Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« If Your Child's Breath Smells ... | I Went and Saw Improv and Stan... »

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

The End of Ron Paul

posted by on January 8 at 11:36 AM

The New Republic has unearthed Ron Paul’s old newsletters—Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report—which the candidate himself has refused to release. They’re not pretty.

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.

Traditions like this:

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul’s newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. (“What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!” one newsletter complained in 1990. “We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.”) In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the “X-Rated Martin Luther King” as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours,” “seduced underage girls and boys,” and “made a pass at” fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as “a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke.

Read the whole, distressing thing here.

RSS icon Comments


Do you really think this is going to stop the Paultards? To get behind this man, you've got to be delusional to begin with. If you can manage to rationalize away his insane economic policies, anti-environmentalism, free market dogmatism, and the like, what makes you think this will be any different?

Posted by Gitai | January 8, 2008 11:42 AM

is it just me or does that link go no where?

Posted by Lee | January 8, 2008 11:45 AM

This is indeed a surprising discovery about Profesor Paul. And to think: none of the warning signs were there.

Posted by mattymatt | January 8, 2008 11:45 AM

I'm sorry, I know I shouldn't, but I can't stop laughing over this. Ron Paul and David Duke! He's Timmy McVeigh in a nice suit of clothes, and all these fucking hippies think he's the messiah! What an impossible scumbag. Truly a great and representative American.

Paul himself has the look of a guy who's thinking "I can't believe I'm getting away with this shit now after what I've said before".

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 11:45 AM

Look, I said Ron Paul was a loon.

The sad thing is he's the most sane of the current crop of Republicants running for office.

They are literally scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

He'll get 14 to 18 percent of the GOP vote in New Hampshire is my bet.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 8, 2008 11:47 AM

Did they fabricate anything along the way?

Posted by Mr. Poe | January 8, 2008 11:48 AM

Hey, he sounds like Robert Byrd!

Posted by DOUG. | January 8, 2008 11:53 AM

The links have been stuck on "loading" for me for a good 10 minutes. Anyone know a good mirror?

Posted by Vasya | January 8, 2008 11:57 AM

Hmm... the tone of this post indicates that you think that these items will be seen as negatives by the Ronbots. The Ronvolution is just beginning...

Posted by Original Andrew | January 8, 2008 11:59 AM

All that is alleged is that I wanted only African-American actors at Langston Hughes. THAT is supposed to make racist? You might as well call me a fascist. I can't do much to save our community here as the shitty gentrification continues, but my people have pride. If you want to escort me away from the job, so be it.

Posted by Jaqueline Moscow | January 8, 2008 12:01 PM

The only person Ron Paul has made irrelevant is Lyndon LaRouche.

Posted by K | January 8, 2008 12:02 PM

Dan's posting: "The New Republic has unearthed Ron Paul's old newsletters"

TNR article: "Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society."

Going to an actual physical library and using it to "unearth" information shouldn't be so shocking of an action.

Posted by stinkbug | January 8, 2008 12:02 PM

No wonder the white supremists were all over him. He's their poster boy.

Would you like me to pretend to be shocked or can I just skip that?

Posted by monkey | January 8, 2008 12:06 PM

Hey, I'm doing a search for the docs and came up with this Ron Paul website that's just a photo of him with these giant, glowing, oscillating eyes!


Posted by Original Andrew | January 8, 2008 12:09 PM

The "end of Ron Paul" is a re-hashing of the same newsletters which contain articles he did not write, published by an organization he didn't even have a majority interest in? Give me a break and stop being such sensationalist jackasses because you are terrified of libertarian ideals becoming more accepted.

Posted by Chris | January 8, 2008 12:12 PM

I love when these are "discovered", every week or so for the past 12 months. Is it time again?

Posted by torrentprime | January 8, 2008 12:18 PM

I was going to disagree with @1 and say that this has to finally show these ridiculous people that this guy is a world-class scumbag, but Chris @ 15 proved that this will never happen. Unbelievable.

Articles he didn't write? You have got to be kidding. Whether he wrote them or not, he clearly endorsed them, and the hateful ideas they promoted.

Not a majority interest? The organization was called RON PAUL & ASSOCIATES.

Seriously unbelievable.

Posted by Tone | January 8, 2008 12:19 PM

Maybe you could tell just EXACTLY what kind of an interest Ron Paul had in The Ron Paul Survival Report. I'm sure it's nothing. It's only got his name on it. Ron Paul and Associates; no, definitely nothing to do with him. Unbylined articles appearing under Ron Paul's name in the banner? Why, what kind of a fool would think Ron Paul had anything to do with that?

Oh, good, there's a connection to the Confederacy-apologist movement, too. We all know what fine, upstanding citizens those people are.

Chris, the problem with your argument is that you are defending the White Power movement. Feel funny about that in any way?

I notice Sullivan hasn't said anything about it yet. I know Sullivan knows who David Duke is. This ought to be good.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 12:22 PM

@15, If you ask really nice, maybe Kucinich would give you a ride on his spaceship.

Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty | January 8, 2008 12:28 PM

wow this took long enough to unearth.

man voting for president could easily be a full time job if you wanted to be truly fair about it.

Posted by Cale | January 8, 2008 12:29 PM

@15: He lent his name and reputation to these publications; he is responsible for what they say. Perhaps libertarians would get more respect if they knew what the fuck they were talking about.

Posted by Greg | January 8, 2008 12:31 PM

You'll like this one too: AIDS is "a politically protected disease thanks to payola and the influence of the homosexual lobby," and gays are trying to "poison the blood supply." AIDS patients shouldn't be allowed to eat in restaurants, and "they enjoy the attention and pity that comes with being sick." But then, AIDS was created in a World Health Organization laboratory in Maryland.

And of course Ron Paul, like all of his kook buddies like Timmy McVeigh and G. Gordon Liddy, advocates the violent overthrow of the US Government. "Don't fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war, let it begin here." Waco, the Trilateral Commission, the Rockefellers -- they're all in here, as they always are. Ron Paul is also pals with Gary North, Christian Reconstructionist, who advocates not for lethal injection but for STONING as the preferred method of capital punishment.

Not Ron Paul? Then how come the video about the martyrs at Waco was sold out of Ron Paul's office? Just call 1-800-RON-PAUL, and have your credit card ready. You stupid motherfucking hippies have just forked over $20 million to this creep. Nice going.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 12:34 PM

Even if you buy the indefensible argument that Ron Paul didn't actually endorse the content of these newsletters, his anti-federal ideology is objectively identical to segregationist ideology. Guess what? If federal anti-discrimination law is repealed, discrimination will be legal and all of the civil rights gains of the last 50 years would be gone.

And I actually know people who call Paul an "anti-authoritarian" and say good things about him at the same time they denounce the Democrats for selling out the LGBT community with their LGB-only ENDA effort. A President Paul would veto ENDA no matter what groups it included.

Posted by Cascadian | January 8, 2008 12:38 PM

I didn't really know anything about this tool, but when I went to the block party there was a supporter at the corner of broadway and pike holding a sign. She was a youngish street kid with blue hair, and she was so lit up on smack that she was falling asleep standing up. Not really the type of person that would make me even investigate the candidate, much like the Larouche wackos.

Posted by wisepunk | January 8, 2008 12:40 PM

@15 - Ah, yes, the "he didn't write it" line. So exactly how many times does a ghostwriter need to toss out racial slurs in a newsletter you publish under your name before those views become your property?

Posted by tsm | January 8, 2008 12:41 PM

Dan Savage, I love your sex columns. But please don't pretend you're a political journalist. You aren't. When it comes to politics, you are boring, repetitive, and uninspired.

If you liberal scumbags really think Ron Paul's a fascist or a white supremacist, then it's you who are delusional and kooky, and not we libertarians.

Posted by pwa | January 8, 2008 12:41 PM

Yes, yes! You are out to get us! You are all out to get us!

Vote for Ron Paul--as President, he will build a giant spaceship and raise us all to a better world!

Posted by Delusional and Kooky | January 8, 2008 12:49 PM

The reader comments under the TNR article are amazing. An interesting combination of the willfully ignorant and the straight-up racist. Ron Paul supporters get scarier every day.

Posted by Gabriel | January 8, 2008 12:49 PM

If you liberal scumbags really think Ron Paul's a fascist or a white supremacist

I actually don't think that Ron Paul is a fascist or a white supremacist, but he HAS BEEN pandering to those groups throughout his entire political career.

Posted by thehim | January 8, 2008 12:50 PM

One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” were better alternatives.

Some of these sound perfect for King County.

Posted by JMR | January 8, 2008 12:54 PM

I am terrified of a libertarian takeover. Petrified!

If Atlas were to shrug, so to speak, who would feed and house me? Who would give me the money I need for booze and motorcycle parts? Let's face it: I spend all day posting utter blather on blogs instead of working. I haven't done anything productive since 1989, and I don't want to.

Look, libertarians have way more than their share of ingenious ideas. Way more. Take the blimp, just as one example. And they work ten times as hard as parasites like me. That means there's tons left over to keep me in the manor to which I'm accustomed. Who wants to see that end?

But man. Look at how they chased that Fox News guy, Hannity, down the street. It was mighty. What power! What organization! Who wouldn't vote for people like that? Who wouldn't?

So yeah, I'm glad the government infiltrated Ron Paul's fine newsletter and planted those "embarrassing" articles. Please, won't someone stop these supermen? I don't want to think -- I can't! And I sure as hell don't want to work.

Mother! Help me mother!

Posted by elenchos | January 8, 2008 12:54 PM

Well really!

Who doesn't support the violent overthrow of the US Government these days?

Ronvolution: It's not just for wingnuts anymore!

Posted by Original Andrew | January 8, 2008 12:57 PM

Oh, good. JMR, the guy who bought Slogging rights, is one of them. "Welfaria", really? You're going to have a rough ride, JMR. Assuming you ever get around to posting anything.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 1:00 PM

Who is Ron Paul?

Posted by Dagney Taggart | January 8, 2008 1:01 PM

@15 and especially 26:

For the love of God, STOP! You people have elevated this guy to some sort of mythical status to the point where you've reached a Larouche-ian level of ignorance.

The problem here isn't that we're scared of your libertarian beliefs, the problems is the batshit-crazy people that he attracts. Those people are what I'm scared of. So he didn't actually write these hideous hate-filled screeds, so what? The fact remains that they were written by people that identify with and support Ron Paul, and I have to judge a candidate at least partially by the type of followers that they attract. GW Bush was a great example of this: all of the southern fundies loved him, all of the rational thinkers despised him. See how that works?

Posted by Hernandez | January 8, 2008 1:02 PM

Chris @15, you apparently missed this point from the TNR article:

... 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 it is difficult to imagine how Paul could 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.  In that respect, whether or not Paul personally wrote the most offensive passages is almost beside the point.  If he disagreed with what was being written under his name, you would think that at some point--over the course of decades--he would have done something about it.
(emphasis in original)
Posted by lostboy | January 8, 2008 1:05 PM

Read the New Republic article and then watch the "Sean Hannity vs. the mob video" again. It's way less funny now.

Posted by J.R, | January 8, 2008 1:06 PM

I'd much rather have a racist defend my rights than to have a self-described "saint" take them away from me and give them to others, instead.

People like some commenters here and most sloggers sadden me because of how completely unable they are to separate what they feel from what they know and what makes logical sense. Freedom of speech is good, and makes sense to preserve. However, to do so you need to be willing to protect the David Dukes and Stormfronts as well as the selfless flag-burning free-loving anti-war hippies. Ask the ACLU.

Posted by Chris | January 8, 2008 1:06 PM

@ 38,

Taking rights from you and giving them to others? That seems so logical, thanks for playing.

Where will you be for the RONPOCALYPSE???!!!

Posted by Original Andrew | January 8, 2008 1:13 PM
However, to do so you need to be willing to protect the David Dukes and Stormfronts as well as the selfless flag-burning free-loving anti-war hippies.

Take your red herring back, please. There's acknowledging the civil rights of bigots, and then there's actively embracing their views.

Paul has no excuse. Put the Kool-Aid down.

Posted by tsm | January 8, 2008 1:14 PM

@ #18, Sullivan has weighed in. He still loves him.

I call bullshit. If you've known about these writings in your name since 1990 and are so appalled by them why not do something to stop them?

That's what I thought.

Posted by monkey | January 8, 2008 1:14 PM
Posted by some dude | January 8, 2008 1:14 PM

Dear Mr. Logical Chris, do you think there might possibly be a difference between supporting the right of free speech and supporting one of its uglier practitioners for president?

In the dim oxygen-starved world of Ron Paul supporters, every passing car headlight looks like the sun, and every half-fired synapse seems like a revelation. But you're not the only ones with the keys to intelligent argument. In fact, you're failing miserably right now, if only you could see it.

David Duke for president, what up yo.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 1:18 PM

Oh, good. JMR, the guy who bought Slogging rights, is one of them. "Welfaria", really?

I didn't say WHICH ones sounded good. And, as I've said before, I've been a non-supporter of Paul all along.

Posted by JMR | January 8, 2008 1:20 PM

@38: There's a difference between thinking that Ron Paul has the right to his racist/conspiracy theory/anti-gay opinions and voting for him for President. Just sayin'.

Posted by J.R. | January 8, 2008 1:22 PM

Are you going to post his response? (or would that be to fair and balanced?)

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 publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
-Ron Paul

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 8, 2008 1:26 PM

As far as his resoonse goes, these newsletters have been published since 1978. That's a hell of a lot of not paying closer attention.

Posted by Postureduck | January 8, 2008 1:30 PM

Mad props to #46...SLOG is no different than Fox News in their approach to "fair & balanced" reporting.

As usual, Andrew Sullivan comes through with the real news:

You're an irresponsible journalist, Dan. Don't publish things as fact until you've verified them. You freedom hating SLOG hippies will do anything to vilify a man just because he's conservative.

Posted by TheVoiceOfReason | January 8, 2008 1:39 PM

"RON Paul's position is basically that he wrote the newsletters he stands by and someone else wrote the stuff he has disowned."

how did we get so many loony ron paul supporters in the northwest? do people support him because he looks like former speaker tom foley's bastard brother?

i swear, the media shares some responsibility, even bill mahr(sp?) who is usually ok, gave him a blow job on his show.

did somebody say sullivan supports this scumbag? sullivan is such a conservative tool.. now it turns out he is a big obama fan simply because he hates the clintons. i wonder why slog loves that douchebag so much.

Posted by SeMe | January 8, 2008 1:42 PM

Good thing every editor is held personally responsible for everything ever printed under his masthead...

Or for that matter, every politician in held personally responsible for everything any of their staffers ever said on their behalf... Obama, drugs, selling drugs...Hillary!... (for shame).

Or for that matter everything they ever actually did... I did not inhale –or- have sexual relations with that woman... I have no idea how those billing records could have gone missing like that… Noooo we didn’t kill Vince Foster…

Geeesh... Everyone is afraid of Ron because he's right. And, he would slaughter all the sacred cows... On the Right and on the Left.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 8, 2008 1:44 PM

@50 - i was JUST doing a little reading on the sacred cows he'd slaughter...



Posted by some dude | January 8, 2008 1:49 PM

49: Ron’s is neither an improbable or unlikely position. Anyone who is intellectually honest and who has LISTEND to what Ron has been saying in his speaking events quickly realizes that the disowned quotes don't sound any more like him than "first we restore the Constitution" sounds like anything any of the other candidates (on either side) would say.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 8, 2008 1:53 PM

Yes, yes, we Sloggers all hate FREEDOM®; they’ve got us there. Check and mate. Well played, indeed.

The Ronbots wouldn’t be so scary if they didn’t all have a permanent case of THE CRAZY EYES. Not to mention their plan to KILL US ALL IN OUR SLEEP should Herr Paul not be elected Preznit For Life.

Posted by Original Andrew | January 8, 2008 1:59 PM

This one IS by Paul, and his HIS SIGNATURE ON IT:

Deny all you want to. Paul is the vanguard of the G. Gordon Liddy wing of the Republican Party. Jackbooted thugs, here we come.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 2:03 PM

Hey Dan,

A responsible journalist really would at very least update this enty to include Mr. Pauls response (if only because it is relevant to the story) if not post that response as a subsequent entry.

Please do so.

Thank you!

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 8, 2008 2:05 PM

Choice quote, over Ron Paul's signature: "Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)"

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 2:07 PM


Ron Paul is on record as saying he doesn't believe in evolution. Does that sound about "right" to you, dude?

Posted by Mr. X | January 8, 2008 2:08 PM

I think this will result in another parade of Ron Paulites on WoW on a non-combat RP server.

Why? Because they're too chicken to do a PvP server.

Posted by Will in Seattle | January 8, 2008 2:10 PM

54: Looks like it was typed on Dan Rather's typewriter...

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 8, 2008 2:14 PM

You've got to be kidding me, You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me. OF COURSE he's denying it now. He's running for Preznit, not just kook congresscritter for a bunch of Neo-Confederate gold-hoarding bomb-throwers. But I think what he's said in the past is pretty relevant.

Imagine if you will the outcry if they found a "Hillary Clinton Newsletter" or "Barack Obama Report" from 15 years ago extolling the virtues of North Korea's economic system, and recommending that everybody arm up and be prepared to shoot to kill in defense of that.

Just because the Republican Party is infected with the kook-religion virus these days, and appears to have mostly whipped that nasty race-war-and-militias bug, doesn't mean it's wise to forget how bad it was in the 80s and 90s. These people blew up the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, and advocated shooting federal agents in the head on the radio. You may have forgotten them, but I haven't.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 2:17 PM

The problem here isn't that we're scared of your libertarian beliefs, the problems is the batshit-crazy people that he attracts. Those people are what I'm scared of.

This happens because Ron Paul isn't really a libertarian. Libertarians are pro-choice. Libertarians aren't terrified over the fact that Mexicans are coming here to work. Ron Paul is not a libertarian. He's a nativist, an isolationist, an extreme individualist and a reactionary who tries very hard to sound like a libertarian. Someone with his outlook doesn't make it to Congress for so long unless he learns to pander to certain constituencies, many of which have ulterior motives for wanting to get rid of government programs.

Posted by thehim | January 8, 2008 2:22 PM

Eh, gross.

I consider myself a Libertarian, but I think that implies equality and choice.

Posted by violet_dagrinder | January 8, 2008 2:28 PM

Hey, his basic approach appeals to me. He looks at a piece of legislation and asks “does The Constitution permit this” and if he can’t unequivocally say yes based on the actual words in The Constitution, he works to defeat it. If he determines The Constitution daes permit it, then he either supports it or not based on his constituents opinion of it. Every other one of these candidates (each and every one, on both sides, Conservative and Liberal) Take the exact opposite and inverted approach. First they determine how much political capital they can get by working for or against a piece of legislation, then, if they are working for it, they go to work circumventing The Constitution to the extent necessary. They all see it as an obstacle to be craftily navigated around. He sees it as the compass and chart.

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 8, 2008 2:34 PM

I can see the dilemma of the “Hippies”: those that want our national resources to be spent on mass transit instead of dropping 200 million a day on the war in Iraq. Given the track record of the Democratic party, it is rational to consider voting for Paul. To call those conflicted about supporting Paul “Ronbots” and “Paultards” is idiotic, when liberals have already decided to support the democrats no matter who gets the nomination. Who are the unthinking robots in this situation? Given the environmental and economic damage the Iraq war and our foreign policy is doing, it would be dumb not to vote for the candidate who will end the war. If Obama does not convince me that he is going to bring the troops home, and abandon our military bases in Iraq, I am voting for Paul. If that costs Obama the election, good, it would be karma.

Posted by . . . . | January 8, 2008 2:39 PM

Yes, because it's still 1789.

Wake up, You_Gotta. We live in a large and complex society of 300 million people, in a world of 6 or 7 billion. We have a huge economy. The Constitution is a great document, and is the foundation of the most successful country on earth, but we're not a nation of a few thousand farmers anymore, and looking for literalism on the subject of regulation of the airwaves or maintenance of a banking system in a 230-year-old document is insane. That's not respecting the Constitution, it's embalming it.

And Ron Paul didn't find "AIDS is a hoax invented by the government" in the damn Constitution, all right?

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 2:43 PM

Dave Neiwert has been covering Paul's dancing with the militia movement types for months. You folks are late to the party.

Posted by Tlazolteotl | January 8, 2008 2:47 PM


Posted by Tlazolteotl | January 8, 2008 2:49 PM

65: that is precisely why The Founders provided a method to amend it...

Granted, it's hard to do, (it's supposed to be) but isn't anything worth doing worth doing right?

I think this is most relevant to the office of the POTUS in that his oath is to protect THE CONSTITUTION… not the people, not the borders, not the economy, not the little babies or the wrinkled oldies… just THE CONSTITUTION. – That’s his job…

Posted by You_Gotta_Be_Kidding_Me | January 8, 2008 2:50 PM

@64 - are you in favor of the outright elimination of Medicare and Social Security, because your buddy Ron "NUTJOB" Paul wholeheartedly is.

Posted by Mr. X | January 8, 2008 3:10 PM

Honestly, the presence of his name in the masthead means exactly nothing. The newsletter had some circulation, so they could have kept the name long after Paul stopped paying attention, no?

Sure, he needs to answer for this, absolutely. Repeatedly, and full-throatedly. But do the haters here think he's spent the last 17 years of his political life playing possum until he turns president? That he's just waiting to get elected so he can throw all blacks, Jews, hispanics, etc in the camps, and build a giant fence against Mexico?

Isn't it possible--just possible--that he actually doesn't believe the stuff written in some dodgy newsletter he still happened to have his name on (which he has admitted many times was a mistake), and was sorta, kinda, vaguely associated with, a couple decades ago long after he moved onto other pursuits?

And just to be clear, I'm not a Paul supporter. My Libertarian leanings are mostly around social issues; I don't like bought-and-sold politicians treating me like a child and telling me what to do when it comes to what I put in my body, how and who I like to fuck, etc.

But like most pure idealists, he doesn't know when to quit. The federal government isn't useless, we do, in fact, need to progressively collect taxes (and yep, that means disproportionately from the rich), and there does need to be some kind of basic social safety net.

Still, Jesus. Let the man breathe.

Posted by Matthew | January 8, 2008 3:14 PM

Yes, but that's not reality. He or she is going to have to go look Vladimir Putin in the face (and hopefully see something besides his jolly old soul, like the current officeholder).

You're advocating a form of government that is associated with extreme poverty and loss of social institutions. Chad, Mali, Somalia come to mind -- no pesky government interference there! Whereas in the real world successful countries are complex. Saying "defend the Constitution" as if that means anything is just stupid. The Constitution says NOTHING about ANY of the serious issues that a president and a government has to deal with.

Saying otherwise, as you are here, is like saying that everything you need to know about criminal justice is in Leviticus. If you're leaving out the ability to interpret the documents, you are leaving out the very human capacities that went into the Constitution in the first place. The Founders were children of the Enlightenment, but the kind of attitude you express here isn't enlightened at all. It's dark and dumb and hopelessly inadequate.

And having these dim thoughts prompted by RON PAUL is just laughable, I'm sorry. I'm back where I started, laughing my ass off at the lack of thought or seriousness here. Ron Paul. Say it with me: Ron Paul. Look at those newsletters again, and come talk to me about the motherfucking Constitution.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 3:17 PM

Actually Paul has proposed beefing up SS with the money saved by bringing US troops home from around the world, not just Iraq. As commander in chief, he has the authority to end the war. His rational for this is people are already dependent on SS, and it would be inhumane to abandon them.

Posted by . . . . | January 8, 2008 3:19 PM


Well, I can believe you or what my own lying eyes saw come out of Mr. (I hesitate to use the word "Doctor" in regard to someone who repudiates evolution) Paul's mouth verbatim on an extended interview on CNN.

I choose the latter. You really ought to find a better horse.

PS - his half-hearted repudiation of Stormfront et al during the same interview didn't really help matters much, either.

Posted by Mr. X | January 8, 2008 3:55 PM

Why does this not surprise me?

Posted by Jim Demetre | January 8, 2008 3:57 PM

These Ron Paul supporters are just completely insane. On the TNR page with the article are dozens of comments from Paul supporters demanding that copies of the newsletters be posted. (They are posted.) The solicitation linked @54 is especially incriminating. It wholesale adopts the content of all the newsletters over Paul's signature. The disclaimer from the Paul campaign is just lame. Translated: "For several decades, paranoid propaganda that would make a John Bircher blush was published under my name as my report but I have no idea what it said nor do I support any of it. Oh, and I'd like to be your President and commander-in-chief." Holy shit! I wouldn't trust this guy with my fucking hedge-trimmer for the weekend, let alone the nuclear football. The supporters comments are scary, too: half simply smear the author of the article, the other half actually say the vile trash in the newsletters leads them to support Paul even more. Yecch. Go crawl back under your rocks.

Posted by kk | January 8, 2008 4:00 PM

Now we know where the Ron Paul $20 million came from: Aryan Nation. Unbelievable.

Posted by show me the $ | January 8, 2008 4:02 PM

Matthew @70: Did you not see my link to a letter written by Paul THAT HE SIGNED that contains some of this same kookery?

Did you not notice that these newsletters, which have Ron Paul's name across the top in giant letters, and no other bylines, were issued over a period of DECADES? If someone was printing this crap with my name on it (and directing contributions to my office, my phone number), I think I'd do something about it before TWENTY YEARS went by.

The apologists for Ron Paul are not credible, period. This is his constituency.

Again: if this was Clinton, people's hair would be on fire. Because it's Paul, and he's supposedly a libertarian, it's ok. Well, it's NOT OK, and Ron Paul is not a credible human being, let alone presidential candidate.

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 4:03 PM

Dan, you blew it again. Why this animus against Ron Paul? Can't you sense an ulterior motive here? Since when has Jamie Kirchick been so solicitous of blacks - or even gays, until he came out? Meanwhile, I kept looking for the putative anti-Semitism and only came up with a criticism of Congress for being supine toward the Israel. I'm not gonna be played like this.

Posted by Gosha | January 8, 2008 4:15 PM

OMFG, Slog just went down!

Has the RONBOMBING started???!!!

Posted by Original Andrew | January 8, 2008 4:17 PM

Gosha! Klaatu barata nikto!

Posted by Fnarf | January 8, 2008 4:39 PM

Fnarf, you totally fuckin' rock.

Posted by adw | January 8, 2008 6:28 PM

DO NOT BELIEVE THESE LIES!!! Ron Paul has never said such. Please see this link

Posted by Gavin | January 8, 2008 8:16 PM

John Edwards: Big Hunk.
Ron Paul: Nutrageous.

Posted by John | January 8, 2008 11:02 PM

Tsk, tsk, tsk. How can you claim the mantle of liberalism and support coercion and violence from the mafia that is the nation-state? Legal violence is still violence whether you're taxing and re-distributing income or forcing blacks to sit in the back of the bus (which the bus companies, private entities, didn't like at all). Well it doesn't matter. This can't last long... Zürich here I come! At least there they have more respect for freedom.

Posted by Ilya | January 10, 2008 7:58 PM

If anybody still reads this, excpet to see some of these printed out and placed under the windshield wipers of poeple with ron paul bumper stickers.

Wonder how many Ron Paul supporters up here on Capitol Hill realize what they are supporting?

Posted by crk on bellevue ave | January 10, 2008 10:02 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).