Talk:Ron Paul

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections older than 10 days are automatically archived.

Weak first paragraph

Why does the second sentence of the first paragraph, beginning "He is regularly featured on CNN," even exist? I worry about the following aspects:

• is it really a telling or worthy accomplishment that the main stream media now ask for his opinion regularly?
• it is generally diminutive to describe supporters as followers
• if we must group the supporters into ideologies, there should really be a lengthy distinction (as well as some wikilinks) drawn between big-L and small-l libertarians (and probably between big-C and small-c constitutionalists) that is not really appropriate for a lead section
• the Revolution is really the 2008 campaign phenomenon, not the ongoing group of people (which would be the Campaign for Liberty)

May I suggest something like this instead:

Well-received Libertarian and Republican presidential campaigns during his political career have made Paul a regular commentator on limited government and liberty. His support base has always extended well beyond his current congressional district, measured in terms of campaign donations, speaking engagements, and media coverage.

-Jiminy pop (talk) 11:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Concur. With new paragraph, although I'd change "regular commentator" to "regularly sought commentator." Also, fixed your fourth bullet point. Foofighter20x (talk) 15:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree completely. He also has many Democratic supporters, which the paragraph leaves out. --Gloriamarie (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Question

The article states:

In the 2008 general election, Paul received almost 20,000 votes with 99% of precincts reporting.[151] He was listed on the ballot in Montana on the Constitution Party label, and in Louisiana on the "Louisiana Taxpayers Party" label, and was registered as a write-in candidate in California.[152]

Many states don't count write in votes unless there is a reccount so in actuality he could have recieved many more votes, should something be stated about this in the article?--E tac (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it's worth of note, yes. -- Tyler D Mace (talk · contr) 08:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article now states the vote total is the "reported" total, and notes that not all jurisdictions require the counting of write-in notes.--JayJasper (talk) 20:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter Controversy

Ultra-Hyper-Mega-POV

This is one of the most impressive (and longest) fluff pieces on WP. I especially admire the way the newsletter controversy has been deftly atomized and scattered so that it is hardly detectable. If this were anyone else, there would be a "Controversy" section dedicated to it, as there should be.

On the positive side, I get to point to this article as evidence against the supposed left-wing bias of WP. There's scarcely anyone to the right of Ron Paul, yet the apparent WP consensus is to treat him with fawning adulation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey dumbass, where is the "controversy" section on Obama and his William Ayers connection, Rev Wright, or the controversy around his birth certificate, etc. Your problem is with the media, if they had persued this more than just one interview about it on cnn maybe it would be topical enough to be inclouded in Ron Paul's page. However it's a non-story. Go look for controversy sections in Obama's page, and many others and report back what you've found. You lose.

Neither Obama, Ayers, Wright, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Batman, Santa Claus, the Devil, your Grandma, nor any other red herring figure you may wish to name, have anything to do with my point regarding Ron Paul, who is the subject of this particular article.

Wrong again clown. Everything I mentioned has to do with Controversy, as in content related to Obama for instance, which is not mentioned in his wikipedia page. Similarly you will find many controversies are not mentioned in multiple politician wikipedia articles. I was not making a judgment about Obama, I was pointing out well known controversies that got about 10,000 times more media exposure than the newsletter controversy that ended after a single Wolf Blitzer interview. Take your personal vendettas to the slum pages like encyclopedia dramatica, or get all the controversies that were big news into the mainline articles before you complain about it here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.51.76.94 (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, lack of objectivity, whether through obfuscation or omission, whether real or imagined, whether in articles on Obama, Blitzer, Donner, Dasher, Rudolph, Barney the Dinosaur, the Easter Bunny, the Wizard of Oz, or any other person, place or thing, has precisely zero to do with the same phenomenon here at this particular article on this particular subject, namely, one Doctor Ronald Ernest Paul. Have I clarified this point yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

If you weren't so laughably moronic your case would almost be tragic and a thing to pity. The significance of media exposure is a key incentive to any controversy appearing on the final wikipedia edit of a politician's article. For you to cast this aside and ignore multifarious examples where items were reviewed hundreds of times more by the press but were exclouded from other candidate's pages is very telling. Again, if you want every controversy, inclouding this one, (that lasted by a single interview on CNN during the election), you should be crusading Obama's page with the same incentive to add controversies that you feel are ignored. Your lack of objectivity is evident below when you talk about NWO-tinged philosophy, etc and other strawmen, and in the fact that you take issue with a buried controversy as an injustice when much more prevalent ones are ignored. And you, or whoever else wants the newsletters added, is not even fully aware of the facts as is evident by Foofighter20x's reponse at the very bottom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.230.46.162 (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to break through your veil of obtuseness one last time: John kills a man and is caught and brought to trial. John concedes moral responsibility for the killing, but argues that he ought not be punished until all previous killings be solved and the killers be brought to justice. The jury laughs at John and finds him guilty, and the media has the audacity to publish the story for everyone to see. John's friends never come to terms with John's crime, and defend his reputation to the bitter end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 12:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just the point though. Neither you, nor the media, have proved Paul authored the text. Paul denies it, though he admits he should have kept a more watchful eye on what was being published in a newsletter bearing his name in its title, thus ultimately he is responsible for the statements having been published. Those close enough to the situation to reasonably know who authored the texts have all pointed to Lew Rockwell. Those are the facts, kiddo.

Since you seem to like to argue by analogy, try this one: Bill Cross is a politico with rock-star stature in his own niche and also track-and-field athelete. After defeat in the primaries for an elected office, Cross goes back to doing his sport full-time, but gives his political acquantances the opportunity to use his name in order to cash in on his fame by attaching it to the title of a newsletter; they name it "Cross Country." Cross's acquintances run the newletter and write most of the text, though Cross contributes from time to time. Then, one day the acquantances, using then-present-day academic reports and sarcasm, make some highly questionable comments on a very sensitive topic. Since no one is really paying any attention, it goes unnoticed. However, one day Cross decides to run for public office again. His opposition does the standard dig for dirt and finds these questionable statements, and uses them out of context to make them 10 times worse than they would actually be. The media grabs the story and runs with it. However, every person who has met Cross and listened to him says that it just doesn't sound like something he would say or write. ... So, until you come up with better sources to back your assertions other than reading into articles what you are predisposed to believe, then all your ranting and raving amounts to nothing more that WP:OR and your opinion. And that's that.

Sorry if you disagree. We have to appreciate the likes of your type, though. If not for your intellectual kind, someone like Clarence Earl Gideon would never have been wrongly imprisioned; we would have never had the awesome, landmark case of Gideon v. Wainwright; and we wouldn't have the right to counsel we all cherish so much today.

If you are going to fault Paul for anything, let it be for the poor handling of this whole mess. Foofighter20x (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't catch this flaw in the anon user's argument the first time I skimmed through it, but the analogy of "John kills a man and is caught and brought to trial" is not useful. In that example, Anon is assuming and asserting guilt and conveniently leaving out that ultimately the accused is contesting the charge. A more appropriate analogy would follow this example: a man was shot/killed with John's gun; at first John argues that the man deserved to be shot instead of pleading his innocence or revealing to whom he had given his gun; later he denies having fired the weapon, though he had occasionally used it for other purposes. Foofighter20x (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

tl;dr. However, after the first couple sentences I could see that you're overlooking the point of my seemingly endless attempts to say, simply, that THE SITUATION AT OTHER ARTICLES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ONE. I'm not here to argue about the authorship of the newsletters. I'm here to suggest that we might want to mention them in a distinct "Criticism" section, like we do on every other article (except those that the other IP will name shortly). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Article does not explore the newsletter controversy thoroughly enough.

The Article Fails to mention that Ron Paul lied about his involvement in the newsletter,and changed his story over the years in order to cover his tracks as new information emerged.

For example. http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html This Article points out how Ron Paul defended the comments made in the newsletter when they first appeared. For example "Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation."(1),and furthermore Paul added ""If you try to catch someone that has stolen a purse from you, there is no chance to catch them," Dr. Paul said."(1)

The issue was then raised again in 1996,and Ron Paul once again defended the racist publications.

May 23, 1996, Houston Chronicle:

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."(1).

Ron Paul would often state that his writings were being taken out of context,but after James Kirchick's angry white man Ron Paul suddenly changed his story,and denied all claims that he had any involvement. This is because Ron Paul new that the newsletter had inflammatory remarks aimed at African Americans and the LGBT community.

Because of this i think it is important to include both the angry white man article,and the reason article.

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=e2f15397-a3c7-4720-ac15-4532a7da84ca —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 00:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Forget it. History has proven that it is extremely difficult to add criticism to the articles of some politicians. Ron Paul has a VERY strong following on some corners on the Internet, and with Barack Obama having won the presidency, most of the people fighting this following have turned around and moved on. As a result, the criticism that used to be in this article, such as Ron Paul's rampant and inexcusable racism that has been retroactively attributed to mostly unidentified ghost writers, is almost completely gone and won't find its way back. Of course, you're just a guy who doesn't even sign his comments and I'm not even logged in (despite the fact I have an inactive account), but that's just because everybody who wants to keep his sanity has already given up. I myself have been wanting to fix this article up "after the election", because "things will have calmed down then", but now I don't care anymore about an idiotic political party whose viewpoints are either demonstrably stupid or indemonstrable but still highly dubious. 195.241.69.171 (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC) (a Very Very Angry Wikipedian...)

I appreciate your anger. Be that as it may, gangs of Wiki-thugs can't be allowed to run roughshod over the place. At least not without a few skirmishes now and then. You're right though, ultimately they will carry the day because they care more. And why? Because the subjects at hand are semi-religious in nature to them, but not to us. Examples of things that are several orders of magnitude more intensely supported online than in the real world: Young Earth creationism; Austrian School economics; NWO & Bilderberg conspiracy theories; etc. In a way, it's actually a positive thing that these ideas flourish (and sputter themselves out) in cyberspace, where they are kept relatively contained. Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.105.228.24 (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be added in regards to the newsletter issue.

In 2008 James Kirchick "angry white man" article revealed that Ron Paul's newsletters had made racist,sexist,and derogatory comments geared towards African Americans,women,and the LGBT community [1]. Ron Paul attempted to deny any involvement in an interview with CNN,but his attempt to cover up the newsletter failed when it was revealed that he had actually admitted to writing them,and he even defended the articles. "Paul, who earlier this week said he still wrote the newsletter for subscribers, was unavailable for comment Thursday. But his spokesman, Michael Quinn Sullivan, accused Morris of "gutter-level politics." [2].

its rough,but ill leave like this with hopes that one day someone will clean it up and make it apart of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 02:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Revision

I've done what I can to tell the story as neutrally as possible. Hope this helps. Foofighter20x (talk) 13:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And before anyone accuses me of being one-sided, I'll have you know this: I voted for Paul. I gave the man $2300 for the primaries. I have Ron Paul T-shirts I still wear. Finally, I'm one of the moderators on ronpaulforums.com. Hope that shows my evenhandedness in this dispute. Foofighter20x (talk) 13:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to address this earlier,but i think it would have been better if what i wrote was moved to the newsletter section. unfortunately what i wrote was completely removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

No. What you wrote was used. I suggest you read the whole thing next time, hmm? There was already a sentence on the Kirchick article which was combined with yours. Also, the quote you used from the old 1996 article was even put in a blockquote. Foofighter20x (talk) 02:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

What you need to realize though is that Ron Paul changed his story about the newsletters each time they were mentioned. At first he accepted responsibility and accused his opponent of taking his written commentaries out of context, but only until 2008 did he began to flat out deny any involvement.

I am going to make sure that the article points out how Ron Paul's statements surrounding the newsletters changed over time.

The Article also has this one sentence that needs to change: Paul was defended by a "shocked" Wolf Blitzer,[133] and by Nelson Linder, president of the Austin NAACP chapter.

Wolf Blitzer did not defend Ron Paul in the interview,and it was not Wolf Blitzer's job to do so. Furthermore Nelson Linder did not defend Ron Paul,and he changed his statements. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm

UPDATE: Nelson Linder contacted our office and wanted prisonplanet.com to stress the fact that he made his comments as a private citizen, not as president of the Austin NAACP. He said the libertarian platform deserves the same scrutiny as the Democratic and Republican parties receive in this nation. He went on to say that some on the web have construed that he is endorsing Ron Paul. And that is not the case. Mr. Linder went on to say that the interview was designed to discuss local issues concerning civil rights and civil liberties and his knowledge of the Libertarian party and Ron Paul. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 21:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You are incorrect.

1. Paul never admitted to authoring the articles, but still accepted responsibility for them. If you read the 96 news article themselves, any indication of admission are made in the narrative of the journalist, and not explicitly by Paul. In short, your assertion of Paul's admission of authorship is weak, at best. As the articles say, in toto, Paul only allowed his name to be used in the banner of the newsletter. Lew Rockwell was the author of the passages in question, which when put into the context of the article lose most of their preceived racist tone and come off mostly as sarcasm. The worst of the phrases was the "fleet of foot" comment, which is really a tongue-in-cheek compliment. When confronted by the media about the statements in 96, Paul admitted nothing. A campaign spokesman stated Paul still wrote the report, which is not an admission by Paul. Also, out of loyalty to his as-yet unnamed author (his friend Rockwell), Paul didn't out him. In 2001, he explained the story in full to Texas Monthly. In 2008, the accusation resurfaced and his story stayed the same as in 2001. The best that you can offer is the Oct 11 Houston Chronicle article which makes an weak and indirect claim against Paul. Where's a direct quote from Paul stating he said something to that effect verbatim, as opposed to a summarized narrative of the newspaper which characterizes a statement he made as such?
2. As to Wolf Blitzer, read the transcripted quote in note 133; what Blitzer says can fairly be read as a defense, though a weak one.
3. As to Nelson Linder, even if he made the statement as a private citizen, that does not change the fact that he was the President of the NAACP in Austin, TX and in no way warrants the removal of that fact so mentioned. That fact is actually a relevant detail to establishing why it's even included in the article in the first place. If Linder was just an average citizen and did not hold the position he did with the NAACP, then what would be the point of including his opinion?
4. Finally, please sign your remarks with a ~~~~. Also, you don't need to create a new section every time you respond. Thanks. Foofighter20x (talk) 23:07, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

No i am not incorrect about Ron Paul's involvement in the newsletter.

1. This is a joke,and especially so since Ron Paul clearly defended the article,and never denied that it was his written until this election.

2. It is important to know that Nelson Linder retracted his statements,becuase it shows that followers of Ron Paul misconstrued the man's statements in an attempt to show that Ron Paul was not a racist.

3. This page will never be neutral because their enough Ron Paul supporters that will never concede even a minor point. They attempt to erase or get rid of any criticisms even when it is only minor. I remember various times when i had to correct Ron Paul supporters on the funding of congressional medals. They claimed that Ron Paul voted against congressional medals because these medals were tax payer funded,but non-supporters had to point out that these medals were funded through the sales of replicas and were not tax payer funded. even after numerous explanations of how the US mint operates they still insisted that congressional medals were tax payer funded. If many of these Ron Paul supporters can not even concede a minor point then what is the likely hood that articles on the internet about ron paul are going to be balanced if they are being edited by their supporters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 01:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, right? He denied authoring the letter in 2001, caveating that he didn't deny in 96 since such an explanation would be confusing and distract from the real issues at hand in the election. Also of note, he never admitted to authorship at any time. I suggest you read the 2001 Texas monthly article for context.

Also, where is any cite for your assertion that Linder retracted his statement?

Finally, you talk about RP supporters not giving an inch, yet you fail to acknowledge the edits I've made to the article which both incorporated your suggested comments, and gathered the "atomized" parts of the article into one section (with the sole exception of the narrative of the 96 election, as it's needed there). So, really, where have I not conceded something? I'm starting to think you are just trolling. Foofighter20x (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

no i am not trolling,and do not call me troll just because i am raising a few issues that you may not agree with. http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2008/011308_not_racist.htm This is the article that shows that Nelson linder did indeed retract his statements UPDATE: Nelson Linder contacted our office and wanted prisonplanet.com to stress the fact that he made his comments as a private citizen, not as president of the Austin NAACP. He said the libertarian platform deserves the same scrutiny as the Democratic and Republican parties receive in this nation. He went on to say that some on the web have construed that he is endorsing Ron Paul. And that is not the case. Mr. Linder went on to say that the interview was designed to discuss local issues concerning civil rights and civil liberties and his knowledge of the Libertarian party and Ron Paul.

//he never admitted to authorship at any time.// he never denied authorship,and furthermore he defended the newsletters remarks numerous times in other interviews made with local newspapers in the early-mid 90's.

http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/ftp.py?people/g/gannon.dan/1992/gannon.0793 the article makes frequent references in the first person, talking about Ron Paul's personal experiences, and even makes references to previous articles on the subject of race. Second, the article makes reference to "expert Burt Blumert." Blumert is a coin dealer, as well as a close, personal friend of Ron Paul.

http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2008/01/proof-ron-paul-lied-about-not-being.html This article is also written in the first person and the blog points out how Ron Paul did more then just edit the newsletter,but also authored some of the articles. Iam showing you blogs,but all of this information can be found in local newspapers,and the news letter itself. Perhaps Ron Paul did not author all of the content in his newsletter,but at various times he did write his own articles,and has editor it was easy for him to include them.

Perhaps the best example comes from the January 1991 edition, where Ron Paul writes that:

In 1988 when I ran for president on the Libertarian Party ticket, I was berated for hours by LP members because I had refused to vote, while in Congress, for a Martin Luther King national holiday. http://www.tnr.com/downloads/January91.pdf Why in the world would the writer bring this specific incident up, unless it actually happened to him, and unless he was still bitter over the experience? And who else could this experience have happened to, other than Ron Paul?

However, even if these pieces were written by a ghostwriter, it still wouldn't matter. The point is that Ron Paul signed off on them and never offered a retraction, which suggests that at the very least, he would have agreed with them.

you suggest that i should have read the texas monthly article in order to understand the context or whatever. The whole newsletter issue rests upon whether or not Ron Paul was involved,and if he was involved then to what extent. Thus it is important to include as much evidence as possible that not only outlines Ron Paul's involvement,but also shows his varying degrees of involvement. The evidence shows that Ron Paul not only singed off on the newsletter,but also provided his own writings.

Ron Paul's 2001 version of events sounds very heart-felt. Unfortunately, his story doesn't mesh with past events. Here is what Ron Paul was saying five years earlier, in a 1996 edition of the Austin Chronicle:

In one 1992 article, Paul labeled the illustrious congresswoman Barbara Jordan, now deceased, a "moron" and "fraud" whose accomplishments depended on her race and sex. Paul now explains that he's been wronged -- his "academic, tongue-in-cheek" opinions have been stripped of their context. But when the Victoria Advocate requested the entire copy of the newsletter, promising to publish its entirety, he refused that too. http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue9/pols.paul.html

For the record, Barbara Jordan passed away earlier in that very same year. Ron Paul's story for the Texas Monthly may sound sympathetic, but it isn't supported by past events. If he's felt any regret over his comments, then it doesn't seem to show here.

furthermore why would anyone put the blame on lewrockwell if Ron Paul already made statements that basicaly said that " I was the writer and editor"? This does not make any sense how could lewRockwell be responsible if Ron Paul already claimed responsibilty? the only way this could ever be possible is if Ron Paul and Lewrockwell are the same people,and the only way this could happen is if the individual were a shape shiffting reptilian that works for the Illuminati.

http://reason.com/blog/show/124339.html According to a Dallas Morning News review of documents circulating among Texas Democrats, Dr. Paul wrote in a 1992 issue of the Ron Paul Political Report: "If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

Dr. Paul, who served in Congress in the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Tuesday that he has produced the newsletter since 1985 and distributes it to an estimated 7,000 to 8,000 subscribers. A phone call to the newsletter's toll-free number was answered by his campaign staff. [...]

and their is allott more but whatever —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 02:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

First link: No byline. No proof of anything other than being in the newletter. No proof of authorship.

Second link: Manages to highlight specific self references in a few newsletters, but only to show portions of those newletters refered to Paul specifically. What is notably missing from that page is scans of the whole page that connect that particular issue to the specific comments. Also fails to show if a special byline appeared over those pages which didn't appear over articles with questionable statements. I find it rather odd the blog you cite has failed to show the newsletter in full. If they have enough to scan a page, they have enough to scan the whole document.

Third link: Nothing in that article is incorrect, especially the allegations of immoral behavior. See Martin Luther King, Jr.#Legacy. The work the newsletter cites, that of David Garrow, won the Pulitzer Prize. Thus it appears the newsletter was citing a reliable source. Also, when one employs a ghostwriter, third person statements can easily be changed to first person. Don't agree? Just watch how easy it is...

I am a left-of-Lenin liberal who has no clue how to critically weigh evidence or analyze arguments in order to arrive at an obvious conclusion. To make up for this personal deficiency, I try to vandalize Wikipedia pages with content that's been long settled. Also, I don't know how to sign my comments; it's kind of embarassing considering how easy it is... Sadly, I can't spell "a lot." At least my mom thinks I'm cool. Hoffmanjohn (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. It must be difficult for you to admit all that.

Fourth link: Again, nothing about Paul specifically authoring text, nor any statement of admission by Paul. Article accuses Paul of authorship, yet provides no proof.

Fifth link: Production of a newsletter does not imply direct authorship. I produce Wikipedia, same as you. Doesn't mean either of us are teh authors of valdalist edits... You really need to take a logic course at your local college. Foofighter20x (talk) 07:00, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Passing through and saw this thread - this has been extensively discussed here in the past - see the Talk archives. Ron Paul's name was on the newsletters; some had a personal note from him and his wife included; and he took responsibility for them. Any attempt to whitewash this has no place in this article. Tvoz/talk 09:47, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

That's just my point. The article as it was when this discussion started hid the controversy by breaking it up into several small pieces sprinkled through the article. Those who objected to this had a fair point, so I edited the article to group them together, and only changed the narrative enough to merge everything together while staying true as possible to what was already in the article. I even added what was suggested in this discussion that wasn't WP:OR or blatantly pushed a specific point-of-view to such an extent as to violate WP:NPOV. Their trick here though is to do it in such a subtle way as to be tantamount to manipulation. For example: claiming Paul lied; that Paul defended "his" articles, not "the" articles; claiming Paul "changed his story" when it can be equally argued that he never had a story to begin with, explained it later, and then stuck by that explanation; that blame has been assigned "retroactively"; that a lack of denial is proof of admission; also, consider how mangled the chronology of the narrative of those attacking Paul is; claiming Paul "signed off" on the passages when Paul himself contests that fact (which is why he says he's morally responsible, in that he should have been signing off on the newsletters, meaning he should have played a more active role in the publication, which would have stopped statements like this from being published in the first place); claiming Paul "basically made statements" saying he was the author and editor when no such statements exist (also, the qualification of "basically" screams that this is Hoffman's judgment and personal opinion); claiming that Paul wrote the letter and then upon that presumption asking how Rockwell could have been the author.

All of these show that these guys are coming here with their presupposed notions with, at best, very tenuous support. As I've said before and illustrated above, while Paul is morally responsible for the publication of the passages (which even Paul admits), none of his actions at any time have fundamentally been inconsistent with his explanation. Not denying authorship is not equivalent to admitting authorship (this is simple logic). Defending the passages as taken out of context is not an admission or affirmation of authorship. Stating he produced, wrote, or contriubted to the newsletter is not direct proof of authorship, nor can it even firmly prove indirect authorship (imagine an auto exec saying he "makes cars" for a living; such a statement doesn't mean he's specifically down on the assembly line installing parts; it's a general reference to a complex process, not a specific admission to responsibility to every step included therein; in the same vein, imagine a NYT editor saying he writes a newspaper for a living). Not offering a retraction is not equivalant to ratifying or even agreeing with the statments (again, simple logic).

There's an old Wendy's commercial with a bunch of old ladies inspecting competitor's burgers. They ask: Where's the beef? Indeed, Hoffman, where's the substance of your argument? You offer what a philosophy professor friend of mine calls a "slender reed", in that it's so flimsy a supposrt as to not be capable of supporting the argument. Foofighter20x (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes - I meant that comment as supportive to what you've done, Foo, if I didn't say that clearly. Tvoz/talk 19:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The beef is easy to come by. The newsletter has his name emblazoned on it and was published by his organization. That is damning enough for 90% of the population. Burzmali (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you've never heard of a byline. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

←No, I don't agree about bylines - in the absence of bylines, something called "Ron Paul's Blah blah", sent over his name, has to be assumed to be written by him or in his name which amounts to the same thing, as Burzmali said. I have not been following this article closely for a while, because frankly I couldn't take it. So I really don't know how you'all got to this point, having only noticed this recent thread and I don't want to get into it. But I want to be clear about my hurried note in the middle of the night last night: My position always was that while I don't know who literally wrote each of the words, as far as I'm concerned the newsletters were called "Ron Paul's" in the title, I recall seeing at least one, maybe more, that included a first-person note from Paul and his wife - as in, "my wife Carol and I wish you a happy new year" or something like that - first person, strongly and deliberately implying his direct authorship of the entire document or conceivably that ghostwriters wrote it but that it all was being sent out as Ron Paul's ideas/positions/words, and he has taken responsibility for them in the past literally and more recently in a moral way. In the absence of any bylines assigning authorship to anyone else, then, it is entirely appropriate to assume that Paul is in effect the author as he is responsible for what they said, and in fact I'd say it was likely that whoever wrote them at least believed that these were his beliefs. So I think the point is moot about who took pen to paper - these newsletters are Ron Paul's and they went on for a long time, speaking in his name. So I don;t see what the argument is exactly. It's great that now he is appalled by some of the ideas and language, but honestly it doesn't matter - for all intents and purposes they're his. What I was and am supportive of is including the explanation about the authorship controversy, because it was notable during the campaign (and may have contributed to the fizzling out of his support in some camps). Tvoz/talk 00:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, as I said above: yes, the report is named after him, and yes, there were references to the author using the self-reference of "I"; but while it can be strongly infered from that reference that Paul was the author, it's only been shown so far to have occurred in one issue, and is limited to statements of "how I voted" and "my wife and I." As indicative of authorship as that could be, it is still not proof of authorship. A ghostwriter would certainly be familiar with Paul's wife's name and Paul's voting record. As I showed above, it doesn't take much effort for a ghostwriter to write things from the first-person view and narrative of who the author is supposed to be. As far a Paul's version of events go, even this is consistent with Paul's account, and is not proof to the otherwise. For all we know, Paul dispatched a letter from TX to Rockwell in AL summarizing what he'd like in the newsletter, such as a story on military waste and a mention of how he voted, and also a holiday greeting; then, Rockwell did the rest, without input or approval. It in no way supports assertions of Paul authoring the whole newsletter from those few passages that could have easily been written by a ghostwriter. Tvoz, I nominate you to clean up the rest of the article concerning this. (No good deed goes unpunished.) Foofighter20x (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yeah - "if nominated I will not run, if elected I will not serve" ... or, "thanks, but no thanks" ... either way, been there, done that. I'm afraid you'll have to find some other soul. Tvoz/talk 01:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ok whatever this is not my opinion

Paul, a Republican obstetrician from Surfside, said Wednesday he opposes racism and that his written commentaries about blacks came in the context of "current events and statistical reports of the time."

Dr. Paul denied suggestions that he was a racist and said he was not evoking stereotypes when he wrote the columns. He said they should be read and quoted in their entirety to avoid misrepresentation. http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124339.html

Ron Paul never directly stated that he was the Author,but he did say that they were his written commentaries. Just because he does not use the word Author does not mean that he was not the Author. For example when i say that i wrote something i do not need to say "yes i was the Author".--Hoffmanjohn (talk) 21:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's the writer of the article who attributed the writing to Paul with the word "his" and is not Paul claiming them as his own. Keep trying. Foofighter20x (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Change comes to the Ron Paul talk page

I for one strongly believe we should continue to yell and scream and complain about the newsletter issue as if it's even remotely interesting. Article should be edited to read "also, there was like some shit in the early 90s or something like that about blacks, but nobody ever brings it up unless they find themselves losing an argument about economics which makes such a person a hypocritical douchebag just like Ron Paul." 70.95.252.87 (talk) 10:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)