Controversy Surrounds Ron Paul's '90s Newsletters

I think the truth lies in the middle. Ron Paul may not have written the words, but I hardly believe he never saw them. How could you not read material attributed to you?

Sent by Jennifer Jennings | 7:39 PM | 1-10-2008

Tough call, it may be that this information is being put out there now to erode any support the man may have gotten from African Americans.

I do have to admit it would be a stretch to believe he never saw the words, even if the words aren't his.

Sent by DJ Black Adam | 9:52 PM | 1-10-2008

You did not see the letter and for almost twenty years your name was used for the newsletter? Now you want to be the leader of the most powerful nation on earth, what does that say about your leadership style? What does it say about your attention to important issues if you could not protect your own name enough to care what is attributed to you? Either Dr. Paul is a bigot or he is incompetent; either way he does not belong in the white house.

Sent by Dr. Joseph Papandrei | 10:21 PM | 1-10-2008

The only people who I worry would actually buy into this are not really about pursuing truth. This is a fairly blatant smear campaign that is being brought against a man who obviously strikes fear into some people. Anyone who would buy into such a poorly sourced story simply demonstrates a lack of reason and cannot be taken seriously. I hope people consider this before they read too much into this story.

Sent by Stephen Bradford | 10:49 PM | 1-10-2008

im a ron paul supporter. and ive never hurt anyone in my whole little life. please dont judge all on a few. ron paul tells us to be gentle. he has taught me how to lead. so please dont judge all of us by few. ty

Sent by cill | 11:03 PM | 1-10-2008

I can't believe this is all it takes to dissuade morons such as yourself from the only true patriot in the entire Congress. You would figure that an M.D. after your name would've taught you to think a little more critically. I am ashamed of America.

Sent by sean | 12:13 AM | 1-11-2008

These newsletters have been kicked around on the internet for quite sometime, and Paul has commented on them before. The quote in this blurb that he "never did see" the newsletters is taken out of context. He means that he did not see them prior to being published. The man has never given any indication of being a bigot, and his message completely contradicts the idea of racism.

Sent by Dr. Steven Jackson | 12:22 AM | 1-11-2008

Dr. Paul at the time was running one on the busiest Ob/Gyn practices in Texas. The newsletter only had a couple hundred subscribers, and the people responsible were fired.
Paul has had these allegations thrown at him many times in the past and he repudiates all of the vile work done in his name and has been vindicated by his district 10 times over it.
Because theres no basis to it!
It's clear he didn't write this filth, and if you've taken the time to hear the man speak whether it be at a TV debate or debating on the floor of the House of Representatives, you would know without a doubt that they are not his words!
The New York Times brought this out 2 weeks ago, for them to retract the story the next day.
This is a classic example of a illegitimate smear on a true patriot of this country.

Sent by Sean Fluette | 5:01 AM | 1-11-2008

This was played out in the press already and the story never gained traction because it is so blatantly false that Dr. Paul had anything at all to do with the News Letters. The elites are now recognizing how dangerous a man's message of freedom and liberty is to their stranglehold on the Mainstream media. This Honorable man is fighting all the powers that be simultaneously the military industrial complex, medical industrial complex, government oligarchy. These people know Dr. Paul does not have skeletons(real ones) in his closet like all the other candidates so they have to manufacture them in any way they can, through his supporters or any nut they can associate with him. This is their first real attempt at an outright lie in order to slow down the momentum his campaign is enjoying. Like 6 million dollars raised in a single day from some 37 thousand small money donors. Ron Paul is the real deal folks, take the time to listen to his message and what he believes in you will find that he is America's last hope to restore our respectful status in the eyes of the world.

Sent by Stephen | 6:35 AM | 1-11-2008

What are the FACTS?
Ron Paul denounced the letters.
Ron Paul has stated that he did not write them.
Ron Paul has said that someone else wrote them and used his name.

Outside of the existence of the newsletter with his name on it I have not seen any other evidence that contradicts what Ron Paul has said about the newsletter. In fact, all other evidence seem to prove that Ron Paul is not a racist. Further, Ron dose oppose collectivism and I agree that collectivism breads racism. I also agree with Ron that his position on individual liberty is the enemy of racism. Therefore I see no evidence that would suggest a pattern of racism in Ron Paul's life.

On the other hand it is very evident to me that the collective group known as NPR has ulterior motives for attacking Dr. Paul. Since I do not regard NPR as credible I am not buying what they are selling.

Sent by PAtravler57 | 8:56 AM | 1-11-2008

Out of thousands of articles published, they pulled single lines that are clearly despicable. Not only has Paul previously denounced these, he has spent a lifetime working for individual rights. It is a giant leap to say that because these were published under his watch that they are his beliefs. Besides, half of these things, despicable as they may be, are taken out of context.

Sent by Mike | 9:32 AM | 1-11-2008

Ron Paul has said he gave permission for his name to be used on the newsletters, but did not edit the articles. When he found out about the content, he denounced the publications and took responsibility for not being more careful to review stuff with his name on it. It was a mistake, clearly, but now it's being brought up because no one can find any other real dirt on Ron Paul or his record.

Sent by Jeff Foley | 10:04 AM | 1-11-2008

With all its resources, CNN had to go back 20 years to find something to smear him with? Please! Just when I thought my respect for "journalism" couldn't sink further...

Sent by Dena McPherson | 10:13 AM | 1-11-2008

It makes me so very sad to see these attacks which were rehashed again on the day of his primary.

If you watch anything of Paul, you know that the words are not his. He made a terrible mistake of not keeping a more watchful eye on those newsletters, but he's paid his share of that for 10-15 years now. He's been re-elected despite this.

At the core of the issue is that even if Dr. Paul held those despicable beliefs (which is obviously not the case), Ron Paul's personal opinions don't even matter for his platform.

He wants to reduce federal coverage of everything and remove any law that could be discrimatory by the government.

We've been raised in an age when we're very worried about the personal beliefs and religious beliefs of presidents, because the federal government has so much power over our lives.

Ron Paul is fighting for a world where the federal government can no longer discriminate, and people's liberties are held.

If you have heard Ron's message, you'll understand that the power of this candidate is not his personal opinion, but one that goes beyond him. He does not hold the feelings reported in those decade-old photo-copied newsletters, but overall his platform would wildly overshadow any "personal opinions" he had anyway.

Choosing a GOP candidate in favor of 100s of years of war should not happen. Especially when you have a choice of someone who may have had something to do with racist newsletters over a decade ago.

Sent by Ryan | 10:53 AM | 1-11-2008

I think the timing of the TNR article speaks for itself. They wanted to attack Dr. Paul on the day the NH primaries took place.

There is no concrete proof that Dr. Paul is a racist. He said that he didn't write the article but a ghostwriter did without Ron Paul reviewing it and later was fired for doing so.

The media is putting their spin on the attack because they have nothing better to do. If there is proof Dr. Paul is a racist then bring it up else stop damaging his credentials.

Sent by Ivan | 11:05 AM | 1-11-2008

People go out to wikipedia.com and other sources and research the matter by yourself. Do not listen to commenter's that give you negative ideas and cloud your judgment.

This smear piece was posted in the drudgereport.com 2 months ago and it was cleared. Now the media is putting their spin again.

Make your own decision and don't be weak by listening to negative comments.

Sent by John | 11:10 AM | 1-11-2008

MSM: Apparently, you allowed some pretty bigoted comments to be published by a writer for your newsletter, back in the 80s and early 90s. Do the opinions of that writer reflect your own views?

DR. PAUL: No. Not at all. I was essentially a figurehead for the promotion of that newsletter, and the writing, editing, publication, and day-to-day operations were handled by others. I hate to admit it, but I rarely even read it. However, since it was published under my name, I do have a very real responsibility for what I inadvertently allowed to be published under my name. Some of those comments had been brought to my attention previously and I was outraged, and fired the people responsible, and halted publication. This was many years ago, but just recently even more such comments have been brought to my attention and I'm just heart sick over the whole thing. I feel ashamed that I allowed this to occur, right under my nose. I mean, this IS American, and people do have a right to hold unpopular views, but I also have a right to prevent my name from being used to promote views that I find personally abhorrent. I should have exercised that right more vigilantly, that I didn't is my supreme regret.

MSM: So, then, Dr. Paul, are you a laissez fair manager? Is that the problem? And, if so, how does such a hands off leadership style qualify you to be President?

DR. PAUL: Am I a laissez fair manager? Yeah, I guess so. I mean, I prefer to trust people to run their own lives. They don't need me telling them what to do. Some times people make mistakes, but that's going to happen whether it's the gov't or the individual. The important thing is to learn from our mistakes and move forward. What's even more important though is that the President does NOT have the right to dictate to the people. The people are really in charge, anyway. It's the President who works for the people; so many politicians forget that they are NOT really "leaders," as they like to refer to themselves, but they are servants of the people. As President, I would take that role very seriously, by returning control of the gov't to the people, where it belongs.

Sent by Ivan | 11:22 AM | 1-11-2008

What's really interesting to me is the way Ron Paul supporters automatically descend upon blogs and news sites whenever someone raises contradictory issues about their candidate. Talk about group think! Scary stuff!

Sent by Gene Randall | 11:44 AM | 1-11-2008

Group think? GROUP THINK!? I came here of my OWN free will. Get your definitions straight, first of all. Second of all, who the hell are you designate ALL Ron Paul supporters as having a hive-mind mentality? I actually GIVE a damn about this country, so maybe THAT'S why I'm posting.

BAH! It's people like you that make me cynical. You want to know what REALLY scary? How about a $53 TRILLION debt and endless wars in the Middle East? OH WAIT...WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE! Get your priorities straight, "pal."

Sent by Colin Gardner | 12:54 PM | 1-11-2008

As a Ron Paul supporter, these newsletters have disheartened me and have basically ended my hopes for his presidency. I understand a presidential candidate is held to a high standards and so the newsletters can't be overlooked.

What attracted me to Ron Paul was his opposition to the status quo and his lack of pandering to groups/people in power. He speaks from the heart and not from polled/focus grouped talking points. That is something that the other candidates fail to do.

Even if he does not win the GOP nomination I will still write him in. I hope that other young people like me can continue to grow a movement that will eventually change the GOP and in itself change America.

Sent by Justin Maurer | 1:54 PM | 1-11-2008

This is a man who borders on sainthood,...

A man who offered free/discounted medical care to his less well off patients than bill Medicare/Medicaid, denied his children access to Federal student loans, never taken a government paid junket, returns unused portions of his budget to the US treasury and refused his lucrative Congressional pension.

A man who reveres Rosa Park, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi being called a racist. A man who idolizes and studies Von Mises and Hayek being labelled and anti-semite.

Learn a bit about the man before falling for blatant propaganda. Because we all know now that John McCain did not father a colored bastard child as some would have us believe during the 2000 GOP primaries.

Sent by Barney Palmerston | 4:09 PM | 1-11-2008

For anyone reading the comments to this and all other blogs mentioning the old Ron Paul newsletters, do not be shocked about the accusations that simply bringing up the newsletters is somehow despicable. Those who did not know of Ron Paul before the current campaign may be unaware that in his 1996 run for congress a single issue of these newsletters was released by his political opponent Charles Morris.
It was only one of the longer list of newsletters that New Republic has released this week (the rest have not been aired in the nedia until now).

Ron Paul supporters who have followed his career have obviously forgiven him for the language of the original newsletter especially after in the 2001 issue of Texas Monthly he took "moral responsibility" for what was published in his name while claiming that it was written by an "unnamed ghostwriter who did not represent his views." For the enthusiasts who continued to support him, the issue was closed and he was forgiven (although they may never have doubted him). It was also easy for most people to accept this explaination since it is entirely possible that a single article of this nature could appear in a single newsletter under his name if he was not in direct control of editing at the time.

What inclines readers to view the current situation in a different context is that the seriers of newsletters published in his name over a period of time pepperd with similar incindiary "racist" or "bigoted" statesments establishes a pattern that is harder for most people to dismiss as a simple mistake.

For Ron Paul supporters who have already forgiven him (or for those who believe what was said wasn't really that bad - most likely a select few) the recent release of these documents in the news reminds them of the earlier use of a single newsletter as a direct political attack by his former political opponent. Many of their fist reactions is to see this as the same old thing. Their animosity towards the "main stream media" and belief that the MSM has selected prefered candidates and discourages positive coverage of all others (especially Ron Paul) also leads them to believe any publication that exposes the newsletter is directly attacking Ron Paul's campaign.

Ron Paul supporters are also likely to be exhibiting attribution biases with the positivity effect while evaluating Ron Paul's responisbility while opponents will likely evaluate with the negativity effect.

Sent by josh_08 | 7:42 PM | 1-11-2008

Perhaps most concerning was not the heir of bigoted supremacy displayed by Fred Thompson and John McCain, but the fact that the once correctness-obsessed news media let their anti-Muslim jests slide completely. Thompson joked about Iranian seamen meeting their virgins. This is the equivalent of a Middle East leader saying he would like to shove a cross up a dead American soldier's ass, but news organizations only reported how funny it was, completely ignoring the insensitivity of the comment. When addressing the issue of trade with certain Middle Eastern countries, John McCain said he isn't interested in "trading burkas" with them. This too was ignored by the press. The way these men went uncriticized for these comments is similar to the way Nazis went uncriticized for anti-Semitic remarks. Simply delete Jew and insert Muslim, and the beginnings of National Socialist Germany fit neatly into contemporary American society.

Sent by David | 1:58 AM | 1-12-2008

Calling Ron Paul racist because of articles falsely attributed to his name, in a periodical that had his name attached to it, is like attributing the editorials found in the New Yorker to the residents of New York, or articles in USA Today to all United States citizens. When extremists act in the name of Islam, the religion is not the evildoer, the extremists are. Did the riots that occurred after the murder of Dr. King represent his views of peace and love? Did the plunder and murder carried out by Crusaders represent Jesus Christ???s teachings? The people who took a good name to push their noxious swill are the racists and bigots. Ron Paul has denounced these writings, and has taken responsibility for an error in judgment he made over a decade ago, when he allowed his name to be used without reviewing what his name was being used for. Everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone owns up to those mistakes, especially politicians. Regardless of who your horse is in the race for President you have to respect Ron Paul for that.

Sent by J. C. Bushman | 11:44 AM | 1-12-2008

Of all the candidates talking about "change", Dr. Ron Paul is the only one who not only offers change, but has consistently been on the vanguard of real change (for the better) over the course of his entire career. The real headline of 2008 will be, "Traditional media re-evaluates it's own future after President Paul's overwhelming landslide presidential victory!"

Sent by Paul Anthony Tish | 11:06 AM | 1-14-2008