Ron Paul Campaign: One Contribution Does Not A Neo-Nazi Make

by Mondoreb

Evidence that the Ron Paul campaign received a donation from a Neo-Nazi White Supremacist is reported a bit breathlessly by the Lone Star Times. While it is news, is it the earth-shattering scoop the anti-Paulistas will spin it into?

From the Lone Star Times:

[a] contribution to the Paul campaign by a known white-supremacist has been identified.

The evidence is as follows:

* Black proudly and openly identifies himself as Stormfront’s guiding hand, and publishes a contact address on the Internet– PO Box 6637, West Palm Beach, FL, 33405
* A search by LST of public databases indicates that there is only one “Don Black” residing in West Palm Beach, Florida, zip code 33405
* A 7/16/01 USA Today article identifies Black’s wife as being named “Chloe”
* That same article identifies Chloe as being the ex-wife of close Black associate and former “Grand Wizard” of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke
* Minutes of a 9/7/07 City of West Palm Beach code-compliance hearing identify “Chloe H. Duke” as owning a residential property located at 203 Lakeland Drive
* According to Federal Election Commission records, on 9/30/07 the Ron Paul presidential campaign received a $500 contribution from a Mr. Don Black, who lists his address as 203 Lakeland Drive and identifies his occupation as “self-employed/website manager”

In light of these facts, we believe our previously asked questions continue to have merit.

One sympathizes with anyone in the news business: in this age of instantaneous communication, any news is old news in a matter of minutes. Any digging up of facts not previously known is an achievement.

Opponents have tried to attach the pro-Nazi label to the Paul campaign for some time now. Paul should be held to no higher or lower standard than other candidates: they have all had donations from groups or individuals who espouse a variety of disagreeable views. That's America: one's free to donate to whomever one wishes.

A disinterested observer will conclude that any campaign receives hundreds of contributions and it's hard to scrutinize each one. This especially applies to the Ron Paul campaign, with its thousands of small donation supporters. The campaign should be given some time to address the issue before trying to tar them with the "Nazi Supporter" brush.



DBKP.com - Bigger, Better!.
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.

Rockefeller, Verizon, Telco Cash, Greenwald, Wired & Immunity: Newly Flush with Innuendo

[image:Huntington News]
by Mondoreb

This is rich. Wired's Threat Level is trying to beat a few facts into a creamy froth. Here's the few facts, complete with an official graph:

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) is reportedly steering the secretive Senate Intelligence Committee to give retroactive immunity to telecoms that helped the government secretly spy on Americans.

He has also recently benefited from some interesting political contributions.
Top Verizon executives, including CEO Ivan Seidenberg and President Dennis Strigl, wrote personal checks to Rockefeller totaling $23,500 in March, 2007. Prior to that apparently coordinated flurry of 29 donations, only one of those executives had ever donated to Rockefeller (at least while working for Verizon).

Well, okay, there's some froth there too. But to see some furious froth-beating at work, you have to go to Glenn Greenwald attacking a more reasoned view of Michael Goldfarb in the Weekly Standard:

UPDATE: Wired's Ryan Singel provides an excellent analysis of the tidal wave of cash from telecoms that has suddenly poured into Jay Rockefeller's coffers over the last year. At exactly the time when telecoms need amnesty from Jay Rockefeller, unusually large amounts of cash flow from telecoms to Rockefeller, and lawbreaking amnesty then flows back from Rockefeller to the cash-providing telecoms. While there may be theoretical deniability as to causation, it is just factually true that this is what happened.

My, my. Rockefeller better spend some of that money on water wings because there's a "tidal wave of cash" coming at him. Wired is implying and Greenwald is amplifying that Rockefeller is on the take.

Rockefeller (you've heard that name before somewhere?) is worth millions and millions and millions and...well, you get the idea. But Greenwald wants you to believe that some campaign contributions which amount to nothing in the Rockefeller wealth scheme of things is sinister. It is sinister: it's a view contrary to what Glenn Greenwald believes. That's what makes it so sinister. Greenwald doesn't have a neat graph, like Wired, but he throws around words like "deniability" to set the right mood.

It's not often that one is placed into the position of defending Rockefeller, my home state senator, but Wired and Greenwald's not-so-careful casting of aspersions has accomplished that trick. Having never voted for Rockefeller, I'm now forced to defend him from a--smear? One is loathe to utter the word that comes so easily to liberal lips. It's not a smear; more of a "snear".

That Rockefeller has more to consider than some chump change campaign contributions he may not be aware of seems not to have occurred to Wired or Greenwald. National security concerns? No way--"Tool of Verizon" is the cry here. Rockefeller may be many things, but Verizon's stooge isn't one of them.

Think for just a bit about Rockefeller's wealth and then what is not-so-subtly being implied. As mentioned before, it's a rich creamy froth.

Back to Front Page.

Goldfarb, Weekly Standard Take A Look : The Myth of 'Whom the Troops Support'

by Mondoreb

The fantasy of the analysis of the Houston Chronicle's story about military campaign contributions and any connection to reality took another hit when Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard entered the fray. DBKP took a hard look at the research and analysis of this piece yesterday. We're now not alone.

From the Weekly Standard:

Does Andrew Sullivan read stories before he comments on them? In this case, I suspect he didn't, otherwise he's engaging in pure military-related fantasy. In response to this article from the Houston Chronicle reporting that Ron Paul and Barack Obama lead all candidates in fund raising among "donors identified as affiliated with the military," Sullivan headlines a post "Whom the Troops Support," with this stunningly self-indulgent conclusion (actually this is the whole post):

Sullivan is an excellent example of the uncritical reader. We now take a break for Andrew Sullivan's erroneous conclusion. From the Atlantic.com:

Just one indicator, of course: campaign donations from active service military members. And guess who's first? Ron Paul. Second? Barack Obama. Those tasked to actually fighting this war get it, don't they?

Back to Goldfarb:

Except this isn't about campaign donations from "active service military members," whatever they might be, but "donors affiliated with the military," which Sullivan might have noticed had he slogged through the whole first sentence of the story. In fact, the first "active service military member" and Ron Paul supporter interviewed for the piece is 72-year-old Lindell Anderson, a retired Army chaplain from Fort Worth. Further, the Chron notes that the average size of Paul's donations from this subset was $500. How many active duty soldiers are giving $500 to fringe candidates a year out from the election? Not many, I suspect. In fact, among all the candidates, the total number of contributors surveyed here numbered less than 1,000--out of an Armed Forces of 2.2 million. And, remember, most of these contributors aren't even active duty.

No one is saying there aren't any troops supporting Ron Paul or Barack Obama or Cindy Sheehan or whoever. But once again, another story about the story. This story isn't about how U.S. troops are rushing to empty their pockets into the Paul (and Obama) campaign coffers. It's about how a few people can chop data to their liking and how others in the media leap without looking first looking both ways onto the conclusion bandwagon.

It won't be the last time this happens. It won't be the last time DBKP point's it out. But it's always good to have company.
Back to Front Page.