Ron Paul Newsletter Bombshells
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in 2008 Election, Media, Ron PaulSomehow you almost knew that his newsletters would catch up with him, but to this extent is shocking. I don’t know how he’s going to explain his way out of all of these quotes. Sure, one or two you could explain away, but dozens upon dozens?
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him–and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
Paulites, seriously, this is bad.
So what’s the deal here?
Paul’s position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned.
Sure, but did everybody know about ALL of this? Because I certainly didn’t and I sincerely doubt a lot of Ron Paul supporters do either.
Also, how could Paul let all of this go on for so long under his name? The “I disowned it long ago” argument smells to high heaven because since nobody is around to say who wrote what, he can pick through all the bad stuff and say he didn’t write it.
More as it develops…
UPDATE:
Ron Paul responds with more:
“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Okay, this is the right response, and for my money I believe him. BUT, it still hurts him because it makes him seem careless, and therefore not very presidential.
This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 8th, 2008 and is filed under 2008 Election, Media, Ron Paul. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Yeah, still not buying it. If he was the monster they made him out to be, it’d show through. Instead it requires taking out of context quotes from a decade or two old newsletters, which he may not have even written.
He doesn’t have the level of game that Romney and Giuliani have, it’d simply show through in his speech and demeanor.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Wow… I just read all that. That’s a seriously perverted individual.
I also noted that it doesn’t read like Paul at all. From everything I’ve ever seen that he’s written and any speaking appearance I’ve ever watched he doesn’t talk like that, message notwithstanding.
That said, this’ll kill any hope he has of attracting new votes.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
That’s a LOT of quotes - over the years - to take out of context.
Justin, you know how some people will shoot the messenger and ignore the message.
January 8th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
[...] probably realizing that he really has no defense. Justin Gardner, who also thought highly of Paul, agrees: “how could Paul let all of this go on for so long under his name? The ‘I disowned it [...]
January 8th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I agree with Rob. I’ve read a ton of his writings, and watched a ton of his speeches, and even attended one personally. Nothing like anything of this has bled through to his conduct, his platform, his message, or anywhere.
His explanations seems valid–as a famous anti-establishment figure, he allowed newsletters under his name that ended up with writers who spewed some utter crap, completely against Paul’s own beliefs and message. Paul has addressed this in his Congressional race, and taken moral responsibility for allowing it to happen under his name. You should post his response from his website.
That being said, undoubtedly this a blow to his presidential campaign. Many will not believe, and others who do believe will not want to bother will all the smearing that will come from this. I will continue to support his message, and will almost certainly vote for him, but I understand that others might not. I guess that’s the price Paul pays for being too lose with his anti-establishment name…even though I’m fairly confident he believes nothing of this sort. He has too many powerful and connected enemies who will punch this into the mainstream.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Only The Mentally Minuscule Take Words Out Of Context To Bend Them To Their Preconceived Paradigm.
If you refuse to look at the actions of a man for temperance of judgment then you truly castrate you mind and make it easy to arrive at wrong conclusion.
The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion.
Racism is not consistent with the philosophy expressed by Ron Paul. He has rebutted these accusations from the same distortions in previous days.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would trust with my money and my family’s safety.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!
January 8th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I know this must be disturbing to Paul supporters. There aren’t a lot of explanations. Either he’s a reformed arch-racist, a closeted arch-racist or he’s so incredibly inattentive and unengaged that he allowed viscious racism to be spewed under his name for many, many years. All options are bad.
While none of this invalidates the message behind the Paul campaign, it does invalidate the man himself. What ever the reasons behind these newsletters, he’s clearly not someone we want in the oval office. If Paul supporters want Paul’s message to win, they’re going to have to find someone new to carry it forward.
Maybe this will all be a boon to the Libertarian party.
January 8th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Its a good question, and there is no excuse.
Andrew Sullivan gets it right:
My take: Ron Paul is not a racist. He did not write this stuff. He was asleep at the switch. He has in the past taken responsibility for letting this crap go out under his name, which is still inexcusable.
He is and was not going to be President regardless of this story. Nor was he going to be nominated. I was supporting him because he has applied a much needed “peace and freedom” libertarian cattle prod up the GOP posterior, and I am happy to send him a little more juice in that effort.
But it is amusing to see those who pilloried TNR for failing to vett Scott Beauchamp and Stephen Glass are so uncritically accepting Kirchick’s piece now.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Justin: Okay, this is the right response, and for my money I believe him. BUT, it still hurts him because it makes him seem careless, and therefore not very presidential.
Volokh Conspiracy’s Dale Carpenter concurs with you, as do I. Even if you give Paul the benefit of the doubt here, by accepting the least odious possible explanation for this mess, that still doesn’t speak well of his fitness to lead the country.
That said, I am reminded of my reaction to the Motoons incident in Denmark. I found it disheartening that a motley crew of religion-mocking leftist cartoonists at an obscure newspaper had become the de facto standardbearers for the defense of free speech, simply for the lack of anyone else willing to take up the cause.
Likewise, it’s equally disheartening today that someone who evidently doesn’t mind being associated with flaming bigots (whether or not he is one himself) is now the de facto standardbearer for more liberty and less elective war, again simply for the lack of anyone else in the GOP willing to claim the mantle.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
Apparently Mr. Kirchick is full of something more than just himself…
Jamie Kirchick: “I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical”
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, appeared tonight on Tucker Carlson’s show to announce–with a smirk on his face the size of Manhattan–that his hit piece accusing Ron Paul of racism, homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the next day–which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very day of the New Hampshire primary.
I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my “Ron Paul 2008″ button, he snickered and said, “Oh, Ron Paul… I’ve been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy’s written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!”
I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:
——————————————————————————-
Hi Berin,
Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the [DC Log Cabin Republicans] party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls "the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history"]
http://www.advocate.com/exclusive_detail_ektid50709.asp
Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]
Best,
Jamie
——————————————————————————-
When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I could read more, he answered: “Patience, my friend :-)”
Patience, indeed.
January 8th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Why would you quote David Weigel after writing “Paul answers”? It’s misleading, at least.
January 8th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
I don’t want to be involved in this argument, but instead of calling them ‘out of context quotes,’ all concerned should call them ‘out of context pages over a number of years photocopied out of the newsletters he published under his name.’
http://rapidshare.com/files/82351348/rp_pdfs.zip.html
(zipped collection of pdfs)
January 8th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
before you judge Dr. Paul please read this article
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
January 8th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
[...] Transterrestrial Musings, Lonewacko, Pam’s House Blend, American Street, Matthew Yglesias, Donklephant, Preemptive Karma and Daniel W. Drezner and Others via [...]
January 9th, 2008 at 10:06 am
[...] doubt that newsletter story really hurt him much in New Hampshire. The fallout after? Well, he’ll start losing supporters [...]
January 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Wow you mean someone would lie on election day? Say it ain’t so.
Anyway, if you are interested in the truth:
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108
January 9th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
If this was the conspiracy that the Ron Paul supporters are trying to paint it as wouldn’t it have gone to something with a bit more circulation than TNR? Let’s be real. How many people voting in New Hampshire would even hear about this before they vote?
January 10th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
Are you people really as retarded as you seem?
Of COURSE Ron Paul’s recent speeches and statements won’t reflect these same ideas! He’s running for president, you morons! Do you really think his advisors are going to allow him to get on CNN and rant about Blacks, Jews and gays? They’ll tell him to avoid the latter and fully support the former. In fact, he won’t even need advisors to figure that out!
What these newsletters tell me is that I’ve been right about my suspicions all along. Ron Paul has an agenda. He wants to see Federal protections disolved so states that want to return to their Jim-Crowe era discrimination and gay-bashing ways can legally do so. Sadly, the less intelligent among us have fallen for this, hook, line, and sinker. And they WON’T be swayed by any evidence to the contrary…no matter how damning it may be.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
The trouble is that there are basically two possibilities here - either Paul wrote some or all of the pieces, in which case he is lying, or he did not write them - but they were published in newsletters bearing his name or prominently associated with him. If the second is the case, that doesn’t bode well for Paul either. If it were one or even a couple of articles, one might believe they might have skated under Paul’s radar. But dozens? Over twenty years? That unfortunately gives the situation a more sinister, or sad, twist. It’s hard to believe that over the course of twenty years, not once did Paul come across one of these, or that one of his supporters did not alert him to what was being printed in his name. So one is left with the unpalatable possibilities that either Paul knew of the articles and by basically ignoring them thereby gave tacit approval, or he somehow was so clueless that he let countless such articles be printed under his name with his implied approval for something on the order of twenty years. None of the above possibilities speaks well of a presidential candidate. Even if one give Paul the benefit of a doubt as to his personal racial beliefs, how could he either knowingly allow such things to be printed in his name, or be so blind that neither he nor one of his close associates ever noticed ANY of these articles, especially over so many years?
January 12th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Those of us who have been so devoted Dr. Paul and his campaign, have contributed to it from early, incouding many of the ancillary projects deserve a full and detailed explanation. The bland and blanket assumption of “moral responsibility”, by Dr. Paul is not going to cut the mustard. We are entitled to know who did write all of the offending articles, who received the financial proceeds from th publications, including and sharing i those proceeds by Dr. Paul, and what connection any of the individuals have ow with Dr. Paul or his campaign. I t should be a full, detailed, and thorough narrative the newsleeters origins, contriutors, and eventual demise.
January 14th, 2008 at 11:46 am
[...] thanks to these morons I even finished behind Ron Paul and that moron actually put in writing that he hated blacks and gays. Hell all Republicans hate blacks and gays. I ain’t no different, but I sure as hell am smart [...]