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 2 3 4 5 6

What are the three most racist statements that were published in his newsletters?

cavalier973 on December 22, 2011 at 11:44 AM

Well, there is one that (if memory serves) celebrated the fact that MLK was shot in the head.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 11:49 AM

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 11:37 AM

So Ron was writing about monetary and fiscal policy and BOOM, he just starts going off on racist rants?

IMHO, he didn’t write them and he knows who wrote them. If you search the internet, you’ll find out who wrote them, or at least it’s an open secret with who wrote them.

Notorious GOP on December 22, 2011 at 11:50 AM

“I put out a newsletter.”

Uh. Yeah. The newsletter bore his name and he had people ghost-write it…

This constant smear from Hot Air that HE WROTE THE newsletters is ridiculous.

iamse7en on December 22, 2011 at 11:50 AM

How brave of you all

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 11:38 AM

Yes, and Ron Paul is SO BRAVE that he refuses to take real responsibility for his newsletters, or even admit forthrightly that he authored them at all.

Are these his real views? If he denounces them then he’s on the side of HA, after all.

Make up your mind and come on back.

JohnTant on December 22, 2011 at 11:50 AM

THREE pages and still no JohnGalt23.

Huh.

What a coward.

fossten on December 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Why is this old debunked smear here?

Journalistic integrity would be nice.

If you smear somebody with racist allegations, give the guy a chance to respond:

Re: Is Ron Paul Racist?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk7qiY-aoiQ

ProtectDefend on December 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM

This constant smear from Hot Air that HE WROTE THE newsletters is ridiculous.

iamse7en on December 22, 2011 at 11:50 AM

So if they bore his name, even if he didn’t write anything, doesn’t he bear responsibility for their content?

If not, and he’s that careless with the use of his own name; why should we assume he’d be more careful with the power of the presidency?

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Of course the Hot Airheads love blacks, Latinos, Arabs, Persians and all other minorities so much that they feel to stand up to the eeevil, racist Herr Doktor

How brave of you all

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 11:38 AM

So you’re saying that we–conservatives–are bigots ourselves and are being hypocritical for going after that scrawny, tinfoil hat-wearing lunatic?

You are aware, of course, of the rumored existence of non-white conservatives? The rumors are true, I’m afraid. Some of us do not have blue eyes, blonde hair, and untainted Aryan bloodlines. I’ll take it even further and say that some of us–an unfortunately vast majority–don’t care at all about skin color, ethnicity, and religious preferences.

In short, we don’t care who your daddy is, but we know the suspense has been hard on you, and hope the lab comes back with the results as soon as humanly possible.

troyriser_gopftw on December 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 22, 2011 at 11:48 AM

You’re correct. I don’t believe he wrote them and I honestly believe he didn’t know about them until it was brought up in a campaign a few years later. The problem is, the person who wrote them is a friend of Ron Paul and just being associated with that person is bad enough.

Notorious GOP on December 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM

I’m continually amazed at how gullible young angry white males with low IQs are. Proof positive a “father figure” is very important in a young person’s life.

BruthaMan on December 22, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Truer words Brutha, truer words.

D-fusit on December 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM

Well, there is one that (if memory serves) celebrated the fact that MLK was shot in the head.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 11:49 AM

What about the one where Ron Paul had Adolf Hitler’s love child?

Source, please?

The point of my question: How “racist” were the statements? Were the few statements we are shown taken out of context? Apparently…

http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/#axzz1hDdtFU7d

cavalier973 on December 22, 2011 at 11:54 AM

IMHO, he didn’t write them and he knows who wrote them. If you search the internet, you’ll find out who wrote them, or at least it’s an open secret with who wrote them.

Notorious GOP on December 22, 2011 at 11:50 AM

Huh? So Ron Paul can be excused for not saying flat out who wrote this garbage, but we cannot be excused for not searching the internet for speculation as to who is the real author?!

I think you have the onus mixed up a bit, sport. If someone were using my newsletter as a platform to launch racist screeds, I’d take great pleasure in publicly humiliating him. That Ron Paul feels the need to protect him speaks its own set of volumes.

JohnTant on December 22, 2011 at 11:55 AM

Never said that, did I? Just a commentary about how the R frontrunners are being taken down, except Romberal, so far.

ManWithNoParty on December 22, 2011 at 11:38 AM

I thought we were talking about Ron Paul. He isn’t a “frontrunner” or even “kingmaker” despite the propaganda this week over the Iowa polling. Iowa is a caucus state. Paul supporters are well organized and have plenty of free time to run about making absurd statements. Paul has no chance in primaries where there is an actual vote and where there is a relevant cross-section of society. Here in Virginia, for example, it is a Romney/Gingrich race not a defense of a racist crackpot truther.

Happy Nomad on December 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM

If you smear somebody with racist allegations, give the guy a chance to respond:

ProtectDefend on December 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM

He had the chance to respond on CNN and he stormed off the set.

Old talking point: the media doesn’t pay enough attention to Ron Paul.

New talking point: the media pays too much attention to Ron Paul.

JohnTant on December 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM

If not, and he’s that careless with the use of his own name; why should we assume he’d be more careful with the power of the presidency?

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Must have something to do with the fact that he’s the only candidate who seems to take his oath of office seriously.

cavalier973 on December 22, 2011 at 11:57 AM

…So the defense that Ron Paul is a racist old crack pot seems to be that Romney is bad…

V7_Sport on December 22, 2011 at 11:58 AM

Must have something to do with the fact that he’s the only candidate who seems to take his oath of office seriously.

cavalier973 on December 22, 2011 at 11:57 AM

As what? Mayor of Crazytown?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Show of hands:

How many Hot Airheads have read one complete issue of athe Ron Paul newsletter?

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 11:59 AM

You’re correct. I don’t believe he wrote them and I honestly believe he didn’t know about them until it was brought up in a campaign a few years later. The problem is, the person who wrote them is a friend of Ron Paul and just being associated with that person is bad enough.

Notorious GOP on December 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM

You conveniently leave out the fact that it was Paul’s newsletter. It was his name on the masthead. Are you honestly making the argument that this crap went out under his name and he never saw it? Are you Paulbots really that delusional???

Happy Nomad on December 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM

troyriser_gopftw on December 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM

+eleventy

strictnein on December 22, 2011 at 12:01 PM

What is cognitive dissonance?

CluelessRonPaulSupporter December 22, 2011 at 11:57 AM

Glad you asked.

Cognitive Dissonace – Cognitive Dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting cognitions (e.g., ideas, beliefs, values, emotional reactions) simultaneously. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or embarrassment.[1] The theory of cognitive dissonance in social psychology proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by altering existing cognitions or adding new ones to create consistency.

Why do a great number of Ron Paul supporters suffer from this psychological condition?

Research is being conducted into this. It is unclear why so many Ron Paul supporters struggle with cognitive dissonance.

BruthaMan on December 22, 2011 at 12:01 PM

How brave of you all

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 11:38 AM

That is your argument? If we are not racist we are progressive, so therefore we have to be racist?

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 12:01 PM

You conveniently leave out the fact that it was Paul’s newsletter. It was his name on the masthead. Are you honestly making the argument that this crap went out under his name and he never saw it? Are you Paulbots really that delusional???

Happy Nomad on December 22, 2011 at 12:00 PM

Not delusional. From what I’ve read, the “racist statements” are rather lame for being so hyped. Not much different than what you’d hear Rush Limbaugh say.

cavalier973 on December 22, 2011 at 12:02 PM

cavalier973 on December 22, 2011 at 11:54 AM

I’m sorry, I only see where he thought MLK was a child molestor:

was entitled ‘Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.’ Paul alleged that Martin Luther King Jr., ‘the world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,’ had also ‘seduced underage girls and boys.’…

and paranoid fantasies:

One newsletter reported on the heretofore unknown phenomenon of ‘Needlin’,’ in which ‘gangs of black girls between the ages of 12 and 14” roamed the streets of New York and injected white women with possibly HIV-infected syringes.’

Not that I care about this; I wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul simply because he thinks any loon on the planet has veto power over our foreign policy. Feel free to disagree and I’ll walk you through Paul’s logic here.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 12:02 PM

Show of hands:

How many Hot Airheads have read one complete issue of athe Ron Paul newsletter?

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 11:59 AM

Show of hands:

Who knows a red herring when he sees one?

fossten on December 22, 2011 at 12:02 PM

there is also no evidence that after all those speeches that ron paul has ever influenced legislation, influenced legislators or passed any legislation ever. yet morons like you believe that all that will change if he gets elected president. that somehow congress will bow before him and give him the bills to sign that he wants. square that circle einstein.

chasdal on December 22, 2011 at 11:15 AM

I have never seen anyone make that claim (well, except Paul’s detractors), but I do note your taking the opportunity for name calling. On the contrary, I fully expect a President Paul to veto the majority of legislation that comes across his desk and I have complete confidence that he wouldn’t run away from it, and would explain each of his veto decisions. I really don’t want to see a president influence legislation or legislators, do you?

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:03 PM

Of course the Hot Airheads love blacks, Latinos, Arabs, Persians and all other minorities so much that they feel to stand up to the eeevil, racist Herr Doktor How brave of you all antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 11:38 AM

A. What do we make of his statements declaring himself as the author?
B. Was he lying then if not now?
C. Did he not read his ghostwritten newsletters? If not, then for all he knew at the time “his” newsletters, which he didn’t read or write, could have been calling for lynching Eskimos and he would have been oblivious.

As important as these questions are is the fact that the press will not practice the fairness you want when they constantly trumpet these newsletters’ content during a Paul v. Obooba campaign.

“But… Ron Paul!”

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:04 PM

You mean like the cognitive dissonance of a self-described conservative seeking a candidate who is devoted to the Constitution, ideologically strong, consistent in his beliefs and in his political activities, and then votes for Newt Gingrich? (Or Romney, etc.)

cavalier973 on December 22, 2011 at 12:05 PM

Show of hands: How many Hot Airheads have read one complete issue of athe Ron Paul newsletter? antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 11:59 AM

The points at issue have been reproduced online photographically. All you need to know about the rest of their contents is “buy gold!”

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Show of hands:

Who knows a red herring when he sees one?

fossten on December 22, 2011 at 12:02 PM

I will take that as you haven’t read one.

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM

ZGMF_Freedom,

How many of the news letters have you read yourself?

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 11:47 AM

Just these that another poster pointed out.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM

Clinton can sexually harass women all over the place while using state troopers to assist him in those endeavors, gets elected.

Obama can go to a racist church for 20+ years, gets elected.

Nothing but hypocrisy and smear tactics to see here.

Will_Hal on December 22, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Oh yes. All of the Republican HotAir conservatives who voted for Clinton and Obama are hypocrites. How dare they vote for Clinton and Obama, but not Ron Paul???

I can’t really be surprised at this kind of logic from Paulbots, but it always gives me that WTF moment.

MrX on December 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM

With the R vote split, Obama wins. That’s reality.

If your principles demand Obama be removed in this election, voting for a third-party candidate stands in diametric opposition to those principles.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 11:48 AM

I’m not sure I agree as it’s looking at the problem from explicitly the R angle. If you take a look at the voting public as a whole (D, R and I) you’re analysis is inadequate. If I was to support an I run (Libertarian like Bill Still comes to mind), all you need is a defection of 30% of both R and D with Indies meeting the gap required to meet your goal. Our problem is that Paulians have pulled an impressive feat in Iowa logistically as he is polling top tier with less than 1/10 the spending of Romney.) Be afraid of that type of support – it goes where he goes and if it doesn’t solidify around an actually reasonable candidate, we’re hosed.

SkinnerVic on December 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM

As what? Mayor of Crazytown?

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 11:59 AM

However emotionally satisfying it is to resort to puerile name-calling, it does not qualify for a substantive argument.

cavalier973 on December 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM

No. I’m not playing word games. I’m dealing in reality – a concept Paul and his supporters could benefit immensely from.

With the R vote split, Obama wins. That’s reality.

If your principles demand Obama be removed in this election, voting for a third-party candidate stands in diametric opposition to those principles.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 11:48 AM

You’re operating on a false premise, which I tried to explain. The R vote would not be split because Paul’s supporters are not voting for R, they are voting for Paul’s – and theirs – principles. None of the R status quo candidates reflect these principles.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM

THREE pages and still no JohnGalt23.

Huh.

What a coward.

fossten on December 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Was he here yesterday? I havent seen him in a couple. Dante is here though. No Pitchforker yet.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM

The points at issue have been reproduced online photographically. All you need to know about the rest of their contents is “buy gold!”

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM

So how many have you read?

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM

None of the R status quo candidates reflect these principles.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Apparently, their principles are to get Obama re-elected.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 12:09 PM

I fully expect a President Paul to veto the majority of legislation that comes across his desk and I have complete confidence that he wouldn’t run away from it, and would explain each of his veto decisions.
Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:03 PM

I fully expect that a unicorn is going to give me my hair back.

V7_Sport on December 22, 2011 at 12:10 PM

You’re operating on a false premise, which I tried to explain. The R vote would not be split because Paul’s supporters are not voting for R, they are voting for Paul’s – and theirs – principles. None of the R status quo candidates reflect these principles. Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM

Principles that are so dear to them that they would happily support a quixotic Paul third-party candidacy to help ensure that Obooba, who rejects these principles roundly, gets re-elected.

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:10 PM

I will take that as you haven’t read one.

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:06 PM

I will take that as you admit you are using a red herring.

fossten on December 22, 2011 at 12:11 PM

He had the chance to respond on CNN and he stormed off the set.

JohnTant on December 22, 2011 at 11:56 AM

He didn’t storm off the set. RP answered the questioner THREE times. It appeared she didn’t like the answer so she insisted on repeating the same line of questioning hoping to get a different answer. By definition the questioner was acting “insane” because we all the definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

Why would anyone want to be questioned by an insane person? He did the right thing IMO and got out.

Will_Hal on December 22, 2011 at 12:12 PM

f your principles demand Obama be removed in this election, voting for a third-party candidate stands in diametric opposition to those principles.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 11:48 AM

Dang. Missed this part. If my principles demand Obama be removed in this election, then voting for a third-party candidate does NOT stand in diametric opposition to those principles. Voting for Obama or voting for any of the status quo R candidates would stand in diametric opposition to my principles.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:12 PM

I fully expect that a unicorn is going to give me my hair back.

V7_Sport on December 22, 2011 at 12:10 PM

I laughed. Couldn’t help it. That’s funny as hell!

BruthaMan on December 22, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Was he here yesterday? I havent seen him in a couple. Dante is here though. No Pitchforker yet.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Last check was that John Galt was volunteering for the Paul campaign, Pitchforker is either banned or on a thorazine IV at the moment and Dante is running around with sharp objects.
As an aside, every so often I find myself worrying about what the country is turning in to and whether or not we are still producing people with guts and character. A quick look at your blog gives me hope that there are still first rate guys out there. Thanks for that.

V7_Sport on December 22, 2011 at 12:14 PM

No Pitchforker yet.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM

She was here yesterday. I believe the mental hospital opens the internet lab at 2pm during the weekdays, so it’s still early.

BruthaMan on December 22, 2011 at 12:14 PM

So how many have you read? antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM

It’s irrelevant.

What I did was speak at the MD Libertarian Party Convention in 1988 and work the polls for Ron Paul the same year. I might have read his newsletters since I subscribed to many in the preInternet era.

But why do you ask? It’s like claiming that I’m not allowed to have an opinion on Jerry Sandusky’s crimes if I never saw him around boys he never molested.

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I will take that as you admit you are using a red herring.

fossten on December 22, 2011 at 12:11 PM

I will take that you are feigning outage over a newsletter that you haven’t bothered to read.

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:15 PM

So how many have you read?

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:08 PM

Speak for myself, I’ve read through most of these.

Did you know AIDS was created by the US Government? Ron Paul tells the truth!

Rebar on December 22, 2011 at 12:18 PM

Will_Hal on December 22, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Stormed off in a fit of pique. Video doesn’t lie.

JohnTant on December 22, 2011 at 12:19 PM

It’s irrelevant.

What I did was speak at the MD Libertarian Party Convention in 1988 and work the polls for Ron Paul the same year. I might have read his newsletters since I subscribed to many in the preInternet era.

But why do you ask? It’s like claiming that I’m not allowed to have an opinion on Jerry Sandusky’s crimes if I never saw him around boys he never molested.

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I take it that you too are feigning outrage over a newsletter that you haven’t bothered to read.

By the way, if you “might” have read an issue, can you tell us how much racist material was in there?

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Of course the Hot Airheads love blacks, Latinos, Arabs, Persians and all other minorities so much that they feel to stand up to the eeevil, racist Herr Doktor

How brave of you all

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 11:38 AM

speak for yourself, you, bigot!

jimver on December 22, 2011 at 12:21 PM

RACIST!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY

RightXBrigade on December 22, 2011 at 12:22 PM

Principles that are so dear to them that they would happily support a quixotic Paul third-party candidacy to help ensure that Obooba, who rejects these principles roundly, gets re-elected.

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Another one operating on a false premise.

But, yeah, what are principles worth anyway? Silly principles. Vote Newt/Romney and like it. Vote McCain and like it. Vote W and like it. Vote Dole and like it. Vote H and like it.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:23 PM

So, other than being the King of Pork, what exactly has Ron Paul accomplished in his 34262365 years in Congress?

Spliff Menendez on December 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM

You’re correct. I don’t believe he wrote them and I honestly believe he didn’t know about them until it was brought up in a campaign a few years later. The problem is, the person who wrote them is a friend of Ron Paul and just being associated with that person is bad enough.

Notorious GOP on December 22, 2011 at 11:52 AM

He let them go out under his name for years — not days, weeks or months.

If you engage in willful (or even negligent) blindness or silence, you can expect to be called out for it. This is fair game for voters to consider in making their decision.

Throat Wobbler Mangrove on December 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Here’s what you can expect daily doses of if Paul were to run against Obooba.

Here are photographic reproductions of them.

When I googled “ron paul’s racist newsletters” I got pre-fill assistance before I finished typing, to wit,

ron paul’s racist newsletters

ron paul’s racist quotes

ron paul’s racist background

ron paul’s racist swill

and more.

THAT is why we have primaries, so that the weaknesses of the candidates, including any old mistresses or, I dunno, racist statements can be exposed and prevent someone not so vetted from getting nominated.

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM

He wrote them and he is lying about them now. Of course the other problem is he says something just as nutty every week NOW, forget about the 1990′s. Paulbots are just as nuts as Obamabots.

echosyst on December 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Voting for Obama or voting for any of the status quo R candidates would stand in diametric opposition to my principles.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:12 PM

who cares who you vote for….do you think there is a reason why the vote is secret? just vote for whoever, no need to pontificate and rationalize your vote…we don’t really care…

jimver on December 22, 2011 at 12:24 PM

Really? Do I need to fill in the obvious for you? I guess I do:

Anyone who knows anything about Paul’s views and beliefs knows that they [the newsletters in question] aren’t his views.

If that’s the case, then why in the name of all that’s holy did he put his freakin’ NAME on them?? Not to mention making nearly $1,000,000 off of the sale of them?

Talk about missing what’s obvious…

crazy_legs on December 22, 2011 at 12:25 PM

But, yeah, what are principles worth anyway?
Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:23 PM

yours? not much…

jimver on December 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Last check was that John Galt was volunteering for the Paul campaign, Pitchforker is either banned or on a thorazine IV at the moment and Dante is running around with sharp objects.
As an aside, every so often I find myself worrying about what the country is turning in to and whether or not we are still producing people with guts and character. A quick look at your blog gives me hope that there are still first rate guys out there. Thanks for that.

V7_Sport on December 22, 2011 at 12:14 PM

After Pitchforker’s “the military is full of child molesters” comments yesterday I wouldnt be surprised if they were banned. Why cant they be more like our pet Paul bot Dante? Sure he refuses to recognize indisputable facts and evidence into his own narrow little Ron Paul world view, but he is house-trained and doesn’t chew on his leash. Those qualities are hard to find these days.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM

I will take that you are feigning outage over a newsletter that you haven’t bothered to read.

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:15 PM

I will take it that you are using red herrings and now ad hominems rather than engage on the substance of THIS particular newsletter because you realize fully just how damning it really is to your cult hero.

fossten on December 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Principles that are so dear to them that they would happily support a quixotic Paul third-party candidacy to help ensure that Obooba, who rejects these principles roundly, gets re-elected.

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:10 PM

Another one operating on a false premise.

But, yeah, what are principles worth anyway? Silly principles. Vote Newt/Romney and like it. Vote McCain and like it. Vote W and like it. Vote Dole and like it. Vote H and like it.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:23 PM

The false premise here is that a man who wrote these is nevertheless able to get elected POTUS. Maybe as a Dem senator from West Virginia, sure, because the media is 90% Democrat.

As GOP presidential candidate? I got a bridge to sell you if yer interested.

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM

Stormed off in a fit of pique. Video doesn’t lie.

JohnTant on December 22, 2011 at 12:19 PM

I saw the video. How is a person supposed to leave an interview with an insane person? He half-smiled the whole time and just quietly took off the mic and ended it. He did not storm off. LOL, it’s funny to read headlines insinuating it. Go back and carefully watch the video please.

Will_Hal on December 22, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Did you know AIDS was created by the US Government? Ron Paul tells the truth!

Rebar on December 22, 2011 at 12:18 PM

From what I read, the newsletter writer (Ron Paul or whoever) never said that the government created AIDS. In fact, the person said they didn’t know. They just quoted someone (a doctor) who said that if could have been since there are few diseases that are infectious in humans and animals

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Be afraid of that type of support – it goes where he goes and if it doesn’t solidify around an actually reasonable candidate, we’re hosed.

SkinnerVic on December 22, 2011 at 12:07 PM

You hit the nail on the head and didn’t even realize it. He transports his support from place to place. It isn’t nationwide. It’s one small segment he keeps bringing to different places.

Dang. Missed this part. If my principles demand Obama be removed in this election, then voting for a third-party candidate does NOT stand in diametric opposition to those principles.
Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:12 PM

Except you left out the ‘reality’ part. You are acting with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that voting third party will result in the re-election of Obama – which you claim is in opposition to your principles.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 12:31 PM

After Pitchforker’s “the military is full of child molesters” comments yesterday I wouldnt be surprised if they were banned. Why cant they be more like our pet Paul bot Dante? Sure he refuses to recognize indisputable facts and evidence into his own narrow little Ron Paul world view, but he is house-trained and doesn’t chew on his leash. Those qualities are hard to find these days.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM

You owe me a coffee!

D-fusit on December 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM

I would really like to see you attempt to backup that statement.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 11:37 AM

Did Romney serve in vietname? NO
Thats all I need. Ron Paul is a veteran. A true American patriot!

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM

I take it that you too are feigning outrage over a newsletter that you haven’t bothered to read.

By the way, if you “might” have read an issue, can you tell us how much racist material was in there?

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:21 PM

I bothered to read this.

If I can’t recall if I subscribed to or read them, how could I remember their content? Better than that, here they are genius.

I was a Libertarian. I worked the polls for RP. In the interim I was disillusioned with the LP for various reasons. I might have read some of his newsletters, maybe not. I was probably not reading them much if I saw this kind of tripe in them.

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Considering what is highlighted in the passages, it is a stretch to say Ron Paul is a racist. I find it ironic, that so-called conservatives as Ed Morrisey, are resorting to Democrat interpretation to judge a fellow candidate. As I see it, he is the only consistent conservative running, and frankly we are going broke. WE cannot afford another incompetent, big-spending Republican like Bush I and Bush II. You guys have to do better than this.

love2rumba on December 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Why cant they be more like our pet Paul bot Dante? Sure he refuses to recognize indisputable facts and evidence into his own narrow little Ron Paul world view, but he is house-trained and doesn’t chew on his leash. Those qualities are hard to find these days.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 12:28 PM

House trained? A monkey may provide some amusement riding around on a tricycle and smoking a cigar but someone still has to occasionally empty it’s diaper. Dante is overflowing and you can see it with every post.

V7_Sport on December 22, 2011 at 12:34 PM

Did Romney serve in vietname? NO
liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM

Can Romney spell Vietnam? I’d bet he could.

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:35 PM

IMHO, he didn’t write them and he knows who wrote them. If you search the internet, you’ll find out who wrote them, or at least it’s an open secret with who wrote them.

Notorious GOP on December 22, 2011 at 11:50 AM

De-nile is a river in Egypt…

/

Seven Percent Solution on December 22, 2011 at 12:36 PM

Well, if the newsletters weren’t enough, how about his address to the John Birch Society at their 50th anniversary? Love his profuse thanking them for their support. The video link is here, if you can stomach going to the JBS site:

http://www.jbs.org/birchtube/viewvideo/1007/constitution/ron-paul-at-the-50th-anniversary-of-jbs

banjohack on December 22, 2011 at 11:29 AM
A helluva speech. Thanks for sharing.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Please tell me that you know what the John Birch Society is and what they stand for? Cause, I am openly guffawing in your general direction right this second.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I would really like to see you attempt to backup that statement.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 11:37 AM
Did Romney serve in vietname? NO
Thats all I need. Ron Paul is a veteran. A true American patriot!

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM

/gasp!

Ron Paul is a warmonger!!!!!11

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM

So if they bore his name, even if he didn’t write anything, doesn’t he bear responsibility for their content?

If not, and he’s that careless with the use of his own name; why should we assume he’d be more careful with the power of the presidency?

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 11:51 AM

Because those trotting it out were never going to vote for him anyway. Who do you think you’re kidding? HotAir bloggers who’ve spent years banning anyone not of the pro-war mindset, are not bringing this up to vet Paul, they’re jumping on it because they think Paul is “nuts” and “kooky” and are using race-baiting as a way to destroy him. This is what some like to call being intellectually dishonest.

Paul has a consistently conservative voting record – the most conservative voting record I’ve ever seen – and that’s enough for me. Keep up your intellectually dishonest and hypocritical bullshit and I’LL keep reminding you of your inconsistencies.

ABORTION IS WRONG, BUT PREEMPTIVE WAR IS OKAY, WHICH LEADS TO THE DEATH OF THOUSANDS OF CHILDREN.

TO QUESTION PREEMPTIVE WAR IS HATING AMERICA FIRST, YET YOU CAN QUESTION OBAMACARE WITHOUT HATING AMERICA?

AFTER YEARS OF MILITARY INTERVENTION, THE MIDDLE EAST IS MORE CHAOTIC THAN EVER.

AFTER YEARS OF ECONOMIC INTERVENTION THE ECONOMY IS NOT MORE STABLE.

AFTER YEARS OF THE DRUG WAR, IT’S ACCOMPLISHED NOTHING BUT DESTROYED MORE LIVES AND FAMILIES THAN DRUGS THEMSELVES.

These are the issues that matter and your policies have not worked, are NUTS and the newsletter is just a Saul Alinksy tactic. Ends justify the means.

fatlibertarianinokc on December 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Thats all I need. Ron Paul is a veteran. A true American patriot!

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM

So you are voting Ron Paul in 2012, right?

Even though he wants to dismantle medicare/SS/etc, which are programs that you’ve previously commented:

Medicare is good as-is please DON”T touch!!!

liberal4life on December 20, 2011 at 2:09 PM

Yes?

Just clarifying.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM

A quick look at your blog gives me hope that there are still first rate guys out there. Thanks for that.

V7_Sport on December 22, 2011 at 12:14 PM

I appreciate that. As one of those evil folks who – in the words of Ron Paul – bombed over a million Iraqi civilians, I really should get off my duff and blog more. I do more writing here than over there.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Show of hands:

How many Hot Airheads have read one complete issue of athe Ron Paul newsletter?

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 11:59 AM

News flash Ace, I’ve read about 40 of them. Read only one or two of them and the straight up lies told by the Ronulians almost seem reasonable.

Read three or four years of them and the systemic level of racism, anti-Semitic and straight up conspiratorial nature of Ron Paul’s News Letter becomes indisputably obvious.

The pattern of racist anti-Semitic thought utterly permeates the News Letters. It isn’t any one single comment, it’s the years and years of constant low level racist anti-Semitic sniping that takes place in those News Letters.

Moreover the consistent personal first person references in so many of the articles utterly dispels any assertion by Dr. Paul that he was not writing those New’s letters or at the very minimum editing them and consistently inserting articles he wrote into them.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 12:39 PM

Except you left out the ‘reality’ part. You are acting with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that voting third party will result in the re-election of Obama – which you claim is in opposition to your principles.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Ridiculous. I have no idea how the election would turn out, and neither do you. The ones who would cast votes for Obama are the ones who would be to blame for Obama’s election, not people who didn’t vote for Obama.

I didn’t say that my principles demand Obama be removed from office. We are operating under your hypothesis. I said that I vote for people who hold the same principles as I do. Obama has nothing to do with it except for the fact that he doesn’t have the same principles as I do. Guess what? Neither do any of the other Republican candidates. And none of them – Obama or the rest of the R field – will get my vote. It’s that simple. In your ridiculous argument, you are saying that I would be to blame for Obama’s election. That’s simply preposterous.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Considering what is highlighted in the passages, it is a stretch to say Ron Paul is a racist. I find it ironic, that so-called conservatives as Ed Morrisey, are resorting to Democrat interpretation to judge a fellow candidate. As I see it, he is the only consistent conservative running, and frankly we are going broke. WE cannot afford another incompetent, big-spending Republican like Bush I and Bush II. You guys have to do better than this.

love2rumba on December 22, 2011 at 12:33 PM

I take it that you too are feigning outrage over a newsletter that you haven’t bothered to read.

By the way, if you “might” have read an issue, can you tell us how much racist material was in there?

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:21 PM

Ron Paul himself stated that he finds those newsletters abhorrent and racist. I’m not sure why you Ron Paul supporters are trying to defend the material substance of the newsletters.

ZGMF_Freedom on December 22, 2011 at 12:41 PM

From what I read, the newsletter writer (Ron Paul or whoever) never said that the government created AIDS.

antifederalist on December 22, 2011 at 12:31 PM

Most community colleges have courses that would improve your reading comprehension.

Just some friendly advice.

Rebar on December 22, 2011 at 12:41 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on December 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Holy strawmen, batman! Ernesto would be proud of this comment, right here.

Let’s assume that I’m in agreement with much of what Paul says on the domestic front (I am), let’s agree that he is not the best spokesman for the message. It’s not hard to do, cuz he’s not. He’s terrible at explaining his positions.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on December 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Right on cue, another one enters the room. I swear they are reproducing overnight.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Except you left out the ‘reality’ part. You are acting with the FULL KNOWLEDGE that voting third party will result in the re-election of Obama – which you claim is in opposition to your principles.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 12:31 PM
Ridiculous. I have no idea how the election would turn out, and neither do you. The ones who would cast votes for Obama are the ones who would be to blame for Obama’s election, not people who didn’t vote for Obama.

I didn’t say that my principles demand Obama be removed from office. We are operating under your hypothesis. I said that I vote for people who hold the same principles as I do. Obama has nothing to do with it except for the fact that he doesn’t have the same principles as I do. Guess what? Neither do any of the other Republican candidates. And none of them – Obama or the rest of the R field – will get my vote. It’s that simple. In your ridiculous argument, you are saying that I would be to blame for Obama’s election. That’s simply preposterous.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:41 PM

Not like we have any examples of what a serious 3rd party run yeilds *cough* Perot *cough*.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM

HotAir bloggers who’ve spent years banning anyone not of the pro-war mindset, are not bringing this up to vet Paul, they’re jumping on it because they think Paul is “nuts” and “kooky” and are using race-baiting as a way to destroy him. This is what some like to call being intellectually dishonest.
fatlibertarianinokc on December 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Provide evidence of this charge, please. In the name of intellectual honesty and all that.

Buy Danish on December 22, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Please tell me that you know what the John Birch Society is and what they stand for? Cause, I am openly guffawing in your general direction right this second.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM

I do. Do you?

But somehow you think my complimenting a speech given at one of their events is an endorsement for the organization, or that I’m even talking about the organization?

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Not like we have any examples of what a serious 3rd party run yeilds *cough* Perot *cough*.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM

This is what happens with people like you who are locked into this binary R-D thinking. You are assuming that those who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush. That’s a very bad, and erroneous, assumption.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Please tell me that you know what the John Birch Society is and what they stand for? Cause, I am openly guffawing in your general direction right this second.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM
I do. Do you?

But somehow you think my complimenting a speech given at one of their events is an endorsement for the organization, or that I’m even talking about the organization?

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:44 PM

Yep. You and your candidate.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Will_Hal on December 22, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Stormed off.

Gee, if I repeat something three times does that mean you’ll go away too?

JohnTant on December 22, 2011 at 12:46 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on December 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Great post

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Not like we have any examples of what a serious 3rd party run yeilds *cough* Perot *cough*.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:42 PM
This is what happens with people like you who are locked into this binary R-D thinking. You are assuming that those who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush. That’s a very bad, and erroneous, assumption.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Team Blue votes for Team Blue…and they will again this year. Only when we have people who claim to be the conservative alternative do we have this type of split. But, you also think JBS is okie dokie.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Please tell me that you know what the John Birch Society is and what they stand for? Cause, I am openly guffawing in your general direction right this second.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM

The John Birch society got drummed out of movement conservatism by none other than William F. Buckley, Jr., himself.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2011 at 12:47 PM

That’s a very bad, and erroneous, assumption.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Recheck the 1992 election. Had Perot not been in it, Bush would have won – based upon exit polls.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Please tell me that you know what the John Birch Society is and what they stand for? Cause, I am openly guffawing in your general direction right this second.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM
The John Birch society got drummed out of movement conservatism by none other than William F. Buckley, Jr., himself.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2011 at 12:47 PM

I know this (and may that good man rest in peace)…I don’t think that Dante does, though.

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:49 PM

You are assuming that those who voted for Perot would have voted for Bush. That’s a very bad, and erroneous, assumption.

Except that it’s an assumption which has been borne out by empirical fact.

“In both 1992 and 1996, however, the minor party vote, almost all of which was for Perot, increased the incumbent president’s share of the major party vote, drawing from votes that would have otherwise have gone to the opposition candidate.”

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 12:50 PM

That’s a very bad, and erroneous, assumption.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:45 PM

Recheck the 1992 election. Had Perot not been in it, Bush would have won – based upon exit polls.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 12:48 PM

Not only that, but it’s worth noting ipso facto that neither of Clinton’s elections happened with more than 50% of the popular vote. It was 43% in 1992 and 46% in 1996.

gryphon202 on December 22, 2011 at 12:50 PM

I havent posted this link yet so I’m gong to toss it out for others to chew on. Its a bit old and not up to date with recent evidence showing Paul did a lot of the writing himself, but it still has a lot of relevant information. Emphasis mine.

http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter

The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the “welfare checks” comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul’s family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn’t know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback.

The tenor of Paul’s newsletters changed over the years. The ones published between Paul’s return to private life after three full terms in congress (1985) and his Libertarian presidential bid (1988) notably lack inflammatory racial or anti-gay comments. The letters published between Paul’s first run for president and his return to Congress in 1996 are another story—replete with claims that Martin Luther King “seduced underage girls and boys,” that black protesters should gather “at a food stamp bureau or a crack house” rather than the Statue of Liberty, and that AIDS sufferers “enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick.”

Eric Dondero, Paul’s estranged former volunteer and personal aide, worked for Paul on and off between 1987 and 2004 (back when he was named “Eric Rittberg”), and since the Iraq war has become one of the congressman’s most vociferous and notorious critics. By Dondero’s account, Paul’s inner circle learned between his congressional stints that “the wilder they got, the more bombastic they got with it, the more the checks came in. You think the newsletters were bad? The fundraising letters were just insane from that period.” Cato Institute President Ed Crane told reason he recalls a conversation from some time in the late 1980s in which Paul claimed that his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for The Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto until it folded in 2001.

Cue systematic denial in 3, 2, 1….

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 12:50 PM

The danger in Iowa is not that if Ron Paul does come in first in the Iowa caucus, he will get the Republican nomination. He won’t. Recall Mike Huckabee’s win four years ago! It means little. But it will give Paul momentum, and his deluded followers will double down in their efforts, and when Mitt Romney becomes the nominee, they won’t take their defeat lying down. The danger, then, is that Paul will do what his followers want and what he originally promised he would not do: run on a third-party ticket for the presidency.

More:

What the congressman had to say about Jews and Israel would probably be a deal-breaker. No foreign country was mentioned in the newsletters more often than Israel. A 1987 newsletter termed it “an aggressive, national socialist state,” and another missive, on the subject of the 1993 World Trade Center attack, concluded, ‘Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little.’ In 1990, the newsletter cast aspersions on the “tens of thousands of well-placed friends of Israel in all countries who are willing to wok [sic] for the Mossad in their area of expertise.”

More:

Moreover, Kirchick goes on to point out that Ed Crane, “the president of the Cato Institute, said Paul told him that ‘his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.’” To this reader, that sentence is the most important one in Kirchick’s article. It reveals, for the first time, that a great deal of Paul’s funding for his successful congressional campaigns comes from one of the most notorious anti-Semitic papers in America.

“If Satan himself, with all of his super-human genius and diabolical ingenuity at his command, had tried to create a permanent disintegration and force for the destruction of the nations, he could have done no better than to invent the Jews.” -Willis Carto.

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6