Yep, more boring stuff that has nothing to do with the issues.

Well, there's one guy who has handled the issue of race worse than Paul:

(source: the Guardian

Then, there's Rick Santorum, who certainly seemed to say, while stumping for the Iowa caucuses, "I don't want to make black people's lives better by giving them someone else's money, I want to give them the opportunity to go out and earn their money." And, just this Thursday, we had Newt Gingrich, the champion of child labor, announce that, should he be invited to the NAACP conference, "I'll go to their convention and talk about why the African American community should demand paychecks and not be satisfied with food stamps." Yeah, that'll go over well – but don't hold your breath: NAACP president Ben Jealous told MSNBC that the NAACP has invited Gingrich to speak at its convention many times and he has always turned them down.
...
The insults follow a similar pattern: out with the outrageous remark. Retreat. When confronted, do as Gingrich did and claim that you were misquoted by the "media elite". Or, better yet, as Santorum did, keep changing your story. First, say that you said, "black people" because you just saw the documentary Waiting for Superman, which is about poor black people and they were at the front of mind. (Actually, it's a doc about how the public school system is failing all American kids.) Then insist, vehemently, that you never said black people, what you really said was "bleaugh" people. Right.

Gingrich's blurt was not so good, but Santorum's attempt to cover using the 'bleaugh' line is pretty risible.

Theodore - when electing a 'person' to be the President, the one with a lot of power, then their opinions and their probity and their trustworthiness are issues.

Oh, I just spotted this...

Guapo wrote: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.

Well, all three issues speak to personal probity and decision-making skills. As principled as a guy is, do you want to elect someone who can't take responsibility for things done in their name?

His voting and policy record include wanting to overturn the Civil Rights Acts and not being too keen on honouring Civil Rights activits.

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

No, no-one used the words before me, did they? Not on this thread? Eh? Eh? Oh, you did. Not 'all enquiry', nope, but certainly you feel that it is in general terms a witch-hunt. Poor Dr Paul, being associated to newsletters with his name on.

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.

Apart from the personal attack, you really are aiming low here. It may surprise you (if you are one of those Americans who is incurious or ignorant of the rest of the world), but 'American culture' is pretty easily accessible in the USA. If you are trying to suggest that the casual racism and dogwhistles used in some of the articles can be waved away by American 'context', you are barking up the wrong tree. I have been to the USA (and seen quite a bit of it's TV). My gf lived there for a year. I have American friends and colleagues - including my boss 3 levels up. Some of those Americans I know are not white, and they have perhaps an understanding of race relations in the USA that you may not.

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!

I'm capable of holding more than one 'beef'. I find both of interest. Firstly, I'm concerned that in the mid-1990s he was not disavowing the newsletters, he was justifying them: FACT CHECK: Ron Paul Personally Defended Racist Newsletters and Dallas Morning News article It was only in 2001 that he started to distance himself from them. Even if you pin it on Rockwell's editorship or find the author of an article, that still does not explain Paul's association with the newsletters and their contents, or his defence of them when it suited him.

Secondly, your continued support of him seems to be blinding you to the point. Not that he's provably racist because of this (he's not), but that he seemed to be blind to racism, and didn't appear to see it as enough of a problem for quite some time that his newsletter was carrying some dodgy material that is nasty about blacks, gays and Jews to do anything to stop it.

Personally, I would not vote for someone who has such a blinker on racism, or whose response to the kind of facts above it just to blame others and hope it goes away. Perhaps that's just because I'm a little oversensitive to the issue, you may say. Perhaps I'm wrong to think (as Paul would appear to be saying I am) that the Civil Rights Act was necessary to counter a major institutionalised racial prejudice across much of the USA, and that property rights (let alone 'States Rights') do not trump human rights.

As Theodore says, he may well be paying for it in votes, and the 'issues' he wants to being to the fore may be obscured. Perhaps more reason for libertarians to be a little more circumspect about their Great Right Hope.

And on the issues, he may claim to hate pork, but he certainly knows that his district likes it:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2 ... -paul.html

I still tend to the opinion that a narrow focus on these newsletters is a mistake for Paul's opponents. They ought to be banging away relentlessly on his economic and foreign policies (which essentially cut to the core of his appeal) and actually seeking to challenge his arguments. As it is the standard responses to Paul have been first to ignore him as an irrelevance, then to patronise him as an interesting maverick who lacks seriousness and finally to furiously smear him with 20 year old material. This is counterproductive because all it does is reinforce his anti-establishment appeal to the (growing) core of zealots who support him while leaving his actual proposals unchallenged.

It's not the 20 year old material. It's the 15 year old defence of it, followed by the 10 year old claim of ignorance, and then a more recent 'disavowal' and the willingess to blame others.

And frankly, Santorum's 'bleaugh people' line is perhaps more dodgy (and far more recent).

So, Sass, let's start a seperate thread and go through Paul's proposals and what the challenges to them are...

Four quotes in 1996 is a 15 year defense? C'mon Dan. Seriously? And none of even those quotes are exactly ringing endorsements of the quotes. For example, re: being robbed by a black teenaged male, he said,

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation…
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.
“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

Not exactly support for racism. Also, a very awkward response, no doubt.

Looks like that they were just in damage control mode after just finding out about these things, Probably (I'm speculating, but that's what it sounds like) he didn't even know what all the quotes were at the time. Yes, these newsletters were handled very clumsily from the start, and it will cost him.

Like I said before, look at his legislative record. In on stroke of a pen he can (and if President will) do more for blacks than anything since the end of Jim Crow by ending the federal war on drugs.

theodorelogan wrote:Four quotes in 1996 is a 15 year defense? C'mon Dan. Seriously?

I think you missed a word when you read my sentence. Stuff he said in 1996 is (just over) 15 years old. So yes, "seriously", stuff that happened over 15 years ago is 15 years old.

And none of even those quotes are exactly ringing endorsements of the quotes.

The interesting things are:

The impression that Ron Paul was the author was not broken.

He also appeared not to be saying that he'd not read them, and having at least one discussion suggests that he should at least have been aware that they (and the most controversial ones) would be discussed and perhaps, oh, I dunno, have read them. He certainly seems to have had basic understanding of the quote in question

But his interpretation is based on trying to rationalise away the use of the word 'black' from the description.

Not exactly support for racism.

Nope. Just a defence of what, in context, is extracts from a rambling 'newsletter' that is all about how blacks can be rationally described as terrorists ("This conclusion may not be entirely fair but it is. for many, entirely unavoidable" Also, a very awkward response, no doubt.

And the context is indeed something we should look at. The same site that I linked to with 50 pages from RP output had earlier shown the 1992 newsletter that held that 'fleet of foot' line and the bit about 95% of black males in DC. Here's the post: http://www.mrdestructo.com/2011/12/ron-paul-political-report-special-issue.html

The pages are a little hard to read, being scans of what looks to be a cheap photocopy or roto-copy of an original. I'd be interested, given Vince's stance on police violence, to see what our earstwhile video-poster thinks of the rationalisation of the Rodney King video.

In context, then, this is the two paragraphs leading up to the '95%' part:

Someone caling themelves Ron Paul wrote:Indeed, it is shocking to think of the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as people

They are, however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think it's safe to assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or criminal.

Well, here's the thing. It's not 'safe to assume' much from those DC figures. The 42% combines people who are serving a sentence with those who are 'charged'. Last I heard, being charged was not proof of committing a crime. The 70% and 85% figures are based on 'arrests'. Again, being arrested does not make you a criminal (and I'm not sure what 'semi-criminal' means). Mind you, I also wonder how many of these charges and arrests are of people caught up in the 'federal war on drugs' that you malign. There's nothing in the newsletter to suggest that they should not be considered criminals if that's the case (and I suspect that a large proportion of crime in DC in the 80s and early 90s was drug-related).

Looks like that they were just in damage control mode after just finding out about these things, Probably (I'm speculating, but that's what it sounds like) he didn't even know what all the quotes were at the time. Yes, these newsletters were handled very clumsily from the start, and it will cost him.

So, let me get this straight. He never read the newsletter enough to see these parts, a reporter 'ambushes' him with the quotes, and he responds a bit fuzzily. But he leaves it there for the next 5 years? He doesn't, ohhh, get a copy, read the thing, see what's going on and try to give a more clear explanation? Even if he's not listened to by those evul librul meeja types, he didn't leave a record of this? You may buy that, but I don't. Speculate away until it makes sense to you.

Like I said before, look at his legislative record. In on stroke of a pen he can (and if President will) do more for blacks than anything since the end of Jim Crow by ending the federal war on drugs.

Well, offering a paean to how amazing this 'pen stroke' would be doesn't illuminate much about his past

Perhaps, we could see what someone thinks of his 'legislative record' in relation to how good it is for 'blacks'? Who could give a view, perhaps? Hows about the NAACP? Let's look at their report cards for Congress, and see how Dr Paul has done recently:

http://www.naacp.org/pages/report-cards

I looked him up on each one since his return to DC. Two reports are missing (97-98 and 01-02). One of them (2007-8) did not give him a grade because of 8 non-votes. However, even if he'd voted with the NAACP in all of those, he'd have rated an F.

The remaining ratings are all 'F'. The latest report gives him 8%.

Now, not agreeing with the NAACP does not make one a racist (and I've not said he is, and that's not really the point), but it does suggest to me that some more explanation is needed on how exactly he really is such a good friend to the blacks.

It's not countered by "he'll let out loads of drug-dealers and addicts, and we all know that there are loads of blacks in that category" rhetoric particularly effectively.

15 year old defense of it /= he defended it fifteen years ago Dan. That's not discussing the issue in good faith. Clearly, the image you wanted to portray was that over a period of 15 years, over and over again, he defended these quotes. THAT is a fifteen year defense. What actually occurred is that, when they first came out in 1996 he defended them (and in a fashion that, as I noted above, was not an endorsement of racism). That is defending them fifteen years ago, not a fifteen year defense. Quite different, and a very important difference. I can understand a new issue coming up, and not dealing with it well initially. These reporters might have known about some of these quotes even before Paul did.

The impression that Ron Paul was the author was not broken.

Neither was it confirmed.

The pages are a little hard to read, being scans of what looks to be a cheap photocopy or roto-copy of an original. I'd be interested, given Vince's stance on police violence, to see what our earstwhile video-poster thinks of the rationalisation of the Rodney King video.

Both Ron Paul and I reject the racism in those 10 or so quotes over the course of hundreds of newsletters.

So, let me get this straight. He never read the newsletter enough to see these parts, a reporter 'ambushes' him with the quotes, and he responds a bit fuzzily. But he leaves it there for the next 5 years? He doesn't, ohhh, get a copy, read the thing, see what's going on and try to give a more clear explanation?

He did clarify when the issue came up again years later. But this is what gives me the impression that he is trying to protect someone (like Lew Rockwell) Jeff posted an article earlier in this thread that gave the name of someone whom I didn't recognize as a contributing editor whose writing style was similar to these racist quotes (who is now dead.)

Perhaps there is a political calculus about whether to roll over on the other people. Would Paul really benefit by naming names? I don't know I wouldn't roll over on my friends (but then again it's pretty tacky for them not to come forward themselves).

Now, not agreeing with the NAACP does not make one a racist

No, it doesn't, so why even bring it up? I would get an F too. I'm not racist.

Interestingly, I looked at the votes that the NAACP used for it's grade in the 109th Congress.

http://naacp.3cdn.net/55822922d3f6a79dce_9gm6i2zac.pdf

Let's see why Ron Paul received an F from them this year. Some of the votes graded that year were:

increase in minimum wage
education grants to states
increase funding for the NIH
eliminate cuts in medicaid
increase maximum pell grant award
various supreme and appellate court nominees (maybe some of them are racists?)
increased funding on Head Start

and so on and so forth.

I left off some that I didn't understand based on reading the NAACP summary (didn't feel like doing additional research).

So yeah, nothing to do with racism at all.

It's not countered by "he'll let out loads of drug-dealers and addicts, and we all know that there are loads of blacks in that category" rhetoric particularly effectively.

Great summary of the effect the end of the federal drug war will have...you've really dug deep into this issue, it seems.

theodorelogan wrote:15 year old defense of it /= he defended it fifteen years ago Dan. That's not discussing the issue in good faith. Clearly, the image you wanted to portray was that over a period of 15 years, over and over again, he defended these quotes. THAT is a fifteen year defense.

I meant what I said:

Danivon wrote:It's not the 20 year old material. It's the 15 year old defence of it, followed by the 10 year old claim of ignorance, and then a more recent 'disavowal' and the willingess to blame others.

In one sentence I mention the responses he took less than 15 years ago.

What is not in good faith is to take a full sentence, but only address one clause (missing out a word as you do) as if that is my whole position.

As I said before, the mental gymnastics are staggering. I know full well the difference - I have not changed my view on the chronology since the first page of this thread.

The impression that Ron Paul was the author was not broken.

Neither was it confirmed.

So why didn't he make it clear if (as you maintain) he didn't write them but he was being accused of racism because of them? Why didn't he check after the interview what was going on (if he really was totally ignorant) and then say something at the time.

My suspicion is that he saw nothing wrong, and was fine to have his name against it. After all, he did win that 96 election, and so it wasn't a big deal. It was only when he started to get national attention again and it arose that it became embarrassing.

Both Ron Paul and I reject the racism in those 10 or so quotes over the course of hundreds of newsletters.

Umm... I posted a link to fifty or so pages with racist, anti-semitic and other offensive meaning, covering a period before 1992.

But now you reject them, and so does Ron Paul. Well done you two. Not that you had anything to do with them, so it doesn't reflect on you. Unlike the dude whose name was on the top of the newsletters.

He did clarify when the issue came up again years later. But this is what gives me the impression that he is trying to protect someone (like Lew Rockwell) Jeff posted an article earlier in this thread that gave the name of someone whom I didn't recognize as a contributing editor whose writing style was similar to these racist quotes (who is now dead.)

Well, yeah, the dead can't sue, can they? Perhaps he's just trying to protect himself and throwing up chaff.

Perhaps there is a political calculus about whether to roll over on the other people. Would Paul really benefit by naming names? I don't know I wouldn't roll over on my friends (but then again it's pretty tacky for them not to come forward themselves).

Depends what my 'friends' did. If they used my name to write stuff I disagree with and send it out to people, for money, and it ended up with me getting hassled by journalists for alleged racism, then I don't think I'd want to be their pal no more.

Would Paul benefit by naming names? Not much at this stage, and perhaps if he does he may be open to revelations from them over something in his past, so he's keeping schtum. Perhaps had he had the nous to do it as soon as he realised what was going on (whenever he could be bothered to check what was in his own newsletters, that is) it would have benefited him.

That is, of course, provided you swallow the line that he didn't know nuffink 'onest guv.

Now, not agreeing with the NAACP does not make one a racist

No, it doesn't, so why even bring it up? I would get an F too. I'm not racist.

Because you said we should look at his legislative record. So I did by referring to his scorecard (like you would look up the NRA scorecard to see if a candidate was pro- or anti- 2nd Amendment).

The NAACP don't think he's much good for the civil rights of Black people in the USA.

I repeat (because however many time I seem to write it, you still seem to be saying I am saying that he is a racist): I don't think he's racist.

I do think he has pandered to racism in the past, and that he is not really looking out for civil liberties ('individual' liberties, yes, but that's not quite the same thing).

It's not countered by "he'll let out loads of drug-dealers and addicts, and we all know that there are loads of blacks in that category" rhetoric particularly effectively.

Great summary of the effect the end of the federal drug war will have...you've really dug deep into this issue, it seems.

Isn't he saying he'll pardon loads of people - people convicted of 'victimless' drug crimes? So that's people convicted of possession, including those with 'intent to supply', if the decriminalisation covers the free enterprise end of the drugs issue, so long as they didn't cause harm in other ways? And aren't a lot of people imprisoned for drug offences addicts? And aren't you trying to tell us that will be great for 'the blacks'?

Of course, we all know that even if the Federal govermnent ended it's war on drugs, that would not stop States from trying to deal with the problem (and yes, hard drugs are a problem, as much as perhaps marijuana is relatively harmless)

My suspicion is that he saw nothing wrong, and was fine to have his name against it. After all, he did win that 96 election, and so it wasn't a big deal. It was only when he started to get national attention again and it arose that it became embarrassing.

That may be it. It may also be that it was simply a political decision that bringing it up again after they got to the bottom of it wasn't worth it. Or maybe he didn't want to roll over on a friend who made a stupid mistake. I don't know.

Umm... I posted a link to fifty or so pages with racist, anti-semitic and other offensive meaning, covering a period before 1992.

Bold added to highlight changing goalposts.

I looked those over, and only about 11 or so (don't quote me on the exact number but 11 is what I remember from when i looked over them) had anything that could be called racist. Most of them were simply opinions the author didn't like, not dealing with race (He's anti-government! He's a gold nut! He supports militias! He's a conspiracy theorist!)

Depends what my 'friends' did. If they used my name to write stuff I disagree with and send it out to people, for money, and it ended up with me getting hassled by journalists for alleged racism, then I don't think I'd want to be their pal no more.

Perhaps. But if the guy wrote 100 articles for Paul, and 10 or 11 of these several hundred word articles had a racist sentence in them (while the focus of the article was on non-racial issues) then you might not disown the person. I don't know...sounds like a personal decision to me.

Personally, I wouldn't let anyone write in my name. I bet Paul doesn't anymore either haha.

Well, yeah, the dead can't sue, can they? Perhaps he's just trying to protect himself and throwing up chaff.

Perhaps, but the newsletters, and what he actually says and does are so incongruous with these 11 or so quotes (even in those "defenses" are pretty half-hearted) that I take him at his word.

Because you said we should look at his legislative record. So I did by referring to his scorecard (like you would look up the NRA scorecard to see if a candidate was pro- or anti- 2nd Amendment).

If the NRA's scorecard looked at issues like money to NIH and increasing the minimum wage, we might question how useful it is in determining whether someone supports gun rights. That's why I posted the list of votes the NAACP used in it's scorecard...nothing to do with civil rights. So it isn't useful as a barometer of how in favor someone is in favor of civil rights for blacks

Here is a report card that actually has something to do with civil rights. Out of all the current presidential candidates (including Obama) Paul comes out first (he came up second behind former candidate Gary Johnson.) And if you look at the positions they use, you'll see that, unlike the NAACP, this one measures what it claims to actually measure.

http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/

As far as the war on drugs...people who use and sell drugs are not the only victims of the drug war. Ron Paul can't be the president and the governor of every state. He can only do what he can do.

Looking over this thread, I actually don't even know what we are arguing about (like where is the baseline disagreement).

I'll just summarize my position

1) I don't believe Ron Paul is racist.
2) I don't know why he doesn't say who wrote them (I think either he really doesn't know or he is covering for a friend, but I can't say for sure...maybe he is lying and he did indeed write them...based on my reading of his books, articles, and speeches I don't think this is the case but I can't be sure).
3) The letters are going to cost him politically.

theodorelogan wrote:Looking over this thread, I actually don't even know what we are arguing about (like where is the baseline disagreement).

I'll just summarize my position

1) I don't believe Ron Paul is racist.
2) I don't know why he doesn't say who wrote them (I think either he really doesn't know or he is covering for a friend, but I can't say for sure...maybe he is lying and he did indeed write them...based on my reading of his books, articles, and speeches I don't think this is the case but I can't be sure).
3) The letters are going to cost him politically.

And 2 and 3 are the issue. Number 2 shows, in my and apparently Owen's opinion, an extreme lack of judgement. Such a lack that essentially disqualifies him from high office. Hence the problem of number 3.

Number 2 shows, in my and apparently Owen's opinion, an extreme lack of judgement.

And in my opinion, while any of the possibilities of #2 are problematic (some obviously more than others) it's a very minor issue in comparison to the other issues of the campaign (like support for bank bailouts and wars of aggression). Letting someone else write a newsletter in your name is orders of magnitudes less important than support for giving wall street billionaires hundreds of billions more taken from poor folks. But, that is a matter of individual preference I suppose.

Hence the reason you will vote for him (if you vote at all) and I will not. Ain't America grand.

Sure is.

Glad we wrapped this one up!

I think we can all agree on that ;)