Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 22 Dec '11 20:29
    One example of newsletter excerpt. After the Los Angeles riots in 1992, Paul’s newsletter commented, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Paul can run but he can't hide. When convenient, he disavowed the newsletters but displayed no passion. Further, he has not explained his inept handling and history of the newsletters, which seriously calls into question his leadership ability to be president.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/The-Vote/2011/1222/Ron-Paul-why-racist-newsletter-flap-could-hurt-him-in-Iowa


    Representative Paul insisted the questions were irrelevant because they’ve been asked and answered for years. “I didn’t read them at the time, I didn’t write them, and I disavow them. That is the answer,” Paul said in reply to Borger. She persisted in raising the issue, so Paul took off his mike, handed it to a technician, and walked away.

    . . . But the newsletter issue could be a big problem for Paul, despite the fact that he thinks he’s addressed it adequately. First of all, the comments were indeed ugly . . . Paul might need to not just disavow them, but disavow them with emotion, emphasizing that he recognizes how hateful they sound today. That’s the kind of response Borger appeared to be pressing for on CNN – she kept using the word “incendiary” – and Paul didn’t give it. He talked in his usual dispassionate manner.

    Second, Paul hasn’t answered all the questions raised by these long-ago comments. His disavowal is a good start on damage control, but why didn’t he read those newsletters back then? He was sending them out under his own name, and making money off them: Was he not aware of their content? If so, why not? That’s a question that could shed some light on his ability to administer the duties of the office of president of the United States.

    When did he become aware of these comments and begin to say they did not reflect his views? Already, journalists and bloggers are picking through years of old Paul interviews in an attempt to find replies that are inconsistent with what he’s saying now. On the conservative blog RedState, for example, contributing editor Leon Wolf pointed out Thursday that in a 1995 C-SPAN appearance, Paul was still touting the newsletters as something folks should read. “Apparently, Paul did not change his story on these newsletters until 2001,” Mr. Wolf wrote.

    Third – and this may be the biggest danger to Paul’s Iowa chances – the controversy makes Paul look like just another politician. To this point in the 2012 election cycle, Paul has been distinguished by his consistency and his willingness to tell GOP audiences such tough truths as the fact that US budgets rose during the presidency of their icon, Ronald Reagan. Comedian Jon Stewart has called Paul the candidate of “uncomfortable silences.”

    But now, suddenly, it’s Paul who is deflecting a journalist’s inquires, as Mitt Romney does when the subject is the Massachusetts health-care law, and as Newt Gingrich does when his earnings from Freddie Mac come up.

    “Paul can run but he can’t hide,” charged Washington Post opinion writer Jonathan Capehart in his take on the subject.
  2. 22 Dec '11 20:39
    Originally posted by moon1969
    One example of newsletter excerpt. After the Los Angeles riots in 1992, Paul’s newsletter commented, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Paul can run but he can't hide. When convenient, he disavowed the newsletters but displayed no passion. Further, he has not explained his inept handling a ...[text shortened]... ,” charged Washington Post opinion writer Jonathan Capehart in his take on the subject.[/quote]
    The reporterette was clearly asking what she thought was a gotcha question. What is and isn't racist is another thing, and almost indefinable.

    The quoted statement was probably true of those involved in the rioting, which is no reflection on Blacks as a demographic.

    I think Mr. Paul does well to ignore the ignorant, rather than engaging them with defensive arguments.
  3. 22 Dec '11 23:26 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The reporterette was clearly asking what she thought was a gotcha question. What is and isn't racist is another thing, and almost indefinable.

    The quoted statement was probably true of those involved in the rioting, which is no reflection on Blacks as a demographic.

    I think Mr. Paul does well to ignore the ignorant, rather than engaging them with defensive arguments.
    Yeah, it is not like he actually published this newsletter under his own name and was responsible for what it said. He was probably in the bathroom. And besides, even if it was racist, it is OK because it was actually written and published by a racist.
  4. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    23 Dec '11 01:49
    At least his pastor isn't Rev Wright!
  5. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    23 Dec '11 01:57
    Originally posted by normbenign
    The reporterette was clearly asking what she thought was a gotcha question. What is and isn't racist is another thing, and almost indefinable.

    The quoted statement was probably true of those involved in the rioting, which is no reflection on Blacks as a demographic.

    I think Mr. Paul does well to ignore the ignorant, rather than engaging them with defensive arguments.
    nb: The quoted statement was probably true of those involved in the rioting,

  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Dec '11 02:20
    Originally posted by moon1969
    One example of newsletter excerpt. After the Los Angeles riots in 1992, Paul’s newsletter commented, “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks.” Paul can run but he can't hide. When convenient, he disavowed the newsletters but displayed no passion. Further, he has not explained his inept handling a ...[text shortened]... ,” charged Washington Post opinion writer Jonathan Capehart in his take on the subject.[/quote]
    I didn’t read them at the time, I didn’t write them, and I disavow them.


    Gee, if true, that sounds like a pretty good defense to me.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    23 Dec '11 02:27
    Originally posted by sh76
    I didn’t read them at the time, I didn’t write them, and I disavow them.


    Gee, if true, that sounds like a pretty good defense to me.
    He published them in his own name and expressed himself in the first person, "I".
  8. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Dec '11 03:14
    Originally posted by FMF
    He published them in his own name and expressed himself in the first person, "I".
    Then he's either a liar or hired an idiot for a publicist, I suppose.
  9. 23 Dec '11 04:10
    Originally posted by sh76
    Then he's either a liar or hired an idiot for a publicist, I suppose.
    Either way he's a weasel with big twitchy whiskers and a short stubby tail.

    "Its OK, Judge, I know nothing about the extortion demands. I didn’t read them at the time, I didn’t write them, and I disavow them. Yeah, that's the ticket!"

    A decent human being would say, "I accept full responsibility for what appeared under my name. I apologize if anyone was offended. I implore you to please believe me when I say that those words did not then and do not now reflect my views. I repudiate, condemn and name the writer(s) of those lines and I promise to never again let such garbage be associated with my name."

    In related news, Martians arrive on earth bearing flowers and a Republican voter has admitted that they voted for Bush, twice.
  10. 23 Dec '11 17:01 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by sh76
    Then he's either a liar or hired an idiot for a publicist, I suppose.
    If Ron Paul is a liar, he is also an idiot. To suggest he would like to have something published that would amount to political suicide is naive in my opinion. Does anybody really think RP is that stupid?

    I guess it is possible he hired an idiot for a publicist, but I think it is more likely that the publicist sought the job to do his best to ruin Ron Paul. Or maybe the publicist was disgruntled for some reason I am not aware of and did it to be vindictive.

    I don't think Ron Paul would ever condone the publishing of such a thing, even if he was/is a racist. Why would he? What would be his incentive? This whole issue is just absurd dung throwing in the hope that some people will believe it. Moon and Terrier were obviously duped.
  11. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    23 Dec '11 17:30
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Does anybody really think RP is that stupid?
    Yep.
  12. 23 Dec '11 17:48 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Sleepyguy
    Yep.
    Usually, when you talk about politicians you generally don't think, "Wow, what a great intellect". Usually you think of a money grubbing morally bankfupt moron of sorts who's only interest is self interest who thinks they can know what is best for everyone else. At least, in this great land of ours in all 57 states, that has been my observation.
  13. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    23 Dec '11 18:20
    Originally posted by moon1969
    “Order was only restored in L.A. when...
    Order was restored when the National Guard showed up.
  14. 23 Dec '11 20:15
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    If Ron Paul is a liar, he is also an idiot. To suggest he would like to have something published that would amount to political suicide is naive in my opinion. Does anybody really think RP is that stupid?

    I guess it is possible he hired an idiot for a publicist, but I think it is more likely that the publicist sought the job to do his best to ruin Ron ...[text shortened]... g throwing in the hope that some people will believe it. Moon and Terrier were obviously duped.
    1. Yes, 'cause it made him cash. (It was more than one phrase - there was sustained pattern of racist invective that went out in both the newsletters and fund raising letters.)

    2. Look in the mirror (if you can see thru the smoke) you'll see who is duped. Even Cain's wife wasn't that stupid.

    3. This won't go away for the same reason Herman Cain did go away. It can't be countered with the truth because the truth is that the charges are true. Ron Paul is a racist.
  15. Subscriber Sleepyguy
    Reepy Rastardly Guy
    23 Dec '11 20:24 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by TerrierJack
    1. Yes, 'cause it made him cash. (It was more than one phrase - there was sustained pattern of racist invective that went out in both the newsletters and fund raising letters.)

    2. Look in the mirror (if you can see thru the smoke) you'll see who is duped. Even Cain's wife wasn't that stupid.

    3. This won't go away for the same reason Herman Cain di tered with the truth because the truth is that the charges are true. Ron Paul is a racist.
    If you read some of his newsletter what jumps out is not the racism so much as the conspiracy nut stuff.

    http://graphics.thomsonreuters.com/11/12/Solicitation2.pdf