Marijuana.com

S2

I have a high threshold regarding racisim. I don't accept that one is automatially a bona fide racist if they on occaision slip in a racially charged phrase and tell and/or laugh at a racist joke. I believe that the hair trigger that the PC crowd has with racism prevents valuable discourse regarding real issues facing minorities-- things like the disproportionate representation incarcerated under drug crime laws.

I don't believe Ron Paul is racist. I dont think that the poor judgement of allowing the newsletters with such content to be published under his name negates him from my consideration of him for president.

But I am troubled.

“Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence, not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.” -The real Ron Paul

I believe that this is what Ron Paul really thinks. Which kind of makes me even more troubled.

In 2008 RPs position on the newsletters is he didn't read them, he ddin't write them, he doesn't know who the specific authors are and has no interest in discovering that, (and this one is improtant to me) --its old news that had been addressed in the past.

Its widely known that the issue of the controversial content of the newsletters came up in his previous congressional campaigns. Thing is, near as I can tell, at that time, he said he did read them and if he did not specifically state "I typed those words" he or his campaign in response to questions regarding the newsletters, said things like:

"Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday ... his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." and

"...Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said."

"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." [...]

"You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said. "His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."

Essentially, Paul and his campaign staff did not assert that he was unaware of the content of the newsletters and their words are reasonably interpreted to attribute authorship to him.

The content of the newsletters is almost irrelevent to me and not the source of my troubled mind.

One thing is the indication of status quo slippery politician behavior in his campaign's treatment of the issue that is bugging me.

he says now, in 2008, he doesn't know who the author(s) are. Yet it was years ago that these things began to haunt him and his answer just doesn't wash with me. Some one(s) write racist, homophobic and kooky conspiratorial newsletters under his name for decades and it has threatened his career for eyars and he's prepping for a presidential run and he doesn't do the minnimal investigation into his own organization staffed by many of the people who worked on teh newsletters to determine who wrote the damning stuff? My God, that is on the level of "I didn't inhale". Of course he knows who wrote that stuff and he is not going to say who they are and they are not going to step up and do the honorable things by him.

Another thing is that Paul's campaign wants to depict its candidate as a naïve, absentee overseer, with minimal knowledge of what his underlings were doing on his behalf. This portrayal might be more believable if extremist views had cropped up in the newsletters only sporadically--or if the newsletters had just been published for a short time. But why did Paul allow material consistently saturated in racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering to be printed under his name for so long? If he did not share these views, did he tolerate the newsletter's perpetuation of them out of cynical expediency in gaining the votes of those who do share these views? If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of over a decade--he would have done something about it.

Paul seems to want to have it both ways on multiple levels.

He wants mainstream appeal without giving up his ties to a controversial fringe.

He says, "For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name." while simultaneously saying that its old news, unimportant and essentially that he should not have to pay any price for that responsibility. Which is it? Take responsibility or brush it off?



I don't think that this issue will be the cause of him not winning the presidency or even the nomination. He never had a real chance there and not because of "the Machine" working against him. I dont think that RP ever believed that he would get the nomination or the presidency. I think he got into the race to advance ideas—the ideas of peace, constitutional government, and freedom.

the significance of the newsletters and his fractured response to questions regarding them is he has lessened the liklihood that any of those ideas, ideas that this country sorely needs, will be heard. If "the Machine" is working against anything its to prevent RP's ideas from taking hold and challanging the status quo. And in that regard, I think it is important that those who embrace RPs ideas, do not confuse the ideas with the man and zealously and blindly follow RP just as they contemptuously accuse followers of any other candidate. The widespread exposure of libertarian philosophy is more important to me than Ron Paul attaining the presidency. No question his election would provide the ultimate bully pulpit and thus it could be argued that in fact getting him elected achives both ends-- but thats just not my thinking-- he was never a viable candidate and it was the seeding of his ideas that I saw as of most benefit to him running.

I think Ron screwed up. He alllowed the newsletters to go out under his name for many years, in my opinion to get the support of people to who such ideas appeal. He changed his story regarding if he wrote it or read it. He claims to not know or be able to determine authorship. Whether he was active or passive in the newsletters doesn't matter. Paul perpetuated that way of thinking for more than a decade in a newsletter he published. And in attempting to dismiss it as in the past and unimportant, he pays lip service to taking reponsibility for them. He has paid no price for his responsibility for what went out under his name and in fact, until this came up as a real issue in this campaign, has benefited from it. He was successful in his congressional bid due in part to the support of the hundreds of thousands of subscribers of that newsletter.

I am dissapointed that he knowingly or unknowingly allowed his name to be used as it was. I am disappointed in how he has responded to the questions regarding it. And I am disappointed that this situation will probably be used to continue to paint libertarians and libertarian ideas to include racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, and conspiracy-mongering.

 

Lit_Match

Given that somebody went digging though Ron's history and this is all they could come up with is encouraging. I'd like to see this done on all the candidates and a side-by-side comparison made available, those newsletters would become insignificant seeing as he didn't author them.

The most definitive answer I've found is an archived interview from 2001, his comments were that he was acting on the advice from his aides at the time in claiming "moral responsibility".

Dr. No: Texas Monthly October 2001

I guess it all boils down to whether you can take his word as truth or not.

__________________
Donation links to NORML (The National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws) | MPP (Marijuana Policy Project)

S2

which word? the ones where he said he wrote them, the ones where he said he was instructed by his campaign to not try to explain it was from him or the most recent where he said he never read them, didnt know what they said and didnt know who wrote it?

How is the 2001 position the most definative? and how is claiming they should not be considered now, taking moral responsibility. Taking moral responsibility means paying the price for perpetuating the ideologies of those newsletters. One cant simultaneously take responsibility for something and brush it off as something that should be ignored or dimissed.

Lit_Match

Fair point, I can't say I don't understand his actions though.

Given his history, it's more than clear that he isn't racist. Even the president of the NAACP (who's known Ron for over 20 years) says it's absurd to say he's racist.

Those who have been aware of this subject since they first came to public attention know it wasn't him that authored those papers, the context was just made to appear as though they are his words. The only question is whether or not he endorsed them at the time, which leads one to wonder why he simply didn't write such comments himself when he was in office and writing the newsletter.

In all his speeches, books and general writings in his ten terms in congress there have never been any hints at racism except for these that appeared when he was out of office and pursuing other interests. He has even named Rosa Parks, MLK and Ghandi as personal heroes of his for their examples in civil disobedience which he respects.

Personally I don't see how it's so hard to understand why he did what he did accept for not coming clean in the start of all this, again, it's not about him having written them, it's about how he handled what was done in his name.

I haven't read where he currently denies ever having heard of these, I've read that at the time they were written he wasn't aware them and he fired those responsible as soon as it came to his attention (which he did in fact do).

Look at the issues he advocated and fought against in congress that had racial implications, even assuming these newsletters were his, his actions in congress put to rest any accusations that he is a racist.

Unfortunately, he now has to pay the price for something someone else has done. He should have taken more care to keep an eye on what was being put out when he wasn't in office. He's been fighting for personal freedoms granted by the constitution more than anyone else in congress despite the color of their skin, now he has to prove it despite his consistent libertarian record.

If you want to label him racist that's fine, but if you were to actually look at his record you would know it's absurd to do so.

S2

I don't label him as racist. Thats why I wrote that I'm troubled-- I guess my concern is do we have another political opportunist who allows his own values to take a back seat to get votes from a group who's ideaology he does not agree with and most people find repugnant. who wiggles out of not being the author but still derived (derives?) the benefit of those words published in his name? I'd say that, in any event, he is paying a price for having those words published under his name therefore takign responsibility.

Its just a shame though. Libertarianism offers much and its hard to get it out from under the old john birch society convert wing. This doesnt help in that regard-- though neither does Lew Rockwell for that matter.

 

Lit_Match

My fault, I wasn't really directing that at you, more of a general statement.

It is possible, but there are white nationalists protesting against him at this time, if they're voting for him it's just the confused ones. I also think he understands the value of cause and effect enough to know this situation does (did) far more harm to him than it did good.

I wouldn't worry about it too much, if it becomes a real issue for libertarianism it would be an act of the people themselves. The media apparently won't cover anything that has Ron Paul's name on it unless it looks bad for him except for his money raising, but I think only because it would have looked bad on their part not to.

I do agree to the extent that the true libertarian following is still small and slow growing, it doesn't take much of a stain to set it back years.

Unless he makes the primaries, which is very unlikely (again, act of the people), you can probably consider the issue dead and buried.