Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say

Ron Paul has denied any involvement in the racist newsletters he has been accused of being part of, but....

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

Click to expand...

It hurts me to have to say the following: I have been an ardent supporter of Ron Paul for many years, even voting for him whenever I got a chance. Now I have to take a hard look at what I have been doing, use a little reason, and change my own course. Since Ron Paul did sign off on those racist articles, he knew what was in them, and that is not acceptable. Had Ron Paul just come out and said that he was involved, and apologize, it wouldn't be so bad. After all, George Wallace turned into a very decent human being before he died, renouncing racism. But Ron Paul had to continue to say he knew nothing about the newsletters. He lied to me.

If it is just one associate of Dr. Paul saying this, it wouldn't be hard to rationalize "sour grapes" here. But 3 associates? This tells me all I need to know. It is with a heavy heart, and with great disappointment, that I hereby renounce my support of Ron Paul. I know that I am about to be flamed hard and insulted for doing this, but since I am doing the right thing here, I have no problem with it. Since I supported Dr. Paul for all these years, this is something that I need to say.

Article is here.

danarhea said:

Ron Paul has denied any involvement in the racist newsletters he has been accused of being part of, but....



It hurts me to have to say the following: I have been an ardent supporter of Ron Paul for many years, even voting for him whenever I got a chance. Now I have to take a hard look at what I have been doing, use a little reason, and change my own course. Since Ron Paul did sign off on those racist articles, he knew what was in them, and that is not acceptable. Had Ron Paul just come out and said that he was involved, and apologize, it wouldn't be so bad. After all, George Wallace turned into a very decent human being before he died, renouncing racism. But Ron Paul had to continue to say he knew nothing about the newsletters. He lied to me.

If it is just one associate of Dr. Paul saying this, it wouldn't be hard to rationalize "sour grapes" here. But 3 associates? This tells me all I need to know. It is with a heavy heart, and with great disappointment, that I hereby renounce my support of Ron Paul. I know that I am about to be flamed hard and insulted for doing this, but since I am doing the right thing here, I have no problem with it. Since I supported Dr. Paul for all these years, this is something that I need to say.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Then we should all appreciate the irony that the only presidential candidate - from both the Republican Party and the Democratic Party - who is a racist is also the only one talking about the elimination of civil rights and civil liberties in the United States.

Don't be too hasty dan. I understand how easy it is to believe this report and be troubled by it, but there are some things you need to keep in mind:

1. Paul said he had not read the offensive material, did not write the offensive material, and that he disavows the offensive material. Nowhere did he say to my recollection that he was not involved in the newsletter at all. "Signing off" on them can be as simple as spending a minute or two flipping through the pages, signing the bottom, and passing it off to a staffer. It would not mean that he went over it with a fine-tooth comb, which is basically what he would have to have done in order to notice this material.

2. The wording of the news article is skewed towards a certain conclusion. It describes him visiting once a week, and they only mention him calling on a daily basis to see if there were any problems basically (the quote I saw attributed to him was him asking if they needed any money). However, that really says nothing about whether he knew every word being written in the newsletter. In fact, that his actual physical contact with the operation was so minimal suggests he probably didn't have much time to thoroughly review the content.

3. Very little is given beyond that to suggest he had specific knowledge. The most damaging comment is a statement from one staffer that he would "proof" the issues. When I saw that quote there was material left out so it is not clear if there was anything that changes the significance of the comment. Even so the offensive material would be easy to overlook if you were just skimming the newsletter given that it was buried in the middle of the issue most of the time.

I would like to know more about the specific claim he proof-read all the issues. With most of material it would still be really easy to see how the nature of it might get overlooked. Given that the report left out some of what was said by the staffer I think it is better to reserve judgment on that point until we know more. Particularly one should look at how they edited the quote:

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it."

Click to expand...

Clearly the writer of the article wants us to think that he saw the final product and then read through it. However, the material between the staffer saying he got to see the final product and that he would proofread the letter has been removed. The media have always been very devious when reporting on this issue and this is certainly a well-crafted piece that avoids most of the obvious butchery and skewing of others (the bit about his net worth is nicely constructed to imply something false while ignoring some obvious facts). What was said in between those two comments she made is the most important question here. The staffer may have indicated that Paul would proofread it sometimes or that it was not a thorough proof-reading, which would be reasonable to expect is the case. Unfortunately, the only way to fact-check the report is to find the person who was interviewed and ask.

We are always being given very limited context by the media on this subject. They mention the passages, but do not give people a better understanding of what noticing this actually would involve. Noting the timing of this material, the placing of this material, and the size of this material relative to the newsletter itself creates a very different story than what has been crafted by the media. In fact, newspapers and other media, of all sizes, sometimes have inappropriate or inaccurate material slip in despite the editorial process because the number of people reviewing it is rarely enough to pick up on every issue every time. Given the period of time where this happened, at the time when Paul would be most pre-occupied with other tasks, and the sparse distribution of the passages (a few sentences here and there in the middle of the letter a few issues a year over five years) nothing this article mentions indicates that Paul would be aware of the offensive material.

Demon of Light said:

......

Click to expand...

Do you live in a world where people simply stamp a politician's name on random **** and they don't know about it? Your acrobatics are Cirque du Soleil worthy.

Thanks to Dan for the article.

The information in it is consistent with previous reports that were excused, debated or dismissed by many Paul supporters here and elsewhere. Now, it is simply more nails in the Paul coffin and this is going to be hard to play ostrich with.

It should be clear to all that Paul faced a crisis in his campaign when this controversy surfaced again many weeks ago. Paul was rising in the polls and then all this hit and he had a choice to make.He could have met it head on and come clean about it but that would have meant throwing his right hand man at that time - Lew Rockwell - under the bus and Paul was not going to do that.

The question then becomes why not?

Ron Paul is not running for the GOP nomination for President. He never was. He is running to get across libertarian ideas and the vehicle of the GOP campaign is simply what he has hijacked to accomplish his ideological missionary work. His refusal to come clean about the newsletters hurt him at a very crucial time in his campaign where he had rose from single digits and was actually viewed as a contender in Iowa. But what Paul feared most was NOT losing in Iowa - but a split in the libertarian guard if he come clean about the role of Rockwell in the newsletters. And long after the GOP nominee gives their acceptance speech this summer - and Paul knew from the start that it would not be him - he still has his main goal in mind - the spread of libertarian ideology in an endless crusade that will be carried on by others long after he is gone from the political stage.

This article only confirms that view.

Hatuey said:

Do you live in a world where people simply stamp a politician's name on random **** and they don't know about it? Your acrobatics are Cirque du Soleil worthy.

Click to expand...

A most excellent question. I would suggest the poster in question is also concerned far more with long range libertarian goals and the missionary work of spreading the ideology that they are with the current political campaign for the GOP nomination.

Being adept in mental gymnastics and finding five sides to a coin is part and parcel to being able to defend libertarian positions.

haymarket said:

Being adept in mental gymnastics and finding five sides to a coin is part and parcel to being able to defend libertarian positions.

Click to expand...

And yet Obama signed into law NDAA 2012 that allows the indefinite detention of domestic citizens. And when he signed it, he said, "I have serious concerns about it." And he promised not to use it while he was President.

Despite his threat to veto the bill unless it specifically stated that the President would be the one who defined who could be considered a terrorist. And despite the fact that who becomes President after him may not be so trusted.

So I suppose that libertarians aren't the only ones performing such gymnastics.

No one can prove or disapprove his approval of the message in the letters or that he even read them.

Oh and Dan your knowledge of George Wallace is lacking. Wallace wasn't always the person he was in his hay day, in his earlier life he should be considered as a person that was favorable to minorities and their troubles as much as some of the most supportive of their cause in his time. When he ran for office the first time he took the support of the NAACP against a segregationist supported by the KKK and lost handily. Sadly, what he took from his lose was that the only position to take to get into office was being the biggest supporter of segregation in the land and becoming the face of segregation in his need for power.

Henrin said:

No one can prove or disapprove his approval of the message in the letters or that he even read them.

Oh and Dan your knowledge of George Wallace is lacking. Wallace wasn't always the person he was in his hay day, in his earlier life he should be considered as a person that was favorable to minorities and their troubles as much as some of the most supportive of their cause in his time. When he ran for office the first time he took the support of the NAACP against a segregationist supported by the KKK and lost handily. Sadly, what he took from his lose was that the only position to take to get into office was being the biggest supporter of segregation in the land and becoming the face of segregation in his need for power.

Click to expand...

Then that makes him an idiot for signing off on them. The responsibility is his, and he should not have lied about it. That is what makes it so bad.

Given the tenacity that Paul shows towards making sure he reads bills that cross his desk before voting "Nay" on them, one would assume this same level is tenacity would be applied to other things with his name attached.



But honestly, who knows? Is Paul a liar? Regardless of the reason, like not wanting to toss Lew Rockwell under the bus...a lie is a lie. This has certainly tarnished the man in my eyes...but for all of you to come in here on your high horses claiming "SEE! He LIIIEDDD!!!! You can't vote for him!", can it. Who do YOU support? Romney? Obama? That other guy, Santorum? And you are going to sit there and honestly claim they DON'T lie, on a regular and constant basis? Please. We've already established that, in this day and age, in american politics, an election is about trying to choose whoever is the least bad, the lesser scum, so to speak. In my mind, Paul is STILL the lesser scum.

KevinKohler said:

We've already established that, in this day and age, in american politics, an election is about trying to choose whoever is the least bad, the lesser scum, so to speak. In my mind, Paul is STILL the lesser scum.

Click to expand...

The question is.....who actually puts the *lesser scums* in office? Rubber stamp it for them first?

The *lesser scum*....er.. electorate?

Hatuey said:

Do you live in a world where people simply stamp a politician's name on random **** and they don't know about it? Your acrobatics are Cirque du Soleil worthy.

Click to expand...

Surely a legislator would never have his or her name attached to something he or she didn't really read. :mrgreen: At least Paul had it attached to a harmless newsletter as opposed to legislation that impacts the entire country.

danarhea said:

Then that makes him an idiot for signing off on them. The responsibility is his, and he should not have lied about it. That is what makes it so bad.

Click to expand...

He said he bore some level of responsibility for what went out, but there is no indication that he has lied at any time. Were I just looking over the newsletters I probably wouldn't notice this kind of material because nothing about it pops off the page. It isn't prominently placed in the newsletter, it doesn't use any obvious problem words, and the material itself is so small. Someone looking over a newsletter or a newspaper is most likely to focus on the beginning and end, while the middle gets neglected. More to the point, the staffer in the article is quoted as saying "he got to see the final product" not specifically whether he always did see it, or whether he would always proof it. The quote is edited selectively to give the impression that he always saw the newsletter and always read it, even though that is never actually said. For all we know between "he got to see" and "he would proof it" she said "So sometimes he would come in to look at the newsletter" and she and the reporter would be the only ones who know. Never mind that after 15 years people's memories begin to get a little foggy and muddled.

The one anonymous source they have does not actually have as much credibility because they don't even directly quote the source. Rather they paraphrase what he said and since he is anonymous we cannot check out what he actually said as we could conceivably do with the named staffer. There is a lot of perfidy going on with this report and until there is some clarification on these points you would be remiss to reach any conclusions about it.

On a further note I found one report mentioning this Hathway person, it's a Google cache:

Victoria Advocate | "Reading Ron Paul (first published Sun., March 4)" by pbrendel

It mentions her coming on board some time in 1991 as subscription manager i.e. not involved in the editorial process, and it doesn't mention how long she stayed on in that position. Some of the worse stuff, in my opinion, came from 1990. Given her role it seems highly unlikely that she would be all that privy to the goings-on with the newsletter's production and editing. So her account of what went on is less reliable than if she were involved in writing or editing the material.

ric27 said:

The question is.....who actually puts the *lesser scums* in office? Rubber stamp it for them first?

The *lesser scum*....er.. electorate?

Click to expand...

No. This is indicative of a much more systemic problem, and that is apathy. In the presidential election topic, I had a thread where I went and dug up and posted the voting records of the candidates who had it, and then the general political history of those who had not served in the house or senate. It was actually a pretty monumental task, thanks to Newt, because SOME of those folks have pretty lengthy voting records (Paul comes to mine, but he mostly voted No, so it was pretty easy). The other monumental area of that task was that bills are not strait forwards. The bill's title, typically, is in no way an indicator of what the bill actually has in it, in it's entirety. So, a brief run down has to be written, and even then, I'm absolutely, 100% CERTAIN, that I missed some key things, like pork or earmarks. For instance, a bill titled "For congress to reinvest and save the child care act" or whatever, could easily be about increasing the federal budget for highways, in addition to school funding, or whatever. And honestly, who's going to read 500 pages of legal speak, to find those sorts of things out?

So, we go by what we hear in speeches and debates, and what gets presented to us via the media, etc.

KevinKohler said:

And honestly, who's going to read 500 pages of legal speak, to find those sorts of things out?

So, we go by what we hear in speeches and debates, and what gets presented to us via the media, etc.

Click to expand...

The greater the complexity, the more you need a specialist in that complexity. And to make it worse, the same experts (lawyers) have to write the rules (laws) to try and keep other lawyers from finding other loopholes.


It's not coincidental that virtually all politicians are now lawyers

This was out months ago...is it really breaking news?

So DoL, you position is that he isn't really racist, he is just a ****ty leader? That should make people want to vote for him how?

Redress said:

So DoL, you position is that he isn't really racist, he is just a ****ty leader? That should make people want to vote for him how?

Click to expand...

Sorry Redress, slim field in the Republican Party. They take what they can get.

This really doesn't seem to go against what I seem to remember was the general argument this whole time...that Paul signed off on these things but didn't really closely look over his news letter. More of a rubber stamp thing.

So yeah, it speaks poorly to his judge of character and decision making. A negative...one that's hardly unique to Ron Paul.

Henrin said:

No one can prove or disapprove his approval of the message in the letters or that he even read them.

Click to expand...

They were his newsletters.

They were published under his name.

Three different staffers have stated his involvement with each and every page of them.

Denial is not just ariver in Egypt it seems.

WAIT.

Serious question for ALL of you ****ting on Paul (a man I personally cannot stand but that's neither here nor there.):

You say if DoL is right, that he just looked over a few bits, and trusted others to get it right... that makes him a bad leader?

Aren't ya'll the same folks that support Obama, Reid, Pelosi and such wonderful things like Obamacare... ya know, **** THEY didn't read before making it the law of the land? So don't you go getting your panties in a knot over some newsletter 20 years ago not being thoroughly read by Paul as being bad leadership then turn around and defend Obama and Co for doing far less reading with far more important papers.


Besides, Paul probably didn't think of the papers as racist...

danarhea said:

Ron Paul has denied any involvement in the racist newsletters he has been accused of being part of, but....



It hurts me to have to say the following: I have been an ardent supporter of Ron Paul for many years, even voting for him whenever I got a chance. Now I have to take a hard look at what I have been doing, use a little reason, and change my own course. Since Ron Paul did sign off on those racist articles, he knew what was in them, and that is not acceptable. Had Ron Paul just come out and said that he was involved, and apologize, it wouldn't be so bad. After all, George Wallace turned into a very decent human being before he died, renouncing racism. But Ron Paul had to continue to say he knew nothing about the newsletters. He lied to me.

If it is just one associate of Dr. Paul saying this, it wouldn't be hard to rationalize "sour grapes" here. But 3 associates? This tells me all I need to know. It is with a heavy heart, and with great disappointment, that I hereby renounce my support of Ron Paul. I know that I am about to be flamed hard and insulted for doing this, but since I am doing the right thing here, I have no problem with it. Since I supported Dr. Paul for all these years, this is something that I need to say.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Dan, you and I have had our disagreements, and I am aware of what you at least on the forum think of me, and I of you. But, I think that this post is heart felt, and think you are more of a stand up guy for writing it.

j-mac

Zyphlin said:

This really doesn't seem to go against what I seem to remember was the general argument this whole time...that Paul signed off on these things but didn't really closely look over his news letter. More of a rubber stamp thing.

So yeah, it speaks poorly to his judge of character and decision making. A negative...one that's hardly unique to Ron Paul.

Click to expand...

Actually, I think the fact the offensive content is only within a specific five-year period, when he was least involved with the newsletter, and only includes these scraps buried in the middle of the newsletter is a positive. One should hardly expect pure perfection of anyone at any time, let alone all the time.

MrVicchio said:

WAIT.


Besides, Paul probably didn't think of the papers as racist...

Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't. It is part and parcel of the extreme right wing to both deny racism as a living ideology in America as well as deny they harbor such beliefs.

haymarket said:

Of course he doesn't. It is part and parcel of the extreme right wing to both deny racism as a living ideology in America as well as deny they harbor such beliefs.

Click to expand...

Define "extreme right wing".... Or as I suspect are you just calling all those that oppose your ideological beliefs, racist?

j-mac

At the end of the day, these things went out with Ron Paul's name on them. If nothing else, he should be ultimately responsible for his own newsletter, and he should be more careful about what is said "in his name."