Houston Chronicle Report about Racism Allegations

[RickyJ]

Believing that black teenagers should be treated as adults by courts and white teenagers should be treated as children is racist.

Anyone that really knows Ron Paul knows he does not, and would never believe such utter crap. I was talking about the welfare checks going out, not that. If that was written in a newsletter of his then Ron Paul was obviously being set up becasue that is against everything the man has stood for his entire life.

 

[TattooTom]

It's not just the Houston Chronicle. Has anyone seen this list from Reason? It seems it was much bigger with considerably more articles in other news papers, where Dr. Paul actually addressed (accepted responsibility?) for these news letters.

 

[hillertexas]

Over 10 years ago when these newsletters first surfaced, the Houston Chronicle accepted Ron Paul's explanation.

Maybe someone should send them a copy of their own paper from back then.

THe hypocrites.

+1

 

[kylejack]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]

"If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

So he acknowledged writing the fleet-footed line.

 

[A. Havnes]

Fortunately there's no such thing as bad publicity.

It's bad when it costs Ron Paul votes. There will be some people who actually think he's racist, despite the fact that he isn't.

 

[clytle374]

I have been reading these since I don't want to blindly defend anything. I have not read them all!

These things are based on research of the day, some true some not. Questions like why are blacks in prison at such a high ratio. Looks to me like this influenced him to believe drug laws are racist. And welfare feeds crime. For those who weren't around then a lot of people were getting a feeling a race war was coming. The La riots, heck I knew of places in my city I couldn't go being white.

There was a new gay joke everyday, and was still considered by many to be a mental illness.

Being sympathetic to militias, not sure if there is a point here. If they are not violent so be it.

This looks more like racist research and laws, not Ron Paul being a racist. And if it was true at all, he has definitely flip-flopped

Just my two non racist cents.
Cory

 

[sasha_2008]

Is that the best the MSM can do? LOL!

OK let's logically look at what is really being said here.

All one has to do is look at when the violence subsided and when the checks went out. If it turns out this statement is true, then how the heck is it racist? If it is true it is called a FACT folks, not racism!

Mark my words, this will backfire on the MSM big time!

The news showed lines of people at the post office demanding their welfare checks and they were pissed because the checks weren't delivered. It was truly baffling to watch.

A lot of the quotes have been taken out of context by the media.

 

[DanK]

It's not just the Houston Chronicle. Has anyone seen this list from Reason? It seems it was much bigger with considerably more articles in other news papers, where Dr. Paul actually addressed (accepted responsibility?) for these news letters.

Did you see this response?

John C Acshun jaxson the 3rd | January 11, 2008, 3:59am | #
Cool, Eric Dondero(Rittberg) made an appearance!

On a more serious note, I am disgusted by the content of the newsletters but I wonder why reason is digging so much ( to come up with so little). It seems pointless.

I don't know if Ron Paul is telling the truth, but his later statements are consistent with his earlier acceptance of ownership.

In 1996 his campaign did not blame ghostwriters.

Then in 2001, he said "those were not my words, but my campaign people said i had to take responsibility for that stuff because it was under my name. but didn't write it." or something very close to that.

So saying that (in 1996) "Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments.'

thats NOT News!

HELLO, Ron Paul already admitted that! in his later interview(s) he said that at the time he was advised to take ownership, "it would be too confusing" and so on. So he supposedly was "coming clean" about the truth in 1996.

YOU are just REHASHING what has already been said.

Then you have Dondero and other people who were around back then claiming to know there were certain ghostwriters and who they were.

So here is what we know ( and already knew before this post):

1.Ron Paul had a newsletter. For almost 2 decades. Had a lot of the expected conspiracy stuff, economic beliefs, and so on. There were some issues in the early 90s that had some pretty racist sounding collectivist garbage.

2. In 1996 campaign Ron Paul took ownership of the writing, said it was taken out of context, writings were in response to specific issues of the time, whatever..

3. In 2001 Ron Paul says " Well, see I had ghostwriters. I had a full-time medical practice and a newsletter business. other people edited the shit and put it together. Those weren't my words but my campaign people ( surprise) and staffers told me to just take ownership and not try to make excuses, blah blah. My name was on it- I had to take responsibility."

4. 2007- RP runs for POTUS as a Republican. Every libertarian ( or any other person interested in Ron Paul) in the world who has internet access and knows how to use google and/or Wikipedia has probably already seen articles about these newsletters and the offensive passages. A couple blogs and online stories are published again about these newsletter. Reason people say something about it. then no one seems to give it might more thought.

5. TNR story comes out. Libertarian bloggers go crazy over the identity of the ghostwriter ( though apparently Dondero all people is the only one with balls enough to name names. Everyone else makes it obvious who they are implicating without actually naming). Ron paul supporters go crazy. People in love with lew Rockwell go crazy ( "Oh no, it can't be Lew. I am heartbroken about Ron Paul, but if lew Rockwell my libertarian hero wrote that stuff I will be devastated"'- seriously RP supporters have written stuff like that)

Ron Paul goes on CNN. Matt Welch goes on CNN. CNN edits a story so that "political strategists" comment that Ron Paul's response is "not enough' BEFORE he even made his response. ( yes the CNN article was changed after Ron spoke to Wolf Blitzer and his quotes from the interview were added to the section that was already there saying the original statement was "not enough").

6. matt Welch writes some kind of "gotcha" blog about the 1996 press that really adds nothing new to what has already been said.

I guess because we don't all these other kids out there to join some libertarian freedom movement, we need to keep it some tiny club. So let's do all we can to damage it.

And after reading that, I do remember reading somewhere before about RP saying he was advised to take responsibility for it back in '96. So once again, more crap that's already been disproven. Now the only real question is how to make the media see that...

 

[AAjax]

So he acknowledged writing the fleet-footed line.

He didnt say during this time period on the advise of advisor's. After the campaign was over he made it clear he did not write any of those statements

 

[MikeFallopian]

And after reading that, I do remember reading somewhere before about RP saying he was advised to take responsibility for it back in '96. So once again, more crap that's already been disproven. Now the only real question is how to make the media see that...

It's been (more or less) disproven that he actually wrote the offensive entries. What people want to know right now is who did, and what that person's current relationship is to Paul. If it's a close adviser or staff member, that would look very bad. Based on the defense that Paul has given so far, many will conclude that he refuses to out the person because he never in fact cut ties with him.

 

[AAjax]

It's been (more or less) disproven that he actually wrote the offensive entries. What people want to know right now is who did, and what that person's current relationship is to Paul. If it's a close adviser or staff member, that would look very bad. Based on the defense that Paul has given so far, many will conclude that he refuses to out the person because he never in fact cut ties with him.

No, they just want to drag this out as long as possible because its all they have to smear him with.
As yourself this, Clinton and McCain have personally been quoted making very clear racist remarks (themselves, no writing involved) But why isnt the media covering that?

 

[Quick]

As yourself this, Clinton and McCain have personally been quoted making very clear racist remarks (themselves, no writing involved) But why isnt the media covering that?

Because they like Clinton and McCain.

 

[MikeFallopian]

No, they just want to drag this out as long as possible because its all they have to smear him with.
As yourself this, Clinton and McCain have personally been quoted making very clear racist remarks (themselves, no writing involved) But why isnt the media covering that?

I'm not sure what Clinton said, but McCain stated that "I hated the gooks" in reference to his Vietnam prison guards. His use of the word gook is totally reprehensible, but no one is going to rake him over the coals for directing a slur at the individuals who brutally tortured him. If any of the front runners were in the position Paul is in with these newsletters, the media would be crucifying them 10x worse than what Paul is getting hit with. Also, these forums would show no mercy towards them. People here need to examine the situation from an outsider's perspective.