Shady Infiltration into the Ron Paul Campaign???

While, in my opinion, the verdict is still open on Ron Paul and racism, I certainly sympathize with Radley Balko when he wrote that he’s happy Ron Paul made a very strong statement on the War on Drugs—but hasn’t been satisfied with Paul’s responses so far with respect to recent allegations of racial writings (most likely written by other people) done in his name over a period of quite a few years. I’ve met Dr. Paul quite a few times and don’t believe he’s personally racially motivated, but there are still a lot of serious questions left unanswered.

In the meantime, there’s another issue about which most readers of this site will be concerned: There are new allegations of strange political machinations in, of all states, Ohio. Jerry DeFoe of Ron Paul Revolution Radio provides a report about strange occurrences in Ken Blackwell Land:

Their quest took them to the doorstep of Ohio Campaign Coordinator Doug Joseph’s home to take possession of the signed petitions to get Ron Paul on the Ohio Primary ballot. The situation was an uncomfortable one to say the least. Starry, Patrenek, and fellow Ron Paul supporter Tim Dauten, are welcome only so far as to huddle in the doorway foyer of Mr. Joseph’s suburban home which also serves as his personal campaign office. No, they weren’t invited in for some hot cocoa after the day they just had taking care of these vital responsibilities. Our heroes of this vital task were accompanied by an ironing board disarrayed with stacks of Ron Paul petitions. Dauten, asked Joseph “What if some of these signatures are disallowed?” He was assured by Joseph that the signatures were all vetted and not to worry.

Maryanne Petrenek was also given the same answer when she contacted Maggie Thurber earlier.Thurber is a former Lucas County Commissioner and she is now listed as a Delegate pledged to Ron Paul on the district 9 filing. When Thurber was asked about the petitions, she told Petrenek not to worry and all was under control. A testy discussion ensued concerning the goal of 150 signatures and Thurber informed Patrenek about her extensive knowledge and experience of campaigns she had and wasn’t going to be told by Petrenek what to do. Fifty were all that was necessary and Thurber assured Patrenek that all had been checked and verified.

Anyone who has ever been involved in petitioning knows that you need to gather many more signatures than the bare minimum and the official goal from the national campaign headquarters of 150 was right on. Using slight errors and omissions is the excuse used for striking many names and even entire sheets of signed petitions. It is a cliché that across the country as this strategy has been used numerous times to remove candidates from the ballots that oppose the establishment. Only time will tell what happens next.

Maggie Thurber does have extensive political campaign experience. One such experience is that she was one of four people found guilty for violating state ethics laws related to the infamous Tom Noe case.

Noe was accused of illegally funneling money to George W. Bush’s re-election campaign, using people “conduits” to make illegal campaign contributions at a $2,000-a-seat fund-raiser in Columbus. Conduits named in a federal affidavit included Lucas County Commissioner Maggie Thurber. On September 12, 2006, Noe was sentenced to 27 months in a federal prison for funneling money into the re-election campaign of President Bush illegally. According to the Toledo Blade, $40,000 from Noe went towards running ads to support Thurber’s 2002 race for Commissioner.

As recent as January 2, 2008 Thurber refuses to discuss her transgressions with a local ABC news channel telling them that her political career is “on hold”. Really?

Heard enough? It gets more interesting.

On each of the district delegate petition filings, an alternate candidate’s name appears. The candidate named as an alternate to Ron Paul for President of the United States in the event Ron Paul cannot continue his run on Election Day of the Ohio Primary, is a man named David R. Langdon. Research indicates that Langdon is a prominent attorney in Ohio who has, in recent years, represented a number of Christian Conservative special interest groups such as Citizen’s for Community Values

As early as 2006, Langdon was the attorney for none other than former Ohio Secretary of State Kenneth Blackwell. For those of you who are well aware of Blackwell you are probably freaking out about now. For those that are not so aware, a simple google search of Kenneth Blackwell will lead you to a plethora of articles and blogs where you can read all about the voting controversies surrounding Blackwell during the 2004 Presidential election in Ohio. The State that by hook or crook put George W. Bush into the Whitehouse.

On October 21, 2004, U.S. District Court Judge James G. Carr issued an order rejecting Blackwell’s policies, indicating that “Blackwell apparently seeks to accomplish the same result in Ohio in 2004 that occurred in Florida in 2000.”

So my questions are simple here. Who chose and authorized Attorney David R. Langdon to serve as Ron Paul’s alternate candidate for President of the United States on the Ohio filings and why? As it appears to have been placed on the pages by Doug Joseph, what is his relationship to Langdon? Have Joseph and Langdon recently had simultaneous libertarian leaning, philosophical epiphanies leading them to support Dr. Ron Paul? Perhaps or perhaps not. But the point is simply this: with such a “lynch-pin” state as Ohio at stake, Ron Paul cannot risk having such individuals in critical positions regarding his campaign.

It is quite possible that a plan was thwarted to keep Ron Paul’s name off of the Ohio Primary Ballot. Or it was simply just gross incompetence on the part of a hired political campaign consultant. Who knows, but nevertheless it is quite interesting how the Ron Paul campaign, in the pivotal state of Ohio, seems to have been infested by characters so close to the fraudulent and controversial 2004 Presidential campaign actors. Only time will tell what happens next. With Ron Paul’s name appearing on the ballot having already come so close to disaster, the day just may been saved by a small band of grassroots heroes of the Ron Paul Revolution.

Perhaps because of my role with the Badnarik campaign, demanding a recount in Ohio in 2004, being on Hardball on the topic of voting irregularities in Ohio in the Bush/Kerry election, or the fact that we share a lot in common; Jerry DeFoe has asked me to come on his program at 6am CST next Thursday.

My extreme distaste for racism (I was in grade school in Anniston, AL in the 60s when desegration was introduced) is one of several issues which eventually led me to libertarianism. Fairness in the electoral system is another.

Hopefully, by the time I’ll be hitting this program, daylight will have started the process of sanitizing racial allegations against Ron Paul. If not, I’ll probably no longer be supporting this particular campaign by then.

110 Responses to “Shady Infiltration into the Ron Paul Campaign???”

  1. Fred C. Says:

    Who do you think’s going to give us a name, Stephen?

  2. G.E. Says:

    HTF is the “verdict still open”? Ron Paul is clearly not a racist. Like he said, he’s the only ANTI-RACIST running. What complete B.S., “the verdict is still open.” Okay, Mr. PC.

  3. G.E. Says:

    Really, this is telling. Everyone knew about these bogus newsletters. Why are you now taking them more seriously than a few years ago? Or are you really that ignorant and unaware that you didn’t know about them?

    Some of the quotes in those newsletters reference things that Ron Paul wouldn’t even know were. There is a clear allusion to Public Enemy’s “Fight the Power” song, and I GUARANTEE Ron Paul has no clue who Flava Flav or Chuck D are. Can you honestly imagine Ron Paul saying something is the “hip hop thing to do”—he didn’t even know what GQ Magazine was. He’s a total dweeb.

  4. Tom Blanton Says:

    It is my understanding that Ron Paul’s people dropped the ball in getting him on the primary ballot in Virginia. If it had not been for the local volunteers, he probably wouldn’t have gotten on the ballot.

    Having seen the underbelly of politics since I was a child (my mom was a GOP operative), I don’t find anything surprising. Even the best politicians are still politicians. Of course the political system attracts scumbags, liars and crooks - the government is a criminal enterprise. Winning is everything, at any cost.

    Politicians that are pure are harder to find than virgin whores. On the other hand, rubes who mistake a chunk of shit for a chocolate bar are a dime a dozen. In politics, your only options are to support the lesser evil or get out of the game. In 2008, Ron Paul is that lesser evil.

  5. Jose C. Says:

    Why are you still defending what cannot be defended? Why defend words that should not be spoken. Words that should not be written. When this scandal first surfaced recently I did not put much thought into it. I thought this is just dirty politics. I thought to myself words are being taken out of context that were written in one or two issues of Ron Paul’s newsletters. But as more information came out my view changed. We are not talking about words taken out of context or one or two issues of Ron Paul’s newsletters. We are talking about words written in Ron Paul’s newsletters that spanned years and years.

    I heard radio talk show host Larry Elder talk about Ron Paul. As he read the words written in Ron Paul’s newsletters about blacks, women, gays, Martin Luther King, those with AIDS, etc. I had the thought where did it go horribly wrong.

    I do not expect the CEO of Time Warner to know about every word written in Time, Sports Illustrated, or any of the other magazines published by Time Warner. That would be impossible. But in this case we are a talking about newsletters. These newsletters were published by Ron Paul. He should know about every word written in his newsletters. If these words were written in only one or two issues I would say there is not a story here. Ron Paul saw those words and took care that words such as that never showed up in one of his newsletters again.

    But the words that have come back to haunt Ron Paul were written many, many times in his newsletters spanning many, many years (since 1976).

    You think we are tough? You think George Phillies, myself, Larry Alder, and others in the libertarian movement who are criticizing and attacking Ron Paul and his campaign are tough? If by some miracle Ron Paul were to win the South Carolina primary at the next Republican Party debate following the primary one of Ron Paul’s opponents would take a copy of one of Ron Paul’s newsletters show it to him asking, “Do you disavow the words written in your newsletter?”

    Ron Paul would stumble and mumble, “I do not know. I should not be expected to know. I am not responsible.”

    Ron Paul’s opponent would than say, “These ugly, hateful words were written in your newsletters spanning years, Congressman. This shows you should not to be President.”

    Civil rights leaders Al Sharptan, the Reverend Jessie Jackson, and civil rights groups would demand Ron Paul resign his congressional seat. If Ron Paul refused they would demand he be impeached.

    Air America Radio (liberal talk radio) talk show hosts would spend air time crucifying Ron Paul.

    You think we are tough? If Ron Paul won a primary his political carrier would be destroyed. Ron Paul does not deserve to be a candidate for President of the Libertarian or Constitution parties. The damage done if that were the case would damage the freedom movement. We can not and should not take that risk. The Republican Party can nominate him if they wish though I dout that will happen.

    Sop defending what can not and should not be defended.

  6. Jeanette Doney Says:

    The Honorable Senator from West Virginia, Democrat Robert Byrd is an admitted member of the KKK. There are no records of Ron Paul ever belonging to such an organization, and he does not admit to the writtings which he is attributed, writtings that were dug up for one reason.

    Why would someone be so desperate they have to dig back 15 years to find something they want Ron Paul to “confess”, after he’s already said, “Ir’s not mine.”

    Senator Byrd and Dr. Paul come from a time where America was segregated, and they, unlike many others, evolved to understand race is NOT an issue with the USA today UNDER THE BILL OF RIGHTS.

    Dr Paul is AGAINST the racist war in Iraq, the RACIST drug war, the RACIST welfare system, the RACIST foreign policy of installing a minority of white men to rule over a majority of minorities in the name of God and the USA. Dr Paul is againsy the RACIST UN and it’s RACIST NWO destruction of borders and constitutions to profit off misery (what’s their next trick making Israel convert to Jesus?)

    Ron Paul is standing for the right of ALL Americans protected by the Bill of Rights. If you believe any candidate in this race is looking out for you better than Ron Paul, I suggest you are not an American and plan on relocating from this country, or you are sorely mistaken and here’s how:

    “You should have voted for Ron Paul”

    Those words will hurt far more than any old dirt that isn’t sticking today.

  7. Andy Says:

    “Civil rights leaders Al Sharptan, the Reverend Jessie Jackson, and civil rights groups would demand Ron Paul resign his congressional seat.”

    Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson have both made remarks that could be considered racist. Remember Jessie Jackson referred to New York City as “Hymietown” and bragged about how he used to spit in white people’s food when he worked as a waiter as a young man. Al Sharpton never apologized for falsely accussing a white man of rape.

    “If Ron Paul refused they would demand he be impeached.”

    Impeachment for what? Even if Ron Paul had made racist remarks that is not grounds for impeachment, and the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence that he ever made any racist remarks.

  8. Andy Says:

    “Some of the quotes in those newsletters reference things that Ron Paul wouldn’t even know were. There is a clear allusion to Public Enemy’s ‘Fight the Power’ song, and I GUARANTEE Ron Paul has no clue who Flava Flav or Chuck D are. Can you honestly imagine Ron Paul saying something is the ‘hip hop thing to do’—he didn’t even know what GQ Magazine was. He’s a total dweeb.”

    LOL at the thought of Ron Paul knowing anything about rap music

  9. Micah Says:

    Alright, Jose.

    You seem to be making a willful logical mistake here. There is a clear difference between defending the CONTENT of the newsletters and pointing out that while it might show a lack of oversight in this matter, it in no way implies Paul’s philosophical congruence with the actual writer.

    If it makes you feel better to disavow the campaign, do what makes you feel better. Don’t feign to lecture the rest of us because we don’t share your blind adherence to an inherently illogical position.

  10. bgodley Says:

    Did Ron Paul screw up? Absolutely. He should have kept a better eye on who was editing that newsletter or minimally he should have had a few people watching his back so as to not have these issues taint his actions and integrity.


    This is not an issue about Paul being a racist. If he is he is a really, really bad one. He denounces racism publicly and in several things that he actually did pen. He denounced over and over the actions and intentions of white supremancy groups. He has publicly stated that civil rights leaders were his heroes BEFORE these newsletter accusations resurfaced. He has dealt with these issues several times when they were brought up in his congressional bids, again denouncing to the very letter the intent and purpose of these documents. He discusses this issue in his personal philosophy on collectivism which is available for anyone to read. He had taken moral responsibility for not watching the goings on of the newsletter better. On and on, there is numerous documented PROOF of his anti-racist beliefs.

    The newsletter’s level of proof of racist ideology is circumstantial at best. They were not written by him. Period. End of Story.

    To then read any more into the newsletter thing is exactly that, reading into it, a very easy thing for anyone to do. I know that Sullivan and yourself have both been shaken by this. I know that you were concerned about the immigration piece. I understand. These are very troubling issues to contend with when ones view of Dr. Paul may have been close to heroic.
    I have known some very successful and ethical people who have screwed up and in a big way. Let’s face it we all have. His mistakes do not make him a racist. His mistakes do not question his loyalities and integrity. His mistakes are exactly that - mistakes.

  11. bgodley Says:

    One more thing.

    If you are ready to drop a candidate based on allegation and your position is so anti-war, than you need to check your resolve in this area. We all know that Paul is the most anti-war candidate running and is possibly the most stauch anti-war congressman in this century. His foreign policy views are the most sane and intelligent I have ever seen coming from the mouth of a presidential hopeful. He would not only bring a higher level of peace in the middle east, he would tone down international disgust for our lengthened presence in many countries. He could, in essence, single-handedly, usher in a new age of international calm that we have never seen. My statement may sound overly grand but some of the most effective measures are those that completely reverse trends and plans.

    Let’s than weigh this (along with all the other factors of his ideology) against inuendo, accusaton and guilt by association. Do these factors equally balance? I don’t think so.

    It is okay to question and lose resolve. However, we need to stay focused on what is important and use a critical eye not only on what Paul does but what his detractors do too.

  12. David Says:

    Ron Paul is not a racist. The establisment is getting worried about the left - right populist coalition supporting him, so they are trying to split it up by trotting out that old bugaboo of the left racism. You know he is making progress or the establisment wouldn’t be shooting at him. I know I am supprised every time is visit that liberal bastion surrounded by the great state of Texas (Austin) how much support he has on the UT campus.

  13. Stephen Gordon Says:

    Fred, I know of several movements to provide a name, one of which was mentioned on this blog. But to answer your question, I don’t know if any of them will be effective.

  14. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “HTF is the “verdict still open”? Ron Paul is clearly not a racist. Like he said, he’s the only ANTI-RACIST running. What complete B.S., “the verdict is still open.” Okay, Mr. PC.”

    First of all, I don’t consider myself necessarily PC. This is a matter of conscience for me and I’m trying to make a moral decision on the topic. I deplore the Iraq War; I deplore racism.

    If Paul can provide a reasonable answer to questions like how this went on so long, under his name, without him stopping it, he’s still got my support. Right now, he’s still evading answering certain questions, which looks bad for him.

  15. Stephen Gordon Says:

    Why are you now taking them more seriously than a few years ago? Or are you really that ignorant and unaware that you didn’t know about them?

    I had heard rumors of the letters and read one or two media article about them over the years. However, I did not know the extent and timeline until recently.

  16. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “The newsletter’s level of proof of racist ideology is circumstantial at best. They were not written by him. Period. End of Story.”

    I doubt they were written by Paul and I have no reason to believe that he’s personally racist. I know the guy, have read him for years, and have every reason to believe that, personally, he is very color blind.

    “Did Ron Paul screw up? Absolutely. He should have kept a better eye on who was editing that newsletter or minimally he should have had a few people watching his back so as to not have these issues taint his actions and integrity.” [...]

    “I have known some very successful and ethical people who have screwed up and in a big way. Let’s face it we all have. His mistakes do not make him a racist. His mistakes do not question his loyalities and integrity. His mistakes are exactly that - mistakes.”

    I agree. We all make mistakes. I make them all the time. And when I do, I own up to them.

    This weak response is not taking enough responsibility or providing a rational explanation of how it happened:

    “This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It’s once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary,” said Ron Paul. “When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

  17. Abe Says:

    Another libertarian ready to jump ship on Ron Paul. People make mistakes, but if you’re a white guy running against the war, nothing must be forgiven.

    Ron Paul has never said anything racist in his life. Many pundits, including the pro-war libertarians, have presumed Ron Paul guilty of being a racist unless proven innocent. What a way to jump to conclusions. Sounds a lot like WMD’s in Iraq. A lot of neo-con hype without any real substance. But then again it’s the neo-cons who have the most to gain from derailing RP’s campaign. This Hispanic voter fully supports Ron Paul to the end.

  18. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “I suggest you are not an American”... is certainly a compelling and persuasive argument which will certainly help me decide whether or not I should continue to support the Paul campaign. Not.

  19. Stephen Gordon Says:


    Are you insinuating that this person, who has taken a lot of hits for vocal opposition to the Iraq War, is a neocon? This person, whose personal site is linked from I think you are barking up the wrong tree.

    I’m trying to make, what to me, is an important decision. Referring to “pro-war libertarians” and neo-con” hype is going to make me less likely to support Paul, not more likely to. Is that your goal?

  20. matt Says:

    For the record, I agree that Ron Paul ought to be publicly distancing himself from the author(s) of some of this stuff.

    That said, his reluctance to do so could be due to factors that we don’t know anything about. The fact that blackmail, threats, and simple confusion exist in politics make it conceivable that Ron Paul either doesn’t know or can’t say who wrote this stuff. Lew Rockwell, who some have accused of doing the writing, has offered that perhaps 7 or 8 different people ghostwrote newsletters during that period.

    Let’s imagine that one of them now heads a regional drug task force in East Texas, or that another makes pornography for a living and has top-notch video-editing equipment. Perhaps a third is one of Ron’s in-laws.

    Would you cross these people, or would you suffer in silence?

    I hope it’s clear that I have NO inside information of any sort and am merely speculating, but the point remains: there are some situations where even honest people are afraid to speak up, and often for good reason.

  21. Stephen Gordon Says:

    Matt, I understand your speculation and generally agree that something like this could be the case. I’m considering this factor, too.

  22. matt Says:

    On the other hand, it could just be the desire to protect a confidante and friend, one of whom, a high-profile supporter, is alleged to be acting rather guilty. That is, he’s said to have screamed “no comment” into the phone and hanging up when reporters call to ask about the newsletters.

    Not that such a response necessarily indicates guilt, since it could also indicate frustration, stress, or a number of other emotions. Or the entire rumor could be a lie.

  23. Gene Trosper Says:

    I compare the mistakes that Ron Paul has made to the mistakes other politicians have made (many criminal) and frankly, I see this weak in comparison.

    It’s not as if he killed someone (like Ted Kennedy) or was involved in a financial arrangement like John McCain (Keating 5), didn’t give early release to a rapist—now killer (Huckabee) or screwed over the NYFD by giving them bad radios (Giuliani)...I could go on.

    Yes. Racism is bad. I do not condone or support it, but this is becoming out of hand.

    And to those who say his lack of judgment many years ago makes him unfit for office TODAY, I say this: He lent his name to a measly newsletter of limited circulation. Did that have an effect upon his judgment as a ten term congressman? Was his judgment impaired when he voted against the Iraq war? Was his judgment impaired when he voted against the PATRIOT Act? Was his judgment impaired when he has voted time after time against taxes and increased spending?

    Oh yes: Libertarians supported and APPLUDED his congressional votes and his floor speeches. But now, his judgment is being questioned.


  24. Gene Trosper Says:

    The Jerry Springer tendencies of the libertarian movement is astounding.

  25. Stephen Gordon Says:

    I still applaud those speeches. But yes, his judgment on other issues is being questioned—and rightfully, I’ll add. I’m not trying to be overly critical here, but am trying to understand what happened and to make a decision that I can sleep with at nights.

    If trying to make the correct moral decision for myself is wrong, then I’m guilty as charged.

  26. Thomas L. Knapp Says:

    “They were not written by him. Period. End of Story.”

    Well, that depends on whether you believe Ron Paul circa 1996 when he admitted to writing the stuff and defended his content, or circa 2008 when he denies writing the stuff and repudiates its content. Was he lying then, or is he lying now?

  27. matt Says:

    It is difficult, Stephen,

    At the end of the day, however, it comes down to trust. I think that Ron Paul has built up such a reservoir of trustworthiness with his work in congress and his general demeanor, that the (very real, very serious) concerns over these newsletters can be overlooked.

    If he were just another libertarian-leaning congressmen who behaved ‘normally’ in congress, I might think differently, but he has enough integrity to make difficult stands and resist really strong pressure groups. I don’t think that such integrity could possibly coexist with real racism.

  28. Gene Trosper Says:

    It’s pretty simple what happened, Stephen: Ron Paul has been surrounded by certain people and they have assured him they are trustworthy. Ron trusted them and was screwed. I’m sure his pride is hurt and like most of us, wish that the drama would end. I can’t say I would do much differently than him as it’s a natural reaction to avoid the unpleasantness. Privately, I’d kick some major ass, but publicly…...

    Ron Paul is basically guilty of being human. Thankfully, his mistake wasn’t criminal.

  29. Gene Trosper Says:

    Tom writes:
    “Was he lying then, or is he lying now?”

    We’re all liars.

    Show me a candidate (or anyone of adult age) that doesn’t lie.

  30. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “At the end of the day, however, it comes down to trust. I think that Ron Paul has built up such a reservoir of trustworthiness with his work in congress and his general demeanor, that the (very real, very serious) concerns over these newsletters can be overlooked.”

    It does come down to trust. And thanks for stating that these are very real and very serious concerns—I’m seeing too many Paul supporters who are dismissing this issue while others are dropping their support for Paul over this issue.

    His long record of trustworthiness is a factor I take into strong consideration. A much stronger and less evasive answer on this issue would greatly help clarify things in my mind.

  31. Stephen Gordon Says:

    Gene, both of your points are very valid.

    TK, if you disagree about the liar part, I’d like for you to go tell the next 100 women you see what you really think about the way they look.

    Gene, this still doesn’t answer questions about what Ron Paul knew, when he knew it, and what he did to stop or rectify the situation. When he publicly apologized for it. Etc.

    If someone had spouted racist writings in some publication called The Stephen Gordon Survival Report, I’d have been so livid that I might have actually initiated force of a fisticuff variety.

  32. Abul Says:

    While these writings are unacceptable, there is no proof that Dr. Ron Paul wrote those words and he stated many times that he did not. He has taken responsibility for making the mistake of not looking after management of the newsletter more closely. At this point he cannot reveal the names even if he knew the names of who wrote these as this will bring undue hardship for those unfortunate individual(s), unless of course he has to testify in a court of law.

    Nothing in this life is perfect and Ron Paul cannot or should not be expected to be. He has been caught by the sane, intelligent and young of this country who care and have an inkling of whats ahead as the drowning men catches a straw. So lets make him into a life boat and save the day and I believe this movement is just starting and none in this movement are ready to back down as RP is the only chance thrown at us, perfect or not.

    The Hispanic, African-American or other sensitive minority groups should understand that this racism allegation, while its important, is not comparable to what is at stake and the worldwide ramification of this movement, as well as its effect in this country. To put it simply it has planetary implications. So before you make up your mind, think about the consequences and act accordingly. And I should not have to remind readers that powerful status quo forces are at work to break this movement before it picks up more momentum and reach critical mass.

  33. paulie Says:


    I don’t want to dismiss the story out of hand either. I’ve always been against racism, and I have always detected subtle racism coming from LvMI and some of its associated writers. Always with nough plausible deniability to make it difficult to prove.

    I don’t want to cast them aside too lightly, though. They have added a lot to the movement. has been a bastion of information, particularly on peace, privacy and economic freedom issues. reaches people far beyond only libertarians. The Ron Paul campaign has brought that same alliance into practical politics in a big way this past year. It’s something we need, especially at a time like this.

    I would love to see the Molinari Institute (which also grew out of the Mises Institute) become as big and bigger as the Mises Institute, to see become bigger than is now, to see Agorism gain as much traction as Rothbardianism has.

    I’d love to see Steve Kubby become as popular as Ron Paul is now. But we are a long way from having that happen.

    Just as much, I would love to see the writings of Kevin Carson, Roderick Long, Karl Hess and Charles W. Johnson circulate as, and more, widely than those of Lew Rockwell, Hans Hoppe, et al.

    We are up against a very dangerous enemy in the people behind the military-industrial complex pushing us to a world police-prison state, and the growingly militarized police-prison-industrial complex at home.

    We should keep our strong allies. But we shouldn’t dismiss their faults, either. Ron Paul is very loyal to his friends, and I don’t think he will name them unless they name themselves. They see themselves as being too important on the intellectual development side to step forward. Catch 22.

    It may well be that the racial rhetoric which is stated much more subtly these days, but more forthrightly in the newsletters, is a big piece of the financial pipeline. Certainly, they have attracted far more donor support for their effort than the Molinari Institute, Agorism, etc.

    I haven’t forgotten the cozying up to Pat Buchanan or the op-ed praising the beating of Rodney King. Then again, Rothbard made friends with the New Left and the Black Panthers in another era which was much more like our own.

    I’m neither dismissing this casually nor dropping support for Ron Paul at this time. What I’d love to see is another alternative for fighting for the many good issues Ron Paul is bringing to the forefront emerge, but without any ties to racialism, migrant-bashing, homophobia, etc. As I have said all along, we can not tie our fortunes to one man or act without a plan B. Anything you can do to make plan B viable would be greatly appreciated.

    In the meantime, we still need to do what we can with plan A, despite whatever faults it may have.

  34. Stephen Gordon Says:

    This blog comment says a lot to me:

    “But as you put it, a reasonable response it to “shun” an open racist, or at the very least express clear disapproval. That’s all I’m doing as a (former) grassroots organizer for Ron Paul. I’ll most likely still vote for him, but to carry on as if this never happend is to implicity endorse the sentiments of the newsletter.”

  35. John Says:

    lol Ron Paul isn’t a lesser evil. He’s the only damned good.

    If you know he’s not a racist, and you jump ship, you’re a closet racist who doesn’t want to get outed. It must be true, cause otherwise you just don’t have the guts to stand up for someone when you know they’re right and getting a bum wrap.

    Don’t blow shit out of proportion. Dr. Paul’s not a racist. If you think it’s important to find out the writer of the newsletter, go vote for one of the evil people. I only say this because, the writer is someone nobody cares about. Therefor, I’ll take credit. I’m probably just as famous or important as the real ass who wrote that stuff in Dr. Paul’s newsletter so just blame me and move on.

  36. R. Merz Says:

    As far as this stuff goes, I don’t think Paul’s a racist at all. Think about it. In all his years, the ONLY mention of possible racism are these newsletters. That’s it. Hell, from what I hear, Dondero doesn’t even think it’s true.

    I find it impossible that he’s a racist, and people that are trying to call him one are just muckracking.

    However, the /true/ hurt of this story beyond the bloated ‘facts’ and emotions this attack illicits is how Paul could be so ignorant. While Paul is by no means at all a racist, the fact that THIS is the only evidence just goes to show it’s true, I do believe that Paul is 100% guilty of, at least in regards to this, an ignorant fool. Possibly stupid, and that isn’t what’s going to play very well. That’s what should be focused on, because everyone knows the racist angle is horseshit.

    He let these things go out under his name. I don’t think he’s ‘enabling’ white supremacists or any of the shit people are trying to throw on because they don’t like his ideas, but this was a major FUBAR. Paul was incompetent in this instance, and more-so, his campaign staff are incompetent. I’m still voting for RP and I believe in what he espouses wholeheartedly and I think he’s a really great guy, but in this, he fucked up. He fucked up big. Alone, it wouldn’t sink him, people are allowed these kinds of mistakes, as it’s really the only big one in his whole 30 years in office.

    However, it’s enough to shine a big ol’ light on the incompetence of his campaign staff. These guys have handled it horribly, and I’m sad that Paul doesn’t have the heart to see it and get some professionals for God sakes. The campaign’s incompetence is what’s sunk the possible success of this. If Paul wins the primary, I’ll sell all my possessions and become a monk, but I’m still going to vote for him because - even with this incompetence - Paul is still the best guy for the job. I don’t care how competent every one else is, because all they’re competent at is dragging us into a depression.

    Everyone else is screaming voter fraud, and my fellow supporters /should/ be making angry phone calls to the Paul campaign, not to some dolt of a county clerk who made a double mistake of making a mistake with the wrong candidate’s vote count.

    Paul’s only shot to salvage this is to hire some professionals, but it’s not gonna happen, I think, so long as people go chasing after shadows.

  37. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “If you know he’s not a racist, and you jump ship, you’re a closet racist who doesn’t want to get outed.”

    Now this certainly provides a compelling reason for me to continue to support Ron Paul. Sarcasm intended.

  38. paulie Says:


    I like this part of the original post you linked better.

    The Paul candidacy presents a special case of the small-sample problem. For many people, Ron Paul is the first and only libertarian-identified candidate they’ve ever seen receive any serious media attention. As a result, they may assume other libertarians share all of his views. Many libertarians, including Kling, are wary of supporting Paul - even though they probably agree more with Paul than anyone else in the field - because they fear the public will assume that all libertarians are anti-immigrant gold-bug conspiracy theorists (and possible closet racists).

    This implies a positive solution, rather than a negative one. Help get some other libertarian-identified candidates serious media attention (you are good at that, as I’m sure everyone here knows). Then we won’t be hurt as much by the small sample problem.

    Merely becoming less supportive of Ron Paul without becoming more supportive of other candidates does nothing to solve the many real problems that the Ron Paul campaign is alone in addressing on the national stage right now (by this, I mean that the current candidates for third party nominations are not on the national stage in the same sense).

    Likewise, if as many people have suggested the racial rhetoric is traced (or widely presumed to be traced) to people prominently associated with the Mises Institute, it will do nothing for the movement unless we build up other radical alternatives such as the Molinari Institute to become just as well-funded, widely read and prominent. Reason and Cato are good as far as they go, but it isn’t far enough in the long run. If we ignore long range goals, we are unlikely to ever achieve them. Without a solid foundation, I’m not even sure we wouldn’t be sidetracked in achieving even short term goals.

  39. Gene Trosper Says:


    Believe me: if someone wrote the same things under the “Gene Trosper Survival Report”, I’d likely be serving time for aggravated assault, at the very least. However, I seriously doubt I would be naming names. That’s just the way I operate. I keep my personal problems personal and deal with them privately. In that aspect, I can’t fault Ron Paul because I would likely have the same reaction and probably tell those pressuring me to name names to f*ck off. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but I don’t care. My personal issues and business is MY business, not anyone else’s.

    Ron’s been punished. He has been humiliated in the national media, been made to apologize numerous times, is likely having strained relations with those responsible and his good name is tarnished within the libertarian movement.

    Two questions: How much more should he be punished? What good would it do to make him explain further? The damage has already been done and frankly, at this juncture there really is very little he can do to mitigate the damage that has already been done. For many people, it would just appear as “more excuses”.

    I’ve forgiven Ron for this, but I won’t forget. I will also keep supporting his campaign because in the end, his campaign’s message is bigger than these allegations. Honestly, by demanding Ron Paul apologize further, it would only make me feel more like a sadist instead of lessening whatever angst is being caused. It wouldn’t make me feel better, just worse that I have continued to kick an essentially good man while he’s down.

    We have to now decide which is more important:

    Abandoning the best pro-liberty presidential campaign in decades because of some stupid words that were written years ago.

    Or….keeping up in the fight to spread the message of liberty in the hope that more Americans wake up and join us.

    Maybe it’s just me, but I think the message of liberty towers over stupid words printed years ago. This is not to excuse those words…far from it!

    Like I have said before: we are all imperfect humans. If we expect our candidates to be virtuous and without fault, we may as well give up hope now.

  40. Gene Berkman Says:

    I have long admired Ron Paul, and supported his campaign in 1988 as Riverside County Coordinator, and I support him now through my Libertarians for Ron Paul website.

    I also know he is not a racist, and that many who are promoting this scandal oppose Paul because of his stand against the war. I even think I know who wrote the newsletters, but I cannot speak from close personal knowledge, only general knowledge available to other long-time libertarians.

    That said, the newsletter scandal and the Ohio problems both show that perhaps the Libertarian Movement is not ready for a campaign for President. Clearly we are not strong enough to elect a President, or nominate a Libertarian in a major party convention. And clearly, the Ron Paul campaign is the strongest libertarian campaign in my lifetime.

    But the problems of managing a nation-wide campaign involve issues of trust, networking, and resources. The Paul campaign has raised more money than any previous effort, and has developed a number of interesting networks. There still remain opportunities for problems caused by the fact that people are joining the campaign who have never worked with other libertarians before, and people are joining the campaign who might have questionable associations and viewpoints.

    The solution is not to back Steve Kubby or George Phillies, either of whom can embarrass the Libertarian Party among the few people who will hear about them. The solution is to back candidates for Congress who can emulate the better parts of Ron Paul’s record, and watch them after they are in office.

  41. paulie Says:

    Gene, correct until your last paragraph.

    The solution is not to back Steve Kubby or George Phillies, either of whom can embarrass the Libertarian Party among the few people who will hear about them.

    Very few assumes facts not yet known, and any candidate will embarass some people while bringing in others.

    The solution is to back candidates for Congress who can emulate the better parts of Ron Paul’s record, and watch them after they are in office.

    True, but having a presidential ticket is a big part of that effort. See

  42. paulie Says:

    The Gene I was answering was Berkman, not Trosper.

  43. Fred C. Says:

    Jesus, I remember people arguing for focusing all time & donations on the congressional level back when I was in high school. It was a good idea back then, and I’m glad it hasn’t died. But this statement rings truer to my own feelings:

    “And clearly, the Ron Paul campaign is the strongest libertarian campaign in my lifetime.”

    Which is why I believe everyone should see it through. In November, the American people are once again going to be presented with two big-government war-candidates. Possibly three. Do you really want to see the strongest libertarian campaign in recent memory collapse before the general election? I don’t. Make 2010 the year Libertarians make it to the House.

  44. Trent Hill Says:

    RonPaulCongress is a good solution. Dr. Murray Sabrin, Dean Santoro, Bryan Greene, Dr. B.J. Lawson, Peter Bearse, State Senator Joe Carraro, Rev. David R. Grate, State Rep. Tom Brinkman, Michael Smitley, Lt. Colonel John Mitchel, Paul Jost, Vern McKinley,and State Senator Cale Case.

    At least 13 Congressional candidates have DECENT chances at getting into Congress.

  45. Fred C. Says:

    I think I missed the opportunity to ask Stephen the more interesting question: If you withdraw your support for the RP campaign and he goes on to take the LP nomination, what are you gonna do?

  46. Trent Hill Says:

    And 7 have GOOD chances.

  47. Stephen Gordon Says:


    Good question. I’m still trying to puzzle this whole thing out. It will probably take most of a bottle of bourbon tonight.

  48. paul Says:

    Steve, make it down to B’ham or better yet Tuscaloosa and I will chip in on that bottle. We can make it a handle jug.

  49. Rolf Lindgren Says:

    The newsletters are a non-issue. The racist war on drugs is the issue. All the candidates supporting the war on drugs are enabling racism.

  50. paul Says:

    This thread needs some Itch and Scratch.

  51. Itch Says:

    Paul, as long as you and Seth are going to make light of Mangela’s hidden ‘agenda’ the lnc will never have its shit together. “She” needs to get it out in the open or get off the lnc. It isn’t carnival. Before you know we got bearded ladies and fire dancers representing.

    I like Mangie. S/he’s smart, capable and very principled but a dude.

  52. paulie Says:

    One guy’s opinion, some of you may recognize him

  53. paulie Says:

    More from this user

  54. Jay Matthews Says:

    Anyone see this?:

  55. paul Says:

    Apparently Wendy McElroy said the same thing. They would know a lot better than me, since it was “before my time”.

    I’ve been in the party/movement since ‘92, but was not a reader of any of those newsletters back then, much less personally knowing any of the people involved.

  56. Tom the Trotskyist Says:

    I agree with Pauli on everything.

    And yes, Ron Paul’s campaign has been infiltrated by the white supremesits. But fortunately, the socialists are also infiltrating it and will take it back from them. The constitution cannot be saved, the only solution for social freedom is the New World Order to destroy American sovereignty and economic liberty.

    BTW, I will be away from this site for several weeks due to secret important missions. In the meantime, please pray for Barack Obama.

  57. paul Says:

    Trotskyist Tom,

    I’m glad we agree on everything. Can we also agree that there is an E at the end of Paulie?


    Balack Osama is in my prayers.

  58. Wes Benedict Says:

    Steve Gordon,

    Tell us if you’ve been contemplating working for another Presidential candidate during the past couple of days.

  59. Stephen Gordon Says:


    Absolutely not.

  60. paulie Says:

    Steve, is this an example of Ron Paul supporters incivility?

    I think it’s funny, actually….

  61. Stephen Gordon Says:


    Here’s a classic example of incivility by Ron Paul supporters, though.

  62. matt Says:

    One overlooked point about the newsletters. While they do contain offensive material, the racist passages are, in my opinion racist on an Ann Coulter, Al Sharpton, MadTV level, rather than on an IHR, Stormfront, George Lincoln Rockwell level.

    I’m not excusing what’s said, because there’s a lot of it that I wouldn’t endorse, but it bears repeating that this stuff isn’t exactly KKK boilerplate and at least eschews the most egregious slurs.

  63. Alun H Says:

    I’m at a bit of a loss as to why this is still a make/break issue. Dr. Paul’s entire congressional (and non-congressional) life, speeches, books, etc. are a testimony to the contents of the newsletters not being something that he would have ever said or condoned. The facts that he has continuously denounced such ideology and at the same time accepted moral responsibility for not editing what is attached to his name addresses any concerns I have in this regard.

    Assuming Dr Paul actually knows who wrote the vitriolic articles in question, I find it somewhat bemusing that people expect someone who has for decades defending everyones right to say whatever they want, to suddenly forgo just defense and name names; I just don’t see it happening. As with any good manager/executive, responsibility has been taken for the actions that occurred, regardless that the guilt lies elsewhere.

    These are serious times, legislation after legislation is passing through federal government making the future for the people of this country look more and more grim. The path the country is on has been trodden by nations before in the name of religion, power, or however people decide to justify empire and dominion over others. Dr. Paul is the only sane voice amongst a crowd of consummate politicians and prevaricators who we know are implement as they espouse “change”. Unfortunately for this country change from its core values, for the ideology of the founding fathers. This country is turning full circle and in the near future the citizens will yet again be living under the same yoke that the government of the time forced them to bear. For make no mistake the independence was fought for by overthrowing the government of the people (British at the time).

    Now, as for the actual intent of the article, I’m not surprised by such issues occurring within the Paul campaign…When too much freedom is permitted one of the best ways to work is to take someone else’s cause and subvert it to your own ends. I would not be in the least bit surprised that this is not occurring elsewhere.

  64. paul Says:


    True, that does seem over the top. I don’t think that town clerk headed up any election fraud effort.

    For that matter, there may not have been election fraud at all.

    Maybe Rudy did get 9.11% in each of three different counties. After all he got around 9%, so it might just be a coincidence. But, if there was any election fraud, that seems like a rather obvious “fuck you” calling card by the perpetrators.

  65. paulie Says:

    Andrew Sullivan on the SC debate, touching on the newsletters issue


    When he was asked to disown the 9/11 Truthers, he gave a revealing answer, and one that reflects on the newsletters issue. It just isn’t in his nature to adopt other people’s views, or to tell anyone else what to believe or what to say. He doesn’t just believe in libertarianism; he lives it. This means that he doesn’t have the instinct to police anyone else’s views or actions within the law or the Constitution. I don’t think it excuses his negligence in the past, but it does help me understand it better.

    One other vital thing: none of the candidates seems to have the slightest nuance on the Iraq war. I don’t find Paul’s extreme non-interventionism to be palatable; but I don’t think it’s less inherently reasonable than McCain’s belief in occupying half the planet for ever as long as we don’t have US casualties. Giuliani is the nuttiest. Romney just vacuous and dumb. To listen to McCain, you would honestly think Iraq would soon become a peaceful, unified, independent nation. At best, that might happen in 50 years time. Until then, we have to occupy the place, constantly juggling various militias, appeasing various factions, arming those who will one day attack us and then the next day realign with us? Empire is a rough business. And when you’re running en empire on borrowed money and your own currency is going down the tubes, it’s not an indefinite prospect. And if McCain believes Arab culture will tolerate a permanent American occupation the way that Koreans or Germans have, he has learned nothing from these past five years and even less from history.

  66. paulie Says:

    This is not so funny.

    I hope I’m not being too incivil to Da Mayor by spreading this around…

  67. Jose C. Says:

    This scandal is now being covered by the magazine, The Economist. In The Economist website an article written reads in part:

    “The Paul campaign is offering the same defense now: The newsletters in question, they say, were ghostwritten by a group of people to whom Mr Paul had lent his name, over whom he had exercised little oversight. Implausible as this may sound, most people familiar with Mr Paul seem disposed to accept it, as the offensive articles resemble Mr Paul’s other writing in neither style nor substance.

    But that excuse may not help much this time even if it is believed. The obvious questions that then come to mind being: Exactly how do you let a gang of undisguised racists publish under your name for years at a time, and why aren’t you naming them if you’re as horrified as you say by the stain they’ve placed on your reputation?”

  68. paulie Says:

    Steve, how is that bottle of Bourbon coming along?

    From myspace bulletins


    Sometimes when I reflect back on all the wine I drink
    I feel shame. Then I look into the glass and think
    about the workers in the vineyards and all of their hopes
    and dreams . If I didn’t drink this wine, they might be out
    of work and their dreams would be shattered.
    Then I say to myself, “It is better that I drink this wine and let their
    dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver.”
    ~ Jack Handy

    WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may leave you wondering what the hell
    happened to your bra and panties.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
    “I feel sorry for people who don’t drink. When they
    wake up in the morning, that’s as good as they’re
    going to feel all day. ”
    ~Frank Sinatra

    WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher, smarter, faster and better looking than most people.

    “When I read about the evils of drinking,I gave up reading.”
    ~ Henny Youngman

    WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may lead you to think people are laughing WITH you.


    “24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence?
    I think not.”
    ~ Stephen Wright

    WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause you to think you can sing.

    ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “When we drink, we get drunk. When we get drunk,
    we fall asleep. When we fall asleep, we commit no sin. When we commit no sin, we go to heaven.
    So, let’s all get drunk and go to heaven!”
    ~ Brian O’Rourke

    WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause pregnancy.

    “Beer is proof that God loves us and wants usto be happy.”
    ~ Benjamin Franklin

    WARNING: The consumption of alcohol is a major factor in dancing like a retard.

    “Without question, the greatest invention in the
    history of mankind is beer. Oh, I grant you that the
    wheel was also a fine invention, but the wheel does
    not go nearly as well with pizza.”
    ~ Dave Barry

    WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may cause you to tell your friends over and over again that you love them.

    To some it’s a six-pack, to me it’s a Support Group. Salvation in a can!
    ~ Dave Howell

    WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may make you think you can logically converse with members of the opposite sex without spitting.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
    And saving the best for last, as explained by Cliff Clavin, of Cheers.
    One afternoon at Cheers, Cliff Clavin was explaining the Buffalo Theoryto his buddy Norm.
    Here’s how it went:

    “Well ya see, Norm, it’s like this. A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural select ion is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members. In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells But naturally, it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first. In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That’s why you always feel smarter after a few beers.”

    WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may make you think you are whispering when you are not.

  69. bgodley Says:


    Again I fully understand your concern regarding this issue, it bothered me too. However, I as an individual have to weigh all the factors in a situation. If choose to continue to support Paul it does not necessarily come from blind faith but more out of the same reasoning faculties that made me a Paul supporter in the first place.

    When I look at the direction of the country, the herculian task it would be to even create a more sane and democratic scene, I find myself taking Paul a little less to task on this issue.

    I would like to ask you if you truly think Ron Paul is a racist? If so then I won’t try and convice you. I would respect your decision. However, If you don’t think he is then what is it that bothers you? If it is Paul’s lack of ownership would this be a telling statement to you? a larger comment on his character? If that is true then I think we would have something as a basis for a good morale argument.

    As an aside,
    I would like to extend my appreciation for your tact in handling some of the other Paul supporter posts. I can only say that some of them in no way reflect the majority of his support base. I know so many great people who are supporters. They are very concerned but very well mannered and intentioned. Paul’s message has the unwelcome phenomena of attracting a more angry group of people too. They are just plain pissed off in life and Paul’s campaign gives them an excuse to spout their vitriol.

    I think too that this stuff is also a phenomena of a much larger situation. This may sound overly grand but I think we are at a precipice in this country. Paul’s campaign is more that a battle to beat Romney, Huckabee or any other candidate. His is a battle over the hearts and minds of men. What we do in the here and now will have long term reprecussions for our country and our kids future. It is not a small game we are playing and the stakes are high. Feathers will be ruffled, odd characters will have their scenes, stupid mistakes will be made and battles will be won and lost.
    We are also fighting the desensitization in this country. We have become so plugged in that many have lost a passion and zeal for life. They look oddly at anyone who demonstrates any real thirst for improvement because they want all their opinions vanilla flavored.

    Well, I hope you take my comments in the spirit that they are delivered. One concerned American to another.

  70. Stephen Gordon Says:


    I don’t think Paul is personally racist. There are still related issues which concern me.

    He’s made statements that he’s taken responsibility for what happened, but he really doesn’t seem to have done so. Where’s the anger? If he truly isn’t guilty of involvement in the issue, why isn’t he naming names in the loudest of manners?

    I’ll probably still vote for Paul, but I’m not sure that I want to wear the pin of a candidate who refuses to remove the pin (and perhaps refused to remove the pen) of a racist.

  71. Jay Matthews Says:

    Stephen: If you truly believe RP is being truthful who is he supposed to name?

  72. bgodley Says:


    I am not sure about his naming names. Paul himself has stated that he is not sure who wrote the pieces. Yes, that could be a weak argument but in all the things he has done or said I have gotten the impression that he is not prone to lying. If this is a bold face lie than he would be the most artful liar I have ever known and in the businesses I have run I have come across some really really good ones. However, if what Paul says is true than we need to look at our own actions and reactions to these type of things. If we knee jerk to the sensationalism than are we not as guilty as those angry folks I alluded to earlier who operate more on distrust than passion?

    My take is that I would rather be 100% wrong about Paul than half hearted about about the political course this country is talking. Sort of along the lines of the 120% philosophy that Carnegie mentioned as a guiding principle. In his actions he would go 120%. That means he woud put 120% behind his successes and 120% behind his failures. He never equivocated. That philosophy lands you into trouble but it also helps guarantee more success when you are right. You just have to be more right than wrong.

    So I say if you still support Paul don’t trouble yourself about whether you should wear a pin. Get a large banner for your house, a monster 4×4 with posters on the side and hire a skywriter and the devil take the detractors.

  73. bgodley Says:

    One more thing. If you are looking for that anger in Paul’s position about this his interview on CNN may give you what you are looking for.

  74. Stephen Gordon Says:

    To answer several questions, I also believe that Ron Paul is honest—but being evasive on this issue.

    Many people have strongly suggested, some have actually named the name, and it’s an open secret among the old-school libertarian/paleo crowd that that name is Lew Rockwell.

  75. paulie Says:

    A well-known libertarian moderate just called me with the theory that it was Murray Rothbard. (I won’t say who said this, because I didn’t ask whether he wanted to be associated with this statement). He claims there are a lot of people who think so, although I have never seen that speculation, unlike what swirls around Lew.

    I see several problems with this theory.

    1) Murray was Jewish, and some of the material seems anti-semitic. Of course it is possible he was a “self hating Jew.”

    2) The material goes back to the 1970s. Murray did not turn anti-immigration rights until some time in the 1980s - late 1980s, if I remember my reading correctly. This may also be true of other issues (e.g, abortion) but I’m not as sure. If the older material was anti-immigrant, that would be prima facie evidence against the charge against Rothbard.

    3) If my understanding is correct, the material in question continued to be written until some time after Murray’s death.

    Has anyone else heard this theory, and what areyour thoughts on its possible merits?

  76. paulie Says:

    I believe Ron Paul is very honest as far as politicians go, but he is not actually the Messiah - he does lie on, what I believe, are rare occasions.

    I think when he said that he does not know who wrote that stuff, or at least who was responsible for the content, is one of those rare times.

    In fact, I think he telegraphed it pretty obviously. At least, to me, as other people appear not to have noticed. But it seems painfully obvious to me that he was not telling the truth during that particular part of the Blitzer interview, and that he was telling the truth the rest of the time. The obvious discomfort was due to the fact that he is not a habitual liar, unlike most politicians, who are so used to it that you can’t tell when they are doing it - because they are very comfortable in lying all the time, and thus it seems natural to them (and from them).

    I think the problem here is loyalty to a friend trumping his normal instinct for honesty.

    Loyalty to friends is generally admirable, but there are times when it can be carried too far.

  77. Jay Matthews Says:

    NAACP official defends RP:

  78. Jose C. Says:

    “If you truly believe RP is being truthful who is he supposed to name?”

    Ron Paul knows who wrote those disgusting, ugly, hateful, sick, words. He should name names. He owes those that wrote those words nothing. They have not come to his defense. They have not owned up to what they wrote. If they cared about the man (Ron Paul) they would confess they are the guilty parties. Ron Paul should realize if this is how they treat him what does that say about their character. Their character does not need defending (how could anyone defend it?).

    Ron Paul it is your character, integrity, and honor that is being called into question. Disclose who wrote those words in your newsletters. They betrayed the trust you put in them when they wrote the words in your newsletters that have called your character into question. They betray the trust in you today by not coming to your defense. Disclose the information. You owe them nothing.

    “Each time you are honest and conduct yourself with honesty, a success force will drive you toward greater success. Each time you lie, even a little white lie, there are strong forces pushing you toward failure.”
    Joseph Sugarman

    “Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company.”
    George Washington

  79. bgodley Says:

    I would like end of my portion of the discussion by saying that personally this is the most fun I have ever had in politics. I say fun because there is nothing like a good fight when your slapping back the forces of soft facism. For Paul, with his contrarian views to the neo-conservative ideology, to get as far as he has is really, really, something.

    How many apathetic Americans has he woken up? What is the value of people watching a candidate such as him actually get somewhere substantial? His candidacy alone will do more to open up the probabilty for third party electability than any other in modern times. His is the precident that breaks the mold. I can easily see other people make bids for office in many levels of govt. solely on the fact that Paul had done what he did.

    Lastly, even if he doesn’t win he has proven that the internet and other forms of campaigning have become the great equalizers no matter how many newspapers Murdoch buys. If we inspect this even closer we will find at the root of this some of those often forgotten human virtues - tenacity and purpose. Where a smaller band of individuals armed with little more than ideals can overcome astronomical odds to create effects than no one considered possible. You gotta love it!

  80. bgodley Says:

    Please excuse the typos. My editor is always on holiday.

  81. Stephen Gordon Says:

    “A well-known libertarian moderate just called me with the theory that it was Murray Rothbard.”

    I’ve heard that rumor, but think it can be readily dismissed.

  82. Rand Thinker Says:

    Actual writings by Ron Paul on racism

    A nation that once prided itself on a sense of rugged individualism has become uncomfortably obsessed with racial group identities.

    The collectivist mindset is at the heart of racism.

    Government as an institution is particularly ill-suited to combat bigotry. Bigotry at its essence is a problem of the heart, and we cannot change people’s hearts by passing more laws and regulations.

    It is the federal government that most divides us by race, class, religion, and gender. Through its taxes, restrictive regulations, corporate subsidies, racial set-asides, and welfare programs, government plays far too large a role in determining who succeeds and who fails. Government “benevolence” crowds out genuine goodwill by institutionalizing group thinking, thus making each group suspicious that others are receiving more of the government loot. This leads to resentment and hostility among us.

    Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called “diversity” actually perpetuate racism.

    The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

    In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

  83. Stephen Gordon Says:


    How come every time this issue comes up, some Paul supporter brings up Paul’s position on race? I don’t think anyone, certainly not in this little conversation, personally thinks Paul is a racist.

    At issue is how Paul has handled the issue in the past and how he continues to handle it today. This is a leadership issue which needs to be addressed—and strongly, IMO.

  84. Trent Hill Says:

    It also seems that we could dismiss Lew Rockwell as the writer. With Murray Rothbard being Lew Rockwell’s unabashed hero, why on earth would Rockwell harbor bad feelings towards jews? Especially considering Ludwig von Mises, whose name is lent to the Institute Rockwell leads—-was also Jewish.

  85. matt Says:

    In response to your saying that you think RP is lying about not knowing who wrote the articles, but that he telegraphed the answer, I will say that it makes me think of Scarface, who “always tells the truth, even when he lies”.

  86. Andy Says:

    NAACP President: Ron Paul is not a racist

  87. Gene Trosper Says:

    Prison Planet is hardly a news source I would be touting.

  88. paulie Says:

    Prison Planet is hardly a news source I would be touting.

    They have a lot of good information.

    However, reading the actual article shows that Linder is president of the Austin branch of the NAACP, not the whole NAACP as the headline implies.

    Also, I don’t think many people here have said Ron Paul is personally racist.

  89. paulie Says:

    Steve, you haven’t been indicted yet.

  90. Andy Says:

    “Gene Trosper Says:

    January 13th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
    Prison Planet is hardly a news source I would be touting.”

    Why? What evidence do you have to back this up? Are you doubting that the interview took place? Do you think that Mr. Linder is just a made up person?

  91. Stephen Gordon Says:


    Whoa! That’s a hot link! Did these people actually sign up?

  92. paul Says:

    No, it’s Stephen Kinsella’s “war crimes tribunal” of those who have criticized Ron Paul’s alleged authorship and/or lack of oversight and failure to investigate or reveal the authors.

    Tom Knapp is the first of the “indicted” that I have seen respond

  93. Becky Says:

    THE NAACP Austin PRESIDENT SAYS RON PAUL IS NO RACIST… So stop with all of this crap and listen to this…

    Austin NAACP President Nelson Linder, who has known Ron Paul for 20 years, unequivocally dismissed charges that the Congressman was a racist in light of recent smear attempts, and said the reason for him being attacked was that he was a threat to the establishment.

    Linder joined Alex Jones for two segments on his KLBJ Sunday show this evening, during which he commented on the controversy created by media hit pieces that attempted to tarnish Paul as a racist by making him culpable for decades old newsletter articles written by other people.

    “Knowing Ron Paul’s intent, I think he is trying to improve this country but I think also, when you talk about the Constitution and you constantly criticize the federal government versus state I think a lot of folks are going to misconstrue that….so I think it’s very easy for folks who want to to take his position out of context and that’s what I’m hearing,” said Linder.

    Knowing Ron Paul and having talked to him, I think he’s a very fair guy I just think that a lot of folks do not understand the Libertarian platform,” he added.

    Asked directly if Ron Paul was a racist, Linder responded “No I don’t,” adding that he had heard Ron Paul speak out about police repression of black communities and mandatory minimum sentences on many occasions.

    Dr. Paul has also publicly praised Martin Luther King as his hero on many occasions spanning back 20 years.

    “I’ve read Ron Paul’s whole philosophy, I also understand what he’s saying from a political standpoint and why people are attacking him,” said Linder.

    “If you scare the folks that have the money, they’re going to attack you and they’re going to take it out of context,” he added.

    “What he’s saying is really really threatening the powers that be and that’s what they fear,” concluded the NAACP President.

  94. Sean Scallon Says:

    If you want to fault Ron Paul for being negligent and naive when it came to these newsletters go right ahead. That’s a fair criticism. But the idea he’s a racist is laughable and if that’s what this is all about, then this brouhaha should come to an end. That it hasn’t is because the “cosmo” or cosmopolitan faction of libertarians (those ensconsed in the “power elite” as C. Wright Mills you phrase it) wants to settle scores with provincial libertarians i.e. the Von Mieses and Randolph Bourne crowd for control of what they see as the libertarian image. You can see it in the CYA reporting over at Reason Magazine.

    I think we all agree the Paul campaign could have been much better managed been when you have inexperienced persons in the ways of national camapaigns dealing with amateurs, then problems like this are going to arise and its unavoidable. The same problems happened in the Goldwater and McGovern camapaigns. Its only been through the incredible dedication and hard work of the grassroots that ballto deadlines have been met and that the camapaign hasn’t come to a screeching halt.

    But the painful lesson from this campaign will be the grassroots can only do so much. The American Revolution suceeded because the Continental Army and the militias worked together to beat the British. So long as you have a central orgainzation that is compentent, organized and not hell bent on controlling everything, then you can find success with a grassroots orientated campaign.

  95. Jose C. Says:

    From the (in part):

    “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,” 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.”

  96. Andy Says:

    Former Ron Paul staffer, hispanic, delcares that Ron Paul is not a racist

  97. Gene Trosper Says:

    Andy & paulie:

    Like I said, Prison Planet is not a new source I would be touting.

    Reason? Because that site is too closely affilited with 9-11 truthers and conspiracy theories. Of course, having a misleading headline doesn’t help much either.

    Let’s assume Stormfront has reliable news posted on it’s site. Would you post a link from that site?

  98. Andy Says:

    Gene Trosper Says:

    “January 14th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
    Andy & paulie:

    Like I said, Prison Planet is not a new source I would be touting.”

    Yet you still haven’t provided any facts as to why, as illustrated by the fact that you dismissed the interview with Mr. Linder from the Austin branch of the NAACP without proving that the interview did not take place or that Mr. Linder is not a real person.

    “Reason? Because that site is too closely affilited with 9-11 truthers and conspiracy theories. Of course, having a misleading headline doesn’t help much either.”

    What is wrong with investigating 9/11? There are many holes in the official government conspiracy theory about 9/11, such as how did the 47 story steel structure WTC building 7 collapse into its own footprints when it was not even hit by a plane and was on the far side of the WTC complex from the Twin Towers?

    “Let’s assume Stormfront has reliable news posted on it’s site. Would you post a link from that site?”

    What does Stormfront have to do with Prisonplanet? Also, people should feel free to post whatever links they want.

  99. Kris Overstreet Says:

    Y’know, I was a bit sad about my decision to leave the Libertarian Party, once.

    But the more I read of people trying to defend Ron Paul, and demonstrating their own lunacy in the process, the happier I become to have escaped from the nut farm…

  100. paulie Says:


    I haven’t heard one person who knows Ron Paul personally say that he is racist - although I have heard several say he is not.

    Eric has posted allegations that Ron Paul is homophobic and perhaps a little anti-semitic, but no one else has backed up that opinion, many have contradicted it, and Eric has an axe to grind.

    More importantly, Ron Paul strongly condemns racism and anti-semitism NOW.

    I think his positions on immigration and gay rights could be better.

    I think it is valid to question the lack of oversight on the newsletters.

    It’s not the most pressing issue facing America right now, by far, but we ARE still dealing with the effects of institutional racism over the centuries throughout our culture. How we deal with them, including our own culpability to the extent it exists, IS important.


    I agree with Andy that 9/11 should be investigated. I’d like to have a debate about 9/11 on the Kubby show. Say, Andy versus a “19 Arabs with boxcutters directed by a dude in a cave” Conspiracy Theorist. Anyone want to do it?

    I personally consider PrisonPlanet much more credible than Stormfront, but your mileage may vary.

    Anyway, if anyone has evidence that Linder is not the president of the Austin NAACP or did not say what he said to Prison Planet, I would be willing to look at it.

  101. Gene Trosper Says:

    Andy: you need to learn a bit of reading comprehension.

    “Prison Planet is not a news source I would be touting”.

    Touting is essentially “advertisng”. Where you come up with your allegation that I have dismissed the interview is beyond me. Did I state that I doubted the interview? Clearly, I didn’t. There is no evidence to present because none is needed.

    To spell it out to the slow learners:

    Prison Planet is a 9-11 truther site. Most Americans reject the 9-11 truth movement. By using a truther site to disseminate information, many Americans will simply write off the information as “crazy” or “unreliable”. additionally, you continue linking Ron Paul to the truther movement.

    Politics is about perceptions.

  102. paulie Says:

    A much larger percent of Americans reject libertarianism than 9/11 truth. Should we then not quote the LP or other libertarian publications?

    In fact, the percentage of Americans who identified as 9/11 truthers is higher than the percentage of voters who have voted for Ron Paul in the primaries so far, so we can’t publish anything from the Ron Paul campaign by that standard either.

    In the last Congressional election, most Americans voted against the Republicans. So no more quoting Fox News.

    In the last presidential election, Bush (allegedly) won the most votes. No more quoting CNN or the NY Times.

    I think this selective tyranny of the majority thinking is off base.

  103. <li class="alt" id="comment-432