Thoughts, essays, and writings on Liberty. Written by the heirs of Patrick Henry.

January 11, 2008

The Ron Paul Newsletters: Naming Names

by Doug Mataconis

The Economist states openly what others have been saying privately since Tuesday:

While his statements sometimes leave the impression that Mr Paul simply licensed his name to people with whom he had little contact, there is much evidence to the contrary. The newsletters that appeared under his name were published by M&M Graphics and Advertising, a company run by Mr Paul’s longtime congressional campaign manager Mark Elam—which Mr Elam himself confirms. And according to numerous veterans of the libertarian movement, it was an open secret during the late-80s and early-90s who was ghostwriting the portions of Mr Paul’s newsletters not penned by the congressman himself: Lew Rockwell, founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, and members of his staff, among them Jeffrey Tucker, now editorial vice president of the Institute.

Mr Rockwell denied authorship to Jamie Kirchick, the reporter whose New Republic article published earlier this week reignited controversy over the newsletters. But both Mr Rockwell (who attacked the New Republic article on his site) and Mr Tucker refused to discuss the matter with Democracy in America. (“Look at Mises.org,” Mr Tucker told me, “I’m willing to take any responsibility for anything up there, OK?”) According to Wirkman Virkkala, formerly the managing editor of the libertarian monthly Liberty, the racist and survivalist elements that appeared in the newsletter were part of a deliberate “paleolibertarian” strategy, “a last gasp effort to try class hatred after the miserable showing of Ron Paul’s 1988 presidential effort.” It is impossible now to prove individual authorship of any particular item in the newsletter, but it is equally impossible to believe that Mr Rockwell did not know of and approve what was going into the newsletter.

Rockwell, along with Murray Rothbard, went off on the “Paleolibertarian” journey in the early 1990s — to the point where they openly backed Pat Buchanan in 1996 and, quite honestly, adopted a good deal of Buchanan’s rhetoric. Obviously, Rockwell and others were using Ron Paul’s newsletters for their own agenda.

Why does this matter ? Well, here’s one reason:

This matters because, while Mr Paul may disavow the sentiments that were expressed under his name over the years, he has scarcely disavowed Mr Rockwell, who remains a friend and adviser. Mr Rockwell is one of the congressman’s most vigorous online boosters, accompanied him to an appearance on The Tonight Show, and often publishes Mr Paul’s writings on his Web site. Mr Paul now says the identity of his ghostwriter is of no importance. But if the person responsible for spreading venom under his name for many years remains a close associate, it suggests that Mr Paul is at least prepared to countenance pandering to racists, however respectable his own views. The candidate owes his supporters a far more complete explanation than he has thus far provided.

Pretty much the same thing I said yesterday.

Update: Over at Reason, Matt Welch has an interesting article contrasting what the Paul campaign is saying about the newsletters today and what was said back in 1996, when they became an issue in his Congressional campaign.

Freedom is sexy, so share!Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Google+0Share on Reddit0Digg thisShare on StumbleUpon0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Email this to someone
TrackBack URI: http://www.thelibertypapers.org/2008/01/11/the-ron-paul-newsletters-naming-names/trackback/
Read more posts from
• • •
  • Todd Schuller

    I agree completely with coming clean. Not to do so leaves the impression that an RP whitehouse would not be transparent. Obviously something the American public would not be willing to accept and is waiting for full disclosure. Need to see the good, the bad, and the ugly. Time is of the essence,otherwise?

  • clay

    Giuliani has ‘racist eruptions’ all the time (e.g., John Deady, Peter King, Arthur Ravenel, Richard Stanek) but survives because he stands up to staffers. Paul needs to do that, too, or he is unfit for an executive position.

    “I spent $25 million and all I got was this lousy primary”

    http://libertariansurge.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-spent-25-million-and-all-i-got-was.html

  • truthseeker007

    Holy S*%t!…He came out on CNN with Wolf Blitzer and broke it all down. Yeah, this story just so happens to come out the day before the NH primaries.

    Look, this is tired. All this is is a smear campaign. NY times had to retract an article about him being a racist and a few months ago this same thing resurfaced, which got debunked and he owned up to his responsibility. What else do people want? Slit his f*&^n’ wrists…Damn…

  • Hugh Jas

    What Ron Paul needed to do 15+ years ago was name those responsible, fire them and remain vigilant about keeping anti-semites and racists out of his campaign.

    Instead, he has protected them. When confronted about these comments in 1996 Ron Paul defended them as being ‘based on statistical evidence and current events of the time’. When pressed further by the reporter he threw out the ‘ghostwriter’ excuse.

  • Lost_In_Translation

    I agree Doug. That’s pretty much the same story I’ve put together and is the same thing Eric Dondero had to say on the subject. Paul is trying to weasel out of these implications by stating (probably truthfully) that he doesn’t know who wrote the articles and they were not his message. But they were racist panderings to sympathetic readers of the day, no matter how small the circulation and the sections that are in question are ones that Lew Rockwell contributed to and probably knew the writers of. The fact that the campaign is trying to escape accountability and clarity on this is distasteful for all of Paul’s supporters that supported him for his straightforwardness and transparency. It may be none of our business to delve into all aspects of his life, but this is a very public and political aspect that must be dealt with if Paul expects to have a political future with this movement.

  • Bob C

    If Ron Paul is a racist why does he get more support from blacks than any other Republican?
    He has stated he will protect ALL individuals rights and liberty. He has stated Racism is wrong…he’s been called “the most honest man in Washington DC…” by John McCain. This is ONE time I beleive McCain, Ron Paul is not a racist.

    He is the only one who dares to ask why so many blacks are in prison compared to whites…

    Racism is wrong, Ron Paul has spoken out against it. Check out this website – Ron Paul for President 2008

  • http:www.vdare.com JoeMorgan

    Remember, when the politically correct use the term racist, they simply mean white Gentiles who discriminate.

  • Amy

    Truthseeker… not only did it come out just in time for the NH primary, it is all too coincidental that it comes out before the SC debate. Talk about fueling the fire…

    The NAACP continues to boycott SC as being racist state. http://www.charlotte.com/local/story/429686.html

    “America is a mean country and South Carolina is a meaner state,” said Lonnie Randolph, president of the state chapter of the NAACP. “For the government of this state to continue to endorse bigotry, racism and white supremacy, we are going to continue to raise our voice and speak out against it.”

    I strongly believe that the smear campaign taking place in the name of racism is actually fueled by the racists themselves. Racists have a lot to lose if Ron Paul’s idea advance in this country.

    It took 192 years to advance civil rights in this country, and in the past 7 years much of that has been whittled away with the Patriot’s Act.

    There is motive for every behavior. Ron is a real threat and the machine will do anything to suppress his message.

  • Austinian

    What a surprise that you’ve joined the propagandists, Doug. I wish I could say I expected better, but I didn’t. You and Rudy should swap makeup tips.

  • Hugh Jas

    Ron Paul may have spoken out against racism, but he has claimed to ‘not remember’ who the ghostwriter was when everyone knows who was ghostwriting for him in those days. Lew Rockwell. One of his close advisors to this day.

    The publisher remained his congressional campaign manager.

    Even if Ron Paul is not an inferiority complex driven racist and anti-semite, he has allowed them to remain in his inner circle for over a decade.

    His actions have spoken loud and clear – including not returning Don Black’s $500 contribution.

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

    “It is impossible now to prove individual authorship of any particular item in the newsletter, but it is equally impossible to believe that Mr Rockwell did not know of and approve what was going into the newsletter.”

    Oh great, by all means let’s head down this path. We can’t prove that you’re guilty of being a racist, but you can’t prove to us that you’re not a racist. Where have we heard this brand of logic before?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_court

  • uhm

    Besides the racism there is an ideological current being rejected in these articles. It says only the legitimate type of Libertarian are the ones that support the establishment rather than hostile to it. This is an attempt to destroy more than Ron Paul. In the grand scale of things he doesn’t matter himself. This is an attempt to discredit his message by guilt of association charges. It is saying the old right of Taft is soooo yesterday’s news, not applicable, kooky, and racist.

    Ron Paul better have told the truth because it was obvious this was going to happen.

  • C Bowen

    Doug supported the invasion of Iraq which means he has blood on his hands. Paleolibertarians need to distance themselves from these mass-murdering apologists, indeed.

  • Amy

    All the candidates actions speak loud and clear:

    Hillary’s Donations: http://i.abcnews.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3866786&page=1

    Rudy ties to al-Qaida? Perhaps he is an expert:
    there are questions that are being asked Rudy.
    http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/11/30/giuliani_qatar/

    Obama, shady donors… What say you Mr. Clean:
    http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/04/sweet_blog_special_obama_asked.html

    Huckabee, Mr. Ethics.
    http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12205

    Romney: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/19/AR2007091902508.html

    One could spend all day digging up crap.

  • http://conservativeamericanblog.com/ rhys

    There is a limit to how long the public will pay attention to this one charge. There have been numerous scandals in the other campaigns. Paul has set up plausible deniability. Whether you think he wrote it or knows the specific author of each portion of it is irrelevant to the question as to how much this damages his campaign. Until I see corroberating evidence from an addition source, this is a non-issue, and I am sure most of his supporters feel the same.

    When you hear something once, you ignore it. When you hear something twice, you wonder. When you hear something thrice, you investigate. This makes once.

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

    Rhys,

    Plausible deniability ?

    Isn’t that what Ollie North gave Reagan in the Iran-Contra scandal.

    The sad thing about this whole affair, and especially about the Blitzer appearance, is that, for the first time, Ron Paul is sounding like every other politician.

  • Lost_In_Translation

    [quote]The sad thing about this whole affair, and especially about the Blitzer appearance, is that, for the first time, Ron Paul is sounding like every other politician.[/quote]

    …and that’s the real rub. I would been ok if Paul had written those and apologized (though there would be more damage), I’d be ok if Ron came out and said he knows what happens, he knows who did it, but he still values them as good friends, I’d be ok if Ron named names and fired his whole campaign staff, but he’s done nothing of the kind except try and pawn this off as a media bias and fudge the response. He’s playing games I hoped I’d never see in him. Maybe that’s why hes been successful in getting elected, but it leaves a bitter taste in my mouth.

  • TerryP

    Why do we give a pass to every other candidate about their own racist words and actions against muslims, yet we crucify Dr. Paul about someone elses words about blacks since they used his name. While he is not blameless in this, he certainly no more of a racist than any of the other candidates.

    Heck all the other candidates would be just fine with blowing up the entire middle east just to get rid of the “bad” muslims. Only Ron Paul looks at muslims, as well as everyone else, as individuals and would only go after the people that have caused us harm. As far as blacks go, only Ron Paul is pushing for policies that would really help them such as ending the drug war, no more federal education department, much lower taxes, far less regulations, pardons to non-violent drug offenders, etc. What can the other candidates point to that will help blacks other than more of the same programs and policies but with more money. How has that worked for them over the last forty years. I would have to say not so well.

  • uhm

    The heart and souls of the modern libertarian movement’s intellectuals?

    “Catoites accuse Misesites of making common cause with the racist-homophobic-theocratic-populist right. Misesites accuse Catoites of selling out to the mass-murdering regulatory imperial Beltway establishment.”
    http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/7763.html

  • Scott m.

    Lost_In_Translation:

    “I would been ok ”

    In other words you “would been ok” (SIC) with Ron Paul taking any path that absolutely ruined him.

    Thanks, now we know not to take you seriously.

  • Brad

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that displayed substance and thought process in his answers. The man basses his decision on logic and reason, not emotion. He recognizes that emotion is for guidance not decision making. He is a man of great character and those who question it have obviously not been exposed to the vast amount of essays and speeches this man has given over the years. Circumstantial evidence if repeated enough will bend the weak minded to inaccurate conclusion. Think for yourself; Do not be easily led by the bridle of emotion.

    Ron Paul is having a rough time gaining traction with voters because the media keeps painting him in a less than desirable light while over simplifying his positions to make them sound crazy.

    Reality is that Ron Paul has great skill at Root Cause And Corrective Action Analysis. The topics he deals with are very complex and do not lend themselves to easy understanding. He is willing to consider a greater scope of data before making his decisions. He is not driven to foolish conclusion by emotional reflex.

    If the media would attempt to discuss the issues with logic and reason, then people would have a better chance of understanding. Unfortunately this is not possible for many in the media because they are safer using a large vocabulary and smug attitude to attempt to bring him down out of fear. It is much easier to destroy than build when you do not understand. It allows safety in that no one ever finds out that you have no knowledge.

    Ron Paul is the only candidate that does not blow in the wind and has the wisdom to ask the right questions to allow logical conclusion.

    I vote for virtue; I vote for Ron Paul.

  • Scott M.

    Good points Terry, I heard an awful lot of racism towards Muslims in last nights debates and last Saturday’s debate (remember Ron Paul chastising Romney for labeling all Muslims as terrorists.)

    The only problem with this is that racism towards Muslims just happens to be acceptable right now. Just as the gooks, and the kykes, etc…

    Racism during war is endorsed by our government.

    And yet, the one candidate actually preaching about individual freedom is considered the racist.

    Let’s just do a thought experiment here. Every one of these clips from the newsletters appeared in ONE newsletter. Sure the TNR “implies” that this was in decades of newsletters, but he provides NO proof of this. It was there in one issue. Never before and never after.

    Seeing that the GOP has been trying to take Ron Paul down since he backed Reagan over Ford and Rockefellar in 76, is it really a stretch to believe they wouldn’t have put someone inside his newsletter to do this?

    Seriously, just read the articles. It is almost satire. It is a caricture of a racist. Almost TOO perfect. It covers nearly everything offensive and resorts to name calling. Something I have never seen Ron Paul OR Lew Rockwell do.

    Imagine for a minute that Ron Paul really doesn’t know who did this. Imagine that Rockwell really doesn’t know who did this. What other response could he give.

    Given that there is very little evidence that Ron Paul has lied before, why would one believe he is lying now?

    I notice the only people that find his explanation simply “unacceptable” are people that have been anti-Ron Paul all along. No response by Ron Paul was ever going to be acceptable to these people other than him dropping out.

  • Scott M.

    I fully expect the instigators of this to pop up here and claim to be former Ron Paul supporters, but this just ruined it for them.

    They usually give it away when they just can’t shut their mouths and start ranting about all of Ron Paul’s OTHER positions, especially the war.

  • Scott M.

    Doug,

    Do you know where Kirchick found this newsletter? In an obscure library in Kansas. How could he have found this without someone telling him exactly where to look? Why would he look unless he expected to find something?

    You know who would know exactly where to look? The very same people that did this in the first place.

  • John

    I asked as many black people as I know, and they all think this is an issue for white people trying to stop black people from having a president who would end the drug wars.

    All the white people said “omg, we need answers.”

    There’s your answer… you’re white and part of the establishment trying to tare down Dr. Paul.

    The military and black people know shit happens. White people are just whimpy.

  • Amy

    Let’s talk about McCain’s racial slurs

    John McCain and Romney use of Tar-baby
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259282,00.html

    John McCain on gooks:
    http://www.asianam.org/mccain.htm

    John McCain racist ad, campaign strategist not fired:
    http://www.democrats.org/a/2006/10/mccains_double-.php

    John McCain endorces George Allen:
    http://wonkette.com/politics/walnuts!/john-mccain-endorses-george-allen-244578.php

    Not this same George Allen that uses the N word?
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/24/allen_football/

    All of these ties may be in the past. Unless someone was actually listening last night when John McCain said said Iran only wants to trade burkas… Yes John, very smug of you. And by the way, that is to be paid in euros: http://en.rian.ru/world/20071208/91488137.html

  • Man Faded

    What a joke.

    Nobody is holding Hillary accountable for racist ties but she has no problem accepting tens of thousands of dollars from the rap industry at the same time Imus found himself lampooned and jobless.

    Why is that?

  • Rhys

    This is a different Rhys from the one you talked about Ollie to.

    I agree with John, I bet you’re white.

    I guess if you think all of a sudden that Ron Paul is racist or needs to do more, you’re just being chewed by the system.

    He said they’re not his. If you want more, you’re white.

    Ask Richard Branson whats in Maxim this month or who wrote it. Ask Murdoch what’s in the Journal this morning.

    You see? If you jump ship and call Dr. Paul a racist or whatever you’re doing, you’re letting them win.

    They are publications, so they know good and well that Dr. Paul’s disavowing of knowledge and NEVER SPEAKING LIKE THAT EVER is accurate and perfectly acceptable… but if they admit it, they wont sell magazines and be famous.

    You’re just white. Welcome to the world of minorities, where you get blamed for shit you didn’t do.

    If you care about civil liberties, and not just paying them lip service by saying “I don’t like racists” then vote for Dr. Paul. If you’re full of shit, ignore people in wheelchairs, and want the government to collapse under it’s own weight… vote for someone else.

    If you’re mindless, keep believing everything you read, even if it’s only “death by association”, then you should vote for someone else still.

    You people are ass backwards. I heard all those GOPers talking about “towel heads” and shit. I didn’t have to wait for a neocon (and racist magazine in their own right) to tell me that McCain and Romeny and the bunch are racist.

    Ron Paul isn’t. That’s what *I* know. *I* think for myself.

  • uhm

    Former Ron Paul staffer wrote a blog entry on his opinion of the matter.
    http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html

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

    Scott,

    The existence of these newsletters is common knowledge to anyone who traveled in libertarian circles in the late 80s and early 90s.

    Heck, I’d heard of them myself and I wasn’t really an activist.

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

    A note to everyone,

    The issue isn’t whether Ron Paul is a racist or not. I accept his statements on that issue.

    The issue is why he would allow garbage like that to be published under his name, and why it’s so hard to come clean now.

    And it goes to the broader issue of the extent to which some elements of the libertarian “movement” have come to be associated with ideas like this or nonsense like the 9/11 Truthers.

  • 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, and pro-gay rights person in Congress. He ran as a Libertarian Presidential candidate for gosh sakes. The New Republic did not even contact Ron Paul to talk to him about their story and they did not seem to know that it had been discussed ad nauseum several times over the years and 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:
    http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/hotline_after_d_323.html

  • Amy

    Have become associated with ideas like this or the nonsense like the 9-11 truthers?

    This is not new, the Libertarian infighting as to which philosophy should best shape the party has long been the downfall of the Libertarian “movement”.

    As for the truthers… perhaps its because the other two parties have turned their back on Americans that have questions about a very tragic event. Questioning their membership is at best a form of elitism, and worst, bigotry.

    These racists papers should have been challenged years ago, not just by Paul, but by the same people who are exposing them now. They can claim the have, then why again 15 yrs later? Who’s pound of flesh do they want…. and why?

    For the first time in history the libertarian concept is catching on, and guess what? This infighting may very well undo a whole lot progress.

  • C Bowen

    The only question of our day is how “pro-war libertarians” and their support for state sponsored mass murder are still considered in the realm of acceptable opinion in the larger media, let alone “libertarian” circles.

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

    Bowen,

    Doug supported the invasion of Iraq which means he has blood on his hands. Paleolibertarians need to distance themselves from these mass-murdering apologists, indeed.

    That is a lie.

  • C Bowen

    You supported the war, and now you are lying about it? You might want to scrub your amazon reviews then.
    Doug , in his own words
    “I will admit that, in the beginning, I supported the War in Iraq. Saddam Hussein had demonstrated himself to be an enemy of freedom when he invaded Kuwait without provocation in 1990, he’d used chemical weapons against both Iranians and his own countrymen, and, at least as presented by the people who are supposed to know such things, it seemed pretty conclusive that in 2002-03, he was trying to develop WMD’s once again. “

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

    I’ve never denied that I initially supported the Iraq War, that support ended sometime around July 2003.

    So did many libertarians.

    Your assertion, though, that I somehow “have blood on my hands” is an absurd lie.

  • C Bowen

    So you were for it, before you were against it?

    Blood on your hands, indeed.

    You fasten the triggers
    For the others to fire
    Then you set back and watch
    When the death count gets higher
    You hide in your mansion
    As young people’s blood
    Flows out of their bodies
    And is buried in the mud

    Since you didn’t donate any money to the Ron Paul campaign, did you donate any money to the families of those who lost loved ones in this war you supported?

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

    Bowen,

    Who I donate money to is nobody’s business but my own.

  • Hugh G. Knutss

    Did anyone take a look at that last link in this post? The one right before “share and enjoy?”

    These are all quotes from many different media outlets at the time, where Ron Paul DEFENDED his comments in these racist newsletters.

    What this shows is, the press release that Ron Paul put out, denying any knowledge of these racist newsletters is completely false. As you can see in that link, he actually WAS aware of them, and defended their contents.

    GWB was nailed unmercifully by liberals for a forged/phoney document that was proven to be typed on MS Word, and to this day, many still assert it was factually correct. Here, we have Ron Paul’s OWN WORDS defending these newsletters, in a great many news sources, and some are STILL willing to pretend he didn’t?

  • Rhys

    Knutss, you’re nutz. He said he knew of the newsletters 10 years ago, he said he didn’t know their words. There’s a big difference and you’re trying to muddy the water. You all are if you think Paul is wrong.

    He said “I don’t recognize those words, they’re not mine.” He didn’t say “I don’t recognize the newsletter or the controversy.”

    I hope you people start thinking for your self. Otherwise, the machine is going to assymilate more and more American’s while the people with a voice and want to stop it… bitch about what our enemies say.

    You’re allowing our enemies to define us. You’re no better than Bush. At least he never pretended to be smart. At least his friends know he doesn’t care about America. Yours don’t. You tell your friends you care, then dog on Ron Paul for something he didn’t do. That way, he can make no further in-roads, and we can all go line up to vote for Hilary or Huckabee. Go China!

    Bush clones, all of ya.

  • http://snarksreview.com David. S.

    “Sociologist have long known that the difficulties one has to overcome is somehow related to the likelihood of success. Some have posited that it is even a good predictor of the measure of success. They call this phenomena, “adversity quotient.” The higher the quotient (the greater the adversity), the greater the likelihood of success.

    Thus, when someone manages to overcome a great adversity, the odds of great success increase.

    It looks like our good doctor’s adversity quotient may well have just gone up, substantially. The tide of public opinion would seem to be turning in his favor in regard to the horrendous accusations made against him by The New Republic’s Jamie Kirchick.

    Even the talking heads in the mainstream media are starting to concede that Dr. Paul is not a racist:

    “I gotta tell you Congressman, you and I have talked a lot over these last several months and when I saw these newsletters I didn’t know anything about them until I saw that article in The New Republic. I was pretty shocked because it certainly didn’t sound like the Ron Paul that I’ve come to know and our views have come to know all this time.” — Wolfe Blitzer, CNN, The Situation Room

    Watch the video on SnarksReview.com. ( http://snarksreview.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-adversity-quotient-is-important.html )

    At this point, it even seems possible that Dr. Paul’s support amongst minorities might increase as a result of this kerfuffle.

    Thank you, Mr. Kerchick.”

  • George Dance

    “The candidate owes his supporters a far more complete explanation than he has thus far provided.”

    Oh, cut the sanctimonious crap. Ron Paul’s supporters aren’t the ones asking for a complete explanation. They’re not concerned with this story; they’re concerned with the next money bomb on MLK Day, and with the primaries coming up in their own states.

    If you want a more complete explanation, speak up for yourself.

  • prezronpaul2008

    Open Letter To Lew Rockwell
    January 12, 2008

    Dear Lew,

    You have now had three opportunities – 1996, 2001, and 2008 – to prove that you are a friend of Ron Paul and freedom, and you have failed to do so each time.

    This week, for the third time, the puerile, racist, and completely un-Pauline comments that all informed people say you have caused to appear in Ron’s newsletters over the course of several years have become an issue in his campaign. This time the stakes are even higher than before. He is seeking nationwide office, the Republican nomination for President, and his campaign is attracting millions of supporters, not tens of thousands.

    Three times you have failed to come forward and admit responsibility for and complicity in the scandals. You have allowed Ron to twist slowly in the wind. Because of your silence, Ron has been forced to issue repeated statements of denial, to answer repeated questions in multiple interviews, and to be embarrassed on national television. Your callous disregard for both Ron and his millions of supporters is unconscionable.

    If you were Dr. Paul’s friend, or a friend of freedom, as you pretend to be, by now you would have stepped forward, assumed responsibility for those asinine and harmful comments, resigned from any connection to Ron or his campaign, and relieved Ron of the burden of having to repeatedly deny the charges of racism. But you have not done so, and so the scandal continues to detract from Ron’s message.

    You know as well as I do that Ron does not have a racist bone in his body, yet those racist remarks went out under his name, not yours. Pretty clever. But now it’s time to man up, Lew. Admit your role, and exonerate Ron. You should have done it years ago.

    John Robbins, Ph.D.
    Chief of Staff
    Dr. Ron Paul, 1981-1985

  • Andrew Taylor

    I’ve just stumbled across this. It appears that the heat is getting to Lew Rockwell, so he’s sending his surrogates out to defend him. And, not surprisingly, the man who won’t come clean about authoring the Ron Paul newsletters is (through his surrogates) demonstrating that he is ready to throw Paul under the bus:

    “The burden of the newsletter content is on Ron Paul, the man whose name graces the covers, and shame on you scoundrel ‘libertarians’ for automatically drawing the assumption that Lew Rockwell must have, had to be, surely was involved in writing those passages that have you all so horrified. Yet you claim that this man, who has worked so hard – on his own time and dollar – to open peoples’ minds to the more radical aspects of freedom and free markets, is ‘destroying your movement,’ as if this is some juvenile brotherhood of badges, pin pricks, sworn statements, and membership cards.”

    You can read the entire tiresome screed here:

    http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002714.html

    By the way, did anyone else not know that Rockwell was accused some time ago of having an affair with Cindy Sheehan? Google it if you want to read about it. I thought good paleos weren’t so morally lax, what with being “traditionalist Catholics” and all that.

Powered by: WordPress • Template by: Eric • Banner #1, #3, #4 by Stephen Macklin • Banner #2 by Mark RaynerXML