Wesley Clark: Full of Crap and Venom
BuffaloPundit recently dredged up the standard Ron Paul smear campaign, about some hate speech filled newsletters that had Ron Paul’s name on them years ago. Ron Paul addressed this directly, but there’s an early push to try and drive Paul out of the race, so some have drudged this up again. (Too soon, I say. Strategical error.) The simple version as to why I and most Ron Paul supporters believe him when he said he didn’t write the articles is that there is no other such incidents ascribed to him. No video, no transcripts, nothing from his long public career suggests he’s a bigot of any type. Even the president of the Austin NAACP, Nelson Linder, who’s known Ron Paul for 20 years says there’s no way he’s a racist.
So why would BP, presumably a logical and reasonable person, and even a lawyer, so grandiosely attribute such hearsay to Ron Paul? Obviously, he doesn’t know Ron Paul personally, so why so quick to believe this one old incident, where there is no proof Paul actually wrote the offending notes? Does he really hate Ron Paul that much? Did the traffic numbers over on his site need a bump? Did he just want to draw some of the crazys out for some fun? Perhaps he’s trying out a new technique ahead of his next political run? We may never know.
We do know, however, that Mr. Alan Bedenko was an avid supporter of 2004 Presidential candidate Wesley Clark. So how would he react if his favorite candidate was embroiled in a similar dispute? Let’s find out.
Wesley Clark made antisemitic remarks in early 2007.
Retired general Wesley Clark drew harsh criticism this week after reportedly saying that “New York money people” are pushing America into a war against Iran.
I guess it’s ok to support someone that hates Jews, as long as they don’t hate blacks, right Alan?
(For the record, I really don’t believe that Wesley Clark is antisemitic. I know Clark as personally as BuffaloPundit knows Ron Paul. However, I wouldn’t attempt to smear a political candidate based on something they deny writing without any proof or corroborating evidence that they did, nor would I based on a flippant comment likely taken out of context. I’m just curious as to what the difference is in Alan’s mind.)
Derek:
Pundit doesn’t understand that this smear grows out of a decade’s long blood feud between paleos and beltway libertarians. In this case, the belts aligned with the neocons at NR.
I don’t deny that if this issue was raised in a straight news report, that there are issues that Ron Paul needed to answer. (Well, he did.) But the overriding fact is that that’s not what happened.
This was a cold and calculated and coordinated political hit (the night before NH) by people who oppose Ron Paul’s platform of peace and freedom, peace implying decentralization of power.
The feud goes back at least as far as 1979!
The belts are jealous that the first large libertarian mass movement was stirred up by their old enemies the paleos.
But why didn’t they turn it over to a reporter? Because they didn’t want the truth to come out. They wanted to destroy Ron Paul AND HIS MOVEMENT.
But that was their critical mistake. That’s why this is backfiring and that’s why those who perpetrated this hit will pay a price.
“The phrase “New York money people” struck unpleasant chords with many pro-Israel activists. They interpreted it as referring to the Jewish community, which is known for its significant financial donations to political candidates.”
So, if someone interprets a phrase as antisemitic, it is so? Interseting…
Tempest. Teapot. Racist?. Doubt it (for either RP or WC).
BP’s post really did bring out the Ron Paul fans. unfortunately, the thread degenerated quickly into idiocy, as they swarmed like angry little bees.
“New York Money People” isn’t terribly insulting, particularly if you’ve read the article link.
Nearly 30 years of public service with no evidence of racism vs. a couple of unattributable writings . . .do the math!
If pundit ever runs for office again his opponent should pull up some of his past blog posts in which he used extremely profane language and quote them out of context and send them to the constituents.
New York money people = Jews?
Also as I wrote at Free NY:
1. No one denies that these newsletters were released;
2. No one denies that these newsletters were released under Ron Paul’s name;
3. No one denies that these newsletters were released under Ron Paul’s name in order to advance his political career and promote his political agenda;
4. No one denies that Paul, or someone with his express approval, wrote those awful things.
What is notably absent is:
1. Any sort of condemnation – however tame – of the content of those newsletters; and/or
2. Any notion that calling black people savages or advocating for the closeting of gay people might be in any way wrong;
Instead, I just got about 100 ignorant rantings from members of the Ron Paul “revolution” who attack me, Clinton, McCain, and otherwise change the subject completely. Psst – not the best way to persuade people that you’re guy really isn’t that bad. Really.
Derek – by insinuating that “New York money people” = Jews and therefore Clark is anti-semitic, how exactly does that justify what Ron Paul wrote/released under his own name a decade and a half ago?
Oh, and in 1996, Ron Paul acknowledged to a Dallas paper that he was the author of the newsletter.
Whatever. As long as he takes “moral responsibility” for it, it’s ok.
The point is, Alan, that you know as much about Ron Paul’s character as I do about Wesley Clark’s. You’re taking a couple quotes you read on the internet and deriving someone’s entire moral compass from it. The point of my post is that someone could do the same thing about your favorite candidate, or likely any political candidate as well. By the end of this race someone will have dug up dirt on every candidate. We will never know what really goes on in any of their minds, so why not take the higher road and debate on the issues? Character assassination should be beneath all of us.
No, Derek. It’s not about “character assassination”. I frankly don’t give a crap about Ron Paul’s “character”, and given that he’s a Texas republican, I wouldn’t have very high hopes along those lines, anyhow.
My problem has to do with a political individual who is one of two things (or both):
1. Too negligent and lazy to permit those newsletters to be released under his name, and by extension too negligent and lazy (at best) to permit friends of his to write them in the first place; and
2. So hungry for power that he’ll sink down to the gutter to get there. The context of those newsletters was the late 80s and early 90s, and from what I remember of those times – particularly the Clinton times – was that xenophobia and racism and conspiracy theories would really resonate with a particular type of voter. Paul went after them.
To say he’s addressed this issue head-on is like saying Clinton was forthright and fully disclosed the Lewinski scandal.
So, I don’t care if he’s great or shit as a person. He is, based on what he had done, and his present-day non-denial denials of what he had done – shit as a politician.
Given 95% of the comments left on my site in response to *gasp* a post citing two articles about Paul, I am pretty confident in my belief that the Ron Paul revolution is a borderline cult of personality that would make L Ron Hubbard proud. I’m an insignificant blogger posting an insignificant post about an insignificant candidate, yet I get 100+ comments in 24 hours, almost exclusively from first-timers who ironically talk about a “concerted effort” to “smear” their beloved Leader Ron Paul. I wonder if they see the irony there.
If Paul was hungry for power, he’d be telling the masses what they want to hear to get himself elected President, not sticking by his positions. If anyone is guilty of the power hunger you speak of, it’s Hillary Clinton who has no qualms about moving wherever she can pander up enough votes (New York) to get her elected to the Senate, which was nothing more than a stepping stool to her Presidential run. But for some reason, that type of voter pandering is accepted as just part of the career path. I don’t believe Paul caters towards the nutcase voters, they just find a single aspects of his platform in line with their own thoughts and pick him.
Besides, do you really believe you can judge a political candidate by the people that vote for them? If so, it must suck for you knowing that I, as a Ron Paul supporter, would have also voted for you. 🙂
Consider yourself part of that other 5%, then. 😉
Ron had his best showing in Nevada on Saturday and will raise one million dollars today in honor of MLK Day. The smear failed.