Ron Paul Bashing

Ron Paul Bashing

www.cnn.com

CNN recently obtained the newsletters -- written in the 1990s and one from the late 1980s -- after a report was published about their existence in The New Republic.

None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas.

Paul told CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday that he didn't write any of the offensive articles and has "no idea" who did.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Looks as if they will do anything to discredit him.

www.cnn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I don't believe Ron Paul to be a racist. I too think it's in the Media/Big Business/Big Government's interest to keep the Ron Paul Revolution quiet. Not even Fox News' poll for tonight's debate can slow the upcoming Paulite surge!


Vote for Ron Paul in 2008!

reply to post by jhill76


I would not call this bashing. But I must ask why would they even bother bashing him? He cannot win, and never had a chance of winning. This is like discrediting Jesse Jackson when he runs for President - what's the point? You know he is going to lose.

And I know I will get a slew of people slamming me for saying the above, but it is true. And I actually love Ron Paul, since I have been a libertarian for the past 5 years. But I also know he would never win a majority vote, and the majority of his base is either too young to vote or are in a demographic that can vote but rarely shows up to the polls.



[edit on 10-1-2008 by LightinDarkness]

Yea they werent written by him so whatever.... They'll do anything to get people no to vote for him....


He is going to be on CNN Anderson Cooper answering the accusations right now.... I dont know if it is live or not but it's on right now here in the west coast

Any smart politician worth is salt would try to do whatever in his power to denied this allegations. Well not so much allegations since the evidence is there.

Ron Paul IMO is someone that might not be a racist but it has been shown that he might have some traits. With that said he can think whatever he wants this is America and he's allowed to have the views that he has about blacks, homosexuals, Hispanics and such, is not a crime and he is not the only one in this country that share those views.

Too bad that a good message its been carried by the wrong messenger, may be next time.

I can see a possible conspiracy in this.

Also tonight, (the news debat on faux) Paul was bashed and downright played down, almost as if they were trying to make him look bad. View the poll results, Paul went from 38% to 5%, and it happened rather quickly, as if it purposely was done, McCain "won" when thompson was the second closest to paul at the time with 18%. how ddid mccain jump a head so quickly? Almost as if an agenda is being formed. I just want a fair and balanced debate.

There are a couple of threads about this on AbovePolitics.

The articles in question were published in "The Ron Paul Report." How could he not know what was in them? If he allowed people to write and publish articles in his newsletter without even checking them, what does that say about him? Either he's clueless or he's backpedaling.

If he's changed his mind about what he said then, then that's forgivable. He's allowed to rectify his past mistakes. But first he has to own them.

Not that these allegations will faze his supporters in the least.

reply to post by Sestias


That's exactly my point! This guys are career politicians and they know that anthing they have said, write, sponsor, or associated with us going to haunt them, the fact that the Paul campaing hasn't come in a stronger mode to denied all this just makes me think that is all true. I mean when I first saw it I thought it was false, and after hearing Paul's campaign they response was basically, :"this is old news". Old but true though.

I like Ron Paul message, and as I said before he is entitled to jus opinions and views, I just can't vote for a guy with those as much as I like the message.

reply to post by Bunch


He has denounced them. He took responsibility, but confirmed that they were neither his ideas or his writings. What more could he do to rectify? Does he really need to play the game? On his website he says...

“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.

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

www.ronpaul2008.com...

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

I have to say, that is pretty compelling. If he really didn't know that these things were really being written, he's a major-league idiot. How could he publish these letters for so many years and no know what was in them. No one came up to him over that long period of time and said "Hey, Dr. Paul, I love what you said about X," whereupon he would have said "WTF?" I find it incredibly hard to believe, and I think the reasonable person does, too.

Again, the newsletters were published during periods when he was not in the legislature. He did not publish them personally. He has taken responsibility for not monitoring their content but is adamant that he did not write the offending articles nor did he ever hold those ideals personally. There isn't a spec of corroborating evidence anywhere in anything that Dr. Paul has written or any talk he has given. If those writings did refelct his opinions and position the issues would have surfaced before or since. Not the case.

reply to post by Togetic


Check youtube for the interview Wolf Blitzer gave him on MSNBC regarding this accusation. Then come back here and tell me you believe it. The man, his past, his words, and his record are vindication enough. If he says he didn't do it, then he didn't.

Unlike others, I think Dr. Paul has the integrity to offset the slander. I believe that if he did write it, he would have admitted it and then explained why that is not representative of his current views.

And besides: don't you dare tell me that a LOT of people weren't thinking the same thing at the time. Doesn't make it right, but you can't tell me I'm wrong. I was young, but I remember 1992.

Don't even get me started on what the Clintons were up to at the time. I live in Arkansas... Ever heard of Mena? I dont usually use references like this one but it does happen cite sources:

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

So really, let's not try to make a mountain out of a mole hill, OK?

[edit on 1/11/08 by The Axeman]

Ok maybe he didn't wrote it, but still is accountable. The biggest strenghts of politicians are there record and reputation.

He is obviously not winning any votes or making himself look any better because of this.

reply to post by Bunch


Did you watch the Wolf Blitzer interview?

Part 1

Part 2

He already accepted responsibility for it, and been held accountable, and stated that he should have been more aware of what was being published in his name. Again I say, integrity.

"The biggest strenghts [sic] of politicians are there record and reputation"

If this is true, homie, then there is no arguing that Ron Paul is the best candidate for the job.

Example of consistency:
www.youtube.com...

My point is not that he wrote the articles and therefore is a racist. I honestly don't think that he wrote the articles. I think he was beyond negligent in allowing people to write that crap in his name for ten years without him finding out. Who lets that happen unless they either 1) implicitly agree or 2) is so out of touch with what is happening around him that allowing him anywhere near the presidency should give us all pause.

reply to post by Togetic


Look dude (?).I could probably dig around and find plenty of things about each of the other candidates that would be enough, in your terms, to not let them anywhere near the presidency.

The FACT of the matter is that Congressman Paul has, for his entire tenure in office, been fighting for the people's rights, and what is allowed for in the Constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

The point is, here we have a man who has an extraordinary career in public and private life. OB/GYN for 30 years in "hometown America," a man who hasa wife of 50 years, 5 kids and 18 grandkids. We have a family man, a genuinely good man, and one who understands the poicies that are dangerous and/or destructive to the American way of life; "The American Dream" is now just that. The Republicans elected Bush to do just what "Dr. No," as they call him on Capital Hill, intends to do. Restrict and reduce the powers of the federal government, cut spending, balance the budget, have a strong national defense (what could be stronger than having our army - here's a novel notion - in our own country?), protect our civil liberties and our rights as citizens of the country that our Founding Fathers bled to create, cut taxes, and give the power to make and enforce laws not provided for in the Constitution to the States -- the way it is SUPPOSED to be.

Whether or not he missed a moderately racist diatribe - that was a popular sentiment at the time, whether people want to admit it or not - in a "newsletter" that just happened to bear his name is a non-issue for me. There are a million videos on youtube that bear Ron Paul's and every other candidate's names; are we to blame them personally for the contents of those as well? Hell no, people can record and post whatever the hell they want on youtube and no one gives a flip. Likewise, I'm sure the candidates' websites and bulletins aren't hand-prepared; do you think they go over every word? And they are in the race? Of course they don't, and realistically if one of the people who does has the inclination, did write something nasty, the candidate would say "well I wan't involved, I'm sorry," and ostensibly everyone would say "awwww, that's OK. Just don't so it again." Look at Billy and his Cigars!!

So you're telling me a man who cheats on his wife, and a wife that allows her husband to cheat on her, are fit for office? Pffffft. And that's just the tip of the iceberg with those two.

My point is, he has acknowledged the mistake, he has reiterated that he does indeed repudiate that message, and he has offered as much an apology that is required of him, I think.

What more would you have him do? Declare himself unfit for office and give up?

Whether the media likes it or not - however they try to paint him as "unelectable," he is the most Republican of all the Republican candidates running, and he has the support of most of the people, if you want to talk policies. The problem is they don't know his policies and the media is trying to make sure they don't. They don't want him in office because he can't be bought.

A man with integrity, principle, and strong character in the White House would be the writing on the wall for the lot of them.

However, the rich stand to benefit even more from removal of the IRS and cutting the Income Tax than the poor. That would go a long way to fill people's pockets back up, and everyone likes that. The issue is Control vs. Liberty.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: They are scared of him and grasping at straws to discredit him. Their most powerful tool, as it has always been, is to keep the American people in the dark as to what is really happening. It's their bread and butter. But we have strategies in place to try to deal with that, and I think (at least I hope with all the hope that I have) that in the end, the issue of "non-electability" will be a preposterous one and people will see that not only is Ron Paul "electable," but that he is indeed the best person for the job.

Answer me this: Why would he be "unelectable?" Please be specific.

Edit: typos

[edit on 1/12/08 by The Axeman]