2012 Election | Discrimination | News | Ron Paul

Ron Paul Again Denies Writing Anti-Gay Newsletters: VIDEO

RonpaulnewslettersRon Paul continues to take heat for the homophobic, racist newsletters sent in his name in the 1990s.

Asked about the inflammatory materials during an interview with ABC's Jack Tapper yesterday, Paul admitted he wrote parts of the letters - the economic bits - but insists he never penned the "bad sentences" that warned of a "coming race war" and of a "federal-homosexual cover-up on AIDS."

"I wrote a lot of part of the letter, and I’ve never said I didn’t. I wrote some of the — you know, the economic parts. I was not the editor. I was the publisher. And there were some very bad sentences put in. I did not write those. I did not review them," he said yesterday, before blaming the people who worked for him.

Tapper then wondered whether Paul's lack of oversight calls the presidential candidate's management into question. Paul had no choice but to say "yes."

"Well, yeah, I think so,” he said. "But nobody — I don’t think anybody in the world has been perfect on management, everybody that’s ever worked for them. So, yes, it’s a flaw. But I think it’s a human flaw.”

Watch video of Paul and Tapper's exchange, AFTER THE JUMP...

Video via RawStory:

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Even old dogs remember every tree they piss Ron Paul is no different.

    Posted by: Vern Dufford | Jan 2, 2012 5:19:42 PM


  2. On one hand you have about eight sentences taken out of content of newsletters not written and disavowed many times by Dr. Paul, and on the other hand you have 30 yrs of proven Paul written words and speeches and books that contradict those views in the news letters, lets go with the eight sentences.

    Posted by: Pat Riot | Jan 2, 2012 5:20:58 PM


  3. My oh my, all the Paul robots are out in force. He (and his son the "good" Senator)are wackos who deserve utter condemnation of their paranoid, strange and dangerous views. Those newsletters are closer to the old man's views than his bots can admit in their willful blindness.

    Oh, and it's Jake Tapper not Jack, and don't get me started on that tool. Though not many Towleroad readers "do" C-Span you ought to watch the White house press conferences. Tapper was so eager to leave ABC and get the Murdoch/Ailes W.H. job he became Mr. Grumpypants Obama hater at the pressers. Too bad for him the CNN tool ED whatever his name aced him out for the Faux Noise W.H. job.

    Posted by: Contrarian | Jan 2, 2012 5:32:14 PM


  4. HELLO I AM RON PAUL AUTOBOT 3000. I AM A LONG TIME READER OF THIS BLOG NOT A PAULTARD WHO SEARCH ENGINED THIS SITE. THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE IS UN-AMERICAN. RON PAUL IS TRUE PATRIOT AMERICAN VALUES CONSTITUTION AMERICA AMERICA DRUGS WARS *fizzles*

    Posted by: Gregoire | Jan 2, 2012 6:19:16 PM


  5. If you are LGBT and want your employer to have the right to fire you or deny you equal benefits, or your landlord kick you out, or a business refuse you service, all because they "disagree with your""""""lifestyle choice"""""", Then vote for Paul. Those are the "individual freedoms" he believes in. Oh and you can forget about marriage or any other type of equality and legal protection. Remember to Paul "individual freedoms and liberties" means the special right of one American to take rights from another American.

    Posted by: mk_ultra_again | Jan 2, 2012 6:27:08 PM


  6. Jesus Christ, the comment section has been taken over by Paultards. Maybe they should check that this is a blog with gay tendencies as Andy puts it. We're the last people you want to spread propaganda about a Candidate's views on equal rights.

    Posted by: whatdidyousay | Jan 2, 2012 6:28:05 PM


  7. It astounds me that this group of Republican candidates, with their bigotry, ethical issues and outright lies, are still in the running. Why is it that issues that would send children to their rooms aren't considered to be disqualifying for political office? Our children are held to a higher standard than our politicians, adults who should have learned the difference between right and wrong decades earlier.

    Posted by: lk | Jan 2, 2012 6:45:48 PM


  8. Ugh, I can't believe I'm actually going to say this but.

    I can't wait for Mitt Romney to crush Ron Paul in the primaries so that all these Paul fanatics just go away!

    Posted by: NY2.0 | Jan 2, 2012 7:26:02 PM


  9. Paulbots out in force! You guys are more prolific than kudzu.

    Here we go again:

    If he didn't know what was in the newsletters, he should have. If you're going to put out stuff with your name on it, know what it says. And, apparently, he hasn't learned much from that experience since his campaign is full of people behind anti-marriage-equality anti-gay campaigns and past cheerleaders for candidates such as the racist Pats (remember them?). If you're not homophobic or racist, don't hire such people.

    Since Towleroad is a gay site, let's once again point out that in the magical world that is a Paul presidency, he would seek to give huge power to the states, and the US is full of states run by religious zealots. (Need we look further than TX and AZ . . . ) He also believes gay people have no right to fight for equality under the Constitution via the federal justice system. DOMA: he supports it but doesn't support our right to fight it in Court.

    Then the old dream about getting the federal government out of marriage. When he convinces the heterosexuals that it's a good idea (good luck with that!) and severs their ties to the gov't gravy train (the one we're not allowed to board) along with his own (he hasn't objected to his own gov't marriage) then we can talk. Till then, gay couples should have the same access to federal marriage benefits and protections that Paul has taken full advantage of for over half a century.

    The fact that Paul isn't obsessed with gay sex like Frothy and co. are doesn't mean he'd be good for gay rights. His libertarian and faux-libertarian ideas (the only thing with staying power when he's put out to pasture) on civil rights are horrendous for the real world.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jan 2, 2012 8:36:24 PM


  10. If anyone has read Paul's books in their entirety, his columns, his speeches, watched his interviews, etc., over the years, they'd realize the man is emphatically not a racist. Instead they use newsletters that have been blown way out of proportion and which he did not author.

    Also, I have gone to the source and read about 10 of the "racist" and "homophobic" sentences in context and the meaning totally changed for each of them. Too bad these liberal drones care more about race-baiting than the truth. Even Paul's book which talks about AIDS patients (and for which he has received criticism) is not allegedly homophobic. Instead, it is Paul making his usual libertarian point that health insurance should be dealt with by the free market and not using the violence of government to force private people to insure the sick one way or the other. It is called insurance for a reason, people.

    The shallow thinking of those who read nothing but newspapers and news sites reminds me of this old quote by Thomas Jefferson: "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." That applies to the vast majority of people who will read this post.

    Posted by: Ebeneezer | Jan 2, 2012 9:06:41 PM


  11. So he didn't write those things himself. He published them in a newsletter with his name on the front cover in big bold letters. He can't come back decades later and pretend he had no idea what he was publishing. That's BS.

    Posted by: Houndentenor | Jan 2, 2012 9:25:09 PM


  12. Well, Ebeneezer, newsletters aside, Paul's big 2011 hires included anti-gay zealots who led pushes against marriage equality, so his recent history of surrounding himself with homophobes is even less comforting than his past snuggles with racists and homophobes. If he's that out of touch, he's the one doing the shallow thinking.

    And, newsletters aside, his ideas on civil rights would suck for gay people.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jan 2, 2012 9:49:47 PM


  13. The "L" for Dr. Paul doesn't mean libertarian, it means liar or lunatic or both.

    Posted by: jack | Jan 2, 2012 11:44:27 PM


  14. After having seen the video of Ron Paul in the movie "Bruno", I certainly wouldn't blame him if he held bad feelings for the gay community. That was not funny, and IMHO most people deserve more respect than he was given in that charade. Still not voting republican, but just sayin...

    Posted by: Brad | Jan 3, 2012 3:02:34 AM


  15. Paul's denials of responsibility for the content of HIS newsletters--and the responses here that swallow that denial whole--are disturbing. He's unpresidential at best, and a stunning pig-headed, bigoted liar at worst. There are other candidates who will let you smoke weed and ignore the needs of the less fortunate in your communities--this one (and, by the way, his hateful son in Kentucky) is the wrong choice by a landslide.

    Posted by: MAP | Jan 3, 2012 10:21:09 AM


  16. Glenn Greenwald is employed and paid through the Cato Institute which is an invention of the Koch Bros who also fund it.

    Ron Paul's platform is identical to the Koch Bros positions and activism.

    Follow the money.

    Posted by: enemyLister | Jan 3, 2012 10:37:04 PM


  17. « 1 2

Post a comment







Trending


« «Alan Turing, Gay Father Of Computer Science, To Be Featured On New British Stamp« «