danivon wrote: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.

Why would we defend racism? That someone like Paul is a better choice is really a just a reminder of how poor the other choices are.

To me, newsletters put out in his name that clearly contradict his stated principles (in his speeches, articles, and books) and his actions (as evidenced by his votes in Congress) is a non-issue.

If you want to talk about racism, lets talk about killing brown people in foreign countries or a drug war that targets minorities.

That's my whole point on this newsletter thing, which is a few (10-12?) racist sentences over the course of years and years of newsletters. Like what, one every year or two of the time these newsletters were out? We're sitting here talking about a sentence written in a newsletter that Ron Paul has said he doesn't agree with, when the federal government is imprisoning record numbers of people (especially minorities), killing people in foreign lands, and shoveling hundreds of billions of dollars from the poor (minorities) to bankers and war profiteers, with no candidate other than Ron Paul having any credibility that he will do anything about it (and most candidates saying outright that that they won't), including Obama. People have a chance to vote for someone who will finally end the DC/Wall St trillion dollar ripoffs, and we're talking about a few sentences written over the course of 2 decades that Ron Paul has publicly disavowed.

To me, this sounds very much like the Rev. Wright issue. Rev. Wright was espousing radical issues and racism in the name of President Obama's church while in Chicago. Did the left have the same response? No, they did not. They said Rev. Wright preaches different views than the President. End of issue. Now that a person of the Republican Party has a skeleton, there is questioning...

Double standard... Play both sides, or don't play at all.

Was Paul wrong in not making it clear about his position as editor when it pertains to the newsletter? Sure.
Did President Obama come out and disavow himself from Rev. Wright? Not really, he said he "wasn't in church then." Was he wrong for not leaving that church. Sure.

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

1. No, I don't see a problem with the newsletters, at all. Just like I don't care about Cain or Newt's philandering. Since no connection can be made between those written words (regardless of who wrote them--even if RP did) and voting record, it means nothing. Rather, his voting and policy record indicate quite the opposite.

2. Nobody is treating "all enquiry" as a witch-hunt. That's an absurd connotation to make.

3. I don't think you have a clue about American culture, Owen. Additionally, I don't think you have a clue what Ron Paul's supporters are like. I'd explain things to you, but you seem pretty dense.

4. It seems like you can't decide what your actual beef is: a. is it actually Dr. Paul's involvement in the newsletters, or b. is it our continued support of him. But each time I or someone else answers either one, you swap and say we are just dodging the issue. Baloney!

To me, this sounds very much like the Rev. Wright issue. Rev. Wright was espousing radical issues and racism in the name of President Obama's church while in Chicago. Did the left have the same response? No, they did not. They said Rev. Wright preaches different views than the President. End of issue. Now that a person of the Republican Party has a skeleton, there is questioning...

Double standard... Play both sides, or don't play at all.

Was Paul wrong in not making it clear about his position as editor when it pertains to the newsletter? Sure.
Did President Obama come out and disavow himself from Rev. Wright? Not really, he said he "wasn't in church then." Was he wrong for not leaving that church. Sure.

I can see why you made this comparison Brad, but it doesn't really stand up. The whole storm in a teacup over Rev Wright was just a guilt by association smear, whereas this newsletter thing is a series of remarks specifically attached to Ron Paul by virtue of the fact that they were published in his own newsletter under his name. Ron Paul apparently never saw the need to clarify that they weren't his own words until about 10 years after the fact when they became a political embarrassment for him.

That said though, who cares ? This is an incredibly trivial issue. It would seem that even Paul's critics don't really believe that he wrote the newsletters personally so at worst what this equates to is evidence of a certain political naivety. I could understand somebody like Russ getting worked up about it because he has a strong interest in wanting the most electable Republican on the ticket, but the left surely have much juicier material to go after in Paul's economic policy. I mean seriously, the gold standard ?

Sassenach wrote:I can see why you made this comparison Brad, but it doesn't really stand up. The whole storm in a teacup over Rev Wright was just a guilt by association smear, whereas this newsletter thing is a series of remarks specifically attached to Ron Paul by virtue of the fact that they were published in his own newsletter under his name. Ron Paul apparently never saw the need to clarify that they weren't his own words until about 10 years after the fact when they became a political embarrassment for him.

The comparison is superficially valid, but the main differences are:

1) Rev Wright was not speaking for Obama, or representing himself as Obama, or anything like that. The Ron Paul newsletters were sent out in his name, so his supporters
2) Obama may not have immediately distanced himself from Wright, but he did so a darn sight quicker than 10 years afterwards. He also never said that Wright was accurate but just taken out of context.

That said though, who cares ? This is an incredibly trivial issue. It would seem that even Paul's critics don't really believe that he wrote the newsletters personally so at worst what this equates to is evidence of a certain political naivety.

Yeah, it's fairly trivial (although some of us are a bit sensitve about racism, especially if it's related to anyone seeking a position of power), but as he'd been a Congressman for many years before the newsletters of 1991/2 went out, any naivety suggests he's a very slow learner. A 21-year old may be excused political naivety. A guy in middle age whose professionally qualified and has been at DC for ages?

What is of most interest is the mental gymnastics of those who seek to defend the man to the hilt. Anyway, the thread was started by a Paul supporter, not a 'leftie'. Pre-emptive, perhaps, and aimed as much at the GOP supporters who favour other candidates as any Democrats or lefties,

I could understand somebody like Russ getting worked up about it because he has a strong interest in wanting the most electable Republican on the ticket, but the left surely have much juicier material to go after in Paul's economic policy. I mean seriously, the gold standard ?

Ahh, the Gold Standard. Takes me right back to my modern history A-level. Churchill described returning the UK to gold as the greatest mistake of his career (and he made quite a few large mistakes over the years). Many politicians like to compare themselves to Winston, and many would love to emulate some of his major moments. I'm not sure they want to copy his major failures.

What is of most interest is the mental gymnastics of those who seek to defend the man to the hilt. Anyway, the thread was started by a Paul supporter, not a 'leftie'.

Looking through the thread, I don't see any mental gymnastics. My reasoning is straight forward. He said he doesn't believe those things. I believe him based on the things that I have have read from him and the things I have heard him say. No gymnastics here.

The problem of these newsletters (that Sass alluded to) is that it changes the debate from something substantive (imperialism, crony capitalism, etc.) to this. If this wasn't the the thing that the media used to avoid the real issues, they would use something else. This thread is a perfect example. We could have been talking about the gold standard (as an example). Instead, we are talking about the typical. In my mind THIS is the benefit from the Ron Paul presidential candidacy: forcing these issues into the forefront. If only he could win the GOP nod and get into a debate with Obama...I would love to see Paul call Obama out for his war-mongering, crony capitalism, and increasing the police state.

The one thing I will say is that Ron Paul can't complain about the media scrutiny. He is paying for the mistake he made. But, everyone has made mistakes, and as I said in an earlier post, as compared with the mistakes other politicians make, it's not a bad one. And I agree that racism is a sensitive issue and that this WILL cost him support. But I think that most people upset about these sentences are people who already don't like Paul for other reasons. I think that if someone were to look into the issue without an opinion of Paul himself, and look at these sentences and then look at Paul's own position on race, as outlined in his speeches, articles, and books, that there is little reason to disbelieve Paul. Frankly, as a politician, I'd have a hard time believing it myself if he didn't have such an extensive written record.

The issue with the newsletters isn't whether Ron Paul is a racist. I am pretty sure most people who do not support Ron Paul would say they don't think he is a racist. I sure don't.

Rather, to me at least, the issue about the newsletters is one of judgment. One of two things happened here. Either, Ron Paul was aware that someone was writing obscene and objectionable things in his name and he allowed it to happen. Or he allowed his name to be used without monitoring the content. Either one show an extreme lack of judgement in my mind.

Further, they will be used against him in a General Election campaign and Independents and conservative Democrats will not vote for someone painted with that brush.

Archduke Russell John wrote:Rather, to me at least, the issue about the newsletters is one of judgment. One of two things happened here. Either, Ron Paul was aware that someone was writing obscene and objectionable things in his name and he allowed it to happen. Or he allowed his name to be used without monitoring the content. Either one show an extreme lack of judgement in my mind.

And yes, regardless of which is true, Ron Paul has taken responsibility for his part in the matter. Furthermore, he ended his career as a Publisher--or even a namesake. My question is how does one non-political mistake compare to a 30 year voting record?

Archduke Russell John wrote:Further, they will be used against him in a General Election campaign and Independents and conservative Democrats will not vote for someone painted with that brush.

I disagree. It will be the third time that these will have been covered in the MSM. Ultimately, it will backfire on Obama, if he does. If Obama appears to be playing the race card, it will only kill his popularity.

Guapo wrote: My question is how does one non-political mistake compare to a 30 year voting record?

Because his response to it has changed based on the situation which further calls into question his decision making. It is also a pretty big issue. Further, since I disagree with his foreign policy, and to me that is the most important aspect of the President's job, his poor decision making abilities factor into that big time.

Further, there is a big difference between being 1 of 435 and being the guy in charge. Poor decisions as 1 of 435 as little to no effect. Poor decisions as the guy in charge has a large effect.

Guapo wrote:I disagree. It will be the third time that these will have been covered in the MSM. Ultimately, it will backfire on Obama, if he does. If Obama appears to be playing the race card, it will only kill his popularity.

We will just have to agree to disagree and accept that we will never find out if it will happen.

Further, since I disagree with his foreign policy, and to me that is the most important aspect of the President's job, his poor decision making abilities factor into that big time.

Exactly my point.

theodorelogan wrote:

Further, since I disagree with his foreign policy, and to me that is the most important aspect of the President's job, his poor decision making abilities factor into that big time.

Exactly my point.

Not sure what you meant there? Are you agreeing with me that Ron Paul has shown a history of making poor decisions, and therefore shouldn't be elected President? Particularly in the field of foreign affairs where poor decisions can be disasterous. Because that is what the post you say is exactly your point is saying.

Here is some previously withheld information. Does this give you any closure?

I also recommend this. Perhaps it may simply because he's old, but I wouldn't have been as nice (or pc) in my response. So, to me, this is clear evidence of Ron's character. Personally, he finds it gross. But the man sexually harassed him. I'm not anti-Bruno, but I think Ron was extremely well behaved for such an incident.

Indeed, much of the adoration of Ron Paul is amplified because of his persona. He's a gentle, grandfatherly figure. But that's only an amplifier. It only works because he's genuine. That persona amplifies this.

*added
Sorry, never finished the thought.

This is why the newsletters are easily dismissed by his supporters. To us (well, me, at least), it looks like blowback from an ill-conceived political alliance by Lew Rockwell. Oh well. What does that have to do with our ridiculous debt situation? What about the economy? Please tell me. I choose to believe Ron Paul's political and economic "prescience" when it comes to choose a President. I haven't voted for a presidential candidate (in the general) since 2000.

Archduke,

What I meant was that people who get upset over the newsletters after seeing all the evidence are people who already don't like him for other reasons. Of course, your evaluation of how important letting a few racist comments though into 20 years of newsletters is completely up to you. I just don't think that it is going to mean much to the average voter who actually looks into it, and hasn't already made up his mind against Ron Paul. I mean, are people who agree with Ron Paul's positions REALLY going to say, "I like Ron Paul, but his poor oversight of his newsletter really turns me off of him?" Is this really going to sway someone who is on the fence? I really doubt it.

That isn't to say that people are not going to look at these sentences, not look any further, and conclude that Paul is a racist. Well, that's Ron Paul paying for his mistake.

Of course there is another thing going on. Apparently there is a youtube video out questioning Jon Huntsman's loyalty by showing him speaking Chinese in various situations including with his adopted daughter. It was posted by a screenname that claims to be a Ron Paul supporter.

Of course, the Ron Paul campaign claims no knowledge, which I will accept, but then says it was actually posted by a Huntsman supporter pretending to be a Paul supporter hoping for blowback.

And Ron Paul isn't a conspiracy theorist.