Who Is Ron Paul?

Interview with Bill Moyers

On Jay Leno:

He sounds so reasonable. Not at all like the rest of the pack.

But even with the great grassroots strides his campaign is making, Ron Paul's bid for the presidency is going to be haunted by the charge that he's a racist, biggoted paranoiac, because of statements written in some old "Ron Paul newsletters."

When Paul was first confronted [with an article in The National Review], Ed Morrisey of the Captain Quarter's blog said he explained them this way: "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 the 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.' "

[...]

Kirchick wrote in his piece, anticipating the "I didn't write it" explanation: "But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him - and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics."

  NPR

From Ron Paul’s website:

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.”

TNR's James Kirchik quotes (correctly or not, I don’t know) various of the “decades worth” of “Ron Paul newsletters”, and they truly are quite nasty. If indeed Mr. Paul did not write these things or hold these views, and yet knew there were newsletters going out under his name, surely he still had a duty to know what was being written in them. I can’t help but like the guy as I see him now, and he sounds both very reasonable and sincere, unlike any of the other candidates from either party. But why didn’t he know what was going out in those newsletters, as he seems to be claiming now? I also can’t help but think this is a very valid, if damning, criticism of a man who would be president. We don’t need any more presidents who don’t read, do we? And, frankly, it does seem rather preposterous that Paul would claim “responsibility”, but deny agreement with the newsletters. In fact, the whole thing seems bizarre. What was he doing all that time they were being published? Why did he not get a reputation for them? He’s been in Congress a long time. Granted, it’s been from Texas, but even here, and maybe especially, this kind of thing would be known. Maybe those views are precisely why he’s a Texas representative (from my district, by the way). I just can’t find much good information on what went on back when those newsletters were being published. At least not with the resources I have at the moment.

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Air Force surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.) During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

[...]

Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views.

[...]

When I asked Jesse Benton, Paul's campaign spokesman, about the newsletters, he said that, over the years, Paul had granted "various levels of approval" to what appeared in his publications--ranging from "no approval" to instances where he "actually wrote it himself." After I read Benton some of the more offensive passages, he said, "A lot of [the newsletters] he did not see. Most of the incendiary stuff, no." He added that he was surprised to hear about the insults hurled at Martin Luther King, because "Ron thinks Martin Luther King is a hero."

  TNR

Granted, Paul may have trusted the people who were writing the newsletters, and his trust was abused or misplaced. We’ve probably all been deceived or misled by people we thought were trustworthy. Without seeing the set of incriminating newsletters, I have no way of knowing whether the worst of the articles were written over a long period of time or all of the same period, and perhaps when they were discovered by Mr. Paul, they were then stopped. The TNR article quoting them seems to indicate that the racist and homophobic bits were published 1990-1993.

And, unfortunately, Ron Paul’s responses always seem to brush off the accusations. “I denounce small-minded talk and yet I take responsibility for the newsletters” is a pretty vague answer. And his comment that campaign aids told him talking about them would be too confusing doesn't sound like something the video Ron Paul would accept. We have too little information. Or rather, just enough information to be dangerous.

Well, Paul does strike me as a pretty relaxed, hands-off kind of guy. I’m not sure that would work well as president, and I wonder if he’d be paying more attention to what’s happening in his name if he held that position.

So, we’re still where we’ve always been – a lesser of two (or twelve) evils option. Not the greatest spot to be in. But it doesn’t look like we’re be getting out of it any time soon. (As if your vote actually counts anyway. Don't get me started.) And I’m still a pessimistic fatalist. So, I think I’ll just leave you to think about it or not. I’m going to the beach.

And you....

...do what you want. You will anyway.