Quote of the Day
When he [Ron Paul] was asked to disown the 9/11 Truthers, he gave a revealing answer, and one that reflects on the newsletters issue. It just isn’t in his nature to adopt other people’s views, or to tell anyone else what to believe or what to say. He doesn’t just believe in libertarianism; he lives it. This means that he doesn’t have the instinct to police anyone else’s views or actions within the law or the Constitution. I don’t think it excuses his negligence in the past, but it does help me understand it better.
I DO think it excuses his negligence in the past (in that he cops to it and repudiates it in a manner entirely consistent with the rest of his public life and with his potential policy). I’m still not clear on why I should care about the newsletters thing, what it means for a Ron Paul candidacy or presidency, or what else Ron should (or could) do to “make it right”. I am with everybody (including Ron) in thinking the comments were disgusting and out of line. Beyond that, I’m still not sure what the salient question is. Maybe somebody else could help me out.
The salient issue, I think, is that other people will care. You might think that it’s ephemera, but undecided voters can be swung by things that other people might consider to be ephemera.
To be honest, I would say that it’s speaks pretty ill of his management, that he’d allow stuff like that to go out under his name. Once the stuff has, for whatever reason, gone out under one’s name, a really vigorous repudiation would also be in order, I think.
When politicians or their supporters brush stuff off as overblown (my guy McCain does it, too) there’s inevitably the risk that it’ll light up the people that were worried by the stuff and also affect others. Such is politics.
Comment by Adam — 1/11/2008 @ 9:08 am
Dr. Paul, through his own personal negligence, allowed people who were working under him to do things that he considered repugnant, and to effectively sign his name to those beliefs and actions.
That is not a good sign from somebody who wants to manage the executive branch. A lot of actions that could be undertaken by his underlings as President would be the sort of things where a subsequent “repudiation” wouldn’t do a lot of good.
Management skill is not ALL-important (I’m talking to you, Mitt), but it’s not irrelevant, either.
Comment by Rojas — 1/11/2008 @ 10:27 am
Lesson: If you are going to publish a newsletter which contains opinions you think vile, there are downsides to branding it with your personal name. It could have been titled a billion different ways, or at least contained a disclaimer.
fama nihil est celerius
Comment by Jon — 1/11/2008 @ 3:09 pm
I posted this in a couple of spots over at my place, but I’m with Brad on this, I think. I understand that the stuff was repulsive, but what can he do about it now? So maybe he showed bad judgment in who he trusted as a ghost writer or editor, but if bad judgment on who wrote a low subscription newsletter is the worst that they can come up with…of course none of us has ever showed badge judgment on anything, so we can’t empathize.
I’ll bet Lew Rockwell doesn’t read and approve every piece that is put up on the blog. It sounds like he probably approves the larger articles on the other site, but anytime you move away from a sole proprietorship or share responsibility, it seems like you run some risks that your partners/associates might embarrass you or say something you don’t like. I suspect that Dr. Paul didn’t intend for the newsletter to take that direction–and I also suspect that they used his name in order to sell subscriptions to a relatively small audience.
Comment by Laura — 1/12/2008 @ 2:21 am
Well, the fact that it happened at all is a testament to his judgement. He can obviously attempt to show that his judgement isn’t normally that horrible.
As for comparisons for Lew Rockwell, if Rockwell ever runs for public office, he may indeed have cause to regret some stuff that appeared on his blog, but at least it would have appeared before he was a politician (unlike the Ron Paul newsletter).
I just don’t see how this isn’t a big deal; if Paul was still in the game (which I don’t think he is), this would end it for him. I am not sure that it’ll significantly damage his existing support, but his existing support is not enough anyhow.
Comment by Adam — 1/12/2008 @ 5:26 pm