It's here! It's here! Here's a link to the New Republic article on Ron Paul the bigot:

[Ilsa]

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca

The New Republic

Angry White Man
by James Kirchick
The bigoted past of Ron Paul.
Post Date Tuesday, January 08, 2008

SNIP

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism."

SNIP

Paul's alliance with neo-Confederates helps explain the views his newsletters have long espoused on race. Take, for instance, a special issue of the Ron Paul Political Report, published in June 1992, dedicated to explaining the Los Angeles riots of that year. "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began," read one typical passage. According to the newsletter, the looting was a natural byproduct of government indulging the black community with "'civil rights,' quotas, mandated hiring preferences, set-asides for government contracts, gerrymandered voting districts, black bureaucracies, black mayors, black curricula in schools, black tv shows, black tv anchors, hate crime laws, and public humiliation for anyone who dares question the black agenda." It also denounced "the media" for believing that "America's number one need is an unlimited white checking account for underclass blacks." To be fair, the newsletter did praise Asian merchants in Los Angeles, but only because they had the gumption to resist political correctness and fight back. Koreans were "the only people to act like real Americans," it explained, "mainly because they have not yet been assimilated into our rotten liberal culture, which admonishes whites faced by raging blacks to lie back and think of England." snip

~~~~~

Folks, I'd post more since more paragraphs are allowed, but I can't hardly stand reading his shit. He also praised David Duke and slandered MLK.

And here's my thread from earlier today: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2627489

[Roland99]

1. Ron Paul has so many negatives about him. His stance on Iraq is merely 1 flower in a sea of sh*t.

[Ilsa]

2. Folks, the earlier thread got alot of noms, but this one has the link! nt

[H2O Man]

3. Nominated.

This is important information. Thank you for posting the up-dated thread, with the link.

[blondeatlast]

4. C'mon, you PaulBearers. Explain his way out of this one, you radical chic poseurs...

Keep this in mind as you do. HIS NAME IS ON THE NEWSLETTERS, you research-challenged poseur dimwits.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

5. Ron Paul on MLK Jr.

"What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved (MLK Jr. Day!...We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."


"X-Rated Martin Luther King...world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours...seduced underage girls and boys."

[Name removed]

6. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

9. Let me repeat this s-l-o-w-l-y. HIS NAME IS ON THE NEWSLETTERS.

hE'S RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT'S PRINTED IN THEM.

Vote for Kucinich or at least put up a better argument.

Oh, and I don't click on blind links, I like to know where I'm headed to.

[i miss america]

17. Kindly find another target for your condescension.

And congrats on being the first and only poster I've ever placed on IGNORE

Have a nice life.

[blondeatlast]

21. I'm crushed, but you didn't answer what I asked, dimwitted radical chic poseur.

I can say that since you have me on "Ignore" and all. :rofl:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. So their whole argument...

is that Abraham Lincoln was a white supremacist, and the racist stuff that Ron Paul wrote was a long time ago.

Did I get that right?

[i miss america]

12. He denied ever being a racist and those statements attributed to him.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Yes. To bad his denials are a little hard to believe...

considering the come from "The Ron Paul Newsletter."

[americanstranger]

32. That article refutes nothing.

It just brings up that Obama did coke and Rudy cross-dressed.

Any member of government - any member of government - who releases a newsletter with his name on it is responsible for its content. I don't want a president who claims that he didn't know what people who work for him are doing - we have one of those now, and we all know how well that's working out.

- as

[blondeatlast]

48. With a little editing (as in, that thing RP couldn't be bothered to do)

that would make a great stand alone post on why RP is too stupid to be president and why his supporters are too stupid to be allowed to drive, let alone vote.

[stevedeshazer]

7. K & R

Just read the whole thing.

I'm gonna print the article out to hand to all the Paulists I've been running into lately.

This nails it. The guy is an even worse dirtbag than I thought.

[in_cog_ni_to]

8. #5 K & R! GET THIS TO THE TOP OF THE GREATEST PAGE PEOPLE!

Expose the bigotry of the repuke party!

[Blarch]

11. Didn't we know it the whole time ?

I mean, just look at his NH rally. K&R

[IronLionZion]

13. Is it bad that I want him to win the Repub nomination?

:shrug:

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

18. Okay, but (apparently this needs to be shouted): HIS NAME IS ON THE TITLE AND THE MASTHEAD.

What part of "that makes him responsible" is so hard to understand?

Maybe his denials work for the dimwit radical chic poseurs who support him, but they aren't doing a thing to convince anyone else.

[Ilsa]

20. Thank you for adding that. All sides need to be heard. nt

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

19. Then leave. nt

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

24. If it were one, and only one, racist diatribe in his newsletters, I might believe that he

simply didn't read it. But it's not just one. It's many racist diatribes. Over and Over and Over again. Are we really to believe that he *never* read his own newsletter? Are we seriously to believe that no one who knew the "true" Ron Paul ever read his newsletter and informed him of what was going on? If someone told me that the SemiCharmedQuark times was writing about the evils of african americans, you can bet your ass I would fire that person and issue a retraction IMMEDIATELY.

[blondeatlast]

28. Precisely. We hear this time and time again from the PaulbBearers, but

Paul has never called out who was otherwise responsible for this--and his name is on them?!

It's utter BS and the radical chic poseur dimwits who support him never, ever answer that simple question: "Why did Paul allow deliberate misstatements of his to be published in a newsletter that bears his name?"

[SemiCharmedQuark]

33. Which brings up another question: What kind of idiot allows his name to be printed on a newsletter

that he apparently has no influence over?

[blondeatlast]

36. One far too stupid to be holding public office and who ought to be shamed into obscurity.

At least IMHO.

[blondeatlast]

25. Okay, then please explain why RP is NOT responsible for the

newsletters that bear his own name.

And with all due respect to you--I don't believe Ron Paul one little bit. He's an Ayn Rand clone who hates gays and women (he can't dispute his voting record, can he?). That's not the kind of person I'm willing to trust.

[bonito]

26. You can't defend other candidates from other party's

Here in that respect it's not a fair and balanced board, and those that attack them are cowards because they know there will be no rebuttal and are projecting.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

30. Fair and Balanced, eh?

Where've I heard that before?

[Chulanowa]

37. Ron Paul is a Republican. This is Democratic Underground

Maybe, maybe if he had the self-dignity to run as the independent he claims to be, we'd care what he says. But so far he's been pretty damn disingenuous even with the things he admits to - And pretending he had no involvement with a newsletter bearing his name that ran for over twenty years? Do you buy that?

I'm trying to envision this. A newsletter bearing his name that he at least occasionally writes for... that he apparently never reads and doesn't know who pens? The man is blowing smoke up your ass on this, just like he is on everything else.

[blondeatlast]

40. We're allowed to shred RRRepublicans on this board--and when they are as utterly STUPID

and on record with racist statements, I take pleasure in it.

Maybe he didn't say it, but who did, and why hasn't Paul outed the racist wackjob and publicly disavowed what was said in his name yet? HIS NAME IS ON THE DAMN NEWSLETTER. He could have asked that his name be removed from the masthead--but published TWENTY YEARS under his name?

I've got plenty of time...

[blondeatlast]

43. Fair and Balanced? What an interesting phrase; is it yours?

:rofl:

[in_cog_ni_to]

27. Go back to Free Republic then. Ron Paul is a racist PIG. No one here will defend him.

Why are you?

[calmblueocean]

45. Don't flush your own integrity down the toilet to defend this racist trash.

So Ron Paul claims he never wrote this vile, racist crap. Who did? Does Ron Paul claim he NEVER read ANY of the various newsletters with his own name on them? It strains belief, and the blind, unquestioning loyalty of Ron Paul supporters is shameful to watch. At the very least, the most generous interpretation of these decades of shameful attacks on gays and blacks show that Ron Paul lacks good judgment in his associates and deceived his own supporters for years. I'd like to see at least one Ron Paul supporter acknowledge this.

[blondeatlast]

47. Nut apparently that makes him uniquely qualified to be President. Woops--

he may be right, considering President Kowboy Kennebunkport.

[readmoreoften]

22. WAIT GARY NORTH IS ATTACHED TO RON PAUL???

Good god. The man wants to reinstate racial slavery, abolish the penal system and replace it with biblical law (stoning people to death for sodomy), and reshape America into a total theocracy.

It is absolutely terrifying that people would vote for this man based on the fact that he is an isolationist.

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

31. So we are to believe that nobody who supported the real Ron Paul ever read the Ron Paul Newsletter?

Really?

[blondeatlast]

34. "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 publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Okay, you didn't say it nor did you edit it. That simply makes you, Ron Paul, too absolutely, utterly, and completely stupid to be holding ANY public office and you really should be shamed into obscurity for it, IMHO.

[Elidor]

39. Those who care?

No one's buying what you're peddling. And you seem rather intent on peddling it. Ron Paul is a racist, and that's just one of his many faults. But keep it up: there's a granite cookie in your immediate future.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[blondeatlast]

46. I do but I also consider the source of the rebuttal--and point out what's wrong

with said rebuttal above.

But if you choose to ignore the real issue and focus on those who question your motives, who am I to stand in your way?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[fascisthunter]

35. Holy Crapola.... No Thanks!

kick and recommended

[americanstranger]

38. Man, Radley at Reason is ~pissed~.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124284.html

---

All of that said, let me get to the scolding. Like Nick Gillespie, I think the most disappointing thing about all of this is what Dave Weigel posted this afternoon from New Hampshire: Paul doesn't consider this worthy of a serious reaction. I was hoping for much, much more. If Paul didn't write these screeds, he should tell us who did, or assign someone from the campaign to do some research, and reveal the authors' identity. He should explain his relationship with the authors, and how it is they came to write for a newsletter that went out under his name. He should acknowledge which of these positions he at one time supported but now repudiates, which he has never supported, and which he still supports. If he's going to claim he merely lent his name to some people and causes he shouldn't have, and with whom he didn't at the time or doesn't now agree, he should say so, and explain how he could let a newsletter continue to be published under his name after first, fifth, tenth, or twentieth time it ran something he found offensive. Like Kirchick, I find the prospect that Paul never read the newsletter implausible.

The 1990s is not "ancient history." We were by then well past the point in American history where the kind of racism and bigotry present in those articles had any place in civil discourse. I simply can't imagine seeing any piece of paper go out under my name that included sympathetic words for David Duke. That a newsletter with Paul's name did just that demands an explanation from Paul. The "I've answered that in the past" reply isn't sufficient. You're running for president, now. You have a national platform. You've been an ambassador for libertarian ideas on Colbert, the Daily Show, Meet the Press, and Jay Leno. That you've provided a brief explanation for some of these passages a decade ago during a little-noticed congressional campaign doesn't cut it. No one was paying attention then. Just about everyone is now.

That Paul and his campaign don't consider this worthy of a serious reaction I'm afraid makes it all the more difficult to buy into the least damning spin on the story (and even that is still pretty damning). It suggests at the very least a certain obliviousness to the resonance and impact of racism and bigotry.

---

If this is pissing off the Libertarians, then Paul's really got problems.

- as

[Ahpook]

41. I read a "certain site" daily

and i agree with most of what this site says. I have been reading it for years, but they are big on Paul.

Paul wants this war over, which is great, but all his other ideas are terrible.

Not sure what to think anymore:(

May take my buddies advice after all and go on a offshore sabbatical.

Float, smoke, fish and think:)

[blondeatlast]

42. A site worthy of your interest and well within DU linking rules:

http://www.dennis4president.com/

[Ahpook]

50. It's hard to swallow when someone you trust turns their back?

And i agree, Kucinich is the only one saying anything worth listening to lately.

Wonder why we don't hear more of a stampede for Kucinich? He supports exactly what ALL of us have been screaming for years:(

And i mean around here. I know why otherwise.

[divinecommands]

51. TNR's article doesn't include everything interesting...

Check this newsletter here: http://www.tnr.com/downloads/december1990.pdf

It dismisses the "gay political agenda" as "uniformly statist" and calls MLK as pedophile.

And it ends with this: "My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year. May we start to confound the plans of the Trilateralists..."

So Ron Paul wrote the newsletter's holiday greeting but had no input into anything else in it? Is that what we're being asked to believe? At what point does the burden of proof shift to the Paul supporters who have claimed over and over again that the newsletters are unreflective of his views?

[ProudDad]

52. One little tidbit from his site

"The Founding Fathers envisioned a robustly Christian yet religiously tolerant America, with churches serving as vital institutions that would eclipse the state in importance. Throughout our nation’s history, churches have done what no government can ever do, namely teach morality and civility. Moral and civil individuals are largely governed by their own sense of right and wrong, and hence have little need for external government. This is the real reason the collectivist Left hates religion: Churches as institutions compete with the state for the people’s allegiance, and many devout people put their faith in God before their faith in the state. Knowing this, the secularists wage an ongoing war against religion, chipping away bit by bit at our nation’s Christian heritage. Christmas itself may soon be a casualty of that war."

Way to erect the strawman, Ron, but it's ok for some kind of bogus "Christianist litmus test" for elective office, eh?

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/759/christmas-in-secular-america/

There are a few things I can find common cause with R.P. -- just as with any rabid Libertarian -- End the phony "war on drugs" and a couple of others but the rest -- blah!!!