Skip to comments.In 1996, Paul Wasn't Issuing Denials
Posted on 01/11/2008 6:59:44 AM PST by jdm
Reason Magazine has long associated themselves with the Ron Paul campaign, if not officially endorsing him. Their Hit & Run blog has served as the heart of rational Paul apologetics, and in their skilled hands, that has proven essential to his campaign. Now, as the magazine has Paul on its cover, its new editor has the unpleasant task of looking a little more closely at the candidate, and Matt Welch finds it an unpleasant journey.
Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.
The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago. ...
So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.
Indeed. Rather than claiming he had never read these newsletters, as Paul absurdly did on CNN last night, Paul claimed that he himself wrote the newsletters. Matt Welch find this in the contemporaneous Dallas Morning News report on the newsletters during Paul's 1996 Congressional campaign (May 22, 1996, emphasis mine):
Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.
Matt has more examples of Paul's non-denials in 1996. Twelve years later, Paul wants people to believe that not only did he not write any of his newsletters, he never read them either. His role in the single most effective piece of outreach of his organization, he explained to Wolf Blitzer last night, was as a publisher -- one who didn't bother to read his own publication. These 1996 quotes put lie to his CNN interview answers.
Not only does this show dishonesty, but it indicates that Paul had a lot more involvement in the publication of the despicable statements found in his own newsletter than Paul or his less-rational apologists want to admit. The supremacists and conspiracy theorists surrounding his campaign apparently got attracted by more than just Paul's views on the Constitution; they read the newsletters and determined that Paul was one of them. His refusal to recant in 1996 and his explanation that he can't recall ever reading the newsletters today signal to them that he still wants their support.
People wonder why this matters, given Paul's fringe appeal. It matters because we can't allow this kind of hatred to get legitimized in mainstream politics again. This kind of rhetoric used to be mainstream, and not just in the South, either. Republicans cannot allow the party to get tainted by the stench of racism and conspiracy mongering. If enough of us don't step up and denounce it, strongly and repeatedly, we will not be able to avoid it.
Matt Welch and the people at Reason have reached that same conclusion in regards to libertarianism and their magazine. Good for them, even if it came a little late.
There was this Republican debate thingie last night, and granted I was two glasses of merlot deep at the time, but I could have sworn Ron Paul was on my TV screen. Maybe I was just f$%&ed up. Who knows?
Which branch of the military did you serve in?
His moment of glory is betraying his country, and taking bloodmoney of the back of our troops, from seditionists, traitors and racists.
He can go to hell.
I must admit, you’re very good at calmly pwning the Posse wannabes on these threads. Well done.
Would you also agree that the GOP needs too distance itself from gun-grabbers and pro-abortion Republicans?
Apparently "researching" to you means reading the columns of gay activist/Ron Paul supporter/Milosevic apologist Justin Raimondo.
The reports of necklacing came from the 1996 split between the OPL party and Aristide's Lavalas faction, when there was open violence in the streets between Aristide supporters and his former allies.
But keep digging.
back to the topic of the thread:
Ron Paul is a lying weasel, as demonstrated by the libertarian Reason Magazine's inability to justify his continuously changing story about his whacko newsletter.
So you think its okay to call the Vietnamese Gooks (still not fully apologized for), but not okay for Paul who unlike McCain, has fully apologize for his newsletters, eh? McCain can be a racist and that's okay with you.
A freeper defending Aristide. Imagine that. Next, you’ll be defending Chavez and Castro (both of whom your pal Aristide admires).
I've gotta say, watching the meltdown of the Giulianites as he continues to fade into oblivion warms the cockles of my heart. I might have to stop over at one of the FR exile sites today for a good laugh.
“Actually, Thompson was much like a Ron Paul supporter in one respect: he was taken in by the rhetoric of a scummy charlatan who claimed to be a man of principle.”
On Oct 10th 1991 Thompson filed papers lobbying for Aristide
2 weeks EARLIER -On Sept 27th - 1991 Aristide endorsed ‘necklacing’
FrontPageMagazine.com | Friday, February 20, 2004
ONCE AGAIN HAITIAN PRESIDENT JOHN-BERTRAND ARISTIDE
may be ousted by his citizens, who began a new rebellion against his tyrannical rule on February 5.
After Aristide was removed by a military coup in 1991, President Bill Clinton in 1994 sent 20,000 U.S. troops to Haiti to restore to power this former Roman Catholic Priest and advocate for Leftist Liberation Theology who once called Cuban Marxist dictator Fidel Castro his greatest personal hero.
Aristide has also endorsed necklacing of the kind widely practiced in South Africa by Winnie Mandela. It consists of seizing a victim, forcing an automobile tire filled with gasoline down over their head and shoulders, and then setting the tire and gasoline on fire.
What a beautiful tool! It smells good. And wherever you go, you want to smell it, Aristide said of the necklacing of his critics on September 27, 1991, as witnessed and reported by Associated Press.
Didn’t your mother teach you personal responsibility? The excuse that “Jimmy did it too” doesn’t fly with me.
And I think there is a qualitative difference between making a mistake about a foreign country’s politics and tin-pot politicians and a US politician personally holding morally repugnant racist attitudes.
I too like a lot of the things Paul says (Lets get rid of the IRS! Yay!)
But anyone can find and mouth a few libertarian ideas that will appeal to me. But I don’t let it lead me down the path toward supporting this guy who has been known as a radical kook in Texas for years.
You should feel betrayed by him, not attack others.
There is no bottom of the barrel for the hate brigade. Blackbird.
I think I see why the Aristide issue keeps coming up, they like Marxist Military Coups. Paul seems to have taken the opposite approach to Haiti. He was the only member of Congress in September not to pass a resolution urging Haiti to conduct fair, free, and peaceful elections.
I have never served in the military in any capacity.
Which is immaterial to the point: Ron Paul by his own admission served in a military he did not believe in solely for the cash.
“The reports of necklacing came from the 1996 split between the OPL party and Aristide’s Lavalas faction, when there was open violence in the streets between Aristide supporters and his former allies.”
No - 1991.
See the article I just posted to you previously.
You have gotten nearly every fact you’ve cited wrong.
I’ve posted links rebutting each one.
I am sure this will only earn more namecalling.
Aristide and Castro have a mutual admiration society. and this was equally true in 1991.
In the interest of full disclosure, always a good thing for a politician, Paul refused to release copies of the newsletter.
Note the quick mention in a July, 2007 interview with Paul by the NYT Magazine. A fairly positive bio.
The question is whether the old ideologies being resurrected are neglected wisdom or discredited nonsense. In the 1996 general election, Pauls Democratic opponent Lefty Morris held a press conference to air several shocking quotes from a newsletter that Paul published during his decade away from Washington. Passages described the black male population of Washington as semi-criminal or entirely criminal and stated that by far the most powerful lobby in Washington of the bad sort is the Israeli government. Morris noted that a Canadian neo-Nazi Web site had listed Pauls newsletter as a laudably racialist publication.
Paul survived these revelations. He later explained that he had not written the passages himself quite believably, since the style diverges widely from his own. But his response to the accusations was not transparent. When Morris called on him to release the rest of his newsletters, he would not. He remains touchy about it. Even the fact that youre asking this question infers, Oh, youre an anti-Semite, he told me in June. Actually, it doesnt. Paul was in Congress when Israel bombed Iraqs Osirak nuclear plant in 1981 and unlike the United Nations and the Reagan administration defended its right to do so. He says Saudi Arabia has an influence on Washington equal to Israels. His votes against support for Israel follow quite naturally from his opposition to all foreign aid. There is no sign that they reflect any special animus against the Jewish state.
As recently as June he refused to release copies, answering the request with the standard you're accusing me of being an antisemite excuse, which struck me odd at the time, since the issue was racism. Neither Jews nor Israel are mentioned in the article being questioned. Obviously Paul knew about the newsletters content, else his response would have been Even the fact that youre asking this question infers, Oh, youre an
anti-Semite racist, based on the single racist article.
That pretty much covers it.
Yes, he was. He would have also opposed a “free” election in Palestine which led to the victory of Hamas, an election that U.S. has now repudiated though clearly free and fair.
Fascinating that your link does not work.
With an equal dose of "blind defense" by those who only "read" what they wanted to in the article.
That's the actual topic of the thread.
“Oh, and Ron Paul is still a lying, fraudulent scumbag who claimed to be the author of those newsletters before deciding later that he didn’t write them.”
You’re the liar as I proved in post after post on this thread.
I guess namecalling is easier than researching.
I guess changing the subject is easier than defending the indefensible.
You have not made any effort to address the issue at hand. You are using the classic Democrat defense of "everybody does it..."
I notice that you have backed away from your previous support of Jean Aristide as a rationalizationt to Fred’s behavior (no wrose than Paul’s) in this thread. Why?
One of my hugest pet-peeves is when someone who never served complains about the service of someone who did honorably, be it Paul, McCain, Bush, whomever. If a vet wants to go ahead and do so, I won't raise a peep, but for non-veterans, forget it.
Which is immaterial to the point: Ron Paul by his own admission served in a military he did not believe in solely for the cash.
He was a doctor with a private practice when he was commissioned. He certainly wasn't "moving on up" financially. And a very good portion of our guys and gals serving overseas currently enlisted due in large part for the financial benefits. Please don't smear them.
And what does that have to do with an article on Ron Paul's lies about the newsletters?
What a coincidence, here I am changing a dirty diaper on my son and the first ping I see is to a Ron Paul thread...
Guess what the diaper and Paul have in common...
Who is changing the subject? Paul has apologized but others have not for their past actions. It is just pointing out a double standad. Paul screwed up big time and at least tried to make up for it. Fred and McCain didn’t even really try. If you want to raid Paul out of town on a rail, fine....but then don’t turn around and give people you like a free pass and who still refuse to apologize for their actions.
I see some have almost successfully changed the subject and buried the topic that Paul blatantly lied either in 1996 when he admitted he wrote the articles and they were just taken out of context or in 2001 (and this week) when he claimed he never wrote them and never saw them.
So supporting the murder of infants and disproportionately disarming minorities are signs of "sound character"?
Ahhh, should have Googled. It's Friday and I'm lazy.
Paul is not a racist; he just wants racist to believe he is while keeping non-racist convinced that he isn’t. //sarcasm off
I'm not defending Aristide. I am pointing out that Aristide - like many elected executives who became dictators - played the game of pretending to support popular government at the beginning of their careers.
It's a ruse that was employed by Castro, Mugabe and Chavez as well.
It is currently being played by Evo Morales in Bolivia and Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua.
It's an eye-opener for me.
“I guess changing the subject is easier than defending the indefensible.”
How funny! I was CORRECTING wideawake on his incorrect timetable about Fred’s support of Aristide!!! Now I’m ‘changing the subject?’
The proof is in the links below.
“You have not made any effort to address the issue at hand. You are using the classic Democrat defense of “everybody does it...””
Total lie. What are you, wideawake’s twin?
The chick I was responding to in that post is one of the few Giulianites left here on FR. I just saw that Rudy item on the news before work and wanted to rub it in a bit. If you were here early last year and saw some of the nastiness the Rudy people were spewing against Fred, you'd understand.
“I’m not defending Aristide. I am pointing out that Aristide - like many elected executives who became dictators - played the game of pretending to support popular government at the beginning of their careers.”
No he didn’t.
Posting broken links to unsubstantiated information isn't "proof" - at least to normal people.
What is true:
Ron Paul admitted in 1996 he wrote the newsletters.
Ron Paul claimed in 2001 that he didn't write them.
Ron Paul's campaign has refused to release copies of his own newsletter to the media.
Either Ron paul was lying in 1996 or he is lying now.
Please tell me which was the lie: the 1996 affirmation or the 2001 denial?
I ask you again:
Was Paul lying in 1996 when he admitted authoring the newsletter?
Or was he lying in 2001 when he denied writing the newsletter?
It was one or the other. Which was it?
“Guess what the diaper and Paul have in common...”
They are both free-market solutions for catching the production of sh*t?
“Foolishly stood by” describes his actions and his supporters well.
You still have not made any effort to address the issue at hand. Will you ever address the issue, or will you simply continue to deflect?
People who don't know how to pluralize words ending in "st" should not be allowed on the Internet.
LOL, good grief, RG has ZERO to do with RP’s ZERO accomplishments in office.
Speaking of websites, Ron Paul’s site is always “intertaining”.