In 1996, the Dallas Morning News interviewed Congressional candidate and former Congressman Ron Paul. About what? About newsletters written under his name, specifically, comments made regarding the African-American community. Here’s an excerpt from the article:
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.”
An official with the NAACP in Texas said the comments were racist and offensive. 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.”
Dr. Paul, an ex-congressman and former Libertarian Party presidential candidate, defeated Rep. Greg Laughlin, R-West Columbia, in April for the Republican nomination for the U.S. House. An obstetrician from Surfside, he faces Democratic lawyer Charles “Lefty” Morris of Bee Cave in the November general election. Mr. Morris, who said he was familiar with the writings in question, declined to comment about the specifics. “Many of his views are out on the fringe,” Mr. Morris said. “But voters in the 14th District have to characterize these the way they see it. His statements speak for themselves.”
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 also said he did not know how his newsletter came to be included in a directory by the Heritage Front, a neo-Nazi group based in Canada. The newsletter was listed on the Internet under the directory’s heading “Racialists and Freedom Fighters.”
Emphasis mine. So, in 1996 it appears that Paul admits to writing much of what’s found in the Ron Paul newsletters – which more recently he’s been trying to deny having anything to do with.
EDIT 08:23 PM – Here’s another excerpt from the article regarding who wrote certain columns:
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.
Dr. Paul also took exception to the comments of Mr. Bledsoe, saying that the voters in the 14th District and the people who know him best would be the final judges of his character. “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
Again, this is all from the 1996 article / interview of Dr. Paul.
EDIT 10:27 PM – In a 1996 Houston Chronicle article, here’s another excerpt on the Paul newsletters:
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.
Emphasis mine. Read the two articles in full and feel free to comment.
_______________________________________________________
-Matt Newman is a conservative blogger from Maryland who blogs at Old Line Elephant / Pundit League and Tweets far too often.
December 17th, 2011 at 5:44 pm
FACT: The Rodney King riots ended when the welfare checks showed up. Politically incorrect? Yes. Racist? No.
December 17th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
Mitt must be scared. This site has been biased, but I think this is the first pure, one sided bs hit piece I’ve seen here. Why even bother posting to correct this trash?
Very disappointed in this site. No standards at all, it seems.
December 17th, 2011 at 5:58 pm
2. What does any of this have to do with Romney?
December 17th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
“He said they were being taken out of context.”
I wonder in what context the good doctor would consider it not racist to call 95% of black men criminals.
December 17th, 2011 at 6:09 pm
The reporter says he did not affirm or deny the comments. What’s to see?
December 17th, 2011 at 6:23 pm
Ron Paul said Bachman hates Muslims, and Santorum has the same views on Muslims and Gays on Jay Leno.
Not good for RP.
December 17th, 2011 at 6:30 pm
And the establishment conservative wave of hit pieces has begun. Anybody following Hannity/Levin/Limbaugh can clearly see that they are scared and desperate. And they should be.
If a voter cares about the potential racist tendencies of a candidate, may I suggest you compare the bombastic rhetoric of rounding up Mexicans and the dismissiveness given to the large numbers of Muslims killed overseas by the other candidates. Compare that with Dr. Paul who frequently mentions the racial inequality of our justice system and War on Drugs. Anybody who has followed Dr. Paul for a decent amount of time clearly sees this newsletter as an extreme outlier and not consistent with his long record of supporting peace and fairness.
December 17th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Even if he did write all of that in his own hand. What’s the problem? It’s not like African-Americans are needed to win the election anyways!
In all seriousness, I do not believe he had anything to do with those. I agree young African-Americans are incredibly fleet of foot – who doesn’t? and who disagrees that an extremely large percentage of African-Americans are criminals?
Ask any African-American and they’ll confirm this.
December 17th, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Edited piece to bold the section where Paul told the interviewer that he produced the newsletters
December 17th, 2011 at 6:55 pm
“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.”
Producing the letters does not mean he wrote those 6 comments that were racist (that fell into the gap between 1990-1994 well after he had run for president on the Libertarian ticket and after he had retired from congress.)
Paul acknowledged that he should have patrolled the newsletters better since he wasn’t paying attention to it well, but he certainly never said he personally wrote that stuff.
Nor does that interview that you posted say he wrote any of it.
December 17th, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Ron Paul ran the 100 yard dash in 1952 in 9.7 seconds, just off the world record of 9.4. This is when Paul was a junior in high school, 17 years old. So I doubt Ron Paul would be impressed with fast black guys, he could outrun ‘em all!
December 17th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
Paul had retired from politics at the time because of his 1988 loss and his desire to focus on his medical practice again. He handed the reigns of the newsletter over to Lew Rockwell, who many believe is responsible for the particular writings. Paul didn’t write them, but has said that he bears responsibility for things that were published in his name. Even an NAACP leader defended Paul on this issue.
I’m sorry, but this has been beaten to death many times, though I defend your right to post whatever you want, Mr. Newman.
December 17th, 2011 at 7:29 pm
Updated with an additional quote from the 1996 interview piece.
December 17th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Once again he did not deny or affirm (or even comment on…)
This is all in reference to stuff in the 1990-1994 newsletter not present tense, and Paul denies writing that stuff.
December 17th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
See above where Paul did not affirm or deny or even comment on whether Paul wrote the “column” (column being the newsletter.) Paul did not comment on it in present tense.
The reporter then going on talking about the “column” (the Ron Paul newsletter in past tense) and acting like it’s something they talked about in the interview.
In later interviews Paul clearly said he did not write those 6 comments. Nothing new to see here. It’s the same stuff they drag out before every congressional election in Texas and every presidential election in a weak attempt to confuse voters who don’t want to investigate it.
December 17th, 2011 at 7:59 pm
This has long been since settled…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sY01Lpg5kqw
December 17th, 2011 at 8:59 pm
I have lost all respect for Matt Newman. He is a piece of spit and I will not read any future FPPs he posts.
December 17th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
non story
December 17th, 2011 at 9:31 pm
Updated to include additional 1996 article on the topic
December 17th, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Sorry, Paul fans, but if you want the media to regard your guy as a legitimate top-tier candidate, prepare to continue to see this story discussed. You can’t have your cake and eat it, too.
December 17th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
Paul cancelled the newsletter in 1996 when this controversy arose…
December 17th, 2011 at 11:22 pm
M: What difference does it make that he cancelled it — after what he published was brought to public attention?
December 17th, 2011 at 11:28 pm
He cancelled it because he did not know about the six racist sentences that appeared in total.
December 17th, 2011 at 11:30 pm
The Weekly Standard really loathes Ron Paul because of his foreign policy. The neoconservatives from Bush era have had this story a long time and first raised it in the 90s when Ron Paul was returning to congress from medical practice. In medical practice, he never took medicaid or medicare and never turned a woman of any race away for inability to pay. In fact there is a recent NPR article on that you can google. Seems a poor racist to do that, and more consistent with his statement that he did not know of the problematic passages til long after the event.
what also goes with that is the extensive youtube library of Ron Paul going all the way back to the 1970s, He doesn’t do ‘red meat’ even of the milder sort, and this sort of language can’t be found coming from him anywhere despite the huge volume of material on him.
In addition, the District Chief for the NAACP in his congressional district went on radio saying Ron Paul wasn’t at all racist, and the newsletter smear was by power brokers who didn’t want someone more attached to the Constitution than to power broker deals in office. The man’s name is Linder and the interview is on youtube.
In fact, Rove got the Democratic congressman to change parties to run against Ron Paul in the congressional race, and George Bush endorsed him. The newsletters were everywhere. Ron Paul still won. His district knows all about this, but also knows him and how he has acted with all people of all races in his district, and disbelieves this about him. It has returned him to office MANY times since then.
This was brought up in 2007/8 also. It has been debunked as much as it can be. There was an independent editor and Ron Paul submitted the occassional piece but he was practicing medicine, not involved in management of the newsletters. He has taken moral responsibility for not better overseeing what went out in his name 20 years ago, but that is all it is. If that oversight makes you think you shouldn’t vote for him, don’t.
But weekly standard having seen this play out three times already and putting it out again without any of the facts known on the other side, is really cheap. And repetitive.
Ron Paul is a Reagan Republican of the old sort, meaning not the northeastern moneyed Republicans but the middle/working class Republicans. He isn’t popular with the neoconservative movement, at all. But trashing someone’s character when you know better, is slimy.
This was t
December 17th, 2011 at 11:34 pm
@10 phone number answered by his campaign staff? Yeah, once he had any. Obviously, during the period of time when these were written he was not in office and HAD no campaign staff.
December 17th, 2011 at 11:36 pm
@4, the first time he was asked about them he hadn’t read them and ASSUMED they were taken out of context in some way because he didn’t believe the manager of the newsletters would write that. When he read them, he said he hadn’t written them, and hadn’t seen them but bore moral responsibility for their going out under his name. Then he ended them.
December 17th, 2011 at 11:55 pm
“He cancelled it because he did not know about the six racist sentences that appeared in total.”
So we’re supposed to believe that Ron Paul did not read The Ron Paul Political Report?
December 18th, 2011 at 12:00 am
This is a perfectly valid issue to bring up, given how Paul has made political ads out of the characters of Newt, Mitt, The Ricks and Mich.
What will make this mud not stick however is Paul’s message. Racism is simpy a group- rights concept which Is perfectly incompatible with Paul’s individualism
December 18th, 2011 at 6:04 am
I’m not a Paul supporter, but I don’t see what the big deal is. African Americans are fleet of foot. Is anyone arguing with that? The 95% comment may be a little exaggerated, but I don’t see a problem with the comment. There’s a culture of crime in urban WA DC. 95%?Probably not. But as a black man, I’m not bothered by it.
December 18th, 2011 at 6:44 am
I think that the NBA should be investigated about there taking advantaged of African American’s for their speed and agility. I wonder what the NBA’s view on African American’s is. Do they think that they are faster and more athletic than other races? Isn’t that what racism is; the belief that one race is superior to another? I think that this is something that really needs to be investigated.
December 18th, 2011 at 9:01 am
Re: Krugman takes on Ron Paul…
he’s one of ? those staunch? free marketeers ? that think? that everyth……
December 27th, 2011 at 7:16 pm
I am still voting for Ron Paul! He votes according to the Constitution! Bring the troops home!
December 28th, 2011 at 12:47 am
Matty, come on. “He did not deny”??? That’s a long stretch from “He admitted”.
You assume he was asked: “Did you write them?” Mighty big assumption.
December 31st, 2011 at 1:36 am
The media is lying about the timeline of events, and what was being talked about when.
In 1996, when Paul said he was being taken out of context, he was referring to an article in which he was bashing D.C. for using a racist study, sarcastically saying that if you went by the conclusion in the study, you would think 95% of blacks in DC were criminals. He was actually BASHING racists. Of course, they never show that entire letter, because then they would have to be showing that he was indeed taken out of context.
Then in 2001, he took moral responsibility for DIFFERENT quotes that he did not write, simply because it appeared in his newsletter under his watch, but never admitted writing those quotes.
But now our media spins it to make it sound like the two interviews were about the same comments, when in fact they were not.
January 6th, 2012 at 7:40 pm
Mike, the study you are talking about is titled “Hobbling a Generation: Young African American Males in D.C.’s Criminal Justice System” by J G Miller, from National Center on Institutions and Alternatives
Good luck finding any actual links or material. The original 1992 study and the 1997 follow up seem to have “fallen off” the internet. It use to be sold on a few university web sites, was available on google books, and on amazon. Now all of them are out of print and unavailable.
Here is a quote from 1998 citing the study:
“Five years have passed since the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives (NCIA) discovered that 42 percent of the young African American men 18 to 35 years of age in the District of Columbia (D.C.) were under criminal justice supervision–in prison or jail, probation or parole, out on bond or being sought on a warrant (Miller 1992). The finding provoked a national outcry. People were astonished that nearly half of the young African American men in the nation’s capitol were under government control. Today, the percentage of young African American men under justice supervision has reached 50 percent. Things have gotten worse.”
This is what Ron Paul was referring to, but MSM ignores it and goes to some lengths to hide the source of the study.
January 6th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
Here is the url from the 1998 quote I cited: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-20862072/hobbling-generation-young-african.html