Ron Paul's reply to TNR
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:
“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 publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
comments powered by Disqus
Aeon J. Skoble - 1/13/2008
There is an apology on the record. See Sheldon's post at the top of the page, and David's comment. Like them, I don't think Paul is ideal, but everyone else is orders of magnitude worse.
Elliot C Reed - 1/12/2008
When did Paul find out that this vile stuff was being published in his name, and what did he do about it when he did? If he didn't care enough about the issue to publicly repudiate those comments when he learned of them, that's still pretty damning. If you are lending your name to the support of an evil cause, it's not a defense that you didn't personally believe in it. In some ways it's worse to know better and not care. And if nobody told him because they thought he wouldn't care about it, that doesn't look very good either.
So unless there's a public apology for this a fair way back in the record I don't see an interpretation that doesn't make Paul actively racist, too friendly with racism to be morally acceptable, or (at best) seriously incompetent.
John Kunze - 1/11/2008
In his CNN interview Ron Paul says he doesn't know who wrote the stuff, but he does not say he does not know who the editor was. (And the editor could be the writer, of course.) See:
Reasonable people should conclude that he didn't write it and didn't know about it at the time but that he was very negligent in letting people use his name.
Steven Horwitz - 1/10/2008
The common consensus, and by some who would know, is Lew Rockwell. Even Wendy's piece all but names him. It also explains why RP won't name names - he won't sell out his friend and he can't admit to still having the author as a close confidant. Admirable at one level, but suicidal at another.
Bill Woolsey - 1/10/2008
Of course, Paul isn't claiming that the newsletters were published without his knowledge.
That is what the apology is about. The newsletter was under his name, and he didn't keep up with what the writers were saying in his name.
He didn't say, "I have no idea who was the editor." Or, "I don't know who did the writing." I am sure Paul knows who was doing the editing. He also says that there were several writers. I presume Paul knows who these people were too.
So far, only Rittberg/Dondero has named any names. He claims that it was mostly written by Paul and Rockwell. "Editing" apparently was done by someone I have never heard of. McElroy claims to know who wrote the racist diatribes. Virkkala suggested that between one and four libertarians were doing the writing, and that Paul was hardly involved.
So far, no reports of people who knew what was going on, went to Paul and complained, and got a response of.....
Keith Halderman - 1/10/2008
I did not see weasel word one in this post's quotation what are you talking about?
Gary McGath - 1/10/2008
"[A] newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit."
This boggles me. Is he claiming that some unknown person put his name to a newsletter, or is he just being evasive?
Bill Woolsey - 1/9/2008
Check out Hit and Run.
No answers to your questions, but
Timothy Virkkala claims to have a good idea (with one of the authors being surprising.) He claims that people working at Liberty Magazine in the ninties knew all about it.
McElroy claims to know exactly who it is. She refuse to "out" the person, but asks that he come forward.
Jeff Riggenbach - 1/9/2008
"Libertarian candidates will never succeed in a democracy because libertarianism is anti-democratic."
That is one of its virtues, yes.
Charles Oliver - 1/9/2008
OK. Who wrote the articles? Who did edit the enwsletters?
Did Ron Paul read them before they were published? Did he read them afterwards?
When did he become aware that a newsletter bearing his name was publishing articles he disagreed with and may have found repugnant?
We are talking about several articles over a period of years. Did he discuss this issue at all with the editor of the newsletter during that period? If so, did the editor disregard his instructions? What was Paul's response if he did?
John Richard Clark - 1/9/2008
It's funny how "straight-talking" Ron Paul suddenly uses weasel words to disavow the charges against him.
It doesn't matter anyway. Libertarian candidates will never succeed in a democracy because libertarianism is anti-democratic.
- Craig Shirley says Ted Cruz is right and the Huffington Post wrong about Ronald Reagan’s 1980 Presidential Campaign
- Mystery at Notre Dame: A priest-historian has been forced to back off a project promoting authentic Catholic education
- William & Mary launching a gay history project
- "I teach the largest gay and lesbian history class in the country."
- Another year of declines in history enrollments