How to Nail a Paultard, Part 1: The Rosa Park Medal

If you're reading this blog, then chances are that you find Paultards annoying. But how do you deal with a Paultard? How do you get them to shut up? How do you bring their idiocy and hypocrisy out in the open?

In order to understand how to deal with a Paultard, you need to understand the nature of what a Paultard isGenerally, the Paultard will make claims and warants are as vague and as abstract as possible, which is what I like to call "horoscope style debating." This means that their claims can't be tested or falsified, which also makes it so that their claims are completely meaningless. After all, how do you disprove a horoscope? Paultards may talk about personal accountability, but since they're also massive hypocrites, accountability doesn't really matter. Dealing with a Paultard is dealing with a phantom, a spirit. There's nothing to hold onto. In order to nail a Paultard, you really need to nail them down. Fix them to something concrete and tangible, and then youattack them. The Paultard will struggle. The Paultard will resist. Don't let him get away that easily.

In this series, "How to Nail a Paultard," we will discuss specific issues and arguments that you can nail the Paultards on. This will save you time and energy, since it will give you something clear and specific to focus on, rather than an abstract tangent. It will also make it harder for them to writhe and squirm, since it doesn't give them much room to lie and spin. This should come in handy every time you get annoyed by a particularly persistent Paultard, which should be often.

In part one in this series, we'll discuss the Rosa Parks Medal, which several of our readers have stated would be an effective strategy on dealing with the Paultards. The Rosa Parks incident is very cut and dry, very concise and to the point, and I recommend that you bring it up the next time you deal with a Paultard at the first opportunity. It's comes in handy for attacking Ron Paul and his army of Paultards on any of the following subjects:

• The fact that Ron Paul's rhetoric regarding the constitution is worthless.
• The fact that Ron Paul is willing to make speeches and votes on false pretenses.
  
• The fact that Ron Paul is incompetent and unwilling to engage in even the most basic of fact checking on extremely unpopular votes.
  
• The fact that Ron Paul is willing to make promises that he is unwilling to follow through on.
• The fact that Ron Paul has a over tendency to "cry wolf" and vote against things without even reading them, thus making his "nay" votes worthless in general.
• The fact that Paultards will accept anything that Ron Paul says as absolute truth, without reading it themselves
  

Basic background on the Rosa Parks Medal
In April of 1999, Congress held a vote on whether or not to award a Congressional Gold Medal to Rosa Parks. Congress was unanimously in favor of the award, with only one exception: Ron Paul. In order to justify his lone nay vote, Ron Paul delivered a speech, where he made the following arguments:

1. That the medal was tax-payer funded, and that we should look for alternative sources for funding.
2. That the medal was was unconstitutional
3. That the medal goes against the spirit of Rosa Parks.

In order to nail Ron Paul, we need to take this down point-by-point. The Paultards assert that you might not agree with Ron Paul, but that doesn't invalidate his reasoning. They're wrong. If you're dealing with a Paultard who seems brainwashed and unreasonable, this is a great tactic for proving it. The Paultard will be objectively and verifiably wrong, and yet, chances are that they'll still refuse to concede.


Point #1: Was the medal against the spirit of Rosa Parks?
We already knew that Ron Paul deludes himself into believing that he can speak on behalf of the long dead founding fathers, but apparently, Ron Paul also seems to think that he can speak for people who were still alive at the time. Here's what Rosa Parks, the real Rosa Parks, had to say on the subject:

"This medal is encouragement for all of us to continue until all have rights," said Parks, 86, during her brief remarks.

I think that it's incredibly arrogant for Ron Paul to assume that he has a greater authority to speak on behalf of Rosa Parks than Rosa Parks herself, something that he has also done with Martin Luther King.


Point #2: Was the Medal Unconstitutional?
I dare anyone who says this to cite the specific passage within the constitution that prohibits the awarding of medals. They won't be able to do this, because there isn't one. At best, they can argue that the awarding of medals isn't "explicitly" endorsed in the constitution, which therefore makes it unconstitutional. Now, you could try arguing that it falls under sections like the necessary-and-propers clause, but that will only give them room to squirm. Instead, I would point out that Congressional Gold Medals have been around longer than the constitution itself, and have been given out ever since. Here's a brief history of some of the earliest awards:

• 1776 George Washington.
• 1777 Major General Horatio Gates
• 1779 Major Henry Lee
• 1781 Major General Nathaniel Greene
• 1787 John Paul Jones
• 1800 Captain Thomas Truxtun

If the founding fathers disapproved of Congressional Gold Medals on principle and found them unconstitutional, then why isn't there any record of this? Why do the founding fathers need Ron Paul to speak on their behalf? Is it the same reason that Rosa Parks needs Ron Paul to speak on her behalf?


Point #3: But those were military gold medals, not civilian!
Please let us know the exact passage in the constitution that says that congress can award medals to the military, but not to civilians. Oh wait -- it doesn't. If you're going to make an argument on constitutional grounds, then you need to be apply the constitution consistently. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the constitution that endorses or restricts either of these awards. Either both types of awards are constitutional, or both types of awards are unconstitutional. The first case disproves Ron Paul, and the second case is disproved by history. Which is it?


Point #4: Congressional Gold Medals Fall Under the Tenth Amendment!
Ah, the "states right" argument. It's bullshit. Are you honestly telling me that the authority of Congressional Gold Medals falls under the individual states? Do you even understand what the phrase congressional gold medal entails? Do you actually believe that when Captain Thomas Truxtun was awarded the congressional medal in 1800, that he received that award on behalf of the individual states, and not on behalf of all of congress?


Point #5: Even if the constitution doesn't prohibit it, the medal was still tax payer funded!
Wrong. The bill in question was only a few pages long, and would have taken less time to read then it would have taken for him to deliver his speech against it. If he didn't read it, then that's another example of Ron Paul incompetence. If he did read it, then he would have caught the following passage:

SEC. 3. DUPLICATE MEDALS. The Secretary may strike and sell duplicates in bronze of the gold medal struck pursuant to section 2, under such regulations as the Secretary may prescribe, and at a price sufficient to cover the costs thereof, including labor, materials, dies, use of machinery, and overhead expenses, and the cost of the gold medal.

SEC. 4. STATUS AS NATIONAL MEDALS. The medals struck pursuant to this Act are national medals for purposes of chapter 51 of title 31, United States Code.

SEC. 5. FUNDING. (a) AUTHORITY TO USE FUND AMOUNTS.--There is authorized to be charged against the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund an amount not to exceed $30,000 to pay for the cost of the medals authorized by this Act. (b) PROCEEDS OF SALE.--Amounts received from the sale of duplicate bronze medals under section 3 shall be deposited in the United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund. 113 Stat. 50-51

In other words, the money to pay for the medal would have come from the sale of replicas, and not from tax dollars.


Point #6: Is there any evidence that a medal was ever created?
Yes, there was. In fact, you can still order a replica online from the US Mint for $38. Of course, this is another attempt to twist and squirm, since Ron Paul never opposed the bill on the basis that they would be unable to live up to section three.


Point #7: But what if they couldn't sell enough replicas to cover the cost?
Another attempt to twist and squirm, because Ron Paul never opposed the medal on the basis that he didn't think that the replicas wouldn't be popular enough to cover costs. Which is a silly argument to begin with, because why should profitability be our main criterion for whether or not we honor an American hero?


Point #8: But the first medal was still tax payer funded!
Wrong. From the US Mint Homepage:

Since Congress created the United States Mint on April 2, 1792, it has grown tremendously. The United States Mint receives more than $1 billion in annual revenues. As a self-funded agency, the United States Mint turns revenues beyond its operating expenses over to the General Fund of the Treasury.

What part of "self-funded agency" do Paultards not understand? The US Mint has been around since the time of our founding fathers, and not are they non-tax payer funded, but they also turn over a surplus that provides an additional source of revenue (which would actually save money in the long run.). They make over a billion dollars per year, from the sale of coins and medals, which is enough to cover the cost of the Rosa Parks medal 33,333 times over. Far from being a waste of money, the popularity of the Rosa Parks Medal would have likely been very profitable for the US Mint. I think they've been around long enough and made enough in sales to know what they can and can't make money from.

So no, the medal wouldn't have been tax payer funded. The initial cost would have been funded from the sale of previous products, and the revenue from the duplicates would be used to fund more congressional medals in the future. That's sort of how the US Mint works, which I was able to figure out after two minutes on google. I would hope that Ron Paul, a congressman hoping to run for President based on his knowledge of economic policy, would be aware of US Mint.


Point #9: But the sale of congressional gold medals is unprofitable!
This line comes from an article by Joelle Cannon, a congressional staffer. The article reads as follows:

As of September 11, 2006, gold’s closing price was around $590.40. According to the Treasury, each Congressional Gold Medal contains 14.5 troy ounces or 16 regular ounces of gold. Thus, the gold in a medal minted today is worth roughly $9,446.40. As stated below, the CBO estimates the cost of the bill to be $35,000. Sales of most duplicate medals are not strong enough to offset the cost of the gold medal (source: http://goldprice.org/gold-price.html).

Sound pretty damning, huh? Few problems. First off, the article isn't written in response to the Rosa Parks medals. It was written in response to a congressional medal for Dr. Norman E. Borlaug, who I'm sure that most people have never even heard of, so it's hardly surprising that his medal would have been unprofitable. And since the proposal never made it past the opening introductions, it's irrelevant. Fortunately, I'm pretty sure that Rosa Parks is a tad bit more well known, and would have slightly better sales. Moreover, this claim on insufficient isn't warranted or qualified in anyway:

• The source provided doesn't actually support the main claim on profitability, it only supports the claim that gold is expensive. And why is a congressional staffer citing goldprices.org anyway? Shouldn't they be citing something more official?
  
• In April of 1999, the cost of gold was roughly $280-$285, less than half of the 2006 figure cited in the article. So even if a Congressional Gold Medal wouldn't be profitable today, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't be profitable in 1999.
  
• No numbers are provided to back up the claim. Examples, "In the past 50 years, duplicates only pull in an average of X dollars in profit per medal, while the medals themselves have cost Y dollars produced, using constant dollars that were adjusted for inflation."
• There is a fallacy in assuming that just because some or even most congressional medals are unpopular, they must all be unprofitable, or even unprofitable as a whole. This is a faulty assumption. Along the same lines, most movies have traditionally been unprofitable, when you factor in the costs of marketing and productions. However, the movies that did pull in a profit were so profitable that they were able to make up for the difference.
  

Of course, this is all just another attempt to twist and squirm. The fact is, even if most medals are unprofitable, there is no evidence to suggest that the Rosa Parks medal was unprofitable, and Ron Paul never made his argument based on this assumption anyway. The US Mint is profitable overall, completely self-funded, and the cost of the Rosa Parks medal is still insignificant in terms of their overall expenses and revenue.


Point #10: But if the US Mint is a source of revenue, then any loss in revenue would have to be made up for in tax dollars!
This is a really, really, really stupid attempt to twist and squirm, and again, not the argument that Ron Paul was making. You can't equate a potential loss of additional revenue with direct tax payer funding. This argument is such an incredible stretch that it's hard to come up with a sensible analog. The best I can come up with is a person who spends $1000 on a new computer, assuming that the productivity gains from the new computer will pay for itself in the long run, and someone else insisting that the purchase on the new computer represents an unfair waste of tax payer money, because the person who spends $1000 on a new computer will have less money to donate to the his son's high school school and the school will have to make up for the funds in elsewhere. Huh? And of course, this is only assuming that the Rosa Parks medal is a complete failure and pulls in zero dollars of revenue, which is entirely baseless.


Point #9: But Ron Paul said it was tax payer funded!
Well, it wasn't. Read the bill for yourself. Either Ron Paul is lying, or he's incompetent.


Point #10: Ron Paul volunteered to donate $100 of his own money to the medal!
Well, then he lied, because he didn't. This speaks wonders on Ron Paul's ability to live up to his own promises. He got his wish, the medal wasn't tax payer funded, and it would be paid for by private donations (through the sale of replicas.). Unfortunately, there is no evidence that Ron Paul ever followed through on this promise, not even from Ron Paul himself, even though he's had ample opprotunity to bring it up. Hell, remember that $500 that he received from Don Black a few months ago, which Ron Paul refused to return? Ron Paul could have purchased 13 bronze medals with that money. Why didn't he? He had the cash, he didn't need it, and it would have shown that he was sincere in his rejection of Neo-Nazi support and his praise of Rosa Parks. Instead, I supposed that Ron Paul figured that the money would be better spent on more important things, like turning uppity Negroes into living billboards.


Point #11: Ron Paul never promised to donate to a duplicate, he only promised to donate if other congressmen did!!
So in other words... Ron Paul was only willing to donate to charity if it was mandatory for all congressmen? And not from the kindness of his heart? That's not the libertarian rhetoric I've heard regarding private charity in the past. But I forgot -- most libertarians are raging hypocrites. They like to talk about private charity all right, but actually contributing is another matter.


Point #12: But Ron Paul also voted aginst the medals for Ronald Reagan, the Tony Blair, and Frank Sinatra!
Yeah, so? Ron Paul has called Ronald Reagan a complete failure, and he's called Tony Blaire a pinko commie. And while Frank Sinatra might be a great guy, I don't think he's quite at the level of Rosa Parks.


Point #13: The point is that Ron Paul is consistent!
No he's not. In December of 2001, Ron Paul actually attempted to introduce legislation to congressional medals to every veteran of the cold war:

Sec. 1134. Cold War medal: award

`(a) AWARD- There is hereby authorized an award of an appropriate decoration, as provided for under subsection (b), to each person who served honorably in the armed forces during the Cold War in order to recognize the contributions of those person to United States victory in the Cold War.

`(b) DESIGN- The Secretary of Defense, in designing the decoration for the purposes of this section, shall consult with appropriate organizations and entities, including veterans' organizations. The decoration shall be of appropriate design, with ribbons and appurtenances.

`(c) CHARGE- The Secretary of Defense shall furnish the decoration under this section subject to the payment of an amount sufficient to cover the cost of production of the decoration and of the administration of this section.

`(d) PERIOD OF COLD WAR- In this section, the term `Cold War' means the period beginning on September 2, 1945, and ending on December 26, 1991.'

Estimated cost: $240,000,000. Enough to pay for the Rosa Parks Gold medal 8,000 with 8,000 different designs. And unlike the Rosa Parks medal, these medals medals actually would have been tax payer funded.


Point #14: But the cold war veterans were more deserving than Rosa Parks!
Really? The one that was won without a single shot being fired? That cold war? I'm not going to say that Rosa Parks put herself in more danger than all of them, but I am willing to say that she probably put herself in more danger than at least some of them. Mind you, it's not like soldiers serve entirely for free, and without compensation. They get money and training for the time they spend in the military, as well as plenty of other benefits. Rosa Parks? Not so much.


Point #15: Is any of this really important?
Well, it proves that Ron Paul is a liar, a hypocrite, and generally incompetent. So... yes. It also sets the backdrop for any future debate. Unfortunately, most Paultards have a habit of falling back on an Appeal to Ron Paul fallacy, where they assume that Ron Paul is honest and infallible and therefore we should always assume that whatever he says must automatically be true.


Point #16: But it's such a minor and insignificant point!
Then you should have no problem conceding it. Unfortunately, if you can't even concede on a "minor point" even when you're completely and utterly wrong, then you concede to the fact that you're completely incapable of rational/open minded debate. And if you're incapable of rational/open minded debate, then there's no point in going any further, with more abstract/general matters that would give you more room to twist and squirm and generally avoid accountability. On the other hand, if you refuse to concede because you think that you're right, then you should be willing to present an actual argument, rather than attempting to change the subject.

Conclusion:
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be thorough. That's how you nail a Paultard, folks, but you have to stay firm and stand your ground. Don't let them evade, and don't let them change the subject until they've managed to settle the subject at hand. The goal is to stay as specific and as concrete as possible.

Link to this Article

Newsletter FAQ Updated Again

The newsletter FAQ has been updated again. It's late, so I'll proofread it later. The main change has been to include some articles from Reason.com and Cato, which provide a wealth of references and opinions.

By the way, here's a flashback from Ron Paul's 12/23/07 interview on Meet the Press:

MR. RUSSERT: George Herbert Walker Bush, this is according to Ron Paul: "'Bush is a bum,' Paul wrote in" "November" 15th, "1992 issue of his newsletter, the `Ron Paul Political Report.'" And asked about the current President Bush, whether he voted for him in 2004: "Paul says no: `He misled us in 2000.'" Asked if he voted for Bush in 2000. No, "`I didn't vote for him then, either. I wasn't convinced he was a conservative.'" And actually, in 1987, you submitted a letter of resignation to the Republican Party: "I therefore resign my membership in the Republican Party and enclose my membership card." If Reagan's a failure, Bush 41 is a bum, and you didn't vote for Bush 41--41's a bum and 43 you didn't vote for, and you resigned from the Republican Party, why you running as a Republican candidate for president?

REP. PAUL: Because I represent what Republicanism used to be. I represent the group that wanted to get rid of the Department of Education, the part, that part of the Republican Party that used to be non-interventionists overseas. That was the tradition, the Robert/Taft wing of the party. There was a time when the Republicans defended individual liberty and the Constitution and decreased spending. So the radicals, the ones who really don't belong in the Republican Party and why the Republican Party is shrinking, why the base is so small, is because they don't stand for these ideals any more. So I stand for the ideals of the Republican Party. I've been elected 10 times as Republican. I've been a Republican all my life except for that one year that I ran as a Libertarian. But, no, I represent the Republican ideals, I think, much more so that the individuals running for the party right now.

This was three weeks before the Kirchick story broke. Does anyone else notice how Ron Paul never denies Russert's reference to his newsletter?

Lighter News: The Conscience of a Ron Paul Supporter

This one comes from Sultan Knish, who writes the following:

Ever wonder what goes on inside the head of a Ron Paul supporter who isn't a giant racist and actually has to rationalize supporting a blatantly lying candidate? Here you can have a look at how a Ron Paul supporters off the Ron Paul forums reacts to the revelations about the newsletters, tries to cope with it and adopts a "party line" which he doesn't really believe himself.

It's an instructive look not only inside the Ron Paul campaign but inside a mind warped by propaganda and finding no choice but to "learn to love big brother" in the form of Ron Paul.

It's a story told in screenshots of how the human mind adapts to believing in lies. Since it's graphic intensive, it's rendered in a separate screen.

This article needs to be seen to be believed. We all knew that the Paultards were delusional freaks who would bend over backwards to defend Ron Paul, but rarely do we see one who is willing to chronicle his thought process, out loud, from beginning to end. The next time you're dealing with a particularly stubborn Paultard, I recommend that you point them to this article, so that everyone can have a good laugh at DaronWestbrooke's expense.

Keli Ata, a commenter at Sultan's blog, writes the following:

I'm pretty sure there's a psychological term for when one person's ego becomes so totally dependent upon a cult figure that a failure of one is the failure of the other. Daron isn't only defending Ron Paul--he's also defending himself

More on Ron Paul and Martin Luther King

Was Ron Paul in favor of Martin Luther King Day?
If there's one thing that Paulbots love, it's spreading rumors to the point where they are accepted as irrefutable truth, even if there is no real evidence to support it. From Ameros to staff firings to to the idea that Ron Paul voted in favor of Martin Luther King Day. Unfortunately for them, they always seem to be short on actual evidence. Even more unfortunate, Andrew Austin, Associate Professor at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, has dug up at least one example to the contrary. The scan on the right comes from The Paris News (11/21/79).

Ron Paul and LewRockwell.com
LewRockwell.com currently features several pieces of Anti-MLK propaganda and other criticisms. For instance, Michael Epstein's Myths of Martin Luther King accuses King of being a plagiarist, a communist, and an adulterer. Despite this, not only does Ron Paul freely choose to associate with Lew Rockwell and write regular columns for him, but Lew Rockwell boasts that his website has received Ron Paul's first Freedom Website Award. The Paultards will likely respond by talking about freedom of speech even if you disagree with the content, but that's irrelevant. I have the freedom of speech as well, but I don't that Ron Paul will award me with a Freedom Website Award anytime soon.

Does Ron Paul support Martin Luther King's actual policies?
The following excerpts were pulled from The Right Has a Dream by Paul Rockwell (No relation to Lew as far as I know) and Misreading the Dream by Tim Wise:

"Whenever this issue of compensatory or preferential treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree, but he should ask for nothing more. On the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic. For it is obvious that if a man enters the starting line of a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some incredible feat in order to catch up." -MLK, "Why We Can't Wait"

"...for two centuries the Negro was enslaved and robbed of any wages — potential accrued wealth which would have been the legacy of his descendants. All of America's wealth today could not adequately compensate its Negroes for his centuries of exploitation and humiliation." -MLK, 1965 interview

Wise also presents the following real life example of how republicans had come to distort Dr. King's message, until protested by the King family estate:

For example, during the ultimately successful campaign in California to eliminate racial "preferences," supporters of Proposition 209 conjured the image of King repeatedly and, until criticized by the King family, had been planning to air a TV spot showing the "content of their character" segment of King's "Dream" speech.

Ron Paul insists that he considers Martin Luther King to be a hero. Does that mean that he actually supports and respect Dr. King's real policies? Is Ron Paul even familiar with Martin Luther King's real policies? Ron Paul's FreeAtLast2008 campaign appears to be making the same mistake as the Prop 209 campaign, attempting to capitalize on Dr. King's image to promote a platform that he would have opposed.

FreeAtLast2008's Disclaimer
When FreeAtLast2008 first went public at DailyPaul.com, even some of their own supporters cried foul. One of them wrote the following:

On December 21st, 2007 cactus1010 says:
THIS IS NOT LEGAL ACCORDING TO THE KING FAMILY LINK...NOT WITHOUT PERMISSION. YOU CANNOT USE HIS NAME FOR PUBLICITY WITHOUT PERMISSION. AND I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD GO FOR USING IT TO RAISE MONEY AS WELL.

The website founder, Vijay Boyapati thinks that it's important to create a disclaimer disassociating the website from Ron Paul's campaign, but he doesn't think to provide the same courtesy and respect to the family of Doctor King Family Estate. This, despite the fact that all of the graphics and banners rely entirely on the use of Dr. King's image, rather than Ron Paul's. This, despite the fact that Ron Paul has publicly endorsed the campaign in the national media and referred to it as "our" campaign, where as the King Family has not.

Ron Paul to be honored as America’s Civil Rights leader?
It just keeps getting worse and worse. Apparently the Paultards are using this event, not just to absolve Ron Paul of racism, but to try to prop him up as the next great civil rights leader. Check out the article here, which writes that freeatlast2008 is "designed to honor both Dr. Paul and Dr. King as Civil Rights leaders," and will "generate a 10 million dollar plus cash infusion for Paul’s campaign along with nationwide marches to honor Dr. Paul and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr."

In other words, just like a dog can be programmed to associate the idea of a ringing bell with salivation, the Paultards are trying to program their followers to associate the idea of "Dr. Paul" to "Dr. King." When you think Ron Paul, think "Nobel Prize Winner." You may think you're donating to Ron Paul, but you're really donating to civil rights. You may think you see people marching for Dr. King, but they're really marching for Ron Paul. Success! I'm surprised I haven't seen any youtube videos of Paul morphing into King and vice verse, but maybe that's only because I haven't looked

Ron Paul and his "Language"
In yesterday's post, I mentioned the January 1991 edition of Paul's newsletter. Here's an excerpt:

The official line among some conservatives and libertarians is that the civil rights movement started out well, but went astray after King’s death. In fact, it was bad from the beginning, never seeking the mere removal of Jim Crow laws, which would have been legitimate, but forced integration and wealth redistribution.

In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday.

The Paultards will claim that this was a ghostwriter. If this was a ghostwriter, then why bring up Ron Paul's personal experience from the 1988 campaign for Libertarian Presidential candidate? Why would he refer to his past congressional votes? The Paultards will claim that this is not Ron Paul's language. Note Paul's criticism of the civil rights movement as "forced integration," a term her would use to justify his vote against the civil rights act in 2004. But is it really Ron Paul's language? Lots of people could use that phrase? Well, maybe. But I found something on google just now.

• "forced integration" yields 26,600 results.
• "forced integration" +"Ron Paul" yields 4,230 results.
• "forced integration" -"Ron Paul" yields 22,100 results.

In other words, if you find a page with the phrase "forced integration" on it, then there's a 1 in 6 chance that the page will somehow be related to Ron Paul. And that's just a general use of the phrase -- rather than in the specific context of an opinion column protesting the civil rights act.

Similarly, when Wolf Blitzer ran the newsletter segment, the first quotation he provided was "Order was only restored in L.A. when it came time for the blacks to pick up their welfare checks." Later, Ron Paul attempted to defended himself by claiming that he didn't "participate in that type of language," only to use that same phrase several more times during the interview.

Follow-Up: Ron's Defense on CNN

This is a follow-up to yesterday's CNN story. A transcript is available as well. For those who want a cliff-notes version, the picture below pretty much sums it up:Remember kids, when the Paulbots proclaim that Ron Paul isn't a racist, contradict them. Instead, reply by saying, "Oh, that's right, he's the anti-racist," and then snicker. The snickering is what makes it funny. Oh, and if Ron Paul doesn't see people in groups, then why does his campaign ads promise to end visas for students from "terrorist nations," as though being born in the wrong country somehow makes you a terrorist? The people at Stormfront enjoy that ad so much that it shows up on every forum post on their site. But the ad isn't racist. It's anti-racist.

Racist: I hate the blacks, and I would like to own them as slaves.
Anti-Racist: I love the blacks, and I would like to own them as slaves.

Our FAQ sheet regarding the newsletter has been updated once again. A common Paulbot denial is that the "ghostwriter" had already been fired. But Ron Paul claims that he never knew about the newsletter, and never knew the name of the writer, so his own story would make that impossible. In related news, it turns out that the subscription manager of Ron Paul's newsletter is now the Texas Field Coordinator.

Dear Paultards: Stop leaving comments about how libertarians really are infallible, and how they really can't be racist. Those types of arguments aren't going to win people over. It's not only a non-sequitor, but it's also a no-true-Scotsman fallacy. You can't advocate a policy of "absolute freedom, except when you use your freedom to be racist, which is unacceptable." Doesn't work like that. Especially after you vote for the Civil Rights Act because it infringes on your freedom to discriminate.

Finally, I once again urge people to write into the Martin Luther King Estate, and ask them if they approve of Ron Paul's use of Martin Luther King's image to make money. Ask them if they approve of or endorse Ron Paul's platform on addressing racism, or the fact that he voted against Martin Luther King Day.

FAQ: Ron Paul and his Racist Newsletter (Updated)

It looks like Ron Paul's infamous newsletter has been making another round in the blogosphere. You know, the ones that where Ron Paul rallies his battle cry against fleet-footed black people. This is most likely in response to Ron Paul's recent appearance on Meet the Press, where he opposes the Civil Rights Act and insists that Lincoln was a tyrant.

The Ron Paul supporters of the internet are quick to dismiss these claims, of course, insisting that the newsletter articles have been "debunked," and that there is no purpose to bringing them up again in the future. Don't believe them when they say that. Here's a basic summation of all the popular arguments used to defend Ron Paul, as well as the appropriate refutations.

Updated: TNR has recently uncovered a new batch of newsletters, including articles where Ron Paul is listed as Editor and Publisher. This is pretty damning.

1. The newsletter article was an isolated incident
2. Just because that newsletter Ron Paul has his name on that, doesn't mean that he was involved! (new)
3. This is a smear campaign! Your evidence is weak! Ron Paul is honest and infallible, and you can't trust anyone who says otherwise! (edited)
4. Those articles were a mainstream media hit piece! (edited)
5. Ron Paul has a solid record that stretches 30 years!
6. Ron Paul's voting record is proof that he isn't racist!
7. But if Ron Paul was really a racist, then why don't we see more of that in his interviews?
8. I demand audio/video evidence before I believe you! (new)
9. Didn't you read "Government and Racism," by Ron Paul?
10. But Ron Paul said that racism is bad! Doesn't that disprove that he wrote the newsletter?
11. Those article were written by a ghostwriter!
12. Didn't you read what he said in Texas Monthly?
13. You can't prove that Ron Paul even read that article!
14. Ron Paul was a full-time Congressman and Doctor, he didn't have time to work on that newsletter.
15. The article wasn't written in Ron Paul's language, and it sounds nothing like him!
16. But I have a newspaper article where the writer says that he believes Ron Paul!
17. Ron Paul has suggested Walter Williams as his running mate, and Walter Williams is black!
18. The Ghostwriter was already fired. Case closed! What more could you ask for?
19. What about the article from Free Market News? (new)
20. What about Ron Paul's official statement? (new)
21. What if Ron Paul is telling the truth? (new)
22. Is any of this relevant?
23. What about his appearence on CNN? Ron Paul claims to be incapable of racism! (new)
24. I have some photos/youtube videos of Ron Paul with black supporters! (new)
25. The signature was forged/other wear arguments (new)
26. What about the war on drugs? (New)

1. The newsletter article was an isolated incident
   False. James Kirchick of The New Republic cites dozens of different newsletter clippings, along with the appropriate scans. These newsletters were tracked down at "the libraries of the University of Kansas and the Wisconsin Historical Society."
   
   
2. Just because that newsletter Ron Paul has his name on that, doesn't mean that he was involved! (new)
   This is an evasion tactic. This is not open to debate. Ron Paul himself has accepted moral responsibility for the content of the newsletter. His signature appears on the solicitation letter. If you don't think that he should be held responsible for it, then you're going to need to take that up with him, and not with us.
   
   
3. This is a smear campaign! Your evidence is weak! Ron Paul is honest and infallible, and you can't trust anyone who says otherwise! (edited)
   The best evidence against Ron Paul comes from Ron Paul himself. Can we trust Ron Paul? This story first broke out in 1996, when Ron Paul was mounting a huge election to return to congress. What exactly was Ron Paul saying back then? Reason.com did some digging through Lexis-Nexus, and found the following publications:
   
   • May 22, 1996 Dallas Morning News
     
   • May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle
   • May 23, 1996, Austin American-Statesman
   • May 26, 1996 Washington Post
   • July 25, 1996, Houston Chronicle
   • July 25, 1996, Dallas Morning News
   • July 29, 1996, Roll Call
   • Aug. 13, 1996, Houston Chronicle
   • Sept. 26, 1996, Austin American-Statesman
   • Sept. 30, 1996, San Antonio Express-News
   • Oct. 11, 1996, Houston Chronicle
   • Oct. 11, 1996, Austin American-Statesman
   Excerpts can be found on their website. I have also provided direct links to the 5/23/96 Houston Chronicle and the November 1996 Austin Chronicle. The common theme among these articles is that Ron Paul never once denies writing for the newsletter, and insists that he's been quoted out of context. For instance, the Dallas Morning News reports that:
   

   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.

   That's a very odd statement to make if you had absolutely no involvement with the newsletter in question. Although Ron Paul supporters will insist that he already denied the story, the ghostwriter invention didn't happen for another five years. Ron Paul was either lying in 1996, or he was lying in 2001. Either way, Ron Paul is a proven liar.
   
   But here's the problem. It's easy to explain why Ron Paul would lie in 2001, denying responsibility for something that he would later regret. But how do you explain why he would lie in 1996, claiming responsibility for something that he disagreed with and which he didn't do? There has never been anything resembling a decent explanation for this. Most Ron Paul supporters will respond by pretending that these reports don't exist. Don't let them get away with that.
   
   
4. This is all a mainstream media hit piece! (edited)
   Many Ron Paul supporters insist that the above list of articles can't be trusted. This is another evasion tactic. Not even Ron Paul claims that he was misquoted or represented inaccurately during this era, so again, you're going to have to take it up with him. Moreover, we have over a dozen citations from 1996 that showing him defending the content, and not a single citation to the contrary. You can't just cry "hit piece!" and "mainstream media conspiracy!!!" just because the media prints something you don't like. Yes, they're critical of Ron Paul, but this is material that warrants criticism.
   
   Some people have attempted to discredit James Kirchick. David Boaz of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, doesn't seem to be buying it. He recognizes this as a basic ad hominem attack, and writes the following:
   

   Mutterings about the past mistakes of the New Republic or the ideological agenda of author James Kirchick are beside the point. Maybe Bob Woodward didn’t like Quakers; the corruption he uncovered in the Nixon administration was still a fact, and that’s all that mattered. Ron Paul’s most visible defenders have denounced Kirchick as a “pimply-faced youth”—so much for their previous enthusiasm about all the young people sleeping on floors for the Paul campaign—and a neoconservative. But they have not denied the facts he reported. Those words appeared in newsletters under his name. And, notably, they have not dared to defend or even quote the actual words that Kirchick reported. Even those who vociferously defend Ron Paul and viciously denounce Kirchick, perhaps even those who wrote the words originally, are apparently unwilling to quote and defend the actual words that appeared over Ron Paul’s signature.

5. Ron Paul has a solid record that stretches 30 years!
   30 years of what? Again, Ron Paul refuses to release his archives from that time period. But Ron Paul's record has never been squeaky clean. Even the libertarians at Cato thought otherwise, and that was before the recent newsletter scandal. David Boaz writes:
   

   And so it’s understandable that over the past few months a lot of people have been asking why writers at the Cato Institute seemed to display a lack of interest in or enthusiasm for the Paul campaign. Well, now you know. We had never seen the newsletters that have recently come to light, and I for one was surprised at just how vile they turned out to be. But we knew the company Ron Paul had been keeping, and we feared that they would have tied him to some reprehensible ideas far from the principles we hold.

   However, let's assume for a moment that this claim is true. Would that prove his innocence? No. You can't un-ring a bell, and you can't un-write a newsletter. It would be like trying to refute the fact that Dick Cheney shot his friend in the face, by pointing out the number of people who Dick Cheney hasn't shot in the face. Logic doesn't work that way. Even if Ron Paul never writes another racist statement in the future, that wouldn't change the fact that he has written racist statements in the past. Thanks to Kirchick's research, we now know that these articles were more far reaching we initially suspected. This was not an isolated incident, this was a clear pattern of behavior. One that Ron Paul made no effort to address.
   
   
6. Ron Paul's voting record is proof that he isn't racist!
   This is another claim we hear a lot. Unfortunately, the people who make this claim never follow up on it, by citing specific examples. Ron Paul was against the Civil Rights Act, against the Voting Rights Act, and he has voted in favor of voter suppression. How does that prove that he isn't racist?
   
   
7. But if Ron Paul was really a racist, then why don't we see more of that in his interviews?
   People who are racist aren't necessarily going to admit to it in public. There's a reason why Ku Klux Klan is known for wearing hood, and why white supremacist organizations have rules against being outed. In most cases, people aren't even aren't even aware of their own racism. So when overt signs of racism does break through the social stigma, you know you're just seeing the tip of the iceberg. Just look at what happened to George Allen and Trent Lott. You can't prove that George Allen knew the meaning of the word "macaca," but that doesn't mean that you can't use that against him.
   
   Ron Paul, like most other politicians, will say different things to different people. Look at his recent flip flop on evolution. If Ron Paul can't even admit to being against evolution during the debates, then why would anyone expect him to be express overt racism without even being provoked? The newsletter was written while Ron Paul was working as a private physician, and distributed to private subscribers. Apparently, running as a presidential candidate has forced him to become a bit more cautious.
   
   
8. I demand audio/video evidence before I believe you! (new)
   This is a ridiculous request. Ron Paul's newsletter archive was written in two decades ago, long before people have had video cameras on their cell phones. He didn't re-enter the public eye until this past year, well after the George Allen and Trent Lott scandals. Since then, the political climate has gotten a lot more sensitive on the subject of race, and Ron Paul has had more than enough time to adapt
   
   Here's the question, though: Why is video/audio evidence required? After all, I might not have any video footage of Ron Paul going to the bathroom, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't go. Courts typically don't require you to provide video/audio evidence to convict someone, because you're not going to find any the vast majority of the time, no matter how guilty the person may be. No, the main goal here isn't to be reasonable, but to be unreasonable. To move the goalpost so far that it's nearly impossible to reach. It's annoying, but the fact that they have to rely on such cheap tactics reveals the underlying weakness in their argument. It's an act of desperation. They know their case looks bad, so they're grasping at straws. Don't let them get away with that.
   
   But if you really want video evidence, then I suggest you check out Ron Paul's recent ad on immigration, where he vows "No visas for students from ‘terrorist nations." Personally, I think that that the idea of labeling an entire nation as being "terrorists" to be pretty darn racist. Even Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com, who vehemently defended Ron Paul in the past, still found this ad to be "disgraceful."
   
   
9. Didn't you read "Government and Racism," by Ron Paul?
   

   Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than individuals. Racists believe that all individuals who share superficial physical characteristics are alike: as collectivists, racists think only in terms of groups. By encouraging Americans to adopt a group mentality, the advocates of so-called "diversity" actually perpetuate racism. Their obsession with racial group identity is inherently racist.

   This article is frequently brought up in an attempt to "debunk" the newsletter piece. However, there is nothing in the piece that actually refutes the newsletter. In fact, his current writings and his newsletter writings are completely complimentary to one another. In the above writing, Ron Paul is writing in defense of Don Imus. Ron Paul also makes the same argument, nearly word for word, in a 2002 article where he defends Trent Lott.
   
   
10. But Ron Paul said that racism is bad! Doesn't that disprove that he wrote the newsletter?
    Yes, but when Ron Paul criticizes racism, he is defines "racism" as "promoting diversity." This is not the same form of racism that Ron Paul himself is being accused of. Therefore, his statement only supports the accusation.
    
    Remember, when Ron Paul was asked for comment in the 1996 Houston Chronicle piece, he claimed that he opposed racism, and then went on to defend the newsletter article anyway. Apparently, when Ron Paul claims to oppose "racism," his narrow definition of "racism" doesn't include the newsletter in question. Making the statement irrelevant.
    
    As David Neiwert explains, "This is, in fact, just a repackaging of a libertarian argument that multiculturalism is the 'new racism' -- part of a larger right-wing attack on multiculturalism. This is, of course, sheer Newspeak: depicting a social milieu that simultaneously respects everyone's heritage -- that is to say, the antithesis of racism -- as racist is simply up-is-down, Bizarro Universe thinking."
    
    
11. Those article were written by a ghostwriter!
    This is something we hear a lot, but the evidence doesn't support it. For instance, let's take a look at the LA Riots piece. First, the article makes frequent references in the first person, talking about Ron Paul's personal experiences, and even makes references to previous articles on the subject of race. Second, the article makes reference to "expert Burt Blumert." Blumert is a coin dealer, as well as a close, personal friend of Ron Paul.
    
    Since the Kirchick piece came out, the story has gotten even more damning (see scans.). For instance, on the same page where Ron Paul accuses Martin Luther King of seducing "underage girls and boys," he also makes a reference to how his wife Carol and his grandchildren wishes the reader to have a Merry Christmas. There is no break in character. In his letter asking for solicitations, Ron Paul refers to his personal expertise as a medical doctor, and signs the letter with his own signature. He also uncovered articles where Ron Paul is listed as Editor.
    
    Perhaps the best example comes from the January 1991 edition, where Ron Paul writes that:
    

    In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday.

    Why in the world would the writer bring this specific incident up, unless it actually happened to him, and unless he was still bitter over the experience? And who else could this experience have happened to, other than Ron Paul?
    
    However, even if these pieces were written by a ghostwriter, it still wouldn't matter. The point is that Ron Paul signed off on them and never offered a retraction, which suggests that at the very least, he would have agreed with them.
    
    
12. Didn't you read what he said in Texas Monthly?
    The following text appeared in a 2001 edition of Texas Monthly:
    

    When I ask him why, he pauses for a moment, then says, "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." Paul says that item ended up there because "we wanted to do something on affirmative action, and it ended up in the newsletter and became personalized. I never personalize anything."

    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.

    Ron Paul's 2001 version of events sounds very heart-felt. Unfortunately, his story doesn't mesh with past events. Here is what Ron Paul was saying five years earlier, in a 1996 edition of the Austin Chronicle:
    

    In one 1992 article, Paul labeled the illustrious congresswoman Barbara Jordan, now deceased, a "moron" and "fraud" whose accomplishments depended on her race and sex. Paul now explains that he's been wronged -- his "academic, tongue-in-cheek" opinions have been stripped of their context. But when the Victoria Advocate requested the entire copy of the newsletter, promising to publish its entirety, he refused that too.

    For the record, Barbara Jordan passed away earlier in that very same year. Ron Paul's story for the Texas Monthly may sound sympathetic, but it isn't supported by past events. If he's felt any regret over his comments, then it doesn't seem to show here.
    
    
13. You can't prove that Ron Paul even read that article!
    We've established that the newsletter went out under Ron Paul's name, with Ron Paul's permission. At some point, we need to assume a basic level of competency for Ron Paul over his own name. If we can't assume competence, then why in the world should we elect this man as president? We also can't "prove" that George Allen knew the real meaning of the word "macaca," but that doesn't mean that we can't use that against him.
    
    The narrative in the newsletter postings are highly personal and specific to Ron Paul, and even if we believed that they were written by a ghostwriter, it would be hard to believe that Ron Paul and the ghostwriter had absolutely no contact. Furthermore, in order to accept Ron Paul's story, we would have to believe that none of the readers ever phoned in to complain or cancel their subscriptions. That no one on the staff ever notified Ron Paul of what was going on. That none of Ron Paul's friends or family members ever notified Ron Paul about what was going on. Out of over 7,000 readers, not one of them would have a direct line to Ron Paul.
    
    Moreover, we would have to ignore the numerous news articles from 1996, when the story was brought to Ron Paul's attention by the popular media. The Ron Paul supporters can attempt to rationalize the time frame pre-1996, by pleading ignorance. And they can attempt to rationalize the time frame post-2001, when Ron Paul first began to deny the story. But how do the rationalize the time period from 1996-2001, when Ron Paul was aware of the situation, and still chose to defend the newsletter? Well... they can't.
    
    
14. Ron Paul was a full-time Congressman and Doctor, he didn't have time to work on that newsletter.
    The first part is false. Ron Paul left congress in 1985 and returned to congress in 1997. The second part is irrelevant. Having a full-time job is not the same thing as having a full-proof alibi. We're talking about an 8-page newsletter that would have been distributed once a month. Even if Ron Paul was working 60 hours a week, that would still give him 15 hours per day to work on a newsletter. It would take him roughly ten minutes once a month to read an 8-page newsletter. Yet somehow, he can't manage to find the time for it?
    
    Ron Paul's official website proudly boasts that, "Congressman Paul introduces numerous pieces of substantive legislation each year, probably more than any single member of Congress." Since 1997, Ron Paul has written 350 pieces of legislation, and that he has voted over 7000 times. Yet we're supposed to believe that as a civilian, Ron Paul can't find the time to write one 8-page article? That as a civilian, Ron Paul can't even find the time to even read his own 8-page newsletter?
    
    This literally does not add up. 350 pieces of legislation over 10 years translates into three pieces per month. Does Ron Paul hire a ghostwriter to write his legislation as well? Will he start using that excuse when his legislation proves unpopular? Where exactly will it end? Again, at some point, we need to assume a basic level of competence.
    
    
15. The article wasn't written in Ron Paul's language, and it sounds nothing like him!
    This is another claim we hear a lot. Not because his supporters actually believe it, but because Ron Paul himself has said it, and his supporters are good at parroting. Ask them what they mean by Ron Paul's "his language." They won't answer. This isn't a claim that can be objectively verified or disproven. However, I have written out specific examples to doubt Ron Paul's story.
    
    This is an also example of begging the question. If this article sounds nothing like Ron Paul, then what would sound like Ron Paul? The answer there is, "Whatever we personally approve of."
    
    
16. But I have a newspaper article where the writer says that he believes Ron Paul!
    Appeal to authority fallacy. The newspaper in question could be wrong. Don't just tell us that people believe Ron Paul, give the reasons behind their opinion, and give us something that we can decide on or verify on our own. Moreover, these newspapers were likely printed prior to the Kirchick piece, which suggests that the newsletter articles that we had were not an isolated incident.
    
    
17. Ron Paul has suggested Walter Williams as his running mate, and Walter Williams is black!
    This is a modern variant of the classic "I can't be a racist, some of my best friends are black!" argument. Having a black friend doesn't disprove accusations of racism, any more than having a female wife would disprove accusations of misogyny. Being racist doesn't mean that you hate all black people. Being racist simply means that you are being unfair to black people as a general rule. There's a difference.
    
    This is another evasion tactic. It doesn't disprove the fact that Ron Paul wrote that newsletter. Quite the contrary. Here's an excerpt from the original text:
    

    Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are, however, outnumbered.

    The fact that Ron Paul has a few black friends doesn't disprove the fact that he authored the newsletter, because it the author of the piece had a few black friends as well.
    


18. The Ghostwriter was already fired. Case closed! What more could you ask for?
    We hear this one a lot, but we never hear any first hand evidence or links supporting it. If you want to convince us that the supposed ghostwriter was fired in direct response to these articles, then cite some evidence, and not some general appeal to the "rumor mill." Better yet, give us a name, and some way of verifying the claim.
    
    In fact, if we're to believe Ron Paul's statements in his Wolf Blitzer interview, than a firing would have been impossible. Ron Paul claims that he had no idea what was being printed in his name. Ron Paul claimed that, "I don't know any of their names. I absolutely honestly do not know who wrote those things," and "A lot of the things you just read, I wouldn't have recognized them." It's pretty hard to fire someone who you don't know over something that you didn't know about. And that's assuming that there even is a ghostwriter, which we still have absolutely no evidence of.
    
    So if Ron Paul didn't fire the supposed "ghostwriter," then who did he fire? If Ron Paul honestly didn't approve of the newsletter content, then someone's head ought to have rolled over this. If it isn't Ron Paul, and it isn't the writer, then who? How about the Publisher? The Economist reports that the newsletter was "published by M&M Graphics and Advertising, a company run by Mr Paul's longtime congressional campaign manager Mark Elam—which Mr Elam himself confirms." Elam's company was in charge of double checking the newsletter before it went to print, yet he apparently never notified Ron Paul about the content. Fortunately, Elam is still involved with Ron Paul's official campaign, and is currently listed on their contact page.
    
    Okay. Then what about Jean McIver, the subscription manager? Surely, she would be familiar with the material that she was selling, right? And if the racist articles were really a fluke, and then at least a few subscribers would have called in to complain, right? So was Jean McIver fired?Nope. It turns out that Jean McIver wasn't fired in 1996, when the story first came to light. In fact, it turns out that James McIver is currently being listed on the official campaign website as the "Texas Field Coordinator." Lew Moore, National Campaign Manager, writes even gave her a special mention in the official campaign blog.
    
    Another update: James Kirchick finds newsletters where Ron Paul is listed as Editor and Publisher, thus making him directly responsible for the content.
    
    
    
    
19. What about the article from Free Market News? (new)
    The Free Market News Network article doesn't really offer any new arguments. It makes a lot of unverifiable claims from a lot of unnamed sources with flimsy excuses -- most of which have already been addressed on DailyKos. For instance, it cites the fact that the newsletter headquarters were "60 miles away" from Ron Paul's office, as though 60 miles is an insurmountable distance for your monthly newsletter, and as if there was no such thing as fax machines, telephones, and overnight delivery.
    
    The article claims that Ron Paul was upset when he heard about the comments, but it doesn't explain the lack of a retraction, nor does it explain his 1996 response in the popular press. Even if Ron Paul didn't read the newsletter himself -- which is ridiculous -- there are thousands of people who did. Moreover, once again, these articles weren't simply one or two examples slipping through the cracks. They stretch over the course of decades. There is no excuse.
    
    
20. What about Ron Paul's official statement? (new)
    What about it? The official statement comes over a decade too late, and it doesn't really refute anything. Ron Paul says once again that it was a ghostwriter, but he fails to explain how how he could be completely incompetent in running his own newsletter, nor does he explain his initial response to the scandal in the first five years after the story first became public.
    
    
21. What if Ron Paul is telling the truth? (new)
    In his official statement, Ron Paul claims that "For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name." If you can't hold Ron Paul accountable for his racism, then you should at least hold him responsible for gross incompetence. Otherwise, you're not taking moral responsibility. You can't say, "I take full responsibility for this, but please don't use it against me!" It doesn't work like that. Either you take responsibility, or you don't.
    
    If Ron Paul can't even run an 8-page monthly newsletter, then how does he expect to run an entire country, or even an entire war? If he can't even read 8-pages that goes out under his own name once a month, then how can he expect to read through thousands of pages worth of intelligence reports and legislation? If he can't even hire the right people to write under his name, then how can he expect to hire the right people to run his cabinet?
    
    At some point, Ron Paul needs to stop making excuses, and start focusing on his strengths. What are they? This isn't a question of what you like about him, or what you agree with him on, it's a question on what he's actually shown he can do.
    
    
22. Is any of this relevant? (new)
    Many Ron Paul supporters insist that this matter isn't relevant, because even if Ron Paul is a blatant racist, it still wouldn't matter, because it's not like Ron Paul would be able to issue legislation to promote his racist agenda. I disagree. I think that Ron Paul's views on racism is entirely relevant. More importantly, Ron Paul himself thinks that his views on racism are relevant.
    
    On his website, Ron Paul cites his stance on racism as one of the major issues that he intends to campaign on, and one of the major reasons why you should vote for him. Ron Paul is arrogant enough to believe that he understands the problem and the solution for racism better than the civil rights activists who actually fought and sacrificed for change. But Ron Paul can't even handle the blatant racism that goes on in his own office in his own name in plain sight of thousands of subscribers -- how in the world does he expect to deal with the far more subtle forms of racism that permeate throughout society? It would be like trusting Britney Spears's mom to write a book on motherhood.
    
    
23. What about his appearence on CNN? Ron Paul claims to be incapable of racism!
    I think this picture pretty much sums it up. No one is "incapable" of racism. A person who believes in liberty should be capable of just about anything. Ron Paul is basing his argument on an impossible premise, which shows that he is either lying, or he is completely in denial. In fact, not only is Ron Paul in denial, but he blatantly contradicts himself a little while later by making several references to "the blacks," using the exact same language that Blitzer cited from his newsletter. Ron Paul can't even go two minutes without completely contradicting himself.
    
    Ron Paul refers to himself as an anti-racist. An anti-racist is like an anti-hero. He has different motivations from the traditional racist, but in the end, he fulfills the same basic purpose, and the traditional racist can count on him to get the job done.
    
    
24. I have some photos/youtube videos of Ron Paul with black supporters!
    Yeah, so? Do you have any idea how racially condescending this argument actually is? Oh hey, Ron Paul managed to stand next to a black person without lynching him. That proves that he isn't a racist and that he had no involvement in his own newsletter, personal details and signature be damned. If Ted Bundy can have female groupies despite being a murderer, then Ron Paul can have minority groupies despite being a racist. Sorry, but you can't undo decades worth of racism with a few snapshots It's not that simple.
    
    Related articles on this subject can be found here, here, and here.
    
    
25. The signature was forged/other wear arguments
    Dude, just give it up. I think that Sultan Knish did a great job this one, by visiting the Ron Paul Forums and chronicling the character arc of a single poster, a senior member by the name of DaronWestbrooke. Westbrooke starts off by freaking out over the Ron Paul story, and demanding some comeback lines he can use.
    
    Eventually, Daron decides to start from the assumption that there's a conspiracy at work, and then moves on to try to invent one. He concludes that since the smoking gun here is Ron Paul's own signature, then the best solution would be to spread the rumor that the signature has been forged, even though Ron Paul himself has never made this claim. In the most telling line, Daron states that "All we got now is the signatures, but the points is to repeat it over and over. we can make that thought reality."
    
    In other words, even though the statement isn't true, it can be made true through sheer force of repetition. This is a tactic that they've used before. The same goes for their "the ghostwriter was already fired" meme, which was repeated so often that even many of Ron Paul's critics began to believe it as accepted reality, even Ron Paul's most recent statements make that meme impossible. And it also goes for the "the newsletters were already debunked, so we don't have to go through them any further meme."
    
    The goal isn't to come up with an explanation that sounds plausible. The goal is to come up with an explanation that you can repeat, ad naseum, over and over again, until eventually it becomes so accepted that it no longer requires explanation. This is common among Ron Paul's supporters, who are too far invested and too alienated from their from friends to give up now. Daron's only crime is that he decided to say out loud what everyone else was already thinking. Even Daron acknowledges that the explanation is bullshit, but he doesn't see any other alternative. So the next time you debate this subject with a hardcore supporter, please keep this in mind.
    
    Not surprisingly, the thread now requires a password to read, although you can still try to find it on google cache.
    
    
26. What about the war on drugs? (New)
    Irrelevant. Ron Paul doesn't oppose the war on drugs because it's racist, he opposes it because he opposes everything. The war on drugs could be the most racially equitable program in the history of Earth, and Ron Paul would still oppose it, because it isn't mentioned in the constitution. Some people will try to argue, "But if Ron Paul was a racist, he would support the war on drugs!" This is a faulty syllogism. If the underlying premise were true, then we would have to conclude that Stormfront isn't racist either. Is anyone going to argue that Stormfront isn't racist?
    
    But if you want further proof, then check out Ron Paul's solicitation letter. Page one. Hey look, Ron Paul opposed the war on drugs even then. So his current opposition proves nothing, since it doesn't contradict the newsletter in the least.
    

Conclusion: So there you have it, an in-depth refutation to the most common talking points. Spread the word, and tell your friends.

Additional Links:
Angry White Man, by James Kirchick of TNR.
Newsletter Clipping, and More Newsletter Clippings, by James Kirchick of TNR.
Paul's Blowback, by Matt Welch of Reason
"Old News"? "Rehashed for Over a Decade"? by Matt Welch of Reason
5/23/96 Houston Chronicle Article
November 1996 Austin Chronicle Article, plus Sidebar.
Ron Paul in his Own Words, by Paul Henry
Black People Love Us

Link to this article