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 3 4 5 6

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

How many times did Bill Clinton claim he did not have Sexual Relations with that woman?

How many times did Rod Blagojevich deny attempting auction Obama’s Senate Seat off?

How many times did Richard Nixon assert that he was not a crook?

See, that’s the problem right there. Just asserting that you are innocent doesn’t make it so, especially when their are ten years of News Letters loudly contradicting you.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 12:51 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

Thank you for the fact check that I should have included in my own post :)

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:52 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

Should anyone doubt elections have consequences, it’s a good reminder that not only did GHW Bush lose, we’re stuck with the Clinton dynasty to this day.

Buy Danish on December 22, 2011 at 12:53 PM

Old news, I guess…

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Buy Danish on December 22, 2011 at 12:53 PM

All in all, the clinton presidency wasn’t a bad one, welfare reform, tax cuts, medicare reform, tax cuts, etc. Clinton was a real barn stormer for shrinking government. ;)

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 12:54 PM

Just asserting that you are innocent doesn’t make it so, especially when their are ten years of News Letters loudly contradicting you.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 12:51 PM

Correct. I’d just add, the absurdity of claiming Ron Paul not only didn’t write the Ron Paul Newsletter, but he didn’t bother reading it either.

Rebar on December 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Besides all that, I could not conceivably vote, under any circumstances, for someone who is actually significantly to the left of Barack Obama on foreign policy and national security issues.

Hayabusa on December 22, 2011 at 8:55 AM

Ok, so your #1 voting issue is the war on terror, that’s fine. But when the economy collapses, and people are hungry in the streets, remember that at least we’re safe from muslims.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Thank you for the fact check that I should have included in my own post :)

Ergo Sum on December 22, 2011 at 12:52 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

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

EPIC FAIL

Romney used his unrecognized religion as a way to run away from being drafted.

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 8:58 AM

Your assertion was that he used his “unrecognized” religion to get out of it. How a religion of 14 million world wide can we unrecognized is another topic for another day.

I’ll just take your bluster of a so called answer as proof that you can backup your idiotic assertion in the first place.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM

remember that at least we’re safe from muslims.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM

Not if they’re black. Then they are – with a 95% likelihood – criminals.

That’s how Paul tells it, anyway.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Paul/McKinney 2012!!!

Akzed on December 22, 2011 at 12:57 PM

How do you know that Romney isn’t a ‘full blown’racist?. . .he’s a Mormon . . .look at their historical doctrine regarding blacks (yes, I know they changed it but that was because they were getting too much heat and wanted to recruit more followers).

Pragmatic on December 22, 2011 at 9:00 AM

How do you know Ron Paul isn’t a serial killer? He’s psycho…look at psycho’s historical doctrine regarding killing.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 22, 2011 at 12:58 PM

For all you Cult of Paul:

If someone dies on a ship out of lack of safety, who’s fault is it? Ultimately, the captain.

If a business has crappy workers but the owner fails to fire them and the business fails, who’s fault is it? Ummm…. The owner?

If Obama doesn’t make it to Hawaii, who’s fault is it? His own. (Bush’s)

If the economy still sucks, who’s fault is it? Obama (although it’s Bush’s fault, still…errr)

If the NYTs publishes a faulty hit piece, who’s fault is it? The editor in Chief and ultimately the owner.

If a small scale newsletter says some dumb stuff who’s fault is it? The five people that write it AND the person that name graces the cover, the owner!

Now you’d think if you owned a newsletter you’d care about the content.

It must have been some big conspiracy though…. and I’m a part of it now because I make sense.

Simple logic need not apply these days.

Gatekeeper on December 22, 2011 at 1:00 PM

The land fully deserves 4 more of Obama.

Schadenfreude on December 22, 2011 at 1:01 PM

Fork Paul.

Axeman on December 22, 2011 at 1:03 PM

This is amusing watching the paul drones squirm.

(Channeling a ronulan)
Paul didn’t write them, and what he said wasn’t racist or was taken out of context, but he didn’t know what he was writing when it was written. This a smear by neo-cons and the illuminati. He’s not an anti-semite and it’s all a concidence that he repeatedly endorses anti-semites and anti-Americans like Bradley Manning. He’s a True Conservative and patriot who hated Reagan and hates our military. He will protect America by dismantling our military and having open borders so Americans can escape our fascist government and evil neo-con controlled military industrial complex.

RON Paul 2012! \

Hard Right on December 22, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Your assertion was that he used his “unrecognized” religion to get out of it. How a religion of 14 million world wide can we unrecognized is another topic for another day.

I’ll just take your bluster of a so called answer as proof that you can backup your idiotic assertion in the first place.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 12:56 PM

Name one Christian denomination that recognizes Mormonism?

Mormonism is unrecognized crazy sect which is shun worldwide by major Christian denominations and right fully so. No one in their right mind believes Joseph smith was inspired by God and the fact that Romney believes in that crap should make him ineligible for the highest office in the world.

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 1:07 PM

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

This is a laughable claim. I voted for Perot and had no intention of voting for either Bush or Clinton. My vote would not otherwise have gone “to the opposition candidate”. And a minor party vote – or a vote for anyone else – does not increase someone else’s share of the vote; it only increases the share of that candidate for whom the ballot was cast.

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 1:08 PM

Name one Christian denomination that recognizes Mormonism?

Mormonism is unrecognized crazy sect which is shun worldwide by major Christian denominations and right fully so. No one in their right mind believes Joseph smith was inspired by God and the fact that Romney believes in that crap should make him ineligible for the highest office in the world.

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 1:07 PM

So once again you can’t answer the question… thanks for making it easy.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 1:08 PM

No one in their right mind believes Joseph smith was inspired by God and the fact that Romney believes in that crap should make him ineligible for the highest office in the world.

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 1:07 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

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 1:07 PM

i doubt any of that is true, BUT, that isnt who determined what the deferments offered were. so congress obviously recognizes mormonism as a religion. and when it comes to determining eligibility for a draft deferment that is the authority that matters. now go take your meds your drooling fool.

chasdal on December 22, 2011 at 1:10 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

The law applies to congress, citizens are free to take their prejudices with them to the voting booth.

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Simple logic need not apply these days.

Gatekeeper on December 22, 2011 at 1:00 PM

Oh don’t get it F’ed up, it applies, the Ronulians know full well that Dr. Ron Paul is a White Supremacist Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist nutjob. They are not denying it because they think he isn’t or because they think he is being falsely accused and smeared.

They are in full attack mode denying it because they know that the second the average American finds out what a White Supremacist Anti-Semitic Conspiracy Theorist nutjob Dr. Ron Paul is they will dump him just as fast as they dumped his predecessor David Duke.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 1:14 PM

There have been black Mormon’s since the beginning of the Church. There was never a ban on MEMBERSHIP in the LDS Church.

Mormon’s didn’t allow people of Black African lineage to be clergy members. It didn’t apply to those who were black, but not of Black African lineage. And it never applied to simple membership.

Yes, indeed. Women could be servants in heaven and black men could not “hold the priesthood” which was the key to getting into heaven (celestial kingdom). 12 year old boys could have this “power of the priesthood”, but no blacks and certainly no women. I won’t bother with Bring ‘em Young’s outrageous contentions and quotes, but the prophets of the church were speaking and teaching quite openly about this all through the Civil Rights movement and for a couple of decades after. Black’s were Cain’s decendents and could not hold the priesthood until all other people in the world could hold it. I was also taught that black people “sat on the fence” in the war in heaven.

BTW, Mormons do not have a clergy. They are led by “lay” people who get their “calling” to be a bishop or a stake president or a prophet through “inspiration” only. No studying theology; no classes in counseling; no degree. And Mormons don’t get to choose which ward (church/parish) they go to. If they don’t like their bishop, they can only get out of that ward if they physically move their residence.

Some of us–even without the internet–figured out that a just and logical God could not judge dark skin as a “curse” (God also “cursed” American Indians). And we left. Mitt Romney stayed and accepted his “calling” to promulgate these beliefs.

And I did not open this subject but didn’t I warn that it was lurking and the Democrats would use it in the general election? That KKK story about Romney which Chris Mathews “apologized” for was the crack in the door. I did not know about Ron Paul’s statements or positions, but you see how very easily the gorilla comes out to play?

Portia46 on December 22, 2011 at 1:14 PM

The law applies to congress, citizens are free to take their prejudices with them to the voting booth.

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Ah, but that’s not what you said. You said “should make him ineligible,” didn’t you?

Denial of opportunity based on religious grounds? Hmm. So much for equal protection under the law too.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 1:14 PM

The law applies to congress, citizens are free to take their prejudices with them to the voting booth.

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 1:13 PM

Then how come Paultards are such douchebags about our supposed prejudices against Herr Doktor?

gryphon202 on December 22, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Then how come Paultards are such douchebags about our supposed prejudices against Herr Doktor?

gryphon202 on December 22, 2011 at 1:15 PM

Because that’s different. You’re wrong, see, and they’re right. It’s not prejudice if you’re right. It’s just a fact. Like black people running fast or having a 95% chance of ending up as criminals.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 1:17 PM

Anyone who knows anything about Paul’s views and beliefs knows that they aren’t his views. Why would, or why should, he apologize for views that he’s never held?

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 9:39 AM

Well, then, if he doesn’t agree with them, then why were they in a newsletter published WITH HIS NAME ON IT? And if he didn’t write the newsletters, then why was he referring to them as “his publications” in the interview?

Just keep ignoring FACTS that you can’t explain away, and twist and turn to “explain” the ones you think you can explain away. It’s very amusing!

JannyMae on December 22, 2011 at 1:17 PM

I hope Sarah Palin is laughing her ass off at us all right now.

Crusty on December 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM

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

I do not know why you are coming to that conclusion, ZGMF_Freedom. All I am saying is ‘what is the big deal here?’, and if he disavows the newsletter, i.e. Ron Paul, why is Ed Morrisey making such a big deal out of them? Don’t put words in my mouth.

love2rumba on December 22, 2011 at 1:20 PM

No surprise here. The guys over at Stormfront love him too.

Ruiner on December 22, 2011 at 1:20 PM

Have These Two Ever Been Seen Together In The Same Room?!?!?

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/have-these-two-ever-been-seen-together.html

Resist We Much on December 22, 2011 at 1:21 PM

I hope Sarah Palin is laughing her ass off at us all right now.

Crusty on December 22, 2011 at 1:19 PM

I suspect she is weeping for the Republic.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Has anyone on team Paul ever considered that even in the highly improbable event of his election, there’s no way he could govern? Is there anyone he would be willing to appoint to any office who could get more than one vote in the senate? He would be another President Tyler, a man without a party.

hoff on December 22, 2011 at 1:21 PM

Crusty, Sarah Palin had a marvelous opportunity to be something politially but squandered it on John McCain, and her political alliance with him didn’t even prevent her from having her influence in Alaska chopped off with Murkowski’s victory. She is just going to make more Hollywood money off her fading fame. We need better.

love2rumba on December 22, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Has anyone on team Paul ever considered that even in the highly improbable event of his election, there’s no way he could govern? Is there anyone he would be willing to appoint to any office who could get more than one vote in the senate? He would be another President Tyler, a man without a party.

hoff on December 22, 2011 at 1:21 PM

He also couldn’t do the things he says he wants to. He needs Congressional support in order to follow the Constitution.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 1:23 PM

My first black friends growing up were Mormon. Still are.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 22, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Ok, so your #1 voting issue is the war on terror, that’s fine. But when the economy collapses, and people are hungry in the streets, remember that at least we’re safe from muslims.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 12:55 PM

If we’ve been bombed into oblivion by Muslim terrorists, we won’t exactly have a hunger problem. You might want to reference that pesky constitution that you use as your bible. It plainly states that the federal government has not only the authority but the responsibility to recruit and maintain the military in order to secure this nation. It’s the main function of the federal government. Maybe you’re comfortable with the idea of a president who will dismantle our military and ignore the threat of Islamic terrorism, but this voter is NOT.

JannyMae on December 22, 2011 at 1:25 PM

Portia46 on December 22, 2011 at 1:14 PM

While I disagree with your assertion that women are “servants“; there have been plenty of wacky things said by Brigham Young on the subject of race.

However, Young was a product of his time, a time when slavery was still commonplace. None of his wacky ideas on race became doctrine or canonized. Young’s view would be racism of the worst kind in today’s society, but Young did not live in today’s society.

I am thankful that the Priesthood restriction has been gone for over 30 years.

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on December 22, 2011 at 1:26 PM

Resist We Much on December 22, 2011 at 1:21 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. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grover-perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica. And the Soviet-style ‘smartcard’ the Justice Department has in mind for you.”

- Ron Paul

Oh there you go, spreading obvious lies about Dr Ron Paul, Dr. Paul never said that and just because the above quote claims that the person making it is a Doctor doesn’t means that it is DR. Paul. /S

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 1:27 PM

I find it interesting the the Paulbots only defense is to scream “Romney sucks”.

Face it Paultards, it’s over, done, end of the road.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Just so I understand, Ron Paul started newsletters in the 70s. Racist writings showed up about 10 years later in the 80s? This was a business Ron Paul started? After 10 years of writing off on the newsletters that had not problems… What’s so hard to believe that at some point these started to become robo-signed, glanced over at best? (Yes I agree a horrible oversight)

After some years of sporadic racists writings it was brought to Pauls attention. Things went into damage control. Since then he has repudiated the writings , took moral responsibility for the gross oversight, and denied ever speaking in those terms exemplified by his public and voting record.

Sorry, but I still have to choose Paul over the other Repubs.

hotairhead on December 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM

No one in their right mind believes Joseph smith was inspired by God and the fact that Romney believes in that crap should make him ineligible for the highest office in the world.

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 1:07 PM

You’re obsessed with mormons.

By you’re own defintion, aren’t you a bigot?

You really believe people are going to come out and admit that they will not vote for a Mormon so they can be branded as bigots?

liberal4life on December 14, 2011 at 12:24 PM

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM

First post test.

Not a big fan of Ron Paul, but not sure I believe that he’s a racist.

humili mente on December 22, 2011 at 1:34 PM

Just reading over the comments I notice that if this were a fight the ref would have declared Paulbots losers by TKO.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 22, 2011 at 1:35 PM

He also couldn’t do the things he says he wants to. He needs Congressional support in order to follow the Constitution.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 1:23 PM

Wow the ignorance is strong in this thread. Paul is running to be a less powerful executive. All he needs for that is a veto pen. Funny how some “conservatives” want a president who passes legislation. We’ve had over 200 years of added legislation, it’s time we stop adding to the mess.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:35 PM

No one in their right mind believes Joseph smith was inspired by God and the fact that Romney believes in that crap should make him ineligible for the highest office in the world.

liberal4life on December 22, 2011 at 1:07 PM

Then again, it’s a good thing that:

We democrats don’t care if a candidate is a Mormon or not.

liberal4life on December 14, 2011 at 12:51 PM

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 1:36 PM

All he needs for that is a veto pen.

I’d have to check, but I’m pretty sure you can’t be president just by saying “no” for 4 or 8 years.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Just reading over the comments I notice that if this were a fight the ref would have declared Paulbots losers by TKO.

The Notorious G.O.P on December 22, 2011 at 1:35 PM

Really, you think all these males in their 20′s would lose to these government check receiving retires? You’ve obviously never debated a Paul supporter face to face.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I’d have to check, but I’m pretty sure you can’t be president just by saying “no” for 4 or 8 years.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Imagine how little would get done if that were the case, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Wow the ignorance is strong in this thread. Paul is running to be a less powerful executive. All he needs for that is a veto pen. Funny how some “conservatives” want a president who passes legislation. We’ve had over 200 years of added legislation, it’s time we stop adding to the mess.

rndmusrnm

Ummmm, so how is he going to do away with anything genius? Really, could you be more of an idiot?

Hard Right on December 22, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Just so I understand, Ron Paul started newsletters in the 70s. Racist writings showed up about 10 years later in the 80s? This was a business Ron Paul started? After 10 years of writing off on the newsletters that had not problems… What’s so hard to believe that at some point these started to become robo-signed, glanced over at best? (Yes I agree a horrible oversight)

After some years of sporadic racists writings it was brought to Pauls attention. Things went into damage control. Since then he has repudiated the writings , took moral responsibility for the gross oversight, and denied ever speaking in those terms exemplified by his public and voting record.

Sorry, but I still have to choose Paul over the other Repubs.

hotairhead on December 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Try again, only this time pay careful attention…

“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. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian Grove–perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica.” Ron Paul…

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 1:39 PM

You’ve obviously never debated a Paul supporter face to face.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I did, but the contact high was tough to deal with.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 1:39 PM

I do not know why you are coming to that conclusion, ZGMF_Freedom. All I am saying is ‘what is the big deal here?’, and if he disavows the newsletter, i.e. Ron Paul, why is Ed Morrisey making such a big deal out of them? Don’t put words in my mouth.

love2rumba on December 22, 2011 at 1:20 PM

The man made millions off peddling racism. In the world of politics, that’s “a big f-ing deal.” He can disavow it now all he wants, but he’s 20 years too late.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Imagine how little would get done if that were the case, wouldn’t that be a good thing?

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:38 PM

Yes, because keeping the status quo should be the goal for anyone trying to reverse it.

Then again, I’d prefer a step towards the eventual goal if the final goal is not achievable immediately. First downs are better than punting, yes?

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 1:40 PM

Really, you think all these males in their 20′s would lose to these government check receiving retires? You’ve obviously never debated a Paul supporter face to face.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Ummm, actually yes I have, all hat and no cattle as the saying goes.

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 1:40 PM

hoff on December 22, 2011 at 1:21 PM

I tried to make that point to the Paultards the other day and the breadth of their response was that of course that wouldn’t happen. That Congress would effectively laugh at most of anything he tried to initiate and that it would probably be the first time in recent history that they would unite to override every and all of his vetoes of anything they put out. Then they’d be screaming about that…it would never end.

Many of the ‘tards are like the Obamabots of 08. They ardently believe their own propaganda.

That’s why you can’t really debate one of them on anything – especially the kooky stuff they believe on things like 9/11. They really believe the government or the Jews caused it. Depends on the particular camp you’re dealing with. You’ve got some like Herr Doktor himself who are Truther-lite, who will acknowledge that it was Islamists who flew the planes into the Towers, but it had to be for some reason other than what the government – and any reasonable person – knows. Then you’ve got the hardcore nuts like Pitchforker (or was it Dante? both?) who think the Mossad or ‘rogue’ elements of the CIA did it. In this camp are the fire doesn’t melt steel folks and those who believe the airplanes were actually laser generated holographic images.

Someone said it the other day, its like trying to nail jello to a wall.

catmman on December 22, 2011 at 1:43 PM

Many of the ‘tards are like the Obamabots of 08. They ardently believe their own propaganda.

Most paultards -are- obamabots. That’s the joke.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Wow the ignorance is strong in this thread. Paul is running to be a less powerful executive. All he needs for that is a veto pen. Funny how some “conservatives” want a president who passes legislation. We’ve had over 200 years of added legislation, it’s time we stop adding to the mess.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:35 PM

So how – precisely – does one disband the CIA, the FBI, and departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development without legislation?

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Just so I understand, Ron Paul started newsletters in the 70s. Racist writings showed up about 10 years later in the 80s? This was a business Ron Paul started? After 10 years of writing off on the newsletters that had not problems… What’s so hard to believe that at some point these started to become robo-signed, glanced over at best? (Yes I agree a horrible oversight)

After some years of sporadic racists writings it was brought to Pauls attention. Things went into damage control. Since then he has repudiated the writings , took moral responsibility for the gross oversight, and denied ever speaking in those terms exemplified by his public and voting record.

Sorry, but I still have to choose Paul over the other Repubs.

hotairhead on December 22, 2011 at 1:29 PM

Nice try, but the facts betray you.

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.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 1:45 PM

So how – precisely – does one disband the CIA, the FBI, and departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development without legislation?

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 1:44 PM

“Because – SHUT UP – that’s how!” - Paultard.

catmman on December 22, 2011 at 1:49 PM

You’ve obviously never debated a Paul supporter face to face.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM

I did, but the contact high was tough to deal with.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 1:39 PM

Heh.

What is it about Paul support that brings out the “crazy” in otherwise rational people?

The last week observing the Paul threads has been a surprising eye-opener!

Tim_CA on December 22, 2011 at 1:49 PM

There has been a real urgency among Gingrich supporters to take down Paul. Along with that urgency, there has been selective amnesia with respect to Gingrich’s own incendiary statements. Shocked, shocked I tell ya:

1) “Really poor children, in really poor neighborhoods have no habits of working and have nobody around them who works so they have no habit of showing up on Monday. They have no habit of staying all day, they have no habit of I do this and you give me cash unless it is illegal.”

Ala Pundit on December 22, 2011 at 9:29 AM

On this point, I almost agree with Gingrich, although he should have said children of some parents that are on welfare and/or have never worked.

I have a dear liberal friend who is a retired social worker. She said basically what Gingrich said here. If you don’t grow up seeing your parents get up every day, catch the bus on time to get to work or school to earn a salary or otherwise invest in your future, you are simply not likely to learn how to do it. The ethics and culture of responsibility that we instill in our children is of vital importance.

NbyNW on December 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM

On this point, I almost agree with Gingrich, although he should have said children of some parents that are on welfare and/or have never worked.

NbyNW on December 22, 2011 at 1:50 PM

Perhaps he should have, but it is quibbling. Paul put quantifiers on his statements. These one by Newt don’t have them. If I say “People like to go to the movies” am I saying “Every single person in the world likes to go to the movies”?

If I say “Citizens vote” am I saying the counter-factual “All citizens vote”?

No, when you have plural statements without quantifiers, you have to read from the context whether it is categorical. Only a glib opportunist violates the intellectual standard of BOD and turns a plural into a classification.

Axeman on December 22, 2011 at 1:56 PM

So how – precisely – does one disband the CIA, the FBI, and departments of Commerce, Education, Energy, Interior and Housing and Urban Development without legislation?

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 1:44 PM

Um…by not signing a budget that doesn’t shrink them or eliminate them entirely?!? If this is news to you I suggest going back and re-watching some “Schoolhouse Rock”.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Um…by not signing a budget that doesn’t shrink them or eliminate them entirely?!? If this is news to you I suggest going back and re-watching some “Schoolhouse Rock”.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM

And when Congress refuses to write them out of the budget?

This is what I mean. Paulians refuse to be constrained by the bounds of reality.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 2:01 PM

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM

No budget has been signed for like 3 years and those agencies are still functioning.

lorien1973 on December 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Ron Paul – racist, Jew-hating kook.

Ward Cleaver on December 22, 2011 at 2:02 PM

Paul would have to convince at least 220 in the House and 60 in the Senate before any of his craziness could be implemented.

As it stands, he can’t even convince 1 of 535.

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 2:03 PM

“Ron Paul doesn’t care about black people”

-Mitt Romney

ManWithNoName on December 22, 2011 at 2:06 PM

While I agree that the Federal Govenment needs to shrink, as do most Conservatives, Shutting down 4-5 entire Federal Departments all at once putting several MILLIONS more Americans out of work at this point in time will do what to help the economy? Don’t forget that some of those employees are eligeble for retirement, some are protected from RIF’s, meaning you have to, by Federal Law find them employment, and the remaining will instantly be at the unemployment office. How exactly is this going to save money now. I know that in all due time it will save money, but remember that the Military BRAC commision was supposed to save Billions but it still is not complete and the cost continues to increase to close some bases and no cost savings have been realised as of yet, and this started when? Try the 1990′s under Bill Clinton.

D-fusit on December 22, 2011 at 2:09 PM

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 1:27 PM

Paul: See No Newsletters. Write No Newsletters. Read No Newsletters.

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/ron-paul-see-no-newsletters-write-no.html

Paul: See No Newsletters. Write No Newsletters. Read No Newsletters. Part Deux. IIII

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/paul-see-no-newsletters-write-no.html

Paul: See No Newsletters. Write No Newsletters. Read No Newsletters. Part Deux. IV

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/see-no-newsletters-write-no-newsletters_9834.html

SWalker, this is you:

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/leave-ron-paul-alone-biatch.html

Resist We Much on December 22, 2011 at 2:10 PM

Heh.

What is it about Paul support that brings out the “crazy” in otherwise rational people?

The last week observing the Paul threads has been a surprising eye-opener!

Tim_CA on December 22, 2011 at 1:49 PM

Good question. Even long time members here flipped out and went crazy over these threads. Seemingly sane people go crazy at the flip of a Ron Paul switch.

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 2:11 PM

I can say I have zero tolerance of people like Ron paul and his supporters claiming they are pro America, pro-Constitution, and Conservatives when they are anything but. Their site “bombing” or spamming also gets old as well.

Hard Right on December 22, 2011 at 2:15 PM

Ron “You’ve got your camp of supporters, I’ve got mein kampf” Paul is nothing but a hater passing himself off as a man of the people. But the Herr Doktor is nothing but a hater. Transparency Ron! You want it for Bernanke and now we want it for you. Why did you write those things? Your hate must run very deep if you couldn’t keep it underwraps. Disclose all the info Ron!

Spirit Crusher on December 22, 2011 at 2:15 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

Drummed out of? No.

Myth: JBS was booted out of the conservative movement by William F. Buckley.

Fact: In the mid-1950s on more than one occasion, John Birch Society Founder Robert Welch financially helped an up-and-coming conservative leader, and recommended that others do the same, so this rising young star could get his new magazine off the ground. That newcomer was William F. Buckley and his magazine was National Review.

A few short years later, Mr. Buckley attacked Robert Welch in a lengthy article in his magazine. Over the past several decades, Buckley carried out a campaign of attacking or disparaging Welch and the Society. On numerous occasions, he boasted to friends that he intended to destroy The John Birch Society. He didn’t succeed. Read more in John McManus’ book, “William F. Buckley: Pied Piper for the Establishment.”

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 2:17 PM

Oh there you go, spreading obvious lies about Dr Ron Paul, Dr. Paul never said that and just because the above quote claims that the person making it is a Doctor doesn’t means that it is DR. Paul. /S

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 1:27 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. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.) The Bohemian-Grove—perverted, pagan playground of the powerful. Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr. New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica. And the Soviet-style “smartcard” the Justice Department has in mind for you.”

- Ron Paul

Paul: See No Newsletters. Write No Newsletters. Read No Newsletters. Part Deux. IIII

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/paul-see-no-newsletters-write-no.html

Paul: See No Newsletters. Write No Newsletters. Read No Newsletters. Part Deux. IV

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/see-no-newsletters-write-no-newsletters_9834.html

Oops, SWalker, I hate when that happens! LOL!

Resist We Much on December 22, 2011 at 2:18 PM

Ah yes, another conspiracy. John F. was an establishment infiltrator! Booga booga!

Hard Right on December 22, 2011 at 2:19 PM

Sorry, meant William F Buckley

Hard Right on December 22, 2011 at 2:20 PM

Um…by not signing a budget that doesn’t shrink them or eliminate them entirely?!? If this is news to you I suggest going back and re-watching some “Schoolhouse Rock”.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:59 PM

Speaking of Schoolhouse rock, maybe you should bone up on the details yourself:

“If the President approves of the legislation, he signs it (sign into law). If he does not approve, he must return the bill, unsigned, within ten days to Congress.

The President is constitutionally required to state his objections to the legislation in writing, and given to the Congress

If the Congress overrides the “veto” by a two-thirds majority in each house, it becomes law without the President’s signature. Otherwise, the bill fails to become law unless it is presented to the President again and he chooses to sign it.

PLEASE ALSO NOTE:

A bill can also become law without the President’s signature if, after it is presented to him, he simply fails to sign it within the ten days noted”.

ADDITIONALLY

A veto only gives power to stop changes, not to adopt them. The veto therefore conveys to its holder an ability to protect the status quo./blockquote>

catmman on December 22, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Still no JohnGalt?

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 2:21 PM

Hard Right on December 22, 2011 at 2:15 PM

You have zero tolerance for being called out on your hypocrisy? Too bad.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Really, you think all these males in their 20′s would lose to these government check receiving retires? You’ve obviously never debated a Paul supporter face to face.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 1:37 PM

Oh, you are big with the stereotypes aren’t you. I’ll take the wisdom of the older folks here on Hot Air who have already worked their whole lives to receive whatever pension they’re getting over someone like you that seems to be only motivated by jealousy of what other people have. Over someone who’s comparatively done nothing with their life yet to speak of. What do you know about life by this time? That you’re mad because someone’s already earned their way to some level of prosperity?

And it actually sounded like a threat there, pal. What, you think any of us would be any more intimidated to refute your lame propaganda face to face. Are you even more unhinged and scary in real life?

You only get more pathetic with every comment you post.

hawkdriver on December 22, 2011 at 2:22 PM

Still no JohnGalt?

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 2:21 PM

He said he was flying to either Vegas or Iowa to volunteer on Paul’s campaign.

rndmusrnm on December 22, 2011 at 2:23 PM

You have zero tolerance for being called out on your hypocrisy? Too bad.

rndmusrnm

I have zero tolerance for phonies and hypocrites like yourself. Pretend you are something you are not, but I will fight narcissistic parasites like you at every step.

Hard Right on December 22, 2011 at 2:24 PM

In his newsletter Ron Paul praises as an “American hero” and “brilliant” an individual named Bobby Fischer, a chess player, because he is “politically incorrect” on “the jewish question”. Who is Bobby Fischer and what does he mean?

here is a preview:. “Jews are vicious rats. America is just a goddamn Jew country. They’re a bunch of goddamn crooks there. The Jews control everything and everybody. The United States is a farce controlled by dirty, hook-nosed. circumcised Jew bastards”.- Bobby Fischer Bombo Radyo, Philippines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O285w-9Qr0s

Ron Paul meets with 9/11 truthers in this 3 year old footage, agrees that 9/11 might have been an inside job, claims that there was a”possible cover-up “,say’s he will “investigate” it with Dennis Kucinich, also thinks JFK was killed by the US govt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vweKHrD4c94&feature=related

PDFs of images from those actual newsletters . In the letters, Paul:

: accuses US troops of war crimes in Desert Storm

: accuses US troops of war crimes in Somalia

: implied Pres. Reagan was closely tied to communist Armand Hammer in some sinister conspiracy

:maintained that the US and Great Britain should not have gotten involved in the effort against Nazi Germany

accused Sen. Jesse Helms of essentially taking bribes to support Israel

:launched a tirade against Rep. Jack Kemp and Sen. Bob Dole for authoring legislation to close a PLO office in Wash DC (the PLO was a terrorist organization)…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aW1M5rKwjno

video of Ron Paul on the Imus show: “Israel actions are horrible, atrocious”

“They are starving people and keeping them in concentration camps”

“This is a perfect opportunity to say, Israel, your on your own, we’re no longer backing you up” — in reference to the Mavi Marmara,a Turkish ship with members of a US designated terrorist group affiliated with Hamas, the IHH ,trying to break Israels naval blockade

“Hamas is a legitimate elected govt”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTpJOVhIxWc&feature=related

golembythehudson on December 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Ah yes, another conspiracy. John F. was an establishment infiltrator! Booga booga!

Hard Right on December 22, 2011 at 2:19 PM

__________________________________________________________

Have These Two Ever Been Seen Together In The Same Room?

http://predicthistunpredictpast.blogspot.com/2011/12/have-these-two-ever-been-seen-together.html

LMAO!

Resist We Much on December 22, 2011 at 2:26 PM

Still no JohnGalt?

Washington Nearsider on December 22, 2011 at 2:21 PM

No Pitchforker either. Perhaps there was a purge?

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM

Oops, SWalker, I hate when that happens! LOL!

Resist We Much on December 22, 2011 at 2:18 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

Looks as though many Paul supporters will need some kind of twelve step program to get past this and move on.

It was much easier for us Cain supporters to face reality.

When they’re done, they are DONE!

Norky on December 22, 2011 at 2:31 PM

No Pitchforker either. Perhaps there was a purge?

Logboy on December 22, 2011 at 2:28 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

This Texan is embarrassed. Sorry guys.

jazzuscounty on December 22, 2011 at 2:35 PM

fatlibertarianinokc on December 22, 2011 at 12:38 PM

Great post

Dante on December 22, 2011 at 12:47 PM

Coming from the two biggest anti-war hypocrite that post here, not surprising.

Are we war criminals yet?

hawkdriver on December 22, 2011 at 2:36 PM

hypocrite”s”

hawkdriver on December 22, 2011 at 2:36 PM

Even if a hypothetical President Paul simply refused to fund government departments, they would still have statutory authorization, and when he was not re-nominated or re-elected in 4 years the next president would simply resuscitate them. That’s assuming that the republicans and democrats didn’t simply put aside their differences and impeach him after a year or so for not funding whole departments and not appointing a single confirmable nominee to anything.

hoff on December 22, 2011 at 2:38 PM

This Texan is embarrassed. Sorry guys.

jazzuscounty on December 22, 2011 at 2:35 PM

You have DR. Ron Paul, us California’s have… Governor Moonbeam, Barbra Boxer, Diane Fienstein, and the (Where the hell is Dorothy and that damned house?) Wicked Witch of the West Nancy Pelosi.

Apology accepted…

SWalker on December 22, 2011 at 2:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5 6