Political Animal
Blog
Among the many problems surrounding Ron Paul’s presidential campaign is the series of radical materials he published in the 1990s. Paul’s newsletters and fundraising appeals, as has been well documented, included racist, homophobic, and anti-Israeli propaganda, as well as bizarre conspiracy theories.
Paul, when asked about his publications, tends to stick to the same line: he didn’t write much of the content that went out under his name, and was unaware of the offensive content. In many instances, the Republican lawmaker now claims, he didn’t even read his own materials, and just didn’t pay much attention to the entire venture.
Paul may want to rethink this explanation. Andrew Kaczynski posts this previously unearthed video from 1995, in which the Texan not only acknowledges the “Ron Paul Survival Report,” but boasts about it.
On a related note, the New York Times reports today on Paul’s racist allies and outreach, and his reluctance to disavow the support of radicals. This isn’t exactly new, but as Paul’s notoriety as a presidential candidate increases, these associations warrant fresh scrutiny.
Facebook
Twitter
c u n d gulag on December 26, 2011 10:18 AM:
The sad truth is that these revelations will only garner him some more votes.
And, thought this nitwit as our nations leader scares the crap out of me, I console myself with the thoughts that
1) he's 78, and 2), he has NO chance of being the Republican nominee. NONE!
But I do worry about the son, Rand, in the future, though.
He's already a Senator, and I don't think Lil' AquaBuddha's ambitions will allow him to stay there much longer - I'm sure he feels the need to spread his and his father's noxious nonsense all around the nation in a Presdiential run of his own sometime soon.
And so, I worry.
Remember - the turd doesn't fall far from the sphincter.
walt on December 26, 2011 10:21 AM:
Paul is not going to win the GOP nomination in any event. This story will probably fade away because right-wing racism has been pretty much mainstreamed in our discourse. On the other hand, find another Jeremiah Wright video and we'll soon find out how blacks are the real racists (double for Obama).
The neglected story behind Paul's full kook candidacy is harebrained libertarianism. He wants to cut $1 trillion from the first year of his never-to-be-realized presidency? Yikes. Yet, somehow this gets a pass because economic theory is complicated.
Paul is immensely popular among younger voters and those looking for the next groovy flavor ala Jon Stewart. We should be using this moment to educate them about real-world economics because even if they don't get their marijuana legalized, they may end voting for someone who promises them The Answer by radically cutting government. This toxic nonsense needs to be answered. Right now, the racist newsletters are a convenient distraction from this necessary task.
hells littlest angel on December 26, 2011 10:21 AM:
He sure has got down the Iran-Contra/Enron/Abu Graib-style of passing the buck down to underlings. Now that's the kind of American leadership we've come to expect!
Jeff In Ohio on December 26, 2011 10:49 AM:
Be prepared for the incoming Paul apologists which can be boiled down to 3 lines of attack:
1. no one wants to debate the issues
2. the socialist neocons will stop at nothing to derail the only principled man in America
3. Jews!
Sean Scallon on December 26, 2011 11:09 AM:
When Ronald Reagan received an endorsement from the Ku Klux Klan during his re-election campaign of 1984 he said in response "When you endorse me you endorse my platform and what I stand for." Meaning you can do what you want. It's a free country. But that doesn't mean I endorse you.
And if you weren't bothered by the support of the New Black Panther Party, ACORN, or the terrorist Bill Ayers for Barak Obama, then what's the difference? If Jesse Jackson is still a revered figure despite Louis Farrakan's support, then why the double-standard for Ron Paul? Don Black isn't going to be named secretary of anything in a Paul White House. Period.
Gandalf on December 26, 2011 11:55 AM:
So Sean Scallon your saying Ron Paul is just swell even though every nutjob in the country enedorses him?
Sean Scallon on December 26, 2011 12:14 PM:
Yup, that's what I'm saying. Because Ron Paul can't control what other people think of him or believe about his views as warped as they may be. It only matters if Ron Paul believes ending the Fed will hurt Jews which of course he doesn't believe at all nor is it behind his motivation to end central banking. That is his individual view (you remember what individualism is don't you?) and he alone is responsible for it, because after all, it's his name and his name alone on the ballot.
I can recall a good man running for President, once upon a time, was smeared by his opponents for the views and antics of his supporters. Was it fair for the Nixon campaign to smear George McGovern as the candidate of "ass, grass and amnesty" even though his views were far less extreme than those of his supporters? Apparently almost every "nutjob" in 1972 was supporting George McGovern. Are you all going to adopt Nixon approach to Ron Paul? Because if you do, it goes to show you cynical you all have become just to hold onto political power.
Elisabeth on December 26, 2011 12:15 PM:
Hahahahahahaha ACORN. Hahahahahaha Bill Ayers. You forgot Tony Rezco. If Barack Obama wrote the crap or put his name to the crap that Ron Paul did he wouldn't be president. Heck, he got trashed for complimenting Ronald Reagan!
But END THE FED! (And Israel, too)
Jeremy B. on December 26, 2011 12:43 PM:
If Paul "alone is responsible for [his individual view], because after all, it's his name and his name alone on the ballot," then I would expect a similar logic to apply to his newsletter, which had his name and his name alone in the title.
Neil B on December 26, 2011 1:06 PM:
Sean, that's a pitiful defense. The whole point of this post is that Ron Paul defended the newsletter back then. Can't you read? And RP won't be good for the country anyway, even if otherwise basically honest and consistent (?) and limiting of some things we can do without.
"lemFre accept" - maybe, accepting "freedom" really means you're a lemming, ironically?
Sean Scallon on December 26, 2011 1:52 PM:
He defended them back then because took the stupid advice of campaign manager of his 1996 Congressional campaign. Even he admits that. Five years later when interviewed by Texas Monthly about those newsletters (and well before he his next two runs for president)he said he didn't write them and was wrong at the time to defend them.
I'm not going to argue with anyone who wants to call Paul incompetent or negligent with this and he has taken responsibility for it. If that doesn't satisfy you fine, don't vote for him. But the bottom line is he didn't write those letters, period and considering the baggage of the other candidates Paul is no worse and some cases better than they are, even in regards to race.
After all is anyone asking Mitt Romney, while he was skipping out on Vietnam doing his Mormon mission to France, whether he told Frenchmen blacks were subhuman and Indians were the children of the Devil? Yeah, that's what the LDS believed back then. Jon Hunstman too. Why are they given a pass for what they said or didn't take responsibility for 40 years ago? Is this only for one candidate in particular we're doing this for, because deep down you fear the upheaval he could cause the American political system if he wins?
exlibra on December 26, 2011 3:44 PM:
[...] the New York Times reports today on Paul’s racist allies and outreach, and his reluctance to disavow the support of radicals. -- Steve Benen
Pecunia non olet and neither do votes.
[...] the bottom line is he didn't write those letters, period [...] -- Sean Scallon, 1:52PM
Then why are so many of them written in the first person singular, using his experience as a doctor or Congressman to bolster the ideas contained within? If he disapproved of those ideas and letters, the least he should have done was to fire -- publicly -- whoever had the gall to impersonate him.
6th reiteration of Craptcha looks like a possibility.
Trollop on December 26, 2011 4:41 PM:
As there are many sorry-assed creatures out there, I can't say that Ron Paul is any more or less pathetic than the others, I can say however that he should be checked for syphilis again.
Mamzic on December 26, 2011 9:22 PM:
This is so unfair to Ron Paul,and just another example of why people hate politics.
But Ron paul should know he's not alone, he's not the first politician to have old writings bearing his name dug up, taken out of context, and held against him.
I remember reading how Adolph Hitler of Germany was so upset in 1932 because apparently someone had published a stupid book with his name it, called "Mein Kampf," and he was being blamed for everything it.
Hitler said that although the book had his name on it, he had not read it, and that it was actually written by a low level political staffer named Heinrich Himmler, so he shouldn't be held accountable or it.
Werewolf on December 26, 2011 11:20 PM:
@Trujillo:
Really? Racism was okay back in the Nineties, and anyway his racism was correct? That's the best you Paultards got?
exlibra on December 26, 2011 11:58 PM:
It's true that Ron Paul is not in favor of treating Israel like our 51st state. That doesn't make him anti-semitic. -- Trujillo, @10:55PM
His "anti-Israel" position isn't that it shouldn't be treated as the 51st US State; it's that Israel should not exist at all. And that *does* make hm anti-Semitic.
For the rest, I agree with Werewolf, @11:20; his racism was never "right" or "correct" -- not 20 yrs ago, not 15yrs ago and not now.
Werewolf on December 27, 2011 3:37 AM:
Okay, I retract "paultard". But racism was still just as unacceptable in the Nineties as it is now. BTW, what *is* the best recipe for 13 dwarves and 1 hobbit?