• Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Subscribe
  • RSS

A Bit More About the Ron Paul Newsletters

Not to belabor the issue, but I have learned more since my previous two posts on the subject, so in the interest of sharing information, here’s another post.

First, if you are curious what the newsletters looked like, go here, here or here.  What one finds is that the presentation was such that the clear implication was that Paul wrote the documents under discussion.  They were presented as an actual letter to the subscribers under a masthead with Paul’s name, written in the first person, and ostensibly signed by Paul.

Second, Paul and his camp originally used the “taken out of context” defense (see here) and Paul did not assert that he did not write the newsletter until 2001 (see here), which means he campaigned for office several times accepting responsibility for the documents, but just claiming that the quotes in circulation were either made up or, as noted, “taken out of context.”  I suppose that one could use that defense in the mid-1990s, but it was becoming increasingly difficult to do so by the early 2000s (given the changes to information gathering and sharing that had taken place by that time).  One thing is clear:  finding copies of the newsletter has been difficult and Paul has been unwilling to turn over the archives.

The options in regards to what all this means are as follows:

1)  Paul Wrote the newsletters and now is lying about having done so.

2)  Paul did not write the newsletters, but was aware of their contents at the time, or

3)  Paul did nor write the newsletters, and was unaware of their contents.

He claims that #3 is the truth (see here).   However, if we accept that as the truth, then what does that say about the fact that in 1996 he spoke as though he was the author and that the content was fine, just being taken out of context?

From the DMN in 1996:

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.

From a 1996 edition of Roll Call*:

Of his statements about Jordan, Paul said that “such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference. The causes she so strongly advocated were for more government, more and more regulations, and more and more taxes. My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong: I’ve fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes.”

The statements in question:

a portion of Paul’s Aug. 15, 1992, newsletter in which he slammed the late Texas Rep. Barbara Jordan (D) as a “moron” and a “fraud.”

“When is someone going to say publicly what everyone knows privately?” Paul wrote in the excerpt Morris provided to reporters. “Namely that University of Texas affirmative action law professor Barbara Jordan is a fraud? Everything from her imitation British accent, to her supposed expertise in law, to her distinguished career in public service, is made up.”

“If there was ever a modern case of the empress without clothes, this is it,” Paul continued. “She is the archetypical half-educated victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism.”

First elected in 1972, Jordan went on to serve three terms in the House and is considered a pioneer in opening up politics to African-Americans.

Matt Welch has a  list of examples in a 2008 Reason piece, including the following from a 1996 Austin American-Statesmen article:

“Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context,” [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said.  ”It’s like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what’s going on.”

[...]

“You have to understand what he is writing.  Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character,” Sullivan said.  “His writings are intellectual.  He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments.”

Paul now claims to not only having not written the newsletters, but to have never read them (this is what he told Wolf Blitzer back in 2008).

For more, see Ta-Neishi Coates:  Ron Paul’s Shaggy Defense.

I know some folks think that this stuff doesn’t matter, but I think that it does.  It raises issues about what Paul actually believed  vis-a-vis some pretty vile stuff (for example, see here specifically) and about his honesty (at one point he defended these writings and now claims to have had little-to-no knowledge about them), not to mention his ability to act as a manager  (the best case scenario here is that he farmed out his name for cash and paid no attention what was published in association with it).

*Accessed via Lexis-Nexis:

Democrat’s Secret Weapon Against Paul: His Own Writings
Roll Call, July 29, 1996, 680 words, By Tim Curran

Related Posts:

About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is Professor and Chair of Political Science at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. He is the author of Voting Amid Violence: Electoral Democracy in Colombia and is currently working on a comparative study of the US to 29 other democracies. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging at PoliBlog since 2003. Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. dan says:

    The media (you) are finally paying some attention to Paul. Previously, the Pew Foundation documented the unprecedented lack of representation by TV, radio, and newspapers. Now that he has some chance despite that exclusion, you try to dismiss him. Why don’t you talk about his singular rejection of NDAA 2012’s infinite detention horror? The answer is that there is not that much distance between the corruption of Republicans and the Democrats: that is why Congress has an approval rate slightly worse than Hitler. So other politicians and you do not like him for the same reason’s that corrupt governments have never liked moral individuals: they reveal in contrast the expediency, self-service, mendaciousness, and corruption. However, the public does admire virtue when they are given a chance to know such people.

    By the way, I think despite all the sudden predictions that “Even if he wins Iowa, the democratic process does not matter IN HIS CASE” and despite the anti-third party protocols, the existence of Americans Elect — which you fail to mention — makes a viable 3rd party run likely this year. However, in the meantime I will stick with the democratic process despite individuals like you who wish to short circuit it when it reveals the public’s distain for the regular forces of both parties.

    Paul did not write these letters. He apologized for his name being placed on them. He has never himself ever said anything of the kind. This is so insubstantial as to be absurd.

    Dan Fineman

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 14

  2. anonoped says:

    Ron Paul’s actions speak louder than the words written 30 years ago. No racists gives free medical care to Black and Hispanic women for 40 years. To say so flies in the face of logic.

    Scouring the web I can only find one bad thing about Ron Paul. He’s flipped (but not flopped) on one issue. The 2:20 mark of the video. (if the link is removed Google: Busted! Ron Paul racist rant caught on tape!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3EADdr-5AY&feature=youtu.be

    Also, Ron Paul is not a racist when the head of the NAACP goes on television and says that Ron Paul is not a racist. You can Google that one yourself.

    Finally, Ron Paul could be the biggest racist in the history of the events of all of earth and the universe and I’m still going to vote for him. Know why?

    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Peace.

    A vote for any other including Obama, is a vote for endless war, assassinations, life in detention without charge, crushing debt and enough deficit spending to enslave your grand children’s grand children.

    Talking to me about some stale print articles in the face of economic Armageddon makes you look like a propaganda arm of the MSM.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 14

  3. bennie says:

    The establishment is getting scared huh?
    Ron Paul 2012!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 10

  4. grumpy realist says:

    oh boy, here come the Ron Paul fanbois again.

    Look, you clowns: either Ron Paul knew what went out under his name in the newsletters or he couldn’t have cared less and simply used the letters as a way to glean money out of those who liked that sort of stuff.

    In any case, it doesn’t look good for him. Either he likes to pander to racists, IS a racist, or is so hands-off that you might as well elect a lobotomized pumpkin for all the management he’ll do of the people he hires.

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 12

  5. ivykid says:

    If your car or country crashes and is on fire would you have someone who says that they are coming to save you but keeps driving in circles and cannot decide whether they are for or against you until they are distracted by a new bank branch they haven’t put money in yet. How about someone who is so brave and loving that he would leave one wife because his mistress was cancer free unlike the useless previous wife only to realize that he had to marry his next mistress because she didn’t have MS. How about someone who absolutely protects the lives of the unborn, but would bomb a whole country because one of their politicians is a radical and may one day be able to hurt Israel. I think that I would rather have the Doctor who has proven that he’s willing to fight the storm of bull, just to be a servant to the people in America.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9

  6. mantis says:

    I will stick with the democratic process despite individuals like you who wish to short circuit it

    Short circuit it how? By writing their opinions on the web? Do you have a problem with free speech? I’m pretty sure it is part of the democratic process.

    Paul did not write these letters.

    Prove it.

    This is so insubstantial as to be absurd.

    Really? He published them for years and years under his name, and made millions off of them, and it’s “insubstantial” to think he may have written them? Maybe in a Paulbot world…

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 6

  7. OzarkHillbilly says:

    Wow…. So much cognitive dissonance in one thread of comments…

    Steven, I am in of your powers for bringing out the stupid.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

  8. Really, I am not sure why these people are griping at me.

    I mean, just because my name is at the top of this post doesn’t mean anything, responsibility-wise, right?

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 38 Thumb down 2

  9. anonoped says:

    @mantis: Here’s your Proof:

    http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/#axzz1h6fRhpIZ

    If the link is removed Google: takimag ron paul smear

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4

  10. DRS says:

    If Ron Paul had so little regard for the integrity of his name as long as it brought him an income, why should I respect his name now? It’s called accountability, and if he just up and said “You know, one of the things I regret most in my career is not paying closer attention to those newsletters. I don’t agree with those things and repudiate them completely.” then I think I’d have more inclination to give him the benefit of the doubt. But the pathetic claim by his staff that they are being quoted “out of context” is puerile when facsimiles of entire newsletters are availble on the ‘net. Jeez, grow a pair and man up, will ya?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1

  11. Herb says:

    I think anonoped keys into why so many non-racist Paul supporters are quick to dismiss the newsletter stuff. They honestly believe that:

    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Peace.

    And yet, to be accurate, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for pacifism, which is considerably different from peace. It makes one wonder if they are getting conned.

    Seems like a long bet to bet that the newsletter views aren’t Ron Paul’s view, but an even longer bet to think that Paul-type pacifism will result in actual real-world peace.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1

  12. mantis says:

    @anonoped:

    Here’s your Proof:

    That article in no way proves Paul didn’t write the Ron Paul newsletters. All it does is defend the racist writings they contain.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0

  13. Linton says:

    @anonoped:

    It was the president of the Austin NAACP that was talking about Paul, not the head of the whole organization.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  14. mantis says:

    And yet, to be accurate, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for pacifism, which is considerably different from peace.

    Indeed. Tell us, anonoped, how will Paul bring peace? Magic pixie dust?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  15. Rob in CT says:

    I actually do think Paul would be far less likely to get us into another war than any other candidate. That is indeed a plus. As is his stance against the WoD and other things I too find absurd. We disagree deeply regarding insurance-via-the-government (SS, Medicare) and redistribution of wealth. I think the newsletter thing stinks, but that only goes so far.

    My worry about Paul as POTUS would be that Congress would enable him where I disagree and fight him tooth and nail where I agree.

    Basically I want more Pauls in Congress, but I don’t want Paul as POTUS.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  16. Kylopod says:

    No racists gives free medical care to Black and Hispanic women for 40 years. To say so flies in the face of logic.

    Right there is a perfect example of the average conservative’s grasp of the nature of prejudice.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  17. I’m willing to accept that Ron Paul himself is not a racist. In fact, based on his public life, his writings, and his beliefs I’m sure he’s not. However, he associated, and continues to associate, with men of questionable character.

    It’s fairly well-known in libertarian circles that the Ron Paul newsletters were basically a vehicle created by Paul’s friends to provide him with a supplemental source of income during the years he was out of Congress (Paul left Congress in 1988 and did not return until he ran for election in 1996). The editor of the newsletters was Paul’s former Chief of Staff Lew Rockwell, who now (unfortunately) runs the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Rockwell’s associations with neo-Confederates and conservatives like Pat Buchanan are fairly well known. He’s the one who wrote the newsletters. Everyone knows it, and the fact that he’s never admitted it and let someone he says is a friend twist in the wind tells you what kind of character he is. At the same time, Paul is responsible for letting this stuff go out under his name whether he was aware of it or not.

    This why I wasn’t much of a Ron Paul supporter in 2008, or now, despite having voted for him when he ran for President as a Libertarian in 1988.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0

  18. Ben Wolf says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Really, I am not sure why these people are griping at me.

    I mean, just because my name is at the top of this post doesn’t mean anything, responsibility-wise, right?

    +100 points.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0

  19. The editor of the newsletters was Paul’s former Chief of Staff Lew Rockwell, who now (unfortunately) runs the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama. Rockwell’s associations with neo-Confederates and conservatives like Pat Buchanan are fairly well known. He’s the one who wrote the newsletters.

    The other possiblity is that it was Eric Dondero, who was fired by Paul around the time the newsletter first became an issue (for reasons which have never been explained) and who has a history since then of making similary intemperate speech under his own name.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  20. @Stormy Dragon:

    Dondero was not affiliated with Paul at the time the newsletters were being published as I understand it. He didn’t come into the picture until Paul returned to Congress in 1997. Although, yes, Eric’s rhetoric isn’t much better than what’s in the newsletters

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  21. @Doug Mataconis:

    My understanding is he wasn’t officially working for Paul until 1997, but was in Paul’s “entourage” long before then. It’s just that until Paul was in congress again, there was no official staff.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  22. @Stormy Dragon:

    As far as I know, Eric was in Florida until sometime in the mid-90s so I’m not entirely sure about that. Literally everyone I have talked to about this since 2008 who was in a position to know, though, is sure that it was Rockwell.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  23. de stijl says:

    @mantis:

    I love how Raimondo chooses to live in an Alternate World where Matt Gillespie and the Reason crowd are the “Cool Kids.” That delight me to no end.

    Well, maybe Weigel, but he moved on to a better gig ages ago.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  24. @Doug Mataconis:

    http://spectator.org/blog/2011/12/20/ex-ron-paul-aide-disputes-paul

    Dondero, by his own account, was involved in Paul’s 87/88 presidential campaign, his 91 exploratory committee, and his 95/96 congressional campaign.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  25. Jim Henley says:

    The newsletters are of a piece with Rockwell’s contemporaneous, publicly stated program of advancing “libertarianism” by stirring up racial resentment among white conservatives. This also argues for Rockwell as the author.

    I hold Paul responsible for the content of the newsletters; the content is the scandal. But the dance over who precisely wrote them strikes me as a lot of nothing. Very, very few congresspeople write their own material – not speeches, not op-eds, not constituent letters. All congresspeople pretend to have written their own material, at least in the ordinary course of events.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  26. de stijl says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    The other possiblity is that it was Eric Dondero…

    “Canyonero” is involved in this nonsense?

    I don’t normally “OMFG” over stuff, but that is just too frigging precious for words. My a$$ is on the floor rolling around and stuff.

    How the heck did Ron Paul ever get elected to congress in the first place? He must have been very lucky with his choice of Campaign Manager because the rest of his yahoo associates couldn’t find the ground after falling down.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  27. @Jim Henley:

    I hold Paul responsible for the content of the newsletters; the content is the scandal.

    Exactly.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  28. Earl says:

    After watching and reading Paul’s stuff for 4 years now, Ron is just not a racist. And the newsletters are not that extremely racist either. just a little bigoted, to be honest. Sorry, you filthy race baiters.

    I will go with: “Ron Paul takes money from crazies, while never actually espousing their craziness.” I learned this back when I was a Truther, listening to Alex Jones. At least he is not taking money from government, and he is not taking money from lobbyists. Just regular crazy people. OMG cry me a river!

    Poorly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16

  29. MM says:

    @anonoped: Justin Raimondo complaining about the Orange Line libertarians is not a defense.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  30. MM says:

    @Earl: After watching and reading Paul’s stuff for 4 years now, Ron is just not a racist. And the newsletters are not that extremely racist either. just a little bigoted, to be honest. Sorry, you filthy race baiters.

    Ahh, well if it’s only kinda racist it’s OK? At what point is the following “too” racist?

    - Jewish people are people like you and me.

    - Jewish people are kind of cheap

    - The Jews are a cheap race, especially when taking money from other races.

    - K*kes will take every bit of your money if they can.

    - Watch your babies around hooknosed banker types

    - We need some sort of final solution to the Jewish problem

    At least he is not taking money from government

    Aside from the paycheck and lifetime pension.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  31. Al says:

    A vote for peace? What, the Second Civil War isn’t going to count?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  32. de stijl says:

    @Earl:

    After watching and reading Paul’s stuff for 4 years now, Ron is just not a racist. And the newsletters are not that extremely racist either. just a little bigoted, to be honest. Sorry, you filthy race baiters.

    If you’re basing your argument on the degree of racism espoused in the newsletters, you’ve already lost the argument.

    I learned this back when I was a Truther, listening to Alex Jones.

    Color me surprised.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  33. de stijl says:

    @MM:

    They also drink Christian baby blood for breakfast, and they love Chinese food and Woody Allen movies.

    Why do they eat Chinese food on Christmas Day? Do they hate lil’ baby Jeebus that much?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  34. MM says:

    @de stijl: They probably pretend that the Chinese food is the blood of baby Jesus like some sort of perverse Eucharist.*

    * This probably crosses into the Earl definition of actual racism. Had I Cavuto marked it, it would have just been just a little bigoted.

    “Jewish people eating Chinese food on Xmas, a demonic Eucharist?”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  35. Jim Henley says:

    After watching and reading Paul’s stuff for 4 years now,

    Okay, so you’re a n00b. I get it. (Compared to people like Mataconis and Taylor and me, who are/were in or around the libertarian movement for a couple decades and have locked up shocking amounts of brain tissue with info on its many factions and phases.) But being a n00b excuses ignorance only if the n00b recognizes same.

    Ron is just not a racist.

    I’ll class this as decidedly not proven.

    And the newsletters are not that extremely racist either.

    Ah ha ha ha! Ha ha! Ha – good one. Wait, you meant that?

    just a little bigoted, to be honest.

    Well as long as we’re being honest . . .

    Sorry, you filthy race baiters.

    And here we have the Conservative Disease encapsulated. Actually demeaning black people in one’s writing over the course of many years and manifold occasions: not so bad! Complaining about a sustained campaign of demeaning black people: filthy!

    Highly-rated. Helpful or Unhelpful: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 0

  36. de stijl says:

    Ron Paul’s Presidential runs have been intriguing to me. He doesn’t strike me as a straight-up grifter a la Palin or Cain. He honestly believes his bonkers nonsense heart and soul.

    He started up the newsletter thing to “Spread the Word” of his bonkers nonsense because he honestly thought the world would be a better place if more folks also believed in his bonkers nonsense.

    And then he started making money off the damned thing. I mean, who would’ve thought?

    And then (maybe) Lew Rockwell got involved and pushed the edge a little bit.

    And when he was a 4% guy nobody really cared that much. “Hey, look everybody, it’s the Republican version of Dennis Kucinich! How cute!”

    8% – still no big deal. Why does this guy keep winning Internet polls?

    10% – and it’s “Hey, guys, remember that racist crap that Paul had in his newsletter. Should I be concerned? Is that a deal breaker? Am I a butthole for backing this guy?”

    But now he’s bucking for the lead in Iowa, and it’s now a very, very big deal.

    It’s strange in that it’s not something Paul can walk back or wish away. My guess is that he never thought that in million years he could be bucking for the lead in Iowa in late December. He just wanted to get his bonkers nonsense out in front of more people.

    But the Republican party went crazy and now Paul is bucking for the lead.

    We now actually live in a world where someone like Ron Paul can credibly be called a serious candidate for the President of the United States of America. (After Palin and Trump and Perry and Cain, it was probably inevitable. Crikey Moses, I may cry. How the heck did this happen to us?)

    The newsletter stuff was unreported and “tolerable” to the press corps when he was a small-fry novelty, but now he’s no longer the pet monkey.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0

  37. An Interested Party says:

    Here’s a case where superdestroyer’s usual tired argument about the GOP actually has some relevance…namely, that Paul is, at best, a fringe candidate who has absolutely no chance of winning the GOP nomination, much less any other national position of any importance, so, while exposing him does serve some purpose, it isn’t like he needs to be stopped from attaining some higher position of power…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  38. de stijl says:

    @MM:

    I’m imaging a Hannity teaser:

    “Some say eating General Tso’s Chicken on Christmas is like pissing on the Virgin Mary. Dick Morris will be in the studio to comment on the controversy. We report, you decide.”

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  39. David says:

    Both parties have people that are “good” to have in either the house or the senate, but have no business being potus. (I put good in quotes cause the other side probably hates them and thinks they are bad for the country etc, but they serve a function I think). Dr. Paul fits in this category.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

  40. Buffalo Rude says:

    @Earl:

    And the newsletters are not that extremely racist either. just a little bigoted, to be honest. Sorry, you filthy race baiters.

    Translated: The newsletter is not an “extreme” outlier of white supremacist opinion. [Moderate White Power! - BR] Though “just a little”, if I do say so myself. I apologize to the “filthy” people who pointed out our less than covert racism. I’m deeply regretful.

    I’m just imagining the “deeply regretful” part, BTW.

    I learned this back when I was a Truther, listening to Alex Jones

    Any comment, thought, argument and/or counter-argument that references Alex Jones or Trutherism as a concrete reference point should probably be avoided. Lest a lot of us will think you’re dumb.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  41. James says:

    @grumpy realist: “either Ron Paul knew what went out under his name in the newsletters or he couldn’t have cared less”. It is possible that he didn’t know about them. As stated in the article.

    The options in regards to what all this means are as follows:
    1) Paul Wrote the newsletters and now is lying about having done so.
    2) Paul did not write the newsletters, but was aware of their contents at the time, or
    3) Paul did not write the newsletters, and was unaware of their contents.

    “In 2008 the breakdown for adults under correctional control was as follows: one out of 18 men, one in 89 women, one in 11 African-Americans (9.2 percent), one in 27 Latinos (3.7 percent), and one in 45 whites (2.2 percent). Crime rates have declined by about 25 percent from 1988-2008.[13] 70% of prisoners in the United States are non-whites.” – “Resisting the Prison Industrial Complex”. State University of New York – Binghamton.

    Ron Paul has expressed his views time and again on the unfair disparity of African-Americans in jails, and his opposition to the war on drugs.

    2011 – race & prison – imprisonment for marijuana offenses) “Compared to Non-blacks, California’s African-American population are 4 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana, 12 times more likely to be imprisoned for a marijuana felony arrest, and 3 times more likely to be imprisoned per marijuana possession arrest. Overall, as Figure 3 illustrates, these disparities accumulate to 10 times’ greater odds of an African-American being imprisoned for marijuana than other racial/ethnic groups.”

    http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/64

    What I really want to know is how much money his campaign might have made from obvious racist groups. Give evidence.

    What’s this fanboi crap?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

  42. Dondero´s writing style does not fit the writing style of these newsletters.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  43. James says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: Your views are one sided. Everyone ought to challenge Paul on his beliefs, but why hand-wring over the beliefs of a small, insignificant minority of his supporters?

    Which is racist? Paul receiving small donations from racist individuals or Barack Obama’s endless wars against brown-skinned Muslims, the deportation of record number of illegal immigrants, and continued escalation of the drug war?

    I agree that the newsletters should be addressed but you really are scraping the barrel to find some dirt, and the only dirt you have found are these newsletters. It really is pathetic Steven.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3

  44. @James:

    1. I never mentioned contributions.

    2. I am not looking for “dirt”–I sincerely find both the content of the newsletters and the way Paul has dealt with the issue to be disturbing.

    3. The newsletter issue is not just about associates, but about what Paul is willing to allow to happen in his name. This is no small matter for someone seeking the presidency.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1

  45. James says:

    @Doug Mataconis: @Doug Mataconis: Come on Doug weigh it up mate!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  46. James says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: It definitely is no small matter. So who will you be voting for?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  47. grumpy realist says:

    @James: And as said….if Ron Paul honestly didn’t know what went out under his name, that indicates the guy is far too hands off to be anywhere near the launch codes. He’s far too hands-off to be allowed anywhere in the US, actually.

    If something goes out with your name on it under circumstances that you are expected to have known about it, you are responsible for it. Look up agency law, respondeat superior, and several centuries of Common Law, you nitwits.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  48. Neil Hudelson says:
  49. Rob in CT says:

    @Neil Hudelson:

    You just gotta love the “youths” code in the carjacking bit.

    Oh and the gays forcing their way onto your property rant was excellent too.

    From what I’ve seen of the newsletters, I think superdestroyer wrote them.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  50. CannaBrothers says:

    @anonoped: Dr. Ron Paul personally volunteered to use his own money to fund a Rosa Parks statue instead of spending taxpayers’ money.

    The only time Dr. Paul has ever voted for something not explicitly authorized in the Constitution was when he voted to recognize Martin Luther King with a public holiday.

    The head of the Austin NAACP who has known and worked with Dr. Paul for over 20 years has said there is no way Ron Paul racist.

    The newsletters in question were published when Dr. Paul was working as a full-time medical doctor in a poor area of Texas with a large number of minorities.

    Dr. Paul refused to accept Medicaid or Medicare during his entire medical career as a gynecologist, and still treated every patient regardless of a family’s ability to pay.

    Perhaps most interesting is the fact that Dr. Paul is the only 2012 presidential candidate – Democrat or Republican – who wants us to stop bombing and killing brown people.

    He doesn’t sound racist to me.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2

  51. Jim Henley says:

    CannaBrothers: Do you imagine that charitable acts are inconsistent with racism?

    If I volunteer at a dog rescue organization, does this mean I must think dogs are the equal of people?

    It’s entirely possible to perform charitable acts for a marginalized group while regarding them, consciously or unconsciously, as inferior. It’s completely possible – it happened! – for the residents of a “sundown town” to be polite to African-American visitors during daylight, and murderous toward them after dark.

    This is not to say that Ron Paul is, today, “a racist” in his heart. I can’t see into his heart. (Nor can you!) But the refutations that have been offered so far – “Paul can’t be a racist because… ” – are weak sauce.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0

  52. Rob in CT says:

    @CannaBrothers:

    He may not be. He may simply be guilty of very poor judgment in the past, or he may be the sort of guy who isn’t racist himself but is perfectly willing to tolerate bigotry and profit from it… At *best* he’s the sort of guy who didn’t look at what was published in his name… none of which speaks all that well of him.

    That said, he’s the best candidate in the GOP field (Johnson is out).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0

  53. Jim Henley says:

    @CannaBrothers:

    Dr. Ron Paul personally volunteered to use his own money to fund a Rosa Parks statue instead of spending taxpayers’ money.

    Do you mean the Rosa Parks Congressional Medal of Honor?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0

  54. sam says:

    @CannaBrothers:

    The only time Dr. Paul has ever voted for something not explicitly authorized in the Constitution was when he voted to recognize Martin Luther King with a public holiday.

    He voted against the holiday.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0

  55. CannaBrothers says:

    Thanks for the feedback, everybody.

    Jim: the medal – that’s what I meant. I had previously read that it was a statue.

    Sam: you’re right that Dr. Paul voted against making the birthday of Martin Luther King, Jr. a legal public holiday.

    However, he did vote in favor of designating the third Sunday in January each year as the holiday to celebrate Martin Luther King’s birth.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-625

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  56. Rob in CT says:

    Good post on this:

    http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/

    That’s very close to how I come down on it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  57. SamFox says:

    @Jim Henley:

    All I wanna know is if Ron is such a racist & the newsletters are so bad, why have no eyewitnesses come forward to say “Yup!! I heard Ron Paul SAY….”. Why are there no videos showing Ron using racist language.

    Love how ya equate people of color with dogs.
    wonder what Freud would think ot that slip. :-) Or is it only people of color you refer to? For Pete sakes, anything is ‘possible’ even if it’s only in your own mind….does not make it real or true.

    Yup. The Soros & co attack dogs are out against Ron. Guess that’s what Dr. Paul gets for wanting to use the Constitution to jam up the DC tax payer conveyer belt. Those that call it smorgasbord sure don’t want the tax payer gravy train derailed.

    All I know is that a lot of really fat cats like Soros & 0′s handlers, the ‘Fed’ & so on have a lot of easy to manipulate Homer Simpsons working for them…hey, I didn’t make that up. Cass Sunstein, one of your own, called you that. I guess he was updating the old term ‘useful idiots’.

    Do you guys get paid by the lb. for all the bull?

    Saayyy, what if Ron ran your dog rescue mission because he really loved the dogs & actually gave a dern….? Oh, my. Just wonderin….

    SamFox

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1