0 votes

Ron Paul on Old Newsletter Controversy

On CNN with Wolf Blitzer.

Part 1

Part 2

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Read the post called:

"Finally proof that Ron Paul is not racist".

It covers it all.

"If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." - Romans 12:18

Brilliant article that explains why we love Dr. Paul:

Here is a flier to hand out

to those who ask about the letters. I threw it together yesterday, feel free to share and distribute:


Mathew 5:9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

Thanks for this!


Free Computer Tutorials For All At:

David Gergin

Member: CFR They don't go far from thier home base.
Work for Richard Nixon. Doing the cover up for Watergate.
Worked for Bill Clinton. Different party....Hmmm Stripes of a different flavor.
Political Henchman for the elitists.


There is life at the end of the tunnel my friends!

It's time! Rand Paul 2016!

"Truth, Justice, and the American Way!"

this was new to me

Really weird, Dave Bergen the same guy attacking the Dr.


Ron Paul a/antiracist

My take is that Ron Paul had an excellent interview. Of course some will still try to run the issue, but they will not find anything.
Go to a sistersite ronpaulwarroom dot com there you will se a picture of Dr. Paul as a doctor with a female black patient in a wheelchair and two black men: very nice pic. Download the pic and send to those you think may react a bit negative on the newsletter spin, can also use for new voters to persuade. Besides, people like to see the human side of a person, and Dr. Paul not as a politician would interest many people.

Also: go to google and click on ALL the positive articles about Ron Paul many times, so that the references to the newsletters are seconday (not on first page anymore).

Blessing in disguise!

Please read the excellent response from Dr Paul on the official website about the NH recount issue. The details in that post answer all the queries and also suggest that the concerns have been heard and attention paid to them.

It would be critical for the movement to grow that Dr Paul writes a similar response to the 'racism' newsletter issue. The current group (us) is already convinced that he is not a racist by any means, but a detailed factual response to the authorship issue will be a huge win for him. This newsletter issue has brought a lot of attention to him (google ron paul and you will see yourself), and it might be a blessing in disguise!

Rodney King a member of a "criminal class of people" ???

It has been said the RP newsletter defended the Rodney King beating on grounds that King was part of a "criminal class of people." If the newsletter did say that, then clearly these were not the words (or thoughts) of Ron Paul. I've heard almost every interview I could get my hands on over that past six mouths and listened to every word that has come from Ron Paul mouth.... over and over again he has made the case for individual rights and doesn't look at people as members of a group. In his view, we are all individuals, end of story.

In the mind of Ron Paul a criminal is a criminal, and should be treat as such (this is how he views those who attacked us on 9/11 by the way). He does not see them, or Rodney King, or anyone else as a member of a "criminal group" which we should feel is some special or particular threat to our liberty. This idea that Ron Paul would paint Black people (or anyone else for that matter) as a "criminal class of people" or sub-class group is just false on it'd face. That these statement appeared in his wn newsletter doesn't make it any less false. It does, however, make it hard to argue against (i.e., it makes it difficult to defend RP). Based on what I know, these words were not his. I hope that my words help, in some small way, to set the record straight.

Having said that, I know people (both black and white) who harbor deep prejudices and preconceived ideas that you might find offensive (being married to a Black woman, I have seen and heard it all, believe me), but I have learned to be a libertarian about such things... what does that mean??.... simple: it means I no longer get easily offended... people say things and do things that may be messed up... sure... but for my sake, I feel to be intolerant of intolerance does the world little good. I find it is far better to overlook minor faults (what is often mere ignorance) so that I can continue to have a relationship with a person, and in so doing I can influence their opinion by sharing my life and showing them they are wrong or to give them a different view point. My willingness to be a friend does me no harm, and often it does them good. I think my life is my best argument against racism, and I think Ron Paul's life is his best argument against these false accusations.

Ron Paul is my hero.
Malcolm X is my hero.

Say what you will about their past, I know I'm
a better man today because of their influence.



I can remember Lew Rockwell specifically...

...defending the Rodney King beating in the LA Times op-ed page back at that time. I can remember being upset with Rockwell, and a Libertarian candidate for Governor of California wrote a letter to the editor criticizing Rockwell.


I say we do exactly what Ron Paul is doing about it.

State the truth and then start talking about something else.

KISS = keep it simple stupid!

I'm voting for Ron Paul come hell or high water.

Pauls response

was great. It's too bad he isn't this forceful, articulate, convincing, and engaging in the debates. He produced specific details at the drop of a hat when he needed to. If he would do this more often and in the manner he does here, he would be the frontrunner.

Thanks, Eris, this is what i've been looking for

He's Not Racist, But Guess Who Is...
"On January 10th, 2008 eris says:
There is no one so unblemished that their smallest character flaws can't be magnified all out of proportion by the MSM, meanwhile the MSM totally ignores direct racist comments or direct endorsement of racists by the frontrunners..."

Good, let's have an open, honest discussion. I am of Latin-American descent, have lived in Houston for decades and have seen racism from the white majority firsthand. It stings, and trust me is not dead here. But I don't wear that on my sleeve and try to look ahead. I've had the opportunity to meet Ron Paul, but chose not to because in the back of my head I thought, "No, he's an old Texan white guy and bound to disrespect me because I'm Hispanic." When I read these excerpts, I felt affirmed in my suspicion. I don't think he thoroughly addressed them. However, I knew he couldn't be the only candidate that's ever said something racist, but I'd never heard anything negative from others. Until then it was going to be a matter of choosing the lesser devil, weighing his comments and superb philosophy against less agreeable candidates that at least had the acumen to not leak personal vitriol. But evidence of racism would factor heavily against.

So your post restores some balance.

YEAH! and how do you think

YEAH! and how do you think it makes me feel when during the debates all I hear is Islamofascist or the bit about the burkas, being of the muslim faith I think its really racist for McCain and Thompson to make those kind of statements, if they can talk like that right up front at a debate I wonder what they say in private. somebody needs to make a big thing about that. Is it only statement about blacks or jews that count?

Waiting for an apology.

Someone should apologize to the groups unfairly insulted in the newsletters.

Who wrote and edited these articles?

That is the million dollar question and I am disturbed that it seems to be treated as a state secret.

I am a huge fan of RP going back to when I first started reading Lewrockwell.com in 2000. I am horrified that Lew Rockwell, whose writings and speeches I hold in the highest esteem, may have had something to do with this and certainly has inside information. Is it true that Blumert was the newsletter editor in this timeframe and Rockwell the primary writer? I have followed LRC closely enough to know that one contributor of articles, Bob Wallace, was expunged from the site without a trace or an explanation after making very racist remarks on his blog. If Rockwell is involved, that might explain some of the secrecy, because he and his paleo associates are a core part of RP's brain trust.

Racism is obviously incompatible with liberty; I couldn't have put it better than the good doctor himself. But we've already seen that even racists are attracted to the message of freedom.

I will deeply hope for a resolution of this mystery and an exoneration of Rockwell and Blumert. I don't see eye-to-eye with RP on every issue, but I back him wholeheartedly, and this is the only subject that has caused me serious concern in the entire campaign thus far. Please, let the truth out, whatever it is. RP is an honest man and I'm sure he'd like nothing more, although it may not be politically prudent for he himself to do the unmasking.

The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul...

The Honorable Dr. Ron Paul was betrayed by staffers who are no longer part of his staff.

He made a mistake to trust those in his employ who wrote these racist remarks. He has accepted responsibility for allowing it to happen.

How many employers have had to face the mistakes that they have made in the people that they trusted to employ? Many.

Yes, the Honorable Dr. Ron Paul made a mistake, or mistakes, in this case. He is human.

He is NOT a racist nor does he practice racism.

Buy gold; vote paper.


"...a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." -John F. Kennedy

uhhh he does say he

uhhh he does say he repudiates them, and is not racist. I am pretty sure that means he doesn't agree with the comments. Also Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King are heroes of his. And he accepts the moral responsibility. Also if you go read most of these articles even though they may not be written by Paul. A lot of them sound worse when cut short. Some of them are quotes of other people to make a point., and some are statistically correct at the time. I beleive Ron when he says he didn't write them himself, but at the same time, most of these newsletters aren't bad or incorrect at the time they were written, or bad when read in entirety.

Come forward with the whole truth.

I just watched the interview between Wolf Blitzer and Ron Paul regarding the newsletters. Ron Paul sure didn't put the issue to bed for me. I have lived in Ron Paul's district for the past 13 years and I have never heard anything about this. It may be old news to many but it's new news to me and I would like to know the whole story. The problem with his explanation at this point is; one it is really lame for him to say, "I just didn't know." Two it paints the picture of an individual that is unaware of things going on around him. It also demonstrates an individual using very poor judgment. Further, if this is old news, it seems to me that when Ron Paul first found out about the publications he should have blown the story wide open naming names and clearing himself if he wasn't involved. I know for many of the people in this movement Ron Paul can do no wrong. However, if the blinders are removed just a little you will want to know the whole truth also. Whether he wrote the newsletters or not, for me, until Ron Paul comes forward with the whole truth, at the very least he is guilty by association.

Daily Paul has RP's name on it

Is Ron Paul irresponsible for not reviewing everything posted on this site?

I think not.

Yes, but RP doesn't OWN DailyPaul - he owned the newsletters

You have to find a way to fix the fact that he OWNED the newsletters.

doublepost--please delete


I have a bad Feeling,,

This isnt going to go away. I can almost guaruntee it will come up in the next debate.

It won't until a head rolls...

And NO single individual's is important enough for this. Listen to Wendy, whoever you are, and then take responsibility for the words you put in your employer's mouth. It's the only politicallly sane thing to do, as well as the morally right thing to do, so just do it.

From Ron Pauls Essay on the subject at hand:

Disproving the critics:

Racism is simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans strictly as members of groups rather than as 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.

The true antidote to racism is liberty. Liberty means having a limited, constitutional government devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than group claims. Liberty means free-market capitalism, which rewards individual achievement and competence - not skin color, gender, or ethnicity.

In a free society, every citizen gains a sense of himself as an individual, rather than developing a group or victim mentality. This leads to a sense of individual responsibility and personal pride, making skin color irrelevant. Racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.

This too will backfire on them.

People who have studied Ron Paul already know he's the farthest from racist of any of the candidates, and they know who to vote for.

This could draw in new readers to do searches and read everything he has written. That would be great indeed!!



Ron Paul Statement on The New Republic Article Regarding Old Ne


January 8, 2008 5:28 am EST

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“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.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“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.”

I must admit, I'm disappointed he doesn't straight out say whether or not he actually reviewed or agreed with the content of these articles. If he has these viewpoints, just be honest and let's have a discussion about them. I personally don't disagree with all of them.

He has said that he's never thought that

In the interview with Wolf Blitzer he stated that those were never his thoughts and has never been his voice. He had outrightly denied ever believing in what those newsletters said, so I think that is vindication enough. If there is anyone running for President or holding public office at all that I would believe, it's Congressman Paul.


When something of this nature comes up about a politician, celebrity, or anyone else who "lives in a fish bowl", the only way to even attempt to make it go away is for someone to take the fall for it. As Dr. Paul continues to gain more support, this will come up over and over again. If he were to get the GOP nomination, the democrat candidate would smear this all over the place, to the point that only someone completely cut off from society in a mountain shack would not have heard this story. I believe Ron Paul when he says he doesn't know who wrote or edited those newsletters, but that won't be good enough for people that are not already Ron Paul supporters and haven't been following him for some time. I knew this would come around and bite him in the ass when I heard about it several months ago. The only thing that could possibly make this go away is to expose the person(s) responsible for this racist literature. HEADS MUST ROLL!!! That is the only thing that will satisfy people that don't know much about Dr. Paul.

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

You're right, but one head would be enough.

I wish that head would stop today & think about what its owner's stubbornness & fear of consequences has already done to others he no doubt now claims to want to help...Dude, the way to help is to end the mystery & just tell the truth.

If Ron Paul was really

If Ron Paul was really racist, he would have talked just like these newsletters. Every racist that I have ever come across talks about it. They don't talk about individual rights and write racist articles. No one has ever heard Ron Paul actually speak racist comments. Ron tells you what he really thinks, so if he was a racist, he would tell you he was. He has said all kinds of other very controversial ideas without hesitation. Martin Luther King, Jr is really one of Ron's heroes. And Ron is fighting right now for a very similar cause, except Ron is fighting for everyone's rights. Again, the libertarian point of view is that there is now groups rights, there is ONLY individual rights and that means EVERYBODY. No one is excluded.

The writer

Although the writer himself knows who wrote all this trash, he is truly a coward for not coming out and identifying him/ her self and exhonorating Dr. Paul, but since they were cowardly enough not to sign the writings in the first place, they most likely will remain silent. I too do not believe this was Ron Pauls work, nor does it read like any of Paul's writings I have ever read. Was this Dondero's work, maybe not, but I'm sure he knows whose work it is. I do not hold this against Paul at all and figured it would surface sooner or later, but as he has explained racism itself is contrary to individual liberty and libertarianism, so I will give the honorable Dr. Paul the benefit of the doubt since this is not anything that connects them together with the exception of the use of his name. That was not an intelligent thing to allow to happen and he should disclose who in fact edited this newsletter.
I will still vote for Paul and this has not swayed me one bit. For the simple minded ones who have changed their mind, those are the ones who are clueless as to what is really going on.

Supposedly Eric Dunderhead

Supposedly Eric Dunderhead says he knows who wrote it(not RP, and not just one person). Can we trust what he says though since he is mad at RP and wants to make him lose his senate seat and any shot at being president?

It's sad this person isn't smart enough to delurk.


as time goes by, it will only get worse, both for the campaign and this "anonymous" person. Not pretty...

I'm Black...I still support the good doctor

I just wish he could explain the situation clearer. I know he is not racist. I personally shook his hand and took a picture with him. Ofcourse this doesn't really prove any thing but I'm going off of my judgement skills.

My coworker came in this morning and said "Did you hear the news on Ron Paul. He said some very terrible things". I tried to defend him but I couldn't do a great job with the material I had.

I will continue to support him however. I really hope and pray he becomes our next president.

9/11 Widows

Isn't this like trying to talk about the disproportionate numbers of certain incarcerated minorities? Talking straight Facts and Statistics will get the racist charge thrown at you faster than you can blink.


I am thankful that just about every true blue supporter of Dr Paul knew about these and knew that at some point in the campaign, if he was doing well, Dr Paul's name would be dragged through the mud.

We all knew it was coming, just a matter of when. So I am thankful none of us were taken off guard.

This was a ploy to defame Dr Paul and his ideals. Guess what? It isn't working.

Dondero discusses the issue on his blog

Here's Dondero discussing the CNN interview on his blog, Libertarian Republican. In Dondero's words:

Ron Paul is suggesting that his explosive Newsletters from the 1980s and '90s were ghostwritten, and went out without his direct knowledge of the contents. As his personal aide during much of that period I can attest that yes, Paul is correct, much of the writings were ghostwritten. Mostly by Lew Rockwell (and his staff of Interns). But Paul himself had a major hand in the writings of the Newsletters, as well.

Wendy McElroy also seems to be pointing to Lew Rockwell, saying on her blog that:
"The identity of the author of the 'objectionable' material from past issues of Ron Paul's Newsletter -- material that is currently being used by major media to skewer Paul [see blog post below] -- is an open secret within the circles in which I run. The news accounts refer to him merely as an "aide." We call him by his first name."

wolfe's picture

Oh, and on the second item...

"Individualist feminisim"... That's like saying a libertarian statist.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

not exactly...

Answering the question: "are you a feminist?" is hard to do unless you first define "feminist"

If you define it as one looking for special or additional rights for women, then it is incompatible with libertarianism.

However, if you define it as someone who wants equal rights for all individuals and simply happens to be specifically focused on making sure there are no laws specifically AGAINST women, then there's nothing incompatible with libertarianism at all.

wolfe's picture


Dondero is a known liar, promotes Rudy as a libertarian (yeah, the guy that defined freedom as slavery) and has been constantly trying to smear Dr. Paul throughout the campaign... But now you think he is trustworthy enough to repeat his garbage here?

Dondero is the ultimate disgruntled employee. Don't repeat his crap...

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Try to be a little bit more objective

Neither you nor Ron Paul or his current campaign aides have brought forth any evidence to disprove Dondero's claims concerning Ron Paul's past. Dondero even denies being fired and points to receiving a bonus (what I'd refer to as a golden handshake). To me it seems the whole disgruntled employee argument is only being used to keep people from further investigating the matter.

It might be true that Dondero has some odd ideas when it comes to all sorts of subjects, but that doesn't make him a liar. And I repeat myself, nobody has actually disproved the claims he's made. Is it not fact that he was Ron Paul's personal aid for close to a decade? He after all played an important part in "re-energizing" (of sorts) the Liberty Causus, the libertarian wing of the Republican party which Ron Paul is part of.

When one looks at the individuals that play a major part in the American libertarian "movement", it seriously makes me question whether libertarianism itself should not be looked at in a more critical light.

Instead of brushing the situation off you should be objectively looking into the matter at hand. I'm not referring to this newsletters per se, but rather issues such as the American libertarian "movement" itself; the Mises Institute and its members (Lew Rockwell, Thomas E. Woods et al); and the concept of Austrian economics compared to the status quo.

UPDATE: Wendy McElroy also links to RightWatch, of whom the author seems to be anonymous, where the issue is currently being discussed. Something which I've been more worried about myself is brought forward:
"Now the Paul’s skeletons are partially out of the closet. His newsletters are now infamous. His close connections to the Mises Institute are now public knowledge. For the most part the Mises Institute connections to racists and anti-Semites is still not known, or at least not publicized. Some have noticed and commented on Rockwell’s ties to neo-Confederate (and heavily racialist) groups. But the mentions have been few and far between. At some point some journalist will stumble across that vipers nest and the truth will come out."

Need Unified Libertarian Party

While I stay away from, am not interested in, and ignore most posts that are anti-staff, anti-Ron Paul or attacks on other posters...I consider this
issue important. In trying to better understand the issue, I went several places:

I went back in history to the time of the newsletter, various levels of human consciousness toward equality, the causes and attitudes that went along with the Civil Rights movement. I also read some history on the John Birch Society, not only how they were dissed almost off the radar, but also the educating they were doing and have been doing since for returning our rights. But I also found a strong attitude that can only be considered Anti-Civil rights act. Not so much racial as against giving the federal government the power to regulate who can be hired by owners of businesses and other ways in which it infringed upon individual rights. Also, it is Dr. Paul's stance that the Civil Rights Act set back African Americans and perpetuated, not erased, racial tensions and equality. Martin Luther King deserves to be a revered as he brought about a lot of good and certainly proved you can still have a revolution. However, much of what he believed was definitely socialism; he ever once described himself as Marxist.

I read up some on the history of the Libertarian Party and the Cato Institute. Ultimately, I found some of the reasons behind the split and one of them was that some were Anti-Civil Rights act from a constitutional stand-point and some were not. I know there are other *issues* and ideology differences involved. Ron Paul obviously has the backing of the Mises Institute founded by Lew Rockwell and a faction of the Libertarian Party as well as the Cato Institute, John Birchers, the Liberty Caucus, the Constitutional Party and perhaps others. At the time of the last election the Libertarian Party was considered by all to be the third largest political party and a real deciding factor. All of the above organizations, combined, would be a major factor. But they are not united. Stay with me, I'm going somewhere!

Here is an excellent article by Alan Weiss he titled The Bankruptcy of the Libertarian Party. http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2007/tle445-20071125-06.html

There apparently is a lot of in-fighting and members of both sides probably have visited this site or we may even hear from them regularly. Heck, Lew may post under the radar! I think we should all let the Newsletter Issue die and it will (it should be treated as a non-issue) because there are more important things going on now. We should appreciate the part Lew Rockwell is playing in getting the message out and we should hope that gradually the inner rifts within the Libertarian Party and within the Cato Institute and within the Liberty Caucus and then, finally, the spats between all of them will lead the next huge step in this Revolution. They need to join in a united fight against the elitists to restore the Republic. They know what is at stake, many of them, far better than most of us do as they have been talking about it for years. Now they have the chance to actually do something.

I blame the Media and education system for the sheeple. But for those who *know* and prefer their petty differences to getting behind the best hope we all have or may have again for a long time...for those, I have no excuse.
We have all concentrated on the way the Republican Party used to be and have failed to look at the rifts within those organizations that should be 100% behind Ron Paul. Notice they have not all endorsed Ron Paul, because they do not have unity within their ranks. Shame on them if any would use the RP Revolution as a battleground; we have enough trouble fighting the media bias without them feeding into it.

Yes, we need to be aware of this and let history teach us. This revolution can celebrate unity in diversity and we will. If we become divisive, combative, proprietary and factioned like some of these organizations then we, too, will not be able to spread the undiluted message and get *many* like-minded people elected so that we can turn this train around. I just want 100% of the Libertarians, Birchers, Cato, Liberty Caucus etc. to get on board.


This sounds unlikely...

Even though it seems you've put forth a considerable amount of effort, I have to say that a unified party between the before mentioned groups to me seems highly unlikely. The differences among them, on both key idealogical issues and personal relations, are just far too great.

Steven Horwitz, Professor of economics at the St. Lawrence University, who describes himself as "a libertarian for over 25 years and a practicing Austrian economist since the late 80s" states:

What has surprised me, I must admit, is the fact that so many fairly prominent libertarian commenters are surprised by all of this. First of all, these newsletters have been brought up before, though perhaps not as many examples, nor as many really offensive ones. But more important, those of us who have been paying attention to the libertarian movement for the last 15 years knew that the paleo element was growing and was associated with all kinds of unsavory views from the ugly segment of the hard right. Did all of these supposed observers of the libertarian scene not pay attention to the appearances that Paul has made at all kinds of fringe events? Did they not pay attention to the links between people associated with Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute (Paul’s intellectual home) and racists, anti-Semites, Holocaust skeptics, homophobes, Confederacy praisers, and conspiracy theorists of all types, all of which have been ably discussed and documented by Right Watch and Tom Palmer, among others? Perhaps the under 35 crowd doesn’t have the longer-run history that those of us in our 40s do.

Thanks for Your Reply, Bruce

Perhaps you can't pour new wine into an old wineskin. This movement apparently is neither Republican, Libertarian or anything else that I would like to associate with it. Perhaps it is brand new. It is just sad that guilt by association with any of the questionable elements of any of these organizations is so alive and sick as far as Ron Paul is concerned. I just can't understand why anyone who knows where the country is going would not back Ron Paul despite any differences they might have with his strict constitutionalist background or any friends and acquaintances he might have, past or present. It makes no sense to me.


wolfe's picture

How's this for objectivity...

Why not have Dondero PROVE his allegations. That IS the way the system works. And you shill quite well for Dondero. And YES, he IS a proven liar. When he started smearing Dr. Paul, I started reading his writings because I believe in "knowing thy enemy".

Anyone who claims the man who defines "Freedom Is Slavery" as libertarian, is in fact an idiot who doesn't belong in the LP or as any part of the libertarian movement, without regard to what credit he would like to take for any part of it.

Oh and let's not forget another in a long list of Dondero's *claimed* accomplishments. He claims to have made Ron Paul single handedly. If he took his strong statements any further, he would have to say that he personally made him from the dust of the earth and breathed life into him.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -

Some more information on the newsletter

Again from RightWatch:

"The Paul newsletters were usually a joint project between Paul, Lew Rockwell and Burt Blumert. Perhaps they all were but I will only say what I’m confident about. Paul really did provide the name and the public face. He was the bait to attract the subscribers. The money came from Blumert to set things up and Rockwell did much of the writing. Of course Paul was fully aware of the newsletters and can’t really argue that he didn’t know what was published."


"My understanding over the years has been that the newsletter was in fact written by Lew Rockwell. Mr. Rockwell is notorious in libertarian circles for having been the author. The problem is that this was one of those issues that was so widely known that no one archived the evidence. It just was. And Rockwell is refusing to talk. Paul is refusing to the name the individual who wrote the hate material."


Concerning RightWatch, as said before it's an anonymous author and even though it offers what seems as relevant information I don't regard it as completely trustworthy. The latest post there concerning Paul's position on the War on Drugs is quite absurd for example. So take what you read there with a grain of salt.

And that is my issue...

Why have so many of these things dissappeared? I wanna read the whole thing, in context, and frankly I would rather not trust things found in far flung historical societies....rather odd for a small newsletter printed in the south to find its way to a historical society in Wisconsin, innit?

It's not exactly like we are talking about Time here, you know.

And I don't trust newswriters, especially the 23 yo variety....Remember that RP said that he did not recognize some of the things quoted on cnn.

Something smells about this whole issue. I don't think it's Paul smelling.

Next week he will be responsible for the Kennedy assination.
Mike Stahl

Mike Stahl

You can read a couple...

Jamie Kirchick (the author of the article that appeared in The New Republic) scanned and uploaded the newsletters he found (I'm not sure if he left out any). You can find them at The New Republican website.

Also today Dondero discussed a blog post by The Economist, which offers a little bit more information.

Eric Dondero states, "From my 12 years working for Ron Paul, and having studied every aspect of this story and how it has been covered by the mainstream press these past few days, I can honestly attest that The Economist has gotten closest to the real truth behind this story than any other previous journal."

In the post the following names are discussed Mark Elam (the owner of the publishing company behind the newsletters and longtime congressional campaign manager for Ron Paul), Lew Rockwell (founder of the Mises Institute) and Jeffery Tucker (editorial vice president of the Mises Institute). Other names of relevance but not mentioned are Jean McIver, the subscription manager for the newsletters, who is currently the Texas Field Coordinator for the Ron Paul campaign; and Burton S. Blumert, who seems to have been involved with the newsletter as well.

The Economist post also links to a discussion by Wirkman Virkkala, formerly the managing editor of the libertarian monthly Liberty where he discusses the motiviation behind the newsletters. Note that Wirkman concludes by stating, "Still, were he on a ballot for president in my state, against any of the current contenders, I would still vote for him. For whereas he is morally compromised, his opponents should be so lucky -- their main points of ideology are morally compromised in far more dangerous ways.", which I feel is a very important point in and by itself.

wolfe's picture

It hurts now but...

It's better that this finally broke in the corporate media. I know how painful it is to watch our man attacked in this way when he has addressed this. Believe me, I feel it too, and my my only regret is that the corporate media didn't break this sooner.

Here is why. It is a well known fact that the earlier a negative attack is made in a campaign the better off you are because people forget and get wrapped up in new things. It would have been if this had broken prior to Rudy's various issues and such which would make this seem as silly as this is.

But now that it broke, we just wait... The pain will go away, and we will all be thankful that it happened early in the campaign. They used it to squelch New Hampshire, but it was a premature attack. They made the calculated risk that if they squelched New Hampshire we wouldn't be able to build up steam after that. They were wrong! And that attack can only be used once to effect!

They don't have any more attacks against us so it is onward and upward, and man are we gonna kick ass if Dr. Paul keeps on the attack like in that AWESOME debate and here with Blitzer.

The Philosophy Of Liberty -