Reason Magazine

Site Search

"Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"?

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."

Send this article to:

« Republican Debate Thread | Main | New at Reason »

Comments to ""Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"?":

KJ | January 11, 2008, 3:18am | #

"When you are not looking at things in context, you can make anyone look horrible."

--

Word.

smacky | January 11, 2008, 3:26am | #

2nd place

Ed L. | January 11, 2008, 3:38am | #

Meh. I'm already bored of this story. How about that debate last night? Dr. Paul lit it up something fierce.

John C. Randolph | January 11, 2008, 3:38am | #

The man disavowed the offensive material in those newsletters. So, you're going to crucify him over whether he did so eight years ago or ten?

So Matt, are you looking to pick up a gig with the New Republic?

-jcr

Dan | January 11, 2008, 3:45am | #

I am amazed at how cosmotarians are beating this one to death.

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 ?

Kilo | January 11, 2008, 3:47am | #

Bill Kriston = Kristol

Matt | January 11, 2008, 3:56am | #

The only good think about this story is that many libertarians are stepping up and rationally siding against Paul. The movement should not be associated with this candidate any longer.

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.

kerem tibuk | January 11, 2008, 4:16am | #

You Americans are very easily duped by these racism stuff.

So what if Paul is racist.

The alternatives want to rob you and cause death and distruction over there and abroad.

You are worried about hurting peoples feelings.

Kilo | January 11, 2008, 4:16am | #

"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."

First of all, you don't get a choice in taking full ownership of articles you commissioned to have ghostwritten for you, then continued to for decades without any change in what those writings were saying. You do own them. They are your words.

Read this from another ghostwriter...
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2007/06/six-impossible-things-before-breakfast.html

Second, under what circumstances do you defend these statements as being "taken out of context" if you don't agree with them ?
That's BS. That's your defence of them if you do agree with them.

"our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists -- and they can be identified by the color of their skin."
-- The Ron Paul Political Report 1992

That's something Ron Paul commissioned to be produced for him, published under his name and distributed to support him as a political figure.

Name the other politician you would give a free pass to if his excuse for that was as non-existant as this. Just 1.

Pig Mannix | January 11, 2008, 4:23am | #

@John C. Randolph

So Matt, are you looking to pick up a gig with the New Republic?

I don't think that's entirely fair. I mean, to me, this isn't that big of a deal, even if Paul had written it himself. It's the political equivalent of getting drunk and waking up naked on your neighbor's porch. Embarrassing as hell, of course, but it's not like anybody's gonna die over it or anything.

Still, from a PR standpoint, this is a disaster, and Paul still hasn't aired all of the dirty laundry he's gonna need to air to get this behind him. And until he does that, Matt Welch and others are going to keep picking at him. Which is quite reasonable, that's what they get paid to do. What would you have him do?

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.

Brendan Perez | January 11, 2008, 5:01am | #

*AN article showing everyone the "dark side" of this heavily donated to candidate would have been in order, I think.

Greg | January 11, 2008, 5:07am | #

So instead we should support the people who send minorities off to die in unnecessary wars, or to rot in prison for drug "crimes" against the state (destroying families and entire communities in the process)? Ron Paul is not a racist, but even if he was, he would be seriously misguided, as his policies only help the disenfranchised (of every color). Can we please look at the big picture? Paul has done more for the cause of liberty in the past year than the LP, or Reason Magazine for that matter, have done in their entire existence.

sine | January 11, 2008, 5:10am | #

Still, from a PR standpoint, this is a disaster, and Paul still hasn't aired all of the dirty laundry he's gonna need to air to get this behind him.

As soon as this became a major issue, Paul became useless to the libertarian movement. Liberals, and I suspect most people, aren't going to take him seriously if they think he was a racist. I was happy when Paul got attention for his libertarian positions, but that time is already over and I don't see any point in supporting him anymore.

Maybe that isn't fair to Paul on a personal level because he isn't actually a racist, but whatever. Remember like 3 months ago, when most people here wouldn't have cared this much about any politician, let alone considered any of them worthy of their defense against something like this?

pdog | January 11, 2008, 5:26am | #

I gotta agree with you Brenden. Regardless of the content of his newsletters (not all of the comments should be considered racists in the WP sense) this is a man who wants to be elected to power so that he can not exercise any power over you. This is the a huge difference in any of the other canidates. They all have an agenda and plan on how to run your lives. Ron Paul does not. So this fact alone should make any of his personal views irrelevant.

Pig Mannix | January 11, 2008, 5:28am | #

Liberals, and I suspect most people, aren't going to take him seriously if they think he was a racist.

Oh, I don't know about that. A perusal of the liberal press shows him getting a more sympathetic treatment over the matter than he's been getting from our Sensitive Men of Reason. You don't call CNN and Wolf Blitzer libertarians, do you?

Socialist | January 11, 2008, 5:35am | #

I do love how libertarians keep shooting each other in the back. Nice work, Matty boy.

jesus | January 11, 2008, 6:17am | #

the newsletters weren't Paul's finest hour, i think we can all agree on that. but fucking hell, GIVE IT A REST AND SUPPORT THE ONLY LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT

erm | January 11, 2008, 6:32am | #

perhaps the lack of reporting is due to the newsletters not being a particularly important issue back then. as many have said, the Ron Paul Report wasn't exactly a popular subscription. but even now, as Dr Paul runs for POTUS, it is not the MSM, but libertarian magazine Reason which leads the smear-attacks. why?

ed | January 11, 2008, 6:43am | #

Reason feels a bit like the jilted bride. Even though they never "officially" endorsed Paul. The miles of print, the recent cover story...never an "Official" endorsement. Still, there they are at the altar, nice gown, flowers, all the guests are there, and no groom. It must hurt.

Lost_In_Translation | January 11, 2008, 7:10am | #

So I think what we've established is Paul didn't write the articles in question (confirmed by Eric Dondero), Paul's policies would be promoting racial tranquility (ending the drug war, cutting back on affirmative action), but Paul doesn't want to admit he knows who was responsible for letting those articles be printed, probably because that person is still working for Paul.

Marta | January 11, 2008, 7:10am | #

Reason = morons-galore.

My Name Is Robert | January 11, 2008, 7:31am | #

All of this seemed pretty irrelevant to me. Wasn't I wrong.

Bilo | January 11, 2008, 7:42am | #

I can understand someone being justifiably disgusted with the content of Paul's letters, and yes, he is a complicit racist. However, the Reason staff for a long time knew about these letters and never disavowed his campaign earlier.

When Welch and Gillespie wrote a sympathetic portrayal of Paul in the Post, no mention was made of this. No extensive research was done on the history of his newsletters. It is only now that Mr. Welch and Reason have begun to dig up the dirt on Paul.

I'm liable to be wrong, but I'm of the mind that some of the folks at Reason knew about the newsletters and were able to dismiss it or rationalize it away. It seems that only after this broke into the mainstream media did Reason start to seriously research and engage Paul's bigoted history.

Forgive me for saying so, but I think this whole fiasco at Hit & Run over the Paul letters is more an attempt by some of the people at Reason to save their own ass, rather than take Paul to task over his bigoted views. They certainly weren't interested before the TNR piece broke out.

Ken Shultz | January 11, 2008, 7:54am | #

"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."

I'm starting to think about this in terms of the libertarian/conservative divorce Gillespie and others have written about.

...I was skeptical before, but I'm coming around.

"All of this seemed pretty irrelevant to me."

Some of the excerpts maybe aren't entirely relevant to the issue at hand, but I think Welch was giving a full account of the 1996 articles so as not to be accused of cherry picking perhaps?

It does appear that, at the time, they were defending excerpts from the newsletters rather than denying authorship. Does it not?

Jim Bob | January 11, 2008, 7:58am | #

I get it, already. Jeebus.

proctology for fun and profit | January 11, 2008, 7:59am | #

Old news.

Matt Welch hasn't hit upon anything new or substantial.

phocion | January 11, 2008, 7:59am | #

Paul needs to sit down and detail explicitly how his name came to appear on newsletters with that kind of content. Who approached him about the newsletters? When? Did he read them before they went out? Why did he feel it was safe to let others use his name? Everything he knows about those newsletters should be put out in the open.

The idea that Paul doesn't remember the names of anyone who was involved in the newsletters is laughable. I understand the newsletter staff might be friends or associates who he doesn't want to throw under the bus, but Paul needs to realize that people have spent nearly $30 million and untold man-hours on his camapign. These people had enough faith in the man to start a movement. They've been talking the ears off their friends and family about a man the media is now painting as a racist due to those dumb newsletters. Paul owes a transparent explanation to his supporters, much more than he owes some racist folks a cover-up. Especially since the authors seem content to let Paul twist in the wind on his own, instead of manning up and admitting authorship.

Russell | January 11, 2008, 8:09am | #

Back in the Big Apple,I have been shocked,deeply shocked to hear Formerly Guliani's Finest, in all their polyethnic glory , at all levels up to and including US Attorneys , persist in referring pumped up basketball sneakers as 'felony shoes' for the speed they impart to departing perps.

If the toes fit, you have to acquit.

erm | January 11, 2008, 8:14am | #

phocion:
why? "the media" who are painting Ron as a racist consist of TNR and Reason magazine. wouldn't it be funny (tragic) if the MSM picked up on the real story here - that many in the libertarian camp dislike Paul so much that they would attempt to spoil his run for the presidency. the question i ask myself is this: if Ron Paul were in favor of abortion and immigration, would the libertines attack him as they do?

BTS | January 11, 2008, 8:15am | #

"Paul's aide, Eric Rittberg"

I don't know why, but this threw me into gales of laughter. Oh, Dondero, you rapscallion you!

Ayn_Randian | January 11, 2008, 8:17am | #

Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions. --Ron Paul--

See, where the odiousness for me comes is that the vast majority of America doesn't have what Paul would deem "sensible opinions"...so then why single out one skin color?

Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible.

Yeah, well, for that matter, neither do MOST PEOPLE. I don't see any reason for calling out one group of people for a 5% approval rate of libertarian policies when libertarianism polls at or below 5% most of the time anyway.

It's ugly race-baiting, and it's time for adult libertarians* to step up and shout out this trash forthwith.

I'm off the Paul wagon. Fuck that dude.

*Credit Ken Schultz.

Jerry | January 11, 2008, 8:17am | #

@phocion
I don't see how Paul should be responsible towards his donors, when the media itself failed to bring up this issue earlier in the campaign. They are at least as culpable in the possible damage this has done to the spread of libertarian ideas.

Ayn_Randian | January 11, 2008, 8:23am | #

"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism." - Ayn Rand

I don't roll with collectivists anymore.

Ken Shultz | January 11, 2008, 8:27am | #

"I'm liable to be wrong, but I'm of the mind that some of the folks at Reason knew about the newsletters and were able to dismiss it or rationalize it away. It seems that only after this broke into the mainstream media did Reason start to seriously research and engage Paul's bigoted history."

It isn't easy to face up to something like this after having written some high profile articles in support of Ron Paul and, just recently, going on national television to defend Ron Paul's positions. I give 'em credit for going for a full vetting now. I guess they'd rather be right than self-righteous and wrong.

It may be that there was a little right hand not talking to the left hand going on? I read Hit & Run regularly, and I missed all mention of this. (Again, who was paying attention to the election in May?) Still, somebody may have dropped the ball somewhere.

I was something of research assistant myself once--a number cruncher actually. ...and if I let my boss make a presentation that reflected on him badly, either by giving him bad data or omitting something I should have made sure he knew about, then it was my bad.

Regardless, if Gillespie and Welch knew about all this before, given their responses now, I think it's safe to assume that they wouldn't have written and said the things they did. ...not in the same way, anyway. I doubt they rationalized anything.

erm | January 11, 2008, 8:28am | #

Ayn_Randian: then who precisely are you rolling with? oh, wait, that assumes RP is *actually* a collectivist, doesn't it..

Ayn_Randian | January 11, 2008, 8:33am | #

oh, wait, that assumes RP is *actually* a collectivist, doesn't it..

Whatever, dude. Like I said, how is relevant to point out that blacks are 5% libertarian? Why just black people? America itself is about 5% libertarian.

There's only one reason that you would feel the need to single out a group for what's true of the nation: you're race-baiting, and I don't like it.

Sulla | January 11, 2008, 8:34am | #

To me the real issue is whether libertarians and those sympathetic to the libertarian cause want a pragmatic party or an idealistic party. If you want a pragmatic party, then make common cause with the more mainstream elements: libertarian-leaning democrats and republicans, not the fringe with the views that won't get you elected. If you want an idealistic party, then I see no problem with telling rascists and other "freedom lovers" who might be supportive of limited government to take a hike.
Perhaps I'm too much of a Skeptic, but I don't see any place for three parties in near to medium term American politics. And honestly, it's not a matter of "educating" anybody or spreading the message of freedom. A lot of Americans, for whatever reason, simply will not ever support a libertarian message. So you either hope that one coalition cracks up (the republican party seems most likely at this point) and then build a new coalition with the more limited government types, recognizing that you have to make compromises, or you hold your nose, join one of the parties and try and push out the more statist elements of the party and attract the libertarian elements of the other party.

Ken Shultz | January 11, 2008, 8:37am | #

"If you want an idealistic party, then I see no problem with telling rascists and other "freedom lovers" who might be supportive of limited government to take a hike.

I think you've got it all backwards. There's nothing pragmatic about having racists on your bandwagon. They're a liability.

James Ard | January 11, 2008, 8:38am | #

Give it a freaking rest, already! I'm sooooooo sick of the billions of media hours wasted on the race boogeyman.

Shane Brady | January 11, 2008, 8:38am | #

How could Ron Paul in 2008 claim he never read the newsletters but at the same time in 1996 claim things were taken out of context?

His explanation just doesn't wash. If someone had written racist, homophobic and kooky newsletters in my name for years and it threatened my career, I would damn well find out what the hell was going on.

Why does Ron Paul (if you believe his current claims) not care enough to find out who abused his name?

Also I would also like to point out, in last night's "explanation" on CNN, he liked to point out how anti-racist his polices were. I very well doubt he is against the drug war specifically to help out minorities. Same goes with the war. It just so happens those policies help minorities.

I find it funny too, that for someone who doesn't care about race, he sure knows a lot about the color of the skin of his donors. How else would he know about his support from "the blacks".

Sulla | January 11, 2008, 8:40am | #

I think you've got it all backwards. There's nothing pragmatic about having racists on your bandwagon. They're a liability.

Ahh, I didn't make my point clearly enough. If you want a pragmatic party, you should also kick out the rascists because they won't bring you as many votes as the more moderate elements.

Ayn_Randian | January 11, 2008, 8:42am | #

Sulla - I agree with you. But to make a relevant political party in 2008, you have to limit the racism to almost nil (Al Sharpton and Strom Thrumond occupying that tiny fraction of a percent of current viable parties)

That's the political fact.

Be it Menckenesque injoking or true-blue racism, either one, racist comments are going to get used against you in the political reality of 2008.

I agree, we don't need a ideologically pure party, but pretending that perceived racists should be invited into the coalition and that will somehow increase political viability is bullshit.

Building a coalition doesn't require we welcome every single viewpoint in, and racism should be a deal-breaker for us.

And it is for me.

Ayn_Randian | January 11, 2008, 8:44am | #

Ken, you came to it first but I think you and I are on the same page here.

Sulla, apologies; what you said could just have been easily applied to NOT throwing racism out as to doing so.

clay | January 11, 2008, 8:44am | #

Ron Paul is salvageable as a candidate, but there must be a purge of his staff. They have backstabbed him, they have undercut him, they have mismanaged this campaign. It is time for the volunteer campaign to come forward and demand change.

I spent $25 million and all I got was this lousy primary

Shane Brady | January 11, 2008, 8:45am | #

Is it too much to ask to not support a candidate who had newsletters in his name which called African-Americans "animals" ? Let's not get too theoretical here. :)

Egosumabbas | January 11, 2008, 8:46am | #

The idea that Paul doesn't remember the names of anyone who was involved in the newsletters is laughable. I understand the newsletter staff might be friends or associates who he doesn't want to throw under the bus, but Paul needs to realize that people have spent nearly $30 million and untold man-hours on his camapign. These people had enough faith in the man to start a movement. They've been talking the ears off their friends and family about a man the media is now painting as a racist due to those dumb newsletters. Paul owes a transparent explanation to his supporters, much more than he owes some racist folks a cover-up. Especially since the authors seem content to let Paul twist in the wind on his own, instead of manning up and admitting authorship.

Amen brother. I was maybe a day away from being a precinct captain before Eric Dondero spilled the beans on who wrote this shit. I warned the campaign that he would, and Ron Paul needed a "pre-emptive strike", so to speak. And you know what, Reason magazine could have done a better service to the movement by telling us who the hell wrote these too, instead of backpedaling like crazy. Digging up shit from 1996 is far less important than figuring out what the hell happened and what we can do to fix it, or the LP will always be "five percenters".

As much as I dislike Eric Dondero's foreign policy views, I have to say, thank you Eric Dondero. We all should have been paying more attention to you.

Sulla | January 11, 2008, 8:49am | #

Sulla, apologies; what you said could just have been easily applied to NOT throwing racism out as to doing so.

Yeah, I should have made it clear that I think that conciously constructing a coalition with rascists will cost you more votes than it could win. That is, if rascists happen to support your party, that is workable. But if you are percieved as friendly or welcoming to rascists, that will drive off too many of your other supporters.

David | January 11, 2008, 8:51am | #

I said it in a previous thread and I'll say it again here:

Isn't it telling that Ron Paul's first response to any controversy about the newsletters is to defend comments from them and say that the comments were his?

Why believe Ron Paul now if he himself tells us that he lied back then? Doesn't his own story tend to undermine his credibility on that particular issue today?

erm | January 11, 2008, 8:52am | #

Shane:
"How could Ron Paul in 2008 claim he never read the newsletters but at the same time in 1996 claim things were taken out of context?"
you assume he was and is referring to the same newsletters. some he wrote, some he did not. some have been taken out of context; others are less defendable.

"I very well doubt he is against the drug war specifically to help out minorities."
Paul never suggested this is his reason for being pro-freedom on drugs.

"he sure knows a lot about the color of the skin of his donors."
he sure does, because of massive grassroots support. eg, Gays and Lesbians for Ron Paul. some folk are very vocal, and some like to define themselves in groups. Paul has spent the best part of a year talking to his supporters. he might have made a mistake, but don't throw absurd accusations his way, please

Ayn_Randian | January 11, 2008, 8:53am | #

Uh-uh, Dondero doesn't get a free pass. He still wants to wage war on 1 billion people.

Ron Paul is salvageable as a candidate, but there must be a purge

I'm not usually down with purges, but I have no hesitation about purging racists from the ranks.

If Paul gets on and absolutely savages his old viewpoints and kicks the Rockwell crew out and embraces us, I'll be back in. Yeah, he might not be a true believer, but like I said, this is politics and I can live with that.

dodsworth | January 11, 2008, 8:56am | #

Welch hasn't broken a new story about the initial denials. Here is what Scott Horton wrote last year:

http://thestressblog.com/2007/05/22/ron-paul-is-not-a-racist/

Ayn_Randian | January 11, 2008, 8:56am | #

For me, there are tipping points on candidates. One was where Paul said that our troops belong on our borders and implying our purpose there is stop immigration.

Paul only gets so many passes on things for libertarians, but suggesting that the border should be bristling with me and my buddies to defend against harmless Mexican workers is pushing my breaking point.

ed | January 11, 2008, 9:00am | #

Reason Magazine FAQ

Is Reason affiliated with the Libertarian Party?
No. Reason is a nonpartisan magazine whose staff represents a range of political affiliations.

Does Reason endorse candidates?
No. Individual writers for the magazine may take positions on candidates or other political issues, but they represent only themselves, not the magazine as an institution. Reason takes an analytical, educational approach. It does not tell its readers how to vote.

That being said, Reason got into bed with Paul and now they're having morning regrets. That's what this little tempest means. But outside this blog, few notice or care.

Duckman | January 11, 2008, 9:02am | #

I totally agree with people who say that the perfect can be the enemy of the good. That's why I was willing to wholeheartedly support Paul despite the fact that I don't agree with his stance on immigration or birthright citizenship. But he agrees with me on so many other issues, I was willing to look past those.

But turning a blind eye to racism and lying on national television in order to keep racists close to you is a much more disturbing problem for Ron Paul to have, and it's the reason why this "cosmotarian" has taken the Ron Paul sign out of my yard. I'll still vote for him since he still beats his Republican rivals on issues, but I now feel sleazy campaigning for him or donating money to him.

BakedPenguin | January 11, 2008, 9:04am | #

To add to a couple points made above: racism will also attract assholes you don't want. I think Edward was wrong about Ron Paul being a racist, but as much as I hate to say it, it turns out he was damn right about there being a reason why Don Black, David Duke et al. thought they had an ally in Paul. If you have shit like that standing next to you, no decent people are going to join you, no matter how good your ideas.

t. j. | January 11, 2008, 9:06am | #

there's no way reason didn't know about these newsletters. i learned about these newsletters myself from a link on "hit and run" over the summer....that stupid "ron paul sucks" blog from the suicide girls website

Shane Brady | January 11, 2008, 9:07am | #

erm, he claimed on CNN to not have ready any of it, or written any of it. That is his claim in 2008. It doesn't square what he said in 1996. And look at this:

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.


Sure doesn't sound like a denial, repudiation, or apology.

DavidS | January 11, 2008, 9:08am | #

Say what you like about the racists that Paul reached out to in the 1990s, but they were vital in getting him elected.

"As it turned out, Morris had underestimated Paul's ability both to raise money from his national network of donors and to successfully paint his opponent as a tool of trial lawyers and big labor. Paul raised $1.2 million to Morris' $472,153."

BakedPenguin | January 11, 2008, 9:10am | #

Oh, and the "libertarians shooting themselves again" is complete and utter bullshit. You want to destroy libertarianism in America? Absolutely f*cking destroy it? Associate it with racism in people's mind. That will be exponentially worse for libertarianism than stopping support for an 85% libertarian candidate who is very, very unlikely to win.

Reinmoose | January 11, 2008, 9:11am | #

If Paul gets on and absolutely savages his old viewpoints and kicks the Rockwell crew out and embraces us, I'll be back in. Yeah, he might not be a true believer, but like I said, this is politics and I can live with that.

Sadly, if we all bombarded the campaign with emails to that effect, do you think they would actually get to him? Or would they be held up by members of his campaign staff who we're rallying against?

Fluffy | January 11, 2008, 9:12am | #

Look, Welch, you're doing a service here by keeping the Paul campaign's feet to the fire until they take some kind of positive step to out the author of the most objectionable material in the newsletter, and acknowledge the fact that there was a moral failure in their entire approach to the point of overlap between libertarianism and right-wing extemism on these issues.

But what's up with tossing tax-avoidance stories in there? Are you trying to assert that advising people to use loopholes in the law to aggressively avoid taxes is somehow equivalent to hating blacks? What the fuck, Welch?

And gallows humor about property damage being done to an IRS building leading to a 20 year jail sentence is also somehow equivalent to hating blacks? Give me a break.

This is what I really hate about the debate surrounding this episode. Everyone is using it as a lever point to try to smuggle in some pet peeve of theirs and make it "the same as" or "part of" the racism dispute. Including this material in this context is pretty much the journalistic equivalent of Kirchik calling Tom DiLorenzo a neo-confederate.

Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 11, 2008, 9:12am | #

Well, it's good to know that libertarians have their fair share of kool aid guzzling partisans.

Here's my take. I think Paul knew what was in the newsletter. I think he knows exactly who was writing it and he's protecting them.

Paul has a base of support with fringe types like Lew Rockwell, Gary North, etc. Whether it was for political advantage or because Paul actually sympathizes with some of the belief system, he gave them the car keys and let them drive. Even if he wants to hide behind the plausible deniability defense, people are going to question his judgment for allowing a newsletter with his name on the masthead to go south (no pun intended).

Here's the real problem. The people who know Paul seem to think he's a decent guy. What troubles me (and others) is that Paul knows the people do the writing in his newsletter and seems to think they are decent guys. C'mon, folks. Many people suspect that a reasonable sounding libertarian will eventually show his true colors as a nutjob. This includes the people who have been around libertarian politics. The sense I get from H&R (aside from those in denial) is this deep sense of, "Oh, fuck. We thought we finally had a good one and damned if he didn't turn out crazy like the rest."

Butler T Reynolds | January 11, 2008, 9:14am | #

I suspect that the main reason that Ron Paul has tolerated the racial insensitivity and bigotry (racist is still too harsh a word for what I've read in those newsletters) of these guys is that nobody else on the planet would give him the time of day on what he cared about: monetary policy.

Sure, we cosmos know that the Fed inflates the currency and that inflation is a huge hidden tax, but we don't spend much time on the topic because there are plenty of other issues that we can talk about with our friends and co-workers that don't draw blank stares or strange looks.

For example, the only person at my office who seems to actually understand and even care about the issue is a Bircher! The guy might have all sorts of nutty culture war ideas, but at least he and I have that in common.

So, in my example, if I feel a need to gripe about inflation or the Fed during the week, I have to go talk to a Bircher or else have people treat me like a Jehovah's Witness.

Heck, I can't even talk with my old close friends about what guys like Milton Friedman and Richard Timberlake have said about the currency. It's like I'm talking about anal tampons or how I actually enjoyed watching Will and Grace.

I suspect Ron Paul was in the same bucket.

Still, not sure if I'd let a Bircher or someone from the LewRockwell.com crowd write in a newsletter with my name on it.

joe | January 11, 2008, 9:15am | #

Two comments from an outside observer:

First, it's rather odd to see people simultaeously defending statements like "only 5% of people with dark skin have sensible political opinions" AND accusing others of elitism.

Second, if you are a Democrat running for office in Texas, and your nickname is "Lefty," you should go with your birth name.

Ken Shultz | January 11, 2008, 9:16am | #

"But what's up with tossing tax-avoidance stories in there? Are you trying to assert that advising people to use loopholes in the law to aggressively avoid taxes is somehow equivalent to hating blacks?"

Like I said, I think he put everything he found up there so they couldn't say he was cherry picking a few choice quotes.

Welch wrote above:

"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."

Chesterfield | January 11, 2008, 9:18am | #

Well, that post certainly is long.

Butler T Reynolds | January 11, 2008, 9:18am | #

Disclaimer: I have never used an anal tampon and I'm not exactly sure what one is. But I do take moral responsibility for saying those words.

Fluffy | January 11, 2008, 9:20am | #

The people who know Paul seem to think he's a decent guy. What troubles me (and others) is that Paul knows the people do the writing in his newsletter and seems to think they are decent guys. C'mon, folks.

Do you know anyone who tells "nigger jokes" once in a while who you otherwise think is a "decent guy"?

Or not even jokes. Do you know anyone who got really angry on 9/11 and starting going off about how Muslims were scum and we should bomb them all - but who you otherwise think is a "decent guy"?

Do you know anyone who, while watching the King riots on TV, lost their cool and started talking about how they were scared of urban blacks - but who you otherwise think is a "decent guy"?

I'm sure that given his age and social background, Paul thinks North is a "decent guy" who "loses his cool sometimes".

On some level, this entire group boils down to a bunch of elderly white guys who stand in someone's driveway in Texas and complain about politics. I imagine the excuses they make for one another's foibles are pretty well-worn with use by now.

Ken Shultz | January 11, 2008, 9:21am | #

Two comments from an outside observer:

You may not be a libertarian, joe, but you aren't an outside observer either.

...you should change that to "Two comments from an inside observer:"

Reinmoose | January 11, 2008, 9:24am | #

Dear Reason -
Please stop trying so hard. I understand that posts about this get you A LOT of blog hits/ad revenue/comments on threads, but this is just getting out of hand.
You are more than welcome to do a hard-split from the Lew Rockwell side of libertarianism, and you can do so by simply saying that. Those who work for you and contribute to your blog show no tendencies toward racism in their posting (although, some, who I will not name, have a tendency toward a collectivist mindset and scorn for groups of poeple), so you have nothing to account for.
Please get on with life or at least discuss how we can move forward from here.

Sincerely,

Reinmoose

Ayn_Randian | January 11, 2008, 9:25am | #

Fluffy, there's a big difference (to me) between jokes and losing your cool once in a while and sustained printing of serious material that's racist, and then defending said material.

Even more egregious is Paul's 2008 lie that he never believed what he wrote, but he defended said material in '96.

IIRC, this stuff goes back 20 years. That's not "once in a while".

Ken Shultz | January 11, 2008, 9:26am | #

I won't answer any of those questions, Fluffy, about whether any of those people are "decent guys", but the question about Ron Paul isn't whether he's a "decent guy".

It's whether we should actively support his campaign to be president.

Sidney Deane | January 11, 2008, 9:28am | #

...unbelievably fleet of foot...

... and white men can't jump!

Derek | January 11, 2008, 9:30am | #

I don't know about the rest of you, but last night's debate put in perspective how trivial this handful of 15-year-old newsletters are and why libertarians should still be supporting Ron Paul.

shiva | January 11, 2008, 9:32am | #

You want to destroy libertarianism in America? Absolutely f*cking destroy it? Associate it with racism in people's mind.

Reason.com seems to be doing their best to do just that! Good job y'all. Keep posting.

Shane Brady | January 11, 2008, 9:34am | #

Derek,

Is racism, bigotry, and homophobia really no big deal to you? Is your standard that low?

Butler T Reynolds | January 11, 2008, 9:35am | #

I understand that posts about this get you A LOT of blog hits/ad revenue/comments on threads, but this is just getting out of hand. Please get on with life or at least discuss how we can move forward from here.

Aw, come on Reinmoose. These posts are so much more fun than, say, posts about fonts and their effect on our culture.

It might not be the Cosmopolitan thing to talk about, but soon the Paul campaign will be over and we can go back to talking about fonts and such.

A campaign like this does not come around very often. The Goldwater campaign was before I was born and the Harry Browne campaign was only known by 0.001% of us. So cut Reason some slack.

Reinmoose | January 11, 2008, 9:37am | #

Or not even jokes. Do you know anyone who got really angry on 9/11 and starting going off about how Muslims were scum and we should bomb them all - but who you otherwise think is a "decent guy"?

One thing I find encourraging about this whole newsletter fiasco is that we have a large contingent of self-described libertarians who are absolutely appalled by the statements in the newsletters, and who are denouncing them vehimently.

I don't know if the same can be said for the mainstream Republicans regarding their hatred of "Arabs." Do you know any mainstream Republicans who get positively furious at their friends who make racial slurrs toward Muslims, or who insist that they shouldn't be allowed to run for office?

Han Solo | January 11, 2008, 9:39am | #

The fact is that all this stuff came up in his congressional runs, all of it was investigated by the NYT who decided it was not much to worry about, and this stuff has even been in Ron Pauls Wikipedia entry for years.

Funny, it just sort of gets lots of press the DAY before the new Hampshire primaries where Paul thought was his biggest state. I guess no one thinks that is interesting.

Derek | January 11, 2008, 9:41am | #

Let's see.... I could not support Paul because of a couple of articles that Paul didn't write for a newsletter he didn't edit from the early 90s containing material he has since condemned .... or I could switch my vote to any of the other candidates, who in one way or another support or are responsible for an unecessary war that has cost America thousands of lives and Iraq hundreds of thousands; trying to start another war with Iran; have no interest in repealing drug laws; have no interest in following the Constitution, restoring liberty and defending habeus corpus and civil liberties; and will continue to help America on its way to bankruptcy and a police state.

Yes, clearly I have my priorities backwards. Incidentally, similar racist/homophobic charges can be laid at the feet of the other Republicans as well. So they don't even beat Paul in that category either.

Timmy Mac | January 11, 2008, 9:41am | #

Look, I don't think he's a honest-to-god racist, but when a newsletter bearing his name publishes racist stuff, it's NOT a media conspiracy to make him look bad. It was published under his name and on his watch; he's got to own it.

Nixuf | January 11, 2008, 9:41am | #

Wanna know who is a RACIST???


McCain!

He publicly called Asians GOOKS for many years while in the Senate, and in the fox debate last light he said:

"I dont want to trade with them, all they want to trade is Burkas"

What an arrogant dumbass racist. Nice way to win friends in other countries....and you people want HIM to be president?

Wilson | January 11, 2008, 9:42am | #

I must say I'm completely dumbfounded by this hardcore backlash on Ron Paul by Reason Magazine. The guy isn't great. I thought we all knew that going in. But we all knew he wasn't going to win, and I was happy to have someone just taking a position on national television on the drug war that wasn't "jail them" or "shoot them".

Literally for the first time in my lifetime we have a candidate taking the right side on the two most important issues; the two biggest injustices facing this country--the drug war and the war in Iraq. He is the ONLY one with the right position on these two issues.

Why is an employee of Reason magazine taking the time to do the legwork to bring him down? Why is seemingly every employee of this magazine writing diatribes about Ron Paul's connections with fringe groups? All of these things are true, of course, but Ron Paul is doing the best job of anyone I can recall of 'fighting the good fight.' Seriously. Take the time to think about the scale of the injustices he is fighting, and the scale of these newsletters.

If doing our best to stop the Ron Paul machine somehow advances freedom better than doing our best to support it, I'd like to know how. Until I do, Reason Foundation just lost my donation for this year. . .

NotBillClinton | January 11, 2008, 9:45am | #

>Also in 1992, Paul wrote, "Opinion polls
>consistently show that only about 5 percent of
>blacks have sensible political opinions."

God help me I might be racist too because I believe that is true.

In fact its provable because thats exactly how many vote REPUBLICAN! :)


Many of the things that people are crying "nuclear war" over in these newsletters are pretty much like that. They are poorly worded by in fact pretty much true.

R C Dean | January 11, 2008, 9:46am | #

If Paul gets on and absolutely savages his old viewpoints and kicks the Rockwell crew out and embraces us, I'll be back in.

That's pretty much where I am. If he can't take this whole sordid episode and make a little lemonade out of it by seguing from a repudiation of all that to an affirmation of the colorblind libertarian approach to race relations and a quick rundown of how blacks in general will benefit from his policies on the drug war, taxes, etc., then he doesn't have the chops to be President.

Jerry | January 11, 2008, 9:46am | #

@Roach
Imagine the U.S. Navy screwing things up instead. Oh wait, they did! Under the Reagan administration, it shot down a civilian Iranian airplane, killing almost 300 people on board. History is a bitch.

Lost_In_Translation | January 11, 2008, 9:48am | #

Derek,

This is less about the actual statements, as repugnant as they are, than about how Paul deals with choices about transparancy and trust. He is playing the same game that I despise in the other politicians in trying to manipulate the truth, which most of us now understand and can forgive Paul for, but he's not coming clean about any of this and veing all shifty in his responses, giving more credence to the unspoken assumption that Paul himself is a racist (even while he's saying he's not a racist)

Sulla | January 11, 2008, 9:49am | #

Derek said: "I don't know about the rest of you, but last night's debate put in perspective how trivial this handful of 15-year-old newsletters are and why libertarians should still be supporting Ron Paul."

I don't think Ron Paul is a racist, but I do wish he would not have allowed this issue to get this far. That being said, the whole "Well, Paul is a great voice for Libertarians and we shouldn't care that he associated with rascists because the Republicans/Democrats are worse" argument doesn't really carry much weight with me. Either you can be a pragmatist and accept that some of your allies will be more statist and collectivist and support the ones who have the best chance of winning (recognizing that having racist allies will be counter-productive), OR you can have an idealistic movement and purge the hatemongers. Ron Paul has no realistic chance of being President, so if his movement becomes associated with racism it makes no pragmatic sense to support him, and I can't see why an idealist would maintain their support for his campaign (even if they still respect him as a person).

Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 11, 2008, 9:52am | #

Yeah, I think Chris Rock is a pretty decent guy, and pretty damn funny. And I don't think the newsletter reflects a bunch of Texas good old boy rednecks who sit in front of the trash cans, drink beer and bullshit. The newsletter reflects a bunch of grumpy old white guys who have given this shit some serious thought and who believe strongly enough to publish it.

Paul tried to have it both ways. He wanted mainstream appeal without giving up his ties to the lunatic fringe. As far as I can see, he's still straddling the fence.

Al Federber | January 11, 2008, 9:55am | #

The cold reality is that every single person who is comng down on Ron Paul has had racist thoughts and used racist language at some time.

We should all forgive as we would like to be forgiven.

Fluffy | January 11, 2008, 9:56am | #

I won't answer any of those questions, Fluffy, about whether any of those people are "decent guys", but the question about Ron Paul isn't whether he's a "decent guy".

It's whether we should actively support his campaign to be president.


I know. I was just trying to personalize it because it seems to mystify some people why Paul wouldn't throw Rockwell under the bus.

I personally think he SHOULD throw him, and hard, but I acknowledge that it's probably a difficult thing for him to do. They've been friends for 30 years. He almost certainly thinks, "Awwww, Lew wrote some crazy stuff sometimes when he was pissed off about something, and he bought some crazy freelance stuff sometimes, but he doesn't mean anything by it."

I just wanted to ask people if they make the same excuse for friends or relatives of their own.

If you were at a family reunion and some cousin or uncle told a Polish joke, how many people here would stand up and give them shit in front of everybody? Not many. Even the people who are about to say, "Me, Me! I would!" almost certainly would not.

This little Texas group is just too small for Paul to bring himself to tell them to fuck off in front of the cameras. He's got to, and I think he should, but he won't.

If there was some 30 year old staffer they just hired in South Carolina who said something racist, they would throw him under the bus in two seconds and smile about it. But Lew? It's just nah gonna happen. And that sucks.

Mike | January 11, 2008, 9:59am | #

I don't get it. Was Reason bought out by Murdoch or something? I appreciate the fact that you published his public comments about the issue from over the years. It shows that he has been just as consistent on this as with everything else.

What I don't understand is the venom that is leaping out at me from the screen. I thought Reason was a Libertarian publication?

I am a gay American and a Libertarian and let me tell you something. Every American has a right to their opinion and the right to express that opinion. Even if I hate white supremacy with a raging passion I will defend to the day their Constitutional Right to their Freedom of Speech.

Ron Paul also understands that they have this right which is exactly why he is the anti-racist candidate just as he says. Under a Paul administration we will once again be a truly free America.

tepid | January 11, 2008, 10:00am | #

Alright, had I been volunteering and donating to the RP campaign, I'd probably stop doing both. Perceptions matter in politics, and I wouldn't want to sully my name by association.

However, I would still vote for him when the time came.

Derek | January 11, 2008, 10:00am | #

John Derbyshire posted something worth reading at The Corner at NRO:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTA3ZmRkNTdhY2Q5ZDQ5NWY4MDA4MWUxMGNmYTQxZTE=

He quotes Andrew Sullivan saying: "When he was asked to disown the 9/11 Truthers, he gave a revealing answer, and one that reflects on the newsletters issue. It just isn't in his nature to adopt other people's views, or to tell anyone else what to believe or what to say. He doesn't just believe in libertarianism; he lives it. This means that he doesn't have the instinct to police anyone else's views or actions within the law or the Constitution. I don't think it excuses his negligence in the past, but it does help me understand it better."

Derbyshire basically agrees, and relates a very interesting story about a friend of his father who frequently sent letters to Paul.

Shane Brady | January 11, 2008, 10:01am | #

Fluffy,

If I had a family member who was publishing racist newsletters, I would shun them and never speak to them again. As a matter of fact, I got fed up with past friends not that long ago, and removed them from my life because I realized I need to be a better person and not support racism on any lavel.

joe | January 11, 2008, 10:03am | #

Al F,

Prejudiced reflexes or thoughts are one thing.

Thought-out, rationalized, ideological racism is another. Whoever wrote those letters didn't lock his car doors and then feel silly about it.

Arno | January 11, 2008, 10:05am | #

It's time to clean the stables out and throw out Rockwell. Those guys are world famous for being anti-libertarian racists. Why didn't people pay attention? The racism on the Lew Rockwell blog is pretty clear. People ignore it because it's not the "only" thing there, but it is there. Bob Wallace was one writer who was crazy-racist (endorsing swastikas on the Rockwell site, for an example). Attacks on Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King. Why didn't peopel see that?

Derek | January 11, 2008, 10:05am | #

Shane: why do you keep using the plural (racist newsletters)? All the racist comments came from one newsletter.

Arno | January 11, 2008, 10:05am | #

sorry...people...

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

Shane Brady | January 11, 2008, 10:05am |