Paul: I did write parts of the newsletters, but not the bad parts

posted at 5:00 pm on December 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

Dave Weigel has the transcript from a radio interview in Iowa.

CALLER: Dr. Paul, how confident were you at the time that the newsletters that bore your name were representative of your views on taxes, on monetary policy, the Second Amendment, the Tenth Amendment, all the things that you hold dear? How confident were you that the newsletter accurately portrayed your views on those things?

PAUL: Well, the newsletters were written, you know, a long time ago. And I wrote a certain portion of them. I would write the economics. So a lot of what you just mentioned… his would be material that I would turn in, and it would become part of the letter. But there were many times when I didn’t edit the whole letter, and things got put in. And I didn’t even really become aware of the details of that until many years later when somebody else called and said, you know what was in it? But these were sentences that were put in, a total of eight or ten sentences, and it was bad stuff. It wasn’t a reflection of my views at all. So it got in the letter, I thought it was terrible, it was tragic, you know and I had some responsibility for it, because name went on the letter. But I was not an editor. I’m like a publisher. And if you think of publishers of newspapers, once in a while they get pretty junky stuff in newspapers. And they have to say that this is not the position of that newspaper, and this is certainly the case. But I actually put a type of a newsletter out, it was a freedom report, investment, survival report — every month since 1976. So this is probably ten sentences out of 10,000 pages, for all I know. I think it’s bad that happened but I disavowed all these views, and people who know me best, people of my district, have heard these stories for years and years, and they know they weren’t a reflection of anything I believed in, and it never hurt me politically. Right now, I think it’s the same case, too. People are desperate to find something.

CALLER: But Dr. Paul, many of the newsletters are filled with conspiracies. You had one newsletter from start to finish with fear that the $50 bill, because it was going to be made pink, and it was gonna have all kinds of things that can track us down, so we should all be afraid that maybe tomorrow they’re gonna require us to turn in all of our old money.

PAUL: The paper money now is pink, you know? No, we haven’t had runaway inflation, but I still fear that.

“Eight or ten sentences”? Pick through TNR’s archive of the newsletters and see how much there is. Or scroll through this guy’s Twitter timeline; he’s been tweeting the choicer excerpts (sometimes repetitively) since before Christmas. Much depends, I guess, on what you think qualifies as “bad stuff.” Everyone agrees that the racist material is bad; how about the five paragraphs devoted in one newsletter to the idea that AIDS might have been engineered at Fort Detrick? How about the section a few months after the first World Trade Center bombing wondering whether Mossad might be responsible? How about the fact that Paul was willing to speculate on camera in 2008, a year in which he was running for president, that the Bilderbergers were chatting about controlling the world’s banking and natural resources? Dwelling on the racist aspects of the newsletters actually lets him off the hook because not only can’t anyone prove that he wrote those passages, even some of his critics like Eric Dondero admit they’ve never heard him use racist language in private conversation. The question isn’t whether Paul’s a racist, it’s whether the racist elements in the newsletters point to a more broadly paranoid worldview that Paul does appear to hold in some respects. Jamie Kirchick, his bete noire, makes the same point over at the Times:

In a 1990 C-Span appearance, taped between Congressional stints, Paul was asked by a caller to comment on the “treasonous, Marxist, alcoholic dictators that pull the strings in our country.” Rather than roll his eyes, Paul responded,“there’s pretty good evidence that those who are involved in the Trilateral Commission and the Council on Foreign Relations usually end up in positions of power. And I believe this is true.”

Paul then went on to stress the negligible differences between various “Rockefeller Trilateralists.” The notion that these three specific groups — the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the Rockefeller family — run the world has been at the center of far-right conspiracy theorizing for a long time, promoted especially by the extremist John Birch Society, whose 50th anniversary gala dinner Paul keynoted in 2008…

Paul knows where his bread is buttered. He regularly appears on the radio program of Alex Jones, a vocal 9/11 and New World Order conspiracy theorist based in his home state of Texas. On Jones’s show earlier this month, Paul alleged that the Iranian plot to kill the Saudi ambassador on United States soil was a “propaganda stunt” perpetrated by the Obama administration.

In light of the newsletters and his current rhetoric, it is no wonder that Paul has attracted not just prominent racists, but seemingly every conspiracy theorist in America.

His last appearance on Jones’s show came on December 13; a PPP poll of Iowa taken that day placed him one point behind Romney for the lead. It’s bizarre to me that his campaign would be image-conscious enough to lay down strict rules for their volunteers — no booze, no tattoos, clean-shaven and neatly dressed — while the candidate himself makes chitchat with one of America’s foremost conspiracy theorists. I can sort of understand him calling sanctions on Iran “horrendous” since, for better or worse, that’s his foreign policy. He believes what he believes and he’s sticking to it. But what’s the logic in sticking to Jones? Simple personal loyalty after being a guest for so many years or does he believe what Jones believes too?

Here’s Huntsman’s new ad — the very first attack ad of the campaign directed at Paul, by the way — hitting him on the newsletters followed by another new ad from Paul’s PAC pushing back on the criticism. Why does it take one of the also-rans in the field to go after the guy who’s leading in Iowa? Because, for various reasons, no other candidate has any incentive to do so. Romney would be fine with a Paul victory there, using him as an offensive lineman to clear a path for Mitt to take the hand-off in New Hampshire and sprint towards the end zone. (WaPo’s headline about that dynamic is perfect.) Gingrich, stupidly, has decided not to go negative in his ads so his shots at Paul are limited to interviews. Bachmann, Perry, and Santorum are too busy fighting with each other to become the social-con conservative that they can’t afford to worry about Paul — although if we see another poll or two showing Santorum breaking out, he’ll change his target. (We’re seeing that already, in fact.) So it’s left to Huntsman, who fears Paul winning in Iowa and then gobbling up his Not Romney share of the vote in New Hampshire, to take a swipe. For now. Exit quotation from Santorum: “Ron Paul says he’s going to eliminate five departments. Ron Paul passed one bill in 20 years. What give you the idea that he can eliminate anything?”


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

You REALLY don’t want to give these people any ideas.
They had wanted to cross a hagfish with a democrat…until they realised it would merely be duplicating nature.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagfish

Hard Right on December 29, 2011 at 11:13 PM

Didn’t that project actually succeed? We call him by his Earth Name, “Henry Waxman.”

Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 11:16 PM

Again, you’re blaming the UN as collective for the sins of member nations. You look at the anti-Israel stance of the UN and see a sinister global agenda, instead of correctly seeing the individual anti-Israel views that are held by, unfortunately, a majority of member nations.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 11:09 PM

I cited UN actions, not actions of some of the UN’s crazy members. Actions of the UN, as a body. As a whole. As an organization.

Yet, you keep saying, essentially, that’s only because there are only internal controls, which brings this all back to my very first point to you about this.

Take a break and think about what you’ve been writing, here. You have had to constantly explain that all the actions of the UN are only because it’s made up of cr@p (which isn’t even the real problem, but I’ll let that lay for now). You talk about needing a house-cleaning, now, but you can’t design an organization that just goes off teh rails by itself and then needs an extra-legal “cleaning” every so often. That was my point to you originally. And yet, you still don’t seem to realize that the more power this organization gets (which you admit has lots of sh#t members and does lots of sh#tty things – but only because of those sh#t members) the worse its effects are.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Running low on crazy? Take a rON pAuL and allow the crazy to sink in. Take an extra rOn pAuL if your also running low on racist and or conspiracy theories. Some patients may experience nausea, dizziness or vomitting. If you experience the desire to ever vote for this loon see a real doctor immediately. Nutters who have taken a rOn pAuL should not respond as they are terminally brain dead

Minnfidel on December 29, 2011 at 11:20 PM

Running low on crazy? Take a rON pAuL and allow the crazy to sink in. Take an extra rOn pAuL if your also running low on racist and or conspiracy theories. Some patients may experience nausea, dizziness or vomitting. If you experience the desire to ever vote for this loon see a real doctor immediately. Nutters who have taken a rOn pAuL should not respond as they are terminally brain dead

Minnfidel

Instead of Mentos the ron paul loons eat De-Mentos. (see what I did there?)

Hard Right on December 29, 2011 at 11:22 PM

So wait … am I capable of exercising my own will, or are my hormones/genes/environment/stochasticism responsible for my actions? Help me out here, Random & ThePrimordialOrderedPair.

There’s certainly a debate about that in science. I don’t know, frankly.

At the least, those factors above heavily influenc what we do.

Random on December 29, 2011 at 11:23 PM

I cited UN actions, not actions of some of the UN’s crazy members. Actions of the UN, as a body. As a whole. As an organization.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 11:17 PM

Actions which are voted on by those individual members. That’s what you aren’t grasping in your shrieks of “globalist!” The UN, by nature, can’t have its own agenda. The agenda is set by the constituent nations.

Take a break and think about what you’ve been writing, here. You have had to constantly explain that all the actions of the UN are only because it’s made up of cr@p (which isn’t even the real problem, but I’ll let that lay for now). You talk about needing a house-cleaning, now, but you can’t design an organization that just goes off teh rails by itself and then needs an extra-legal “cleaning” every so often. That was my point to you originally. And yet, you still don’t seem to realize that the more power this organization gets (which you admit has lots of sh#t members and does lots of sh#tty things – but only because of those sh#t members) the worse its effects are.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 11:17 PM

I’ve thought about it a lot more than you, man. I think you’re reflexively against the UN because you’re afraid of the “globalist” boogeyman. I think that you can’t rationally see the benefits of a, say, 70-member UN that’s only comprised of the world’s civilized democracies. I’m not certain how many of the 193 current member nations would make the cut, but I’m willing to bet it’s less than half.

It doesn’t need a cleaning so much as it needs a redesign of its charter. It is to be a gathering place for diplomacy made by democracies, for democracies. Post-WW2, the goal was to foster peace, and that’s the most efficient way of fostering peace.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM

Post-WW2 piece was fostered by nuclear arms.

Random on December 29, 2011 at 11:54 PM

*peace

piece is more my specialty

Random on December 29, 2011 at 11:57 PM

The door, Ron: —–>

Have a nice retirement.

minnesoter on December 29, 2011 at 11:58 PM

It is to be a gathering place for diplomacy made by democracies, for democracies. Post-WW2, the goal was to foster peace, and that’s the most efficient way of fostering peace.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 29, 2011 at 11:30 PM

I agree with the idea of a league of free countries, but don’t see it happening as long as we do business with dictatorships. Besides, those not in the league would view it as a threat to their national security. Take China, for example. They would view the organization of such a league as a military alliance transcending NATO. So would Russia. So would Iran. So would Pakistan. We wouldn’t be encouraging peace. We’d be picking sides.

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 12:01 AM

Mr. Paul. You are a loon. Drink your Ovaltine and go to bed.

minnesoter on December 30, 2011 at 12:09 AM

Dangerous…and an A$$hole.
Crazy people often say profound things.

Rea1ityCheck on December 30, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Paul – Nader
for the other 99% 20%

Rea1ityCheck on December 30, 2011 at 1:00 AM

Post-WW2 piece was fostered by nuclear arms.

Random on December 29, 2011 at 11:54 PM

That’s a pretty simplistic view, man.

I agree with the idea of a league of free countries, but don’t see it happening as long as we do business with dictatorships. Besides, those not in the league would view it as a threat to their national security. Take China, for example. They would view the organization of such a league as a military alliance transcending NATO. So would Russia. So would Iran. So would Pakistan. We wouldn’t be encouraging peace. We’d be picking sides.

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 12:01 AM

China and Russia would have to be in a ‘new-look’ UN, without a doubt. Iran and Pakistan I’d love to keep out, if it’s possible to leave out any nuclear powers.

I agree it’s unlikely to happen, though.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 30, 2011 at 1:09 AM

China and Russia would have to be in a ‘new-look’ UN, without a doubt. Iran and Pakistan I’d love to keep out, if it’s possible to leave out any nuclear powers.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 30, 2011 at 1:09 AM

And this ‘new-look’ UN would exist to what end? What would it do? If all you want is a big banquet hall reserved for diplomats to get together and bullsh#t each other, then I have no problem with that, but if you want to empower that organization and fund it to do stuff, what would its purpose be? And “fostering peace” cannot be accepted as a serious answer.

And, upon binding the nation states with whatever powers you decide to imbue this new peerless, competitionless entity with (to replace the bloated, corrupt, evil peerless, competitionless, empowered UN that we now have), what part of global governance are you not stepping into?

Also, everyone who takes part in the ‘new-look’ UN ought to have a raffle to bet when it will come crashing down like all of its predecessors (that ones that “weren’t done correctly”) how much damage it will cause along the way before people outside of it realize that just needs another extra-legal “cleaning”.

Dude.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 30, 2011 at 1:25 AM

And this ‘new-look’ UN would exist to what end? What would it do? If all you want is a big banquet hall reserved for diplomats to get together and bullsh#t each other, then I have no problem with that, but if you want to empower that organization and fund it to do stuff, what would its purpose be? And “fostering peace” cannot be accepted as a serious answer.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 30, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Well gee, thanks for setting the terms of the debate, even though that’s the exact original aim of the UN. Why do you think it exists, so diplomats can share recipes and stock tips?

It’s a bit more involved than “a few banquet halls,” but yeah, mostly it should exist for communication and it shouldn’t realistically be that expensive to maintain, if kept to its original goals.

Also, everyone who takes part in the ‘new-look’ UN ought to have a raffle to bet when it will come crashing down like all of its predecessors (that ones that “weren’t done correctly”) how much damage it will cause along the way before people outside of it realize that just needs another extra-legal “cleaning”.

Dude.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 30, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Because two failures constitutes a completely unworkable idea? Besides, relations between the non-belligerent nations of the world right now are a bit more stable than they were right before World ****ing War 2.

And why are you even discussing things as being “extra-legal”? If you’re saying that everything in the realm of international organizations is ‘extra-legal,’ then fine, but what exactly is ‘extra-legal’ about forming a new international body? When the League of Nations was established (and later the UN), the IPU still existed. Hell, it still exists NOW. There are lots of international bodies. I’m simply talking about a newer, better one.

I love how you just toss aside fostering world peace, though, as if I suggested that a new UN be formed to debate whether Kobe Bryant or LeBron James has had a better NBA career. Peace is kind of a big ****ing deal, if you hadn’t noticed.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 30, 2011 at 2:08 AM

I was there from 2002 for lots of the fun post-9/11 suicide bombings in Tel Aviv.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 29, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Decided not to detonate at the last minute, I take it?

Kent18 on December 30, 2011 at 4:01 AM

I love the smell of crazy in the morning!

Two weeks ago, Paul was claiming he didn’t have anything to do with the racist and conspiracy “newsletters” that went out under his name. Now we are supposed to believe he just did the economic stuff??? Whatever they call it in Paul’s universe, it is called lying here on Earth.

I’ve got to wonder how the Paul supporters are going to explain away this apparent flip flop. My guess is that they will just ignore it like they do the fact that Paul is an idiot on foreign affairs and a hypocrite when it comes to earmarks.

Happy Nomad on December 30, 2011 at 7:11 AM

Happy Nomad on December 30, 2011 at 7:11 AM

One more example of Paul trying to have it both ways in order to dupe his followers. He does it on earmarks too.

JohnTant on December 30, 2011 at 8:09 AM

The MSM isn’t going after Paul, because they’d be absolutely giddy if Paul was chosen to run against their savior. If Perry or Gingrich written these newsletters, the MSM would be burning them at the stake.

Norky on December 30, 2011 at 8:20 AM

Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Paul?

OhioCoastie on December 29, 2011 at 9:28 PM

Because it bears repeating on every Ron Paul thread.

troyriser_gopftw on December 30, 2011 at 8:34 AM

I don’t know about Mossad, but the FBI did get a mole inside the 1993 WTC bomb cell, but somehow botched the operation. Then, when Ramzi Yousef was in custody for trial, they gave him communication access to the outside to try and gather intelligence, but they didn’t have the right translators, and TWA 800 occurred during his trial which included the bojinka plot, therefore tried to use TWA 800 for a mistrial. Also, OK City bombers likely got their knowledge from these guys in the Philippines.

drlax15m on December 30, 2011 at 9:58 AM

In his 1987 manifesto “Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution after 200-Plus Years,” Paul wrote that AIDS patients were victims of their own lifestyle, questioned the rights of minorities and argued that people who are sexually harassed at work should quit their jobs.

Norky on December 30, 2011 at 10:34 AM

As I said in another thread. This year more than ever, there’s good opportunity for a candidate with libertarian ideals. Unfortunately the vehicle they decided to use to deliver the message is Ron Paul who is a lying, racist, blame America first Kook. Any of the few good ideas he has are overshadowed by the crazy that oozes from him.

Minnfidel on December 30, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Didn’t that project actually succeed? We call him by his Earth Name, “Henry Waxman.”

Good Solid B-Plus

Almost a success. Even hagfish aren’t that ugly or slimy.

Hard Right on December 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM

And “fostering peace” cannot be accepted as a serious answer.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on December 30, 2011 at 1:25 AM

Well gee, thanks for setting the terms of the debate, even though that’s the exact original aim of the UN. Why do you think it exists, so diplomats can share recipes and stock tips?

Good Solid B-Plus on December 30, 2011 at 2:08 AM

I thought it was so blue helmeted pervs could head to war zones and trade food/security for sexual favors. You get to be a diplomat, head to someplace with immunity for charges, and rape the locals in a war torn country. Maybe hire some locals for a “security force” and run a little war-based slavery ring or something.

You mean that isn’t the goal of the UN?

I can show several examples of the UN doing this in the past 15 years… can you show me any significant number of examples of them “fostering peace”?

Or is the point that they’re much better at sexual assault and making things worse than fostering peace… but a new organization would be so much better?

Peace is kind of a big ****ing deal, if you hadn’t noticed.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 30, 2011 at 2:08 AM

Right, and on the next season of Jersey Shore they’re going to work on the issues of Cold Fusion and a Cure for Cancer… some big f***ing deals too. Imagine if they had a cure for Cancer once we got Snooki working on the virus genome and an entry vector for attacking specific cancer cells…

Oh, you don’t think they can do that? It’s not even worth mentioning and it’s a stupid thing to bother claiming you’re going to try? … But you think the rapists and thugs at the UN could foster world peace?

I’m having trouble seeing the difference in the level of oblivious hope here. If you think the UN can “Foster Peace” thinking that Snooki will make the breakthrough and cure cancer seems a pretty easy thing to imagine.

gekkobear on December 30, 2011 at 12:10 PM

There are Plouffe/Axelrod/OFA fingerprints all over the people and money behind Ron Paul.

WHAT WOULD ALINSKY DO?

Ventura Capitalist on December 30, 2011 at 12:42 PM

Post-WW2 piece was fostered by nuclear arms.

Random on December 29, 2011 at 11:54 PM

The USA as superpower (and to a lesser extent our NATO allies) is what has fostered peace since 1945.

V7_Sport on December 30, 2011 at 4:08 PM

I’m having trouble seeing the difference in the level of oblivious hope here. If you think the UN can “Foster Peace” thinking that Snooki will make the breakthrough and cure cancer seems a pretty easy thing to imagine.

gekkobear on December 30, 2011 at 12:10 PM

I think I’ll trust my own expertise, as someone who was actually worked with Kofi Annan, over another conservative who is simply lashing out at the UN because it has inexplicably moved from the realm of Bircherism to one of the pillars of ‘true conservatism.’

I’m not wasting my time on someone who is going to compare an institution founded to prevent another World War with the Jersey Shore.

Good Solid B-Plus on December 30, 2011 at 7:42 PM

no booze, no tattoos, clean-shaven and neatly dressed

Is that the entire head, or just the face?

nukemhill on December 31, 2011 at 3:12 AM

Comment pages: 1 3 4 5