Ron Paul's racist comments

[RedBean]

I figured to start a new thread here, to keep it out of the other RP threads, and focus solely on the issue of the racial comments attributed to him that he continually defended as being accurate "in context of current events".

Basically, even though I agree with the majority of Paul's platform otherwise, I'm having trouble justifying supporting him.... considering this questionable history of despicably racist comments.

A complete summary of those comments can be found here, where the Houston Chronicle reported in 1996 on the racist and anti-semitic comments that were published in Ron Paul's newsletter, and attributed to him as author in 1992.

For the purpose of discussion, I wanted to be as objective as possible, thus limit it to indisputable facts from credible sources regarding the racial comments from Paul's newsletter.


FACTS:


1992 - Racial comments appear by "Ron Paul" in Paul's newsletter.

1996 - Paul defends comments and asserts they are his own to the Houston Chronicle.

2001 - Paul claims he did not write the comments, asserts a staffer did, yet still defends them as being "in context" in an interview with Texas Monthly.

2007 - "Unnamed sources" in an article on "Freemarketnews" claims Paul's campaign have nothing to do with newsletter, it was written by outside source.

(I'm not familiar with the credibility of "Freemarketnews.com", as I've never seen them before, and the credibility of "unnamed sources" is obviously dubious.....but even so, it has been asserted as credible by Borodog, so I'll list it here for the purpose of objectivity.)

Questions that arise:

1. Why did Paul claim they were his words and defend them 4 years later, in 1996, if he initially disagreed with them as is claimed in 2007?

2. Why did Paul wait 9 years to finally claim they weren't his words in 2001? And even then, why did he still defend them as being accurate "in the context of current events"?

3. When was this staffer "fired" as has been asserted? No credible source exists that I can find.

[AlexM]

Your questions have all already been answered. HAND

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Your questions have all already been answered. HAND

[/ QUOTE ]

While I appreciated your input in the other thread, I didn't feel the questions were adequately addressed.

In fact, it pretty much turned into Paul supporters resorting to name-calling, and hopefully we can leave that behind, and stick to legitimate discussion of the facts.

And I certainly respect your aversion to discussing it anymore, as the Paul's position on these comments appears rather indefensible when limited to facts and credible sources.

[ojc02]

Ok, he was wrong to allow his name to be used without maintaining close editorial control over what was said.

Ron Paul either is or is not a racist. You have presented evidence you that believe proves he is a racist. I choose to believe those words were in fact not written by him because they are totally at odds with everything else he has said or written.

This feels like one of the religion conversations in SMP. When it comes down to it, it is impossible to prove one way or the other - ultimately we'll get nowhere.

I choose to believe the side with *vastly* more evidence. You will keep harping on the same one thing. Sigh.


Incidentally, for the lurkers:
Ron Paul on racism:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul192.html

and I'm sure there are more where that came from.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, he was wrong to allow his name to be used without maintaining close editorial control over what was said.


[/ QUOTE ]

If that is the case, why did he defend the words as his own 4 years later, in the 1996 Houston Chronicle article?

And in 2001, why did he claim they were written by a staffer, rather than a source outside his campaign, as was asserted by "unnamed sources" in 2007?

[ QUOTE ]
I choose to believe those words were in fact not written by him because they are totally at odds with everything else he has said or written.


[/ QUOTE ]

If they are at odds with everything else he has said or written, why did he defend them in both 1996 and 2001 interviews as being accurate "in context to current events"?

[ QUOTE ]

When it comes down to it, it is impossible to prove one way or the other - ultimately we'll get nowhere.


[/ QUOTE ]


It may be impossible to prove whether or not Paul is inherently a racist, but it is most definately a matter of fact that he participated in asserting and defending these particular racist views, as backed by the facts above.

It had previously been asserted that these claims were false, hence the desire to discuss the relevant facts and credible sources in the abscence of childish name-calling and other rhetoric.

[ QUOTE ]
I choose to believe the side with *vastly* more evidence. You will keep harping on the same one thing. Sigh.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "one thing" appears to be the systematic defense of a despicably racist viewpoint over the course of 10+ years.

I understand you may think it "isn't a big deal", but this man is running for President, after all. It's kind of a big deal to the folks who Paul appears to be bigoted against.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, for the lurkers:
Ron Paul on racism:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul381.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul192.html


[/ QUOTE ]

Each of these pieces is after the 2001 interview.

Is it possible his "new public stance" was motivated by the need for 'damage control' as a result of the negative publicity received from the racist comments previously authored by him in his newsletter?

After all, he is a politician.

What better way to repair his negative image on racism than to pump out several pieces advocating a 180-degree stance?

After all, it seems to have worked on you.

[RedBean]

Damn....this thread has already made it up to the 2nd page in Google Search results.

I didn't realize 2+2 had so much reach.

[Bedreviter]

Is it possible that those statements were in fact not made by Ron Paul? They were in contradiction with everything he had said before or after, and the style it was written in diverges widely from his own.

If all you can find to link Ron Paul to racist beliefs are 20 year old newsletters that he claims wasnt written by himself, and no statements made directly by Ron Paul or any votes he has made seem to be anywhere close to have a racist foundation, isnt it very likely that he in fact is not a racist?

If a person who has been in politics and in the media for so long as Ron Paul without showing any racist tendencies doesnt that count a lot more than something he claims wasnt written by him? If hes a racist he undoubtly a very inefficient one, having nothing to show for his beliefs than some old newsletters that he may not even have written by himself.

Why do you think those old newsletters represents his views stronger than everything else he has ever said or done? Im not even a Ron Paul-supporter, but I hardly see how this is even remotely enough to label him racist.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your questions have all already been answered. HAND

[/ QUOTE ]

While I appreciated your input in the other thread, I didn't feel the questions were adequately addressed.

In fact, it pretty much turned into Paul supporters resorting to name-calling

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when you completely ignore the piles of evidnece presented to you that you are wrong and keep repeating your trash, things are going to devolve into name calling. This is pretty much true with anything.

[theseus51]

I don't know much about the newsletter. But he's been in office for 20 years, and written hundreds or thousands of articles, and gave thousands of speeches. He's spoken to tens of thousands of people, both publicly, and in private.

You would think, that with all those conversations, written documents, etc. that there would be at least one other instance of him being racist. Voicing concern over the war, and monetary policy, he has a lot of enemies. Especially now that he's running for President, everyone is looking for dirt on all the candidates.

You would think they could dig up something, ANYTHING else showing racism, other than some ancient newsletter that doesn't sound like anything he's ever said in the past, or since. You would think . . .