Thoughts on Ron Paul

As someone who has written and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Ron Paul, I've got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning. As former reason intern Dan Koffler documents here, there is no shortage of truly odious material that is simply jaw-dropping.

I don't think that Ron Paul wrote this stuff but that really doesn't matter--the newsletters carried his name after all--and his non-response to Dave Weigel below is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage.

Various staffers will be weighing in on this through the day.

The New Republic has posted newsletters here.

Update: Ron Paul's official comment is here:

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed.  I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin.  As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999:  ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.  It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit.  Several writers contributed to the product.   For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

###

I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to know who the writers were and what their connections to the Paul congressional office and presidential campaign.

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.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Suppo||

    What I also find unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels is his stance on immigration. Especially his belief that children of "illegal immigrants" in the US should not be granted citizenship. This is not a case of something he may or may not have written more than two decades ago. This is a political stance he has taken and is taking in his present bit for POTUS

  • ||

    I am not really sure what else he could do about it now.
    In 1992 or whenever these were printed he should have a)proof-read the damn things before they were printed or b)read his own newsletter and forced retractions in subsequent articles. RP apparently did neither and that is not good.

  • VM||

    PIRS:

    he's hinted that because the 14th Amendment isn't part of the original 10... Kip Esquire explains it best

  • ||

    As someone who is an unabashed Paul supporter (though a non-voter) I'm mostly disappointed that the campaign didn't just come right out with this stuff a long time ago...you know, TRANSPARENCY? I'm 99% certain Paul didn't write this stuff, but putting his name on it was pretty dumb.

    HOWEVER, I can't say I disagree with the majority of the content, only the way it was expressed. Again, this seems to have Gary North written all over it, which may explain his sudden disappearance from LRC once the campaign got rolling.

    Perhaps Paul is reluctant to expose his friends for writing this stuff, but it's gotta be done both to preserve his reputation and in the name of transparency. It's NOT ancient history. Nothing is these days...

  • ||

    The campaign now has an official response on its web site:

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

  • ||

    I concur: It's inherently contradictory to claim to be for free markets while being opposed to the free movement of labor.

    Are we witnessing the triumph of Statism over freedom?

  • Bingo||

    On the bright side, we can all go back to being bitter and cynical towards politics in America.

  • ||

    This just sucks on about a thousand different levels.

  • ||

    I guess people get tired of apologizing

  • GinSlinger||

    While I am of two minds about this whole affair, I must point out that the Pajamas Media list of racist pull quotes comes from, at most, two articles. Apparently the major source of these quotes (and perhaps only?) is from The Ron Paul Report, "Los Angeles Racial Terrorism."

  • ||

    I think it would help if some of the authors of the Ron Paul newsletter came forward.

  • VM||

    Nick -

    looking at the other contributers there (Flemming Rose), do you think that Daniel K. shares their political agenda? Is his independent of theirs?

    thanks

  • Ash Lux||

    Terrorific:

    If Ron Paul is to be believed, he had no copies of the newsletters. Therefore, he couldn't be transparent about what they contained.

    I've already given the benefit of doubt to other candidates, I'm willing to give Paul his first benefit of doubt. For example, Romney talking about his family marching with MLK. If things become compulsive, then we got a problem.

    It's not surprising to see more things unearthed. It could conceivably be the same writer.

  • ||

    I didn't think Ron Paul had much of a chance of winning, but it's hard to imagine giving the Presidency to someone who didn't have a handle on what people put out in his name.

  • RP Supporter||

    I knew about this more than 6 months ago when I first started looking over the candidates. Didn't everyone else?

    Giuliani never met with an african american group while he was mayor before 9/11/9/11/9/11/9/11, doing real political damage to that group, but he gets a free ride?

    Smear piece.

  • ||

    Who was the editor of RP's newsletter in those days? It didn't magically appear. And is that editor still associated with the campaign in some capacity? Could be why the person hasn't been named.

  • ||

    yes it sucks.

    Give me the worst of worst case scenarios: he is a closet racist.

    My response:
    I will take a closet-racist strict-Constructionist over a multi-cultural socialist or fascist any day of the week.

    Ron Paul 2008.

  • Jeffrey||

    I find it interesting these articles conveniently surface on the eve of an important primary election.

    I'm sure these allegations will be addressed this evening or tomorrow morning by Dr. Paul. His voting record doesn't coincide with prejudiced rhetoric.

  • Edward||

    I am extremely relieved to see this reaction from Nick Gillespie. I may even subscribe to Reason.

  • ||

    Yeah, because putting out stuff under someone else's name is sooo hard to do...

    Michael

  • ||

    OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE:

    January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

    ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA - In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

    "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

    "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

    "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

    "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

  • L.R.||

    No libertarian tent is big enough to contain someone whose eponymous newsletter disparages someone as a "short lesbian."

    Kwix is right--there's nothing he can do now. He let his own newsletter--with his own name in the title (both when he was a private citizen and when he was a congressman) be filled to the brim with noxious racism and pointless Birch-style conspiratorialism (Queen Beatrix?!). Whether he wrote everything in it or not, he definitely trusted these writers enough to let them appear without bylines (in his own eponymous newsletter!), indicating that he has (if I may understate matters) a horrible taste in friends and/or ideological comrades.

    More broadly, we do need to look at what kind of flavor we want libertarianism to have--what kind of scent we want it to emit: the sweet scent of Cato ("individual liberty, free markets, and peace") and Reason ("free minds and free markets") or the fecal stink of Auburn and wherever in Texas Paul hails from (endless blather of secession, the NAFTA superhighway, judicial tyranny...you know the drill. Oh, and the "STATO Institute." Wit in the tradition of Mencken, 'tis.) Come to think of it, no we don't. The choice is obvious.

  • Nutter||

    I think it would help if some of the authors of the Ron Paul newsletter came forward.

    As I Google around I've read people blame Dondero and I've read Dondero blame Lew Rockwell.

  • ed||

    Yes, but will he cry?

  • ||

    This is ridiculous.

    We already knew this. If you accepted his explanation for the previously known racial slurs published under his name, why don't you accept it for these ones (in the same publication, from the same time period 1990-94)?

  • Bingo||

    Wait a second guys, this is pre-internet days. It's likely someone wrote Ron Paul a letter saying "Hey we want to publish a newsletter about liberty issues, can we use your name?" and probably sent him a sample copy. RP signed off on it and probably didn't think too much about it. How was he supposed to know they would end up taking contributions from racist hacks?

    It's not like he can go to his computer, type ins "www.ronpaulscrazyfuckingnewsletter.com" and check on the latest issue. He can't type it into google and get past issues and people's complaints about it.

    Probably likely, I don't know, I have no evidence. But the fact of the matter is that he wouldn't have near-instant access to review and edit each article like is possible now.

  • ||

    From the Koffler PJ piece. Let's not hide it behind a link. If you can get behind the man whose newsletter put out this and the more, say it loud and proud:


    "[O]ur country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists-and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

    "I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city [Washington, D.C.] are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

    "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, but it is hardly irrational."

    "The riots, burning, looting, and murders are only a continuation of 30 years of racial politics."

    "The criminals who terrorize our cities-in riots and on every non-riot day-are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to "fight the power," and to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible. Anything is justified against 'The Man.' And 'The Woman.''"

    "My friend waved to the tiny [African-American] child, who scowled, stuck out her tongue, and said (somewhat tautologically): "I hate you, white honkey." And the parents were indulgent. Is any white child taught to hate in this way?" [As a matter of fact, Paul has appeared on a radio program called "The Political Cesspool," which has featured the neo-Nazi twin pop stars Prussian Blue. -ed.]

    "But this is normal, and in fact benign, compared to much of the anti-white ideology in the thoroughly racist black community. The black leadership indoctrinates its followers with phony history and phony theory to bolster its claims of victimology."

  • ||

    "If Ron Paul is to be believed, he had no copies of the newsletters. Therefore, he couldn't be transparent about what they contained."

    If I thought he was a racist, I might buy that he had a George Wallace moment and has since disavowed himself of racism.

    ...but how do you disavow yourself of that kind of irresponsibility? How do you let people put out a newsletter under your name and not know what's in it?

    The man is running for President. If, somehow, he were to become President, he's not going to be able to say that he isn't his brother's keeper. He's going to be held responsible for the things his underlings do and write and say.

    That's a big chunk of what management is all about--being responsible for what other people do. How does attributing this ugliness to not being able to manage other people make it okay for him to become President?

    I had some big problems with President George W. Bush. There was some cowardice, sure, and I disagreed with him on a number of issues, but my biggest complaint against him was incompetent management.

  • anti-smear-bod||

    My stock response to this Ron Paul racist 'stupidness':
    (The timing for this latest smear asault is a question in itself)

    Man!!!
    They still trying to make this old BS stick!!

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-paul-respon.html
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy

    Afer reading a whole heap of stuff that Doctor Paul has actually written you quickly realize how viable his ghost writer defence is.
    I suggest starting with his speech to congress honouring Muhammad Ali ...
    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record.xpd?id=110-h20070117-38

    (Note how he chooses to focus on Ali's courage and principles on the main issue that catapulted Ali into the Black Civil Rights movement at that time and incur the wrath of the establishment... resistance of the draft to Vietnam).

    Then read a little of the vast amounts of articles and speeches penned/spoken by Doctor Paul.
    http://www.ronpaullibrary.org/

    The body of evidence weighs heavily in Doctor Paul's favour.

    Ps. from an angry black guy of West Indian origin whose job just got outsourced to India.

  • Michael McDonnough||

    This was an atypical attack from the usual suspects so what is so new about any of this information being discussed. This is the same tactic that these same quarters used against Ross Perot when it looked like he had a shot.

    There is not a lick of difference just different material but the substance and timing of the attack is what makes it so obvious a hit piece written and published by paid career liars.

  • ||

    Hey Donderooooooooooooo!

    Where you the nutjob staffer who wrote those racist things in an RP newsletter?

  • ||

    He needs an answer that will work for non movement types. That he doesn't understand that is bad. That he feels like he's already answered all this is bad. He's sunk and he will drag to the bottom all clingers on.

  • ||

    "We already knew this. If you accepted his explanation for the previously known racial slurs published under his name, why don't you accept it for these ones (in the same publication, from the same time period 1990-94)?"

    I'm guessing that you're asking Gillespie, but, just for the record, I didn't know about this before.

  • ||

    Paul apologized for this in '01, in '96, in the 80's. I really do think he's tired of it. I guess people aren't allowed to make mistakes. Oh well.

  • VM||

    What Gin mentions is also important to discuss.

    And the energies hier should be applied in general to topics, even when the potential smear is directed to an unpopular position.

    (like BBQ in Belgium!)

  • ||

    If you read Paul's earlier statements, he's accepted the responsibility. Maybe if New Hamshire goes well, he'll make a public press conference, but there's no point in running this through the grinder today. Basically it would be like saying to the public "I'm not a pedophile" when most of the public had no idea you were being accused of being a pedophile. Now the only thing they remember is to associate you with pedophile.

  • ||

    Since Reason is dedicating so much time to this piece, the least you should do is post Paul's response. How about it?

  • ||

    Ken Schultz,

    You've got to be kidding me.

    1. His explanation has been out there for seven friggin years. How was it believable before and now it isn't?

    2. I'm sure he would be much more careful delegating the powers of state if he were president than he was in giving someone permission to include his name in a newsletter. If he let his kid have the car keys one night and the kid wrapped the car around a tree, would you be saying that this shows he doesn't have sound enough judgement to be president?

  • ||

    The irony that everyone is missing is that Jamie Kirchick has written far more offensive words about Arabs and Muslims yet no one is calling him out for it.

  • anti-smear-bod||

    To Ken,
    Bear in mind that this ghost writer stuff was over a decade ago.
    I suspect he learnt from that mistake.
    Now focus on the "BIG" issues as this is just smearing and distraction at its best!

  • ||

    This is all old news. And has been discussed and explained to my satisfaction many times. Ron Paul is the most pro-gay rights, anti-racist, and anti-sexist candidate running in either party, bar none. He is a libertarian in name and in principles. He would never have been nominated to be the LP presidential candidate if he was not pro-freedom for everyone, including the folks that all of us hate.
    Ron Paul did not write these things in the old newsletter. Some one else did. The person was fired. Additionally, be careful of the context and the question being asked. Ron Paul does not speak in 30 second sound bites. It takes time to explain his positions on complicated issues where the government has been screwing things up for people and the harm needs to be undone. Furthermore by his actions over many years it is 110% clear that these accusations are all part of a smear campaign by the neocons to discredit Dr. Paul. The reason is simple; he is beginning to have his anti-war, pro-economic and pro-individual freedom message heard by America. And he is taking votes away from the other 5 pro-war candidates. Slowly but surely he is showing them all out to be inconsistent flip floppers! He is the un-politician. It is a simple and ugly smear campaign. That has been tried before. Check out his web site and his voting record for 30 years. He is the most consistent pro-individual rights person running. He voted against the Patriot act for gosh sakes! The New Republic, like Fox News, seems to have been taken over by the neocons present in both parties. I support and trust Ron Paul.

  • ||

    Ken Shultz DOES NOT BUGGER SHEEP!!!

  • ||

    This is a repost from someone else with more detail on the smear.

    Quote:" These were written by an outside writer and it was discussed many years ago in a Texas Monthly interview with Ron Paul.
    Excerpt from the Texas Monthly interview
    "What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
    When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
    His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

    Since I believe in Ron Paul from watching him for 30 years, it is clear to me that he is protecting someone that is close to him. It must have been someone very close for him not to release the name. I can only surmise that he is protecting someone that he does not want to hurt. You and I can only speculate on why that might be. I can come up with several good reasons for him to do this. In any case he has repudiated the columns and outside of the weird non-Ron Paul writing style, there is nothing else of substance to this rehashed smear campaign from the neocons.

  • ||

    Thankfully, this is not as bad as I thought from all the build-up. It looks like about 4 years (1990 - 1994) of poor judgment on Ron's part in lending his name to this, but I believe him when he says he didn't write it, and I believe him when he says he does not hold these views.

    It's interesting what is put forward as "bad"; the racial and homosexual stuff, yes - very ignorant. But "secession"? If secession is bad in and of itself, then shouldn't we apologize to the British, deport our dentists, and humbly return to the fold?

  • Fluffy||

    Paul's defense of the newsletters will not be acceptable unless and until he names the individuals who did, in fact, edit it, and warrants that they play no part in his current campaign or in any shadow campaign on his behalf.

    I have stood up for Paul many times and find his claim that he did not write the articles credible - but this is not like the Black donation controversy. If Paul really rejects the content of the newsletters, he should have no ethical problem with denouncing the author of the newsletters. Especially since that person or persons has undermined his good name by betraying his trust.

    Because the libertarian political movement is so obscure, it can be easy for someone like Paul to decide that an associate is "really a good guy" who "loses his cool sometimes and goes too far". And it might have been all well and good in 1992 to shrug and say, "Well, Gary goes off on rants sometimes, but he has good freedom instincts and speaks to an outsider audience effectively" or whatever excuse was made. But that's just not good enough now.

  • ||

    On the bright side, we can all go back to being bitter and cynical towards politics in America.

    You and me, we think alike. Perhaps we are related?

  • ||

    Ron Paul:

    "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

    http://tinyurl.com/3xfocd

  • ||

    Hey, before we all go on our own Ron Paul riffs, how about props for Reason? This is why Reason gets my money as one of the few remaining bastions of real journalism. One might suspect a libertarian journal would pull some punches, but no. They call 'em as they see 'em. This is a dark day for Paul and the ephemeral libertarian dream, but it is just another day at the office for the man in the leather jacket.

  • ||

    Hey, I've said it before and I'll say it again:
    there are usually two kinds of libertarians I run into
    A. Those who thoughtfully and honestly, and really think the government, in it's attempts to "help" matters will actually "hurt" matters, including the less powerful they often claim to be trying to help, and so they hate the government
    B. Those who think the government might really help those less powerful people, and they would hate to see that

  • ||

    Ironically the first group thinks government is hopelessly ineffective, the second thinks that the government just might be able to help the downtrodden, and they hate that...

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    "the fecal stink of Auburn"

    What is wrong with Auburn? I have to admit I have never personally stepped foot in the physical town but I do highly respect the LVMI (even if I don't agree with some of their writers on IP but that is a topic for another thread.)

  • ||

    From Lew Rockwell's site:
    January 08, 2008
    The New 'Republic'
    Posted by Lew Rockwell at January 8, 2008 02:04 PM

    TNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication's style--hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.

  • ||

    Unfortunately this reminds me that the libertarian anger towards any form of affirmative action, no matter how modest or well intentioned, is misplaced at best (the various old boy networks would still be free to have affirmative action for themselves) to a disingenuous defence of white priviledge, to finally (at worst), thinly disguised racism.

  • ||

    "smear job"? Maybe that cry would have been genuine in a law suit against whoever repeatedly put out this level of crap under his name years ago. Now it is simply empty and hollow.

    (Ir)Regardless, NH is going to be the last state where Paul picks up anything more than the usual libertarian 1-2%.

    The only remaining question is if Al and Jesse are going to make Jay and Dave apologize for giving him airtime.

  • ||

    This doesn't really surprise me as Ron Paul is so mild-mannered and old-fashioned a man that he doesn't really like to make a big deal of things and finds it tacky. Thus, while the odious things written (mostly over a short-period of time) have nothing in common with everything that I know about Dr. Paul and can safely be ascribed to someone else, it illustrates his biggest weakness: a lack of control over his message. His libertarian nature hurts him here because he doesn't control his message, neither then nor now. I applaud his integrity in this matter but it does seem unsatisfactory doesn't it?

  • Elemenope||

    Bad news, folks. Angry White Man just became a "popular" link on del.icio.us.

    [sigh.]

  • ||

    Props to Reason on this. Mr. Gillespie's post is a balanced view of this. As Jose said, it's a dark day for Paul and anyone sympathetic to his campaign. He better address this entirely, or else he'll run into trouble. Lots.

  • ||

    Funny how the thread below is turning into a battleground of pro- and anti-Paul posters with screen names I've never seen before. Opposite corners of the Net appear to have linked there for some reason...

  • Fluffy||

    Considering the way CATO has lined up to fellate Bush and his wars of conquest for 8 years, I think the STATO Institute label is actually pretty apt.

  • ||

    L.R.,

    we do need to look at what kind of flavor we want libertarianism to have

    I've had a growing suspicion for awhile that Dr. Paul is not the face that I'd want to see on libertarianism's masthead. I definitely think that his candidacy has demonstrated a lot about the viability of libertarianism - every day I meet younger people who "would consider voting for Ron Paul" and who are curious about libertarianism, whereas only seven years ago, I recall few people my own age who knew about it. Moreover, the fallout from Paul's deliberate exclusion by the GOP mainstream cannot but send a signal to libertarians who consider themselves party loyalists and not members of one of America's biggest independent factions.

    That said, I agree with you L.R.. This racial stuff, founded or not, is bad news for Dr. Paul. It may be time to reconsider a number of things.

  • ||

    This is the best they can come up with...You know Ron Paul is scaring the powers that be when they try this smear in the middle of the NH primary.

  • ||

    "I'm sure he would be much more careful delegating the powers of state if he were president than he was in giving someone permission to include his name in a newsletter."

    I'd like to think so. ...but I want to hear him say that. I don't want to hear, "Well I didn't know what they were doing with my name."

    "If he let his kid have the car keys one night and the kid wrapped the car around a tree, would you be saying that this shows he doesn't have sound enough judgement to be president?"

    If a guy can't run his own house, he probably shouldn't be given the keys to the White House, be that as it may, I probably wouldn't hold that against him. ...but that's not what we're talking about.

    See, I was willing to vote for the guy like I usually do for the LP candidate--as a protest vote! I wanted to vote for him because I like where he stands on the issues. Even if he couldn't win, if he could pull voters away from the front runner in the GOP, that'd be great!

    ...but I don't think he's my protest candidate anymore. Voting for him now doesn't say what I want to say with my vote. I'm afraid it says I'm willing to overlook some pretty fundamental stuff, and I don't want to say that.

    Ken Shultz DOES NOT BUGGER SHEEP!!!

    Sometimes it seems like the only time someone spells my name properly is in comments like these.

  • Plant Immigration RIghts Suppo||

    Fluffy, have you been to the same Cato website I have? Could you give me a couple of articles from their site that back up your claims?

  • Stephen The Goldberger||

    Ron Paul's political career has just been assassinated. But his message remains. Its time to pass the torch to someone without these skeletons in their closet.

  • VM||

    "You know Ron Paul is scaring the powers that be when they try this smear in the middle of the NH primary."



    this is simply the dirty world of big boy and girl politics.

  • ||

    Yeah! Finally some RP coverage.
    Oh wait, you guys are attempting to go negative. Screw it, coverage is coverage these days.

    The entire TNR article is association and innuendo. Kirkchick prefaces the majority of the slander with a caveat that it may not have been Paul.

    Kirchick has an agenda of his own as a Adolf Guliani supporter.
    Here is the link to a letter, signed by him, admitting his motivation:

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

    Also, see the official press release posted above.

    Go Ron Paul!

  • ||

    Perhaps Paul is reluctant to expose his friends for writing this stuff, but it's gotta be done both to preserve his reputation and in the name of transparency. It's NOT ancient history. Nothing is these days...

    I know. That's what did in Nixon. Had he come clean on the Watergate break-in, and let the culprits take the consequences, rather than becoming an accomplice to the cover-up, he could have stayed in office.

    Loyalty is an admirable quality in a friend, but sure death to a politician.

  • ||

    A majority of the quotes on the reason staffer page come from one particular article. Paul probably needs to say who wrote it and if the same person wrote the others.

  • ||

    Fluffy | January 8, 2008, 4:42pm | #
    Considering the way CATO has lined up to fellate Bush and his wars of conquest for 8 years, I think the STATO Institute label is actually pretty apt.


    Now that's just stupid. CATO was unabashedly against going to war with Iraq, and for the first few years, campaigned for a quick withdrawal of troops.

  • Josh||

    As someone who has written and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Nick Gillespie, I've got to say that Gillespie's reaction to the The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters hit piece is really stunning. As many comments here demonstrate, there is no shortage of truly stupid material that is simply jaw-dropping.

    I do think that Nick Gillespie wrote this stuff but that really doesn't matter--the post carried the Reason tag after all--and his logic is unsatisfying on about a thousand different levels. It is hugely disappointing that he produced a cache of such garbage.

  • TLB||

    I defend Ron Paul here. The word "intellectually dishonest" is used.

  • ||

    "I'd like to think so. ...but I want to hear him say that. I don't want to hear, "Well I didn't know what they were doing with my name."

    I'm trying to think of what I'm going to say to my black friends, my Jewish friends. ...the gay and lesbian people I know. I live in Los Angeles for Pete's sake!

    You know I've talked to these people about Ron Paul!?

    I'm not going to say, "Well you know, he didn't really know what people were saying under his name, so I think you should vote for him anyway."

    What do you think I should say? ...'cause all I can think of is, "I am so embarrassed."

  • thoreau||

    This is not good. I want to see a bit more before I draw any firm conclusions, but it isn't looking good.

  • Campaign Advice||

    This is awesome!

    He should appear on Oprah, admit his failings, and with her help strive to become a better person.

    Then do the same with Barbara Walters.

    The people who are into public shaming and forgiveness will eat it up, and the people who think he's just going through the motions will eat it up as well!

  • ||

    Yeah! Finally some RP coverage.

    LOL!

    Thanks. I needed a laugh.

  • ||

    Excuse me? This is old rehashed news of what was brought out back in June/July 2008. Any reporter worth his weight in salt would have looked for Ron's statement regarding this issue from back then. A LAZY reporter would just assume what someone else wrote on a web site is true without any checking. Shame on you. Don't be lazy. Either ask the campaign, or look up the past summer statement from Ron Paul.

    Ron Paul applauds MLK, Rosa Parks, Muhammed Ali and Ghandi on the house of representatives floor (odd, you new media don't seem to look at H of reps transcripts...too lazy?). Does a racist go to the house floor to applaud people of different color and race?
    More importantly, does this position jive with Ron Paul's libertarian philosophy?
    Shame on you lazy media trying to get advertising recognition by web hits. Shame.

  • dpotts||

    we do need to look at what kind of flavor we want libertarianism to have

    True enough. RP's candidacy no matter how (un)successful it may turn out to be, is really only opening the door. Hopefully, to let in candidates with more reasonable positions on the free movement of labor and individual control of the uterus.

    All I'm really hoping for in 2008 is that the neocons take a real pounding.

  • ||

    Warren | January 8, 2008, 4:49pm | #
    cont.


    Wait a minute, it's even stupider than that. CATO has been on the attack against W Bush since well before 9/11. They've opposed him at every turn. Even criticizing him for not getting SS reform done.

    Fluffy must be joking, but I can't find the funny.

  • ||

    This letter, with Paul's signature [PDF] certainly gives me pause.

    Meh, oh well...like I said, maybe he believes it, maybe he doesn't. What's crucial is what policies he'll put in to effect.

    I'm not electing a saint; I'm electing a President.

  • Hysterical, Mouth-Breathing, E||

    "Ron Paul applauds MLK, Rosa Parks, Muhammed Ali and Ghandi on the house of representatives floor"

    ah! but such behaviors aren't in the CONSTITUTION!!!!

    BHGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!

  • Confused||

    Um, a Paul administration would do many more harsh things than speaking badly about people, why the lukewarmness at the moment?

    Firing all IRS employees, armed forces base civilian employees, CIA employees, ATF and DEA employees would cause many more individuals direct personal distress than words from 20 years ago. Were you all ignoring that?

  • Shane Brady||

    Well a lot of us were aware of Ron Paul and his racist newsletter past, in addition to his far right wing Christian vision of America.

    I don't see how it matters if he didn't himself pen the articles, if he allow his name on this drivel for a number of years. Can any of you imagine letting someone use your name for that long and not have any idea what they wrote in your name? His explanation is so weak.

  • Plant Immigration Rights Supor||

    There are some who seem to be treating the Ron Paul movement like a religion. Ron Paul is a human being, not a god. It is not blasphemy to criticize a member of Congress.

  • Josh||

    Firing all IRS employees, armed forces base civilian employees, CIA employees, ATF and DEA employees would cause many more individuals direct personal distress than words from 20 years ago. Were you all ignoring that?

    I might have missed your point here, but just in case, I'm embracing that.

    And just so that we can have some relative basis - someone please forward the candidate with the cleaner past than Ron Paul.

  • ||

    "Ron Paul's political career has just been assassinated."

    Not by a long shot.

  • robc||

    I'm trying to think of what I'm going to say to my black friends, my Jewish friends. ...the gay and lesbian people I know. I live in Los Angeles for Pete's sake!

    You know I've talked to these people about Ron Paul!?


    What did you say the first 47 times this story came out?

  • ||

    Firing all IRS employees, armed forces base civilian employees, CIA employees, ATF and DEA employees would cause many more individuals direct personal distress than words from 20 years ago. Were you all ignoring that?

    No, we weren't. That's a feature, not a bug.

  • ||

    Could somebody please tell me what "I take moral responsibility" means?

  • ||

    What is not good that so many of Paul's supporters are so fanatical they won't even consider blaming anyone but TNR over this. It is like an army of Sidney Blumenthals.

  • ||

    "I'm not electing a saint; I'm electing a President."

    True, but what concerns some people is what Michael Cloud calls the "Hallo effect". If Ron Paul gets ellected he will be the first POTUS since Jefferson in his first term to actually follow the Constitution. We want such a person to look good.

  • ||

    I too am very disappointed with the revelation, but I still voted for Dr. Paul today. The quotes just don't fit with what I've been hearing from Ron Paul. I don't think that the story will have much of an impact on the New Hampshire Primary, but it certainly will in future primaries. Somehow I feel like I've been neoconned again; Dr. Paul's message and momentum was just too much of a threat to the Republican Establishment.

  • robc||

    joe,

    I think it means "I didnt write it but make whatever decision you want about it".

  • ||

    PIRS,

    It's also not candidate-worship to defend him from what one sees as unjust attacks.

  • ||

    "Could somebody please tell me what "I take moral responsibility" means?"

    It means nothing Joe. Who wrote these letters? Does he still associate with the people who did? Taking moral responsibility is diasociating yourself from people and making it clear you were wrong to associate with them. I see no evidence Paul has ever done anything like that.

  • robc||

    I too am very disappointed with the revelation

    Will someone tell me, WHAT FUCKING REVELATION?

    How is this issue today different than summer of '07?

  • ||

    joe, he's saying that he's responsible for letting something get published under his name, while simultaneously saying that he's not directly responsible.

    That is, morally, he owned the paper. However, he didn't write the words.

    Think of it like this: if Joe-Bob the employee doesn't salt the icy sidewalks, and Customer A breaks a leg on said sidewalks, the owner is accountable while Joe-Bob is really responsible.

    He's copping to ownership that happened under his name but not to the actual act.

  • ||

    I wanted to correct an assumption made by some posters above. This was more than a newsletter put out under Paul's name; if you read some of the articles, the author clearly makes himself out to be Paul. He refers to Tom DeLay as "my successor" (this is accurate, by the way; DeLay succeeded Paul in 1984 and when Paul came back in 1996 it was in a different district than before). He refers to himself as being a physician. He says "when I ran for President in 1988..."

    I still think the ghostwriter theory is possible, but it was stunningly irresponsible for Paul to let stuff like this go out under his name without looking it over first. We know that nearly all politicians have speechwriters and those who "write" books usually have ghostwriters, but why would Paul bother with such a thing at a time when he was retired from politics and supposedly had no plans for getting back in? And why would he continue to protect someone who put noxious statements in his mouth?

    P.S.
    Has anyone heard from Donald Foster lately? He has been wrong about some things (e.g., his conclusions about A Visit from St. Nicholas are almost certainly wrong), but he has been stunningly accurate other times (e.g., identifying Joe Klein as the author of Primary Colors). Maybe he should run these articles through his tests and compare them with known writings of Paul, Eric Dondero, Gary North, Lew Rockwell, and any other likely suspects.

    P.P.S.
    I may be the only one who remembers a small item in the New Republic on Election Eve 2000 painting Ralph Nader as a potential anti-Semite because he had written an article for the American Mercury in its post-Mencken career as an extremist rag. That piece seemed to have no effect on Nader's image, even among Democrats who now hate him with a passion and would love any stick to beat him with. In a more Internet-focused age, however, I think Paul's reputation will suffer permanent damage.

  • VM||

    Shane Brady,

    some cool stuff on your site! :)

    cheers

  • ||

    "Somehow I feel like I've been neoconned again; Dr. Paul's message and momentum was just too much of a threat to the Republican Establishment."


    Or how about this idea; "my candidate turned out to be a dumb ass who assocaited himself with neo Confederate dirtbags and managed to give his and my ideological enemies a way to discredit him and unfairly the entire movement I support". If Ron Paul's supporters cared about their movement they would be livid with him for being so stupid.

  • ||

    Ron Paul has a very hard time saying "no" to support from crazies.

  • ||

    OK, I caught my breath.

    So, what is the problem here? Do you believe Ron Paul really is a racist, and really wrote these things? Or do you just believe he shouldn't have let someone else publish a newsletter with his name on it before vetting it first?

    If you believe the first, I disagree, but by all means I understand not supporting him in that case.

    If you believe the second, how is that any worse than the things we forgive other politicians for daily?

    If you believe neither, I ask you, what's the problem with this?

  • ||

    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

  • robc||

    If Ron Paul's supporters cared

    If we cared, he wouldnt have been releected the last 12 years.

  • ||

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

    - http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-paul-respon.html

  • Edward||

    Cesar

    Birds of a feather?

  • ||

    "If you believe the second, how is that any worse than the things we forgive other politicians for daily?"

    Because I think Lew Rockwell and the neo confederate crowd that wrote this crap are racist, historically ignorant pieces of shit and I think it speaks very poorly of Ron Paul's character that he would associate with these people for over 10 years and publish a newsletter with them. To me that is a lot worse than Rudy having three wives or Romeny being part of a fringe religion or even Huckabe being a baptist con man.

  • ||

    If Ron Paul's supporters cared about their movement they would be livid with him for being so stupid.

    If it weren't for Ron Paul, it's almost certain that there wouldn't be a movement to care about in the first place.

    Assuming his explanation is true, I don't think his actions were wise, but I don't see a reason to be livid about it. I've done plenty of stupid things in my life.

  • ||

    This, from the The New Republic article, seems to give credence to Paul's contention that he didn't write those things in the news letters:

    During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman.

  • ||

    About this idea, John: you're a neocon cheerleader fanboi suck-up.

  • ||

    I am staunchly anti-racist, but I still support Ron Paul. Politicians should be judged on their votes and policy proposals. I dislike Bill Clinton, but I defended him against the right wingers who wanted to lynch him because of Monica Lewinsky.

  • Shane Brady||

    The link from Ayn_Randian is pretty damning. In that solicitation, clearly coming from Ron Paul, he comes off as a complete lunatic, who shouldn't be allowed to run the Ron Paul Fan Club, much less a country.

    I really, really hope reason disavows any support of Ron Paul. There is no way libertarians should support someone with the sheer volume of bigoted drivel that Ron Paul has.

    He's done, let's move on.

  • ||

    Ron Paul has a very hard time saying "no" to support from crazies.

    That's because he wants to get the message of freedom out to as many people as possible.

    I have done that myself when I represented the LP. It's the MESSAGE. I would talk with *anyone*. I suppose that's the risk one takes while trying to spread an ideology.

  • VM||

    AR: he's a neocon cheerleader fanboi suck up internets tuff gai!

    *KARATE UFC STANCE!!!!!

  • ||

    No matter the motivation of TNR (did they approach RP before publication?), for him and his staff to hope this would stay under the radar, is less than Bush league.

    You must be WAY, WAY, WAY out in front of something like this, full disclosure and vetting of the authors/editors with point-by-point refutations using, not just your apologies, but specific counter-examples based on speeches and legislative record. Doing it now is pointless - this wound is fatal.

    Congrats Edward, you're day has come.

  • Shibby||

    As "The Truth" has already stated, Jamie Kirchick admits "I don't think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up".

    The little kid that wrote the article doesn't even believe it. How does that reflect on the people who do believe it?

  • ||

    robc,

    How is this issue today different than summer of '07?

    There's a lot more. "Something slipped through that shouldn't have" is not longer a viable defense. Whoever was responsible for the Ron Paul Political Report was clearly pushing this filth as the "journal's" editorial line.


    Ayn Randian,

    If customer A breaks his leg on Tuesday, customer B breaks his let on Friday, customer C breaks his leg on Sunday, customer D breaks his leg on Wednesday...at a certain point, the boss is responsible.

  • ||

    "About this idea, John: you're a neocon cheerleader fanboi suck-up."

    And you are a cult member. As I said before, they could find Ron Paul screwing five year olds and you and some but not all of his supporters would find a reason to excuse it. Good for Reason not to excuse this crap.

  • Blonde buzzed floosy||

    Because I think Lew Rockwell and the neo confederate crowd that wrote this crap are racist, historically ignorant pieces of shit and I think it speaks very poorly of Ron Paul's character that he would associate with these people for over 10 years and publish a newsletter with them. To me that is a lot worse than Rudy having three wives or Romeny being part of a fringe religion or even Huckabe being a baptist con man.

    Is this John McCain? Because if it is I just want to say you're a bastard for ditching me without cash at that drive-through back in '72. You wouldn't believe what that trucker made me do ju8st for a ride home to my moms.

    By the way, you owe me 21 years of child support, you cheap fvck!

  • ||

    Gillespie, I'm appalled at your reaction to this. As a newcomer to libertarianism 3 years ago, I subscribed to your magazine. However, I began to see that that Reason is not the place to find quality libertarian thought (though Sullum is always on form, it must be said). Your position on Dr Paul is, for a professed libertarian who happened to be editor-in-chief of a leading libertarian publication, quite appalling, and almost unbelievable. Fair enough, Dr Paul does not take drugs or like abortions, but the generally sympathetic (at best) reaction to his candidacy from you and your writers (save for Weigel, who deserves credit for his recent reporting) reflects very badly on you. And people won't forget that. I will not be renewing my subscription when it runs out next month. Shame on you.

  • ||

    Interestingly, Drudge has pulled down the banner (red) headline he was running earlier today on this subject. Wonder if someone set him straight as to the source of these newsletters and information. Hmmmmm...

  • Brandybuck||

    What I find truly obnoxious are these supposed "supporters" unwilling to forgive a man a moment of editorial lapse. The strictness of their moral universe is bizarre.

    "Tom can't be president, because fifteen years ago he let his roommate borrow his car without first giving him a breathalyzer test! Even though he has apologized every day since, it is not good enough! We cannot have a president with such shortsighted auto lending habits!"

  • ||

    If it was "a moment," he might be forgiven.

    It wasn't.

  • Stephen The Goldberger||

    I don't like it that Ron is the face of libertarianism for many people. Hopefully he opened a lot of eyes this campaign, and got people thinking but I think its best if people don't think Ron Paul = Libertarianism, I thought that a few months ago but I REALLY think it now.

    I'm proud of the work Ron has done both in congress and on this campaign, but if libertarianism wants to be taken seriously in america its got to be seperated from wacko paranoia and hatred. This article succeeded in positioning Ron as part of that second base, and its time for another name to spread the message(s).

  • VM||

    yay! appalled is gone! yay!

    Ron Paul is not a libertarian. Kip Esquire can explain why.

  • ||

    I will not be renewing my subscription when it runs out next month. Shame on you.

    Glug

    Glug

    Glug

    Ahhhhhhhhhhh

  • robc||

    There's a lot more. "Something slipped through that shouldn't have" is not longer a viable defense. Whoever was responsible for the Ron Paul Political Report was clearly pushing this filth as the "journal's" editorial line.

    My impression from back then was it was a number of stories. I think only one excerpt existed though. So, nothing new. At least to me.

  • Jay D||

    It feels like there is more to the story. It looks like someone took advantage of Paul to print crap they would be too ashamed to print under their own name. The fact that nobody is jumping up and down proudly proclaiming they wrote it tends to back that up.

  • Bingo||

    For a magazine called reason...

  • you||

    >>> Ron Paul has a very hard time saying "no" to support from crazies.

    That's got to be in part because there are a disproportionate number of crazies in libertarian ranks. There at least like 5 lunatic libertarians for every enlightened one (like, well, me). Right?

  • Josh||

    I think it speaks very poorly of Ron Paul's character that he would associate with these people for over 10 years and publish a newsletter with them. To me that is a lot worse than Rudy having three wives or Romeny being part of a fringe religion or even Huckabe being a baptist con man.

    How about when Guliani used public money to finance his affair? Is it worse than that? Or his mob/criminal ties? Or Huckabee's pardoning of a convicted rapist, who then raped and killed two more women (and then lying about it)? Or using public funds to give himself wedding gifts (a loophole -- too bad he and his wife had been married over 30 years)? Is it worse than that? Or when he said that AIDS victims should be isolated? Or Romney's staff members running around with fake badges? Or lying about gun ownership/positions/MLK marches?

    Worse than all of that?

    Who's suffering from cognitive dissonance here?

  • robc||

    If it was "a moment," he might be forgiven.

    It wasn't.


    Since he wasnt involve at all, it was "less than a moment".

  • ||

    Oh please.. typical smear and they run it the day of the NH primary; a state that boasts 45% independents by the nature of their primary laws.

    The real question if Dr. Paul is a racist and one of only two of the remaining republicans that appeared at the Morgan State University All- American Presidential Forum, what does that say about Romney, McCain, Guilliani, Thompson? And what does is say about so-called supporters that should know this trump card-- the truth?

    Here is Ron Paul's response to the racist card:
    Your Legacy on Race


    "Lucille Victoria Rowels from Chicago starts the debate by asking the candidates what legacy they will leave for Black Americans.

    I would like to believe that if we had a freer society, it would take care of Blacks and whites and everybody equally because we're all individuals. To me, that is so important. But if we had equal justice under the law, I think it would be a big improvement. If we had probably a repeal of most of the federal laws on drugs and the unfairness on how Blacks are treated with these drugs laws, it would be a tremendous improvement.

    And also, I think that if you're going to have prosperity, it serves everybody. And if this is done by emphasizing property rights and freedom of the individuals, making sure that the powerful special interests don't control Washington, that the military industrial complex doesn't suck away all the wealth of the country, and then we would have prosperity.

    This is what we need and we need to share it. The free society is the only society that can provide goods and services and distribute them in the most fair manner. And that is the society that I would advocate and argue for and believe it's available to us."

    Here the link where you view the forum for yourself:

    http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/

  • Shane Brady||

    I've known about the racist statements previously by Ron Paul newsletters, but what I hadn't seen before, was solicitation by Ron Paul as a congressman asking supporters to order subscriptions to said racist newsletters.

    So, he was asking for money for newsletters with his name on them, and supposedly never checked the content. Pretty damn unlikely.

  • ||

    Josh,

    I don't think we should set the bar at the level of those scoundrels. No one here is enthusiastic about any of them, and for good reason.

    Still, I think this looks terrible, but it is pretty minor upon reflection, and I continue to support Dr Paul.

  • rho||

    Tell you what, Ken Shultz, don't vote for the guy. You've staked out this oddly little claim that Ron Paul was criminally negligent for letting a snail-mail newsletter get published under his name some 20 years ago and failed to vet every issue.

    I mean, you clearly think he isn't a crypto-racist, so your sole beef is that he... messed up a bit? Because this really isn't a major mistake. Sure, you think it's a big fucking deal. Well, bully for you. I think you're weirdly obsessed with this. Maybe you know it's crazy but don't want to back off.

    So it looks like the speculation yesterday that this was a lame ass rehash was correct. Monkeyboy did a good job cribbing from somebody else's old work, so TNR has still got the chops we know and love!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    I will not be renewing my subscription when it runs out next month.

    Drink!

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    I don't know, I think that if done right Ron Paul could use this in his favor.

    Some of his fans of various different races on a commercial disparaging this attempt to destroy him, and talking about his very long history of anti-racism

    His very long and very documented history of anti racism.

  • ||

    He could open a whole new demographic with a commercial like that.

  • Josh||

    crimethink,

    John made the initial comparison to actions of Guliani/Romney/Huckabee, but I was pointing out that he conveniently left out the worst parts. I agree, that beating out those scumbags is hardly an accomplishment, but that only makes John's point even more ridiculous.

  • Stephen The Goldberger||

    everyone defending ron needs to realize that
    1. he's not going to win the nom
    2. the only thing that matters at this point is how libertarianism emerges.

  • thinkahead||

    I am disappointed in Reason for participating in this nonsense.

  • Shane||

    The thing is intelligent freethinkers will weigh the evidence and Paul's words and then make an informed decision, unfortunately the average voter doesn't make informed decisions. Rightly or wrongly, his will kill his campaign. When you have explain that those are not your racists words, you're already in a bad spot. He could be vindicated in the end but it'll haunt him forever. Word to the wise: never let anyone use your name who isn't you.

  • ||

    Joe, you ask whether Bill Clinton or George Bush would have allowed such views published under their names. Let's remember that they enthusiastically prosecuted a war on drugs that has disproportionately imprisoned minorities, and made life a misery for minorities in the inner cities. Yet Ron Paul gets pilloried for some words written by someone else?

  • ||

    joe - in all fairness, that seemed to work, didn't it? I mean, about 95% of America probably couldn't explain the Plame affair to you.

    Hell, I can barely explain it!

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Yeah, this will kill him dead in the water. Dam shame, but it will, because Americans are more obsessed with the appearances than reality.

  • ||

    stehpen, i'll answer you: "oh, those WEIRDOS".

  • Josh||

    Stephen,

    I'm not really worried about libertarianism. It's a good idea. And good ideas don't die.

    That said, if Ron can make the top 3 for the nom, the media will be forced to give libertarianism coverage.

  • R C Dean||

    You must be WAY, WAY, WAY out in front of something like this, full disclosure and vetting of the authors/editors with point-by-point refutations using, not just your apologies, but specific counter-examples based on speeches and legislative record. Doing it now is pointless - this wound is fatal.

    I suspect so. Still, its a hell of dilemma - As an outsider trying break in, how do you put this refutation out there without making it the one story about you?

  • rho||

    everyone defending ron needs to realize that
    1. he's not going to win the nom
    2. the only thing that matters at this point is how libertarianism emerges.



    1. There will never be a libertarian President.
    2. Ron is not running as a libertarian.

  • ||

    I mean it would be really cool if he made such a commercial, but I don't think he will.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Let's remember that they enthusiastically prosecuted a war on drugs that has disproportionately imprisoned minorities....

    The end result doesn't matter so long as one projects an acceptable facade of tolerance for diversity. It is the facade that counts. And to maintain the facade one cannot point out that Korean-Americans do not riot.

  • ||

    As an outsider trying break in, how do you put this refutation out there without making it the one story about you?

    That's the same reason why his supporters have been discouraging him from doing so, but i guess that couldn't last forever, he should have been ahead of this, to him it might be old news that's been explained before, but it aint old news to a lot of voters and journalists.

    Mix this with the Bill White comment, the Contributiona nd Picture with Don Black and the 9/11 truthers always trying to co-opt the movement and...

    it's not going to end well.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Although I fervently hope this blows over, I fear RHO is correct, this will stain libertarianism forever.

    That's why Reason is throwing RP under the bus--After all, Reason did a cover story with cover photo of a big stinking racist and that goes to street cred in Foggy Bottom.

  • ||

    R C Dean

    a link for you : http://www.pbs.org/kcet/tavissmiley/special/forums/


    The fact of the matter is.. the war on drugs disproportionately does affect the black community. Only racists do not want to discuss this reality and cure it. Ron Paul does.

  • ||

    Not to say "I told you so," but I did tell you so. Paul's intimate connection with the Lew Rockwell kooks tars the image of libertarians everywhere. I feared this from the beginning.

  • ||

    Thought on Dr. Paul. All right.

    I never could bring myself to wholeheartedly support Dr. Paul for one simple reason--his support of a Mexican border wall. I believe in letting peaceful people cross borders peacefully, as (I feel) do all libertarians worth of the name.

    I guess I was right to be skeptical. This explains a lot--and explains why LRC, fond of printing the ravings of romantic Confederates and romantic Rhodesians, has converted itself into a cheerleader for Ron Paul.

    ---

    Okay, there was at least one more. I don't like messiahs, and many in the movement were trying to sell Ron Paul as the libertarian messiah. It's rather anti-liberal movements--not just openly anti-capitalist, but crypto-anti-capitalist, anti-finance, xenophobic movements as well, that have need of messiahs.

    "The leaders" of anti-liberal movements, said Ludwig von Mises, who had experience with messiahs, "seek to attach their followers to their own person. Liberalism has nothing to do with all this. It has no party flower and no party color, no party song and no party idols, no symbols and no slogans. It has the substance and the arguments. These must lead it to victory."

    (Source: The last paragraph of Mises' _Liberalism_, archived, of all places, at mises.org.)

  • ||

    Paul's intimate connection with the Lew Rockwell kooks tars the image of libertarians everywhere. I feared this from the beginning.

    Oh, well, good for you then. Thanks for showing up and giving us that.

    Damn, Greg, where were you before? I would've been all like "well, I dunno, Greg fears it, maybe we should rethink this, guys"

  • ||

    Shane:

    Intelligent free-thinkers are Ron Paul's base... Why do you think its a struggle and why do you think it took this long for the non-thinkers to come up with this? Eric Dondero has been at it a long time. Is this the Primary kick-off surprise??? I Hardly think so! This is an attempt to get the nearly converted non-thinkers to not cross over to the intelligent free-thinker side. Happens in every campaign when there is a threat. Why do think Bloomberg with all his Buck-a-roos is sitting on the sideline-- if Hillary the Machine doesn't get in and Obama does... whoaaaa Bloomberg will step up for her.

    Politics are a game... contrary to Hillary's tearful declaration yesterday!!

    The American people lose the game and that's not a price I am willing to pay!

  • ||

    A friend of mine linked to TNR and asked me "what say you?" I replied...

    I say: most of this is not news, but part of an old recurring attack on Ron Paul. He has addressed the central story before. Notice this does not concern any of his stances during his ten terms in Congress. Which is more important: a newsletter he didn't write or floor speeches (and votes) he did?

    I say: amazing timing. Somebody is pretty rattled by Ron Paul. Maybe it's Martin Peretz (TNR editor/publisher), Rumsfeld and arch-neocon William Kristol, and other, uh, luminaries, who co-signed this letter to Bush calling for "a comprehensive political and military strategy for bringing down Saddam and his regime" and can't stand Ron Paul for his consistent rejection of their worldview on the floor of the House.

    I quote the campaign (today): "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

    "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

    "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

    "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

    And finally, I look at RP's overall record and words. He does not strike me as racist, paranoid, etc. and his policy prescriptions certainly don't seem to suffer from these qualities. No doubt I would rather he had not allowed his name to be used in this newsletter. But despite this, RP is still far better than the alternatives who, in my opinion, actively promote continued international militarism, domestic drug war, fiscal bloat, Constitutional decay, and on and on.

  • ||

    everyone defending ron needs to realize that
    1. he's not going to win the nom
    2. the only thing that matters at this point is how libertarianism emerges.



    I've agreed with (1), well, from the beginning. But (2) seems awfully coldhearted to me. Ron Paul is a good man who deserves to be defended from these accusations.

  • ||

    Amy-

    I agree with you, which is why this will kill his campaign, like it or not most individuals are not going to wait for or listen intently to the excuses or explainations. That's why this will kill his candidacy. Stupid? yes. Unfair? yes. But can he get most voters to move past this? Not a chance in hell. If anything the Dems will massacre him and it's just scary enough to make the independents shy away. you can't win a primary, let alone an election with just your base.

  • ||

    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 !!!

  • ||

    Ottawa Reader: The United States of America is supposed to be a country of laws. That means we are supposed to obey the law. We have laws on the books to deal with immigration in an orderly and positive manner. It is the illegal immigrants who flaunt the law and decide to enter this country without any regard to what this does to our country as a whole who are causing the problem; and the illegal immigration problem is only adding to our already bad economic condition. Our economy is being destroyed by the run-away cost of the war in Iraq and nothing will get better until we come to grips with the truth.

    This country needs Ron Paul!

  • ||

    "What is not good that so many of Paul's supporters are so fanatical they won't even consider blaming anyone but TNR over this. It is like an army of Sidney Blumenthals.

    The hacks all sound the same, don't they John?

  • ||

    The sad, funny thing is that even if Ron Paul wrote every odious word, he's still going down as the most successful "libertarian" politician of the past couple of decades.

    By the way, I'm anxious for all of the Ron Paul koolaid-drinking team to find another home. This is H&R, baby. Our burgers are 100 percent, high-fat sacred cow with extra cheese.

  • ||

    "Tell you what, Ken Shultz, don't vote for the guy. You've staked out this oddly little claim that Ron Paul was criminally negligent for letting a snail-mail newsletter get published under his name some 20 years ago and failed to vet every issue.

    I mean, you clearly think he isn't a crypto-racist, so your sole beef is that he... messed up a bit? Because this really isn't a major mistake. Sure, you think it's a big fucking deal. Well, bully for you. I think you're weirdly obsessed with this. Maybe you know it's crazy but don't want to back off.

    So it looks like the speculation yesterday that this was a lame ass rehash was correct. Monkeyboy did a good job cribbing from somebody else's old work, so TNR has still got the chops we know and love!"


    Seriously, doesn't it kinda feel around here like talking to the Bushie people back in '04?

  • ||

    Damn! As if Dr. Paul's (lone?)wacko view on immigration weren't damning enough. This raises an interesting question, one that has been at the back of my mind for years: how many Paulites would actually vote for him if he really had a shot at winning?

  • ||

    Will these accusations hurt Ron Paul?

    Not for long, they won't. Haven't you noticed that every obstacle has turned into an opportunity for this campaign?

    Rudy placed Ron Paul on the political radar screen.
    Fox catapulted Ron Paul on to the Tonight show with Jay Leno.

    The National Review has just handed Ron Paul the opportunity to announce a major press conference to apologize. If he can get, say, (economist and suggested running mate) Walter Williams and a few other minorities to stand up for him, this could turn into a lot of positive exposure.

    Da do run, Ron run, da do Ron run!

  • ||

    I concur: It's inherently contradictory to claim to be for free markets while being opposed to the free movement of labor.

    Well do not allow the ownership of people so we do treat people and their labor a little different then goods, no?

    That said I do not agree with Ron Paul on immigration. The borders need to be more open not less then they are now.

  • ||

    The Ron Paul "revolution" was always going to be be a footnote in this presidential race... nothing more. OK, it's like "Carrie" where she's the prom queen but you know Kirchik is the in rafters with a bucket of blood.

    OK, maybe not.

  • ||

    Ron Paul is a good man who deserves to be defended from these accusations.

    I agree - and the first man who needs to step up to the plate to defend Ron Paul is Ron Paul himself.

    Until he does that, anything else is an exercise in futility.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Blame TNR? Oh, I blame Donderooooooo!

    He got motive and he got the mimeographed goods in boxes stashed in the storage off of I-10.

  • ||

    Holy cow!

    I knew about this stuff, but sort of forgot it was out there. Sad for Dr. Paul, but an important lesson for us all in the age of email. What you say (or is said in your name), never goes away.

  • ||

    Randian,

    I wrote my piece and sent it in to Reason months ago, when the Paul campaign was the Paul exploratory committee. I guess it wasn't good enough to run, but I tried...

  • ||

    "I agree - and the first man who needs to step up to the plate to defend Ron Paul is Ron Paul himself."

    And I don't want to hear that he's already defended himself before...

    I like NoStar's idea. Give us a speech. Make a speech and explain to gays and lesbians, to black people and Jews, explain to them why they should vote for you. ...in spite of this.

  • What everyone is forgetting||

    Texas monthly (or houston chronicle forgot wich of the two) made an investigative report out of thsi during Paul's congressional race, this WAS brought up during the race and Paul did address this. The magazine or paper that did the investigation did conclude that they didnt think Paul ever wrote that, especially looking at hsi record in congress, previous to when thsoe letters where written and his statements.

    THIS WAS BROUGHT UP IN HIS RACE FOR CONGRESS AND IT WAS ADDRESSED.

  • ||

    When life hands you lemons make lemonaid.
    When The National Review throws manure at you, fertilize the roses.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    NoStar, I love you for being a glass is half full kind of guy. First smile I've had in three hours.

    Sure hope you is right.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    Shane:

    Only if you make it a big deal. The rumor has been squashed. Proof has been put forward a voting record that speaks fro itself... Why the hysteria? The hysteria is not for those of us that long ago traded in our blue and red pills. Ron Paul has the most educated base for supporters. Like you stated is it enough.. well I have been at this long enough to know that 5% was hopeful the nation is now is second digits.. my lifetime.. it will happen.

  • ||

    Only if you make it a big deal.

    I'm sorry but denial is not in my nature. it is abig deal wether you guys are confortable with that or not or wether you think it's fair or not. The articles were written, they were attatched to Ron Paul. This isn't going to blow over because you wich it away or because you point to his non-racist voting record.

    sorry. The guy has said he takes a "moral responsibilty" for those comments, the rest of the electorate or going to hold him to that when they shun him regardless of any other valid ideas that he's expressed.

  • VM||

    hier, Amy - not in New Hampshire is, "Ron Paul has the most educated base for supporters" true.

    actually, I doubt that - unless you have a reliable source showing otherwise. (pls show!!!!)

  • Mona||

    Fair enough, Dr Paul does not take drugs or like abortions, but the generally sympathetic (at best) reaction to his candidacy from you and your writers (save for Weigel, who deserves credit for his recent reporting) reflects very badly on you. And people won't forget that. I will not be renewing my subscription when it runs out next month. Shame on you.

    Don't ever, ever say that; trust me, it will haunt & taunt you.

  • Terrence C. Watson||

    A 1990 newsletter dismisses the "gay political agenda" as "uniformly statist." That same newsletter calls Martin Luther King Jr. a "world class adulterer" and a pedophile ("he also seduced underaged girls and boys.")

    Oh yeah: the above mentioned newsletter ends with the following:

    "My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. May we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists..."

    So Ron Paul wrote the newsletter's holiday greeting but had no input into anything else in it, or any of the other newsletters?

    Are we supposed to believe this?

  • Alex Cacioppo||

    Isn't it possible that someone who liked the guy but didn't really understand his actual views took things to (obvious) extremes and then put his name on it? Why must the author(s) be necessarily connected to Paul himself?

  • Jim Treacher||

    How could somebody writing for Ron Paul's official newsletter NOT be connected to Ron Paul? Was it a contest winner or something?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "the same people who are into those conspiracy theories"

    It appears that some might buy into Kirchick's conspiracy theories.

  • Guy Montag||

    NoStar,

    When life hands you lemons make lemonaid.
    When The National Review throws manure at you, fertilize the roses.


    National Review had an article about this too? I browsed The Corner and all I saw was the campaigns response to the New Republic article. Maybe I missed who you were responding to.

    Also, I did not see where National Review offered Dr. Paul a forum for the apology you mentioned in another comment. Was it in another section of their website?

  • ||

    This about Ron Paul in itself is scary and needs some explaination-

    http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/ron-paul-revolution-live-blimpvision-388512p326.html

    How is Ron Paul going to ever explain these pictures of him with Don Black from Stormfront? The guy in the black hat is Don Black's son, Derek.

  • ||

    Is Ron Paul the george Wallace of 2008?

  • ||

    "As someone who has written and commented widely and generally sympathetically about Ron Paul, I've got to say that The New Republic article detailing tons of racist and homophobic comments from Paul newsletters is really stunning."

    *sigh*

    I'm glad you're not ignoring this, but why is this stunning? People have been pointing out the oddities of Ron Paul's associations & behavior for months now. It's well known that Ron Paul has played footsie with Alex Jones for years, and simply visiting Alex Jones website will send chills up the spine of anyone who's not a troother. His website reads like lost pages of the Illuminatus Trilogy.

  • ||

    I can look past the "troothers" and accepting 500 bucks from a white-power idiot. However, I cannot accept the content of these newsletters whether they are written by Dr. Paul or not. They bear his name, and thats bad enough for me. To say that I feel betrayed is an understatement, having pushed the guy on several friends over the last few months only to have to answer the question "Wow man, you dont really believe in this racist garbage do you?"

    Is it just me, or is that "Giant Sucking Sound" the sound of a million bumper stickers being removed at the same time? This campaign was over when it started - but for it to end like this is rather sickening, and really has me eating platefuls of crow.

  • ||

    While everyone here is going off on what they "find unsatisfying", let me add to the list my lack of satisfaction in faux shock being displayed by the libertarians (wait, is that supposed to be little "l" or big "L"?).

    You folks have coddled Ron Paul for years now. Just like Paul can't slither away from his newsletters with the mewling "it ain't me babe" excuse, neither can you all.

    Your hearts and hands are just as black as are Paul's.

  • ||

    i heard from CNN that these newsletters were written between his 2 stints as congressman, during that time he went back to his medical practice and traveled a lot around the country. How would it be possible to receive all the mail and drafts of an article if one keeps moving around, but I still am disappointed no retractions were made.

  • jenna||

    This has been explored for quite some time, now they throw it out once again, it already resurfaced back in May of '07. Has anyone ever been a disgruntled employee, or maybe been a manager/boss who had a disgruntled employee? I have been on both sides of that coin. I could have SUNK my employer if I were dishonest and coniving enough! I knew EVERYTHING about him, his family, where he lived, etc., etc. He was not a stupid man, he had a masters degree and ran a multi-million dollar corporation, but I could easily have done him in. Chew on that people. As for those denouncing their support for him now, this is politics, if you shrivel at this low tempertured heat, you probably are some one who just recently jumped on the band wagon because you thought Dr. Paul was "trendy" and you are not getting the message of freedom,constitutionalism, and libertarian conservatism altogether, anyway.

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  • دردشة يمنية||

  • شات سوريا||

    k you, my dear on this important topic You can also browse my site and I am honored to do this site for songs
    http://www.soryh.com
    This website is for travel to Malaysia
    http://www.soryh.com

  • دردشة||

    Something like this may be what you're looking for

  • دردشة||

    Your hearts and hands are just as black as are Paul's.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

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

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement