Ron Paul’s Blithe Reaction to ‘Newslettergate’
Ron Paul's shrugging off the racist content of newsletters bearing his name makes it clearer than ever that he is unfit to be president, writes Michael Weiss. "Quite apart from the salacity of the old newsletters, Paul's unaccommodating response to them has shown him to be a pathological enemy of moral judgment and good sense."
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
Imagine this scenario. You are an elected representative of Congress and a pamphlet has been produced in your name on a monthly basis for three decades. It’s been written in the first person and makes frequent reference to your family and other biographical details. You admit to being aware of its existence. Do you a) attempt to have its publication stopped for fear of how it might damage your reputation; b) oversee every aspect of its production to ensure its vicarious fidelity to your own opinions and style of expressing them; c) take only a passing interest in its contents?
Ron Paul would have us believe c) is as convincing as a return to the gold standard. He said he doesn’t know who wrote the now-notorious newsletters that James Kirchick painstakingly exposed and reprinted in the New Republic last week-they were titled Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report-but it sure as hell wasn’t him and he’d been over this before, when he ran for the House of Representatives in 1996 and a few choice selections from the newsletters found their way into the Texas press.
Thus it might have been breaking news to the rest of the country that a candidate for president was associated with literature that called Martin Luther King a gay pedophile, blamed the 1993 World Trade Center bombing on Israeli spies, and depicted AIDS victims as extras out of the film 28 Days Later-but Paul had long ago put the whole sordid affair behind him. Why we were dwelling on the past?
In an interview with CNN’s Wolf Blitzer, Paul said he did read some of this eponymous fanzine throughout its three-decade run, but-wouldn’t you know it-he managed to miss all the editions that trafficked in bigoted filth until someone else brought them to his attention. And despite rumors in the blogosphere that the gothic typist was Lew Rockwell –Paul’s former chief of staff and founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Confederacy-friendly think tank that put out Paul’s (confirmed) books– told Kirchick that “seven or eight freelancers involved at various stages” were instead responsible. Moreover, the “person who was in charge [of editing the newsletters] is now long gone … He left in unfortunate circumstances.” (Would anyone have anticipated the calm silence with which the 9/11 conspiracy theorists supporting the gynecologist have greeted Rockwell’s bureaucratic evasions?)
The online archive of what is now known as The Ron Paul Freedom Report-a much-watered-down edition of what Kirchick uncovered-bears this disclaimer on its still-active homepage: “Congressman Ron Paul is no longer affiliated with or associated in any way with The Liberty Committee of Falls Church, Virginia. If you receive a solicitation from The Liberty Committee and/or its chairman, Mr. David James, bearing Congressman Paul’s name, please be advised that the solicitation was in no way approved or endorsed by Congressman Paul.”
No mention of when it became unaffiliated or why David James is allowed to carry on publishing this document without Paul’s imprimatur. How long would the Barack Obama Audacity of Hope Leaflet stay afloat under similar circumstances?
In general, Paul’s handling of this devastating scandal is a fair indication that he is unfit to be a notary public of a panhandle backwater, much less President of the United States. If he has not grasped the simple fact that serious doubts have been raised as to his character, and that he now owes it to potential voters to uncover the provenance of old and noxious forgeries of his beliefs, then his arrogance eclipses that of any mainstream candidate. (Those throwing their weight behind the congressman because he promises to free the republic of the tyranny of constitution-flouting megalomaniacs can look forward to “That’s ancient history,” or “Been there, done that” as answers to tough questions that will undoubtedly arise in a Paul administration.)
Indeed, quite apart from the salacity of the old newsletters, Paul’s unaccommodating response to them has shown him to be a pathological enemy of moral judgment and good sense.
A common refrain of his apologists is that nothing in the excavated hate-rags sounds at all like their man. While one may not agree with Paul’s plans to abolish the Federal Reserve or withdraw all U.S. troops from foreign soil, they argue, one has to admit that Paul puts his case for these policies rationally and without resorting to black helicopter-type hysterics.
In some instances, however, the newsletters conform to this justification. Consider this almost unnervingly controlled notice about David Duke’s Louisiana primary victory in November 1990:
“David Duke received 44% of the vote in the Senate primary race in Louisiana, 60% of the white vote, and 9% of the black vote!. This totaled 100,000 more votes than the current governor when he won.
[…]
Duke’s platform called for tax cuts, no quotes, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing. “Tonight we concede the election,” he said, “But we will never concede our fight for equal rights for all Americans.”
To many voters, this seems like just plain good sense. Duke carried baggage from his past, but the voters were willing to overlook that. And if he had been afforded the forgiveness an ex-communist gets, he might have won.
Liberals like Richard Cohen of the Washington Post say he got so many votes because Louisianians were racists and ignorant. Baloney.
David Broder, also of the Post, and equally liberal, writing on an entirely different subject, had it right: “No one wants to talk about [race] publicly, but if you ask any campaign consultant or pollster privately, you can confirm the sad reality that a great many working-class and middle-class white Americans are far less hostile to the rich and their tax breaks than they are to the poor and minorities with their welfare and affirmative-action programs.”
Liberals are notoriously blind to the sociological effects of their own programs. David Duke was hurt by his past. How many more Dukes are there waiting in the wings without such a taint?”
There are no raving redneck sermons here-only sinister rationalizations for them. (In a slightly different context, and forgetting who the subject was, we might have seen such a contrarian squib in the pages of The New Republic.) That early reminder that 9% of blacks actually turned out for a former grand wizard of the KKK is meant to downplay Duke’s racist appeal-”baggage from his past”-and suggest that, in every other respect, he was seen as a viable candidate by even the least likely demographic. Similarly, the analogy between Duke and an ex-communist running for public office hints at an understanding of his controversial past, which the author is, to all outward appearances, reluctant to embrace. (Paul has argued that his convictions prevent him from being a racist because racism, like communism, is a “collectivist” enterprise.) The writer also credits the liberal David Broder in order flout the conventional wisdom about race discourse in America. Besides, Duke has got more interesting things to talk about than white supremacy-”tax cuts, no quotes, no affirmative action, no welfare, and no busing.”
Duke has recently returned the favor to Paul by writing on his website:
…I like Ron Paul’s campaign, and I think it is good for America and the political process. Why do I think so? It is because people such as Ron Paul shake up the system, and Paul takes a lot of correct positions such as opposition to the Iraq War, opposition to foreign aid to Israel and the rest of the world, as well as having unrelenting support for the civil liberties of the American people. Second, what I will say here cannot hurt the campaign in the liberal media because I will now offer some criticisms showing that I think that Ron Paul does not do enough to defend the heritage and interests of European Americans.
If such partial alliances of principle move in one direction, they can surely move in the opposite. Let us say that Ron Paul does not harbor an antipathy against blacks and Jews. Is it beyond plausibility that, as a libertarian dogmatically opposed to entitlement spending and foreign interventionism, he would stoop to make common cause with someone opposed to them, too, yet who does harbor such antipathy? And which is worse for someone purporting to be the only straight shooter vying for the White House?
Paul has not been helped by earlier weasel defense of accepting campaign contributions from various neo-Nazis outfits, such as Stormfront. He claimed then also-as he does now with respect to the patrons of his newsletter-that it is not in his laissez-faire nature to regulate human behavior. Duke had his “taint,” after all, and the others “Ronulans” must have theirs. From here it is not a far trip down the long slide into excusing demagogic cracks about gays, Jews, and the “sociological effects” of welfare as serving a deeper ideological kinship.
A latent political crisis became blatant last week. Not for the sake of a poorly timed cover story were the editors of Reason made so uncomfortable by the newsletter disclosures, or by Paul’s blithe reaction to them.
Libertarians have been for decades sidelined and lampooned as kooks willing to take theoretical purity to absurd practical extremes. A fine movement if, like P.J. O’Rourke, you don’t mind running into the ubiquitous “high school algebra teacher who wants to talk about privatizing the sidewalks for an hour.” But many well-meaning small government types have in the process grown desensitized to fellow travelers bearing seedy agendas. The corollary of Ann Althouse’s observation that Paul always seemed to her to be masquerading as a libertarian in order to advance his racism, it is that racists can masquerade as libertarians in order to confer an aura of legitimacy upon themselves.
Only one side in this creepy dysfunctional marriage has an interest in filing for divorce.
(Art credit: The Velvet Howler)
Michael Weiss is Pajamas Media New York editor. His own blog is SnarkSmith.
| Comment |  Digg This |
 del.icio.us |
 |
 |
 PJM Home |
54 Comments
Landon:I guess you missed this huh?
http://www.usadaily.com/article.cfm?articleID=227844
The Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder came to Paul’s defense. Linder said that Paul is not a racist and said, “Lets face it Ron Paul is a thinker and he’s also a Constitutionalist”. He continued, “I like Ron Paul personally, I like what he’s saying, I think he’s sincere and I think he’s correct in what he’s saying”.
I guess this was just another smear atempt on Ron Paul. What do you have against Ron Paul to make you go to such lenghts to smear him? Do you not like fair and honest reporting? How about freedome sir do you like freedom of the press?
Thank you
Jan 15, 2008 - 2:28 am DenisL:Paul lent his name to a small newsletter for a short time that he did not edit, while he was out of politics and concentrating on delivering babies. The three decades comment is incorrect. If one opposes affirmative action, that does not make one a racist! I look at it as running an unmoderated blog in the days before the internet. The writing style was not Ron Paul’s. In his newsletters since being back in Congress, he is clearly in charge and they are wonderful to read. Clearly Paul is the most vehement anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-individual, and pro-gay rights person in Congress. He ran as a Libertarian Presidential candidate for gosh sakes. The New Republic did not even contact Ron Paul to talk to him about their story and they did not seem to know that it had been discussed ad nauseum several times over the years and dismissed as not reflecting Ron Paul’s beliefs. The New Republic, if you will remember, compared Ross Perot to Hitler! Ron Paul is a good man being smeared for political reasons.
Check out this website for the CNN interview with Ron Paul about this where all is explained:
Hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/hotline_after_d_323.html
Jan 15, 2008 - 2:34 am Richard Wicks:As time goes on it’s becoming clearer and clearer that it’s the idiots versus the informed, and it’s the idiots that are going to win.
Glad I diversified out of the dollar in 2005.
Jan 15, 2008 - 2:36 am Will:lol…Michael…ya might want to check with your mother regarding how long it took you to get off the teet…clearly you’ve some sort of issue with letting go.
Not Ron Paul though, someone attempted a smear campaign against him and he’s steadfastly opted to not bother with responding to false accusations.
He’s the one who’s name was thrown in the mud, he’s over it…why aren’t you?
I wish you well with realizing integrity into your world.
Jan 15, 2008 - 2:40 am Daniel Linnen:Ron Paul shrugs off the newsletters, because there are greater concerns and people know that the truth can be seen in his actions and words we know come from him. Glad you have an opinion and free time to write about it, high five bro!
Jan 15, 2008 - 2:46 am Charles:The thing is, the media either wants him to apologize for writing those statements (if he did write them, he would have. If he didn’t, apologizing for something you haven’t done is morally wrong too) or for him to embrace the minorities. Ron Paul doesn’t believe in minorities, he is a libertarian, he only sees people as individuals not by their skin color, by forcing Dr. Paul to embrace minorities we are making him go against his beliefs.
Jan 15, 2008 - 2:56 am Jim:I’m not commenting to defend Paul but just for balance how about - Rober Byrd? -You do know about him right? For those who don’t he’s a powerful long standing Democratic senator from West Virginia who began his career as a recruiter for the KKK. And how about the current crop of Republican presidential candidates who never feel uncomfortable spouting off about our “shared” Judeo-Christian heritage or make disparaging remarks about Islam in the name of “the war on terror”. How about the two Democratic front runners basically running on race and gender as their most qualifying features? How about the constant call to bleed “the rich” from Edwards. Find me a candidate without flaws, personal or otherwise. They are all demagogues in one way shape or form.
Jan 15, 2008 - 3:08 am Chris:If Ron Paul was really a racist, do you think the President of the Austin NAACP would come to his side on this?
Jan 15, 2008 - 3:11 am David:Paul’s seemingly blithe reaction may be attributed to the fact that he has dealt with these claims numerous times for decades. This precipitous re-airing of writing which contradicts everything he has personally written and talked about seems a little wrong doesn’t it?
Especially as everyone keeps harping on about it. What should he do in your opinion?
Jan 15, 2008 - 3:53 am timstevens:And what would you like Ron Paul to say in response?
He made a decision to not respond to the yappings of the press looking for a problem to enlarge.
The press is both a blessing in this country and a curse. It keeps politicians honest (less blatantly dishonest anyway) but it also manufactures problems where few or none exist.
And even if he did write “racist” comments in the opinion of some professional victim, once I hear or read the “racist” tag, I immediately tune out the rest of the commentator’s opinion as he is hoping to incite a problem.
Jan 15, 2008 - 4:15 am Teresa:Omg! This man is not fit to be President! Lets all vote for one of the Candidates who have clean records!
Jan 15, 2008 - 4:21 am immigrant:Oh, my bad, Dr. Paul is the one who has the clean voting record. Nevermind, vote for Ron Paul!!!!!
Ron Paul did a great job defending himself against the liberal medias obvious agenda. I am a black immigrant and will be voting for him even if I have to write his name in, in the general election to ensure that my vote is not wasted.
Jan 15, 2008 - 4:37 am John:Just another smear against the only true conservative republican running for president.
Jan 15, 2008 - 4:43 am Sean:If ERon Paul was like the ohter political Scum this would not be an issue. If he was Pro police sate, pro government, pro high high taxes, pro gun control and a total socialist or facist, you would think he is the best thing since sliced bread.
It amazes me that the press is so much behind thier own (and our0 destruction. This is how liberty dies…. to the sounds of thunderous aplause.
Well michael when the police state in the county goes into marshall law and it will, I hope you are one of the early victims of the New World order. Maybe then you’ll realize the mistake you made by supporting facism and tyranny.
Jan 15, 2008 - 4:47 am Ron:Hi Michael,
Don’t worry, I’m coming to your support. I found this absolute proof that Ron Paul is a racist:
http://www.dynw.com/ronpaulisracist/
Furthermore, I wonder if we should call Homeland Security. He and his followers are planting a money bomb on Martin Luther King Day:
http://www.ronpaulmoneybomb.com/
Let’s Get’em!
Jan 15, 2008 - 4:47 am dj:What’s up with the image of the crybaby britney supporter at the top of this article? You need to do your homework before you write your articles - and lose the childish, sophomoric cutesy stuff. When it’s so far over the top, no one sees the connection you are trying to make. They only see your vitriol.
p.s. Are completely in the tank for Thompson?
Jan 15, 2008 - 4:48 am Jim:Hearing from his hometown chapter NAACP president coming to his defense as NOT being a racist speaks volumes to me. Your childish characterization of the man speaks volumes about you.
Jan 15, 2008 - 5:13 am Anthony:You really are not too good at shilling for the anointed ones.
Is this what they call “journalism”, what a freakin’ joke.
Jan 15, 2008 - 5:32 am kent:Ron Paul wrote the newsletters or knew exactly what was in them. He is lying about this and everyone knows that. No principled person allows a newsletter to go out under his name with strong opinions expressed without reading the content. Those of you who doubt this are simply stupid. He may have been delivering babies but he had political aspirations and an interest in keeping his name in front of his base.
A lot of what Ron Paul says may be true. But this case shows in this instance he will lie unashamedly if needed.
One other thing - the war is constitutional. Just as much as the Louisiana Purchase, most of the wars we have fought. And under Ron Paul’s current logic the US would not have entered WWII. We would have let Hitler take over Europe and tried to develop an effective relationship with him. Obviously at the end of the Depression we did not have the money for a two front war, that was only caused by our earlier intervention at the end of WWI. Ron Paul who is right on much domestic policy, is completely ignorant of foreign policy and America’s role in the world.
Jan 15, 2008 - 5:36 am B Dubya:Yet another Paulbot swarm to the defense of the Leader.
If you tell a simple lie often enough, it will become the truth.
The Luap Nor legion demonstrates with every swarm on posts such as this one, that the basic premise of the post is correct.
Herr Doktor Paul did not write the newsletters…The Doctor’s signature on the first person persective screeds was a forgery…yeah…that’s it..yeah..a fogery..let’s all say that every time it comes up…yeah…that’s it…
You people are in some very exclusive company in history. Many of the best of the Nazi tools of the 3rd Reich come to mind…
Jan 15, 2008 - 5:36 am Rand Thinker:Ron Paul on Racism HIS words on the topic..
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.
Jan 15, 2008 - 5:48 am Jason:source http://www.ronpaul2008.com
What is Paul supposed to do? Cry and go on Al Sharpton’s show and beg black people for their forgiveness? He said that the views expressed werent his own and accepted ultimate responsibility for them.
If you doubt his character, look at his voting record. 30 years of defending liberty when it was easy and when he was a lone voice in the wilderness. Individual rights are everyones concern, and you don’t get those rights because you are a certain race, sex, sexual orientation, or a part of any other group. You get them because you are a human being and they are given by your creator.
Ron Paul is bringing black people back to the Republican Party. He polls highest among African Americans. This whole thing is just BS. Seriously.
Listen:
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/BlacksforRonPaul/2007/12/15/African-Americans-and-Ron-Paul-Why
Jan 15, 2008 - 5:48 am Jerry:Oh darned. Michael Weiss won’t be voting for Ron Paul. I guess that means the Revolution is dead, so we might as well just pack it in….
What a self-important douche.
The revolution will continue over your hysterical protestations. Most people are fair minded and realize that a few bad decisions made long ago and ammends having been made do not disqualify a person. It might in your pretentious little world, but using your standard no person would ever be elected.
A person trying to be fair minded might think that you have a bias against Dr. Paul, and that it might contribute to your inability to pass by this dead horse without poking at it.
And one more time, just because I find it cathartic - I want to call you a douche again.
You friggin douche.
Jan 15, 2008 - 5:55 am prezronpaul2008: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
Jan 15, 2008 - 5:56 am JoeMorgan:Imagine a Zionist, Mr. Weiss, criticizing Ron Paul for promoting discrimination when it serves the interests of his own people?
I would imagine that Mr. Weiss is a supporter of the apartheid state of Israel.
Jan 15, 2008 - 6:01 am Mike:Oh brother, can we get off the racist stuff already?
There’s a simple rule that applies here, “time will tell.”
These aren’t recent newsletters, these aren’t things that just happened, they’re in the past. With the benefit of them being in the past, you can judge whether his actions in that time reflect the kind of person that would take those views..
It might benefit you to look at the actions of the man to judge his views, rather than take some newsletters that’s credibility is already called into question.
What has Ron Paul done to show he’s a racist?
Jan 15, 2008 - 6:01 am Frank:There is another scenario: Ron Paul will not identify the author of the newsletters, because the author (allegedly) is an ‘aide’ or ‘consultant’ that is close to the campaign. Insiders of the “Neo-Libertarian” movement (Paul included) are very compelled to protect this author’s identity. Go check out any of the popular “Neolibertarian” and “Beltway Libertarian” websites. This scenario is being discussed in hushed tones, heated debate, and “open letters” that beg this “ghost writer” to “fall on the sword of his own making”.
Jan 15, 2008 - 6:12 am Mark D:There are issues to explain and apologize for. But the rhetoric must be separated from the fact. Kirchik and other critics keep accusing Ron Paul of publishing a newsletter “…for 20 years with vile, racist, homophobic rhetoric and conspiracy theories..”. However under cross examination Kirchik admits its not 20 years of vile statements, its 5-6 years of vile statements. to quote Kirchik:
Jan 15, 2008 - 6:21 am Tom Atkins:“Then once he was out of congress, starting in the late 1980’s, thats when you see the real racial and homophobic animus.”
Outside that 6 year interval, even Kirchik admits, the newsletters are “…like your regular letter to a constituent that alot of congressman send out.”
Lets hear the whole truth! Kirchik never liked Paul. What are the facts? Is it 2 or 3 issues in a six year period? or is it more?
All quotes from Kirchik interview http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17990685
I’m glad you put the facts out and let others decide.
keep the slander coming, maybe America will not wake up and all of the liars that twists and distorts to keep the criminals in power will win.
But Maybe, just maybe the American people will wake up and find what you have done to this great country. The fascist media that remains in bed with our government at the very expense of the people they represent.
Our Dollar is devalued, our future earnings taxed by a group of private banks that is ignored by the media. Even as someone like David Walker( head of the GAO), yells from the roof top “we are going broke”, and yet the only candidate that echo’s his remarks is called a “kook”.
Who are the real criminals here?
Who are the ones that ignores the facts this country is facing, who shields the fascist corporations from the wrath of the American people?
I dare say Ron Paul is the only man in this race “fit” to be president. His money comes from us, the average joe, who has been betrayed by it’s own government and by fascist corporations which could not survive in a truly free economy.
Will shall not fall silent, we shall not fade. This is our country sir and we have come to make our rightful claim.
Jan 15, 2008 - 6:33 am Zechariah C.:As has already been pointed out, the president of the NAACP apparently said this whole smear campaign has persisted because Ron Paul is a “threat to the establishment.” Moreover, “What he’s saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that’s what they fear,” concluded the NAACP President.
You can find Nelson Linder’s further comments here:
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html
The point is Mr. Linder’s comments cannot be easily dismissed. Enough already.
Jan 15, 2008 - 6:34 am Todd:You folks need to stop whining that this scandal needs to be taken more seriously.
It doesn’t.
I’ll take an honest fool over a slick liar every time.
His mistake in allowing these newsletters to be printed was indeed huge.
But not as huge as the error all the rest of the candidates still plan on making– to erode our liberties, fight aggressive wars, and sell our our sovereignty to corporate interests.
Your attempts to make this mud stick are becoming shrill.
Jan 15, 2008 - 6:47 am Scott McDonnell:It’s interesting, really. These completely childish and biased blogs are simply taking it TOO FAR. They WANT this to be bigger than it is. Where were they with all the skeletons on the other Republican candidates? What about Rudy’s ties to Al Qaeda, Crime families, common criminals, and Saudi Arabia? That’s just one example. What about John McCain’s numerous racist and obscene comments that have been recorded as CLEARLY coming from him? What about Romney’s lie about watching his father march with MLK AND his little crying episode over his church accepting blacks (nevermind that I have NEVER heard of a black Mormon priest.)
But, no. It’s Ron Paul and it’s newsletters that clearly he didn’t write and NO ONE even remotely close to him believes he is a racist.
I thank you for taking this too far. Honestly. No attack on you, because you are doing more for Ron Paul than you can possibly imagine.
Jan 15, 2008 - 6:55 am Gene:Ron Paul, or any candidate, or any candidate for that matter, is only responsible for words they themselves use. All words should be backed up by fact. The irony is the Old Media routinely write stories that are loose on facts, but stimulate the repilitian brain center with catchy headlines.
Jan 15, 2008 - 7:04 am koby:WhoTF is Michael Weiss????
Whoever he is, i hope that someone overheard him tell a “racist” joke at a cocktail party 30 years ago…and theyll come forward with allegeations of RACISM. Lets see how he will defend himself. Will he say that “I was telling a joke that SOMEONE ELSE MADE UP, or will he admit that he’s a racist???
Dr. Paul is ANTI-RACIST you dumb F
enjoy the depression that comes when you vote for the establishment.
Jan 15, 2008 - 7:07 am Weird:If these newsletters are such a big deal where is Al Sharpton? Barbara Jordan? Jesse Jackson? I’m not able to find anything on this from “individuals of color” or the vocal and extremely effective activists that work so hard to protect their civil rights.
It is funny how the only articles I’m turning up on the newsletters are written by “people that lack color”. What’s the deal with that? Is Ron Paul threatening “white America”? Are you afraid to lose your “picket fence”, your “long,tall glass of lemonade”?
It seems like the Clintons and Bushs have bigger “race” issues than anyone else. They are the ones getting booed at rallies and repeatedly attacked for their PRESENT actions. They are the ones that have been elected and may be again. Perhaps that is who you should be focusing upon.
Jan 15, 2008 - 7:10 am Marcus:Ron Paul is unassailable on his voting record. Ron Paul’s policy platform consists of nothing more “fringe” or “radical” than adherence to the US Constitution. People of every ethnic and racial stripe who have ever known or worked with Ron Paul testify in unison to his unquestionable integrity and honesty. They will tell you that the man is Founding Father material, a national treasure.
So I guess it makes sense that all you can do is attack him for his unknown association to bigots, an unfortunate circumstance for which he has taken moral responsibility more than ten years ago.
If it is true that people are generally motivated by fear, ask yourself what you’re afraid of.
Go Ron Paul!
Jan 15, 2008 - 7:41 am dan:The president of the NAACP has already cleared him, this is no longer relevant. “Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.”
http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134.html
Jan 15, 2008 - 8:33 am charles ranalli:boring and predictable.
boring and predictable.
Ron Paul stands up for the people of America - so he must be an enemy of Jews and Blacks.
we’ve heard it all before -
and nobody’s taking you seriously.
charles ranalli
albuquerque
Jan 15, 2008 - 8:33 am rob:HERE’S SOMETHING TO WRITE ABOUT
Why haven’t you and others been demanding answers rom “frontrunner” Hillary Clinton for throwing Senator Robert Byrd (former Grand Cyclops of the KKK) a birthday party in the historic home of Frederick Douglass in 2005?
The president of the ACLU just endorsed Ron and has been a personal friend for 20 years.
SO ARE YOU HAPPY OR SAD THAT THERE IS ONE LESS RACIST IN THE WORLD? I BELIEVE YOUR SAD, NOW HOW SAD IS THAT?
Jan 15, 2008 - 8:36 am rob:What’s interesting is not the story itself, but to watch the media, working as one, pushing a 15-year-old story that’s been readily available to them for years, as “BREAKING NEWS”
When our information sources are ultimately controlled by five mega-corporations, they can whip up a story out of thin air and tell us exactly how we feel about any given candidate. Just think if this piece was about the fact that Giuliani is considered a fraud and a coward by NY firemen? You people would automatically be up in arms about that, wouldn’t you? What if the corporations decided to whip up a story about Hillary’s extremely shady past with Bill (complete with body count)? Gee, then you people would be outraged about that. How about Marge Shoedinger? She actually filed charges against GW Bush and accused him of rape and brutality, and then she “committed suicide”. Let the corporations break that story …
You see, when our information sources are bought and sold, a few people can calmly decide what you’ll spend your time and energy on. They can withhold terrible truths, and they can turn trivialities into grand melodramas–as you see here.
So they’ve handed you 15-year-old photo copies, and now you lab rats can get outraged on cue, and respond according to the program, and only think about what you’re instructed to think about.
Jan 15, 2008 - 8:38 am joey:How often does a politician claim to be “morally responsible” for an utterly racist screed printed in his name? Ron Paul did. He didn’t “blithely” shrug it off. He stated the facts and accepted moral responsibility for what was published. You can criticize his politics all you like, those are fair points for contention. But I’ve never read anything that leads me to believe Ron Paul approaches racism. How many other politicians decry the disgusting groupthink of bigotry? If you want to criticize Ron Paul, criticize him on policy. But it’s intellectually and morally unfair to continually harp on this issue that he has explained, for which he has apologized and accepted responsibility. Except for a few bad apples, his supporters are people who demand recognition of the rights and liberties intrinsic to being a human, not a member of a race.
Shoddy work, Mike.
P.S. - Trust me, being a libertarian hardly confers an aura of legitimacy.
P.P.S -
“You people are in some very exclusive company in history. Many of the best of the Nazi tools of the 3rd Reich come to mind…”
…so, B. Dub, you’ve lost the argument already.
Jan 15, 2008 - 8:41 am Josh:“the now-notorious newsletters that James Kirchick painstakingly exposed and reprinted in the New Republic last week”
hahahahahahahahahahahaha….are you serious? This is OLD news! james Kirchick didn’t do jack-squat but regurgitate an old story that has been hashed and re-hashed.
Your attempt to pass this off as actual news has failed.
Jan 15, 2008 - 10:03 am Brad:Alas, the foolery of circumstantial evidence continues.
The ivory tower of false intellect is re-enforced out of arrogance.
Little do they realize that their child like abilities of reason will doom their children to slaves. If only they had to struggle to gain what they have, it would not be so easily relinquished.
The idea of “if you say/hear it enough, it must be true” is the folly of their logic.
Have sorrow for your children for they are the ones that will reap what you sow. The America that will be handed them will not resemble what it is today.
Fools will destroy themselves when given the chance. How unfortunate that others must suffer their ignorance.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul.
Jan 15, 2008 - 10:24 am scott:Michael Weiss you are a jerk . do you know how many times RP has had to account for articles not written by him in the last 20 years.So many times he must be tired of answering to them .he has taken moral responsibility for them. You are a ass for publishing Ron Paul’s name and trying to associate it with high profile bigots . Screw you . I hope we meet some day . are you even a American?
Jan 15, 2008 - 10:35 am BeaReady:VOTE NOW Biggest Bigot President 2008
Great youtube here compliments this topic! VOTE NOW!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZwodzz2h44
DIGG IT!
Jan 15, 2008 - 10:44 am bkusz:http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/VOTE_NOW_Biggest_Bigot_for_President_2008
Another irresponsible and disrespectful BS hit piece on Ron Paul. It takes cowardly ignorant people with an agenda to cast the BS accusations against a man that has stated in public that his heroes are Rosa Parks, MLK, Gahndi and others. It takes even a bigger ignorant disrespectful fool to believe it.
Please, if your so inclined to trash Ron Paul, have the guts to say who you are voting for so we Paul supporters can cast even bigger stones..
So who you voting for??? Did not think you would say…
Bkusz
Jan 15, 2008 - 12:12 pm OmegaPaladin:If Ron Paul wants to be the hero here, he needs to admit that these are his work. I’ve always gotten the impression that Paul was an honest man - you know what you are getting with him. I completely disagree with his stated policies, but he wasn’t trying to hide them and sneak himself in. All he had to do was state that his views changed
Jan 15, 2008 - 2:14 pm Justacanuck:According to the ever-handy website archive.org, this notice was added to the site somewhere around early May 2007.
Jan 15, 2008 - 4:26 pm Peddler:Who is Michael Weiss and why is his opinion important? What has he contributed to the good other than - hell, I have no idea of what he has contributed. And why is he after Ron Paul. I don’t know much about Ron Paul but from what I do know, racism is not one of his vices if you will. Letters published years ago without his agreement still haunt him today? Only in the minds of those suffering from obsessive, compulsive disorder. Way to go Weiss.
Jan 15, 2008 - 5:31 pm Jerry Scott:Who gave you a license to smear Ron Paul? I hope you have to apologize to Dr. Paul some day! How about today?
Jan 15, 2008 - 11:19 pm hcbrand:CitiBank is collapsing, Countrywide was just bailed-out (bought) by Bank of America for “pennies on the dollar. While our status quo political leaders talk in ubiquitous phrases such as war on terror, raising up America and Change! Change is already here. It’s called Socialism. And not until the government controls every last penny you have, will the conformists wake-up and cry for their liberties.
Jan 16, 2008 - 5:41 am hcbrand:CitiBank is collapsing, Countrywide was just bailed-out (bought) by Bank of America for “pennies on the dollar. While our status quo political leaders talk in ubiquitous phrases such as war on terror, raising up America and Change! Change is already here. It’s called Socialism. And not until the government controls every last penny you have, will the conformists wake-up and cry for their liberties.
Jan 16, 2008 - 5:48 am mbellar:The cult buzzes on. Ron Paul is a joke, his cult beyond funny. The man could commit murder and if posted about on the net would get the same results as this.
What is sad however is that Paul is destroying Libertarianism…
http://rightwatch.tblog.com/
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/01/11/ron-pauls-ugly-newsletters/
http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/042376.php
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/01/the_rockwell_files.cfm
The sooner Paul leads his cult to the mothership the better.
Jan 16, 2008 - 10:21 am S. Hirley:I am of African origin and I agree with everything in those old Ron Paul newsletters. I think we have too much egghead oppression of “raving rednecks” (this very term is racist). Let the native born whites say what they want, let them put their ideas out in the public and let the public vote.
Jan 17, 2008 - 2:06 pm