Skip to comments.Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays
Posted on 01/10/2008 2:16:11 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."
Republican presidential hopeful Ron Paul's campaign has raised millions of dollars, most from online supporters.
CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in the New Republic.
None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
I’ve been trying to advocate for more positive reinforcement in FR with regard to the various candidates, but if the crap I’ve heard reported actually IS in those newsletters, this a-hole needs to be purged.
Ping, you should hear this interview.
That's not good enough, says one political veteran. "These stories may be very old in Ron Paul's life, but they're very new to the American public and they deserve to be totally ventilated," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst. "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'"
In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."
The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."
Ping for review
I’ve seen nothing to convince me that ElRon is a bigot, but he sure seems to save them a seat at his table — and these quotes seem to indicate that it isn’t a new phenomenon.
The MLK Money Bomb is a grassroots event that was started by what is supposedly a third party not affiliated with the campaign. He may have some problems if the wrong people at the FEC think that is an indication he is coordinating with some of these grassroots fundraisers.
I too am not yet convinced Ron Paul is a racist, or anti-semetic, as some of his associations, and these papers, seem to imply. Yet.
But it does seem he uses people and groups for his own benefit. And if he sees personal benefit in something, he’s not about to relinquish that association, regardless how it may appear to others. That in itself is a highly questionable trait IMO in someone running for the presidency.
I don't know. I saw it and it sounds like to me he is taking the gloves off. Maybe Michigan will be Paul's Battle of Saratoga moment.
If he said that, it's a problem. He and his "private" fundraisers should save some money for the FEC fines. They may be surprised to find laws do apply to paulistinians.
I'll try to listen when it pops up on youtube or somewhere, but from the article I noted.
"What I think some people are looking for him to do is to say, 'OK, who wrote that?' I mean, there's 20 years, give or take, worth of newsletters there," Welch said.
Benton maintains that the GOP presidential candidate doesn't know who wrote any of the newsletters. Asked if Paul would try to find out, his spokesman said, "No, what's the point? ... It's time to move on."
Honestly, no one can believe that. True believers may parrot the line, but the man is a liar. And no, the fact that Benton may be doing the lying for him doesn't exclude him from responsibility.
Don't know if it will come up tonight, but I'm poking around for the sample Chris Matthews questioning of candidates in a debate post Republican racism revalations.
The good new, Paul has been so batty through the campaign, mostly through the good auspices of his supporters, my interview won't happen. No one will hang his nutball opinions and associates on the GOP, he owns them.
Some clarification is in order. Everyone does this to more or less degree. What bothers me about Ron Paul is the groups he has been associated with, and his carelessness, or disregard, of their unsavory character.
Based on the availability of the newletters I think he's clearly a racist, whether he wrote all of it or simply condoned it's publication in his name. The idea that he was clueless for a decade and a half isn't credible.
But it doesn't matter. The example I've used in the past in the official in Klan country, who wasn't a member (Byrd is out), might even have condemned their activities in private, but hung with kluckers, did business with kluckers, and in general went on with his life. If his life included public responsibilities, he was blind there too. Wouldn't speak out in any meaningful way.
(To the paulistinian about to respond, I condemn your ideology but send money isn't meaningful imo, so don't bother)
It's a moral shortcoming. A common one, I could draw numerous similar comparisons from the last century.
If the question is having dinner with the guy, I might not, but in general sure.
For President of the United States, give me a break, he hasn't the moral backbone to be a dogcatcher.
BTW, you'd be suprised, when it comes to overt racism, and that's where Paul's at, everyone doesn't do it. That's why he's still a margin of error candidate.
Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea
Not totally clear Paul said that, but if he did, wow.
The classic rationalization for opression.
Blacks can't be racist cause they're black.
Arabs can't be antisemitic cause they're semites.
I'll leave it there, but history is littered with the victims of that rationalization.
"I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said.
"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."
His face is out there as a Republican. I think it's become unlikely that his supporters and opinions will be hung on the GOP, but as long as he's a Republican candidate, he should be discussed.
As I've noted on occasion, were he not a Presidential candidate, his writings would likely be banned here. If he had a website rather than newsletter, it would be banned, as are the websites of many of his prominent supporters. So I understand what you're saying.
You ignored my 'yet'. I'm simply giving the benefit of the doubt for a short period of time to see whether he comes up with credible explainations.
It's a moral shortcoming. A common one, I could draw numerous similar comparisons from the last century.
I absolutely agree. That's what I said in my clarfication.
My statement about everyone using people or groups at times was clarified by stating what bothers me is the groups he uses to his benefit. I believe we're of the same opinion. Everyone uses people at times; not everyone has the lack of character to make himself accessible to these peripheral, and highly disgusting groups. And that is what bothers me about RP.
That's a sensible thing to do, my clock took months to state he's a racist, despite knowing all about the individuals/groups he's connected with day one. In fact, I didn't believe it at first, though that lasted about 12 hours.
One could possibly see racism implied in that statement. Does he believe these minorities are incapable of protecting themselves? Does he believe they need the white spokesman to protect them from the evils of this world?
A cornerstone of conservative thought is that everyone should have the opportunity to advance themselves, and be as successful in life as they can be. It would seem to me the above is almost a rejection of this philosophy. 'These people' need me for their own good.
It's clearly a big government, "protect", statement with racial overtones. I cut him slack on many of these because I think he's a soundbite person, not a serious thinker. At least not in his verbal statements.
What's amusing to me, though (now that we've discussed the serious side), it's the antithesis of everything he preaches; small government, sticking to constitutional principles, get the government out of one's home. I agree that this one statement shows little forethought.
Didn’t someone post a shot yesterday of one of the most offensive letters (that Paul denies writing) showing him extending personal Christmas wishes from himself, his wife, his kids and grandkids?
Interesting difference, Conservatives aren't racist because they believe in the individual instead of the label.
Yep, I am surprised the media hasn’t jumped on that yet. Someone who was writing his newsletter really went out of their way to make it appear Paul wrote it.
Take out the racial component, does he believe people need the government to protect them from the evils of this world?
That's the basis of my post #24. It's the antithesis of all he preaches.
Hadn’t gotten to that one yet.. This was probably the most telling speech he has ever given, and not to his benefit.
I don't think it's offensive, but I admit Merry Christmas and may we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists is odd.
Don't find that at Hallmark.
The good news, it's been over 15 years and the Trilateralists haven't taken over yet, Ron must have confounded them.
He must have, who else could have?
But to what degree do his followers hear what he says rationally, and will it hurt him?
I think you missed my point but becuase I cannot understand what you wrote, we’re probably even.
It wasn’t an offensive Christmas message, just odd.
It is certainly a valid question whether someone endorsed by Stormfront et. al. would have any credibility as a mediator in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
In 1960, a West Virginia voter told Hubert Humphrey "I ain't gonna vote for no Catholic." Without missing a beat, Humphrey told that man, "Then sir, I don't want your vote." In 1980, the Klan endorsed Ronald Reagan; Reagan was out front in loudly denouncing them and rejecting their support.
These are things Ron Paul has not done. He's waist-deep in bigots, Holocaust deniers and 9/11 "Truthers," and he hasn't taken a single step to distance himself. He keeps going on their talk shows and accepting their donations.
I repeat that I do not believe Dr. Paul is not a bigot or a conspiracy nut. But he does not make a move to distance himself from them. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.
I cannot find the Newsletter yet but it was a newsletter very offensive to MLK that also included a personal RP Christmas greeting. BUt somehow he still denies that he wrote it.
I think he's been clueless far longer than that. He's like a puppy begging for scraps from the table and a pat on the head -- and he's desperate enough for the attention that he doesn't care whom it comes from. I'd bet that if I shot him a a couple grand, he'd let me open Ron Paul's Chicken and Waffles somewhere in Harlem.
If you want to read some of the newsletters, they're linked in this post. Fifteen or so in the first link, the other six are threads on individual articles.
By your double negative, are you saying you believe is IS a bigot or conspiracy nut? That's how I would read it. But the balance of your statement implies otherwise.
His follwers are committed and he is coming in fifth; he needs to get out beyond them now, and he isn’t winning new support with that.
I'd take issue with the 'committed' part. Many of his followers are using him as a pawn within the Republican ranks. There's little commitment on their part. Others, yes, they are committed Paulites.
The ones he has to get beyond are mostly in the first group. But part of the reason he isn't winning new support is that he isn't making an effort to get beyond those 'users'. On the contrary, he seems comfortable with the situation.
IF the Christmas greeting was penned by him, it seems logical that he would want/keep a copy of that, even initially. The argument that he never saw these newsletters just doesn’t fly.
I’ll give you that, I agree. Unless I change it to ‘should be committed’?
Oh, I'd go along with that...he, he!
The extent of my being published is having a letter to the editor of a history magazine published. That was back in the late '90's. I believe I still have that issue. So, yes, I'd agree most people would likely keep copies.
But the argument he never saw these is disingenuous. He never saw them yet he can make a statement that this issue has been around for over a decade. If he's known about the 'issue' for over a decade, he's known about the articles for that same period of time. As far as a statement of ignorance, 'that dog don't hunt'.
Grammatical error. I do not believe Dr. Paul is a bigot or a conspiracy nut. But he spends enough time among them, and little enough effort pushing them away, that I don’t think he has the judgment to be president. He emarrasses himself, and would embarrass the country.
this is in bloggers? I think it’s big news that CNN has picked this up
I figured it was. I wasn't calling you out, just wanted to be sure I understood.
Frankly I'm at the point where, if Ron Paul doesn't come up with concrete proof that these articles are in no way associated with him, I will not give him any further credibility on the racist or anti-semitic issues. Statements, denials without proof don't cut the mustard anymore.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.