Reason Magazine

Site Search

"Most of us 'old-time' libertarians have known about this sad period of Ron Paul's career from the get-go"

Timothy Virkkala has some interesting insidery information about the authorship of old Ron Paul newsletters:

As a writer and editor working in the libertarian movement at the time of these "Ron Paul" newsletters, I have vague recollection of "common knowledge": it was known who wrote these newsletters, and why. It was money for Ron. It was money for the writers. And it was a way of keeping Ron's name in the minds of right wingers with money ... future donors.

It was designed to be entertaining writing. Provocative. It flirted with racism, like Mencken's did, and Mencken was indeed the model. But these writings went further than Mencken usually did (for publication) along the lines of annoying the racially sensitive; and they sometimes did veer into outright racism.

I was embarrassed by the implied racial hatred, for the general level of hate regardlesss of race ... and in part because the writing was so obviously not Ron's, and so obviously the product of the actual writers, with whom I had tangential relations — is my editor's* writer my writer? [...]

Most of us "old-time" libertarians have known about this sad period of Ron Paul's career from the get-go. We know that it was a lapse on his part. But we who opposed it (and not all of us did) put much of the blame on the writers involved, not on Paul, who was, after all, juggling family, medicine, politics, and continued study of actual economics. That Paul didn't realize what he was doing to his own moral stance is amazing. His style is one of earnest moralizing. That fits his character. The ugliness of this career move speaks a sad story.

It also says the harshest thing about Ron Paul as presidential timber: he let himself be so easily used and influenced. [...]

Like Rodney King, one might prefer we all just get along, move along, and forget about this sorry story. But it is worth exploring. Racism is still a live issue in America. And, apparently, in libertarianism.

Make sure to read Dave Weigel's first-out-of-the-gate Ron Paul response to the newsletter exhumations, as well as reason reaction from Nick Gillespie, Jesse Walker, me, Radley Balko, and Brian Doherty.

Update: Wendy McElroy pens an open appeal to the primary ghost-writer:

The identity of the author of the 'objectionable' material from past issues of Ron Paul's Newsletter -- material that is currently being used by major media to skewer Paul [see blog post below] -- is an open secret within the circles in which I run. The news accounts refer to him merely as an "aide." We call him by his first name.

I am addressing an appeal to this man. Damage is being done to the libertarian movement (see Radley Balko's analysis) and to Ron Paul. Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck about the latter...but I know you do. Will you now do the decent thing for libertarianism and come forward to acknowledge responsibility for the material being used against your mentor? [...]

I appeal to the author to do the decent thing. Don't let Ron Paul take the fall for your words and actions. Don't further sully the libertarian movement by your silence. I know that -- in writing this -- I am severing all connection between us in the future and, frankly, I am sorry to do so. Nevertheless...so be it. Through our years of association, one thing I have never considered you to be is a coward.Please prove my assessment correct; please take responsibility.

Send this article to:

« New at Reason | Main | Marketplace Actually Supports a Market »

Comments to ""Most of us 'old-time' libertarians have known about this sad period of Ron Paul's career from the get-go"":

John-David | January 9, 2008, 9:39am | #

I thought Eric Dondero was giving youse guys the inside scoop on this story. I must be confused.

DavidS | January 9, 2008, 9:43am | #

I just don't get it. The guy allows bile like this to go under his name, insiders at the time knew what was going on, and it's merely a 'lapse':

"I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or not threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)"

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 9:43am | #

But it is worth exploring. Racism is still a live issue in America. And, apparently, in libertarianism.

Geez, what's worth exploring? What's the "it" here? The fact that there are some old-timey paleos with libertarian sympathies who flirt with racism? We GOT it already.

We already know that "The Fever Swamp"* is full of racists and people who dance on that edge.

Maybe I'm missing why "Move Along...nothing to see here" really isn't the proper response in this case.

*Credit to Tom Palmer for calling LewRockwell.com "The Fever Swamp".

Jack | January 9, 2008, 9:43am | #

"We know that it was a lapse on his part. But we who opposed it (and not all of us did) put much of the blame on the writers involved, not on Paul, who was, after all, juggling family, medicine, politics, and continued study of actual economics. "

Is it just me, or did these newsletters run for over a freaking decade? That isn't a "lapse."

These things basically leave us with three choices:

1. Ron Paul is a closet bigot/conspiracy nutjob

2. Ron Paul is affected by a particular strain of moral bankruptcy and has no problem keeping close company and playing nice with bigots/conspiracy nutjobs as long as they keep the money, votes and activism coming

3. Ron Paul didn't actually know the vile stuff being published in his name for over a decade despite approving the newsletters and cashing the checks, proving him a complete fucking moron unfit to run a dairy queen, let alone a country


Generously, I lean towards option 2

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 9:43am | #

Is the author implying Paul knew about this and decided to do nothing? *tsk tsk*

It also says the harshest thing about Ron Paul as presidential timber: he let himself be so easily used and influenced.

used...maybe...influenced...that's a bit of a stretch, considering how resolute you've seen Paul and unwavering in his message.

J sub D | January 9, 2008, 9:44am | #

Racism is still a live issue in America. And, apparently, in libertarianism.

On this forum, the statement is sadly and undeniably accurate.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 9:45am | #

2. Ron Paul is affected by a particular strain of moral bankruptcy and has no problem keeping close company and playing nice with bigots/conspiracy nutjobs as long as they keep the money, votes and activism coming

sounds like every other politician out there, except this one is willing to let you live your life without interference.

Episiarch | January 9, 2008, 9:45am | #

Maybe others have said this in the other threads on the topic that I was too busy to join.

For me, what I am really feeling right now (and not that much, as I don't invest much in politicians, even someone like Paul--and now we see why) is disappointment. He let us all down.

When things started to really heat up (which I doubt he expected), he needed to get serious and realize somebody was going to kick him in the nuts with this. Shit, I can look back at my own history and easily see the things that could hurt me if I were to even run for office (it'll never happen). I'd be thinking about them constantly and how to react and spin them.

So either Paul is hopelessly naive (not the worst thing in the world) or he just wasn't serious. Which sucks, because the people getting excited about him were.

And also, anybody who has been outspoken in their support for Paul and his message to their friends/colleagues/acquaintances is now going to get reamed by smug, pouncing leftists and rightwingers. Thanks, Ron!

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 9:47am | #

I just don't get it. The guy allows bile like this to go under his name, insiders at the time knew what was going on, and it's merely a 'lapse'

Did you RTFA?

The only people who don't believe Dr. Paul are those who won't believe Dr. Paul because they have an axe to grind.

The man said [paraphrase] 'It isn't my stuff, I don't like that stuff and I never thought that stuff...I recognize that it was in my name and I take responsibility for that'

I swear some people want Paul to commit seppuku over this.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 9:48am | #

And also, anybody who has been outspoken in their support for Paul and his message to their friends/colleagues/acquaintances is now going to get reamed by smug, pouncing leftists and rightwingers. Thanks, Ron!

and yet, when those smug right wingers and leftists find themselves with a bad candidate, they rally and bring themselves together. Whenever libertarians find themselves with a candidate who has human flaws, they fold like a deck of cards. Awesome...real awesome.

DavidS | January 9, 2008, 9:49am | #

I really like the implication that he-was-only-doing-it-for-the-money line is supposed to make this not seem so bad...

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 9:49am | #

AR,

Herding cats my friend...herding cats.

Episiarch | January 9, 2008, 9:51am | #

Whenever libertarians find themselves with a candidate who has human flaws, they fold like a deck of cards.

I didn't say I'd stop supporting Paul--even if he screwed up he's still the best candidate. I certainly don't believe he's a racist. I said that by not running interference on this from the get-go, Ron screwed his supporters, and that sucks. It's disappointing.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 9:51am | #

David,

The author wasn't defending Paul, just trying to be subtle in the takedown, kind of like when a right winger is for some reason on the winning side of the issue and assumes a sort of patronizing "there there little libertarian, you'll grow up one day, just keep hope"

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 9:51am | #

And also, anybody who has been outspoken in their support for Paul and his message to their friends/colleagues/acquaintances is now going to get reamed by smug, pouncing leftists and rightwingers.

Could you cry any more?

Did you think that the man's beliefs were just going to spread, unchecked by political foibles and games?

Part of me is thankful: this kind of shows the smug apathetic libertarian-types that politics is ugly, and we can either sit on the sidelines and fukkin' gripe or we have to get in the trenches and get dirty sometimes.

P Brooks | January 9, 2008, 9:55am | #

Ron Paul is affected by a particular strain of moral bankruptcy and has no problem keeping close company and playing nice with bigots/conspiracy nutjobs as long as they keep the money, votes and activism coming

Or, perhaps, Dr Paul's lack of the nanny gene prevented him from being the sort of sanctimonious, moralizing scold who would go swooning off to the fainting couch at the merest whisper of an improper opinion.

Is this really moral bankruptcy?

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 9:56am | #

Herding cats my friend...herding cats.

Yeah, jeez, LIT, I'm with you.

Abandontarians, much as this may irk you, you're acting just like Objectivist groups.

Just. Like. Them.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 9:56am | #

yes, its sad to find someone you supported so enthusiastically isn't perfect, but maybe that's a problem with your enthusiasm rather than his faults. I'm not going to back down against the leftists or right wingers because of this, but so many people are expressing such disdain and hopelessness, they appear to be trying to break themselves away from their premature enthusiasm.

And of course none of us are talking about McCain's cozyness with certain gray area PACs or blatant lobbyist pandering by Thompson, or Giuliani's support for police abuses (turning blind eyes to things going on which they should have been fired for).

Nope, its all about Paul's faults. He's fucking human and a politician, but there's nothing that shows he's compromised his beliefs in any real way because of this.

DavidS | January 9, 2008, 9:58am | #

ayn_randian - the quote I gave ("the federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)" etc) was from a letter that is signed "sincerely, Ron Paul"...

Somehow, I guess, that just seems a bigger deal to you than it does to me. But would you let any other candidate get away with a vague apology for letting his signature be used in that way?

Episiarch | January 9, 2008, 9:58am | #

Could you cry any more?

I can try. I can only watch Beaches so many times, though.

Part of me is thankful: this kind of shows the smug apathetic libertarian-types that politics is ugly, and we can either sit on the sidelines and fukkin' gripe or we have to get in the trenches and get dirty sometimes.

Good for you, un-apathetic libertarian-type. I'm glad you like the scrum. But not all of us are your type, who likes being a non-entity who can endlessly gripe and complain because you get more pleasure out of that than you would from actually...winning.

David | January 9, 2008, 9:59am | #

Timothy says:

"Oh, so who wrote Ron Paul’s newsletter? I have only hearsay and memory to go on. But really, most of us in the libertarian “industry” just “knew” who. I have four names in mind, I think all contributed at one point or another. But maybe it was only a subset of those names, maybe it was just one or two. One of the names is pretty damn obvious. And one of the names is not obvious at all; the style was abandoned for better things, later on."

Hmmmm.

highnumber | January 9, 2008, 10:01am | #

If you want to emulate Mencken, the first step is to write very, very, well. Quality was his hallmark.

Jack | January 9, 2008, 10:03am | #

"Human flaws"?

The man lent his name to some pretty virulent shit for a very long time. I don't care if he didn't write it, his name is on it. Figuring out that you should pay attention to stuff your name is on is a simple concept that anyone with two brain cells to rub together figured out the first time they did group work in elementary school. These newsletters went out for a very, very long time. So when the sainted Doctor says he didn't know what was being said, I call pure, unadulterated bullshit. Everyone else in libertarian circles apparently knew about this stuff. His ideological/intellectual contemporaries certainly did.

And there's the rub. If he knew this stuff was going out with his name on it, he's off the table for me. I don't care if he vigorously repudiates the stupid shit (which he hasn't bothered to as of yet). Either he agreed at the time and got his head right sometime in the mid nineties ("ancient history"), or he never did and he's a unprincipled little twerp.

Claiming that other politicians are bad isn't an argument. Claiming that he didn't write that stuff isn't an argument--the point isn't that he did. Claiming that TNR is biased or bringing up Stephen Glass has nothing to do with whether the quotes are real, which nobody in the campaign has claimed. I'm waiting for a real argument why this isn't a big freaking deal

Russ 2000 | January 9, 2008, 10:03am | #

Looks like Ron Paul will have to make some reparations to his campaign.

Russ 2000 | January 9, 2008, 10:04am | #

Look, he's a Congressman. You actually expect him to read stuff his name is on? Then hold the sponsors of the Patriot Act to the same standard.

tepid | January 9, 2008, 10:05am | #

Abandontarians, much as this may irk you, you're acting just like Objectivist groups.

Just. Like. Them.


I was going to point to this as a mark against you, A_R.

Maybe I don't know you well enough though, are you a different breed of objectivist (or perhaps not one at all)?

Shane | January 9, 2008, 10:06am | #

Part of me is thankful: this kind of shows the smug apathetic libertarian-types that politics is ugly, and we can either sit on the sidelines and fukkin' gripe or we have to get in the trenches and get dirty sometimes.

Or we can support libertarian candidates instead of paleocon federalist republicans who cash checks for years because of words they didn't bother to read or refute until they decided to go back to congress.

libertarianism doesn't begin or end with Ron Paul. If libertarians are more apt to "clean house" than the other parties or idealogies i don't see that as a vice.

kinnath | January 9, 2008, 10:06am | #

Let us not forget that it has been shown repeatedly that our elected representatives frequently don't read the LEGISLATION that they "author" let alone any of the legislation that they vote on.

Reinmoose | January 9, 2008, 10:09am | #

I share Episiarch's dissapointment. It was unkind to Paul's supporters for him to not get this out of the way earlier. However, firstly, how was he supposed to know that he was going to be the front-man for a movement as large as has taken place? It really sucks, it does.
But I share AR's point about getting dirty. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good will forever keep libertarians out of the national conversation, and we need to start supporting imperfect people. It would just help if we knew what kinds of attacks to field. This blindsided a lot of Ron's supporters, and I doubt they appreciate it much.

ClubMedSux | January 9, 2008, 10:09am | #

My biggest concern is that this whole mess supports the common misconception that Ron Paul supporters are all a bunch of whack-jobs. Regardless of what Paul did or didn't write and who he did or didn't associate with, most Ron Paul supporters are "normal" Americans, and this scandal doesn't change the fact that the policies Paul advocates (immigration aside) will do more to lift up minorities than any government program would. The end game isn't a Paul presidency, it's a sustainable political movement (within or outside of the GOP) that recognizes smaller government and greater civil liberties. I can only hope the indiscretions of one man don't turn young people away from the message of liberty.

Shane | January 9, 2008, 10:10am | #

And while i did beat my wife for a good 4 years, i am not nor have i ever been a serial killer, do i get brownie points too? (sarcasm, i only beat my wife when she deserves it)

Gee | January 9, 2008, 10:10am | #

The Reason staff (I'm ignoring the trolls here) has truly disappointed me on this.

I've read the newsletter excerpts and, taken in CONTEXT (remember that concept, folks?) I can't find ONE racist or anti-gay quote. What I did read were a few crass attempts at humor, some politically-incorrect comments. Big whup. Do you mean to tell me, for example, that "limp-wristed" - in the context of humor/sarcasm - references to gays is cause for ALARM?

If Ron Paul had actually written this stuff, I'd be shrugging it off as often poor attempts at edgy writing, no worse or offensive than a lot of crap seen in MSM columns.

The fact that Paul has stated, over and over again, that he did NOT write this stuff, and that he does NOT share its sentiments, makes it an utter non-story, yet here we have the Reason staff fanning flames of hysteria, participating in an attempted smear of the biggest libertarian happening (Paul's campaign) in the past 40 years.

The irony is that, in pissing on the Revolution, Reason is shooting itself in the foot.

You should all be ashamed of yourselves. I'm cancelling my subscription, for sure, and will no longer be steering like-minded souls to your magazine, or this site.

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 10:11am | #

I'm waiting for a real argument why this isn't a big freaking deal

Likewise, I'm wondering why it is. The issues should be on the table, not the man.

who likes being a non-entity who can endlessly gripe and complain because you get more pleasure out of that than you would from actually...winning.

I'm not sure how you win without playing the game in the first place. Sure, I'd like a more favorable field but I'm not waiting around for the (literal) revolution.

crimethink | January 9, 2008, 10:11am | #

3. Ron Paul didn't actually know the vile stuff being published in his name for over a decade despite approving the newsletters and cashing the checks, proving him a complete fucking moron unfit to run a dairy queen, let alone a country

All the racist stuff cited by Kirchick was published from 1990-94. Look at his article and check the dates.

Sean | January 9, 2008, 10:11am | #

This is complete bullshit.

This entire thing is 100% proof that we are fucked as a nation.

A newsletter with Ron Paul's name on it... who gives a flying fuck?!?

Ron Paul DID NOT sign the Patriot Act, nor did he authorize a pointless war which has killed almost 4,000 Americans.

I'm completely baffled.

Shane | January 9, 2008, 10:13am | #

The issues should be on the table, not the man.

B.S., this is a PRESIDENTIAL campaign, it's all about the man. we are not electing issues and issues don't make decisions, individuals do, and this one seems to be sorely lacking in good judgement.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 10:13am | #

Shane,

Libertarianism doesn't begin and end with Ron Paul. Libertarianism begins and ends with unity among libertarians. That's what this was about. We are unifying behind Paul's ideas and statements and if we scatter now, we're basically admitting that it was all a cult of personality, that his message is null and void because of him. If we stick this out and stay together, keep pushing the message with him as the standard bearer, we've shown ourselves to be an actual cohesive force to be bargained with, not a group of ragtag college students with too much time on our hands.

You've got to ignore the trolls like Jack and Dondero and Edward. They're here to distract us from the real goals. We've got to keep promoting Paul as what he stands for, admitting his faults, but promoting his aspirations.

Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 9, 2008, 10:13am | #

As noted on another thread, this will always be a challenge for libertarians. If you support freedom, individual choice and responsibility and tolerance... some of the people sitting on your couch are going to be those who are not welcome anywhere else. Some of the goofballs who think the income tax is illegal and can talk for hours about seigniorage also have other crackpot ideas including racist and homophobic ideas. This is not a "Ron Paul" problem; it is a libertarian problem.

crimethink | January 9, 2008, 10:14am | #

But not all of us are your type, who likes being a non-entity who can endlessly gripe and complain because you get more pleasure out of that than you would from actually...winning.

We're never gonna win if we drop support for our candidate at the first sign that he's not perfect. I'm not just talking about this; I'm talking about the evolution question, and the immigration ad before that.

RP Supporter | January 9, 2008, 10:14am | #

I guess this kind of swiftboating is taken in stride by old professional politicains and their wonks, but is hitting the earnest young lovers of liberty like a smack in the kisser by a dead fish.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 10:15am | #

B.S., this is a PRESIDENTIAL campaign, it's all about the man. we are not electing issues and issues don't make decisions, individuals do, and this one seems to be sorely lacking in good judgement.

BS on you. Paul as a president would be ineffectual. Congress would just overrule him in any case. Paul as a unifying force for the coming mental shift towards libertarianism is something else. If we're ever going to grow the cause, we need unification and if it takes a flawed candidate to get that unification, so be it.

JD | January 9, 2008, 10:15am | #

Awesome. The Revolution is now entrenched in navel gazing and mea culpas just as NeoChick and Co. were hoping.

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 10:15am | #

Maybe I don't know you well enough though, are you a different breed of objectivist (or perhaps not one at all)?

Different breed, man. I actually read the stuff, to start with.

Objectivist groups are infamous for so-called "excommunications", wherein minor points of disagreement were grounds for expulsion from the intellectual circle, and it started with the She-God of Objectivism herself, which is why we all got stuck with crappy Peikoff owning the literature.

Bastard.

Anywho, I digress. The larger point is that libertarians and their philosopher-kings aren't OK with big-tents yet. For some reason we just HAVE to hash out and get nasty about Minarchism v. ACism (for example) BEFORE we can go and do ANYTHING remotely libertarian.

And then if we don't like the answers we're getting we walk down the street and start a "The True Church of the Libertarians (Reformed)(Reformed again)."

Episiarch | January 9, 2008, 10:16am | #

I'm cancelling my subscription, for sure, and will no longer be steering like-minded souls to your magazine, or this site.

Drink.

I think people who are saying that in truth this is a non-issue are missing the point.

The point is that a) this blindsided a lot of Ron Paul supporters, b) it will be perceived the way that it was intended by Kirchick to be perceived and whining about how it's "out of context" isn't going to change that, and c) that perception is FUCKING NEGATIVE.

This is a blow to Paul, and therefore to the movement he is spearheading. Nitpicking it won't change that. Those of us who continue to support the movement will move on and try to salvage everything possible, but we just got kneecapped. It doesn't mean that the whole thing is over, it's just a significant setback.

Pig Mannix | January 9, 2008, 10:16am | #

Maybe I'm missing why "Move Along...nothing to see here" really isn't the proper response in this case.

Apparently, the MSM agrees with you. Search Ron Paul in Google News and barely a mention pops up.

Is it possible this really is old news to them, and they don't feel the need to rehash it?

Shane | January 9, 2008, 10:19am | #

I'll say this, i'm a young guy in my 20s with a good job a lot of friends, 2 kids and a good head on my shoulders. I don't care about the history of LRC and the like in libertarianism, i don't care that "it was the early 90s", i don't even care about all the old libertarians complaining that they never win. Racism and/or incompetence of this level are not acceptable to me for any candidate, and i will not vote for or continue to support one who either shares these views or does virtually nothing to stay ahead of being associated with them.

All the old farts and paleocons are going to be gone and their racism with them, but few young people in this country are going to support a guy who has been associated with this regadless of how many times he says "liberty".

Jack | January 9, 2008, 10:19am | #

Ok, but that's only relevant if you think the "due diligence" point for finding out what someone is saying under your name and reputation is somewhere between four and ten years.

The overwhelming impression I'm getting from the Paul fans here and elsewhere is more or less, "even if he doesn believe these things, it's not that much of a big deal," either because they like his policy positions or are more or less sympathetic to the newsletters' views. This is the kind of stuff that boots libertarianism back out of the mainstream and covering your ears and calling troll on everyone who isn't in love with Dr Ron won't help

crimethink | January 9, 2008, 10:20am | #

Pig Mannix,

The Don Black contribution "scandal" was all over the blogosphere for a week before the MSM picked up on it. So we're not out of the woods by a long shot.

Also, given how much of Paul's support is on the Internet, the MSM picking up on this might not even matter; the damage is done already.

sage | January 9, 2008, 10:21am | #

We need to keep our eyes on the prize here. The White House is not the end. It's a means to an end. And there are other means as well. Such as continuing to heap scorn on both major parties (even as I become a member of one) until they get a clue. Such as exposing the world to things such as SWAT raids on old ladies' poker games. Such as wasting billions on wars against drugs and obesity. And on and on.

I will vote for Paul. Because it's about the message. As others have said, his response to this fiasco is disappointing at best, but he is still the best man for the job.

Episiarch | January 9, 2008, 10:21am | #

Do I have a stutter or something? Where did I ever say I stopped supporting Ron Paul, or couldn't handle dirty politics or anything like that? I said I was disappointed. Check your dictionaries; that doesn't mean "giving up".

adrian | January 9, 2008, 10:22am | #

Have to agree with GEE. Enjoy your retreat to the fringe.

someone once said something about gift horses...

P Brooks | January 9, 2008, 10:22am | #

I never deluded myself into thinking Dr Paul actually had a shot at the Presidency; but I thought he could provide an invaluable service to us all by helping to shape, and redirect, the debate about what this country really stands for, and where it needs to go. I still think that.

A lot of young, pro-freedom people have been energized and drawn into the process. If I were a conspiracist, I might think the "establishment Democrats" don't like the doctor because he has been siphoning off young people who might otherwise be duped into falling for the big government = compassion ruse.

joe | January 9, 2008, 10:22am | #

Ayn Randian,

Exactly the right question: Geez, what's worth exploring? What's the "it" here? The fact that there are some old-timey paleos with libertarian sympathies who flirt with racism?

I'd say the answer is, "Why the non-racist majority didn't kick these barbaric thugs in the nuts the first time they stuck their filthy heads up, instead of keeping company with them."

Face it, this is not the only axis between the racist hard-right and libertarianism. Hell, there's a guy up there who can't find anything improper in any of the newsletters!

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 10:22am | #

Goodbye Shane...may I suggest Obama, so far he's probably the only candidate that could have said or been close to someone that said something negative about blacks...and get away with it.

Sam Grove | January 9, 2008, 10:23am | #

It's not about Ron Paul.

Here, let's say it.

We do solemnly aver that racism is a particularly ugly form of collectivism, and we oppose it in all its manifestations.

This is part (just a part) of the reason we support that war on drugs and the inflationary policies of the government and the spending that requires it.

Get over it. There does not seem to be a perfect libertarian candidate willing to run.

God knows, I don't want my FBI file brought out.

Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 9, 2008, 10:24am | #

The newsletter doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because the Paul candidacy never really mattered in the grand scheme of things. Some long-suffering libertarians became WAY too excited because Paul raised a bunch of money and showed evidence of some support on the ground. A year ago, how many people were predicting Paul would pull eight percent in NH?

Deep down, I think many libertarians believe that if the rest of the world were just a little smarter or more open minded, that they would see the obvious Truth of libertarianism. And, when there is a little bubble, a coalition of the disaffected, they think, "Hey, this could be IT. We're finally breaking through." Libertarians, my friends, are closet romantics.

Bingo | January 9, 2008, 10:24am | #

Okay yesterday someone posted a link to a Free Market News website article from July 2007 debunking this with a statement from the Paul campaign. All James Kirchick did was re-write the same old smears. This isn't news to anyone except starry-eyed libertarians.

I've seen fuck-all to mention of this in the mainstream reporting, even The Corner didn't have much to say.

So some bad stuff was published under Ron Paul's name 15 years ago, so he did it for the money. Whatever, I don't see what the big deal is if he doesn't believe those things. The fact that the libertarian movement is doing massive amounts of kneejerk damage control and "shame on you Ron Paul" finger pointing on this one is ugly.

From The Keystrokes of John Q. Public | January 9, 2008, 10:26am | #

You can't win a campaign on meet up groups and pre-paid phones. We had to beg them for a front office in El Paso County Colorado. The Largest Republican County in the state. They just need to get aggressive and realistic about campaigning.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 9, 2008, 10:26am | #

Ron Paul DID NOT sign the Patriot Act, nor did he authorize a pointless war which has killed almost 4,000 Americans.

Of course you're baffled. Get your priorities straight, RP might be a racist.

Pig Mannix | January 9, 2008, 10:26am | #

Wendy McElroy pens an open appeal to the primary ghost-writer:

Here's my problem with this: it's all good and well that the author owns up to this, but the fact is, the author isn't the one running for president.

If Ron Paul were president, and some of his subordinates were involved in some wrong-doing, would you want a President Paul to wait until the wrong doers owned up, or would you want him to pro-actively get the facts out and clean house?

An appeal to the author is fine and dandy, but as the candidate, the onus is on Paul to clear the air.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 10:27am | #

joe,

its still rumor whether Paul knew explicitly about the newsletters or not, but this is all distractions. However, given your party choice, I wouldn't expect you to forgive Paul this. Your candidates have many faults I find repugnant, but none has ever been associated with saying anything mean about African Americans

P Brooks | January 9, 2008, 10:27am | #

Racism and/or incompetence of this level are not acceptable to me for any candidate

Then you'll be voting for Rudy, I suppose.

crimethink | January 9, 2008, 10:27am | #

Ok, but that's only relevant if you think the "due diligence" point for finding out what someone is saying under your name and reputation is somewhere between four and ten years.

Considering how many times you mentioned "over a decade", it would seem you think it is relevant. Yes, four years is a long time to be out of control of this stuff, but ten or twenty years (as Kirchick said in the original Tucker interview) is much, much worse. Keep in mind this wasn't going on during the Internet era; unless he was being mailed a copy, he really wouldn't have had any way of knowing what was being published. Obviously, it was a foolish decision to lend out his name, but everybody makes mistakes, no?

I mean, if you're waiting for a politician who never made a stupid mistake for his whole life, you're going to be waiting a long time. My problem with capital-L Libertarians is that they seem content to do just that...

whiskey | January 9, 2008, 10:27am | #

There are quite a few things that killed my support for Paul months ago:

#1: The newsletters and his campaign's reaction thereto. I first heard about the newsletters in May of '07. I've been making fun of the whole fleet-footed blacks thing for months now. There's some seriously virulent racism going on, and Paul's reaction to this really, really, really has been underwhelming since it was first unearthed during his Congressional runs.

#2: Immigration

#3: 14th Amendment

#4: Darfur divestment: Somehow he votes against a bill that would prevent the federal government from 1) spending money 2) overseas. What the fuck? How is this in any way consistent with his stated politics? It's just so bizarre that it gives credence to concerns that he's using libertarianism as a cover for racism.

#5: His involvement in the anti-psychiatry movement.

#6: War on Christians/Christmas bullshit

Because of this, it's been hard to read Reason's favorable coverage of Ron Paul for some time now. He has way too many skeletons in his closet.

Tim | January 9, 2008, 10:28am | #

Give 'em a few days Pig. They are slow and covering all the hoopla in a big state like NH was straining their budgets. It'll start on Friday, crest on Sunday and be gone by Michigan. The lasting damage to Paul will leave a mark, though, he's a 2% here on out.

Shane | January 9, 2008, 10:28am | #

"Goodbye Shane...may I suggest Obama, so far he's probably the only candidate that could have said or been close to someone that said something negative about blacks...and get away with it."

Classic. The black man can complain about black folks and white people can't because of PC. Boo fucking Hoo. That's the way it is. You want to be elected you can't support or be associated with racism, it's that simple. The fact is this wouldn't be anissue if the words were not printed, if Paul didn't give them permission to use his name, and if he had stayed on top of what was being written. That's all the truth and i(and most others) don't equate racist rants and conspiracy theories the same as warmongering or socialism. it's completely different catagory of fuckedupness. You can't deny the facts, you can't deny how it appears to the "uninitiated" and you can't dismiss or wish it away by calling it "old news". The rest of the voting public wouldn't let you and i wouldn't want them to. It's just wrong and it needs address not tolerated regardless of who it is.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 9, 2008, 10:29am | #

....which is why we all got stuck with crappy Peikoff owning the literature.

Amen, Brah.

Being a pious water boy paid off for Lenny in the end.

Sam Grove | January 9, 2008, 10:30am | #

I'm going to vote for Ron Paul in the primary.
Anyone who listens to him does not doubt his sincerity when he speaks against racism or on any other matter.

Ron Paul is speaking correctly on the critical issues:

1: End the war
2: End the empire
3: End the war on drugs
4: Stop monetary inflation
5: End the welfare state
6: Tax cuts must be tied to a reduction of government spending.

What more do you want?

Hits the fan | January 9, 2008, 10:30am | #

McElroy pretty much outed the culprit, IMHO:

Lew Rockwell.

She was a regular contributor to his website.

Come on, Lew. We await your response.

joe | January 9, 2008, 10:30am | #

Yeah, minimizing this and using diminutive terms for exactly how bad the sentiments expressed in those newsletters probably isn't the best way to send the message that those sentiments run counter to the message of libertarianism.

"Ron Paul has nothing to do with, and completely renounces, those harmless and poorly-expressed newsletters, which aren't nearly as bad as HEY LOOK OVER THERE!"

Russ 2000 | January 9, 2008, 10:31am | #

Why the non-racist majority didn't kick these barbaric thugs in the nuts the first time they stuck their filthy heads up, instead of keeping company with them."

Perhaps it's because non-racists are not the majority.

Rhywun | January 9, 2008, 10:31am | #

The thing that gets me is how anyone could conflate those writings with "libertarianism". Lumping everyone into tribes and pre-judging their behavior is the antithesis of libertarianism. Right?

As for Ron Paul, as someone stated above, he's hardly the be-all end-all of libertarianism, given that some of his positions are decidedly "unlibertarian".

Do you mean to tell me, for example, that "limp-wristed" - in the context of humor/sarcasm - references to gays is cause for ALARM?

No, but it's a disgusting display of tribalism that Paul should be ashamed to have ever been associated with.

PS. Statements like "95% of blacks in DC are criminals"--a demonstrable lie--ARE racist. Not sure how could possibly interpret that otherwise.

crimethink | January 9, 2008, 10:32am | #

I'd say the answer is, "Why the non-racist majority didn't kick these barbaric thugs in the nuts the first time they stuck their filthy heads up, instead of keeping company with them."

You might want to ask your heroes Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, RFK, about that. Sometimes you have to associate with people you find repugnant if you're going to get anything done in politics (and in the case of libertarianism, if you're even going to keep the movement alive).

Daze | January 9, 2008, 10:32am | #

So is the ghostwriter presumed to be Lew Rockwell? I don't run in the circles where this would be an open secret, but his name was mentioned in previous threads.

whiskey | January 9, 2008, 10:32am | #

@Hits the fan:

Yeah, Lew Rockwell is my first thought after reading what McElroy wrote.

Jack | January 9, 2008, 10:34am | #

joe, just remember; it's not virulent bigotry, it's "not having a perfect candidate."

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 10:34am | #

I'd say the answer is, "Why the non-racist majority didn't kick these barbaric thugs in the nuts the first time they stuck their filthy heads up, instead of keeping company with them."

joe, I suppose that it's the same reason that even though in the beginning you were a pretty sympathetic statist I kept listening to you and engaging you. Shoot, we ALL did.

you might not have noticed it joe, but you have changed a lot from what I remember. And engaging people, onerous though we may find them, is the only way to make big change happen.

I'm an evolutionist: I think almost everything happens at the margin and macroevolution doesn't really exist, it's just a convenient concept. Microevolution and the margin are the only way things get changed, and that requires engaging people one at a time.

I mean, should I never quote anyone over at Lew Rockwell because of the company some of them keep? Is image more important than message?

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 10:34am | #

Paul's admitted that this was a mistake many times and he's sad it happened, but you don't think that pointing fingers at the authors isn't kind of vindictive and childish? Paul has said enough for me to feel comfortable explaining it to someone else, but its never good enough for the casual supporter who's basic argument up to now is that Paul will change the world (which probably convinced nobody).

Jerry | January 9, 2008, 10:35am | #

I also don't see what the big deal is. It is hard to see what the relevance of those TNR snippets is with the rest of the newsletter material. I think people are overreacting.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 10:35am | #

Jack,

Its fun that you keep conflating what someone else wrote with Paul. Fuckin troll.

James | January 9, 2008, 10:36am | #

This story fits perfectly into the paradigm that libertarians are just a conglomeration of losers, racists, anti-social a-holes, greedy SOBs, and people who want weed legalized...a most unfortunate stereotype, but is it based in fact?

Roach | January 9, 2008, 10:36am | #

Roach-

libertarianism means the State can't do a damn thing about discrimination, that doesn't mean that we as indivduals have to put up with it, or support it. Yeah you'll have discriminitory schools and they'll catch a lot of shit for being discrimintory, just not by and throught the State. honestly i don't see the problem with your "new generation" observation, it's true and something to be celebrated. The other way of thinking is what has keep you guys as fringe.

Warren | January 9, 2008, 10:37am | #

Mencken!? WTF? Who knew boobiosie was code for black people?

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 10:37am | #

Here's the other thing, if it was Rockwell (and I'm sure that it was) Paul would be smart to out that fucker, throw that whole gang out in the cold and embrace "us", the cosmopolitan libertarians and the young who find this crap onerous.

I have to keep in mind, though, that I love my grandparents even though they say "colored" instead of "black" instead of "African American".

joe | January 9, 2008, 10:38am | #

crimethink,

You might want to ask your heroes Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, RFK, about that.

Every single one of those men died before I was born, and with the exception of Wilson (who died an entire lifetime before I was born), none of them came within a thousand miles of "The only reason the LA riots ended was because it was time to pick up the welfare checks." By contrast you're going to vote for Ron Paul this year.

I would absolutely not associate myself with anyone who expressed anything remotely similar to the sentiments in those newsletters.

If you weren't so blindly partisan, you wouldn't assume that Woodrow Wilson was a "hero" of mine because he had a D after his name before my great-grandfather immigrated. But, then, if you weren't so blindly partisan, you'd realize that it is actually BAD to put out newsletters under your name like these, even when it's your guy's name.

Shane | January 9, 2008, 10:39am | #

Sorry that comment was to Roach by me, not from him.

Jack | January 9, 2008, 10:39am | #

LIT, count how many times I accused RP of writing those things, then compare that with how many times I explicity based my point on it not being relevant whether he wrote them. I think I made perfectly clear a couple times that he didn't

"I don't care if he didn't write it, his name is on it"

" finding out what someone is saying under your name and reputation"

for two

Gee | January 9, 2008, 10:39am | #

Joe:

"Face it, this is not the only axis between the racist hard-right and libertarianism."

Please. There's no more that "axis" than there is an axis between the racist hard-left and libertarianism. "Hey, look at me...because I observe a drooling fool standing next to a libertarian, I can assert an "axis" between drooling fools and libertarians!"

"Hell, there's a guy up there who can't find anything improper in any of the newsletters!"

You should learn how to read. I actually cited the "improper" nature of some comments ("politically-incorrect" is the term I used, i.e. improper). What I can't find is any racist or anti-gay comments. Care to cough up ONE, in context? That's ok, I didn't think could.

gaijin | January 9, 2008, 10:40am | #

Ayn Randian:
Is image more important than message?

I can only assume you are asking this rhetorically, given that we are talking about politics. Afterall, the image IS the message.

joe | January 9, 2008, 10:40am | #

Ayn Randian,

You engaged me and discussed politics with me, but you never argued for leftist ideas or allowed me to get away with doing so while claiming to speak for you or for libertarianism.

Guy Montag | January 9, 2008, 10:40am | #

RPS,

I guess this kind of swiftboating is taken in stride by old professional politicains and their wonks, but is hitting the earnest young lovers of liberty like a smack in the kisser by a dead fish.

If this were "swiftboating" then there would be truth in the accusation. This is more like fairbanksing.

Pig Mannix | January 9, 2008, 10:41am | #

Here's the other thing, if it was Rockwell (and I'm sure that it was) Paul would be smart to out that fucker, throw that whole gang out in the cold and embrace "us", the cosmopolitan libertarians and the young who find this crap onerous.

Considering the "cosmopolitan" libertarians have mostly been cool to him from the get-go, why would he want to do that? That's not where his support is coming from, anyway.

Russ 2000 | January 9, 2008, 10:41am | #

Finally, I think libertarians for a long time have preferred to sweep under the rug the consequences of their philosophy

I doubt that. Libertarians have pretty much always said up front that their philosophy results in YOU having to let your neighbor be a total asshole as long as they aren't murdering, robbing, or battering another person against his will.

Rhywun | January 9, 2008, 10:41am | #

#5: His involvement in the anti-psychiatry movement.

He's a Scientologist?!

crimethink | January 9, 2008, 10:42am | #

Every single one of those men died before I was born, and with the exception of Wilson (who died an entire lifetime before I was born), none of them came within a thousand miles of "The only reason the LA riots ended was because it was time to pick up the welfare checks."

I didn't say FDR, JFK, Truman, RFK actually wrote those things or said them, and probably they did not believe them. But they definitely, absolutely associated with people who said (and did) much worse things in regard to race, and profited politically from this association, far more than libertarians profited from their association with racist groups.

brotherben | January 9, 2008, 10:43am | #

Ayn_Randian | January 9, 2008, 10:34am |
Is image more important than message?"


You silly silly rabbit, this is America, and you must never forget:
IMAGE IS EVRYTHING!!!

R C Dean | January 9, 2008, 10:44am | #

The identity of the author of the 'objectionable' material from past issues of Ron Paul's Newsletter -- material that is currently being used by major media to skewer Paul [see blog post below] -- is an open secret within the circles in which I run. The news accounts refer to him merely as an "aide." We call him by his first name.

Jeebus, Wendy. You know who he is. He wrote material for publication. I don't think anybody owes him any obligation to protect his identity. TELL US HIS FRICKIN' NAME! WTF is this faux-ethical "please come forward bullshit!

Why the non-racist majority didn't kick these barbaric thugs in the nuts the first time they stuck their filthy heads up, instead of keeping company with them.

One might ask them same question about the political associates of a former Klan Kleagle now in his, what, fourth decade of wielding enormous power in the Senate, joe. In my books, "KKK leader" is far worse than "negligent newsletter publisher."

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 10:44am | #

Jack,

It's called assasination through innuendo.

Shane | January 9, 2008, 10:45am | #

I doubt that. Libertarians have pretty much always said up front that their philosophy results in YOU having to let your neighbor be a total asshole as long as they aren't murdering, robbing, or battering another person against his will.

It also means you can call him out on his assholeness as well. I'm getting sick of this "how dare libertarians criticize anything about Paul they must not be "real" libertarians" attitude, it stinks.

And the whole boat of "you guys must not want to win, he;s your only shot" is b.s. too. shit, i'd rather lose an election than my principals. otherwise i'm no better than the republicrats.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 9, 2008, 10:47am | #

I preface this with the comment that I think this thing is going to derail the RP campaign. However, at the moment this seems to be a tempest in the libertarian teapot.

About half the people I know who support RP are not libertarians per se and none of them have said boo about this. Because they don't know. I am getting the emails and they still are the same as they were last week. We'll see if that changes.

First clue will be when people begin to ask me if RP is racist. So far, not a word.

Disclaimer: Not a scientific survey, but I do know (and know of) a lot of RP supporters all across the country.

joe | January 9, 2008, 10:47am | #

GEE,

The authors, editors, publishers, staffers, and layout people who put those newsletters together were not "standing next to" Ron Paul. It was called the Ron Paul Political Report. He authorized them to put it out, and did nothing to stop them when they continued to put out crap like,

"The only reason the LA riots ended was because it was time to pick up the welfare checks"

and

"The country is overrun with terrorists, and we can recognize them by the color of their skin."

which, btw, are flagrantly racist statements. We can recognize terrorists by the color of their skin? Are you effing kidding me? Go ahead, put that in context.

crimethink | January 9, 2008, 10:48am | #

My principles aren't the least bit threatened by Ron Paul winning this election. Enough with the melodrama, sheesh.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 9, 2008, 10:48am | #

So Shane, will you be sitting this election out, or do you have a better candidate than RP in mind? Aside from the LP I mean.

joe | January 9, 2008, 10:49am | #

crimethink,

But they definitely, absolutely associated with people who said (and did) much worse things in regard to race, and profited politically from this association You're right, they did. And today, their willigness to do so is treated by Democrats and liberals as a stain on our honor from a dark period in our history. Anyone found doing so today would be tossed out on his ear.

Not defended, as you are doing.

joe | January 9, 2008, 10:51am | #

RC Dean,

One might ask them same question about the political associates of a former Klan Kleagle now in his, what, fourth decade of wielding enormous power in the Senate, joe.

You mean the one who RENOUNCED and APOLOGIZED FOR the error of his ways? Those newsletters were not written by a former racist; they were written by an active racist.

joe | January 9, 2008, 10:52am | #

The Democrats drove the racists out of our party, RC, and into yours, where they were gleefully welcomed. Even at the cost of losing their national majority.

Why haven't libertarians done the same thing, when the stakes for them would be so much lower?

Shane | January 9, 2008, 10:52am | #

So Shane, will you be sitting this election out, or do you have a better candidate than RP in mind? Aside from the LP I mean.

depends, i was really banking on Paul, and will wait to see what he does now. But if he is a racist or staffs racists or can't come up with something better than "old news", then i'll look 3rd party or sit it out. Racism is a big deal and fuck anyone who tries to dismiss it or ignore it, and fuck anyone who wants me to take someone, anyone, at their word(but only in regard to their current word not their past word) without using my head. there should be no ambiguity about this. Maybe the 50 year old + crowd is used to their own shit, but that doesn't mean i have to eat it.

whiskey | January 9, 2008, 10:53am | #

@Rhywun: Well, his involvement with the anti-psychiatry movement is pretty laffo.

J sub D | January 9, 2008, 10:53am | #

We all knew the attacks were coming. We all knew Ron Paul wasn't a perfect candidate. Yes, this is disappointing, but I will cast my vote for RP next week. I've never voted for a faultless candidate before, and I won't then. Ron messed up big time, it's going to cost him and the movement, but what else can I do? Who is, in total, the candidate that supports my positions best? The answer remains Ron Paul.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 10:53am | #

"The country is overrun with terrorists, and we can recognize them by the color of their skin."

Tom Tancredo was writing for Paul?

Episiarch | January 9, 2008, 10:54am | #

In spite of these palecon views, I don't believe in un-Christian and uncharitable discrimiation, and I don't think government should allow such immorality any more than it should allow other anti-social immorality like gay marriage, hard drug use, or treachery against the government.

Glad to know your morality trumps mine and the government should use force to enforce your morality, dickhead.

crimethink | January 9, 2008, 10:54am | #

joe,

Ron Paul is not doing those things today. As far as we know, he made a very foolish mistake in lending out his name in 1985, and then neglected to keep tabs on it. Call it "a stain on his honor from a dark period in his history", though the magnitude of what his associates did is far slighter than what the Democrats' southern allies were up to.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 10:54am | #

Meanwhile, the democrat party continues to welcome Senator Byrd.

joe | January 9, 2008, 10:56am | #

No, he is not doing those things today. And good for him.

As I said before, crimethink, anybody who associated with racists like that would be distinctly unwelcome in the modern Democratic Party.

While those - the actual individuals themselves - who did so are still welcome in the libertarian movement.

J sub D | January 9, 2008, 10:57am | #

The Democrats drove the racists out of our party, RC, and into yours ...

Uh joe -
Does Senator Robert Byrd (D) West Virginia, ring a bell? That house cleaning isn't done yet.
Just sayin'.

Pig Mannix | January 9, 2008, 10:57am | #

I think if Paul handles this properly, his campaign can still survive it. However, what constitutes "properly" in this case is debatable.

My instinct is that he should confront the issue directly, and clear the air as soon as possible,
but so far, every time the issue has surfaced, he's just played it down until it blew over.

Perhaps he's correct to handle it that way, I don't know. But my feeling is that unless he finally drives a wooden stake through it's heart, it'll keep coming back to haunt him, like it has so far.

Episiarch | January 9, 2008, 10:57am | #

Let's not get into TEAM BLUE HAZ KKK TEAM L HAZ LEW ROCKWELLZ bullshit.

It seems like Ron goofed, is probably not a racist, and wasn't careful enough about a newsletter. Super. But that is completely distinct from what effect this will have on the movement, Paul's campaign, and his supporters.

Shane | January 9, 2008, 10:57am | #

Meanwhile, the democrat party continues to welcome Senator Byrd. something about 2 wrongs and all the other common sense shit my grandmother would respond with. Fuck Byrd.

DavidS | January 9, 2008, 10:58am | #

This is not from a newsletter, but a letter to supporters sent out under the letterhead of 'Congressman Ron Paul' and signed by hand (probably photocopied).
I have unmasked the plot for world government, world money, and world central banking. Planned exchange controls to hold you hostage…while the dollar drops down a hole…

I revealed the Red debt bomb set to explode in your bank account…The real, financial reasons Bush invaded Panama. The nightmare of a ‘cashless society’ (watch out for it, if they get away with the New Money)…

I’ve been told not to talk, but these stooges don’t scare me. Threats or not threats, I’ve laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)

The Bohemian Grove – perverted, pagan playground of the powerful Skull & Bones: the demonic fraternity that includes George Bush and leftist Senator John Kerry, Congress’s Mr New Money. The Israeli lobby, which plays Congress like a cheap harmonica. And the Soviet-style ‘smartcard’ the Justice Department has in mind for you.
There are eight pages of this stuff...

Doesn't it rather suggest that, if Paul has some loonies in his ranks, they are there because he asked them to join?

Russ 2000 | January 9, 2008, 10:58am | #

It also means you can call him out on his assholeness as well.

See anyone stopping anyone from doing it? You have to be rather naiive to think people aren't going to get defensive, though.

I'm getting sick of this "how dare libertarians criticize anything about Paul they must not be "real" libertarians" attitude, it stinks.

I can't stand ideological purity, either. But most posters here aren't engaging in it. Let Paul take his lumps, we'll see what he's made of.

i'd rather lose an election than my principals.

A mistake of youth. The vanity of principal isn't really any different than the vanity of popularity.

J sub D | January 9, 2008, 10:59am | #

LIT beat me to it. Darn!

crimethink | January 9, 2008, 10:59am | #

joe,

The Dems didn't "drive out" the racists from their party. Rather, the majority changed their political positions to those which those racists couldn't live with, and so they left.

Unfortunately for libertarians, racists have no problem living with our positions. That doesn't mean we should change them.

joe | January 9, 2008, 10:59am | #

Meanwhile, the democrat party continues to welcome Senator Byrd.

...who has renounced racism and has been fighting it for decades.

While the author of those newsletters, who has never renounced the views therein, is apparently a member in good standing in the libertarian movement.

Yup, we liberals forgive racists who see the error of their ways. That last bit is a rather significant condition for us, though, and doesn't seem to be for you.

joe | January 9, 2008, 11:01am | #

Jesus, is stupidity mandatory, or did you all volunteer?

Former racist. Active racist.

Used to believe in racist ideas. Believes, and loudly advocates for, racist ideas.

None of you are dumb enough not to get this kindergarten-level concept, so stop faking it.

Edward | January 9, 2008, 11:01am | #

"It was money for Ron. It was money for the writers. And it was a way of keeping Ron's name in the minds of right wingers with money ... future donors."

This puts his keeping the Nazi money into perspective. He's been taking it all along. But why haven't the mainstream media picked this upt yet?

Going ahead and voting for him anyway taps into a long tradition of closing one's eyes to the flaws in the leader. Ask the Stalinists.

Jose Ortega y Gasset | January 9, 2008, 11:01am | #

The problem is that the bulk of the universe thinks that the libertarian is probably like the cosmopolitan except not with cranberry juice. Then, someone like Paul comes along and says a few things and doesn't sound completely insane and they think, "Hmmm... that sounds reasonable." Then, standing around the water cooler someone tells them, "Yeah, Ron Paul, he's a libertarian who wrote some racist stuff." And they think, "Oh, Hell, what was I thinking? The libertarian isn't a drink. It's those nuts who write those long letters to the editors and refuse to pay taxes."

Yes, that is terribly wrong. It is also terribly how America works.

Jake Boone | January 9, 2008, 11:02am | #

"The country is overrun with terrorists, and we can recognize them by the color of their skin."
Okay, joe. I'm not on the side of "nothing objectionable was written," but this is a dishonest argument you're making. How about including the first part of that sentence? The part along the lines of "Some people are going to conclude that..."

That's the sort of thing that makes me conclude this is a smear piece. It looks like there were maybe one or two articles with actual, objectionable content (from which many of the damning quotes were taken), and most (if not all) of the rest is half-truth, deliberately and dishonestly edited to make individual quotes look racist when they aren't.

kinnath | January 9, 2008, 11:03am | #

I voted for the man I watched on Bill Moyers last weekend. I have no qualms about it.

However, it's impossible to reconcile the past newsletters with the man I voted for. And, it's beyond comprehension why Ron Paul (the man today) doesn't publicly torch the jackass that wrote those newsletters.

creech | January 9, 2008, 11:05am | #

Ed Crane and CATO did disassociate from RP a long time ago. In the early nineties, the Libertarian Party largely stopped trumpeting RP as he became associated with Rockwell/Rothbard paleos. The LP even ran candidates in congressional races against him.
Today's LP is largely run by people who weren't around in the early 90s and knew nothing of this RP past. Those with long memories should have spoken up (or maybe they did and were ignored, or were seduced by the prospect of thousands of new young people being attracted to his libertarian (and non-racist) 2007 message.

Edward | January 9, 2008, 11:05am | #

This also explains the racist and anti-Semitic stuff I have long noticed here. I actually had no idea that libertarianism had a racist streak and assumed that the racists were outsider trolls like me.

Lost_In_Translation | January 9, 2008, 11:06am | #

...who has renounced racism and has been fighting it for decades.

which leads me to believe you think Paul is racist.

DavidS | January 9, 2008, 11:06am | #

[i]This puts his keeping the Nazi money into perspective. He's been taking it all along.[/i]

Not just taking it, actively soliciting it...

Dave W. | January 9, 2008, 11:06am | #

None of you are dumb enough not to get this kindergarten-level concept, so stop faking it.

I feel your pain, joe.

joe | January 9, 2008, 11:06am | #

Jack Boone,

Writing in a manner so as to distance yourself from the idea you're pushing is what a prosecutor would call "evidence of awareness."

John-David | January 9, 2008, 11:06am | #

DavidS,

That letter in total reads like a completely loony rewrite of Harry Browne's stuff. When is the complete collapse of our economy coming, anyway; I'm getting tired of hoarding all this silver.

Jerry | January 9, 2008, 11:06am | #

@joe
Then those who hav kept this as an open secret within the libertarian movement are as much to blame as the author, especially when they find it convenient to ask the author to come public right now, instead of 15 years ago.

joe | January 9, 2008, 11:08am | #

LIT,

No, I think the author and editor of those newsletters is racist. I still consider it much more likely that Paul just wasn't minding the store.

Gee | January 9, 2008, 11:09am | #

Joe:

"The authors, editors, publishers, staffers, and layout people who put those newsletters together were not "standing next to" Ron Paul. It was called the Ron Paul Political Report."

I know a "legalize pot" guy working for the Paul campaign. He also doesn't believe in p