Ooooooof! Good one, Ron Paul.

Yikes.

Story Highlights

  • Ron Paul newsletters from 1990s include rants against blacks, gays
  • Paul's campaign says the newsletters weren't written by him
  • One newsletter calls Martin Luther King Jr. a "pro-Communist philanderer"
  • Another says 1992 LA riots ended after blacks went to "pick up their welfare checks"
  • http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/10/paul.newsletters/index.html

    No votes yet

    I don't believe Ron Paul wrote any of that garbage. I would like to know, however, more about when and from whose office this stuff came. It sounds like a newsletter from the early '90s, but did it come from Paul's office or was it published to look like that (and maybe more recently)? I don't believe any of it.

    None of the newsletters CNN found says who wrote them, but each was published under Paul's name between his stints as a U.S. congressman from Texas.

    Paul spokesman Jesse Benton told CNN the material was not written by Paul, and that he finds them "abhorrent." CNN asked the presidential contender for a direct response. He is to appear on CNN's "The Situation Room" Thursday afternoon around 5 p.m. ET.

    "I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name," Paul said in a written statement.

    ... but we must know full well that:

    1. Nobody has proven Ron Paul wrote those newsletters.

    2. The Republican Party knows Paul is a threat to splitting their vote, hence they will do anything to assassinate his character.

    I already told you all that #2 would happen. And ... so here we are.

    "2. The Republican Party knows Paul is a threat to splitting their vote, hence they will do anything to assassinate his character.

    I already told you all that #2 would happen. And ... so here we are."

    It's not happening and your prediction has yet to hold any merit.

    In National polls (according to the RealClearPolitics.com averages) he pulls in only 4%.

    He hasn't done incredibly well in the primaries already held: Iowa he only recieved 10%, in NH 8% placing no higher than 5th in either and that's without early national favorite Rudi Guiliani putting forth an effort.

    In those coming up he is currently polling at 4% in Michigan, 5% in Nevada, South Carolina 5% and Florida 4%.

    That being said he can only hope to gain when wealthier and more popular candidates drop out. Something that doesn't appear to be on the horizon yet. I don't doubt that Paul's supporters are enthusiastic about him but the only two candidates who have similar bases, Huckabee and McCain, have two wins under the belts and don't appear to be leaving any time soon.

    If he stays in at these levels he could only have a one or two state impact. Granted it could come in a deciding state like Nader in Florida in 2000 but that's assuming a lot of things like can he even get on the ballot as an independent in every state and if not in at least the contested states.

    MikeyA

    MikeyA

    He hasn't done incredibly well in the primaries already held: Iowa he only recieved 10%, in NH 8% placing no higher than 5th in either and that's without early national favorite Rudi Guiliani putting forth an effort.

    Funny how people view things differently. For instance, you could take the statement above and just as easily say that Ron Paul is beating the "early national favorite". He crushed Giuliani in Iowa, and he crushed Fred Thompson in NH.

    Had Guiliani actively ran in Iowa and Thompson ran in NH then I'd be impressed.

    Guiliani didn't even try in NH and beat Paul that doesn't bode well especially when another former "also ran" Huckabee was able to pull out victory in Iowa and third in NH.

    I'm not trying to bash Paul or his supporters because I'm sure enthusiastic but he needs to do something and do it quick because the success of McCain and Huckabee make Paul's lack of success look really bad. In fact the only candidate Paul has consistently beaten is Hunter who most people don't even know who he is.

    MikeyA

    MikeyA

    'Cause "20 years, give or take, worth of newsletters" is a lot of newsletters.

    It's not 20 years worth of newsletters, it's newsletters from 20 years ago.

    original article on this was on the New Republic

    http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7...

    "Angry White Man" by James Kirchick

    Comment viewing options

    Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.