View Full Version : Capitol Hill Blue apologizes
TexMac
07-07-2007, 03:21 PM
I don't know how many of you caught the spectacularly hateful hit piece on Ron Paul that Capitol Hill Blue ran yesterday, but it was a doozy. Here's the last bit (only part I saved) on why they weren't going to allow comments on their smearjob:
(EDITORS NOTE: Because of the documented practice of Ron Paul's campaign of spamming web sites to try and artificially inflate their already-discredited claims of widespread support and our own experience with the underhanded and unethical tactics of his supporters, we have suspended comments on this story. This web site does not serve as a shill for any political campaign and we will not allow it to be used by Paul's small but loud legion of unethical supporters to spread misinformation or perpetuate their candidate's record of deception and hate. As we do with all elected officials of candidates for public office, we will continue to report misdeeds of the Paul's campaign and expose it for the sham that it is.)
Yes, the article was even worse. I'll try to find more of it, but that bit above is representative of the tone.
Apparently, there were several of these pieces and one was up today. Here's where an anti-Pauler posted it on Digg, with the title "Ron Paul "Spammers" Catch the Attention of the FBI."
Ironically, the link now goes to this:
Good grief!
July 7, 2007 - 5:38pm.
Wow, I take off a few days for the 4th of July holiday and all hell breaks loose.
I took a break from editing Blue during the 4th of July week and it seems that a few articles were posted that were not what I would have done (or approved) and some felt were my work. A friend that I left in charge incorrectly assumed that my lack of support for a particular candidate meant he could declare open season on that candidate. He was wrong and I apologize for his misuse of this web site. The articles posted have been removed.
Longtime readers of this site know I always sign anything that I write and if it doesn't have my name on it, I didn't write it. Just because I don't like a particular candidate or their past or positions is no excuse to use this web site to declare war.
A lot of volunteers put in a lot of time and effort helping keep Blue up and running and I sometimes have to step in and bring things back under control.
I ask readers to remember that three people post comments under the heading of "editor" or use my login ID to edit articles and that when I post a comment, an article or a column I always sign my name to it. If it does not have my byline ("By Doug Thompson") or my postscript at the end ("--Doug" or "--Doug Thompson") at the end, I did not write it.
Likewise, I do not close articles or columns to comment. Each columnist on this web site has the option of opening or closing his or her writing to comments but editors do not have the authority to close an existing article to comments. The fact that one did was a mistake that has been corrected and the readers of Capitol Hill Blue have my apologies that it happened.
--Doug Thompson
Too funny.
So, go Digg it! (http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Ron_Paul_Spammers_Catch_the_Attention_of_the_FBI)
angelatc
07-07-2007, 03:23 PM
This guy is such a liar. He's like the DC Enquirer.
MozoVote
07-07-2007, 03:29 PM
I refuse to dignify that with a digg.
Interesting he does not mention Dr Paul's name in the apology.
People should email him and ask him to do a fair piece on Ron Paul to make up for the mistakes of his staff.
EDIT: I just checked the CHB site and he does mention Dr Paul in the apology, I guess he updated it.
austin356
07-07-2007, 03:41 PM
Interesting he does not mention Dr Paul's name in the apology.
People should email him and ask him to do a fair piece on Ron Paul to make up for the mistakes of his staff.
come'on let him be......... haven't we caused enough trouble over at CHB?
:D :confused: :D :confused: :eek:
If we start going overboard the only response of people will be that of the Hannity forum. They only fight you harder, demonize you, and then block you. Not because they want to go so far as to keep your ideas from being heard but because of tactics.
angrydragon
07-07-2007, 03:44 PM
Hahaha very funny.
Kuldebar
07-07-2007, 03:47 PM
It appears to be a tad bit premature to start passing out kisses and hugs.
Ron Paul Supporters Catching Attention of the FBI? LINK (http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=18533&ret=Default.aspx)
Washington D.C. 7/7/2007 8:28 PM GMT (TransWorldNews - Top Story)
CapitolHillBlue.com is reporting several threatening voicemails to its office after recent reports of less than expected fundraising numbers from the campaign. The web site would like to caution all supporters of any campaign that making a phone threat across states lines is considered a federal crime.
The article that they posted is titled Spam Squad. You can clearly see the disgust that they had in dealing with supporters of the Ron Paul community.
USAElectionPolls.com has recently caught onto the strong Ron Paul support but instead of downplaying or censoring his supporters enthusiasm like other websites, they are criticizing the supporters of the other campaigns. "Ron Paul supporters are writing blogs, posting Youtube videos, getting on Digg and Technorati. Other campaigns hire online bloggers to work for them, Ron Paul has an army of online bloggers working for free. The story should be how Ron Paul is saving millions of dollars in online advertising because of his supporters being on Digg, YouTube, Technorati, Meetup, Eventful. And of the lack of enthusiasm the supporters of other campaigns have in the new political world. Not how a few individuals become abusive." says USAElectionPolls.com.
USAElectionPolls.com currently has a "Digg'ing contest" for its candidate pages. Ron Paul is leading his second highest competitor Mitt Romney, 508-10
Also see this forum thread:
Something Has to Be Done About Doug Thompson (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=5838)
GoRonPaul
07-07-2007, 03:50 PM
Wow! Just wow! Look at that backpeddling... the excuses... fantastic! Onward Pauliacs!
Whoa, just saw the post before mine... I hope the threats turns out to be nothing...
Bradley in DC
07-07-2007, 04:03 PM
Ignore him, he wants to boost his web traffic. We've seen this previously from other sites. Let's use some self-discipline and keep him irrelevent.
Sounds like somebody heard from Google. :D
That is great. I have no trouble accepting his explanation. Remember we should establish good relations, and free trade with all :) Hopefully, this will catch on as a good story in the media. In my opinion, it is good publicity, and that's all. We need more of that.
Avalon
07-07-2007, 04:32 PM
That is great. I have no trouble accepting his explanation. Remember we should establish good relations, and free trade with all :) Hopefully, this will catch on as a good story in the media. In my opinion, it is good publicity, and that's all. We need more of that.
No it's not. He didn't even comment on the content or really even apologize...he just said it was against his policy and has been removed. It leaves the reader asking her/himself "What were the allegations? Were they true?"
klamath
07-07-2007, 04:37 PM
Accept his apology and move on. When someone writes a bad piece about RP and there is a comment section rebut their points and move on. You will never change the writers mind but the readers will have the pro and con to make up their own minds. Very angry comments will not help our cause.
Spirit of '76
07-07-2007, 04:38 PM
Guys, whatever the case, I say we let this one go for now. The offending content has been removed, Thompson has apologized for allowing things to get out of hand, we're allowed to post at Capitol Hill Blue again.
That sounds like victory for now. Thompson says he wants to keep things civil. So do I.
No it's not. He didn't even comment on the content or really even apologize...he just said it was against his policy and has been removed. It leaves the reader asking her/himself "What were the allegations? Were they true?"
True, that could be the case. It seems like his regular readers were unhappy with the articles though. Essentially, he discredited and removed the articles, saying: "sorry, someone got a hold of my keyboard and wrote swear words". Anyone who are in doubt after reading that are probably beyond our reach anyway. Even before his apology, I think the articles looked more at home on a political satire site.
At any rate, I have no trouble accepting his statement, and I do think this is good publicity. We can always argue that he should have made more of an apology, but people are different like that.
Spirit of '76
07-07-2007, 04:43 PM
By the way, folks, I'm pretty sure he's reading this.
Hi, Doug. Thanks for choosing the high road. :)
hells_unicorn
07-07-2007, 04:47 PM
Doug Thompson should have explained in a little more depth exactly what was wrong with the articles he removed, but this is good enough for me, we have more important things to do than drag this out.
Oddball
07-07-2007, 04:49 PM
If we start going overboard the only response of people will be that of the Hannity forum. They only fight you harder, demonize you, and then block you. Not because they want to go so far as to keep your ideas from being heard but because of tactics.
Quite correct.
Bryan
07-07-2007, 04:56 PM
I'm of the leave it be view. It's actually kind of ironic that this puts Doug in the same camp as Dr. Paul and the racist allegations, someone else wrote something for their news outlet that has some issues with it and they take the heat for. I say that if we expect people to drop the racist allegations against Dr. Paul than there is no harm in doing the same here.
Prior to all the Ron Paul hit pieces I had read some good works on CHB that I liked and thought it was a good site. I don't mind that Doug (or anyone) has opposing views but I do hope that they can be expressed in responsible means for the benefit of all.
Thanks to Spirit of '76 for his media watchdog efforts here.
Doug Thompson
07-07-2007, 04:56 PM
I have modified the post and explained that they were irresponsible slams against the Ron Paul campaign. I believe it would be detrimental to repeat what was actually said in those articles. I felt they were not appropriate, have said so, and have apologized.
I've also explained to our readers that the editor who tried to be cute by claiming the FBI had been called in was irresponsible and is no longer an editor on my site. Longtime readers of Capitol Hill Blue know that I hate the FBI with a passion and would rather be in Gitmo than ever get involved with them and give them any access to anything that I do.
But please understand:
1--No pressure was brought by any advertiser of Capitol Hill Blue or by any organization to which I belong or participate in. If a complaint was filed, as was suggested elsewhere on this forum, it has not been brought to my attention.
2--The articles were removed because I felt they were inappropriate and not because of any drop in traffic. In fact, the three articles tallied the highest number of visits for the past week and our traffic was up, not down. Removing the articles will, in reality, reduce our traffic because the links no longer work. Traffic is not a concern at CHB. We've been on the web since 1994 and the site is a labor of love for all involved. It is not a commercial venture. All ad revenue is donated to our campaign reform foundation, The Campaign for Our America.
My thanks to Kent and others for bringing this to my attention.
Doug Thompson
Capitol Hill Blue
cajuncocoa
07-07-2007, 04:58 PM
Yes, I think he is reading this. His response to me over there seems to suggest so.
I'm fine with accepting the apology, dropping it, and for being civil for now. But I would not have been able to live with myself if I hadn't gone over there to point out the hypocrisy between criticizing RP for a newsletter that he didn't send and DT's backpeddling over an article that he claims he didn't write.
Now, with the hope that Mr. Thompson can understand how that is possible, I will let this go.
I'm of the leave it be view. It's actually kind of ironic that this puts Doug in the same camp as Dr. Paul and the racist allegations, someone else wrote something for their news outlet that has some issues with it and they take the heat for. I say that if we expect people to drop the racist allegations against Dr. Paul than there is no harm in doing the same here.
Prior to all the Ron Paul hit pieces I had read some good works on CHB that I liked and thought it was a good site. I don't mind that Doug (or anyone) has opposing views but I do hope that they can be expressed in responsible means for the benefit of all.
Thanks to Spirit of '76 for his media watchdog efforts here.
That is an insightful comment. I hadn't seen that similarity myself. You are exactly right.
Oddball
07-07-2007, 05:01 PM
I have modified the post and explained that they were irresponsible slams against the Ron Paul campaign. I believe it would be detrimental to repeat what was actually said in those articles. I felt they were not appropriate, have said so, and have apologized.
I've also explained to our readers that the editor who tried to be cute by claiming the FBI had been called in was irresponsible and is no longer an editor on my site. Longtime readers of Capitol Hill Blue know that I hate the FBI with a passion and would rather be in Gitmo than ever get involved with them and give them any access to anything that I do.
But please understand:
1--No pressure was brought by any advertiser of Capitol Hill Blue or by any organization to which I belong or participate in. If a complaint was filed, as was suggested elsewhere on this forum, it has not been brought to my attention.
2--The articles were removed because I felt they were inappropriate and not because of any drop in traffic. In fact, the three articles tallied the highest number of visits for the past week and our traffic was up, not down. Removing the articles will, in reality, reduce our traffic because the links no longer work. Traffic is not a concern at CHB. We've been on the web since 1994 and the site is a labor of love for all involved. It is not a commercial venture. All ad revenue is donated to our campaign reform foundation, The Campaign for Our America.
My thanks to Kent and others for bringing this to my attention.
Doug Thompson
Capitol Hill Blue
Thanks, Doug.
Despite the voluminous fanatacism of a very small minority of Dr. Paul supporters, many of us do recognize and appreciate sincerity when we get it. :)
angrydragon
07-07-2007, 05:08 PM
Yah thanks Doug.
Doug Thompson
07-07-2007, 05:10 PM
Thanks, Doug.
Despite the voluminous fanatacism of a very small minority of Dr. Paul supporters, many of us do recognize and appreciate sincerity when we get it. :)
Thanks Oddball. I'm fascinated, and impressed, by the amount of buzz that the campaign has generated on the 'Net and will probably write about it in the near future. I'll watch Dr. Paul's interview with ABC tomorrow with an open mind.
--Doug
Oddball
07-07-2007, 05:14 PM
Seems you'll have a good topic to write about. He just won the NH straw poll. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
angelatc
07-07-2007, 05:16 PM
Thanks Oddball. I'm fascinated, and impressed, by the amount of buzz that the campaign has generated on the 'Net and will probably write about it in the near future. I'll watch Dr. Paul's interview with ABC tomorrow with an open mind.
--Doug
I hope you do.
Kuldebar
07-07-2007, 05:17 PM
I've also explained to our readers that the editor who tried to be cute by claiming the FBI had been called in was irresponsible and is no longer an editor on my site. Longtime readers of Capitol Hill Blue know that I hate the FBI with a passion and would rather be in Gitmo than ever get involved with them and give them any access to anything that I do.
OK, if Thompson did state this, then I can only commend him for his statement. The apology quoted earlier flew in the face of a recent report disparaging (http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=18533&ret=Default.aspx)Ron Paul supporters even further.
angrydragon
07-07-2007, 05:23 PM
OK, if Thompson did state this, then I can only commend him for his statement. The apology quoted earlier flew in the face of a recent report disparaging (http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?storyid=18533&ret=Default.aspx)Ron Paul supporters even further.
I just sent them an email to update or change their article.
Doug Thompson
07-07-2007, 05:27 PM
Yes, I think he is reading this. His response to me over there seems to suggest so.
I'm fine with accepting the apology, dropping it, and for being civil for now. But I would not have been able to live with myself if I hadn't gone over there to point out the hypocrisy between criticizing RP for a newsletter that he didn't send and DT's backpeddling over an article that he claims he didn't write.
Now, with the hope that Mr. Thompson can understand how that is possible, I will let this go.
You were correct to point this out but if I write something that is wrong I take responsibility for it and apologize and I've screwed up big time over the years and had to eat a lot of humble pie. :(
I also own Capitol Hill Blue and I'm responsible for anything that is published on it whether I write it or not. I took responsibility for what was published, even if I didn't write it, and apologized to our readers.
I've read the Free Market News article about the newsletter and the USA Today political blog and both refer to a Texas Monthly article in 2001 where Dr. Paul says he didn't write the newsletter article in question. I pulled up the Texas Monthly article on Nexis and it does not say Dr. Paul fired the staff member in question or did he specifically disavow the quote. He simply said he would not say such a thing "in a campaign" and that the article in question was written by someone else. If someone has a link to another article that quotes him more specifically about firing a staff member for writing the article or where he says he does not believe what was written it would be helpful to read it. If I could find it I would pass it on to my readers.
Thanks.
Doug
TexMac
07-07-2007, 05:29 PM
Thanks Oddball. I'm fascinated, and impressed, by the amount of buzz that the campaign has generated on the 'Net and will probably write about it in the near future. I'll watch Dr. Paul's interview with ABC tomorrow with an open mind.
--Doug
Thanks, Doug!
angrydragon
07-07-2007, 05:33 PM
I'm not sure if Eric is the same person that wrote the remarks, but he was fired by Ron.
Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
Are you referring the this FMNN article?
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
angelatc
07-07-2007, 05:34 PM
I also own Capitol Hill Blue and I'm responsible for anything that is published on it whether I write it or not. I took responsibility for what was published, even if I didn't write it, and apologized to our readers.
Which is, at least as far as I understand, just about the same way the racist remarks in that newsletter with Dr Paul's name on it were handled.
FreedomLover
07-07-2007, 05:41 PM
Hey Doug,
I said a couple mean things about you on this forum on the assumption that you wrote the article, but I want to apologize for it now, it was nothing personal.
I think you're a great guy for manning up and letting everyone know what happened and pulling the articles however. I appreciate it. :)
GoRonPaul
07-07-2007, 05:45 PM
We don't know if that's truly Doug or not... But if that is you, Doug, let me tell you that I'm also originally from Farmville, Virginia, way back when...
I went to High School there at Prince Edward Academy. I'm in a completely different world now. And, I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I'm not a pimple-faced kid, but a concerned citizen and international businessman. Anyway, I appreciate your consideration and newly found respect for Ron Paul. I'll look forward to any new articles from Capital Hill Blue regarding the Paul campaign with anticipation...
Regards,
Typical Ron Paul Supporter
Kuldebar
07-07-2007, 05:50 PM
If someone has a link to another article that quotes him more specifically about firing a staff member for writing the article or where he says he does not believe what was written it would be helpful to read it. If I could find it I would pass it on to my readers.
Thanks.
Doug
There's a Hit&Run piece that brings up the newsletter with recent Ron Paul quoted response:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120337.html
A related FMNN piece:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41721
The only reference to a fired staffer directly by Paul is concerning Eric Dondero:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
PatriotOne
07-07-2007, 05:56 PM
Seems you'll have a good topic to write about. He just won the NH straw poll. http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
Holy smokes. He won by a landslide :eek: :D
July 07, 2007
Press Release: Ron Paul Wins Big
Ron Paul Wins Big in First New Hampshire Straw Poll
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 7, 2007
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – Presidential candidate Ron Paul today won the Coalition for New Hampshire Taxpayers (CNHT) straw poll at their annual picnic in Hopkinton, New Hampshire. Dr. Paul received 182 of 294 votes cast, or 65 percent. In second place was Rudy Giuliani with 24 votes, or 8 percent.
"Today's strong victory is further proof that Dr. Paul's message is resonating throughout New Hampshire," said campaign manager Lew Moore. "Dr. Paul is the only candidate in this race truly dedicated to smaller government and lower taxes for all Americans."
CNHT is a statewide, grassroots organization dedicated to reducing the size of government at all levels, stopping judicial activism, providing students and parents with a choice of educational opportunities, expanding job markets, and protecting property rights.
dmitchell
07-07-2007, 06:16 PM
Thanks Doug. It is infuriating to see your candidate singled out for such abuse, especially when the odds against him are already so high. Thanks again, you have my respect.
Doug Thompson
07-07-2007, 06:25 PM
I'm not sure if Eric is the same person that wrote the remarks, but he was fired by Ron.
Reason: Your former staffer Eric Dondero is challenging you for your House seat in 2008.
Paul: He's a disgruntled former employee who was fired.
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/120338.html
Are you referring the this FMNN article?
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
Yes that was the Free Market News article. The article quoted anonymous sources for the newsletter article and did not quote Dr. Paul as disavowing the article or saying that a staff member was fired, which is the claim that was posted on our site. The Reason blog post deals with the AIPAC issue and not the statements concerning blacks. Dr. Paul says:
I'd have to have you show to me that I wrote it because that doesn't sound like my language, and in campaigns, some things get into newspapers that aren't actually correct. In politics we call that a non-denial denial. :D
As a journalist, the whole thing raises some questions.
1--The newsletter was published in 1992. Why weren't the contents disavowed then? Perhaps, as the Free Market News article suggests, he did not know what was in the newsletter.
2--But he did know about it when it became a campaign issue in 1996 in a Houston Chronicle article where Dr. Paul appeared to say the words were his:
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."
If there words were not his, why not say so at the time?
3--In 2001, five years after it was an issue in a campaign and nine years after the newsletter was published, he says the words were not written by him. But again the Texas Monthly article does not say anything about a staff member being fired for writing the article nor does Dr. Paul say he he did not know what was being published in the newsletter.
These kind of time lapses are what raise red flags not only with journalists but also with political opponents. Free Market News says the newsletter company published the comments without Dr. Paul's approval but does not quote Dr. Paul as confirming this nor does the story provide any quotes by any newsletter company official on the record.. He says in 2001 that he did not write the words but does not disavow them. A story circulates that a staff member was fired over the newsletter article but a search does not turn up a quote from Dr. Paul or his staff that confirms this.
I'm not saying that this did not happen but as long as there are gaps in the timeline or a lack of a definitive statement from Dr. Paul that disavows what was said and confirms that a staff member was dismissed, it remains an undocumented claim that can be used by the opposition. I can tell you as a former political operative who worked on a number of GOP campaigns that this is the kind of thing we would jump all over in an opponent's record.
I have Dr. Paul's statement regarding racism and it is a well-worded generic comment on the subject but does not specifically address the issues raised in the newsletter article. His quotes to the Houston Chronicle, if correct, suggest that he agrees with the statements in the newsletter because it reflects what may have been the sentiments at the time.
As one who knows first hand what can happen when something is done by someone else I'd prefer to give Dr. Paul the benefit of the doubt but it needs to be more fully documented and explained. If he does emerge as a serious contender for the nomination it will become an issue and the explanation offered so far probably will not put the issue to rest.
Any additional information that anyone has would be most appreciated. If we can document it we will print it and tell the full story.
Thanks.
--Doug
cujothekitten
07-07-2007, 06:29 PM
Hi Doug, have you tried contacting the campaign to ask them about it?
Bryan
07-07-2007, 06:43 PM
Here are some past discussion here on the racism topic- I thought the first one is an interesting approach even if it doesn't definitively prove anything:
Ron Paul racism text comparison
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=3277
Is Ron Paul A Racist?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=3830
Be Prepared to Deal With This Sort of Stuff
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=557
Since everyone is being nice :) I'd like to point out my favorite piece by Doug. Quite sincerely, this writing helped validate my sorrow and lift my spirits in that someone with a stronger voice then my own wrote what I couldn't during what I see as one of our countries darkest moments in recent history- the Supreme Courts New London eminent domain ruling.
The Day America Died
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jun 24, 2005, 07:13
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6926.shtml
It remains for rulings and words such as these as to why I am here now fighting for our liberties.
angrydragon
07-07-2007, 06:47 PM
How about setting up an interview with Congressman Ron Paul and Doug Thompson of CHB?
Bryan, that's a good article by Doug.
Oddball
07-07-2007, 06:47 PM
Since everyone is being nice :) I'd like to point out my favorite piece by Doug. Quite sincerely, this writing helped validate my sorrow and lift my spirits in that someone with a stronger voice then my own wrote what I couldn't during what I see as one of our countries darkest moments in recent history- the Supreme Courts New London eminent domain ruling.
The Day America Died
By DOUG THOMPSON
Jun 24, 2005, 07:13
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_6926.shtml
It remains for rulings and words such as these as to why I am here now fighting for our liberties.
So many positive waves...How can we lose?? :D
You were correct to point this out but if I write something that is wrong I take responsibility for it and apologize and I've screwed up big time over the years and had to eat a lot of humble pie. :(
I also own Capitol Hill Blue and I'm responsible for anything that is published on it whether I write it or not. I took responsibility for what was published, even if I didn't write it, and apologized to our readers.
I've read the Free Market News article about the newsletter and the USA Today political blog and both refer to a Texas Monthly article in 2001 where Dr. Paul says he didn't write the newsletter article in question. I pulled up the Texas Monthly article on Nexis and it does not say Dr. Paul fired the staff member in question or did he specifically disavow the quote. He simply said he would not say such a thing "in a campaign" and that the article in question was written by someone else. If someone has a link to another article that quotes him more specifically about firing a staff member for writing the article or where he says he does not believe what was written it would be helpful to read it. If I could find it I would pass it on to my readers.
Thanks.
Doug
Doug, do you have a link to the Texas Monthly article? These are the excerpts that have been on Wikipedia but I would like to see the whole thing.
"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.'"
He further stated:
"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... we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."[12]
It sounds to me like he specifically disavowed the quotes. He meant he couldn't deny them during the campaign because he had already taken responsibility for them (perhaps foolishly) on the advice of campaign staff. This interview took place long after he had been elected.
Kuldebar
07-07-2007, 06:55 PM
Newsletter in question:
http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/aol-metropolitan/96/05/23/paul.html
everything2.com information on the subject:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=377205
Important quote:
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.
Electrostatic
07-07-2007, 06:56 PM
Thank you Doug, sorry for the static, but we had all thought you had gone over the deep end...
Please accept our apologies too.
AZ Libertarian
07-07-2007, 07:07 PM
Doug - thank you for the time you have expended in the investigation of the truth in this specific issue. Any clarification surely helps Dr. Paul maintain clarity in his campaign - something sorely lacking in most other candidates.
Avalon
07-07-2007, 07:17 PM
Thanks Doug for the updates to your post and your apology here. I look forward to checking out some of your material. ;)
klamath
07-07-2007, 07:24 PM
Thanks Doug. You showed a lot of moral courage and stood above the crowd.
Doug Thompson
07-07-2007, 07:41 PM
Thanks for the additional information and links. As far as I can determine the full text of the Texas Monthly article is not online. I had to use Nexis to find it (the Lexis/Nexis subscription costs me $2.5k a month but we have to use it in our campaign finance reform work).
I'll do some additional research and will check back in. I'll also watch the interview tomorrow and then see if I can set something up to interview the Congressman.
Thanks again.
--Doug
cajuncocoa
07-07-2007, 07:42 PM
Thanks for the additional information and links. As far as I can determine the full text of the Texas Monthly article is not online. I had to use Nexis to find it (the Lexis/Nexis subscription costs me $2.5k a month but we have to use it in our campaign finance reform work).
I'll do some additional research and will check back in. I'll also watch the interview tomorrow and then see if I can set something up to interview the Congressman.
Thanks again.
--Doug
Awesome. Thanks for coming here and for the explanation. Sorry if I was a bit harsh with you.
If you missed the actual text, another site copied it (not google cache, though I'm looking for that too).
In all it's confused lies:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=193250
Or from Google's cache - the above plus two more:
http://72.14.209.104/search?q=cache:cfswu_42hIYJ:www.capitolhillblue.co m/cont/node/2529
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:EZ7Iz-AcpEMJ:www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/2861
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:4jsMhmDznZwJ:www.capitolhillblue.co m/cont/node/2838
Shmuel Spade
07-07-2007, 11:31 PM
The full text is repeated pretty constantly over at DailyKos.
Dave Trotter
07-07-2007, 11:34 PM
I'd like to add my apology to the mix, too, Doug. I posted a couple of less-than-positive responses to the aforementioned articles on your site, assuming that it was you who wrote them. I'm glad to know that it wasn't.
I've enjoyed reading your site for years, which is why the over the top tone of those articles--against someone as affable and pleasant as Ron Paul--was so surprising. I still don't get why the editor who declared war felt the particular need to declare war on Ron Paul of all candidates.
Can you give us a hint about what motivated him or her?
Thanks,
Dave
robatsu
07-07-2007, 11:50 PM
Yes that was the Free Market News article. The article quoted anonymous sources for the newsletter article and did not quote Dr. Paul as disavowing the article or saying that a staff member was fired, which is the claim that was posted on our site. The Reason blog post deals with the AIPAC issue and not the statements concerning blacks. Dr. Paul says:
I'd have to have you show to me that I wrote it because that doesn't sound like my language, and in campaigns, some things get into newspapers that aren't actually correct. In politics we call that a non-denial denial. :D
As a journalist, the whole thing raises some questions.
1--The newsletter was published in 1992. Why weren't the contents disavowed then? Perhaps, as the Free Market News article suggests, he did not know what was in the newsletter.
2--But he did know about it when it became a campaign issue in 1996 in a Houston Chronicle article where Dr. Paul appeared to say the words were his:
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."
If there words were not his, why not say so at the time?
3--In 2001, five years after it was an issue in a campaign and nine years after the newsletter was published, he says the words were not written by him. But again the Texas Monthly article does not say anything about a staff member being fired for writing the article nor does Dr. Paul say he he did not know what was being published in the newsletter.
These kind of time lapses are what raise red flags not only with journalists but also with political opponents. Free Market News says the newsletter company published the comments without Dr. Paul's approval but does not quote Dr. Paul as confirming this nor does the story provide any quotes by any newsletter company official on the record.. He says in 2001 that he did not write the words but does not disavow them. A story circulates that a staff member was fired over the newsletter article but a search does not turn up a quote from Dr. Paul or his staff that confirms this.
I'm not saying that this did not happen but as long as there are gaps in the timeline or a lack of a definitive statement from Dr. Paul that disavows what was said and confirms that a staff member was dismissed, it remains an undocumented claim that can be used by the opposition. I can tell you as a former political operative who worked on a number of GOP campaigns that this is the kind of thing we would jump all over in an opponent's record.
I have Dr. Paul's statement regarding racism and it is a well-worded generic comment on the subject but does not specifically address the issues raised in the newsletter article. His quotes to the Houston Chronicle, if correct, suggest that he agrees with the statements in the newsletter because it reflects what may have been the sentiments at the time.
As one who knows first hand what can happen when something is done by someone else I'd prefer to give Dr. Paul the benefit of the doubt but it needs to be more fully documented and explained. If he does emerge as a serious contender for the nomination it will become an issue and the explanation offered so far probably will not put the issue to rest.
Any additional information that anyone has would be most appreciated. If we can document it we will print it and tell the full story.
Thanks.
--Doug
Doug,
Let's get real about this issue. You are splitting hairs about one questionable affair 20 years in the past of a man that has 30 years in the public . Furthermore, in all this time, there is no pattern to suggest that this indicative of the man's core beliefs (look at his 400 papers on line or bill's sponsored in Congress, or speeches, etc). Certainly, everything indicates that this is a unique, isolated, anomalous incident in the otherwise blameless, decades long career of a well documented individual. Given all that, why go after this unless you do have an axe to grind.
Jay Roberts
Astoria
07-08-2007, 12:03 AM
Re the Texas Monthly article, there is a preview available online but you have to be a paid subscriber to read the entire article. The preview may be found here (http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2001-10-01/feature7).
Re. the writer of the questionable newsletter editorials and whether or not s/he was "fired". I have spent some time researching that. According to this FMNN article (http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822)
...“This was a big operation,” says one source. “And Ron Paul was a busy man. He was doctor, a politician and free-market commentator. A publication had to go out at a certain time and Ron Paul often was not around to oversee the lay out, printing or mailing. Many times he did not participate in the composition, either.”
This source and others add that publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors would write a “Ron Paul” column, under which the derogatory comments might have been issued.
If it was a guest writer that produced the derogatory newsletter articles, there would be no one to fire, would there? They just wouldn't invite that person to write for them again.
Regards
Devil_rules_in_extremes
07-08-2007, 12:04 AM
Thanks for the additional information and links. As far as I can determine the full text of the Texas Monthly article is not online. I had to use Nexis to find it (the Lexis/Nexis subscription costs me $2.5k a month but we have to use it in our campaign finance reform work).
I'll do some additional research and will check back in. I'll also watch the interview tomorrow and then see if I can set something up to interview the Congressman.
Thanks again.
--Doug
Hey Doug, I want to thank you for your correction of the record about Ron Paul. I have much respect for you now. I truly thought those were your words, and I'm glad to see that they are not.
I also want to throw my apology in here, because I said some harsh things on this forum about your website, thinking those were YOUR hit-pieces on Ron Paul. Sorry.
Thanks again, and just to ad my two cents, a CHB interview with Congressmen Paul would be great! I'm looking forward to seeing that on your website.
the objective was to get it removed right? OBJECTIVE OBTAINED!!...no matter the excuse this is what we wanted...IMO leave it alone dont harass him
SlapItHigh
07-08-2007, 01:33 AM
Thank you Doug. I have been silently following this with interest and am happy with the outcome.
thewhammy
07-08-2007, 05:38 AM
I appreciate Doug Thompson's detente here, but it raises a lot of new questions.
LibertyEagle
07-08-2007, 06:03 AM
the objective was to get it removed right? OBJECTIVE OBTAINED!!...no matter the excuse this is what we wanted...IMO leave it alone dont harass him
Yup. Leave him alone.
Bryan
07-08-2007, 09:37 AM
1. Why was the thread on the latest hit piece (in Media Matters) closed? Seems heavy-handed to me.
Understood. I closed it because the objective of the thread to analysis that specific piece was a done issue because it was retracted. I understand your point in 2b, actually it would be great if you wrote something about the issue in general with having a piece removed, maybe use the CHB as an example- that would be worthy of its own thread but if you want to just add something specific on the CHB piece I can open it back up for you.
thewhammy
07-08-2007, 04:44 PM
There's no need to open the thread back up. I was just concerned. We're freedom-loving people; no need for overmoderation. :)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.