2012 Election | AIDS/HIV | Ron Paul

BigGayDeal.com

Ron Paul's Homophobia In Context

RonpaulAs the furor over Ron Paul's 20-year-old, allegedly racist/homophobic/classist/sexist/whatever newsletters has raged on and on, more than one thoughtful soul has wondered if Dr. Paul might not be being quoted out of context. It is certainly possible, say, to imagine a context in which this quote might be harmless:

...the largest blood bank in San Francisco ... holds blood drives in the gay Castro district, where people give at three times the usual level. Either they are public spirited, or they're trying to poison the blood supply.

... for example, by ending it with the phrase: "Though obviously anyone who believes that is a misanthropic crank who should never, under any circumstances, be taken seriously."

Well, now we know for a fact what Ron Paul really wrote, thanks to The New Republic. And man, he really didn't like gays. (And yes, it seems Ron Paul really did write these things, no matter what he says, because they're filled with utterances like ""Just because I favor the legalization of drugs doesn't mean I'm in favor of using them. As a physician, I know they're bad stuff.") TNR has scanned page after page of Dr. Paul's old newsletters, and again and again he displays the most atrocious paranoia -- he really seems to have believed, in the late 80's and early 90s, that the gays wanted to rape children, desecrate the Eucharist (which, to be fair, some of us do), die young of atrocious diseases on the taxpayer's dime, and give everyone AIDS.

And he seems to have liked blacks even less than he liked gays.

For the record, Ron Paul's now the favorite to win Iowa.

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Maybe someone should tell Andrew Sullivan, Ron Pauls' biggest gay supporter in the press. Although knowing Sullivan, he'll probably dismiss it as a youthful indiscretion.

    Posted by: PhoneUser | Dec 24, 2011 4:30:46 PM


  2. Yes, PHONEUSER, too many people are writing off his past writings as ancient history. 1993 is not ancient history. I still have a shirt or two from 1993. More seriously, the man was no kid 18 years ago, he was pushing 60. He was an adult. I do not believe his mind has changed on black people or AIDS or gay people, he's just gotten slightly better at concealing his beliefs as he's gotten to be more of a national figure. Hopefully, he will finally be put out to pasture with this election cycle.

    Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Dec 24, 2011 4:34:54 PM


  3. This is pure propaganda and yet people are eating it up.

    Posted by: V | Dec 24, 2011 4:46:28 PM



  4. http://www.voteforronpaul2012.com
    You Support Ron Like We Do!
    WE ARE NOT RON PAUL
    END ALL AMERICAN WARS


    We have a chat room! Rant about Ron Paul all day!
    http://www.voteforronpaul2012.com/live-chat-room/

    U.S.North East Grassroots site coming up please support and like on facebook.
    PLEASE SUPPORT AND LIKE US ON FACEBOOK BELOW EVEN IF YOU ALREADY SUPPORT RON SUPPORT THE MOVEMENT!
    http://www.facebook.com/voteforronpaul2012

    The Right Call is Freedom For All
    Vote for Ron Paul 2012! Please Subscribe, Share, Comment, Like, and share the views of this brilliant man.

    Posted by: Vote For Ron Paul 2012 | Dec 24, 2011 4:49:16 PM


  5. Of course you automatically assume it was him who wrote those things and not one of his many ghostwriters as he claims.

    I agree with that because he's talked like that in a lot of speeches and interviews over the years. He also wants to start another war to kills middle easterners.

    Posted by: Nick Shunto | Dec 24, 2011 4:50:04 PM


  6. Actually, those were written after Ron Paul handed the newspaper off to Lew Rockwell and their ilk and stopped having anything to do with it. The writers continued writing from Paul in the first person. Once it even calls Martin Luther King a communist philanderer and that "as congressman voted against MLK day" (paraphrasing) which is good evidence that Paul was not writing these himself. Congressional record shows Paul to have voted for MLK day and referring to MLK many times throughout the years as one of his personal heroes.

    Posted by: Brett | Dec 24, 2011 4:51:24 PM


  7. Dr. Paul voted for MLK holiday, therefore he could not have denounced Reagan for signing the bill as the writer of the 8 to 9 offensive passages in the newsletters did. Dr. Paul was the 220 yard dash champion of the state of Pennsylvania and had a personal best in the 100 yard dash of 9.7 sec. at a time when the national record and Jesse Owens's record was 9.4 sec. Therefore he would not think any ordinary black man on the street was unbelievably fast as the writer states. The writer didn't even know Ron Paul's personal history very well. The writer was not Ron Paul and wasn't a person that knew Ron Paul well such as Lew Rockwell. The writer may very well have been a disruptor of some sort government or otherwise. There is a long history of such insertions into dissident organizations. Anyone who has seen Ron Paul's spirited defense of civil liberties and drug legalization on the Morton Downey show in 1988 would know that it's impossible that he would somehow adopt a contrary philosophy shortly thereafter.

    Posted by: mike | Dec 24, 2011 4:53:04 PM


  8. Well, he claims he did not write them and the first person used in the letters is not proof, which I should not have to point out. So, either he is a racist, a homophobe, and much worse, a bald-faced liar. Or he really did not write them, in which case he may be none of those things. If anyone really cares about this - like if they were thinking of actually voting for him or something - then I suggest you do your own research and make up your own mind. There is a lot of material out there beyond what the mainstream media is citing. Otherwise, why not just continue condemning him on the policies that he is on record for supporting, and argue them on their merits?

    Posted by: Grant | Dec 24, 2011 4:53:05 PM


  9. If I were a politician and someone ELSE was writing this kind of incendiary stuff under my name, I'm pretty sure I'd something about it by putting a stop to it. Unless, of course, I agreed with it or thought that there was nothing out-of-the ordinary about it. If, indeed, he didn't write this stuff himself, his complacency in letting it be continuously published under his name is shocking and a mark on his character.

    Posted by: Eaves | Dec 24, 2011 5:00:27 PM


  10. Or, to be more clear and present: If it's true that he DIDN'T write this stuff himself, the next immediate question is, "Then, Congressman, why did you allow it to be continuously published under your name or why haven't you taken steps to publicly disavow all of it long ago? Why, only now, are you saying you don't agree with it?"

    Posted by: Eaves | Dec 24, 2011 5:02:08 PM


  11. Do you know what a ghostwriter is, Brandon? Evidently not, since someone familiar with a ghostwriter and the actual details of the story would not have seized on the use of first-person as definitive proof of Ron Paul's guilt.

    Posted by: Jordan | Dec 24, 2011 5:02:09 PM


  12. I'd suggest that people read this article from a gay, libertarian, Ron-Paul-supporter:

    http://takimag.com/article/why_the_beltway_libertarians_are_trying_to_smear_ron_paul/#axzz1h0nfwejq

    The slandering of Ron Paul is textbook political tactics. Ron paul's association with the john birch society is often pointed to as proof that he is wicked or crazy. My research into the jbs led me to a book called "None dare call it conspiracy" by Gary Allen (who founded Politico). The beginning chapters speak about how statists and communist will use allegations of racism and anti-semitism to destroy individuals or groups fighting for liberty and constitutionalism and free markets.

    To label Ron Paul as anti-Semitic is ludicrous. The two greatest influences on paul's beliefs, Murray rothbard and Ludwig Von mises, were both Jewish - rothbard was himself charged with being anti-Semitic for opposing the creation of isreal. Likewise, if Paul is anti-homosexual he wouldn't have had a homosexual campaign manager who DID die from complications from AIDS.

    I ask all interested parties to dig below the surface of these smear campaigns. Read the allegedly racis comments in their context. Consider who is charging Ron Paul with this slander and ask yourself why they would do it. Find anything Paul has actually said or done that runs contrary to his belief in liberty for all. And, if you are homosexual, consider wether the very groups who would like to destroy Ron paul's reputation aren't really the ones who are the real bigots - like the national revue.

    Finally, consider why a man trying to become president (and statedly diminish the power of the presidency) would say unpopular things (to republicans and democrats) in national debates yet lie about these other supposed beliefs.

    Ron Paul is no bigot and he knows what is ailing this country. He is guilty of despising the welfare state and the warfare state. That is why so many are lining up to sully his name. He poses a great threat to the party of two faces - republican and democrat.

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

    Posted by: Christopher | Dec 24, 2011 5:04:29 PM


  13. Homos are going to Hell anyways and AIDS is just getting them there faster. Even if He did write any of what you say He did then good. I hate fags and so should you.

    Posted by: HomostoHell | Dec 24, 2011 5:06:40 PM


  14. The letters were written in the first person by ghost writers, as many campaign books are. First person has no bearing on the fact that you can go on youtube and watch videos of this guy from as far back as the 1970s and he is not and never has been a bigot.

    Posted by: KJ | Dec 24, 2011 5:07:11 PM


  15. Paul's voting record and philosophies are in direct opposition to claims that he supports these 6 or so sentences they dug up out of millions of sentences in Newsletters that he didn't even write.

    The media establishment will lose their power to manipulate once Ron Paul is elected. THEY ARE RUNNING SCARED!!!

    Let Freedom Ring.

    President Ron Paul 2012!

    Posted by: reason2012 | Dec 24, 2011 5:08:40 PM


  16. And for the record. Anyone who supports gay marriage should recognize that Paul is their only hope for equal rights! He's the only one who didn't sign the marriage amendment against gays. Wake up people!

    Posted by: reason2012 | Dec 24, 2011 5:09:50 PM


  17. ignore reason2012 - he's still butthurt over the fact that he had to cut off his own balls in order to win his dad's tolerance.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Dec 24, 2011 5:11:21 PM


  18. I see the Paul supporters are out in force. Whether Paul actually believes the things that were written in his name or not is really beside the point. This sort of incendiary, paranoid, bigoted language was used by libertarians to get money out of paranoid right-wing zealots. To think that a politician such as Paul did not pay attention to what was being said in his name is ridiculous. I think these newsletters were a cynical ploy by Paul to make a buck. That he distanced himself from the content so that he could deny being involved is not really a point in his favor.

    Posted by: ShawntheSheep | Dec 24, 2011 5:23:38 PM


  19. You guys should simply disable the comments when you run these stories - you could have a thousand people condemning Paul, but you're just going to get 2000 True Believers out defending him. They've been scouring the internet for weeks now, copy-pasting the same chunks of non-defence defences.

    Posted by: Nat | Dec 24, 2011 5:24:07 PM


  20. Ron Paul voted AGAINST the Defense of Marriage Act, which Bill Clinton signed and put into law.

    Posted by: JEFFREY SHAK00R | Dec 24, 2011 5:25:11 PM


  21. "This sort of incendiary, paranoid, bigoted language was used by libertarians to get money out of paranoid right-wing zealots. "

    Don't smear libertarians with an association with Paul, please. Most of the ones I know fell into supporting Gary Johnson months ago, because they live in the real world, and know that Paul and his supporters don't.

    Posted by: Nat | Dec 24, 2011 5:26:01 PM


  22. @Jordan, I suggest you back off the snark button. Brandon is a journalist and knows quite well what a ghostwriter does. What YOU apparently do not understand is what a ghostwriter IS and how ghostwriting works.

    As I've mentioned before on here, I'm a senior public affairs staffer here in DC and actually AM a ghostwriter (as one of my many duties) for government and military leaders. I ghostwrite at least one nationally or internationally published piece a month and sometimes far more for newsletters, internal publications, the WASHINGTON POST, Associated Press, and prepare talking points for interviews. I can tell you that not once in 15 years of doing this, has my "principal" (the person who's byline is going on the piece) not read it in advance, offered critiques/made changes (sometimes), and/or personally approved the piece before it was sent for publication. Quite often, I'm not even the one who submits it for publication--it's often a chief of staff, head of communications, or the principal him/herself. Even in situations where I've been writing for someone for two years and we're in sync (no changes made at all anymore), the principal still reads and approves each one, even if it's cursory. It's unheard of not to, for reasons exactly such as this. And neither I nor anyone I know (we talked about this all week) in my field here in DC has EVER heard of a principal who doesn't (though we have heard of many who use the "I didn't write it, someone who worked for me did" excuse to distance themselves from something troubling--it happens frequently and we're used to it.)

    If a politician, government leader, or business leader allows something to go forth under his or her byline and does not read it before it is done, that opens up a whole other set of questions about their leadership and management style, whether they accept final responsibility for things that are done in their name (which happens frequently when you're President of the United States, almost by definition, as everything the Executive departments do, they do as agents of your administration) and whether they would continue to act in such a way in future positions/offices. All that is being done right now is the legitimate asking of questions by the press and the public about such things.

    I have no opinion about whether Dr. Paul wrote these things, and I'd like to believe he didn't believe them--God, I'd like to believe no one does. But you ARE responsible 100% for things that go out under the publication called "The Ron Paul Report" and written under your byline in the FIRST person, and sent to people who send YOU money to receive it and fully believe/are led to believe it's FROM YOU. He may have very good answers for all of this, it may have simply be a very, very stupid mistake (or laziness) to not read these (though it would be a HUGE and unlikely mistake) before they were mailed out, but either way, it's legitimate for people and the press to ask for that explanation and to explore, with appropriate journalistic assertiveness (and appropriate for his competitors and potential voters to ask), how this mistake would apply (if at all) to his future views, actions, and acceptance of responsibility if he is granted the honor of being President of the United States.

    We cannot be blinded by single issues. He's for government getting out of gay marriage issues, but he's (recently) taken a very very dim (bordering on anti-gay) view of homosexuality and believes we do NOT deserve anti-discrimination protections, does not believe in most civil rights legislation, and does not believe in hate crimes protections for gays, etc. So he won't stand in the way of our getting married--this is not a man who will advocate for Congress to allow us to do so, and who WILL advocate the repeal of anti-discrimination laws, hate crimes protections, and seek to abolish the view that gay people are a class who have been historically discriminated against and deserve pro-active domestic rights. All he is is against the government banning gay marriage--not for gays or gay rights. It's a HUGE difference.

    His stands on drug legalization and cutting the military have similar downsides that he simply refuses to acknowledge and discuss...leading me to believe he is unequipped to actually balance all the requirements of being President (which often requires sublimating personal views and ideology to compromise and/or protect the rights/views of the minority who you may disagree with but are still participant in government through congress).

    Finding out he either a) believed and wrote these things in the 90s or (WORSE) b) was such a hands-off leader he didn't bother to review/check/sign-off on something he took money from people to provide under his name (and now simply disavows all responsibility because it "wasn't me, personally") doesn't increase my confidence. Particuarly since I personally know intimately the way ghostwriting in government works.

    Posted by: LuckyLinden | Dec 24, 2011 5:35:35 PM


  23. *ahem* What LuckyLinden said. Thanks.

    Posted by: Eaves | Dec 24, 2011 5:48:16 PM


  24. How can one get a job in the mainstream media? I guess one has to be ignorant, able to lie, morally corrupt and self serving. No wonder the media and establishment politicians get along so well.... they're identical.

    It's clear Paul didn't write these, but we'll ignore issues that matter and that are real and create lies about an issue nobody cares about.

    Posted by: Alex | Dec 24, 2011 5:48:35 PM


  25. This is all a farce. Ron Paul doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming POTUS. These articles sure do bring out the self-loathing republican and libertarian gays en masse, though. A few non-gay anti-gay trolls too.

    Posted by: candide001 | Dec 24, 2011 5:48:36 PM


  26. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Rossville Christian Academy: Students To Be Militantly Heterosexual In Thought, Word, And Deed« «