PG asked: CC, as a Virginian you should know better than to think it's totally wild that a prominent politician would meet with white supremacists. That said, I agree that the NYTimes made a huge mistake here, and one that they made only because Paul is a fairly marginal candidate -- this sort of thing would not happen with any of the top 8 or so candidates.
Meet with white Supremacists once or twice? Sure. It's stupid given that White Supremacists at this point pretty much have negative political influence*, but people do it.
That said, there's a difference between meeting once or twice and "Both Congressman Paul and his aides regularly meet with members of the Stormfront set, American Renaissance, the Institute for Historic Review, and others at the Tara Thai restaurant in Arlington, Virginia, usually on Wednesdays"
Meeting a few times is believeable. What I don't get is why people reading the story about him meeting REGULARLY with white supremacists while RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT don't find it fishy.
You really don't think the press would catch on to that? Really?
Also, I don't get why people keep talking about the evolution debate and abstinance-only sex ed, in both cases assuming that Paul plans to impose his views on both when he's been pretty straightforward in saying that the Federal Government has no business doing so.
If these are examples of the reality-based critical thinking I keep hearing about, color me unimpressed.
But don't worry, even though Paul is beating Giuliani and tied with Fred Thompson in Iowa. Fox News isn't going to let him debate the other Republican candidates in their New Hampshire debate.
So the liberals are lying about him and the conservatives are keeping him out of the debate.
If this man is so awful, why is everyone so afraid to hear him talk?
who is, again, a Richardson supporter.
*When addressing my concerns about the fact that the New York Times had corrected the story before she was even spreading it, the lady who wrote the blog post I was sent said:
Of course I'll admit Bill White was probably lying through his teeth. In fact, I admitted it right there in the piece. Remember that bit about how "Bill White is hardly the most reliable reporter on any subject"? That's a nice way of saying he's probably lying.
Which, as others have pointed out, is beside the point anyway. The point, of course, was that the white nationalist crowd recognizes Paul as one of their own -- and, as I've noted here quite recently, there are times when we do well to take right-wingers at their word on stuff like this.
So, yeah, the sheer fact that the Nazi likes him discounts him completely.