Posted on 12/20/2011 12:26:59 PM PST by SeekAndFind
So as Ron Paul is on track to win the Iowa caucuses, he is getting a new dose of press scrutiny.
And the press is focusing on the newsletters that went out under his name in the late 1980s and early 1990s. They were called the Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report and the Ron Paul Investment Letter.
There is no doubt that the newsletters contained utterly racist statements.
Some choice quotes:
* "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."
* "We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational."
* After the Los Angeles riots, one article in a newsletter claimed, "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."
* One referred to Martin Luther King Jr. as "the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and who "seduced underage girls and boys"
* Another referred to Barbara Jordan, a civil rights activist and congresswoman as "Barbara Morondon," the "archetypical half-educated victimologist."
* Other newsletters had strange conspiracy theories about homosexuals, the CIA, and AIDS.
In 1996 when the Texas Monthly investigated the newsletters, Paul took responsibility for them and said that certain things were taken out of context. (It's hard to imagine a context that would make the above quotes defensible.)
When the newsletter controversy came up again during the 2008 campaign, Paul explained that he didn't actually write the newsletters but because they carried his name he was morally responsible for their content. Further, he didn't know exactly who wrote the offensive things
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Actually, I've read a dozen totally different "authorized" "real stories" from "I know Ron Paul and the real story and the real person who wrote these articles on an unauthorized basis and dang-it he even kept writing after Dr. Pauls said don't write them and he had to publish them because they were written and our erasers were stolen by the crypto fascists from Albania" Ron Paul supporters. Paul is either a racist or too incompetent to be President. Or a nut. Or all three. I'm betting on the trifecta.
If Ron Paul didn’t approve the material that went out under his name, he’s incompetent. In the 1990s, I worked for a company that created editorial content for several different newsletters (both business and financial) - for example, Joe Blow’s Investment Letter or Joe Blow’s Management Letter. Joe Blow generally wrote an editorial for each issue and Joe Blow approved all the articles we wrote before they were published. It’s unbelievable to me that Ron Paul wouldn’t know who wrote his newsletters.
Oust Ron Paul NOW!
Misses the point, so far as Murray Rothbard was concerned though. Rothbard was always going to extremes. He had an insensitivity about things like this. It was part of who he was. And it didn't change or go away.
Nobody would seriously expect Rothbard to be a convinced and committed racist, but that blind spot about slavery and segregation was pretty glaring. You could say something similar about Rockwell. And Paul? Hard to say.
Exactly! Through all those decades, that guy didn't pick up some of his newsletter trash and read it on an airplane flight, while waiting for dinner to arrive at a restaurant, while sitting on the can. BS, he is as racist and nuts as the letters depict. He is an accomplice in their distribution and owns them. Ron Paul needs to be ousted NOW!
Most of what he says in these quotes, and a few others I’ve seen, are true, or nearly true, with some mild exaggeration.
They just aren’t politically correct.
But not very smart for anyone to say who is planning to run for President.
Now Paul is denying any responsibility for saying these things. Well, it was his newsletter, so he’s responsible, whether he wrote them or not. I think he probably did.
So, say something largely true but politically correct, and then lie about it. Or, from the leftist point of view, speak like a racist. They will continue to hit him with this.
Martin Luther King WAS a womanizer. I think I recall that he had two affairs on the day he died. And he plagiarized his Harvard thesis. He wasn’t a bad guy, in many ways, but he had these little problems. And toward the time of his death, he was becoming a rabble rouser in places like Dearborn, unfortunately.
Ron Paul is like a guy who drives a bank robbery get-away car for 15 years and then denies knowing that his gang was robbing banks all those times he was sitting outside.
Paul, Rockwell, and Rothbard are/were JBS-style, “old right” palaeolibertarians with a fixation on the evils of “Zionism.”
Erik Holder, I was thinking it all sounded more like Bart Simpson. “I didn’t do it, even I did no one saw me do it - so it didn’t happen” (Or something like that)
While I recognize that this is an official “Ron Paul is CRAZY, NUTS, RACIST!” thread, a small amount of common sense might be applied.
The last time one of these newsletters was published was in the 2002 timeframe. Most were published in the 1980’s or 1990’s. The first article that I’ve seen discussing them was the one referenced in the article in 2006. So, the time period between when the latest one was published and the time that the authorship was first questioned looks to be about 4 years. It’s quite possible that Ron Paul might not remember who actually wrote these atricles.
But let’s face it. Truth doesn’t matter on an official “Ron Paul is CRAZY, NUTS, RACIST!” thread. So we return you to the rant still in progress.
Nor, apparently, does the truth matter when trying to refute the painfully obvious fact that Ron Paul is indeed unfit to Represent the Republican party in in a presidential election, due to his abhorrent views on Iran, Bradley Manning, and many other topics.
RE: It’s quite possible that Ron Paul might not remember who actually wrote these atricles.
Still, one wonders whether he ever READS the articles before allowing them to be published under HIS NAME.
This still makes one wonder whether he knows how to MANAGE things — an absolutely essential quality for a President.
Let’s say he isn’t a nut, how does he get off with calling Bachmann a Muslim hater and Santorum a gay hater just a few days ago on one of the most popular night time shows in America?
Andrew Dice Clay should sue Ron Paul for plagarism, I remember this joke in his routine back in the 1990's.
Heck, Rush Limbaugh should sue them both for plagiarism. I'm sure you'd find he was saying the same thing at the time.
“Still, one wonders whether he ever READS the articles before allowing them to be published under HIS NAME.”
I think he probably did read them. And he could have even had a part in writing them. Who knows? And in retrospect, it was a boneheaded move to allow those things to be written in his name. There is nothing he can do about it now.
But 20-25 years later, is it all that relevant? No moreso than I’d say Newt’s marital issues or Rick Perry’s onetime support of algore.
“This still makes one wonder whether he knows how to MANAGE things — an absolutely essential quality for a President.”
I don’t think you understand Ron Paul. He isn’t interested in managing things or being a great leader or his “presidential legacy”. He’s interested in ideology. If elected, his goal would be to cut government back to it’s bare minimum. And I think he would be perfectly content to veto darn near every bill that comes across his desk and ignore the consequences: he’s not going to run for re-election. So what kind of manager do you need to be to wield a VETO stamp?
“Let’s say he isn’t a nut, how does he get off with calling Bachmann a Muslim hater and Santorum a gay hater just a few days ago on one of the most popular night time shows in America?”
Easily. He simply says it. His supporters (in general) deeply support him. Comments like that aren’t going to turn them off. The leftmedia isn’t going to call him out: they want him to be a 3rd party spoiler. The only ones who really have an interest in him failing are his opponents in the gop-e. And hence that’s where we’re seeing the talking points coming from.
“Nor, apparently, does the truth matter when trying to refute the painfully obvious fact that Ron Paul is indeed unfit to Represent the Republican party in in a presidential election.”
LOL! You really don’t understand. Contrary to the views of those expressed on these and similar threads, Ron Paul is not an idiot. He knows he has a low chance of being the gop nominee. Sure, he’ll accept it if it somehow falls into his lap, but that’s very unlikely.
BTTT.
As far as I'm concerned, Rep. Ron Paul just endorsed Bachmann and Santorum! I don't hate Muslims and I'm not suggesting we arrest homosexuals (though the colonial law codes **DID** criminalize homosexuality when the Founders wrote the Constitution, and Rep. Paul ought to care about original intent), but I do hate Islamofascism and radical gay activism, and if somebody gets attacked for “hating” Muslims and homosexuals, I don't think that's a bad thing. You can tell a lot about a person by who his or her enemies are.
33 posted on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:27:43 PM by SeekAndFind: “RE: It’s quite possible that Ron Paul might not remember who actually wrote these atricles. Still, one wonders whether he ever READS the articles before allowing them to be published under HIS NAME. This still makes one wonder whether he knows how to MANAGE things — an absolutely essential quality for a President.”
I'll cut Rep. Paul a bit of slack on this one. Ghostwriters for books and speechwriters for public appearances have been a part of politics for a very long time. He took the blame for saying they came out with his name, and may very well not remember which of several ghostwriters wrote the stuff.
Back before tape recorders were standard for reporters and we usually used handwritten notes, I can think of cases that I got a call from a speechwriter for so-and-so saying, “I know my boss didn't say what you quoted him in your article as saying, I wrote the speech and I have the text in front of me.” Then I would have to go find several people who were there and see if they remembered the comment I had quoted — more often that not, the speechwriter (who wasn't in the room when the speech was delivered) had written one thing and the official had said something different.
I personally write or at least heavily edit every word that appears under my name, with no exceptions. I'm in the business of writing. Most politicians aren't. Ghostwriters can and have caused serious problems in the past for politicians, and as long as Rep. Paul acknowledges he's responsible for everything appearing with his name regardless of whether he wrote it or not, I'll accept that.
Seems no one had a problem with Obama going to a racist church for 20 years...If McCain had a pastor like that he would have had to drop out of the race.
Peoples views and opinions change. LBJ was by all accounts considered pretty racist in the day, but passed a lot of social programs. Senator Byrd used to be a Klansman...Why does the left always get a pass on these things?
Unfortunately, Paul will not be considered a serious candidate anyway, even though he views are more aligned with common sense and self reliance...which is what made this country great.
Romney will be shoved down our throats by the press, we will like it, and Obama will serve another term. Long live the shell game of supposedly having a real choice.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.