17 comments

• 

  Mike

  1 year ago

  Many people have said things in the name of God that are absolutely racist. Do you fault God for it. Paul was too busy delivering babies to proof read this stuff when it was published.I'm sure he's delivered babies of all races, colors and creeds. There you got a comment on one of your blogs....happy now?
  reply
• 

  Steve R

  1 year ago

  The statements are obviously not Ron Paul's. Apart from his statements asserting that fact, in terms of style and tone they are unlike what he says or writes, or said or wrote, both before that time, during that time and after that time. Even the most superficial analysis establishes that clearly.
  
  What's more, he repudiated them very publicly and long ago in major publications in Texas.
  
  Finally, they are a dead issue as far as political challengers for his Congressional seat over the years are concerned. If anyone would have reason to make them visible if they were authentic and credible, those individuals would. They have not. Why?
  
  I, too, am troubled that he didn't more closely track things going out with his name attached, something for which he apologized. I recently wrote a foreword for a book that was mangled through being edited by the author as well as the editors, and it troubles me deeply that anyone ever might think I stand by their version. Next time I will insist on control beginning to end or I will decline. Then again I haven't before had something published as an adjunct to someone else's book, whereas goodness knows the hundreds of thousands of words Paul has spoken and written and had prepared on his behalf by Congressional and other staffers over the years.
  
  Withdraw your support if you wish, but do so for substantive reasons rather than uncritically accepting (and moreover then propagating) a palpable smear.
  
  John McCain once said of Ron Paul that Paul was the most honest man in Congress. You do a man of sterling character a grave injustice.
  
  We all make mistakes from time to time and, regrettably, it is you have made one here and now.
  reply
• 

  Tim Lee

  1 year ago

  Steve: I don't think it matters if Paul wrote the words or not. He's responsible for the content that goes out under his name, and there are too many examples here for this have been an isolated oversight.
  
  Moreover, Paul's response has been less than satisfactory. Who wrote the articles? How long did he work for Paul? When did Paul learn what he was writing? Was he fired for it? A man who was sincerely offended by the writings that went out under his name would provide these sorts of details.
  
  I have little doubt that Paul is a man of integrity who believes what he says and keeps his word. But people can have integrity and still have odious views. Paul's actions indicate that, at the very least, he doesn't especially object to racist opinions being sent out under his name. That's enough to disqualify him for my active support, regardless of his considerable virtues as a candidate in other respects.
  reply
• 

  Steve R.

  1 year ago

  Looks like there is a second Steve R. out in the internet cloud. I guess I will have to sue for trademark infringement. Anyway, just want to clarify that that is NOT my post.
  
  Since I am writing, I was looking forward to seeing various posts on the position of various candidates concerning issues dear to TLF such as copyright, patents, network neutrality, etc. to guide TLF readers in making an informed decision at election time. I hope that we will be able to see some of the contributers weigh in on the candidates approaches to technological freedom!
  
  PS: Would it be possible to have have a spokesperson for each of the candidates to provide a position statement on TLF related topics? Just a thought.
  reply
• 

  Jeff

  1 year ago

  Tim,
  
  To answer your questions,
  
  "Who wrote the articles?"
  
  You yourself said it doesn't matter whether Paul wrote them or not, so why does it matter who actually penned the words?
  
  "How long did he work for Paul?"
  
  Again, why is this relevant? If the author worked for the newsletter for the 5 year period you mentioned, or only for one day, would it matter to you? You'd fault Paul for oversight either way, right?
  
  "When did Paul learn what he was writing?"
  
  Again, I don't see how this matters. He either learned about it after reading one of the articles himself or he was told about it.
  
  "Was he fired for it?"
  
  If you'd read Paul's press release regarding this useless issue, you'd see that he did in fact take responsible action and fire those responsibile.
  
  I liken this situation as follows:
  
  Let’s say you left your credit card in the department store and someone took it. You didn't realize it was missing for some time. By that time, however, your account was maxed out. Identity theft – just like what happened to Paul. Now, fast forward 25 years. I confront you and STILL redicule and blame you for losing your credit card...way back when. You understand it was your fault for not being careful enough with your identity, but wouldn’t you think that it was time for others to let the incident go? It was an honest mistake, and when you found out about it you made sure it wouldn’t happen again and you made sure those involved in the theft were dealt with.
  
  Just like Paul. When he found out about such letters, he fired those responsible. He took responsibility.
  
  I just don't understand what more the man ought to do.
  reply
• 

  bob D

  1 year ago

  Tim:
  
  I'm searching the web trying to find a link where you said something good about Ron Paul so that your story of an 11th hour awakening is credible.
  
  Funny that you didn't supply them. Nevermind that anyone who truly listens to Ron Paul (himself) can recognize the genuine article when they see it.
  
  But why bother? There's a lot of gullible people out here. I saw a statistic the other day that the majority of antiwar Republicans voted for John McCain in New Hampshire.
  
  But thats OK Tim keep up the smear tactics. We're all following you closely.
  reply
• 

  Tim Lee

  1 year ago

  Bob, see, for example, here, , here, here, here, and here. Is that enough examples?
  reply
• 

  blakmira

  1 year ago

  Yes, I too have seen the light -- but not about Dr. Paul; about Huckabee, Romney, McCain, Hillary, Guiliani, Thompson, Obama....the list goes on and on. Oh, the skeletons in the closet! The hypocrisy, the lies, the dirt!
  
  How do you stand it? How will you be able to vote for any one candidate with all this dirt so easily dug up on each and every one of these candidates.... except for Ron Paul? Is that the best you could come up with? A beautiful man who's never been caught in a lie or a hypocrisy and dreams of civil liberties for all?
  
  You'll never be able to stop us from loving him. It's obvious you never were a true supporter. Quit spreading your racist insinuations that have already been proved as lies about the good Dr. Paul!
  reply
• 

  George Dance

  1 year ago

  It's your support, so withdraw it if you like; but Paul's "implausible" story is consistent with the facts that
  
  (1) no one's caught him saying anything like this, anywhere, at any time in his 30-year political career;
  
  (2) some of the the opinions (for example, the opposition to MLK Day in two of the articles) are clearly inconsistent with Paul's statements and voting record;
  
  (3) independent sources have confirmed the story; eg, this investigation of the same story by FreeMarketNews last spring:
  
  
  Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?
  Thursday, January 10, 2008 - FreeMarketNews.com
  
  Initial post 5.22.07
  
  Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.
  
  These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.
  
  The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices.[...]
  
  This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.[...]
  
  Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”
  
  Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.
  
  An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:
  
  http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron%20Paul
  
  The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.”[...]
  
  Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”
  
  
  read the complete story at:
  http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid...
  reply
• 

  Healthport

  1 year ago

  I have known the Pauls for many years. I have been a guest in their home. I can assure you Ron Paul is no racist.
  reply
• 

  Richard Bennett

  1 year ago

  OK, let's stipulate that Ron Paul is not now nor has he ever been a racist. The fact remains that a newsletter bearing his name contained racist rants for years, and he did nothing about it. Now this could have happened because Paul was too busy fulminating about the evils of paper currency, Darwinism, or abortion to notice and doesn't mean there's a racist bone in Paul's body. He has a hands-off management style.
  
  What kind of presidency would Paul run, if he can't even police a damn newsletter?
  
  Jimmy Carter was an honest man, but his presidency was marred by corruption because he was too busy wearing sweaters and telling people to turn their thermostats down to pay attention to what his appointees were doing.
  reply
• 

  FZappa

  1 year ago

  Tim,
  
  Ron Paul would scale back drastically the War on Drugs, which has devastated disproportionately black communities by locking up nonviolent drug offenders. Will Hillary, McCain, Romney, etc. do that? No.
  
  Ron Paul will stop killing hundreds of thousands of far-off brown people in the name of mercantilist foreign policy. Romney, Huckabee, Hillary, McCain, etc. will keep killing as many brownies as their neocon advisers -- who are not racist, of course! -- tell them to.
  
  And so on. Getting the picture?
  reply
• 

  Karen

  1 year ago

  I'm surprised to hear that you've really researched Ron Paul, yet still believe he could be racist. I've read many articles and seen interviews by minorities that worked for him and befriended him for the past 3 decades... they have spoken out against this accusation. The people working with him each day should know, and they say he's a man of character and integrity. He has worked efficiently with people of every race and color, as well as gays, heterosexuals, Christians, and atheists. His lifelong mission is to uphold the Constitution... plan and simple. A huge part of that is allowing each individual the freedom to live their life as they choose, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No racist philosophy there. Do a little more homework.
  reply
• 

  Frank McDonald

  1 year ago

  Ok, I will vote for a pro-war and pro-North American Union candidate that wants to destroy my retirement savings by devaluing the currency through reckless govt spending.
  
  Ok, makes sense to me! Gotta keep killing innocent civilians in foreign countries to protect my right to be a consumer and destroy the planet, right?
  reply
• 

  SteveLee

  1 year ago

  As we continue to watch and listen to the debates, something has occurred to me. I call it The Paul effect.
  
  Ron Paul almost melted down last night in the debates at the though of war with Iran. He basically went off the deep end on the comments of the other candidates of the "speed boat vs U.S. Navy battleships". But I have to wonder. Where does his support come from? It's obvious that his supporters are anti-war. Hey, that's alright with me, we're all Americans and entitled to our opinions. But he also has support from Libertarians. And they are rather socially liberal while fiscally responsible. So lets have a hypothetical. If Ron Paul were not in the race, who would his supporters support? McCain? Obviously not. Huckabee? Another no. Fred Fred?? Nope......Ron Paul is pulling a FEW votes from the socially liberal Rudy and Mitt. Don't give me this BS about Mitt being a conservative either, because he isn't!! So the Ron Paul effect is helping Mike Huckabee. As long as Paul pulls 5-8% of the votes from Rudy and Mitt. Huck comes out the winner.
  I never thought that I would be saying this. Go Ron Paul!!!! Get that 8% liberal Republican vote.
  reply
• 

  Uriah

  1 year ago

  There have been a number of Ron Paul candidates in the past but all of them have failed because most conservatives have excepted a streem line platform that is generally uncontested from convention to convention. Most people are growing tierd of the same old philosiphy of Regan politics that shrink the ideological spectrum down to a single candidate no matter what party you support.
  
  So it's not a matter of who they would support if Paul wern't in, it's an enlightenment that a change is necessary to combat a stale and aineffective platform that is a danger to democracy.
  
  I am reminded of the days when there were two very diffrent and radical views within the republican party (Stalwarts/Progressives) and they use to duke it out to see who would get their candidates nominated. We have since, supressed the different views within the party for sake of unity, but all we have done is cut off an arm.
  
  My plee to you Steve, is to start thinking for yourself, study the history of how things were and you might find yourself in a position of critical thinking without the influences of propogandists who have a strong agenda and a pulpit bigger than yours (but not any more potent)!!!
  reply
• 

  Richard

  1 year ago

  Tim,
  
  This is a good example of how effective the media manipulators are in playing up emotions to divert attention away from the real important issues where Ron Paul beats the other candidates hands down. The fact is that so many people make decisions not based on reason but on emotional whim. Your article is simply a concrete example of this. What is your reasoned opposition to Ron Paul's platform of "no nation building", national sovereignty, promotion of individual liberty and enforcement of the Constitution?
  reply