Ron Paul signed off on racist newsletters in the 1990s, associates say

From the Washington Post:

Ron Paul, well known as a physician, congressman and libertarian , has also been a businessman who pursued a marketing strategy that included publishing provocative, racially charged newsletters to make money and spread his ideas, according to three people with direct knowledge of Paul’s businesses.

The Republican presidential candidate has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward. Numerous colleagues said he does not hold racist views.

But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. .?.?. He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.

11 Comments

  1. The answer is obvious: Clearly everybody involved with this story is lying. Except for Ron Paul.

    The bright side of dealing with Paul supporters: You never have to ask them what they’re smoking.

  2. So Ron Paul signed off on his subordinate’s work without reading what he was signing? He delegated authority to people who would abuse their power, and accepts absolutely no responsibility for their actions? He is completely in the dark (for years) about what is being said in his name?

    I think Paul has demonstrated that he is not qualified to be the Commander in Chief, or even the local dog-catcher.

    1. Question for the Cynics. Do you live in a jurisdiction where the equivalent of dog catcher is an elected office?

      I live in TX where we are crazy about elected offices. The Harris County ballot is about the hugest ballot ever as we are the 2nd largest court jurisdiction in the US and judges are elected. State Ag and Railroad Com are elected. But what about dog catchers? Never saw that.

  3. So a Paul v Obama race would be a slam dunk for Obama, I’d think. No?

    Wouldn’t the best move for Democrats/Progressives/Independents be to root for Paul in the Republican nomination? Easy win?

    Seems like we should just sit back and get the popcorn, and hope for a Paul nomination. I don’t understand why Dems are campaigning against him, when its not our race.

      1. Paul has zero chance of getting the nomination.

        What progressives should be rooting for is for Newt Gingrich to win. this sleaze fest.Obama would crush Gingrich, but will have a real battle on his hands with Romney.

    1. Who the Republicans choose will be a person that either does not have a clue (a puppet like GW) or someone that could give a rats butt about the middle class or the poor. One thing Ron Paul stated that might have swung the Republicans into reverse was his thoughts about changing the laws on drugs. Lots of Republicans have money invested in the pharmaceutical companies. I’m sure they will continue to either make up or find anything they can on him to bump him off.
      None of the candidates for the Republican Party have made any suggestions that would help out the middle class or the poor. Sad but true…

    1. There are libertarians who aren’t bigot, but they’re not the ones running for office… People like Michael Shermer and Penn Jillette don’t come across to me as bigots, even though they are hypocrites (they believe in critical thinking, except when it comes to their economic fantasies). But people like them, who are libertarians because of their mistaken understanding of economics, are the minority. Most libertarians are really “states’ rights” people in libertarian disguise. And “states’ rights” is nothing but a euphemism for “racist”.

Comments are closed.