Popular Posts

Friday, December 23, 2011

How to Deal with the Racist Statements in Newsletters

See also :http://progressivesforronpaul.blogspot.com/2012/01/racism-and-ron-paul.html

As the writer of this blog, I intend to continue supporting Ron Paul for the nomination and for his election to the office of President. I do not believe that Ron Paul intends to be a racist president in any manner. I think that is clear to all who support him. However, he is guilty at least of gross negligence in not overseeing those news letters. I understand that he was focused on family and business and could have easily overlooked the racist statements, but this is still not an excuse. It was his publication, using his name. 

I understand his following some poor advise not to admit that the comments he knew of were racist regardless of the context. I understand that he has taken moral responsibility by stating that he bears the responsibility of negligence. I understand that he is frustrated by all the redundant questioning over this issue. I understand that his public words in books and speeches have been totally devoid of racism and moreover, often anti-racist in intent based on his Christian faith and libertarian philosophical principles.

What I do not understand is his campaign's failure thus far to prepare him to meet these accusations head on in an effective way. I sincerely and deeply hope that they will help him to prepare a speech on racial equality which addresses exactly what he knew and when he knew it, apologizes genuinely for his negligence/and or involvement, gives clear heart-felt reasons why he opposes racism, acknowledging that it continues to be a major moral problem in our culture, and illustrates in detail how his policy proposals will address issues of race and discrimination.

He needs to do this speech in a setting that involves racial minorities. He needs to show some penitence by donating the amount of funds his newsletters raised to the cause of racial justice and equality through broadly accepted channels such as the NAACP, the Urban League, the United Negro College Fund, etc. He needs to reach out to minorities within the congress and hope that some of them ask to stand with him on stage as he delivers this speech.

Now is a pivotal moment in our nation's history. The truth is needed in full contrition and just defense. This speech needs to tell the truth about Ron Paul and about why he never got to the bottom of who wrote these racist statements. If the truth is not told in all its embarrassing detail, his campaign is finished and his followers are left distraught, their cause set back for years to come. He can once and for all end this agglutinative attack with a comprehensive speech on the issue of race. I suggest his staff go back and read Senator Obama's "More Perfect Union" of March 18, 2008. If they cannot see and feel the power of this very unique and uncharacteristic speech, they need to find someone else to write Dr. Paul's speech.

If they fail to do this, it will constitute one of the most egregious moral and political failures in our nation's history. So I hope that others here  join me in saying to his staff, Please!!! For the sake of our nation's future and the future of liberty, do the right thing and take care of this matter promptly and comprehensively.


  1. Ron Paul-

    Be the man you appear to be!

    You say you disavow what was written...EXCELLANT.

    If you really want a revolution in Washington, and are for real change, then be one of the first politicians on the planet to come forward and openly and honestly tell us what happened back there.

    The public, and especially your supporters are not going to accept half-truths- that is why they left everyone else and are voting for you- DON'T LET US DOWN!

    Ignoring the attacks will destroy you Mr. Paul. People have had confidence in you because of your TRUTHFULNESS and HONESTY.

    If they see dishonesty in you, you will be discarded like all the other politicians before you.

    Your credibilty will RISE beyond belief if you take an honest stand.

    This is the most important fork in the road, Mr. Paul.

    You want to have more political clout than ever among your supporters? Instead of making another expensive ad, show people you are honestly tryin to make ammends and serious about your libertarian view and take the money and give it to some of those groups identified in the previous post and in the manner described.

    Some of your supporters may assume you are caving into their accusations and will not agree with you, but so what? Our issue is TRUTH, not POPULARITY.

    You will then be able to stand with the utmost confidence before everyone that whatever was written back there, for whatever reason it was done, is not what you stand for now.

    Instead of putting out a TV ad, you will BECOME THE AD!

    You will not be puttng something out there on TV on how things SHOULD be- rather you will actually BECOME THE CHANGE your ads are talking about.

    Come on Mr. Paul- we can't afford to loose the inertia- one or two paragraphs and a few bucks could change the course of history.

    Let's do it!

  2. Thanks Gary. Just telling the truth will go a long way. John 8:32.

  3. I'm not progressive, but conservative, I found your blog by accident. There are several things that you fail to grasp as a progressive
    1) Raising money and give it to the NAACP will be felt like a scam by most of his supporters. Some are racist, most are not, but what would the NAACP do with the money after, how much would be kept for "administrative fees" and so on? Plus the fact that some statements were racists, some others were border line, for the period where such claims appeared ( 1989-1993) they probably represent 2% of the material. The money was likely used to pay salaries in part and it is gone for a while. And his supporters didn't send him money recently to forward it to black organizations but to WIN with ads
    2)Paul has already done many of the things that you ask him to do, however I don't think that he provided much detail on "which addresses exactly what he knew and when he knew it", I have no idea if it's because he lies or if it's because he truely can't remember some comments after 20 years.
    Even if he was to make such a speech however, it wouldn't be report in the media except for one or two sentences and it would have zero impact on his campaign
    3) You are out of touch with reality. This issue will not sink his campaign at all. It's a GOP primary, not a democratic primary. The fact that he said that Bachmann was anti-muslim, even if it's true, probably cost him more supporters than this issue. Some interpret this like "I'm pro-muslim!" or "what? he won't nuke those ragheads?"

  4. By the way ex-aid ( and now hawkish, anti-Paul) Eric Dondero said recently:
    “I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently,” Dondero writes. “I never heard a racist word expressed towards Blacks or Jews come out of his mouth. Not once. And understand, I was his close personal assistant.”

    He is blasting him over his foreign policy however, Dondero is a war monger. He was so furious that he ran against Paul for his congressional seat in 2008. If I want to be more cynical, I could say: Why has this guy decided to clear Paul of these charges BEFORE the primaries rather than AFTER but before the election?

  5. If you don't like the NAACP suggestion, how about the United Negro College Fund? A bit less partisan. I am satisfied that Paul is not advocating a racist agenda either personally or politically. And you may be very much right that a hint of racism may do him good in a GOP primary, but I think the party is looking for someone who can pass a smell test this time around. Opportunists like Newt Gingrich are already using it against him and if Paul wins in Iowa, look for more of that coming from other GOP contenders.

    A major speech will give Paul a chance to give a complete story in one event without reporters controlling the context or dictating the questions, to highlight his position on several issues which are favorable among African-Americans, and to put the issue to rest for good.

    Dondero may be clearing him of racist charges somewhat but he is making Paul sound like a homophobe, which may again do him well in the GOP primaries but not in the general election.

    I think that both establishment Democrats and establishment Republicans are scared of a Paul victory. They both know that Paul's only shot at victory is for him to run a full scale coalition candidacy. That's why they are hitting him with these traditionally left of center issues because they fear progressives jumping ship.

    A Paul candidacy with merely libertarian support is a nuisance. A Paul coalition candidacy is viable and down right dangerous in a general election.

  6. You are correct in that this issue may not actually bring down his campaign, and I may have overstated its impact.

    Let's say that giving some organization the money is not the right method to go about it. It hardly seems to be the right method to go on leaving himself exposed.

    In the interview he seems to deny that he even received the almost million dollars for the publications- how does one expect to keep the sharks away with that kind of blood in the water?

    It would be hard to tell with any certainty that one particular action would bring him up in the polls, while another action, or non action, would be the cause of bringing his numbers down.

    It seems to defy common sense that this issue could have anything other than a negative effect on his campaign, but from another angle there are those who seem to be looking at this as a smear campaign which may actually cause some to support him even more.

    But a couple of questions remain - can we really call it a 'win' if his integrity is compromised and yet he gains the position?

    Another question- why would we go out to battle with one area unprotected, when we could have gone out fully armed?

  7. To Cornelius and Gary: I do not know what he could say in a "major speech", because I have the feeling that whatever he says it will never be enough, and it will hardly be reported anyway. If he gets the nomination perhaps this issue will come again, because the democrats are more likely to use this issue against Paul, the republicans, much less. But it will never be enough, not necessarily because a substantial number of blacks would be upset, I do not believe that Paul can get more than 1/3 of the black vote. But the media will wish to bring back this story again and again, not because they care so much about the newsletters, but because of his foreign policy.
    The "million dollar", I believe he probably got a fraction of this, and his 6 or 7 associates who were writing the newsletters the remaining.

    Regarding the claim that Newt Gingrich can use this against him, this is funny. I don't want to continue on this issue and blog for too long ( well, as a fiscal conservative, I do not read progressive blogs often) but there is an interesting story regarding Gingrich. One of the "Ron Paul" quote that is brought again and again is the following one:

    "Boy, it sure burns me to have a national holiday for Martin Luther King. I voted against this outrage time and time again as a Congressman. What an infamy that Ronald Reagan approved it! We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day."

    The problem here is that on December 5, 1979, Ronald Paul from Texas voted FOR the MLK day, not against. And if you take a look at the list here : http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h1979-624
    You can see that for the 13 former CSA states, one quarter of the democrats voted AGAINST the MLK day and 20 republicans voted against - including Newton Gingrich (Georgia) - while 12 voted for - including Ronald Paul -. It seems that voting FOR the MLK day was risky over there if you were a republican
    So perhaps that during the 1990's Paul was secretelly an anti-racist who came out of the closet in the years after 2000 and finally admitted that he wasn't racist.(that's a joke)
    Or perhaps he simply missed that quote.

  8. I agree with you jfb about the evidence being very scant that Paul could have or ever did actually believe what certain portions of the newsletters have stated.

    Be that as it may be, the inadequate response from the Paul campaign is having a direct negative effect as Ridgeway has decided to pull out:


    And not to downplay the significance of the statements, or his reluctance to address them adequately, there is a bigger issue going on, which is why they have decided to count the Iowa votes in secret.

    The racists comments may be an issue to us, and that is as it should be, however the ones who profit from the war machine could care less about these issues.

    If they are willing to go to war and kill the innocents for financial gain, do we really think they have any moral compunctions over what color you are?

    No, the issue they face is they are not willing to let a little spindley-legged man stand between themselves and the billions of dollars coming into their coffers via the war machine.

    Without regard to the newsletters we have to ask ourselves why is it that they have decided to tally the Iowa votes in secret?

    Do we really think they will probably steal the Iowa vote because they don't want a racist in the White House???

    No, they will attempt to steal the Iowa vote whether Paul adequately adresses the newsletters or not- just being president would be a big enough threat to topple their empire- even if he was a racist-

  9. What I am concerned about at his point is that the margin of victory will be decided by independents and disgruntled Democrats. The left and the right have been pummeling away at this issue. Why? Not because they think Ron Paul is a racist, but because they want to dam up the flow of progressives into Ron Paul's campaign. They may just succeed.

    If Ron Paul finishes second in Iowa, the campaign will be without excuse. They will have to begin a very deliberate effort to build a coalition candidacy. They can begin this turn toward coalition by making the racial equality speech happen. If, having finished second in Iowa, they still refuse to make this turn asap, the candidacy is doomed to a 2nd or 3rd place finish and no influence at the convention in Tampa Bay.

  10. Paul was still strong in Iowa 5 or 6 days ago, 1 week after those attacks regarding the newsletters, but now he is losing ground and the warmonger Santorum is rising, not Huntsman, Santorum. The newsletters certanly harmed him in someway, but his biggest handicap is that he is running in the wrong party. I'm not expecting Paul to get the nomination, but the longer he stay a front runner, the more he gets media coverage and the possibility to expose his views during the debates, the better it is. If he backs Gary Johnson when everything is over, in 5 months, that will just be fine too.

  11. jfb Paul is still doing well but Iowa should not be this close.
    Santorum is surging as i predicted he would...check out the November archives. The fascist are worried and they are trying to find one candidate they can trust. Rick S. is it.
    I was thinking I might end up voting for Rocky Anderson in the general election. maybe he and Gary Johnson can get together.

  12. The question is:

    How is it that Santorum begins to surge in the polls BASED ON THE FACT that the fascists need someone they can trust?

    Would that not in and of itself show that the polls are somehow being manipulated?

    I mean, how else could you get the polls to show something just because you needed them to?

    It seems to me the polls are over the map- maybe someone can enlighten me- but is it not true that two polls could be asking the same question in a diferent way and be getting different results?