interesting article.........
Ron Paul's thought-provoking choice on racist's $$$
by Frank James
You have to hand it to Ron Paul. Most presidential candidates who weren't running as white supremacists themselves would reflexively return a donation from a self-proclaimed racist so fast they would break speed records for financial transactions.
But as has been reported, Paul has decided to keep a $500 donation from Don Black of West Palm Beach who runs a website called Stormfront whose slogan is "White Pride World Wide."
As Paul's campaign explained, it plans to keep the money because that will reduce the cash Black has to spend on spreading his controversial ideology by $500.
And, according to the campaign, another good will occur. Paul will have $500 more with which to spread his libertarian message of freedom from big government, including his opposition to the Iraq War.
One freedom Paul has comes from the unlikelihood he'll receive his party's nomination. If he were a real threat to be the Republican nominee, he would've given back the money immediately since no top tier candidate would want to take a chance on losing the big prize because of the kind of controversy surrounding this kind of controversy.
But a lot of money is given to candidates by supporters with views out of the mainstream, views many other Americans would find objectionable. That's a given. The only difference is that Black doesn't hide his views.
Still, the unwritten rule in politics is that when you find yourself getting money from someone controversial because of what they do or say, someone with views repugnant to most Americans, you give their cash back like it's radioactive.
Paul's approach is certainly unorthodox, like so much about the man. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong. And because it's so different a way of handling such a situation, it presents an opportunity for a discussion about what's right and wrong in such situations. In short, it makes you think.
Posted by Frank James on December 20, 2007 8:39 AM | Permalink
Comments
I applaud Paul for keeping the money. If he didn't he would be a hypocrite. He stands for freedom and rights. IF he gave the money back, he would be saying that Black doesn't have the right to express his opinnion. Keeping the money does not support Blacks opinions and as the lobbiest in Washington will tell you, Ron Paul cannot be bought like every other politician in the world. It is refreshing to see a politician who is not only steadfast adn consistent in his views, but not afraid of the media backlash and political correctness police for taking unpopular stands.
Posted by: Derek | December 20, 2007 8:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The people for whom this is a controversy just don't understand libertarians.
To a libertarian, a man's moral standing is utterly and absolutely his own. Nothing he has not freely chosen makes up part of his moral being in any way.
To Paul, since he came by the money honestly - by forthrightly stating his platform and asking for donations - the money can't possibly be "tainted". Mr. Black can't soil or sully Mr. Paul or his campaign by contributing to it, because Mr. Black is completely irrelevant and can never be relevant.
Asking a libertarian to send back a donation like this is like asking a libertarian for slavery reparations. They consider even the request to be a deadly moral insult.
That's why Paul seems to be so pissy about this issue, when he otherwise has been quite mild during the campaign in the face of provocation. [Unlike his more belligerent supporters.] Paul's been happy to stand there and be booed at debates and laughed at by the other candidates and insulted and marginalized by the media and none of it has fazed him. But asking about this donation is the one thing that has pissed him off - because it pushes a libertarian hot button.
Posted by: Brian S | December 20, 2007 8:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does make you think doesn't it?
Give the money back so this fellow can use it to spread his message of intolerance or use the money to spread the message of freedom.
Mmmmm, What to do? What to do?
Posted by: justgoboating | December 20, 2007 8:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with a message like "freedom is the answer, what is the question" is that people from accross the spectrum can put their viewpoints into your message. Thats why the Paul crowd is diverse, and also why it is so strong. A Ron Paul rally is the only place you will ever see skinheads and black people, old and young, republicans and democrats, all gathering around the same message. I saw it myself in Philly on veterans day. Such a diverse crowd, and there were no hostilities and no fights or problems. That message is "let me live my life as I want". I am an avid supporter, and I am not an extremist or a racist. I just want to live my life and let others do the so is worse? Some guy who thinks white people are a superior race or people who advocate going all over the world and bombing countries for no reason???
Posted by: Jason | December 20, 2007 9:01 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul's thought-provoking choice on racist's $$$
by Frank James
You have to hand it to Ron Paul. Most presidential candidates who weren't running as white supremacists themselves would reflexively return a donation from a self-proclaimed racist so fast they would break speed records for financial transactions.
But as has been reported, Paul has decided to keep a $500 donation from Don Black of West Palm Beach who runs a website called Stormfront whose slogan is "White Pride World Wide."
As Paul's campaign explained, it plans to keep the money because that will reduce the cash Black has to spend on spreading his controversial ideology by $500.
And, according to the campaign, another good will occur. Paul will have $500 more with which to spread his libertarian message of freedom from big government, including his opposition to the Iraq War.
One freedom Paul has comes from the unlikelihood he'll receive his party's nomination. If he were a real threat to be the Republican nominee, he would've given back the money immediately since no top tier candidate would want to take a chance on losing the big prize because of the kind of controversy surrounding this kind of controversy.
But a lot of money is given to candidates by supporters with views out of the mainstream, views many other Americans would find objectionable. That's a given. The only difference is that Black doesn't hide his views.
Still, the unwritten rule in politics is that when you find yourself getting money from someone controversial because of what they do or say, someone with views repugnant to most Americans, you give their cash back like it's radioactive.
Paul's approach is certainly unorthodox, like so much about the man. That doesn't necessarily make it wrong. And because it's so different a way of handling such a situation, it presents an opportunity for a discussion about what's right and wrong in such situations. In short, it makes you think.
Posted by Frank James on December 20, 2007 8:39 AM | Permalink
Comments
I applaud Paul for keeping the money. If he didn't he would be a hypocrite. He stands for freedom and rights. IF he gave the money back, he would be saying that Black doesn't have the right to express his opinnion. Keeping the money does not support Blacks opinions and as the lobbiest in Washington will tell you, Ron Paul cannot be bought like every other politician in the world. It is refreshing to see a politician who is not only steadfast adn consistent in his views, but not afraid of the media backlash and political correctness police for taking unpopular stands.
Posted by: Derek | December 20, 2007 8:51 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The people for whom this is a controversy just don't understand libertarians.
To a libertarian, a man's moral standing is utterly and absolutely his own. Nothing he has not freely chosen makes up part of his moral being in any way.
To Paul, since he came by the money honestly - by forthrightly stating his platform and asking for donations - the money can't possibly be "tainted". Mr. Black can't soil or sully Mr. Paul or his campaign by contributing to it, because Mr. Black is completely irrelevant and can never be relevant.
Asking a libertarian to send back a donation like this is like asking a libertarian for slavery reparations. They consider even the request to be a deadly moral insult.
That's why Paul seems to be so pissy about this issue, when he otherwise has been quite mild during the campaign in the face of provocation. [Unlike his more belligerent supporters.] Paul's been happy to stand there and be booed at debates and laughed at by the other candidates and insulted and marginalized by the media and none of it has fazed him. But asking about this donation is the one thing that has pissed him off - because it pushes a libertarian hot button.
Posted by: Brian S | December 20, 2007 8:56 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does make you think doesn't it?
Give the money back so this fellow can use it to spread his message of intolerance or use the money to spread the message of freedom.
Mmmmm, What to do? What to do?
Posted by: justgoboating | December 20, 2007 8:58 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with a message like "freedom is the answer, what is the question" is that people from accross the spectrum can put their viewpoints into your message. Thats why the Paul crowd is diverse, and also why it is so strong. A Ron Paul rally is the only place you will ever see skinheads and black people, old and young, republicans and democrats, all gathering around the same message. I saw it myself in Philly on veterans day. Such a diverse crowd, and there were no hostilities and no fights or problems. That message is "let me live my life as I want". I am an avid supporter, and I am not an extremist or a racist. I just want to live my life and let others do the so is worse? Some guy who thinks white people are a superior race or people who advocate going all over the world and bombing countries for no reason???
Posted by: Jason | December 20, 2007 9:01 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
