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.


  1. PhoneUser says

    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.

  2. says

    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.

  3. says
    You Support Ron Like We Do!

    We have a chat room! Rant about Ron Paul all day!

    U.S.North East Grassroots site coming up please support and like on facebook.

    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.

  4. Nick Shunto says

    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.

  5. Brett says

    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.

  6. mike says

    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.

  7. Grant says

    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?

  8. Eaves says

    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.

  9. Eaves says

    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?”

  10. Jordan says

    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.

  11. Christopher says

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

    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.

  12. HomostoHell says

    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.

  13. KJ says

    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.

  14. reason2012 says

    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!

  15. reason2012 says

    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!

  16. ShawntheSheep says

    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.

  17. Nat says

    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.

  18. Nat says

    “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.

  19. LuckyLinden says

    @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.

  20. Alex says

    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.

  21. candide001 says

    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.

  22. devon charles says

    All the republican candidates would endorse the murder of gays if it was a more mainstream position.
    I think that only Bachman and Santorum have officially sanctioned the murder of gays so far in the campaign.

  23. Vint says

    So, the only question is [1] was he lying when he led people to believe that he wrote his own newsletter, or [2] is he lying now when he says he didn’t.

    The first would be a lie for monetary gain, the second for political gain.

  24. Xtab says

    Ron Paul likely didn’t write the newsletters himself, but it’s clear he approved them and his campaign engaged in fueling bigotry and homophobia for two decades.

    Paul is the enemy of gays and should be opposed like the demagogue he is.

  25. St. Theresa of Avila says

    Not that I’m a Paul supporter, but, really, the reaction to this seems amusingly overwrought and naive to me. Why? Can anybody cite ANYTHING showing the other Republican candidates think any differently? (specifically, the homophobia in the newsletters, not that the racism is excusable) Mitt Romney might be just a little less insane, but that’s arguably negated in some way by his Mormonism. He’s such a professional conman he’d be sure never to say such things, even if he believed them.

    As for “HOMOSTOHELL” we have a probable Paul supporter showing what about 75% of them really think. I’m not saying gays and lesbians have to be card carrying democrats, but those supporting a candidate like Paul “deserve what they get”. Can anybody see Paul vetoing a congressional repeal of the DADT repeal? Seriously, people, stop and think here for a minute. That being said, I think it’s good he says he would stop the growth of military spending. I actually agree with that. Thing is, it’s not a president’s budget to make, only to veto, and it will never happen no matter who gets elected to Congress or the White House. Too many hands in too many cookie jars around the country.

  26. Jerry says

    Not that I plan on voting for Ron Paul for any reason, but…

    I seem to remember something that John Edwards said in the not-too-distant past about how his personal feelings, strong as they are or may be, do not have any place in his role of determining public policy. Every other Republican candidate in the field right now has made it clear that they intend to MAKE their personal beliefs public policy, Paul has made a point — and perhaps this is really him playing the Libertarian card more than anything else, but still — of saying that he will take public policy positions that are directly opposite of his (perhaps presumed) personal beliefs.

    Skepticism is certainly warranted in situations such as this, but I think that in this much for a guy to openly espouse a position so unpopular in the established conservative hierarchy is worth something.

  27. Eaves says

    @Alex — How in the world is it “clear [that] Paul didn’t write these” articles when they were published in a newsletter with his name on the masthead?

  28. St. Theresa of Avila says

    A few non-gay anti-gay trolls too.

    Don’t be so sure. More like closeted-gay anti-gay trolls.

    All the republican candidates would endorse the murder of gays if it was a more mainstream position.

    Exactly. Although maybe with First “Real Man” Marcus, we’d get off lucky with forced conversion camps in the Arizona desert or something LOL. Clear us of our “thinful nature”.

  29. sally says

    wow. that was dreadfully dishonest and misleading. the comments that lead you to believe that he wrote the questionable material were not part of the same articles. No one has argued that he wrote that stuff. that argument simply is not credible. and it really is worth reading the articles in their entirety to see the full context. it doesn’t seem like many people are doing that before they go our guns a-blazing with their prejudices.

  30. stevenelliot says

    I dont care what he supposedly said in 1993. I dont care what his social views have supposedly changed/morphed into now…..

    The fact is, Mr Paul wants to see the US government abolished as we know it. With very little power to regulate biz. Help its citizens. Alleviate recessions. tax the wealthy. etc etc

    His view of the USA is one of a circa 1800 politician. It isnt practical in this millenium and its implementation would be disasterous to the populace except for the very wealthy. sorry ron, my boy

  31. AdamK says

    Paul is responsible for the bigoted crap, whether he wrote it or not. He published it and profited from it. He has never given a clear, non-weaseling account of why he did so. He’s a shady, nasty little sociopath like the rest of the Republican presidential field.

  32. melvin says

    This thread is full of idiots, not to mention folks who would be banned anywhere else for their antigay sentiments.

    A public figure makes a small fortune off material published under his name, but never notices the content? Would you excuse such bs from anyone else? It doesn’t begin to pass the smell test.

    It is a sign of the state of public education in this country that so many fall in love with a stopped clock that happens to be right on occasion.

  33. Yonder says

    This stuff is, frankly, unforgivable. It was called The Ron Paul Newsletter. It was unambiguously presented as Ron Paul’s views. You’d think Ron Paul would take full responsibility for The Ron Paul Newsletter.

    “But I didn’t personally write it” is a ridiculous (and not necessarily credible) excuse. And if he claims he didn’t read what went into The Ron Paul Newsletter, that tells me he’s crazy (if he’s not being dishonest): You’d think if you were Ron Paul you’d make sure you had full editorial control — certainly reading and approving every word, before publication — of The Ron Paul Newsletter.

    His ardent, frenzied-up, often spamming-prone supporters, who, say, come here and try to make all manner of crazy excuses, or try to intimidate critics, remind me of Scientologists. I think they’ve lost some capacity for objective, clear, rational thinking and judgment. Both groups have god-like, ideological gurus that are perceived by adherents as incapable of doing anything wrong (much less really, really wrong).

  34. Marcus says

    Whether he wrote them or not, they have his name on them. His using the defense of I’ve never read them is, to me, reprehensible. If he were to be elected President, he will be responsible for his administration. What kind of oversight does he demonstrate over the people producing work in his name?

    Granted, these newsletters are very old now. And his administrative abilities may or may not have improved.

    I’m originally from Ron Paul’s district, lived 7 miles away from his town of Lake Jackson. The kind of attitude and society which produces such commentary was extremely prevalent in that area during that time. Still is in a lot of it. This was exactly why I left as soon as I graduated High School – 20 years ago.

  35. d says

    Your either stupid or self loathing. Dr. Paul would liberate your kind and all minorities from being considered lesser by law… I definitely don’t endorse you being gay, but sure as hell endorse the idea that u have the right to be gay. Which is one small reason I am voting for this man while not giving an ounce of credit to your damn lies! Really what your doing here is very counter productive for your kind.

  36. ian says

    @LUCKYLINDEN. Thanks for a great post. You certainly clarified the issue and I commend you. You should send it in to Andrew Sullivan, but I doubt he’d have the balls to post it.

  37. buckingthestatusquo says

    andy is at it again. posting things that are arguably inaccurate just to start a firestorm of comments and bringing in a whole lot of viewership to his website in the mean time.

    ron paul has taken responsibility for them. he has even said that since his name was on the newsletters, he is morally responsible for them. so people saying he should tak responsibility should realize he has.

    he said that he disavows them however, and that many of the quotes that have been hand selected by individuals to stir up controversy were not written by him. many, many politicians and businesspeople have newsletters that ghostwriters write for, but is published under their own names. that is a common practice in the field.

    plus, i’m a 30’s something out gay man, with parents who love me and accept me even though i’m a raging homo :) but, when i was growing up, my pentecostal pastor would regularly preach that homosexuals are going to hell, that they are a perversion, that God will punish our nation by accepting them, and more. He feels completely different than that now, and completely disavows everything he used to preach. I don’t hate him for it. In reality, I appreciate him more for it!

    Ron Paul, whether he said these things then or not, and whether he believed these things back then or not, does not now. He has campaigned on the fact that the War on Drugs and the criminal justice system in this country greatly discriminates against minorities. He has said, repeatedly, that gay men and women should be able to enter into marriage with whomever they wish. He has said that every individual is equal, and deserves the same rights and respect. This is far different than the newsletters, whether he wrote them or not

    Besides, Obama was a member of one of a church for years and years that was ran by a hideously racist man. His attendance, and support, and promotion of that church could be analogized to Ron Paul’s newsletter. Obama disavowed the pastor’s statements and his opinions, and we moved past it. Of course, when it’s a Republican, we can’t do the same thing.

    Ron Paul is not a racist. He is not a bigot. He does not hate gays. Trying to stir up controversy by claiming he does is purely a smear campaign.

  38. Al says

    It really looks to me as if most of the posters on this forum are actually just looking for a reason to hate Ron Paul. I don’t really care one way or the other if he wins or not because I am Australian but most of the comments here seem to be looking for a reason for Ron Paul to be homophobic. After reading this article and these posts I have spent some time looking into Ron Paul and can’t actually find anything bad on the guy, apart from these weird newsletters, that he may or may not have written. From what I can see, he is for equal rights for everyone, which would logically mean that he cannot support specific laws or regulations that focus on one particular group. I guess that if you are hoping for some extra privileges for your particular group, then you may construe that as being prejudice. As for the newsletters themselves, they are basically indefenceable, if they were written by Ron Paul, or he had any control over them at all, then it is certainly worrying. The problem that I have is that I cannot find any other examples anywhere, that show him to be racist or homophobic in any way. If I could find just one other example, any other example, then I would be more inclined to believe that he is prejudice, but I cannot. I can find 100’s of videos of him speaking for issues that support minority’s and support equal rights for all though.
    At the end of the day, it makes no difference to me at all, but considering that I have a number of gay friends, aboriginal friends and my partner is Chinese, I think that Ron Paul seems like a decent guy, from what I have read (apart from these newsletters of course). I really hope that the posters in these comments are not simply looking for another reason to believe that the world is against them and that everyone who is not gay must hate them. I know that your country does not really support you, but unless you take a positive attitude to this fight instead of instantly having a negative one, you will never get anywhere.

    P.S @luckylindon, I agree with most of your post, the only problem I see is that I don’t think that Ron Paul was actually in politics at the time these newsletters were released, so it may be more understandable for him not to be reading them all. If he was in politics at the time, then yes he should be going over everything that comes from his organization with a fine toothed comb. But if he wasn’t then he probably had more important things to do, like delivering babies.

  39. sterling says

    its a newsletter mass produced by others just like the liddy letter rush letter and the 100 others that popped up in the 90’s that sucked out the exspendable money of millions of people wanting to be different then everyone else on the block.

  40. EgadsNo says

    This is funny, I have to say its going to help Ron in the end though I think. After looking at a record of words actually coming out of his mouth, and his record- the people who will come out and stand by his side (like the president of the NAACP) the people are going to see the truth that this pathetic attempt to discredit him is actually going to get them on the track of realizing what an amazing candidate he is. How he is the only person who wants everyone treated equally, on every single level.

  41. gabriel says

    BUCKINGTHESTATUSQUO – you may not have noticed, but since it’s a weekend and all, Andy didn’t post this. Brandon did. And if you’d actually frequent this site, you’d notice that Andy doesn’t control Brandon’s tone or postings. Weekends are quite different and I like this site better for that. If you don’t, well… actually, I don’t know what to say.

    Yes, Paul said he takes responsibility:
    “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,” he said. “For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

    Not sure what all that really says about him. But it’s for each person to decide how they feel about that. I don’t agree that this is the same as Obama’s Rev Wright problem. But whatever, anyone is entitled to think that. And for the record, many people – even on this site – were upset about that and didn’t let go of it for quite some time.

    What bugs me more is how upset Paul gets about answering questions about the newsletters. Of COURSE it’s going to come up while he’s campaigning for major national office and leading in some of the polls. You have to be able to answer these questions and let the country know your take on it. Not everyone knows he’s answered these questions for “over 10 years”. This is what happens when you campaign. We can say “do your research” but the reality is that most of America isn’t going to. So live in the fantasy that everyone should just “do their research” or be realistic and address the problem head on, and make sure everyone knows that you made a mistake and disavow the statements made under your name.

    We all know that all the dirty dirty stuff – whether truth or lies – comes up when you campaign and you have to be prepared. Get your side of the story out there and let people make the most informed decision possible. By getting huffy about it, it just makes him look worse.

    Also, just because people are jumping on Paul for these alleged statements, doesn’t mean that they are voting for one of the other republicans. It’s funny that so many are saying “he’s the ONLY GOP for same-sex marriage” … I’m willing to bet that most actual readers of Towleroad aren’t planning to vote for any of the major republican candidates, including Paul. (note, I didn’t say all.. I said most). You can not like something Ron Paul said/did/does and still not like other leading politicians. We’re allowed to not like 100% of every politician out there.

    And to the person/people saying “he’s not anti-gay, he had a gay campaign manager” … um… yah, so have so many other Repubs who had VERY anti-gay policies. Whether they were closeted (Ken Mehlman!) or not. I’m not saying he IS anti-gay (I personally believe he isn’t now, whether or not he was before, I have no real opinion), but I am saying you need a better argument than that.

    (BUCKINGTHESTATUSQUO – this whole post wasn’t directed to you specifically, really just that first part about Andy not posting this)

  42. Chitown Kev says

    Here’s my thing for you Paul supporters…

    These newsletters are old news. Stale news.Boring news for a longtime watcher of politics like myself…granted there are people that don’t know these things about Paul.

    Knowing that these racist,homophobic newsletters exist, what function do they serve in this Presidential primary.

    Surely, you don’t think that he’ll be elected?

    So why has Paul chosen to play this type of electoral Kabuki for the Republicans (assuming that Romney is the man…)/

  43. says

    Gabriel, you responded as I hoped you would. While Brandon did post this specific thread, this website has Andy’s name emblazoned across it. He is the “publisher” of this website. Is he responsible for everything that is posted on here, or isn’t he?

    Seems like it’s a great analogy to Ron Paul’s newsletters. They bore his name, but informed readers always knew there were additional writers. While Brandon’s first name is posted on this site, his role is similar to ghostwriters in old school newsletters. It’s not an exact analogy, but in today’s internet/website/blog world, I think it’s pretty close. I’m sure some don’t agree with it though.

    Andy Towle, by being the owner, operator, and publisher of this site is morally responsible for all of the content that is posted on this site, but that doesn’t mean he writes/posts everything. And I’m OK with that!

  44. Dan says

    The paultards invading this thread seem to be operating under the illusion that they can somehow ‘win’ the internet. Failing to realize, of course, that even if that goal was achievable it still wouldn’t get their candidate more than 10-15% of the overall national electoral vote.

    Bottom line, Ron Paul is a crackpot. Any one of his many jaw-gapingly naive policies makes that pretty obvious. To me, however, the best evidence comes from the supporters he attracts. Just look at these nutjobs swarm – almost like something out of invasion of the body snatchers. I’d feel more comfortable in the middle of a moonie mass wedding. But these poor things can’t help it – virtually all of their socialization occurs in online forums like this. Hard to know you’re being weird when you spend 95% of your life on the wrong side of your parents basement door.

    One other thing – Paul has always presented himself as this morally consistent beacon of hope. Of course now, just when the not-too-distant past rears its ugly head, he can’t run fast enough. Literally.

    Funny that.

  45. says

    Chitown Kev, there were articles and newsletters and news reports just days before the Iowa Caucus in which Jimmy Carter ran that discounted his chances completely. The media said he was “unelectable”, “didn’t have a chance” and “would never win”. But, he did.

    The same goes for Reagan. People said he’d never appeal to the GOP base, even the day or two before the Iowa caucus pundits were saying he’d be a total flop. They were wrong there too.

    Ron Paul could win. Sure, it will take all the stars in the universe aligning just perfectly (although he’s ahead in Iowa, second in New Hampshire, and now just one of two on the ballot in VA), but it could happen!

    I’ve learned, through my life, that it is silly to speak in absolutes and no one can ever know for a fact what will or will not happen in the future. Ron Paul may lose disastrously, or he may triumph over everyone, or he may fall somewhere in between. Who knows!

    Ron Paul may be a long shot, but it could happen. It has happened in the past, and it will happen in the future.

    Only time shall tell.

  46. says

    Wow Dan, you are very hateful. “Paultards”? I find that repulsive! But maybe you are OK with calling people “retards” too, which would then make sense.

    Why do you throw such hate at people who feel differently than you and have passion about speaking their beliefs? Why do you feel that freedom of speech is a bad thing? And, why do you feel that people commenting, in sections that are designed for comments, is such a horrible thing that you blast them with bigoted and rude language? I guess it’s just because you hate people who don’t agree with you, or at least your language implies that.

    The word “Paultard” is bigotry, as it is based on the word “retard” that has a long history of horrible connotations. It’s hate, plain and simple. And, considering you are spreading it on this website that constantly posts about the bigotry and hate aimed at LGBT, it’s also sadly ironic.

    Speak your minds people! Whether you agree with me or not.

  47. gabriel says

    BUCKINGTHESTATUSQUO – I don’t think it’s the same thing for Andy to have someone post under their own name something on his blog. It’s very clear who posted this.

    The issue is someone posted horrible things under Paul’s name on his newsletter. Even if a byline was missing, the assumption and intention was that it was coming from Paul. At least, that’s my issue with it and I think Paul agrees, which is why he took responsibility, as we both pointed out.

    I was actually mainly agreeing with you anyway. I just had a few differences with your post and others on here. Like I said, I don’t think Paul is actually a homophobe or racist. I think he made some mistakes which he has owned up to. We have to decide what that means to each of us individually. I am likely never going to vote for him anyway. I like the general idea of a Libertarian, but I think there are too many things I just don’t agree with.

  48. Dan says

    It’s not hatred. It’s more like mild bemusement mixed in with a healthy dash of smug.

    Perhaps ‘paultard’ is a bit harsh. But I genuinely feel that a majority of this man’s supporters suffer from a mental deficiency that prevents them from understanding how most normal people operate. A watered down version of Aspergers, maybe.

    Is this language more acceptable to you?

  49. says

    Fair enough Gabriel, I appreciate that. And, I agree with you that it is not the same since Brandon’s name is on here. But it seemed like a reasonable enough analogy nonetheless, despite the stretch of imagination it requires :) Mostly just because Towle’s name is on this website as Ron Paul’s was on his newsletters, and because Brandon is a contributor to this site chosen by Towle and Ron Paul’s newsletters had contributors too, albeit unnamed. Most subscribers knew that at the time. It’s just now, decades after they were published, that some people are trying to claim he was the sole writer of the newsletters. It’s just not the case. And, I wish people would also admit, at the same time they hate on Ron Paul even if it was written by ghostwriters, that ghostwriting is a standard practice.

    Oh, and I am especially glad to hear that you don’t believe that Ron Paul is a racist or a homophobe. We definetly agree on that sir!

  50. Cecil says

    Incredibly the Ron Paul trolls who dive to ANY online article or discussion about him. If your not a regular Towleroad leader, do us all a favor and leave please?

    Paul’s statements, if written by him, are unforgivable. If not, it shows a demonstrable lack of incompetence that he had a newsletter, penned in his name and written as if BY him, and he never noticed this stuff that he supposedly disagreed with? Either way he’s not in the right here, not at all.

    Oh, and Obama 2012! Thank you very much!

  51. Jose Mora says

    Nothing here folks. Just another hit piece by the statist propaganda legacy media, now desperate to keep Ron Paul out of power – less their gravy train come to an abrupt end.

    Repeating a lie often does not make it true. Being shills for the statist media does not lend it credibility.

    Ron Paul is not and has never been a racist. How hard would it be to find something HE ACTUALLY WROTE? You can’t because he didn’t. Newsletters are not proof of anything. However, a concerted effort to discredit him IS proof of just that.

  52. says

    Not really Dan. I respect that you can admit that “Paultards” may be a “bit harsh” as you say, but you still are not accepting of people having other opinions or ideas. Saying that people who support Ron Paul “suffer from mental deficiency” and do not operate how “normal” people do, or that they have a “watered down version of Aspergers” is the opposite of acceptance and open mindedness.

    Not to mention, you are stereotyping and generalizing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people. You lump all of Ron Paul’s supporters together as one entity, and give them absolutely no respect.

    And not to be repititous, but in the same way this website posts about the hate and bigotry aimed at LGBT, it also urges people to give equal respect to LGBT and to not treat them as if they are not “normal”, deficient, or suffering from mental diseases.

    Your newly chosen words may not be the classic definition of “hate”, but they are certainly not accepting. Again, on this site, sadly ironic.

  53. says

    I honestly don’t know how any gays still support Obama. He does not support us, more than whatever is politically beneficial/safe for him to. He does not support gay marriage and he wants government to control who can and cannot be married. He is also pro-war. He spreads violence. And, his orders kill innocent people. Is that really someone our community wants to support?

    Fine, you don’t support Ron Paul, but really, Obama?? No thank you! I had enough war, violence, death, and hate aimed at Americans when Bush was president. It’s only continuing with Obama.

  54. Reteo says

    From what I’ve seen, Paul came out and explicitly admitted he was guilty of negligence, that he does not believe the bigoted comments, and disavows them. He was profiting from the articles, unaware of the tripe that was being added to them, because he wasn’t paying attention. Certainly, nothing similar appeared AFTER he first found out about them.

    Seems like the guy made a mistake and learned from it to me. I’m not sure what further clarification is needed.

  55. Daniel says

    I’m a hispanic minority and I don’t think Ron Paul is a racist, but even if he was…. I DON’T CARE.

    His economic, foreign and domestic policies ARE SANE.

    This issue is small potatos, so give it up already and talk about REAL ISSUES.

    Happy Holidays.

  56. Al says

    Dan, if you in fact a gay man, then the comments that you have posted are absolutely disgusting. Actually, even you are not gay they are disgusting, just less hypocritical. People like you are the exact reason that your country is in the shape that it is. You are the perfect example of the opinions held by every hate group in the world. If you are truly an example of the level of intelligence of the readers of this forum, then I must shed a tear for the gay community, you are exactly the same as the people you resent. You want to get angry at people who discriminate against you but are unable to open your own mind and be willing to see others points of view.

  57. whyallthehate says

    Good luck, Dan! Hopefully no one in your family starts to support Ron Paul. You’d certainly hate them, and call them hideous things, if they did.

    I love how you say Merry Xmas and then throw a nasty jab right after. If that’s your definition of “Merry”, you can keep it!

    I couldn’t agree with buckthestatusquo more! I’ve seen “Paultards” used before and I find it so offensive.

  58. gabriel says

    I still don’t think the guy really wrote this stuff, but this is very interesting – I’m not sure how I missed this before:

    I had seen the videos of him talking about the newsletters, but not him actually speaking about things being taken out of context. I think really what happened was, like the article says, he probably got bad advice and continued to make bad decisions about what really happened.

  59. says

    Whoever wrote this needs to understand that Ron Paul is the most PRO-GAY politician in the Republican Party. He wants to get the government out of your personal lives and never have the Federal Government ban gay marriage. Let the states do it like California and New York and keep the greedy hypocrtical politicians in Congress from restricting your Constitutional rights to purse HAPPINESS as you want. Please watch what he has to say about the issue. He NEVER wrote those newsletters. Dare you to find him EVER being racist since the NAACP Texas President Nelson Linder came out and DEFENDS RON PAUL and has done so on this issue for years about the already debunked newsletter non-issue. I dare everyone to show me ONE video where he has EVER been a bigot or anti-gay! Can’t find it because he respects everyone as EQUALS.

  60. whyallthehate says

    Just ran across this online ( It seems like Ron Paul cares a lot about the less fortunate, which definitely includes many minorities. So why do people hate on him so much on this site?

    At the very least, this is such a great example of the type of person I want as president.

    Good job Ron Paul supporters! You just made a lot of people very happy this Holiday season.

  61. says

    How quickly we forget. Now we’re all much smarter because there is so much more known about AIDS and how it is spread. If you weren’t alive back then, let me remind you. No one knew what AIDS was, how it was spread, or who you could get it from. I remember a news cast from back then that said AIDS was only spread through Gay Bathhouses in San Francisco. After that, AIDS was spread through Gay Haitian males at Gay Bath Houses in San Francisco. I remember news broadcasts saying that the gays were donating blood not knowing if they were infected with AIDS. There was scares going around the country through the media that were, looking back now, steering hatred toward the San Francisco Gay Community. No one knew anything for sure, so it made it that much more believable. Reagan didn’t even acknowledge its existence. I am not sticking up for Ron Paul or anyone else. I am just trying to remind people that it was a different time back then and people were dying from things that normally wouldn’t even take in humans. I read the RP Newsletters and I don’t believe the material to be offensive for the time. Today, in this highly charged, politically correct world, it is a different story. I find some of the material to be stereotypical of people, but not racially charged as they have been touted. I personally believe the offensive ones were written by someone else due to the writing style. I have read volumes of material, and seen hundreds of hours of video, and there is nothing jumping out as definite.

  62. says

    One more thing, What leads me to conclude that they were written by someone else is also the fact that there are very few of them that have the offensive content in them. For instance, there were four to six different Newsletters out there (depending on who you talk to). So, say four, times twelve is forty-eight. Times that by ten (for the numbers it was produced. This number could be very low) equals 480. So there have been fourteen or so issues with offensive content. So, fourteen out of 480. Is anyone following me? It’s about one quarter of one percent. This is just an analysis of numbers. I have no proof of anything.

  63. Facists For Everybody says

    Screw Ron Paul! I love the War on Drugs! By far the most racist war in all of history, but so what, liberals love it so it’s not racist! The War on Terror is awesome too! Kill all those brown people! Woohoo! C’mon, Goldman Sachs! Tell these slaves how to live.

  64. Jeff Erson says

    This is a great propaganda piece! But the fact of the matter is Ron Paul may disagree with homosexuality, but he supports the states’ rights to legalize homosexual marriage.

    A simple Youtube search would give you all the information needed on Ron Paul’s stance on homosexuality.

    To the author: you’re disgusting!

  65. JD says

    The author of this blog is a joke.

    Nelson Lender, the director of the NAACP in Austin, Texas said last campaign that he’s known Ron Paul personally for 20 years and is sure he’s not a racist. Scott Horton interview with Nelson Lender:

    When asked in 2007 who he might pick as a running mate, he named one guy, Walter Williams, a black man as a strong possibilit­y. Walter also refers to Paul as a friend and said of Paul he’s one of 3 people the founders would even talk to. Video: 4 minute mark
    watch the video silly – http://you­­zjHoVa4

    Paul often cites Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King Jr and Gandhi as his heroes…

    CNN Anchor “Gloria Borger is married to Lance Morgan. Lance is the chief communicat­ions and crisis strategist of Powell Tate. Powell Tate is a D.C. firm that represents every part of the very same Military Industrial Complex that Ron Paul wants to reduce! This is a total conflict of interest! Unfair and extremely immature.

  66. Paul R says

    @Patrick: the newsletters in question were issued in 1993, not 1983 as originally reported. So by then, yes, we had a good understanding of HIV/AIDS.

    There’s a whole lot of hate on both sides of the comments here. It’s a major reason I’ve stopped reading comments on this and so many other sites. Civil discourse seems lost on so many people.

  67. mrssalina says

    He’s the only Republican who does not bash gays, blacks, hispanics or any other group. Ron Paul wants everyone’s individual rights to be respected and everyone to be treated as a person.

    He has already for years explained he did not right that nonsense. He did do a poor job of oversight and has apologized for that. The ugly stuff is small part of what was written.

  68. says

    It’s hard for some people to be disagreeable without being violently disagreeable, either in person or through speech. It’s too bad. A lot of the Newsletters I read were from the early to late 80’s, and I did read some from the 90’s. I remember it struck me because I was stationed in the Bay Area (Moffett Field) during the time I was reading about. I remember that there was so much talk and no one knew much back then.

  69. marty says

    If you read the contents of the newsletters in questions, it certainly doesn’t sound like Ron Paul. I don’t think he wrote them. I don’t see the big deal, perhaps whoever wrote it was being sarcastic. It’s not enough for me to not vote for him. Every one of us has a secret opinion of everything anyway. Presidents are human. At least he’s not in the back pocket of wall st.

  70. mike says

    Shame on you renta-bloggers from the liberal internet army or possibly from the angry losing Grinch campaign for trying to derail Ron. We know he is not homophobic but a supporter of Gay marriage and he is worthy of restoring this great country to a stable economy free from bankrupting wars. Dr. Ron Paul welcomes your smear attempts. He has put this subject to rest a billion times but by all means keep giving this man the publicity because there are more people joing the camp and donating. Your smear campaign has drawn way more supporters, donators and other grass roots organisations that has had the opposite objective you intended for. Join us and fight for the change we need in this country instead of being confused about why your candidate cannot get the necessary amount of votes to proceed in the election. The reason your candidate is losing is because that candidate is part of the establisment in washington that has been destroying this country.

    If you see through the media bias, the cheap dirty tactics used in politics then you know who could bring serious and real changes to America for the better. I think these other party pooopers are just scared of Ron Paul taking their millions in blood money away.

    Merry Christmas to all Ron Supporters and may the spamming bots of smear celebrate their loss with coal in their stockings. Ron Paul 2012

    Read more:

  71. reid says

    this is the first website that pops up when you type in ron paul in google….gee i wonder why these articles just keep popping up every 6 to 12 hours…maybe so they stay on the top of the list?? thanks for the support you media whores…your day of judgement will soon be upon you

  72. tom says

    Of course the articles reference Paul as a physician. That is what ghost writers do…it is clear Paul does not believe this things from his actions, words, and past behavior. People like you just have to find something wrong with him because you are afraid of ending the status quo.

    Considering the head of the NAACP supported Paul, I do not think we should be worrying about him being racist. You point out irrelevant over covered nonsense like those newsletters because you have no way to debate his real positions. Its sad, really. Demagoguery at its worst.

  73. Adam says

    Well if you did all that research you would of seen the 1988 interview where he says that the government should have nothing to do with peoples sexual preferences. This is propaganda indeed like the last line says he is in favor to win and that is why this is being brought up. He acknowledges that he should have been paying attention what was going out under his newsletter but if you listen to the man he is all about civil liberties and that is why they are trying to ruin his name. The homosexual community should in fact look into Ron Paul and they will see this man speaks the truth but the media wont accept it

  74. Woody says

    “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.”

    Right, no possible chance that someone else couldn’t have written that.

  75. Steve says

    Ron Paul is the Presidential candidate that would be in the best interest of the community and personal liberty in general. He is the best possible candidate we could ask for, despite what his personal beliefs maybe he advocates the government should not take anyones rights away. This is fair, as I gay man I have accepted that many people will not accept my lifestyle as I may not accept theirs as long as we treat all people equally. This is what Ron Paul stands for. The gay community must get over the world accepting us morally and demand only equal rights. Just as Jews need to understand Ron Paul is the biggest advocate of Israeli sovereignty the gay community needs to understand is the biggest advocate of gay rights because he is libertarian. Get over yourselves

  76. Freedom supporter says

    As much as I love Ron Paul… the buck stops with him on newsletters in his name. I will not kiss the feet of ron Paul and view him as God. I do believe he’s better than the rest of the Republican field but this issue does show questionable leadership.

    I’ve donated to his campaign and not afraid to say that but I am rational and reasonable in my Libertarian views. Either he said them or he didn’t pay attention and put too much trust in someone else. If he did that, did he learn anything from it?? Did he learn to pay more attention to this… Can he prove this??? Of course no politician can read 2000 page legislation on their own and needs a staff to entrust to read portions of the bills, etc. But this shows potentially that a ron Paul administration can become corrupted (just like all other administrations including Obama.)

    One should take a step back and say, ok this is legit.. Ron Paul is not the next coming of Christ, just like those who acted as if Obama was that were disappointed. Don’t expect the world from Ron Paul…

    If he was to become President, some of his ideas will be compromised and won’t get anywhere and anyone who thinks Ron Paul is gonna fix everything will get a big wake up call… To fix all the unconstitutional things going on is going to take may many years, maybe a generation or two. It’s really bad!!

    And Ron Paul supporters should not be upset. This is legit and he has not provided an answer that would be simple. The simple answer is just like every other candidate has a weakness, he’s human too and a weakness of his is being exposed. If you wanna dish it out, you gotta be able to take it back because whomever is on top is going to get this kind of treatment. I don’t know why people are surprised or offended. It’s not going to go away so stop pretending or complaining that it’s there. Bill Ayers didn’t go away with Obama and he still got elected so anything is possible,

    With that, I’m still voting for Ron Paul in 2012… But there’s nothing illegitimate about this. Anyone who says it is, shows their weakness of not being able to be objective. Just like parents who act as if their kids do nothing wrong ever. All kids do something wrong at some point. It’s called being human. Lets just face it that this is the weakness Ron Paul must deal with… And he must find a way to either address it like a man and say hey, I was wrong to let this go through under my name. Just like Mitt Romney made mistakes in his business career and all of us make mistakes in certain things we do. He should admit it… I don’t believe he wrote these things… So that I’m not concerned about. It’s his ability to lead with integrity at all times that’s been called into question with this.

  77. Edd says

    I’m black. Who cares if he wrote things against black, or simply enabled them. We must look forward to the greater things he will enable. He’s the only candidate who will prosecute the federal reserve. This is the only thing that matters at the end of the day, as it means life or death to America. The establishment is terrified by this. We Americans must look past these silly sensibilities to the true matter at hand; America has been enslaved by a private corporation.

  78. Thomas98168 says

    I am thankful for all of Ron Paul’s past. Everything Ron Paul has been, if even homophobic, has shaped him into what he is today. The best person for our country. We must stop the military complex from the total take over of our homeland. The evil empire is here and we are living in it.

    If it takes a leader like Dr. Paul to lead us away from the brink of global disaster, than so be it.

    His homophobia…given his age and demographics are to be expected. We can, just as we have before, deal with it and with the likes of him. We are bigger than hate. We have proved it over and over and over.

    But we must… MUST stop the Obama fraud. Take our country away from the war mongers altogether.

    Tolorance for an old man who does not know us, but can lead us away from true evil. It is our enlightened path.

    A gay man, or gay supporter who drops bombs and starts wars is not prefered to Dr. Paul.

    Peace please.

  79. jesse says

    Don’t you people have anything else to worry about! This is about as stupid as stupid gets. People are worried about how they are going to pay their rentk, feed their family and your worried about some letters written over 20 years ago. GROW UP. Start thinking for yourselves instead of being spoonfed garbage from the media.

    What are you afraid of? Do you actually believe slavery would be enacted or gays would be banned. Get real! We can’t even get an unemployment extension passed let alone slavery!

    If any of you whining about racism or gay rights would actual read Ron Paul says that each individual state would govern over gay marriage, drug laws ect. YOUR STATE OFFICIALS meaning YOU as residents would decide if you want gay marriage or drug laws enacted through your elected state officials! Doesn’t sound like a person who is raciest to me.

    Mitt Romney has openly said that “marriage is between a man and a women” is opposed to gay marriage in every way yet you don’t see these stupid articles calling him raciest do you? The race card is getting old please find a different card in the deck to pull! It’s not winning you anything by playing it!

  80. truther says

    Nice hit piece! It’s good to know that the only dirt the libertyphobic media can regurgitate over and over again wasn’t actually put forth by Paul. Damn bigots.

  81. AnonymousJack says

    Wow. The reaction of Ron Paul supporters here, including several hateful, condescending, bigoted, or just plain ill-informed ones as they descended upon a special interest site like locusts to attack, react, and even say nasty things about gays, in some cases, while making the argument we should support him (the references to “your kind” were a nice touch, scares the stuffing out of me. There is a cult of personality vibe here and a level of coordinated emotional response that reminds me of scientologists and the Phelps clan…and neither of those are favorable comparisons. I’ve been ambivalent to Paul for a long time, since he is a fringe personality with little chance of election, but seeing how his supporters act in his name (especially those who argue he isn’t bigoted by using bigoted and hateful speech) makes me kind of afraid of him. I hope this primary wraps up soon and he can go back to being a footnote in history…and take his band of crazy bigots and willfully ill-informed followers with him. Seriously, I’ve gone from not caring to actively opposing this guy. You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.

  82. Adam says

    1. The newsletters that contained racist and homophobic content were less than 1% of the total number of newsletters put out. There were thousands put out and if you really expect him to have read all of them while running the company, practicing medicine, and making speeches around the country…. You aren’t being intellectually honest with yourself.

    2. Despite not knowing about the (very) few newsletters that had racist and homophobic content inside them and it being several years after they’d been published.. When it was brought to his attention, Ron Paul still took responsibility for them apologizing, and disavowing them.

    3. Ron Paul has only made one exception to his policy of strict adherence to the constitution, a vote in 1979 to authorize the MLK holiday.

    4. Ron Paul’s record both before and after the newsletters in question were published has been in pursuit of individual liberty and equality. He was one of only FIVE Republican Congressmen to vote for the REPEAL of DADT.

    I hope you take the time to honestly assess the situation. You have a chance to vote for someone who will break down lots of walls in the crazy political climate we have today, but not if he is incorrectly labeled as a bigot.

    It would be a damn shame if one of the groups most likely to benefit from his election didn’t support him based on media sensationalism.

    Thank You for your time.

  83. Ludwig von Mises says

    At first, the presstitute narrative was:

    Ron Paul can’t win!

    Ron Paul can’t win!

    Ha, ha, ha, who’d vote for that old kook, anyway!

    Of course, at first, the Neocon narrative was to remain silent and ignore RP.

    That didn’t work.

    Now, Ron Paul is winning, raising a stunning amount of cash from the grass roots and rising in the polls!

    Now the presstitute and Neocon narrative has changed:

    Ron Paul is a racist!

    Ron Paul hates Jews!

    Ron Paul loves earmarks!

    Ron Paul is an isolationist!

    Ron Paul hates gays!

    A vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama!

    A vote for RP is a vote to kill gays!

    If Ron Paul actually wins Iowa, then the Neocons and the presstitute shills will come down on him with both feet.

    If RP win New Hampshire, pandemonium will ensue.

    Ron Paul and his supporters are going to be tested in a very, very nasty fight.

  84. Minton says

    Um… you guys are really shooting yourself in the foot here and it is depressing.

    Ron Paul has single-handedly been more supportive of gay rights than any other major party candidate in the last 100 years. In his own words, “The GOVT SHOULD BUTT OUT of gay marriage,” and calls it a “First Amendment” issue.

    In case you are somehow still a doubter, he said this at a Conservative Christian Fundamentalist Coalition in Iowa, a state that he has spent MILLIONS of dollars in and many, many days campaigning in and VERY MUCH wants to WIN! He said that because he doesn’t compromise his beliefs for anyone! What has Obama done for you lately? Obama has said exactly the opposite and was quoted when Prop 8 passed as saying that he defined marriage as between a man and a woman.

  85. PattyFromTexas says

    I have spent some time researching Congressman Paul’s record and come away with the conclusion that he is a prescient leader who foresaw the housing crash which every homeowner in America lost money in, that we would lose our liberties one step at a time if we invaded Iraq, and I might add voted against that invasion saying that Saddam did not have WMD, and so he did not. This wise compassionate leader who’s actions always match his words for 35 years of public service. If Congressman Paul says he did not write those words, and he does not hold those beliefs, I’m inclined to believe him as he has a decades long public record to back him up. I find his actions speak louder than your words.

  86. Brian says

    I’m sorry, but this is a ridiculous smear campaign. Anyone who’s actually listened to Ron Paul for more than a week and has previously read his writings knows this is not only below his literary capabilities, but it is purely antithetical to the Libertarian philosophies of the individual. Highly inconsistent with the only man in the GOP who believes marriage is a civil contract between two INDIVIDUALS and not between government and individuals. Nice try folks. But really ignorant. Do the due diligence and you will find these letters inconsistent at best with the man. Ron Paul 2012!

  87. Alan W says

    This is an election so the question is who can lead the country out of the financial crisis and lower the deficit, get rid of the Fed and stop going into wars and being the world’s bully. The only person running for president who has solutions if Ron Paul. These silly things someone writes about him have nothing to do with the massive problems in the country. If you want wars and asking terrorists to hate the USA vote one of the others as they are little different from Obama as he was as bad as Bush. If you want real changes to help the country vote for Ron Paul – the only one who you can trust.

  88. RP2012 says

    “Libertarianism is the enemy of all racism, because racism is a collectivist idea that you put people in categories. You say, well blacks belong here, and whites here, and women here and we don’t see people in forms..or gays. You don’t have rights because your gays, or women or minorities, you have rights because you’re an individual. So we see people strictly as individuals. We get these individuals in a natural way. So it’s exactly opposite of all collectivism and it’s absolutely anti-racism because we don’t see it in those terms. ”
    -Ron Paul on Bill Moyers Journal, January 4, 2008, 14 minutes, 50 seconds.

    You decide.

    RP ’12

  89. mtbwalt says

    This “article” is ridiculous. Those newsletters sound nothing like Ron Paul, who as a libertarian is a strong proponent of gay rights.

    Then some genius posts in the comments that RP wants to go start wars in the middle east.

    You guys are posting the exact opposite of his consistent legislative platform for 30 years.

    It’s late, you should turn out the lights in your Gingrich or Obama headquarters.

  90. ernie says

    “Look at that guy hanging on the cross: he isn’t properly dressed and he has holes in his hands”. Omg u r so missing the point. We are about be fighting in the streets over scraps of roadkill when the dollar collapses. There is one guy that can stop it from happening and despite ZERO actions toprove it, yu want to attack his alleged bad attitude. WAKE UP!

    Business as usual is going to collapse what’s left of our financial system. When the truckers can’t send useless dollars for fuel to deliver your groceries continue this “debate” on an empty stomach.

  91. Chaz says

    As a BISEXUAL male, I can tell you Ron Paul is, no matter how personally he disagrees with being gay, an advocate for leaving government out of LGBT decisions.

    Ron Paul did not write the articles. He may have signed them neglagantly, but he never wrote them. Regardless, if he read them or not, his CONSISTANT viewpoints prove that what he wrote in those letters are not endorssed by Paul.

    I am 100% for the gay community. Im 100% for anyone, actually. And I personally will tell you that Ron Paul is the BEST choice for President. You want change? Vote Paul every oportunity that you can- vote in the primaries too.

  92. ernie says

    We have a guy who can unite the Occupy and the Tea factions; a guy who has voted 432 to 1 many times to fight corporatism. A guy who’s main goal is to restore rights, respect, and liberty to every individual regardless of ethnicity or race. And you want to be a tool in the elitists’ witch hunt to try and assasinate his character?

    And the alternative? $15 trillion more debt in the next 10 years with any other candidate. The dollar is so close to a tipping point it is astounding that people can sit around fretting about how un-pc a guy’s attitude MIGHT have been 20 years ago. Judge the tree by its fruit.

  93. Sanity says

    Are you serious? Ron Paul anti-gay? He’s stated over and over he believes the government has NO business meddling in marriage, gay or straight. Ron Paul is for CIVIL LIBERTIES for crying out loud!

    This is yet another media hit-piece. Please, for sanity’s sake: Don’t fall for it!

  94. AnonT says

    A couple things to make note of:

    Other than Huntsman, Paul is the only Republican Presidential candidate who believes that New York has the right to legalize gay marriage.

    Paul spoke publicly in support of the rights of Muslims to build a mosque a few blocks from the WTC site, despite a majority of Republicans and about half of Americans in general opposing it.

    Ron Paul would have ended the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan sooner than Obama, and would not have started the war in Libya, meaning that he would have saved the lives of at least tens of thousands of Arabs by ending the conflicts sooner. We’re talking about a guy whose foreign policy consists primarily of putting himself in the shoes of people of all nationalities and ethnic backgrounds and considering how our policies would affect them, and how we would feel if they were doing the same things to us, before determining policy.

    Paul is the only Presidential candidate in either major party to support the legalization of drugs. Considering that more than 60% of those who serve prison time for drug offenses are black (despite making up only 14% of drug users), and a majority of the remainder are hispanic, native, asian, or of mixed descent, you would think that a racist would want to keep laws that disproportionately incarcerate non-whites, are largely responsible for almost a million blacks being in prison as we speak, and are largely responsible for the fact that 1 in 3 adult black males has spent time in prison as the vast majority of their first offenses were drug crimes. So why does Ron Paul want to pardon hundreds of thousands of blacks currently in prison for victimless crimes, allowing them to return to their families and begin rebuilding their lives? It must be because he hates them for being black.

  95. NewDawn says

    I’d love to see some video evidence or a recording of Ron Paul espousing the sentiments of those newsletters. I’ll wait. Nothing? Yeah, I already figured that. Here’s the reality: Ron Paul has never done any such thing. If anything, Ron Paul has repeatedly and stridently condemned the contents of those newsletters and their sentiments.

    He has taken moral responsibility for them insofar as someone used his name for them. Reasonable people should remember, however, that these newsletters were written in a time before the rise of the internet, as well as while Ron Paul was OUT of politics. He was back working long hours in his medical practice, delivering babies, with no intentions of returning to politics. It’s not like someone could go onto the then-nonexistent internet and use a nonexistent search engine to look up “newsletters written in my name.” Nor, can I imagine, would someone have reasonable cause to when they are out of politics and working hard in another profession. Ron Paul’s greatest “sin,” perhaps, is that he was too trusting with allowing others run a website/newsletter using his name. And thus, he’s taken moral responsibility for that, but he rightfully does not take the blame for the content of newsletters he did not write and which do not align with his own clearly stated positions and views.

    As for his policies and the presidential responsibilities he would assume, they are constitutionally sound. So if there’s a dissonance between how one views government’s responsibilities and its actual responsibilities, well…it’s time for some extra research.

  96. Hector says

    Ron Paul has the support of the NAACP and has stated he did not write the newsletters. In the early nineties, newsletter production was farmed out to ghostwriters who were given de facto free rein. At that point in his life, Paul was out of politics and working crazy hours to reestablish his medical practice as an ob-gyn after he had torched a whole year of his medical life to challenge George H.W. Bush as the Libertarian Party’s nominee for president.

  97. Robert Timsah says

    Ron Paul on Homosexuality:

    We can play the video above and learn his true feelings on Homosexuality.

    I’ve read a lot of writings over the years from Paul and those racist, sexist and bigoted just do not even remotely sound like his style of writing. Paul has routinely talked about things the mainstream simply says YOU CAN’T TALK ABOUT. If he REALLY had these views I think one can honestly assume he’d talk about it or defend them. Yet, play the video above and think about it.

    I do not believe Paul actually wrote ANY of that racist, bigoted or sexist crap. He just does not even think, let alone write like that.

  98. promisberg says

    Do you have to be gay to post here? Sorry I am not however I am not homophobic. I would never vote for a homophobic person.

    Ron Paul beliefs are anathema to homophobia or any group think.

    Ron Paul’s actual words:

    “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.

    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.

    More importantly, 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. Rather than looking to government to correct our sins, we should understand that racism will endure until we stop thinking in terms of groups and begin thinking in terms of individual liberty.”

    Peace and Happy hollidays

  99. AnonT says

    Also, keep in mind that all of the racist passages being pulled from his newsletters occurred in the years after his 1988 bid for President, but before his run for Congress in 1995. During that time he was running his private medical practice, and after his ’88 Presidential bid ended, he wasn’t planning on continuing his political career. If he let someone run away with his newsletter without paying attention to it, it was because he honestly wasn’t planning on going back into politics, and didn’t think it would matter. It would be a different story if these articles came out while he was in Congress, or in years when he was actively campaigning, and should have been paying attention to anything that went out in his name. When you leave politics and don’t plan on returning, you tend to care a lot less about what gets said in your name (at least until you let yourself get dragged back into politics years later).

  100. Michael says

    Sorry but this election is about to get really interesting. Ron Paul is the ONLY candidate who is going to make me think twice about my vote.

    As for people bitching about this decades old article… ARE YOU SERIOUS??? Look at the Ron Paul’s voting record. From what I’ve been hearing it’s 100% in favor of gay rights.

    The only candidate who can even come close to beating Obama is Ron Paul because RP is making this Obama supporter think twice.

  101. Michael says

    btw, may I just clarify, there’s no way in hell I am not voting for Obama. Ron Paul, I’m just saying, is the only candidate where I might take a moment out of my time to go “Hmm…” but any gay person would be crazy not to vote for Obama.

    The LGBT community can place a safe bet Obama is going to go full forward in his 2nd term on more ‘change’. IMHO, Obama had to watch what he did because any drastic measure might void his chance at a 2nd term but I’d bet he’ll be pro-gay marriage if he gets reelected.

  102. Younger Cato says

    Hateful cynics will have their field day as they attempt to win over a credulous public whose only too willing to buy whatever superficial narratives are imagined by elitists who fear real change. Change in the way we deal with drug laws, civil liberties, foreign policy. No, they’ll do their best to convince the sheep that ancient newsletters written by ghostwriters (regardless of what lucky says above, I know of ghostwriters who have never even met their principals) while Paul was busy delivering 4,000+ babies, on-call 24/7 somehow have credibility and more weight than the problems which are about to take our country the way of Rome’s Republic. Thanks haters! Can always depend on closed, selfish, shameless minds.

  103. JM says


    I appreciate the well thought out response, and I agree that Ron Paul was certainly negligent in allowing the newsletters to be published under his name without even reading over them.

    I have to disagree with this statement, though, and all that follows it:

    “but he’s (recently) taken a very very dim (bordering on anti-gay) view of homosexuality”

    Hate crime laws are, themselves, inherently prejudiced. They give different groups unequal protection under the law, which flies directly in the face of the 14th Amendment. They NEED to be abolished.

    Every violent crime is a hate crime. If I assault a white guy that I hate because we just don’t get along, and you assault a black guy that you hate because he’s black, we deserve the same punishment. Suggesting otherwise is just another form of prejudice that Ron Paul (or any true Libertarian) is not capable of. Like Dr. Paul has said many times, racism (or other prejudices) requires a collectivist line of thinking, seeing people as groups rather than individuals. This is the opposite of the way a Libertarian sees the world.

  104. Justin says

    It is a fact that in the 2008 presidential elections, one of Ron Paul’s top campaign workers was openly gay, who died of AIDS, before the elections were concluded. Tell me how Ron Paul could be homophobic if he hired an openly gay person to help run his campaign?

  105. Chris says

    Monday, January 7, 2008
    Jamie Kirchick: “I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical”
    UPDATE: I have responded to Kirchick’s article in a longer piece.

    Jamie Kirchick, assistant editor of The New Republic, appeared tonight on Tucker Carlson’s show to announce–with a smirk on his face the size of Manhattan– Ron Paul of racism, homophobia and anti-semitism would be appearing online the nextthat his hit piece accusing day–which, by astonishing coincidence happens to be the very day of the New Hampshire primary.

    I first met Jamie at a holiday party held by the venerable libertarian magazine Reason just a few weeks ago. When Jamie saw my “Ron Paul 2008″ button, he snickered and said, “Oh, Ron Paul… I’ve been reading up on him. Have you read the stuff that guy’s written? Nasty stuff! Racist, anti-semitic, homophobic!”

    I emailed Jamie the next day to engage him further and to ask just what he found so offensive. His response:

    Hi Berin,

    Thanks for writing; and I’m glad you enjoyed by [sic] piece in the Boston Globe. I’ll try and make the [DC Log Cabin Republicans] party tonight, though [LCR President] Patrick Sammon isn’t particularly happy with me after I wrote this piece [attacking LCR for not endorsing Giuliani, whom Kirchick calls “the most pro-gay Republican White House contender in history”]

    Anyways, I don’t think Ron Paul is a homophobe; I’m just cynical and enjoy getting supporters of political candidates riled up. If you were a Giuliani guy I’d have called him a fascist. But I must say, the Ron Paul supporters are the most enthusiastic of the bunch! [Emphasis added.]


    When I responded to ask him when his article might come out so I could read more, he answered: “Patience, my friend :-)”

    Patience, indeed.

    Let me not mince words. Jamie is a muckraker, a charlatan, and a hypocrite. For being so careless about concealing all these, he is a fool to boot. His bottom-feeding journalism dishonors The New Republic’s history as a bastion of high-minded political discourse. His story was deliberately timed to inflict maximum political damage on a man of such uncommonly principled integrity that he is attacked for statements written decades ago by others in his name.

    The richest irony is that the Ron Paul grassroots campaign in Washington, DC–Jamie’s hometown–has found its earliest and strongest supporters in DC’s gay community. It would not surprise me if our slate of delegate and alternate delegate candidates for Ron Paul is the gayest slate in DC (measured by number of gay individuals–not gayness of individuals), very probably the gayest slate in DC ever, and probably one of the gayest slates for a major party Presidential candidate of any state ever.

  106. Gloria of Borg says

    @ LuckyLinden

    “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.”

    Quit lying…

    Obviously, *it* is not unheard of. If it were so unheard of, you wouldn’t be here and blabbering about how it is unheard of; you heard about it, that’s why you’re here and pretending it’s unheard of.

    What’s more, if you are a professional writer, you should know how your grammar and use of punctuation is deplorable, but I don’t believe you know that, because you don’t even know how to use commas correctly.

    For the sake of argument, as a professional writer, it is conceivable _YOU_ must have somebody double-check your work, because _YOU_ you are a terrible writer.

  107. libconlib says

    TNR has been chomping at this bit for years. It’s bull. I’m bi, and having seen Ron Paul speak and and read his words for years, I know he’s not a bigot. The stuff in that investment newsletter is so alien from anything he said before or since.

    Personally, I ask why an LGBT activist is taking The New Republic seriously, anyway. You don’t trust FOXPAC when they bash gays but I guess you trust them when they bash libertarians, huh?

  108. libconlib says


    Isn’t it weird that you tell us not to be blinded by single issues, and then criticize Ron Paul for a single issue (you say drug legalization and ending the wars have “downsides”, but don’t explain what those are, so I don’t give you credit for those empty criticisms).

  109. libconlib says


    How can you possibly vote Obama into a second term considering the two fascistic bills (NDAA and SOPA) going through Congresss right now that Obama supports? It’s great that Obama overturned DADT, but I wish the LGBT crowd didn’t base their vote solely on, well, what’s good for the LGBT crowd. Think about what’s good for the American people.

  110. Ghostwriter says

    “I am Brandon K. Thorp and I hate homosexual folks.”

    See how that works?

    How can Mr. Thorp deny the statement above? It’s written in the first person.

  111. says

    I have personally read and communicated by email from time to time with several of the writers at including Lew himself.

    Rather than blindly accepting the GOP/Koch Bros/Poole “analysis” of these newsletters, why not take a look at the entire archive at, and You can read all Lew’s, and all Ron’s columns, penned by themselves… and lest you think they would wash out their racism for a political campaign- google and the wayback machine will confirm what I am telling you now- Loud and clear:

    I have never read anything from Lew or Ron or many of the regular contributors since 1999 when I started reading it nearly daily. It is still my homepage.

    Now, I have not read every single article from every single contributor- but it is rather easy to understand that a racist cannot hide his racism… it is simply the way they communicate- it oozes out of their regular speech and writings… it is impossible to contain… and in all these years I have not read, or watched anything from these outlets to give me pause or shock me at all.

    Ron Paul has many supporters from all walks of life, including glbt and christian… why is that? Some believe these groups to be mutually exclusive- actually they are not entirely.

    In fact glbt groups supported Obama who it turns out, is just as willing to use glbt soldiers to murder innocent minorities in foreign countries, as more “traditional” warmongering “christians”.

    also glbt groups supported Obama who was funded by Goldman Sachs and other big banks- the same special interests that held the $700 Billion gun to Congress’ head and threatened Martial Law, if they did not get their way. Obama supported TARP as did the GOP then and now.

    But some glbt groups and some other minorities, and some christians, even “real” libertarians believe as Ron Paul does- in the First Axiom: “First, Do No Harm.”

    that is, they believe in liberty for all individuals- that people are not granted rights as “groups” but only as individuals- and those rights sourced either in beliefs of Natural Law or by a Creator, are not “privileges” granted by or revoked by government to the people. That if you want to maintain your own right to life, liberty, and property, you must defend others’ life, liberty, and property if you expect anyone to assist you when you and yours are threatened by government or others.

    It is why people of all persuasions are coming around to Ron Paul as more and more see the State as the greatest common threat to all our civil liberties here at home and abroad, that we see in Ron Paul, an exception to the rule in government- that he is the only man of principle now living, who speaks truth to power and votes according to liberty. He questions authority and does not take bribes from the Fortune 1000.

    Instead of looking to the State to grant rights to glbt groups for marriage, why don’t we look back at history and ask why the first marriage licenses were ever issued? Is anyone here going to bother to do that? Maybe then you will realize that their really is a division of church and state constitutionally, and marriage should never, ever been licensed in the first place… as Ron Paul wants to get back to that… No licensing of any marriage- gay, strait, white, or minority.

    Maybe after that, you will see that Ron Paul doesn’t want anyone, minorities included, to die for a lie overseas, doesn’t want anyone to be licensed to wed, and does not want minorities or whites inprisoned for drug crimes… with allthis fighting for minorities, and reviewing and not finding racist comments from Lew or Ron… it would seem to ring hollow these shrill claims from the others who do want:

    1. to continue killing minorities overseas, and having our minorities to fight and die to do it.

    2. to continue controlling minorities and everyone through the licensing of marriage among other “rights”.

    3. to continue to incarcerate for drug crimes, minorities…

    So now, will you do the necessary research or will you keep parroting lies- because we who love liberty for all, have other media sources we can go for the truth if it cannot be found here.

    Ron Paul 2012
    Liberty Matters
    Mark watson

  112. TJ says

    I just love people who tell me how terrible a writer is in an effort to discredit his message. Seems Lucky Linden got his message across well enough, bad writing not withstanding.


    Re: Hate crimes (JM). Clearly, someone who states that all violent crimes are hate crime lacks understanding of the reasons behind this special designation. If I attack my neighbor because he committed a transgression that made me hate him, this is a crime of passion. If I attack my neighbor just because I don’t agree with him, in order to teach a lesson and send a message, a warning – this is something else, something more. If I hang a noose in front of my neighbor’s house for all to see; if I spray-paint invectives on his home, or assault him merely because he has the audacity to draw breath, this is more than vengeance and retribution. This is sending the message to my neighbor and anyone like him that he has no right to exist. Just because he makes me uncomfortable. Just because I don’t like the kind of people he represents. This is different from quid pro quo. Ths is different from an eye for an eye. This is, I don’t like the color of your eyes, therefore I will make you suffer. I will do this so that no one with your eye color will have the nerve to make me uncomfortable.

  113. Eric says

    If you actually read the newsletters and consider the context that is being assumed by the media, it’s absolutely ridiculous. “Raping children” the newsletter highlights how a Massachusetts civil rights law for gays excludes those whose object of affection is young children. Oh no, how dare child molestors be excluded from civil rights legislation! Please don’t believe everything you read people. Hell, the author of this ignorant article even included links to the newsletters. Just read them for yourself, it’s not hard.

  114. Jake says

    Liberals love this story because hysteria is like a drug to them. The truth is RP is to the left of Obama on gay marriage. Obama says marriage is between a man and a woman. RP on the other hand supports any voluntary association between two people. This information is readily available to anyone with mild curiousity. But truth is not nearly so much fun as hysteria.

  115. Joe Mica says

    “Incredibly the Ron Paul trolls who dive to ANY online article or discussion about him. If your not a regular Towleroad leader, do us all a favor and leave please?”

    Don’t let Google index your site and you won’t draw a crowd! I found this thread off of Google News. Close the gates if you want but don’t pretend like you didn’t give us an open invitation.

  116. AedanCloud says

    I agree with a previous (regular) poster; the outpouring of RP supporters who have been 15 spouting the same byline for every 1 comment by someone who wasn’t simply searching his name in a search engine in order to come to a site they’ve never been to before and screech about their everlasting love for this man is doing more harm to my opinion of the man than good.

    Comparing it to Scientology is a good analogy. These people are frankly frightening in their hysterics and makes me genuinely disturbed by the man himself.

  117. St.Anger561carpediemkid says

    I agree with Alex and Reid and some of the other posters after reading most of these comments. Ron Paul is nowhere close to racist. He voted FOR the MLK Jr. National Holiday, while Newt & Cain voted against it. ( It seems like Ron Paul cares a lot about the less fortunate, which definitely includes many minorities.

    Ron Paul is also for ending the federal war on drugs, and openly says the laws are not fair because they target blacks and minorities for non violent crimes. If you g to youtube you will find many videos of him supporting civil liberties and the constitution, but I have never heard him say any such negative comments.

    THis whole smear campaign is sad and pathetic. Every several hours a new story is published, so it is at the top of the search in google. Write this garbage to hide the real news and the true issues.

    Why cannot anyone write a sensible story, like one about Paul’s calling to End the Fed, End the War on Drugs, End All Foreign Aid, End All Wars. Mitt Romney in his ad says “marriage is between a man and a woman” Ron Paul said on Jay Leno the federal government should have no say in it by the constitution, it should be up to the states to decide, similarly to the drug war.

  118. Cecil says

    Can we please lock the comments on this post? It’s not actual readers of Towleroad but Ron Paul supporting trolls who are looking for every place possibly to comment about him. Really, can we stop this circus? It’s illegitimate.

  119. Gloria of Borg says

    “I just love people who tell me how terrible a writer is in an effort to discredit his message. Seems Lucky Linden got his message across well enough, bad writing not withstanding.”

    @ TJ (a.k.a. LuckyLinden)

    Seriously, you should quit lying, because you’re terrible at that, too!

    My post wasn’t an attempt to discredit you, because you had already discredited yourself.

    You lied, and you were caught by that lie; you tried to use a [phony] professional opinion to discredit Ron Paul, but it didn’t work — you were too big of an ignoramus thus couldn’t pull it off.

    You exposed yourself: you claimed to be a professional writer, but — ffs — you don’t know how to use a comma correctly. Your blatant idiocy and idiotic grammar exposed your lie, and it continues to expose _YOU_ as the fraud you are, so changing your name from LUCKYLINDEN to TJ — the act is not masking your idiocy, and the act won’t save you from your obvious lie!

  120. rp12 says

    there are gay people in all those countries that bush and obama have bombed.

    ron paul want to stop bombing them.

    obama, gingrich, perry, romney, bachman, and santorum all want to continue bombing brown people.

    ron paul wants to stop bombing brown people.

  121. Dtm4u2 says

    Frankly I am tired of all this. I take him at his word period. I like the stuff he is talking about the past 10 years. He sounds legit and I wil vote for him over anyone else. He will get us out of the wars, cut spending, cut some regulations , and get growth going again. It will take about 18 months or so but Obama has had nearly 3 years and we are still in this mess even when he had control of the house the first two years. Getting the troops one alone will be worth it. Drop this mess and vote for the small government guy Dr Ron Paul.

  122. Richard says

    In the newsletters, it said Ron Paul didn’t vote for MLK day. But if you look up House Vote #624, December 5, 1979, he DID VOTE for MLK day. Wouldn’t that prove he didn’t write the newsletters? oh and RON PAUL 2012= BOSS

  123. rp12 says

    btw, ron paul’s stance is more pro-gay-marriage than obama’s.

    obama is against it. paul thinks states should decide for themselves and leave the feds (and DOMA) out of it.

  124. Shorton Tyme says

    Controversy like this draws readers, i.e. visitors to this website.

    This website has ads that pay the site per visitor.

    Controversy = more readers = more ad views = more money. Therefore, controversy = more money.

    Now you know why much of the media is the way it is. Manufactured controversy is the phrase that pays. Keep this knowledge in mind.

    Knowledge is power.

  125. Josh Silverman says

    “(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.”) ”

    This is extremely stupid. When anyone were ghostwriting for anyone, they use elements of the title name’s personal life to give the story substance. Virtually no one but you thinks these are not ghost-written. How is it conceivable that a statement that contains information about X’s life implies X wrote it? According to this logic, all cases of blackmail would be invalid complaints.

  126. Well-Armed Lamb says

    IMO we do not need any of these laws you just screamed about. We just need to enforce the laws we already had. Murder is illegal, period. No one should be harassed there are laws against that already. IMO, all this crap is just another way to divide us, get us arguing with each other while they get their NDAA, SOPA and the real stuff pushed through under our nose. I think I have researched Dr. Ron Paul enough to know that is not for gay rights or straight rights or redneck rights he is for HUMAN rights.
    I’m old and I am done supporting illegal wars. When I meet my maker I want say “yes sir I did try to stop them”

    Vet/Grandfather for Dr. Ron Paul CaC 2012

  127. neill says

    WOW. You sir are really pushing it. First thing about libertarians.

    Have you even heard Ron Paul’s stance on gay marriage?
    it makes so much sense.
    Second thing about Libertarians.
    Leave the government out of it. Don’t enforce opinions. Isn’t that part of America’s history? The freedom to believe what you will? The ability to live peacefully with others, despite their differences. Whether it’s the gays, the idiots, the republicans, the socialists, what makes on set of people more important than another? We’re ALL EQUAL.

    Ron Paul DOES NOT enforce his opinion in the government. Everyone has their own thoughts on what they like, don’t like, and how the world works.


    I can say I hate gays all I want. I can say I hate idiots all I want. What’s the difference?
    Only until I choose to start harming others does it become important, because that’s no longer just freedom of speech.

    We’re electing someone based on their principles on government and policy. NOT THEIR BELIEFS!

    How many republicans would actually choose to enforce their opinion? That’s the more serious question.

  128. RiffRaff says

    I’d go ahead and offer a bet that 95% of posters on here are campaigning for candidates.
    The argument of, “his name is on it so, like, duh, it has to have been him,” are asinine at best. Those asking for him to take responsibility, he already did in 2008 when this was covered.

    Now, aside from this old story now being covered by starving media, has his voting record ever added to a racist character which he supposedly has (according to those who are still unhappy with what Paul has been saying for over 20 years, it’s as if they really want him to say something else)? No, and as for not supporting the civil rights act of 1964, it seems many of you have not even looked into his reasoning. He is against the act due to the power given to the federal government on dictating the use of private property. We already have an amendment that protects every INDIVIDUAL called the 14th amendment, go read it. Once you start granting rights to GROUPS instead of INDIVIDUALS, you break open the gates for favoritism and ecstatic lobbying campaigns.

  129. BeadStallcup says

    This was 20 years ago! Look at his voting record since that time. You people are a bunch of frustrated sickos who’ve got nothing better to do than attack someone you know nothing about. Read his books and you’ll know what he stands for. Read his books, you bunch of fruitcakes!

  130. Robert in NYC says

    Don’t be fooled by Ron Paul’s phony support gays. First of all, he’s NEVER actually personally said he supports same-sex marriage. All he says is that states should have the right legislate for it as well against it, yes, he supports DOMA if states so legislate. Seems as if he wants it both ways. Under his policy, we’d NEVER get DOMA repealed in the states that have it and we’d NEVER get federal recognition of same-sex marriage in the states that do. He’s a snake in the grass, just like his asshat of a son, Rand, a foe of LGBT equality. Believe me, civil libertarians ARE republicans dressed up as moderates. They’re anything but that.

  131. Robert in NYC says

    Candide001, libertarian gays are republicans, don’t be fooled by the fancy name. In the final analysis, whoever the republican nominee is for 2012’s election, they’ll fall in lline and vote for whoever it may be, anything to keep a democrat out. You’re right, Paul is going nowhere, thankfully. He’s far too radical for even the radical conservatives in the GOP.

  132. Roger says

    Some people here seem to be implying 40 years of Ron Paul’s fight for civil liberties including voting history, speeches, indorcement from NAACP was just a conspiracy to hide his racisim and homophobia. All a conspiracy but luckily those newsletter came to light. haha…

    He is an honest man. Fighting for civil liberty. He states and record shows: Anti-war, Anti-CIA, Anti-Corporate Welfare, Anti-Wall st bailout, Anti-Patriot Act, Anti-racial profiling, Anti-religious profiling, Anti-federal ban on gay marriage, Anti-State ban on gay marriage, Anti-war on drugs, He believe the court system treats poor and minorities unfairly.
    He explains why all the issues he’s against hurt poor, middle class, minorities, LGBT and liberty.
    He is Pro-Freedom.
    I have no doubt that he recommends a “traditional path” to those who ask his personal advice. But he has never and will never vote, sign-into-law or enforce a law that forces others to live his way of life. Think about it. He’s not a bad looking guy. He was friends with Ronald Reagan. He could have been nominated as the GOP candidate back in the ’80s. if he just kept his mouth shut about civil liberties and stopping the wars. But instead he left the GOP to run as a Libertarian. Bush was elected and went straight to war.

  133. CPT_Doom says

    Whatever the truth about the newsletters, the reaction of Paul’s supporterd is truly enlightening. Anyone who can inspire that kind of cult of personality has no business in the White House. Granted I am a Democrat & think Paul’s positions are ridiculous, but now I realize how batsh*t looney his followers are. it’s like a virtual version of Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah’s couch.

  134. nocetri says

    Absolutely hilarious how some of you are trying so desperately to smear Ron Paul because he is now a HUGE threat. Face the facts, he can’t be stopped. America is waking up. Do your own research, Ron Paul did not write those things, someone else did. And he publicly denounced them over and over. Should we hold every news agency, television station, radio station etc responsible if someone who works for them says something offensive??? Get over yourselves, you’re grasping at straws.

  135. says

    Anyone who’s saying that politicians need to check everything that is written in their name should remember Ron Paul wasn’t a politician at the time of these writings. He was a practicing doctor busy with actually helping people. He shouldn’t have left his name on the newsletters when he couldn’t keep reviewing them, but to say that he failed by not reading everything that went out under his name is to misrepresent what happened.

  136. TJ says

    GLORIA OF BORG: I’m not LUCKY LINDON. Never have been. I post here fairly often. I’ve never seen you here before. But believe what you will (not that you need my permission, obviously, to take your beliefs and run amok with them).

  137. dddienst says

    If this is true and that is his opinion then produce anything from any other source to support it. If true then there would be something from an interview or person testifying that he believed this but the opposite is true he complained that the court system is bias and the head of the Austin NAACP said he is not racist.

  138. David Jarrett says

    Even if Ron Paul was anti-gay 15-20 years ago, people do change their mind. This is likely the case with Ron Paul. From my personal experience as a gay man, I have seen many, many homophobes become pro-gay — once they actually meet an out gay man and realize that their former views were not valid. Over the years, I have come out to many individuals, who then realize that their misconceptions on gays was all wrong. Those individuals and I now share gay jokes together, and they feel very comfortable with my company. Even if Ron Paul is anti-gay today, which I do not believe, I support him because of his unquestionable committment of getting out of all of the USA’s wars. To me, the wars are horrible, are bankrupting the USA, and the USA has no business policing the world.

  139. Chris says

    Then don’y vote him. Vote for Romney, Gingrich, Obama, or 0.1% “Libertarian” Johnson. Or stay home and do nothing.

    Go ahead and shoot the messenger, it’s the message that’s important. There will be a less flawed candidate to carry the torch in the futute, e.g. I’m sure his son has no such political newsletter baggasge.

  140. says

    I’d like to take the opportunity to thank all the Ron Paul Supporters for posing in this thread. I’ve read about you in dribs and drabs in the “mainstream” press but this is the first time i’ve encountered this cult of personality in full psychotic flower.

    Give yourselves a big hand!

  141. Sam Marsh says

    a couple of points to make here…
    1. Ron Paul was not a politician at all at the time of the controversial issues of his newsletter. He was practicing medicine full time, and left the political stuff to others, from 89-95. The few objectionable lines were all from this time period, when Ron thought he was out of the game for good. Is it really so hard to believe that a full time ob/gyn on 24 hour call didn’t pay attention to a newsletter?
    2. The writing style is all wrong. Ron Paul’s writings are voluminous, so there’s plenty of samples to look at. My guess is that it is the work of a much younger person, probably an intern.
    3. The newsletters contain erroneous information about Ron Paul’s voting record. Exactly the kind of mistake some youngster would make, yes?

  142. Chris says

    Paul’s supporters are passionate about his platform and informed. The flawed candidate Paul will retire and his suppoerters will continue taking over the Republican party (they are already a voting bloc with enough sway to cost the Republicans the nod). A new candidate sans baggage will rise up and coast to victory since the opposition (both right and left) is toothless without the “newsletters” or personal attacks, e.g. PAUL is old, PAUL is racist, PAUL is etc. because Paul’s MESSAGE and paul’s POLICIES are none of those things.

  143. Karl says

    Paul voted for MLK day before he voted against it.

    On 8/2/1983 the bill passed the house 338-90 with Paul voting against. 98th Congress, CR-1983-0802, p. 22243 (vote #304 on H.R. 3706).

    The bill became law later that year. Jesse Helms demagogued it the whole time. So if Paul needed more anti-gay cred, there you go.

  144. Karl says

    I love the comments “I’m black/bisexual/Hispanic THEREFORE I think Paul can’t be a bigot”. It’s like non sequitur raised to the non sequitur’th power. Please don’t stop!

  145. Francis says

    Well, the comments to this story sure have been…………interesting. Ron Paul’s supporters certainly have come out to back their man. Personally, I have friends who are Paul supporters, but they’re also very much for equality for LGBTQ people. With all of that said, lets get real here. Obama is the clear option for us gays. He’s the only one who we can say with some certainty won’t throw us under the bus. Not Ron Paul. So this latest news coming out on Ron Paul means little to me. It doesn’t change what I already knew.

    I’m not going to knock the Paul supporters, but to make excuses for this isn’t cutting it. The bottom line is this is was personal newsletter and the articles within in contained very inflammatory homophobic messages. Andy and this site aren’t trying to destroy Ron Paul. The reality is, these articles have come out to light, and we all deserve the right who/what/when/where/why in this case.

  146. OMNOMNOM says

    Whether or not you actually believe this propaganda smear campaign against Ron Paul, he’s still the country’s best option for President. Wake up, homos and haters.

  147. C. Wendt says

    It is common for a ghostwritten newsletter-type publication to be written in the first person as though by the individual it is named after. For example, even right now, members of the Campaign for Liberty (Ron Paul’s organization) will receive special e-mail notices which are presented as though they were from the hand of Ron Paul himself, but in another region, members will receive a message with identical text, but the name “Rand Paul” or “Peter Schiff” attached to it. It is normal for a company or organization to assume the persona of the head honcho even in texts which are authored by lowly staffers.

    Moreover, note that Ron Paul was the only white male Republican in the entire US Congress to vote for the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell last year, is one of the few Republicans who oppose a federal “one-man-one-woman” marriage amendment to the Constitution, has a substantial number of gay associates, and refuses even to affirm that homosexuality is wrong (which most Republicans take for a given). See here: h ttp://

    Ron Paul did not write those newsletters, and is not homophobic.

  148. Francisco says

    We’re talking about news letters that are 20 years old. You can’t judge what was written 20 years ago by today’s standards.

    Am I the only one who actually remembers the 1980s – 1990s? During the Rodney King riots and the OJ Simpson trial I distinctly remember people in the mainstream press talking about the possibility of race riots and race wars.

    One of the most popular songs of the 1980s had the following lyric in it:

    “See the little faggot with the earring and the make up, yeah buddy that’s his own hair, that little faggot got his own jet airplane, that little faggot he’s a millionaire.”

    That was from Money for Nothing by Dire Straits, and it didn’t bother anyone at the time. The song wasn’t controversial at all. MTV even gave Dire Straits a Video Music Award for it in 1985.

    I remember in the mid-1990s when Wendel Clark came out of the closet. He was the first openly-gay player in the NHL, and all across the United States and Canada the fans taunted him by chanting “Wendy … Wendy” whenever he stepped on the ice. That wouldn’t happen today, but at the time it was socially acceptable behavior to taunt gay people.

    In the 80s and 90s gay people were thought by most of society to be in the same league with pedophiles. Attitudes did start to change in the 90s, but anyone who was alive in the 80s and 90s probably said less than complementary things about about gay people.

    The difference here is that we’ve got some of it in writing with Ron Paul’s name on it, but isn’t it funny how it’s controversial now, but wasn’t at the time.

    I also remember Billy Idol’s “Rebel Yell” tour. Anyone care to tell me what that thing on his guitar is?

    Imagine a White rock star playing a guitar that looked like that today.

    Public morality changes. Do you think Paramount could produce a movie like “Pretty Baby” today? It won awards in 1978, it was even nominated for an Oscar, but if they released it today everyone involved with the film would be sent to prison on child pornography charges.

    Opinions change, and public morality changes. The 80s and 90s were a long time ago, and unless you can demonstrate that Ron Paul still holds these views I don’t really care what was in those newsletters.

    I don’t have the same opinion of gay people that I had in the 80s and 90s ether, most of us don’t.

  149. Bruce says

    This attack is a very well-funded, sophisticated smear against Mr. Paul.

    We need to go back approximately 55 years in time, to 1957. In August of 1957, a very racist editorial company asked this question to the public of whether “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally.”

    That editorial, National Review, answered its own question by then saying: “The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is entitled because . . . it is the advanced race.” At the time of that release, a man (who the media will not mention) named William Buckley was the editor-in-chief of National Review. From that date on, the National Review has been engaged in outrageous forms of racism.

    In March of 1960, the National Review editorial wrote: “in the Deep South the Negroes are retarded and any attempt to argue this point is mere ‘demagoguery’.” It also said on October 28th of 1983: “The GNP, after all, is not produced by people marching in the streets,” (against MLK movement). It also said: “”Perhaps MLK Day should be celebrated only by the gainfully employed, and all those on welfare should be required to collect their checks as usual.”

    On July 23rd of 1976, William Buckley himself criticized the UN. Why? Because the UN was criticizing how the Apartheid laws were contributing to the murders & slaughter of Blacks.

    One of its more offensive secrets – In November of 1979, the National Review praised the “Apartheid” laws in South Africa, saying the law “has earned the benefit of a doubt from responsible critics.”

    February the 8th, 1985 – it praised the “liberalization of the Apartheid laws under Prime Minister Botha,” (Promoting Apartheid).

    May 23rd, 1986 – it criticized anyone calling an end to “Apartheid” laws.

    February 13th, 1987 – the editorial called Martin Luther King, Jr. A “communist sex maniac” & also referred to MLK as “a compulsive philanderer, and compulsive may be too weak a word.” That same day, it also disliked Martin Luther King Day, saying: “let’s hang in there,” and contribute to the disposal of the historical Dr. King down the memory hole.” (!!!)

    Newt Gingrich also voted AGAINST the reservation of a Martin Luther King Day. Who voted FOR it? Ron Paul – the one being accused of racism.

    National Review also used unknown & unverifiable statistics that “prove” the “cultural superiority of White over Negro”. It went further to say that blacks should not vote, as it would hurt “the claims of civilization.” It praised the British Embassy in Kenya in the 50s because of its discrimination against blacks, as it showed the “qualitative differences between its culture and the Negroes.”

    On December 2nd, 1991 – he praised David Duke when he said that “White people also have rights.” – claiming that they have been taken away (by whom, we will never know).


    All of the racism from National Review was done while a man named William Buckley was editor-in-chief. Some of this material was written by him personally. William Buckley passed away in 2008.

    A certain man said a eulogy for Buckley, quoted saying “liberals could not find a more gracious intellectual opponent than William F. Buckley. Relishing Buckley’s intellect, style and the voluminous service he performed on behalf of the English language. No American writer of the last half century had a more significant impact on our politics than he has.”

    This man, James Kirchick, PRAISED THE RACISM by William Buckley. THIS IS THE GUY WHO accused Ron Paul of being racist & submitted the newsletters to Reuters just days ago to start smearing him, and is assisted by an anti-Paul group that is associated directly by “Kochtopus” – which is funded directly by Charles Koch.

    Mr. Kirchick is directly connected to Newt Gingrich through FDD (Foundation for the Defense of Democracies).

  150. calvin says

    Ron Paul Has NOT changed his mind since then. He is still an homophobe: Paul supports DOMA and has voted YES on banning gay adoptions in DC. Rated 38% by the HRC.

  151. QQ says

    The most interesting part about the whole newsletter story is not, In my opinion, whether or not Paul wrote them (though I don’t believe he did based on conflicting sentiments that can be more clearly attributed to him) but rather that the subscriber base read them and had no outcry. I would have to assume that any congressional district is going to be contested in at least some way if possible. Especially a district in one of the largest oil refinery centers in the world. One would think, whether Paul authored them or not, that someone would have picked up on these things much earlier and made a play for the seat.

  152. says

    “We’re talking about news letters that are 20 years old. You can’t judge what was written 20 years ago by today’s standards.”

    No, we’re juding them by 20 years ago’s “standards.”

    Ron Paul’s only comment on his racist and homophobic newsletter is that he “hasn’t read them.”

    Is this supposed to constitute a retraction?

  153. says

    “Am I the only one who actually remembers the 1980s – 1990s?”

    No. Do you remember the 50’s and 60’s?

    “In the 80s and 90s gay people were thought by most of society to be in the same league with pedophiles. Attitudes did start to change in the 90s, but anyone who was alive in the 80s and 90s probably said less than complementary things about about gay people.

    The difference here is that we’ve got some of it in writing with Ron Paul’s name on it, but isn’t it funny how it’s controversial now, but wasn’t at the time.”

    On what planet do you spend the better part of your time?

  154. says

    Not that it matters to most on here, but Ron Paul DID NOT write that rubbish. Those articles were written by a Man named Lou Rocvkwell.

    Dr. Paul has taken moral responsibility for not policing what was being placed in his newsletter. Dr. Paul is a lot of things, but as racist or homophobe is not one of them.

  155. Andrew says

    It seems like the gay community has a short memory.
    Remember when gay men were dropping like flies? Then suddenly hemophiliacs started dying too. It really freaked even one out. People dying horribly. Remember when it was called, “gay cancer”?
    Everyone was really freaked out. People protesting schools that let children with AIDS attend. No one new how it was transmitted. When they realized by blood or sex they still had no tests.
    …or those groups of young black girls sticking white women in N.Y. with syringes they found on the ground because they thought it was funny to make someone think they may get AIDS.
    Remember the GIANT QUILT? How many names.

    Tell it to all my friends who died.
    Try watching the Matthew Modine movie were they were trying to find patient zero. The gay flight attendant who INFECTED some 500 men.
    To think that straight people had no reason to be fearful.
    Whether Ron Paul wrote those comments I do not know but the powers that be are playing the gay communty like a harmonica.
    Because out of supposedly hundreds of newsletters and thousands of pages which were blogs and posts of yester year, it comes down to a few letters with few comments during the AIDS crises. I have read many statements from media the newsletters and then the letters themselves and the media is really trying to spin this into something bigger than it is. They have slanted many of the comments.
    To be real even Obama does not support gay marriage(why?) and Ron Paul does. So who is being taken out of context. Either Obama does not like gays or he is doing it for political reasons. Which is worse?
    If Ron Paul is a homophobe it is his right but is Obama any different? Ron Paul, however is not impinging on your right to do anything unlike Obama.
    Ron Paul has employed gays, one of whom died from AIDS.
    I know ending the wars and getting the government is the most important issue of the day.
    Live and let live.

  156. JM says

    Robert in NYC:

    “Don’t be fooled by Ron Paul’s phony support gays. First of all, he’s NEVER actually personally said he supports same-sex marriage.”

    That is a flat-out LIE. Ron Paul has explicitly stated that he is in favor of letting gays get the same rights of marriage that anyone else does.

  157. endo says

    Jesus Christ! 197 comments?! LOL There’s nothing sadder than Ron Paul fanatics googling for blog hits on Christmas morning. They’re the Justin Bieber fans of politics.

  158. says

    “Patient Zero” was an invention of Randy Schiltz — a gay Republican who spent many a night at The Splot. Michel Foucault went there too — being a fisting enthusiast.

    Andre I’m 64 and half of thsoe nearest and dearest to me during the better part of my life so far died of AIDS.

    You say Ron Paul has a “right” to be a homophobe? I guess that means you have the “right” to be a KAPO.

    And yes, Barack Obama is plenty different.

  159. fedorajoe says

    How tiresome.

    Saying that the states should have the right to discriminate against me if they choose to is NOT the same as supporting my rights.

    Merry Christmas.

  160. Gloria of Borg says

    @ TJ

    “GLORIA OF BORG: I’m not LUCKY LINDON. Never have been. I post here fairly often. I’ve never seen you here before. But believe what you will (not that you need my permission, obviously, to take your beliefs and run amok with them).”

    You don’t like it when a person takes their beliefs and runs amok with them, but isn’t that PRECISELY how it works for the idiots trying to discredit Ron Paul?

    You punks have been running amok with your retarded beliefs. Despite mountains of evidence that prove Ron Paul is not a racist, you’ve pretentiously argued how Ron Paul wrote those newsletters, and you won’t see it any other way.

    YOU seem to believe that you can dissect a few lines from Ron Paul’s thousands of newsletters, that you can discredit Ron Paul’s entire political career from those few lines, but that’s not running amok to you, huh?

    Now, you don’t like it when judgments and assumptions are directed toward you? Hypocrites like you, you’ve all been trying to discredit Ron Paul via his writings, but you don’t like it when other people try to do the same to you?

    LuckyLinden ran amok with his belief; he believed that he could pass himself off as a professional writer — that his PHONY professional opinions could discredit Ron Paul’s newsletters — but, again, that’s not running amok, huh?

    Get real, punk!

  161. Gregoire says

    Wow a lot of posters who have never been here before. The Paultards in force! Great bait, Andy.

    For regular posters here, we know to skip the Ron Paul posts. I just thought I would peek in and laugh.

  162. says

    Any chance you could provide a link to the article containing the ‘physician’ comment? I would like to ALWAYS reference both the self-identifier and whatever other crazy thing he said in the same article.

    PS Ron Paul would be crushed by President Obama. So, root away!

  163. Artie says

    Oh, so these are the Paul supporters who want to eliminate the Department of Education? Leave any anti-bullying work up to the locals? Create an under-skilled, semi-literate population?

    Read carefully. Ron Paul has a legitimate function, in spite of his idiotic policy ideas. Ron Paul’s function is to draw enough blood from that prostitute, Mitt Romney, to make both of them look like the idiots they are. I hope those instructions are clear.

  164. Christopher says

    “that the gays wanted to rape children, desecrate the Eucharist (which, to be fair, some of us do)”

    Bye, Andy. It’s been a great six years since I started reading Towleroad daily but, really, this on Christmas? I realize you won’t miss one reader, and I probably will miss visiting here, but there this is just a bridge too far.

    (PS have at it Hitchens fans–won’t be back to read your vitriol, so feel free to let it fly.)

  165. Francis says

    For whatever reason I actually took some time to read through the entire comment section now, and interesting actually doesn’t describe some of the comments.

    Point to note: Ron Paul supporters, like I said before, I’m friends with some, they’re 100% not homophobic, I know this. With that being said, if you’re going to talk up and campaign for Mr. Paul, attacking the people you’re trying to discuss his politics with ain’t the answer.

    Some (note: SOME, I’m not attacking all of his supporters) of these comments are really doing a major disservice towards my view of Ron Paul and his supporters. The hawkish-nature of many of the comments is one thing, but really, going on a gay blog and calling us sickos, brainwashed liberals, selfish, and wishing us death? Not good form. Really.

  166. says

    Dear Gay republicans,

    No, your father won’t respect you more if you continue to vote GOP. Truly, he won’t. It’ll just make you look like a wimp to him, yet again, and he’ll know that he still controls you and your life.

    Know this.

  167. Karl says

    “Paul supports gay marriage” is a lie. He opposes government recognition of any marriage. Believes that private contracts can fulfill the same role, utterly missing the point that gay couples have found private contracts to be insufficient. I’m sure that will improve though when straight couples rush to draft private marriage contracts because the Paulbots voided all government marriage contracts.

  168. Artie says

    Sometimes I agree with Little Kiwi, other times not, but this is one instance where the Kiwi nails it. O GOProuders, hearken to my plea! You propose to get your parents to stop hating you because you’re gay, but your method of attempting this is madness. You support hateful Republicans, like Romney, or simply Republicans, like Ron Paul, who will work against extending your civil rights (like the federal Department of Education making schools safe for LGBT high school and middle school students). This will not make your parents like you more. No, GOProuders, you parents will still avoid you, since they still consider you an embarrassment. If you told them you were voting for whichever candidate will fight DOMA in court, your parents might respect you more. Oh, that’s right, the Obama Department of Justice is currently finishing its attack on DOMA in appellate court. On to the U.S. Supreme Court.

  169. Mike112769 says

    We do not need hate crime laws against any group. Any crime is a hate crime. Hate crime legislation is absurd. He has been fighting these allegations for years. He disavowed them as soon as he found out about them. Ron Paul has never endorsed any kind of racism or bigotry. Look at his voting record. LuckyLinden is obviously part of the status quo, and would hate to see Paul win.
    Ron Paul makes more sense than any of the other political whores that are currently running for office. At least he doesn’t flip-flop on every issue, as the rest of them have.
    As far as legalisation of drugs go, why not check out some simple facts. Every country with tolerance for drugs has lower usage than those that outlaw drugs. Making drugs illegal gives them a prestige that they would not otherwise have. Prohibition is a perfect example. Legalisation would not only take the money out of the drug cartels, but would be Constitutional to boot.
    As for the military, we have bases in well over 100 countries around the world, yet are closing VA hospitals in America. We treat our vets as if they are garbage after their service is up. I am all for closing most of those useless bases and putting the money into helping our returning veterans here.
    Ron Paul does not want to keep America on the path to imperialism that it is now following. People that insist we keep troops overseas to “keep the natives in line” are simply cowards that are afraid they may get attacked by a terrorist. You have better odds of getting struck by lightning, while being eaten by a grizzly bear, than you do of being the victim of a terrorist attack.
    If you are happy in the direction in which we are going (NDAA, locking up U.S. citizens on suspicion of terrorism indefinitely), then by all means vote for anyone else.
    If you believe in our Constitution, and not supporting any special interest groups, then Ron Paul is your only option.
    It amazes me how many of you on here care about two people of the same sex sleeping together. It is none of your business who is sleeping with whom, unless it’s your spouse. If you have a problem with gays, to the point that you call them obnoxious names (such as homostohell above), methinks you doth protest too much. Homostohell, that means I think that you are a closet homosexual, and hate yourself for it.
    Ron Paul 2012…better than ANY other option we have.

  170. DeeperStill says

    Wow… There’s some sickos on this thread indeed. What a bunch of hateful, delusional, cult-like visitors. Scary stuff.

    America may be even more f*cked than I thought…

  171. Paul R says

    I’m getting tired of the claims that my being gay/out/anything else has anything to do with my parents, especially my father.

    Kiwi, I love most of what you post, but this meme is dated and tiresome. My parents are Republicans, but we get along fine. It seems like you’re projecting. Especially when it comes to Rick/Jason. Ignore the ignorant.

    Happy holidays to all. It amazes me that this post has drawn so much attention from Paul supporters given that he has zero chance of being the candidate.

  172. Dan says

    It’s very amusing to watch all the paultards congratulate themselves (and their own sock puppets) on their common brilliance and open-mindedness.

    Sybil would be so proud.

  173. Gloria of Borg says

    Towlerroad has begun censoring Ron Paul’s supporters, screening posts and stopping them from being seen, and that is a very bad idea.

    Digg tried that during the last election cycle. Digg actually banned Ron Paul’s supporters and deleted their accounts, and Digg hasn’t recovered from doing that yet.

    Digg’s traffic has been on a steady decline since they tried doing that, and you can see that here:

    Good luck, Towlerroad! If you continue down that road, you’re going to need luck! You were lucky to reach the top of Google’s search results, but it may be the worst thing that ever happened to your closed-minded blog service due to the fact it will expose exactly what kind of propaganda spewing operation it is.

  174. Bruno says

    Paul does not support gay rights. He may be against discrimination on a federal level but only only on the principle of it being a federal law. He doesn’t support the Lawrence v. Texas decision and is perfectly okay with states criminalizing gay sex. Paul just trades bigotry at one level for another.

  175. candide001 says

    The swarm of crazy Paultards this article has attracted is probably a good thing. It shows the rest of us how crazy they are and how crazy it would be to vote against Obama and our own best interests. Most of us who frequent this site have common sense and will not be seduced by crazy GOProudettes and Paultards.

  176. TampaDink says

    Wow…who knew that so many Paulist would come out of the woodwork over this post. If I had any reason to vote against President Obama, which I don’t, the comments here have proven to me that Dr. Paul has a loyal following of die-hard fans. There is something very unsettling to me about the notion of a president who would eliminate so many safeguards in America. Sure, there are some issues that Paul raises that are sound on some levels, yet I just don’t think that I’d be terribly eager to live in a nation without many federal agencies that protect consumers.

  177. Paul R says

    @David Ehrenstein: Yes, my parents more than tolerated my ex (of 17 years). We went on vacations together. They bought him gifts for his birthday and Christmas. They most certainly would have attended our wedding had we opted to have one (luckily, given how things worked out, we didn’t). They saw how happy he made me, and that made them happy.

    I have four straight older brothers, and I’ve caused my parents a lot fewer problems than any of them. Possibly because when I was young I was scared about how they’d respond to my being gay and so made sure that I’d be self-sufficient. So I graduated high school when I was 16 and made sure I knew how to type and perform basic computer skills so that I’d always be able to get a decent-paying job. But it didn’t matter. It never crossed my parents’ minds to do anything besides love me.

    And two of my four brothers switched to being Dems because of me. I’m not sure the other two have ever seen a voting machine….

  178. Don't be Gullible says

    What coincidence these “Ron Paul newsletters” have suddenly been “discovered” now that Ron Paul is in the lead in the Iowa primary.

    I’m surprised they haven’t accused Ron Paul of trying to develop “Weapons of Mass Destruction” as well.

  179. Artie says

    Some of Ron Paul’s policy positions are crazy enough on their own merits. For example, he’s against the 2003 Supreme Court decision to strike down the sodomy laws; Ron Paul thinks it’s fine for states to pass sodomy laws.

    But letting people write for you and not even giving the articles a quick glance before you sign your name to the article is just plain S-T-U-P-I-D. I wouldn’t want someone that dense running the country, would you? A few of the fanatical Ron Paul supporters here have suggested that this is like other writers, like Brandon K. Thorp, writing a post on Andy Towle’s blog. That’s a false comparison because on Towleroad, you can see the writer’s name just under the text of the post. If you download one of the PDF scans of the “Ron Paul Political Report,” you’ll see that no writer’s name appears other than Ron Paul. What kind of dumb ass would do this and then expect that American voters would elect him president?

  180. Artie says

    @ Don’t Be Gullible,

    You’ll notice that stupid things that people do don’t attract a lot of public attention until they run for national office. Is this a spooky coincidence? No, it just wasn’t newsworthy until Ron Paul was a front-runner in a presidential primary. Is that too hard to figure out?

    How f*cking brainless do you have to be to have bigoted “ghostwriters” writing your newsletter, and then only putting your own name on the newsletter without even reading the frigging thing! Is Ron Paul’s middle name Dumas, with a silent “s”? Or is the “s” in his middle name pronounced, as in “D-u-m-b A-s-s”?

  181. George M says

    I don’t have anything for or against Paul
    But at the end of the day he is not going to get the nod. He may win a few states, like he always does, but will not get the nomination. I think someday someone like him will win but it won’t be this time. His best bet would be to run as a 3rd party, but i don’t think he will. I do kinda think we are going to have a 3rd party this time, what do other people think?

    So that will leave the two, the one we know or the one we don’t. For me my opinion I’m sticking with the one I know.

  182. mk_ultra_again says

    Paul is the most anti gay candidate in the race. His policy is ‘no gay marriage. Churches get to keep marriage’. “Leave it up to the states to decide” means “leave it to churches”. Obama will bring federal marriage in his second term but under Paul, gays would live severely restricted lives with next to no rights or protections. Make no mistake, Paul is extremely conservative, religious, right wing with a disdain for gays and minorities. His followers prove that he is truly insane.

  183. Chris H says

    Ron Paul’s campaign chairman from 2008 was gay and was the brute force, pushing Paul to the podium.

    Paul voted for the MLK Jr holiday.
    When others like Newt G. did not.

    These are pretty lame character smears and only a dullard will take the media’s word; character assasination is their Joie de vivre. His books and voting record, personal life and public life as a doctor (where he never turned away a patient) and Congressman speak otherwise.

  184. Harry Free Agent says

    Nice to see there is apparently a large segment of the gay community who WON’T automatically vote Democratic on command. They actually THINK for themselves. (Imagine that) And they don’t believe everything they read in the lamestream newsmedia. BRAVO!

  185. Paul says

    I think that some people are assuming that because Ron Paul is not actively and openly ANTI-gay rights he must therefore be PRO-gay rights, never taking into consideration that he may be completely INDIFFERENT. Taking a “leave it up the the individual states” stance does not say pro-equality to me. Because of so many of his supporters insisting here in this forum that Ron Paul is a champion of gay rights and marriage equality I went to his website to read in his own words what he has to say about these issues. So I clicked on “the Issues” link and…not a word about equality, marriage, gay people but lots to say about guns, immigration and abortion. One would think that if EQUALITY was an important issue to him he would have his people include it somewhere on his website, sprinkle a few quotes, list a few of his voting records. But, nope, there is NOTHING. I think it is a huge mistake to think that because he does not say anything directly against us that somehow magically he is FOR us.

  186. George M says

    When Ron’s not on the ticket what do you do? I see how you think it’s on command but how does a gay person listen to the comments and votes coming out of the GOP and vote for them? Explain That to me, if you don’t mind

  187. Bob Barker says

    Maybe somebody should tell the author that he currently wants the federal government out of dictating marrage…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

    All in all I give this a F+ for the Terrible misdirection effort. But come on, anybody who watches this man speak for more than a second just knows that this man really cares about your rights.

  188. Acronym Jim says

    “Maybe somebody should tell the author that he currently wants the federal government out of dictating marriage.”

    And that helps your argument how? Google Loving vs. Virginia.

  189. Mac says

    Ron Paul hired Maine’s anti Gay warrior Mike Heath to help his 2012 campaign in IA. As for racists, Jesse Benton has ties to the Kentucky League of the South. A White Supremacist Hate Group advocating a second southern secession from the Union. Ron Paul’s hate and racism is his past and the present and will be in his heart until the day he dies.

  190. Mac says

    Oh I forgot Ron Paul’s ties to a Christian Reconstructionists like his life long friend Gary North and his endorsement of Pastor Chuck Baldwin POTUS after bowing out of the race in 2008. Just sayin’

  191. says

    Marriage is a function of the State — not the Church.

    The church may perform marriages. It does so at the behest of the state.

    The church has it’s “beliefs” about marriage and is free to hold them. In actual social practice they don’t mean diddly-squat.

    Your priest/ minsiter/ rabbi et. al does not divorce you. That’s a function of the state that married you.

    Why is this so hard tofigure out? This notion of “taking the government out of marriage” is idiotic for it would give marriages no leagl standing whatsoever. Is this what you Paltards want?

    “Mac” gets it. SING OUT LOUISE!

  192. Artie says

    Has Ron Paul actually said he wants the government to “get out of marriage”? The more this man opens his mouth, the crazier he looks. Marriage has been a civil matter for the secular authorities since the sixteenth-century Reformation, in Protestant countries, and since the Napoleonic Age in Catholic countries. Didn’t Ron Paul get that memo? Marriage is necessarily a civil rather than religious institution because it determines government benefits. No one has yet explained why Ron Paul says such foolish things.

  193. Paul R says

    @Ehrenstein: Yes, typing skills were a major “boin” to me…when I was 16 and earning $11 an hour as a temp while my friends were earning $4.25. Now I’m 39.

    What does any of that have to do with gay rights? You have no idea how much volunteer time I’ve given, how many marches I’ve been in, or how much money I’ve donated. I’ll answer for you: a lot.

    You really have ability to take anything and twist it to be negative. Bitter much? I’m not responsible for my parents’ political or religious views, but I won’t apologize for them either. Sure, it would be great if we were on the exact same page. But I’ve changed the views of them and many of their friends when it comes to gay issues, so cut the castigating, holier-than-thou crap.

  194. says

    “You have no idea how much volunteer time I’ve given, how many marches I’ve been in, or how much money I’ve donated. I’ll answer for you: a lot.”

    Mazel Tov.

    “You really have ability to take anything and twist it to be negative. Bitter much?”

    You have no idea.

    “I’m not responsible for my parents’ political or religious views, but I won’t apologize for them either. Sure, it would be great if we were on the exact same page. But I’ve changed the views of them and many of their friends when it comes to gay issues, so cut the castigating, holier-than-thou crap.”

    Well if you’ve changed their views in any way you ARE responsible.

    Make up your mind.

  195. Acronym Jim says

    @Artie:Has Ron Paul actually said he wants the government to “get out of marriage”?

    Almost. Ron Paul wants the FEDERAL government to get out of marriage. He believes marriage laws should be left up to the states. Right off the bat, that would mean a repeal of all benefits conferred by federal marriage laws. It could also lead to an overturning of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Loving vs. Virginia, as individual states would be able to limit (or expand) who may marry as the states see fit.

  196. says

    Paul R, how wonderful that you and your parents “get along fine”

    too bad, though, that they don’t love you enough to vote for candidates and a party that consider you a human being of beauty and worth.

    seriously. your parents “get along” with you, yet at the end of the day don’t really care enough about you to think about your wellbeing when it comes time to vote. to you that may be love, to me that’s conditional tolerance. but hey, if that’s what you’ve settled for in life then enjoy.

  197. Kevin_BGFH says

    @LUCKYLINDEN, I totally agree with you. I, too, would like to believe that Ron Paul didn’t write these. But I just cannot comprehend how anyone can let him off the hook without questioning how he could continue to allow things to go out under his name without review. And if he didn’t know that people were ghost writing under his name, that’s something for him to address, too.

  198. Paul R says

    @Kiwi and Ehrenstein: know what? I don’t give a crap about what you think and don’t know about my relationship with my parents. They aren’t my puppets. They love me dearly.

    You both apparently know little of how to deal with people who are imperfect. I’m sure that brings you both great joy.

    Kiwi, why don’t you spend more time taking to task every poster you disagree with, based on his supposed relationship with his father? Oh wait, that wouldn’t be possible. It certainly never gets old. Never.

    Ehrenstein, why don’t you spend more time insulting people you don’t know anything about?

    I didn’t choose where or to whom I was born. I have fought like hell since I came out when I was 13. Kiwi, you came out at 17—isn’t that a bit late, according to your ideology?

    Ehrenstein, I have no idea of your history. And don’t care.

    You’re both attacking me and my supportive parents? WTF is wrong with you both? My parents volunteer for more (liberal) causes than I could ever imagine doing. You both have skewed and screwed ideas of what makes a person decent.

  199. says

    Can we stop speculating what he might have said and just go with what he HAS said if you don’t want to watch he takes the libertarian stance of the government should see all partnerships equally and marriage itself is a religious not governmental issue. Vote on candidates by how they will vote or write laws. Research them yourself and form your conclusions yourself. Stop allowing yourself to be swayed by the sensationalistic media, they will say anything to sell ads.

  200. tony says

    Who cares if Ron Paul is homophobic or not? Did he jump into the Republican bandwagon to ban same sex marriage like Rick Santorum? He is personally pro life, but is he proposing to make abortion illegal at the federal level? I don’t care what he thinks as long as he stays true to his libertarian beliefs and fight for the rights of everyone on this soil and end the wars in middle east and drugs.

  201. George M says

    Tony, you gay? If he was homophobic and you were gay would it matter then? Just a question
    I personally don’t care if he is, dont really think he is, he’s just not for me.

  202. anon says

    Quotes from articles written anonymously by a guy named Powell, deliberately misleadingly attributed by mainstream media to discredit Paul. Does Rupert Murdoch read every article that is published in his newspapers? Did he write them all – OBVIOUSLY not. You’re not doing yourself any favours regurgitating such nonsense. It just makes you look like an idiot and gets your website added to filter lists. Adios.

  203. says

    Most people think about ghosts when the word “Ghostwriting” is mentioned. It is important to clear this misconception.

    According to the English dictionary, this profession is one in which a person writes books, articles, speeches etc, for another person (presumed author). Sometimes, they rewrite already written content to improve its quality.

    Similarly, there are people who believe that these “invisible” writers only produce biographies and novels for celebrities. That is not the case either! In fact, they write all kinds of web content available on website. The internet has contributed to the boom in invisible writers’ industry.

    Just like ghosts, these writers cannot be seen, or known to the world. They work behind the scenes; writing things people find on the Google and other search engines. If you find them in person, consider yourself lucky to know them. They are very important people, who work hard to provide valuable and read-worthy web content.ghostwriters

Leave A Reply