Ron Paul getting "Swiftboated"
 

Conspiracy theories? Hillary's campaign behind it? An alliance between the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton crowd and the "Fab Five"?

Sickening. All to discredit a guy who probably represented the best hope for meaningful change in America.

At least he's getting headlines now. :rolleyes:




http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html



Ron Paul '90s newsletters rant against blacks, gays

From Brian Todd
CNN

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A series of newsletters in the name of GOP presidential hopeful Ron Paul contain several racist remarks -- including one that says order was restored to Los Angeles after the 1992 riots when blacks went "to pick up their welfare checks."

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. See the newsletter excerpts for yourself »

"When you bring this question up, you're really saying, 'You're a racist' or 'Are you a racist?' And the answer is, 'No, I'm not a racist,'" he said.

Paul said he had never even read the articles with the racist comments.

"I do repudiate everything that is written along those lines," he said, adding he wanted to "make sure everybody knew where I stood on this position because it's obviously wrong."

But that's not good enough, says one political veteran.

"These stories may be very old in Ron Paul's life, but they're very new to the American public and they deserve to be totally ventilated," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst. "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'"

Paul, who is not considered a front-runner, has become an Internet phenomenon in the current race, raising tens of millions of dollars from a devoted online base, many of them young people drawn to his libertarian straight talk.

The controversial newsletters include rants against the Israeli lobby, gays, AIDS victims and Martin Luther King Jr. -- described as a "pro-Communist philanderer." One newsletter, from June 1992, right after the LA riots, says "order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks."

Another says, "The criminals who terrorize our cities -- in riots and on every non-riot day -- are not exclusively young black males, but they largely are. As children, they are trained to hate whites, to believe that white oppression is responsible for all black ills, to 'fight the power,' to steal and loot as much money from the white enemy as possible."

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."

In his interview with CNN, Paul said that's language he would never use. "People who know me, nobody is going to believe this," he said. "That's just not my language. It's not my life."

He added, "Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, Ghandi, they're the heroes [of my life]."

Matt Welch, the editor-in-chief of "Reason" magazine who shares some of Paul's beliefs on big government, says he has never heard the congressman make racist comments like those in the newsletters.

"What I think some people are looking for him to do is to say, 'OK, who wrote that?' I mean, there's 20 years, give or take, worth of newsletters there," Welch said.

Paul said the editor of publications "is responsible for daily activities." But he also cited "transition" and "changes" and said that some people were hired to write stories "but I didn't know their names."

The presidential hopeful described the newsletter revelations as a "rehash" of old material dug up by his opponents because he is gaining ground with black voters due to his stance against the war in Iraq and the war on drugs.

"I am the anti-racist because I am the only candidate -- Republican or Democrat -- who would protect the minority against these vicious drug laws," he said.

"Libertarians are incapable of being a racist, because racism is a collectivist idea."

So let's see, Obama's CURRENT membership to a racist church is no problem. A comment about the riots stopping so blacks could go get their welfare checks is a deal breaker. Anybody who falls for that is to stupid to comment on.

Sounds like right wing dirty tricks. Now why would they do that to Ron Paul? Why would anyone do that to him-- a nice guy--unless he's a threat to somebody. Heck, they need to save their resources for Clinton-Obama. You ain't seen nothin' yet.

"Swiftboated" is a good term for what's happening to crazy Uncle Ron. If you used to be a clown, it's likely to catch up with you eventually.

And that sir is why they vote dem!!!

Point made, Byron.:p

If I understand the term "swift boating," it refers to when actual eye whitnesses brought to light lies told by then presidential candidate sKerry.

I don't see an analogy to that here.

Ron who?

What?

Ron Perot?

That's Rice. :)

I am unclear - is Paul saying (1) that was indeed his newsletter but he didn't personally write the articles, or (2) that isn't his newsletter at all and he had no affiliation with it i.e. he never OK'd his name on it?

If (2), then it doesn't reflect on him. If (1), then it definitely does reflect negatively on him.

I hope he makes this clear, and soon.

You know, I read those articles and although they're politically incorrect, I don't entirely disagree with his positions there. I don't know that he should claim credit for them (especially if he didn't write them), but he makes some valid points (as well as some invalid ones).

doesn't matter..i still will vote for him in the primary..and i just put out signs last night

He doesn't have a chance at the Republican nomination: he was never a member of Skull and Bones

So how does the truth become racist? Is, "black people tend to be capable of running faster & jumping higher, hence their dominance of basketball," a racist statement? MLK WAS a pro communist philanderer! Carjackers are animals. Is that racist 'cause some are black?

No swift boating here. Looks like a smear campaign!

Wide: Or a Freemason.....

Why would Hillary be behind this? This is Primary campaign time, Repubs against Repubs, Dems against Dems. This is entrenched Repubs protecting the status quo.

This motivates me to vote for Ron in the Republican Primary.

At my last job our number somehow got onto Ron Paul's media fax list. I called over to his office a few times, trying to get a meeting with his press guy, but to no avail. We got onto Kucinich's list too and always got their newsletters faxed to us. It's been a few years since I read any of them and it was still long after the dates on these "swiftboat" newsletters. But the ones I got directly from Ron Paul's office were nothing at all like these ones CNN is writing about now. I suspect Ron Paul had nothing to do with them, though I could be wrong.

Why would any of the front running Repubs, or the Repub party itself, be behind it?

Ron Paul is no threat to them. Even if he may have been at some point (I don't think he ever was), he certainly isn't at this time. I don't think any of the front runners or the Repub party, at this point, is going to bother going after the guy who is polling LAST PLACE (currently 4% in Michigan, 5% in Nevada, 5% in So. Carolina, 3.7% in Florida).

He's a nobody. Nobody is worried about him. If "the Repubs" or any of the real candidates are "behind this," they are doing him a favor. ANY publicity he gets at this point is good publicity.

I do not agree. Ron is a thorn in the side of the front runners, since he does represent the thinking of a lot of people re: economics and international affairs. His low poll numbers, in my opinion, represent more the fatalistic viewpoint of party loyalists who know he has no chance of winning vs: the machine. Once again, party trumps everything else.

I caught just a bit of Ron Paul being interviewed last night, and he was stating the same thing. (I'm paraphrasing)...that they were written by someone else, that's NOT what he's all about, and his record "speaks for itself", and he dismissed them. I'm not saying that is the case here, but it just seems to me that much about politics these days is simply distorting the truth, spin control, etc. Damn...I feel sleazy just typing about it :)

The Democrats don't do dirty tricks. That's why they lost two elections to Bush-Rove.
Paul is more likely being victimized by the right who would like to see his votes elsewhere. The same people who demeaned the military records of McCain and Kerry--while the media stood on the sidelines and made money from it.

For once we agree.

Paul may not be a threat by poll numbers, but I'm pretty sure the top tier guys would rather him not be invited to debates, where he gets loud applause and embarasses the others. If Paul ever gets a chance to ask the other candidates some questions, well, get ready to watch them squirm. I thought his answer last night on why he is a true conservative Republican was just awesome.

Now that's funny:D

Can you really belive that Ron Paul had no knowledge of what was being written in "The Ron Paul Newsletter" for NINE YEARS?

His cover story is that he didn't write the acrticles but he paid people to write them, never read them (for nine years - how did he know anything was being written?) and that the whole thing was his editor's responsibility. The articles were published under his name and included biographical references that were meant to suggest RP was writing the article himself.

He's either lying or is the most inept candidate for president ever. If you don't mind what he's saying in those letters, that's one thing. I'd respect him more if he stood up and said that's what he believes and that's what he said. but to say he didn't know what he was publishing in his own self-titled newsletter is more goofy than putting the country back on the gold standard.

Ok, I'll have to read up more on this and see if there are photos of these things laying around. Ron Paul is the kind of guy, who, I'd be very surprised by if he didn't write all his own speeches, newsletters, constituent correspondence, etc. He just comes across as that kind of person. And since he's never changed his views on anything and never apologizes for anything, I tend to believe him if he says he didn't have anything to do with it.

Right.

Dan Rather aired fabricated documents because he wasn't on a political mission.

Time showed doctored photos (made to look worse--duh!) of Iraq because they love the Bush Admin.

Sorry, you should have typed that in brown, because it is BS. The Dems don't have to play dirty tricks (though they still do) because of all the in-kind contributions they get from the media.

It is a conspiracy, I tell you!!!!!

Of course not, not the Dems in Chicago during the Nixon/Kennedy race
not the Dems-dead ones-on the Indian Reservations
not the dumb ones in Florida that screwed up their own voting in their own precincts
not the illegals in SoCal that voted for Laura Sanchez, or whatever her gringo name was before.


Whatever, after watching him last night he should be toast.

If he wrote all his own stuff and he didn't write these, then the implication is these newsletters are forgeries.

If so, he sure as heck should be saying so, and if he doesn't say so (and prove it, surely he keeps back copies of his own newsletters), then there is something wrong.

Dan Rather and CBS got hoodwinked, and we still don't know who was behind it. Probably Rove. The result was Bush's questionable military record got overlooked by the media, and Kerry's service in Vietnam was trashed. You don't have to be a Democrat to see that. Ask John McCain.

If the Republicans were behind this it really shows how dumb the Democrats and CBS are, to get hoodwinked like that by Republicans, WOW. As dumb as you people think GW and the rest of the Republicans are, how dumb can the dems be.