Skip to comments.Ron Paul on the racist newsletters in Texas Monthly
Posted on 12/23/2011 6:26:56 PM PST by sourcery
Last night in his post debate interview with Sean Hannity, Ron Paul was asked once again about the racists newsletters that were published in his name in the early 1990′s. I have heard this subject discussed multiple times and have come to a personal conclusion about his answer to questions and his responsibility for those words. However, this time in his answer, Paul cited a source with information about them that I wasnt familiar with, a piece done in a magazine called Texas Monthly a decade ago.
Here is the portion of the transcript with the relevant question and answer exchange between Hannity and Paul:
Sean Hannity: And I really admire your fierce supporters, but when I brought up the issue of your newsletters from the early 1990s, and some really outrageous things that have been written in there. And you had gone on record saying you had no idea what was in them. That kind of surprised me. Why do you not take responsibility for the things that were in your individual newsletters?
Ron Paul: In 2002 , the Texas Monthly reviewed that and they wrote a long, long article, and thats a real liberal newspaper. So you read that and youll that I did not write it and I do not support those views and theyre painted as something that maybe Im racist or something.
And the video of the entire interview:
Post-debate Ron Paul Interview
After spending some time digging through the Texas Monthly archives, I managed to find the article he was referencing. Its an October 2001 feature article by S. C. Gwynne titled Dr. No. Everything other than the first few paragraphs are behind a registration gate. Fortunately for you, I went ahead and registered in order to find the relevant paragraphs. After an explanation of how they were initially dug up and made an issue of by his Republican primary opponent Greg Laughlin during his 1996 bid to return to Congress, they publish a couple quotes from an interview Paul did with Texas Monthly:
What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.
When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, I could never say this in the campaign, but those words werent really written by me. It wasnt my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady. Paul says that item ended up there because we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything.
His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesnt come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said thats too confusing. It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it. It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.
This the most candidly I have ever heard Ron Paul speak about the story behind how that content ended up in his newsletters. While there is a link to the Texas Monthly article in the oft-cited Reason article on the newsletters, they dont use any quotes from it. I think these remarks are the best answer to the controversy that I have seen him give. He would be wise to make similar statements if he is asked about them again.
Ron Paul honors Rosa Parks (1975?)
Looks more like “Two black dudes and a white guy standing over a seated white lady.”
Perhaps you might post a link with better ID to make your point?
So he was denying these same newsletters a couple of decades ago? That’s his explanation?
America does NOT need Ron Paul. In regards to his views on other issues..he should be committed.
So he was lying when he told CSPAN, the Dallas Morning News and the Houston Chronicle in 1995 & 1996 he wrote them?
Or was he lying to all of his subscribers for two decades when he oversaw the people who supposedly ‘ghost wrote’ the newsletters when he claimed they were by him based on the title, they were signed by him and included personal stories and were written in the first person to make it appear by him.
Or was he lying to Texas Monthly here?
Or was he lying in 2007-2008 when he said he didn’t know what was in them or who authored them?
So which time was he lying and what story are you going with now?
This weird thing of confusing singular for plural (and vice versa), seems to be recent and contagious. At first, I only saw it occasionally in FR posts, but now I'm beginning to see it in published articles, as well.
Give it another 25 years, and I doubt I'll even comprehend the English of the day.
I think that was a wrong decision, and I believe Ron Paul now agrees—as evidenced by the fact he now publicly disavows the comments—and has been doing so since 2001. He was under no campaign or other pressure to make that admission in 2001. There is no reason at the time for him to have admitted he wasn't the author other than his own discomfort at taking the blame for what he didn't say and didn't believe.
The 1996 campaign staff did its best to justify and/or "put in context" the quotes. And it is in fact the case that those who try to smear Dr. Paul with these quotes take them out of context so as to put them in the most negative light possible. That campaign's strategy did work in 1996, in that Dr. Paul won the election.
Staff at the newsletters have accused Lew Rockwell of being the ghostwriter who actually authored the quotes. But Mr. Rockwell has denied this.
Hit job on Newt. Now Ron Paul, How many more? I Just wonder.I will never answer that email from Romney’s son. Mormons are a lot like old Dems were. I liked Cain and he got slammed for women. I am not backing off Newt. Hell, his dirtiest day in life is like he is a Saint next to Zero.
Don’t worry he is a Jew hater ,9-11 truther, hates the US military , loves those millions in earmarks , Code pink supporter,supports Uran getting the bomb .
Thats a partial list.
Ronny is a evil fraud and liar !
Ron Paul is a vile 9-11 truther , Jew hater, Code Pink supporter,,, massive ear mark king of the GOP who fought the ear mark ban by the GOP tea party members !
This fraud and liar needs to be removed from the GOP !
I’m inclined to believe him. Barbara Jordan was the nicest lady you would ever want to meet. She charmed the good old boys because, for one thing, she was a reasonable person, and because ,like Lincoln meeting Fred Douglass, she shot to pieces any preconceptions about black women. Lincoln was in most ways a Southerner, but after his Second Inaugural Address Douglass was one those whom he button-holed to ask him what he thought of his address. Jordan had the same quality.
So when frothing at the mouth Ron Paul was accusing Michelle Bachmann of “hating Muslims” and Rick Santorum of “hating Muslims and gays” in front of the biggest audience he’ll ever have, was he speaking the words himself, or was it an off-stage ventriloquist? Oh. It just had to be the ventriloquist, didn’t it, because he “never personalizes anything.”
Ron Paul will say he was “mistaken” or “unaware of” any of the racially-charged views that he may have held (or may still hold) that would harm him in the General Election.
He’s looked at the polls. A great many of his more “outlandish” positions - on pot or foreign military involvement - are popular. The “Stormfront” stuff? Not so much.
One thing is certain: if he is dissembling about his former views, then he is a coward.
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.