Free For All - The Free Liberal Blog: Ron Paul Isn't a Racist

August 2008

Sun

Mon

Tue

Wed

Thu

Fri

Sat

A political hit piece appearing in The New Republic today delves back into Ron Paul's past to re-reveal a stain on his record: racist diatribes published in newsletters which bore the good doctor's name.

Personally knowing Ron Paul and his staff, I can report that never have I had an inkling that this was a group of people with ties to any kind of racist or hate-filled organization. The Free Liberal would not run his columns if we believed that he was an advocate of hatred.

In fact, I have a quote pinned to my home office wall, from one of Ron Paul's speeches before Congress "Liberty is where the minority is protected."

The truth it seems, is that Dr. Paul made a very bad judgment call about whom he did business with. The person(s) who are truly responsible should step forward and apologize to Dr. Paul.

The campaign should continue to make clear that it does not buy into the craziness of the 9/11 Truthers or the Stormfront wackos. David Duke can support Paul all he wants, but that doesn't mean our favorite Texas Congressman supports David Duke.

In general, the libertarian movement doesn't need the support of any kind of hate-mongers. And I mean people who hate for any cause, not just for race or ethnicity. Let's toss 'em out.

Kevin D. Rollins
Publisher, The Free Liberal

Comments

Jamie Kirchick (author of the New Republic story):

"I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist."

http://gays-for-ron.blogspot.com/2008/01/jamie-kirchick-i-dont-think-ron-paul-is.html

Posted by: The Truth | January 8, 2008 06:05 PM

Only The Mentally Minuscule Take Words Out Of Context To Bend Them To Their Preconceived Paradigm.

If you refuse to look at the actions of a man for temperance of judgment then you truly castrate you mind and make it easy to arrive at wrong conclusion.

The weak minded are easily led by the bridle of emotion.

Racism is not consistent with the philosophy expressed by Ron Paul. He has rebutted these accusations from the same distortions in previous days.

Ron Paul is the only candidate that I would trust with my money and my family's safety.

I Vote For Virtue; I Vote For Ron Paul !!!

Posted by: Brad | January 8, 2008 06:06 PM

Jamie Kirchick: "I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I'm just cynical"

http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/01/08/ron-paul-race-smear-erased/

Posted by: chris | January 8, 2008 06:07 PM

What else can one expect from the filth that is "The New Republic"?

Posted by: V | January 8, 2008 07:09 PM

Thanks for the repudiation!

Posted by: Barney | January 8, 2008 07:10 PM

If you didn’t know about this Mr. Rollins then you weren’t very smart. Paul was challenged on this crap when he ran in 1988. I know I challenged him about some of his antigay stuff at the convention. He made excuses about it then. Yet his antigay rants continued in the newsletter as did his racists rants. Now he says someone else wrote them (Lew Rockwell is the most likely author). But they appeared for years. I used to get Paul’s newsletter so I saw this crap when it came out which is why I have refused to support Paul in this campaign.

His friends at Mises are associated with racist groups like the League of the South and are or have been associated with bigots like Joe Sobran and Samuel Francis.

These problems have been written about for years but many libertarians turned a blind eye to the warnings or simply never bothered to pay attention.

The fact is undeniable that Paul’s newsletter published a lot of really disgusting comments. They were published over a period of several years. It is hard for him to claim he was so hand’s off and uninvolved with the newsletter that was mailed out from his own personal office that this could happen for years and he didn’t know it. True believers will take anything he’s says as true. My experience with Paul tells me he will lie if necessary.

By the way the author of the piece is a libertarian.

Posted by: wm | January 9, 2008 07:25 AM

Dr. David Duke had a few good things to say about Dr. Ron Paul, (it's pretty hard not to say a few good things about Dr. Paul), but has not endorsed him, however David Duke has posted articles on his site covering the presidential primaries.

You can hear what Dr. David Duke had to say about Ron Paul on this recent broadcast:

David Duke & Don Black’s weekly radio broadcast to the world! 11-28-07
David and Don discuss the Ron Paul campaign, Iran, Zionist media control, along with Day 3 of the My Awakening republication drive!

Posted by: FREE ZUNDEL NOW | January 9, 2008 09:21 AM

Remember, when the politically correct use the term racist, they simply mean white Gentiles who discriminate.

Posted by: JoeMorgan | January 9, 2008 09:31 AM

Ron Paul had about a decade and a half to sever these "ties"... why didn't he?

Posted by: DRH | January 10, 2008 02:07 PM

Gee, look at all the PC BS here!

People have the right to be a bigot or racist if they choose. It's called the First Amendment, and it applies to things as rephrensible as these.

However, innocent until proven guilty also applies, and that too applies to Dr. Paul. Just because his name is on it doesn't mean crap. Ask Rupert Murdoch if he's ultimately responsible for Sean Insanity or Bill O'Wahwah. Nope, Sean and Bill are.

But let's make the unlikely assumption that Dr. Paul did write this stuff. Answer me this: where is it written that a politician's views have to be consistent over the years? Where does it say that their views can't change when given more experience, knowledge, or wisdom? I seem to recall Dr. Paul doing exactly that on the death penalty at the PBS debate. I don't mean flip-flopping to pander to votes. I mean genuine view changes. If that's the case here, why still pillory Dr. Paul for it? Why does the label "politician" suddenly freeze one's personal views in time in a way that doesn't apply to non-politicians?

This is just an example of the hypocrisy being illustrated in this case. If the stuff was written last week then there'd really be a story. But a decade ago is water long under the bridge.

Next we'll be hearing a tale of how Huckabee cut off an elderly driver while changing lanes on his way to his church back in 1983 or something just as stupid, and how that makes him a bad driver and unfit to decide how to fix our transportation infrastructure. What a bunch of BS!

Posted by: Tannim | January 10, 2008 03:59 PM

Tannim writes:

Yes, people do have a right to be racist. I agree.

But, people also have a right to freedom of association. The corollary to this right is that one either chooses the company one keeps or one let's any ole body to be a friend.

Screening out people who will destroy the branding of a movement is as essential as creating the branding in the first place.

Racists are poison pills to the growth of the libertarian movement.

/KDR

Posted by: Kevin D. Rollins | January 10, 2008 04:12 PM