Ron Paul Newsletters - Innocent or Guilty?

Old newsletters published with Ron Paul's name are under scrutiny now that the Congressman has surged in recent Iowa polls of 2012 Republican Presidential candidates. The Young Turks host Cenk Uygur breaks them down.



The Largest Online New Show in the World.

Facebook:

[Logan-gv]

Ron didn't write any of those newsletters.

[Darryl-drok]

I love how you came to your conclusion Cenk. Just because Ron Paul says something pretty generic on TV that is in no way racist by any means does not prove that he wrote those Newsletters.

[jeakle]

I'm a blue republican for Ron Paul. TYT: I know like many on the left and right you've agreed with Ron Paul on major issues, such as his opposition to war and the assaults on our civil liberties. I respect that you've addressed those points. In my terms of "discredit" I can only think of a half dozen politicians (e.g., Ron Paul, Tom Harkin) that are suitable to hold public office based on the big ideas of our times--and liberty for all and anti-fascism are the targets we should stay focused on.

[TheSasss]

I just gained respect for this news program for not being a hypocrite.

[ultimus]

@A86 I went to the URL you provided below for the Houston Chronicle below but I can't seem to get an article to come up. can you please repost the link where he said he admitted it? The one I checked is the one where it was a response @chrondiggity. Thanks

[niriop]

@niriop Also, how do we know that "James Powell" isn't just a Paul pseudonym? I can't find any evidence of his existence outside of the controversy.

There is a Cato Institute scholar with that name but I can't link him to Paul.

Also, why has Lew Rockwell stopped being blamed all of a sudden?

[TopGunOriginal]

Since nobody is willing to do their own research:
1) The majority of the newsletters lacked a byline (meaning the author of them is non stated)
2) Ron Paul was president of the company (RP&A) that distributed the newsletters, he wasn't an editor nor was responsible for the content.
3) The newsletters are out of context e.g. "semi-criminal or criminal, " was referring to the high percentage of blacks that choose crime to make ends meet in Washington DC.

[thebgbb]

I'm disappointed in you, Cenk. Ron Paul is a good man, and one of the only principled politicians in Washington.

[IGTinc]

Thank you for addressing this TYT. It's important to discus all his possible positions, even those that make him look unfavorable. Ron Paul supporters gonna hate because it speaks bad about their man, but you addressed this topic with clarity, thank you.

[Koivisto]

In no way is he a racist or a homophobe. Just because he doesn't believe in gay marriage and thinks it's wrong doesn't mean he wants to abolish it. He's for letting the individual decide what they want in their own life. He is also very opposed to racism and completely believes in judging a people individually and not as a group. If those are the only reasons you dislike him, you should probably rethink your position.

[csjbo]

@rolfalmao That's not the same thing because you are not posting that comment in TYT's name, nor did they have to approve of your comment before it was posted.

[EthanJones]

You guys shouldn't take this guys seriously. Listen to what Ron Paul has to say and then make your decision.

[niriop]

Ron Paul admitted to writing the newsletters back in 1996, and every time he is countered with them he becomes angry and obscurantist.

[nicholas]

I gotta agree with Ron Paul supporters on this one. There's no evidence that Ron Paul himself wants anything to do with racism. Paul is all about genuine freedom, which means that people must fend for themselves, even in the workplace. That is a harsh statement, but it DOES NOT mean that Ron Paul is a racist, he just believes that people can only change their behaviors over time and they must be free to do that. I hate to see TYT take this stuff up.

[hampusheh]

@Overfl00d So these newsletters don't exist under his name?

[tartredarrow]

I see this video is a repeat of your 2008 video covering the same topic. No regard for the fact that he was too busy during those year being a newly elected congressman to write newsletters. Certainly his staff did write them. But I doubt even they believed what they were writing. It was probably done in an effort to gain support, as during those years it wouldn't have been an extreme position to have held.

[opszanski]

@niriop He didn't "blame" them, he was giving an explanation. Don't be so hypersensitive.

If you look at the two sources I gave above, his explanation in 2001, and a mixture of many other suggestive elements, it becomes obvious to even the most simple minded person what happened.

[JImmy]

I agree with TYT. Look, Ron Paul may be the best republican option, but that doesn't mean he's not a racist. And if he's not a racist, he's pretty damn negligent.

[A]

@libertyslegion - Ron Paul himself admitted to writing some of the racist letters around the time his political opponent "Lefty" Morris brought them out. Are you saying that Ron Paul was lying at the time he admitted to writing them but claiming they were "taken out of context"?

[Bleuski]

@jekkv2 Cenk pulled some conclusions from circumstantial evidence that he arguably should/shouldn't have. You can't say he was "just reporting what was in fact written in the news letter."