It Ain't Just Ronbots Saying it...

Anyone who knows anything about the African-American community knows who Earl Ofari Hutchinson is .. who, without question, has far more influence and clout within that community than the afore-mentioned President of the Austin NAACP.

Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier
January 8, 2008

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously.

The scariest thing about no hope GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It's not that he polls in single digits in all national polls and has zilch of a chance to get the nomination. It's not that at times the GOP candidates sound just as racially isolationist as he does. It's certainly not that he will wow a national audience with his trademark shoot-from-the-lip zingers even if ABC and Fox recant in a moment of compassion and dump him back in a seat for their January 6 televised GOP New Hampshire presidential debate.

The scariest thing about Paul is that even though only a few hard core Paul backers will waste a vote on him, millions more seem to agree that his off beat views, especially on race matters, make sense. They even stand logic as high as it get can go on its head to defend their leader against all comers. That's especially true when it comes to Paul's views on race and ethnic politics.

That's not a small point given the open but more often sneaky role that race and ethnicity will increasingly play in the presidential derby. Democratic presidential contenders Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards and Bill Richardson have pulled out all stops to woo and court blacks, Latinos and Asian voters. They have made poverty, affordable health care, immigration reform, and job protections the linchpins of their campaigns.

Paul and the GOP candidates have done just the opposite. They duck, dodge, and deny racial issues. The only departure from their racial blind eye is to fan anti-immigrant flames. Paul has gone one better. In an ad, he demanded that students from alleged terrorist countries should be denied visas into the U.S.

Paul offered not a shred of proof that there are hordes of students pouring into America to commit terrorist acts. The ad was more than just a cheap ploy to fan terrorism fears. This reinforced the worst in racial and religious stereotyping and negative typecasting. The stereotype is that any one in America with a non-white face and is a Muslim is a terrorist.

Then there's Paul's now infamous slavery quip that he made on Meet the Press. Paul claimed the Civil War was an unnecessary bloodbath that could and should have been avoided. All Lincoln had to do was buy the slaves. Other slave promoting countries, asserts Paul, didn't fight wars and they ended slavery peacefully. Paul's historical dumbness would have been laughable except for four things.

One, he was dead wrong. Lincoln twice made offers to the slave owners to buy the slaves. They turned him down flat. The countries that freed the slaves without war, presumably France and England, unlike the U.S., did not practice slavery in their countries. And France did fight a war -- Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Haiti to put down the slave revolt there.

Two, he's running for president and has a national platform to spout his wrong-headed views (Meet the Press!). Three, he's done and said stuff like this many times before. Among the choice Paulisms are that blacks are criminally inclined, political dumb bells, and chronic welfare deadbeats. There was also the alleged Paul hobnob with a noted white supremacist. Here's what Paul on his campaign website ronpaul2008.com has to say about race. In fact he even highlights this as "Issue: Racism" on the site.

"Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry." In other words, the 1954 landmark Supreme Court's Brown vs. Board of education school desegregation decision, the 1964 and 1968 Civil Rights Acts, the 1965 Voting Rights Act, and legions of court decisions and state laws that bar discrimination are worthless. Worse, says Paul, they actually promote bigotry by dividing Americans into race and class.

Paul's cure for racial bigotry is to change people's hearts. Whew!! The ghosts of Barry Goldwater, Strom Thurmond, the unreconstructed George Wallace, and packs of Southern States Righters and Citizens Councils big shots would lustily cheer Paul on that one. They railed for decades against the federal government's lift of even the tiniest finger to protect black rights and lives. Their stock line was that race relations can only change when hearts change. If we waited for that to happen the "whites only" signs would still be dangling prominently from every toilet and school house door in the South.

Paul's views are a corn ball blend of libertarianism, know-nothing Americanism, and ultra conservative laissez faire limited government. This marks him as a type A American political quirk.

Now there's the fourth reason not to laugh at Paul. And this is really what makes him scary. There are apparently millions that don't see a darn thing wrong with any of this and pillory anyone who does. They are even scarier than him. Maybe ABC and Fox should let Paul crash the New Hampshire debate. It's always good to see an extremist publicly confirm just how scary he and those that cheer him on really are.

http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/72524/

It appears that more than blackascoal is saying it.

:)
 
Yes, I read this one before, it was posted here. Saying he isn't racist is not supporting him for President. Again. Point of Fact. Repeating the groupthink as if it is the only reasonable facsimile of any thought that must be though on the subject (especially when it is your article or written by somebody who "clearly read" your article) is solely self-aggrandizing repetition, not evidence of your point.

Regardless of whatever piece of groupthink you may post, the reality is that not everybody who doesn't think RP is a racist is a "ronbot" or even a supporter.

Do you believe that you know Ron Paul more than this gentleman does? If so, in what way is that possible? Have you worked with him for 20 years as this gentleman has? Or is all of your evidence based off of articles? So far all I have seen for evidence from you is those articles, some of which are editorials of your own. That isn't evidence, it is opinion.

That you dismiss the opinion of others because they do not match the groupthink you expect them to spout doesn't surprise me. But it does make me sad. Seeing past pigmentation cannot be done when all things are defined by that pigmentation. Even what they are supposed to think.
 
Influence and clout in the african american community don't make him right. You're still perpetuating the notion that blacks are a monolithic uni-brained entity. There is obviously a diversity of opinions on Ron Paul in the black community. The scare tactics have failed.
 
It appears that more than blackascoal is saying it.

Change Yes, Ron Paul No

by Joel S. Hirschhorn

Ron Paul’s obnoxious supporters like more traditional political activists can spin and delude themselves about election results. But the Iowa caucus results could not be clearer: The vast national desire for political change is manifesting itself through support for both Democratic and Republican change-candidates. Despite Paul being flush with money and having a large number of workers in Iowa, he was solidly rejected as the leading change agent.

Even with a huge historic turnout of about 348,000 participants, Paul did not attract significant numbers of independents that could easily participate in the Republican caucuses. They went to Obama, Edwards and Huckabee.

On the Democratic side, of some 232,000 people that turned out for the caucuses, nearly doubling what it was four years ago, about 70 percent wanted change and went for Obama and Edwards, roughly 150,000 participants.

On the Republican side, of the 116,000 participants, about 40,000 change-voters went for Huckabee, compared to 11,600 that chose Paul, giving him fifth place. That 10 percent for Paul was very close to the 9 percent found in a Des Moines Register poll of likely caucus voters (margin of error 3.5 points). Interestingly, like Paul, Huckabee also wants to eliminate the federal income tax.

In both parties, change-voters totaled about 200,000. So Paul received just 6 percent of that large fraction, and just 3 percent of the total of all caucus participants in Iowa. Paul was first in only one county, Jefferson, with 36 percent

Edwards was absolutely correct when he summed things up this way: “The one thing that is clear from the results in Iowa tonight is the status quo lost and change won.”

With all the hoopla from Paul supporters about younger people being for Paul, that’s not what the Iowa results showed. Younger people seeking change and inspiration flocked to Obama, in particular. There was no demographic in Iowa that overwhelmingly went for Paul. Sure, Paul beat Giuliani, but Paul’s effort in Iowa was much bigger than Giuliani’s.

None of these results will impact Paul’s supporters nationwide. Earl Ofari Hutchinson wrote a great article on Alternet.org: “Ron Paul is Scary, But Those Who Cheer Him Are Even Scarier.” He was right when he said: “The scariest thing about GOP presidential contender Ron Paul is not his fringe, odd-ball racial views. It is that people take him seriously.” But now Iowa has thankfully shown that the vast majority of Americans, especially those seeking political change, reject Paul.

After losing badly in Iowa Paul said: “The other candidates talk about tinkering with the status quo. We don’t want to tinker; we want to change the status quo.” He said that his campaign is on the upswing and gaining support among independents, frustrated Republicans and unhappy Democrats. Just one very big problem: The Iowa results show that all these people are much more likely to vote for other Democratic and Republican change-candidates.

Paul’s supporters claim that he will do much better in New Hampshire where Libertarian Party members hold a number of offices. I don’t think so. Several polls taken before the Iowa results found Paul at just 5 to 9 percent. Will Paul get a big boost from Iowa? I don’t think so. Paul had predicted he could finish in third place in Iowa, and many of his supporters think he will do that in New Hampshire. I don’t think so. Paul will likely finish fifth in New Hampshire, in large part because more independents will go to Obama and McCain.

When Paul first ran for president as the Libertarian Party candidate in 1988, he won just 0.54 percent of the vote. Iowa shows that his second presidential bid will not produce much better results. Paul is definitely not tapping in a major way into the national populist movement, major desire for political change, anti-status quo sentiment, or even the anti-Iraq war issue. Clearly, other Democratic and Republican change-candidates are doing much better. This reality will not affect Paul’s passionate, cult-like followers that are solidified like cement in their belief that Paul can and should be our next president, something that Paul himself probably never really believed
 
Influence and clout in the african american community don't make him right. You're still perpetuating the notion that blacks are a monolithic uni-brained entity. There is obviously a diversity of opinions on Ron Paul in the black community. The scare tactics have failed.

Nor does it make one NAACP president right either and it takes no brain power above the ability to open a beer can to determine that Paul has NO measurable level of support within the black community .. just as Bush and the Iraq War had no support within the black community. Seee if you can screw "monolithic" into that ...
 
Nor does it make one NAACP president right either and it takes no brain power above the ability to open a beer can to determine that Paul has NO measurable level of support within the black community .. just as Bush and the Iraq War had no support within the black community. Seee if you can screw "monolithic" into that ...
Where in any of my posts have I ever said that Paul was supported by the black community? This is a classic strawman. Again, saying that he isn't racist based on personal knowledge is not supporting him for President.
 
Yes, I read this one before, it was posted here. Saying he isn't racist is not supporting him for President. Again. Point of Fact. Repeating the groupthink as if it is the only reasonable facsimile of any thought that must be though on the subject (especially when it is your article or written by somebody who "clearly read" your article) is solely self-aggrandizing repetition, not evidence of your point.

Regardless of whatever piece of groupthink you may post, the reality is that not everybody who doesn't think RP is a racist is a "ronbot" or even a supporter.

Do you believe that you know Ron Paul more than this gentleman does? If so, in what way is that possible? Have you worked with him for 20 years as this gentleman has? Or is all of your evidence based off of articles? So far all I have seen for evidence from you is those articles, some of which are editorials of your own. That isn't evidence, it is opinion.

That you dismiss the opinion of others because they do not match the groupthink you expect them to spout doesn't surprise me. But it does make me sad. Seeing past pigmentation cannot be done when all things are defined by that pigmentation. Even what they are supposed to think.

I have no clue who this gentleman is or what his motivations are, but it doesn't take a 20 year examination of Paul to determine that he is a racist. Perhaps I should ask Colin Powell if Bush is a murderer?

I also have no idea how you judge the character of others and I'm sure that I don't really care .. but among African-Americans, there is a standard on the subject of race that you would not understand, nor do I feel compelled to teach you.

You can celebrate Colin Powell and Condaslezza Rice all you want, but they are not celebrated within the black community for reasons I'm sure are unknown to you.

Don't get it twisted .. I'm not posting for your approval.
 
What about that black guy on Youtube? JK..

Got a black politician, group, or organization that is supporting Ron Paul for president or that believes he's a fair man?

The President of the Austin NAACP was speaking for himself, not the organization.

No?

I wonder why?
 
I have no clue who this gentleman is or what his motivations are, but it doesn't take a 20 year examination of Paul to determine that he is a racist. Perhaps I should ask Colin Powell if Bush is a murderer?

I also have no idea how you judge the character of others and I'm sure that I don't really care .. but among African-Americans, there is a standard on the subject of race that you would not understand, nor do I feel compelled to teach you.

You can celebrate Colin Powell and Condaslezza Rice all you want, but they are not celebrated within the black community for reasons I'm sure are unknown to you.

Don't get it twisted .. I'm not posting for your approval.

And any black person who disagrees with your "standard" of anti-white hate you call a "house n-word".
 
Got a black politician, group, or organization that is supporting Ron Paul for president or that believes he's a fair man?

The President of the Austin NAACP was speaking for himself, not the organization.

No?

I wonder why?

Perhaps because people are individuals and no one "speaks for" a massive collective.
 
And any black person who disagrees with your "standard" of anti-white hate you call a "house n-word".

With respect for your mental deficiencies that inhibit you from having a conversation without lying .. let me simply say .. kiss my ass.

You have never read me calling another black person the "N" word asswipe.
 
With respect for your mental deficiencies that inhibit you from having a conversation without lying .. let me simply say .. kiss my ass.

You have never read me calling another black person the "N" word asswipe.

I think you said house... or something like. But we all know the despicable phrase you meant, You lying racist fascist pig.
 
I think you said house... or something like. But we all know the despicable phrase you meant, You lying racist fascist pig.

Oh .. now it was "house something" .. fuck you you stanky cigarette and alcohol breath old bastard. :)

Don't pretend the phrase is so "despicable" to a racist motherfucker like you. You've never heard me use it because I don't.

Try again.
 
With respect for your mental deficiencies that inhibit you from having a conversation without lying .. let me simply say .. kiss my ass.

You have never read me calling another black person the "N" word asswipe.

He just makes up stories about people and posts them on here, much like a monkey flinging its poo from it cage.
 
Oh .. now it was "house something" .. fuck you you stanky cigarette and alcohol breath old bastard. :)

Don't pretend the phrase is so "despicable" to a racist motherfucker like you. You've never heard me use it because I don't.

Try again.

As sure as Im arguing with an asshole you said it. Yes you did.
 
Back
Top