Ron Paul: Racist Newsletters Had 'Some Very Bad Sentences'
Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul on Sunday admitted that racist and homophobic newsletters published in his name called into question his management style, but insisted there were only eight offensive sentences.
"I wrote a lot of part of the letter," Paul told ABC's Jake Tapper. "And I've never said I didn't. I wrote some of the -- you know, the economic parts. I was not the editor. I was the publisher. And there were some very bad sentences put in. I did not write those. I did not review them."
"I think that people ought to, you know, look at my position there, rather than dwelling on eight sentences that I didn't write and didn't authorize and have been, you know, apologetic about, because it shouldn't have been there and it was terrible stuff," he added.
As Tapper observed, there are significantly more than eight offensive sentences in the newsletters. The New Republic recently published about 30 excerpts that many would consider inflammatory.
"You published a for-profit newsletter under your own name for decades, didn't know it included extremely offensive statements," Tapper noted. "Assuming what you're saying is 100 percent true, you did not see these sentences, doesn't this call into question your management style?"
"Well, yeah, I think so," Paul agreed. "But nobody -- I don't think anybody in the world has been perfect on management, everybody that's ever worked for them. So, yes, it's a flaw. But I think it's a human flaw."
Tapper also asked Paul about a former staffer who claimed that the candidate had suggested President George W. Bush had known ahead of time about the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
"That's complete nonsense," an irritated Paul objected. "About the conspiracy of Bush -- of Bush knowing about this? No, no, come on. Come on. Let's be reasonable. That's just off the wall."
In a statement to Right Wing News last week, former senior aide Eric Dondero wrote that Paul shared the beliefs of some so-called 9/11 truthers.
"He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time," Dondero said.
Liar.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
But drronpaul only sees a problem with 8.
QED
is a racist based upon something other than these newsletters? He didn't write the text. He's associated with the publishing of it. Deserves some heat for that. How much heat is a different question. What intrigues me is that there seem to be no other any confirmatory behaviors. If he is/was a racist you'd think there'd be a more substantial record. A videotape; something more directly tied to his own behavior rather than a secondary association. He certainly holds the progressive positions regarding the Empire; the "War on people taking drugs" and personal liberties issues. He seems to be tied to the Constitution far more than Obama and the remote control murder of civilians from the skies; war on medical marijuana and effective pardoning of war criminals and torturers. all elections are about the lesser of two flawed individuals. Paul seems to have fewer scarier flaws than Obama certainly outside the u.s. and possibly inside. Paul won't fold on promises the way President Accordion has.
What intrigues me is that there seem to be no other any confirmatory behaviors.
What intrigues me is that you believe his ass-covering bullshit.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
The true worry is what he'd like to do to our society . . . dismantle it in favour of "personal liberty", I.E. the freedom to do anything you want without fear of consequence. Take a good hard look at this blog, and check the various links: they show the texts of the actual bills Rep. Paul has sponsored in the House, and they are a scary set, sunshine.
http://paxamericana.tumblr.com/post/13507194341
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" - Red Green
Freedom Ain't Free - Pay Your Share
even without his newletters. His personal behavior bears it out.
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." -- Robert E. Howard
This is pure slander. What personal behavior bears it out?
The fact that he didn't deny donations, one amongst MILLIONS, from some organization that is labelled as Racist? What a joke! And theres a picture of him with members of this group at a campaign rally...... ONE PICTURE AMONGST MILLIONS OF PICTURES HE TOOK WITH PEOPLE! Use your fucking brain.
The fact that he spoke at the John Birch Society regarding constitutional issues he's supposed to be a racist? Because the society is historically anti-communist?
The fact that he doesn't support social welfare or foreign aid funding despite that that is obviously in direct-line with his libertarian beliefs? He is obviously in no way against charity and believes you should be able to do what you please with the fruits of your labor. Give all your money away and live in poverty if you please.
The fact that he doesn't agree in supporting Israel, Saudi Arabia or other middle eastern countries with $billions arms agreements?
Or perhaps you openly agree with the opinions of a single defector from his campaign with regards to his positions on key issues instead of listening to Ron Paul's actual statements. He clearly has the most clean, honest record - taking unpopular stances on a whole slew of positions regardless of public opinion. NO ONE thinks of Ron Paul as dishonest. But you decide to listen to the pathetic attempts at character assassination instead.
If only St Ronnie II of Randyville were a 'real' republican Rove wouldn't have to use these kinds of tactics. Now poor Ronnie is going to have to run as an Independent sucking votes away from whoever beats their way out of the clown car first guaranteeing an Obama victory. Where's that damn popcorn.
dada .. dum ..
Ok .. I'm popping up another batch of popcorn ..
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
was involve with 9/11, it is still true that the CIA was involve with the Taliban, Al Queda, and Osama during the Afgan war against the Soviet Union. It is also truth that the Bush family are involve with the CIA and Osama's family. And it is also a fact that when Bush was warned about the possiblity of al Queda attacking America he blew it off. Based on all of these facts it is far more credible that the CIA was involved in 9/11 than Obama was born in Kenya.
With the end of the Soviet Union the military and the CIA faced severe downsizing. The 9/11 attack was a godsend for both. The attack also gave America an excuse for military presence in an area that is important in controlling the major world oil reserves and oil transportation routes.
9/11 also gave the Republican Party a new boogieman with which to scare the American voters with so they screw the average American and still stay in power.
For the above reasons some people are suspicous about 9/11.
There certainly are still a lot of unanswered questions around that event.
...was going to happen.
(she didn't say when but)...she warned him.
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
and cracked him another beer...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
...we'd have a guy who doesn't know, or care, what his subordinates are doing under his authority.
And on who'd easily make excuses and denials for crimes and errors.
A perfect Republican.
I wonder about his apparent unconcern for what was being done in his name. I mean, if he was captain of the Titanic, he'd be saying it wasn't his fault the ship hit an iceberg, and that it he's still qualified to be captain.
Not the kind of person I want heading up the government of this country.
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" - Red Green
Freedom Ain't Free - Pay Your Share
It not just his words, it's his body language when grilled about those racist newsletters. It is racist to be a conservative in a country like America.
Better than signing a bill allowing for indefinite detention of US citizens....
and he wins (in spite of the MSM mercilessly attacking him for weeks) it really won't mean anything:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soHAOVZzXtA
The ruling corporate elite have decided that no one but one of their own (Neocons all) dare come near The White House. That is THEIR house. THEIR power. THEIR money to control.
In spite of all the smearing, one has to wonder to what extent the ruling corporate elite would go to to make sure that even a democratically elected president in the United States would NEVER actually be allowed to take the oath of office and have the power, with stroke of a pen, to upend their quest for total global military/economic hegemony.
Of course we do know that the CIA has done just that in other countries, eh? Allende comes to mind.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
RE: "to what extent the ruling corporate elite would go to to make sure that even a democratically elected president in the United States would NEVER actually be allowed to take the oath of office "
I think we have at least partial answer to that question based on what happened in 2000. Not saying I know what Gore would have done as Pres, but the Powers that Be definitely rigged FL and then had the Supremes sanctify the selection of Dubya.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
Have a fucked New Year, asshole.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Unbelievable. Does that clown have a chip on his shoulder or what?
I couldn't make a lot of sense out of it. Probably the next Jim Jones....
What is your conceptual, continuity?
to make sure it was as fucked as it was. It was.
I guess when David Duke or Lyndon LaRouche isn't running for Pres, those guys gotta have someone to vote for, eh?
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Ron Paul on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/civil-ri...
The civil rights act, which banned businesses from refusing to serve black customers and to refuse to consider black applicants for employment, was upheld by the Supreme Court under the commerce clause.
Ron thinks: "The rights of all private property owners, even those whose actions decent people find abhorrent, must be respected if we are to maintain a free society."
He thinks that business should be free to discriminate under a freedom of association rationale. This earns him the support of those who wish a return of Jim Crow in commerce. I think there is the risk of harm to black folks, particularly in rural communities if Jim Crow is again permitted in commerce.
When we vote for a President, among other things, we're voting for a nominator of Supreme Court justices. Since keeping the ban on racial bigotry in commerce is a high priority for me, I cannot support this candidacy.
I would have loved to seen a challenger to Obama in the Democratic primaries that holds Ron Paul's foreign policy viewpoint. Ron Paul also brings a better choice to the drug war than the current policy of maximizing cash flows to criminal syndicates.
Some dark skinned people on Ron Paul: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_e...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej5_rZof7MA&fe...
Someone on the outside looking in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axN53qCJChY
Don't come to me looking for a job. I can't hire you because any mistake you make will reflect badly on me.
Incredible journalist and Constitutional lawyer, Glenn Greenwald, lays out exactly why the RON PAUL question is such a critical one for people who consider themselves progressives.
http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_...
http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/nxm...
Ron Paul holds a mirror to progressives who Voted Obama into office and intend to vote for him again...and reveals the MASSIVE contradiction/betrayal you have to make to your ideals in doing so.
Greenwald does not deny the many worst of 2 evils analyses you have to make given unlikely overlap in positions, but it forces you to decide exactly what's more important - and Greenwald honestly and succinctly lays out the major issues at hand (WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE SO IN THE MANY MANY ANTI-RON PAUL RANTS ON The C&L Comment boards AND by the C&L blog posters themselves.)
I CHALLENGE YOU TO ADDRESS GLENN GREENWALDS ARGUEMENTS!! How do you come to piece with these moral decisions you're forced to face when you pile on the criticism on the ONLY CANDIDATE WHO IS TRULY AGAINST WAR OF AGRESSION, INDISCRIMINATE excess in breach of executive branch power and DESTRUCTION OF CIVIL LIBERTIES.
By the way, President Obama signed into law the NDAA with a long signing statement saying he would be sure to play good president and not indefinitely detain American citizens, even though the very bill he signs into law says he can... The reality is, YOUR PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT DID THIS. This is single-handedly one of the most disturbing attacks on civil-liberties in HISTORY. YOUR PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT ordered the assassination of a 16 year old American Citizen in Yemen. You have to come to grips with the FACT that RON PAUL AND RAND PAUL WERE AGAINST THIS KIND OF POWER. YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS!
THESE ARE DISTURBING ACTIONS. THEY HAPPENED, AND WILL CONTINUE TO. All the time and effort you spend to discredit Ron Paul over RHETORIC which no-one can tie to any actual action or real concerning behavior that has adversely affected anyone.
"The thing I loathe most about election season is reflected in the central fallacy that drives progressive discussion the minute “Ron Paul” is mentioned. As soon as his candidacy is discussed, progressives will reflexively point to a slew of positions he holds that are anathema to liberalism and odious in their own right and then say: how can you support someone who holds this awful, destructive position? The premise here — the game that’s being played — is that if you can identify some heinous views that a certain candidate holds, then it means they are beyond the pale, that no Decent Person should even consider praising any part of their candidacy.
The fallacy in this reasoning is glaring. The candidate supported by progressives — President Obama — himself holds heinous views on a slew of critical issues and himself has done heinous things with the power he has been vested. He has slaughtered civilians — Muslim children by the dozens — not once or twice, but continuously in numerous nations with drones, cluster bombs and other forms of attack. He has sought to overturn a global ban on cluster bombs. He has institutionalized the power of Presidents — in secret and with no checks — to target American citizens for assassination-by-CIA, far from any battlefield. He has waged an unprecedented war against whistleblowers, the protection of which was once a liberal shibboleth. He rendered permanently irrelevant the War Powers Resolution, a crown jewel in the list of post-Vietnam liberal accomplishments, and thus enshrined the power of Presidents to wage war even in the face of a Congressional vote against it. His obsession with secrecy is so extreme that it has become darkly laughable in its manifestations, and he even worked to amend the Freedom of Information Act (another crown jewel of liberal legislative successes) when compliance became inconvenient."
...I didn't get the memo.
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
Comments are closed on this entry