Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:31PM|#
"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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:33PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 5:33PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 5:35PM|#
"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?
|1.8.08 @ 5:37PM|#
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=53490
Hope for America! Ron Paul 2008
|1.8.08 @ 5:37PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:38PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:38PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:39PM|#
If he was really a racist, there would have been a George Allen YouTube moment by now.
|1.8.08 @ 5:40PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:40PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:41PM|#
Paul's handling of this situation raises more questions than it answers. He sounds like Roger Clemens.
|1.8.08 @ 5:42PM|#
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)|1.8.08 @ 5:42PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:43PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 5:43PM|#
"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!
|1.8.08 @ 5:43PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 5:45PM|#
If nothing else, Ron Paul's newsletters may explain David Duke's enthusiastic support for Paul's candidacy. Maybe Duke was a subscriber.
charlie|1.8.08 @ 5:45PM|#
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)
|1.8.08 @ 5:48PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 5:49PM|#
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.)
|1.8.08 @ 5:50PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:50PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:50PM|#
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 !!!
|1.8.08 @ 5:51PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 5:52PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 5:52PM|#
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!
|1.8.08 @ 5:53PM|#
"Britney was visited by Dr. Phil"
That happened today?
Really? Omigod I gotta find out more!
|1.8.08 @ 5:54PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 5:54PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 5:55PM|#
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!
|1.8.08 @ 5:55PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:55PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:56PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 5:56PM|#
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.
Bingo|1.8.08 @ 5:56PM|#
PIRS:
According to wikipedia
RuPaul is a
strong proponent of reintroducing the gold standard, and abolishing
the Federal Reserve and the Internal Revenue Service.
Henry Hyde 2.0|1.8.08 @ 5:57PM|#
This is like Obama using coke, a mere youthful indiscretion which has been addressed and should be put behind us.
|1.8.08 @ 5:58PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 6:02PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 6:06PM|#
Hmmm...maybe it was written by the guys who made this game! http://www.publicassistancegame.com
|1.8.08 @ 6:06PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 6:08PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 6:08PM|#
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.
Plant Immigration Rights Suppo|1.8.08 @ 6:13PM|#
"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|1.8.08 @ 6:16PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 6:17PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 6:24PM|#
The "Macaca comment" was a coded message?
Was it code for, "I don't want to be elected"?
raidsmith|1.8.08 @ 6:25PM|#
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".
|1.8.08 @ 6:25PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 6:27PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 6:27PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 6:27PM|#
Macaca? That ain't no code, that's jibberish! I still have no idea what it means.
|1.8.08 @ 6:30PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 6:32PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 6:33PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 6:34PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 6:38PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 6:39PM|#
NickM, What did Lew say that made you think he was a racist?
Jesse Walker|1.8.08 @ 6:40PM|#
Such propaganda. Even the "official" statement being
circulated is false.
Er, what? I linked to the same statement you linked to.
|1.8.08 @ 6:43PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 6:47PM|#
"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|1.8.08 @ 6:49PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 7:20PM|#
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
|1.8.08 @ 7:23PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 7:26PM|#
Franklin,
Nicely argued points. And I know of no evidence that Dr Paul is a
racist.
|1.8.08 @ 7:42PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 8:16PM|#
it doesn't matter if your a minority shareholder when the
magazine BEARS YOUR FUCKING NAME.
Oh poor you. Couldn't afford law school?
|1.8.08 @ 8:18PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 8:20PM|#
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"?
|1.8.08 @ 8:21PM|#
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.
|1.8.08 @ 8:23PM|#
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|1.8.08 @ 8:48PM|#
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.
Alex Cacioppo|1.9.08 @ 12:20AM|#
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.
|1.9.08 @ 1:02AM|#
Yes, newsletters and solicitations thereof bearing his name... oh yes, and his picture, his signature, "Congressman Ron Paul" letterhead, personal details about his family...
|1.9.08 @ 7:41AM|#
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.
|1.9.08 @ 9:34AM|#
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|1.10.08 @ 8:22PM|#
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
|1.11.08 @ 5:04PM|#
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!
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245