Austinist: The Accidental Gentrifist: It Was a Close One, Kids. But it’s still ‘Better Dead than Red’

mdahmus

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 08:30:49 -0600

"You've made the argument that because Paul received $500 from a white supremacist––out of millions of dollars he's raised––and didn't give it back, that he's all of a sudden bad and doesn't deserve your support." Well, there's the fact that he allowed his name to be put to some awful racist stuff and has never really given a good answer as to WHY. That might lead one to believe that he was always bad, and the donation just made it more obvious.

reynard

Tue, 12 Feb 2008 02:22:52 -0600

I disagree entirely; it's not his supporters, it's him. I wouldn't call Ron Paul a fascist. In some ways (emphasis on some) he's actually the opposite of a fascist because he's a libertarian, which is exactly the problem I have with his politics. Libertarians want to disband the EPA, FDA, NASA, etc. And think capitalism is such a great idea that it can somehow work on its own without any regulation whatsoever. It's the most insane, crackpot idea I've ever heard of, and I used to be one. Also, Ayn Rand's prose is atrocious. I think it's bizarre (and scary) that so many independents who would usually vote for a far left candidate support(ed) Ron Paul without knowing anything of his politics - I say this because I asked many of them personally - and I do feel that it is entirely different from supporting Obama without knowing his "plans," because Obama is a moderate democrat, whereas Paul is a radical republican; it's quite a different situation. Most people that I asked only knew that Ron Paul wanted to legalize Marijuana (which wouldn't happen anyway) and end the war. Of course, a lot of his supporters are actually radical conservatives who do have fucked up evil agendas. Most of the libertarians I've known are very wealthy and want to support a system that will allow them to become wealthier. In fact, if the libertarian revolution were successful, it'd be very much the same situation as every revolution in world history: The middle class convinces the lower class to usurp the upper class so that middle becomes upper, and lower stays the same with some new "rights," which are quickly taken away. Yes, the system is fucked. Yes, racism is retarded. But supporting a jerk like Ron Paul is not the answer. Who cares if he accepted a donation from a racist? He supports the very ideology that created and continues to tolerate slavery itself. The KKK is a sad group of sorry losers that live on hate and bigotry; whatever, they rarely even do anything about it anymore. American capitalism kills and enslaves people worldwide on a mass scale every single day.

Benj

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:08:07 -0600

Okay, sure, whatever. But when I run for president, and I decide that I'm credible enough to represent all Americans, forgive me if I decide against accepting money from the KKK, who, you know, lynch people. On this note, I never really understood why people called Ron Paul a fascist. But now I do. It's his supporters. Kind of like how Jesus himself wasn't a Christian, it was just his supporters.

cram

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 18:32:29 -0600

I thought the two words of why you were not voting for Ron Paul were going to be "looney bin" or "gold standard". Damnit.

David Topping

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 17:39:16 -0600

That's not really an answer––I read your article, I just still don't get it. First of all, popularity is a subjective judgment. How popular must a bad person be before their money is no good? Who decides when it is or is not appropriate to return money? A donation is a donation. People are allowed to support the causes they want––I'm sure plenty of bad, evil, hateful people are supporting any of the other candidates. If I recall correctly, there's a video of Paul defending why he held onto the money, denouncing any support for white supremacy, and saying something like "isn't that man's money better in my hands than in his?" Isn't it? Does it really mean anything, whatsoever, that this guy supports Paul, other than that they share a few libertarian views? You've made the argument that because Paul received $500 from a white supremacist––out of millions of dollars he's raised––and didn't give it back, that he's all of a sudden bad and doesn't deserve your support. But this is not shaking hands with the devil; this is the devil slipping you a penny when your pockets are already full, and you not giving it back to him.

Benj

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:20:36 -0600

Ha! That's an easy one. But since some others raised the same point, why not: (But first: Arghh! Why do you make me repeat myself? Okay. Better.) Now: It wasn't that a racist guy gave him money. It's because the racist was the well-known head and former head of well-known racist organizations. Don Black used this publicity to explain which of Paul's views correspond to his own. Which, incidentally, include Worldwide White Power. The flip side is that Ron Paul was given a $500 opportunity to use this publicity in his favor, by drawing a line between racist yokels and himself. He passed. For $500. (It's also in my column, too.) Sigh.

David Topping

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:17:02 -0600

Setting aside all other issues with the Paul campaign, and there are issues, I don't understand what you're talking about––Paul's raised millions upon millions in campaign donations. That one of those donations came from a white supremacist, well, what does that matter? What if I'm a crazy racist (I'm not; I swear!)...is the candidate who accepts my money––say, Obama––responsible, no matter the sum? Are they necessarily supporting me because I'm financially supporting them? Then again, I'm from Canada. Maybe someone can enlighten me on how presidential candidates must be responsible for the personal ethics of all the people who choose to donate money to them.

katy

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 15:11:48 -0600

If you really want to "know ... more about what actually happened on September 11th", I recommend this excellent article from Popular Mechanics: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

nebby

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:55:30 -0600

Yeah, I don't agree with the pro life part of his platform either. The guy delivered thousands of babies. It seems to have left him touchy on the subject. He falls back to the accurate, but unpopular, position of saying it is a state matter. It is definitely a drawback, but compared to the aggressive across the board infringements championed by the rest of the candidates it is a drop in the bucket. Like I said above, I have my own reasons for not supporting him even though there would be a large net increase of freedom if his positions were adopted.

causal observer

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:50:21 -0600

I think there's a big difference between accepting donations from racist ORGANIZATIONS as opposed to racist INDIVIDUALS. There are a lot of racists in the world, a lot of them in America, and I bet a lot of them are contributing to various political campaigns. Just because you accept a campaign contribution from someone, does not mean you endorse their particular walk of life. That's true if you're Ron Paul or if you're any of the other candidates. I'm sure there are LOTS of donations flying around out there, that maybe the people who donated aren't really the nicest people you'd want to associate with. I don't think this is something to seal the deal, when it comes to deciding who you're going to vote for. You said you love the constitution, disdain globalism, think the middle class is overtaxed, and want to know a helluva lot more about what actually happened on September 11th. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are collectivists who campaign on platforms of expanding taxation on the middle class, increasing America's entangling alliances around the globe, and they will never put any energy into investigating what really happened Sept 11. I bet they have received some contributions from racists and sexists, too.

seth

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:11:44 -0600

I know that what I'm about to type will be immediately dismissed by its intended audience, yet I've got ten minutes to kill before I rush to the post office... Benj, you will be a much more effective individual when you reduce your stubborn adherence to idealism. Practicality trumps idealism so frequently that it's an expensive gamble to marry the latter. When you rationalize your boycott on voting because the parties are run by money, the electoral college is corrupt, etc. Dick Cheney laughs with deep satisfaction. As do the current numb-nuts on Austin's city council. Seth

smack

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:09:46 -0600

If all the "ooh, I'm so detached" dudes I know who are considering voting for Ron Paul because they're fucking clueless idiots who think they're being different went to that gun show over by the flea market on Lamar, I think their minds would be changed. And also their irony-dar would break.

savaro

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:11:37 -0600

Exactly, heyzeus. I can sum up my problem with Ron Paul in two words too, and they just happen to be the last two words of your post.

heyzeus

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:06:16 -0600

"Paul is clearly committed to expanding personal freedom." Except for reproductive freedom.

nebby

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 13:02:56 -0600

"All that nonsense about stopping the war on drugs, etc. is just a smokescreen..." So stopping the War on Some Drugs is nonsense? If you say yes, I can safely ignore you because you are a moron. If you believe Paul did not really mean he would make every effort to end the drug war, I would have to ask for some backup. The guy has been a tireless ant-drug war crusader for decades now. Whatever your opinions on the national sales tax, or a VAT tax like the one in Europe, Paul is clearly committed to expanding personal freedom. The writer of this article did not really talk about the real race problem Paul has developed. The $500 is a non-issue. I applaud Paul for publicly rebuking the group and then using its money to fight for freedom that would include many elements the KKK would tear their hair out over (see Drug War discussion). The real problem was Paul allowed his newsletter to be taken over for a couple of years by Lew Rockwell. Rockwell proceeded to write some really stupid race stuff during the LA riots and thereabouts. No one informed on the matter thinks Paul himself is a racist, but he was stupid enough to not monitor what was going on. Paul's lapse of judgment in this matter is the best argument against a Ron Paul candidacy.

davetx

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:41:09 -0600

Kenneth's exactly right, and points out the too-often-unspoken dirty secret behind the national sales tax.

misssteak

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:35:16 -0600

oh man you just poked a cave fulla snakes....i predict at least 50 comments from RonPaulites.

kenneth1

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:21:59 -0600

Ron Paul fans love to portray him as the "candidate of the people," fighting the good fight against government control and corporate media. Pure B.S. Ron Paul is the candidate of wealthy white people who don't like taxes, period. That's all libertarians stand for. All that nonsense about stopping the war on drugs, etc. is just a smokescreen to hide their true motivation. They want to abolish the IRS and institute a national sales tax, which would be a tax increase on working people & a huge windfall for the wealthy.

Benj

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 12:18:04 -0600

Correct. Dr. Judith Steinberg Dean is, in actuality, the Blood Lady. Both women were, relatively speaking, hesitant to join the dog and pony show. ...Or, at least had understandable difficulty wrangling with the preternatural beast of public politics.

Elizabeth S.

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 11:48:39 -0600

When you say "Howard Dean (and his wife, the Ketchup lady)" you're illustrating how mixed-up the media leaves us, right? (Because Kerry is the one married to the Heinz family.)