Capitol Hill Blue apologizes

[Bryan]

Here are some past discussion here on the racism topic- I thought the first one is an interesting approach even if it doesn't definitively prove anything:


Ron Paul racism text comparison
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=3277


Is Ron Paul A Racist?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=3830


Be Prepared to Deal With This Sort of Stuff
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=557



Since everyone is being nice I'd like to point out my favorite piece by Doug. Quite sincerely, this writing helped validate my sorrow and lift my spirits in that someone with a stronger voice then my own wrote what I couldn't during what I see as one of our countries darkest moments in recent history- the Supreme Courts New London eminent domain ruling.

The Day America Died
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jun 24, 2005, 07:13
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6926.shtml


It remains for rulings and words such as these as to why I am here now fighting for our liberties.

 

[angrydragon]

How about setting up an interview with Congressman Ron Paul and Doug Thompson of CHB?

Bryan, that's a good article by Doug.

 

[Oddball]

Since everyone is being nice I'd like to point out my favorite piece by Doug. Quite sincerely, this writing helped validate my sorrow and lift my spirits in that someone with a stronger voice then my own wrote what I couldn't during what I see as one of our countries darkest moments in recent history- the Supreme Courts New London eminent domain ruling.

The Day America Died
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jun 24, 2005, 07:13
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6926.shtml


It remains for rulings and words such as these as to why I am here now fighting for our liberties.

So many positive waves...How can we lose??

 

[Matt]

You were correct to point this out but if I write something that is wrong I take responsibility for it and apologize and I've screwed up big time over the years and had to eat a lot of humble pie.

I also own Capitol Hill Blue and I'm responsible for anything that is published on it whether I write it or not. I took responsibility for what was published, even if I didn't write it, and apologized to our readers.

I've read the Free Market News article about the newsletter and the USA Today political blog and both refer to a Texas Monthly article in 2001 where Dr. Paul says he didn't write the newsletter article in question. I pulled up the Texas Monthly article on Nexis and it does not say Dr. Paul fired the staff member in question or did he specifically disavow the quote. He simply said he would not say such a thing "in a campaign" and that the article in question was written by someone else. If someone has a link to another article that quotes him more specifically about firing a staff member for writing the article or where he says he does not believe what was written it would be helpful to read it. If I could find it I would pass it on to my readers.

Thanks.

Doug

Doug, do you have a link to the Texas Monthly article? These are the excerpts that have been on Wikipedia but I would like to see the whole thing.

"They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them...I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'"

He further stated:

"I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[12]

It sounds to me like he specifically disavowed the quotes. He meant he couldn't deny them during the campaign because he had already taken responsibility for them (perhaps foolishly) on the advice of campaign staff. This interview took place long after he had been elected.

 

[Kuldebar]

Newsletter in question:

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html

everything2.com information on the subject:

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=377205

Important quote:

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

 

[Electrostatic]

Thank you Doug, sorry for the static, but we had all thought you had gone over the deep end...

Please accept our apologies too.

 

[AZ Libertarian]

Doug - thank you for the time you have expended in the investigation of the truth in this specific issue. Any clarification surely helps Dr. Paul maintain clarity in his campaign - something sorely lacking in most other candidates.

 

[Avalon]

Thanks Doug for the updates to your post and your apology here. I look forward to checking out some of your material.

 

[klamath]

Thanks Doug. You showed a lot of moral courage and stood above the crowd.

 

[Doug Thompson]

Thanks for the additional information and links. As far as I can determine the full text of the Texas Monthly article is not online. I had to use Nexis to find it (the Lexis/Nexis subscription costs me $2.5k a month but we have to use it in our campaign finance reform work).

I'll do some additional research and will check back in. I'll also watch the interview tomorrow and then see if I can set something up to interview the Congressman.

Thanks again.

--Doug

 

[cajuncocoa]

Thanks for the additional information and links. As far as I can determine the full text of the Texas Monthly article is not online. I had to use Nexis to find it (the Lexis/Nexis subscription costs me $2.5k a month but we have to use it in our campaign finance reform work).

I'll do some additional research and will check back in. I'll also watch the interview tomorrow and then see if I can set something up to interview the Congressman.

Thanks again.

--Doug

Awesome. Thanks for coming here and for the explanation. Sorry if I was a bit harsh with you.

 

[tz1]

If you missed the actual text, another site copied it (not google cache, though I'm looking for that too).

In all it's confused lies:

http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=193250

 

[tz1]

Or from Google's cache - the above plus two more:

http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:cfswu_42hIYJ:www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2529
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:EZ7Iz-AcpEMJ:www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2861
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4jsMhmDznZwJ:www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2838

 

[Shmuel Spade]

The full text is repeated pretty constantly over at DailyKos.

 

[Dave Trotter]

Yet another apology

I'd like to add my apology to the mix, too, Doug. I posted a couple of less-than-positive responses to the aforementioned articles on your site, assuming that it was you who wrote them. I'm glad to know that it wasn't.

I've enjoyed reading your site for years, which is why the over the top tone of those articles--against someone as affable and pleasant as Ron Paul--was so surprising. I still don't get why the editor who declared war felt the particular need to declare war on Ron Paul of all candidates.

Can you give us a hint about what motivated him or her?

Thanks,

Dave

 

[robatsu]

Yes that was the Free Market News article. The article quoted anonymous sources for the newsletter article and did not quote Dr. Paul as disavowing the article or saying that a staff member was fired, which is the claim that was posted on our site. The Reason blog post deals with the AIPAC issue and not the statements concerning blacks. Dr. Paul says:

I'd have to have you show to me that I wrote it because that doesn't sound like my language, and in campaigns, some things get into newspapers that aren't actually correct.​

In politics we call that a non-denial denial.

As a journalist, the whole thing raises some questions.

1--The newsletter was published in 1992. Why weren't the contents disavowed then? Perhaps, as the Free Market News article suggests, he did not know what was in the newsletter.

2--But he did know about it when it became a campaign issue in 1996 in a Houston Chronicle article where Dr. Paul appeared to say the words were his:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."​

If there words were not his, why not say so at the time?

3--In 2001, five years after it was an issue in a campaign and nine years after the newsletter was published, he says the words were not written by him. But again the Texas Monthly article does not say anything about a staff member being fired for writing the article nor does Dr. Paul say he he did not know what was being published in the newsletter.

These kind of time lapses are what raise red flags not only with journalists but also with political opponents. Free Market News says the newsletter company published the comments without Dr. Paul's approval but does not quote Dr. Paul as confirming this nor does the story provide any quotes by any newsletter company official on the record.. He says in 2001 that he did not write the words but does not disavow them. A story circulates that a staff member was fired over the newsletter article but a search does not turn up a quote from Dr. Paul or his staff that confirms this.

I'm not saying that this did not happen but as long as there are gaps in the timeline or a lack of a definitive statement from Dr. Paul that disavows what was said and confirms that a staff member was dismissed, it remains an undocumented claim that can be used by the opposition. I can tell you as a former political operative who worked on a number of GOP campaigns that this is the kind of thing we would jump all over in an opponent's record.

I have Dr. Paul's statement regarding racism and it is a well-worded generic comment on the subject but does not specifically address the issues raised in the newsletter article. His quotes to the Houston Chronicle, if correct, suggest that he agrees with the statements in the newsletter because it reflects what may have been the sentiments at the time.

As one who knows first hand what can happen when something is done by someone else I'd prefer to give Dr. Paul the benefit of the doubt but it needs to be more fully documented and explained. If he does emerge as a serious contender for the nomination it will become an issue and the explanation offered so far probably will not put the issue to rest.

Any additional information that anyone has would be most appreciated. If we can document it we will print it and tell the full story.

Thanks.

--Doug

Doug,

Let's get real about this issue. You are splitting hairs about one questionable affair 20 years in the past of a man that has 30 years in the public . Furthermore, in all this time, there is no pattern to suggest that this indicative of the man's core beliefs (look at his 400 papers on line or bill's sponsored in Congress, or speeches, etc). Certainly, everything indicates that this is a unique, isolated, anomalous incident in the otherwise blameless, decades long career of a well documented individual. Given all that, why go after this unless you do have an axe to grind.

Jay Roberts

 

[Astoria]

Re the Texas Monthly article, there is a preview available online but you have to be a paid subscriber to read the entire article. The preview may be found here.

Re. the writer of the questionable newsletter editorials and whether or not s/he was "fired". I have spent some time researching that. According to this FMNN article

...“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

If it was a guest writer that produced the derogatory newsletter articles, there would be no one to fire, would there? They just wouldn't invite that person to write for them again.

Regards

 

[Devil_rules_in_extremes]

Thanks for the additional information and links. As far as I can determine the full text of the Texas Monthly article is not online. I had to use Nexis to find it (the Lexis/Nexis subscription costs me $2.5k a month but we have to use it in our campaign finance reform work).

I'll do some additional research and will check back in. I'll also watch the interview tomorrow and then see if I can set something up to interview the Congressman.

Thanks again.

--Doug

Hey Doug, I want to thank you for your correction of the record about Ron Paul. I have much respect for you now. I truly thought those were your words, and I'm glad to see that they are not.

I also want to throw my apology in here, because I said some harsh things on this forum about your website, thinking those were YOUR hit-pieces on Ron Paul. Sorry.

Thanks again, and just to ad my two cents, a CHB interview with Congressmen Paul would be great! I'm looking forward to seeing that on your website.

 

[Roxi]

the objective was to get it removed right? OBJECTIVE OBTAINED!!...no matter the excuse this is what we wanted...IMO leave it alone dont harass him

 

[SlapItHigh]

Thank you Doug. I have been silently following this with interest and am happy with the outcome.