Les Jones

Politics > Breaking News: pR0n Paul is Effin' Nuts. GIF at 11:00

A reading of his three decades of newsletters shows he's Coo Coo for Cocoa Puffs:

Martin Luther King Jr. earned special ire from Paul's newsletters, which attacked the civil rights leader frequently, often to justify opposition to the federal holiday named after him. ("What an infamy Ronald Reagan approved it!" one newsletter complained in 1990. "We can thank him for our annual Hate Whitey Day.") In the early 1990s, a newsletter attacked the "X-Rated Martin Luther King" as a "world-class philanderer who beat up his paramours," "seduced underage girls and boys," and "made a pass at" fellow civil rights leader Ralph Abernathy. One newsletter ridiculed black activists who wanted to rename New York City after King, suggesting that "Welfaria," "Zooville," "Rapetown," "Dirtburg," and "Lazyopolis" were better alternatives. The same year, King was described as "a comsymp, if not an actual party member, and the man who replaced the evil of forced segregation with the evil of forced integration."

While bashing King, the newsletters had kind words for the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan, David Duke. In a passage titled "The Duke's Victory," a newsletter celebrated Duke's 44 percent showing in the 1990 Louisiana Republican Senate primary. "Duke lost the election," it said, "but he scared the blazes out of the Establishment." In 1991, a newsletter asked, "Is David Duke's new prominence, despite his losing the gubernatorial election, good for anti-big government forces?" The conclusion was that "our priority should be to take the anti-government, anti-tax, anti-crime, anti-welfare loafers, anti-race privilege, anti-foreign meddling message of Duke, and enclose it in a more consistent package of freedom." Duke is now returning the favor, telling me that, while he will not formally endorse any candidate, he has made information about Ron Paul available on his website.

There's lots, lots more. It's from The National Review, so I don't completely trust them to characterize the contents or context of Paul's newsletters, but there seems to be plenty of crazy meat here. Paul's campaign responded:

ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA – In response to an article published by The New Republic, Ron Paul issued the following statement:

“The quotations in The New Republic article are not mine and do not represent what I believe or have ever believed. I have never uttered such words and denounce such small-minded thoughts.

“In fact, I have always agreed with Martin Luther King, Jr. that we should only be concerned with the content of a person's character, not the color of their skin. As I stated on the floor of the U.S. House on April 20, 1999: ‘I rise in great respect for the courage and high ideals of Rosa Parks who stood steadfastly for the rights of individuals against unjust laws and oppressive governmental policies.’

“This story is old news and has been rehashed for over a decade. It's once again being resurrected for obvious political reasons on the day of the New Hampshire primary.

“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. For over a decade, I have publicly taken moral responsibility for not paying closer attention to what went out under my name.”

If he didn't agree with the crap in his newsletter with his name on it, why did he let it go on for years?

And, frankly, the newsletters are hardly the first sign of pR0n Paul's kookiness, which is hardly confined to past decades. As Bob Krumm said after a Republican debate last November:

Ron Paul is a loon. For a long time I’ve said that instead it’s his supporters who are nuts, while to him, I’ve given the benefit of the doubt. No longer. He is a nut and that’s why he attracts them. Have you noticed that when he’s talking the other candidates look straight ahead? They won’t make eye contact with him just like I don’t make eye contact with the bums who come darting out into traffic at the ends of the interstate off-ramps in downtown Nashville. He’s crazy. Ron Paul should not be on the Republican stage. He shouldn’t be on the Democratic stage. He belongs on his own stage: a sideshow stage. Here’s my idea for a great debate that would actually bring high ratings: Have Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich debate each other and then, American Idol style, let America decide which one heads up the ticket and the other one runs as his veep in a third party.

I caught Paul on Meet the Press a few weeks ago and saw Tim Russert question him on recent nutty statements.

And Megan McArdle says "I told you so."

UPDATE: Here's a PDF of his August, 1990 newsletter with lots of evidence his cheese had slid off its cracker. And in closing it says:

Happy Holidays! My wife Carol, and our children and grandchildren, join me in wishing you and your family a wonderful Christmas and a Happy New Year.

As Ace says:

So we have some evidence who typed what is a couple paragraphs above that, don't we? It must be someone whose wife's name is Carol. And, by golly, whaddayaknow, Ron Paul's wife is named Carol. Just a coincidence? I think not.

LATER: and from former Reason editor Virginia Postrel via Instapundit:

I do fault my friends at Reason, who are much cooler than I'll ever be and who, scornful of the earnestness that takes politics seriously, apparently didn't do their homework before embracing Paul as the latest indicator of libertarian cachet. For starters, they might have asked my old boss Bob Poole about Ron Paul; I remember a board member complaining about Paul's newsletters back in the early '90s. Besides, people as cosmopolitan as Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch should be able to detect something awry in Paul's populist appeals. (Note that by "cosmopolitan" I do not mean "Jewish." I mean cosmopolitan.) I suspect they did but decided it was more useful to spin things their way than to take Paul's record and ideas seriously. As for Andrew Sullivan, his political infatuations are not his strong point as a commentator.