Ron Paul Storms Out of CNN Interview Over Newsletter Questions

Rep. Ron Paul walks out of an interview with CNN’s Gloria Borger when the latter refused to stop asking him questions about his newsletters.

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

  • Gojira||

    I didn't think the newsletters themselves were going to do him much harm.

    This action will. There will be some who will cheer it as heroically standing up to the press, but most people will just take away from it that he's easily nettled and has a hard time controlling himself in difficult situations.

    I'm not saying whether that is fair or not, so don't attack me. I'm just saying: remember what looking bad in an interview did for Palin.

  • Jerry||

    So why didn't the CNN ask these questions say 6 months ago? How opportunistic do you have to be start asking this questions now. It's not like they don't have time when they report 24/7.

  • Mike E||

    The same reason why no one mentioned Cain's indiscretions initially.

  • Jerry||

    But that was new news. This is old news rehashed by CNN. It's like asking Ginrich again why he left his 1st and 2nd wives. And I think Gingrich would walk out of such interview as well.

  • End of Ron Paul||

    Four More O-face Years.

  • ||

    This is the same stuff I brought up last night. It doesn't matter what he says or does now, he's gonna get dragged through the mud until he's not even viable any more.

    The only thing that surprises me is that the media didn't push Paul hard just so they could destroy him with this idiotic stuff that was written in his name in the general election.

    Sorry, guys. Paul has some good ideas, (even if his timing for implementation is horrible) but the guy can't touch Obama with these racist newsletters out there. You need to wake up and realize that.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Oh, Slapdick McGee. Will you ever learn?

  • Leon H. Wolf||

    Most people already know that Ron Paul refused to endorse John McCain in the 2008 general election. While I don’t necessarily agree with that decision, especially from a contender for the GOP nominee, I can certainly understand it. Lord knows I hated every nice thing I had to say about John McCain and wasn’t entirely pleased about pulling the lever for him (which is a dramatic understatement). Most people assume that Paul endorsed Libertarian candidate Bob Barr in 2008, which is partially true. However, that is not the entire story. Paul also endorsed three other candidates.

    The first of those was Chuck Baldwin. I don’t really know a lot about Baldwin except that he has been on record early and often in support of the proposition that the South should have won the Civil War. This sort of thing would ordinarily disqualify most normal people from endorsing Chuck Baldwin, but Ron Paul is not most normal people. And given what most Ron Paul supporters seem willing to forgive, a little Confederate sympathy (or even a lot of Confederate sympathy) seems like small potatoes.

    The second was Cynthia McKinney. Yes, you read that correctly, Ron Paul endorsed Cynthia McKinney in 2008. For those who do not know, Cynthia McKinney is a certifiably insane anti-American anti-Semitic lunatic. She first came to widespread public attention when she was arrested for punching out a member of the capitol police who tried to stop her when she wasn’t wearing her pin. Cynthia McKinney is so crazy that she got defeated in a primary by a guy who thought Guam might tip over and capsize. McKinney was once arrested by the Israelis while trying to give aid to Hamas and penned a bizarre anti-American and anti-Israeli screed. See more of her anti-Americanism here.

    Now, I know that the above is not necessarily persuasive to the average Ron Paul fan – after all, if they were bothered by siding with terrorists, they’d have probably jumped off the Paul bandwagon already. What is perhaps more important is that Cynthia McKinney is also next door to being a communist in terms of her domestic policy. McKinney is an open and avowed enemy of free market capitalism, preferring instead Ghadaffi-style socialism. Seriously, she literally and openly favors dictatorial socialism. McKinney ran on the Green Party ticket, whose platform explicitly includes guaranteed open-ended welfare (at a living wage) for everyone regardless of their ability or willingness to work, among other quasi-communist and far-left economic policies.

    The fourth and final candidate Ron Paul endorsed for President was Ralph Nader. Yes, the same Ralph Nader who was so far to the left on economic matters that he could see no difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush. The same Ralph Nader who also longs for the day when the last vestiges of capitalism have died in America. Nader, you remember was the guy who made running as the Green Party candidate famous.

    Why, you might ask, would Ron Paul, champion of economic freedom and limited government, endorse two avowed socialists for President? Well, you see, they signed a document:

    Paul will offer this open endorsement to the four candidates because each has signed onto a policy statement that calls for “balancing budgets, bring troops home, personal liberties and investigating the Federal Reserve,” the Paul aide said.

    You see, despite a lengthy and public history of supporting massive government expansion and infringement upon personal liberties, and despite running on a party platform that explicitly calls for the massive expansion of Government welfare, these people would clearly have been better at shrinking the government than the Republicans on the basis of signing this absurd pledge. To be fair, Paul was probably just following the Golden Rule here – after all, Paul had just spent the last two years being a truther in front of truthers and denying trutherism in front of the media, so he doubtless was extending the sort of blind eye towards Nader and McKinney’s insanity that he wished everyone else would turn towards his.

    For whatever his failings as a Presidential candidate and conservative (and they were legion), no reasonable person would say that John McCain was worse than any of these clowns. It was one thing for Paul to not endorse McCain – but we have to ask what sort of person affirmatively supports anti-American avowed socialists and confederate sympathizers over a Republican? The answer: Someone who, like Howard Dean, hates Republicans and everything they stand for.

  • JonB||

    Actually Paul was pretty clear on the why of this. I watched a few interviews with him around this time and he basically said he was sick of the two-party system and the exclusion of other possible choices and philosophies, and wanted to bring some exposure to other ideals.

    Ron Paul is a coalition guy. Not a bi-partisan guy. It's the reason someone like Nader can love him and yet still rail against successful businesses. The reason Kucinich and Paul can get along. He finds common ground with people - in this case it was the common ground of being shut out.

    In truth, if these "racist" newsletters are the only thing they can dredge up on Paul, he is laughing. His numbers are climbing and I have literally seen an explosion of Ron Paul all over the place (I travel for work), not to mention people worldwide love the guy.

    It's a different ball game this time around. Especially if economic conditions get worse. more-of-the-same becomes less appealing to people when they can't afford to feed their kids or house their family. Deep down inside many are realizing that there is something very, very wrong in this entrenched establishment and they are seeing the effects.

  • BigT||

    Slapdick - go live up to your handle, rather than splat all over this blog.

  • Southerner||

    Wow. Looks like everyone's missing the big story here. Three points to be made:

    1. The reason this blog said Ron Paul "stormed" out of the interview is because "dodged the question again for the umpteenth time and slunk away in shame" is neither as charitable, flattering, nor concise.

    2. The far-left media (of which CNN is but one little viewed channel) does indeed plan to drag every Republican candidate through the mud, and is doing so. They have their racist Messiah already, and they do not plan to replace him with anyone, let alone your Messiah.

    3. They are not planning to keep hammering Ron Paul forever with the newsletters questions he keeps dodging, although they certainly will keep it up for a while. Those of you who think this is the only line of attack they have against him are sorely mistaken: this is merely their first shot across the bow. You have yet to see the full assault.

    As a bonus point, I should mention you're doing your current idol no favors trying to tear down his rivals. Smashing other people's idols won't give your idol any protection from the iconoclasts when they decide it's his turn to be smashed.

    As for me, I'm liking the current crop of candidates so little that I'm currently operating by Glenn Reynolds' Syphilitic Camel policy while hoping for a deliberative convention to yield someone better. Even if it does, though, I'm not expecting any miracles at this point.

  • Matt Tanous||

    1. Dodged the question? He claims not to have written them, acknowledged he should have done a better job of handling something someone else was writing in his name, and disavowed all the offending statements. What else do you want from some point written when I, as a 22 year old, was under the age of 5?

    2. Well, duh, but it's not really an interview if the "reporter" asks the same question over and over again in the same interview only for it to be brought up again (and again, and again).

    3. Of course not. They are only turning to it because "he doesn't support war enough" and "he cuts back the government too fast" only seem to make many Americans signal agreement, and the "unelectable" shtick only lasts until he starts winning.

  • Southerner||

    1. Yes, he dodged the question. He's a lot like his supporters that way: when called upon to answer a question, he says something irrelevant and then pretends that's an answer, just as you're doing. You're the only ones dumb enough to fall for your own tactics.

    2. Where Republicans are concerned, the leftist media is into interrogations, not interviews. You dodge a question in an interrogation, you can expect to hear it again and again until you either lie ("That was Lew Rockwell who signed my name on those racist newsletters.") or tell the truth ("That was me announcing I was running for President in those racist newsletters.").

    3. If you really think either of those issues matters to the leftist media, they're going to blindside you again and again. No, their next line of attack will some and sundry of the following: Ron Paul's anti-Semitism, his association with Stormfront.org and Lewrockwell.com, his pandering to 9/11 truthers, his endorsements of Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney, his support for Hamas and letting Iran have nuclear warheads, and his Israel-bashing. The only time they'll bring up war at all is if he starts insisting we had no business getting involved in Europe's war of aggression against Hitler the way his buddy Pat Buchanan does.

  • AlmightyJb||

    But if he pledged allegence to Isael like the rest of the candidates you would have no problem with him Leon. Everyone knows the game now.

  • Southerner||

    With friends like you, AJB, who needs enemies?

  • AlmightyJB||

    The main group that is pushing these newsletters are the neocons. If you don't know what their agenda is by now I don't know what to tell you. I'm not going to lie just because people don't like the truth. By the way, I am not at all anti-Israel or anti-semite. I support Israel, just not with our sons and daughters blood. They're perfectly capable of running their own country and defending themselves. It's not the job of the U.S. to make the middle east safe for Israel. Of course to the neocons, just saying that is going to get you the anti-semite label.

  • AlmightyJB (Shorter)||

    Some of my best friends are J0000000S! I only brought up Israel to show how non-obsessed I am with hating it!

  • ||

    Ron Paul needs to come out and admit me made a mistake in letting others write under his name and not reviewing any of it before it went to press. As long as he keeps ducking this issue and making excuses it will keep coming up.

    Admit he made a mistake.

    That is all.

  • ||

    As a decades-long big-L Libertarian, this is where I get really puzzled. I thought professional politicians where supposed to be good at handling communication crises like this, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HAVE FOUR YEARS TO THINK IT OUT IN ADVANCE!!!

  • Skip||

    If Gingrich is the nominee, they will be bringing up the ex-wives 24/7.

  • Southerner||

    Count on it.

  • ||

    Because Ron Paul was an obscure figure back then and nobody gave a shit?

    I mean, should CNN have been delving into the past history of any and all people who might possibly run for president, even if no one knew who the hell they were?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    A congressman since the 80s, presidential candidate in 88, 08, and 12 is an "obscure figure?"

    That's the best you got? Perhaps instead of ignoring his existence in the last 6 months, maybe, just maybe they could have brought it up then rather than saving it in their hip pocket for the, in their estimation, unlikely event he could have a chance.

    Fuck the mainstream media.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Yes, he was obscure back then. His previous runs for president were non-events. Tulpa`s right.

  • ||

    They brought up these newsletters in 2007 when he ran. They brought them up in 2010, and now 2011. They have gotten the same answer for years, yet they keep asking the question.

    It is not unreasonable for Paul to end the interview.

    I hope people realize this.

  • Oregon Scott||

    A YouTube video of CNN repeating the question over and over would do wonders for helping people realize this. (And no, I'm not volunteering.)

  • Southerner||

    Don't worry. His enemies will do it for you. Of course, their version will also show his dodging of the question repeatedly.

  • ||

    REally, yes when you lock elbows with a terrorist and sit under the teachings of a racist pastor. Oh but wait......nah that doesn't count cause he's a black man!! Double standard? I think so!

  • ||

    He's on their team, so expect this to be the case through the next election. Heck, Eric Holder and Obama have both publicly scolded reporters in front of their peers. Could you imagine the reaction GWB or Ashcroft would have gotten if they had done that?

    It will only get worse. That's why it's time to grow up, get on the Romney bandwagon and try to bring the party a little further to the right. If you keep insisting on pushing Paul, all you'll do is push Obama into the WH and irritate the Republicans to the point that Rand Paul and Paul Ryan will never become influential players.

  • A_Is_A||

    I think that "getting on the Romney bandwagon" will have an opposite effect from the one that you describe. And I refuse to support someone I wouldn't trust with a Nerf gun.

  • Gojira||

    Yep, bring the party to the right...just like we did with Regan. That's how we got the Christmas Miracle of George W. Bush!

  • A Secret Band of Robbers||

    That's exactly the problem with Romney. Even if he could bring the country closer to the center--I can't quite bring myself to say he'd bring the country to the right--he'd help cement the leftward drift of the republican party since Reagan. Paul is the only candidate who could reverse that.

  • Bam!||

    CNN, FOX, the other news agencies, don't really dive into a candidates history. The other candidates campaign opposition research people do and then give it to the media.

  • wareagle||

    I'm with Jerry. This is hardly Paul's first rodeo. The newsletters are just now an issue? Please. It's like the allegations against Cain. They only surfaced when the candidate gained traction.

  • ||

    And they never did stories about American Idol until it became popular either! It's almost as if they focus on reporting things about people their audience is familiar with! Conspiracy! Conspiracy!

  • Sheriff Joe||

    bullshit...they only focus on political stories surrounding Repub candidates when those candidates gain traction. The audience was familiar with Obama's past but the media feigned ignorance. Credibility requires consistency.

  • Paul||

    That's essentially what Tulpa is saying.

    For the media to report on you, you first have to be someone. Ron Paul has recently become someone.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    He is a 3 time presidential candidate and longtime congressman. He is not this unknown mystery figure you're trying to make him out to be.

  • Cytotoxic||

    To the average person (ie not you or me), yes he an obscure mystery figure.

  • BigT||

    This is good news. Ron Paul is getting traction. He is getting MSM abuse. He will shunt this aside, show the MSM for their shallow hypocrisy, and move on to the nomination. RP12

  • LittleT||

    This is horrid news. Ron Paul is getting temporary traction. The MSM is kicking the son of a bitch. He will soon succumb to their relentless assault on his already-sinking ship, show himself up for a weak-willed and paranoid old kook, and drop out of sight again. Meanwhile, either someone else will win the nomination by default, or a completely new candidate will turn up at a convention. Even if the nominee is so clean he squeaks, however, the attacks will continue. Moreover, even if he can walk on water and the Republicans capture a supermajority in both the House and the Senate, the candidate will not be able to keep the USA from defaulting on its debts and the economy from sinking back into the crapper from which it hasn't even escaped yet.

  • jt||

    which is no surprise from people with a brain to pay attention with and especially not a surprise for those that work within and grassroot for the campaign. it's always a surprise to idle hands armchairs

  • ||

    So why didn't the CNN ask these questions say 6 months ago? How opportunistic do you have to be start asking this questions now.

    So much for the "old news" defense.

  • Jerry||

    CNN asked these questions in 2008 as well, they could have done an item this time around, but then why wait so long? Because it all has to fit the narrative the CNN itself makes about who is a 'lead' candidate? But then this is telling more of the MSM than of candidate Ron Paul.

  • Bob Ross||

    CNN did ask these questions, even as recent as the day prior to this interview. They keep bringing it up, he keeps giving them the answers. It gets old.

  • ||

    And these questions came up in the last presidential race and where answered. So they are rehashing things that were addressed several years ago.

  • ||

    Yes, they keep bringing it up and rehashing it - and Paul keeps giving stupid and/or evasive answers.

  • AnthonyD||

    Boy, this is absolutely true. As bad as the newsletters are, RP's responses are even worse.

  • Matt Tanous||

    Really? What is it that you people (detractors of Paul's answers) want as an answer, exactly? How is "I made a mistake by not properly editing something that was printed in my name by a ghostwriter a long LONG time ago, and it does not represent my views, as you can see by my long and extensive record" not fit the bill?

    And this is why I hate the libertarian community, even as I consider myself a part of it. They, and their readers, advocate certain positions, but as soon as a viable candidate comes along that gets people excited about those same positions and starts creating a coalition around that, they denigrate him by expecting him to be bloody perfect.

    "Oh, no, he made a mistake 20 years ago. And he doesn't agree with us on *relatively minor issue here*. He can't be the guy to carry our message of liberty." Fuck all you pretentious pricks. You and your "good ol' boys club" can die for all I care.

    Note that this rant has nothing to do with the libertarians that realize, whatever your differences with Paul, he does represent the best chance for libertarian ideas, and the survival of America in general, to become common (and understood by the masses).

  • ||

    If you think, "I didn't write it and I don't know who did" is a sufficient explanation for the racist, bizzaro content of these newsletters is enough, you must be completely oblivious to how the average citizen/voter in this country views those sorts of comments.

    It is far more likely that nothing, nothing he ever says will be a satisfactory explanation for this crap.

  • mr simple||

    There's a lot of Team Red campaigning as libertarians these days. They love to come in here and tell us how Ron Paul is unelectable and we have to vote for the statist Team Red candidate no matter what or we're all terrrorist-lovin' commies.

  • ||

    ...as soon as a viable candidate comes along...

    Note that the viability of a candidate includes his ability to respond well to journalists' questions. Even unfair ones. Even ones that have been asked before.

    I am tempted to further point out that when a guy is concerned about his future viability, that guy might be more careful about what goes out under his apparent by-line. I resist that temptation, though, because that might put me in an "ol' boys club" which you would wish death upon, and I will not allow myself to facilitate such damage to your karma.

    That said, I wish Paul the best of luck. I hope this blows over and that he wins.

  • robc||

    They asked them 4 years ago. They have an 8 minute interview with him answering the questions that they can rerun whenever they want.

  • RoboCain||

    He seemed awfully calm to me. After you watch the video, the headline seems quite misleading.

  • Gojira||

    He does to me to. I also try to remember that I'm predisposed to giving the man the benefit of the doubt because I generally like him and would probably have sex with him if he asked me to...you know, for libertarianism.

    But what we see doesn't matter, because we're actually 5 people who post under 50 different names, and even if all 50 of the regulars here are separate people, we're still not enough to matter. What counts is going to be how this is spun in already-hostile news outlets around America to that vast, nebulous middle who hasn't studied him much and was still unsure about him.

  • RoboCain||

    But why would Mike Riggs at Reason write such a headline? If he was trying to be ironic, I think it will be lost on most people.

  • Gojira||

    My best guess is the real Riggs was replaced with a skrull sometime around 1997.

  • ||

    My Gods! You are right. The answer was hiding right in plain sight.

  • ||

    Maybe it was like the smooth jazz station we had eons ago, and their Premier Program, The Quiet Storm.

    Sm-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-th Jazz.

  • Dave Anthony||

    It was relatively calm, especially with how condescending that cunt was. I just wish he had a better retort for her, and how hypocritically unfair they've been to him.

  • ||

    The headline is misleading because the beltway libertarians at Reason aren't really Paul supporters, or even terribly objective for that matter.

  • RoboCain||

    I don't know if any reporting can be truly objective, but saying he stormed is just plain wrong.

    And if they are any kind of libertarian, shouldn't they be Paul supporters?

  • protefeed||

    Yeah, quietly taking off your microphone and saying the interview is over isn't "storming out", unless you're try to come up with a sensationalist headline that doesn't remotely fit the facts.

  • Tyler||

  • RoboCain||

    Interesting, I've read other things saying Reason doesn't like Paul, but I still find that puzzlingly short-sighted and petty. Not that people can't be that way.

  • Maxxx||

    Because a lot of corporate apologists call themselves libertarians for cover.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Reason is a corporation with many employees and even more contributors. Among those people you will likely find a variety of opinions on Paul, so I'm not sure how you can say that Reason does or doesn't like Paul. It's not some monolithic entity.

  • Chloe||

    I want to know which "beltway" libertarian has been literally in bed with a neocon.

  • EntropyPress||

    Bob Barr

  • Matt Tanous||

    Very interesting. At least now I have some idea of where to put Reason's opinions of individuals. Right above Dick Morris and Bill O'Reilly, I suppose, in the garbage bin.

  • V||

    You're right. Hopefully most people will pick up on what he said and realize that it's not like he gave up the first time he was asked a hard question, CNN's been asking him the same question over and over again every time they see him, and won't let it go. They aren't looking for an answer, they're just trying to remind people that "hey, this guy had racist letters written in a newsletter he owned once way back when. Ergo he's a racist".

  • ||

    That is exactly it Jim. I am no that offended by the newsletters. If Paul admitted he wrote them, I wouldn't necessarily rule out supporting him as long as he said they were wrong and he regretted writing them.

    But what offends me about this is his total refusal to explain them. Sorry, when people publish racist shit in your name and you want to be President, you owe the public an explanation beyond the bare assertion that you didn't write them.

    Put a fork in him. People would have forgiven the newsletters. They were 20 years ago. But people are not going to forgive Paul essentially telling the public to go fuck themselves when they ask about them.

  • ||

    I think Pual knows who the writer is. I think he's protecting a friend. I think that friend's first name is Gary.

  • ||

    Oh and I wouldn't be surprised if the the RNC, Gingrich or Romney was behind the scenes pushing this story. The republican establishment does wills top Paul at any cost. Let us not forget, that when he was speaker, Newt had an ex-democrat chnage over to a republican to run against Paul in a primary and funded Paul's opponent with RNC money.

  • ||

    I have no doubt the Republican establishment is pushing this. That is how politics works. The question is why is Paul handling it so badly and allowing it to work?

  • ||

    No wonder they won't let him near the debates.

  • aw||

    need paulers to help you out now? by kicking and screaming like a kid? other people's hardwork will always get automatically get inherited by you, we are obligated to jump and help you break through this time around? i guess the criteria is first we have to like you. keep trying. same can be said if the positions were swapped, but luckily we have enough to not need you. LOL

  • yes typo..||

    didn't feel it was worth more than 10 seconds of write up time but feel free to arm-chair, as LP has done the past few decades, as what you did while you -shrank- while tea party and independents managed to peak. yes not QQ about GJ as if LP's failure is some -new news-

  • insyder||

    the notion that Gary is Ron's friend is totally hilarious.

  • _^_||

    Gary had parted ways with RP a decade earlier. Not likely him.

  • ||

    Gary North?

  • AnthonyD||

    he should not be protecting a racist friend. For the sake of liberty, he should call the piece of shit out by name, and explain to the interviewer that the slime is no longer a friend of his.

  • EntropyPress||

    Have you read the newsletters? I honestly think that is how people talked back then. I mean look at Disney Cartoons from that era! I was surprised when I read some of it. It was more "NOT PC" than full on racist. Kinda like how people today call Transgender guys "SheMales" and don't realize its sort of a derogatory term.

  • n8||

    SheMales is horribly offensive. They prefer to be called "ladyboys." At least in Thailand.

  • ||

    Is CNN not able to find an actual story? Must they keep asking the same asinine question? His staff ought to ban this stupid woman.

  • MJ||

    They were trying to create a story and Paul gave them exactly what they wanted.

  • ||

    They were trying to create a story and Paul gave them exactly what they wanted.

    Somewhat true, but they still had to take a lot of creative license to make it a story. "Stormed out"? Hardly.

  • TR||

    I would have aborted Obama's mixed race ass, but he still thinks I'm awesome.

  • welp||

    As a Paul supporter, I've sadly got to agree with this.

    The way I see it, if the interviewer wants to enter into a discussion about whether or not the stupid fucking statements in question were horrible statements, the best strategy for Paul would be to gladly entertain that discussion and go into depth about how retarded those statements were.

    I get his frustration, and applaud it in ways, but oh, baby Jesus I wish shit were difernt.

  • Liberal Genius||

    We Democrats have always fearlessly rebuked racists in our own ranks like Robert Byrd and Al Gore Sr.

  • ||

    If his walking away will hurt him... Should it hurt her married to LANCE MORGAN. Lance, in case you care, is the chief communications and crisis strategist of POWELL TATE. Powell Tate is a D.C. firm that represents every part of the very same MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX that Ron Paul wants to reduce!
    What ever happened to fair and balanced reporting?

  • ||

    I agree with Gojira. Ron Paul will get more bad press because he stormed off than the newsletters themselves would have done. It's the same questions they asked in the last elections, and it's stupid. He should have said the answer was the same he gave in 2008 and smiled. Ron Paul has a very horrible time speaking in front of people. It's his greatest weakness. You watch him in the debates and while he is the sane person in the group, he spazzes out when he talks. It's really annoying.

  • Scruffy the Janitor||

    And so it begins....

    again....

  • Fluffy||

    Well, that wasn't good.

    This story was gone for most of the day.

    Benton really should have just had him at Iowa events for the rest of the week. What was the upside to going on CNN to talk about this again? He gave them their shot at this yesterday.

  • ||

    He owes the country an explanation if he wants to be President. He won't give one. The public is rightfully going to conclude that the worst is true. He is done.

  • ||

    And not just him. This is going to weigh down his son's chances on the national stage too.

  • ||

    I don't think so. I think his son can get beyond this.

  • ||

    John, he has responded time after time to the questions.

    Your posts on the earlier thread were hysterical-they were hardly the epitome of equanimity.

    You have an axe to grind with Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell. It shows in your posts.

    Rothbard and Rockwell have a higher regard for liberty than you. There is no debate on that point.

  • ||

    No he hasn't responded. He has just said "I didn't write them". He never explained how if he didn't write them they got into his newsletter. When he does that, he will have responded.

  • tkwelge||

    What the fuck? He clearly explained that he had ghost writers. "He never explained how them articles got into his newsletter!" Are you fucking retarded?

  • Cytotoxic||

    He never explained WHO those ghost writers were.

    The only thing Rothbard and Rockwell really hold in high regard is themselves.

  • AnthonyD||

    his explanations are laughably bad. Its plainly obvious that, if you say that you didnt write them, the next question is going to be, "Then, who did?" At that point, RPaul turns into a blubbering idiot.

    And here's the problem, once again: he's either protecting a racist, or a total incompetent who does not know what is going out in a newsletter with his name on it.

    If you think the general public will buy his idiotic half-answers, you are deluded.

  • Matt Tanous||

    "Blubbering idiot"? Really? How is he expected to know who wrote the offending sections? For one, it was 20 years ago, and even then it was a group of people, not just one guy.

    And if you follow up with "then give us a list of them", I guess you are just hunting racists. Even if the "offensive" statements are mostly just taken out of context... http://takimag.com/article/why.....z1h2S6u1c3

  • ||

  • CE||

    So if your dad's accused of being a racist (despite 99 pct of the evidence being to the contrary), then you're a racist too? Huh?

  • Colin||

    If he knew about them and did nothing, then, yes, he's a racist, too.

  • Erich||

    I guess that makes Joe Paterno a pedophile then...

  • Lord Ballsac||

    And it makes Colin a goatfucker.

  • ||

    If he knew about them and did nothing, then, yes, he's a racist, too.

    So when your family is gathered around the table for Thanksgiving dinner and your drunk-ass dad is railing on about "dem darkies," if you don't immediately get up from the table and whip his ass, you're a racist too?

  • ||

    He gave an explanation...he didn;t write them, didn't read them, disavows them. Do you want him to make something up?

  • ||

    If he didn't write them, how did they get there and who put them there. Why should I believe he didn't write them when they have his name at the top?

  • ||

    Why should you believe he didn't write them? Because everything he has actually done and actually said is contrary to the ideas expressed in the passages quoted from the newsletters. If you don;t like that explanation, what explanation would you like?

  • Gojira||

    To *gag* be fair to John, he has repeatedly said what he wants to hear: who wrote them, and how they got in there. RP knows; as several people have pointed out, he is probably protecting a friend.

    And that friend is Louis Farrakhan.

  • Louis Farrakhan||

    I spend my golden years walking in the park feeding pigeons saltines. Every now and then a hungry looking white child passes by, and I'm sure to ask him, 'Cracker for the little cracka'?' White kids don't like saltines, I don't think. Maybe I should carry Ritz on me.

  • Shane Brady||

    In a 1996 article in the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul said he wrote them:

    "Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid
    misrepresentation."

  • Contrarian P||

    That is not a quote from Ron Paul admitting anything. It is a statement from a newspaper reporter. Summarizing a statement from someone is not the same as quoting that person.

  • Matt Tanous||

    And it should be remembered that many of the articles were written about race riots. In California, around the time, there actually WERE gangs of raging blacks attacking people - they were called "rioters". Plus, one of the so-called offensive statements, in context, actually warns about an uptick in racist beliefs because of the riots:

    "Many more are going to have difficulty avoiding the belief that our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists—and they can be identified by the color of their skin. This conclusion may not be entirely fair, but it is, for many, entirely unavoidable."

    Totally racist if you leave out all the parts except the, well, racist belief that is being warned about.

  • Matt Tanous||

    By this no-context standard that is being used to call Paul a racist, I could just as easily say that Reason is full of shitbag racists, when in reality it just has a few morons working on staff.

  • Alan||

    Yes. In context, these columns aren't all that bad and simply reflect the times. Considering that Ron didn't even write them, these repetitive attacks simply demonstrate (again) that the media cannot be trusted. Does the regular media do anything other than shill for their statist masters?

  • Maxxx||

    Does the regular media do anything other than shill for their statist masters?

    Nope.

  • psst. hey louis||

    nigga want a watermelon?

  • robc||

    He answered it.

    What more do you fucking want?

  • voxpo||

    Seems like I've heard him explain it ten or twelve times. More importantly, it's about the tenth or twelfth most important issue in the contest.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    It would be helpful if certain other candidates got similar scrutiny. I think we would see more of them "storming out" of interviews. I do like when she asked him (presumably on behalf of the Gingrich campaign) to stop the negative ads.

  • ||

    It would be helpful if certain other candidates got similar scrutiny.

    Oh come the fuck on. Other Republican candidates have gotten plenty of scrutiny and don't have this kind of scandal hanging around their necks like a stinking albatross.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I can't tell if you're messing with me.

  • ||

    I'm not. You seriously think Romney and Gingrich haven't gotten scrutiny?

  • Fluffy||

    Romney has, to the best of my knowledge, NEVER been asked about the racially hateful origins and history of his Mormon faith.

    And while I have seen Romney field hostile questions, I have not seen an interviewer refuse to move on from a topic after the question was asked and answered.

    I honestly haven't.

    When has Gingrich faced four or more questions in a row about his marital problems?

  • ||

    Romney has, to the best of my knowledge, NEVER been asked about the racially hateful origins and history of his Mormon faith.

    Which, again, isn't comparable to Paul's newsletter scandal. Romney didn't write the book of Mormon or commission anyone else to.

    In regard to your other claim, what percentage of Gingrich and Romney interviews have you seen?

  • Fluffy||

    Mitt Romney has sworn fealty in life to the Book of Mormon.

    What possible fucking difference would it make if he WROTE it?

    If I swore fealty to Mein Kampf and called myself a Kampfian and wore Mein Kampf underwear and went to a special temple where we talked about Mein Kampf every week, it would not make any sense for someone to say, "Yeah, but you didn't WRITE it, so I guess that doesn't count."

    In regard to your other claim, what percentage of Gingrich and Romney interviews have you seen?

    If there was a Gingrich interview where someone got in his face and asked him personal questions about his marriages over and over, you're damn right I would have seen it. It would be in my Favorites and I would watch it every day.

  • ||

    Dude, if we want to play that game, we can get into a bunch of rancid passages from the Protestant Bible that Paul claims to abide by.

  • RoboCain||

    Except all the candidates claim to abide by the Bible, even Obama.

  • Fluffy||

    How many of the candidates belonged, during their adult lifetime, to churches that were actively banning blacks?

    Mitt Romney was 31 when the Mormon Church got its red-phone hotline call from God to tell them that all blacks weren't cursed and that they could join the Church.

    Thirty fucking one.

    That means that for 13 years Mitt was an adult who voluntarily belonged to, and did missionary work for, an organization that taught that blacks were cursed.

  • protefeed||

    I don't think you understand Mormon culture, if you think it is easy for someone raised in that culture to say you don't believe in it and walk away from it.

    And if you think that mainstream Christianity isn't full of horrid stuff in its scriptures, then you haven't read the Old Testament cover to cover. Seems to me that unrepentant genocide tops repentant ex-racism. And yet billions of people, many of them good, believe in it by not thinking too much about the inconvenient bits.

  • Fluffy||

    I really don't give a rat's ass how hard it is to walk away from it.

    And my entire point here is that we have one candidate who, in his adult lifetime, went to France and engaged in missionary work where he'd knock on one door, see white people, and tell them all about his church, and then would knock on the next door, see black people, and tell them, "Well, you can join, but not really, because you're cursed. Your skin the mark of Cain, you know," and that's ALL FINE WITH EVERYBODY, because we've arbitrarily decided to give Mormons a pass...

    ...but the newsletters are a big deal.

    And yeah, I've read the Old Testament cover to cover. If Lieberman was running again, I'd ask him if he would be duty bound to slaughter a Canaanite, if I could find one. If the newsletter questions are legitimate, so's that question. Ab-so-lutely.

  • protefeed||

    and then would knock on the next door, see black people, and tell them, "Well, you can join, but not really, because you're cursed. Your skin the mark of Cain, you know," and that's ALL FINE WITH EVERYBODY

    Have you ever talked with actual Mormon missionaries? Do you think they would say anything remotely mean like that? Or that this is an accurate representation of the actual policy of the Church at that time?

    The policy was that blacks could get baptized, join the church, and be members, but at that time the black men could not join the priesthood and blacks could not participate in the sealing ordinances in the Temples.

    The Church was pretty conflicted about this -- as President David McKay, one of the pre-1978 Church Presidents put it, black people "need not worry, as those who receive the testimony of the Restored Gospel may have their family ties protected and other blessings made secure, for in the justice of the Lord they will possess all the blessings to which they are entitled in the eternal plan of Salvation and Exaltation."

    Basically, to change Church policy, all 15 members of the top church body have to unanimously agree to it, and so there must have been one or two holdouts for some time, since McKay served as Church President from 1951 until he died in 1970. Basically, he knew it was just a matter of time until the last holdouts died or changed their minds.

    This is not to excuse the racist policy BTW, but to rebut Fluffy's totally inaccurate view of what Romney likely said while serving his mission. I can't imagine Romney said anything mean to black people he ran across, because he was trying to get them to join the Church and be one of the "saved". If he was anything at all like virtually every missionary I've every met -- and I've met a buttload of them -- he was almost painfully nicey-nice.

  • Fluffy||

    By trying to say, "Well, blacks were only excluded from the priesthood and the sealing ordinances," you're dishonestly counting on the fact that most people reading your comment won't know that just about every adult white male in the church was part of the priesthood. So it's not some mere ordinational exclusion, like the Catholics not letting women be "priests". The Mormon "priests" are just about everybody. By keeping blacks out, they were effectively excluding them from the main body of the church.

    I'm putting a snarky spin on it, but at the time Mitt did his mission, if he was honest, he would walk up to white people and tell them they could join the church fully, and walk up to black people and tell them they couldn't.

    That's if he didn't actively choose to not walk up to black people at all.

    And the sealing ordinances are Mormon marriage, right? So being excluded from the sealing ordinances would mean you couldn't get a real, live, actual Mormon marriage?

  • protefeed||

    I was responding to you implying that Romney, by being a Mormon missionary pre-1978, was somehow a racist or would give blacks he met the cold shoulder or treat them badly.

    Missionaries spend All. Fucking. Day. Long. getting rejected. A lot of them spend two years on a mission and don't convert anyone. If Romney or anyone else at that time ran across anyone who would listen to them about the Book of Mormon, black or white, they would almost certainly be delighted to finally be getting some traction.

    And yeah, the priesthood is a really big deal, but that wasn't on point to your misleading statements that I was correcting and elaborating on.

    Yes, any black men who joined the Church would have felt mighty bad about not being allowed to become members of the priesthood, and not being eligible to apply for a Temple Recommend. Yes, that was a terrible, bad policy. Does that mean Romney treated blacks badly on his mission? I strongly doubt that. Do you have any video link whatsoever showing Romney treating blacks disrespectfully? I have not seen any evidence of that at all.

  • protefeed||

    And the sealing ordinances are Mormon marriage, right? So being excluded from the sealing ordinances would mean you couldn't get a real, live, actual Mormon marriage?

    Well, that's not quite right. The vast majority of Mormons do not hold a current Temple Recommend, and I would say most members of the Church do not get sealed in a Temple, IIRC my statistics. A wedding outside the Temple is a wedding for the time the members are alive, and technically dissolves upon death, whereas a sealing in the Temple is for "time and all eternity". So, yes, that is a big deal to Mormons. But, if you're married, you're married, and then they'll work on you to get a Temple Recommend and get remarried, this time in the Temple.

    But, what also goes on in Temples is that members perform sealings on behalf of couples who have died, retroactively giving them the ability to get into the "best" of the three levels of Mormon heaven.

    And you can damn well bet that every black member who joined pre-1978 and got married outside a Temple and died before getting sealed was given this retroactive sealing ceremony shortly after they died. Do you have any idea how insanely determined Temple Recommend holders are to dredge up any person they can who hasn't been sealed in one of these ceremonies?

  • Fluffy||

    Thanks for the marriage information, BTW.

    I thought that the "post-death" baptism and marriage was something that was done to non-LDS ancestors. I didn't realize that the sealings were also for Mormons in good standing who just so happened to never have a Temple marriage.

  • Fluffy||

    Do you have any video link whatsoever showing Romney treating blacks disrespectfully? I have not seen any evidence of that at all.

    Oh, I see now.

    You're hung up on my mocking "quote".

    What you have to realize is that, to me, in 1968 there would have been no difference between a frank and truthful (but "respectful") description of the LDS policies, theology, and history concerning blacks (which would include all the Brigham Young quotes out there) and my "quote", other than brevity and snark.

    You could either give a nice, detailed description of the restrictions placed on blacks, or you could snap your fingers three times in a Z shape and say, "Sorry, bitchez!" - and you would be conveying the same content.

  • chris||

    In that interview alone, Paul got three more questions on the newsletters than Obama got concerning his association with Reverend Wright. Ask away at Paul. Maybe they should. But stop protecting Dear Leader for a goddamn change.

  • ||

    I will fuck an Amorite up.

  • robc||

    Wait, you think Fluffy isnt familiar with the genocide in the OT?

    The guy who wrote a fucking novel about it?

  • Barack Obama||

    Let me be clear.

    Booyah!

  • AnthonyD||

    religion gets a pass, racism doesnt. this is reality.

  • yonemoto||

    when has anyone asked romney about this:
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Romney and Gingrich aren't the other candidates I was thinking about. Who whichever of them will face in the general election I am hoping will be scrutinized more than he was last time around.

    I really would like to see all candidates looked over and challenged as much as possible.

  • Fluffy||

    So what you're saying is that in every Romney interview, the interviewer demands that Romney account for the period of time he spent as a missionary for a church that officially (at the time) considered blacks subhuman and American Indians cursed by the devil?

    Really?

    I have missed all those interviews. YouTube links, please.

  • ||

    Not even comparable to the newsletter situation, but keep trying.

  • Fluffy||

    How is it not comparable?

    The Book of Mormon is much worse than the Ron Paul Newsletters.

  • ||

    And if the Angel Moroni were running for president, the Book of Mormon would hold similar relevance as the RPSR does for Paul's campaign.

  • Fluffy||

    Mitt Romney knocked on the doors of people in France and asked them to read a book where the claim is advanced that American Indians were once Jews, but then were cursed by the devil.

    Did Ron Paul ever go door-to-door to ask people to read the "good news" in the Ron Paul Newsletters?

    The only grounds on which you can claim that it's not relevant is to say that because it's that piece of shit Romney's piece of shit religion, no one can touch him on it because nobody takes anything in comical books of fairy tales seriously anyway.

  • protefeed||

    where the claim is advanced that American Indians were once Jews, but then were cursed by the devil.

    American Indians have, since almost the inception of the Church, been recruited and accepted as members in equally good standing with any other member.

  • Mo||

    Or if the Book of Mormon was titled the Book of Romney, by Mitt Romney (ghostwritten by someone that Romney refuses to name).

  • Fluffy||

    Since religious people demand to be taken seriously when they claim that religion is important in their lives (a claim Mitt has made affirmatively on more than one occasion), then it is not reasonable to claim that the content of their religion is not every bit as relevant as any political position they hold.

    I would hold a Marxist accountable for every page of the Communist Manifesto. That means a Mormon is accountable for every page of the Book of Mormon. And if they perhaps aren't accountable for every historical action of their church, they are at least accountable for the ones that happened during their lifetime, when they could have made the decision to leave their church.

  • protefeed||

    So you would hold mainstream Christians accountable for every icky passage from the Old Testament, even if the candidate disavows the implications of those scriptural passages?

    Exactly how many open atheists are running for president again?

  • Fluffy||

    I am willing to cut them exactly the degree of slack Tulpa agrees to cut Paul over the newsletters.

    No more, no less.

  • robc||

    Jews for OT, Christians for NT.

    Christians arent under judaic law.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    "Jews for OT, Christians for NT.

    Christians arent under judaic law."

    Which is why socons should give up on their gay marriage hate.

    Peter McWilliams, in "Ain't Nobody's Business If I Do" (if I remember right) also showed that, from historical and Bibilical evidence, Jesus probably didn't care about whether someone was gay, either.

  • Paul||

    I would hold a Marxist accountable for every page of the Communist Manifesto. That means a Mormon is accountable for every page of the Book of Mormon.

    Fluffy,

    To play devil's advocate, isn't that what the media is doing to Ron Paul: Making him accountable for every word in the Book of Ron Paul?

    Unless your main beef is the inconsistent treatment between Romney and Paul.

  • Fluffy||

    Yes.

    That's my main beef.

  • Mo||

    How is that a Marxist didn't write the Communist Manifesto. One can largely agree with religion or political ideology and not believe each and every thing. The newsletter was called Dr. Ron Paul's Freedom Report and signed by him. He profited from it and signed his name to it. He didn't renounce it until he got called on it. Seems like a big difference.

  • Mo||

    Gingrich gets asked about his affairs quite often. And the Romney situation is different because it wasn't Romney (or someone writing under Romney's name with Romney getting the profits) that wrote those policies.

  • yonemoto||

    yes, but romney did say this:

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDwwAaVmnf4

  • Paul||

    Is that the video where romney slaps the ho?

  • Dave Anthony||

    Has he even been asked by reporters about all the emails and records that his staff destroyed before he left office as governor?

  • Gojira||

    ^^This bugs me a lot, Dave. I thought that was going to be a big story, and it blew over. Pisses me off.

  • HAL||

    This bugs me too, Dave. What are you doing Dave?

  • Bill||

    +1

  • ||

    Dave's not here!

  • Colin||

    If another candidate had written racist newsletters, they'd be finished.

    They almost took Perry down just because his family took too long to paint over the N word that was some rock somewhere.

  • CalebT||

    Let me first say that I agree that Ron Paul should take responsibility for the newsletters, apologize, and get on with his campaign.

    But if this becomes the new "Herman Cain/Newt Gingrich are adulterers", "Romney is a Mormon who supported the individual mandate before he was against it", "Perry is a racist college slacker", or "Bachmann is a homophobic Elvis-poseur" of Team Blue, then I will be thoroughly disgusted if only because Paul is by far the brightest star in the Republican OR Democratic fields and the newsletter bullshit was old news in 19-fucking-96.

  • CalebT||

    By the way, the liberal preoccupation with Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich's sex lives is really confusing me...Should we or should we not defend the right of people to do as they wish in their own bedrooms?

  • I, Kahn O'Clast||

    When "pro-family" conservatives -- you know the ones defending marriage from teh gay, supporting abstinence only education and generally being nosy prudes about other's private business --- get caught doing the exact things they claim to be against they are hypocrites. It's the hypocrisy that's at issue here. And the lying. Much more than the sex....It is an issue of character.

  • Maxxx||

    How come hypocrisy wasn't the issue with the noted womyn's rights activist Bill Clinton? As I recall, the leader of NOW created a one grope is ok policy on the spot to excuse Clinton's Willy episode.

  • wareagle||

    the media's feigned outrage/curiosity would be far more credible had this bunch shown the same curiosity about the junior Senator from IL three years ago.

  • CalebT||

    To be fair, Obama's cock was jammed down their throats at the time, so it was difficult to ask questions.

  • ||

    Right, no one ever heard of Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers.

  • CalebT||

    Yeah, Obama's associations with Wright and Ayers, both of which occurred within the last decade, are apt comparisons to the twenty year old newsletter story.

  • ||

    It's quite likely that Paul's still associating with the writer of the newsletters to this day. His refusal to name names would certainly lend credence to that supposition.

  • Colin||

    Paul has plenty of creepy associations, too. Paul McDonald, The John Birch Society . . .

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Trinity United Church of Christ, unrepentant terrorists, tax cheats, gun-runners...no, that's someone else.

    Who am I kidding, Paul is probably through.

  • wareagle||

    tulpa,
    we were told to believe that the smartest man to ever utter the word 'president', let alone run for the job, was the only man unaware of Wright's words and Ayers' actions. Bullshit. The media conveniently finds 11th "bombshells" when they threaten to blow up a Repub who, coincidentally, is doing well in the polls.

  • Crystal Method||

    Rev Wright and Ron Paul agree on blowback as the root cause of others hatred to the USA.

    And Bill Ayers is anti-war like Ron Paul.

    Birds of a feather.

  • Gojira||

    And Bill Ayers is anti-war like Ron Paul.

    Birds of a feather.

    You heard it here first, folks. If you don't support war, you are a closeted terrorist.

  • .||

    Bill Ayers isn't anti-war and never was - just anti-wars against communists.

  • Paul||

    "Right, no one ever heard of Rev. Wright or Bill Ayers."

    Who?

  • CE||

    Let me first say that I agree that Ron Paul should take responsibility for the newsletters, apologize, and get on with his campaign.

    He did. Four years ago.

  • robc||

    Let me first say that I agree that Ron Paul should take responsibility for the newsletters, apologize, and get on with his campaign.

    He has. In 1996 and 2008 and 2011. And probably every even numbered year in between.

  • Max||

    Poor old Ron Paul is used to having his cock sucked by libertoids, not being questioned by journalists.

  • wareagle||

    thanks for contributing a new level of stupid. How long has Paul been around? "Journalists" have had a long time to ask damn near anything but, like Cain, they considered Paul too fringe to worry about. Then came some polls showing each gaining traction and voila...the pseudo stories come out of the woodwork, from the same media that refused to vet the current occupant of the WH.

  • Max||

    Pseudo story! Quick, pull your head out of your ass or you will suffocate.

  • Quick Maxie...||

    ...get the charge card out and contribute to the Black Assassin Barack's 2012 campaign.

  • Suck ROan Pauol's Koch||

    It is an immense Anti-War, Anti-Fascist Cock. NOW!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Still masturbating outside Paul's bedroom window, Max?

  • While Maxie's Idol....||

    Barack H Obama continues to bomb and kill Africans and Asians for the fuck of it.....all okay with Maxie, along with the continual race-baiting by the Obama Administration. Ron Paul has never harmed a black person and would stop the USA's bombing of foreign countries.

  • RoboCain||

    Paul is also against gun control, the war on drugs, etc. His policies are more pro-black than Obama.

  • The Derider||

    He also opposes the 1964 civil rights act. So maybe not.

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    So did Ayn Rand, and you should see the stuff she wrote about racists. Its a matter of property rights, not hating black people.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Still masturbating outside Max's window, Derider?

  • Now, Maxx||

    joins NeoCons Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Newt Gingrich and NeoStalinist Tom Hayden ("yes we have fascism now, Tom" who at least acknowledges Paul's anti-war credentials while suggesting Paul is a '50's style racist) in their rejection of Ron Paul....common thread, all want a fascistic warmonger to be president (Newt, Mitt or Barry). Instead of.....

  • Terr||

    Holy shit! Did you see how Ron Paul just stormed the fuck out of that interview??

    It didn't look good but the post title is misleading.

    I really wish he would comment how his voting record is contrary to those retarded newsletters.

  • RoboCain||

    He already did to Hannity, and most likely others.

  • Juice||

    He really did have an opportunity to say that and in the process put the CNN person in her place. Instead he made it worse. Hopefully this little episode will teach him that lesson. Walking off a TV interview looks like surrender to the audience.

  • Colin||

    You mean, like voting against Rosa Parks and "Hate Whitey Day"?

  • MarylandMike||

    Wow. Didn't see that one coming. Talk about the worst possible thing to do at that point in time.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I don't blame him. No one wants to ask him about his policies, instead dredging up the same story. Hell, an even better question would be to ask him his current views on race. Or at least ask him direct questions from the newsletter such as, "Do we have a good reason to fear black men?" All this reporter was doing was making vague implications about "incendiary" language and hoping it would lead to... what? What purpose did her line of questioning serve? Paul answered the questions yesterday. If she genuinely wanted an answer, she should look at the file tape. Good for Paul for walking away. He seemed calm, but realized the interview was a waste of his time, and walked away. No biggie.

  • ||

    1. It's old news.

    2. If you stop talking about it maybe it will go away.

    3. The media never questions other candidates about things from their past.

    4. Ron Paul is just showing what a good man he is by not revealing the author of the newsletters.

    Did I get the Paul-worshippers' talking points right?

  • ||

    Now you're just trolling. It's beneath you.

  • ||

    If you know the answers, post them. But it just goes to show the fruitlessness of voting. Seriously, does anyone expect change if it's not Paul? If you do, I'd love to talk to you in 3-4 years.

  • ||

    Tulpa's in the tank for Romney.

  • ||

    I'm not making excuses for Romney's scandals or whining about the media daring to ask him questions.

  • wareagle||

    except no one is asking Romney about any scandals, of his making or otherwise. They ask him about inconsistency on some positions and Romneycare. You would think if the newsletters reflected Paul's thinking, that would have shown up in legislation. In a speech during this campaign or the last. In a debate answer.

  • ||

    That's because Romney has no known scandals. If you know of a Romney scandal the media is covering up, please share.

  • Juice||

    He spent almost $100k in state funds to delete every administration email on his way out of office. That's a scandal in itself, but who knows what was in those emails?

  • Dave Anthony||

    The scandal is that anyone conservative or libertarian is stupid enough to believe that Clownfucker Romney is going to stand up to Congress and the federal bureaucracy to cut spending significantly. How gullible can you be?

  • Fluffy||

    How about the time he volunteered to be a missionary for a creed that held that blacks bore the mark of Cain?

  • Tulpa||

    Need some Romnney dick.

  • ||

    How about the time he volunteered to be a missionary for a creed that held that blacks bore the mark of Cain?

    Romney was a member of JFK's administration?

  • ||

    I would consider the dog-on-car-roof incident to be a scandal. AFAIK, Mittens has never accepted full responsibility for this, acknowledged that it was wrong, or expressed contrition.

    Yes, I realize this was a personal act, not an official one, but when you're a politician the electorate judges you on everything, so fair game.

    I know I'm late to the game, but I can't let this go unchallenged.

  • ||

    Don't you think Romney's passage of RomneyCare hampers his ability to be taken seriously when he says he will get rid of ObamaCare?

  • ||

    MassCare was quite different in that it was a STATE LEVEL program, popular in the jurisdiction in which it was implemented, and constitutional under that jurisdiction's constitution.

    None of which are true of Obamacare. So yeah, I have no doubts he'll do whatever possible to get rid of OC (though frankly there's only a limited amount anyone can do at this point without 60 votes in the Senate or a SCOTUS overturn).

  • Juice||

    Mitt Romney cares a lot about the Constitution.

  • Maxxx||

    Whose constitution?

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Dude, it looks like you have some of Romney's man-juice dribbling off your chin.

  • yonemoto||

    Yes, and Romney is no fucking Calvin Coolidge.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C....._and_trade

  • ||

    Every single news outlet is reporting this as "storms out" now. Motherfuck.

  • Colin||

    You mean, they're reporting the truth.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    CNN reports on CNN reporter giving interview.

  • Paul||

    Film at eleven...

  • ||

    The mud flies, it won't stick. When the chips where down all other candidates failed and supported TARP.
    Teflon Ron, baby, Teflon.

  • ||

    I think that part of the problem is the media doesn't have a lot of material to work with on Paul. The newsletters angle is easy, scandalous, and prone to causing hyperventilation on all sides: the perfect story. He's totally consistent, so looking at his past gives the same answers as looking at his present. This is the only deviation anyone has found, so it's news.

  • Roger F. Gay||

    CNN's typical repetitious nothing. Reminds me of their coverage of Tea Party events. Oh those silly Americans. Just change the channel.

  • Appalachian Australian||

    Apparently those silly Americans have changed the channel; FNC has higher ratings than CNN and msnbc combined.

  • Ike||

    This was always going to happen, its why he was always unelectable, and his entire candidacy was a waste of time, and nothing more than ego...to be honest, I think those newsletters SHOULD be brought up, because they're fucked up and "i didn't know" is a bullshit answer that shouldn't just be allowed to pass without further comment. Not knowing isn't a valid excuse when it was going on for years and he had every opportunity to know.

    He shouldn't have run, Gary Johnson should have been the great libertarian hope this cycle.

  • SIV||

    Gary Johnson should have been the great libertarian hope this cycle

    Gary Johnson polls at

  • SIV||

    < 1%. That's much more libertarian than Ron Paul

  • Ike||

    yes, but if Ron-ron didn't run and instead endorsed Gary he would poll at

  • SIV||

    < 1%

  • SIV||

    Thanks for playing.

  • ike||

    Saying so doesn't make it true, I'm just smart enough not to get into arguments with retards on the internet.

    you should keep "playing" though, since you've obviously found your niche

  • n8||

    I wish it were otherwise, but SIV is right. Gary Johnson at the debates was a sorry performance indeed. I liked damn near everything he said but he sounded straight up weak, more policy wonk than president. RP isn't the best speaker, but he says things w/ enough conviction and clarity to overcome that, excepting the above clip...

  • Maxxx||

    yes, but if Ron-ron didn't run and instead endorsed Gary he would poll at
    < 1%

    Proving Paul's racist appeal.

  • ||

    Would Ms. Borger be grilling Sen. Robert Byrd about his cross-burning days with the KKK if he were alive today and seeking the Democratic nomination? Don't think so!

  • CalebT||

    She would if Senator Byrd was in Hillary's/Chelsea's/Sock's way.

  • ||

    Yeah, I don't recall Ms. Borger grilling Obama about the Rev. Wright associations. In fact, it was a widespread media coverup.

    Now, I frankly don't care much about Wright, but there's a huge double standard.

  • wareagle||

    neither Wright nor Ayers nor gloom of night would prevent the immaculated one from his appointment with destiny.

  • Colin||

    If Byrd were running for president, yes.

  • ||

    I think he handled this normally and professionally. When you are tired of answering the same question, you stop answering it. He didn't blow a gasket or "storm out." Have you see Carney refuse to answer a question lately? Have you seen any of 1000 football coaches say, "I've answered that, nothing to add." My goodness, what's wrong with saying, "I've provided my answers to those questions to your organization, and if you have nothing additional to ask, then I guess we're done."

    I didn't expect to see Reason piling on this guy for not groveling before CNN and a repetitive, haranguing, press corps.

  • ||

    You can make that statement without leaving the interview. It's not like these things are hours long.

    If you keep giving that response, ultimately they'll run out of time and it will be a non-story. You walk out, that's a story.

  • Fluffy||

    Yeah, this is actually true.

    He could have chewed up a lot of time saying different variations on, "I'm already answered that and you're not going to get a different answer by slightly altering the words of your question."

    But then again, I think Paul's probably a lot quicker to hit the Off switch on an interview since he met Borat.

  • ||

    That's a novel defense. Borat PTSD.

  • ||

    Say nothing and show no expression: it's TV deadtime and only a very abbreviated length of the footage will make it on-air.

  • n8||

    Bruno

  • mad libertarian guy||

    How many times did he say a variation of "asked and answered?" At least 5.

  • ||

    Good for him!
    CNN has an agenda and it *isn't* good journalism!

  • ||

    Why is it so confusing to jackass reporters about lobbying? He's pretty clear, the problem isn't with the lobbyists per say (that want to petition their government officials for change), but rather the power in the government itself to create regulations, set tariffs, pass out subidies, and unconstitutional laws? He's not conflicted, you're just a moron.

  • ¢||

    I'm just saying: remember what looking bad in an interview did for Palin.

    Electionwise, that didn't actually do anything. McCain's poll numbers on the day before that interview and on the day before the election were identical. Her being on the ticket had given him a bump, but the bump had gone back down before the Couric show, because McCain was still on the ticket, being an asshole.

    TEAM BLUE!ers (and people who are afraid of them) like to say Palin's dumb, of course, as one shitty interview proves for all time, but they say that about everybody who's not TEAM!, so it didn't (and doesn't) cost her anything.

    The most common criticism of Palin that establishment-Republican/"neocon" types (who hate her so much it's shocking) whip out now is that Palin diva-quit the governorship for money (a weird inversion of her not being able to afford representation in a bunch of nuisance suits aimed at the office, which is one of the reasons she bailed) to become a reality-tv whore (for money) who uses her cracka-cult rube fanbase by selling them books and things (for money!), and who isn't running for President now only because a campaign wouldn't make her any money (though of course it would; candidates who do even slightly well in primaries wind up set for life).

    So—to Paul, in this clip:

    But you made money off them!

    There are reports you made almost a million dollars off of them in 1993!

    Shaming candidates with their vulgar participations in capitalism is the "neocon" thing.

    Because they're leftists.

  • ||

    It's not the fact that he made money that's the problem, it's the fact that he made money off them and claims to have no idea of how they were produced or what was being written.

  • SIV||

    Fortunately no one watches CNN.

  • wareagle||

    doesn't matter...the media travels in a pack. The rest will air the CNN clip and the print side will run transcripts. Here's your 24-hour cycle story of the day. Isn't it surprising that it involves a Repub who has moved up in the polls? And a Repub the Gov of IA says no one should pay attention to.

  • SIV||

    The media calling a "right-wing extremist" a racist isn't the most effective strategy for destroying his campaign.The newsletter thing would be much more effective in the general election should Paul secure the nomination.

  • ||

    I didn't see "storming." I thought he handled it pretty well.

  • ||

    After that headline, I thought he was going to charge out like Hacksaw Jim Duggan. All he needed was a 2 x 4 to swing around.

  • Greg||

    Sensationalist much? "Stormed" out? He looked pretty calm to me.

  • Fyodor Kuzmich||

    The thing is, Ron Paul is handling this REALLY badly.

    He needs some different advice on how to deal with the issue, because he is not coming off well in his defense.

  • Juice||

    Exactly.

    He needs to say "Look, you're trying to make me out to be a racist, but in fact my policies aim to reverse the institutionalized racism that is present even in today's laws and policies. Examples x, y, z. So it looks like all you want to do is keep trying to paint me as a racist and it's not going to work. Next question." Next question is about the newsletters. Repeat above.

  • Fyodor Kuzmich||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....3EADdr-5AY

    He did it real well 4 years ago!

  • ||

    He certainly didn't "storm out." As a matter of fact, I thought he did just the opposite. He handled this quite well... without become outwardly angry or irate -- which he had every right to be. (He's been asked these questions a hundred times and he's already answered them. Heck, didn't he just answer the same exact questions for CNN yesterday??)

  • ||

    Wanna guess how many times Romney has been asked about MassCare?

  • ||

    Many, yes. But the MassCare question is a policy question, and directly relates to policy choices he will have to make in office. These old newsletters have nothing to do with any policy decisions Paul is advocating.

  • ||

    And if you'll recall, Paul said he did no think people should be going after Cain about the affairs etc. He said people should be going after Cain for his policy positions and his employment with the Fed. So it makes sense he doesn't want to talk about what he views as unrelated to policy questions.

  • ||

    Was going to say this. These lines of questioning amount to accusing the guy of being a racist, which is personal, not a matter of policy. Supporting MassCare doesn't quite...resonate the same way as the equivalent of "are you now or have you ever been a racist, Mr. Paul"?

  • ||

    Thinking that 95% of young blacks are criminals and a race war is imminent has some serious policy implications too.

    The flipflop charges against Romney are attacks on character, just like the newsletter charges on Paul. If you think calling Romney a flipflopper is fair game, then so is calling Paul a friend of racists.

    No one seriously believes Romney will favor the individual mandate once in office.

  • ||

    Romney put a policy into action. He advocated it explicitly.

    What policy has Paul advocated that has anything to do with the 95% statement in the newsletter which he has said he didn't write?

    If you believe him when he says he didn't write it, you can't claim it has policy implications anyway.

    I thought your complaint was that he has failed to adequately explain the details of how the newsletters came to be, not that he's a racist and his racism has policy implications. You can't play both sides of it.

  • ||

    The facts as we know them do not exclude the possibility that he wrote the newsletters.

    Personally, I don't think he did, but that's just a guess.

    How would you react to Romney claiming he never read the MassCare bills until he was already out of office? At least in his case we definitely know someone else wrote it.

  • ||

    Well that would just be nonsense, since he live in person pushed the policy. Paul has never live in person said any racist remarks like what's in those newsletters.

  • ||

    Flip-flopping goes straight to not having principles, and just doing whatever you can to win elections and accrue power.

    I think the worst that can be said about Paul with this is that he was collecting checks and didn't really give a shit what was being written as long as he got paid. I kinda think he should say who wrote that garbage, but wouldn't doing so just keep the story going? Wouldn't he then be accused of changing his story, or somehow dodging? The media can be so cruel. *sniff*

  • ||

    So they're both character concerns. My point exactly.

  • ||

    I think the difference is a sin of omission (Paul) versus a sin of commission (Romney).

  • ||

    Repeat, there was no sin.

    Show me anywhere amongst the millions of words published in those newletters, support for legislation or policy based on race.

    You won't find it.

    OM just desroyed John on the earlier thread as John could not demonstrate that any of the subject sentences contained any language supporting legislation based on race.

    Racism, historically and accurately, refers to policy / law based upon race.

    One is not racist for observing the fact that a much higher percentage of black people are recepients of welfare / poverty assistance than white people.

    The race baiter is the person who accuses another of racism for stating facts like Obama is a brown skinned bolzhevik or that the majoirty of black babies are born out of wedlock or that a higher percentage of black people are incarcerated than white people.

    Racism today is exemplified by affirmative action, quotas and set asides.

    Racism today also consists of one race given special treatment by the courts in 14th amendment cases. If one is black, one is a member of a "protected" class.

  • The Derider||

    So it's not racist to ride through watts shouting FUCK NIGGERS! Because it involves no language supporting legislation based on race?

    What an interesting position!

  • .||

    You know, I can remember hearing a number of African Americans on radio talk shows claiming it to be impossible for blacks to be racist precisely because they lacked the political power to institute bigotted policies.

  • Paul||

    "number of African Americans
    on radio talk shows claiming it to be impossible for blacks to be
    racist precisely because they lacked the political power
    to institute bigotted policies."

    I remember this too. And we made fun of them when they said it. Racism is racism, whether or not you have the appropriate institutional connections to effectuate policies which reflect that racism. So, sorry, a racist remark is racist based on the content of the remark, not based on whether or not the remark successfully results in passed legislation.

  • ||

    No, that is your politically correct twist.

  • Brian D||

    "Thinking that 95% of young blacks are criminals and a race war is imminent has some serious policy implications too."

    And yet there has been no indication of these sorts of sentiments appearing in any bills he's sponsored or speeches he's made in the entirety of his political career. So either he's not a racist, or he's a racist who doesn't let that affect his duties as a public servant.

    Which is it?

  • ||

    I don't think he's a racist. Maybe he just wrote racist stuff he didn't believe so that he could make money off it.

  • Fluffy||

    I don't think Romney's a racist.

    He just went out and taught Frenchmen that black people bore the mark of Cain because like most weak-willed people, since his dad told him it was true, he figured it HAD to be.

  • Shorter Tulpa||

    The straws! Where the fuck are they?

  • Juice||

    Thinking that 95% of young blacks are criminals ...

    in Washington, DC. In the 80s.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    If the Republicans go with Paul, they lose the black vote for sure.

  • ||

    No one seriously believes Romney will favor the individual mandate once in office.

    Surely you mean "fight" or "oppose" instead of "favor".

  • CalebT||

    You mean that Romney has actually been asked questions regarding ACTUAL POLICIES?...Sheeit.

    If Romney gets the nomination, god help me, I demand that he give answers about the racist parts of Mormonism.

  • aunderscorek||

    you're comparing asking a policy question — one that has direct analogues to current federal policy in place under a liberal democratic president — to a question about un-bylined newsletters from 22 years ago?

    while not giving anything near a satisfying answer to the questions, i feel that *politically*, paul is making the smart decision, even if people are making judgments about his character. what could he possibly say?

    "do you know who wrote those letters?"
    "yeah, it was lew rockwell."
    "do you disavow him?"
    "sure do."
    "do you disavow him as of right now, or did you disavow him earlier?"
    "um... the latter."
    "why are you only now coming forth with this information after selling a different story for so long?"
    "um... i take it back... i know nothing."
    "how long have you known that lew rockwell wrote those things?"
    "did you hear me? i take it back, this was a terrible idea."

    i think staying on the plausible deniability express is his best option. remember, nike is a marketing company; they don't make shoes so they don't know where those shoes are made.

  • chris||

    Well...shit. Not the best composure under fire, but I don't think that he has much to lose with CNN or the MSM. I would be interested to see what transpired when the clip skips forward at 2:30. A bad day, but not the end of the world.

  • Crystal Method||

    Unless Fox News covers this Iowa conservatives won't ever know.

  • wareagle||

    of course they'll know, because Fox is just as invested in hamstringing Paul as any other part of the Repub apparatus.

  • SIV||

    Hannity and the other talkers are off this week. That's a plus.

  • ||

    Maybe next week too? Really, this is about the best time for this story to come out. Everyone is thinking holidays, not politics. Well, except for us freaks.

  • They are vacationing with...||

    Max, comparing notes about Ron Paul.

  • ||

    I am just wondering how many times does he need to answer these questions before the answers are accepted? Just wondering if there is a magical number.

  • ||

    Is "never" a number? The MSM and the Democrats and the Republican establishments don't want this guy getting any momentum. It couldn't be clearer.

  • ||

    He just has to explain who wrote them and why. His obstinacy doesn't reflect well upon him, nor does his contradictions with his 1996 Dallas Morning News interview. Either he was lying then, or he's lying now.

  • ||

    Except he hasn't answered them. His answers have all been dodges.

  • ||

    Well if he hasn't answered them then how can they be dodges?

  • robc||

    You are a liar. He has answered the fucking questions many times.

    He didnt write them, he doesnt agree with it, it was his responsibility because it was under his name.

    Answered. Answered. Answered. Stop lying.

  • ||

    He did not answer "if you did not write it, who did?"

    "I don't know" is not an answer. He said he had 6-8 people working for him. Surely he can list them, if he truly is clueless as to the actual author, which I find very hard to buy.

  • tarran||

    My suspicion is that they truly didn't know. I don't think anybody kept records as to which issue was written by whom.

    It's possible that the knowledge of the authorship went to the grave with Rothbard.

  • Maxxx||

    Lew needs to write an open letter saying something like"

    I am ashamed to admit that I ghost wrote a number of racially charged articles while working for Dr Paul in the 90s. I did so in a mistaken belief that by engaging with people sympathetic to those views that I would be able to persuade them of the error of those beliefs and redirect their frustration over government corruption away from hatred and towards liberty.

    The views expressed were a form of parody and nothing that I ever seriously believed. Furthermore, I now realize that my effort was hamfisted and set back the cause of liberty that I meant to advance. Dr Paul never had direct knowledge of my activity beforehand or afterwards, although I think that he suspected that it was me that had inadvertently besmirched his name and out of a sense of loyalty did not pursue the matter. I profoundly regret what I wrote, all the more so for besmirching the good name of Dr Paul.

    It may or may not be true and in any case it doesn't matter either way.

    What matters is putting an end to the newsletter story and doing that requires a goat. And Lew has always be that.

  • Keith G||

    Calmest storm ever.

  • ||

    HAHA. Seriously.

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Quiet Storm. Word...

  • Max||

    Jesus Christ, I just saw Doherty defending Ron Paul on CNN. what a fucking apologist tool Doherty is! What kind of viable candidate lets a fucking racist newsletter be published under his name for years and claims he neither wrote nor read the fucking things? For years!The Pope could use Jesuits like Doherty.

  • Ricardo||

    Typical misleading hit piece by Reason. Ron Paul did not "storm out" of this interview. Nor are these newsletters relevant. Asked and answered.

    Move on, Beltway hacks. The truth is that history will remember Ron Paul as having jumpstarted the liberty movement, whereas Reason and Cato will be mere footnotes.

  • Max||

    Wow, Reason can't suck Ron Paul's cock enough to please you, can it?

  • Suck ROan Pauol's Koch||

    Maxie prefers Rush LImbaugh, Hannity, and other state-worshippers.

  • ||

    Asked and answered.

    Is this the new Paultard rallying cry? I've seen it all over the comments the past couple of days and have not the slightest idea where it came from.

  • RoboCain||

    From being mildly observant?

    You generally seem reasonable. Maybe a bit too gung ho on law and order, but not this dense. So I'm starting to think you are just trolling here.

  • ||

    Please, CNN, keep rehashing this "issue" when your attempt at outright ignoring and marginalizing Dr. Paul's is shown to have failed. These questions are asked and answered. His failure to more closely oversee a letter bearing his name was unfortunate, but what more can he do than disavow them? There is nothing about Dr. Paul's campaigns or his behavior in office that lends any credence to his sharing the absurdly incendiary language in the newsletters. This is not journalism; it is not even news.

    Secondly, if a description of one's behavior in office and other positions of influence shows one to be inconsistent and self-contradicting, that is not the fault of the person who points it out.

  • ||

    When you can't win the argument of ideas, just scream "RACISM" until the other side goes away. Ron Paul shouldn't give these people the time of day and I would have did the same thing as him. He is showing his honor and integrity by not allowing this woman to continue on.Good for you, Ron Paul!!

  • ||

    Yeah...too bad they have substantiation.

  • RoboCain||

    No, they don't.

  • ||

    The 1996 interview is pretty damning.

  • Max||

    Nobody would bring up the racism if the stupid old fuck hadn't peddled it for years, you fucking halfwit.

  • Suck ROan Pauol's Koch||

    Maxie still won't answer the question: How many black children did His Highness Obama kill today?

  • Gojira||

    For everyone saying that this is nothing because he didn't actually "storm" off (and I agree with you that he handled it calmly), I restate a point I made above: it doesn't fucking matter.

    A large number of people are not intelligent inquirers after the truth, but instead vote based on headlines and soundbites. News outlets everywhere are going to say he stormed off, and that's what will stick in people's minds.

    Also remember: most of us are predisposed to thinking well of him; the object isn't to convince us, it's to look polished to all those people who have never seriously looked at him before.

  • ||

    he didn't "storm off". That is not a fair description. But he still refuses to give an explanation beyond "trust me". And people are not going to buy that.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    How, praytell, does an "objective" journalist go from asking Ron Paul if "TEH NUSLEDDERS!" are relevant, then when he tells her that he has answered the question, that he didn't read them or write them, and that he disavows them and their contents, she then proceeds to lecture him on how they are relevant and that they are incendiary?

    If I were Ron Paul, I would also refuse to stand there and be talked to like an errant child after I had given her a rational answer.

  • ||

    "I didn't do it, I don't know who did, and I haven't and am not going to try to find out any more information" is not an acceptable answer when your name is plastered all over this crap and you made millions off it.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Bite your dirty tongue, Dondero.

  • Obama||

    Works for birth certificate questions.

  • AnthonyD||

    you got that right.

  • Max||

    If you were Ron Paul, you'd be sucking your own cock.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Bad dog! No shitting inside the house! Go outside! Now!

  • Suck ROan Pauol's Koch||

    Don't Bite, maxie!

  • Sam Freeman||

    What was the point of repeatedly asking him the same question over and over again, the response was the same as it was 10 seconds earlier. He did not write them; he did not read them until years after the fact; he does not support the assertions made in them. Why would she possibly expect someone to waste time answering the same question like that? And Wolf had already done the same interview. Pathetic excuse for journalism.

  • ||

    Well there isn't anything else to get on him about so I guess the questions will keep coming until they get the answers they want.

  • protefeed||

    She was hoping he'd say something that they could take out of context and replay over and over, while ditching the rest of the interview.

  • SIV||

    Jon Huntsman was governor of Utah!

  • ||

    He left before the interview was complete and like it or not that is considered "storming out". RP is now big time and as such he is going to be treated the way any big time Republican candidate is treated. He should have taken it as a compliment and hung in until the end.

  • Max||

    Easy for you to say. Ron Paul has no rational explanation for the garbage in those newsletters. He had to fucking walk away.

  • ||

    Maybe so, but walking off didn't make the newsletters go away.

  • V||

    I bet CNN reporters would run off the set also if we kept asking them "When are you gonna take the democratic party's hand out of you're ass?"

  • Max||

    What's it like being as stupid as you are?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Actually, V, you should ask Max that question.

  • Sam Freeman||

    Here is Wolf, conducting the same interview: http://www.facebook.com/note.p.....594515952. Why didn't they just replay that tape instead of wasting Ron Paul's time with the smear?

  • Max||

    It would only be a smear if there were no racist newsletters, idiot.

  • .||

    They aren't racist, commie boy. BTW, your rosey red ass is showing again.

  • On this issue,,,,||

    Maxie joins all the NeoCons in their foam-at-the-mouth fear and hatred of a non-fascist.

  • BR||

    New Spin: Ron Paul, so old he can't even muster the energy to properly storm out of an interview.

  • ||

    LOL.

  • ||

    Mr. Riggs, I urge you to reclaim some of your journalistic integrity by changing the misleading headline of your story. Congressman Paul hardly "stormed out." To storm means to rush angrily. He in no way appeared to rush or hurry to end the interview or leave the area. He was obviously annoyed, but not to the point of showing any real anger. He remained polite throughout the whole incident. Words have meaning, Mr. Riggs, and you have use the wrong ones. Words have consequences, and yours have caused me to lose respect for both you and Reason.com.

  • ||

    Couldn't agree more - very sloppy reporting here. He didn't even write a story; he just slapped a bad headline onto a video link. I expect much more from Reason.com.

  • yonemoto||

    you haven't been here long, have you?

  • ||

    Honestly, I only watched it cuz of the 'stormed out' in the headline.

  • flacid tuna||

    Well, that's the end of Ron Paul.

    Happy now you cosmotarians at Reason?

    Cancel my subscription!

  • ||

    Are you serious or being sarcastic? Reason rebroadcast the interview they didn't ask him the questions.

  • flacid tuna||

    This is all because of Reason's hate boner for Ron Paul during the 2008 race.

  • tarran||

    his is all because of Reason's hate boner for Ron Paul

    Are you fucking drunk?!?

  • ||

    Don't you know, Gloria Borger is merely one of the Kochtopus's many tentacles? Reason hates Ron Paul so much, just this morning editor Matt Welch called him "foul", "vile" and "juvenile". You guys must really hate liberty.

  • ||

    Do you all realize that next year we in the U.S. could be: 1) bombing Iran and basically initiating WW3; 2) printing enough U.S. dollars to bail out practically ALL EUROPE (especially those nice European banks); 3) losing even more liberties (we've already lost too much due to the Patriot Act and NDAA, along with Executive Orders); and 4) enslaving our children to China?

    You are worried about some racial comments that appeared decades ago in a newsletter that just happened to have Paul's name on the banner? Despite the fact that he has never demonstrated such racism in over 30 years of very public life?

    Get real. This is a smear campaign. Don't let it work. Dr. Paul was right to walk away.

  • Max||

    How can it be a smear campaign, you fucking moron? The newsletters really came out and they really contained all that shit and they really had Ron Paul's name on them. How is asking him questions about them a smear campaign?

  • ||

    Well, Max, here's how. Dr. Paul has responded numerous times to these allegations that only appear in the media when his policies and positions begin to gain traction with Americans. Coincidence? No.
    Who wrote these articles? We'd all like to know. Maybe it was planted to undermine Dr. Paul. Since he was practicing medicine at the time and not paying attention to the newsletter, I wouldn't be surprised. Was that a mistake on his part? Yes. Does that mean he's racist? NO.

  • ||

    But his responses have been crap. He hasn't explained anything. How could he have possibly not known that that stuff was published in his name? He made over a million dollars off of those newsletters. And if he didn't write it, who did and why didn't he disassociate from the people for publishing crap in his name?

    He hasn't answered anything. His cult supporters do themselves and Paul no favors pretending otherwise.

  • ||

    Please prove that Dr. Paul "made a million dollars off of those newsletters." Really? You honestly think that this newsletter had a subscription base that made that much money, over 20 years ago? Give me a break. More proof this is just a smear campaign.

  • ||

    That is what the New Republic is claiming. Maybe they are lying. But here it is.

    http://www.tnr.com/article/pol.....-white-man

  • ||

    She doesn't have to prove it. She put the idea out there. The next headline you will see is, "ron paul made a million dollars off of racist newsletters". Their motives are so clear. This is not news, it is the MSM trying to keep the status quo in power. There is no more free press.

  • Max||

    I've had bowling balls with higher IQs than yours.

  • ||

    The New Republic is liberal. But it is a mainstream magazine with fact checkers and certainly enough assets to make a liable suit worth while. So I think their publishing it is at least reason to believe it is true. If it is not, if Paul denies it or there is reason to believe it is not show me.

  • Max||

    I hates me some darkies, too.

  • ||

    Mary - the difference is that nobody was ever listening before. When he was polling at 5% in 2008 and earlier this year, nobody cared about the question or the answer.

    Now that he might win Iowa, people are listening and he damn well better have a good answer. If not, he'll be the next Cain.

  • Sevo||

    Mary|12.21.11 @ 7:42PM|#
    ..."Get real. This is a smear campaign. Don't let it work. Dr. Paul was right to walk away."

    See Max right up there? ^
    Max doesn't matter, since RP could publish a 30-page explanation and Max wouldn't be satisfied.
    What does matter to those who'd like to see RP as the repub candidate is that while Max represents the outlier of RP 'no' while you and me represent the RP 'yes', there's a whole lot of folks who aren't in either camp, and much as I like the guy, he's yet to come clean on the issue.
    Maybe he's protecting the guilty party. Maybe he doesn't know. Maybe, maybe, maybe.
    For pete's sake, if the guy is serious, it's going to take more than 'well, I didn't read them carefully.'

  • ||

    Sevo,

    He is running for President. You don't think he at least owes an explanation? In the end, your argument boils down to "trust him".

  • Sevo||

    John,
    Read that again; I agree with you.

  • ||

    Sorry Sevo. My mistake.

  • ben||

    The hag asked him the same question twice, he gave the same answer twice and then he reminded her he'd given the same answer over the last few days to CNN. And then they she kept asking him like he wasn't giving her an answer. Pathetic smear attempt.

    The headline here is false too. There is a cut and it is obvious the interview is over, it is time to pack up and she is even acting like the interview is over.

    Reason is so Neocon now. Sad.

  • Max||

    Ron Paul has never given a plausible explanation of the newsletters.

  • flacid tuna||

    It's not plausible that someone else wrote them? It differs 110% from all of his public utterings. Seems obvious that someone else wrote it.

  • Max||

    What's not plausible is that he neither wrote the garbage in them nor knew aboutit.Maybe he was part of an attempt to use racism as a libertarian recruiting tool. He could argue that he wanted to ween racists off their racism and turn them into small government activists. That's not very plausible either, I guess.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Why do you continue to give a shit about this, Max?

    Show us on the doll where Paul touched you.

  • ben||

    Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist and that this is a total smear.

  • ||

    I don't know if he is a racist. But why was he making money selling racist newsletters?

  • RoboCain||

    Yes, John, you do know he is not a racist.

  • flacid tuna||

    A few saucy articles does not make a newsletter racist. What is this, the one drop theory of racism?

  • ben||

    Oh, please, he says himself he didn't make money and was back to working as a medical doctor during that time... and by the way who in the fu%@ ever made a million dollars from a news letter... how about no one. Get real.

  • ||

    http://www.tnr.com/article/pol.....-white-man

    The New Republic says otherwise. If that is untrue, show me where it is.

  • yonemoto||

    apparently Reason can only pull off $70K. Zing!

  • Max||

    Yeah, many a Nazi had a favorite Jew.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Max's response to Nelson Linder:

    "He's an Uncle Tom."

  • ||

    False.

  • ||

    It is a non-issue. Wasting time. Media's failed attempt at a smear campaign.

  • Max's Mom||

    Max, quit (as you would say) sucking that computer's cock and come say goodbye to Aunt Sophie.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Arf Arf,

    Ron Paul has never given a plausible explanation of the newsletters.


    It's as plausible he didn't write those commentaries as it is plausible Obama didn't write Dreams Of My Father.

    That is, 100% plausible, Maxipad.

  • ||

    Mexican,

    I am not sure that Paul is no worse than Obama is much of a defense. yeah, Obama is a crook who went to a racist church for 20 years.

  • ||

    "Reason is so Neocon now. Sad"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA that's funny. Yes, Reasonoids, let's remember to demonstrate our shadowy cabal's fawning, unwavering appreciation for Newt Gingrich and Michelle Bachmann.

  • CalebT||

    Most racist moment in politics in my lifetime?...Clinton pandering to the Arsenio audience.

  • flacid tuna||

    It is racist of you to say that that is racist.

  • ||

    Black people watched Arsenio? I thought only white people watched that show.

  • Juice||

    Nobody watched that show.

  • yonemoto||

  • Josh||

    I didn't even come close to storming out. What a great headline by Reason.

  • Josh||

    *He

  • flacid tuna||

    A headline that will be repeated by others now. Reason sucks.

  • Ronaldo Pablo||

    razón chupa

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    Blaze on, Krupa.

  • ||

    Maybe it's Gary Johnson's turn, just in time for the Iowa Caucuses.

    Oops. He dropped out and decided to run as a libertarian.

  • ||

    If Paul were anything but an ego maniac, he would have realized this stuff was going to come back eventually and not run this time. That would have allowed Johnson who is much more electable to have made some headway.

  • flacid tuna||

    You think Paul cock blocked Johnson? The guy was only able to get into 1 debate or so. Have you seen the other candidates? Bar is not that high.

  • ||

    Paul totally cock blocked Johnson. There was room for one Libertarian candidate. And Paul had all the money and organization. Johnson had no chance.

  • ||

    Pro-choice, pro-open-borders, and pro-gay-marriage is no way to get the GOP nomination, son.

  • ||

    yeah but Johnson could have done really well had Paul not run.

  • flacid tuna||

    He'd be exactly where he was anyways, not in the debates. He may as well be Buddy Roemer.

  • ||

    I had high hopes for Johnson - he campaigned like shit and put people to sleep.

  • robc||

    No, he couldnt. He didnt have the organization.

  • ||

    He had no organization because he had no money or people because all of the people and money that would have supported Johnson were already committed to Paul.

    Paul cock blocked Johnson.

  • robc||

    Bullshit. He didnt have the organization because he hadnt been building it for 6 years.

    Paul has the organization because of his run in 2008 and using the money he got then to fund the organization that raised money over 4 years.

  • ||

    I kind of agree with John here. Johnson might have done much better. It's true he didn't have the organization, but I don't think Paul is responsible for that, so much as the libertarian movement coalescing around Paul as the candidate with the best chance of winning. Which, IMO, was a miscalculation.
    If libertarians had backed Johnson from the beginning, given HIM a few "money bombs" in timely fashion, they might have vaulted him into prominence, the way they vaulted Paul.

    I don't think that Ron Paul is a brilliant politcian or a great leader. He just happens to be the one the libertarians "picked". They could have "picked" Johnson instead, just as easily.

  • H man||

    7 months of campaining down the drain.

  • ||

    Let's just look for a minute at the real Ron Paul. He is honest, self-effacing, modest. He gives credit where credit is due. He takes responsibility for his mistakes. He has ALWAYS stood tall representing what he thinks is right; he has NEVER backed down from his beliefs.
    Isn't it possible that he got into this newsletter thing after his first stint as a Congressman, lending his name to a newsletter to carry on Libertarian principles, and didn't pay much attention to it because he was working full time as a physician? Isn't it possible that when he returned to Congress, he learned about how the letter had been used and tried to discover who the author was, but was unable to discover who or why it had been written?
    Look. He has already disavowed these newsletters. That is all he can do. If the letters were written by someone who was a friend to Paul, he/she would have already come forward. Instead, I believe this was written by someone who was deliberately sabotaging the principles he stood for. It was during a time in this country when Wall Street was surging and we were becoming ever-more-active in nation-building. You do the math.

  • ||

    He is a politician Mary. He is hardly a saint. Not that there are not a lot worse out there. But still.

  • ||

    Saint? I agree with you. I don't know what a saint looks like; we don't have too many role models. But when I look at Ron Paul, I don't see a politician. He doesn't look like one, he doesn't sound like one. Instead, he looks and sounds like a man who is absolutely convinced about his ideology and who absolutely wants to share it with as many as will hear him, in order to return America to founding principles. And there are too few of his ilk today.

  • ||

    He made a fortune selling newsletters. He accepts millions of dollars in pork to his district. You don't get to be a representative without doing something sleazy. They are all crooked or they wouldn't be there.

  • ||

    Really, John, you think he made a fortune from a newsletter that basically nobody has ever heard of before? How much do you suppose the subscription was? $20? (Remember, this was a political newsletter that would benefit from a broad subscription base.) Do you suppose even 500 people subscribed? Well then, Dr. Paul may have made what, $10,000?
    Saying he made "a fortune" off of this newsletter is LUDICROUS, and you have no idea how much he actually made from it. Obviously, he is all about the money, right, seeing as how he has refused the usual Congressional pension and offers to take the office of President for the average salary of $39k. Please.

  • ||

    Go tell the New Republic Mary. And tell Paul to sue for libel or get a retraction.

  • ||

    LOL, if I ever meet Dr. Paul, John, I will be sure to tell him to hire a private investigator and get to the bottom of it so that he will know who to sue the pants off of for libel.

  • robc||

    He accepts millions of dollars in pork to his district.

    Bullshit, he votes against it. Its not his fault the other members of congress pork up his district.

  • ||

    Ron Paul for President/Gary Johnson for Vice President.

  • ||

    Then Johnson could take over in four years.

  • ||

    Bad form to answer yourself.

  • ||

    And they aren't in the same party any more.

  • ||

    LOL, funny guy.

  • ||

    Couldn't agree more - very sloppy reporting here. He didn't even write a story; he just slapped a bad headline onto a video link. I expect much more from Reason.com.

  • ||

    I think if Ron Paul sounded a little apologetic it would help his case. Something to the effect of, "I didn't write the letters and I was horrified to find out ten years later that they had gone out. I apologize to anyone that is as offended as I was, for neglecting to properly vet all the writings that went out under my name."

    It's an apology but not a mea culpa and makes him sound less defensive. It's sort of a, "I'm on your side. Those letters were awful!".

    If that doesn't work, he could try, "I can no more disown those letter writers than I can disown my white grandmother."

  • ||

    He could try actually being offended by them and offended that they were published in his name.

  • Jerry||

    You ask him to be offended now, 20 years after the facts and about 15 years after he first responded to these facts? That wouldn't convey much sincerity on his part then.

  • ||

    Maybe he should have been offended at the time and fired someone.

  • Jerry||

    I think the newsletter was already dead when it was brought up. He repudiated the writing, and I don't think publically he should have done more. Perhaps he dealt with the issue privately, and talked to the people involved, or maybe not. But as far as the general public goes, I don't think you could demand for more.

  • ||

    I think you can. He has to show that he didn't write them. That means explaining who did. Not doing that just makes you think that he is lying and saying as little as possible so he can't be checked out. If he said who wrote them, we could go ask that person and get their side.

  • Jerry||

    Why would I require that someone who I do not personally know to go to such lengths? And we're talking politics here, not something more "objective" like science.

  • ||

    Because they are running for President and I would like to know they are not a racist. His name was on the newsletters. That puts the burden back on him to show why they are not what they appear to be.

  • robc||

    John, which of the candidates isnt a racist?

    I know, for a fact, that everyone who supports the war on drugs is a racist, so that doesnt leave many.

  • ||

    Maybe they are all racists Rob. But we are not talking about the rest of them. We are talking about Paul.

  • robc||

    Bullshit again, John, stop lying. Im going to quote you:

    Because they are running for President and I would like to know they are not a racist.

    They. they. they. they. You were talking about them all.

    Liar.

    Where were you a week or two ago on these threads. You didnt give a damn until the GOP insiders decided to push this issue and now you "care".

  • ben||

    John is feigning to care about this.

  • Jerry||

    But you can only really know if he is not racist if you know the guy personally, which is something you cannot demand politicians to be with you. So you are trying to seek "truth" which politicians cannot deliver to you.

  • ben||

    He's friends with the Austin head of the NAACP who came to his defense today. The NAACP sees this as a smear job on Ron Paul.

  • flacid tuna||

    And they also don't like Jews. So there's that.

  • ||

    Except that he knew about them four years later and admitted in a 1996 DMN article to writing at least part of the rhetoric.

  • Travis||

    This is exactly right.

  • ||

    The most ironic part of this whole video...Wolf interviewed Dr. Paul about this very same subject back in 2008. Here is Dr. Paul's complete answer back then:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKBlk1Vpeuw

  • Max||

    you rihgtwing nuts are retard. this racest newsletters will berry Ron pual. I cant take it anyomre. this is my last post.

  • ||

    ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!ARF!

  • Sevo||

    Ken,
    I think you got rathered.

  • ||

    I like the ARF!ARF! thing.

    I think it's hilarious.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Max threatened to never post here a while back.

    Of course, he's a liar.

  • Max||

    No I'm not!

  • ||

    Come on CNN, what's the matter can't ask anything else or find any other dirt? So, CNN how come you didn't press obama regarding his affiliation with the known terrorist Bill ayers or why he sat in a church for 20 years that taught that white people are the enemy? This is a non-issue. Stick to the issues....Oh that's right, the people argree with him on the issues of the economy and the liberty eroding government. Your attempt has failed and the people see it.

  • ||

    Actually I'm far more offended by the stupid shit he said about Bradley Manning than I am about 20 year-old ghost written articles.

  • Max||

    Naybe if he owned up to the fake eyebrows, people would forgive the racist nesletters. Anyway, he's 76. They won't have Ron Paul to kick around too much longer. He'll be way to old to run in 2016.

  • ||

    I knew it was too good to be true. "This is my last post."

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Max is a liberal. 'Nuff said.

  • ||

    This wasn't the worst thing Paul could have done, but it was pretty close.

    He could have said something racist, and that would have been worse.

  • flacid tuna||

    I still maintain that the newsletters are no more racist than National Review over the same time period. Getting a few choice quotes from a 10 year period of time is not that hard, certainly not the time period in question nor conservative publications in particular.

  • ||

    It is no more racist than the National Review in the 1950s. But for 1990, it was pretty bad. Maybe those standards are wrong. But those were the standards even then.

  • Sidd Finch||

    Derbyshire is a "racist," and he still writes for NR.

  • ||

    Derbyshire is not running for President. If Derbyshire ran for President he would be crucified. And frankly as much as I like him as a writer, I think he would make kind of a lousy President.

  • flacid tuna||

    You obviously didn't follow the conservative movement in the 90s.

  • ||

    Either he was lying then or he's lying now. Sorry, Paulites, but he's got to start giving a straight answer.

  • ||

    You can disagree with his policy positions, but you can NEVER accuse Dr. Paul of lying...

  • Max||

    Ron Paul is a lying nazi piece of shit.

  • ||

    R us referring to his not giving money to the Muslim countries or to Israel, the Jewish country?

  • Adolf Hitler||

    You know nothing of my work, Max.

  • ||

    How does it feel to be brainwashed. Come on, he's a politician. I like the guy and will vote for him, but the contradictions in his own words indicate that he is likely lying about this. Or did you not click the link I posted?

  • ben||

    Yes, I clicked it and it was contrived horseshit. This is a smear job.

  • ||

    I haven't heard him claim that the Dallas Morning News falsely quoted him. So it's one or the other.

    I'm sure this is uncomfortable for those who believe their immaculate and perfect cult leader can do no wrong. But seriously, you don't have to justify his every action or contradiction. He's a politician, and somehow Paulites forget that.

  • ||

    By straight answer you mean the answer YOU and the MSM want to hear?

  • ||

    Explain his own contradictions where he admits to writing the "fleet footed" line and complains about his words being taken out of context in 1996 and now claims he didn't know hardly anything about the newsletter and never really read it or had anything to do with it.

  • flacid tuna||

    How is it even racist to say blacks are fast on their feet? Does no one watch the Olympics or marathons?

  • Sidd Finch||

    It's racist because if you acknowledge some differences it opens the door for others. All human evolution stopped 100,000 years ago. A Marxist snail paleontologist told me that so it has to be true.

  • ||

    I've joke that that line was a compliment as well. But that was in one of the offensive articles that he once claimed to write and is now claiming he didn't even know about.

  • ||

    Also, if he didn't write it, tell us who did. If that screws over family members or Lew Rockwell or Murray Rothbard, so be it. Until then, I'll assume he did write it and he's lying now, as the 1996 interview posted above indicates.

  • ||

    ^^This^^ If he really doesn't agree with it, what does he care saying who did? If someone published a bunch of stupid shit under my name, I would fire them and every time someone asked me about it I would say "yeah that was that shitbag X who did that". Why can't he do that?

    And why is it so unthinkable that he did write them? Maybe he did. His name is on the damn newsletters.

  • flacid tuna||

    You don't rat out your friends. Ever.

  • ||

    Then fuck him. He can lose his candidacy over it. How the hell can I trust him as President? Would he rat out someone in his administration who was his friend who did something wrong?

  • ||

    If loyalty to "friends" who have damaged his political career and movement and allowed people to slander him is more important than the "truth", then Ron Paul will receive the political downfall he deserves.

    It's sad because I do support him and want him to succeed, but I also don't want libertarians to be affiliated with racism in any way, shape or form in the long term due to his obstinacy.

  • Sidd Finch||

    He can lose his candidacy over it.

    "friends" who have damaged his political career

    Is there any evidence of damage? The polls certainly don't show it.

  • ||

    I think there will be evidence soon

  • Jerry||

    That's what Sandusky said. But of course Sandusky actually did things that were illegal and unlawful.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I didn't see her ask that in the interview.

  • BigT||

    Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: `Given the inef! ficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
    "These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report"

    Paul is characterizing the report's conclusions, not stating his views. This is calling the report misleading ( even racist ). Is THIS what all the fuss is about? Another failure of the public schools- reading comprehension.

  • ||

    Barack Obama is a racist and so is his wife. They both hate white america.

  • ||

    Barack Obama is a racist and so is his wife. They both hate white america.

  • ||

    CNN is shameless.... but it does tell you one thing. He is rising to the top of the pile, and they are seriously out to vet him now like Herman Cain. Ron Paul is being "Cained" by the media, which is a good thing... they are taking him seriously, but unlike Cain, he is not a racist, and Cain was a skirt chaser. Period.
    19 minutes ago · Like

  • ||

    Dr. Paul, no matter how many times you're asked these questions, the answer to "Aren't they incendiary" is, "Yes. Yes they are. Terrible statements." This looked bad.

    Thing is, he could turn every single attempt to talk about these newsletters into a conversation about how his policies will dismantle racism. But he doesn't do that. He gets all defensive, and now walks out. It doesn't look good at all.

  • ben||

    How was he walking out? There is a video cut, everyone is packing up, the interview is over and she's even acting like it is over.

  • ||

    I don't think people give a real fuck about it. The ones that do would never vote for the man any way.

    The economy and abuse of liberty has really opened people's minds up to issues outside of this minutia.

  • ||

    Not true. Speaking for myself and many others here who have expressed support but concern.

  • Fluffy||

    Whatever.

    You're a concern troll bitch every other time I notice you.

  • ||

    Um, I'm not a concern troll or any kind of troll. I'm always willing to have an honest debate. Unless everyone you disagree with is a concern troll?

  • ||

    I concern trolling fluffy. You have lost your mind on this. No way would accept such a lame ass excuse like "I didn't write them and don't support them" from any other politician. No fucking way. The newsletters had his name on them and if wants to be President he owes the country a better answer than that.

    What is the big deal with saying what happened? As I said above, if someone published a bunch of stupid shit under my name, I would fire them and every time someone asked me about it I would say "yeah that was that shitbag X who did that". Why can't he do that?

    And further, why shouldn't an impartial observer conclude that he did write them given the fact that he has no explanation for how they got there and won't say who did?

  • Fluffy||

    Dude, I merely suspect Proprietist of concern trolling, but you are DEFINITELY concern trolling.

    We've both been here a long time. We had all these conversations once before.

    For you to out of nowhere decide, this far into the campaign, that you suddenly remembered all the newsletter stuff and are suddenly really concerned about it again, you have to be concern trolling.

  • ||

    I will be honest. I never paid much attention the newsletter thing in 08. Maybe I should have. But his answers this year have pissed me off.

    His name is on the things. Just explain how they got published, who wrote them and how his name got on them and the whole thing will be over. If someone did publish that stuff without his knowing it, it is no big deal. But who was that someone. If he wants to be President, he owes the country an answer to that.

    And you keep dodging the questions because you know you are wrong. You are usually better than that. You disappoint me.

  • Jonh's right! Paul is RACIST!!||

    Da Proof

    Thanks, John!

  • Fluffy||

    Fuck you, dude. I devoted a post to answering your five questions in the other thread.

  • ||

    You didn't answer shit fluffy. Come on.

  • ||

    Fluffy,

    I assumed we knew who wrote the newsletters and that Paul explained how they got published in 2008. But apparently he didn't. That is a real problem.

  • robc||

    How they got published:

    Some one took them to the printer and then mailed them to subscribers.

    Really, John, WTF?

  • ||

    Really Rob,

    There were newsletters with Ron Paul's name on them that contained several pretty nasty statements about black people. Ron Paul not only made decent money from these newsletters but also his wife was on the newsletter payroll.

    Now how did the racist stuff get published if Ron Paul didn't endorse it?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    There were newsletters with Ron Paul's name on them that contained several pretty nasty statements about black people.


    Excuse me, John, but you're stretching things. ALL that is available only mentions the people that were rioting in LA and the hoodlums in DC. You're the one that read "all black people" on those words.

    Now who is being the racist?

    Ron Paul not only made decent money from these newsletters but also his wife was on the newsletter payroll.


    And?

  • ||

    Old Mexican there was more than that. There was

    If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.

    If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,"

    Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions

    http://www.theatlantic.com/pol.....se/250256/

    That is gross. And if you are making money from it and your wife works there and your name is on the top of it, it is pretty hard to say you don't know what is in it.

  • Fluffy||

    Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions

    You personally routinely declare that 90% of blacks are racist, because 90% of them voted for Obama on the basis of pure race identification.

    You also routinely make blanket declarations about the soundness of the black approach to politics, based on the large majorities that voting bloc generally delivers to Democrats.

  • robc||

    Now how did the racist stuff get published if Ron Paul didn't endorse it?

    Because he didnt read every article before publication?

    He has acknowledged this and said it was his responsibility.

    He sold his name to some friends to publish news letters to help out the cause. Two sentences that never should have been published slipped thru.

    I really dont see the big deal. Everyone who publishes something has this kind of thing happen to them on ocassion.

  • BakedPenguin||

    robc - want to go double or nothing on Paul getting the (R) nomination?

  • robc||

    Nah, I only bet on sure things. Paul has never been that. He has a chance, but it isnt stealing like Im doing with you on the Tebow bet.

  • BakedPenguin||

    Wuss.

  • ||

    It is more than two sentences. And who were these friends? What was the agreement? Lets go back and talk to the people who published them and see what they say. If they did it without Paul's permission and he never knew about it, fine. But if that is true, he shouldn't have a problem telling people who these people were.

    And even if that is true, how stupid do you have to be to be a politician and let someone publish things under your name and have no idea what they are writing?

    And you clowns say Sarah Palin is stupid. If what you are saying is true, Paul is an idiot.

  • robc||

    5 sentences, 3 of which are fine.

    And you clowns say Sarah Palin is stupid.

    Before you even knew who the fuck she was, I was saying she would be the VEEP candidate in 2008. Go back, you can find me predicting this. Find one time Ive said she was stupid. Liar.

    how stupid do you have to be to be a politician and let someone publish things under your name and have no idea what they are writing?

    He wasnt at the time. Im not sure if he thought he would get back into it or not. That said, politician or not, its pretty stupid. Then again, I bet 99% of the material was almost exactly what he expected. How do the owners of the NYT let so much stupid shit get published in their name? It happens.

    And who were these friends? What was the agreement? Lets go back and talk to the people who published them and see what they say.

    You know as well as anyone where Rockwell and Rothbard are. I doubt you are gonna get any answers out of Rothbard though. Rockwell might know who the other people writing for it are. None of this info is secret.

  • ||

    If none of the info is secret, why won't Paul talk about it? And there were more than five sentences. Read the stuff I put up above. And that was in addition to the stuff about the LA Riots.

  • robc||

    Two sentences, not five. TWO.

    And Im including the stuff you posted up above.

    Some of the other isnt very PC, but fuck that.

  • ||

    Concern over what? He has not advocated any racist policies or tried to pass racist laws.

    There are MUCH bigger fish to fry in today's world.

  • ||

    Well, it was enough to make me support Gary Johnson instead of Ron Paul. Now that conflict doesn't exist anymore, but it damages his credibility and will have a negative effect on the movement. Why shouldn't I be concerned that the libertarian movement will be easily branded as racist due to the mistakes of one politician and/or his advisors?

  • ||

    Your concern that people will see everyone as identical to Ron Paul just means you care too much about what other people think.

  • ||

    Well I think most of us are insulating ourselves from the "libertarians = racist" meme that will surely gain strength from this.

  • Fluffy||

    You, unfortunately, are failing to insulate yourself from the "Proprietist is a fucking pussy" meme that's also out there.

  • ||

    Ah, machismo. The very root of logic.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Proprietist,

    Well, it was enough to make me support Gary Johnson instead of Ron Paul.


    Good one, P!

    Oh, you're being serious...

  • ||

    Very true. And that means it shouldn't be any problem to just explain what the hell happened and how they got published.

  • CalebT||

    There's still a lot to be hopeful about from the Paul campaign if he can survive this story. As it was inevitably going to become a big story, I suppose it's better to get this done now instead of later.

  • RoboCain||

    I agree.

  • CalebT||

    And I say "hopeful" not in the "Oh, joy! Kennedy/Kennedy/McGovern/Mondale/Dukakis/Clinton/Gore/Kerry/Obama give me so much HOPE!" way, but in the "I fuckin' hope the drug war/war on terror/war on salt/war on obesity/war on incandescent lights/war on privacy/war on the the 1%/war on poverty/war on the constitution ends really fucking soon."

  • RoboCain||

    If this newsletter nonsense is the worse thing anyone can say about Paul, then he is the most morally upstanding human being to come this close to the Presidency in over a century.

  • ||

    You might be right about that RoboCain. But if that is true, why can't Paul just come clean with the whole story and move on? Why does he get so defensive and give such insulting answers?

  • ben||

    Maybe because he's telling the truth and they keep dogging him like he's not.

  • ||

    If he was telling the truth, he would tell the whole story. Does he not know who wrote that? Did he never read his own newsletter? Just what happened. Why is that so hard to do?

  • ben||

    He's told the same story dozens of times. How should he elaborate when there is nothing more to say. He was a physician then, focusing on his patients, he lent his name to the news letter, people say he made money, looks like that's untrue too, ten years later it comes up as he's running for office, it's all news to him and that's all there is. Let it go.

  • flacid tuna||

    It's not his job to provide losers like you with more ammo.

  • ||

    It is his job to explain himself to voters. And Ben, that story stretches credulity. Who were these people? Someone wrote it. If he would say who, the media could go talk to that person and end this whole thing.

    Why doesn't he do that?

  • ||

    I can't believe how hard these acolytes will contort themselves to justify Paul's every action or inaction. It can't be healthy for democracy to have so many people so unwaveringly hypnotized by a singular politician. It goes beyond the "fanboy" realm and into extreme apologism.

  • ||

    Come on Proprietist, he said he didn't write them. Isn't that good enough for you? Yeah, it is disappointing that Libertarians are just as prone to defend the indefensible as anyone else when it is their team.

  • ||

    First they ignore you.

    Then they laugh at you.

    Then they fight you....

    Then you win.

  • Juice||

    I've always thought that saying was stupid.

    Sometimes they laugh at you and fight you and then you lose.

  • rob||

    Come on, Reason. He did not "storm out" of the interview. I thought you guys had more integrity than this. Why resort to sensationalism?

  • ben||

    Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said,
    the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment. "I've read Ron Paul's whole philosophy, I also understand what he's saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him," said Linder.
    "If you scare the folks that have the money, they're going to attack you and they're going to take it out of context," he added.
    "What he's saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that's what they fear," concluded the NAACP President.

  • Gotcha!||

    Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist

    This just adds fuel to the fire, because everyone knows there's no organization more racist than the NAACP.

  • Sevo||

    Mary|12.21.11 @ 8:05PM|#
    "Isn't it possible that..."
    Yes, it's possible.

    "Isn't it possible that..."
    Yes, it's possible.

    "Look. He has already disavowed these newsletters. That is all he can do."
    No, he hasn't.
    *You* can posit alternatives; *he* needs to be clear enough that neither you nor I have to guess.

  • Sevo||

    Check that:
    No, it's not all he can do.
    For:
    No, he hasn't.

  • ||

    As much as the repetitive questioning on the newsletters was overkill, when they finally got around to talking about Ron Paul's stand on issues, and what about them people were reacting positively to, CNN seemed to fairly represent that.

    They would do well to dial down the "gotcha" journalism.

  • ||

    WTF? He didn't storm out, I am so sick of the mischaracterization and lies. The interview was naturally coming to an end and he took his microphone off and was leaving. It wasn't like it was a scheduled interview and they were sitting down and stood up and walked out which is what all the headlines make it sound like. Lies, lies, and more lies by the corporate owned media. But the people are finally waking up. Ron Paul was completely ignored, any coverage was only meant to ridicule him, and pulling crap like this, trying to mis-characterize events like this are only going to strengthen people's resolve in supporting him.

  • ben||

    I totally agree. Damn right!

  • Colin||

    He did storm out. You simply can't handle the truth, just like you can't handle the truth about him being a racist.

  • Max is right! Paul is RACIST!!||

    Da Proof

    Thank you, Max!

  • Mr. FIFY||

    He said "we're all individuals", so that must be the racist part, right?

  • Everyone Commenting||

    None of us are going to convince any of the others about our position.

    So let's just all agree that everyone on this website is a racist, and leave it at that and move on.

  • Lawrence O'Donnell||

    Makes sense to me.

  • ||

    So I guess the next time Ron Paul saddles up with Barney Frank on a 'left' position the good ol folks at CNN will make double sure to condemn Frank for the scrupulous alliance he's made with a proven racist.

  • Colin||

    They should.

  • the truth||

    Lets keep asking the same questions till we get the answers we want, fucking vultures.

  • Colin||

    How about until we get the truth.

    First, he defended the newsletters, then he disavowed them and said he didn't know anything about them.

    Now, he said he did read them. Now, we find out his wife and daughter were salaried employees of publications that made him a million dollars a year.

    Are we to believe they knew nothing about them, too?

    Please.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Colin,

    How about until we get the truth.


    You're not interested in the truth.

    First, he defended the newsletters, then he disavowed them and said he didn't know anything about them.


    Liar.

    Now, he said he did read them. Now, we find out his wife and daughter were salaried employees of publications that made him a million dollars a year.


    And?

    Are we to believe they knew nothing about them, too?


    You're an idiot. Accountants in my company don't know shit about how cement is made.

  • ||

    Come on Old Mexican. You are better than that. You mean to tell me that someone is publishing the "John of Reason Report" every week. And I am getting big money from that report. And my wife is on the payroll. And I have no idea what is in the "John of Reason" report every week?

    Stop it. That is just bullshit and you know it. And if any other politician tried to pull your dick like that you would laugh them off the stage. No way would you guys let someone other than Paul get away with such crap.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    You mean to tell me that someone is publishing the "John of Reason Report" every week. And I am getting big money from that report. And my wife is on the payroll. And I have no idea what is in the "John of Reason" report every week?


    Do YOU know what is published in Reason all the time? I don't. The man was a doctor with a practice, otherwise he would not have people working for him - he would've made all the money himself.

    Stop it. That is just bullshit and you know it.


    This is false, John. Don't be an ass - "Ron Paul" was a brand name, like LowRider, and Ron was no full time publisher. Unless you can provide PROOF that he was, you're full of shit.

    No way would you guys let someone other than Paul get away with such crap.


    Wanna bet, John?

  • ||

    Do YOU know what is published in Reason all the time? I don't

    No. But if they put my name on the top and started sending me a check every week, I sure as hell would.

    Ron Paul" was a brand name,

    Then Ron Paul is an idiot who was completely negligent and allowed his brand to be destroyed.

  • ||

    If he wants the questions to go away, tell us who wrote them. Otherwise, the media will assume he's a crypto-racist who did actually write them and turn away independents who like what he says but can't stomach racism.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Proprietist,

    the media will assume he's a crypto-racist[sic]


    You're an imbecile, P. NOBODY could defend himself from such an accusation, even if labeled at you, me or Mother Theresa.

  • ||

    That's not true. I don't think anyone has been able to dredge up a video or audio of such words coming out of Paul's mouth directly. If he named names, most of us would believe him, and the story would die. The longer he avoids answering that, the worse this will get. He doesn't have a protective media blanket like some other candidates do.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Proprietist,

    That's not true.


    WHAT'S not true???

    I don't think anyone has been able to dredge up a video or audio of such words coming out of Paul's mouth directly.


    WHAT words? Is this supposed to be your backup for your response?

    If he named names, most of us would believe him, and the story would die.


    You think so? Because I don't believe YOU would believe him even if the guy who wrote them came to the press conference with the goddamned typewriter he used in hand.

  • ||

    You need to work on your internet telepathy and reading comprehension skills. While you're at it, I recommend Politics 101, where the mantra is "no politician is worthy of suspending healthy skepticism."

  • ||

    Old Mexican,

    Yeah it is hard to defend yourself from those accusations when you have a bunch of newsletters with your name on the top that confirm those allegations.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    Yeah it is hard to defend yourself from those accusations when you have a bunch of newsletters with your name on the top that confirm those allegations.


    Are you insane? Did you read what P wrote? He says that Ron will be considered a "crypto" racist. There's NO WAY to defend from such accusation, ever, newsletters or not.

    What he's implying is that regardless of his authorship, regardless of his record, regardless of his speeches and interviews, he could be considered a "closet racist." Well, what the fuck? ANYBODY could be considered a "crypto" racist for anything. That is ridiculous!

  • ||

    When you name appears on the top of a bunch of racist sayings, people are going to be inclined to think you are racist. WTF are they supposed to think?

  • ||

    Yes, "crypto" because he has so successfully masked it in his everyday speaking and policy beliefs that he has never had a slip, but deep down, these newsletters are revealing the "truth" about what he REALLY believes.

    Since you're reading comprehension is utterly pathetic, let me explain that that is not a statement I am making that I actually believe - but that is how the media and political rivals will spin his constant evasion.

  • ben||

    John is a lying hack who doesn't believe a thing he is writing.

  • ||

    the media are brain-washing creepy pieces of crap. they are afraid of ron paul because he speaks the truth. the people who control our lives are the ones who control the media. that is the monsters who control the money.

  • ||

    There's no doubt that they ignored him as long as they could, and when he became dangerous, they used anything they could to discredit him.

    He shouldn't have left himself open to that. I'm sure back in the '90s, when this newfangled interweb thingy was still a gleam in someone's eye, nobody thought a stupid newsletter could live forever.

    The next Ron Paul? We need to make sure he doesn't have this millstone around his neck. Even if he won the Republican nomination like this, there was no way he was gonna win the swing vote in the general election.

    Bachman and Palin were laughed out of the contest for much less!

    It's nice to see Gary Johnson looking like he's gonna run on the LP ticket, but I hope he goes the Ron Paul route and runs for the Senate or something higher profile.

    A lot of swing voters will vote for someone like Barack Obama just to stick mud in the eye of racists--there's no way swing voters would vote for someone who let a newsletter out that was racist in his name. It was just never gonna happen.

    The good news is that the good things Ron Paul was running for--those issues are a lot bigger than Ron Paul. We'll still be advocating those issues long after Ron Paul has retired from public life. In fact, if this newsletter issues isn't about to ever go away, then we have to face the fact that Ron Paul may be a net liability to the libertarian movement.

  • ||

    Well the issues should be bigger than Ron Paul. But sadly for a lot of his supporters they are not.

  • ||

    If you think the media are brainwashing, let me introduce you to Ron Paulites who accept every word he says as Ultimate Truth. There are plenty of examples above, including the post right above mine.

  • ||

    Ah sorry, not referring to you Ken.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Proprietist,

    Let me introduce you to Ron Paulites who accept every word he says as Ultimate Truth.


    Interesting thing to say. Defending a person from a clear smear campaign is now construed by you as "zealotry."

    I guess that not defending him makes you a level-headed person. You're not only smearing the guy, you smear the people that defend him. How is this not a leftist tactic?

    I think you're full of shit.

  • ||

    "You're not only smearing the guy, you smear the people that defend him. How is this not a leftist tactic?"

    This is funny, coming from the ad hominem champion of Hit and Run.

    "the media are brain-washing creepy pieces of crap. they are afraid of ron paul because he speaks the truth."

    "You don't rat out your friends. Ever."

    "You can disagree with his policy positions, but you can NEVER accuse Dr. Paul of lying..."

    Yes, sycophants. He's a saint, not a politician.

  • ben||

    Old Mexican is right, you're totally full of shit.

  • ||

    Yes, this statement is obviously true, because you said it.

  • ||

    "storms" out of interview? hahahaha! I call bullsh!t.

  • ||

    These people realize he's running for the office of President of the United States of America, right? Look how proud she is for NOT getting an interview with the guy leading in the Iowa polls. Obama got elected with 5 years of endorsing a guy who literally said 'God Damn the USA' and they think 20 year old newsletters saying something a large portion of the US believes anyway is going to hurt him?

    Yeah, ok.

    Imagine getting to speak to someone right near the beating heart of the next presidential election and wasting your oppurtunity because your boss said 'make him look bad'

    she couldn't even think of something else to ask him about once he started taking off the mic.

    perhaps she should have thought up a plan b so she didn't waste her entire day?

    of course it wasn't a wasted day for her because like all of CNN, she had no intention of engaging Paul on any kind of actual issue since whenever they try that, he makes them look like fools.

  • Hans Barenjager||

    Racism is a THOUGHTCRIME. We know the routine. If someone does not BELIEVE that the lone sharking of the Federal Reserve Bank, the ponzi cons of wall street, war crimes of the Military Industrial Complex, apartheid in Israel is GOOD, that person must be assassinated with words like racist, anti-semite. CNN's job like the Catholic Inquisition is to make sure that Americans only have kosher thoughts. Heretics will be burned at the stake of public opinion that CNN will manufacture.

  • ||

    Hans! ~ I got good & drunk on yer likker last week.

  • ||

    Also, we just had the first black president and he was an unmitigated disaster.

    Perhaps a white, racist candidate will actually pick up some indepedents who 'gave Obama a shot' and feel like fools now.

  • ||

    Okay that is funny.

  • ||

    The title is very misleading. It should read "Ron Paul Storms Out of CNN Interview Over Reporter Asking the Same Question Repeatedly"

  • ||

    Ron Paul can only repeat himself so many times. The racist train has left the station....without Ron Paul as a passenger. I'm quite happy that he took the mic off and stopped wasting anymore of his time with CNN. Ron Paul 2012!

  • ||

    Because the answers he keeps repeating aren't really answers, they are dodges.

  • ||

    Those are principled dodges!

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Proprietist,

    Because the answers he keeps repeating aren't really answers, they are dodges.


    I have the nagging feeling that ANY answer he cares to give will be a "dodge" for you. I stopped taking you seriously 10 seconds ago, buddy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....3EADdr-5AY

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Proprietist,

    Because the answers he keeps repeating aren't really answers, they are dodges.


    I have the nagging feeling that ANY answer he cares to give will be a "dodge" for you. I stopped taking you seriously 10 seconds ago, buddy.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....3EADdr-5AY

  • ||

    That is not true. If Ron Paul explained who wrote that stuff and stated some facts that could be checked, the issue would die at least for me.

  • ||

    Me too. The fact that OM is willing to suspend all skepticism of a politician says a lot about him.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    If Ron Paul explained who wrote that stuff and stated some facts that could be checked, the issue would die at least for me.


    I don't think so, John. You were so willing to suspend skepticism and immediately construed what are normal conservative diatribes as racist smut. THIS fact tells me that you're completely full of shit. So is your playpal Proprietist.

    I've read more inflammatory things on Vanity Fair and Playboy, but it seems that the bar simply rises to high heaven ONLY because it's Paul. Not one else.

  • ||

    Bullshit. Those newsletters were gross. And maybe he didn't write them. I am not saying he did. But he owes an explanation not just a "trust me".

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    Those newsletters were gross.


    FUCK YOU! You didn't even read any of them!

    I BOTHERED to read them with an open mind. They have NOTHING that one could find in an Ann Coulter book, AT WORST. One of the commentaries could've been written by Pat Buchanan (in fact he wrote a whole new book on the same issue of discrimination against whites.)

    The accusation that they're racists come from 3rd parties. Stop lying, READ THEM and THEN COME BACK and tell me with a straight face that they're racist.

  • ||

    Ann Coulter is considered the biggest bomb thrower in the country. She is no more fit to be President than Al Sharpton is.

    And if the letters are not that bad, why is Paul so quick to disavow them?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    Ann Coulter is considered the biggest bomb thrower in the country. She is no more fit to be President than Al Sharpton is.


    THAT may be so, but would you call her inflammatory rhetoric "racist"? TELL ME THE TRUTH.

    And if the letters are not that bad, why is Paul so quick to disavow them?


    Because he's neither a bomb-thrower nor a flame-spewing conservative.

  • ||

    Ok, and Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan are racist POS's. Was that supposed to be a defense? I agree the newsletters aren't fullscale Stormfront racism, but they are bad enough to merit a complete explanation.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Proprietist,

    Ok, and Ann Coulter and Pat Buchanan are racist POS's


    See how easy you proceeded to smear them as well, just to maintain your argument?

  • ||

    LOL. These goalposts won't move themselves.

    “Thank God the white man did win or we
    would not have the sort of equality and
    freedom, or life, that we have now.”
    - Ann Coulter

    "White racial consciousness is rising and has begun to manifest itself in politics because, for tens of millions of Americans, this is no longer the country they grew up in."
    - Pat Buchanan, Nazi apologist and Holocaust revisionist

    Next time, why don't you pull your fucking head out of your ass. Maybe then you'll see that you're about to shoot your arguments in the foot.

  • ben||

    John and Proprietist aren't wrong, they are lying.

  • chris||

    If he fingered Rothbard, Props would be saying, 'suuure, blame the dead guy who can't defend himself.'

  • ||

    No, if Rothbard did it then I hope he continues to burn in hell for further sabotaging the libertarian movement.

  • chris||

    My personal theory in '08, he wasn't going to finger Rothbard until his widow died, but since that has occurred and Paul remains mum, it means he doesn't have a good reason not to do so.

  • chris||

    In other words, Rothbard most likely didn't do it. Someone one on this forum a few months back was floating quotes from Rothbard, but if you went back to the articles, like the book review he did on The Bell Curve the arguments he makes are several orders of magnitude more nuanced than what you see in the newsletters. It doesn't reflect either Rockwell's argument style, nor North's much more careful and controlled prose style either. The Newsletters fires haphazard blanks you wont see in any of these guy's writing. Likely a nobody that isn't a publicly known figure wrote them. Paul might not even know which of his people did it. Doesn't reflect well on his management skills, but there you go.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Chris,

    The Newsletters fires haphazard blanks you wont see in any of these guy's writing.


    I've been trying to compare the style of each with the style and character of those commentaries. I can't pin them to any of them because their writing is pretty much confined by the libertarian philosophy. Even the freer style of Rothbard does not stray too much into un-PC land. I had my suspicion that it could've been Burt Blumbert, but his commentaries simply don't match. He was more interested in money, gold and investment commentaries.

    You're probably right: It was someone not precisely a libertarian. His commentaries were not looked at seriously because the readership was limited and because Paul was not running for anything. It was a mistake, but ratting the guy out could potentially turn him into a media piñata. Maybe Ron wants to avoid this as much as possible - it's up to that guy now.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re:Proprietist,

    if Rothbard did it then I hope he continues to burn in hell for further sabotaging the libertarian movement.


    Ah. We get to the geist.

    So that is what this is all about...

  • ||

    Yes, I do hate Rothbard for his purging of incrementalists and moderates from the LP after the biggest electoral success in LP history, which he ended up leaving anyway for the GOP less than ten years later. If it is his miscalculated catering to racism and it has sabotaged Paul's chances at winning, all the more reason to hate him. For all the damage he has done (intentionally or unintentioally) to the electoral progress of the libertarian movement, he is worthy of condemnation.

  • PaulTheBot ||

    Old newsletters are old. Who really gives a shit? Even if he did write them I could care less. It was 20 fucking years ago. Get a life everybody and focus on more important stuff!

  • ScottyTReid||

    Hang in their Mr. Paul. I am a black man and could care less about this garbage. It is not a concern among many black people. We are more interested in your views on the Drug War which you called racist, the Federal Death Penalty that you called racist in its implemetation, the War on Terror which I say is a war on people of color. You do not see any real white supremacist terrorist at Guantanamo. We understand that most of these white people in the media do not give a damn about Black people and only interested in ratings. Tell them these questions are off the table, you have already been through this, no need to go through this bullshit again. Ron Paul 2012!

  • Old Mexican||

  • ||

    They are all the same, they tell you what you want to hear to get your votes, then slap you in the face. Wow.

    www.real-web-privacy.tk

  • Sevo||

    I don't think the guy is "racist" any more than the best of us.
    But anyone running for president who 'allowed' those sorts of comments go out over his name has to answer difficult questions in specifics:
    'Here's what happened and here's how I've learned it was a mistake'.
    In ways that convince Voter Jane or Joe that those were not his words.
    I haven't seen it.

  • Lewis H||

    So he's your Republican

  • Sevo||

    Lewis H|12.21.11 @ 9:05PM|#
    "So he's your Republican"
    Is there a remedial reading class available near you?
    If not, move somewhere else and find one.

  • Lewis H||

    Tell me, why do you care which Republican wins?

  • Sevo||

    Lewis H|12.21.11 @ 9:26PM|#
    "Tell me, why do you care which Republican wins?"

    Tell me, why do you fail logic?

  • ||

    That is exactly right. And if he did just let people use his name to publish newsletters without any idea of what they were publishing, then he is an idiot.

  • BakedPenguin||

    A reporter was bound to grind this subject into dust. That Paul and/or his campaign didn't see it coming is astonishing. I don't believe he's racist; but it was negligence on his/his campaign's part not to prepare for this. Paul was already viewed as a "fringe" candidate. Reporters were going to come up with anything that would serve that narrative.

    IIRC, in his previous discussion of the newsletters, he had mentioned that he had been upset by the insults to Barbara Jordan. He had worked with her on some House committee, and developed a personal rapport with her. Had he told the reporter about this, it could have become a very different story.

  • ||

    This would not be a hard story to kill. All he has to say is "yeah I let these people (and say who) use my name for a newsletter. And I was negligent and didn't keep track of what they were publishing. And they published some horrible things. I really regret that but I don't endorse any of the things in the news letters and never would have published them under my name had I known"

    Why is that so hard? The fact that he won't do that forces you to think that he did write them.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    I agree with you! He SHOULD say something to establish his moral responsibility and let it die.

    But I don't believe that the above will be enough for YOU, as you construed something in those commentaries that ain't there. I don't agree with naming names - that would make him a snitch and a coward.

    You're no better than Maxipad, who simply repeats what Welch and the other members of the smear detail have repeated from Kirchick's hit piece.

  • ||

    Why is naming names so bad? Whoever wrote that shit ought to have to publiclly take ownership for it.

    Jesus OM, if he didn't write that shit, whoever did wrote it without his knowing and put Paul's name on it and is now killing his political career. What the fuck loyalty does Paul owe to that crap weasel?

    There is no rational reason not to say who wrote it, especially if Paul really is offended by it.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: John,

    esus OM, if he didn't write that shit, whoever did wrote it without his knowing and put Paul's name on it and is now killing his political career. What the fuck loyalty does Paul owe to that crap weasel?


    I have no idea, John. But I appreciate his loyalty - that speaks volumes about the man and his sense of honor.

    If the culprit feels he needs to step up, I hope he does. But asking Ron to NAME NAMES to cover his ass would diminish him as a person, in my view.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Paul either wrote it, and that`s really bad, or he has OM`s bizarro bullshit sense of `loyalty` to his `friend`. Although honestly I really think OM just discovered this personal anti-snitching ethic when it suited his Paultardism.

  • Sevo||

    "I don't agree with naming names - that would make him a snitch and a coward."

    Sorry, OM, you're pitching a sort of 'friendship' that's just great when you're a kid protecting a buddy who scored a beer, underage.
    Your analogy fails when we're discussing someone running the most powerful organization on earth.
    I'm *tired* of cronyism. I don't want to hear that he's a great guy since he rewarded a buddy who only (insert nasty thing) and cost us all lives and treasure.
    Street cred is great. For teenagers.

  • robc||

    He has said almost exactly that. We know who was in charge, Rockwell and Rothbard. We dont know who specifically wrote it, because they probably had other people writing for them, but they were the two you could ask about it.

    He has said everything else. Literally, the only thing he hasnt said that people want is who wrote it. And I dont know why anyone gives a damn about that.

    Seriously, who the fuck cares. How does it change things if it was Rockwell or Rothbard or Joe X or me?

    Hmmm...maybe I should just admit to it and throw myself under the bus so RP doesnt have to do it. Stategery!

  • ||

    He owes names because that then is something that can be confirmed. If he didn't' write it or approve of it, say who did. That way we can go talk to that person and confirm that Paul is telling the truth. As it is, we have only his word and nothing else.

  • Sevo||

    "He has said everything else. Literally, the only thing he hasnt said that people want is who wrote it. And I dont know why anyone gives a damn about that."

    Yeah, and that's what's missing.
    You can clearly see that even those who support the guy do give a damn about it.
    While we may HOPE (sorry) for CHANGE (sorry), he can't ignore the fact that people *do* give a damn.

  • robc||

    Why?

    If John M Smith of Auburn, AL wrote it, what does that change. Why would you believe him.

    Why dont you believe me when I said I wrote them. I was the right age, I was one year out of college when the LA Riots occurred, I easily could have been some sort of intern writing articles for some crappy newsletter at age 22. I fit.

    Does it change anything at all if I come out?

  • ||

    Incorrectly it seems, I thought that it was known that Rothbard wrote them.

  • robc||

    Possibly a Rothbard lackey too.

    Im starting to lean that way because I think Paul is refusing to throw a dead guy under the bus, especially if he isnt sure if Rothbard wrote it or some Rothbard intern.

    Although, now Im leaning towards the theory that I wrote them, as it all fits.

  • Sevo||

    robc|12.21.11 @ 9:38PM|#
    "Does it change anything at all if I come out?"

    Yes, absolutely, it would.
    I don't think you're old enough to remember, but Nixon supporters demanded "specificity!"
    And they got it, and he was done.
    As a RP supporter, I'm demanding "specificity!" to make this go away.

  • robc||

    Lots of the Nixon stuff was stupid, on all sides, so that isnt useful.

    Plus, I gave you a name, so I assume this has all gone away now?

  • Sevo||

    "The fact that he won't do that forces you to think that he did write them."

    I may be wrong, but that's not my guess. "Names" don't write the stuff that goes in newsletters; the PR staff or a 'trusted' agent typically does.
    But it doesn't matter; if he did, he owes an abject apology. If he didn't, he owes voters a specific statement of who did and how he let it go out over his name.
    I find it hard to believe that he *and* his campaign staff doesn't know this.

  • Cytotoxic||

    THIS (both John and BP). This is starting to get beyond the point of frankly not-to-unexpected incompetence from the RP campaign and RP himself to being a little disturbing. Ron Paul just cannot deal with this and that hurts my confidence. It doesn`t help that apparently ALL of his fanboy legion have shown up here and are busy showing off how whiny and excuse-loving they are. Yeah the media are assholes DEAL WITH IT.

  • BakedPenguin||

    It's politics - people are going to dig up whatever dirt they can find, true or not. If you're not prepared to deal with that, you're not prepared to campaign. What Paul did was the equivalent of taking his ball and going home.

    For me, it was the comments about his professional / collegial relationship with Jordan that convinced me beyond a doubt that he didn't write the letters.

    I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.
  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    The fact that he won't do that forces you to think that he did write them.

    It does not force me to think that. Perhaps you meant: The fact that he won't do that forces you me to think that he did write them.

  • ||

    Why wouldn't I believe he wrote them? Why else would he not say who did?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I was just being syntactically picky. Your original sentence, "The fact that he won't do that forces you to think that he did write them." implies that I must accept the same conclusion. Perhaps it is evidence for enough for you, but it doesn't force me to the same conclusion. I think you wrote "you" when you really meant "me". I guess I took a little offense at being told what I must conclude.
    Syntax, grammer, it's hard to communicate on a comment thread, it's late, I'm going to make a martini. Night y'all!

  • CR||

    His voting record and Libertarian stances prevent him from being a racist and he didn't write the newsletters. What more do you want to know?

    Case closed. Move on.

  • ||

    Please tell me you are being ironic. Because you sound exactly like a liberal defending the indefensible.

  • CR||

  • CR||

    Also you cannot possibly be a social libertarian and be racist. That would be a contradiction and to prove that he IS a social libertarian you just need to look into his views and voting record. This attack from the media is a joke. They're terrified of a man that threatens to destroy entitlement programs and the insider money making in Washington.

  • ||

    You could certainly publicly espouse social libertarian views while privately believing in racist things. Sure, that would make you a fraud. But the outside world couldn't tell.

    At best you can say is, if Ron Paul believes these things, he is not really a social libertarian.

    In the end, we don't know that Paul is a social libertarian, we just know he has publicly stated he is one.

  • CR||

    You don't seem to understand do you? I refer to his voting record above what he may say. And his voting record proves his social libertarian views. Its not that complicated, my friend.

  • ||

    Someone could have that voting record and still be a racist or have been a racist previously. There is nothing about a voting record that says what is in your heart. In the end you are just saying "he is on my team and no one my team could ever be racist".

  • Shut UP John!||

    Stop your smear campaign against Dr. Paul! He is the ONLY candidate with integrity, and the ONLY one who can save America!

    He is NOT a racist, as he has repeatedly said, so any further questioning of this subject just makes you a tool of the establishment and you should be charged with libel!

    www.ronpaul2012.com

  • Fluffy||

    Sure, that would make you a fraud.

    Dude, that is FUCKING CRAZY.

    Are you seriously asserting that anyone who ever laughed at a racist joke who claims to be a libertarian is a fraud?

    Or that anyone who watched the Reginald Denny assault on TV in real time and said something like, "What are those animals doing to that guy from the truck?" who then claims to be a libertarian is a fraud?

    That's nuts.

    You know what? From reading your posts, I bet YOU wouldn't withstand that kind of scrutiny.

  • ||

    No. Fluffy, I am saying that just because someone claims or even acts like a "libertarian" doesn't mean they could never be a racist.

  • ||

    Pestering. CNN acts as a pest in this instance. The issued has been discussed at nauseoum. The day before yesterday, yesterday, now today, 4 years ago, even more. The reporters in all cases are not providing a contextual background just gratuitously extending an accusation. There is a why about their pestering that CNN is not revealing. Ron Paul does not provide additional information because he does not have to do it. He blatantly stands by his word. CNN, like police officers, is dealing with an honest politician from the standpoint that all politicians are dishonest. Yet, CNN is incapable of providing honest background to their accusations in order to contextualize for the public their journalism intent. Thus their intent then is to smear the candidacy of Dr. Paul. Best thing is for CNN to publish the newsletters in question and provide the evidence where a racial derision has been committed.

  • ||

    Stupid questions that have been aswered hundreds of times. It's not going to change because Ron Paul is not a flipfloper. Use the time for something productive instead.

  • ||

    He isn't a Libertarian, he's running as Republican.

    He didn't storm off, that was the latter part of the interview, which was ending.

  • CR||

    He's a social Libertarian. Liberty and personal freedom. People are allowed to put whatever they want into their own bodies as long as it doesn't affect others.

  • CR||

    He's a social Libertarian. Liberty and personal freedom. People are allowed to put whatever they want into their own bodies as long as it doesn't affect others.

  • robc||

    John:

    Since you said multiple times this week that you arent going to vote for him, why do you even care?

  • ||

    If he won the GOP nomination I would vote for him provided he stopped telling me to fuck off on the newsletter issue.

  • Jerry||

    And if he doesn't, would you vote for Obama? :)

  • ||

    Stay home.

  • robc||

    How many racists have you voted for in past elections? Even assuming the worst about Paul, he is less racist than the last 8 guys you voted for, if Im guessing right about your voting record.

  • chris||

    To be fair, I don't think Bush has a racist bone in his body. McCain, though, is known to toss around slurs aimed at Asians, and is a psycho to boot. Point to his internment if you must, but then tell me he didn't deserve to be there.

  • robc||

    As I said above, everyone who supports the war on drugs is a racist. That covers both Bushes.

  • chris||

    So, you already have voted for a racist, John. The last nominee.

  • robc||

    He isnt telling you to fuck off, he has said EXACTLY what you wanted.

    Unless, you want a name, and then Im going to ask again why? Or, if that doesnt satisfy you, I am throwing myself under the bus and outing myself as the author. Fucking satisfied now?

  • ||

    Without a name and facts to check, there is no way to know what is true. As it is he is just staying "trust me"./ And that is telling me to fuck off.

  • robc||

    He isnt saying trust me except about "I didnt write it". And we can compare that with the rest of his writings and speeches to determine the truth.

    Does anyone believe he wrote them? Not that I have heard.

    So a name is just a name at this point. Who gives a shit? Actually, that isnt the right question, instead:
    Anyone who gives a shit is a fucking moron.

  • Sevo||

    robc|12.21.11 @ 9:47PM|#
    "He isnt saying trust me except about "I didnt write it"."

    See that "except"? Why doesn't RP make that go away?
    He can; he hasn't.

  • robc||

    Covered above.

    Its quite possible he cant. In fact, Rothbard might be the only guy who knows who wrote it.

    People say he can find out because it was only a handful of people, but if Rothbard (plus maybe the author) are the only ones that know, how is he going to find out. Its quite possible his "I dont know" is very real. Or maybe it isnt.

    He can; he hasn't.

    Maybe he can, maybe he cant. Why the fuck do you care? IF you are sure via other evidence that Paul didnt write it, what does it matter who does?

    If he attempts to put Rockwell in his cabinet, Im fine with questioning him in detail to make sure he didnt write it, but other than that, I cant think of a reason to ever care.

  • Sevo||

    robc|12.21.11 @ 10:03PM|#
    "Its quite possible he cant. In fact, Rothbard might be the only guy who knows who wrote it."

    In which case he gets to be specific about turning it over to Rothbard.
    And I have to admit having some doubts that Rothbard let *anything* out that he wouldn't claim as his own.
    IOWs, (if you're right) Rothbard owns it and Paul should make that clear.

  • Fluffy||

    You are such a fucking liar.

    Lew Rockwell could personally come to your house with a basket of fruit and a signed letter from Ron saying, "John, I read all your posts and I have decided to have Lew come over to your house and tell you the whole story," and you STILL wouldn't vote for Paul if there was anyone else available more willing to bomb Iran.

    Please don't fucking pull my pud with this nonsense.

  • ||

    Is that you MNG? Fluffy you have really lost your mind on this. I am really sorry your guy turned out to be a lying crap weasel politician who couldn't handle the first adversity his campaign faced. It sucks.

    But hey, now you know how I felt about Cain. Paul has made an ass of himself on this. And you know it. That is why you are so mad.

  • chris||

    So, McCain's racism was never an issue for you, is that the impression you want to leave?

  • chris||

    "I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I live."

    http://www.americablog.com/200.....ccain.html

    Please point to us where you made a big deal out of McCain's racism?

  • ||

    McCain pushed for normalization of relations with Vietnam. He didn't hate the gooks. He never said that.

  • chris||

    (02-18) 04:00 PDT Greenville, S.C. — 2000-02-18 04:00:00 PDT Greenville, S.C. -- Editor's Note: This article was published on Feb. 18, 2000. In 2008, at least three national web sites posted links to it. As a result, it appeared in the list of SFGate's Most Read articles. Arizona Sen. John McCain refused to apologize yesterday for his use of a racial slur to condemn the North Vietnamese prison guards who tortured and held him captive during the war.

    "I hate the gooks," McCain said yesterday in response to a question from reporters aboard his campaign bus. "I will hate them as long as I live."

    http://articles.sfgate.com/200.....acial-slur

    Like hell he didn't. There is far more documentary evidence this came out of his mouth than there is that Paul knows who wrote the newsletter slurs. Why do you hold Paul to a higher standard than a known psycho for whom you voted?

  • ||

    He said he hated the Prison guards who tortured him. He kind of has that right. He wasn't saying he hated all Asians, just the ones who tortured him.

  • chris||

    Why are you making excuses for him? He was a grown man in sixties at the time, ffs, talking more childishly than the dumb things we all say here from time to time, running for the presidency of the United States to represent ALL the people. Do you think only his former prison guards were insulted by the remark?

  • ||

    Then don't vote McCain. But I think that saying I hate those fuckers that tortured me is not the same as saying "95% of all black people are stupid".

  • chris||

    It wasn't exactly teddy bears for orphans he was dropping on their city, John.

  • ||

    And honestly Chris if Paul just said "yeah I wrote it" i would have less of a problem with it. It is the "I don't have to tell you anything other than it wasn't me" that bothers me.

  • ||

    Fluffy you are the same person who didn't believe Cain. Who swears that Palin is a evangelical witch chasing nut because she once went to a church service with some guy who claims to be an exorcist.

    And now you get on here with a straight face and claim that we should all just take Paul's word for this stuff. That is just pathetic. If you took this whole story and replaced the name "Paul" with the name of any other politician in the world, you would be destroying them over it. Who do you think you are kidding? Do you think no one here has ever read anything else you wrote?

  • PoopyPants Johnson||

    I'm prejudiced against the elderly and Mexicans, so guess who I don't like?

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

  • PoopPants Johnson||

    That was an excellent guess, but the correct answer is: Hitler.

  • flacid tuna||

    Could it be any clearer that Reason takes it's marching orders from the Koch bros?

  • Colin||

    If only this were true.

  • ||

    Ah shit. How did you know? Guys, I think we need new decoder rings.

  • dmitchell||

    You call this storming out of an interview? Storm in a teacup, more like it.

  • Chris||

    They can't beat Ron Paul on the issues so they dredge up a 20 year old newsletter he didn't even write. If that is the extent of their argument then they are bankrupt.

  • Sevo||

    Chris|12.21.11 @ 9:33PM|#
    "They can't beat Ron Paul on the issues so they dredge up a 20 year old newsletter he didn't even write."

    Nope.
    That's an issue.

  • Colin||

    It's newsletters, as in plural.

    And if he didn't write them, he should tell us who did.

  • tog2476||

    They can pull all of the fake racist nonsense out of their bag that they want to, us Ron Paul supporters aren't going anywhere, we are black, we are white, we are hispanic, we are first and foremost Americans and we don't fall for their divide and conquer tactics anymore. To the White House with Ron Paul, let's keep pushing forward. Freedom is what we are after, freedom for all, freedom from the corrupt media, freedom from the corrupt politicians, and freedom from the corrupt money masters. Ron Paul 2012, live free or die trying.

  • flacid tuna||

    We will shine with all the colors of the rainbow!

  • Colin||

    Yes, all those racist newsletters are fake. They don't exist.

    If you say so.

  • Eric Holder||

    Thank God those faggot honkies are too distracted to notice me. I'll just sit here quietly and keep white washing those black on white and black on faggot crime stats. White washing, lol! Is that racist?

  • Obama||

    I hope you don't hold it against me because . . you know. Like I said in my book, IN MY BOOK PEOPLE!, lol, idiots don't even notice, but like I said, if I had my way I would cleanse my own blood of every drop of white genetic material.

  • Mandy||

    Stop your smear campaign against Dr. Paul! He is the ONLY candidate with integrity, and the ONLY one who can save America!

    He is NOT a racist, as he has repeatedly said, so any further questioning of this subject just makes you a tool of the establishment and you should be charged with libel!

    www.ronpaul2012.com

  • Mandy's Nurse||

    The blue pills today!

  • Colin||

    +100

  • Colin||

    Boy, you're sounding just Sean Penn.

    When libertarians start sounding like totalitarians . . .

  • Lewis H||

    Headline should read "Ron Paul Stormfronts Out"

  • Sevo||

    Trying for stoopid gold?

  • Colin||

    +1

  • Lawrence O'Donnell||

    Can I use that, Lewis?

  • EcoDude||

    Does anyone believe that this incident will help Paul in the polls?

  • flacid tuna||

    In Iowa?

  • EcoDude||

    In Iowa and elsewhere...it may be beneficial in the sense that he appears to not take any guff from reporters, especially ones from CNN.

  • Colin||

    It depends on how many racists are out there.

    Who knows?

  • Random Liberal||

    If you're not a Democrat, odds are you're a racist.

  • jacob||

    No. Not in Iowa, not anywhere.

    This is the moment Team Red has been waiting for.

  • ||

    Let the handwringing continue.

  • ||

    i thought his response to Bruno was funnier

  • Bruno||

    I thought so too! That's why I put it in my last movie.

  • JTWilliams||

    CNN SUX, Reason- not much better

  • Colin||

    Yes, how dare they try and discover the truth.

  • Sevo||

    To add some levity to the proceedings:
    "Thousands gather in snow to mourn Kim Jong Il"
    -----------
    "We chose to come here to care for citizens who might faint because of sorrow and mental strain," Jon Gyong Song, 29, who works as a doctor in a Pyongyang medical center, told The Associated Press."
    I'm sure the threat of losing his ration card or his family had nothing to do with it.
    ttp://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2011/12/20/international/i002312S16.DTL
    Or your fave AP reseller.

  • Colin||

    I don't know how people can be so certain that Paul didn't write the newsletters.

    He's often cited Larry McDonald as a mentor. McDonald used to say shit very similar to what's in the newsletters. And then there's Paul's connection to the John Birch Society and America First, two organizations which would've had no problem with anything written in those newsletters.

    Finally, if other people wrote them, why hasn't someone come out and said who did, even anonymously?

    Until there's a definitive answer as to who wrote them, the assumption has to be that Paul did.

  • ||

    Until there's a definitive answer as to who wrote them, the assumption has to be that Paul did.

    Why can't I just assume that you wrote them? You don't have a decades-long record in the congress to attest to your integrity like Dr. Paul does. He says he didn't write them, and I have no reason to believe otherwise.

    -jcr

  • Sevo||

    "Why can't I just assume that you wrote them?"

    That'd be OK, but why should anyone have to assume?

  • SIV||

    Isn't it about time Reason posted something about those old Ron Paul newsletters?

  • ||

    Plus the fact is Paul would surrender and let the Iranians have a nuclaer weapon. That's completeley unacceptable. In this he is no differint from the leftists who want unilateril nuclear disarmmament and surrender to Al Qaeda.

  • Colin||

    His policies and whether he's a racist are two different things.

  • ||

    That wasn't me Colin.

  • Sevo||

    Rather is one sick puppy.

  • ||

    The Paultards are spoofing me. That is not me. Stop it Paultards. It doesn't help your cause. It just shows that you have no argument.

  • Sevo||

    John,
    It's rather. It has been on an 'I can fool you, therefore I must be smart' jag.

  • ||

    I seem to get under her skin. I don't know why. But oh well.

  • Sevo||

    I told her to fuck off, so I know why I get trolled.
    But it doesn't matter; she's an asshole squared.

  • SIV||

    When has Paul proposed unilateral nuclear disarmament?

  • ||

    He never has. That was someone trolling.

  • jacob||

    Makes more sense.

  • jacob||

    The stupidity is strong in this post.

    First - Allowing Iran to work on nuclear weapons and surrendering to Al Qaeda are two completely different concepts. Iran is a sovereign nation. Yes, they are run by a cocksucker. Yes, they hate Israel. But they have never invaded us nor directly attacked us. AQ is a criminal organization that has directly attacked us.

    Second - Who the fuck wants to surrender to Al Qaeda? Making up stupid shit does not make it true. And what does this have to do with Ron Paul?

    Look, I know you're upset that Cain's campaign failed and the rest of you SoCons are suddenly lining up behind Newt. You can support the candidate whose policies would give us the most liberties or stick with more of the same. But please don't peddle bullshit about surrendering to AQ unless you can provide a link to it.

  • ||

    Dude,

    You were trolled. The person who wrote it wrote it to be stupid and offensive. Read the responses.

  • jacob||

    Fine. But I didn't see any of those responses as I was typing my post.

  • ||

    No worries. We have all been victims of trolls.

  • jacob||

    Thanks for your understanding.

    Sorry about the Cain comment

  • ||

    And for the record I am not lining up behind Newt. And I am not a SOCOn. But I did like Cain and was sorry to see him crash and burn.

  • jacob||

    No, that's what I was saying. You are on record bashing Newt. The post was saying that Cain's other supporters (present company excluded) are lining up behind Newt.

    Newt is the consummate "beltway insider." I truly believe little will change if he is elected. However, we will get rid of Obamacare, and that is good.

  • Sevo||

    Jacob,
    That post was from a sleazy blog-pimp known as rather.
    The pimp amuses itself and claims great intelligence by spoofing.
    It takes some familiarity with the named poster to spot it, so it's not obvious.
    Suffice to say, some sleaze-bag finds it amusing to mislead people.

  • jacob||

    Thanks, I get it now.

    However, you have to admit it was somewhat clever. I mean, had this person used Episiarch or Old Mexican, it would have fallen flat, right?

  • Sevo||

    "However, you have to admit it was somewhat clever."
    I wouldn't use that term.

  • jacob||

    Actually, they could have used Gregory Smith and it pulled it off masterfully.

  • Sevo||

    jacob|12.21.11 @ 10:34PM|#
    "Actually, they could have used Gregory Smith and it pulled it off masterfully."

    Could be, and there are believable spoofs of shithead.
    But 'putting words in the mouth' of those who would never make those claims isn't clever, it's lying.

  • Sevo||

    I'm just angry because I fall for it all the fucking time. You'd think I'd have learned by now...but no.

  • Sevo||

    [fake]Sevo|12.21.11 @ 11:18PM|#
    "I'm just angry because I fall for it all the fucking time. You'd think I'd have learned by now...but no."

    Blog-pimp is not happy, right, blog-pimp?
    Does it somehow make you a somewhat worthwhile human being that you can 'fake' people on the internet?
    Is this the epitome of your life?
    Exactly how pathetic are you that this makes up your thrills?

  • Real Sevo||

    *shrugs* To each their own. Maybe you like going on roller-coasters for thrills, and I think that's pathetic. It's completely subjective.

    By choosing to continue to post in the comments on these articles, you are tacitly endorsing the method of their moderation, and so you have no room or cause for complaint.

    In other words, you know what you're getting into when you come here, so shut the fuck up you whiny punk-azz biotch.

  • Sevo||

    Blog-pimp is not happy, right, blog-pimp?
    Does it somehow make you a somewhat worthwhile human being that you can 'fake' people on the internet?
    Is this the epitome of your life?
    Exactly how pathetic are you that this makes up your thrills?

  • Some Guy||

    Yes, they are run by a cocksucker.

    Are you sure? I thought it was a goat-fucker.

  • Theo Van Gogh||

    Actually, they're a committee of goat-fuckers.

    Love, Theo.

  • ||

    First, there's no evidence that Iran is anywhere near developing a nuclear bomb, and secondly, even if they get one, so what? Israel's got a couple hundred of them.

    Just look at India and Pakistan. Since they got the bomb, they've had to settle for occasional perfunctory artillery exchanges instead of the wars they used to have.

    -jcr

  • Dekedin||

    Maybe he doesn't want to implicate Rothbard because Rothbard is so influential to the libertarian movement. Maybe Paul thinks the post-mortem destruction of Rothbrad's memory is worse than the failure of his campaign. After all, he's a politician, and he might feel the philosophy is more important than his career. It's like if Edmund Burke was found to be a serial rapist. That doesn't actually change what he said, but conservative philosophy would be awkward for a little while. Granted, that's not always the case, just look at Thomas Jefferson, who's still popular even though he owned slaves. But I feel like admitting Rothbard's paleolibertarian/paleoconservative scheme to attract somewhat racist southerners would be too much, at least in Paul's mind.

  • ||

    But isn't that worse? If that is the truth, then how does it help to suppress it? It is going to come out eventually.

  • JJJ||

    If the author of the newsletter was Lew Rockwell, then revealing the author to the public would backfire too. Ron Paul finds out who wrote the newsletters and doesn't distance himself from them? Instead he is very close to Lew. Maybe the best course of action now is to just deny it.

  • jc||

    not exactly a storm

  • ||

    Ron Paul would stop my gravey train of war profiteeering, and I just can't have that.