Eloquent, as always, about the injustice of the prison system:
Here’s the other thing: Paul talks in the Blitzer interview about how the drug war has disproportionately sent black people to prison. He’s right. Black people use drugs in proportions only slightly higher than their share of the general population. But the proportion of blacks in prison for drugs crimes is substantially higher. They are far more likely to get arrested for drug crimes, far more likely to be convicted, and even when facing similar charges, tend to receive longer sentences than whites.A big reason why is the latent sentiment at every level of the criminal justice system—from cops to prosecutors to jurors—that black people are inherently more prone to criminality than white people. It’s sort of the opposite of "group rights." It’s "group wrongs"—or punishing black people on a individual basis for perceived transgressions by black people as a group. It’s also a form of collectivist thinking—the antithesis of libertarianism.
I have no idea if Paul is a racist. I suspect that he isn’t, at least today. But he’s certainly had no problem benefiting from the support of people who are. It’s more than a little disingenuous for him to now defend himself by invoking what the criminal justice system has done to the black community when for fifteen years a newsletter bearing his name, and the profits from which went into his bank account, celebrated and encouraged the black-people-are-savage-criminals lie in particularly vile and perverse ways.
The newsletter defended the Rodney King beating, for God’s sake, on the bullshit argument that King was part of a criminal class of people. The implication is that some people deserve substandard treatment under the rule of law because of the color of their skin. There’s nothing remotely libertarian about that.
Whether he was active or passive in the newsletters doesn’t matter. Paul perpetuated that way of thinking for more than a decade in a newsletter he published. He did it during the 1980s and 1990s, the very period over which the drug laws exacerbated the white-black disparity in America’s prisons. He can’t now use the "blacks are treated poorly by our criminal justice system" defense to distance himself from those very newsletters.
Perhaps it’s too much for us to expect Paul to turn over the names of the paleo types who wrote those screeds (if it’s true that he had no hand in writing him himself—which I’m having a harder and harder time believing), to apologize that they ever went out under his name, and to disavow and repudiate the beliefs of the paleolibertarian supporters who have propped him up for most of his career, some of whom he still calls friends.
But if he can’t, it’s also too much to ask libertarians who find those views abhorrent to continue to support him.
I admire your persistence on this point; even if the only thing Ron Paul was guilty of was a gross oversight in what was taking place in the newsletter, that kind of oversight is bad news in anyone with presidential aspirations. I mean, a president who surrounds himself with trusted associates who then act in a wide range of ways, then pleads ignorance as to what was going on under his watch -- where have I heard sharp criticisms of that before?
By this time, thought, I think we're approaching the "preaching to the choir" phase. Paul's fans aren't going to be detracted by any amount of this evidence that Paul is not cut out for the job he desires, as the previous threads have shown. In their mind, Paul's name is not preceded by "Doctor", but "Apostle".
link
Some of it is preaching to the choir, sure, but mostly it's just irrelevant.
Dr. Paul needed to absolutely dominate a state primary, to the point that the mainstream media could not help but to take notice, and do it early. IMHO, New Hampshire was his best shot at doing that, and he blew it, and I simply do not think he had any chance to get the primary even without this newsletter business.
Perhaps 'apostle' is a bit too far as well. That is also antithetical to the libertarian ideal. The individual has sovereignty, not anyone else. And with regard to the post, I fear that Radley's point is also a bit specious.
Remember, a true libertarian cares not what beliefs or values others hold, so long as those beliefs and values don't impinge on individual liberty. Let's assume that Ron Paul is being disingenuous and was aware of the inflammatory rhetoric that was housed in his newsletter. And let us also assume that I am a libertarian who was thinking of voting for Ron Paul. Do his ideas get in the way of my freedom? Do they impinge of the freedoms of blacks, Latinos, gays and other aggrieved minorities? The answer, as it was back when these revelations first surfaced, is no. Why would I drop my support for him?
You know, I think that via the intellectual elite, I read more and more of this "social engineering" talk that I find very disturbing. It's this talk that one should be punished for thinking differently from the status quo. Freedom of the individual is just that. Freedom to choose how and what you think.
I will not indict Paul if he's a racist. As a "member" of one of the putatively "aggrieved" minority groups, I just choose not do business with Paul. But at the end of the day, he's talking about what I feel are the real issues that slow the progress of American liberty. Namely, government intrusion into all aspects of our life, from social services to the size of my toilet bowl. What a mess.
I would rather have a overt racist as president who believes that I should be free to operate in the manner that I see fit than an "inclusive" president, who through the soft bigotry of rhetoric and policy, acts as if I'm too feeble of mind and character to choose for myself how I should run my life.
Because at the end of the day, racist or not, the libertarian "fantasy" posits that everyone benefits. In the big government system we have now, it truly is a zero-sum game. Shame on us.
Perhaps 'apostle' is a bit too far as well...Remember, a true libertarian cares not what beliefs or values others hold, so long as those beliefs and values don't impinge on individual liberty.
That's not the tact being taken by his blog-commenting supporters.
I'd like to see someone deal with Tony's argument, as the main points seem fairly bullet proof if you are willing to grant the 'basics' of libertarianism (which, incidentally, I'm not sure of).
Also, I think a similar argument applies (partially) to Romney, who blatantly 'reversed' many of his personal beliefs on social issues (abortion, same civil unions) as soon as he entered the race. The guy is a total phony, consummate panderer, but based solely on his history at BC you almost have to admit that he would make a competent president. As someone who's intelligent enough to start & manage a successful investment firm (which, by the way, is one of the least regulated fixtures in our economy) it would be silly to say that he doesn't 'get' the benefits & mechanics of an open society.
Posts like Radley's, and the general dismissal of Romney, shows how libertarian intellecto-sphere has basically excised all traces of pragmatism from its collective (yes, collective) analyses.
A basic result of libertarianism is that people should only be held culpable for their actions. You'd rarely get that notion from reading a libertarian blog, however.
That all said, Radley's one valid point was that Paul's (supposed) ignorance reflects poorly on his ability to keep track of his responsibilities. In fact thats basically why I'd be hesitant to vote for him - I'm doubtful of his ability to manage the intricacies of the white house.
That's a MUCH better argument against a Ron Paul candidacy than any other. When I look at candidates, I try hard to not judge them on their motivations but on their ideas. As you all know, in a representative democracy, we give up some of our individual sovereignty to have someone else run the affairs we simply cannot run on our own without collective forces (defense, some civil and judicial infrastructure, the enforcement of contracts) helping us. What ideas do these candidates have with respect to those affairs?
But for me, the less sovereignty I give up, the better. It seems the only candidate who comes closest is Paul. So if you're a libertarian--there seem to be a lot on this board--criticize Paul for what Leif says are his inabilities to be responsible and keeping HIS affairs in order.
God only knows how he would handle mine.
So, let's see, we had a president who had oral sex with an intern in the Whitehouse and the nation got over it. Now we are arguing over newsletters that are 15 years old that the guy never personally wrote. I am not sure how much more can be done on the argument. He admitted his negligence of oversight and life goes on. You can go on all you want about it, but it doesn't change anything. There is little in any way to prove he wrote it, even if the editors said it was him.
The man has never said anything like that in his policies that I have ever seen and if anything, has always gone the opposite direction.
I can promise there are no innocents and judging someone's presidential ability based on a newsletter that was published when he was back in medical practice is no different than judging someone who smoked pot when they were young or dumb. He has taken responsibility and did this years ago and is doing it again.
The idea of having a solid president who turns the country around, but has a corrupt newsletter sitting on his shoulder seems far less meaningful than anything Bush, Clinton, or probably most of the candidates has ever done.
I'm asking a completely sincere question here, so please answer patiently without use of derisive comments, etc... what exactly is racist about the comments quoted from the newsletters? I did not read the actual newsletters but I imagine that all of the quotes are the worst parts, right? Fair assumption? And so, let's take it quote by quote: 1) MLK was a philanderer with communist ties. Isn't is common knowledge that MLK cheated on his wife? And wasn't MLK spied on during the Nixon era because he was thought to have ties to the communist party? And so, yeah, maybe these words are a bit harsh, but racist??? I'm not sure those words take away from his message. I mean yeah, the man was flawed, so some people focus on that more than his message. Isn't that what we're doing with RP right now? How does that statement mean that the author hates blacks because they are black? 2) The rioters in LA were animals. Uh, duh! I don't care what color they were. Anyone who can destroy another's property, steal from and beat people because they happened to be on the street is definitely an animal. 3)The riots stopped only because the blacks had to pick up their welfare checks. Well, it was primarily angry, black youths who participated in the riots. I think that's kinda a done deal, right? If they weren't black, then why would Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters be involved? Also, these were poor blacks. Maxine Waters said the reason they were rioting was because they needed diapers. Poor people tend to be on welfare, right? I mean, isn't that what it's there for? So, I'm not sure that is racist, just an unfortunate fact. 4) Black youths are taught from birth to despise whites, their oppressors. Well, yeah. Larry Elder on his national radio show says this all the time and I've been listening to him for about 6 years. A CNN analyst one time said that all whites are born racist. So, um, if mainstream blacks can say this, don't you think young blacks are hearing it? Eric Dyson has said as much on the Bill Maher show, Real Time. So, you know, I don't know if RP wrote the words. He seems pretty honest and so I take him at his word. But, really, what is so racist in these words? They seem more unkind to me. It's not as if he was a Grand Wizard of the KKK or anything, unlike Congressman Robert Byrd. Go ahead and paint me as a racist. It kinda' doesn't mean much anymore because it is so overused. But in between calling me names, please answer my question. Are these remarks really racist?
When John McCain says: "all they're interested in is trading burkas" on the Fox show the other night, nobody seems to care. When Mitt says we have to convert all these people into having our western ideals and way of life, nobody raises an eyebrow. When Rudy rants about how much "those people" hate us, everybody either nods or shrugs. When Hucky hoists the cross in his crusade to become president, the believers joyfully swoon and everyone else thinks touting Christianity is normal and OK. The undercurrent of racism and bigotry is constant and intentional in this campaign. You score points this year if you are anti-dark-skinned foreigners. Once upon a time in American politics you could rake in the votes by warning "real" Americans about The Yellow Peril, those Eyeties, the Irish drunkards, the dumb Poles, the dangerous Germans... etc. Racism is part and parcel of the American way of life. Ron Paul was, however, the only guy to say Yes to appearing on the debates to be hosted by blacks. There is not one sound bite with him uttering a racist remark. His CNN reply to Wolf Blitzer was accepted and applauded by Wolf, who would not have been so nice if he really believed that RP was being deceitful. Hey, in the end it comes down to: Would you rather have a guy who wants to stay in Iraq for a 100 years, a guy who wants to double the size of Guantanamo, a guy bent on making you give up more of your personal freedoms, or someone who says: Live free and without interference from government, but adhere to the social contract and don't infringe the freedom of your fellow-person. I'll take the Freedom Freak.
I would have to speak up and deny you the integrity or relevance of your analysis. The very basis for this hatchet job has been soundly debased. That you would persist in continuing it shows only your ignorance of the facts and your willingness to cowtow to this vial propaganda machine.
The fact of the matter is that the Newsletter appears to be nothing more than a free speech message board. In actuality, this Newsletter does a lot to show to the American people an important part of their history on race relations.
I find it extremely disturbing that the media would choose to highlight only a few articles from a decade long publication. The media need to stop their targetted cherry-picking and inform the audience of the rest of the rest of this free-speech newsletter or be held accountable on charges of libel.
Is, or was, Ron Paul a racist? I don't know, and I have no way of knowing. His platform and his speeches and writings, for at least the last ten years that are easily available online, offer no hint that he thinks that way.
Should Ron Paul be disqualified as a presidential candidate because he showed poor judgment and suspect managerial skills when the newsletters were being published? Only if you imagine the president as some sort of super-CEO, managing the affairs of an army of bureaucrats.
Personally, I'd be overjoyed with a barely competent executive who spoke out clearly and often for smaller government and the Bill of Rights, and who vetoed every ridiculous spending bill, government bailout, and assault on our liberties coming out of Congress.
Maybe someday the pro-liberty movement will have a more qualified and more charismatic spokesman, but right now Ron Paul is as good as it gets, by a wide margin.
Tony, I'm totally with you on everything you said.
Dr. Paul isn't a racist and to me, he's not trying to stop me from being one... or a non-racist for that matter. He doesn't care what I do, as long as it's legal.
Bottom line is, he's not racist and his supporters expected this kind of disingenuous attack from the first time they heard of him.
My first thought is "They'll never let him get elected. They'll turn him into the republican Denis Kucinich."
I wish "they" were never born.
Megan: "It’s more than a little disingenuous for him to now defend himself by invoking what the criminal justice system has done to the black community when for fifteen years a newsletter bearing his name, and the profits from which went into his bank account, celebrated and encouraged the black-people-are-savage-criminals lie in particularly vile and perverse ways."
There is nothing disingenuous in Congressman Paul saying that he wants to end the War on Drugs (something he's been saying for quite a long time)and pardon those who have been imprisoned for using medicinal marijuana. He's only pointing out to morons who can't put one and two together that his stance on the Drug war benefits the group he's being accused of being prejudiced against. You state yourself, just like Kirchick has, that you don't think Paul is a racist yet you get all dramatic with your adjectives ( "celebrated and encouraged" and "particularly vile and perverse") to make a point that you don't think exist anymore. The point is that we support what Ron Paul stands for today, just like Obama supporters stand for who he is today, rather than the crackhead he was at one time. You are just like so many over-reative rush-to-judgement people who ignore your own hypocrisies. Our man Ron Paul is just as viable a candidate for the presidency as anyone out there, and we believe much more so. Everyone is talking about change which they can't or won't deliver without first doing what Ron Paul has been talking about doing, ending this stupid War on Terror. All the idiots out voting in record numbers for Obama and Hillary are not paying attention to what they are saying. They're talking about ending the war but they're going to take to 5 years to do it, that's how long the current administration wants in order to build their Vatican sized base. and make it secure. I'm surrounded by these idiot supporters who think Obama is all anti-war. The war is the big topic because that is where you have to stop the financial bleeding before you can begin to do anything, that is where the president can make an immediate difference "change", and that is what Ron Paul is willing to do better and sooner than anyone else. And then closing so many costly bases around the world that are entirely unnecessary.
this whole "ron paul is a dirty racist" story is just getting old...
he's clearly not a racist. of course, a lot of people are convinced of this one way or another because of his so-called "fringe" views and they are apt to believe just about anything anyone says about him, however unplausible.
ugh...i'm done.
Look folks, if Paul outed the person(s) most responsible for the content of those letters, then Paul would then, reciprocally, find himself in the position to acknowledge those HE DID WRITE. He wouldn't be able to scapegoat another completely without them speaking out on behalf of Paul's contributions to those letters, if you catch my drift. And who knows what else is out there?
It's a catch 22 for the campaign; a damned if you do, and damned if you don't scenario. However, clearly Ron Paul decided years ago that the secret is better kept a secret at All Political Costs. For the Truth is far worse than even the appearance of incompetency.
And that should give every Paul supporter pause for reflection.
Hey dudes, we're getting the exact same shit above that shows why the Paulites give off the impression of being a) clueless b) racists c) have no idea what being a President entails.
A POTUS may not be a super-CEO, but if you want to be a leader you better damn well take responsibility for actions carried out in your name. And you'd better keep an eye on what your underlings are doing. Craig gives the impression he couldn't care doodly-squat if a Ron Paul administration was filled with Race War fanatics running around with guns blowing away every dark-skinned person in sight, provided that the dear prexy made pretty libertarian speeches and vetoed everything. Paul didn't seem to care about making his bed with some pretty scummy groups--how in the heck do we know he won't continue to associate with them?
(And guys, going around saying "but what was said in the newsletters was all correct!" doesn't help you. You're just digging the hole deeper.)
and since when did megan start "approving" comments???
whenever anyblog needs to "approve" something, i get nervous. they could just delete the ones they disagree with. not saying that happens here, but if it does, we wouldn't know it would we?
ok...last time i promise: NOW i'm done.
really.
God you are insufferable McArdle. Ron Paul is running for President, not King of Lynchlandia. At the risk of you passing out over hearing about someone who has associated in some way with someone else who held racist views on some topics, I'd wager a good portion of the other candidates have associates who have used the "N" word negatively. Privileged and rich and power-driven white men, it's a shock to you I know. And unlike Ron Paul, those candidates with a history in Washington have voted for policies that usually take a hot poker to the ass of those on the lower economic rungs.
It would be expected to get the "Ron Paul is evil" treatment from the standard enlightened leftists at Atlantic. But they hired you as the token fiscal conservative, not the equivalent of Alan Colmes, for christ's sake. Can't you at least pretend to grasp the important issues facing our country?
After, reading this article and the comments about MLK, it struck me that when ever someone comes around who be a real change and a good change there are people who and certain government agencies that will try to smear their name. For example, MLK is linked to communist. John Lennon I believe was a doper that had to be deported.
The Internet like any other Media will have such people. Should anyone be surprised that Ron Paul would be smeared, I don't think so.
However, it is good that Ron has been smeared and it is good that Megan along with Fox News are tireless in their pursuit of Ron Paul because when he is attacked it appears to bring out that self defense self preservation instincts that he has.
He was feisty on the Fox debates and by refusing to appear on Hannity and Clomes he has started sending a messages to those who would falsely discredit him. He was once a regular on Tucker until the Bunny Ranch.
Ghandi had his faults and Ron Paul has them also what I don't believe is that the things you fault him on are true.
Even his message to the 9/11 conspiracy guys was clear. If you truly support Ron you need to keep to Ron's message otherwise you are hurting Ron. Your free to believe and represent what you want but understand that Ron does not share your views on 9/11.
All things said Megan, I am sure that there is a certain news organization that will oblige you with some appearances and publications.
I like Ron Paul but I would certainly argue against him if it got me readership and attention that I crave so please do not think that I do not admire your tactics. Hey money talks right :-)
I don't know if there's one Paulbot here or many. Megan, do we have an IP address for these posts?
But could some Ron Paul defender please explain his flip-flop I posted on earlier; First he wrote the articles but they were "taken out of context." Then he didn't write the articles and apparently wasn't aware of them. And he abhors what was written but it's not important and he was totally oblivious to what was being written under his name.
He is either a liar, incompetent, or senile. None of those make for a good president. Or even a good protest vote.
Political Correctness or Facism
I am not nor ever have been a racist. I have had a few people in my life who were and are. I cannot tell you how many times i have fought with them on the subject and how it offended me to hear somethings they might have said. Now despite the discrimination they have for various groups; they never did anything to disenfranchise anyone ever based on race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. In fact all these aforementioned people have had friends who were of all of these various groups. Even though they didnt like blacks or hispanics or whatever ;Which is considered to be "politically incorrect"; in their actions, and in the fact they are actually good people and were less likely to treat anybody poorly or unfairly.
Then you have these hypocrites in the media and in other political venues , who cry foul and racism and they in fact with all their political correctness will disenfranchise anyone who does not fit in their ideal race, gender etc... They will say rights for Blacks or Gays and work behind the scenes to stab them in the back. With all their tap dancing and pussy footing around their words to maintain the politically correct rhetoric they are in deed actively destructive to anyone who isn't in their club.
I live in NYC and when you talk about all the different groups that exist here , no where in the world comes close. What i have discovered over the years is that "The Machine" has basically used these arguments of racism or whatever-ism to effectively limit our personal freedom; with the argument of political correctness.
I believe that i as a sovereign American citizen have the right to like love, disregard or even hate anyone i choose. Thats right anybody for any reason. Now I personally do not currently hate anybody because of their race , religion , gender or orientation; I am however beginning to hate these immoral m--f--'ers who are manipulating our constitution, destroying our integrity as a people, who are twisting the words of the people who they should be supporting the most.
I do not know how Dr. Ron Paul feels specifically about people of different social and ethnic groups. I am willing to bet he is not a bigot. I base that on the fact that as a doctor he has helped even people who were not able to afford medical care; for free, without letting it drain the money of the taxpayer. I also think that it does not matter if he likes you personally or as a group or not. what is important is that he treats everyone fairly. As someone who follows The Constitution as he does he is bound to treat everyone fairly. The Constitution, our contract with the people we choose to represent us, you an d I, we who govern, was ratified with the intent to enforce our liberty as stated in The Declaration of Independence (We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed).
It is a travesty we have lost our liberties and we are being suckered into a fascist state. I don't know about anyone else but i rather know that someone hates my stupid daygo ass and treat me fairly then have somebody who would refer to me perhaps as an honorable, hardworking, son of Italian immigrants and then is willing to disenfranchise me of my life liberty and prosperity.
Interesting take. The only way you can convincingly push your thesis in this article would be to apply your logic fairly. If Paul is unjustified in using racially biased drug policies to defend himself, then you must address how Huckabee manipulates and abuses Christianity and its sacraments to boost his own ratings. You must also call out Romney when he talks about job growth seeing as he made millions in the private sector eliminating them. I also think it is unreasonable of you to expect Paul to divulge the names of the writers who purportedly made the comments you describe. I think the right to express yourself regardless of majority opinion is a big part of this "America" thing I keep hearing about.
This is the dirt, and apparently the only dirt. It was his name, but he didn't author it nor edit it. It seems that no one disagrees with his statement that he didn't know about the contents.
Nothing else to dig, but people keep talking about it. Hhhmmmm, what are people really afraid of?
Why are people afraid of a smaller government that will leave each of us alone?
He couldn't of wrote it, because the libertarian philosophy of indivdual rights, born we are the same, and are entitled to our Human rights (for the non-believer) or "God given rights." This means all people, regardless of what group association. What's even more admirable is the fact that he accepts the responsibility for not paying close enough attention under his name.
Open your mind to the libertarian philosophy, respect for all humanity, even if you dislike somone, respect their individuality. Respect the Human equation. Still voting Ron Paul 2008! :)
I dont believe RP is a bigot or a racist and I bet you know that also. The points you make are ....well...desperate sounding. I did enjoy reading the other comments(by the bot), The most interesting thing youll find about RP supprters is that they are a diverse and eclectic group of human beings, although there may be some racists among them... I can guarantee you that I am not! wake up now or wake up later america chooses...vote RP
Happy new year all
Actually, I quite admire Dr. Paul for not ratting out whomever wrote the newsletters. I don't know if he's doing it because it was a friend to whom he's loyal (even though he disagrees on racial issues), or if he know that the person who wrote those words no longer believes those things (and shouldn't have to burn alive in a media witch hunt), if he believes those words were written when America was on the verge of a race war (and therefore should be discounted within that context), or if he is simply maintaining his contractual obligations regarding confidentiality. The point is, he could gain a lot from spilling the beans, and he is loosing a lot by staying silent. And yet, Paul's integrity is guiding him to do the latter. That provides for a fairly flattering measure of the man -- for sure more than we could expect from any of the other pandering, flip-flopping candidates.
I've seen this smear a hundred times now. There are a few details to point out.
First of all, did anyone notice all the quotes used (at least the ones I've seen) seem to be from 1992? I know the newsletter was around longer than that, but that seems to be the key year in this controversy. Dr. Paul was not a Congressman at this time, and had no presidential aspirations, having recently just been through the '88 campaign. He was a doctor, not a politician, at that time.
Second, hasn't anyone noticed that tons of people speak for Dr. Paul every single day without his knowledge? This has obviously been going on for a long time. It's the nature of the libertarian beast. We don't shut up.
Third, look at the writing style. That stuff isn't Ron Paul. It's so unbelievably obvious that I cannot imagine anyone literate not seeing the difference.
So, what are the exact expectations of a country doctor, retired from politics, who has a bunch of followers who write several newsletters in his name while he practices medicine? Would you, in that position, be overly worried about following those newsletters closely, especially if you didn't think you were going back to politics?
As for the switch on the explanation, he had a Republican political consultant (now deceased) tell him to do it the first way back in the 90's when he first returned to Congress, and he made the mistake of listening. He doesn't use consultants any more.
"Open your mind to the libertarian philosophy, respect for all humanity, even if you dislike somone, respect their individuality."
...Which is precisely what the content of these newsletters does NOT do. I might also add that Paul's position on immigration and birthright citizenship would seem to lack a "respect for all humanity" and most certainly does not "respect their (immigrants) individuality."
As for whether Paul could have written the material, I might add that the only other possible authors sure consider(ed) themselves adherents to the libertarian philosophy.
"He can’t now use the "blacks are treated poorly by our criminal justice system" defense to distance himself from those very newsletters."
He has always said that, even in 1988 when he ran for President.
The newsletter defended the Rodney King beating, for God’s sake, on the bullshit argument that King was part of a criminal class of people.
I guess that's technically true, if the criminal class to which he refers is people who resist arrest in ways that could reasonably be interpreted as threatening. That's the only justification I've seen the newsletter give for the Rodney King beating (pages 3-4 of this PDF). I certainly haven't seen any evidence for what Balko's implying--that the newsletter defended the beating on the grounds that King was black, or even that he was a criminal.
"I have no idea if Paul is a racist. I suspect that he isn’t, at least today."
He has been trying to get rid of the war on drugs since it began. What he says of late regarding campaign issues are what he has been saying for decades.
Ron is right. Especially with the "war" on drugs. What's the big deal? Just because he speaks truths many don't like to hear doesn't mean he is a racist. The CIA put the drugs in the streets and manipulated the media to get poor people to worship the "bling." There is no war. All your tent cities protesting drugs are delusional.
Do you hear some of the things America's Black and Hispanic "leaders" are saying these days? Come on! Playing the race card is intellectually dishonest. Hell, listen closely to your beloved Clintons. While these other elitist candidates have openly admitted to continuing the Bush/Clinton Dynasty for the past 20 years, the only true change is Ron Paul.
Ryan W., In response to your question about the "flip-flop". The 1996 articles, and there were more than just the Dallas Morning News article referred in your link. Follow the chain to its source over at reason and you get a much better picture. There's a very strong suggestion that the "out of context" was in reference to the "fleet of foot" comment and that comment alone. These further comments, insulting a fellow congresswoman, as well as gays, black and MLK seem to be the ones he's talking about when he says he had nothing to do with them. There's a quote where he calls the slurs to the congresswoman "unfortunate" because he respects her greatly. So essentially, he's not flip-flopping, he's referring to very specific items from the newsletter in the Dallas Morning News quote, but in other quotes is referring to the other comments that appeared, which, one does need to understand, were fairly rare across the history of the Newsletter. One would have to specificlly search out these racist diatribes, if one were say, only periodically checking in and reading a newsletter from time to time, they could completely miss them, which seems to be the implication of what Ron Paul was doing; loaning his name, but nor being directly involved except for on occasion.
Ryan, I'll comment on your request to explain what you call a "flip-flop". First, let's assume at some point he said "the quotes were taken out of context". I've read the articles, and they WERE. The quotes pulled were plucked to make it seem like he was ranting against the color of a man's skin. He was ranting at people thinking they got their rights as a member of a group, rather than as individuals. I lived in LA during the riots. The riots did stop on Friday, May 1, 1992, the day welfare checks were passed out. UPI reported hundreds of people lined up for checks. Did that "cause" the riots to stop? It's impossible to say, but he was not factually incorrect that the two events occured simultaneously. To say "blacks are fleet footed" - what, are you telling me that 90% of NFL wide receivers are Irish? Even to say blacks are disproportionately represented in crime is hardly news.
What Ron Paul does not want you to assume, though, is that EACH INDIVIDUAL is anything other than an individual, entitled to the right to be judged only on the basis of his own actions. Whether he wrote the articles or not, he is not going to offer a blanket disavowal of everything that shows up on his newsletter, only the attitude of intolerance of people based on the color of their skin. Are all liberals "bleeding hearts"? No, only those who are; some are not.
Would a racist rise on the congressional floor on Jan 17, 2007 to honor Ali on his 65th birthday? On April 20, 1999, would he praise Rosa Parks courage and high ideals?
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec99/cr042099.htm
The center of gravity of these 'racist' statements seems to be 'Archie Bunker' type statements with an occasional attempt at one that turns into a zinger (but that may be as Brandon Berg points out we don't have much of the context). For this we have coal fired plants lighting up our electronics? Have we no shame over global warming? Al!!! Al!!! Where are you?
Who's the better option? Why is it that I see Ron Paul hit piece after hit piece, but who is the better option? Who among the other candidates understand individual liberty? Who among them understands the constitution or even cares what it says? Who? Where is the better candidate?
Because I'm sick of these dumb articles that are making an issue out of nothing. This isn't an important issue of the day, if there were another candidate who even came close to standing for the same things as Ron Paul, then maybe this lack of oversight by him would be an issue. But in comparison to all the wrong things going on in this country, it's not even close. Not even in the top 10.
The fact of the matter is that if you didn't like Ron Paul before, then you will use this and anything else to discredit him, and use it as your reason. But it's absolutely ridiculous, and a result of someone who obviously just plain doesn't get or understand the problems facing the country, or someone who benefits from these problems(hey, someone does, lets not kid ourselves).
So please, tell me who I should support if not Ron Paul. I'm all ears. Until then, this is just pure character assassination in an attempt to avoid the real issues. And you should be ashamed for that.
Some of the negative comments on this thread reflect a warped distortion of the facts and an ignorance of how small press political circulations work.
1) Nearly every politician has many of these type of periodicals and newsletters put out by the ton EVERY month and they are distributed EXACTLY the way these are. -They don't write them, edit them, look at them or even wipe their ass with them. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of this. For example, I live in Hollywood and my girlfriend is a writer and two of her side jobs are writing the personal blogs of two very famous people. She writes and posts them and responds to the comments as if she is the celebrity without any oversight whatsoever and the people she writes them for never look at them. That's her job.
2) Problems with the content of political periodicals are common due to the fact that the "writers" of these are typically poorly paid types with an agenda and an ax to grind. They feel unappreciated and almost all of them have at least slightly more radical points of view than the person they are writing for. For instance in 2000 I worked on the Nader campaign and got to know a few people close to him and the issue came up more than once about staff writers who author pieces under Nader's name being let go for injecting radical leftist type themes into their writings. -Hardly the type of stuff that would come back to haunt Nader as the liberties taken in question that have haunted Paul, but enough to get them fired or reassigned over.
3) In Paul's case the bulk of these writings were published after he served five terms in office and walked away from politics thoroughly (and vocally) disgusted and disillusioned with Washington. He lent his name to a rinky dink publishing outfit and practiced medicine and lectured all over the country. He farmed and had kids and grand kids and never bothered to wipe his nose with this stuff. -Unbelievable? Actually this type of arrangement is very, very common and if you don't know that you are simply naive about how publishing works past the personal-political blog writing world.
4) Paul's answer is absolutely right. He was pissed off about this crap and disassociated himself with the writer. When it popped up (as it did a long time ago) he took moral responsibility for it and the issue was dropped.
5) On a final note, it seems that many people have forgotten how much the acceptable dialog has changed in just ten years. While a select few of the excerpts are a bit charged and offensive, but most are pretty pedestrian for their time. Rodney King deserving the beating? That was all over right of center political writings and talk radio at the time. Addressing the LA riots in a racial perspective? Common. The State of New Mexico refused to recognize Martin Luther King Day and half of the states in the south had confederate flags on top of their capitol buildings. Geraldo Rivera and Sally Jessie used to have shows where transvestites would sit on stage and endure an hour of audience members asking them demeaning questions only to have an "expert" panelist explain what he believed was the root cause of their "illness" and how it might be avoided. Okay, you get the point.
P.S. -The actual author of the Paul Pieces has identified himself and freely admits to writing them without Paul's knowledge. Any armature journalist could easily find him on line. I'm assuming nobody wants to.
It's called "Ad Hominum." It is a logical fallacy to imply that the message is flawed because the messenger is flawed.
Notice the spin here: Anyone populist enough to get elected doesn't deserve office.
(T)reason mag's 180 on Doctor Paul is not logical if they are truly trying to advance liberty or libertarianism. What candidate could possibly live up to these standards? Who else has fought so hard for civil liberties or peace?
Radley has exposed himself as a libertine, not a libertarian. He'll get his fifteen minutes of fame and then sink into obscurity-UNLESS libertariansm is becomming so popular it can merit and sustain a dissident, Like Buchannon to the Republicans.
New campain meme: RON PAUL, WARTS AND ALL!
badmedia,
You should continue in your support for Ron Paul. After spending several hours pouring through past issues of the Ron Paul Report, I'm of the opinion that even if he did pen all the newsletters, he is not a racist. Nor did I find anything in those pages as inflammatory than what you would find listening to the pundits blather on every night on cable news.
This is a smear campaign to try and shake the confidence of Paul's biggest supporters. It's just politics. But these attacks won't go away, so it's up to Paul supporters to try and put these statements into context.
To me Ron Paul is a hero who for decades has been fighting a very lonely fight for all of us to save our future. He knows that the Government is bad for the people and he speaks the truth which makes him enemy number one for a lot of powerful people. If you really want to know - check his record yourself.
Martin Luther King was killed, Nelson Mandela was locked up for 3 decades because they fought against tyrannies. The establishment will never allow Doctor Paul to be elected and they will use whichever methods necessary.
Under these circumstances I am astounded that the worst smear they can come up with against this honorable man is something he didn't write and never endorsed more than 10 years ago.
I would be proud to see Ron Paul as president.
From what I can tell, the old line being used that he perpetuated this for "10 years" is nothing short of a lie. It appears that the overtly racist stuff was contained to the 1992 time frame. It's believable that Dr. Paul simply handed over the reigns to an editor, and focused his time practicing medicine while travelling around the country on a busy schedule giving speeches and fundraising for his congressional campaign.
The thing that irks the media is that Dr. Paul's answer is "my name is on it, so I'll take moral responsibility - do your worst," without revealing who is responsible. I believe Dr. Paul simply doesn't want to throw the person under the bus out of principle. He probably could, but chooses not to.
For my part, I'm of mixed racial heratige. I have a hard time believing Dr. Paul is a racist.
A link worth examining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DggGZqYebrQ
To begin at the beginning, it seems that no one else is telling you that the similarities between Ms. Megan McArdle and the most wrongheaded exponents of interventionism you'll ever see should not be taken lightly. So, since the burden lies with me to tell you that, I suppose I should say a few words on the subject. To begin with, when Ms. McArdle hears anyone say that her assistants are the carrion birds of humanity, her answer is to enslave us, suppress our freedom, regiment our lives, confiscate our property, and dictate our values. That's similar to taking a few drunken swings at a beehive: it just makes me want even more to move as expeditiously as possible to get us out of the hammerlock that she is holding us in.
I've tried to explain to Ms. McArdle's co-conspirators that Ms. McArdle reports the news selectively in order to advance her agenda. As could be expected, they were a bit slow on the uptake. I just couldn't get them to comprehend that if you're interested in the finagling, double-dealing, chicanery, cheating, cajolery, cunning, rascality, and abject villainy by which Ms. McArdle may waste hours and hours of our time in fruitless conferences and meetings eventually, then you'll want to consider the following very carefully. You'll especially want to consider that Ms. McArdle's jibes are based on a denial of reality, on the substitution of a deliberately falsified picture of the world in place of reality. And this dishonesty, this refusal to admit the truth, will have some very serious consequences for all of us some day. Ms. McArdle's obiter dicta are in every respect consistent with the school of thrasonical thought that tends to create profound emotional distress for people on both sides of the issue.
Simply put, Ms. McArdle might calumniate helpless scaramouches before long. What are we to do then? Place blinders over our eyes and hope we don't see the horrible outcome? As another disquieting tidbit the following must be stated: She often argues that she has achieved sainthood. A similar argument was first made over 1200 years ago by a well-known clunk and was quickly disproved. In those days, however, no one would have doubted that my love for people necessitates that I expose Ms. McArdle's malversation. Yes, I face opposition from Ms. McArdle. However, this is not a reason to quit but to strive harder.
Ms. McArdle's pledge not to sucker us into buying a lot of junk we don't need is merely empty rhetoric, invoked on occasion for theatrical effect but otherwise studiously ignored. It may seem senseless to say that Ms. McArdle may come to represent the most insidious corruption of ideals yet. Nevertheless, the position can be defended. We should note, of course, that what I've written about her doesn't prove anything in itself. It's only suggestive but it does make a good point that she says that she is cunctipotent. What balderdash! What impudence! What treachery!
I would be grateful if Ms. McArdle would take a little time from her rigorous schedule to create a world in which irrationalism, clericalism, and autism are all but forgotten. Of course, pigs will grow wings and fly before that ever happens. If we don't do something soon, her careless, cheeky agendas will rise like a golem with a million hands on a million throats to choke the honor out of decent, hardworking people. Be careful not to be charmed by Ms. McArdle's beliefs. All they do is muzzle Ms. McArdle's critics. Although there are no formal, external validating criteria for Ms. McArdle's uncontrollable, blathering claims, I think we can safely say that if I didn't sincerely believe that she is wallowing in the sty of fascism, then I wouldn't be writing this letter. Some critics have called Ms. McArdle hidebound. A handful insist she's yawping. Her sympathizers, on the other hand, consider her to be one of the great minds of this century.
There is one crucial fact that we must not overlook if we are to perceive our current situation as it is, rather than in the anamorphosis of some "ideology" such as cronyism or statism. Specifically, I can't follow Ms. McArdle's pretzel logic. I do, however, know that posterity will have little occasion to glorify her "heroic" existence in a new epic. But the problems with her homilies don't end there. Ms. McArdle's closed-minded stratagems are a crime against morality, humanity, and civilization. This is the flaw in Ms. McArdle's sophistries. She doesn't understand that her claims will have consequences -- very serious consequences. We ought to begin doing something about that. We ought to restore the world back to its original balance. We ought to spread the word that it's honestly a tragedy that her goal in life is apparently to propitiate the most disdainful carpetbaggers you'll ever see for later eventualities. Here, I use the word "tragedy" as the philosopher Whitehead used it. Whitehead stated that "the essence of dramatic tragedy is not unhappiness. It resides in the solemnity of the remorseless working of things," which I interpret as saying that Ms. McArdle's confreres have been staggering around like punch-drunk fighters hit too many times -- stunned, confused, betrayed, and trying desperately to rationalize Ms. McArdle's disloyal, dim-witted policies. It is indeed not a pretty sight.
Ms. McArdle complains a lot. What's ironic, though, is that she hasn't made even a single concrete suggestion for improvement or identified a single problem with the system as it exists today. If you're like most people you just shrug your shoulders whenever you hear about her latest slogans. When your shoulders get tired of shrugging I hope you'll realize that Ms. McArdle must have recently made a huge withdrawal from the First National Bank of Lies. How else could she manage to tell us that you and I are objects for her to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that's performed its duty catching bird droppings? Anyway, that's it for this letter. Let Ms. Megan McArdle read it and weep.
Ron Paul has already responded to these accusations, and he is not a racist. The real story is why the media continues to harp on this. Sounds to me like this is just a distraction from Ron Paul's message, and quite frankly it's getting old. Come on media stop being so stupid, and start reporting about all the straw polls he has won, and how he has captured the hearts and minds of the Americans that believe we should be following our Constitution, and talk about the issues our nation is facing.
Ron Paul writes scores of books, articles and letters over the course of 30 years. He makes innumerable speeches before small and large groups and before congress. He speaks with obvious sincerity about the respect of every individual. His entire philosophy of life and politics rests on a foundation of liberty and individual rights regardless of race or gender. None of this seems very relevant to his critics. What is relevant to them are these obscure writings 15 or 20 years ago by someone obviously NOT Ron Paul. He has taken responsibility for his lack of oversight. His critics' obsession on this is very revealing. Go Ron Paul!
Ron Paul may not be the perfect candidate, he could use more charisma, have a more commanding voice, look more like a game show host, or any number of things.
Ron Paul is not a racist. There are racists in our country and there is only one way to be one - you must be ignorant. Ron Paul is not ignorant nor a racist.
I wish the people who spend their time on this issue would get Robert Byrd out of the senate -he is third in line to become President - surely that is a lot closer than Ron Paul in the detractor's view - so focus your energy elsewhere, we will be better served.
In this fine new world of political correctness and double standards a black man can preach intolerance and hate and be completely accepted by the mainstream and the Democratic party (IE: Jessie and AL ), but a white man cannot even state a fact if it is not flattering to black people ( IE: crime stats, welfare stats ) without being called racist. If you want to talk about racism lets talk about affirmative action - hiring people based on the color of their skin. That's not racist?
Fred Thompson said in the debates that he would like to see the Iranian sailors in the recent alleged confrontation with a U.S. ship get sent to those "virgins they think they are going to get when they die" or something along those lines.
This kind of blatant racism gets laughter and applause. Ron Paul gets hounded for nonsense. Grow up. He's being attcked now for his views on our foreign policy. Nothing else.
*
As for whether Paul could have written the material, I might add that the only other possible authors sure consider(ed) themselves adherents to the libertarian philosophy.
*
White people can also be illegal immigrants.
sorry the quote should be
*
I might also add that Paul's position on immigration and birthright citizenship would seem to lack a "respect for all humanity" and most certainly does not "respect their (immigrants) individuality."
*
“You can’t take the judgment like that out of the hands of the officers on the ground there. I think one more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they’re looking forward to seeing,” Fred Thompson said, earning laughter from the audience.
Parse and spin all you want here, friends, but let me repeat: Fred Thompson is an unabashed, absolute-lowest-common-denominator racist, and it hasn't hurt him one bit. All of this attention placed on old, old news about the "Ron Paul" newsletters--in an article carefully published the day before the New hampshire primary--and you're still here sanctimoniously penning your windbag judgements of the man and deciding for the world to what degree he should be banished.
I was an armchair Ron Paul supporter before. Now I'm going to the streets.
These open a box where we, young savvy Americans will do the investigative job of
digging into Mitt, McCain and Huckabee past.
This is going to get very interesting, pulling out Mistress, unethical business dealing as well as kick backs transactions not to mention racism comments as well.
Be prepare the fun is just starting, they want to play dirty then the young well educated college students which support Ron Paul will be a force to reckon with.
John McCain was racist in the SC debate, read it here:
John McCain's racism in SC debate
Unfortunately it took segregationist Governor Wallace to reveal the truth that "there's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, detaining protesters, banning books like America Deceived (book) from Amazon, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason.
Support Dr. Ron Paul and save this great nation.
If it's the authorship of the articles that you're curious about, it's actually quite easy to prove that they weren't by Ron Paul.
One of them back in the 90s has a paragraph by the author that says something along the lines of "I picked up a copy of GQ magazine the other day, and..." before going into a bit of a racist tirade.
Fast forward to 2007 and Ron Paul was picked by GQ as one of the Men of the Year. When told about it, he was quoted as follows:
(from the New York Times)
""GQ wants to profile you on Thursday," Benton continues. "I think it’s worth doing."
"GTU?" the candidate replies.
"GQ. It’s a men’s magazine."
"Don’t know much about that," Paul says."
http://dissentradio.com/eg/rp-nyt.html
So either he wrote the articles and is intelligent enough to remember a decade and a half later that he has to pretend not to know what GQ is, or he just didn't write them.
Ron Paul would free every black in prison right now on non-violent federal drug charges. How could you discount a man for president in light of this and in light of the fact that a 1,000,000 Iraqis are dead because of a bullshit war?
I think the media has lost its perspective and will the nation to ruin.
I am Black, I support Ron Paul. As do all my Black friends and family. This author it seems lacks a HS diploma. Why not talk about the obvious racist remarks straight from the mouths McCain and Thompson the night of the SC debate and the blatant racist attache to "WAR ON TERROR" in general i.e. kill the darkie muslims. GET A LIFE GET A CLUE! My Mom will be cancelling her subscription. Thanks.
John McCain For President!
When the British soldiers were shooting at us George Washington as a Commander in Chief was always on the Battle Front, on the line of fire, bullets were flying near his head, the sound of Cannons going off and dead soldiers all over the field.
A brave man George Washington was.
John McCain on his own words tells America how he will conduct this wars.
Check it out on this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Wru8NRLdFE
Well, I see the Paulbots have arrived....
And we get the same old stuff all over again: a) what he said wasn't racist b) it wasn't written by Paul and so therefore he has no responsibility c) ok, so he's a doddering hands-off-fart but the rest of the message is so great we can ignore that Paul associated with a batch of pretty slimy individuals (and is still doing so) d) Paul is a libertarian and libertarians can't possibly be racist, or e) Paul is The Second Coming and you're all just deluded nasty liberals for being so MEEEAN to him.
Uh--guys? You're not helping your case.
"When John McCain says: "all they're interested in is trading burkas" on the Fox show the other night, nobody seems to care. When Mitt says we have to convert all these people into having our western ideals and way of life, nobody raises an eyebrow. When Rudy rants about how much "those people" hate us, everybody either nods or shrugs. When Hucky hoists the cross in his crusade to become president, the believers joyfully swoon and everyone else thinks touting Christianity is normal and OK. The undercurrent of racism and bigotry is constant and intentional in this campaign. You score points this year if you are anti-dark-skinned foreigners. Once upon a time in American politics you could rake in the votes by warning "real" Americans about The Yellow Peril, those Eyeties, the Irish drunkards, the dumb Poles, the dangerous Germans... etc. Racism is part and parcel of the American way of life. Ron Paul was, however, the only guy to say Yes to appearing on the debates to be hosted by blacks. There is not one sound bite with him uttering a racist remark. His CNN reply to Wolf Blitzer was accepted and applauded by Wolf, who would not have been so nice if he really believed that RP was being deceitful. Hey, in the end it comes down to: Would you rather have a guy who wants to stay in Iraq for a 100 years, a guy who wants to double the size of Guantanamo, a guy bent on making you give up more of your personal freedoms, or someone who says: Live free and without interference from government, but adhere to the social contract and don't infringe the freedom of your fellow-person. I'll take the Freedom Freak."
Right on D-man.
"The thing that irks the media is that Dr. Paul's answer is "my name is on it, so I'll take moral responsibility - do your worst," without revealing who is responsible. I believe Dr. Paul simply doesn't want to throw the person under the bus out of principle. He probably could, but chooses not to."
I totally agree with this assessment. The demand that he identify the writers is utilitarian and antithetical to Dr. Paul's Christian religion. The Gospel of Matthew is very clear about forgiveness and the procedure to use with those who transgress against you--and who owe you a debt. It involves compassion and forgiveness and the recognition that every man is capable of redemption. It means that you go directly and discreetly to the person who has transgressed against you and resolve it with grace and justice--such as termination of the relationship, restitution, forgiveness and discretion.
It does not include sacrifice of your transgressor to a pack of wolves years after resolution in order to save your own butt. It does not include subjecting your transgressor to personal and professional ruination in order to divert the wrath of others from yourself.
It does not mean building up your treasure on earth instead of in heaven by choosing the more expedient solution.
The writer owes a debt ONLY to Ron Paul--not to anyone else. It is Ron Paul who has been harmed and no one else. He has handled the debt in the discreet manner of a Christian gentlemen in the face of jackels spewing slander, speculation, innuendo and complete misrepresentations.
He has more courage and fortitude than any other man in public office.
Rather than giving due to the nattering classes, I prefer to heed the words of Jesus against the Pharisees who treasured worldly power and tradition over God's commandments about how we are to treat one another:
“You blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!"
By supporting Ron Paul, I reject continuing to swallow the camels Ron Paul seeks to banish.
Aren't ideologies of classism the real problem? Don't get me wrong, racism is a terrible social practice, but just look at the trouble we're all facing.
Classism is the systematic oppression of poor people and people who work for wages by those who have access to control of the necessary resources by which other people make their living.
Ron Paul is the only candidate combating this issue. Strict adherence to the Constitution is the only way to reverse these trends.
I found the proof The New Republic is looking for. Ron Paul RACISM: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=87514
So lets see, this site, the Atlantic.com has it's name at the very top - does that mean they are responsible for everything written on it? I could come on here and write anything I wanted and it would be under the Atlantic.com name. Should they be held responsible?
There is a website called dailypaul.com. Go to it. It's got Ron Paul's name and pictures all over it. I, or you, can go on there and write the most hateful things imaginable. Does that make Dr Paul a racist? No.
He wasn't involved in the newsletters during the time it contained the hateful remarks. Has anyone bothered to compare those to the times he said he was involved - when he was in Congress? I'm certain you will see a different tone and a completely different style of writing.
Dr Paul is not a racist, this is a smear tactic that has been debunked time and time again.
Jerri posted: "The thing that irks the media is that Dr. Paul's answer is "my name is on it, so I'll take moral responsibility - do your worst," without revealing who is responsible. I believe Dr. Paul simply doesn't want to throw the person under the bus out of principle. He probably could, but chooses not to."
Exactly. When the next Clinton fundraiser is indicted, she can denounce it, and promise "any illegal contributions will be returned or donated to charity." She'll be commended for her swift action in dealing with an unfortunate set of circumstances totally beyond her control.
Of course, it all is handled by six and seven figure media consultants. How refresing Ron Paul's response has been.
This is getting real old and irrelevant. The angry, ignorant mob is beginning to disperse as they learn that the intended victim of their lynching is not going to be delivered into their hands.
Soon, this rhetorical dung won't sell any more ad spots. People know that this was just a hatchet job and it's disgusting.
Soon the media will be put in their place by the protectors of our political freedom. Have you seen what the thugs at FOX News have been doing to everyone but their candidate of choice? Bill O'Reily was actually putting his hands on people to push them out of the way at an Obama rally and using freedom of the press to justify it. His rights are more important than any others, he says. Hannity has turned into a rabid dog. It's as if they have been told to get Giuliani elected if you want to keep your jobs. Unbelievable, as they say in New York.
Here's a news flash for you. You guys don't get to choose the President.
Fred Thompson said in the debates that he would like to see the Iranian sailors in the recent alleged confrontation with a U.S. ship get sent to those "virgins they think they are going to get when they die" or something along those lines.
Um, unless Islam has suddenly become a race (did you happen to know that the Iranians are not ethnically related to Arabs? Or Bosnians for that matter) the notion that this is a racist remark is risible.
I admit that's kind of an unusual word, but look it up: it means "laughable".
RON PAUL IS THE ONLY CHOICE FOR CHANGE,ALL THE OTHERS ARE JUST LAME DUCKS LOOKING TO GET RICH ON THE WARS!
Over and over on every message board I ever read I constantly see people try to belittle, question the sanity and try to label Ron Paul supporters and the man himself with some silly nickname. Look at the other candidates running all pandering to some group of people that could justifiably have their sanity questioned by the majority of people as well. It definately looks bad when something bearing your name spouts ignorant hatred yet when I look at his record and his own words I can accept his explanation. I don't see anyone questioning the sanity of his economic writings yet the other Republicans look like monkeys yucking it up and not even understanding the issue when it comes up in a debate. There are just so many things wrong with what the federal government has become and people are just blind or ignorant to the facts. It has entrenched itself into every aspect of our lives. People can keep watching the propoganda networks and believing everything they are told or maybe do some research of their own. I'm not talking about conspiracy websites as so many would have you believe but actual government documents outlining their expenditures and their horrid policies that have handed control of our government over to special interests. The other candidates pay lip service to those issues. Look who contributes to their campaigns. It's only news when some shady character donates money to Ron Paul. And at the debate is anyone really that naive as to believe that the questions they were asking him were nothing but TV sitcom kind of questions. "MANY of your supporters call themselves 9/11 truthers ........" WHAT???? Forgetting the MANY part of the question which is what propoganda maybe, is that a public policy question or something that should be asked at a debate or more appropriate of an interview question. The viable candidate question was great too considering he did better than Rudy in Iowa and Thompson in NH. Ron Paul is not a cure to all that our government has become but he is hope that people will start paying attention to what is going on in this country. People are so brainwashed on foreign policy but they don't see all the intricacies of who we are paying to do what in the world. I don't know how we can be safe as a country when we don't secure our borders and I really don't see how you make enemies in the world by keeping your army on your own soil protecting it. Did any of the other candidates even flinch or want to interject when Ron Paul stated we are borrowing 2 billion a day from China to fight the war in Iraq. I thought the Communists were our enemies. I love how people who question our foreign policy are labeled the blame America first crowd. Unpatriotic America haters. Look at the documented history of what our CIA has done around the world. Americans have been betrayed by our government and we should demand it back not listen to the same nonsensical rhetoric by the usual suspects. I've rambled on enough but just remember when you watch the candidates ramble on with their scripted store bought lies and you discount what Ron Paul is saying we all lose in the end because the issues he addresses are real and will easily be swept under the rug if he is silenced and forced out. At least demand that your candidate address the real issues and address them yourselves and stop wasting time pontificating on why his supporters are all crazy.
It's just like in Harry Potter 7!!!!
The first amendment calls for a consensus; a compromise if you prefer. We are all to recognize each other’s freedom to express ourselves through speech. Although it may not seem true at times, most speech is preceded with thought, and no one has the right to disrupt another’s personal sovereignty by policing how they think. We must be willing to understand that each individual is a completely unique entity. We must be willing to allow anyone to say what they will and recues ourselves of their company if we feel offended because if I do not allow you to speak freely today, what keeps you from relinquishing my rights when you are disrupted?
Go ahead and nitpick about who did or didn't say 20 years ago.
The only consequence is that the Middle East becomes WWIII, our money is worthless and the government becomes 100 times more oppressive than NAZI Germany.
In order to make a point? Are you the twit that gets us all killed?
To put this matter to rest, everyone please refer to the report, "The Color of Crime", based upon FBI statistics. Simply stating facts and telling the truth doesn't make anyone a "racist."
"He can’t now use the "blacks are treated poorly by our criminal justice system" defense to distance himself from those very newsletters."
If Ron Paul had written the objectionable material or approved it, there would be no distancing himself. He says he didn't write it and didn't approve it, and he repudiated it on Wolf Blitzer. I believe him and that's enough for me, short of evidence to the contrary.
Paul is unique in opposing the war on drugs, unique among the Republicans in opposing the War in Iraq--except for Kucinich, he's the only candidate on both sides who would bring the troops home immediately. He's the only candidate who stands solidly for limited, Constitutional government and individual liberty. It's time to focus on those issues.
At 15 years old I was in the streets fighting Apartheid. I bring this up because I am voting for Ron Paul. I always study any person for a long time before I make up my mind. Racism is a plague upon man and woman kind. Ron Paul is not nor has he ever been a racist. Can show me one thing that he has said that is racist? As to these news letters they are a load of crap that was pushed using the good Doctors name. If you wish to go on in your hate for the man you go right ahead that is your right. However to push this agenda through your writing makes you no better then the people who used Ron Paul to push their crap as well. I say to you that you are a divider and responsible for the very thing you accuse the racist of. It is division that breeds racism and nothing else. So you are a divider and as one you become the very thing you hate. Be careful the seeds you sow are the same seeds that breed hate. We as a country will never heal from the scars of racism as long as we see ourselves as black or white. Only when we get rid of this collective mentality and see each as an individual can we make the jump from hate to peace. Ask yourself has this man ever said anything hateful to you or anyone for that matter? The answer is no. So to go on about an issue that was laid to rest 10 years ago shows that only you and people like you are the ones making this problem worse by continually dividing us up. At what point does a fight end? When one of those fighting decides that violence and division is not the answer look to Doctor King for the strength to say I will not fight you I will not divide you I will join us all together for we are Gods children. I will be praying for you.
you all need to get a life DR PAUL IS IT. NO ONE BELSE COUNTS
DR PAUL IS IT. NO ONE BELSE COUNTS
I'm not good with getting sarcasm online, but is this like meant as satire against the Paul people? (All caps, calling him "DR PAUL", making unlikely typos, etc)
On another point I think you people are getting too personal against her. As far as I can tell she's not a dropout, slut, fascist, Trotskiyite, whatever. How is spouting these kinds of nonsensical ad hominems going to make others think better of you? If you don't want to be thought of as fringe and cultlike stop acting fringe and cultlike.
Granted I'm no role-model as I've been quite cranky myself, but I'm not really trying to represent any candidate or movement. And to be honest I do feel bad for any personal attacks I've ever done so will try to avoid this from now on. I don't think Paul is racist and I don't care about the newsletter thing. I don't know him or any of you personally. Maybe you're as affable as I am when I'm not online. Still you're not doing your movement or candidate any favors when you essentially harangue people or calling them names.
I can understand your point totally. I live in Texas by the way and am very familiar with this issue.
Back when this happened he was running for congress and his opponent brought this story up. This clearly shocked everyone who ever knew Ron as they never heard anything like this trash ever from him.
Those close to Ron Paul have had this investigated, private citisens have investigated it as well, the press has had this investigated so have several African American groups.
All have been able to narrow the list of likely writers down to about 3 people. Unfortunately for Ron Paul the evidence amounts to Hearsay and hes not the type to drag someones name through the mud without prof.
He clearly has a small chance of winning but please understand he is not the one who wrote this sick stuff. Its my understanding that about 7000 newsletters went out and about 100 had this filth in them - all the others had nothing of the sort. It's also my understanding that he had over the years more than 70 folks contribute to this Newsletter.
So again please don't doubt him even if you don't vote for him. His name is a good one down here not one that would utter such filth.
The main steam media for the most part has not covered this "story." The neocon msm would rather the rumor mill runs rather than expose how ridiculous thes allegations are.
I am a Ron Paul supporter and I am troubled with these letters, not knowing what has been written in your own letter is not very good. But in reality with all the other horrible candidates
I have to go with Ron Paul's voting record and his attack on the Fed with Bernake. We can all talk till the cows come home but the fact is we are broke and in a deep whole! If we don't fix this problem now, we are in big trouble. We are teetering on the edge of oblivion. Do some research and see what happened when Argentina's economy blew....I read some scarry accounts from some bloggers....are we that oblivious? That ignorant to think a great depression can't happen again? If Bush can push his agenda so easy with 9/11. What's gonna happen with a huge depression...kiss more of your freedoms goodbye.....thanks but I'll take my chances with Ron Paul....Gold does not hit record prices because people are secure with the dollar....I think we are headed for a whole world of hurt...
HOW ABOUT THESE FACTS?The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan received the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright,Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer" Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala at the the United Church of Christ - U.S. Sen. Barack Obama -says he has been deeply influenced by his churchThe United Church of Christ .Louis Farrakhan is the acting head of the Nation of Islam .Farrakhan made several controversial statements about race, including "White people are potential humans — they haven't evolved yet"and"Murder and lying comes easy for white people".According to Farrakhan's mentor, Elijah Muhammad, blacks were "born righteous and turned to unrighteousness," while the white race was "made unrighteous by the god who made them.U.S. Sen. Barack Obama says he has been deeply influenced by his church, Trinity UCC on Chicago's South Side, and its senior pastor, Jeremiah Wright.
If I am not mistaken I believe Ronald Raegan was also accused of being racist. I thought we were past racism and I am pretty sure the majority of blacks are. As a matter of fact most black people I work with like Ron Paul despite the accusations. They know the media lies. It was a great try though. Still I wonder about the media who always ask the question "can't we just get past the past?" Then they dig it up again. I say let that dead horse die. Write something original. Ron Paul is here to stay if not as President he will be a legend. The man who stood to challenge the status quo. I think he has already won if people are so desperate to bring this up.
I don't think I'd can add much to what Tony M said about 2 from the top. (Well Done Man/Woman?) That is my Chickasaw, English, and whatever else blood coursing through my veins. Every warrior to his own beliefs and may you wander to other tribes to find your mate.
Leave me be. Go Dr. Paul
"Black people use drugs in proportions only slightly higher than their share of the general population. But the proportion of blacks in prison for drugs crimes is substantially higher. They are far more likely to get arrested for drug crimes, far more likely to be convicted, and even when facing similar charges, tend to receive longer sentences than whites."
Where do you get this information? I suggest you check out the U.S. Department of Justice statistics contained in this report.
http://www.amren.com/newstore/cart.php?page=color_of_crime
Respectfully fms I think maybe you don't know what "The United Church of Christ" is in reality. It's rare in the South and most common in New England.
Now the United Church of Christ is a mainline Protestant denomination with over a million members. It is true that they are one of the "whitest" churches in the nation according to the American Religious Identification Survey.
http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:VB8ymiZ2mmYJ:www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris.pdf+%22American+Religious+Identification+Survey&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
Still their beliefs are generally not seen as racist against blacks. As you are mentioning Farakhan I take it you are not accusing them of being racist toward blacks either. If anything what they're known for is being so liberal and tolerant that they sound close to smug. They tend to be "intolerant to intolerance" as they see it. (They were the ones who ran those ads essentially bashing other denominations for not being gay-friendly) It's possible that makes them reach out a friendly hand to people they shouldn't, but for Obama to say that UCC inspires him is at worst like saying being liberal inspires him. If you wish to learn more about the UCC see
http://www.ucc.org/about-us/what-we-believe.html
It includes the statement "notwithstanding race, gender, sexual orientation, class or creed – we all belong to God and to one worldwide community of faith."
(I am certainly not endorsing UCC, I'm just saying their official beliefs are if anything non-racist to the point of panic)
The Democratic candidates agree that the Bush tax cuts needs to be repealed. So to be FAIR we need to consider it, right?
So, in 2010 WE (that actually pay taxes) face the largest tax increase in history if that is to be the case. Want to double the dividend and capital gain taxes?
Vote for Hillary or Obama. Watch your stocks tank.
They want to "tax the rich" and make more for middle class tax cuts. Heck that is only fair, right?
Sounds nice, but let's look at the facts.
The bottom half of taxpayers (that is 50% of the people in the United States) only pay 3% of the total income taxes collected, which is 1% less than before the Bush tax cuts. 44% of the US population, or
122 million people in the United States pay no income tax at all ! Now that’s their fair share !
The richest 1% of the country pay 39% of all taxes ($365,000 income and up), which is 3% more than before the Bush tax cuts, under the Clinton tax policy. The top 5% ($145,000) pay 60% of all taxes (up 5% from 1999); and the top 25%, with income over $62,000, pays paid 86% of all taxes. It seems to me that the rich are paying their fair share, if you want to consider IRS robbery as part of the formula. Every category is paying more now than under Clinton, except the bottom 75%. But look! You only have to make $62,000 before tax to be considered (RICH) and/or one of the lucky 25% (at the top) that is paying 86% of the taxes. Gee, that’s fair! Wonder what they make in Washington before and AFTER ALL PERKS ! Wonder if those PERKS are reported as income for tax purposes?
That would be FAIR, wouldn’t it?
Under any Democratic plan, they would want more than 50% of US citizens to pay no income taxes, that is their fair share ! WHY?
If you pay no taxes, why do you care if we run deficits? Polls clearly show that those who pay no taxes are overwhelmingly against tax cuts, as they think it will cut their entitlements and benefits. The plan is clearly to build a constituency of voters who will vote Democrat to increase taxes on someone else and spend the money on programs for them.
Any increase in taxes at the levels proposed by Democrats is by definition anti-growth. Government spending is not as efficient or productive as private spending. It will also be a large drag on the stock market. 2010 is now less than two years away. Congress is going to have to deal with tax policy in 2009 or risk a major economic setback. See how safe your job or business will be in a second recession within a few years, like we saw in 1980-82.
A repeal of the Bush tax cuts would raise taxes on the bottom 75% of the country, and cut taxes for the rich, as a percentage of total taxes paid.
Now, what would happen if the half or three quarters paying all these taxes got tired and decided to stop working or move somewhere more FAIR? Hmmmmmmm
So, is Ron Paul a RACIST, what does it matter with all Washington is doing to eliminate the American culture of hard work and savings... Racist is a simple way of saying we don't want to hear what you are saying, so you are a Racist and shut up!
Simply vote for Ron Paul as our new President and relax and enjoy the show... If you agree, please pass these thoughts on to everyone on your mailing list... Thanks !!!
It is a pity RP could not have been more forthright on CNN - he did seem a bit cagey. But saying that and as others have said, I don't think the quotes if they were his words make him a racist. The only reason people might consider them racist is because the colour of the rioters was mentioned. If you take the word "black" out of the quotes, would they be acceptable? If so, and if all the rioters were black, then all that he did was make a more specific decription of events. I would have liked to hear Ron Paul say something like that but the thought police have taken over and he would not get away with it. From where I'm sitting in central Europe, it looks like the wind has been taken out of the RP sails. This is a real pity as he is the first US president that I have seen who appears to be human, is not obsessed by power either for himself, the office of the president or the power of the USA. A US represented by a president with humility, humour, intelligence, conviviality and humanity is exactly what the rest of the world would like to see. If a country posesses self confidence it does not need to intimidate nor lecture. America was once a beacon, an example of the reason why liberty is a worthy goal. 'm not cynical to believe all the US's foreign policy is badly motivated but any policy which influences the internal workings of a foreign sovereign country for whatever motives will have positive and negative consequences and because without total domination you cannot determine what the consequences might be then you will be in a never ending conflict situation. It's a pity the Ron Paul message is not better promoted - there's always the air of radicalism surrounding him but in reality he is the only one talking sense. The Democrats are just as imperialistic as the Republicans but dress it up differently. Hillary is in hock to big business and Obama won't be strong enough to resist there influence. And so it goes... Marek. Prague. CZ.
Ron Paul has been fighting the war on drugs for over twenty years. The author would have realized this if he had done two minutes of research.
Is the new definition of racist anyone who criticizes the Black community? That is the implication by many in the Black community, which implies a moral superiority to whites. I have not read the newsletters so I can't speak directly about those. In one of our country's peculiar fetishes, Clinton was nearly lynched for the oral sex issue, but if Dr. King partook he is above the fray? Paul is a supporter of Dr. King, so am I, the man was not a saint. Criticism of the white community is perceived justly as criticism, but any kind of criticism of members of the Black community is perceived as racist. Groupism by the Black community is acceptable, but by whites would be fascist. My own criticism of much of the black community is the insistence on identifying by race and color rather than as individuals. And whites (and independent thinking blacks) are frequently intimidated into never criticizing a black person or group under threat of being labeled racist.
RP does not favor drug legalization. He doesn't think the *Federal* government should be involved. If a *state* government wants to lock em up and throw away the key, he'd be OK with that.
I am a libertarian and an RP contributor. I cannot continue supporting him. RP's statements on these newsletters has changed over time. He is hiding something.
It is well known in libertarian circles who was involved with these newsletters. There was a deliberate effort by some in the movement to forge alliances with just about anybody who had a grievance with the government, particularly on the Far Right. Everything from Christian Reconstructionists, to Confederacy sympathizers, and worse. The newsletters simply talked the talk of their intended audience.
Ron Paul has issued a challenge. If anyone is up to it. And his challenge is this:
Locate and bring to the public ANY recording or personally written statement of Ron Paul making ANY racist remarks.
It's as simple as that. Not something that was supposedly written or spoken on his behalf. No.
Something with more teeth in it. A direct quote from Ron Paul.
Good luck.
And in the meantime while you're scratching around in the dirt, Ron Paul, with a copy of the U.S. Constitution in his hand and an army of devoted supporters at his back will continue marching to Pennsylvania Ave.
"If you could choose anyone, from any walk of life, to be President, who would you choose? > I've never had much of a gift for picking out who would be well trusted with power; having voted for Bush in 2004, I'm unwilling to trust my judgment again."
This above quote is Megans! Taken from an interview of her by Norman Geras
http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2007/06/the_normblog_pr_2.html
Gee Megan it is sooo obvious you do not like Ron Paul. Since you self admit you are not very astute at picking a president, who do you like for 2008? I think you should adjust your writing style to something more positive... Such as someone you like instead of someone you know nothing factual about and have an obvious disdain towards...
Remember if you have nothing positive to share keep your lips zipped and your pen capped (keyboard unplugged)
Wow, the foolery continues. The most honest and rational candidate besieged by circumstantial evidence and sentenced without review of greater evidence to the contrary.
The Americans who perpetuate this really do deserve to have their country torn asunder for their lack of awareness.
However, It is my country to and I will not be so easily led by the bridle of emotion.
There is great doom approaching on many fronts. Only Ron Paul is speaking rational to issue. He understands Root Cause And Corrective Action Analysis. He is wise and uses reason to arrive at conclusion. Many look at his conclusion and decry "lunacy" without attempting to understand what his reasoning was. The lazy and the foolish will doom us all.
Economic Catastrophe is in motion and has been for some time. Only Ron Paul has been aware and loudly proclaiming for most of his career about what has arrived. Band aids and Bubble gum can no longer hide what has been forged. We will all suffer in proving him correct.
I find it unfortunate that many would focus on not being part of the solution. Children tend to break their toys.
With knowledge comes sorrow.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!
Guys, trying to say that what was in those newsletters was "right" doesn't help. Paul has had enough links to the Lew Rockwell cranks which he has never repudiated. If you check, you'll see quite a few Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, race war kooks, and White Identity types among the mix. (Rockwell usually whisks their writings off the website as soon as anyone complains, but never seems to bother checking their contents before posting.)
Blethering on about "freedom of speech" as a "libertarian policy" may sound great to you in your little circle-jerk of other "libertarian" friends, but to the rest of us it looks like you're damn willing to play footsie with some pretty smelly individuals.
If Paul's defense is true -- if someone else wrote these things, and Paul didn't know, and then when he found out, he fired that person -- then where is the letter from Paul in the following issue of the newsletter repudiating those earlier statements as not representing his true views?
Moreover, if Paul's defense is true, where is his offer to refund money to all the subscribers he defrauded? (The newsletters were written in the first person, as though they were coming from Paul. Someone who read them would have thought they were buying Paul's words -- not some ghostwriter's.)
Hey Megan, I run an anti-Paul blog, and I've linked to your site once or twice in the past for material, usually on economic theory. Anyway, I created a FAQ regarding the newsletter that you might be interested in.
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html
Here's what it says under #26. What about the war on drugs:
Irrelevant. Ron Paul doesn't oppose the war on drugs because it's racist, he opposes it because he opposes everything. The war on drugs could be the most racially equitable program in the history of Earth, and Ron Paul would still oppose it, because it isn't mentioned in the constitution. Some people will try to argue, "But if Ron Paul was a racist, he would support the war on drugs!" This is a faulty syllogism. If the underlying premise were true, then we would have to conclude that Stormfront isn't racist either. Is anyone going to argue that Stormfront isn't racist?
http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php/war-drugs-441349.html
But if you want further proof, then check out Ron Paul's solicitation letter. Page one. Hey look, Ron Paul opposed the war on drugs even then. So his current opposition proves nothing, since it doesn't contradict the newsletter in the least.
http://tnr.com/downloads/Solicitation.pdf