Ron Paul Newsletter Controversy

[brenden.b]

So, I know that this will be an issue brought up in 2012 if Ron Paul decides to run for President, and that is the issue of the newsletter controversy. I am new to the movement and I would like to hear all of the details that I can about this controversy. I know that RP has said that he didn't write any of the controversial articles in the newsletter, but who did? And how is the newsletter linked with RP?

I need details, please, so that I can set the record straight on what could be a devestating issue in 2012.

Thanks!

[specsaregood]

So, I know that this will be an issue brought up in 2012 if Ron Paul decides to run for President, and that is the issue of the newsletter controversy. I am new to the movement and I would like to hear all of the details that I can about this controversy. I know that RP has said that he didn't write any of the controversial articles in the newsletter, but who did? And how is the newsletter linked with RP?

I need details, please, so that I can set the record straight on what could be a devestating issue in 2012.

Thanks!

Some searching would do you well.
In short, calling RP a racist would be like calling Steve Forbes a liberal due to a liberal piece running in his magazine.

[angelatc]

Search the forums. But you'll never change anybody's mind about what he meant. Don't waste time trying.

[brenden.b]

I've done quite a bit of research on the issue, and I must say that it was not much help. Most of the article that I found were leaning towards calling RP a racist. Sure, I found some stuff, but I was wondering if there is more concrete evidence out there so that I can dissuade any attacks.

I truly believe that RP is not a racist and that he didn't write the newsletters. That is not the problem. I am looking for facts to back up why I should believe he is not a racist and had nothing to do with the newsletter.

Any suggestions?

[angelatc]

I apologize. The previous discussions on the topic aren't archived in "Search."

Answer to your first question - nobody has admitted responsibility for writing the newsletters, and Paul hasn't named names. However, it's pretty obvious from reading the syntax and grammar that it honestly wasn't Paul that wrote them.

You might like to start by reading this: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Vcm10w_yaL8J:www.texasmonthly.com/2001-10-01/feature7-2.php+Texas+Monthly+Ron+Paul+newsletters&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


"In another issue, he cited reports that 85 percent of all black men in Washington, D.C., are arrested at some point: "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."

That statistic happens to be true, making the politically incorrect statement pretty much based in fact.

[specsaregood]

IMNSHO, this should be good enough for anybody:


January 13, 2008 — A 20 year friend of Ron Paul ,Austin Texas' NAACP Director Nelson Linder is interviewed by Scott Horton of Anti War radio concerning the accusations of racism against the congressman.The interview also explores the issue of civil rights and inequality in the American justice system
YouTube - NAACP Director Comes To Ron Paul's Defense (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvFLSwDvBUA)

[MelissaWV]

I apologize. The previous discussions on the topic aren't archived in "Search."

They are... and it's an interesting study in how information is put out, how it changes, how the reaction to it changes over time. Just some of the results from my search:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=235348&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=233228&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=220473&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=213914&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=144816&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=123667&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=115004&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=112690&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=99588&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=89105&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=96375&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=89808&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=86625&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=89169&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=90289&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=88817&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=88522&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=88571&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=87644&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=82917&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=87926&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=87658&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=87758&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=87159&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=86831&highlight=racist+newsletters
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=87810&highlight=racist+newsletters

And my favorite... a quote from January 2008:


[The letters] will pass away just like the Huckabee rape case. People are stupid, and they will forget about it. Hopefully something will happen this weekend. Maybe Britney will have another incident, or Tom will jump on another couch.

This shit will hopefully be over by the end of this weekend. We have way too much confidence in the public, and the idiots who watch fox/cnn/msnbc are not the people we want to target.

[Ron_Paul_Knows]

These are the best sources I have found, plus the video posted by specsaregood:
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_r on_paul/
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/49862

YouTube - NAACP Austin branch pres talks about Ron Paul. info in about (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvAuSXq5etA)

[brenden.b]

I apologize for bringing up the topic again, as it is quite obvious this has been discussed several times over the last couple years.

I appreciate the willingness to help though, so thank you!

[Working Poor]

I sure do wish Ron Paul woulld make a video disputing this himself. I have looked and looked for something with him saying something about this....

I am in a discussion right now looking for some concrete proof from Ron Pual's own mouth saying he did not write nor does he agree with it. at least give the right key words to find something he said.

[MelissaWV]

I sure do wish Ron Paul woulld make a video disputing this himself. I have looked and looked for something with him saying something about this....

I am in a discussion right now looking for some concrete proof from Ron Pual's own mouth saying he did not write nor does he agree with it. at least give the right key words to find something he said.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHmuU8A2vzc

Go in about a minute and you'll see a discussion about the newsletters, followed by Dr. Paul's denial.

* * *

Towards the end he flounders a little, but honestly this is stupid. We're on Ron Paul Forums. Should people believe that because this site bears his name, it's his views exclusively? No, but some people will do so.

[Working Poor]

Go in about a minute and you'll see a discussion about the newsletters, followed by Dr. Paul's denial.

I just don't think this will convince the peole I am debating with....Thanks for giving me something though.

[Live_Free_Or_Die]

if any of Ron's critics could cite one piece of racist legislation Ron has ever introduced I might care. Since no one can do that I could care less what Ron Paul's personal views are. Ron Paul has credibility from 30+ years of deeds not worlds.

[sailingaway]

On youtube there is an interview with the NAACP District Chief from his district saying he knew Ron Paul for 20 years and he wasn't at all racist, and that they worked on stuff together. When this issue was first raised Ron was returning to Congress after some absence, and no one really knew who he was. Now he has one of the most extensive libraries, written and youtube, of anyone, and there is not one speech, post or policy they can point to that is racist, so they go back to language which compared to his language is so clearly different there is no way any reasonable person would think he wrote it. There was an independent paid editorial staff and cycling volunteers putting out newsletters. Ron was practicing medicine full time. If people WANT to believe it they can (but they'll have doubts) but anyone with the slightest bit of objectivity will look at 20+ years of public service and say 'Is this all they've got'? I know I said exactly that to myself when I looked into the issue, and it popped like a soap bubble. And it is the worst that exists, unless you disagree with him on policy, which is entirely separate. Tell people the facts then say if they are going to slander him they should feel obliged to look into it themselves. If they do that, and honestly don't just disagree with his policies because they want 'free stuff', you'll have another RP supporter on your hands. I really believe this.

I never met another politician who looks better and better the more you look into him. We have to get people looking into him.

[Working Poor]

if any of Ron's critics could cite one piece of racist legislation Ron has ever introduced I might care. Since no one can do that I could care less what Ron Paul's personal views are. Paul has credibility from 30+ years of deeds not worlds.
Of course we know this but, the media will fry him over the racist newsletter thing again. If he runs I hope he will sit down and make a video and talk squarely about it. We have to learn from the past.

[jmdrake]

I apologize. The previous discussions on the topic aren't archived in "Search."

Answer to your first question - nobody has admitted responsibility for writing the newsletters, and Paul hasn't named names. However, it's pretty obvious from reading the syntax and grammar that it honestly wasn't Paul that wrote them.

You might like to start by reading this: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Vcm10w_yaL8J:www.texasmonthly.com/2001-10-01/feature7-2.php+Texas+Monthly+Ron+Paul+newsletters&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



That statistic happens to be true, making the politically incorrect statement pretty much based in fact.

The statistic that 85% of black men in D.C. having contact with the justice system may be true, but the claim that the "inefficiencies in the justice system" only go one way (missing the guilty as opposed to wrongly arresting the innocent) is not. Anyway, here's the best evidence to refute Ron being a racist. I used it in 2008 to good effect.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/special/forums/candidates/paul.html
A system designed to protect individual liberty will have no punishments for any group and no privileges. Today, I think inner-city folks and minorities are punished unfairly in the war on drugs.

For instance, Blacks make up 14 percent of those who use drugs, yet 36 percent of those arrested are Blacks and it ends up that 63 percent of those who finally end up in prison are Blacks. This has to change.

We don't have to have more courts and more prisons. We need to repeal the whole war on drugs. It isn't working.

We have already spent over $400 billion since the early 1970s, and it is wasted money. Prohibition didn't work. Prohibition on drugs doesn't work. So we need to come to our senses.

And, absolutely, it's a disease. We don't treat alcoholics like this. This is a disease, and we should orient ourselves to this. That is one way you could have equal justice under the law.

[Working Poor]

I need something with him saying something that does not look like he skirting the issue of the newsletters. This is the one thing that gets brought up time and again. I cannot seem to prove he had no knowledge of the newsletters in away that people can't dispute. I have used all of the above material at least once.

I think if he runs he has to dispute this squarely if he intends to win. The libs carry this very high and I think everyone here knows that.

[sailingaway]

I need something with him saying something that does not look like he skirting the issue of the newsletters. This is the one thing that gets brought up time and again. I cannot seem to prove he had no knowledge of the newsletters in away that people can't dispute. I have used all of the above material at least once.

I think if he runs he has to dispute this squarely if he intends to win. The libs carry this very high and I think everyone here knows that.

I honestly think WE need to just dismiss it as we have here. WE give it legs. It wasn't him, if they are going to say something someone else wrote in an investment newsletter under his name is determinative, they shouldn't vote for him. But clearly he didn't write it, doesn't think it, and his policies show that. That is what I'd say. We aren't collectivist. He did have to deny his belief in this because it was under his name. Sack cloth and ashes would be pandering, however. It was someone's opinion, only, and not his.

[Elwar]

I need something with him saying something that does not look like he skirting the issue of the newsletters. This is the one thing that gets brought up time and again. I cannot seem to prove he had no knowledge of the newsletters in away that people can't dispute. I have used all of the above material at least once.

I think if he runs he has to dispute this squarely if he intends to win. The libs carry this very high and I think everyone here knows that.

Once labeled a racist, there's no changing someone's mind who believes it. Coming out and saying anything will only fuel the fire.

It's like trying to convince someone who believes in global warming that it's not happening...even after siting tons and tons of evidence. They'll refute anything put out there.

[AlexMerced]

check out RonPaulIsNow.com

There is a video about ron paul controversies

[jmdrake]

Once labeled a racist, there's no changing someone's mind who believes it. Coming out and saying anything will only fuel the fire.

It's like trying to convince someone who believes in global warming that it's not happening...even after siting tons and tons of evidence. They'll refute anything put out there.

Not true. I know people who were willing to dismiss Ron Paul in 2008 as a racist because of the newsletters who now are willing to at least consider voting for Ron Paul. I agree that focusing on defending against the newsletter charges themselves is counterproductive. Instead you have to hit people with more positive information like what I posted from Ron Paul's statements at the Tavis Smiley presidential forum. No racist would publicly say that blacks are disproportionately targeted in the war on drugs. In fact during 2008 when I posted this here there were some racists who thought I was lying and that Ron Paul never said that. (Like you said, you can't convince some people despite the amount of evidence you show.) Oh, and for the record I used to believe the man made global warming lie. I don't anymore. ;)

[sailingaway]

I need something with him saying something that does not look like he skirting the issue of the newsletters. This is the one thing that gets brought up time and again. I cannot seem to prove he had no knowledge of the newsletters in away that people can't dispute. I have used all of the above material at least once.

I think if he runs he has to dispute this squarely if he intends to win. The libs carry this very high and I think everyone here knows that.

Here is the Blitzer interview, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w&feature=player_embedded

There is a part 2 as well to therightt at the top of the list on youtube at the link.

But I'd point out the 20 years with no quote or youtube of a word he said that was racist, compared to 20 years of policy that is NOT racist. Letting them churn this as being topical when no serious person thinks he actually said them is strategically stupid, imho. The best they can do is say he should run a witch hunt to find out who did say them (why except to create MORE headlines?) This was all decades ago, and we all know what he has been doing since.

[randolphfuller]

Ron Paul is not being truthful when he says he does not know who wrote the newsletters. It obviously wasn't him, but since it went out under his name and he derived any profit from the subscriptions, to the newsletters it beggars belief to say "he has no idea" who wrote them. I definitely don't know, but my first suspect would be Lew Rockwell. It is understandable that Dr. Paul considers Rockwell an old friend and doesn't want to involve him in this controversy. The honest and manly thing would be for Rockwell to step forward and make a full disclosure. Or is not him, then whoever did write them. You are right in believing we have not heard the last of this and will not until the legitimate questions are answered.

[sailingaway]

Ron Paul is not being truthful when he says he does not know who wrote the newsletters. It obviously wasn't him, but since it went out under his name and he derived any profit from the subscriptions, to the newsletters it beggars belief to say "he has no idea" who wrote them. I definitely don't know, but my first suspect would be Lew Rockwell. It is understandable that Dr. Paul considers Rockwell an old friend and doesn't want to involve him in this controversy. The honest and manly thing would be for Rockwell to step forward and make a full disclosure. Or is not him, then whoever did write them. You are right in believing we have not heard the last of this and will not until the legitimate questions are answered.

There are no legitimate questions regarding RON.

You may have legitimate questions regarding ROCKWELL, but from Ron's scrupulous due process view of things (Rangel was innocent until after the finding, remember?) He'd consider Rockwell innocent until shown otherwise, even if he suspected him. Realistically, those newsletters were fairly close to a pre-internet newsboard and volunteers post stuff. There is NO serious question that Ron EITHER wrote them or agreed with them. Period.

This idea that twenty years after the newsletters were published, and with his prolific record of what he DOES stand for, he now needs to immolate himself in some kind of inquisition into what others may have done decades ago only serves those who want to keep the non issue alive. Rockwell is not running for office.

[MelissaWV]

Ron Paul is not being truthful when he says he does not know who wrote the newsletters. It obviously wasn't him, but since it went out under his name and he derived any profit from the subscriptions, to the newsletters it beggars belief to say "he has no idea" who wrote them. I definitely don't know, but my first suspect would be Lew Rockwell. It is understandable that Dr. Paul considers Rockwell an old friend and doesn't want to involve him in this controversy. The honest and manly thing would be for Rockwell to step forward and make a full disclosure. Or is not him, then whoever did write them. You are right in believing we have not heard the last of this and will not until the legitimate questions are answered.

Of course! Twenty years from now if, God willing, Ron Paul is still being questioned by the media, he will be able to identify anyone who ever posed as him on this website, or wrote something ridiculous here. It's RON PAUL FORUMS, after all, and he is responsible for everything someone ever wrote in his name, right?

Lord knows I know everyone at my job, and what they do or don't do, and whether or not they are cheating the company.

[Suzu]

OP author must read this thread:
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?242627-Debunking-many-of-the-newsletter-quotes-Must-read

[HazyHusky420]

Could be Rockwell. I mean him and Rothbard did say some crazy things in the 90s (such as endorsing police brutality). Or it could be someone less known like Hanns Hoppe. Hoppe is probably the biggest troll among libertarians as far as cultural issues go. I mean Hoppe will say something that sounds like it came out of the mouth of Fred Phelps then Stephen Kinsella will remind everyone of how much of a "cosmopolitan person he is". I don't know what to believe...

Anyways, even if it was Lew Rockwell I can't say i'm mad at him considering how much he has grown over the past few years.

[EndDaFed]

I apologize. The previous discussions on the topic aren't archived in "Search."

Answer to your first question - nobody has admitted responsibility for writing the newsletters, and Paul hasn't named names. However, it's pretty obvious from reading the syntax and grammar that it honestly wasn't Paul that wrote them.

You might like to start by reading this: http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:Vcm10w_yaL8J:www.texasmonthly.com/2001-10-01/feature7-2.php+Texas+Monthly+Ron+Paul+newsletters&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us



That statistic happens to be true, making the politically incorrect statement pretty much based in fact.

So you say Paul didn't write that horrible line of reasoning and then you defend it. Why the mixed messages? If you believe it to be true why would you bother to deny that Paul wrote it?

[Badger Paul]

RP doesn't have to throw anyone under the bus. All he has to say is "I didn't write the newsletters but they were published under my name. I was negligent and I take full responsibility for what was written and I'm sorry it happened. " End of the story.

[low preference guy]

So you say Paul didn't write that horrible line of reasoning and then you defend it. Why the mixed messages? If you believe it to be true why would you bother to deny that Paul wrote it?

i would bet it's because the OP wants to know whether Ron Paul wrote the newsletters. she is basically saying she agrees with something Ron Paul didn't write. i bet there are many things with which she agrees that were not written by Ron Paul. that doesn't mean she sends a mixed message.

[HazyHusky420]

RP doesn't have to throw anyone under the bus. All he has to say is "I didn't write the newsletters but they were published under my name. I was negligent and I take full responsibility for what was written and I'm sorry it happened. " End of the story.

If you didn't do anything yet a wanted person is staying in your house you are somehow just as guilty. As much as that does not make sense that's how they're going to go after him. Besides if he gets the GOP nomination he'll be running against a cracker who's half black. What makes you think Obama won't go after RP himself?

[sailingaway]

RP doesn't have to throw anyone under the bus. All he has to say is "I didn't write the newsletters but they were published under my name. I was negligent and I take full responsibility for what was written and I'm sorry it happened. " End of the story.

Negligent is a term of art and it doesn't apply. He said he wasn't careful enough, which should be sufficient. So why hasn't it gone away?

[Working Poor]

Here is the Blitzer interview, etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6rxts0-f9w&feature=player_embedded

There is a part 2 as well to therightt at the top of the list on youtube at the link.

But I'd point out the 20 years with no quote or youtube of a word he said that was racist, compared to 20 years of policy that is NOT racist. Letting them churn this as being topical when no serious person thinks he actually said them is strategically stupid, imho. The best they can do is say he should run a witch hunt to find out who did say them (why except to create MORE headlines?) This was all decades ago, and we all know what he has been doing since.


I posted this one and it sure did make everybody shut up thanks sailingway I have not used this one I think I did see it before though.

[sailingaway]

I posted this one and it sure did make everybody shut up thanks sailingway I have not used this one I think I did see it before though.

Glad to know it worked. We should hone our responses by what works.

[LisaNY]

Negligent is a term of art and it doesn't apply. He said he wasn't careful enough, which should be sufficient. So why hasn't it gone away?

Because that's all they got.

[ronpaulitician]

That statistic happens to be true, making the politically incorrect statement pretty much based in fact.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." (Mark Twain)

Even if the statistic is true, there could be many reasons for it.

According to drugwarfacts.org (http://drugwarfacts.org/cms/?q=node/64)

Human Rights Watch’s analysis of prison admission data for 2003 revealed that relative to population, blacks are 10.1 times more likely than whites to be sent to prison for drug offenses.

Use of illicit drug, according to that same site, is about even (10% for blacks, 8% for white).

Regarding the "Ron Paul is a racist" charges. Ron Paul has taken moral responsibility for having allowed (even though he didn't know that he was doing so) racist statements to be published in his name. There is an extensive public record of Ron Paul's writings. If you're going to try and convince someone who brings these links up that he's not a racist (near impossible; your best bet is to at least try and talk sense into those who might listen to him), just ask for at least one of these public writings that even hints at him being a racist. Then counter it with all of Paul's writings that have him decrying racism as an affront to liberty.

[Suzu]

Have any of you even bothered to read the topic I posted above?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?242627-Debunking-many-of-the-newsletter-quotes-Must-read

[ronpaulitician]

Have any of you even bothered to read the topic I posted above?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?242627-Debunking-many-of-the-newsletter-quotes-Must-read
The Reason article doesn't really help the cause. It reads more like a "But I meant something different and I'm being taken out of context" defense.

"Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions."

The defense? (paraphrased) "Well, that's because anyone who disagrees with me isn't sensible and only 5% of blacks agree with me."

[Gaius1981]

I'm sorry to bring this up if it's been referred to earlier, but was it ever confirmed if Lew Rockwell wrote the piece? I remember accusations of it, and it does resemble his type of crude and abrasive written language.

[low preference guy]

I'm sorry to bring this up if it's been referred to earlier, but was it ever confirmed if Lew Rockwell wrote the piece? I remember accusations of it, and it does resemble his type of crude and abrasive written language.

Lew denied it.

[Omphfullas Zamboni]

This conversation, which talks about Congressman Paul's writing style, helped convince me when I was undecided:

Some other forum user: "Actually I have to disagree. A good majority sounded like it was his writing. I don't know about the entire piece, though. And I'm not saying a word of it was his, but a good portion does sound very much like his writing. Also read the post just above yours."


Except that Ron Paul is an EXTREMELY shy person who doesn't even feel right about telling people to turn a light on or off.


http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=83665295-1de6-4571-af9c-0a90f6d1fde0

It does not match his personality at all for him to be writing letters to everyone laughing about how no one listened to him and how he is unrepentant for cashing in on misery.

Glenn Beck: "Let me ask a question that you maybe wouldn't want to answer. Are you ... let me rephrase it.. How do you do it? You have been run through the mill. I don't agree with you on everything [the wars] but on finances I do agree on, and you've been right on finances. And America is just now catching up to you. How do you do it? Do you ever get so frustrated where you're just like 'I can't ring this bell anymore'?"

Ron Paul: "You know, I never use the word frustration. I tell people I just have real-low expectations and all my job is is to try and point out the truth as I understand it. You know, according to our Constitution and according to sound economic policy ..."

http://youtube.com/watch?v=BuBlLMIxcBc

From the racist newsletter:
"I've been told not to talk, but these stooges don't scare me. Threats or no threats, I've laid bare the coming race war in our big cities. The federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS (my training as a physician helps me see through this one.)"

From this one:
"They're not laughing now. And no one will be laughing when we get the 'monetary reforms' I also forsee."

Same type of garbage writing. It's not the ideas. It's that Ron Paul never talks or behaves this way, even when under constant attacks by the media and in the debates.

Why is this style of writing completely absent from his actual works and only found in these newsletter-type things?

Freedom Under Siege – Ron Paul, 1988
PDF: http://mises.org/resources/3212
HTML: http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:Ok44B0esvSQJ:mises.org/resources/3212+%22freedom+under+seige%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

In this 1988 book, Ron Paul's writings are practically identical to those of today, and nothing at all like the newsletters or this newest letter.

[RonPaulR3VOLUTION goes on to address some of the, "shameless self-promotion" and pleas for money that occur in certain newsletters] As for the shilling in this letter, compare it to this:

"I live in Dr. Pauls district and I have watched him for many years.
...
"97% of his campaign donations here come from individuals. The next closest is Sheila Jackson-Lee of D-Houston who gets 67% from individuals.
He wont even ask for a donation!
He makes no phone calls, NOTHING.
Once a year a little mailer comes with the bills he has written, the state of our district and his wifes famous recipes!
Nothing about a contibution!
In the back of the mailer there is a little envelope with a disclaimer and a stamp.
Thats it!
It is so cute.
He wont EVEN ask!"

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=81845

[Austin]

In the newsletters, the author mentions GQ magazine.

Fast forward to 2007 and Ron Paul gets nominated for Man of the Year in GQ magazine. Jesse Benton informs Ron that GQ wants to profile him:


“GQ wants to profile you on Thursday,” Benton continues. “I think it’s worth doing.”

“GTU?” the candidate replies.

“GQ. It’s a men’s magazine.”

“Don’t know much about that,” Paul says.

Source (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html)