Excuse me, but who the hell are you to say who Paul should and should not associate with. Association is a voluntary choice. You have the right to see it as discrediting--for whatever bizarre reason--but there was absolutely nothing wrong with what Paul has done here.

Association does not mean agreement. I was in a church long ago that had a speaker from the Israeli military one Sunday morning. Does that mean he believes that Jesus is the Messiah? No.

Ron Paul's foreign policy and explanation of blowback declare clearly what he believes about 9-11. To say he changes his message to different groups is either ignorant or disingenuous. To say he can't associate with a particular group is rank demagoguery.

With regard to the newsletters overall, I think there needs to be a serious look at the timeline. That blog (while I'm grateful that someone scanned them) made a point of putting the articles out of any sensible order.

It's well known that Lew Rockwell has made a distinct effort to expand his "paleolibertarianism" as a coalition of old-right conservatives and libertarians. The odd thing about it is that many of the original Libertarians were old-right conservatives. Originally, "paleoliberarianism" was a mesh between paleoconservatism and libertarianism. This what you see in some of the newsletters.

But there was a distinct break with the Buchananites in the mid-90s. Moreover, there was a break between Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell around this time. I think Ron Paul--who is more libertarian than paleocon--got fed up with what Lew was letting put out in his name. I think part of what you are seeing is that this is actually a sore for Paul--as in a friend has basically thrown him under the bus.

I don't think Lew wrote the pieces. I noticed that the style of some of the most offensive briefs (they are mostly briefs, not articles), look similar to the LRC blog. Lew, as a young aspiring publisher, kind of let off on the editorial cap and allowed more vicious "bloggers".

guapo

I think Ron Paul--who is more libertarian than paleocon--got fed up with what Lew was letting put out in his name.

The reason you have to "think" this, is that Paul never took action to stop it happening.
By your deeds are you known. Explanatory words are never as effective.

Why would you believe that someone who adamantly believes in freedom of speech would?

This is my overall problem with the witch-hunt.

1. It seems that what you say is far more important than what you do.

2. There's still not been an answer to this question: What more ought Ron Paul do? He's disavowed them, and his actions back up his disavowing. What, then?

Guapo wrote: There's still not been an answer to this question: What more ought Ron Paul do? He's disavowed them, and his actions back up his disavowing. What, then?

Ohh.. Perhaps he could explain why it took 10 years to disavow the racist stuff that was put out in his name and that was after having defended it as accurate in context?

But don't get me wrong, it's not a demand. It's more of a suggestion.

Oh, and "freedom of speech" does not give licence to speak in the name of another. If Rockwell did write it, Paul could have intervened at that point to stop it being in his name. Then Rockwell could put it out in his own name, right?

That is if Rockwell was the author, not someone else (even Ron Paul).

Ok so now it's guilt by what he "should have known"?

I've never heard of scholars for 9/11 truth, and I wouldn't have known that scholars for 9/11 truth believed that the US government was behind 9/11 if you hadn't told me. I might guess that, but I definitely wouldn't assume it.

And no, in order to prove

You commented you were surprised that nobody ever asked flat out Do you believe the U.S. Gov't had something to do with 9/11. I almost fell out of my chair laughing at that because that is exactly what they are asking him every time they are talking to him.

He needs to provide a video of a truther asking him if the feds were behind 9-11. His repeated avoidance suggests that he can't. You don't need to move the goalposts for Russ. After all, he almost fell out of his chair laughing at my suggesting otherwise!

What more should Ron Paul do? Well, how about dropping out of the race. At best, he made a lot of money from a newsletter putting out racist statements (as Owen pointed out he defended some of this stuff so it appears that his views may not be different than those put forth in the newsletter) His national aspirations disappeared when those newsletters bearing his name went out. Some things you don't get to just apologize or excuse and move on from.

And it is not a witch hunt against a libertarian candidate. Cain and Gringrich can vouch for that,

At best, he made a lot of money from a newsletter putting out racist statements

He put out almost 2 decades of newsletters, and people have found a few racist lines throughout years and years of these things. And even within the newsletters with a racist quote, it's a 10-12 page newsletter. So I think this statement is a little disingenuous.

Looking over those letters, some of the quotes are disgusting. I found about 11 or 12 that I was pretty shocked and disgusted to see. However, many (most?) of the quotes that the blogger highlighted just had an anti-government tone that he just didn't like.

By the words that I've heard from Ron Paul himself over the years, through speeches, articles, and books, it's clear that he doesn't believe these things, and he has said as much.

Ron Paul has done everything he can to apologize and make clear he doesn't believe these things. And no, I hope he doesn't drop out because I want the liberty message to continue to get the hearing that it is getting from one of our best (although imperfect like anyone else would be) messengers. It's rare that you find a politicians who has had the same message and has such a consistent record over such a long political career. That's what makes Ron Paul such a strong messenger. Even people that don't agree with him on everything see an honest, principled person among a gang of thieves, crooks, and liars.

I'm certainly not crying foul over this scrutiny. It's politics. Did anyone think they would find NOTHING to denigrate Paul with? He's a man, not a saint. But as far as scandals go, this is nothing. It's just being blown up because TPTB are afraid or Ron Paul's ideas gaining traction with the public. Mitt Romney signed a bill forcing everyone in Massachusetts to purchase health insurance, which he still doesn't apologize for. Obama's people sold guns to Mexican cartels. And we're talking about a few lines written by someone else in his newsletter, which Paul has said do not represent his views.

Again, if it's just a horserace we're talking about, I agree that this could hurt him. It just saddens me that this is being made into such a huge issue, when things like the Federal Reserve bank creating 16 Trillion dollars to lend out to big banks in 2008 gets such little discussion in the mainstream (but growing thanks to Ron Paul!)

To say he can't associate with a particular group is rank demagoguery.

Apologies for the slight digression, but... Could somebody explain to me why so many people on this forum have begun to use the word 'demagogue' as a verb ? Steve is the most guilty, he seems to use it in every other post, but others have begun to do the same and it's getting very annoying.For starters, it isn't a verb. But more than that, people here seem to be using it as a catchall description for any political argument with which they disagree, which in turn strips the term of any meaning and just makes it seem pretentious to use it.

Vince, you have convinced me. Ron Paul should stay in the race--but he cannot complain about the heat on this issue. (btw the way I agree with you that the way banks got access to huge amounts of free money from the Fed that they then could churn into huge profits should be a far bigger issue than it is)

theodorelogan wrote:Ok so now it's guilt by what he "should have known"?!

Of course. This is a common legal standard. For example, a statute of limitations can be tolled until the point a person knew or reasonable should have known about the underlying cause of action.

Here is a really interesting blog post from one Eric Dondero who is identified as

Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88

Given that resume, I think we can take what he says seriously and some what knowledgable. He has some very interesting things to say about what it was like to know Ron Paul. Basically says he is not a racist or a homophobe (but is personally uncomfortable around homosexuals). Towards the end of the article he makes this interesting comment

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

theodorelogan wrote:Ok so now it's guilt by what he "should have known"?

I've never heard of scholars for 9/11 truth, and I wouldn't have known that scholars for 9/11 truth believed that the US government was behind 9/11 if you hadn't told me. I might guess that, but I definitely wouldn't assume it.

But, if you (as Paul was) were invited to speak to Scholars for 9/11 Truth, would you just accept not knowing who they were? Would you not do some research before turning up?

He needs to provide a video of a truther asking him if the feds were behind 9-11. His repeated avoidance suggests that he can't. You don't need to move the goalposts for Russ. After all, he almost fell out of his chair laughing at my suggesting otherwise!

I can understand what Russ is saying quite well, and perhaps you are being over-literal by accident rather than on purpose. What I see is him saying that when 9/11 Truthers ask the question, they mean something else.

Anyway, I've not yet seen from any of the Paulistas on this thread a decent defence of his involvement with the newsletters. It's all evasion.

What needs defending?

Nothing 'needs' defending. If RP and his fanboys see no problem with racist sentiments being put out in his name, and the subsequent defence of them as accurate in context, followed some years later by a lame 'disavowal' and accusations against Rockwell... then so be it.

I'm sure leaving it like that and treating all enquiry as a 'witch-hunt', complaining about 'timelines' instead of addressing the content and so on will convince the many waverers in the GOP primaries and the General Election.

If not, at least the Paulistas have a ready excuse for his defeat