Weekly Standard Hit-Peice on Ron Paul: "The Company Ron Paul Keeps"

[cindy25]

in 1993 Ron was not in congress, and the selling of newsletters was big business

what is on line now for free was sold in those days, by Gary North, by Doug Casey and many others.

 

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Ron Paul is aye raysust because he knows this guy that knew this guy that was friends with this guy whose brother called black people black

 

[matt0611]

Question, in the 08 Reason article, it shows that first Ron did not repudiate the letters at first, but defended them and it was not until later that he claimed they were not his writings.

Has Ron addressed this? Someone mentioned this to me but I didn't have a defense for it.

 

[Humanae Libertas]

Question, in the 08 Reason article, it shows that first Ron did not repudiate the letters at first, but defended them and it was not until later that he claimed they were not his writings.

Has Ron addressed this? Someone mentioned this to me but I didn't have a defense for it.

According to this, it looks like he did try and defend the letters:

Dallas Morning News, The (TX)

May 22, 1996

Candidate's comments on blacks questioned

Author: Catalina Camia; Washington Bureau of The Dallas Morning News

Edition: HOME FINAL
Section: NEWS
Page: 8A
Dateline: WASHINGTON

Index Terms:
ELECTIONS '96

Estimated printed pages: 3

...

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 inef! ficiencies 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

I don't know if this is true or not.

 

[specsaregood]

//

 

[nbruno322]

The Weekly Standard has never been profitable...

"Since its founding in 1995 by the News Corporation, the media conglomerate controlled by Mr. Murdoch, the magazine has never been profitable."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/business/media/03standard.html

 

[KurtBoyer25L]

There are company-keeping smears every election cycle. Presidents are often elected in spite of them. Remember how Obama was a commie? Bush was best pals with the Taliban? Clinton a sugar daddy for hookers? The public looks right past it. The only people who take this stuff seriously (right or wrong) are people who already hated the candidate anyway.

 

[lester1/2jr]

The irony here is that the media refuses to cover Ron Paul, so people will never hear about this.

 

[Badger Paul]

In retrospect, RP should have told the truth back in '96. It would have been easier. He got some very bad advice on this.

 

[gmc1988]

If Bill Kristol and the Weekly Standard are attacking us that means we are doing something right. I'd be more worried if they weren't.

I agree. This also proves that we have VERY dangerous enemies. We should NEVER underestimate people like Bill Kristol, and what they are capable of doing.

 

[William R]

see bold:

from:http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7

thanks for posting

 

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Thread over with specs' post: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showth...l-Keeps-quot&p=3870091&viewfull=1#post3870091

Completely contridicts Kirchick and that one blog's entire premise: that Paul said he wrote them and only in 2008 tried to change it.