Sieradski Right After All

A new email from JTA DC bureau chief Ron Kampeas:

I wanted to clarify that I wrongly faulted Dan Sieradski in this. He posted his original comment a couple of weeks ago on his personal blog, before Paul had replied to our request. Jewcy reposted it Nov. 9, the day after I first reported Ron Paul's statement in a short article unbylined article for JTA. Dan upated his post and alerted bloggers who had picked up the original item as soon as he was aware of Paul's statement. I'm not acquainted with the mechanics of the blogosphere, but just like in journalism (or anything else) I guess it's not hard for one hand to do something without the other being aware.

Sieradski's item, in short, was accurate at the time he wrote it, though the claim that Paul's campaign won't take calls from Jewish media isn't defensible now. Meanwhile, Paul should really return the campaign contribution in question.

Comments

It's embarrassing to see you clinging to this absurd talking point.

A candidate has two choices:

1) Accept all the money they get, making clear that accepting unsolicited donations does not imply acceptance of donor views;

2) Vet donors for their acceptable political views.

Once you accept choice #2, even once, in principle you have to accept the absurd idea that campaigns should be vetting their income streams. Better to take the principled stand. Unless you seriously think Ron Paul is a Nazi you should stop this ridiculous line of posts, especially as other candidates are taking non-symbolic amounts of money from powerful people who want to kill other people because of the color of their skin and have ways of doing so, which would seem to be a better subject of a smug crusade.

Posted by Some dude | November 14, 2007 11:03 AM

Some dude,

Campaigns do vet their donors for many things, especially donors contributing enough to be itemized on an FEC report. Sometimes they catch something they don't want to be associated with and sometimes it is pointed out to them, in any case they regularly return or refuse to accept those donations.

Posted by tib | November 14, 2007 11:25 AM

It is astonishing witnessing Paul supporters who want the Congressman to take a course of action which is going to hurt his already slim chances.

It's not just the contortions and the specious arguments - although that is fun - but the defense of the indefensible in the name of the only man who can save America!

A serious cult of personality has developed - it's very interesting.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 11:25 AM

Campaigns do vet their donors for many things, especially donors contributing enough to be itemized on an FEC report. Sometimes they catch something they don't want to be associated with and sometimes it is pointed out to them, in any case they regularly return or refuse to accept those donations.

Yes, and this is an incredibly stupid practice. Among other things, when someone inevitably falls through the cracks, it makes you look like you approve of whatever it is he approves of. After all, you screen out people who disagree with you!

Posted by Some dude | November 14, 2007 11:31 AM

Among other things, when someone inevitably falls through the cracks, it makes you look like you approve of whatever it is he approves of.

Which is why, when it's found out, most politicians return it, and (here's the key) look good.

And in this case, it's such an easy political (let alone moral) decision, not doing it (here's the key) looks bad.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 11:33 AM

I don't think it makes them look good. It makes them look like censorious, self-righteous hypocrites.

Past that, the issue here is whether or not Ron Paul is a Nazi sympathizer. Clearly he isn't. Therefore, attacking him for this is idiotic. I expect more from our host than the Kirchickian smear. (And I say this as someone who does not drink from refreshing glasses of Paul-flavored Kool-Aid.)

Posted by Some dude | November 14, 2007 11:46 AM

Some Dude,

The issue is not whether Ron Paul is a Nazi Sympathizer or not, it is about whether Paul's candidacy has a greater than average appeal to Nazi sympathizers.

It does. Some have given him money. Some have organized support for him.

Posted by Just another Apikores | November 14, 2007 11:52 AM

the issue here is whether or not Ron Paul is a Nazi sympathizer.

No, it's not.

The issue is whether he'll take money from a famous neo-nazi, signaling that he's cool getting money from all of Mr. Black's followers/fellow travelers as well.

That's a big enough issue on its own.

So I guess Congressman Paul is lots of things, he just doesn't want to censor (as if taking money or not has anything to do with censorship) neo-nazis and he's not self-righteous.

Good for him.

This is a really dumb move for Paul. And it's really easily avoidable. Too bad.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 11:53 AM

Concern trolling is really no less stupid and transparent coming from the left than it is from the right.

Posted by Some dude | November 14, 2007 12:22 PM

Wow.

Accepting a campaign contribution from a neo-nazi = not stupid.

Pointing out its inherent and obvious flaws = stupid and transparent.

Nice analysis, sport.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 12:27 PM

C'mon, I wouldn't return the money. Why? If the idea is that by accepting Nazi money than Ron Paul is beholden to Nazi donors, than I think the answer is to stop having politicians answerable to people other than the voters.

Public financing, blah, blah. Naderite ramblings blah, blah.

Posted by witless chum | November 14, 2007 12:37 PM

The issue is not whether Ron Paul is a Nazi Sympathizer or not, it is about whether Paul's candidacy has a greater than average appeal to Nazi sympathizers.

The issue isn't whether he has a greater appeal to Nazi sympathizers, because that appeal is probably not based on whether he accepts their money or not, it's based on his policies. If you're concerned that Nazis are supporting him, then you should be concerned about the policies that make Nazis like him.

1) Accept all the money they get, making clear that accepting unsolicited donations does not imply acceptance of donor views;

This sounds right in principle, since candidates shouldn't have to agree with everyone who gives them money (which is the argument the Paul campaign is making). The problem is that if he gets a lot of financial support from Nazis, he might be more receptive to their favored policies once he is in office, even if he doesn't share the ideology behind the policies. (Even if he hasn't received "a lot" of financial support from them, the principle still applies since you can't set a dollar amount for when you will or won't accede to a particular group's wishes.) You can say this won't affect you once in office, but people have good reason to be sceptical of any such claim from a politician, particularly one running for president, even if its the great principled Ron Paul.

Posted by ibid | November 14, 2007 12:41 PM

Maybe I'm just missing something, but as far as I know that white-activist guy who sent a $500 check to Ron Paul hasn't killed anyone.

On the other hand, a bunch of those crazy Jewish activists who are supporting Giuliani and various other candidates have caused the deaths of about one million innocent people over the last three or four years.

Seems to me, Giuliani and his friends should be forced to return all their millions of dollars in donations and renounce their public support *first*. Then we can start talking about Ron Paul and the $500 check.

One million innocent lives really isn't a trivial number.

Posted by RKU | November 14, 2007 12:42 PM

Wow.

Accepting a campaign contribution from a neo-nazi = not stupid.

Pointing out its inherent and obvious flaws = stupid and transparent.

Nice analysis, sport.

I like how you skipped over the whole part about how screening your contributions is inherently highly problematic because it implies approval of the views of people whose money you do take. Don't let a Hamas/IRA sympathizer slip through! And really, where is the line that makes someone so outside the mainstream that you can't take their money? Is it just Nazis? How about radical environmentalists? Pro-/anti-choice people? Religious zealots? Be sensible instead of carrying Jamie Kirchick's water.

This is all embarrassingly retarded process bullshit. Is Paul a Nazi, or beholden to Nazis? Of course not. What, then, is the problem? It's about appearances. Right. This is no more convincing coming from concern trolls in comments fields than it is coming from David Broder.

Posted by Some dude | November 14, 2007 12:44 PM

I like how you skipped over the whole part about how screening your contributions is inherently highly problematic

Skipped it? You mean skipped some more completely irrelevant analysis?

You must be kidding. If you're not, that's pretty sad.

This contribution has been brought to the Paul campaign's attention - repeatedly.

They didn't have to do any screening or vetting.

This is about the fact that they now - after it has been brought to their attention - know about it, and what they will, or will not, do about it.

Not about the fact that just about anyone can write a check to just about anyone.

You're whole post is wrong about everything, but comes closest to the mark (but still is off), when you write: It's about appearances. Right.

It's not just about that - it's partly about that. It's also about signals.

This is no more convincing coming from concern trolls in comments fields than it is coming from David Broder.

Whatever, you stating that doesn't make it so. I think you'll find this episode has had, and will have, a negative affect on the Paul campaign.

Whereas giving the money back would obviously have a positive affect on the campaign.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 12:54 PM

If you look at it as a balance sheet. Ron Paul has $500 dollars. The blogger wants Ron Paul to give that $500 to a Nazi.

Personally I prefer for Nazi's to have less money, but I guess that is just me.

Posted by my takeaway | November 14, 2007 12:58 PM

Concern trolling is really no less stupid and transparent coming from the left than it is from the right.

You may think returning the money would make him look bad, but most people would disagree. Paul gets more of a pass on this as a minor candidate, and one that people think of as principled, in the sense that he has unconventionial views that obviously weren't adopted just to get him elected. But if Clinton or Romney refused to return donations from white supremicists it would probably sink them (well, a Republican might get past the primaries, but not the general).

I like how you skipped over the whole part about how screening your contributions is inherently highly problematic because it implies approval of the views of people whose money you do take.

The problem is not taking their money, the problem is taking their money knowing what they want in return. If a random donor is privately a white supremacist it doesn't matter since the candidate knows nothing about that person. If a known white supremacist gives you money, it is a different matter. You don't have to vet, you just have to reject people with an overt agenda.

Personally I prefer for Nazi's to have less money, but I guess that is just me.

I'd prefer that a Nazi use his money on Prussian Blue CD's than trying to draw the favor (even if futilely) of a presidential candidate. I don't think he's putting off buying those bomb components to send a check to a non-supremacist candidate.

Posted by ibid | November 14, 2007 1:12 PM

Both sides have a principle they are sticking to, The principle that a candidate shouldn't accept money from unsavory types, and the principle that a candidate can choose to be agnostic about the source of the money.

I tend to lean towards the latter, so long as the laws concerning contributions are followed. But with SoCalJustice giving a good coherent argument, I understand why people would feel that appearances can be bad.

Now which message will become the predominant one, that somehow Ron Paul is Evil and in cohoots with the Neo-Nazis (which is the implication people are making, even if they don't say it out loud). Or that somehow the source of the money doesn't matter and that the candidate won't be swayed by $500 from some random shmoe who happens to be known as a neo-nazi?

At this point, it may do more damage to the campaign to return the money and look like they were pushed around and did it grudgingly, than to say, this is our principle and we're sticking to it.

Posted by Mark | November 14, 2007 1:14 PM

Pay special attn. to the details below about The American Free Press, Willis Carto and The Barnes Review...Neo-Nazi Holocaust Denialists. For more see,
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/12/18359/8939
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/5/4/15748/99064
The Ron Paul Campaign and its Neo-Nazi Supporters
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/the_ron_paul_campaign_and_its.html

Posted by Michael Pugliese | November 14, 2007 1:18 PM

And for the kook on the other side, why is the Kucinich campaign working with the Lenora Fulani/Fred Newman totalitarian cultists via their front group CUIP? google, Kucinich CUIP." Those loons were real grief to the Jesse Jackson campaigns of '84 and '88.
Last night on the thread here http://godlessliberalhomo.blogspot.com/2007/11/growing-chasm-between-liberal-democrats.html
an organizer for the Lenora Fulani/Fred Newman New Alliance Party/CUIP totalitarian cult said that they had worked with the Kucinich campaign in '04 and Jim Mangia, one of their longtime cadre and others in their leadership circle had met w/Dennis in this cycle to do further joint work. Does the DK campaign really have no knowledge of the sinister tactics and practices of these loons?

http://www.publiceye.org/newman/cloudsblur.html

Clouds Blur the Rainbow
How Fred Newman & Lenora Fulani Use Totalitarian Deception to Manipulate Social and Political Activists
By Chip Berlet

* Introduction
* Marina Ortiz Explains Why She Resigned from the NAP
* NAP Activities in the Mid 1980's
* Fred Newman and the Historical Roots of the Newmanites
* The International Workers Party
* Institutes for Social Therapy and Totalitarian Cultism
* Opportunism & Deception
* Support for Minister Farrakhan

See also:
The Newmanites and Lenora Fulani
Lenora Fulani and the Politics of Opportunism
Buchanan, Fulani, Perot, & the Reform Party

Posted by Michael Pugliese | November 14, 2007 1:21 PM

eastern european nazis and the republican party under bush, sr. and reagan see, Old Nazis, The New Right, and the Republican Party
http://www.publiceye.org/bellant/old_nazis.html
caused a scandal back then

Posted by Michael Pugliese | November 14, 2007 1:25 PM

Michael Pugliese:

Clicking through your cited American Thinker/Ron Paul link reveals that Paul has gained the support of Pat Buchannan (sic!). Horrors...

Even worse, he's apparently accepted donations and perhaps fund-raising assistance from Barry Manilow. Barry Manilow!!

I think the key issue which reporters should be endlessly asking Paul is whether he'll return the tainted money of Barry Manilow...

Posted by RKU | November 14, 2007 1:28 PM

A serious cult of personality has developed - it's very interesting.

Another example of this is the habit many supporters have of referring to him as "Dr. Paul." Yes, he's a doctor, but this has no bearing on whether or not he's fit to be president, and the use of "Dr." is just an attempt to make him look a little more respectable.

It reminds me of the Keyes-Obama Senate race here in Illinois, with many of the hardcore supporters of the GOP candidate providing a good laugh by calling their man "Dr. Keyes" (and he's not even an M.D., as is Paul).

Posted by JK | November 14, 2007 1:31 PM

So the Decider will return all the nefarious money he received? Will he return Erik Prince's money? Don't forget, Prescott Bush did business with Hitler. Will Bush give back any family money(with interest)? What about Rick Noreiga in Texas? Will he give back the money Bob Perry gave him? How can you control every single donor? You can't. Some people want to buy influence whether they agree with you or not. Just because that goof ball gave Ron Paul money doesn't mean Paul agrees with the guy.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | November 14, 2007 1:50 PM

Yo, Mr. RKU, you obviously didn't read the two Daily Kos URL's I provided on the real Neo-Nazis Willis Carto and co. giving money and cadre for Ron Paul.
As for Pat Buchanan, the same neo-Nazi white supremacists did fundraisers for him back in 2000, see, http://www.archive.org/details/PartyCrashersWhiteNationalistsAndElection2000

Posted by Michael Pugliese | November 14, 2007 1:59 PM

If its ok that he took the money and didn't return it, then it is perfectly fine to beat him up politically for doing so. This isn't even complex politics. Some intern in every campaign, broadcast network, newpaper, and politically oriented non-profit is looking at all the itemized contributors all the time. Its what happens.

If Paul didn't seem to matter, no one would care. If I were working for a campaign that felt threatened by him in NY, NJ, or FL, I'd sure as heck make an ad about that contribution. I couldn't do that if he returned the money.

Posted by Just another Apikores | November 14, 2007 2:37 PM

1) In fairness, it should be noted why the neoNazis support Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.

It is not because Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan called for rounding up all the Jews and shoving them into the ovens.

Rather, the Neo-Nazis are National Socialists. I.e nationalistic. Socialist -- not so much.
More like fascist. And nationalistic only in the sense of having strong loyalty to a nation of white men. Loyalty to fellow citizens who are black or Asian --not so much.

2) Both Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan put forth the extremist argument that the US Government should work for the benefit of US citizens -- should act in the interest of the common citizens who fight this country's wars and who worked hard to create this country's wealth.

3) The other candidates, by contrast, prefer to whore for the rich and to support the rich when they throw American workers out on the street in order to move capital to China. The other candidates, with the exception of Obama, are happy with sending 3700 US citizens to their deaths in order to grab the oil and protect Israel.

4) While the Neo-nazis would no doubt strongly disagree with Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan on many matters, they are nationalists -- and if you are looking for a Presidental candidate who will PLAUSIBLY commit to act in the interest of the USA , the pickings are pretty damm slim.

The only other choice is Obama and the Neonazis can't support him because he's a ...you know.

Posted by Don Williams | November 14, 2007 2:50 PM

The only other choice is Obama and the Neonazis can't support him because he's a ...you know.

Don, thanks for cogently describing the underlying reasoning for the position of why it's a very poor decision for a politician to knowingly take a political contribution from Don Black.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 2:59 PM

"Another example of this is the habit many supporters have of referring to him as "Dr. Paul." Yes, he's a doctor, but this has no bearing on whether or not he's fit to be president, and the use of "Dr." is just an attempt to make him look a little more respectable.

It reminds me of the Keyes-Obama Senate race here in Illinois, with many of the hardcore supporters of the GOP candidate providing a good laugh by calling their man "Dr. Keyes" (and he's not even an M.D., as is Paul)."

I think it's because he refers to himself as Dr. Paul, and reveals the utter disdain he has for the Washington-style politicians. And are we really being critical of a "cult of personality" in American politics...seriously? How many Democrats still worship JFK, and how many Republicans worship Reagan?

Posted by James | November 14, 2007 2:59 PM

how many Republicans worship Reagan?

If you read the thread titled "bigots," you will find that very comparison - and not at all in a flattering way - made.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 3:01 PM

1) I have been puzzled re why Ron Paul has not returned the $500 to the NeoNazi. And I'm beginning to sense the influence of Karl Rove.

Ole Karl understands the workings of the Tao --he knows that in order to destroy, it is necessary first to promote.

2) My guess is ..well, I won't say for the moment. But if I'm right, the Hillary ship is about to get a big hole right below the waterline.

Posted by Don Williams | November 14, 2007 3:03 PM

"Don, thanks for cogently describing the underlying reasoning for the position of why it's a very poor decision for a politician to knowingly take a political contribution from Don Black"

At this point Paul should keep the money, as in returing it he betrays his libertarian principles, and he will be ssen as caving in to special interest principle. All parties agree or seem to agree that Ron Paul is not a racist or anti-Semite. (Black himself has said on his website that Paul doesn't share these views), so what is the problem? Black does nothing against the law, his website is legal, and thus he is free to give campagin money to whomever he wishes. A campaign can accept money from whomever it wishes in a lazes faire sense (what Paul's strategy seems to be), or it can play poltics with donations (Bob Dole in 1996), which never works out for the candidate.

Posted by James | November 14, 2007 3:17 PM

"If you read the thread titled "bigots," you will find that very comparison - and not at all in a flattering way - made."

I didn't read the thread, but 'cults of personalities' are not limited to bigots. It's anohter swipe at Paul and his supporters, inferring some sort of Naizesque glorification of him. Nobody had heard of Paul six, seven months ago but it was his ideas that people liked; anti-war, and anti-militarisitc (seemingly anathema to facists), less government, ower taxes, free market (again anathema to fascists), worshipping Jewish economists from the 1920s (the very people whom Hitler hated), combined with removal from/or limiting the influence of supranational organizations (something that resonates with many Americans) and from that we get that he is some sort of cryptic Nazi. Black may be foolish and think that Paul shares his views, but I think that is a shallow reading of Paul, and Nazism by Black.

Posted by James | November 14, 2007 3:26 PM

I didn't read the thread, but 'cults of personalities' are not limited to bigots.

Never said they were.

It's anohter swipe at Paul and his supporters, inferring some sort of Naizesque glorification of him.

Not at Paul, just at his supporters, and having nothing to do with Nazis.

I believe when I first started talking about this phenomenon a few threads down I compared him to the Pope.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 3:30 PM

Not at Paul, just at his supporters

I should have qualified that with "some of his supporters" - notably, the ones who bend over backwards to defend the contribution from a neo-nazi.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 3:34 PM

"Not at Paul, just at his supporters, and having nothing to do with Nazis.

I believe when I first started talking about this phenomenon a few threads down I compared him to the Pope."

Perhaps then that is something the Democrats and Republcians should address. Why a man who holds contraian viewpoints has such a dogmatic following, while the handpicked candiadtes receive lukewarm receptions. There is discontent out there, and Paul has tapped into it. Either all of his supporters are crazy (a hasty genralization) or their concerns/fears should be addressed (within reason of course).

Posted by James | November 14, 2007 3:37 PM

"I should have qualified that with "some of his supporters" - notably, the ones who bend over backwards to defend the contribution from a neo-nazi."

So me basically, and others like me. Are Black's views odious, of course. Are they protected by the Constituion, of course. Is Black ostercized from polite society, of course. Does he have a right to participate in electoral politics, as much as he is allowed to given his felonious past, of course. Do Paul's libertarian beliefs preculde him from vetting donors to his campaign, of course. Is this donation a non-issue brought up by Paul's political opponents and their supporters, of course.

Posted by James | November 14, 2007 3:46 PM

James,

Do Paul's libertarian beliefs preculde him from vetting donors to his campaign, of course.

If that's really true - it's another reason why his alleged meteoric rise will eventually fail miserably.

For the record, I agree with everything you said in your 3:37 post. I find his campaign fascinating - including this aspect.

And if it is in fact true that "disconent out there" translates to complete, and often bitter, denial that a political contribution from Don Black is an issue at all, than that doesn't speak well of the discontent.

If my candidate accepted money from him, I'd be pissed, and try to get him or her to return it. I imagine there are some Paul supporters out there who think this is a bad move, even if they constitute a minority of his support.

It's not about a "right to participate in electoral politics" - that's an extremely low bar that most politicians (not known for high standards to begin with) don't sink beneath, and is only being thrown out there because we're talking about an incredibly odious individual.

Posted by SoCalJustice | November 14, 2007 3:55 PM

Looking back at my comments, and others, I think I should say that I don't personally think less of Paul for keeping the money per se, since I know he won't actually be influenced by it. And though I was somewhat snarky about it, I do think he would be less prone than the major candidates to cave to his donors, even for a large amount money. I still think the point about buying influence is valid since you can't know for sure what dollar amount will change a candidate's mind on a particular issue, but in this particular case I'm confident enough that this won't have any effect on his policies, just as I wouldn't fault a firmly pro-choice candidate for accepting a relatively small amount of anti-choice money.

What really bothers me is that he has a chance to effectively renounce racism for $500 out of $8 million and won't, because of principle. Personally, I think the principle of rejecting racism is more important than some free market principle that any exchange of money is morally neutral as long as the goverment doesn't interfere with it, but that's why I'm a liberal and Ron Paul is a libertarian. I know this is just symbolic, and most of his supporters don't think much of symbolism, but unfortunately for them, it is an important part of politics. If Paul won't demonstrate his comtempt for white supremacists by parting with $500, I don't have much confidence that he would do anything as president to improve civil rights. I suppose that's fine if you think these issues should resolve themselves without government, but most people, probably even most conservatives, see some role for government in enforcing basic civil rights.

It is about appearances, because even the appearance of accepting racism is, rightfully, seen as harmful to society, at least by most of us. That's why he should return this money, but not necessarily money from other people that he just disagrees with or that hold other very unpopular views. Unfortunately, there's no way to measure which -isms, such as racism, need to be firmly rejected on all levels and which -isms, such as environmentalism or fundamentalism, don't -- not even by the level of support they have. It's really a personal thing, and most people put racism in that category.

Posted by ibid | November 14, 2007 4:49 PM

Would Ron Paul have any money at all if he returned donations from every supporter of his that could be described as "fringe?"

I think it's an interesting question, though not as interesting as a discussion on the effect of glove thickness/surface area on force distribution (I started writing (with glee) a long response on that yesterday dealing with directional force and PPI2 only to notice that someone beat me to the punch, so to speak).

Posted by Shinyk | November 14, 2007 5:36 PM

Matt wrote: "though the claim that Paul's campaign won't take calls from Jewish media isn't defensible now"

Wait - was it *ever* defensible?

Posted by Jon H | November 15, 2007 1:49 AM

Uh, this seems awfully petty compared to the Barack Obama-Jeremiah T. Wright situation, where Obama's spiritual adviser for the last two decades has ties to Farrahkan and Gadaffi.

Posted by Steve Sailer | November 15, 2007 4:19 AM

Unbelievable. The credence, that is, that so many people on here are prepared to give to the judgement of Nazis.

If Nazis are giving Ron Paul money (as they most certainly are doing), they are deluding themselves.

Ron Paul's philosophy could not be MORE antithetical nor more non conducive to Nazism.

His views are wholly consistent with those of the Founders, Jefferson et al. I defy anybody here to show me where he deviates from the Founders. And if somebody here wants to tell me the views and beliefs of the Founders are Nazi-friendly, then I will happily conclude this forum has long since ceased to be civil, sane or humane. And I will take personal offence.

I would go further and encourage ALL NAZIS to give of their financial resources to the Ron Paul campaign, in order that their statist-fascist-collectivist-racist world view be consigned, finally, to the sewer pipes of history.

Further, Ron Paul's views are built upon those of two Jewish giants of economic and political philosophy: Mises and Rothbard, to name only two.

If Jewish-friendly political discourse has descended to the point where we are seeking Nazi phantoms to fear and associate with the good, honest and decent man that is Ron Paul, then I fear the worst.

Posted by JJ | November 15, 2007 5:16 AM

This whole to-do is a gigantic illustration of Godwin's Law (it's also another iteration of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"). Black donated money to Ron's campaign (probably because he agrees in his capacity as a citizen, that Ron's announced policies are good for the country), so what? Does anyone here think there is the slightest chance that Black's $500 donation (in a total of $15M and change) will have the slightest influence on, of all candidates, Ron Paul? The lobbyists in D.C. have known for years there is no point even darkening the good Dr.'s door, so why are the benighted chattering classes even bothering to try to use a dodgy contribution as a smear? The real fear here is that if Ron gets anywhere near the White House he might influence the Congress, and the country to move in a slightly less statist direction. That this is so troubling that some liberals and conservatives get up in high dudgeon, screaming epithets and doomsaying about what a President Ron Paul portends say a lot more about their sordid proclivities than it doae about Ron's, or his supporters'.

Posted by libertyvini | November 24, 2007 6:47 AM