Green Room

Yes, actually…Ron Paul IS responsible for those newsletters…

posted at 11:49 am on December 20, 2011 by

As Ron Paul supporters continue to have a collective orgasm at the thought that America’s Greatest Patriot may win the Iowa caucuses, pretty much everyone who doesn’t support him, on both sides of the aisle, is bringing up those newsletters of his. Sensible enough. Every time a candidate starts showing an advantage, something comes out to torpedo them. In Paul’s case, it’s something we saw last time around. However, its age, contrary to the opinions of some, doesn’t dilute the validity of the claim.

The primary argument that most Paul supporters seem to offer up is that Two First Names denies having written the material, and that his name was simply a branding on the newsletter. The fact that he was listed as editor on these publications weakens that argument from the start, but the real pressure point is from the Dallas Morning News, May 22nd, 1996:

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

He also wrote that black teenagers can be “unbelievably fleet of foot.” [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas’ 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

“It’s typical political demagoguery,” he said. “If people are interested in my character … come and talk to my neighbors.” [...]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter’s toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

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. [...]

“If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man’s character, what kind of a world do you live in?” Dr. Paul asked.

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.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation’s capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: “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,” Dr. Paul said Tuesday. “That is the assumption you can gather from” the report.

How do you take statements like “95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal” out of context, unless you’re addressing such assertions in a critique of those who make them? The links I provided above provide several more articles that back up this point, but I think one is sufficient to demonstrate that Paul, in fact, defended the statements made in these newsletters, with the same old lame political rhetoric employed by most modern liberals, after being caught saying stupid crap.

Now, let me pre-address a few expected counters to this.

You can’t trust the media! Fair enough, but how else are we to find out what Paul’s history was regarding these newsletters? We have to use what’s available.

He never actually says in the article that he wrote anything! His words are specific enough that he is defending the content. Regardless, his statement that “these aren’t my figures” also provides the implication that the interpretation of the figures are his own.

And now, the big counter I expect: He hasn’t said anything like that in recent years, so it doesn’t matter.

Then why not vote for Mitt Romney? I’ve heard the exact same argument from Romney supporters. Multiple times I’ve been told “he hasn’t changed his positions since 2005“. News flash: when you have to command people to ignore a politician’s history in order to defend duplicitous, reprehensible, or contradictory behavior, your candidate sucks.

Now, that isn’t a huge surprise, given the rest of the 2012 GOP roster. I’m without a candidate that I can support, sadly. From a domestic platform standpoint, Paul is pretty damned attractive as a small-government pro-liberty conservative. However, the main apprehension that I and most other conservatives find with the guy is his attitude towards Israel, and the propensity for attracting the support of groups like 9-11 truthers and white supremacists. Supporters have also argued that a politician can’t control who takes a liking to them, and for the most part, that’s true.

However, when you have newsletters that spew the same garbage that these Emmy Award winners live by, you’re defending them one minute, and pretending they don’t exist the next…how can we trust you?

Recently in the Green Room:

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

He’s absolute dead meat in the General Election.

Bobby Shandy on December 20, 2011 at 12:04 PM

as forecasted, here comes the GOP establishment…

burserker on December 20, 2011 at 12:06 PM

It isn’t that he hasn’t said anything like that in recent years, it is that he has never been on record saying anything racist. Over 30 years in politics and not one audio clip of one single racist comment?? Seems kind of hard to swallow that someone could hide it so well but then just spout right off about it in a newsletter. Really? That all you got? He has been talking about individual liberties for 30 plus years. Not just for certain individuals. For everybody. Nothing racist about that. Heck, even the Houston NAACP chapter president defended Paul on these charges. If you do not like his foreign policy that is one thing. But smearing him because other people like his foreign policy ideas? That isn’t journalism. That is desperate.

wiseguyjim on December 20, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Seems kind of hard to swallow that someone could hide it so well but then just spout right off about it in a newsletter.

wiseguyjim on December 20, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Yeah, it’s unthinkable that a politician would only vent their true feelings in a newsletter subscribed to only by his most die-hard supporters who share his views.

MadisonConservative on December 20, 2011 at 12:24 PM

as forecasted, here comes the GOP establishment…

burserker on December 20, 2011 at 12:06 PM

So, ignore what he write because it’s being pointed out by people you don’t like?

There’s a party of Libertarians… It’s called… dang what’s the name again?

WitchDoctor on December 20, 2011 at 12:27 PM

Remember Joshua Steiner? The Clinton aide back in 1994 who tried to claim to Congress he lied to his diary? With Ron Paul, the candidate’s argument now apparently is he lied to his newsletter.

That’s about as equally credible as Steiner’s claim, though since the newsletter was for publication and handled by others, I suppose Paul could say he simply allowed people to write whatever the hell they wanted and put his name on it. Which wouldn’t make him a liar. But it would make him a moron.

jon1979 on December 20, 2011 at 12:46 PM

the story was vetted 15 years ago, and it’s not sticking. if you want to smear the guy, go at his foreign policy; but this newsletter crap is just more race baiting.

burserker on December 20, 2011 at 1:06 PM

Personally I rather revel in the visual of Ron Paul trying to chase down a mugger of any race.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on December 20, 2011 at 1:15 PM

The primary argument that most Paul supporters seem to offer up is that Two First Names denies having written the material, and that his name was simply a branding on the newsletter.

The thing is… regardless of whether or not he wrote the newsletters, if we’re going to critisize Obama for his association with Racist Rev Wright, then we have to hold Ron Paul responsible for those newsletters, regardless of when they were written or who they were written by. Ultimately the buck has to stop with the person sticking his name on the masthead. If he didn’t read them he shouldn’t have loaned his name out, and if he did he (and his supporters) shouldn’t be surprised that this is coming up again.

If RP is the nominee, you can kiss taking the White House (and the Senate, and the House majority) goodbye. The Dems and MSM are going to bring these up again, and again, and again, and again, and again, from the convention all the way to election day, until ALL Republican candidates are smeared with the racist tag.

If he didn’t want to be associated with racism, he shouldn’t have loaned his name out to begin with.

Call it “guilt by association” or whatever. I prefer to say “knowing the man by the company he keeps.”

crazy_legs on December 20, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Locking up the Tea Party vote.

plewis on December 20, 2011 at 1:35 PM

The thing is… regardless of whether or not he wrote the newsletters, if we’re going to critisize Obama for his association with Racist Rev Wright, then we have to hold Ron Paul responsible for those newsletters, regardless of when they were written or who they were written by.

crazy_legs on December 20, 2011 at 1:24 PM

Incredibly good point.

MadisonConservative on December 20, 2011 at 1:42 PM

MadisonConservative on December 20, 2011 at 1:42 PM

Good to see you back in The Green Room, Maddy. I hope you’re ready for one hellacious shitstorm in this thread, cause it’s coming.

gryphon202 on December 20, 2011 at 1:51 PM

the story was vetted 15 years ago, and it’s not sticking. if you want to smear the guy, go at his foreign policy; but this newsletter crap is just more race baiting.

burserker on December 20, 2011 at 1:06 PM

This story doesn’t have to stick. We’re talking about a popularity contest here, not some reasoned political discourse. I have plenty of other reasons not to vote for Herr Doktor, but there are some voters out there who aren’t swayed in any particular direction…yet. And the Dems will make hay while the sun shines, whether the story “sticks” or not.

gryphon202 on December 20, 2011 at 1:56 PM

And the Dems will make hay while the sun shines, whether the story “sticks” or not.

The Dems are going to accuse our side of RAAAAAAAAAACISM no matter who the nominee is. Why give them any ammo?

crazy_legs on December 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM

He never actually says in the article that he wrote anything!

Three points about this:
1) As the editor of this publication, which is an indisputable fact, he is responsible for the content. Either he approves of this content, or he simply shirked his responsibility to review the content but signed off on it anyway.

2) If the latter scenario is the case, do we really want to have as POTUS someone who signs off on things without looking at them?

3) He actually does say that he wrote them:

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.

ShotGlassMan on December 20, 2011 at 2:34 PM

With all due respect, HotAir is kinda like leftist liberals with the amount that they cry waaaacism!

NewLiberty on December 20, 2011 at 2:42 PM

With all due respect, HotAir is kinda like leftist liberals with the amount that they cry waaaacism!

NewLiberty on December 20, 2011 at 2:42 PM

With all due respect, I’m gonna be disrespectful right here, right now. Because that’s how I do it. Hi, I’m Honest Bob and I’m here to sell you a used car.

John Hitchcock on December 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM

Well, bummer. Just when it looked like Romney could count on Paul winning Iowa and the nomination race becoming a slam-dunk Romney v. Paul ‘contest.’

Oh, well. Who’s up next for a bounce? Is it Santorum’s turn, or does Perry get a second shot before Santorum gets one?

Why don’t ‘real conservatives’ all just vote for Bachmann? She is more appealing than Santorum, a better debater than Perry (not saying much, I know), and she is not a foreign policy nutball like Paul. Faithful to her spouse and not a flip-flopper.

Oh. Right. She has Crazy Eyes.

fadetogray on December 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM

It isn’t that he hasn’t said anything like that in recent years, it is that he has never been on record saying anything racist.

wiseguyjim on December 20, 2011 at 12:16 PM

Except, y’know, in his own newsletter. Which bears his name in the title. Which lists him as the editor. And in which articles are written as if he is speaking in the first person.

That’s pretty darn “on record”.

Whether he wrote the articles himself or someone else did is irrelevant. He was the editor of the newsletter. It bore his name. He sanctioned it. Therefore, there are only two possibilities: Either he knew about the material and was okay with its publication; or he did not know the content of a newsletter that he allowed to be published under his own name and allowed someone else to write articles as if they were him speaking in the first person.

Either case shows a profound lack of judgment and character.

Shump on December 20, 2011 at 4:37 PM

If you actually read the articles in their entirety, they are more politically incorrect than racist.

classical liberal on December 20, 2011 at 4:50 PM

You are dead on Classical Liberal! Sabrepoint has the links so you can check yourself. No one else seem to have the courage to link them. They’d rather take the lamestream media’s take on it. Funny how they can decry the leftist papers, then believe them when it’s convenient.

Sabrepoint does a good job of dealing with the overblown issue.

http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2011/12/racism-charges-against-ron-paul-appear.html

Quartermaster on December 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM

It’s amazing watching the Paul-ine Kaels tap dance.

In this age of three-thousand page paradigm-shifting bills and newly-created regulations that nobody could have possibly completely read (and that nobody admits to writing), does it make sense to elect as President a guy who said he was too busy to either write or read his own maddog newsletter?

Is Paul a racist, or not? Get your head out of his nether regions long enough to hear this: IT DOESN’T MATTER. Just as it didn’t matter after too long whether or not anyone could prove Herman Cain was ever inappropriate with those women that came forward because, in the end, he couldn’t be completely honest in answering the questions raised. Why not? Because given the indisputable facts, there were no answers good enough for the logical questions. Either Cain was a Clintonesque cad and/or he was living a double life and/or he was concealing a secret friendship with another woman he gave money but, perhaps, didn’t have sex with or he did have sex with her and he was for intents and purposes her sugar daddy, or he showed poor judgment in handing money to a woman he admits was troubled, or … (infinity).

If you do not like his foreign policy that is one thing. But smearing him because other people like his foreign policy ideas? That isn’t journalism. That is desperate.

wiseguyjim on December 20, 2011 at 12:16 PM

The truth is not a “smear.” Saying that either Ron Paul is insensitive and possibly racist for allowing what was published in his namesake newsletter is not a “smear.” Saying that he’s either inattentive or irresponsible if he didn’t know what was being written in a newsletter that brought in nearly a million dollars into his pocket ($940,000.00 specifically) in 1993 is not a “smear.”

On the other hand, saying that Michele Bachmann “hates Muslims” IS a smear.

L.N. Smithee on December 20, 2011 at 8:39 PM

You are dead on Classical Liberal! Sabrepoint has the links so you can check yourself. No one else seem to have the courage to link them.

Quartermaster on December 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM

The first link I provided has scans of the original articles, genius. Next time, use a different hole to speak out of.

MadisonConservative on December 20, 2011 at 8:57 PM

Ron Paul is a Martian. You can quote me on that.

MTLassen on December 21, 2011 at 4:10 AM

I’m just laughing at burserker trying to paint MadCon as part of the “establishment.”

JohnTant on December 21, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Ron Paul saying something crazy? I’m shocked! Shocked, I say!

PorchDawg on December 21, 2011 at 2:45 PM

I’m just laughing at burserker trying to paint MadCon as part of the “establishment.”

JohnTant on December 21, 2011 at 8:23 AM

Yup. Damn that traditional, blueblooded MadisonConservative!

Great post. So tired of the Paulians. I think a lot of his fans don’t even know this stuff exists. I know that his hardcore cult followers just ignore it, but I had a conversation with a friend that liked Paul and he’d never heard of this crap.

Unfortunately, we’re the only people who will point it out, because the media sure won’t. Paul was on John King last night (I was stuck in the Atlanta airport) and was asked about the letters. Paul’s answer was “they’re from twenty years ago and I didn’t write them.” There was zero follow up to that. Can you imagine if it was Newt Gingrich that came up with that explanation? Or Romney saying it was years ago and I didn’t design it?

Ron Paul’s a conspiracy theorist and a racist a**hole, and he’s spent thirty years being the lone crank, what the hell good would he do as president? He’d be the lone crank president, like your crazy uncle who won’t leave.

John_Locke on December 21, 2011 at 2:58 PM

The first link I provided has scans of the original articles, genius. Next time, use a different hole to speak out of.

Such genius! Spoken like a true leftist activist. For one, the link was dead and I couldn’t test your link, so obviously the comment could not have been directed at you. Genius indeed.
Second, acting a leftist moron does you utterly no credit. I have no truck with Paul, but I really get tired of all the left wing lies being spewed by faux-conservatives. The articles certainly weren’t PC, but they aren’t racist except in the mind of postmodernist idiot.

Quartermaster on December 25, 2011 at 8:23 PM