Ron Paul: Angry White Man

**Logan13** · 01-08-2008, 02:52 PM

I am not sure why this has been unearthed.......
Ron Paul: Angry White Man
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...5-4532a7da84ca

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum.

Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad.

In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation praised "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jack Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped."

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business.

In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications.

These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Army surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.)
During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism."

At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

**LawMan018** · 01-08-2008, 04:18 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I am not sure why this has been unearthed.......
Ron Paul: Angry White Man
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.ht...5-4532a7da84ca

If you are a critic of the Bush administration, chances are that, at some point over the past six months, Ron Paul has said something that appealed to you. Paul describes himself as a libertarian, but, since his presidential campaign took off earlier this year, the Republican congressman has attracted donations and plaudits from across the ideological spectrum.

Antiwar conservatives, disaffected centrists, even young liberal activists have all flocked to Paul, hailing him as a throwback to an earlier age, when politicians were less mealy-mouthed and American government was more modest in its ambitions, both at home and abroad.

In The New York Times Magazine, conservative writer Christopher Caldwell gushed that Paul is a "formidable stander on constitutional principle," while The Nation praised "his full-throated rejection of the imperial project in Iraq." Former TNR editor Andrew Sullivan endorsed Paul for the GOP nomination, and ABC's Jack Tapper described the candidate as "the one true straight-talker in this race." Even The Wall Street Journal, the newspaper of the elite bankers whom Paul detests, recently advised other Republican presidential contenders not to "dismiss the passion he's tapped."

Most voters had never heard of Paul before he launched his quixotic bid for the Republican nomination. But the Texan has been active in politics for decades. And, long before he was the darling of antiwar activists on the left and right, Paul was in the newsletter business.

In the age before blogs, newsletters occupied a prominent place in right-wing political discourse. With the pages of mainstream political magazines typically off-limits to their views (National Review editor William F. Buckley having famously denounced the John Birch Society), hardline conservatives resorted to putting out their own, less glossy publications.

These were often paranoid and rambling--dominated by talk of international banking conspiracies, the Trilateral Commission's plans for world government, and warnings about coming Armageddon--but some of them had wide and devoted audiences. And a few of the most prominent bore the name of Ron Paul.

Paul's newsletters have carried different titles over the years--Ron Paul's Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report--but they generally seem to have been published on a monthly basis since at least 1978. (Paul, an OB-GYN and former U.S. Army surgeon, was first elected to Congress in 1976.)
During some periods, the newsletters were published by the Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, a nonprofit Paul founded in 1976; at other times, they were published by Ron Paul & Associates, a now-defunct entity in which Paul owned a minority stake, according to his campaign spokesman. The Freedom Report claimed to have over 100,000 readers in 1984. At one point, Ron Paul & Associates also put out a monthly publication called The Ron Paul Investment Letter.

The Freedom Report's online archives only go back to 1999, but I was curious to see older editions of Paul's newsletters, in part because of a controversy dating to 1996, when Charles "Lefty" Morris, a Democrat running against Paul for a House seat, released excerpts stating that "opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions," that "if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be," and that black representative Barbara Jordan is "the archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism."

At the time, Paul's campaign said that Morris had quoted the newsletter out of context. Later, in 2001, Paul would claim that someone else had written the controversial passages. (Few of the newsletters contain actual bylines.) Caldwell, writing in the Times Magazine last year, said he found Paul's explanation believable, "since the style diverges widely from his own."

Finding the pre-1999 newsletters was no easy task, but I was able to track many of them down at the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society. Of course, with few bylines, it is difficult to know whether any particular article was written by Paul himself. Some of the earlier newsletters are signed by him, though the vast majority of the editions I saw contain no bylines at all. Complicating matters, many of the unbylined newsletters were written in the first person, implying that Paul was the author.

But, whoever actually wrote them, the newsletters I saw all had one thing in common: They were published under a banner containing Paul's name, and the articles (except for one special edition of a newsletter that contained the byline of another writer) seem designed to create the impression that they were written by him--and reflected his views. What they reveal are decades worth of obsession with conspiracies, sympathy for the right-wing militia movement, and deeply held bigotry against blacks, Jews, and gays. In short, they suggest that Ron Paul is not the plain-speaking antiwar activist his supporters believe they are backing--but rather a member in good standing of some of the oldest and ugliest traditions in American politics.

If this were true, wouldn't it be mainstream news? I mean, it might be old, but everybody is trying to dig up dirty little secrets about each candidate, it couldn't be that hard to find. I, being a Democrat, do hope that Ron Paul wins the primaries and I will denounce my politicial standing to vote for him because I believe his message and what he stands for.

**Logan13** · 01-08-2008, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by LawMan018

If this were true, wouldn't it be mainstream news? I mean, it might be old, but everybody is trying to dig up dirty little secrets about each candidate, it couldn't be that hard to find. I, being a Democrat, do hope that Ron Paul wins the primaries and I will denounce my politicial standing to vote for him because I believe his message and what he stands for.

It's strange that it is being brought up about him now. Usually shit like this is dug up on top tier candidates only. The only real negatives that I have heard about him stem from far-left liberals.

**SMCengineer** · 01-08-2008, 04:41 PM

Well, if he does well in NH I expect a huge smear compaign to ensue. It's not uncommon, you just have to be able to do your own research and come to a logical conclusion based on what you believe to be true.

**alphaman** · 01-08-2008, 08:02 PM

I KNEW when I saw this on drudge today that you would have a thread up about it when I got home, Logan.

I did the research and it turns out that this article is total crap. It's nothing new. Every opponent (that he's beat by a large margin) in the last how many ever years has had this in their file to use against him, yet Paul has served 10 terms.

If you look in his wikipedia article, there's a whole section on the newsletters, and all reliable news sources who have looked into it, have all come to the same conclusion... it's crapola.

He did not write it, he fired the guy who did as soon as he caught wind of it.

**Panzerfaust** · 01-08-2008, 08:33 PM

Its gonna be real hard to attack Ron Paul with the foundation he is running on, the U.S. Constitution!

The man has stood his ground during his political life. Not many at all can say the same.

**Act of God** · 01-08-2008, 08:53 PM

Plus the writer is a hardcore Guliani supporter. Gee, no motive there.

**dedic8ed1** · 01-08-2008, 09:38 PM

And the smear campaign is in full overdrive now.Of course that would be the trump card for people who think he's gone far enough and don't wanna see him succeed.But those are some pretty ugly characteristics that were mentioned at the end.When someone preaches "No income tax" "No foreign Wars" sure you would love to see him produce it but how realistic are his ideas.That is a comment more focused on Taxes.FUK foreign wars,to be so involved in that shit is unrealistic.

**Panzerfaust** · 01-08-2008, 09:44 PM

Originally Posted by dedic8ed1

And the smear campaign is in full overdrive now.Of course that would be the trump card for people who think he's gone far enough and don't wanna see him succeed.But those are some pretty ugly characteristics that were mentioned at the end.When someone preaches "No income tax" "No foreign Wars" sure you would love to see him produce it but how realistic are his ideas.That is a comment more focused on Taxes.FUK foreign wars,to be so involved in that shit is unrealistic.

As realistic as the U.S. Constitution!

It is the negative defeatest attitude like "It's unrealistic", "We cannot change anything", "I can't do anything".

People need to wakeup and realise that "WE" can get things done, we simply only need to educate ourselves and work together towards our mutual goal.

**Tock** · 01-08-2008, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

It's strange that it is being brought up about him now. Usually shit like this is dug up on top tier candidates only. The only real negatives that I have heard about him stem from far-left liberals.

Well . . . Who's gonna post the "Anti-Smear" post to counteract the

that you posted, and incorrectly leads readers to conclude that

RON PAUL is an ANGRY WHITE MAN!

-------------------

Ya, why not volunteer you?

**Act of God** · 01-09-2008, 12:46 AM

Originally Posted by Tock

Well . . . Who's gonna post the "Anti-Smear" post to counteract the

that you posted, and incorrectly leads readers to conclude that

RON PAUL is an ANGRY WHITE MAN!

He didn't write those articles, Jesus. The worst thing you can say is that he trusted someone to run the newsletter that he shouldn't have and that he didn't pay attention to what they were publishing (using his name).

This doesn't make him implicitly agreeing with the articles. It doesn't make him an "Angry White Man" (love that catch phrase, never heard that before...). He fired the guy as soon as he found out and even openly took the blame for the OTHER PERSON'S actions.

I have a feeling that while delivering over 4,000 babies and being a 10 term congressman he had quite a few other things to look after than a independent newsletter that he stopped working on years ago.

**alphaman** · 01-09-2008, 08:00 AM

Originally Posted by dedic8ed1

And the smear campaign is in full overdrive now.Of course that would be the trump card for people who think he's gone far enough and don't wanna see him succeed.But those are some pretty ugly characteristics that were mentioned at the end.When someone preaches "No income tax" "No foreign Wars" sure you would love to see him produce it but how realistic are his ideas.That is a comment more focused on Taxes.FUK foreign wars,to be so involved in that shit is unrealistic.

take income tax out of the equation and the budget would stiill be the size it was ten yrs ago..... before all the extra gvt crap that Paul wants to get rid of came along.