Ron Paul's racist kook past

Old news.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018426.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018425.html

This isn't news, it's propaganda. This information has been out there at least since I started following Paul six months ago, and this article is nothing new--nor is it accurate. Paul didn't pen the things written in his name, and he didn't even know they existed for a long time, and he's already taken "moral responsibility" for not being more careful to prevent this from happen.

Not only that, the inflammatory stuff that's written in those newsletters is entirely different in tone and substance from the books and articles that were written by Paul himself. I just don't buy this Kirchick guy's claims that when Paul is addressing mainstream audiences he's really speaking in somekind of white-supremacist "code."

I'm also not sure what's so kooky about a politician actually bringing up deeper issues like monetary theory, rather than just spouting meaningless soundbites like Romney, McCain, Huckabee, et al.

I also think it's silly that anyone would take this piece seriously. It was dropped first thing the day of the primary, leaving no time for Paul's campt to respond in time to any NH voters who might have been influenced by it. The whole thing just reeks of sleaze.

Seriously...it's hard enough dealing with this misinformation coming from untrustworthy sources that don't do their journalism well. Rod, man, this is an old, outdated, and disproved story that has been dragged back up for a primary day when there'd be little time to respond. I read stuff like this months ago. It's been debunked over and over again. Drudge linked to it today and then took it down within hours; someone must've informed him of how silly the story is.

Rod, lots of people mentioned that Paul was a kook in these comboxes when you first became interested in him. Glad to see you've come around.

How preposterous is Paul's excuse of being too busy as a doctor and Congressman to keep track of a newsletter being put out under his name? Gee Ron, Presidents are busy people too. Hope you can keep better track of what goes on in your name if you make it to the White House. Oh.. that's right. You're not going to come anywhere close to winning.

Yeah... I'm sorry, if anyone even claimed they had heard me SAY the things that were published in his name, I'd mount a massive campaign that boiled down to "that was repugnant, and I never said it." His lack of reaction is a statement in and of itself.

It's not just racism, it's also paranoia. For instance, from the TNR story:

"The newsletters are chock-full of shopworn conspiracies, reflecting Paul's obsession with the "industrial-banking-political elite" and promoting his distrust of a federally regulated monetary system utilizing paper bills."

Today in his concession speech, Paul called for the abolishment of the Federal Reserve -- an institution that goes back to the Founding Fathers.
A kook? You betcha.

Kit:

Actually, the Federal Reserve only dates to the early 20th century. There was a short-lived national bank that dates back to to the Founding Fathers, pushed mainly by Alexander Hamilton, a strong Federalist. Paul, of course, doesn't hail from the Federalist intellectual tradition.

The phenomenon was the subject of this weeks
cartoon on XKCD. http://xkcd.com/367/

I could give him the benefit of the doubt if it was just one or two questionable statements over the years, but it really seems like the race-baiting/militia-type stuff was front and center in those newsletters for more than a decade. So either Ron Paul really does believe that stuff, or he's too lazy/careless to keep track of what gets published under his own name. Neither scenario speaks well of him.

Unfortunately, Ron Paul supporters include some of the kook fringe. Unfortunately, it also appears that some of these people once got published in Ron's newsletter(s). I think Dr. Paul has explained that he didn't write and doesn't subscribe to these opinions.

I like the fact that he's talking about smaller government and adhering to the Constitution. I expect to vote for him in the Texas primaries. I don't really expect that he will be the nominee unless the Republicans go into the convention with no nominee and strange things happen.

I wonder what the ultimate impact of his campaign will be. He's certainly got an enthusiastic group of supporters. Will this campaign spark a continuing movement for returning to a more Constitutional government? Something similar to the effect Barry Goldwater had on conservatism.

I also wonder if he's having a strong influence on any young politicians. After serving one term as President, John Quincy Adams served as a Congressman from 1830 to 1848. He spent a lot of that time working against slavery. In his last year as a Congressman, he took a new Congressman under his wing. JQ Adams died about half way through that term. The younger Congressman only served that one term. That man was Abraham Lincoln. He was elected President in 1860 and completed much of the anti-slavery work that Adams did. Is there some young politician out there learning and being inspired by Dr. Ron Paul?

It may take 10 to 20 years before we know the full impact of Ron Paul's message of smaller, constitutional government.

My son worked in Iowa with student volunteers--he asked for the plane ticket and expense money as his Christmas present (beats the heck out of asking for a Wii, I'd say!).

For a 16 year old, he is amazingly well read politically and has a fine grasp of US history and politics. One thing he commented on was the philosophical diversity of the group working for Paul. He commented that several of the volunteers in his group hardly agreed with anything Paul articulated, but they found the man himself credible, and his faith in the Constitution inspiring.

This racist stuff is indeed old news. Paul inspires (against his will sometimes) a wide range of responses. Many who think he doesn't speak up for himself step up and speak for him, often to his own embarrassment. I don't doubt his explanation at all. This is not the spin-managed, scripted, sculpted, "handled" candidate we are used to, but a man with ideas.

My son commented that the other candidates' volunteers were all about discussing polls, electability, strategy, and the math of it all. The Paul volunteers stayed up late debating the causes of WWI, the problems of the international monetary system, principles of just taxation, and criteria for US military intervention....

...my son is a better man for having spent a week working for Dr. Paul.

If Glenn Beck (GLENN freakin' BECK?!?!) thinks a guy has gone too far to the right with his rantings and ravings -- as he does with Ron Paul -- doesn't that say something, folks?

"Now, how can you have it both ways, "This is old stuff" vs. "They dropped this on us without any chance to respond"?"

Ed:

It's old news for anyone who has been paying much attention to Paul, not necessarily for voters as a whole. The fact is, it came up before when the neocons were trying to keep Paul out of his Texas congressional seat, and he dealt with it then in that context. But now, Mr. Kirchick has tried to present it to a national audience the same day of an important primary, leaving little time to issue a response to those undecided voters who may have just recently started considering Paul.

There's no contradition with it being dealt with in the past, and having no time to deal with it in the present. It's been discredited, yes, but not everyone's gotten the chance to see the responses yet.

"If Glenn Beck (GLENN freakin' BECK?!?!) thinks a guy has gone too far to the right with his rantings and ravings -- as he does with Ron Paul -- doesn't that say something, folks?"

Larry:

What does it say, exactly? Convervatism is pretty diverse, and it's not that surprising that one conservative (say, a pro-war conservative like Beck) should sometimes accuse another (say, an anti-war conservative like Paul) of being too extreme.

The only thing that matters, though, is the legislation that Paul has actually put forward. I've not seen much that looks nearly so extreme as many people like to claim it is.

I am not, as it happens, a professional who has also been active in politics. One of my jobs, however, is to ghostwrite a newsletter for a professional who is active in politics. And I am telling you, Ron Paul's story is not credible.

I actually bought it when it was just one article making the rounds. Sure, that can happen. I kind of rolled my eyes at the Unnamed Republican Staffer aspect of it, but I could believe it. The guy at the top where I work doesn't read every single article. I could put in something crazy and he might never know.

But for three decades?

Here is what Paul is asking us to believe:

- Not only did he exercise no editorial control over any of the content, despite it being put out in his name, sometimes with his signature on it, for decades, but ...
- He did not then even bother to ask about some of the important political views of the people he was asking to write a political newsletter, in his name, for decades, and ...
- He was never even sent them, or simply threw them away without glancing over the content, for decades, and ...
- It never occurred to him in thirty years that this might be a bad idea.

Basically we have to buy that some associates of Ron Paul, whose political views he was not very familiar with, went to a Congressman and said, "Hey, we want to publish a newsletter under your name," and he said, "Sure, whatever you think will appeal to my constituents, relative strangers I trust," and never changed his mind about this, read it, or heard any feedback about it that would cause him to take a look at it, over a period spanning decades, through what had to be multiple changes in personnel, format, and title.

This is not how that works. That is NEVER how that works. I work for such a newsletter, and that is NOT HOW THESE THINGS WORK.

This is, frankly, a lie. If it is, somehow, not a lie, it is an act of such monumental idiocy, that, yes, this is a big enough deal that I think it means he is not capable of running the country.

So.

Where do Constitutionalists turn now? Does another candidate need to manage to get into Congress and gain some fame?

He publically distanced himself from people he knows were producing this kind of material, including firing those that were found working on his campaigns, and he's promised to work harder to actively monitor anything that's published in his name in the future. He's also publically denounced the viewpoints expressed in those newsletters (although Mr. Kirchick still seems to think that Paul's speaking in some kind of secret racist code).

Folks:

I'm commenting on how far to the right Beck is (i.e., jump off the cliff right, well to the right of ANY of the GOP candidates). And Beck has made some pretty insensitive comments himself over the years, to boot.

The Headline News interview in which Beck confronted Paul on the newsletter issue, BTW, didn't mention the war once.

Nate:

I'd appreciate any links on the firings. Thanks!

Mr. Dreher,
With all due respect, do you know what the gold standard is?

And are you aware that one of the strongest advocates of the gold standard throughout his career has been Alan Greenspan? That he links it to protection of property rights and economic freedom, and far lower levels of inflation?

Mr "Dreher" deserves no respect Christine.

He is the euqivalent of a school child hollering in the playground with nothing to back it up.

He needs to be shut up with a lawsuit.