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

Unexpectedly!

Washington Nearsider on May 7, 2013 at 10:44 AM

How do you like your dose of Lean Forward, Libyans? Right into the mass grave.

Good job, Preznit Smart Power.

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Whats the difference….h clinton……

crosshugger on May 7, 2013 at 10:47 AM

“This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?” -Average Libya citizen
“He’s the brains, sweetheart!” -Hillary, pointing at Barack

Chris of Rights on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Well, this is going much better than expected, isn’t it?

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

Who might those be?

Clearly tea party… Err. LIBYAN tea party.

Gatsu on May 7, 2013 at 10:50 AM

How do you like your dose of Lean Forward, Libyans? Right into the mass grave.

Good job, Preznit Smart Power.

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Samantha Powers takes a bow !

Jabberwock on May 7, 2013 at 10:52 AM

One stupid step for Obama…

One giant leap for Jihad.

coldwarrior on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM

“This is some rescue. When you came in here, didn’t you have a plan for getting out?” -Average Libya citizen
“He’s the brains, sweetheart!” -Hillary, pointing at Barack

Chris of Rights on May 7, 2013 at 10:49 AM

“Into the garbage chute, no-fly-zone-boy” – (pointing at Barack)

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 10:54 AM

And once again, we see why a POTUS must have Congress on board when going to war.

Had Congress given its imprimatur, they too would be on the hook for this mess, and would be under pressure to fix it. But, no. Team Liar and President Gutsy Call just had to do it on their own.

And now, the music has stopped, and they are the ones without a chair…

JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM

I note Ms. Power hasn’t been heard from lately.

R2P = R2FU

PattyJ on May 7, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Because Chaos is Progressive…

Lean Forward!

workingclass artist on May 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM

So this was another war for oil,right?

docflash on May 7, 2013 at 11:04 AM

And just who are these “militias,” anyway? Bloomberg doesn’t say, but it suffices to point out that even the Muslim Brotherhood party in the legislature supported the Isolation Law. That means the militias in play here are more radical than the Muslim Brotherhood.

Are we even sure that that wasn’t the intended consequence?

1) Allow radical muslims to come to power.
2) Be able to blame riots and attacks on a video no one’s seen
3) Get on board the muslim push for a UN treaty that outlaws blasphemy
4) Get rid of the First Amendment, along with the Second etc., which are part of a charter of negative rights anyhow.

rbj on May 7, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Legacy baby

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Take heart, Libyans because this situation was brought to you by a dude who won a Nobel Peace Prize, that’s worth something, right?

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Are we even sure that that wasn’t the intended consequence?

1) Allow radical muslims to come to power.
2) Be able to blame riots and attacks on a video no one’s seen
3) Get on board the muslim push for a UN treaty that outlaws blasphemy
4) Get rid of the First Amendment, along with the Second etc., which are part of a charter of negative rights anyhow.

Hmmm, looks about right.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 11:11 AM

And dear leader went around Congress for this boondoggle didn’t he

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

I’m sure the Administration will see this as a simple ‘evolution’ in the ‘process of transition’. “Nothing serious, nothing to worry about. Hey! What time do you want to head to the course and do nine holes?”

Liam on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 10:57 AM

Which would be true, but this wasn’t a “War” in the traditional sense.

This was probably the worse ‘Covert Action’ ever run by a Administration…

For what?

Was Khadaffi replaced by a more open minded government?

Was any Strategic or National Intelligence gained by this move?

Are we better off now, before this boondoggle was launched?

Talk about a deficit of political capitol.

BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

BlaxPac on May 7, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Libs care not for outcomes, but only for intentions.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Arab Spring!

myiq2xu on May 7, 2013 at 11:25 AM

What if we hadn’t intervened? Ghaddafi’s tanks would have leveled Benghazi and thousands would have died. There would have followed a period of intense repression and Ghaddafi would have ceased any cooperation with the West. There would be the probability of ongoing conflict and Islamification…another Syria, as rebels fought a diehard regime.
That’s not happening now and there is gratitude in Libya for what we did.
That being said, Obama’s intervention was at the 11th hour, reluctant and short-lived. He let the war go on too long and botched the aftermath. That’s his real legacy.

breffnian on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

What if we hadn’t intervened? Ghaddafi’s tanks would have leveled Benghazi and thousands would have died. There would have followed a period of intense repression and Ghaddafi would have ceased any cooperation with the West. There would be the probability of ongoing conflict and Islamification…another Syria, as rebels fought a diehard regime.
That’s not happening now and there is gratitude in Libya for what we did.
That being said, Obama’s intervention was at the 11th hour, reluctant and short-lived. He let the war go on too long and botched the aftermath. That’s his real legacy.

breffnian on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

I actually disagree with the bolded part above. I actually think Ghaddafi would have done exactly the opposite. He would have attempted to increase his ties with the West as an act of self-preservation.

I think he would have pointed gone to the western nations and said he was fighting their enemies vis-a-vis Ansar al Sharia. He would have asked why we would want to support the rebels, backed by jihadist groups that hate us. He also probably would have said that supporting his regime would provide a bulwark against the Arab Spring spreading further and throwing the entire region into chaos… witness Syria. That once one nation stands up against this regime change, other rebel groups in other nations… Syria, Bahrain, etc… will be less emboldened to begin or continue high profile protests and outright civl war for regime change in their states. I think he probably would have acknowledged privately that he knows we don’t like him, but our choices would be his Libyan state or turning Libya into another Somalia in North Africa.

And it’s certainly looking like we are going to get the latter… Somalia Redux in Libya.

gravityman on May 7, 2013 at 12:47 PM

Al Watan, the MB party, is founded by Bel Hadj, he was the leader of the Libyan Fighting Group, he runs camps for Syrian jihadists in the desert, he brought in Bin Qumu, head of Ansar al Sharia, to train the militants during the war,

narciso on May 7, 2013 at 1:35 PM