Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?:
For those interested in such inside-baseball, here is a post by Wirkman saying it was widely known in libertarian circles that the newsletters were ghostwritten, and another by former (and disgruntled) Ron Paul staffer Eric Dondero claiming that Paul wrote half the content, and a prominent friend of Ron's 80% of the rest.
Related Posts (on one page):
- A New Conspiracy Theory from the Mises Institute Crowd:
- More Ron Paul Fallout:
- Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?:
Why does the VC never post on the gold standard's potential for saving America? Your bias is obvious!
-oh, wait.
Gotta hand it to Paul on one count, though. People are actually reading what came out under his name. I bet McCain wishes he could manage that.
If Paul at least had a chance of winning, I can see why there could be legitimate concerns over the newsletters, but since his candidacy is going nowhere I don't care much more about Paul's shady associations than about, say, Buchanan's or Sobran's shady connections.
Dondero's comment claims that Lew Rockwell wrote the parts that Paul didn't, and of course Rockwell remains close to Paul. If Rockwell is the ghostwriter, or even the editor which allowed that garbage into the Ron Paul Report, then Paul will have to answer why he continues to associate with such a racist, and whether he would appoint any racists to his cabinet.
I'm taking Dr. Paul at his word that those aren't his views. That leaves me concluding that he exercised piss-poor judgment from about 1989-1991 to let this crap go out under his name.
Does that make me respect him a little less? Yes. Does that mean I don't still think he'd be better than the rest of the field? No.
As he said to Jay Leno, "I have shortcomings, but the message has no shortcomings."
Could be. But we elect the man, not the message.
David, you made a valid point when asking me if I thought Obama or Clinton read everything put out by their campaigns. My answer is no, I don't think so. But I do think that they have someone that they trust who does review everything to make sure that they are not embarassed the way Mr. Paul has been.
Ron Paul is ultimately responsible for what is published under his name. Do you think Martha Stewart allows anything in the magazine that bears her name without making sure that it meets her standards? Damn right she doesn't.
I did take some time to review the scans of the some of news letters via TNR's site. The quote about gays not caring if they live past 50 seems to be attributed to a NY Times article, although no details are provided.
The undated solicitation letter is the most interesting. I have never read such paranoid delusions outside of a science fiction novel. Has anybody asked Paul how he feels about the "new money" now?
If Ron Paul was more than a Nader like gadfly candidate before, he certainly should not be now.
I the mean time, yeah, Paul is a flawed candidate. Better a flawed candidate who wants to restore limited, constitutional government, and the host of flawed candidates who want to finish our nation's transformation into the Leviathan.
I'm sorry, but Mr. Paul needs to do more than just say that the opnions expressed in these newsletters are not his.
while I agree with some of his campaign positions, they are not compelling enough for me to overlook the many examples of his (apparent) belief in vast government conspiracies and his distain for homosexuals, Jews, and blacks.
It is one thing to vote for him to be one of the 435 members of the House. It is something else all together to put him in charge of the executive branch of the Federal Government.
Either he was negligent about not checking the content of a newsletter written under his auspices, incorporating bigoted language over a duration of years against many different groups and on many occasions.
-or-
He wrote and had authority over the content
Either possibility does not look promising anyway you spin it. Based on this line of reasoning any future error can be attributed to a "ghost writer" or some third party (Each individual person in Enron also claimed they didn't make any fiduciary error and that it was someone else's fault)
Yes, that's true. Let's look at some men. Let's look at the last two winners of Republican primaries, in fact:
1) John McCain...as in McCain-Feingold. If there is a federal law that is a more blatant and dangerous disregard of the First Amendment in the last 50 years, I'm not aware of it. John McCain didn't simply vote for it (of course Ron Paul voted against it)...John McCain was the bill's "champion." It bears his name. Before he championed that bill, he took an oath to follow the Constitution. Just like he'll take an oath to follow the Constitution if he's elected president.
2) Mike Huckabee. Here's what Mr. Huckabee said about abortion, and the federal government's proper role with respect to abortion:
So basically, Mr. Huckabee thinks the Tenth Amendment simply doesn't apply any time there's a "moral issue."
If I had to chose among those three men, I would choose Ron Paul.
Why? Because I think Ron Paul would follow the Constitution. And I think it's very clear that John McCain and Mike Huckabee would not.
He seems to claim that he didn't authorize them, though I haven't seen a specific quote from him making such a blanket denial. But there's where I would begin to seriously doubt his veracity, particularly if the person who did write them remains a friend of his, a colleague, an adviser, a person to whom Member of Congress Paul lends prestige simply by befriending him.
If some "friend" of mine put vile racist writing like this out in my name, he would no longer be a friend to me. That's the reaction I would have, and it's the reaction I expect that any person qualified to even seek the Presidency of the United States should have.
And what kind of friend and supporter is this, if he continues to let Paul twist in the wind on this issue? Why won't he come forward and say "I'm the racist who penned those words, and Ron Paul didn't know anything about it, and when he found out, he fired me and told me I needed to get help for my racist outlook, and I apologize to him for misusing his name and his friendship in that way"?
I really can't read Paul's refusal to do something along those lines as anything more than show that he is willing, at least, to tolerate such bile in his circle of friends and colleagues. It's one thing to ignore a racist joke or two by family members you're forced to see a few times a year. It's something different to demonstrate such tolerance and forbearance to someone who penned racist screeds, under YOUR name, that you now claim to find repellent.
I think Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to prohibit abortion, not simply ignore the Tenth Amendment. At least that's what it says on his website.
Not extreme. Anyone who doesn't oppose the '64 Civil Rights Act (and any of the others that control private conduct) is not a libertarian. Hell, Michael Medved who is an ex-leftie, conservative Jew opposes the CRA of '64. If he can, libertarians certainly must.
I'm surprised you'd say that, since one of the links in your post is to evidence that he did.
Actually it seems the newsletters with questionable content spanned a longer period than that.
I'm sure you're not alone, but speaking for myself and possibly some others who find this emphasis appropriate, I suspect I know more than I'll ever need to about the NAFTA Superhighway, returning to the Gold Standard, or the threats posed by the CFR and the Trilateral Commission. But someone for whom these are significant issues and who's garnering maybe one out of ten Republican primary votes is somebody I think deserves careful scrutiny.
I distinguish between racist writings and the other far-out stuff and I think Kirchik takes a cheap shot by bootstrapping all of Ron Paul's radical views into his alleged "decades of newsletters."
It's the difference between hateful and eccentric. Opposing all foreign aid (and thus foreign aid to Israel) is pretty radical and outside the mainstream, but it's not hateful and repugnant.
The racist stuff all seems to be within a year or so of 1990, from my review of the documents that TNR posted. Am I incorrect?
Thanks, but I don't think it says that very clearly on his website:
And it also doesn't explain his response on Fox interview, when he said that McCain and Thompson's "leaving abortion to the states" was not "good enough."
Dondero is a troublesome witness. On the one hand, he has relevant firsthand knowledge. On the other hand, there's a lot of bad blood between him and Dr. Paul.
Still, it's not an implausible story. And the offensive stuff really doesn't sound like his writing style (based on reading a lot of his bylined stuff and speeches).
Sounds like Yogi Berra statistics.
Personally I cast a wider net, sweeping in the most implausible with the racially offensive. But your distinction is certainly a fair one.
I read his comment to mean 80% of the half that wasn't written by Paul was ghost-written by Rockwell.
As I noted here yesterday, one of the big unanswered questions, even taking Rep. Paul at his word that he wasn't the author and wasn't aware of what was going out in his name, is who did write them, and whether that person remains associated with Paul and/or his campaign.
I find it hard to believe that over a period of several years, this stuff came out under Ron Paul's name, and in all that time not one person bothered to inform him about it. Wouldn't a reader have mentioned to him or sent him an offended letter during that time? If the reader suspected it was ghost-written, wouldn't he have given Mr. Paul a warning?
Also the REALLY troubling stuff comes from an even smaller period June 90 to Feb 91. If Paul was relatively disconnected with the printing I could see 8 or so issues of this newsletter slipping by. Before someone told him hey you see this crap, you might want to put the clamps down on this.
What's troubling about these newsletters is the same thing that is troubling about the LP. There's a small but vocal minority in the LP who make a lot of noise with this crap. If you ask me the style and substance of the survivalist race war stuff smells a little like Gary North.
Your analogy doesn't quite fit. As an attorney, you have a defined legal duty to be responsible for everything filed in a case where you've entered an appearance. In Ron Paul's case, he lent his name to the title of the newsletter and the newsletter was written generally without bylines. If I started a blog called "Mr. X's Political Report" and let 4-5 people post on it without attribution, I'm responsible for choosing the people, but the words are not mine.
Newsletters were the early 90s version of blogs. Polemical and sensationalist at times, freewheeling, and often nutty.
...Why would that make anybody conclude the Doctor was...Often nutty ?
The lesson millions of young libertarians have now learned from our beltway "libertarians"? Libertarian electioneering is futile. Voting is futile. Democracy is futile. Anybody who actually wants liberty is a kook, as can be proven by their association with kooks. Beltway wonks posing as "libertarians" are happy to write things to inflame your hopes for liberty that they don't really mean. Then they make sure that we elect the politicians their friends want -- the ones that will enslave your future to pay for full social security for Baby Boomers. The ones that will send you off to foreign lands to kill and die. Our Beltway "libertarians" are happy to sell a whole new generation of libertarians down the tubes in order to keep their Beltway friends happy.
What policies has Ron Paul supported, while in Congress (remember, he has a fairly large record), which have resulted in a reduction in personal liberty of Americans? What policies has Ron Paul espoused during his campaign which would result in a reduction of personal liberty of Americans? What policies do you think Ron Paul would enact which would be harmful towards blacks, Jews, women, etc.?
Many people mistakingly get caught up in intentions versus results. For instance, there's a good argument to be made that the policies enacted by liberals over the last 30-40 years have had a very negative impact on black America, even though we know there's not a racist bone in any liberal's body. In fact, some have gone so far as to say that liberal programs could have been designed by the KKK for what they have done to black America.
Do we care about intentions, or do we care about results?
Personally, I favor someone who would advance personal liberty, regardless of what he may believe in his heart versus someone who says all the right things but would decrease personal liberty.
But that's just me...
Sure, there's a copyright claim.
But since I'm merely republishing what came out under his own name, he wouldn't complain about the content, eh?
Paul's supporters turn ever more complex somersaults. Maximum points for degree of difficulty.
I don't think too many segregation laws have been introduced in Congress recently.
Dude - as a young libertarian, I can tell you that the takeaway for me is, "don't pander to racist and homophobic assholes". I'm sure for every two young libertarian out there, there are three opinions, but from the admittedly small sample of libs I know, this is their opinion, too.
Paul may just be as pure as the driven snow we're not getting this year, but even if that's the case, it would display an incredibly dense lack of interest of what was done in his name. Not something I look for in an executive.