Lew Rockwell wrote some of Paul's letters

[RockPusher]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Ron Paul newsletter was racist year after year for DECADES and he didn't retract it, that's racism

You cannot retract what you did not write. He has publicly stated for DECADES that he does not endorse those beliefs, that he bears moral responsibility, and the staffer who wrote them is gone.

You can call him on his moral responsibility, but since he has already taken moral responsibility, you are whipping a dead horse.

[7th Ninjai]

Seems to me that there a quite a few people in this thread who are hoping Ron Paul had more association with those newsletters than he admits.

[Fed Up]

I'll address this from two angles.

Ron Paul on racism:

What Really Divides Us? by Rep. Ron Paul

Government and Racism by Ron Paul

and he also wants to let blacks who have been convicted of drug crimes out of prison.

Ron Paul is hardly a racist.

Lew Rockwell:

I flew out to the Mises Institute that Rockwell runs and met Lew last year. The attendees of the conference were primarily college professors, mostly PhD's, some authors and some post grad students. The premise of the entire weekend there was entirely about Austrian economics (the kind of economics that could save America from declaring bankruptcy) and even some Anarcho Capitalists speeches in the Rothbardian style (most by Ed Stringham).

My own impression of Lew and the entire group was they wanted to get the word out about Austrian economics, nothing more.

back to Ron Paul:

When I met Ron a the FreedomFest in Las Vegas last year, I had him sign a copy of a book he wrote on Austrian economics. His comment to me then was; "I was heavily influenced by them."

Austrian economics can save America, but it will also destroy the Federal Reserve and the current financial system as we know it today, because one of its tenets is "sound money," which Paul has written quite a bit about.

So how does one get rid of a candidate that stands against everything they stand for? There is only one way. Discredit him. How are they doing this? Via ties to racists comments for about two years ( 1990 and 1991, not 20 years worth) in a newsletter that went out in his name.

Ties to racism is a tactic that can bring anyone down. Ron Paul has addressed this recently as he did 10 years ago when he ran for congress in Texas and won. And now Reason magazine and the warmongering Bidinotto, who is nowhere near a Libertarian (same with self acclaimed Libertarian and warmonger Neal Boortz), want to continue the slamming of Paul in trying to connect him via Lew Rockwell (Lew is having eye surgery and can't respond for two days from what I read).

Ron Paul does need to come out against this...again....for the last time...and put this behind him.

His message must be what his supporters concentrate on. The MSM, cannot attack the message.

Fed Up

[motivez]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

You cannot retract what you did not write. He has publicly stated for DECADES that he does not endorse those beliefs, that he bears moral responsibility, and the staffer who wrote them is gone.

You can call him on his moral responsibility, but since he has already taken moral responsibility, you are whipping a dead horse.

You can post a retraction in the newsletter explaining that those aren't your beliefs, and the person was let go, etc.. that wasn't done

Also, why was the person who wrote it not exposed? Why shouldn't they be forced to stand by those words by Ron Paul?

It makes me wonder how he'd be able to hold his subordinates accountable for failures

[lew]

Originally Posted by ballz2wallz

No, but signing your name to letters you know nothing about seems incompetent to me

Then it's incompetent. It's not racist.

[lew]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Ron Paul newsletter was racist year after year for DECADES and he didn't retract it, that's racism

Actually, there's only a handful of racist remarks.


It wasn't racist "year after year" for decades.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by lew

Actually, there's only a handful of racist remarks.


It wasn't racist "year after year" for decades.

Only published a few quotes, it's just one expose, even the write ups of the Ken Starr report had only a few quotes but it was filled with graphic heterosexual material (so much so Barney Frank said he had to stop reading it, )

I am sure there are a lot more borderline or obviously improper statements...

Why? It got to the point he HAD TO FIRE THE GUY, now, at that point, when you fire the guy, why don't you issue a retraction?

I can't believe of the "handful" of stuff, he wouldn't even read his own newsletter, what was he, researching a cure for cancer?

The most likely scenario, to me, is that he saw every racist remark, probably made a comment or two, but let it pass, and didn't retract it, because he knew his audience loved it and racism was a lot more accepted back then he probably thought those statements were okay

he probably made some wacky reasoning, like it's the "marketplace of ideas" and his newsletter was selling, so there's no reason to stop it, it'd only be racist if he was denying a qualified black person a job, but he can say whatever he wants in his newsletter

it's racism, and incompetence

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by RockPusher

You cannot retract what you did not write.

But you can retract what you put your name on, what you published and what you profited from.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by lew

Bidinotto supported the War in Iraq and Bush in '04. He's hardly a libertarian.

First of all Ron Paul is running as a Republican, so it is very much in the interest of Republican Party members what he has said and supported.

And Second I do not know when this Republican or his merry band of followers became the absolute spokespersons for Libertarians. As the author I quoted suggests, he may be doing libertarians much damage the more these past writings surface in the media. Certainly more than different views on this war or any other. If an allegiance to isolationism is necessary to be a Liberatrian these days don't worry about me.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

If an allegiance to isolationism is necessary to be a Liberatrian these days don't worry about me.

Why does everyone try to paint Paul as an Isolationist. He follows in the footsteps of Jefferson's non-entaglement, "peace, commerce and honest friendship with all."

The "Old" Republican party followed this philosophy, not this "New" warmongeriing, Islamofacism version. Anyone that is isolating themselves it is our current administration.

In November of 2006, the People spoke loud and clear yet the "New" Republican party platform hasn't changed one iota. As a result, the winner in November 2008 is a foregone conclusion.

Fed Up

[lew]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

First of all Ron Paul is running as a Republican, so it is very much in the interest of Republican Party members what he has said and supported.

And Second I do not know when this Republican or his merry band of followers became the absolute spokespersons for Libertarians. As the author I quoted suggests, he may be doing libertarians much damage the more these past writings surface in the media. Certainly more than different views on this war or any other. If an allegiance to isolationism is necessary to be a Liberatrian these days don't worry about me.

For the MILLIONTH time, Paul is not an isolationist.

[Donkey®]

Paul is irrelevant so that means this arguing is pointless

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Paul is irrelevant so that means this arguing is pointless

Irrelevant to whom?

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Irrelevant to whom?

American politics

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Donkey®

American politics

So his message about adhering to the Constitution is irrelevant to American Politics? I see.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by 7th Ninjai

Seems to me that there a quite a few people in this thread who are hoping Ron Paul had more association with those newsletters than he admits.

When you put your name on something like this I don't see trying to spin motives or what he admits changes anything. If Paul were doing better that 9% to 6% you can bet many more people would be talking about this.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

When you put your name on something like this I don't see trying to spin motives or what he admits changes anything. If Paul were doing better that 9% to 6% you can bet many more people would be talking about this.

Good analysis of this issue below...

Ron Paul is Not A Bigot: Refuting the New Republic Charges

Fed Up

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

Good analysis of this issue below...

Ron Paul is Not A Bigot: Refuting the New Republic Charges

Fed Up

His supporters aren't going to tell the whole story and will downplay the event to Paul's advantage. I don't believe for one second that Paul didn't realize this stuff was being published, nor do I believe Paul has no idea who wrote the articles.

Here is more of the story.

But this Wednesday, I spoke with Tom Lizardo, Paul's congressional chief of staff. He now says that Paul was prepared to finger Rockwell in anticipation of "Angry White Man." Lizardo says that last week--either on Monday or Tuesday--Paul and Benton agreed that the campaign would release a statement acknowledging that Rockwell was a principal in the production of the newsletters. The statement was drafted by Benton and approved by Paul himself, Lizardo told me. Shortly before Paul was about to go public, however, Lizardo says Kent Snyder, the campaign's chairman, stepped in and "stopped the outing of Rockwell's involvement." (Snyder didn't respond to a phone message asking for a comment, and Benton said, "We are not going to talk to you anymore," when I attempted to question him about Lizardo's claims.)

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...c-6dfc538f03ff

This matters because, while Mr Paul may disavow the sentiments that were expressed under his name over the years, he has scarcely disavowed Mr Rockwell, who remains a friend and adviser. Mr Rockwell is one of the congressman's most vigorous online boosters, accompanied him to an appearance on The Tonight Show, and often publishes Mr Paul's writings on his Web site. Mr Paul now says the identity of his ghostwriter is of no importance. But if the person responsible for spreading venom under his name for many years remains a close associate, it suggests that Mr Paul is at least prepared to countenance pandering to racists, however respectable his own views. The candidate owes his supporters a far more complete explanation than he has thus far provided.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ...well_files.cfm

The only thing this can all add up to is that Paul is not only incompetent, but he is also a liar. And more importantly he has no desire to properly handle this situation like a respectable politician would. He should report back on who wrote the articles and if it is someone who is close to his campaign he should remove himself from them. Last week his campaign staff reported that Paul was ready to finger Rockwell as the author, this week has no idea who did and doesn't think it's important. Paul is a much better friend than he is a politician it seems.

[lew]

Originally Posted by JaJae

His supporters aren't going to tell the whole story and will downplay the event to Paul's advantage. I don't believe for one second that Paul didn't realize this stuff was being published, nor do I believe Paul has no idea who wrote the articles.

Here is more of the story.






The only thing this can all add up to is that Paul is not only incompetent, but he is also a liar. And more importantly he has no desire to properly handle this situation like a respectable politician would. He should report back on who wrote the articles and if it is someone who is close to his campaign he should remove himself from them. Last week his campaign staff reported that Paul was ready to finger Rockwell as the author, this week has no idea who did and doesn't think it's important. Paul is a much better friend than he is a politician it seems.

I mean, seriously, I don't think I've ever read such unsubstantiated "journalism" in all my life. Nothing in there is concrete anything. It's all complete hearsay.