"Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"?
Matt Welch | January 11, 2008, 2:40am
In Ron Paul's statement responding to The New Republic's story about his old newsletters, he said the following:
The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. [...]
This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. [...]
When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.
Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.
The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago. Here is the relevant excerpt, which references a Ron Paul newsletter that referred to then-Rep. Barbara Jordan as "Barbara Morondon," and called her the "archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism":
What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments. For a chronological Nexis tour of Paul's 1996 responses, please read on.
The first time I can find reporting on the controversy is in the May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:
Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]
Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.
"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character ... come and talk to my neighbors." [...]
According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."
Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]
"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.
Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."
"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.
May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]
Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.
Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."
A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.
Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.
Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.
He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."
Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.
"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.
May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman:
"Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]
Also in 1992, Paul wrote, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."
Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views. The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said.
"Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said. [...]
"You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said. "His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."
May 26, 1996 Washington Post:
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.
"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."
"Ron knows our society and our nation has done some horrible things to the black community, which has pushed a majority of young black men in some areas, in Washington, D.C., for example, into criminal activities," Sullivan said.
July 25, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
Democratic congressional candidate Lefty Morris on Wednesday produced a newsletter in which his Republican opponent, Ron Paul, called the late Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and an "empress without clothes." [...]
Paul said he was expressing his "clear philosophical difference" with Jordan. [...]
Paul, a Surfside physician and former congressman, said he was contrasting Jordan's political views with his own.
"The causes she so strongly advocated were for more and more government, more and more regulations and more and more taxes," Paul said.
"My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong," the Republican said. ""I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations and lower taxes."
Paul said Morris was trying to "reduce the campaign to name-calling and race-baiting" so as to avoid more relevant issues, such as economic growth, taxes and spending, crime and welfare reform.
July 25, 1996, Dallas Morning News:
Dr. Paul, who faces Mr. Morris in the 14th District race for the U.S. House, dismissed the criticism as "name-calling and race-baiting." [...]
In a written statement, Dr. Paul said, "Repeated attempts by my liberal opponent to reduce the campaign to name-calling and race-baiting is just more of the same old garbage we expect from his camp and will not deter me from continuing to address the real issues."
Dr. Paul said his opinions about Ms. Jordan, who died earlier this year, "represented our clear philosophical difference."
July 29, 1996, Roll Call:
In a statement, Paul said he had "labored to conduct a campaign based upon the issues that are vital to our nation" and charged Morris with "repeated attempts...to reduce the campaign to name calling and race-baiting."
He called Morris's request that he release all back issues of the newsletter "not only impractical, but...equivalent to asking him to provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career."
Of his statements about Jordan, Paul said that "such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference. The causes she so strongly advocated were for more government, more and more regulations, and more and more taxes. My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong: I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes."
Aug. 13, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
He once called former President Bush a bum and he's taken aim at Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, California Gov. Pete Wilson, House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, and, yes, GOP vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp.
Over the course of 1992 and 1993, the GOP nominee in the 14th Congressional District has called Kemp a "malicious jerk," and a "welfare statist" who had secretly increased the nation's public housing budget while serving as secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He also charged in one newsletter that Kemp had "made a pass at a female reporter young enough to be his daughter."
Sept. 26, 1996, Austin American-Statesman:
"Fortunately, several types of accounts are tough for the IRS to investigate," Paul wrote. "For instance, it's still legal to open a bank account without revealing your Social Security number."
He also offered to help readers get a foreign passport.
"Peru recently announced that it will sell its citizenship to foreigners for $25,000," Paul wrote. "... People concerned about survival are naturally interested in a second citizenship and passport. If you're interested, drop me a note and include your telephone number, and I'll get you some interesting information." [...]
Paul, a Surfside obstetrician, former member of Congress and 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for president, said Morris quotes material out of context. Paul also said his advice was appropriate at the time it was published.
Sept. 30, 1996, San Antonio Express-News:
Paul, a Surfside obstetrician, former congressman and the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate, counterclaimed that Morris is name-calling to avoid discussing the issues like taxes and abortion.
Repeated requests by telephone and by fax to interview Paul for this article were denied.
Paul's spokesman Michael Quinn Sullivan said the candidate does not want to "rehash" old issues. [...]
Paul has said he opposes racism and accused Morris of reducing the campaign to "name-calling and race-baiting."
Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle:
Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But his spokesman, Michael Quinn Sullivan, accused Morris of "gutter-level politics."
Sullivan said it was "silly" to try to make a political issue of something written in an "abstract" sense. [...]
In his April 15, 1992, newsletter, Paul wrote about a person who had a beef with the IRS and "fired bombs through mortars" one night at an IRS building in California. Some federal property was damaged, but no one was injured, and the defendant was sentenced to 20 years in prison.
"Unfortunately (the defendant's) war against the IRS was not nearly as successful as Harry's War," wrote Paul, who wants to abolish the federal tax-collection agency. "Harry's War" was a movie about a fictional individual's battle against the IRS.
Sullivan said Morris "would rather sling mud at Ron Paul than talk about the issues or discuss how his own campaign is being almost completely financed by two liberal special interest groups: the trial lawyers and big labor."
Oct. 11, 1996, Austin American-Statesman:
Paul's aide, Eric Rittberg, said -- as a Jew -- he was "outraged and insulted by the senseless, anti-Semitic statements Mr. Morris is making."
"Lefty is taking statements out of context," Sullivan said. "When you are not looking at things in context, you can make anyone look horrible."
Kilo | January 11, 2008, 3:46am | #
"Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"?"
Who cares ? Mel Gibson did that. Then he went and prayed at his home-built church, where Hutton's anti-semetic teachings are a core component.
This is as pointless as repeatedly stating that these articles were ghostwritten and not penned by him personally. You're missing the point.
RON PAUL HAS A BIG RACISM PROBLEM.
THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST RON PAUL IS A RACIST.
Can you reconcile these two statements ?
No ? Well expect to continue being baffled by this, while giving ill informed defenses of him, until you do.
Or go here and read what this is about...
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/search?q=ron+paul
That guy blogs about nothing other than racists and right-wing extremists. He's been writing about Ron Paul's troubling newsletters for many, many, months.
He doesn't claim Ron Paul is a racist. Just that there is volumes of evidence he has been pandering to racist and extremist groups for years and using his office and title to give their causes creedence. Support which these same groups are now returning to him.
If Ron Paul said "nigger" anytime soon, or never in his life, do you think anything changes ?
Bill Kriston may not be a neocon. WTF point would you be making by pointing this out or even trying to make this distinction if he dedicates decades to promoting their agenda though ?
John C Acshun jaxson the 3rd | January 11, 2008, 3:59am | #
Cool, Eric Dondero(Rittberg) made an appearance!
On a more serious note, I am disgusted by the content of the newsletters but I wonder why reason is digging so much ( to come up with so little). It seems pointless.
I don't know if Ron Paul is telling the truth, but his later statements are consistent with his earlier acceptance of ownership.
In 1996 his campaign did not blame ghostwriters.
Then in 2001, he said "those were not my words, but my campaign people said i had to take responsibility for that stuff because it was under my name. but didn't write it." or something very close to that.
So saying that (in 1996) "Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.'
thats NOT News!
HELLO, Ron Paul already admitted that! in his later interview(s) he said that at the time he was advised to take ownership, "it would be too confusing" and so on. So he supposedly was "coming clean" about the truth in 1996.
YOU are just REHASHING what has already been said.
Then you have Dondero and other people who were around back then claiming to know there were certain ghostwriters and who they were.
So here is what we know ( and already knew before this post):
1.Ron Paul had a newsletter. For almost 2 decades. Had a lot of the expected conspiracy stuff, economic beliefs, and so on. There were some issues in the early 90s that had some pretty racist sounding collectivist garbage.
2. In 1996 campaign Ron Paul took ownership of the writing, said it was taken out of context, writings were in response to specific issues of the time, whatever..
3. In 2001 Ron Paul says " Well, see I had ghostwriters. I had a full-time medical practice and a newsletter business. other people edited the shit and put it together. Those weren't my words but my campaign people ( surprise) and staffers told me to just take ownership and not try to make excuses, blah blah. My name was on it- I had to take responsibility."
4. 2007- RP runs for POTUS as a Republican. Every libertarian ( or any other person interested in Ron Paul) in the world who has internet access and knows how to use google and/or Wikipedia has probably already seen articles about these newsletters and the offensive passages. A couple blogs and online stories are published again about these newsletter. Reason people say something about it. then no one seems to give it might more thought.
5. TNR story comes out. Libertarian bloggers go crazy over the identity of the ghostwriter ( though apparently Dondero all people is the only one with balls enough to name names. Everyone else makes it obvious who they are implicating without actually naming). Ron paul supporters go crazy. People in love with lew Rockwell go crazy ( "Oh no, it can't be Lew. I am heartbroken about Ron Paul, but if lew Rockwell my libertarian hero wrote that stuff I will be devastated"'- seriously RP supporters have written stuff like that)
Ron Paul goes on CNN. Matt Welch goes on CNN. CNN edits a story so that "political strategists" comment that Ron Paul's response is "not enough' BEFORE he even made his response. ( yes the CNN article was changed after Ron spoke to Wolf Blitzer and his quotes from the interview were added to the section that was already there saying the original statement was "not enough").
6. matt Welch writes some kind of "gotcha" blog about the 1996 press that really adds nothing new to what has already been said.
I guess because we don't all these other kids out there to join some libertarian freedom movement, we need to keep it some tiny club. So let's do all we can to damage it.
Brendan Perez | January 11, 2008, 5:00am | #
Does it matter? The only reason I ask that is that his record doesn't seem to show any proclivity towards racism and he's the only candidate who really does seem to believe that his beliefs, whatever they may be, shouldn't be imposed on anyone else via the government.
So, let's assume that he knew of the comments and didn't stop them. We have a potential racist or at enabler who has made a political career out of getting government out of your life and pledges to continue to do so.
So, if he were to be elected and even partially succeed in his goals, he would be a racist president who had even less power than the last guy to push those beliefs on to the rest of us.
None of the other candidates have had something this happen to them yet, but they don't really seem too averse to pushing whatever beliefs they have on us via the government.
Given the choice between a.)the guy with possibly racist beliefs who has a good track record to back up his position that he opposes government involvement in our lives, and by extension, his involvement as well) vs. b.) a candidate who hasn't been shown to have racist beliefs, but has no real problem with getting the government deeper into our lives, I'll choose a.
In short, when it comes to candidates, I'll take a smaller government racist Ron Paul over a larger government faith-and-values-in-every-home candidate from either side.
As someone who donated to Ron Paul's campaign several times, this sucks big time. Whether or not he was involved at all, this may hurt him big time.
I do think any objective person should appreciate the timing though.
Right before the first major primary, the writings are brought to the forefront. Did no one notice this before January? I mean, he made big news with the record(?) 4th quarter 2007 donations. There were signs with his name all over the place going back to at least April (when I first started noticing). Sounds to me like anytime would have been the perfect time to start the presses.
If people were going around putting up signs with some guy's name on it everywhere, I'd look it up and find out more about him. If I was a journalist or had access to one AND I had these newsletters, I would have started writing right then to let people know about this mysterious person whose name is on those "revolution" signs everywhere. and the content of his newsletters.
If I had knew about the newsletters in December, and article showing everyone the "dark side" of this heavily donated to candidate would have been in order, I think.
Before the beginning of the year, people were going on and on about the donation from the nazi group or the guy from the nazi group, or whatever. Did anyone in the MSM, here on Reason, or anywhere else talk about these newsletters? Most media sources love to tie events together no matter how many years and miles apart and I can't believe they missed their chance.
joe | January 11, 2008, 10:05am | #
Your Racist Friend - They Might Be Giants
This is where the party ends
I can't stand here listening to you
And your racist friend
I know politics bore you
But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you
And your racist friend
It was the loveliest party that I've ever attended
If anything was broken I'm sure it could be mended
My head can't tolerate this bobbing and pretending
Listen to some bullet-head and the madness that he's saying
This is where the party ends
I'll just sit here wondering how you
Can stand by your racist friend
I know politics bore you
But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you
You and your racist friend
This is where the party ends
I can't stand here listening to you
And your racist friend
I know politics bore you
But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you
And your racist friend
Out from the kitchen to the bedroom to the hallway
Your friend apologizes, he could see it my way
He let the contents of the bottle do the thinking
Can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding
This is where the party ends
I can't stand here listening to you
And your racist friend
I know politics bore you
But I feel like a hypocrite talking to you
And your racist friend
Ron Paul on Racism: | January 11, 2008, 11:58am | #
A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.
The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.
Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.
It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.
Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.
The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.
In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.
anon | January 11, 2008, 12:29pm | #
Can I bring this out of the clouds and back to something concrete?
Ron Paul's campaign has excited many people who haven't cared about politics for a long time. Not because he's a libertarian. Many of us could give a rats-ass about what ideological label someone wants to slap on things. Frankly, a good number of us recognize that ideology is partly to blame for the current mess that is our political culture. And it's ideologies of sentimentalism and moralism that have been as damaging as liberalism and conservatism.
But in Dr. Paul's campaign we saw something different. A willingness to look at reality in a far more honest way than we've seen from a candidate in a long time. The reality of our affairs, our problems due to big government and the nature of our extended overseas commitments.
And then these newsletters hit. For many of us there's a great challenge in making them compute. Because we don't see anything in his stump speeches or his Congressional record to give us any evidence that this is what he believes. We've been unnerved by some of the fringe people who have latched onto his campaign, but dismissed them (reasonably so) as not having another alternative. After all, if you think the government is part of a deadly conspiracy why would you be backing some big government candidate?
So we are looking for info to help understand these newsletters and make a judgment for what it means for the campaign. Lew Rockwell's blog is hardly a source of calm, rational discussion, so you can't go there. They are actively campaigning for the guy. They are as bad, at times, as the Daily Paul fanatics who think Paul's going to win every primary just because they liked his latest YouTube video.
I thought Reason might be a source of intelligence on this. But instead what I get here is either cleverly-cloaked criticism that doesn't give an outsider any real information; it's just enough to let you know that the Reason folks have inside knowledge and that they disapprove. Or you get this constant internal talk about how this will damage the libertarian cause. Huh? What cause? If you seriously think libertarianism is a movement in this country you need to get out more.
Personally, I had planned on sending quite a few letters to Michigan and Florida voters on Dr. Paul's behalf. I had half the envelopes already addressed and stamped. So I'll probably lose some real cash if I have to toss the envelopes. I didn't send them because I can't make heads or tails of this as to what level I should be concerned about this.
And Reason isn't helping with its approach. Your defending a turf that does not exist. Take up something real for a moment: the countless people who would never label themselves a libertarian and don't care one bit about promoting that ideology, but do find wisdom in what Paul's campaign has advocated in 2008 and are trying to figure out whether to soldier on. Because let's face it. These people are not identifying themselves as libertarians. So don't think for a second if you pop the Ron Paul bubble and run to your corner that they are going to follow you. They are going to go back to not voting, or voting out of peer-pressure or fear for the lesser of two evils between Republicans and Democrats.
prolefeed | January 11, 2008, 12:45pm | #
For whatever reason, Reason didn't do their job of vetting Ron Paul. They've run slash and burn articles on all the other major candidates, and generally fawning praise of Ron Paul. Chasing ad dollars? A philosophical blindness?
I've got no problem with this article by Matt Welch. It's long overdue. Reporters are supposed to reporter stuff that's important to their subscribers.
Further, it seems likely that Ron Paul did hold some racist views in the past, even if he's managed to rationalize that. He is a conservative/libertarian white Republican from south Texas, ferchrissakes. I was talking with a good friend of mine who was born and raised in Texas, and she never even saw an interracial couple until the late 1990s or so, and when I expressed my amazement of this, she gave me a look like, "What planet are you from? This is bleeding TEXAS."
I was raised by racist parents. I had a lot of crap in my head that I've had to purge, mostly from meeting with real people who showed these notions are thoroughly wrong. I strongly suspect the same is true for Ron Paul.
I think what is relevant is that Ron Paul appears to not currently hold racist beliefs, or at least his public statements are strongly to that effect.
This may be political suicide, but it seems like the right thing for Ron Paul to do is to admit he was raised in a racist environment, that when he was younger he to some extent bought into some of these notions, but that he thoroughly and completely repudiates them, and wants to treat all people as individuals, and that his voting record in support of Constitutional principles reflects this belief.
But, even in the absence of such a mea culpa, I'm still voting for him, and keeping his bumper sticker on my car, because all the other candidates would impose hideous polices upon me, and Ron Paul won't and has a long track record of not doing so.
James Anderson Merritt | January 11, 2008, 1:41pm | #
#jose ortega y gasset wrote,
## "What I would like to know is, what lessons
## does Paul take away from this present flap,
## and how will that help him be a better
## President?"
# For crying out loud... Ron Paul NEVER had a
# chance to become president and he NEVER will
# have a chance to become president. And it's
# not because of some meta-conspiracy. The
# estalishment-is-afraid-of-Ron-Paul meme is
# what we call "crazy talk."
You're letting your hysteria lead you to make silly assumptions, and you should just slow down, take a deep breath, and, if necessary, contemplate your happy place. You quoted my question and then apparently assumed that I was asking it in the certainty that Paul would win. In reality, I asked it in my role as voter, who is still evaluating candidates. When you say that Paul doesn't have a chance and never had a chance, you appear to be reality-challenged. Many primary contests are still in the future, as is the general election. The future is not yet determined. The people who will (in theory) determine it -- the voters and the convention delegates, just to name two important groups -- are still collecting information and considering their options. Today, Ron Paul remains an option -- given slim odds, admittedly, but still an option. So it is entirely appropriate for me or others to ask the "lessons learned" question, as a way of trying to decide how to cast our own votes -- in the future. Every question asked of a Presidential candidate, which speaks of attitudes or policies, is always a form of asking, "how will you behave as President?" granting at least temporarily, for the sake of argument, that the possibility exists. To preclude questions of this nature because Jose Ortega y Gasset proclaims that a candidate doesn't have a chance and never did is stupid, for crying out loud.
On the other hand, even if Ron Paul doesn't have a chance to be President, the energy and nature of attacks against him suggests that somebody takes him seriously and is afraid of something. In making my own earlier comment, I wasn't really thinking of any "conspiracy" angle, but since you brought it up, I suppose that Paul's potential to shake things up all the way to the Convention and beyond -- especially if he ultimately mounts a third-party or independent campaign -- may be reason enough for people behind the scenes to fear or loathe him, and to find ways to torpedo him if they can.
Another Former Subscriber | January 11, 2008, 3:08pm | #
is a difference between culture and race, the fact remains that more blacks are in prison than whites. Now, how much of this related to the drug war? I don't know, I'm not going to research that for a blog comment, but my guess would be a substantial number, and I don't think anyone would disagree on that. Whatever Paul's personal beliefs, he is opposed to the drug war, and that logically entails freeing a great many African Americans from a meaningless and costly incarceration. In other words, even if he were racist, Paul's avowed beliefs would vastly supersede any detriment caused by his inflammatory comments. Supporting the guy still helps more people than it hurts. That is one of the essences of libertarianism in my mind. Forgoing what is "right" for what works, for what benefits the most people.
3. Paul has a great opportunity to spin this, unfortunately he is failing miserably. My main difficulty here lie in reconciling three things:
a.) The fact that Paul seems like a genuine person, and also seems to fervently believe in the cause of liberty
b.) the implausibility of having someone write racist comments under your name without your knowledge.
c.) taking the above as true, then what kind of ability could a person who unknowingly allows such comments to be printed possibly possess.
d.) some of what was said in those statements were true, but we as a society have conditioned ourselves to abhor any obvious distinctions drawn between race in this country, and maybe reasonably so. Maybe the benefits of not abiding racial distinctions far outweigh the detriments of abiding them. Abiding them is an obvious slippery slope, not abiding the differences is not.
4. We are all to blame for what has transpired to this point. Reason Magazine is to blame for ignoring an obvious issue, and we are too blame for accepting their contention that the issue was a moot point. Granted, I'm very upset that Reason deemed the issue a moot point in the beginning. It makes me feel duped and I don't like it. I have not read Reason as vigorously for a few years now, and just realized how infrequently I forward Reason articles to friends these days. It has become far less compelling (in my mind). And this Paul situation has only exacerbated that.
5. Whatever the situation, turning on Paul until all of the facts are in would be a repetition of the same mistake we made in getting to this point. And it could damage the libertarian movement even further (and there IS a movement, you would have to be blind not to see it).
Personally, I'm holding my judgment on Paul for a few more days until I hear more about this. I definitely won't be talking him up anymore, but I won't be stabbing him in the back like Reason Magazine so I can feel absolved. Running away from this makes us look like cockroaches who were lured out by some crumbs in the middle of the night, only to scurry away to our dark rooms staring out our monitors when the light comes on.
We don't have to defend Paul, but we have to continue to defend the message, I can't believe that we're handling that responsibility correctly at this moment (though I admittedly have no suggestions on what the correct course is).
While I've been typing this I've thought more about my issues with Paul's lacking leadership skills, and this is what I have to say. So what if you get a president who can't lead effectively, it just weakens the executive. Win Win.
(not that Paul would ever reach the presidency either way)
anonymous coward | January 11, 2008, 6:11pm | #
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 being ignorant.
James Anderson Merritt | January 11, 2008, 6:24pm | #
Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote: "I've read some of your stuff, James,"
...but doesn't add that he rarely fails to supply a dismissive rejoinder, as in this case. No problem...
He further wrote, "...and I do find it amusing how seriously you take libertarian politics."
Actually, it is the future of the country that I take seriously. Libertarian politics is merely the ember of the flame that I am trying to help kindle, towards the goal of, as I believe J OyG said elsewhere, "draining the swamp." I have seen, over and over again, how insincere and incompetent pols-as usual in the GOP and Democrat parties are at that job, and harbor neither illusions nor hope of worthwhile reform from them.
J OyG further wrote, "If memory serves, you were the starry-eyed fellow talking about how libertarians had actually been elected to public office (though this was quite some time ago.)"
I haven't been starry eyed since well before I discovered the LP. But what I said was fact when I said it. Hundreds of Libertarians have been elected and re-elected down through the years. Libertarians in my very own state were making a difference (opposing and defeating zoning, taxation, silly behavior laws, crazy spending) in local office: City Council, County Supervisor, School and Community College Boards, etc. The magnitude of their effect -- in dollars and SENSE -- is easily seen. More importantly, in the ensuing years, Libertarians continued to increase their percentage of the vote (and total votes cast) for higher office, such as for state legislature or even the US House. I was very gratified to see in the last congressional election that quite a few libertarian candidates for US House and Senate actually got to make their cases in head-to-head debate with major party candidates and incumbents. If this continues, I'll see Libertarians in Washington before I get too old to enjoy the vindication. You scoff -- always bemusedly if MY memory serves -- but I have been paying attention to the fortunes of the LP for a long time, and there has been a trend of steady improvement -- at least, so long as silly internecine wars of the type we are now waging around Ron Paul's issues weren't distracting the party from its key purpose. I saw some good focus in 2006 and hope to see more in 2008.
You wanna patronize me some more, go ahead. It takes something much sharper than I've ever seen around here to pierce this hide. Present company included.
Henry Bowman | January 12, 2008, 7:38pm | #
What's humorous is how people are entirely missing the big picture here.
Libertarian philosophy on the subject of bigotry is incredibly politically incorrect. In a libertarian utopia, anyone would be free to be a racist. You want to make your lunch counter off limits to blacks? Fine, the government can't tell you yes or no. Freedom includes the freedom to be wrong, and even the freedom to hate people, just so long as you don't actually DO anything that damages their persons, rights, or property.
Along with that, libertarian philosophy says that while the private citizen is free to be bigoted, the government IS NOT. The government must treat everyone equally and fairly, because it belongs to everybody. Walt Disney would be allowed to keep Jews out of Disney World, but the fedgoob would NOT be allowed to keep Jews out of the Smithsonian* or the Grand Canyon.
So assuming absolutely the worst possible slant on this issue, what would we have? We would have a political candidate with racist beliefs on the personal level, who in his decades of service as a legislator has NEVER written, signed onto, or endorsed a SINGLE bill with racist or biased overtones.
If Ron Paul is in fact a racist, I'd say that was superhumanly libertarian. Occam's Razor suggests an easier explanation: he isn't a racist.
It's one thing to say that "black kids run fast." If you're a liberal, that is a de facto racist statement. If you're not a liberal, it isn't. If you're a person who can look at photos of America's biggest professional sports teams and actually understand what he is seeing, it's what you might even call self-evident. Is it a collectivist sentiment? No more so than saying "men have greater upper-body strength than women." No one (except race baiters) pretends such a statement is meant to be true of every single individual in the class -- it is meant to be a statement about average performance.
As a few of the commenters said, you want to throw away a guy who MIGHT personally be a racist but has never ever done anything about institutionalizing it, in favor of a bunch of candidates who are known tyrants and eager to put their boot on your neck the day after inauguration?
How politically astute of you.
*Yes, I know the Smithsonian claims it is technically privately owned. Given that your tax money pays for damn near absolutely everything it has or does, let's all have a quiet chuckle at the pretense and move on.
SpeakingObjectively | January 12, 2008, 10:40pm | #
Before the days of electronic identity theft, or posing as someone else on a website (I lost count at about 18 or so "Hillary" or "Hillary Clinton" myspace profiles with her photo), people did things like dumpster diving, for correspondence, letter head, or credit cards. People also had to want to pose as someone else in some cases to reap the reward of whatever it is that person had in mind with that information or that "identity". to conceal themselves behind.
Does that include stupid people who write idiotic, racist, things on some else's newsletter template with the words Ron Paul's name printed across the top. Sounds easy, especially if you didn't have the dumpster dive for the letter head.
Also, how many have his name in the byline (not the letterhead) as you review each newsletter?
He says he didn't write them. And as I read these newsletters, it doesn't "sound" like his writing or speaking style. Did you notice that?
Speaking of sound, you can hear him speaking on the floor of the house...wait about a minute or two, and you'll see why he admires Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks. He has conviction for holding them in high regard. He has a motive for liking them.
http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buildasx.asp?sProxy=80_hflr052207_141.wmv,80_hflr052207_142.wmv,80_hflr052207_143.wmv,80_hflr052207_144.wmv,80_hflr052207_145.wmv,80_hflr052207_146.wmv&sTime=00:04:42.0&eTime=00:04:18&duration=00:24:27.0&UserName=jenni&sLocation=&sExpire=1
So I'm a skeptic for the two reasons, and for the following...
Just for the hell of it, I took time to read some things. Here are dozens of Congressman's Pauls House testimonies that are written down and recorded, which I think qualifies as a real byline don't you think?
http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml
Also, for the hell of it, click on the "sponsored" buttons. These dozens of H.R. bills might be the reason he seems "odd"? to the political environment in the
beltway? Seems to be standing up for something doesn't he?
Now, what did he vote against that might seem like a problem and prove
he's a racist?
Well, voting against a bill that wanted to award a gold medal to Rosa Parks, of course:
Against Rosa Parks Gold Medal
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm
But then he voted against these other medals too (his reason? Congress shouldn't spend taxpayers money...I don't agree with him...but that his reason in his own words)
Against Ronald Reagan Gold Medal
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm
Against Tony Blair Gold Medal
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr062503.htm
The full text is eye opening...do a Control-F for Mr. Paul
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=0718227435+32+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
Against the Dalai Lama Gold Medal (do a Control-F for Mr. Paul)
http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=0716719158+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve
He was against the Pope's Gold Medal too. There's more like these if you have a few hours to kill.
And before you think his reasons for not awarding gold medals was somehow missed, here's the Washington Post putting that Paul mind set in perspective
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966.html
Finally:
Here's some articled that I found useful to help me understand what is going on with this:
Kirchick's (cut and pasted) email exchange with Log Cabin Republicans:
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
A balanced, well researched, (not perfect) blog article about the situation:
http://www.redpills.org/?p=728
prezronpaul2008 | January 13, 2008, 12:03pm | #
Open Letter To Lew Rockwell - January 12, 2008
Dear Lew,
You have now had three opportunities –1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.
This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.
Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.
If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message.
You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.
John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985
Gary Triestman | January 15, 2008, 5:09am | #
Just in case anyone would like to read the original Reason article mentioned:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124339.html
It is interesting to note that Reason, which is a Libertarian oriented magazine, has produced this article.
That they let this through shows that they do not countenance censorship, even when and if that information may seem to besmirch an ostensible figurehead of their movement. That takes guts and commitment to principle.
However, more substantively, I think the article really stretches the concept of indicting Dr. Paul as being a racist.
Granted, a politician must really give pause whenever he says anything about race, and realize that they will be parsed out of context by his/her enemies; I fail to find the smoking gun of sheer racism that is being imputed upon Dr. Paul.
Sure it is a bit reaching, from the public eye's perspective, for someone to claim not to know what was going into a newsletter entitled with one's own name, but on the other hand it is entirely plausible given the hands off modus operandi that Dr. Paul permits others to independently support him - a libertarian method, power by consensus not by edict.
The supposedly "new" revelations of Matt Welch's article are supposed accounts of Dr. Paul reaffirming some statements made in other articles written in support of him, that were ostensibly racist, as well as some statements put forth in his name via his campaign staff.
Trying hard to find a racist statement by Dr. Paul that stands on its own IN CONTEXT, is virtually impossible, unless the commentator/pundit artificially inject innuendo, conspiratorial conclusion, applying populist - but nonaccurate - verboten buzzwords, leading and reaching inference upon inference analysis.
- In some of these, Dr. Paul refers to reports issued by policy analysis institutions, and says flippantly [paraphrasing] "If these reports are accurate, then 95% of black males in DC are criminals"
- A reference is made to him saying that [paraphrasing] if a black man is running away from you, their swiftness is such that you cannot catch them. - Dr. Paul's sin here is not balancing the statement out by observing that that is true of any raced male, or female, as well.
- Another reference is made to Dr. Paul stating that "While we are told fearing a black man is evil, it is hardly irrational", upon which Dr. Paul refers to common criminal justice statistics (disproportionate # of crimes committed by minorities) in support of the observation.
- The article cites Dr. Paul as observing that black males who are 13 who commit violent crimes should be prosecuted as adults, as they can be just as culpable.
The list of slightly questionable statement in the article, dug up out of 10's of thousands Dr. Paul has made, seeks to establish Dr. Paul as a closet racist (at least 10 to 20 years ago), mostly because he had inartfully made race neutral observations about racial statistics in public policy, few and far in between, and in variegated contexts, speeches, interviews and appearances.
Although these statements were made inartfully, they are just the product of Dr. Paul's plain way of speaking, just saying something like it is, even if it did not come out politically correct, not the result of any occulted racism.
Dr. Paul is so pure, sincere and good, that even the rumour of a hint of a hint of an innuendo of racism makes big news. Irrespective of whether it is unfounded or mischaracterized.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
