Category: The Dish

Matt Welch has a useful round-up. Radley Balko has his say here. Brian Doherty responds here. Nick Gillespie here. Jesse Walker here. I think all of us of libertarian-conservative bent who have been buoyed by the Ron Paul revolution are disheartened and shocked. On reflection, although I just don’t believe he wrote those repulsive sentences himself, I think Paul needs to explain more. As in: who did write them? Who did publish them? What was the connection between them and the congressman?

I also want to reiterate that those of us who supported the Ron Paul movement find these sentiments despicable. They are emphatically not what we are supporting and have supported – a return to constitutional principles, individual liberty, fiscal prudence and a foreign policy that is not based on war, torture and indefinite occupation of other people’s countries. As I wrote, I think much less of Ron Paul today; but I do not think less of the principles he has expressed and defended in this campaign.

David Frum was nothing compared to James Wolcott:

I have nothing against Obama–I’ve donated money to his campaign, as I have Hillary’s–I’ll vote for any Democrat over any Republican–but as obnoxious as is the chortling, crowing misogyny of a Chris Matthews or the rightwing buffoon (Michael Graham, I believe) Imus had on his show this morning (or Imus himself, for that matter), the rah-rah gaga Beatlemania oozing out of the Huffington Post over Obama is even more revolting. Watching middle-aged men reclaim their innocence and idealism is like having to retrace Kevin Costner’s steps through a field of dreams all over again–it was corny enough the first time.

One thing we won’t ever have to worry about: James Wolcott reclaiming his innocence.

They’re having to turn donors away in NYC.

Obama will win tonight; but the euphoria of the past few days will be impossible to sustain. It is inherently unstable. Clinton’s naked appeal for sympathy yesterday may well rally some older female voters to her side. A victory for Obama in single digits is more likely than a blow-out. Then we’ll have the Clinton campaign shake-up stories. Then she and her husband will unload whatever dirt they can on him – using the classic arms-length 527 Rove techniques. Then they will try to use their party muscle to intimidate Democratic loyalists to stay with the establishment in California and Florida and New York.

This is not over by any means. The Clintons have too much to lose and they have no scruples in fighting to keep their power. If they can destroy Obama, they will. His job is to stay calm, cool and determined. And all of it is good training for the fall. What we’re seeing is if Obama can survive brutal attacks. It’s a good system for testing future candidates. So far, he has shown he can out-organize, out-argue and out-fund-raise the Clinton machine. Can he now outlast their bile and rise above their anger? That we will soon find out.

(Photo: Terance Gallagher shows her support for Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) January 6, 2008 in Manchester, New Hampshire. By Joe Raedle/Getty.)

Here’s a classic response:

Q: [Bill Clinton] also called your campaign a fairy tale. How do you respond to that?

O: I understand they’re frustrated right now. I suspect that they’ll both try to get back on track in terms of the strategy for them to do better than they feel they’re doing right now.

Is … Obama. His appeal is not faith-based. I certainly don’t believe he is going to change the world. I think he has the ability to lead this country in a pragmatic and unifying way, and to move us past the often pointless polarization of the Rove years. Headline Junky gets it:

The irony might turn out to be that while America might be yearning for a demagogue, Obama is unwilling to become one.

Already felt in Chicago:

In the six days since Obama’s decisive victory in the Iowa caucuses, upwards of 10,000 people registered to vote in Chicago, figures seldom — if ever — seen for a presidential primary.

They’re mainly young. The next generation has found a candidate.

My take here. Ron Paul’s response here and my reax to that here.

They’re cornered; and when they’re cornered, they lash out. Is a wave of Obama-smears about to emerge via 527s? Or are they smarter than they are infuriated that someone has dared to challenge their power in the Democratic party? If you have followed them closely over the years, you wouldn’t bet on their restraint. The one thing they care about is their own power. The ugliness may have just begun.

It’s the right response to this:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed.  I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin.  As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999:  ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

 

This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

I’m very glad to hear it. Taking moral responsibility is the right thing to do. But I should say I think less of Ron Paul after reading this article than I did before. Much less. I am not persuaded he is a bigot (like Jamie, apparently), and I remain impressed by the message and spirit of the campaign he has waged. My take on the newsletters here.