More On Ron Paul’s Mystery Author

As tarran noted yesterday, there is a lot to be concerned about in the racist content of the newsletters that were published under Ron Paul’s name for nearly twenty years. While it’s fairly clear that Paul didn’t write those articles, and I believe him when he says that the writings do not reflect his ideas, the question remains why they articles were published at all.

To answer that, I think, lies in the identity of the author of the articles, which has been the subject of some interesting blogging on a few libertarian sites today.

First, Timothy Virkalla says that this story has been an open secret in libertarian circles for years:

As a writer and editor working in the libertarian movement at the time of these “Ron Paul” newsletters, I have vague recollection of “common knowledge”: it was known who wrote these newsletters, and why. It was money for Ron. It was money for the writers. And it was a way of keeping Ron’s name in the minds of right wingers with money . . . future donors.

It was designed to be entertaining writing. Provocative. It flirted with racism, like Mencken’s did, and Mencken was indeed the model of the style. But these “Ron Paul” writings went further than Mencken’s usually did (at least for publication) along the lines of annoying the racially sensitive; and they sometimes did veer into outright racism.

I was embarrassed by the implied racial hatred, rather disgusted by the general level of hate regardlesss of race. I was also a bit shocked by the writing because the style was so obviously not Ron’s, and so obviously the product of the actual writers, with whom I had tangential relations

(…)

Most of us “old-time” libertarians have known about this sad period of Ron Paul’s career from the get-go. We know that it was a lapse on his part. But we who opposed it (and not all of us did) put much of the blame on the writers involved, not on Paul, who was, after all, juggling family, medicine, politics, and continued study of actual economics. That Paul didn’t realize what he was doing to his own moral stance is amazing. His style is one of earnest moralizing. That fits his character. The ugliness of this career move speaks a sad story.

(…)

Oh, so who wrote Ron Paul’s newsletter? I have only hearsay and memory to go on. But really, most of us in the libertarian “industry” just “knew” who. I have four names in mind, I think all contributed at one point or another. But maybe it was only a subset of those names, maybe it was just one or two. One of the names is pretty damn obvious. And one of the names is not obvious at all; the style was abandoned for better things, later on.

Like Rodney King, one might prefer we all just get along, move along, and forget about this sorry story. But it is worth exploring. Racism is still a live issue in America. And, apparently, in libertarianism.

And Wendy McElory calls on the author, who she says she knows personally, to come forward:

The identity of the author of the ‘objectionable’ material from past issues of Ron Paul’s Newsletter — material that is currently being used by major media to skewer Paul [see blog post below] — is an open secret within the circles in which I run. The news accounts refer to him merely as an “aide.” We call him by his first name.

(…)
I disagree on one point. The author can talk about it. He should talk about it. I will not ‘out’ the person in question on this blog although people are urging me to do so. One of them writes, After the way he’s treated the rest of us [ex-friends who criticize Paul], it might be worth taking him down a peg or two. I won’t…but neither will I pretend that I do not know the background of the matter. I appeal to the author to do the decent thing. Don’t let Ron Paul take the fall for your words and actions. Don’t further sully the libertarian movement by your silence. I know that — in writing this — I am severing all connection between us in the future and, frankly, I am sorry to do so. Nevertheless…so be it. Through our years of association, one thing I have never considered you to be is a coward.Please prove my assessment correct; please take responsibility.

My co-contributor, of course, called for the same thing yesterday.

A lot of this is internal libertarian squabbling, but it’s become a public issue now and it needs to be resolved. Voluntarily or involuntarily, the identity of the mystery author and his connections to Ron Paul need to come forward. And libertarians need to ask themselves why the philosophy of freedom is attracting racist troglodytes.

  • uhm

    Doug wrote: “And libertarians need to ask themselves why the philosophy of freedom is attracting racist troglodytes.”

    Freedom of association or in their case freedom to dissociate.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    uhm,

    Yup, you can probably also add free speech in there as well. The libertarian philosophy of “leave us alone” is going to attract a lot of ideologies that are excluded or discriminated against by other political groups (often statutorily) and some of those ideologies are going to be unsavory. It doesn’t mean, however, that the libertarians are wrong for pushing for those freedoms or that they should tailor their philosophy to exclude the less likeable groups from the mix. Once you start picking and choosing you think is “deserving” of being a libertarian you’re heading down the same path as the anti-freedom ideologies libertarianism opposes. It’s always important to keep in mind that our inclusiveness and the “leave us alone” philosophy attracts a lot of “good” people too.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    uhm & Crawford,

    Again, as I’ve said countless times, those people have every right to believe whatever they want.

    The question, though, for libertarians is whether it hurts the movement or helps it to be associated with people of this type.

    I cannot for the life of me understand how support from the likes of David Duke, the Stormfront nutjobs, or Alex Jones helps libertarians convince the general public that we’re something other than a bunch of wackos.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    My point is this, it would be relatively simple for libertarian politicians to repudiate the racists without making the argument that they don’t have the right to their beliefs.

    It goes something like this:

    I believe that everyone has the right to believe whatever they might wish, provided that they don’t violate the rights of any other individual. However, we libertarians also believe that each person is an individual and that they should be judged, and treated, as an individual. Therefore, I reject the support of those who claim that membership in a group — racial, ethnic, religious, or whatever — makes them superior to others in some way, or those who believe that man is defined by the groups he belongs to, not the person he is. Accordingly, I reject any support from such individuals and will not sanction their use of my name to advance their cause.

    Anyway, I’m not a speechwriter, but it would have been refreshing to hear Ron Paul say something like that when the Stormfront story came out.

  • cadessi
  • TanGeng

    Doug,

    For a political candidate, to do what you say is the best option. For society to shun groups like that is only going to make such problems fester. Vigorous engagement in a neutral arena is the only way to defeat such kind of sentiments once and for all.

    As much as we abhor racism, bigotry, and discrimination based one sexuality, the path to mutual acceptance is engagement. Prolonged silence will eventually result in war.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    Nice speech…of course by demonizing the racists and expunging them from thyou’re still participating in the same kind of collectivism they do.

    I’ve always thought that the biggest liability to libertarians wasn’t the extremists who flock to an ideology that pushes free speech and free association, but the almost pathological need of many libertarians to apologize for or condemn somebody else’s beliefs to defend themselves, which usually serves to make us look more guilty or at the very least ashamed of our position. Frankly, that’s a loser’s tactic. I don’t pretend to speak for all libertarians when I state my opinions, I don’t feel guilty about the fact that people I don’t particularly like (like racists, Paulestinians and “truthers”) agree with me on some issues, and I’ve always found that the most effective repudiation when confronted with that kind of guilt by association crap is to simply emphasize what I believe and why I choose to be a libertarian and ignore the fringe distractions. As long as my political positions are correct and I keep them correct, it doesn’t really matter who else happens to believe in them…it’s an insecure, petty and foolish person who dumps on people who agree with him mainly because he thinks they aren’t good enough for him. When it’s a libertarian doing it, it also betrays a fundamental lack of faith in the ideals he or she is preaching. And you certainly aren’t going to convince the racists (or anyone else) to change their beliefs by continually insulting them and telling them they’re not wanted. If anything you’ll tend to make them more resolute in their beliefs.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    TanGeng,

    I’m not talking about shunning them, I am talking about openly and publicly rejecting them.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Crawford,

    How is judging individuals by the ideas they hold or the actions they take collectivism in any sense of the word ?

    I must admit you’ve got me confused on that one.

  • TanGeng

    Doug,

    Fine, openly repudiating them is fine. Any campaign should refuse organizational support of organizations they disagree with and refuse to lend their name to advance causes that they oppose. But you go one step further in rejecting all support from all individuals. That is disengagement. An open repudiation of their idea and prohibition of those ideas from being aired in and around the campaign would be the best. As far as I can tell, the RP campaign failed to do that.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    “I cannot for the life of me understand how support from the likes of David Duke, the Stormfront nutjobs, or Alex Jones helps libertarians convince the general public that we’re something other than a bunch of wackos.”

    It doesn’t, but then again neither does self-righteously booting them out. Racists and collectivists live in this world too…like TanGeng said, if you want them to buy into what you’re saying you’re going to have to engage them. As for how the “general public” perceives it, if you focus on what you believe, stay on the right side of the issues and try to sell them on that then the fringe groups who vote for your party won’t really matter except to people who aren’t really interested in finding out about libertarianism anyway. You’re not going to sell people on a pro-freedom agenda by continually pointing out groups of people you don’t think are worthy of free speech (even if you do give a weak affirmation of their rights while you condemn them).

  • TanGeng

    Doug,

    Of course the problem with the RP campaign is its wide coalition that drew many different fringe elements around a libertarian core. RP would have to address a lot of fringe issues, which would have been a huge distraction. There are too many issues. The RP campaign should have issued a blanket repudiation that would still have been difficult to enforce.

    Anyways, ultimately, I don’t think this is what did in the campaign. While “Hope” and “Liberty” are nice banners to rally around – people get very excited about such prospects – the campaign did nothing to really assuage the fears of voters. Voters are going to be afraid to take the leap into the realms of possibilities because the outcome could be even worse than it is right now.

    I looking for something rhetoric that would address fear, but there was very little of that put forth by the campaign. I don’t think the folks at the RP campaign really understand how to sell something. The last obstacle to big changes is fear. They had to address it or they couldn’t close the deal.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    The thing to keep in mind is that most Americans don’t vote based on an ideology. Converting people to libertarianism is a doomed strategy, as the Libertarian Party can attest.

    Most people vote based on issues and the news of the day. They might vote for a libertarian-oriented candidate because of his stand on some of the issues, but I think it’s fairly clear that Mom & Pop in Middle America are going to be turned off by a candidate who allows himself to be associated with racists and people who think that 9/11 was an inside job.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    “I’m not talking about shunning them, I am talking about openly and publicly rejecting them.”

    Shun: verb

    To keep away from: avoid, burke, bypass, circumvent, dodge, duck, elude, escape, eschew, evade, get around. Idioms: fight shy of, give a wide berth to, have no truck with, keepstaysteerclear of. See seek/avoid.
    To slight (someone) deliberately: cut, rebuff, snub, spurn. Informal coldshoulder. Idioms: close/shut the door on, give someone the cold shoulder, give someone the go-by, turn one’s back on. See accept/reject.

    “How is judging individuals by the ideas they hold or the actions they take collectivism in any sense of the word.”

    By separating their ideology and theirs into groups labelled “racist” and “non-racist” respectively, proclaiming yours to be superior, then claiming that those outside of your group can’t bring any valid qualities to the table because they hold some qualities that you disagree with and demanding that they be ostracized and excluded from participation. That’s called stereotyping…it’s the same rationalization that racists used to justify their views about minorities and the policies that resulted from that (such as segregation).

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Crawford,

    Do you accept the proposition that some ideas are objectively right, and others are objectively wrong ?

    If that’s the case, then how am I acting as a collectivist by denouncing someone who advocates ideas that are objectively wrong ?

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    TanGeng,

    “I don’t think the folks at the RP campaign really understand how to sell something.”

    That became blindingly obvious with that godawful TV spot they did for New Hampshire with all the bearded people delivering cliches. I’ve seen home movies with better scripting.

  • TanGeng

    Haha, true, true. I’m not surprised they couldn’t close. But if anyone wants to libertarianism to win, they have to understand that its greatest strength is also its greatest weakness.

    “Just think what might happen if…!”

    While it doesn’t make sense to trade security for liberty, people have to know how they can achieve security with their liberty in the absence of government involvement. Otherwise, your typical voter is just not going to buy into the platform.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    “Do you accept the proposition that some ideas are objectively right, and others are objectively wrong?”

    I do.

    “If that’s the case, then how am I acting as a collectivist by denouncing someone who advocates ideas that are objectively wrong?”

    By supporting the fallacy that somebody who’s on the wrong side of one issue is incapable of being on the right side of other issues and demanding that they be demonized and drummed out of a movement dedicated to free speech. When you attack them for being racist, that’s fine, when you say that they should be barred from participation on even non-racial issues because of their racist beliefs then you cross the line into collectivism.

    Individual positions are either compatible with libertarian ideology or they aren’t. But you have to judge each individual’s policy position on each issue on its own merit. You can’t just make blanket exclusions of people based on a limited sampling of their views and still claim that you’re somebody who supports individual freedom and free speech, because that’s a collectivist action.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    TanGeng,

    “…people have to know how they can achieve security with their liberty in the absence of government involvement.”

    Frankly, I thought the best comment I ever heard from Ron Paul on freedom = security came in a throwaway remark he made awhile ago. When asked how we could prevent another 9/11 without giving government more authority, Paul correctly pointed out that had the federal government not stripped the airlines of the authority to provide their own security for their own planes (a fundamental freedom that most property owners enjoy) and forced them to depend on the FAA and air marshals to provide it, it’s very possible that the 9/11 hijackings could have been prevented. It was such a blindingly obvious, cost effective and simple solution that I couldn’t believe nobody really discusses it.

  • TanGeng

    UCrawford and Doug,

    Anyways, the whole racist issue is merely a catalyst that activates the fears of the electorate. The libertarian philosophy has to understand how to deal with this last human emotion involved in convincing voters.

    Libertarianism is a leap into the realm of possibilities. It’s the entrepreneurial spirit applied to the entire government. You might say committing to libertarian policies is a leap of faith. In order to get people to do this, a libertarian candidate has to either ride momentum or placate fears.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Crawford,

    If it isn’t politically expedient to be associated with certain ideas, then the wise thing for a someone who wants to get votes is to not be associated with those ideas.

    Racism is clearly in that category in the minds of most Americans.

  • TanGeng

    UCrawford,

    Correct, the right to protect oneself is paramount. So the libertarian has to emphasize that by allowing individuals and organizations to protect themselves, we can achieve the level of security that we desire.

    That message didn’t reach enough ears or wasn’t stated clearly enough. The right to bear arms isn’t about guns. The right to bear arms is about self-protection. Arms can be guns, swords, knives, any weapon for the purpose of self-protection.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    TanGeng,

    Or, as much as I hate to admit it, maybe its possible that people did hear it and rejected it.

    Just because we all believe we’re right doesn’t mean that the public is going to buy into the ideas.

  • http://www.ballsnews.com Delling

    If Rockwell wrote that stuff then he had better come clean.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    “If it isn’t politically expedient to be associated with certain ideas, then the wise thing for a someone who wants to get votes is to not be associated with those ideas.”

    Well then you’re not talking about being on the correct side of the pro-freedom argument, you’re talking about what it takes to get elected and that’s usually not the same thing.

    Elections have generally shown that if you’re a charismatic power whore who can lay down a great line of b.s. and gives the voters a lot of things stolen from other people (FDR, LBJ, Bush) you have a much better chance of getting elected than an honest schmoe who isn’t stealing from the taxpayers so he can give away “free” money at election time. Since I actually happen to believe in the libertarian ideals that I say I support, I don’t consider political expediency a sufficient justification to betray those core beliefs. Neither should anyone else who claims to believe in individual freedom.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    “Just because we all believe we’re right doesn’t mean that the public is going to buy into the ideas.”

    Then that’s on them, not us. If you really believe that the positions you hold are the right ones, it really doesn’t matter whether the majority of people support it or not…right is still right. And if the validity of someone’s views is dependent upon the favorable opinions of others, then that’s not a belief they hold, it’s just a sales pitch.

  • TanGeng

    I don’t think that was it. It was almost as if Ron Paul never really acknowledge the fears of the American people. Especially when assassination in Pakistan happened, he looked out of touch with concern in Americans. He was preaching to the choir instead of trying to reach out. He said that the assassination vindicated his ideas rather than acknowledging that it was worsening of a dire situation and therefore required a good analysis of the situation.

    He can analyze the situation and still come up with the same long term solution which is to pull back intervention, but he had to address those fears or he wasn’t taking to the majority of the people in this country. This is likewise true for Iran and Iraq.

    The thing with Pakistan is that without the American government support, the country would more likely fragment into many many smaller nations. In that chaos, the US could talk to Iran or India get them to locate and capture or destroy all of Pakistan’s nuclear capabilities. The lack of racial and cultural cohesiveness in Pakistan is more like that of Iraq than of Iran.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Crawford,

    The thing is that elections are the way we effect political change in this country and succeeding usually involves convincing the public to vote for you and convincing them that your candidate would be the right man for the job.

    If we’re going to have a meaningful discussion about how to advance a pro-liberty agenda, then i think we need to talk about how to succeed politically because libertarians haven’t been very good at that.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    TanGeng,

    The other thing that is hurting Paul is that Iraq is not the issue it was a year ago. Polls today show that most people are worried about the economy and their own pocket books more than what’s going on in Iraq.

    IMO, talking to them about the Gold Standard and the Fed when they’re worried about the price of gas and making the mortgage payment isn’t really going to convince anyone of anything.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Delling,

    Based upon the clues left in Wendy McElroy’s post and Virkalla’s he certainly is on a short list of the possible suspects.

  • TanGeng

    He’s fine when he speak about inflation. The path to gold require a lot more analysis and research which is a reach for most people. Of course, Ron Paul only talks about the damage done and doesn’t really speak on how the government can help people in the short run. Of course, his position is that the government cannot help anyone in the short run and that any help would only prolong the pain.

    That’s fine. It’s always been the problem with paleocons in politics. Their positions is that they cannot sacrifice the long term concerns for short term benefits. This is going to be a systemic problem for libertarians and the paleos.

  • TanGeng

    The appeal that Paul can make on fiscal restraint is for the future generation. To grandparents he can appeal to their concern for the welfare of their grandchildren. To parents, he can appeal to the welfare of their children. To the youth he can appeal to the concern for their own future.

    There are ways to sell fiscal restraint, and it has to be done or we’re going to be Denmark level taxes in the near future.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    “If we’re going to have a meaningful discussion about how to advance a pro-liberty agenda, then i think we need to talk about how to succeed politically because libertarians haven’t been very good at that.”

    If by “advancing a pro-liberty agenda” you mean we need to find a better way of establishing common ground with other ideologies and moderates to attempt to bring them on board, I agree and think there’s ample room for discussion. But if advancing that agenda entails excluding groups of people because others might find them objectionable then we’ve already lost the mission…you aren’t going to achieve good results by using bad means and you can’t legitimately portray your movement as a champion of free speech when you kick out people who may be willing to help your cause because they exercised their freedom of speech in a manner that displeased you.

    Libertarianism has a pretty well-defined ideologic base on which to focus that has common ground with most political beliefs (property rights, free speech, individual freedom, non-violence, etc.). As long as people who wish to join up are willing to focus on achieving those goals it doesn’t really matter what their personal beliefs are so long as they don’t attempt to betray or subvert our core values to forcibly impose their personal preferences on others.

    That said, it would still be a cold day in hell before I ever went courting the racists for support, but that still doesn’t mean that libertarians shouldn’t attempt to engage them if they come to us.

  • http://www.ronpaulforums.com Kevin Houston

    Doug,

    The thing to keep in mind is that most Americans don’t vote based on an ideology.

    ….

    Most people vote based on issues and the news of the day. They might vote for a libertarian-oriented candidate because of his stand on some of the issues,…

    I disagree with this, I think most (not all) people vote out of loyalty for “their” team. Either the team they cheered when they were growing up, or the team they think they should belong to because of class, profession, etc.

    The big problem Ron is having is that all the Republican forces (party leaders like MI GOP Chair Saul Anuzis, talk radio hosts like Rush and Hannity) have put out the word and the meme that Ron is not a “real” Republican and should not be supported.

    Rightly or wrongly, many voters in the GOP base still blindly support such opinion leaders rather than think for themselves. It is the safe option.

    I am amazed that Ron Paul did so well. I agree that the author(s) of these articles should be given a chance to step forward honorably.

    What anyone does with that information is up to them. Other than a finger-wagging and a stern look, I don’t really know what could be done by way of punishment.

    Later.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Kevin,

    Growing up in Kansas I used to call those people “redneck Republicans”. They might be really rabid in their support of their chosen candidate but damned if they could tell you why they picked him in the first place or have a meaningful discussion about the candidate’s actual issues…and they were happy to remain willfully ignorant. Those people used to frustrate me to no end.

  • http://www.no-treason.com Joshua Holmes

    But if advancing that agenda entails excluding groups of people because others might find them objectionable then we’ve already lost the mission…you aren’t going to achieve good results by using bad means and you can’t legitimately portray your movement as a champion of free speech when you kick out people who may be willing to help your cause because they exercised their freedom of speech in a manner that displeased you.

    Say NAMBLA and the death row inmates of Texas publish statements in favor of libertarianism. Should libertarians repudiate them? Of course. So, your principle is wrong.

    Is there a place to draw a line, then? I think so. I don’t know where that line should go, myself, but I think it’s fair to say that people who think of other races as inferior do not belong in a group dedicated to the equal liberty of all people. You can’t tell people, “We believe all people should be equal!” when a segment of your group says, “Except the coloreds!”

  • Pingback: More Reaction to The Exposure of Ron Paul - Liberal Values - Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought()

  • UCrawford

    Joshua,

    “Say NAMBLA and the death row inmates of Texas publish statements in favor of libertarianism. Should libertarians repudiate them? Of course. So, your principle is wrong.”

    You’ve either got a non-sequitur in there or you need to flesh out your case for exclusion before you start unilaterally declaring me wrong. I’m not a fan of pedophiles or murderers either, but they’re entitled to free speech the same as anybody else and they have rights as well.

    “You can’t tell people, “We believe all people should be equal!” when a segment of your group says, ‘Except the coloreds!'”

    You’re making the same error as Doug. I’m not saying that we should tolerate policy platforms that call for statutory discrimination (or that advocate violent, coercive behavior, as NAMBLA might do), what I’m saying is if the racists are willing to leave their personal prejudices out of the policies they advocate they’re capable of advancing libertarian doctrine as well and it would be hypocritical to exclude them simply because they hold irrational personal biases that they don’t intend to force on others.

  • UCrawford

    Joshua,

    Although I will say that I find it unlikely that NAMBLA would have significant common ground with libertarians. The racists don’t really have a lot either, but just because somebody is a bigot or a racist doesn’t automatically mean they believe in committing acts of violence against minorities or statutorily discriminating against them…many are content with just having freedom of association (or disassociation), which is a libertarian mainstay. Pedophilia, on the other hand, is an activity that consists entirely of non-consensual activity (since the victims are usually too young to give consent) and their policy arguments (to my understanding) are often about excusing that behavior so that would appear to make them incompatible with us. I suppose there would be common ground between us and them on arbitrary, unconstitutional or unenforceable sexual predator laws but beyond that I don’t see pedophiles being capable of having separation between their personal preferences and their policy arguments so there’s probably a case for exclusion there if your scenario ever came up.

    As for death row inmates, there are quite a lot of libertarians who oppose the death penalty on a pro-individualism basis and, it turns out, quite a few people who ended up on death row without doing anything to deserve it so I’d be careful about putting that out as a universal example of people who we should immediately shun. Collectivism’s tricky like that.

  • uhm

    It is pretty obvious who other libertarians think is responsible.
    http://rightwatch.tblog.com/

  • http://www.rudygiulianiforum.com William Berg

    Just come right out and say it…it was Eric Dondero.

    And don’t believe Dondero when he comes on here to act like “some stranger” to cover his ass. He’s good at writing using someone else’s name.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    William,

    Actually, from what I’ve read it seems like Dondero was not employed by Paul when the relevant articles were written.

    Keep in mind that, for the most part, these newsletters were published during the period between 1986 and 1997 when he was not a Member of Congress.

  • http://ronpaul2008.com Bill Moore

    Will the media also be delving into the nazi origins of the CFR and point out the candidates that are members of this globalist organization?

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Doug,

    Dondero has claimed that he started working for Ron Paul in 1987 so the timeline does fit, and the rhetoric in the articles I saw does have some similarities to some of his more colorful comments he’s made, both on your site and others, and he’d certainly have a motive for not stepping forward and accepting responsibility for authorship or even highlighting those articles for the press.

    But then again, it could very well be somebody else and this whole thing could have nothing to do with Eric Dondero at all. Probably best not to speculate publicly or make accusations until somebody with actual knowledge of the writer’s identity steps forward. This is how witch trials start.

  • http://www.belowthebeltway.com Doug Mataconis

    Crawford,

    Hmmm, maybe my timeline is messed up on that. If that’s who it is though, it would do Paul well to just name the name and expose him considering that there isn’t really any good blood between the two.

    My guess is that it isn’t him, though.

  • http://dangerouslyidealistic.blogspot.com/ UCrawford

    Who knows? Maybe Dondero did write it and Ron Paul’s not naming the author because he just doesn’t like the idea of tossing anyone under the bus to save his ass. Until somebody in the know actually tell us it’s really a pointless exercise to try and figure it out because all we’ll end up doing is smearing a lot of people with wild and unsubstantiated accusations and making ourselves look ridiculous, paranoid and petty. In any case, outing the author is Ron Paul’s issue to deal with and not ours…we should either restrict our discussion of it to whether this event changes our support for him or we should just move on.

  • Amy

    Until someone comes forward we can only speculate.

    I am sure there is plenty of motive to go around. Eric Dondero has written extensively about Ron Pauls racist ties and even predicted this on the liberalvaluesblog:
    # Eric Dondero Says: December 22nd, 2007 at 9:42 am

    ” You’re right Ron. As his former personal aide, I can verify that Ron was generally very loose with those who had wanted to take a photo with him over the years. I’d even predict there’s more controversial photos that may come out. After all, David Duke himself once claimed that he had “attended a couple Ron Paul for President meetings in Louisiana in 1988.” Duke was a nobody at the time. Entirely possible he got to take a photo with Paul.

    By itself the photo with Black doesn’t mean much. Except to say it reflects badly on the Paul Campaign itself, most specifically on Paul’s Personal Travel Aides, who should have seen this coming.

    But in context, with the fact that just 3 days earlier the Paul campaign released a statement saying they would not return the Don Black check of $500 it’s very damaging.

    I predict we’ll be seeing more detailed reports of Ron Paul’s ties to extremist groups coming out in the coming weeks. ”

    From the libertarianRepublican:
    January 9, 2008 1:01 PM
    Eric Dondero said…

    I’m still reflecting on all this, and deciding on the best course of action to take that would be most beneficial for the libertarian movement, and more specifically the Libertarian Republicans.

    Please give me some space.

    I beg your indulgence.

    I’ll have more to say in the coming days. And I’m sure all the information you all are waiting for will come out in time.”

    Dondero may not have written the articles but he most certainly has not distanced himself from the smear campaign that has claimed the internet– quite the opposite.

    MOTIVE? He claims to have mutually resigned over differences in foreign affairs (Eric’s warhawkish views versus Paul’s non-intervention), Based on Reasons interview where Paul claims Dondero was fired. Dondero acts more like a fired (spurned) employee with an ax to grind.
    Reason:http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html

    “Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.

    Paul: He’s a disgruntled former employee who was fired.”

    Could it be he is upset about the man he created and now wants to unseat?

    Eric Dondero, who commented on some of last night’s debate threads, has made an announcement http://www.latestpolitics.com/blog/2007/05/former-ron-paul-campaign-manager.html

    I am this morning, declaring my candidacy for Congress in the GOP primaries against Ron Paul. If he does not resign his seat, and if another Republican candidate does not declare against him, I will run a balls-to-the-wall campaign for Congress in Texas CD 14.

    I am the guy that got Ron Paul elected to Congress in 1996. I can and will defeat him in 2008.

    Eric Dondero, Fmr. Senior Aide
    US Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX)
    1997-2003

    This topic has been all over the place, its like bad computer virus that continually spreads regardless of firewalls. Dondero is on a mission, my guess is that this pathetic soul who claims to have created Ron Paul, is looking to one day say he was the man that brought Paul down.

  • Austinian

    Dondero is clearly a racist. I have heard from reliable sources that he flirted with the ‘skinhead’ movement as a teenager, and was known to spout their rhetoric reflexively. Maybe Dondero is actually the source of some of the articles? It would seem in keeping with his character.

  • uhm

    What bothers me is that people who are “in the know” like Wendy McElroy are friends with the person in question. It sounds like a libertarian cliques dirty secrets are coming out and they all are nervous.

  • http://www.no-treason.com Joshua Holmes

    I’m not a fan of pedophiles or murderers either, but they’re entitled to free speech the same as anybody else and they have rights as well.

    No one’s denying their right to free speech. The libertarian movement is not the government, which is the fundamental error you’re making.

    Oddly enough, you’re saying that libertarians shouldn’t discriminate against people who themselves are discriminators. Your argument makes not one whit of sense.

    it would be hypocritical to exclude them simply because they hold irrational personal biases that they don’t intend to force on others.

    1. I don’t trust their intentions.
    2. If you’re trying to win hearts and minds, having racists involved in your movement is a poor way to do it.