Video: Ron Paul Responds to TNR on CNN

On CNN's Situation Room, Ron Paul addresses the charges made in The New Republic, and reason's Matt Welch advises the Paul campaign to reveal the authors of Ron Paul's various newsletters. (Note: Because of YouTube's 10 minute video limit, Blitzer's intro has been excised.)

Discuss.

Comments

jet | January 10, 2008, 7:03pm | #

From the CNN website: "Matt Welch, the editor-in-chief of "Reason" magazine ..." Huh?

drawnasunder | January 10, 2008, 7:03pm | #

As bad as the newsletters are, and as foolish as he looks on that front; holy schmitt, that is good stuff on to hear on MSM on the drug war.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:03pm | #

Well, at least Paul's showing some fire. You can tell he's genuinely upset.

wealthandtaste | January 10, 2008, 7:04pm | #

For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200 years. The other candidates sweet talk the MSM while continuing to murder civilians abroad, steal a third of our livelihood under threat of violence, and lock up innocent people for the supposed crime of using a goddamn plant to get high!

I'll take racial slurs over a gun to my head from the IRS any day of the week.

Kwix | January 10, 2008, 7:04pm | #

jet,
Matt Welch came back from the LA Times to take over for Nick Gillespie who is heading up ReasonTV.com

Kwix | January 10, 2008, 7:06pm | #

jet,
Here's a link to the Welcome Matt(pun intended).

MattWelch | January 10, 2008, 7:06pm | #

Fuck me.

VM | January 10, 2008, 7:07pm | #

"For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200 years"

*whistles*

well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. a flawless moron residing permanently in abstraction land!!

and the answer to the question: "to whom were the newsletters directed".

run along, now, Pilly Pecker wanted you to finish waxing his car over an hour ago!

Geoff | January 10, 2008, 7:10pm | #

For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200 years.

And people wonder why the supporters of this campaign are being called "cultists" by more than a few out there.

Christ on a crutch.

sweet | January 10, 2008, 7:13pm | #

GET IN. Paul tells his critics where to go, and does it very very well. instead of looking to the MSM for anti-Paul foolishness, we need only visit Reason. seriously, get over yourselves..

Episiarch | January 10, 2008, 7:14pm | #

Hey, Ron wasn't bad. It got better because Wolf was pretty light on him (and seems to believe him), and he got a chance to talk about who he is and what he believes. He should have stressed that he had nothing to do with them more, though.

Not fantastic, but definitely on the "better" side.

VM | January 10, 2008, 7:14pm | #

sweet is obviously bitter...


and his salty ham tears are so sweet.

ididntwritethis | January 10, 2008, 7:14pm | #

"How can one not think of conspiracy theories having just observed a highly coordinated media attack on Ron Paul the day of the New Hampshire campaign? TNR from the left, Fox News and talk radio from the right, and piling on from beltway "libertarians" who made a point of loudly repeating the TNR smears and dumping Ron Paul on the day of the primary. Your eyes did not deceive you, all this happened. It is the result of a criminal conspiracy, but if one uses "conspiracy" as a metaphor for social networks of vast complexity, there is a strong sense in which conspiracy theories accurately, if metaphorically, explain what happened.

The reality behind the conspiratorial metaphor is the social networking between denizens of the Beltway, who sport a wide variety of political labels but are, relative to the rest of the country, a monoculture. These denizens range from the journalists who report the mass media news to various think tank and university scholars at the Cato Institute, George Mason University, and so on. Vast amounts of federal money, that stuff that is taken out of your paycheck with such automatic ease, flow into the Beltway area. Directly and indirectly, almost every person who lives in or near the Beltway depends on the very income tax that Ron Paul declared he would abolish -- with no replacement!

Many of these paycheck vampires call themselves "libertarians" and inspire us with their libertarian rhetoric to support them with our attention, our blog hits, and our tuition money as well as the tax money that already funds them or their friends. But at the first sign of political incorrectness, all these below-the-Beltway "libertarians" have dumped Ron Paul like yesterday's garbage. Now they can rest easy that they will still be invited to the parties thrown by their lobbyist and government employee and contractor friends, who for a second or two got worried by all those Google searches that Ron Paul might have some influence, resulting in some of them losing their jobs (end the income tax with no replacement?! The guy is obvioiusly a kook, and we don't invite the supporters of kooks to our parties!). Now everybody around the Beltway can go back to partying at the taxpayer's expense. All the money will keep flowing in, hooray!

The lesson millions of young libertarians have now learned from our beltway "libertarians"? Libertarian electioneering is futile. Voting is futile. Democracy is futile. Anybody who actually wants liberty is a kook, as can be proven by their association with kooks. Beltway wonks posing as "libertarians" are happy to write things to inflame your hopes for liberty that they don't really mean. Then they make sure that we elect the politicians their friends want -- the ones that will enslave your future to pay for full social security for Baby Boomers. The ones that will send you off to foreign lands to kill and die. Our Beltway "libertarians" are happy to sell a whole new generation of libertarians down the tubes in order to keep their Beltway friends happy."

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:15pm | #

well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. a flawless moron residing permanently in abstraction land!!

While I don't agree with that poster, I do have to say: The newsletters constitute racial insults. At the end of the day, insults are abstractions. Policy is real; words are symbolic. In fairness to his point, a racially insulting asshole who favored good policies would, in fact, be more desirable than a sensitive and sweet-spoken soul who favored bad ones.

That being said, GOD DAMN IT PAUL YOU OWE US THE NAMES.

jet | January 10, 2008, 7:15pm | #

Thanks Kwix.

This website still shows Nick as editor-in-chief (under Reason Staff).

[e-mail] | January 10, 2008, 7:17pm | #

isn't it sad that Matt's quote wasn't even taken out of context.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:20pm | #

Not that it matters since the campaign is dead, but I do note that in passing Paul confirms what has only been speculation and inference until now: that if President he would employ the pardon power as a rubber stamp to nullify federal laws he doesn't agree with.

That's a pretty radical statement to make. I wish the campaign had been more aggressive and provocative in this way all along, instead of campaigning on bases like, "Hey, I'll kick out illegals TOO!" and "Hey, I don't like abortion either!"

WolfBlitzer | January 10, 2008, 7:21pm | #

I wasn't expecting that.

Ron Paul will now be on my CNN 24/7.

Hopefully he can take that frustration out on that bitch Soledad O'Brien.

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:22pm | #

What the Paul campaign needs is for supporters to post more hysterical manifestos. Or not.
Count me among Paul's former supporters. I don't believe the man is a racist, but I also think he is lying when he says he doesn't know who wrote the articles. His failure to loudly and publicly separate himself from those elements of the libertarian movement and the individuals responsible makes him unpalatable in my eyes.

Dedalus | January 10, 2008, 7:22pm | #

Homerun! Paul is masterful.

Now can you hand-wringers finally bury it? The only place this story has any legs is on supposedly "friendly" places like Reason.

Minion of URKOBOLD | January 10, 2008, 7:23pm | #

NOBODY EXPECTS WOLF'S GRECIAN FORMULA.

ITS COLORS ARE AUBURN.

AUBURN AND FALL SUNRISE.

AUBURN AND... I'LL COME IN AGAIN.

Confused | January 10, 2008, 7:24pm | #

Can someone explain this one to me. He says he's for "the blacks" by eliminating drug laws in this clip, yet I've seen him in other clips saying "would you want some drug dealer crossing the border, having a baby here and having it get citizenship". He's legalizing and then punishing the same thing. No?

| January 10, 2008, 7:25pm | #

I wish the campaign had been more aggressive and provocative in this way all along, instead of campaigning on bases like, "Hey, I'll kick out illegals TOO!" and "Hey, I don't like abortion either!"

Yes. Not cosmopolitan.

Provoked you just fine, though.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:25pm | #

Captain Chaos: have fun waiting for 30 years until the next politician with as sterling a record and as successful a campaign as Paul has comes along.

VM | January 10, 2008, 7:27pm | #

"Now can you hand-wringers finally bury it? The only place this story has any legs is on supposedly "friendly" places like Reason."

no because we hold people who claim "libertarianism" to a higher standard. It is, after all the philosophy of the higher standard, so we naturally hold candidates to it.

WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO HIDE??? ahem. sorry.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:27pm | #

Hopefully we won't be living in a complete police state by then.

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:28pm | #

Now can you hand-wringers finally bury it? The only place this story has any legs is on supposedly "friendly" places like Reason.
No. The man allowed hateful filth to be published under his name, and has not offered a satisfying explanation, and apparently still associates with the folks who are responsible. So no, I won't be pretending this won't happen.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:28pm | #

No, nameless one. I did not need to be provoked.

And all the candidates except Giuliani are pro-life. Why on Earth would Paul campaign on that issue? Pro-life voters have a wide selection of candidates to indulge their monomania.

And all that anti-immigration stuff did wonders for Tancredo, didn't it?

In a 6 man race you campaign on the basis of what makes you different. Immigration and abortion don't make Paul different. Advocating the same thing as the other candidates, but with cheaper and less-well-written ads, is no way to win anything.

svf | January 10, 2008, 7:30pm | #

I'd give him a B-.

Plenty of great stuff (anti-drug war, civil disobedience...)

Some head-scratchers ("they're afraid" that you're getting so many "black votes"? a publisher often isn't aware of what's in his own magazines?)

A few cringe-inducing comments. (That MLK Day money bomb ain't gonna be $4 million+ so please don't build up the media's expectations... and didn't you vote against the MLK Day holiday, by the way?)

I guess that's about par for the course for Ron Paul TV appearances, though...

It helped greatly to have a rather sympathetic interviewer in Wolf. He may have been crucified by O'Reilly or Russert.

In any event, while I hope this is laid to rest for once and for all, I somehow doubt it...

Keep the gloves off in the debates tonight and give 'em hell, Ron.... you truly have nothing to lose at this point!

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:30pm | #

Derek- We're doing snark now? Fine. Have fun explaining why we're not a bunch of bigots to everyone who will now associate libertarianism with the sort of poisonous drivel in those newsletters.

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:30pm | #

B/B+. Started out poorly, finished up well.

He kept hitting the drug war stance and its disproportionate impact on minorities, and that really helped him. Even people who don't agree with him on the issue are going to view what he said as solid evidence of his non-racist character.

And Wolf Blitzer certainly went out of his way to help him, and it worked.

Let's see

"Libertarians are incapable of being racist." Uh huh. Every single political philosophy that isn't explicitly racist can point to tenets that refute racism. Weak.

"Let me get my message out, because you put that other message out" No, Ron, YOU put that other message out, or let it be put out. That's the problem.

How did this happen. Who wrote this? "Well, well..." Pause "I have no idea." Bullshit. Lie. Nice stutter and shuffle. Very transparent.

"Why don't you believe me?" Boo hoo. How about, because you're a professional politician, and people don't believe any of them?

"Nitpicking" and the general effort to treat this like a little fluff story when we should be talking about more weighty matter: this isn't a story about your cleavage. This isn't a story about screwing up a joke. This isn't a story about having to shout and having a horse voice. You, apparently, put out a fucking newsletter full of neo-Nazi claptrap! You need to answer for it, not shrug it off as no big deal.

"...the blacks...the blacks..." Don't say "the blacks." Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, you're trying to refute the idea you're a racist, and you refer to them more than once as "the blacks." Just freaking wonderful.

"Nobody heard me say this, nobody heard me say this" sounds more like "You can't prove nuffin" than "I didn't do it."

On the other hand, very effective reference to Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. Sure, everybody says they like Martin Luther King - just cherish him, really - for his nonviolence and opposition to racism, but by singling out the "libertarian value of civil disobedience" - civil disobedience not being terribly popular in the era of George Bush and giant puppet-marches - Paul's claim comes across as quite credible, because he singled out something controversial. Very effective.

OK, I started out at B/B+. Going through my notes, I'm dropping that to B-/B. Not too bad, Stopped the bleeding, anyway. The story isn't dead, and he's going to have to do better than this when it comes up, but he did well enough that he's going to have a shot at doing it effectively.

BTW, those of you who've decided that your response to this scandal will be to wage a civil war in your puny fringe movement remind me of a combination of the Bolsheviks and the Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea scene in the Life of Brian. Grow up.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:30pm | #

Hey, I'm pissed off about this, too.

But I don't think that Captain Chaos was ever a supporter, so stop the violin music, bub.

ColbCo | January 10, 2008, 7:32pm | #

Wolf Blitzer gave him a chance to speak and get his point across. Wolf knows a smear when he sees it!

thoreau | January 10, 2008, 7:32pm | #

The most credible thing to come out of his interview is what we already knew: That he doesn't agree with the stuff that was published under his name.

But his agreement was never the issue for me. I never had reason to suspect that he agreed with that stuff. Rather, the issue is that he has yet to show any evidence that, when he learned what was being put out there in his name, he (1) published a denunciation of those articles in the same newsletter, to clear the air and (2) cut ties with the people who wrote that garbage.

He might not believe in that stuff, but he sure wants to maintain good relations with the people who will eat it up.

edna | January 10, 2008, 7:32pm | #

He's legalizing and then punishing the same thing. No?

no. he's protecting our domestic drug industry.

Madam Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:33pm | #

Derek-If I wanted to overlook major character flaws because a candidate happens to share some of my ideas, I would have stuck with the major party candidates.

thoreau | January 10, 2008, 7:34pm | #

"For all I care Ron Paul could do a daily speech consisting of nothing but racial slurs and chants of "White Power" and he would STILL be the greatest thing for this country in the last 200 years."

Well, as long as he votes for a tax cut, I guess it's all good, right?

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:34pm | #

Captain Chaos: people who aren't willing to look past a few isolated passages from 15 years ago that Paul didn't write for a newsletter he didn't edit, but that he has taken responsibility for and condemned, and won't take into account the body of the Doctor's career, work, actions and speeches, probably wouldn't be open to libertarian ideology anyway.

Madam Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:35pm | #

Fluffy-I donated more than $100, attended meetups, and signed up as a precinct captain for Paul. You're flat wrong on this one.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 7:35pm | #

This was contracted out and probably penned by some pimply faced interns. He many not know (or remember) who actually wrote the words in each case.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:35pm | #

Joe -

I think that's a pretty good assessment of the interview.

The word "blacks" does kind of labor on the ear now, though, doesn't it? Funny how it used to be the acceptable word to use.

Since Paul apparently didn't know who Tom Cruise was when he met him before the first Leno appearance, maybe he's just too far behind the times to know you're supposed to say "African-American" now.

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:36pm | #

edna's been taking the funny pills lately. Nice one.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 7:36pm | #

"didn't you vote against the MLK Day holiday"

Sure he did, and he'd vote against a holiday for Elvis or Jesus Christ, too. The principle is consistent: it's not for the federal government to declare national holidays.

-jcr

Madam Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:36pm | #

Derek-And just what does "taken responsibility" mean? In the absence of actions to totally repudiate the folks who did write the newsletters and his association with them, "taking moral responsibility" is nothing but an empty phrase.

Fluffy | January 10, 2008, 7:36pm | #

OK, Chaos, I'm sorry.

I think I momentarily confused you with Guy Montag.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:37pm | #

Madam Chaos: Not knowing Paul personally, I'm not in a position to judge what his character flaws may or may not be, and I don't think you are either. See my previous message.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 7:37pm | #

Madam Chaos: Are you suggesting an anarchist strategy of not-voting....because the all-too-human alternatives to Paul are going to disappoint you even more.

Ken Shultz | January 10, 2008, 7:38pm | #

I'm one of those who more or less pulled my vocal support for Ron Paul over this, and I'm not sure he's getting it back, but I think he said all the things I wanted to hear.

...got to give him credit for that.

"Libertarians are incapable of being racist." Uh huh. Every single political philosophy that isn't explicitly racist can point to tenets that refute racism. Weak."

I think he followed that up with the suggestion that real libertarianism is about the ultimate respect for individuals rather than groups, which doesn't seem like such a weak argument to me.

An Ottawa Reader | January 10, 2008, 7:38pm | #

Given this isn't the first grief Ron Paul has gotten over this, you'd have thought he'd be better prepared. Trying to segue into libertarian talking points about how the drug war hurts blacks the most just sounded like evasion--which it just possibly was.

Wolf wasn't just easy on him--he was feeding him the answers a better prepared candidate would have had memorized.

Wolf: So do you reject racism and all its works and all its empty promises?
Paul: Uh...I do!

Good on Wolf though for pointing out to Paul that now he's in the big leagues (or at least the Triple-A minors) he's going to have to expect as much scrutiny and criticism as any other candidate. Had Ron forgotten that after spending months around crowds of young people who thought he was the Second Coming, I wonder...?

Sean | January 10, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Dear Ron,

We all make mistakes and do stupid things. Luckily, yours didn't include voting for an illegal and unconstitutional war, the erosion of our civil liberties and the growth of a corrupt government.

I still love you. Give 'em hell!! This ain't over yet!

I forgive you!

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Fluffy,

"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.

Gay people, the gays.

It implies exactly the view of people from a minority group as undifferentiated members of a collective that Paul is renouncing, and using to distance himself from the sentiments in the newsletters.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Madam Chaos: I'd assume it means he understands the passages were inappropiate, wrong and offensive and understands he was ultimately responsible for them, and he understands he is the one that deserves any and all criticism because the buck stops with him.

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:41pm | #

Derek-I think what madam chaos (my beloved, who has been reading over my shoulder, and dictated that response) was getting at is that you can make judgments about a person's character based on their actions, or lack thereof.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 7:41pm | #

Fluffy:

Perhaps but "blacks" is still the main word of choice in both races. Even those who say African American lapse into it most of the time....and for good reason.

Who'd want to say :African American Panthers or "African American and proud?"

svf | January 10, 2008, 7:42pm | #

"didn't you vote against the MLK Day holiday"

Sure he did, and he'd vote against a holiday for Elvis or Jesus Christ, too. The principle is consistent: it's not for the federal government to declare national holidays.

jcr -- absolutely... I'm just sayin', beware of rallying behind a MLK Day online fundraiser if you oppose the whole idea of that (and any other) Federal holiday in the first place... "oh, I see -- now that you can use it to fundraise you're in favor of it..." etc.

joe -- thanks for posting all the stuff I wanted to say but didn't.

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:42pm | #

It implies exactly the view of people from a minority group as undifferentiated members of a collective that Paul is renouncing, and using to distance himself from the sentiments in the newsletters.
Yeah, I was cringing every time he said "the blacks" and I wanted to be convinced by this interview. Very unbecoming.

ColbyCo | January 10, 2008, 7:42pm | #

Ending the drug war is what he should have been emphasizing all along, not television ads on immigration and "terrorist nations."

cicero | January 10, 2008, 7:44pm | #

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:40pm | #

'"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.'


Yep. I don't think it's just chance that Paul said "the blacks" numerous times during an interview where he claimed he didn't write articles that used the term "the blacks" over and over again.

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:44pm | #

Ken Shultz,

I think he followed that up with the suggestion that real libertarianism is about the ultimate respect for individuals rather than groups, which doesn't seem like such a weak argument to me.

OK, let's go through this.

Christians are incapable of being racist, because we believe that each and every one of us are God's children and made in His image. A Christian can't hate God's children. Did I convince you that nobody who's a Christian can be a racist yet?

Communists can't be racist, because we believe that racism is a tool used by the oppressor class to divide the workers and destroy their class consciousness. Did I convince you that nobody who's a Communist can be a racist?

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:45pm | #

"Derek-I think what madam chaos (my beloved, who has been reading over my shoulder, and dictated that response) was getting at is that you can make judgments about a person's character based on their actions, or lack thereof."

That's a valid point. But then, I return to my previous point. This basically comes down to two or three newsletters published 15 years ago while Paul was busy with his medical practice that contained material Paul didn't write or edit. He's denounced the material, etc. etc. etc. On the other hand, we also have his ENTIRE LIFE, 30 YEARS of public service, whole voting record and countless speeches and writings that speak FOR this man's character, FOR his honesty, etc. Paul goofed up for sure. But this man deserves the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this newsletter fiasco.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 7:46pm | #

Give me a break. This is nitpicking, not sinister:

"black people" v. "blacks" What's the difference?

Same with "whites" v. "white people"

Should we also say lesbian people instead of lesbians?

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:47pm | #

And that's what distresses me. Too many people aren't willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. They seem almost eager to toss him overboard. Paul doesn't deserve to be tossed overboard. Criticized -- yes. Thrown overboard? No.

prolefeed | January 10, 2008, 7:48pm | #

Homerun! Paul is masterful.

Unless you were being really, really wry with a pun about "masterful", no. I cringed a couple times watching the video. I think Paul's telling the truth about not holding racist beliefs, but not a good job of spin control -- and I got the perhaps mistaken impression he does know who wrote the newsletters. He's gonna get hammered by this, debate after debate, unless he can get the author(s) of the newsletter to do a public mea culpa.

Still voting for Ron Paul, but holding my nose a bit.

raidsmith | January 10, 2008, 7:49pm | #

He did look a little weak. Fluffy said he owes us those names, but I don't feel like I'm owed the names, because I never read the stupid newsletters to begin with. I just think it is the only decisive move he can make. I don't think the man is a racist, but the real point is, he wants to be President, but his name is on things he claims to be diametrically opposed to. That's not leadership. He should either make with the names, or make it a point that he is taking this very seriously, and he is working hard to discover who did this. Acting like he is not interested in who did this is almost complicit after the fact.

I think the reason he isn't doing that is because if he did, he knows some of this stink would stick to his buddy Lew Rockwell. I mean, I like Austrian economics, too, but not enough to lay down under a bus to protect. And any of my friends that have said crap like that are on their own.

He can talk about what a drug war hero he would be after he makes with the names.

Make with the names so we can move on, already!

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:49pm | #

dodsworth, I wouldn't say "sinister" so much as "counterproductive," for exactly the reason I already laid out.

"Whites" strikes the ear a little funny, too. Let's say Al Sharpton began a sentence with "When the whites..."

Andrew Taylor | January 10, 2008, 7:49pm | #

Let's face it, folks: Ron Paul is lying about not knowing who wrote those newsletters. He might technically be telling the truth -- "I don't know if it was Lew Rockwell, or Gary North, or some intern" -- but he certainly knows who was responsible for the newsletters, and that person or persons know who wrote for them. This is not the Associated Press with hundreds of reporters worldwide; this was a small-circulation newsletter that probably involved, at most, 10 people or less.

Eric Dondero claims that the newsletters were edited by Rockwell, and I believe he indicated that "80%" of the articles were written by Rockwell. The fact that Rockwell is allowing Paul to twist in the wind demonstrates that he is an absolute, complete, total and utter piece of garbage who cares about one thing, and one thing only: Lew Rockwell. Why a Christian gentleman like Ron Paul would lie for a such a scumbag is a mystery to me.

I'm sorry I wasted my money and my time for such a hopelessly foolish and morally confused man.

Captain Chaos | January 10, 2008, 7:49pm | #

Derek-I don't believe the man is a racist. I think Madam Chaos is satisfied on that point as well. If Paul were my friend, I would forgive him and move on. But he's not my friend: he's the most public face of a movement I believe in deeply, and as such, needs to be held to a higher standard. Paul may well be a wonderful person. But he isn't the best face for the freedom movement. Having said that, I've got to step away from the machine for a while, so don't think I'm not responding to any other comments out of rudeness or indifference to what you're saying.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 7:49pm | #

Did anyone notice the last line of that post? "Discuss."

As if any encouragement were needed when the word "Paul" appears.

Anyhow, I predicted right from the start of this whole thing that Paul's past would come back to haunt him. I had never seen these newsletters, but I did suspect that there would be nearly interminable amounts of dirt to be dug up from what Tom Palmer likes to call the "fever swamp", i.e. (mostly) the associates of Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute.

Presidential elections aren't fair. If voters cannot make out whether a candidate is a John Birchy conspiracist tendencies pretending to be a libertarian, or rather a libertarian who has some experience with pretending to be an Old Right racist—then that candidate is walking a fine line between picking up both (fairly marginal) constituencies and picking up neither.

People who whine that this way "we" are losing the "only chance" to do this-that-or-the-other great wonderful libertarian thing are wrong. If this were the only chance, things would be pretty hopeless indeed. It may take until the baby boom finally enters senility before the quaint coalition of unions and cultural progressives and the quaint coalition of chamber-of-commerce types and religious fundamentalists lose whatever the hell it is that holds them together and keeps the sensible middle locked out. But weirder things have happened before, and the key to patiently keep pushin' at it steadily and from all sides until it gives.

Martin | January 10, 2008, 7:50pm | #

Christ, some people here, nitpicking over blacks vs black people, are more fucking PC than a stadium full of left-liberals. Jesus fuck.

thoreau | January 10, 2008, 7:50pm | #

It's not about his views. I know and respect his views.

What you do when you find out that somebody's been publishing filth under your name is a test of character. It's supposed to be an easy test of character. If you don't want to talk about how you performed on that test, there's something wrong.

If some jerks published trash under my name, once I found out about it I'd have FUN. I'd be bragging about it. You wouldn't need an investigative journalist to figure out what I did in response. You wouldn't need to ask a bunch of questions and parse evasive answers. All you'd need is Google, because the video would be on my web page, and at the end of the video I'd be smiling and waving at the camera.

cicero | January 10, 2008, 7:51pm | #

"Should we also say lesbian people instead of lesbians?"

What you shouldn't say is "the lesbians". And if you're accused of writing something along the lines of "it's time to take back our country from the lesbians" you shouldn't say something like "the lesbians support me more than any other Republican candidate. I think of people as individuals not groups. The lesbians know this."

Paul Rattner | January 10, 2008, 7:51pm | #

Well, I feel better. Whether or not he knew anything about those past publications, he certainly doesn't hold those beliefs NOW, and he repudiates them in no uncertain terms.

Derek | January 10, 2008, 7:52pm | #

"But he's not my friend: he's the most public face of a movement I believe in deeply, and as such, needs to be held to a higher standard."

And I maintain that, despite this incident, no one will come as close to meeting those high standards as Paul does. Not only that, but it's difficult to see someone matching the success Paul has experienced.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 7:52pm | #

Oh, and by the way: the last thing to be bothered by is the fact that Paul said "blacks" rather than "people of color" or "African Americans" or "black people" or whatever the euphemism of the day is. It may not be the best political strategy, and I suppose that may be something you could be concerned about especially if you gave him money and feel he has a responsibility to actually do what it takes to win. But there is nothing inherently reproachable about it.

LevStrauss | January 10, 2008, 7:53pm | #

Fluffy, I was also glad to hear about his potential use of the pardon. If we knew what exactly else he would pardon, I'd bet one would get a lot more votes because that helps a lot of people and their families out. That is an automatic benefit, more direct than any of these government programs anyone else is proposing and it is a concept that is very easy for the electorate to digest. More nonviolent offenders in the workforce, able to start supporting the families they already can't afford instead of dodging same sexed rapists in jail, working for pennies.

joe | January 10, 2008, 7:53pm | #

I am more convinced that Ron Paul is not personally a racist now than I have ever been. You could hear the truth in his voice (just as you could hear the evasion in his voice when he said he had no idea who wrote the columns), and sticking his neck out for civil disobedience - not the teddy bear MLK that National Review writers pretend to admire, but the pain in the ass overturner of apple carts MLK - is very convincing.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 7:54pm | #

The man hit it out of the park. He didn't defend the newsletters, he denounced and repudiated them; he stated his own position; defied anyone to show him ever saying otherwise, and pointed out that he's the only candidate who will free the POWs of the drug war.

So, I'm one Jew-boy who considers the racism question asked and answered to my satisfaction.

-jcr

prolefeed | January 10, 2008, 7:54pm | #

Yep. I don't think it's just chance that Paul said "the blacks" numerous times during an interview where he claimed he didn't write articles that used the term "the blacks" over and over again.

Yep. People who live in a particular area don't develop accents and particular ways of phrasing things, so that multiple people in, to take a completely random theoretical case, Texas, might commonly use the phrase "the blacks".

OMG! Ron Paul used the word "the"! And the word "the" is in the newsletter! Definitive proof he wrote "the" newsletter.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 7:54pm | #

What do people here want? He could have talked like Eisenhower I suppose and said "you people" instead of "the blacks?"

Sje | January 10, 2008, 7:56pm | #

@cicero:

What you shouldn't say is "the lesbians".

Shouldn't as in: it's not a prudent thing for a politician to say.

As far as I'm concerned (me, personally), it matters more what is being said than how many definite articles are used to express it. I'm perfectly willing to give somebody the benefit of the doubt who says the right thing but doesn't know the details of how to say it in the "right" way. And I think that this is a healthy attitude.

But a politician should not count on winning by attracting only voters with a healthy attitude.

Derrick | January 10, 2008, 7:59pm | #

8.5 out of 10.0. He was in a tough spot, and handled it about as well as one could hope for.

As many others here noted, I was really struck by his repetition of the term "the blacks." That's only slightly more P.C. than saying "the coloreds." That's really the only problem I have with what he said.

I was surprised that he kept steering his comments to the proposition of releasing non-violent drug offenders from jail. I haven't heard talk of that in the major media in, well, never. I can't say that I've ever heard that in the major media.

Finally, nice exposure for Reason and Matt Welch.

cicero | January 10, 2008, 8:01pm | #

Sje: "Oh, and by the way: the last thing to be bothered by is the fact that Paul said "blacks" rather than "people of color" or "African Americans" or "black people" or whatever the euphemism of the day is."

The issue isn't blacks vs. people of color or blacks vs. "African Americans." It's the use of "the blacks". He sees black people as a group, not as individuals. Just like the author of those newsletter articles....

I think he should have said "communties of color are being devestated by the war on drugs and I'm trying to stop that." That would have shown racial sensitivity and political saavy. "Black communities..." would still have been fine. I could have lived with "blacks are being hurt by the war on drugs..." But to say "the blacks" over and over again is just plain stupid. And looks racist.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:01pm | #

Sje,

I was just commenting on how effective his performance is.

Like it or not, people hear different subtexts to "the blacks" vs. "black people."

There are two differences. First, the former lumps them together into an undifferentiated mass. Not good. Second, the noun in the latter is "people," an acknowledgment that the central feature of their being is their humanity, while the noun in the former phrase is "blacks," which implies that the central element of their existence is their race. It's exactly the opposite of the message he was conveying, and undermines what he was attempting to do.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:03pm | #

Yeah, even "blacks" would have been better.

If he'd said "the Jews," would we even be debating whether that was poor phrasing?

cicero | January 10, 2008, 8:05pm | #

"People who live in a particular area don't develop accents and particular ways of phrasing things, so that multiple people in, to take a completely random theoretical case, Texas, might commonly use the phrase "the blacks".'

Maybe. But I've never met anyone who constantly referred to black people as "the blacks" who didn't sound prejudiced. If I hear Paul refer to his white supporters as "the whites" then I'll believe you're right.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 8:06pm | #

"He sees black people as a group, not as individuals"

What's your next guess?

See here, read and learn:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/

-jcr

raidsmith | January 10, 2008, 8:06pm | #

"The fact that Rockwell is allowing Paul to twist in the wind demonstrates that he is an absolute, complete, total and utter piece of garbage who cares about one thing, and one thing only: Lew Rockwell. Why a Christian gentleman like Ron Paul would lie for a such a scumbag is a mystery to me."

I couldn't agree more, Andrew Taylor. Before this story even broke (the most recent iteration, anyway), I have read numerous insiders who say Lew is an unbearable ass. It was never qualified, so I just assumed he was a shrewd person to tangle with, or something. But this really puts it into context, doesn't it. I'm not 100% sure Paul knows who wrote that crap, and I'm not 100% sure Lew even wrote any of it, but I am positive Lew knows who did, and I am equally certain Ron Paul knows Lew knows who did, at the very least.

Does Ron Paul want to make a serious run at the Presidency, and do what he can to promote the ideals of limited government and individual liberty, or does he want to protect a friend who is doing nothing to protect Paul right now? Lew Rockwell should be making with the names, but that obviously isn't going to happen. So Ron Paul should demonstrate the ideal of personal responsibility by stepping aside and letting Lew Rockwell answer for the articles he (at the least) edited. To protect Lew from his own personal responsibilities is like subsidizing his character, like handing Lew's personal responsibility a welfare check, it's akin to engaging in social and political collectivism. If Ron Paul is truly the candidate of principle, he should insist that Lew take responsibility for what was written while he was editor, the same as Paul himself took "moral responsibility" for not paying attention to what was being said in his name.

svf | January 10, 2008, 8:06pm | #

cringe-inducer I neglected to mention...

he twice referred to himself as "the anti-racist" I believe...

the Dr. doth protest a bit too much...?

final thought, though -- I mean it was pretty much a CNN set-up with a slickly produced intro proclaiming him guilty of racism and then asking him to prove himself innocent as "RACIST WRITINGS UNDER SCRUTINY" is on the bottom of the screen the whole time. considering that, he did pretty damn well and frankly kept his cool better than many probably would have.

"you wanna be president of the united states you have to expect a lot of scrutiny..." -- Wolf almost apologizes at the end. That's kind of great...

Sean Gerety | January 10, 2008, 8:07pm | #

Ron Paul KNOWS who the editor of the newsletter is - the man responsible for publishing the articles under Paul's name - he said so to Blitzer. Yet, Blitzer missed the boat.

I am confident the Editors of Reason know even if Blitzer is too slow to have even asked the question. Paul needs to separate himself from him and name him. That's the only way this will be over.

Beside Paul is right, there is no doubt that the Republican establishment is responsible, but until Paul assigns a name to those newsletters, he's name is still on the masthead.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 8:09pm | #

"I've never met anyone who constantly referred to black people as "the blacks" who didn't sound prejudiced. "

How about Desmond Tutu or Nelson Mandela?

Come on, enough with the nit-picking and witch hunting. The man is no racist, and what person in their 70's keeps up to the minute with the latest PC terminology?

Hell, if Jesse Jackson were to become a free-market advocate, I'd let him skate on that "hymietown" crack.

-jcr

cicero | January 10, 2008, 8:09pm | #

"See here, read and learn:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/racism/"


That's my whole point. His message is that he sees people as individuals not as groups but then refers to black people as "the blacks". That undermines his message.

Sean Gerety | January 10, 2008, 8:12pm | #

So Ron Paul should demonstrate the ideal of personal responsibility by stepping aside and letting Lew Rockwell answer for the articles he (at the least) edited. To protect Lew from his own personal responsibilities is like subsidizing his character, like handing Lew's personal responsibility a welfare check, it's akin to engaging in social and political collectivism.

I posted this here earlier, but this is from a former Paul Chief of Staff in the 80's:

I have known Ron Paul for more than 30 years. He is not guilty of racism, and the suggestion that he is a racist is preposterous. I worked for him in 1976 and again from 1979 to 1985, the last our years as his chief of staff. The juvenile racial slurs in his newsletters were written by others; I have my suspicions as to who they were. I hope Ron dissociates himself from them by name. I think Ron has made some poor judgments lately and has accepted advice from men who do not respect the Constitution and the Rule of Law. If the TNR article torpedoes his campaign, the torpedo was provided by men who have pretended to be friends of Dr. Paul for years. If anything, they have preyed on his trusting nature and naivete.

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 8:12pm | #

"'"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.'"

Who appointed you as the arbiter of correct speech?

-jcr

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 8:13pm | #

"then refers to black people as "the blacks". That undermines his message."

Bullshit. His message is consistent, despite the witch-hunting and grammar policing.

-jcr

John C. Randolph | January 10, 2008, 8:17pm | #

"I'm sorry I wasted my money and my time for such a hopelessly foolish and morally confused man."

Frankly, I find it rather more likely that you never supported RP in any way, than your pretense at being a supporter who's coming down with the vapors over a smear campaign.

-jcr

cicero | January 10, 2008, 8:17pm | #

'"'"Black people" is ok. "The blacks" is not.'"

Who appointed you as the arbiter of correct speech?"


People can say what they want. I'm just saying how it looks. Even "black people" could be problematic. For instance, "black people are getting on my nerves". I'm just saying if he's going to defend himself against these charges he should parse his words better. Saying "I see people as individuals not groups and the blacks know that" undermines the point of his message. But hey, I could be wrong.

wmb | January 10, 2008, 8:18pm | #

Now Paul is claiming that he not only didn't write it, didn't read it but now he pretends he can't remember who wrote the pieces. If his memory is so bad how does he know he didn't write it. His office tells CNN that he won't even investigate the matter.

He knows who wrote -- just ask Lew.

Paul is a liar. He can't remember because there were transitions -- transitions that apparently went on for years. A transition that went on for years is not a transition but policy.

Anyone who says a libertarian can't be a racist doesn't know libertarianism. Libertarians don't initiate force but that doesn't mean they are incapable of hating groups. Paul was pathetic.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:20pm | #

Well as you say, Mr. Randolph, you let your support for his political positions influence your opinion of his performance.

Try to get a little distance. Or, give up on trying to rate how effective his performances are.

Francis | January 10, 2008, 8:21pm | #

Fluffy-I donated more than $100, attended meetups, and signed up as a precinct captain for Paul. You're flat wrong on this one.


My goodness, did you mow lawns all summer to get that kind of scratch? Simply amazing dedication, $100.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 8:21pm | #

Well then, you have a better memory than i do. If I contracted out a weekly newsletter nearly twenty years ago that had hundreds of issues, I doubt I remember who wrote every article. I would remember, however, who the editor was....but Paul was not asked about that

Timon19 | January 10, 2008, 8:21pm | #

I think my prediction on the prior thread is panning out quite nicely.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 8:23pm | #

@cicero and @joe:

"I was just commenting on how effective his performance is."

And as far as that is concerned, I agree with you entirely. I understand the rhetorical effect of referring to groups as "the {adjective}s", and it ain't pretty.

ColbyCo | January 10, 2008, 8:24pm | #

So good to hear the campaign talking about ending the drug war instead of those ads about "terrorist nations." We need more of this in tonight's debate.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:24pm | #

John Randolph, after the first Bush/Kerry debate, there were people who wrote in the comments, "Really? You guys thought Kerry won? Really?"

It's a natural response to root for your guy on go easier on him. It's worth a little effort to strive for objectivity if you wish to understand the effect of his performance on those who didn't "know" he'd hit a homerun before they even saw the video.

Reinmoose | January 10, 2008, 8:25pm | #

I have to admit, he did better than I thought he could do.

It's not enough to really satisfy me, but it may be enough to satisfy some. And his response might be good enough to have nobody ever ask him about it again.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 8:26pm | #

Disagree. I predicted the Foxies will bring it up tonight.....though it may backfire on them if Paul keeps his cool and brings up the drug pardon again.

Reinmoose | January 10, 2008, 8:27pm | #

For his own sake, Ron should have quoted, amongst the other people who know him who wouldn't believe that he wrote that stuff, that the guy who posted them on TNR didn't even think he said any of it.

NP | January 10, 2008, 8:27pm | #

(Note: Most of the stuff below is from a previous thread.)

I did believe (before the CNN interview) and still believe (after) Paul when he says that he did not write the offensive materials himself. But Paul's almost certainly lying or bending the truth a lot when he says--as he does after a rather long pause in the middle of this interview, as others have pointed out--that he very infrequently read his newsletters and thus come across the bile that appeared on his newsletters over almost two decades. I can't think of anyone besides his most fanatical supporters that would take this incredible claim at face value.

I'd say Paul is not being forthright not necessarily to "cover up" per se for his previous and current associates--including, yes, the execrable Lew Rockwell--but rather to avoid straining his relationships with them, some of whom might be involved in his current campaign. Still, it's disappointing that he's not showing the level of honesty we've come to expect from him.

Also, Wolf Blitzer was way soft on Paul. (BTW I do like Blitzer--I know he takes a fair amount of flak from his fellow journos and viewers, but despite all their blather he's actually a pretty fair interviewer.) Here are at least two or three questions he should've posed to the congressman:

1) You say that you very infrequently read the newsletters that you had allowed to be published under your name for such a long period of time. Many viewers will find that hard to believe. How do you explain your ignorance on this matter?

Now Paul probably would've replied, as he noted during the interview, that he was busy with all his political and gynecological activities. Then Blitzer should've followed up like this:

2) But that doesn't explain the years when you were not politically active. Are you saying you still didn't find the time to supervise your newsletters during this period? 3) If so, then how can we American citizens vote for someone with such a lack of managerial capability as the president of the most influential and powerful nation on earth?

These questions should be actually more important than what now should be the non-issue of who actually wrote the newsletters (unless, of course, the writer was indeed Paul himself), but it looks like many will disagree with me on this.

Brian Courts | January 10, 2008, 8:28pm | #

What you do when you find out that somebody's been publishing filth under your name is a test of character. It's supposed to be an easy test of character. If you don't want to talk about how you performed on that test, there's something wrong.

Absolutely, thoreau. I just am utterly amazed at his defenders for continuing to rely on the "but he didn't write it" excuse. It doesn't matter - he let that stuff go out under his name for years. This wasn't a one time incident. Had it been just once, followed by a vehement denunciation, with the outing and firing of the writer, I'd give him a pass. But you all know damn well that this stuff wasn't being said without his knowledge for all those years. I find it absolutely inexplicable that anyone without those views and with an ounce of judgment, intelligence and thoughtfulness would have allowed that to go on for even one minute, much less years. Nor would anyone with those qualities have run with the crowd he apparently associated with - racists, neo-Nazis and a bunch of wackjob conspiracy theorists. There is no more time for excuses.

The damage done by all this in terms of the image of libertarians for millions of Americans (already a difficult problem) more than undoes whatever good he accomplished by bringing libertarian issues to the debate. That he still doesn't get the seriousness of this, thinks he can brush it off as no big deal, and still won't publicly denounce the writer by name just shows that his embarrassing lack of judgment (and this is the most generous interpretation) has not improved in the intervening years. It is time for Paul to end his campaign now before he does any more damage.

Sje | January 10, 2008, 8:28pm | #

@wmb:

"Anyone who says a libertarian can't be a racist doesn't know libertarianism. Libertarians don't initiate force but that doesn't mean they are incapable of hating groups."

And that, I would submit, is one of the major problems with modern American libertarianism of the don't-initiate-force variety that deduces things from metaphysical first principle of one sort or another.

Classical liberalism is more than "don't initiate force." It's a vision of humanity as being advanced by peaceful interaction and held back by wasting time on violent struggle between classes and races and nations and suchlike.

Jacob | January 10, 2008, 8:29pm | #

In all fairness, Rockwell is probably more important to the libertarian movement than Ron Paul. If one of them has to lay down under a bus, it's better if it's Paul.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:31pm | #

Man, his passion on the Drug War is inspiring. I wish my Congressman talked like that.

"I have no idea who wrote them..." shifty eyes, shifty eyes. His eyes didn't budge for the entire rest of the interview.

Uh uh. That's not gonna do it.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:32pm | #

"This is being brought up for political reasons."

I don't care if it's being brought up because you ran over Jamie Kirchick's puppy. He didn't make up the newsletters.

dodsworth | January 10, 2008, 8:33pm | #

Paul took responsiblity. I think he feels responsibiliy What would it accomplish for him to self-righteously "out" someone and say......see he did it? I'm throwing to the wolves. Nobody respects a boss who makes his employee, a la Richard Nixon. a scapegoat for his screw ups.

NP | January 10, 2008, 8:34pm | #

And as to whether "black people" would've been the better choice than "blacks": a simple "minorities" would've been even better.

Lew Rockwell | January 10, 2008, 8:36pm | #

I see nothing!!! I see nothing!!!

I have no idea what anybody is talking bout. Probably talking about smear merchants, with their smears and distortions, taking things out of context. The New Republic wrote an article sympathetic to fascism in 1927 so there!!! Oh yeah, buy Ron Paul's new book, "Pillars of Prosperity" today, so we can promote the cause of liberty and remain in denial and pretend that nothing ever happened and that nobody has to know the specifics.

Mattias | January 10, 2008, 8:36pm | #

Paul or Rockwell under a bus?

Rockwell might be more important IN the libertarian movement. But is that good?

Peter | January 10, 2008, 8:38pm | #

Can some one please tell me how you refer to a group of people without talking about them as a group? How could I say black people without grouping them?

obi juan | January 10, 2008, 8:38pm | #

Why do any of you need satisfaction? Some here are acting like outraged liberals who will accept nothing less than for him to prostrate himself before Jesse Jackson to end the issue.

Ron Paul is a politician. He is trying to handle the issue as such. At least in theory, people here support his principles. Lay off.

There isn't going to be a sparkling clean libertarian messiah descending from the Heavens any time soon. Ron Paul is the best there is, has been, or ever will be. Don't kid yourself thinking that any of the beltway libertarians will stop playing it safe at their think tanks and enter the political fray someday. Politics is above them, as is clear, and their disdain of populism dooms them with the populace.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:38pm | #

Nobody respects a boss who throws his employees under the bus for his own mistakes, dodsworth. Big difference.

Now Paul probably would've replied, as he noted during the interview, that he was busy with all his political and gynecological activities.

Wow, we found someone who phrases things even worse than Ron Paul.

Bow-chika-bowow!

Au standard | January 10, 2008, 8:38pm | #

put Rockwell under the bus

NP | January 10, 2008, 8:40pm | #

dodsworth,

Paul did not take responsibility, at least not enough of it. The least he could've done is to claim that none of his current associates, including those involved in his current campaign, had nothing to do with the offensive parts of the newsletters. Until he does that this scandal is not gonna go away for a while.

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:40pm | #

cosmotarians

The Johnny Appleseed of Crack | January 10, 2008, 8:41pm | #

Man, his passion on the Drug War is inspiring. I wish my Congressman talked like that.

"I have no idea who wrote them..." shifty eyes, shifty eyes. His eyes didn't budge for the entire rest of the interview.

Uh uh. That's not gonna do it.


You're absolutely right. He is not an experienced liar. That is a good sign for a man in general, but not so good for a politician.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:41pm | #

Can some one please tell me how you refer to a group of people without talking about them as a group?

You avoid using the terminology that racist people use when discussing them.

Like "the Jews" and "the blacks."

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:41pm | #

liberpolitans?

Brian Courts | January 10, 2008, 8:42pm | #

Paul took responsiblity.

He did? How? That is such a tired line used by anyone who wants to make whatever trouble he's in go away. Just say "I take full responsibility, now can we move on." Where is the responsibility? It's a cop out. Taking responsibility ought to involve more than mouthing the words.

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:42pm | #

libertinarians

thoreau | January 10, 2008, 8:43pm | #

I'm not looking for an experienced liar, and I'm not looking for him to prostrate himself before any political figure. I'm looking for proof that he passed a very simple character test: "Congressman Paul, when you found out that racist douchebags were publishing junk under your name, what did you do?"

There are lots of right answers, and many of them are quite fun.

If he can't provide one of the many possible right answers, then I don't want anything to do with him. It's that simple.

adrian | January 10, 2008, 8:43pm | #

you libertarians (he grouped us, oh no!) are ridiculous. he should quit before he damages the libertarian movement? Do you know how retarded that sounds to the other 99.9% of people in this country? The importance you people give to a virtually non-existent movement is laughable. Enjoy talking deep into the night about how your pure principles preclude you from looking past this and resume planning out the next 20 years of 2% support while the country falls deeper into socialism/totalitarianism.

jokers

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:44pm | #

I take moral responsibility is a really lousy line.

First, "I take responsibility" without doing anything is meaningless.

Second, putting the word "moral" in there looks like he's qualifying his responsibility-taking.

jimmy smith | January 10, 2008, 8:44pm | #

I wonder if Dr Paul delivered any babies for "the blacks"? If he did, he gets my support. If he looked at the woman in labor, saw a skin color that made him nervous, did he call for another doctor?

I think we know the answer and that speaks well of his character. Ron, you da man !!!

P. Vostrel | January 10, 2008, 8:45pm | #

hipstertarians

Brandybuck | January 10, 2008, 8:45pm | #

Oh, and by the way: the last thing to be bothered by is the fact that Paul said "blacks" rather than "people of color" or "African Americans" or "black people" or whatever the euphemism of the day is.

Words mean things. Unfortunate but true. Just last night I was talking with a man about birthright citizenship. I said that that clause in the 14th amendment was necessary at the time to give citizenship to the "negroes".

OMG! I said the N word! I didn't mean to say it. It's definitely not a word that I use. But out it came like squeaky fart during silent prayer in church. I could see the eyes glaze over in the guy I was talking to. Sigh.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:46pm | #

I vote for cosmotarians.

SJe | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

liberfarians?

Reinmoose | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

I don't care if it's being brought up because you ran over Jamie Kirchick's puppy. He didn't make up the newsletters.

Right. His answer doesn't really satisfy me, but hasn't anyone else noticed that "it's political!" is a sufficient response for...95% of Americans? It's so common of a response these days.

Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

Who wrote the Newsletters?

Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell. From what I witnessed in my 12 years working for Ron, I’d say maybe 40% came from him in the way of scribbles (and I literally do mean scribbles) on a yellow pad, that was then faxed to his office staff in South Houston for editing and publication.

I’d estimate that the rest – 50 to 60% was written by Lew. But when I say Lew I also mean his staff of Interns, which during that period included most prominently Jeff Tucker and Mark Thornton of Auburn Univ. in Alabama.

It was my general impression that Thornton wrote the bulk of the heavy economic stuff, Tucker the political stuff, Lew crime and race relations, Ron Paul anti-Israel/foreign policy.

As to the Production Team:

In the 1980s Nadia Hayes was Newsletter Publisher. Her assistant was Jean McCiver. Both lived in South Houston/Clear Lake area. The office was located on 1120 Nasa Rd. 1, Suite 1 (catty-corner from the NASA Space Center.)

The Newsletter itself was produced and printed by Marc Elam, Ron’s longtime Campaign Manager, out of Elam’s office on Fuqua, South Houston, very close to Hobby Airport.

Hayes was forced to resign in an Embezzlement scandal in late 1988 involving the Investment Newsletter and Ron Paul’s other business and political enterprises.

McIver then took over. She was assisted by David Mertz, better known as David James, a close friend and associate of current Ron Paul Campaign Co-Campaign Manager Kent Snyder. Both Snyder and James currently live in Northern, VA, Falls Church area.

For the period in question, early 1990s, post Nadia Hayes, David James, Jean McIver and Marc Elam were the entire Production Team and Editors of the Newsletters.

Lew Rockwell was more of a Contributing writer, and less Editor. But his writing, as I said before, constituted approx. 50 to 60% of the Newsletters.

All of this is general knowledge known by all Ron Paul campaign and Congressional staffers. There are numerous individuals who can be contacted to confirm these facts, both present and employees of Ron Paul.

They can also be confirmed by Houston-area libertarians and Ron Paul activists.

P. Vostrel | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

metrotarians

jkii | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

Blitzer didn't ask Paul why this went for so long and what, if anything, Paul did about it.

Paul is still going to have to answer that one.

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:48pm | #

liberfairweatherfans duh duh DUHHH!!!

Windypundit | January 10, 2008, 8:49pm | #

[T]he issue is that he has yet to show any evidence that, when he learned what was being put out there in his name, he (1) published a denunciation of those articles in the same newsletter, to clear the air and (2) cut ties with the people who wrote that garbage.

Exactly, exactly right. Paul and many of his supporters keep missing the point. I believe Paul didn't write those letters, but he's awfully cozy with the people who did.

If someone wrote racist crap in my name, I'd want to repudiate it on the spot, and I'd damned sure want to know who they were so I could keep them from ever being in a position to represent me again.

Maybe there were a lot of writers of the newsletter drifting in and out, and Paul really doesn't know who wrote what. I guess that's possible. So what's the name of the editor who let this crap run? Did Paul cut ties to him? Or is he with the campaign?

Supporters are saying it doesn't matter what people say, it only matters what they do. Fine. What did Paul do to stop this once he found out?

Maybe he really took care of the problem in the past, which is why it's "old news," but now that it's out there again, he needs to take care of it again.

Bingo | January 10, 2008, 8:50pm | #

yeah cosmotarian has a real space age feel to that like you got a sweet space ship and green-skinned babe with her head in a fish bowl.

COSMOTARIANS, UNITE!

Favela Cranshaw | January 10, 2008, 8:50pm | #

What this whole debacle shows me is that Ayn Rand's perception of Libertarians was right on the money.

joe | January 10, 2008, 8:51pm | #

Blitzer didn't ask Paul why this went for so long and what, if anything, Paul did about it.

In Blitzer's defense, he's dumb as fucking post.

Reinmoose | January 10, 2008, 8:52pm | #

freedomarians?

P. Vostrel | January 10, 2008, 8:52pm | #

Houston-area libertarians.

Houstontarians?

Eric Dondero | January 10, 2008, 8:54pm | #

Ron Paul had a Campaign book in the 1988 Libertarian Presidential bid. It's "Freedom Under Seige," (famously mis-spelled 10,000 copies in the first print run. I still have one of those mis-spelled cop