FYI: Paul later denied authorship in the Texas Monthly article in 2001 (pp. 2-3).
"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't 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 doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's 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."
Either way Paul is responsible so it never mattered, which is what a lot of people said. But Lew was still editor and and a part owner of the newsletter with Paul. The problem here is that Paul has lied in the past about this but demands we trust him now.
Mr. X,
I know that Paul subsequently denied writing the stuff -- but he originally admitted it and defended it.
That, combined with George's observation on the nature of ghostwriting, seems to me to cut the Gordian knot.
I've ghostwritten before, and what I've ghostwritten is the property of those who paid me to write it, in every sense of the word "property." They own it. It's theirs.
Does it matter whether Lew Rockwell or whomever was the ghostwriter in question (if there was one)? To some extent, it may -- to libertarians who support Rockwell's efforts, etc. But as far as the Paul campaign goes, that albatross is around Paul's neck and nobody else's.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I've ghostwritten before, and what I've ghostwritten is the property of those who paid me to write it, in every sense of the word "property." They own it. It's theirs.
Yeah, and this is why he keeps talking about taking "moral responsibility" for the writings. However, a lot of people still want to know who the editor was and which of his writers wrote the racist statements. And most, if not all, of those people agree that Ron Paul himself wasn't and didn't.
I don't care who the editor was -- I know who the publisher was.
It's over for Ron Paul. Now it's time for his supporters to either finish tying libertarianism to racism by defending him, or start rescuing libertarianism from racism by walking away from him.
Their decision is sorta important for the future of the libertarian movement.
It's over for Ron Paul. Now it's time for his supporters to either finish tying libertarianism to racism by defending him, or start rescuing libertarianism from racism by walking away from him.
I don't see a lot of objective evidence that it's over for him. There's a lot of discussion of the issue amongst supporters and in libertarian circles, but the mainstream media does not seem to be taking it as seriously. Anecdotal reports from canvassers indicate that most people don't know who Ron Paul is, let alone anything about the newsletters.
Remember, Dave Weigel brought the newsletters up about six months ago. There was some brief discussion at Hit & Run, a few links to the 1996 coverage, the 2001 Texas Monthly article, and the recent New York Times piece, but nothing much got picked up beyond some anti-Paul Republican blogs.
This story has more legs because Kirchick did some primary research, but there's really no more or different information there on the authorship issue than there was before. This is frustrating for supporters, but most normal people disagree with Paul for reasons other than 15-year-old newsletters of doubtful provenance.
I don't see a lot of objective evidence that it's over for him.
You may be right, and if you are, libertarianism is saddled with serious baggage going forward.
I'm a huge news junkie, but I'd never heard the newsletter revelations until the New Republic article. They're now firmly on the radar, with PDFs of the newsletters to drive the story home.
In the next primaries, the story about Paul's performance is going to be framed by the revelations. It's going to be "Paul's nine percent in Michigan shows that his supporters are not perturbed by his racist newsletters" or "His three percent support in Michigan shows that the racist newsletters have let the air out of the Paul blimp."
Either way, Paul racism Paul racism Paul racism. Paul racism libertarian.
The writing style of these letters doesn´t fit Paul´s writing style. And people that knows him before I was born agrees with me on that.
Give me a break. Dr. Paul has refuted this issue time and time and time again. Even the President of the Austin NAACP, who has known Dr. Paul for 20 years. believes that (a) Dr. Paul is not a racist, and (b) these issues are being dragged out by powerful elites who are threatened by Dr. Paul's success as a constitutionalist.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/
arti..._not_racist.htm
If some libertarians want to abandon the best chance they have EVER had in educating Americans about freedom and the Constitution because of a desperate smear job, then it's on their shoulders if the freedom message is buried in obscurity forever.
Gee, if young black men don't want to be tarred with the racist stereotype of running fast, maybe they should stop winning so many sprints. If a statement is inherently true, can it be racist? Or us it just an observation of reality?
marty
I can tell you one thing for certain. I will NEVER become a libertarian. So, Ron Paul or not, 90% of his supporters will NOT look at the libertarian party after this is over - good or bad. I was almost willing, but after going to a few local meetings, no effing way!
So, really, the motive for pushing this smear is that *some* of the libertarians are pissed because their party decided to support Ron Paul instead of running.
Again, this will hurt the LP far more than it will hurt Ron Paul. All those non-LP that were introduced to the party BECAUSE of Ron Paul will remember VERY well what that party is doing to him.
Even if Ron Paul is not elected, the LP candidate won't be elected either. And possibly because of your actions, big government will continue until the country is ruined.
Ron Paul is not a racist and you guys are simply assholes for dreging this up every 15 minutes in an attempt to keep it alive.
Fuck you!
James A,
I believe I corrected you before: The Libertarian Party did not "decide to support Ron Paul instead of running" a candidate of its own. That decision won't be made either way for months yet.
The "official" Libertarian Party has been nothing but supportive of Paul, with ~70% of its members allegedly supporting his candidacy, so I'm not sure why you'd take your case of redass out on it.
As to whether or not Paul is a racist, I don't know and you probably don't either. What we both DO know -- if we both take notice of the irrefutable facts, that is -- is that Ron Paul is a liar.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
I'll tell you what. If George Phillies wants to undermine the most successful libertarian race in history, then I will never support George Phillies. If the Libertarian Party nominates Mr. Phillies, and the Republican Party doesn't nominate Dr. Paul, then I will not be voting Libertarian for the first time in a long time. I will write in Dr. Paul
1440 minutes,
IMO, the likelihood of the LP nominating George Phillies is about the same as the likelihood of the GOP nominating Ron Paul -- it's not an impossibility, but it's very improbable.
It's much more likely that the LP will nominate Steve Kubby, who has endorsed Paul's GOP campaign and stated that he will drop out of the race and ask the party to nominate "None of the Above" and endorse Paul, if Paul is the GOP nominee-apparent as of the LP's national convention.
As far as the LP "undermining the most successful libertarian race in history," the LP didn't even exist any of the three times that Grover Cleveland ran for president.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Tom, you want to put that prediction into percentage odds of each person now seeking the nomination getting it?
And if so, I'm wondering if you're basing it on your opinions of Kubby and Phillies or on discussions with likely delegates. From the latter, I have a different take.
Mr. X,
I can't really put it into percentage odds, as it doesn't lend itself to that. It's more like an either-or proposition. Hmmm ... let's see here ...
Either, a surprise write-in campaign to nominate "that guy who does the voice of the dog on 'Family Guy'" would get more delegate votes than George,
Or the LP is too far gone for it to matter whom it nominates anyway.
Regards,
Tom
Tom, it's very difficult to pin down who "wrote" these comments.
This is how it worked:
Lew would suggest something to Ron. He's fax something to the office in Clute. Ron would grab Lew's faxes as he rushed out the door and jumped into his Green Buick for our next event. I'd drive across the District 4 hours, and Ron would go over the comments for the Newsletters with a fine tooth comb. He'd scribble stuff in the margins. He'd call Lew. He'd tell me to "find the nearest God-damned Office Depot." We'd rush there and get another fax from Lew, or Ron would have me fax his scribblings down to Lew or Lori or Jean at the offices in Clute or Houston.
It was a joint effort between Lew and Ron. They co-wrote much of that Newsletter. So, you cannot say with any certainty that Lew wrote such and such, and Ron wrote such and such.
Odd to see you write on this, donderrroooo, since the candidate I've heard most for 'mysterious newsletter author' was YOU.
Commenting by HaloScan
