Ron Paul to Speak on CNN About Newsletters

In a live reaction-interview with Wolf Blitzer just after the segment that I first spoke of yesterday, at least from what I understand. Scheduled between 5 and 6 eastern time.

Update I: CNN.com has a story up here.

Update II: Though he doesn't mention the controversy explicitly, Paul's latest message to supporters sounds like he's got it on his mind.

Comments

[Bingo]

170 comments, calling it

[Mr. X]

Time? Date? Youtube?

[An Ottawa Reader]

Please God someone will post the segment to Youtube.

(This had better be good.)

[Egosumabbas]

This is the clarification I've been waiting for. This will make or break his campaign.

[Dodsworth]

I can't "make" his campaign but it can keep it alive, no small matter if a brokered convention is in the books.

[NoStar]

As I said yesterday, Dr. Paul has the ability to turn this lemon into lemonaid.

What a good tie in to the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Money-Bomb.

[joe]

If he can pull this off credibly and make the attacks look bogus, he gets national airtime, puts it behind him, and gets sympathy for the "MSM is picking on me" factor.

[Egosumabbas]

I can't "make" his campaign but it can keep it alive, no small matter if a brokered convention is in the books.

Hey, I'm hopeful, not na?ve 🙂 What he's doing right now is far better than the 0.5% that the LP gets every 4 years.

[joe]

No, I'm with NoStar.

And you know opinion on the matter.

[Click \'n\' Learn]

The only thing that could save his campaign - at least among the chatterers - would be if the author came forward and had a good explanation.

What's also interesting here is how the Bad Boys [TM] at Reason revealed that they're wearing lace under their leather jackets by more or lease immediately turning tail and running. Rather than, for instance, trying to analyze some of the statements from the newsletters or, for instance, trying to figure out whether the piece was something other than just good journalism.

It's possible to think that RP is the worst person in the world while at the same time thinking the TNR author is the second worst, but I guess that's too fine a point for Reason to be able to make.

[Richard]

Thank you Egosumabbas! I'm so sick of people who think Paul is going to win the presidency. Or the nomination. Or a primary.

[Ali]

Bingo- before or after the interview? I'd see a whole lot more after the interview. We're talking 250+.

[Brett]

Keeping my expectations looooooooow. Perhaps he's been reading H&R, but there's not much to give me hope that he'll put this to bed in a satisfactory manner.

[mediageek]

Fingers crossed nonetheless.

[Guy Montag]

170 comments, calling it

400

[jimmydageek]

763 comments.

[jimmydageek on \"The Price Is]

1 comment, Bob.

[Ali]

Guy Montag- Probably not. I do not think that there is enough time between the supposed interview at the Debates. I am calling 320. Bet? But, hey, no cheating by making silly posts under a different handle!

[Fluffy]

Yep, low expectations are in order.

He may just want a chance to repeat his somewhat less than satisfying statement from the other day in front of a TV audience.

Nobody listens to me or sends any checks to the Fluffy Political Consulting Agency, but I would recommend absolute honesty, absolute contrition, throwing the "real killers" under the bus, and making the appropriate stirring statement[s] about race and peace, love and understanding.

[Ali]

at the Debates ---> "and the debates"

[Fluffy]

Are you calling 170 comments before the piece even appears? Because that is pretty likely.

[Mike Laursen]

Martin Luther King Jr. Day Money-Bomb

Martin Luther King, Jr. Day Money Bomb? Do I wanna ask?

[Ron Paul]

Sorry I wasn't a better vetter
Of what they wrote
In my newsletter
Was it Lew or Gary North
Or some paleo throwback?
If the name's so important
Will you get off my back?
I don't endorse racism,
The Superhighway or Amero
I guess I'll just come clean
And say it was Dondero.

[Fluffy]

Perhaps he could include the sentence, "While I was doing a bad job overseeing a small-circulation newsletter, my opponents in both parties were overseeing a Drug War that has taken the vote away and taken any possible career future away from millions of African Americans all across the country."

[Pottsy]

Fluffy, that would mean RP actually had decent consultants involved in the campaign.

[Shane Brady]

From CNN.com

"Benton maintains that the GOP presidential candidate doesn't know who wrote any of the newsletters. Asked if Paul would try to find out, his spokesman said, "No, what's the point? ... It's time to move on."

Anyone care to defend him still?

[Mr. X]

At a minimum, he'll be able to say that he's already responded on CNN when they bring it up at the debate.

[JasonL]

I'm worried this is going to come across as a bizarre secret club with infighting. In short, Ron can't act as though everyone is supposed to know or care about internal machinations. Keep sincere, focus on the big picture, and don't dwell on details and finger pointing.

[joe]

Fluffy wrote,

Nobody listens to me or sends any checks to the Fluffy Political Consulting Agency, but I would recommend absolute honesty, absolute contrition, throwing the "real killers" under the bus, and making the appropriate stirring statement[s] about race and peace, love and understanding.

There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these newsletters could be written, editted, laid out, published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone pulling the fire alarm.

I don't know what that answer is, but Ron Paul had better.

[Bingo]

170 after the interview Ali!

This is the make or break moment for the Paul campaign, and most people here are expecting him to break it.

Of course if he hits one out of the ballpark even Guy's estimate might be low.

[ed]

I'm so sick of people who think Paul is going to win the presidency. Or the nomination. Or a primary.

People talk about the DC Beltway as being an insular world, separated from reality. H&R is a similar place, but for libertarians, at least as far as the Paul "revolution" goes. I like the guy, but come on.

[ILAH DUNLAP LITTLE]

CNN? Would it be more "cosmopolitan" to do this on The News Hour with Jim Lehrer?

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

The only thing that would save Paul's campaign is a meteor hitting all of the other Republican candidates.. and it wouldn't hurt if HRC and Obama were caught in the blast. The Paul campaign is effectively over given the NH finish. With outsider movements like Paul's, momentum is critical. The machinery just isn't there to push through a bad outing. Except for the politicos and the RP die hards, the explanation just doesn't matter much now.

[Ali]

OK, lets see.

[NoStar]

Mike Laursen,

RE: MLK Jr. Day Money Bomb

Of course you want to ask.
http://www.freeatlast2008.com/

cut & past or click on my name.

[Bingo]

Jose, you're forgetting about possible 3rd party spoiler run. Thats why its important for him to clear this up and kill the story once and for all 😉

[PC]

Yeah and when they deny that it was Lew and everyone else says that it is Lew, and when Lew is currently involved in your financial dealings...you get the point.

CNN: So you have a new book out, Pillars of Prosperity?

Paul: Yes

CNN: Who wrote the intro?

Paul: Lew

CNN: Oh the same guy who everyone else besides you and Lew say wrote those newsletters?

Yeah this will look great, considering the way the Official Campaign has handled it so far, everything will just be peachy. Don't forget to donate more money to someone who couldn't at least come up with a strategy on this between 0 and 20,000,000 dollars. I feel bad for the people who maxed out, especially those who spent more than they should have.

[mediageek]

There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these newsletters could be written, editted, laid out, published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone pulling the fire alarm.

I'm still somewhat curious as to why Dondero didn't sound the alarm after he admitted to getting the faxed proof files of these newsletters back when he worked for RP.

[alan]

Before the TNR scoop/smear I would have said

There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism

was unfair, but now,

n such numbers that these newsletters could be written, edited, laid out, published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone pulling the fire alarm.

I'm wondering the same thing.

[grumpy realist]

"Time to move on"?

Uh, hey dude-- a whole bunch of racist and homophobic crap under your own name for a long period of time (and don't--just DON'T try to claim it wasn't racist and homophobic stuff--you're just digging the hole deeper), you couldn't be bothered at the time to keep tabs as to what was there, and now your spokesman says it's "time to move on"?

Sorta like the spokesman for the Skilling coming out and saying: "yeah, we did a whole lot of accounting shell games at Enron, but now you've caught us at it and we promise not to do it anymore and why's everyone so upset at us? After all, it's time to move on."

Does ANYONE supporting Ron Paul's run for president understand why This. Does. Not. Go. Over. Well?

[Mike Laursen]

...he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these newsletters could be...

Wow, nice cheap shooting there, joe!

[mmX]

From CNN: Benton maintains that the GOP presidential candidate doesn't know who wrote any of the newsletters. Asked if Paul would try to find out, his spokesman said, "No, what's the point? ... It's time to move on."

[Fluffy]

There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these newsletters could be written, editted, laid out, published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone pulling the fire alarm.

Well, for me that comes under the "absolute honesty" header, since I am assuming that part of the story here is that the newsletters were deliberately written in a hysterical voice in order to get contributions and subscriptions from members of the 80's and 90's militia movement. "The people running the newsletter were trying to evangelize to the militia movement, and I didn't realize how far they were willing to go to do that," would be what I would say.

But based on Benton's comment, I don't think the campaign is going to take that route. I think they're going to just say, "What, me worry?" and shrug. And that is a horrible, horrible move.

Unless Benton gave his comment yesterday and since then the little teapot shitstorm libertarians have been having and the RonPaulForums guys have been having has had some effect.

[mediageek]

Does ANYONE supporting Ron Paul's run for president understand why This. Does. Not. Go. Over. Well?

Yes, and I can't help but watch the whole thing transpire with a knot in the pit of my stomach.

[J sub D]

What a good tie in to the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Money-Bomb.

Did somebody listen to me?

[Guy Montag]

As for the racist loonies who flock to folks like Dr. Paul, I have noticed one thing about the ones I have met (racist loonies, but not ones who necessarily support Dr. Paul): they all seem to think, somehow, that giving people choice meand that the restrictions on individuals thatn they want will be enacted. Especially if they have a position on 'racial purity'.

Discussions with them are pretty bizarre, especially if they are Hitler appreciators and want laws telling us what race we can marry or be in school with, while they keep trying to say that it some sort of Conservative position, it certainly is not.

One not far from them is someone I know here in Arlington, and I have mentioned him before, who swears he is a Conservative but he is for a windfall profits tax on energy companies and says it was a Nixon thing! That example was for the pathology, not saying it is a racially based WPT.

[dhex]

I think they're going to just say, "What, me worry?" and shrug. And that is a horrible, horrible move.

unfortunately, i think you might be right in that.

and yeah it's the way wrong thing to do.

[TrickyVic]

"""There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these newsletters could be written, editted, laid out, published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone pulling the fire alarm.

I don't know what that answer is, but Ron Paul had better."""

I can think of two things of the top of my head.

1. Ron Paul didn't read the newsletters. I'll bet no politician does.

2. Freedom. Crazy people, conspiracy freaks, ect. want freedom too. Since so many people are willing to shut them out, it's natural for them to gravitate toward freedom loving people who will let them be themselves.

True freedom loving people, such as myself, don't care that the freaks and such want to jump on the freedom train. It's a train where every person in the world should be.

[paul]

RP supporter David Duke thinks he should double down. What do the RP supporters here think?

[alan]

..he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these newsletters could be...

Wow, nice cheap shooting there, joe!

Not a cheap shot, if there was no market for this in certain libertarian oriented circles, Ro Paul's people would not have bothered to produce the memos and newsletters.

[Episiarch]

Maybe we can wait and see. Nah, let's pump this fucker up to 1000 posts before we see what he does.

[Egosumabbas]

Thank you Egosumabbas! I'm so sick of people who think Paul is going to win the presidency. Or the nomination. Or a primary.

There is a difference between hoping he wins, and making wild speculation. If he makes a difference in national politics by elevating (as opposed to debasing as some reasonoids fear) liberty I'll be happy. I'm worried about some of the college kids getting their hopes dashed about politics due to overblown expectations and dirty tricks and smears. They need to grow a tougher skin. And hey, if the country goes to shit in the next four years, I get to put a "don't blame me, I voted for Ron Paul" bumper sticker on my car. Also, unlike some Libertarians here, I can say that I actually went out there and tried to get somebody to win, as opposed to being a cynical (cosmo?) ninny.

[Jake Boone]

There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers that these newsletters could be written, editted, laid out, published, and distributed under Ron Paul's name without anyone pulling the fire alarm.

Probably because the circulation of the thing was somewhere around eighteen people. Libertarianism was not yet the unstoppable, 2%-of-the-electorate juggernaut that it is today.

[creech]

I wonder if anyone has records from those days to show if the RP Newsletter even rented the Libertarian Party mailing list for a promo subscription mailing? Rockwell and Rothbard were pretty much persona non grata after they nastily pulled out of the LP. I'd think he got most of his readers from Birchers, hard money currency bugs, and others - not Reason and Liberty readers.

[Egosumabbas]

I'm still somewhat curious as to why Dondero didn't sound the alarm after he admitted to getting the faxed proof files of these newsletters back when he worked for RP.

Because Dondero is a self-aggrandizing prick who's trying make a buck off his former employer? If this was about being a "true libertarian" he would have done something about it by now. Timing *is* everything you know.

[Butler T Reynolds]

Does anyone know how those newsletters labeled themselves and their ideas? Libertarian or conservative?

Some of the stuff in there that I read just recently -- not just the few insensitive phrases -- seemed more like good old fashioned conservatism to me.

[Jesse Walker]

trying to figure out whether the piece was something other than just good journalism

Actually, Lonewacko, I think Kirchick's piece is deficient as journalism in a lot of obvious ways. My reasons for thinking so overlap with yours, though you have some criticisms that I would not make and I have some criticisms that you did not make.

But I also realize that to go on about that at this point just looks like an effort to change the subject. Kirchick uncovered some genuinely offensive comments in the newsletters, and they appeared over the course of several years (1989-94). Paul needs to offer a full explanation for that material regardless of Kirchick's sloppiness.

[Bingo]

Is it one drink or two when a reason editor doubleposts?

[Fluffy]

Butler -

I have been telling myself for several years that Paul is a libertarian who disguises some of his positions in conservative language, and occasionally in extremist language, because he's aiming for fusion.

As it turns out, it may have been the reverse. I have to be ready to accept the idea that he was tricking ME into supporting THEM, and not the other way around.

[fyodor]

joe,

If I were a terrorist, I'd want the Bill of Rights enforced strictly, but that doesn't mean that wanting the Bill of Rights enforced strictly makes you a terrorist. Likewise for racists, who feel especially violated by hate crime laws and the intrusion of the Federal Gov't into what should be state matters, but (and hopefully I don't really have to say this) that doesn't mean that those who want Constitutional restrictions on the federal gov't (let's not argue about hate crime laws right now, okay? we can do that some other time) are racists.

Whether that's a message that Paul can make without coming across to Joe Average (not to be confused with joe) as being an apologist to racism, I don't rightly know.

[Ron Paul]

Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right.
Here I am stuck in the middle with Lew.

[sage]

Anyone think Ron will tear up ala Hillary?

[Mr. X]

The problem with Kirchik's piece is that he's entirely too breathless (he need to show more and tell less) about the comments, too loose with attribution, and lumps some vaguely controversial/eccentric positions in with actual racism in order to make the claim that the newsletters went out for "decades."

I do admire the fact that he went out and did original research, rather than trying to cobble a story out of the 1996 articles and the Texas Monthly interview.

[Mr Y]

Mr X: i'm not sure a journalist doing original research requires admiration, does it?

[Shane Brady]

Mr X.

TNR had links to scans of all the newsletters referenced. You can read the racism, homophobia, and kookiness yourself.

[Gene Trosper]

Jesse Benton needs fired.

Now.

[alan]

Joe,

don't lose yourself in Obama's eyes. Right now he is a rorschach for anyone to read his personal political philosophy into.

Remember why liberals opposed Quayle, I mean the other reason besides the fact he was an idiot. That's right, the 'E' word. Same thing with Clarence Thomas, which the late, (and very great) Thurgood Marshall had to ask, who is this guy?

[Nutter]

A couple of days ago Dondero claimed that he'd been giving information to Reason "at the highest levels" (!) and implied that we should expect a bombshell story to break.

Well?

[mediageek]

69!

[alan]

whoops, wrong thread.

[Mr X]

Shane,
thanks for that. seriously.

[Mr. X]

Original research is admirable because it's so rare these days. It's not necessarily hard work, but it's harder than making a couple of phone calls and cribbing from other media.

It's too bad Kirchik's writing is so breathlessly sensational. If he had written a straighter piece, it might have gotten picked up by more mainstream press, but when it's an obvious hit piece like this...

TNR had links to scans of all the newsletters referenced. You can read the racism, homophobia, and kookiness yourself.

I read the scans. The racism/homophobia was confined to a couple of years around 1990. Only by counting conspiracy stuff from 1978 and a academic secessionist conference in 1995 does Kirchik get "decades."

[Tbone]

Doesn't matter what he says, this type of material is political Ebola and 100% fatal. Mea culpas are meaningless.

With a fifth in the LIVE FREE OR DIE state, it's fade to black anyway.

[dodsworth]

The racism/homophobia was confined to a couple of years around 1990. Only by counting conspiracy stuff from 1978 and a academic secessionist conference in 1995 does Kirchik get "decades."

Worth repeating.....but I fear it will do no good unless Paul confronts this head on.

[a Duoist]

Either Dr. Paul knew about the language in the newsletters which bear his name and agreed with it, or he did not know about the views being expressed and ghost writers used his name for years to further their own agenda, at the expense of his reputation.

Either way, he's revealed to be an idiot.

[Egosumabbas]

I can't believe that my first foray into politics in my entire life (besides voting occasionally) hangs on this interview. What a great way to start eh?

[Ben Masel]

Are we to believe that NONE of the subscribers ever suggested that Cong. Paul give a look at what was going out in his name?

[dodsworth]

If Paul is an idiot for missing a few (that's all TNR) linkes of racist stuff in a two or so year period,, the same could be said for most members of congress who vote for bills they neither have read nor understand.

[Edward]

It should matter to libertarians because the movement has been tainted by association with this stuff. It is hard to understand why conpsiracy nuts and racists are attracted to libertarianism. Maybe they should be made to feel unwelcome. Having one of them as standard bearer doesn't help.

[Nutter]

Are we to believe that NONE of the subscribers ever suggested that Cong. Paul give a look at what was going out in his name?

How many subscribers would it have had?

[Edward]

7,000 subscribers is what I heard. I imagine Don Black was one of them.

[Geoff]

the same could be said for most members of congress who vote for bills they neither have read nor understand.

And therein lies the irony of these newsletters, in tight circulation, being the equivalent of political ebola while the self-admitted Congress who didn't even read the PATRIOT Act (which affects a far greater population--like all of America) get off scott-free by their apologists that claim it was OK then for whatever excuse, even if it isn't OK now.

[mmX]

I miss the good ol' days when the worst thing about Paul was the earmarking.

[svf]

I have a hard time believing these things went out to more than a couple hundred people. I mean they look like such bush league, DIY, amateurish-looking publications even by early 1990s standards, typed on a manual typewriter and run off on a mimeo machine in some guy's basement.

I mean, right...?

[Eric]

CNN streams live at http://www.cnn.com/video/?iref=videoglobal. Click the live video link.

[Reinmoose]

I personally don't have faith that he can pull this off. It would be nice, and someone politically savvy could probably do it very well, but Dr. Paul has shown at debates and other TV appearances that he focuses on what's important to him and not on what's important to the viewers.

[Eric]

Has the interview run yet?

[Richard]

Understatement of the year (I know, it's early) from that CNN story linked to above:

"Paul, who is not considered a front-runner..."

[Lost_In_Translation]

If Paul doesn't realize that a great deal of passionate support is hinging on a some sort of rational explanation and not more of "I don't know, let's ignore it", then he's a fool. The guy doesn't have near enough support to wave this off.

Tactically, he should admit all he knows and promise no more carelessness with his and by extension "the revolutions" reputation.

[Eldridge Cleaver]

7,000 subscribers is what I heard.

Geez, I had more support than that.

[Lost_In_Translation]

I personally don't have faith that he can pull this off. It would be nice, and someone politically savvy could probably do it very well, but Dr. Paul has shown at debates and other TV appearances that he focuses on what's important to him and not on what's important to the viewers.

you're not kidding. he harps way too much on the war.

[Dodsworth]

Disagree. The problem in NH was that he didn't harp on the war enough, hence most of the idiots voting for McCain thought he was the antiwar candidate.

[Reinmoose]

Next time L_I_T, we most definitely need to choose someone:
More moderate
Younger
More capable of relating to the public

[Lost_In_Translation]

There were alot of technical problems with New Hampshire, but I can't say which one was the real kicker.

I'd really hope he comes up with a suitable answer for these shenanigans, so we can most past this and work towards getting a few more delegates to barter with in the brokered convention.

[Brandybuck]

Doing my part to inflate the post totals...

[alan]

Disagree. The problem in NH was that he didn't harp on the war enough, hence most of the idiots voting for McCain thought he was the antiwar candidate.

In other words, even the antiwar faction of the GOP is uninformed. Is this an uphill climb any principled politician can pull off in the next four years?

[Dodsworth]

There isn't anyone else out there, except perhaps Gary Johnson. Who's he on the war? What's holding up the interview.

[Bingo]

Dodsworth, McCain isn't against the war, he just thinks it should be fought differently. Which is a shrewd thing to say since he gets to criticize the war without alienating the huge group of "glass parking lot!" types.

Slimy bastard.

[Homer Sexual]

A bumper sticker I saw today:

"Don't blame me, I'm voting for Ron Paul -- Blame the niggers and faggots instead."

[Lost_In_Translation]

Reinmoose,

We all have the ideal candidate in our heads. Only time will tell if that individual decides to pursue the presidency.

[Geoff]

(Gary Johnson)

[Dodsworth]

Your "bumper sticker" doesn't note that RP is currently running the most anti-racist, anti-drug war, anti-death penalty campaign in the GOP. That should count for something....but it doesn't seem to.

[Eric]

Walter E. William / John Stossel for President!

[Pottsy]

Your "bumper sticker" ...

You're right, but I still nearly spit out my coffee from laughter. Is that wrong?

[VM]

HE IS THE ANTI RACIST!

[Fluffy]

OK, based on the rambling statement at Paul's website, I'm out. Peace.

[dodsworth]

No....just feeling pretty humorless and depressed these days. The last two days have been two of the worst in my life. What's up with this friggin' interview?

[MCW]

Its hilarious to see you Ron Paul wingnuts finally jumping ship. Next stop, you'll be shilling for Huckabee.

[Fluffy]

All my life, I've been working to make sure that when the Fed had done its work, and the special interests had looted the system to their hearts' content, and there was a crisis, I would be in a position to speak the truth about why, and what to do about it.

No, Ron. That's what you failed to do. All you had to do was show up in Congress every day and be yourself and you would be in that position. But you just had to get involved in the conspiracy crap too.

[Pottsy]

I know... they need to go ahead and get it on the air.

[Fluffy]

Actually, even if Paul personally wrote every line of the newsletter while stomping on a pregnant black woman while wearing Wehrmacht surplus boots, I still wouldn't vote for Huckabee.

Better Hillary than Huckabee.

[Dodsworth]

Has he been interviewed yet?

[VM]

He did a pretty good job with the interview, actually. Definitely had emotion in his voice.

and he and Wolfie ended it on a positive note

paraphrase:

[WB, smiling] running for president exposes you to all sorts of attacks like these.
[RP, smiling] you bet

[Nutter]

2 Comments:

1-"MLK and Rosa Parks are heroes of mine" sounds too much like "some of my best friends are black" even though true

2-He refers to "the blacks" a lot for someone who doesn't think in categories

I'd still vote for him

[Fluffy]

I wonder if Wolfie knew that Paul just posted a notice at his website that the world is conspiring against him and a horde of neocon orcs is on his tail. I wonder if he knew that Paul just blew the Diebold dog whistle.

[Shane Brady]

That was pathetic. He sounded so unconvincing when asked who wrote them and if he had read them. And not to mention, Wolf softballed the interview.

[VM]

don't forget Ghandi!

he also brought up the TNR piece together with being excluded from Faux News debates.

He talked about ending the WoD - clarification hier - is he for letting the states decide that, too? Or is it for total elimination?

[NP]

What a pitiful--make that really pitiful--interview. I wasn't expecting much given Paul's generally poor rhetorical skills, but at the same time I was at least expecting him to offer a more detailed explanation. Calling it unconvincing would be a gross understatement.

[Timon19]

I just listened to it on the CNN XM channel.

Ron sounded like he was on a 20 oz. espresso and also like he was pretty pissed off. Lots of rambling and forcefully repeating his positions on the drug war and Iraq war viz. minorities and his admiration of MLK, etc.

Wolf gave him as much time as he wanted to explain and never interrupted, so it was pretty fair. Wolf also offered an endorsement of sorts (that it's "not the Ron Paul I know").

No names mentioned ("no idea" who).

[dodsworth]

He may not have had an idea of who wrote if Rockwell was the editor and one his minions did it. Is Rockwell going to leave Paul hanging out to dry? What does he know?

[Andrew Taylor]

In all of my previous posts in these threads about this controversy, I've given Paul benefit of the doubt -- pointing out that I believe him to be a decent, good, and honorable man. Now I'm even beginning to rethink that position.

Why? The campaign, through Jesse Benton, says Paul "doesn't know" who wrote those newsletters. Give me a break! Why doesn't he ask his partner, Burt Blumert? Don't they have records of expenditures from "Ron Paul and Associates," even if that corporation no longer exists? Can't they contact an accountant who did their books and find out to whom checks were written for writing articles to the newsletters?

This is truly amazing and incredible. Paul is going to allow his previous kooky-but-likable persona to be destroyed by this mess, just so he can take a bullet for Lew Rockwell -- who, according to Eric Dondero, wrote "80%" of the letters? Why on earth does Paul think Rockwell is worth it? How has Rockwell made a bigger or more important contribution to the cause of liberty than Paul -- and/or what suggests he will do so in the future?

Someone jokingly stated in another thread that Paul only had a chance at the GOP nomination if all of the other candidates, save Romney, were photographed by Romney fellating and ejaculating on each other -- and even then Romney would be the favorite! Paul's willingness to commit political suicide to "save" Rockwell makes me wonder what skeletons are in Paul's closet that Rockwell and Blumert know about.

Mr. Dondero is being proven right on so much so fast that I may have to rethink my position on the Iraq War!

[VM]

Timon - that was my take, too - I do have to agree with Shane that it did feel softball, but he came across as someone with passion. And it appears you also noted the friendly exchange the two shared.

NP - do you have the feeling he's covering for someone?

AND WHAT THE HELL IS "TAKING MORAL RESPONSIBILITY" AS OPPOSED TO "TAKING RESPONSIBILITY"?

it seems like a strange way to mitigate things.

something is strange about this, but as these things go, it did seem better than most.

[Timon19]

I can see how this thread will play out: those who have already decided that any explanation short of a public excoriation of the writer(s) and a Clinton-style finger-wagging "I...did...not...write...those...newsletters" will be disappointed/disgusted and those who have already decided that he's infallible and this will not change a damn thing about his candidacy will be satisfied.

Both groups will snipe at one another for approximately eleventy-billion posts.

[penxv]

I think that he chose a good time to announce that he would pardon nonviolent drug offenders.

That hits home for a lot of the people that the New republic was hoping to turn off.

[fyodor]

1-"MLK and Rosa Parks are heroes of mine" sounds too much like "some of my best friends are black" even though true

Who WAS the asshole who said some of my best freinds are black, or colored or whatever the hell he said? That jerk sure tarred and feathered a perfectly reasonable defense against racism. I mean, if you really have a number of friends, genuine friends, who belong to a particular group, can't it reasonably be presumed that you don't hate said group nor consider them a lower form of life? Of course, if you're just making it up or look at those supposed friends patronizingly, that's different, but then the problem is that the claim is false, not that the claim is somehow meaningless or inherently bigotted as it's interpreted to be, I think because someone once said it who obviously wasn't sincere. A cursory googling of the phrase doesn't come up with anything useful....

[VM]

*hands Andrew a guitar*

please play Bang-a-gong?

[PC]

Not a bad job on CNN, but if it was Lew this is still a moot point because it all comes down to money then.

In my best Thurston Howell III voice: Of course if the Libertarian "Cosmopolitans" in the know would come clean with us ingrates that would save us a lot of trouble.

So how does everyone think the FOX debate is going to turn out tonight?

[highnumber]

There's one more element - he has to give a good answer to why racists and lunatics are attracted to libertarianism in such numbers...

Good point, er, what a minute - HEY!

[khefer]

I see, so it's evil for Ron Paul to call it like it is 20 years ago, but today you can rail on gays, hispanics, and non-christians.

[VM]

wheee wheeeee wheeeeee

[khefer]

Also, it's completely permissable to shit on Arabs and anyone against the Iraq war is treasonous.

[Fluffy]

There's absolutely no reason NOT to name the actual writers. If it's Rockwell, none of his guys will give a shit. If it's some crazy Gary North acolyte, they would probably love the notoriety. "Hey, Ma! They just talked about me on CNN!"

Dumb. Very dumb.

[grumpy realist]

There seem to be a sizable number of Ron Paul supporters who don't seem to get the fact that being a kindly doddering doctor who ignored what went out supposedly under his name for years is one thing--but it certainly kills any sense that you keep on top of things.

They also don't seem to understand that "yeah, he did all sorts of incompetent things but Ron Paul's the Only One Who Can Save Us because he's got the Right Ideas" doesn't go over well, either. Ron Paul might be able to have brushed off the letters when campaigning in Texas (tho I predict that his continued re-elections in the face of the letters will simply confirm a lot of stereotypes people have about Texans), but he's not going to be able to do it when running for POTUS.

[Click \'n\' Learn]

Jesse Walker:

About the closest I've come to supporting RP was this, saying:

This shouldn't be considered an endorsement of Ron Paul; while I support him on sovereignty-related and similar issues, his libertarian economic policies would make me pine for the glory days of Bill Clinton. However, the current top-tier candidates are remarkably bad and anything that will reduce their popularity should be welcomed by all those who, for instance, oppose IllegalImmigration.

I also mentioned a few things of interest in 2005.

Likewise, my infamous post isn't really supporting RP so much as trying to tear down TNR. That's somewhat due to their other coverage, such as their support for IllegalImmigration; see the first link in my post.

In addition, it shouldn't take much tinfoil to see that the article is obviously an attempt by "The Establishment" - or at least an establishment hack - to strike back at an insurgent campaign.

While I certainly understand that RP supporters going after the author would look like they were trying to distract from this issue, I'm sure that it would be possible to later on look at the issues I raise regarding the author's possible motivations.

[Timon19]

Also, on the side of the disgusted will be the strain who have already accepted that the guilty party is 100% Lew Rockwell even though it's not gotten beyond (admittedly very strong) insinuations.

The jury has decided (in some minds) that Rockwell is the man. He may very well be. I haven't the foggiest, as I never really read the guy and I'm completely unfamiliar with his style and views.

It seems that for a lot of people, though, everything's already been decided, and it' just Ol' Ron takin' one for Lew. Could be, but I'm not about to hold it as Gospel truth.

[Mike]

Great job by Ron. He looked very angry about this whole thing but managed to keep control and stick to his stance on the issues (drug war, war in Iraq) that show he is not a racist. He even got Wolf Blitzer to admit that he does not think RP is a racist.

[ILAH DUNLAP LITTLE]

Mr. Dondero is being proven right on so much so fast that I may have to rethink my position on the Iraq War!

Now THAT'S crazy talk. Though it might be the Cosmopolitan thing to do.

[Edward]

David Duke claims not to be a racist, too. He doesn't hate all Jews and blacks, just the bad ones.

[Nutter]

Who WAS the asshole who said some of my best freinds are black, or colored or whatever the hell he said?

I know just what you mean. I don't know the story either.

[Vincent Gigante]

"Timon19 | January 10, 2008, 5:51pm | #
I can see how this thread will play out: those who have already decided that any explanation short of a public excoriation of the writer(s) and a Clinton-style finger-wagging "I...did...not...write...those...newsletters" will be disappointed/disgusted and those who have already decided that he's infallible and this will not change a damn thing about his candidacy will be satisfied.

Both groups will snipe at one another for approximately eleventy-billion posts."

Agree, as an RP fan, I knew about this for about 5 years and was expecting thsi to come out.

ON the interview:
- liked that he mentioned the war on drugs as a racist policy
- also liked that he mentioned his record on this matter, which sows no evidence of racism in speeches, articles written by him and his voting record.

However I was disappointed in the explanation he gave as to who wrote that, I believe he didnt write that but it seems that he does not want to throw someone under the bus, either the writer or the people that know who wrote this.
Whoever wrote this should just come out and give an explanation, really.

[frozen_giblets]

Hmmm. Nothing posted at the LewRockwell.com blog. --fg

[dodsworth]

I suspect a lowly Rockwell pimple-faced minion wrote that stuff and that Rockwell was the editor....hence Paul may not know exactly who penned the words. I could be wrong.

[Lost_In_Translation]

There's too much ambiguity in the charges and lack of interest in the Paul campaign. I may accept the Paul explanation, but he's handing his supporters a gun with no ammo. The cloud of distaste will continue to hang over him for no good reason other than he apparently lacks the interest in pursuing this until he's cleared his name. Why are there people that claim to know about this, claim to know who the individuals are all while Paul says "I do not recall". Well Paul has shown one thing, he's not in this game to win. He may get his points across for a few more debates and use up the rest of his campaign cash, but he'll leave with people thinking he fell on his sword protecting somebody or was completely clueless and willfully so about the newsletters. This sucks!

[Shane]

Assuming Paul didn't write then stuff

2 Questions:

1. why after over a decade hasn't he tried to find out who wrote the stuff under his name?

2. If he knows, what was/is the downside in naming the person who poses such thoughts as Paul's own if Paul finds them so abhorrent.

If an aquaintance of mine started blogging with my name, even pretending to be me in the text, and called the holocaust a hoax i would do everything i could do distance myself from him and the blog, including making it clear that it wasn't me but aquaintance X. It's one thing for him to say he didn't write it, but it's just odd that he claims he doesn't know who wrote it and he and his campaign haven't taken steps to find out who wrote it and are not going to.

That is, if he didn't write it.

[PC]

Of course if there ever was a primary for this newsletter stuff to come out, South Carolina's the one. Does anyone think this might give him a bump? (See McCain's kids)

[Shane]

And if it was Lew what do the paulites think of Ron's continued utilization of Lew in a professional capacity?

[cicero]

Memo to Ron Paul: Don't say things like "the blacks" when defending yourself against racism. As in "the blacks are voting for me more than any other Republican candidate." And (paraphrasing) "I'm trying to stop the blacks from being persecuted by our drug law". This doesn't help your defense, especially when the words "the blacks" are in almost every sentence of the very newsletter articles you say you didn't write. And please stop with this unbelievable nonsense about not knowing who could have possibly wrote those articles. It makes you sound like a liar. And next time when defending yourself from charges of racism on national television can you please not say you're a libertarian 25 times in five minutes?

[Pottsy]

Anyone care to wager how small the MLK money bomb will be?

[Egosumabbas]

It seems that for a lot of people, though, everything's already been decided, and it' just Ol' Ron takin' one for Lew. Could be, but I'm not about to hold it as Gospel truth.

So it's between being principled and protecting a friend versus being the astute politician and hitting Lew's eject button under his desk. Sign that he's truly a nice guy, or that he doesn't have the blood and guts to be POTUS. I think I'm going to have to drink a few glasses of wine tonight.

[ColbyCo]

Lew Rockwell's name is being mentioned all the time, but as a long time visitor to LRC and reader of his book (of speeches) "Speaking of Liberty", none of the newsletter stuff corresponds to his writing style or tone.

[James Anderson Merritt]

# {S}aid David Gergen, a CNN senior political
# analyst, "I must say I don't think there's an
# excuse in politics to have something go out
# under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I
# didn't write that.'"

Oh yeah, like that never happens in the Beltway.

What's worse is people (Congress) voting to affect others' freedom without even READING the legislation first. I must say I don't think there is an excuse in politics to complain about evil provisions of legislation that nobody read when YOU VOTED YES. And yet, it happens all the time. And Gergen knows it, just as he knows that pols employ ghostwriters all the time. Playing dumb and self-righteous doesn't become you, David. Man, I just lost whatever respect I may have once had for that guy.

[dodsworth]

You once had respect for Gergen?

[ColbyCo]

"Anyone care to wager how small the MLK money bomb will be?"

Not sure, but according to the ticker on RonPaul2008.com, the money is still pouring in.

[PC]

And if it was Lew what do the paulites think of Ron's continued utilization of Lew in a professional capacity?

Shane,

I think the first question would actually be, how do you feel about Ron lying to you and continuing to cover up the truth? Lew is linked with much of his dealings, seems to be, IF THIS IS THE CASE, more about personal business relationships than the cause of liberty. Of course Lew's neither confirm nor deny silence worries me. Also his first response to the New Republic was pulling out an eighty year old column sympathetic to fascism, which is nice to know but really really weak for somebody in the know, whether you are a "Cosmopolitan" or not.

[formerbeltwaywonk]

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

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

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

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

[Lost_In_Translation]

Egosumabbas,

We've had so many hints and innuendo over the past few days that I don't know who to believe. And frankly, confusion has made me frustrated and angry at the campaign. There's no reason this should be this complicated and if Paul's protecting a friend, he needs to admit that he knows, that he talked to the people about it and that he doesn't believe in raking their names through the mud. It may not win the support back of people that think he should start naming names and disassociate himself, but it atleast gives motive for his otherwise incompetent looking response to the whole thing.

"SAY SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE PAUL!!!!"

[highnumber]

Asking who wrote the newsletters is missing the point. Are you looking to punish someone?

Confronting that he was a part of it and expressing regret and sincere apologies while denouncing any further association with anyone currently transmitting those beliefs and attitudes is what he needs to do. (Not commenting on what the interview. For all I know he may have done that. I have not seen it.)

[Egosumabbas]

I may accept the Paul explanation, but he's handing his supporters a gun with no ammo.

I'm in complete agreement. Whoever wrote it better step forward fast and take a bullet for the team.

[dodsworth]

Again, he may not know who penned the words....though I suspect he knows the name of the editor

[Pig Mannix]

But at the first sign of political incorrectness, all these below-the-Beltway "libertarians" have dumped Ron Paul like yesterday's garbage.

No question about that. There are definitely days I wouldn't mind seeing a few Enlightened and Tolerant "cosmopolitan libertarians" get their oh-so-Enlightened teeth knocked down their oh-so-Tolerant throats.....

[Brandybuck]

Paul's last message mentioned Tolkien. Wow! What a why to rally the troops!

p.s. But he spelled it "Tolkein" just to let us know that he's still an unhip but lovable grandfatherly figure.

[Geoff]

I'm far more conflicted about this than before the interview.

+2 on the Drug War facts. Needed to be said.

+1 for referencing his long record of legislation supporting his argument

+1 for talking about his great respect for Parks and MLK

-1 on saying 'blacks' every other word; that's not going to play well with Everyday Joe no matter how true the facts were he presented.

-2 on the positively insane deflection that he had no clue about the writers (without stepping up and offering anyone he may have lent his name to, or said editors)

-1 on not just saying he's sorry he ever let it happen in the first place

[Shane]

"Asking who wrote the newsletters is missing the point."

No, that is the whole fucking point. The newsletters are disgusting and they're are signed Ron Paul, if isn't wasn't Ron Paul but someone pretending to be Ron Paul(read the text), then why doesn't he say who? I wouldn't accept "i don't know" from my own kid, and the man was cashing the damn checks. Either he wrote it or someone ele did and he's covering.

[Russ 2000]

...but it certainly kills any sense that you keep on top of things.

Never seemed to hurt Goerge H W Bush any.

[Ali]

Has he been interviewed yet?

[Shane]

The lesson millions of young libertarians have now learned...

... that no one, not even libertarians, likes racists but other racists? And that if you're not racist don't let them get away for saying racist shit on your behalf, even if you don't find out until afterward?

[NP]

VM,

I wouldn't say Paul is "covering" for anyone; he probably doesn't want to strain his relationships with his previous and current associates, including, yes, the execrable Lew Rockwell.

For the record, I do believe Paul when he says that he did not write the offensive materials himself. But I gotta say--and I do admit we have no evidence of this so far--Paul's most likely lying or bending the truth a lot when he says, as he did--after a rather long pause, I'm sorry to add--during the Wolf Blitzer interview, that he very infrequently had come across or read the bile that appeared on his newsletters over almost two decades. I can't think of anyone besides his most fanatical supporters that would take this incredible claim at face value.

[Geoff]

I can't think of anyone besides his most fanatical supporters that would take this incredible claim at face value.

Well, here's a good place to start.

[Had it with LRC]

Hmmm. Nothing posted at the LewRockwell.com blog. --fg

That's because Lew Rockwell is perpetually in denial. I have been a regulsr reader of LRC for the past few years and enjoyed it quite a bit, but watching Lew let his friend Ron Paul take it from all sides without saying a damn thing just pisses me off.

My support of Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig Von Mises Institute is finished.

[Pottsy]

But at the first sign of political incorrectness, all these below-the-Beltway "libertarians" have dumped Ron Paul like yesterday's garbage.

I don't think it has nearly as much to do with political correctness as it does with simply wanting the candidate you support to be straightforward and honest. I don't think many of us (even those in and around the beltway) think RP is truly a racist, but saying "I don't know..." is just an insult to my intelligence.

[andy]

"that he very infrequently had come across or read the bile that appeared on his newsletters over almost two decades."

Unless of course there are 5 racist newsletters out of 300 and they were carefully selected to smear him... He could have easily missed a few, but the TNR interns had to plough through the whole lot.

[Derek]

The real lesson learned is to not count on the support of goody-two shoes liberterians because they'll head for the exits at the first sign of trouble.

Seriously folks. Paul is not blameless in this. But he is still -- as someone said a day or two ago -- the same man he was yesterday: someone committed to furthering the cause of liberty and a return to the Constitution, a humble man with an otherwise sterling record, and certainly NOT a racist or a homophobe. The way some people are willing to abandon him and throw him overboard over this is pathetic. Have fun waiting another 30 years for someone like Paul to come along and make libertarianism serious again.

[Shane]

Well, here's a good place to start.

like he said, his most fanatical supporters.

[Derek]

[i]But I gotta say--and I do admit we have no evidence of this so far--Paul's most likely lying or bending the truth a lot when he says, as he did--after a rather long pause, I'm sorry to add--during the Wolf Blitzer interview, that he very infrequently had come across or read the bile that appeared on his newsletters over almost two decades.[/i]

Two decades, or a handful of issues within a couple of years?

[Shane]

Two decades, or a handful of issues within a couple of years?

Either, does it matter which?

[Derek]

Yes.

[Lost_In_Translation]

Derek,

I may still vote for Paul, but you better be damn sure I'll never be able to convert another person. I'm frustrated as hell because none of the campaigns response to this makes sense in anything other than a duplicious way. Fuckin A man, how the hell do I explain Paul when I don't ever understand myself.

[Shane]

derek- can you elaborate?

[Geoff]

BTW, it's on YouTube now:

Part One (link to part two is below the video)

[Derek]

Shane: it's easier to believe Paul when he says he wasn't aware of this material if it was limited to a handful of newsletters (three or four) from the early 90s.

Kirchick tries to make Paul sound worse by using the "20 years" claim (as he did on MSNBC on Tucker), but that's a dishonest claim. It seems apparant that -- since it's likely TNR went through everything they had and picked out the worst stuff they could find -- the offensive racist/homophobic material is limited to only a handful of issues. In fact, the racist stuff all comes from ONE newsletter -- the one everyone already knew about because it was brought up back in 1996.

Paul goofed up and bears responsibility. It's not like racist comments were appearing in dozens of newsletters going back to 1978 though.

[Derek]

Lost in Translation:

I agree the campaign's handling of this hasn't been ideal. I don't think they're trying to intentionally hide something though, I think they're just -- as usual -- being incompetant. It's becoming more and more apparent that HQ has no idea what it's doing and is way out of its league right now. Hence the debacle in New Hampshire.

[J sub D]

Put a fork in him. I'm still casting my ballot for him Tuesday, but it's time to regroup, reassess, and not waste what has been achieved in the last year.

[youtalkandthendontdoshitabouti]

Well who wasn't racist at the time?
I'm kidding.

hail formerbeltwaywonk

[Ben Masel]

Most charitable response I can muster:

I'll take at face value he didn't write or vet the first instances of objectionable material, but can't imagine he had't gotten flack from anybody within weeks after it appeared. At that point, there's a responsibility to go back and read the newsletters, and then to take editorial control.

I'm voting for Gravel.

[VM]

NP -

cool, thanks!

[NP]

Now before I start this additional comment, let me say I do like Wolf Blitzer. I know he takes a fair amount of flak from his fellow journos and viewers, but despite all their blather he's actually a pretty fair interviewer. That said, Blitzer was way soft on Paul. Here are at least two or three questions he should've posed to the congressman:

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

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

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

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

[Ali]

Put a fork in him. I'm still casting my ballot for him Tuesday, but it's time to regroup, reassess, and not waste what has been achieved in the last year.

As much as you may not like this, but God bless you J sub D!

[Shane]

Paul goofed up and bears responsibility. It's not like racist comments were appearing in dozens of newsletters going back to 1978 though.

True but it only takes one to soil a reputation and the actions (or in this case nonactions) afterward are more damning than anything else. If it is so far from Paul's personal beliefs, why do so little to distance himself AND why do so little in regard to holding the person responsible for the words, if only to clear his name and clear any confusion about the authorship? this would not be an issue if Paul could say "yes i spoke to editor so and so who was the editor at the time and i spoke to writer so and so who bears responsibility for his own personal beliefs, neither my campaign nor myself have any association with editor so and so or writer so and so who so completely misrepresented my views and beliefs in regard to race."

What i heard instead was, "it wasn't me, it was only a couple times, i don't know who did it" and the campaign spokesperson showing no interest in them finding out who did do it.

[Derek]

Ben: Has it occurred to you that Paul DIDN'T receive any flak at the time? It sounds like he was barely -- if at all -- involved in the production of the newsletter -- he was in his medical practice, for crying out loud -- and the subscribers list seems to have been pretty small and directed toward a hardcore rightwing audience. I don't think it's unreasonable to think they received much more than a blip on the radar for the comments.

[Fluffy]

So it's between being principled and protecting a friend

Nope. If "a friend" wrote it, they should take ownership of it. If they really think the things written in the newsletters, they should be proud to associate the statements with their own name, instead of someone else's. If they used to think that way and stopped, or if they freaked out around the time of the King riots and now feel bad about it, they can own that, too.

Hiding the truth about a friend from potential critics is not "principled". It's Libbyian.

[Derek]

Shane: I think Paul is unwilling to rat out anyone and would rather go the route he's taking now. You can put a good construction on that and say he's following his Christian beliefs and doesn't want to subject someone else to scorn, or you put a bad construction on it and say he's hiding something because he's still close to that person today. Or it could be a combination of both.

We all agree Paul goofed up. But my point is -- cut the guy a break. Show some forgiveness! This is the only blot on an otherwise sterling record, and I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt on this. He's taken responsibility for it, condemned the statements and has done so for more than 10 years now.

[VM]

Wolf should have asked him about S. 1927 (not present) and about HR 1094, which Paul sponsored.

Brad at Wendy's goes itno it better.

[Derek]

Addendum:

I agree that Paul and the campaign could be providing a better more clear explanation on this. But once again, I don't think it's because they're trying to hide something, it's because HQ is incompetant and doesn't know how to handle this, and Paul simply isn't a polished enough speaker to handle it as well as someone else could. We all know that.

[Lost_In_Translation]

I watched the youtube video and must say, Paul doesn't know how to handle the media at all. I was embarassed by that interview and his whole "its a conspiracy, they're just trying to keep blacks from voting for me...waaaaah"

bad reaction and poor reasoning. I'm very, very disappointed!!

[highnumber]

No, that is the whole fucking point. The newsletters are disgusting and they're are signed Ron Paul, if isn't wasn't Ron Paul but someone pretending to be Ron Paul(read the text), then why doesn't he say who? I wouldn't accept "i don't know" from my own kid, and the man was cashing the damn checks. Either he wrote it or someone ele did and he's covering.

None of that says why you think it's so important to have a name.

[cicero]

If he doesn't want to say who wrote it he should just say so. "I know who wrote it, but out of respect for his family's privacy I prefer not to name him publicly." That would be honest and respectable. Saying he doesn't know who wrote it and there's no way he could find out is dishonest and disrespectful.

[Derek]

One more thought: If the campaign were at all competent, they would have been prepared for this from the beginning. Surely they knew this could have come up. The fact that they didn't seem prepared just shows they're out of their league right now. It's not necessarily their fault -- they just never thought they'd be where they are today.

[shane]

You can put a good construction on that and say he's following his Christian beliefs and doesn't want to subject someone else to scorn, or you put a bad construction on it and say he's hiding something because he's still close to that person today. Or it could be a combination of both.

If it's #1 he shouldn't have a problem saying so, if it's #2 it's even more damning, the problem is he leaves us guessing at the end of the day. And you have to ask for forgiveness in order to recieve it. As long as he keeps covering up truth he doesn't deserve any benefit from me. I was hoping to get a straight honest answer and i got deflection. no thanks. jsut shows me he's another politician with a questionable past.

[Fluffy]

None of that says why you think it's so important to have a name.

So that they can be properly chastised.

And you know what? There's nothing wrong with that motive.

[Shane]

None of that says why you think it's so important to have a name.

In order to clear his.

[Disgusted Former Supporter]

I just saw the You Tube versions. Ron did repudiate the racism. (Although it wasn't the most coherent statement.) But did he not read the articles that ran with his name on them? Did he not know the character of the people he was hanging with?

Lew Rockwell should come out and fess up. His finger prints are ALL OVER this.

[Geoff]

But once again, I don't think it's because they're trying to hide something, it's because HQ is incompetant and doesn't know how to handle this, and Paul simply isn't a polished enough speaker to handle it as well as someone else could. We all know that.

I think it's rather evident by the replies in this thread to the contrary that no, we don't all think that, much less "know that." I'd explain the failure in logic here, but I'm afraid you just wouldn't get it.

[Ben Masel]

The circulation wasn't so limited that his 1996 opponent couldn't find the fleetfooted 13 year olds on Usenet.

Anyone know exactly when the newsletter shut down? I'd like to hear that it was right after that item.

[cicero]

It's important to have a name because it would prove that Ron Paul didn't write it. Especially if the person who wrote it said Ron Paul didn't write it. It would also be good to ask the person who wrote it, "did Ron Paul know anything about this?" Paul's position seems to be 'take my word for it, I didn't write this'. But it's hard to take his word for it when he is clearly lying by saying he doesn't know who wrote it and can't find out.

[Derek]

Geoff: when I said "we all know that" I was referring specifically to how Paul isn't exactly a polished speaker.

[Fluffy]

Geoff: when I said "we all know that" I was referring specifically to how Paul isn't exactly a polished speaker.

Pwned.

[Derek]

(I apologize for not making that thought clear.)

[Ben Masel]

Incoming, from anon...

"wonders if Ron Paul will ever catch the one-armed man who wrote his newsletters."

[highnumber]

To clear his name is a fine reason for wanting to know who actually wrote it, if you think that RP might have written it himself. If you believe him when he says he didn't write it, the authorship is of no consequence. No one other than RP has any right or reason to chastise or punish the writer.

(For the record, I did not write any of the newsletters, no matter how much that makes it sound like I might have.)

[VM]

Ben Masel - (masel - as in massel "good fortune" or "good luck"?)

awesome!!!!!!!

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

THAT IS BECAUSE HIGHNUMBER DOES NOT KNOW HOW TO WRITE.

[Shane]

To clear his name is a fine reason for wanting to know who actually wrote it, if you think that RP might have written it himself. If you believe him when he says he didn't write it, the authorship is of no consequence.

exactly, the diehard will not care, everyone else is left with having to just take his word for it. or not. I can't.

[Derek]

Shane, just out of curiosity -- is there anything else Paul has ever done or said that gives you good reason to believe he would be outright lying about this?

[Urkobold™]

PSSST!

MINION WROTE THEM. PASS IT ON.

[Fluffy]

Actually, there really was a one-armed man.

At least, in the movie I saw there was.

He should have said, "OJ is going to find the people who really wrote the newsletters, and in return Paul is going to find Nicole's real killers."

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

WROTE THEM BY FIRMLY GRASPING THE SHAFT OF THE MAGNIFICENT QUILL. KEPT THE STROKE EVEN. AND KEPT WRITING. AND WRITING. AND WRITING AND WRITING.

SHAWOOOOOOHAHAHAHAOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

[cicero]

Paul's first excuse was that he wasn't paying attention. I was willing to cut him some slack and believe him. But to say he doesn't know who wrote it and has no way of finding out makes me question whether or not he new it was going out in the first place.

[prolefeed]

Watched the interview. Ugh. Paul's campaign is SO toast. I think he's telling the truth about not being a racist, but he needs to find out who wrote this and exposes him/her -- unless he already knows -- or at the very least, say he's trying to get to the bottom of this.

Every debate from now on, he'll get hammered with questions about this, and snark from the other candidates, and this will be what libs get smeared with.

[ColbyCo]

Hope Ron talks about ending the drug war in tonight's debate, and pardoning non-violent drug convicts. That should get Guiliani spluttering.

[LevStrauss]

First I think FOX is going to make an absolute spectacle about this tonight. And if not there are people pressuring them to, Bushevik grassroots of course.

On the other end judging from the interview, Ron may have a little more piss and vinegar in him which could be entertaining. If he ends up going down, I hope he at least goes down swinging. The Bushevik opinion of him is low, and anyone he would beat up at the debate will go down hard in their opinion, especially on a domestic or gun issue.

[Lew Rockwell]

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

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

[Sean Gerety]

I tend to think I see someone covering his butt at the expense of his friend . . . not to mention his campaign.

I'd like to think I was wrong.

[Francisco Torres]

Lew Rockwell's name is being mentioned all the time, but as a long time visitor to LRC and reader of his book (of speeches) "Speaking of Liberty", none of the newsletter stuff corresponds to his writing style or tone.

I agree - it does not look at all like Lew's style. But that fact is not enough to convince his detractors. For some reason, a few wackos think that he was behind the writing in the newsletter. For some reason, they are convinced that since his website links to essays written by a few controversial figures (as controversial as H.L. Mencken), sorely by the fallacious argument of "guilt by association", Lew Rockwell must espouse all the beliefs of those characters.

[Francisco Torres]

But to say he doesn't know who wrote it and has no way of finding out makes me question whether or not he [k]new it was going out in the first place.

He most likely did not know. Just because someone prints a newsletter with his name does not mean Paul has to be like a shadow over that person to make sure he does not write unpleasanties - who the hell has time for that?

[Roach]

It doesn't matter who wrote it. Whether it was Lew or someone who worked for Lew or some random young college kid who spent some time at the Mises Institute.

The whole thing shows (a) he's willing to pander for money (b) he's a terrible manager (c) he forgets that loyalty can be a vice (like another Texan Republican I know) and (d) he either will not say what he really believes about these things (or believed at the time), or he allowed things most people (even me!) don't agree with that are offensive and at best immature to go out under his name. The guy is an amateur when it comes to leading a movement, managing a friggin' newsletter, and would be a terrible President.

Imagine it now . . .

Question: Well, candidate Paul, the Iranians sunk one of our naval vessels. What do you think we should do?

Paul: Well, we shouldn't be there, so I'm going to say we shouldn't do anything, and I'm not too concerned who shot them. I didn't even know we had vessels there. But I do know they wouldn't be there if it weren't for the pesky Trilateral Commission and the AIPAC money that is in every greedy SOBs pocket in this town. No, can someone pass me that awesome weed the blacks brought over . . . not for me of course, but my unnamed staff. Anonymity's important with the apocalypse coming up and all.