Ron Paul: Racist
Filed under: 2008 elections, Ron Paul — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on January 8, 2008 @ 10:57 pm CET
The article at The New Republic I referred to earlier today is up. The good news? It leaves little room for doubt. The bad news for Ron Paul and his supporters? It leaves little room for doubt.
The author, James Kirchick, explains:
Paul’s newsletters have carried different titles over the years–Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report–but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Army surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.
The Freedom Report’s online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul’s newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles “Lefty” Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that “opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions,” that “if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,” and that black representative Barbara Jordan is “the archetypical half-educated victimologist” whose “race and sex protect her from criticism.” At the time, Paul’s campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul’s explanation believable, “since the style diverges widely from his own.”
And then:
The people surrounding the von Mises Institute–including Paul–may describe themselves as libertarians, but they are nothing like the urbane libertarians who staff the Cato Institute or the libertines at Reason magazine. Instead, they represent a strain of right-wing libertarianism that views the Civil War as a catastrophic turning point in American history–the moment when a tyrannical federal government established its supremacy over the states. As one prominent Washington libertarian told me, “There are too many libertarians in this country … who, because they are attracted to the great books of Mises, … find their way to the Mises Institute and then are told that a defense of the Confederacy is part of libertarian thought.”
So, what kind of damning things did Ron Paul - or someone else under his name - write?
1. A pamphlet of 1992, the year that LA was subjected to riots: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. It went on to say that the looting was a natural result of “civil rights,’ quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda.”
2. In his Investment Letter, published in December 1989, Paul - or someone under his name - wrote that “racial violence will fill our cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’”
3. Two months later in a pamphlet called “The Coming Race War”: “If you live in a major city, and can leave, do so. If not, but you can have a rural retreat, for investment and refuge, buy it.”
4. October 1992: “I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming.”
5. “South Africa’s transition to multiracial democracy was portrayed as a ‘destruction of civilization’ that was ‘the most tragic [to] ever occur on that continent, at least below the Sahara’; and, in March 1994, a month before Nelson Mandela was elected president, one item warned of an impending ‘South African Holocaust’.”
6. “In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the ‘X-Rated Martin Luther King’ as a ‘world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,’ ’seduced underage girls and boys,’ and ‘made a pass at’ fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that ‘Welfaria,’ ‘Zooville,’ ‘Rapetown,’ ‘Dirtburg,’ and ‘Lazyopolis’ were better alternatives.”
7. Another newsletter celebrated David Duke’s 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary.
And there’s more. Much more. Read it all at TNR. As far as I’m concerned this is all the information one needs to brand Paul a racist. If he didn’t write it all himself, there’s simply no way that he didn’t know what was written. If, as his campaign argues, he didn’t know, he’s more stupid than any one else who ever run for office and that says a whole lot. Having said that, I don’t buy the defense at all.
I agree with Michael Goldfarb who writes: “there is no plausible explanation that might insulate Paul from the fallout. Kirchick and others attacked Paul a few months back over his failure to return a $500 check from a prominent white supremacist. At the time, Paul had explained that he couldn’t possibly screen ever donor. Of course he couldn’t, but the media had screened this one for him, and he refused to give back the money anyway. Now we know why. He’s been speaking in code to the dregs of American society this whole time. And he had no intention of alienating his base of support.”
Even the people at Reason Magazine seem to put some distance between themselves and Paul now, probably realizing that he really has no defense. Justin Gardner, who also thought highly of Paul, agrees: “how could Paul let all of this go on for so long under his name? The ‘I disowned it long ago’ argument smells to high heaven because since nobody is around to say who wrote what, he can pick through all the bad stuff and say he didn’t write it.”
Shorter: byebye Ron Paul.
1 The Truth
January 8, 2008 @ 11:14 pm CETJamie Kirchick (author of the New Republic story):
"I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist."
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
2 Willem de Wit
January 8, 2008 @ 11:16 pm CETDoes the style of writing in these newsletters match the style of writing of Paul’s published articles?
3 Matt
January 8, 2008 @ 11:16 pm CETThis is OLD and nasty that you’ve reposted this propaganda. It’s been debunked for YEARS. Please learn journalistic integrity- please.
Please Read:
- http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/08/ron-paul-race-smear-erased/
- http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-paul-respon.html
AND, seriously, I don’t think he’s a crazy old racist, I think he’s a peaceful genius. It really, really, really, really sucks that this could be what damages his image.
4 smear campaign
January 8, 2008 @ 11:17 pm CETRon Paul didn’t write it. its a newsletter, i think lil orphan annie had a newsletter too, doesn’t mean she wrote. anyone that has heard ron paul would know he isn’t racist, this is a silly attempt to smear a good man, you should be ashamed of yourself.
5 Justin
January 8, 2008 @ 11:18 pm CETDo some research… pretty petty for a news org to do this crap. Dr. Paul never said this crap and that was proven over a decade ago… way to try and swiftboat someone… atleast get some credible sources.
6 JD
January 8, 2008 @ 11:19 pm CETIn the "article", Kirchick claims that Dr. Paul was an Army surgeon.
Dr. Paul was in the Air Force.
If he can’t get a simple empirical fact right, I’d have my doubts about the rest of his "journalistic" abilities.
7 asdf
January 8, 2008 @ 11:21 pm CETSorry, I don’t fall for propaganda anymore. Perhaps you’d be interested in applying this level of rigorous analysis to *any* other candidate?
Will you analyze the connections of other candidates with the CFR and their plans to create the North American Union?
I didn’t think so.
8 Willem de Wit
January 8, 2008 @ 11:21 pm CETAnd, yes, of course Paul should’ve made sure to control what was being published in his name. There’s simply no excuse for that.
Did racist comments like the ones described above appear in Paul’s newsletters AFTER it had been pointed out to him in 1996 that racist comments had appeared in some of his newsletters?
9 Brad
January 8, 2008 @ 11:21 pm CETOnly The Mentally Minuscule Take Words Out Of Context To Bend Them To Their Preconceived Paradigm.
If you refuse to look at the actions of a man for temperance of judgment then you truly castrate you mind and make it easy to arrive at wrong conclusion.
The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion.
Racism is not consistent with the philosophy expressed by Ron Paul. He has rebutted these accusations from the same distortions in previous days.
Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would trust with my money and my family’s safety.
I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!
10 Thomas
January 8, 2008 @ 11:22 pm CETA statement at ronpaul2008.com clears this up. Let’s get to the issues.
11 anti-smear
January 8, 2008 @ 11:23 pm CETMan!!We’re definitely out of the “ignore” and “ridicule” stage…. …it’s pure “attack” mode now baby!! Brace yourselves, (Mr Smith has gone to Washington!!)
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/ron-paul-respon.html
I can’t get over how old this stuff is, it’s been dubunked again and again, but the timing of this latest smear & distraction hit piece is the giveaway
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul#1996_campaign_controversy
Keep on digging!!
12 Oliver Stiffins
January 8, 2008 @ 11:23 pm CETadmin: name-calling and bigotry = ban
13 Seth
January 8, 2008 @ 11:26 pm CETARLINGTON, Va.–(Business Wire)–In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul
issued the following statement:
"The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do
not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never
uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.
"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that
we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character,
not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and
high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of
individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the
day of the New Hampshire primary.
"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name."
Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115
Copyright Business Wire 2008
14 Andrew Taylor
January 8, 2008 @ 11:26 pm CETMichael,
I’m disappointed. You’ve been very fair to Paul in the past, but jumping on the "racist" bandwagon this quickly is a bit much. Yes, yes, Kirchick posts PDFs to newsletters that were published with Paul’s name on them…But Paul denies that he wrote those words, he denounces the thoughts that are represented by those words, and there’s absolutely nothing else in his many years of public service to suggest that he agrees with any of this admittedly toxic stuff.
I agree that the only charitable response one can have to Paul’s explanation is that he was completely, totally, and utterly incompetent regarding the publication of that newsletter which bore his name. I further agree that such incompetence demonstrates that he has no business being elected president of the United States. But, as I noted in another thread, stupidity is not the same as anti-Semitism and racism.
Paul isn’t a racist. He’s a very flawed human being who made some big mistakes back in the 1980’s and 1990’s in allowing people to put words in his mouth and not doing even a minimal job of supervising them. His presidential campaign is going nowhere, and his congressional campaign will likely fail. Those who wish to see Paul removed from the national discourse will get their wish soon enough. No need to tar the man with a false accusation on his way out.
15 Mike
January 8, 2008 @ 11:27 pm CETLots of congressmen and senators sent out newsletters in the 90s, do you really believe that any of them proof read their own ghost-written newsletters? Or do we just expect hard-working doctors who are delivering babies to find the time to edit?
16 Monty
January 8, 2008 @ 11:28 pm CEThttp://www.ronpaul2008.com/press-releases/125/ron-paul-statement-on-the-new-republic-article-regarding-old-newsletters
January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement: “The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. “In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’ “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
17 Thinker
January 8, 2008 @ 11:29 pm CETWarning! A President Ron Paul would be a huge threat to rich white men everywhere. If you are a rich white guy who supports the military, medical, and wall street industrial complex don’t vote for Ron Paul.
18 Jay Chawla
January 8, 2008 @ 11:30 pm CETRon Paul is a great American intellectual whose decades of Congressional service and open, public writings attest to his integrity and his consistent belief that everyone has the right to be judged on his or her own merit. Ron Paul has integrity and he cares. Ron Paul is also not the most sophisticated political operator, back room dealer, or public speaker, especially when dealing in the scum-encrusted world of politics. To hold Dr. Paul responsible for the views of others with whom he has associated is asinine. If someone with unsavory views believes that Paul, among the major Presidential candidates, has the most amenable positions, that person might contribute to Dr. Paul. Money is a form of free speech and bigoted losers and wackos too deserve the chance to speak freely. Let’s not forget that a sizable and politically powerful subset of America’s corrections, forensic, and law enforcement community is not only blatantly racist, they are eugenic advocates of mass drugging and forcible therapy on the (mostly African American male) people who fall under their power. Ron Paul clearly supports the civil rights of all Americans, and he is the best protection America has against subtle racial eugenics measures masquerading as ‘public health,’ along with all other racist and eugenic threats to freedom in America.
19 PatHMV
January 8, 2008 @ 11:31 pm CETI love how the Paulistas think that if they say "it’s been debunked" often enough, then it is. It’s not.
He’s running for a whole different office, this time, folks. He’s got a whole new batch of voters who are legitimately entitled to ask questions about why such vile garbage was published UNDER HIS NAME, whether he wrote it or not.
How much money did he get, letting his name continue to be used (according to his story) to publish this bigotry while he "practiced medicine full time"? How did he not know the bigotry of the people he allowed to use his name?
At the very best for Paul, this indicates a severe lapse in judgment, putting a great deal of trust in untrustworthy, bigoted people. As President, would he allow aides to speak for him without paying attention to what he said? Would he allow major foreign policy statements to be released in his name without looking at them?
This isn’t one issue that got published while he was on vacation. This went on for a long time. He was happy to cash the checks for the subscriptions, but he didn’t bother to actually read the product?
By the way, Paulites, please settle on a single defense to this charge. If it’s "not true" (because he didn’t write it and had no idea what was being said in his name), then don’t bother saying that his racist complaints are true, that he’s just saying what "most white people think anyway."
20 Eric
January 8, 2008 @ 11:34 pm CETDave Weigel at Reason has an interview with Paul from a couple of hours ago on the TNR hit piece:
21 Replikov
January 8, 2008 @ 11:34 pm CETTNR has a long and checkered history of pro-fascism, pro-communism, and pro-new dealism. Founded to promote the rotten progessive movement of militarism, central banking, income taxation, centralization, and regulation of business, it naturally hates and fears the Ron Paul Revolution. The mag is also famous for having published a slew of entirely made-up articles by Stephen Glass, which it passed off as non-fiction. Through the 1950s it was an important magazine, of sigificant if baleful influence, but it long ago declined in circulation and significance, like all DC deadtree ops. Long close to Beltway libertarians, for whom its politically correct left-neoconism is fine and dandy, TNR once published a cover story literally comparing Ross Perot to Adolf Hitler when he was running for president. That is the publication’s style–hysterical smears aimed at political enemies.
22 Jordan Selvidge
January 8, 2008 @ 11:40 pm CETRon Paul is a civil rights hero just like Martin Luther King. Smearing Ron Paul for racism is like smearing Martin Luther King for racism against whites. My two heroes have always been Ron Paul and Martin Luther King. I see them as fighting for the same things. Ron Paul said he is against the FBI because they spied on MLK. Ron Paul tried to get members of congress to buy Rosa Parks a medal with their own money. He wanted to pay for it himself. I agree with the earlier comment, the establishment is definitely in the attack mode. We will win this if we stay together and fight against the propaganda. Go Ron Paul!
23 James
January 8, 2008 @ 11:45 pm CETDidn’t we already go through this with NYT’s a couple of weeks ago? And didn’t they retract it?
24 PatHMV
January 8, 2008 @ 11:45 pm CETAndrew, you’re the only Ron Paul supporter I’ve seen who comes close to being sane and reasonable, so let me address this to you. Can’t you see that Paul’s simple statement doesn’t even begin to address the issue? Just because Bill Clinton denied having sex with Monica Lewinsky did not end the issue. Just because Hillary says there was nothing special about her $100,000 cattle futures deal doesn’t mean there really was nothing special about it.
As I noted in my last post, even taking Paul at his word today, with his stirring remarks about Rosa Parks, he needs to explain in much more detail how he came to let such garbage be published in his name. A President can’t afford to be so cavalier about what people say in his name, and he owes us a greater explanation for what happened so we can know whether this was just an isolated lapse in judgment or not.
There are many questions not answered by his statement. How did he pick the person who handled the newsletter? Had he ever talked with that person about racial issues? How did he not know that the person to whom he handed control of the newsletter harbored such racist attitudes? How much money did he get as a result of the subscriptions to the newsletter during the period it was spreading racist trash like this? Did anybody bring it to his attention? Didn’t he have any close friends or business associates on the subscription list to warn him of what was being said in his name?
Everybody I know in politics has a pretty good circle of close friends and advisors who keep their ear to the ground even when the person is not in public office. I find it hard to imagine that he didn’t have a single fellow doctor, banker, lawyer, or just a friend or neighbor on the subscription list who would have given him a heads-up about the trash being published in his name.
If he wants to be a serious candidate, he’s got to play by the big boy rules of scandals, and that means answering ALL the questions, not just making a blanket denial.
25 bgodley
January 8, 2008 @ 11:54 pm CETThis is a recent quote from an email sent by Jamie Kirchick (the guy who wrote the aricle) to a Ron Paul supporter. Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, “Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! “
All those statements are proven to not be Paul’s. He is as much a bigot as Bush is a peace lover.
26 James O
January 8, 2008 @ 11:56 pm CETadmin: personal attacks on the author of the post = ban
27 Artus Register
January 8, 2008 @ 11:57 pm CETadmin: personal attacks on the author of the post = ban
28 Chuck Moe
January 9, 2008 @ 12:13 am CETadmin: personal attacks on the author of the post = ban
29 Jason Steck
January 9, 2008 @ 12:17 am CETUnfortunately, due to a deluge of name-calling, abuse, and even several outright threats from Ron Paul supporters, this comment thread has had to be closed.
30 Shane
January 28, 2008 @ 8:31 am CETShane…
…Generally medical professionals need to attend various patients, attend meetings and seminars, so it becomes difficult to attend every call……
31 site
January 30, 2008 @ 11:13 pm CETgreatings…
super!…