[Peace-discuss] Re: Ron Paul & GroundHog Day

[C. G. Estabrook]

The context was an interview on "Situation Room," on CNN January 10, regarding 
the newsletters discussed in an article in The New Republic.  Some of
Paul's comments:

On the newsletters: "It's been rehashed for a long time and it's coming up now
for political reasons. But everybody in my district knows I didn't write them.
And I don't speak like that. Nobody has ever heard me say anything like that.
I've been reelected time and time again. So everybody knows I don't participate
in that type of language. But the point is when you bring the question up you're
really saying, you're a racist or are you a racist? And the answer is no. I'm
not a racist. As a matter of fact Rosa Parks is one of my heroes. Martin Luther
King is a hero. Because they practiced the libertarian principle of civil
disobedience, nonviolence. ... What's really interesting, though, and this might
be behind it because as a Republican candidate I'm getting the most support from
black voters and now that has to be undermined. And I do this because I attack
two wars that blacks are suffering from. One, the war overseas. And all wars
minorities suffer the most. So they join me in this position I have against the
war in Iraq. And what about the war on drugs? What other candidates will stand
up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites, everybody who were convicted
for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes."

Asked how this got in his newsletters: "I have no idea. Have you ever heard a
publisher of a magazine not knowing every single thing? The editor is
responsible for the daily activities. People came and gone. And there were
people who were hired. I don't know any of their names. I absolutely honestly do
not know who wrote those things. But I do know there was a transition, there
were changes around and, to me, it's been rehashed. This is the politics of it
all. If it were important enough, why didn't the people in my district who have
heard this for these 10 years or so that this came up and people believe me. Why
don't you believe me and just say look, it's in there. It's bad. I recognize
that. I had a moral responsibility. But that doesn't mean that you can
indirectly charge me as being a racist. That's what is being done, and yet, I am
the most anti- racist because I don't see people in collective groups."

Asked if he read the newsletters: "Not back then. There may have been at times
that I would. At times. I was in a medical practice. I traveled a lot. I was
doing speeches around the country. Very frequently I never did see these. A lot
of the things you just read, I wouldn't have recognized them."

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/01/hotline_after_d_323.html

Ricky Baldwin wrote:
> Seems a very defensive statement, altho the positions he takes below are of
> course very good.
> 
> What, could I ask, was the context of this statement?  Was Mr. Paul by chance
> being asked about his statments/positions that raised the question in the
> first place, e.g. the 'inefficient' police and the allegedly 'low' rate of
> incarceration of black Americans, immigration and citizenship, social welfare
> (what's left of it)?
> 
> If not, has he at least repudiated this garbage elsewhere?  We're desperate
> for anti-war candidates at the moment, but let's not get so desperate that we
> turn a blind eye to a candidate's flaws.
> 
> Ricky
> 
> --- "C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu> wrote:
> 
>> On Ron Paul's "racial politics," the "Anti-war Anti-Racism Effort" might
>> note his statement on CNN three weeks ago:
>> 
>> "I attack two wars that blacks are suffering from.  One, the war overseas. 
>> In all wars minorities suffer the most.  So they join me in this position I
>> have against the war in Iraq.  And what about the war on drugs?  What other
>> candidate will stand up and say I will pardon all blacks, all whites,
>> everybody who was convicted for non-violent drug acts and drug crimes.  And
>> this is where the real discrimination is.  If you want to look for
>> discrimination, it's the judicial system.  So I am the antiracist because I
>> am the only candidate, Republican or Democrat, who wants to protect the
>> minority against these vicious drug laws."
>> 
>> 
>> Ricky Baldwin wrote:
>>> Of course we can't limit the signs people bring.  We never have.  Ever.
>>> I think it might be time to dissolve AWARE and start over if we did.
>>> 
>>> Of course, IF it were to turn out that Ron Paul signs were numerous enuf
>>> to create the appearance that we all support his campaign, that would be 
>>> unfortunate and grossly inaccurate.  Most of us don't, because of his
>>> racial politics or his 'Libertarian' economic views or both.
>>> 
>>> I suggest everyone who's so inclined bring signs representing the
>>> candidate of their choice (even if he/she has dropped out, or signs like
>>> "Vote Green," or how about signs that say what you really feel :-)
>>> 
>>> "Vote for who you want, then
>>>> RAISE HELL<
>>> until they get OUT OF IRAQ!"
>>> 
>>> "Throw the bums out!  End the War!"
>>> 
>>> "Democracy is NOT just voting!"
>>> 
>>> "Our choices for voting SUCK.  The only choice in Iraq: OUT NOW!"
>>> 
>>> I'm sure others can come up with better ones. Ricky