Ron Paul and the Jews

An important proviso regarding the Jamie Kirchick item I linked to yesterday is that it seems to be false. JTA DC Bureau Chief Ron Kampeas emails Andrew:

This is kind of sensitive for me. My colleague, Daniel Sieradski, posted the "takes money from Nazis, won't take calls from Jews" comment on his personal blog. On the other hand, he describes his exchanges with the Paul campaign in his capacity as a JTA staffer.

The problem with all this, is that the Paul campaign WAS responsive, giving my intern here, Beth Young, an exclusive statement on where Paul stands on Israel for a story we posted yesterday (the day Dan posted his blog item.) (I have no idea why Dan was pursuing his own story when he should have known DC was pursuing a story, but that's a boring internal JTA matter.)

I pointed this out to my boss, asking her the best way to address the anomaly; she suggested (and I think this is wisest), that I simply point out that Dan's blog posting is wrong, Paul does talk to the JTA - and point out Beth's story.

Which is what I'm doing.

I probably should have known better than to take the original at face value.

Comments

Wow - not a good day for Sieradski.

Kirchick, by all accounts, has lots of bad days.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 2:48 PM

Expecting me to publish only ACCURATE information is ANTI-SEMITIC!!!!!!!!

Posted by Farty Peretz | November 13, 2007 2:49 PM

Yes, you should have. But it is good of you to have said so. The LAST thing the corporate wing of the GOP wants is this guy. They would prefer Hillary to Paul.

Posted by jonst | November 13, 2007 2:51 PM

Matt,

I'm glad you are willing to post a retraction, I just wish all the other bloggers would do the same.

Oh, to be able to retract the FUD and disinformation that managed to get out, and will lurk on the web long after the retractions have faded.

At least the retractions are out there to rapidly debunk the idiots who will bring this junk up in a month or 3 to try to discredit Ron Paul.

Posted by Mark | November 13, 2007 2:56 PM

Ah, but Paul is still a devotee of notorious Aryan Nation economist Murray Rothbard.

Posted by Dave Weigel | November 13, 2007 3:07 PM

Perhaps before insinuating that somebody is a neo-Nazi it would be wise to do a little more work next time?

This is 2007. Person X "takes money from Nazis, won't talk to Jews" is a damned serious allegation to make and, moreover, highly unlikely to be true about anybody in American politics outside a true fringe group.

Shame on you for playing along with a smear.

Posted by Whispers | November 13, 2007 3:07 PM

Thank you for the needed correction. The original claim was obviously meant to be defamatory, but we can easily be fooled.

Posted by Jennifer | November 13, 2007 3:19 PM

Person X "takes money from Nazis, won't talk to Jews" is a damned serious allegation to make

The first half is still true, though, right (although it's just from one neo-nazi, not from "nazis")?

That's still a serious allegation, and until the Paul campaign gives the money back, true.

BLACK, DON MR.
WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33405
SELF-EMPLOYED/WEBSITE MANAGER

PAUL, RON
VIA RON PAUL 2008 PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
09/30/2007 500.00 27990797984

You can search for it here:

http://www.fec.gov/finance/disclosure/norindsea.shtml

If you type: "don black west palm beach stormfront" into google, you get lots of fun stuff about Mr. Black, his former boss and current radio program co-host, David Duke, various and sundry "white pride" stuff, and sadly for Congressman Paul, a lot of "Support the Ron Paul Revolution" stuff.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 3:25 PM

He still takes money from Neo-Nazis, right? He returned a call to JTA, so Sierdarski was wrong about that, but that was an aside in a longer article. And the article stood alone without that piece, so I think you do a disservice to the essential point of the piece by focusing on Kirchik's focus.

Ron Paul receives contributions from Neo-Nazis and hasn't returned them. Stormfront is supporting Ron Paul. These are big deals...and problematic

BTW, you might want to actually read Sieradski's previous work before you lumped him in with the Jewish establishment that cries anti-semitism too much for your taste. He is as far from that as possible....

Posted by Just another Apikores | November 13, 2007 3:37 PM

He still takes money from Neo-Nazis, right? He returned a call to JTA, so Sierdarski was wrong about that, but that was an aside in a longer article. And the article stood alone without that piece, so I think you do a disservice to the essential point of the piece by focusing on Kirchik's focus.

Ron Paul receives contributions from Neo-Nazis and hasn't returned them. Stormfront is supporting Ron Paul. These are big deals...and problematic

BTW, you might want to actually read Sieradski's previous work before you lumped him in with the Jewish establishment that cries anti-semitism too much for your taste. He is as far from that as possible....

Posted by Just another Apikores | November 13, 2007 3:37 PM

I wonder if SoCalJustice thinks that Hillary should also give back that $1 Million to Haim Saban.

NeoNazis are, by definition, morons. It is one thing to point out that some billionaires -- some of whom are not even Jewish -- have a malign effect on US Middle Eastern policy by way of their campaign donations.

But it is stupid to think the vast majority of America's Jews --many of whom have little more than a middle class income -- either support that policy or could influence it if they did.

But while Neonazis are guilty of many things --and their views are repugant to anyone with humanity -- it was not they who incited the USA into an unnecessary war which has killed 3700+ Americans and crippled thousands more for life:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=492663&in_page_id=1766&ito=1490

No, that was people like Haim Saban's "Directors" -- Marti Indyk and Kenneth Pollack at the "Saban" Center for Middle East Policy -- who was telling America all those stories in 2002 about Saddam Hussein's "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Or clever little Judith Miller, Punch Salzburger, and Scooter Libby -- chortling as they created their little stories and sourced each other.

And whatever their faults, at least the Neonazis do not take the privileges of US citizenship while giving their loyalty to another country -- as Haim Saban did in his Haaretz interview.

The Israel Lobby is the last fucking group that should want to raise the issue of whether your financial donors reflect on your character.

Posted by Don Williams | November 13, 2007 3:57 PM

Don,

If you want to compare Haim Saban to Don Black - no one's stopping you.

Obviously his contributions to Hillary and others are well known, and she can rise and fall with that information to the extent people think it's relevant.

As can Paul. I'm not voting for him no matter who gives him money, so it doesn't matter to me.

Personally, I think it's in his best interest NOT to take money from famous neo-nazis. If you disagree, fine. I don't care. I hope that answers your question.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 4:20 PM

"notorious Aryan Nation economist Murray Rothbard."

Now that was funny.

As for giving money back - Christ, think of the Jewish jokes I could put here! Don Rickles would have a field day...

If the Neo-Nazis are stupid enough to give a Libertarian money, it would be insane of him to give it back - and that's what he should say if asked.

He should also add that they are the last people to expect to get anything back for it compared to the people supporting Clinton or Obama, let alone the Republicans.

This whole thing is just a smear campaign against him that the ignorant liberals like Matt fall for. When the Repugs run a smear campaign on a liberal, Matt goes ballistic. When they run one against a Lib, Matt joins in.

What's wrong with this picture?

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 13, 2007 4:24 PM

What is it, 'lets frame Ron Paul for being a racist' week? I'm a bit burnt out on the accusations of antisemitism this year, it's really hard to take any of this seriously at this point.

Posted by Soullite | November 13, 2007 4:26 PM

If Ron Paul keeps the money, he has taken money from a Nazi, true. But if he returns it, he will have given money to a Nazi. Personally, I prefer to take things from Nazis rather than give them things. Kirchick and pals obviously feel differently.

Posted by vanya | November 13, 2007 4:28 PM

Obviously, it is stupid for him to do so.

It allows supporters of the Likud to smear Paul with views not his own while at the same time allowing them to divert the discussion away from issues Ron Paul raises and which they find embarrassing.

Just as the Israel Lobby smeared Pat Buchanan in 2002 when Pat tried to raise the issue of whether the invasion of Iraq was being done in the interest of the USA -- or whether it was being driven by a desire to destroy an enemy of Israel.

Posted by Don Williams | November 13, 2007 4:32 PM

MattY's little smear also relied on a little smear from David Neiwert; even Glenn Greenwald has debunked part of the latter:

salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/11/12/paul/index.html

I can almost hear MattY now: "One reason I was wrong was... make that two reasons I was wrong..."

At least MattY got some extra traffic:

digg.com/political_opinion/Ron_Paul_s_Friends_smear_from_Matt_Yglesias

Posted by TLB | November 13, 2007 4:37 PM

Don,

I'll pardon your obsession (not that you care), and remind you that it gives ammunition to anyone who wants to smear Paul - which is way more than just pro-Likud (or pro-Israel) supporters.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 4:38 PM

At any rate, an unreturned political contribution from Mr. Black is the gift that keeps on giving to "the Lobby" and anyone else (see: all the Republican candidates) looking to knock Congressman Paul down a peg.

But it will be pretty funny watching (some) Paul supporters (and some non-Paul supporters, who blame the Israel lobby for everything) blame "the Lobby" - and not, say, vocal support from Don Black and David Duke - or any other reason - for the fact that Paul will fail to win the New Hampshire primary or the GOP nomination.

Good theater.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 4:46 PM

Re SoCalJustice's comment "Obviously his [Haim Saban's] contributions to Hillary and others are well known"
-------------
Hmmm. I scan the news and I don't recall the news media pointing out that the biggest donor to the Democratic Party in 2000-2002 (at $14+ Million) was an Israeli billionaire.

Nor do I recall them asking if that might explain why --when Bush invaded Iraq -- so many Democratic leaders laid down and spread their legs -- including Hillary.

Posted by Don Williams | November 13, 2007 4:55 PM

Thanks for the image, Don.

Posted by Just Another Greg | November 13, 2007 5:21 PM

Don,

Then I applaud you on your super, secret investigation - wholly consisting of stories writen by the media - into the financing of certain Democratic party leaders, and the party itself.

Thank you for your service.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 5:21 PM

Question, Don.

Who do you think reaches more people?

CNN (http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100009182/index.htm) and the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/movies/awardsseason/06holly.html, http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/13/nyregion/metrocampaigns/13hillary.html, http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E3DA143BF937A35750C0A9679C8B63&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/C/Clinton,%20Bill) or the JTA?

From the last NY Times article:

With his second wife, Cheryl, and their two young children, Mr. Saban lives in a grandiose French-chateau-style home in a gated community in the Beverly Park section. Former President Bill Clinton has stayed there several times, and the Sabans were guests many times at the White House. The Sabans have given as much as $10 million over the years to the Democratic Party and its candidates; Mr. Saban said he was not sure of the exact figure.

That's from March 2001. You should scan harder.

But no worries, the JTA is far more important than the NY Times, so no need to adjust your worldview.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 5:28 PM

Re SoCalJustice "Then I applaud you on your super, secret investigation - wholly consisting of stories writen by the media - into the financing of certain Democratic party leaders, and the party itself"
---------------
Actually, I think if you look back at my posts you will see data from the FEC records, industry journals like Variety,etc. Plus I think the LA TImes mentioned Saban once or twice because of his prominent role in Hollywood.

By contrast, the NY Times and Washington Post rarely refer to Saban's political influence. In fact, they rarely talk about political donations --and their size --at all. Saban may be mentioned infrequently as a "major Democratic donor" but I don't recall any specific data of just HOW major.

If the TV networks and Wash Post/NY Times were honestly covering the billionaires behind the Israel Lobby -- then Mearsheimer and Walt would not have made a splash with "The Israel Lobby".

Indeed, much of the MSM punditry have tried to dismiss the MSM's whoring for Israel Lobby billionaires by dismissing such discussions as "Anti-Semitic".

In fairness, however, this MSM behavior doesn't just apply to the Israel issue. The MSM in general keeps very quiet about who has money in this country, what they do with it, and how it affects us for good or ill.

Williams Kristol and Richard Perle are presented as independent spokesman with personal views -- with no mention that they have been long time pensioners on Rupert Murdoch and Conrad Black respectively. The sock puppets are given prominence -- not the shadowly figures who feed --and hence control --them.

Posted by Don Williams | November 13, 2007 5:44 PM

By contrast, the NY Times and Washington Post rarely refer to Saban's political influence. In fact

See my last post.

As for the NYTimes, if by "rarely," you mean, "prominently," than sure.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 5:48 PM

"and remind you that it gives ammunition to anyone who wants to smear Paul"

Since people who want to smear Paul are demonstrably willing to make things up, and to repeat long exposed lies, there's little point in Paul going out of his way to avoid giving them ammo; They can manufacture all the ammo they want out of thin air.

Actually, I'd say there's some advantage to Paul in 'giving them ammunition'; It keeps them from getting inventive, he's already aware of what the smear is going to be, and has the evidence to debunk it right at hand.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 13, 2007 5:55 PM

and has the evidence to debunk it right at hand.

Um, unless and until he returns Mr. Black's money, there's nothing about that charge to debunk.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 5:57 PM

Re SoCalJustice "That's from March 2001. You should scan harder."
---------
Hey, I believe that NY Times actually noted back in 1998 Bin Laden's complaint against US support for Israeli aggression. Back when Bin Laden was a powerless fruitcake.

AFTER Sept 11, of course, the Times developed sudden amnesia and told us that US support for Israel was not a factor in the Sept 11 attack. (See "Israel as Flashpoint, not Cause", dated Sept 23, 2001 ).

That amnesia extended into Nov 2001 and became a reading disability -- when the NY Times cited a comment by Bin Laden about nukes made in an interview with a Pakistani journal DAWN -- while completely overlooking Bin Laden's statement that Sept 11 was justified by US sales of advanced weapons to Israel and Sharon's use of those weapons to kill Palestinian Muslims.

Even the NY Times will occasionly mentioned the truth -- so long as it will have no effect on political battles.

"All the News That's Fit to Print" indeed.

Posted by Don Williams | November 13, 2007 6:00 PM

Actually, it occurs to me that Haim Saban might want to donate a few million to Ron Paul's campaign. Paul is very unlikely to get the Republican nomination --but Paul is a long time Republican and the long he challenges the bullshit meme of the Bush Administration --by pointing out suppressed facts -- the more likely the Republican base is to split.

Which will help Hillary greatly. Especially since the bloom on the rose is starting to fade for el grande puta: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071113/pl_afp/usvote2008clinton

Posted by Don Williams | November 13, 2007 6:23 PM

So, SoCalJustice,

Getting 500 bucks donated to the campaign makes you a racist? How about getting an endorsement from a Homophobic anti-Semite who said that 9/11 was Americas fault for tolerating deviants and perverts and the godless. Think that would be pretty bad? Not if your Rudy Guiliani. oh, and to have someone on your team who's been credibly accused of sexual abuse of a minor (and not even care). Oh and to have someone you endorsed for the head of DHS end up being heavily into the Mob.

And you are getting wound up over an un-solicited $500 donation? Get some perspective.

(Hat Tip to Andrew Sullivan for pointing out these things)

Posted by Mark | November 13, 2007 6:33 PM

Actually, I think I may have figured out the instinctive appeal Ron Paul has for some leftists.

The man's a kamikazi. He has all the concern for self-preservation of a Palestinian suicide bomber. We just have to aim him into the Republican convention and wait for the boom.

By all rational political calculation, Paul's campaign and stance makes no sense. That's why he scares the living shit out of the Republican establishment. He can't be shut up or controlled --because he has nothing to lose.

And the longer Paul's around the more he will point out the facts that the Bush Adminstration has worked so hard to suppress.

Remember that little chat Condi Rice had with the 5 TV network CEOs back in fall 2001? When she twisted their arms to suppress broadcast of Bin Laden's grievances -- his explanation for why Al Qaeda attacked the USA? Why do you think she did that?

The Republican base is not all that bright -- but if they find out how they have been lied to, their stoic support will turning to murderous fury. Even in the South, Republican politicans could end up being fucked big time.

Posted by Don Williams | November 13, 2007 6:43 PM

"Um, unless and until he returns Mr. Black's money, there's nothing about that charge to debunk."

Come now, the charge can't just be that Paul took Mr. Black's money; So did the bank, the power company, the corner gas station... And nobody thinks less of them for it.

The charge is that Paul took Mr. Black's money because Paul is Mr. Black's soulmate. And that charge does not stand examination. Paul and Black disagree about too many things.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 13, 2007 7:16 PM

Is it not the case that, if you give money to a Libertarian politician, you are giving money to someone whose ideology requires him, and government as a whole, to do little or nothing for you?

Posted by Jon H | November 13, 2007 7:34 PM

Ok, for the last time:

Ron Paul will take money from anyone in any amount as per US elction law and will not return any money legally donated. So even if his campaign receives money from a black la raza zionist klansman who wants to nuke the gay whales for jesus, it will not be returned.

Posted by Kohole | November 13, 2007 7:37 PM

Mark,

Getting 500 bucks donated to the campaign makes you a racist?

No - but your question doesn't reflect well on your reading comprehension skills.

How about getting an endorsement from a Homophobic anti-Semite who said that 9/11 was Americas fault for tolerating deviants and perverts and the godless. Think that would be pretty bad?

Do you see me defending Giuliani or Robertson? Again, that statement and question doesn't really reflect well on your reading comprehension skills, either.

But seriously - and I'm going to ask a similar question to Brett in a second, but do you honestly think the best defense of this is to compare the guy who runs Stormfront and is a close associate with David Duke to Pat Robertson? Robertson is his own kind of crank - but it's amazing to see people jump through hoops defending (again, and this is key for your reading comprehension) a non-returned contribution from a leading neo-nazi.

You're the one who seems wound up. I feel pretty calm.

But I will say it's a little scary to see how blind passion erodes both reading comprehension skills and common sense.

It's not like sketchy contributions given to politicians are some novel concept.

Hillary took a hit from the Norman Hsu contributions and - shocker - gave them back. And it was much more than $500.

This is seriously "no brainer" territory. Or at least it was until Congressman Paul's fans decided that it was their job to apologize for absolutely anything the man does/says as if he's papally infallible.

Brett:

You honestly think the obligations and political calculations of a Presidential candidate are analogous to random power companies and bank branches?

I know you don't. Because that would be stupid, and you are not.

I read the JTA article which quoted the Lonestar Times where Paul's campaign spokesperson Jesse Benton says "At this time, I cannot say that we will be rejecting Mr. Black’s contribution."

I didn't see anything in either story about Paul and Black being soul mates, but I see the OBVIOUS admission in the JTA story that the Paul campaign has zero control over who gives it money.

Who is attracted to a particular campaign can be interesting, and in certain ways, can often reflect on the candidacy, but that's not something any one candidate can be legitimately condemned for. It's a big country, and there are unsavory people that are attracted to every candidate.

(Mark - read the above paragraph slowly. Now read it again).

But there comes a time where a candidate can exercise a certain amount of control over how he or she is perceived: when unsavory types take active steps in supporting the candidacy, and the candidates can rightly be judged over whether or not they do either the right thing or the smart thing.

(Mark - read that paragraph slowly. Now read it again).

Hillary with Hsu ended up doing both the right thing and the smart thing - and that was serious money.

Paul with Black has done neither the right thing, nor the smart thing, over a piddling $500. This is the "one day internet record" champion, after all.

It's a very strange decision to keep this money - and discussing that strange decision is not a smear, no matter how much Mark, Andrew Sullivan - or anyone else - thinks that Ron Paul is the only man who can save America.

Don: I'll just note that at your 6pm post, you change the goal posts entirely.

Other than that, you've been way more honest than Mark or Brett.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 9:18 PM

That will teach you to link to that worthless piece of shit Kirchick. How does that idiot have a job that doesn't involve asking "you want fries with that?"

Posted by Gus | November 13, 2007 9:20 PM

Ron Paul will take money from anyone in any amount as per US elction law and will not return any money legally donated. So even if his campaign receives money from a black la raza zionist klansman who wants to nuke the gay whales for jesus, it will not be returned.

Which is not a stance that reflects well on Congressman Paul, and obviously it's fair game to point that out.

Just because something is legal, doesn't make it politically wise, nor, on another level, the right thing to do.

I hope the Congressman enjoys his contribution from Don Black - it very might well end up being the most expensive $500 he ever accepted.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 9:24 PM

"How does that idiot have a job that doesn't involve asking "you want fries with that?"

Not only did that line stopped being funny about a decade and a half ago, it's also no longer really representative. The question they always ask me at McDonald's if I order a Big Mac or something is, "Would you like the sandwich or the meal?". Since the meal includes both fries and a drink in addition to the sandwich, the "sandwich or the meal" question efficiently obviates the need to ask if the customer wants fries (or what size fries, for that matter, since the meal pre-specifies the size).

Posted by Fred | November 13, 2007 9:42 PM

"Hillary took a hit from the Norman Hsu contributions and - shocker - gave them back. And it was much more than $500."

They were also, shocker, illegal. Criminally obtained, laundered through straw donors, you name it. THAT is why she returned them, (Well, some of them, anyway...) because she'd be setting herself up for legal liability if she'd kept them.

Prove to Paul that a donation was the fruit of a crime, and he'd probably return it, too: To the victim, of course, not the thief.

As somebody else remarked, you're not complaining that Paul got money from a neo-nazi; You're complaining that he didn't GIVE money to a neo-nazi. Instead he left the idiot poorer by $500. I damned well do approve of that.

Posted by Brett Bellmore | November 13, 2007 10:56 PM

Fred.
I don't eat at McDonald's, so I don't know the details. Thank you for the education in fast food ordering. The line may not be funny, but I stand by it. Kirchick is a worthless hack. His piece on "grit" while filling in at Andrew Sullivan's was cringe-inducing, the kind of thing I would expect in the op-ed page of a college newspaper, written by the leader of the campus College Republicans.

Posted by gus | November 13, 2007 11:04 PM

(Well, some of them, anyway...)

And she didn't keep the legal ones - which were more than $500 - and certainly not on the grounds that they were legal.

Prove to Paul that a donation was the fruit of a crime, and he'd probably return it, too

Again, this has nothing to do with the legality of Black's contribution.

Why that's so difficult for people - well, it doesn't matter, apparently you'll never be convinced. So be it.

You're complaining that he didn't GIVE money to a neo-nazi.

No, I'm not. That's childish and ridiculous, but worthy of your "political candidate" = power company analogy.

I'm complaining (your characterization, not mine - I'd call it, pointing out the obvious lunacy and horrible political calculation) that he accepted money from a neo-nazi and thinks he should keep it.

I damned well do approve of that.

So you approve a fantasy scenario involving a genius Paul plot to take some of Black's mortgage money. He really is the only man who can save America!

Awesome.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 11:06 PM

Speaking of childish and ridiculous, so is Sullivan's latest defense of the neo-nazi contribution:

Bottom line:

When Giuliani disowns his abusing priest, his mafia-consigliere and his anti-Semitic nutcase, Ron Paul should send back the $500. Deal?

Should "the only man who can save America" really guide himself by a sleaze-bag who most Paul supporters would probably characterize as a fascist or, at a minimum, authoritarian?

Shouldn't he try to be, I don't know, better?

Don't you want him to be better?

Or is just it easier to say "that other guy has support from lunatics too"?

Just a pathetic defense.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 13, 2007 11:19 PM

Matt,

Props for admitting your mistake, but didn't you learn in HS journalism class that you verify the story to be true before going to print?

It's almost as low-ball as Hugh Hewitt, who circulated the story on his unpaid 3-hour Mitt Romney ad (er, I mean radio show) that Ron Paul had a "Jew problem."

Please....

Posted by Financially Literate | November 14, 2007 12:13 AM