Angry White Journalist Beats a Dead Horse (The Ron Paul Newsletter Controversy)
A response to James Kirchick's article "Angry White Men," and his followups, insinuating that Paul is a racist, homophobe, and anti-Semite and calling him a "bald-faced liar." by Freedom Jackson
(libertarian)
Monday, February 4, 2008
Angry White Journalist Beats a Dead Horse
James Kirchick wrote an article called "Angry White Men," on the website of The New Republic, in which the clear insinuation was that Ron Paul is a racist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite. The evidence he provided were newsletters which Paul says he did not write. "Angry White Men," caused a brief stir in the popular media, but failed to ignite a firestorm that Kirckuck apparently expected would crush Paul's popularity. Since then, as Paul's support picks up, Kirchick has been continuing to rant on the topic. In his latest article (http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/02/04/the-american-conservative-goes-for-ron-paul.aspx), he charges, "Paul averred that he had no idea who was involved in the newsletters. Paul is a bald-faced liar." Kirchick's evidence for Paul lying are his claim that Paul's chief of staff told him that they had knowledge that Lew Rockwell "played a principle role in the production of the newletters." Now, let's look at the video of what Paul actually said in the CNN interview: (http://youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw). He did not say he had no idea who was "involved in" the newsletters. He said he had no idea who "wrote" the newsletters. Of course he knew Rockwell was "involved in" the newsletters. Rockwell was the Vice President of Ron Paul & Associates, which was the publisher of the newsletters. But, "writing" the particular newsletters that have offended Kirchuck's sensibilities and being "involved in" them are two different things. Accepting Paul's claim that he was only remotely involved in the operation, it's quite feasible for Paul to know who was involved in producing and even editing the newsletters while not having an idea who the author was of particular articles contained in the newsletters. What are we to make of this equivocation of the concepts "involved in," and "writing" by Kirchuck, and then coming to the conclusion that Paul is a "bald-faced liar?" We know Kirchuck would not stoop to the level of mendacity and insinuation, so this certainly must be merely a lack of perspicacity.
In this latest diatribe, Kirchuck is upset that the American Conservative magazine has endorsed Paul for President. My suspicion is that he's no so much upset at the endorsement per se, but it's that his ego is bruised by the fact that his "Angry White Men" article insinuating Paul is a racist, homophone, and anti-Semite has been almost completely ineffectual in hurting Paul. It shouldn't be a surprise to Kirchuck that weak arguments are naturally going to get weak traction and will ultimately be dismissed. So far, there is no evidence that Paul is or has ever been any of these things. Nearly everyone realizes this and has moved on. Instead of accepting this like a man, Kirchuck lashes out like a baby by now going on to insinuate that John Derbyshire and Pat Buchanan are racists, homophobes, and anti-Semites for having the gall to express support for Paul after his earth-shattering expose'.
Face it Kirchick. Your article "Angry White Men," while it caused a bit of sensationalistic commotion, turned out to be a journalistic dud. The angry white man is you.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 24
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Freedom Jackson only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Freedom Jackson is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Although challenged to do so, Kirchick has never been able to point to one racist remark to exit Dr. Paul's mouth. It never occurs to petty people like Kirchick and Dondero that if Dr. Paul was willing to put racist remarks in writing he would have certainly been willing to verbalize them! Dumb **&*s.
I`m glad to see someone else debunking Jamie Kirchick. The lad has issued quite a lot of misstatements around this issue, and it`s more than one person can do to keep up. I`ve been doing my own small part around this recently. Just yesterday I posted an updated `Newsletters`` FAQ here on Nolan Chart, which might interest you and your readers. http://www.nolanchart.com/article2435.html
You`re right that the statement Kirchick attributes to Ron Paul, “Paul averred that he had no idea who was involved in the newsletters,`` is inaccurate. I don't think that's just laziness (though obviously the lad was too lazy to factcheck the quote); it sounds like Jamie is deliberately constructing a strawman (as Paul had to have known *some* of the people involved). So I think it`s fair to call him a bald-faced liar in return.
Unfortunately, your correction - ``He did not say he had no idea who was "involved in" the newsletters. He said he had no idea who "wrote" the newsletters.`` - doesn`t quite set the record straight. Additionally, it could be misused to construct a different strawman: that Paul didn`t know who wrote any of the newsletter articles.
Here (from the FAQ) is the actual `no idea`quote, as reported by CNN: 5.7 "Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has 'no idea' who did." (1)
That`s far more reasonable. Paul isn`t denying that he has any idea who any of the newsletter authors were, but only that he has any idea who wrote the ``offensive articles`` that Wolf Blitzer had just quoted to him.
When Ron Paul's been asked who the writer is, he's replied (1) he doesn't know; a lot of people wrote for the newsletter in the 4 year period in question; and (2) it's not important, as he takes moral responsibility. As I see it, he means by the second that the buck stops with him; he's the person who let his name be used that way. Identifying someone else would be trying to pass off the responsibility to them.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
