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.
Don't forget
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.
The author is simply going to have to step forward.
Why anarchy fails
"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.
Birthday Pony: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.
How in the world did you derive that meaning from what Tunk wrote?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
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. 8-)
Lol Reason says that Lew Rockwell and Rothbard wrote these newsletters:
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
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.
Frickin President of the Austin NAACP says Ron Paul isn't racist
There's more, and I cite them in the FAQ:
Rick Sincere
Nearly fifteen years ago, I was running for the Virginia House of Delegates […] Ron Paul issued a letter on my behalf, soliciting funds from libertarians and votes from constituents. […] Dr. Paul (then a former Congressman) was aware I was running as an openly-gay candidate and he raised no questions, concerns, or objections. I hardly think a homophobic bigot would have sent out a fundraising letter over his own signature, endorsing (as the Washington Times stylebook would have it) an “avowed homosexual” for public office.
New York Sun Editorial Staff
[I]n the dozen or so conversations we‟ve had with Dr. Paul over nearly 30 years, he has never voiced views that we would call racist or anti-Semitic.
And Stewart Rhodes, a Hispanic former congressional staffer for Paul
I worked for Ron Paul, in his Washington D.C. office, in 1998-99, seeing him almost every day, and saw absolutely no indication of him being racist, and in fact, I saw many reasons to know he is not racist. […] And I wasn't the only staff member of “mixed race.” There were several others and he never gave it a second thought. One of them was a young woman who is half Panamanian, with an obvious dark complexion. If Ron Paul were some kind of racist, who thinks non-whites are inferior, why would he hire her, or me?
Wheylous:Frickin President of the NAACP says Ron Paul isn't racist
And believe me. He'd know.
Libertyandlife:Lol Reason says that Lew Rockwell and Rothbard wrote these newsletters
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
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.
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
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
- Mohandas Gandhi
ATTENTION:
I've changed the host of the FAQ to Google Docs.
From now on everyone just link to my blog.
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.
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).
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.
Anenome: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.
Yeah. Speak less plainly. More complex. More ambigious. Not be so dumb on foreign policy. Take bold steps. You know what's wrong with this country? People just can't get along. If politicians would just get their act together, stop bickering, come to the table and roll up their sleeves and work together we could actually get things done. Why can't they just take it down a notch and compromise and work on collective action and allow the government to get things done and create solutions for real people with real problems?
Holy crap JJ, you sound exactly like 90% of the public. I am literally freaked out right now. Holy crap. And to think that this drivel is what is considered "pragmatic" in America.
I would have lost it if i was him, he was good to retain his composure. She would have been on the floor with a broken noes if i was in that interview. That cheeky bitch has no respect and it is typical of a jewish news organisation to pick on pathetic points and make a big deal about it, to try and discredit him. If you don't get in bed with AIPAC then cnn will send this women to do interviews with you. This is not the end of CNN and their disrespectful and pious behaviour towards Mr Paul. Ron paul does not need CNN.
"jewish news organization"
please be troll.
Jewish news organisations? Careful old boy
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Threatening violence against people for asking questions is always classy too.
I do not mean to offend anyone but the interviewer was asking about something specific to isreal and it is common knowledge that cnn is a jewish news organisation. I just put the two together.
I have to admit that the interview did get me a bit worked up because i thought she was very rude and this is not the first time that cnn has interview ron paul in such a rude way. Over the years i have seen this again and again.
Mises: Jewish
</ the end>
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
I am aware that mises is jewish and I can not realy see how that is relevant to this thread. I was not being prejudice to all jewish people. I was merely trying to point out what I had notice.
In hindsight I can see how my previous post might have made a few people emotional. I would have rather written this sentence
"That cheeky *** has no respect and it is typical of a jewish news organisation to pick on pathetic points and make a big deal about it, to try and discredit him."
As follows "That cheeky *** has no respect and it is typical of cnn to pick on pathetic points and make a big deal about it, to try and discredit him."
Then gone on to explain in a different sentence. I find it interesting that cnn, which is a jewish news organisation brings up a point about isreal during an interview and persists until the interviewee turns off his mic.
Plenty of non Jews are intersted in Israel.
The way you write carries the implication that Jews are poor journalists and even that there is such a thing as a universally Jewish talking point and so that is what a Jew would say.
Furthermore Im curious what a Jewish news organisation means when you say it? And whether you are known to categorise other news organisations as Protestant or khurdish and so on
Jack Roberts: I am aware that mises is jewish and I can not realy see how that is relevant to this thread. I was not being prejudice to all jewish people. I was merely trying to point out what I had notice. In hindsight I can see how my previous post might have made a few people emotional. I would have rather written this sentence "That cheeky *** has no respect and it is typical of a jewish news organisation to pick on pathetic points and make a big deal about it, to try and discredit him." As follows "That cheeky *** has no respect and it is typical of cnn to pick on pathetic points and make a big deal about it, to try and discredit him." Then gone on to explain in a different sentence. I find it interesting that cnn, which is a jewish news organisation brings up a point about isreal during an interview and persists until the interviewee turns off his mic.
CNN attacks RP's ideology, which is based on Mises, who is Jewish and whose lessons actually favor Jews. So if a Jew is anti-RP because RP is anti-Israel and, thereby, "anti-Jew," but he (RP) really isn't because he supports Jews and is heavily influenced by a long line of Jewish intellectuals, then how can a Jew blame a non-Jew for being anti-Jew when the non-Jew is actually pro-Jew and is friends and is an intellectual descendant of Jews when, in reality, the Jew is being anti-Jew by promoting a state (Israel) that steals from Jews and wants to tax Jew in the USA to fund the plundering of Jews in another state?
Cool, Tom Woods has linked to my FAQ. It's also up at RonPaulForums. Hopefully this'll start getting some traction.
Anemone: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.
Please read my FAQ, precisely sections #12 and #13, where I address this charge. The newsletters ran for 3 decades, and perhaps 360 issues were released contained no more controversial commentary then appeared in a lot of conservative and popular media at the time. For instance, as Woods notes at his blog today:
Lots of pretty blunt things were said in the wake of the L.A. riots, an event most of Ron Paul’s young supporters won’t even remember. Plenty of conservatives said the riots had their origins in the welfare-state mentality, and a Ron Paul newsletter was scarcely the only outlet not saying super-delicate p.c. things about marauders who pulled people out of their cars and killed them. Certainly this exchange in the newsletters was outside the normal bounds of polite discourse: Robin: I was going to bring you a VCR, but the stores had none. Johnny: A little low, are they? Robin: Somebody, I guess, had done a little “political shopping.” [Suddenly imitating an angry black man] “Yo, man, this [giving the clenched-fist Black Power salute] is for Rodney King … and the five TVs are for me.” Wait a second, that’s not from the newsletters at all — that’s from Robin Williams’ appearance on Johnny Carson’s final episode of the Tonight Show.
Certainly this exchange in the newsletters was outside the normal bounds of polite discourse:
Robin: I was going to bring you a VCR, but the stores had none.
Johnny: A little low, are they?
Robin: Somebody, I guess, had done a little “political shopping.” [Suddenly imitating an angry black man] “Yo, man, this [giving the clenched-fist Black Power salute] is for Rodney King … and the five TVs are for me.”
Wait a second, that’s not from the newsletters at all — that’s from Robin Williams’ appearance on Johnny Carson’s final episode of the Tonight Show.
From a brief period from about 1990-1994 perhaps 7 newsletters were published containing some comments that could be seen as pandering to racial and sexual prejudice. This would constitute about 2% of all the newsletters that were ever published, and 16% of those published during that period.
This occurred 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. In other words, there were other things on his mind. Paul was quite angry when he found out about these articles.
I would really like to see you or anyone else take on Paul's punishing work schedule back then and go on to have anything better than a 16% margin of error. Should we blame Paul for not having superhuman powers? Should we blame him for comments on his Facebook page too? Would you like to be held accountable for everything other people might do in your name?
For those who are visual:
He's SUCH a racist:
http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/22/poll-ron-paul-would-fare-best-against-obama-among-non-white-voters/
N-nonsense! Stormfront and Bill O'Reilly secretly hacked those poll numbers! I- I mean... homophobism... anti semite...
I think people trying to say that RP is NOT a rascist are sort of missing the point. No serious people would believe that RP is a rascist, and anyone that does beleive that, was not going to vote for him anyway. However, there is another side to it, and that is criticism in how he has been dealing with the issue. When pressed on this topic he turns into a politician, only giving out select information. Honesty is always the best policy, I think he should hold a press conferecne and spill all the beans on everything that went on during that time, naming names, explaining how it was that that person came to writing for the newletter and why it stopped and RP's relation to that person or persons before and after. He also should come out and figure out exactly how much money he made from the newsletters over the life of their existence and from the ones that had the racist writings. ALL of them should be put on the internet w/ RP saying who wrote everything.
Then he could never be asked any questions about the issue EVER again.
THe point is not exposing him as a racist, people will question his ability to manage and be an executive.
I thought this was hilarious.
But what Paul's fans lack in age and experience, they make up for in enthusiasm — 77% of Paul supporters say they are definitely going to vote for him, compared to 54% for Gingrich.
http://factsandotherstubbornthings.blogspot.com/2011/12/more-ron-paul-newsletters.html
Now Kuehn is aboard the Ron Paul smear train (admitting that he believe Ron Paul is threat to America and will vote for Obama) by linking to a particularly nasty individual who went through the newsletters himself.
This story is really brining out the ugly in people.
I don't know what is worse; that people would find that those newsletters outweigh all the actual racial equality that RP would bring by ending the drug war, or that Obama would be their savior.
Also, isn't the revelation of these newsletters actually good for RP? After all, aren't Republicans a bunch of white, racist red-necks? Lol. RP should win the nomination by a landslide.
(Yes, I do very purposefully use "savior" and "revelation" in my post.)
Let's not forget all of the racial profiling that would no longer occur by getting rid of the TSA. All my Indian homies wouldn't have to drive to Vegas anymore for fear of flying there instead and being strip searched.