Sorry I haven't posted lately. Given the amount of enmity I receive each time I post, I haven't had much motivation for doing so. But there's one issue that so many people point to, to discredit Ron Paul, that I have to address it.
The story goes, Ron Paul's newsletter printed racist remarks targeted against black people ~20 years ago. These remarks have since been dredged up by the media every time an opponent stands to benefit. The problem with this story is that:
1) it wasn't his newsletter (though he did lend his name to it),
2) he didn't write the articles in question and
3) even if you don't believe statement (2), his political career and everything he stands for flies in the face of these very statements
an article with a more complete discussion:
http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=41822
"Says one source, 'Ron Paul didn’t know about those comments, or know they were written under his name until much later when they were brought to his attention. There were several issues that went out with comments that he would not ordinarily make. He was angry when he saw them.'"
Now let's take a look at just how big of a racist Ron Paul really is... He's the only candidate who wants to end the failing "War on Drugs" and actually pardon all non-violent drug offenders in federal prison. Statistically, who makes up the largest percentage of non-violent drug offenders in federal prison? I'll give you a hint: it isn't white people. Who does the War on Drugs hurt the most? without a doubt, the African American community as a whole. Knowing this, ask yourself what kind of self-respecting racist would want to end the "War on Drugs" and pardon non-violent drug offenders?
Another issue that people like to point to is a donation of $500 to the Ron Paul campaign by a white supremacist. Most politicians would have given the man his money back at first opportunity to avoid being associated with the white supremacist movement. Ron Paul decided to keep the money. "OMG HE IS TEH WHITE SUPREMACIST!! HURR!1!111" No, not quite.
Ron Paul's campaign is about liberty and personal freedom. You, as an individual, have the right to donate your money to any (or none) of the candidates running for office, at your discretion. Once your money has been donated, the politician is free to use it for campaign purposes however they choose. Ron Paul has no obligation to the person donating the money other than to use it for campaigning. And as Ron Paul has said, by keeping the $500 for the campaign, that's $500 that the white supremacist won't be able to use to promote the white supremacist message.
Failure to understand this simple concept would imply silly things like, if someone dresses up as a Nazi and attends a rally for Hillary Clinton, then Hillary Clinton is a Nazi. Use some common sense when analyzing mainstream media propaganda.
*braces for the troll onslaught*
1) The Stormfront guy who sent him $500. Ron Paul is correct that sending a $500 back to a racist organization makes no sense.
2) The War on Drugs is another false war (much like the war on poverty). The sociological effect that Ron Paul descibes is categorically true.
3) Yes, Ron Paul did not write any of those newsletters.
But let's get to the most difficult part of the problem. How does someone have this stuff written _under his name_?
The proof is in the money. Those newsletters were purposefully inciting. In 1996, the Gingrich-led GOP did not want the free thinking Ron Paul as part of their revolution; so much so that they recruited the incumbant Democratic congressman to the GOP to run against him in the primary. Since he did not have the blessing or the endorsement of the GOP elite, he enlisted whatever national resources he could get. So he targeted a large block of collectivists many of them already aware of his libertarian angle on politics. These groups effectively funded his congressional bid in 1996. He since does not need this "cross-district" support to win his district, but you have to believe that he did put his hand in the devil's pocket (at least a short while) to get to where he is today. This is why Ron Paul couldn't denounce it then and can't completely divorce him from the error; and is also why Lew Rockwell won't completely come out and cut Ron Paul free from it.
When I have gone canvassing, I'm completely frank with them on every issue. As the grassroots campaign suggests, "do as Ron Paul would do". His stances on the economy, currency and foreign policy are near perfect; or at worst completely logical. So, when someone does bring up the newsletter issue as a negative, I actually agree with them.