Those Newsletters

For what it's worth, I believe Ron Paul when he says he didn't write those newsletters. I've been active in libertarian circles for many years now, and I can remember hearing occasionally that someone or another had a gig ghostwriting for Ron Paul. This was after the newsletters in question had appeared, but I assume the congressman had made such arrangements in the past as well. The race- and gay-baiting quotes in the New Republic piece -- and, even more so, the documents' general gestalt of an impending apocalypse -- sound like the sort of material that often appeared in far-right direct-mail packages in that era. My suspicion is that someone who wrote such packages also picked up a job writing the Ron Paul Survival Report.

I'm glad that Paul has repudiated the racist and anti-gay comments that appeared in the Report. But the issue he still has to address, and which his official response only dances around, is what exactly his relationship to that publication was. If Paul didn't write those articles, who did? If he didn't know what had appeared in his newsletter, when did he find out and how did he deal with it? If the candidate is vague on these points, it will only fuel suspicions that he held those beliefs after all (or that he was willing to stay silent despite his disagreements because the newsletters brought in some cash).

The story isn't going to go away on its own. By releasing its article the day of the New Hampshire primary, The New Republic pretty much guaranteed that if Paul does well at the polls today any reports about his success will include this much-less-flattering information as well. Transparency, please.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    "Old News" is the hoariest, weakest non-denial denial in the political lexicon.

    Ari, new information has surfaces indicated even more White House invovlement in the Plame outing than was previously known...

    Yawn, sigh. Look, this story is old news, and I'm not going to talk any more about it.

    But...

    Old news.

    But...

    Old news.

  • ||

    Somebody who writes "The LA riots only stopped because it was time to pick up the welfare checks" doesn't work in an environment full of political debate without giving off whiff. You might not know whether the guy in the next cubicle at Stanley Morgan is a racist, but you can get a pretty good idea of what somebody writing for a political publication thinks about politics.

    Ron Paul didn't edit it, fine. He didn't read it, fine. Somebody editted it. Somebody wrote it. Somebody read it. There must have been several people involved in the publication of this repugnant shit, and none of them thought it inappropriate enough to get rid of the writer after he did it the first or second time? That tells me that everyone involved in the publication of the Ron Paul Political/Survival Report was, at a minimum, ok with those sentiments.

    It's pretty damn tough out there for white supremacists and neo-nazis. They've learned to be pretty good at sniffing out where they are welcome, because they get their asses kicked (figuratively or literally) if they come out in the wrong place, sort of like being gay 30 years ago.

  • drawnasunder||

    Documents from that period would help: him firing the ghost-writer, him threatening to sue the ghostwriter, letters to various people venting about the horrible views mis-attributed to him. You know, the kind of stuff any decent or responsible person would generate in the wake of discovering his name had been misused to spread racist propaganda...

  • Edward||

    "By releasing its article the day of the New Hampshire primary, The New Republic pretty much guaranteed that if Paul does well at the polls today any reports about his success will include this much-less-flattering information as well."

    C'mon, does well? The best he's going to do is fourth or fifth place, probably fifth. Ron Paul is no great threat to anybody, so damaging his great chances can't have been the motivation for running the piece. How about telling the truth as a motivation?

  • ||

    http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=53490

    Hope for America! Ron Paul 2008

  • ||

    Does anybody think "The Bill Clinton Newsletter" would contain this crap, regardless of whether Bill Clinton editted it?

    The John Kerry Survival Report?

    The George Bush Political Report?

    Nobody with such ideas would think they could publish them under their names and apply for the job. If they did, the Clintonites/Kerryites (there are some of us, you know)/Bushites wouldn't let them in the door. If they somehow snuck it, they would be sniffed out before they were allowed to write anything. If they handed such work in to the editors, they would be fired on the spot.

    Corporate culture comes from the top. Even if the CEO doesn't know what you're doing, the Department head or your office manager of your supervisor does, and they became department head or whatever because they were considered acceptable by top management.

  • ||

    joe,

    In 1996, it was discovered that the Ron Paul Survival Report had published some hideous racial slurs during the period 1990-94.

    What was revealed today?

    The Ron Paul Survival Report published some hideous racial slurs during the period 1990-94.

    Sounds like Old News to me. Now, there are some additional hideous slurs to bandy about, but qualitatively nothing has changed, and his 2001 explanation is as believable now as it was then.

  • ||

    The piece was known about for a long long time.

    NH is his best state. If he had even a day to refute it he would have managed to.

    He won reelection to congress in spite of this same smear.

  • ||

    If he was really a racist, there would have been a George Allen YouTube moment by now.

  • ||

    So it's old news to people who've heard it before, crimethink. Whoop-de-fucking-doo.

    It's old news that David Duke's newsletter has racist shit, too. Wanna vote for David Duke?

    He won reelection to congress in spite of this same smear. Gotta love Texas.

  • ||

    I don't believe Paul wrote or approved those articles, either. But he's being less than candid about the whole issue.

    He's going to have to confront this issue, and get the facts out. Which means he's going to have to name names, and explain his relationship with those who published these articles. Simply trying to shove the matter back under the rug is not going to do anything to enhance his credibility.

  • ||

    Paul's handling of this situation raises more questions than it answers. He sounds like Roger Clemens.

  • ||

    That's true, Cesar. Ron Paul, Closet Nazi seems the least likely explanation.

  • ||

    Please Read:
    - http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/08/ron-paul-race-smear-erased/

    - http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct=us/6-0&fp=4783af5f8abb6cca&ei=9faDR5n5A4T8-wHg9oXyDg&url=http%3A//www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377%2b08-Jan-2008%2bBW20080108&cid=0

    - http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

  • John (Michigan)||

    I agree completely with the sentiment of your post. As a local GOP activist with long-held libertarian leanings, I only recently bought into Dr. Paul's campaign--despite a few misgivings. His reputation among non-movement supporters depends on a transparent accounting even if his candidacy is doomed.

  • ||

    Such propaganda. Even the "official" statement being circulated is false. Here is the true official press release from Ron Paul

    http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters

  • VM||

    "He's going to have to confront this issue, and get the facts out"

    exactly! and the "old news" bullshit won't fly - nobody outside of our little circle has heard of him (for example - only his last name was mentioned once, just once, at last Saturday's "Capitol Steps").

    If/as he becomes mainstream, he'll have to rehash this stuff. It's big boy and girl politics.

    This is why what Pig M is saying is so important for RP supporters to understand!

  • ||

    joe,

    You didn't know about the previous stuff? Really?

    Sorry, I just thought everyone here had heard about it and kept on supporting Dr Paul anyway. If you didn't I can understand being upset at him and not supporting him. What I don't understand is people who have already heard of this stuff suddenly dropping support.

  • Edward||

    If nothing else, Ron Paul's newsletters may explain David Duke's enthusiastic support for Paul's candidacy. Maybe Duke was a subscriber.

  • charlie||

    Cesar --

    I made the same point regarding a "YouTube" moment in one of the previous threads. It just seems to me that if Ron Paul really was a racist, as some of these quotes from the newsletter suggest, then there would be at least one clip of him making a bigoted comment -- but there isn't.

    I also find it ironic that this piece was published by Jamie Kirchick, an outspoken hawk who has expressed support for Giuliani, in The New Republic -- the same magazine that publishes Marty Perez, a man well known for his anti-Arab bigotry (see here: http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2007/01/meaning-of-marty-peretz.html)

  • Bingo||

    Edward is joe?

  • ||

    I know it's hard to accept, but all Ron Paul supporters should be very wary of this. None of us know either way how Paul is affiliated with these articles, or whether he personally accepts them or not. To say it's just old news and doesn't matter is ignoring a very important part of who Ron Paul might or might not be.

    If this was about any other candidate, we'd all be wanting more information at the least, and as a group who supports him, we too should want more information. Old news or not, Paul has never fully addressed this, and now that he's getting more and more attention he needs to come completely clean. That's the only way to clear himself (if he can), since racism and homophobia is assumed at the slightest remark, and it takes a lot to get your name cleared.

  • Windypundit||

    The Paul supporters' hysteria about a media smear right before the New Hampshire primary is unnecessary. Nobody mainstream has it on their website. Not CBS, CNN, MSNBC, not even Fox News.

    Ron Paul was barely news before, why would the New Republic piece change that? Especially on a day when Britney was visited by Dr. Phil and and Posh Spice was called Worst Dressed by Mr. Blackwell. (Also, there were killer tornados and a naval confrontation between the U.S. and Iran.)

  • ||

    As everyone knows here that there are hundreds of people using Ron Pauls name. That's what the Free Market is all about. Ron Paul I'm sure didn't know about it. Infact I bet he does not know that there are companies who sell his campaign material with his name on it without his permission. So there are alot of questions you have to ask yourself before ultimately deciding what the truth is. But do yourself a favor and keep an open mind regarding his statement.

  • ||

    I've now read James Kirchick's piece. The gist of the article is already known to persons who have been following the Paul campaign, as excerpts of some of the most asinine and repugnant material in the newsletters has already been widely published.

    As a former subscriber to the newsletter in question - admittedly, not during the entirety of its existence - I can write without fear of contradiction that it was a typical hard-money, right-wing newsletter, with constant predictions of the end of the world as we know it, and the like. It was comparable to many newsletters being published on the right during its day - such as Howard J. Ruff's "The Ruff Times" and Gary "Y2K" North's "Remnant Review." Most of these newsletters were marketed to folks on the fringe who believed in stockpiling food and investing in gold in the face of the inevitable collapse of the United States economy. I subscribed because I liked Paul and appreciated his economic and political views; I found the newsletter itself pretty boring and silly.

    I don't recall reading any of the racist stuff at all. That's not to say that it didn't exist, as some obviously did, but it certainly wasn't the main material presented in the newsletter. In addition - and I will be happily corrected if my recollection is faulty - I thought that, back when this issue was raised in 1996 in Paul's congressional campaign, blogger Lew Rockwell (Paul's former chief of staff) admitted that he was the ghostwriter of the newsletter. Rockwell was also at the helm of another newsletter, one featuring his name, along with that of libertarian gadfly Murray Rothbard - who just happened to be Jewish. (So much for the anti-Semitism argument).

    Those who are jumping on this story - such as the expected glee over at Red State - might not want the "blowback" which is going to accompany it. Red State is owned by Eagle Publishing, which also owns the Conservative Book Club, "Human Events," and Regnery Publishing. To condemn Paul, Kirchick cites the association of Thomas E. Woods, Jr., with the Mises Institute:

    "Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute's senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group, and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, a pro-Confederate, revisionist tract published in 2004."

    It just so happens that the book cited by Kirchick was published by Regnery, owner of Eagle and Red State, and endorsed by no less a neoconservative luminary than Sean Hannity:

    "Written to counterbalance revisionist history texts, Woods' book has turned into a surprise best seller, soaring to #2 on the Amazon.com list after debuting on FOX's Hannity & Colmes last Monday and ranking #14 on The New York Times bestsellers list for non-fiction paperbacks the week of December 26."

    http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=6087

    Will those attacking Paul now aim at Sean Hannity for promoting what Kirchick describes as a "pro-Confederate, revisionist tract"? How about the fact that a writer at Michael Medved's Townhall site also promotes the book to his readers?

    http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/Columnists/Column.aspx?ContentGuid=d313d3c3-057d-4444-89c8-0ce4160bdcbb

    It would seem that those conservatives who are so worried about Paul's alleged racism would do right to shine the bright light of their analysis on some of these folks who are more prominent and therefore likely more influential as well. Unless they really don't give a damn about racism (as I suspect), and it's really about discrediting someone who is a Republican who has the temerity to oppose the Iraq War.

    Unlike most of my fellow Paul supporters, I don't think Paul has a chance to become the Republican nominee. Therefore, I'm not worried about that Kirchick's article will doom his prospects as a candidate. What saddens me, however, is that Paul will be accused of being something he's not, which is a racist, and that his name will forever be tarnished by that label. Has Paul done some stupid things in the past? Clearly. He allowed his name to be used on a newsletter and obviously trusted Lew Rockwell or whoever was writing it to not publish material that would sully his good name. He further compounded the problem when he didn't clearly explain the issue when it first arose in 1996, allowing it to remain a weapon with which he could be bludgeoned by those who dislike him. But making stupid mistakes doesn't make someone a racist. It may certainly disqualify him as a serious presidential candidate for lack of judgment, but it doesn't mean he's a secret Klansman or neo-Nazi.

    The thing I find most ridiculous about Kirchick's "Tucker" interview is his claim that Paul "speaks in code" to the racists who support him. I like Paul and support him, but will be the first to admit that he is an ineffective and lousy communicator. I seriously doubt that he could pull off such a charade - the man gets tongue-tied trying to make the case for things in which he deeply believes. How could he possibly be so effective in concealing anti-Semitism and racism for so long? Kirchick is beyond straining credulity.

    I agree with Kirchick on one point: Ron Paul won't be president.

  • ||

    Only The Mentally Minuscule Take Words Out Of Context To Bend Them To Their Preconceived Paradigm.

    If you refuse to look at the actions of a man for temperance of judgment then you truly castrate you mind and make it easy to arrive at wrong conclusion.

    The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion.

    Racism is not consistent with the philosophy expressed by Ron Paul. He has rebutted these accusations from the same distortions in previous days.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would trust with my money and my family's safety.

    I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!

  • ||

    Sorry, I just thought everyone here had heard about it and kept on supporting Dr Paul anyway. If you didn't I can understand being upset at him and not supporting him. What I don't understand is people who have already heard of this stuff suddenly dropping support.

    It's not that I haven't heard about it, and it's not that I believe the articles should reflect on Paul.

    But how he handles the matter does, and should reflect on him.

    If he was president, and his some of subordinates were involved in wrong-doing, I'd expect him to clean house and hold the guilty accountable.

    Remember what brought down Nixon - the Watergate burglary itself should have had a two week run. It wasn't the burglary that brought down the presidency, it was Nixon's handling of it.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    As odd as it may seem (yes, I know, very odd) I think that if Paul is harmed this will help Rudy Giulliani. My reason is this: Many of the people who support Ron Paul are doing so at least in part to divorce the Republican party from the Salafi Christians who have a stranglehold on it. Rudy Giulliani is another candidate who may help the GOP divorce itself from the Salafi Christians.

  • Bingo||

    Obviously Ron Paul needs to choose a gay African-American as his running-mate in order to quell these rumors and prove he isn't a racist homophobe.

    Ron Paul / Ru Paul 2008!

  • ||

    "Britney was visited by Dr. Phil"
    That happened today?
    Really? Omigod I gotta find out more!

  • ||

    Someone in another thread on another site is claiming that Gary North was one of the authors of the newsletter. Apparently Burt Blumert of Camino Coin was one of the persons involved in its publication; he should come forward and explain the entire thing, as well as who wrote the crap that is now being attributed to Paul.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    Bingo, what is Ru Paul's stance on the gold standard? This is a very important issue to me. Before I vote for a VP I wnat to know.

  • raidsmith||

    I'm sorry, but it's time for those chuckleheads at Lew Rockwell's site to cough up the eloquent bigot(s) here. Most think it is Gary North, which I could buy, some Lew himself, which I have a slightly harder time believing, and, of course, Dondero has been a Hit & Run suspect since the beginning. (I think Tim Russert has money on Dondero) Either way, I think that is the only way Paul can deflect this, to roll out the perpetrator and let them make their apologies. Maybe I'm a conspiracy nut, like the kind that think we are going to pay the toll on the North American Highway using freshly minted Amero coins, but I think at least a few of those "neo-Confederates" knows who wrote that crap. So make with the idiot, already, so's we can move on!

  • ||

    Hold on joe, you mean to tell me that this type of stuff was being published under his name for 4 YEARS and no one caught it until 2 years after that? If he didn't know of the content did he at least know of the newsletter at all or had any of his congressional staffers paying attention to what it put out.

    I mean damn, even the name The Ron Paul Survival Report sounds conspiratorial.

  • ||

    Andrew Taylor,

    The most ridiculous remark of Kirchick was probably that "this stuff spanned two decades", when it really was all published from 1990-94.

  • ||

    I'd just love to know why Drudge rook down all links regarding this. IIRC, they were in red on his site, but now they are all gone. He must have had some sort of reason, but since he doesn't have a blog, and his radio show isn't until Sunday, we may never know.

  • ||

    By saying it's old, that should clue you in that it's been previously addressed. While I completely agree that Paul needs to address this again, fully, every out there who is questioning him should likewise see what Paul said about it last time it came up.

    Or sit back and watch what Paul has to say...it's been, what a few hours? I, too, am watching how he reacts to this. I don't for one minute buy that he is a racist or any of that nonsense, I've been watching him for too long. I do, however, what to see how he reacts to controversy and problems, and as others have mentioned he needs to address it simply from a transparency/campaign point of view.

    So we knew the smears would happen, and they did. Now we see how Presidential candidate Ron Paul handles them. As of right now he has my vote, but yes, I'm watching.

  • ||

    reason now has it's very own "The Perils of Long Lead Times" issue.

  • Bingo||

  • Henry Hyde 2.0||

    This is like Obama using coke, a mere youthful indiscretion which has been addressed and should be put behind us.

  • ||

    Bingo,

    God punishes people who vandalize Wikipedia, you know.

  • ||

    Lets say for the sake of argument this really was the 1992 Ron Paul. Its clearly not the 2008 Ron Paul.

    Robert Byrd was a member of the Klan and a racist at one point, but only partisan idiots make that point now.

  • Bingo||

    Ron/Ru'08!

  • ||

    Robert Byrd was a member of the Klan and a racist at one point, but only partisan idiots make that point now.

    Shit, i'm not a partisan idit but if you've ever been a Klan member you need not be in office. And 1992 wasnt 40 years ago man, it was like yesterday...

  • pdog||

    Hmmm...maybe it was written by the guys who made this game! http://www.publicassistancegame.com

  • ||

    In other news Ron Paul ticked upwards in South Carolina today. Some attributed it to his "staunch support of the confederacy".

    Good thing it was published in TNR. TNR actually has less of a circulation then the 1990-1994 "Ron Paul Survival Report".

  • Fluffy||

    No, the most ridiculous remark of Kirchik was that the newsletter had "praised" David Duke, when the clear meaning of the quote he presents is quite different.

  • raidsmith||

    Andy Taylor:

    The thing I find most ridiculous about Kirchick's "Tucker" interview is his claim that Paul "speaks in code" to the racists who support him. I like Paul and support him, but will be the first to admit that he is an ineffective and lousy communicator. I seriously doubt that he could pull off such a charade - the man gets tongue-tied trying to make the case for things in which he deeply believes. How could he possibly be so effective in concealing anti-Semitism and racism for so long? Kirchick is beyond straining credulity.

    Problem is, there is a history of just such code. Remember the Macaca comment? Also, Reagan's first campaign stop when he first ran was in Philadelphia, MS, a city famous for nothing except the murder of 3 young civil rights workers there back in the 60's. He made his stump speech on state's rights. Not in regards to Jim Crow Laws, but to make that his first stop, and to speak about that particular political issue, was obviously code.

    That said, I believe Ron Paul is sympathetic to the Articles of Confederation because they gave more power to the states, and gave a stronger check on the power of the Federal Government, not because he wants to get back to that whole slavery thing. And I think he believes Lincoln was a bad president because he abused his power and took us to war unnecessarily, not because he was against the freeing of slaves. I don't think Paul is speaking in code at all, but it unfortunately closely resembles methods used in the past by people who were doing just that. And it's a stink that ain't gonna wash off easily.

  • Edward||

    Spin, that's the thing!

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    "Also, Reagan's first campaign stop when he first ran was in Philadelphia, MS, a city famous for nothing except the murder of 3 young civil rights workers there back in the 60's. He made his stump speech on state's rights. Not in regards to Jim Crow Laws, but to make that his first stop, and to speak about that particular political issue, was obviously code."

    One consequence of the Electoral College is that candidates must stop in little towns in order to secure a win for that state's electoral votes. Do you really think he was trying to get the "Klan vote". There are more minority votes he would loose than racists alive in the US, even in the 1980s.

  • Jay D||

    In 1996, it was discovered that the Ron Paul Survival Report had published some hideous racial slurs during the period 1990-94.

    It wasn't discovered in 1990-1994?

  • The Democratic Republican||

    crimethink is wrong -- There is plenty here for long-time RP fans to be upset by. Let's start with the obvious: most of us have never seen these newsletters before. After sitting and reading most of them, I find earlier reporting on the newsletters to be far more favorable than they deserved.

    I am also tired of mobs of RP supporters acting like EVERY bad thing said about the man is part of some global cabal. There IS NO CABAL. THE MAN SAID THOSE THINGS. Even if he didn't write them, he is responsible for them. End of discussion. And the lame-assed excuse that "it wasn't on the internet so he couldn't go and check" is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

    I've sent the man hundreds of dollars and given hours of my time, so don't start acting like I've been sucked into the cabal. I suppose it's time for me to start hanging out with the Cato/Reason types, because I've had enough of the tin-foil-hat-wearing types.

  • ||

    Wikipedia vandal gets bitchslapped. Story at 11.

  • ||

    The "Macaca comment" was a coded message?

    Was it code for, "I don't want to be elected"?

  • raidsmith||

    Plant Immigration Rights Supporter, I think the fact that Reagan, or his "people", chose Philadelphia as the very first campaign stop, and state's rights as the topic of the first speech is the telling part. I lived in the deep south in the 80's, and that kind of thing played just fine. And as long as it was beneath the surface, there was no backlash at the national level. Hence the use of "code".

  • ||

    I've sent the man hundreds of dollars and given hours of my time, so don't start acting like I've been sucked into the cabal. I suppose it's time for me to start hanging out with the Cato/Reason types, because I've had enough of the tin-foil-hat-wearing types.

    Agreed, one thing i can be grateful for is that Paul's candidacy lead me to research the word "libertarian". In the end though, i have more faith in the political philosophy than the man's chance of winning anything anymore.

    No man is above scutiny and so far i'm disappointed. I don't think the average voter is going to move beyond those newsletters, the Bill white thing, or the Don Black thing. Or the David Duke thing. Or the damn truthers showing up all the time to the meetings.

    i'm a little depressed now...

  • Dedalus||

    As one astute Reason commentator said on another thread, he had a minority stake in the company that published this stuff. It's like blaming the Forbes family personally for everything published in Forbes Mag.

    Bad judgment? Mistake? Sure. He was a full-time doctor delivering babies at the time and someone asked to use his name to make some money. He didn't pay enough attention.

    Any of you ever made a stupid mistake before?

  • The Truth||

    Jamie Kirchick (author of the New Republic story):

    "I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I'd have called him a fascist."

    http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

  • Brandybuck||

    Macaca? That ain't no code, that's jibberish! I still have no idea what it means.

  • ||

    It's like blaming the Forbes family personally for everything published in Forbes Mag.

    come on, if Forbes mag published rascist shit for over 4 YEARS then yeah, they would be painted with the brush too. This wasn't one guy who was fired after one article. not only that but we're not just dealing with the artcles in the newsletter but the other stuff as well. wether he said the stuff or not, it's not going to go away and it's enough to turn away everyone who isn't a hardcore supporter.

  • ||

    There is a YouTube moment. Unfortunately, for Ron Paul's detractors, this link gives fairly definitive proof that he's not a bigot, at least not a homophobic bigot.

    Here he is being interviewed at a conservative Christian radio station, being egged on by the homophobic host to say some sort of condemnation of homosexuality. If there was ever a place to pander, ever a place to come out of the closet regarding his bigotry, this is it. The station's audience is probably small and is certainly full of people who would agree whole-heartedly with any anti-gay statements. He could say something hateful and probably get away with it, and gain some votes from the conservative Christian community.

    Ron Paul stood his ground on this issue. Any of the other Republicans (possible exception of 911-G) would have caved and pandered. The campaign should get this YouTube moment into wide circulation as a way of completely refuting the charges.

  • ||

    This is the first site where I've actually seen intelligent comments dominating the comment thread on the topic.

    Congressman Paul is not a racist, but he needs to start telling racists who hang around him to get lost.

    That should probably start with Lew Rockwell - I came to the conclusion Rockwell was racist by hearing him speak at the 1994 national YAF convention.

    I don't know who was writing the newsletters, although I'm quite confident it wasn't Eric Rittberg (as he was known at the time). He would not have been making anti-gay remarks.

    Nick

  • Plant Immiration Rights Suppor||

    Raidsmith, Reagan was a strong supporter of State's Rights. Unless he said something racist in the speech this is nopthing more than a typical small town campaign stop where his campaign can take nice looking photos of him in front of an old time drugstore.

  • Dedalus||

    come on, if Forbes mag published rascist shit for over 4 YEARS then yeah, they would be painted with the brush too.

    English, do you speak it? I am talking about a minority share in a company that uses your name.

    Anyway, this whole thing is like the scene in Animal House, where Otter tells Flounder, after demolishing his car, "You fucked up - you trusted us!"

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    NickM, What did Lew say that made you think he was a racist?

  • Jesse Walker||

    Such propaganda. Even the "official" statement being circulated is false.

    Er, what? I linked to the same statement you linked to.

  • ||

    English, do you speak it? I am talking about a minority share in a company that uses your name.

    Yes mister condescending asshole i understand what you said. it doesn't matter if your a minority shareholder when the magazine BEARS YOUR FUCKING NAME.

  • ||

    "Even if he didn't write them, he is responsible for them."



    Correct but Paul hasn't denied responsibility (quite the opposite). He has just denied they were his words and his beliefs.

    If Ron Paul is racist then I'm sure he doesn't like me but I'm still voting for him. Maybe it's because I've known about this nonsense for many years but, more likely, it's because I'd rather have a President that might be racist than one that is openly [fasc||commun||social]ist. If Paul is racist, it effects me in no way (unless I'm so weak that this type of crap would hurt my feelings). However, I'm not trying to hang out with Ron so I'm not too concerned. I find comments that the candidates make publicly (and proudly) much more offensive.

    Even though I responded seriously, I don't believe your post. I've seen several very similar comments (former Ron Paul supporter now disgusted getting preachy and mentioning Cato and Tinfoil) on a couple other sites covering this. Give me a few minutes to go through my history and I'll post the links.

  • raidsmith||

    Plant Immigration Rights Supporter, you could very well be right. I have for years viewed that as text book racist code used to shore up the base on the campaign trail, with little or no repercussion later. It could, however, be coincidence, the venue and theme of the speech. (I'm not being facetious, I could just be dead wrong on this) But my point is the same, that, agree or disagree, Ron Paul has problems with Lincoln for constitutionalist reasons, and he would support a more confederate form of government because of how it limits the Federal Gubments power, not because believes the south will rahs again.

    And I am also curious as to what Lew said to the YAFers.

  • ||

  • ||

  • ||

    There were several negative remarks about black people as a group, all to the point that they were inferior to other people. I didn't transcribe them, nor can I give quotations 13 years later.

    Nick

  • ||

    The primary author of Paul's newsletters was Lew Rockwell. Paul knew of the comments and they went on for several years. He is still close friends and allies with Rockwell and Rockwell is the center to a coalition of bigots, racists, anti-semites and conspiracy nuts. Much of this was exposed long ago at Rightwatch.tblog.com but no one listened when those articles were published. Maybe they'll listen now.

  • ||

    Franklin,

    Nicely argued points. And I know of no evidence that Dr Paul is a racist.

  • ||

    Hey above posters

    Don't you get the gist of the article. It isn't about what the author thinks of Ron Paul, or even what libertarians think of Ron Paul, not everyone believes he had anything to do with the newsletter, but your blinded if you can't see that this will affect his campaign negatively and substantially with the rest of the voting public. that's the point. You're attacking Reason.com and libertarians for addressing or discussing what others have written, but the truth is it's something that needs discussed not dismissed. You're missing the bigger picture. i support Paul because his views of governance intersect with my own, not because his Ghandi or something, don't let your cult of personality get in the way of the fact that this is an election and while this isn't a big deal to you, others are going to make it a big deal and other voters will see it as a big deal.

  • Dedalus||

    it doesn't matter if your a minority shareholder when the magazine BEARS YOUR FUCKING NAME.

    Oh poor you. Couldn't afford law school?

  • ||

    Oh poor you. Couldn't afford law school?

    wtf? I'm not talking about liability, i'm talking about moral responsibilty and public perception.

  • Dedalus||

    warned: You are ill-informed. And perhaps Dondero in disguise.

  • Dedalus||

    wtf? I'm not talking about liability, i'm talking about moral responsibilty and public perception.

    So, every little Forbes family member -- even little Tiny Tim Cratchet Forbes -- is equally responsible morally for everything that goes out under the corporate name of "Forbes"?

  • ||

    Then inform me, because all you've done so far is ridicule and deny. please tell me those are not the tactics you use when campaigning for Paul.

  • ||

    Jeebus, are you clutching at straws or what? it's not called the Paul Magazine, it's called the Ron Paul Survival Report, the man himself has even said that he takes responsibility for the contents.

  • Dedalus||

    it's not called the Paul Magazine, it's called the Ron Paul Survival Report

    Whoa, now I see the world of difference. Totally different. No similarity between the two whatsoever. People's Front of Judea and Judean People's Front.

  • ||

    yeah, just keep on dancing...

  • Alex Cacioppo||

    What are we getting so worked up about: several years ago far-right racist newsletters appeared bearing his name, for all we know ghostwritten by some lunatic who has nothing to do with Ron Paul; and now several years after the fact he's getting smeared for guilt-by-non-association. As far as we really know.

    Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Here are the facts as best as I can ascertain them: (1) nothing in his current positions bespeaks any kind of racism or prejudice, (2) if someone puts your name on crazed and hateful literature you are only responsible for disavowing it (which Paul did, years ago), and (3) people disaffected and disenchanted with the political system are going to cluster around an iconoclast, and some of those hangers-on might be less-than-savory people.

    Big deal; something awful from over a decade ago is falsely attributed to him, conveniently (re)publicized as he's in a politically-independent state primary, retooled to make him look like the terrible racist who wrote the newsletters. This will eventually come out of the woodwork. It always does.

  • ||

    Yes, newsletters and solicitations thereof bearing his name... oh yes, and his picture, his signature, "Congressman Ron Paul" letterhead, personal details about his family...

  • ||

    Meh.

    Fact: Over the course of multiple years, Paul was willing to put his name to a newsletter that ranted about Teh Blacks and Teh Trilateral Commission and so on.

    If he knew about it, that makes him creepy.

    If he didn't know about it, that makes him incredibly inattentive.

    I want neither of those features in a President. And it is too bad - I so wanted to like him.

  • ||

    It's amazing, the same people who are into those conspiracy theories about somebody who went to school with somebody who's father was in business with somebody who once was seen at a hotel owned by somebody who said something at a CFR meeting, are so quick to apologize for Paul about his own newsletter and whine about "guilt by association". hypocrites.

  • Westmiller||

    Time to Out the Bigots

    The Ron Paul Letters of twenty years ago have been grist for every form of slander against the man and the campaign. It's way past time for the perpetrators to be outed and condemned.

    http://www.nolanchart.com/article1065.html

  • ||

    I've weighed his entire career, speeches, books, interviews... against these few ridiculous newsletters. I believe Ron Paul. I won't let the establishment smear me away from voting for him. He's the ONLY hope for this country.

    You ain't fooling me.

    Ron Paul 2008!

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement