Paul Ghostwriting Controversy, Current

OK cr*p, let's get this out in the open... Here is a WP story that does its best to cast Ron Paul and my personal friend Tom Woods as liars. My quick reactions:

(1) I have no problem with ghostwriting. I have ghostwritten things for people and I don't think it is dishonest, generally speaking. I'm sure you could come up with scenarios (like writing somebody's term paper), but especially if you are drawing on a public person's previously promulgated policies (holy alliteration!!), and then let the person read over what you've done before it goes out the door, I think you're going to have a hard time drawing any meaningful line in the sand. Nobody objects to politicians using speechwriters, right? The only thing I could see being a problem, is if the listeners / readers didn't realize the process and would be disheartened to learn the truth. Then, the ghostwriter might be running into moral issues. But from Tom's description, that doesn't seem to be what happened here.

(2) I do think it's counterproductive for Ron Paul to say that they aren't protesting the RNC. I think they should either have said that's what they're doing, or scheduled it for a different week. On the other hand, maybe they did it this way to gain access to all the bored reporters who might migrate away from the hurricane fund raisers down the street. (I.e. maybe they really did want to make it a different week to not look like jerks--just like Paul didn't run on the LP ticket--but they decided they couldn't pass up the huge press access by hosting it nearby.)

(3) Is Woods implying that he worked on Hillary Clinton's book? If so, then I have problems. Not with her, but with him.

Comments

  1. Anonymous8:12 AM

    Bob,

    1.It would be ridiculous to think the book as not being Ron Paul's thoughts and beliefs. Can you imagine Paul's reaction if Woods sent a manuscript to Paul with Chapters titled, Why We Need A Progressive Minimum Wage, or Why We Need To Tax the Rich For A More Equal America?

    2. Can you find out from Woods how many copies of the manuscript he sent out? I'm just curious as to how close to Woods might the person be who leaked to the Post. Obviously, if he sent out, say, only five copies, then he needs to re-check his friends.

    If he sent out 20 copies, it is a bit more understandable how a troublemaker may be in the pack.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well, no, I can't say I'm going to ask Woods that, because I wouldn't post the response in a public forum. But yeah I wondered how the WP got that letter, too.

    But the whole thing is ridiculous, by which I mean the WP headline. There is so much to cover. I'm not even saying it's a poor reflection of the WP staff; maybe they correctly thought, "More readers will be interested in another ghostwriting flare-up than excerpts from people railing against Bush's spying and torture!"

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous9:54 AM

    It's sounds like a hit job to me.

    I can understand WaPo (Given their being part of the establishment), but the leak is real surprising.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness