TPM: "Ron Paul-Supporting Former Ron Paul Secretary: He Knew All About Those Newsletters"

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Uh oh.

Those pesky newsletters keep coming back to haunt Ron Paul... and now this comes to light:

2012.talkingpointsmemo.com...


But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,” said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman.


Now in all fairness, no one can say if Ron Paul believed this stuff... however there WAS money to be made selling this sort of philosophy:


“A person involved in Paul’s businesses, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid criticizing a former employer, said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative,” the paper reports. “They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said.”

This is slightly different explanation than the one uncovered by Dave Weigel and the team at Reason back in 2008. Their reporting also found no evidence that Paul believed the stuff in his newsletters. But in their case, the story was that Paul was out to expand the libertarian base by going after the simmering white supremacist/militia/survivalist community.


I can't wait to read the colorful replies from the Paul zealots



+12 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:23 AM
link   
He didnt write them nor did he approve. If he was a racist he would have rejected medical care for blacks. Is this the best you Obama lovers can do?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:25 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Do me a favor and read the material i've linked to before replying.

It seems Ron Paul WAS in fact fully aware of and approved these newsletters. Not only that, it was a business strategy.


+2 more 
posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Newt's had three wives and changes his views on a lot of things constantly, Romney's in bed with Wall St and dodges his tax bracket, the only thing bad they can say about Paul is that he slipped up like 20 years ago in a newsletter that nobody even remembered until a few months ago.

Other than that he's consistent and want's to focus on our country's REAL problems. What's not to like about that?

I would go on but I'm tired and it would be a pointless endevour anyway, I'd get bashed for supporting him from all the Paul haters...
edit on 1/27/2012 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)
edit on 1/27/2012 by ArrowsNV because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


It is still heresay, there is no proof that he approved it. Now there is proof of Fannie and Freddie giving money to Newt and Newt saying that he wants terrorists to Attack Americans.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by ArrowsNV
Newt's had three wives and changes his views on a lot of things constantly, Romney's in bed with Wall St and dodges his tax bracket, the only thing bad they can say about Paul is that he slipped up like 20 years ago in a newsletter that nobody even remembered until a few months ago.


These newsletters were actually an issue when he tried to run back in 2008 as well. This is hardly something new that was dreamed up for 2012.



Other than that he's consistent and want's to focus on our country's REAL problems. What's not to like about that?


There's the fact that he's lied about this issue EVERY step of the way. This sort of racist and homophobic behavior is not the sort of characteristics I personally find fitting of someone who wishes to sit in the Oval Office. The President represents us to the entire world.

I don't want Ron Paul to represent ME on the world stage, not with these sorts of engrained beliefs.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 
Well, I wouldn't call myself a Paul zealot, NN, but I'll jump in a bit, if I may...there are some pretty useful and thorough reviews of the situation available if you're interested (here and here, but what ms. Hathway is saying doesn't square with what's been provided by others in previous investigations...

If you check sections 4, 5, and 6 of the first link I provided (which will also give you cited sources to the original articles), the headquarters of RP & A were about 60 miles from Paul's personal offices, he often DIDN'T participate directly (being a full-time OBGYN when the questionable material came out), and Paul's contributions were usually a smallish portion and faxed for inclusion - which makes his constant and direct editorial oversight sound even less likely (to me, anyway).

It sounds like there's a discrepancy here, and given the onus of named sources and Paul's record otherwise, I have to cast the more shady eye on Hathaway here. Otherwise, nothing new seems to be presented, just her singularly making the claim Paul was more closely involved than acknowledged.

Take care, Nihil



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by negativenihil
 


It is still heresay, there is no proof that he approved it.


Except the word of Ron Paul's old secretary. Oh and let's not forget about his homophobic writings on LewRockwell.com as late as 2003!

www.lewrockwell.com...


The Court determined that Texas had no right to establish its own standards for private sexual conduct, because gay sodomy is somehow protected under the 14th amendment “right to privacy.” Ridiculous as sodomy laws may be, there clearly is no right to privacy nor sodomy found anywhere in the Constitution.


Face it, Ron Paul does not feel homosexuals should be afforded the same freedom and liberty he preaches to his base.


Now there is proof of Fannie and Freddie giving money to Newt and Newt saying that he wants terrorists to Attack Americans.


That's great, but this thread is about Ron Paul and his newsletters - not Newt. That would be a whole other thread.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by negativenihil
 

there is no proof that he approved it.


There is also no proof that he didn't approve it. What is a fact is that Ron Paul's name is atop the news letter.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   
This thread again...wash rinse repeat....



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by negativenihil
Face it, Ron Paul does not feel homosexuals should be afforded the same freedom and liberty he preaches to his base.


Ugh! I was hoping to find out that Ron Paul really DOES believe in freedom, but as I have suspected, more is coming to light about his feelings about gay rights, women's rights (overturning Roe V Wade) and race, too... I'm a little more concerned.

From your source: And this is Ron Paul's voice:



Under those amendments, the State of Texas has the right to decide for itself how to regulate social matters like sex, using its own local standards.


The state has the right to REGULATE SEX? Sex is a "Social Matter"? WTF?

This proves to me that like EVERY OTHER POLITICIAN who screams about "freedoms", he is only interested in protecting the freedoms with which he agrees. The freedoms of people he disagrees with can be turned over to the states to make the discriminatory laws they want...

The state can regulate sex? Hello? Ron! Shame on you!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 
I DO want to address this right quick, as well...from the article you provided:

There isn’t a whole lot of new information in the Washington Post’s latest story on the Paul newsletter scandal, but there is one fresh name attached to an on-the-record quote that could prove damning to Paul, who has said for years that he was totally unaware of the racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay language that filled his for-profit leaflets.

I would like to point out that the last bit there seems to be a pretty damned common (and annoying) misconception. The articles from his various newsletters were published bi-monthly over the course of about a decade or longer - if I recall correctly from reporter Ben Swann's investigation - meaning that over 240 various newsletters were produced.

Of these, I believe only about 20 are ever alleged or referenced as having "racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay" language in them...and reading some of the newsletters available online directly a good selection here from The New Republic, the quotes in question are often much less noteworthy than assumed, and make up a surprisingly small volume of the involved editions themselves - so, and statement that any of his leaflets or newletters were "filled" with such things is very much more than slightly misleading.

Thanks.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 

Face it, Ron Paul does not feel homosexuals should be afforded the same freedom and liberty he preaches to his base.

Now now, a little accuracy would be nice. Paul preached nothing to his base that is not acknowledged here - if he doesn't see a constitutional justification for the federal government to be involved in or regulating something, then he firmly applies the 9th and 10th amendments - it is the responsibility of the people or the states to manage.

And as the states are made up of the people, then the people should be able to direct their state governments to handle things accordingly.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 
Also to my friend Benevolent Heretic - Paul's personal view is that as long as we aren't intruding on anyone else's rights or liberties, than ALL levels of government should stay out of these matters one way or the other (be it marriage, sex, drugs, etc.) - but according to the supreme law of this country, the states can legislate on such IF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATES ALLOW THEM TO.

It's up to *us* to get involved and craft things the way we want. Everyone always wants to separate the government from the people, but one is composed of the other, regardless of which level of government we're talking about. If we allow it to do things it shouldn't or that we disagree with, it's either because we in too great a share have become lazy and accepting of such, or that a sufficient majority of the population disagrees with your stance - welcome to democracy, in that case.

And once again, I do have to say that offering Paul up over a matter such as "not protecting everyone's rights at the federal level" is in my view a tragically shortsighted opinion, given all the other federal offenses and intrusions we apparently make peace with to stand on such, as well as assuming other options offer any significantly better choice - as well as failing to consider that however unlikely, federal solutions to problems can also eventually swing the other way and LIMIT options for everyone, as well.

If you see enough discontent and instability in public opinion and faith of government grow, it is indeed possible, unlikely or no, that you could see federal amendments on gay marriage, abortion, etc.

Tired for sounding like a broken record, but we must look at NET acceptances and NET outcomes - and it seems to me like we compromise entirely too much, rely on others entirely too much, and are happy to yield entirely too much to prevent some outside possibilities.

edit on 1/27/2012 by Praetorius because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Praetorius

If you check sections 4, 5, and 6 of the first link I provided (which will also give you cited sources to the original articles), the headquarters of RP & A were about 60 miles from Paul's personal offices, he often DIDN'T participate directly (being a full-time OBGYN when the questionable material came out), and Paul's contributions were usually a smallish portion and faxed for inclusion - which makes his constant and direct editorial oversight sound even less likely (to me, anyway).


Your first link points to an FAQ that was last updated in 2008. Is it not possible that new information has surfaced? For whatever reason, Paul's old secretary has decided to come forward now - I don't see any reason to dismiss her side of the story until it's fully investigated.

In your later post you do make a food point in that there were 240 issues published, and only 20 have been shown to have this sort of content - however, I feel for someone who is running for President, that's 20 too many.

I seriously doubt the right would be so eager to dismiss these sorts of allegations had they been leveled against Candidate/President Obama, especially with 20 prime examples.

In any case, I'd like to take a second to thank you for your courteous, calm and well thought out replies. You set a good example, and others should take note.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


I know this will be a hard fact to swallow for libertarians, but sometimes we do in fact need federal regulations to ensure everyone has the same rights no matter where they are in the country - regardless of sex, race, or sexual orientation.

The same can be said about things such as the Department of Education (something Paul has promised to get rid of). If we do not have federal standards and regulations for education, then we have the very real risk of states teaching radically different things to students.

The end result would be Americans being unable to actually compete on the world stage. Some states would opt not to teach science, while others might opt to ignore slavery. How silly would we look to the rest of the world?



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:16 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


To be fair...Ron Paul supporters only say that he thinks like the founding fathers and wants to return to their original intent of the country.

Which means protecting the rights of white straight men.


Minorities, gays, and women shouldn't be silly and want "rights"...the founders never intended them to have them.



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


Oh...well if he is only racist part of the time...I guess that's ok



Or...Ron Paul just couldn't help himself those 20 times and let his racism slip out....as Rick Perry would say..."oops".
edit on 27-1-2012 by OutKast Searcher because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by negativenihil
 


Here we go again!

The man hasn't said one thing in 30 years to make me think he is racist.

In fact, the more I listen to the man, the more I want to support him.

Nice try....again! You Obama-Bots are worse than the MSM. At least Paul doesn't lie through his horse-tooth, made for prime-time smile like your Wall Street Original Banksta puppet-boy does!



posted on Jan, 27 2012 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by maddog99

Nice try....again! You Obama-Bots are worse than the MSM. At least Paul doesn't lie through his horse-tooth, made for prime-time smile like your Wall Street Original Banksta puppet-boy does!


Except for when he claimed he had no knowledge, no oversight of these newsletters (which had his name right in the title no less!), This story contradicts Ron Pauls statements...

thus...

Ron Paul has probably lied.

This isn't rocket science.





top topics
 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join