Statement of former Ron Paul staffer

[GALTGULCH8]

Statement from fmr. Ron Paul staffer on Newsletters, Anti-Semitism

http://tinyurl.com/cs4snkl

Written By : Eric Dondero

Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003

Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96

National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92

Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President 1987/88

I have been asked by various media the last few days for my comments, view of the current situation regarding my former boss Ron Paul, as he runs for the presidency on the Republican ticket.

I’ve noticed in some media that my words have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides. And I wish to set the record straight with media that I trust and know will get the story right: conservative/libertarian-conservative bloggers.

Is Ron Paul a “racist.” In short, No. I worked for the man for 12 years, pretty consistently. 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. It’s safe to say that I was with him on the campaign trail more than any other individual, whether it be traveling to Fairbanks, Alaska or Boston, Massachusetts in the presidential race, or across the congressional district to San Antonio or Corpus Christi, Texas.

He has frequently hired blacks for his office staff, starting as early as 1988 for the Libertarian campaign. He has also hired many Hispanics, including his current District staffer Dianna Gilbert-Kile.

One caveat: He is what I would describe as “out of touch,” with both Hispanic and Black culture. Ron is far from being the hippest guy around. He is completely clueless when it comes to Hispanic and Black culture, particularly Mexican-American culture. And he is most certainly intolerant of Spanish and those who speak strictly Spanish in his presence, (as are a number of Americans, nothing out of the ordinary here.)

Is Ron Paul an Anti-Semite? Absolutely No. As a Jew, (half on my mother’s side), I can categorically say that I never heard anything out of his mouth, in hundreds of speeches I listened too over the years, or in my personal presence that could be called, “Anti-Semite.” No slurs. No derogatory remarks.

He is however, most certainly Anti-Israel, and Anti-Israeli in general. He wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all. He expressed this to me numerous times in our private conversations. His view is that Israel is more trouble than it is worth, specifically to the America taxpayer. He sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs.

Again, American Jews, Ron Paul has no problem with. In fact, there were a few Jews in our congressional district, and Ron befriended them with the specific intent of winning their support for our campaign. (One synagogue in Victoria, and tiny one in Wharton headed by a well-known Jewish lawyer).

On the incident that’s being talked about in some blog media about the campaign manager directing me to a press conference of our opponent Lefty Morris in Victoria to push back on Anti-Jewish charges from the Morris campaign, yes, that did happen. The Victoria Advocate described the press conference very accurately. Yes, I was asked (not forced), to attend the conference dressed in a Jewish yarlmuke, and other Jewish adornments.

There was another incident when Ron finally agreed to a meeting with Houston Jewish Young Republicans at the Freeport office. He berated them, and even shouted at one point, over their un-flinching support for Israel. So, much so, that the 6 of them walked out of the office. I was left chasing them down the hallway apologizing for my boss.

Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe? Well, yes and no. He is not all bigoted towards homosexuals. He supports their rights to do whatever they please in their private lives. He is however, personally uncomfortable around homosexuals, no different from a lot of older folks of his era.

There were two incidents that I will cite, for the record. One that involved me directly, and another that involved another congressional staffer or two.

(I am revealing this for the very first time, and I’m sure Jim Peron will be quite surprised to learn this.)

In 1988, Ron had a hardcore Libertarian supporter, Jim Peron, Owner of Laissez Faire Books in San Francisco. Jim set up a magnificent 3-day campaign swing for us in the SF Bay Area. Jim was what you would call very openly Gay. But Ron thought the world of him. For 3 days we had a great time trouncing from one campaign event to another with Jim’s Gay lover. The atmosphere was simply jovial between the four of us. (As an aside we also met former Cong. Pete McCloskey during this campaign trip.) We used Jim’s home/office as a “base.” Ron pulled me aside the first time we went there, and specifically instructed me to find an excuse to excuse him to a local fast food restaurant so that he could use the bathroom. He told me very clearly, that although he liked Jim, he did not wish to use his bathroom facilities. I chided him a bit, but he sternly reacted, as he often did to me, Eric, just do what I say. Perhaps “sternly” is an understatement. Ron looked at me directly, and with a very angry look in his eye, and shouted under his breath: “Just do what I say NOW.”

The second incident involved one or two other staffers many years later at the BBQ in Surfside Beach. I was not in direct presence of the incident. But another top staffer, and I believe one of our secretaries, was witnessed to it. This top staffer adores Ron, but was extremely insulted by his behavior, I would even say flabbergasted to the point of considering resigning from his staff over it.

“Bobby,” a well-known and rather flamboyant and well-liked gay man in Freeport came to the BBQ. Let me stress Ron likes Bobby personally, and Bobby was a hardcore campaign supporter. But after his speech, at the Surfside pavilion Bobby came up to Ron with his hand extended, and according to my fellow staffer, Ron literally swatted his hand away.

Again, let me stress. I would not categorize that as “homo-phobic,” but rather just unsettled by being around gays personally. Ron, like many folks his age, very much supports toleration, but chooses not to be around gays on a personal level. It’s a personal choice. And though, it may seem offensive to some, he has every right in my mind to feel and act that way.

Finally, let me make a couple observations. The liberal media is ferociously attacking Ron this morning, on everything from the Newsletters to his various PACs. I’m amused at how off-base they all are. If they are looking for something that went un-explained after many years, it’s the Nadia Hayes incident from the end of the presidential campaign in 1988. I personally am still a little ticked off by this, and surprised that nobody has ever followed up on it. In brief, Nadia was Ron’s longtime business/campaign manager in the 1980s. On the very last day of the presidential campaign, attorneys, accountants, and even Nassau Bay police dept. investigation officials stormed into our campaign office, sealed everything off, rushed us campaign staffers into the storeroom (literally), and for hours on end ruffled through the entire campaign records, file cabinets, and other papers.

Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert were there too. We were greatly surprised by this. Nadia was eventually convicted of embezzlement and went to jail for 6 months, plus had to pay $140,000 in restitution to Ron.

There were rumors at the time, and long thereafter, that Lew and Burt had pinned it all on Nadia, and that they had their own reasons for the “coup.” For years afterwards, Rockwell, and Blumert had complete control of Ron’s enterprises through Jean McIver and (former JBS/Jesse Helms fundraiser) David “James” Mertz of northern Virginia.

It was easy to pin it all on Nadia. She lived extravagantly, and her husband who owned a boat repair business in Clear Lake, had recently had some serious financial problems.

Nadia never resurfaced, and was never heard from again.

I will attest, that when campaign consultant Tony Payton died of heart failure, in 2002 I believe, I specifically asked Ron if I could look Nadia up, and contact her to let her know that her longtime friend had died, and he reacted sternly to me, expressing that he did not want me to do that, and if I did, there would be serious consequences. I was shocked. And this was one of the reasons I eventually left his staff.

On one other matter, I’d like to express in the strongest terms possible, that the liberal media are focusing in on entirely the wrong aspects regarding controversies on Ron Paul.

It’s his foreign policy that’s the problem; not so much some stupid and whacky things on race and gays he may have said or written in the past.

Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that “saving the Jews,” was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just “blowback,” for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views. Let me just concentrate on one in specific. And I will state this with absolute certainty:

Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.

He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Ron was “under the spell” of left-anarchist and Lew Rockwell associate Joe Becker at the time, who was our legislative director. Norm Singleton, another Lew Rockwell fanatic agreed with Joe. All other staffers were against Ron, Joe and Norm on this, including Lizardo. At the very last minute Ron switched his stance and voted “Yay,” much to the great relief of Jackie and I. He never explained why, but I strongly suspected that he realized it would have been political suicide; that staunchly conservative Victoria would revolt, and the Republicans there would ensure that he would not receive the nomination for the seat in 2002. Also, as much as I like to think that it was my yelling and screaming at Ron, that I would publicly resign if he voted “No,” I suspect it had a lot more to do with Jackie’s threat, for she WAS Victoria. And if Jackie bolted, all of the Victoria conservatives would immediately turn on Ron, and it wouldn’t be pretty.

If you take anything from this lengthy statement, I would hope that it is this final story about the Afghanistan vote, that the liberal media chooses to completely ignore, because it doesn’t fit their template, is what you will report.

If Ron Paul should be slammed for anything, it’s not some silly remarks he’s made in the past in his Newsletters. It’s over his simply outrageously horrendous views on foreign policy, Israel, and national security for the United States. His near No vote on Afghanistan. That is the big scandal. And that is what should be given 100 times more attention from the liberal media, than this Newsletter deal.

Eric Dondero, Publisher

LibertarianRepublican.net

[Selene]

Gulch:

Thank you very much for posting this. I know it was not easy to do, but it is better to have a complete picture of the man, warts and all, than fake reality.

I think that we are all aware that Dr. Paul's pure isolationist position is at the core of our concerns about his being even an outside chance of becoming President of the United States.

Adam

[Greybird]

Thank you very much for posting this. I know it was not easy to do, but it is better to have a complete picture of the man, warts and all, than fake reality.

Eric Dondero Rittberg — his full name, and you can judge for yourself just how much of a paper trail he wishes to avoid by freely swapping surnames — was long ago fired by Ron Paul. He actively turned against Libertarian Party efforts to achieve ballot status. He has posted continual neoconservative bile against anyone remotely Paulian in viewpoint, under dozens of screen names, at Liberty Post, Free Republic, and other sites (those names having to do with being repeatedly banned for incivility and abuse).

Rittberg is one of the most repulsive characters it has been my misfortune to even meet, let alone have to work with on occasion, in 35 years of libertarian activism. For what it's worth to note this. I would advise skepticism about any such insider account. Jim Peron, for one, has strenuously denied Rittberg's veracity as to the trip noted above — and that's with Peron now thoroughly detesting Paul.

I think that we are all aware that Dr. Paul's pure isolationist position is at the core of our concerns about his being even an outside chance of becoming President of the United States.

"We are all"? "Our concerns"? Refrain from such facile collectivizing, please. It is precisely his non-interventionist (NOT "isolationist") stands that bring the greatest hope for peace, and engender and earn the greatest support for him, from multitudes of people. Including many who, such as I, have wearied from fighting the assumed Objectivist support for neoconservative warmaking, which infests a host of O-sites.

[Selene]

Greybird:

Thanks for your input, however, I will chose my own words and my own rhetorical flourishes to achieve a fair and balanced approach to this issue.

Out of curiosity, how many are there in a "multitude?"

Finally, I do not take the testimony of Rittburg as conclusory, but as providing a clearly agenda driven perception of Dr. Paul.

Adam

[Greybird]

Thanks for your input, however, I will choose my own words and my own rhetorical flourishes to achieve a fair and balanced approach to this issue.

"All" is neither "fair and balanced," nor a mere "rhetorical flourish." You do not speak for, among others here, me. I have thus disrupted your assertion of a unanimous viewpoint. (And if such an assertion was not your intention, you should have said so.)

[Selene]

Thanks for your input, however, I will choose my own words and my own rhetorical flourishes to achieve a fair and balanced approach to this issue.

"All" is neither "fair and balanced," nor a mere "rhetorical flourish." You do not speak for, among others here, me. I have thus disrupted your assertion of a unanimous viewpoint. (And if such an assertion was not your intention, you should have said so.)

You are incorrect.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Unfortunately. in the way the media works these days, it doesn't matter if this guy is telling the truth or not.

His account sounds quite plausible to the public at large, so I fear this will not go away as long as Paul is a serious contender.

This and the newsletters will be spun to death.

I have no opinion on Dondero since I just now heard of him. (My gut tells me that he is not totally credible for what that's worth.) I also have no opinion about the newsletters.

I am much more concerned about Paul's competence as an executive leader--my impression is that he would not be very good--and his age, which no one talks about, but he is quite old.

It doesn't matter, though. My opinion will not count in the big picture. What will count is spin as spin magnets are found. So far the media has found two powerful spin magnets. I expect more will follow and I expect more people will come out of the woodwork spinning even faster about the two on the table.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

The mass media and easy access to the internet have converted our democracy into a chorus of asses. On a still night you can hear the braying of the asses from a great distance. Even so, this is a better situation than government controlled media.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

On one point Dondero is clearly not credible.

Paul did, under great duress, vote "yea" on Afghanistan, but he most certainly did not vote "Yay"!

[Mikee]

On one point Dondero is clearly not credible.

Paul did, under great duress, vote "yea" on Afghanistan, but he most certainly did not vote "Yay"!

The rest, however, seems credible and not unsurprising. Well, the extent of his homophobia is a little surprising. The question is "why?"...isn't he a MD by training? Refusing to shake someone's hand, a presumed ally, is deeply insulting. Simply shows another unsavory and frankly irrational dimension to the man. What else is he irrational about?

[caroljane]

On one point Dondero is clearly not credible.

Paul did, under great duress, vote "yea" on Afghanistan, but he most certainly did not vote "Yay"!

The rest, however, seems credible and not unsurprising. Well, the extent of his homophobia is a little surprising. The question is "why?"...isn't he a MD by training? Refusing to shake someone's hand, a presumed ally, is deeply insulting. Simply shows another unsavory and frankly irrational dimension to the man. What else is he irrational about?

Apparently he cited his MD training as a reason for his sanitary precautions. Well, he does look like he got his training in the 1890's.

[Reidy]

I believe that Paul is telling the truth when he says he's not a racist. I believe it even though he's lying when he says he didn't know what was in the newsletters (just as Obama was lying when he said he didn't know what was in Pastor Wackadoodle's sermons, or as Holder was when he said he didn't know about Fast and Furious until he saw it in the news). The real story, according to a now-famous piece of reportage in Reason, is at least as damaging. Paul was under the influence of the Rothbard / Rockwell "paeloconservative" project, which sought to gain political advantage by making an alliance between Libertarians and lowbrow conservatives - i.e. he didn't share the sentiments in question but went along with them anyway for political expediency.

The damage he has done to libertarian prospects will take years to undo.

[PDS]

On one point Dondero is clearly not credible.

Paul did, under great duress, vote "yea" on Afghanistan, but he most certainly did not vote "Yay"!

My gut has always told me that Ron Paul is looney, but the letter is so poorly written that I am having trouble taking any of it seriously.

[BaalChatzaf]

On one point Dondero is clearly not credible.

Paul did, under great duress, vote "yea" on Afghanistan, but he most certainly did not vote "Yay"!

The rest, however, seems credible and not unsurprising. Well, the extent of his homophobia is a little surprising. The question is "why?"...isn't he a MD by training? Refusing to shake someone's hand, a presumed ally, is deeply insulting. Simply shows another unsavory and frankly irrational dimension to the man. What else is he irrational about?

I don't shake hands either. It is unsanitary I bow like the Japanese do. You don't know where the other fellows hand has been, do you ?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[PDS]

On one point Dondero is clearly not credible.

Paul did, under great duress, vote "yea" on Afghanistan, but he most certainly did not vote "Yay"!

The rest, however, seems credible and not unsurprising. Well, the extent of his homophobia is a little surprising. The question is "why?"...isn't he a MD by training? Refusing to shake someone's hand, a presumed ally, is deeply insulting. Simply shows another unsavory and frankly irrational dimension to the man. What else is he irrational about?

I don't shake hands either. It is unsanitary I bow like the Japanese do. You don't know where the other fellows hand has been, do you ?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bowing, however, opens you up to a front snap kick to the bridge of the nose and/or shuto to the clavicle, all without knowledge of where the person's hands or feet have been. Food for thought.

[caroljane]

On one point Dondero is clearly not credible.

Paul did, under great duress, vote "yea" on Afghanistan, but he most certainly did not vote "Yay"!

The rest, however, seems credible and not unsurprising. Well, the extent of his homophobia is a little surprising. The question is "why?"...isn't he a MD by training? Refusing to shake someone's hand, a presumed ally, is deeply insulting. Simply shows another unsavory and frankly irrational dimension to the man. What else is he irrational about?

I don't shake hands either. It is unsanitary I bow like the Japanese do. You don't know where the other fellows hand has been, do you ?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bowing, however, opens you up to a front snap kick to the bridge of the nose and/or shuto to the clavicle, all without knowledge of where the person's hands or feet have been. Food for thought.

As a fatalist, I always gladly shake hands. Even with OLers and all too often, we do know where they've been.

[Selene]

Well at least the Republican field has finally decided to concentrate on O'biwan and obey Reagan's 11th Commandment...oops - oh well!

"I think Barack Obama is very destructive to the future of the United States. I think Ron Paul's views are totally outside the mainstream of virtually every decent American," Gingrich said Tuesday in a CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer.

Could he vote for Paul? "No." If it came down to Paul vs. Obama? "You'd have a very hard choice at that point."

Gingrich declared twice during the interview that Paul won't get the GOP nomination. Benton countered with the rhetorical equivalent of "neither will you."

http://decoded.nationaljournal.com/2011/12/gingrich-unloads-on-paul-worse.php

So, essentially, this piece of infantile self destruction by the Republican pack will essentially play into the establishment's hands.

Romney's selection as the Republican Papal candidate moves one step closer to seeing the white smoke from the conventions chimney.

Truly sad.

Adam

[Selene]

This is from Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website. I am a big fan of Tucker.

By Wesley Messamore

Editor in Chief, HumbleLibertarian.com

A racist these days is all too often really just a conservative winning an argument with a liberal. It should come as no surprise, then, that the most principled conservative in the GOP race is being assailed and viciously smeared as a racist because of the content of a newsletter written 20 years ago which he credibly denies writing or having any knowledge of, and has repeatedly disavowed as contrary to his own views.

The racist smear is a common and favorite tactic of big-government liberals and their collaborators in the mainstream media. In 2009, with the tea party movement in full swing, members of the mainstream media did everything they could to assail these patriotic conservatives as racists, searching desperately at every tea party event for any wayward protest sign that might have racist content that could be used to assassinate the character of an entire national grassroots movement. The media even went so far as to fabricate a racial confrontation between tea party protesters and Democratic members of Congress, but it was nothing more than a smear and a lie.

The tea party movement didn’t have anything to do with race: it was about fiscal policy, monetary policy, systemic problems with our legislative process, and the proper nature and role of government. Tea party protesters were all about diminishing the size, role, and influence of an out-of-touch, out-of-control, out-of-solutions, and out-of-money federal government. They were right. And just like the tea parties, Dr. Ron Paul’s life, message, and record as a 12-term U.S. congressman have absolutely nothing to do with race.

Ron Paul is not a racist and doesn’t have a racist bone in his body. Throughout a political career that has spanned over four decades, Ron Paul’s message has always been about fiscal policy, monetary policy, and the proper nature and role of government. He has a message that has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the liberty our Founding Fathers fought to preserve, a liberty that he believes is granted to us as individuals made in the image of our Creator, not as members of any race or other collective group. And that message has resonated throughout the nation, which is why he is leading the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire as his campaign continues to steadily gain momentum.

Why should we trust Ron Paul’s unequivocal denial of having written or known anything about these racist rantings?

First, there’s his uncanny record of integrity.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/12/26/the-ron-paul-newsletter-controversy-is-a-textbook-liberal-smear-campaign/#ixzz1hsY37NZ9

[Mark]

Regarding the epithet "isolationist," consider what Ayn Rand said at the Ford Hall Forum Q&A November 9, 1969 when someone asked her about the Vietnam War:

"... the Republicans and Democrats are pretty equally guilty of it [entering the war], but since it was up to now a Democratic administration, it’s their war. ... you can look up the record of Vietnam and of Kennedy’s speeches about it, of Johnson’s speeches. And if you want to go further back, go to World War Two and read about the campaign of the same gang – and there’s no other word for it ... – that were insulting as ‘isolationists’ everybody who was opposed to our entering World War Two. ‘Isolationism’ was regarded as a very dirty word. You were accused of being narrowly patriotic and selfish because you didn’t want to mix into a foreign war."

More at

Footnote to "Ayn Rand on WW II"

　

[Selene]

Dr. Paul has made a solid statement on the pieces of "garbage" inserted into his newsletters.

Ron Paul now says he accepts "some responsibility" for controversial newsletters, published in the 1980s and 1990s under Paul's name, that spoke of coming race wars in the United States.

"These were sentences that were put in, I think it was a total of eight or 10 sentences and it was bad stuff — it, it wasn't a reflection of my views at all," said Paul in response to a caller's question on WHO's Jan Mickelson radio show in Iowa. "I think it was terrible. It was tragic and I had some responsibility because the [letter went out under my name]."

He told listeners Thursday that he acted as a publisher rather than an editor of the newsletters.

"If you think about publishers of newspapers every once an a while they get some pretty chunky stuff in their newspapers and they have to say 'this is not the sentiment and position of that newspaper' and this is certainly the case ... this is probably 10 sentences out of 10,000 pages for all I know," Paul said.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Paul Admits 'Some Responsibility' for Racist Newsletters

Dr. Walter E. Williams and Dr, Sowell have both personally attested to the fact that Dr. Paul is not a racist. I never had any doubt, but some folks did.

The statement that Dr. Paul made on the radio show should put an end to this drumbeat, but probably won't.

Adam

[caroljane]

Dr. Paul has made a solid statement on the pieces of "garbage" inserted into his newsletters.

Ron Paul now says he accepts "some responsibility" for controversial newsletters, published in the 1980s and 1990s under Paul's name, that spoke of coming race wars in the United States.

"These were sentences that were put in, I think it was a total of eight or 10 sentences and it was bad stuff — it, it wasn't a reflection of my views at all," said Paul in response to a caller's question on WHO's Jan Mickelson radio show in Iowa. "I think it was terrible. It was tragic and I had some responsibility because the [letter went out under my name]."

He told listeners Thursday that he acted as a publisher rather than an editor of the newsletters.

"If you think about publishers of newspapers every once an a while they get some pretty chunky stuff in their newspapers and they have to say 'this is not the sentiment and position of that newspaper' and this is certainly the case ... this is probably 10 sentences out of 10,000 pages for all I know," Paul said

He is addressing the quotable quotes which have been drawing the fire. This statement just invites his enemies to go back to that wretched archive and find more "sentences", many more than eight or ten, strung together in whole articles, and heave them back at him.

[Selene]

He is addressing the quotable quotes which have been drawing the fire. This statement just invites his enemies to go back to that wretched archive and find more "sentences", many more than eight or ten, strung together in whole articles, and heave them back at him.

Carol:

That does concern me also because some "sources" "claim" that there are lots more, but I have not seen them as yet.

Adam

[GALTGULCH8]

Don't you think that as the publisher, Ron Paul should have read the issues before they went to the printer, especially since his name is on the newsletter?

He has said that he was negligent in this regard. I wonder how many issues were created which had such offensive remarks in them. I should think that someone on his staff would have made him aware.

I do think that this is unfortunate and a distraction. I am supporting him because the others appear to be oblivious of the profound seriousness and urgency of the state of the country. President Obama's policies are egregious and appear to have the intent of bringing the country down. It is on the verge of bankruptcy if not there already. If Bernanke was not keeping the interest rates on the national debt near zero a high percentage of the budget would have to go to debt service.

It appears that none of the other candidates has a clue as to how bad things are. If President Obama were re elected he would not have to face the voters again and there would be nothing to stop him from instituting his dream programs which would be devastating to the economy and the death knell to individual liberty.

[caroljane]

Don't you think that as the publisher, Ron Paul should have read the issues before they went to the printer, especially since his name is on the newsletter?

He has said that he was negligent in this regard. I wonder how many issues were created which had such offensive remarks in them. I should think that someone on his staff would have made him aware.

I do think that this is unfortunate and a distraction. I am supporting him because the others appear to be oblivious of the profound seriousness and urgency of the state of the country. President Obama's policies are egregious and appear to have the intent of bringing the country down. It is on the verge of bankruptcy if not there already. If Bernanke was not keeping the interest rates on the national debt near zero a high percentage of the budget would have to go to debt service.

It appears that none of the other candidates has a clue as to how bad things are. If President Obama were re elected he would not have to face the voters again and there would be nothing to stop him from instituting his dream programs which would be devastating to the economy and the death knell to individual liberty.

Of course he read them. I have written corporate newsletters. Every word was agonized over by everybody whose name appeared in it, and the CEO was never negligent in reading and personally approving every issue. I have no doubt that Paul disliked and disagreed with much of the offensive content, but he's a politician. The gain in votes and donations was worth it to him.

[Selene]

Of course he read them. I have written corporate newsletters. Every word was agonized over by everybody whose name appeared in it, and the CEO was never negligent in reading and personally approving every issue. I have no doubt that Paul disliked and disagreed with much of the offensive content, but he's a politician. The gain in votes and donations was worth it to him.

Carol:

I know I am making a pure leap of faith here, but I can imagine him not reading them. These "sentences" seem completely out of character to Dr. Paul. Serious black intellectuals like Dr. Williams and Thomas Sowell have stated that Dr. Paul is not a racist.

Adam