Is the “Ron Paul rEVOLution” Cloaked in a White Sheet?…

Some of you noticed that I made a “throw-away reference” in another entry to a story that had received some play regarding Republican Presidential Candidate and Texas Congressman, Dr. Ron Paul. For years, Dr. Paul published a newsletter to supporters under a couple of different names like the “Ron Paul Political Report” and the “Ron Paul Survival Report.”
Earlier this year, some charged Dr. Paul with being racist based on some of the writings in those newsletters. Paul refused to release the newsletters and no one could refute or prove the charges because there were no copies available…
…until now, that is.
The New Republic published an article on the day of the New Hampshire Primary called “Angry White Man” which detailed examples of apparent bigotry, paranoia and conspiracy theories published in the “Ron Paul Political/Survival Report.”
They also backed up their report with copies of some of the newsletters scanned to .pdf documents as well as printed excerpts. Here are some of the real gems contained within the Ron Paul newsletters:

“A Special Issue on Racial Terrorism” analyzes the Los Angeles riots of 1992: “Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks three days after rioting began. … What if the checks had never arrived? No doubt the blacks would have fully privatized the welfare state through continued looting. But they were paid off and the violence subsided.”

…

This newsletter describes Martin Luther King Jr. as “a world-class adulterer” who “seduced underage girls and boys” and “replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration.”

…

The January 1991 edition of the Political Report refers to King as a “world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours” and a “flagrant plagiarist with a phony doctorate.”

…

An October 1990 edition of the Political Report ridicules black activists, led by Al Sharpton, for demonstrating at the Statue of Liberty in favor of renaming New York City after Martin Luther King. The newsletter suggests that “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” would be better alternatives–and says, “Next time, hold that demonstration at a food stamp bureau or a crack house.”

That, friends, just scratches the surface.
Ron Paul says he didn’t write those things. He says that they were ghost-written for him and he never saw them. According to his statement, he’s been taking responsibility for the fact these writings were printed for years:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person’s character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“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.

“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

Oh, really? “Not so fast,” says Reason Magazine–a publication that has been supportive of Ron Paul and featured him on a recent cover. After researching that claim using a Nexis database search, they were unable to find any evidence of Congressman Paul taking moral responsibility for any of the writings. (Hat tip: Hot Air)
Paul says he’s been pubically “taking moral responsibility” for over a decade, but Reason finds that the first reported instance of that didn’t occur until an October 2001 piece in Texas Monthly–just over seven years ago. They also found that–prior to 2001–instead of issuing denials and disavowing any racist comment, he instead said that the items were “taken out of context.”
Dr. Paul even appeared on CNN’s “The Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer” where Wolf softballed him and Paul gave the longest answers I’ve ever seen on that show to defend himself:

(If you are unable to see the embedded Ron Paul interview above, please click here.)
So he says that he has “no idea who wrote it” to Wolf Blitzer–which is a direct contradiction to what he told Texas Monthly in October of 2001 when he said it was Barbara Jordan. In fact, in a 1996 article in the Dallas Morning News, Ron Paul said he wrote the columns. (Hat tip: Captain Ed.) Tuesday, he said it was “several writers.”
Which is it, Congressman Paul? Do you not know? Was it Barbara Jordan? Was it “several writers?” Was it you, Congressman?
The fact that Dr. Paul can’t seem to get his story straight over the last fifteen years doesn’t really lend much to credibility, does it?
For the sake of argument, let’s say I believe him for a minute. Let’s agree–for a moment–that Ron Paul didn’t write those columns in the newsletters and that someone else did. Who is responsible for that content?
The answer is simple: Dr. Ron Paul is and no one else.
The newsletters had a few different names: the Ron Paul Political Report…the Ron Paul Survival Report…the Ron Paul Investment Report… What’s the common denominator?
Yep…you guessed it. “Ron Paul.” Whether he wrote the columns in the newsletter or not it’s his name on the mast head.
Congressman, do you mean to tell me that–in a decade’s time–the man for whom the newsletter was named couldn’t get a retraction or apology printed?
You couldn’t hold a press conference to denounce or disavow the newsletter and its content? You couldn’t “out” the real author after the first racist column was printed? You couldn’t make a public spectacle out of firing the racist within the ranks of your organization?
Do you mean to say, Dr. Paul, that you didn’t read a single issue of the newsletter that was emblazoned with your name for ten years?
Not only did he make no apologies, no firings and no public statments…he did manage to find the time to solicit donations and subscriptions to his newsletters in his official capacity as a member of the House of Representatives.
It takes us back to the one question that permeates this discussion: “Is Ron Paul a racist?”
His seemingly tacit approval of the content contained in the Ron Paul newsletters leads me to believe he is despite what the Congressman said on CNN this week. I don’t know how any thoughtful or rational human being could let content like that go on for so long without some kind of outward, visceral reaction of disgust or disdain. So…do I think Ron Paul is a racist and that he authored those things in his newsletters?
Yes, I do. I didn’t before, but I do now.
I don’t believe, however, that Ron Paul’s supporters are racists, however–at least, not the vast majority of them, anyway. I suppose I can understand on some level what it is that drives them to support the Congressman as rabidly and ferociously as they do, even if I vehemently disagree with their candidate’s ideas.
Personally, I think Ron Paul is a dangerous individual with a set of policies that would plunge this nation into an isolationist stance and, quite possibly, the next Great Depression. I think that this gross inconsistency with Dr. Paul’s background should force each and every one of his supporters to take another long and serious look at the man behind the curtain…
A curtain that I now fear could have been stiched from the remnants of a white sheet.
William Smith
ConservativeBlogger.com