Ron Paul & The Newsletters: 1996 vs. 2008

When the story about the racist content of some of the newsletters published under his name first became public this week, Ron Paul’s campaign issued this statement:

“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.


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

There are problems with that defense, but it appears that the real issue is even deeper.
Matt Welch, the editor of Reason, has gone back to see what Paul said about the newsletters back in 1996, when they became an issue in his effort to return to the United States Congress, and the news isn’t good. The Paul campaign was singing a very different tune back then, and there wasn’t even the suggestion that Paul wasn’t the one responsible for the content of the newsletters.

Consider this from the Houston Chronicle dated May 23, 1996:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of “current events and statistical reports of the time.”


Paul also wrote that although “we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.

Or this from the Dallas Morning News dated May 22, 1996:

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are “semi-criminal or entirely criminal.”

He also wrote that black teenagers can be “unbelievably fleet of foot.” […]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas’ 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

“It’s typical political demagoguery,” he said. “If people are interested in my character … come and talk to my neighbors.” […]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: “If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be.”

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter’s toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. […]

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. […]

“If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man’s character, what kind of a world do you live in?” Dr. Paul asked.

In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

“If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them,” Dr. Paul said.

Draw your own conclusions, I suppose. But there seems to be some inconsistency between what was said in 1996 and what is being said today.

H/T: Mark @ Publius Endures

  • Max

    Yawn, Ron Paul’s not a racist, he didn’t write that, he is at fault for not paying closer attention to what was put out in his name and if you can prove without a doubt that he is a racist lets see it where the copies of these newsletters that Paul supposedly wrote lets see it? If not SHUT YOUR FUCKING MOUTH DOUG!!!!

  • Doug Mataconis


    I’m not saying he’s a racist, I am saying that he clearly said something very different about these newsletters 12 years ago than he is today.

  • Dodsworth

    And that’s news? It was reported in the Texas Monthly in 2001 when Paul volunteered the information that he had lied in 1996. If you want to club politiicians to death for lying, you will be doing so for eternity. In this case, the politician actually admitted it.

  • Max

    The fact of the matter doug is that that the Ron Paul has had a half dozen newsletters with name on it some written by him some not all these so called racist ones where not written by ron paul or where taken out of context these newsletters have been used against him in elections for a decade its getting tired just like you doug.

  • DefendTheConstitution

    Yeah, great way to focus on the important issues you guys. Did you even notice the racist rhetoric coming *directly* from the mouths of the other candidates in last night’s debate? Maybe it’s not important because those racist comments were directed toward Muslims and we all know that all Muslims are terrorists.

    I mean, what is wrong with you guys? Are you freaking blind? You have these childish, giggling, joking candidates that are running for the highest office of the greatest military power in the world and they are actually making racist comments on camera yet you guys are preoccupied with these newsletters? When Ron Paul has never displayed any sign of racism in any of his debates, interviews, books, Congressional record or beliefs!! Wake up!

  • Dodsworth

    Doug thinks he discovered the holy grail or the scoop of the century. The fact that Ron Paul did not tell the truth in 1996 has been well known since he admitted it in 2001.

  • DenisL

    Paul lent his name to a small newsletter for a short time that he did not edit, while he was out of politics and concentrating on delivering babies. I look at it as running an unmoderated blog in the days before the internet. The writing style was not Ron Paul’s. In his newsletters since being back in Congress, he is clearly in charge and they are wonderful to read. Clearly Paul is the most vehement anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-individual, & pro-gay rights person in Congress. The New Republic did not even contact Ron Paul to talk to him about their story & they did not seem to know that it had been discussed several times over the years & dismissed as not reflecting Ron Paul’s beliefs. The New Republic, if you will remember, compared Ross Perot to Hitler! Ron Paul is a good man being smeared for political reasons.

    Check out this website for the CNN interview with Ron Paul about this where all is explained:

  • Jeffrey Bubb

    Gawd, can we just move on to Michigan and South Carolina already!

  • FormerRPSupporter

    You guys are just plain wrong. This is a very big deal. I’ve been supporting RP since April, I’ve given money, I caucused for him in IA and I’ve told all my friends how great he is. Now I want all that back. I don’t believe RP wrote those things, but that doesn’t matter. He let them go out under his name for a LONG time and did not do a good job of distancing himself from it back when he should have, now it’s to late. To say that this is comparable to all lies told by politicians is also ridiculous because this type of scandal would sink any politician making a bid for President.

    The Ron Paul phenomenon is done, as it should be. Thanks for killing the idea that an outsider could make a serious run for President RP.

  • uhm

    Here is an article shining the light onto his character…

  • Dodsworth

    How LONG is long. I’ve seen about a half dozen issues over about four years that have been specifically linked. Even the TNR reporter says these were the worst or the worst.

    Heck, the current GOP frontrunner called Vietnames Gooks and still hasn’t fully apologized. How isn’t that a greater scandal. McCain said in 2000. Now, its 2008. That’s a LONG time too and he has not fully apologized yet.

  • crldrummer

    There was a good interview on CNN regarding this issue and it is quite clear that he abhors collectivism. While I agree that he shouldn’t have let something out with him name on it, there were quite a few writers and a readership of over 100,000 so it is possible that stuff goes out without reviewing it. There were actually four different papers with his name on it at the time. Check out the CNN interview regarding this at

  • C Bowen

    Doug supported the war in Iraq yet calls himself a libertarian.

    What sort of unstable person is he?

  • UCrawford

    C Bowen,

    “Doug supported the war in Iraq yet calls himself a libertarian. What sort of unstable person is he?”

    He’s a hell of a lot less unstable than a lot of people who spend inordinate amounts of their time accusing him of being a neoconservative or a liar. I’m a military vet who served in this war in Afghanistan and although I personally didn’t support the invasion of Iraq, I understand why others did based on the information they were provided and the President’s blatantly irresponsible scare tactics. Many of those early supporters (like Doug) eventually realized that they were wrong for their support, accepted responsibility for their positions, and now oppose the war…which is pretty much all you can ask of somebody who makes a mistake.

    As for whether Doug’s got “blood on his hands”, George W. Bush is the one who ordered the Iraq invasion, he’s the one who exploited the tragedy of 9/11 to justify his little messianic “democratization” quest, and he didn’t give a damn whether anyone opposed him or not (especially not a bunch of semi-anonymous bloggers), which makes him the bloodletter, not Doug. So go send your cliched Bob Dylan references to him.

  • Michael
  • clay

    I guess he’ll have to give back his 1990 Newsie Award for Best Part-Time Co-Editor of a Political Newsletter. Thanks for pointing this out.

  • C Bowen

    oooh, UCrawford, but that is the question isn’t it?

    Doug didn’t need to support the mass murder, but he did. The Marxists know human nature well, so they give folks like Doug a tool called “racism” which is the worst sin ever, even worse than murder, so he can feel good about himself.

    Doug strikes me as a pagan. The honor code for pagans who betray their nation for being wrong is suicide. Christians, and I happen to be one, would look for ‘good’ acts in the remainder of ones life as we are all sinners.

    Doug can’t even come clean for his sin/treason/betrayal of his ideology.

  • Amy

    FormerRPsupporter, you should ask yourself why you jumped on the RP band wagon in the first place? And if you really understand the policies behind him. Or was RP just fashionable?

  • Randy

    The only reason I support Ron Paul is, if he somehow becomes president then he can prevent what is in store for us that they have ready to go in the next few months. Some of you know what I am talking about. A lot of you don’t. I found out on my own. You can too if you care enough. And that’s why I support Ron Paul. Sorry about being vauge. And that’s the only reason.

  • Elaine McKillop, Esq.

    Make no mistake, this is a politically motivated character assassination. As a true believer in the man and his message I am unimpressed with this smear. As an attorney I have seen the destruction of liberty in this country. There is only one candidate that has the insight, intelligence, knowledge and character to lead this country from a course of certain doom. He is a man that can be trusted with the “ring of power”. He could never be a raciest, bigot or homophobic because he loves his fellow man. He became a doctor because he expected that someday he may have to go to war, and he wanted to be a healer, not a killer. There is a picture on the internet of young Ron with Rosa Parks. Look at the faces in the picture and you can see all of the parties are interacting in a warm and congenial way. I believe what I see and not this propaganda!

  • UCrawford

    C. Bowen,

    “Doug strikes me as a pagan. The honor code for pagans who betray their nation for being wrong is suicide.”

    Interesting, I’ve known a lot of pagans and none of them have ever believed in that. Most of them looked for the good in people too. Matter of fact, whenever they had run-ins with Christians most often I saw that it was the Christians who were the intolerant, prejudiced dicks. Well, I guess you can’t expect much from a group that has this guy as their poster child for salvation from a dissolute life:

    Or that gave us memorable moments like this:

    Or this:

    Or these:

    Yeah, I can definitely see how Christians are inherently better than other people.

    You should be very careful about where you start hurling those collectivist stones, especially considering that people from your religion were very supportive of going into Iraq:

  • Max

    UCrawford is just the Doug fan club, doug still supports the flawed “war on terror” it must be nice to for the military industrial complex to have a shadow enemy like al quada that can never be defeated and use them as an excuse for endless war and destruction of our civil liberties

  • Ryan

    Michael: Excellent post…I’ll be sure to share some truth to combat this obvious attempt to smear a good man.

    FormerRPsupporter: You obviously lack integrity as a means to define yourself. If you took a little time and did your homework, you’d still be a Ron Paul supporter.

  • UCrawford



    Every time I hear a Paulestinian start ranting about the military industrial complex and shadow enemies it puts me to sleep. Your conspiracy theories and victim mentalities are actually more boring than those godawful made-for-TV movies on “Lifetime” and less than half as believeable.

  • Max

    So the military industrial complex is a conspiracy theory huh, so that would make old ike a conspiracy theorist? So UC how to you fight a physical war with an army, air force , and navy against an ideology?

  • UCrawford

    As somebody who used to work for the military-industrial complex I can say no, that’s not a conspiracy theory. The conspiracy theories come when you start insinuating that they fabricate groups like al-Qaeda (who are extremely real) or attempt to start the wars just to make cash. That’s usually a tipoff for me that whoever’s making that allegation really doesn’t know much of anything about the military, the government, industry or al-Qaeda and they’re just talking out of their ass in the hopes that somebody will take them seriously.

    Now if you want to talk about companies that attempt to exploit tragedies to earn profits (war profiteering), that’s a line of conversation with some legs to it, but when you start accusing the companies of fabricating the wars and the enemies that’s when my eyelids start getting heavy and I dismiss you out of hand.

  • Max

    “As somebody who used to work for the military-industrial complex” Nope friend the debate ends here, your a yuppie,government apologist, status quo enforcer, CNN/FOX news watching douche bag who denies the elite and calls it a conspiracy theory, you don’t know shit

  • UCrawford

    “So UC how to you fight a physical war with an army, air force , and navy against an ideology?”

    Being a non-interventionist myself, I’d argue that it’s usually a bad idea unless the adherents of that ideology actually attack you. That said, I considered Afghanistan to be a legitimate war starting out that Bush incompetently turned into a quagmire by losing sight of the mission (capture/kill bin Laden and al-Zawahiri), and I considered Iraq a war that didn’t need to be fought at all because there was no demonstrable threat to us.

    I’ve also never considered Bush to be the evil mastermind that the “truthers” and the more stupid liberals seem to think that he is. I’ve considered him to be a rather shallow-thinking, big-government conservative who doesn’t really understand much about how the world worked because his entire life has been a story of failure, incompetence, and mediocrity enabled by a long list of people who never held him accountable for his inability to do anything productive with his life. Basically, he’s a likeable (to some) fool who always had someone or something to bail him out when he fucked up and his presidency is a reflection of that.

  • UCrawford

    “Nope friend the debate ends here, your a yuppie,government apologist, status quo enforcer, CNN/FOX news watching douche bag who denies the elite and calls it a conspiracy theory, you don’t know shit”

    Sorry, but five conspiracy theorist-style nicknames in one sentence officially disqualify you from being taken seriously. And you almost had me convinced that you weren’t in need of medication…so sad :(

  • Max

    One more time

    So UC how to you fight a physical war with an army, air force , and navy against an ideology? Thats what Al Quada is so how do you fight a war against it?

  • Max

    Ok, then why do you deny the elite?

  • Max

    Im not understanding where we disagree

  • UCrawford

    “Ok, then why do you deny the elite?”

    I didn’t actually respond to your comment about “the elite”, I responded to your comment about al-Qaeda being “shadow enemies” (which they aren’t, although their threat has been distorted somewhat). If you want me to give an opinion on “the elite” you’re going to have to enlighten me about who it is you think they are because to me that comes off as nothing more than a nonsensical bit of conspiracy jargon that doesn’t actually identify anything.

  • C Bowen

    I am sure you know a lot of pagans, but are they honorable pagans, or just modern pagan half-men with no honor codes?

    And nice piece of collective guilt with some Christian baiting, I can’t wait for some more moralizing about ‘racists’ from the likes of you.

    Here you have a body count in the hundreds of thousands, and a boondoggle that cost a trillion plus, but brave Sir Ucrawford will still call you a “libertarian.”

  • UCrawford

    C. Bowen,

    “I am sure you know a lot of pagans, but are they honorable pagans, or just modern pagan half-men with no honor codes?”

    Many were soldiers I served with, their genders varied, most were good friends, all had differing opinions about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, most were honorable people devoted to family and friends, none ever advocated suicide. And all of them had to put up with discrimination at some point during the time I knew them from “devoted” Christians who despised their faith…I never knew any of them to return the favor. Out of all of the religions I’ve encountered as an atheist, I’ve found pagans to be the most tolerant by far.

    “And nice piece of collective guilt with some Christian baiting, I can’t wait for some more moralizing about ‘racists’ from the likes of you.”

    I already gave my take on the racists on this site. You’ve quite obviously not bothered to read the comment threads before attributing a position to me or you’d have noted that my belief in the treatment of racists is the same as for everyone else…as long as they don’t attempt to force their beliefs on me or anyone else I see no need to go out of my way to bash them, nor do I see a need for libertarians to exclude them as long as they keep their personal prejudices (which I do disagree with) out of policy arguments.

    “Here you have a body count in the hundreds of thousands, and a boondoggle that cost a trillion plus, but brave Sir Ucrawford will still call you a ‘libertarian.'”

    Yeah, I’m well aware of the body count and the cost. Those bodies aren’t abstractions to me, they’re people who had lives and families and friends that loved them…some of them I worked with and called friends, some of them I helped kill. As for Brave Sir UCrawford, I served in the Army, in a war zone, in the field. I actually put my ass on the line, served my country and honored my oath of enlistment, despite my reservations and disagreements about the war, because I recognized that I owed it to the country I pledged to serve and the people I served with who needed my support. And as soon as my service to the Army was done I was open and honest about what I saw and thought. What have you done for your country besides sit around and bitch?

  • Steve Grycel

    I’m a white conservative Republican, and have been one for over 30 years. My wife is black, so I guess that disqualifies me as a racist. I have to agree with Ron Paul though. Black youth are “fleet of foot”. No doubt about it. They are tremendous athletes. Where would the NE Patriots be this year without them? Also true, black youth fill more jail cells than white youths. It shows two things. 1) Some people steal to pay for drugs as drugs are way too expensive; thank the US Government for that. 2) The court system is biased against black youth; thank the US Government for that as well by turning a medical issue into a criminal one.

  • Adam Selene

    I find it truly interesting that Ron Paul supporters use ad hominem attacks and attack the messenger techniques to try and divert attention from the message. Why is that guys?

  • UCrawford


    No arguments from me on your drug points. Although I will say that the Patriots have a very ethnically diverse lineup and get important contributions from everyone (including Wes Welker, who’s certainly no tortoise) which is the key to their success. :)

  • wisdomseeker7

    Neocon supporters work against TRUE Liberty and that’s why they support vote fraud. Why are you afraid to get to the real truth about elections in America and how its the vote counters who decide who wins elections and NOT the people.
    You prefer to resort to Rush Limbaugh/ Bill O’Rielly Junior high school name calling and doubt-casting because your beliefs are not backed by science nor based in facts.
    Don’t cry or be hurt by my words. Be proud to be an ignorant Jock-brained dolts! (look up the word in the Dictionary)
    The fact is (for those who care about facts that are among you or among those who read your site’s mindless drivel, is that many people have come forward asking why their town registered zro votes for Dr. Ron Paul despite the fact that they voted for Ron Paul.
    If you supposed “liberty” supporters really cared about true liberty you would support honesty in American elections. Obviously you don’t, therefore it is easy to consider your whole site as Neocon propaganda and therefore useless to those who care about Liberty.

  • UCrawford


    “Be proud to be an ignorant Jock-brained dolts! (look up the word in the Dictionary)”

    Hmmm, “ignorant jock-brained dolts” is actually three words. Four if you count the hyphenated one as two. So I find it unlikely that it’s going to be in the dictionary, unless the “dictionary” you’re referring to is one that you’ve compiled yourself. I picture it as being a coffee-stained page, sitting next to your computer, consisting primarily of the words (or more accurately, terms):

    1) Neocon propaganda
    2) Ignorant jock-brained dolts
    3) Rush Limbaugh/Bill O’Rielly [sic]
    4) vote fraud
    5) military-industrial complex
    6) truth behind 9/11
    7) MSM conspiracy
    8) illegal immigrants who steal welfare from real Americans
    9) Dr. Ron Paul THE GRATEST [sic] POLITICAN [sic] WHO EVEr LIVED!!!

    I suspect that the definitions following said “words” will be replete with the misspellings, grammatical errors, and frequent usage of ALL CAPS words so clearly typified by your writing style. I also picture the cover of said “dictionary” as being a large semen-encrusted glossy of Dr. Paul. If this is the case, then kudos to you, your dictionary appears to be quite popular among the rest of the Paulestinians so I imagine it’s made you a nice bit of change.

    I suppose it does serve a purpose, though, since it seems to give the Paulestians something to jot down in their rambling screeds since they’re apparently incapable of discussing any of his issues in a rational manner.

  • UCrawford

    In fact, I think someone needs to create a “Paulestian Buzz Word” drinking game…it would make blogging so much more interesting. :)

    Or we’d all die of alcohol poisoning after one Ron Paul piece by Doug.

  • Mark

    “In fact, I think someone needs to create a “Paulestian Buzz Word” drinking game…it would make blogging so much more interesting. :)

    Or we’d all die of alcohol poisoning after one Ron Paul piece by Doug.”

    Rule 1: Every time the phrase “defend the Constitution” is used= 1 drink; if used with ALL CAPS = +1 drink; if “Constitution” is misspelled= +1 drink; if used in the same paragraph as a statement implying that an amendment of some sort is not valid = finish your beer.

  • R. Merz

    Christ. Ever time I poke around here and notice some (unfortunately) fellow Paul supporter railing on at someone else about complexes and crap makes me ashamed. Guys, not all RP Supporters are crazy, but the ones who rabidly jump on this blog probably are. This is the internet. Please try to ignore the trolls.

  • UCrawford


    I like it…here are a few more I thought of.

    Rule 2: Every buzzword from the aforementioned Paulestinian dictionary = 1 drink.
    Rule 3: Any comments that blatantly misstates Ron Paul policy position = 1 drink.
    Rule 4: Any post that claims Ron Paul will, if elected, have ability to single-handedly change government = finish your beer
    Rule 5: Any comment that claims Ron Paul possesses actual supernatural or magical powers = must immediately consume all alcoholic beverages in room.

    R. Merz,

    It’s okay we realize that not all Paul supporters are insane…heck I am one and I’ve defended Paul quite a few times in Doug’s comment threads. But I’ll admit that every once in awhile on a weekend or slow newsday it’s fun to go on a troll hunt :)

  • UCrawford

    R. Merz,

    Hence the term “Paulestinian” by the way…it’s not meant as a blanket term for all Ron Paul supporters, just the unintelligibly crazy ones.

  • C Bowen

    Killing people = doing something for his country in UCrawford’s world which. You betray these alleged friends in battle by apologizing for the folks who cheered for blood for what, a theory on social organization?

    I smell BS.

  • Adam Selene

    That’s got to be one of the singularly most unintelligible comments I’ve seen posted in the last week C Bowen.

  • Mark

    For what it’s worth- there is some good coming out of this whole fiasco, in that it is forcing a serious rethinking of libertarianism’s willingness to associate with the more, uhh, insane elements of the movement. If you’re interested, Tim Sandefur has compiled an outstanding link list here:

    His primer on the varieties of libertarianism is also useful, if oversimplified.

  • Mark

    Oh- UCrawford:
    I think this idea has some cachet. If you don’t mind, I’m going to turn it into an open thread on my site.

  • uhm

    Mark, I enjoyed the link. The internet tribal war between people who identify themselves as libertarians is very entertaining! :-)

  • UCrawford


    Help yourself…I wasn’t entirely joking about it :)

    C. Bowen,

    I’d have responded to your post earlier but I was busy testing out the Paulestinian Drinking Game and I passed out after reading through one of Doug’s older articles. By the way, your last comment violated Rule 6: Utterly unintelligible comment = one shot (hard liquor).

    And you are a tool.

  • UCrawford


    Despite the fact that our most recent tribal war is a little petty (largely on my part) I will say that I think one of the strengths of libertarians of all types (crazy or not) is our willingness to publicly air our differences over policy as it does help keep us honest. Corruption breeds behind closed doors or where dissent is discouraged after all, as we’ve seen with the GOP over the last decade.

  • uhm

    I know, it just seems a bit one sided.

    Phil Manger wrote:
    “However, I am not so naive as to think that this will mollify the Beltway libertarians. In their writings on this controversy, I’ve detected a barely suppressed undercurrent of glee, as if they’re trying to keep from shouting “Aha! Gotcha now!” They say they are concerned about what all this is doing to the reputation of libertarianism — although, it seems to me they’re more concerned about what it’s doing to their own standing in Georgetown — but I think they doth protest too much.”

    “If the Beltway libertarians are really concerned about the reputation of libertarianism, let them take a look at what they’re saying about Ron Paul over on the Left. Although they like his antiwar, pro-freedom message, a lot of the bloggers over there don’t care for the fact that he’s a libertarian. You see, they equate libertarianism with the Cato Institute. And to them, Cato is just another D. C. think tank laboring in the service of the corporate elites.”

  • Brad

    Little minds allow themselves to be easily led by the bridle of emotion.

    Not the end all but a bit of balance.

    I vote for virtue; I vote for Ron Paul.

  • Rich

    Wow, I guess it’s official now. Ron Paul’s really a threat. If he wasn’t they wouldn’t be trying to dig up stuff about him. If this is the best they can do, say stuff about things that he didn’t write over 10 years ago without backing it up, then Ron Paul’s my guy. He’s got my vote.

    Oh and I had “liberty papers” in my favorites thinking you actually knew what you were talking about. Oops, boy was I wrong about that. You ought to actually read what you write, but I suggest you do it in front of the toilet and then flush after you go, because your full of shit.

  • Kevin


    Who is Ron Paul a threat to?

  • George Dance

    The Reason magazine investigation you cite turned up no quotes from Ron Paul saying in 1996 that he had authored the quote in question. Until someone comes up with something, there’s no actual evidence that he “lied.”

  • Doug Mataconis


    Read the two 1996 news articles quoted. Paul spoke in the first person as the author of the pieces and defended their content.