Why the Old Ron Paul Newsletters Have Nothing to Do with the "Ron Paul Revolution"

Brian Doherty | January 8, 2008

I had never, as far as I recall, read any issues of Ron Paul's now-notorious newsletters, though those of us (as Jesse Walker noted below) who had any acquaintance with the general world of small-press right-populism (and Paul's appeal has always been to that crowd as well as to more true-blue libertarians) of the early 1990s aren't too shocked, however disappointed we are.

It is certainly worth remembering on this tense day for those who have admired Paul as a politician and as a voice in this campaign that, as his clear to anyone paying close attention to either his presidential campaign message (or his message through most of his congressional career) or to the concerns of the bulk of his current fans, that racial or anti-gay animus has zero to do with Ron Paul's campaign or its appeal. Any attempt to tar the "Ron Paul Revolution" with these old newsletters is wrongheaded and unfair. It is also worth remembering that every single other candidate is a fervent believer in policies that cause far more harm to far more innocent black people (the drug war) than old ghostwritten words that insult Martin Luther King, or insult rioters in racial terms, ever could.

This whole scandal is, for one thing, a sobering reminder to Paul fans exactly how little any of his opponents cared about him up until now, given that none of their opposition research brought any of this to serious public attention (and no, there is no reason to believe Kirchick was acting as anything other than an interested journalist looking for a sensational story).

Still, his campaign's reaction to this has been politically disastrous and given the third-rail nature of accusations of racism, Ron Paul's campaign was likely fatally wounded today, regardless of the final vote totals in New Hampshire. Paul would have done better to more thoroughly explain how it happened, how it was dealt with at the time, and address how he as a politician would deal with any matters involving race--ideally, a fervent defense of equality under the law for all. If the ghostwriter has any respect for Paul and hope for the political future of the anti-state, anti-war movement that has coalesced around him, he'd do well to step forward and take responsibility.

Comments

|1.8.08 @ 7:28PM|#

I've yet to see anything in any major media about this.

|1.8.08 @ 7:28PM|#

Unfortunately, being wrongheaded and unfair has very little to do with whether or not something shapes public opinion, and I fear this story will cause it's intended effect, which is for the general public to view Paul as a kook--and by extension, all that is the RP Revolution. Hit pieces work.

|1.8.08 @ 7:28PM|#

Still, his campaign's reaction to this has been politically disastrous and given the third-rail nature of accusations of racism, Ron Paul's campaign was likely fatally wounded today, regardless of the final vote totals in New Hampshire

I do not think so, nor do I think his campaign's reaction to this issue is politically disastrous: Paul has said he did not write those words, nor can anyone find in his record anything that might place those words in his mouth. So what are you saying: that people are too stupid to note the difference? That people cannot tell between the man and the words written by some writer on what was "his" newsletter, which not one remembers now?

|1.8.08 @ 7:29PM|#

At this point i don't even Ron Paul has anything to do with the "Ron Paul Revolution"...

|1.8.08 @ 7:29PM|#

But the dirty little secret is that, even if Paul rejects most of the stuff from these newsletters, and even if they are "ancient news," his compatriots over at LewRockwell.com still believe a good portion of it.

And sadly, I think Paul's tepid press release today, and his inability to truly break from these kooks throughout this campaign, is that he's too caught up in that culture and maybe, deep down, shares an affinity with them on some of this stuff.

This was bound to happen; now we can only hope it doesn't hurt libertarianism in the long-run. Fortunately, I don't think enough people take us seriously for this to matter for long, and after Paul exits the campaign we'll go back to political irrelevance (which is probably better than being paired with racists and Reconstructionists).

|1.8.08 @ 7:31PM|#

Unfortunately, being wrongheaded and unfair has very little to do with whether or not something shapes public opinion, and I fear this story will cause it's intended effect, which is for the general public to view Paul as a kook--and by extension, all that is the RP Revolution. Hit pieces work.

You think so? Because there is no evidence of that. Politicians have been caught with their fingers in the door precisely because they DO say things they live to regret. But Dr. Paul has not said those things, nor is there a record of him saying or stating such things. Instead, the contrary is true.

Hit pieces work IF they are based in facts. This piece is NOT.

|1.8.08 @ 7:32PM|#

But the dirty little secret is that, even if Paul rejects most of the stuff from these newsletters, and even if they are "ancient news," his compatriots over at LewRockwell.com still believe a good portion of it.

Excuse me? Do you have ANY evidence to support such accusation?

|1.8.08 @ 7:33PM|#

Joe--If tomorrow's New Hampshire result reporting in the ol' MSM doesn't jump on this, then, well, my prediction about political fatality will probably be wrong. (That doesn't mean that, say, the NYT or some other pub might not feel beholden to the New Rep's scoops and run a similar piece two weeks from now. Clearly, New Rep isn't itself able to cause a media circus....)

|1.8.08 @ 7:34PM|#

Denial

Anger

Bargaining

Acceptance

|1.8.08 @ 7:35PM|#

That doesn't mean that, say, the NYT or some other pub might not feel beholden to the New Rep's scoops and run a similar piece two weeks from now. Clearly, New Rep isn't itself able to cause a media circus....

Well, they sure have published several hatchet jobs before on RP, so why would they stop in this instance? But with all other hatchet jobs, blowback from supporters and decent people will make reason prevail over hysteria.

|1.8.08 @ 7:35PM|#

Any attempt to tar the "Ron Paul Revolution" with these old newsletters is wrongheaded and unfair.

Why? Because libertarians get a pass during political campaigns? Because libertarians don't have to take responsibility for what was ghostwritten in their name? Because YOU deem them irrelevant?

I don't see how this is a "hit piece". I don't see why people should have to be able to tell the difference between Ron Paul and the guy who authored Ron Paul's newsletter (it's like saying that whoever is buried in Grant's Tomb has next to nothing to do with U.S. Grant).

Paul's explanation is as laughable as David Wells' when he was outraged at something that came out in his autobiography.

|1.8.08 @ 7:36PM|#

Check your email, Francisco...

|1.8.08 @ 7:37PM|#

Could these old newsletters have been written by Eric Donderoo?

Brandybuck|1.8.08 @ 7:38PM|#

Wow! A Reason editor who isn't pissing all over Ron Paul! Didn't you get the memo?

|1.8.08 @ 7:39PM|#

Oh, I"m sure Fox is going to jab their thumb in Paul's eye. They don't like heretics tempting Republicans off the One True Path, and they don't like some rabble giving them grief for trying to marginalize said heretic.

|1.8.08 @ 7:40PM|#

I don't see why people should have to be able to tell the difference between Ron Paul and the guy who authored Ron Paul's newsletter

Maybe because people are reasonable? BTW, not one authored the newsletter - the issue is about one article in one newsletter.


(it's like saying that whoever is buried in Grant's Tomb has next to nothing to do with U.S. Grant).

You argue from an incorrect analogy. This is more like someone authoring a sleazy article in Martha Stewart's Living, and then saying Martha Stewart must think the same way.

|1.8.08 @ 7:42PM|#

Give it a rest, Francisco.

If The Hillary Clinton Political Report ran an article praising Marxism twenty years ago, you'd be hanging in on her for the rest of her life, and flaming people trying to parse the situation like you are.

You love the guy, fine. Try to get a little distance.

|1.8.08 @ 7:44PM|#

Hey paulites

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.

Martin|1.8.08 @ 7:45PM|#

If this sinks the Paul campaign, all it proves is the American booboisie deserve everything they get. You have a dozen warmongering pricks running for president,and the genuinely anti-war fellow is supposedly the 'rascist'.

So mass murder of foreigners is really cosmopolitan and tolerant. Being associated with a guy who said a few naughty things years ago however is criminal.

|1.8.08 @ 7:46PM|#

So you're saying that if, in Martha Stewart Living, there was an article--not written by MS-- that said, say, don't ever let an HIV positive person in your kitchen, you might catch it, she'd be off the hook because she personally didn't write it?? You're off your rocker.

|1.8.08 @ 7:47PM|#

I don't understand why RP and the campaign is being criticized for not responding to this more quickly.

Nobody is demanding Hillary address Bill's comments calling Obama's campaign a "fairy tale".

Why?

Because they are BUSY today. There's a little event going on in NH, in case people weren't aware.

When Kirchick was on Tucker, RP was on a plane crossing the country!

Sorry they don't move fast enough for some people, but it hardly matters when, as others have said, this isn't even in the MSM yet (if it will be at all.)

|1.8.08 @ 7:47PM|#

joe,

I'm really, really sick of you assuming you know what people would do in other situations.

|1.8.08 @ 7:49PM|#

Greg,

Strawmen and innuendo are not evidence. The piece you sent me is full of inconsistencies,and downright disingenuity. For example:

"Imagine the potential impact on libertarianism when it is revealed that Congressman Paul publishes columns at LRC, which in turn regularly publishes writers who espouse racism, anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial, homophobia and theocratic bigotry, and fanatical America-bashing (including support for the killing of American troops). The proof is in the link-rich pudding."

Anti-Semitism? Just because Justin Raimondo criticizes Israel? When has ONE LRC writer ever denied the Holocaust? And fanatical America-Bashing? When?

Anyone who wants to see this "evidence", please drop me a line. It is hilarious to the extreme.

|1.8.08 @ 7:50PM|#

I don't think it is too late, yet. I hope not, anyway.

This should have been dealt with at the start of the presidential campaign. I know it wasn't a secret, and wasn't given credence locally, but very few people knew about it before now. Well, it's too late for a pre-emptive release, but maybe it's not too late to put this to rest, and get some "I'm not a racist" points as well.

Someone jokingly mentioned Oprah, but that really wouldn't be a bad idea.

|1.8.08 @ 7:52PM|#

Apparently you didn't read the whole thing.

Here's Joe Sobran (a former regular at LewRockwell.com), on the holocaust:

""Why on earth is it 'anti-Jewish' to conclude from the evidence that the standard numbers of Jews murdered are inaccurate, or that the Hitler regime, bad as it was in many ways, was not, in fact, intent on racial extermination?"

Please, send that to whomever you'd like. I'm certain it more than justifies why we should be skeptical of the Lew Rockwell kooks.

|1.8.08 @ 7:52PM|#

I'm just not getting it. The dirt on the other guys is far worse. It actually extends to their records in public office. What's this talk of fatal wounding? This article just came out and the campaign hasn't released an official response yet, so who's to say he won't do exactly as you suggest? It's clear to anyone who's paying attention to his message and record that the things in those newsletters do not reflect his opinions now or when they were written. This is a glancing blow at best. Not a direct hit like flip flopping from being a liberal, saying we should stay in iraq for 100 years, or pardoning a guy who goes on to commit murder and unapologetically disparaging gays and women.

|1.8.08 @ 7:52PM|#

Of course, maybe he's said all he is going to say. That seemed to work with the $500 nazi donation.

|1.8.08 @ 7:52PM|#

This is more like someone authoring a sleazy article in Martha Stewart's Living, and then saying Martha Stewart must think the same way.

Wow. Do I really have to tell you freemarketeers the difference between a general interest magazine and a ghostwritten eponymous political newsletter? And I'M the one with the poor analogy?

Even that said (the obvious difference between the commercial MSL and the movement-based "The Ron Paul Report" notwithstanding), if Martha Stewart's magazine came out with an attack piece on MLK, you bet the woman would come under severe criticism. Really, that's a very poor excuse for "reason".

Finally, it's not about "one article" its about 20 years of articles. Read the story or come up with a better excuse. At least Shane has context.

|1.8.08 @ 7:53PM|#

Funny, crimethink, I don't have feelings about you at all.

Why?

Um, because calling someone's campaign a fairy tale isn't offensive?

|1.8.08 @ 7:53PM|#

So you're saying that if, in Martha Stewart Living, there was an article--not written by MS-- that said, say, don't ever let an HIV positive person in your kitchen, you might catch it, she'd be off the hook because she personally didn't write it?? You're off your rocker.

I merely said the argument stemmed from an incorrect analogy. I posited another.

|1.8.08 @ 7:54PM|#

"If the ghostwriter has any respect for Paul and hope for the political future of the anti-state, anti-war movement that has coalesced around him, he'd do well to step forward and take responsibility."

It's amazing, really, that the only candidate the major parties have to offer is Ron Paul. We're starving for a place at the table, no matter what happens to the Ron Paul campaign.

Bingo|1.8.08 @ 7:54PM|#

Really, that's a very poor excuse for "reason".

Drink!

|1.8.08 @ 7:56PM|#

Ron Paul has really gotten my hopes up. I think that is why this is so dissapointing for me. I know it's not the man, it's the message, but Dr. Paul really is a great man. Still is.

I really hate the response from many of his "supporters." Maybe they are surprised and hurt too.

|1.8.08 @ 7:56PM|#

Hi, my name is James Kirchick, the author of the article about which you are writing. I'd like to add that I'm xenophobic and hate Blacks and Jews.

I know, I know… you probably think I'm an imposter posing as Jamie Kirchick, but I'm not! Want proof? Just look at my name, it's on the title of this post, just like Ron Paul's name was on the articles I mentioned.

What that's? That's not enough proof? Why don't you believe me? You believed the unsubstantiated assertions I made in the article I wrote, why is this any different?

|1.8.08 @ 7:57PM|#

Joe,
If The Hillary Clinton Political Report ran an article praising Marxism twenty years ago, you'd be hanging in on her for the rest of her life, and flaming people trying to parse the situation like you are.

You mean she does not praise Marxism right now? Jokes aside (well, it is not a joke, it is a tragedy: the woman IS a Marxist), the fact is that if Hillary was a small-government libertarian TODAY, I would not be flaming her for something written 20 years ago. Please, give me a little more credit, will ya? You simply cannot be the ONLY intelligent person in this planet...

Martin|1.8.08 @ 7:57PM|#

Kirchik supports Giuliani. Giuliani seems to hate Muslims. Can we assume that Kirchik is a racist loon?

|1.8.08 @ 7:57PM|#

Brian, your assessment seems fair enough. Of course we're all sort of fumbling in the dark on this one. All we libertarians can say, regardless of the specifics, is: If this is the end of Ron Paul as a candidate or as a libertarian or anti-statist movement leader, then, those writings aside, it's going to be a LONG time before we find anyone with his voting record and squeaky-clean background. Unpaid parking tickets? The guy's had NO parking tickets! If it's over, then it seems we've lost our last decent chance for an icon. Think about it. Does anyone know ANY libertarian or freedom-lover with as clean a background and as solid and consistent a voting record as Ron Paul? Anyone - of ANY party, race, color, sexual preference, height, width, or hat size? Please step forward....we're gonna nead you.

|1.8.08 @ 7:57PM|#

"I've yet to see anything in any major media about this."

It's coming.

First I saw it at antiwar.com, now it's at the Huffington Post... It takes a while for snowballs to roll uphill.

|1.8.08 @ 7:58PM|#

The Ron Paul revolution will not be hurt because the MSM cannot get away with something so blatantly smear-ish. They will be lambasted by the last remaining journalists with backbones. Fox may try to capitalize on this crap, but they already shot their wad on showing true colors by snubbing Paul with the forum non-invite.

|1.8.08 @ 7:58PM|#

I merely said the argument stemmed from an incorrect analogy. I posited another.

Really?

This is what you said Fransisco:

You argue from an incorrect analogy. This is more like someone authoring a sleazy article in Martha Stewart's Living, and then saying Martha Stewart must think the same way.

Are you always this intellectually dishonest?

Sam Grove|1.8.08 @ 7:58PM|#

I visit Lew Rockwell regularly as well, and I have seen nothing either racist or anti-semitic.

If you got a link, show it.

The hit piece is aimed at those who don't pay enough attention to perceive the difference between Ron Paul and these attributions.

I, too, recommend that Ron Paul lays it all out. Such problems can be avoided by preemptive disclosure.

|1.8.08 @ 8:01PM|#

Just a thought, but I began to wonder if Ron Paul is purposely trying to protect the person who wrote those things. If Ron took care of the situation discreetly and privately, he may well feel that the issue is done and over with. After all, he stated he fired the person. Could well be his Christian beliefs are demanding he keep this a private affair between him and the ghostwriter (I believe there is some Biblical passage about that somewhere). If so, he is a man of deep principle who is willing to sacrifice his campaign out of a sense of honor.

|1.8.08 @ 8:01PM|#

ajv,

I'm just not getting it. The dirt on the other guys is far worse. It actually extends to their records in public office. What's this talk of fatal wounding? This article just came out and the campaign hasn't released an official response yet, so who's to say he won't do exactly as you suggest?

Ajv, two explanations:

1) The standards are set higher when it comes to Ron Paul. Or,
2) His pro-liberty message is SO dangerous for the pro-state intelligentsia, that ANY muck they can get their hands on will be enough to dismiss him.

You are right, the other candidates are really BAD: Either liars, cheats or flip-floppers, but somehow Ron Paul is now (supposedly) persona non grata just because someone ELSE wrote a controversial piece in an old, forgotten newsletter that had his name.

|1.8.08 @ 8:01PM|#

I've got dozens of links, but I'm not going to waste my time doing this with every LRC fan who also reads Hit and Run. Go visit "the fever swamp" at Tom Palmer's page for a good intro.

|1.8.08 @ 8:02PM|#

Francisco,

How you would view such writings should not depend on whether or not the writer is a libertarian. That's the point.

|1.8.08 @ 8:03PM|#

I may be missing something but a deliberatlely poor choice of words by the original author is causing people to get one fact wrong.

Original author said 'spanned two decades'.

Well yes from 1988 to 1994 is across 2 decades.

But its only about 6 years. None of which he was in political office or as far as I know had any aspirations of being in office ever again.

dodsworth|1.8.08 @ 8:05PM|#

Who is the better alternative?. McCain has called Asians gooks (and issued a non-apology, apology) and used a beach boys song to joke about bombing Iran, Rudy embraced Robertson who says Americans were to blame for 911, and Fred lobbied for Aristide.

Paul made a blunder and needs to address it but I fear all perspective will be lost in the campaign to bring him down

The Truth|1.8.08 @ 8:06PM|#

I still believe in and plan to vote for Dr. Ron Paul.

http://www.ronpaul2008.com

|1.8.08 @ 8:08PM|#

Sam, such problems could have been avoided, but it's too late for a pre-emptive disclosure. Now, he really has to show that he understands that this is very serious. I don't get the impression that he realizes how odious what he gave his name to is.

Of course, the smear was released with perfect timing. He has a day or two, at the most, to explain this.

|1.8.08 @ 8:08PM|#

The hit piece is aimed at those who don't pay enough attention to perceive the difference between Ron Paul and these attributions.

You guys are really beyond hope. For free-thinking types, the amount of groupthink and outright denial (the difference between a ghostwriter and the man he's ghostwriting for? Seriously? It's absurd) going on in this thread is laughable and it makes libertarians look just like the excuse-making "partisan" dupes you are always so fond of poking fun at.

First, this is politics. There's nothing even remotely "unfair" about this.

Second, if you can't actually deal with politics, you should stay out of it. No one owes the libertarian paulites the kid glove treatment.

Third, honestly. There is no -- zero -- practical difference between the words a spokesman says and the person he or she is saying them for. Why do you think this is different in any way?

Fourth, if you fervently believe these aren't Paul's sentiments why on Earth would you trust a guy who's too lazy to see what's been printed in his name and on his dime?

Christ, even the Clinton campaign had to backtrack and disassociate with the guy who said Obama had done drugs.

|1.8.08 @ 8:11PM|#

" his compatriots over at LewRockwell.com still believe a good portion of it."

FUCK YOU. I read Lew's blog, and you're full of shit.

-jcr

charlie|1.8.08 @ 8:12PM|#

Greg --

I can't vouch for the Sobran quote you bring up, but I do remember that Lew Rockwell used to occasionally link to his articles. He did not publish those articles on LewRockwell.com.

That might seem a small point, but it was National Review magazine that published Sobran's work for 21 years -- CBS Radio also aired his commentaries.

I eagerly await your condemnations of both news outlets as anti-semitic.

|1.8.08 @ 8:13PM|#

Ron Paul was very foolish. OK, now what?

He needs to deal with it - again - and then move on. No one believes that Dr. Paul holds the views expressed in the newsletters. Even the TNR writer doesn't believe that.

So, he showed poor judgement 10 years ago. Explain it and move on.

|1.8.08 @ 8:14PM|#

"why on Earth would you trust a guy who's too lazy "

Too lazy? Try too BUSY running the only obstetrics practice in his county!

-jcr

|1.8.08 @ 8:14PM|#

Yea, I am a Lew fan too. I don't see any racism there. I think a couple of his contributors might actually be gay, so he CAN'T be a homophobe...

|1.8.08 @ 8:15PM|#

I visit Lew Rockwell regularly as well, and I have seen nothing either racist or anti-semitic.

Sam, the "evidence" sent to me by Greg is a diatribe written by him, that links to a couple of blogs in LRC and some other articles. Some of the "contributions" like Joe Sobran's (a Holocaust denier, it seems) are actually links to SOME articles that he wrote that had to do with libertarianism and not the Holocaust; Greg thinks that if you link to these articles, you must agree with all of the author's positions, or guilt by association. There are also links to articles written by Thomas Sowell, a Chicago School economist - does this mean that LRC agrees with the Chicago School of economics? There is also a link to Tom the Dancing Bug. Same thing?

|1.8.08 @ 8:15PM|#

"Too lazy"! Now what has Thompson done?

|1.8.08 @ 8:15PM|#

It is also worth remembering that every single other candidate is a fervent believer in policies that cause far more harm to far more innocent black people (the drug war) than old ghostwritten words that insult Martin Luther King, or insult rioters in racial terms, ever could.

That sums it up for me.

|1.8.08 @ 8:16PM|#

National Review fired Sobran specifically because of his anti-Semitism. Lew Rockwell kept linking to him and supporting him--and publishing his articles--for years afterward. The point isn't that these things have appeared on LRC. It's the company they keep, and the culture that surrounds that website and the Mises Institute.

|1.8.08 @ 8:18PM|#

Fourth, if you fervently believe these aren't Paul's sentiments why on Earth would you trust a guy who's too lazy to see what's been printed in his name and on his dime?

He DID something about it - he fired his ass. What MORE do you want? Self-flagellation?

dodsworth|1.8.08 @ 8:18PM|#

Jay B:

Yes, it is politics but many politicians have skated for a lot less IMHO: McCain calling Asians gooks and then issuing a non-apology, apology, McCain using a Beach Boys song to joke about bombing Iran, Fred working as a lobbying gun for hire for Aristide, Rudy embracing Robertson who says Americans were to blame for 911 because of their sins (still unrecanted), etc. This all happened much more recently than Paul's newletter, and all them escaped serious problems.

I agree that this is a serious blunder but the claim that "politics" punishes all equally is mistaken.

|1.8.08 @ 8:18PM|#

I listened avidly to talk radio in the period at issue--early to mid 1990's. This stuff is written at a similar style to what Rush or G Gordon would have been saying at that time...I remember there were some murders by young black teens that were sensational, until white women started murdering their babies...but there was a lot of talk about black on black crime, a lot of anti welfare talk leading up to the Republican takeover of the House in 1996...

It is strange, but most of this stuff was more acceptable then than a mere ten years later.

|1.8.08 @ 8:20PM|#

"It is also worth remembering that every single other candidate is a fervent believer in policies that cause far more harm to far more innocent black people (the drug war) than old ghostwritten words that insult Martin Luther King, or insult rioters in racial terms, ever could."

So it is okay to be a racist if you are against the drug war? Come on Brian, that is pathetic. You are supposed to be a writer for a serious magazine. You can do better than that. Why is it so hard to say that Ron Paul is a flawed messanger for a good cause? Even if Ron Paul really is a racist and uses libertarianism as an cover for that fact, that doesn't mean that libertarianism is wrong it just means that Ron Paul is a dirtbag. Is Libertarianism a set of ideas or is it a cult of personality? If it is the former, no one should have any problem kicking the Ron Pauls and Lew Rockwells of the world out on their cans. If it is the later, why would any principled person want to be involved with it?

|1.8.08 @ 8:21PM|#

The point isn't that these things have appeared on LRC. It's the company they keep, and the culture that surrounds that website and the Mises Institute.

I do not agree, Greg, I think you are being paranoid. LRC has many contributors, very diverse, that however share same beliefs in liberty and markets. That some of them may have kooky beliefs (like Gary North's Creationism) does not mean that the "culture that surrounds" that website is homogeneous and ironclad. They even link to obviously leftist contributors - why have you failed to mention this?

|1.8.08 @ 8:23PM|#

JJ Johnson-remember him? The black Ohio militia leader who testified before Congress right after Waco and said if the militias are a bunch of white supremicists, I must not have gotten that memo? JJ is a black Son of the Confederacy, who by the way is married to a Jewish attorney, and 1992 LP candidate for vice president, Nancy Lord.

Just in the way of saying that libertarians are
folks who are not always PC.

Whatever happens, I know Dr Ron Paul is a good man, and his policies are not racist one bit.

|1.8.08 @ 8:23PM|#

Francisco,

Rationalize all you want, but LRC consistently publishes any number of people--Bob Wallace, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Gary North, Jeremy Sapienza--who have themselves consistently espoused racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and holocaust denial, and anti-Americanism.

Google their names for God's sake.

Seriously: Google "Gary North" and see if he's not the craziest guy you've ever come across. Then go to LewRockwell.com and see if his relationship with that crowd is the same as a link to a Thomas Sowell column.

|1.8.08 @ 8:23PM|#

So it is okay to be a racist if you are against the drug war? Come on Brian, that is pathetic. You are supposed to be a writer for a serious magazine. You can do better than that. Why is it so hard to say that Ron Paul is a flawed messanger for a good cause?

I thought that's what Doherty was saying.

If Ron is (or was) genuinely racist, that's terrible. What's a thousand times more terrible, however, is the drug war, which Paul is vehemently against. Perspective is a useful thing. It would be truly ironic if the candidate who stands to do the most for black America is cast aside because people think he's racist.

|1.8.08 @ 8:24PM|#

So it is okay to be a racist if you are against the drug war? Come on Brian, that is pathetic. You are supposed to be a writer for a serious magazine.

John, please be rational: Paul is NOT a racist. Brian is placing emphasis on Paul's stance on the Drug War, a war that IS racist. Paul is an individualist, which is the antithesis of racism (which is collectivism)

|1.8.08 @ 8:25PM|#

This is not my thought process nor analysis of the situation, but let me just play "Average American" here...so say this story breaks in a big way. I'm asking myself, hmm, this is the "Ron Paul Newsletter", yet he didn't know what was in it? All those issues printed and distributed over the years, he NEVER got wind and put a stop to it? Or if he did, it sure took a while? Nobody ever called him up and said, "hey Ron, some motherfucker is saying horrible things in a newsletter and pretending to be YOU!" Did he ever call a lawyer and sue? No? Hmm...fishy.

charlie|1.8.08 @ 8:27PM|#

Francisco --

I have to second what you just wrote regarding LRC. I have had a couple articles published there myself, and I know that Lew didn't vet the entirety of my political views before he accepted it.

I have personally had disputes with other writers there, namely Karen DeCoster, who is a bit too reactionary for my tastes. But Lew has published both of our work.

Like others whom he publishes and links to, he accepted my articles because he found the views expressed in them interesting -- not because he necessarily agreed with everything I wrote.

|1.8.08 @ 8:28PM|#

The hit piece is aimed at those who don't pay enough attention to perceive the difference between Ron Paul and these attributions.

You guys are really beyond hope. For free-thinking types, the amount of groupthink and outright denial (the difference between a ghostwriter and the man he's ghostwriting for? Seriously? It's absurd) going on in this thread is laughable and it makes libertarians look just like the excuse-making "partisan" dupes you are always so fond of poking fun at.

First, this is politics. There's nothing even remotely "unfair" about this.

Second, if you can't actually deal with politics, you should stay out of it. No one owes the libertarian paulites the kid glove treatment.

I could had not put it better myself. I find it disgusting the amount of rationalizing and pettiness found here. Some people seem to think that as if McCain or Gullian where to endorse articles like this that they would not be getting the exact same back-lash, hell they'd probably get a lot worse. I think for the next couple of weeks if some one asks what my politics are, I'm going to say "Marxist" and then change the subject.

Just a thought, but I began to wonder if Ron Paul is purposely trying to protect the person who wrote those things. If Ron took care of the situation discreetly and privately, he may well feel that the issue is done and over with. After all, he stated he fired the person. Could well be his Christian beliefs are demanding he keep this a private affair between him and the ghostwriter (I believe there is some Biblical passage about that somewhere). If so, he is a man of deep principle who is willing to sacrifice his campaign out of a sense of honor.
Maybe Ron Paul wrote the articles himself, because an evil dragon threatened to kill a field full of magical pixies if he didn't write articles with racist rhetoric!

|1.8.08 @ 8:28PM|#

Seriously: Google "Gary North" and see if he's not the craziest guy you've ever come across.

Greg, I READ his newsletter all the time. The guy has beliefs I do not agree with, but that does not mean that (guilt by association) just by reading him, I agree with everything he says. Just because LRC provides a forum for his writings about **ECONOMICS** does not ipso facto make Lewrockwell.com a peddler of racism/anti-Semitism, et cetera, et cetera. I am not that irrational.

|1.8.08 @ 8:29PM|#

TBD @8:25pm

|1.8.08 @ 8:31PM|#

TBD @8:25pm

exactly, thank you for articulating it better than I.

|1.8.08 @ 8:31PM|#

I agree that this is a serious blunder but the claim that "politics" punishes all equally is mistaken.

That's true, but convince me in this case that it's affected Paul's support in any way. Paul wasn't, and hasn't been, a threat in the GOP primaries, despite his campaign coffers. His support wasn't all that in Iowa, and he wasn't supposed to win New Hampshire either, last I knew.

You guys are supporting him despite the fact that you knew he was, from a polling/establishment perspective a marginal candidate. Why do you think this will hurt a campaign that doesn't really have a large constituency anyway? He's made inroads, for sure, but even if this didn't come out, I doubt he'd have won a single state.

So the question becomes a more esoteric one. What are you willing to overlook or lamely justify?

As for what the others "skated" on their miscues: McCain supporters don't care about the man's racism or warmongering. Rudy's support has cratered because of a million different reasons, but I'm sure the Robertson endorsement didn't help. And Fred's K Street connections have yet to hurt a Republican candidate.

So again, it boils down to a cry of "not fair"!!

|1.8.08 @ 8:32PM|#

The last two days have been very enlightening to me as an observer of libertarianism.

All these years, I thought Reason, and especially the Hit & Run regulars, represented the whacked-out extreme of the movement, given to extremes of partisanship.

Uh, no.

Some of the noobs that have posted on these threads, I'd hose down my porch if they ever came to my front door.

crimethink, prolefeed, Episiarch, Ayn Randian: I love you guys.

|1.8.08 @ 8:33PM|#

makes libertarians look just like

be careful, "paulite" and "libertarian" are not synonymous. there's just a bit of overlap.

|1.8.08 @ 8:34PM|#

I'm going to put the laptop away after this one, but come on. Of course it doesn't--ipso facto--make the site a peddler of racism, etc.

But it's the "ipso facto" that makes your point valid.

I don't claim that the very act of linking and publishing articles automatically makes LRC guilty of the same crimes as the authors. But when you have the same kooks publishing consistently, then there's a culture there, and all I'm saying is the LRC culture is poisonous and dangerous to libertarianism.

Oh, I forgot Thomas Woods. Google that guy, too.

|1.8.08 @ 8:35PM|#

I've been a ROn Paul fan for some time now but it's obvious that I didn't know enogh about the guy.

For the record, I have no idea about the articles but I do think that Thomas E Woods jr is a kook and if Paul was indeed praising his bit o' fascist trash revisionist's guide to the civil war, well...he just lost my support.

|1.8.08 @ 8:36PM|#

Finally, it's not about "one article" its about 20 years of articles.

1990-94. Look at the dates in the Rilchick article.

TallDave|1.8.08 @ 8:36PM|#

Thus ends, ignobly, the Ron Paul 2008 campaign.

The real tragedy here is that it makes libertarianism look bad.

|1.8.08 @ 8:41PM|#

Oh, I forgot Thomas Woods. Google that guy, too.

Oh, boy, Greg... Now you got me thinking you are the kook. Thomas Woods?? Why him?

|1.8.08 @ 8:41PM|#

The people arguing against Ron Paul sound like very educated people. What was your education? Why do you care about what you care about? I think you are people with very good intentions. You are loving people who care about their neighbor. Would you say you are? Freedom means you would be able to freely give what you have been blessed with. Maybe no paperwork or tax forms. Maybe some extra money to give to somebody in need. Or, maybe somebody will not give his money, or she will not bless someone else with the money they hold. But, I'll bet if we all acknowledge it, we share that hope not of everyone being the same, but of that freedom that allows us to be different. I may go out on a limb, but I bet most every one of you would be generous. I think that is how it might be. That is the revolution Think about that tonight.

|1.8.08 @ 8:41PM|#

joe,

Thanks...I think?

Hey, I've been meaning to ask you about something. Is it OK if I write and publish an anti-war newsletter called The Joe Peace Report?

|1.8.08 @ 8:41PM|#

I think that Gary North comes across as paranoid and unserious and well quite frankly, somewhat creepy a good deal of the time. I certainly don't have much love for Christian Reconstructionism or whatever name it goes by but that doesn't take away the fact that North can be quite insightful at times. His article from last year on the futility of a border wall is one of the best on the subject I've ever read. I think Sobran is a genuine anti-semite too but once again, he'll on occassion hit a home run.

TallDave|1.8.08 @ 8:41PM|#

Paul has said he did not write those words, nor can anyone find in his record anything that might place those words in his mouth.
...
So, he showed poor judgement 10 years ago. Explain it and move on.

Yes, that's all very fair-minded and true, but it's unlikely to matter. Unless something very, very exculpatory comes out in the next 48 hours, Ron Paul's done. If Hillary or Obama or Romney or McCain had their name on something like this, they'd be just as finished.

|1.8.08 @ 8:44PM|#

Sure crimethink. I can't see how anything could possibly go wrong.

|1.8.08 @ 8:44PM|#

Sadly, Ron Paul seems will only garnish 8% of the NH primary votes... The opportunity for ending the war soon, re-appreciate the dollar and restore civil liberties has thus escaped our hands.

|1.8.08 @ 8:45PM|#

be careful, "paulite" and "libertarian" are not synonymous. there's just a bit of overlap.

A bit. He was the Libertarian candidate for President wasn't he? And this Paul-supporting post IS being hosted on the site of the leading libertarian magazine in the country, no?

Yes, I'm sure there's just a smidge of overlap.

|1.8.08 @ 8:47PM|#

Brian Doherty, you were never for Ron Paul. And then to write "there is no reason to believe Kirchick was acting as anything other than an interested journalist looking for a sensational story)." Really, this kid is a big Rudy guy. Do some leg work, this stuff goes back to 1996 when Ron ran for Congress . He ran against a party switcher who had the support of the entire GOP establishement. Big news about Ron Paul's newsletters back then.

Franklin Harris|1.8.08 @ 8:47PM|#

I think that Gary North comes across as paranoid and unserious and well quite frankly, somewhat creepy a good deal of the time.

North was also peddling Y2K paranoia back in 1999. The weird thing about him is that he has been hanging around free-market circles for decades. The Foundation for Economic Education used to sell (and still may, for all I know) a book of his on the failure of socialism among the Pilgrims.

|1.8.08 @ 8:49PM|#

Unless something very, very exculpatory comes out in the next 48 hours, Ron Paul's done.

He was done before this came out. Trust me. If it matters, I'm sure most people in New Hampshire hadn't heard about it before they cast their vote.

Why does anyone think this was the deciding factor in the race for a guy who was polling in the single digits anyway?

Add another delusion and another reason why libertarians (oh, and Paulites) might be able to raise cash, but know nothing about raising an organization to compete.

|1.8.08 @ 8:49PM|#

Romney's toast.

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) was the national chair of his campaign, and he still lost New Hampshire.

You don't name a New Hampshire politician head of your national campaign unless you make winning New Hampshire a central part of your strategy. And for Judd Gregg not to be able to deliver New Hampshire is devastating.

|1.8.08 @ 8:54PM|#

Joe,

That is why I think McCain is going to win. If Romney is done, who is the alternative to Huckabee? At some point people are going to start voting for someone just to stop Huckabee.

|1.8.08 @ 8:55PM|#

Yeah, I remember North eating crow over the Y2K kerfluffle which was pretty funny. I have an affinity for Austrian economics but recognize that it attracts an unsavory element which is a shame because it it makes it easier to dismiss its more credible advocates.

dodsworth|1.8.08 @ 8:56PM|#

Jay B: You keep claiming that Ron Paul is being held to the same standard as the others but still haven't addressed that fact that McCain skated on the gook smear, the beach boys joke and Fred skated on helping Jean Claude "Necklace" Aristide as a lobbyist, and Rudy skated from embracing the support of a guy who thinks Americans were to blame for 911. Are these guys really held to the same standard given thesee fact?

Who is YOUR candidate by the way? Again, I am not apologing for Paul's blunders. He is probably doomed because of these blunders.

|1.8.08 @ 8:58PM|#

Mr. Kurchick's "news" story was inspired by his hatred - that his fellow Log Cabin Republicans did not endorse Rudy Giuliani and that a large number of "Loggers" back Ron Paul.

There are, among the gay community, those that believe there needs to be laws to convert the Christians, boy scouts and heterosexuals to their cause by Federal enforcement. There are Ron Paul supporters in the gay community, who say they support Dr. Paul's position that you are judged by the content of your character, not the color of your skin or your sexual orientation.

Under the Constitution, groups of people have no rights (except the tribes, which have treaty rights, but that's not because they are a minority) only individuals.

Unfortunately for Mr. Kirchick, who according to his writings feels bad that it's hard for him to get a date as a gay Republican, the Federal government cannot be used to vent his frustration. It is not allowed to force us accept his beliefs as it does not force him to accept mine.

He may want the Boy Scouts to accept gay leaders, but in reality, he can always go start the gay boy scouts. And by the way, under Ron, there wouldn't be government funding of either gay or straight boy scouts.

In the end, Mr. Kirchick turns out to be the hater and the evidence of a lifetime of Dr. Paul's congressional records, speeches, numerous books and statements easily researchable by anyone, shows what a cheap shot this is by James and Tucker Carlson, who always somehow finds the "Hookers for Ron Paul", "Brothels for Ron Paul" and "Ron Paul's a Racists" stories. Facts will always trump fiction.

|1.8.08 @ 8:58PM|#

Paul needs to out the author if he's to save himself. His problem is that Lew Rockwell was the author and is a top adviser to and friend of Paul That is hard to explain so he just mentions a "former aide" -- which Rockwell was.

However it is absurd to say that one can't be anti-gay if some gays write for the person. I've known gay people who were viciously anti-gay. Some of the worst antiSemitic tracts around about Jewish plots were written by Jew. I have had some very racist statement said to me by black men. Hitler had a Jewish doctor who he sent a christmas card to every year (not senstive about the Christmas issue obviously but then what did you expect?). He stopped any persecution of the man and let him immigrate legally to the US with his family. Does this mean he wasn't anti Jewish? Of course not. I've known many hard core racists who had their black exceptions to the rule. They were still racists. Rockwell's connections with the League of the South, Joseph Sobran and Samuel Francis are well known.

As for the Rockwell site they have a tendency to run material by racists and then only delete it if they get negative publicity and to do so without comment pretending it was never there. Bob Wallace who wrote for them had published racist material on several occassions and he disappeared from the archives when a blog publicized it and they got negative publicity. Rockwell has held joint conferences with the League of the South which is a neo-Confederate white supremacist group. Former klansman and profession full time white supremacist Jared Taylor was published on Rockwell's site and then when the publicity came out it was quietly removed. But Taylor was well know as a racist before his piece was published by Rockwell.

Jody|1.8.08 @ 9:03PM|#

Tom Palmer has been exposing the sick invasion of libertarian circles by Lew Rockwell and his group(s) for some time at "The Fever Swamp" on his blog: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php

What a shame that more people didn't ask these questions earlier.

Ogre|1.8.08 @ 9:04PM|#

Well, its official.

This site has been taken over by progressives. I'm guessing from Daily Kos?

This place is fucking sad anymore. Aside from Radley and a couple other writers I don't see much real libertarianism here, especially from the commenters.

Congrats to all the Kos plants...you've done well.

|1.8.08 @ 9:06PM|#

John,

You are probably right, but there's still a chance that Romney could do well in the west and midwest.

By "toast," I mean that he can't win the nomination outright, but it is still possible he could be a spoiler and this could go to the convention.

|1.8.08 @ 9:07PM|#

Are these guys really held to the same standard given thesee fact?

Yes. I addressed it above. I said that McCain's supporters, by and large, don't care that he's a casual racist (he was held at the Hanoi Hilton, don't cha know) and a warmonger (forgive me if I think the GOP is a pro-war party). No one gives a shit in any meaningful way about Fred Thompson, so even fewer people will care about who he represented as a lobbyist. And Rudy's support has been cratering on every level. Why do you think he's skated on anything? People have gotten to know him and they find they hate him.

I'm ALSO saying that Paul was doomed before these blunders -- the guy has consistently polled in the single digits to low teens. To the extent the average Republican pays attention to Paul, they know him as the anti-war whackjob (PS, true or not THAT'S why he's polled at 8 to 14 percent) who attacks the other Republican candidates.

Furthermore, I don't particularly care that you support Paul (I'm a Democrat leaning toward Obama, Edwards or Kucinich), but what spooks me is the rationalizations being thrown around here about the man -- some of you have literally gone beyond any rational skepticism into something approaching worship.

And trust me that if Edwards had a Klan-friendly past (in a way that didn't have to do with an ACLU donation) from ten years ago, I wouldn't be making excuses for him now.

|1.8.08 @ 9:11PM|#

Here's another excellent blog that chronicles the paleolibertarian fringe, written by an anonymous libertarian insider:

http://rightwatch.tblog.com/

|1.8.08 @ 9:11PM|#

Jay B.,

"Sure, the John Kerry report said, "The LA riots only ended because it was time to pick up the welfare checks," but universal health care and a cleaner environment will be good for black people."

Can you, in your wildest dreams, imagine any liberals saying that?

SIV|1.8.08 @ 9:11PM|#

Some of the noobs that have posted on these threads, I'd hose down my porch if they ever came to my front door.


joe,


You and me both

|1.8.08 @ 9:12PM|#

Jeebus, if you've lost SIV, it's time to call it a freaking decade already.

Mad Max|1.8.08 @ 9:14PM|#

Bottom line: Dr. Paul's newsletters said some unpleasant and racist things about black people (seeming to suggest that non-blacks don't have problems with welfare), as well as some things which are true but unpopular (yes, Dr. King was a plagiarizing adulterer with commie associates, but many people think it's impolite to mention such things), plus some stuff that isn't wrong at all (defending the free speech rights of Rushdie and Zundel despite the offensiveness of their opinions).

Sadly, the good doctor has been on the defensive. He didn't take the obvious proactive action of putting these old newsletters on his Web site from the beginning of the campaign - he left them lying around, like undetonated grenades, until hostile people came and started pulling pins out. Then he and his supporters did the whole "don't blame me for what's in my own newsletter" thing. In political scandals like this, evasion compounds the offense, because it shows that the offender knew he did wrong and is trying to weasel out of it instead of facing it honestly.

What if Dr. Paul had the political skills of Bill Clinton? Recall how Clinton managed to get out of scandals with a mix of disarming contrition and aggressive counterattacks. Along such lines, here is how the good Dr. Paul could deal with the scandal.

(a) Although it's late in the game, put the full contents of these old newsletters on his Web site. Get them out in the open. Introduce these olds newsletters with an introductory letter "To Our Supporters" - a reference to the *New Republic's* letter "To Our Readers" after the Glass scandal broke. In his note, Dr. Paul should thank the volunteers who put out his newsletter, getting out the freedom message year after year, etc. Then add: "While most of this material is stuff I can be proud of, there are a few instances where my overzealous editors used inappropriate rhetoric. I ought to have exercised closer supervision to prevent this, and I take full responsibility." The phrase "full responsibility" is key - remember that Janet Reno took "full responsibility" for Waco, but didn't have to resign. At the same time, Dr. Paul might get new supporters from seeing some of the stuff on his old newsletters.

(b) Do a TV appearance or YouTube performance, like Bill and Hillary on 60 Minutes after the Flowers thing. Dr. Paul should appear with one of his African-American supporters. Dr. Paul should be contrite - "I allowed my editors to suggest that welfare dependancy is some kind of black thing, but as I have emphasized throughout my career, it's a problem for all Americans, and all Americans should deal with it together. My editors failed to give their props to the millions of hard-working African-Americans, etc., etc., and I'm so very sorry, etc., etc." Then the African-American supporter (in the role of bad cop to Dr. Paul's good cop) takes the gloves off. He says, "sure, I wish Dr. Paul had supervised his editors more closely, but the fact is, there's an attitude all too prevalent in the African-American community that government aid is the answer, and this mentality has been far more destructive of black people than any newsletter." Then the black guy should express his indignation that the *New Republic* would suggest that criticizing sodomy is the same as attacking black people - "that's just racist, to equate the condition of being black with the act of sodomy." To disarm backlash from the gay community on account of this approach, have Raimondo, or some other gay libertarian, say something like: "I don't share Dr. Paul's conservative moral values, but the important thing is that he is not seeking to force those values on me - he isn't trying to put me in prison for my private sex acts with other adults, or for my chemical choices, or for paying for goods in sound money. As long as this is so, why should I care what he thinks of my private behavior? The key is that he wants to keep it private."

(c) Dr. Paul's supporters (and maybe Dr. Paul himself) should do to the *New Republic* what the Clintons and their supporters did to Ken Starr. If a respected legal figure like Starr, with a record of personal integrity and bipartisan popularity, could be attacked until he became more unpopular than a guy who literally got caught with his pants down, then imagine what Dr. Paul's people can do to the *New Republic.* Of course, Clinton had media allies to go after Starr, but Dr. Paul has the Internet. Remind people of the *New Republic's* motives for this political smear job. Inundate the Internet with none-too-subtle reminders of the pot/kettle quality of the *New Republic* attacking Dr. Paul for failure to exercise proper supervision over his newsletter editors. Remind people, over and over, that TNR has a much worse record of supervising its editors and contributors. Point out that at least Dr. Paul's newsletters never praised Stalin, nor did they run bogus stories about young conservatives chasing women after drinking from nonexistent minibars.

(d) An ad for Dr. Paul. Darth Vader's voice comes on: "This is the spirit of Stephen Glass, former editor of the New Republic. I was so evil that they had the guy who played Darth Vader play me in the movie. [or words to that effect - I'm still working on phraseology]. My spirit is again haunting the halls of the New Republic, and on behalf of the New Republic I say: Sure, we ran fake articles in the past, including bogus smear on American soldiers, but this time you can trust us, and we say don't vote for Ron Paul. Ron Paul's rebellious followers are doomed to defeat because they simply do not understand the full power of the Dark Side. To the voters I say - join us! Embrace fiat money, inflation, abortion on demand, perpetual foreign wars, and the welfare state. Together, we will rule the galaxy. Remember, do not under any circumstances vote for Ron Paul."

Or Dr. Paul could play nice and go gently into that good political night.

TallDave|1.8.08 @ 9:15PM|#

He was done before this came out.

In terms of winning the nomination? Sure. But before this he was a colorful sideshow that brought some attention to libertarian points of view -- and could dream of reaching double-digits and perhaps even being a kingmaker at a brokered convention.

After this, I'm not sure he breaks 1% again, ever.

dodsworth|1.8.08 @ 9:18PM|#

Jay B: I don't worship anyone as a hero. All the candidates are flawed including your guy Obama, who belongs to an openly racist church. If Paul belonged to a white version of such a church, he'd be properly denounced.

Consider the source, but see here (it links to the church website). I urge you to follow through on your vow to keep your own house in order.

Again, I fear that Paul has doomed the cause of liberty but perhaps you need to look into the skeltons buried in your back yard as well.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.8.08 @ 9:18PM|#

Brian, pretty well said.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.8.08 @ 9:19PM|#

The problem with skeletons is that you can't have any if you plan to run for office.

Imagine the field day if The Man In Black ran for president.

Dedalus|1.8.08 @ 9:20PM|#

Backhanded fairness, Brian?

|1.8.08 @ 9:20PM|#

Ron Paul is toast ... 8% in NH? Wasn't that supposed to the place where he finished at least 3rd? Laughable ...
Looks like it's McCain! It will come to down to him and Huck...

alan|1.8.08 @ 9:21PM|#

| January 8, 2008, 8:23pm | #
Francisco,

Rationalize all you want, but LRC consistently publishes any number of people--Bob Wallace, Sam Francis, Joe Sobran, Gary North, Jeremy Sapienza--who have themselves consistently espoused racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism and holocaust denial, and anti-Americanism.

Google their names for God's sake.

Seriously: Google "Gary North" and see if he's not the craziest guy you've ever come across. Then go to LewRockwell.com and see if his relationship with that crowd is the same as a link to a Thomas Sowell column.

Quite a conspiracy theory you have there. LRC, TMI, RTS together form the Tri-Paleolibertarian Commission. The funny thing is none of those groups, or even fringier groups like the Sons of Confederate Veterans, or whatever they are called, have cost you a dime.

The same cannot be said of the mainstream political establishment.

Someone commented in another thread that this is a victory for Edward. It isn't. He may get a temporary emotional rise out of this, but truth is when a champion of liberty falls we all lose out, whether we are neocons, paleocons, liberals, or socialist in our political stripe.

I haven't been around here much today
to defend or bemoan Ron Paul because the only thing that I really feel about all of this is a sadness. We all lose out by this whatever the fall out may be.

miguel|1.8.08 @ 9:21PM|#

I do believe Ron needs to come 100% clean on this.

however, a lot of the articles he links to really aren't all that much to write home about.

OMG, he likes volunteer militias? So did just about the entire GOP did back then. Anyone remember the GOP ripping on Clinton for what happened in Waco? In fact that support is consistent with his philosophy, so ummm yeah whatever it's not exactly a shocker to anyone.

So denouncing the ARREST of a holocoust denier for nothing other than expressing his views means you 100% agree with their views? If you don't 100% agree with the actions of the Isreali government (its amazing how many do not understand the distinction) mean you hate jewish people? Come on, that is patently dishonest.

There are some legitimate criticisms on here and certainly Ron Paul will have to address them in a more candid manner, but he piles on dishonest smears to make it seem like "he's been a racist kook since the 70s".

Again, this must be the addressed by the Paul camp, BUT this guy is no honest journalist, either.

|1.8.08 @ 9:23PM|#

Paul's held to a higher standard than the other Candidates because he's claimed a higher standard.

|1.8.08 @ 9:23PM|#

This is the reason why libertarians will NEVER get elected ... ever. Their train is attended by all kinds of fringe kooks, and if you so much as throw those folks a bone, they will latch on and never let go. Guilt by association!

Mr. Chartreuse|1.8.08 @ 9:24PM|#

A disappointing day to be sure. The newsletter story had been around, but the number of incidents seems to be more than originally thought. I don't think Dr. Paul is a racist and I know he's taken responsibility for the words printed under his name, but for the amount of vitriol that had been done under his name, he should have done something far far sooner. I really can't stomach it right now.

His chances of winning were small, and this will really wound him as Brian Dougherty pointed out.

Sadly, this leaves us once again at the fork of two roads, with both roads leading to crap. Well...now I wait until November where I can vote for the LP candidate.

miguel|1.8.08 @ 9:26PM|#

"Dr. Paul should appear with one of his African-American supporters"

I'm sorry but i really would hope he wouldn't stoop to some political ploy like that.

|1.8.08 @ 9:29PM|#

Better yet, with both of them.

|1.8.08 @ 9:29PM|#

Hans Hoppe is the ubermensch of the LRC paleolibertarians. Take a look at the speakers he invited to a conference last year for his new intellectual group (a rival to Mont Pelerin):

http://rightwatch.tblog.com/

As expected, racists, holocaust deniers, white supremacists galore...

But I'm sure they have amazing, unique takes on economics that make it A-ok to associate with them...

pdog|1.8.08 @ 9:29PM|#

*applause Mad Max*

I can only pray that the Ron Paul campaign takes this to heart.

alan|1.8.08 @ 9:35PM|#

Yeah, I remember North eating crow over the Y2K kerfluffle which was pretty funny. I have an affinity for Austrian economics but recognize that it attracts an unsavory element which is a shame because it it makes it easier to dismiss its more credible advocates.

My favorite Austrian school economist and all around genuis has always been Auric Goldfinger. Now there's a Goldbug!

The Wine Commonsewer|1.8.08 @ 9:35PM|#

No Holy, libertarians will never be elected because they are cannibals.

|1.8.08 @ 9:36PM|#

You guys have to be made of sterner stuff - of course, they will smear Dr. Paul with such charges - a conservative like Dr. Paul attracts adherents of all stripes and some of them will be racists. So you hunt down some racist quotations (and if you can't find some then you take some quotations from a book and misinterpret them).

Ron Paul is an adherent of Austrian economics; his economic gurus are Jewish. He clearly states that he believes that people should be viewed as individuals and not a member of groups based on superficial physical characteristics. He has been very clear on this.

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you...

|1.8.08 @ 9:36PM|#

SO maybe Kucinich or Barba Jordan can say something.

|1.8.08 @ 9:37PM|#

old news letter bomb

revolution may implode

baby circles drain

|1.8.08 @ 9:47PM|#

I forgot Paul Gottfried.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried-arch.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gottfried/gottfried-arch.html

and Jared Taylor.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Taylor

whose article, "Hate Crimes Laws Miss the Point" appeared on LRC

http://64.233.167.104/custom?q=cache:pKwepN6kk-kJ:www.lewrockwell.com/orig/orig-arch2.html+Jared+Taylor&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&lr=lang_en

But I'm sure it's all coincidence and conjecture...

|1.8.08 @ 9:49PM|#

Sorry, the second link for Gottfried was supposed to be his appearance at "American Renaissance" conferences:

http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=audio

|1.8.08 @ 9:53PM|#

Gottfried I actually like a lot. A former professor of mine who happens to be a left leaning Rabbinical scholar is tight with him. That's what actually got me to check out his work. Before that I just knew him by reputation as some paleo boogeyman.

|1.8.08 @ 9:54PM|#

Leave Ron Paul alooooooooonnnne! He's gives everything for you people! He's a HUMAN BEING!

|1.8.08 @ 9:55PM|#

MadMax: none of that will happen because Ron's campaign handlers won't allow him to do it.

I am convinced Ron Paul is a genuinely good guy, but he's only human like the rest of us, warts and all. Yes. He has made mistakes, but in the grand scheme of things, he never killed anyone like Ted Kennedy or was involved in some sort of shakedown scheme. Frankly, his newsletters were merely tasteless.

While I think this situation could still be managed, I have serious doubt that the campaign will do anything significant to address these charges. Already, I am seeing posts by die hard Paul supporters who are ready to throw in the towel. The "revolution" is falling apart at this very moment and what is the campaign doing to stop this hemmoraging? NOTHING, except for a weakly worded press release. That's truly sad.

|1.8.08 @ 10:03PM|#

Who is John Galt?

Seriously--arguing over the "One Man Fit To Rule Us All" (hat tip to SunniM). The whole charade is one big man behind the curtain. Do you really think anything will change no matter who is elected president of the most holy and righteous United States? Even Lord & Savior Ron Paul (praise be to his holy name)will not be able to throw a big enough wrench into the Giant Machine.

These morons are playing "Whose Lie Is It Anyways?" at their debates (HA), whilst this country is buckling under the weight of over 100 years of economic meddling, lobbied & legislated theft, ponzi schemes, and call it liberty.

As internet empowered politicos praise & defend or slander & attack their favorite thief, around them this house of cards called the US Dollar is behaving like an overpainted, wrinkled socialite who is past her prime but thinks she's still the diva.

Ignore the noise. That's all it is. No matter who gets elected you will still get shaken down by your great Uncle Sam to pay for other people's wars, subsidies & favors. You'll still go to work, come home and get stressed out by politics while your life dwindles away. I can see the tombstones already: MY MAN WON IN 2008!!! Big Fucking Deal. Get a life, enjoy it for what it's worth and move on to let someone else take a crack at it.

Carry on oh ye wise and faithful pundits. While you argue whether Ron Paul (praise be his name forever) is a racist kook or the Savior of Freedom and Justice for ALL, I'm going to make popcorn, maybe read a little and have sex with my wife.

OMFG!! BREAKING NEWS!!!!!111!! DRUDGE REPORTING A MCCAIN WIN AND CLINTON TIED OBAMA!!! jfc people. go do something worthwhile with your lives.

|1.8.08 @ 10:06PM|#

"Frankly, his newsletters were merely tasteless."
Bingo. As stupid and mean spirited as the comments in the newsletter are people are making it out like Paul slaughtered the Christ child. If I were him however, I'd be more proactive about this whole mess. Oh well, if this is the end it's been a fun ride while it lasted.

|1.8.08 @ 10:07PM|#

I totally agree. Sex with that guy's wife is awesome.

|1.8.08 @ 10:09PM|#

Yeah, she gets around.

Jeff|1.8.08 @ 10:09PM|#

Paul has issued a press release regarding this:

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

|1.8.08 @ 10:12PM|#

I don't think anybody thought he was seriously going to win the Republican nomination. What's the real drag is that I thought he'd ride his momentum into an independent candidacy. And while only the most Quixote-esque dreamer would give him a chance in hell to win, for me that wasn't the point. The point is that through Paul, with his eloquence and integrity, there's been a groundswell of support for libertarian thought in politics. He was simply the medium for the message about a set of political and philosophical beliefs that seem to lie dormant and a whole hell of a lot of people, beliefs they'd sensed but had never seen articulated and supported on a widespread basis in American political life. A light bulb's been switched on, and you had the feeling we were at a historic moment, an opportunity to affect real change. With this shit, you'd have to assume those hopes are all over for now. And that's the real bummer, the wasted opportunity for a platform for Americans to see they've been offered a political Double Whopper, or a Double Whopper with Cheese, and here's someone offering fillet mignon--and it's a whole lot better. Hope I'm wrong.

|1.8.08 @ 10:12PM|#

But she burns the popcorn.

|1.8.08 @ 10:16PM|#

Ron Paul clearly had thoughts of a future in politics after he left Congress, which is why he lent his name to a political newsletter. A man who lends his name to a political newsletter, and has thoughts of continuing his political career in the future, and does not monitor the content of the newsletter, and thus allows such material to be published over many months, if not years, in his name, is, in the professional political sense, a complete and total fuck up. A 72 year old complete and total fuck up is not going to advance the ideals of limited government in a way that is measurably lasting.

Geeze, if the person behind the newsletter was some babe who was rocking Paul's world on a nightly basis, I might be more forgiving. It appears, however, that he was just too fucking inattentive, or too fucking stupid to grasp the implications. To paraphrase DeGaulle, this is far worse than a crime. It is a blunder, and no, it matters not that the blunder took fiteen or sixteen years ago. Not when you have Paul's ambitions.

|1.8.08 @ 10:21PM|#

1. they were in his 8 page newsletter. he either wrote it or published it.

2. he is against campaign finance reform, universal health care, environmental protections, anti-trust law, workers/consumers rights, and a minimum wage.

|1.8.08 @ 10:21PM|#

"This is the reason why libertarians will NEVER get elected ... ever. Their train is attended by all kinds of fringe kooks,"

PRESENT company excepted! or... is it?

" and if you so much as throw those folks a bone, they will latch on and never let go. Guilt by association!"

Nephilium|1.8.08 @ 10:24PM|#

Mad Max: Gods man... ever think about being a political adviser? That was somewhat frightening...

I'm just waiting to see how this plays in the office... most of the people know I'm a Ron Paul guy... And that I affiliate with skinheads (SHARPs).

Could be an interesting couple of weeks coming up...

Nephilium

|1.8.08 @ 10:29PM|#

The SHARPS are still around? No disrespect, I'm just genuinely surprised.

|1.8.08 @ 10:31PM|#

What's the big deal? Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have written much the same stuff about blacks as what's found in those newsletters.

See Sowell's "The Los Angeles 'Rodney King' Riots: Ten Years Later" http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1576

And Williams' "Media Conceal Black Interracial Crimes" http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=59371

Why is it that black authors can write in essentially the same vein, but when a white person does it, it is prima facie evidence of "racism"?

Mad Max|1.8.08 @ 10:32PM|#

Dr. Paul's press release is off the mark. This scandal is manageable, as indicated by the fact that other politicos manage to brazen their way through much worse. But Dr. Paul just doesn't have the skills. It's charming, in a way. Rarely have I been so annoyed at someone for being just too nice. If you want to be nice, why run for Congress, much less President?

Can't Dr. Paul drink some beer or something to lower his inhibitions? Imagine him dropping his reserve (at least that all he'd drop, unlike Bill Clinton):

"Folks, I screwed up, and I'm sorry. I didn't supervise my editors. I'm sure the *New Republic* understands how much that sucks. But let me level with you. I got elected and re-elected to Congress several times in the teeth of opposition from the two major parties. You need people helping you in order to do that. Where did I get the help? From some reseume-padding interns of easy virtue, like some politicians? That option wasn't open to me, so I had to rely instead on the libertarian and paleoconservative movements. These are good people and I love them, and I welcome their support, but I think they even they would acknowledge that there are some several booby prizes inside those particular Cracker Jack boxes.

"But you know what, freedom-lovers? At least *my* guns are pointed in the right direction. I fight against statism, military adventurism and the culture of death, while my opponents seek more and better ways to promote these things. You want to turn up your noses at some of my, shall I say, colorful supporters? Be my guest. At least they got off their butts and did something."

SIV|1.8.08 @ 10:33PM|#

Jeebus, if you've lost SIV, it's time to call it a freaking decade already.

joe,


I think we are disgusted by different sets of noobs, although I'm sure there is some overlap.

|1.8.08 @ 10:37PM|#

Since the ska thing in the 90s, I though that racist skinheads were considered the minorities, and non-racist skinheads were considered the normal ones.

Nephilium|1.8.08 @ 10:38PM|#

Akhbar Goldberg: Not so sure if they're still organized as such... but there's still a strong contingent of SHARPies in the Cleveland area... it's like a reunion whenever a good band comes back...

Hells... I'm amused that a new person in my workplace belongs to a scooter club that had a rivalry with a local Cleveland scooter club...

Nephilium... a guy with a waist long ponytail...

|1.8.08 @ 10:44PM|#

Ron Paul "revolution"? Too much time in the echo chamber, Brian. There was no Ron Paul revolution any more than there was a Howard Dean revolution before the meltdown. Sure, there is a growing swath of independent voters. Yes, some of these folks are attracted to some libertarian ideas. In the end, Ron Paul was a cult of personality without the personality.

Bingo|1.8.08 @ 10:49PM|#

Mad Max is a little too good at this :)

granny miller|1.8.08 @ 10:57PM|#

Brian -
Ron Paul's campaign were effective in dealing with the "scandal".
It old news & no scandal.
Time to move on.

|1.8.08 @ 11:01PM|#

I agree with Ron Paul on some of his points: eliminating the departments of education and commerce, for example, and drastically reducing federal transfer payments.

But when you lie down with dogs you get up with fleas. I have yet to hear Dr. Paul denounce the neo-nazis and white racists who are backing him and contributing to his campaign. His response is that he can't be responsible for what people who support him say or think. Whether that is ever acceptable, it's surely not acceptable coming from a man who lent his good name as cover for vile racist and anti-semitic publications.

twv|1.8.08 @ 11:03PM|#

I wrote about this on my blog:
http://wirkman.net/wordpress/?p=201

i won't repeat myself, except to say that WHO wrote the newsletters in question wasn't UNKNOWN at the time. I could list four names, not unknown to us today, all of which probably contributed to the editorial product in question, and one or two of which wrote the bulk of it. But my knowledge is "hearsay," if pretty reliable hearsay.

Does it matter?

It matters to this extent: Ron Paul will not reveal the names because these people are still important to him. And they, themselves, may have repented of some of the overblown rhetoric and flirtations with racism. I'm sure they would rather everyone forget about the biz.

|1.8.08 @ 11:04PM|#

Ron Paul is in NO WAY a racist, he is very anti-racism, he is anti-collectivism.
Let's see, who to choose? Ron Paul whose only "dirt" is a ghost-written racist article that he denounced, and some white nationalist donating $500 to his campaign... OR one of the complete scumbags who is running against him? Hmmm...

I know I'm voting for Ron Paul on Super Tuesday!

Raphael|1.8.08 @ 11:07PM|#

I think it is very bad for this country to smear the only anti-war candidate of the republican party. What do you guys want?

Giuliani? Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXOkVTJWnI4

|1.8.08 @ 11:08PM|#

"A" ghost-written article? A, meaning One?

If you can't bring yourself to describe the problem accurately, you probably can't offer an objective opinion about its seriousness or significance.

|1.8.08 @ 11:08PM|#

Any You guys remember Vince Foster? Say hello to Mrs. Pres Hillary

May God have mercy on us all! Because Hillary won't!

|1.8.08 @ 11:15PM|#

Damn, Mad Max, that is impressive.

|1.8.08 @ 11:28PM|#

You aren't impressed by Mad Max because he's brilliant. You are impressed by Mad Max because he's telling you want you want to hear.

If a respected legal figure like Starr, with a record of personal integrity and bipartisan popularity

Um, what? Ken Starr was called out as a partisan hack the day he was appointed.

|1.8.08 @ 11:28PM|#

Some of you are incredibly naive. The media has gotten away with and will continue to get away with it because the majority of the American people are zombies that mindlessly watch the television and believe whatever they are told to believe. You talk about facts, the fact is that the majority of Americans don't check the facts. They are a bunch of alcoholics who do not watch the news. They do not vote, they do not care. They do not think about politics because it is a dirty world and because they are turned off they will never see Ron Paul except for 5 seconds when they surf through the channels and see him being labeled a racist. Then they will move on, never caring, never seeing the truth. Fact of the matter is the people know they are being lied to, and so they ignore it.

Many of you know this, and many of you were once sheeple to this very phenomenon. They can slander and smear all they want in the most sensationalist fashion then cover themselves quietly by silently retracting a statement after the damage had been done. The point is that the retraction itself will receive no attention and only a small 1% who bother to check it will notice.

They control the media flow, they control every media outlet. They pimp their hos tell you who your choices are and people think "oh these are my choices" without every questioning why or who decided they were. They are your choices because the CFR tells you they are your choices. They are the pimp, the candidates are your hoes and it matters not who you vote for because you'll be paying the pimp either way. That pimp's name is Rockefeller and the Federal Reserve Bank and if it were up to me I'd have them all put in prison for fraud and the debt owed them dissolved.

|1.8.08 @ 11:29PM|#

The Ron Paul revolution is all about waking people up to the collapsing Dollar, the War for profit in Iraq, it is about creating a love in peoples heart for the rule of law and for the Constitution which has been ignored. So either way this movement will live on!

For many people now realize that there is no longer a left/right anymore, there is only an up/down... Because whether you vote Rep or Dem the same result occurs more Big Gov. and less personal freedom... so vote for whomever it really doesn't matter you'll get the same results in the end... But be warned for American Citizen's will be the ones deemed the terroristic threat and such movements such as the RP revolution (you know "thought Crimes") will be on the top of that list, I assure you.

Mad Max|1.8.08 @ 11:30PM|#

"You aren't impressed by Mad Max because he's brilliant. You are impressed by Mad Max because he's telling you want you want to hear."

Putayto, putahto.

|1.8.08 @ 11:33PM|#

OK... I am going for my tinfoil hat.

|1.8.08 @ 11:34PM|#

Max,

Don't get me wrong, some of that was quite brilliant, and some of it was laced with wishful thinking.

From what I've seen, that makes you an ideal political strategist for libertarians.

|1.8.08 @ 11:38PM|#

Lew Rockwell must be anti-Semitic because Ludwig von Mises was anti-Semitic. Oh wait.

I find the idea that LRC is anything but inclusive to be silly. I have been to few sites with a more diverse array of contributors. I've seen all races and religions represented. The common themes are liberty and economics, but race or religion are often mentioned without politically correct edits, yet positively from what I have read.

As for Ron Paul, I was thinking what Max said but he beat me to it. He should go on 60 minutes Sunday after football and clear the air. I bet it makes his campaign unlike any of his actual positions can ever do. America loves to forgive people.

Max, you're hired if I ever run for office. My Pastafarianism shouldn't be held against me but you know it will be.

Mad Max|1.8.08 @ 11:43PM|#

"Um, what? Ken Starr was called out as a partisan hack the day he was appointed."

Yes, I could believe Bill Clinton's supporters, or I could go with the *Washington Post:*

"Starr's public image as rigid and doctrinaire during the Clinton years belies a more nuanced history. Although he ruled against an affirmative action plan, he made decisions that favored First Amendment rights and a military officer's right to wear a yarmulke with his uniform. He joined the evangelical McLean Bible Church, volunteering with its inner-city ministry, and helped lead a Bible study for inmates at the Fairfax County jail."

Donna St. George, "Starr, in New Role, Gives Hope To a Needy Death Row Inmate," March 14, 2005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32443-2005Mar13_2.html

"When the Senate Ethics Committee needed someone to review Republican Senator Bob Packwood's diaries, the committee chose Starr, and Starr was praised by Republicans and Democrats alike for his fairness and decency. In 1990, Starr was the leading candidate for the U.S. Supreme Court nomination after William Brennan's retirement. He encountered a strong resistance from the Department of Justice leadership which feared that Starr might not be reliably conservative as a Supreme Court justice."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Starr

|1.8.08 @ 11:46PM|#

People have been bringing up the newsletter all year and it hasn't been touched by the big news agencies yet, not because they didn't think Ron was viable so it wouldn't matter, but because they probably checked on it and realized it was a non story. It still hasn't made noise today on the news. Chances are it won't until he wins something. He should do 60 minutes just to A) head it off at the pass - I don't think it's too late by any stretch and B) it would give him a prime time national audience and people always tune in to a potential racism story. This is America where controversy rules the day. Clinton got elected because he was a cheater! Ron can get elected by not being a racist but people think he is!

The jumping off the bandwagon here is a little premature guys. It's not even Super Tuesday yet.

|1.8.08 @ 11:50PM|#

The reason why this has nothing to do with the "Ron Paul Revolution" is because the real Ron Paul is irrelevant to these supporters. Much like Obama supporters, they live in an imaginary world and have created an imaginary candidate they wish were in the running, and they can't see anything the real Ron Paul does.

|1.8.08 @ 11:51PM|#

Funny those "Bill Clinton supporters" didn't have any problems with the guy who preceded him, or with the guy who succeeded him and actually imposed the sanctions. Just Starr - the guy the author of "The Real Anita Hill" writes about as a movement-conservative activist.

|1.8.08 @ 11:52PM|#

But, hey, the newspaper that kept the story going and kept calling for Clinton's resignation...that IS a an objective source.

|1.8.08 @ 11:53PM|#

Better get used to defending The Clintons after tonight.

|1.8.08 @ 11:55PM|#

By the way, I would have gone a different way than Max.

"Yes, I published the Ron Paul Get Your Steamin' Hot Plate of Hate Newsletter. I don't agree with the opinions of every writer any more than the publisher of the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal or The New Republic agrees with every essay printed in those newspapers. The cornerstone of my political philosophy is freedom. Some of the writers in my newsletter hold controversial views. Some, in my opinion, are hateful views. By I think providing a forum for free and open discourse means, as a publisher, I stay out of editing content. Other publishers may do things differently, but this is my newsletter. It's my name and it's my responsibility. The point is not the ideas in my newsletter; it is the freedom for writers who do not have access to mainstream media to have an outlet for their views.

There will be some critics who say that the hateful, hurtful and odious comments are the real face of libertarians. This could not be further from the truth. The real face of libertarianism is to allow the free exchange of ideas and let individuals, not government or big media, decide what is right and what is wrong.

You have that same choice right now. You can judge me by my career of public service or you can judge me by articles written by other but published in my newsletter. What matters most to me is that you are free to choose."

Mad Max|1.8.08 @ 11:58PM|#

"Max, you're hired if I ever run for office. My Pastafarianism shouldn't be held against me but you know it will be."

Nick, bearing in mind that I got about a hundred votes when I ran for Congress as a write-in, here is my advice:

If your religion is cricicized, hold a big spaghetti dinner. Use a catchy slogan like, "don't be a disaster, quit hatin' on my pasta." Put on a chef's hat and bib and give out pasta, sauce and meatballs to all attendees, making sure that the journalists get their share. Go around the tables and say, "do you want more noodly appendage?" Then tell the audience that "this is America, and we need to put religious divisions behind us." Hire an actor to picket the dinner with a sign reading "Jew-loving Pastafarians will burn in Hell." Demand that other candidates denounce the picketer.

Next thing you know, you'll be measuring drapes for your Congressional office.

|1.9.08 @ 12:06AM|#

I'm stressed out, which is sad: who is elected to public office should not matter so very much as it does. But when it has such dramatic effects on nearly every area of life and society (what wages can be agreed to, who can get married, how we pay doctors, how much currency there is) transfer of power is bound to be a high anxiety prospect. We are electing the next Emperor (or Emperess). Winner take (almost) all.

Mad Max|1.9.08 @ 12:10AM|#

"We are electing the next Emperor"

Don't you mean Chancellor?

Mad Max|1.9.08 @ 12:36AM|#

joe,

The anti-Clinton, pro-Starr conspiracy went much deeper than even you could have imagined.

The NY Times, in 1994, called Starr "a neutral lawyer," cleverly concealng the truth that he was a "partisan hack."

http://tinyurl.com/29duzr

The NY Times again from 1993, mentioning Starr as a professor and former solicitor general, but again covering up the well-known fact that Starr was a Republican operative seeking the destruction of Our Greatest President Ever:

http://tinyurl.com/2btwm3

|1.9.08 @ 12:45AM|#

MM, good point. I now think that GWB was Chancellor. We no longer need one. Pretensions of limits are but fading illuminations in the margins of executive orders, quaint keepsakes, vestigial liberalism. The usefulness of the Constitution is converging with that of the preserved wedding dress: pretty to look at, nice to recollect, out of the way.

|1.9.08 @ 1:09AM|#

Man, this is disappointing. I cannot understand why he would allow publications with his own name on them - "Ron Paul's Freedom Report", "The Ron Paul Investment Report", etc. - to print such vile trash for years on end.

There's this thing called the "editorial voice". It's a characterization of what a publication is about, who its editors are, who its audience is. It sounds to me like the editorial voice of these newsletters was that of a short-sighted, angry, unthoughtful, incurious, casually bigoted, somewhat paranoid white American male.

If there was a Larry Edelstein Political Review, I would make damn sure that its editorial voice wasn't that of, oh, say, a hand-wringing, manipulative, intellectually careless, self-hating, vaguely depressed documentary filmmaker with statist and elitist tendencies. If I did, I'd expect someone to pillory the shit out of me, eventually, and I'd expect to lose votes. I wouldn't be surprised if my fellow libertarians started calling it The Albatross Report, because they would feel it hanging around their necks, just as I sense these ridiculous Ron Paul newsletters encircling my throat right now.

Their mass will further compromise my posture the next time I try to talk libertarianism with my liberal progressive friends.

My biggest question is why Ron Paul would have let this shit bear his name. I want an answer, or I will not vote for him.

Like I said, I'm really disappointed.

|1.9.08 @ 2:45AM|#

Greg N.:"I'm certain it more than justifies why we should be skeptical of the Lew Rockwell kooks."

At this stage of the game, LR and Co. speak more sense than Israel's Amen Corner and the PC Uber Alles crowd.

|1.9.08 @ 3:45AM|#

OVERlution.

Dan F|1.9.08 @ 4:00AM|#

It's unbecoming to defend Dr. Paul in this. In the best version of his life, he either wasn't aware that neo-Confederate writings were being published under his name for decades -- did they leave him off the mailing list? -- or he fought hard to get his name off the newsletters, as any sane person would do, and somehow failed, and somehow reasoned that the law suits he filed or police reports he registered were never worthy of pointing out.

He looks awful today, and more people noticed than ever did before in his career, thanks to the national groundswell behind him.

A principled person could not have tolerated this for twenty years.

At that, I don't believe a principled person can accept money from Stormfront and dodge behind the appeal that it's good to see a neo-Nazi bank account become a few hundred dollars shorter. And I also firmly contend that a principled libertarian can't inject pork into a spending bill and then say he fought to end federal handouts while standing in line to collect some for supporters in his district.

And now you realize I am trying to raise a larger point. Ron Paul acts in self-interest, even at the expense of his highest principles. The very blatant expense. Campaign funds from neo-Nazis. District indulgences from the federal government. And two decades of nominally presiding over a small neo-Confederate movement: it is hard to see what personal benefit came to him from that, but it's far harder to imagine that anything other than self-indulgence might have made such an unfortunate legacy worthwhile to him.

Self-interest rises above principle, dramatically, in Ron Paul's epoch. Kirchick's trips to Kansas and Wisconsin yield some more reason to see that. And getting to the point: they allow me, I say unapologetically, to take a jab at the movement.

Does self-interest rise above principle in libertarianism?

You want to hold onto every dollar you earn. And you want to make whatever decisions benefit you in life, regardless of their social impact, unbridled.

Can that actually be called principle? Or is the rhetoric of libertarianism a fig leaf over selfishness and anti-social inclination?

It's a mix; it's impossible to separate. But it's rivetingly interesting to see what happens when a libertarian's self-interest is not aligned with his ideals -- but rather gets flung against them in high tension. When the self-interested option is distinctly not libertarian and not principled.

This is exactly what happened when Dr. Paul's campaign was offered money from a foul source and when he was faced with a chance to push pork into his district.

The same sort of fascinating thing happened to you today. You have to choose between the campaign you love and the decency and tolerance you espouse. Happy choosing.

|1.9.08 @ 6:55AM|#

Benjamin,

I'd bet Lew Rockwell himself wrote a healthy portion of the most disgusting stuff from those newsletters. On that point, I have no direct evidence, but I'd still bet I"m right.

|1.9.08 @ 7:33AM|#

"I'd bet Lew Rockwell himself wrote a healthy portion of the most disgusting stuff from those newsletters. On that point, I have no direct evidence, but I'd still bet I"m right."

What distinction do you think you are making here?

If you hire ghostwriters to pen articles as though they were yours, they write kooky racist shit for A DECADE and you let them, they're your words, not theirs. That's what ghostwriting is. You own what you engage them to write.

You could argue there's a difference if he denounced this crap and fired them when they wrote it, but he didn't, so you can't.

As Dave Niewart has pointed out, Ron Paul has spent more than a decade pandering to every flavour of extreme-right kooks, accepted their support, indulged all their conspiracies and in the process has used his prominant position to promote them.

Nobody can complain that his rejection of these associations wasn't convinving enough. There is no way it could be to anyone but the most gullible or willfully ignorant.

|1.9.08 @ 7:40AM|#

"It is certainly worth remembering ... that racial or anti-gay animus has zero to do with Ron Paul's campaign or its appeal."

Really ? Perhaps you would like to float a conspiracy theory of your own for why every white supremacist, nativist, neo-nazi, and far-right group has the same preferred candidate.

Maybe it's his hair. Maybe that's the reason white supremacists are saying "sure he's not perfect but he's 90% with us". The hair.

|1.9.08 @ 7:58AM|#

"Paul would have done better to more thoroughly explain how it happened, how it was dealt with at the time"

Really Brian ?

How it was dealt with was it continued unabated for a decade and we've seen no "handling" of it other than to scrub copies from the internet and to claim that he wrote none of the articles he paid to be published under his name and continued to pay for when they were.

You think it was a failure not to get out and explain that do you. No doubt you'll be waiting with equal intrigue to hear Ron Paul's explanation for why he thinks extreme right-wing groups have been throwing dinners in his honour over the years.

|1.9.08 @ 8:09AM|#

Kilo,

I must've been unclear (I think my earlier comments might have been clearer on this). I'm not drawing a distinction at all. This is hugely disappointing, even if I knew this would happen all along. I was hesitating to get behind Paul, but eventually we donated some money, bought some gear, put the bumper sticker on the car, etc.

Now, I just kind of want my money back.

The only way I'll vote for Paul now is if Lew Rockwell, or whoever wrote this trash, comes forward and takes the blame, says Paul had no working knowledge of its contents, and then Paul publicly repudiates Rockwell and the racists that hang around him.

Something tells me I'll be staying home on the 29th.

|1.9.08 @ 8:38AM|#

Libertarians should ask, "Why"? and on some level, the answer is easy. Libertarians believe in freedom so they are less likely to show nutjobs the door. You spout some racist, crap and your never getting an invitation back to the Democrats. The Republicans are going to say, "Hey, we love your contributions and around the country club we can say things, but not in public. You say it again and you're out." The only way the libertarian cause goes anywhere is if the sane libertarians find other sane libertarians and start building a political infrastructure. And, as much as it may goes against their grain, they're going to have to shoot to kill on any lunatics who try and squeeze in the door.

|1.9.08 @ 9:11AM|#

Two years ago I received an email from Moveon.org with a call to action to write our congressmen regarding the proposed cuts by the Republican administration towards the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. I was given the instructions to write Ron Paul.

I had heard the name before, but had assumed he was just another neocon as his popularity in Texas District 14 was intense. I did some quick research on him via his website and his newsletters. I also came across the Houston Chronicle article where he explained the racist newsletters. I also saw where he had libertarian leanings and thought to myself,here's a true lesson in the meaning of the word "futile" as I wrote my impassioned letter.

A few days later, I received an email from his office saying that he had voted NOT to cut the funding. I was in shock and made it a mission to delve even further into this strange guy's background and teachings.

As no one likes to read long comments and this one is probably past that point...in and attempt to be brief... my answer to anyone that reads a website called "Reason Magazine" should try to use those reasoning powers in regards to Ron Paul.

After one year of my reading everything this man wrote or said I came to the belief that he is a remarkably well-read, educated, kind and caring person that tells the hard truth when it comes to his diagnosis and prescription for this country. He is not by any means a politician in today's sense of the word.

The newsletters were written during the time he had dropped out of politics and busy birthing babies such as the late Tejano star, Selena. The ghost-writer was fired and Ron Paul took the blame for his lack of editorial diligence.

I'm an early 50's, Democrat voting, female business owner with a heart that bleeds for social equality and justice. I wrote him a year and a half ago and begged him to run for President.

As the recession in this country grows deeper in the upcoming few months and starts to effect each one of you...remember that he was the only one that sounded the alarm bell far in advance.

|1.9.08 @ 9:32AM|#

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.

|1.9.08 @ 11:33AM|#

"I'd bet Lew Rockwell himself wrote a healthy portion of the most disgusting stuff from those newsletters. On that point, I have no direct evidence, but I'd still bet I"m right."

I used to subscribe to the "RR Report" which was a periodical put out by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard. I subscribed to it because of their opposition to Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I let my subscription run out because it was expensive and because I got tired of Rockwell's racist articles. It wouldn't surprise me if he is the one who ghost wrote the racist articles in the "Ron Paul Letter."

Paul is a vile bigot|1.9.08 @ 12:49PM|#

"It is certainly worth remembering on this tense day for those who have admired Paul as a politician and as a voice in this campaign that, as his clear to anyone paying close attention to either his presidential campaign message (or his message through most of his congressional career) or to the concerns of the bulk of his current fans, that racial or anti-gay animus has zero to do with Ron Paul's campaign or its appeal. Any attempt to tar the "Ron Paul Revolution" with these old newsletters is wrongheaded and unfair."


This is without doubt, the lamest apology I have ever read in my life. The man has shown himself to be, at least, a bigot of a strain so virulent, it is now virtually unknown in mainstream American politics, yet you are seeking to excuse it because he is anti-war? Give me a fucking break. Furthermore the newsletters are just the tip of the iceberg. What about his refusal to return donations from a known neo-nazi (it seems the newsletters shed a little light on the motivation behind that refusal)or his pitifully weak rebukes of the large contingent of "Truthers" supporting him. Paul has appeared on the radio show of the loathsome Alex Jones, probably the most visible supporter, aside from Rosie, of the vile 9-11 conspiracy theories dozens of times, and has uttered nary a word of condemnation of the man and his disgusting beliefs.

Any claim that we should give a pass to Paul because of the so-called "revolution"(what if they threw a revolution and no one came) being undertaken in his name, gives tacit approval to his incredibly vile bigotry.

P.S. If anyone here is fucking stupid enough to believe the stupendously lame " I didn't write any of these newsletters bearing my name" defense, you need to have your mental health evaluated by a professional.

|1.9.08 @ 1:11PM|#

Ron Paul's critics are so used lying politicians that when he tells it as it happened they see all kinds of hidden agendas. How about the fools who lied us into war? Oh, I forgot they had an excuse that doesnt sound stupendously lame and they are sticking to it. I would rather have an honest man leading the country who isn't afraid to show us all of his warts.

But I can see Rattlesnake Jake's point too. After all I'm sure the politician he is for (whoever that is... talk about hidden agendas) is a fine upstanding person who never uttered a foul word in his life. Like Cheney.

curly2|1.9.08 @ 1:33PM|#

"If you fervently believe these aren't Paul's sentiments why on Earth would you trust a guy who's too lazy to see what's been printed in his name and on his dime?"

Right on, Jay B.

If he's not responsible enough to screen articles in his own newsletter I'd hate to see him as President.

|1.9.08 @ 3:11PM|#

http://victorystore00.stores.yahoo.net/ronpa18islas.html

CRL|1.9.08 @ 3:12PM|#

None of this is new it has been addressed, to my satisfaction. It seems every month or so it is repackaged and sent out for another round. It doesn't seem to ring true with runningmates Dr. Paul has mentioned (Walter E. Williams) or his very vocal respect for Ludwig von Mises (who was Jewish).

|1.9.08 @ 4:54PM|#

"I would rather have an honest man leading the country who isn't afraid to show us all of his warts. "

Who's that then?
This is also from the Ron Paul report, speaking about African Americans: "our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."

He didn't show you this and you regard him as honest for claiming that stuff like this being published under his name for 20 years was something he supposedly never saw and never received feedback on to find out about it ?

If that's your standard for honesty, how would even Cheney fail it ? Could he not claim he was unaware of what business Halliburton was in for the past 2 decades when he also played a figurehead role with occasional contributions ?

|1.9.08 @ 5:01PM|#

"It doesn't seem to ring true with runningmates Dr. Paul has mentioned (Walter E. Williams) or his very vocal respect for Ludwig von Mises (who was Jewish)."

So it doesn't ring true for that 1 jewish guy. Meanwhile every anti-semetic group out there claims him as one of their own. I wonder which is more telling.

Seriously, if every anti-abortionist group had the same preferred candidate would you try this hard to pretend it had nothing to do with their stance on abortion ?

In fact, "would you try at all" would seem to be a more fitting question. I've seen no alternate explanation yet for why this candidate has brought together every right-wing extremist group in a way no other candidate in memory has.
Seriously, just say it's his national parks policy, anything.

|1.9.08 @ 5:51PM|#

I'm a libertarian, and I'm really disgusted by some of the racist and homophobic crap found in those newsletters. Crap like assertions that "the blacks" stopped rioting in L.A. in '92 after they got their welfare checks. Crap like pining away for the good old days of socially stigmatizing homosexuals to pressure them to stay in the closet. That kind of crap is found in those newsletters.

New Republic is itself a crap magazine that was among those publications that helped to lie this country into the Iraq War. The author of the smear piece in question is a crap supporter of that fascist crap artist Giuliani. Hence, we all know why the publication of the TNR piece was timed the way it was, and for what reason.

NONETHELESS, there is the issue of actual .pdf copies being posted with the TNR article to show you all the bigoted & homophobic diatribes that peppers those newsletters. The New Republic didn't write those things, someone with Paul's full consent wrote them...for YEARS. Yet, the good dr. didn't think to review a single one of those things BEARING HIS NAME??? He claims he had no idea what was in those things.

You Paulites have drunk so much of the damn Kool-Aid you can't see the forest through the trees. Has it ever occurred to you that electing Ron Paul to a six-digit salary at taxpayers' expense is not the ONLY strategy to achieve libertarian ends? That there may be other ways of accomplishing libertarian goals? Ron Paul is not the Messiah of Liberty, so give up your pre-pubescent delusions and grow the hell up.

BTW, the author of those newsletters would have to be Lew Rockwell. Read the copies posted by TNR and compare to articles that Rockwell has dared to put his name to. The style of expression is remarkably similar.

|1.9.08 @ 8:41PM|#

Paul is uncomfortable with the issue because he will have to "out" the real writer of the newsletter.

It's obvious that the real writer is a trusted friend who managed and continues to manage some of Paul's relations with the far right fringe. This person obviously cooked up the newsletters to raise money from racists and bigots -- give 'em what they want. Paul's name was used for its political value, but the money raised went not to him but the non-profit corporation that published the newsletters. Someone must have made some money from those subscriptions.

I won't speculate on the author because someone else seems to have hit the nail on the head.

That author was pretty damned short-sighted. Didn't he (and Ron Paul) see this day coming?

Ron Paul needs to openly discuss the newsletter, disavow it once and for all and tell people who wrote the newsletters.

RNC|1.9.08 @ 8:50PM|#

"and no, there is no reason to believe Kirchick was acting as anything other than an interested journalist looking for a sensational story"

Oh, bullshit. Quit protecting your own kind.

|1.9.08 @ 9:10PM|#

I have a business and it involves the service of food. I am busy...I am tired most days because before my employees have arrived each afternoon I have put in 8 hours before them.

I found a male employee that I personally trained and he showed great strength and promise in representing me in management on the floor. After many months I let him run the show on some evenings while I attended to things like personal engagements and some much needed rest.

Many times I would notice that some customers and their wives would get up and walk out of my business in a huff. When I questioned the "valued" employee what was going on he would respond that he didn't think they were our clientele.

One day when I was sitting he came up to me and I noticed a belt buckle that was engraved with words. I was at eye level to it as the customers would be. I had seen this belt buckle on him many times and thought it was some sort of rodeo type thing. I finally read what the buckle said which was..."Insert five cents,(a small slot was on the buckle) grab handle, pull vigorously many times until your reward comes".

I was horrified as it suddenly became clear to me why those customers had gotten up and left in a huff without telling me what the problem was.

Who was responsible? I was responsible. And why? Because I let someone else represent me in my business. I had made no inspection of his attire.

But, do I condone what the words on the belt buckle said? Was he fired?

You decide.

And since that time, I do nothing, but continually beat myself up for those out there in this small town who believe that the sentiments expressed on an employee's belt buckle were with my approval. Of course, the employee was fired.... and of course did go on to bad mouth me and my business every chance he got in order to destory the business.

I understand exactly what Ron Paul faces as I have walked a mile in his shoes.

|1.9.08 @ 10:44PM|#

STOP BEING NEGATIVE
THAT STUPID HIT PIECE IS NOT THE END OF ANYTHING.
MORE LIKELY DIEBOLD VOTING MACHINES IS AN OBSTACLE TO OVERCOME.
WHO READS THE NEW REPUBLIC?
STUPID MAGAZINE.

|1.10.08 @ 6:20PM|#

Blaming Ron Paul for these newsletters is like blaming Reason.com for the comments of their posters. The Ron Paul Newsletter appears to be nothing more than a internet newsgroup or message board forum prior to the widespread use of the Internet. That many of these letters were posted show only that Ron Paul was concerned about the issues and opinions of his constituents and was wise enough to provide a forum for them to express themselves. In those memorable words that shaped our Revolution:
"I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Westmiller|1.10.08 @ 8:20PM|#

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 @ 5:00PM|#

How can we even be sure Ron Paul wrote it? Like he is the ONLY person named Ron Paul?