Ron Paul's racist past?

The first presidential debates in each party pretty much marked the beginning of the 2008 campaign season.  After watching two GOP debates so far, many have been intrigued by renegade anti-war Republican Ron Paul.  But according to some research done by a blogger, a 1992 newsletter sent out by then-congressional candidate Ron Paul portrays blacks as crime-prone and "fleet-footed."

The blog Wonkette quoted a 1996 story in the Houston Chronicle about Ron Paul's 1992 newsletter:

A 1992 newsletter by Republican congressional candidate Ron Paulhighlighted portrayals of blacks as criminally inclined and lackingsense about top political issues.

Reporting on gang crime in Los Angeles, Paul commented: "If youhave ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know howunbelievably fleet-footed they can be."

Paul, a Surfside obstetrician who won the GOP nomination in the14th District runoff by defeating incumbent Rep. Greg Laughlin, saidWednesday he opposed racism.

..."Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminaljustice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of theblack males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

In that same 1996 AP story, Ron Paul said his 1992 comments were taken out of context.

"These aren't my figures," Paul said this week. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

He also wrote: "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support thefree market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmativeaction."

If you consider 1992 as "recent history," then this is relevant.

Comments

[R. Harmon]

http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=377205

This is old news and has been brought up in the past.

Excerpt:

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time. "

I have been reading Ron Paul's articles, OP-eds and speeches for over 12 years, and he has never been disrespectful or bigoted toward any segment. His record speaks for itself and this incident is an anomaly that appears to be the result of inept/malicious staffer.

[The Mexican]

Again, as Bill Maher says, who has become so much of a liberal hero from his previous conservative and libertarian beliefs, (not verbatim but intact) "Are we not going to elect a person because of a two-second brain-fart, a misspoken gaffe?" We can look at cases of Don Imus (Nappy-headed hos"), Howard Dean ("Byahh!"), Joe Biden ("Articulate and Clean"), Barack Obama ("Wasted War"), etc., and that's from the liberal side of the spectrum by our candidates.

As with George Carlin says, the liberals must get over themselves with the PC-language. I break ranks with liberals and join conservatives on this issue entirely. It is a far greater danger to democracy to not allow someone to say something, even if it's horrible and hurtful, bigoted and ignorant, and then by defending the right of someone not being insulted or offended (for whatever the reason, whether through jokes or snide remarks) in our letting go of our right to free expression and free speech.

I know most people won't like this, and I'll be flamed for this response; but I think taking away the words hurt us more than help us. It's up to people to decide whether to be smart about what they say, and they should expect the consequences. If this message by him or not creates blowback, then by all means, he'll need to deal with it. I give people the benefit of the doubt on words, even as cynical and skeptical as I am--that is, unless they lie about why or how they know them, like when George Allen said the now-infamous Macaca racial slur; he didn't come clean about it, and even Chris Matthews said, "He should have just come out saying he heard the word from his parents or a friend, and let it go with that," you know, some of that personal responsibility. Also, it is by this language that we can evaluate the interpretations of words and euphemisms about what and whom a person really is, whether he or she is merely joking about something or if he or she is a racist, bigot, etc.

In fact, I stress all the readers to watch George Carlin's stand-up comedy special entitled "Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics."

[brody]

Ron Paul is not a racist, either these statements didn't come from him directly, or they are bogus. It's gonna take a lot more to tarnish his impeccable record. In any case, it's good that we're seeing some dirt on him early, that just means he's actually a threat in this race.

[The Mexican]

I couldn't find video, but I did find a transcript of a major part that I'm talking about in the comedy special. There is some misspellings and incorrect grammar, but it works.

"There's a different group to get pissed off at you in this country for everything your not supposed to say. Can't say Nigger, Boogie, Jig, Jigaboo, Skinhead, Moolimoolinyon, Schvatzit, Junglebunny. Greaser, Greaseball, Dago, Guinea, Whop, Ginzo, Kike, Zebe, Heed, Yid, Mocky, Himie, Mick, Donkey, Turkey, Limey, Frog. Zip, Zipperhead, Squarehead, Crout, Hiney, Jerry, Hun, Slope, Slopehead, Chink, Gook. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of those words in and of themselves. Their only words. It's the context that counts. It's the user. It's the intention behind the words that makes them good or bad. The words are completely neutral. The words are innocent. I get tired of people talking about bad words and bad language. Bullshit! It's the context that makes them good or bad. The context. That makes them good or bad. For instance, you take the word "Nigger." There is absolutely nothing wrong with the word "Nigger" in and of itself. It's the racist asshole who's using it that you ought to be concerned about. We don't mind when Richard Pryer or Eddie Murphy say it. Why? Because we know their not racist. Their Niggers! Context. Context. We don't mind their context because we know their black. Hey, I know I'm whitey, the blue-eyed devil, paddy-o, fay gray boy, honkey, mother-fucker myself. Don't bother my ass. Their only words. You can't be afraid of words that speak the truth, even if it's an unpleasant truth, like the fact that there's a bigot and a racist in every living room on every street corner in this country." - George Carlin; Parental Advisory: Explicit Lyrics.

Again, I'm behind the Blue-State team, and this is definitely a relevant story worthy of critical evaluation for the candidate. I'm just trying to state my opinion as best I can. I'm a loud-mouth at times with the opinions, but it's good for the public discourse, isn't it?

[granny]

It's hard to tell where the material in R. Harmon's comment originated, even at the site given. Perhaps it can be said that the sentiment expressed "is an anomaly". But that "the incident ... appears to be the result of inept/malicious staffer." Is a poor excuse. The"incident" is the result of Paul not stepping up and setting the record straight.

The site R. Harmon refers us to, also gives us additional material, apparently from the same source: an Interview in the Texas Monthly, some 20 years ago:

"Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

If not bigotry, this at the least is intransigence; an unwillingness to do what it takes to get the record straight. A characteristic we've been paying for in our leaders for a while now. And the price is huge.

I agree with a lot the Mexican says. Liberals do need to get over themselves. We all do, most of the time. But the subject isn't petty.
Because it's not about politeness, or offensive language per se; it's about who this candidate really is.

We need to keep our eye on the real issues. And,while the term "brain fart" has acquired status in the lexicon of words designed to discount/discredit a subject - it can still be useful to consider the fact that when gas is passed, from whatever orifice, it is a signal about what's going on inside. Public gas passing is just not a good idea. If it can't be helped, then it may well be worth considering what's going on inside.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Great comments, everyone. Some of your concerns spell out exactly why I put a question mark in the title. We don't know if this is 100% true -- although it was the Houston Chronicle, a major newspaper.

Many of you know that I admire Ron Paul for his courage to stand up to the GOP elite. But my affection for Ron Paul should not mean we only post positive stories about him. The same rule holds true for every candidate in either party. For example, if Bush were to change his mind and pull out of Iraq, I would probably commend him for his change of heart. If Barack Obama took a bribe from someone, I would call him on it.

Just because Ron Paul might be doing a service to the country by standing up to people like Romney and Giuliani, that does not make him immune from criticism. Americans have a right to know the truth about every candidate running for office anywhere in the country. The internet makes it easier to investigate and search for the truth.

Bringing stories like this to the forefront gives that candidate an incentive to address the issue so we can move on.

For example, a few months ago an anonymous person sent me a tape of Rudy Giuliani, which also appeared on the Hotline blog. The tape showed the soon-to-be mayor elaborating on his pro-choice stance. I got a call from a New York NPR station that asked if I would be interviewed about releasing the clip on Youtube. I told NPR the same thing that I will say about this Ron Paul story: better to have it out now than right before the primaries. We want this stuff out now because during the holiday months at the end of this year, we want voters in both parties to choose their candidates based on substantive policy issues, not on little stuff like this.

And who knows, maybe Ron Paul is a flaming racist -- then again, maybe he isn't. But let's at least have this discussion now so we can prevent this from becoming an issue when voters usually decide on their favorite primary candidate, which tends to be around the Christmas holiday season.

[granny]

"For example, if Bush were to change his mind and pull out of Iraq, I would probably commend him for his change of heart."

I dunno Todd, not me. A change of "mind" ... not believable. A change of tactic ... possible. I'd be looking for the real reasons, and willing to bet the farm it's not for the benefit of anyone but you-know-who and cronies. Celebrate, you bet. Commendations ~ No commendations from me.

[Chief Editor: Todd]

Oh I know! lol It's like the whole idea about the war czar. Is the Lute really going to "change" the President? Of course not. No one can.

So yeah, my scenario about Bush changing his mind was from the fictional world that I dream about each night.

[granny]

Sweet dreams!! :)

[Ron Stringfield]

http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822

Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?
Tuesday, May 22, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

Internet information claiming that presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX) is a racist – and made derogatory comments about African Americans - has been making the rounds within the blogosphere. But sources close to the editorial group that published the newsletter (or newsletters) that supposedly carried the comments claim that Ron Paul never had anything to do with them, and wasn’t even aware of them.

These sources say that editorial operation in question was a fairly large one, and profitable for its time - focused in large part on measures that one could take to generate a lifestyle independent of government influence and intervention.

The publication, or publications, comprised a business venture to which Ron Paul lent his name. Headquarters were “60 miles away” from Ron Paul’s personal Texas offices. At the time that the publications were being disseminated, primarily in the 1980s, Ron Paul was involved in numerous activities including Libertarian politics. He eventually ran for U.S. president as a Libertarian.

“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”

This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.

Says one source, “Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.”

Ron Paul has said that he did not write the comments in question, but, nonetheless, has taken "moral" responsibility for them.

An excerpt from an apparent interview with Texas Monthly as quoted on the blog Everything2.com clarifies the above information as follows:

"In spite of calls from Gary Bledsoe, the president of the Texas State Conference of the NAACP, and other civil rights leaders for an apology for such obvious racial typecasting, Paul stood his ground. He said only that his remarks about Barbara Jordan related to her stands on affirmative action and that his written comments about blacks were in the context of 'current events and statistical reports of the time.' He denied any racist intent. What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

"When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, 'I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.' ...

"His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: 'They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that's too confusing. "It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it." ' It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time."

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node=Ron Paul

The operative sentence in the above would seem to be: “What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U. S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.” The remarks may well have been seen as out of character because they were not written by Ron Paul, and he had no knowledge of them and no input into their composition, even though he eventually took responsibility for them.

Adds a source aware of the current tempest over these remarks, “Anybody who claims that Ron Paul made the comments in question is deliberately mis-stating what occurred to make political points. It is a measure of [his opponents] desperation that they are dredging this up again. Anybody who reads all that he has written – and there’s lots of it – could see that right away.”

[Brady]

Here's what Ron Paul actually has to say about racism:

"Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals. Racists believe that all individual who share superficial physical characteristics are alike; as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups."

From:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul68.html

[Lester Hunt]

Oh please. This story was dealt with more than a decade ago. Get with the program people! You will just look silly in the future. Racists are collectivists. Ron Paul is an individualist.

[Audi]

How about researching the actual source? I find it laughable that anyone can use these quotes so blatently out of context. If you read the actual quote from the report, you would know the writer IS NOT REFERRING TO THE AFRICAN AMERICAN RACE as being criminals - he is commenting on SOURCE BACKED STATISTICS regarding the specific demographic IN WASHINGTON DC DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME (when crime in DC was at it’s highest).

THE ACTUAL QUOTE :

“Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages
of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the “criminal justice system,” I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

---

Since this blogger has shown his/herself to be incapable of researching what is posted, please read and share the link to the actual report with the readers and whatever similarily research-retarded third party sources these bloggers receive this information from, so that they can read it and formulate their own opinions on the matter without reading half-assed, barely researched snippets of information:

http://groups.google.com/group/soc.culture.african.american/msg/c8668bd3662b0fa5