I did not know that James Kirchick (Assistant Editor of The New Republic) pulled this crap on Ron Paul in New Hampshire. James just totally devastated any sort of credibility he once may have had. And for The New Republic to print it is totally unprofessional. This kind of stuff is why you The People must be informed and not be swayed by scum such as James. Incredible!

The following is from dissidentvoice.org dated 1/8 by Joshua Frank entitled, “The End of Ron Paul?” {and of course the answer is ‘HELL NO!’}:

Well, it was fun while it lasted. Ron Paul’s movement was gaining steam. Supporters chased the disgusting Sean Hannity back to his hotel. Fox News was feeling the heat from their exclusion of Paul from their New Hampshire debates. He was polling in double digits in key primary states. Leno had him on as a guest. Twice. He had the money to make an impact. It looked like Paul, if he were to break with the Republicans and run as an independent after the primaries, could actually force the big party candidates to address the death zone of Iraq and our loss of civil liberties back home.

Enter James Kirchick of The New Republic.

Wouldn't your mother be proud of you now James?On the day of the nation’s first primary, Kirchick ran a piece detailing some of the more outlandish material that appeared in publications Paul endorsed during the 1970s to the 1990s. Much of the rhetoric was vitriol, homophobic and overtly racist, demonizing Martin Luther King and other civil rights heroes. And while Kirchick admits he can’t prove Paul actually wrote any of the words he quoted, as there were no by-lines, the Texas congressman’s name most certainly appeared on the cover.

As one passage read:

In 1990, one newsletter mentioned a reporter from a gay magazine ‘who certainly had an axe to grind, and that’s not easy with a limp wrist.’ In an item titled ‘The Pink House?’ the author of a newsletter—again, presumably Paul—complained about President George H.W. Bush’s decision to sign a hate crimes bill and invite ‘the heads of homosexual lobbying groups to the White House for the ceremony,’ adding, ‘I miss the closet.’

This doesn’t read like any of Paul’s writings I’ve perused, and I don’t actually think he wrote this crap, but the fallout, nonetheless, could be devastating. Not only to his presidential campaign, but to his political career more generally.

Sadly, Paul’s campaign did not give what I believed to be a very convincing response, “The quotations in The New Republic,” Paul says, “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.”

While I don’t believe Paul endorses such hate, I think in order to potentially save his campaign he must come forward with the names of the actual authors and editors of the material, proving they are no longer associated with him in any way, and hope the mainstream press buys it.

Kirchick most certainly has an agenda, admitting to a pro-Paul gay rights blogger named Berin that he “doesn’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up.” Even with Kirchick’s attempt to smear Paul as an anti-Semite for his criticisms of Israel, much of Kirchick’s flailing dung may actually stick to Paul’s reputation, deeming him even more fringe than the media already think he is.

Indeed this may be just the excuse the neo-cons and their pro-war liberal cohorts need in order to further isolate the anti-imperialist ideas Paul espouses. Many on the Left too will happily etch Paul in their memory as a whacko-racist, who didn’t even have the tact to oversee what was being printed in his name. While I may agree with the latter, I still feel sympathy for all of his supporters as well as his efforts to end the war in Iraq.

Does this really mean an end to his campaign? If he doesn’t come forward with a detailed rebuttal, naming names, showing exactly how he wasn’t involved and how he never profited from any of the newsletters quoted, it may just be.

Joshua, I hate to break it to you but Dr. Paul has already denied involvement with The New Republic article:

ARLINGTON, Va.–(Business Wire)–In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul
issued the following statement:

“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
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name.”

Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115

Also note that these allegations have been out there for years on Ron Paul’s Wikipedia page and rebutted before. James Kirchick is truly an idiot.

Note also that Dan Alba posted a comment to Frank’s article in which he brought to our attention the following:

Berin M. Szoka, of Gays and Lesbians for Ron Paul, posts a recent e-mail response from Jamie Kerchick, where Kerchick confesses:

Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch!

Thomas DiLorenzo — one of many intellectuals whom Kirchick referred to last night as “neo-confederate” — debunks Kirchick’s smear:

[Jamie Kirchick] asserts over and over that Ron Paul is a “racist.” When Carlson asks him if he ever heard Ron make a racist remark he says “No.” But then, with a Gotcha! look on his face, [Kirchick] announces: “BUT,” he DID attend a conference on secession in 1995!! Aha! Gotcha!

This ignorant little kid posing as a “journalist” then informed everyone that the conference was sponsored by a “neo-Confederate” group and that Ron Paul speaks to “the neo-Confederate community,” whatever that is, “in code language. (I knew that Ron was in touch with the Martian community, and with the residents of the planet Remulak, home of the supposedly “fictional” Coneheads of Saturday Night Live fame, but not the “Neo-Confederate Community” as well).

Well, I was at that secession conference and presented a paper there. It was sponsored by the Mises Institute, which has nothing to do with Confederates, neo or otherwise, as anyone who surveyed the Institute’s programs on its web site (www.mises.org) would know. [Kirchick] did not bother because he is only interested in slandering Ron Paul, not in being a serious journalist.

Another suchly maligned intellectual, Lew Rockwell, writes of The New Republic’s dubious distinctions:

TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication’s style–hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.

To redpills.org home page.
Thank you Donna Coe for bringing this article to my attention. This article is copyright © 2007, by Gary Shumway. Permission is hereby granted to reproduce and distribute it electronically and in print, other than as part of a book and provided that mention of the author’s web site www.redpills.org is included. (Email notification is requested.) All other rights reserved. Gary Shumway is the author of Winging Through America and SCUBA Scoop.