American Thinker's New Smear about Racist Ron Paul

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Since some here (metta, Gary C) have been posting articles from the internet blog, American Thinker, I thought it might behoove them to read what else these yahoos have written about other candidates they don't like either.

Thomas Lifson, editor at AmericanThinker.com recently published a new piece in a series of smears about Ron Paul's connections to racist groups. Although it does not claim that the latest evidence is the best evidence yet, it specifically eschews past critics' concerns over the American Thinker's previous hysteria by alluding that they have finally obtained…well, the best evidence yet.

Lifson cited an article by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs, which cited a post by Bill White, a Commander of the American National Socialist Worker's Party and a white supremacist. White claimed that Ron Paul had been at some dinners that were originally organized by Pat Buchanan, where several members of white supremacist groups attended. That's pretty much the long and the short of the alleged facts. Oh…they also met on Wednesdays.

The only provocative part of the post was the tone. White claims that he is exposing Ron Paul's "extensive involvement in white nationalism". White also states that he is upset that Ron Paul denies any affiliation with white supremacist groups. He says that Ron Paul is a white supremacist of the "Stormfront-type". Finally, White claims that the Ron Paul Campaign is being ridiculous by calling "white racialism" a small ideology.

Given Thomas Lifson's excitement over the "extensive involvement" issue, one might expect to see more damning facts. Instead, Lifson claimed that Charles Johnson had assembled all the links to the corroborating evidence. I went to Little Green Footballs to find out this supposed dirt on Paul. The first sentence of Johnson's page reads "Take this one with a grain of salt, please". I will be charitable and assume Lifson missed that statement.

Johnson's "corroborating evidence" included an expenditure at the Thai restaurant and two links to websites. One of the websites claimed that Paul gave a speech to the Robert Taft club, a club organized by Pat Buchanan and dedicated to oversight of the Republican Party to ensure adherence to libertarian-conservative values. The website called the Robert Taft club an "extremist group" because it is headed by a man with "racist connections", whatever that means.

The other website was the white supremacist forum where Bill White made his claim. The forum was rather interesting. Amazingly, none of the comments from other white supremacists supported White nor did they allude to any similar knowledge of Paul's "extensive" ties. Almost all of them chastised White for being generally obnoxious. Many claimed that they had seen White in various forums and consider him to be chronically attention-hungry. Perhaps the most inetresting point came from a comment which insisted self-respecting white supremacists don't go to Thai restaurants. I never would have guessed that white supremacy could be so nuanced. (I did not link the forum, because it can be a little shocking in other respects).

This is what it all the corroborating evidence boils down to: 1) White claims that he has been in the same room as Paul at undescribed dinners organized by Pat Buchanan. 2) Those were likely Robert Taft Club meetings. 3) Paul paid for his own dinner. 4) White, an observed attention-mongerer, wants this to be significant without citing anything significant. But here is another wrench in Lifson's gears: Don Black, the leader of Stormfront (the group Ron Paul is supposedly a member of), has recently admitted that while he endorses Paul's campaign, he has never met Paul and he regrets that Paul does not share his white supremacist views.

So which white supremacist is lying? The American Thinker position would have to be that Don Black is lying about the disconnect between himself and Paul and that the two have engaged in a massive conspiracy to defraud the public into believing Paul doesn't care for Don Black, Bill White, or white supremacy in general. Second, Lifson would have to maintain that, while Black took the all the precautions to maintain Paul's secrecy, he forgot to not endorse Paul. Finally, Lifson would have to hold that Paul has spent the last 20 years in Congress reigning in all of his white supremacist furor, while faking the most libertarian platform in GOP memory, on the off-chance that he may someday become president, whence he can unleash his true socialist white supremacist agenda.

Of course, the more reasonable position is that Bill White is a social pariah in the white supremacy movement who is trying to capitalize on Paul's fame, that Don Black simply endorsed the 'small government' candidate as white supremacists usually do, and that American Thinker, despite its name, wants Paul to be a racist a little too much.

So here is my take on Charles Johnson and Thomas Lifson: Johnson doesn't get a complete pass just because he warned readers to take it with a grain of salt. He made an obnoxiously-attenuated connection with no real evidence. I am sure he has been in this game long enough to know that anyone who hates Paul as much as the staff of American Thinker would completely ignore the warning. The "ooohs" and "ahhhs" of his comment section are a testament to the value of hype over substance and Johnson ought to know about that factor.

Thomas Lifson and American Thinker do not get a shred of respect for this. This is the latest episode in American Thinker's larger campaign to smear Paul with weak and attenuated claims. The fact that he thinks this one will finally silence the critics and the "abusive" Ron Paul supporters (whine), just shows how weak his previous claims were. It is an indictment on the quality of American Thinker as a publication and an indictment on Thomas Lifson's seething bias. It stems from a broader attitude of dismissal about Ron Paul and his supporters: an attitude which Lifson would surely like to preserve. However, I cannot intelligently predict how the ends could justify Lifson turning himself into a conspiracy theorist.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article607.html

....

American Thinker blog is garbage. It's like posting articles from the National Inquirer.

[GaryC 7]

American Thinker blog is garbage. It's like posting articles from the National Inquirer.

The same can be said for your posts from carpetbagger and huffington post. Both left wing rags not worthy of notice.

Edited February 23, 2008 by GaryC

[one...two...tree 2,762]

American Thinker blog is garbage. It's like posting articles from the National Inquirer.

The same can be said for your posts from carpetbagger and huffington post. Both left wing rags not worthy of notice.

Gary, like I've said before - it's not so much their political leanings, but their yellow journalism. You don't write a piece about a candidate and allege they are a racist without having legitimate sources and solid evidence. American Thinker didn't have either. I read often right leaning publication and blogs. Hopefully, all of us can tell the difference in quality journalism between an article written by the National Enquirer and Time magazine.

[GaryC 7]

American Thinker blog is garbage. It's like posting articles from the National Inquirer.

The same can be said for your posts from carpetbagger and huffington post. Both left wing rags not worthy of notice.

Gary, like I've said before - it's not so much their political leanings, but their yellow journalism. You don't write a piece about a candidate and allege they are a racist without having legitimate sources and solid evidence. American Thinker didn't have either. I read often right leaning publication and blogs. Hopefully, all of us can tell the difference in quality journalism between an article written by the National Enquirer and Time magazine.

Some of the stuff you post most assuredly counts as yellow journalism. The huffington post and carpetbagger are the other side of the coin Steven.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

American Thinker blog is garbage. It's like posting articles from the National Inquirer.

The same can be said for your posts from carpetbagger and huffington post. Both left wing rags not worthy of notice.

Gary, like I've said before - it's not so much their political leanings, but their yellow journalism. You don't write a piece about a candidate and allege they are a racist without having legitimate sources and solid evidence. American Thinker didn't have either. I read often right leaning publication and blogs. Hopefully, all of us can tell the difference in quality journalism between an article written by the National Enquirer and Time magazine.

Some of the stuff you post most assuredly counts as yellow journalism. The huffington post and carpetbagger are the other side of the coin Steven.

Every journalist is capable of overstepping the lines of responsible journalism. However, everything that I've posted from those two sources, I believed was responsible journalism. An example, IMO, of yellow journalism was the NYT's article on McCain's relationship with a lobbyist. That was wrong and I'll call it when I see it, no matter where it comes from.

[GaryC 7]

American Thinker blog is garbage. It's like posting articles from the National Inquirer.

The same can be said for your posts from carpetbagger and huffington post. Both left wing rags not worthy of notice.

Gary, like I've said before - it's not so much their political leanings, but their yellow journalism. You don't write a piece about a candidate and allege they are a racist without having legitimate sources and solid evidence. American Thinker didn't have either. I read often right leaning publication and blogs. Hopefully, all of us can tell the difference in quality journalism between an article written by the National Enquirer and Time magazine.

Some of the stuff you post most assuredly counts as yellow journalism. The huffington post and carpetbagger are the other side of the coin Steven.

Every journalist is capable of overstepping the lines of responsible journalism. However, everything that I've posted from those two sources, I believed was responsible journalism. An example, IMO, of yellow journalism was the NYT's article on McCain's relationship with a lobbyist. That was wrong and I'll call it when I see it, no matter where it comes from.

What is "responsible journalism" to you is yellow journalism to me and visa-versa. Most of what you post from those sources is extremely slanted and is "yellow" IMO. You just don't see it that way because of your POV.

[Dan J 277]

American Thinker blog is garbage. It's like posting articles from the National Inquirer.

The same can be said for your posts from carpetbagger and huffington post. Both left wing rags not worthy of notice.

Gary, like I've said before - it's not so much their political leanings, but their yellow journalism. You don't write a piece about a candidate and allege they are a racist without having legitimate sources and solid evidence. American Thinker didn't have either. I read often right leaning publication and blogs. Hopefully, all of us can tell the difference in quality journalism between an article written by the National Enquirer and Time magazine.

Some of the stuff you post most assuredly counts as yellow journalism. The huffington post and carpetbagger are the other side of the coin Steven.

Every journalist is capable of overstepping the lines of responsible journalism. However, everything that I've posted from those two sources, I believed was responsible journalism. An example, IMO, of yellow journalism was the NYT's article on McCain's relationship with a lobbyist. That was wrong and I'll call it when I see it, no matter where it comes from.

I think a lot of people may have taken the wrong thing out of the NYTimes article. People mostly focused on the supposed affair, which even the article says may not have existed.

He triumphs ethics in politics, its part of his mission and image. However, by having such a close relationship with a lobbyist, does he think he is above corruption? After all he is only human.