heard of (referring to secession from the Union) has been from Southern representatives (Rick Perry - TX and Zach Wamp - TN).

I'm not sure how I can explain it any more clearly.
Who's talking about "predictive value?" Predictive value of what?

We were talking about Ron Paul using language that rugcat feels is recycled states' rights rhetoric. I was agreeing. You disagreed that the language had much to do with the South ("I don't think 'the South' captures the right variables for what we are looking at"). I was articulating why you are wrong. But, as I said, just because it appeals to some people outside of the South does not in any way mean that it is not, historically, a tactic used to specifically appeal to Southern voters.

Then that is the source of your confusion. You are the one are talking about Michelle Bachman, Palin, and O'Donnell. You are the one talking about some sort of "phenomenon."

Rugcat was talking about Ron Paul. He was simply talking about Paul's use of "states' rights" rhetoric concerning his issues and how that appeals to certain Southerners. You argued against that by saying that the South doesn't "capture the right variables." (I still don't know what that means).

However, your argument that, basically, "states' rights language appeals to more than the South" isn't in any way a refutation that "states' rights language is historically aimed directly at the South."

I think you're either confusing the original subject (by believing that "states' rights" only means "secession") or you're unintentionally conflating two different arguments (one regarding the historic use of states' rights rhetoric and the other regarding how such beliefs are seemingly spreading to other parts of the nation) and believing that they are the same argument.

Click to expand...

Well, if it's all the same, I'll let rugcat make his own argument if he doesn't understand the small point I was making.

Thank you for giving your take on where you think I went wrong in my thinking. But if you dissect my point and then say I am the only one talking about my point, I am at a loss. The only reason I tried to explain in more detail is because you brought it up.

I think enough people understand the small point for what it was. If it does not make enough sense for you, that is fair enough. Point taken. That works fine for me.

If anyone else is confused and would like to discuss it more, I'm fine with that, too.

backslashbaby said:

Well, if it's all the same, I'll let rugcat make his own argument if he doesn't understand the small point I was making.

Click to expand...

He already explained the point that he was trying to make.

As to the point you were making, it's interesting and valid as a separate argument and could lead to an interesting discussion, but has zilch to do with the historicity of "states' rights" rhetoric and it's application and appeal to the South.

Zoombie said:

I'm in an uncomfortable position. I like Paul's libertarian ideas, but I don't like the whole 'doesn't believe in evolution' thing. And even if the newsletters weren't written by him, his handling of the affair is a bit iffy.

Click to expand...

When have you ever known a person with whom you've agreed on every particular point? And if you met such a person, wouldn't he irritate the life out of you?

The Heat is on!

Don said:

Not much to explain away, really, other than piss-poor management by Dr. Paul during that period. He dropped the ball while he was practicing medicine and let the staff of the newsletters run away with them...

Even Wolf Blitzer, part of the hit team...

This is about as major an issue as the rock outside Perry's hunting ranch, and nothing compared to Gingrich's thinly veiled racism toward the president and other groups...

The New York Times took a swing and a miss at writing a scathing hit piece on Ron Paul...

Click to expand...

The hardcore true believers in Ron Paul's divinity are living life in 3-D: Denial, deflection and dismissal. They see conspiracies everywhere and blame everywhere but where it belongs--with Ron Paul.

But they can't claim he's being ignored by the media anymore, so there is that.

Nothing will shake the faith of the faithful in Paul. Fine by me. I hope he wins Iowa and causes Karl Rove and Sean Hannity's heads to explode and the GOP establishment to commit ritual seppuku, which would give me great pleasure and much joy.

Paul's rap won't translate far beyond Iowa, but he would throw a severe monkey wrench into the Mitt Romney Coronation. Paul might even be emboldened enough to go the independent route and send GOP hopes of ousting President Obama crashing and burning.

I'd like that.

But while the Paulinistas are unwavering in their blind faith, others are feeling a bit unnerved by Paul's changing stories and lame explanations for his racist newsletters.

Count Andrew Sullivan, The Daily Beast columnist who publicly endorsed Paul, but is now among the nervous types starting to wobble on Paul.

I sat down and re-read some of the Ron Paul newsletters last night. I don't think he wrote them; I don't think they represent who he is; I do not believe the man is a racist, although seeing into men's souls is not something any of us is very good at. But you have railed and railed and railed at me these past few days - and it's my duty to sit down and re-think. It's happened before and will happen again. I write and think in real time.

In my view, my friend Joe Klein goes too far:

The newsletters went out under his name. They are replete with hateful filth. They disqualify him from the presidency. The idea that someone else wrote them and Paul didn’t read them is utter nonsense–even if true, it would be a devastating commentary on Paul’s executive abilities. How could he hire whomever wrote this crap? And so, when I called Ron Paul honorable yesterday, I was wrong. He is not.
​

This is too much (I think it's perfectly possible, rather than 'nonsense', that Paul used these newsletters as fundraising tools without full oversight). But it is not nothing. A fringe protest candidate need not fully address issues two decades ago that do not in any way reflect the campaign he has run or the issues on which he has made an appeal. But a man who could win the Iowa caucuses and is now third in national polls has to have a plausible answer for this. It's what happens when you hit the big leagues. Obama did it with Jeremiah Wright, openly grappling with the past toxic association, owning it, explaining it. Paul has not had the wherewithal or presence of mind to do that. Indeed, he has not even named the association, the first step to disowning it. And unlike Obama with Wright, Paul got money from these newsletters.

It seems to me that even though I don't believe these old screeds reflect Paul's own beliefs, his new level of prominence demands a new level of accountablity, even on issues this old. If Paul did not write these newsletters, then he has an obligation to say if he knew who did, or conduct an investigation. He has had years to do this, and hasn't. And here's what you've persuaded me of in the last few days: a person who has that kind of bigotry directly printed under his name without a clear empirical explanation of why he is innocent cannot be an honorable president of the United States. The hatred of groups of people in those letters - however gussied up by shards of legitimate arguments - is too deep and vile to be attached to a leader of the entire country. It is far too divisive. The appearance of things matters; and until Paul explains why this appears so horrible, he cannot shrug off the burden of proof.

Click to expand...

Emphasis added. Damn straight.

Opty said:

He already explained the point that he was trying to make.

As to the point you were making, it's interesting and valid as a separate argument and could lead to an interesting discussion, but has zilch to do with the historicity of "states' rights" rhetoric and it's application and appeal to the South.

Click to expand...

LOL;OK. I understand the point he made and have this whole time. I was adding new thoughts to that with the mistaken (sorry!) understanding that we all understood the history of states' rights and the South and were discussing things in that context already.

It was a separate argument, yes I am sorry I was not very clear about that.

Opty, I think both Backslash and I were expanding on our thoughts rather than arguing about anything.

Don't argue; I love you both.

rugcat said:

Even today, some apologists insist that the Civil War was not primarily about slavery, but about states rights -- the right to keep slaves, for example.

Click to expand...

Apologists to what, exactly?