reply to post by Cynicaleye
Well, as far as PROOF goes, that really falls down to more-or-less analyzing the writing styles as well as comparing the messages (reiterating
once again how much less inflammatory they are when taken in context, regardless) in the small percentage of newsletters being discussed to his 30+
year public record speaking out against all forms of collectivism, policies that primarily impact minorities/alt. lifestyles, and constantly speaking
about the need for government to get out of anything related to racial preference or impeding the free choice of people to live their lives as they
see fit, regardless of race/sexual preference, as long as they leave everyone else free to do the same.
That said, the first two links I provided give very thorough reviews and references. To address the main question:
"From what I witnessed in my 12 years working for Ron, I'd say maybe 40% came from him in the way of scribbles (and I literally do mean scribbles)
on a yellow pad, that was then faxed to his office staff in South Houston for editing and publication."
(Eric Dondero, Response to "Ron Paul to Address Race Issues on CNN," Third Party Watch, Jan. 10th, 2008
"50 to 60% was written by Lew. But when I say Lew I also mean his staff of Interns, which during that period included most prominently Jeff Tucker
and Mark Thornton of Auburn Univ. in Alabama."
"This was a big operation," says one source. "And Ron Paul was a busy man..... 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 [the] publications utilized guest writers and editors on a regular basis. Often these guest writers and editors
would write a "Ron Paul" column."
("Ron Paul Race Smear Erased?" FreeMarketNews.com, Jan 11, 2008
"The race-baiting newsletter passages do not sound like anything else Paul has said or written in his public life. People who were familiar with
the newsletters' production confirm that they were largely ghostwritten and that Paul often did not review them prior to publication."
(Jacob Sullum, "Ron Paul’s Apology," The Athens Messenger, Jan. 19, 2008
That's enough to start, you can go review the rest yourself if you're actually interested in the facts of the matter. Additionally, Eric Dondero (in
a VERY back-handed defense of Paul) on the racism/homophobia issue very thorough denied any indications of either during his approx. 15-year tenure as
a close employee of Paul, saying he "thought the world" of some gay people, and could only present two examples of possible homophobia (with who knows
how many possible explanations?):
1) one time while having dinner at a gay man's house (one whom he "thought the world of" according to Eric), he ordered Dondero to take him to a gas
station restroom instead of using the one in the house. Possible Paul just didn't want to stink up his friend's bathroom?
2) another time, Eric reports hearing from someone else, Paul slapped another of his gay friend's hands away instead of shaking it. Did he overhear
him bad-talking Paul? Did something else happen? Is it even true, or was it misunderstood?
The whole thing is sad, stupid (both on Paul's part for ever letting it happen), and honestly pretty silly when weighed in light of all facts. If
you'd like to find out for yourself how utterly benign the vast majority of the writings were, you can read for yourself
here at The New Republic
, and you'll also come across sections like this that
in-context actually sound like a section Paul wrote directly:
"What a relief it is to walk, shop, or eat in the small Ethiopian community in Washington: successful, confident black people whose self-image is
not defined in anti-whiteness, and who are therefore invisible in the liberal media."
And I suppose I'll add this on since it's somewhat applicable. Even though all the evidence strongly suggests nothing more than a regrettable
oversight on Paul's part and stupid political baiting by some people working on the newsletters with no real indication of bigotry, (gay) Dan Savage
makes a good point how he doesn't care even if Paul IS bigoted
article here at Slate
Nobody grills Paul about this stuff. When I asked Savage about the ugly comments in old Paul Survival Reports, he shrugged them off. “Ron Paul
can have the closet,” he said. “He might miss it, but we sure don't. Maybe there's room in there for his old newsletters?”
There is no comparing Paul and Santorum, said Savage, because Paul is a leave-us-alone libertarian. “Ron is older than my father, far less toxic
than Santorum, and, as he isn't beloved of religious conservatives, he isn't out there stoking the hatreds of our social and political enemies,” he
explained. “And Ron may not like gay people, and may not want to hang out with us or use our toilets, but he's content to leave us the # alone and
recognizes that gay citizens are entitled to the same rights as all other citizens. Santorum, on the other hand, believes that his bigotry must be
given the force of law. That's an important difference.”
edit on 12/30/2011 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)