Ron Paul Says He’s Sorry For Not Paying Attention To Newsletters Written By ‘Ghost Writers’

The Ron Paul campaign finally seems to be paying attention to the newsletters controversy rather than ignoring it, the problem is that it seems to be too little too late:

Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul apologized on Friday for not paying enough attention to “ghost writers” he said were responsible for racist and anti-gay messages in newsletters and an ad published under his name two decades ago.

In a statement to Reuters, a spokesman for Paul continued to disavow the messages in the writings, but for the first time the Texas congressman’s campaign said he should have done more to prevent them from being published.

Although widely viewed as a longshot to win the Republican nomination, Paul has led in recent polls in Iowa, where caucuses on January 3 will kick off the contest to select a nominee to challenge President Barack Obama in the 2012 election.

Paul’s statement came a day after Reuters reported that a direct-mail ad for Paul’s political and investment newsletters – they were sent around 1993 and appeared to include Paul’s signature at the end – warned of a “coming race war” and a “federal-homosexual cover-up” to play down the impact of AIDS.

“Dr. Paul did not write that solicitation. It does not reflect his thoughts and is out of step with the message he has espoused for 40 years,” Paul spokesman Jesse Benton said Friday in an e-mail.

Benton added that “there were multiple ghost writers involved and he does not know who penned the particular offensive sections.

“Ultimately, because the writing appeared under his name and he should have better policed it, Dr. Paul has assumed responsibility, apologized for his lack of oversight, and disavowed the offensive material.”

I don’t know, at this point I just find it hard to believe that Paul didn’t know what was being sent out under his name not just once, but for a number of years. Additionally, blaming the entire thing on ‘ghost writers,” while believable because it has been known for years that Paul wasn’t writing the material personally, is still a dodge because it stil doesn’t acknowledge the fact that the person in charge of publishing the newsletter, and most likely writing most of the content, was former Congressional aide who had become an adviser and close friend. I’m not sure what I’m really expecting from Paul at this point, actually. Whatever happens in Iowa, he’s not going to be the Republican nominee, and there’s really no defending the things that were in his newsletters. Pushing the blame off on someone else without naming names strikes me as a bit of a cop out.

FILED UNDER: Campaign 2012, US Politics, , , , , ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug Mataconis held a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010 and contributed a staggering 16,483 posts before his retirement in January 2020. He passed far too young in July 2021.


  1. anjin-san says:

    So what Paul is saying is that his “newsletter” was simply a scam he was running to fleece the rubes….

  2. de stijl says:


    Not just a scam to fleece the rubes, but a poorly managed one at that, since the person in charge apparently didn’t practice any kind of quality control whatsoever.

  3. Ron Hinson says:

    …And the newsletters are important again because????
    …They have something to do with bringing our troops home?
    …They have some impact on cutting the budget by a trillion dollars in 2013?
    …They mean the war on drugs won’t really end?
    …They prove Obamacare will continue under Ron Paul?
    …They reveal to us that Ron Paul will not end the FED after all?
    …They suggest foreign aid will continue under Ron Paul?
    …They contain evidence that our boarders will not be protected?
    …They represent Ron Paul’s true intentions to continue the IRS and raise taxes?
    …They’re proof that you’re a progressive pea-brain with his head up his ass.

    I really don’t know whether you’re just a self-righteous, egomaniac, or you’re simply educated beyond your intelligence. Seriously, you argue like a woman.

  4. matt says:

    @Ron Hinson: ah good ol sexism.. It’s a refreshing change of pace from the more standard barely concealed racism that has been being spewed for the last couple years….

  5. anjin-san says:

    …And the newsletters are important again because????

    Perhaps because his supporters were paying good money for them…

  6. Bleev K says:

    @Ron Hinson:

    Seriously, you argue like a woman.

    Congrats, the most pathetic comment I’ve seen in a while. No wonder why you don’t care about the newsletters.

    If Ron Paul can’t even run a newsletter, how is he going to run a country?

  7. nader paul kucinich gravel mckinney baldwin ventura sheehan perot carter says:

    Ronald Ernest Paul just like Building Number Seven

    Coordinate­d Smear Campaign
    all the same controlled media
    all of the same talking points
    all at the exact same time !

    Anthrax intimidati­on?

  8. Brian says:

    So, Doug, what woman’s name do you want now that Mr. (I assume) Hinson has unmasked your feminine arguments? (I always suspected it, with the pink background in your replies, but Ronnie-babe has confirmed it.) It’s a great talent Ron has, telling sexes over the Internet – probably led him to several less surprising one-handed conversations than he would have had otherwise. He must use this power for good.

  9. Pushing the blame off on someone else without naming names strikes me as a bit of a cop out.

    Not only that, but it is a cop out to deal with this in a statement, rather than addressing it himself.

  10. michael reynolds says:

    I suspect I’m the only person here who has both been a ghostwriter, and been ghostwritten.

    If any ghost working for me had done one thousandth of this in my name I would be screaming mad and looking to drink his blood. If I’d done this to the name author back in the days when I was ghosting, I imagine they’d have come for me with a shotgun.

    The tolerance the Paulites show for this is pathetic. Paul’s own half-assed acceptance of responsibility is obscene.

    You people have got to be f-cking kidding me. This does not happen by accident. And if it does, heads roll.

  11. @michael reynolds:

    I can’t speak for others, but in my case it’s not so much toleration, as I’d really like to abandon Paul Indeed, the newsletters were pretty much the reason I wanted Gary Johnson to do better than Paul. The problem is he didn’t.

    So what option do I have right now but Ron Paul?

  12. Robert Davidson says:

    This is great news! The opposition has to go back 20+ years to find anything on Dr. Paul – and he didn’t even write them!

    Out of 12 terms in Congress since 1975, numerous books, dozens of articles, hundreds of speeches, constant television and personal appearances, and thousands of acquaintances, all they can find are a handful of statements that don’t even match his writing style. Amazing!

    “Too little too late”? This issue is a gnat on an elephant’s back. And, every time the knives comes out his fundraising soars! Last weekend’s Money Bomb asked for $4 million. His supporters blasted through that goal before the deadline and the money is still pouring in.

    Thanks for bringing more attention to Ron Paul and helping to grow his base!

  13. michael reynolds says:

    @Robert Davidson:
    Yay! I’m glad you’re happy! Ron Paul is going to be the Republican nominee and the next President of the United States!

  14. Naql says:

    @Stormy Dragon: You can still vote for Gary Johnson when he runs as a Libertarian. That’s what I’ll probably do.

  15. anjin-san says:

    The opposition has to go back 20+ years to find anything on Dr. Paul

    Most of the commentators here were pretty neutral about Paul until this cropped up. I was. Is “it’s been 20 years since Paul peddled racist filth” really your defense?

  16. Ernieyeball says:

    Ron Paul’s words. Out of context. Then (1995) and NOW (2011)
    “I also put out a political type of business investment newsletter that sort of covered all these areas. I DIDN’T WRITE THEM…it covered … what was going on in Washington, events,..some of the monetary events. …I had been…interested in monetary policy,..on the banking committee, and…interested in,..that subject, that this newsletter dealt with it. I DIDN’T READ THEM AT THE TIME…This had to do with the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard, and of course the disadvantages of all the high taxes and spending that our government seems to continue to do…AND I DISAVOW THEM.”

  17. Davebo says:

    South East Texas politician publishes racist filth.

    I’m shocked! On the upside, he never dragged anyone behind a pickup truck.

  18. Peter says:

    Conclusion: For all the “straight talk” his fans fall for, Ron Paul is no different than any politician. He has no problem using pork to get reelected (he even manages to slide pork in bills he doesn’t vote for!) and he reads polls to determine what to say to whom. His problem is that he’s not to bright and hasn’t internalized the fact that the days when you could get away with crazy talk in your neck of the woods are over.

    BTW, he’s not running for the presidency. He’s running to garner his PAC’s coffers.

  19. Steve says:

    ‘If he can’t manage a newsletter,how is he going to manage the country?’ ‘His’ whole philosophy is that the people manage their own affairs (actually he would just echo the constitution in that regard).You are the boss(es).The government is just there to prevent coercion by providing defense,police and law courts.

  20. OzarkHillbilly says:

    @Ron Hinson:

    And the newsletters are important again because????

    They are important because a full third of the Republican party are at least considering voting for him because either

    a) they really are not troubled by a man with a serious racist past, or
    b) they feel they have no other good choices.

    Either way, it says a lot that the GOP has sunk that far into the swamp, and it says even more about GOP voters who continue to hang onto that fast sinking ship.

  21. Jim Henley says:

    I just read on Twitter that Paul now says the newsletters were written by your mom.

  22. DRS says:

    If Hinson and Davidson are examples of the kind of support RP is attracting, then I almost feel sorry for RP because they are doing his campaign no help at all.

  23. john personna says:

    @Ron Hinson:

    Please contact the real Ron Hinson. I suspect he may not endorse this ghostwriting.

  24. Neil Hudelson says:

    @Stormy Dragon:

    I think most people who vote for Ron Paul–and by most I mean 99.9999%–will vote for Paul because of the very reasons that misogynist f*ckhole Ron Hinson listed. And I actually understand why many would overlook Paul’s letters and vote for him anyway.

    The problem I have is that most Ron Paul supporters are essentially saying “I don’t like that this paints my candidate in a bad light, so no one should talk about it ever.”

    By all means, vote for whom you want. Policy-wise, I get it. Just stop with the “Move along, nothing to see here attitude.”

    (Note: I don’t know if you’ve had that attitude–just most Paul supporters).

  25. ernieyeball says:

    1995 Ron Paul: “I had been…interested in monetary policy,..on the banking committee, and…interested in,..that subject, that this newsletter dealt with it.”
    I am searching for the “political type of business investment newsletter that sort of covered all these areas.”
    I would like to know what they say about “the value of the dollar, the pros and cons of the gold standard,..”
    I would like to compare Ron Paul’s Ghostwriter’s Newsletters on these matters to the Real Ron Paul’s Campaign positions. Are they the same?
    If they are the same I think he has a problem for as the Real Ron Paul has said about Ron Paul’s Ghostwriter’s Newsletters: “I disavow them.”

  26. MM says:

    @Stormy Dragon: You have no option but Ron Paul? You have no ability to write in a candidate? Or undervote? Or vote 3rd party? Or not vote?