Richard Spencer

September 03, 2008

Whereas little Jamie Kirchick?s smearing of Ron Paul as an ?Angry White Man? was obnoxious, the latest defamation attempt against the Texas congressman, this one found in yesterday?s Washington Post, was downright stupid. Just as The New Republic chose the day of the New Hampshire primary to publish its attack, the Post came out with its story on the opening of Ron Paul?s ?Rally for the Republic? convention.

The shocking revelation is?brace yourself?that Ron Paul didn?t write the campaign book that bears his name.

Yawn?  Richard Nixon actually did pen Six Crises and the ever prolific Pat Buchanan drafted all of his books; however, I wonder if there are any other presidential candidate who didn?t hire ghosts for their big campaign bestsellers (?). For some reason, I have difficultly imaging Dubya spending long hours in his study struggling to find that mot juste for his semi-autobiographical inspirational treatise, A Charge to Keep. I also have difficulty imagining the Post reporting on how the Kennedy legacy is tainted because when Jack accepted his Pulitzer for Profiles in Courage, he forgot to mention that Ted Sorensen wrote every word.

If it?s true that Paul hired Tom Woods to compose The Revolution, the only thing that proves is that the congressman has great taste. 

Over at TAC, Daniel McCarthy looks at the important question of Who and Whom.

[T]he story is this: somebody who had access to a manuscript gave it to the Washington Post and removed their name from it. He or she gave it to the Post at a time calculated to damage Ron Paul and the Rally for the Republic.

The ?deep throat? of this non-scandal must have been a higher-up in the campaign and someone who desired to harm Paul and/or Woods on their big day. We should probably just let the whole thing die; however, I?m still curious to learn who this stupid Machiavel or disgruntled Paul operative might be.