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

[Ladewig]

In fact, he was only a minority owner of the publication.

Who were the other owners?

 

[Unabogie]

Who were the other owners?

Some dudes.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

You are not the only one on this forum who has seen real racist propaganda.

Jew Kirchick got the newsletters from the ADL.

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?

You are a special and unique individual. Just Like everyone else.

 

[Chaos]

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).

You have to admit, it´s a terrific pitch for his presidential campaign - "Vote for me, I´m the guy who has no clue who was writing the racist crap in his newsletter."

 

[Triterope]

I think there's a larger point that needs to be made.

Lots of candidates have embarrassing things in their past. Recent history shows that the American electorate is willing to forgive that, if the candidate can address it properly, and show that he's learned from his missteps. Ron Paul's problem is less what the newsletters say, and more how he's trying to address it now.

Earlier in the thread, somebody mentioned Barack Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright. I think that's an instructive parallel here. Two outsider presidential candidates, Obama and Paul, each of whom has evidence of racism earlier in their lives discovered. How did they deal with it?


Obama defused the Wright controversy in this speech. It's too long and nuanced to quote fairly, but his remarks did the following:

• Acknowledged his relationship with Wright
• Acknowledged that questions about his relationship with Wright were valid
• Condemned Wright's comments
• Emphasized that the inflammatory soundbites were not the whole story
• Expanded on his personal relationship with Wright (officiated my wedding, introduced me to the Christian faith, etc)
• Provided more information about Wright (United States marine, housing the homeless, speaking at prestigious universities, etc.)
• Reminded listeners that they too may disagree with their religious leader at times
• Pre-emptively addressed accusations that this speech was just a political ploy to distance himself from Wright
• Acknowledged that Wright's worldview has an element of truth to it ("The comments reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through")
• Tied his personal controversy into the larger issue of racial disunity in America

How is Ron Paul handling questions about evidence of racist views in his past?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LywD6gXBudc&feature=youtu.be&t=1m50s

Some people say that the primary and election process is just a media circus that detracts from the real issues. I disagree. I think things like this can test whether a candidate has what it takes to be president. Crisis management, grace under pressure, forthrightness, and the ability to deliver a believable explanation of something unpleasant are all skills a president needs to have. Ron Paul's poor response to this controversy betrays a lack of these skills.

 

[Unabogie]

I read this somewhere else when someone brought up Obama and Rev. Wright.

"Obama's relationship to Reverend Wright is not analogous to Ron Paul's relationship to Ron Paul."

 

[BenBurch]

...

You think wrong.

Alan Keys is probably the lone example. I don't KNOW that he has said anything like that, but unlike a broken clock, he isn't correct twice a day.

 

[mkelvin]

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.

He is indeed opposed to forcible redistribution of wealth, which violates the libertarian non-coercion principle, but he is very supportive of voluntary donations. I have seen no evidence that his belief in this principle has anything to do with the race of the people receiving the handouts. Most people who benefit from government social welfare programs are white, after all. And let's not forget that a large percentage of the welfare in this country actually goes not to low income people, but to rich people. Ron Paul wants to end all corporate welfare immediately, whereas he recognizes that for low income people who have become dependent on government assistance, there needs to be a transition.

Speaking of race, let me point out that most of the people who are victimized by the American government's aggressive foreign policy are non-Caucasian. For example, estimates of Iraqi deaths since the American invasion range from a little over 100,000 to over 1 million, as compared to American deaths of about 4,500. And then there were the sanctions imposed upon Iraq from the time of the Gulf War till the fall of Saddam Hussein, which probably killed another million Iraqis.

His foreign policy positions alone tell me that he is much more of a friend to all races in the world than are Obama and the GOP/Democrat warmongers who run our government.

 

[mkelvin]

Who were the other owners?

I don't know those names right now. I will try to post a link soon that has more detail on this matter, but I can't do it right now because until I have written 15 posts to this forum, I can't include links.

 

[Ladewig]

I don't know those names right now. I will try to post a link soon that has more detail on this matter, but I can't do it right now because until I have written 15 posts to this forum, I can't include links.

Thank you for the response. Your two options are to go to the Forum Community sub-forum and write simple messages until you hit the threshold or type out the URL with some spaces (and someone else in the thread will then post your link without spaces).

 

[jakesteele]

I don't know those names right now. I will try to post a link soon that has more detail on this matter, but I can't do it right now because until I have written 15 posts to this forum, I can't include links.

Don't bother trying to find out that information. The people on these forums have a tendency to raise the bar/move the goalposts further down the field. Just find something that tells what Paul's share was. Right now you are getting 'rat packed' from all angles. It is a waste of time and energy to try and respond to everyone. You'll end up writing responses all night long trying to keep up. Just pick two or three of the most civil and intelligent ones and ignore the rest.

 

[DavidJames]

Don't bother trying to find out that information. The people on these forums have a tendency to raise the bar/move the goalposts further down the field.

You are welcome to provide examples if you can.

 

[Puppycow]

Recent story on this:

10 Shocking Quotes From Ron Paul’s Newsletters

2. “I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or no threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)” -Direct mail ad promoting Paul’s newsletters, written from Paul’s perspective, 1993
. . .
6. “An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example).” ‘Blast ‘Em’, October 1992

The "I" here was purportedly Ron Paul himself. At least that's what readers of the newsletter were led to believe. He refers to "my training as a physician."

They're all shocking, but #6 here seems to be the most morally repugnant of them all. He's advising his readers how to get away with murder.

 

[Oliver]

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

He didn't wrote them... Or to be more accurate, at least there is no evidence that he actually did or lied when he says he did not write it. So since there is no evidence of him being a racist, I seriously doubt that he is.
Some lousy smear-campaigns just wont stick.

In 1985, Ron Paul & Associates (RP&A), Inc. began publishing The Ron Paul Investment Letter[41] and The Ron Paul Survival Report.[18][42] In 1987 it added the more controversial Ron Paul Political Report.[43] Many articles lacked a byline, yet often invoked Paul's name or persona. Critics have cited statements in the newsletter that they described as racist, such as 95% of black men in Washington, DC being "semi-criminal or entirely criminal",[36], and the advice about using an unregistered gun to defend against black criminals.[44] In 1996, Paul told The Dallas Morning News that the newsletters were accurate but needed to be taken in context. In 2001, he told the Texas Monthly that his campaign staff told him not to say others had written what was in the newsletters because it was "too confusing". In December 2011, on CNN, Paul, who was a practicing obstetrician/gynecologist when not in political office or running for office, said that he only read the newsletters "on occasion", did not write them, and disavowed the racist comments in them.[36]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1985.E2.80.931987

 

[Oliver]

You have to admit, it´s a terrific pitch for his presidential campaign - "Vote for me, I´m the guy who has no clue who was writing the racist crap in his newsletter."

2 decades ago...

 

[Foolmewunz]

2 decades ago...

Oliver,

It doesn't matter if it was two decades ago or four. As long as he can't put forward a believable explanation, he's got a credibility problem. I, for one, do not believe that he doesn't know who wrote them and I quite frankly believe he actually wrote some of them, himself. The seven page version that was recently released certainly has a facsimile of his signature on it. No educated person lets anything go out in their name over their signature without vetting the contents.
"Oh, I didn't write those and I can't remember who did" just does not sound like a reasonable excuse from someone as educated as Ron Paul. The fact that some of you want so desperately to believe the excuse is really rather sad.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

2 decades ago...

So?

Are you claiming that his views are less objectionable, now that he's matured since that era?

 

[Alferd_Packer]

He didn't wrote them... Or to be more accurate, at least there is no evidence that he actually did or lied when he says he did not write it. So since there is no evidence of him being a racist, I seriously doubt that he is.
Some lousy smear-campaigns just wont stick.

You are avoiding the 300lbs gorilla. Even if he did not write them, he was solely responsible for the content of the newsletters. As such, this is a fatal flaw in his candidacy.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

I read this somewhere else when someone brought up Obama and Rev. Wright.

"Obama's relationship to Reverend Wright is not analogous to Ron Paul's relationship to Ron Paul."

Nice. I like that.

 

[LSSBB]

Oliver,

It doesn't matter if it was two decades ago or four. As long as he can't put forward a believable explanation, he's got a credibility problem. I, for one, do not believe that he doesn't know who wrote them and I quite frankly believe he actually wrote some of them, himself. The seven page version that was recently released certainly has a facsimile of his signature on it. No educated person lets anything go out in their name over their signature without vetting the contents.
"Oh, I didn't write those and I can't remember who did" just does not sound like a reasonable excuse from someone as educated as Ron Paul. The fact that some of you want so desperately to believe the excuse is really rather sad.

I think the "credibility" is the main issue for Paul also, and not the content, since his popularity appears to be based for a large part on his apparent honesty.