MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

"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."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

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

    --

    Word.

  • ||

    2nd place

  • ||

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

  • ||

    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||

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

  • ||

    "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 ?

  • ||

    Bill Kriston = Kristol

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

    @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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

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

  • ||

    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

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    How would cutting back affirmative action programs "promote racial tranquility"? That's a whopper...

  • ||

    Reason = morons-galore.

  • ||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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?

  • ||

    I get it, already. Jeebus.

  • ||

    Old news.

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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    "Paul's aide, Eric Rittberg"

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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    @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.

  • ||

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

    I don't roll with collectivists anymore.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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.

  • ||

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

  • Shane Brady||

    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".

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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, 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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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/

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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."

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    The statements in question are advocating criminality. No, they have nothing to do with blacks, except in a very tangential way: They COULD be used against him legally, in a charge of 'conspiracy' or 'incitement,' just as the words of former KKK & White Aryan Resistance leader Tom Metzger were used to end him. Public figures are NOT allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater... If you don't know what this means, you are beyond discussion.

  • ||

    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."

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    "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."

  • ||

    Well, that post certainly is long.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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:"

  • 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 items that are somewhat 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.

  • ||

    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

  • ||

    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".

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    ...unbelievably fleet of foot...

    ... and white men can't jump!

  • Derek||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    Derek,

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

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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?

  • ||

    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. . .

  • ||

    >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||

    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.

  • ||

    @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.

  • ||

    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)

  • ||

    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).

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

    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||

    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.

  • ||

    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.

  • ||

    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||

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

  • ||

    sorry...people...

  • ||

    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||

    Mike,

    No one has said Ron Paul should be arrested. However, he simply hasn't been honest about his association. It all goes to his credibility and qualifications.

    If he's been honest, then he's totally incompetent. If he's lying, well, he's a liar. In either case, I think that should disqualify him from being president.

  • Shane Brady||

    Derek,

    If you've read the actual scans from TNR, you would know these comments spanned more than one newsletter.

  • ||

    Derek,

    What came out in 1996 was from one newsletter. The recent revealed statements come from several.

  • ||

    "So this fact alone should make any of his personal views irrelevant."

    And I understand that argument. However, a man who had a newsletter published in his name for years without apparently bothering to check what's in it strikes me as someone who just might sign off on a bill without bothering to read it. He exercised fatally-flawed judgement.

    Also, libertarians really wanted him to be their guy, and I understand that. But the whole "Well he screwed up in the past, but at least he won't try to run your life" argument overlooks the rather significant fact that POTUS is not all-powerful. He'll HAVE to compromise with a non-libertarian Congress whether he (or anyone else) likes it or not. Hell, I wouldn't really care if he had an affair with Osama bin Laden as long as I knew for a fact that electing him would somehow, some way, usher in an eternal Golden Age for humanity of peace and prosperity. But I don't see it happening.

  • ||

    Seriously. . .why do you all care about Ron Paul's credibility? It's not like he was going to be or had any chance of being president. If you are a libertarian, you have to metagame this election. Doll out your money and support to the candidate that most advances freedom by his or her candicacy. Ron Paul talks about ending the drug war. Ron Paul talks about ending the Iraq war and withdrawing our troops from overseas. If these positions gaining mainstream acceptance is less important to you than the man's personal integrity, I. . .just don't get your priorities.

  • ||

    Nice job Matt.

  • ||

    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.

    Strictly speaking, your family member would be publishing a newsletter about economics and politics that in some articles contained material that was racially offensive.

    You're acting like the newsletter was Stormfront, when it's actually more like the Imus or O'Reilly radio shows.

    Would you shun a family member who worked for Imus?

    I wouldn't. I'd tell him, "You know, Imus is a dick!" and then maybe he'd get mad, or maybe he'd say, "Oh yeah, what a dick!" and then tell me insider stories. But shun him? Yeah, OK.

  • ||

    "Wanna know who is a RACIST???"

    Another racist is Hillary. When Bill lost his re-election for governor, she blamed his campaign manager and said, "You fucking Jew bastard." Arkansas state troopers have heard her calling Bill a Jew bastard whenever they've got in fights.

  • ||

    All of this backpeddling by Reason is just sad.

    While Paul was getting the message out and spreading the word of libertarianism, he was the best thing since sliced bread. Now that all of this has come out (which Reason already knew about and could have research thoroughly before the NR article), they are disavowing all things Ron Paul.

    I guess he doesn't sell as many magazines now.... I had heard cursory comments about these newsletters over the last 6 months or so on this website. Reason never bothered to do their homework since it was beneficial to them that Paul remain viable. Had I known the extent of these newletter comments in the beginning, I would have never supported him in the first place.

    Shame on you Reason.

  • ||

    Wilson,

    If Ron Paul is seen as a bigot who gets snuggly with white supremacist loonies, and he talks about ending the drug war et al, people will put two and two together, and associate his ideas with violent, racist, fringe politics.

  • ||

    Ah, unnamed Arkansas state troopers. Is there anything they DON'T know?

  • ||

    Can someone send this little David Duke home, please? David Duke claimed he wasn't racist when he ran too.

  • highnumber||

    Reason = morons-galore.

    Huffington Post = morons+galore

    Free Republic = (morons+galore)²

  • Sam Grove||

    I think the comments have surpassed the posting in length.

    Matt, did VP's comments prick you a bit?

  • ||

    Former subscriber is right on. I want my $50 back, too.

  • ||

    "If he's been honest, then he's totally incompetent. If he's lying, well, he's a liar. In either case, I think that should disqualify him from being president."

    That standard would narrow the field considerably.

    As other have said, the right move is to toss out the bums. Sure, Lew Rockwell and his fever swamp have the right to be a bunch of racists. They don't have the right to be a boat anchor to the advancement of reasonable libertarian policies. It's reality time, folks. A gold standard, income taxes are illegal, the War of Northern Aggression, Constitutionalist circle jerk is not going shape American public policy. By making a clean, hard break with the lunatic fringe, Paul could do a great service to libertarian thought. By playing both sides, he's just becomes another nutjob, albeit one who was sharp enough to get himself elected as a Republican.

  • ||

    If he's been honest, then he's totally incompetent. If he's lying, well, he's a liar. In either case, I think that should disqualify him from being president.

    If that's the case, then who is qualified? I think people put too much stock into a candidate's personal life instead of their track record on the issues, such as taxes, regulation, and civil liberties.

    I'll take a candidate who is an adulterer or has quirky personal beliefs over a self-righerous one any day, so long as they are good on the issues and won't force me to live life by their demands.

    We're electing HUMANS, here, not angels.

  • ||

    Everyone should lay off Reason for the recent "negative" postings about Paul. I'm going to go out on a limb here and conjecture that none of the newsletter stuff made it in, Brian Doherty's cover story on "the Ron Paul Revolution". So Reason Magazine is now stuck with a puff piece on Paul with no mention of the dirty side, the timing of that sucks. It might even appear to the cynical that they were being blind to it.

    If anyone attempts to blast Reason for being too kind to Paul they can now point to pretty much every editor coming out against the newsletters and demanding more from Paul's people, Dave Weigel explained his point and now Welsh is doing a ton of due diligence, and being somewhat negative.

    Its actually good they are doing that. Its their job, and it helps keep the discourse from being too one-sided. Besides the work Reason does is way to important to ever get too tied to one candidate for political office, it corrupts the larger movement.

    Plus I love a magazine/blog that can admit they are wrong, or even change their mind. It just reinforces the idea that they are keeping open minds why I started and continue to stick around.

  • ||

    "Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

    Well, according to FBI stats, young black men make up less than 5 percent of the population yet commit close to 50 percent of the murders in this country.

    I realize it isn't PC to say such things at Reason, but I think Matt Welch is just trying to cover his ass. Keep Reason viable in the eyes of Beltway libertarians.

    In 1996 I lived in the 14th congressional district when all this came up. Rural area outside Austin. They've since redrawn the map and Ron is no longer my congressman, but back in 96 all this did come up. First by Greg Laughlin, the incumbent Ron Paul defeated in the GOP primary and again with his Democrat opponent. It gets brought up every few years. Being honest about crime isn't something many people want to talk about, especially PC libertarians at Reason, but in 1992, 24/7/365 cable news was a reality. Watching CNN while blacks burned down their own neighborhoods, or Koreans standing on top of their businesses with shot guns, and AR-15s protecting their livelihood against the looters. So as I said on another thread, I've been reading Ron's newsletter for years. I knew it was Ghost written and I blame Ron for not getting all this out earlier, but now for some to try and wash their hands over this is a sad testament for all those involved over the years in the freedom movement. Anyone who knows Ron realizes he doesn't have a racist bone in his body. Does he always have the best judgement, of course not, but he's about the best candidate pro freedom people are going to get. I haven't seen young people get this pumped up about a candidate since I was in graduate school in 1976 when Ronald Reagan challenged Jerry Ford for President.

  • ||

    Dakota,

    My issue is that the Reason staff absolutely knew about this newsletter stuff months, maybe even years ago. They didn't delve into the issue, they didn't try to discover the extent of the articles or comments. They just rode Paul as far as he could take them and then turned and stabbed him in the back right afterwards.

  • ||

    Give me a break, William R. Watch this:

    Jews hold positions in government, the media, and the financial industry that are vastly disproportionate to their numbers. Their cultural and religious practices discourage them from marrying outside their group. Many Jews consider their Jewishness to be more important than their connection to American society. Their are concentrated in large cities, and don't subscribe to many of the beliefs of mainstream Christian America.

    Every single one of those statements in that paragraph is true AND it is anti-semitic. The CIA has three categories of what they call "psy-ops," black, grey, and white. White involves putting out truthful information, Black means putting out lies, and grey is somewhere in between. The truthfulness of the White operationd doesn't make them any less of a CIA ploy.

  • ||

    Bullshit. Reason covered Paul because he was a phenomena of interest to the readership. I don't always agree with the Reason writers and I think a little pro-Paul sympathy slipped into the coverage, but they have covered this like journalists are supposed to cover things.

  • ||

    "If Ron Paul is seen as a bigot who gets snuggly with white supremacist loonies, and he talks about ending the drug war et al, people will put two and two together, and associate his ideas with violent, racist, fringe politics."

    I think you need to understand that in the status quo but for Ron Paul, those ideas are already thought of as fringe politics. Add Ron Paul to the mix, and all of the sudden they're talking about it on CNN in prime time. We should be rah-rah-rahing, even if we have to hold our noses.

    Moreover, I don't even think it's likely that Ron Paul's ideas will be associated with racism as a result of this, though it seems Reason is doing it's best to make that association for people. Politicians dodge stories worse than this all the time, and as far as I can tell his polling hasn't budged. The story is not going to get worse as the campaign proceeds, so why jump ship?

  • stephen the goldberger||

    This is getting ridiculous. This is a beautiful example of how libertarians constantly let perfect be the enemy of good. Ok now we know the facts, move on to more important things, stop falling all over yourselves reason trying to separate yourself from this guy.

  • ||

    I've read most of the reported newsletter material, some of it over a month ago. If you read it in context, it isn't a big deal. And there are some valid points made about victimology and its effects on groupthink (identifying with the collective). As for the rest, like the rest of us, Paul isn't perfect.

    Now if you want to talk about real bigotry, look at the candidates when dealing with Arabs and Muslims. American's view them as being less than human and worthy of death, and actually act on it. How much more dangerously bigoted can you be than that?

  • ||

    A first,
    I agree with RC Dean...

    he doesn't have the chops to be President

  • ||

    Listen closely, William: Culture, not color. The criminal problems in urban America are a function of the culture, not the amount of melatonin in a person's skin.

  • ||

    One more point, this one with Reason calling the kettle black. Back when Ron Paul was in congress fighting against going to war, Reason and Cato were busy building the case FOR war. Who's judgment do you think I have more faith in?

    So Reason, you're in no position to be criticizing Ron Paul.

  • ||

    But Wilson, this was the big chance to put those ideas on the map. For some people, this is the first time they're hearing libertarian philosophy, and they are asking what it's all about.

    The last think your movement needs is for people to conclude that you believe in small government, moderst foreign policy, laissez-faire economics, and white supremacy.

    You only get one chance to make a first impression.

  • ||

    I think you need to understand that in the status quo but for Ron Paul, those ideas are already thought of as fringe politics. Add Ron Paul to the mix, and all of the sudden they're talking about it on CNN in prime time. We should be rah-rah-rahing, even if we have to hold our noses.

    I don't see how creating the perception that libertarianism is a racist ideology in a much larger group than currently holds this view advances the cause of libertarianism.

  • ||

    First para should have been blockquoted.

  • ||

    Jose,

    "I think a little pro-Paul sympathy slipped into the coverage, but they have covered this like journalists are supposed to cover things."

    Um... a little pro-Paul sympathy? Come on. Listen, I like Paul, I love libertarianism, I just think Reason did the profession of journalism an injustice here.

    They absolutely knew about the newsletters. They chose to ignore them.

    I'm perfectly willing to move on, but I will certainly question the integrity of a magazine that refuses to do its homework as long as the story benfits them.

  • Sam Grove||

    William: Culture, not color. The criminal problems in urban America are a function of the culture, not the amount of melatonin in a person's skin.

    I'll endorse that. Slavery took Africans from their native culture and inculcated the culture of slavery. Try and imagine how you would act as a slave, how you would feel, how you would act.

    But whites can't do much more for black culture now. Blacks have to take over the task of determining their fates.

    Hooray for Bill Cosby.

  • ||

    Uhm, guys, bash Reason for thoroughly digging into this issue and pushing Ron Paul to come clean all you want. But this issue is starting to pick up traction in the main stream media.

    For instance, check this Op-Ed in the Dallas Morning News:
    Ron Paul's Poisoned Pen
    Candidate seems indifferent to bigoted articles.

    Excerpt:

    ...it is impossible to believe that he had no knowledge that such disgusting material was being published under his name - and for so many years. For another, his campaign responded by saying the candidate doesn't believe these things and by calling the report old news. (Which is technically true, given that reports of these bigot-grams have been circulating for some time.)

    It's a shockingly blasé response. At best, the eccentric Dr. Paul, whose views on the monetary system could charitably be described as coming from the fringe, seems indifferent to both the poison of bigotry, and of the moral necessity of disassociating oneself from those who advocate it.



    Expect this to continue gaining steam.

  • Sam Grove||

    Reason and Cato were busy building the case FOR war.

    Sorry, the positions on that varied by individual. CATO and REASON are not owned by Libertarian Ideology Corp.

  • ||

    Rudy Giuliani has speech writers. There has been a lot of time spent on this site "rehashing" old things that Rudy and other candidates have said in their speeches. Why do we spend the time to "rehash" all of this? Their speeches are most likely written by someone else, so who cares what words come out of their mouths? Those words don't belong to them, they belong to the speechwriters...right?

    If you want to forgive Dr. Paul because you respect him and agree with 99% of what he says, that's fine. But nobody should pretend that this stuff doesn't really matter. You can't be against the civil rights act, mlk holiday, affirmative action, etc. and have a history of promoting racial bullshit.

    Personally, I'm cutting the guy loose. I've touted this guy to my friends and family (my mistake). I'm not going to let his past nonsense taint me or what I believe.

  • Rimfax||

    Just as I am frustrated by the weak denunciations of terrorism by moderate Muslims, I am frustrated by the weak denunciations of racism by Ron Paul. Just as they are clueless as to how much their faint objections effectively endorse radical Islam, Ron Paul is clueless as to how much his faint objections resonate among the victims and the perpetrators of racism. I'll still vote for him if he's on the ballot as possibly the best quality candidate that I've ever voted for, but I know that he's far from perfect.

  • Sam Grove||

    It's interesting that support for a policy of 'preemptive' invasion of a country around the world, which never posed any threat to the U.S., arouses less passion than disavowed writings tinged with racism.

    How disgustingly normal that such collective action escapes such moral scrutiny by so many.

  • ||

    "Can someone send this little David Duke home, please? David Duke claimed he wasn't racist when he ran too."

    Jackie, just because David Duke was a racist in disguise means Ron Paul is?

  • ||

    Rimfax - So, you're saying that all Muslims have to answer for the acts of a tiny minority of Muslims? Do all Christians have to now answer for the acts of the U.S. government on Muslims? How is this worst than anything said it the newsletters? Just another example of collectivist thinking.

  • ||

    I agree, this is the big chance. There hasn't been another one like it in my lifetime. I don't expect there to be another one for quite some time. It's absolutely not inevitable to me that he will be associated with white supremacy. He can beat this, and I agree we should be talking about ways he can do that. Ultimately, all we want from him anyway is to keep on saying the right things on national television for as long as possible. He isn't going to be president.

    Bailing from the campaign leaves us right back where we started (middle of screwedtowne, usa). Reason Magazine seems hellbent on putting us back in Screwedtowne and then burning the whole damned place to the ground.

  • ||

    We are supposed to accept the proposition that Ron Paul's impeccable record of defending civil liberties of all individuals during ten terms in congress should be ignored in light of these statements. I find the irony in this amazing. Even if you believe that these statements were in fact Ron Paul's (which I do not), the fact is that his legislative record is the antithesis of a racists or bigoted agenda, due to the fact that he basis his political positions on the anti-racist premise of individual rights for everyone without regard to race, gender, or ethnicity.

    These statements were known to anyone that had followed Ron Paul closely, since they were publicized in his first campaign for re-election in the mid 1990's. It certainly is interesting that none of the major news organization felt the need to question Paul about this during the last year. We are to believe that these news organizations with massive research departments, and programs such as Meet the Press, which is famous for supposedly doing detailed research of the guests that they interview , were unable to "discover" these statements, until now? Both the timing of the publishing of these statements and the purpose of releasing them just before the N.H. primary, are suspect. So to is the fact that given the explosive nature of the comments, Foxnews failed to ask Ron Paul about the statements in the debate, suggest the goal is to create a undercurrent of doubt about Paul's campaign. I suggest that if the allegations had real merit, the issue would have been brought up immediately upon Paul entering the race and would be tackled head on by Foxnews and the rest from the very beginning.

    Ron Paul is threatening the powers-that-be that influence both political parties in order to perpetuate our bi-partisan foreign policy of military interventionism around the world, so he is to be politically assassinated for challenging the system.

    I will continue to support Ron Paul because his political agenda is the antithesis of a racist agenda. He is the only candidate from either party truly working to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and who understands the importance of a sound monetary policy and a truly free enterprise economy in which individuals are empowered rather than made subservient to the special interests that promote Big Government.

  • Tom Walls||

    You were thinking of King of the Hill, weren't you?

    "...who stand in someone's driveway in Texas and complain about politics."

    I like the one where Bobby tries to impress a radical chick by organizing a protest over the soda machines and walking out of school. It all ends when the kids start looting the town.

  • dhex||

    i'm pretty racist against they might be giants, myself.

  • ||

    "Culture, not color. The criminal problems in urban America are a function of the culture, not the amount of melatonin in a person's skin."

    One factor influencing this culture is the minimum wage laws. It has been shown that as minimum wages go up, so does black teenage male imployment. If employers don't feel the black teenage males labor is worth the minimum wage, they go unhired. This keeps them from getting their foot on the first rung of the ladder. They often end up joining gangs and making a living in the illegal drug market and end up with prison records.

  • ||

    The ironic thing is that Ron Paul was recently criticized for criticizing Abraham Lincoln, who actually said, himself, in a real live presidential debate:

    There is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race
    - Abraham Lincoln



    I'm glad Lincoln wasn't in the FOX News debate.

  • ||

    One final note: it is plausible that had Reason broken this story while Paul was more of a fringe candidate (a category he immediately moves back to) and did it in a fair and balanced manner (unlike the NR peice), this would have been a much smaller story to begin with.

    In the end, Reason did Paul a diservice as well. It's all very unfortunate.

  • ||

    "Rimfax - So, you're saying that all Muslims have to answer for the acts of a tiny minority of Muslims? Do all Christians have to now answer for the acts of the U.S. government on Muslims? How is this worst than anything said it the newsletters? Just another example of collectivist thinking."

    Do all Christians have to answer for the bombing of abortion clinics?

  • ||

    Yeah yeah yeah, it's all a conspiracy becasue the powers that be are quaking in the boots over Teh Paul. Martin Peretz, Rupert Murdoch, Matt Welch, Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney hashed the whole strategy out in the booth of a Burger King in Scaggsville, Maryland back in October. If you don't believe me, it's because YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

    And yet...Jamic Kirchick didn't make up those newsletters.

  • ||

    They absolutely knew about the newsletters. They chose to ignore them.

    And why not? It is an old issue, after all. Besides that, "Free Minds and Free Markets" are far bigger than Ron freaking Paul. It becomes an issue, though, when in a campaign for the presidency, a person who ostensibly represents much of what you stand for (in name and in deed) gives a half assed and completely unsatisfying answer to questions about his potentially ugly past. But go ahead, throw out all of the excellent writing that's appeared here and in print over the years if you must.

  • Sam Grove||

    Maybe the strategy is to overwhelm readers with text so their minds will start closing down on the issue.

    It's working with me. I only lightly skimmed through Matt's post and similar with the comments.

  • The Wine Commonsewer||

    Do all Christians have to answer for the bombing of abortion clinics?

    Are you kidding? Around here Christians are still getting shit for the Crusades.

  • ||

    Stop Beating Me!

  • ||

    "Ah, unnamed Arkansas state troopers. Is there anything they DON'T know?"

    joe, the campaign manager for Bill Clinton's gubernatorial re-election effort is on record as saying it is true that he, the campaign manager, was called a "fucking Jew bastard" by Hillary. Dick Morris also states that he himself had a racial slur directed at himself by Hillary.

  • Ron Paul on Racism:||

    A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

    The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

    Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people's hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

    It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government "benevolence" crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

  • ||

    The way libertarians "win" this is by saying how awful those statements are while still voting for Ron Paul. Especially if he makes a third party run!

    The key is to make a serious dent in the 2 party system so that they recognize a sizable chunk of people are not voting for them and make an effort to win them over.

  • ||

    Excellent research, Matt -- more thorough than Kirchick -- and in my opinion, far more damning.

  • ||

    I find it interesting that the media will go so hard and so long to investigate 20 year old newsletters word by word for intent yet without the slightest regard for veracity reported and applauded, sanctioned and propagandized the Bush neocons' claims of "flying drones of death", the absolute certainty of 'mobile WMD lab trucks in Iraq", (UN speech) 'yellow cake and tubes", "45 minutes launch capabilities", "9-11 and Al-Quaed in Iraq".

    Don't pat yourselves on the backs too hard. No is stll buying newspapers and the mainstream media is till a tool of the 4 or 5 multinational corporations that own and direct them for their own self interests. And reporting/releasing the article on the day of the New Hampshire election was an act of integrity and necessity no doubt and all for a candidate that has been vilified, ignored, censored as "insignificant" or "irrelevant" by the above so-called "objective" journalists. John Swinton still lives.

    No on is fooled. Have a cookie ...good dog.

  • ||

    Great job, Matt. Thanks for digging this stuff.

    To the Paul groupies who say it doesn't matter, you're obviously all a bunch of Hitler-loving child molesters. Whoa, you're taking that out of context. Plus I didn't really write it.

    Question: Is that still true about the Peruvian passport?

  • ||

    Trumpeting this issue as a reason to no longer support the Paul2008 campaign is tantamount to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    Fickle bastards.

  • ||

    I went to bed last night hoping I decided Dr Paul was not a racist.

    I want to believe.

    Too many things keep popping up.

    With his acceptance of support from strom front and david duke I cannot morally take part in his Revolution.

    He should have fired Sullivan for repeatedly defending his being misunderstood.

    He needs to work on this as the next spin.

  • ||

    Pottsy, clearly it's not an old issue anymore....

  • ||

    It is time to throw Lew Rockwell under the bus. Who wants to drive? (My hand is up.)

  • ||

    the name calling by the drunken Paultards is really something that brings up a chuckle.

    Why didn't paul vote no on S.1927? I hear that he cut campaigning in Cow Hampshire off to go vote. Why wasn't he present for that? It's a hugely libertarian issue...

    how can his authorship of HR 1094 be justified? (...`Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 1253, 1254, and 1257, the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal...)

  • ||

    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.

    Horseshit. You're projecting your own flaws on the rest of us.

  • ||

    So is the implication that if we can dig up a juicy piece of "dirt" on each of the candidates, they must all pack up their marbles and go home? Is this race just a game of "gotcha"? What if the only candidate who refuses to do give up when "gotcha'd," or who doesn't seem to have any "dirt" to fear, also has an abhorrent agenda? Do we just not elect anyone and wave W in for another 4 years by default (who cares what that g-d piece of paper, the Constitution says, anyway?)?

    Of course not. Someone will get elected (or appointed, or whatever). The only question is, what (and whose) agenda will they serve? If you honestly think that Ron Paul will NOT serve the agenda of liberty that you support, then don't vote for him. But if you look at the slate of candidates and conclude that, among them, only Paul will actually implement policies that increase individual liberty in America while keeping us as strong and secure as we can be and yet remain free, then vote for him.

    Politics are politics, candidates are people, and if you expect squeaky clean perfection, you're bound to be not just disappointed, but BITTERLY disappointed. That said, we have every indication that Ron Paul will not only talk the talk of liberty, he will walk the walk. While people are obsessing about the so-called evidence that he once talked (even if only by proxy) the talk of racism or violent revolt, there is certainly much evidence from the past several decades to show that he does NOT walk THAT particular walk.

    What I would like to know is, what lessons does Paul take away from this present flap, and how will that help him be a better President?

  • ||

    here's the thing... i think matt has done us and ron paul a service by digging this stuff up before we hear about it elsewhere. if people think libertarians are in constant denial about what "our" candidate (although many have disowned him) is associated with, we look as kooky as 9/11 truthers who are in constant denial of serious evidence.

    that said, matt seems to have pointed out that ron paul defends roughly two or three quotes from the newsletters - those being words he actually said regarding barbara jordan and a couple comments regarding the athleticism of black youth.

    the new republic and pajamas media postings had droves of quotes and i'm frankly relieved that two or three are the only quotes that can be attributed to paul.

    an aside: of those few quotes, a couple are regarding black youth as athletic. is there such a thing as a positive stereotype? if so, is it anything worth getting pissed about? ex: asians have superhuman strength and great legs; puerto ricans have a rich and lavish culture. can anyone be pissed about that without completely cowing political correctness (something i would think most libertarians would be averse to)?

  • ||

    Is Ron Paul saying he never read his own newsletter?

    I could see one column in one newsletter get by. But years worth of this stuff and he never said. "Whoa, that's over the top! This has to stop."

  • ||

    Can I bring this out of the clouds and back to something concrete?

    Ron Paul's campaign has excited many people who haven't cared about politics for a long time. Not because he's a libertarian. Many of us could give a rats-ass about what ideological label someone wants to slap on things. Frankly, a good number of us recognize that ideology is partly to blame for the current mess that is our political culture. And it's ideologies of sentimentalism and moralism that have been as damaging as liberalism and conservatism.

    But in Dr. Paul's campaign we saw something different. A willingness to look at reality in a far more honest way than we've seen from a candidate in a long time. The reality of our affairs, our problems due to big government and the nature of our extended overseas commitments.

    And then these newsletters hit. For many of us there's a great challenge in making them compute. Because we don't see anything in his stump speeches or his Congressional record to give us any evidence that this is what he believes. We've been unnerved by some of the fringe people who have latched onto his campaign, but dismissed them (reasonably so) as not having another alternative. After all, if you think the government is part of a deadly conspiracy why would you be backing some big government candidate?

    So we are looking for info to help understand these newsletters and make a judgment for what it means for the campaign. Lew Rockwell's blog is hardly a source of calm, rational discussion, so you can't go there. They are actively campaigning for the guy. They are as bad, at times, as the Daily Paul fanatics who think Paul's going to win every primary just because they liked his latest YouTube video.

    I thought Reason might be a source of intelligence on this. But instead what I get here is either cleverly-cloaked criticism that doesn't give an outsider any real information; it's just enough to let you know that the Reason folks have inside knowledge and that they disapprove. Or you get this constant internal talk about how this will damage the libertarian cause. Huh? What cause? If you seriously think libertarianism is a movement in this country you need to get out more.

    Personally, I had planned on sending quite a few letters to Michigan and Florida voters on Dr. Paul's behalf. I had half the envelopes already addressed and stamped. So I'll probably lose some real cash if I have to toss the envelopes. I didn't send them because I can't make heads or tails of this as to what level I should be concerned about this.

    And Reason isn't helping with its approach. Your defending a turf that does not exist. Take up something real for a moment: the countless people who would never label themselves a libertarian and don't care one bit about promoting that ideology, but do find wisdom in what Paul's campaign has advocated in 2008 and are trying to figure out whether to soldier on. Because let's face it. These people are not identifying themselves as libertarians. So don't think for a second if you pop the Ron Paul bubble and run to your corner that they are going to follow you. They are going to go back to not voting, or voting out of peer-pressure or fear for the lesser of two evils between Republicans and Democrats.

  • ||

    @Pig Mannix "It's the political equivalent of getting drunk and waking up naked on your neighbor's porch."

    Once a month for 6 years.

  • R C Dean||

    A first,

    I agree with RC Dean...


    Well, the first time is always the hardest. Trust me, you'll come to enjoy it even more with practice.

  • R C Dean||

    Once a month for 6 years.

    Sounds like my college days. Except I got out in 4 years, not 6.

  • dhex||

    is there such a thing as a positive stereotype? if so, is it anything worth getting pissed about?

    if your idea of a positive stereotype is "they're so fast there's no way you can catch them once they've got grandma's purse" i would hate to consider the negative bits.

    maybe the real "paleo/cosmo" split is that some things are less acceptable to the "new guard" or whatever than others, and the cheap kultur war talking points are one of them.

  • ||

    By the way, I'm not a believer in dismissing one's message because of personal bias, but Eric Dondero is the same Eric Dondero who publicly declared back in May that he was going to challenge Dr. Paul for his congressional seat, right?

  • dhex||

    for what it's worth, the breaker for me is not the newsletters - i knew about them as did anyone else who read weigel's piece earlier last year and actually followed the links - but how the campaign has dealt with them, or rather, not actually dealt with them.

  • ||

    I don't think Reason is airing this to get people to stop supporting Paul. They're airing this to pressure Paul into fully owning up to these newsletters.

    Really, this is pure politics. You know Ron Paul isn't a racist. I know Ron Paul isn't a racist. But mainstream citizens don't know that. The goal of Reason is to get libertarianism into the mainstream consciousness. I don't think these newsletters hurt, per se, because libertarianism is still relegated to the fringe. But they certainly don't help advance the cause, and Ron Paul's weak tea so far does very little to separate libertarian philosophy from its wackier proponents.

    It's not that Ron Paul can no longer be an effective spokesman for libertarianism. It's that he needs to own up, once and for all, and admit he made a mistake by letting writing that contradicts his worldview out under his name, and very explicitly disown the people who did write these foul statements as anathema to his principles. If he can't or won't, then we really do have a problem.

  • ||

    For whatever reason, Reason didn't do their job of vetting Ron Paul. They've run slash and burn articles on all the other major candidates, and generally fawning praise of Ron Paul. Chasing ad dollars? A philosophical blindness?

    I've got no problem with this article by Matt Welch. It's long overdue. Reporters are supposed to reporter stuff that's important to their subscribers.

    Further, it seems likely that Ron Paul did hold some racist views in the past, even if he's managed to rationalize that. He is a conservative/libertarian white Republican from south Texas, ferchrissakes. I was talking with a good friend of mine who was born and raised in Texas, and she never even saw an interracial couple until the late 1990s or so, and when I expressed my amazement of this, she gave me a look like, "What planet are you from? This is bleeding TEXAS."

    I was raised by racist parents. I had a lot of crap in my head that I've had to purge, mostly from meeting with real people who showed these notions are thoroughly wrong. I strongly suspect the same is true for Ron Paul.

    I think what is relevant is that Ron Paul appears to not currently hold racist beliefs, or at least his public statements are strongly to that effect.

    This may be political suicide, but it seems like the right thing for Ron Paul to do is to admit he was raised in a racist environment, that when he was younger he to some extent bought into some of these notions, but that he thoroughly and completely repudiates them, and wants to treat all people as individuals, and that his voting record in support of Constitutional principles reflects this belief.

    But, even in the absence of such a mea culpa, I'm still voting for him, and keeping his bumper sticker on my car, because all the other candidates would impose hideous polices upon me, and Ron Paul won't and has a long track record of not doing so.

  • ||

    The think the Ron Paul movement has always had a subtle conflict between "cosmo" libertarians who tend to be atheists who are VERY liberal on social issues versus very Christian, socially-conservative paleos. Ron Paul's comments on evolution and his immigration TV ad drew this distinction out the most. But, that never really developed into open warfare (although a few mostly "cosmo"-type supporters did leave).

  • ||

    prolefeed:

    "This may be political suicide, but it seems like the right thing for Ron Paul to do is to admit he was raised in a racist environment, that when he was younger he to some extent bought into some of these notions, but that he thoroughly and completely repudiates them, and wants to treat all people as individuals, and that his voting record in support of Constitutional principles reflects this belief."

    I'm a fervent supporter who is now sitting on the fence because of this issue. If Ron Paul were to do that, and also admit he lied to try to cover this up, and came clean once and for all, I would be 100% back on board.

  • ||

    dhex and crw:

    I don't disagree with that. Do you think I paused on sending out those campaign letters because I didn't know about these newsletters or that I think Paul's a racist? No. I'm in the same boat as you. I don't like how the campaign has handled these things. At the same time, I'm trying to conclude what I should do (as many are) in response. In other words, it's one thing to say that they handled it poorly but think, nonetheless, it's not indicative of more and that it's still worthwhile to support Dr. Paul. It's another if you think that it is indicative of some larger problem (poor judgment, bad inner circle, etc.) that would translate into a bad presidency.

    See, some of us, despite recognizing that Dr. Paul stands a long-shot chance of winning, nonetheless still want to cast a vote for someone for the presidency. Not cast a vote for the advancement of the libertarian movement or agenda. I find that many of you seem far more interested in preserving the "integrity" of libertarianism with some idealistic hope that next time it will burst through and sweep the nation. I don't think you realize just how anathema the word "libertarian" is to most people.

  • ||

    This may be political suicide, but it seems like the right thing for Ron Paul to do is to admit he was raised in a racist environment, that when he was younger he to some extent bought into some of these notions, but that he thoroughly and completely repudiates them, and wants to treat all people as individuals, and that his voting record in support of Constitutional principles reflects this belief.

    Actually, the really low-down clever thing to do would be to try and get this racism thing bumped up in the national media and then go on the penitence circuit, repudiate racism thoroughly in some big public venues, and explain how small-government policy supposedly helps to hamstring institutional racism. He could even spin it as having been part of a turn from "reactionary" old-school politics to his current libertarianism. It might not be even slightly true, but then - this is politics.

  • ||

    how else do you "deal" with the newsletters?! i'm so confused!

    so far, the way you "deal" with the newsletters is to throw someone else under the bus and i KNOW you reason readers would not be kind to paul under that circumstance either. many would take umbrage at how paul could so quickly pass the blame on to another and name names, destroying those people (i'm thinking of rockwell at the moment) in the process (maybe they'd be happy about that though).

    in this case where he claims "moral responsibility," you're acting shocked - SHOCKED - that someone from the south who is over the age of 70 made a couple of sweeping statements (that can actually be attributed to him) about a group of people and that many more were said by someone associated with him. that sounds like the culture war is being a bit unfair to ron...

    if you expect any 50+ year old man from anywhere in this country to have no lapses into pre-civil-rights-act dialect, then you are going to have a hard time finding it. i don't like to defend him by saying, "that's just the way it used to be," but we are all victims of our cultures at any point in history... none of you can pretend to be uninfluenced by things occurring around you, oftentimes permanently.

    i'm not saying that the statements are okay, i'm just saying that, for most men of his age and surely for people from texas, that was an ubiquitously acceptable way to talk about things and i can't really hold it against him anymore than when my grandfather accidentally says "orientals" instead of "east asian/pacific islanders".

    i know... my argument's pretty weak, but all this outrage is a bit hollow to me... seems less like disapproval for ron and more like people eager to pillory rockwell. if you want to pillory rockwell, that's fine, but taking it out on ron paul is small.

  • ||

    anon:
    The way I see it, Ron Paul has never had a serious chance of getting the GOP nod. His campaign is good precisely because he's getting his views into debates and giving the country exposure to a truly different way of thinking about government.

    Basically, the way I see it, Ron Paul puts the lie to the false choice Libertarians in particular have posed between serious campaigning and educating the public. Running a good campaign is a good way to educate Americans about libertarian and constitutionalist ideas, period. If he actually gets in, so much the better (though his response so far really gives me pause about how good a president he'd be). But the flap over newsletters has the potential to drown out the message and torpedo an otherwise good campaign.

    I don't mean to be a concern troll, but I really want him to take the bull by the horns both to save his campaign and to ensure the good he's done spreading the message lasts.

  • ||

    "Under a Paul administration we will once again be a truly free America."

    "What I would like to know is, what lessons does Paul take away from this present flap, and how will that help him be a better President?"

    For crying out loud... Ron Paul NEVER had a chance to become president and he NEVER will have a chance to become president. And it's not because of some meta-conspiracy. The estalishment-is-afraid-of-Ron-Paul meme is what we call "crazy talk."

    Talking about the relevance of the newsletter flap to a Ron Paul presidency is like talking about the relevance of the newsletters to Ron Paul's reign as UFC middleweight champ.

    Hey, I know you kids got all excited when someone with libertarian views actually attracted support, but it's time to get off the crack pipe and back to reality. The value of the newsletter flap is that it brings into stark contrast the structural problems of libertarian politics in America. There's too much ego, too much assholishness and too much just plain crazy. You want a future with more freedom, let's figure out how to drain the swamp.

  • ||

    there must be a purge

    Who died and appointed you Zampolit?

    I can see that some people are just fuming in frustration over not being given a witch to burn.

    -jcr

  • ||

    I'm horrified by the sheer number of Paulites who are actively attacking this story as a "smear piece," trying to claim Paul's signatures were forged on the newsletters, or claiming the newsletter wasn't even authorized by him. It's willful blindness to a serious issue that needs to be discussed! The article on CNN was remarkably fair and factual regarding the source of the controversy and the implications... and it's a "smear piece?" Get a GRIP!

  • ||

    "I can see that some people are just fuming in frustration over not being given a witch to burn."

    Oh, yeah, that's it. We're not posting on H&R because we're interested in libertarian ideas. We're just a bunch of closet jackboots waiting for our turn in power. As tempting as it might be to put a bullet in a real asshole, my idea of draining the swamp is for rational, reasonable libertarians to exercise the right to opine that Lew Rockwell and company get stuffed. Sure, recognize the right for the fever swamp to exist, but also make sure the general public understands that it is does not represent rational, mainstream libertarian thought. The Democrats and Republicans have crazy uncles in the basement. It's only the libertarians that let them sit on the living room couch and jerk off to porn.

  • ||

    THAT is exactly the problem! The Jews (as good with money as they are) and the Blacks (fleet-footed as they are), just don't know how to take things in context!

  • dhex||

    You want a future with more freedom, let's figure out how to drain the swamp.

    so how does one drain the neo-confederate kultur war swamp?

    beyond saying rockwell and company need to get fucking lost, i mean. we're all on that boat.

  • ||

    Cosmotarian sounds so.

    umm

    well

    you know, gay


    I prefer

    Kramerican

  • Sam Grove||

    Ron Paul seems to be 'kooky' about constitutionally limited government more than anything else. I wish other candidates were so kooky.

    libertarians don't really have to deal with the newsletter issue. The campaign does.

    Let it.

  • ||

    Is anyone posting here perfectly comfortable walking through a black neighborhood in D.C. on a Saturday night?

  • ||

    so let me get this straight.

    john mccain is an overt racist, calling asians gooks, and all muslims terrorists and he goes on to win 30+% of the vote in new hampshire.

    ron paul is not a racist, knows some racists or has known in the past, and improperly managed a newsletter and he is unfit to run for president?

    you people are out of your "free" fucking minds.

    and actually the campaign may be better off distancing itself from you libertarian kooks!

    jokers

  • dhex||

    actually the first time i visited DC i got lost in anacostia. and went around talking to several people about how to get where i was going and whatnot - they were helpful if a bit more vague than a newcomer to the rats nest that is DC roads should be. and it was about 10:30 at night. i finally flagged down a cop and got directions. he was pretty helpful, too.

    it was only later that i told a bunch of folks i was meeting that i got lost in some place called anacostia and saw how they all wet their pants that i understood the meta-narrative, if you will.

    to be fair i'm also not a fucking pussy, however.

  • ||

    So all these new clips, where Dr. Paul not only acknowledges the article(s) in question, but defends the contents of them, and now he issues a press release saying he never read them?

    How the hell does that work? Correct me if I'm wrong, but those clips in this article clearly show that not only DID Ron Paul know of the article(s), but defended them numerous times?

    And Ron Paul supporters are still burying their head, claiming he didn't write them or know about them? What am I missing here, besides the largest scale denial in American political history?

  • ||

    hay yo adrian:

    welcome to Reason - we hold candidates that campaign on a libertarian-like theme to a higher standard. Your comparison to McCain is irrelevant.

    As was your part in Rocky 3.

    Now, go away.

  • ||

    What am I missing here, besides the largest scale denial in American political history?

    um, it seems you're missing just about every other large-scale denial in american political history.

  • ||

    #jose ortega y gasset wrote,
    ## "What I would like to know is, what lessons
    ## does Paul take away from this present flap,
    ## and how will that help him be a better
    ## President?"

    # For crying out loud... Ron Paul NEVER had a
    # chance to become president and he NEVER will
    # have a chance to become president. And it's
    # not because of some meta-conspiracy. The
    # estalishment-is-afraid-of-Ron-Paul meme is
    # what we call "crazy talk."

    You're letting your hysteria lead you to make silly assumptions, and you should just slow down, take a deep breath, and, if necessary, contemplate your happy place. You quoted my question and then apparently assumed that I was asking it in the certainty that Paul would win. In reality, I asked it in my role as voter, who is still evaluating candidates. When you say that Paul doesn't have a chance and never had a chance, you appear to be reality-challenged. Many primary contests are still in the future, as is the general election. The future is not yet determined. The people who will (in theory) determine it -- the voters and the convention delegates, just to name two important groups -- are still collecting information and considering their options. Today, Ron Paul remains an option -- given slim odds, admittedly, but still an option. So it is entirely appropriate for me or others to ask the "lessons learned" question, as a way of trying to decide how to cast our own votes -- in the future. Every question asked of a Presidential candidate, which speaks of attitudes or policies, is always a form of asking, "how will you behave as President?" granting at least temporarily, for the sake of argument, that the possibility exists. To preclude questions of this nature because Jose Ortega y Gasset proclaims that a candidate doesn't have a chance and never did is stupid, for crying out loud.

    On the other hand, even if Ron Paul doesn't have a chance to be President, the energy and nature of attacks against him suggests that somebody takes him seriously and is afraid of something. In making my own earlier comment, I wasn't really thinking of any "conspiracy" angle, but since you brought it up, I suppose that Paul's potential to shake things up all the way to the Convention and beyond -- especially if he ultimately mounts a third-party or independent campaign -- may be reason enough for people behind the scenes to fear or loathe him, and to find ways to torpedo him if they can.

  • ||

    Someone at Cato speaks:

    http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/#more-3058

  • ||

    As far as political scandals I've seen in my lifetime go, this one rates about 2 on a scale of 1 to 10.

    Seriously, did he get drunk and drive a car off a bridge, drowning a young woman? Did he lie to a grand jury? Did his campaign staff bug the DNC? Even if you assume the worst, his most egregious offense was boorishly insulting some people.

    While I'm disappointed he hasn't handled the matter as adroitly as I would have liked, I'm still hoping Paul and his campaign recover sufficiently to make a decent showing in a few states on Super Tuesday. Not that it will accomplish anything politically, just because in my cold, cold heart of hearts, I'd relish the opportunity to see the smug and self-righteous "cosmotarians" bagging on him now get a well-deserved thumb in the eye....

    @prolefeed

    This may be political suicide, but it seems like the right thing for Ron Paul to do is to admit he was raised in a racist environment,

    Um, Ron Paul is a native of Pennsylvania. He didn't move to Texas until well into adulthood.

    @jizzbutt

    Cosmotarian sounds so.

    umm

    well

    you know, gay


    I know what you mean - we should probably call the cosmo crowd by the more apt name that everyone over the age of 12 would recognize them as - sanctimonious twits....

  • ||

    joe | January 11, 2008, 10:36am | #
    Give me a break, William R. Watch this:

    It's not anti-semitic to say that. When someone asked Ben Stein if Jews runs Hollywood he replied, "yep and what about it"

    Telling the truth about crime isn't racist.

  • Sam Grove||

    And we libertarians are also vehemently opposed to preemptive war, especially against nations that pose no substantive threat to US.

  • ||

    Hmm.

    I still support Paul, but he really should set the record straight on who did what when and what he knew about it. I was content to accept his prior explanations, but I didn't know he'd claimed he wrote those things back in '96. That's a bit troubling.

    Still, he's the best candidate we have.

  • ||

    Rockwell oughta take one for the team and jump under the bus. Today.

  • Sam Grove||

    re: CATO and other worried about this smearing the noble cause of liberty.

    I don't think the cause of liberty and limited government will be tainted by this affair.
    The ideas stand on their own merit, are an American heritage, and easily defended in the eyes of the fair minded.

  • ||

    None of those passages are in anything remotely close to Paul's writing voice.

  • ||


    I know what you mean - we should probably call the cosmo crowd by the more apt name that everyone over the age of 12 would recognize them as - sanctimonious twits....


    This from the guy who thinks that Alabamans should be able to move en masse to Ohio but doesn't think that Mexicans deserve the same freedom of movement.

    You're one of the ones who gets to go, Mannix.

  • ||

    This from the guy who thinks that Alabamans should be able to move en masse to Ohio but doesn't think that Mexicans deserve the same freedom of movement.

    Get back to when Mexicans think Americans should be granted the same freedom of movement en masse to their country.

    You're one of the ones who gets to go, Mannix.

    And where am I going to be going? Let's see - I'm getting excommunicated by a member of a fringe group within a fringe group. The yapping poodles whose idea of activism is posting snarky comments on each other's blogs in a self-referential circle-jerk. The people who you never see participating in the LP, the FSP, the Ron Paul meet-ups or the RLC, etc....

    As long as that's what I'm competing against for face time, I doubt I'm going to be the one going anywhere, sonny.....

  • ||

    This from the guy who thinks that Alabamans should be able to move en masse to Ohio but doesn't think that Mexicans deserve the same freedom of movement.

    Not that there's anything in Ohio to protect apart from Applebee's restaurants and Kim Deal. But your example is otherwise deeply uncomfortable!

  • ||

    is a difference between culture and race, the fact remains that more blacks are in prison than whites. Now, how much of this related to the drug war? I don't know, I'm not going to research that for a blog comment, but my guess would be a substantial number, and I don't think anyone would disagree on that. Whatever Paul's personal beliefs, he is opposed to the drug war, and that logically entails freeing a great many African Americans from a meaningless and costly incarceration. In other words, even if he were racist, Paul's avowed beliefs would vastly supersede any detriment caused by his inflammatory comments. Supporting the guy still helps more people than it hurts. That is one of the essences of libertarianism in my mind. Forgoing what is "right" for what works, for what benefits the most people.

    3. Paul has a great opportunity to spin this, unfortunately he is failing miserably. My main difficulty here lie in reconciling three things:
    a.) The fact that Paul seems like a genuine person, and also seems to fervently believe in the cause of liberty
    b.) the implausibility of having someone write racist comments under your name without your knowledge.
    c.) taking the above as true, then what kind of ability could a person who unknowingly allows such comments to be printed possibly possess.
    d.) some of what was said in those statements were true, but we as a society have conditioned ourselves to abhor any obvious distinctions drawn between race in this country, and maybe reasonably so. Maybe the benefits of not abiding racial distinctions far outweigh the detriments of abiding them. Abiding them is an obvious slippery slope, not abiding the differences is not.

    4. We are all to blame for what has transpired to this point. Reason Magazine is to blame for ignoring an obvious issue, and we are too blame for accepting their contention that the issue was a moot point. Granted, I'm very upset that Reason deemed the issue a moot point in the beginning. It makes me feel duped and I don't like it. I have not read Reason as vigorously for a few years now, and just realized how infrequently I forward Reason articles to friends these days. It has become far less compelling (in my mind). And this Paul situation has only exacerbated that.

    5. Whatever the situation, turning on Paul until all of the facts are in would be a repetition of the same mistake we made in getting to this point. And it could damage the libertarian movement even further (and there IS a movement, you would have to be blind not to see it).

    Personally, I'm holding my judgment on Paul for a few more days until I hear more about this. I definitely won't be talking him up anymore, but I won't be stabbing him in the back like Reason Magazine so I can feel absolved. Running away from this makes us look like cockroaches who were lured out by some crumbs in the middle of the night, only to scurry away to our dark rooms staring out our monitors when the light comes on.
    We don't have to defend Paul, but we have to continue to defend the message, I can't believe that we're handling that responsibility correctly at this moment (though I admittedly have no suggestions on what the correct course is).

    While I've been typing this I've thought more about my issues with Paul's lacking leadership skills, and this is what I have to say. So what if you get a president who can't lead effectively, it just weakens the executive. Win Win.
    (not that Paul would ever reach the presidency either way)

  • ||

    Sorry, top of that got cut off, I was explaining that their is a difference between "racism" and "culturalism" (extreme literary license with that term). I don't even remember why, sorry, doing too many things at once.

  • ||

    I may be persuaded that Paul never wrote any of those things printed in the newsletters. Maybe.

    But how could he not know about them? This isn't just one or two articles (as I was originally led to believe), but years worth of stuff. He had to know. Someone would've told him -- someone. He had thousands of subscribers, some of whom had to be friends.

    It's not only not possible, it's not even plausible.

    Still, I was pulling for him last night. I couldn't help myself.

  • ||

    Yeah, hysterical, that's me. And I'm dancing like I've never danced before... I'm a maniac, manic, on the floor.

    Sure, evaulate Ron Paul as a presidential candidate. You can sit at the same table as those folks evaluating Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. If you need break, order some pizza and some game tokens. The pizza at Chuck E. Cheese really isn't bad.

    Sure, Ron Paul has a chance to become president. And Temple might be next year's BCS Champs. Go, Owls!

    I've read some of your stuff, James, and I do find it amusing how seriously you take libertarian politics. If memory serves, you were the starry-eyed fellow talking about how libertarians had actually been elected to publc office (though this was quite some time ago.)

    The nut jobs think Paul can win. I think the cosmotarians just wanted him not to fail. "Ron, Go out, put on a good show, win some support, put a kind and decent face on libertarian ideas and for God's sake don't show anyone the "Fuck the Federal Reserve" tattoo on your ass that you, Gary North and Lew Rockwell got during that wild night in El Paso." The Ron Paul revolution is more like the Bays of Pigs... that is if the invading force got lost and landed on Anguilla and no one noticed.

  • Brandybuck||

    Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"?



    Ummm, Matt? That is NOT what Ron Paul said! You have willfully mischaracterized him. Shame on you. He said that this old news for over a decade, not that he took responsibility for them for over a decade. He didn't take responsibility for them until 2001. While I find a lack of earlier responsibility distressing, far far worse is your twisting of the facts to make it seem worse than it is.

    You cosmotarians sound like a parody of Freaks, chanting "Gobble gobble, Not one of us! Not one of us!"

    Ron Paul's sin is political naïveté. He lets his friends and staffers take advantage of him. He made the mistake of following their advice (as he admits) in 1996. He's also too nice of a guy. Just like he doesn't tell the truthers to STFU, in the same way he doesn't throw his friends under the bus. That is unlike the libertarians, who will cheerfully cannibalize any deviation from their tolerant cosmopolitan norm.

  • ||

    What? Liberarians aren't allowed to simply make blanket racist comments and get away with them?

    Since when?

    So Ron Paul's a racist. He's also an idiot with obviously foolish foreign policy, questionable domestic economic policy, and some mistaken idea of what a President could even plausibly accomplish.

    I mean, if that paragraph doesn't bother you, why would his fear of the blacks?

    Which is why this will account for nothing. If he claims to be a Scientologist next week, and have evidence of Xenu having descended in a spaceship; he'd still have exactly the same supporters he has now.

    Nobody cares what the facts are about Ron Paul, or what he believes, or what he would do if elected. He's simply a figurehead that people worship without thought or contemplation of what he says or does.

    i can't see that changing.

  • ||

    Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 11, 2008, 10:41am | #
    Listen closely, William: Culture, not color. The criminal problems in urban America are a function of the culture, not the amount of melatonin in a person's skin.


    Jose, are you saying black culture sucks?

  • Brandybuck||

    I'm also not convinced that Lew Rockwell wrote those letters. I suspect Murray Rothbard. He had an astonishing lack of tact sometimes, and he was always courting the extreme fringe.

  • ||

    I think this line that's being drawn between us (and right across some of us) is pretty arbitrary if it's being drawn just because of Ron Paul.

    I think I might get painted a cosmo, and I have this memory of how silly the neolibertarians looked, what, a couple of years ago? Gee, being in a crowd like that, that would be embarrassing. And then I have this image of a fellow libertarian calling me a latte-swilling cosmotarian--makes me want to barf.

  • ||

    Michigan Primary: Vote Dodd

    Sends the State's Senators, and perhaps others, a message on wiretapping.

  • ||

    I liked the way Ron Paul (TOMWCSA) said that speedboats can't be a threat to a US Warship (ignoring the USS COLE), then said there was a rush to war by the other candidates and the military (although the military did act with restraint and the other candidates said that was correct) and then Ron Paul(TOMWCSA) said the ships could've taken care of those speedboats in 5 seconds.

    This gives some credence to his defense with respect to the Newsletters as it demonstrated fairly clearly that Ron Paul doesn't seem to have much awareness of what is going on around him and his ability to string logical thoughts together is limited or negligible.

    Ron Paul (TOMWCSA) should thank Fox for excluding him from the other debate. When you are that poor a thinker and speaker, you are better off if you stay off camera and off stage.

  • ||

    Pix Mannix: "As far as political scandals I've seen in my lifetime go, this one rates about 2 on a scale of 1 to 10."

    Well, I'd say this is certainly less of a scandal than Watergate or Chappaquidick, which you site. I'll even be charitable and say this is less of a scandal than Monica Lewinsky.

    However, racism scandals don't have to seem that severe at first glace to end up being secerely career ending/limiting.

    Trent Lott is only now just starting to recover from his statement at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party a few years ago that "all these problems" (with blacks) could have been avoided if segregation had not ended.

    George Allen uttered the word "macaca" and it ended his Senate race.

    I'd say that having a newsletter go out in your name that frequently engaged in racist diatribe is perhaps even worse than either of those scandals.

  • Ray Robison||

    Isn't it a little amusing that Ron Paul sees conspiracies everywhere but the only real one is his conspiracy to hide his record?

    Ray Robison is the author of Both In One Trench: Saddam's Secret Terror Documents'

    http://www.bothinonetrench.com

  • ||

    I wouldn't call it "black culture." The culture of American inner city poverty sucks and it's pretty much a rainbow of suckage. Ask Joe. He's an expert (and that's not a snark, Joe, I really think you know something about urban culture.)

    I think a culture that promotes crime, instant gratification, the abuse of women, the abandonment of parental responsibility, government dependence, the cult of victimhood, etc., sucks. I think a culture that promotes education, hard work, accumulation of capital, care of children, equality for all, etc. does not suck.

    And, Ken, lattes are not bad... really.

  • ||

    Yes, that's right Libertarians. Back away slowly from Ron Paul, despite the fact that you've known about these past allegations for months now and seemed to have no problem believing his repudiation of the racist remarks when the media spotlight WASN'T on him. We understand this back-peddling. YOu couldn't help but be attracted. Was the money too tempting? The prospect of recruiting into your horribly disorganized political party?

    The political party that seems to have no problem rushing to the defense of a gay prostitute named 'Starchild' got cold feet over a bunch of newsletters that could easily have been ghost-written by Lew Rockwell.

    Thanks guys. Best of luck to you.

  • ||

    I agree that Ron needs to address these multiple references in his newsletters with more than a several-paragraph news release. I want to know which passages were written by him, why there continued to be a problem of racially insensitive writing in his newsletters when he could have put a stop to it, why he had so little oversight and continued for years to have so little oversight of the publications, why he cannot identify the writer or writers of the material he didn't write, how he came to involve unkown writers in publications that supposedly represented his views and philosophy, how he assumed it would be OK to turn over something as important as his branding to persons unknown.

    Ron has often said in his stump speeches over the past year that he may have imperfections but there is nothing wrong with his message of liberty. Unfortunately the racial insensitivities are also a message and so long as they continue to be raised they present a major negative impact on his campaign message. It will be very hard to mount another major spurt of campaign fundraising so long as this matter is not thoroughly explained and I do mean thoroughly. Further, Ron must immediately offer such a full and detailed explanation each and every time the matter is raised because to do otherwise would appear unresponsive.

  • anonymous coward||

    You all should stop believing fairy tales about races' supposed equality.

    The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 70. The average IQ of Asians is 105. The average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 115.

    Likely due to mixing with other races, the average IQ of African Americans is 85. In places in the Caribbean where less such mixing has occured, the average IQ is still 70.

    Decades of affirmative action and attempts to reduce the Black educational and achievement lag have not been able to reduce the chasm. This is even though Asians, who were also disadvantaged when they first came to the US, are prospering without any government help whatsoever.

    All evidence points to that there is an essential difference in the various races' intellectual capacities, and it is genetic.

    I am in favor of equal treatment for members of all races. I am in favor of no discrimination on the basis of color alone. There are black people who are intelligent and capable, and there are white people who are inept.

    But it should be possible to recognize publicly that there are differences between races without having to endure the intellectual equivalent of stoning for that.

    Ron Paul is denouncing racism because he doesn't want his candidacy to be over just as soon as if he failed to do that. But he doesn't publicly humiliate the authors of those words, or denounce the white supremacists who support him, because deep down he feels that their sentiments are justified.

    In private, I think Ron Paul is probably a racist: not a man who thinks that blacks should be oppressed, but one who knows that not everyone is genetically equal.

    If he is, he's right to be. You should be, too. The alternative is being ignorant.

  • ||

    Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote: "I've read some of your stuff, James,"

    ...but doesn't add that he rarely fails to supply a dismissive rejoinder, as in this case. No problem...

    He further wrote, "...and I do find it amusing how seriously you take libertarian politics."

    Actually, it is the future of the country that I take seriously. Libertarian politics is merely the ember of the flame that I am trying to help kindle, towards the goal of, as I believe J OyG said elsewhere, "draining the swamp." I have seen, over and over again, how insincere and incompetent pols-as usual in the GOP and Democrat parties are at that job, and harbor neither illusions nor hope of worthwhile reform from them.

    J OyG further wrote, "If memory serves, you were the starry-eyed fellow talking about how libertarians had actually been elected to public office (though this was quite some time ago.)"

    I haven't been starry eyed since well before I discovered the LP. But what I said was fact when I said it. Hundreds of Libertarians have been elected and re-elected down through the years. Libertarians in my very own state were making a difference (opposing and defeating zoning, taxation, silly behavior laws, crazy spending) in local office: City Council, County Supervisor, School and Community College Boards, etc. The magnitude of their effect -- in dollars and SENSE -- is easily seen. More importantly, in the ensuing years, Libertarians continued to increase their percentage of the vote (and total votes cast) for higher office, such as for state legislature or even the US House. I was very gratified to see in the last congressional election that quite a few libertarian candidates for US House and Senate actually got to make their cases in head-to-head debate with major party candidates and incumbents. If this continues, I'll see Libertarians in Washington before I get too old to enjoy the vindication. You scoff -- always bemusedly if MY memory serves -- but I have been paying attention to the fortunes of the LP for a long time, and there has been a trend of steady improvement -- at least, so long as silly internecine wars of the type we are now waging around Ron Paul's issues weren't distracting the party from its key purpose. I saw some good focus in 2006 and hope to see more in 2008.

    You wanna patronize me some more, go ahead. It takes something much sharper than I've ever seen around here to pierce this hide. Present company included.

  • ||

    I don't want to patronize you. In fact, I feel a little badly in light of your earnestness. You are Charlie Brown, always willing to believe that this time it will be different. This time Lucy will let you kick the football. As I observed on another thread, libertarians are closet romantics.

    Look around, James. Americans have pretty much outlawed smoking in public. Seatbelts and motorcycle helmets are mandatory. America is the nation that has created and maintained the Git'mo gulag. Americans support the Patriot Act. They support warrantless wiretaps and rendition in exchange for illusory security.

    Americans love the idea of freedom but they lack the maturity to tolerate the freedom of others. Yours is the task of Sisyphus, but it honest labor and I will mock it no more... at least on this thread. :)

  • Trevor||

    You libertarians sure are a pathetic pack of mongrels fighting over your best shot at reducing the size of government. That's why I quit the party - it will never get anywhere because it weakens itself from within.

  • ||

    Why is Reason so eager so join the smear wagon?

    It is almost funny to me that because two newspapers in the 80s print their version of Dr. Paul's response, there is some sort of paper trail proving his admission of bigoted feelings. Yeah, that's going to sell. Does Reason not exist in part to offer truth where little exists? Why then should these abridged newspaper accounts be said to prove anything? I for one, would give the most honest politician in our nation's history the benefit of the doubt, if I had any.
    But the bigger question, the one no one seems willing or able to ask, is why the focus is on words Ron Paul is said have written a long time ago, instead of on any number of demonstrable lies the other GOP candidates parrot daily. It is also a safe assumption that nobody poured through the other candidate's donations to find checks from unsavory characters like Don Black.

  • ||

    Does the media dislikes Ron Paul? Well, I'm not into conspiracies but I do understand capitalism. Drug companies have become some of the biggest buyers of adverts & spend 35 Billion annually in the US on 'Direct to Consumer' advertising, which represents half of their yearly expenses on promotions. Well, Ron Paul's Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 07) & YES on allowing re-importation of prescription drugs. (Jul 03). Such political stances in a president could cause a dramatic reduction in profits for the big drug companies, & the advertisers they use. Drug companies as a result would drastically reduce the amount of money they could afford on advertising resulting in literally billions of dollars in lost revenue for the Mass Media. So could that have anything to do with the general disregard toward Ron Paul from the MSM? If you ran a media outlet and there was a candidate running who's election would cost your company a fortune in revenue you wouldn't want your employees saying anything good about that candidate either.

  • ||

    Ron Paul will give me the freedom to choose not to spend a second of my time with other races. I doubt he would force me to serve other races if I didn't want to. It appears now that Ron Paul has a similar mindset to mine albeit slightly less radical. He won't condemn people like me and people shouldn't condemn him. That's what liberty is about.

  • ||

    Quoting Joel Kovel as a source:

    Martin Peretz, owner of the New Republic, is an "Advisor" to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). A full time Fellow at WINEP, IDF General Moshe Yaalon, has been indicted as a war criminal for his role in the 1996 mass murder bombing of refugees in Qana, Lebanon.
    Former directors at WINEP include Richard Pearl and Paul Wolfowitz.

    I wonder what could have motivated Peretz to order a smear on Ron Paul on the eve of the N.H primary.

  • ||

    Why is Reason so eager so join the smear wagon?

    Quoting and rebutting someone's published writings is not a "smear".

    pathetic pack of mongrels fighting over your best shot at reducing the size of government

    "Best shot"? So you think Paul had a real chance to win if only libertarian bloggers had done better damage control?

  • ||

    Boy you Ron Paul apologists are spinning hard.

    I saw a bundle of Ron Paul newsletters in a the home of a relative of a friend a few years back. I looked through a few of them and it was just kook statement after kook statement after kook statement. I thought then that this guy was from another planet. This was long before he ran for president.

    Now he is being disingenuous and not owning up to the gobs and gobs of crackpot hoo-hah that his newsletters were filled with. Not just racism but innuendoes about Jews, far-too-simplistic ideas about economic policy, and head-in-the-sand views about the world beyond America.

    Even if you forget about this enormous, enormous track record of decades on the crackpot fringe, it's his disingenuousness and evasiveness about his history that is more than enough to disqualify him for President.

    Folks he is not coming clean to you at all about the kook-fringe BS that his ideological history is just RIDDLED with.

  • ||

    How does trash like Ron Paul get into the Republican party?
    He needs to be ejected the same as David Duke was.

  • ||

    Okay Republicans,

    Time to play a little hardball on this one.

    I remember Reagan being called a "racist", "biggot", and all kinds of other things when he was none of them. How about the old Iran/Contra affair? You know... the one where underlings acted without authorization? Should we simply now destroy the legacy of Reagan because of that?

    I think not. Nor should we dismiss Paul now for what is at worst a lack of editorial oversight.

  • ||

    I don't know if you're keeping score, Maz, but the Gipper was elected as President, twice. Ron Paul hasn't won his first Republican delegate yet. Before we can dismiss Ron Paul, doesn't he actually have to achieve a position we can dismiss him from? Like viable candidate? The newsletter don't mean anything in the grand scheme of things, because in the grand scheme of things Ron Paul was never going to get elected in 2008.

  • ||

    Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 11, 2008, 7:53pm | #

    My lord. Let me translate this one for you:

    "look around. Look how bad this country is falling apart. Give up. You can't change it. Accept the status quo. Resistence is futile!"

    Get a fucking life, dipshit

  • ||

    Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 12, 2008, 7:40am | #

    I don't know if you're keeping score, Maz, but the Gipper was elected as President, twice. Ron Paul hasn't won his first Republican delegate yet.

    Uh no? A little 5 second research would prove you wrong. And yeah, the Gipper was elected president and the 2008 elections are far from over. Please tell us what candidate YOU support so we can stay far away from them. Nevermind, I know you the truly ignorant support: Huckabee.

  • ||

    From the Cato article:

    "And he would have us believe that things that "do not represent what I believe or have ever believed" appeared in his newsletter for years and years without his knowledge."

    Yeah? So far NOONE has provided proof of 'years and years' so far, EVERY reference has been to a single 1992 article. But we do have CLAIMS that it went on for 20 years (and even that date range changes)

    This is going to backfire on you. Wanna know why? Because you are taking it too far. You are all starting to make stuff up now, changing the goal post when Ron Paul responds. You already look ridiculous to those of us that were prepared for the smears, and I wouldn't doubt you are starting to look ridiculous to casual observers.

    You will fail because you will get an ego, and keep pushing and pushing trying to keep the story alive as long as you can (with NO fresh information, mind you.) You will say things demostrably false (like the Cato article.)

    Soon, people will start questioning whether they should believe YOU. Who's lying?

    If Ron Paul truly doesn't know who wrote in that ONE newsletter, how else could he answer it than "I don't know?" Reasonable (pun intended) people realize there is NO defense for this other than honesty and a look at your character over the years.

    And on that end, Ron Paul clearly has you beat.

    So please do keep it up. It will certainly keep the dems from being able to use it later in the general.

  • ||

    re: So far NOONE has provided proof of 'years and years' so far, EVERY reference has been to a single 1992 article. But we do have CLAIMS that it went on for 20 years (and even that date range changes)

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=74978161-f730-43a2-91c3-de262573a129

    This is a link to the articles in question...

  • ||

    OK, let's just resign ourselves to ongoing genocide, since Ron Paul didn't handle his staff in an optimal manner 15 years ago. Besides, he's a Southerner, so let's just get on with Hitlary and forget we had any alternative.

  • ||

    What's humorous is how people are entirely missing the big picture here.

    Libertarian philosophy on the subject of bigotry is incredibly politically incorrect. In a libertarian utopia, anyone would be free to be a racist. You want to make your lunch counter off limits to blacks? Fine, the government can't tell you yes or no. Freedom includes the freedom to be wrong, and even the freedom to hate people, just so long as you don't actually DO anything that damages their persons, rights, or property.

    Along with that, libertarian philosophy says that while the private citizen is free to be bigoted, the government IS NOT. The government must treat everyone equally and fairly, because it belongs to everybody. Walt Disney would be allowed to keep Jews out of Disney World, but the fedgoob would NOT be allowed to keep Jews out of the Smithsonian* or the Grand Canyon.

    So assuming absolutely the worst possible slant on this issue, what would we have? We would have a political candidate with racist beliefs on the personal level, who in his decades of service as a legislator has NEVER written, signed onto, or endorsed a SINGLE bill with racist or biased overtones.

    If Ron Paul is in fact a racist, I'd say that was superhumanly libertarian. Occam's Razor suggests an easier explanation: he isn't a racist.

    It's one thing to say that "black kids run fast." If you're a liberal, that is a de facto racist statement. If you're not a liberal, it isn't. If you're a person who can look at photos of America's biggest professional sports teams and actually understand what he is seeing, it's what you might even call self-evident. Is it a collectivist sentiment? No more so than saying "men have greater upper-body strength than women." No one (except race baiters) pretends such a statement is meant to be true of every single individual in the class -- it is meant to be a statement about average performance.

    As a few of the commenters said, you want to throw away a guy who MIGHT personally be a racist but has never ever done anything about institutionalizing it, in favor of a bunch of candidates who are known tyrants and eager to put their boot on your neck the day after inauguration?

    How politically astute of you.

    *Yes, I know the Smithsonian claims it is technically privately owned. Given that your tax money pays for damn near absolutely everything it has or does, let's all have a quiet chuckle at the pretense and move on.

  • ||

    Correction: I wrote:

    If Ron Paul is in fact a racist, I'd say that was superhumanly libertarian.

    I did not mean to imply that being racist is libertarian. I meant to write:

    If Ron Paul is in fact a racist, I'd say that he was superhumanly libertarian.

    ...i.e., for being 100% successful in not letting it influence his actions as a lawmaker.

  • ||

    The internet is great isn't it, information at your fingertips to enable you to make a reasoned judgment? Actually no, although I find the bits and pieces of evidence slightly disturbing, I challenge you to find the full text of these newsletters on the internet.

    Makes it a bit hard to check the context of the statements doesn't it.

  • ||

    anonymous coward | January 11, 2008, 6:11pm | #
    You all should stop believing fairy tales about races' supposed equality.

    The average IQ of sub-Saharan Africans is 70. The average IQ of Asians is 105. The average IQ of Ashkenazi Jews is 115.

    Likely due to mixing with other races, the average IQ of African Americans is 85. In places in the Caribbean where less such mixing has occured, the average IQ is still 70.

    ---------------------

    yet Caribbean blacks (i.e. West Indians) in this country are uniformly more successful and entrepreneurial than African-Americans. A common theme is resentment between these groups.

    And if Jews are so much smarter, why don't you just let us run the world and stop whining about it?

  • ||

    Quote below from American Thinker Blog... according to this blogger:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/ron_pauls_racist_rheoric_uncov.html

    "Now one of Paul's staunchest defenders, Matt Welch of Reason Magazine, has dug deeply and discovered that Ron Paul is indeed, a racist."

    Example of how lies snowball and get bigger, bigger...
    Please take effort to halt this nonsense and let these authors know what you think.

  • ||

    Before the days of electronic identity theft, or posing as someone else on a website (I lost count at about 18 or so "Hillary" or "Hillary Clinton" myspace profiles with her photo), people did things like dumpster diving, for correspondence, letter head, or credit cards. People also had to want to pose as someone else in some cases to reap the reward of whatever it is that person had in mind with that information or that "identity". to conceal themselves behind.

    Does that include stupid people who write idiotic, racist, things on some else's newsletter template with the words Ron Paul's name printed across the top. Sounds easy, especially if you didn't have the dumpster dive for the letter head.

    Also, how many have his name in the byline (not the letterhead) as you review each newsletter?

    He says he didn't write them. And as I read these newsletters, it doesn't "sound" like his writing or speaking style. Did you notice that?

    Speaking of sound, you can hear him speaking on the floor of the house...wait about a minute or two, and you'll see why he admires Martin Luther King, and Rosa Parks. He has conviction for holding them in high regard. He has a motive for liking them.

    http://recap.fednet.net/archive/Buildasx.asp?sProxy=80_hflr052207_141.wmv,80_hflr052207_142.wmv,80_hflr052207_143.wmv,80_hflr052207_144.wmv,80_hflr052207_145.wmv,80_hflr052207_146.wmv&sTime=00:04:42.0&eTime=00:04:18&duration=00:24:27.0&UserName=jenni&sLocation=&sExpire=1

    So I'm a skeptic for the two reasons, and for the following...

    Just for the hell of it, I took time to read some things. Here are dozens of Congressman's Pauls House testimonies that are written down and recorded, which I think qualifies as a real byline don't you think?

    http://www.house.gov/paul/legis.shtml

    Also, for the hell of it, click on the "sponsored" buttons. These dozens of H.R. bills might be the reason he seems "odd"? to the political environment in the
    beltway? Seems to be standing up for something doesn't he?

    Now, what did he vote against that might seem like a problem and prove
    he's a racist?

    Well, voting against a bill that wanted to award a gold medal to Rosa Parks, of course:

    Against Rosa Parks Gold Medal
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm

    But then he voted against these other medals too (his reason? Congress shouldn't spend taxpayers money...I don't agree with him...but that his reason in his own words)

    Against Ronald Reagan Gold Medal
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2000/cr040300.htm

    Against Tony Blair Gold Medal
    http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr062503.htm
    The full text is eye opening...do a Control-F for Mr. Paul
    http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=0718227435+32+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

    Against the Dalai Lama Gold Medal (do a Control-F for Mr. Paul)
    http://frwebgate4.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate.cgi?WAISdocID=0716719158+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve

    He was against the Pope's Gold Medal too. There's more like these if you have a few hours to kill.

    And before you think his reasons for not awarding gold medals was somehow missed, here's the Washington Post putting that Paul mind set in perspective

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/08/AR2006070800966.html

    Finally:

    Here's some articled that I found useful to help me understand what is going on with this:

    Kirchick's (cut and pasted) email exchange with Log Cabin Republicans:

    http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

    A balanced, well researched, (not perfect) blog article about the situation:

    http://www.redpills.org/?p=728

  • ||

    OK this is official notice that I will NOT be renewing my subscription. I dropped Reason when Bob Poole & co. came out in favor of Gulf I, because we put Saddam in power, the Kuwaities treat their women and the Palestinians that work the oil fields like dogs, and our servicemen were not "free" to celebrate Christmas. Oh, and April Glaspy (?from memory) ok'd Saddam's advance w. Washington first. AND because on Arab killing another is really none of our business,,

    Now, with Reason foundation honoring Il Duce, the erstwhile former fascist mayor of New York and the continuing hatchet job on Ron Paul, it seems the entire organization has gone over to the Neocon side. Just who is a better candidate than Ron Paul? Hillary, a dovout socialist who thinks tax refunds will be wasted by the people to whom the money is refunded? Barack Hussein Obama, whose Trinity UCC in Chicago has a greater allegiance to Africa than America, and practices "liberation theology? "BOMB BOMB IRAN Mc Cain, (McNasty) who Michael Lynch thoroughly discredited in his 1999 Reason article, "The GOod Soldier? Flipper Romeny, enough said. The Great Huckster who stole $70K worth of furniture on his way out of the governors mansion, took over $112K in gifts in one year, some of which were exchanged for political appointments, and who destroyed over 100 hard drives on state owned computers before leaving office? Ambulance chaser Edwards?

    Good luck with McHillary or whatever warmonger you decide to support, but you will do it without me or my subscription. What a shame. Yours started out as a good magazine. Now I am not sure it is fit for outhouse duty.

    Ken Van Doren

  • chris matthews||

    God forbid anyone actually looks at the mans policies instead of the yellow journalism a Giuliani supporter serves up. I realize theres a difference between being an objectivist and a libertarian but aren't the two supposed to share a common anchor in rationality?

    http://www.thecitizensperspective.com/content/ron-paul-would-free-most-black-men-lincoln

    Paul has suggested he would pardon non-violent drug offenders. That means 183,000 black and latino's.

    That means Paul would free the most black men since Lincoln.

    Note the name of the magazine and then please employ some.

  • M. Simon||

    The Women of Kuwait are doing better.

    For the most part countries where Americans have a significant presence tend to improve over time. I expect Iraq will be in that column if we stay there long enough.

    Compare South Korea 1954 to South Korea 2008.

    The trouble with Libertarians is that they have no concept of time. i.e. not perfect now = not perfectible.

    Which is the reason they fall for the idiots who claim - if elected I will abolish this, that and the other. And since they never get elected they can keep selling those promises to the gullible.

  • ||

    For these very unREASONable reactions to the heat being turned up in a POLITICAL process and the majority of Libertarians not being able to withstand it, not even knowing about what has been PUBLIC RECORD about the candidate they supposedly "were" supporting, I am not returning to the Libertarian party, ever. I switched to republican only to vote for Paul in the primary. I can see how incredibly NAIVE the majority of the Libertarian party is in regard to politics, and how unintelligent and uninformed they are when it takes a far-leftist rag to point to a candidates past, written by a Giuliani pusher in order to sway the vote of log cabin republicans. You people are wet behind the ears, to say the least! I've been a libertarian since the days Jello Biafra began running for offices, and now I turn in my card. Do you think Kubby has a chance? Good luck with that!

  • ||

    Ken = Mona.

    drink!

    or Ken = DUNDEROOOOO for a meta reference

  • ||

    Open Letter To Lew Rockwell - January 12, 2008

    Dear Lew,

    You have now had three opportunities -1996, 2001, and 2008 - to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.

    This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron's newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.

    Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.

    If you were Dr. Paul's friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron's message.

    You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it's time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.

    John Robbins, Ph.D.
    Chief of Staff
    Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985

  • ||

    "OK this is official notice that I will NOT be renewing my subscription."

    Drink!

    "For these very unREASONable reactions to..."

    Drink!

  • ||

    Dr. Robbins' comments are rubbish. Ron Paul allowed the malignant newsletters to be published under his name. If he didn't read them before or after then he is a fool. If Rockwell wrote them, and Robbins offers no evidence of that being the case, then truth should be more important to Paul than protecting a racist. An alleged racist, by the way, who is Paul's long-time collaborator. If Rockwell is the author then Paul has lied various times when the subject of the newsletters has been raised.

    If Dr. Robbins actually knows that Rockwell wrote the offending articles, why did he remain mum about it these many years? Why has Robbins left Ron Paul to twist slowly in the wind?

    Perhaps now the campaign will be left to the callow newcomers to Paul's quasi-libertarian constitutionalism, and the foul-mouthed belligerents who, along with the racists and 9-11 conspiracists, Dr. Paul hasn't been able to find the proper occasion to decisively disassociate himself from.

  • ||

    Derek wrote:
    "John Derbyshire posted something worth reading at The Corner at NRO ... 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..."

    Presumably, then, Dr. Paul can't find it in himself to denounce racists and anti-Semites: he's just too principled to do that. Or can one properly think of him as being too gutless to do so? Is government really the only source of evil worth criticizing?

  • M. Simon||

    Lew is charming in e-mails but I had a falling out with him many years back when he said States Rights trumped the right of free association.

    I guess Lew is not a believer in Inalienable Rights.

    And he is the guy carrying so much water for Real Libertarians™.

  • ||

    I notice that American Spectator has linked and (selectively) quoted your article here. But they add the claim that, in 1996, Ron Paul said that he _was_ the author of the newsletters; which is something I don't actually see up above.

    So let me ask: Are you also claiming that Ron Paul claimed, in 1996, to have authored those quotations? That he did not merely say nothing about the authorship at the time, but claimed authorship for himself?

  • ||

    Just in case anyone would like to read the original Reason article mentioned:
    http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124339.html

    It is interesting to note that Reason, which is a Libertarian oriented magazine, has produced this article.
    That they let this through shows that they do not countenance censorship, even when and if that information may seem to besmirch an ostensible figurehead of their movement. That takes guts and commitment to principle.

    However, more substantively, I think the article really stretches the concept of indicting Dr. Paul as being a racist.
    Granted, a politician must really give pause whenever he says anything about race, and realize that they will be parsed out of context by his/her enemies; I fail to find the smoking gun of sheer racism that is being imputed upon Dr. Paul.
    Sure it is a bit reaching, from the public eye's perspective, for someone to claim not to know what was going into a newsletter entitled with one's own name, but on the other hand it is entirely plausible given the hands off modus operandi that Dr. Paul permits others to independently support him - a libertarian method, power by consensus not by edict.
    The supposedly "new" revelations of Matt Welch's article are supposed accounts of Dr. Paul reaffirming some statements made in other articles written in support of him, that were ostensibly racist, as well as some statements put forth in his name via his campaign staff.
    Trying hard to find a racist statement by Dr. Paul that stands on its own IN CONTEXT, is virtually impossible, unless the commentator/pundit artificially inject innuendo, conspiratorial conclusion, applying populist - but nonaccurate - verboten buzzwords, leading and reaching inference upon inference analysis.

    - In some of these, Dr. Paul refers to reports issued by policy analysis institutions, and says flippantly [paraphrasing] "If these reports are accurate, then 95% of black males in DC are criminals"
    - A reference is made to him saying that [paraphrasing] if a black man is running away from you, their swiftness is such that you cannot catch them. - Dr. Paul's sin here is not balancing the statement out by observing that that is true of any raced male, or female, as well.
    - Another reference is made to Dr. Paul stating that "While we are told fearing a black man is evil, it is hardly irrational", upon which Dr. Paul refers to common criminal justice statistics (disproportionate # of crimes committed by minorities) in support of the observation.
    - The article cites Dr. Paul as observing that black males who are 13 who commit violent crimes should be prosecuted as adults, as they can be just as culpable.

    The list of slightly questionable statement in the article, dug up out of 10's of thousands Dr. Paul has made, seeks to establish Dr. Paul as a closet racist (at least 10 to 20 years ago), mostly because he had inartfully made race neutral observations about racial statistics in public policy, few and far in between, and in variegated contexts, speeches, interviews and appearances.

    Although these statements were made inartfully, they are just the product of Dr. Paul's plain way of speaking, just saying something like it is, even if it did not come out politically correct, not the result of any occulted racism.

    Dr. Paul is so pure, sincere and good, that even the rumour of a hint of a hint of an innuendo of racism makes big news. Irrespective of whether it is unfounded or mischaracterized.

  • ||

    Is it even worth arguing about considering, you know, HE ISN'T EVEN THE SLIGHTEST BIT ELECTABLE.

    I honestly couldn't disagree more with the majority of Ron Paul's ideas, but I see no point in coming onto a site like this and defending or attacking him, considering there's no chance in hell he'll even come close to the presidency. It perfectly reflects the pointlessness of wasting your vote on any third party.

  • ||

    Wow, this was even more damning than the New Republic article. I can't believe I ever supported the guy. This really should have been more widely publicized when Paul started gaining traction with his fund raising. I feel bad for everyone (myself included) who made donations to his campaign only to later find out what a bigot he is. Most of us have been duped. I am glad that Reason is holding Paul accountable. He desn't seem like such a straight talker now that he is is trying to disavow decades of repugnant statements in those newsletters. Paul is very small "L" libertarian with a very small, bigoted mind; he only believes in liberty for white, Christian, hetersosexual males.

  • Davy C Rockett||

    Wasn't Lefty Morris the Democrat the neocons supported over Paul back in that election race.
    If so, it tells alot about the two parties being cut from the same cloth.
    As a Libertarian I support Paul.
    For the Losertarians in the Party get over the a smear job on Paul. He's our best hope to get our ideas moving forward.

  • ||

    How deluded do you have to be when you say "so what if my presidential candidate is racist?"

  • ||

    IS A MAN NOT ENTITLED...
    ...TO THE SWEAT OF HIS BROW.

    NO SAID THE MAN IN WASHINGTON, IT BELONGS TO THE POOR.
    NO SAID THE MAN IN THE VATICAN, IT BELONGS TO GOD.
    NO SAID THE MAN IN MOSCOW, IT BELONGS TO EVERYONE.

    I... REJECTED THESE ANSWERS, AND INSTEAD... I CHOSE SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

    I CHOSE...

    RAPTURE!!!

    -Ron Paul, 1960

  • ||

    Umm.... Didn't the Founding Fathers leave SLAVERY in place for nearly a century more? By the rationale of a number of those, above, NONE of the Founding Fathers should have been in office. Good one!

    The President of the NAACP, whom has known Dr Paul for 20 years, says that there's not a racist bone in Dr Paul's body, and that this is a political beat-up. That SHOULD be the end of the story, but some people seem to want to hold OTHERS to impossible standards of perfection.

    As much as it hurts me as an atheist to quote this, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."

    Wake up, people. Dr Paul may not be PERFECT, but his message of liberty IS, and if you don't get on board, and stay on board, and stop your sententious, holier-than-thou crap, we are going to lose our LIBERTIES FOREVER.

    How will you be able to call yourselves libertarians when the blood of our liberties is on YOUR hands?

    Get behind Dr Paul, NOW, before it's too late!

  • ||

    Ron Paul is and has always been a jew hating, homophobic racist. What's so funny are all the lib gays pretending to be republicans and spamming on behalf of him. The white supremacist and Ron Paul are playing them like fish.

  • wizard of oz books||

    With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

  • Louis Vuitton 1904 Monogram Be||

    http://www.louisvuitton.be/lou.....t-p-3.html For a busy business vertical like the Insurance sector, outsourcing their back office works will be a better option

  • ||

    The criminals fear Dr Ron for good reason.

  • ||

    excuse the DP ...

  • ||

    The criminals fear Dr Ron for good reason.

  • شات بنت مصر||

    vere good

  • Diogenes||

    Look at Ron Paul's decades in public service. He has never said, done or written anything that fits with the racist nature of some of the newsletters, which were written by staffers while he was busy with his medical practice. Can you even picture him distorting someone's name to make fun of them? Get real!

    Here is a TX NAACP leader who knows Ron Paul, saying he is in no way racist.

    in a radio interview:
    NAACP Nelson Linder speaks on Ron Paul and racism
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGhv3paNz6U&sns=em

    in an article about another radio interview:
    'NAACP President: Ron Paul Is Not A Racist'
    http://www.nolanchart.com/arti.....acist.html

    Or you can listen to Ron Paul's debate responses on African American and minority issues at The All American Presidential Forums on PBS:
    [This site limits me to 2 links per comment, so you'll have to click on my name at the top of this comment to view the video]

    This has been asked and answered every time Ron Paul ran for reelection to Congress over the past 20-some years, as well as during his runs for the presidency. Ron Paul wants to focus on the issues in the campaign, not on things that have long since been asked, answered and dismissed as nonsense.

  • ||

    As a honky, I'm SO offended by Ron Paul characterizing us, along with Asians, as constantly committing complex embezzling. What a bigot. For shame, Dr. Paul. For shame.

  • ||

    It is EXTREMELY misleading to use "Paul said", "he said", etc... interchangeably to refer to what was written in the newsletter (which Ron Paul allegedly didn't write) AND what Ron Paul said in an interview. I find the May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News article particularly misleading.

    Anyway, I think the debackle back in the 90s has too much hype and not enough hard evidence to really make anything of it. Instead people should look at his actions before and after the whole 90's thing.

    Also, why would giving money to a racist be better than taking money from him? I understand the whole thing about not wanting to associate with them and I think Ron Paul probably should have given it back for posterity sake, but whether he gives it back or not I think is inconsequential.

  • Peter Richter||

    Nice hit piece on Dr. Paul. Completely irresponsible reporting to quote someone that supposedly had a conversation with Dr. Paul as if it had some shred of truth to it.

  • mothers day messages for cards||

    If you're paying attention, go down me a memorandum and take account of your cellular phone numeral, and I'll get a hold you some attention-grabbing in sequence.teacher greetings

  • facebook jokes||

    I include never articulated such vocabulary and deprecate such narrow-minded judgment.mothers day facebook status || teachers day status

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online