Ron Paul Newsletter Bombshells
Somehow you almost knew that his newsletters would catch up with him, but to this extent is shocking. I don’t know how he’s going to explain his way out of all of these quotes. Sure, one or two you could explain away, but dozens upon dozens?
Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.
But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul’s name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him–and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing–but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.
Paulites, seriously, this is bad.
So what’s the deal here?
Paul’s position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned.
Sure, but did everybody know about ALL of this? Because I certainly didn’t and I sincerely doubt a lot of Ron Paul supporters do either.
Also, 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.
More as it develops…
Ron Paul responds with more:
â€œThe 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.
â€œIn 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: â€˜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.â€™
â€œThis 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.
â€œWhen 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.â€
Okay, this is the right response, and for my money I believe him. BUT, it still hurts him because it makes him seem careless, and therefore not very presidential.