Ron Paul's "Racist Newsletters" Debunked Once And For All!

Miscellaneous General
1

I’ve typed up a very long and meticulously cited FAQ in response to this very old charge, available here. I think I’ve now read every blog post there is on the subject, and hopefully I covered just about everything. I would appreciate comments, criticisms, etc.

Basically, what happened was that for perhaps 3 decades, several newsletters ran under Paul’s name containing some fairly conventional right-wing commentary. Many have attested that Paul personally distanced himself from production and various people with gigs as ghostwriters came and went.

For a brief period from about 1990-1994, a very small number of newsletters were released sporadically which contained racial hateful and “homophobic” remarks.

This was during a time when Paul had relinquished responsibility for the newsletters’ operation, retired from Congress and an exhausting presidential campaign, and consigned himself to working full-time as a medical doctor and public speaker, in addition to raising five children.

A few objectionable issues managed to leak out under Paul’s nose, quite understandably. Paul did not then and does not now possess superhuman powers. Believe it or not, there were other things that were occupying him at the time. He didn’t have the ease of mind, the way some people apparently do, to devote his days to scanning the newsletters for the occasional rant against gays. Blaming him for this is ultimately like blaming him for comments on his Facebook wall.

The racist comments fly in the face of everything Paul has ever written and said, as many people who know him personally have attested. (Among whom include Rick Sincere, an openly gay libertarian whose run for Congress in 1993 Paul supported and helped solicit funds for, at the same time the most hysterical of the newsletters were being churned out.)

Paul was quite angry when he learned of the whole thing. He didn’t issue a full denial in 1996 when it was first brought up only on the extremely stupid advice of his campaign staff. (Paul is far too trusting and has never been great at picking advisors.) He has in the past decade addressed the issue several times publically, explicitly denying authorship, and there is every reason to believe it and move on.

Thoughts on the following Sam Seder video
2

Don’t forget

3

It looks good. I’ll look through it more tommorrow.

I have to say Tunk, you haven’t been here long but you’ve produced some really quality material so far.

4

The author is simply going to have to step forward.

5

“Paul did not then and does not now possess superhuman powers. Believe it or not, there were other things that were occupying him at the time. He didn’t have the ease of mind, the way some people apparently do, to devote his days to scanning the newsletters for the occasional rant against gays.”

Not sure how you’re trying to make this sound, but that sounds an awful lot like you think everyone has these urges to rant against “gays” and only through careful deliberation do they not.

6

How in the world did you derive that meaning from what Tunk wrote?

7

Excellent. Clears up a lot of questions I had about the 1996 article, since that is the strongest sounding talking point opponents bring up, particularly in the latest bloodthirsty smearbund mouthpieces.

The fact is I hope (not the hardest wish to grant lmao) the media pushes it in their blood-crazed way so somebody steps up once and for all and this hysteria can be put out of its misery.

Kickass journalism on your part. :sunglasses:

8

Lol Reason says that Lew Rockwell and Rothbard wrote these newsletters:

9

Ron is too much of a gentleman to out anyone he’s that close to. If it was someone so close to him, they’ll have to come forward themselves. Anyway, at this stage the person who did write them (and whoever the editor of the newsletters was, who must have read them) has to be feeling a huge burden of guilt, not sleeping at night, etc. And it’s only going to get worse as the media hammers this stuff harder and harder. The fact that he won’t name who wrote them or at least vetted them when asked point-blank looks really bad, really un-Paul-like, like he’s hiding something. Whatever the facts are, this issue ain’t going away my friends.

10

Frickin President of the Austin NAACP says Ron Paul isn’t racist

11

There’s more, and I cite them in the FAQ:

Rick Sincere

New York Sun Editorial Staff

And Stewart Rhodes, a Hispanic former congressional staffer for Paul

12

And believe me. He’d know.

13

Yeah I remember reading that when I first heard about this whole thing years ago. At first I thought that would make sense as to why Paul wouldn’t say anything as to who wrote them, as he and Rockwell are still close. But then I got into the history of the US libertarian community circuit, and realized such accusations may have more to do with latent animosity than actual fact…

The Kochtopus vs. Murray N. Rothbard

Libertarianism and the Old Right

Raimondo on Rothbard and Rothbard on Everything

14

Apparently, CNN aired a story on the newsletters this evening. He’s rising in the polls and poised to win Iowa. Right on cue as we would’ve predicted.

15

This is quite interesting. The recent Google trends show that the racism thing is picking up. On the bright side, it’s about as popular as Gary Johnson himself:

http://trends.google.com/trends?q=ron+paul+racist%2C+paul+racist%2C+ron+racist%2C+gary+johnson&ctab=0&geo=us&geor=all&date=mtd&sort=3

Now compare this Ron Paul’s overall searches:

http://trends.google.com/trends?q=paul+racist%2C+gary+johnson%2C+ron+paul&ctab=0&geo=us&geor=all&date=mtd&sort=2

16

“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

  • Mohandas Gandhi
17

ATTENTION:

I’ve changed the host of the FAQ to Google Docs.

From now on everyone just link to my blog.

18

I’m really liking this. The gloves are starting to come off and he’s pushing back (finally). But of course he maintains the courtesy and the gentlemanly nature, as always.

I especially love the second segment…“would you be willing to stop running those ads?” “No.” And of course you have to love the way he gave a totally straight answer on the PACs; it was completely coherent and clear, everyone just saw it, and then she immediately tries to say he’s “conflicted”.

And here he was 4 years ago (as always) saying the same thing.

19

I think CNN is doing a Sean Hannity and looking for something negative to talk about (in his post-debate interview of Paul). Any time they can drum up controversy, it is a bonus for them. This is the only thing they can get their hands on and they are trying to manufacture a story where none really exists. The only way they can make it a story is by spreading disinformation about Paul and the newsletters (saying “he published the newsletters” and acting as if he has never disavowed the content).

20

You know what, then Paul is a fool for allowing other people to write anything under that banner of his name, and beyond that for not reading and okaying absolutely everything.

And I support him over the others, but he should be a bit smarter about foreign policy and speak less plainly and take bold steps (to enact his foreing policy beliers) after gaining power. He’s freaking out people whose support he needs to become president, namely the republican power brokers who’ve ruled him out because they think his foreign policy is insanity.