This New Republic Article should pretty much be the end of the Ron Paul Revolution. If you had asked me about him before this year, I would have some vague memory of a Lyndon LaRouche-ish guy from Texas, but thought I misremembered. Maybe I remembered pretty well. Even if he did not write his own newsletter, allowing racist, conspiratorial ramblings to be printed under your name for decades is not the sort of management style you'd want in a president. I know there are some good people here who are Ron Paul supporters. Your thoughts?
i cant imagine that someone who speaks about personal freedom and talks about how ALL individuals have inherent rights and liberties like paul does could be a racist. unless you want to say that paul is deceiving us and isnt really about what he says he is. the statements alleged are totally out of character with his positions and public statements and he seems like the kind of person who is not going to hold back when it comes to speaking his mind. ive listened to and read enough of him to know that he is not a racist or bigot. again, he seems to be one to speak his mind so if he felt this way he would probably have made some public comments like this. there would be evidence out there in terms of statements, quotes, writings that can be directly attributed to him and there are none. i heard an interview (it might have been on tucker carlson, but i cant remember) w/ someone talking about this issue and they were asked straight up if they could provide any direct quotes or statements from ron paul and they could not. this is just another attempt at smearing paul and it reeks of desperation.
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement: “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’ “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.” http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-re...ew-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters
here is the new york times having to issue a retraction for their claims that ron paul has ties to white supremacists. http://themedium.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/editors-note-the-ron-paul-vid-lash/ i do encourage yall to keep throwing this stuff out there though - it only serves to discredit you and bring more attention to paul. look what happened when fox excluded him from the debate - leno called him up and got him on his own show and i guarantee paul got more time there than he would have at the debate.
jo mama: I am not trying to hate on Paul, at all. It just to me seems like a significant thing that I, personally, had never heard before and am glad I did. The timing of the piece may be politically relevant, but look - people will dig during elections. Should they not report because there is an election going on? Is it responsible to hold a story because it might alter someone's view of a candidate, or for his supporters to be asked their opinion on the content of the article? I am asking his supporters here if it bothers them that he let the materials go out for so long under his name - let's assume he disagreed with it. Still, to me, that's pretty rough. If my candidate had that on their resume, i would question their history of effective management and oversight and b) their truthfulness in regards to the subject matter. If there was a newsletter being distributed to even one person for one day with my name at the top with that sort of thing in it, I would be quite upset. Letting it go for decades? What gives?
im glad it is brought up too so that it can be properly de-bunked, which it already has. when asked on tucker carlsons show, the writer of the article you cited was unable to provide anything paul had written or said that would imply he is a racist - all he has are things that paul himself didnt even write. gee, you think? people should dig, but the fact that this is all you have shows how deep and empty the hole is. it is irresponsible to make up stuff about candidates. the new york times already had to retract their claims that he is involved w/ white supremacist groups. this article you posted is b.s. and i imagine there will be retractions coming for that as well. the paul campaign made a statement which was provided in post #3 - you might have missed this part...
Uh, well, not according to Ron Paul. His statement admits it all, and just claims "it's old news." He takes moral "responsibility" for not minding what was printed in his name. So, he seems to say that, yep, those newsletters came out, and yep, at the very least, that was a significant lapse of judgment to let it happen. He just wants to say "I apologized once, so let's all just forget about it." I mean, how on earth do you let something like that happen? I'm a small, small fry compared to someone with a political life, and I would NEVER, EVER knowingly let a newsletter get published with my name on top unless I had totally reviewed and edited every article! Where am I coming from? I didn't know much at all about Paul until I recently asked my dad, a 72-year-old (in my view savvy) Texan. He said "Ron Paul is and always has been a total nutball, but people forget all the crazy things he's done and said." Then, a week letter, I find the New Republic article. My dad and I disagree a lot on politics (he leans right now, and I lean left), but it looks like he was spot on here. Have any of you ever listened to that insane radio show (the one Paul has decided to appear on for 40+ times)? It is total off-the-hook mentally disturbed. Based on this BBS's new standards for titling threads, CBrownFC could have named this thread "Ron Paul would institute flying saucer defense shield," with more justification than the Jorge-titled one about Obama and reparations.
I doubt this has an effect. People don't vote for Ron Paul the person, they vote for Ron Paul the idea of personal freedom, small government, and no foreign wars.
The newsletter under *his name* goes back a couple of decades and contains numerous racist and homophobic screeds. If something is coming under my name, I would take full responsibility for it. He's either a bigot, an idiot, a liar, or all three.
Bill Moyers asked him this and he brushed it aside saying that Libertarian principles don't prescribe to any race or sexual preference. I think that's enough of a response to end the questions for now. I can see how some view him as a nut with the way he carries himself, but his energetic style grows on me the more I watch him speak. Not sure he's presidential material though. Too bad he and Kucinich are constantly barred from debating.
Frankly, I can't believe they let him get this far. When you run on a platform that includes attacking the Federal Reserve Banking Corporation, either you wear a bullet-proof vest and kevlar helmut 24/7 or you conduct your campaign in full virtual mode using an IP blocked laptop out of some unknown cave or gilligan-esque island. I mean, that's their $$$ you're f@*king with!
yes, ron paul is such a racist that he voted to make mlk day a national holiday and regularly cites mlk as a role model. he represents a heavily african american district and despite the fact that he is a republican, continues to get reelected. as a doctor, he would volunteer his time to work in free clinics and he has delivered over 4,000 babies in gulf coast texas - i dont think it would be going out on a limb to assume many of those were black. again, can anybody find anything directly attributed to ron paul that would indicate he is a racist? if so, i would immediately drop my support of him. i dont think there is any room for racists in positions of power and i believe it is a disgrace that a former member of the kkk serves in congress (byrd). but again, nothing ron paul has ever said would indicate that he is a racist - infact, he speaks out against bigotry regularly. but to pretend that the new republic is some independent media outlet that just stumbled on this story is a joke...they clearly have an agenda. lets look at the new republic and what their motives/agenda might be for this hit-piece - they claim to be a liberal magazine, they align themselves with the democratic party and generally support democratic candidates. yet they were pro-iraq war and advocate a very hawkish policy as well as unwavering support for israel - that puts them squarely against ron paul and what he stands for. in the 80's they supported reagans foreign policy including support of terrorist groups like the contras. they strongly supported the gulf war and clintons campaigns. they are war-mongers and paul is not. furthermore, tnr is no stranger to throwing out claims of bigotry - their editor in chief, martin peretz called jimmy carter a "jew hater". an unlike paul, peretz has actually made very bigoted statements. Writer Eric Alterman noted that Peretz has often used language to describe Arabs and Palestinians: "They are "violent, fratricidal, unreliable, primitive and crazed … barbarian"; they have created a "wretched society" and are "cruel, belligerent, intolerant, fearing"; they are "murderous and grotesque" and "can't even run a post office"; their societies "have gone bonkers over jihad" and they are "feigning outrage when they protest what they call American (or Israeli) atrocities"; they "behave like lemmings," and "are not shocked at all by what in truth must seem to them not atrocious at all"; and to top it all off, their rugs are not as "subtle" and are more "glimmery" than those of the Berbers." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Peretz#_note-2
Can you not read? He said he took responsibility for it. He didn't deny it happened and ACTUALLY APOLOGIZED FOR ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN.
Btw, the same guy who wrote the article is a Rudy Giuliani supporter. He went on msnbc and stated that Ron Paul speaks in code only understood by other like-minded racists. Thats why no one notices the racist overtones in his speeches. Do you actually believe **** like that? Who's the conspiracy theorist now?
Ron Paul is trying to have it both ways. He says that he accepts responsibility for "not paying closer attention" to what was being written under his name, and then he turns around and attempts to deflect blame by denouncing the writer. Maybe if this had been one or two problematic newsletters I could buy his story, but this went on for years! Considering the kinds of people Paul has associated with politically over the years, none of this is surprising. What is surprising (and disappointing) is that his supporters that have come along more recently are so quick to defend him in the face of some pretty damning dirt.
Sorry - let's forget whether or not he's a racist- that's neither provable or disprovable unless you are mel gibson. It's how he allowed that newsletter to go out for so long with that sort of material in it. I don't care if the New Republic article is written by the biggest anti ron paul playa hater on earth - no one, not even ron paul, is disputing the facts of the piece or the content of the newletters - the facts and quotes are obviously not "BS" if Paul himself already 'took moral responsiblity' for them. To me, his 'apology' explains precisely zilch. If all you can do is attack the New Republic, you're avoiding the fundamental question just because it is ugly: How does he allow something like that go out for decades, under his name, if he fundamentally disagrees with content? That is explained nowhere, not by him or his supporters.
That's weak. These are numerous unambiguously racist and homophobic messages that was published under *his* byline in *his* newsletters of a period of years. He is only apologizing now, years later, when his record is under scrutiny during a presidential campaign.
I think you'll find you're wrong. As far as I know, he has been apologizing for this for years. The guy is being a responsible person and taking responsibility for something he really has very very very very little responsibility for. If this says anything about the man, it is positive, imo.
