Paul in 1995: Say, have you read my newsletters?

posted at 8:45 am on December 22, 2011 by Ed Morrissey

Mitt Romney can breathe a sigh of relief, because Andrew Kaczynksi has shifted his attention to Ron Paul this week. Andrew dug up a 1995 interview with C-SPAN, a year before running for Congress after a decade out of office. Paul tells C-SPAN that he was ready after the long hiatus to return to Washington, but that’s not the big catch in this clip. Starting at 1:45, Ron Paul explains that his private sector efforts are keeping him too busy — and starts plugging his newsletters:

[1:10] So, I was always very active in both politics and my profession.  When I came back, I resumed my medical practice, and I’ve been doing that ever since, but I’ve also stayed active in education. Long term, I don’t think political action is worth very much if you don’t have education, and so I’ve continued with my economic education foundation, Free Foundation, which I started in 1976.  So that’s been very active.  Actually, in the last several years, we’ve been doing some video work, in an educational manner.  We did 14 different 30-minute programs on video.

But along with that, I also put out a political type of business investment newsletter that sort of covered all these areas.  And it covered a lot about what was going on in Washington, and financial events, and especially some of the monetary events.  Since I had been especially interested in monetary policy, had been on the banking committee, and still very interested in, in that subject, that this newsletter dealt with it.  This had to do with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do.

For a man who now says that he didn’t pay any attention to the newsletters published under his own name for years, he certainly seems to be pretty conversant with its contents in 1995.  Remember that the newsletters didn’t become a political liability for Paul until 1996, in the middle of his election campaign against Lefty Morris, who first raised the issue.  This interview is also not far removed from the appearance of the racist passages and kooky conspiracy theories in the newsletters, such as this in 1992:

Paul, writing in his independent political newsletter in 1992, reported about unspecified surveys of blacks.”Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,”Paul wrote.

Paul continued that politically sensible blacks are outnumbered “as decent people.” Citing reports that 85 percent of all black men in the District of Columbia are arrested, Paul wrote:

“Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,” Paul said.

Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.” …

He added, “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”

Today, of course, Paul insists that he never bothered to review the newsletters before publication and rarely read them at all, much different than his 1995 promotion of the newsletters as his primary vehicle for political engagement and, er, education.  It explains why in 1996 Paul neither denied authorship of the passages nor familiarity with the thrust of his publications when he was interviewed by the Dallas Morning News, and quoted by Reason Magazine in 2008:

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

I wonder what’s in the videos?  Besides end-of-days investment planning, that is.

Update: USA Today’s Jackie Kucinich also reports today that Paul’s story has changed over the years:

In 1996, Paul told TheDallas Morning News that his comment about black men in Washington came while writing about a 1992 study by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank in Virginia.

Paul cited the study and wrote: “Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

“These aren’t my figures,” Paul told the Morning News. “That is the assumption you can gather from the report.”

Nor did Paul dispute in 1996 his 1992 newsletter statement that said,”If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

Now, Paul says he had nothing to do with the contents of the newsletters published in his name.

“Why don’t you go back and look at what I said yesterday on CNN and what I’ve said for 20-something years, 22 years ago?” Paul said on CNN Wednesday. “I didn’t write them. I disavow them. That’s it.” Paul then removed his microphone and abruptly ended the interview.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Oh well, you obviously time traveled, err Photoshopped, err, ummm made up those clearly false and misleading smears against the only man who can save our republic… /s

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 2:30 PM

______________________________________________________________

D – E – S – P – E – R – A – T – I – O – N

is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unattractive.

Ron Paul is not the “Only Man, who can save our Republic” nor is he a Messiah, Paulbot.

Resist We Much on December 22, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Ron Paul, the only man in the race who has ZERO chance to win against Obama…

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 2:42 PM

Oh he’s on the Nick Gillespie Headline Thread, whipping up some weapons grade pretzel logic explaining how Dr. Ron Paul could insert pork into bills he knew were going to pass, then vote no on those bills, collect his pork and still be the only fiscally conservative member of congress.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 2:32 PM

Ah yes, that old routine.

Ron Paul Logic™

- Earmarks are good, but he votes against them.
- He writes earmarks to get his constituents money back, but then votes against his constituents interests (why does he hate his constituents?)
- We don’t have the money, but he spends it anyway.
- Big government spending is bad, except for Ron Paul’s big government spending.
- Hypocrisy? Look over there! Something shiny!

I love that a Google search for “HotAir Ron Paul earmarks” pulls up my comments here.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 2:43 PM

hearing Ron Paul so talked about reminded me to look up the 1988 Video of him on the Mort Downey Jr Show talking about legalizing drugs when he was “running for President” as the Libertarian candidate…oh those were the days.

Dino V on December 22, 2011 at 2:45 PM

Paul’s support in 2008 was a cross section of Truthers, Alex Jones’, Loose Change nuts, Chomsky and Nader types, MoveOn subversion, some confused militia, Larouchians, and last but not least, a few segregationist types that still exist, and broke off from Stormfront’s support of Obama (no sarcasm, they endorsed him).

The rest of his fawning fans came from the Left. Mostly the anti-war Left.

Somewhere along the way he glued on to the Tea Party, mostly because he was already talking about pure Constitutionalism…. and the Tea Party didn’t pickup that he only evokes the Constitution as an excuse for what a loony old crank he is.

He’s not electable. It’s one thing to let him debate, to shut up the Chomsky rhetoric he got mileage out of, when he claimed nobody was reading the full quotes, or would let him go on TV….but now that FOX and some regional Tea Party, and at times Glenn Beck, have propped him up, it’s time to drown out Paul’s tiny but loud support base.

contrarytopopularbelief on December 22, 2011 at 2:53 PM

I wholeheartedly support Ron Paul’s quest for the GOP nomination. I’m totally convinced he’s the only one who can save the nation from the nefarious banksters, the warmongering neocons, and those dastardly JOOOOOOOOOOOOS!

BarackTheSCOAMF on December 22, 2011 at 2:59 PM

(“I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities.”)

Someone quoted this above as from Ron Paul and his belief in conspiracy theories. This one line and complaints about it amuse me. Simply because its not wrong, its not out there, its obvious if you pull off the veil of fear of being called a “racist!”. Look at the reactions in the last year in places where welfare checks have been held up being released or lines for housing subsidies or flash mobs robbing stores or folks going crazy for shopping deals (hardly limited to race). What do folks here think is going to happen when the government welfare stops because we’re broke? Are they going to blame government (Obama is gonna pay my bills!) or “the rich 1%”. The rich being anyone who has more stuff than them and/or is the evil “god damn america” whitey. You’re foolish not to fear the FreeStuffArmy.

oryguncon on December 22, 2011 at 3:20 PM

It is extremely unfair to depict Paul supporters as all white supremacists.

A sizable portion of them only hate Joos.

Pass the dutchie on the left hand side, mon!

Adjoran on December 22, 2011 at 3:20 PM

So much for “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”

I thought Paulians were strict Constitutionalists.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 1:09 PM

Actually that wouldn’t apply because that wouldn’t be establishing a religion nor prohibiting one from practicing; he is speaking of eligibility for office. What would apply is Article VI, paragraph 3.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 3:27 PM

I have that study bookmarked. I have to deal with the ‘but a third party can win’ hooligans too often. Third party candidates help the incumbent. That’s not my opinion, it’s empirical data.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Sigh. So what if they do help the incumbent? The tea party seems to be mostly co-opted these days. Why vote for a GOP that passes the NDAA? That can’t force a budget to get passed? That caves over the debt ceiling? So in a weak election year I’m supposed to hold my nose yet again to vote for another McCain? 2012 is shaping up to be another 2004, this time just for republicans instead of dems. This when an incumbent is even worse off than Bush was in 04.

Hell, this is all academic anyway. The system is most likely gonna crash no matter what.

oryguncon on December 22, 2011 at 3:29 PM

Breaking News: A white person said something involving non-whites

Is the newsletter incorrect? Or is it just insensitive? Most American blacks aren’t going to vote for an “R” anyway. But it is disheartening to see ‘the right’ biting the hook of superficiality, and as usual not getting a comment from the offender. All this just perpetrates the gossip, as it is not explained. Almost getting tired of the talking about the other talking that someone else was talking about. Endless circlejerk of guessing. Are statistics racist? seriously….

I thought we learned about substance in 2008. Not to mention didn’t Ron Paul make another statement about racism itself? Something to the affect that it’s a result of the categorizing of peoples, and that he doesn’t agree with racism.

John Kettlewell on December 22, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 3:27 PM

Dante, our political positions are as opposite as night and day, but I must say I am impressed. You have been TIRELESSLY defending your candidate for all 6 threads. You have never seemed to lose patience or come close to giving up. So- Kudos to you Dante!

AZgranny on December 22, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Breaking News: A white person said something involving non-whites

Is the newsletter incorrect? Or is it just insensitive? Most American blacks aren’t going to vote for an “R” anyway. But it is disheartening to see ‘the right’ biting the hook of superficiality, and as usual not getting a comment from the offender. All this just perpetrates the gossip, as it is not explained. Almost getting tired of the talking about the other talking that someone else was talking about. Endless circlejerk of guessing. Are statistics racist? seriously….

I thought we learned about substance in 2008. Not to mention didn’t Ron Paul make another statement about racism itself? Something to the affect that it’s a result of the categorizing of peoples, and that he doesn’t agree with racism.

John Kettlewell on December 22, 2011 at 3:41 PM

If Paul’s shifting story of telling people to read his newsletter in 1995 to telling people to read the newsletter quotes in context to flatly denying ever writing or reading anything in the newsletter doesn’t bother you, then more power to you. His incoherent story bothers the hell out of me.

While I agree that these statements seem out of character for Paul, I also saw Ron Paul scream in anger at the top of his lungs in an old video the other day. Totally out of character but it happened.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 22, 2011 at 3:50 PM

Ron Paul is having his “Titanic” moment..:)

Dire Straits on December 22, 2011 at 3:57 PM

Is the newsletter incorrect? Or is it just insensitive?
John Kettlewell on December 22, 2011 at 3:41 PM

From another thread that seems to have died:

Facts are facts. What one wants to do with those facts is what matters, especially in a politician who will have control over how the Attorney General he appoints prosecutes crimes. Ron Paul wanted to treat 13 year old black children as adults when they commit crimes, but not 13 year old white children. This is in direct conflict with the Constitution, and he espoused it.

cptacek on December 22, 2011 at 1:05 PM

cptacek on December 22, 2011 at 4:02 PM

Oh well, you obviously time traveled, err Photoshopped, err, ummm made up those clearly false and misleading smears against the only man who can save our republic… /s

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 2:30 PM

______________________________________________________________

D – E – S – P – E – R – A – T – I – O – N

is sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo unattractive.

Ron Paul is not the “Only Man, who can save our Republic” nor is he a Messiah, Paulbot.

Resist We Much on December 22, 2011 at 2:39 PM

psst…Resit We Much…the /s means SWalker is being sarcastic

cptacek on December 22, 2011 at 4:04 PM

Endless circlejerk…

John Kettlewell on December 22, 2011 at 3:41 PM

Paultards, explained.

catmman on December 22, 2011 at 4:07 PM

psst…Resit We Much…the /s means SWalker is being sarcastic

cptacek on December 22, 2011 at 4:04 PM

_____________________________

Thanks. I’m new here.

Resist We Much on December 22, 2011 at 4:15 PM

Dante, our political positions are as opposite as night and day, but I must say I am impressed. You have been TIRELESSLY defending your candidate for all 6 threads. You have never seemed to lose patience or come close to giving up. So- Kudos to you Dante!

AZgranny on December 22, 2011 at 3:46 PM

Thank you. I still have hope that one day you’ll see the truth as well. I was just like many of you as recently as early this year. When I began researching conservatism and its history, when I began reading arguments about the War Powers Act, when I began examining the arguments so many here make, which were ones I made, I realized I was wrong. All it took was a desire to learn and know the truth instead of accepting what I had been taught to believe.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 4:29 PM

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 4:29 PM

I can’t see a time when I would ever agree with RP.
We will just have to agree to disagree. :)

AZgranny on December 22, 2011 at 4:43 PM

Wait a minute, wasn’t Newt the candidate who was supposed to implode this week? Looks like someone is freewheeling in MittNation.

spiritof61 on December 22, 2011 at 4:44 PM

That hits just keep on coming. Lets hear your explanation for these, Dante.

50 scans of Ron Paul’s racist newsletters.

This one is my fav (as well as Ace). From February, 1990:

“Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for that pro-communist philanderer, Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day. Listen to a black radio talk show in any major city. The racial hatred makes a KKK rally look tame.”

http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/game-over-scans-of-over-50-ron-paul.html

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 4:48 PM

Wait a minute, wasn’t Newt the candidate who was supposed to implode this week? Looks like someone is freewheeling in MittNation.

spiritof61 on December 22, 2011 at 4:44 PM

He imploded last week, if you hadn’t noticed.

MadisonConservative on December 22, 2011 at 4:53 PM

Newt Gingrich said he would let terrorists attack us so we would be reminded that terrorists can attack us. Mitt Romney said he is a progressive. Ron Paul is a racist. Hmmm, who should I vote for next year? Guess I won’t.

Bill Hicks on December 22, 2011 at 5:04 PM

This is ancient, and Ron Paul originally stated that the newsletter was run by his supporters, written and printed by others than himself. I heard about it a decade ago and read up on it before I knew who Ron Paul was, trying to figure what was going on. Ron Paul’s political activism hasn’t been based on the motivation to advance his own career, if you bother to reflect on his decades of efforts to advance the Libertarian-Republican principles of our (small) responsible Constitutional Republic. Ron Paul was motivated to become politically engaged because of what he witnessed in life within the military during Vietnam and the Cuban Missile Crisis. That people of like mind have determined to support Ron Paul’s leadership is indeed how things turned out, leading to where we are today. But the point of activism for Ron Paul has been to enlighten Americans again of our EXCEPTIONAL LEGACY, governance under the supreme law of the land, our US Constitution. Yes, he’s been willing to take up the Great Cause of Liberty. And many are disturbed by that, not wanting Liberty with all of its difficult responsibilities placed upon individuals to be our best and to do our best in order to responsibly pass Freedom to our children for their safe keeping through habitual practice and responsible life style. That so much socialism pervades American culture today illustrates that too many Americans prefer authoritarianism instead of Liberty.

Regarding newsletters posting unpleasant messaging from the editor,
following the wind sheer storm collapse of the Dallas Cowboy new facility, when announcing that team personnel were permanently injured and rescued by players who dug them out from the structural collapse, Ed Morrissey wrote that he was glad to hear that the Cowboy team suffered the physical tragedy. I shred him for being such a damned hypocritical “Christian nice guy” at the time on his thread of that news. I didn’t even need to take any of Ed’s words out of context. And Morrissey never apologized for being so malicious in his expression that makes Schadenfreude pale in comparison.

So, has Ed Morrissey HIMSELF ever published hateful messages at HotAir? Yes. But if you hate the Cowboy team, that’s alright to ridicule men permanently injured and paralyzed by an act of God from a storm. No. As if any one “deserves” to be abused when it makes Ed feel better. No. Ed behaved poorly towards his “neighbor”, certainly not as the Good Samaritan.

Propaganda messaging is nothing new. Reflect how many times at HotAir Ed Morrissey has printed nothing to see here, move along, in order to hold the neoconservative line at HotAir. And on behalf of HotAir’s ownership agenda and their own media PR careers at HotAir and beyond, readers should recall how many issues Ed Morrissey & company have boycotted, censoring references to historical “revolution” as taboo, or playing Alinsky themselves.

Ed, pulling Clinton’s defense, “Because I could,” won’t cut it. Thou shalt not bear false witness against they neighbor.

maverick muse on December 22, 2011 at 5:11 PM

maverick muse on December 22, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Funny, I just posted following message to a Paulbot on another thread. Funny how you all think alike.

50 scans of Ron Pauls racist newsletters.

Since I know the Ron Paul disciples will not bother to follow the link and risk invalidating their personal truth that Ron Paul didnt write them, or that they are relevant, I am posting the header here for everyone to read. Emphasis mine.

As I said in my rundown on the Paul platform over at Vice, reasonable fans of Dr. Paul now must accept that there’s no way Paul could have been ignorant of the content [of] 8-12 page newsletters published under his name for over ten years. Paul supporters face three losing propositions:

• He lacks the competency to control content published under his own name for over a decade, and is thus unfit to lead a country.
• He doesn’t believe these things but considers them a useful political tool to motivate racist whites, which makes him fit to be a GOP candidate, but too obvious about it to win.
• He’s actually a racist, which makes him unfit to be a human being.

Further, you can’t dismiss this in the name of higher political or socioeconomic aspirations. Since Paul has no chance of winning — seriously, no chance at all — his only value is as a voice, a conduit for principles. And if your only hope is to change the discourse by amplifying ideas, you can do that via many voices and avenues. As I said in my Vice follow-up, acknowledging some of Paul’s good ideas, when you opt to support anti-imperialist and civil liberties ideals by supporting Paul the Candidate, you end up supporting everything else about him. That includes those newsletters and the unambiguous message to those who enjoy them: You can write these things and succeed; this works. The other good ideas to which he’s signatory can’t erase the fact that he put his name to those words printed above. The moral weight of those newsletters drags down even the most high-minded aspirations he has about civil liberties, and everything crashes down on all of us.

It’s fine to have convictions about things he believes in. But when you voluntarily whitewash his record or choose to ignore it and champion him anyway, you are complicit in supporting the idea that racism and homophobia are morally inconsequential to the process of running for President of the United States. And, while many Paul supporters consider racism a social injury subordinate to extra-legal military conflict, there are just as many who disgustingly handwave at racism because it’s an inconsequential burp on the way to more tax cuts, Free Markets, Free Money, Free Black Peop — stuff for me!

I know, pointing this out means I’m a war-mongering Neocon, and not a “truuuuuuuue conservative,” or something.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM

maverick muse on December 22, 2011 at 5:11 PM

I’m really glad you don’t post here often, because you seem to get exponentially more spiteful and crazy with every post you make.

MadisonConservative on December 22, 2011 at 5:36 PM

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 5:24 PM

I think maverick muse sounded a wee bit deranged…..
I think it may be too late- I think he already jumped off the cliff…

AZgranny on December 22, 2011 at 5:36 PM

You have never seemed to lose patience or come close to giving up. So- Kudos to you Dante!

AZgranny on December 22, 2011 at 3:46 PM

You missed the thread the other night where he told Logboy, one of our Wounded Warriors, to “GFY” at least twice, maybe more.

Yeah, he kept his patience and bearing all right.

Plus all the Trutherism and whatnot…a real straight shooter he is.

And look at him being all humble and such, taking credit for being such a reasoned and sage commenter.

catmman on December 22, 2011 at 5:46 PM

You missed the thread the other night where he told Logboy, one of our Wounded Warriors, to “GFY” at least twice, maybe more.

Yeah, he kept his patience and bearing all right.

Plus all the Trutherism and whatnot…a real straight shooter he is.

And look at him being all humble and such, taking credit for being such a reasoned and sage commenter.

catmman on December 22, 2011 at 5:46 PM

I have never told anyone here to “GFY”. You have established a habit, along with logboy, of accusing people of saying things they never said. This is another example of your lying and deliberate dishonesty. And yet another example would be your calling me a truther. I have never said, nor have I ever believed, that our government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Be a man and be honest instead of resorting to lies.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 5:49 PM

catmman on December 22, 2011 at 5:46 PM

oops! I take it all back Dante. My son is in the National Guard and you insulting service men crosses the line. I stand by my original view- ALL racist, troofer, zombie, Paulbots are lunatics. Thanks for setting me straight catmman!

AZgranny on December 22, 2011 at 5:54 PM

It is such damn shame because I had high hopes for this guy. I know there is the Truther connection but I was willing to overlook that in the interests of freedom of speech etc. But this is going a little too far and pretending it’s not an issue is just plain stupid.
Oh well, another 4 years of mindless bullshit from the usual suspects.
That 2012 Doomsday thing is looking pretty good right about now.

CallousDisregard on December 22, 2011 at 6:00 PM

Dr. Paul was busy delivering babies and not supervising the newsletter as he should have been. Let this be a lesson kiddos, you want to live your life clean because you never can tell if you’ll be running for president one day.

Here’s a little nugget from National Review, August 1957 edition
Editor: one Bill Buckley,

From National Review:

The central question … is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes–the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race.

In the Deep South the Negroes are retarded. Any effort to ignore the fact is sentimentalism or demagoguery. In the Deep South the essential relationship is organic, and the attempt to hand over to the Negro the raw political power with which to alter it is hardly a solution.

oh my.
Meanwhile, Ron Paul enjoys the support of non-white likely Republican primary voters.

republicanmother on December 22, 2011 at 6:01 PM

maverick muse on December 22, 2011 at 5:11 PM

Quite odd behavior for one to take a dump on the host’s dinner table.

rukiddingme on December 22, 2011 at 6:06 PM

I have never told anyone here to “GFY”. You have established a habit, along with logboy, of accusing people of saying things they never said. This is another example of your lying and deliberate dishonesty. And yet another example would be your calling me a truther. I have never said, nor have I ever believed, that our government was behind the 9/11 attacks.

Be a man and be honest instead of resorting to lies.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 5:49 PM

I think that was John Galt. I know, with all those tinfoil hats running around I mix them up too. (Sorry Dante, the hats all look alike.)

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM

I’m really glad you don’t post here often, because you seem to get exponentially more spiteful and crazy with every post you make.

MadisonConservative on December 22, 2011 at 5:36 PM

You just described every Paulbot

The Notorious G.O.P on December 22, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Dr. Paul was busy delivering babies and not supervising the newsletter as he should have been. Let this be a lesson kiddos, you want to live your life clean because you never can tell if you’ll be running for president one day.

republicanmother on December 22, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Actually, his newsletters were printed over a period of 10 years during both the private life and public service of Dr. Paul.

Furthermore, posting some random article from 30 years earlier that also contains racism is not a defense. If you’re going to make a dishonest argument like that, why stop there? Go for broke and go back prior to the civil war during the time of slavery. Drag dead Presidents into it if you have to.

“Ron Paul is better than Washington, Madison, and Jefferson! He never owned slaves!! Ron Paul for President!”

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 7:24 PM

I think that was John Galt. I know, with all those tinfoil hats running around I mix them up too. (Sorry Dante, the hats all look alike.)

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 6:08 PM

Thank you.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 8:15 PM

Forget these MSM spins on debunked newsletter stuff from decades ago.

Let’s focus on the real issues.

The Money Mafia and their puppet Obama are still in control.

Let’s send the one, with the integrity and courage to take them on.

ProtectDefend on December 22, 2011 at 9:47 PM

Was Ron referring to the Ron Paul Investment Letter or the Ron Paul Political Report in that video?

Mister Mister on December 22, 2011 at 9:51 PM

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 8:15 PM

double oops. I’m sorry too Dante. There is no excuse but maybe I will tell you a little about myself. Not only is my son in the Nat. Guard but I have multiple nieces and nephews who are serving in various forces and both of my son-in-laws are former service members. Most of them signed up after 9/11 and some of them fought hard and bravely in ferocious battles. I didn’t think what he said about you sounded right but I follow the threads so loosely I just figured I missed it. I sort of turn into a mother bear protecting her young when stuff like that comes up; and I’m sorry I jumped all over you without even verifying it. :(

AZgranny on December 22, 2011 at 10:39 PM

Boy, he sure seemed proud of his newsletter back in the day. Now he’s acting like he never knew it was being published. He also claims that he didn’t want to be a committee chairman. Now he wants to be President?

He’s a lot more of a flip-flopper than Mitt Romney ever thought of being. His act of being pure of ambition is losing its starch.

flataffect on December 23, 2011 at 12:24 AM

Ron Paul, with his strange set of ‘accomplishments’ (saboteur of the war effort, critic of blacks/jews/republicans) richly deserves to be shown the exit in this nomination process.

But I do have to wonder… if Mitt is the nominee, his church with its history of race related doctrine will likely get the mother of all anal exams from the MSM in 2012. Even with Paul out soon (hopefully), we are likely in for a long, grueling, ugly campaign year.

shinty on December 23, 2011 at 10:45 AM

Ron may win Iowa, he won’t win NH or any following states a this will be over.

Freeloader on December 23, 2011 at 4:05 PM

Something still doesn’t compute. Paul wrote/knew about the bigoted racists stuff in some of the newsletters yet he goes on cspan and touts them anyway?

1. He really is stupid, racist, homophobic bigot.
Or
2. He really didn’t know some of the newsletters contained racist things.
Or
3. ???

hotairhead on December 24, 2011 at 7:56 AM

He is an embarrassment. He should be banned from the GOP just for running third party.

AshleyTKing on December 25, 2011 at 12:52 AM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6