You have said Ron Paul has not distanced himself from the content of these comments. But now he has been entirely clear:
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/press...ld-newsletters/
Anthony:
The Ron Paul newsletters went out under Ron Paul's name, with the kind of content in question, over a period of years. Did he ever take notice, fire the unnamed ghostwriter, or in any other way act to put a stop to it?
You know as well as I do whom the ghostwriter in question is -- he remains one of Paul's closest associates and biggest promoters.
If Paul couldn't be bothered to pay attention to what was going out under/over/in his good name then, why should he expect that it would not be associated with his good name now?
Paul doesn't need to "distance himself" from his past -- he needs to take responsibility for it, and not just in the Clinton/Reno way that he's "taking responsibility" for it now. Not that that will make him worthy of support, but at least it would make him honest and end the necessity for having good people like you shucking and jiving on his behalf to your own discredit.
Edited By Siteowner
Paul has claimed he didn't write it but he won't say who did write the material. Is it because the author of the articles is still a top Paul adviser and supporter? Is someone in Auburn nervous about this? As long as Paul says it was a former aide it sounds as if he cut his ties with the author. Well, the author was a former aide and current adviser and current close friend and supporter of Paul. He has been bringing racists and anti-Semites in to his website and institute regularly. His views have not changed from the time he penned a defense of cops beating up suspects before any trial. Come on Lew, fess up. Admit you were the author.
When you attempt to ride on someone else's coattails you can expect to get dragged through the muck they walk in. If you don't want that to happen stand up and walk on your own.
This party and its ideas have great potential, but the management leaves a lot to be desired.
Just frustrated in the boondocks.
Here's my take, for what it's worth:
When I first heard about this scandal a year ago, it sounded like just a few quotes from 1996. It apparently is much more - years worth. It REALLY hurts my admiration of Dr. Paul to see apparent negligence on this level, allowing bilge to spew for so long in a newsletter with his name on it.
I have always had strong sympathies for anarchists and left-libertarians. All the warnings many people wrote for months seem dead-on now.
It is more difficult, but probably better for the cause of liberty, to return to the apolitical and anti-political strategies espoused by Wendy M, Brad S, and many others.
Knapp, you didn't post my fave quote from those newsletters, the one that said that "the blacks" didn't stop rioting in L.A. in '92 'til after they all got their welfare checks. That one was really priceless.
Like you, I find it utterly astounding that for literally YEARS Paul didn't happen to review at least ONE of those newsletters BEARING HIS FRIGGIN' NAME.
I disagree with you on one thing though: The smear on Paul is not an attempt to smear the GOP. The author of the TNR piece, James Kirchick, is a Giuliani supporter--and we can all imagine how livid Benito Giuliani was after losing to Paul in Iowa by several percentage points.
No, this is a de facto smear of the entire libertarian movement, folks. Politics is a cult of personality in this day and age. The politician IS the message, whether you like it or not. (Hey, anyone who wants to play the state's game of electoral politics shouldn't go whining about how unfair it is.)
If you're a libertarian, it's hard enough fighting off the "tinfoil hat" stereotypes. Now--however unfairly--we're all going to be smeared as racist homophobic bigots as well since Ron Paul referred to himself as a "libertarian" when it politically suited him. (In front of die-hard right-wingers he called himself a "true conservative," which I think is the only label he should ever have used for himself.) We can also thank the Mises Institute's and LRC's blind propagandizing for Paul for helping to take an axe to the libertarian movement. (Even now, LRC bloggers are shrieking "NA-NA-NA!!!! I don't want to admit to seeing the pink elephant in front of everyone's eyes!!!")
I agree with Wendy McElroy: WHOMEVER the author of this bile is needs to come forward and admit responsibility. It will take some pressure off Paul himself, though I don't give any more of a rat's ass for him than I do for any other politician. But more important, it could possibly help repair at least some of the damage to the libertarian movement as a whole.
Question is: Does this person have the integrity to do what's right?
Deus,
You write:
"I disagree with you on one thing though: The smear on Paul is not an attempt to smear the GOP. The author of the TNR piece, James Kirchick, is a Giuliani supporter--and we can all imagine how livid Benito Giuliani was after losing to Paul in Iowa by several percentage points."
You could very well be right, but I'll stick to my guns for now: There's often a difference between why a piece is written and why it is published.
I have no doubt that the author wrote it with the intent of damaging Paul. However, TNR published it when they published it for a reason. If it was just about hurting Paul, they'd have put it out ahead of either Iowa or New Hampshire, when it would have maximally impacted his vote, instead of on New Hampshire primary day when it wouldn't have time to get noticed outside of the relatively small "political addict" circle.
In my opinion, they were hoping that Paul would do well enough in New Hampshire for the shit to stick to the other Republicans too -- "look at this party, X% of their voters voted for a guy who says things like this."
Regards,
Tom
Oh, I totally agree with you about the timing of the publication and that they intended to tarnish someone other than Paul.
My main point is that, regardless of who exactly they INTENDED to smear, this is a de facto smear of the libertarian movement that has become so linked with Paul in the public consciousness in recent months, thanks in no small part to the Mises Institute/Rockwell people. Anyone using the term "libertarian" to describe their own politics has effectively been splashed with mud, whether we like it or not.
Tom Gellhaus, please do not include anarchists & left libertarians in this mess. RP, LRC, KK etc. are RIGHT libertarians and/or anarcho-capitalists. When I recommended KK for LP vp, I understood that & it was a gesture of cooperation. & an attempt to not totally write them off in a progressive alliance. That was before I understood this mess. If they would be a liability & not participate in a progressive alliance, well, never mind. Next vp recommendation: Mary Ruwart.
Tom, you are dodging. You accused Ron of never publicly distancing himself from these views. He has made clear he doesn't hold these views. If that's not relevant now, then his possibly holding the views wasn't relevant before, when you brought it up in an attack on him long ago.
But you say I know who the author was. Guess what? I don't know who it was. But I think I know who you think I know who it was. And in fact, I honestly don't think it was him.
Anthony,
OK, you sent me off to Google. I can find precisely one instance of me saying anything about Paul "distancing" himself from those views, here.
At the time that I said Paul hadn't distanced himself from those views, he hadn't. He had fobbed off responsibility on a ghostwriter, and he had made a convoluted statement that could just as easily been taken as "well, I wouldn't have said it THAT way."
What was at issue was one issue of a newsletter. Claiming "ghostwriter" and vaguely/weakly "distancing himself" from the views would have been enough ... THEN.
NOW, however, it's no longer an issue of one edition of a newsletter, it's an issue of multiple editions spanning SEVENTEEN YEARS. "Ghost writer, I don't believe that stuff" doesn't even come close to addressing that. Either Paul believed/supported the stuff at the time it was published (in which case he's a liar), or Paul managed to go for nearly two decades without ever noticing, and acting upon his notice of the fact, that racist and homophobic vomit was being published with his name on it (in which case he's an idiot).
I don't guess it's news that many politicians are liars or idiots or both and that most people are okay with that. But Ron Paul was supposed to be different, and the libertarians supporting him were supposed to have different standards.
Most of the actually objectionable material was not over decades. It was from a couple editions. The stuff that spanned 17 years hit on conspiracy theory and some other kooky stuff, but the TNR article makes it look like the actual racist material was a continuing thing. Not really.
Anthony,
As far as the ghostwriter's identity is concerned, fine, let's talk about that. It's not like everyone isn't whispering the name, even if they aren't shouting it.
The name I keep hearing is Lew Rockwell's, but I don't think it's as simple as that.
My understanding (based entirely on hearsay, but hearsay I consider credible) is that Paul's newsletters were a three-man enterprise at the core: Burton Blumert financed the project, Ron Paul lent it his good name, and Lew Rockwell delivered the product.
It doesn't necessarily follow from that that Lew wrote all of the stuff himself, any more than he writes all the stuff at LewRockwell.Com or the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He probably farmed it out, and he probably did so to writers he knew and wanted to send a little work to. Nothing wrong with that.
BUT ... several of those pieces should have been YOU NEED TO PUBLISH A RETRACTION/APOLOGY AND FIRE THIS WRITER NOW! red flags for Rockwell (assuming he was, in fact the editor) and Paul (no assumptions needed ... it was going out over his name).
I'm unaware of any retractions/apologies in timeframe. Those apparently came only AFTER the newsletters became politically inconvenient.
As far as firings go, since I don't know the identity of the writer, I can't know whether he was shown the door at some point or not. All I can do is guess, so I will. My guess -- and for the third time, it is ONLY a guess, based on stylistic similarity, known opinions, etc. -- is that several of the most offensive passages were written by someone who has not only been a Paul congressional staffer, but who remains, as of this very day, a frequently featured writer at LewRockwell.Com: Gary North.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Robert Milnes -
my apologies for being unclear - what I meant was, that it was anarchists and left-libertarians, who I admire, who had been warning against exactly this kind of event happening. And that, therefore, we perhaps should pay more attention to their strategy ideas because it looks like their warnings came true.
I in no way meant that they had anything to do with this mess.
Being from the south, these newsletters remind me of the soft bigotry one would hear 30 or 40 years ago from right wingers. It seems more racist today than merely being racially insensitive. This kind of stuff was pretty common then, but it is pretty weird stuff for the nineties.
James Kirchick writes about this junk as if it was hardcore KKK neo-nazi stuff. It is embarrassing enough, but at least the "N" word isn't used and there are no calls for lynchings. It is much like Archie Bunker's rants from the seventies.
Whoever wrote this stuff should cop to it and Ron Paul should say a bit more about it before his big MLK day money bomb.
I guess I'll still vote for Paul in the GOP primary holding my nose. But, the LP really ought to think long and hard about recruiting him. This crap combined with the funky immigration policies of Ron Paul might be more baggage than the LP can handle.
On the other hand, it might still be better than W.A.R. - I don't think I could hold my nose tight enough to vote for that clown. Fortunately, I don't have to vote at all - this ain't Australia.
Tom Gellhaus, agreed. Good. Never mind.
Tom B,
Actually, in the sense that you're evaluating it in, most of the stuff is even less offensive than you think. It's fairly typical of the GOP's slightly unhinged social conservative wing circa the early 1990s.
That's why it SHOULD be easy for Paul to take responsibility and move on, instead of expecting everyone else to move on just because he's said "I take responsibility."
It's not as hard as it sounds. Strom Thurmond did it. Robert Byrd did it. George friggin' Wallace did it. And all of them had worse stuff in their backgrounds. It's a simple matter of saying "I've been a creature of my time at times; I'm a southern politician and I'm not immune to the prejudices typical of southern politicians. I apologize for that. It doesn't look quite so pretty in retrospect. But I've grown, I've changed, my record in Congress since 1996 shows that. If you want to talk about what I said back then, fine -- I'll give you five minutes, if you'll then give me five minutes of talking about what I have to say NOW."
"That's old news, I take 'moral' responsibility, let's move on" is almost DESIGNED to keep the story hot.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
You're right Tom K. - Paul needs to talk about this stuff. I cringe when I read this junk, but it just isn't the kind of stuff to get hysterical about - unless you are Tom Palmer.
It is certainly politically incorrect, and it is somewhat offensive, but it isn't akin to burning crosses or painting swastikas on synagogues.
I suspect that the writer produced this stuff for a target audience of people who weren't getting enough of this crap on talk radio and were willing to pay money for a newsletter to hear it. I mean really, this kind of welfare cadillac stuff had pretty much dropped out of the mainstream by the nineties. Some of it is almost comical.
Perhaps the Unknown Comic was writing this shit as political satire.
Anthony: You're a good guy but you need to rethink your position on the Mises people and Paul. You say it was only a few issues. Let's look at the really disgusting antigay comments. I see some in newsletters in 1991 but also in 1994 that is a span of four years. And we don't know how many newsletters they found. There are many more out there which haven't been seen yet.
Paul can put this to rest faster if he tells who did it. But he won't.
To be perfectly frank, I think it is the libertarians doing this. Those libertarians that want to want the party to lean left. Those libertarians that were pissed when the LP decided not to run a candidate and instead support Dr. Paul.
The Libertarian Communists, if you will.
If it manages to take down the LP as well, then they deserve it, simply because it was their ploy to begin with.
To be perfectly honest, I had been very wary of the libertarians supporting Paul to begin with. That party seems to always chop off the legs of any member beginning to go mainstream.
Like non-conformists, they believe it simply isn't cool if it's popular.
I attended a LP meeting ONCE (some of my fellow RP supporters convinced me to go.) I can safely say I will never attend one again. I have never met a more self-defeatist group in my life. I could not see Ron Paul in them one bit. What I saw were a bunch of liberals, anarchists, and communists. What I saw were a bunch of hillbillies that just happened to be the smartest in their trailer parks. You know, the ones that didn't stick a fork in a light socket.
You should be looking around at your brothers as the originators of this smear, for THEY just may have ruined your party, much more than Ron Paul.
"I attended a LP meeting ONCE (some of my fellow RP supporters convinced me to go.) I can safely say I will never attend one again...I could not see Ron Paul in them one bit. What I saw were a bunch of liberals, anarchists, and communists. What I saw were a bunch of hillbillies that just happened to be the smartest in their trailer parks. You know, the ones that didn't stick a fork in a light socket."
Funny, that's exactly how most Ron Paul supporters look to me:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A...h?
v=AcBb3PudTcA
James,
Any Libertarian who got pissed off when the LP decided not to run a candidate and instead support Ron Paul was getting pissed off over something that, um, didn't happen. The LP won't decided whether or not to run a candidate, or if so whom that candidate might be, until late May.
Then again, maybe you have a point. Maybe these Libertarians you talk about have a time machine. That would not only explain how they know what the LP is going to do in May, but how they got back in time to alter Ron Paul's newsletters and make it look, as it very much does, like he did this to himself.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Please allow me a moment to expand on my previous statement. I am opposed to the Libertarian party being at all involved with the Ron Paul campaign. We should be building our own organization and not trying to ride someone else's coattails as I suugest above. And this is politics. The muck will fly. In a prior election I read a comment by a political professor saying that if Libertarians got elected we would return to a era much like the pre-Civil War South, or words to that effect. We had better plan on it and know how to respond.
That being said I met Dr. Paul some years ago when he was seeking the LP's nomination. I was at a speaking engagement were he was the focus. I was standing directly to his right without anyone between us. I was about two feet, maybe three feet away. A man approached from the other side, Dr. Paul's left and showed Dr. Paul a card or piece of literature with David Duke's name and information on it. Dr. Paul was gracious about it, but did not seem to appreciate the offer . He did not so much as crack a smile. He just politely turn the man down.
Now I do not know what that tells the world, but it does suggest to me that maybe this entire episode is being run out to ruin Dr. Paul. And maybe Dr. Paul is not the person he is being portrayed as.
Michael H. Wilson, Vancouver, Wa.
I liked Sullivan's comments on this:
"When he was asked to disown the 9/11 Truthers, he gave a revealing answer, and one that reflects on the newsletters issue. It just isn't in his nature to adopt other people's views, or to tell anyone else what to believe or what to say. He doesn't just believe in libertarianism; he lives it. This means that he doesn't have the instinct to police anyone else's views or actions within the law or the Constitution. I don't think it excuses his negligence in the past, but it does help me understand it better."
http://andrewsullivan.theatlanti...outh-
carol.html
Tom you know we have been friends for a long time but I cannot believe the crap I have read of yours about Ron Paul. Ron Paul is no racist. Now that we have candidate that is getting libertarian message out you attack him. What the fuck? This is going right along with these phony libertarians. Have you lost your damn mind or have you been spending to much time with likes mike ferguson and bob sullentrup? Give me a break with this bull shit about ron paul you know I dont get into these pissing contest when it comes to freedom and the libertarian party even tho i think the party has lost its way. But I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it any more. Either lead, follow or get the fuck out of the way. Our country is in fucking turmoil and going broke and ron paul is the only one who is telling the truth about it. And it is actually getting mainstream press coverage - more than we've ever got in 30 years. He isnt perfect but he is kicking ass and taking names. He is saying what millions of Americans are thinking and I think its great. Still love ya bro, but you need to swallow the red pill before we are all standing in bread lines.
Greg,
In 1996, Paul admitted to writing the newsletter content, and defended it. I am of the opinion that some of that newsletter content IS racist.
I suppose it's possible that Paul didn't believe it when he wrote it. There's no way to know, since he's outed himself as a liar since then by reversing himself, blaming the content on a "ghostwriter," and repudiating it. He was either lying in 1996 or he's lying now.
There's a lot to be admired in Ron Paul and in his campaign (and I have an article on "the bright side" of his campaign over at Third Party Watch). But I haven't supported his campaign and I'm not about to start supporting his campaign for reasons I've laid out in detail. If you support his campaign, that's up to you, and I'd be the last one to hold it against you.
By the way, Bob Sullentrup is a Paul supporter. He was one of the LNC members who voted to endorse Paul. So you're off on that one, big-time.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
Tom,
Greg wants evidence that Paul lied in '96. Are you referring to the Reason article? I read that & the blog on the Liberty Papers, and I couldn't find anything else. Where are you coming up with he either lied then or now? I haven't been able to find it.
Also, he said Bob isn't a man of his word anyway and he doesn't give a shit what Bob says or does.
He was just using Bob as an example of assholes cuz he was pissed. 
Commenting by HaloScan
