Ron Paul Ugly, Racist Newsletters Not Going Away, But Do They Invalidate His Candidacy?

As Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) gains in popularity and political relevance - he's currently polling tops in Iowa and is looking very good in New Hampshire - he's got more and more explaining to do about the late 1980s-early '90s newsletters that went out under his name.

And make no mistake about it: The newsletters include undeniably racist and other vile comments, such as calling blacks "animals," preternaturally criminal, and welfare cases. No amount of "contextualizing" is going to change that, especially when the contextualizing includes rationalizations such as this:

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

These statements are offensive, and I’d bet my bottom dollar that Ron Paul not only didn’t write them, but never read.

(One might quibble about the “fleet-footed” quip: it seems more like a compliment, albeit a left-handed one, rather than an insult—but never mind.)

Despite the claims of Paul's most devoted supporters, it's not a "smear" to raise the newsletters (smear would apply only if the newsletters didn't exist). And the newsletter issue definitely threatens the continued popularity of Paul's campaign.

Which leads to the basic question for those of us who find Ron Paul to be most successful and influential articulator of libertarian ideas in politics today: Do the newsletters invalidate his candidacy?

Paul recently walked out on a CNN interview with Gloria Borger when she brought up the newsletter issue, saying he'd already disavowed them decades ago, wasn't aware of their content, and hasn't changed his story. But USA Today reports what readers of Reason already know: That he has in fact said different things about the provenance of the newsletters over the years and his involvement with them.

In 2001, Paul told the magazine Texas Monthly that the language in the newsletters wasn't his, but his campaign staff told him not to say others had written it because it was "too confusing."

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me," he said. "It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around."

Texas Monthly said of Paul: "It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

More here.

Reason's 2008 story, "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?", documents Paul's changing accounts of the newsletters' authorship and the congressman's knowledge of their contents. Paul has said that he made a mistake by lending out his name to material that didn't reflect his views and that he didn't pay much attention to. That statement however is contravened by this 1995 video dug up by Andrew Kacynzski:

 

Around the 1.15 mark, Hot Air's Ed Morrissey notes, Paul starts promoting the newsletters to a Texas audience.

So, do the newsletters and Paul's shifting relationship to them invalidate his candidacy? Writing in The New Republic, James Kirchick, whose 2008 story first brought the issue to light, asks, "Why Don't Libertarians Care About Ron Paul's Bigoted Newsletters?" The question is wrong, however. While some libertarians plainly don't care about the newsletters or their odious claims about blacks, gays, and others, many do. Kirchick argues that whether Paul wrote or even read the newsletters (Paul has at times said he did not read them), his continuing engagement with 9/11 truthers and conspiracy-mongers such as Alex Jones and The John Birch Society is not an incidental part of his appeal:

Paul’s following is closely linked with the peculiar attractions of the libertarian creed that he promotes. Libertarianism is an ideology rather than a philosophy of government—its main selling point is not its pragmatic usefulness, but its inviolable consistency. In that way, Paul’s indulgence of bigotry—he says he did not write the newsletters but rather allowed others to do so in his name—isn’t an incidental departure from his libertarianism, but a tidy expression of its priorities: First principles of market economics gain credence over all considerations of social empathy and historical acuity. His fans are guilty of donning the same ideological blinders, giving their support to a political candidate on account of the theories he declaims, rather than the judgment he shows in applying those theories, or the character he has evinced in living them. Voters for Ron Paul are privileging logical consistency at the expense of moral fitness.

Well, no.

I'm sure that the vast majority of libertarians - and conservatives, Republicans, liberals, Democrats, etc. - who end up pulling a lever for Ron Paul are not ignoring the policies and legislation he has either authored or worked to enact. It is precisely in his concrete attempts to roll back the state - whether through pushing for an end to massive, endless, and uncritical increases in military spending and operations or by co-authoring (with Barney Frank) of the first attempt to end federal marijuana prohibition - that Paul captures the libertarian vote. His philosophical rhetoric and ideological consistency may be appealing to some, but it's really what he plans to deliver on that is motivating people to listen long and hard and show up at rallies.

The Atlantic's Conor Friedersdorf has a pretty elegant formulation on this point:

What I want Paul detractors to confront is that he alone, among viable candidates, favors reforming certain atrocious policies, including policies that explicitly target ethnic and religious minorities. And that, appalling as it is, every candidate in 2012 who has polled above 10 percent is complicit in some heinous policy or action or association. Paul's association with racist newsletters is a serious moral failing, and even so, it doesn't save us from making a fraught moral judgment about whether or not to support his candidacy, even if we're judging by the single metric of protecting racial or ethnic minority groups, because when it comes to America's most racist or racially fraught policies, Paul is arguably on the right side of all of them. 

His opponents are often on the wrong side, at least if you're someone who thinks that it's wrong to lock people up without due process or kill them in drone strikes or destabilize their countries by forcing a war on drug cartels even as American consumers ensure the strength of those cartels. 

Even Obama, who has spoken so eloquently about the harm done by the drug war and lost civil liberties, is now on the wrong side of those issues, and shows no signs of reversing himself. As bad as the Paul newsletters are -- let me emphasize again that they are awful -- I can't persuade myself that they should carry more weight than war, or civil liberties, unless Paul in fact wrote them, which would mean that he is lying about his core philosophy of individualism, equality, pluralism, and opposition to bigoted laws. In that case, there would be no reason to trust him.

What a sad-but-true statement about 99 percent of politicians, including the sitting president and the top GOP contenders for the Republican nomination.

One of the reasons that the newsletters have not automatically made Paul radioactive among libertarians is that they do not sound like the guy, either in diction or tone. If Paul's published comments and legislative actions since his return to Congress had in any way confirmed the pathetic character of the newsletters, I can't imagine he'd be pulling the sorts of crowds he has been.

Reason's Brian Doherty, whose biography of Paul will appear in spring 2012, was on CNN's OutFront with Erin Burnett last night, talking about the congressman's growing popularity and appeal. As it happens, one of the other talkers was Gloria Borger, whose questioning of Paul so frustrated the guy he stopped the interview; even she seems pretty well disposed to the guy. Doherty is right that the appeal of Paul in the here and now has absolutely nothing to do with the newsletters and everything to do with the fact that he alone among Republicans (and Democrats) is providing an actual alternative to the status quo. As Doherty says, in an age of historic and chronic budget deficits, Paul is the only candidate talking about actually cutting spending; in a country tired of war and unabated increases in military spending, only Paul is talking about reducing the size and scope of armed forces and redirecting foreign policy; and in a country that never embraced bank bailouts and monetary policy that abetted the asset bubble that fueled the financial crisis, Paul was the first person to talk about auditing the Federal Reserve.

Paul is going to need to deal with the newsletter issue more directly than he has so far, especially if he doesn't want it to loom larger and larger as the stakes get higher. He is actually in control of the issues that most vex contemporary America, which have nothing to do with affirmative action, "racial terrorism," or the transmission of AIDS via saliva. He is running against Republicans who were for individual mandates in health care long before they were against them or who seriously invoke sharia law as a threat to the American way of life, and he faces a possible general election against a president with low approval ratings precisely because he passed his awful health care, bailout, and stimulus plans, among other things. As Friedersdorf argues, Paul actually has a far better record on matters that directly affect the minorities slagged so disturbingly in his newsletters.

As I've argued elsewhere and often, Paul is providing the alternative that Americans are craving in politics.That alternative, by definition, is going to discomfit conventional politicians and politicos who are more concerned with whether their party is in power than what is done with that power; with whether deficits and entitlements and "defense" spending will bankrupt the country; with whether Americans should be treated like adults when it comes to deciding what to eat, smoke, and drink. Paul is not the perfect vessel for a libertarian message, but waiting for perfection is something ideologues insist on. Most of us are far more interested in someone who at least has shown he understands the most pressing issues of the moment - and the future.

Whether Paul can fully deliver on the promise he's shown so far may well rest upon the way that he puts the newsletter issue to bed, once and for all.

Watch Doherty on CNN:

Reason on Ron Paul.

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.

  • ||

    I get it. This is a clever ploy to so completely overexpose, overanalyze, and generally just not fucking shut up for one second about a few sentences written decades ago, so that people just completely shut it all out as background noise, right?

    Because I can't think of any other "reason" (please, for god sake, drink; I know I am) to relentlessly beat this very dead horse.

  • ||

    ^This.

  • poetry||

    well, i dunno.. a friend of mine just announced on facebook that he's rescinding his support for RP until the good doctor changes the way he's addressing the issue. he wants to continue to support RP, but can't in good conscience until RP stops acting like a little bitch about it (his words).

    basically, everybody still likes RP. but, old issue it may be, he needs to come out and address it, head-on, at length, and maybe even throw lEW rockwell under the fucking bus or something, to prove he's serious.

  • Libertarian Cannibalism Begins||

    NOW

  • Leon Trotsky||

    At least falsification of photographs is easier nowadays with Photoshop.

    Falsification of history
    The Soviet Union
    http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick008.....false.html

    But you can't photoshop out Ron Paul's name on Ron Paul's newsletter than Ron Paul sez Ron Paul never read.

    LOL

  • Marxist of the Right||

    This is no surprise, as libertarianism is basically the Marxism of the Right ... Like Marxism, libertarianism offers the fraudulent intellectual security of a complete a priori account of the political good without the effort of empirical investigation. Like Marxism, it aspires, overtly or covertly, to reduce social life to economics.

    Marxism of the Right
    March 14, 2005 Issue
    The American Conservative

    (google it, cuz it's "spam filtered" out LOLOLOL)

  • ||

    Libertarianism is Marxism of the Right? Non-sensical.
    Libertarianism attempts to reduce social life to economics? Wrong.

  • ||

    There are various flavors of Libertarianism. The Austrian and Chicago economic schools are the mild and anarcho-capitalists are the extreme. "Marxist of the Right" is an interesting read.

  • Brett||

    that was the end of interview. She had asked him that same question about 5 times previous. I would of been mad too. Here's a clip of him answering the same letter when he's actually asked about it like a human being.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ppnzspu7c

  • ||

    Just how is Dr Paul supposed to
    "address" this issue. How many times can disavow those newletters. My god this insistence that he MUST do something BETTER is bordering the absurd. A rational person would think that his actions over the past 20 years speaks volumes as to his real nature, compared to those few words in a newsletter that are so obviously (to any one familiar with Dr Pauls philosophy) not his. I would like to hear some suggestions (that are sensible), something that he has not already done.

  • ||

    "even throw lEW rockwell under the fucking bus or something"

    Well that is an absolutely asinine statement. Blame his friend and mentor for something there is no proof that he did. Ron Paul exhibits one lapse in judgement in 25 years and you think he should abandon his principals to "save" himself. Yeah, that's real good advise. Ron Pauls real failing was in that he is to trusting. He trusted someone to contribute something meaningful to an entreprise he was engaged in and that unknown individual proved to be morally bankrupt.

  • ||

    What more does he want? For crying out loud the man has already admitted that he accepts responsibility for paying closer attention to what was being published with his name on it. Tell your friend not to be so self-righteous.

  • ||

    *for NOT paying closer attention to what was being published with his name on it.

  • ||

    +1

  • Mo||

    Because while Paul and the newsletters is old hat to people who follow Paul, it's new to people who are getting exposure to Paul as the Iowa frontrunner. The rock at Perry's family's hunting lodge was known to people who followed Perry or Texas politics, but was new to the national audience.

  • Brandon||

    It's "News" to people who regard CNN as a source for "News."

  • Mo||

    Which, sadly, is a lot of people.

    I think the newsletters are less relevant than the fact that he had 3 years to devise a strategy around how to handle the inevitable reemergence of the newsletter thing and can't come up with anything better than trying to come up with various versions of "I already talked about that".

    If he didn't think it was coming up again, he's horribly naive.

  • ||

    I think that Paul was not thinking he'd make it to front-runner status. I mean seriously. Who would have thought that? (I'm a long-time supporter and I never thought that.) I think his main goal was to promote his ideas and to perhaps be a placeholder for and to add name recogition to his son, Rand Paul.

  • Mo||

    Doesn't that say something about his qualifications to be POTUS? He's had almost two years since the Tea Party gained traction, a huge surge of Republicans that are at least peddling small government ideas and he didn't have a plan to deal with a 20 year old story that gets rehashed every time he has a modicum of success? Random ass commenters on this blog predicted it would come up again if he polled well. It's a virtual certainty that it would have come up. That he didn't have a plan is damning of him as a candidate to be president. Sadly, it may be used by the Republican establishment to tarnish his ideas.

  • ||

    Yeah, so what do you want to see him do about it? Change his story? He's disavowed them and plainly stated that he doesn't agree with them every time it's brought up. How do you want to see this issue handled?

  • poetry||

    he doesn't seem to mind if CNN asks him about his foreign policy over and over and over. why can't they ask him this question, too? he needs to stop putting his tail between his legs on this, and just respond, "yeah, they're awful, right? i'm horrified by them, too! if i had known what was going on at the time, i would have fired somebody's ass! ..but, you know, i didn't get that opportunity, and i understand that you have to ask me about this, but no, those aren't my views. i believe in equal protection for all individuals under the law."

  • ||

    yes, that's just what we want in a president...someone who doesn't know what's going on.

  • ||

    That is an awesome response that I would love to see Paul use.

    However the truth is I'm still going to vote for Paul. These newletters while horrible, do not come anywhere close to the good he is going to do as POTUS.

    1. Appoint new Fed Chairman.
    2. Audit the Fed
    3. VETO. VETO. VETO.
    4. End useless wars and bring troops home.
    5. Save 1 Trillion in first year (guaranteed congress will follow him on this or they know they will be ousted)
    6. Bully pulpit - educated the unwashed masses in the ways of constitution, personal liberty, free markets, sound money and humble foreign policy
    7. Abolish the drug war.
    8. End indefinite detention

    The sheer amount of good this man will do as POTUS is so Monumental it's not even funny.

    His error from the 1980 newsletters simply pales in comparison. Did these newsletters affect anyone's freedom? Did these newsletters kill anyone without trial? Did these newsletters cost our nation Trillionns in war spending?

    Do you see what I'm driving at here. We're never going to get Jesus Christ in the oval office (someone without any flaws at all in their entire life). However we can elect someone whose flaws are so minor that we can FORGIVE him and then work on fixing things!!!!

  • Godfrey||

    Pure poetry. And pure truth.

    Grandpa could have handled this better.

  • ||

    "he doesn't seem to mind if CNN asks him about his foreign policy over and over and over." You are comparing an apple to an orange. Imagine being accused of something you are innocent of over and over and see if you don't become annoyed.

  • Mo||

    Well for one, to stop covering for the person that did it. If it wasn't him, who did it. For another, actually admit that he engaged in a lapse of judgement by having something published under his name without reviewing it.

    Though there's the possibility that doing the former may counteract the latter. If the person that published it is still alive, he could probably say, "That's bull, Paul knew about it," and give the stories new legs.

    Paul seems to think the Shaggy defense is sufficient. The fact that the story keeps coming up should be a clue that it isn't.

  • ||

    How about explaining how this sort of lapse in executive judgement won't happen if he's elected? Even if you believe his take (and, yes, I do.), you're left with the question of how he let someone publish opinions under his name that he doesn't agree with. Is he going to appoint policymakers who do the same thing?

  • ||

    Say he appoints some Van Jones type douche nozzle to a cabinet level position. Even if that person tried to do some kind of racist policy, how would it be enacted and enforced?

    Also, something I would like everyone making a big deal out of this (saying stupid racist shit is stupid, but not criminal and it certainly isn't calling for racist policies to match the stupid racist comments) to explain is who the heck they are going to vote for instead since this is obviously a big deal to them.

  • ||

    Cabinet level positions usually carry delegated powers to enforce policy.

  • Mo||

    Agreed. The implication that we should all now line up behind Gingrich/Romney or Obama is laughable.

  • k2000k||

    But how is this a big deal. Name me one politician that hasn't at one point shown some questionable judgement at some point in their lives. I will forever keep pointing out that no matter how 'damming' the newsletter may be it is no where near as 'damming' as Obamas assocation with a certain reverend. And yet it had little impact on his candidacy.

  • David Dodenhoff||

    Would we all be so forgiving of Barack Obama if he offered the same defense of bigoted, anti-white rhetoric that had appeared in his name? Seriously, what was Ron Paul doing associating with such people in the first place? Has he invested any effort in finding out who the offenders were, specifically, so that he makes sure he's not STILL (unwittingly) associated with them? And doesn't he think it unseemly to have profited off of such vile rhetoric, even if the words were not his own? Has he considered donating the proceeds to causes benefiting the groups his newsletter slandered?

    The biggest problem, I see, practically speaking, is that if Dr. Paul were to get the nomination, you'd see a billion dollars' worth of ads against him, highlighting all of the bigoted, crazy rhetoric published in his name. He'd never survive that...too many people would never hear his side of the story, and too many of the people who did would find it fishy.

  • ||

    This has come up with President Obama and his "racist" church that he was in for 20+ years. People, and the MEDIA, DID brush it off as if it was nothing.

  • Amakudari||

    I gave Obama a pass on the Reverend Wright bullshit, so yes. I don't expect him to radically disavow someone whom he considers a friend or close confidante, even if that person peddles views that are repulsive. It's irrelevant to his performance as President, period.

    I'd rather focus on Obama's amazingly awful political persuasion and executive competence, or Paul's mostly good ideology.

  • lol wut?||

    Talk about making mountains out of fucking mole hills. Newsflash, dipshit. Managing a newsletter is not the same as managing a country. Seriously, this is child's talk.

    "But what if?"

    But what if renegade ninja's from another galaxy flew out of your ass and killed Ron Paul? I guess we better not vote for him then. HURP, DERP!

  • Godfrey||

    There's a difference between being "The Guy Who Publishes That Newsletter" and "Mr. President". Am I right?

  • ||

    As if the past crop of POTUS have anywhere near as good a record on the issues as RP has. No oversites or mis steps there, no sir. They have all showed what sound judgement they possesed.

  • ||

    Sounds like you need Jesus. No human can walk on water.

  • LibertyOrDeath||

    Step down. There's nothing more anti-liberty than the shocking bigotry that he allowed to be published under his name for years and years, and he clearly has no sense of personal responsibility, if he thinks he can brush it off with claims that he didn't read what he professed to have edited.

    This is a train-wreck for libertarianism. Getting behind a bigoted, weasly nut job just confirms the worst stereotypes of libertarians.

  • LibertyOrDeath||

    Step down. There's nothing more anti-liberty than the shocking bigotry that he allowed to be published under his name for years and years, and he clearly has no sense of personal responsibility, if he thinks he can brush it off with claims that he didn't read what he professed to have edited.

    This is a train-wreck for libertarianism. Getting behind a bigoted, weasly nut job just confirms the worst stereotypes of libertarians.

  • Amakudari||

    Pretty sure wars of aggression are worse, but that's just me.

  • lol wut?||

    Exactly. Libertarianism should commit seppeku. You first.

  • ||

    hey LibertyorDeath - take death please

    What a moron.

  • ||

    They want him to throw Llewellyn "Southern Strategy" Rockwell under the bus but it won't matter what he does, he'll be damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.

  • ||

    Yeah, he should have come up with an elaborate lie and changed his story several times like any "good" politician would have done.
    He has stated his position on it. What more is there to say?
    The media wants it to be true therefore, they will repeat it so many times that people will begin to believe it is true...even though it isn't...that is their collective goal.
    First they ignore you, then they mock you, then they FIGHT you, then you win.

    Ron Paul 2012.

  • Godfrey||

    Gotta love the fucking Zealots.

  • robc||

    Ignoring the 8.5 minute interview about the newsletters that CNN ran 4 years ago, which, if they want, they still own the rights to and can run again.

  • St. V||

    Exactly.

  • SIV||

    The rock at the Perry club lease should have been completely irrelevant and unnewsworthy. I'd put the newsletters as about as relevant as Obama's pastor, if he stopped attending the church 20 years ago.

  • k2000k||

    Exactly

  • ||

    except that Obama didn't stop attending that church or associating with Wright 20 years ago. He continued the relationship right to 2008. Obama even tried to rationalize the dudes comments in a speech he gave. Equating the relationship between Obamas and pastor Wright to Ron Paul publishing a newsletter with a few ghostwritten racist statements in it (almost 20 years ago) is a bit of a stretch.

  • tarran||

    D'Accord

  • ||

    Yeah! It's not like he endorsed a white supremacist running for Superior Court Judge in 2008 or accepted money from the guy who runs Stormfront or anything like that, right?

  • UCrawford||

    Or basically punted questions about the newsletters when they came out in such a dishonest and evasive fashion that nobody except his most hardcore supporters believed him.

    It's newsworthy because it's news to people who don't obsess about Ron Paul and because it's key to demonstrating how he handles crises. If he's so inept that he can't deal with a scandal about newsletters written a decade and a half ago, why would we believe he's going to be better about issues that REALLY matter.

    Oh, and for all the Paulestinians...whining or telling people to "shut up" whenever the newsletters get brought up is a perfect example of why anyone who isn't a cult member doesn't like you.

  • St. V||

    His focus is on things that actually matter, not some silly newsletters that have been dealt with time and time again for nearly 20 years. If you think how he's handling a rehashed issue is a preview as to how he handles actual issues, you're being foolish.

  • UCrawford||

    His focus is on things that actually matter, not some silly newsletters

    So, in other words he's running his campaign every bit as dysfunctionally as the one he ran in 2008. Does his payroll still primarily consist of family members who don't know what they're doing?

  • poetry||

    i see your point. i'm a little uncomfortable with it just now, but... i see your point.

  • UCrawford||

    It's the same realization I came to in 2008...I agree with Paul about 90% of the time on economics and about 90% of the time on foreign policy, but he's just so damned inept on just about everything else (especially managing staff) that it's impossible for me to envision a Ron Paul presidency being anything less than a complete disaster.

  • tkwelge||

    You think that Bush and Obama were management experts? The job of presdient isn't manager. A good president needs to be on the side of freedom. That is the main concern.

  • UCrawford||

    I think they were better than Ron Paul would be. Know why? Because they actually won their elections while having worse platforms.

  • Bill||

    Better at politics and soundbites is different than being better at managing a crisis and especially different from having sensible long-term policies that will be good for the country and everyone in it.

    Up until his walking out of the CNN issue, I have been pleasantly surprised by how well he has done in the last few months in the spotlight. And recently when they actually allowed him to participate in the foreign policy parts of the debate, he showed himself to be much more well informed and so much deeper than any of the other candidates.

    He is a big long shot to get the nomination and also a long shot to be president if he does get it. He can not win the nomination nor the presidency without this coming up time after time so he needs to be able to deal with over and over. And it will be impossible to run against a president who is half black without this coming up.

  • ||

    "Because they actually won their elections while having worse platforms."

    In the case of Bush, that is debatable in 2000.

  • ||

    Yes, the President is a manager. In fact, he's the chief executive of the federal government. Do you think being on the side of freedom will suffice if he can't actually implement his policies?

  • UCrawford||

    Do you think being on the side of freedom will suffice if he can't actually implement his policies?

    No kidding. Half of the idiocy of the Paulestinian/Paultard position is that they seem to be under the impression that he's running for Emperor rather than President. This is a guy who has trouble even getting somebody to co-sponsor his "pro-freedom" bills. Why would we think that won't be a problem if he holds a job where coalition-building is essential?

  • ||

    So who are YOU going to vote for?

  • UCrawford||

    So who are YOU going to vote for?

    Gary Johnson. I don't expect him to win, but at least I don't have to rationalize anything he's done.

  • David||

    Because he hasn't done anything worth a frack. U SMART

  • UCrawford||

    Other than get elected as a Republican in a largely Democratic state and leave it with a budget surplus while cutting the state employee workforce.

    What did Paul do as governor? Oh, right...nobody's elected him to any office higher than representative because he doesn't hire people who know how to run a campaign.

  • k2000k||

    Because many of us understand that. I simply want him to be a thorn in the side of congress. Which is where the real power of goverment should be, and is when they don't delegate their authority to the federal agencies. What Ron Paul can do is force congress to do its job, since being the chief executive he can tell federal agencies what they can and cannot do, until he is countermanded by congress through a vote. That is ultimately what I want. For congress to do its fucking job.

  • ||

    his 2008 campaign was a complete disaster when it came to staffing and organization. but at least Ron has learned from his mistakes and improved his campaign for 2012. everyone knew the newsletters were going to come up again but I don't see what else Ron can say, he didn't write them and he doesn't subscribe to those types of stereotypes but he bares some responsibility because they were written under his name BUT I don't think he should be called a racist or anything else...A Ron Paul presidency would be head and shoulders above anything we have seen in the last 100 years...and that is what matters most.

  • UCrawford||

    I don't think most of the people here are criticizing him for being a racist. They're criticizing him for being deliberately evasive about what he published in his newsletters.

    Personally, I tend to agree that he probably didn't write it. But I do think he's covering for whoever did and I find his constant habit of surrounding himself with people who hold those kind of views troubling. Frankly, I don't think Ron Paul knows how to judge people who are trying to help him from those who aren't...which makes him less a racist than a very foolish person.

  • ||

    And the establishment candidates have done such a bang-up job in the past, right?
    Newt, Obama, Clinton, Bush jr., Bush Sr. Nixon, Ford, Carter etc. were all saints?
    Paul didn't write or endorse any of this racist crap, as has been stated over and over and over again. Some dipshit did this under Paul's banner and now it's all Paul's fault? They can't come up with anything better than this? If you can't see the SPIN on this than you really are brainwashed. They don't want any candidate that will rock the establishment boat.

  • ||

    Hell... 90% agreement! That's pretty damn good! By the way, why are people looking for someone to "Run the country"??? What, you don't trust his judgment on picking a cabinet or VP? You should look at how he managed his medical practice and his congressional office over the years, instead of a political campaign, if you are worried about management skills!

    Lets be honest about these newsletters... does anyone think that Dr. Paul would write that stuff (the abhorrent racial comments) or knowingly let it go out under his name, then try to run for political office again? Come on!

    Ron isn't stupid!

  • ||

    What issues does Ron Paul focus on besides hypocrisy on pork spending and taking money from suckers? "He probably never thought he'd make it this far." Even his supporters see him as an opportunistic gadfly.

  • Bill||

    makes no sense ...... stop wasting people's time with stupid comments.

  • ||

    Paul has been fossilizing in the House for over three decades. What legislation has he passed that advanced the cause of liberty?

  • ||

    All his legislation has been shot down by the other worker bees in the House. Tick Tock goes the clock...the time of the establishment is running out. We as a people are fed up.

  • ||

    Couldn't that same question be asked of all the current Republican candidates. I would be interested to know what legislation they have passed that advanced the cause of liberty. Fight to protect liberty is what Ron Paul is know for.

  • lol wut?||

    Thank goodness we don't have a representative that is as retarded as you are. If the Feds take my money through taxation, then you better damn well get some of my money back, else you'll be replaced with someone competent enough to do it. Otherwise, you're just another socialist prick that loves to feed off the teat of government.

    Ya, you love the pork. Just as much as you love the cock.

  • ||

    Hey Possum... I can't believe I'm actually responding to someone with that name!

    Earmarks have only made up 0.4% of all federal expenditures over the past few years! It's hardly a drop in the bucket. Now I'm not saying there isn't money wasted there, be have much bigger problems. Besides, the money is going to be spent anyways, so Dr. Paul has the obligation to his district to try and recoup some of their tax dollars if he can! Why should he let their tax dollars be spent on another state? Ron would prefer that the money not be collected and spent like this in the first place, that's why he votes against the spending bills, but he isn't going to just sit buy and see the money from his district go to fund the pet projects of everyone else!

    As for the other issues, he tried to prevent the Iraq War, he warned us about the potential for terrorist attacks due to our flawed foreign policy back in 1998, and he warned about and tried to prevent the housing and financial collapse as early as 2001. So yeah, Ron Paul doesn't know s*** does he... The issues he focuses on are of no real significance!

  • ||

    "whining or telling people to "shut up" whenever the newsletters get brought up is a perfect example of why anyone who isn't a cult member doesn't like you."

    Agreed. The correct response is to ask the person how they feel about Michelle Obama calling people "whitey".

  • ||

    And how they feel about Harry Reid's statment when he said that President Obama would win over John McCain, because he is "light skinned" and has no "Negro dialect."

  • ||

    well your bias isn't obvious is it. Thanks for the hard hitting exposé. I especially liked your descriptive term
    "Paulestinians", that was real original (if your Mark Levin).

  • Fluffy||

    There's nothing wrong with accepting money from the guy who runs Stormfront.

    If the guy who runs Stormfront sent me $20 right now, I'd laugh and go buy a pizza.

    Nothing the guy from Stormfront does can in any way impact my moral standing in the least.

    This is why a "cult member" like me has trouble taking this seriously. Because everyone complaining about it comes across like a douchebag who subscribes to black magic theories about how moral worth attaches to an action or person.

  • T||

    Money carries cooties, Fluffy. If you take the Stormfront money, you now have Stormfront cooties.

    The concept of 'fungible' is lost on far too many people.

  • nm||

    Pecunia non olet.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Ya everytime somebody complains about stormfront money, my internal response is "So Paul could prove he is not a racist by giving money to Storm Front? .... OK, we just aren't going to have a meaningful conversation are we?"

  • ||

    Yeah, that's the same attitude that Paul took. I'm sure the $500 was well worth the bad publicity.

  • ||

    Would you regularly have lunch with him at a Vietnamese restaurant in Arlington?

  • Zeb||

    You should always take money form people you disagree with. Better for them not to have it, no?

  • ||

    And if you give it back, well, now you've given money to neo-Nazis.

    How is giving money to neo-Nazis supposed to be a good thing, exactly?

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Take the money, then give it to the NAACP or something along those lines.

  • Mark||

    So we should take neo-Nazis money and give it to the NAACP? The media won't have a field day with that. **rollseyes**

  • ||

    What the guy who said libertarians are the marxists of the right said.

  • ||

    Because I can't think of any other "reason" (please, for god sake, drink; I know I am) to relentlessly beat this very dead horse.

    Take the Clinton analogy. If Billy Boy had admitted right at the start that he had diddled Monica, then that would have been the end of it. But no, he denied it. And denied it again wagging his finger at us to emphasize that he denied it. And thus all the hearings and impeachments and beard tearing and garment rending.

    The dead horse is still being beaten because Ron Paul refuses to acknowledge the dead horse in the living room. He needs to stop ducking the story, stop changing the story, stop running out on interviews, and ADMIT ME MADE A MISTAKE AND APOLOGIZE.

    He made a mistake in lending his name out for shady fucks to abuse, made a mistake in not reviewing what people were writing under his name, and made a mistake in trying to cover it up and ignore it for all these years. Before we can fire up the chain saw to get that dead horse out of the room, we need Ron Paul to admit his fallibility.

  • robc||

    ADMIT ME MADE A MISTAKE AND APOLOGIZE

    He has done that. Repeatedly.

  • St. V||

    To CNN, no less.

  • ||

    if clinton had come forward in the lewinsky scandal from day one he would have been crucified, not let off the hook. this was proved by a poll dick morris did for clinton when the scandal broke, and is largely the reason he stonewalled.

  • ||

    as far as Clinton goes none of what you said makes any difference. Clinton lied under oath and was caught - That is criminal action and the bastard should have been drummed out of office. As for the rest of it - blah blah blah.

  • Max||

    Look up "few," you fucking halfwit.

  • ||

    If you know what exactly is in them, would you mind sharing with the rest of the class? All I've found are tidbits and accusations.

  • Sally||

    what the hell do they expect from him?

  • Jerry||

    My question for Gillespie:

    Do you also intend to devote 437 different stories to Rick Perry's visits to "Niggerhead Ranch."

    How about hourly updates on the latest from the "pray the gay away" program that Michelle Bachmann's psychopath husband runs?

    What about a daily column full of speculation and innuendo over the source of Rick "I hate gay people" Santorum's deep seated bigotry toward homosexuals?

    And then there's Newt Gingrich, who has said bigoted things about blacks, arabs, gays, hispanics, women and pretty much everything else except for fat white men like himself.

    I get that Paul's libertarianism makes him something of your home turf, but if you feel compelled to beat this dead horse why not also take the neocons and the bigoted militarist right wing to task for their hypocrisy?

    In other words, why is nobody asking Fox, National Review, the Weekly Standard, Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin or any of their ilk the following question:

    "If Ron Paul's newsletters are so troublesome to you, why are you so willing to embrace other candidates who openly hate blacks, muslims, and hispanics, who want to send gays to evangelical reeducation camps, and who take weekend hunting trips to a place called Niggerhead Ranch?"

  • ||

    "but waiting for perfection is something ideologues insist on."

    Reason proved years ago that they favored the status quo of Obama, Bush....anyone but a anti-fed,anti war libertarian.

    Everything else here is window dressing. They will never support a anti-war, anti-fed candidate if there is some ex-cia dickhead like Bob Barr around the corner. Reason loves William F Buckley and the rest of the military industrial complex Koch dick suckers.

    It is the job of reason to stand out in front of newbie libertarians and try to convrt them back into dope smoking neo-cons or just x-rolling deuchbags.

    When they get desperate because a anti-war anti-fed candidate is breaking new ground they call him a anti-semite or a racist or a truther.

    it may even work again this time...just remember how it works guys...they don't have nay new plays...just the same old shit.

  • Dumbdero||

    you're my hero. These cocksuckers are something else, aren't they? First they dusted off the newsletters then they rubbed the Jack Daniels' bottle and a little neocon genie named Dumbdero appeared.

    If Ron Paul wants to impress Marty Paretz assistant and his friends at Reason he must sacrifice Mises.org to Cosmo, the God of self-love, cocaine, and cocksucking.

  • ||

    Perry's hunting grounds are not called Niggerhead. It is not a ranch. It is some land his family rents that has a rock on it as a property marker, like a sign, pointing out a common landmark in antiquated vernacular. When that language become inappropriate, Perry's stepfather painted over the offensive word and turned the rock over.

  • ||

    Btw, Paulestinians, this is how you explain a nonissue and move on. Not getting your white hood in a knot and storming out of a friendly interview like a little bitch.

  • anon||

    They have video interviews of his answers from 2008. Obviously he hasn't changed his story since then. So why the fuck keep hammering at it?

    Oh and laughing at stupid racist comments doesn't make you a klan member asshole.

  • ||

    Why is it obvious that Ron Paul's story would be consistent when (as Gillespie points out) he has changed his story so many times over the years?

  • ||

    He didn't storm out. CNN did not air the whole video to make it look like he stormed out. Btw, the woman that interviewed his, her husband is a contractor in Iraq (war profiteer) so I'd say this is a major conflict of interest.

  • Jerry||

    Until I see a direct and personal apology from Rick Perry himself explaining the truth behind Niggerhead Ranch in full detail, and until he provides the names of every person who responsible for painting and maintaining that sign until he conveniently decided it was "inappropriate" after being there for several years, I'm forced to conclude that he approved of the name Niggerhead Ranch as demonstrated by his use of the property under his family name for so many years.

  • ||

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/....._blog.html

    “A number of claims made in the story are incorrect, inconsistent, and anonymous, including the implication that Rick Perry brought groups to the lease when the word on the rock was still visible,” Sullivan said. “The one consistent fact in the story is that the word on a rock was painted over and obscured many years ago.

    “Perry’s father painted over offensive language on a rock soon after leasing the 1,000-acre parcel in the early 1980s. When Governor Perry was party to the hunting lease from 1997 to 2007, the property was described as northern pasture. He has not been to the property since 2006.”

    Sullivan also specified that the family has never “owned, controlled or managed” the property.

    UNLIKE RON PAUL -- WHO OWNED, CONTROLLED AND SIGNED HIS NAME TO HIS OWN RACIST NEWSLETTERS.

  • lol wut?||

    Exactly! Fuck America! I'd much rather have an establishment crony in office that will incrementally make my life a little worse off everyday. Man, I can't wait to see the next guy is going to fuck us -- preferably with no lube. Obviously, I'm moving to Somalia. The "Libertarian" Capital.

  • thirtyandseven||

    You think Reason is beating a dead horse? Try checking out conservative blogs which are all in a tizzy about Iowa. That dead horse is beaten so badly it looks like my dog after Obama got elected.

  • Martin Luther King Jr.||

    On behalf of all philandering gay pedophiles I should say that it does not invalidate his candidacy.

  • Sanity Clause||

    Thanks, I've been trying to find them in their entirety. It doesn't really matter, however, because he didn't write them. The NR acknowledged that it wasn't even the same person that wrote all of them.

  • Spoonman.||

    The article captures my feelings exactly - even if Ron Paul wrote the vile stuff, does that outweigh endless war and deficits? No.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Come on guys we can break 1,000 comments with this one. I know you have it in you. Let's do this.

  • Poofster||

    U r gay and stupid.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    There are some who say we can reach 1000 comments. To them I say that this commentariat is too great for 1000 comments. We can do better. We can do 1500.

  • ||

    Ron Paul is the new Sarah Palin. The racest newsletters the new "what newspapers do you read?"

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I already count 11 comments saying there have been too many articles on this subject...

    (And now 12)

  • ||

    There have been too many articles on this subject.

  • ||

    way too many

  • Beano||

    "The racest newsletters the new 'what newspapers do you read?'"

    True, if Paul had said, "I don't know what's in them. I cain't read" in reaction to questions about the newsletters.

  • ||

    He apparently can't even write his own name.

  • o3||

    im not sure 20+ yr old problems, which he continues to repudiate, are relevant.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Oh good, I was getting anxious not talking about this for the past 2 hours.

    Paul recently walked out on a CNN interview with Gloria Borger when she brought up the newsletter issue

    That's certainly more accurate than the "stormed out" headline from yesterday, but it is still somewhat misleading. He didn't leave at the first mention of the newsletters, he left when it became clear that she wouldn't move on from the subject. He did answer her question twice before leaving.

  • Ted S.||

    I don't think we've had enough articles on the Ron Paul Newsletters yet.

  • robc||

    This was my argument 4 years ago. I was fine with reason running 1 or 2 stories, but the 5872 stories they ran were about 5870 too many.

    Ditto for this year.

  • Dumbdero||

    The articles will stop when Ron Paul has appeased Marty Paretz assistant and his pals at Reason.

  • Ron Paul Political Report||

    Here we can see another attempt by the Zionist Occupied Media attempting to smear me by calling me a racist. I will have you know that some of my best friends are blacks, the nice, but very tiny folks that hold the lanterns for me everytime I pull into my driveway. Mises is my hero, he was jewish, and so was one of the guys who helped write my racist newsletters. I have never written any of the racist stuff, I just profited off of them. I have never even read any of the racist stuff until ten years after the fact, the Ron Paul who wrote this newsletter read them, go talk to him. And don't forget to buy the Ron Paul Political Report for only $49.50. I thank you for your support, and by I, I mean Ron Paul, of course I never wrote this. That is the other Ron Paul, his name is Lew Rockwell.

  • Hugo Longbone||

    replying to lawn jockeys, the new progressive for conservative black americans.

  • ||

    D- for lack of originality and poor fact-checking and editing. Zionist OccuPATION Media (or more typically, zionist-controlled media). Lawn jockey comment is not even trying.

  • Juice||

    There's a black guy in my neighborhood with a bright white lawn jockey in his front yard. I cracked up when I first saw it.

  • Eric Holder||

    We truly are a nation of cowards.

  • Andrew||

    priceless!

  • ||

    Get some garden gnomes already.

  • ||

    Racist! Gnomes are people too.

  • Becky Chandler||

    Perhaps rather than worry about this very old story, of which there is nothing left to say, we could start worrying about the civil rights of faceless foreigners who are being vaporized by drone attacks.

  • ||

    According to the MSM though, brown people, still bad.

  • Reformed Republican||

    Only American Citizens have civil rights, duh.

  • James||

    Thanks to NDAA, even that is debatable now!

  • ||

    So being against the war in Afghanistan is like a political Lourdes? It washes away all other sins?

  • Fluffy||

    Being basically the only guy in your party to stand up against figures who want a crusade against members of a particular religion does tend to innoculate you against claims that you're a bigot.

    It probably shouldn't, since religion and race aren't the same, as we've discussed many times.

    But it does make it seem pretty unlikely.

  • robc||

    Being for the drug war makes you a bigot, however, so Newt and Romney and Obama have that going for them.

  • MJ||

    "Being basically the only guy in your party to stand up against figures who want a crusade against members of a particular religion does tend to innoculate you against claims that you're a bigot."

    It does, however, open you up to the idea that you are a crank. No one in a responsible position in Ron Paul's party has been advocating for a war aginst members of particular religion. People in his party have caught all kinds of hell on this board for coming up with bland euphemisms like "war on terror" to avoid giving the impression that this conflict is against a particular religion.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    It's what you do more than what you say. You don't have to say it is a war on Muslims when you support invasive procedures at airports, talk about sharia as a realistic threat (has anyone f*ing read the 1st Amendment?), and have spent the last decade invading and bombing Muslims and intend to spend the next one the same way. In spite of the fact that worse has been happening in non-Muslim countries at the same time, by the way (so no, even for those claiming a Wilsonian heritage they fail at not being racist).

  • ||

    When I first started really expressing my libertarian views to my liberal friends they called me a bigotted, misogynistic, racist. Fuck, you've argued with MNG and Tony enough to know they say the same thing at times. I don't see how saying some stupid shit in some newsletters is going to tarnish our reputation when that is already the reputation we have.

  • ||

    Ron Paul is the new Sarah Palin, a guarantee of at least five hundred posts on any thread mentioning his name.

  • SIV||

    Paul/Palin 2012

  • ||

    Yes Yes, Newsletters and Paul's avoidance manuever = bad.

    The fact that he doesn't believe anything that was written in there and continues to try and fight against the injustices of the system = good.

    Have we talked ourselves into or out of voting for the guy yet?

  • ||

    You know and support Ron Paul. So you don't think he believes that stuff. Fine. Let's say you are right.

    Now explain to me why someone who is a typical pay no attention to politics independent should be so sure he doesn't believe those things?

    He is wants small governments. That is good, but why does that preclude him from being a racist. You can want small government and still hate your neighbor. He is against the drug war? But again so what? I am thinking there are probably more than a few racist bikers who hate the drug war too.

    What is the objective case that says he doesn't believe that? It was published in his name wasn't it? To a neutral observer that is at least a prima facia case that he in fact does believe that.

    This is guy who runs around saying Michelle Bahchman hates all Muslims. It is a little fucking rich that he is now offended that people want an explanation for newsletters that were published in his name.

  • Craig||

    Does a racist give medical treatment to minorities for free? Look up what he has done for his minority patients.....

  • ||

    So Ron Paul likes black pussy, but so did our slave-owning founders.

  • ||

    My question is and will continue to be: Does it really matter if he is a racist or not? None of the stuff I've read about the letters alludes to him advocating the government doing anything about minorities or women or Jews. So what does it matter?

    Obviously the "hates all muslims" was stupid hyperbole, but it's pretty easy to see that a lot of repub's hate mooslims. At least the one's not living in the US and trying to build mosques.

    And, as far as I can tell, he isn't running around whining about people wanting an explanation of something he has already given several explanations for, that's what his supporters are doing.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    What he does: Already mentioned - the drug war. Welfare reform. Education reform. His policies would help minorities. That counts for a lot more (or at least should) than whatever has been written 20 years ago by a ghostwriter, even if he approved it or ignored it at the time.

  • ||

    At the risk of stoking the fire, Paul has taken responsibility for the newsletters. This isn't sufficient for some people, and they won't be satisfied until he answers all their questions.

    I actually think more highly of him for calmly walking out of an interview with a badgering hack reporterette. Shows how he'll deal with ambassadors, heads of state and congress.

  • ||

    What does it mean to "take responsibility"? If he was responsible, then I guess it is okay to think worse of him for it right?

  • ||

    Yawn.

  • St. V||

    Do you honestly need a definition laid out for you?

  • St. V||

    And to your second question; one could say it's 'okay,' but you would also be a moron for doing so.

  • ||

    Anything less than seppuku will not be accepted. See? problem solved.

  • ||

    Tonio,

    The problem is he's open ended with the story and hasn't closed the logic loop. He says he didn't do it (which I believe), but hasn't explained how they occurred (which, by all accounts, he should and likely does know).

    I've made my peace with not knowing and moving on, but those who hate him will constantly pick at this scab until they either get the closure or completely make him irrelevant.

    Not being one of the inner circle, there's not much for me to do, but insist that his policies are not one of a racist and point out that no one really believes he is. I can't do any more than that.

  • ||

    We agree on this, LiT, and you're doing all you can. Please keep fighting the good fight.

  • Sanity Clause||

    Well, sure. He was irresponsible for letting someone use his name and not following up on it. This happened while he was still a practicing Ob/Gyn, and a political novice.

    Whoop-di-do.

  • ||

    Novice? Bullshit. He was elected to congress in 76. Lost a Senate race in 84. Ran for pres in 88. How many bites at the apple does he get?

  • MJ||

    "...they won't be satisfied until he answers all their questions."

    They won't be satisfied until he admits guilt for being a racist, not merely responsibility. CNN, et al have noticed him and smell blood, they will not let this die until they destroy Paul. Welcome to the political big leagues, libertarians,

  • DK||

    ...smear would apply only if the newsletters didn't exist...

    No, that would be a lie. A smear is taking something that does exist, and spreading it out so that it's worse than it actually is.

  • ||

    whereas a schmear is a delicious topping on top of an Einstein's bagel.

  • ||

    What in the above post makes it seem worse than it actually is?

  • ||

    The shilling for Einstein Bros. bagels?

  • Rev. Blue Moon||

    And we're back to Jews.

  • MiNGe||

    JOOS!

  • Doktor Kapitalism||

    Hercule will be with us shortly...

  • Juice||

    Saying that he called black people animals when he didn't. It was reading more into it than was there. He was saying that, hey, people are rioting all over and watch out they're coming your way. It was paranoid, not racist.

  • Trespassers W||

    I'm just dumbfounded by the whole thing. Not that the newsletters exist--we already knew that--or that RP wrote those comments--they seem way out of character--or that RP has fraternized with the sort of people who would write those comments--we already knew that, too--but that all this seems like a complete surprise to him and his campaign, for which they were inadequately prepared.

  • ||

    I guess he naively assumed he had already dealt with it in 2008.. and 2001... and 1996... and...

    Then again, maybe he should've noticed a pattern of it refusing to die.

  • ||

    every new political campaign is like starting over from scratch.

    As a politician, you have to treat news as a feedback loop. Eventually, you reach the beginning and have to run the guantlet again.

  • Trespassers W||

    Well, that's my point exactly. He's had multiple opportunities to figure out a way to kill off the issue.

  • ||

    indeed, but Paul isn't taking our calls for strategy advice.

  • Spoonman.||

    Yeah, what the fuck? Did he refuse to talk about them with his campaign people just like he does with the media?

  • Brandon||

    When has he refused to discuss them with the media? He answered the same goddamn question 5 times last night before walking out.

  • ||

    He should have kicked that bitch right in her flabby cunt, but he made the smarter choice.

  • ||

    After she tried to give him an opportunity to put the issue to rest... this time. An occupational hazard when you make a career of running for president. You guys aren't the sharpest tools in the drawer, but you would stab someone given half the chance.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Then I guess we should continue to talk about Newt's wives. Like we haven't talked about Newt's wives before. Like we didn't know everything already. Like he can make it any different now (whether or not he wanted).

  • ||

    The psychic octopus predicted all those World Cup Games, because he went for the food. It was in the same place every time. The past is the best predictor of future behavior. Ron Paul turned a blind eye -- that's being generous -- to odious racism in newsletters he used to fund his uneventful House career. Gingrich repeatedly cheated on his wives, even serving divorce papers to one in the hospital for cancer. Both show huge character flaws that disqualify them for the presidency. America does not need a serial philanderer or a peddler of hate speech in the White House.

  • ||

    Apparently the Ron Paul Reason strategy team from '08 is still losing the argument for the proper spin technique.

  • St. V||

    It doesn't seem like a surprise at all. It seems like something he and his campaign are tired of rehashing over and over again. He's already made numerous statements on the issue - which they all have video of. How many times does a person have to repeat themselves?

  • Arduin Grimoire||

    Yay! Another newsletter article!

  • ||

    I believe that Dr. Paul is not the author of the newsletters, and is not revealing the newsletters' author out of principal. I also admit I may be wrong.

    IMHO, the other major possibility is that someone "has something" on Paul and that silence about the newsletters' true author is the price for that party's silence about whatever.

    And there's a difference between hoping this will just go away (it won't as long as RP lives) and refusing to throw more wood on the fire.

    Just as the various versions of Obama's birth certificate have failed to satisfy the true hardcore birthers, no answer RP will give will ever satisfy Ta-Nahesi Coates and all the other race hustlers, hack journos, political opponents and opportunistic cranks.

  • ||

    I was thinking that too. Everyone seems to agree that is was probably Rockwell or Rothbard who wrote them. Why not throw them under the bus? Hell one of the is dead.

    Maybe Rockwell or Rothbard's supporters have some real dirt on Paul that is worse than this.

  • ||

    I think Paul is too loyal too his friends. Good quality for a person, mediocre for a candidate.

  • Fluffy||

    I've been thinking about it some more and...what if his wife wrote some of the articles?

    They put her on the payroll there.

    Little fringe newsletter / magazine operations in somebody's basement will let anybody write if they just show up.

    Could that be the "horrible secret"?

  • ||

    This is what frustrates me more than anything, the fact that the media will fill in the gaps with this sort of speculation.

    I can't imagine why his wife would do anything like that and previous indications make it almost obvious that his cadre of writers (Rothbard, rockwell and the like) probably put it together for their dumb outreach program. If him or they would just show up, plead guilty, admit that they were just desperate in the woods libs and put an end to this circus, they'd be doing every last one of us a favor.

    But, they don't appear to be doing so, so we twist in the wind and hope for the best.

  • Fluffy||

    I'm trying to come up with a suspect who Ron would protect no matter what.

    I'd let the whole country fall down around me before I'd sell out my wife to the press.

    Fuck, I've got ex-girlfriends where I'd let the US turn into Yugoslavia in the 90's before I'd sell them out to the press.

    The problem with the Rockwell theory is that I think Rockwell would eat the grenade if it was him. Just to go down in a blaze of glory. He seems like an "over the falls in a barrel" kind of guy.

  • ||

    I think you're underestimating Ron and overestimating rockwell, but hey, fuck it, apparently we'll never know.

  • T||

    They need somebody to come out from under a rock and point at Rothbard. He's the perfect fall guy for this, since he's dead. The mainstream media gets a scapegoat, Ron Paul can say he didn't want to bring the dead guy into it, and it'll just be round 637 between the Rothbard camp and the rest of libertarianism.

  • ||

    Tempest in a teapot.

    What almost everybody is forgetting is that we are in a depression with tens of millions of people without work and tens of millions who are underemployed.

    We are experiencing the devolution of the so-called amerikan dream. In the last several years, there has been a massive transfer of wealth from ordinary folks to Codevilla's ruling class and its benefactors.

    Most people could give two shits about who wrote 2 sentences 17 years ago in a newsletter.

  • UCrawford||

    Most people could give two shits about who wrote 2 sentences 17 years ago in a newsletter.

    That's because most people don't care who Ron Paul is and don't know much of anything about him. When the start paying attention, what he did in the past matters more.

    You can't have success in politics AND anonymity. If Ron Paul wants to win, he'll have to eventually start taking responsibility for his actions (or those of the people who work for him while using his name).

  • Mark||

    For the umpteenth time Ron Paul has said that he takes responsibility for the newsletters, apologized for the racist/offending content and denounced them.

    What more do you people want? It seems Ron Paul won't name names so, therefore, what more do you want?

  • UCrawford||

    Ummm...no he hasn't. He's continually changed his answers about it, walking out of interviews when asked, and covering for whoever wrote it. That's not accepting responsibility.

  • ||

    He answered that dumb bitch 5 times before calmly leaving. So yes, he has.

  • UCrawford||

    Classy. And now the misogyny comes out as well.

  • k2000k||

    So every time a dumb bitch is called a dumb bitch thats misogyny? Now the Misandry comes out as well.

    See? I can write stupid shit too.

  • UCrawford||

    So every time a dumb bitch is called a dumb bitch thats misogyny?

    No, calling someone a dumb bitch for doing her job is, though.

    See? I can write stupid shit too.

    Oh, I wasn't under any illusions that you couldn't.

  • ||

    "I didn't do it, I don't know who did, and I refuse to discuss it," is not taking responsibility.

  • ||

    Oh, good speculation Fluffy, but we'll probably never know.

  • ||

    It was Rand.

  • ||

    The now-senator Rand Paul, I mean

  • EDG reppin' LBC||

    I was kind of thinking that Rand Paul was the writer, too. But who cares? I frankly don't find the language in the newsletters to be incendiary. In context of 1988-1994, I think the newsletters and the language used was in line with language used on Rush Limbaugh's radio show. I think there has been an effort to be politically correct that now makes the language seem crass, or even racist.

  • ||

    Even I used to write for the campus newspapers. The only comments I got were from the professors.

  • Spanky||

    "Why not throw them under the bus?"

    Rothbard and Rockwell aren't just any old friends. For all their many faults and political dalliances with crazies, they have done an enormous amount to popularize libertarian ideas and advance libertarian scholarship in the U.S. Ron Paul's whole career is devoted to upholding principles he learned from them.

    You do not have to like Rothbard and Rockwell or agree with their ideas, but do not for a moment pretend that it would be easy for someone as devoted to liberty as Ron Paul to cast them aside. And even if exposing their involvement is the right thing to do, do not ignore its potential cost to libertarianism.

    (NB: I am not arguing for any particular approach in dealing with the newsletters. I am merely making some guesses about why Paul seems so reluctant to identify the author(s) of the newsletters' offensive statements.)

  • ||

    WHy should he throw anybody under the bus?

    Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard have done far more for liberty than Cytotoxic, Tulpa, John, Colin et al could do in ten lifetimes.

    Lew, Murray and Ron just refuse to genuflect at the altar of politically correct racism. That angers a lot of people who fashion themselves to be friends of liberty as the attitude of Lew, Murray and Ron is incongruous with the group think narrative shoved down the throats of americkans by the MSM, the public schools, etc.

    Lew, Murray and Ron know the spiritual bankruptcy of self-identification by race. They know that one is not beautiful because one is black. They know that the more one identifies upon the basis of race, the more retraded one is.

    The real racist is Obama. He supports affirmatkive action, set asides and quotas. He refuses to release his school records.

    Given that he is an enthusiastic supporter of such racial policies as affirmative action, quotas and ser asides and that he has refused to release his transcripts, it is certainly reasonable to take the position that he personally benefitted from affirmative action in his admission to Columbia and later Harvard.

    Given the way in which he speaks, i.e., his difficulty in expressing himself without a script, his inability to complete a sentecne without filler, and his inability to pronounce everday words of his native tongue, militate in favor of the proposition that Obama's admission to Columbia and Harvard was not entirely merit based.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I will repeat myself:

    why is it OK to "bow" to "PC pressure" and claim RP didn't write these passages, but it is somehow not OK to "bow" to "PC pressure" and out the real author?
  • Psychic Octopus||

    And the fact that being a Harvard Law School student, he apparently never read the Constitution.

  • ||

    "And even if exposing their involvement is the right thing to do, do not ignore its potential cost to libertarianism"

    HAHAHAHAHA that's funny - if we'd thrown Rockwell and Rothbard under the bus in 1983, capital-L Libertarians might actually have won some statewide and national elections by now. Libertarianism would not have been divided between the small band of rabid purists in the LP and the powerless "sellouts" in the GOP - and might have been a coherent political force.

    Instead, we've had nothing but statist domination and libertarian obscurity up until Paul's 2008 run, because these two guys and their sycophants expunged any notion of pragmatism, incrementalism and political coalition building from the Libertarian Party.

    If it's their fault Ron Paul is taking flak, it's obvious their misguided idiocy was the most destructive element in the history of the American libertarian movement.

  • Cytotoxic||

    I think LibertMike wrote the newsletters.

  • robc||

    Because one of them is dead is why he wont throw Rothbard under the bus, IMO. He cant defend himself.

    Im leaning towards it was either Rothbard or a Rothbard lackey, Paul doesnt know for sure which, and he cant name Rothbard because he could be wrong.

    It could be complete BS. But I can see that possibility.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Screw it. Let's blame Gary North. I think he is crazy even when I agree with him. And he wouldn't give a crap anyways. Some spartacus needs to step forward.

  • ||

    who was that asshole that claimed he was the most libertarian ever because he campaigned in parking lots in the summer, the guy who is now a neo-con...blame that guy or North.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's like identifying Jack Kirby. Perhaps there was no official ghost writer, just a (libertarian) collective.

    (Of course, Jack Kirby gets all the credit, so don't take this metaphor too far).

  • ||

    One of the pieces I've read in the past few days (I'll try to find a link, there have been many) claimed that his newsletters had "7,000 to 8,000 subscribers". What kind of money where they ponying up for him to have made "millions"?

  • ||

    here's the link

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Do you have a free of candy bars?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Free=fear

  • ||

    damnit, took me a while to figure that out. here's the un-SF'd link

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    After the campaign, he should release an official anthology of the newsletters. I bet it would make some real money.

    Especially if it's promoted using terms such as "uncensored," "complete and unexpurgated," "shocking," etc.

    Just a revenue-raising suggestion.

  • Unexpurgated Newsletter||

    Why can't black people just create their own hard currency by melting down all those gold chains they wear?

  • Ron Paul Political Report||

    Sound money you can be sure of that. We also accept gold and silver. I can give you a one time deal of 15% off for a two year subscription. You need to prepare yourself for the race riots. I am so thankful for all your support.

  • ||

    Whorrrrrf! Splat.

  • ||

    I bet if Reason held their webathon now they'd get a lot less money than they did last week.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    Maybe not. The real Paultards canceled their subscriptions back in 2008 before cancelling subscriptions were cool.

  • ||

    Yes, because folks who were already tapped out for xmas are no less so now.

  • Ska||

    Newt Gingrich looks like a starving goblin in that pic.

  • ||

    "Newt Gingrich looks like a starving goblin in that pic."

    In one of the Comments threads from yesterday, someone said he looked like an old lesbian. I think that's spot on.

  • Brandon||

    When does Newt Gingrich not look like a starving goblin?

  • ||

    after a nice bowl of Fancy Feast?

  • Zack||

    Maybe not a "smear" in the sense of being manufactured by the media, but the timing actually, it would seem, IS manufactured. Saying something like "Now that he's polling in the lead, we have to raise these issues" isn't legitimate journalism. CNN has done like 50 interviews with Paul this year. Only in the last 3 did they talk about the newsletters. This can only mean one of 2 things:

    A) Channels like CNN were doing a complete inservice to their viewers by coddling the Paul campaign for the entire year. Just as it isn't right to be dismissive of candidates that don't match the newsroom image of "electable candidate", it isn't right to intentionally be soft on them, at the expense of your viewers. That should be nothing short of a scandal.

    or B) Channels like CNN were right not to bring them up before, because the issues have been vetted properly in other decades, one way or another. Now they are trying to guide the topic of discussion in the news cycle in a way contrary to what they have shown an inclination to before. Essentially meaning that the timing is completely manufactored for political reasons. Of course, this would also be a scandalous inservice to their viewers.

    Pick one.

  • Brandon||

    inservice?

  • Zack||

    Palin and Bush would like it.

  • ||

    C) None of the above.

  • Zack||

    You may dislike an adjective here or there in the language of choices A and B, but generally speaking, your option of C is only going to seem incoherent to me and and most others, I think.

  • ||

    CNN Poll showing Ron Paul has locked up the minority vote on his side.

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2...../20/rel...

    Now we see why CNN and Washington Post are attacking him for racism. They are losing Obama's minority vote. What would that say about them?

    This is the true fight.

  • Spoonman.||

    404

  • Ron Paul Political Report||

    That is a good suggestion, but prisons have already locked up most of the minority vote. As I reported in the 1990s 95% percent of the minority population in the District can be assumed to be criminal. Protect yourselves from the animals. Buy guns, gold, and a 12 month subscription to the Ron Paul Political Report.

  • kinnath||

    I'm gonna cave and throw in my vote for registration to comment.

  • Ron Paul Political Report||

    Would you prefer I add a byline in all of my posts?

  • ||

  • Fluffy||

    His fans are guilty of donning the same ideological blinders, giving their support to a political candidate on account of the theories he declaims, rather than the judgment he shows in applying those theories, or the character he has evinced in living them. Voters for Ron Paul are privileging logical consistency at the expense of moral fitness.

    I think this gets to the heart of the matter, not just about Paul but about libertarians in general.

    To me, evidence of logical consistency is a requirement for evidence of moral fitness.

    The tendency of all other candidates to hold contradictory positions, or to shift the positions they hold with the political breeze, is evidence of moral unfitness.

    But the commentariat class loves contradictory and ever-shifting politicians, both because their continual gamesmanship gives them something to be commentators about, and also because they desperately want to make sure that whatever pet issue or project of theirs which requires inconsistency stays on the table.

    If Obama was logically consistent (for example) all of the people who love torture would have had to abandon him during the campaign - and/or all the people who hate torture would have to abandon him now. But since Obama is a lying scumbag, all of his little "complex" supporters who are "comfortable with ambiguity" can accomodate themselves to his leadership.

  • Trespassers W||

    To me, evidence of logical consistency is a requirement for evidence of moral fitness.

    I would subscribe to your newsletter, Fluffy.

    As long as it doesn't have racist stuff in it, obviously.

  • ||

    You'll never find your squeaky clean candidate fluffy.

    we all know what Paul should do, but I still think that failing to do so is a strategic mistake, not a moral one.

  • Tony||

    What torture?

    Why don't you guys spend less time worrying about why liberals don't bow to your enlightened nonpartisan wisdom and more figuring out how you can be 100% politically pure and accomplish things in the real world at the same time?

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Why can't we do both?

  • Tony||

    It's just that you seem very preoccupied with liberal hypocrisy, as if your sole motivation is Obama losing support for tactical political reasons as if you were a common Hannitybot.

  • shorter Tony||

    derp de derpity derp derp

  • Jeff||

    That's pretty funny coming from someone who seems very preoccupied with libertarian hypocrisy (despite not understanding one single goddamned thing about libertarianism, or anything else for that matter).

  • Len||

    We have figured it out, but due to our NAP we can't get rid of the dumbfucks like you.

  • T||

    Why don't you guys spend less time worrying about why liberals don't bow to your enlightened nonpartisan wisdom

    Because they're craven amoral, spineless fucks. Now that we've settled that, we can move on to political accomplishment.

  • ||

    http://www.thenation.com/blog/.....r-ron-paul

    see why this long dead issue is alive and well. smear tactics abound.
    read this and pass it on

    Getting mad? get real. go Ron Paul in 2012.

  • SIV||

    Does the LvMI have these archived yet?

  • Bingo||

    +lol

  • ||

    I say again - The stupid fucking shit RP said about Bradley Manning will cost him more votes than the newsletters.

    When everyone is calling you a crazy old nut, try not to prove them right.

  • Fluffy||

    If someone could push a button and reveal every last secret the US currently has or has had for the last 50 years, that person would absolutely be a political hero.

  • ||

    I'd rather someone reveal every countries secrets for the last 50 years. That person would be a hero. Our own dirty laundry only goes so far.

  • ||

    You blog dipshits might think it's a great idea. Voting American adults don't agree.

    A Presidential candidate who defends a soldier accused of Treason - of purposely releasing classified information on operations in a zone - is seen as insane.

    There is an excellent chance that Manning got our allies and possibly Americans killed.

  • Fluffy||

    If you think that we should respect the federal government's self-serving claims that it's necessary for them to classify and hide from the voters most of our foreign policy and overseas activities, you're a contemptible serf.

    It's not 1944, dude. Whatever grounds the US government had for asking me to just trust them and cut them some slack on the secrecy front were worn out long ago.

    The overwhelming majority of material that is currently classified is kept that way to hide US activities from the public, on the off chance that a political opponent of those activities might make use of embarrassing information to campaign for a policy change.

    If you want my cooperation in hiding the tactical information that's absolutely critical to protecting safety in real time, you'll have to first declassify everything else. Until you do that, fuck off.

  • ||

    So we should publish the names and addresses of Taliban informers? The plans and operations schedules of our forces in a combat zone? Are you really that stupid?

  • T||

    I'm sympathetic to keeping tactical info secret, OS, but everything else is pretty much bullshit. Good lord, go look up the original state secrets case. They classified a fuckup to avoid paying out a wrongful death lawsuit. We've got 60 years of that and MK/Ultra and Sand River and Plutonium research and every other disaster they're covering up vs. the legitimate .01%. If you want us to trust the .gov on the .01%, they have to give up on the 99.9. Until they do that, sorry. You people are trying to cover up failures and prevent discussion of legitimate issues.

    Shorter: you want me to trust you, quit abusing my trust.

  • ||

    He released TACTIC SECRETS including names of and places! Paul wants to President but says it's okay to burn down and operation - who would ever trust him?

  • T||

    He's accused of it. The last bit I saw said the forensics guys don't think the wikileaks files came from Manning's PC.

  • ||

    Maybe - the jury is literally still out.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    Jury's still out, The Old Murderer still wants to hang somebody.
    Fkn baby killer. Death fetishist. Gun nut.

  • ||

    its the politicians faults for sending the troops over their to die in the first place...not Manning...Obama and Bush have the blood on their hands...not some fucking private you dipshit old brainwashed soldier...fuck your uniform and your wasted years killing people fuck you...your kid is probably a homo from when you left him for 3 years on a tour of duty you dumb fuck

  • JC||

    Maybe you hadn't heard, our last two Presidents already got 6,000 Americans killed and murdered thousands upon thousands of innocent civilians.

    So which is more insane, defending a soldier who tried to reveal government secrets or defending a few presidents who murdered innocent brown people and DID kill Americans?

  • ||

    I'm not debating policy - we should have declared victory in Afghanistan in 2003 and left.

    I'm talking about not getting people killed unnecessarily - because a disgruntled little fuck decided to publish classified information.

  • ||

    That soldier swore a bunch of oaths and signed a whole lot of paperwork swearing he wouldn't reveal classified information. Everyone who gets a clearance knows the deal - divulge and you will spend a long time in Leavenworth.

    And don't make it sound like he was a whistle-blower.

  • ||

    ... because it would be disastrous to my argument!

  • ||

    Because it isn't true.

  • UCrawford||

    Nope...a whistleblower is one who reports waste, fraud and abuse to a governing authority to rectify a problem. A traitor is someone who gives classified information to a foreign entity because he got pissy and/or got paid.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    Crawford and Soldier should get together. They could talk about how many slopes they've killed.

  • UCrawford||

    Crawford and Soldier should get together. They could talk about how many slopes they've killed.

    Sorry that you don't respect the right of contract (which Manning signed to get his clearance and violated the terms of out of spite). Personally, I don't care if they shoot the little shit.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    There is an excellent chance not invading Afghanistan and Iraq would have prevented all those deaths you decry and many more.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    I don't know about the rest of you, but I really fucking hate consistency. Knowing what is expected of me and what rules to follow is really a pain in the ass. I prefer when everything is totally arbitrary and I have to guess about whether or not I'm doing the right thing.

  • ||

    Exactly why the media discredits him. He doesn't play the game. He's honest and forthright.

    IOW, he's exactly the opposite of what we (the media) have come to love and respect in a politician. How can we be expected to come up with juicy, scandalous stories day after day reporting on an honest politician?

  • UCrawford||

    He's honest and forthright.

    Until someone starts asking him who wrote the newsletter articles or why he didn't notice them, of course. Then he's quite happy to be a typical evasive politician.

  • ||

    How many times does one need to answer the same question?

  • ||

    Hasn't he answered many many times? I've seen many youtube videos of interviews where he answers the questions. He said he doesn't know who wrote them. Even if he does know, or could find out, it's not his business to do research for the media on an irrelevent issue.

    He has already admitted that he should have never let those things be said under his name. So he didn't say them, nor has he read all of them - why is it his job to tell everyone who did?

    If someone else says something pretending to be me, all that matters is telling people I didn't say it; not necessarily telling them who it really was (even if I knew).

  • UCrawford||

    Except, as the above article points out, he keeps changing his answers.

  • Ucrawford||

    Wealthy white men have a proclivity for black and latino women and will actively try to conquer them (sexually). Just like in every movie made with this scenario.

  • UCrawford||

    And now you're pretending to be me.

    I accept this as your admission that you're too stupid to come up with any valid points.

  • ||

    Nice sarc, hillbilly.

  • ||

    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2.....rel20c.pdf

    Here's the link to the CNN poll showing Ron Paul is gaining traction with minorities.

  • Fluffy||

    I also think the use of the word "smear" is supported by the fact that the people bringing you this story are claiming that the newsletters say Paul thinks the Mossad was behind the 1993 WTC bombing, when the quote clearly and expressly does not say that.

  • ||

    So Reason wants to sink the candidacy of the only person who represents the values espoused by this site? awesome.

  • SIV||

    Ron Paul espouses the values of government-funded stem cell research and gay marriage?

  • ||

    The perfect is ever the enemy of the good, SIV.

  • ||

    Reason isn't sinking his candidacy. They are hitting their suscribers over the head round robin style though.

    No new information has come forward, so the new story is the old story.

  • ||

    I like knowing what the reason writers are thinking. I'd also like everyone to say everything they have to say and investigate as much as they want so we can all get past this.

  • ||

    The new story is that he's the frontrunner in Iowa, and his political rivals and the media are chomping at the bit to sink his candidacy.

    Most of us in the Reason community like Ron Paul and want him to succeed, but think he's doing himself and the movement a severe disservice by not coming forward and giving a better explanation as to who wrote this, why was it written and what he did about it. We don't want libertarians branded as racists, and while we don't believe that Ron Paul himself has demonstrated racism as far as we can tell, his evasion comes off as crypto-racism to outsiders and those who aren't fans but are willing to give him a listen.

  • David Linde||

    Do the "racist news letters" invalidate Ron Paul's candidacy? No. But the media, including Reason magazine, is surely trying to use them to accomplish that. Ron Paul's stance on all issues is color blind.

  • Captain America||

    As a black American male I am more concerned about the future of this country than some old newsletters

  • Racist!||

    You're obviously a self-hating black guy.

  • Tony||

    Then you're insufficiently black and/or suffering from false consciousness.

  • ||

    is he against the drug war? I'm sold. He's got my vote.

  • Newslettards||

    NNNNUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUSLETTERS!

  • Crystal Method||

    Dammit, let Ron Paul win a few primaries first. I want to see the GOP tied up in knots and a brokered convention.

    None of the other candidates deserve a straight shot to the nomination.

  • death panelist||

    Haven't noticed this lovely WSJ editorial linked here yet...

    What Ron Paul Thinks of America
    It seemed improbable that the best-known American propagandist for our enemies could be near the top of the pack in the Iowa contest, but there it is.

    I saw two financial sector types reading this intently on the train this morning. My brief excitement about seeing a large color photo of Ron Paul in an MSM print publication quickly turned to the usual despair.

    If Ron gets within a country mile of the nomination, the attacks we see now will seem quaint by comparison. The Romney PAC attack ad practically writes itself (and is perhaps already queued up...)

    You don't even have to go back any further than the current campaign to string together a bunch of choice Ron Paul sound bites : pro-Heroin / pro-Iran nukes / 9/11 "glee" / Medicare unconstitutional. Throw in some images of the "Ron Paul Survival Report" with some of the usual quotes scrolling across the screen. Video of WTC collapse. "RON PAUL. DANGEROUS. EXTREME. WRONG FOR AMERICA."

    Fact is, we need a better candidate. And by all appearances, it ain't Gary Johnson either.

    [ Disclaimers: Voted Ron Paul 2008 primary, intend to do so again in 2012. Hope he goes all the way to a brokered GOP convention, if not look forward to voting Gary Johnson LP if he gets the nomination... ]

  • Bingo||

    This really must be a beltway obsession.

  • Dan Mage||

    The newsletters, and his past associations with Nazis and nutcases make it impossible for me to support him. As far as the civil liberties of people such as those in the infamous "Stormfront" photo, the ACLU is entirely willing to defend their right to free speech; they don't need Ron Paul, who does not need them. They envision a society that is anything but libertarian. Dr. Paul points out something repeatedly, that bigotry is bad for business; one would think he'd see it clearly enough to apply it to his own candidacy. He needs to denounce these statements and the people who made them in the strongest terms.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    What is more destructive to minorities in this country, taking pictures with some unsavory people or pursuing a drug war that locks up and effectively destroys the future of thousands of mostly minority youths for simply selling something that free people want to buy?

  • Len||

    MSL, the problem is that realizing the truth of the latter part of your statement takes more than a knee-jerk reaction, while the majority of Americans are reached by shallow sound-bites.

  • ||

    Free people want to buy a lot of shit that's bad for them, everything from houses they can't afford to guns they will use to commit crimes. That is the human nature libertarians are content to ignore. You cannot legalize hard, addictive drugs that will only destroy people who are physically or emotionally unable to use them responsibly.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    So better destroy the lives of millions because hundreds would destroy themselves? How compassionate!

  • ||

    As we've seen with the housing market taking down the global economy, your argument is BS. Which millions would benefit from heroin use?

  • Psychic Octopus||

    The millions who are not jailed, killed, orphaned, police harassed or taxed because someone takes heroin.

  • robc||

    Which racist are you supporting instead?

  • Mark||

    Past associations implies regular or continued contact. Please provide evidence that supports your allegations because, best I can tell, a onetime photo with some guy Ron Paul doesn't know doesn't rise to the level of "past associations" in my book.

  • ||

    The more they talk about the notorious antediluvian racism of Ron Paul, the less they need to talk about the indisputably racially oppressive outcomes of policies advocated by "mainstream" politicians like the sitting President.

  • Rob||

    + a stocking filled with about 300 pounds of gifts for P Brooks.

  • Max||

    They invalidate Brian Doherty's brain.

  • ||

    Whether Ron Paul personally wrote them or not, I wish someone would print the "racist" newsletter quotes in their entirety, because those I've read thus far ("Animals take over the zoo", for example) aren't particularly damning, in context.

    As it stands, we're being treated to little more than a cut & paste smear job.

  • SIV||

    The LvMI should put up the .pdfs

  • Neu Mejican||

    Lisa|12.22.11 @ 12:01PM|#

    Whether Ron Paul personally wrote them or not, I wish someone would print the "racist" newsletter quotes in their entirety, because those I've read thus far ("Animals take over the zoo", for example) aren't particularly damning, in context.

    As it stands, we're being treated to little more than a cut & paste smear job.

    Actually, when I read them in context, they sound worse. The canard that it is about "a few sentences" is ridiculous. The LA riots newsletter is racist from start to finish. It's overall purpose is racist, all of its details are racists...all groups are identified by race, all actions and motivations are attributed to groups, all groups are treated as homogenous.

    Context matter, I agree, but in this case it makes things worse, not better.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    *muttering*

    friggin' yokeltarians making me agree with Neu Mejican. man, is there nothing these newsletters don't screw up? Next time my car breaks down, I am going to check the fuel line for a rolled-up version of the Ron Paul Political Report.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Neu Mejican,

    Actually, when I read them in context, they sound worse. The canard that it is about "a few sentences" is ridiculous. The LA riots newsletter is racist from start to finish.


    What part of the "the riots were perpetrated by blacks" is inconsistent with thehistorical facts, Neu?

    Pointing out facts is not being racist.

    It's overall purpose is racist, all of its details are racists...


    I *saw* the riots unfold on TV, Neu. I *saw* roving bands of blacks burning Asian American businesses, targeting people BY RACE. That HAPPENED.

    The comments made then were SPOT ON.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Old Mexican:

    Here's a link with the whole essay.

    http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793

    People can draw their own conclusions, but if you think this essay is "just the facts" I don't know what to say.

  • UCrawford||

    You're wasting your time...the hardcore Paulestinians don't care whether the newsletters are racist or not. I doubt that most of them have even read them...those that have usually seem to rationalize it away. They just know that they love Ron Paul and anyone who doesn't clearly just has an agenda and they're not going to let petty distractions like the things Ron Paul actually published detract from their unconditional love and support.

  • ||

    That is the first link I have seen in all of these discussions and blogs and articles that actually had the full text of a newsletter. If the media is going to pull this particular skeleton out of the closet, maybe they should do as much work as Neu did and provide people with the whole thing instead of one sentence.

    I didn't read the whole thing yet, but what I did read wasn't racist (based off of what I remember seeing on the news it is quite factual). Even if one wants to read it as being racist, it certainly isn't any worse than what anyone else was saying or thinking around the nation. Now some of the other newsletters might be worse, I don't know cause I can't find them, so I won't go full bore and say none of them are.

    However, as has been said many times over in this thread alone: Supporting or expanding the Drug War alone is more racist than anything anyone could say in a shitty newsletter.

  • UCrawford||

    Go back and read the whole thing. It's clearly racist.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Yes - and it's still the same that many others were saying at the time, just after the LA riots. I am sure you could dig the same from anyone back then.

  • ||

    A fucking book review? I was expecting something that indicated Ron Paul's racism. Ain't there.

  • UCrawford||

    Then go read the newsletter...it's definitely there.

  • kinnath||

    Let us assume the worst case -- Ron Paul is a closet racist; has been since he was born; will be until he dies.

    There isn't a single piece of evidence that he has acted on these feelings in his private medical practice or in his role as US congressman. So what fucking difference does it make.

  • Sanity Clause||

    And, of course, libertarians support a person's right to be racist as long as he doesn't violate someone else's rights. So it just adds fuel to the fire.

    TPTB are getting scared. They are circling the wagons and gathering the pitchforks. Isn't it obvious?

  • ||

    Ron Paul of course promoted his newsletters when he didn't know there was anything wrong with them, he trusted the people working on them. At the time, however, he was practicing medicine including giving free and discount service to poor women of all races who couldn't pay for it (since he refused to accept medicare and medicaid.) HE isn't racist. He had a problem with oversight of something when he was NOT in office but was practicing medicine. On a PERSONAL level, he trusted the wrong people. Twenty years ago.

    This IS a smear because people are pretending he wrote them or that there is serious question whether he wrote them or believed that, in the face of youtubes over 30 years showing his views have always been not only not racist but protective of civil liberties in a way that would disproportionately benefit minorities.

    Pretending this raises a question of whether HE is racist is a smear and you know very well that every 'headline' about 'Ron Paul's racist newsletters' carries that pretense.

  • ||

    Libertarianism is an ideology rather than a philosophy of government

    WTF?

  • Fluffy||

    Yeah, I noticed that too.

    Kirchick is one of those retarded children who thinks that the only real philosophy of government is railroading and pragmawhoring.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    I think it means... hmm... no, I'm stumped.

  • MJ||

    It means that: Philosophy=noble and good, Ideology=crass and evil. It is the basic belief of professional moderates.

  • Fluffy||

    The problem with the H&R format is that every Reason writer wants a piece of the newsletters hits.

    So they're all going to post their hit-whoring posts. No one wants to be left out.

    That makes it look like Reason is ganging up on Paul, even when I don't think they actually intend to.

    How about declaring ONE steward of the newsletters story, and when Denethor doesn't want to put up a new post, you cover other stuff?

  • Sanity Clause||

    Dave Weigel?

  • ||

    Those were dark days my friend, dark days.

  • SIV||

    I nominate Mike "murder-drones" Riggs.

  • ||

    With a name like Riggs, I expect it to be violent and hilarious.

  • Murtaugh||

    Those were the days. Now, I'm too old for this shit.

  • ||

    Libertarians need more politicians to spread out the narrative wealth.

    too many writers, not enough political capital.

    Its a catch 22 when it comes to this sort of thing.

  • chris||

    "The problem with the H&R format is that every Reason writer wants a piece of the newsletters hits."

    I think you're right.

  • ||

    Sorry that developments keep happening and people seem to be interested in these developments.

    Ron Paul is the frontrunner. Our excitement is tempered by his evasion on this issue and a sense of dread that this will be used to invalidate his candidacy. All all of us want is a better explanation.

    Sorry we aren't willing to tacitly accept every syllable that spills from Paul's immaculate lips as absolute truth. He's a politician.

  • ||

    Come on, you know most of the regular's here aren't full on Paultards.

  • chris||

    There's nothing wrong with this article. I'm a big Ron Paul fan and I think he goofed by (calmly) walking out of that CNN interview and has generally handled this newsletter mess badly this cycle. Gillespie offers a great template here for Ron Paul to counter this whole mess.

  • Colin||

    Ron Paul!
    Start a l-y-nch mob . . .
    Ron Paul!
    Bring back Jim Crow laws . . .
    Ron Paul!
    Segregating homos . . .

  • ||

    SIV (resident SoCon) meet Colin (recently-arrived liberal troll). Colin, SIV.

    Now, can you boys come up with a consistent position? Either RP is pro gay marriage (SIV) or wants to segregate homos (Colin). Not both. Which is it?

  • SIV||

    Reason is pro-gay marriage. I assume Ron Paul is gay marriage-neutral.

  • Matrix||

    Ron Paul would argue that the government has no business getting involved in marriage.

  • SIV||

    What'd I just say?

  • Psychic Octopus||

    You could do both. Gays live and marry in their own 'hoods and are banned from living and marrying in str8 'hoods.

  • Mitt "Jay-Z" Romney||

    If you've got ghostwriter problems I feel bad for you son, I've got 99 different positions on every issue but a newsletter ain't one.

  • Kanye West||

  • ||

    Dear Mr. Gillespie, we the undersigned H&R regulars are sick to bloody death of the RP newsletters. Please stop posting about this until something new happens, ie the author is revealed. And a gratuitous repost of lobster girl would go a long way towards making it up to us. And it is xmas and all...

  • ||

    Its not official until its on change.org

  • Crystal Method||

    Even though I will vote for Ron Paul in our state's primary his image is that of a smarmy old man - kind of the Montgomery Burns of Congress. Obsessed with gold, bent and crooked, aloof, etc. The LP needs to recruit a new standard-bearer.

  • ||

    Who would that be Crystal?

  • Crystal Method||

    I don't know. My expectations should be considered low. End the war on drugs and end all military occupations.

    I don't see a pol in DC who agrees. Except Kucinich maybe. Pass.

  • SIV||

    Ron Paul is running for the GOP nomination.

    Gary somebody and Wayne Allen Root are going for the coveted LP nod.

  • GW||

    The best part will be to see how long this non-issue is brought up by the media.

    Then compare it to how the whole thing with Jeremiah Wright was swept under the carpet by the same media.

    And which one was really relevant? I know the answer.....

  • Tony||

    Libertarianism itself has a complicated relationship with racism. Even if you're one of the few intelligent people here, I think you have to deal with the fact that your economic beliefs match nicely with those who are motivated to be anti-welfare because of racist anecdotes from the 80s. Also uncomfortable is the fact that the only things you guys feel we should pay for commonly are things that benefit the proverbial white landowning male. As you should realize, to implement a free market out of a non-free market means that whoever benefited from the unfair system than came before has an advantage in the new system, thus it is not really free, and no such thing can really ever exist.

    Disparity in privilege along racial lines is not a problem this country has solved yet. There are generally two responses to that fact: blame minorities for their own problems, as if they are naturally morally unfit, or find some way to correct the wrongs that have led to such disparities. Saying "in a free market, everyone's equally free to prosper" doesn't really cut it considering the disadvantage some will have going in.

    Then there's such oddities as Rand Paul being against civil rights legislation on the "principle" that white landowners ought to be free to be bigots and that's more important than a black person's freedom to participate in commerce in his society. (But they're equally free, supposedly.) That Paul cried like a little bitch when Rachel Maddow dared question him on this and went to hide on FOX News forever is beside the point. These beliefs are not too complicated for soundbite TV, they are dumb, all the more so when you're forced to explain them, and no matter how nonracist you are the effects of your beliefs is that racism is never checked, because the freedom to be racist trumps the freedom not to be discriminated against racially. Racism is bad because it reduces people's real freedom, and at best libertarianism's toolbox has nothing in it to address it.

  • Kanye West||

    Yo, Tony, I'm really happy for you, and Imma let you finish, but MNG is our house retard liberal

  • Matrix||

    MNG is not all bad. He's right some of the time and can admit when he's wrong. Tony is wrong about practically everything and will never once consider that he might be wrong.

  • Tony||

    I'm occasionally wrong but I'd never know it considering 99% of the time the response I get is "ur dumb!!1!"

  • ||

    That's because every time anyone assumes you're here to debate in good faith and they point out your fallacious logic and destroy your every argument, you disappear. Later you come back and pretend like it never happened. Eventually people see this pattern and realize you aren't worth wasting time on.

  • ||

    To that point Tony, I'm still awaiting your answer to my question from a week ago, where you did EXACTLY what Proprietist claims. I'm still up for a real debate on that topic, but you fled rather than answer my question.

    Can wealth be created Tony?

  • Tony||

    Define created.

  • ||

    Is there one big pie that must be divided among everyone or can wealth be added that which already exists?

  • ||

    TO that...

  • #||

    yeah i got to second that - other than the thing with john MNG actually isnt bad.

    Tony is full stuck looking at the miror retard.

  • ||

    Well, every body's entitled to their own opinion. My opinion is that Tony isn't entitled to his own opinion. (paraphrase from G. Carlin)

  • Crystal Method||

    There is also the antisemitism associated with the "Jew bankers" and "Rothschilds" slurs that goes with the Bircher crowd and their strange obsession with the Federal Reserve.

  • SIV||

    Yeah, if they don't like the Fed why don't they vote for a different Chairman and board. Or better yet use one of the many competing free market currencies.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Good point. If you don't like the Federal Reserve, you must be anti-semitic. Cause the Jews control the banks, everyone knows that.

  • Fluffy||

    A sale requires the seller's consent.

    A purchase requires the purchaser's consent.

    Commerce consists of purchasing and selling.

    Saying that you aren't "free" to engage in commerce unless you can compel others to either sell to you or buy from you is a laughable contradiction in terms.

    As you should realize, to implement a free market out of a non-free market means that whoever benefited from the unfair system than came before has an advantage in the new system, thus it is not really free, and no such thing can really ever exist.

    Proudhonistic fallacy, as usual.

    If no one has ever possessed a legitimate economic or property right, then nobody has ever had an economic or property right violated, either. And that would mean it is impossible for any previous system to have been unfair.

    For a previous system to have been unfair, somebody in it would have had to be deprived of something to which they had a right. But you say no one has a right to anything, and no one HAS HAD a right to anything, since the first act of unrectified injustice. Which probably happened close to a million years ago, or whenever you think we became human beings.

  • Tony||

    If no one has ever possessed a legitimate economic or property right, then nobody has ever had an economic or property right violated, either. And that would mean it is impossible for any previous system to have been unfair.

    Economic and property rights are great for people with wealth and property. The fact that these are among the few things you think we should pay for commonly is my entire point: libertarianism isn't about getting government out of the way, it's about government serving a particular type of person, while everyone else (non property owners specifically) is on their own. This is not racist inherently, but the fact that wealth and property have been in the hands of white people and not minorities historically means it perpetuates preexisting racial disparities. But thank you for explicitly making my general point: government handouts for you and people like you, none for anyone else, libertarianism in a nutshell.

    Every previous system was unfair, and every existing system is unfair. Past injustices can never be fully rectified, but you want to claim that not trying at all will accomplish this task automatically.

  • Matrix||

    you know shit about libertarianism, Tony.

  • ||

    "Economic and property rights are great for people with wealth and property"

    . . . which includes anyone who has either of these; for example, a $40k/year school teacher who owns her own home and has her own retirement savings.

    I think it's the very concept of wealth and property that offends you.

    "the fact that wealth and property have been in the hands of white people and not minorities historically means it perpetuates preexisting racial disparities."

    You're probably about one more bong hit from asking if it's OK to gambol about the plain and forest.

  • ||

    "libertarianism isn't about getting government out of the way, it's about government serving a particular type of person, while everyone else (non property owners specifically) is on their own."

    There is so much wrong with this statement. Libertarianism is not about either of those. It is the philosophy of non-aggression; the belief that everyone has the right to be free of aggression and force from others, free to do as they please with their own life while affording that same right to others. Regardless of who owns what to begin with.

    Property owners and non-owners are NOT 2 different types of people. What does "ownership" mean to you? To me, it means a portion of my life; when I spend a part of my life working to produce a good or trade for a produced good, I "own" it. First of all, everyone is an owner of property. Whether you have a giant house and a nice car, or merely a sandwich and a pair of clothes, you own something. Everyone spends their time doing stuff; they own their time and their life, as well as whatever they provide for themselves.

    From libertarianism follows property rights - property being that which has been created (not land, as land is not generally created). The government restricts peaceful actions by force, takes people's property and gives handouts and bailouts taken from others, trades legal favors for donations, spends billions of our money to send people to kill and die - this is where libertarians are against government.

  • Tony||

    But for some reason you can't get to the point: property rights mean nothing without enforcement. That's government force securing your claim to property. You can talk about your own labor and say property comes from that, but I don't think you want to go to the effort of defending it every second of every day from less scrupulous people either. As you recognize, collectivizing property rights frees people to actually do productive things.

    As I'm constantly told, this is not anarchism. It's government for all the things you need it for, and anyone with different needs (such as healthcare needs) can fuck off and die. I have never been given a satisfactory explanation for this.

  • ||

    I KNEW you were White Indian.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Historically, people defended their own house with their own weapons and that was it. There is no reason why it wouldn't work now again. Unless of course you live somewhere where burglars and robbers have more rights than you do, like Chicago.

  • WTF||

    Look, if you object to getting responses to the effect of "ur dumb!!1!", you're going to need to stop posting stupid shit like this.

  • ryan||

    Aaron, the desire to educate is respectable. But please, choose your audiences with consideration of the fact that time is scarce. By giving time to one endeavor, it is taken from all other potential endeavors. I believe that, after consideration, you will likely find a better student than Tony.

  • ||

    I'm white and not rich. I'd prefer more liberty.

  • ||

    Great. Now Tony's here.

    Libertarianism is the complete repudiation of racism as it believes everyone is equal and free to do what they want as long as they do not harm another individual. Your claim that racists think that's a great idea because it allows them to repress minorities is rediculous because government was the biggest enforcer of jim crow laws, not individuals. The government of libertarians would treat everyone alike.

    Your false consciousness of what libertarians are is tiring.

  • Tony||

    Government did not enforce racist laws against the prevailing will of the community. It took the evil feds to force local governments to change with sometimes violent opposition from the people.

    On top of that you want to say that after centuries of racial oppression we can somehow reach a free society in which everyone's equally able to prosper by just getting rid of a few laws and letting the market work--a market that until that point systematically excluded people along racial lines. It's quite a bit easier to pull oneself up from one's bootstraps when one happens to belong to a class of people who've historically had all the wealth.

  • ||

    Government did not enforce racist laws against the prevailing will of the community. It took the evil feds to force local governments to change with sometimes violent opposition from the people.

    Government specifically put blacks and whites in opposition after the civil war and then decided that jim crow laws would somehow fix that. Around every turn, government created the issues that bred the hatred and then fed it with immoral and incompetent hamfistedness.

    The only point I'll concede is because there was no philosophy of libertarianism in government, it was impossible for them to do otherwise. Its hard to say that libertarianism could solve the problem when there was no basis for it being there.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the historical innaccurate,

    Government did not enforce racist laws against the prevailing will of the community.


    Of course it did, imbecile - otherwise there would've been no need to put it in a law.

    Just for starters, the law that imposed the division of seating placesin buses made the cost of operation higher for the bus companies as it would have to drive with half a bus empty BY LAW. You conveniently ignore this because you assume bus operators wanted this law, against their better economic judgment. The fact that you do this indicates a) your penchant for showing your incredible ignorance of economics and b) your lack of knowledge in history, not going beyond what your Unionized leech of a 3rd grade teacher told you.

  • Tony||

    Racism was not a conspiracy of governments. Government policy does tend to reflect the will of the people. You really grasp at straws here.

    What was peculiar about Southern local governments that made them more willing to impose racism on their people, do you suppose?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the clueless,

    Racism was not a conspiracy of governments.


    Saz who, you? The Statist?

    Give me a break.

    Government policy does tend to reflect the will of the people.


    Are you an idiot? Just what WILL OF THE PEOPLE lead to such insane laws as grass height limits?

    STOP BEING A MORON!

    You really grasp at straws here.


    Who is, again?

    What was peculiar about Southern local governments that made them more willing to impose racism on their people, do you suppose?


    I suppose that they had more racist councilmen, mayors and police than other places, Tony. That does not mean all people really wanted to limit the accomodation in buses when whites seldom used them. Such laws are meant to stop the competitition from bus operators whose main revenue came from blacks. Again, you think all policies are motivated by ideology; the only reason you think that is because you lack insight and sophistication.

  • Tony||

    So there was never a problem of widespread racism in the south, it was just a random convergence of local governments acting against the prevailing will?

  • shorter Tony||

    derp

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the shifty,

    So there was never a problem of widespread racism in the south,


    That's not implied in my post. Read it again.

    it was just a random convergence of local governments acting against the prevailing will?


    Of course, you imbecile. If business owners didn't want to have blacks being served in their establishments, they would simply SAY SO (like many Texan bars back in the 60s and 70s had notices saying "No Dogs, No Mexicans")

    Since such acts of exclusion were RARE (as even racists want the business of blacks), then the government simply imposed segregation laws, which RAISED THE COST for many a business owner. It is the same mechanism that permeates regulatory schemes and laws: anti-competition.

    The problem was not that racism was prevalent; the problem for the politically well-connectedis that it wasn't prevalent ENOUGH.

  • #||

    Tony your a dumb ass. If every bus company was voluntarily segregating their busses, there would have been no need for those laws.

    The reaons why the laws were put in place was because at least some of the bus companies did not segregate because thye knew that was where their money came from and the other bus companies and at least 50% of the voters didnt like that fact so they forced all busses to segregate.

    In a libertarain based government, even if the bulk of the population was racist, the bus companies woudl still have to compete for ridership and this would have made the bus companies (at leats teh oones who stayed in business) not have segregation.

    Do you know how markets work? Do you know what libertariansm is?

    Jim Crow Laws are indeed laws. No some product of the marketplace.

  • Watoosh||

    Old Mexican & co: you are missing Tony's point completely.

    You can fantasize about there being no or very little government so that majorities aren't allowed to oppress minorities the way Jim Crow did. That's fine - that kind of republicanism is admirable. However, the fact remains that most people like government. They hate the inevitable clusterfucks that result from having a ruling class decide what's best for everybody, like economic disasters, bank bailouts, red tape etc. - especially when they are personally confronted with them - but they simply cannot fathom the idea of not having rulers. ("How would we have roads and schools?") Hence governments and laws will exist, at least until this kind of authoritarian mentality is overturned.

    Now what happens when communities with a rich history of lynching, slavery and overall bigotry get together and vote? Let's just say that civil rights for minorities aren't the first plank on the candidates' platforms. Even if the honorable non-racist whites, businessowners, bus drivers and others rejected Jim Crow laws, the fact remains that the state and local governments in the South had support from the bigoted majority - otherwise they couldn't have been elected.

    Here's the irony that Tony was getting at: it took a big government, namely the feds, to strike down unlibertarian laws enacted by state and local governments. (Yes, the feds also restricted the property rights of business owners, which does violate the NAP despite having noble intentions, but let's ignore that for the sake of argument) If you're a constitutional federalist (pro-states' rights) like Ron Paul, you have to confront the fact that left to their own devices, racist people can elect racist lawmakers. Maybe the winds of change will inevitably erase racism without federal interference and also do it more effectively, but that's what you need to show, not simply assume.

    So. If your response is "Well it was the governments that imposed these laws on the people!", you're correct, but you're also a moron. Governments don't exist in a vacuum - there's a demand for them, because most people want liberty and democracy but can't quite reconcile the conflict between these two. Unless you can come up with a plausible plan to form a market-based, stateless/minarchist society, and also explain how that is relevant to the conditions of pre-1964 South, don't bother replying at all.

  • Tired Scientist||

    I have to agree with Watoosh on this.

    Even before the local and state officials that codified segregation were elected, private gangs like the KKK used terror to disenfranchise blacks and to destroy whatever wealth they had. When combined with local majorities practicing de facto segregation they ensured that there could be no free market.

    So, while I prefer a smaller government, I don't want one that is so small it can't overcome the power of organized gangs for whom aggression and terror are tantamount to reasoned debate and persuasion.

  • Juice||

    A community does not have a will.

  • ||

    On top of that you want to say that after centuries of racial oppression we can somehow reach a free society in which everyone's equally able to prosper by just getting rid of a few laws and letting the market work--a market that until that point systematically excluded people along racial lines. It's quite a bit easier to pull oneself up from one's bootstraps when one happens to belong to a class of people who've historically had all the wealth.

    Buried under all this supposed high-mindedness is an undercurrent of real racism: the belief that society's darker-colored members are too mean and stupid to function without the direct intervention of people like you.

  • Zeb||

    I am becoming convinced that racism's power persists largely because of the nominally anti-racist people who keep insisting that it is the most important thing in the world. Freaking out over every perceived bit of racism only serves to give power to the racists. If racism were simply mocked and ignored, it would disappear much more quickly now that legal and institutional racism has been largely eliminated.
    And most of this is not about race anyway. White people who have lived for generations in poverty have all of the same disadvantages as the poor black people. The fact that a larger proportion of black people are poor may be a problem, but their lack of opportunity is because they are poor and marginalized, not because they are black.

  • Tony||

    Agreed, but I am pretty sure that if there were no black people among the ranks of the poor and marginalized, there would be virtually no anti-safety-net movement in this country. Maybe among principled libertarians, but among tea party types it has been quite well demonstrated that their opposition to big government does not extend to their own participation in safety net programs (which they do in large numbers), just those other lazy shiftless people who are getting a handout.

  • J_L_B||

    Agreed, but I am pretty sure that if there were no black people among the ranks of the poor and marginalized, there would be virtually no anti-safety-net movement in this country.

    Seeing as how the welfare state for the poor largely grew in the late 1960's and early 1970's, and the Tea Party emerged in 2009, I would say they are four decades late.

    That would mean they are opposed to current attempts at expanding transforming the welfare state into a substitute for working, rather than opposing it as a whole for simply existing.

  • ||

    Safety net programs are fine - as long as everything is voluntary and no one is being threatened with jail time if they choose to not participate.

    Would you personally force me to pay to help your friend, and put me in a cage or shoot me if I refuse/resist?

    If you wouldn't, why would you promote someone else doing the same?If you would, then at least you are consistent - as long as you realize it goes the other way as well; maybe YOU think your friend is worth more than other people, but other people might think differently.

  • Tony||

    Fine, I don't want to pay for your handouts known as property rights protection.

  • T||

    Great. Can we stop paying for your handouts, then? I'll gladly privatize police protection and hire the Enforcers to patrol my 'burb-clave. It'd be better than paying some useless dipshit from the Sherriff's office to sit by the pool in his cruiser and scope out MILFs and teenagers.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    Are we sure Tony isn't White Indian?
    Because the Marxist imbeciles I encounter in Canuckistan spout the same rhetoric about property rights.
    Is there a handbook I could have mailed to me? I could just read it in my spare time or while I"m on the shitter, and when I come to the Reason comment boards I could just scroll by Tony's nonsense.

  • ||

    See that's your problem. Protection of rights is legitimate function of government. Putting a gun to your head and taking your wallet to give it to my neighbor is not.

    I don't know why we bother with you though, it's not like any of this has sunk in yet.

  • Watoosh||

    First of all, that's begging the question. Why is protecting property rights a legitimate government function but a social safety net isn't? Is the supremacy of libertarian minarchy written in an ancient black monolith on the Moon? Who decides that? (Not the founders, who didn't really give a fuck about libertarian minarchy or your rights)

    Second, I could just as easily say that putting a gun to my head and forcing me to give money to the police who need it to protect you is wrong. See, I can butcher moralistic arguments against government redistribution as well!

  • Mitch||

    Whats wrong with trying to improve the safety net? The current one perpetuates failure and misery, not to mention wastes a good deal of money. As a taxpayer, shouldnt we expect a efficient government and expect our taxes to be put to good use?

  • Len||

    Tony, one of your worst sins, besides being an obtuse dumbfuck, is your economic incomprehension, but really one follows from the other. In your simple little mind you see government forced welfare as being a solution to peoples plight, rather than part of the problem.

    You see a few being immediately helped, but miss being able to conceive how much more wealth there would be, and how many less poor there would be without government interference. In your stupidity of choosing the most visible and immediate, you and your ilk are the ones bringing the most harm to the poor.

  • Tony||

    You're making a completely unjustified claim, that removing government interference results not only in economic growth, but somehow manages growth at the bottom to the point where nobody is without basic needs.

    If the market could deliver that, it would have done so at some point. Sometimes societies have needs that don't produce profits for private companies.

  • ||

    Sometimes pigs with their snouts in the trough say that societies have needs that don't produce profits for private companies. Right now I can't think of any. Help me, Tony.

  • XM||

    The market isn't a default salvation for the impoverished if they have nothing to offer for it. Even the OWS crowd with can't find meaningful employment. Their state funded degrees are worthless.

    I think you actually realize that welfare is beyond "basic safety nets"? I'm close with people on unemployment checks and food stamps in LA. They have more than a roof over their heads.

    Let's admit to what welfare is in this country. It's supplemental income for lower to mid middle class folks. Welfare helps pay for their gas and iphone bills. More importantly, there's no real standards on who qualifies for it, or who deserves it more. Politically incorrect as it sounds, we spend tons of money on people with no real upside anywhere.

    That government cannot end poverty through stimulus and welfare is more common sense than a libertarian argument. If you spend 60 billion on infrastructure projects, only people with construction experience need to apply. Dish washers and those with arts degree are out of luck, or the government has to spend additional billions training them.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Riiiiight. Because the 2011 American poor are living like the 2011 Haiti poor. Or like the 1776 American poor.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Tony the clueless,

    Libertarianism itself has a complicated relationship with racism.


    Yes - we're against it when it favors one group over the other, no matter how victimized the other group thinks it feels.

    That's surely complicated for your little mind.

    Disparity in privilege along racial lines is not a problem this country has solved yet.


    Oh, don't tell me - it's a problem so it needs solving.

    Yay! Another question-begging assertion from Tony! Will wonders never cease.

  • Juice||

    Yeah, Progressives were never racist.

  • Editors at Pravda||

    Your hired!

  • Matrix||

    Are you ever right about anything, Tony?

    Because the government got involved in the past to make bad things happen does not mean the government should be perpetually involved in trying to make things more equal, especially by hurting others in the process, even those who did not directly benefit from their previous policies.

    The Civil Rights Act was right in ending governmental racism at ALL levels. It was not right to demand the same in the private sector. I'd rather not support people who hate Jews, but I won't know unless that is made public. And since we've made it illegal to discriminate against Jews, I don't know if I'm supporting an anti-Semite with my money.

  • Tony||

    Your problem is a lack of perspective. You think government should rectify certain social wrongs, namely the ones you specifically are likely to be victimized by. You want men with guns paid for by me to come defend your bobblehead collection, but a black person's ability to even buy a sandwich is not something it should involve itself with. Why isn't widespread racism in a community just as big a wrong as widespread breaking and entering? If you cannot participate fully in the commerce of your society then you are not equal or free. And then you expect people in an oppressed class to prosper as well as the non-oppressed and to do it all on their own? You're saying you can get ahead as long as you work hard and leave other people alone, but if you're black you have to work 10 times as hard.

    If people don't want the federal government to impose measures to rectify widespread racism, they should stop being racist. I don't like that the federal government had to intervene, I wish that the problem didn't exist in the first place. But you don't have the right to make money any way you want no matter what. You have a right to make money while following the rules of your society. You can't profit from poisoning people and you can't profit while systematically excluding people from your public service along racial lines. Sorry if that infringes on freedom--the freedom to impose racism on your community is not one governments have any reason to uphold, but the freedom to participate in commerce is, if the promises of capitalism mean anything.

  • Matrix||

    Bullshit! If you cannot decide who you will or will not do business with, you are not free! So go **** yourself, Tony.

    Of course I don't have the right to make money any way I want. If I'm stealing money from people, it is clearly wrong. But if I sell something at a much lower price than my competitor, shitbags like you bitch and moan because I'm engaging in unfair business practices and try to enforce price controls or other stringent regulations that try to arbitrarily "level the playing field". On the other hand, there are big companies who don't want small upstarts cutting into their profits, so they get governments to enforce regulations to get rid of the small competition. But shitbags like you just worship government interventionism.

    The government should not get to decide what's fair and what people should do with their money.

  • Tony||

    Acting upon racism is an injury like any other.

  • T||

    If I am standing around giving away watermelons to people because I have an excess of watermelons, I am perfectly free to refuse to give my watermelons to anyone, for any reason. And I can state my reasons, and there is nothing anyone can do to me about this.

    Yet somehow, the minute I take anything in exchange for a watermelon, it becomes okay for you to demand that I behave the way you want me to.

    Articulate for me what principle changes between the first and second cases that causes you to try to force me to do things I don't want to do, like give you a watermelon.

  • Tony||

    The principle that an American dollar is worth the same no matter who is holding it. And the principle that government is prior to the market, and if government can tell you you can't sell poisoned meat to the public, it can tell you you can't racially discriminate in your business. Capitalism doesn't work if groups of people are excluded from it fully--you have no right to tell others that they have to work 10 times harder for the same benefit in a market economy.

    If it were just one guy then it would be too much government power. If it's systemic then government has the obligation to step in.

  • ||

    And in... and in... and..

  • Watoosh||

    Well, no. Value is always subjective, because there's a lot more to commerce than "money in, product out". The market is a complicated social institution that functions best when left to grassroots levels. Imposing rules that treat the marketplace as a digital game usually creates distortions that can be hard to rectify.

    I also don't buy that government is prior to the market, even though I don't agree with my fellow libertarians that the reverse is always true. I think formal and informal institutions should parallel and influence each other, with the latter taking precedence due to their more non-coercive and confined nature. If you want a liberal society, you need to respect what happens at the grassroots level and let people find answers to it informally, and only interfere when the problem spills outward. For example, if we had a widespread epidemic of poisoned meat and killing your customers was a profitable venture, and the victims had no practical way of protecting themselves (torts, boycotts, private rating agencies etc.) even after years of market evolution, then I might consider government regulation.

    It's a shame that most discussions that you're involved with here end up with shitslinging from obtuse libertarians where nobody learns anything. I might not agree with you on most issues, but as a skeptic there's little I like more than demolishing shitty arguments and talking points that are used to support my position, and you often do a good job at it. Just keep your remarkable calm and try to be a little more patient, forgiving, open-minded, respectful and squeaky-clean and you might win a few more converts - if not to liberalism, then at least to non-orthodox, anti-bullshit libertarianism :)

  • Watoosh||

    (My response was to Tony, in case that was unclear)

  • ||

    Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you the reason I think the RP newsletters mean diddly squat. People like Tony already think we are racist and misogynistic because we don't think the government should pick favorites or force people to do things they don't want to do.

    To Tony in particular, a few things. 1) Did it ever occur to you that the government enacted Jim Crow laws and forced non-racist to in fact be racist in their business practices? 2) CO2 is not poison.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    Libertarianism itself has a complicated relationship with racism. Even if you're one of the few intelligent people here, I think you have to deal with the fact that your economic beliefs match nicely with those who are motivated to be anti-welfare because of racist anecdotes from the 80s.

    Well, I hope you were embarrassed to write that.

    Also uncomfortable

    Who's uncomfortable?

    is the fact that the only things you guys feel we should pay for commonly are things that benefit the proverbial white landowning male.

    Or the proverbial black landowning female. Or those who rent property. Or anyone who wants to make a contract.

    As you should realize, to implement a free market out of a non-free market means that whoever benefited from the unfair system than came before has an advantage in the new system, thus it is not really free, and no such thing can really ever exist.

    Oops, I broke your vase. Now I own your ass forever. And, anyway, point to an actual instance of theft or fraud and in a free market system the law would seek to put it right.

    Disparity in privilege along racial lines is not a problem this country has solved yet. There are generally two responses to that fact: blame minorities for their own problems, as if they are naturally morally unfit, or find some way to correct the wrongs that have led to such disparities. Saying "in a free market, everyone's equally free to prosper" doesn't really cut it considering the disadvantage some will have going in.

    False dilemma. When you meet a victim of theft you don't say "Either you'll get your property back, or you can take from your neighbours to make up for it." Doesn't mean they were responsible for their own suffering.

    Then there's such oddities as Rand Paul being against civil rights legislation on the "principle" that white landowners ought to be free to be bigots and that's more important than a black person's freedom to participate in commerce in his society.

    Freedom of association. The hypothetical black person has the freedom to participate in commerce, just not with someone who doesn't want to buy or sell to him.

    (But they're equally free, supposedly.)

    They are. Yes.

    That Paul cried like a little bitch

    Well, that sounds like a misrepresentation.

    when Rachel Maddow dared question him on this and went to hide on FOX News forever is beside the point.

    Oh, well then glad you brought it up.

    These beliefs are not too complicated for soundbite TV, they are dumb,

    You've yet to make an argument to that effect.

    all the more so when you're forced to explain them,

    I think we explain them quite willingly. Some libertarians have even written books.

    and no matter how nonracist you are the effects of your beliefs is that racism is never checked,

    If you mean in a libertarian society there's no thoughtcrime, you're right. If you mean that lynchings wouldn't be punished, you're wrong.

    Racism is bad

    Oh, do tell us why...

    because it reduces people's real freedom,


    Like freedom of association? Or by "freedom" do you mean "power over other people"?

    and at best libertarianism's toolbox has nothing in it to address it.


    Not so: a libertarian's toolbox is full to brimming with non-state tools. For example, there's freedom of association, which allows us all not to associate with racists.
  • Tony||

    If you were a member of a group who was systematically excluded from the commerce in his society then you might have another perspective. To claim that this environment is just "freedom of association" and not a significant injury to people is to be quite blind to realities.

    Again, if it was just a couple people, I don't think government would have a reason to step in. If it's a widespread problem and means that if you're born black you have much much less opportunity not only to prosper, but to participate at all, then what do you suppose should be done? Nothing? The freedom of bigots to discriminate trumps the freedom of the victims of bigotry to participate in society at all?

    Sometimes freedom is a give and take. I get where you're coming from, a sort of OCD fixation on freedom purism, but the fact is if there weren't widespread racism that had the effect of oppressing an entire group of people, then government action wouldn't have been necessary. If your freedom purism requirements result in a permanent racial underclass, then those requirements fail as a useful way to live.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    If you were a member of a group who was systematically excluded from the commerce in his society then you might have another perspective.

    Well, I can't help not being a member of such a group. Tell me: what information would I have that I don't have now? What arguments would I have access to? Apparently I must be missing something.

    To claim that this environment is just "freedom of association"

    What "environment"? I'm talking about racists not buying or selling from minorities - you can't just assume that most people are racist.

    and not a significant injury to people is to be quite blind to realities.

    Empty assertion of your conclusion. Again.

    Again, if it was just a couple people, I don't think government would have a reason to step in.

    Man, this is a policy debate. Your position is "the government should have laws preventing discrimination". Your evidence is "the government has laws preventing discrimination". Apply that algorithm elsewhere, would you? Oil wouldn't be subsidised if oil didn't need to be subsidised. If it was a good idea to increase taxes on millionaires, they'd already be higher. Hey, Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq if Iraq hadn't needed invading.

    If it's a widespread problem and means that if you're born black you have much much less opportunity not only to prosper,

    Sure, if it's a widespread problem. I still don't think that would justify forcing people into trades they don't want to enter. Remember: labour's a commodity like any other. If you refuse to work for a black guy, should you go to jail? If not, aren't you now a supporter of slavery?

    but to participate at all, then what do you suppose should be done? Nothing?

    I already answered that. Look, if the problem was widespread, the racists would still suffer: they'd be turning away customers - black people themselves, and then people like me (and pretty much everyone else, in the real world), who would not buy from them or sell to them.

    Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.

    The freedom of bigots to discriminate trumps the freedom of the victims of bigotry to participate in society at all?

    You mean the freedom of bigots to discriminate trumps the assertion that the victims of bigotry ought to be able to force bigots to associate with them. And yes, it does.

    Sometimes freedom is a give and take.

    No. The requirement of freedom is that nobody acts as anyone else's master. It's like you're putting up a woman's freedom not to be raped against an incredibly unattractive man's "freedom" to have sex. Hey, sometimes it's give and take.

    I get where you're coming from, a sort of OCD fixation on freedom purism,

    Okay, you know what happens when you try to summarise my views: you get it so wrong it's embarrassing. I don't care about purism, at all. Have I ever made the argument "but that's not purist"? I don't know what you mean when you say it's like OCD - I suspect it's a cheap and meaningless slur. I do care about freedom, yes - because as Payne said, "man has no property in man".

    but the fact is if there weren't widespread racism that had the effect of oppressing an entire group of people, then government action wouldn't have been necessary.

    That's not a fact: the Jim Crow laws were repealed in exactly the same piece of legislation that discrimination was outlawed. We don't have empirical evidence on what would have happened if the Jim Crow laws had been repealed without introducing thoughtcrime.

    If your freedom purism requirements result in a permanent racial underclass,

    It doesn't, and you haven't yet gotten within a thousand miles of proving the case.

    then those requirements fail as a useful way to live.

    "Useful" encompassing the absolute entirety of the moral philosophy that you won't to assert but don't want to argue for.

  • The Ingenious Hidalgo||

    The quote's from Bastiat, by the way.

  • ||

    I didn't expect other people to like my black friends, just other guys from the neighborhood, but they had to respect them or they had trouble with all of us.

  • ||

    You have no proof what-so-ever that racism is that widespread. Or that it was that widespread before the CRA. Jim Crow laws forced companies, that would have otherwise done business with blacks, to segregate and not do business with them.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    I will admit (as a historical note) that libertarianism does have a complicated relationship with racism on some accounts: socialist obsessions with Blacks have led to such unintuitive alliances with racists. So has opposition to foreign intervention, in the context of Israel and Zionism and organized Jewish movements, made for unintuitive alliances with anti-Semites.

    But on a truly free market, any advantage from the past only lasts as long as you know how to keep it. Free markets imply freedom to fail, something socialistic minds cannot wrap their heads around. Old elites will fail and fall and new elites will rise (and later fail and fall) all the time. One of the ways old elites could fail is precisely to discriminate in ways that push the clients away. Refusing to serve Blacks means one customer less every time it's done - and many more clients lost once word gets around.

    Yes, that is the libertarian tool to address racism - as customer, refusing to purchase; same as the vendor refuses to sell based on race. It's called boycotting. And ask South Africans whether it works.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Btw, this "forcing to sell" thing has a mirror in "forcing to purchase". Would you have forced people to purchase from South Africa? Today there is an active movement for a similar international boycott of Israel - would you force people to purchase from Israel? A forced commercial transaction is just that - forced, and is not an expression of economic freedom, whether you are forcing to sell or forcing to buy. And yes, this includes health care too.

  • Clevelandite||

    I like Ron Paul. I'd love to see him do well, and if he makes it to the general election, I'll vote for him. But this story has been out there for a while. We all new it was there, latent, and ready to pounce the second he gained momentum. He needs to come out with a better response. He ought to come out and say that he's ashamed this crap was published under his name, that he doesn't believe in that stuff and never did, and that he is the only candidate whose policies work against the institutional racism of the Drug War, War on Terror, the National Security State, etc. If that means throwing Rockwell under the bus, so be it.

  • ||

    What stuff specifically?

    Two sentences out of millions of words?

    What was so awful about the TWO subject sentences?

    STOP THE RACIAL PRIDE BULLSHIT.

    STOP BEING OFFENDED

    How about Obama's line, "she was a TYPICAL WHITE WOMEN"?

    Should I have gotten upset with such a remark? After all, it was coming out of a man who was an affirative action beneficiary. IOW, he benefitted from racism.

    Most people are sick and tired of the allegations of racism.

    He does not need to explain or apologogize.

  • Tony||

    If you're sick of it then stop saying overtly racist things like Obama benefited from affirmative action.

  • ||

    I don't see how that is racist, Tony.

  • Tony||

    How did he benefit from affirmative action? Because the claim seems to be, he's black and got somewhere in life, therefore he benefited from affirmative action. It's obviously a racist thing to say.

    Besides, if he did at some point in the past benefit from AA, the fact that he managed to become president of the US seems to be the biggest endorsement of AA imaginable.

  • shorter Tony||

    pointing out the truth = RACIST!

  • ||

    Was (is?)Cain an equal-opportunity offender? Not much said about that.

  • ||

    During the last campaign I was very critical of Reason for how they handled these newsletters and their lack of support for Ron Paul's campaign. But I have to concede that the Ron Paul campaign has dropped the ball on this, and should have known it would be brought up once again. It seems to me that Paul's response to this issue is about the worst thing you could do. For whatever reason, he doesn't want to "come clean" on those newsletters. It probably won't harm his current support base, but could prevent further momentum and his chances to reach more people.

  • Realist||

    Paul has already "come clean" on the newsletters....you just don't like his answer.

  • A Realist, Really?||

    Ok who did Paul say actually wrote those letters that he did not write? I missed that part.

  • 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

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Forgive the Paultards, for they know not what they do.

  • SIV||

    Gotta be a troll.

  • ||

    Rev., are you Tulpa?

    Still looking for proof that Prof. Dilorenzo has engaged in academic dishonesty "dozens of times".

    The one link you provided was to the Claremont Institute, an institution which worships Lincoln and has an axe to grind with Dilorenzo, like you.

    The linked article hardly supported your contention.

    OTOH, as far the honesty of the Claremont Institute..........

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Lord, forgive the neoconfederate hypocrites who suckle at the power teat of the Lawyer Monopoly, for they know not their own sins.

  • ||

    I take it from both sides. I'm a huge Paul supporter but that I don't think he's handling this issue well makes me the "enemy". In some important respects, Ron Paul supporters are as dogmatic as Obama's supporters were. Sorry, but its the truth.

  • ||

    Most of us criticizing Paul here are Paul supporters as well. I plan to vote for him in the primary. But he's only shooting himself in the foot with his evasion.

  • ||

    I personally love the way he is handling it. It is about how I like to handle things. When something is important, I focus on it. When something is irrelevent, I don't focus on it. It is irrelevent who wrote the words. It would be personally annoying if someone said something in my name that I disagreed with, but it certainly is not relevent to Dr. Paul's beliefs and actions.

    If anything, all it says is that Paul once trusted the wrong person. It happens to everyone, and he has already apologized for trusting the wrong person. Whether he knows who wrote the newsletter words or not - why does anyone care what particular person did?

  • ||

    Maybe you should be on his campaign team because you did a better job then he did.

  • Arduin Grimoire||

    If RP says "person X" wrote the newsletters, the media will pour over everything "person X" ever wrote and associate them w/ RP, just making for more 'newsletter' article fodder in form of "look who RP associates with".

  • Arduin Grimoire||

    Would YOU want to answer for everything Lew Rockwell ever wrote? :-)

  • ||

    I wanted to throw Lew under the bus 4 years ago.

    He's insufferable.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Lost in Translation,

    I wanted to throw Lew under the bus 4 years ago.


    Why? What the hell did he do to you?

    I've been reading LR for a better part of 8 years now, and I haven't seen even a SPEC or HINT of racism in his writing or comments. I've heard harder stuff coming from Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin (who has mellowed a bit since) and otehr firebrands.

  • ||

    Don't get me wrong, the amount of people this rhetorical bus would have to run over would stretch for many miles, but lew is conspiratal and not much help to the cause and he for sure knows who wrote the letters and acted as the editor if Paul didn't and therefore approved the garbage.

    under the bus, please sir.

  • ||

    I keep forgetting that being sceptical of govt and their actions isn't permitted in some people's libertarian world.

  • ||

    Lew Rockwell stood firmly against the war on Afghanistan as he did the one on Iraq while "libertarians" such as Reason and Cato supported both. He's now writing against the threats on Iran. For that, I'm a huge supporter. Having said that, I have seen racist writings on his site, not by him, but one contributor in particular. I'm not about to throw him under the bus however, as there's plenty of racist rhetoric going around nowadays from all sides (ie: muslim/arab hatred is ramped on all sides). Seems there's always some group its okay to hate.

  • T||

    Easy-peasy. My answer would be "Why are you talking to me? Ask Llewellyn WTF he's on about, because I sure don't know."

  • Realist||

    Of course all this "racist" bullshit is being used to discredit Ron Paul. The Republicans will do what it takes to keep Ron Paul from being nominated. The warmongering/fundies don't want anything to do with Ron Paul. If it weren't this it would be something else.
    He must be crushed.

  • 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

  • ||

    We heard you like ten times ago. Reposting doesn't make your statement any more convincing.

  • Two-Thirds of America||

    even if Ron Paul wrote the vile stuff, does that outweigh endless war and deficits?

    Fuck, yeah!

  • ||

    Nick Gillespie cites but does not refute my piece putting what the newsletters actually say in context -- and gives himself away by claiming that "affirmative action" isn't an issue Paul ought to address. Why not? He doesn't say. The reason, of course, is that with a black President in the White House, the "imperial court" atmosphere of Washington D.C. makes it "racist" for anyone to bring up an issue that does indeed vex normal Americans (as opposed to Creatures of Washington like Gillespie and his crowd) -- it is an act of lese majeste, as well as a "hate crime." Well, tough, Nick -- real libertarians will continue to bring it up, while Reason stays mum.

    The fact is that Gillespie, Welch, and their financial backers -- the Brothers Koch -- hate Ron Paul, and hacve always hated him, no matter what they say now that their (remaining) readers' wrath has been amply expressed in irate massive subscription cancellations.

    Why do they hate Paul? Because he's a populist -- and, of course, because of his association with Murray Rothbard, his mentor. All of this goes back into the history of our movement, circa 1979-83, which I've detailed in my biography of Rothbard ("An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard"), and interested readers can check it out. But the essence of the dispute back then is the same as it is now: Rothbard thought we had to reach the vast majority of Americans, and in order to do that he advocated a "right-wing populist" strategy, or, more specificlly, an anti-elitist perspective, aimed at the real enemy: Washington, D.C. The Koch/"cosmotarian" non-strategy is to appeal to those very same elites, to convert them to a watered down approximation of libertarianism. This ridiculous strategy was epitomized by LP presidential candidate Ed Clark's statement to journalist Ted Koppel on "Nightline" that "libertarianism is low-tax liberalism." Libertarianism, in the cosmotarian-Gillespie-ite view, is all about legalizing methamphetamine (oh yes, and pot)-- while marginal issues like whether we ought to go to war with the rest of the world are matters for "debate" among libertarians. That's why Reason abstained in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, and even printed pro-war crap from sellouts like Ron "Conquer the world for liberty" Bailey, Tom "I'm finally out of the closet!" Palmner, etc.

    Nick, you and your crowd have ruined a once-proud magazine, and turned it into a boring, and reliably lickspittle, adjunct of the Washington Monster. The final words of your post -- that EVERYTHING depends on how Paul "deals with" the non-issue of the newsletters is ridiculous, but about what we can expect from the Beltway, where Political Correctness rules with an iron hand.

    In short, fuck you Nick -- without your fat subsidies from the Koch Machine, your pathetic little magazine couldn't exist for a month.

  • Trespassers W||

    RAIMONDOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

  • ||

    blog fight!!!

  • Old Mexican||

    Justin!!!!!

  • SIV||

    Gotta be a troll.

  • GILMORE||

    from the style, I would not think so. that's his email. He posts here every blue moon. Not Troll, methinks.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    And Dennis shows up to make this even bitchier.

    You're always going to be a d-bag, Dennis, even if you are right from time to time.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I remember a time when Dennis said that the Russian government could never have poisoned an opposition leader. It musta been bad sushi

  • Trespassers W||

    Rothbard thought we had to reach the vast majority of Americans, and in order to do that he advocated a "right-wing populist" strategy

    You mean the one where he wanted to cozy up to racists? The one which retroactively demolished most of my respect for him? That strategy?

  • T||

    A+. That's how you troll, people.

    Because let's face it, Justin, you've got no reason to post here (of all possible places on the internet) other than to start shit.

    Let me go get my kilt, because it's obviously time for proving our Scottishness.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Dennis fashions himself as a radical when it reality he's just a bitchy queen.

  • Len||

    Justin, please provide a link to your article dealing with this.

  • Trespassers W||

    I think it's the takimag link above.

  • Len||

    Never mind, this is it right?

    http://takimag.com/article/why.....z1hHuhRhSj

  • Trespassers W||

    I have a hard time reconciling these statements, Raimondo:

    1. "[T]he material that is being called “racist” turns out to be no such thing..."

    2. "These statements are offensive, and I’d bet my bottom dollar that Ron Paul not only didn’t write them, but never read."

    If the statements are not racist, then why are they offensive? Maybe you're saying they just seem offensive out of context, but in context they're neither racist nor offensive? But if they're neither racist nor offensive, then why does it matter if Paul wrote them himself or not?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    He knows they're racist. He knows that they were designed to be racist. That is the whole point, which the Yokeltarians have been forced to admit. Race-baiting was, in the 90s, allegedly the express route to getting the AWM vote.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Trespassers W,

    If the statements are not racist, then why are they offensive?


    One can be offended by a comment without the comment having to be racist, T.

    The comment about "fleet-footed" young blacks is certainly offensive, but you have a lot of specificity surrounding that comment: The criminality in DC; the victimhood that permeates in that community; the lack of rule of law and enforcement (we're talking about 1990's DC.) This is, of course, totally dismissed by people like Nick, Welch et al and, of course, Blue Moon.

  • Trespassers W||

    One can be offended by a comment without the comment having to be racist, T.

    Of course. But my question is: in what way are these comments offensive if they're not racist? Try taking out any information about race, and then explain how the comment is still offensive.

    And then the question still remains: if they're not offensive, why does Raimondo take such pains to point out that of course Dr. Paul would never write something so... inoffensive? not-racist-but-somehow-still-offensive?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Trespassers W.,

    Try taking out any information about race, and then explain how the comment is still offensive.


    I can't do that. The race issue is important because the essay is about a racially-motivated riot - there's no escaping that! Without saying exactly who was rioting and why, the comments would make no sense.

    not-racist-but-somehow-still-offensive?


    Because it could be offensive for someone with a thin skin - he admits as much. But the specificity of the comments make it clear the essay is not painting all black people as either animals or welfare-recipients. The author is clearly describing the set of culprits as a few black rioters, since he cannot name them all and saying "people" would be too vague. The fact is that the riots were perpetrated by a set of black rioters - nobody can deny this and still keep a straight face.

    It's also important to point out: I *saw* the riots in real time - Mexican TV was VERY GOOD in reporting this, because the American liberal/victimcrat media was NOT. I *saw* black rioters targeting people BY RACE. I *saw* a white 18-wheeler driver being dragged out of his vehicle and being lapidated with bricks and other items. I *SAW* it all. There's NO WAY to hide that fact, yet those that show their false outrage would want us to believe the author was simply talking about some fantastic riot in his head.

  • Neu Mejican||

    Here is a link to the essay.

    http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793

    Despite his vigorous pronouncements...Old Mexican can't whitewash this essay. It is racist from start to finish. It's topic is not, even concretely, the LA riots, but the "assault" on "Euro-American civilization and everything it stands for" by blacks that are "trained to hate whites."

    It goes on and on in this vein.

  • Emperor Wears No Clothes||

    I thought the LA Riots proved that niggers hate slopes, not crackers.

  • FlyoverCountry||

    Isn't reason based in L.A.?

    What's with all the "inside the beltway" cracks?

  • FlyoverCountry||

    WTF? This was a response to Justin Raimondooooooooo down thread.

    This is my first run-in with the squirrels... Interesting.

  • FlyoverCountry||

    DOUBLE WTF? How are both of these in the right place now?!

  • ||

    The squirrelz move in mysterious ways?

  • shorter Raimondo||

    KOCHTOPUS!!!!1111!!

  • Old Mexican||

    Ron Paul Ugly, Racist Newsletters Not Going Away, But Do They Invalidate His Candidacy?


    While I get the geist of Nick's article, the title itself lends to the innuendo against Mr. Paul. In the first place, the title leads a person who is not familiar with the newsletter issue to believe that racism was ubiquitous in these newsletters, which is not the case; in fact, it is a lie. In the second place, most of the comments in question are not racist at all, when looked at in context with the rest of the text.

    For instance, the often-quoted remark that the LA riots stopped after "blacks went to get their welfare checks" should be considered racist IF the LA riots were not perpetrated by black Americans alone. The problem is that, unfortunately, public records, video and journalistic pieces clearly show that the riots were perpretated almost sorely by black Americans. Granted, they may have been outraged by the veredict of "not guilty" granted by a juror in a supposedly all-white area of LA to the cops that allegedly beat up Rodney King. But riot they did.

    What the article in metion (which I linked to numerous times here) was saying was that racial politics and welfarism were to blame for the decay in the moral compass of urban black Americans, and that the victimology tht had been pounded on that community lead to true acts of racial discrimination and violence, to wit: The burning of many businesses owned by Koreans and other people of Asian descent. This happened, I SAW IT on TV. I READ about it - you can't hide it.

    Those events give the proper context to the comment in question. Without this context, the comment doesn't even make sense, leaving alone the opinion that it is racist.

    Unfortunately, people like Nick and his pals continue to perpetuate the idea that, somehow, RACISM was the motivation behind these commentaries, when in fact the motivationw as entirely against government interventionism AND racial policies.

  • Sovereign Curtis||

    Oh f*ck you, Reason/Gillespie. You actually link to the article which DESTROYS your position regarding the newsletters, and STILL maintain that, out of context, what was being said was racist. Thats bullshit. I can't believe I wasted my time going down to BU to see you speak, what a crock of shit.

    I read the THREE questionable quotes IN CONTEXT and they're NOT racist. Eat a dick. The fact that Ron Paul, whom I consider a moderate, is more radical than you/Reason is VERY telling.

    But whatever, you gotta eat, right? Too bad you chose to sell out the philosophy of liberty to maintain your standard of living.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I read the THREE questionable quotes IN CONTEXT and they're NOT racist.

    Yes they are.

  • Trespassers W||

    Where is the link to the quotes in context? I saw one in context in Raimondoooooo's article, and the context did substantially defuse it. (Still, my questions above are unanswered.)

  • Ron Paul Political Report||

    You tell them Justin. I have repeatedly said that I won't say who wrote my newsletters which were all in first person, referred to votes I made in the House, stated that I personally read every piece of mail, support, and criticism that I received at my newsletter address. Yes, if Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney was calling MLK a gay pedophile or calling blacks animals or obsessing about the financial collapse coming from the new hundred dollar bill design they would never be hounded for the writer that wrote under their name, never ever. They would never have to give up Lew Rockwell either.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Imbecile,

    I have repeatedly said that I won't say who wrote my newsletters which were all in first person


    Liar.

  • rho||

    Nobody really thinks Ron Paul is a racist. People who are making this an issue have ulterior motives for bringing it up that have nothing to do with the actual newsletters.

    End of story.

  • Jerry||

    You're absolutely right about that, and the proof is in the fact that so much of the battering of Ron Paul revolves around the ultimately meaningless issue of "outing" whoever wrote them.

    Well, meaningless UNLESS you have an ulterior motive of discrediting a rival libertarian faction with whom you have been feuding for decades.

    Many people who are invested in this story only do so because they want to pin it on Rockwell, whether Rockwell was responsible or not. It's a foregone conclusion for them that he simply "must be" and that drives their story, seeping out from every line they write. But outside of the tiny pond of libertarian family feuds, nobody really gives a shit about that motive.

  • rho||

    Maybe, I dunno. Some people do it because they want to get out in front of guilt-by-association attacks by saying "He needs to do this-and-such to distance himself from these horrible, disgusting comments."

    Gillespie's post is, I suspect, largely that. He adds that it shouldn't detract from his candidacy, so basically he's going to sit firmly on the fence until safe to do otherwise.

    John's campaign to get Paul to do, well, whatever it is that John will accept as just penance, is also that, plus a bit of "I'd rather vote for Fred Thompson," or whoever.

    As I said, nobody really thinks Paul's a racist. This is a convenient proxy for other battles. Battles that they'd rather be fighting, except they tend to be rather petty. So instead we're raging on Rothbard and suggesting that loyalty to friends is a character flaw.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Some people are actually so offended by lack of PC-ness on Paul's part (I mean he hasn't thrown any body under the bus or been to a twelve-step program as a result of this .. GASP!), that they don't want to vote for Paul. So not everybody is being disingenuous, but ya, most people don't like other aspects of Paul's ideas, and they don't want to discuss the actual ideas involved so they just try to play the race card as fast as possible

  • ||

    The basis of the charge is that Ron Paul was the honorary editor of a sound money newsletter in which a letter from a subscriber was published that was allegedly racist. Ron Paul was not aware of the letter, did not write it, and did not endorse it. Interesting that the media never tells the public the facts - only the implication of racism.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Great, Nick. Thanks for bringing in the avalanche of Paultards along with the gutter trash from antiwar.com. You really know how to class up the joint.

    I am inclined not to talk about the newsletters ever again, not because it is not a discussion worth having (because it is), but because of the kind of people who travel in the wake of this shitstorm.

  • Montani Semper Liberi||

    My liver can't take anymore of these threads.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

    Great, Nick. Thanks for bringing in the avalanche of Paultards[...]


    Rev, exactly why do you believe that people who defend a person from a smear campaign are retards? I just want to know. Besides, your sweeping accusation sounds collectivist - are you really a Marxist troll?

    It wouldn't be the first time we had one posing as a libertarian, ya know...

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Rev, exactly why do you believe that people who defend a person from a smear campaign are retards?

    I don't. Paultard means a very specific thing.

    I just want to know.

    No you don't "just" want to do anything.

    Besides, your sweeping accusation sounds collectivist - are you really a Marxist troll?

    Are you really as retarded as this statement makes you out to be?

  • ||

    Seems to me Rev. that you should get out in front of this now and answer OM's question. Before all the rabid H&R posters get after you.

    After all, isn't that the same advice that many are giving to RP, just answer, get out in front of it, apologize, etc.

    You have associated yourself with some collectivist ideas, individuals and institutions. That is a fact.

    OM's query is legit. We need to know if you are really a Marxist troll.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

    I don't. Paultard means a very specific thing.


    It's a contration of "Paul" and "Retard" so that is why I am asking you if you believe defending a person from a smear campaign makes that person, ipso facto, a "retard"?

    I just want to know. I am curious about your thought process.

    No you don't "just" want to do anything.


    Well, you can't read minds, so don't assume anything.

    Are you really as retarded as this statement makes you out to be?


    I don't answer loaded questions, Rev.

  • ||

    "Paultard" - one willing to suspend skepticism, logic and objective analysis to justify Ron Paul's every single action as the epitome of moral righteousness and every single word as unquestionable truth. If anyone questions Paul's infallibility or the creepy, cultish nature of his movement, they are immediately pariahs who hate liberty, shill for statists and warmongerers and are committing libel.

  • HA HA HA HA HA!!!!||

    Re: Proprietist,

    "Paultard" - one willing to suspend skepticism, logic and objective analysis to justify Ron Paul's every single action as the epitome of moral righteousness and every single word as unquestionable truth.


    If THAT'S the case, P, then there are NO Paultards. Go see the comments in Daily Paul - many do not agree with everything Paul believes. *I* don't agree with him on immigration policy. Many here do not agree with his position on abortion (not me, though)

    What irks the Paul followers is that a NON-ISSUE is being rammed over and over to discredit the man, as they cannot discredit his ideas. Out of thousands of pages and paragraphs of text, ranging from political commentary to investment advise, the MSM adn the smear detail have focused on a very few SENTENCES (not even paragraphs) that out of context would seem to be racist. Pointing out this does not make one a "retard."

    Calling people that makes you obnoxious and crass, though. Congratulations.

  • ||

    "Calling people that makes you obnoxious and crass, though. Congratulations."

    I don't call people that. In fact, I was clarifying that Ron Paul cultists AREN'T actually stupid, but they step away from rationality to defend their favorite candidate even when his actions are indefensible.

  • UCrawford||

    Objectivists weren't stupid people either...but they still turned themselves into a cult nonetheless. Whenever you start putting THAT much faith in any politician to fix all of our problems, you're basically checking out of reality.

  • BnL starliner AXIOM||

    Objectivists are stupid people; it's axiomatic.

  • UCrawford||

    Not the ones Rand expelled for daring to question her. Oh, wait...I see what you did there. :)

  • ¢||

    The problem with the H&R format is that every Reason writer wants a piece of the newsletters hits.

    That's how we ended up all OH FUCK SHUT UP ALREADY about the "Ground Zero Mosque," and about...like fourteen Palin things that all blur together into one big "LOL DAT DUM HO," and about everything that ever happens in Arizona, and about everything Julian Assange did before he was obviously all kinds of asshole, and about how OWS roolz (except when Cavanaugh talks about it), and about this same Ron Paul shit last time, and about...every White People story in the last five years.

    They each have to put their own name individually on every one of them, to signal who they're each individually not. You know, us. Or Republicans. Or the dread right-libertarian, known associate of the cracka.

    ——

    If someone could push a button and reveal every last secret the US currently has or has had for the last 50 years, that person would absolutely be a political hero.

    If someone did that, then went "Yeah I pushed your damn button. Come at me bro," that's probably heroic, and would get at least some grudging acknowledgement as brave/principled/not-the-worst-shit-ever from a crowd bigger than Assange's few remaining fans.

    If someone did far less than that, tried and failed to get away with doing it, did it for reasons sufficiently personal that the otherwise possibly heroic act seems incidental to the actor—and then that actor became, whether by accident or design, a sort of unperson/generic-victim-image container for miscellaneous pre-packaged pseudo-grievances of miscellaneous pre-packaged pseudo-grievers (and Ron Paul), that's...unpersuasive.

    It makes what you join by joining with the possibly-hero not the possibly heroic thing they did, but the whole dumped-in package.

    As the newsletters show, Paul knows how to work his crowd. He knows what he's signaling, and to whom. His going full Manning won't win any any converts, but he's not talking to them anyway.

  • ||

    Gillespie continues to lie in saying Paul characterized blacks as "animal," and yet, as my article points out -- and Nick has made a big mistake in linking to it if he wants to keep his credibility -- the "animals" comment was in the context of a riot in the Adams-Morgan area of DC which was a riot against the black government of DC by Hispanics. So please get your smears straight, Nick.

    This is indicative of the Gillespie Method -- careless with the facts, and faithfully echoing the "mainstream" media line. "Confess!" demands Nick, "Confess!" the neocons cry. Bow down before the god of Political Correctness -- or else!

    That Ron refused to do this is a tribute to his integrity -- and it underscores the essential cowardice of Gillespie and his friends on the Washington cocktail party circuit.

    What I want to know is not who wrote the newsletters, but which Beltway "libertarian" put Jamie Kirchick on the trail. Nick undoubtedly knows who is responsible -- so, who was it, Nick?

  • MacGhil||

    Hi, Justin. I don't know who put him on the trail, but that fuckin' DONDEROOOOO! was happy to help:

    I Fed-exed a nearly complete set of copies of my former boss’s Newsletters from the early 1990s to Jamie Kirchik in 2008 at his request. He interviewed me extensively.

    He also promised to Fed-ex back those Newsletters to me after he was done with his article.

    Surprise: He never did. Nor, were my phone calls to him ever returned after that.

    Ron Paul is absolutely wrong on foreign policy. He is an Islamist-appeasor, and his views are inconsistent with us mainstream libertarians in fighting Radical Islam.

    However, Mr. Kirchik is an indian giver, and just a plain old schmuck.

    Hey Jamie, I STILL WANT MY NEWSLETTERS BACK!

    Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
    US Congressman Ron Paul, (R-TX)
    1997-2003

    ericdondero on December 19, 2011 at 9:11 AM
    http://hotair.com/archives/201.....nt-5196128

    "Indian giver?" How ironic, and it doesn't mean what he thinks it means either.

  • Watoosh||

    Justin,

    I think you know neither Gillespie nor rest of the Reason crowd is pro-Washington. You know you agree on them on most issues, and I know you don't want to put meth addicts into prison despite the fact you mock Reason for taking a radical stance on the Wo(s)D.

    You're butthurt over Reason, despite their consistent position on Paul being the best politician in DC, actually taking his flaws seriously. (As well they should. If and when Paul wins the GOP primary, liberals are going to weigh Paul against Obama, and identity politics will matter then.) Just admit this, and leave the stupid Koch vs. Rothbard bullshit for another time.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    I think you know neither Gillespie nor rest of the Reason crowd is pro-Washington.

    Then maybe you can explain why their position on most major issues reflects exactly what our political elites have been trying to shove down the throats of an unwilling citizenry for decades?

    The establishment never had a better friend than our "anti-establishment" libertarians.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    What I want to know is not who wrote the newsletters, but which Beltway "libertarian" put Jamie Kirchick on the trail. Nick undoubtedly knows who is responsible -- so, who was it, Nick?

    Probably a member of the Trilateral Commission or the Mossad. The Paranoid Yokeltarians you run around with tell me they're responsible for everything.

  • ||

    Rev. I note that you did not address the substance of what Mr. Raimondo posted.

    Seems like you were screaming about academic and intellectual dishonesty just the other day.

    Mr. Raimondo is just pointing out the dishonesy.

    BTW, do you think you have done more to advance liberty than Lew or Murray or RP?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    What dishonesty is he pointing out, LM? Sorry, but I have read the "full quote in context" that you Yokeltarians have been screaming about, and the zoo comment is STILL racist. Get that through your thick head.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

    and the zoo comment is STILL racist.


    I read the same article, and the comment comes out as offensive, but it is still a VALID metaphor: People acted like uncivilized animals. If I had a penny for every single teacher I had who said that we students behaved like "animals in a zoo," I would be a rich man today.

    Again, worse things I've heard from the mouths of firebrands and bomb throwers who are still highly regarded by the neo-con establishment.

  • ||

    I read it, and it doesn't even come off as 'offensive' to me-- what Kirchick refers to (disingenuously) as a mere "racial disturbance" was 2-3 days of violence, destruction, and looting. "Animals" is a fair description of the rioters, regardless of whatever their race.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I read it, and it doesn't even come off as 'offensive' to me

    Denial: it ain't just a river in Egypt

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

    What I find disturbing about your comments is how you're hell-bent to make a comment racist no matter what. Despite the fact that people are showing you that within the context of the issue being described the comments are merely factual, you still insist on a single view, makes me wonder if you're simply engaging in character assassination.

    Saying that rioters acted like animals is nothing more than employing metaphoric imagery to better convey the dramatic nature of the event. It was no mere "disturbance", Rev, for starters, so the originator of all this hoopla is already engaging in obfuscation. I *saw* those events unfold daily on my TV and they looked as bad if not worse than the Paris riots perpetrated by Muslim immigrants (oh, am I being racist, Rev???)

  • UCrawford||

    Saying that rioters acted like animals is nothing more than employing metaphoric imagery to better convey the dramatic nature of the event.

    Yeah, like calling black people "monkeys" or "subhuman" just to help illustrate for decent white people everywhere how unreliable they are in a pinch and how it was such a waste of good old human rights to grant them individual freedom after that unjust Civil War.

    Whatever, dude...if you can't see the racism inherent in Paul's position, you're a complete moron.

  • ||

    No, it is not.

    Do you want to examine the facts, as Raimondo has?

    Referring to the hispanic mobs rioting as "animals" is not racist.

    Hispanic does not refer to a race. What race is david ortiz? What about oscar de la hoya?

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Libertymike,

    Hispanic does not refer to a race.


    I can atest to that. I'm a white male Hispanic and Mexican.

    As a Latino, I did not find that statement racist at all, as I know Latino gangs and hoodlums ACT like ANIMALS.

  • ||

    OM, one of my friends is a gay, 1/2 Mexican 1/4 french, 1/4 polish and 1/4 german.

    He is whiter than Tom Brady yet he considers himself to be a of the "Mexican" race. I kid you not.

    His father was a successful doctor and his dad financed most of my friend's college and grad school. But not all. THat was not good.

    He was always much more fond of his mother. Yet, he identified more with his mexican heritage and he always checked the minority box.

    He was smart enough, in fact, he was very bright and he hit the books. He did not need to check any boxes.

    He thought otherwise.

    He thinks that I should be more hateful of the Brits given what they did to my ancestors. He used to get livid if I said something in defense of Maggie Thatcher.

    Yeah, we have had some dousies.

  • ||

    OM, one of my friends is a gay, 1/2 Mexican 1/4 french, 1/4 polish and 1/4 german.

    Hmm, I'm doin' the math, and the only way I can get it to work is if that extra quarter . . . umm, never mind.

  • ||

    you be right. I think the german and french were each 1/8.

    Hey, some days, there are 57 states.

  • Trespassers W||

    *sprays monitor with coffee*

  • Jerry||

    The thing that infuriates me about this entire story is the false, fraudulent "moral outrage" at Paul being expressed by the neoconservatives, when they don't even hold the vile racist past of their own to the same standards. Consider Rich Lowry at National Review, who seems completely oblivious of what his hero William F. Buckley had to say about Martin Luther King. Or even James Kirchick, who often considers himself a Buckley acolyte.

    Now here's a particularly nasty bit of Buckley from the same time as the Ron Paul newsletters:

    "MLK Day would be far preferable on the first Monday in September, for undeniably one of Mr. King's central achievements was to open the door to the marketplace for jobs. Somehow, though, it rankles that we should be asked to take the day off to remember a man whose career was built on leisure. The GNP, after all, is not produced by people marching in the streets. Perhaps MLK Day should be celebrated only by the gainfully employed, and all those on welfare should be required to collect their checks as usual." - William F. Buckley

    SOURCE: "This Week," National Review, October 28, 1983

  • Chatroom Crank||

    How can the truth be racist?

  • JAMES||

    Holy shit! that changed my mind. actually read the article he links to about the rationalizations (http://goo.gl/hYtLr). Those quotes actually ARE way the fuck out of context. Pretty shameful for those who keep using them as they are.

  • death panelist||

    Gingrich: Ron Paul's base is "people who want to legalize drugs"
    "This is a guy who basically says, if the United States were only nice, it wouldn't have had 9/11. He doesn't want to blame the bad guys. ... He dismisses the danger of Iranian nuclear weapon and seems to be indifferent to the idea that Israel could be wiped out. And as I said, I think the key to his volunteer base is people who want to legalize drugs."

    wheeeeeeeeeee!

  • SexySadie||

    Reason has become so remarkably boring. The comments aren't even interesting anymore. I'm outta here.

  • Tony||

    Shout out over at Salon!

  • ||

    I still haven't read the newsletters. Can't muster up the energy to get excited about reading them. Honestly, I didn't care about Rick Perry's rock, Obama's preacher or old friends, Santorum's baby, Reddit's latest outrage over what Sarah Palin says, Cain's 999 poking staff, Gingrich's milf wife and the divorces which led up to her, Anthony's wiener or Clinton's love for new booty.

    If someone else care about Ron's letters so be it, I don't.

  • GILMORE||

    Ron Paul= Racist. News At 11.

    Yawn.

    I'm too bored to read the comments. Are the paultards upset? I'm betting their upset.

    Ok, I lied, I just went as far up as Raimondo. Ahh, that was refreshing. If I had a bottle nearby I'd be wasted.

    What the 'pure as driven snow' Libertarians (REAL!) seem to miss is that Reason is in fact the most high-profile cheerleader for Paul... yet is not so slavish as to pretend that those Newsletters a) dont exist, or b) dont matter.

    Which you apparently have to do if you don't want to be kicked out of the club.

    I challenge Raimondo to post the letters, and do a line-by-line apologia, explaining how there's absolutely nothing there to be ashamed of.

    Pussy.

  • Steve Reed||

    They wouldn't be risking "invalidating" anything if you didn't keep blowing them out of all proper proportion. Half of "Reason" promotes Paul and the other half rehashes anything it can find to tear him down. Make up your fucking minds!

  • LIBERTANIC||

    Your shipload of libertarian fail has arrived sunk.

  • Contrarian||

    Why did Obama pal around with Underground Weatherman terrorist William Ayers? Every time the newsletters(eeeek!) are mentioned this should be brought up. His racist pastor as well. gloves off...

  • Andrew||

    "Paul is not the perfect vessel for a libertarian message" - more like he's the Titanic. He wants government agents to control a woman's body, but not terror cells or heroin trafficking. He thinks we can only act AFTER they blow up our buildings. http://www.seculargop.com/

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Andrew,

    He wants government agents to control a woman's body, but not terror cells or heroin trafficking.


    Being pro-life hardly qualifies as wanting the government to "control a woman's body." You put this alongside "heroin trafficking" when the fact is that drug laws ARE an attempt to control a PERSON'S body. You're clearly contradicting yourself.

  • LIBERTANIC||

    Your shipload of fail has arrived.

  • ||

    Ron Paul is the anchor which will sink the libertarian movement. Do not get involved with him, Nick. This is some criticism you should actually pay attention to, for your own best interests.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    It seems pretty clear that the Yokeltarians want things both ways.

    First, the excuse is that this was a deliberate race-baiting populist strategy to reach out to the white working-class. Setting aside how abhorrent it is to pander to people's basest instincts, the Yokeltarians then ask us to accept this excuse and in the same breath want us to believe that these quotes are "not racist"

    Which is it?

    And, as Trespassers W said, if the quotes are not racist, why is it such a bad thing to say that Ron Paul wrote this stuff? Ron Paul's not racist, the quotes (the Yokeltarians say) are not racist, so it seems to me RP could have written them after all. And it would seem not to matter because if they are not racist, why try to disassociate RP from them the quotes?

    Finally, why is it OK to "bow" to "PC pressure" and claim RP didn't write these passages, but it is somehow not OK to "bow" to "PC pressure" and out the real author?

    Nothing about this makes sense.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

    First, the excuse is that this was a deliberate race-baiting populist strategy to reach out to the white working-class.


    Yeah, that was it Rev. Sure.

    Setting aside how abhorrent it is to pander to people's basest instincts,


    You mean like saying that the Tea Party people want to string up blacks from trees? Because none of the comments came even CLOSE to that by infinite orders of magnitude.

    The thing with your false outrage is simple: You took the bait, and your basest insticts are operating: The hatred for Paul. It's as simple as that.

    For instance, your contention that the zoo/animal comment is racists only comes from you. I am Hispanic and I am telling you: It is NOT racist. You're simply making things up.

    You're being dishonest to the point of being obnoxious.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Yeah, that was it Rev. Sure.

    Yes, actually, that WAS it, OM. This has been admitted to by pretty much everybody previously involved. Do the research.

    You mean like saying that the Tea Party people want to string up blacks from trees? Because none of the comments came even CLOSE to that by infinite orders of magnitude.

    Irrelevant. What is with this "Hey look over there!" style of argumentation about this issue? "DURR OBUMMER SAYS A LOT WORSER STUFF" - who cares? I am talking about this person, not what others do.

    The rest of your comment is also either wrong or irrelevant.

  • ||

    Running away again?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Running away again?

    Running away? From what? I have yet to see a single argument.

    Guys, just give it up. The newsletters were clearly written to race-bait and pander. I am sorry that gives you such pain, but that's the reality.

  • HA HA HA HA HA!!!!||

    Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

    Yes, actually, that WAS it, OM. This has been admitted to by pretty much everybody previously involved.


    When you mean "involved", do you meant the people running the newsletter or the people that started the smear? It's not the same thing, Rev.

    Irrelevant. What is with this "Hey look over there!"


    I'm pointing out TRUE RACIST COMMENTS to make you understand that you're clearly exaggerating the meaning and content of those comments for a purpose I have yet to decipher.

    The rest of your comment is also either wrong or irrelevant.


    Wrong in what way, you dope??? I am telling you that as a HISPANIC, I did not find that particular comment offensive. Who the fuck are you to tell me what my feelings should be?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I am telling you that as a HISPANIC, I did not find that particular comment offensive. Who the fuck are you to tell me what my feelings should be?

    I don't give a shit if you're a swishy mulatto with mad PC cred, yo. Do not care. Your Hispanic-ness is not a "get out of racism free" card, anymore than having a "black friend" is.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

    Your Hispanic-ness is not a "get out of racism free" card,


    See what I mean when I say you show a false outrage? If the comment was supposed to be racist, it HAD to have a target - in this case, Hispanics. I am telling you, as a Hispanic, that comment is extremely mild. YOU on the other hand is the one wailing and ripping your clothes to shreds and pulling your hair. You're phonier than those North Korean crying women.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    This is rich. OM is basically arguing that his Hispanic privilege trumps my white-person perspective.

    Did you come over from feminisiting? I had no idea you were in love with racial privilege, OM.

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Ok, so exclude race of the observers all together. He is still right and you are still wrong with respect to this one comment. When people are rioting and acting like animals, it isn't racist to point out that they are acting like animals.

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    Ok, so exclude race of the observers all together. He is still right and you are still wrong with respect to this one comment. When people are rioting and acting like animals, it isn't racist to point out that they are acting like animals.

    If you call one group of people "animals" and implicitly call the others "zookeepers", you know exactly what you're doing, and it is not innocuous. Was everyone born yesterday or is just stunningly naive on this one issue?

  • CrackertyAssCracker||

    Ya, sorry. I have no idea what you are talking about now. I think you just called me a racist or stupid, but I'm not even sure about that.

    Why is it racist to point out that people who are acting like animals, are, in fact, acting like animals?

  • ||

    because if you are talking about certain colors of people you are supposed to take that into account and make sure that you don't say anything that coud be interpreted as racist....you have to treat those people differently, they are special. you should never forget that always keep in mind that they are easily offended... never just treat them like you would want to be treated yourself.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Rev. Blue Moon,

    This is rich. OM is basically arguing that his Hispanic privilege trumps my white-person perspective.


    Yes it does, Rev. Haven't you heard??? Only whites can be racist because they have all the power. Al Sharpton told me so.

    And I am not in love with anything - I'm calling you out on your phony-baloney sense of moral outrage.

  • Paul B.||

    The old newsletters don't have to disqualify RP. His foreign policy and national security positions already have. One very dangerous man.

  • ||

    You mean how he does not want to continue to bankrupt the country?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    I am going to take a Zach Morris timeout from the Cosmo/Yokeltarian slapfight to say, "Paul, you're an idiot"

  • ||

    Ah, clever.

    +1.5

  • ||

    Rev, based upon your conception of what is a Paultard, would you include OM and myself as members?

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    No. The Paultard has a very distinctive style. See poster "Mandy" for a good example.

  • Trespassers W||

    And for what it's worth, I agree with the Rev. Paultard does not equal anyone who supports RP. As I do, incidentally.

  • Rashid||

    It's ridiculous that the media is focusing so much attention on these news letters. Why isn't there a discussion about Rick Perry's NiggerHead Ranch? Why isn't there a discussion about the current President Barack Obama dining with Britain Royalty who are admitted Nazis? Is it okay for President Obama to allow NATO and Al Qaeda to bomb children in Libya and spread it to other Nations? Is War and deliberate currency devaluation okay now because Obama is "Black"?

  • HA HA HA HA HA!!!!||

  • Contrarian||

    I think Obama and Paul have this in common, goofing up on loose associations, entertaining radical ideas in the past. so what?

  • ||

    The Ron Paul cult is out in full force, defending him with all the vigor of those who followed Jim Jones and Charles Manson. If his candidacy fails, are we going to see groups of Libertarians crying like the North Koreans did when "dear leader" croaked the other day?

    Their defense? Paul didn't write or read the newsletters that were published in his name, which he profited from and actively promoted. So we have two choices, he is either a racist liar or a total incompetent, telling people to buy and read something he had nothing to do with even though his name was all over it.

    It's over. You are all making fools of yourselves. Do what we average Conservatives do, when someone buries themselves and starts to damage the brand, disenfranchise them. Throw them out of the movement. Of course you can't do that for the simple reason you don't have anyone else to replace the doddering crazy uncle of the Libertarian movement. That is truly pathetic.

  • Old Mexican||

    Re: Ken Royall,

    The Ron Paul cult is out in full force, defending him with all the vigor of those who followed Jim Jones and Charles Manson.


    Especially considering tney're comparable - at least in your mind.

    Their defense? Paul didn't write or read the newsletters that were published in his name, which he profited from and actively promoted.


    I would, too, if my readership continued to purchase it. That does not mean those comments were his.

    Do what we average Conservatives do


    You're barking at the wriong tree, Ken. Libertarians are not conservatives nor are tney bound to the same rules of expediency that conservatives (and Progressives) act on - remember how Obama threw the poor old Jeremiah Wright under a bus when it was convenient for him? Yeah, that's the kind of "loyal and honorful" person we have ruling over us.

  • ||

    Though I do not suscribe to the libertarian viewpoint on many issue, Reason articles and commentaries usually provide an intelligent viewpoint. So imagine my suprise when I read the comments. If the comments are a guage it is mostly foul mouthed ignorant fools who read Reason.

    Gillespie misses the mark on this one. As a few (very few) commenters have pointed out...If Paul's excuse for the bigotry in the Newsletters is "I'm not responsible" the man should be disqualified as a candidate, no matter what he says about reducing govts influence on our lives. If he can't manage a newsletter does Gillespie really think he can manage the most powerful and prosperous nation on earth?

    I guess he does.

  • Reformed Republican||

    If the comments are a guage it is mostly foul mouthed ignorant fools who read Reason

    This is true of internet communities in general. It is not unique to Reason H&R.

  • ||

    You're right that should come out with a better retort to these, but Ron is not a confrontational guy, unfortunately.

    The anti-smoking gun here is that if he really wrote the "hate whitey day" crap, why would he criticize his OWN VOTE to celebrate MLKJr day, one of the only things "not expressly in the Constitution" that he's ever done?

    http://www.politifact.com/trut.....principle/

  • cynical||

    The hard questions aren't for Paul supporters, but for Paul detractors: they're the ones who have to decide where the appearance and symbolism and idea of progress is more important than the actual implementation of progressive policy.

    Is liberalism a political platform or a religion? Any liberal's reaction to Paul is a true answer to that.

  • ||

    What, Gillespie, could Paul possibly do to "finally put this issue to bed" in any way that would satisfy you and the fine sock puppets at the CNN?

    He says he didn't write them and there is not a SINGLE piece of corroborating evidence from his 30 year career as a public figure to suggest that he is a bigot. Quite the contrary, really (and not "arguably" as you put it). So, please, either call him a liar or be done with it.

    And the media is very much smearing Paul by raising the issue repeatedly (four times in two days at CNN alone), and in lack of a new angle or information. The media's intent is not to discover some new revelation (they know Paul isn't racist), but to let voters hear "Ron Paul, racist newsletters" on the hour, every hour.

    And as far as CNN's chest-puffing over their duty to beat a dead horse, one wonders where their sense duty had gone when McCain said -- more than once, on live television -- "I hate the Gooks!", and vowed to hate them for the rest of his life. Was his candidacy invalidated by disgusting statements that he actually made?

    No, McCain was a total maverick. Glory, glory hallelujah.

    Meanwhile, none of these morally bankrupt proxies for the state have mentioned the NDAA because they're too busy "doing their job" in ferreting out the hidden Klan member taking quarter in Paul's oversized suit. Isn't it clear that they won't be happy until they have someone to burn for a witch?

    Your implication seems to be that Paul could put this issue to bed by simply naming the guilty party. That assumes this MSM jihad isn't just a fishing exercise to find Dr. Paul's very own Rev. Wright, which it most likely is. Any such admission would produce fodder for years of ad hominem circumstantial attacks on both Dr. Pauls. It would play out just like this:

    Sock Puppet: "For the nine-thousandth time, what about these racist, abominable, disgusting newsletters you wrote? Aren't they super racist?"

    Ron Paul: "I didn't write them and disavow them."

    Sock Puppet: "But the extremely racist newsletters were published under your name, Dr. Paul. So if you didn't write this odious bible of bigotry, who did?"

    Ron Paul: "I can't take it anymore! It was Rockwell/Rothbard/North that done it! You've got your racist; can we move on to the collapse of the dollar and the pending War in Iran?"

    Sock Puppet: "Absolutely, Mr. Paul. Next question...how can you justify your thirty-year relationship with mad racist Lew Rockwell? Is it true that he has donated to your campaign? Did he ever babysit Rand? Isolationism. Americans want to know, Mr. Paul."

  • Rev. Blue Moon ||

    You know, it seems to me this whole thing could have been avoided had Ron Paul, you know, not sanctioned racist shit.

    Yeah, I know, hindsight and all that, but if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas. Shocking, I know.

  • ||

    Good point, Rev. Blue Moon.

    I often wonder how many things could've been avoided had the entire U.S. government and media complex, you now, not sanctioned racist shit like murdering a million Muslims and ruining the lives of thousands of black men by deeming them felons for victim-less crimes.

  • GILMORE||

    equivocate much?

    not the point.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Why not? As an example of unwise judgment, they show where is the more unwise judgment.

  • UCrawford||

    Ron Paul doesn't espouse racism...because everyone else espouses far more racism than him. Therefore Ron Paul's newsletters could not have been racist.

    Yeah, I think that about sums up the logic in that particular Paulestinian argument.

  • R||

    For me, my attitude is more along the lines of "I don't care about thoughtcrime" and "actions speak louder than words."

    Say he wrote that article. Say he made some racist comments in the wake of the LA Riots. Why should I care, exactly? Is he, say, calling for measures like forced sterilization of minorities, or reinstating Jim Crow laws? No. So why should I get my dander up?

  • UCrawford||

    Say he wrote that article. Say he made some racist comments in the wake of the LA Riots. Why should I care, exactly?

    Because it would mean that he's a racist. And a liar considering that he's denied knowing about it.

    Perhaps you're okay with putting a racist in office. I'm not. Leaving aside that I wouldn't trust him, he'd also likely be an ineffective leader because that would alienate most of the people he'd need to work with to get anything accomplished.

  • R||

    If those statements are an absolute deal-breaker to you, then which candidate do you want to see end up in the WH?

  • ||

    Actually there is evidence that Paul wrote the newsletters, you are choosing to ignore it. He did write them and he is lying about it. He is a truther, but lies about that because he doesn't want to deal with "the controversy". Paul likes to talk about "blowback". Well here it is.

  • ||

    Nonsense. The Dallas Morning News story is not a smoking gun.

    The article states: "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."

    A journalist's summary of a conversation does not a direct quotation make. Furthermore, the newsletter quotes referenced in the Dallas Morning News article are the least offensive racial comments from the newsletters (and, yes, I do think the racist newsletter content was disgusting, though far less so than statements about blacks written by W.F. Buckley in his racist newsletter the National Review).

    Your comment about Paul being a "truther" despite his clear and unequivocal rejection of 9/11 conspiracies betrays your lack of good faith. Although Paul has stated on numerous occasions his view that Muslim radicals flew planes into the Towers, you would never accept it. It doesn't matter that you have ZERO evidence of Paul being racist or a truther, and boundless evidence to the contrary; you take it that Paul has poor character as a matter of faith, and so wouldn't take his word on anything.

    Just as Obama hides the fact that he's a secret Muslim by killing a shitload of Muslims, Paul's 30 year record of hostility to racist ideas and policies is just a clever cover for his own racist views.

  • GILMORE||

    Just as Obama hides the fact that he's a secret Muslim ...

    Oh this just gets better and better.

    With defenders like these... who needs.... endorsees? Campaign workers? ..... lets hear the view on the occupation of the west bank now. Don't hold back!

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Recalibrate you Sarcasmometer™, Gilmore.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Actually, people have to have serious issues to hold so plainly mutually contradictory beliefs.

    Ron Paul (or anyone) cannot simultaneously believe that 9/11 is blowback for foreign policy mistakes [which does imply al Qaeda / jihadist authorship] AND that it was a US government or Israel government false flag operation [which outright denies al Qaeda / jihadist authorship].

    Truthers cannot be "blowbackers" and "blowbackers" cannot be truthers. Both positions are at odds.

  • ||

    To the Beltway libertarians and the Lew Rockwell libertarians...can't we all just get along? Its been too many years. Maybe a good start would be a disconnect with the Koch brothers who seem to have mixed loyalties.

  • Pink Cosmotarian||

    "Raaaaacist!!"

  • Dan||

    I love how it how if you were to say the same things about gays or trannies you are just supporting family values.

    We gotta stop being critical of people who are different because of things they cannot control that do not hurt anyone.

    But that wouldn't segment the voting population and get someone elected, would it?

  • ||

    Hahaha, the Paul forum turned up these gems from the National Review, written by the great purger himself, William F. Buckley:

    "The central question ... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."

    This one's way better:

    "In the Deep South the Negroes are retarded. Any effort to ignore the fact is sentimentalism or demagoguery. In the Deep South the essential relationship is organic, and the attempt to hand over to the Negro the raw political power with which to alter it is hardly a solution."

    Can someone please ask Romney and Gingrich what they think about the National Review and then ask them to explain these quotes from arch-racist Buckley's newsletter?

  • Jerry||

    It's even worse than that. Buckley kept at the race game well into the 80's. A few more gems from him:

    "MLK Day would be far preferable on the first Monday in September, for undeniably one of Mr. King's central achievements was to open the door to the marketplace for jobs. Somehow, though, it rankles that we should be asked to take the day off to remember a man whose career was built on leisure. The GNP, after all, is not produced by people marching in the streets. Perhaps MLK Day should be celebrated only by the gainfully employed, and all those on welfare should be required to collect their checks as usual."

    SOURCE: National Review, October 28, 1983

    "Where Mandela belongs, in his current frame of mind, is precisely where he is: in jail."

    SOURCE: National Review, September 20, 1985

  • ||

    Damn...Buckley got away with this, how? Did anyone bring this racist garbage up when he ran for office?

  • GILMORE||

    i dont recall buckley running for office.

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    He ran for mayor of New York City on the Conservative Party ticket in 1965.

  • GILMORE||

    yes, but is anything he said particularly 'racist'? - not from the excerpt at least.

  • GILMORE||

    i suppose you'd also have to go forward in time to criticize him for these egregious remarks...

  • Jerry||

    Sorry, but this sounds pretty damn racist to me:

    "In the Deep South the Negroes are retarded. Any effort to ignore the fact is sentimentalism or demagoguery."

  • ||

    I'm running for Congress again. Did you read my newsletters? There are good things in there.

  • ||

    Those quotes from the newsletters were taken out of context. You have to read the whole thing to understand.

  • Mark||

    And yet his interview on CSPAN did not amount to anything more than a talking point memo concerning the newsletters. Generalities as best. I suggest you watch the CSPAN video again(?) to see it is not the "smoking gun" people make it out to be.

  • ||

    I never read or seen those newsletters. I disavow them, whatever they say. Look, I've answering these questions for over 20 years. I'm tired of answering them.

  • Resist We Much!!!||

    Have These Two Ever Been Seen Together In The Same Room???

    http://predicthistunpredictpas.....ether.html

  • Resist We Much!!!||

    2012 Ron Paul|12.22.11 @ 3:24PM|#

    I never read or seen those newsletters. I disavow them, whatever they say. Look, I've answering these questions for over 20 years. I'm tired of answering them.

    ______________________________________

    Ron Paul: See No Newsletters. Write No Newsletters. Read No Newsletters.

    http://predicthistunpredictpas.....te-no.html

    Paul in 1995: Say, Have You Read My Newsletters?

    http://predicthistunpredictpas.....ad-my.html

  • Slap the Enlightened!||

    While some libertarians plainly don't care about the newsletters or their odious claims about blacks, gays, and others, many do.

    And some of them are downright ecstatic.

    Which probably represents a larger share of the electorate than you'd care to admit.

  • RoboCain||

    No, they don't invalidate his candidacy.

    Wondering whether "he is lying about his core philosophy of individualism, equality, pluralism, and opposition to bigoted laws" is as absurd as wondering if he was ever really a doctor. If facts and reason mean nothing, then for all we know he could have been born in Kenya, or some kind of space alien sent to destroy us.

    Since he's obviously not racist -- which would be the only substantive accusation one could misconstrue from this nonsense -- it's a non-issue.

  • ||

    I would actually like to read the offending passages in context. Does anyone have a link to them?

  • Well, I'm not a crook.||

    ”Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action."

    ~Ron Paul (not that Ron Paul, just the sorta fictional Ron Paul on the real Ron Paul's Ron Paul newsletter.)

  • Mark||

    THAT offends you? Poll after poll after poll show that over 90% of black people that vote do so for the Democrat party. As I believer in the free markets, individual liberty and the end of the welfare state I don't believe those 90% are sensible.

    I didn't realize that "sensible" was a racist or offensive word.

  • RyanXXX||

    Reverend Blue Moon wants you to know that he really, really hates Lew Rockwell. Reverend Blue Moon has done much more for freedom than Lew Rockwell or his evil puppet-master Rothbard have

  • KOCHsuckers for Freedom...||

    ...to suck KOCH oil fumes.

    UNIVERSAL pollution for all!
    UNIVERSAL birth defects for all!
    UNIVERSAL asthma for all!

    But some universally distributed things are evil. Like health care for victims.

  • CE||

    One of the reasons that the newsletters have not automatically made Paul radioactive among libertarians is that they do not sound like the guy, either in diction or tone.

    Exactly.

    At least you didn't call James Kirchick a "journalist" as some accounts have done.

  • Mark||

    Nick, I don't think you got the memo.

    Ron Paul "stormed out" of the CNN interview.

  • ||

    The Ron Paul cult gives libertarianism a bad name.

    Liberalism everywhere in the world means individual liberty, free enterprise, limited government. The Founding Fathers were (classical) liberals.

    That liberalism should be the mainstream of American politics, but socialists have coopted the term and "libertarians" marginalize themselves by turning classic liberalism into a narrow cult around Ron Paul or Ayn Rand, often mixing it with conspiracy theories and other fringe ideas.

    Please snap out of it! It doesn't have to be that way. Libertarianism could have taken over the GOP in 2012.

    Ron Paul is unelectable because of his age alone. I'd urge libertarians to consider Rick Perry and perhaps try to get a libertarian VP on the ticket.

  • Tony||

    The founders would be progressives today, not libertarians. Classical liberalism, as a pragmatic philosophy, has evolved with time and technology. Libertarianism is an unpragmatic ideology, its tenets supposedly applicable at all time for all people. The Founders, when they agreed, were pragmatists first. Otherwise there never would have been a country.

  • Tony||

    I'm stupid

  • Sevo||

    Tony|12.22.11 @ 6:09PM|#
    "The founders would be progressives today, not libertarians."
    Unbelievably stupid lie, shithead.

    "Classical liberalism, as a pragmatic philosophy, has evolved with time and technology"
    You just made that up, didn't you, shithead?

  • Sevo||

    "and "libertarians" marginalize themselves by turning classic liberalism into a narrow cult around Ron Paul or Ayn Rand, often mixing it with conspiracy theories and other fringe ideas."

    Uh, did you read the article?

  • Read it.||

    Comrade shithead.

  • Sevo||

    Read it.|12.22.11 @ 7:32PM|#
    Comrade shithead."

    There are reading comprehension classes available.
    If one isn't close, move. You need it.
    Assshole.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Gardasil Rick Perry? Aga Khan foundation Rick Perry? Grow the state debt Rick Perry?

    Oh, true, this might undo the Ron Paul candidacy. But that doesn't save the rest of the GOP field...

  • Ronald's Clown||

    Ron Paul's name is on
    Ron Paul's newsletter that
    Ron Paul sez
    Ron Paul never read, yet
    Ron Paul profited from, but
    Ron Paul disavows anyway.

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    "old newz"

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

    politicians lying is old gnus

    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

  • ||

    Ron Paul has a lot of self-control being able to sit next to Gingrich and smile. I'd be fighting the urge to put my hands around Gingrich's neck and choking his ass.

  • first||

    Fragile skinny with milky white skin and tons of attitude, Olena is the kind of girl who always gets noticed. A truly cosmopolitan girl, this young firecracker is well traveled, funny, stylish and if we are honest, a little bit crazy!

    Tomboy Olena loves her US truck caps and converse shoes but also has an appreciation for ultra sexy lingerie! In line with her anarchic attitude she loves punk music and lots of sex. And throughout the shoot she chomped on protein rich crabsticks to help maintain that lean and mean body of hers!

    Oozing sex appeal and a little bit wild, Olena is the kind of girl your mother warned you about – you have been warned!

    http://www.hegre-art.com/models#action=show&id=159

  • ||

    Kudos porn-bot. Your posts have significantly improved over the last two days.

  • first||

    Thank You, I try my best.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Fragile skinny with milky white skin and tons of attitude,

    RACIST!!!!

  • ken sato||

    Hey everyone.

    Why don't we relax and set back little bit?

    This is the greatest time for year. So just relax and talk about how Ron Paul's policy is great for US and lest of the world to your family and friends and neighbors instead of arguing about how media treat him which we can't control. We only will be able to win when we work hard to convince people around you. People listen you more than silly media. I think that is our mission.

    For your freedom.

  • Ron Paul is a Slaver...||

    ...for PRIVation Property.

    He loves regulating the free movement of people with artificial borders via a big-government land enTITLEment program to the PRIVileged.

    Officer, am I free to gambol about plain and forest?

    STALIN: NO!
    RON PAUL: NO!

  • ||

    "Paul is not the perfect vessel for a libertarian message, but waiting for perfection is something ideologues insist on. Most of us are far more interested in someone who at least has shown he understands the most pressing issues of the moment - and the future."
    Agreed on point 1. As for number 2, from my pov, the most pressing issue of the moment is to somehow, some way, undo the damage and alter the course (toward progressivism, welfare state-ism) that President Obama is following. Congressman Paul's only likely chance at being on the ballot next year would be as a third party candidate, thus assuring the President's re-election. Not the end of the world, I suppose, but one hell of a drag to have to consider.

  • ||

    I understand Paul's desire to refuse to talk about this because the ideas he is running on are so important, and this distracts. To ascend to a position of leadership of all Americans, including those smeared by the newsletters, he must forcefully disavow the content of the newsletters and articulate his true stance. He also needs to formally dissociate himself from anyone who promotes hate. It is not enough that he himself does not hate, which I am convinced he does not.

  • UCrawford||

    Yes...having to explain why you published racist arguments is certainly an unwelcome inconvenience. How rude of everyone else not to just assume that a politician means well despite the things he puts in his newsletters.

  • tkwelge||

    You could just look at his record and accept his the apology that he has already given. Move the fuck on.

  • UCrawford||

    Which record? The one where he plugged the newsletters with the racist stuff in them or the one where pretended he didn't know that the racist stuff existed?

    I'm sorry that the rest of the world doesn't choose to overlook your favorite politician's inconsistencies like you do. Perhaps you should take that as a teaching point about putting your faith in politicians.

  • ||

    We The People want a president who can lock us up in military prison for the rest of our lives on his or her word alone without so much as charging us with a crime.

    We want a president who can have us whacked without so much as a criminal charge filed against us - never mind a stupid ol' *trial*. {rolls eyes]

    We want illegal, unconstitutional aggressive wars that kill and maim millions of innocent men, women and children. And we want the battlefield to include "the Homeland of American" - even though the federal government has NEVER used the term "homeland" to describe the USA in all its history - until after 9/11.

    We DON'T want some mean old guy who had something to do with bad things written a quarter-century ago being that President and ending all that madness and horror and military dictatorship garbage.

    Yeah. Sure.

  • UCrawford||

    "Vote for me...everyone else is worse and I don't even remember the racist stuff I publish".

    That'll look great on a bumper sticker.

  • Beezard||

    My hunch is that whoever wrote the newsletters is close to Paul and he's not willing to throw him to the wolves for his careers sake. It's not his style.

    I had a good friend who went the white national socialist route. It caused a lot of arguments and alienation between us, but ultimately he was still my friend, a decent guy with stupid ideas who wasn't actually hurting anyone but himself.

    Maybe Pauls got someone like that. Now why he let the moron write for him? You'll have to ask Ron...over and over...

    Also, I don't think "coming clean" will necessarily help him in a realpolitik sense. It may blow up in his face and hand the other side more ammo, considering how batshit uptight and pc everything is now.

    Which brings me to the one disagreement I have with nicks assessment. Racism is not inherantly anti-libertarian, statist racism is. Libertarianism is a political philosophy, not a personal religious, moral, or ethical creed. just as Its something zealots and atheists can both subscribe to, racial supremecists and civil rights activists can both believe it's the best system to live how they want. Case in point, my Nazi friend has converted to Ron Paul in 2008. Yeah he's just the sort of wing nut pauls detractors love to reduce all of his supporters to, but shit, I think it's better than waiting for the race war and "relocation camps".

  • PlattythePerrypus||

    A racial supremacist who believes in Libertarianism certainly isn't a very good racial supremacist. It's like asking to live in a constant state of blue-balls.

  • Beezard||

    It makes total sense when you're talking about a tiny movement with zero political power and a great big federal sniper scope trained on them.

    At some point they're going to realize that the white isn't going to wake up to ZOG any time soon and the best bet is to hole up in a cabin in Wyoming around some like minded folks and hope the Feds don't kick in your door and shoot your family over some ATF misdemeanor because of your weird ideas.

    I imagine some black, red, and brown power types might feel the same way. A smaller government that won't destroy their lives because of their unpopular beliefs is a good thing.

  • PlattythePerrypus||

    Yeah, I get it, but it's still a blatant acceptance of ideological defeat for an avowed racist to support a system of government that doesn't allow him to do anything politically concrete about his insane desires. I should note here that by "politically concrete", I don't mean refusing to sell his groceries to people of any certain race.

  • PlattythePerrypus||

    "Yes, I agree that the content you're describing is abhorrent, and would like to point out that it runs in direct contradiction to every recorded statement and vote of mine. I made a tremendous error in judgment by allowing these newsletters to be published in my name without my direct oversight, and I learned valuable lessons from those errors. While I agree that it is an issue that deserves to be addressed, I'd also like point out that it is the ONLY horrible mistake I have made - which might put me a good bit ahead of other candidates. Of course I know who wrote them, but I'm not going to name the person or persons responsible, because I'm not comfortable directing potentially harmful ire in their direction. If you want to investigate the matter further, I invite you to."

    That would be the only good, honest answer. And it would be a hell of a lot better than what we're seeing. I'm a big supporter of his, and I don't personally need him to address this any further, but this motherfucker ain't going away until he deals with it more directly.

  • tkwelge||

    Or you could just believe him when he says he doesn't know who wrote the letters. After all, the second somebody starts pointing fingers, the fingers will start pointing back. It will never end if you go that route. You can either accept the answer given or speculate more with no proof and plenty of reasonable doubt.

  • PlattythePerrypus||

    Let me repeat: I don't personally need him to address this any further. My point is that he and his campaign should be able to come up with a better strategy than what we've seen. This strategy isn't going to win us any new votes.

  • ||

    Ron has delivered numerous minority children at NO COST, to their poor parents. Racist? He publicly stated, to boos none the less, that he would pardon all non-violent drug offenders, of which the majority of are minorities. Racist? A 30 year friend of his is/was the head of the Houston NAACP. Who stated Ron Pual is one of the best men he has ever known. Racist? Wolf Blitzer interviewed him in '08 and stated "I don't believe you could write this". One of those people, and I hope it is a mother of one or several of the children he delivered is going to come out and lay this to rest. This is a good man, and no one can deny that. We have not had a chance to vote for a man of this caliber since Reagan. He has disavowed it so many times it is not even funny, 3 times in the interview he "stormed out" of. She just kept pushing. I don't know about any of you, but to me, being called a racist is one of worst insults that can be levied at someone. I would certainly be upset and uncomfortable, as he obvioulsy was. Was it irresponsible for him to not read or watch over the what had his name on it, unquestionably. Does it in any way detract from the message of Liberty. Not in the least.

  • ||

    Okay, I finally read the “LOS ANGELES RACIAL TERRORISM” newsletter. http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/.....annon.0793

    Now that the sentences are in context, let's put this 1992 newsletter in context. Anyone remember the LA riots? A refresher course:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

  • ||

  • ||

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcNnjBY3D2o

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....67C09856BF

    Above links are "Compton, the LA Riots", a five-part compilation of televised coverage.

  • R||

    Whenever I find someone calling a politically incorrect attitude "ignorant", I immediately research it to the best of my ability. At least half the time, the politically incorrect belief is more based on facts than the politically correct stance is.

  • XM||

    If you can dismiss an entire cause simply by exposing one of its (admittedly iconic) standard bearers, then liberalism in its many ways should be taken seriously by no one.

    As far as the MSM is concerned, Ron Paul is the current GOP frontrunner, so he'll receive the Herman Cain treatment. This newsletter scandal will be scrutinized now more than ever and possibly haunt him beyond the presidential race.

    It's a shame, because enough of the conservative movement would enter "beat Obama first, purism close second" mode to make a difference for Paul if he did get nominated.

  • FOUR MORE YEARS||

    FOUR MORE YEARS
    FOUR MORE YEARS
    FOUR MORE YEARS

  • Keir||

    I was supporting Ron Paul as the ultimate underdog, but his walking off during the CNN interview because he was asked legitimate questions was infantile. OK- he didn't read the articles with big racist headlines in his own newsletter. He didn't agree with them even if he had. But he still signed them? What good is his signature, then? A little honesty and self-reflection would do wonders right now...

  • Ron Paul wrote Ron Paul's sig||

    ...but not the contents.

    It's so Presidential.

    "I don't agree with what I signed and didn't know what it was anyway!"

    Should a Christian survivalist geezer who believes in the Krapture have his thumb on the button?

  • tkwelge||

    SIgh...

    Again, this was a newsletter that he wasn't actively managing at the time, and his name was basically a brand. Meanwhile, he was out of politics and focusing on his medical practice.

    You people are getting pretty ridiculous.

  • BeakerBird||

    Not even close to 1000 comments.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    What, exactly, was untrue in the Ron Paul newsletters.

    It is widely agreed that young black men are disproportionately the perpetrators of criminal acts, both petit and grand. The only racism is in the implication that this criminality is due to race rather than to the perverse incentives of the broken society in which they live.

    Since that implication is never actually made it is the inference of the reader that makes the newsletter articles "racist".

    It's worth remembering that at the time these articles were written all of the chattering class was concerned with the perceived criminal class of black males being raised by women who were barely adults themselves in an environment with no positive male role models.

    Bill Clinton wanted the federal govenment to pay for places for them to play basketball while conservatives like Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh wanted children to be taken from single black mothers and placed in orphanages. All of them clearly identified "fleet footed" young black men as a "problem".

    In that context the writer of the RP newsletter articles can be seen as not so racist after all.

    Nothing I have seen in the articles actually says that race itself causes large numbers of young black men to commit criminal acts. There is plenty more in the output of Rockwell, Rothbard etc (including RP himself) that refers to the disastrous affects of the drug war and federal welfare policy on social cohesion, especially in the black community.

    So, in what way are the newsletter articles racist? Or, at least, how are they more racist than anything that liberals who thought the same "problems" were caused by not spending enough money or conservatives who though we spent too much?

  • Fascist-Slayer||

    Race , or as most people might call it, "genetics", is clearly the mediator of many physical characteristics and qualities, including elevated levels of testosterone (compared to other racial groups). This isn't "racist" propaganda, its science, based on real research. And testosterone is established to be a precursor to aggression. Therefore, yes, "race" is responsible at least in part for some aspect of the criminal behavior.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    "I'd urge libertarians to consider Rick Perry..."

    Yeah, right...coz George Bush worked out so fucking well for us.

  • Reih||

    Thanks for not dodging and white washing the newsletter problem.

    The argument for why they don't invalidate the candidate troubles me. I would restate it in somewhat unsympathetic terms as this:

    Since Paul's libertarian stances (foreign policy and drug policy) are unique to him among the candidates, and since (it is assumed) these policies are beneficial to minorities then this trumps the newsletter issue.

    This argument tacitly claims that our foreign policy and drug prohibition are inherently racist. I think this is unfounded. It may be true that these policies have a differential impact across racial categories, but doesn't pretty much every policy?

    Let me focus on drug policy - a favorite of Paul's supporters. Is it a priori racist to want to prohibit the availability of narcotics? Setting aside the advisability of such a policy, is it inherently racist? I don't think so. Only the outcome: differential incarceration rates, impacts in other countries with different racial statistics can be pointed to to justify such a claim. Only by looking at the outcome of this policy can the racial claim be made with a straight face.

    Yet isn't basing arguments on post-hoc data analysis what libertarian supporters rally against when it comes to other policies? They're for equal opportunity (a priori), not equal outcome (post-hoc) right? Equalizing the un-equal outcomes of policies that are obviously fair (not necessarily right or good, just fair) does not strike me as a typical libertarian impulse. Yet here we have Reason magazine using this approach to justify the advantages of Ron Paul, and why his policies excuse the racist crap written in his newsletters.

  • Bradley||

    Aren't you supposed to end something like this with an exhortation to vote for Romney or Obama?

  • ||

    The guy is a liar. He says now that he did not pay attention to the newsletter but in that '95 video he says the newsletter started in '76 and that he always stayed involved in it. The batsh!t crazy sales pitch that sent out to people for this newsletter was shameless fearmongering. This guy is toast.

  • ||

    I support Ron Paul's courageous policies on many important issues--military spending, civil liberties, entitlement spending, etc.

    However, given that these vile newsletters were published for many years, under his name, he either agreed with the views (which I find hard to believe), or is naive and stupid. In either case, he is (IMHO) not presidential material.

    This is not to endorse people like Gingrich and Bachmann, who are even more appalling. The race is now shaping up to be between Obama and Romney.

    Sad...

  • ||

    Forget about the old newsletters. Ron Paul's current comments regarding America's role (and delight) on 9/11 put him much closer to Obama, Rev. Wright and Farrakhan than me.

  • Kreel Sarloo||

    Which just demonstrates how common illiteracy and poor reading comprehension are.

  • Resist We Much!!!||

    Just in time for the Holidays. The gift to give the partner of a Pauliac in your family:

    50 Scans To Leave Your Pauliac Lover a/k/a A 30 Step Progamme To Break Yourself Free From The Cult of Paul

    http://predicthistunpredictpas.....lover.html

  • john a||

    I don't get it. He said very clearly in the interview...

    1) I didn't say it
    2) I disavow it
    3) I didn't find out about it until after the fact

    When questioned why, he said...

    1) I was practicing medicine at the time
    2) I traveled around giving speeches
    3) I rarely read the newsletter

    Believe him or not, it is a complete answer.

  • Fascist-Slayer||

    The newsletters don't seem racist anyway...if the quote here in this article is representative of the content.

  • john a||

  • ||

    As a long-term Reason subscriber, dating back to the late-1980s, I have to say I'm disappointed in the reasoning/excuse making behind the continuing support for Ron Paul. Dare I say that Virginia Postrel/Bob Poole/Tim Cavanaugh would never have written such a morally-weak defense as this. In fact, you can easily look up statements from them from 2008 on this very topic warning that this was coming. It was like they were written today.

    That said, even if one dismisses the newsletters as small potatoes - that the ideas of Ron Paul are worth the price of Ron Paul himself - you don't have to go to far into the Google search before you start to realize the Paultards are an ugly bunch. Maybe Ron Paul doesn't subscribe to the ideas of the anarcho-capitalists, the 9/11 Truthers, the neo-Confederates, the anti-Semites, believers in every conspiracy theory under the sun, etc., but they infect his movement like a fatal disease. And he's perfectly happy to have them on the bus - even if he doesn't subscribe to their causes. However, you can judge a man by his friends - you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.

    Liberty/Libertarianism are bigger than one man - the ideas are simply too important. But by putting one man, Ron Paul, above the principles, you risk wrecking 40 years of work for something that will clearly come to a bad end. Ron Paul and the Paultards have got to be purged, and hard, for the ideas of Reason to ever come to fruition. That work needs to start now by jettisoning a false prophet and his mob of true-believers before they pull us all down. Libertarian ideas without Ron Paul will survive, with him, they may not.

  • ||

    ..."have got to be purged, and hard, for the ideas of Reason to ever come to fruition."
    Man, you would have thought Ron Paul wrote this or something.

  • Bradley||

    Reason has employed anarcho-capitalist writers for decades. Not sure what you're on about.

  • Fascist-Slayer||

    Wait, so its racist to point out that young black males are not just more criminal than the young males of most other races but that they are also faster? What the fuck? That's not racism...that's called FACTS.

    Must be some of these "Hate Facts" that the left PC crowd can't tolerate.

  • ||

    Ron Paul's handling of the newsletter issues is strikingly similar to Herman Cain's handling of his multiple challenges. I am not familiar with this newsletter, but have to wonder that a long-time personality like Mr. Paul would somehow not be aware of writings under his name, whether he himself penned them or not. He is, of course, in the classic "Have you stopped beating your wife" situation and is now saying that he disavows such language. But his mis-handling of the CNN interview, for me, did heavy damage to his image as one who could calmly negotiate across a table with international leaders. Back to the drawing board.

  • ||

    Sorry, but the 1993 letter signed by Paul, identifying himself as a "Congressman" and soliciting subscriptions for his letters is pretty conclusive proof that this guy is a tin-foil hat wearing nutjob of the first order.

    "Pink money" that can be traced, "Armed IRS agents" will make you turn in your green money for pink and ask you how you got it. "I warned you about the coming race war" and "a government-homosexual conspiracy on AIDS" that "I as a doctor" have particular expertise about.

    These are the rantings of the certifiably insane.

    http://graphics.thomsonreuters.....ation2.pdf

  • TR||

    Thanks for not dodging and white washing the newsletter problem.

    The argument for why they don't invalidate the candidate troubles me. I would restate it in somewhat unsympathetic terms as this:

    Since Paul's libertarian stances (foreign policy and drug policy) are unique to him among the candidates, and since (it is assumed) these policies are beneficial to minorities then this trumps the newsletter issue.

    This argument tacitly claims that our foreign policy and drug prohibition are inherently racist. I think this is unfounded. It may be true that these policies have a differential impact across racial categories, but doesn't pretty much every policy?

    Let me focus on drug policy - a favorite of Paul's supporters. Is it a priori racist to want to prohibit the availability of narcotics? Setting aside the advisability of such a policy, is it inherently racist? I don't think so. Only the outcome: differential incarceration rates, impacts in other countries with different racial statistics can be pointed to to justify such a claim. Only by looking at the outcome of this policy can the racial claim be made with a straight face.

    Yet isn't basing arguments on post-hoc data analysis what libertarian supporters rally against when it comes to other policies? They're for equal opportunity (a priori), not equal outcome (post-hoc) right? Equalizing the un-equal outcomes of policies that are obviously fair (not necessarily right or good, just fair) does not strike me as a typical libertarian impulse. Yet here we have Reason magazine using this approach to justify the advantages of Ron Paul, and why his policies excuse the racist crap written in his newsletters.

  • Anonymous||

    The "Newsletter" Smear just needs to go away. Ron Paul voted for Martin Luther King Day in the 1980s (according to Politifact), so that should confirm that he didn't write them and doesn't agree with those views.

    As Thomas DiLorenzo wrote today on LRC, the racist remarks seen in the newsletters were commonplace in National Review at that time. National Review wrote the same kinds of things about MLK (and opposed MLK Day), criticized the South African Prime Minister for calling Mandela a "political prisoner" instead of a "terrorist" and advocated racial discrimination in the south and Apartheid in South Africa. This was the editorial stance of National Review as recently as 20 years or so ago, so it is likely that whomever wrote the racist parts of the newsletters under Ron Paul's name was affiliated with or influenced by National Review.

    James Kirchick, the "journalist" (and I use that term loosely) who published the newsletter smear articles wrote a glowing obituary of William F. Buckley, who founded and ran the racist National Review magazine during those years.

    Ron Paul's explanation is plausible. He was busy as a doctor and it is believable that he had no knowledge that his investment newsletter was being hijacked to promote racism.

    If Ron Paul is disqualified for allowing such views to be published under his name, then pretty much the entire conservative movement should be disqualified because Buckley is the founder of their movement. By this logic, the Republican Party should just disband and let the Democrats run the country unopposed.

  • Barack Obama||

    "the Republican Party should just disband and let the Democrats run the country unopposed."

    There are those who say Anonymous' quote was an exaggeration for effect. I say it's an idea whose time has come!

  • Tom||

    He admits writing the letter promoting the letters. He's whack.

  • ||

    The newsletter quote that I found most damning, which really smacked of overt racism, was the sentence "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began." Even after reading the entire newsletter for context, this still sounded like a gratuitous slur.

    However, after finally watching part #5 of the COMPTON/ LA riots videos (available to watch on Youtube), it turns out that the "gratuitous slur" is... um... factual.

    The channel 7 news coverage about welfare checks is at 11:35.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cNxYTOfhsc

  • ||

    I don't know if it is, but it's entirely possible that part may be true. If you live in a part of the country with a large welfare state population, you'll hear stories of how certain behavior patterns change on welfare check delivery days.