Posted on 01/18/2008 5:13:56 AM PST by steadfastconservative
Since my article "Angry White Man" was posted on our website last Tuesday, many have asked who the author of Ron Paul's newsletters could have been. Published since at least the late 1970s--and at their most incendiary from 1987 to 1996--these newsletters have at times been filled with conspiratorial warnings about the Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group, animus towards black and gay people, and sympathy for right-wing, anti-government militia movements. Many libertarian bloggers have intimated or concluded that the man chiefly responsible for this content was Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., Paul's former congressional chief of staff and the founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. John Robbins, who succeeded Rockwell as Paul's chief of staff, released an "Open Letter to Lew Rockwell" on the Internet last week. "This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron's newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign," Robbins wrote. "Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable." Rockwell, however, in an interview conducted before "Angry White Man" was published, denied that he had any role in writing the newsletters.
Hours after my article appeared on the TNR website, the Paul campaign released a statement. "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed," Paul said. "I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts." . . .
(Excerpt) Read more at tnr.com ...
They were either his newsletters or they weren't. If they were (which this guy Robbins admits), he was responsible for the contents that went out under his name.
And given the context of the times of those newsletters, I don't hold it against him for failing to speak out. I remember back in 1996 feeling very sympathetic to Randy Weaver --I still do -- who could be called a racist.
If Paul wasn't so weak on the WOT, he might be my favorite candidate. As it is, he is the only Pub I am fairly certain I wouldn't vote for in the general election.
Paul had a responsibility to stop the publication that had his name on it, but he allowed it to go on. This reminds me of how he handled the earsmarks in his district. Proposing the spending - then voting against it. Having these articles in his newsletter - then years later saying the articles did not reflect his personal view point.
Paul cannot be trusted, folks!
I don't want to start a flame war, but consider carefully your statement. Perhaps there is something deeper in it that may be worth surfacing. The question you have to ask is this:
Is Ron Paul a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist like many in the anti-war left? Or is he opposing not war per-se but more the instigation and conduct of this particular war?
For me it comes down to this.
If Congress had passed an unambiguous declaration of war naming specifically Islamic radicals and countries that shelter and support them as the target, would a President Paul conduct aggressively a campaign against those named targets, even if he disagreed with the judgement of the Congress?
For my money the answer to this question would be yes.
So let me suggest that your ambivalence about Ron Paul may reflect at least in part disappointment with the facile and ambiguous conduct of the WOT by those currently in power.
Just something to consider.
Of course. That's why you allowed them to be published under your name, year in and year out, and why you took the subscription money such sentiments earned.
You and Cindy Sheehan's boy toy have been thick as thieves for decades and you throw him overboard now, Ron?
Dishonesty and disloyalty are vying for the title of Ron Paul's most distinguishing characteristic.
!!POPCORN TIME!!
I could see Ron Paul as President, should a further attack be made on New York (or elsewhere), claim he had no control over those responsible for security in his administration, and knew nothing of their actions. It would be in lockstep with his reaction here.
The popcorn is in the popper...
Dear Lew,
You have now had three opportunities –1996, 2001, and 2008 — to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.
This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.
Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.
If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message.
You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.
John Robbins, Ph.D.
Chief of Staff
Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985
Dr. Robbins is a Christian theologian and philosopher. He has been critical of both Calvinist and Catholic paleoconservatives, and of neo-Confederates.
Scott Beauchamp had zero evidence to back up his claims.
This story has hard evidence: original editions of Ron Paul's newsletters archived at the University of Wisconsin and admitted by Ron paul to be his newsletter.
He's wearing those newsletters.
Answer is we can’t.
Paul is clearly hiding something.
Agreed. Paul should have exercised more control over his underlings, or stayed out of electoral politics. Pat Buchanan made numerous controversial statements over the years in his columns and books, but never denied his authorship.
Since you seem to defend ru paul, how about explaining his remarks about 9-11.
As for me, the WOT is one of the things Dubya has done right. Mistakes were made but you'd have to be as blind as a cave fish not to see the threat posed by Islamo-terrorism, and that we are much safer now than seven years ago.
And if you care about freedom, you really don't want a declaration of war unless absolutely necessary as it almost always dramatically increases the power of the executive branch i.e internment of innocent people w/o trial, restrictions on speech, government control of economic resources etc..
“How on earth can we elect as President a man like Paul who, as the publisher of newsletter, was either ignorant of his subordinates’ activities or unable to control them? What kind of administration would such a weak man run? The truth, of course, is probably that Paul was not ignorant about the author or the content of those newsletters and that he approved of both. Either way, this whole episode proves that Paul is unfit to be President.”
That about says it all. He is either incompetent or a racist/conspiracy nut. Either way, I wouldn’t hire him for for our town’s park district board let alone POTUS. The Paul cult will continue to avoid the issue with “that’s old news”.
It may be The New Republic but that doesn’t change the fact that for several years Ron Paul published these newsletters and either did not know what was in them (which demonstrates negligence on his part) or knew and permitted them to published. Either way he is responsible for their content.
Robbins may be a good guy but that does not absolve Ron Paul of responsibility for articles that he published over the course of many years. Maybe Rockwell did write the articles but why did Paul publish them if he disagreed with them or found their racist content offensive? It's time that Paul came forward and accepted responsibility for his actions instead of trying to pin the blame on someone else.
The fact is, we’ll never really know what this guy is about, because he communicates like a mental patient.
Please see my response on post 15.
How prudent was it for Paul to run for president, knowing that sooner or later these newsletters could become an issue in his campaign? What other skeletons does he have in his closet? If he got the nomination, the Democrats would eat him alive.
He’s done as a Republican candidate, he’ll have to find a third party comfortable with this history or settle for being a Congressman. IMO Rockwell as the author is every bit as bad as the incredible excuse there were multiple, unknown authors, implying only breathtaking negligence over what is published in his name. By maintaining his relationship with Rockwell, and accepting his support, he validates the statements. Same with any other “authors” who are long time Paul supporters, which is why their identities should be made public. If the rumors are true that he’s used the newsletter mailing list for fundraising, another indication of comfort with the views of his newsletter and it’s subscribers.
I suspect Paul lives in a bubble in which he believes he represents the norm in American thinking. He's associated with these people for so long, he's insulated himself from the real world.
From our standpoint it was not a prudent move. From his, it was of no concern. At least, that's what I suspect.
I can’t disagree with Dr. Robbins, but Ron Paul has the same responsibility. He should have given a complete explanation, including the authorship of the articles years ago, and should now. Probably wouldn’t change many minds, but it would give his supporters something to rely on.
He’s certainly marginalized himself in this election. What will have my attention is his congressional election and how that evolves. As for a third party candidacy, he’s been offered the candidacy of the Constitutional Party. Let’s see what he does with that offer.
He clearly doesn't consider it an issue.
“He’s done as a Republican candidate”
Agreed. I would think that has turned off most normal supporters by being connected to the newsletters and turned off many racist and conspiracy nut supporters by denying that he agrees with them. The only thing left must be a core of Paul cult. Watching his primary percentages drop 2% with every primary show he’s fading into the GOP woodwork.
If Texas want’s him, I guess that’s their choice. What the GOP does if he runs third party remains to be seen. Some states don’t allow party crossovers like that, Libertarian Presidential candidate and Republican Congressional candidate, don’t know about Texas.
If Paul really was a Leftist why on earth is The New Republic trying to hard to destroy him?
It's nice to see a liberal rag getting so much play over here on FR.
Yeah, because goodness know that it doesn't matter how many times he accepts them and apologizes for them. His enemies will make damn sure they are always used against him.
How liberal of you.
Your belief that personal accountability is "liberal" illustrates how tenuous your grasp is on the concept of conservatism.
Actually, if he drops out of the Presidential race and continues to run as a Republican for his Congressional seat will be interesting from the GOP standpoint. If he's truly done as a Repbulican, then how can they support him in that contest?
Either way; as a third party candidate, or as a Republican Congressional candidate, it seems the GOP has some decisions to make.
Strawman.
I never claimed a belief that "personal accountability" is "liberal."
I did claim that hammering someone over and over and over again with cries of "racist!" even after they acknowledged the words and apologized is "liberal."
Paul will not get the nomination. Looking at the Iowa primary, he actually won one county, Jefferson, in the southeast part of the state. Jefferson County has many residents who are Transcendental Meditation practitioners living in Fairfield and Vedic City, and the presence of Maharishi University of Management in Fairfield. In Michigan, his best county was Hillsdale County, home of nonsectarian, conservative Hillsdale College. These are clearly non-mainstream constituencies. Returning to Michigan, Paul was in the 7-8% in metro Detroit, despite the presence of a large Middle Eastern descended population that is presumably anti Iraqi War. He was only slightly above 8% in Washtenaw County, home of the University of Michigan. If Paul is in fourth place in areas with a large Arab-American presence and in college towns, there is simply no way he can win, with $25 million or $250 million in the bank.
Michael Bloomberg, please take notice.
You are suggesting that the newsletters, requested for years but access refused by Paul, are forgeries.
If you have evidence that they're forgeries, perhaps a plot by the Wisconsin Historical Society and the university in Kansas, you should present it, you'll have an impact and bring credit on FR for rooting out the facts, as another Freeper did when he posted newsletters months before the New Republic.
NewslettersRon Paul: US "military is mowing civilians down in the streets"
RON PAUL ACCUSED U.S. TROOPS OF WAR CRIMES IN DESERT STORM
Ron Paul: Israel bought Jesse Helms
Ron Paul: Traitor had direct line to President Reagan
Ron Paul: Clinton didn't cut defense enough
Ron Paul supported the PLO terrorists
Of course this leaves you with the problem of why Ron Paul would put out such a weak explanation over forgeries.
If they're not forgeries, he's stuck with them, and the messenger isn't the issue.
Obviously people can come to their own conclusions about the content. I think they're racist, Ron Paul seems to agree with me, but others may not.
What percentage do you guys expect Paul to get in SC?
If I remember correctly that’s a closed primary, right?
Right now Rasmussen has him at 3%.
Paul still maintains that it was all somebody else's fault.
It may have been his name, and the newsletters may have listed him as editor, but he really didn't write it, he really didn't edit it and he apparently never read it, either, over the course of a decade.
A classic non-apology apology.
He maintains that someone else wrote the articles in question. But he's accepted responsibility, a number of times, for what was written and has condemned the articles.
That's a little different than just saying it was someone else's fault.
It may have been his name, and the newsletters may have listed him as editor, but he really didn't write it, he really didn't edit it and he apparently never read it, either, over the course of a decade.
Maybe he didn't do any of those things. I trust him and accept his word at face value. Do you have any evidence about what his actual role was in the daily operations of those newsletters?
If you don't than you are just engaged in wild speculation and helping to smear a good man. And why? Because you don't agree with some of his politics. Nice.
Which word do you accept at face value? The story he told in 1996? Or the story he told in 2001? Or the story he's telling now?
I never claimed they were forgeries.
I went to the Newsletter link and there are only a couple of pages posted. Do you have a link to the full newsletters?
I’d like to see what the masthead said, if anything.
Is that what you think he will actually get when the votes are tallied?
Let me show you, with a humble modification what I mean:
...Either way, this whole episode proves yet again that Paul is unfit to be President.
I have no idea. I can't forsee the future, nor do I have confidence in polls.
Is that what you expect him to get on Saturday?
Fair enough. I wasn’t asking you to foresee the future. I was just asking what you thought.
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.