bobbyw24
12-26-2011, 11:34 AM
The controversy involves a genuine lapse in judgment by Congressman Paul, though one distorted and exaggerated by some of his establishment political opponents. Beginning in 1984 (as his first stint in Congress drew to a close) and continuing until his return to Congress in 1997, Dr. Paul started a series of newsletters and went back to his obstetrics practice. The newsletters were named Ron Paul's Political Report, Ron Paul's Freedom Report, the Ron Paul Survival Report, and the Ron Paul Investment Letter. Some were biweekly, while others were monthly. Paul also hired a half-dozen people to write the newsletters under his name, and in the process one or more of those ghostwriters slipped in a handful of overtly racist remarks, including the following statements from different newsletter editions:
The newsletter controversy has generated a wave of revulsion from establishment political sources that have long opposed just about all of Paul's limited-government political principles. Time magazine's Joe Klein opined: "They are replete with hateful filth. They disqualify him from the presidency." (Actually, the genuinely offensive material is limited to less than a handful of remarks. That hardly qualifies as "filled.") Likewise, the neoconservative National Review's Rich Lowery derisively wrote December 20 that "the newsletters ... would be disqualifying for anyone else."
But the newsletter controversy only demonstrates that Paul exercised poor management over employees' statements in a relatively minor part of his career (he focused upon his medical practice during this time period), a managerial mistake he hasn't repeated in the 15 years since he returned to Congress. It's a genuine negative for Paul, but it's a small negative. No one in Washington is willing to call Paul a racist, and few have questioned his honesty on the newsletter issue (though Time's Klein did).
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10326-ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters
The newsletter controversy has generated a wave of revulsion from establishment political sources that have long opposed just about all of Paul's limited-government political principles. Time magazine's Joe Klein opined: "They are replete with hateful filth. They disqualify him from the presidency." (Actually, the genuinely offensive material is limited to less than a handful of remarks. That hardly qualifies as "filled.") Likewise, the neoconservative National Review's Rich Lowery derisively wrote December 20 that "the newsletters ... would be disqualifying for anyone else."
But the newsletter controversy only demonstrates that Paul exercised poor management over employees' statements in a relatively minor part of his career (he focused upon his medical practice during this time period), a managerial mistake he hasn't repeated in the 15 years since he returned to Congress. It's a genuine negative for Paul, but it's a small negative. No one in Washington is willing to call Paul a racist, and few have questioned his honesty on the newsletter issue (though Time's Klein did).
http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/10326-ron-paul-and-the-racist-newsletters