1. Paul the elder didn’t, and said so in many interviews as people tried “gotcha” questions all along this vein. He repeatedly said that not only did he not believe the government was behind it–he didn’t even believe the government was capable of pulling off such a thing. He does believe the government made some effort to cover up it’s own intel failures, which may have happened on some small level. Just one link I found in no time flat:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html

2. “…the people of the United States…”? Just wow.

Arguing that elements of government foreign policy and specific government actions (such as our role in re-instating despotism in Iran, or playing both sides in the Iraq-Iran war, etc) had an impact on escalating tension with certain countries and communities seems like common-sense to me. We should freely critique elements of our domestic policy AND our foreign policy. Twisting ‘blowback’ to say Paul was blaming “the people of the United States”, and to lump him in with bin Laden, is maliciously perverting his argument. I realize that most here strenuously disagree with Rep. Paul on foreign policy, and I don’t completely agree with him myself. That doesn’t mean any and all distortions should be allowed.

3. I vaguely remember when Moe was making this point after one of the debates, and I vaguely remember doing some quite research and passing it off as more distortion by a few people who absolutely hate his foreign policy. I’m fairly certain Paul didn’t intend any of the meanings you put on his words, but my computer time has a 30 minute limit so I’m not going to go back and find that argument that was being made against him.

4. “Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals.” ~ Ron Paul

“The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence — not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.”

Rep. Paul has repeatedly said that he not only disagrees with white supremacists, but that his libertarian philosophies are diametrically opposed to racism in general. You can go up and down his life and career, and you will find that to be true. Yes, he never should have sold his name to those newsletters…and yes, he deserved to pay a political price for that, which he did in ’96 and in ’08. And yes, I’m fairly sure he was deeply troubled that ever happened.

5. A valid question, even considering Paul’s leadership on Audit the Fed legislation (S 604 and HR 1207). The Fed issue has long been one of his major causes, and he deserves some points for making something happen on that. But honestly this was one of the best arguments against Paul in 08 that I heard, and elder Paul has admitted that Randal will probably make a better legislative leader due to being more open-minded to the give-and-take of such things. Bottom line: I, too, would demand far more from Randal in terms of legislative leadership and victories.

6. Rand has said that the national debt and other fiscal policy matters will be his first passion, with health care (he, too, is a doctor) and such issues also getting focused attention. He has glaringly refused to demand and end to the Fed, when asked. He will only go so far as to support opening the Fed to more accountability and visibility, especially with regard to supporting our national spending habits via currency manipulation (which is about as far as I go).

Summary: all these issues were hashed out during the 08 campaign. While some might disagree with me on some of the above, laying this at the feet of his son (especially when most of it was put to bed already) seems a bit much. Of all the questions I want answered by Rand (or any Senate candidate), white supremacy and Vietnam definitely don’t make the cut. Some of the others, maybe–and he has already addressed most of them. Which leads me to MY question: if Rand is to the right of Greyson (who famously supported Bill Clinton), and if Rand is not nearly as focused on legal tender issues as his father, and if Rand lines up closer to Redstate on foreign policy then Ron does (which, from what I have researched, is the case)……doesn’t he have the potential to be a very solid candidate worthy of support? Can’t a few steps be taken to bring libertarians a little closer in the tent?

Look at his positions: the bailouts, health care, abortion, spending, national debt, taxes (he started and helps run a KY taxpayers group), 2nd amendment, Fed transparency (supporting the debt via currency inflation,etc), immigration, lobbyists vs. the will of the people, reading legislation and honest representation. Several of these issues, including health care (he has held forums already), taxes, and the national debt, he has already been leading on.

My computer time is past up, but this is already long enough! I just wanted to put a voice of support in there, and touch on some of the questions raised.