Updated Republican Nomination

[Terra Agora]

Not in the national election.

Every bad thing he has ever done or supported would instantly be on television.

Such as, for instance ...

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Ron Paul, 1992

And even if he didn't write those and wasn't aware of them being published over his name, that's one of the brushes he'll be tarred with. But hey, nominate him, it'll be fun watching him in the debates and making his concession speech.

This was already explained and over with, RP did not write the news letter and the NAACP holds the same stance. RP is not racist.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

As a comedy writer, I really hope Donald Trump changes his mind and decides to run.

Why do you need Trump wont you be busy enough with the field how it is?

Well, I admit it's a target rich environment, but Donald Trump is the Golden Goose of comedic gold.

[Augarundus]

Ron Paul or Gary Johnson.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Such as, for instance ...

"If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be." - Ron Paul, 1992

"Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,' I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." - Ron Paul, 1992

"We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such." - Ron Paul, 1992

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" - Ron Paul, 1992

And even if he didn't write those and wasn't aware of them being published over his name, that's one of the brushes he'll be tarred with. But hey, nominate him, it'll be fun watching him in the debates and making his concession speech.

This was already explained and over with RP did not write the news letter¹ and the NAACP hold the same stance.² RP is not racist.³

¹
1. Depends on which his differing version's of events you choose to believe.

2. Pretty much irrelevant. He published them under his name. He profited from them. He used them to his advantage until they were inconvenient. Even he takes moral responsibility, why won't his believers accept that?

² Lie.

³ Maybe or maybe not. But he acts like one. As a politician, that is what is most important. I can't "know his heart." I can know his record.

[Terra Agora]

This was already explained and over with RP did not write the news letter¹ and the NAACP hold the same stance.² RP is not racist.³

¹
1. Depends on which his differing version's of events you choose to believe.

2. Pretty much irrelevant. He published them under his name. He profited from them. He used them to his advantage until they were inconvenient. Even he takes moral responsibility, why won't his believers accept that?

² Lie.

³ Maybe or maybe not. But he acts like one. As a politician, that is what is most important. I can't "know his heart." I can know his record.

He never wrote them. Someone else did.

He was never aware. Yes I know he took moral responsibility. He feels he should have been aware.

Not a lie. If you dont believe me look it up.

No he is not...

And his letter:

ARLINGTON, Va.--(Business Wire)--In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul
issued the following 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.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that
we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character,
not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and
high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of
individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the
day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name."

Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115

Copyright Business Wire 2008

[The Cat-Tribe]

¹
1. Depends on which his differing version's of events you choose to believe.

2. Pretty much irrelevant. He published them under his name. He profited from them. He used them to his advantage until they were inconvenient. Even he takes moral responsibility, why won't his believers accept that?

² Lie.

³ Maybe or maybe not. But he acts like one. As a politician, that is what is most important. I can't "know his heart." I can know his record.

He never wrote them. Someone else did.

He was never aware.

Not a lie. If you dont believe me look it up.

No he is not...

Bull-fucking-shit. link

Also, I am a lifelong, permanent member of the NAACP and NAACP LDF. The NAACP does not hold such views. You are being absurd.

But, I'll give you a chance to prove you aren't lying. (You may be confused and think the overused fact that one local chapter NAACP leader in Texas said he didn't think Paul is a racist = NAACP agrees with Paul.)

[Terra Agora]

He never wrote them. Someone else did.

He was never aware.

Not a lie. If you dont believe me look it up.

No he is not...

Bull-fucking-shit. link

Also, I am a lifelong, permanent member of the NAACP and NAACP LDF. The NAACP does not hold such views. You are being absurd.

But, I'll give you a chance to prove you aren't lying. (You may be confused and think the overused fact that one local chapter NAACP leader in Texas said he didn't think Paul is a racist = NAACP agrees with Paul.)

And he like many others have stated they were ghost written for him while he was out of politics and back as a medical practitioner.

The Austin Chapter of the NAACP defended him.

He's responded to the letters multiple times.

ARLINGTON, Va.--(Business Wire)--In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul
issued the following 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.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that
we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character,
not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S.
House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and
high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of
individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade.
It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the
day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a
newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have
publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention
to what went out under my name."

Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115

Copyright Business Wire 2008

[Ashmoria]

So, anyone think Rick Perry is going to throw his hat in the ring?

no it takes too much effort at this point and all the good staffers are taken.

but there really is something horrifyingto be said for the party of lincoln nominating a secessionist.

[Farnhamia]

So, anyone think Rick Perry is going to throw his hat in the ring?

no it takes too much effort at this point and all the good staffers are taken.

but there really is something horrifyingto be said for the party of lincoln nominating a secessionist.

In a way it would complete the transformation, don't you think?

[Mike the Progressive]

I'm still hoping for Jon Huntsman Jr., but I'll most likely back Romney if he wins. Tbh, I dunno. I feel like I'm almost a Democrat in many ways, but there are some issues which I don't agree with them on. Primarily mandates (over choices) and the actual party's reluctance to back an interventionist policy in the Middle East to aid popular uprisings. I may come out voting for Obama in the end.

[Ashmoria]

I'm still hoping for Jon Huntsman Jr., but I'll most likely back Romney if he wins. Tbh, I dunno. I feel like I'm almost a Democrat in many ways, but there are some issues which I don't agree with them on. Primarily mandates (over choices) and the actual party's reluctance to back an interventionist policy in the Middle East to aid popular uprisings. I may come out voting for Obama in the end.

at this point it would be a very bad thing for the middle class if the republicans take the whitehouse.

the executive branch will implement the health care bill. the next president will appoint the first head of the consumer financial protection bureau.

the proper implementation of those bills are extremely important to YOUR financial future. a republican would fuck it up. on purpose.

[Lucatopia]

I voted Ron Paul for teh lulz. Seriously... I'm not even Amurrican.

[Wikkiwallana]

I think of that group, Ron Paul is the only one likely to win an actual election. Palin and Santorum are way, way too crazy to appeal to anyone except the people who vote Republican every time. Paul might actually get the support of independents and left-wing types who are pissed off at Obama.

I've said before and will say again: I'd love to see Ron Paul as the GOP nominee in 2012. Even his most ardent supporters seem unaware of most of his views and record, such as:

• opposes the separation of Church and State;
  
  
• supports discrimination against homosexuals and same-sex couples;
  
  
• supports federal and state laws against abortion;
  
  
• is opposed to the 14th Amendment to the Constitution;
  
  
• has tried to gut the Bill of Rights;
  
  
• is a lying hypocrite who voted for a measure he said he knew was unconstitutional;
  
  
• has a long history of opposition to civil rights and equity;
  
  
• opposes embryonic stem cell research and family planning programs;
  
  
• opposes gender pay equity;
  
  
• supports school prayer and teaching creationism;
  
  
• has published extremely racist, anti-semtic, and homophobic statements under his name;
  
  
• opposes civil rights, particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964;
  
  
• opposes equal protection under the law;
  
  
• has proposed racist legislation on numerous occassions.

Before you start denying these claims or asking for sources check the following:

Note: Because Rep. Paul altered his official website and removed many of his archived speeches and statements, many of my prior links no longer worked. Some of my new links may be duplicative.

as to many of my points: http://www.ontheissues.org/ron_paul.htm

Re opposition to separation of Church and State: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul148.html; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.1547:; http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congr ... 61302.htm; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul85.html; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html; http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option= ... Itemid=69;

Re opposition to Fourteenth Amendment & racist legislation: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.J.RES.46:; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.3863:; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d096:h.r.5842:; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d098:h.r.4982:; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul314.html; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul346.html; http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option= ... &Itemid=69

Re gutting the Bill of Rights: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... .r.00300:; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... .r.04379:; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... .r.05739:; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.3893:; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul270.html;

Re lying hypocrit who voted for law he said was unconstitutional: http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congr ... 60403.htm; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul98.html

Re opposition to civil rights, including Civil Rights Act of 1964: http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul188.html; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul385.html; http://paul.house.gov/index.php?option= ... Itemid=69;

Re discrimination against homosexuals and same-sex couples: http://www.house.gov/paul/press/press2004/pr072204.htm; http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congr ... 72204.htm; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul120.html; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul160.html; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul197.html

Re racist publications: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ang ... 2a7da84ca;
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/ron ... ewsletter;
http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/w ... newsletter

Re supports federal laws against abortion: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... .r.02597:; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.1094:; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z ... .r.00776:; http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d097:h.r.392:; http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul84.html;

*snip*

As to your one quibble, I did not say Rep. Paul was a homophobe (although it is a fair inference from his statements and record). I said he "supports discrimination against homosexuals and same-sex couples" and I gave specific examples. Your assertion that he has consistently advocated allowing gays in the military is disingenuous (at best). Until the he very recently voted for the Obama-pushed reversal of "don't ask, don't tell," he was a supporter of that policy since it was first introduced in 1993. link For example, at the GOP Presidential Debate at Saint Anselm College on Jun 3, 2007, he denied it was time to end DADT, said DADT was a "decent policy," and said that allowing homosexuals in the military could be "disruptive." link He also:

• Supports DOMA.
• Opposes equal protection under the law for homosexuals.
• Opposes same-sex marriage.
• Opposes adoption by gays and lesbians.
• Opposes the "homosexual agenda" (whatever that means).
• Opposes hate crime laws - (and, independently, their extension to homosexuals).
• Harshly criticized Lawrence v. Texas, the SCOTUS ruling that anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional.
• Opposes employment anti-discrimination laws protecting homosexuals.
• Published nasty anti-homosexual slurs under his name.

*snip*

How do you Ron Paul'ers respond to this?

This is silly.

The New Republic no longer has copies of the actual newsletters on their website, but they did for two years or so. They were very clearly copies of Ron Paul’s Freedom Report, Ron Paul Political Report, The Ron Paul Survival Report, and The Ron Paul Investment Letter. Other news organizations obtained copies after TNR's report, like CNN and The Boston Globe. You can see copies of the newsletters, see excerpts, and hear Ron Paul's response in this CNN video. Images of the newsletters, clearly bearing Ron Paul's name are found at the bottom of this article (which I believe is the OP's source).


Here is a statement by Rep. Ron Paul regarding The New Republic Story:

Tue Jan 8, 2008 4:26pm EST


ARLINGTON, Va.--(Business Wire)--In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul
issued the following 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.

"In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: 'I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.'

"This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the
day of the New Hampshire primary.

"When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several
writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name."

Ron Paul 2008 Presidential Campaign Committee
Jesse Benton, 703-248-9115
Copyright Business Wire 2008

NOTE: Rep. Paul does not deny the existence of the newsletters or that their content has been accurately reported. He confirms that they were "published under [his] name." Although he denies writing them or agreeing with them, he takes "moral responsibility" for them."

Unfortunately this has not always been Rep. Paul's story, the libertarian Reason magazine has described Ron Paul's conflicting history of responding to the 20 years of these newsletters. See http://reason.com/blog/2008/01/11/old-n ... -over-a-d; http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/w ... newsletter. It is worth quoting the first of those articles at length (emphasis added):

"Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"?
Matt Welch | January 11, 2008

In Ron Paul's statement responding to The New Republic's story about his old newsletters, he said the following:

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. [...]

This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. [...]

When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product. For over a decade, I have publically taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.

Has Paul really disassociated himself from, and "taken moral responsibility" for, these "Ron Paul" newsletters "for over a decade"? If he has, that history has not been recorded by the Nexis database, as best as I can reckon.

The first indication I could find of Paul either expressing remorse about the statements or claiming that he did not author them came in an October 2001 Texas Monthly article -- less than eight years ago. Here is the relevant excerpt, which references a Ron Paul newsletter that referred to then-Rep. Barbara Jordan as "Barbara Morondon," and called her the "archetypical half-educated victimologist" whose "race and sex protect her from criticism":

What made the statements in the publication even more puzzling was that, in four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.

When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "I could never say this in the campaign, but those words weren't really written by me. It wasn't my language at all. Other people help me with my newsletter as I travel around. I think the one on Barbara Jordan was the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

His reasons for keeping this a secret are harder to understand: "They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them ... I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn't come from me directly, but they [campaign aides] said that's too confusing. 'It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'" It is a measure of his stubbornness, determination, and ultimately his contrarian nature that, until this surprising volte-face in our interview, he had never shared this secret. It seems, in retrospect, that it would have been far, far easier to have told the truth at the time.

So what exactly did Paul and his campaign say about these and more egregious statements during his contentious 1996 campaign for Congress, when Democrat Lefty Morris made the newsletters a constant issue? Besides complaining that the quotes were taken "out of context" and proof of his opponent's "race-baiting," Paul and his campaign defended and took full ownership of the comments. For a chronological Nexis tour of Paul's 1996 responses, please read on.

The first time I can find reporting on the controversy is in the May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News:

Dr. Ron Paul, a Republican congressional candidate from Texas, wrote in his political newsletter in 1992 that 95 percent of the black men in Washington, D.C., are "semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

He also wrote that black teenagers can be "unbelievably fleet of foot." [...]

Dr. Paul, who is running in Texas' 14th Congressional District, defended his writings in an interview Tuesday. He said they were being taken out of context.

"It's typical political demagoguery," he said. "If people are interested in my character ... come and talk to my neighbors." [...]

According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

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. [...]

"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?" Dr. Paul asked.

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.

He also said the comment about black men in the nation's capital was made while writing about a 1992 study produced by the National Center on Incarceration and Alternatives, a criminal justice think tank based in Virginia.

Citing statistics from the study, Dr. Paul then concluded in his column: "Given the inefficiencies of what DC laughingly calls the criminal justice system, I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

"These aren't my figures," Dr. Paul said Tuesday. "That is the assumption you can gather from" the report.

May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time." [...]

Paul also wrote that although "we are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational.

Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers."

A campaign spokesman for Paul said statements about the fear of black males mirror pronouncements by black leaders such as the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who has decried the spread of urban crime.

Paul continues to write the newsletter for an undisclosed number of subscribers, the spokesman said.

Writing in the same 1992 edition, Paul expressed the popular idea that government should lower the age at which accused juvenile criminals can be prosecuted as adults.

He added, "We don't think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That's true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such."

Paul also asserted that "complex embezzling" is conducted exclusively by non-blacks.

"What else do we need to know about the political establishment than that it refuses to discuss the crimes that terrify Americans on grounds that doing so is racist? Why isn't that true of complex embezzling, which is 100 percent white and Asian?" he wrote.

May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman:

"Dr. Paul is being quoted out of context," [Paul spokesman Michael] Sullivan said. "It's like picking up War and Peace and reading the fourth paragraph on Page 481 and thinking you can understand what's going on." [...]

Also in 1992, Paul wrote, "Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

Sullivan said Paul does not consider people who disagree with him to be sensible. And most blacks, Sullivan said, do not share Paul's views. The issue is political philosophy, not race, Sullivan said.

"Polls show that only about 5 percent of people with dark-colored skin support the free market, a laissez faire economy, an end to welfare and to affirmative action," Sullivan said. [...]

"You have to understand what he is writing. Democrats in Texas are trying to stir things up by using half-quotes to impugn his character," Sullivan said. "His writings are intellectual. He assumes people will do their own research, get their own statistics, think for themselves and make informed judgments."

May 26, 1996 Washington Post:

Paul, an obstetrician from Surfside, Tex., denied he is a racist and charged Austin lawyer Charles "Lefty" Morris, his Democratic opponent, with taking his 1992 writings out of context.

"Instead of talking about the issues, our opponent has chosen to lie and try to deceive the people of the 14th District," said Paul spokesman Michael Sullivan, who added that the excerpts were written during the Los Angeles riots when "Jesse Jackson was making the same comments."

"Ron knows our society and our nation has done some horrible things to the black community, which has pushed a majority of young black men in some areas, in Washington, D.C., for example, into criminal activities," Sullivan said.

July 25, 1996, Houston Chronicle:

Democratic congressional candidate Lefty Morris on Wednesday produced a newsletter in which his Republican opponent, Ron Paul, called the late Barbara Jordan a "fraud" and an "empress without clothes." [...]

Paul said he was expressing his "clear philosophical difference" with Jordan. [...]

Paul, a Surfside physician and former congressman, said he was contrasting Jordan's political views with his own.

"The causes she so strongly advocated were for more and more government, more and more regulations and more and more taxes," Paul said.

"My cause has been almost exactly the opposite, and I believe her positions to have been fundamentally wrong," the Republican said. ""I've fought for less and less intrusive government, fewer regulations and lower taxes."

Paul said Morris was trying to "reduce the campaign to name-calling and race-baiting" so as to avoid more relevant issues, such as economic growth, taxes and spending, crime and welfare reform.

July 25, 1996, Dallas Morning News:

Dr. Paul, who faces Mr. Morris in the 14th District race for the U.S. House, dismissed the criticism as "name-calling and race-baiting." [...]

In a written statement, Dr. Paul said, "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."

Dr. Paul said his opinions about Ms. Jordan, who died earlier this year, "represented our clear philosophical difference."

July 29, 1996, Roll Call:

In a statement, Paul said he had "labored to conduct a campaign based upon the issues that are vital to our nation" and charged Morris with "repeated attempts...to reduce the campaign to name calling and race-baiting."

He called Morris's request that he release all back issues of the newsletter "not only impractical, but...equivalent to asking him to provide documents for every lawsuit he has been involved in during his lengthy legal career."

Of his statements about Jordan, Paul said that "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:

He once called former President Bush a bum and he's taken aim at Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas, California Gov. Pete Wilson, House Speaker Newt Gingrich of Georgia, and, yes, GOP vice-presidential candidate Jack Kemp.

Over the course of 1992 and 1993, the GOP nominee in the 14th Congressional District has called Kemp a "malicious jerk," and a "welfare statist" who had secretly increased the nation's public housing budget while serving as secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He also charged in one newsletter that Kemp had "made a pass at a female reporter young enough to be his daughter."

Sept. 26, 1996, Austin American-Statesman:

"Fortunately, several types of accounts are tough for the IRS to investigate," Paul wrote. "For instance, it's still legal to open a bank account without revealing your Social Security number."

He also offered to help readers get a foreign passport.

"Peru recently announced that it will sell its citizenship to foreigners for $25,000," Paul wrote. "... People concerned about survival are naturally interested in a second citizenship and passport. If you're interested, drop me a note and include your telephone number, and I'll get you some interesting information." [...]

Paul, a Surfside obstetrician, former member of Congress and 1988 Libertarian Party nominee for president, said Morris quotes material out of context. Paul also said his advice was appropriate at the time it was published.

Sept. 30, 1996, San Antonio Express-News:

Paul, a Surfside obstetrician, former congressman and the 1988 Libertarian presidential candidate, counterclaimed that Morris is name-calling to avoid discussing the issues like taxes and abortion.

Repeated requests by telephone and by fax to interview Paul for this article were denied.

Paul's spokesman Michael Quinn Sullivan said the candidate does not want to "rehash" old issues. [...]

Paul has said he opposes racism and accused Morris of reducing the campaign to "name-calling and race-baiting."

Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle:

Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But his spokesman, Michael Quinn Sullivan, accused Morris of "gutter-level politics."

Sullivan said it was "silly" to try to make a political issue of something written in an "abstract" sense. [...]

In his April 15, 1992, newsletter, Paul wrote about a person who had a beef with the IRS and "fired bombs through mortars" one night at an IRS building in California. Some federal property was damaged, but no one was injured, and the defendant was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

"Unfortunately (the defendant's) war against the IRS was not nearly as successful as Harry's War," wrote Paul, who wants to abolish the federal tax-collection agency. "Harry's War" was a movie about a fictional individual's battle against the IRS.

Sullivan said Morris "would rather sling mud at Ron Paul than talk about the issues or discuss how his own campaign is being almost completely financed by two liberal special interest groups: the trial lawyers and big labor."

Oct. 11, 1996, Austin American-Statesman:

Paul's aide, Eric Rittberg, said -- as a Jew -- he was "outraged and insulted by the senseless, anti-Semitic statements Mr. Morris is making."

"Lefty is taking statements out of context," Sullivan said. "When you are not looking at things in context, you can make anyone look horrible."

You left out that he supports pseudoscience being sold at the same level as tested medicine.

[Mike the Progressive]

I'm still hoping for Jon Huntsman Jr., but I'll most likely back Romney if he wins. Tbh, I dunno. I feel like I'm almost a Democrat in many ways, but there are some issues which I don't agree with them on. Primarily mandates (over choices) and the actual party's reluctance to back an interventionist policy in the Middle East to aid popular uprisings. I may come out voting for Obama in the end.

at this point it would be a very bad thing for the middle class if the republicans take the whitehouse.

the executive branch will implement the health care bill. the next president will appoint the first head of the consumer financial protection bureau.

the proper implementation of those bills are extremely important to YOUR financial future. a republican would fuck it up. on purpose.

I won't lie, it depends who wins. I am not really a pro-regulation kind of guy, I think there needs to be some, but sometimes it's focused in the wrong area. With the health care bill, I hope to see it repealed. Don't be mistaken, I have nothing against a public option or even a single payer system, in fact, I favor either one. But I have a problem with a mandate which not only requires you to have insurance, but forces you to purchase one from a private firm. It's corporatism.

No, the only reason why I like Obama is his foreign policy. Domestically, he's a dolt. Well let me rephrase that, I don't think he's stupid, I think candidate Obama had a lot of great ideas, but he caved and allowed congress to take charge. D or R, that's never a good thing.

I don't really buy into the whole "OMG, if we elect Republicans, the middle class will be eradicated, Jews will be round up, and homosexuals burned at the stake" mentality which Rachel Maddow seems to espouse on her daily rants. Or I take it as serious as I would Glenn Beck and the teabaggers.

[Nzyghistan]

Carlism is a old Spanish political movement that supported the House of Bourbon. I don't think it is that relevant.

Oh, yes it is! Absolute monarchy, established religion, nationalism and regional autonomy at the same time, obsession with old legal charters, and extreme cultural and social conservatism are all perfectly legitimate beliefs for the modern Republican.

Win. Sigged, by the way.

[Ashmoria]

at this point it would be a very bad thing for the middle class if the republicans take the whitehouse.

the executive branch will implement the health care bill. the next president will appoint the first head of the consumer financial protection bureau.

the proper implementation of those bills are extremely important to YOUR financial future. a republican would fuck it up. on purpose.

I won't lie, it depends who wins. I am not really a pro-regulation kind of guy, I think there needs to be some, but sometimes it's focused in the wrong area. With the health care bill, I hope to see it repealed. Don't be mistaken, I have nothing against a public option or even a single payer system, in fact, I favor either one. But I have a problem with a mandate which not only requires you to have insurance, but forces you to purchase one from a private firm. It's corporatism.

No, the only reason why I like Obama is his foreign policy. Domestically, he's a dolt. Well let me rephrase that, I don't think he's stupid, I think candidate Obama had a lot of great ideas, but he caved and allowed congress to take charge. D or R, that's never a good thing.

I don't really buy into the whole "OMG, if we elect Republicans, the middle class will be eradicated, Jews will be round up, and homosexuals burned at the stake" mentality which Rachel Maddow seems to espouse on her daily rants. Or I take it as serious as I would Glenn Beck and the teabaggers.

you dont want to have health insurance?

[Farnhamia]

I won't lie, it depends who wins. I am not really a pro-regulation kind of guy, I think there needs to be some, but sometimes it's focused in the wrong area. With the health care bill, I hope to see it repealed. Don't be mistaken, I have nothing against a public option or even a single payer system, in fact, I favor either one. But I have a problem with a mandate which not only requires you to have insurance, but forces you to purchase one from a private firm. It's corporatism.

No, the only reason why I like Obama is his foreign policy. Domestically, he's a dolt. Well let me rephrase that, I don't think he's stupid, I think candidate Obama had a lot of great ideas, but he caved and allowed congress to take charge. D or R, that's never a good thing.

I don't really buy into the whole "OMG, if we elect Republicans, the middle class will be eradicated, Jews will be round up, and homosexuals burned at the stake" mentality which Rachel Maddow seems to espouse on her daily rants. Or I take it as serious as I would Glenn Beck and the teabaggers.

you dont want to have health insurance?

He does, he just doesn't want anyone telling him he has to have it.

[Ashmoria]

you dont want to have health insurance?

He does, he just doesn't want anyone telling him he has to have it.

weighing out the good and the bad of that it seems that the good far outweighs the bad.

[Mike the Progressive]

you dont want to have health insurance?

He does, he just doesn't want anyone telling him he has to have it.

Farn always got me, even when I was a Democrat! Comparing me to Will Rogers and all. hehe

I honestly prefer choice. But I think you make a point. Yes, mandating insurance is better for everybody, as it forces you to be covered and therefore brings the costs down. But so would a national regimen for physical fitness, so would eating certain foods, and banning other vices. At the end, the "good outweighs the bad" in all those scenarios, but I still like to think of the US as the land of the free, where people decide what they want to eat, drink, smoke, etc. I'm not a libertarian, though I believe in liberty. But I figure if we offer people a choice in whom they want to be in a relationship with or if they want to terminate their pregnancy, we should offer them the same courtesy with other personal matters.

I have health insurance, because I have a job. Nobody said I had to have it. And while I think health care shouldn't be a "for profit" market, I still think there should be a choice, even if one of those choices is a government run program.

[Beinai]

I'm English so I don't know too much. I'm not really keen on the Republicans but I think Fred Karger seems alright.

[Ashmoria]

He does, he just doesn't want anyone telling him he has to have it.

Farn always got me, even when I was a Democrat! Comparing me to Will Rogers and all. hehe

I honestly prefer choice. But I think you make a point. Yes, mandating insurance is better for everybody, as it forces you to be covered and therefore brings the costs down. But so would a national regimen for physical fitness, so would eating certain foods, and banning other vices. At the end, the "good outweighs the bad" in all those scenarios, but I still like to think of the US as the land of the free, where people decide what they want to eat, drink, smoke, etc. I'm not a libertarian, though I believe in liberty. But I figure if we offer people a choice in whom they want to be in a relationship with or if they want to terminate their pregnancy, we should offer them the same courtesy with other personal matters.

I have health insurance, because I have a job. Nobody said I had to have it. And while I think health care shouldn't be a "for profit" market, I still think there should be a choice, even if one of those choices is a government run program.

so its not going to affect you but you want to destroy the 1000 good things about the bill in order to get rid of it?

nose, face?

the strange few who dont want health insurance dont have to have it. its a minor "fine" on their income taxes that the irs is specifically barred from going after them for.

in exchange the rest of us get insurance.

plus no pre=existing conditions, no recisions, keeping children on our policies until age 26, 22 health clinics in our congressional disctrict, simplified forms and billing, and a dozen other things that i cant remember.

[Terrasricas]

I look at all those candidates with despair. So our option is between politicians with no integrity, racist views, no sense of sanity, or some combination of all three? And that's just the supposed right. Obama is just as bad. TBH I'm starting to feel like America could plunge into civil war. Things are looking more and more like 1920s and early '30s Spain.

[Mike the Progressive]

Farn always got me, even when I was a Democrat! Comparing me to Will Rogers and all. hehe

I honestly prefer choice. But I think you make a point. Yes, mandating insurance is better for everybody, as it forces you to be covered and therefore brings the costs down. But so would a national regimen for physical fitness, so would eating certain foods, and banning other vices. At the end, the "good outweighs the bad" in all those scenarios, but I still like to think of the US as the land of the free, where people decide what they want to eat, drink, smoke, etc. I'm not a libertarian, though I believe in liberty. But I figure if we offer people a choice in whom they want to be in a relationship with or if they want to terminate their pregnancy, we should offer them the same courtesy with other personal matters.

I have health insurance, because I have a job. Nobody said I had to have it. And while I think health care shouldn't be a "for profit" market, I still think there should be a choice, even if one of those choices is a government run program.

so its not going to affect you but you want to destroy the 1000 good things about the bill in order to get rid of it?

nose, face?

the strange few who dont want health insurance dont have to have it. its a minor "fine" on their income taxes that the irs is specifically barred from going after them for.

in exchange the rest of us get insurance.

plus no pre=existing conditions, no recisions, keeping children on our policies until age 26, 22 health clinics in our congressional disctrict, simplified forms and billing, and a dozen other things that i cant remember.

No the mandate aside, it's a good bill. But just because there is some good doesn't mean I won't try and get rid of the bad. Even the Heritage Foundation praised the ending of discrimination and the other positive traits, but it condemned mandates as being an affront on our liberty.

I hope to see it modified, but if the Democrats couldn't have passed at least a public option, they should have instead just focused on ending discrimination. But mandates are never a good thing, and if the entire bills gets struck down or repealed as a result, so be it. I won't lose sleep, it was a shitty bill. Next time, don't fuck around and give me a public option.

[Ashmoria]

No the mandate aside, it's a good bill. But just because there is some good doesn't mean I won't try and get rid of the bad. Even the Heritage Foundation praised the ending of discrimination and the other positive traits, but it condemned mandates as being an affront on our liberty.

I hope to see it modified, but if the Democrats couldn't have passed at least a public option, they should have instead just focused on ending discrimination. But mandates are never a good thing, and if the entire bills gets struck down or repealed as a result, so be it. I won't lose sleep, it was a shitty bill. Next time, don't fuck around and give me a public option.

i think thats why the republicans hate it so much. (after all it does improve our financial future, a republican plus)

the next logical step is to put in a public option as soon as the dems are in charge totally again.

or at least encourage the various states to make one (vermont just did). and for the intermountainwest states that have such light populations to be able to create a region-wide singer payer plan or public option (arizona, nevada, utah, idaho, montana, wyoming, colorado, new mexico)

that kind of thing.

[Angleter]

I'm English so I don't know too much. I'm not really keen on the Republicans but I think Fred Karger seems alright.

Pfft. When asked if he had a snowball's chance in Hell of getting in, he said "yes and no."

On a serious note, he's an ultra-Zionist- he's compared himself to Irgun leader and Likud founder Menachem Begin.