Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Ron Paul's Racism Is Back in the Spotlight

Posted by on Tue, Dec 20, 2011 at 1:32 PM

Slog has been continually reminding you of this for the last four years, but because he's at the top of Iowa polls, it's time for the media to remind you that Ron Paul's newsletter was a hotbed of racist and bigoted thought for years. The New York Times explains:

A 1992 passage from the Ron Paul Political Report about the Los Angeles riots read, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” A passage in another newsletter asserted that people with AIDS should not be allowed to eat in restaurants because “AIDS can be transmitted by saliva”; in 1990 one of his publications criticized Ronald Reagan for having gone along with the creation of the federal holiday honoring the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., which it called “Hate Whitey Day.”

The Ron Paul team's defense is that Dr. Congressman Paul was unaware of the white supremacist writing that was repeatedly published in a newsletter that bears his name. This is a completely unsatisfying response, especially when you pair it with all the allegations against his son, Rand Paul. There's an old expression about smoke being a leading indicator of fire that I think applies here. Even more damning: Ta-Nehisi Coates at The Atlantic reminds us that Ron Paul has defended those racist statements:

...In 1992, Paul published a newsletter in which he claimed:

Given the inefficiencies 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.

Paul defended this statement citing criminal justice stats and saying, "These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

Dear Ron Paul supporters: The man is a bigot. He's a bigot when the media starts paying attention to his bigoted views, and he's a bigot when the media isn't paying attention to his bigoted views. He's always been one, and he'll always be one. He hasn't apologized for providing a platform for bigots, and he hasn't apologized for defending their bigoted views. If you vote for Ron Paul, you're voting for a bigot.

 

Comments (33) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
But.. but... liberty! Fiat currency! Liberty!
Posted by Proteus on December 20, 2011 at 1:40 PM · Report this
the idiot formerly known as kk 2
Ron Paul did not disavow those newsletters back in 1996 when he was questioned about them. He defended them.
Posted by the idiot formerly known as kk on December 20, 2011 at 1:42 PM · Report this
Vince 3
They don't care or they are bigots, too. Either way, he's a fucking loser.
Posted by Vince on December 20, 2011 at 1:43 PM · Report this
4
Libertarianism is the "fuck you got mine" platform. These people, pretty much by definition, don't give a shit.
Posted by Ruke on December 20, 2011 at 1:50 PM · Report this
5
Why didn't America care when the Pauls won their elections? Now that the Republicans, who appear to own everything, are worried about Paul vs Obama for real do we suddenly care. In other words, we are a bunch of bigoted arseholes who are just fine with Ron Paul's dark side unless the issue is getting that darkie our of the white house. THAT's different. Sickening.
Posted by modrachlan srarmons on December 20, 2011 at 1:50 PM · Report this
6
I'm not advocating for Ron Paul or anything, but it speaks volumes about the state of our democracy when we might have a choice next election between a bigot/racist and someone who has no problem detaining U.S. citizens in military captivity without trial. Can we throw in a known pedophile just to mix things up?
Posted by jlar on December 20, 2011 at 1:52 PM · Report this
7
Bigots now have a candidate they can get behind. This county is full of racist and homophobic voters. Republicans simply drop a few dog-whistle terms and keep a few safe distance associations so the hate voters know whom to support.
Posted by randomitis on December 20, 2011 at 1:53 PM · Report this
8
Ron Paul supporters: Paulyannas, or Paultroons?
Posted by Warren Terra on December 20, 2011 at 1:55 PM · Report this
Fnarf 9
One of Paul's defenses is that he didn't write them, Lew Rockwell did. Lew Rockwell is the "Austrian" kook economist and racist dirtbag you may remember from the libertarian intern Slog had earlier this year, who loved Rockwell dearly. He advocates the total elimination of the state. Ron Paul reads him every day.
Posted by Fnarf http://www.facebook.com/fnarf on December 20, 2011 at 1:57 PM · Report this
10
ron paul's obvious racism (not to mention the pro-life nonsense he spews) is just a different side of the same coin that sends billions of dollars to israel for infrared sniper scopes to use against rock throwing palestines.

one is just marketed correctly for american en masse.

with this in mind, i may vote for him if he's anywhere near viable, which i doubt.
Posted by Swearengen on December 20, 2011 at 1:58 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 11
RP's main attraction is that he isn't a DFH. He's the candidate for the "I don't want no Commies in my car. No Christians, either!" crowd.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on December 20, 2011 at 2:22 PM · Report this
12

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

Dec 9, 2011 Washington Times
Bill Ayers
Posted by Supreme Ruler Of The Universe http://_ on December 20, 2011 at 2:26 PM · Report this
13
Ah, I see the establishment media talking points got sent out today.
Posted by Spindles on December 20, 2011 at 2:28 PM · Report this
bedipped 14
Congress Votes to Honor Rosa Parks With Gold Medal
Rosa Parks, who stoked the Civil Rights Movement by refusing to give up her seat to a White man on a segregated bus, will receive the Congressional Gold Medal under legislation sent to the White House. The House voted 424-1 to award the 86 year-old Alabama native Congress' most prestigious civilian honor. Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the only lawmaker to vote against the bill. The Senate passed the measure 86-0. President Clinton is expected to sign it.
Jet Magazine, May 10, 1999
Posted by bedipped on December 20, 2011 at 2:48 PM · Report this
15
@Swearengen I try to tell this to people all the time. "But those palestinians are terrorists!" is almost always the response I get. "They should be trying to work with the Israelis, not spouting hateful rhetoric." Or some variation.

Somehow they rarely make the connection when I respond with "but those black people in South Central are criminals! They should be trying to get a job, not spouting misogynistic rap music."
Posted by jlar on December 20, 2011 at 2:58 PM · Report this
blip 16
@13 What a rousing defense. If that's any indication Paul's moment in the spotlight will be the shortest of the Not-Romneys.
Posted by blip on December 20, 2011 at 3:09 PM · Report this
bleedingheartlibertarian 17
As someone who is sympathetic to a lot (not all) of what Ron Paul advocates--and particularly his views on foreign policy in contrast to the rest of the GOP, and frankly most Democrats as well--I really wish his point of view had a better standard-bearer.

I mean...it does, they just aren't politicians.
Posted by bleedingheartlibertarian on December 20, 2011 at 3:20 PM · Report this
18
@17 Gary Johnson would have been better.

"If you vote for Ron Paul, you're voting for a bigot."

I'd prefer not to vote for someone that Paul Constant thinks is a bigot, but I'd prefer a dovish bigot over the mass drone-murderer we have now.
Posted by Podvodnimoz on December 20, 2011 at 5:12 PM · Report this
19
Pauls rise is a welcome bi-product of the new media. The era where the establishment media [lap dogs of the 1%] choose the candidates can't end soon enough. If you told me that Paul was a devoted puppy drowner in college I would still vote for him. You guys would prefer Gingrich over Paul!? Buck up and take your medicine.
Posted by porchedge on December 20, 2011 at 7:02 PM · Report this
blip 20
I'd take the drowned puppy over both of them.
Posted by blip on December 20, 2011 at 7:40 PM · Report this
sirkowski 21
@6 Except that's not true.
Posted by sirkowski http://www.missdynamite.com on December 20, 2011 at 8:52 PM · Report this
22
Yeah, it's so funny when Paulturds try to deny that he has some connection with it. Even if he didn't write them, he clearly signed off on them! Even if it was Lew Rockwell, Ron Paul loves Rockwell!

My favorite was when someone tried to tell me that I shouldn't assume Ron Paul endorses everything he puts in his newsletter because "maybe he just believes more in freedom of speech!"
Posted by Whoop Di Doo on December 20, 2011 at 9:08 PM · Report this
23
The Atlantic article describes the newsletter as "steeped in homophobia and anti-Semitism". I've actually heard Ron Paul speak out against homophobia and explain that, as a trained medical doctor, prejudice against gay people has never seemed scientifically compelling to him. He's also opposed a constitutional amendment against gay marriage and has said that any voluntary associations, including gay marriage, should be permissible under the constitution.

One thing you don't see politicians flip flopping on very much is an issue like gay marriage. Other than Obama, of course.
Posted by Amanda on December 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM · Report this
dan10things 24
Ron Paul is also for a lot of positive things I wish Obama was for, including gay marriage, ending the drug war, and he opposed the Iraq and Afghanistan wars all along. There's no perfect candidate, Obama sure isn't one, it's weird when Paul is a lot more liberal than Obama on many issues.
Posted by dan10things http://10thingszine.blogspot.com on December 21, 2011 at 12:59 AM · Report this
Posted by 1234567890 on December 21, 2011 at 5:23 AM · Report this
26
Also, here's the Austin NAACP president saying Paul isn't racist: http://www.nolanchart.com/article1134-na…

"Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years."
Posted by 1234567890 on December 21, 2011 at 5:30 AM · Report this
27
In regards to the medal for Rosa Parks, Ron Paul voted against the use of federal funds to pay for it. He recommended paying for it by having every member of congress contribute $100, which didn't fly with congress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8…

He's 100% guilty of hiring someone that flew in under the radar as having discriminatory leanings and not having proper oversite of the newsletter editing process. But he's not racist.
Posted by hotratspeaches on December 21, 2011 at 10:42 AM · Report this
28
In regards to the medal for Rosa Parks, Ron Paul voted against the use of federal funds to pay for it. He recommended paying for it by having every member of congress, including himself, contribute $100, which didn't fly with congress. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cs-0AXWV8

He's 100% guilty of hiring someone that flew in under the radar as having discriminatory leanings and not having proper oversite of the newsletter editing process.

But he's not racist.
Posted by hotratspeaches on December 21, 2011 at 10:45 AM · Report this
29
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAND with The Stranger's logic, everyone that voted to hire Richard Nixon as president is racist. http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscar…
Posted by hotratspeaches on December 21, 2011 at 11:51 AM · Report this
30
Anybody that thinks Ron Paul is racist or bigoted just hasn't actually read anything factually-based on the matter. The bottom line is that this is a minor blemish (that happened 20 years ago) on an otherwise outstandingly consistent record of fighting for the individual liberties of Americans (all races included).

Still think he's racist? Look up his record in regards to ending the drug war (which directly helps minorities), his pro-bono medical work for low income patients (again, minorities), or anything that has to do with the preservation of individual liberties. The liberties, freedoms and permissions of any group all stem from those rights of the individual.

But really, who fucking cares about this? Bill Clinton was an adulterer, GW was a drug user; I want to focus on POLICY. Which is why the mainstream media machine is churning out this nearly slanderous message of Ron Paul, because if they chose to battle his ideals on policy alone, they wouldn't stand a chance. This is fear-mongering 101.
Posted by reedhootvoostreel on December 21, 2011 at 12:00 PM · Report this
31
"But really, who fucking cares about this? Bill Clinton was an adulterer, GW was a drug user; I want to focus on POLICY."

Because those things actually don't have a lot to do with policy, but racism does, especially racism this virulent. And as for Ron Paul's record on race, actually, he is opposed to affirmative action and any form of legal protection against job and housing discrimination. Not exactly a friend to the black community. Also, it is true that poor people are disproportionately minorities, but again, his legislative record more than undoes whatever little benefit he had to the poor community with his medical services, as he wants to get rid of pretty much all government aid toward poor, including allowing poor students a chance at a college education through Pell grants, providing the poor with health care via Medicare and Medicaid, even hindering K-12 public education!

The fact that he's for rights for "all races" and genders and classes - but not issues that apply specifically to certain groups, such as women, racial minorities, LGBT people or poor people - is precisely what's wrong with Ron Paul. He only cares about issues that affect him, but actually stands in the way of furthering the rights of underprivileged groups, because, like many libertarians, he likes to believe that we live in a color-blind, class-blind, etc. society. But we don't. And if we continue to act like everyone has the same chances at success, that we all just have to pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, that's only going to push underprivileged groups further behind.

And lastly, something tells me that if you were a black man in D.C., it wouldn't be just a "minor blemish" to you that a potential president of the U.S. thinks you have a 95% chance of being "semi-criminal or entirely criminal" due to your race. No matter how many years ago he wrote it.
More...
Posted by Whoop Di Doo on December 22, 2011 at 9:17 PM · Report this
32
"Also, here's the Austin NAACP president saying Paul isn't racist"

ONE BLACK DUDE THINKS HE'S NOT A RACIST, ERGO, NO WAY ANYONE CAN THINK HE'S RACIST! BLACK PEOPLE ARE ALL THE SAME!
Posted by Whoop Di Doo on December 22, 2011 at 9:21 PM · Report this
33
Also I forgot to add that with the drug war example, that's completely ridiculous because there are a million reasons for wanting to end the drug war, and the racial profiling aspect of it is just one of them.
Posted by Whoop Di Doo on December 22, 2011 at 9:24 PM · Report this

Add a comment

In an effort to keep the discourse respectful and on topic, commenting on this item is available only to registered commenters.
Advertisement

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy