Topic: Ron Paul
The Search for the Smoking Gun Did Ron Paul really claim, in 1996, to have written the "racist" newsletter quotes he now denies writing? Let's see ...by George Dance
(Libertarian)
Friday, February 1, 2008
The search for the Smoking Gun
As I've previously mentioned, the campaign against Ron Paul based on his early-90's newsletters has subtly changed direction. The subtext is no longer: "Ron Paul is a racist (homophobe, antisemite, etc.)" but "Ron Paul is a liar."
As I've also noted, the second is a far more powerful meme, one which does have the power to destroy the Ron Paul RevolUTION. "The only way to make his supporters desert him would be to shatter that image of integrity. Hence the new campaign to portray him as a liar and dissembler, hiding his real agenda from us all."
The specific claim is that Paul lied in this 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."
Paul says he never wrote the TNR quotations ("the Quotes"). There are two ways to establish that claim as a lie. One, the harder, is to look at the internal evidence: to examine the Quotes themselves against what else Paul has said. The other would be to find a Smoking Gun: some statement from Paul in which he is caught claiming that he had in fact written any of them.
Besides being easier, finding the Smoking Gun has the advantage of proving that Paul is a liar either way: Either he wrote the Quotes, in which case he is lying now; or he did not, in which case he was lying then.
Does the Smoking Gun exist? Has it been found? Yes, and yes, claims a substantial portion of the Paul-bashing blogosphere. Herein a few representative blogs that have made that claim; while they only scratch the surface, they give an idea of just how many bloggers have jumped onto the anti-Paul bandwagon over this story:
Edward Morrissey, Captain's Quarters, Jan. 11: "Rather than claiming he had never read these newsletters, as Paul absurdly did on CNN last night, Paul claimed that he himself wrote the newsletters." http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/016595.php
Rick Moran, American Thinker, Jan. 11: "Indeed, Paul even said back in 1996 that he actually wrote some of the newsletters." http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/01/ron_pauls_racist_rheoric_uncov.html
Arlen Parsa, The Daily Background, Jan. 12 (headlined "Ron Paul once admitted he wrote hate-filled racist newsletter"): "But, now we find out, thanks to some reporters using Lexis Nexis, Ron Paul actually once defended his newsletters' writings, and claimed that he himself wrote them, and complained that people were taking his racist statements out of context: http://www.thedailybackground.com/2008/01/12/flashback-ron-paul-once-admitted-he-wrote-hate-filled-racist-newsletter/
Robert Lindsay, Liberal Values (comments), Jan. 13: "On the other hand, in old interviews, Ron Paul himself said that he wrote the newsletters." http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=2695
Jamie Kirchick, The Plank, TNR, Jan. 15: "At several points in the 1990s's Paul admitted to writing them." http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/01/15/the-reckoning-over-ron-paul.aspx
Skeeter Sanders, The Skeeter Bites Report, Jan. 18: "Paul adamantly insisted to CNN that he wasn't the author of the screeds, but in an interview with a Dallas newspaper in 1996 -- while running to regain his congressional seat he gave up more than a decade earlier -- he admitted having written them and insisted that his writings were being taken out of context." http://www.skeeterbitesreport.com/2008/01/racist-rantings-in-old-newsletters.html
Knappster, Jan. 18: "Paul has already lied about it. He admitted to writing the stuff, and defended it, in 1996; in 2001, he reversed himself on both authorship and sentiment." http://knappster.blogspot.com/2008/01/just-sayin.html
The claim has popping up even on Ron Paul sites, as here: "Now that statement itself isn't racist, but he said in 1996 that they actually were his words, just that they were out of context, and now in 2008 he is saying that they were not his words." http://community.livejournal.com/ronpaul2008/291578.html
All of these bloggers tell the world that the Smoking Gun exists. Yet not one of them produces it.
Most, though, give the readers links to follow. Tracing those back, leads in every case to this article by Matt Welch in Reason magazine:
There are two important differences between the Reason article and the others listed above. First, Welch did his own research - the Nexis search already mentioned - and he shares with the reader the complete results (which makes his article invaluable for anyone interested in a serious investigation).
Second, Welch does not claim that the Smoking Gun exists: unlike the others relying on him, he does not say that Paul said,' claimed', admitted,' or insisted,' that he had written the Quotes. And for good reason; the entire "Nexis tour" contains not even one such statement.
Here is every quoted word from Ron Paul - not the "Ron Paul" of the Quotes, but the real Ron Paul who spoke to the press in 1996 - that appear in the Nexis results:
May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News: "It's typical political demagoguery," "If people are interested in my character ... come and talk to my neighbors." [...] "If someone challenges your character and takes the interpretation of the NAACP as proof of a man's character, what kind of a world do you live in?" "If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," "These aren't my figures," "That is the assumption you can gather from"
May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle: "current events and statistical reports of the time."
May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman: [no 1996 quotes from Paul]
May 26, 1996 Washington Post: [no 1996 quotes from Paul]
July 25, 1996, Houston Chronicle: "clear philosophical difference" "The causes she so strongly advocated were for more and more government, more and more regulations and more and more taxes," "My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong," "I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations and lower taxes." "reduce the campaign to name-calling and race-baiting"
July 25, 1996, Dallas Morning News: "name-calling and race-baiting." "Repeated attempts by my liberal opponent to reduce the campaign to name-calling and race-baiting is just more of the same old garbage we expect from his camp and will not deter me from continuing to address the real issues." "represented our clear philosophical difference."
July 29, 1996, Roll Call: "labored to conduct a campaign based upon the issues that are vital to our nation" "repeated attempts...to reduce the campaign to name calling and race-baiting." "not only impractical, but...equivalent to asking him to provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career." "such opinions represented our clear philosophical difference. The causes she so strongly advocated were for more government, more and more regulations, and more and more taxes. My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong: I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes."
Aug. 13, 1996, Houston Chronicle: [no 1996 quotes from Paul]
Sept. 26, 1996, Austin American-Statesman: [no 1996 quotes from Paul]
Sept. 30, 1996, San Antonio Express-News: "name-calling and race-baiting."
Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle: [no 1996 quotes from Paul]
Oct. 11, 1996, Austin American-Statesman: [no 1996 quotes from Paul]
No Smoking Gun. Period.
So; did the Paulophobe bloggers above all lie? Some, perhaps; but I don't think one should be as quick to call others liars as they all clearly are. So the best answer to that question is "Unclear." What is clear is that not one of them bothered to research the subject: either from laziness, or from not caring whether the claim was true or not.
Not one: Not even Jamie Kirchick, he of the "superb reporting (David A. Niewert , Orcinus), bothered to do one bit of independent investigation, or even look closely at the research that Welch had already done. Not one of them bothered, before going public with their claim of the Smoking Gun, to even make sure that one existed. Not one of them cared to know what he was writing about.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 11 thumbs so far
2008 George Dance, all rights reserved.
Published: Friday, February 1, 2008
Last modified: Friday, February 1, 2008
The views expressed in this
article are those of George Dance only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. George Dance is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
All Dr. Paul has to do is say one, very simple statement to clear all of this up. "I catagorically deny that I am a racist, or that I hold racist views. I am aware that letters were written in my name that said a number of extremely racist comments. I did not write them, I did not authorize the people who did to make such racist statements, I disavow them completely, and the person who wrote them is Mr. (name of person), who as of today I wish to have no further public, political or private contact with".
If the man can't repudiate this utterly and completely, if he can't say that , by God, he's totally against the kind of crap in those newsletters, then quite frankly he doesn't deserve to be the president of a book club. If he plans to lead a nation, he has to be able to stand up for what is right.
I'm not saying he wrote those comments. On the other hand, I happened to know one of the people who lynched James Byrd down here in Texas not too long ago, John King, before the kid went to jail. If you had asked me then if he was a racist I would have laughed my head off. Until we know for sure, this issue will come up again and again.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2008 George Dance, all rights reserved.