4 ms·

I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful. Without checking out each quote, I believe the answer is that it's generally accurate, but you nee

I don't know how credible this is but it leaves me doubtful. Without checking out each quote, I believe the answer is that it's generally accurate, but you need to understand what these represent. First, there's the normal crap about taking things out of context... But more specifically, these are decidedly not things that Paul ever said or wrote. These are things that somebody else wrote in a newsletter that was using Paul's name. That doesn't mean that you should let Paul off the hook. It means that what you should be concerned about is not that he's a racist ass, but that he may have a lapses in judgment, as here where he allowed someone else to use his name without monitoring closely how they used it. It's worth noting, though, that there are some very strong parallels here between Paul's misstep and President Obama. Consider Obama's association with the explicitly anti-American, anti-Semite minister Jeremiah Wright, and with the communist and terrorist Bill Ayers. Indeed, in my opinion, Obama comes out much dirtier in this comparison, because he refused to disavow those other people, and particularly Wright, who is acknowledged to have served (still?) as a mentor to Obama, shaping his thinking. In contrast, Paul condemns those statements, and there's no reason to believe that he ever took their writers' ideas as guidance. More discussion of this here: http://volokh.com/2011/12/22/libertarians-and-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/comment-page-3/ http://volokh.com/2011/12/22/libertarians-and-ron-pauls-raci...

veidr 15y ago
Jeremiah Wright isn't my cup of tea, either, but 'anti-American'? That's absurd.
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  'anti-American'? That's absurd. Well, it's not my phrasing. - - - - - Begin Quote [1] An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans. "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." - - - - - End Quote [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1#.Tv3ZxTWNN7c http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443...
  - ebiester 15y ago
    Sounds like many of the biblical prophets to me. It's someone who took his cues from Jeremiah. I never understood what was the big deal - it's just someone who takes seriously their religion. (And all of his accusations in that quote are factual. The crack epidemic was largely CIA-fueled as a way to funnel money to Central American rebels, and the rest is easy enough to verify.)
damncabbage 15y ago
Here's a nice break-down of exactly why the newsletter debacle is so damning (and how it contrasts with how Wright was handled): http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/re-thinking-the-paul-endorsement.html http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/re-thinking-...
- CWuestefeld 15y ago
  Your linked article has some merit, it isn't something to dismiss out-of-hand. However, there's a significant flaw in it, where he discusses how Obama was excused but Paul isn't: Obama did it with Jeremiah Wright, openly grappling with the past toxic association, owning it, explaining it. Paul has not had the wherewithal or presence of mind to do that. Indeed, he has not even named the association, the first step to disowning it. But this is false, he did address it four years ago. I've linked and quoted that statement below. [1] Also, Sullivan goes on to say "And unlike Obama with Wright, Paul got money from these newsletters." You'll have to make your own value judgments here, but I think Obama comes out worse. It's true that Paul profited. However, it seems clear to me that Obama's relationship with the real perpetrator (Wright, in his case) was far closer than Paul's. Obama chose Wright to baptize his daughters, and used Wright's ideas for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope. This make me believe that Obama had a close, respectful relationship with Wright, and that some of Wrights ideas molded Obama's own. None of these things can be said of Ron Paul with respect to those newsletters. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/08/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108 http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/08/idUS233377+08-Jan-... "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.' "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."
scarmig 15y ago
That's not a really plausible story. Some of the quotes were not only written in a newsletter with Ron Paul's name on it, but were actually signed "Ron Paul," and written in the first person talking about why he voted a certain way. And he's refused to name these mysterious ghostwriters who wrote it. And when these came up in the 1990s... he didn't claim they weren't him or even disavow them! He just said that they were taken out of context, not that he wasn't responsible for them. I really don't give a huge crap about what it says about Ron Paul's deepest darkest prejudices--I'm a policy man, myself--but to simply try to shrug it off and say "I disavow these things" while also saying things like the Civil Rights Act should be repealed? Call me unsurprised if people are upset about it. The Reverend Wright deal is a weak comparison. Something analogous would be if, in Dreams from My Father, Obama had said "I wish a Mao would rise in the United States to give the capitalist running dogs what they deserve." And given what he's given shit for... do you seriously not believe he'd get shit for that? It'd be an instant disqualification, even if the quote were taken out of context or even written by a ghostwriter.

veidr 15y ago

Jeremiah Wright isn't my cup of tea, either, but 'anti-American'? That's absurd.

CWuestefeld 15y ago
'anti-American'? That's absurd. Well, it's not my phrasing. - - - - - Begin Quote [1] An ABC News review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S. based on what he described as his reading of the Gospels and the treatment of black Americans. "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," he said in a 2003 sermon. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme." - - - - - End Quote [1] http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443788&page=1#.Tv3ZxTWNN7c http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/DemocraticDebate/story?id=4443...
- ebiester 15y ago
  Sounds like many of the biblical prophets to me. It's someone who took his cues from Jeremiah. I never understood what was the big deal - it's just someone who takes seriously their religion. (And all of his accusations in that quote are factual. The crack epidemic was largely CIA-fueled as a way to funnel money to Central American rebels, and the rest is easy enough to verify.)

damncabbage 15y ago

Here's a nice break-down of exactly why the newsletter debacle is so damning (and how it contrasts with how Wright was handled): http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/re-thinking-the-paul-endorsement.html http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/12/re-thinking-...

CWuestefeld 15y ago
Your linked article has some merit, it isn't something to dismiss out-of-hand. However, there's a significant flaw in it, where he discusses how Obama was excused but Paul isn't: Obama did it with Jeremiah Wright, openly grappling with the past toxic association, owning it, explaining it. Paul has not had the wherewithal or presence of mind to do that. Indeed, he has not even named the association, the first step to disowning it. But this is false, he did address it four years ago. I've linked and quoted that statement below. [1] Also, Sullivan goes on to say "And unlike Obama with Wright, Paul got money from these newsletters." You'll have to make your own value judgments here, but I think Obama comes out worse. It's true that Paul profited. However, it seems clear to me that Obama's relationship with the real perpetrator (Wright, in his case) was far closer than Paul's. Obama chose Wright to baptize his daughters, and used Wright's ideas for the title of his book The Audacity of Hope. This make me believe that Obama had a close, respectful relationship with Wright, and that some of Wrights ideas molded Obama's own. None of these things can be said of Ron Paul with respect to those newsletters. [1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/08/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108 http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/08/idUS233377+08-Jan-... "The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts. "In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.' "This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary. "When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

scarmig 15y ago

That's not a really plausible story. Some of the quotes were not only written in a newsletter with Ron Paul's name on it, but were actually signed "Ron Paul," and written in the first person talking about why he voted a certain way. And he's refused to name these mysterious ghostwriters who wrote it. And when these came up in the 1990s... he didn't claim they weren't him or even disavow them! He just said that they were taken out of context, not that he wasn't responsible for them. I really don't give a huge crap about what it says about Ron Paul's deepest darkest prejudices--I'm a policy man, myself--but to simply try to shrug it off and say "I disavow these things" while also saying things like the Civil Rights Act should be repealed? Call me unsurprised if people are upset about it. The Reverend Wright deal is a weak comparison. Something analogous would be if, in Dreams from My Father, Obama had said "I wish a Mao would rise in the United States to give the capitalist running dogs what they deserve." And given what he's given shit for... do you seriously not believe he'd get shit for that? It'd be an instant disqualification, even if the quote were taken out of context or even written by a ghostwriter.