Lew Rockwell wrote some of Paul's letters

ballz2wallz · 01-16-2008, 01:49 PM

So who wrote all those newsletters with Ron Paul's name on them meant to express Ron Paul's viewpoints that Ron Paul knows nothing about?

As it turns out, Lew Rockwell did it...well, some of them.

The publishing operation was lucrative. A tax document from June 1993—wrapping up the year in which the Political Report had published the “welfare checks” comment on the L.A. riots—reported an annual income of $940,000 for Ron Paul & Associates, listing four employees in Texas (Paul’s family and Rockwell) and seven more employees around the country. If Paul didn’t know who was writing his newsletters, he knew they were a crucial source of income and a successful tool for building his fundraising base for a political comeback…

The man who was once the Great Paleolibertarian Hope has built a broad base of enthusiastic supporters without resorting to venomous rhetoric or coded racism. He has stuck stubbornly to the issues of sound money, “humble foreign policy,” and shrinking the state. He wraps up his speeches with a three-part paean to individualism: “I don’t want to run your life,” “I don’t want to run the economy,” and “I don’t want to run the world.” He talks about the disproportionate effect of the drug war on African-Americans, and appeared at a September 2007 Republican debate on black issues that was boycotted by the then-frontrunners. All this and more have brought him $30 million-plus from more than 100,000 donors; thousands of campaign volunteers, and the largest rallies he’s ever spoken to, including a crowd of almost 5,000 in Philadelphia.

Yet those new supporters, many of whom are first encountering libertarian ideas through the Ron Paul Revolution, deserve a far more frank explanation than the campaign has as yet provided of how their candidate’s name ended up atop so many ugly words. Ron Paul may not be a racist, but he became complicit in a strategy of pandering to racists—and taking “moral responsibility” for that now means more than just uttering the phrase. It means openly grappling with his own past—acknowledging who said what, and why. Otherwise he risks damaging not only his own reputation, but that of the philosophy to which he has committed his life.

Hmmm...

JaJae · 01-16-2008, 01:59 PM

If this is true it is going to seriously hurt Paul and it should be all over the airwaves. I like Paul;s political views, but this is not acceptable behavior for someone wishing to run our nation.

bheld · 01-16-2008, 02:03 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

If this is true it is going to seriously hurt Paul and it should be all over the airwaves. I like Paul;s political views, but this is not acceptable behavior for someone wishing to run our nation.

If George W. Bush put cocaine up his nose with little repercussion, I think an association with somebody 20 years ago is not as earth-shattering as you'd expect.

JaJae · 01-16-2008, 02:06 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

If George W. Bush put cocaine up his nose with little repercussion, I think an association with somebody 20 years ago is not as earth-shattering as you'd expect.

A large percentage of the country has done drugs. You'd be hard-pressed to find a candidate running for president who hasn't. Spreading racism for political and monetary advancement is something far worse than using drugs.

bheld · 01-16-2008, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

A large percentage of the country has done drugs. You'd be hard-pressed to find a candidate running for president who hasn't. Spreading racism for political and monetary advancement is something far worse than using drugs.

You think more people have done cocaine than have associated with racists?

Stylerod · 01-16-2008, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

A large percentage of the country has done drugs. You'd be hard-pressed to find a candidate running for president who hasn't. Spreading racism for political and monetary advancement is something far worse than using drugs.

Not to a GWB h8r. Anything he has done is worse than anything anyone else has ever done in their minds.

So anyway, I have to admit I don't know who Lew Rockwell is. For some reason, I thought he posted here

JaJae · 01-16-2008, 02:13 PM

Originally Posted by Stylerod

So anyway, I have to admit I don't know who Lew Rockwell is. For some reason, I thought he posted here

Lew Rockwell is the largest voice of libertarianism in our nation today. This would be a huge blow to their party/ideology which explains why Paul is so defensive about not naming names.

JaJae · 01-16-2008, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

You think more people have done cocaine than have associated with racists?

I didn't say anything to suggest my stance on that. Don't really care either way as I don't see how it's relevant.

But if you must know I think the number of people who do drugs is probably higher than the number of people who monetarily and politically profit from racism.

bheld · 01-16-2008, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

I didn't say anything to suggest my stance on that. Don't really care either way as I don't see how it's relevant.

But if you must know I think the number of people who do drugs is probably higher than people who monetarily and politically profit from racism.

You're trying to quantitatively compare two moral misdeeds, how is your reckoning of the numbers not relevant?

JaJae · 01-16-2008, 02:33 PM

Originally Posted by bheld

You're trying to quantitatively compare two moral misdeeds, how your reckoning of the numbers not relevant?

Your point was that George Bush does drugs (which I also don't really see how that's relevant to Paul's situation). My point was so have most of the people running for president as far as I'm aware. It is not uncommon: Clinton, Bush, Kerry, Obama, etc...

Paul is probably the only one I can think of who profited from racism and I think our society cares more about racism than prior drug use.

RockPusher · 01-16-2008, 02:35 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Lew Rockwell is the largest voice of libertarianism in our nation today. This would be a huge blow to their party/ideology which explains why Paul is so defensive about not naming names.

The newsletter was not written in Lew's style. I REALLY don't think that he wrote them.

I think that a more logical, and simple answer to the questions of who wrote it, and why did Ron not come forward with the name is that Ron Paul fully entrusted Rand Paul with the newsletter, and he doesn't want to expose his son to media and professional backlash.

Nobody who has followed the writings or career of Ron Paul REALLY thinks that Ron Paul has those views expressed in the letter.

It sucks for him that they were published in his name.

Publius · 01-16-2008, 02:37 PM

Unlike most libertarians I've always felt Lew Rockwell was a little off. If this ends up being true (I have no idea if it will or not), I guess I was right.

JaJae · 01-16-2008, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by RockPusher

Nobody who has followed the writings or career of Ron Paul REALLY thinks that Ron Paul has those views expressed in the letter.

It sucks for him that they were published in his name.

I don't think he's racist, but it doesn't just suck for him that they were published in his name. If he was profiting as much as that article claims he was from his newsletter he should have been overseeing it and he should have done more to retract or denounce them. It doesn't just "suck for him" because it's entirely his fault.

RockPusher · 01-16-2008, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

... It doesn't just "suck for him" because it's entirely his fault.

That is what sucks for him. He has accepted moral responsibility for what was written. He cannot do any more than that. He has denounced what was written directly, but more importantly by everything that he actually did write in the past on the subject.

It pains me to see all of this "Race this... Racist that... Race.. Racism..." ad nauseum in the election.

Race is not a real issue in the Dem or Repub primaries, it is just thrown up there to avoid the real issues.

kinggovernor · 01-16-2008, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by RockPusher

That is what sucks for him. He has accepted moral responsibility for what was written. He cannot do any more than that. He has denounced what was written directly, but more importantly by everything that he actually did write in the past on the subject.

It pains me to see all of this "Race this... Racist that... Race.. Racism..." ad nauseum in the election.

Race is not a real issue in the Dem or Repub primaries, it is just thrown up there to avoid the real issues.

race and gender are currently playing a huge part in the democrat primary

lew · 01-16-2008, 03:16 PM

There is, as of yet, still no proof behind that Reason article.

A lot of suspicion that Rockwell (or even Rothbard) wrote the racist pieces, but no proof yet.

lew · 01-16-2008, 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by JaJae

Lew Rockwell is the largest voice of libertarianism in our nation today.

CATO and the LP would disagree with that. They hate each other.

JaJae · 01-16-2008, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by lew

There is, as of yet, still no proof behind that Reason article.

A lot of suspicion that Rockwell (or even Rothbard) wrote the racist pieces, but no proof yet.

Yes there's no proof. Ron Paul has absolutely no desire to hash this issue out and explain himself. All the more reason to question him.

lew · 01-16-2008, 03:17 PM

Also, unless Rockwell as entirely changed his writing style, just from that alone should prove that he didn't write those articles. They sound nothing like him, just like they don't sound like Paul.

JaJae · 01-16-2008, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by lew

Also, unless Rockwell as entirely changed his writing style, just from that alone should prove that he didn't write those articles. They sound nothing like him, just like they don't sound like Paul.

Unfortunately the burden of proof has be placed into Paul's hands.