The folks at the New Republic struck gold with a great article on the racist, sexist, and homophobic content of decades of Ron Paul’s newsletters. This should be a needle in the Ron Paul balloon… but it is doubtful it will dissuade too many Paullynuts. After all, the racist, nutbar content of his past newsletters fits the great majority of his follower’s ideology.
The piece by James Kirchick is very long, but it is well worth the read. go on over and pick it up at Angry White Man.
I won’t bother repeating the dreck in these newsletters, but here is the salient bit close to the end of Kirchick’s piece:
When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul’s campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted “various levels of approval” to what appeared in his publications–ranging from “no approval” to instances where he “actually wrote it himself.” After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, “A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no.” He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because “Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero.”
In other words, Paul’s campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically–or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But it is difficult to imagine how Paul could allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long if he did not share these views. In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point. If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point–over the course of decades–he would have done something about it.
It is out of the question to believe that Ron Paul could be separated from the newsletter that bore his name for decades!
Certainly, Paul may not believe every racist sentiment in these past newsletters, but he allowed his name to be associated with it for many, many issues and this puts his seal of approval on the whole mess.
As a Republican that has libertarian tendencies, I demand that Ron Paul remove himself from contention for the presidency. Further I demand that he resign from his seat in Congress. He is a disgrace to all Republicans and Libertarians everywhere. For a while I just felt Paul was a goofy, oddity. Now I see that he is a racist, nutball and a man like this is far more dangerous than I thought.















29 users commented in " Ron Paul’s Racist Newsletters "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackAre you as stupid as Jamie Kirchick? This stuff was debunked years ago, yet like a bad lunch, you keeping spewing it up!
This is not gold, only fool’s gold.
Get your facts straight. Regurgitating this vomit from the Neocon Republic without any verification of the facts they lie about, is just poor work.
Jamie Kirchick (author of the New Republic story):
“I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist.”
http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html
For what its worth you are lying about the sexist part.
Stick to racist and homophobic.
You may want to check with tnr. They pulled kirckicks report for being false. You should set the record straight yourself instead of throwing yourself in with him.
So the “swiftboating” of Ron Paul begins…
Please check your facts before you reprint nonsense.
http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS233377+08-Jan-2008+BW20080108
“You may want to check with tnr. They pulled kirckicks report for being false. You should set the record straight yourself instead of throwing yourself in with him.”
Exactly, and further more I demand as you demanded from Ron Paul that your removed from journalism for reporting inaccuracies. Further I demand that you resign from your position. You are a disgrace to all journalists everywhere. For a while I thought you were goofy, oddity. Now I see that you’re a nutball and a man like you is far more dangerous to the US than I thought before.
TEFLON RON, naugh’ said.
I son of Mexican migrants have spoken.
Hi, my name is James Kirchick, the author of the article about which you are writing. I’d like to add that I’m xenophobic and hate Blacks and Jews.
I know, I know… you probably think I’m an imposter posing as Jamie Kirchick, but I’m not! Want proof? Just look at my name, it’s on the title of this post, just like Ron Paul’s name was on the articles I mentioned.
What that’s? That’s not enough proof? Why don’t you believe me? You believed the unsubstantiated assertions I made in the article I wrote, why is this any different?
Ron Paul’s statement to Reuters on this MLK smear attempt.
“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.
Getting nervous, are you? Who in the “establishment” is paying you to say what you’re saying? It
seems obvious to me that only someone with monetary gains at stake would attack Ron Paul.
Slagging Dr. Paul is a sure sign that somebody is starting to sweat. Don’t worry, my friends, sit
back and enjoy the “revolution”. If you have half a brain, you’d know that only good things will come
out of getting rid of the current “system” of government.
Go Dr. Freedom
This story was circulated 6 months ago and debunked back then. Your childish “demands” are a real laugh riot!
You want demands? I demand you stand on one foot!
Please, the “lulz” you generate from your rant are rather sad! I love your attempt to say that you are in any way libertarian! I say you lean “neocon” and Ron Paul’s message of constitutional freedom scares you.
How long are you going to rehash this. His belief in government has no room for color. Get over it.
Why would a person write such outright lies about Dr. Ron Paul, who has an impeccable record. You can try conjuring up fake attacks on him, but we aren’t falling for it. You’re skewed views & values make you about the furthest thing from a libertarian, Huston. Are you jealous of his rising popularity and message of truth… I actually feel sorry for you that you are so brainwashed. By the way, who are you to determine who does and doesn’t run for president?
Oh oh, I get it! By day he masquerades as a libertarian who believes in the inherit rights and freedoms of the individual regardless of age, sex, race or creed… but by night he is a homophobic, racist, sexist bigot!
It all makes sense now. He’s like batman or something!
Why don’t you do us all a big favor and tell your masters that Americans aren’t as stupid as they seem to think? Come on, people - did anyone from New Hampshire want a hundred year war in Iraq??? No way, and no way Ron Paul is a racist. Paul isn’t proposing that we go to Africa and sit on everyone’s face.
For the record, the original newsletter accusations have never been “debunked.” They have only been denied. There’s a difference. Ron Paul could (and does) deny evolution as well, but that doesn’t mean that evolution has been debunked.
http://ronpaulsurvivalreport.blogspot.com/2007/12/faq-ron-paul-and-his-racist-newsletter.html
If the accusations against Ron Paul are untrue, then how do you explain Ron Paul’s responses to the Houston Chronicle and the Austin Chronicle when the story first broke out? Why did it take him another 5 years to invent the ghostwriter story?
Hey thanks for smearing Ron Paul supporters in addition to Ron Paul. I’m sure people will listen to you when you talk about a “majority” among 300,000 people and call them racist. Moron
Who are you to demand anything from anyone??? Get over yourself! Get this, PC thinker, you do not have the right to dictate who can run for President or who can take a seat in Congress.
I campaigned for Paul in 1988 but grew disillusioned with him. My problem was precisely what Kirchick accurately revealed. And anyone who thinks this was debunked is ignorant of the facts. Paul claimed a “former aide” wrote it and he didn’t know. Apparently this former aide kept writing it for years and Paul didn’t know. Right! What bull. Various libertarians asked him about this remarks and he sidestepped the issues and the remarks kept getting published. Some of the bigoted articles made reference to the author being a physician. Another refers to “my wife Carol” which is the name of Paul’s wife.
Even in 1988 a lot of libertarians were not thrilled with Paul because of his antigay record and his non-libertarian views. He’s only got worse since then.
I got the Ron Paul Report as a subscriber and was horrified at the bigotry it regularly demonstrated and stopped subscribing.
Please note the John, like his guru, is lying. The New Republic didn’t pull the article as he claims. It is still there and the newsletters which Paul wrote are there as well. But the Paul cult won’t face the facts — cults never do.
Any moron can use Kirchicks name on line (and one did). But Paul’s newsletter was mailed out from his office. Paul doesn’t deny that they were his newsletters either as this moron implies must be the case. He admits it but pretends he didn’t know. He knew.
Also this story was not circulated 6 months ago. Then one of the newsletters was mentioned and Paul claimed he knew nothing about it when it happened. This covers years worth of newsletters. He might get away with lying about not knowing about one of them but now they have newsletters going over several years and that is hard to lie about.
Yup, another “schmeer” attack. Hey why not use your detective powers to uncover some real dirt about Billary….remember Vince Foster? That ought to keep you busy for a couple of days.
Me thinks you are too concerned about Ron Paul. It is great that he is shaking things up.
What I find astounding today is that half the posts I’ve read today are about how Ron Paul doesn’t matter because his campaign “isn’t going anywhere” and the other half about smears on his character. The question I have is that if his campaign truly weren’t going anywhere you why would there be so many writing trying to smear him?
It MAY be that Ron Paul didn’t altogether know what was in those newsletters. The man may have been busy with A LIFE and wasn’t careful about what was really going out under his name. He may have figured it was more important to raise his children. YES, this is an ignorant error. AGREED and he’s taken responsibility for his lack of attention to it. That being said, who here here hasn’t made the same kind of mistake. I’m sure back then that he hadn’t any idea he would be running at a time when anyone would care one way or another about something from decades before. Also, you have to wonder why all the other candidates from both parties are allowed to “make a mistake” or “change their minds” about things but Paul isn’t.
theywontlisten Says:
January 9th, 2008 at 5:12 am
“Also this story was not circulated 6 months ago. ”
Ummm Yes it was, maybe not on a popular news site, but it was.
“I got the Ron Paul Report as a subscriber and was horrified at the bigotry it regularly demonstrated and stopped subscribing.”
I guess you didn’t hold on to those did you?… would’ve made your story bulletproof.
“Even in 1988 a lot of libertarians were not thrilled with Paul because of his antigay record and his non-libertarian views. He’s only got worse since then.”
How so? Where? By your own admission you got disillusioned, so common sense tells me that you would try to avoid him so where is the documentation of his getting worse? got any links? anything?
“Some of the bigoted articles made reference to the author being a physician. Another refers to “my wife Carol” which is the name of Paul’s wife.”
This is most amusing to me because I am a “ghostwriter”, and you have no idea how well I can make things sound like “my boss”… it isn’t that difficult.
Everyone keeps saying that it wasn’t one Newsletter it was 3 different ones and over “years”. Why have the dates of these 3 not been mentioned?… or if they have I haven’t seen it, so please enlighten me.
Well, first the absurd nazi balderdash didn’t fly.
Now the racist/sexist/homophobic/whatever horse manure won’t fly.
What’s the next step, a hush-hush report of sting operation in the Reagan National airport restroom? An under-the-table deal with Halliburton? A liaison with Hilary? Secret al Qaeda payoffs? Snorting coke with a certain President years ago at Texas Rangers baseball games?
The last sacrificial lamb the Democrats ran against him for Congress (Paul won with something like 60+ percent of the vote) never alleged this kind of trash. If anybody had the motive and opportunity to do so, that guy would have.
If you want to argue against the man’s policies, fine. He embraces a couple of things with which I disagree with quite strongly. (In that context it was interesting to see the various exist polls by candidate in NH last night. Apparently a lot of his supporters don’t share some significant parts of his views.)
But as for attacking his character? Even John McCain said of Paul many years ago to the guy who’s running Paul’s campaign, “You’re working for the most honest man in Congress.” And McCain said that back when the libels you’re exhuming were still fresh.
I have 2 questions for TNR.
1. Do the idiots at TNR (“Baghdad Diaries”) have any proof that Dr. Paul only delivered white babies?
2. Do the morons at TNR have any proof that Dr. Paul only checked for cervical cancer, on white women?
I have not doubt McCrap or Gouliani are behind this campaign to smear Dr Paul. He has more integrity in his little toe than those “dirtbags” have in their heads!
Ron Paul has an entire library of writings and not a one of them give an inkling of racism.
Ron Paul will have the last laugh (or tear) as this country goes further down the tubes into economic ruin.
The author of this trash is a bonesman from Yale…need we say more?
Paul delivered more minority babies than white, many for free.
This is such lame bullshit!
It’s coming from the CFR lackeys at the Olin Foundation/Yale.
WT Huston:
I often read your articles and like the job you do. I always think you are a careful writer.
However, in this article, sadly, you’ve demonstrated no higher regard for journalistic endeavor than the New Republic, which was so recently taken to task for its shoddy reporting and non-oversight during the Thomas Scott Beauchamp fiasco.
I’m willing to bet that at one of those 1000s of article taking TNR to the woodshed had your byline on it.
I would do a quick Google search to confirm that point, but I’m much too tired from running searches to debunk the innuendo of the TNR article you cited–which apparently is a perfectly valid place to quote from now.
What’s happened in the last three weeks that has changed TNR from a slipshod rag into this beacon of reporting reliability?
I can see nothing except an article–with no documents, footnotes, references–that is much like the Beauchamp (and Glass, Shalit, Ackerman, Siegel episodes in the seemingly never-ending string of New Republic’s Greatest Hits) hoax.
Any perfunctory checking would have quickly established that these
1-are very old charges that have been time and again disavowed by Ron Paul. The writer in question was immediately fired upon Paul learning of what had been written;
2-been thoroughly run through the wringer by real reporters doing real fact checking (and I hate that you make me cite the NY Times as one piece of evidence; and no, you do the Google search for the article, I did it the first time I looked into this matter months ago and again, today.)
3-an excuse to unlimber some personal prejudices toward a particular candidate.
Now, personal prejudice is perfectly fine: I have about 1000 of them, including the incredibly unhealthy habit of chain-smoking cigars.
However, I don’t dress up my enjoyment of cigar smoking as established fact and parade it before the Internet as the truth. It’s merely my personal prejudice, nothing more.
My personal prejudices don’t include Ron Paul. While I think he’s a principled Libertarian, he has other positions that I can’t abide.
BUT, he should get the same courtesy as any other candidate in the public arena: that articles will be fact-checked before masquerading as honest-to-goodness, real-live journalistic accounts.
That you write for New Busters and BNN makes this article more disappointing still: I depend on NB to be straight with me. [NOTE: If you slam Paul, you’re going to get a bump in traffic views, so if that was the whole point, disregard the rest of the letter, because it was effective on that front.]
NOT to serve up some warmed-over anti-Ron Paul gruel from that slopfest of a magazine, The New Republic, and expect me to swallow it.
You do a disservice to both you and NB by putting your name to this.
If you want to get into a real, drag-em-out fact-check-athon, that would only be a benefit. Of course, after just a tiny bit of checking, if you’re any kind of upright journalist, you’ll most likely issue a retraction, a correction, a revision or perhaps, even an apology.
As I said before, I always read your articles with a high degree of approval.
It is extremely disappointing to realize a person who works with a conservative media watchdog organization needs a watchdog.
When I’m better rested, a search of how many times you’ve used TNR as a reliable source previous to this article might be revealing. Say, against how many times TNR has been shown in a negative light.
That might make an interesting media story.
But I have no axes to grind. It only pissed me off when I saw this.
Now I’ve vented, so I’m much better now.
Good luck in your future posts. I hope to write much different types of comments in the future.
Does the media dislikes Ron Paul? Well, I’m not into conspiracies but I do understand capitalism. Drug companies have become some of the biggest buyers of adverts & spend 35 Billion annually in the US on ‘Direct to Consumer’ advertising, which represents half of their yearly expenses on promotions. Well, Ron Paul’s Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Jan 07) & YES on allowing re-importation of prescription drugs. (Jul 03). Such political stances in a president could cause a dramatic reduction in profits for the big drug companies, & the advertisers they use. Drug companies as a result would drastically reduce the amount of money they could afford on advertising resulting in literally billions of dollars in lost revenue for the Mass Media. So could that have anything to do with the general disregard toward Ron Paul from the MSM? If you ran a media outlet and there was a candidate running who’s election would cost your company a fortune in revenue you wouldn’t want your employees saying anything good about that candidate either.
Leave A Reply