"Racist Newsletters" Debunked Once And For All

[Paul or not at all]

If you are a member of Hannity Forums, please spread this around.

http://forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=2365921

 

[Tinnuhana]

I just read the wholedefense, and it sounds a lot like Tom Woods in places, esp. the 2nd half. If not Woods, he seems to have an affinity for the same sort of writing/speaking style. Too tired to go back and look now, though. Good job pulling all this together.

 

[SilentViking]

http://fredoneverything.net/ interesting discovery. Even stuff he has published this year very much has the same writing style. Blacks this, and whites that, etc. In which case, why not give out his name? He really doesn't seem to care. He might even enjoy the publicity. I still run under the belief that Ron Paul honestly doesn't know who wrote "it", or specifics of who wrote which column in which issue, etc.

 

[giovannile07]

That is a long and well thought out document... How long did it take you to write that? It's very impressive and has all the proper citations and everything!

 

[Jandrsn21]

A win for Ron Paul in Iowa is irrelevant because he can't win. But he just won. Irrelevant we are looking at who gets second or third for winners. But second is worst then first and third is worst than second. SHUT UP RACIST! This is all really hysterical guys, remember how they did this to Rand and he won in a landslide! You guys really worry too much!

 

[tunk999]

How long did it take you to write that?

I spent like a week looking at both sides of the issue, and then I decided after I'd had my fill of verbose, idiotic blog posts, that so many obvious facts were not being reported that so clearly establish poor Ron Paul as not a racist, that I just had to type it all up. I felt like it was a crime that none of this was being said outright. But like I said, check my citations. A lot of the work was already done for me by some real great Paulites and libertarians.

I would also really appreciate it if people informed me as to where they think my argument is weak, so that I can try and improve it if possible.

 

[JohnM]

Tunk,

Thanks for that excellent piece of work.

I must confess that I have reservations about it, all of which relate to section 10.

The first relates to the fact that you quote, at length, from Justin Raimondo's article.

Now, I admit that I may have misunderstood this - but:

Raimondo writes: "The charges leveled at Paul by his accusers both the neocons, and the “libertarian” and leftist enablers, are therefore especially toxic this election season. Yet when one examines Paul’s alleged “hate crimes,” I can come up with only four sentences, lifted out of context, that are out of bounds: . . ."

He goes on to say "It was a rush job, and a sloppy one at that, because, on closer examination, the material that is being called “racist” turns out to be no such thing," and explains how the sentences were taken out of context.

He maintains "In context, the author was clearly saying that people will draw unfair conclusions – that racism will increase—as a direct consequence of the Los Angeles riots. How, exactly, is that “racist”?"

He concludes "The idea that people are not to be treated as representatives of racial groups is the antithesis of bigotry. While the author of the above is most emphatically anti-racist, he is also anti-looter, anti-violence, and justifiably angry at the sight of white motorists being pulled out of their cars by thugs of whatever color."

You quote all of those things.

The problem is that if progressive minded people read Raimondo, and then go and read the whole newsletter article that Raimondo is quoting from - from beginning to end, taking everything in context, they are going to read an article which repeadedly makes many negative comments about the culture of urban blacks. I'm pretty sure that most of them will take the view that the newsletter article is racist. I think that they will also take the view that what Raimondo says about sentences being taken out of context is misleading.


The second is that after the headline for section 10 "Have the articles been removed from context?", the next words ("Are they?") do not follow. "Have they?" are the words we would expect.

The third is the sentence that follows. "Although there's no doubt that the newsletters feature some crass and hateful material, the extent to which they really do contain such things, as opposed to mere affirmations of politically incorrect truths, can be questioned." I don't really understand that. Are you saying that the newsletters contain hateful material, but not racist material? If so, what is the point of saying so? Most people are not going to think there is any real difference between "hateful" material about blacks, and "racist material".



Just my 2c worth.

 

[tunk999]

I've now fixed the grammar of section 10 and removed the bits of the Raimondo quote that deal with the "Racial Terrorism" article.

 

[Snowball]

Someone's going to have to take one for the team and come forward saying they
wrote these letters. It's the only way to make it go away. Get that person. FAST.

 

[amonasro]

Someone's going to have to take one for the team and come forward saying they
wrote these letters. It's the only way to make it go away. Get that person. FAST.

You keep saying this. Then the media would go after him, link it to Paul and the process begins all over again. Change the song, man.

 

[Snowball]

wake up, amonasro.
They ARE linked to Paul. The only way to UNLINK them
is to identify who wrote them. Then Ron can say he doesn't support all the views of all
his past supporters. No politician does. Sorry but if they can't get someone to come forward,
then you will see ads saying Ron is a racist on national television.

 

[Travlyr]

wake up, amonasro.
They ARE linked to Paul. The only way to UNLINK them
is to identify who wrote them. Then Ron can say he doesn't support all the views of all
his past supporters. No politician does. Sorry but if they can't get someone to come forward,
then you will see ads saying Ron is a racist on national television.

Snowball, do you think Ron Paul is a racist?

Have your read any of his books, watched any interviews, or watched him in debates in the last 30 years?

 

[jmdrake]

I've typed up a very long and meticulously cited FAQ in response to this very old charge, available here.
http://regulatetheregulators.blogspot.com/2011/12/in-defense-of-ron-paul-newsletters-faq.html
I think I've now read every blog post there is on the subject, and hopefully I covered just about everything. I would appreciate comments, criticisms, etc.

Basically, what happened was that for perhaps 3 decades, several newsletters ran under Paul's name containing some fairly conventional right-wing commentary. Many have attested that Paul personally distanced himself from production and various people with gigs as ghostwriters came and went.

For a brief period from about 1990-1994, a very small number of newsletters were released sporadically which contained racial hateful and "homophobic" remarks.

This was during a time when Paul had relinquished responsibility for the newsletters' operation, retired from Congress and an exhausting presidential campaign, and consigned himself to working full-time as a medical doctor and public speaker, in addition to raising five children.

A few objectionable issues managed to leak out under Paul's nose, quite understandably. Paul did not then and does not now possess superhuman powers. Believe it or not, there were other things that were occupying him at the time. He didn't have the ease of mind, the way some people apparently do, to devote his days to scanning the newsletters for the occasional rant against gays. Blaming him for this is ultimately like blaming him for comments on his Facebook wall.

The racist comments fly in the face of everything Paul has ever written and said, as many people who know him personally have attested. (Among whom include Rick Sincere, an openly gay libertarian whose run for Congress in 1993 Paul supported and helped solicit funds for, at the same time the most hysterical of the newsletters were being churned out.)

Paul was quite angry when he learned of the whole thing. He didn't issue a full denial in 1996 when it was first brought up only on the extremely stupid advice of his campaign staff. (Paul is far too trusting and has never been great at picking advisors.) He has in the past decade addressed the issue several times publically, explicitly denying authorship, and there is every reason to believe it and move on.

+rep! Awesome puppy approves!

I googled Rick Sincere and found his take on it on his blog:
http://ricksincerethoughts.blogspot.com/2008/01/question-was-answered-six-years-ago.html


We need more of these types of stories, IMO.

Wow! Great find! +rep to you to.

 

[UtahApocalypse]

There are a few, which I cite in the FAQ.

The New York Times Editorial Staff
http://www.nysun.com/editorials/reckoning-with-ron-paul/86919/


Stewart Rhodes, a Hispanic former congressional staffer for Paul
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html


And, of course, Nelson Linder
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

Campaign needs to call a press conference with people like this.. Then run ads with them.

 

[Snowball]

Snowball, do you think Ron Paul is a racist?

Have your read any of his books, watched any interviews, or watched him in debates in the last 30 years?

of course Ron isn't a racist. i've been listening to him since the 90's myself.
but this is politics.

 

[The Binghamton Patriot]

wake up, amonasro.
They ARE linked to Paul. The only way to UNLINK them
is to identify who wrote them. Then Ron can say he doesn't support all the views of all
his past supporters. No politician does. Sorry but if they can't get someone to come forward,
then you will see ads saying Ron is a racist on national television.

hey everyone...

snowball is a TROLL. Ignore him.

 

[Eleutheros]

I think everyone is missing the elephant in the room regarding the newsletters' content

Tunk,

Thanks for that excellent piece of work.

I must confess that I have reservations about it, all of which relate to section 10.


The third is the sentence that follows. "Although there's no doubt that the newsletters feature some crass and hateful material, the extent to which they really do contain such things, as opposed to mere affirmations of politically incorrect truths, can be questioned." I don't really understand that. Are you saying that the newsletters contain hateful material, but not racist material? If so, what is the point of saying so? Most people are not going to think there is any real difference between "hateful" material about blacks, and "racist material".

John, you ask a good question in the bolded, but you didn't phrase it quite so succinctly that the core issue to this matter is properly addressed:

Tunk, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you are trying to say is this:

The newsletters contain comments of BIGOTRY, not RACISM, albeit the bigotry is racially charged. That is what everyone, MSM and RP supporters (and all in between) is not getting, and yes, there is a big difference. All [rac]ists are bigots, but not all bigots are [rac]ist (or any other -ist). Why? Bigotry is merely the expression of intolerance for another group of people. [Rac]ism is the acting upon that intolerance by a variety of pernicious practices against that particular group(s).

What the MSM is doing, intentionally or otherwise, is confusing racism with bigotry and/or exploiting the ignorance of the public/viewing audience not knowing the difference by making Ron Paul appear as something he obviously is not. Put another way, they're trying to equate Ron Paul to David Duke instead of Archie Bunker. The mitigating factor to all of this is that the smart viewer/reader would know the difference and would most likely blow it off even if they truly believed Ron Paul did write those stories, because it would be obvious that the MSM is grossly embellishing their claims, which is why IMO the backlash RP has received from this has been minimal.

In short, will this hurt Ron Paul's campaign? Not materially. It should be obvious that Ron Paul is not a racist, but the MSM is trying hard to make it as if he is, but between his record and their fervor in trying to make their point, they obviously don't know the difference between bigotry and racism. And IMO that is why this really isn't gaining much traction.

 

[Travlyr]

of course Ron isn't a racist. i've been listening to him since the 90's myself.
but this is politics.

The racial divide and conquer technique is very old. It is the game they play. The media is discrediting themselves. Let them fall.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y0I4i8mWr8&feature=player_embedded#!

 

[jmdrake]

John, you ask a good question in the bolded, but you didn't phrase it quite so succinctly that the core issue to this matter is properly addressed:

Tunk, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think what you are trying to say is this:

The newsletters contain comments of BIGOTRY, not RACISM, albeit the bigotry is racially charged. That is what everyone, MSM and RP supporters (and all in between) is not getting, and yes, there is a big difference. All [rac]ists are bigots, but not all bigots are [rac]ist (or any other -ist). Why? Bigotry is merely the expression of intolerance for another group of people. [Rac]ism is the acting upon that intolerance by a variety of pernicious practices against that particular group(s).

What the MSM is doing, intentionally or otherwise, is confusing racism with bigotry and/or exploiting the ignorance of the public/viewing audience not knowing the difference by making Ron Paul appear as something he obviously is not. Put another way, they're trying to equate Ron Paul to David Duke instead of Archie Bunker. The mitigating factor to all of this is that the smart viewer/reader would know the difference and would most likely blow it off even if they truly believed Ron Paul did write those stories, because it would be obvious that the MSM is grossly embellishing their claims, which is why IMO the backlash RP has received from this has been minimal.

In short, will this hurt Ron Paul's campaign? Not materially. It should be obvious that Ron Paul is not a racist, but the MSM is trying hard to make it as if he is, but between his record and their fervor in trying to make their point, they obviously don't know the difference between bigotry and racism. And IMO that is why this really isn't gaining much traction.

Mmmmm.....okay. But I wouldn't vote for a bigot either. The Ron Paul of 2007 and beyond is neither a bigot nor a racist. Getting that message out is how to win this thing. Here's how.



Hey, what about the fact that the democrats kept sending former Klansman Robert Byrd back to the senate? Why did blacks in Alabama overwhelmingly support democrat governor George Wallace once they got the vote that he had tried to deny them? Are democrats the only ones allowed to make mistakes on race?

 

[jmdrake]

hey everyone...

snowball is a TROLL. Ignore him.

Ummmm....I've seen a lot of other people here who I know are not trolls say the same thing. Anyway, the true writer isn't coming forward, Ron isn't going to expose him, and it wouldn't help anyway.