Thursday, May 17, 2007

He's in the tank, folks ...

As noted by his reader, isn't it amazing that the GOP was able to rig up a time machine back to 1996 in order to hatch a plot against Ron Paul for use in 2007. Mark, however, will hear none of it, probably because it plays into his crackpot notions that there is some evil conspiracy of the rich elites afoot to ruin Ron Paul, support torture and the war in Iraq, and kill off the poor.*

As even some of Paul's erstwhile supporters are noting, his explanation doesn't exactly pass muster:
As I say in my first comment below, though, his explanation really doesn’t fly for me. His explanation is at least as goofy as the quotes he’s responding to. Well, I’ll leave it for you readers to decide for yourselves.

What will really be the only way to squash this is to point to verifiable quotes from him on the record that repudiate these quotes. Anything he says now will sound like, well, the sound those sandals make when you walk; like he’s not racist now because that would ruin his chances in a national presidential election.

Others are less sanguine:
I don’t know about you but that sounds pretty lame. It wasn’t me but I could never say that…because, what, no one would believe that some opposition plant had done it and you fired his butt and are now correcting the record? So instead of immediately admitting that they came from his office but disavowing those words and ideas was too complex for the voters?…So better to just live with it?

You buy this explanation? I’d like to but it just defies all logic. Let’s look at it this way: assume that his explanation is completely, 100% true; what does this say about his judgment?

"It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.”

Gee, do ya think? It certainly would be easier to believe. Even Kerry eventually came out against the Swift-Boat Veterans’ accusations. What could this man have been thinking? “Gee, I guess its better to be known as an outspoken racist bigot than to repudiate the crap someone else wrote and scurrilously put my name to? Well, I guess if you’re running for office in an area of the country where many people think those things, it may just be better. Better for your chances of winning, that is.

I would ask readers to wonder if Mark would be nearly as willing to embrace this kind of "clarification" if it came from Ralph Peters, Michael Ledeen, or any administration official who outspokenly supported the Iraq war. Like I said, it seems to make all the difference in the world about whose axe is getting gored. For someone who screams at the top of his lungs for anyone he with his telepathic charism believes to be "entering to evil," it seems like there's a world of nuance to be held for those whose heart he believes is in the right place.

* I am going to keep knocking Mark on that one as long as he keeps repeating to it. As someone who cares more about the pro-life movement than being self-righteous, let me just say that I think it is extremely important to actually engage the arguments of abortion supporters instead of attributing their actions to conspiracies or straw men. Abortion can be quite easily explained in the United States without invoking a Marxist-esque conspiracy of the rich to murder the poor.

7 comments:

Mark Adams said...

to ruin Ron Paul . . . and kill off the poor

The really funny thing is if there actually is a GOP candidate who believes that "capitalism is immune from the effects of original sin" it would be Ron Paul.

Victor said...

Exactly.

Of all the federal elected officials (not merely the ones running for president), Ron Paul is the single most consistent and single-minded advocate of libertarianism (Shea's not already knowing that would be an indication that he's an ignoramus who has no business commenting on politics).

But you know libertarianism ... the ideology good for one generation, the philosophy for narcissists without children. You know ... THAT libertarianism.

Oh ... and also it's the people who believe in Deomcracy! Whiskey! Sexy! as the universal aspirations of man.

That Shea can even be taking Ron Paul seriously on any grounds ... well ... Words. Fail. Me.

paul zummo said...

That Shea can even be taking Ron Paul seriously on any grounds ... well ... Words. Fail. Me.

I believe the term you are looking for is cognative dissonance.

Or perhaps plain political ignorance. You pick.

Actually, this is why I was asking about the paleocon-libertarian thing the other night. As I said, there is a growing connection between what would seem like very different ideologies.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, for then, opposition to the Evil Imperialist Neocon War trumps every other logical consideration. They'll be in bed with CAIR before long.

Tschafer

Christopher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christopher said...

When Robert Sungenis lifted and reproduced anti-semitic material from questionable sources and published them on CAI's website, Mark rightfully took him to task. Even in cases where Sungenis may not have actually authored some of these statements, he used his website as a vehicle for airing them and hence bore responsibility.

So when Ron Paul found some racist quotes incorrectly attributed to him in a newsletter, Mark suddenly gives him the benefit of the doubt and blames the GOP attack machine?

Shawn said...

I would ask readers to wonder if Mark would be nearly as willing to embrace this kind of "clarification" if it came from Ralph Peters, Michael Ledeen, or any administration official who outspokenly supported the Iraq war. Like I said, it seems to make all the difference in the world about whose axe is getting gored. For someone who screams at the top of his lungs for anyone he with his telepathic charism believes to be "entering to evil," it seems like there's a world of nuance to be held for those whose heart he believes is in the right place.

Of course folks. Remember, we are to do as Mark says, not as he does ( cf. Matt. xxiii,3 ) Mark's lack of presence on the Seat of Moses notwithstanding. (At least the Pharisees had that excuse.)