My reasons for that support remain. Ron Paul's respect for our Constitution, and his opposition to our undeclared war which follows from that, and his support of the First Amendment which also stems from his standing up for the Constitution, are still among the most crucial issues of our day. Ron Paul's positions on those issues are better than any other candidates' positions in either party (including the positions of Barack Obama, whom I am supporting for the Democratic nomination).
But I nonetheless can no longer support Ron Paul's candidacy. The reasons are presented in some detail, with citations, in this Wikipedia entry entitled the Ron Paul Report newsletter controversy. This newsletter, published under various, slightly different titles for decades, but always under Ron Paul's name, contained racist and homophobic remarks utterly repugnant to me. Here's a sample from The New Republic article:
The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours" and a "flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate."
A February 1991 newsletter attacks "The X-Rated Martin Luther King."
An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" would be better alternatives--and says, "Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house."
Gays
In the course of defending homophobic comments by Andy Rooney of CBS, a 1990 newsletter notes that a reporter for a gay magazine "certainly had an axe to grind, and that's not easy with a limp wrist."
The June 1990 issue of the Political Report says: "I miss the closet. Homosexuals, not to speak of the rest of society, were far better off when social pressure forced them to hide their activities."
Ron Paul, to his credit, has taken "moral responsibility" for such comments, explaining that they were written by ghostwriters and did not represent his views. Reuters yesterday carried an official statement by Ron Paul that further said he did not directly edit the offensive newsletters.
Nonetheless, he also has failed to identify said ghostwriters, let alone vociferously denounce them, and sue them for every penny.
What would you do if a newsletter under your name, authorized by you, published such comments - or any comments that you vehemently disagreed with?
Whatever Ron Paul did, however much he disagreed with those comments, his response was not enough. Not enough for a person who is seriously putting himself forth as a candidate for President.
To be clear, I will continue to hold arrogant media such as Fox News to account for abusing Ron Paul's candidacy and the democratic process by excluding him from debates. And the same to ABC News and other mainstream media for belittling his levels of support.
And I will think about whom I can now support as the best Republican.
But it can longer be Ron Paul. Much as I admire his clear thinking and courage in speaking up for the Constitution, he should have done more in speaking out about and denouncing the scurrilous, sickening comments in the newsletters published under his name.
See also this angry, understandable reaction from another Ron Paul supporter: Ron Paul's Betrayal of America
21 comments:
Yeah, I demand pandering out of my candidates as well. However empty a gesture it is, however innocent the candidate might be of whatever it was, no matter if the incident was a decade ago and the candidate handled it the way he thought best. Who cares? PANDER TO MEEEEEE!!!!!
Let's divert attention away from ending neocon imperialism and strengthening the dollar to something with a little more zip... our well-earned self-righteousness. PANDER, Ron Paul! PANDER like you've never PANDERED before! To ALL of US!! After all, it's what we REALLY care about.
Whew, what a terrific blog you've got here. Timely, yet ill-informed. Just what America needs.
Glad you enjoy the blog, anon...
I'd say what America needs most is people who stand up for their convictions. At least Ron Paul usually does that - in contrast to you in this blog, who neglects to give a name.
But, about Ron Paul: I'm not asking him to pander. He shouldn't lie about what he truly believes.
My concern, based on his response to the New Republic article, is that I'm not really sure what he believes in these issues, and I can't abide the possibility that maybe he has some sympathy for these noxious views. If not, why hasn't he done more to denounce them, and why didn't he flag them in the first place? Surely, he had to be aware on some level of what was being sent out under his name.
I post anon because names are irrelevant on these posts. And I could say my name is Rumplestiltskin and you'd be none the wiser. Besides, checking "anon" is quicker than anything else. But if you must know, my name is John Smith.
About Ron Paul, though: Of course, you want him to pander. You missed him being contrite for this incident ten years ago and would like to see a little present-day contrition to soothe your ego.
And the notion that he should have taken action a decade ago in order to placate would-be voters for a Presidential race now is silly. Like I said....he did what he thought was right at the time.
But he dealt with it properly. He took responsibility, he apologized, he corrected the problem, and he's done his best not to let his message suffer.
But, if I'm reading right, this just isn't enough for you. Paul needs to dredge up this fossil once again and play the embarrassed, regretful sack. But with feeeeling this time. So everyone can see. THEN he'll get your support about ending imperialism and stabilizing the dollar.
Well, when thousands more die in our march across the Middle East, and our currency sinks into the toilet, America can rest easy knowing that it really taught Ron Paul a lesson.
:) Thanks, John Smith - that really helps.
But you're still missing the point - or at least, the point of what I'm saying.
I don't want Ron Paul to placate me, voters, or anyone. I want him to be really outraged, to the core, about someone publishing this vile stuff under his name.
As for the war - I hope he keeps speaking out against it. Fortunately, he's not the only candidate running for President who sees what the war is doing to our country, and the world. All of the Democrats do, too.
And I still think Ron Paul has positions on issues - such as the First Amendment - which are the best of any of the candidates. I said that in my blog post.
I will continue to support these positions, and Ron Paul's support of these positions.
I just will no longer support him for President.
That is some pretty piss poor reason not to support a candidate.
Anon - so you think a person who allowed such comments to be printed under his name would make a good President?
I have to agree with Anon. There are plenty of better reasons not to support the crazy libertarian Ron Paul. His desire to destroy most of federal government and abolish the income tax, for example. He also wants to repeal the 16th amendment, which shows his respect for the constitution. Many of his ideas would be essentially irreversible if executed. He could do some serious permanent damage to the country if elected. I fail to see how an Obama supporter could also support Paul.
five daves: wanting to change the Constitution by repealing an Amendment does indeed show respect for the Consitution -
In contrast to going to war without the Declaration of War required by the Constitution, or fining broadcasters in violation of the First Amendment.
You don't see how an Obama supporter could also support Ron Paul? Take a look at my How About Supporting the Best Candidates in Both Parties? and my I'm Voting for Barack Obama and tell me what you disagree with...
Well, I for one know what a truly dedicated Ron Paul supporter you have been as I have read many of your Ron Paul posts. You have educated your students concerning the media bias and censorship that has been used against presidential candidate congressman Ron Paul of Tx. I also read this TNR article and could see the techniques used on the timing of the article and Mr. Kirchicks agenda by his digging up old bones and use of blanket statements in the article. His agenda was for a smear and for special interests groups. What part of "special interests" are above "ALL individuals" freedom? I am and have been one of Dr. Pauls female and black constituents for over 15 yrs. I have had the pleasure of meeting him on numerous occasions here in our district in Tx. I have been a member of our local GOP for 30 yrs. It is separatists who enjoy their special interests such as people like Mr. Kuchick that continue to keep ALL peoples from enjoying REAL and TRUE individual freedoms and liberties in our country. I used to feed into my being a minority, those days for me are over as I wish it would be over for many of us whom would love to honestly be free. This will never happen as long as many still choose to label me a "victim". I just hate to see someone of your intelligence feed into this simpletons propaganda. I do hope that you will rethink this situation and understand from where it stems from. Best wishes from a grassroot supporter of this most worthy Revolution. Ron Paul in 2008!
While it may be easy for some to overlook that part of Ron Paul's past, the same is not true for everyone else.
I suppose to some it is a matter of integrity while for others it is a matter of overcoming hatred.
The fact is, to me this is not THE reason to not support Ron Paul, but one of the MANY reasons.
I favor progressive politicians.
Ron Paul is against age appropriate sex ed in public schools and denies evolution - not exactly qualities I'm looking for.
Katie - thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. I've been reading your posts, too, and have been very impressed with them. It means a lot to me that you think my posts have been of value to what you believe in.
I will of course continue to think about this issue. But I can't get beyond the lack of sheer outrage that Ron Paul should have had, at the time, and indeed now, about those comments being published under his name in the newsletter.
I will continue keep an eye on, and speak out about, media abuse of Ron Paul and his candidacy.
And I certainly still support the central ideas in his campaign, and will continue to speak about them.
And I hope we keep in touch.
***
Alex, I don't think Ron Paul denies evolution - it was Brownback, Huckabee, and Tancredo who raised their hands to affirm that denial in that first Republican Presidential debate.
But the reason I supported Ron Paul was not because I added up his positions on every issue. It was rather because I have thought, for a long time, that there is something very wrong with our living in a democracy governed by a Constitution, in which the government almost daily ignores the Constitution. Every time the FCC fines a broadcaster, that's in violation of the First Amendment. Going to war without a Declaration of War abrogates the Constitution, etc.
Ron Paul is the only candidate, in either party, who speaks out about those violations, and the dangers they pose to our democracy.
That's why I supported him as a contender in the Republican nomination process, and that's why I will still talk about his support of the Constitution as one of the brightest, best developments in our current political system.
Ron Paul on evolution:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JyvkjSKMLw
on a different note -
I've been thinking about this quite a bit - and while I'm sitting here watching the republican debate, I see what an important role Ron Paul is playing in this election.
It's great he is up there with the Republicans - really entertaining, actually.
It is really interesting to see the responses he gets from the audience and other candidates.
Plus, we get to see the other candidates act like a-holes.
Alex - thanks for the YouTube link - I just looked at that clip - and - I stand (actually, I'm sitting) corrected! You were right, I was wrong.
I agree with Ron Paul, by the way, that evolution is a theory not a fact. But to reject it on the grounds that Ron Paul does - his belief in a Creator - makes no sense, and is not even necessary. One can believe that a Creator made an evolving universe.
He says he didn't raise his hand at that Republican debate because he didn't think the question was appropriate - not because he believes in evolution.
There is, as most people recognize, an enormous amount of evidence that supports Darwin's theory of natural selection.
Thanks for the correction!
Mr. Levinson,
Reading your comments below got me to thinking of Ghandhi and nonviolence.
You said the following:
"
Nonetheless, he also has failed to identify said ghostwriters, let alone vociferously denounce them, and sue them for every penny.
"
Besides excluding knife fights, non violence excludes leveraging the state as an agent of coercion. In other words, a civil case suing for "every penny".
I believe this is the course I would have taken. A lawsuit is, minus the blood and bruises, every bit as painful as violence and sometimes more. Perhaps, sometimes the best approach is time and distance. What would be the point of spending one more second than needed with a racist? Racism is the worst form of ignorance and self-hate. Additionally, he lacks empathy otherwise he wouldn’t be a racist. Rather than sue him why not give him cab fare to the other side of town or free passage to Siberia.
With respect to “ vociferously denouncing” an event in 1991....
I had an exceedingly painful and personal event in 1996; inflicted by a close friend. When we see each other now we laugh about it. I can assure you it was no laughing matter then. There is still pain but the passing of time has softened . If Mr. Paul were to “vociferously denounce” this, it would wreak of the phoniest form of Clintonism pandering, which could only be surpassed by crocodile tears and congressional rebuke.
Vociferously denouncing requires feelings and I doubt they exist after 15 years. Mr. Paul is probably no more capable of vociferously denouncing these action than I capable of vociferously denouncing Hitler.
Assuming he is not lying and he did not write these things, Mr. Paul acted properly and courageously. As the captain of the ship, he accepts responsibility for what was in this newsletter. No laws were broken so he should keep the writers identity secret. Sometimes it is not justified to give the people what they want.
Keep your mouth shut and never be a rat. Revealing this person’s identity would announce a man devoid of character. A weak pandering fool ready to sell out a human, even a racist, for self advancement. And for what, so the mob could inflict personal and potentially violent attacks. Let he who has not sined cast the first stone. for the record, I'm not religous but a suitable quote.
I would most gentlemanly disagree with you, and assert that Mr. Paul acted in an appropriate manner.
I would also say that every other candidate but Obama will do nothing to stop the war. You r comment suggest you would disagree with me but I’ve seen political coverage for the status quo and long-term occupation.
It is particularly absurd to suggest that Hillary would stop the war. There are too many Jewish votes riding on it. collateral damage be damned, there's an election to win!!
Dino
Sorry to lose your support. Since the charges are reiterated in your blog, at least give readers his (vociferous?) defence:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=G7FwULXnM_E
and
http://youtube.com/watch?v=AvzsiESqVss
Dino - We do disagree. I think there's nothing honorable about keeping your mouth shut about someone using your name to make outrageous, dishonorable racist and homophobic statements. The honorable course of action is to shine whatever light you can on such people, so they can't hide under someone else's name and publication.
Regarding the Democrats, I do agree that Obama is the most likely to get us out of the war, and that's one of the reasons I'm supporting him over Hillary.
But your remark about Jewish votes riding on this is anti-semitic nonsense. Jewish people in American don't have enough votes to make a difference in any national election. Look at the numbers.
(And nor do Jewish people control the media - another anti-semitic claim. Last time I checked, Rupert Murdoch was not Jewish, etc.)
Thanks for posting those YouTube clips, Charles. I think everyone should take a look at them (a 2-part 10-minute substantive report and interview of Ron Paul on this issue by Wolf Blitzer on CNN).
What I see in these clips, unfortunately, is Ron Paul more upset that these racist comments are being rehashed, than that someone made them under his name.
As I said in my post, I'm willing to accept that Ron Paul doesn't believe in those comments. But someone running for President should have been much quicker to denounce those comments when they were first made, and should now do everything he can to bring to light the people who used his name to make statements so repugnant. Instead, he just repeats in the interview that he has no idea who wrote the comments, and that's supposed to be that.
And it's a shame. As you know, I agree with Ron Paul on many crucial issues - including his view, also well stated in the interview, that the war on drugs is racist and should be ended (or, at least, not conducted in the racist way it has been).
I hope Ron Paul continues to speak out on these issues. And, as I've said, I'll continue attacking the media when they try to undermine his candidacy.
But being against racism is more than not uttering racist comments, and even more than urging enlightened non-racist policies.
It should also include rooting out people who push a racist agenda under your name.
Please read this interview. I still support Ron Paul and I do not beleve that wrote those news letters.. http://prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm
As long as Ron Paul is anti-choice and against stem cell research, he'll never, ever get my vote.
This is Nate from Salon. Well written, and good points.
For me, as you read, the issue with Ron Paul--before I knew about any of this racism stuff--was that he never adequately explained how he was going to help the "least of us." Either you believe there should be a safety net or that everyone's on their own, but he kind of talked around that schism. I believe it's because he's a caring fellow and he himself hasn't quite reconciled the elegance of pure populist libertarianism with the ugly realities of those left behind by unregulated markets.
Thanks for posting!
Hey Nate - welcome to Infinite Regress!
I agree that, before the racism newsletters, that weakest point about Ron Paul was his lack of programs for the weakest. In terms of my progressive libertarian position, Ron Paul scores about zero in "progressive". But his libertarian views are so prominent and clear, that he was still far and away the best Republican from my point of view.
Post a Comment