Ron Paul wins again.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Smeagol, Ron Paul would come to V-Town's Public High Schools on a regular basis, make long speeches about what the "cons ution" is, and hand out free pocket "cons utions" to every student in the school.

I know such a concept (a politician caring for spreading the word of the basis from which your country's greatness sprung to his district) for a citizen of country such as yours is hard to understand, but here in the greatest country on this planet, it means a lot to the local edumacated cons uency that a man would preach the fundamentals of our nation to the youth.

Ron Paul has been our representative for a a long time too, and not once has he voted against the cons ution. Brahhhhhhhhhh(x111)

[Ryvin1]

One is more likely to say what they believe others want to hear...especially when they're running for elected office.

It's a simple question. Why did he allow racist, anti-semitic vitriol be spewed out under his name for multiple years...IN WRITING?

Don't muddy the water. Is there any evidence he condemned those writing on his behalf?

Press Releases › Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“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.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Find me a Ron Paul newsletter from the period that praises MLK, or shows he's not a racist.

Wolf Blitzer?

Were they his newsletters?

Ron Paul didn't write the newsletters so any praises for MLK from the newsletter would also not be his. His statement above denounces the newsletters comments and state positive comments of him quoted praising civil rights leaders MLK and Rosa Parks, but I'm sure that won't work for you, He's just pandering to what would be expected to be said to cover up his racism in your eyes, even though the quote was from before this was brought to light.

There have been no quotes of racism from Ron Paul in his 20 years in congress, and he takes moral responsibility for the comments stated in the newsletter, that he didn't write, because it was something he should have been more careful about something that was printed in a newsletter with his name on it.

Wolf Blitzer is just a cnn newcaster that has interviewed him over his past 20 years of duty in congress and previous run for President, so just another person that knows him, stating their opinion that Ron Paul isn't racist, probably doesn't mean anything to you but he has better knowledge of Ron Paul then I do so his point of view would be more accurate then my limited knowledge of the man.

I'm sure every positive quote or action Ron Paul has done against racism won't change your mind as you probably knew all this information already and don't care as you have already decided he's racist.

[Yonivore]

Press Releases › Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Newsletters

January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“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.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Ron Paul didn't write the newsletters so any praises for MLK from the newsletter would also not be his. His statement above denounces the newsletters comments and state positive comments of him quoted praising civil rights leaders MLK and Rosa Parks, but I'm sure that won't work for you, He's just pandering to what would be expected to be said to cover up his racism in your eyes, even though the quote was from before this was brought to light.

There have been no quotes of racism from Ron Paul in his 20 years in congress, and he takes moral responsibility for the comments stated in the newsletter, that he didn't write, because it was something he should have been more careful about something that was printed in a newsletter with his name on it.

Wolf Blitzer is just a cnn newcaster that has interviewed him over his past 20 years of duty in congress and previous run for President, so just another person that knows him, stating their opinion that Ron Paul isn't racist, probably doesn't mean anything to you but he has better knowledge of Ron Paul then I do so his point of view would be more accurate then my limited knowledge of the man.

I'm sure every positive quote or action Ron Paul has done against racism won't change your mind as you probably knew all this information already and don't care as you have already decided he's racist.

You can't tell me someone, at some point, during the LONG PERIOD OF TIME such things were being published under his name, didn't says, "Hey, Ron, what the is up with your skinhead at ude in the newsletter?"

Not once?

If it had happened and I were Ron Paul, there would be a newsletter, published contemporaneous to those with the offending remarks that I could point to and after which no such offenses occurred again.

What Ron Paul says in 1999 and today; and, what Wolf Blitzer believes in 2007 can't erase his silence during the time it was occurring.

It reminds me of the Bill Cosby routine about the grandparents that dole out candy and money to their grandchildren and their own children (the grandchildren's parents) telling the kids, "these aren't the same people we grew up with, they're just trying to get into heaven now."

This isn't the same Ron Paul of the period those newsletters were published, he's just trying to get into the White House.

His protestations and claimed ignorance aside, ever wonder why White Supremists give him money and want to have their pictures taken with him?

[Yonivore]

In an effort to be fair and to educate myself about Ron Paul, I went and found someone who apparently shares your admiration, respect, and hope for Ron Paul but, like me, can't square his public statements on the newsletter fiasco with the contents of those newsletters and the length of time they were being published.

Ron Paul's Newsletters

David Freddoso, writing at the National Review Online:

Jamie Kirchik of The New Republic is described to me as a "hawkish, big-government, iden y-politics neo-con." I don't think that his article on Ron Paul treats much of the subject matter fairly. But that aside, no amount of messenger-attacking can diminish what he's unearthed in Ron Paul's old newsletters. He did well to dig it up, it's good reporting. And it is like a gut-punch to read the racist material they contained within the timeframe of 1988-1992.

I understand the publications of newsletters extends back into the late '70s.

Paul's official response is the same as when he addressed other old quotes that had been unearthed. He did not write and does not believe these things, he says, and he was careless not to pay more attention to what went into a newsletter bearing his name. Fine. Having worked in the newsletter business, I know that a lot of "authors" have little or no involvement in what's written, and some of them don't even read their own newsletters. (Robert Novak, by contrast, read, edited, and added to each issue of the Evans-Novak Political Report before we published.) A bad ghostwriter can ruin just about anyone's name.

But was Paul so uninvolved that he was completely unaware of this material over the course of three or four years? I do not believe that Ron Paul is a racist, but that sort of absenteeism would be...well, it requires a suspension of disbelief, that's for sure. Did he ever read it? Did any of his close friends ever read it and say something to him? Who was writing the newsletter at that time? Was this content eventually discovered? Was the writer fired? His spokesman couldn't help me with these questions yesterday. The campaign should try harder to answer them, instead of writing this off as "old news."

Despite all of my early hopes, Paul is not going to become president,

Thank God!

...and so I'm a lot less interested in the political consequences of the story. The real question is the man's integrity, which I have never doubted before. No one contends that Paul has ever said anything racist in his life. Nothing in these newsletters squares with anything in the philosophy he has advocated over the years. But this story is for real. It is not an adequate response to shoot the messenger.

UPDATE: A Paulite writes:

Kirchik's descriptions of the articles are alarming — and inflamatory and inaccurate.

In some cases, this is true, which is why I noted that Kirchik is basically unfair in his characterization of some of the material. Kirchik appears to get the whole "secession conference" wrong, for example. In other cases, he tries to conflate standard conservative thought on limited government with some kind of racist agenda. But read the newsletters themselves. The homage to David Duke, for example, is not taken out of context.

But even the content of the newsletters is not the real issue here. Paul says that he didn't write them, and he doesn't believe in them. I believe him,

I don't.

...and I think everyone should. But I want to know why, if he did not write and does not believe these things, it never even came up. Or, if it did come up at some point and he fired the writers responsible, I'd like to know that, too. It would be reassuring.

Consistency with Paul's own philosophy of freedom and personal responsibility would require that whenever he became aware that this sort of thing was being printed under his name, he took some action to correct it. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt just because he is unlike any other politician I've ever seen in Washington since I started covering Congress in 2002. But I also want to know the rest of this story. I don't think I'm being unreasonable, or participating in a "smear."

Nor do I.

[boutons_]

Ron Paul is a poor executive/head of his own organization since he let these ty newsletter go out under his name for so long, either knowing about them and ignoring them/letting them keep going out, or being ignorant about them.

Were none of his followers reading these newsletters? None of them brought the apparent dichotomy between the newsletters and RPs now-admitted opposing philosophy?

So RP didn't write them, and apparently neither he nor any of his followers read them, for years?

Simply unbelievable.

RP is an extreme fringe, a too-radical pretender, and completely under-financed vs establishment candidates, a side-show like Ross Perot, without import or consequence.

[Ryvin1]

You can't tell me someone, at some point, during the LONG PERIOD OF TIME such things were being published under his name, didn't says, "Hey, Ron, what the is up with your skinhead at ude in the newsletter?"

Not once?

If it had happened and I were Ron Paul, there would be a newsletter, published contemporaneous to those with the offending remarks that I could point to and after which no such offenses occurred again.

What Ron Paul says in 1999 and today; and, what Wolf Blitzer believes in 2007 can't erase his silence during the time it was occurring.

It reminds me of the Bill Cosby routine about the grandparents that dole out candy and money to their grandchildren and their own children (the grandchildren's parents) telling the kids, "these aren't the same people we grew up with, they're just trying to get into heaven now."

This isn't the same Ron Paul of the period those newsletters were published, he's just trying to get into the White House.

His protestations and claimed ignorance aside, ever wonder why White Supremists give him money and want to have their pictures taken with him?

Uh this isn't something newly discovered.. he's had to apologizes and talk against this while he's run for 20 years in congress. All kinds of people have wanted to take his picture and all kinds of crazy people support the other candidates also who also have issues just as bad, what do you think about these?

Vote for Biggest Bigot President 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZwodzz2h44

[xrayzebra]

Ron Paul strikes me as someone on the outer edge of nowhere.
He makes some sense, but is overly simplistic in his outlook.

[Ryvin1]

Ron Paul strikes me as someone on the outer edge of nowhere.
He makes some sense, but is overly simplistic in his outlook.

His view points are simplified to be comments during debates. His view points on the economy and foreign policy can be read about in greater detail on www.ronpaul2008.com or www.ronpaullibrary.org. No other canidate knows more about economics then him or has written more books on the the american economy. He's the only candidate continually interviewed on economic forums by other economists currently and before his current run for president.

[Yonivore]

Uh this isn't something newly discovered.. he's had to apologizes and talk against this while he's run for 20 years in congress. All kinds of people have wanted to take his picture and all kinds of crazy people support the other candidates also who also have issues just as bad, what do you think about these?

Like the guy said in NRO; then he should come out and explain how he rectified the matter when it occurred.

Did he print a newsletter retracting all the statments? Apologizing for the statements? Did he fire the editor or author -- or send them to "sensitivity training"?

What did he do and say at the time this was first discovered other than to say they didn't represent his thoughts or ideas? These were newsletters, published under his name, for over thirty years.

I'm not blaming Paul for those who choose to contribute to his campaign or that want to have their picture made with him. In that respect, you're right; he has little control. I was more interested in why you think such people are migrating to the Paul campaign?

[Ryvin1]

Like the guy said in NRO; then he should come out and explain how he rectified the matter when it occurred.

Did he print a newsletter retracting all the statments? Apologizing for the statements? Did he fire the editor or author -- or send them to "sensitivity training"?

What did he do and say at the time this was first discovered other than to say they didn't represent his thoughts or ideas? These were newsletters, published under his name, for over thirty years.

I'm not blaming Paul for those who choose to contribute to his campaign or that want to have their picture made with him. In that respect, you're right; he has little control. I was more interested in why you think such people are migrating to the Paul campaign?

I honestly think people with whacked out racial view points, and whacked out view point in general like 9/11 truthers, migrate to his campaign because he consistently protects the cons ution stating people with different beliefs have the right to their beliefs even if he doesn't agree with them, so indirectly he defends them because he defends everyone civil liberty. He believes people have the right to think what they want as long as they don't do anything that imposes on someone else's civil liberty. He's upset at the idea Rommney may not win because of people who only are against him because of his religion and how that is wrong, but you don't hear anyone else mention the wrongs against an opponent.

[Ryvin1]

I'm not saying having stupid comments written in a newsletter with your name on it isn't dumb. From my understanding he started the newsletter when he was in office as a congressman, got tired of it and went back to medical practice and he left the newsletter going and didn't follow it while he back being a doctor. I don't know everything he's done to write the wrong written in his name, but from his position points as a libertarian it doesn't leave much room for racism because people are seen as individuals not groups of people based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

[Yonivore]

I honestly think people with whacked out racial view points, and whacked out view point in general like 9/11 truthers, migrate to his campaign because he consistently protects the cons ution stating people with different beliefs have the right to their beliefs even if he doesn't agree with them, so indirectly he defends them because he defends everyone civil liberty. He believes people have the right to think what they want as long as they don't do anything that imposes on someone else's civil liberty.

That's all well and good now; in fact, I get called a racist on this board quite frequently because I share similar views, such as, the uncons utionality of Affirmative Action and Welfare.

What I would like to hear from Paul is what he did about the vitriol, hate, paranoia, and extremist views, published under his name, for multiple years.

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.

One of the big unanswered questions, even taking 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.

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.

He's upset at the idea Rommney may not win because of people who only against him because of his religion and how that is wrong, but you don't hear anyone else mention the wrongs against an opponent.

I heard Barak Obama, just this morning, defending Hillary Clinton's record on civil rights.

People do counterintuitive things for political reasons...

There's a school of thought out there that the press isn't being too harsh on Paul because they hope he'll become the Republican nominee and then, they can paint him out to be a racist bigot so the Democratic nominee will have a cakewalk -- otherwise, I think we're pretty much assured of a Republican President in '09.

As for Blitzer, he can just do a mea culpa, claim he was duped, and move on with his happy career.

[Yonivore]

I'm not saying having stupid comments written in a newsletter with your name on it isn't dumb. From my understanding he started the newsletter when he was in office as a congressman, got tired of it and went back to medical practice and he left the newsletter going and didn't follow it while he back being a doctor. I don't know everything he's done to write the wrong written in his name, but from his position points as a libertarian it doesn't leave much room for racism because people are seen as individuals not groups of people based on race, religion or sexual orientation.

Well, I think he needs to be more clear on his remedy for the 20 to 30 racist, bigoted, and offensive articles that came out under his name for almost four years.

[ChumpDumper]

I'm not saying having stupid comments written in a newsletter with your name on it isn't dumb.

Good, now you see my hesitation for voting for someone who could do something so dumb.

[DarkReign]

RP is an extreme fringe, a too-radical pretender, and completely under-financed vs establishment candidates, a side-show like Ross Perot, without import or consequence.

Funny thing. Perot was leading the polls when he dropped out for no apparaent reason only to readmit and Bush Sr over.

"Side show" couldve won the Presidency in 1992.

[BradLohaus]

He makes some sense, but is overly simplistic in his outlook.

That's everybody else. Discussions on the economy are completely shallow, and Giuliani actually said to Paul, "our foreign policy had nothing to do with 9/11"

Nothing at all! The CIA and the 9/11 Commision Report say the opposite, but let's not let facts foul up a good one-liner contest. People in general like to hear buzzwords and mild criticism of economic and foreign policy, not wholesale criticism of both parties' policies over the past decades. That's too earth shattering, even though it's completely warranted.

[Yonivore]

The CIA and the 9/11 Commision Report say the opposite, but let's not let facts foul up a good one-liner contest.

Nice one-liner!

This, of course, presumes the CIA and the 9/11 Commission Report are factual on their assertions of U.S. foreign policy influencing the 9/11 attacks.

It could be that short of a Ron Paul-Pat Buchanan, isolationist, non-presence in the world, nothing would have disuaded the 9/11 terrorists from carrying out their deed.

[BradLohaus]

It could be that short of a Ron Paul-Pat Buchanan, isolationist, non-presence in the world, nothing would have disuaded the 9/11 terrorists from carrying out their deed.

Well then that means that our ME policy is the main reason why we are targets of Islamic terroists; why do the rest of the candidates laugh at Paul when he says something like that?

[Yonivore]

Well then that means that our ME policy is the main reason why we are targets of Islamic terroists; why do the rest of the candidates laugh at Paul when he says something like that?

Well, if you include prohibiting immigration from the middle east you'd have a point. Because much of what they're upset about is the western culture being imported into their lands by repatriated citizens.

My point is that as long as the world -- their world -- is trying to progress to the 21st century, they're going to find a way to be upset about it and be trying to drag everyone back to the 13th century.

So, no, I don't even think that a Buchanan-Paul isolationist policy would have prevented a 9/11.

[DarkReign]

~3500 people died in 9/11.

Tragic. Yes. Horrible. Yes.

Reason to declare a pseudo-war on the Middle East? Not IMO.

[BradLohaus]

~3500 people died in 9/11.

Tragic. Yes. Horrible. Yes.

Reason to declare a pseudo-war on the Middle East? Not IMO.

That is the truth.

[Ryvin1]

~3500 people died in 9/11.

Tragic. Yes. Horrible. Yes.

Reason to declare a pseudo-war on the Middle East? Not IMO.

Don't for get the oil.. we spend trillions and people die, and we don't get any oil... ??


We should get those that attacked us... Iraq didn't attack us...

[Galileo]

PLEASE WATCH THE VIDEOS:

http://www.freeatlast2008.com/