Posted on 01/11/2008 6:59:44 AM PST by jdm
Reason Magazine has long associated themselves with the Ron Paul campaign, if not officially endorsing him. Their Hit & Run blog has served as the heart of rational Paul apologetics, and in their skilled hands, that has proven essential to his campaign. Now, as the magazine has Paul on its cover, its new editor has the unpleasant task of looking a little more closely at the candidate, and Matt Welch finds it an unpleasant journey.
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. ...
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.
Indeed. Rather than claiming he had never read these newsletters, as Paul absurdly did on CNN last night, Paul claimed that he himself wrote the newsletters. Matt Welch find this in the contemporaneous Dallas Morning News report on the newsletters during Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign (May 22, 1996, emphasis mine):
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. [...]
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.
Matt has more examples of Paul's non-denials in 1996. Twelve years later, Paul wants people to believe that not only did he not write any of his newsletters, he never read them either. His role in the single most effective piece of outreach of his organization, he explained to Wolf Blitzer last night, was as a publisher -- one who didn't bother to read his own publication. These 1996 quotes put lie to his CNN interview answers.
Not only does this show dishonesty, but it indicates that Paul had a lot more involvement in the publication of the despicable statements found in his own newsletter than Paul or his less-rational apologists want to admit. The supremacists and conspiracy theorists surrounding his campaign apparently got attracted by more than just Paul's views on the Constitution; they read the newsletters and determined that Paul was one of them. His refusal to recant in 1996 and his explanation that he can't recall ever reading the newsletters today signal to them that he still wants their support.
People wonder why this matters, given Paul's fringe appeal. It matters because we can't allow this kind of hatred to get legitimized in mainstream politics again. This kind of rhetoric used to be mainstream, and not just in the South, either. Republicans cannot allow the party to get tainted by the stench of racism and conspiracy mongering. If enough of us don't step up and denounce it, strongly and repeatedly, we will not be able to avoid it.
Matt Welch and the people at Reason have reached that same conclusion in regards to libertarianism and their magazine. Good for them, even if it came a little late.
The neocons are starting to to sweat, hence the vicious attacks on Paul.
Saddest in all this is that I think Paul will get 6% which will make Hillary Queen.
Bubba won using Ross and when something works folks tend to use it again.
Ron Paul took responsibility for those articles and apologized for them.
But that is clearly not enough for the new 'right wing' PC police.
2001 - a Paul quote - “weren’t written by me”
1996 - not a Paul quote - the part of the article that said “when he wrote the columns” could be an assumption made by the Dallas Morning News. Paul might have just said “I was not a racist, I do not evoke stereotypes, read the entire article.”
He might not have known what the person was talking about exactly.
From what I have here, the facts surrounding 1996 are vague.
It would be easier to see a conflict if Paul said in 1996 “I wrote every one of the articles in every one of my newsletters.” Did he say that? What did he say?
If the question is “were they Paul’s words?” I’d say that the evidence points to no, unless there’s a direct quote from Paul in 1996.
Ron Paul took responsibility for those articles and apologized for them.
Which story has he taken responsibility for? That he wrote them or that he ignored them? Is he racist or incompetent.
I had no problems with the links.
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.
Very much wishful thinking. Another classic trait of a Ron Paul supporter. You folks have become stereotypes.
Actually they like student visas.
Any 'tough' talk about ending that program?
” Dr Ron Paul- “...anyone who thinks them is small minded”
he never does deny thinking racist thoughts.
Ron is like satan and very slippery.
I am aghast that the GOP and is electorate continue to pay his salary.
Oh what’s this?
His highness is addressing me?
Gee, I thought I was condemned to “scroll over territory”?
Which story has he taken responsibility for? That he wrote them or that he ignored them? Is he racist or incompetent.
He took responsibility for not keeping a closer eye on what was being written in the newsletters under his name.
But his issues on race are made very clear on his website.
But that will never suffice for the PC police.
Probably one of the most often used defenses of Ron Paul's indefensible positions.
His supporters always seem to divine some alternate meaning to his statements. He never seems to mean what he says, at least according to all the Ron Paul supporters. He must be a "complex" individual.
What was the Ron Paul quote in 1996 “where he admitted authoring the newsletter”
what was the Paul quote from 1996?
You should use better bait when you go fishing. You won't "catch" a comment on that question.
“He took responsibility for not keeping a closer eye on what was being written in the newsletters under his name.”
So are you then saying that he’s incompetent and lied back in 1996 when he said, “when he wrote the columns.”
Austin Chronicle - Nov 1, 1996
http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid%3A525510
(unrelated but interesting comment)..Paul's press secretary, claims that Morris, in his "faux East Texas accent, tells individuals on the campaign trail that Ron Paul is a Nazi." Morris denies it, of course, but the real matter at hand is that Paul considers Morris at least a tad guilty by association....
Ron Paul defends newsletter passages
Austin American-Statesman - NewsBank - Sep 26, 1996
Republican congressional candidate Ron Paul on Wednesday again found himself defending his newsletter, this time for passages he wrote in 1993 urging Americans to get foreign passports and hide assets from the government. Paul warned readers that the federal government could go bankrupt and take their assets....
POLITICS: Political Briefing;THE STATES AND THE ISSUES
New York Times - Jul 30, 1996
The newsletter, which Mr. Paul began about 1985, has claimed more than 7,000 subscribers; Mr. Paul said releasing it and other writings over his 20 years of political activity was "impractical." As for his remarks about Ms. Jordan, who was black, Mr. Paul said he was laying out a philosophical difference.
(file under strange bedfellows) Flap over Buchanan aide enters Texas race
Austin American-Statesman - NewsBank - Feb 18, 1996
Texas congressional candidate Ron Paul was passing out leaflets that noted Pratt's support of his candidacy. Pratt has made numerous speeches before groups dominated by white supremacists and right- wing militia leaders, and articles he has written have appeared in an anti-Semitic newsletter, although he says he fiercely opposes racism.
.... more to come, my video file has finished encoding and I have to jump over and finish that....
Your (2) is wrong.
Put more accurately,
it could be said that In 1996 Paul acknowledged publishership.
The Grahams do not write every article in the Washington Post. There’s a difference between Publisher and Author.
You might be able to make a valid argument “Paul hires racists” based on the available information. But you will find it difficult to make the argument “Paul is a racist” based on the available information.
Which politician do I like? Bet you cannot answer that question?
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.