Thursday, January 10, 2008

CNN breaks Ron Paul story wide open: One comment in particular confirms that he wrote at least part of the Newsletters

by Eric Dondero

Ron Paul is suggesting that his explosive Newsletters from the 1980s and '90s were ghostwritten, and went out without his direct knowledge of the contents. As his personal aide during much of that period I can attest that yes, Paul is correct, much of the writings were ghostwritten. Mostly by Lew Rockwell (and his staff of Interns). But Paul himself had a major hand in the writings of the Newsletters, as well.

Political Veteran David Gergen commented in the CNN piece:

"These stories may be very old in Ron Paul's life, but they're very new to the American public and they deserve to be totally ventilated," said David Gergen, a CNN senior political analyst. "I must say I don't think there's an excuse in politics to have something go out under your name and say, 'Oh by the way, I didn't write that.'"

One Hour ago, from CNN:

In some excerpts, the reader may be led to believe the words are indeed from Paul, a resident of Lake Jackson, Texas. In the "Ron Paul Political Report" from October 1992, the writer describes carjacking as the "hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos."

The author then offers advice from others on how to avoid being carjacked, including "an ex-cop I know," and says, "I frankly don't know what to make of such advice, but even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I've urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense. For the animals are coming."

In his interview with CNN, Paul said that's language he would never use. "People who know me, nobody is going to believe this," he said. "That's just not my language. It's not my life."


Very few people are aware that sadly, Ron Paul's family has been victimized by crime. One incident in particular that I am aware of occured in the early 1990s. This did not happen in Lake Jackson itself, but nearby in a neighboring town.

I served as Ron Paul's Personal Aide in one capacity or another for nearly 12 years. I can attest, those words match his personal feelings on the issue of crime from that time, and certainly match his tone. I've personally heard him use the phrase "animals" in numerous speeches in referring to violent criminals. While other parts of his highly controversial Newsletters may have been ghostwritten, I can attest from my personal knowledge of Paul and his family, that nobody else but Ron Paul would have written that particular passage.

CNN is implying that Paul was referring to Blacks. I'm less sure? CNN does not provide the full context of the quote. From the short blurb given it's difficult to tell if he was intending to implicate African Americans as "animals." Given Paul's feelings at the time, and knowing Ron Paul personally as I do, I would give him the benefit of the doubt, and suggest that he was referring to violent criminals in general, not just to Blacks.

But still, it does suggest that Paul is not telling the entire truth when he tells Wolf Blitzer that he's unaware of what went into the Newsletter. It's highly unlikely that a ghostwriter would have made such a reference to "my small town of Lake Jackson" and even more unlikely that Paul would have let that particular passage go out under his name from somebody else.

19 comments:

Ryan said...

Eric, we have to do something to protect libertarianism at this point. I don't mean to sound melodramatic but the world "libertarian and racist" are being linked in the mainstream press now. We hvae to marginalize Paul and his supporters in some fashion.

Ryan said...

The last comments are impossible to read, sorry.

Eric we have to do something to protect libertarianism at this point. I don't mean to sound melodramatic but the world "libertarian and racist" are being linked in the mainstream press now. We hvae to marginalize Paul and his supporters in some fashion.

Eric Dondero said...

Ryan, the best thing I can think of at the moment is to always use the modifier "mainstream" as in "mainstream libertarian."

Jonathan said...

"Ronald Reagan Libertarians"

thought up that after listening to debate mention Reagan so often.

Matt said...

>>>I've personally heard him use the phrase "animals" in numerous speeches in referring to violent criminals

what exactly is the problem with that?

Scott said...

It's rather laughable to see you guys fumbling all over yourselves about this. Especially Ryan and his statement that Ron Paul needs to be marginalized now, as if that hasn't been happening since he declared he was running.

Libertarians need no caveat attached to their name. This isn't going to be attached to libertarianism by anyone who doesn't already hate libertarians in general. You know people like socialist and neo-conservatives. Or what is it you guys call yourselves now-a-days?

Oh yeah! "Libertarian" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) Republicans.

Anonymous said...

Hey Eric,

So did the "racist" newsletters go out with Paul's knowledge? Does he hold racist views or does he just keep company with a racist crowd who were the only type of people who shared his small government viwes at the time?

Thankx

boone said...

Since you were an associate of Ron Paul back in the 80's and 90's, did you write some of those newsletters?

Do you have any proof that you didn't?

Ryan said...

Oh please Scott stop your nonsense, with all due respect. We're not 'making this up'. CNN is far from a neoconservative network, and The New Republic is far from conservative in any sense. The story was on CNN not once, not twice, but three times. They had to bring out an editor from Reason who said that Paul hasn't made enough of an effort to clear this matter up. That's an editor at Reason magazine, for God's sake! Is he a Neocon? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

The man that you backed is being accused of being a racist. Instead of launching attacks against me, maybe you should look yourself in the mirror and see if maybe, just maybe you are supporting an individual who is immoral and does not represent libertarianism.

You should be banned from this site. You add nothing of substance and value.

Morerice said...

Ryan, perhaps it is you who is the "rascist" around here, who so fervantly calls to ban people from this forum for their ideas. Your hypocracy is astounding! But that is why you can't stand Scott: he does a fine job of regularly pointing this out around here.

schwul-und-liberal said...

Pro-war-libertarianism is betrayal of principle!

Scott said...

Oh please Scott stop your nonsense, with all due respect. We're not 'making this up'. CNN is far from a neoconservative network, and The New Republic is far from conservative in any sense.

What on Earth are you even talking about Ryan? Not only did I NOT make the claim that you were making anything up, I never called TNR of CNN neo-Cons. I called *YOU* a neo-con. I’m starting to suspect that maybe any sentence containing more than three or four syllables and maybe “islomo-fascism” is hard for you to understand.

They had to bring out an editor from Reason who said that Paul hasn't made enough of an effort to clear this matter up. That's an editor at Reason magazine, for God's sake! Is he a Neocon? (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

Ooooooo, three times? Impressive. And no, being from Reason does not make you a neo-con, but neither does it make you a libertarian. It’s not a badge. Michelle Malkin writes for Reason for Christ’s sake. That does more to cloud and confuse people’s view of libertarianism than these newsletters ever will.

The man that you backed is being accused of being a racist. Instead of launching attacks against me, maybe you should look yourself in the mirror and see if maybe, just maybe you are supporting an individual who is immoral and does not represent libertarianism.

I don’t believe Ron Paul is a racist. I don’t know him though so I can’t really speak with any authority on the subject. Eric does know him and has made it pretty clear in the past that he doesn’t think Paul is a racist or an anti-semite.

That being said, I do think Paul’s campaign is done. In order to have a chance at winning he had to run a perfect campaign and this is too much for him to recover from. Our culture doesn’t take the time to think things through and a headline that even hints at a racist candidate is enough to sink him. We’re not talking about a society of brilliant learned scholars here; we’re talking about a culture that made Britney Spears a smash hit. When so many positions of Paul are contrary to what the average American assumes is truth, because “it’s always been that way”, it doesn’t take much to destroy whatever chance he did have at being elected.

What you guys don’t seem to understand is that libertarianism is a fringe position. The reason libertarians don’t do well in elections is because in order to fit in with the mainstream they have to sacrifice so many of their positions that they can no longer be called libertarians in any realistic sense of the word’s definition. There is no such thing as “Mainstream Libertarians.”

It’s a fantasy that Eric created for reasons unknown to me, but his view of libertarianism is nothing I or any libertarian I know recognizes. It’s difficult to say for sure because all he really ever does here is rail against Ron Paul and anyone who suggests that maybe bombing Muslims isn’t the solution to America’s problems. His right hand man, jonathon, when he isn’t justifying his manliness by insisting other men run off to war, is constantly quoting hyper-neocon David Frum!

Honestly, there’s nothing libertarian about any of you, and no matter how many times you call yourself the thing it doesn’t make it so. Libertarianism is about principles, not electability. Electable candidates are exactly the thing that got the American experiment into the rotten state that it is in. Hell, it’s hard enough to get you guys to say there’s anything wrong with America. The only problem you seem to see is that we haven’t killed enough Muslims this year, or that Americans might elect a Democrat this year instead of one your Republicans. AS IF THE REPUBLICANS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE DEMOCRATS!

And I’m supposed to worry that this lot is questioning Ron Paul’s ethics?

Puh-leeeeaze

Anonymous said...

I understand this is where those racist remarks put out under Dr. Pauls name came from.

I have followed Dr. Paul for over 20 years, you would think in that time he would have slipped up at least once with a comment like that, search youtube it doesn't exist.

When you mention getting rid of the federal reserve, there is no telling how far the connected will go to protect their free money they enjoy.

maybe 15 minute of fame is worth it to you to do the bidding of the very people you claim to oppose. Just don't forget, the revolution continues, and we don't forget.

Jonathan said...

1996:

"Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. [...]
In the interview, he did not deny he made the statement about the swiftness of black men.

"If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said.

"

Ryan said...

Morerice wrote"
"who so fervantly calls to ban people from this forum for their ideas. Your hypocracy is astounding!

I never called for you to be banned Morerice period. In fact, I wrote the following on the 6th of Jan:
"As far as banning them, I disgaree with what they say, but will defend to the death their right to say it. Your call Eric. I WOULD LET THEM STAY, for now, but it is your site. Your decision."

In fact, I e mailed Eric and encouraged him not to ban him. HE was the one who asked the editors of the site if you and Scott should be banned. I never called for you to be banned. I mantain that stance.

I have reversed my earlier call not to ban Scott because he has decided that since he does not have a deep knowledge nor understanding of the issues being discussed, he has decided to revert to ad hominem attacks against those who counter his shallow arguements. By suggesting Jonathan is a sexual deviant and Eric is a liar, I believe he is no longer contributing in a productive manner to the debates at hand.

Morerice, as far as my being a "racist", please provide empirical evidence of this accusation, otherwise it is simply libel.

In regards to Congressman Paul,I wrote that:

"The man (Congressman Paul) that you backed is being ACCUSED of being a racist."

I have never wrote that he is a racist. I do not have enough empirical evidence at this time to properly reach a conclsuion one way or another.

This is of little concern, since the Congressman is of no consequence to the presidential election.

Now to Scott, I am actually a declared Independent. I only registered Republican in 2004 so as to vote in my state's closed primary. I then quickly re declared myself an Independent. I do not concur with the Neoconservative philosophy. I am not a Libertarian Republican, never wrote anywhere that I am. I have never called for the murder of innocent Muslims nor U.S. led Imperialism or empire building.

I think on domestic matters, we might find common ground Scott. I seek to return to the framers intent of a very limited constitutional government. We may quibble on matters of national security/foreign policy, but I believe we would find a majority of common ground up to the water's edge. I think you would agree perhaps that there can be "moderate" minarchism and utopian 'radical' minarchism. Working within the system is perhaps not compromising one's ideals or principles but understanding that politics in a representative democracy is the art of compromise and that if one can achive libertarian policies such as the abolishment of the IRS with a Fair Tax, or passing legislation that curtails the Leviathan on issues of eminent domain, national ID cards, medical marijuana,euthanasia, and homosexual marriage to name only a few, then working within the government with Republicans,Democrats, Independents, Centrists and Moderates, can advance pro liberty ideals incrementally.

Eric Dondero said...

Do I have any proof that I did not write those newsletters?

Certainly.

202-225-2831

Tom Lizardo, Chief of Staff, US Congressman Ron Paul

Norm Singleton, Leg. Director, US Congressman Ron Paul

Both are very easy to get a hold of. Just pick up the phone and ask them.

Be prepared to be laughed at hysterically by Tom and Norm after you suggest that I wrote those newsletters.

Morerice said...

Eric, Here's the thing... the style of writing does not in any way fit Ron Paul, as you yourself have said. What I am confused on, is that it doesn't sound like Lew either. I have read many, many writings from both of these men and the words and tone simply do not fit them. So I wonder if there were other "ghost-writers" and I imagine the answer is yes.

Ryan, you did openly call to ban Scott, no? I read Scott's comment right before you asked to ban him, and I found no ad hominim or other disrespectful commentary. Also, I have seen little of this in his posts, except towards Jonathan. But, in all fairness so has Jonathan. Also, to me, when a so called libertarian calls to ban free speech on an internet forum, I think this is the height of hypocrisy.

Ryan said...

For one last time Morerice because I do respect you even if I disagree with you, I was responding to Eric's post when he asked me and all other LR editors/contributors if Scott should be banned. Eric wrote the original question.

I originally said no, ask Eric, he'll confirm this. I reviewed Scott's writings and originally said NO, do not ban him. ONLY after Scott continued his verbal assaults that were off topic and personal in nature did I request the ban.

I never advocate banning because of intrinsic free speech issues, however this is a privately owned website and as you know a private entity has the absolute right to monitor/edit/delete material at the owner's discretion.

The point is moot anyway. It's up to Eric. Take it up with him.

I am sorry if you and others have become bitter upon realizing that the Ron Paul Revolution may have had a very dark side to it.

Scott said...

By suggesting Jonathan is a sexual deviant and Eric is a liar,

I actually did neither. Seriously Ryan, where you come up with this stuff is well beyond me. I said Eric has the same views on Nationalism as Hitler, I called him the Neo-Con he is, but never once have I called him a liar.

Nor did I refer to poor jonathon as a sexual deviant. I simply asked why it is he seeks to prove his manhood through forcing others to go to war for him. Never got an answer to that one though.

I think you would agree perhaps that there can be "moderate" minarchism and utopian 'radical' minarchism. Working within the system is perhaps not compromising one's ideals or principles but understanding that politics in a representative democracy is the art of compromise and that if one can achive libertarian policies such as the abolishment of the IRS with a Fair Tax, or passing legislation that curtails the Leviathan on issues of eminent domain, national ID cards, medical marijuana,euthanasia, and homosexual marriage to name only a few, then working within the government with Republicans,Democrats, Independents, Centrists and Moderates, can advance pro liberty ideals incrementally.

Sure, that's why I support Ron Paul. I only agree with him on probably 80% of the issues, but I'm willing to sacrifice a few for what is a legitimate pro-liberty movement. Support of any other candidate is clearly support for a pro-statist big government candidate as they all want to keep taxes at the level they are so we can support our trillion dollar a year empire. It's foolish and short sighted to believe you can have a small government empire.

Now I understand you claim here you are not pro-empire, but the I haven't seem you come out and endorse Ron Paul so what am I to believe? Should I assume then that you are supporting Mike Gravel or Dennis Kucinich? Or are you waiting to see who the Libertarian Party nominates?