So as not to leave you in suspense longer than necessary, let me be direct: fairness to Ron Paul means firmly declaring him unqualified to run for President on the Republican ticket in 2012.
The reason is old, which means that we should have been having this discussion months ago, before Paul first set foot on a debate stage. In the late Eighties and Nineties, while Paul was out of Congress, he published a group of newsletters to true believers called “The Ron Paul Political Report,” “Ron Paul’s Freedom Report,” “The Ron Paul Survival Report,” “The Ron Paul Investment Letter,” and “The Ron Paul Greyhound Racing Tip-Sheet.” Okay, okay, I’m sorry: that last one is made up—I couldn’t resist. But the others are real. 
Also real were periodic statements in the newsletters that could charitably be called “racially-insensitive” or not-so-charitably be called “racist.” Paul has been questioned about these before, and in the run-up to the Iowa Caucuses where he is a genuine contender is being grilled on them again. Yesterday, he walked out of a CNN interview when Gloria Borger refused to let the subject go.
Rep. Paul has given various and differing explanations about the newsletters over the years. He has admitted writing some of their content, denied that he knew about the racially inflammatory statements, argued that some of the controversial statements were accurate, accepted responsibility for them since they were under his name, and apologized for them. It really doesn’t matter (you can read some interesting analysis here) , except that his tap-dancing diminishes Paul’s one persistent virtue in comparison to all the other candidates besides Jon Huntsman— integrity. The important fact is that the newsletters were his, were published as his views, and included rhetoric that would mark him as racist in the eyes of most African-Americans, most of the media, and much of the public.
That’s all we need to know now. No candidate can run against President Obama with this kind of history. It would be handing the election to the Democrats, and be a catastrophic for the Republican Party in every way. Even if Paul apologizes, even if he proves he was in a coma when the newsletters were published, it doesn’t matter. Ron Paul is fully accountable for what The Atlantic not unreasonably calls “racist newsletters.” Game over, Libertarians. You should find a champion who doesn’t carry a political taboo around with him.
If Paul wrote or approved the content of the publications, he’s disqualified. If he allowed such things to be published under his name without stopping them, he’s disqualified. If he just ignored the newsletters, he’s disqualified, and, by the way, was deceiving subscribers. To quote Leo Bloom in “The Producers”: “No way out..no way out…no way out…”
Now as for the lazy, manipulative media that had all of this readily available and ignored it until now: Where the Hell have you been? The Washington Post trumped-up racial suspicions in a front page story about Rick Perry because—now let’s get this straight—he attended social functions at a camp leased by his father that had a big rock with the word “Niggerhead” painted on it and painted over, because that was the local name for the place, and someone either could or could not still read the words if they looked hard, which they would have to do since Perry’s father had the offending rock moved from the camp’s entrance, and six people, all but one unnamed, said you could read it, but the Post couldn’t be bothered to take a photo of the rock. Yet the Post didn’t feel that one of Perry’s competitors warranted scrutiny for publishing racist newsletters.
This, you see, is the media picking winners, losers and jesters. It didn’t think Paul had a chance and liked having him around for laughs, so it neglected its duty to subject him to the exact same treatment as Romney, Pawlenty (RIP), Cain (Remember him?) or Gingrich. Incompetent. Disgraceful. Unfair. And a waste of time, for the debaters, the debate audiences, and all of the bloggers who had to spend time reading rants from Paul’s over-zealous, infatuated and deluded supporters.
But maybe even some of them now realize that any GOP candidate would already find his or her candidacy dead and decomposing had they been associated with publications like these. Dr. Paul got more exposure and opportunity to spout his fantastic nostrums than he deserved, but it’s undeniably time for him to get off the stage.
Being fair to Ron Paul is treating him like anyone else. No racist baggage in the 2012 election.
Of course.
‘Bye.
Ethics Alarms 
Well, Jack, you seem to be able to play the “racist” card even better than Obama, or Holder, or the like. Cheap shot. You should be able to better than that.
Peter, that makes no sense at all. The newsletters exist, they have Paul’s name on them; the statements are at best crude. And the unresolvable problems they cause for Paul are real. Nor can you or anyone deny that any other candidate would be sunk by such a history, especially in a race with a black president. That’s not playing the race card. You know it, I hope.
1. I never said Ron Paul was a racist. I don’t believe he is. I believe that he allowed borderline racist material to be published under his name, and that this makes him unelectable as a candidate in 2012.
2. I don’t think his statement (and his son’s) about not voting for the Civil Rights Act is racist. I think it’s idiotic, unhinged from reality, irresponsible, tunnel-visioned, indefensible and dumber than a box of little, teeny Don Zimmers, but racist? Nah.
So this video is 100% irrelevant.
1. I never said Ron Paul was a racist. I don’t believe he is. I believe that he allowed borderline racist material to be published under his name, and that this makes him unelectable as a candidate in 2012.
2. I don’t think his statement (and his son’s) about not voting for the Civil Rights Act is racist. I think it’s idiotic, unhinged from reality, irresponsible, tunnel-visioned, indefensible and dumber than a box of little, teeny Don Zimmers, but racist? Nah.
So this video is 100% irrelevant.
Jack, for a far, far better argued, far more insightful, nuanced, balanced, analytic, historically accurate and much more helpful essay on the subject than your column, from a reliably left-leaning mainstream periodical that I would ordinarily not be caught dead reading, see: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/12/grappling-with-ron-pauls-racist-newsletters/250206/
You mean the article that was linked to in my post? THAT Atlantic article? How did you miss that fact, if you really read what I wrote?
The Atlantic article explains why the newsletters were written that way, or at least speculated. What I was discussing doesn’t have anything to do with “why.” That they exist is all we need to know. Disqualified.
First time I can recall someone sending me a link included in the same post being criticized, however.
Nevertheless, expounding on what was actually in it, that was worth emphasizing, may have been a good reason to do so. The article discloses the important message that no candidate is perfect, we must choose among those least egregious in their failings, and the article explains why moral and ethical principles GENERALLY are least violated by the candidate discussed. To imagine that Obama is less than one or more orders of magnitude more egregious in ethical violations, cover-ups, and outright lies, not to mention the demonstrable racist leanings of the First Lady, shows that you apparently didn’t read the article to which you provided a link.
Stop it. You’re embarrassing yourself.
A visitor from another planet, apparently–Bizarro World? Where real political liabilities don’t count, and it’s embarrassing to talk about them? Fascinating.
This is pretty bad. Unfortunately, I can’t be objective about Ron Paul because I think he is so nutty on some things that it almost doesn’t matter what other craziness he writes or allows to be published in his name.
So rather than agreeing with your conclusion, I will agree that Paul appears to have made comments, or allowed comments to be published in his name, that can be generously described as racially insensitive.
As to whether that makes him disqualified for president, I’m not so sure. All candidates have made, said, or done things in their past that are unacceptable in some way to large portions of the electorate. That’s not to excuse Paul, but rather point out that there are no Republican candidates without major flaws in the race. I would have had to call my 20-year old self far more racist than anything on display in Paul’s case, yet I know for a fact that is no longer true. That matters to me, if not to anyone else.
Paul’s waffling on the matter is probably the thing that comes closest to disqualifying him — he won’t be honest and say, “Yes, that was very stupid and I have no excuse for those comments. Whether I made them myself or not is irrelevant, since it was my name on the publication.”
Of course, that won’t happen. The enabling virtues of courage, humility and honour seem to be absent in Paul’s attempt to crayfish in this matter. And yes, if he did honestly and forthrightly acknowledge his errors and apologize for them, perhaps it would make his candidacy even more problematic for the Republicans should he be nominated, although Americans are very forgiving of this sort of faux pas when they consider it ancient enough. At least it would show a commitment to acknowledging his failure and the proper remorse.
In sum, whether Paul’s comments disqualify him or not, his defensive reaction to them definitely makes him less attractive to me than he already was, if that is actually possible. That’s likely just confirmation bias, though — I considered Paul an unacceptable candidate a long, long, long time ago.
Glenn, this is my own position to a T. Do note that I intentionally made the distinction on the post that the newsletters (and, as you say, Paul’s uncharacteristically slippery responses to legitimate inquiries) disqualify Paul as a GOP CANDIDATE for president running against Barack Obama in what is bound to be the most race-baiting campaign of all time. A Democrat with similar baggage could run for President, and it would make no practical difference at all: the party could run a lawn chair for President (or John Kerry) and still pick up 90% of the black vote. A racist lawn chair, even. And there is no question in my mind that any of the other GOP candidates would be long gone with a similar record. But do past racist statements disqulalify someone to be president? It comes down to trust. If the candidate can convince voters that he won’t act in biased fashion, and isn’t currently a racist, then he’s not unqualified. American has had many very effective racist presidents, as well as some, like Wilson, worshiped by Democrats.
What may be more truly disqualifying—for the job, rather than running for the job—is Paul’s lack of management and responsibility with newsletters bearing his name. What kind of leader is such a person going to be? Paul has no executive experience, and this indicates that he has no executive skills either.
I think I may have made it sound more as if we are in disagreement than we actually are. Sorry about the confusion.
And your second paragraph above is spot on, in my opinion. What sort of manager, knowing his every word will be scrutinized all the time due to the fact he is a politician, would allow such racially-charged commentary in his name for so long without saying, “Boo?”
The answer is, of course, “A very poor one.” Thus, as you say, another reason Paul’s judgment, as well as his qualifications as, should be questioned. If he can’t manage his own affairs, how can he be expected to manage the infinitely more complex and difficult task of the presidency?
And doesn’t this fly in the face of his positions on the textual legitimacy of the Constitution — i.e., the Founders meant what they wrote. Are we now to believe that Paul did not mean what he wrote, or what was written in his name?
So if Paul does have executive skills, he certainly didn’t show them in this case. The question then becomes, where has he shown the executive skills to offset this debacle, so that I and others may be confident that this was maybe just a “teachable moment?”
Nowhere I can find. And his handling of the matter was, to mangle grammar as we sometimes do on my own blog for humorous emphasis, an “epic ethical fail.”
Upon rereading, my grammar above was an epic fail. 🙂
Paul disciples arriving in 3… 2… Damn, they beat me here.