Ron Paul: He’s Not Racist, But…

Interesting discussion in the comments. Ben Adler offers the useful Three Myths About Ron Paul at The Nation here. - promoted by Bob_Neer

If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters…

Eric Dondero, former Ron Paul aide

Ron Paul was, is, and always will be out there. I can’t remember who called him the GOP’s crazy uncle, but that pretty much sums it up. The Republican Party has never known exactly what to do with him. (Remember RMG banning discussion of Ron Paul discussion during one election season)? His libertarianism, I think, has thrown off the mainstream media, which has largely given him a free pass. He’s too different from the rest of the party to fit the he said/she said mold of our truth-averse 4th Estate and so has only ever received also-ran treatment.

Until now.

Recently, Paul’s conspiracy-laden, racist newsletters from the 80s and 90s came to widespread attention. Newsletters, Jonathan Chait notes, were the blogs of the pre-internet era. I remember working with my right-wing great uncle in the declining years of my family’s shoe store; I was frequently dosed with old copies of Reed Irvine’s Accuracy in Media and newsletters from Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum. Newsletters allowed the Far Right to stay in touch and, because they came with a subscription, to make money.

The racist content in Ron Paul’s newsletters–which are mainly written in the first-person without a byline–has earned the support of some white supremacistsJames Kirchick has documented some of the bile. His first excerpt (about the LA Riots after the beating of Rodney King) is disgusting, but hardly unheard of from conservatives that swing racist:

“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,” read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with “‘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.” It also denounced “the media” for believing that “America’s number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks.”

This excerpt, however, is right out of Charles Manson and The Turner Diaries:

“What To Expect for the 1990s,” predicted that “Racial Violence Will Fill Our Cities” because “mostly black welfare recipients will feel justified in stealing from mostly white ‘haves.’” Two months later, a newsletter warned of “The Coming Race War,” and, in November 1990, an item advised readers, “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.” In June 1991, an entry on racial disturbances in Washington, DC’s Adams Morgan neighborhood was titled, “Animals Take Over the D.C. Zoo.” “This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s,” the newsletter predicted.

Paul has disavowed these newsletters (though he was taking credit for them in 1995). A former aide to Paul has issued a statement in defense of his former boss. With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Paul, it seems, has no problem with Hispanic culture, just the Spanish language:

[Paul] is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)

He also has no problem with Jews:

American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign.

And that campaign tactic for which the aide evidently dressed up in stereotypical Jewish garb? Yes, it happened. But that was

to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments.

And Paul yelling at Jewish Young Republicans? That was all about Israel.

There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.

And gay men? No problem.

[Paul] told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim [an openly gay man helping with Paul's campaign], he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”

Just don’t ask to use his bathroom. Or shake his hand:

“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.

Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally.

The current slate of Republicans may not be the worst ever, but it’s got to be close. That’s good news for Obama in 2012, but it’s bad news for America. At a time when we need the best and the brightest of both parties, we’ve got a convictionless incumbent and a group of wingnuts with the passionate intensity of the insane.


45 Comments . Leave a comment below.
  1. Don't understand some of what Dondero is saying.

    He’s complaining that Ron Paul believed the Bush admin would use 9/11 to push for invading Iraq. Am I completely mistaken or isn’t that exactly what happened? Apart from pushing the WMD angle the Bush admin was also pushing some tenuous links between AQ and Saddam.

    I heard Jamie Kirchick on the radio today and he was also going off about Ron Paul’s fringe foreign policy and using an example how Ron Paul believes that “the Iraq War was a mistake.” If that wasn’t a mistake then what the hell was it?

    • Well beyond that - he is saying that Bush knew and let it happen

      - or at least that is what some said of him. (Yet, there are no direct quotes saying this that I have seen.)

  2. Ron Paul, as you noted, has disavowed the content of the newsletters.

    What’s more important, that he didn’t read these newsletters and he should have, or that he reads the legislation that he votes on? People here at BMG were miffed recently at the legislation that allows for the indefinite detention of American citizens. I’m sure many Congress critters voted on it without reading it. One guy who did read it was Ron Paul. He spoke out against in Congress and in the debates. And he voted against it. It would be good for everyone to put the newsletter issue into perspective relative to more important matters.

    And look at the people dredging this up. Jonathan Chait, cheerleader for the Iraq War. David Frum, cheerleader for the Iraq War. Jamie Kirchick, cheerleader for the Iraq War. See a pattern? Serious question, what does it take to discredit this crew? The consequences of the newsletters as far as I can tell were nil. The consequences of the Iraq War were adverse to the extreme. I’d be hard pressed to think of anything good minus deposing Saddam (which for all we know would have happened anyways in the Arab Spring).

    When do the media, the aforementioned guys included, let us know what the GOP candidates thought about going into Iraq? Did they think it was a good idea? That it would be a cakewalk? That it would pay for itself? Any candidate that answers yes to any of those questions is much more deserving of being disqualified from the Presidency.

    Also keep in mind, everyone else in the GOP race has flamed out. This is a race between Paul and Romney (a man who couldn’t find the time to attend the “African American” debate in2007).

  3. My suspicion is that

    Ron Paul was well aware of what was going into his newsletters, even though he may not have written them. He was taking credit for the newsletters in ’95 (though not the racist stuff). Given “supportive” testimony from his aide, the guy seems racist and homophobic to me.

    I dislike TNR quite a bit. And I have little patience for its former Iraq War cheerleaders, but these guys did the leg work and dug up the primary sources. I don’t really care about their stance on the Iraq War. I don’t care about Paul’s position on the Iraq War. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

    Ron Paul is dangerous inasmuch as he is a candidate for President. His racism is ugly, but his economics are pathologically dangerous. It’s time he stopped getting a free ride.

    • In line with many Republicans

      A lot of Republicans (and probably a fair number of Democrats) harbor very similar views – they just don’t say them out loud.

      Case in point: the Easthampton City Councilor, who, when faced with a locked door, said “where’s a Puerto Rican when you need one”. At a City Council meeting, no less.

      Second case in point: the hundreds of people posting on Masslive defending him and calling the head of the NAACP – described as a “violent racist organization” – “racist” for “playing the race card”.

      Look at some of the comments – keeping in mind that those worse than these were deleted:

      Yes, thank you Mr., Rev., ( whatever you are ) Swan man for standing up for a race of people that cant speak ( or wont learn ) English.

      Show me one (just one!) thing racist about a person who advocates having a NAACP without allowing a NAAWP, or a Miss Black America contest without allowing a Miss White America contest, or a black magazine called Ebony and no similar white dedicated magazine, or a Black Congressional Caucus without allowing a White Congressional caucus or, I know, an Affirmative Action or “Quota” program exclusively for blacks and no similar program for whites, or lowering test requirements for blacks just because they arei black. Don’t be absurd there is nothing racist about Swan and his followers!!!

      I have to agree with some of the previous posts. If white people started the National Association for the advancement of White people NAAWP, or the United White College Fund (vs. United Negro College Fund) the NAACP would be all over that and the white’s would be labeled racist. I also read the police logs and 90% of the names are Peurto Ricas names. Now look back to the May 31st MassLive article that Springfield is the 12th most dangerous city in America. These are facts, not racism. Maybe it’s a wake up call to the NAACP and to the upstanding Puerto Ricans that they need to do more to encourage these races to HELP their cities. He states that “a fact that Puerto Ricans have contributed to the development, defense and prosperity of the United States since 1898″. The facts are stating that the majority are contributing to the demise of Springfield. I think the only problem with his statement is he was generalizing, and we need to define a different name for upstanding Puerto Rican citizens and the low life scumbags who are Puerto Rican.

      The whole meme of the “endangered white male” and the “lazy colored people”, and the “criminal minorities” is very prevalent in this country – just not in public unless the people are allowed to be anonymous.

      • Masslive Forums are

        a haven for a certain type of conservative: the kind that is afraid to put their names on their beliefs, but not afraid to not self-censor. These people are out there listening to Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

        As local boss of the NAACP, Talbert Swan has every right to call out the old Easthampton man who made the racist remark, but calling for his resignation is a bit over the top. He will face re-election again and voters can decide whether his apology was enough.

        • Not just Masslive

          Masslive is one outlet, but this kind of stuff is absolutely everywhere. Here’s a quote from a story about possible Sears closings:

          I WANT to like them more than Walmart, but the sad truth is that none of the Kmarts or Sears’s locally look like they’ve been updated since the early 1980s. Which is kind of sad, because I remember liking the Sears in Springfield 15-20 years ago, before the store (and area in general) were completely overrun with third world refuse.

          Here’s a comment from a story about a fire in Springfield that left 13 people homeless:

          I know, they call it pr renovation in holyoke, ( move in, burn the place down ,then get all new stuff, and a raise in welfare monies).

          Ron Paul just verbalized what a lot of people apparently still think today.

          • This is the conversation we should be having

            Ron Paul reflects the racism and bigotry pervasive in our society. He and the GOP pander to and intentionally inflame it, in hopes of getting elected.

          • Yeah, you're right.

            I don’t look at comments anywhere else. But Krugman is always complaining about trolls on his blog and people occasionally comment here about’s crazy comments.

            I guess I know people who think like this, but I don’t talk to them enough to get a dose of it.

            • Private vs. Public

              Most people now know better than to talk like this in public. Get a couple of beers in them and it all comes out. Or when people think that they have your confidence, they grab your arm, pull you close, and speak this stuff in hushed tones.

              I personally think that the newspapers are tolerating some of it because it increases their traffic and thus profits. Just like Ron Paul profited from his newsletters.

  4. Ron Paul is a heterosupremecist

    His anti-gay record is quite clear, including:

    In 2004, Paul said on the House floor, “If I were in Congress in 1996, I would have voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, which used Congress’s constitutional authority to define what official state documents other states have to recognize under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to ensure that no state would be forced to recognize a ‘same sex’ marriage license issued in another state.” The same year, he co-sponsored the Marriage Protection Act, which would have removed judicial challenges to DOMA from federal courts’ jurisdiction. (The Marriage Protect Act passed the House, but not the Senate.)

    He often confuses people on his views regarding civil rights for gays because he speaks as if he’s a states’ rights advocate, then he contradicts that stance by supporting sweeping anti-gay federal legislation. While he did vote for the repeal of DADT, he opposed the federal hate crimes bill, the Lawrence v. Texas SCOTUS decision and anything allowing federal recognition of same-sex marriages. He’s clearly got a problem with the gays and clearly believes that heterosexuals are superior. No thanks.

    • Well said.

      I think his nastiness is obscured by his Libertarian veneer in the same way conservative justices hided behind an originalist interpretation of the Constitution.

    • This is the GOP we are talking about.

      Who isn’t a heterosupremecist?

      Compare Paul against Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, Newt, and Mitt.

      There is recent column at Slate that quotes some interesting things from Dan Savage.

      There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic than Santorum, and, as he isn’t beloved of religious conservatives, he isn’t out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies,” he explained. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he’s content to leave us the fuck alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be given the force of law. That’s an important difference.”

      And what about Paul? Well, “1990 was 21 years ago—an eternity in the evolution of attitudes toward gays and lesbians. What has he said about us lately?”

      • I think Dan's right about Santorum

        but when he says about Paul “he’s content to leave us the fuck alone and recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens”, well, that’s patently untrue as already illustrated elsewhere in the thread.

        • Wikipedia has a thorough description of Paul's positions.

          This I did not know:

          Paul elaborated his position in a 65-minute interview at Google, stating that he would not discharge openly gay troops if their behavior was not disruptive.[202]

          Ultimately, Paul voted in the affirmative for HR 5136, an amendment that leads to a full repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”, on May 27, 2010.[204] He subsequently voted for the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010 on December 18, 2010.

          • Ron Paul is no champion of the 14th Amendment.

            I’m glad he voted to repeal DADT, but Ron Paul is no champion of the 14th Amendment. He’d rather that everyone be free to discriminate. He essentially advocates for Jim Crow. I find that disgusting. He has no hope of getting my vote.

      • That's not fair

        Paul thinks businesses should be allowed to discriminate, remember his son (Ayn) Rand said the Civil Rights act was a mistake and Woolworth’s should have been allowed to have a whites only lunch counter. Ron never contradicted him, IIRC.

        Santorum thinks government support and obligations should only be for couples that might procreate children together, Ron Paul thinks there should be no government support to couples to combine to create new people.

  5. A lunatic among lunatics

    Ron Paul is a delusional, homophobic lunatic. He appears to be only slightly less insane than the rest of the GOP field, who are even more bizarre.

    Mitt Romney is, outwardly, the least pathological of the lot — which itself speaks volumes.

    The fact that any of these nut-cases has ANY support whatsoever (never mind anything approaching a majority) is symptomatic of our several larger cultural disorders.

  6. The honest extremist

    I have to disagree with somervilletom — I think Romney’s willingness to enthusiastically back anything for modest personal gain is more pathological than the Bachmann/Paul stance of sincerely believing in strange things.

    What fascinates me about Paul is he lends credence to questions about the others. Paul is to me what Romney, Gingrich, Perry, etc., would be if they could. Obviously there’s a miasma of racism about them all — I think Romney would say these things if not running for office. Paul and Gingrich worship at the altar of corporate supremacy; Paul openly admits he’ll watch Americans die for his beliefs, whereas Gingrich mumbles about history until the questioner gets bored.

    For anyone with discomfort about the Republican Party, Paul offers confirmation that yes, they really are that crazy at a time when everyone else is trying to pretend they aren’t.

    sabutai   @   Tue 27 Dec 10:56 AM
  7. Funniest scene in Bruno

    He didn’t see Borat, I guess. Bruno tries to seduce him in a private room before a fake interview, and Paul looks really uncomforatble, trying to ignore Bruno dancing and undressing. Then he finally runs out of the room and says “he tried to get queer!” or something like that.

    • I'm not a big fan of Baron-Cohen.

      I tried to watch Borat on the plane back from England, but I couldn’t get into it. I ended up watching Jackass II, which, aside from the graphic potty stuff, was funny as hell.

      Since Paul is a homophobe, I guess he’s a somewhat deserving target, but it’s a kind of unfair prank. Here’s a link (the audio sucks):

  8. The reason that Paul won't be able to overcome those old newsletters

    is because he seems to be offering no evidence in the form of, say, bills proposed or initiatives supported, to prove that he has ‘reformed’. All we have is his ‘repudiation’ of stuff he won’t even take full responsibility for but obviously should. It leaves the voter with the impression that he’s more deceptive than honest. I don’t think that’s gonna cut it with voters who care about bigotry.

    • You didn't visit the clips from the Tavis Smiley debate I posted yesterday.

      This was a debate held in 2007 that Romney, Guiliani, and McCain could not attend because of scheduling conflicts.

      • Impressive clips

        Those certainly don’t support claims that Paul is a racist. In fact, they speak well to the man.

        But that is not the entirety of the Congressman’s record, as painfully revealed in the rest of this thread.

    • That strikes me as an unfair standard

      The guy’s a libertarian. Of course he doesn’t support “initiatives;” he is opposed to initiatives because he doesn’t think the government should have any. He voted against a Constitutional marriage amendment. To repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. In both cases, bucking his party.

      So he didn’t like Borat yanking his pants down, neither would I and neither would you.

      The guy shouldn’t be President because he is an extremist libertarian, but his views on gay rights are a world better than any other candidate for the GOP nomination.

      In any event, Democrats should be rooting for the guy big time. A little success in the next few weeks and the nominee is going to have to give the guy space at the convention to call for repealing Social Security, or face a Tea Party third party candidacy in November.

      • He pursues an anti-choice initiative quite tennaceously.

        So I’m not sure why you think his calling himself a libertarian means he doesn’t participate in organized efforts. Of course he does.

        As for his vote on the constitutional amendment, have you read his reasoning? It isn’t because he thinks you shouldn’t discriminate against gays. It’s because he thinks you should discriminate against us at the state level, not the federal constitutional level. Although, as I said above, he’s contradicted that “conviction” by saying he *would* have discriminated against gays at the federal level if he’d been in Congress when DOMA was voted on.

        My conclusion is he’s consistent in his bigotry but inconsistent in how he feels it’s best to go about enacting it. Not a very strong selling point, is it?

        • Seems consistent to me

          He wants the decision to be a state decision, rather than making a federally-imposed constitutional mandate. Same with abortion. I don’t think the DOMA position differs: the quoted position relates to the portion of the statute that supposedly keeps SSM a state-by-state issue.

          At least with respect to SSM, that isn’t that far different from the “process liberal” position that was debated so vigorously here at the time of the Mass Constitutional Convention.

          Would complete de-federalisation be that be bad for gays and or women in certain states? Yes, which is a pretty strong argument against his brand of extreme libertarianism. But to suggest that he advocates restricting federal power IN ORDER to facilitate socially conservative state policies gets the cause-effect string backwards.

          And now I have probably made more of the distinction than it is really worth, because you are right about the results, which is what matters to most people. I just think that treating him like he is a Pat Robertson Christianist misunderstands him, and the political force that is behind him.

          And I still think that you should secretly root for him, because of the pain he will inflict on Romney if he can stick around awhile. If he does, it won’t be a candidate building battle like Obama-Clinton, but a party dividing bloodbath like Dukakis-Jackson.

          • Oh I'm totally rooting for him

            because he’s throwing a wrench into the GOP works. It’s great theater and he has no chance in getting the nomination, so for that reason I say “keep talking, Ron”!

          • He might deny it

            But everyone who wants to restrict federal power wants to facilitate socially conservative state policies. It is always umbrage at the federal liberal policies that causes people to be libertarian, never conservative policies. I can’t think of any exceptions… Oh wait, one exception is the war on drugs, pot smokers often call themselves libertarians but they take umbrage to state laws too, and local police for that matter. They’d love a federal law that overruled state laws that prohibited drug use. Paul himself speaks of the failed war on drugs as if he would put a stop to it at the national level.

            • Well, yes but

              I think this doesn’t reflect what the guy is standing for. Libertarians in federal government favor a whole lot less federal government, but that doesn’t mean they favor anything in particular at the state level.

              Libertarians in state government favor a whole lot less of state government.

              The essence of libertarianism is the belief that government, because it cannot go out of business, cannot do anything competently, and because it holds a monopoly on the police power, tends to creep toward authoritarianism. As far as that goes, I think they are probably right. Indeed, both political parties in the US seem perfectly OK with a big dose of authoritarianism; the primary source of disagreement relates to whether one wants the government to compel X or Y.

              But like other ideologues before them, it is their prescription for a well-identified problem that is naive and awful.

  9. Slate: Fifteen Years Ago, Ron Paul Wasn't Claiming Somebody Else Wrote His Newsletters

    • And here's

      from HuffPo quoting The Dallas Morning News — May 22, 1996:

      Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation.

      Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character.

      “If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man’s character, what kind of a world do you live in?” Dr. Paul asked.

      In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

      “If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

      • what's been missing

        Paul is a paleocon like Buchanan, not a true libertarian. Get rid of statism and God takes its place in the public sphere and we return to a virtuous agrarian republic. Like Buchanan he is anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti black equality. He, like Buchanan has openly stated we need to roll back The Civil Rights Act and federal protection for blacks. He opposes not only Lawrence but Loving as well along with applying the bill of rights to states. He has called Lincoln a tyrant and made neo-Conderate arguments supporting the notion that slavery was not what the South was fighting to preserve.

        The openly racist Political Cesspool has had him as a frequent guest. These fringe groups are never on the same page and normally eschew political participation, but are all coincidentally involved and excited. Until Paul explicitly disavows these groups beyond weakly agreeing to disagree we can only assume he is courting these groups willingly.

  10. Not r*cist, only

    “totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American.”

    _Dixit_ Don Neutrino de Gingrich.

    Happy days.

  11. Ron Paul is just another God-botherer

    He basically believes that states will be more tyrannical at being anti-choice, so that is why he wants Roe v. Wade overturned. How is saying that your preferred lawmaking body is the one you think will be more heavy-handed in any way “libertarian”?
    I also note this piece of legislation he sponsored a couple years ago.

    The Supreme Court of the United States and each Federal court–
    (1) shall not adjudicate–
    (A) any claim involving the laws, regulations, or policies of any State or unit of local government relating to the free exercise or establishment of religion;
    (B) any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of sexual practices, orientation, or reproduction; or
    (C) any claim based upon equal protection of the laws to the extent such claim is based upon the right to marry without regard to sex or sexual orientation; and
    (2) shall not rely on any judicial decision involving any issue referred to in paragraph (1).

    He basically wants federal courts stripped of the power to hear sexual-orientation discrimination cases or cases regarding separation of church and state (e.g. forced prayer in school, forced posting of the Ten Commandments in government settings, etc.).
    This is Rick Santorum/American Taliban stuff, not libertarianism.

    • No, this is classic race-baiting "stuff"

      I enthusiastically agree with you that this is not “libertarianism” (although who knows just what IS “libertarianism”). It may even be “American Taliban” stuff. This is, more than anything else, old-fashioned race-baiting.

      These old canards of “states rights” have been used since before the civil war to provide cover for slavery (first), then racism and race-based exploitation. These venerable old targets are readily expanded to include gays, atheists, immigrants, and all the rest of today’s attractive scapegoats. Anything that distracts folks from the truth of what happens when we discard logic, rationality, and insight in exchange for money and power.

      This is the GOP stock-in-trade, and has been since the Democrats ejected its southern racists in 1968.

  12. The untold story of these newsletters is that he made millions

    off them. They were big $$$.

    There’s no way he didn’t know what was going in them.

    The best I’d believe from him is that he purposefully had the ghost writers pander to the red meat his conspiracy-theory-loving, fringe-right crowd likes.

    RyansTake   @   Wed 28 Dec 10:47 AM
    • I think that is likely true

      Libertarianism was then more of a fringe political brand than it is now. Before the age of the internet, you probably had to appeal to various fringe groups in order to sell enough newsletters to make money.

      So yes, he probably didn’t write them. But he most likely knew what was going in there, regardless of whether he wrote it himself.

      • Of course it's true

        He (and the GOP) pandered to racists and bigots then in order to make money. He (and the GOP) panders to racists and bigots now (the GOP/Tea Party “base”) in order to gain votes. This is the crowd that goes for the likes of Lyndon Larouche, the KKK, and the American Nazi Party. The Tea Party is a very slightly sanitized version of the others.

        You wrote above of the “political force that is behind him”. Lyndon Larouche and John Birch are more representative of this ilk than Pat Robertson (and I’m no fan of Pat Robertson).

  13. The Republicans can take care of their own.

    Iowa is big on notorious wireless electronic voting. Further, the Iowa governor has announced the votes will be counted in a secret location. (Now why would that be…)

    Look for a big surprise on the 3rd of January and some candidate that wasn’t so popular make a big move to the top. It’s not about Dr Paul as it is about the money. Dr Paul’s moneys come from small donors. To run a political party one needs big corporate bucks. Ron don’t have it. Goodbye Ron.

    “You’ve got to work things out in the cloakroom, and when you’ve got them worked out, you can debate a little before you vote.” –Lyndon B. Johnson

    • No surprises coming out of Iowa

      The numbers will be totaled at a secret location by the Iowa GOP with all media banned.

      I’m sure as with any good dictatorial regime, the numbers will add up to the “right result”. Perhaps they already have been — maybe we can save everyone the bother of caucusing.

      sabutai   @   Wed 28 Dec 9:08 PM
      • Dr Paul's failure next Tuesday is already explained.

        It was global warming that did in Ron’s campaign next Tuesday. Now, there’s the explanation before the event. Everybody and go home and have a good laugh. Your free press is at work.

        “As long as our government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of persons and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending.” –Andrew Jackson

  14. On Paul's former aide...

    The falling-out occurred because Paul opposed the Iraq war, which Dondero strongly supported.

    Dondero has since been trying to redefine “libertarian” to mean someone who supports a hawkish foreign policy and is worried about a jihadist 5th column… it’s not hard to see why he’s no longer employed by Ron Paul. Check out his blog:

« Blue Mass Group Front Page

Add Your Comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Tue 28 Mar 7:22 PM