Have risen again in the media. During the last Republican Primary, almost 4 years to the date. James Kirchick wrote an articlein The New Republic that can be summed up by the last sentence on the first page:
He writes,

In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

In terms of actual newsletter content, Kirchick offers little. Most of the attacks are based on partial sentences, with no context whatsoever, and no links. For example, here is an entire Kirchick paragraph. Judge for yourselves:

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, newsletters attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

What starts off as a hit piece on Paul, becomes a hit piece on Lew Rockwell and the Ludwig von Mises institute. Paul is guilty by association. The theme is that Austrian economics is a secret tool of racists to implement their theme through libertarianism. I'm used to ridiculous charges on libertarianism, but that might take the cake.

Of course, Paul is to be discredited as well. But here's what I don't understand. Of his entire voting record, only one theme can be seen: constitutionalism, and limited government. How that is somehow a secret racist ploy is confusing to me. How is ending the war on drugs a racist policy? I digress

In 2008, the issue was vetted. Remember the timing then? Right after the first set of primaries, when it became apparent that Dr. Paul would be sticking around. Ron Paul answered the questions in 2008. Here's an interview with Wolf Blitzer. Nelson Linder, President of the NAACP Austin Branch came out to defend him. Nobody seemed to think it was really a big deal.

But it's risen again. Why? I think it's just another attempt to try to discredit Dr. Paul by any means necessary. Notice the timing: After all the pre-iowa debates, but before the caucus. This way, the media can distort their interviews to make it look like Dr. Paul just ignored the questions and walked off. Now they've released the uneditedinterview.

So what else needs answering?

In another thread:

Archduke Russell John wrote:It's worse then this Ricky. In the late 80's/early 90's Ron Paul tried to defend the racist portions of his newsletter by saying it had been taken out of context. It wasn't until 2000's that he started didn't write them and didn't even know about them.

Further, there are video clips of Ron Paul talking to Truther groups where he implies he believes in their schtick. However, when he gets in front of the mainstream media, he says he does not believe or support the Truthers.

So much for consistancy. Ron Paul is just like any other politician. He tells the group of supporters he is in front of what they want to hear. The only problem is a lot of these groups for him are fringe nutjobs.

What was that term Jeff uses for Jon Huntsman.....

oh yeah what an Eddie Haskell

Ha! Eddie Haskells, all.

1. Paul--as far as we know--didn't write them OR read them. Maybe he did and thought they weren't as bad as you do. I don't. I mean, most of the "racist" comments are hacked up to bits. Where are the actual newsletters in context? It's my opinion that Paul still believes that they were taken out of context. So what? Are you saying that Dr. Paul is a flip-flopper on the issue of whether or not he wrote or read them?

Truthers? I'd like you to show me the evidence. I know that Dr. Paul 1. predicted the blowback that occurred on 9-11, and 2. believes the government has responsibility for its defense failures. He quotes the 9-11 commission.

Yes, Ron Paul tells audiences what they want to hear. That's why he's put up with being booed over his positions. lol

I'm still not understanding what else needs to be accounted for in these newsletters. Is this is the worst thing you can find to pick out on him?

They went out in his name. If he didn't write them, someone did it on his behalf. If he didn't read them, he's an idiot.

I have seen links that go to the originals, but it was a while ago. When Yule is over, I'll see if I can find the again and we can all judge.

["quote="Guapo"]In 2008, the issue was vetted. (snip) 1. Paul--as far as we know--didn't write them OR read them. Maybe he did and thought they weren't as bad as you do. I don't. I mean, most of the "racist" comments are hacked up to bits. Where are the actual newsletters in context? It's my opinion that Paul still believes that they were taken out of context. So what? Are you saying that Dr. Paul is a flip-flopper on the issue of whether or not he wrote or read them?
[/quote]
I think the problem here is that 10 years earlier he claimed to be aware of everything in the newsletter. At this time, he defended the blatantly racist articles saying they were true and the racist parts were taken out of context. And yes I think those racist comments are pretty bad. Suggestions of renaming NYC Welfaria or Lazyopolis because of the number of Blacks on public assistance isn't badly racist? All I can say to that is wow.

So which is correct, the 1995's I knew and you are misreading it or 2008's I didn't write it and knew nothing about it?

Guapo wrote:Truthers? I'd like you to show me the evidence.

I am not saying he is a truther himself. Rather he makes comments to truther groups that make it sounds like he agrees with their positions. Here has a pretty good collection of video links were Ron Paul says government investigation, including of 9/11, are usually cover ups. It isn't until he gets asked for clarification by mainstream media that he says no I don't believe it. There is also a link in the above article that takes you to a listing of Paul quotes like that.

Guapo wrote:what else needs to be accounted for in these newsletters. Is this is the worst thing you can find to pick out on him?

I could careless about the newsletters because I don't think he is going to be the nominee. I just brought them up because I said 6 months ago he would not be because of this issue.[/quote]

Ron Paul says government investigation, including of 9/11, are usually cover ups

This is not the same thing as "the US government was behind 9/11" which is what the "truther" movement is about.

The idea that government investigations of itself cover-up government ineptitude or misdeeds is pretty uncontroversial, isn't it?

Go out today and ask your friends if they think that the 9/11 commission report covered up government misdeeds or ineptitude.

The racist newsletter thing might blow up and hurt Ron Paul, but calling Paul a truther is going to blow up in the establishment's face. People are going to listen to what Paul has to say about it (that :gasps: the government people who do these investigations cover up for other government people) and think he is the only one that sounds sane on the issue. What is the counter-argument...that these reports are free from political influence and are the unvarnished truth? LOL

Re: the newsletters themselves, the issue is not whether Paul is a racist. It seems that even non-Paul supporters here are satisfied that he isn't. That doesn't mean the public at large might not think he is. But you don't have to read too much of what he has to say on race to see that he isn't.

For me, the thing that bothers me is that Rockwell (or whoever wrote them) has not come forward and admitted it). Obviously Paul is covering for Rockwell/Rothbard/whoever. While its probably true that he doesn't know exactly who wrote each of these quotes we keep reading, it isn't like there were a lot of people working on these things. I wonder if he has even asked who wrote what.

Anyway, I emailed Lew Rockwell and asked him if he wrote any of these racist remarks himself. If he says he didn't then I'll be satisfied he didn't. I say that if I did not get a response that I would be revoking my monthly donation from his website. I don't believe that he is a racist either (even if he did write them in some misguided attempt to align with John Birchers as was mentioned above). But I think that if you make a mistake you should come clean about it, especially if someone else is taking the heat for it.

the issue is not whether Paul is a racist

I think the issue is "does he pander to racists?" (Perhaps more appropriately it should be the past tense.)
and I suppose , does he, or did he, pander to out to lunch conspiracy theorists. (Theo it may be that official inquiries aren't always opaque, and don't always get the full truth out. But by generalizing rather than offering specific evidence to support why he thinks this is the case for the 9/11 commission Paul is fueling conspiracy theories... It isn't helpful. and it is pandering.)
The right wing of the republican party, and some of the current crop of Presidential candidates has tolerated Birthers too. At least Paul didn't go there.

The nature of the primaries tends to lead to pandering, since pockets of a committed and energized group with extreme and.or delusional views can mean a lot in a state primary...

theodorelogan wrote:This is not the same thing as "the US government was behind 9/11" which is what the "truther" movement is about.

I never said that Ron Paul is a truther and I have never seen anybody else say that. What has been said is that Ron Paul changes his comments based on the audience he is talking to, i.e. letting a truther think he (Ron Paul) agrees with the idea while telling the mainstream audience he doesn't agree with that. The problem with Ron Paul doing this is that many of the audiences he speaks to are fringe nutjobs that believe things like the Truther movement.

Further, It will not be hard to put out an ad that has Ron Paul saying the Warren Report was a cover up or there is a 9/11 cover up etc. And it will hurt him because the general public isn't going to look any further then the out of context sound bite.

Archduke Russell John wrote:What has been said is that Ron Paul changes his comments based on the audience he is talking to

Just like a consumate politician, really. So in other words, he's not much different to the rest of them, he's just got a different schtick and a bunch of fanboys.

I said I'd seen some copies of the originals. Here's the link: Scans of over 50 pages from Ron Paul's newletters

I don't know if Paul is a racist. He certainly (like his son) seems to think that the Civil Rights Act should not have been passed, because the property rights of white business owners trump the rights of black people to equal treatment.

What I can see is that he was fine to have his name associated with (even if he didn't actually write them, they went out under his name, with his signature, to his supporters) newsletters with pretty dubious sentiments.

So, let's take his claims that he didn't write them on face value (I'm not convinced, to be honest, that he had no editorial involvement). I still can't understand his claims that for ten years after they surfaced, and five years after he said to the Dallas Morning News that they were accurate but needed to be taken in context, he had not actually read all of them.

So, in the early 1990s this stuff went out. In the mid-1990s he did not disavow them, he defended them as accurate. By the early 2000s he was telling people that he never wrote them and had only just read them. And now, he's avoiding it.

Let's juxtapose Paul with a known racist. Robert Byrd was in the KKK in the 40s and 50s. He recruited loads of his friends. He supported segregation. But in 2005 he wrote this:

I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times . . . and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened.

(source WaPo

Some won't forgive Byrd, but at least he acknowledged what he did wrong and apologised. Paul can't do that.

What has been said is that Ron Paul changes his comments based on the audience he is talking to, i.e. letting a truther think he (Ron Paul) agrees with the idea while telling the mainstream audience he doesn't agree with that.

Bold added for emphasis.

I would call this "focusing on the agreement". I don't see a change of message.

theodorelogan wrote:

What has been said is that Ron Paul changes his comments based on the audience he is talking to, i.e. letting a truther think he (Ron Paul) agrees with the idea while telling the mainstream audience he doesn't agree with that.

Bold added for emphasis.

I would call this "focusing on the agreement". I don't see a change of message.

Or 'spin' as we political anoraks call it.

Wow, seriously?

So it isn't enough to tell different groups the same thing, you also have to make perfectly clear where you disagree? And failure to do this is spin?

Sorry Dan, but focusing on where you agree with people is not spin. Spin is taking what you said, and saying that it means something else (what Russ is doing.)

danivon wrote:[
I said I'd seen some copies of the originals. Here's the link: Scans of over 50 pages from Ron Paul's newletters

Thanks!!

No, theodore, spin is tailoring your message to fit the audience.

No, theodore, spin is tailoring your message to fit the audience.

Never heard that called spin before, but does going on a Fox news debate and warning against war with Iran count as tailoring your message? He has the same message no matter the audience, and Russ' suggestion otherwise is laughable.

So, he doesn't do it for all topics, does that prove he never does it?

Of course not. Russ has shown an example of where he does, and your defence by misdirection is laughable.