Updated Republican Nomination

[The Atlantean Menace]

Bachmann is a old cunt, hopefully the rest of the GOP will pick up on that.

If it's anyone other than her, Santorum, Pawlenty, Palin, or Paul, the Tea Party will be pissed off and not vote.

That narrows the list down a bit.

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.

[Vecherd]

For the sixth or so time, Gary Johnson.

[Wamitoria]

If it's anyone other than her, Santorum, Pawlenty, Palin, or Paul, the Tea Party will be pissed off and not vote.

That narrows the list down a bit.

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.

Not in the national election.

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

[The Atlantean Menace]

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.

Not in the national election.

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

Yeah, but he's a lot more likely to win a national election than Palin or Santorum.

[Farnhamia]

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.

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.

[Farnhamia]

Not in the national election.

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

Yeah, but he's a lot more likely to win a national election than Palin or Santorum.

You mean he might lose by slightly less? I'm not sure that's much to go on.

[Wamitoria]

-snip-

1992 must have been a good year.

[Farnhamia]

-snip-

1992 must have been a good year.

I noticed that, too.

[The Atlantean Menace]

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.

Given how badly Obama has pissed off his support base, I think just about any clip of Obama talking on the campaign trail in 2008 would be a good attack ad.

[Wikkiwallana]

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.

Given how badly Obama has pissed off his support base, I think just about any clip of Obama talking on the campaign trail in 2008 would be a good attack ad.

And all he would really have to do to respond is show some of the Tea Party ideas. The support base would run back to him and beg for protection.

[Farnhamia]

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.

Given how badly Obama has pissed off his support base, I think just about any clip of Obama talking on the campaign trail in 2008 would be a good attack ad.

You're making the mistake most people make, thinking that the candidate is the party. Even if Ron Paul were a moderate, which he isn't, his election would bring to power all the crazies that have infested the Republican Party for the last several years. All of them would be demanding a seat at the table in the new administration. Do you really think the independents and Democrats are that stupid? Regardless of what Obama said or didn't say in 2008, faced with the radical right in power, they would go to the polls in record numbers to re-elect the President.

[Terrasricas]

Glenn Beck!!!!

I say we allow two presidents to take office, Beck and Ron Paul. That would be the funniest executive in history.

[Farnhamia]

Glenn Beck!!!!

I say we allow two presidents to take office, Beck and Ron Paul. That would be the funniest executive in history.

It would be laughable, yes.

[Alien Space Bats]

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

[Serrland]

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

He'd be better off building up a war chest until 2016. It's not like his popularity in Texas will wane that much, so he can spend more time worrying about building a national reputation as something other than someone who supports sodomy laws. Don't rush it, Rick - you'll get your turn to be a failed candidate, just be patient.

[The Cat-Tribe]

If it's anyone other than her, Santorum, Pawlenty, Palin, or Paul, the Tea Party will be pissed off and not vote.

That narrows the list down a bit.

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*

There has been controversy over Ron Paul’s ties to racism for some time now. Many people have pointed to Ron Paul’s Newsletters as proof of his racism. Paul has previously admitted to writing the newsletters and defended the statements in 1996, then blamed them on an unnamed ghostwriter in 2001 and then denied any knowledge of them in 2008. He has given no explanation, for how the racism entered his newsletter. If we are to take Paul at his word, he is guilty of at least promoting racism on a large scale. Paul earned almost a million dollars a year from the racist, conspiracy theorist newsletters. Here are some excerpts that I’ve found.
(Image)
In this story Ron Paul writes about “needlin” and blames packs of young black girls for spreading AIDS to white women. I could find no evidence of this “epidemic” and the article seems to have no point other than to make white people scared of Black people.
(Image)
In this piece he criticizes Martin Luther King as a pro-communist philanderer and says the MLK holiday is “Hate Whitey Day.” This is in great contrast to 2008 when he told Wolf Blitzer that Martin Luther King was one of his heroes. When activists suggested naming a city after Martin Luther King Paul suggested other names such as “Welfaria,” “Zooville,” “Rapetown,” “Dirtburg,” and “Lazyopolis” He would continue:
(Image)
In another piece he blamed Black people for the riots that happened in Chicago in 1992 after the Bulls won the NBA Championship
(Image)
Paul here is using false information to attack African Americans. The Washington Post reported that 1000 people were arrested but did not indicate their race. The riot, like most sports riots was multi-racial, including Blacks, white and Latinos, yet Paul used the incident to demonize African Americans. The Washington Post also reported that two officers suffered minor gunshot wounds and that 95 were injured in total, but the way Paul phrased it, it would seem most of the 95 officers injured were shot.
(Image)
In this article Paul uses the “carjacking” epidemic to put fear into white people. He advises them to carry guns and shoot “carjackers” illegally and then dispose of their weapons. He also refers Black people as “animals” and directly refers to his home town of Lake Jackson, Texas.

The newsletters also contained the quotes:

opinion polls consistently show only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions

if you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be,

This is only the first skirmish in the race war of the 1990s

Here are some of the newsletters I could find. They also contain a good deal of homophobic and Black Helicopter, New World Order conspiracy theories and warnings of upcoming in “race wars.”

http://newsone.com/nation/casey-gane-mc ... s-revealed

How do you Ron Paul'ers respond to this?

1. I'm not a retard, don't treat me like one.
2. I meant the specific images, not blanket statements of his record. Did you read my post?

Pretty shabby. I would expect them to not like Ron Paul.

Don't suppose you could cite that or something?

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."

[Alien Space Bats]

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

He'd be better off building up a war chest until 2016. It's not like his popularity in Texas will wane that much, so he can spend more time worrying about building a national reputation as something other than someone who supports sodomy laws. Don't rush it, Rick - you'll get your turn to be a failed candidate, just be patient.

Well, that's the problem, isn't it? Mike Huckabee, Jeb Bush, and likely even Sarah Palin are basically pursuing a "run in 2016" strategy, when the likely Democratic nominees will be people like Hillary Clinton or Russ Feingold (to name just two). Perry would have a harder time against that field that he'd have against the current one.

The problem is that in the meantime, the party has to somehow survive the 2012 election with a standard-bearer strong enough to prevent a landslide that will blow the GOP out of the House and keep them from grabbing the Senate, not to mention leave them decimated in a dozen States. This is what's fueling the "draft-somebody-Hell-draft-ANYBODY" movement at work today.

[West Guiana]

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;

[spoiler=additional points re Ron Paul and discrimination against homosexuals]

*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."

[/spoiler]

I love you , so many facts to many that any tea party activist would go nuts trying to comprehend

[Arkinesia]

Palin and Cain. How much crazy can you handle America?

Cain isn't that crazy.

Not as crazy as Bachmann at least.

Personally I kind of like Johnson, but he's a good bit shy of perfect. I'll go with Romney for now.

[West Guiana]

Palin and Cain. How much crazy can you handle America?

Cain isn't that crazy.

Not as crazy as Bachmann at least.

Personally I kind of like Johnson, but he's a good bit shy of perfect. I'll go with Romney for now.

Though I support Obama 100% the only real GOP pres candidate that could beat Obama would be Romney, the others are completely nuts

[Wamitoria]

Cain isn't that crazy.

Not as crazy as Bachmann at least.

Personally I kind of like Johnson, but he's a good bit shy of perfect. I'll go with Romney for now.

Though I support Obama 100% the only real GOP pres candidate that could beat Obama would be Romney, the others are completely nuts

Actually, Romney is pretty much hated by more than half of the GOP elite and base.

His nomination would ensure Democratic victory in nearly every state outside the deep south.

[West Guiana]

Though I support Obama 100% the only real GOP pres candidate that could beat Obama would be Romney, the others are completely nuts

Actually, Romney is pretty much hated by more than half of the GOP elite and base.

His nomination would ensure Democratic victory in nearly every state outside the deep south.

I'd rather have some one who is sane running as the GOP can. than Ron Pual who I consider a Nazi.

[Farnhamia]

Actually, Romney is pretty much hated by more than half of the GOP elite and base.

His nomination would ensure Democratic victory in nearly every state outside the deep south.

I'd rather have some one who is sane running as the GOP can. than Ron Pual who I consider a Nazi.

The candidate is not the party. The insane factions of the party don't go away if a sane person is nominated.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

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

[West Guiana]

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?