We would like to correct some false and misleading material in your commentary on Ron Paul and the recent FEMA related attacks made on him.
1) In an attempt to illustrate the ridiculousness of Paul’s anti-FEMA position, you write that the Galveston Sea Wall was built (and repaired after Ike) with Federal dollars. While the sea wall was repaired with Federal assistance in 2008, the original Galveston Sea Wall was funded through tax abatement and the sale of bonds issued by Galveston County. (http://www.texasalmanac.com/topics/history/galvestons-response-hurricane-1900)
2) You imply that 6,000 people were killed in the 1900 Galveston hurricane because FEMA didn’t exist then. Actually, the reasons it caused so many deaths were: 1) “The Weather Bureau forecasters had no way of knowing where the storm was or where it was going. At the time, they discouraged the use of terms such as tornado or hurricane to avoid panicking residents in the path of any storm event…[Therefore] few people evacuated across Galveston’s bridges to the mainland, and the majority of the population was unconcerned by the rain clouds that had begun rolling in by midmorning;” 2) It was a category 4 hurricane with estimated winds of 145 MPH, which even today would likely result in a huge number of deaths; and 3) Many houses were weaker in 1900, and not built strong enough to withstand such high winds. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1900_Galveston_hurricane)
3) You report Connecticut Governor Malloy as saying that Paul’s state of Texas has benefited more from FEMA disaster relief than any other state, implying that Paul is hypocritical in his stance against FEMA. Firstly, Paul is not the Governor of Texas, so any comment relating to Federal funds secured outside his district is irrelevant. Secondly, Paul’s stance on requesting Federal money for his district is based on the very logical argument that since the Federal Government is taking considerable tax money from his constituents, he should ask for Federal money returned back to them.
4) You call Ron Paul the “Suck it, hurricane victims” candidate. You place that remark in quotes I suppose so that you can deny culpability in the slander. However, you attach no citation to the comment. Instead, you deliver it like a commonly accepted statement of fact. It really is beyond the pale to suggest that Ron Paul, a medical doctor, doesn’t care about the health and well-being of hurricane victims. Ron Paul’s belief that State and local governments can do a better job taking care of people than Federal bureaucrats is a serious issue worthy of equally serious debate, not slanderous commentary that impugns the character of the candidate.
You told Huffington Post readers to enjoy the “filleting” of Ron Paul—when your “filleting” ultimately is a factually challenged hit piece. We realize that you dislike Dr. Paul. However, we also assume that you consider yourselves to be serious and objective journalists. Is it too much to ask then that you don’t mislead readers and slander Ron Paul when covering him? We kindly ask that you correct the mistakes and false implications in your article, as well as issue an apology to Ron Paul.
For arguments on why Democrats and liberal progressives should support Ron Paul, please read our articles Why Democrats Should Register Republican & Vote Ron Paul and The Corporate Trolls Vs. Chris Hedges & Ron Paul.