2012 Election | AIDS/HIV | Ron Paul

Ron Paul's Homophobia In Context

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

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

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

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

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

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

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. 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.

    Posted by: EgadsNo | Dec 24, 2011 8:07:24 PM

  2. 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)

    Posted by: gabriel | Dec 24, 2011 8:11:38 PM

  3. 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...)/

    Posted by: Chitown Kev | Dec 24, 2011 8:46:07 PM

  4. 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!

    Posted by: buckingthestatusquo | Dec 24, 2011 8:47:12 PM

  5. 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.

    Posted by: Dan | Dec 24, 2011 8:47:56 PM

  6. 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.

    Posted by: buckingthestatusquo | Dec 24, 2011 8:54:53 PM

  7. Ron Paul was the only candidate willing to take the heat from NOM when asked to sign a pledge to make marriage between a woman and a man.. You clearly aren't informed.


    Posted by: Josh | Dec 24, 2011 8:59:55 PM

  8. Maybe you should tell that to my Ron Paul-supporting gay Republican friend.

    You are a disgusting warmonger. Shame on you.

    Posted by: John | Dec 24, 2011 9:00:31 PM

  9. 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.

    Posted by: buckingthestatusquo | Dec 24, 2011 9:03:04 PM

  10. 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.

    Posted by: gabriel | Dec 24, 2011 9:09:06 PM

  11. 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?

    Posted by: Dan | Dec 24, 2011 9:18:05 PM

  12. 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!

    Posted by: buckingthestatusquo | Dec 24, 2011 9:29:22 PM

  13. 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!

    Posted by: Cecil | Dec 24, 2011 9:40:07 PM

  14. 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.

    Posted by: Jose Mora | Dec 24, 2011 9:41:03 PM

  15. 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.

    Posted by: buckingthestatusquo | Dec 24, 2011 9:43:48 PM

  16. Did I mention that they're not very self-aware?

    Posted by: Dan | Dec 24, 2011 9:47:48 PM

  17. 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.

    Posted by: buckingthestatusquo | Dec 24, 2011 9:51:41 PM

  18. 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.

    Posted by: Reteo | Dec 24, 2011 9:52:17 PM

  19. Merry Xmas to everyone - even the Paultards.

    I'm off to be with my family and engage in normal, human-like social interaction.

    Posted by: Dan | Dec 24, 2011 9:57:02 PM

  20. 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.

    Posted by: Daniel | Dec 24, 2011 9:59:04 PM

  21. 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.

    Posted by: Al | Dec 24, 2011 10:01:14 PM

  22. 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.

    Posted by: whyallthehate | Dec 24, 2011 10:07:44 PM

  23. 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.

    Posted by: gabriel | Dec 24, 2011 10:07:50 PM

  24. 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. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGaBAb_oS84

    Posted by: Iraq Veteran | Dec 24, 2011 10:12:39 PM

  25. Just ran across this online (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/12/prweb9063870.htm). 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.

    Posted by: whyallthehate | Dec 24, 2011 10:16:08 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 »

Post a comment


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