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

[Alferd_Packer]

RON PAUL IS NOT A RACIST.

He has certainly spent a lot of time pandering to racists.

 

[Magyar]

He is indeed opposed to forcible redistribution of wealth, which violates the libertarian non-coercion principle, but he is very supportive of voluntary donations.

Yea that's all nice in paultardism land where most libertarians live. However it completely falls apart here in the real world as evidenced by the VERY actions of your piped piper

where at most generous his bs is interpreted as yet another example of political babble of
do as I say not as I do or just a flat out example of another politician outright lying to a bunch of beguiled follower so he can bilk them for all they are worth.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...re-campaign-manager-kent-snyder_n_961812.html

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

It doesn't matter. The words were written as if they were Paul's. If he didn't write it, it's no defense since then they were ghost written for him. As has been pointed out again and again, no other byline was on these articles, and they were written in Paul's persona.

Also his claim that he didn't know about for at least 10 years is a lie. He was asked about these racist comments back in '96 (and at least some of the comments were published in '92).

 

[Nova Land]

... 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 ... "Oh, I didn't write those and I can't remember who did" just does not sound like a reasonable excuse...

I think Foolmewunz summarizes the problem very well.

Either Ron Paul wrote those items himself, or someone wrote them for him. That someone didn't break into the newsletter office every month and secretly sneak those items in; those items were placed in the newsletter because they were supposed to be there. For Ron Paul to try to brush this matter aside by claiming he doesn't remember who the person who wrote those items is, is incredibly lame.

If there was a ghost-writer, then someone selected that person to write items which would be published as being by Ron Paul. It is reasonable for people to be curious who that person was and what kind of vetting the person got before getting that job.

If Ron Paul selected the person, he should know who the person he selected is and be able to provide the name. If someone else did the vetting and made the selection, Paul should be able to provide the name of that person.

This newsletter was being published monthly, for years. That means each month articles arrived -- by hand, or by mail -- to be printed. Surely someone at the newsletter knows where these things were coming from.

The most plausible explanation for why Ron Paul hasn't provided the name of the person who wrote the articles, and seems to be making no effort to help others discover that name, is that it would be even more embarrassing to Ron Paul if that name were to come out than it is for Ron Paul to look like an incompetent fool for not knowing it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

If Ron Paul selected the person, he should know who the person he selected is and be able to provide the name. If someone else did the vetting and made the selection, Paul should be able to provide the name of that person.

I would go even further than that: if Ron Paul had someone writing his newsletter in his name*, he is responsible for that writing just as if he had written it himself.

Claiming it was ghost written is no defense at all. Claiming it was ghost written and he didn't know what was being written in his name is dishonest.

ETA: Overall, I'd say Ron Paul's response to questions about the racist comments (and loony CT stuff) written in his name in his newsletter has been inadequate, clumsy, and dishonest.

*And people have already provided evidence that the articles were written in his name. First, no other name appears on these articles, second, we have excerpts from these unsigned articles referring to the town where he lived at the time, and third we have examples from these unsigned articles referring to the writer as a doctor. As I've said, it's unreasonable to think that anyone other than Ron Paul himself wrote these articles. But even giving his claim that he didn't write these words himself the benefit of the doubt, it's no defense that they were ghost written for him. He's still responsible for them as if they were his own (something he used to accept).

 

[Nova Land]

And, as usual these days, I'm a bit behind the curve. Skeptic Ginger probably posted this several pages ago , but a number of people have identified Lew Rockwell as Ron Paul's chief ghost-writer and the likely author of the newsletter items.

From a 4-year-old article, "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?", by Julian Sanchez and David Weigel on the libertarian website Reason:

[Ron Paul] told CNN last week [i.e. January 2008] that he still has "no idea" who might have written inflammatory comments such as "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks"—statements he now repudiates. Yet in interviews with reason, a half-dozen longtime libertarian activists—including some still close to Paul—all named the same man as Paul's chief ghostwriter: Ludwig von Mises Institute founder Llewellyn Rockwell, Jr.

Financial records from 1985 and 2001 show that Rockwell, Paul's congressional chief of staff from 1978 to 1982, was a vice president of Ron Paul & Associates, the corporation that published the Ron Paul Political Report and the Ron Paul Survival Report. The company was dissolved in 2001. During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic.

And especially interesting:

To this day Rockwell remains a friend and advisor to Paul—accompanying him to major media appearances; promoting his candidacy on the LewRockwell.com blog; publishing his books; and peddling an array of the avuncular Texas congressman's recent writings and audio recordings.

Here's a link to LewRockwell.com, in case anyone cares to look through his writings to compare them to what was written in the Ron Paul newsletters.

 

[Unabogie]

There's that word again. Why does everyone contractually have to call Ron Paul "avuncular"?

 

[Nova Land]

I would go even further than that: if Ron Paul had someone writing his newsletter in his name*, he is responsible for that writing just as if he had written it himself.

Oh, definitely! I'm in full agreement on that.

Indeed, that seems pretty much a settled issue now; it's hard to imagine any reasonable person disagreeing with what you say.

So I was not attempting to address the issue of Paul's responsibility for the content of the articles; I take that as a given at this point. I was attempting to address the issue of Paul's responsibility for knowing who authored the articles.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The ghost writer defense would be similar to a politician dodging questions about the content of his public speeches by pointing out that he employed a speech writer.

 

[varwoche]

He didn't wrote them... Or to be more accurate, at least there is no evidence that he actually did

There isn't a pack of laughing dogs large enough to do this goofy statement justice.

That is, we have an official Ron Paul newsletter eminating from Ron Paul's organization, with first person references to the small town he lived in, and first person references as a doctor. I think it's highly likely that either he wrote the newsletter, or was at least aware of the contents. But even if you've consumed enough kool-aid to disagree, c'mon, there is no evidence? Maybe you mean there is no evidence except for the abundant, highly incriminating evidence that's already been presented?

 

[varwoche]

*And people have already provided evidence that the articles were written in his name. First, no other name appears on these articles, second, we have excerpts from these unsigned articles referring to the town where he lived at the time, and third we have examples from these unsigned articles referring to the writer as a doctor.

According to some Ron Paul fans, not only is this evidence unconvincing. It fails the existence test.

 

[Nova Land]

A post at Rightwatch, one of the sources mentioned in the Reason article, indicates that Lew Rockwell was the editor of Ron Paul's newsletters during the years in question:

To make it worse Paul’s office has stated that he will not investigate the matter. He won’t see who was on his staff at the time the newsletter was written. He won’t ask his editor, Lew Rockwell, who wrote this articles. (It should be noted that as editor Rockwell would have to either approve the articles or write them himself.)

It's an anonymous post, and not particularly well-written. But on this one point -- Lew Rockwell being editor of the newsletter -- I think the post is probably correct.

 

[Nova Land]

... Skeptic Ginger probably posted this several pages ago, but a number of people have identified Lew Rockwell as Ron Paul's chief ghost-writer and the likely author of the newsletter items.

Oops! My error. It wasn't Skeptic Ginger, it was PuppyCow:

... (Lew Rockwell wrote Ron Paul's racist newsletters)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

According to some Ron Paul fans, not only is this evidence unconvincing. It fails the existence test.

It's been provided in images of the newsletters linked on this very thread.

ETA: One site I linked to has more than 50 images of the newsletters. It's clear that the unsigned articles were represented as being Ron Paul's words.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

[ETA: removed cite of article already cited.]

The newsletters were named The Ron Paul Investment Letter, The Ron Paul Survival Report and The Ron Paul Political Report.

Again Ron Paul denying responsibility for the content of unsigned articles in the newsletter because someone (or more than one person) ghost wrote them for him is no more valid than someone trying to deny the content of a speech they delivered because they used a speech writer.

 

[Alan]

The ghost writer defense would be similar to a politician dodging questions about the content of his public speeches by pointing out that he employed a speech writer.

I really like this.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Well, one guy tried to get away with a similar defense. The infamous "not meant to be factually correct" incident springs to mind.

 

[Puppycow]

The ghost writer defense would be similar to a politician dodging questions about the content of his public speeches by pointing out that he employed a speech writer.

It is pretty amazing that his defense is that he didn't read the words that were being put into his own mouth by the people he hired to write as Ron Paul.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

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.

Paul's problem is that, supposedly, Lew Rockwell wrote the more incendiary ones.


Rockwell is still deeply involved with Paul and his campaign.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Sorry, all. I thought that was a given, e.g. that Lew or one of his South Will Rise Again Confederacy Apologist buddies was likely the author. This was outed in our last presidential elections fray four years ago.