Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Paul to keep Stormfront Money
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, December 20, 2007

In presidential politics, it's all about perception. Apparently the Ron Paul campaign doesn't understand that basic political law:
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul has received a $500 campaign donation from a white supremacist, and the Texas congressman doesn't plan to return it, an aide said Wednesday.

Don Black, of West Palm Beach, recently made the donation, according to campaign filings. He runs a Web site called Stormfront with the motto, "White Pride World Wide." The site welcomes postings to the "Stormfront White Nationalist Community."

"Dr. Paul stands for freedom, peace, prosperity and inalienable rights. If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he's wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."

"And that's $500 less that this guy has to do whatever it is that he does," Benton added.
Of course, had he given the money to his favorite charity or even the NAACP or a predominantly black university scholarship fund, he'd have made the point that he doesn't want any association with white supremacists or their money.

But apparently, as some will interpret this dumb move, that's not true. What a stupid decision - concerning all of $500 - for a presidential campaign to make.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
There is at least one long time aide (foreign affairs) on his Washington staff who would be extremely upset with Rep. Paul if he had returned this money.
 
Written By: Gerry
URL: http://
He won’t lose any votes by this, why not keep the money? The only people who will be upset are those who are simply trying to use anything to attack Paul. Why should he play their game? He’s not going to win, so more power to him to avoid the silly politically correct theater that blemishes most campaigns.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Keeping the money to do the greater good might be more believable if there was actually some refutation of White Supremacy in Paul’s statement. There really isn’t any.

Paul will continue to get a pass from the MSM for something any other candidate, Republican or Democrat, would have been skewered for. At least up until Paul’s usefulness has expired. And that may be soon. It seems they can keep the Republican campaign sidetracked on Religion. Paul doesn’t fit in that discussion. His 15 minutes of distraction may be over.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I certainly think that it would have been best for him to repudiate the Storm Front people by donating equivalent amounts to charities representing causes they mislike; the amount is small, but even the smallest political dividend that it might have paid would probably have a greater value than five hundred dollars. He had a pittance to lose and a small gain to take in donating it.

He probably would be suffering worse for it if his perseverance seemed likely to amount to aught rather than being a curiosity that has done better than most people expected, but not really enough to matter in the end.
 
Written By: Paludicola
URL: http://www.vikinghats.com
Erb has a point. This makes more sense when you realize Paul isn’t trying to win support for himself to win the election. He’s not trying to convince the undecideds to vote for him, he’s just getting his message out there.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Well Chris and Dr Erb, the problem with many Progressives was the motto, "NO Enemy To the Left." So, many well-meaning Liberals found themselves in bed with some pretty nast folks from the Left. So too, Ron Paul. Or is this the Machiavellian, "The Ends Justify The Means?" His message is so important, that any means will do? Personally, I’d be a bit disturbed by that attitude...also, it means he isn’t running for office, because this is a dumb move, politically. So really all his campaign is is an ego stroke or the usual dispairing cry of Libertarians, but not honestly a real attempt to win and therefore change Public Policy. You candidate is not serious, why should we take him, you or your platform seriously?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
Erb has a point. This makes more sense when you realize Paul isn’t trying to win support for himself to win the election. He’s not trying to convince the undecideds to vote for him, he’s just getting his message out there.
no, he isn’t. He’s only attracting a small following of people. Libertarians would suffer more from a candidate like Paul than they would gain from having him out there, considering he comes off as crazy and looney on many, many topics.

 
Written By: Joel C.
URL: http://
Erb has a point. This makes more sense when you realize Paul isn’t trying to win support for himself to win the election. He’s not trying to convince the undecideds to vote for him, he’s just getting his message out there.
no, he isn’t. He’s only attracting a small following of people. Libertarians would suffer more from a candidate like Paul than they would gain from having him out there, considering he comes off as crazy and looney on many, many topics.
I almost believe he is growing his campaign warchest by pandering to groups no Republican otherwise would before he rides off into the sunset. I won’t be shocked when Paul leaves politics in a year or two.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
no, he isn’t. He’s only attracting a small following of people.
Umm, isn’t that what I said? He’s not trying to attract people, he’s throwing his message out there and not caring about anything else.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Yes Chris and in so doing he says, "I’m not serious"...is that what you want, a non-serious candidate? Or is it "Any port in a storm" and if that’s the case why ought voters trust you guys again? "Really elect us" "But you take Nazi money." "Well, it was very important, to get our message out, but we won’t really do any Nazi things." Sure, I see...you take Nazi money but you’re not Nazis...OK. Either you’re a bunch of Nazi’s or a bunch of moral nihilists or you’re not very serious about winning, which is it? And is any of those three really what "libertarianism" is about?
 
Written By: Joe
URL: http://
["]If someone with small ideologies happens to contribute money to Ron, thinking he can influence Ron in any way, he’s wasted his money," Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said. "Ron is going to take the money and try to spread the message of freedom."
Well, while Paul is using Black’s money to spread his message of freedom, Black is using his moment in the stolen – I mean, bought and paid for – spotlight to spread a few messages of his own. I went to Black’s website – the one that’s currently named in all the papers – and found on the front page a link to “Dr. David Duke and Don Black’s weekly radio broadcast to the world 12-19-07,” which as you might imagine is devoted in large measure to discussion of Ron Paul’s candidacy. Here’s one little snippet:

Black, on Paul: I don’t know what his personal beliefs are. He of course got this controversy back in the ‘90s when a newsletter that he published under his name carried comments about how most Blacks in Washington DC were prone toward crime – like some 95% of them I think was the percentage – and how, some pretty obvious observation about how anybody that’s lived in a big city knows how incredibly fleet-footed black criminals can be, which is, which is – that’s a pretty obvious observation, of course [Black and Duke are laughing], but nevertheless it outrages the politically correct establishment.

Duke, laughing: And also pretty fleet-footed on the football field too, aren’t they.

Black: Right, right.

Duke, laughing: And on the track field.

Black: So he may have some practical understanding of race, but nevertheless he parrots the Ayn Rand – Ann Rand, however it’s pronounced – idea that racism is collectivism, and all the other Jewish libertarians who of course tried to undermine the idea of race among white people as a concept. They tried to say we’re all individualists…

Of course Paul is no more responsible for any of this idiocy than he is for Duke’s assertion, elsewhere in the program that our current day “advance into barbarism” is due to our living “in a very Judaized, Jewish extremist society and culture – value system – Hollywood [?] value system – an almost Talmudic value system…”

But Paul is an idiot — a complete and entire idiot – to imagine he can publicly accept and welcome money from pieces of excrement like that without paying a price many, many times over the dollar value of the contribution.

Full disclosure: I thought Ron Paul was an idiot before he tried to explain why it’s okay to accept financial assistance from white power scum.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Joe,

No that’s not what I want, who said I did? I’m not sure why you are arguing with me since I haven’t disagreed with you anywhere.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
"He won’t lose any votes by this, why not keep the money? The only people who will be upset are those who are simply trying to use anything to attack Paul. Why should he play their game?"

Principles and common decency come to mind.

 
Written By: rightwingprof
URL: http://rightwingnation.com
"He won’t lose any votes by this, why not keep the money?"
Of course he will lose votes over this. You’re a professor of what?

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
You can hear what Dr Paul has to say on this donation starting at 3:30 into this segment on Neil Cavuto yesterday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqPhrqllHzY

Steve
 
Written By: Wiseburn
URL: http://
He’s not trying to attract people, he’s throwing his message out there and not caring about anything else.
Uh, what’s the point of a message that doesn’t attract people? Well, I guess that is an idea you would find in the Libertarian Party . . .
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
He won’t lose any votes by this, why not keep the money? The only people who will be upset are those who are simply trying to use anything to attack Paul. Why should he play their game? He’s not going to win, so more power to him to avoid the silly politically correct theater that blemishes most campaigns.


He will loose votes, but he could gain votes if he acted creatively with this. Like donate the money to a minority cause.

What we are seeing here with Paul is a typical political tone deafness, of a type that will limit him politically and suggests a serious lack of executive ability.
 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
There is the factor of once you give into re-distributing money from people who have legal but objectionable beliefs, you now have to police all the money that comes in. For some candidates, vetting their $1000 and up donations, that is going to be much easier. When you don’t get as much per donation, it gets harder.

To the degree that it is a fact that perceptions can be influenced by decisions like this, I don’t think it should necessarily so. If there was a question of whether the candidate is going to be influenced, the candidate already has problems no matter who signed the check. If it is a matter of the candidate agreeing with the signer already, I think there should be less problem finding actual proof that he is a closet racist.
I don’t like this sort of argument that essentially uses prejudice to argue against something that is not in itself objectionable (sorry not worded well, but time ticks). It doesn’t make sense and even though you are just pointing out what other people believe, you are also helping to perpetuate it as reality. If instead, you said "Get real and show me some real proof" for ALL of the candidates, their supporters and their detractors, whether or not you agree with them, it isn’t going to get better.

At least with Paul, he does have a long voting record and from what I have seen it is very consistent, especially compared to his co-workers.

Beyond the protest vote value, even if by two miracles he does get elected, I think we will have a stark example of just how little inherent power there is with the presidency. Though, what little he would get done would probably be appreciated.
 
Written By: anomdebus
URL: http://
It is doing his message a whole lot of good by having it associated with nazis.
/sarc off/
 
Written By: Mikey NTH
URL: http://
I hate Nazis and white supremacists and all they stand for.

And I’d have kept the money, too - any dollar they give a non-Nazi is a dollar they’re not spending promoting their ideology.

The only thing Paul did really wrong here was not denounce their ideology forcefully enough - calling it "small" is not sufficient.

But my suspicion is that he did so under the mistaken belief that all decent folk agree with him about Nazis [that’s not the mistaken part], and that therefore he didn’t need to explicate his disgust for their ideology; that it could be taken for granted. I don’t see any reason at all, for all his myriad flaws, to believe Paul has any sympathy for Nazi ideology.

Full disclosure: I think Paul’s kinda bonkers and would be a disaster as President. But this? He gets a pass on it on every level except political tone-deafness.
 
Written By: Sigivald
URL: http://
Sigivald,

He could have played this into something positive for his run. And consequently obtained more positive spin on his message. Basically, he handled this about as badly as possible . . .
There is the factor of once you give into re-distributing money from people who have legal but objectionable beliefs, you now have to police all the money that comes in.
anomdebus,

Why? He could, in fact, ignore who is sending him money if he wants, and only "deal" with high profile cases. Obviously, this sets a precident for how he has to act with respect to money that is determined to be from questionable sources, but it doesn’t really require him to investigate the sources.

I don’t actually care who sends Paul money, or what he does with it. As long as it doesn’t influence him, it’s OK by me. And I suspect Paul isn’t influenced, it isn’t like he goes about chasing pork for his district, so why would a $500 campaign contribution influence him?

The issue I see here is his handling of the issue from a political perspective.


 
Written By: Don
URL: http://
"And I’d have kept the money, too - any dollar they give a non-Nazi is a dollar they’re not spending promoting their ideology."

I agree. I mean, if I could have thought up the rest of that sentence I’d have kept the money, too. ;-)

I’m sure that all the candidates for president and most candidates for any office that have ever run have gotten endorsements from people they sort of wish would have just *not* and you can’t even give an endorsement back again.

When Hillary was having similar donation problems (as opposed to the Hsu sort of donation problems) I said pretty much the same thing. If they want to give their money away to a candidate why not take it? But Sigivald has the perfect way to explain it that gets all aspects of the important "their money doesn’t buy anything" message in there.

The dollar they give to me is one less dollar spent promoting their ideology.

It’s perfect.

(I also think it would be good for all of us to encourage the assumption that political donations do not buy favors.)
 
Written By: Synova
URL: http://synova.blogspot.com
so more power to him to avoid the silly politically correct theater that blemishes most campaigns.
Politically correct??? What, you consider not shunning the support of white supremacists a freaking badge of honor? It’s not a question of political correctness, it’s a question of human decency and common sense!

I could use $500 myself. I’ll be damned if I’d take it from the likes of Don Black or David Duke (or Alex Jones, or any of the other scum supporting him), though. There is ONLY one way to make it right: donate it to a charity for minorities or to the SPLC or ADL. Of course, he wouldn’t do that, because he considers groups such as those as "racist," and because his core support of Birchers, racists, conspiracy theorists, and jackbooted extreme right kooks would vanish.

It’s no accident these dirtbags all support him; he spouts much of the same nonsense they do and his crackpot ideas would empower them.

It isn’t just offensive to me that this clown is running as a Republican. It’s offensive to me that he’s running as an American.
 
Written By: Beth
URL: http://bamapachyderm.com
BkSe1f meqjktqpklgr, [url=http://rruvlebqhbve.com/]rruvlebqhbve[/url], [link=http://vxfaoanippac.com/]vxfaoanippac[/link], http://kwsuprfulvku.com/
 
Written By: sqtlgfzr
URL: http://zrvpssfqcyfm.com/

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider