Because the media doesn’t view Ron Paul as a serious contender for the GOP nomination, he’s gotten almost no scrutiny this season for some of the uglier skeletons in his closet – most notably, his infamous newsletters that promoted outright bigotry.
Sean Hannity was the first to question Paul about the newsletters after last night’s debate:
Hannity: Why do you not take responsibility for the things that were in your individual newsletters?
Paul: In 2002, the Texas Monthly reviewed that and they wrote a long, long article, and that’s a liberal newspaper, so you read that and you’ll find out –
Hannity: I read Reason magazine which is libertarian and –
Paul: I did not, I did not write it. And I do not support those views. And they’re painted to make me think that, you know, I’m a racist or something.
Hannity: There were some very racial things in there.
Paul: I’m the greatest defender of civil liberties, especially when it comes to the inequities in our judicial system, you know, with blacks, the imprisonments for the drug wars, the number of blacks to get the death penalty.
Hannity: I gotta run. Let me ask you one last question. Do you know who did write it and do you repudiate what was in your newsletter?
Paul: I do not. And I don’t believe anything, any of that stuff that they’ve quoted.
Ron Paul has had three years to formulate a response to these questions, since Jamie Kirchick’s investigation into his newsletters came out in The New Republic. He had to know that he was going to get asked about this at some point during his campaign. And that’s his answer? That he doesn’t know who wrote these things? That’s completely unacceptable.
And this was during a friendly interview with Hannity, who didn’t push back too hard. Imagine how that same conversation would have gone with someone from CNN or MSNBC, or even one of the news anchors from Fox.
The polls are showing that Paul actually has a good shot of winning in the Iowa caucuses, and he certainly has the passionate supporters and ground game to potentially pull it off. But it’s important for voters to remember Paul’s insurmountable, self-inflicted handicap, and why he has no chance of becoming president.
… and no one mentions that the language and the stance of those newspapers go against everything he's ever done as a congressman, everything he's ever said, and everything else he's ever written. This kind of glaring contradiction isn't a contradiction – it's an anomaly that has an external source. I trust the good doctor's word on this one.
Yes, the truth is unacceptable when a lie suits your agenda so much better. Do you really think we're unaware of your unreasoning hatred for Ron Paul? This is the internet, everything you say is preserved forever.
Lol – a friendly interview!? Few hate Ron Paul more than Hannity. Everyone knows that. n n
Association Fallacy – Look it up!
He didn't write the news letters, get over it and find something else to hang your hat on.
WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER WAR! nRon Paul
What's the old saying attributed to Gandhi? "First they ignore you, then they laugh…" Guess with the Hannity interview Paul's up to the part where they "fight you." That's one step behind, "Then you win." If this is the best they have, it won't take long for him to get to that last step.
Association fallacy? Try partners. He was a bigot and is a bigot. He and his associates including nativist back-to-the-Confederacy white supremacy advocate chief of staff Lew Rockwell and other outliers, decried Lincoln for defying the southern states' ideology that property rights included an inalienable right to own human chattel, keeping a national United States federal government secure and challenging states rights slavery–and secession justifying Ron is trying to dismantle that federal union and drag America back to the imaginary 18th century America existing in his cracked pot noggin. n nHe feared Jews then and he goes on Iran TV and American TV to tell patently incoherent gibbering lies that the UN and the CIA don't believe Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons (they do) and that anyone who doesn't support his benign indifference to Iran's daily threats (not only against Israel but America) must be a "gleeful" neocon who is "beating the drums of wars". And explains to a Truther follower that he can't go public with the real scoop that the neocons set 9-11 up themselves because it would distract from his big project to dismantle the Federal Reserve and institute a regime of gold-backed currency. Or barter for goats and used auto parts or something. n n You would never know from his extraordinarly ignorant reading of history that an insistent theme of America after its founding was the projection of American power and the consolidation of its ability to project power beyond its borders, as waves of public enthusiasm supported challenging Her Britannic Majesty's naval supremacy in skirmishes leading up to the War of 1812 and defending American liberties against the pirate regimes of the Tripoli coast, sparking cheerful bombardments of towns all the way over in what is today Libya. You would never understand the American impulse to create a Continental nation, the Lewis and Clark expedition and Manifest Destiny, the conflict with foreign nations Spain and Mexico, because Ron fundamentally rejects the national project the Constitution envisions or the need for national power to confront enemies international to protect American commerce. n nHe obviously sponsored, edited, produced, co-wrote his ittle newsletter that went out over his own name, was defended by him publcly in the media in the 1990's and was filled with first-person anecdotes, stories, and reminiscences. He personally explained, on record, in his own name, in his own person, the "sources" for his amazing revelation that Negroes were "swift of foot" and that "95 percent"[!] of Washington, D.C.'s blacks were in jail or in the criminal penal system. Using the same kind of welll-it-is-an-interpretation-if-not-direct-quote-of-well-known-facts evasive explain-all mush he uses …. today. n nAnd he appealed to an unsophisticated audience prepared to believe that anyone who disagreed with them must be evil men driven by personal malice and hate. And perpared to believe, when convenient that day is night and black is white and UN agency report after report and Iranian report after report that Iran is going after nukes just don't exist. Or that the good doctor didn't sponsor write, or at least co-write a personal newsletter bearing his name and distributed from his own incorporated offices to subscribers whose subscription monies helped keep him in a comfortable lifestyle. n nAnd look, here that same audience is right here today! n nQED. n
Forgive me, but that you point to the racist material you are so outraged about? And in the meantime, how is your campaign to abolish the Black Caucus? And give us some of your history for demonstrating against the democrats for putting the former head of the KKK in charge for 10 YEARS! n nCiting a Government statistics of blacks in DC is not racist. What IS racist is the fact of the statistic itself, which Ron Paul has been fighting against. But I don't expect you to understand the difference. n nI will await your answer so I don't suspect you are a flagrant hypocrite and engage in selective moral outrage.
Except the statistic is false and only a racist could believe it. The statistic is a lie. Ron and other neo-Confederates are fighting to separate themselves from Negroes. Good luck with that. Belief in the statistic itself marks is an indicator of either ignorance or fear The actual figure is high–black incarceration has been assessed as about 5% and when you add in the figure for those on probation we are encountering social dysfunction (the role of drug prohibition in this is another topic) but the 95% figure is just red meat for KKK wannabees. It displays not only contempt for blacks but for the federal government–but again we are talking about a neo-Confederate whose concern for states rights is not exactly "Constitutional conservatism". And he lies.
Citing figures or even distorting figures doesn't make it racist. The racist is the person who is putting the unequal amounts of minorities in prison for non-violent crimes. You need to focus your energy there. Not with Ron paul, who is fighting against that. n nRon Paul wants to END the wars overseas on brown people, end the Drug war home against brown and black people, and end the government erosions of protections of rights which affect mostly blacks and brown people… n nSeriously, if you bothered spending more than 30 minutes listening to Ron Paul rather than getting your information from demagogues you might learn something.
"He personally explained, on record, in his own name, in his own person, the "sources" for his amazing revelation that Negroes were "swift of foot" and that "95 percent"[!] of Washington, D.C.'s blacks were in jail or in the criminal penal system. Using the same kind of welll-it-is-an-interpretation-if-not-direct-quote-of-well-known-facts evasive explain-all mush he uses …. today." n nCan we now see your proof. And please don't tell us to go and do our own research. You made some pretty vile accusations so we need to see some proof. And don't give us one article that Ron Paul DID write, and then another he didn't write and said he wrote both. Because it's obvious you never bothered to learn anything about this man who devoted 30 plus years of his life to defending your rights… n nBut you probably just want the wars going overseas, on drugs and on minorities…
Did you know that anger only masks subconscious fear. You should talk to someone.
Then it's a good thing that Ron Paul's reflexive fear is all on the surface and communicated to his followers. So he's the healthiest guy out there. Now lets back to the serious work of abolishing the Federal Reserve, cleaning out America from the sewer of international finance, and re-instituting tobacco script.
Ron Paul is a kook. He should be running for Greenpeace. n nHow does someone this stupid make it through medical school.
Really? How about you tell us your credentials, and how you were smart enough to get them? But you have a heavy road ahead of you when you just use personal attacks and broad adverse conclusions to state your positions. We need some facts and evidence.
This is a ridiculous article. The actual "racist" stuff is completely blown out of proportion, and that is assuming Ron paul wrote it, which he DID NOT! Most of it is just quotes from Government statistics and stupid remarks that are stereotypes at worst.
No government statistic says only 5% of the DC African American population is free of the criminal justice system or that blacks are really fleet of foot.
Yawn. n nDidn't our government run American guns across the border to arm Mexican Drug Cartels? Didn't the Senate and House both just overwhelmingly pass a bill that makes legal the indefinite military detention of American citizens without due process? n nThere's no lack of stuff to report on.
On the indefinite detention of American citizens, no. they didn't but Ron Paul does not exactly encourage precision in his acolytes. n nThe bill does not directly take up the issue of detaining American citizens. Even detained terrorists from foreign countries detained in America currently have the right of habeas corpus. The problem is that capturing terrorists (who are neither citizens nor recognized combatants) raises a thicket of problems in sussing out civilian from military responsibility. n nAgain Paul is associated with neo-Confederate support for secession, the original secession of the Confederates with the "peculiar institution" of chattel property, and the Southern state apartheid prohibition of civil rights for its African American citizens. So for Ron Paul, who gets detained, for how long, and under what conditions, and by whom, does not ultimately ccme down to impartial Constitutional reasoning. n nHere in an interview with Tim Russert he defends compulsory state discrimination against African American cirtizens. His subsequent claim as to how many colored folks love his corn pone drivel is right up there with his claim that Israel's defense minister (who is reported to favor bombing Iran's nuclear facilities) is down with Paul's exceptional concern for Iran's sensibilities. n n nMR. RUSSERT: I read a speech you gave in 2004, the 40th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act. And you said this: nContrary to the claims of supporters of the Civil Rights Act of '64, the act did not improve race relations or enhance freedom. Instead, the forced integration dictated by the Civil Rights Act of '64 increased racial tensions while diminishing individual liberty…. nREP. PAUL: Well, we should do, we should do this at a federal level, at a federal lunch counter it'd be OK or for the military. Just think of how the government, you know, caused all the segregation in the military until after World War II. But when it comes, Tim, you're, you're, you're not compelled in your house to invade strangers that you don't like. So it's a property rights issue. And this idea that all private property is under the domain of the federal government I think is wrong. So this–I think even Barry Goldwater opposed that bill on the same property rights position, and that–and now this thing is totally out of control. If you happen to like to smoke a cigar, you know, the federal government's going to come down and say you're not allowed to do this…. [T]he federal government's taken over property–has nothing to do with race relations. It just happens, Tim, that I get more support from black people today than any other Republican candidate, according to some statistics. And I have a great appeal to people who care about personal liberties and to those individuals who would like to get us out of wars. So it has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with the Constitution and private property rights. nRussert was quoting from a speech that Ron Paul gave in July 2004 ("The Trouble with Forced Integration") explaining his reasons for being the only Congressman to vote against a resolution honoring the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. He denounced the Civil Rights Act as an unconstitutional violation of private property rights that served no useful purpose and reduced individual liberty. n
he DID write some of the articles, not those crazy nonsensical ones. Just read his books and how he speak and then compare it to the almost illiterate articles, which YES are in bad taste, but let's not create this selective moral outrage, because if so, then go down to the democratic party and yell at them for putting Mr. Former head of the KKK, RObert Byrd, in charge of their party for TEN YEARS!!! n nYou are just not gonna produce ONE Single person, audio clip or video and there are 1000s of them where he remotely speaks like what you are citing. Why is that? Because he did NOT write it. Believe what you wanna believe. Just don't push your own political agenda and use this as a weapon to stifle his candidacy.
What exactly is occurring within all these towards the world is absolutely terrible. I hope the issues prefer that around Egypt usually are resolved quickly. They need to get for just a pacific strategy to the condition and get initiative that this military services doesnu2032t require a violent activity contrary to the protests. Itu2032s distinct the folks would like the particular chief executive released, nevertheless its possible the problems usually are deeper compared to just committing to any president in a state.