OK, Ron Paul, You Say You're Not a Racist, Prove It
Ron Paul and his backers can sail through the ceiling, scream foul until their lungs burst, and say that it's all a big conspiracy by mainstream media hit artists, a Paul hating and fearful political establishment, and on the make Republican and Democrats to smear and slander their hero as a racist. But the one that has done more to fan charges that Paul is a closet bigot is Paul himself in writings and sentiments that express racist views that purportedly carried Paul's stamp on them.
Paul is, of course, outraged every time those embarrassing newsletters written in the 1990s with racially front loaded inflammatory quips about and bash of blacks, and now as it turns out gays, keep publicly cropping up. They cropped up again recently on CNN. The Paul-attributed digs and insults call blacks chronic welfare grifters, thugs, lousy parents, say they are inherently racist toward whites, and supposedly admonished whites to get their guns because the animals are coming. Paul vehemently denies that he said any of those things.
But there's a colossal problem with his denial. The quips appeared in his officially approved newsletters. There is no evidence that he wrote a correction, issued a clarification, or if, as some Paul groupies claim, they were written by someone else, that he publicly disavowed and fired that someone else. Since Paul did none of those things it begs the question whether those views truly represent his feelings or not. He didn't disown them at the time. He loudly protests them now because he has to. He has revved up a motley group of disaffected, disgruntled, naïve, wet-behind-the-ear teenie boppers, and political malcontents who crave for someone, anyone, to snub their nose at the political establishment. But their mix of blind adulation and desperation translates out into more media and public scrutiny than Paul has ever gotten. And that in turn has meant that his past, or alleged past words, are now wide open for public dissection and accountability. That riles up Paul backers who go nuts over any hint that he is anything less than the second coming of St. Paul and Mother Theresa.
Even if Paul, as he claims, didn't write or utter one of the offensive words, or hold the sentiments, that are attributed to him, his odd mish mash of ultra conservatism and libertarian spoutings marks him as suspect. The cornerstone of the jumble is his view of government and what it should or should not do about civil rights. Paul holds that government should have minimal or better still no role in civil rights laws and enforcement. The government passed and enforced civil rights laws, did nothing to solve the country's racial ills, and worse, fueled even more racial polarization, he says. That old, worn, and thoroughly discredited view warms the hearts of the packs of closet bigots that pine for the old days when racial and gender discrimination was the American norm and government did little to protect black and gay rights.
Paul piles even more suspicion on his denial of racial bias when he even more absurdly tries to claim that he is pounded as a racist because more and more blacks cheer him for blasting the drug laws as biased and harmful to blacks. The disparities in drug law enforcement are gaping, and demand reform, but urging that they be totally scrapped is a far different matter.
The drug plague and the crime, violence, and family wreckage that has come with it has torn poor black communities and has caused much pain and suffering among African-Americans. The last thing that the majority of African-Americans want to see is open and unchecked illicit drug selling bizarres operating in their communities. Blacks have been among those that have shouted the loudest for crackdowns on crime and drugs.
Despite what Paul says, there is absolutely no evidence that he has gotten, or will get any traction, with black voters on the drug issue. He is a fringe candidate with white voters, and that includes GOP voters, and he is a complete non-entity with black voters.
The Paul newsletters are damning enough, and if any of the racist stuff in them is true, that instantly disqualifies him as fit to run for any national office. And those that defend those views should be branded as what they are, bigots and crackpots.
So here's my challenge to Paul to prove that he didn't say or mean any of the racial jibes in the newsletters. Issue a clear and direct public statement, and that's not an off the cuff denial in a CNN interview, or on any other broadcast network, that says I fully support all civil rights laws, will work hard against racial and gender profiling, and will push government economic support initiatives to boost minorities and the poor. That's the challenge for Paul. Don't hold your breath waiting for him to accept it.
Earl Ofari Hutchinson is an author and political analyst. His forthcoming book is The Ethnic Presidency: How Race Decides the Race to the White House (Middle Passage Press, February, 2008).
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Know who your candidates have advising them. To the four winds this information goes.
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1595
Earl, do you agree or disagree with Hillary that LBJ desrves the credit for passage of civil rights legislation?
FYI.
On the Tucker Carlson that so called "journalist" broke the story in regards to the Newsletters. He also mentioned a person by the "Thomas DiLorenzo" and here is what he had to say:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/018418.html
Comeon, Earl. How can anyone prove a negative? Why don't you prove you are not predjudice.
I will try again. It is not really that significant a matter. If you are going to question RP, question Hillary. She, who just stepped on Dr. King's and the citizens who walked with him. Challenge Romney, challenge Giuliani by deed.
Let us not get lost in this okey-doke. In a racist culture, racism is a normal thing. The question is if we all wish to continue living this way.
Whatever one thinks of Ron Paul, after 2008 and he is doing the doctor thing again, all those organizations that are claimed to support him will still be here with all of the ones that are not mentioned here.
Renounce racism, let the racists take care of themselves.
You're right. Paul's remarks are biased, hurtful & racist. Here are some other racist comments that have always troubled me:
'Hymies.' 'Hymietown.' -- Jesse Jackson's description of New York City while on the 1984 presidential campaign trail.
"Jews " that's J-E-W-S." -- Democratic state representative Bill McKinney on why his daughter Cynthia lost in 2002
(On Clarence Thomas) "A handkerchief-head, chicken-and-biscuit-eating Uncle Tom."
-- Spike Lee
(I) "will not let the white boys win in this election."
-- Donna Brazile, Al Gore's Campaign Manager on the 2000 election
"I want to go up to the closest white person and say: 'You can't understand this, it's a black thing' and then slap him, just for my mental health."
-- Charles Barron, a New York city councilman at a reparations rally, 2002
"There are white n*ggers. I've seen a lot of white n*ggers in my time." -- US Senator Robert Byrd in March of 2001
Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
-Senator Hillary Clinton, (USA Today)
Earl, this article is a disgusting follow up to the last article, again completely ignoring droves of written material and testimonial experiential evidence of associates of Dr. Paul.
Another Smear, only this one requires Paul to kowtow to your politically correct social-justice big-government agenda. No libertarian would support the third item in your list without further clarification, simply because a government hand-out is near anathema to their political thinking, and the first two are already directly supported by Dr. Paul in principle and in writing.
Answer to this individuals arguments:
http://stewart-rhodes.blogspot.com/2008/01/i-am-mexican-american-i-worked-for-ron.html
I call on you to retract this abominable smear and join those who want to eliminate the scourge of racism and realize that only disagree on methods, and can come to an agreement that does not compromise anyone's principles.
I think this is a bullshit challenge. You know he won't do that because thats not what he believes in. And because he won't do it, you get to label him a racist. Thats notfair to Ron Paul or what he believes.
You really expect Ron Paul, a limited, small government libertarian to basically throw those views away, in favor of big government intervention programs just to prove thats hes not a racist?
Thats like asking Rudy Giulliani to stop mentioning 9/11 every third word.
Ron Paul is a lot of things. But Ron Paul is NOT racist. He believes in Individual rights, not group rights. You think that makes him racist. Thats your opinion. It's wrong, but you're entitled to it.
And if you think he's going to call for "economic support initiatives" you absolutely have no idea who Ron Paul is or what he stands for.
And i say this, not as a memeber of the "ron paul cult" as it has been derided as. I'm supporting Obama. But I respect Paul. In a different time, I might actually vote for him. He believes in the constitution, which, is refreshing because he's probably the only Republican left who does.
And this is Congressman Paul's statement on the newsletter issue (although i'm sure it won't be good enough for you):
“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’
“When I was out of Congress and practicing medicine full-time, a newsletter was published under my name that I did not edit. Several writers contributed to the product.For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”
Earl, Prove that YOUR not a racist. Or can we reread all your angry black man posts, Straw Boss.
Well sir, I wouldn't hold my breath either, because Mr. Paul will probably never read this article in order to take up your charge. However, round-about, Ron Paul has been taking up your challenge ever since he has been in congress fighting for the constitution and the battle AGAINST special services to ANYONE and EVERYONE.
Ron Paul has nothing to prove. When I read this article (the original) I was thinking, "This doesn't sound like Paul's lit. form at all." It sounds nothing like him, so I was not surprised to find him saying he did not write it. Mistakes happen, and Paul admits he should have had responsibility over it from going out, but he was unaware until it originally surfaced. I believe him. If you observe his policies and what he has been and is saying... you will know he is no racist.
"OK, Ron Paul, You Say You're Not a Racist, Prove It"
First, It is a silly Title. You can not prove you are not something, can you? Really.
Next, why don't you prove he is. I think that the real dark secret in the US is that we - like very other human on earth - are racist or sexist or whatever "ist" or "phobic" you want to talk about. It is and ever shall be.
Last. The Rule of Law. It is not important what prejudices we each harbor in our hearts, it is important that those prejudices do not factor greatly into the Law. The fact is that it does (Percy vs. Ferguson, Dred Scot) but the other fact is that we have a checks and balance system that over time corrects the Law to refect the stated purpose of the Governemnt/People of the United States.
The news letters are disturbing, but is there evidence that Paul has ever introduced legislation or vote for legislation was overtly racist in intent or tone?
If that is the case, then that is important.
I think there are a lot of Pots here calling Kettles names.
"Morality is simply the attitude we adopt towards people whom we personally dislike."
The libertarian crowd does attract 'the circle the wagons' whites. And in my years in the military I met more than a few bigots (of all colors) so it's no surprise he could stay under the radar if he watched where he spoke.
I wonder if he penned any of those articles or just let others (the kind of evil where you let others do what you'd like to do).
I'm more curious to know if those were his views and if he's changed because on the campaign trail I've never heard him talk about race.
Nice try, Earl, asking someone to prove a negative - not possible. On top of that, you ask him to prove he's not a racist by favoring one race over another.
I sense you've made up your mind on this issue and no statement will go far enough to change it.
The funny thing that no one mentions is that the claim that "20 years of newsletters contained racist and hate speech" is an utter and blatant lie. The majority of the comments that are being toss around the media came from a period from 1990 to 1991. This was when Paul was out of politics, traveling and giving speeches, and building up his medical practice.
On top of all that, none of this is "new news" -- while many of you might be hearing about it for the first time, it has been known for years that these newsletters existed. In 1996, the Democrats in Texas used these letters against him but later had to retract the claims since an extensive expose in the Houston Chronicle showed that he had little if nothing to do with the contents of any of the newsletters. On July 22nd, 2007 the NY Times covered Paul and briefly mentioned the newsletters but mentioned how they were found to not have been written by Paul or have had any involvement by Paul.
It is a common practice for politicians to have newsletters written under their name by ghostwriters and/or close staff. Ron Paul is guilty of one thing, it's for letting people use his name on materials that he didn't check. It was stupid of him, to say the least. He has apologized numerous times that he allowed this type of garbage to go out under his name.
Before you get out your pitchforks and torches, I encourage everyone to look at the facts and do some independent research. The author of this article suggests that Paul is guilty until proven innocent, and must pander to the black community to prove that he isn't racist? Does this even make sense?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
