"Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape!" (note, in quotes)

[Kay]

RON PAUL IS NOT A RACIST. If you view the video which begins this thread (with the tongue in cheek title "Ron Paul's Racist Rant"), you will see that he is the OPPOSITE of a racist. He strongly opposes the current government policies that incarcerate blacks at a higher rate than whites. All the other GOP candidates, and President Obama, support these policies. So who are the real racists here?

On the subject of the newsletters, which were published monthly for quite a few years, there were only a very small number that had racially offensive passages in them. Dr. Paul did not write them, nor was he editing the newsletters at the time. In fact, he was only a minority owner of the publication. But he has publicly taken responsibility for what went out and he has expressed regret for not more carefully reading and approving all of the content. During this time he was not in Congress and had a very busy OBGYN practice, delivering babies. I know a lot of people will say that's a poor excuse, but I'm sure those moms and dads are glad that he was giving all of his attention to delivering their babies.

Anyone who has listened to Ron Paul's speeches and interviews or read his books knows that he has never made racist statements like those newsletter passages that are at issue. He never said that ML King Day was "Hate Whitey Day," for instance. In fact, he has stated on many occasions that Martin Luther King was one of his heroes.

He has certainly never commented on Barack Obama's "Negro dialect," as Democrat Senator Harry Reid recently did. And he was certainly never a recruiter and leader in the Ku Klux Klan, as the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was.

A CNN poll which just came out found that Ron Paul has more support among non-whites than any of the other GOP candidates. If he is a racist, how could this be? I think that as his views become better known, his support among non-whites will increase.

This issue of the 20-year-old newsletters will continue to be brought up by people who hate Ron Paul for all kinds of other reasons, but ultimately I predict that it will not hurt him. The continual bringing up of this issue only reveals the desperation of people who want to continue our current policies of endless war and welfare which are bankrupting our nation and destroying our liberties.

People are STILL bringing up Robert Byrd, even though he's dead? Geez, you might as well use the fact that Jefferson Davis was a Democrat at this point.

As for his opposition to certain programs - completely. irrelevant. He doesn't oppose programs such as the War on Drugs BECAUSE they harm blacks more than whites, he opposes them because opposing it is part of his ideology and nothing more. To go back to his example, David Duke is opposed to the Drug War. And he's never made a statement where he says he hates blacks. I guess David Duke isn't a racist.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I suspect you haven't read much of this thread, since most of what you say has already been well rebutted.

RON PAUL IS NOT A RACIST. If you view the video which begins this thread (with the tongue in cheek title "Ron Paul's Racist Rant"), you will see that he is the OPPOSITE of a racist.

You mean it's impossible for someone who has made racist comments at one time to make non-racist statements at another time?

On the subject of the newsletters, which were published monthly for quite a few years, there were only a very small number that had racially offensive passages in them. Dr. Paul did not write them, nor was he editing the newsletters at the time.

That defense fails. These were articles with no bylines on them. They were written in the first person as if that person were Ron Paul. So if he's claiming that someone ghost wrote them on his behalf, it doesn't get him out of hot water.

Also, as has been noted, he didn't deny writing these words for at least some time.

Anyone who has listened to Ron Paul's speeches and interviews or read his books knows that he has never made racist statements like those newsletter passages that are at issue. He never said that ML King Day was "Hate Whitey Day," for instance. In fact, he has stated on many occasions that Martin Luther King was one of his heroes.

Ah. . the No True Ron Paul defense! I think the fallacy here is obvious.

He has certainly never commented on Barack Obama's "Negro dialect," as Democrat Senator Harry Reid recently did. And he was certainly never a recruiter and leader in the Ku Klux Klan, as the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was.

Irrelevant. The fact that he didn't do or say other racist things, doesn't mean he didn't make the comments in question or that those comments weren't racist (both defenses he himself has used).

For example, if I stand accused of committing a parking misdemeanor a couple of weeks ago, is it a valid defense that my car is currently legally parked now AND that I have never committed any drug possession or distribution crimes?

A CNN poll which just came out found that Ron Paul has more support among non-whites than any of the other GOP candidates. If he is a racist, how could this be?

I can think of several answers to these questions. First, many people don't know about the comments in his newsletters, and his current campaign policies are probably the most favorable to non-whites of all the GOP candidates. Second, the difference in support among non-whites for all the GOP candidates in the CNN poll is probably well within the margin of error so means pretty much nothing. Third, people who are aware of the newsletters might believe he has changed his stripes.

This issue of the 20-year-old newsletters will continue to be brought up by people who hate Ron Paul for all kinds of other reasons, but ultimately I predict that it will not hurt him.

Well, it'll be hard to tell since his chances of winning the nomination have been pretty slim all along. So if when he doesn't get the nomination, no one will be able to tell how much influence this story had on the result. As this story gets more play, and more voters learn about his past, I think it can ONLY hurt him. (BTW, it's not just about racism, either. It's also about his espousal of nutty conspiracy theories.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The irony of this is that with this statement, he proves himself not a libertarians, because he shows that he sees libertarians as a group.

Exactly! His statement is a paradox on the order of, "All generalizations are false!" or "All Ephebans are liars" (spoken by an Epheban).

p1. All True Libertarians see people only as individuals.
p2. A person who sees people only as individuals cannot be racist.
C1. No True Libertarian can be racist. . . .


But to continue. . .

p3. Ron Paul made the statement p1.
p4. p1 is a statement that treats people as a group and not as individuals.
C2. Ron Paul not a True Libertarian.

So C1 doesn't apply, and it is entirely possible for Ron Paul to be a racist.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Actually he said:

"It's impossible for libertarians to be racist, because racism is a collectivist idea. You see people in Groups."

Question: Do libertarians see people as groups or individuals?

The latter. And the racist ones see a black individual who is out to rape your wife and steal your wallet.

 

[Oliver]

The latter. And the racist ones see a black individual who is out to rape your wife and steal your wallet.

But the question here still is: Does the racist see every black individual as being out to rape his wife and steal his wallet?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

A CNN poll which just came out found that Ron Paul has more support among non-whites than any of the other GOP candidates. If he is a racist, how could this be?

???

 

[Undesired Walrus]

But the question here still is: Does the racist see every black individual as being out to rape his wife and steal his wallet?

I don't know. What did Ron Paul think about the issue when he wrote those newsletters?

 

[Tricky]

On the subject of the newsletters, which were published monthly for quite a few years, there were only a very small number that had racially offensive passages in them. Dr. Paul did not write them, nor was he editing the newsletters at the time. In fact, he was only a minority owner of the publication.

The paper had his name on it. Would you allow content to be published with your name on it without even reading it and requiring the right to edit it? Sorry. This excuse makes him look worse than racist. It makes him look stupid.

But he has publicly taken responsibility for what went out and he has expressed regret for not more carefully reading and approving all of the content.

And when did he do that? Immediately after they came out, or years later when they started to come back to haunt him?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The paper had his name on it. Would you allow content to be published with your name on it without even reading it and requiring the right to edit it? Sorry. This excuse makes him look worse than racist. It makes him look stupid.

Or at least blatantly dishonest.

And when did he do that? Immediately after they came out, or years later when they started to come back to haunt him?

Yeah, as I've pointed out, his response to these things has been a changing story. At one time he claimed them as his words, but defended them as not being racist (because we were all taking them out of context even though he was unable to provide a credible non-racist context). Then he said they weren't his words. And even though these things--some of which were written in '92--were called to his attention in '96, he later claimed he wasn't aware of them for 10 years after they were published!

As I said, his defense has been all over the place, but it has never been one of accepting responsibility for what was actually written.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

This excuse makes him look worse than racist. It makes him look stupid.

I am willing to believe he is both.

 

[Babbylonian]

As I said, his defense has been all over the place, but it has never been one of accepting responsibility for what was actually written.

The problem is that I don't think accepting responsibility would help at all. It's not like he was a callow youth spouting off before thinking. He was a middle-aged medical doctor who had served multiple terms in Congress. While I could forgive a person personally for such things, I don't have any reason to elect such a person to represent me or what I want my country to be.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You don't see people in groups unless you're a collectivist, communist socialist. Everybody is a unique and beautiful snowflake.

Except that racism is not a philosophy, it's a gut reaction. You can have one philosophy you believe you follow while not recognizing you have a gut reaction inconsistent with that philosophy.

Even if Ron Paul did not believe blacks were more often than not lazy and looking for a government handout, Paul clearly believes poor people are in that 'group' with the 'welfare mentality'.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

RON PAUL IS NOT A RACIST. If you view the video which begins this thread (with the tongue in cheek title "Ron Paul's Racist Rant"), you will see that he is the OPPOSITE of a racist. He strongly opposes the current government policies that incarcerate blacks at a higher rate than whites. All the other GOP candidates, and President Obama, support these policies. So who are the real racists here?

On the subject of the newsletters, which were published monthly for quite a few years, there were only a very small number that had racially offensive passages in them. Dr. Paul did not write them, nor was he editing the newsletters at the time. In fact, he was only a minority owner of the publication. But he has publicly taken responsibility for what went out and he has expressed regret for not more carefully reading and approving all of the content. During this time he was not in Congress and had a very busy OBGYN practice, delivering babies. I know a lot of people will say that's a poor excuse, but I'm sure those moms and dads are glad that he was giving all of his attention to delivering their babies.

Anyone who has listened to Ron Paul's speeches and interviews or read his books knows that he has never made racist statements like those newsletter passages that are at issue. He never said that ML King Day was "Hate Whitey Day," for instance. In fact, he has stated on many occasions that Martin Luther King was one of his heroes.

He has certainly never commented on Barack Obama's "Negro dialect," as Democrat Senator Harry Reid recently did. And he was certainly never a recruiter and leader in the Ku Klux Klan, as the late Democrat Senator Robert Byrd was.

A CNN poll which just came out found that Ron Paul has more support among non-whites than any of the other GOP candidates. If he is a racist, how could this be? I think that as his views become better known, his support among non-whites will increase.

This issue of the 20-year-old newsletters will continue to be brought up by people who hate Ron Paul for all kinds of other reasons, but ultimately I predict that it will not hurt him. The continual bringing up of this issue only reveals the desperation of people who want to continue our current policies of endless war and welfare which are bankrupting our nation and destroying our liberties.

None of these examples negate Paul's gut reaction about lazy shiftless blacks who all want a handout with a few exceptions.

And it's Democratic Senator, BTW, unless you like the idea your use of the term incorrectly is because the Repubs manipulated you. Language, A Key Mechanism of Control

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Welcome to the forum mkelvin.

Actually I doubt that anyone in here really believes that Dr. Paul is a racist, although many think he's crazy. That's probably just due to the liberal majority in here and thus - the general view that the debt rocks the way it is. ;"p

I think Paul has some racist gut reactions that are tied to his mistaken belief that all government sponsored social welfare programs are government handouts to people who shouldn't be geting 'free' handouts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But the question here still is: Does the racist see every black individual as being out to rape his wife and steal his wallet?

No. The racist attaches false assumptions first but can be capable of changing those false assumptions for the individuals of the race he has contradictory information about.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The problem is that I don't think accepting responsibility would help at all. It's not like he was a callow youth spouting off before thinking. He was a middle-aged medical doctor who had served multiple terms in Congress. While I could forgive a person personally for such things, I don't have any reason to elect such a person to represent me or what I want my country to be.

Very good point. I was primarily pointing out there that he has not in fact taken responsibility for the comments in question. But you're right. . . it wouldn't really help much if he did--unless he was able to convince everyone that he's a completely changed person now who rejects views he used to espouse (as someone else here mentioned, as Wallace, Byrd and no doubt others have done with greater or lesser success).

And that'd be very difficult to do since we're not talking about comments made in the '40s and '50s, but in the '70s to early '90s--long after desegregation and major civil rights reforms were in place, and open racism was pretty much not done in mainstream politics.

 

[mkelvin]

The paper had his name on it. Would you allow content to be published with your name on it without even reading it and requiring the right to edit it? Sorry. This excuse makes him look worse than racist. It makes him look stupid.

And when did he do that? Immediately after they came out, or years later when they started to come back to haunt him?

I can see how he missed them, since they constituted such a small fraction of the content of the newsletters, but yes, it was stupid. He stupidly trusted his staff to do it for him and they let him down. He was on TV with Neil Cavuto yesterday and he admitted that he was negligent to not read all of the newsletter content prior to publication. We all do stupid things sometimes. That's not "worse than racist." It's just a part of being human. In most areas of his life, Ron Paul is a brilliant man, and by all accounts, a man of impeccable character.

When he first learned about these offensive passages in his newsletters, he didn't deny authorship (though he didn't explicitly say "I wrote them" either). He was angry when he found out about what was written, but I think he felt he was caught between a rock and a hard place at that point. If he denied writing them, he would be called a liar or stupid. If he said he wrote them, he would be called a racist. He tried to weave through the controversy by neither admitting or denying authorship and making vague statements about some of them being taken out of context.

He finally admitted to the Texas Monthly in about 2001 that he had not written them. If you read that article, he explains the whole thing pretty well. In retrospect, of course, he and everybody else realizes that he should have clearly said from the very beginning that he didn't write them.

 

[mkelvin]

That's a really dumb conclusion.

Why is it dumb? Biden says Obama was the FIRST mainstream African-American to be articulate, clean, good-looking, etc. What other conclusion can you possibly draw from that other than that he thinks that the ones before him were inarticulate, unclean, etc.?

 

[TheSapient]

Why is it dumb? Biden says Obama was the FIRST mainstream African-American to be articulate, clean, good-looking, etc. What other conclusion can you possibly draw from that other than that the ones before him were inarticulate, unclean, etc.?

I think there is an issue of context and an issue of parsing here. The context indicated Biden believed Obama to be the fist mainstream black presidential candidate. The sentence is slightly ambiguous, but I think he is trying to say that Obama is the first mainstream black candidate, and is charismatic, and that makes for a compelling package.

But more to the point, Biden immediately took responsibility for the remark, said he did not mean it the way it came out, and apologized. I can accept that people say stupid things at times. I am less impressed by Paul's explanation. At best, he is claiming that hired ghost writers, whose work he did not examine for decades and whose racist writings were not deemed remarkable enough among his employees and readers to mention to him.

Further, it is hard for me to accept that he finds the whole thing to be uninteresting enough that he hasn't bothered to learn who did the writing. The accounts I have read suggest that there were less than 20 who worked for this newsletter during the years when the racist material was being included. Most of them were family, close friends, and political advisers. Surely a few phone calls could clear up this matter. It is completely reasonable for the public to believe that Paul wrote, or approved of, material he published as if he had written it. The obligation is on him to show that he didn't.

 

[Unabogie]

While I get where mkelvin is coming from (he's obviously a big fan of Mr. Paul and is hurt by this issue) the fact remains that Paul's defense is sort of like the "some dude" defense that criminals use.

"You were caught with drugs in your bag"
"I don't know where they came from"
"How did they get there?"
"Some dude put them there"

Paul's biggest problem is that he says he has no idea who wrote the offensive material under his name, and written in the first person as Ron Paul. He has two ways out of this: admit he wrote it but explain how he regrets his prior beliefs, or identify the people who DID write it and denounce and reject them.

He can't just claim that "some dude" wrote vile and hateful screeds under his name. He needs to explain it or it just looks like he's a liar as well as a racist (and homophobe, let's not forget his diatribe against AIDS research).