Ron Paul can do no wrong. At least, that's what I'm seeing in the replies to other Blogcritics articles. There are some who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul had nothing whatsoever to do with those racist newsletters (photocopies here; they're very interesting reading). So let's first examine the known facts, the possibilities, and then let's examine the proof. For all those who are absolutely sure that Ron Paul is completely innocent, at least do yourselves the favor of reading this whole article before replying. The known facts:
1 - Ron Paul's newsletters came out under at least three different names, but have been published mostly on a monthly basis since 1978.
2 - The racist newsletter articles in question were written over a five-year period, from 1989 to 1994.
1 - Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter.
2 - A ghostwriter for Ron Paul wrote the articles in Ron Paul's newsletter (and Ron Paul either knew or did not know about what the ghostwriter wrote).
3 - Ron Paul was in no way associated with Ron Paul's newsletter and couldn't have written the articles.
In a 2008 interview with CNN, Mr. Paul flatly denied writing those articles in his newsletter, he denied knowing who wrote them, and CNN was told by a Paul spokesman that the Paul campaign would not try to find out who wrote them.
In a 2001 interview with Texas Monthly, Ron Paul stated that his campaign staff told him that "it would have been too confusing" to come right out and say that he didn't write any of those articles.
So far it all looks rather harmless, if confusingly so, right? But the Libertarian site reason.com points out what was published in 1996:
The Dallas Morning News:
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...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.
The Houston Chronicle:
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."...Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers." A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.
The Austin American-Statesman:
"Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on."... Also in 1992, Paul wrote, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions." Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views. The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said. "Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said.
The Washington Post:
Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context. "Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."
In a statement, Paul said he had "labored to conduct a campaign based upon the issues that are vital to our nation" and charged Morris with "repeated attempts...to reduce the campaign to name calling and race-baiting." He called Morris's request that he release all back issues of the newsletter "not only impractical, but...equivalent to asking him to provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career." Of his statements about Jordan, Paul said that "such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference. The causes she so strongly advocated were for more government, more and more regulations, and more and more taxes. My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong: I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes."
When Ron Paul was asked by several newspapers about the racist newsletter articles in 1996, he did not deny writing them, and it's quite apparent that his staff thought he wrote them, too.
So it boils down to this: either Ron Paul had no idea what was being written in his newsletter over a five-year period, and when he was asked about it by the newspapers, he chose not to deny that he wrote them and deliberately allowed his staff to believe that he wrote them, or Ron Paul wrote those articles in his newsletter and then later realized that by exposing his own racism, he might well cost himself any real chance at the White House.
Lastly, I'd like to refer Ron Paul supporters to a real liberatarian, Dave Nalle, head of the Republican Liberty Caucus, who had this to say about Ron Paul:
[Ron Paul is] an inflexible ideologue who subscribes to a variety of extremist views which would make a terrible basis for national policy. His interpretation of the Constitution is highly selective. He seems not to recognize terms like "public welfare" and "common good" and rejects the long history of constitutional scholarship and jurisprudence on which most law is based. His understanding of the economy is based on fringe economic theories which most serious economists do not consider credible. As for foreign policy, it's an area in which Paul has no experience at all and his foreign policy would basically amount to isolationism which would have disastrous economic and political repercussions.
[Ron Paul supporters] completely overlook Paul's support for the reactionary conspiracy nuts at the John Birch Society and the reprehensible 9/11 Truth movement or the fact that he raises money on white supremacist websites and has the endorsement of racist leaders like former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke, White Aryan leader Tom Metzger and Stormfront Fuhrer Don Black.
I should note here that I owe Dave Nalle an apology: I accused him repeatedly of being a Ron Paul supporter, and I was obviously wrong. That said, Mr. Nalle and I agree on very little, but we're apparently in complete agreement that a Ron Paul presidency would be a very, very bad thing for America, and that if Ron Paul's not a racist, he's certainly doing his level best to make us think that he is!