Yes, actually…Ron Paul IS responsible for those newsletters…
posted at 11:49 am on December 20, 2011 by MadisonConservative
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: