Video: Ron Paul Responds to TNR on CNN

On CNN's Situation Room, Ron Paul addresses the charges made in The New Republic, and reason's Matt Welch advises the Paul campaign to reveal the authors of Ron Paul's various newsletters. (Note: Because of YouTube's 10 minute video limit, Blitzer's intro has been excised.)

Discuss.

Comments

jet | January 10, 2008, 7:03pm | #

From the CNN website: "Matt Welch, the editor-in-chief of "Reason" magazine ..." Huh?

drawnasunder | January 10, 2008, 7:03pm | #

As bad as the newsletters are, and as foolish as he looks on that front; holy schmitt, that is good stuff on to hear on MSM on the drug war.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:03pm | #

Well, at least Paul's showing some fire. You can tell he's genuinely upset.

wealthandtaste | January 10, 2008, 7:04pm | #

For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200 years. The other candidates sweet talk the MSM while continuing to murder civilians abroad, steal a third of our livelihood under threat of violence, and lock up innocent people for the supposed crime of using a goddamn plant to get high!

I'll take racial slurs over a gun to my head from the IRS any day of the week.

Kwix | January 10, 2008, 7:04pm | #

jet,
Matt Welch came back from the LA Times to take over for Nick Gillespie who is heading up ReasonTV.com

Kwix | January 10, 2008, 7:06pm | #

jet,
Here's a link to the Welcome Matt(pun intended).

MattWelch | January 10, 2008, 7:06pm | #

Fuck me.

VM | January 10, 2008, 7:07pm | #

"For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200 years"

*whistles*

well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. a flawless moron residing permanently in abstraction land!!

and the answer to the question: "to whom were the newsletters directed".

run along, now, Pilly Pecker wanted you to finish waxing his car over an hour ago!

Geoff | January 10, 2008, 7:10pm | #

For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200 years.

And people wonder why the supporters of this campaign are being called "cultists" by more than a few out there.

Christ on a crutch.

sweet | January 10, 2008, 7:13pm | #

GET IN. Paul tells his critics where to go, and does it very very well. instead of looking to the MSM for anti-Paul foolishness, we need only visit Reason. seriously, get over yourselves..

Episiarch | January 10, 2008, 7:14pm | #

Hey, Ron wasn't bad. It got better because Wolf was pretty light on him (and seems to believe him), and he got a chance to talk about who he is and what he believes. He should have stressed that he had nothing to do with them more, though.

Not fantastic, but definitely on the "better" side.

VM | January 10, 2008, 7:14pm | #

sweet is obviously bitter...


and his salty ham tears are so sweet.

ididntwritethis | January 10, 2008, 7:14pm | #

"How can one not think of conspiracy theories having just observed a highly coordinated media attack on Ron Paul the day of the New Hampshire campaign? TNR from the left, Fox News and talk radio from the right, and piling on from beltway "libertarians" who made a point of loudly repeating the TNR smears and dumping Ron Paul on the day of the primary. Your eyes did not deceive you, all this happened. It is the result of a criminal conspiracy, but if one uses "conspiracy" as a metaphor for social networks of vast complexity, there is a strong sense in which conspiracy theories accurately, if metaphorically, explain what happened.

The reality behind the conspiratorial metaphor is the social networking between denizens of the Beltway, who sport a wide variety of political labels but are, relative to the rest of the country, a monoculture. These denizens range from the journalists who report the mass media news to various think tank and university scholars at the Cato Institute, George Mason University, and so on. Vast amounts of federal money, that stuff that is taken out of your paycheck with such automatic ease, flow into the Beltway area. Directly and indirectly, almost every person who lives in or near the Beltway depends on the very income tax that Ron Paul declared he would abolish -- with no replacement!

Many of these paycheck vampires call themselves "libertarians" and inspire us with their libertarian rhetoric to support them with our attention, our blog hits, and our tuition money as well as the tax money that already funds them or their friends. But at the first sign of political incorrectness, all these below-the-Beltway "libertarians" have dumped Ron Paul like yesterday's garbage. Now they can rest easy that they will still be invited to the parties thrown by their lobbyist and government employee and contractor friends, who for a second or two got worried by all those Google searches that Ron Paul might have some influence, resulting in some of them losing their jobs (end the income tax with no replacement?! The guy is obvioiusly a kook, and we don't invite the supporters of kooks to our parties!). Now everybody around the Beltway can go back to partying at the taxpayer's expense. All the money will keep flowing in, hooray!

The lesson millions of young libertarians have now learned from our beltway "libertarians"? Libertarian electioneering is futile. Voting is futile. Democracy is futile. Anybody who actually wants liberty is a kook, as can be proven by their association with kooks. Beltway wonks posing as "libertarians" are happy to write things to inflame your hopes for liberty that they don't really mean. Then they make sure that we elect the politicians their friends want -- the ones that will enslave your future to pay for full social security for Baby Boomers. The ones that will send you off to foreign lands to kill and die. Our Beltway "libertarians" are happy to sell a whole new generation of libertarians down the tubes in order to keep their Beltway friends happy."

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:15pm | #

well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. a flawless moron residing permanently in abstraction land!!

While I don't agree with that poster, I do have to say: The newsletters constitute racial insults. At the end of the day, insults are abstractions. Policy is real; words are symbolic. In fairness to his point, a racially insulting asshole who favored good policies would, in fact, be more desirable than a sensitive and sweet-spoken soul who favored bad ones.

That being said, GOD DAMN IT PAUL YOU OWE US THE NAMES.

jet | January 10, 2008, 7:15pm | #

Thanks Kwix.

This website still shows Nick as editor-in-chief (under Reason Staff).

[e-mail] | January 10, 2008, 7:17pm | #

isn't it sad that Matt's quote wasn't even taken out of context.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:20pm | #

Not that it matters since the campaign is dead, but I do note that in passing Paul confirms what has only been speculation and inference until now: that if President he would employ the pardon power as a rubber stamp to nullify federal laws he doesn't agree with.

That's a pretty radical statement to make. I wish the campaign had been more aggressive and provocative in this way all along, instead of campaigning on bases like, "Hey, I'll kick out illegals TOO!" and "Hey, I don't like abortion either!"

WolfBlitzer | January 10, 2008, 7:21pm | #

I wasn't expecting that.

Ron Paul will now be on my CNN 24/7.

Hopefully he can take that frustration out on that bitch Soledad O'Brien.

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:22pm | #

What the Paul campaign needs is for supporters to post more hysterical manifestos. Or not.
Count me among Paul's former supporters. I don't believe the man is a racist, but I also think he is lying when he says he doesn't know who wrote the articles. His failure to loudly and publicly separate himself from those elements of the libertarian movement and the individuals responsible makes him unpalatable in my eyes.

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 7:22pm | #

Homerun! Paul is masterful.

Now can you hand-wringers finally bury it? The only place this story has any legs is on supposedly "friendly" places like Reason.

Minion of URKOBOLD | January 10, 2008, 7:23pm | #

NOBODY EXPECTS WOLF'S GRECIAN FORMULA.

ITS COLORS ARE AUBURN.

AUBURN AND FALL SUNRISE.

AUBURN AND... I'LL COME IN AGAIN.

Confused | January 10, 2008, 7:24pm | #

Can someone explain this one to me. He says he's for "the blacks" by eliminating drug laws in this clip, yet I've seen him in other clips saying "would you want some drug dealer crossing the border, having a baby here and having it get citizenship". He's legalizing and then punishing the same thing. No?

| January 10, 2008, 7:25pm | #

I wish the campaign had been more aggressive and provocative in this way all along, instead of campaigning on bases like, "Hey, I'll kick out illegals TOO!" and "Hey, I don't like abortion either!"

Yes. Not cosmopolitan.

Provoked you just fine, though.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:25pm | #

Captain Chaos: have fun waiting for 30 years until the next politician with as sterling a record and as successful a campaign as Paul has comes along.

VM | January 10, 2008, 7:27pm | #

"Now can you hand-wringers finally bury it? The only place this story has any legs is on supposedly "friendly" places like Reason."

no because we hold people who claim "libertarianism" to a higher standard. It is, after all the philosophy of the higher standard, so we naturally hold candidates to it.

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE??? ahem. sorry.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:27pm | #

Hopefully we won't be living in a complete police state by then.

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:28pm | #

Now can you hand-wringers finally bury it? The only place this story has any legs is on supposedly "friendly" places like Reason.
No. The man allowed hateful filth to be published under his name, and has not offered a satisfying explanation, and apparently still associates with the folks who are responsible. So no, I won't be pretending this won't happen.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:28pm | #

No, nameless one. I did not need to be provoked.

And all the candidates except Giuliani are pro-life. Why on Earth would Paul campaign on that issue? Pro-life voters have a wide selection of candidates to indulge their monomania.

And all that anti-immigration stuff did wonders for Tancredo, didn't it?

In a 6 man race you campaign on the basis of what makes you different. Immigration and abortion don't make Paul different. Advocating the same thing as the other candidates, but with cheaper and less-well-written ads, is no way to win anything.

svf | January 10, 2008, 7:30pm | #

I'd give him a B-.

Plenty of great stuff (anti-drug war, civil disobedience...)

Some head-scratchers ("they're afraid" that you're getting so many "black votes"? a publisher often isn't aware of what's in his own magazines?)

A few cringe-inducing comments. (That MLK Day money bomb ain't gonna be $4 million+ so please don't build up the media's expectations... and didn't you vote against the MLK Day holiday, by the way?)

I guess that's about par for the course for Ron Paul TV appearances, though...

It helped greatly to have a rather sympathetic interviewer in Wolf. He may have been crucified by O'Reilly or Russert.

In any event, while I hope this is laid to rest for once and for all, I somehow doubt it...

Keep the gloves off in the debates tonight and give 'em hell, Ron.... you truly have nothing to lose at this point!

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:30pm | #

Derek- We're doing snark now? Fine. Have fun explaining why we're not a bunch of bigots to everyone who will now associate libertarianism with the sort of poisonous drivel in those newsletters.

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:30pm | #

B/B+. Started out poorly, finished up well.

He kept hitting the drug war stance and its disproportionate impact on minorities, and that really helped him. Even people who don't agree with him on the issue are going to view what he said as solid evidence of his non-racist character.

And Wolf Blitzer certainly went out of his way to help him, and it worked.

Let's see

"Libertarians are incapable of being racist." Uh huh. Every single political philosophy that isn't explicitly racist can point to tenets that refute racism. Weak.

"Let me get my message out, because you put that other message out" No, Ron, YOU put that other message out, or let it be put out. That's the problem.

How did this happen. Who wrote this? "Well, well..." Pause "I have no idea." Bullshit. Lie. Nice stutter and shuffle. Very transparent.

"Why don't you believe me?" Boo hoo. How about, because you're a professional politician, and people don't believe any of them?

"Nitpicking" and the general effort to treat this like a little fluff story when we should be talking about more weighty matter: this isn't a story about your cleavage. This isn't a story about screwing up a joke. This isn't a story about having to shout and having a horse voice. You, apparently, put out a fucking newsletter full of neo-Nazi claptrap! You need to answer for it, not shrug it off as no big deal.

"...the blacks...the blacks..." Don't say "the blacks." Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, you're trying to refute the idea you're a racist, and you refer to them more than once as "the blacks." Just freaking wonderful.

"Nobody heard me say this, nobody heard me say this" sounds more like "You can't prove nuffin" than "I didn't do it."

On the other hand, very effective reference to Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. Sure, everybody says they like Martin Luther King - just cherish him, really - for his nonviolence and opposition to racism, but by singling out the "libertarian value of civil disobedience" - civil disobedience not being terribly popular in the era of George Bush and giant puppet-marches - Paul's claim comes across as quite credible, because he singled out something controversial. Very effective.

OK, I started out at B/B+. Going through my notes, I'm dropping that to B-/B. Not too bad, Stopped the bleeding, anyway. The story isn't dead, and he's going to have to do better than this when it comes up, but he did well enough that he's going to have a shot at doing it effectively.

BTW, those of you who've decided that your response to this scandal will be to wage a civil war in your puny fringe movement remind me of a combination of the Bolsheviks and the Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea scene in the Life of Brian. Grow up.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:30pm | #

Hey, I'm pissed off about this, too.

But I don't think that Captain Chaos was ever a supporter, so stop the violin music, bub.

ColbCo | January 10, 2008, 7:32pm | #

Wolf Blitzer gave him a chance to speak and get his point across. Wolf knows a smear when he sees it!

thoreau | January 10, 2008, 7:32pm | #

The most credible thing to come out of his interview is what we already knew: That he doesn't agree with the stuff that was published under his name.

But his agreement was never the issue for me. I never had reason to suspect that he agreed with that stuff. Rather, the issue is that he has yet to show any evidence that, when he learned what was being put out there in his name, he (1) published a denunciation of those articles in the same newsletter, to clear the air and (2) cut ties with the people who wrote that garbage.

He might not believe in that stuff, but he sure wants to maintain good relations with the people who will eat it up.

edna | January 10, 2008, 7:32pm | #

He's legalizing and then punishing the same thing. No?

no. he's protecting our domestic drug industry.

Madam Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:33pm | #

Derek-If I wanted to overlook major character flaws because a candidate happens to share some of my ideas, I would have stuck with the major party candidates.

thoreau | January 10, 2008, 7:34pm | #

"For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200 years."

Well, as long as he votes for a tax cut, I guess it's all good, right?

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:34pm | #

Captain Chaos: people who aren't willing to look past a few isolated passages from 15 years ago that Paul didn't write for a newsletter he didn't edit, but that he has taken responsibility for and condemned, and won't take into account the body of the Doctor's career, work, actions and speeches, probably wouldn't be open to libertarian ideology anyway.

Madam Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:35pm | #

Fluffy-I donated more than $100, attended meetups, and signed up as a precinct captain for Paul. You're flat wrong on this one.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 7:35pm | #

This was contracted out and probably penned by some pimply faced interns. He many not know (or remember) who actually wrote the words in each case.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:35pm | #

Joe -

I think that's a pretty good assessment of the interview.

The word "blacks" does kind of labor on the ear now, though, doesn't it? Funny how it used to be the acceptable word to use.

Since Paul apparently didn't know who Tom Cruise was when he met him before the first Leno appearance, maybe he's just too far behind the times to know you're supposed to say "African-American" now.

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:36pm | #

edna's been taking the funny pills lately. Nice one.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 7:36pm | #

"didn't you vote against the MLK Day holiday"

Sure he did, and he'd vote against a holiday for Elvis or Jesus Christ, too. The principle is consistent: it's not for the federal government to declare national holidays.

-jcr

Madam Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:36pm | #

Derek-And just what does "taken responsibility" mean? In the absence of actions to totally repudiate the folks who did write the newsletters and his association with them, "taking moral responsibility" is nothing but an empty phrase.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:36pm | #

OK, Chaos, I'm sorry.

I think I momentarily confused you with Guy Montag.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:37pm | #

Madam Chaos: Not knowing Paul personally, I'm not in a position to judge what his character flaws may or may not be, and I don't think you are either. See my previous message.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 7:37pm | #

Madam Chaos: Are you suggesting an anarchist strategy of not-voting....because the all-too-human alternatives to Paul are going to disappoint you even more.

Ken Shultz | January 10, 2008, 7:38pm | #

I'm one of those who more or less pulled my vocal support for Ron Paul over this, and I'm not sure he's getting it back, but I think he said all the things I wanted to hear.

...got to give him credit for that.

"Libertarians are incapable of being racist." Uh huh. Every single political philosophy that isn't explicitly racist can point to tenets that refute racism. Weak."

I think he followed that up with the suggestion that real libertarianism is about the ultimate respect for individuals rather than groups, which doesn't seem like such a weak argument to me.

An Ottawa Reader | January 10, 2008, 7:38pm | #

Given this isn't the first grief Ron Paul has gotten over this, you'd have thought he'd be better prepared. Trying to segue into libertarian talking points about how the drug war hurts blacks the most just sounded like evasion--which it just possibly was.

Wolf wasn't just easy on him--he was feeding him the answers a better prepared candidate would have had memorized.

Wolf: So do you reject racism and all its works and all its empty promises?
Paul: Uh...I do!

Good on Wolf though for pointing out to Paul that now he's in the big leagues (or at least the Triple-A minors) he's going to have to expect as much scrutiny and criticism as any other candidate. Had Ron forgotten that after spending months around crowds of young people who thought he was the Second Coming, I wonder...?

Sean | January 10, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Dear Ron,

We all make mistakes and do stupid things. Luckily, yours didn't include voting for an illegal and unconstitutional war, the erosion of our civil liberties and the growth of a corrupt government.

I still love you. Give 'em hell!! This ain't over yet!

I forgive you!

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Fluffy,

"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.

Gay people, the gays.

It implies exactly the view of people from a minority group as undifferentiated members of a collective that Paul is renouncing, and using to distance himself from the sentiments in the newsletters.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Madam Chaos: I'd assume it means he understands the passages were inappropiate, wrong and offensive and understands he was ultimately responsible for them, and he understands he is the one that deserves any and all criticism because the buck stops with him.

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:41pm | #

Derek-I think what madam chaos (my beloved, who has been reading over my shoulder, and dictated that response) was getting at is that you can make judgments about a person's character based on their actions, or lack thereof.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 7:41pm | #

Fluffy:

Perhaps but "blacks" is still the main word of choice in both races. Even those who say African American lapse into it most of the time....and for good reason.

Who'd want to say :African American Panthers or "African American and proud?"

svf | January 10, 2008, 7:42pm | #

"didn't you vote against the MLK Day holiday"

Sure he did, and he'd vote against a holiday for Elvis or Jesus Christ, too. The principle is consistent: it's not for the federal government to declare national holidays.

jcr -- absolutely... I'm just sayin', beware of rallying behind a MLK Day online fundraiser if you oppose the whole idea of that (and any other) Federal holiday in the first place... "oh, I see -- now that you can use it to fundraise you're in favor of it..." etc.

joe -- thanks for posting all the stuff I wanted to say but didn't.

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:42pm | #

It implies exactly the view of people from a minority group as undifferentiated members of a collective that Paul is renouncing, and using to distance himself from the sentiments in the newsletters.
Yeah, I was cringing every time he said "the blacks" and I wanted to be convinced by this interview. Very unbecoming.

ColbyCo | January 10, 2008, 7:42pm | #

Ending the drug war is what he should have been emphasizing all along, not television ads on immigration and "terrorist nations."

cicero | January 10, 2008, 7:44pm | #

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:40pm | #

'"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.'


Yep. I don't think it's just chance that Paul said "the blacks" numerous times during an interview where he claimed he didn't write articles that used the term "the blacks" over and over again.

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:44pm | #

Ken Shultz,

I think he followed that up with the suggestion that real libertarianism is about the ultimate respect for individuals rather than groups, which doesn't seem like such a weak argument to me.

OK, let's go through this.

Christians are incapable of being racist, because we believe that each and every one of us are God's children and made in His image. A Christian can't hate God's children. Did I convince you that nobody who's a Christian can be a racist yet?

Communists can't be racist, because we believe that racism is a tool used by the oppressor class to divide the workers and destroy their class consciousness. Did I convince you that nobody who's a Communist can be a racist?

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:45pm | #

"Derek-I think what madam chaos (my beloved, who has been reading over my shoulder, and dictated that response) was getting at is that you can make judgments about a person's character based on their actions, or lack thereof."

That's a valid point. But then, I return to my previous point. This basically comes down to two or three newsletters published 15 years ago while Paul was busy with his medical practice that contained material Paul didn't write or edit. He's denounced the material, etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, we also have his ENTIRE LIFE, 30 YEARS of public service, whole voting record and countless speeches and writings that speak FOR this man's character, FOR his honesty, etc. Paul goofed up for sure. But this man deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this newsletter fiasco.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 7:46pm | #

Give me a break. This is nitpicking, not sinister:

"black people" v. "blacks" What's the difference?

Same with "whites" v. "white people"

Should we also say lesbian people instead of lesbians?

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:47pm | #

And that's what distresses me. Too many people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. They seem almost eager to toss him overboard. Paul doesn't deserve to be tossed overboard. Criticized -- yes. Thrown overboard? No.

prolefeed | January 10, 2008, 7:48pm | #

Homerun! Paul is masterful.

Unless you were being really, really wry with a pun about "masterful", no. I cringed a couple times watching the video. I think Paul's telling the truth about not holding racist beliefs, but not a good job of spin control -- and I got the perhaps mistaken impression he does know who wrote the newsletters. He's gonna get hammered by this, debate after debate, unless he can get the author(s) of the newsletter to do a public mea culpa.

Still voting for Ron Paul, but holding my nose a bit.

raidsmith | January 10, 2008, 7:49pm | #

He did look a little weak. Fluffy said he owes us those names, but I don't feel like I'm owed the names, because I never read the stupid newsletters to begin with. I just think it is the only decisive move he can make. I don't think the man is a racist, but the real point is, he wants to be President, but his name is on things he claims to be diametrically opposed to. That's not leadership. He should either make with the names, or make it a point that he is taking this very seriously, and he is working hard to discover who did this. Acting like he is not interested in who did this is almost complicit after the fact.

I think the reason he isn't doing that is because if he did, he knows some of this stink would stick to his buddy Lew Rockwell. I mean, I like Austrian economics, too, but not enough to lay down under a bus to protect. And any of my friends that have said crap like that are on their own.

He can talk about what a drug war hero he would be after he makes with the names.

Make with the names so we can move on, already!

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:49pm | #

dodsworth, I wouldn't say "sinister" so much as "counterproductive," for exactly the reason I already laid out.

"Whites" strikes the ear a little funny, too. Let's say Al Sharpton began a sentence with "When the whites..."

Andrew Taylor | January 10, 2008, 7:49pm | #

Let's face it, folks: Ron Paul is lying about not knowing who wrote those newsletters. He might technically be telling the truth -- "I don't know if it was Lew Rockwell, or Gary North, or some intern" -- but he certainly knows who was responsible for the newsletters, and that person or persons know who wrote for them. This is not the Associated Press with hundreds of reporters worldwide; this was a small-circulation newsletter that probably involved, at most, 10 people or less.

Eric Dondero claims that the newsletters were edited by Rockwell, and I believe he indicated that "80%" of the articles were written by Rockwell. The fact that Rockwell is allowing Paul to twist in the wind demonstrates that he is an absolute, complete, total and utter piece of garbage who cares about one thing, and one thing only: Lew Rockwell. Why a Christian gentleman like Ron Paul would lie for a such a scumbag is a mystery to me.

I'm sorry I wasted my money and my time for such a hopelessly foolish and morally confused man.

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:49pm | #

Derek-I don't believe the man is a racist. I think Madam Chaos is satisfied on that point as well. If Paul were my friend, I would forgive him and move on. But he's not my friend: he's the most public face of a movement I believe in deeply, and as such, needs to be held to a higher standard. Paul may well be a wonderful person. But he isn't the best face for the freedom movement. Having said that, I've got to step away from the machine for a while, so don't think I'm not responding to any other comments out of rudeness or indifference to what you're saying.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 7:49pm | #

Did anyone notice the last line of that post? "Discuss."

As if any encouragement were needed when the word "Paul" appears.

Anyhow, I predicted right from the start of this whole thing that Paul's past would come back to haunt him. I had never seen these newsletters, but I did suspect that there would be nearly interminable amounts of dirt to be dug up from what Tom Palmer likes to call the "fever swamp", i.e. (mostly) the associates of Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute.

Presidential elections aren't fair. If voters cannot make out whether a candidate is a John Birchy conspiracist tendencies pretending to be a libertarian, or rather a libertarian who has some experience with pretending to be an Old Right racist—then that candidate is walking a fine line between picking up both (fairly marginal) constituencies and picking up neither.

People who whine that this way "we" are losing the "only chance" to do this-that-or-the-other great wonderful libertarian thing are wrong. If this were the only chance, things would be pretty hopeless indeed. It may take until the baby boom finally enters senility before the quaint coalition of unions and cultural progressives and the quaint coalition of chamber-of-commerce types and religious fundamentalists lose whatever the hell it is that holds them together and keeps the sensible middle locked out. But weirder things have happened before, and the key to patiently keep pushin' at it steadily and from all sides until it gives.

Martin | January 10, 2008, 7:50pm | #

Christ, some people here, nitpicking over blacks vs black people, are more fucking PC than a stadium full of left-liberals. Jesus fuck.

thoreau | January 10, 2008, 7:50pm | #

It's not about his views. I know and respect his views.

What you do when you find out that somebody's been publishing filth under your name is a test of character. It's supposed to be an easy test of character. If you don't want to talk about how you performed on that test, there's something wrong.

If some jerks published trash under my name, once I found out about it I'd have FUN. I'd be bragging about it. You wouldn't need an investigative journalist to figure out what I did in response. You wouldn't need to ask a bunch of questions and parse evasive answers. All you'd need is Google, because the video would be on my web page, and at the end of the video I'd be smiling and waving at the camera.

cicero | January 10, 2008, 7:51pm | #

"Should we also say lesbian people instead of lesbians?"

What you shouldn't say is "the lesbians". And if you're accused of writing something along the lines of "it's time to take back our country from the lesbians" you shouldn't say something like "the lesbians support me more than any other Republican candidate. I think of people as individuals not groups. The lesbians know this."

Paul Rattner | January 10, 2008, 7:51pm | #

Well, I feel better. Whether or not he knew anything about those past publications, he certainly doesn't hold those beliefs NOW, and he repudiates them in no uncertain terms.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:52pm | #

"But he's not my friend: he's the most public face of a movement I believe in deeply, and as such, needs to be held to a higher standard."

And I maintain that, despite this incident, no one will come as close to meeting those high standards as Paul does. Not only that, but it's difficult to see someone matching the success Paul has experienced.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 7:52pm | #

Oh, and by the way: the last thing to be bothered by is the fact that Paul said "blacks" rather than "people of color" or "African Americans" or "black people" or whatever the euphemism of the day is. It may not be the best political strategy, and I suppose that may be something you could be concerned about especially if you gave him money and feel he has a responsibility to actually do what it takes to win. But there is nothing inherently reproachable about it.

LevStrauss | January 10, 2008, 7:53pm | #

Fluffy, I was also glad to hear about his potential use of the pardon. If we knew what exactly else he would pardon, I'd bet one would get a lot more votes because that helps a lot of people and their families out. That is an automatic benefit, more direct than any of these government programs anyone else is proposing and it is a concept that is very easy for the electorate to digest. More nonviolent offenders in the workforce, able to start supporting the families they already can't afford instead of dodging same sexed rapists in jail, working for pennies.

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:53pm | #

I am more convinced that Ron Paul is not personally a racist now than I have ever been. You could hear the truth in his voice (just as you could hear the evasion in his voice when he said he had no idea who wrote the columns), and sticking his neck out for civil disobedience - not the teddy bear MLK that National Review writers pretend to admire, but the pain in the ass overturner of apple carts MLK - is very convincing.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 7:54pm | #

The man hit it out of the park. He didn't defend the newsletters, he denounced and repudiated them; he stated his own position; defied anyone to show him ever saying otherwise, and pointed out that he's the only candidate who will free the POWs of the drug war.

So, I'm one Jew-boy who considers the racism question asked and answered to my satisfaction.

-jcr

prolefeed | January 10, 2008, 7:54pm | #

Yep. I don't think it's just chance that Paul said "the blacks" numerous times during an interview where he claimed he didn't write articles that used the term "the blacks" over and over again.

Yep. People who live in a particular area don't develop accents and particular ways of phrasing things, so that multiple people in, to take a completely random theoretical case, Texas, might commonly use the phrase "the blacks".

OMG! Ron Paul used the word "the"! And the word "the" is in the newsletter! Definitive proof he wrote "the" newsletter.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 7:54pm | #

What do people here want? He could have talked like Eisenhower I suppose and said "you people" instead of "the blacks?"

Sje | January 10, 2008, 7:56pm | #

@cicero:

What you shouldn't say is "the lesbians".

Shouldn't as in: it's not a prudent thing for a politician to say.

As far as I'm concerned (me, personally), it matters more what is being said than how many definite articles are used to express it. I'm perfectly willing to give somebody the benefit of the doubt who says the right thing but doesn't know the details of how to say it in the "right" way. And I think that this is a healthy attitude.

But a politician should not count on winning by attracting only voters with a healthy attitude.

Derrick | January 10, 2008, 7:59pm | #

8.5 out of 10.0. He was in a tough spot, and handled it about as well as one could hope for.

As many others here noted, I was really struck by his repetition of the term "the blacks." That's only slightly more P.C. than saying "the coloreds." That's really the only problem I have with what he said.

I was surprised that he kept steering his comments to the proposition of releasing non-violent drug offenders from jail. I haven't heard talk of that in the major media in, well, never. I can't say that I've ever heard that in the major media.

Finally, nice exposure for Reason and Matt Welch.

cicero | January 10, 2008, 8:01pm | #

Sje: "Oh, and by the way: the last thing to be bothered by is the fact that Paul said "blacks" rather than "people of color" or "African Americans" or "black people" or whatever the euphemism of the day is."

The issue isn't blacks vs. people of color or blacks vs. "African Americans." It's the use of "the blacks". He sees black people as a group, not as individuals. Just like the author of those newsletter articles....

I think he should have said "communties of color are being devestated by the war on drugs and I'm trying to stop that." That would have shown racial sensitivity and political saavy. "Black communities..." would still have been fine. I could have lived with "blacks are being hurt by the war on drugs..." But to say "the blacks" over and over again is just plain stupid. And looks racist.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:01pm | #

Sje,

I was just commenting on how effective his performance is.

Like it or not, people hear different subtexts to "the blacks" vs. "black people."

There are two differences. First, the former lumps them together into an undifferentiated mass. Not good. Second, the noun in the latter is "people," an acknowledgment that the central feature of their being is their humanity, while the noun in the former phrase is "blacks," which implies that the central element of their existence is their race. It's exactly the opposite of the message he was conveying, and undermines what he was attempting to do.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:03pm | #

Yeah, even "blacks" would have been better.

If he'd said "the Jews," would we even be debating whether that was poor phrasing?

cicero | January 10, 2008, 8:05pm | #

"People who live in a particular area don't develop accents and particular ways of phrasing things, so that multiple people in, to take a completely random theoretical case, Texas, might commonly use the phrase "the blacks".'

Maybe. But I've never met anyone who constantly referred to black people as "the blacks" who didn't sound prejudiced. If I hear Paul refer to his white supporters as "the whites" then I'll believe you're right.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 8:06pm | #

"He sees black people as a group, not as individuals"

What's your next guess?

See here, read and learn:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

-jcr

raidsmith | January 10, 2008, 8:06pm | #

"The fact that Rockwell is allowing Paul to twist in the wind demonstrates that he is an absolute, complete, total and utter piece of garbage who cares about one thing, and one thing only: Lew Rockwell. Why a Christian gentleman like Ron Paul would lie for a such a scumbag is a mystery to me."

I couldn't agree more, Andrew Taylor. Before this story even broke (the most recent iteration, anyway), I have read numerous insiders who say Lew is an unbearable ass. It was never qualified, so I just assumed he was a shrewd person to tangle with, or something. But this really puts it into context, doesn't it. I'm not 100% sure Paul knows who wrote that crap, and I'm not 100% sure Lew even wrote any of it, but I am positive Lew knows who did, and I am equally certain Ron Paul knows Lew knows who did, at the very least.

Does Ron Paul want to make a serious run at the Presidency, and do what he can to promote the ideals of limited government and individual liberty, or does he want to protect a friend who is doing nothing to protect Paul right now? Lew Rockwell should be making with the names, but that obviously isn't going to happen. So Ron Paul should demonstrate the ideal of personal responsibility by stepping aside and letting Lew Rockwell answer for the articles he (at the least) edited. To protect Lew from his own personal responsibilities is like subsidizing his character, like handing Lew's personal responsibility a welfare check, it's akin to engaging in social and political collectivism. If Ron Paul is truly the candidate of principle, he should insist that Lew take responsibility for what was written while he was editor, the same as Paul himself took "moral responsibility" for not paying attention to what was being said in his name.

svf | January 10, 2008, 8:06pm | #

cringe-inducer I neglected to mention...

he twice referred to himself as "the anti-racist" I believe...

the Dr. doth protest a bit too much...?

final thought, though -- I mean it was pretty much a CNN set-up with a slickly produced intro proclaiming him guilty of racism and then asking him to prove himself innocent as "RACIST WRITINGS UNDER SCRUTINY" is on the bottom of the screen the whole time. considering that, he did pretty damn well and frankly kept his cool better than many probably would have.

"you wanna be president of the united states you have to expect a lot of scrutiny..." -- Wolf almost apologizes at the end. That's kind of great...

Sean Gerety | January 10, 2008, 8:07pm | #

Ron Paul KNOWS who the editor of the newsletter is - the man responsible for publishing the articles under Paul's name - he said so to Blitzer. Yet, Blitzer missed the boat.

I am confident the Editors of Reason know even if Blitzer is too slow to have even asked the question. Paul needs to separate himself from him and name him. That's the only way this will be over.

Beside Paul is right, there is no doubt that the Republican establishment is responsible, but until Paul assigns a name to those newsletters, he's name is still on the masthead.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 8:09pm | #

"I've never met anyone who constantly referred to black people as "the blacks" who didn't sound prejudiced. "

How about Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela?

Come on, enough with the nit-picking and witch hunting. The man is no racist, and what person in their 70's keeps up to the minute with the latest PC terminology?

Hell, if Jesse Jackson were to become a free-market advocate, I'd let him skate on that "hymietown" crack.

-jcr

cicero | January 10, 2008, 8:09pm | #

"See here, read and learn:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/"


That's my whole point. His message is that he sees people as individuals not as groups but then refers to black people as "the blacks". That undermines his message.

Sean Gerety | January 10, 2008, 8:12pm | #

So Ron Paul should demonstrate the ideal of personal responsibility by stepping aside and letting Lew Rockwell answer for the articles he (at the least) edited. To protect Lew from his own personal responsibilities is like subsidizing his character, like handing Lew's personal responsibility a welfare check, it's akin to engaging in social and political collectivism.

I posted this here earlier, but this is from a former Paul Chief of Staff in the 80's:

I have known Ron Paul for more than 30 years. He is not guilty of racism, and the suggestion that he is a racist is preposterous. I worked for him in 1976 and again from 1979 to 1985, the last our years as his chief of staff. The juvenile racial slurs in his newsletters were written by others; I have my suspicions as to who they were. I hope Ron dissociates himself from them by name. I think Ron has made some poor judgments lately and has accepted advice from men who do not respect the Constitution and the Rule of Law. If the TNR article torpedoes his campaign, the torpedo was provided by men who have pretended to be friends of Dr. Paul for years. If anything, they have preyed on his trusting nature and naivete.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 8:12pm | #

"'"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.'"

Who appointed you as the arbiter of correct speech?

-jcr

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 8:13pm | #

"then refers to black people as "the blacks". That undermines his message."

Bullshit. His message is consistent, despite the witch-hunting and grammar policing.

-jcr

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 8:17pm | #

"I'm sorry I wasted my money and my time for such a hopelessly foolish and morally confused man."

Frankly, I find it rather more likely that you never supported RP in any way, than your pretense at being a supporter who's coming down with the vapors over a smear campaign.

-jcr

cicero | January 10, 2008, 8:17pm | #

'"'"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.'"

Who appointed you as the arbiter of correct speech?"


People can say what they want. I'm just saying how it looks. Even "black people" could be problematic. For instance, "black people are getting on my nerves". I'm just saying if he's going to defend himself against these charges he should parse his words better. Saying "I see people as individuals not groups and the blacks know that" undermines the point of his message. But hey, I could be wrong.

wmb | January 10, 2008, 8:18pm | #

Now Paul is claiming that he not only didn't write it, didn't read it but now he pretends he can't remember who wrote the pieces. If his memory is so bad how does he know he didn't write it. His office tells CNN that he won't even investigate the matter.

He knows who wrote -- just ask Lew.

Paul is a liar. He can't remember because there were transitions -- transitions that apparently went on for years. A transition that went on for years is not a transition but policy.

Anyone who says a libertarian can't be a racist doesn't know libertarianism. Libertarians don't initiate force but that doesn't mean they are incapable of hating groups. Paul was pathetic.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:20pm | #

Well as you say, Mr. Randolph, you let your support for his political positions influence your opinion of his performance.

Try to get a little distance. Or, give up on trying to rate how effective his performances are.

Francis | January 10, 2008, 8:21pm | #

Fluffy-I donated more than $100, attended meetups, and signed up as a precinct captain for Paul. You're flat wrong on this one.


My goodness, did you mow lawns all summer to get that kind of scratch? Simply amazing dedication, $100.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 8:21pm | #

Well then, you have a better memory than i do. If I contracted out a weekly newsletter nearly twenty years ago that had hundreds of issues, I doubt I remember who wrote every article. I would remember, however, who the editor was....but Paul was not asked about that

Timon19 | January 10, 2008, 8:21pm | #

I think my prediction on the prior thread is panning out quite nicely.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 8:23pm | #

@cicero and @joe:

"I was just commenting on how effective his performance is."

And as far as that is concerned, I agree with you entirely. I understand the rhetorical effect of referring to groups as "the {adjective}s", and it ain't pretty.

ColbyCo | January 10, 2008, 8:24pm | #

So good to hear the campaign talking about ending the drug war instead of those ads about "terrorist nations." We need more of this in tonight's debate.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:24pm | #

John Randolph, after the first Bush/Kerry debate, there were people who wrote in the comments, "Really? You guys thought Kerry won? Really?"

It's a natural response to root for your guy on go easier on him. It's worth a little effort to strive for objectivity if you wish to understand the effect of his performance on those who didn't "know" he'd hit a homerun before they even saw the video.

Reinmoose | January 10, 2008, 8:25pm | #

I have to admit, he did better than I thought he could do.

It's not enough to really satisfy me, but it may be enough to satisfy some. And his response might be good enough to have nobody ever ask him about it again.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 8:26pm | #

Disagree. I predicted the Foxies will bring it up tonight.....though it may backfire on them if Paul keeps his cool and brings up the drug pardon again.

Reinmoose | January 10, 2008, 8:27pm | #

For his own sake, Ron should have quoted, amongst the other people who know him who wouldn't believe that he wrote that stuff, that the guy who posted them on TNR didn't even think he said any of it.

NP | January 10, 2008, 8:27pm | #

(Note: Most of the stuff below is from a previous thread.)

I did believe (before the CNN interview) and still believe (after) Paul when he says that he did not write the offensive materials himself. But Paul's almost certainly lying or bending the truth a lot when he says--as he does after a rather long pause in the middle of this interview, as others have pointed out--that he very infrequently read his newsletters and thus come across the bile that appeared on his newsletters over almost two decades. I can't think of anyone besides his most fanatical supporters that would take this incredible claim at face value.

I'd say Paul is not being forthright not necessarily to "cover up" per se for his previous and current associates--including, yes, the execrable Lew Rockwell--but rather to avoid straining his relationships with them, some of whom might be involved in his current campaign. Still, it's disappointing that he's not showing the level of honesty we've come to expect from him.

Also, Wolf Blitzer was way soft on Paul. (BTW I do like Blitzer--I know he takes a fair amount of flak from his fellow journos and viewers, but despite all their blather he's actually a pretty fair interviewer.) Here are at least two or three questions he should've posed to the congressman:

1) You say that you very infrequently read the newsletters that you had allowed to be published under your name for such a long period of time. Many viewers will find that hard to believe. How do you explain your ignorance on this matter?

Now Paul probably would've replied, as he noted during the interview, that he was busy with all his political and gynecological activities. Then Blitzer should've followed up like this:

2) But that doesn't explain the years when you were not politically active. Are you saying you still didn't find the time to supervise your newsletters during this period? 3) If so, then how can we American citizens vote for someone with such a lack of managerial capability as the president of the most influential and powerful nation on earth?

These questions should be actually more important than what now should be the non-issue of who actually wrote the newsletters (unless, of course, the writer was indeed Paul himself), but it looks like many will disagree with me on this.

Brian Courts | January 10, 2008, 8:28pm | #

What you do when you find out that somebody's been publishing filth under your name is a test of character. It's supposed to be an easy test of character. If you don't want to talk about how you performed on that test, there's something wrong.

Absolutely, thoreau. I just am utterly amazed at his defenders for continuing to rely on the "but he didn't write it" excuse. It doesn't matter - he let that stuff go out under his name for years. This wasn't a one time incident. Had it been just once, followed by a vehement denunciation, with the outing and firing of the writer, I'd give him a pass. But you all know damn well that this stuff wasn't being said without his knowledge for all those years. I find it absolutely inexplicable that anyone without those views and with an ounce of judgment, intelligence and thoughtfulness would have allowed that to go on for even one minute, much less years. Nor would anyone with those qualities have run with the crowd he apparently associated with - racists, neo-Nazis and a bunch of wackjob conspiracy theorists. There is no more time for excuses.

The damage done by all this in terms of the image of libertarians for millions of Americans (already a difficult problem) more than undoes whatever good he accomplished by bringing libertarian issues to the debate. That he still doesn't get the seriousness of this, thinks he can brush it off as no big deal, and still won't publicly denounce the writer by name just shows that his embarrassing lack of judgment (and this is the most generous interpretation) has not improved in the intervening years. It is time for Paul to end his campaign now before he does any more damage.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 8:28pm | #

@wmb:

"Anyone who says a libertarian can't be a racist doesn't know libertarianism. Libertarians don't initiate force but that doesn't mean they are incapable of hating groups."

And that, I would submit, is one of the major problems with modern American libertarianism of the don't-initiate-force variety that deduces things from metaphysical first principle of one sort or another.

Classical liberalism is more than "don't initiate force." It's a vision of humanity as being advanced by peaceful interaction and held back by wasting time on violent struggle between classes and races and nations and suchlike.

Jacob | January 10, 2008, 8:29pm | #

In all fairness, Rockwell is probably more important to the libertarian movement than Ron Paul. If one of them has to lay down under a bus, it's better if it's Paul.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:31pm | #

Man, his passion on the Drug War is inspiring. I wish my Congressman talked like that.

"I have no idea who wrote them..." shifty eyes, shifty eyes. His eyes didn't budge for the entire rest of the interview.

Uh uh. That's not gonna do it.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:32pm | #

"This is being brought up for political reasons."

I don't care if it's being brought up because you ran over Jamie Kirchick's puppy. He didn't make up the newsletters.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 8:33pm | #

Paul took responsiblity. I think he feels responsibiliy What would it accomplish for him to self-righteously "out" someone and say......see he did it? I'm throwing to the wolves. Nobody respects a boss who makes his employee, a la Richard Nixon. a scapegoat for his screw ups.

NP | January 10, 2008, 8:34pm | #

And as to whether "black people" would've been the better choice than "blacks": a simple "minorities" would've been even better.

Lew Rockwell | January 10, 2008, 8:36pm | #

I see nothing!!! I see nothing!!!

I have no idea what anybody is talking bout. Probably talking about smear merchants, with their smears and distortions, taking things out of context. The New Republic wrote an article sympathetic to fascism in 1927 so there!!! Oh yeah, buy Ron Paul's new book, "Pillars of Prosperity" today, so we can promote the cause of liberty and remain in denial and pretend that nothing ever happened and that nobody has to know the specifics.

Mattias | January 10, 2008, 8:36pm | #

Paul or Rockwell under a bus?

Rockwell might be more important IN the libertarian movement. But is that good?

Peter | January 10, 2008, 8:38pm | #

Can some one please tell me how you refer to a group of people without talking about them as a group? How could I say black people without grouping them?

obi juan | January 10, 2008, 8:38pm | #

Why do any of you need satisfaction? Some here are acting like outraged liberals who will accept nothing less than for him to prostrate himself before Jesse Jackson to end the issue.

Ron Paul is a politician. He is trying to handle the issue as such. At least in theory, people here support his principles. Lay off.

There isn't going to be a sparkling clean libertarian messiah descending from the Heavens any time soon. Ron Paul is the best there is, has been, or ever will be. Don't kid yourself thinking that any of the beltway libertarians will stop playing it safe at their think tanks and enter the political fray someday. Politics is above them, as is clear, and their disdain of populism dooms them with the populace.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:38pm | #

Nobody respects a boss who throws his employees under the bus for his own mistakes, dodsworth. Big difference.

Now Paul probably would've replied, as he noted during the interview, that he was busy with all his political and gynecological activities.

Wow, we found someone who phrases things even worse than Ron Paul.

Bow-chika-bowow!

Au standard | January 10, 2008, 8:38pm | #

put Rockwell under the bus

NP | January 10, 2008, 8:40pm | #

dodsworth,

Paul did not take responsibility, at least not enough of it. The least he could've done is to claim that none of his current associates, including those involved in his current campaign, had nothing to do with the offensive parts of the newsletters. Until he does that this scandal is not gonna go away for a while.

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:40pm | #

cosmotarians

The Johnny Appleseed of Crack | January 10, 2008, 8:41pm | #

Man, his passion on the Drug War is inspiring. I wish my Congressman talked like that.

"I have no idea who wrote them..." shifty eyes, shifty eyes. His eyes didn't budge for the entire rest of the interview.

Uh uh. That's not gonna do it.


You're absolutely right. He is not an experienced liar. That is a good sign for a man in general, but not so good for a politician.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:41pm | #

Can some one please tell me how you refer to a group of people without talking about them as a group?

You avoid using the terminology that racist people use when discussing them.

Like "the Jews" and "the blacks."

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:41pm | #

liberpolitans?

Brian Courts | January 10, 2008, 8:42pm | #

Paul took responsiblity.

He did? How? That is such a tired line used by anyone who wants to make whatever trouble he's in go away. Just say "I take full responsibility, now can we move on." Where is the responsibility? It's a cop out. Taking responsibility ought to involve more than mouthing the words.

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:42pm | #

libertinarians

thoreau | January 10, 2008, 8:43pm | #

I'm not looking for an experienced liar, and I'm not looking for him to prostrate himself before any political figure. I'm looking for proof that he passed a very simple character test: "Congressman Paul, when you found out that racist douchebags were publishing junk under your name, what did you do?"

There are lots of right answers, and many of them are quite fun.

If he can't provide one of the many possible right answers, then I don't want anything to do with him. It's that simple.

adrian | January 10, 2008, 8:43pm | #

you libertarians (he grouped us, oh no!) are ridiculous. he should quit before he damages the libertarian movement? Do you know how retarded that sounds to the other 99.9% of people in this country? The importance you people give to a virtually non-existent movement is laughable. Enjoy talking deep into the night about how your pure principles preclude you from looking past this and resume planning out the next 20 years of 2% support while the country falls deeper into socialism/totalitarianism.

jokers

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:44pm | #

I take moral responsibility is a really lousy line.

First, "I take responsibility" without doing anything is meaningless.

Second, putting the word "moral" in there looks like he's qualifying his responsibility-taking.

jimmy smith | January 10, 2008, 8:44pm | #

I wonder if Dr Paul delivered any babies for "the blacks"? If he did, he gets my support. If he looked at the woman in labor, saw a skin color that made him nervous, did he call for another doctor?

I think we know the answer and that speaks well of his character. Ron, you da man !!!

P. Vostrel | January 10, 2008, 8:45pm | #

hipstertarians

Brandybuck | January 10, 2008, 8:45pm | #

Oh, and by the way: the last thing to be bothered by is the fact that Paul said "blacks" rather than "people of color" or "African Americans" or "black people" or whatever the euphemism of the day is.

Words mean things. Unfortunate but true. Just last night I was talking with a man about birthright citizenship. I said that that clause in the 14th amendment was necessary at the time to give citizenship to the "negroes".

OMG! I said the N word! I didn't mean to say it. It's definitely not a word that I use. But out it came like squeaky fart during silent prayer in church. I could see the eyes glaze over in the guy I was talking to. Sigh.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:46pm | #

I vote for cosmotarians.

SJe | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

liberfarians?

Reinmoose | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

I don't care if it's being brought up because you ran over Jamie Kirchick's puppy. He didn't make up the newsletters.

Right. His answer doesn't really satisfy me, but hasn't anyone else noticed that "it's political!" is a sufficient response for...95% of Americans? It's so common of a response these days.

Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

Who wrote the Newsletters?

Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell. From what I witnessed in my 12 years working for Ron, I’d say maybe 40% came from him in the way of scribbles (and I literally do mean scribbles) on a yellow pad, that was then faxed to his office staff in South Houston for editing and publication.

I’d estimate that the rest – 50 to 60% was written by Lew. But when I say Lew I also mean his staff of Interns, which during that period included most prominently Jeff Tucker and Mark Thornton of Auburn Univ. in Alabama.

It was my general impression that Thornton wrote the bulk of the heavy economic stuff, Tucker the political stuff, Lew crime and race relations, Ron Paul anti-Israel/foreign policy.

As to the Production Team:

In the 1980s Nadia Hayes was Newsletter Publisher. Her assistant was Jean McCiver. Both lived in South Houston/Clear Lake area. The office was located on 1120 Nasa Rd. 1, Suite 1 (catty-corner from the NASA Space Center.)

The Newsletter itself was produced and printed by Marc Elam, Ron’s longtime Campaign Manager, out of Elam’s office on Fuqua, South Houston, very close to Hobby Airport.

Hayes was forced to resign in an Embezzlement scandal in late 1988 involving the Investment Newsletter and Ron Paul’s other business and political enterprises.

McIver then took over. She was assisted by David Mertz, better known as David James, a close friend and associate of current Ron Paul Campaign Co-Campaign Manager Kent Snyder. Both Snyder and James currently live in Northern, VA, Falls Church area.

For the period in question, early 1990s, post Nadia Hayes, David James, Jean McIver and Marc Elam were the entire Production Team and Editors of the Newsletters.

Lew Rockwell was more of a Contributing writer, and less Editor. But his writing, as I said before, constituted approx. 50 to 60% of the Newsletters.

All of this is general knowledge known by all Ron Paul campaign and Congressional staffers. There are numerous individuals who can be contacted to confirm these facts, both present and employees of Ron Paul.

They can also be confirmed by Houston-area libertarians and Ron Paul activists.

P. Vostrel | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

metrotarians

jkii | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

Blitzer didn't ask Paul why this went for so long and what, if anything, Paul did about it.

Paul is still going to have to answer that one.

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

liberfairweatherfans duh duh DUHHH!!!

Windypundit | January 10, 2008, 8:49pm | #

[T]he issue is that he has yet to show any evidence that, when he learned what was being put out there in his name, he (1) published a denunciation of those articles in the same newsletter, to clear the air and (2) cut ties with the people who wrote that garbage.

Exactly, exactly right. Paul and many of his supporters keep missing the point. I believe Paul didn't write those letters, but he's awfully cozy with the people who did.

If someone wrote racist crap in my name, I'd want to repudiate it on the spot, and I'd damned sure want to know who they were so I could keep them from ever being in a position to represent me again.

Maybe there were a lot of writers of the newsletter drifting in and out, and Paul really doesn't know who wrote what. I guess that's possible. So what's the name of the editor who let this crap run? Did Paul cut ties to him? Or is he with the campaign?

Supporters are saying it doesn't matter what people say, it only matters what they do. Fine. What did Paul do to stop this once he found out?

Maybe he really took care of the problem in the past, which is why it's "old news," but now that it's out there again, he needs to take care of it again.

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:50pm | #

yeah cosmotarian has a real space age feel to that like you got a sweet space ship and green-skinned babe with her head in a fish bowl.

COSMOTARIANS, UNITE!

Favela Cranshaw | January 10, 2008, 8:50pm | #

What this whole debacle shows me is that Ayn Rand's perception of Libertarians was right on the money.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:51pm | #

Blitzer didn't ask Paul why this went for so long and what, if anything, Paul did about it.

In Blitzer's defense, he's dumb as fucking post.

Reinmoose | January 10, 2008, 8:52pm | #

freedomarians?

P. Vostrel | January 10, 2008, 8:52pm | #

Houston-area libertarians.

Houstontarians?

Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008, 8:54pm | #

Ron Paul had a Campaign book in the 1988 Libertarian Presidential bid. It's "Freedom Under Seige," (famously mis-spelled 10,000 copies in the first print run. I still have one of those mis-spelled copies.)

Lew Rockwell ghostwrote virtually that entire book.

Brandybuck | January 10, 2008, 8:54pm | #

cosmotarians

I vote for cosmotarians. It rolls of the tongue very nice.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:55pm | #

yeah cosmotarian has a real space age feel to that like you got a sweet space ship and green-skinned babe with her head in a fish bowl.

...drinking something colorful out of a martini glass.

The LP should nominate Zaphod Beeblebrox.

Reinmoose | January 10, 2008, 8:56pm | #

The LP should nominate Zaphod Beeblebrox.

Yeah. He actually is two-faced, and all he ever did was steal a really freakin expensive space ship

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:58pm | #

You know, Zaphod Beeblebrox is probably the original cosmotarian! good call joe.

Someone needs to register mainstreamcosmotarian.com before Dondero gets it and makes it a campaign site for Bloomberg

Edward | January 10, 2008, 8:59pm | #

If the sleazy old fuck did release the names of his collaborators, I bet they'd have a tale to tell about the good old days.

Peter McCormick | January 10, 2008, 8:59pm | #

This is no longer about Ron Paul; it's about libertarianism.

This episode demonstrates that Ayn Rand was right about the libertarians all along. If you're only about freedom and non-coercion but don't have an objective moral foundation, then you end up with whack-job racists, secessionists, and pedophiles in your movement.

The only true philosopher of limited government and laissez-faire capitalism is Ayn Rand.

Peter | January 10, 2008, 8:59pm | #

I'm just glad Paul didn't pull an R. Budd Dwyer on Wolf.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 8:59pm | #

@Brandybuck:

Yes. Words mean things. Thank you. I agree.

In this particular case, though, I'm willing to put this down to Paul's shaky command of the fine art of political rhetoric.

What I am not willing to put down to mere incompetence, and what I can get worked up about much more easily, is his apparent willingness in the past to pander to actual racists and actual homophobes and actual antisemites (as opposed to people who throw a politically incorrect definite article into a CNN segment.)

As I said earlier, I predicted that something or other like this would come up sooner or later, just because things like this have been known for a long time to be the kind of things that sooner or later come up when it comes to people who associate with some of the people he associated with.

And sure it did.

The pity is that many of the people who rally around him now would probably prefer to rally around a candidate who represented a libertarianism not loaded by shades of conspiracy theory and paleo-whatever think tanks from Alabama: that is, a libertarianism more like Reason's and less like Paul's. But this is what they've got, and quite a few of them seem to be in denial about it.

Duckman | January 10, 2008, 9:00pm | #

Well, I do like the fact Ron Paul mentioned the drug war.

But, as has been pointed out here, Ron Paul obviously lied about not knowing who wrote the articles. Very bad for a political movement based quite a bit on honesty.

Brandybuck | January 10, 2008, 9:00pm | #

Lew Rockwell ghostwrote virtually that entire book.

Aaargh! Next you'll be telling us that Gary North does Ron's hair!

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 9:01pm | #

The strange thing about Dondero's claim above is the part where Rockwell "wrote about crime and race relations".

When he writes about crime now, he seems motivated purely by a deep mistrust and dislike of police. If there was something in the newsletters that said, "Buy automatic weapons and give them to negroes so they can shoot the police" I would believe it was Rockwell. But the stuff that has been highlighted about race sounds more like something a law and order conservative would write if they were having a Mark Fuhrman moment. Has Rockwell changed the object of his ire over the years?

Brian Courts | January 10, 2008, 9:01pm | #

In Blitzer's defense, he's dumb as fucking post.

Heh. I have to say joe, that is a beautiful sentence.

Pig Mannix | January 10, 2008, 9:02pm | #

In any event, while I hope this is laid to rest for once and for all, I somehow doubt it...

Well, I doubt it, too. I'll continue to support the guy, I don't believe he had any direct involvement with those letters, and I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he didn't know, specifically, who wrote that content (although I'm pretty damn sure he must have some good guesses, even if he really doesn't know the specifics).

For all that, I found it to be an unsatisfying rebuttal. Even if he doesn't know the specific writers, he's got to know who was running the day to day operations, and those people would surely know who the author(s) were.

Understand, I'm not holding the newsletter against him, but he has a PR disaster on his hands, and he's not handling it well. If he doesn't have the facts, he'd damn well better get them, because getting them out in open is the only way he's ever going to put this to bed.

Christopher Espinal | January 10, 2008, 9:02pm | #

Why his appearance just wasnt good enough:

http://neocondossier.blogspot.com/2008/01/cnn-appearance-on-bigotry-not-good.html

brotherben | January 10, 2008, 9:03pm | #

...think tanks from Alabama...

Bwaahaaahaaaaaa

Ali | January 10, 2008, 9:03pm | #

Eric:

Can you bring any evidence that Lew and the other people you mention are racists or have published or said anything explicitly racist?

Sje | January 10, 2008, 9:04pm | #

@Dondero:

Thanks for your clarifications. I would find it interesting also to hear your thoughts about why things went down they way they did. What strategy was behind this? To what extent was it sincere? Do you think that matters? If it was sincere, how much of it lives on among the Alabama crowd?

Lost_In_Translation | January 10, 2008, 9:04pm | #

Eric,

Are you actually saying Ron was involved in the WRITING OF these letters!?!

How could he not have read the finished product?

WHAT IN ALL THAT IS HOLY IS GOING ON HERE!?!?!

James Anderson Merritt | January 10, 2008, 9:04pm | #

ididntwritethis wrote (or didn't write :-)):
"How can one not think of conspiracy theories having just observed a highly coordinated media attack on Ron Paul the day of the New Hampshire campaign? TNR from the left, Fox News and talk radio from the right, and piling on from beltway 'libertarians' who made a point of loudly repeating the TNR smears and dumping Ron Paul on the day of the primary."

But what about that Jon Stewart? He laughed in David Frum's face after the latter attempted to dismiss and insult Ron Paul the other night. No scriptwriters needed to convey that primal scorn. My son almost fell onto the floor, he was laughing so hard at the sheer audaciousness of it. I frankly don't care if Stewart likes Paul or not, or even whether the subject of the interchange was Ron Paul or not; the fact that Stewart responded to Frum's obvious trash-talking crap with derisive laughter on nationwide TV makes him a hero in my eyes. We need to see more of this aimed at the punditocracy.

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 9:05pm | #

No. The man allowed hateful filth to be published under his name, and has not offered a satisfying explanation, and apparently still associates with the folks who are responsible. So no, I won't be pretending this won't happen.

Than go find your perfect candidate and vote for him or her. Dipshit.

The Johnny Appleseed of Crack | January 10, 2008, 9:05pm | #

I usually agree that when people say "I take full responsibility for..." it is a B.S. line. For example, when Janet Reno said she took full responsibility for Waco, her words rang hollow. Her merely saying that line does not provide restitution to the families of those who were killed.

Ron Paul, like everyone else, should be held accountable for the consequences of his actions. Let's assume for a minute that he did write every last word of this. What were the consequences? Did his newsletter cause any harm to anybody? I don't think so. So what more responsibility does he need to take?

thoreau | January 10, 2008, 9:06pm | #

The only true philosopher of limited government and laissez-faire capitalism is Ayn Rand.

I can think of no better way to bring some sanity and decorum to this affair than to bring in the more cultish branches of Objectivism.

Edward | January 10, 2008, 9:09pm | #

go find your perfect candidate and vote for him or her. Dipshit.

How about just one who isn't a neo-Nazi racist conspiracy creep? Moron.

Condoleeza Rice | January 10, 2008, 9:09pm | #

Eric: Since you are of course a well-distinguished "socially tolerant" political butterfly and general representative of a broad spectrum of libertarians and all, why did you knowingly keep such close company with obvious gosh-darn awful bigots for twenty years?

Could it be that, being the opportunistic Florida hick that you are, you saw a sliver of a chance of hijacking somebody's small-time seat in the House and will make up almost anything about anyone? No, couldn't be that now could it? It's not as if I am blindly following Dr. Paul, I just don't find you to be anything resembling a credible source of information.

joe | January 10, 2008, 9:09pm | #

Heh. I have to say joe, that is a beautiful sentence

...and a textbook example of joez law.

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 9:10pm | #

but not a good job of spin control

I am sure Romney would welcome your support. He has teams of "spin control" people.

You want "different" but in reality you want the same.

"Give me spin! Please Mr. Jesus Politics, give me spin! But make it taste more delicious this time!"

jkii | January 10, 2008, 9:11pm | #

So what more responsibility does he need to take?

It raises some questions about his competence as an executive. "Sorry about my staff writing and publishing position papers I completely disagree with."

neubauten666 | January 10, 2008, 9:11pm | #

joe -
How many black people do you interact with on a regular basis in person? Where do you live? Is there anything resembling a sizeable black population there? When did you become the arbiter of what's an acceptable, collective moniker for a group?

joe | January 10, 2008, 9:12pm | #

How did that get in there? Honestly, Vanessa, that sort of thing is not my bag, baby.

NP | January 10, 2008, 9:13pm | #

Lost_In_Translation,

Dondero is not necessarily saying that Paul wrote the offensive contents of the newsletters. Remember, the dirty materials were only a small part of the newsletters (or that's my understanding, since I haven't read any of them in their entirety).

Sje | January 10, 2008, 9:13pm | #

@obi juan:

"Politics is above them, as is clear, and their disdain of populism dooms them with the populace."

But one man's disdain of populism is another's Principle with Capital P. Take immigration. The Cato position is in a way the principled one, while the position of Ron Paul and many at the Mises Institute is a very opportunistic kind of pragmatism, stating that open borders must wait until the conveniently far-off goal of abolishing the welfare state lock stock and barrel has been accomplished.

Note that the current US legal immigration policy is not just harsh on janitors. It is also restrictive for, say, US-trained biologists with Irish passports. (The H1B quota was lowered to the point where it really starts to matter a lot.)

crw | January 10, 2008, 9:14pm | #

To me, the Ron Paul newsletters flap comes down to the issue of administrative competence and judgment. No, Ron Paul by no means is a racist. But this sordid affair demonstrates a lack of good judgment and a lack of administrative smarts. And that's important.

Let us not forget. On day 1, Ron Paul will not be able to lay off 90% of the government and usher in libertopia. He'll have to work slowly with the other branches of government to reign things in. In the mean time, he is the chief administrator of the largest employer in the United States. There is no room for "oops, I didn't know what my employees were doing in my name" when you have over 1.8 million people working for you. And there's no room for brining in less than completely trustworthy people to your inner circle when you're inheriting that much power (reference: the entirety of the Bush administration).

To me, this little episode demonstrates Ron Paul just isn't fit for the job as it exists. Even understanding that he wants to drastically change the job, that wont happen overnight as said. And until then, the ship of state needs a firm and attentive hand at the wheel. If Ron Paul were to somehow miraculously win, I think he'd bungle the administrative aspects of the Presidency so badly it'd discredit libertarianism for a generation. We can't afford that.

Don't get me wrong. I think Ron Paul is running a fine educational campaign, and I want him to stay in to keep the ideas at the forefront. I don't think his baggage is going to hurt the message too much, in the long run. But he'd make a lousy president.

joe | January 10, 2008, 9:15pm | #

Plenty. Across the street from a Zimbabwean family. Yes, in a city with sizable numbers of both African immigrants and African-Americans. Nobody, I'm just capable of operating in American society without people concluding I"m a racist crank.

Any other questions, asshole?

Lost_In_Translation | January 10, 2008, 9:15pm | #

NP,

I know that, but it indicates he was involved in some of the content, which if that were true, means he knows who was writing the other parts.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 9:16pm | #

"Like 'the Jews' and 'the blacks.'"

Oh, for crying out loud. Jews have been referring to themselves as "the Jews" for thousands of years. "The" is not an epithet.

-jcr

joe | January 10, 2008, 9:18pm | #

Hey, neubatten, do you ever find yourself having to ward off completely unfounded accusations of racism based on trivial comments or terminology that have absolutely no racist intent behind them?

I don't.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 9:18pm | #

James,

I agree with you on Jon Stewart. That "you should check out *your* guy" line was the best STFU ever delivered by a comedian to a party hack.

-jcr

Pig Mannix | January 10, 2008, 9:19pm | #

If Ron Paul were to somehow miraculously win, I think he'd bungle the administrative aspects of the Presidency so badly it'd discredit libertarianism for a generation.

I know. So help me, when this guy starts talking, I hear Jimmy Carter. OTOH, we survived Carter, and we'd survive Paul, too, and truthfully, the alternatives aren't any more appetizing.

joe | January 10, 2008, 9:19pm | #

You ever have that experience, Randolph? People accusing you of racism based on completely innocent statements?

I wonder what it's like.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 9:20pm | #

"my 12 years working for Ron"

You know, you still haven't told us what he fired you for. Is it that embarassing?

Come on, how bad could it be?

-jcr

Gene Trosper | January 10, 2008, 9:21pm | #

Not a bad interview. Could have been better, but still, it should serve to ease this situation.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 9:22pm | #

@joe:

"I don't."

Good for you.

As an old principle of network engineering says, be liberal about you input and conservative about your output. (Liberal and conservative used, of course, in the meanings of "permissive" and "strict".)

It helps to improve the smooth running of the 'net, and it helps to improve civil discourse.

joe | January 10, 2008, 9:22pm | #

Oh, but, hey: if you can come up with an explanation of how people are so totally wrong to misinterpret your meaning, in three part harmony with footnotes and historical references, than that's totally cool.

Because if you can do that, than it means no one is going to read anything unintended into your words. That's exactly how it works.

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 9:22pm | #

Lew Rockwell was more of a Contributing writer, and less Editor. But his writing, as I said before, constituted approx. 50 to 60% of the Newsletters.

Oh, the fired district worker do-nothing flunkie has said it. Must be true.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 9:23pm | #

Hey, neubatten, do you ever find yourself having to ward off completely unfounded accusations of racism based on trivial comments or terminology that have absolutely no racist intent behind them?

Which is simple enough to do, of course.

But then again, some of us are tired of keeping up with the latest acceptable language, and are tempted to declare that if a minority group at one time demanded the use of a particular term, that term is acceptable forever.

"Stop using the slur 'handicapped'!" Whatever.

Pig Mannix | January 10, 2008, 9:24pm | #

You know, you still haven't told us what he fired you for. Is it that embarassing?

Come on, how bad could it be?

I bet the last straw was when Dondero ass-raped Ron Paul's dog....

James Anderson Merritt | January 10, 2008, 9:24pm | #

Boy, there are so many cliche putdowns and denouncements of libertarians and libertarianism in this thread that my liver is shaking in fear that I will be tempted to start a round of the LP drinking game, based on the material here.

In the publishing industry, people lend their names to magazines or other publications without ever being expected to edit or provide quality control over the operation. A case in point: Isaac Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine, to which I subscribed back in the days when Paul's newsletter was circulating. Asimov may have occasionally read "his" magazine, or some of the stories in it, and of course he contributed editorial material to it on a regular basis and knew some of the upper-level staffers. But on numerous occasions over the years, he or others cheerfully admitted that his was a "buy the name" deal with the publisher. The understanding was, "we'll put out the best magazine we can and you get a cut because we'll sell more copies with your name on the cover, and your few hundred words on the inside, than without."

Of course, one would think that a "name deal" would involve more personal involvement or supervision in the case of a limited-circulation newsletter than in the case of a circa 100-page magazine that was distributed on newsstands across the country. So Paul's protestations of near-total uninvolvement don't have the ring of silver to them.

What concerns me even more, though, is his insistence that he has no idea of who wrote the controversial material. Since this has been a campaign issue for him on numerous occasions, and since the newsletters are all dated, it seems as if it would be a fairly simple thing to read the newsletters, identify potentially incendiary passages, and get in touch with the newsletter editor who was responsible. Paul may not wish to reveal the name(s) of the people involved, but I simply cannot believe that he doesn't know it(them). This sounds more as if he is exhibiting loyalty to an friend or staffer, and if so, he needs to learn to handle these things more gracefully. As Blitzer said, there's a lot more where that came from, on the campaign trail.

joe | January 10, 2008, 9:25pm | #

Dude, "the blacks" hasn't been acceptable terminology in fifty years.

Keeping a close eye on how the larger society will respond to your choice of rhetoric isn't optional for a presidential candidate.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 9:26pm | #

"You ever have that experience, Randolph? People accusing you of racism based on completely innocent statements?"

Sure, and it's probably happened to anyone who's opposed racial discrimination even when it was going in disguise as "affirmative action".

FWIW, I've been called a commie, a nazi, a jew-lover, a jew-hater, an anarchist, a fascist, a homophobe, a faggot, a satanist, and many other things which said far more about the person accusing me than they did about myself.

-jcr

Condoleeza Rice | January 10, 2008, 9:27pm | #

You know, you still haven't told us what he fired you for. Is it that embarassing?

I'll tell you what he was fired for. I'm coming out, right now, as an anonymous ex-campaign Ron Paul staffer in the 90's, that he was let go for using petty cash to buy wrinkle-free slacks at Sam's Club, food at a local "Sonic Burger", and a novelty foam cowboy hat that he routinely flaunted around the campaign office in a fashion show manner.

CharlesWT | January 10, 2008, 9:27pm | #

There is no hedging in that promise. Indeed, Paul has earned the nickname "Dr. No" because he has a long history of standing against the tide on even very popular measures because he disagreed on principle. But “never” is a tough standard to meet, and 17 years in Congress covers an awful lot of votes. An examination of Paul’s record shows that although he usually adheres to his principle, he has sometimes voted for programs that aren’t “expressly authorized” in the Constitution.

For example, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January.
A few exceptions to his small-government principles

Edward | January 10, 2008, 9:28pm | #

The most amazing part of Ron Paul's goofy defense was the notion that this has come up now because of his large following among African Americans ("the blacks"). He must think his groupies are completely brainless, and he's probably right. Send more money, fuckwits.

joe | January 10, 2008, 9:30pm | #

I feel your pain Fluffy; but then, I once had a room mate who went to the mats insisting that there was no racial element in using the term "nigger-lipped" to describe leaving saliva on a bottle after taking a sip from it.

Pay a little attention. Do you SEE public figures talking about "the blacks?" Are characters on television shows who use the phrase "the blacks" generally sophisticated, sympathetic characters?

Look, I told you how Paul came off to an audience who isn't already in his corner. Don't shoot the messenger.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 9:31pm | #

"he voted to authorize the continuing operation of NASA and to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr.’s birthday on the third Monday in January."

Are you sure? I thought he voted against the MLK holiday.

-jcr

James Anderson Merritt | January 10, 2008, 9:31pm | #

All the above being said, however, I have to say that it was wonderful to hear Paul stand up and offer to oppose the Drug War as President, and pardon all non-violent drug offenders (regardless of race, he reminded us).

The message that stupid wars of ANY stripe hurt minorities worst is important as we try to understand who are the REAL racists in the Presidential contest.

brotherben | January 10, 2008, 9:34pm | #

Joe,
it is still common down here to here african americans referred to as "the blacks" or "the coloreds" or "the negroes" depending on the age of the person making the referrance.There are some terms that are not acceptable socially such as the "N" word. It seems to make more of a difference what the speaker's intent is when using such phrases as "the blacks"

Sje | January 10, 2008, 9:36pm | #

Question about the "our only chance" theory: is it really true that no major politicians and/or presidential candidates with more-or-less libertarian viewpoints and a less shady past could arise in the near future in the US? Do you know anyone up-and-coming who would fit that bill?

Brian Courts | January 10, 2008, 9:38pm | #

It's just not believable, not remotely believable, that this stuff went out under his name on multiple occasions for years and he didn't know. Are you going to tell me that nobody he knew (besides the racist crackpots) ever read his newsletters, was shocked at what he read, and called Paul up to say something like, "Hey, do you know there's some pretty racist garbage in there under your name. What's up with that?" Nobody on his staff read it over and raised a concern with him??

And if it were true that nobody on the staff ever raised a concern, that's even worse. Was everyone who worked for him or on the newsletters so comfortable with that kind of stuff that it didn't even move them to inquire about Paul's approval of it? Either way, it just says nothing good about Paul and those he associated with.

Further, the claim that he doesn't know who wrote it is either a lie, or worse. Did whoever it was save his racist bile only for the newsletters but never spoke like that when talking to Paul in person? Or, again, was it that so many staffers held those views that he truly doesn't know because it could be any of them? And again, either way, this says nothing good about Paul or those he associated with.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 9:43pm | #

And one last thing about "the blacks", just a little analogy.

I'm gay. I know that when a politician talks about "homosexuals" that is a likely sign of bad weather. Politicians who respect gay people or at least legislate as if they did (which is close enough) tend to call us "gay" and not "homosexual." There's nothing inherently vicious about the word "homosexual", but the correlation is pretty good.

But if some older politician, maybe one who has only recently come around to a more tolerant (cosmopolitan, cosmosexual, whatever you want to call it) attitude, says something like "but then when I found out that my next-door neighbor, who is a very nice guy, was a homosexual, I changed my mind"—then I'm willing to chalk up one little victory for sanity and good will over bigotry.

Edward | January 10, 2008, 9:44pm | #

Brian,

You've nicely summed up the reasons Ron Paul is surely lying.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 9:45pm | #

@Brian: hear hear.

Andrew Taylor | January 10, 2008, 9:46pm | #

Apparently everybody and his dog in the world of libertarianism knows that Lew Rockwell and/or one or more of his associates were the idiots behind the most stupid parts of Paul's newsletters. So why won't Rockwell just admit it and save Paul from ever more odium being heaped upon his 72-year-old head?

Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008, 9:46pm | #

Lost in Translation, yes I am saying that Ron Paul wrote a good portion of those newsletters. My estimate - 40%.

He did not do this in the traditional way of sitting in front of a computer screen. Rather, he was more basic, using a yellow pad.

He would also dictate the articles for the newsletter in one of two ways: sometimes directly to his daughter Lori at the Clute office, and other times to an old fashioned small tape recorder located in the back ofice room of his home in LJ. Lori would put the writings in legible form and fax them to Elam in Houston for publication. Or, she would mail or send by courrier the cassette tapes to Houston.

Lost_In_Translation | January 10, 2008, 9:48pm | #

Yes, but what I'm asking Eric is did he know who was ghostwriting for him the other articles (the ones in question)?

joe | January 10, 2008, 9:50pm | #

The only reason this whole "black people" vs "the blacks" thing is even remotely noticeable is because he said it in an interview where he was specifically working to shoot down the accusation that he's a racist, or in bed with white-supremacist Confederate weirdos.

Everyone watching that clip, especially after that opening with the inflammatory racist rhetoric, was looking for clues about Paul's attitudes on race. So little things matter.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 9:51pm | #

And what I'm asking him is his personal judgment of whether Paul and those around them were sincere in writing the nasty things they wrote, and if so, whether they (or some of them) still believe them.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 9:51pm | #

Joe,

The irony was palpable indeed, that much is for sure.

Nigger | January 10, 2008, 9:53pm | #

Reason used to be a really intelligent place to come to. It was breath of fresh air where you could feel comfortable discussing what the mainstream world would deem controversial.

Now, it seems that it's being infiltrated more and more by JREF type, quasi rationalists whose emotional output trumps reason. They have pet issues that they agree with in the Libertarian movement, but they just can't seem to let certain irrational impulses go.

If you are willing to not vote for Paul now, then you were likely never really sincere about the campaign in the first place. I couldn't care less how many wackos his campaign attracts. It's absolutely meaningless to the actual debate.

There are people who will only vote for the third party candidate no matter what. They're of little relevance to my reasons for voting. To concern myself with why they are voting is simply a waste of time.

I fail to see how any of this invalidates Paul's campaign. To deny every other issue that he has championed because of this early 90's newsletter is simply insane.

Obviously it provides a perfect lynching point for anti-Paul campaigners, but it reminds you how utterly knee-jerk, and hyper-emotional people have become.

And I thought penalizing a Golf analyst over an innocent comment was utterly insane. This kind of scrambling is truly disappointing to witness on here.

Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008, 9:55pm | #

Sje, Ali, thanks for your questions.

Whether it's all "legitamate" is for others to decide. I merely wish to bring to the attention of those here and others the mechanics of the whole thing. Who produced the newsletters, how they were produced, when were they produced.

I'm just amazed at the ignorance people have of Ron Paul. People don't even know some of the very basics of who he is, and who are his closest allies and advisors.

I was floored last night, when a reporter for a major - MAJOR - publication called me up and asked me some of the most basic things about Paul. I started talking about Marc Elam, and he said, "Who is Marc Elam?"

If you don't know who Marc Elam is, you don't know anything about Ron Paul.

Lots of people are talking out of their asses right now about what "they know" and "insider details" about Ron Paul.

I've seen Bloggers who have gotten about 70% of their articles on this subject completely wrong.

If you want to know about Ron Paul and the details of his Newsletters, and his operation go to the people who know him best. Ask former campaigners and staffers of his, not just me, but people like Michael Sullivan, Brian Roe, Phil Boyd-Robertson, Michael Franks, Don Loucks, David Palmquist, John Monus. Ask oldtime Houston Libertarians who know Paul well, like Kevin Southwick, Mike Holmes, Matt Monroe, David Hutzleman and Lonnie Brantley.

Don't get your information from some Blogger who has "come aboard the Ron Paul Train" within the last year, and thinks he knows every little insider detail about the man and what makes him tick.

Get your information from people who've known Ron for years.

Lolcat Extraordinaire | January 10, 2008, 9:57pm | #

Dondero: first you say Rockwell wrote 80% of the newsletters, then 60%. If Paul himself wrote another 40%, what the heck did all the other newsletter staff do?

Condoleeza Rice | January 10, 2008, 10:01pm | #

Eric Dondero: You are purposefully evading joe's friendly inquiry concerning the nature of your termination.

Brian Courts | January 10, 2008, 10:01pm | #

I couldn't care less how many wackos his campaign attracts.

That's not what this is about, and you either know that or ought to know it by now.

They have pet issues that they agree with in the Libertarian movement, but they just can't seem to let certain irrational impulses go.

And here I almost thought you were describing the racist wackos...

charlie | January 10, 2008, 10:01pm | #

Lolcat,

One thing you can always say about Ron Paul whether you agree with him or not -- he always gives his 180 %.

GILMORE | January 10, 2008, 10:01pm | #

I have no dog with paul, but his defense that he had no idea who generated this stuff is disingenuous. He should throw somebody on swords to at least protect his credibility. At the moment he's defending anonymity for some reason which makes him look weak.

he needs to bail away from the folks who support him who make him look like an extremist. He needs to be an average guy misserved by his acolytes. Which he fails to do here in his rebuttal.

JG

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 10:03pm | #

To deny every other issue that he has championed because of this early 90's newsletter is simply insane.

Indeed. I don't believe for a moment this "I supported him completely up till now, but this 15 year old violation of political correctness rules is just a bridge too far. I'm going for a real libertarian like Guiliani now!"

prolefeed | January 10, 2008, 10:04pm | #

In Blitzer's defense, he's dumb as fucking post.

Heh. I have to say joe, that is a beautiful sentence.

Fixed!

joe | January 10, 2008, 10:04pm | #

That was somebody else. And Dondero says he quit.

What I want to know is why he spent so many years working there if he thought it was a nest of racist and anti-semitic vipers.

Condoleeza Rice | January 10, 2008, 10:05pm | #

Brian Courts says: And if it were true that nobody on the staff ever raised a concern, that's even worse. Was everyone who worked for him or on the newsletters so comfortable with that kind of stuff that it didn't even move them to inquire about Paul's approval of it?

You would be served well to direct this question to the former faithful Ron Paul campaign staffer that was "let go" from the campaign, but managed to keep good company with and never made an effort to expose so-called horrible bigots. That is, until it looked like the TX-14 House seat might open up.

joe | January 10, 2008, 10:05pm | #

I almost missed the strikethrough there.

Damn you prolefeed! Damn you to hell!

Your an idiot.

BakedPenguin | January 10, 2008, 10:07pm | #

The only reason this whole "black people" vs "the blacks" thing is even remotely noticeable is because he said it in an interview where he was specifically working to shoot down the accusation that he's a racist...

QFT. Paul & his campaign have to be the most PC of any campaign out there from now on if they want to have credibility, and the blame for that lies entirely with Paul for letting that shit go out the door with his name on it.

Also, no more "no immigrants from terrorist nations" commercials would be a real good idea.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 10:10pm | #

Eric,

That sounds like sensible advice. As far as I'm concerned, I don't really care so much about the campaign of a candidate who will not win a presidential race in a country where I was never a citizen and where I no longer live (although I might return some day; I never used to think I would like the US all that much before I moved there, but let's say it's an acquired taste.)

What I frankly care about much more is the long-term health of some sort of classical liberal movement in the US and in the world at large. Not necessarily a movement of true believers that gold is the only real money (and platinum Will Not Do!) but a tendency to think hard, twice, before recklessly invoking the strong arms of the law to solve this or that problem. And for that, I think that the Paul campaign could mean a step back or a step forward. I just don't know, and I think nobody really does, least of all the candidate himself, who has appeared fairly befuddled by it all.

Nigger | January 10, 2008, 10:13pm | #

I never said that's what this is all about. However, it is a fairly common comment when discussing the Ron Paul campaign, and amounts to nothing more than an attempt at guilt by association.

I don't need Ron Paul as a father figure. I even disagree with him on certain issues, and often find that he engages in a bit of hyperbole when it comes to assessing the socio/politcal climate of the U.S. At the same time, I feel that I am mature enough to not think that I have to agree with him on every issues in order to feel like he is the best thing we have going.

Do you know how rare it is to have a candidate whose voting record is as consistent as Paul's? we finally get what we want, and seems that we're trying desperately to find reasons not to feel good about it. It tells me that many people are jumping ship because of irrational societal connotations, and that's pure cowardice in my book. Be gone. The politcal process doesn't need you.

If I didn't vote for Paul, I would vote for Obama, and that's like showing up at an Asian Tan parlor and simply walking out with a massage.

Nigger | January 10, 2008, 10:15pm | #

^^^In response to : "I couldn't care less how many wackos his campaign attracts.

That's not what this is about, and you either know that or ought to know it by now."

Edward | January 10, 2008, 10:17pm | #

Gilmore,

Maybe if he gave the names, they'd have plenty to say about him.

Brian Courts | January 10, 2008, 10:29pm | #

Indeed. I don't believe for a moment this "I supported him completely up till now, but this 15 year old violation of political correctness rules is just a bridge too far. I'm going for a real libertarian like Guiliani now!"

Nobody is saying that. If someone is at all objective about a candidate then you have to have a realistic view in which you balance the things you like with the things you don't like and come to some decision on your level of support. If you found the balance somewhat in his favor before, something like this could, and to my mind should, tip that balance to one of disfavor. I'd say the problem is when so many people view their preferred candidate as some kind of hero or savior that no amount of information can shake their faith. It seems to lead them to search for ever more contrived rationalizations and to lash out at the critics as heretics or apostates or never true-believers to begin with.

Oh, and I'd say that is was a bit more than merely violating political correctness - I would hope you don't think that is all those kinds of views amount to. There is a more substantive objection to them, you know.

Sparky | January 10, 2008, 10:29pm | #

"If you are willing to not vote for Paul now, then you were likely never really sincere about the campaign in the first place."

"I don't believe for a moment this 'I supported him completely up till now, but this 15 year old violation of political correctness rules is just a bridge too far. I'm going for a real libertarian like Guiliani now!'"

I realize a lot of folks on all sides feel strongly and are getting a little over-excited here, but these are two of the goofier statements I've seen posted at H&R. First, those statements go quite a bit beyond "violation[s] of political correctness." And second, these developments show Paul to at best to have terrible judgment about the people he associates with and the causes he lends his name to; and at the very worst to be a serious racist (FWIW, I think the former is far, far more likely than the latter). That should give a lot of supporters of Paul's candidacy, even the "really sincere" ones, at least some pause.

taiko | January 10, 2008, 10:29pm | #

I am a minority but I don't believe RP is a racist. But I also find it absolutely unbelievable that he did not know what was being published under his name. Not every article, but am I supposed to believe that in all that time somebody didn't come up to him and alert him to at least one of these articles? And if it happened once, I would expect a reasonably intelligent person to keep an eye on something published under his name after such an event.

Now for those who say that he doesn't believe it and that's what matters; here are my issues with that. In his own words he said that being a racist is the antithesis of being a libertarian; yet he allowed just such a message to be propogated and perpetuated under his name. I find that dichotomy hard to swallow (I'm assuming he is the "man-of-character" he is supposed to be and not a typical politician). In effect, Words matter, like it or not. I got into a fierce argument with a friend in college when he argued that "nigger" was just a word. I argued, word or not, it had meaning, and that meaning--at least coming from a skinny, pasty-faced white kid like him--was not good. I finally got fed up with him and grabbed him by his arm and started dragging him back to the bars. When he asked me what I was doing I told him we were going to test his theory and go up to the first African-Americans we saw and I wanted him to call them that. I told him their response would prove which one of us right. Needless to say he about shit his pants and conceded the argument. Bottomline: some things sound great in concept but are full of shit in the real-world.

I see many commenters here mentioning that the ideas that RP is spreading are what is important. I agree. So why is it so hard to understand that it was the discriminatory message that was spread under his name in these shitty articles that is important (IMHO)? He didn't know about it? I don't believe it. But if he didn't, that doesn't speak well of the man either. What if the articles in his newsletter contained anti-gun or pro-tax screeds instead? Would that give any of his current defenders pause? Doesn't it anger you when you have to defend your libertarian beliefs against morons who think all libertarians are simply gun-loving, pot-smoking, no-compassion racists because that is how you are portrayed by much of the establishment? Aren't you angry against those who perpetuate such stereotypes? Doesn't it hurt your cause? Well, as a minority, I feel the same way about people who perpetuate and spread racist stereotypes. Again, I don't believe that RP is a racist, but I also don't believe that he didn't know. For whatever reason, he allowed such racist and discriminatory stereotypes to be spread under his name. Just as bad, maybe worse, in my book.

As a liberal with libertarian leanings (I know, I know, there are some of us that do exist!), I was leaning towards RP in the elections. He just had his chance to convince me and he failed. I speak only for myself, but his explanation re: these newsletters was
a typical "politicians answer". I expected so much more from him. I apologize for the long post.

Sparky | January 10, 2008, 10:30pm | #

"those statements" referring to the ones in the newsletters, of course....

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 10:33pm | #

I would hope you don't think that is all those kinds of views amount to.

I am completely convinced that the worst of these PC hand-wringing liberal-studies crappy ass college types would cross the street to avoid having to walk past a real live African American. But they cluck their self-righteous tongues in perfect harmony. Love it. Hypocrisy and a side of wheat toast.

Sparky | January 10, 2008, 10:35pm | #

"...we finally get what we want, and seems that we're trying desperately to find reasons not to feel good about it."

Christ almighty - do you honestly believe that people here are looking for a reason to dump on Paul? Are you really that delusional? With the number of people here who have donated to his campaign, volunteered their time, made ludicrously optimistic predictions about polls and primaries, etc.?

Wanting a credible explanation for how and why the candidate you support so strongly has his name attached to such virulently racist statements is a hell of a long way from "trying desperately to find reasons not to feel good about it."

Mick | January 10, 2008, 10:37pm | #

People rely on a candidate's words and actions to predict how he would behave if elected. If we can't trust that words published under his name are his words, how can we know what he stands for?

The proposition that Ron would neither know nor care that offensive words were being published under his name for decades is wildly implausible. That he would not know who did it is literally unbelievable.

That other politicians do bad things is irrelevant. Libertarians claim to adhere to a higher standard. They should be judged by that standard.

Sparky | January 10, 2008, 10:39pm | #

"I am completely convinced that the worst of these PC hand-wringing... blahblahblah... liberal...blahblahblah... college...blahblahblah... self-righteous...blahblahblah..."

And I'm completely convinced that you couldn't find your ass with two hands and a flashlight, which is made all the more ironic by the fact that your head is so firmly lodged there.

Hey, this is fun!

Brian Courts | January 10, 2008, 10:42pm | #

I am completely convinced that the worst of these PC hand-wringing liberal-studies crappy ass college types would cross the street to avoid having to walk past a real live African American. But they cluck their self-righteous tongues in perfect harmony. Love it. Hypocrisy and a side of wheat toast.

I have no idea how that is at all a response to the sentence it is purported to respond to.

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 10:43pm | #

And I'm completely convinced that you couldn't find your ass with two hands and a flashlight, which is made all the more ironic by the fact that your head is so firmly lodged there.


OK tough guy, calm down now. All that righteous indignation welling up inside you isn't good, even for your little 20-something blood pressure.

el profesor erótico | January 10, 2008, 10:44pm | #

At a minimum, Dr. Paul was very foolish for allowing others to write bad things in his name. Everyone seems to agree with that. So, let’s condemn him, rightly, for his mistake.

Now, let’s take a look at the log in our own eye.

“We the people of the United States…” Here are some of the things that we allow to be done in OUR name that go far beyond expressing impolite thoughts.

Starving the children of Iraq
Bombing the people of Iraq
Supporting the dictator of Pakistan
Raiding medical clinics in California and stealing sick people’s medicine
Counterfeiting
Taxation
Torture

We vote, we accept the outcomes of elections, we pay our taxes without protest; we add our affirmation that this is a legitimate government. I hear all the time about the difference between the government of the united States and the people of the united States, but look whose name is at the top of the founding document.

Nephilium | January 10, 2008, 10:46pm | #

joe: Wow... for one of the first times... I agree with you... the usage of the term "the blacks" is political suicide... For fucks sake... just add the syllable and say "black people"... especially when being accused of racism...

And I say this as someone who works in a place that's 60%+ black... and jokes with most of them about the fact that my pasty white skin allows me to enjoy winter more... I can lay in the snow and be invisible... and in summer... I only can really allow myself to be seen by the sun for about five minutes before I turn a lovely shade of red...

Nephilium... pasty white guy.

Nigger | January 10, 2008, 10:47pm | #

"As a liberal with libertarian leanings (I know, I know, there are some of us that do exist!), I was leaning towards RP in the elections. He just had his chance to convince me and he failed. I speak only for myself, but his explanation re: these newsletters was
a typical "politicians answer". I expected so much more from him. I apologize for the long post."

Okay, so he actually isn't Jesus. Now go vote for someone else.

Sparky | January 10, 2008, 10:48pm | #

"OK tough guy, calm down now...."

Oh, don't worry, I'm quite calm; but thank you for your concern. It takes a considerably more serious intellect than yours to get me wound up. But for my amusement's sake, please keep posting.

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 10:48pm | #

el profesor erótico: Great post. Nailed it.

Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008, 10:49pm | #

I'm not trying to be evasive, but you all please understand I'm getting bombarded with questions from media, and bloggers. I'll try to get to as much as I can.

Quickly:

Why did I spend so much time working for Paul? In short, cause I felt I could influence him to the "angel" side of libertarianism. And I'm proud to say that for a few years I succeeded. Paul significantly mainstreamed starting in 1995, all the way up til 9/11. Then he turned back to the dark side (Lew Rockwell's influence) of the paleos. That's when Ron and I started to be on the outs.

Again, in now way was I "fired" from Ron Paul's staff. For confirmation of this, simply contact Thomas Lizardo, Chief of Staff, US Congressman Ron Paul, 205 Cannon House Ofc. Bldg. Washington, DC 20005 or call him at 202-225-2831.

Nigger | January 10, 2008, 10:49pm | #

"Christ almighty - do you honestly believe that people here are looking for a reason to dump on Paul? Are you really that delusional?"

Sweetheart, there ARE people like that here. I was referring to those people.

The standards continue to plummet.

joe | January 10, 2008, 10:54pm | #

I'm firmly convinced that using the phrase "college type" as an insult makes it safe to ignore you.

Akhbar Goldberg | January 10, 2008, 10:54pm | #

I'm with Nigger on this one.

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 10:55pm | #

Why did I spend so much time working for Paul? In short, cause I felt I could influence him to the "angel" side of libertarianism.

But you never worked on the policy side of that shop at all, did you?

Because the policy jobs are all in D.C.

So your policy views were about as relevant as those of the janitor, because you were not a policy guy, right?

joe | January 10, 2008, 10:56pm | #

Nephilium,

Let's not get hysterical here. The use of the phrase was sub-optimal. It wasn't political suicide.

joe, pasty white Irish guy who bursts into flame each July

Condoleeza Rice | January 10, 2008, 10:58pm | #

Why did I spend so much time working for Paul? In short, cause I felt I could influence him to the "angel" side of libertarianism. And I'm proud to say that for a few years I succeeded.

You've got some kind of God complex, boy. Must be really durn persusasive. Makes me wonder how you haven't exercised your influence to upgrade from that lousy Kia Sephia.

Nigger | January 10, 2008, 11:00pm | #

"I'd say the problem is when so many people view their preferred candidate as some kind of hero or savior that no amount of information can shake their faith."

Or maybe they just don't give a shit. So, there's an inconsistency in some tripe printed in a newsletter 15 years ago. If you believe that Paul isn't a racist, then you must logically believe that there was some trouble in monitoring what was being printed.

In no way do I think such an inconsistency trumps the multitude of other reasons to support him, and his actual voting track record.

Do people honestly believe that Presidents themselves are perfect administrators?

The expectations are so incredibly strict that it often forces one to ignore making any decision.

The fascinating discrepancy that I find in these forums is between the acceptance that a state should not endorse the notion of a utopia since human beings are inherently flawed, yet such logic is dismissed when assessing the virtuosity of an individual's character.

Nephilium | January 10, 2008, 11:00pm | #

joe:

I'm not getting hysterical... I already have the opinion that anyone of non-pallor in my office who knows I'm a Ron Paul guy... and follows politics is going to question me quite a bit when I get back from Jury Duty hell... but in the context of defending oneself from accusations of racism... it's a really bad call...

Nephilium

Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008, 11:01pm | #

No, I did not wish to work on the policy side. Bored the 'f' out of me. I was more interested in the political side, and the message - mostly that libertarians can actually win elections running as Republicans. And convincing Republicans that libertarians weren't all kooks. It worked for a while in the late 1990s.

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 11:07pm | #

No, I did not wish to work on the policy side.

Was not an option for you.

I was more interested in the political side

However as a taxpayer-paid district staffer you were legally prohibited from engaging in such activities.

But I am told you were a hell of a driver -- when you were sober and actually showed up for work, that is.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 11:10pm | #

Tell me, Eric, is the "angel" side of libertarianism the side where you work to advocate deliberate genocide and deliberate war crimes, as you did in this thread?

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123587.html#comments

Or is it when you work to educate people about how [snort!] Saddam Hussein was secretly behind the Oklahoma City Bombing, as you did in this thread?

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/123665.html#comments

You were actually supplying something resembling information here for a few minutes. Then you had to go and start saying ridiculous things, like how you represent the "angel" side of libertarianism.

Sparky | January 10, 2008, 11:10pm | #

"Sweetheart, there ARE people like that here. I was referring to those people."

If you've spent any meaningful amount of time at H&R, and you have a brain in your head, you presumably realize that those people are very few and far between, and most of them are not regular posters here. That's a little different than saying "_we're_ trying desperately to find reasons...".

Also, you better buy me a drink before you start calling me sweetheart.

jkii (wingnut edition) | January 10, 2008, 11:12pm | #

What this whole debacle shows me is that Ayn Rand's perception of Libertarians was right on the money.

IIRC, the problem Rand had with Libertarians was that they held liberty as a given, an axiom. As such they had no way to defend liberty on more fundamental grounds and would be easily overwhelmed by the first thug that told them to get out of way. Even the Christian belief that liberty has divine (metaphysical) roots is better than no explanation at all. Ron Paul is a Christian and doesn't fall into the Libertarian category Rand objected to.

Timothy Sandefur has some Objectivist POV writings on Paul's ideas on Federalism and the Constitution which I find interesting.

Of course any discussion of Rand or Objectivism makes me a wingnut.

Mr. X | January 10, 2008, 11:13pm | #

That's a decent response, but I prefer his performance in the South Carolina debate.

Condoleeza Rice | January 10, 2008, 11:15pm | #

You were actually supplying something resembling information here for a few minutes.

Unfortunately, no, it was never credible information. He's a sly one, that Dondi. I know I always do a double-take and question myself when I see those squnty puppy dog eyes calling out to me, pleading "arf arf, I'm the true libertarian. ignore the fact that I'm a war-mongering sack of shit without principle"

Peter McCormick | January 10, 2008, 11:15pm | #

Thoreau: "I can think of no better way to bring some sanity and decorum to this affair than to bring in the more cultish branches of Objectivism."

Name one libertarian philosopher who developed a systematic philosophy in defense of laissez-faire capitalism?

Don't even try to name Rothbard or Nozick.

Sparky | January 10, 2008, 11:20pm | #

"The fascinating discrepancy that I find in these forums is between the acceptance that a state should not endorse the notion of a utopia since human beings are inherently flawed, yet such logic is dismissed when assessing the virtuosity of an individual's character."

I'd say a more fascinating discrepancy is between what most people here are saying and what you're claiming we're saying. Nobody here who's paid any attention thinks Paul is perfect, or expects him to be; and few people here are abandoning him. But even if you believe he isn't a racist (and again, it appears the vast majority of people here, myself included, don't think he is), at the very least he's shown atrocious judgment in what he does with his good name over an extended period of time when he should have known better. That's the best case scenario, and that's not a very good scenario. I'd definitely still vote for him if I voted in a primary that meant a goddamn thing, but I find that troubling.

taiko | January 10, 2008, 11:21pm | #

N-

"Okay, so he actually isn't Jesus." Now go vote for someone else."

LOL. I had no such illusions about the man. But thank you for assuming.

"Now go vote for someone else."

Nice touch--you work for RP's NH campaign by any chance?

"Nephilium... pasty white guy."

No offence intended by my earlier remark on this. It's easy have ethnic jokes with those you know (my friends and I do it all the time), not so much with strangers.

Shane Brady | January 10, 2008, 11:21pm | #

A lot of die hard Ron Paul defenders have claimed once Ron Paul found out about the newsletter problems he fired people. Sure didn't sound like that was the case when he was on CNN. He acted like he never had any idea what was going on either way (if you believe him that is).

Is this firing story a previous defense or a made up defense by Ron Paul fans who can't face reality?

LevStrauss | January 10, 2008, 11:23pm | #

Man George Carlin let himself go, and I never knew he was an undecided republican.

Nigger | January 10, 2008, 11:26pm | #

"Nice touch--you work for RP's NH campaign by any chance?"

Hey, you can't win them all. I like to think of myself as a predominantly practical person, which is why I don't work in politics.

Trying to convince the perpetually suspicious only turns you into a cartoon.

LevStrauss | January 10, 2008, 11:26pm | #

Shane Brady,

I have never seen that fired writer scenario from a credible source. I think it is a rumor, semi popular one.

Nigger | January 10, 2008, 11:28pm | #

"That's the best case scenario, and that's not a very good scenario. I'd definitely still vote for him if I voted in a primary that meant a goddamn thing, but I find that troubling."

Obviously not troubling enough, which is my entire point. The people who should get upset at my comments, are the ones who are getting upset at my comments. So, I would say that I'm addressing the right people.

Sparky | January 10, 2008, 11:37pm | #

Then I guess my entire point then is that you're preaching rather angrily to the choir. Perhaps you've intended your comments to be addressed to a very small minority of posters here, but that hasn't been the least bit clear (at least to me) from what you've said.

Most people here would love the opportunity to vote for Ron Paul, even after all this crap. But we would have loved it a hell of a lot more before all this crap.

Roger | January 10, 2008, 11:40pm | #

jkii, that was indeed an interesting article. Thanks for the link. I will not begin to attack what the author is trying to get at w.r.t. inconsistencies as a federalist. But a philisophical presupposition that the author suggests, that any "libertarian" is supposed to adhere to, I cannot agree with. As a quite unreligious person, having not been raised with a religious tradition and current God-doubting agnostic, I cannot buy into this statement that Mr. Sandefur so blanketly offers as gospel: "Not only would it have declared that all embryos nationwide are human beings (which, just to be clear, they are not)

I believe that Mr. Sandefur is confusing the Libertarian Party platform with consensus, which it is not. My own scientific view, the view of many others like me, that at conception unique human DNA is formed and the embryo begins to replicate as a parasite on its mother, does not strip the developing animal of its de facto status as a human. Indeed, the child is still parasitic in so many ways after it has been birthed. The prevailing "pro-choice" mentailty is that terminating the apparatus of life within the womb does not equal murder, while willful neglect leading to the death of an infant that is incapable of foraging does not equal murder. One specific foundation of U.S. Law and Western values is the "right to life" of the government's citizens, which is Federal law.

Now, personally I do not believe in the metaphysical "right" to life at all, but I fully endorse this constitutional republic stuff since it seems to lead to a very fruitful lifestyle that I can easily conform to.

Nigger | January 10, 2008, 11:45pm | #

"Perhaps you've intended your comments to be addressed to a very small minority of posters here, but that hasn't been the least bit clear (at least to me) from what you've said."

If it's not clear to you, then just ignore me.

Sparky | January 10, 2008, 11:56pm | #

"...just ignore me."

Fair enough. That sounds like excellent advice for almost everyone here.

Mr. Obvious | January 10, 2008, 11:57pm | #

"Name one libertarian philosopher who developed a systematic philosophy in defense of laissez-faire capitalism?"

Is this a challenge?

Herbert Spencer.

Not knowing the answer to this question, or thinking the answer is "Ayn Rand," gives you a F in libertarian intellectual history. Frankly, it gives you D in philosophy. Everybody should know this.

By the way, a command shouldn't have a question mark at the end of it. F for grammar.

Nigger | January 11, 2008, 12:05am | #

"Fair enough. That sounds like excellent advice for almost everyone here."

Maybe their will is stronger than yours.

twv | January 11, 2008, 12:07am | #

Not a question at all . . . but good answer (H. Spencer).

And boy do these strings go far afield.

To recap:

1. Ron is probably not a racist.

2. Ron soiled his name by having someone else write racist stuff in his newsletter.

3. On matters of personal integrity, 2 may be worse than 1.

4. Nevertheless, the field is so bad that I would still likely vote for Ron.

5. He could have responded to Wolf's questions a lot better.

How?

"Look, I had to deal with this painful experience 12 years ago. I prayed about what to do. I stopped talking to the main person responsible, Mr. X. And those who convinced me to allow this? One is dead, and I forgave him, though never quite trusted him again. I'm afraid I still have regular dealings -- though not business dealings -- with the one other person who convinced me that this was the right way to go, who defended the highjacking of my newsletters. This is the most awful thing I ever did, giving up my name for others to abuse to promote ideas I believed in to people who were racists, using racist language. I repudiated this a long time ago. I made what amends I could a long time ago. My constituents forgave me. It is sad that it was brought up at this time."

Couldn't he have said SOMETHING along these lines, but written less hastily than what I offer. I mean, go quarter way to what a decent person should do?

Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. | January 11, 2008, 12:13am | #

Herbert Spencer.

Spencer, schmencer. Looks like I had the last laugh after all Herbie.

Sam Grove | January 11, 2008, 12:14am | #

Anyone who says a libertarian can't be a racist doesn't know libertarianism.

But if HE believes that of libertarianism, then his point is made with respect to his belief.

And I think that a real libertarian has to make an effort to remember that the world is populated with individuals and collective reference is only a convenience of speech, which is something I'd like to remind 'libertarian' supporters of the Iraq invasion and the concurrent necessity of killing many individuals, many of whom are dismissed as 'collateral damages' (as opposed to active hostiles).

Brandybuck | January 11, 2008, 12:17am | #

If you don't know who Marc Elam is, you don't know anything about Ron Paul.

At first you constant name dropping moderately impressed me. But only for a very brief spell. It got tiresome quickly.

But now it has crossed over the line into elitism. You're putting people don't just because they don't have the same knowledge of Houston (catty-corner to NASA) libertarian insider trivia. Bitching that a reporter doesn't who doesn't know the name some minor functionary of a minor politician from another state is bizarre. Suggesting no one knows Ron Paul except those in your very narrow clique is insulting.

jkii (warning: abortion sub-topic) | January 11, 2008, 12:27am | #

One specific foundation of U.S. Law and Western values is the "right to life" of the government's citizens, which is Federal law.

I don't think the abortion issue was the most compelling topic in Sandefur's blog, but since you brought it up and Ron Paul is a pro-life zealot...

The identification of a citizen is a bit of problem here if the government makes citizenship begin at the moment of conception (or, in science-speak, when the DNA of a new human is actualized). Abortion: right or wrong, what is government (at the federal or local level) going to do to ensure the embryo is given its due rights?

I suggest that every women who enters child-bearing age have her eggs counted and that she fill out and submit a form E-999, with a doctors signature, that accounts for the eggs in her reproductive system. This should be repeated annually until she reaches menopause. We will need check-points to identify when any these eggs are fertilized. Men are not off the hook, but it's a bit impractical to keep track of their bodily fluids. It would, however, be practical to get a DNA sample from each male at birth so the government could find out which man fertilized the egg, should an aborted citizen-fetus be found.

Roger | January 11, 2008, 1:12am | #

jkii: Agreed, the sperm database is a very novel idea. Kudos. I tend to still see the whole business of a female having dominion and absolute control over the life functions fetus-citizen fundamentally at odds with murder laws. I wonder when or if this topic will be addressed and ready for consumption by the general public. The solution is not moral relativism, but lack of morals or a moral code that is explicity contradictory and does not find its roots in religious dogma.

However, abortion is wholly consistent with the old Roman way of doing things where a man's family was his property to do with as he pleases through a very coersion-based law of the jungle cemented into civil society through tradition.

stephen the goldberger | January 11, 2008, 1:14am | #

well this guy is clearly racist since he refers to "blacks"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ItmcIxe5Fs

seriously joe wtf?

Rick Barton | January 11, 2008, 1:20am | #

Ron Paul is not a racist-Nothing like that.

The only thing wrong with "ranting against the Israeli lobby" is the ranting. "Ranting" is a pejorative. Brought up in this context, it unfairly conflates Jews in general with the many sins on the Israeli government and its supporters.
.

Rick Barton | January 11, 2008, 1:27am | #

...shoulda been: "it unfairly conflates Jews in general with the many sins *of* the Israeli government and its supporters."

Annonyomous | January 11, 2008, 1:47am | #

What exactly is considered racist here?

Blacks have a high per capita crime rate, at a rate unthinkable for any other ethnic group?

Blacks have a high out of wedlock birth rate, at a rate unthinkable for any other ethnic group?

Blacks have a high level of support for big government, at a rate unthinkable for any other ethnic group?

These are all facts, my friends. Go to hell with your PC fantasies, blacks are the greatest enemy to those of us who believe in personal responsibility and civilization itself.

Of course I could give the standard disclaimers here (not all blacks are criminals, etc) but what's the point? I wouldn't have to go through the trouble if talking about evangelicals or southerners or any other group made up mostly of white skin people. You're all full of shit.

Egosumabbas | January 11, 2008, 2:12am | #

I confess, I was a hard-core supporter, but I'm reluctant to contribute any more until Ron Paul does some serious house-cleaning on this issue. I believe him when he says he is not a racist (or at least renounces racism), but he needs "out" the punks responsible for the offensive content. He could do it if he tried. I understand he might be embarrassed revisiting the newsletters, but he needs to do it. Yesterday. My opinion on the matter is here.

Neu Mejican | January 11, 2008, 2:21am | #

twv,

You hit it right.

Paul comes across embarrassed about this, but not apologetic.

Paul: I did not have sex with that woman write those articles.

Brian Courts | January 11, 2008, 2:24am | #

The only thing wrong with "ranting against the Israeli lobby" is the ranting.

Rick Barton, indeed, if that is taken as a purely general statement, with no other context, I would agree - disagreement with the policies of Israel is not anti-semitic. However, context matters, and in the case of Ron Paul's newsletters that "ranting against the Israeli lobby" is being done right alongside ranting against blacks and gays and a host of utterly nutty conspiracy theories and talk of the coming "race wars."

Trying to argue that what was in those newsletters isn't racist is a losing (lost) battle. Trying to parse out the non-racist motivated rants from the racist ones isn't likely to be any more credible either. It is only a testament to how completely untenable those other options are at this point that you're actually better off going with the "Paul was somehow totally unaware of what his associates were writing under his name for years" nonsense if you're going to try anything. Of course making Paul out to be nothing but a decades-long dupe for those racist puppet-masters doesn't exactly instill much confidence in his judgment, intelligence, or leadership abilities, but at this point it's probably the least damning result given the facts.

jkii | January 11, 2008, 2:37am | #

I tend to still see the whole business of a female having dominion and absolute control over the life functions fetus-citizen fundamentally at odds with murder laws.

Roger,

I see the prospect of the government's dominion over a woman's reproductive system fundamentally at odds with the right of a woman to have dominion over her most essential property, her own body.

If you're worried about murder laws, you can still have your juries wonder like monks about whether or not the killer of a pregnant woman should executed once or twice.

Avi | January 11, 2008, 2:41am | #

Paul sounds like a nutjob. That's not to disagree with his politics but I can't believe he had nothing to do with these -- i.e. even if they were ghost written, he knew about it and didn't stop it after decades and decades. Either Ron Paul believes it or he's easily duped -- neither of which I want in a president.

Also, his association with Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute are telling as they are known racists. I work for a free market think tank abroad, founded by Austrian economists, and we can't deal with Rockwell or Mises because of their racism.

gorak | January 11, 2008, 3:04am | #

Abolishing the drug war would be the best thing to happen to black America in decades, if you were to think of it as a pure interest case, calling Paul a racist would be absurd.

F | January 11, 2008, 4:42am | #

"and didn't stop it after decades and decades"


It DID NOT LAST decades and decades, it lasted 3 issues out of all that time.

Not that hard to miss, and was corrected as soon as they became aware of it. (The intern was replaced by the editor) Paul had nothing to do with it.

Peter McCormick | January 11, 2008, 8:50am | #

Mr. Obvious:

Herbert Spencer?

You are joking, right?

robc | January 11, 2008, 9:19am | #

he's just too far behind the times to know you're supposed to say "African-American" now.

blacks != Afrrican-American

See ESPN and the Formula 1 driver.

robc | January 11, 2008, 9:20am | #

If you're worried about murder laws, you can still have your juries wonder like monks about whether or not the killer of a pregnant woman should executed once or twice.

Thats just silly. We (meaning the state of Fla, which Ive never lived in, so Im not sure what kind fo "we" this is) didnt execute Ted Bundy multiple times.

Arno | January 11, 2008, 9:23am | #

It's not like the Rockwell/Racism connection was not known to anybody. Tom Palmer was alerting us for a long time : http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php

Search for 'Rockwell' and see what comes up.

Roger | January 11, 2008, 10:59am | #

jkii: Not trying to "disagree" with what you say in any explicit manner. State-sponsored capital punishment also being fundamentally in conflict with murder laws. I propose law (written) exceptions to the concept of "murder" where appropriate, endorsed or rejected appropriately by each individual State apparatus. An alternative and easy to this tough question would to completely remove the criminal pretext to death in general and allow it to be sorted out as a "civil" matter.

Brian Courts | January 11, 2008, 11:27am | #

It DID NOT LAST decades and decades, it lasted 3 issues out of all that time.

F, you might want to, you know, actually read the article and the the cited newsletters that are from the 70's, 80's and 90's. It was far more than three issues and that would have been one long serving intern.

anonymous coward | January 11, 2008, 6:14pm | #

You all should stop believing fairy tales about races' supposed equality.

The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 70. The average IQ of Asians is 105. The average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 115.

Likely due to mixing with other races, the average IQ of African Americans is 85. In places in the Caribbean where less such mixing has occured, the average IQ is still 70.

Decades of affirmative action and attempts to reduce the Black educational and achievement lag have not been able to reduce the chasm. This is even though Asians, who were also disadvantaged when they first came to the US, are prospering without any government help whatsoever.

All evidence points to that there is an essential difference in the various races' intellectual capacities, and it is genetic.

I am in favor of equal treatment for members of all races. I am in favor of no discrimination on the basis of color alone. There are black people who are intelligent and capable, and there are white people who are inept.

But it should be possible to recognize publicly that there are differences between races without having to endure the intellectual equivalent of stoning for that.

Ron Paul is denouncing racism because he doesn't want his candidacy to be over just as soon as if he failed to do that. But he doesn't publicly humiliate the authors of those words, or denounce the white supremacists who support him, because deep down he feels that their sentiments are justified.

In private, I think Ron Paul is probably a racist: not a man who thinks that blacks should be oppressed, but one who knows that not everyone is genetically equal.

If he is, he's right to be. You should be, too. The alternative is to be ignorant.

Rick Barton | January 11, 2008, 7:26pm | #

Brian Courts at 2:24am:

...in the case of Ron Paul's newsletters that "ranting against the Israeli lobby" is being done right alongside ranting against blacks and gays and a host of utterly nutty conspiracy theories.

So what you're saying is that one may infer anti-Jewish racist intent in this case. For a number of general reasons, that seems unwarranted. And Assuming that Dr Paul did write the anti-Israel government/lobby pieces, any such contention is undermined by his friendship with Murray Rothbard, who was Jewish.

Can you please cite (with links) two "utterly nutty conspiracy theories" from the newsletters? (Or just one, if you can’t come up with two.)

Trying to argue that what was in those newsletters isn't racist is a losing (lost) battle.

Can you please cite (with links) two racist comments from the newsletters? (Or just one if you can’t come up with two)

...going with the "Paul was somehow totally unaware of what his associates were writing under his name for years" nonsense

Not "totally unaware" for all the issues but that he was for some of them is supported by the fact that, for at least part of the time, Dr Paul was only a small minority owner of the newsletter.
.

Rick Barton | January 11, 2008, 7:48pm | #

anonymous coward:

But he doesn't...denounce the white supremacists who support him, because deep down he feels that their sentiments are justified.

That's not true. Dr Paul does denounce white supremacists and has for a long time.

BTW, I'm a chess player. I'd like you to meet Maurice Ashley. And please note that he's from the Caribbean !!

http://tinyurl.com/2d3d3y

Rick Barton | January 11, 2008, 8:20pm | #

...My point in pointing to Maurice Ashley is that if we make assumptions about individuals and their potential based on population IQ statistics, we're being both naive and unfair.
.

Mike | January 11, 2008, 9:47pm | #

I defy any person who says Ron Paul is a racist to find one single solitary spoken word of his, any words in or around his life or campaign, that shows even the remotest sign of racism. Or show where he voted for anything other than the support of individuals and their rights. Dr. Paul is not a racist. He has some very, very "out of the box" ideas, ones this nation needs. One of the things it doesn't need, under any circumstances, is racism which would do nothing more than divide us even greater than we are. If anything others running for President have smacked very close to being racist (against either side of the human coin).

I have read the articles, accusations, and smears from anti-Paul posters and pundits and so far there has been no proof at all that Dr. Paul is lying when he says he didn't know about the comments attributed to him. Funny how when it comes to Dr. Paul it falls "guilty until proven innocent." And if these falsely written documents are the only things that anybody can dig up on Paul, compared with the plethora of goods on the other candidates, Paul proves his integrity in spades yet again.

GILMORE | January 12, 2008, 6:19pm | #

blacks are the greatest enemy to those of us who believe in personal responsibility and civilization itself.

...
ok, "anonymous".

With such confidence in your convictions, maybe you should attach your name to grand statements like this so your insights can be quoted for posterity.

with libertarians like this, who needs a 'communist conspiracy?'

(maybe that guy was in a different thread = that "RP criticism was actually a secret, coordinated effort by closet maoists")

as i've mentioned before a couple of times, sometimes people who nominally share your political views are a greater liability, politically, than those that 'oppose' you. Any successful political movement's first priority should be to disavow and disparage the douchebags in their own midst.